Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My Public Portal
About
20200812 - Agenda Packet - Board of Directors (BOD) - 20-17
SPECIAL AND REGULAR MEETING BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT Wednesday, August 12, 2020 Special Meeting starts at 5:00 PM* Regular Meeting at 7:00 PM* 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/88023709460 or listen to the meeting by dialing (669) 900-6833 or (346) 248-7799 (Webinar ID 88023709460). 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 – CLOSED SESSION ROLL CALL 1. PUBLIC EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION. Government Code Section 54957(b)(1) Title of Employee: Controller General Counsel ADJOURNMENT 7:00 REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT Meeting 20-17 Rev. 1/3/20 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 SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY • Introduction of Staff: o Ari Nuri, Planner I o Mike Bower, Budget & Analysis Manager 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 22, 2020 Minutes 2. Claims Report 3. Award of Contract to Sandbar Solar to Design and Install Solar Panels at the Skyline Field Office at Skyline Ridge Open Space Preserve (R-20-87) Staff Contact: Craig Beckman, Area Manager, Land and Facilities General Manager’s Recommendations: 1. Authorize the General Manager to enter into a contract with Sandbar Solar for a base amount of $151,533 to design and install a grid-tie solar panel system at the Skyline Field Office 2. Authorize a 10% contingency of $15,153 to be reserved for unanticipated issues, bringing the contract to a total not-to-exceed amount of $166,686. BOARD BUSINESS 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. 4. Consider designation of select preserve trails, roadways, and parking areas to allow electric bicycle use under a 1-year pilot project (R-20-89) Staff Contact: Matt Anderson, Chief Ranger, Visitor Services Department General Manager’s Recommendations: 1. Designate select trails at Ravenswood Open Space Preserve and Rancho San Antonio Open Space Preserve and County Park where bicycles are currently allowed as open to class 1 and 2 electric bicycle use under a 1-year pilot project, and determine that this action is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act. 2. Designate all roads and parking areas that are open to the public for motor vehicle use during regular preserve hours as also open to all classes of electric bicycles. 5. Integrated Pest Management Program 2019 Calendar Year Report (R-20-90) Rev. 1/3/20 Staff Contact: Tom Reyes, IPM Coordinator, Natural Resources General Manager’s Recommendation: Accept the Integrated Pest Management Program 2019 Calendar Year Report. No Board action required. 6. Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District’s Youth Outreach Plan (R-20-88) Staff Contact: Carmen Lau, Public Affairs Specialist I General Manager’s Recommendations: Review, provide input, and approve the Youth Outreach Plan. INFORMATIONAL MEMORANDUM • Deer Hollow Farm White Barn -- Replacement of Attic Stairs with Pull-down Ladder • Updated Scope and Timeline for the Science Advisory Panel 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 *Times are estimated and items may appear earlier or later than listed. Agenda is subject to change of order. In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the District Clerk at (650) 691-1200. Notification 48 hours prior to the meeting will enable the District to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to this meeting. Written materials relating to an item on this Agenda that are considered to be a public record and are distributed to Board members less than 72 hours prior to the meeting, will be available for public inspection at the District’s Administrative Office located at 330 Distel Circle, Los Altos, California 94022. CERTIFICATION OF POSTING OF AGENDA I, Jennifer Woodworth, District Clerk for the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (MROSD), declare that the foregoing agenda for the special meetings of the MROSD Board of Directors was posted and available for review on August 6, 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 July 22, 2020 Board Meeting 20-16 SPECIAL AND REGULAR MEETING BOARD OF DIRECTORS MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT Wednesday, July 22, 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, Curt Riffle, and Pete Siemens Members Absent: None 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, Engineering & Construction Manager Jay Lin, Senior Capital Project Manager Tanisha Werner 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. Administrative Office Project Update (R-20-76) General Manager Ana Ruiz provided opening comments describing the decision points the Board will be considering at the meeting, including interior spaces, bird-safe window glazing, and additional design elements to mitigate potential infectious disease spread. Meeting 20-16 Page 2 Assistant General Manager Susanna Chan stating that the project continues to remain on schedule and the design is currently being reviewed by the City of Los Altos to prepare for issuing construction permits. Eric Skiba, Project Manager with Noll & Tam Architects, reviewed project progress. Jane Catalano, with Noll & Tam Architects, discussed the design of the Board dais and a mockup created by staff to demonstrate the layout and sightlines for the proposed dais. Ms. Catalano described three options for the layout of the dais and resulting changes to the public seating area. Director Kishimoto inquired regarding separation between the Board of Directors and senior staff members. Mr. Skiba reported that having a separate table for staff created concerns regarding the technology connections to seat staff at a separate table. Also, the wood facing of the dais is different for the areas where staff sit as opposed to where the Board sits. Director Kishimoto spoke in favor of options 2 and 3. Director Hassett expressed concerns that the Board room would be able to be used during the current pandemic, and that the current virtual meetings are a better option to protect staff and the public. Director Hassett spoke in favor of options 2 and 3. Director Kersteen-Tucker spoke in favor of options 2 and 3. Director Kersteen-Tucker inquired whether plexiglass could be added between Board seats if necessary and suggested adding an additional monitor to provide further options for spacing out members of the public. Director Siemens spoke in favor of option 2 in order to have a better line of sight among Board members. Additionally, more monitors in the atrium should be included to provide better viewing for the public in the atrium. President Holman spoke in favor of options 2 and 3, particularly option 2. President Holman spoke in favor of additional separation between Board members and staff members. Director Cyr spoke in favor of options 2 and 3 and in favor of keeping the Board members centered to the room for the members of the public to be able to see them. Director Riffle spoke in favor of option 2 due to its improved sightlines and suggested grouping the staff members together. Director Riffle expressed concern regarding the presenter and members of the public being able to view the presentation screen. Mr. Skiba explained that the District staff members are separated to preserve the centering of the Board and to allow staff to assist the presenters and public at the podium when necessary. Ms. Catalano explained that a change in floor height may result in ADA accessibility issues to raise the Board member seats above the level of the staff members. Meeting 20-16 Page 3 By consensus, the Board selected option 2 and requested staff return to address some of the concerns raised regarding the presentation screens, monitors, dais layout, and additional separation between the Board and staff members. Senior Capital Project Manager Tanisha Werner displayed options for frosted glass treatments for the Board room. By consensus, the Board selected the opaquer option for the glass treatment with the mountain outlines. President Holman requested staff return with a view of the frosted glass treatment from inside the Board room. Mr. Skiba described options for the bird-safe glass designs, including the preferred options by the American Bird Conservancy and local Audubon Society. Public comments opened at 6:07 p.m. District Clerk Jennifer Woodworth read the submitted comments into the record. Shani Kleinhaus stated the Santa Clara Audubon Society prefers glass pattern options 215 and 217 for use in the building. Public comments closed at 6:08 p.m. By consensus, the members of the Board supported using either the 215 or 217 glass pattern options, with a preference for style 215. Mr. Skiba provided an update on sustainable design components to increase building efficiency, including glazing, and stated that the project is tracking as a LEED gold project. Director Riffle suggested the District may want to reconsider pursuing LEED gold certification. Director Kishimoto suggested moving to an all-electric building because it is more environmentally friendly. Mr. Skiba reported that the project had to follow the previous mechanical structure, which including some natural gas appliances. Director Kishimoto requested information related to additional costs associated with making this a LEED certified project. Mr. Lin stated that he estimated the cost of making this a LEED certified project would be approximately $200,000, and various steps must be taken throughout the project, including the design and construction process. Director Siemens spoke in favor of automatic closures for windows and against use of acoustic tiles in the office. Meeting 20-16 Page 4 Director Kersteen-Tucker spoke against pursuing LEED certification but in favor or following LEED gold standards. The members of the Board requested staff return with information regarding the cost of including automatic window closures for the building. Ms. Werner described design consideration updates in response to the current COVID-19 pandemic, including proper airflow and circulation, visual cues to signal one-way aisles and walkways, touchless fixtures, etc. Ms. Werner also provided updates on the wood sources for the various design elements, including using recycled and sustainable wood sources. President Holman suggested reuse of redwood that would be removed during planned demolitions at Alma College, including from the classroom. The members of the Board spoke in favor of using salvaged wood over recently felled wood and expressed concern regarding the proposal to use black acacia due to the project timing. Director Kersteen-Tucker spoke in favor of using the building to tell environmental stories, such as tracking LEED gold without the cost, reusing salvaged wood, etc. Ms. Werner provided an update regarding the prequalification process for contractors and selection of a construction manager and peer review services. Director Hassett stated the construction management firm should be hired prior to selecting a contractor. Ms. Werner reported that the construction management firm will be involved in selecting the contractor. President Holman adjourned the special meeting of the Board of Directors of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District at 7:25 p.m. REGULAR MEETING President Holman called the regular meeting of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District to order at 7:30 p.m. ROLL CALL Members Present: Jed Cyr, Larry Hassett, Karen Holman, Zoe Kersteen-Tucker, Yoriko Kishimoto, Curt Riffle, and Pete Siemens Members Absent: None 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 Meeting 20-16 Page 5 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 Josh Hugg 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 Kersteen-Tucker joined the meeting at 7:31 p.m. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS District Clerk Jennifer Woodworth read the comments submitted into the record. Scott Smead shared comments in support of allowing e-bikes on District preserves to allow more visitors to access the preserves. ADOPTION OF AGENDA Motion: Director Riffle moved, and Director Kishimoto seconded the motion to adopt the agenda with items 11 and 12 reversed. ROLL CALL VOTE: 6-0-0 (Director Siemens absent) CONSENT CALENDAR Public comment opened at 7:35 p.m. District Clerk Jennifer Woodworth read the comments submitted into the record. Kathy Simpson provided comments in response to the draft response included as Item 5. Ms. Simpson commented on continued illegal parking along the roadway, especially those wanting to see the NEOWISE comet. Public comment closed at 7:37 p.m. Director Siemens joined the meeting at 7:37 p.m. Motion: Director Cyr moved, and Director Riffle seconded the motion to approve the Consent Calendar. ROLL CALL VOTE: 7-0-0 Meeting 20-16 Page 6 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) 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 7. Appointment of Four Measure AA Bond Oversight Committee Members (R-20-77) District Clerk Jennifer Woodworth described the interview and ranking process used by the Board of Directors and displayed the preliminary rankings as submitted by the Board of Directors. President Holman discussed potential updates to Board Policy 1.10, Measure AA Bond Oversight Committee Bylaws, including appointment of alternates to the Committee and representation of the Coastside Area. Public comment opened at 7:52 p.m. Ms. Woodworth reported no public comments were submitted for the Consent Calendar. Public comment closed at 7:52 p.m. Meeting 20-16 Page 7 Director Riffle spoke in favor of recruiting a diverse candidate pool and spoke in support of policy updates to support diversity. The members of the Board thanked all of the applicants for their interest in serving on the Bond Oversight Committee. Motion: Director Cyr moved, and Director Siemens seconded the motion to: 1. Select and appoint Paul Betlem, Brian Cilker, David Emery, and Bruce Tolley 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. ROLL CALL VOTE: 6-0-1 (Director Kishimoto abstained) 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) 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. Director Riffle left the meeting at 7:54 p.m. Senior Real Property Agent Allen Ishibashi provided the staff presentation describing the property, its location, and proposed terms and conditions for the purchase and lease and management agreement. Director Hassett requested clarification regarding the potential grant funding being pursued. Mr. Ishibashi reported the District is seeking 100% of the acquisition cost of the purchase price in grant funding. Public comment opened at 7:58 p.m. District Clerk Jennifer Woodworth read the comments submitted into the record. Michael Blomquist submitted comments inquiring about the purpose of the lease and management agreement. Alex Sabo, representing the Bay Area Ridge Trail Council, submitted comments in support of the potential acquisition stated that it supports closing gaps in the Ridge Trail and Juan Bautista de Anza National Historic Trail, and supports other regional trail networks. Public comment closed at 8:01 p.m. Meeting 20-16 Page 8 Mr. Ishibashi explained that the proposed lease would allow the District to lease and manage the property as if it owned the property and is a placeholder while the District seeks grants funding. Directors Cyr and Kersteen-Tucker spoke in support of the proposed transaction and General Manager’s recommendations. Motion: Director Kishimoto moved, and Director Siemens seconded the motion to: 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. ROLL CALL VOTE: 6-0-0 (Director Riffle absent) Director Riffle returned to the meeting at 8:04 p.m. 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) Ms. Ruiz provided comments stating mountain lion sightings at District preserves are much more frequent than other nearby areas, especially at Rancho San Antonio Open Space Preserve (OSP), which prompted the need for science-based research to help the District and wildlife advocacy groups better understand mountain lion populations in the region. The recommended approach has a minimal impact on the mountain lions and is recommended by mountain lion researchers, the academic community, and the California Department of Fish and Wildlife. The research will provide information to help land management agencies, like the District, protect mountain lion populations. Resource Management Specialist II Matt Sharp Chaney presented the staff report, mountain lion observations to date, the proposed research approach for the study, and the communications and outreach plan to keep the public informed. The proposed study aims to study lion habitat, the impact of human activity, and mountain lion behavior. Finally, Mr. Sharp Chaney described the next steps for the project, including docent enrichment, on-site outreach, publications of the scientific research, etc. Director Riffle requested progress reports to the Board and for the public to receive updates on the project. Mr. Sharp Chaney reported staff will provide annual reports on the project and additional information can be tracked through the University of California, Santa Cruz website and mobile application. Meeting 20-16 Page 9 Director Kersteen-Tucker inquired if technological advances that may be less invasive could be considered for the study if they are developed. Mr. Sharp Chaney stated that alternative collaring options would be considered, but they often take some time to develop followed by years of testing. Therefore, it is unlikely that the technology would change, but the study could adopt if available. Director Kersteen-Tucker inquired regarding the potential impact of the study on the District’s conservation grazing program. Mr. Sharp Chaney stated a proposed update to the grazing management policy will be considered by the Board later this year. Additionally, the research from the proposed study would be used by the District and throughout the state to study mountain lion activity, including grazing interactions. Public comment opened at 8:42 p.m. District Clerk Jennifer Woodworth read the submitted comments into the record. Ginger Thomson stated collaring of pumas is outdated and non-invasive options should be pursued. Barbara Beasley expressed concern about the proposed project due to the risks, costs, and the need for alternatives to collaring pumas. Kiara Walker expressed opposition to collaring mountain lions in San Mateo County. Ms. Walker stated that less invasive options should be pursued because the collar can injure the lions Lalli Venkatakrishan inquired if other factors are being studied as part of the research, such as mountain lion diet. Robert Avalos stated that the collaring methodology for studying mountain lions is not effective. Marilyn Krieger expressed opposition for collaring pumas stating that it is invasive and can impact their survival and habits. Ron Sturgeon inquired regarding the number of collared mountain lions at Rancho San Antonio OSP, whether research is being completed on the presence or absence of prey at District preserves and neighboring lands, and why Russian Ridge OSP is not a higher priority for the study. Trent Pearce expressed support for the proposed mountain lion study. Staci Collins urged using less invasive and more innovative methods to study mountain lions. Public comment closed at 8:48 p.m. Mr. Sharp Chaney provided responses to comments submitted by the public, describing research studying mountain lions with and without collars, which determined there is no negative impact Meeting 20-16 Page 10 of collars; reporting the area being studied aims to gather data in urban-wildlife interfaces; and further described the process proposed to gather and share the data. Motion: Director Riffle moved, and Director Cyr seconded the motion to 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. ROLL CALL VOTE: 7-0-0 10. Consideration of a Letter Commenting on the Proposed Redwood City Climate Action Plan (R-20-80) Assistant General Manager Brian Malone provided the staff presentation. Mr. Malone stated the Sierra Club submitted a support letter for Board consideration and staff drafted an alternative letter based on the District’s Climate Action Plan and to be consistent with the Board policy on legislative actions. President Holman provided comments in support of the request and stated the support letter submitted by the Sierra Club currently has 21 signatories. President Holman spoke in favor of the District to signing onto the Sierra Club letter to demonstrate stronger support for the letter. Public comment opened at 9:10 p.m. District Clerk Jennifer Woodworth reported no public comments were submitted for the Consent Calendar. Public comment closed at 9:10 p.m. Directors Kishimoto, Cyr, and Kersteen-Tucker, and Siemens spoke in support of sending both letters to Redwood City because the District-drafted letter directly addresses issues of concern to the District. Director Riffle thanked staff for drafting the letter and spoke in support of the District-drafted letter because it addresses the District’s specific concerns in addition to supporting the Redwood City Climate Action Plan. Motion: Director Kishimoto moved, and Director Kersteen-Tucker seconded the motion to authorize the Board President to send the letter drafted by staff to Redwood City and to sign onto the Sierra Club support letter. ROLL CALL VOTE: 7-0-0 11. Oral Update on Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District COVID-19 Response Item 11 was heard after Item 12. Meeting 20-16 Page 11 General Manager Ana Ruiz provided updates on ongoing preserve use, with the heaviest use occurring on Fridays, Saturdays, and Sundays. Santa Clara County Fire reported an increase in responses to medical calls at parks and open spaces, and the District and other agencies are working to create public service announcements to help the public prepare for park hikes in the summer. Most picnic tables have reopened consistent with public health orders, and new signage is being ordered and installed to reflect updated healthy and safety guidance and continued designation of one-way trails. Ms. Ruiz reported the current work arrangements for field and office staff will continue through at least December 31, 2020. Finally, staff is completing the phased reentry plan for District volunteers. Public comment opened at 9:38 p.m. District Clerk Jennifer Woodworth reported no public comments were submitted for the Consent Calendar. Public comment closed at 9:38 p.m. 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) Item 12 was heard prior to Item 11. Natural Resources Manager Kirk Lenington spoke regarding the proposed connectivity structures to cross Alma Bridge Road to provide safe undercrossings for the newts. Mr. Lenington stated the District is working with Peninsula Open Space Trust to further study newt crossing hotspots, times of greatest incidents, and the number of newts being killed in reference to the total newt population of the area. Public comment opened at 9:24 p.m. District Clerk Jennifer Woodworth read the submitted comments into the record. Shani Kleinhaus thanked staff and the Board for considering the item and urged the Board to approve a letter of support for the UC Davis study on newt crossings. Public comment closed at 9:25 p.m. Motion: Director Kishimoto moved, and Director Holman seconded the motion to approve a Board Member request to submit 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. ROLL CALL VOTE: 7-0-0 Meeting 20-16 Page 12 INFORMATIONAL MEMORANDUM • Scoping Report for the Wildland Fire Resiliency Program • Inventory and Monitoring of Vegetation on Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Lands INFORMATIONAL REPORTS A. Committee Reports No committee reports. B. Staff Reports Ms. Ruiz reported the District has been awarded more than $230,000 in Proposition 68 grant funding for the Coal Creek fuel break project. The District has been invited by the Wildlife Conservation Board to apply for funding for the Daniels Nature Center public access project. C. Director Reports President Holman reported the Bay Area Restoration Authority’s grant cycle has commenced if anyone knows of anyone interested in applying. ADJOURNMENT President adjourned the regular meeting of the Board of Directors of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District into closed session at 9:47 p.m. SPECIAL MEETING – CLOSED SESSION President Holman called the special meeting of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District to order at 9:47 p.m. ROLL CALL Members Present: Jed Cyr, Larry Hassett, Karen Holman, Zoe Kersteen-Tucker, Curt Riffle, and Pete Siemens Members Absent: 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 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. Meeting 20-16 Page 13 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 # 20-17 MEETING DATE: August 12, 2020 Fiscal Year to date EFT:56.11% Fiscal Year 18-19 EFT:29.44% Payment Number Payment Type Payment Date Notes Vendor No. and Name Invoice Description Payment Amount 81290 Check 07/24/2020 10847 - City of Saratoga Saratoga to Sea Consultant & Contractor Fees - June 2020 276,243.81 2228 EFT 07/24/2020 12002 - Noll & Tam Architects New Administration Offices (AO) Facility - 5/1 - 6/30 182,141.09 2234 EFT 07/24/2020 11288 - R+M Paving Contractors Inc Mt. Umunhum Road Improvements 173,850.00 2244 EFT 07/31/2020 12111 - Agbayani Construction Corporation New South Area Field Office Renovation Project - June 2020 165,999.20 2263 EFT 07/31/2020 10136 - San Jose Water Company New South Area Field Office Water Connection/Permit Fee 84,720.00 2250 EFT 07/31/2020 10546 - Ecological Concerns, Inc.IPM: Revitalize Stream, Upland, & Wetland Habitats/Vegetation Mgmt./Plant Install. & Maint. of Multiple Sites - June 2 66,548.36 2216 EFT 07/24/2020 10005 - Grassroots Ecology Hendrys Creek Restoration - May - Jun/Volunteer Steward Partnership Hawthorns & RR Jan - Jun 2020 51,056.19 2243 EFT 07/31/2020 *12052 - 4984 EL Camino LLC August 2020 Monthly Rent for AO2/A03/A04 36,678.00 2226 EFT 07/24/2020 10288 - Mission Valley Ford Truck Sales, Inc.New Utility Vehicle - ATV21 4 seat UTV 26,931.84 2223 EFT 07/24/2020 10064 - MCB Remodeling LLC Remodeling of rental units at 22322 Skyline Blvd.24,240.00 2264 EFT 07/31/2020 11432 - San Mateo County Resource Conserv. Dist.Control of Slender False Brome - 4/1/20 - 6/30/20 19,640.54 2214 EFT 07/24/2020 *10214 - Delta Dental Employee Dental Benefits - July 2020 18,164.47 81301 Check 07/24/2020 11930 - R Brothers Painting Inc Interior Painting 811 La Honda Rd and Ext Paint 2310 Purisima Creek 17,018.00 2236 EFT 07/24/2020 10099 - San Francisco Bay Bird Observatory American Badger & Burrowing Owl Habitat Suitability Study- May / Grantmaking Program: SFBBO ED Outreach 4/1 - 6/16,543.83 2257 EFT 07/31/2020 *10419 - Lincoln National Life Insurance Co.AD&D/Life/LTD Employee Insurance - July - August 2020 15,417.76 2218 EFT 07/24/2020 11593 - H.T. Harvey & Associates RW Bay Trail Environmental Consulting & Biomonitoring - June 20 / Contingency RW Bay Trail May - Jun 2020 11,972.28 81297 Check 07/24/2020 11800 - KVO Industries, Inc.Porcelain Enamel Panel Signs & hardware - Mt. Um 11,473.91 2253 EFT 07/31/2020 11859 - Horizon Water and Environment, LLC Programmatic Environmental Permitting - June 2020 11,313.18 2210 EFT 07/24/2020 11430 - BioMaAS, Inc.Identification of Native Plant Propagule Sites - May - Jun 2020 / MAMU Surveys PCR - Jun 2020 11,170.46 2259 EFT 07/31/2020 11855 - Oregon State University Test Revegetation Sites for Soil Diseases - June 2020 11,000.00 81288 Check 07/24/2020 11371 - Calflora Database 2020 Weed Manager Improvements - June 2020 10,000.00 2237 EFT 07/24/2020 12107 - San Francisco Estuary Institute Science Advisory Panel / Stevens Ck. Shoreline Nature/Feas. Study - June 2020 9,182.20 2219 EFT 07/24/2020 11998 - Hanford Applied Restoration & Conservation Mindego Ranch Ponds Enhancement Proj - Mar -Jun 2020/RW Revegetation & Pl. Maint.8,920.00 81314 Check 07/31/2020 11697 - H & N Enterprises Self - closing pedestrian gates - La Honda 8,742.25 2232 EFT 07/24/2020 *10211 - Public Policy Advocates Legislative Advocacy Services for Nov - Dec 2019, Jan 2020 8,075.05 2211 EFT 07/24/2020 *10205 - Calif Joint Powers Insurance Authority Pollution Liability Insurance 7/1/2020 - 7/1/2021 7,888.00 2229 EFT 07/24/2020 10086 - Phytosphere Research Sudden Oak Death Research & Root Disease Agreement - 3/1 - 6/30 7,415.05 2261 EFT 07/31/2020 11743 - Pro-West & Associates ArcGIS Update & Monitor - June 2020 7,276.78 2251 EFT 07/31/2020 12016 - Evan Brooks Associates Grant Writing Services - June 2020 7,200.00 81304 Check 07/24/2020 11996 - Spatial Informatics Group LLC Fire Ecology Services: Prescribed Fire Program 7,040.25 2265 EFT 07/31/2020 12082 - Sicular Environmental Consulting La Honda Forest Management Plan - June 2020 6,450.00 2245 EFT 07/31/2020 11148 - Balance Hydrologics, Inc Aldercroft Stables Monitoring - Gaging Support - June 2020 6,321.25 2233 EFT 07/24/2020 11241 - Questa Engineering Corp.Ravenswood Bay Trail Connection Project - 3/16/20 - 6/15/20 5,064.02 81293 Check 07/24/2020 11420 - Doug Edwards Mow Stickers on October Farms per Lewis Reed Request 5,000.00 2217 EFT 07/24/2020 12088 - GSL Fine Lithographers Spring Quarterly Newsletter, edits + new artwork 4,804.50 81295 Check 07/24/2020 11770 - Hydroscience Engineers Bear Creek Stables Improvements (Water System Design) - June 2020 4,690.00 2247 EFT 07/31/2020 11318 - Confluence Restoration Control of Invasive Thistles at Mindego Rangeland - June 2020 4,077.00 2238 EFT 07/24/2020 12117 - Signet Testing Laboratories, Inc.SAO Special Inspection Services 4,070.00 81307 Check 07/24/2020 11165 - Woodhams Electrical Install New Power Pole and Safety Items - Monte Bello Cabin 3,800.00 2260 EFT 07/31/2020 10925 - Papé Machinery M03 Parts for repairs / M08 - Repairs to AC in JD 6400 3,798.30 2254 EFT 07/31/2020 10794 - John Northmore Roberts & Associates Bear Creek Stables Improvements 3,787.02 81291 Check 07/24/2020 11520 - Community Initiatives Latino Engagement with Latino Outdoors 3,500.00 81306 Check 07/24/2020 11902 - The Professional Tree Care Co.On-Call Arborist – Mud Lake Arborist Monitoring - Root Pruning 3,360.00 2213 EFT 07/24/2020 11318 - Confluence Restoration BCR Plant Installation and Maintenance - June 2020 3,300.00 2249 EFT 07/31/2020 10032 - Del Rey Building Maintenance Janitorial Services for AO Offices, FFO, SFO, CAO, SAO - June 20 3,256.50 2252 EFT 07/31/2020 10187 - Gardenland Power Equipment Sharpen Chainsaw Chains /Electric Powered Batteries/Ethanol Free 4-Cycle Fuel 2,768.99 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 10 MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT CLAIMS REPORT MEETING # 20-17 MEETING DATE: August 12, 2020 Fiscal Year to date EFT:56.11% 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 2222 EFT 07/24/2020 11906 - Law Offices of Gary M. Baum Legal Services Rendered - June 2020 2,650.50 2242 EFT 07/24/2020 12050 - Wiss, Janney, Elstner Associates, Inc.Contingency - DHF White Barn Structural Stabilization thru May 2020 2,599.65 2255 EFT 07/31/2020 10626 - Koff & Associates, Inc.Board Appointee Compensation Study 2020 2,550.00 2248 EFT 07/31/2020 11238 - CXT Incorporated CA PE Stamped Drawnings 2,500.00 2224 EFT 07/24/2020 11617 - MIG, Inc.LH Public Access Working Grp Facilitation Srvs - May - Jun 2020 2,392.50 81305 Check 07/24/2020 *11730 - Standard Insurance Company RV Basic & Supplemental Life - July 2020 2,307.96 81294 Check 07/24/2020 12132 - Famous 4 Colors LLC Fully sublimated square bandana 50% ink coverage (qty 500)2,223.60 2256 EFT 07/31/2020 11887 - Koopmann Rangeland Consulting Build and Deliver 30 Wildlife Escape Ramps 2,171.00 2212 EFT 07/24/2020 12109 - Christine Sculati Grants Program Support - June 2020 2,125.00 2227 EFT 07/24/2020 10125 - Moffett Supply Company Inc Hand Sanitizer, Soap Dispensers, Toilet paper 2,050.99 2230 EFT 07/24/2020 *10212 - Pinnacle Towers LLC Tower Rental Skeggs Point - June 2020 2,042.30 2239 EFT 07/24/2020 10146 - Tires On The Go Tire Replacement for P108, P122 1,877.72 2262 EFT 07/31/2020 11288 - R+M Paving Contractors Inc Mt. Um Proj. Ins Reimburseable Repair Srvs. / Contingency - Mt Um Road Imp 1,740.00 81298 Check 07/24/2020 10058 - Liebert Cassidy Whitmore Human Resources Legal Consulting - June 2020 1,699.20 2220 EFT 07/24/2020 11492 - Hawk Design & Consulting La Honda Creek Agricultural Workforce Housing Project 1,650.00 81303 Check 07/24/2020 11918 - SF North Bay Law Management Coaching - 7 Meetings 1,610.00 81309 Check 07/31/2020 10706 - Bay Area News Group (Mercury News)Ad for Deer Hollow Farm 1,582.50 2240 EFT 07/24/2020 *10213 - Vision Service Plan-CA Vision Premium - July 2020 1,485.84 81311 Check 07/31/2020 10454 - California Water Service-949 Water Service (FFO) 1,353.44 81317 Check 07/31/2020 10338 - The Ed Jones Company, Inc Ranger Badges - 6 1,331.64 2246 EFT 07/31/2020 10723 - Callander Associates Ravenswood Bay Trail Connection Design & Const. Mgmt - June 2020 1,289.28 2266 EFT 07/31/2020 10952 - Sonic.net Internet Services 8/1/20 - 8/31/20 1,170.00 81300 Check 07/24/2020 11806 - Pacific Highway Rentals, LLC Traffic Sign Rental Services - Mt Um Imp Proj - 6/11 - 6/29 1,162.13 2258 EFT 07/31/2020 11270 - Municipal Maintenance Equipment Inc.T27 Parts for Tiger Mower 1,111.92 2208 EFT 07/24/2020 10001 - Aaron's Septic Tank Service WH Lower/Purisima Northridge Restroom Sanitation Services 970.00 81286 Check 07/24/2020 10706 - Bay Area News Group (Mercury News)Classified Advertising for Property Management Proposals 845.88 81313 Check 07/31/2020 *11551 - Green Team of San Jose Garbage Service (RSACP)798.52 81296 Check 07/24/2020 11141 - Jarvis Fay & Gibson LLP Legal Services Rendered - June 2020 780.00 2267 EFT 07/31/2020 11895 - Timmons Group Inc Work Order and Asset Management - June 2020 700.00 2225 EFT 07/24/2020 10031 - Mills Design Ads for Half Moon Bay Farmers Market/Warning Booklets for Visitor Services 618.75 2268 EFT 07/31/2020 10796 - Wemorph Inc.Citation Amendments printing 560.82 81302 Check 07/24/2020 11518 - Ranching By Nature Minor Fence Repair to P4 on Lone Madrone 525.00 2209 EFT 07/24/2020 11367 - Amah Mutsun Land Trust FY 2018 -19 Year 5 Grant - Plant Species Research 500.00 81316 Check 07/31/2020 10580 - Sharp Business Systems Sharp Copies - Printer costs - 5/29/20 - 6/30/20 441.94 81287 Check 07/24/2020 11680 - Biggs Cardosa Associates Inc Ravenswood Bay Trail Connection Project - June 2020 440.00 81318 Check 07/31/2020 11852 - Western Exterminator Co.Exterminator Service (RSA-Annex)426.50 2235 EFT 07/24/2020 11479 - Rootid, LLC Website Maintenance - Retainer Hours - June 2020 378.00 81315 Check 07/31/2020 10935 - Rice Trucking - Soil Farm Water Delivery at Toto 371.01 81292 Check 07/24/2020 11224 - County of Santa Clara Communications Dept Rectifier alarm at Black Mountain 362.50 2241 EFT 07/24/2020 11388 - Wagner & Bonsignore Water Rights Services 306.25 2215 EFT 07/24/2020 10187 - Gardenland Power Equipment Parts for Stihl Chainsaw 284.40 2221 EFT 07/24/2020 12091 - Intentional Communication Consultants Management Coaching - 5/18/20 250.00 81285 Check 07/24/2020 10274 - Bay Area Air Quality Mgmt. Dist.Permit to Operate Renewal Processing - SFO 239.00 81289 Check 07/24/2020 10014 - CCOI Gate & Fence Gate Service & Repair (SAO)214.17 81312 Check 07/31/2020 10168 - Cintas Shop Towel Service (FFO & SFO)168.95 81299 Check 07/24/2020 *10664 - Mission Trail Waste Systems AO Garbage Service - June 2020 140.51 page 2 of 10 MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT CLAIMS REPORT MEETING # 20-17 MEETING DATE: August 12, 2020 Fiscal Year to date EFT:56.11% 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 2231 EFT 07/24/2020 12060 - Preferred Alliance, Inc.Off-Site Participants Testing - June 2020 134.68 81310 Check 07/31/2020 10141 - Big Creek Lumber Co Inc Primed cedar and orange tie downs 80.18 81308 Check 07/31/2020 *11880 - A T & T (CALNET3)Mt. Um Safety Phone - 6/7 - 7/6 45.76 1,437,170.07 *Annual Claims **Hawthorn Expenses A### = Administrative Office Vehicle HC = Hendry's Creek P### = Patrol Vehicle SCNT = Stevens Creek Nature Trail AO2, AO3, AO4 = Leased Office Space HR = Human Resources PCR = Purisima Creek Redwoods SCS = Stevens Creek Shoreline Nature Area BCR = Bear Creek Redwoods IPM = Invasive Plant Maintenance PIC= Picchetti Ranch SFO = Skyline Field Office CAO = Coastal Area Office ISM = Invasive Species Management PR = Pulgas Ridge SG = Saratoga Gap CC = Coal Creek LH = La Honda Creek RR = Russian Ridge SJH = Saint Joseph's Hill DHF = Dear Hollow Farm LR = Long Ridge RR/MIN = Russian Ridge - Mindego Hill SR= Skyline Ridge ECdM = El Corte de Madera LT = Los Trancos RSA = Rancho San Antonio T### = Tractor or Trailer ES = El Sereno M### = Maintenance Vehicle RV = Ravenswood TC = Tunitas Creek FFO = Foothills Field Office MB = Monte Bello SA = Sierra Azul TH = Teague Hill FOOSP = Fremont Older Open Space Pres.MR = Miramontes Ridge SAO = South Area Outpost TW = Thornewood GP = General Preserve OSP = Open Space Preserve SAU = Mount Umunhum WH = Windy Hill Abbreviations page 3 of 10 MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT CLAIMS REPORT Wells Fargo Credit Card - June 2020 MEETING # 20-17 MEETING DATE 08-12-20 GL Date Amount Description 6/30/2020 198,416.50 City of Los Altos - permit application fees - New AO 6/30/2020 11,492.50 SharePoint migration/backup software plus 3y support & upgrades 6/30/2020 10,350.00 RSA Tree Pruning 6/30/2020 8,059.32 Comcast internet service - AO/FFO Jun 2020 6/30/2020 7,500.00 Rental - Green Climbing Mower - 5/5 - 6/1 6/30/2020 5,278.75 T32 Tractor Repair 6/30/2020 4,275.00 Vipre antivirus renewal 1year 5/2/20 - 4/30/21 6/30/2020 3,800.00 Website Quality Assurance/Accessibility Software Sub 6/30/2020 3,102.00 Phone service and SAO T1 - 5/16/20 - 6/15/20 6/30/2020 3,037.30 5 iPad Minis 6/30/2020 3,019.56 T45 Chipper Repairs 6/30/2020 3,004.60 5 iPad minis 6/30/2020 3,000.00 Meltwater Media Monitoring - 5/27/20 - 5/26/21 6/30/2020 2,550.00 VMWare training IST - Lin 6/30/2020 2,326.18 SCC permit fees - Deer Hollow Farm 6/30/2020 2,073.53 Noll Tam A.O. Renovation Drawing Sets 6/30/2020 2,059.47 Video Conferencing system for new SAO 6/30/2020 1,913.95 Visitor counters 6/30/2020 1,720.28 P97 Front/Rear Brake Replacement 6/30/2020 1,649.10 Canycom mower parts 6/30/2020 1,514.49 Lightbulbs and fixtures for LED upgrades 6/30/2020 1,438.00 Tires and alignment for P95 6/30/2020 1,370.00 Sewer lines survey - new AO 6/30/2020 1,369.91 Fire system/parts IST server room 6/30/2020 1,318.88 Fall Protection Rescue Device 6/30/2020 1,300.00 Tevas Barn Clean up BCR Stables Pre-Construction 6/30/2020 1,287.75 Visitor counters 6/30/2020 1,111.80 Uniform T Shirts 6/30/2020 1,070.60 Geocortex Rpt virtual for Data Analyst I - 6/25 -6/26 6/30/2020 1,059.48 New Ranger fire boots - Cowan 6/30/2020 990.00 HVAC quarterly maintenance - 6/8/20 6/30/2020 967.00 Pre-emp physical, resp fit test 6/30/2020 860.00 Complete Pest - 2 Yr Rodent Maint. - Mora Duplex 6/20 - 6/22 6/30/2020 670.34 Repairs to A94 from rodent damage 6/30/2020 659.72 Blinds for Bluebrush 6/30/2020 632.56 No parking signs - along Skyline and Purisima Creek 6/30/2020 620.44 Citation books 6/30/2020 588.00 Website analytics - Yearly subscription 6/20 - 6/21 6/30/2020 577.28 FOOSP - Sanitation Service 6/30/2020 575.00 Los Altos Chamber - Annual membership payment FY20-21 6/30/2020 557.82 SA/Kennedy Road - Sanitation Service 6/30/2020 548.23 6 keyboard and mouse combo 2 ssd hard drives 6/30/2020 541.80 Gel hand sanitize 6/30/2020 532.00 Commuter Check Program 6/30/2020 519.02 Adobe creative cloud software licenses 6/30/2020 506.65 PPE, moisture meter, and tree borer 6/30/2020 495.00 Assoc Finance Prof membership renewal - Jaskulak 6/30/2020 490.00 Pre-employment screening 6/30/2020 487.23 3 Pocket Weather Meters 6/30/2020 484.87 Tools and Supplies 6/30/2020 480.68 External hard drives 6/30/2020 480.00 Water Wall Barricades - RSACP 6/30/2020 477.41 Property research services, May 2020 6/30/2020 459.90 Zoom subscription for virtual public mtgs - 6/27/20 - 7/26/21 6/30/2020 450.00 Website hosting - June 2020 6/30/2020 447.34 Fire boots - Carabetta 6/30/2020 438.60 Hand Sanitizer 6/30/2020 410.32 Hydraulic Pump Hose - Kubota tractor 6/30/2020 405.79 Metal poles for plexiglass installation 6/30/2020 400.00 Academy housing deposit - Non refundable 8/17/20 - Cowan/Schenck 6/30/2020 363.17 SFO Garbage 6/30/2020 353.96 Water trough - Tunitas Creek Ranch 6/30/2020 350.24 Supplies for M226-EMO Truck 6/30/2020 350.00 M1 motorcycle class - Brown 8/24-8/25 6/30/2020 350.00 Chamberlin Real Estate Schoolcourse - Leong 6/30/2020 349.56 Kolpin Universal mounts 6/30/2020 330.00 Monthly rental for storage unit - A344 6/30/2020 317.58 Consultant work for incident report programming 6/30/2020 313.92 Utility trailer box 6/30/2020 300.00 Online survey software - Monthly subscription 6/30/2020 300.00 Payment for eSignature services subscription 6/19/20 - 6/18/21 6/30/2020 300.00 Room Rental Fee for PNR Committee Meeting Sept 1 2020 6/30/2020 299.88 Lynda.com training membership - Bazar 6/4/20 - 6/3/21 6/30/2020 292.50 Antenna caps for GPS receiver 6/30/2020 291.19 Passenger window replacement 6/30/2020 284.35 Adobe Acrobat DC 1year 5 licenses 6/30/2020 280.00 Room Rental Fee for Board Meeting Dec 7 2020 6/30/2020 276.98 SA-Mt Um - Fencing Rental @ Summit 6/30/2020 276.60 20 headphones for laptops 6/30/2020 273.00 Vehicle radio chargers 6/30/2020 266.07 Spray bottles/paper towels/disposable gloves 6/30/2020 265.10 Recurring Mercury News Subscription 6/30/2020 265.00 IRWA Course Ethics - Williams (6/26) 6/30/2020 257.03 Water Heater 18171-B Pheasant Road Residence 6/30/2020 249.00 HR Webinar 6-25-20 - Fraud in dispute 6/30/2020 249.00 Climate Chg Interp. Train. -Tjosvold 7/12 6/30/2020 249.00 Climate Chg Interp. Train - Vuoso 7/12 6/30/2020 246.83 Kohler touch free faucet decks 6/30/2020 246.05 Bay Area Air Quality Mgmt District Permit 6/30/2020 238.60 Sun X Sunscreen 6/30/2020 238.47 Printed Rhus Ridge Trail closure signs 6/30/2020 229.33 Door locks for Bergman main 6/30/2020 228.65 Email Marketing - June 2020 6/30/2020 224.92 Tools/Supplies for M226-EMO Truck 6/30/2020 220.61 A103 Battery 6/30/2020 218.00 LexisNexis Online Subscription - May 2020 6/30/2020 201.73 Zip ties 6/30/2020 200.00 Ranger stress debrief facilitation - 5/29/20 6/30/2020 200.00 Ranger stress debrief facilitation - 6/8/20 6/30/2020 200.00 Remote admin tool 1month service 6/30/2020 199.00 Virtual onboarding webinar - Vargas 6/30/2020 198.96 Battery replacement for Truck M204 6/30/2020 194.28 Office 365 Azure P2 x 3 licneses 6/30/2020 184.51 Office Supplies - laminating pouches 6/30/2020 175.00 Ranger fire training (Cowan) - July 2020 6/30/2020 175.00 Ranger fire training (Schenck) - July 2020 6/30/2020 169.24 Arborists Certificate Study Guide - Holback 6/30/2020 168.30 Paint sample for Red Barn 6/30/2020 164.50 Water Service for Rentals 6/30/2020 164.26 Water Service for Rentals 6/30/2020 161.18 Paint and painting supplies 6/30/2020 160.00 Renewal of Ca Clerks Org Membership - Woodworth 7/1/20 - 7/1/21 6/30/2020 155.00 Job announcement - Budget Manager 6/30/2020 150.00 GFOA advertise BA Manager 6/30/2020 140.00 Pest. App. Prof. Assoc. Dues/CEU Webinars 7/15-7/22 - Bankosh 6/30/2020 140.00 New Anemometer 6/30/2020 139.69 P102 Headlight Bulb Replacement 6/30/2020 138.19 Montebello cabin locks 6/30/2020 134.72 FOOSP Sanitation Service-ADA 6/30/2020 129.97 New Impact Driver/Black PVC Boots 6/30/2020 128.17 Combo locks for Bear Creek 6/30/2020 123.12 Plotter maintenance monthly print charges 6/30/2020 123.04 AO Water Service 6/30/2020 122.50 Certified Erosion Inspection Annual licence - Alexander 6/30/2020 122.01 FFO Shop Supplies 6/30/2020 114.00 Int'l Public Mgmt Assoc - HR Prof Mem. 6/1/20 - 5/31/21 - Vargas 6/30/2020 113.37 Water Service for Rentals 6/30/2020 112.77 P119 Oil Change/Air Filter 6/30/2020 112.11 Dewalt oscillating tool 6/30/2020 111.54 Office Supplies - bankers boxes for records retention 6/30/2020 109.65 M221 Supplies 6/30/2020 109.25 No Parking cardboard signs x100 6/30/2020 109.23 Monte Bello Smoke/CO and Alarm 6/30/2020 108.09 FFO Shop Supplies 6/30/2020 105.49 Metal cutting supplies 6/30/2020 104.89 Water Service for Rentals 6/30/2020 98.79 FOOSP - Sanitation Service ADA 6/30/2020 98.00 Lock repair service - AO 6/30/2020 97.61 Cargo rack for patrol motorcycle 6/30/2020 96.76 Trailer tire replacement 6/30/2020 95.05 Rotary group kit 6/30/2020 90.51 Stop Slow traffic control paddle x2 6/30/2020 89.97 Concrete Mix 6/30/2020 87.85 Oil change for M230 6/30/2020 87.33 Rodent Trap for FFO 6/30/2020 87.30 Restroom Closed signs 6/30/2020 87.00 Payment for County EMT license - Barshow 6/30/2020 85.05 iPad mini case x 2 6/30/2020 84.60 Laser adapter 6/30/2020 82.55 2.5 Gallon E-Z Fill Container 6/30/2020 80.88 Construction plans printing 6/30/2020 79.83 Parts touchless faucet installs at AO1 6/30/2020 78.40 Fasteners for plexiglass install AO1 6/30/2020 75.00 MB pay phone 6/30/2020 75.00 Training Webinar - Effective Delegation - Mort 6/30 6/30/2020 72.42 iPad mini case x 2 6/30/2020 72.42 iPad mini case x 2 6/30/2020 70.75 Office supplies for AO4 - monitor cleaner, command hooks 6/30/2020 69.19 Water Service for Rentals 6/30/2020 66.61 Adobe Acrobat Pro DC 1yr 1 licenses 6/30/2020 65.39 External hard drive 6/30/2020 65.30 Buckets, tools 6/30/2020 65.01 Paper towels 6/30/2020 64.45 Pump for tankless water heater flushing 6/30/2020 62.95 Bay Nature magazine subscription 6/30/2020 60.00 CalGovHR annual membership - 7/1/20 - 7/1/21 Wolfe 6/30/2020 59.99 Paint/supplies to cover graffiti 6/30/2020 59.94 Gas for M215 6/30/2020 59.84 Visitor counter supplies 6/30/2020 59.02 Shop Supplies 6/30/2020 58.96 Batteries 6/30/2020 58.88 Gas for M215 6/30/2020 55.58 Bottles for hand sanitizer 6/30/2020 55.25 Office mail containers 6/30/2020 54.32 Envelopes 6/30/2020 54.01 Water 6/30/2020 53.94 Water Service - WH lower lot 6/30/2020 53.74 COVID Supplies 6/30/2020 53.66 Come along puller 6/30/2020 53.42 Water Service for Rentals 6/30/2020 50.86 Palo Alto Utilities 6/30/2020 50.00 CalIPC Professional membership - Gartside 6/30/2020 50.00 Facebook advertising 6/30/2020 50.00 Facebook advertising 6/30/2020 50.00 International Institute of Municipal Clerk Webinar - Soria 6/30/2020 50.00 International Institute of Municipal Clerk Webinar - Soria 6/30/2020 50.00 International Institute of Municipal Clerk Webinar - Soria 6/30/2020 50.00 FFO backup internet connection 6/30/2020 50.00 Clerks Training - Leveraging Every Conversation 6/3 - Woodworth 6/30/2020 50.00 Crisis Comunication Strategies Training 6/24 - Soria 6/30/2020 49.50 Web Forms - June 2020 6/30/2020 49.10 Wasp Spray, Rat Trap 6/30/2020 49.00 Website Analytics - June 2020 6/30/2020 45.09 Laundry/Dishwasher Detergent 6/30/2020 44.81 Monte Bello cabin PVC parts 6/30/2020 44.68 COVID Supplies 6/30/2020 44.66 LH13 gate post repairs 6/30/2020 44.65 Toilet paper, zip lock bags, and soft soap 6/30/2020 43.69 Binoculars for Nesting Surveys 6/30/2020 43.34 Paper towels 6/30/2020 42.86 Parts for plexiglass install at AO1 6/30/2020 39.91 Drain line HVAC units main house 6/30/2020 39.16 Pump cutout switch for Bergman water system 6/30/2020 39.00 Online PDF viewer - June 2020 6/30/2020 38.79 Canycom Mower tire tubes 6/30/2020 38.23 Plumbing Pipe Cutter 6/30/2020 38.08 Spray Bottles 6/30/2020 37.98 Heavy duty tape gun 6/30/2020 37.77 Paper towels/laundry softener 6/30/2020 36.95 Parts for Montebello cabin water system 6/30/2020 36.18 Light fixture for kitchen 6/30/2020 36.00 Yearly Podcast subscription - Alpine Pond Tour 6/30/2020 35.91 Facebook Advertising - May 2020 6/30/2020 35.49 Office mail containers 6/30/2020 35.00 City Clerks Association - Virtual Institute Session - Soria 6/30/2020 35.00 Training-Leading with Emotional & Collective Int. 6/24-Woodworth 6/30/2020 33.82 Packing tape 6/30/2020 33.21 Parts for foothills toilets 6/30/2020 32.99 Car wash, P106 6/30/2020 32.78 Batteries 6/30/2020 32.76 Shop light for Skyline Ranch House 6/30/2020 32.69 Wireless Headset to use in home office for meetings 6/30/2020 32.41 Toilet parts for AO toilets 6/30/2020 30.44 Spray foam 6/30/2020 30.24 FOOSP Water Service 6/30/2020 29.49 Social Distancing Decals - RSACP 6/30/2020 29.40 Power Strips/Bit Driver 6/30/2020 29.29 Website Analytics - June 2020 6/30/2020 29.00 Midpen Online Store - June 2020 6/30/2020 28.61 Spray bottles for disinfectant 6/30/2020 27.04 Water system parts for Montebello cabin 6/30/2020 27.00 Use district credit card by mistake. Will reimburse district 6/30/2020 25.11 Replacement of Mice Infested Items 6/30/2020 24.95 Hunter safety course fee - Tokatlian 6/30/2020 24.47 Supplies for M226-EMO Truck 6/30/2020 23.97 Boots for Seasonal Ranger 6/30/2020 23.80 Visitor counter supplies 6/30/2020 22.92 Shipping tape 6/30/2020 21.84 O-ring organizer kit for touch free faucets 6/30/2020 21.79 Boots for Seasonal Ranger 6/30/2020 21.71 Picture frames for AO1 6/30/2020 21.30 Repair parts 6/30/2020 20.70 Toilet repair kit - 16060 Skyline D 6/30/2020 20.66 Montebello cabin water system parts 6/30/2020 20.00 Webinar - Measuring What Matters - Kahn 6/9 6/30/2020 20.00 Webinar -Social Media 411 - Kahn 6/25 6/30/2020 20.00 CAPIO webinar - social media analytics - Lau 6/9 6/30/2020 20.00 CAPIO webinar on social media best practices 6/30/2020 19.99 Ext cord for laptop & second monitor for working from home 6/30/2020 19.64 Social Distancing Decals 6/30/2020 18.52 Toilet paper 6/30/2020 17.99 Reflector 3 software - GIS 6/30/2020 16.37 Water Heater Line 18171-B Pheasant Road Residence 6/30/2020 16.33 Construction staples 6/30/2020 16.33 Parts - water fountain at AO1 6/30/2020 16.31 Spray Bottles 6/30/2020 15.96 Ongoing subscription Monthly - Los Altos Times 6/30/2020 15.66 Wiper Fluid 6/30/2020 15.41 EMT skills course - Barshow 6/30/2020 14.19 Thermometer for COVID fever checks 6/30/2020 14.04 Parts for Montebello cabin water filter repair 6/30/2020 13.95 Refreshments for Crew 6/30/2020 13.79 Return Shipping for Truck Parts 6/30/2020 13.10 Paper towels 6/30/2020 12.74 Oral thermometer COVID-19 6/30/2020 11.99 Monthly fee Dropbox - packet delivery 6/30/2020 8.73 Lysol spray 6/30/2020 8.71 Hand pumps for sanitizer 6/30/2020 8.70 Shipping boxes for radar guns 6/30/2020 8.69 Door handles for Kitchen Bluebrush 6/30/2020 8.18 ATV10 Rokon throttle cable 6/30/2020 7.00 GIS request desk subscription - Monthly 6/30/2020 4.93 Paint sample for Red Barn 6/30/2020 (21.66) Returned Surge Protector 6/30/2020 (27.19) Thornewood credit for extra tubing returned HVAC 6/30/2020 (108.15) Return credit -Impact Driver 6/30/2020 (129.93) Refund for incorrect language on signs 6/30/2020 (135.69) Returned Field Supplies 6/30/2020 (420.00) GFOA conference registration reimbursement - FIN 6/30/2020 329,322.53 Wells Fargo Bank Credit Card - June 2020 Rev. 1/3/18 R-20-87 Meeting 20-17 August 12, 2020 AGENDA ITEM 3 AGENDA ITEM Award of Contract to Sandbar Solar to Design and Install Solar Panels at the Skyline Field Office at Skyline Ridge Open Space Preserve GENERAL MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATIONS 1. Authorize the General Manager to enter into a contract with Sandbar Solar for a base amount of $151,533 to design and install a grid-tie solar panel system at the Skyline Field Office 2. Authorize a 10% contingency of $15,153 to be reserved for unanticipated issues, bringing the contract to a total not-to-exceed amount of $166,686. SUMMARY The recommended contract will enable a design-build contractor to work with Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (District) staff to design and install a grid-tie solar panel system at the Skyline Field Office (SFO) at Skyline Ridge Open Space Preserve. The General Manager recommends awarding a contract to Sandbar Solar for a base amount of $151,533 and authorizing a 10% contingency amount of $15,153 for unanticipated issues, for a total not-to- exceed amount of $166,686. The proposed contract is slightly more than the $150,000 budgeted in the Fiscal Year 2020-21 (FY21) project budget. Staff will monitor expenses and will submit a budget adjustment during the quarterly budget review process for final additional amount. Staff will also seek budget savings in other projects to account for this slight overage. DISCUSSION Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District’s (District) Climate Action Plan identified the use of renewable electric energy generation as a method to reduce operational greenhouse gas emissions. At the SFO, there is an opportunity to use solar electricity generation to offset energy use. The Climate Action Plan recommendation under Facilities-2 identifies solar panel installation at field offices as a desirable option and describes the benefits of (1) generating in- situ solar electricity to reduce significant resource costs of distant energy generation (such as transmission loss and water use), (2) gaining energy independence, and (3) contributing additional clean energy to the grid. Due to the SFO location on the county line, renewable electricity providers (Silicon Valley and Peninsula Clean Energy) have been unable to commit to providing 100% renewable energy via the existing grid as they have at all other District facilities. Installation of solar electricity at this facility provides a renewable energy source and provides substantial long-term savings on PG&E R-20-87 Page 2 costs. The typical electricity bill is $800 per month or $9,600 per year. Anticipated generation of 83% of the electricity needs for the facility should result in a savings of $8,000 annually. In the bidding process, vendors were requested to provide a 30KW system with a budget of $150,000 and provide a system that can be expanded in the future (batteries, additional panels) and eventually meet 100% of the electric demand. Based on the two past years of PG&E bills and a localized photovoltaic electricity generation model, panels at SFO could provide approximately 83% of the electricity SFO uses annually and reduce the District’s annual greenhouse gas emissions by 3.37 metric tons of CO2-equivalent per year. This amounts to 0.2% of the total 2016 District emissions baseline and 1.7% of the 2016 facilities emissions baseline. Progress in reaching emission reduction goals is measured against the 2016 total baseline, with a goal of a 20% reduction by 2022. As of the last inventory in 2018, the District is short by 6% to meet the 2022 goal, and it is likely, but not certain, that actions taken in Fiscal Year 2019-20 (FY20) and planned for FY21 (e.g. increased employee telecommuting, purchase of electric motorcycles) will close that gap. The installation of the SFO solar panel array will help ensure that the 2022 emissions reduction goal is met. The chart above shows that there will be no net CO2 emissions from April to October when the panels are receiving maximum sun exposure and generate more electricity than is used at the office. During the winter, there will be less solar electricity generated due to shorter and cloudier days. SFO will supplement the solar generated electricity with PG&E grid-source electricity. At night, when the panels are not supplying electricity, the office will draw from the PG&E grid. Excess electricity generated at peak daylight times feeds back into the grid. The District will receive credit for the excess electricity generated by the solar panels and will use those accumulated credits when SFO pulls electricity off the grid. During Public Safety Power Shutoffs by PG&E or other outages, SFO will switch over to the existing propane generator to support continuous operation of the field office. In the planned 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40 0.45 Ma y - 1 8 Ju n e - 1 8 Ju l y - 1 8 Au g u s t - 1 8 Se p t e m b e r - 1 8 Oc t o b e r - 1 8 No v e m b e r - 1 8 De c e m b e r - 1 8 Ja n u a r y - 1 9 Fe b r u a r y - 1 9 Ma r c h - 1 9 Ap r i l - 1 9 Ma y - 1 9 Ju n e - 1 9 Ju l y - 1 9 Au g u s t - 1 9 Se p t e m b e r - 1 9 Oc t o b e r - 1 9 No v e m b e r - 1 9 De c e m b e r - 1 9 Ja n u a r y - 2 0 Fe b r u a r y - 2 0 Ma r c h - 2 0 Ap r i l - 2 0 MT C O 2 e p e r M o n t h SFO's Electricity Footprint: Metric Tons of CO2e Per Month, With and Without Solar Array MTCO2e without Solar (Actual electricity data from PG&E) MTCO2e with Solar (Estimates of Solar energy generation from Sandbar proposal) R-20-87 Page 3 configuration, the solar system will not provide power to SFO when PG&E is shut down. An additional battery system to provide solar power during outages could be added at a later time but is not necessary to achieve carbon emission reductions or to avoid impacts due to interrupted electrical service. The solicitation process for a Design-Build contract includes two steps. The first step is to identify qualified design-build entities that can design and build the project to meet District objectives. A Request for Qualifications was advertised on BidSync and the District received three statements of qualifications that met the requirements to proceed with submitting a proposal. The second step is to identify which design-build entities can meet District objectives for the best value. All three entities were deemed qualified and subsequently were invited to submit cost proposals. One of the qualified entities declined to submit a price proposal due to the small scale of the project and lack of familiarity with the design-build procedures under state contracting law. The Design-Build process allows the selection of a design-build entity that provides the best value as determined by an evaluation of price, features, functions, life-cycle costs, experience, and past performance. Final proposals were submitted by Solar Harmonics and Sandbar Solar. Solar Harmonics proposed a ground-mounted system at a price of $162,443 with electric vehicle charging stations. Installation of electric vehicle charging stations was an optional item in the bid package and was only asked to be included in the bid if the solar panel system design required ground disturbance (for economy of scale). Sandbar Solar’s design proposal is for a roof top system with limited trenching and therefore did not include charging stations. Recent price estimates to separately install a SemaConnect charging station system that matches the system installed at the Administrative Office are $8,000 for materials and $2,500 for installation (or $10,500 in total). The Design Build proposals were not required to provide line item costs for charging stations, only a total price. Sandbar Solar’s proposal was for $151,533, or $10,910 less than the Solar Harmonics $162,443 proposal. Electric vehicle charging stations can be installed separately this fiscal year and located close to buildings with sufficient power to run the system. Based on staff review of both proposals, Sandbar Solar’s careful consideration of the current facility layout and how best to fit the solar system to the site, and Sandbar Solar’s total fee of $151,533 that is closest to the approved project budget, the Sandbar Solar proposal is deemed as providing the best overall value to the District. Staff recommends awarding the contract to Sandbar Solar. FISCAL IMPACT The FY21 adopted budget includes $150,000 for the Install Solar Panels #61011 project. The project budget does not cover the entire cost of the recommended action and expenditures. Staff will monitor expenses and submit a budget adjustment during the quarterly review process based on the final cost. Staff will also seek budget savings in other projects to accommodate the adjustment. In the long-term, savings in PG&E bills should see the system pay for itself in 12 to 13 years and see a return of approximately $200,000 in 25 years, which is the estimated life span of the solar panels. Staff will work with the contractor to submit for tax credits that may be available at the time of installation. R-20-87 Page 4 Install Solar Panels at Skyline Field Office 61011 Prior Year Actuals FY21 Adopted FY22 Projected Estimated Future Years TOTAL Total Budget: $0 $150,000 $0 $0 $150,000 Spent-to-Date (as of 07/14/2020): $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Encumbrances: $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Sandbar Solar Contract: $0 ($151,533) $0 $0 ($151,533) 10% Contingency: $0 ($15,153) $0 $0 ($15,153 Budget Remaining (Proposed): $0 ($16,686) $0 $0 ($16,686) The recommended action is not funded by Measure AA. BOARD COMMITTEE REVIEW Not reviewed by a Board Committee. PUBLIC NOTICE Public notice was provided as required by the Brown Act. No additional public notice was made. CEQA COMPLIANCE The District concludes that this project would not have a significant effect on the environment. It is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under Article 19, Sections 15301, 15303, and 15304 of the CEQA Guidelines below. Staff will file a Notice of Exemption citing these exemptions prior to project implementation. 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 installation of the new solar panels will involve minor modifications to the existing SFO roof to mount the solar panels and to the existing electrical infrastructure on the site to link the panels to the electrical grid. In conformance with this exemption, the installation of the solar panels will not expand use of the SFO. Section 15303 exempts new construction and location of limited numbers of new, small facilities or structures and the installation of small new equipment and facilities, including the construction of new solar panels. Section 15304 exempts minor public or private alterations in the condition of land, water, and/or vegetation, including minor trenching where the surface is restored, so long as the alterations do not involve removal of healthy, mature, scenic trees except for forestry and agricultural purposes. This exemption covers the minor trenching necessary to connect the solar panels and associated infrastructure. R-20-87 Page 5 NEXT STEPS With Board of Directors approval, the General Manager will approve the design-build contract. The contractor will finalize the design with District staff and proceed with permitting and installation of the grid-tie solar panel system. Responsible Department Head: Michael Jurich, Land and Facilities Prepared by: Craig Beckman, Area Manager, Land and Facilities Rev. 1/3/18 R-20-89 Meeting 20-17 August 12, 2020 AGENDA ITEM 4 AGENDA ITEM Consider designation of select preserve trails, roadways, and parking areas to allow electric bicycle use under a 1-year pilot project. GENERAL MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATIONS 1. Designate select trails at Ravenswood Open Space Preserve and Rancho San Antonio Open Space Preserve and County Park where bicycles are currently allowed as open to class 1 and 2 electric bicycle use under a 1-year pilot project, and determine that this action is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act. 2. Designate all roads and parking areas that are open to the public for motor vehicle use during regular preserve hours as also open to all classes of electric bicycles. SUMMARY Over the last few years, public interest in electric bicycles (e-bikes) for transportation and recreation has grown steadily across the country. This trend has been reflected locally by increased use on public roadways and acceptance by many land management agencies of e-bikes on bicycle trails and pathways. District rangers have also reported a rise in e-bike use on Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (District) preserves. The General Manager recommends establishing a pilot program for allowing class 1 and 2 e-bike use on the Ravenswood Bay Trail and the bicycle trails in Rancho San Antonio County Park and Open Space Preserve, including the bike path and service roads. The areas recommended for the pilot are either paved, graveled, rocked, or a wooden boardwalk and do not include any natural surface trails. These trails serve either as commute routes through Ravenswood Preserve or as access routes to reach Rancho San Antonio Preserve, which is the District’s most visited preserve and located in close proximity to numerous neighborhoods and cities to facilitate the arrival of visitors by bicycle. All e-bikes, including class 3 e-bikes are an alternative method of transportation that is preferable to driving gas powered motor vehicles because they do not emit greenhouse gases. Therefore, the General Manager also recommends allowing all classes of e-bikes to travel in preserve parking areas, driveways, and roads that are open to general public motor vehicular use, including Mount Umunhum Road, to encourage more visitors to arrive to the preserves via e- bikes. R-20-89 Page 2 DISCUSSION District Ordinance 409.9 specifically prohibits the possession or use of e-bikes on trails or locations unless specifically designated for such use. Currently there are no specifically designated trails or locations on District lands. E-bikes are authorized for use under the District’s Other Power-Driven Mobility Devices (OPDMD) policy for persons with mobility disabilities, where bicycles are allowed, including narrow-width unpaved trails. The OPDMD policy also allows a variety of other power-driven devices for persons with mobility disabilities. Bicycle Trails at Ravenswood Preserve The 1.3-mile segment of the Bay Trail (Attachment 1, Ravenswood Proposed e-bike Trails) that runs through Ravenswood Open Space Preserve connects to 80 continuous miles of the Bay Trail. This Bay Trail segment is comprised of pavement, gravel and a wooden boardwalk. It provides the surrounding community with a bridge to nature and is a popular regional trail amongst bicyclists, including e-bike commuters who use the regional bike path to commute to numerous employment centers located along the shoreline. E-bike use on the District’s section of the Bay Trail would be consistent with the Bay Trail segments to the north and south of Ravenswood Preserve. The Cities of Palo Alto and Menlo Park manage these sections of the Bay Trail and allow class 1 and 2 e-bikes. Bicycle Trails at Rancho San Antonio Preserve The 1.7-mile bike path/roadway through Rancho San Antonio Open Space Preserve to Deer Hollow Farm is popular with bicyclists as are the service road/trail entrances from St. Joseph’s Avenue and Mora Drive (Attachment 2, Rancho Proposed e-bike Trails). These trails serve as alternatives to vehicle transportation to reach popular interior hiking trails at Rancho San Antonio Preserve, serving as an alternate mode of transit that supports multimodal access to the preserve. E-bike use on these designated trails would be compatible with regulations in all other Santa Clara County Parks, which allow class 1 and 2 e-bikes in all county parks where bicycles are allowed. Roads and Parking Areas open to Public Motor Vehicular Use Designating all roads, driveways, and parking areas that are open to the public for motor vehicle use during regular preserve hours as also open to all classes of electric bicycles, including the 5.5-mile Mt Umunhum Road, will also encourage bicycling as an alternative mode of transit to reach District preserves. E-bikes make travel via bicycle easier, more efficient, and therefore much more possible for a larger sector of the public because they allow bicyclists to travel farther with less effort. District Ordinance 409.9 prohibits the use of e-bikes on District lands except for the areas and trails designated for such use. The General Manager recommends designating select trails at Ravenswood and Rancho San Antonio to allow class 1 and class 2 e-bike use as well as allow all classes of e-bikes where public vehicles are allowed to encourage bicycle commuting to reach District preserves and to travel along the regional Bay Trail. The surfaces of the select trails and roadways are largely hardened with either pavement, gravel, or wood (boardwalk). Therefore, the addition of e-bike use should not impact trail maintenance or increase erosion. R-20-89 Page 3 FISCAL IMPACT REVIEW Fiscal Year 2020-21 (FY21) budget includes sufficient funds in the Visitor Services operating budget to cover the one-time costs related to replacing or updating signs. BOARD COMMITTEE REVIEW A presentation was made to the Board of Directors (R-19-155, Attachment 3) on November 20, 2019, to consider options for allowing e-bikes on District Lands. The Board directed the General Manager to return with (1) an evaluation and process to implement a phased one-year pilot program to allow class 1 e-bikes on select unpaved trails using a phased approach, including evaluating the ability to enforce District regulations and separate the impacts of analog and e- bikes on District natural resources, and (2) exploration to class 1 and 2 e-bikes on designated paved trails and roadways. Under this direction a project was created for Fiscal Year 2020-21 (FY21). As the FY21 budget recommendations were being finalized, the COVID pandemic struck and action plan adjustments were made, including deferring the e-bike project, to reduce the total budget and account for impacts to staff capacity. During the budget hearing on June 10, 2020 the Board expressed concerns about deferring the e-bike project entirely and directed staff to modify the project scope for FY21 to specifically focus on e-bike access on District paved trails and defer the evaluation of e-bike access on unpaved trails to FY22. The FY21 project scope was finalized by the Board during the Board meeting on June 24, 2020 to “explore pilot program for e-bike access on District paved trails (Attachment 4). PUBLIC NOTICE Public notice was provided as required by the Brown Act. CEQA COMPLIANCE The recommended action to establish a pilot program for specific trails, roadways and service roads, most of which are paved, where bicycles are currently allowed in Ravenswood Open Space Preserve and Rancho San Antonio Open Space Preserve as open to class 1 and 2 electric bicycle use is categorically exempt from CEQA as follows: CEQA Guidelines section 15301. EXISTING FACILITIES CEQA exempts the operation or minor alteration of existing public or private structures, facilities, or topographical features, which involve negligible or no expansion of existing or former use. The use of e-bikes on paved trails where bicycles are already allowed represents a negligible expansion of use of existing trails. CEQA Guidelines section 15304. MINOR ALTERATIONS TO LAND CEQA exempts minor alterations in the condition of land which do not involve removal of healthy, mature, scenic trees and have negligible or no permanent effects on the environment. As stated herein, the use of e-bikes on paved trails where bicycles are already allowed will have a negligible effect on the environment. R-20-89 Page 4 CEQA Guidelines section 15311. ACCESSORY STRUCTURES CEQA exempts construction, or placement of minor structures accessory to (appurtenant to) existing facilities, such as on-premise signs. As described in this report, signs may be installed or altered in order to notify preserve users of the changes to the trail designation allowing e- bikes. CEQA Guidelines section 15306. INFORMATION COLLECTION CEQA exempts information gathering activities or actions that are part of a study leading to an action which the agency has not yet adopted, which do not result in a serious or major disturbance to an environmental resource. Changing the trail designation of certain trails to allow e-bikes will allow the District to collect information about e-bike use in certain areas. This information will inform future policy decisions about e-bike use on paved and unpaved trails. NEXT STEPS Pending Board approval, staff will open the designated trails to class 1 and 2 e-bikes as a pilot program. Printed and online material will be updated as needed. Staff will develop an outreach program that focuses on the trial nature of the e-bike use. Monitoring will include outreach, signage, intercept surveys and data collection related to compliance, accidents and visitor satisfaction/complaints. Staff will return in a about a year to report on use, visitor impacts, overall compliance and acceptance. In FY22 (July 2021 – June 2022), staff will bring an evaluation and process to implement a phased one-year pilot program to allow class 1 e-bikes on select unpaved trails, including evaluating the ability to enforce District regulations and separate the impacts of analog and e- bikes on District natural resources to the Planning and Natural Resources Committee (PNR). At that time, PNR will consider recommending to the full Board whether to proceed with a pilot e- bike program on unpaved trails. Attachments: 1. Ravenswood Proposed e-bike Trails 2. Rancho San Antonio Proposed e-bike Trails 3. Board Report R-19-155 4. June 24, 2020 Board Meeting Minutes 5. Public Comments received prior to August 6, 2020 Responsible Department Head: Brian Malone, Assistant General Manager for Visitor and Field Services Prepared by: Matt Anderson, Chief Ranger, Visitor Services Department SFPUC EAST PALO ALTO D O N E D W A R D S N W R PALO ALTO BAYLANDS S F B a y RAVENSWOOD OPEN SPACE PRESERVE Un i v e r s i t y A v e E A S T P A L O A L T O MENLO PARK Kavanaugh Dr Fo r d h a m S t Purd u e A v e Ste v e n s A v e Drew Ct Purd u e A v e Rut g e r s St Notre Dame Ave Temp l e C t Go n z a g a S t Illi n o i s S t Tulane A v e Ge o r g e t o w n S t O 'br ien D r Em m e t t W y Xavier St An n a p o l i s S t Ba y l o r S t Ad a m s D r Pu l g a s A v e HunterSt Ta r a S t B a y R d Bay Rd Bay Rd U n i v e r s i t y A v e Bay Trail (Opening 2020) Bay Trai l ( O p e n i n g 2 0 2 0 ) B a y T r a i l Bay T r a i l B a y T r a i l Ravenswood Proposed E-bike Trails and Connectivity Pa t h : G : \ P r o j e c t s \ a _ D i s t r i c t w i d e \ E _ B i k e \ R W _ E B i k e \ B a y T r a i l _ P a v e d R o a d 2 0 2 0 0 7 2 0 . m x d Cr e a t e d B y : r b u 0 1,000500 FeetI MROSD Preserves 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. Watershed Land Parking Area San Francisco Oakland San Jose Santa Cruz Area of Detail Other Protected Lands Other Public Agency Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (Midpen) 8/1/2020 Private Property Highway or Major Road Unpaved Trail Decking/Boardwalk Paved Road/Trail Bicycle Use Allowed City Boundary Bay Trail Beyond Ravenswood Attachment 1 !# !P !P Mora Entrance St. Joseph Entrance C a n y o n O ak W ay Ke n b a r R o a d M a d r o n e C t O a k V a ll e y R d W e s t L o y o l a D riv e St. Jose p h s A v e . M a nza nita C o urt Rave n s b u r y A v e n u e O akLane Ranc h o S an Antonio S e rviceRoad C r i s t o R e y Drive R a v e n s b u r y A v e nue C risto R e yDrive Magdalena Avenue E a s t b r ook Avenue Mora D ri v e M oraTrail C r i s t o ReyDrive R A N C H O S A N A N T O N I O C O U N T Y PA R K S C V W D Interstate H ig h w a y 2 8 0 W il d ca t L oop Tr a i l R a v e n s b u r y T r a i l R ancho S a n A n t o n i o B i k e P a t h Ste p h e n E.Abb ors Trail C o y o t e T r a il High M eadowTrail Hill T r a il R a n c h oSanA ntonio Servic e R o a d L o w e r M e a d o w T r a il H a m m ond-Snyd e r L o o p Trail S o u t h M e a d o w T r a il F a r m Byp a ss Tra il P e r m a n e n t e C r e e k T r a i l Ro g u e Valley Trail M ora Trail Deer M ead o w T r a i l Chamise Trail Rancho San Antonio Proposed Trails for E-bike Use Pa t h : G : \ P r o j e c t s \ a _ D i s t r i c t w i d e \ E _ B i k e \ R S A _ E B i k e \ R S A _ P a v e d T r a i l 2 0 2 0 0 7 2 0 . m x d Cr e a t e d B y : r b u 0 1,000500 FeetI MROSD Preserves 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. Watershed Land Parking Area Santa Cruz Hayward Fremont Santa Clara San Jose Area of Detail Other Protected Lands Private Property Unpaved Road Width Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (Midpen) 8/1/2020 Highway Trail Paved Road WidthPaved Surface RANCHO SAN ANTONIO OPEN SPACE PRESERVE Bicycle Use Allowed !#Deer Hollow FarmPedestrian Route Attachment 2 Rev. 1/3/18 R-19-155 Meeting 19-29 November 20, 2019 AGENDA ITEM 5 AGENDA ITEM Electric Bicycle Policy GENERAL MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATIONS Review and provide feedback on options related to electric bicycle use on Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District lands and select one or more of the following options for further consideration and environmental review. 1.Limit class 1 and 2 electric bicycles to designated paved trails and roadways. 2. Allow class 1 electric bicycles on all paved and unpaved trails and roadways that allow bicycles and limit class 2 electric bicycles to designated paved trails and roadways. 3. Allow class 1 and 2 electric bicycles on all paved and unpaved trails and roadways that allow bicycles. The General Manager would return at a later date with environmental review findings for the Board of Directors to make a final decision and if required, a change to the District Land Use Regulations. SUMMARY Over the last few years, sales of electric bicycles have grown steadily across the country. Electric bicycles include both electric road bicycles and electric mountain bicycles. The Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (District) currently prohibits the use of electric bicycles unless they function as an Other Power-Driven Mobility Device (OPDMD) for a person with a mobility disability. Local advocacy groups have reached out to land managers to promote the technology, benefits, and compatible use of electric bicycles. The District has seen an increase in requests from the public to allow electric bicycle use. The General Manager recommends reviewing the potential options for allowing electric bicycles and selecting one or more options to analyze the potential environmental impacts under the California Environmental Quality Act and to conduct any additional research, as directed by the Board, for further consideration at a later date. BACKGROUND When electric bicycles (e-bikes) were introduced, most municipal and regional park and open space agencies, including the District and Federal land management agencies (i.e. National Park System, National Wildlife Refuge System, Bureau of Land Management) categorized them as motorized vehicles and prohibited them on trails along with traditional motorized vehicles and devices like scooters and motorcycles. Attachment 3 R-19-155 Page 2 In 2014, the Board updated its Land Use Regulations (R-14-06), which included the enactment of Section 409.9, prohibiting the possession or use of e-bikes on trails unless the trail was designated for such use. Currently there are no trails or locations designated for e-bike use on District lands. However, under the District’s Other Power-Driven Mobility Devices (OPDMD) policy and consistent with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), e-bikes are authorized for persons with a mobility disability where bicycles are allowed, including narrow-width unpaved trails. In recent years, e-bike advocates have worked with manufacturers and land managers to improve relations and general acceptance of e-bikes. The American e-bike manufacturers led a successful effort to create three categories of e-bikes, including electric mountain bikes (eMTBs). This classification system was accepted by all manufacturers and has been adopted by 22 states, including California in 2016, when this classification system was incorporated into the California Vehicle Code (CVC). This classification system places strict requirements on e-bike design and capabilities along with a distinction between an electric bicycle and motorized bicycles/mopeds. These new laws prompted many local agencies to revisit and revise their policies for e-bike use on bike paths and trails, as they are no longer categorized as motorized vehicles. District Board Policy 4.07 – Trail Use prohibits the use of motorized vehicles and sets guidelines for designating trails appropriate for bicycle use. It also sets a guideline target use designation of 60% to 65% multi use trails (including bicycles). Of the 244 miles of trails open to the public, 157 miles (64%) are open to bicycles. While the District does not currently allow e-bikes, there is no signage specifically prohibiting e-bike use on preserves. The prohibition of e-bikes is listed on the District website. DISCUSSION In response to an increase in questions and calls from preserve visitors and trail patrollers about e-bike use, and in recognition of the growing popularity and sale of e-bikes, a 2018 District Leadership Academy group researched and analyzed District and peer agency e-bike policies and experiences. The findings of this analysis reflect an opportunity for the Board to reassess the District’s e-bike policy. The most recent Board review of the District Land Use Regulations occurred in 2014, when a clarification in the language was included regarding the prohibition of motorized devices. Subsequently in 2016, the State of California adopted a new classification system that no longer categorizes e-bikes as a motorized device. Given this change, and the recognition that e-bikes appeal to a growing demographic with physical limitations and represent an opportunity to reduce emissions along bicycle commute routes, many agencies like the District are reviewing their e-bike policy. E-Bike Description Section 312.5 of the California Vehicle Code (CVC) defines an e-bike as having fully operable pedals and an electric motor of less than 750 watts. American e-bike manufacturers created a classification system that designates three categories of e-bikes: class 1, class 2, and class 3. This classification system and model legislation has been adopted by 22 states, including California. (see Attachment 1). Below are descriptions for each class of e-bike. • Class 1 electric bicycle: a “low speed pedal-assisted bicycle” with an electric motor that provides assistance only when the rider is pedaling, up to 20 mph. Attachment 3 R-19-155 Page 3 • Class 2 electric bicycle: a “low speed throttle-assisted bicycle” that may be propelled exclusively with an electric motor (without pedaling) up to 20 mph. • Class 3 electric bicycle: a “speed pedal-assisted electric bicycle” with an electric motor that provides assistance only when the rider is pedaling, up to 28 mph. CVC section 21207.5 (b) prohibits the use of class 3 e-bikes on recreational trails and paths unless the public agency with jurisdiction chooses to permit them and provides that a public agency may prohibit class 1 and 2 e-bikes on trails within the agency’s jurisdiction. Electric Mountain Bike (eMTB) Description Many bicycle manufacturers make e-bikes, but not all make a electric mountain bikes or the eMTB version. An eMTB is functionally different from an e-bike (which is intended primarily for use on paved or improved surfaces) in that an eMTB is designed for the rigors of trail use. Typically outfitted with mountain-bike-specific technology, such as disc brakes, suspension, and a wide gear range, eMTBs like all e-bikes are electric-powered (not gas-powered), quiet, and emissions-free. Most eMTBs from major manufacturers are also categorized as class 1 electric bikes. Sales Trends and User Profile Sales of eMTBs has grown steadily over the last few years, particularly in Europe. In general, the overall e-bike category in the U.S. has grown about 450% since 2013, with year-over-year growth averaging around 50%.1 Sales data reflect that most e-bikes sold are in the class 1 category. The only difference between class 1 and class 2 is that with a class 2, the electric motor can be used exclusively to power the bicycle using a throttle; in other words, pedaling is not required. Over the last couple of years, inquiries from the public and staff regarding District policy on e- bikes, and more specifically eMTBs, have increased. Most of the people contacting the District are local riders transitioning from a regular mountain bike to an eMTB due to age or physical limitations and are looking for opportunities to extend their enjoyment for riding on District preserves. Advocates, such as PeopleForBikes, promote that e-bikes and eMTBs are designed to be as safe as traditional bikes, do not compromise consumer safety, and benefit bicyclists who may be discouraged from riding a traditional bicycle due to limited physical fitness, age, disability, or convenience. Regional Policies and Feedback from Peer Agency Survey As with any type of interruptive technology, the increase in e-bike use has not come without controversy and debate among public land managers, trail users, and eMTB advocates. Locally, there is mixed support and varying restrictions on its use. Many restrictions have not been updated since the CVC updated the definition of e-bikes and are based on laws and definitions of 1 People for Bikes, eMTB Land Manager Handbook Attachment 3 R-19-155 Page 4 motorized vehicles or devices. Personal perceptions and philosophical objections are another basis for restricting e-bikes. Thirteen local and regional park agencies were surveyed by the Leadership Academy group in 2018, including California State Parks; Cities of East Palo Alto, Palo Alto, Menlo Park, and San Jose; Counties of Santa Clara, Marin, and Sonoma; East Bay Regional Parks District; Marin Municipal Water District; Santa Clara Valley Open Space Authority; and Soquel Demonstration Forest (CalFire) on their policies and experiences with e-bikes. (see Attachment 2). Many of the agencies are currently reviewing their policies or have recently amended them. • Eight of the agencies allow e-bikes on paved roadways and paths, while four do not. (Option 1). • All agencies treat class 1 and class 2 e-bikes the same (Option 2). • Four agencies (Santa Clara and San Mateo County Parks, State Parks and Santa Clara Open Space Authority) allow them on unpaved roads, trails and paths, while eight agencies do not (Option 3). Survey results from peer agencies related to e-bike use are summarized below. Top Three Concerns: 1. Trail User Experiences / Potential User Conflicts • Although there is a perceived conflict where e-bikes are allowed, very few complaints have been received by other user groups. • Biggest issue reported is the exceedance of speed limits (this is also a common complaint with non-electric MTB use in general) • There appears to be a disconnect between perceptions and reality of e-bike use. • E-bike usage has been minimal to date. 2. Potential for Trail Condition Impacts • Although peer agencies raised concerns about potential trail condition impacts (different wear patterns and soil displacement because e-bikes are heavier), no increase in trail maintenance was reported and few trail condition issues were noted. • Biggest issue reported: illegal trails (also a common complaint with MTB in general). 3. Potential for Natural Resource Impacts • Although peer agencies raised concerns about the potential for natural resource impacts, no specific issues were reported. • No formal studies have been completed to date. Reasons cited for policies that do not allow e-bikes: o Unknown Environmental Impacts o Non-compatible use o Classified by local ordinance or policy as motorized devices o Increased need for emergency medical response o Concern about batteries sparking a fire o Concerns raised by organizations and communities Attachment 3 R-19-155 Page 5 Benefits of allowing e-bike use o Accessibility (e.g. a majority of e-bike users at EBRPD are over 50 years old) o Adapt to evolving technologies and ways of enjoying open space o Increasing level of public interest and use o E-bikes are generally accepted and go unnoticed after use is allowed o May allow more people to bike to preserves o Consistency with neighboring land management agencies E-bike Use on Federal Lands - National Park System (NPS), National Wildlife Refuge System (NWRS), Bureau of Land Management (BLM) On August 29, 2019 the Secretary of the Interior issued executive order #3376, directing all federal land management agencies to revise their rules and regulations to allow e-bikes where other types of bicycles are allowed (see Attachment 3). The overarching purpose behind this order was to “increase recreational opportunities for all Americans, especially those with physical limitations and to encourage the enjoyment of lands and waters managed by the Department of Interior” and to “simplify and unify regulation of e-bikes on federal lands managed by the Department.” Department of Interior land management agencies were given a 30-day timeframe to submit a summary of policy changes in response to the order and a timeline to seek public comment. All Department Directors have complied with the directive and have issued orders establishing policy changes allowing e-bikes where traditional bicycles have been allowed and prohibited them in other locations. Perception vs Reality A perception of negative trail impacts related to ebike use was cited by some land managers as a concern. In 2015, the International Mountain Bicycling Association (IMBA) conducted a study designed to compare the relative levels of soil displacement and erosion between traditional mountain bicycles, electric mountain bicycles (eMTBs), and traditional off-road motorcycles. Results show that soil displacement and tread disturbance from class 1 eMTB and traditional mountain bicycles were not significantly different (statistically) and are much less compared to a gasoline-powered motorcycle use (see Attachment 4). Many visitors with a negative perception of eMTBs tend to think of them more like a motorcycle than a bicycle. Two separate intercept studies conducted in 2017 in Colorado by Jefferson County Colorado Open Space and PeopleForBikes/Bicycle Product Suppliers Association reported similar findings regarding perceptions. Most people who demo-ed an eMTB reported a positive experience and their perceptions of eMTBs changed for the better (see Attachments 5 and 6). However, the PeopleforBikes study also noted that many of those who demo-ed an eMTB believe that eMTBs, because of their motor, belong on motorized trails. FISCAL IMPACT The FY19-20 adopted budget includes sufficient funds in the Visitor Services operating budget to cover the onetime costs related to replacing or updating signs if the Board chooses option 3. Options 1 and 2 are not anticipated to incur costs other than staff time to update District information and change the Land Use Regulations. No new signage would be required. Attachment 3 R-19-155 Page 6 BOARD COMMITTEE REVIEW This item was not previously reviewed by a Board Committee. PUBLIC NOTICE Public notice was provided as required by the Brown Act. CEQA COMPLIANCE District staff will conduct CEQA review to evaluate the potential environmental impacts, if any, of the option(s) selected by the Board that merit further consideration and evaluation. NEXT STEPS District staff will conduct CEQA review of the selected Board option(s) and any additional research, as directed by the Board. The findings and any additional information will be presented to the Board at a later date for a final decision. Depending on the final decision, changes to the District Land Use Regulations and/or signage may be required. Attachments 1. California’s E-Bike Law 2. Table of Peer Agencies Policies 3. Secretary of the Interior Order No. 3376 - Electric Bikes 4. IMBA e-bike Environmental Impact Study 5. Jefferson County Co. Open Space Survey 6. PeopleforBikes eMTB Intercept Survey 7. Written Public Comments submitted prior to noon on November 14, 2019 Responsible Department Head: Brian Malone, Assistant General Manager Prepared by: Matt Anderson, Chief Ranger, Visitor Services Department Contributing Analysis provided by: Leadership Academy Project Team: Jen Williams, Volunteer Program Manager Hayley Edmonston, Management Analyst 1 Cody Fickes, Lead Open Space Technician Jeff Smith, Ranger Attachment 3 Electronically Distributed To Law Enforcement Visit our Web Site—http://www.dmv.ca.gov LAW ENFORCEMENT INFORMATION MEMO MEMO: 16-02 SUBJECT: NEW LAWS CONCERNING ELECTRIC BICYCLES Memo Date: February 10, 2016 JUSTICE AND GOVERNMENT LIAISON BRANCH • COMMUNICATION PROGRAMS DIVISION • © 2016 STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Purpose To provide information to law enforcement regarding new laws establishing three classes of electric bicycles and changes in the definition of a motorized bicycle. Background Prior law defined a motorized bicycle or moped as a two or three-wheeled device with pedals, or powered solely by electrical energy, and an automatic transmission and a motor that is capable of reaching a maximum speed of 30 miles per hour (MPH). New Information Effective January 1, 2016, Assembly Bill 1096 makes the following changes to the California Vehicle Code: §312.5 defines an electric bicycle as having fully operable pedals and an electric motor of less than 750 watts. Class 1 electric bicycles are assisted by a motor-pedal device; class 2 bicycles have a throttle-assist device. Neither shall be capable of providing assistance once the bicycle reaches the speed of 20 MPH. The class 3 electric bicycle has a motor-pedal device that shall cease to provide assistance when it reaches 28 MPH and will have a speedometer. §406 defines a motorized bicycle or moped as a two or three wheeled device with fully operative pedals for human propulsion, or having no pedals if powered solely by electrical energy, with an automatic transmission and a motor producing less than four gross brake horsepower that is incapable of exceeding 30 MPH. §12804.9 excludes all classes of electric bicycles described in California Vehicle Code §312.5 from being defined as a Class M2 vehicle. §21113(f) allows a transit development board to adopt ordinances to restrict or specify the use of electric bicycles on property controlled by or used by the board. §21113(g) allows a public agency, such as the Regents of the University of California and the Trustees of the California State University, to adopt rules to restrict or specify the conditions for the use of electric bicycles on public property under the jurisdiction of that agency. §21207.5 prohibits the use of class 3 electric bicycles on a bicycle path or trail, bikeway, bicycle lane, equestrian trail, or hiking or recreational trail, unless it is within or adjacent to a roadway or unless the local authority or governing body of a public agency having jurisdiction over the trail permits. In addition, a local authority or governing body of a public agency having jurisdiction over a trail described above may prohibit class 1 and 2 electric bicycles on that trail. Attachment 1 Attachment 3 Electronically Distributed To Law Enforcement Visit our Web Site—http://www.dmv.ca.gov New Information (Cont.) §21213 prohibits a person less than 16 years of age from operating a class 3 electric bicycle. A person shall not operate a class 3 electric bicycle or ride as a passenger upon a street, bikeway, bicycle path or trail, unless that person is wearing a properly fitted, fastened, and approved bicycle helmet, which further applies to a passenger while in a restraining seat or trailer attached to the bicycle. §24016 requires electric bicycles to meet the following criteria: Comply with equipment and manufacturing requirements adopted by the United States Consumer Product Safety Commission. The electric mo tor must disengage or cease to function when the brakes are applied. Additionally, operators are subject to the following criteria: A person operating an electrical bicycle is not subject to financial responsibility, driver license, registration, and lice nse plate requirements. A person shall not tamper with or modify an electric bicycle to change the speed capability unless the person appropriately replaces the manufacturer label indicating the classification change. Contact Questions regarding the infor mation contained in this memo or changes to the e-mail distribution list may be directed to the Justice and Government Liaison Branch at (916) 657-7732 or via e-mail at jaglaw@dmv.ca.gov. RICO RUBIONO, Deputy Director Communication Programs Division Attachment 1 Attachment 3 Attachment No. 2 Regional Policies Thirteen local and regional, park agencies were surveyed including California State Parks, Cities of East Palo Alto, Palo Alto, Menlo Park, and San Jose. Counties of Santa Clara, Marin, Sonoma. East Bay Regional Parks District, Marin Municipal Water District, Santa Clara Valley Open Space Authority, Soquel Demonstration Forest (CalFire). Eight of the agencies allow ebikes on paved roadways and paths, four do not. Four agencies allow them on natural roads, trails and paths, eight do not. One agency is in the process of allowing class 1 and 2 on paved surfaces and considering class 1 and 2 for unpaved trails. Agency Allow on Paved Trails Allow on Unpaved Trails Comments California State Parks* Yes Yes Class 1 and 2 only where bikes are permitted. Individual units can have different rules. City of East Palo Alto* No No They are in the process of amending their municipal code to allow e-bikes on paved bicycle paths which includes a section of the Bay Trail south of Bay Rd which is managed by the City of Palo Alto. City of Palo Alto* No No Currently only allow e-bikes under ADA but will consider amending ordinance to be consistent with neighboring agencies for Bay Trail management. City of Menlo Park* Yes No Allows all classes of e-bikes on paved trails, including Bay Trail. City of San Jose Yes No Class 1 and 2 only where bikes are permitted East Bay Regional Parks District Yes No Allows all classes of e-bikes on selected paved trails only. Marin County Parks and Open Space Policy being revised to allow class 1 and 2 e-bikes on paved bicycle and multi-use pathways. Class 3 allowed only on roadways and parking lots. Considering study to allow class 1 and 2 on unpaved trails. Attachment 3 Marin Municipal Water District No No Have formed a citizens advisory committee to provide a citizen perspective on the potential usage of e-bikes on MMWD’s watershed lands. San Mateo County Parks * Yes Yes Class 1 and 2 only where bikes are allowed. However, allowed bicycle use is limited. Santa Clara County Parks* Yes Yes Class 1 and 2 only where bikes are permitted, paved and unpaved. Santa Clara Valley OSA * Yes Yes No formal policy for or against, do not see a lot of them. Gathering more info to make policy recommendation. Considering class 1, possibly 2. No class 3. Sonoma County Parks Yes No Class 1 and 2 only where bikes are permitted Soquel State Demonstration Forest (CalFire) No No Does not allow e-bikes. * These agencies manage lands with local and regional trail connections to District lands Attachment 3 THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR WASHINGTON ORDER NO . 3 3 7 6 Subject: Increasing Recreational Opportunities through the use of Electric Bikes Sec . 1 Purpose. This Order is intended to increase recreational opportunities for all Americans , especially those with physical limitations , and to encourage the enjoyment of lands and waters managed by the Department of the Interior (Department). This Order simplifies and unifies regulation of electric bicycles ( e-bikes) on Federal lands managed by the Department and also decreases regulatory burden. Sec. 2 Authorities. This Order is issued under the authority of section 2 of Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1950 (64 Stat. 1262), as amended , as well as other relevant statutes. Sec. 3 Background. Bicycling is an excellent way for visitors to Federal lands to experience America ' s rich natural heritage. Bicycling has been popular in America since the early nineteenth century. Since then, innovation in the design and production of bicycles has dramatically increased mechanical efficiency , opening bicycling to a greater number of people in a larger number of environmental and geographical conditions. A relatively recent addition to the design of some bicycles is a small electric motor which can provide an electric power assist to the operation of the bicycle. Reducing the physical demand to operate a bicycle has expanded access to recreational opportunities , particularly to those with limitations stemming from age, illness, disability or fitness , especially in more challenging environments , such as high altitudes or hilly terrain. While e-bikes are operable in the same manner as other types of bicycles and in many cases they appear virtually indistinguishable from other types of bicycles, the addition of a small motor has caused regulatory uncertainty regarding whether e-bikes should be treated in the same manner as other types of bicycles or, alternatively, considered to be motor vehicles. This uncertainty must be clarified . To resolve this uncertainty the Consumer Product Safety Act (Act) provides useful guidance. That Act defines a "low-speed electric bicycle" to include a "two-or three-wheeled vehicle with fully operable pedals and an electric motor ofless than 750 watts (1 h.p ,), whose maximum speed on a paved level surface, when powered solely by such a motor while ridden by an operator who weighs 170 pounds, is less than 20 mph", subjecting these low-speed e-bikes to the same consumer product regulations as other types of bicycles (15 U.S.C. § 2085). A majority of States have essentially followed this definition in some form. Uncertainty about the regulatory status of e-bikes has led the Federal land management agencies to impose restrictive access policies treating e-bikes as motor vehicles , often inconsistent with State and local regulations for adjacent areas . The possibility that in some cases e-bikes can be propelled solely through power provided by the electric motor, a function often used in short duration by older Attachment No. 3 Attachment 3 2 or disabled riders as an assist, has contributed to confusion about e-bike classification. Further, Federal regulation has not been consistent across the Department and has served to decrease access to Federally owned lands bye-bike riders. Sec. 4 Policy. Consistent with governing laws and regulations: a) For the purpose ofthis Order, "e-bikes" shall mean "low-speed electric bicycle" as defined by 15 U.S.C. § 2085 and falling within one of the following classifications: i) "Class 1 electric bicycle" shall mean an electric bicycle equipped with a motor that provides assistance only when the rider is pedaling, and that ceases to provide assistance when the bicycle reaches the speed of 20 miles per hour; ii) "Class 2 electric bicycle" shall mean an electric bicycle equipped with a motor that may be used exclusively to propel the bicycle , and that is not capable of providing assistance when the bicycle reaches the speed of 20 miles per hour; and iii) "Class 3 electric bicycle" shall mean an electric bicycle equipped with a motor that provides assistance only when the rider is pedaling, and that ceases to provide assistance when the bicycle reaches the speed of28 miles per hour. b) E-bikes shall be allowed where other types of bicycles are allowed; and c) E-bikes shall not be allowed where other types of bicycles are prohibited. Sec. 5 Implementation. I direct the Assistant Secretaries for Fish and Wildlife and Parks, Land and Minerals Management, and Water and Science, as appropriate, to do the following: a) Within 14 days of the date of this Order, unless otherwise prohibited by law or regulation: i) To the extent existing regulations allow, adopt a Bureau/Service-wide policy that conforms to the policy set forth in Sec. 4 of this Order; ii) Amend or rescind any prior written policies as appropriate; iii) Instruct the Director, Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) to develop a proposed rule to revise 50 CFR § 25.12 and any associated regulations to be consistent with this Order, add a definition fore-bikes consistent with 15 U .S.C. § 2085, and expressly exempt all e-bikes as defined in Sec. 4a from falling under the definition of off-road vehicle; iv) Instruct the Director, National Park Service (NPS) to develop a proposed rule to revise 36 CFR § 1.4 and any associated regulations to be consistent with this Order, add a definition fore-bikes consistent with 15 U.S.C. § 2085, and expressly exempt all e-bikes as defined in Sec. 4a from the definition of motor vehicles; Attachment No. 4 Attachment 3 3 v) Instruct the Director, Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to develop a proposed rule to revise 43 CFR § 8340.0 -5 and any associated regulations to be consistent with this Order, add a definition fore-bikes consistent with 15 U.S.C. § 2085 , and expressly exempt all e-bikes as defined in Sec. 4a from the definition of off-road vehicles or motorized vehicles; and vi) Instruct the Commissioner, Bureau of Reclamation (BOR) to develop a proposed rule to revise 43 CFR § 420.5 and any associated regulations to be consistent with this Order, add a definition fore-bikes consistent with 15 U.S.C. § 2085, and expressly exempt all e-bikes as defined in Sec. 4a from the definition of off-road vehicles . b) Within 30 days of the date of this Order, submit a report to the Secretary including: i) A summary of the policy changes enacted in response to this Order; ii) A summary of any laws or regulations that prohibit the full adoption of the policy described by this Order; and iii) A timeline to seek public comment on changing any regulation described above. c) Within 30 days of the date of this Order, provide appropriate public guidance regarding the use of e-bikes on public lands within units of the National Park System, National Wildlife Refuge System, lands managed by BLM, and lands managed by BOR. Sec. 6 Effect of the Order. This Order is intended to improve the internal management of the Department. This Order and any resulting reports or recommendations are not intended to, and do not create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or equity by a party against the United States, its departments, agencies, instrumentalities or entities, its officers or employees, or any other person. To the extent there is any inconsistency between the provisions of this Order and any Federal laws or regulations, the laws or regulations will control. Sec. 7 Expiration Date. This Order is effective immediately. It will remain in effect until its provisions are implemented and completed, or until it is amended, superseded, or revoked. Secretary of the Interior Date: AUG 2 9 201 9 Attachment No. 4 Attachment 3 PREPARED FOR: Bicycle Product Suppliers Association PREPARED BY: The International Mountain Bicycling Association Trail Solutions Program PO Box 20280 Boulder, CO 80308 SOLUTIONSTRAIL Attachment No. 4 A Comparison of Environmental Impacts from Mountain Bicycles, Class 1 Electric Mountain Bicycles, and Motorcycles: Soil Displacement and Erosion on Bike-‐Optimized Trails in a Western Oregon Forest Attachment 3 2 Table of Contents Abstract ................................................................................................................................................... 3 Introduction ........................................................................................................................................... 5 What is an eMTB? .......................................................................................................................................... 5 What's Needed ................................................................................................................................................ 6 Where to Start ................................................................................................................................................. 6 IMBA’s Role in Studying eMTBs .............................................................................................................. 7 Study Goals ...................................................................................................................................................... 7 Study Hypotheses ......................................................................................................................................... 7 Study Area .............................................................................................................................................. 9 Test Trail .......................................................................................................................................................... 10 Study Methods ................................................................................................................................... 12 Site Preparation ............................................................................................................................................ 12 Controlled Variables ................................................................................................................................... 12 Cross-Sectional Area “CSA” Measurements ................................................................................... 13 Condition Class Assessment (“CCA”) ................................................................................................ 14 Data Analysis ................................................................................................................................................ 15 Study Results ..................................................................................................................................... 16 Change in Tread Surface .......................................................................................................................... 16 Class 1 eMTBs vs. Traditional Mountain Bicycles ......................................................................... 18 ANOVA & Tukey HSD Test ....................................................................................................................... 19 Condition Class Assessment ................................................................................................................. 20 Discussion .......................................................................................................................................... 21 Study Limitations ......................................................................................................................................... 21 Access Implications for Land Managers ........................................................................................... 21 Conclusion .......................................................................................................................................... 23 Appendix A: Throttle Test ............................................................................................................. 24 Throttle Observations: Mini Test .......................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined. Appendix B: Literature Review ................................................................................................... 25 Literature Cited .................................................................................................................................. 27 Attachment No. 3 Attachment 3 3 Abstract In the fall of 2015, under contract with the Bicycle Product Suppliers Association (BPSA), with counsel from a field of recreation management experts, and through a review of existing studies of erosional impacts from trail users, the International Mountain Bicycling Association (IMBA) conducted a scientifically controlled field study designed to measure relative levels of soil displacement and erosion resulting from traditional mountain bicycles, electric mountain bicycles (eMTBs), and traditional off-road motorcycles (i.e. dirt bikes). The observations were compiled in controlled environmental conditions, with each type of bike making multiple passes on separated sections of the same trail within a single test site. IMBA developed these hypotheses for this small initial study: • Soil displacement and erosion caused by mountain biking will be consistent with existing studies showing relatively low impact as with other types of non-motorized travel on this type trail (a bike-optimized trail also considered a sustainable trail) and this set of local conditions. • Soil displacement and erosion from Class 1 eMTBs will likely fall somewhere between those caused by mountain bikes and motorcycles. It is expected that they will much more closely resemble those of mountain bikes. • It is expected that Class 1 eMTBs may lead to greater soil displacement under certain conditions, such as through turns, including bermed turns; on ascents and descents; and where there are abrupt changes in trail conditions. Results from the field experiment show that, under this set of conditions, soil displacement and tread disturbance from Class 1 eMTBs1 and traditional mountain bikes were not significantly different, and both were much less than those associated with a gasoline-powered motorcycle. Understanding the potential resource impacts of trail-based recreation is a necessary and important first step for formulating management strategies. This is especially important for new types of recreational pursuits, such as the fast emerging power-assisted vehicles like eMTBs. Additional research is needed to further assess the range of environmental and social impacts for successful eMTB use on public lands. Mountain bicycling is a solely muscle-powered activity, and is thus regulated as a non-motorized use, along with hiking, trail running, and horseback riding. eMTBs are not entirely muscle- powered. IMBA recognizes that eMTBs, particularly Class 1 eMTBs, are substantially different from other motorized uses, and may warrant a separate category and new management strategies. IMBA does not have an advocacy interest in this Class 1 eMTB study, but is leading this study 1 A “Class 1 electric bicycle,” or “low-speed pedal-assisted electric bicycle,” is a bicycle equipped with a motor that provides assistance only when the rider is pedaling, and that ceases to provide assistance when the bicycle reaches the speed of 20 miles per hour. Attachment No. 3 Attachment 3 4 as a respected partner of land management agencies; to further knowledge about recreational trails; and to inform future discussions with members, chapters, land mangers, the bike industry, and other user groups. Attachment No. 3 Attachment 3 5 Introduction The emergence of electric bicycles, commonly known as e-bikes, is a rapidly growing component of the bicycle market in the US (MacArthur and Kobel, 2014). As a transportation option, they represent an opportunity to reduce vehicle use and emissions, as well as the physical barriers to cycling. For use on trails, they present similar opportunities to reduce barriers to cycling but, as a new use, present new challenges for trail management. While already popular in Europe, the use of eMTBs is on the rise in North America, and their increased presence is sparking controversy within the trail user community. Electric mountain bikes are generally defined as motorized vehicles for the purposes of trail use on federal lands, with states and municipalities expected to make their own decisions. All trail users affect the trail surface and surrounding environment, especially when trails are poorly constructed. Those impacts range from vegetation loss to soil erosion, and related water quality problems. However, there is no evidence that traditional mountain bicycling causes greater environmental impact than other recreational trail uses. In fact, current research suggests that mountain bicycling impacts are similar to hiking, and less damaging than equestrian and motorized users. There have been no studies of the environmental impacts of eMTBs specifically, but there exist numerous studies on the impacts of both mountain bicycles and off-road motorcycles, which provide a basis for developing research protocols. One could speculate that the impacts of eMTBs on trails would fall somewhere between the two modes, but this is a rather wide span, particularly regarding soil displacement under certain trail conditions, e.g., turn exits, steep grades, and/or non-cohesive soils. The lack of existing data may contribute to poor trail management decisions that may either unnecessarily ban eMTBs from trails or allow them where their impacts will be disproportionate to their use. An understanding of how eMTBs affect the environment and trail management is needed so that land managers and the communities that support them can make informed access decisions. The purpose of this study was not to decide whether eMTBs should be regulated as bicycles or motorcycles, or whether they are appropriate for shared-use on non-motorized trails. These decisions are for land managers to make in consultation with their recreation community. This report provides an understanding of some of physical impacts to trails associated with this use, and how these might differ from those associated with traditional mountain bicycles. What is an eMTB? A Class 1 eMTB is an e-bike that can be pedaled under human power alone as well as pedaled with the assistance of a battery-powered electric motor. eMTBs are capable of and primarily designed for off-road use, with wider, lugged tires, a sturdier frame, and front or dual suspension Attachment No. 3 Attachment 3 6 systems. State traffic codes and regulations apply to transportation routes (e.g. streets and bike paths) only and have no bearing on recreational routes (e.g. singletrack trails), so it is up to land management agencies at each level of government to define their own rules and regulations regarding eMTB use. The current definition of eMTBs defines them as motorized vehicles for the purposes of recreational trail use on federal lands, with states and municipalities looking to federal agencies for guidance. However, states and municipalities generally have greater flexibility in defining trail access than federal agencies. What's Needed An understanding of how eMTBs affect the environment and trail management is needed so that land managers and the communities that support them can make informed decisions about trail design, construction, and management. In order to achieve a better understanding of the impacts of eMTBs on the trail landscape, several factors need to be studied: • Test Riding: Comparison of eMTBs alongside mountain bicycles and motorcycles helps understand how eMTBs perform and are used on trails, what the experience is, and how that might affect other trail users. • Test Trails: It is likely that impacts to trails are somewhere between mountain bikes and motorcycles, but this is unknown. Test trails are needed to understand and measure the effects on trails directly and to the surrounding environment. Future efforts should focus on developing and testing eMTB-specific trails. • Special considerations for trail design, construction, and maintenance o Grade, turns, jumps, and trail direction are some of the trail design and management characteristics that could be affected. o Weight: eMTBs are considerably heavier than mountain bicycles but as technologies improve, weight may become less and less of a factor and may ultimately be indistinguishable from regular mountain bicycles. o Ascending trails: eMTBs make ascending even very steep and technical trails easier. Power and ability to keep weight over rear wheel can help to maintain traction. • How the trail experience is similar to and differs from mountain bicycling Empirical study is the best way to understand the impacts and make reasonable assertions regarding environmental and social effects. Where to Start There are a host of potential environmental impacts to the landscape from any trail user, from soil erosion to the spread of invasive species and wildlife impacts. For this initial study, it was important to select a project suitable for the scope and that would provide meaningful initial data Attachment No. 3 Attachment 3 7 for future studies. Soil displacement and erosion were selected as the best choice for this first small-scale study. “Soil erosion is the single most important, managerially significant trail degradation indicator.” (Jewell & Hammitt, 2000) IMBA’s Role in Studying eMTBs IMBA has an interest in continuing to deliver best practices in trail construction and management. IMBA does not directly gain from this study. A cursory look at IMBA’s eMTB user survey, along with the comments on blog posts and magazine articles, suggests that IMBA risk the ire of a share of its members in engaging in this study. While eMTBs are motorized, they most closely resemble traditional mountain bicycles and have the potential to impact mountain bicyclists more than other users. As such, IMBA has an obligation to provide information to land managers, its members, and trail communities in managing and creating experiences appropriate for this evolving use. As the leader in trail design, construction, and management, IMBA possesses the requisite set of skills to provide technical assistance to study the effects of eMTBs on trails. Likewise, IMBA’s role in providing user management resources to land managers makes it imperative that IMBA take a leadership role in identifying conflicts and opportunities presented by the advent and evolution of eMTBs. Study Goals The goals of the study are to: • Further IMBA’s overall knowledge base regarding trail design, trail construction, and environmental impacts related to mountain biking and other trail uses. • Provide an objective analysis of the physical impacts of Class 1 eMTBs relative to traditional mountain bikes and traditional dirt bikes by measuring soil displacement after hundreds of passes on a controlled course. • Gather information regarding possible social impacts associated with Class 1 eMTBs. • Provide land managers with data and analysis to assist them in making informed decisions regarding appropriate access. • Create a baseline of data about the impacts of Class 1 eMTBs, which will inform what types of additional studies are warranted. Study Hypotheses • Soil displacement and erosion caused by mountain biking will be consistent with existing studies showing relatively low impact as with other types of non-motorized travel on this Attachment No. 3 Attachment 3 8 type of trail (a bike-optimized trail is also considered a sustainable trail) and this set of local conditions. • Soil displacement and erosion from Class 1 eMTBs will likely fall somewhere between those caused by mountain bikes and motorcycles. It is expected that they will much more closely resemble those of mountain bikes. • It is expected that Class 1 eMTBs may lead to greater soil displacement under certain conditions, such as through turns, including bermed turns; on ascents and descents; and where there are abrupt changes in trail conditions. Attachment No. 3 Attachment 3 9 Study Area The study took place on existing trails on Bureau of Land Management (BLM) lands in Northwest Oregon. The BLM and IMBA have a regional assistance agreement to cooperate in trail related planning, design, and research. The test trail sections were on low-use bike- optimized trails, designed and constructed using IMBA best management practices, with short sections of former extraction roads used to create short loops for each mode. Topography of the test site is generally north-facing aspect with moderate slopes ranging from 20-50%, at elevations ranging from 2,100-2,300 feet (640-700 m). Average rainfall is 80 inches per year (203 cm), with a temperate climate characterized by wet winter and spring, and dry summer months. Soils in the area are well draining, comprised of volcanic Zygore gravelly loams, with parent material of volcanic ash over colluvium derived from basalt and andesite. (NRCS, 2016.) Prior to testing, soils were consistently very dry across the test site, the area having experienced lower than average spring precipitation. The vegetation is typical of Western Cascade foothills, dominated by a Douglas fir-Western hemlock forest community, with Western red cedar, red alder, and big leaf maple also common. Understory is comprised primarily of Oregon grape (Mahonia sp), salal (Gaultheria shallon), and sword fern (Polystichum minutum); with grasses and blackberry (Rubus discolor and R. ursinus) dominating along open roadbeds. Attachment No. 3 Attachment 3 10 Figure 1. Study Area: BLM Managed Lands near Sandy, Oregon. BLM lands are shown in yellow. Test Trail The section of trail was selected for several reasons: • It has several bermed turns and runs, connected by an old access road up the middle. This was used to break the trail into short loop sections that have similar conditions for testing of each mode efficiently. • It sees relatively low use, compared with most other trails in the area, meaning closures during testing periods were accomplished with minimal impact to users. • IMBA staff designed and constructed the trails and were familiar with the terrain and soil conditions. • Vehicle access is restricted, so it was unlikely that any unauthorized users, especially motorized users, would access the trail. • Trail users are accustomed to the sounds of motorized machinery (in this case, dirt bikes) and trail closures for trail construction. • The test site was not visible from trail closure points at intersections. No warranty is made by the Bureau of Land Management as to the accuracy, reliability or completeness of these data for individual or aggregate use with other data. Original data were compiled from various sources. This information may not meet National Map Accuracy Standards. This product was developed through digital means and may be updated without notification. For internal use only. Scale 1: March 18, 2016 https://webmaps.blm.gov/Geocortex/Html5Viewer/index.html?viewer=rmpwo_interactive_map 63,999 Miles 0 2.02 BLM Lands - Mt Hood Area Plan Boundary Lands managed under separate RMPs Lands managed under the RMPWO Township and Range Sections County Boundary Resource Area Boundary Coastline Waterbodies Perennial Lake / Reservoir Intermittent Lake Swamp / Marsh Estuary Playa Areas Stream/Rivers, Other (Canal Ditch, Spillway, etc.) Wash Wetlands Highways - Large Scale Interstate US Highway State Highway Unknown Jurisdiction Highway Ramps, Frontage Roads, Spurs, Connectors Land Ownership Bureau of Land Management U.S. Forest Service National Park Service U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Bureau of Indian Affairs Other Federal State Local Government Private/Unknown Attachment No. 3 Attachment 3 11 The trail was closed during preparation and testing. Trail construction warning and temporary closure signs were placed at access points to this trail section and at key decision points within the trail system in order to restrict use outside of test laps. Given the potential for controversy regarding eMTBs among the mountain bicycling community, care was taken in not disclosing the location of the test site prior to and during field testing to avoid tampering with the test site. Attachment No. 3 Attachment 3 12 Study Methods Site Preparation • Test trails were along the same section of trail, with no intersections. • Test loops ranged from 1900 to 3100 feet (~600 to 950 m) in length, comprised of a contour singletrack descending section, with rollers, dips, and a bermed turn. Singletrack trail sections were connected into loops using an old roadbed. Each roadbed climb had two at-grade steep turns (20-25% grade) and a straight run at 12-15% grade. • Ten permanent sample sites were set up on each loop to observe and record cross- sectional areas (CSA). Seven sample sites were established on each singletrack section, with three sample sites on each roadbed section. • Sample sites were paired to match trail conditions for each loop (e.g. each had sample sites at comparable locations on bermed turns, road bed climbs, trail grade, tread texture, etc.). Sample sites were selected to capture a range of trail conditions. o Two plastic survey stakes (16” x 2”) were placed at each sample location, perpendicular to the trail tread, 51.2 inches (130 cm) apart (the span of the CSA measurement tool), as measured from the center of the stake head. Stakes were placed into the ground so that the head was flush with the surface. Efforts were made to keep stake heads as close to level as possible, in some cases meaning that part of the head of the stake was countersunk. o Each stake was identified with the sample site number and a letter indicating whether it was on the uphill (“A”) or downhill (“B”) side of the tread. For roadbed locations, or where uphill and downhill was not obvious, the left side marker (as one faced the trail in the direction of travel for the test) was labeled as “uphill” (“A”). o In order to ensure that the sampling location could be relocated in the event of tampering or other damage to the placement of the markers, survey marker locations were measured from reference tree markers (round pre-numbered aluminum tags, affixed to trees using aluminum nails). The distance (to 0.1 cm) and bearing to two tree markers was recorded for each survey marker location. Controlled Variables To the extent feasible given the study scope, effort was made to control for environmental, equipment, and rider variables. Environmental variables controlled across sample sites include: • Soil type • Soil moisture • Vegetation type and canopy cover • Level of use • Tread texture and surface stability Attachment No. 3 Attachment 3 13 • Trail feature (e.g. roller, dip, insloped turn) • Trail grade Equipment and rider variables controlled: • Wheel size (for MTB and Class 1 eMTB) • Tire make and model (for MTB and Class 1 eMTB) • Tire pressure (for MTB and Class 1 eMTB) • Rider skill and weight Cross-Sectional Area “CSA” Measurements • A CSA tool was created to allow for consistent, replicable measurements at each sample station (Figure 2). The CSA tool was placed at a fixed height on the uphill side, at 30 cm above the survey marker surface. The downhill side was adjusted in height until level along the horizontal. • Three levels were monitored (1 horizontal axis and 2 vertical axes) throughout the sampling to maintain consistent measurements. Measurements were replicable to +/-1 mm at each interval. Figure 2: Layout of trail transect and formula for calculating CSA. (From: (Cole, 1983) • CSA was measured at each sampling station. Vertical measurements were captured using the CSA tool at 10 cm intervals across the trail tread, up to 120 cm from the uphill side fixed marker. • Measurements were taken at 0 (prior to test), 50, 100, 200, and 500 laps for Class 1 eMTB and mountain bike modes. Motorcycle mode was measured at 0, 50, 100, and 200 laps. • Motorcycle laps were discontinued after 200 laps due to concerns regarding tread damage. Attachment No. 3 Attachment 3 14 • All test riders were advanced to expert riders and were asked to ride as they normally would. • CSA measurements and photos were taken at 0, 50, 100, 200, and 500 laps. • Soil moisture was captured at each sample location twice daily during testing (in the morning and afternoon) using a HydroSense soil moisture meter (volumetric water content measured at 6-12 cm depth). • Additional observations captured include disturbance area and condition class along the entire tread (not just at sample sites). Figure 3. CSA measurements along the test trail loops at permanent sampling stations. Condition Class Assessment (“CCA”) A CCA was used to assess the overall impact of experimental treatments along the full length of each trail segment (not exclusively at sampling sites). CCAs are commonly used in trail assessments to provide rapid, qualitative evaluations of site conditions. Classes were modified to reflect the range of disturbance conditions at this test site. (Jewell & Hammitt, 2000; J. L. Marion & Leung, 2001) Condition'Class'Assessment Description Depth,(loose, soil),,cm Trench, depth,,cm CC1 no,to,minimal,disturbance,,not,visibly,different,from,start,condition <0.5 <0.5 CC2 minor,disturbance,,less,than,half,tread,width,,noticable,soil/litter, movement 0.5C2 <0.5 CC3 moderate,disturbance,,greater,than,half,of,tread,width,,noticable,soil, movement,,loose,soil,evident 2.0C4.0 0.5C2.0 CC4 high,disturbance,,loose,soil,common,throughout,tread,,accumulation, evident,,some,trenching/breaking,tread,evident 4.0C6.0 2.0C4.0 CC5 severe,disturbance,,trenching,and,piling,of,soil >6cm >4.0 Attachment No. 3 Attachment 3 15 Data Analysis • Data preparation: Any soil movement or change in the tread surface is important to capture, not just soil loss. Loose soil is often pushed to the side such that no change in total CSA would be measured, but this loose soil is available for erosion. Total change in soil surface is used, whether an increase or decrease was recorded (absolute value of change from 0-lap measurement). • For group pairs, t-tests (two-sample and Welch) were used to compare sample means. Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) was used to compare sample groups, with a Tukey Honest Significant Difference test (Tukey HSD) as a post-hoc test to determine significance for group pairs. • Data were transformed as needed to meet test assumptions. • Data analysis was conducted using R (The R Foundation, version 2.15.1). Attachment No. 3 Attachment 3 16 Study Results This small study represents a very limited set of site and user conditions, the results of which may or may not be replicated in other locations and test conditions. No broad conclusions should be made from the observations presented. Change in Tread Surface One way to visualize soil movement (displacement and/or erosion) is to show a profile of trail sample sites. In order to compare paired sites (sample sites with similar trail conditions: slope, grade, texture, and feature), only the change in tread surface is shown and absolute values are used so that both soil increases and decreases can be illustrated, as any soil movement was important to capture. This allows for side-by-side comparison of sample sites by trail condition. A few selected sample sites are shown below (Figures 4-6). Figure 4. Trail profiles at 0 and 500 laps (200 laps for motorcycle). These show change in tread surface from the 0 lap measurement. For the motorcycle, you can see both trenching and piling of soil material as soil is displaced side-to-side and pushed downslope. These are from comparable sample sites on the roadbed. The sample site illustrated in Figure 4 is for a short steep climb on a roadbed. Under these site conditions, the mountain bicycle and Class 1 eMTB show similar soil movement (low), while the the motorcycle showed much greater soil displacement and erosion (large dip). The motorcycle engages a throttle for propulsion that moves the wheels even in the event of a loss of traction. This can lead to considerable soil movement, as is seen in Figure 4. !16$ !14$ !12$ !10$ !8$ !6$ !4$ !2$ 0$ 2$ 4$ V0$V1$V2$V3$V4$V5$V6$V7$V8$V9$V10$V11$ Ch a n g e ' i n ' t r e a d ' s u r f a c e , ' c m ' Tread'cross'sec4on,'ver4cal'measurements'at'10'cm'intervals' Roadbed'climb' 0$laps$ Mountain$Bike$ eMTB$ Motorcycle*$ Attachment No. 3 Attachment 3 17 Figure 5. Trail profiles at 0 and 500 laps (0 and 200 for motorcycle). These show change in tread surface from the 0 lap measurement. Measurements taken at 10 cm intervals across each sample site, perpendicular to the trail. Greater soil displacement is seen for the Class 1 eMTB than for the mountain bicycle (some tread holes were observed forming), but much less than for the motorcycle. These are from comparable sample locations at the upper leg of a bermed turn. The sample site illustrated in Figure 5 is at a berm entrance, in the descending direction. Under these site conditions, the mountain bicycle showed the least amount of soil movement and the Class 1 eMTB showed slightly greater soil movement (both at 500 laps). However, both modes represent relatively little soil movement compared to the motorcycle (at 200 laps). As in Figure 4, there is a large dip in the tread, showing soil loss at the tread center from the motorcycle. All modes are likely braking while approaching a turn, though the inslope of the berm allows users to carry more speed than in other kinds of turns (e.g. switchbacks). In this situation, the combination of approaching speed and the mass of the vehicle could be affecting the soil movement differently: The Class 1 eMTB could allow users to approach the turn more quickly leading to greater soil movement upon braking and/or simply the weight difference (approximately 8 kg/20 lbs) could be sufficient to produce this result. Similarly, but on a much greater scale, the motorcycle can both approach the turn more quickly and has a much greater mass than either the Class 1 eMTB or the mountain bike (motorcycle weight plus protective equipment is roughly 250 lbs; engine output ranges approximately 100-200 times that of the potential output for this 350W Class 1 eMTB motor). !5# !4# !3# !2# !1# 0# 1# 2# V0#V1#V2#V3#V4#V5#V6#V7#V8#V9#V10#V11# Ch a n g e ' i n ' t r e a d ' s u r f a c e , ' c m ' Tread'cross'sec4on,'ver4cal'measurements'at'10'cm'intervals' Berm'entrance' 0#Laps# Mountain#Bike# eMTB# Motorcycle*# Attachment No. 3 Attachment 3 18 Figure 6. Sample site: Exit from bermed turn, descending direction The sample site illustrated in Figure 6 is for an exit from a bermed turn, in the descending direction. Under these site conditions, all modes show little soil movement. A typical wheeled user under these trail conditions would be simply rolling through the site, using little to no braking and no pedaling or throttle engagement. With a durable tread, as was the case for this study, no soil movement was measurable under these user conditions (simply rolling along the tread). Class 1 eMTBs vs. Traditional Mountain Bicycles Because the motorcycle was only tested to 200 laps, a direct comparison could not be made with the Class 1 eMTBs and mountain bicycles at 500 laps. However, this data point still provides valuable information for the study. While the average change in tread surface across all 10 sample sites was greater for Class 1 eMTBs than for mountain bicycles, there was considerable site to site variability, especially for mountain bicycle sites, as shown by the error bars in Figure 7. When comparing Class 1 eMTBs to mountain bicycles, a simple t-test could be used for analysis (Table 1). Table 1. Comparison of average change in tread surface for Class 1 eMTBs and mountain bicycles at 200 and 500 laps using Two Sample t-test. There was no significant difference between the modes (α=0.05) at either 200 or 500 laps. pair laps t p(value eMTB(MTB 200 0.3638 0.7202 eMTB(MTB 500 (1.1122 0.2807 !5# !4# !3# !2# !1# 0# 1# 2# V0#V1#V2#V3#V4#V5#V6#V7#V8#V9#V10#V11# Ch a n g e ' i n ' t r e a d ' s u r f a c e , ' c m ' Tread'cross'sec4on,'ver4cal'measurements'at'10cm'intervals' Berm'exit' 0#Laps# Mountain#Bike# eMTB# Motorcycle*# Attachment No. 3 Attachment 3 19 In considering average change in tread surface by mode after 200 laps, a difference between motorcycle impacts and those associated with Class 1 eMTBs and mountain bicycles is readily apparent (Figure 8). However, there is high variability among the motorcycle group of sample sites (note the span of error bars for “DB200”), as some sites experienced large amounts of soil displacement and rutting, while others showed little to no soil movement. ANOVA and Tukey HSD Test An analysis of variance (ANOVA) was conducted to determine if there was a significant difference between groups where more than two groups are compared, in this case: Change in tread surface for motorcycle, Class 1 eMTB, and mountain bicycle after 200 laps. Data were log transformed in order to meet test assumptions. The ANOVA showed that there was a significant difference between groups (F=5.822, p-value=0.0079), but this test cannot show which groups were different. The Tukey HSD Test is a post-hoc test, used following the ANOVA to identify which groups had significant differences. This test revealed that there was a significant difference between change in tread surface from motorcycles (DB) and that of both Class 1 eMTBs and traditional mountain bicycles (MTB) (p=0.0173 and p=0.0169, respectively; see Table 2). There was no significant difference between Class 1 eMTBs and mountain bicycles (p=0.9999). 0" 50" 100" 150" 200" 250" 300" 350" MTB$200$eMTB$200$DB$200$ Change$in$tread$surface$area$a6er$200$ laps$by$each$mode$(cm2)$ Figure 8. Average change in tread surface (absolute value) per sample site transect (cm2) after 200 laps. Error bars represent 95% confidence intervals. Attachment No. 3 Attachment 3 20 Table 2. Tukey HSD Test results following significant ANOVA result. Fields highlighted in blue show significant results by mode pairs. Condition Class Assessment Figure 9. Tread disturbance by mode, after 500 passes. Total represents any disturbance (CC2 or greater; CC1 is no noticeable disturbance and is not included here). 0%# 10%# 20%# 30%# 40%# 50%# 60%# 70%# 80%# 90%# total#CC2#CC3#CC4#or#5# %" D i s t u r b a n c e " Mountain#Bike# eMTB# Motorcycle# lower&&&&&&&&upper eMTB,DB&,0.9931 ,1.8282 ,0.1580 0.0173 MTB,DB&&&,0.9976 ,1.8327 ,0.1625 0.0168 MTB,eMTB&,0.0045 ,0.8396 0.8306 0.9999 &&Difference& in&means&&&& p,value& (adjusted)Mode&pair 95%&Confidence&Interval Attachment No. 3 Attachment 3 21 Discussion All trail users affect the trail surface and surrounding environment, especially when trails are poorly constructed. Those impacts range from vegetation loss to soil erosion, water-quality degradation, and disruption of wildlife. However, there is no evidence that mountain bicycling causes greater environmental impact than other recreational trail uses. In fact current research suggests that mountain bicycling impacts are similar to hiking, and less damaging than equestrian and motorized users. An emerging body of research suggests that when it comes to impacts to soils, water quality, and vegetation, the primary issue is not the type of user, but the way the trail is designed and constructed. IMBA conducted a small trail impact study that measured soil displacement and erosion from traditional mountain bicycles, Class 1 eMTBs, and motorcycles under the same environmental conditions on separated sections of the same trail, within a single test site. Analysis of data from this small-scale field experiment showed support for the hypotheses. Some differences between the impacts of Class 1 eMTBs and mountain bicycles were observed, particularly at turns and grade changes. However, the soil displacement measured in this study was not significantly different (statistically) from that associated with mountain bicycles, and was much less than that associated with motorcycle use. Electric-powered mountain bikes (eMTBs) are a new category of recreational use on public lands, a hybrid of muscle and electric power that falls between traditional motorized and non-motorized uses. Defining eMTBs as new category of recreation access will minimize impacts on access for mountain bikes and protect against an increase of motorized use on non-motorized trails. Study Limitations This was a small study, under a limited set of environmental and trail conditions, and user behavior. This study does not, and should not be interpreted to represent consensus on the environmental impacts of Class 1 eMTB. However, it is a first step in better understanding the physical impacts to tread surfaces from their use, and how these impacts may be similar to or different from other two-wheeled uses. Environmental impacts are only part of understanding how a new use, like eMTBs, on public lands may affect the environment, user management, and experiences for other trail users. Social and regulatory factors may be of greater importance in determining appropriate use and should also be studied. Access Implications for Land Managers IMBA strongly recommends that trail management decisions for any recreational user have a foundation in science. The impact of mountain bicycling on trails and the environment has been a leading management concern since the activity’s inception. Mountain bicyclists know acutely the experience of arbitrary decision-making based upon anecdotal observations of user behaviors Attachment No. 3 Attachment 3 22 and environmental impacts. As a new use, eMTBs will likely face similar scrutiny. Perception of impacts – both social and environmental – is an issue that Class 1 eMTBs face, in part because there are relatively few eMTBs currently on trails. Trail users and land managers have limited opportunity to observe and interact with this new use and may assume the worst in terms of impacts. Land managers should not just weigh environmental impacts, but should honestly address the social factors that also contribute to access decisions. While the environmental impacts of a particular trail use are an important consideration in management, social and regulatory factors also play a critical role. For good or bad, access is not based upon a hierarchy of environmental impacts. Equestrian use has much greater environmental impacts than mountain bicycling, but it is managed quite differently for social, historical, and regulatory reasons. It is important to keep this in mind when evaluating this new use. Attachment No. 3 Attachment 3 23 Conclusion This study found that the impacts from Class 1 eMTBs and traditional mountain bicycles were not significantly different, while motorcycles led to much greater soil displacement and erosion. Observations suggest that Class 1 eMTBs may lead to more displacement under certain trail conditions. More research is needed before conclusions can be drawn regarding the environmental impacts of Class 1 eMTBs as compared with traditional mountain bicycles. Understanding the potential resource impacts of Class 1 eMTBs is a necessary and important first step for formulating management strategies. Additional research is needed to further assess the range of environmental and social impacts for successful Class 1 eMTB use on public lands. IMBA’s initial study suggests that, with conscientious management and attention to trail design, Class 1 eMTBs may have the potential to offer a beneficial use of public lands with acceptable impacts. Attachment No. 3 Attachment 3 24 Appendix A: Throttle Observations: Mini Test This was a very limited test to begin to understand the differences between pedal-assist and throttle eMTBs. • Modes: MTB, pedal-assist eMTB, throttle-assist eMTB • Pedal/throttle assist eMTBs at highest power setting • Steep uphill: 40-45% grade over 4.5 m • All modes start from full stop 4 m before grade change • 50 laps each MTB vs. Pedal-Assist: Greater area of disturbance, but less depth. Throttle: Much greater area of disturbance, equal depth to Pedal-Assist. • Most impact at crest of climb 0" 2000" 4000" 6000" 8000" 10000" 12000" MTB"Pedal0Assist"Thro8le" So i l % d i s t u r b a n c e , % c m 3 % Total%disturbance%by%mode% Attachment No. 3 Attachment 3 25 Appendix B: Literature Review A literature review was conducted in developing the methods for this study. While no studies have looked at the effects of eMTBs explicitly, there have been numerous studies of mountain bicycles and motorcycles, presumably encompassing the range of potential environmental impacts associated with eMTBs. Other studies characterizing soil displacement and erosion in general, regardless of use, also informed the study design. • Wilson & Seney, 1994 – Erosion from experimentally applied mountain bicycling and motorcycles (also horses and hikers) on trails in Montana. Used existing trails, varying slopes, in wet conditions and dry. Applied rainfall to assess wet conditions and immediately following user passes to assess erosion. (Wilson & Seney, 1994) • Thurston & Reader, 2001 – Impacts of experimentally applied mountain bicycling on vegetation and soils in a deciduous forest (also hikers). Not on existing trails, but on designated tracks on varying slopes, applied varying user passes (25 to 1000), then measured vegetation and soil compaction. Assessed recovery after 1 year. (Thurston & Reader, 2001) • White et al, used point measurement of max incision and width in their observational study. ‘Cessford (1995a) discussed ecological impacts and presented several astute observations, though the majority of his conclusions were derived from other forms of recreation, such as hiking and off-road motorcycling. His most notable inference was that mountain bikes will generate the most torque during uphill travel, but considerably less pressure on the trail in comparison to other users when moving downhill, although degradation is possible “in extremely wet conditions, on uncompacted surfaces, or due to poor braking practices”’ (Gordon R. Cessford, 1995; White, Waskey, Brodehl, & Foti, 2006) • Existing mountain bicycle studies show greatest erosion at turns and on steep downhills. (Goeft and Alder, 2001; White, 2006). For motorcycles, turns are also an area of higher erosion, as are uphills. Check other citations for additional information. (Goeft & Alder, 2001; White et al., 2006) • All uses have greatest potential to cause damage to soils and vegetation in wet conditions. (B. J. Marion & Wimpey, 2007) • Olive & Marion (2009) – Variable CSA approach. Observational study, but methods useful. (Olive & Marion, 2009) • Wallin and Hardin 1996 – trail erosion using rainfall simulator. Insufficient resources for this study, but worth exploring for a future study to test under varying soil moisture conditions. (Wallin & Harden, 1996) • SA MTB study (Clement, 2010) – used CSA method to monitor and assess mountain bicycling trails in South Australia for Mountain Bike Australia. These trails were building using BMPs for mountain bicycling trails. CSA for 20 randomly placed points along each of two trails (under different soil and rainfall conditions). (Clement, 2010) Attachment No. 3 Attachment 3 26 • USFS comparison of trail erosion evaluation methods ranked CC Assessments highest overall when combining training required, efficiency, accuracy, precision, and management utility. (Jewell & Hammitt, 2000) • 2nd and 3rd ranked methods: census of erosional events and CSA (tied with Max Incision Post-construction). – CSA probably best for experiment versus an observational study. CSA –highest precision and accuracy, but low efficiency. • Cross-Sectional Area Method: “Soil erosion is the single most important, managerially significant trail degradation indicator. The cross-sectional method is probably the most frequently used, replicable method for monitoring purposefully located trail segments. This method may also be applied to systematically sampled locations for monitoring entire trail systems. The erosion or deposition of soil can be measured with very high precision and accuracy with this method. …. it involves a number of assumptions, including ability to relocate the fix points precisely, reference line elevated above surrounding vegetation, the line is kept taut, a level is used for the vertical measurements, the taut line is repositioned the same height above the fixed points, vertical measurements are taken at the same interval, and the vertical measurements are taken starting from the same side. For these reasons, training is the single most important factor in the proper application of this method. Adequate training is costly and thus a major limiting factor for managers.” (Jewell & Hammitt, 2000) Attachment No. 3 Attachment 3 27 Literature Cited Clement, S. (2010). Monitoring and Assessing the Long- term Environmental and Use Impacts on Selected Mountain Bike Trails in South Australia. Adelaide, South Australia. Cole, D. N. (1983). Assessing and Monitoring Backcountry Trail Conditions (No. INT-303). Ogden, UT. Goeft, U., & Alder, J. (2001). Sustainable Mountain Biking: A Case Study from the Southwest of Western Australia. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 9(3), 193–211. doi:10.1080/09669580108667398 Gordon R. Cessford. (1995). Off-Road Impacts of Mountain Bikes: A Review and Discussion. Department of Conservation. Wellington, New Zealand. Retrieved from http://www.mountainbike.co.nz/politics/doc/impacts/index.htm Jewell, M. C., & Hammitt, W. E. (2000). Assessing Soil Erosion on Trails : A Comparison of Techniques (No. RMRS-P-15-Vol-5). Marion, B. J., & Wimpey, J. (2007). Environmental Impacts of Mountain Biking: Science Review and Best Practices. Managing. Marion, J. L., & Leung, Y. (2001). Trail Resource Impacts and An Examination of Alternative Assessment Techniques. Journal of Park and Recreation Administration, 19(3), 17–37. Olive, N. D., & Marion, J. L. (2009). The influence of use-related, environmental, and managerial factors on soil loss from recreational trails. Journal of Environmental Management, 90(3), 1483–1493. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2008.10.004 Thurston, E., & Reader, R. J. (2001). Impacts of Experimentally Applied Mountain Biking and Hiking on Vegetation and Soil of a Deciduous Forest. Environmental Management, 27(3), 397–409. doi:10.1007/s002670010157 Wallin, T. R., & Harden, C. P. (1996). Estimating Trail-Related Soil Erosion in the Humid Tropics: Jatun Sacha, Ecuador, and La Selva, Costa Rica. Ambio, 25(8), 517–522. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/4314532 White, D. D., Waskey, M. T., Brodehl, G. P., & Foti, P. E. (2006). A Comparative Study of Impacts to Mountain Bike Trails in Five Common Ecological Regions of the Southwestern U . S . Journal of Park and Recreation Administration, 24(2), 21–42. Wilson, J. P., & Seney, J. P. (1994). EROSIONAL IMPACT OF HIKERS, HORSES, MOTORCYCLES, AND OFF-ROAD BICYCLES ON MOUNTAIN TRAILS IN MONTANA. Mountain Research and Development, 14(1), 77–88. Attachment No. 3 Attachment 3 28 Attachment No. 3 Attachment 3 Summary of JCOS e-bike Study Findings to Date 10/15/2017 Eight events in five locations: Crown Hill Park, North Table Mountain Park, Matthews/Winters Park, Apex Park and Lair o’ the Bear Park Visitor Intercept Survey n= 375 65% of park visitors are unable to detect the presence of a Class 1 e-bike. Acceptance of Class 1 e-bikes by trail type: YES 26% NO 65% NOT SURE 9% Ability to detect an e-bike? yes, all types 36% paved only 34% natural surface only 2% no 14% not sure 14% Acceptance by Trail Type Attachment 5 Attachment 3 Summary of Pre- and Post-demo Survey: n = 92 65% of participants indicated the demo changed their perception of e-bikes. Overall, demo improved acceptance. Overall, demo reduced uncertainty. YES 65% NO 32% NOT SURE 3% Did demo change perception? ALL 35% PAVED 15% MTN 2% NO 7% NOT SURE 41% Approve use by trail type BEFORE ALL 46% PAVED 20% MTN 4% NO 10% NOT SURE 20% Approve use by trail type AFTER Attachment 5 Attachment 3 Overview In April 2017, a study was conducted by the national non-profit bicycling advocacy group PeopleForBikes, with support from the industry association the Bicycle Product Suppliers Association to provide the Bureau of Land Management information that could guide decision- making about where, when, and how to manage e-MTBs. The study took place at four trailheads in the Fruita, CO area – one that provides access to motorized recreation (or “motorized” trail: Rabbit Valley), and three that provide access to non- motorized recreation (or “non-motorized” trails: 18 Road, Lunch Loops, Kokopelli). Specifically the study sought to answer the following questions: •What is your familiarity with, perception of, support of, and perceived benefits and barriers of eMTBs? •What would the social impacts be at the cycling areas that do not allow e-bike use if trails were opened for e-bike use? •Would people who currently do not use BLM bike trails start using those trails if e-bikes were allowed? Methodology Survey questions – one for the motorized trail users (http://bit.ly/2oZk2ew), and one for the non- motorized trail users (http://bit.ly/2qqTNiU) – were developed in partnership with the BLM, City of Fruita, PeopleForBikes, and the International Mountain Bicycling Association. These ten-minute intercept surveys were conducted among those local to and those visiting trails in Fruita, CO. The interview locations and timing (i.e. sampling plan) were designed to yield a representative sample of trail users: •Trailheads where motorized vehicles (including eMTBs) are not permitted and where they are permitted; •Visitors to the area and local residents; •Weekday and weekend users; and •Demographics (e.g., age, gender, etc.) The study was conducted on the following days and times: •Motorized trail: o Saturday, April 8, 2017, from 8 a.m. – 6 p.m. o Sunday, April 9, 2017, from 8 a.m. – 6 p.m. o An eMTB demo was also hosted at the Rabbit Valley trailhead on both days of the survey. The demo was advertised for Sunday, but not for Saturday so that answers could be judged independently of whether a respondent visited the trailhead specifically to try an eMTB. The demo was for Class 1 eMTBs only, defined as “a bicycle equipped with a motor that provides assistance only when the rider is pedaling, and that ceases to provide assistance when the bicycle reaches the speed of 20 miles per hour.” (Note: 20 mph is not the average speed, but the maximum speed at which the motor will work.) •Non-motorized trails: o Wednesday, April 5, 2017, from 5 – 8 p.m. Attachment No. 6 PeopleForBikes / Bicycle Product Suppliers Association eMTB Intercept Study April 2017 Attachment 3 o Saturday, April 8, 2017, from 8 – 11 a.m. The following number of interviews was conducted at each trailhead: • Rabbit Valley: 64 surveys • 18 Road: 55 surveys • Lunch Loops: 38 surveys • Kokopelli: 19 surveys Top-Level Takeaways • Education and experience are important, i.e. it is difficult to formulate an educated opinion of eMTBs without first seeing and riding one. Riding an e-MTB changes perceptions from the negative or neutral, to neutral or positive. • Messaging is key. One of the main concerns with allowing eMTBs on non-motorized trails is that someone’s favorite trail may become too crowded and their experience will be diminished. If eMTB access changes, communicating why and where the changes are being made will dissipate some of the concerns. With the appropriate level of outreach and education, the social impact of allowing eMTBs on non-motorized trails can be minimal. Specific outreach to mountain biking advocates, in particular, may help build support and collaboration around revised access. • More research on the relative trail impacts of eMTBs vs. standard MTBs is needed, and more research on the actual attitude changes before and after a demo (instead of asking participants to self report after). • A short-term pilot test to allow eMTB access on non-motorized trails along with data collection may provide the necessary information to consider revised eMTB access. Topline Findings Familiarity with, perception of, support of, and perceived benefits and barriers of e-MTBs: • Familiarity with eMTBs: o Just under one-third of respondents reported high familiarity with eMTBs. o Fruita “locals” are particularly familiar with eMTBs. o Those who report high familiarity with eMTBs, and users at non-motorized trailheads are particularly concerned about conflict and trail damage. • Perception of eMTBs: o Generally, people at the motorized trailhead are more positive about eMTBs than non-motorized trail users. o For those who demo’d an eMTB, nearly all reported a positive experience and 62% reported that it changed their perceptions about eMTBs for the better. (Note: These results are consistent with findings from Jefferson County, CO that 71% of demo participants reported a change in their perceptions of eMTBs after trying one.) o Trail users estimated that eMTBs go 18-20 MPH. o On a scale of 1-10 (1 = traditional MTB; 10 = dirt bike), users at the motorized trailhead rated an eMTB on average a 3.5; users at the non-motorized trailheads rated an eMTB a 4.9. • Support for eMTBs: o Nearly all motorized trail users agree that eMTBs should be permitted on motorized trails, especially those who have ridden an eMTB. o Motorized trail users are especially likely to be supportive of policies that support e- MTB access to non-motorized trails. o About 40% of users surveyed at non-motorized trails believe that eMTBs should be allowed on non-motorized trails and 26% support policies toward that end. Attachment No. 7 Attachment 3 o Those who have ridden an eMTB are especially favorable to revised eMTB access to non-motorized trails. o IMBA members and advocates are less likely to agree that e-MTBs should be allowed on non-motorized trails • Perceived benefits and barriers of e-MTBs: o Many of those surveyed consider two key benefits of eMTBs: encouraging new mountain bikers/getting more people outside and extending someone’s ability to mountain bike into older age. o Some benefits of eMTBs that were listed are that they are quiet, simulate a MTB trail experience, require just as much work as a regular MTB, and have similar trail impacts as traditional MTBs. o The main barriers cited, in answer to whether or eMTBs should be allowed on non- motorized trails are that eMTBs might require higher rates of rescue, decrease healthy lifestyles, jeopardize MTB access victories by blurring the lines between non- motorized and motorized travel; and that there are enough motorized trail areas to satisfy eMTB riders. What would the social impacts be at the cycling areas that do not allow e-bike use if trails were opened for e-bike use? • Those that do not want eMTBs to be allowed on non-motorized trails primarily say that it is because eMTBs are motorized. • The top concerns about e-MTBs include crowding, trail damage, and potential user conflict. Would people who currently do not use BLM bike trails start using those trails if e-bikes were allowed? • Nearly all non-motorized trail users would continue to use the trails if eMTBs were permitted. • Almost 40% of non-motorized trail users think that eMTBs should be allowed on those trails, especially those who have ridden an eMTB. Conclusion When someone has demo’d an eMTB, their perceptions of a Class 1 eMTB improve, and they realize that an eMTB is more similar to a traditional mountain bike than a dirt bike. However, many of those who demo’d an eMTB believe that eMTBs, because of their motor, belong on motorized trails. This does not preclude the fact that many people who have ridden an eMTB believe that they have similar social and environmental impacts as a regular bike, but people are still concerned about trail crowding and user conflict. If Class 1 eMTB to a non-motorized trail is desired, this access should be preceded by a pilot project on a few selected trails, accompanied with proper signage, education, and user etiquette information. In response to the concerns expressed in this study, the following should be noted: • Trail crowding will occur with or without eMTBs. The solution is not to restrict access, but to build more trails. • User conflict will occur with or without eMTBs. eMTBs allow someone to climb a trail faster, although concerns are only expressed in terms of downhill speeds. • Technology cannot be blamed for some riders going riding a trail that they are not fit or skilled enough to ride. This also occurs with or without eMTBs. Attachment No. 7 Attachment 3 Appendix 1: Selected Feedback from Surveys Chosen quotes from “Advice to Land Managers:” • I think non-motorized trails should be non-motorized, without exception. There are plenty of motorized trails for eMTBs to use. • eMTBs should be allowed on specific trails separate from MTBs and hikers. • Open selected trails to e-bikes, clearly mark which trails are open to e-bikes, and solicit feedback from trail users. • I worry about the speed of the bikes and how that might impact the perception and experience of other users. • Allow Class 1eMTBs on non-motorized. • I do not like the idea of assist and motors on trails where motors are not allowed. I am however excited about e-bikes for my parents to ride around the neighborhood. • Ride one before you judge them. • Let them on, they’re the same as a regular bike. • Signage, guidelines, education. • Limit them to some trails, directional only. • Make more trails in general. • Consider same techniques as when designating trails for hikers, horses, and bikes. • Expand singletrack-style motorized friendly trails similar to many in the Crested Butte area. • Study effects on trail degradation. Chosen quotes from users who demo’d an eMTB: • No noise! • It's fast. • It was really impressive how it kicks in. I really like how there are different power levels. • Super fun through a steep up hill. • This was great! I'd love to do it again, but don't think there are a lot of opportunities, I'd worry about changing the nature of the multi-use trails that I already use if eMTBs were allowed, and the cost feels a little high for me to add as a new hobby. But I could totally see myself renting at a riding destination. • Lots of fun. Had a great time riding. Takes time to get used to. • Will consider buying one. • It was great how easy it was to get moving. • It was not as easy as I thought it would be! • I never once peeled out like a motorcycle, even when I attempted to. • Great way for the family to ride together. • Not suitable for MTB trails. • Safer and more than expected. • Worried about losing motivation for regular biking. • I didn’t know that you had to pedal a Class 1 eMTB to engage the motor. • There needs to be delineation between eMTBs and mountain bikes on some trails. • Range and speed were impressive. • I thought they would feel more like a motorcycle it was just like my trail bike. • Now I understand why they are appealing to many. Chosen quotes from users of non-motorized trails when asked for reasons to allow eMTBs on non-motorized trails (note: when asked why not to allow eMTBs on non-motorized trails, the answer was resoundingly “because they are motorized.”): Attachment No. 7 Attachment 3 " T h e y g e t p e o p l e o u t s i d e . " C l a s s 1 e M T B s a r e l i k e b i k e s a n d a r e o k o n t r a i l s . " A s l o n g a s t h e u s e r i s r e s p e c t f u l t o o t h e r s a n d r e s p e c t s t h e t r a i l s . " e M T B s h e l p p r o v i d e a l i t t l e e x t r a p o w e r t o g e t o v e r o b s t a c l e s f o r s o m e o n e w h o m a y n o t b e a b l e t o r i d e . " T h e r e i s s t i l l a l o t o f r e s e a r c h t h a t n e e d s t o b e d o n e , b u t t h e r e a r e c e r t a i n r i d e r s t h a t w o u l d g r e a t l y b e n e f i t f r o m e - b i k e s . " A s l o n g a s e M T B r i d e r s a r e n ' t p r e s e n t i n g a d a n g e r t o t h e m s e l v e s o r o t h e r s t h a n w h y n o t ? " I ' m o l d a n d n e e d h e l p g o i n g u p h i l l . " T h e y a r e m o s t l y h u m a n p o w e r e d . " T h e y a r e o n l y f a s t e r g o i n g u p a n d p e o p l e g o f a s t d o w n a l l t h e t i m e s o I t h i n k i t s a b o u t t h e s a m e . " W i t h o u t s i g n i f i c a n t n o i s e o r s p e e d i n c r e a s e I d o n ' t s e e a n y d i f f e r e n c e f r o m t r a d i t i o n a l b i k e s . A t t a c h m e n t N o . 7 A t t a c h m e n t 3 Appendix 2: Demographics Motorized trail users Non-motorized trail users % Who mountain bike weekly or more often 78% 87% Average # of years mountain biking 13.92 15.08 % Involved in mountain bike advocacy 45% 43% % IMBA members 28% 23% % Local 27% 42% % Male 78% 69% % White/Caucasian 94% 90% Average Age 40 39 Attachment No. 7 Attachment 3 Overview In April 2017, a study was conducted by the national non-profit bicycling advocacy group PeopleForBikes, with support from the industry association the Bicycle Product Suppliers Association to provide the Bureau of Land Management information that could guide decision- making about where, when, and how to manage e-MTBs. The study took place at four trailheads in the Fruita, CO area – one that provides access to motorized recreation (or “motorized” trail: Rabbit Valley), and three that provide access to non- motorized recreation (or “non-motorized” trails: 18 Road, Lunch Loops, Kokopelli). Specifically the study sought to answer the following questions: •What is your familiarity with, perception of, support of, and perceived benefits and barriers of eMTBs? •What would the social impacts be at the cycling areas that do not allow e-bike use if trails were opened for e-bike use? •Would people who currently do not use BLM bike trails start using those trails if e-bikes were allowed? Methodology Survey questions – one for the motorized trail users (http://bit.ly/2oZk2ew), and one for the non- motorized trail users (http://bit.ly/2qqTNiU) – were developed in partnership with the BLM, City of Fruita, PeopleForBikes, and the International Mountain Bicycling Association. These ten-minute intercept surveys were conducted among those local to and those visiting trails in Fruita, CO. The interview locations and timing (i.e. sampling plan) were designed to yield a representative sample of trail users: •Trailheads where motorized vehicles (including eMTBs) are not permitted and where they are permitted; •Visitors to the area and local residents; •Weekday and weekend users; and •Demographics (e.g., age, gender, etc.) The study was conducted on the following days and times: •Motorized trail: o Saturday, April 8, 2017, from 8 a.m. – 6 p.m. o Sunday, April 9, 2017, from 8 a.m. – 6 p.m. o An eMTB demo was also hosted at the Rabbit Valley trailhead on both days of the survey. The demo was advertised for Sunday, but not for Saturday so that answers could be judged independently of whether a respondent visited the trailhead specifically to try an eMTB. The demo was for Class 1 eMTBs only, defined as “a bicycle equipped with a motor that provides assistance only when the rider is pedaling, and that ceases to provide assistance when the bicycle reaches the speed of 20 miles per hour.” (Note: 20 mph is not the average speed, but the maximum speed at which the motor will work.) •Non-motorized trails: o Wednesday, April 5, 2017, from 5 – 8 p.m. Attachment No. 6 Attachment 3 o Saturday, April 8, 2017, from 8 – 11 a.m. The following number of interviews was conducted at each trailhead: • Rabbit Valley: 64 surveys • 18 Road: 55 surveys • Lunch Loops: 38 surveys • Kokopelli: 19 surveys Top-Level Takeaways • Education and experience are important, i.e. it is difficult to formulate an educated opinion of eMTBs without first seeing and riding one. Riding an e-MTB changes perceptions from the negative or neutral, to neutral or positive. • Messaging is key. One of the main concerns with allowing eMTBs on non-motorized trails is that someone’s favorite trail may become too crowded and their experience will be diminished. If eMTB access changes, communicating why and where the changes are being made will dissipate some of the concerns. With the appropriate level of outreach and education, the social impact of allowing eMTBs on non-motorized trails can be minimal. Specific outreach to mountain biking advocates, in particular, may help build support and collaboration around revised access. • More research on the relative trail impacts of eMTBs vs. standard MTBs is needed, and more research on the actual attitude changes before and after a demo (instead of asking participants to self report after). • A short-term pilot test to allow eMTB access on non-motorized trails along with data collection may provide the necessary information to consider revised eMTB access. Topline Findings Familiarity with, perception of, support of, and perceived benefits and barriers of e-MTBs: • Familiarity with eMTBs: o Just under one-third of respondents reported high familiarity with eMTBs. o Fruita “locals” are particularly familiar with eMTBs. o Those who report high familiarity with eMTBs, and users at non-motorized trailheads are particularly concerned about conflict and trail damage. • Perception of eMTBs: o Generally, people at the motorized trailhead are more positive about eMTBs than non-motorized trail users. o For those who demo’d an eMTB, nearly all reported a positive experience and 62% reported that it changed their perceptions about eMTBs for the better. (Note: These results are consistent with findings from Jefferson County, CO that 71% of demo participants reported a change in their perceptions of eMTBs after trying one.) o Trail users estimated that eMTBs go 18-20 MPH. o On a scale of 1-10 (1 = traditional MTB; 10 = dirt bike), users at the motorized trailhead rated an eMTB on average a 3.5; users at the non-motorized trailheads rated an eMTB a 4.9. • Support for eMTBs: o Nearly all motorized trail users agree that eMTBs should be permitted on motorized trails, especially those who have ridden an eMTB. o Motorized trail users are especially likely to be supportive of policies that support e- MTB access to non-motorized trails. o About 40% of users surveyed at non-motorized trails believe that eMTBs should be allowed on non-motorized trails and 26% support policies toward that end. Attachment No. 6 Attachment 3 o Those who have ridden an eMTB are especially favorable to revised eMTB access to non-motorized trails. o IMBA members and advocates are less likely to agree that e-MTBs should be allowed on non-motorized trails • Perceived benefits and barriers of e-MTBs: o Many of those surveyed consider two key benefits of eMTBs: encouraging new mountain bikers/getting more people outside and extending someone’s ability to mountain bike into older age. o Some benefits of eMTBs that were listed are that they are quiet, simulate a MTB trail experience, require just as much work as a regular MTB, and have similar trail impacts as traditional MTBs. o The main barriers cited, in answer to whether or eMTBs should be allowed on non- motorized trails are that eMTBs might require higher rates of rescue, decrease healthy lifestyles, jeopardize MTB access victories by blurring the lines between non- motorized and motorized travel; and that there are enough motorized trail areas to satisfy eMTB riders. What would the social impacts be at the cycling areas that do not allow e-bike use if trails were opened for e-bike use? • Those that do not want eMTBs to be allowed on non-motorized trails primarily say that it is because eMTBs are motorized. • The top concerns about e-MTBs include crowding, trail damage, and potential user conflict. Would people who currently do not use BLM bike trails start using those trails if e-bikes were allowed? • Nearly all non-motorized trail users would continue to use the trails if eMTBs were permitted. • Almost 40% of non-motorized trail users think that eMTBs should be allowed on those trails, especially those who have ridden an eMTB. Conclusion When someone has demo’d an eMTB, their perceptions of a Class 1 eMTB improve, and they realize that an eMTB is more similar to a traditional mountain bike than a dirt bike. However, many of those who demo’d an eMTB believe that eMTBs, because of their motor, belong on motorized trails. This does not preclude the fact that many people who have ridden an eMTB believe that they have similar social and environmental impacts as a regular bike, but people are still concerned about trail crowding and user conflict. If Class 1 eMTB to a non-motorized trail is desired, this access should be preceded by a pilot project on a few selected trails, accompanied with proper signage, education, and user etiquette information. In response to the concerns expressed in this study, the following should be noted: • Trail crowding will occur with or without eMTBs. The solution is not to restrict access, but to build more trails. • User conflict will occur with or without eMTBs. eMTBs allow someone to climb a trail faster, although concerns are only expressed in terms of downhill speeds. • Technology cannot be blamed for some riders going riding a trail that they are not fit or skilled enough to ride. This also occurs with or without eMTBs. Attachment No. 6 Attachment 3 Appendix 1: Selected Feedback from Surveys Chosen quotes from “Advice to Land Managers:” • I think non-motorized trails should be non-motorized, without exception. There are plenty of motorized trails for eMTBs to use. • eMTBs should be allowed on specific trails separate from MTBs and hikers. • Open selected trails to e-bikes, clearly mark which trails are open to e-bikes, and solicit feedback from trail users. • I worry about the speed of the bikes and how that might impact the perception and experience of other users. • Allow Class 1eMTBs on non-motorized. • I do not like the idea of assist and motors on trails where motors are not allowed. I am however excited about e-bikes for my parents to ride around the neighborhood. • Ride one before you judge them. • Let them on, they’re the same as a regular bike. • Signage, guidelines, education. • Limit them to some trails, directional only. • Make more trails in general. • Consider same techniques as when designating trails for hikers, horses, and bikes. • Expand singletrack-style motorized friendly trails similar to many in the Crested Butte area. • Study effects on trail degradation. Chosen quotes from users who demo’d an eMTB: • No noise! • It's fast. • It was really impressive how it kicks in. I really like how there are different power levels. • Super fun through a steep up hill. • This was great! I'd love to do it again, but don't think there are a lot of opportunities, I'd worry about changing the nature of the multi-use trails that I already use if eMTBs were allowed, and the cost feels a little high for me to add as a new hobby. But I could totally see myself renting at a riding destination. • Lots of fun. Had a great time riding. Takes time to get used to. • Will consider buying one. • It was great how easy it was to get moving. • It was not as easy as I thought it would be! • I never once peeled out like a motorcycle, even when I attempted to. • Great way for the family to ride together. • Not suitable for MTB trails. • Safer and more than expected. • Worried about losing motivation for regular biking. • I didn’t know that you had to pedal a Class 1 eMTB to engage the motor. • There needs to be delineation between eMTBs and mountain bikes on some trails. • Range and speed were impressive. • I thought they would feel more like a motorcycle it was just like my trail bike. • Now I understand why they are appealing to many. Chosen quotes from users of non-motorized trails when asked for reasons to allow eMTBs on non-motorized trails (note: when asked why not to allow eMTBs on non-motorized trails, the answer was resoundingly “because they are motorized.”): Attachment No. 6 Attachment 3 " T h e y g e t p e o p l e o u t s i d e . " C l a s s 1 e M T B s a r e l i k e b i k e s a n d a r e o k o n t r a i l s . " A s l o n g a s t h e u s e r i s r e s p e c t f u l t o o t h e r s a n d r e s p e c t s t h e t r a i l s . " e M T B s h e l p p r o v i d e a l i t t l e e x t r a p o w e r t o g e t o v e r o b s t a c l e s f o r s o m e o n e w h o m a y n o t b e a b l e t o r i d e . " T h e r e i s s t i l l a l o t o f r e s e a r c h t h a t n e e d s t o b e d o n e , b u t t h e r e a r e c e r t a i n r i d e r s t h a t w o u l d g r e a t l y b e n e f i t f r o m e - b i k e s . " A s l o n g a s e M T B r i d e r s a r e n ' t p r e s e n t i n g a d a n g e r t o t h e m s e l v e s o r o t h e r s t h a n w h y n o t ? " I ' m o l d a n d n e e d h e l p g o i n g u p h i l l . " T h e y a r e m o s t l y h u m a n p o w e r e d . " T h e y a r e o n l y f a s t e r g o i n g u p a n d p e o p l e g o f a s t d o w n a l l t h e t i m e s o I t h i n k i t s a b o u t t h e s a m e . " W i t h o u t s i g n i f i c a n t n o i s e o r s p e e d i n c r e a s e I d o n ' t s e e a n y d i f f e r e n c e f r o m t r a d i t i o n a l b i k e s . A t t a c h m e n t N o . 6 A t t a c h m e n t 3 Appendix 2: Demographics Motorized trail users Non-motorized trail users % Who mountain bike weekly or more often 78% 87% Average # of years mountain biking 13.92 15.08 % Involved in mountain bike advocacy 45% 43% % IMBA members 28% 23% % Local 27% 42% % Male 78% 69% % White/Caucasian 94% 90% Average Age 40 39 Attachment No. 6 Attachment 3 Public Comments received prior to noon on November 14, 2019 Attachment 7 Attachment 3 Attachment 7 Attachment 3 From:Matthew Anderson To: Cc:Brian Malone; Jennifer Woodworth Subject:RE: Pete Siemens - Ward 1 - Board Contact Form Date:Friday, October 4, 2019 7:24:21 AM Attachments:image001.png image002.jpg Dear Ms. Holden, Thank you for your feedback and observations. Saint Joseph’s hill is a very popular and challenging ride up or down for Mt. bikes however e-bikes are not currently permitted there or on any District lands. The trail is signed to encourage riders to use caution on the steeper sections and there is personal responsibility for riders to ride within their ability. Rangers do provide patrols of the area and use radar guns to enforce the speed limit. E-bikes have become very popular and with that popularity many local, state and Federal land management agencies, including Midpen have begun to revisit their rules and regulations. Many that had prohibited them as motorized vehicles are now allowing them where bicycles are permitted with the overall mission to increase recreational opportunities for all Americans. Our review of our e-bike policy will be presented to Midpen's Board of Directors on Wednesday, November 20 at 7 pm. The presentation will be held at our office at 330 Distel Circle, Los Altos. Please feel free to attend and provide your comments. You can find out more about the meetings here: https://www.openspace.org/about-us/board-meetings Sincerely, Matt Anderson Chief Ranger Badge # 1050 manderson@openspace.org Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 330 Distel Circle, Los Altos, CA 94022 P: Direct (650) 625-6557 P: Main (650) 625-1200 C:(408)209-5902 www.openspace.org From: Sent: Wednesday, October 2, 2019 6:55 AM To: web <web@openspace.org>; Clerk <clerk@openspace.org>; General Information <info@openspace.org> Subject: Pete Siemens - Ward 1 - Board Contact Form EXTERNAL Name *barbara holden Select a Choice *Pete Siemens - Ward 1 Attachment 7 Attachment 3 Attachment 7 Attachment 3 Attachment 7 Attachment 3 From:General Information To:Brian Malone; Jane Mark Cc:Matthew Anderson; Ada@openspace.org Subject:Fw: Electric Mountain Bikes Date:Monday, March 25, 2019 2:20:42 PM FYI. Thank you, Jordan McDaniel Public Affairs Administrative Assistant Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 330 Distel Circle, Los Altos, CA 94022 P: (650) 691-1200 F: (650) 691-0485 www.openspace.org | twitter: @mrosd From: General Information Sent: Monday, March 25, 2019 2:17 PM To: David Wilfinger Subject: Re: Electric Mountain Bikes Hi David, Thank you for your email and feedback regarding the use of e-bikes on District trails. In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, people with mobility-related disabilities are allowed to use Other Power-Driven Mobility Devices (OPDMD), including e-bikes, on District trails where bike use is permitted. The OPDMD policy was approved by the District’s Board of Directors to establish guidelines for use of OPDMDs on District Preserves and describes the verification process for users. While the use of e-bikes is allowed by people with mobility disabilities on District trails where bikes are permitted, the policy restrictions on general e-bike use are in place to ensure that their use does not pose a significant safety risk due to greater uphill speeds, impact the Preserve’s sensitive natural resources, or fundamentally alter Preserve user’s expectation of a non-motorized visitor experience. For more information about the District’s policy you can read the OPDMD Board Report, Policy and Assessment Factors here. Thanks again for reaching out to us and sharing your perspective. I will share your feedback with appropriate staff for review. If you are interested in being added to our biking interested parties email list, please let us know. You would get notified of upcoming meetings regarding e-bikes and more general bike issues. If you have any further questions or feedback please feel free to contact Midpen's American Disabilities Act Coordinator and Planning Manager, Jane Mark, at adacoordinator@openspace.org or call (650) 691-1200. Thank you, Jordan McDaniel Public Affairs Administrative Assistant Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 330 Distel Circle, Los Altos, CA 94022 P: (650) 691-1200 F: (650) 691-0485 www.openspace.org | twitter: @mrosd Attachment 7 Attachment 3 From: David Wilfinger Sent: Monday, March 25, 2019 2:02 PM To: General Information Subject: Electric Mountain Bikes Hello, On Sunday I received a written warning by a ranger in Montebello Open Space Preserve for riding my electric mountain bike on a trail open to bicycles. I was surprised and at first could not believe it when the ranger told me that electric mountain bikes are not permitted anywhere in the midpeninsula open space district. I honestly was not aware that I was doing anything wrong. Following up I did some online research and found blog entries that stated that the topic of allowing electric bikes has already been brought to the attention of the open space district’s administration. I can understand that there are concerns regarding electric bikes on bike trails because of potential conflicts between hikers, other bikers, and electric bike riders. However I have been riding a class 1 electric bike for a while and have not once encountered any problems with other trail users because of the type of bike. Riding this MTB I have the exact same footprint as someone on a regular mountain bike. I do not ride faster, I do not require more space and I do not cause more damage to the trails as anyone else. All a class 1 electric MTB does is adding a little extra push when I am paddling. Without noticing the battery pack, one would not know I am riding an electric MTB. The reason why I am riding such a bike is not speed. Due to the support it provides it allows me to go on different trails with more elevation change. Using an electric bike I can ride directly from my home at sea level into the preserves around skyline boulevard and do not have to take my car first to get up on the mountains. Also I do not go on trails that exceed my skill level, just because I have an electric motor that supports me. After some research online I find that over the last years many areas have permitted electric bikes, I hope that the midpeninsula open space district can follow their example. I am aware that the rapid development in the area of electric recreational vehicles requires some restrictions – I also would not want to see all latest gadgets being used on the trails. Therefore I propose allowing a certain group of electric supported bikes on the trails. The state of California introduced a good qualification system for electric bicycles, I would propose permitting class 1 electric bikes on bicycle trails in the open space district. As stated above, those have the same footprint and behave similar to standard mountain bikes (see for example https://currentebikes.com/ebike-classes-california/). I was born in Austria where people love to ride their bikes on the mountains. In Austria there is a peaceful co- existence between electric mountain bikes and standard MTBs. This works because there are strict rules that define which types of electric bikes are allowed to use bicycle infrastructure (watts, maximum speed). I am convinced that California regulations allow the same co-existence here. Please let me know if this topic is already in a decision-making process and if there is a way for me to support this process. Thank you for the great work you do on the open space district. I really enjoy spending my time there! Best, David Wilfinger Attachment 7 Attachment 3 -- Cupertino Attachment 7 Attachment 3 Attachment 7 Attachment 3 Attachment 7 Attachment 3 Attachment 7 Attachment 3 Attachment 7 Attachment 3 Attachment 7 Attachment 3 Attachment 7 Attachment 3 Attachment 7 Attachment 3 Attachment 7 Attachment 3 Attachment 7 Attachment 3 Attachment 7 Attachment 3 Attachment 7 Attachment 3 Attachment 7 Attachment 3 Attachment 7 Attachment 3 Attachment 7 Attachment 3 every trail entrance had a conspicuous No E-Bikes/No Pedal Assist sign. Please look to other trail organizations, such as the Central Oregon Trail Association (I’m sure there are more), to learn more about problems with low-powered, motorized vehicles on trails designed for non-powered use. Thank you for your consideration, and also for your part in supervising the wonderful open spaces in the Bay Area where I’m privileged to refresh mind and body every week. Marian Goldeen Attachment 7 Attachment 3 Attachment 7 Attachment 3 next to the trail, drives wildlife and other trail users out of the area, and, worst of all, teaches kids that the rough treatment of nature is okay (it's NOT!). What's good about THAT? To see exactly what harm mountain biking does to the land, watch this 5-minute video: http://vimeo.com/48784297. In addition to all of this, it is extremely dangerous: https://mjvande.info/mtb dangerous.htm . For more information: https://mjvande.info/mtbfaq.htm . The common thread among those who want more recreation in our parks is total ignorance about and disinterest in the wildlife whose homes these parks are. Yes, if humans are the only beings that matter, it is simply a conflict among humans (but even then, allowing bikes on trails harms the MAJORITY of park users -- hikers and equestrians -- who can no longer safely and peacefully enjoy their parks). The parks aren't gymnasiums or racetracks or even human playgrounds. They are WILDLIFE HABITAT, which is precisely why they are attractive to humans. Activities such as mountain biking, that destroy habitat, violate the charter of the parks. Even kayaking and rafting, which give humans access to the entirety of a water body, prevent the wildlife that live there from making full use of their habitat, and should not be allowed. Of course those who think that only humans matter won't understand what I am talking about -- an indication of the sad state of our culture and educational system. Attachment 7 Attachment 3 Attachment 7 Attachment 3 Attachment 7 Attachment 3 From: To:Matthew Anderson Subject:Re: FW: For review - draft response: Open the Bike path to Electric Bikes Date:Saturday, September 7, 2019 3:57:08 PM Attachments:image005.png EXTERNAL Thanks Matthew I love that area and have been riding them for over twenty years at least once or twice a month minimum all year around. But over time my knee are wearing out, and I had stopped biking both as commuter and for recreation. Since I have gotten an ebike, I have gotten my bike mobility back and I do ride lot more than before. However I do miss all my favorite trails that are part of the mid peninsula open space reserve. Now I have to go to any California state park which are 45 to an hour away just to ride my mountain e-bike. Ironic that skyline ridge is only 15 minutes away from my house. Looking forward so that I can get back on those trails. Please include me in all notification, presentation or any town hall meetings You can reach me at Pejman Khosropour If u need any other information please let me know Cheers Pejman On Fri, Sep 6, 2019, 3:02 PM Matthew Anderson <manderson@openspace.org> wrote: Hello Pejman, Thank you for your continual interest in electric bikes on trails in Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (Midpen) preserves. Your email was forwarded to me for a response. I am currently evaluating Midpen policies and ordinances related to the use of e-bikes (class 1, 2, &3) on Midpen lands. I hope to present to the Board of Directors and receive direction by the end of the year. Your participation and comments at the future policy presentation would be welcome. Attachment 7 Attachment 3 If you would like to be included in the notification list for this presentation, please let us know and your name and contact information can be added to the interested parties list. On another note, Midpen allows e-bikes for individuals with disabilities under the 2015 Other Power-Driven Mobility Devices Policy which can be found on our website: https://www.openspace.org/sites/default/files/Policy_4.10_Other_Power- Driven_Mobility_Devices.pdf Regards, Matt Anderson Chief Ranger/Visitor Services Manager Matt Anderson Chief Ranger Badge # 1050 manderson@openspace.org Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 330 Distel Circle, Los Altos, CA 94022 P: Direct (650) 625-6557 P: Main (650) 625-1200 C:(408)209-5902 www.openspace.org From: Pejman Khosropour Sent: Thursday, September 5, 2019 11:07 AM To: General Information <info@openspace.org>; Ana Ruiz <aruiz@openspace.org> Subject: Open the Bike path to Electric Bikes Attachment 7 Attachment 3 EXTERNAL Hi Open Space Reseve. I like to know if there are future plans to open to Mid Pennusila Open space reserved Bike Path to Class 1 Electric Bike? If not how do we go about file a petition to do so. Please let me know Thanks Pejman Attachment 7 Attachment 3 Attachment 7 Attachment 3 brakes (on both e-bikes and non-electric bikes). The rules of common courtesy (as well as the speed limits within the preserves) will result in the vast majority of mountain bikers riding responsibly and sharing the trails without additional user conflicts - the same result as with prior improvements in mountain biking technology. The State of California identifies three classes of e-bikes. Class 1 (Pedal assist) and Class 2 (Throttle operated) are allowed on all bicycle paths in the state (unless otherwise restricted by the local land use manager) and are considered as bicycles in the vehicle code (and not as motorized vehicles - even though an electric motor is included in the bicycle mechanism). The County of Santa Clara has allowed Class 1 & 2 e-bikes in all of their preserves and on all trails open to bicycles. California State Parks and the Department of the Interior (US Park Service/BLM) have allowed e-bikes on bicycle trails as well. I am not aware of any major conflicts that have occurred in these areas as a result of these policy decisions, and would assume that the majority of e-bike riders have been riding responsibly, the same as with non-electric mountain bikes. As e-bikes are a new technology, it is understood that some people may be concerned with potentially higher speeds and a possible increase in trail use conflicts or damage to natural resources. However, mountain bike technology has been improving for decades (allowing faster speeds and ease of riding over rougher terrain) and this is simply another step in that forward trajectory. From my perspective (as a trail user for the past three plus decades), we will not see a substantial increase in trail user conflicts or damage to natural resources if e-bikes are operated responsibly in open space preserves. The formal authorization of pedal assisted e-bike use in MROSD preserves by your Board will allow continued enjoyment of open spaces by people who are aging, injured, or otherwise in need of some additional assistance in climbing. Please consider allowing pedal assisted e-bikes in MROSD preserves. Thank you, R. Adams Attachment 7 Attachment 3 Attachment 7 Attachment 3 From:Matthew Anderson To:Mike Kahn Cc:Jennifer Woodworth Subject:FW: Volunteer comments/ Board email - Ebikes Date:Wednesday, November 6, 2019 9:48:46 AM From: Strether Smith < Sent: Tuesday, November 5, 2019 3:32 PM To: Jennifer Williams <jwilliams@openspace.org> Subject: Re: Fyi..,ss Outside: Riding an E-Bike Is Not Cheating EXTERNAL I am going to try to get there too.. although the few times I have gone I always have wound up pissed.. Please make sure that I know about it. FYI... Here is a note I sent to Jed: Jed, I have swapped a couple of notes with Jen and she tells me that the E- bike issue will be discussed by the board soon. I thought that you might like to hear my spin on the issue. First, they are already out there. In the past few weeks I have seen 3 in district preserves. All have been in pedal assist mode and were riding responsibly. I am in favor of allowing these bikes. It allows users that might not otherwise be able to (like me who would have one if it were not for balance issues). They also would allow wimps to enjoy the preserves in a new way. The question is how to regulate them. A possibility is to only allow bikes that fall in a "capability type" (1, 2, or 3). However, I think that it will be impossible to restrict them based on this. There are too many makes and too many variations. Some would be fine but others are not. Attachment 7 Attachment 3 To illustrate the problem, my neighbor just bought an electric "bike" that is more motorcycle than bike. It has "vestigial" pedals that are obviously to used only in desperation. It will go 50 mph. It has a switch that makes it "class 3" but who would use it? It was obviously designed to be a rule cheater. Fortunately, he has no intention of riding it off road.. but others might. So, how do you keep this monster out of the preserves? Is there a reasonable (and simple) rule based on bike type that is easily applied by the rangers and VTPs? I don't think so. I think the only rule you can use is the one you have already: 15 mph speed limit. In the end, that is really all that matters from a rider and other-user standpoint. Thanks for all you do.. It is appreciated. ..ss Strether Smith Attachment 7 Attachment 3 June 24, 2020 Board Meeting 20-13 *Approved by the Board of Directors on July 8, 2020 SPECIAL AND REGULAR MEETING BOARD OF DIRECTORS MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT Wednesday, June 24, 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. APPROVED MINUTES* SPECIAL MEETING Vice-President Riffle 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, Curt Riffle, and Pete Siemens Members Absent: None 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, Public Affairs Manager Korrine Skinner District Clerk Jennifer Woodworth reported no written comments were submitted for this item. 1. Benchmark Survey Results (R-20-62) Public Affairs Manager Korrine Skinner provided the staff presentation describing the purpose of the benchmark survey to support the Board’s strategic plan goals and to inform the creation of a District-wide strategic communications plan. Ms. Skinner introduced Miranda Everitt from FM3 Research who was the District’s consultant for the project. Ms. Everitt presented the results of the benchmark survey conducted in January 2020, describing the methodology used and compared District survey results to surveys completed by other open space and parks agencies. The survey looked at residents’ opinions on issues affecting District residents, value of open space lands, District mission and values, effectiveness of District messaging, etc. Attachment 4 Meeting 20-13 Page 2 The Board requested and received clarification regarding the benchmark survey results. President Holman inquired regarding the reasons why residents surveyed under 40 have less familiarity with the District. Ms. Everitt stated this could be for a variety of factors, such as new to the area, less awareness of local open space options, busier schedules, etc. Director Kishimoto inquired regarding the information sources used by residents and suggested additional information could be gathered regarding specific sources of news and information. Ms. Skinner reported the District will repeat the study periodically and could craft a more specific question for a future study. Director Kersteen-Tucker commented on the size of the sampling area in the Coastside Protection Area stating that a large number were from Redwood City, which is not in the Coastside Protection Area. Ms. Skinner stated that the areas were identified by zip code, and staff will look into this more. Director Kersteen-Tucker spoke regarding the importance of protecting local food sources as a potential District message related to protecting agricultural lands. Vice-President Riffle inquired regarding the potential effect of the shelter-in-place on the survey results. Ms. Skinner stated that she thinks resident awareness levels are expected to have risen as visitor usage rose during the shelter-in-place. Vice-President Riffle inquired regarding differing opinions for residents along the coastal area versus those closer to the Bay. Ms. Skinner described some of the small differences between residents on either side of the District and stated that the results were enlightening compared with preconceived ideas of what the results would be. Ms. Skinner reviewed the implications of the survey results for District communications, including increasing awareness, consider target audience opportunities, elevating key messaging themes, and matching the message to the audience. Strategies include better utilizing the Open Space Views newsletter, expanding media and social media outreach, expand community presentations and tabling, embracing the District’s low-impact identity, etc. Public comments opened at 6:37 p.m. District Clerk Jennifer Woodworth reported no public comments were submitted for this item. Public hearing closed at 6:37 p.m. Attachment 4 Meeting 20-13 Page 3 Director Siemens suggested a smaller scope survey should be completed in the next year to measure increase in awareness following the COVID-19 outbreak and spoke in favor of creating a newspaper insert for local papers. Director Kersteen-Ticker expressed interested in further studying the differences between coastside and bayside residents to help develop focused messages for the coastal areas. Director Kersteen-Tucker expressed interest in learning more about where residents visit open space, such on District, state, or county lands. Director Kishimoto spoke regarding the District’s upcoming 50th anniversary and what may be next for the District in the coming 50 years. Director Hassett spoke in favor of partnering with health organizations to promote family health on District preserves. General Manager Ana Ruiz commented on the value of the information to help the District better connect with its residents and also in creating new tools that can provide more focused information that is important and meaningful to residents. No Board action required. Vice-President Riffle adjourned the special meeting of the Board of Directors of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District at 6:56 p.m. REGULAR MEETING Vice-President Riffle called the regular meeting of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District to order at 7:05 p.m. ROLL CALL Members Present: Jed Cyr, Larry Hassett, Zoe Kersteen-Tucker, Yoriko Kishimoto, Curt Riffle, and Pete Siemens Members Absent: Karen Holman 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 Attachment 4 Meeting 20-13 Page 4 Vice-President Riffle 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. Vice-President Riffle described the process and protocols for the meeting. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS District Clerk Jennifer Woodworth reported no written comments were submitted for this item. ADOPTION OF AGENDA Motion: Director Kersteen-Tucker moved, and Director Siemens seconded the motion to adopt the agenda. ROLL CALL VOTE: 6-0-0 (President Holman absent) CONSENT CALENDAR Public comment opened at 7:12 p.m. District Clerk Jennifer Woodworth read the comments submitted for the Consent Calendar into the record. Ross Heitkamp supports the dedication of a commemorative bench for California State Senator Jim Beall and suggested an alternate location for the bench installation. Public comment closed at 7:14 p.m. Director Holman arrived at 7:15 p.m. Motion: Director Cyr moved, and Director Siemens seconded the motion to approve the Consent Calendar. ROLL CALL VOTE: 7-0-0 1. Approve June 10, 2020 Minutes 2. Claims Report 3. Approval of a Commemorative Bench for State Senator Jim Beall at El Sereno Open Space Preserve (R-20-63) General Manager’s Recommendation: Approve the recommendation from the Legislative, Funding and Public Affairs Committee to install a commemorative bench and plaque in honor of Attachment 4 Meeting 20-13 Page 5 significant supporter State Senator Jim Beall with a view over the Lexington Vista at El Sereno Open Space Preserve. Director Siemens spoke regarding the honor it was to nominate Senator Beall for a commemorative bench honoring Senator Beall. Governmental Affairs Specialist Josh Hugg stated staff will work with Senator Beall’s office regarding the specific bench location if the bench is approved by the Board in response to the public comment received. The photograph attached to the staff report is meant to be representative of the area. 4. Partnership with the San Mateo County Resource Conservation District for Invasive Plant Early Detection and Rapid Response (R-20-67) General Manager’s Recommendation: Authorize the General Manager to enter into a three-year agreement with the San Mateo County Resource Conservation District to perform education and outreach activities and limited invasive non-native plant treatment, for a total amount not-to- exceed $210,000 ($70,000 per year). 5. Annual Review of Finance Policies for Fiscal Year 2021 (R-20-64) General Manager’s Recommendations: 1. Affirm Board Policies 3.08 - Statement of Investment, and 3.09 - Debt Management Policy. 2. Approve two minor amendments to Board Policy 3.06 – Initial and Continuing Disclosures Relating to Bond Issuances relating to reporting events of the Continuing Disclosure Policy. 6. Authorization to contribute a $1.5 Million payment of the Fiscal Year 2019-20 budget savings to the Section 115 Trust administered by Public Agency Retirement Services (PARS) (R-20-65) General Manager’s Recommendation: Authorize the General Manager to deposit $1.5 Million into the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District’s PARS account established under a Section 115 Trust to pre-fund pension obligations. ROLL CALL VOTE: 7-0-0 BOARD BUSINESS 7. Fiscal Year 2020-21 Budget and Capital Improvement and Action Plan (R-20-68) Chief Financial Officer and Director of Administrative Services Stefan Jaskulak provided the staff report. Mr. Jaskulak reviewed the changes to the budget book since the public hearing on the budget on June 10, 2020, as requested by the Board of Directors. Mr. Jaskulak reviewed the proposed FY20-21 budget by fund and the resolutions proposed for adoption. Director Riffle requested clarification regarding the e-bike pilot project, including potential study of e-bike use on paved and unpaved trails, which is included as a Visitor Services Department operating project. Attachment 4 Meeting 20-13 Page 6 Assistant General Manager Brian Malone reported the intent of the project is to bring an item to the Board in August 2020 regarding e-bike use on paved trails. A potential pilot program for e- bikes on unpaved trails, including potential project initiation and timeline, would also be discussed as a part of the agenda item. Director Kishimoto suggested modifying the project language to state “Explore pilot program for e-bike access on District paved trails and defer the evaluation of a pilot e-bike program on District unpaved trails.” Director Kersteen-Tucker spoke in support of including that further evaluation of e-bike use would be evaluated rather than stating any evaluation is deferred. Additionally, Director Kersteen-Tucker requested additional information regarding the impact of e-bike on District trails. Mr. Malone stated the main impact at District preserves is on the visitor experience rather than on the trails, and staff will be installing additional signage informing visitors regarding the current prohibition of e-bikes on District trails. Director Kersteen-Tucker inquired how long the e-bikes potential pilot program would be deferred. General Manager Ruiz confirmed that further study of a potential pilot project for e-bikes on unpaved trails would be including in the following fiscal year action plan and budget (FY22), which the Board will review and approve as part of the annual Budget and Capital Improvement and Action Plan process. Public comments opened at 7:46 p.m. District Clerk Jennifer Woodworth reported no public comments were submitted for this item. Public comments closed at 7:46 p.m. Motion: Director Kishimoto moved and Director Cyr seconded the motion to: 1. Adopt a Resolution approving the Fiscal Year 2020-21 (FY21) Budget and Capital Improvement and Action Plan. 2. The Visitor Services Department operating project E-Bike Policy Evaluation will be modified to read “Explore pilot program for e-bike access on District paved trails.” 3. Adopt a Resolution approving the Classification and Compensation Plan for Fiscal Year 2020-21. ROLL CALL VOTE: 7-0-0 INFORMATIONAL MEMORANDUM • Updates regarding the administrative historic resources procedural guide, historic resources database, and historic resources training program Attachment 4 Meeting 20-13 Page 7 INFORMATIONAL REPORTS A. Committee Reports Director Riffle reported the Board Appointee Evaluation committee met on June 17, 2020 and finalized the evaluation schedule, which has been provided to the Board appointees. B. Staff Reports Ms. Ruiz reported on several upcoming webinars that may be of interest to the Board members. C. Director Reports The Board members submitted their compensatory reports. Director Kersteen-Tucker requested updates regarding the District’s volunteer and docent programs and their ability to return to field work. Ms. Ruiz reported staff is currently assembling a phased plan for reentry into the field, including training, safety protocols, etc. Director Kersteen-Tucker requested and received an update regarding the higher use of District preserves by visitors. President Holman inquired if staff was aware of any concerns related to illegal fireworks being used near District preserves. Mr. Malone reported that visitor use is typically higher near the July Fourth holiday, and additional staff is brought on to enforce fireworks prohibitions. There has not been an issue related to fireworks prohibitions so far at the preserves. Director Riffle suggested the Board conduct a self-evaluation and requested staff report back with information regarding this topic. The Board members spoke in support of conducting a Board self-evaluation. President Holman suggested staff work with the Board President and Vice-President to further develop the self-evaluation process and return to the Board. ADJOURNMENT Vice-President Riffle adjourned the regular meeting of the Board of Directors of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 8:12 p.m. ________________________________ Jennifer Woodworth, MMC District Clerk Attachment 4 Public Comments received prior to August 6, 2020 Attachment 5 Attachment 5 Attachment 5 Attachment 5 Rev. 1/3/18 R-20-90 Meeting 20-17 August 12, 2020 AGENDA ITEM 5 AGENDA ITEM Integrated Pest Management Program 2019 Calendar Year Report GENERAL MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATIONS Accept the Integrated Pest Management Program 2019 Calendar Year Report. No Board action required. SUMMARY On December 10, 2014 (R-14-34), the Board of Directors (Board) of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (District) adopted the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) for the Integrated Pest Management (IPM) Program (Program) and approved the IPM Guidance Manual and Policy. The District amended the Program in January 2019 through an Addendum to the FEIR (R-19-11). The Program requires a comprehensive annual report of past pest control activities, both chemical and non-chemical, on District lands. This report presents the results of the fifth year of pest management activities prescribed under the Program. The District treated 68 species, including 20 state-listed noxious weeds (plants defined as a pest by state law or regulation) using a variety of treatment methods. The total number of hours for IPM/resource management work increased by approximately 2,000 hours from 2018 due to a continued increase in contractor and volunteer hours. Herbicide use in IPM has decreased significantly from 2017 levels. No changes to the IPM program are recommended at this time. In response to COVID-19 and consistent with temporary emergency use of pesticides per the IPM, the District began in 2020 to use industry-accepted disinfectant that is classified as a pesticide to clean high touch surfaces in offices and vehicles. The use of this product is expected to continue for the duration of the pandemic, and the District will evaluate whether to return to the Board of Directors at a later date with a recommendation to add the product to the District’s List of Approved Pesticides. BACKGROUND IPM is a long-term, science-based, decision-making system that uses specific methodologies to manage damage from pests. The goal of the District’s IPM Program is to control pests by consistent implementation of IPM principles to protect and restore the natural environment and provide for human safety and enjoyment while visiting and working on District lands. The District defines pests in its Resource Management Policies as “animals or plants that proliferate beyond natural control and interfere with natural processes, which would otherwise occur on open space lands”. Moreover, the District defines target pests as “plant or animal species that have a negative impact on other organisms or the surrounding environment and are targeted for treatment”. Meeting IPM objectives requires monitoring site conditions before, during, and after treatment as well as revising methods as necessary per adaptive management principles. R-20-90 Page 2 As a component of the IPM Program, District staff is required to present the Annual Report to the full Board. The Annual Report includes the following information for IPM-related work completed during the prior calendar year: • Summary of pest problems encountered, and a comparison to past years; • Summary of pest control treatments used; • Qualitative assessment on the effectiveness of the pest control program, and suggestions for increasing future effectiveness; • Summary of pesticide use; • Summary of public notifications and public inquiries about IPM on District lands; and • Assessment of compliance with the Guidance Manual. The attached 2019 Annual Report (Attachment 1) is the fifth annual report prepared for the Program and describes the quantitative IPM activities undertaken in 2019, as well as a qualitative assessment of the Program. IPM Annual Reports from 2015 (R-16-120), 2016 (R-17-50), 2017 (R-18-81), and 2018 (R-19-90) are available for review. Listed below are the fifth-year highlights of the Program. DISCUSSION Summary of Pest Problems and Comparison to Past Years Of the more than 300 non-native species known to occur within District boundaries, the District targeted 68 invasive plant species for natural resource protection and long-term management. These species have the potential to invade natural areas, displace native species, and reduce biodiversity. The State of California considers 20 of these species as noxious weeds. The District’s IPM Coordination Team identified twenty (20) new pest control projects as a high priority for treatment on District lands. All twenty new projects began in 2019. The total number of hours for IPM-related work (Table 1) has increased by 20% from 2015 levels. Field staff hours have fluctuated since 2015 depending on other annual competing priorities, including the number of scheduled Measure AA capital improvement projects under construction. Volunteer and contractor hours have increased substantially since 2015. The hiring of a second Volunteer Program Lead in 2018 increased the capacity of volunteers for IPM projects. Increased contractor hours are primarily due to large scale, Measure AA project-related restoration and/or mitigation work. In addition, a five-year Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) grant agreement with Santa Clara Valley Water District (Valley Water) (R-17-79) provided substantial funding for IPM related work at Bear Creek Redwoods Open Space Preserve. In 2019, 323 contractor hours were spent removing invasive plant species at mitigation sites. Mitigation is required when a District project may cause potential impacts to natural areas and requires additional staff resources for restoration planning, site preparation, planting, site maintenance, and up to 10 years of follow-up monitoring. Table 1: Comparison of Hours by Crew Type and Year Year Staff Contractor Volunteer Total 2015 5,431 2,132 1,736 9,299 2016 Unknown 1 1,659 2,883 4,542 2017 623 2,907 2,559 6,089 2018 1,767 5,197 3,520 10,484 1 Staff hours were not recorded into the Weed Database or CalFlora as this was a transitional year from one database to another. R-20-90 Page 3 Year Staff Contractor Volunteer Total 2019 1,502 6,421 4,261 12,184 Summary of District Pest Control Treatments Table 2 presents a summary of hours for each treatment method expended by staff, contractors, and volunteers in 2019. Table 2: Treatment Methods by Crew Type 2 for 2019 Treatment Method Hours Total % of Total Staff Contractor Volunteer Brush Cut / Mow 108 576 - 684 6 % Cut 197 183 530 910 7 % Dig 183 265 258 706 6 % Herbicide 34 302 - 336 3 % Pull 980 5,095 3,473 9,548 78 % TOTAL 1,502 6,421 4,261 12,184 % of Total 12 % 53 % 35 % Manual weed pulling remains the most common treatment method at 78% of all hours; herbicide use accounted for only 3% of all hours. Herbicide hours were low in 2019 because of the implementation of the Valley Water MOU, which focused on manual treatment methods. In addition, some past herbicide projects have effectively reduced the cover of the target invasive species enough that follow up manual control is feasible. In a typical year, herbicide use accounts for approximately 10% of labor hours and may have periods of increased use as new projects are initiated. During the creation of the IPM Annual Plan, treatment methods are evaluated using the best available science in weed management. The IPM Annual Plan, which is finalized in January of each year, lays out the work plan for the new calendar year. Treatment methods have shifted across the five years of the Program, with the largest change in the reduction of hours spent applying herbicide (reduced from 60.8% to 3 %, with a relative reduction of 57.8%) and the largest increase in the percentage of hours spent hand pulling (increased from 35.5% to 78%, with a relative increase of 42.5%). Pest Control Program Effectiveness Structural pest control in 2019 (e.g. Administrative Office, preserve restrooms) was limited to one of six approved pesticides for buildings, all of which are “Caution” labeled (as opposed to “Warning” or “Danger” labels), and therefore pose a reduced risk to workers or occupants of treated buildings. Non-Structural Pest Control of high priority invasive plants in natural areas using both herbicidal and non-herbicidal methods is conducted to protect and restore native vegetation at preserves by eliminating or controlling the spread of competing invasive vegetation. The District has set a goal to reduce the per-acre usage of herbicides over time at individual sites and acknowledges that in some instances, use of herbicide may initially increase followed by a reduction in 2 Treatment hours are for Natural and Rangeland areas only, as brushing/mowing of roads, trails, defensible space, or emergency landing zones changes minimally from year to year. R-20-90 Page 4 herbicide use once the pest is eliminated or reduced to a level that can be effectively managed with non-herbicidal methods. Pesticide Use Staff, contractors, and tenants report pesticide use on District lands to the IPM Coordinator. Table 3 summarizes the known use of pesticides on District lands, excluding PG&E and the Spartina Project, who are excluded from the District’s IPM Program and have separate CEQA documentation. County Agricultural Departments require PG&E and the Spartina Project to report pesticide use directly to the County. District staff reviews all proposed PG&E work and the use of herbicide is limited to the approved pesticide list under the Program. PG&E adheres to the District’s herbicide Best Management Practices (BMP) and mitigation measures. Table 3: Pesticide Use on District Lands Pesticide Trade Name Active Ingredient Amount Used (ounces) Gross Acres Treated Ounces/Acre Fungicide Reliant Potassium salts of phosphorus acid 4,608 - - Herbicide Milestone Aminopyralid - - - Envoy Plus Clethodim - - - Transline Clopyralid 14 10.8 1.3 Roundup Custom Glyphosate 28 73.5 0.4 Roundup ProMax Glyphosate 59.5 44.7 1.3 Polaris Imazapyr 29.8 0.98 30.4 Capstone Triclopyr + aminopyralid 94 1.05 89.5 Garlon 4 Ultra Triclopyr 2 trace - Insecticide Prallethrin 113.5 - - Rodenticide Cholecalciferol - - - Recommended application rates, as specified on the product label, vary by Active Ingredient (AI) and formulation of any particular pesticide product. For example, the specified application rate for Roundup® (glyphosate as the AI) ranges from 32 to 160 ounces (oz) per acre. The specified application rate for Milestone (aminopyralid as the AI) ranges from three to seven ounces per acre. Note that a Department of Pesticide Regulation’s licensed Pest Control Advisor (PCA) provides the actual application rates per the District’s BMPs and is available for consultation as an Invasive Species and Restoration Biologist. Figure 1 (below) presents an analysis of herbicide used to control invasive plant species over the course of the IPM Program. Overall, herbicide use declined significantly in 2019, and it is the first year since the IPM program began that glyphosate is not the most abundant herbicide AI that was used. With the addition of Capstone (aminopyralid + triclopyr as AI) to the District’s Approved Pesticide List, staff and contractors were able to displace a significant amount of glyphosate use. Herbicide use has decreased from its peak in 2017 when the District was conducting intensive invasive species work to prepare and open Bear Creek Redwoods Open R-20-90 Page 5 Space Preserve (OSP) to public use. This initial knockdown period within the Phase I area has largely transitioned to manual and mechanical treatment methods due to a drastic decrease in percent cover in previously treated areas. Figure 1: Herbicide Use 2016-2019 Pulses of increased herbicide use should be expected in future years as new projects are initiated due to the District: • Acquiring new lands with priority infestations; • Taking action on new high priority fuel management areas; and • Prioritizing new pest management sites on exiting lands. However, a similar decline in herbicide use over subsequent years should follow as populations get under control and methods are shifted from chemical to manual treatment at specific sites. Use of disinfectant pesticide VIREX II Per the IPM program, in the event of an emergency (such as a human health disease outbreak), pesticides that are not included on the List of Approved Pesticides may be used for short periods. In these unusual situations the District will comply with required regulatory procedures, then will evaluate the emergency response pesticide use and determine if its IPM program needs to be modified to accommodate similar future emergencies. In 2020 to protect staff during the COVID-19 pandemic, the District is using the viral disinfectant Virex II (active ingredient didecyl dimethyl ammonium chloride) to clean offices, vehicles, and other high-touch surfaces. Virex II in its undiluted form is registered as a pesticide, and only trained staff who hold valid Qualified Applicator Certificates (QAC) with the CA Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR) are authorized to mix the undiluted product. The District is only cleaning with the product in its diluted form, which is not regulated and is a widely used cleaning disinfectant. However, it is only available in concentrate, so trained staff first must dilute it for use as a disinfectant. District staff will continue to use Virex II to clean surfaces at regular intervals throughout the duration of Aminopyralid Clethodim Clopyralid Glyhosate Imazapyr Triclopyr 2016 7.71 3.08 1475.5 170.75 2017 17.79 12.49 2179.32 2018 21.42 785 2019 14 85.45 29.8 96 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 Ou n c e s o f h e r b i c i d e Herbicide Use 2016-2019 (oz) 2016 2017 2018 2019 R-20-90 Page 6 the pandemic. The District will evaluate whether this pesticide or other suitable pesticides authorized to use against the virus by the Department of Pesticide Regulations should be permanently added to the District’s Approved Pesticide List. Current IPM Research Underway • Non-Herbicidal Methods to Controlling Slender False Brome The District, Resource Conservation District, and Santa Clara University partnered to assess the efficacy of several non-herbicidal treatment methods, including mechanical mowing and several types of mulch. Field experiments and data collection for non- herbicide control of Slender false brome were concluded in 2019, and a final report is expected in December 2020. • Tall Oatgrass Tall oatgrass (Arrhenatherum elatius) occurs in dense monocultures in several grasslands throughout the District, possibly introduced as forage from earlier grazing operations. To restore biodiversity in these grasslands, the District plans to implement a treatment study in Long Ridge OSP in fiscal year 2020-21 to test the efficacy of a treatment method described in the academic journal Applied Vegetation Science. If trial treatments prove successful, this method will be expanded to infestations within Skyline Ridge OSP, Los Trancos OSP, and Monte Bello OSP. • Sudden Oak Death (SOD) The District partnered with Phytosphere to test several potential treatment methods for Sudden Oak Death (SOD), including targeted Bay tree removal and fungicide applications. While unlikely to result in viable landscape-level treatment options, this is an important contribution to SOD science and may provide tools to protect significant heritage oaks and areas with high natural resource value. A final report is expected in December 2020. More details can be found in Attachment 3. • Literature Review To assist with an understanding of the least harmful and most effective pesticides to use in the IPM Program, the District has entered a 4-year partnership with a UC Santa Cruz researcher to perform an annual literature review of the latest science surrounding the products on the District’s List of Approved Pesticides. The scientific literature review focuses on land management with pesticides in natural areas or rangeland as it relates to human and environmental health. The District has received the 2015-2018 Pesticide Literature Review and Annotated Bibliography, which is now available to the public on the District’s website. The District received the 2019 Review and an executive summary in June 2020. FISCAL IMPACT Receipt of the 2019 Annual IPM Report will not result in a direct fiscal impact. Implementation of the IPM Program occurs across several different departments, including Land and Facilities, Visitor Services, and Natural Resources. Each department separately budgets for pest management activities under the General Fund – Operating Budget. BOARD COMMITTEE REVIEW The IPM Policy directs the General Manager to present annual IPM Program reports to the Board. This report presents the annual review for the calendar year 2019. R-20-90 Page 7 PUBLIC NOTICE Public notice was provided as required by the Brown Act. Public notice was also sent to 164 interested parties and tenants by postal or electronic mail. CEQA COMPLIANCE The Board approved the FEIR for the District’s IPM Program on December 10, 2014 (R-14- 148). The FEIR analyzed the vegetation management activities undertaken in 2019. On February 27, 2019, the Board unanimously voted to adopt a resolution to approve an Addendum to the Final EIR for the IPM Program (R-19-11). Staff have incorporated the associated mitigation measures and BMPs from both environmental review documents into the project. NEXT STEPS Staff will continue the implementation of the 2020 Annual IPM Plan (Year 5 of the Program), consistent with the FEIR and subsequent 2019 Addendum of the IPM Program. In October 2020, staff will begin preparing the 2021 Annual IPM Plan to guide IPM work for the calendar year 2021. District staff will evaluate and reprioritize natural and rangeland treatment areas to account for available staff time. Staff will continue to monitor and report to the Board both the science and associated policies on the use of pesticides. Natural Resource staff work with all departments (e.g. Engineering & Construction, Planning, and Land & Facilities) to ensure projects minimize environmental impacts and adhere to Best Management Practices and Mitigation Measures from the IPM Program EIR, Addendum and Guidance Manual. Attachments: 1. 2019 Annual IPM Report 2. IPM Maps 3. 2019 Sudden Oak Death Progress Report Responsible Department Head: Kirk Lenington, Natural Resources Prepared by: Tom Reyes, IPM Coordinator, Natural Resources Coty Sifuentes-Winter, Senior Resource Management Specialist, Natural Resources Contact person: Tom Reyes, IPM Coordinator, Natural Resources 2019 Annual IPM Report Integrated Pest Management Program Goal: “Control pests by consistent implementation of IPM principles to protect and restore the natural environment and provide for human safety and enjoyment while visiting and working on District lands.” ATTACHMENT 1 i | Page ATTACHMENT 1 i | Page Table of Contents List of Figures ........................................................................................................................................................ ii List of Tables ........................................................................................................................................................ iii 1 Introduction .............................................................................................................................................. - 1 - 2 Implementation of IPM Program.............................................................................................................. - 2 - 3 Summary of Pest Management ................................................................................................................ - 3 - 4 Summary of Pest Control Treatments .................................................................................................... - 11 - 5 Effectiveness of Pest Control Program ................................................................................................... - 15 - 6 Summary of Pesticide Use ...................................................................................................................... - 21 - 7 Public Interactions .................................................................................................................................. - 23 - 8 Consultants and Contractors .................................................................................................................. - 25 - 9 Compliance with Guidance Manual........................................................................................................ - 26 - 10 - 28 - 11 List of Preparers and Contributors ......................................................................................................... - 29 - Appendix A – Invasive Plant Treatment List ................................................................................................... - 30 - ATTACHMENT 1 ii | Page List of Figures Figure 1: Contractors mow Distaff thistle (Carthamus creticus) near Kneudler Lake in Russian Ridge OSP .... - 1 - Figure 2: Crews build a shaded fuel break at Sierra Azul OSP .......................................................................... - 6 - Figure 3: Preserve roads are maintained to allow safe passage of emergency vehicles .................................. - 7 - Figure 4: Preserve Partners volunteers remove Purple starthistle (Centaurea calcitrapa) at La Honda Creek OSP .................................................................................................................................................................. - 10 - Figure 5: Treatment Method Breakout ........................................................................................................... - 11 - Figure 6: Resource Management by Crew Type ............................................................................................. - 12 - Figure 7: Annual IPM Labor Hours for Natural Lands and Rangeland ............................................................ - 13 - Figure 8: Treatment Cost per Acre .................................................................................................................. - 14 - Figure 9: Yellow starthistle (Centaurea solstitialis) at Long Ridge OSP .......................................................... - 14 - Figure 10: Roundup Usage at Select Sites ....................................................................................................... - 17 - Figure 11: ARMS volunteer pulling French Broom at Bear Creek Redwoods OSP .......................................... - 19 - Figure 12: Preserve Partners volunteers pull Hanging sedge (Carex pendula) at Purisima Creek OSP .......... - 20 - Figure 13: District biologists give biological sensitivity training to staff and volunteers working in endangered species habitat ................................................................................................................................................ - 20 - Figure 14. Herbicide use from 2016-2019 ...................................................................................................... - 22 - Figure 15: Pesticide Notification Sign ............................................................................................................. - 24 - ATTACHMENT 1 iii | Page List of Tables Table 1: Number of Pre-Treatment Surveys ..................................................................................................... - 4 - Table 2: Treated Species by Rating for Ongoing and New Projects .................................................................. - 5 - Table 3: Invasive fauna species present in District Preserves........................................................................... - 5 - Table 4: Summary of Fuel Reduction projects District-wide ............................................................................ - 7 - Table 5: District Properties in the Conservation Grazing Program ................................................................... - 8 - Table 6: New Pests Control Projects ................................................................................................................. - 9 - Table 7: New Fuel Management Projects ....................................................................................................... - 10 - Table 8: Treatment Methods and Hours in Natural Areas and Rangelands in 2019 ...................................... - 11 - Table 9: Comparison of Hours by Crew Type and Year ................................................................................... - 13 - Table 10: Pesticides Approved for Use in Buildings and Recreational Structures .......................................... - 15 - Table 11: Total herbicide used by species ...................................................................................................... - 22 - Table 12: Total herbicide used by Preserve .................................................................................................... - 23 - Table 13: Public Inquiries into the IPM Program ............................................................................................ - 25 - Table 14: Consultants and Contractors who performed IPM related work ................................................... - 26 - ATTACHMENT 1 - 1 - | Page 1 Introduction This report presents the results of the fifth year of pest management activities prescribed under the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (District) Integrated Pest Management (IPM) Program. The Program was established in 2014 upon adoption by the Board of Directors of the IPM Guidance Manual. Five policies set the foundation of the Program: • Develop specific pest management strategies and priorities that address each of the five work categories; • Take appropriate actions to prevent the introduction of new pest species to District preserves, especially new invasive plants in natural areas, rangeland, and agriculture properties; • Manage pests using the procedures outlined in the implementation measures; • Monitor pest occurrences and results of control actions, and use adaptive management to improve results; • Develop and implement an IPM Guidance Manual to standardize pest management, and IPM procedures across all District Lands. Figure 1: Contractors mow Distaff thistle (Carthamus creticus) near Kneudler Lake in Russian Ridge OSP ATTACHMENT 1 - 2 - | Page 2 Implementation of IPM Program The full implementation of the IPM Program was originally scheduled to be completed by 2019. Due to shifts in staff capacity to fulfill Measure AA commitments as well as multiple key vacancies of positions that support the IPM Program during the last three years, some aspects of the IPM Program are still underway. Complete implementation of all elements of the Program is anticipated by the end of 2021. Staff is currently developing a landscape-level monitoring protocol and an Early Detection/Rapid Response Protocol as new elements under the IPM Program. Both are described below and would be brought to the Board at a later date for approval and inclusion into the IPM Program. As described in the Final Environmental Impact Report of the Program, the entire IPM Program will be revisited in 2025 to set the framework for the next cycle of IPM work. Landscape-Level Monitoring Protocol To better assess both natural (e.g. succession, disturbances such as wildlife fire) and human caused effects (e.g. management activities, climate change) in natural areas, a landscape-level monitoring protocol is needed. This protocol will allow staff to see changes in vegetation and habitat over time. The District is currently part of a regional effort to develop a fine-scale vegetation map for all of San Mateo County. This map will be extremely helpful for tracking landscape-level vegetation changes over time. The District has already received new high-resolution imagery and shaded relief map components and expects to receive the final vegetation map in 2021. A similar regional mapping effort is now in the early planning stages for Santa Clara and Santa Cruz counties, which will complete the imagery coverage for the entire Santa Cruz Mountains landscape. On January 8, 2020 (R-20-01) the Board selected three research questions for study by a Science Advisory Panel (SAP). One question is focused 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 phase will be conducted between July and December 2020, and the second 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 priority species and communities, 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. Early Detection / Rapid Response Protocol Early Detection / Rapid Response (EDRR) places emphasis on preventing the establishment of new pest populations on District lands through increased surveys for pests. If new pest populations get established, EDRR would implement rapid response measures to control pests before they spread. EDRR programs ATTACHMENT 1 - 3 - | Page increase the likelihood that pest invasions are addressed successfully before the population sizes and/or extents are beyond that which can be practically and economically contained and eradicated. The District treats several species considered to be early detection targets (i.e. spotted knapweed, hanging sedge); however, a dedicated early detection surveillance program will help ensure timely discovery and treatment of emerging threats. Increased pest surveys may allow District personnel and/or contractors to more rapidly identify and prevent pest infestations prior to establishment, thereby decreasing the amount of pest management treatments necessary on District lands over time. The IPM Guidance Manual includes EDRR strategies to respond to pests, however, current staffing levels and commitments limit the District’s ability to fully implement a comprehensive EDRR program. The District is currently evaluating the long-term resource (i.e., staffing, volunteers, contractors, etc.) and funding needs to implement the EDRR strategies, which include: • Identifying potential threats early to allow control or mitigation measures to be taken; • Detecting new invasive species in time for allowing efficient and safe eradication or control decisions to be made; • Taking additional preventive actions such as providing facilities to clean vehicles and tools to stop the spread of seeds of invasive plants; • Responding to invasions effectively to prevent the spread and permanent establishment of invasive species; • Providing adequate and timely information to decision-makers, the public, and to partner agencies concerned about the status of invasive species within an area; and • Adaptively implementing detection and early response strategies over time. The District has budgeted funds for Fiscal Year 2020-2021 to implement a small-scale effort of EDRR strategies and will bring those results and recommendations to the full Board during the 2021 Annual IPM Report. Increased pest surveys may allow District personnel and/or contractors to more rapidly identify and prevent pest infestations prior to establishment, thereby decreasing the amount of pest management treatments necessary on District lands over time. 3 Summary of Pest Management This section is a summary of the pest problems that the District has encountered during the year. Pre-Treatment Surveys The District’s Best Management Practices from the FEIR Integrated Pest Management Program outlines the use of pretreatment surveys. Specifically, it states: “A District biologist shall survey all selected treatment sites prior to work to determine site conditions and develop any necessary site-specific measures. On a repeating basis, grassland treatment sites shall be surveyed once every five years and brushy and wooded sites shall be surveyed once every three years. Brush removal on rangelands will require biological surveys before work is conducted in any year. Site ATTACHMENT 1 - 4 - | Page inspections shall evaluate existing conditions at a given treatment site including the presence, population size, growth stage, and percent cover of target weeds and pests relative to native plant cover and the presence of special-status species and their habitat, or sensitive natural communities.” Surveys are entered into CalFlora, an online database. In 2019, District biologists completed the following surveys: Table 1: Number of Pre-Treatment Surveys Category El Corte de Madera Creek Foothills Long Ridge Los Trancos Pulgas Ridge Purisima Creek Redwoods Rancho San Antonio Total Fuel Management 3 - 6 3 1 1 1 12 Natural Lands 33 - 12 14 - - - 59 Rangeland - - - - - 2 - 2 Recreational Facilities 24 2 19 7 - 1 - 1 Total 60 2 37 24 1 4 1 127 Surveys identified both biotic and abiotic environmental factors including: • Special status plants and animals in the area (e.g. California red-legged frog) • Cultural resources (e.g. known archeological sites) • Aquatic systems (e.g. ephemeral streams) • Jurisdictional areas • Erosive conditions (e.g. steep hillside with treatment to remove large areas of vegetation) • Presence of disease (e.g. Sudden Oak Death) The information recorded during pre-treatment surveys is provided to staff and contractors on the Annual Project Spreadsheet. Ongoing and General Maintenance 3.2.1 Vegetative Pest Species Sixty-eight (68) plant pest species found on District lands are treated on an on-going basis (Appendix A) to control for asset-based protection and long-term management, an increase of seven (7) species from 2019. These species have the potential to invade natural areas, displace native plant and wildlife species, and reduce biodiversity. Of the listed species, twenty (20) are considered noxious weeds by the State of California (Table 2). Some species that are considered a low priority for treatment in wildlands are treated in restoration sites to ensure that recently installed native plants have a higher chance of survival. An increase in the number of species treated is partially due to increased quality of the field data collection. ATTACHMENT 1 - 5 - | Page Table 2: Treated Species by Rating for Ongoing and New Projects Year Species Treated Cal-IPCa Rating CDFAb Rated Alert Limited Moderate High 2019 68 11 23 11 20 2 2018 61 14 22 13 20 2 2017 44 5 17 9 16 4 2016 33 3 14 10 17 3 2015 31 4 12 8 12 4 aCal-IPC – California Invasive Plant Council bCDFA – California Department of Food and Agriculture 3.2.2 Fauna Pest Species Eight (8) species of invasive fauna were monitored and/or treated in 2019. Table 3: Invasive fauna species present in District Preserves Scientific Name Common Name Preserve Location Activity Felis catus Cat, feral Rancho San Antonio Monitoring Mus musculus House mouse Multiple – see below Deer Hollow Farm; Residential Monitoring, Trapping Otospermophilus beecheyi California Ground squirrel Rancho San Antonio Deer Hollow Farm Exclusion Pseudemys nelsoni Florida red- bellied cooter Skyline Ridge Alpine Pond Attempted trapping Rattus norvegicus Norway rat Multiple – see below Deer Hollow Farm; Residential Monitoring, Trapping Rattus Black rat Multiple – see below Deer Hollow Farm; Residential Monitoring, Trapping Sus scrofa Pig, feral Russian Ridge, Sierra Azul Mindego Ranch Monitoring Trachemys scripta elegans Red-eared slider Bear Creek Redwoods Mud Lake Monitoring, Trapping 3.2.3 Pest Control in Buildings Between January and December of 2019, the District hired Complete Pest Control to perform rodent control at thirteen Open Space Preserve locations, with seventeen residences.[1] The District performed all rodent control in 2019 using traps, and did not resort to the use of any rodenticides. Locations of IPM in buildings are listed below: • El Corte de Madera OSP (1) – 4 residences • Fremont Older (1) [1] The number in parenthesis is the number of building that pest control activities occurred. ATTACHMENT 1 - 6 - | Page • La Honda OSP (2) • Monte Bello OSP (1) • Rancho San Antonio (1) – duplex with 2 residences • Russian Ridge OSP (2) • Skyline OSP (2) • Thornewood (1) • Tunitas Creek OSP (1) – two structures, one location • Windy Hill OSP (1) 3.2.4 Fuel Management The District works with local communities and fire districts to minimize the potential for fires to spread to and from Preserve lands. The District provides necessary fire and fuel management practices to protect forest resources, public health, and safety by taking the following actions: • Maintain essential roads for emergency fire access, and forest management activities to reduce fire hazard. • Maintain adequate fire clearance around District structures and facilities. • Encourage neighboring property owners to maintain adequate fire clearance around existing development; consult with regulatory agencies to encourage that construction of new development maintains fire agency recommended setbacks for fire clearance between new development and District forests and woodlands. • Evaluate the potential to reduce forest fuel loading through the removal of smaller trees to reduce forest floor fuel buildup and ladder fuels. • Coordinate with fire agencies and local communities to define locations where fire protection infrastructure is desirable and practical. • Reintroduce fire as a resource management tool to reduce forest floor fuels and reestablish fire for ecosystem health where stand conditions, access, and public safety permit; coordinate with other agencies for planning and implementation. • Seek grant opportunities and partnerships for fuel management projects and monitoring. Figure 2: Crews build a shaded fuel break at Sierra Azul OSP ATTACHMENT 1 - 7 - | Page The District is developing an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) to increase fuel management work. The fuel management portion of the EIR is expected in Fall 2020, and at that time, fuel management work will become a component of the fire program. Fuel Reduction Permits Preserve neighbors wishing to modify vegetation on District preserves to create defensible space around their homes and occupied structures may apply for a Fuel Reduction Permit. District staff perform pre- surveys prior to issuing a permit to ensure adequate protection and mitigation measures are implemented during the work. In 2019, there were no new requests for fuel management permits, and two permits remain active from previous years. Fuel Reduction Projects Implemented by the District The District currently maintains various types of fuel breaks at many preserves. This work is accomplished primarily through mechanical means using handheld power tools or heavy equipment. In addition to the acreage listed below, the District maintains approximately 30 miles of disc lines (a gap in vegetation or other combustible material that acts as a barrier to slow or stop the progress of wildfire, created by plowing the ground with a tractor pulling a disc harrow apparatus), mostly along Preserve boundaries. The IPM program covers maintenance for existing fuel breaks and does not allow for the construction of major new fuel breaks. The District is seeking additional CEQA compliance that will greatly expand the fuel reduction program on District lands and allow for the creation of new fuel breaks. Table 4: Summary of Fuel Reduction projects District-wide Purpose Acres Total Area Foothills Skyline Defensible Space 21.9 33.23 55.13 Landing Zones 6.5 5.25 11.76 Shaded Fuel Break 36.8 22.7 59.5 Other Fuel Break - 14.4 12.2 Figure 3: Preserve roads are maintained to allow safe passage of emergency vehicles ATTACHMENT 1 - 8 - | Page Purpose Acres Total Area Foothills Skyline TOTAL 65.2 75.58 140.78 Conservation Grazing The District’s conservation grazing program manages more than 11,000 acres of coastal property as rangelands. On these lands, grazing is used as a broad management tool to achieve outcomes for both conservation of biodiversity and fuel management to reduce wildfire risk while supporting local sustainable agriculture and the viability of grazing in our region. Grazing can reduce the height and thatch build-up of non-native annual grasses, which benefits native bunch grasses and forb species. Since grasslands generally support more plant diversity than nearby wooded or brushy areas, control of non-native annual grasses is one of the most significant actions that can be taken to promote plant diversity. In addition, several special status wildlife species benefit from the vegetation structure created by grazing activity. As the conservation grazing program continues to grow, the District will continue to work with grazing tenants to develop new grazing strategies that target priority invasive plant species. Grazing can also be an effective tool to reduce biomass and fuel loads, which helps reduce the intensity of wildfires. Using mechanical methods for fuel management can be prohibitively expensive, and grazing allows fuel reduction at scales that would be unfeasible with other methods. Additionally, brush removal for rangeland improvement also contributes to a significant amount of fuel management District-wide. Table 5: District Properties in the Conservation Grazing Program 1 Property Preserve Total Acres 2 Apple Orchard La Honda 222 Driscoll Ranch La Honda 3,700 McDonald Ranch La Honda 2,060 Bluebrush Canyon Purisima Creek Redwoods 302 Elkus-Lobitos Purisima Creek Redwoods 839 October Farms Purisima Creek Redwoods 270 Mindego Hill Russian Ridge 1,047 Big Dipper Skyline Ridge 955 Toto Ranch Tunitas Creek 952 Tunitas Creek Ranch Tunitas Creek 707 TOTAL 11,054 New Pest Control Projects Potential pest control projects were submitted to the IPM Coordinator using the District’s New Pest Control Project form. Potential projects were evaluated using the Project Ranking System developed by the IPM Coordination Team. The Project Ranking System evaluates projects using five categories: 1 Several new properties have been purchased that will be included in the grazing program in coming years, including Gordon Ridge (Tunitas Creek OSP), and Purisima Uplands (Purisima Creek Redwoods OSP) 2 This acreage accounts for grazing leases, and includes some ungrazed land (e.g. drainages, brush patches, etc.) A full inventory of actively grazed lands will result from the upcoming San Mateo Vegetation Map ATTACHMENT 1 - 9 - | Page • Safety o Human health o Environmental health • Prevents and controls the most destructive pests • Protects biodiversity • Provides for public engagement • Feasibility and effectiveness Twenty (20) new pest control projects were determined to have a high priority for treatment on District lands (Table 6). Table 6: New Pests Control Projects Scientific Name Species Cal-IPCa rating CDFAb rating Alert Gross Acres Person Hours Genista monspessulana French Broom High Noxious - 5.2 122 Dipsacus sativus Teasel Moderate - - 1 6 Carduus pycnocephalus Italian thistle Moderate Noxious - 2 8 Cytisus scoparius Scotch Broom High Noxious 0.4 18 Centaurea solstitialis Yellow starthistle High Noxious - 0.1 4 Carthamus lanatus Distaff thistle Moderate Noxious - 1.0 0.21 Eucalyptus globulus Eucalyptus - - - 0.1 6 Dittrichia graveolens Stinkwort Moderate Noxious X 0.5 8 Foeniculum vulgare Fennel High - - 0.25 8 Hedera helix English Ivy High - - 0.1 4 Cortaderia jubata Jubatagrass High - - 1.8 70 Pinus radiata Monterey Pine - - 0.5 12 Total 12.95 266.21 aCal-IPC – California Invasive Plant Council bCDFA – California Department of Food and Agriculture ATTACHMENT 1 - 10 - | Page Table 7: New Fuel Management Projects Preserve Location Purpose Treatment Type Treatment Method Gross Acres Person- Hours La Honda OSP Driscoll- Djerassi Fuel Break Manual & Mechanical Mowing & Cutting 1.0 8 Purisima Creek Redwoods OSP Irish Ridge Shaded Fuel Break Manual & Mechanical Mowing & Cutting 4 200 Saratoga Gap OSP Stevens Canyon Ranch Shaded Fuel Break Manual & Mechanical Mowing & Cutting 2 40 Figure 4: Preserve Partners volunteers remove Purple starthistle (Centaurea calcitrapa) at La Honda Creek OSP ATTACHMENT 1 - 11 - | Page 4 Summary of Pest Control Treatments Invasive Plant Control The following data reflects natural areas and does not include brushing/mowing of roads, trails, defensible space, or emergency landing zones. Data for brushing/mowing of roads, trails, defensible space, or emergency landing zones are not presented because these activities do not change from year to year. Table 8: Treatment Methods and Hours in Natural Areas and Rangelands in 2019 Treatment Method Hours Total % of Total Staff Contractor Volunteer Brush Cut / Mow 108 576 - 684 6 % Cut 197 183 530 910 7 % Dig 183 265 258 706 6 % Herbicide 34 302 - 336 3 % Pull 980 5,095 3,473 9,548 78 % TOTAL 1,502 6,421 4,261 12,184 % of Total 12 % 53 % 35 % Figure 5: Treatment Method Breakout Manual weed pulling remains the most common treatment method at 78% of all hours; herbicide use accounted for only 3% of all hours. Herbicide hours were low in 2019 because of the implementation of the Santa Clara Valley Water District (Valley Water) Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), which focused on manual treatment methods. In addition, some past herbicide projects have effectively reduced the cover of the target invasive species enough that follow up manual control is feasible. In a typical year, herbicide use Brush Cut / Mow 6% Cut 7% Dig 6% Herbicide 3% Pull 78% Hours per Treatment Method ATTACHMENT 1 - 12 - | Page accounts for approximately 10% of labor hours and may have periods of increased use as new projects are initiated. During the creation of the IPM Annual Plan, treatment methods are evaluated using the best available science in weed management. The IPM Annual Plan, which is finalized in January of each year, lays out the work plan for the new calendar year. Treatment methods have shifted across the five years of the Program, with the largest change in the reduction of hours spent applying herbicide (reduced from 60.8% to 3 %, with a relative reduction of 57.8%) and the largest increase in the percentage of hours spent hand pulling (increased from 35.5% to 78%, with a relative increase of 42.5%). The total number of hours for IPM-related work (Table 9) has increased by 20% from 2015 levels. Field staff hours have fluctuated since 2015 depending on other annual competing priorities, including the number of scheduled Measure AA capital improvement projects under construction. Volunteer and contractor hours have substantially increased since 2015. The hiring of a second Volunteer Program Lead in 2018 increased the capacity of volunteers for IPM projects, and in 2019 they have begun to host simultaneous projects. The five-year MOU grant agreement with Valley Water (R-17-79) provided substantial funding for manual IPM related work at Bear Creek Redwoods Open Space Preserve. Figure 6: Resource Management by Crew Type Staff 17% Contractor 51% Volunteer 32% Total Labor Hours ATTACHMENT 1 - 13 - | Page Table 9: Comparison of Hours by Crew Type and Year Year Staff Contractor Volunteer Total 2015 5,431 2,132 1,736 9,299 2016 Unknown 3 1,659 2,883 4,542 2017 623 2,907 2,559 6,089 2018 1,767 5,197 3,520 10,484 2019 1,502 6,421 4,261 12,184 Figure 7: Annual IPM Labor Hours for Natural Lands and Rangeland4 Increased contractor hours are primarily due to large scale, Measure AA project-related mitigation work. In 2019, 323 contractor hours were spent removing non-native plant species at mitigation sites. Mitigation is required when District projects may potentially cause impacts to natural areas. This work often requires excessive labor input from restoration planning, site preparation, planting, site maintenance, and up to 10 years of follow-up monitoring. Figure 8 (below) shows the comparative cost for different treatment methods for 2019. Mowing and brush cutting are shown as cost per gross acre. All other treatment methods are shown as cost per infested acre. The District uses the following hourly costs estimates for comparative cost analysis purposes only: • Contractor - $50.00 per hour • Staff – $43.45 per hour • Volunteers - $31.51 per hour 5 3 Staff hours were not recorded into the Weed Database or CalFlora as this was a transitional year from one database to another. 4 In 2016, staff hours were not recorded into the Weed Database or CalFlora as this was a transitional year from one database to another. 5 Signifies the estimated value of volunteer work and not true cost, as this is pro bono, volunteer work. This value is used for analysis purposes only. Refer to: https://independentsector.org/news-post/new-value-volunteer-time- 2019/ 54 3 1 N/ A 62 3 17 6 7 15 0 2 21 3 2 16 5 9 29 0 7 51 9 7 64 2 1 17 3 6 28 8 3 25 5 9 35 2 0 42 6 1 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Annual IPM Labor Hours Staff Contractor Volunteer ATTACHMENT 1 - 14 - | Page Figure 8: Treatment Cost per Acre $- $1,000.00 $2,000.00 $3,000.00 $4,000.00 $5,000.00 $6,000.00 $7,000.00 $8,000.00 $9,000.00 Mow Flame Brush-cut Dig Herbicide Pull Cut Co s t p e r A c r e Treatment Method Comparative Costs for Calendar Year 2019 Figure 9: Yellow starthistle (Centaurea solstitialis) at Long Ridge OSP ATTACHMENT 1 - 15 - | Page 5 Effectiveness of Pest Control Program The IPM Program identifies the following criteria for assessing the effectiveness of the Program every year: • Work health/exposure in buildings; • Reduction of pesticide use in buildings; • Per-acre herbicide use; • Preservation of biodiversity and natural resource values; • Public participation in pest control; and • Staff training, public outreach, and educational activities. Worker Health/Exposure in Buildings The District is committed to lowering worker health/exposure risk classifications in buildings when pesticides are used. Specific pesticides were approved for use on buildings (Table 9) and are described in the 2014 IPM Program Environmental Impact Report. All are “Caution” labeled and pose a reduced risk to workers or occupants of treated buildings. A specific type of rodenticide bait (Cholecalciferol) is approved for use under very strict conditions; however, it was not utilized. Only prevention and traps were approved for rodent control in 2019. Table 10: Pesticides Approved for Use in Buildings and Recreational Structures Pesticide Category Active Ingredient Product Formulation Purpose Signal Word Rodenticide Cholecalciferol Cholecalciferol baits Rodent control Caution Insecticide6 Indoxacarb Advion Gel baits Structural pest control Caution Hydroprene Gentrol Point Source Structural pest control l Caution Fipronil Maxforce Bait Station Structural pest control l Caution Sodium tetraborate Terro Ant Killer II Structural pest control Caution Diatomaceous earth Diatomaceous earth Structural pest control Caution Reduction of Pesticide Use in Buildings The District seeks to comprehensively oversee all pesticide use in and around District buildings, including use by tenants, which is expected to result in an overall reduction of pesticide use in buildings, and in particular, eliminate the use of pesticides around human occupants or visitors, or when chemicals can inadvertently escape into the surrounding wildland environment. 6 Employees, contractors and tenants may install approved ant and roach bait stations inside buildings in tamperproof containers without review by a Qualified Applicator License/Certificate holder. ATTACHMENT 1 - 16 - | Page Wasp Control for Public Safety Many social wasps such as yellow jackets are native species and are generally only considered pests when their nests are located in areas where they are incompatible with human use. For example, when social wasps nest under the eaves of buildings or alongside trails, they can sometimes exhibit aggressive protective behaviors that can threaten humans with painful stings that can cause allergic reactions in some people. In locations where multiple stinging incidents occur, District staff control wasp nests using physical or chemical control methods. In 2019, there were five (5) yellow jacket nests treated with the pesticide Wasp Freeze II (active ingredient Prallethrin), all along District trails. Per-acre Herbicide Use The District seeks a reduction in per-acre usage of herbicides over time at individual sites and acknowledges that in some instances, chemical use will initially increase, followed by a reduction in herbicide use once the pest is eliminated or reduced. Most projects utilize an integrated treatment approach which incorporates several different treatment methods throughout the life of the project. Initial treatment can consist of intensive chemical or mechanical methods, and will typically shift towards low-intensity manual methods as the infestation becomes under control and the seedbank is eliminated. Pulses of increased herbicide use should be expected in future years as new projects are initiated due to the District: • Acquiring new lands with priority infestations, • Identifying high priority fuel management areas, and • Prioritizing new pest management sites on exiting lands. District staff selected twelve (12) distinct herbicide projects to perform trend analysis: • Bear Creek Redwoods, Phase I (two herbicides); • Big Dipper Ranch (two herbicides); • Driscoll Ranch (two herbicides); • Los Trancos (two herbicides); • Mindego Hill; • Slender False Brome; and • Stinkwort (two herbicides). All but one of the selected treatment sites have shown a decline in herbicide use over time, with several sites not requiring any herbicide use at all. The treatment area at Big Dipper Ranch was expanded in 2019 due to progress made on target invasive species at Mindego Hill. This expansion in area resulted in an increase in herbicide use. As the density of the target invasive plant species declines, manual and mechanical treatment methods become more feasible and desirable. This is the expected trend for all herbicide treatment sites within the IPM program. Figure 10 below shows select sites where Roundup has been used for invasive species control. An in-depth technical report will be presented in two years (2021 Annual IPM Report) to allow for more data to be collected. ATTACHMENT 1 - 17 - | Page Figure 10: Roundup Usage at Select Sites 0.00 50.00 100.00 150.00 200.00 250.00 300.00 350.00 400.00 2016 2017 2018 2019 OU N C E S O F C O N C E N T R A T E YEAR ROUNDUP USAGE AT SELECT SITES Bear Creek Redwoods Big Dipper Driscoll Ranch Los Trancos Slender False Brome Stinkwort ATTACHMENT 1 - 18 - | Page Preservation of Biodiversity and Natural Resource Values As part of this section, District staff provides an annual qualitative assessment of natural resources conditions of IPM projects in natural areas, rangelands, and agricultural properties in the Annual IPM Report. 5.5.1 Natural Areas In natural areas, herbicide and non-herbicide methods were used to control high priority invasive plants to protect and restore native vegetation at preserves. 5.5.2 Rangeland The District 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. The District uses conservation grazing on more than 11,000 acres as a tool to manage grassland habitat on portions of these five preserves: • Russian Ridge Open Space Preserve • Skyline Ridge Open Space Preserve • Purisima Creek Redwoods Open Space Preserve • Tunitas Creek Open Space Preserve • La Honda Creek Open Space Preserve In the absence of natural disturbance (i.e. fire), the District periodically does brush removal on grasslands to slow the encroachment. ATTACHMENT 1 - 19 - | Page Volunteer Contributions to IPM The public is an integral part of the success of the IPM program. Volunteers who assist with invasive plant control and detection are a valuable asset to the IPM program. In 2019, the District’s Preserve Partner volunteers contributed 2,918 hours to resource management through seventy-two (73) outdoor service projects in eighteen (19) different Open Space Preserves. The District hosted eighteen (18) Special Group projects, a subset of Preserve Partners, which include school groups, technology companies, scout troops, running clubs, and other community groups. Preserve Partner projects focused primarily on addressing seventeen (18) invasive plant species: French broom, Spanish broom, purple starthistle, yellow starthistle, Italian thistle, milk thistle, bull thistle, acacia, fennel, summer mustard, rose clover, teasel, stinkwort, vinca, barbed goatgrass, medusahead, and tocalote. French broom removal dominated Preserve Partner projects with twenty-eight (28) French broom projects taking place in thirteen (13) open space preserves. “Pop-Up” projects began in 2018 as a new model for volunteer participation at Rancho San Antonio Open Space Preserve. A Pop-Up project is strategically located in a place with high trail use by visitors and an adequate population of easily identifiable invasive plants in order to engage and utilize the visitors already hiking in the preserve. Pop Up projects are not advertised in advance and registration is not required. A total of ninety-five (65) visitors helped to remove Italian thistle during the two Pop Up projects held on the Rogue Valley Trail in 2019. There were nineteen active Advanced Resource Management Stewards (ARMS) in 2019. The ARMS volunteers work independently on resource management projects in designated preserve areas and on their own time. In total, the ARMS volunteers contributed 1,061 hours to resource management with project sites located in eighteen (18) open space preserves. Figure 11: ARMS volunteer pulling French Broom at Bear Creek Redwoods OSP ATTACHMENT 1 - 20 - | Page Stewardship partnerships formalized in previous years continued in 2019. Grassroots Ecology contributed over 900 hours of resource management at two sites. French broom removal and yellow starthistle mowing coordination continued at the Hawthorns Property in Windy Hill Open Space Preserve. In 2019, the Volunteer Program Partnership continued with the Student Conservation Association (SCA). This program exposes local, underserved youth to careers in the open space management field while providing Geographic Information System (GIS) and resource management services to the District. The SCA contributed approximately 2,000 hours mapping coyote brush (Baccharris pilularis) over 25 project days in Rangelands at various open space preserves. Staff Training, Public Outreach, and Educational Activities 5.7.1 Staff Training The mandatory annual Pesticide Safety Training was held for all field staff at the Skyline Field Office in June of 2019. California Department of Pesticide Regulation required training information was presented by the District’s IPM Coordinator, Tom Reyes. Rangers who only handle Wasp Freeze received an abbreviated training focused on wasp control in 2019. In November 2019, the IPM Coordinator participated in the annual California Invasive Species Council symposium in Monterey, California. Tom Reyes helped Cal-IPC lead a training about planning IPM projects and gave a presentation about the San Mateo County Weed Management Area, of which Midpen is a part of. Figure 12: Preserve Partners volunteers pull Hanging sedge (Carex pendula) at Purisima Creek OSP Figure 13: District biologists give biological sensitivity training to staff and volunteers working in endangered species habitat ATTACHMENT 1 - 21 - | Page 5.7.2 Regional Cooperation Invasive species are not limited by jurisdictional boundaries, so it is of utmost importance to work with neighboring land management agencies to target invasive species at a regional scale. The District is a part of numerous regional cooperatives, including the San Mateo and Santa Clara Weed Management Areas (WMA). These cooperatives are coordinated from the County Agricultural Commissioner’s offices and help foster communication and cooperation on high-priority species among agencies in the given region. Through WMAs, the District can apply for grants to receive funding for treating invasive species across multiple jurisdictions. The District is also a part of the Santa Cruz Mountains Stewardship Network (SCMSN), which aims to coordinate actions across all three counties (San Mateo, Santa Clara, and Santa Cruz) in the Santa Cruz Mountains. The District is helping to develop an “Atlas” in partnership with Cal-IPC and CalFlora to help facilitate sharing GIS data related to invasive species and other natural resources. As the upcoming EDRR protocol is developed, tools such as this, which will facilitate regional inter-agency data sharing, will be critical to address emerging threats quickly. 6 Summary of Pesticide Use The following tables summarize the use of pesticides on District lands by staff and contractors. This data excludes PG&E, which is not covered under the District’s Integrated Pest Management Program. PG&E is required to report pesticide use to each County Agricultural Department separately. Pesticide Trade Name Active Ingredient Amount Used (ounces) Gross Acres Treated Ounces/Acre Fungicide Reliant Potassium salts of phosphorus acid 4,608 - - Herbicide Milestone Aminopyralid - - - Envoy Plus Clethodim - - - Transline Clopyralid 14 10.8 1.3 Roundup Custom Glyphosate 28 73.5 0.4 Roundup ProMax Glyphosate 59.5 44.7 1.3 Polaris Imazapyr 29.8 0.98 30.4 Capstone Triclopyr + aminopyralid 94 1.05 89.5 ATTACHMENT 1 - 22 - | Page Pesticide Trade Name Active Ingredient Amount Used (ounces) Gross Acres Treated Ounces/Acre Garlon 4 Ultra Triclopyr 2 trace - Insecticide Prallethrin 7 113.5 - - Rodenticide Cholecalciferol - - - Figure 14. Herbicide use from 2016-2019 Table 11: Total herbicide used by species Scientific Name Product Trade Name Total Ounces Used Acacia dealbata Capstone 24 Acacia dealbata Roundup Pro Max 20 Acacia melanoxylon Garlon 4 Ultra 2 Ailanthus altissima Roundup Pro Max 4 Baccharis pilularis Capstone 70 Brachypodium sylvaticum Roundup Pro Max 5.45 Brassica rapa var. rapa Roundup Custom 3 Centaurea solstitialis Transline 14 Dittrichia graveolens Roundup Pro Max 24 7 Prallethrin is used only to treat stinging insects when they pose a direct threat to public safety (i.e. nests adjacent to trails, restrooms, and parking lots). Aminopyralid Clethodim Clopyralid Glyhosate Imazapyr Triclopyr 2016 7.71 3.08 1475.5 170.75 2017 17.79 12.49 2179.32 2018 21.42 785 2019 14 85.45 29.8 96 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 Ou n c e s o f h e r b i c i d e Herbicide Use 2016-2019 (oz) 2016 2017 2018 2019 ATTACHMENT 1 - 23 - | Page Scientific Name Product Trade Name Total Ounces Used Ehrharta erecta Roundup Pro Max 2 Eucalyptus globulus Roundup Pro Max 4 Vinca major Polaris 29.8 Various (Restoration Site) Roundup Custom 25 Table 12: Total herbicide used by Preserve Preserve Product Trade Name Total Ounces Used Bear Creek Redwoods Capstone 70 Bear Creek Redwoods Polaris 29.8 El Corte de Madera Creek Roundup Pro Max 4 El Sereno Roundup Pro Max 16 La Honda Creek Roundup Pro Max 4 Pulgas Ridge Roundup Pro Max 20 Purisima Creek Redwoods Garlon 4 Ultra 2 Purisima Creek Redwoods Roundup Pro Max 2 Russian Ridge Roundup Custom 28 Russian Ridge Transline 14 Sierra Azul Capstone 24 Sierra Azul Roundup Pro Max 8 Thornewood Roundup Pro Max 5.45 7 Public Interactions Notifications 7.1.1 Pesticide Applications Prior, during, and after the application of a pesticide (including herbicides, insecticides, or other types of pesticides) on District preserves, employees or contractors post signs at the treatment area notifying the public, employees, and contractors of the District’s use of pesticide. Posting periods designated below are the District’s minimum requirements; signs may be posted earlier and left in place for longer periods of time if it serves a public purpose or if it provides staff flexibility in accessing remote locations. ATTACHMENT 1 - 24 - | Page • For pesticide application in outdoor areas of all District-owned preserves and in buildings that are not occupied or are rarely visited (e.g. pump houses), signs are posted at the treatment areas 24 hours before the start of treatment until 72 hours after the end of treatment. Signs stating “Pesticide Use Notification” are placed at each end of the outdoor treatment area and any intersecting trails. • For urgent application of pesticides to control stinging insects, signs are posted at the treatment area 72 hours after the end of treatment, but no pre-treatment posting is required. • For pesticide applications in occupied buildings such as visitor centers, offices, and residences, notification is provided to building occupants (employees, visitors, residents) 24 hours before the start of treatment by email, letters, or telephone calls. Additionally, for buildings that might be visited by more than just a single-family, signs stating “Pesticide Use Notification” will be placed at the entrances to the building 24 hours before the start of treatment until 72 hours after the end of treatment. The use of approved insecticidal baits in tamper-proof containers requires notification 24 hours before the start of treatment by email, letters, or telephone calls. • The information contained in the pesticide application signs includes: product name, EPA registration number, target pest, preserve name and/or building, date and time of application, and contact person with a telephone number. The contact person is the IPM Coordinator. • On lands that the District manages but does not own (e.g., Rancho San Antonio County Park), the District will provide notification of pesticide use in the same manner and applies the same actions as it does with its properties unless the contracting agencies have adopted more restrictive management standards. In those cases, the more restrictive management standards would be implemented by the District. • In the event of an immediate public safety concern, notification occurs at the time of treatment, but pre-posting may not be possible. All contractors notify the District before application on any property and comply with requirements for notification and posting of signs described above. At the discretion of District staff and depending on the site conditions, neighboring landowners are notified if the District is conducting pest management near a property line. Figure 15: Pesticide Notification Sign ATTACHMENT 1 - 25 - | Page Inquiries The District received several inquiries in 2019 concerning the IPM Program. This list does not include public comments received at IPM-related Board meetings. Table 13: Public Inquiries into the IPM Program Date Inquirer Contact Method Request/Comment Response 3/6/2019 Raptors are the Solution (RATS) Board Contact Form Inquired about whether or not we use anticoagulant rodenticides at Midpen. Midpen does not use anti- coagulant rodenticides. Midpen has one rodenticide on the Approved Pesticide List, and it has not been used in several years. 5/13/2019 Preserve Visitor General Info Request to stop using glyphosate herbicides Explained safety protocols in place to protect people and the environment. 7/23/2019 Preserve Neighbor near Long Ridge Phone Responding to stinkwort notification flyers. Notified of stinkwort on his property. Informed him of the stinkwort control efforts in the nearby areas. 7/23/2019 BCR Visitor Email Saw pesticide notification sign at BCR and was concerned about bee health. Explained safety protocols in place to protect people and the environment. 9/11/2019 Pulgas Visitor Email Does not think that Midpen should use glyphosate Explained safety protocols in place to protect people and the environment. 10/3/2019 Sierra Azul Visitor Phone Concerned about stinkwort growing along Hicks Road. Informed him of the stinkwort control efforts in the nearby areas of Sierra Azul. Multiple (20) Russian Ridge Visitor Various (phone, email, in- person) Provided a proposal to provide vegetation management at Russian Ridge; submitted a variety of information requests and concerns about District practices. Staff have provided several point by point responses and engaged in discussion with the inquirer. 8 Consultants and Contractors The District contracts with consultants and contractors to assist in the implementation and maintenance of the IPM Program. Table 14 outlines the scope of services and work by these firms. ATTACHMENT 1 - 26 - | Page Table 14: Consultants and Contractors who performed IPM related work8 Firm Scope of Services/Work Amount AECOM Biomonitoring for invasive species management at Russian Ridge OSP $24,560 CalFlora Annual subscription and improvements to the CalFlora Weed Manager Database $8,275 Community Tree Service Bear Creek Redwoods Tree Farm Mitigation Project $88,500 Ecological Concerns Treatment of invasive species District-wide $380,154 On Point Land Management Preparation of Pest Control Recommendations $3,750 Phytosphere Research Treatment of Sudden Oak Death in three (3) District Preserves $11,677 San Jose Conservation Corps Treatment of invasive plant species at Purisima Creek Redwoods OSP $30,000 San Mateo County RCD Treatment of slender false brome on private properties that have the potential to infest District lands $65,221 Sara Grove, PhD Ecological Consulting Preparation of the pesticide Literature Review $10,000 9 Compliance with Guidance Manual Updates to the IPM Program On February 22, 2019 (R-19-11), the full Board approved the IPM EIR Addendum, which included six (6) new recommendations aimed at further reducing glyphosate use and increasing worker and visitor safety. These recommendations have been incorporated into the IPM program beginning in the 2019 field season, and are summarized below: 1. Increase Field Crew Training a. Ensure all District field crew who perform herbicide treatments have specialized experience and training in pesticide safety, IPM principles, and special status species. b. Evaluate the suitability of securing Qualified Applicator Certificate (QAC) certifications for additional field staff, and implement as appropriate. 2. Re-examine ongoing IPM projects a. Identify suitable sites to shift treatment methods away from glyphosate. b. Ensure that all projects are performed at the time of year and phenological window for maximum effectiveness, thereby increasing the efficiency of current pesticide treatments. 3. Add Garlon 4 Ultra and Capstone to the list of approved pesticides a. Garlon is more effective at controlling woody vegetation than glyphosate b. Capstone is more effective at controlling some broadleaf weed species than glyphosate 4. Assess the availability of an alternative pesticide to replace glyphosate. This herbicide would be the safest available, broad-spectrum, post-emergent herbicide with minimal residual soil activity 8 This list is not to be considered exhaustive as some contracts contain IPM related work that is secondary to the main scope (e.g. plant maintenance contracts for mitigation sites). ATTACHMENT 1 - 27 - | Page 5. Expand the BMPs that reduce staff and visitor exposure to pesticides. a. Establish no-spray trail buffers where no herbicides can be sprayed within 5-feet of trails, trailheads, or parking lots UNLESS a 24-hour trail closure is put into place. b. Define “Spare-the-Air” days as a no-spray day due to the likely possibility of an inversion layer being present. 6. Implement an annual pesticide literature review of all newly published toxicological research and court proceedings related to pesticides on the “Approved Pesticides List” to inform updates to the IPM Program. Experimental Pest Control Projects 9.2.1 Slender False Brome (Brachypodium sylvaticum) The District, RCD, and Santa Clara University partnered to assess the efficacy of several non-herbicidal treatment methods, including mechanical mowing and several types of mulch. Field experiments and data collection for non-herbicide control of Slender false brome were concluded in 2019, and a final report is expected in December 2020. 9.2.2 Tall Oatgrass treatments Tall oatgrass occurs in dense monocultures in several grasslands throughout the District, possibly introduced as forage from earlier grazing operations. To restore biodiversity in these grasslands, the District plans to implement a treatment study in Long Ridge OSP in Fiscal Year 2020-21 (FY21) to test the efficacy of a treatment method described in the academic journal Applied Vegetation Science. If trial treatments prove successful, this method will be expanded to infestations within Skyline Ridge OSP, Los Trancos OSP, and Monte Bello OSP. 9.2.3 Sudden Oak Death (SOD) The District partnered with Phytosphere to test several potential treatment methods for Sudden Oak Death, including targeted Bay tree removal and fungicide applications. While unlikely to result in viable landscape- level treatment options, this is an important contribution to SOD science and may provide tools to protect significant heritage oaks and areas with high natural resource value. A final report is expected in December 2020. 9.2.4 Pesticide Literature Review To assist with an understanding of the least harmful and most effective pesticides to use in the IPM Program, Midpen has entered a 4-year partnership with a UC Santa Cruz researcher to perform an annual literature review of the latest science surrounding the products on our List of Approved Pesticides. The scientific literature review focuses on land management with pesticides in natural areas or rangeland as it relates to human and environmental health. The District has received the 2015-2018 Pesticide Literature Review and Annotated Bibliography, which is now available to the public on the District website. The District received the draft 2019 Review in June 2020, and the final version will be provided to the Board and posted on the District’s website. Glyphosate continues to undergo a significant amount of scientific studies related to human and environmental health. Most notably, a new study correlates increased rates of non-Hodgkin’s ATTACHMENT 1 - 28 - | Page lymphoma (NHL) in workers who were at the highest frequency and intensity of exposure in agricultural settings. Due to the very low use of glyphosate at the District and extensive Best Management Practices followed during applications, these new findings should not impact the IPM Program. Changes to Guidance Manual 9.3.1 Updating the List of Approved Pesticides The List of Approved Pesticides is intended to change over time as the science of pest control advances and more effective, safer, and less harmful pesticides are developed; as manufacturers update, discontinue, or substitute products; and as the District’s target pests change over time. In instances where new products with new active ingredients are found to be safer, more effective, and/or less costly than products on the List of Approved Pesticides, the District may elect to add new pesticides. This type of change typically requires additional toxicological review, and depending on the results, may also require additional environmental review. Use of the disinfectant Virex II Per the IPM program, in the event of an emergency (such as a human health disease outbreak), pesticides that are not included on the List of Approved Pesticides may be used for short periods. In these unusual situations the District will comply with required regulatory procedures, then will evaluate the emergency response pesticide use and determine if its IPM program needs to be modified to accommodate similar future emergencies. To protect staff during the COVID-19 pandemic, the District is using the viral disinfectant Virex II (active ingredient didecyl dimethyl ammonium chloride) to clean offices, vehicles, and other high- touch surfaces. Virex II in its undiluted form is registered as a pesticide, and only trained staff who hold valid Qualified Applicator Certificates (QAC) with the CA Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR) are authorized to mix the undiluted product. The District is only cleaning with the product in its diluted form, which is not regulated and is a widely used cleaning disinfectant. However, it is only available in concentrate so trained staff must first dilute it for use as a disinfectant. District staff will continue to use Virex II to clean surfaces at regular intervals throughout the duration of the pandemic. The District will evaluate whether this pesticide or other suitable pesticides authorized to use against the virus by the Department of Pesticide Regulations, should be permanently added to the District’s Approved Pesticide List. The Annual IPM Report, as approved by the General Manager and accepted/approved by the Board of Directors will be the basis for making changes to the Program, including modification of any IPM procedures or changes to the List of Approved Pesticides. 10 ATTACHMENT 1 - 29 - | Page 11 List of Preparers and Contributors MROSD Carmen Lau, Public Affairs Specialist I Jean Chung, Property Management Specialist I Ellen Gartside, Volunteer Program Lead Aleksandra Evert, Volunteer Program Lead Tom Reyes, IPM Coordinator Coty Sifuentes-Winter, Senior Resource Management Specialist ATTACHMENT 1 - 30 - | Page Appendix A – Invasive Plant Treatment List Ongoing and general maintenance plant pest species that were treated in 2019 sorted by total treatment hours: Scientific Name Common Name Cal-IPC Rating State Noxious Weed Labor Hours Genista monspessulana French broom High X 5294.78 Hedera helix English ivy High 1531.35 Centaurea solstitialis Yellow starthistle High X 753.8 Vinca major Vinca Moderate 752.4 Carthamus creticus Smooth distaff thistle X 389 Centaurea calcitrapa Purple star thistle Moderate X 359.95 Carduus pycnocephalus Italian thistle Moderate X 357 Cortaderia jubata Andean pampas grass High X 351.8 Dittrichia graveolens Stinkwort Moderate X 320.45 Aegilops triuncialis Goatgrass High X 298 Dipsacus fullonum Wild teasel Moderate 245.2 Spartium junceum Spanish broom High X 184.2 Pseudotsuga menziesii (cultivar)9 Douglas fir 152 Conium maculatum Poison hemlock Moderate 140.75 Ehrharta erecta Upright veldt grass Moderate 135.85 Acacia dealbata Silver wattle Moderate 126 Hirschfeldia incana Mustard Moderate 121.75 Carex pendula Hanging sedge Watch 115.5 Phalaris aquatica Harding grass Moderate 85.15 Eucalyptus globulus Blue gum Limited 74.5 Baccharis pilularis 10 Coyote brush 68 Acacia melanoxylon Blackwood acacia Limited 60.5 Foeniculum vulgare Fennel Moderate 57.25 Silybum marianum Milk thistle Limited 54.5 Dipsacus sativus Indian teasel Moderate 51.1 Typha domingensis11 Cattail 45 Brachypodium sylvaticum Slender false brome Moderate X 35.25 Aegilops cylindrica Jointed goatgrass Watch X 29.47 Rubus armeniacus Himalayan blackberry High 22.5 Vinca minor Common periwinkle 21 Cytisus scoparius Scotch broom High X 20.25 9 Douglas Fir cultivars at a former tree farm in Bear Creek Redwoods were removed for mitigation. 10 Although Baccharis pilularis (coyote brush) is a native species, the District selectively removes this to slow down the encroachment into and type conversion of California grasslands. 11 Typha domingensis (cattail) is selectively removed for aquatic habitat improvements for Special Status Species. ATTACHMENT 1 - 31 - | Page Scientific Name Common Name Cal-IPC Rating State Noxious Weed Labor Hours Pinus radiata (cultivar)12 Monterey pine Limited 16 Cirsium vulgare Bullthistle Moderate X 15.6 Plantago lanceolata Ribwort Limited 12.25 Delairea odorata Cape ivy High X 12 Elymus caput-medusae Medusa head High X 11 Myosotis latifolia Wide leaved forget me not Limited 10 Sonchus oleraceus Sow thistle 10 Rumex crispus Curly dock Limited 10 Avena fatua Wildoats Moderate 9 Medicago polymorpha California burclover Limited 8 Brassica nigra Black mustard Moderate 8 Centaurea melitensis Tocalote Moderate X 7.5 Ranunculus californicus Common buttercup 7 Solanum furcatum Forked nightshade 6 Polygonum aviculare Prostrate knotweed 6 Brassica rapa Common mustard Limited 6 Baccharis pilularis ssp. Consanguinea Coyote brush 5 Helminthotheca echioides Bristly ox-tongue Limited 4 Stellaria media Chickweed 4 Taraxacum officinale ssp. officinale Common dandelion 4 Trifolium hirtum Rose clover Limited 4 Carduus pycnocephalus ssp. pycnocephalus Italian thistle Moderate 3.5 Cynodon dactylon Bermuda grass Moderate 3.5 Helminthotheca echioids Bristly ox-tongue Limited 3.5 Erodium botrys Big heron bill 3 Bromus diandrus Ripgut brome Moderate 2.5 Ailanthus altissima Tree of heaven Moderate X 1.4 Solanum nigrum Black nightshade 1 Senecio vulgaris Common groundsel 1 Hypericum perforatum ssp. perforatum Klamathweed Limited 1 Avena sativa Wild oat 1 Lysimachia arvensis Scarlet pimpernel 0.5 Brassica rapa var. rapa Turnip 0.5 Lactuca serriola Prickly lettuce 0.5 Lactuca saligna Willow lettuce 0.5 12 Pinus radiata (Monterey pine) is the most widely planted commercial timber tree in the world. However, in its native range, consisting of five populations in California and Baja California, Mexico, the species is threatened by several human-caused impacts: development, human-dispersed plant pathogens, non-native herbivores, etc. Cal- IPC’s assessment is specifically based only on populations, stands, or individuals of the species that have become established due to human introductions, or reasonably considered to have been dispersed from such human introductions of the species. ATTACHMENT 1 - 32 - | Page Scientific Name Common Name Cal-IPC Rating State Noxious Weed Labor Hours Erigeron bonariensis Flax-leaved horseweed 0.25 Carthamus lanatus Woolly distaff thistle High X 0.2 Leucanthemum vulgare Oxe eye daisy Moderate 0.1 Holcus lanatus Common velvetgrass Moderate 0.1 Poa bulbosa Bulbous blue grass 0.01 ATTACHMENT 1 Private C o r t e M a d e r a C r e e k C o a l C re e k Ciervos S t r e e t A l p i n e R o a d Crazy Pete's R oad Ridge Trail Rid g e T r a i l A n c i e n t O a k s T r a il Alpine R o a d Ha wk Ridge Trail C h a rquin Trail A lder S pring Trail A l p i n e Road R id g e Tr a il C harquin Tr a il CrazyPete's R o a d Bypass Trail B oG i m b a l Trail C l o u d s R e st T r a il M e a d o w Trail C o a l R o a d Vista Verde Wy L a s P i e d r a s Cierv o s R d J o a q u i n R d R o c k y Creek Rd Alpine Roa d Old Spanish Trail Page MillRoad ÄÆ35 ÄÆ35 240 0 2200 200 0 180 0 160 0 1400 2400 2200 240 0 2 2 0 0 2200 2000 1400 1200 220 0 2 2 0 0 18 0 0 1400 12 0 0 2400 CC05 CC04 CC06 CC03 RR01 RR06 RR11 MB04 Littlefield Pond LORI VISTA-RR01 CLOUDS REST C O A L C R E E K L O S T R A N C O S M O N T E B E L L O R U S S I A N R I D G E S K Y L I N E R I D G E IPM Work Plan Coal Creek Coal Creek Pa t h : G : \ P r o j e c t s \ a _ D i s t r i c t w i d e \ N a t u r a l _ R e s o u r c e s \ I P M _ P r o g r a m \ W o r k P l a n M a p s \ I P M M a p E x p o r t 2 0 1 9 . m x d Cr e a t e d B y : t r e y e s 0 0.250.125 Miles I While the District strives to use the best available digital data, these data do not represent a legal survey and are merely a graphic illustration of geographic features. ÄÆ35 ÄÆ84 ÄÆ101 ÄÆ236 ÄÆ280 ÄÆ35 ÄÆ35 ÄÆ17 ÄÆ280 ÄÆ9 ÄÆ85 Los Altos Mountain View Palo Alto Cupertino Saratoga Los Gatos Santa Clara Area of Detail Invasive PlantsCalFlora_191125Weeds Brooms Early Detection Low Priority Weeds; Teasel Perennial Grasses Purple star-thistle Yellow star-thistle ATTACHMENT 2 E a st F ork T u n it a s C r e e k T r i p p G u l c h H a rri n g t o n C re e k L a H onda Creek T u n i t a s C r e e k M i t c h e l C r e e k E l C orte de Madera Creek L awr e n c e C r e e k Bear Creek Methu s e l a h Tributar y Be a r Gulch R d Allen R o a d Fir T r a i l N a t i v e S o n s R d . Star Hill Road Swett Road T u n i t a s C r e e k R d G ord on M i l l Tr a i l Sk y l i n e Trail OljonTrail Spring B o a r d Tra i l Ta f oni Trail E l Co rt e d e M adera Creek T r a i l Fir Tra il S t i l l h e a rt T r a i ls Meth e su l a h Trail Molder Trail Cros s c u t T r a i l M a n z a n i t a T r a i l Irish Ridge Tr a il M ethuse l a hTrail L a w renceCreek Trail Sk yl i ne Trail Sierr a M orena Trail S t e a mDo nkeyTrail GiantSala ma n d er Trail Skyline Trail V i r g i nia M i ll T r a il Old Rid g e R o a d S i erraMo r e n a Tra il C r o ss o v e r Tr a il Virgina MillTrail V i r g inia Mill Trail S i e rra M o r e n a Tra i l North L eaf Tr a il S o u t h L eafTra il Tim b e r v ie w Tr a il A l a m b i q ue Tr a il Res o l u t i on Trail Taf on i T r a i l M a nzanita Trail Blu e B l o s s o m T rail Bear G u l c h R d B e a r G l e n D u r h a m Road B e a r G u l c h R d S t a r H i l l R o a d Dur h a m R o a d Upper TunitasCany o n R o a d S o u t h B o undary Ro a d Central Rid g e R o a d N a t i v e S o n s R d . Lower Tunitas Canyon Road UpperMitchellCanyonRoad ÄÆ35 Sandstone Formation Big Tree (Redwood) Old Growth Redwood Grove Old Growth Redwood Kings Mountain Elementary School Kings Mountain Learning Center (Day Care) Sandstone Formation Sandstone Formation Old Growth Redwood Grove Sierra Morena Old Growth Redwood Grove Old Growth Redwood Methusela TreeVista Point Teague Hill Skeggs Point Virginia Mill Resolution Aircraft Crash Site 2 0 0 0 18 0 0 16 0 0 1 4 0 0 1 2 0 0 1 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 160 0 1400 1 4 0 0 1 0 0 0 20 0 0 18 0 0 80 0 60 0 20 0 0 1 8 0 0 1200 1000 1000 800 600 400 1000 2 2 0 0 1800 20 0 0 22 0 0 80 0 22 0 0 22 0 0 2200 2 2 0 0 2000 20 0 0 180 0 18 0 0 16 0 0 1 4 0 0 1400 8 0 0 800 600 200 0 2000 PC08 CM00 TC02 CM11 CM10 CM07 CM09 CM06 CM05 CM03 CM08 CM04 LH01 LH02 CM02 CM04 - 1/2 CM01B CM08 - 1/2 CM01CM01A Allen Road Pond (LHC25) E L C O R T E D E M A D E R A C R E E K L A H O N D A C R E E K P U R I S I M A C R E E K R E D W O O D S T E A G U E H I L L T U N I TA S C R E E K IPM Work Plan El Corte de Madera Creek El Corte De Madera Pa t h : G : \ P r o j e c t s \ a _ D i s t r i c t w i d e \ I P M _ P r o j e c t \ I P M . m x d Cr e a t e d B y : t r e y e s 0 0.550.275 Miles I While the District strives to use the best available digital data, these data do not represent a legal survey and are merely a graphic illustration of geographic features. ÄÆ35 ÄÆ84 ÄÆ101 ÄÆ236 ÄÆ280 ÄÆ35 ÄÆ35 ÄÆ17 ÄÆ280 ÄÆ9 ÄÆ85 Los Altos Mountain View Palo Alto Cupertino Saratoga Los Gatos Santa Clara Area of Detail Invasive Plants Acacia Brooms Early Detection Jubata Grass Low Priority Weeds; Teasel Other Thistles Perennial Grasses Slender False Brome Stinkwort Vinca Woody Invasives Yellow star-thistle ATTACHMENT 2 Permit Only Lyn d o n Canyon Cre e k W i l d c a t C r e e k S a n Tomas A q u i n a s C r e e k T r o ut Creek HayesHouse (demo?) B o hlm a n Road BohlmanRoa d Beckwith O verloo k D r i v e A q u i n a s Trail Jo h nNicholasTrail BoGillRd Mo Gill Rd M o n t e vinaR i d g e T r a il PG &E S p u r L o s G atos Creek Trail L o m a V i s t a T r a i l Sere ni t y Trail Aquinas T r a il Overlook Trail P G & E S e r v i c e R o a d B lack R d McGill Rd MontevinaRoad Broa d w a y Lin d a V i s t a A v e . C a n y o n D r i v e O v e r l o o k D r i v e ÄÆ9 2 4 0 0 22 0 0 80 0 60 0 140 0 1200 1600 1400 1800 1 2 0 0 20 0 0 18 0 0 1600 1200 1 0 0 0 6 0 0 4 0 0 100 0 800 2 0 0 0 18 0 0 16 0 0 8 0 0 2 2 0 0 1800 180 0 18 0 0 1600 800 60 0 60 0 600 ES04 ES03 ES01 ES01a ES06 ES05 ES02 LINDAVISTA SHELDONE L S E R E N O IPM Work Plan El Sereno El Sereno Pa t h : G : \ P r o j e c t s \ a _ D i s t r i c t w i d e \ N a t u r a l _ R e s o u r c e s \ I P M _ P r o g r a m \ W o r k P l a n M a p s \ I P M M a p E x p o r t 2 0 1 9 . m x d Cr e a t e d B y : t r e y e s 0 0.40.2 Miles I While the District strives to use the best available digital data, these data do not represent a legal survey and are merely a graphic illustration of geographic features. ÄÆ35 ÄÆ84 ÄÆ101 ÄÆ236 ÄÆ280 ÄÆ35 ÄÆ35 ÄÆ17 ÄÆ280 ÄÆ9 ÄÆ85 Los Altos Mountain View Palo Alto Cupertino Saratoga Los Gatos Santa Clara Area of Detail Invasive PlantsCalFlora_191125Weeds Blackberry Brooms Early Detection Eucalyptus Ivy Low Priority Weeds; Teasel Perennial Grasses Stinkwort Vinca Woody Invasives Yellow star-thistle ATTACHMENT 2 West Fork Ad obe C re e k M o ody Road W o o d rat Trail T o yo n Tr a i l P o n y T r a ck s F ire Road C h a r l i e Brow n F i r e Road Bun n y Loo p T r a il BunnyLoopTrail Sherlock Court SherlockRoad Page Mill Road P a g e M i l l R o a d Page M ill R o a d 1 4 0 0 1 2 0 0 1000 800 12 0 0 1 0 0 0 10 0 0 800 160 0 1 2 0 0 10 0 0 12 0 0 60 0 60 0 FH01 F O O T H I L L S IPM Work Plan Foothills Foothills Pa t h : G : \ P r o j e c t s \ a _ D i s t r i c t w i d e \ N a t u r a l _ R e s o u r c e s \ I P M _ P r o g r a m \ W o r k P l a n M a p s \ I P M M a p E x p o r t 2 0 1 9 . m x d Cr e a t e d B y : t r e y e s 0 0.150.075 Miles I While the District strives to use the best available digital data, these data do not represent a legal survey and are merely a graphic illustration of geographic features. ÄÆ35 ÄÆ84 ÄÆ101 ÄÆ236 ÄÆ280 ÄÆ35 ÄÆ35 ÄÆ17 ÄÆ280 ÄÆ9 ÄÆ85 Los Altos Mountain View Palo Alto Cupertino Saratoga Los Gatos Santa Clara Area of Detail Invasive PlantsCalFlora_191125Weeds Yellow star-thistle ATTACHMENT 2 Steven s C r eek P r o s p e ct Cre e k R e g n a r t C r e e k Fremont OlderRanger Residence AdobeHouse PrivateResidence Fremont OlderHistoricalHouse P r o s p e c t R o a d Ste vens C a n y o n Rd. LookoutTrailW e d d in g Tr a il W o o d h i l l s L oop T rail Hunters P o i n t Ranch Road C o y o t e R i d ge Tra il St e v ensCre e k -T o n y L ookTrail H a y f ield Trail Cr e e k s i d e T r a i l To y on Trail Seven Spri n g s L o o p T r a il V i s t a L o o p Trail R a inb ow K n o ll T r a il C r e e k T r a il Re g n artTrail F e r n T r a il B ayViewTrail Cora Old e r Trail Seven Sp rings Loop Trail Regnart Roa d 8 0 0 6 0 0 10 0 0 80 0 600 400 8 0 0 6 0 0 800 600 6 0 0 800 8 0 0 600 1000 600 600 60 0 60 0 FO01 FO02 FO05 FO04 FO03 FO08 FO07 Stevens Creek Reservoir HAYFIELD GARRODS 22 F R E M O N T O L D E R IPM Work Plan Fremont Older Fremont Older Pa t h : G : \ P r o j e c t s \ a _ D i s t r i c t w i d e \ N a t u r a l _ R e s o u r c e s \ I P M _ P r o g r a m \ W o r k P l a n M a p s \ I P M M a p E x p o r t 2 0 1 9 . m x d Cr e a t e d B y : t r e y e s 0 0.20.1 Miles I While the District strives to use the best available digital data, these data do not represent a legal survey and are merely a graphic illustration of geographic features. ÄÆ35 ÄÆ84 ÄÆ101 ÄÆ236 ÄÆ280 ÄÆ35 ÄÆ35 ÄÆ17 ÄÆ280 ÄÆ9 ÄÆ85 Los Altos Mountain View Palo Alto Cupertino Saratoga Los Gatos Santa Clara Area of Detail Invasive PlantsCalFlora_191125Weeds Blackberry Early Detection Eucalyptus Low Priority Weeds; Teasel Other Thistles Perennial Grasses Stinkwort Vinca Woody Invasives Yellow star-thistle ATTACHMENT 2 Bl a c k R d 1 6 0 0 14 0 0 12 0 0 1 0 0 0 1400 F E L T O N S TAT I O N IPM Work Plan Felton Station Felton Station Pa t h : G : \ P r o j e c t s \ a _ D i s t r i c t w i d e \ N a t u r a l _ R e s o u r c e s \ I P M _ P r o g r a m \ W o r k P l a n M a p s \ I P M M a p E x p o r t 2 0 1 9 . m x d Cr e a t e d B y : t r e y e s 0 0.070.035 Miles I While the District strives to use the best available digital data, these data do not represent a legal survey and are merely a graphic illustration of geographic features. ÄÆ35 ÄÆ84 ÄÆ101 ÄÆ236 ÄÆ280 ÄÆ35 ÄÆ35 ÄÆ17 ÄÆ280 ÄÆ9 ÄÆ85 Los Altos Mountain View Palo Alto Cupertino Saratoga Los Gatos Santa Clara Area of Detail Invasive Plants ATTACHMENT 2 Permit Only L a H o n d a C r e e k S a n G r e g o r io Cre e k W oo dr u ff C r e e k H a r ri n gton C r e e k Langley C r e e k B o g e s s Cre e k San G r e g o r i o Creek Woodhams C r e e k P i ne Tree G u l ch W e e k s Creek Whistle Cr e e k La Ho n d a Cre e k OfficeTrailer McDonaldRanchHouse Wool Ranch House(demo?) BunkHouse Guerra ZanoniRanch House(demo?) In-LawCottage Bunk House House FolgerRanchHouse Flag PoleHouse CunhaHouse Harrington CreekTrail F o l ger Ranc h Lo o p T r a il L a g u n a D r G u a r d i a n W y Red w o o d D r C u e s t a R e a l Pop e R d ScenicDr CanadaVista S u e n o C a m i n o P l a y B o wlDr Beverly Dr Ve n t u r a A v e Sh e l d e n R d M e m o r y Ln Roquena Dr Recreat i o n D r Woodland Vista Redwo o d R d Se ars R a n c h R o ad BearGulch Rd P e e k A B o o L n ÄÆ84 ÄÆ84 ÄÆ84 1 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 8 0 0 6 0 0 1 4 0 0 1 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 6 0 0 8 0 0 60 0 40 0 1 0 0 0 80 0 40 0 200 160 0 1400 1200 1000 12 0 0 10 0 0 80 0 60 0 4 0 0 1 0 0 0 80 0 400 200 1 4 0 0 1 0 0 0 1200 1200 140 0 12 0 0 1 2 0 0 1 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 80 0 80 0 8 0 0 800 800 8 0 0 80 0 80 0 600 60 0 40 0 40 0 400 400 800 400 200 LH08 LH11 LH15 LH06 LH07 LH13 LH12 LH09 LH10 LH14 Pearson's Pond DR10 Lower Pond (LHC23) DR13 Duck Pond (DR15) Upper Turtle (DR19) Reflection Lake Granny Flats Reservoir Tire Pond (DR21) DR06 Dani's Pond (DR05) Quarry Pond (DR17) Nice Pond (DR02) Schoolhouse Pond (DR03) Snake Pond (DR08) DR09 DR22 Fair Pond (DR04) Lower Turtle (DR20) DR14 DR12 DR11 DR01 DR07 DR18 Rodeo Pond (DR16) Shallow Pond (DR26) REDBARN HC1 HC3 HC2 L A H O N D A C R E E K IPM Work Plan La Honda Creek LH- Driscoll Ranch Pa t h : G : \ P r o j e c t s \ a _ D i s t r i c t w i d e \ N a t u r a l _ R e s o u r c e s \ I P M _ P r o g r a m \ W o r k P l a n M a p s \ I P M M a p E x p o r t 2 0 1 9 . m x d Cr e a t e d B y : t r e y e s 0 0.60.3 Miles I While the District strives to use the best available digital data, these data do not represent a legal survey and are merely a graphic illustration of geographic features. ÄÆ35 ÄÆ84 ÄÆ101 ÄÆ236 ÄÆ280 ÄÆ35 ÄÆ35 ÄÆ17 ÄÆ280 ÄÆ9 ÄÆ85 Los Altos Mountain View Palo Alto Cupertino Saratoga Los Gatos Santa Clara Area of Detail Invasive PlantsCalFlora_191125Weeds Acacia Blackberry Brooms Eucalyptus Ivy Jubata Grass Low Priority Weeds; Teasel Mustards Other Thistles Perennial Grasses Purple star-thistle Slender False Brome Stinkwort Vinca Woody Invasives Yellow star-thistle ATTACHMENT 2 Permit Only L a H o n d a C r e e k H a r r i ng t o n C re ek W e e k s C r e ek DyerHouse McDonaldRanchHouseMcDonaldRanch Mobile Home A ll e n R o a d Coho Vista Loop T r a il O l d LaHonda Rd Cie l o Tra il Coh o V i s t a L o o p T r a i l Coho Vista Trail E l k Tree R d Frem o n t W y K e b e t R i d geRd S e q u o i a D r K e b e t R i d g e R d Calaveras W y Big Tr e e W y C hapm a n Rd S k y li n e D r S t a r w o o d D r i v e ÄÆ35 ÄÆ84 160 0 14 0 0 12 0 0 2000 180 0 1600 14 0 0 1000 800 10 0 0 6 0 0 16 0 0 14 0 0 1200 100 0 2200 22 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 160 0 14 0 0 120 0 1000 8 0 0 LH01 LH06 LH07 LH03 Lower Pond (LHC23) Allen Road Pond (LHC25) Lone Madrone Pond (LHC24) REDBARN DYER-W DYER-E L A H O N D A C R E E K IPM Work Plan La Honda Creek LH- Upper Pa t h : G : \ P r o j e c t s \ a _ D i s t r i c t w i d e \ N a t u r a l _ R e s o u r c e s \ I P M _ P r o g r a m \ W o r k P l a n M a p s \ I P M M a p E x p o r t 2 0 1 9 . m x d Cr e a t e d B y : t r e y e s 0 0.350.175 Miles I While the District strives to use the best available digital data, these data do not represent a legal survey and are merely a graphic illustration of geographic features. ÄÆ35 ÄÆ84 ÄÆ101 ÄÆ236 ÄÆ280 ÄÆ35 ÄÆ35 ÄÆ17 ÄÆ280 ÄÆ9 ÄÆ85 Los Altos Mountain View Palo Alto Cupertino Saratoga Los Gatos Santa Clara Area of Detail Invasive PlantsCalFlora_191125Weeds Brooms Eucalyptus Low Priority Weeds; Teasel Other Thistles Purple star-thistle Slender False Brome Stinkwort ATTACHMENT 2 Private Private Slat e C r e e k O i l C r e e k T i n Can C r e e k P e s c a d e r o Cre e k W ate r man Creek P e t e r s C r e e k Paul Cabin(demo?) PortolaHeight FormerBean House L'Andre(demo?) Dohe rty R i d g e R o a d P o rtola Heig h t s R o ad S o r ichRoad D o h e r t y Ridge Ro ad Long RidgeRoad L o n g Rid g e R o a d Ohlo n e Wy So r ic h Road Chestnut Tra il S c h o o l R o a d B e a r CreekTrail W ard R o a d S hingle Mi l l R o a d Shingle Mill Road Hickory O a k s T r a i l Cut A cro s s Roa d C h a rco a l Road S c h o o l R o ad Skyline T r a i l Bearmont Rd Red Mo u n t a i n T r a il S a rat oga G a p Trail Ca st a n eaRidgeRd Nu t m e g T r a i l F ive P o intsRoad Slate Cree k Trail Pete rs Cre e k Tra il S a r a toga G ap Trail S chool R d Summit Meado w s Tr a il BearCreekTrail W a rd R d S k y l i n e -t o -t h e-Sea Tra il L o ng RidgeRoad L o ng Rid g e Tr a il W a r d Tru c k Trail Ranc h Spring Trail Sarat o g aTo l l Road Tr a i l T a ble M o u ntain T r a i l Achistaca t r a i l to B o y s S c o u t C a m p ÄÆ35 ÄÆ35 ÄÆ9 ÄÆ9 ÄÆ35 2200 2000 1800 1600 1400 120 0 2600 2200 22 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 2000 18 0 0 180 0 1600 160 0 140 0 14 0 0 12 0 0 1 4 0 0 1 2 0 0 26 0 0 24 0 0 2000 1800 2 0 0 0 18 0 0 240 0 200 0 18 0 0 2200 220 0 16 0 0 26 0 0 2600 26 0 0 260 0 24 0 0 2400 22 0 0 2 2 0 0 1400 10 0 0 10 0 0 10 0 0 LR01 LR09 LR10 SG01 LR16 LR17 LR02 LR04 LR06 LR07 LR13 LR11 LR03 LR12 LR14 LR08 LR05 LR15 SG04 Jikoji Pond CALTRANS VIRENS HELI-KNOLL PORTOLA-HTS BAR Y HO L O N G R I D G E M O N T E B E L L O S A R A T O G A G A P S K Y L I N E R I D G E IPM Work Plan Long Ridge Long Ridge Pa t h : G : \ P r o j e c t s \ a _ D i s t r i c t w i d e \ N a t u r a l _ R e s o u r c e s \ I P M _ P r o g r a m \ W o r k P l a n M a p s \ I P M M a p E x p o r t 2 0 1 9 . m x d Cr e a t e d B y : t r e y e s 0 0.50.25 Miles I While the District strives to use the best available digital data, these data do not represent a legal survey and are merely a graphic illustration of geographic features. ÄÆ35 ÄÆ84 ÄÆ101 ÄÆ236 ÄÆ280 ÄÆ35 ÄÆ35 ÄÆ17 ÄÆ280 ÄÆ9 ÄÆ85 Los Altos Mountain View Palo Alto Cupertino Saratoga Los Gatos Santa Clara Area of Detail Invasive PlantsCalFlora_191125Weeds Brooms Early Detection Goat grass Ivy Low Priority Weeds; Teasel Mustards Perennial Grasses Stinkwort Yellow star-thistle ATTACHMENT 2 W e s t F o r k A dobe Creek L o s T r a n c o s C r e e k PrivateResidence Private Residence M o n t e b ello R o ad P a g e M ill T r a il P a g e M ill Trail L o s t C r e e k L o o p Trail Nonette H a nk o S an A ndreas Fa u l t Trail C a n y o n T r a il P o n yTr a c k s Fire R o a d L o s T r a n c o s Trail Lost Creek L o o p Tr ail L o s Tr a n c o s Tr a il F r a n c is c a n LoopTrail A d o b e C r e e kTrail White O a k Trail Nonette Hanko San Andreas F a u lt Trail Page Mill Road 1600 1400 2 0 0 0 1 8 0 0 1 8 0 0 1 6 0 0 1 6 0 0 1 4 0 0 220 0 1400 1 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 2200 2000 14 0 0 MB01 MB00 LT01 MB03 LT02 LT03 LT00 Sag Pond Leak Pond MB-MAINLOT ADOBE L O S T R A N C O S M O N T E B E L L O F O O T H I L L S IPM Work Plan Los Trancos Los Trancos Pa t h : G : \ P r o j e c t s \ a _ D i s t r i c t w i d e \ N a t u r a l _ R e s o u r c e s \ I P M _ P r o g r a m \ W o r k P l a n M a p s \ I P M M a p E x p o r t 2 0 1 9 . m x d Cr e a t e d B y : t r e y e s 0 0.150.075 Miles I While the District strives to use the best available digital data, these data do not represent a legal survey and are merely a graphic illustration of geographic features. ÄÆ35 ÄÆ84 ÄÆ101 ÄÆ236 ÄÆ280 ÄÆ35 ÄÆ35 ÄÆ17 ÄÆ280 ÄÆ9 ÄÆ85 Los Altos Mountain View Palo Alto Cupertino Saratoga Los Gatos Santa Clara Area of Detail Invasive PlantsCalFlora_191125Weeds Brooms Early Detection Eucalyptus Goat grass Low Priority Weeds; Teasel Mustards Other Thistles Perennial Grasses Stinkwort Woody Invasives Yellow star-thistle ATTACHMENT 2 W e s t F o r k Adobe C r e e k Adobe Creek S t e v e n s C r e e k In dia n Creek G o l d M i n e C re e k Indian Cabin Creek Bay Creek MonteBelloCabin PrivateResidence PrivateResidenceKiosk M o n t e b elloR o a d B ella V istaTrail IndianCreekTrail T r e e Fa r m T rai l B l a c k M ou n t a i n T r a il Ca n y o n T r a i l Q u arryTrail Ch e st n u tTr a i l O ld R a n c h Tra il Fir K n o l l T ra il A d o b e Creek Trail Stevens C re ekNatureTrail ÄÆ35 2 8 0 0 2 6 0 0 2 2 0 0 20 0 0 16 0 0 14 0 0 220 0 20 0 0 18 0 0 180 0 16 0 0 2 4 0 0 2 2 0 0 220 0 18 0 0 14 0 0 1 2 0 0 24 0 0 22 0 0 2200 20 0 0 2 0 0 0 18 0 0 1800 1600 1800 1200 20 0 0 280 0 22 0 0 2 0 0 0 200 0 20 0 0 1800 1 6 0 0 16 0 0 SR11 MB07SR03 SR02 MB01 WP02 WP03 MB02 Mushroom Pond Cattail Pond Lima Bean Leak Pond Morrell Pond QUARRY BLKMTN ADOBE TWO MILE L O S T R A N C O S M O N T E B E L L O R A N C H O S A N A N T O N I O S K Y L I N E R I D G E F O O T H I L L S IPM Work Plan Monte Bello Black Mountain Pa t h : G : \ P r o j e c t s \ a _ D i s t r i c t w i d e \ N a t u r a l _ R e s o u r c e s \ I P M _ P r o g r a m \ W o r k P l a n M a p s \ I P M M a p E x p o r t 2 0 1 9 . m x d Cr e a t e d B y : t r e y e s 0 0.350.175 Miles I While the District strives to use the best available digital data, these data do not represent a legal survey and are merely a graphic illustration of geographic features. ÄÆ35 ÄÆ84 ÄÆ101 ÄÆ236 ÄÆ280 ÄÆ35 ÄÆ35 ÄÆ17 ÄÆ280 ÄÆ9 ÄÆ85 Los Altos Mountain View Palo Alto Cupertino Saratoga Los Gatos Santa Clara Area of Detail Invasive PlantsCalFlora_191125Weeds Brooms Early Detection Ivy Low Priority Weeds; Teasel Other Thistles Perennial Grasses Purple star-thistle Stinkwort Yellow star-thistle ATTACHMENT 2 Madonna Creek A p a n o li o C r e e k P ila rc itos Creek Madonna Creek OfficeTrailer &Tack Room M i r a m o n t e s St EquestrianTrail D i g g e s C a n y o n R d ÄÆ92 8 0 0 6 0 0 80 0 60 0 600 400 600 40 0 2 0 0 8 0 0 6 0 0 40 0 200 600 60 0 400 600 400 200 200 MR02 MR03 Miramontes Pond M I R A M O N T E S R I D G E IPM Work Plan Miramontes Ridge MR- Lower Pa t h : G : \ P r o j e c t s \ a _ D i s t r i c t w i d e \ N a t u r a l _ R e s o u r c e s \ I P M _ P r o g r a m \ W o r k P l a n M a p s \ I P M M a p E x p o r t 2 0 1 9 . m x d Cr e a t e d B y : t r e y e s 0 0.250.125 Miles I While the District strives to use the best available digital data, these data do not represent a legal survey and are merely a graphic illustration of geographic features. ÄÆ35 ÄÆ84 ÄÆ101 ÄÆ236 ÄÆ280 ÄÆ35 ÄÆ35 ÄÆ17 ÄÆ280 ÄÆ9 ÄÆ85 Los Altos Mountain View Palo Alto Cupertino Saratoga Los Gatos Santa Clara Area of Detail Invasive PlantsCalFlora_191125Weeds Eucalyptus Ivy Jubata Grass Low Priority Weeds; Teasel Perennial Grasses ATTACHMENT 2 PrivateResidence Old Cabin ÄÆ35 12 0 0 100 0 1 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 140 0 120 0 10 0 0 1200 1400 1200 MR01 M I R A M O N T E S R I D G E IPM Work Plan Miramontes Ridge MR- Upper Pa t h : G : \ P r o j e c t s \ a _ D i s t r i c t w i d e \ N a t u r a l _ R e s o u r c e s \ I P M _ P r o g r a m \ W o r k P l a n M a p s \ I P M M a p E x p o r t 2 0 1 9 . m x d Cr e a t e d B y : t r e y e s 0 0.10.05 Miles I While the District strives to use the best available digital data, these data do not represent a legal survey and are merely a graphic illustration of geographic features. ÄÆ35 ÄÆ84 ÄÆ101 ÄÆ236 ÄÆ280 ÄÆ35 ÄÆ35 ÄÆ17 ÄÆ280 ÄÆ9 ÄÆ85 Los Altos Mountain View Palo Alto Cupertino Saratoga Los Gatos Santa Clara Area of Detail Invasive PlantsCalFlora_191125Weeds Acacia Brooms Eucalyptus Ivy Other Thistles Perennial Grasses Stinkwort ATTACHMENT 2 L o b i t o s Cree k W a l k e r Gulch Tu nita s C r e e k Puri sima Creek P u r i s i m a C reek L o b i t o s C r e e k LobitosRidgeHistorical House OctoberFarm House Bluebrush House Lobitos RidgeRanchHouse Hig gin sCa n y on Rd Tu n it as C r e e k Rd Tun i tas Cree kRd P u r isima C reek R d Irish Ridge Road I r i s h R idge Roa d F a rm R o a d A Lobit o s Cree k Trail B ald K n o b T rail Iris h Ri d g e Tra il F a r m R o a d B Lu c yLn Ve r d e R d L o w e r T u n it a s C a n y o n R o a dLobitos Cr e e k R d 1 6 0 0 14 0 0 10 0 0 1 8 0 0 60 0 140 0 1200 80 0 60 0 4 0 0 800 400 8 0 0 6 0 0 8 0 0 60 0 4 0 0 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 400 100 0 4 0 0 4 0 0 200 1 6 0 0 1400 1 0 0 0 8 0 0 600 600 60 0 60 0 400 600 40 0 PC10 PC11 PC09 PC20 PC21PC22 PC12 PC08 PC07 Purisima Pond Dry Pond Silt PondChorus Frog PondBathtub Pond October Pond P U R I S I M A C R E E K R E D W O O D S IPM Work Plan Purisima Creek Redwoods PCR- Ranches Pa t h : G : \ P r o j e c t s \ a _ D i s t r i c t w i d e \ N a t u r a l _ R e s o u r c e s \ I P M _ P r o g r a m \ W o r k P l a n M a p s \ I P M M a p E x p o r t 2 0 1 9 . m x d Cr e a t e d B y : t r e y e s 0 0.450.225 Miles I While the District strives to use the best available digital data, these data do not represent a legal survey and are merely a graphic illustration of geographic features. ÄÆ35 ÄÆ84 ÄÆ101 ÄÆ236 ÄÆ280 ÄÆ35 ÄÆ35 ÄÆ17 ÄÆ280 ÄÆ9 ÄÆ85 Los Altos Mountain View Palo Alto Cupertino Saratoga Los Gatos Santa Clara Area of Detail Invasive PlantsCalFlora_191125Weeds Acacia Brooms Eucalyptus Ivy Jubata Grass Low Priority Weeds; Teasel Perennial Grasses Vinca ATTACHMENT 2 G r a b t o w n G u l c h Arro y o Leon B e a r C r e e k Purisima Creek S qu e a l e r G u l c h A r r o y o Le on W e s t U n i o n C r e e k T u n i t a s C reek Whittemore Gulch Walker G ulch L o b i t o s C reek PurisimaCreek House(Upper) S t a r H i l l Road Ridg e Ro a d H a r kinsFire T r a i l TunitasC r e e k Rd Swett R o a d Tunit as Cre e k Rd P urisima C r e e k Trail Richards R o a d N o r t h R i d g e T r a i l H a r kin s F i r e T r a i l Uppe r Sk ylineR i d geR e d w o o d Trail Sierra M o r e n a S k y l ine T r a il Borden Hatch MillTrail M ount RedondoTrail Irish R id g e T r a il H a r k i n s R i d g e Tr a il G rabtown Gulch Trai l R a y m u n d o Tr a il L o n e l y Trail Ba ld K n o b Tr a il W h i t t e m o r e G u l c h T r a il Craig B ritto n T r a il C omst ock Rd Meg a n s L n H a r k i n s Rd Henrik W are R d F orest R d Bi g P i n e R d Pur i s s i m a S t Red w o o d T e r r W a r e R d O l d R a n c h R o a d Forest View Road Bi g S p r i n g R o a d C e n t r a l R i d g e R o a d Lower GrabtownRoad L o w e r T u n i t a s C a n y o n R o a d Big S t u m p R o a d UpperTunitasCanyon Road ÄÆ35 ÄÆ35 ÄÆ35 2000 1800 1600 1200 2000 1800 1 4 0 0 12 0 0 120 0 100 0 80 0 600 1 0 0 0 8 0 0 22 0 0 20 0 0 2000 1800 14 0 0 12 0 0 1 4 0 0 1200 1400 1 0 0 0 80 0 60 0 16 0 0 10 0 0 1400 1 0 0 0 2200 20 0 0 1800 1800 160 0 1600 1200 12 0 0 12001 2 0 0 120 0 1 0 0 0 10 0 0 40 0 180 0 PC04 PC01 PC01NN Resident PC06 PC01 Entry PC05 PC02 PC03A PC03 PC01 Exit PC08 PCO1LOT NRIDGE E L C O R T E D E M A D E R A C R E E K P U R I S I M A C R E E K R E D W O O D S IPM Work Plan Purisima Creek Redwoods PCR Pa t h : G : \ P r o j e c t s \ a _ D i s t r i c t w i d e \ N a t u r a l _ R e s o u r c e s \ I P M _ P r o g r a m \ W o r k P l a n M a p s \ I P M M a p E x p o r t 2 0 1 9 . m x d Cr e a t e d B y : t r e y e s 0 0.450.225 Miles I While the District strives to use the best available digital data, these data do not represent a legal survey and are merely a graphic illustration of geographic features. ÄÆ35 ÄÆ84 ÄÆ101 ÄÆ236 ÄÆ280 ÄÆ35 ÄÆ35 ÄÆ17 ÄÆ280 ÄÆ9 ÄÆ85 Los Altos Mountain View Palo Alto Cupertino Saratoga Los Gatos Santa Clara Area of Detail Invasive PlantsCalFlora_191125Weeds Acacia Brooms Early Detection Ivy Jubata Grass Low Priority Weeds; Teasel Other Thistles Perennial Grasses Slender False Brome Vinca ATTACHMENT 2 S t e v e n s C r e e k Swiss Creek MainHouse PichettiWinery Stevens Cany on Rd. M t .E d e n Rd. Montebello Road S t e v e n s C r e e k -To nyLook Trail Bear Meadow Trail V i s ta Trail L o o k o u t T r a i l Orch ard Loop Tra i l Z in f a n d elTrail Orchard L o o p T r a il B e ar M e a d o w Tra il Creek Tra il 140 0 600 1600 1000 800 1600 1400 800 600 800 600 80 0 6 0 0 1 2 0 0 600 600 PI02 PI03 PI01 PI04 Picchetti Pond Stevens Creek Reservoir PR-MAINLOT ORCHARD ZINFANDEL 22 F R E M O N T O L D E R P I C C H E T T I R A N C H IPM Work Plan Picchetti Ranch Picchetti Ranch Pa t h : G : \ P r o j e c t s \ a _ D i s t r i c t w i d e \ N a t u r a l _ R e s o u r c e s \ I P M _ P r o g r a m \ W o r k P l a n M a p s \ I P M M a p E x p o r t 2 0 1 9 . m x d Cr e a t e d B y : t r e y e s 0 0.20.1 Miles I While the District strives to use the best available digital data, these data do not represent a legal survey and are merely a graphic illustration of geographic features. ÄÆ35 ÄÆ84 ÄÆ101 ÄÆ236 ÄÆ280 ÄÆ35 ÄÆ35 ÄÆ17 ÄÆ280 ÄÆ9 ÄÆ85 Los Altos Mountain View Palo Alto Cupertino Saratoga Los Gatos Santa Clara Area of Detail Invasive PlantsCalFlora_191125Weeds Blackberry Eucalyptus Ivy Jubata Grass Low Priority Weeds; Teasel Other Thistles Perennial Grasses Purple star-thistle Stinkwort Vinca Woody Invasives Yellow star-thistle ATTACHMENT 2 C o r d i l l e r a s C r eek Hassler Trail Hassle rT r ail H as sler Loop Tr a i l Hassler Rd Blue Oa k Trail EdgewoodTrail P o l l y G e ra ci Tra il S e r p e n t i n e Trail Edgewood T r a i l C or d il l e r a s Tra il CordillerasTrailConnector Ed ge w o o d Tr a i l O l dStage Road Dick Bishop Trail Dusky-footed Wood r a t T r a i l B r i t t a n A v e E dge wood Rd L a M esa Dr Ed m o n d s R d Les l i e C t Stevens Ct Crestvie w D r Bo w D r H o s m e r C t Edm o n d D r B e s t C t La Mesa D r Brittan A ve L a M e s a D r LaM e s aD r La M e saDr C r e s t v i e w D r Leslie Dr R o y a l L n 80 0 60 0 400 600 600 600 400 400 PR02 PR01 PR03 HASSLERP U L G A S R I D G E IPM Work Plan Pulgas Ridge Pulgas Ridge Pa t h : G : \ P r o j e c t s \ a _ D i s t r i c t w i d e \ N a t u r a l _ R e s o u r c e s \ I P M _ P r o g r a m \ W o r k P l a n M a p s \ I P M M a p E x p o r t 2 0 1 9 . m x d Cr e a t e d B y : t r e y e s 0 0.150.075 Miles I While the District strives to use the best available digital data, these data do not represent a legal survey and are merely a graphic illustration of geographic features. ÄÆ35 ÄÆ84 ÄÆ101 ÄÆ236 ÄÆ280 ÄÆ35 ÄÆ35 ÄÆ17 ÄÆ280 ÄÆ9 ÄÆ85 Los Altos Mountain View Palo Alto Cupertino Saratoga Los Gatos Santa Clara Area of Detail Invasive PlantsCalFlora_191125Weeds Acacia Blackberry Brooms Eucalyptus Ivy Jubata Grass Low Priority Weeds; Teasel Other Thistles Perennial Grasses Stinkwort Vinca Woody Invasives Yellow star-thistle ATTACHMENT 2 Minde g o C r e e k Alpin e C r e e k R a p l e y C r e e k R o d g e r s G u l c h SilvaHouse AncientOaks Trail Mindego Hill Trail M i n degoHillTrail C h a r q u in Trail Mindego HillRoad Alpine Road Rapley Trail Alpin e R o a d 20 0 0 18 0 0 1400 120 0 1000 18 0 0 140 0 2000 1800 1 0 0 0 80 0 2400 2200 1600 2 0 0 0 1800 1800 1800 16 0 0 160 0 160 0 160 0 1 6 0 0 14 0 0 140 0 1 4 0 0 1000 800 80 0 6 0 0 RR13 RR12 SR09 SR10 RR02 Mindego Lake Big Spring Upper Springs Knuedler Lake MINDEGO Corral LZ(proposedname) Emergency LZ R U S S I A N R I D G E S K Y L I N E R I D G E IPM Work Plan Russian Ridge RR- Mindego Hill Pa t h : G : \ P r o j e c t s \ a _ D i s t r i c t w i d e \ N a t u r a l _ R e s o u r c e s \ I P M _ P r o g r a m \ W o r k P l a n M a p s \ I P M M a p E x p o r t 2 0 1 9 . m x d Cr e a t e d B y : t r e y e s 0 0.350.175 Miles I While the District strives to use the best available digital data, these data do not represent a legal survey and are merely a graphic illustration of geographic features. ÄÆ35 ÄÆ84 ÄÆ101 ÄÆ236 ÄÆ280 ÄÆ35 ÄÆ35 ÄÆ17 ÄÆ280 ÄÆ9 ÄÆ85 Los Altos Mountain View Palo Alto Cupertino Saratoga Los Gatos Santa Clara Area of Detail Invasive PlantsCalFlora_191125Weeds Blackberry Brooms Early Detection Low Priority Weeds; Teasel Other Thistles Perennial Grasses Purple star-thistle Stinkwort Yellow star-thistle ATTACHMENT 2 Permit Only P e r m an e nte Cre e k Mora House AMora House B FoothillsField Office FoothillsAnnex R a v e n s b u r y A v e n u e R a nchoSan Antonio Servic e R o a d F i e l d O f fic e Drive way Mora Trail M ora Driv e H i g h M e a d ow Trail W i l d c a t L oop Tra il R a v e ns b u r y T r a i l Rancho S anAntonio B i k e P a t h S t e p h e n E .A b bors Trail Pe r m a n e n t e C r e e k T r a i l Rogu e Valle y Trail High Meadow Tra il U p per Rogue Valley Trail H i l l T r a i lRanchoSa n A ntonio S ervice Road B a y Tree C u t off Trail U p p e r W i l d cat Canyon Tra il C o y o te Trail F a r m Byp ass Trail L o w e r M e a d o w Trail U pper H i gh Meadow Trail M or a Tr a il D e e r Mead o w Trail U p p e r Wi l d cat C a n y o n T rail Chamise Tra i l UpperRogue ValleyTrail Ke n b a r R o a d Oak L a n e WestLoyolaDrive 1 8 0 0 1 6 0 0 14 0 0 12 0 0 1000 800 6 0 0 4 0 0 10 0 0 60 0 180 0 14 0 0 600 60 0 600 60 0 800 600 60 0 60 0 600 RS06 RS04 RS09 RS03 RS10 Rogue Valley Pond Duck Pond MORA WILDCAT R A N C H O S A N A N T O N I O IPM Work Plan Rancho San Antonio Lower Rancho Pa t h : G : \ P r o j e c t s \ a _ D i s t r i c t w i d e \ N a t u r a l _ R e s o u r c e s \ I P M _ P r o g r a m \ W o r k P l a n M a p s \ I P M M a p E x p o r t 2 0 1 9 . m x d Cr e a t e d B y : t r e y e s 0 0.250.125 Miles I While the District strives to use the best available digital data, these data do not represent a legal survey and are merely a graphic illustration of geographic features. ÄÆ35 ÄÆ84 ÄÆ101 ÄÆ236 ÄÆ280 ÄÆ35 ÄÆ35 ÄÆ17 ÄÆ280 ÄÆ9 ÄÆ85 Los Altos Mountain View Palo Alto Cupertino Saratoga Los Gatos Santa Clara Area of Detail Invasive PlantsCalFlora_191125Weeds Early Detection Eucalyptus Ivy Low Priority Weeds; Teasel Mustards Other Thistles Perennial Grasses Purple star-thistle Stinkwort Woody Invasives Yellow star-thistle ATTACHMENT 2 Private A d o b e C r e e k H a l e C r e e k RhusRidgeResidence M a g d a l e n a A v e M o o d y R o a d Mary D a v ey Loop Tra il Ne w Trail E wingH i ll T r a i l C h a m i s e T r a il H o stel Trail Quarry Trail Ro g u e V a l l e y T r a i l U p p e r Ro g ue Va l l ey Trail R h u s Ridge T rail Up p e rH ig hMeadowTrail B l a c k M o u n t a i n Trail UpperWildcat CanyonTrail M a r y S t u t z P ath StephenE.AbborsT r a il Lau r a C o u r t La L o m a D r i v e Oli v e T r e e L a n e La L o m a C t Pr o s p e c t A v e n u e Bassett L a ne Sto n e b r o o k D r i v e K a t e D r i v e O ak P a r k C o u r t Blan d or W a y La Loma Drive S t o n e b r o o k D r i v e Rhus Rid g e D riv e O li v e T r e e L a n e R h u s R i dg e D r i v e Summitwo odR o a d Oa k K n o l l C i r c l e 22 0 0 20 0 0 1 8 0 0 1 6 0 0 2 0 0 0 1 8 0 0 200 0 1800 10 0 0 80 0 2600 2400 1200 10 0 0 80 0 600 600 40 0 60 0 400 600 4 0 0 2400 14 0 0 160 0 1 6 0 0 16 0 0 1200 1000 80 0 60 0 40 0600 WP04 WP02 RS07 RS08 WP01 Rogue Valley Pond UPPER-MEADOW R A N C H O S A N A N T O N I O IPM Work Plan Rancho San Antonio Upper Rancho Pa t h : G : \ P r o j e c t s \ a _ D i s t r i c t w i d e \ N a t u r a l _ R e s o u r c e s \ I P M _ P r o g r a m \ W o r k P l a n M a p s \ I P M M a p E x p o r t 2 0 1 9 . m x d Cr e a t e d B y : t r e y e s 0 0.350.175 Miles I While the District strives to use the best available digital data, these data do not represent a legal survey and are merely a graphic illustration of geographic features. ÄÆ35 ÄÆ84 ÄÆ101 ÄÆ236 ÄÆ280 ÄÆ35 ÄÆ35 ÄÆ17 ÄÆ280 ÄÆ9 ÄÆ85 Los Altos Mountain View Palo Alto Cupertino Saratoga Los Gatos Santa Clara Area of Detail Invasive PlantsCalFlora_191125Weeds Brooms Early Detection Low Priority Weeds; Teasel Stinkwort Woody Invasives Yellow star-thistle ATTACHMENT 2 Cooley LandingEducation Center Pulga s A v e B a y R d B a y R d Bay Tra il Bay Trail B a y T r a il BayTrail B a y T r a i l BayTrail S e r v i c e R o a d Ba y Tr a i l F o r d h am St Ste v e n s A v e Dr e w C t Te m p l e C t B a y R d Illinoi s S t Pulgas Ave Tara St Rogge Rd Demeter St 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 RW01 Slough San Francisco Bay Mud San Francisco Bay R AV E N S W O O D IPM Work Plan Ravenswood Ravenswood Pa t h : G : \ P r o j e c t s \ a _ D i s t r i c t w i d e \ N a t u r a l _ R e s o u r c e s \ I P M _ P r o g r a m \ W o r k P l a n M a p s \ I P M M a p E x p o r t 2 0 1 9 . m x d Cr e a t e d B y : t r e y e s 0 0.150.075 Miles I While the District strives to use the best available digital data, these data do not represent a legal survey and are merely a graphic illustration of geographic features. ÄÆ35 ÄÆ84 ÄÆ101 ÄÆ236 ÄÆ280 ÄÆ35 ÄÆ35 ÄÆ17 ÄÆ280 ÄÆ9 ÄÆ85 Los Altos Mountain View Palo Alto Cupertino Saratoga Los Gatos Santa Clara Area of Detail Invasive PlantsCalFlora_191125Weeds Early Detection Low Priority Weeds; Teasel Mustards Other Thistles Stinkwort Yellow star-thistle ATTACHMENT 2 S o d a S prin g s C r e e k BeattyHouse Alm a B r i d g e R o a d J o n e s Trail Alma Bridge Road Sod a S p rin g s R oad Li m e kiln Tr a i l P ri e s t RockTrail 1 4 0 0 1 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 6 0 0 14 0 0 1 2 0 0 1 6 0 0 8 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 6 0 0 1 4 0 0 800 800 SA18 SA20 SA21 SA22 SA40 SA41SA42 SJ03 Lexington Reservoir S I E R R A A Z U L IPM Work Plan Sierra Azul SA- Beatty Pa t h : G : \ P r o j e c t s \ a _ D i s t r i c t w i d e \ N a t u r a l _ R e s o u r c e s \ I P M _ P r o g r a m \ W o r k P l a n M a p s \ I P M M a p E x p o r t 2 0 1 9 . m x d Cr e a t e d B y : t r e y e s 0 0.20.1 Miles I While the District strives to use the best available digital data, these data do not represent a legal survey and are merely a graphic illustration of geographic features. ÄÆ35 ÄÆ84 ÄÆ101 ÄÆ236 ÄÆ280 ÄÆ35 ÄÆ35 ÄÆ17 ÄÆ280 ÄÆ9 ÄÆ85 Los Altos Mountain View Palo Alto Cupertino Saratoga Los Gatos Santa Clara Area of Detail Invasive PlantsCalFlora_191125Weeds Brooms Stinkwort Yellow star-thistle ATTACHMENT 2 G u a d a l u pe Creek G uadalup e C r e e k P h e a s a nt Cre e k Slaght House Reynolds R oad HicksRd P h e a s a n t Road Eque str i a n L oop W a g n e r R o a d Wagner Road G uadalupe Mines Rd 20 0 0 1800 1400 1200 100 0 800 240 0 2200 180 0 160 0 800 600 6 0 0 40 0 16 0 0 24 0 0 120 0 10 0 0 800 6 0 0 6 0 0 SA03 SA04 SA29 SA30 SA05 Cherry Springs Pond S I E R R A A Z U L IPM Work Plan Sierra Azul SA- Cherry Springs Pa t h : G : \ P r o j e c t s \ a _ D i s t r i c t w i d e \ N a t u r a l _ R e s o u r c e s \ I P M _ P r o g r a m \ W o r k P l a n M a p s \ I P M M a p E x p o r t 2 0 1 9 . m x d Cr e a t e d B y : t r e y e s 0 0.20.1 Miles I While the District strives to use the best available digital data, these data do not represent a legal survey and are merely a graphic illustration of geographic features. ÄÆ35 ÄÆ84 ÄÆ101 ÄÆ236 ÄÆ280 ÄÆ35 ÄÆ35 ÄÆ17 ÄÆ280 ÄÆ9 ÄÆ85 Los Altos Mountain View Palo Alto Cupertino Saratoga Los Gatos Santa Clara Area of Detail Invasive PlantsCalFlora_191125Weeds Blackberry Brooms Early Detection Low Priority Weeds; Teasel Perennial Grasses Stinkwort Yellow star-thistle ATTACHMENT 2 H e n d r y s C r e e k Weaver Road 1 8 0 0 1 6 0 0 1 2 0 0 180 0 160 0 140 0 1600 1400 10 0 0 80 0 1800 1 4 0 0 140 0 SA43 S I E R R A A Z U L IPM Work Plan Sierra Azul SA- Hendrys Creek Pa t h : G : \ P r o j e c t s \ a _ D i s t r i c t w i d e \ N a t u r a l _ R e s o u r c e s \ I P M _ P r o g r a m \ W o r k P l a n M a p s \ I P M M a p E x p o r t 2 0 1 9 . m x d Cr e a t e d B y : t r e y e s 0 0.10.05 Miles I While the District strives to use the best available digital data, these data do not represent a legal survey and are merely a graphic illustration of geographic features. ÄÆ35 ÄÆ84 ÄÆ101 ÄÆ236 ÄÆ280 ÄÆ35 ÄÆ35 ÄÆ17 ÄÆ280 ÄÆ9 ÄÆ85 Los Altos Mountain View Palo Alto Cupertino Saratoga Los Gatos Santa Clara Area of Detail Invasive PlantsCalFlora_191125Weeds Blackberry Brooms Low Priority Weeds; Teasel Perennial Grasses Stinkwort Vinca Woody Invasives Yellow star-thistle ATTACHMENT 2 Uvas Creek L o s G a tos C r e e k A l a m i t o s C r e e k L o s G a t o s C r e e k McKannay House (demo?) L o m a P rie ta R o a d Loma Ridge Roa d C a t h e r m o l e R o a d Loma P rietaRd L omaPri e t aRd Loma PrietaRoad Loma Pr i e t a Rd L a g o L omitaWay Na l l L n L o m a P r i e t a Ave L a g o L o m i t a W a y 300 0 28 0 0 26 0 0 2200 2000 180 0 1600 20 0 0 1600 1400 2800 260 0 22 0 0 20 0 0 1 8 0 0 16 0 014 0 0 360 0 340 0 320 0 300 0 280 0 2600 1800 1600 3 2 0 0 3 0 0 0 2 6 0 0 2 4 0 0 26 0 0 24 0 0 2200 20 0 0 2000 1800 32 0 0 2400 14 0 0 120 0 3000 18 0 0 24 0 0 1 2 0 0 2800 2 6 0 0 3200 26 0 0 240 0 3 4 0 0 3400 3 4 0 0 3 2 0 0 30 0 0 3000 3 0 0 0 3000 3000 2800 2600 2600 2400 22 0 0 220 0 20 0 0 2000 140 0 1 2 0 0 SA12 SA13 SA15 SA32 SA33 SA37 Williams Reservoir Cat Track Pond S I E R R A A Z U L IPM Work Plan Sierra Azul SA- Loma Prieta Ridge Pa t h : G : \ P r o j e c t s \ a _ D i s t r i c t w i d e \ N a t u r a l _ R e s o u r c e s \ I P M _ P r o g r a m \ W o r k P l a n M a p s \ I P M M a p E x p o r t 2 0 1 9 . m x d Cr e a t e d B y : t r e y e s 0 0.550.275 Miles I While the District strives to use the best available digital data, these data do not represent a legal survey and are merely a graphic illustration of geographic features. ÄÆ35 ÄÆ84 ÄÆ101 ÄÆ236 ÄÆ280 ÄÆ35 ÄÆ35 ÄÆ17 ÄÆ280 ÄÆ9 ÄÆ85 Los Altos Mountain View Palo Alto Cupertino Saratoga Los Gatos Santa Clara Area of Detail Invasive PlantsCalFlora_191125Weeds Brooms Early Detection Other Thistles Stinkwort ATTACHMENT 2 Alamitos Creek Barret C r e e k 35 34 33 31 32 2928 27 19 53525150 1816151413121110 55 54 56 575976 75 7473 7271 70 77 3 2 ProposedAlamitos RoadResidence 20 37 78 A lamit o s R o a d H ic k sRd Alamit o s R o a d C a n y o n R o a d 1200 1000 800 1 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 8 0 0 1 0 0 0 80 0 1 4 0 0 1 6 0 0 60 0 Almaden Reservoir S I E R R A A Z U L IPM Work Plan Sierra Azul SA- Twin Creeks Pa t h : G : \ P r o j e c t s \ a _ D i s t r i c t w i d e \ N a t u r a l _ R e s o u r c e s \ I P M _ P r o g r a m \ W o r k P l a n M a p s \ I P M M a p E x p o r t 2 0 1 9 . m x d Cr e a t e d B y : t r e y e s 0 0.10.05 Miles I While the District strives to use the best available digital data, these data do not represent a legal survey and are merely a graphic illustration of geographic features. ÄÆ35 ÄÆ84 ÄÆ101 ÄÆ236 ÄÆ280 ÄÆ35 ÄÆ35 ÄÆ17 ÄÆ280 ÄÆ9 ÄÆ85 Los Altos Mountain View Palo Alto Cupertino Saratoga Los Gatos Santa Clara Area of Detail Invasive PlantsCalFlora_191125Weeds Acacia Blackberry Brooms Ivy Low Priority Weeds; Teasel Mustards Other Thistles Perennial Grasses Vinca Woody Invasives ATTACHMENT 2 Guadalupe Creek R i n c o n C r e e k Gu ad al u pe C r e e k MeyerHouse Proposed MeyerPropertyHouse M t .U m u n h u m R o a d H i c k s R d B a rlo w R o a d B a y A r e a Ri d g e T r a i l Bald Mo u ntainTrail Mt.Umu n h um Trail Wo o d s T rail 3 4 0 0 3 2 0 0 2800 2 6 0 0 2 4 0 0 2 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 18 0 0 1 6 0 0 14 0 0 1 2 0 0 180 0 16 0 0 14 0 0 12 0 0 32 0 0 3 0 0 0 180 0 1600 1 4 0 0 1 2 0 0 100 0 80 0 2600 24 0 0 20 0 0 18 0 0 140 0 12 0 0 1200 1 0 0 0 SA06A SA07 SA09 SA07a SA11A SA39 SA06 SA08 BALDMTN WOODS UPPER LOWER S I E R R A A Z U L IPM Work Plan Sierra Azul SA- Woods-Barlow Pa t h : G : \ P r o j e c t s \ a _ D i s t r i c t w i d e \ N a t u r a l _ R e s o u r c e s \ I P M _ P r o g r a m \ W o r k P l a n M a p s \ I P M M a p E x p o r t 2 0 1 9 . m x d Cr e a t e d B y : t r e y e s 0 0.250.125 Miles I While the District strives to use the best available digital data, these data do not represent a legal survey and are merely a graphic illustration of geographic features. ÄÆ35 ÄÆ84 ÄÆ101 ÄÆ236 ÄÆ280 ÄÆ35 ÄÆ35 ÄÆ17 ÄÆ280 ÄÆ9 ÄÆ85 Los Altos Mountain View Palo Alto Cupertino Saratoga Los Gatos Santa Clara Area of Detail Invasive PlantsCalFlora_191125Weeds Brooms Early Detection Eucalyptus Low Priority Weeds; Teasel Other Thistles Stinkwort Yellow star-thistle ATTACHMENT 2 Gu a d a l u p e C r eek S oda Springs C r e e k L i m ekiln C r e e k P h e a s a n t C r e e k SlaghtHouse Shannon Rd P h e a s antR o a d H ic k s R dKennedyRd W agnerRoad P ri e s t R ock Tra il K e n n e d y T r a i l L imekiln T r a i l Bla c k b e r r y H i l l R d A r n e r i ch Road Arneric h R o a d W a g n e r R o a d LIMEKI L N R O A D 2400 2200 2000 1800 1000 800 1400 1200 1000 800 600 1200 100 0 1000 800 800 600 26 0 0 28 0 0 1600 1400 1600 2 6 0 0 200 0 16 0 0 1200 1 2 0 0 800 40 0 600 400 SA03 SA01 SA25 SA24 LIMEKILN PRIESTROCK KENNEDY LZ KENNEDY 1 KENNEDY 2 S I E R R A A Z U L IPM Work Plan Sierra Azul Kennedy - Limekiln Pa t h : G : \ P r o j e c t s \ a _ D i s t r i c t w i d e \ N a t u r a l _ R e s o u r c e s \ I P M _ P r o g r a m \ W o r k P l a n M a p s \ I P M M a p E x p o r t 2 0 1 9 . m x d Cr e a t e d B y : t r e y e s 0 0.450.225 Miles I While the District strives to use the best available digital data, these data do not represent a legal survey and are merely a graphic illustration of geographic features. ÄÆ35 ÄÆ84 ÄÆ101 ÄÆ236 ÄÆ280 ÄÆ35 ÄÆ35 ÄÆ17 ÄÆ280 ÄÆ9 ÄÆ85 Los Altos Mountain View Palo Alto Cupertino Saratoga Los Gatos Santa Clara Area of Detail Invasive PlantsCalFlora_191125Weeds Brooms Jubata Grass Perennial Grasses Stinkwort Yellow star-thistle ATTACHMENT 2 Guadalupe Creek M t .U m u n h u m R o a d Mt.Umunhu m T r a il Mt.Umunhum Trail 340 0 320 0 3400 3200 32 0 0 3200 SA14 MTUM S I E R R A A Z U L IPM Work Plan Sierra Azul SA-Mt. Um Pa t h : G : \ P r o j e c t s \ a _ D i s t r i c t w i d e \ N a t u r a l _ R e s o u r c e s \ I P M _ P r o g r a m \ W o r k P l a n M a p s \ I P M M a p E x p o r t 2 0 1 9 . m x d Cr e a t e d B y : t r e y e s 0 0.040.02 Miles I While the District strives to use the best available digital data, these data do not represent a legal survey and are merely a graphic illustration of geographic features. ÄÆ35 ÄÆ84 ÄÆ101 ÄÆ236 ÄÆ280 ÄÆ35 ÄÆ35 ÄÆ17 ÄÆ280 ÄÆ9 ÄÆ85 Los Altos Mountain View Palo Alto Cupertino Saratoga Los Gatos Santa Clara Area of Detail Invasive PlantsCalFlora_191125Weeds Early Detection Low Priority Weeds; Teasel Mustards Other Thistles Purple star-thistle Yellow star-thistle ATTACHMENT 2 Private S a r a t o g a C re e k Oil Creek San L o r e n z o R iv e r B o o k er C re e k Stev e n s C r e e k StevensCanyonRanch House HouseHouseHouse SaratogaGapCabin 3 PowellHouse House Lysons UpperHouseLysonsLower House H e a t h e r Heights Rd . Steve ns C a n y o n R d. Charcoal Road Sarat o g aGap T r ail C a n y o n Trail Sa r a to g a GapTrail CharcoalRoad Sk y li n e - t o -t he-S e a Trail C a n y o n T r a il S k y l i ne Trail S a ra t o ga Gap Tra il Table M o u n t a i nT r ail S a r a t o g a Toll R o a dTrail Sa r a t o g a Toll R o ad Trail SaratogaG a p T r a i l A c h i s t a ca trail Redw o o d G u l c h R d Snow Crest R d F o x Run IndianRock W ay Heather HeightsRd. ÄÆ35 ÄÆ9 ÄÆ35 ÄÆ9 280 0 260 0 2400 220 0 1600 14 0 0 200 0 140 0 120 0 2 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 20 0 0 18 0 0 16 0 0 200 0 180 0 16 0 0 2800 2600 2400 2 6 0 0 2 4 0 0 2 2 0 0 2 4 0 0 2 2 0 0 1 8 0 0 16 0 0 12 0 0 100 0 2 0 0 0 2800 24 0 0 22 0 0 140 0 28 0 0 26 0 0 240 0 2200 2 2 0 0 20 0 0 2 0 0 0 180 0 18 0 0 16 0 0 16 0 0 80 0 SG01 SG07 SG05 MB10 MB11 MB12 SG04 SG03 SG06 SG01 CALTRANS L O N G R I D G E M O N T E B E L L O S A R A T O G A G A P IPM Work Plan Saratoga Gap Saratoga Gap Pa t h : G : \ P r o j e c t s \ a _ D i s t r i c t w i d e \ N a t u r a l _ R e s o u r c e s \ I P M _ P r o g r a m \ W o r k P l a n M a p s \ I P M M a p E x p o r t 2 0 1 9 . m x d Cr e a t e d B y : t r e y e s 0 0.40.2 Miles I While the District strives to use the best available digital data, these data do not represent a legal survey and are merely a graphic illustration of geographic features. ÄÆ35 ÄÆ84 ÄÆ101 ÄÆ236 ÄÆ280 ÄÆ35 ÄÆ35 ÄÆ17 ÄÆ280 ÄÆ9 ÄÆ85 Los Altos Mountain View Palo Alto Cupertino Saratoga Los Gatos Santa Clara Area of Detail Invasive PlantsCalFlora_191125Weeds Brooms Jubata Grass Low Priority Weeds; Teasel Slender False Brome Stinkwort Yellow star-thistle ATTACHMENT 2 Li m e kiln C r e e k L o s G a t o s Creek Jones Trail A lmaB ri d g e Road A l ma B r i d g e Road F l u m e T r a i l B ro t h e rs B yp a s s Jones Trail Lo s GatosCre e k Tra il Range Tra il Serpentine Trail N o v it i a t e Tr ail Los G a to s Creek Trail M a n z a n i t a Trail L i m e k i l n T rail Jones Rd CollegeAve L i m e k i l n R o a d 12 0 0 10 0 0 800 600 600 400 600 8 0 0 4 0 0 800 800 SJ03 SJ01 SJ02 Lexington Reservoir HILLTOP RANGE NOVITIATE S I E R R A A Z U L S T. J O S E P H ' S H I L L IPM Work Plan St. Josephs Hill St. Josephs Hill Pa t h : G : \ P r o j e c t s \ a _ D i s t r i c t w i d e \ N a t u r a l _ R e s o u r c e s \ I P M _ P r o g r a m \ W o r k P l a n M a p s \ I P M M a p E x p o r t 2 0 1 9 . m x d Cr e a t e d B y : t r e y e s 0 0.150.075 Miles I While the District strives to use the best available digital data, these data do not represent a legal survey and are merely a graphic illustration of geographic features. ÄÆ35 ÄÆ84 ÄÆ101 ÄÆ236 ÄÆ280 ÄÆ35 ÄÆ35 ÄÆ17 ÄÆ280 ÄÆ9 ÄÆ85 Los Altos Mountain View Palo Alto Cupertino Saratoga Los Gatos Santa Clara Area of Detail Invasive PlantsCalFlora_191125Weeds Brooms Low Priority Weeds; Teasel Other Thistles Perennial Grasses Stinkwort Yellow star-thistle ATTACHMENT 2 L a m bert Cree k P eters C r e e kPetersCreek Silva House Jake GuentherLife EstateHouse Long R idge Road Ancie n tOa k s Trail A u d r e y's Way M i n d e g o Hill T r a il Old Page Mill Road Be ar Cre e k Tr a il O l d Page Mill Tra i l Old Page Mil l R o a d Peters C r e e k L o o p T r a i l P e t e rs Cre e k L o o p Trail LongridgeRd A l p i n e R oad DiabloWay P o r t o l a S t a t e P a r k R d AlpineRoad 20 0 0 16 0 0 14 0 0 12 0 0 22 0 0 20 0 0 12 0 0 10 0 0 1600 1400 1200 24 0 0 22 0 0 18 0 0 16 0 0 16 0 0 1 4 0 0 18 0 0 1800 14 0 0 16 0 0 240 0 24 0 0 2 2 0 0 22 0 0 18 0 0 160 0 140 0 1 4 0 0 1 4 0 0 14 0 0 140 0 800 1400 800 RR04 SR08 SR07 RR03RR03A SR09 SR10 Menotti Pond Newt Pond Mallard Pond Woods Pond Gunther Pond R U S S I A N R I D G E S K Y L I N E R I D G E IPM Work Plan Skyline Ridge Big Dipper Ranch Pa t h : G : \ P r o j e c t s \ a _ D i s t r i c t w i d e \ N a t u r a l _ R e s o u r c e s \ I P M _ P r o g r a m \ W o r k P l a n M a p s \ I P M M a p E x p o r t 2 0 1 9 . m x d Cr e a t e d B y : t r e y e s 0 0.30.15 Miles I While the District strives to use the best available digital data, these data do not represent a legal survey and are merely a graphic illustration of geographic features. ÄÆ35 ÄÆ84 ÄÆ101 ÄÆ236 ÄÆ280 ÄÆ35 ÄÆ35 ÄÆ17 ÄÆ280 ÄÆ9 ÄÆ85 Los Altos Mountain View Palo Alto Cupertino Saratoga Los Gatos Santa Clara Area of Detail Invasive PlantsCalFlora_191125Weeds Brooms Goat grass Ivy Low Priority Weeds; Teasel Other Thistles Perennial Grasses Purple star-thistle Stinkwort Yellow star-thistle ATTACHMENT 2 Mi n d e g o C r e e k A-Frame SkylineFieldOffice SkylineRanch House David C. DanielsNature Center Jake GuentherLife Estate House Skyline R a n c h R o a d S k y l i n e R a nchRoad SunnyJimTrail S u n ny Jim Trail A ncie ntOaksTrail Bu ta n o V ie w Tr a i l Ipiwa Tr a i l R i d g e Tr a i l Sunny J i m Tr a i l Alpine Po n d LoopTr a i l Old P a g e M i ll Trail Pag e M i l l R o a d Al p i n e R o a d ÄÆ35 22 0 0 20 0 0 1800 160 0 2 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 24 0 0 2 2 0 0 240 0 1400 2000 20 0 0 2 4 0 0 2200 2 0 0 0 140 0 2200 SR05 SR05a SR07 SR12 RR00 SR06 RR02 Alpine Pond RATTLESNAKE RR-MAINLOT C O A L C R E E K M O N T E B E L L O R U S S I A N R I D G E S K Y L I N E R I D G E IPM Work Plan Skyline Ridge SFO - Alpine Pond Pa t h : G : \ P r o j e c t s \ a _ D i s t r i c t w i d e \ N a t u r a l _ R e s o u r c e s \ I P M _ P r o g r a m \ W o r k P l a n M a p s \ I P M M a p E x p o r t 2 0 1 9 . m x d Cr e a t e d B y : t r e y e s 0 0.150.075 Miles I While the District strives to use the best available digital data, these data do not represent a legal survey and are merely a graphic illustration of geographic features. ÄÆ35 ÄÆ84 ÄÆ101 ÄÆ236 ÄÆ280 ÄÆ35 ÄÆ35 ÄÆ17 ÄÆ280 ÄÆ9 ÄÆ85 Los Altos Mountain View Palo Alto Cupertino Saratoga Los Gatos Santa Clara Area of Detail Invasive PlantsCalFlora_191125Weeds Blackberry Brooms Early Detection Low Priority Weeds; Teasel Other Thistles Perennial Grasses Stinkwort Yellow star-thistle ATTACHMENT 2 Lam b ert Creek P e t e r s C r e e k INERanch/RogersHouse SherrillHouse IncerpiMain House House SkylineChristmasTree Farm Kiosk Kiosk P o r t ola H e i g h t s Road IpiwaTrail SunnyJimTrail Chestnut Tra il Bu ta no Vie w Tra il La mbertCreekTrail Castanea Ridge Rd T r e e Farm Trail Old P a g e Mill T r a i l Su n n y Jim Trail S k i d Road T r a il H o rseshoe LoopTrail F i r K n oll Trai l ÄÆ35 ÄÆ35 2000 1800 2 4 0 0 220 0 2000 1800 2400 2200 2200 1800 2000 18 0 0 1 6 0 0 2200 2000 200 0 1 8 0 0 180 0 160 0 1400 120 0 1600 220 0 2 4 0 0 22 0 0 2000 160 0 16 0 0 1600 SR11 MB07 SR03 SR02 SR12 SR04 LR03 MB06 SR01 Horseshoe Lake Brian's Pond RATTLESNAKE SR-MAINLOT PORTOLA-HTS L O N G R I D G E M O N T E B E L L O S K Y L I N E R I D G E IPM Work Plan Skyline Ridge Tree Farm Pa t h : G : \ P r o j e c t s \ a _ D i s t r i c t w i d e \ N a t u r a l _ R e s o u r c e s \ I P M _ P r o g r a m \ W o r k P l a n M a p s \ I P M M a p E x p o r t 2 0 1 9 . m x d Cr e a t e d B y : t r e y e s 0 0.250.125 Miles I While the District strives to use the best available digital data, these data do not represent a legal survey and are merely a graphic illustration of geographic features. ÄÆ35 ÄÆ84 ÄÆ101 ÄÆ236 ÄÆ280 ÄÆ35 ÄÆ35 ÄÆ17 ÄÆ280 ÄÆ9 ÄÆ85 Los Altos Mountain View Palo Alto Cupertino Saratoga Los Gatos Santa Clara Area of Detail Invasive PlantsCalFlora_191125Weeds Brooms Early Detection Ivy Low Priority Weeds; Teasel Other Thistles Perennial Grasses Stinkwort Yellow star-thistle ATTACHMENT 2 Cr i t t e n d e n L a n e Stevens Creek Trail B a y T r a i l Levee Trail St i e r l i n C o u r t 0 0 0 Slough 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 IPM Work Plan Stevens Creek Stevens Creek Study Area Pa t h : G : \ P r o j e c t s \ a _ D i s t r i c t w i d e \ N a t u r a l _ R e s o u r c e s \ I P M _ P r o g r a m \ W o r k P l a n M a p s \ I P M M a p E x p o r t 2 0 1 9 . m x d Cr e a t e d B y : t r e y e s 0 0.150.075 Miles I While the District strives to use the best available digital data, these data do not represent a legal survey and are merely a graphic illustration of geographic features. ÄÆ35 ÄÆ84 ÄÆ101 ÄÆ236 ÄÆ280 ÄÆ35 ÄÆ35 ÄÆ17 ÄÆ280 ÄÆ9 ÄÆ85 Los Altos Mountain View Palo Alto Cupertino Saratoga Los Gatos Santa Clara Area of Detail Invasive Plants ATTACHMENT 2 T u n i t a s C reek Dr y C r e e k TotoRanchHouseStarHillRoad Sta r Hil l R o a d ÄÆ1 ÄÆ1 6 0 0 4 0 0 4 0 0 2 0 0 800 600 2 0 0 0 800 80 0 40 0 800 TC03 TC05 TC Wetland TC04 Quarry Pond (TC02) TC03 TC06 TC08 TC09 TC07 TC10 TC11 T U N I TA S C R E E K IPM Work Plan Tunitas Creek TC- Toto Ranch Pa t h : G : \ P r o j e c t s \ a _ D i s t r i c t w i d e \ N a t u r a l _ R e s o u r c e s \ I P M _ P r o g r a m \ W o r k P l a n M a p s \ I P M M a p E x p o r t 2 0 1 9 . m x d Cr e a t e d B y : t r e y e s 0 0.20.1 Miles I While the District strives to use the best available digital data, these data do not represent a legal survey and are merely a graphic illustration of geographic features. ÄÆ35 ÄÆ84 ÄÆ101 ÄÆ236 ÄÆ280 ÄÆ35 ÄÆ35 ÄÆ17 ÄÆ280 ÄÆ9 ÄÆ85 Los Altos Mountain View Palo Alto Cupertino Saratoga Los Gatos Santa Clara Area of Detail Invasive PlantsCalFlora_191125Weeds Brooms Other Thistles ATTACHMENT 2 T u n i t a s C r e e k E a s t Fork Tunitas C r e e k TunitasRanch House(demo?) Tunitas Creek R d T u n it a s C r e e k Rd Durh a m R o a d L o b i t o s C reekCut-of f D u r h a m R o a d L o b it o s C r e e k R d 14 0 0 12 0 0 80 0 8 0 0 6 0 0 4 0 0 2 0 0 800 600 80 0 60 0 80 0 6 0 0 60 0 400 1000 1 0 0 0 8 0 0 600 TC02 TC01 TC01A TC01 T U N I TA S C R E E K IPM Work Plan Tunitas Creek TC- Tunitas Creek Ranch Pa t h : G : \ P r o j e c t s \ a _ D i s t r i c t w i d e \ N a t u r a l _ R e s o u r c e s \ I P M _ P r o g r a m \ W o r k P l a n M a p s \ I P M M a p E x p o r t 2 0 1 9 . m x d Cr e a t e d B y : t r e y e s 0 0.250.125 Miles I While the District strives to use the best available digital data, these data do not represent a legal survey and are merely a graphic illustration of geographic features. ÄÆ35 ÄÆ84 ÄÆ101 ÄÆ236 ÄÆ280 ÄÆ35 ÄÆ35 ÄÆ17 ÄÆ280 ÄÆ9 ÄÆ85 Los Altos Mountain View Palo Alto Cupertino Saratoga Los Gatos Santa Clara Area of Detail Invasive PlantsCalFlora_191125Weeds Acacia Low Priority Weeds; Teasel ATTACHMENT 2 Be ar C ree k Bear Creek W e s t U n i on Creek Squealer G u l c h T r i p p G u l c h Noe l R d Ro a n P l Pi n t o W y S u m m i t Sp r i n gs R d E n t r a n c e W a y P a r titi o n R o a d Patrol R d Skylin e Trail Petrifie d ForestTrail A r c h e r y F i r e R o a d Josely n Ln P a t r o l C t Tri p p C t G r e e r R d T r i p p R d KingsMountainRd. K i n g s M o u n t a i n R d . K i n g s M o u n t a i n R d . 180 0 160 0 10 0 0 80 0 1 8 0 0 1 6 0 0 14 0 0 1 2 0 0 60 0 40 0 1 6 0 0 2000 2 0 0 0 2000 18 0 0 1800 1400 TH01 T E A G U E H I L L IPM Work Plan Teague Hill Teague Hill Pa t h : G : \ P r o j e c t s \ a _ D i s t r i c t w i d e \ N a t u r a l _ R e s o u r c e s \ I P M _ P r o g r a m \ W o r k P l a n M a p s \ I P M M a p E x p o r t 2 0 1 9 . m x d Cr e a t e d B y : t r e y e s 0 0.250.125 Miles I While the District strives to use the best available digital data, these data do not represent a legal survey and are merely a graphic illustration of geographic features. ÄÆ35 ÄÆ84 ÄÆ101 ÄÆ236 ÄÆ280 ÄÆ35 ÄÆ35 ÄÆ17 ÄÆ280 ÄÆ9 ÄÆ85 Los Altos Mountain View Palo Alto Cupertino Saratoga Los Gatos Santa Clara Area of Detail Invasive PlantsCalFlora_191125Weeds Acacia Brooms Ivy Low Priority Weeds; Teasel Perennial Grasses Stinkwort Vinca Woody Invasives ATTACHMENT 2 A l a m b i q u e C r e e k Denni s M a r t i n Creek Dennis Martin Creek ThornewoodLife Estate ThornewoodHistoricalHouse OldLa H o n d a R d Old L a Honda Rd G r a n d v i e w Dr E s p i n o s a Rd D riv e w a y AlambiqueTra i l Bridle T rail Schilling Lake Trail G randview Dr S e q u o i a W y Fremont Wy RanchRd E c h o L n F riar s L n Skylo n d a D r U p e n u f R d S k y w o o d W y U p p e r L a ke Rd O l d L a H o n d a Rd L o w e r L a k e Rd S u n r i s e D r Martinez Rd P r e s t o n R d F o r e st R d ÄÆ84 ÄÆ84 ÄÆ84 ÄÆ35 14 0 0 12 0 0 10 0 0 8 0 0 1600 1400 1 0 0 0 8 0 0 600 400 400 1 4 0 0 1400 1600 TW01a TW01 Schilling Lake T H O R N E W O O D IPM Work Plan Thornewood Thornewood Pa t h : G : \ P r o j e c t s \ a _ D i s t r i c t w i d e \ N a t u r a l _ R e s o u r c e s \ I P M _ P r o g r a m \ W o r k P l a n M a p s \ I P M M a p E x p o r t 2 0 1 9 . m x d Cr e a t e d B y : t r e y e s 0 0.150.075 Miles I While the District strives to use the best available digital data, these data do not represent a legal survey and are merely a graphic illustration of geographic features. ÄÆ35 ÄÆ84 ÄÆ101 ÄÆ236 ÄÆ280 ÄÆ35 ÄÆ35 ÄÆ17 ÄÆ280 ÄÆ9 ÄÆ85 Los Altos Mountain View Palo Alto Cupertino Saratoga Los Gatos Santa Clara Area of Detail Invasive PlantsCalFlora_191125Weeds Acacia Brooms Early Detection Ivy Low Priority Weeds; Teasel Other Thistles Perennial Grasses Slender False Brome Stinkwort Vinca ATTACHMENT 2 L o s T r a n c o s C r e e k HawthorneHistoricMansion CarriageHouse HawthorneHistoricHomestead HawthorneEmployeeResidence A lpin e R o a d Los Trancos Rd Valley Oak S t L o s Tr ancos Rd D ee r P a th Trail FirethorneShadyTrail VeronicaTrail Por t o l a T r a i l V a ll ey O a k T ra il Los Trancos T rail NathhorstTrail Hillb r o o k T r a i l LosTrancos Trail Ve ronica Trail N a t h h o r s t T r a i l S w eet S prin gsTrail S w e e t S p rings Trail A lpine Tr a il P ortola R d Coyote H i l l C t A l p i n e R o a d Quail Ct P omponio Ct Buckeye Ech o L n F r a n c i s c a n R i d g Paso Del Arroyo Na t h h o r s t Po r t o l a F i r e t h o r n e Applewood S a d dle b ack Veroni c a Hillbrook Horseshoe Bend 8 0 0 6 0 0 800 600 60 0 600 60 0 WH10 WH09 WH08 W I N D Y H I L L IPM Work Plan Windy Hill Hawthorns Pa t h : G : \ P r o j e c t s \ a _ D i s t r i c t w i d e \ N a t u r a l _ R e s o u r c e s \ I P M _ P r o g r a m \ W o r k P l a n M a p s \ I P M M a p E x p o r t 2 0 1 9 . m x d Cr e a t e d B y : t r e y e s 0 0.10.05 Miles I While the District strives to use the best available digital data, these data do not represent a legal survey and are merely a graphic illustration of geographic features. ÄÆ35 ÄÆ84 ÄÆ101 ÄÆ236 ÄÆ280 ÄÆ35 ÄÆ35 ÄÆ17 ÄÆ280 ÄÆ9 ÄÆ85 Los Altos Mountain View Palo Alto Cupertino Saratoga Los Gatos Santa Clara Area of Detail Invasive PlantsCalFlora_191125Weeds Brooms Stinkwort Yellow star-thistle ATTACHMENT 2 Sausal C r e e k W oodruff Creek Corte M a d e r a C r e e k C o rt e M a d e r a C r e e k N e ils G ulc h B o z z o G u l c h Bull R u n C reek D amiani Cree k Jones Gu l ch H amms Gulch PrivateResidence PrivateResidence PrivateResidence Alpine R o a d W i l l o wb r o o k Dr S p r i n g R i d g e T r a il O ld S p a n i s h T r a il Hamms G ulch T r a il Eag l e T r a i l Ann i v ers a r y Tr a i l Coal m i n e Ridg e Trail Sequoias Tr a i l A l p i n e T r a i l Bay Lau r e l T r a i l M e a d o w Trail Ea g l e T r a il An n i v e r s a r y Tra il Sa u s a l T r a i l Lost Trail Ra zorbackRidgeTrailMeadowTrail S e q u o i a Trail Iroquois Trail Toyon T r a ilGroveTrail B e t sy C r o w d e r T rail W il l ow b r ook Trail Porto l a T r a i l RapleyTrail Rapley Trail Wayside Rd P o r t o l a R d R a p l e y T r a il P r a d o C t C o r t e M a d e r a R d W aysid e Rd Georgia Ln T histle S t W e stri d g e D r Cam p o R d G r o v e D r Tinturn L n G rove C t Ta n o a k Rapley Tr ail S a u s al D r Crescent S t o n e g a t e R d Br o o k s i d e D r W ayside Rd RapleyTrail ÄÆ35 80 0 60 0 180 0 1 4 0 0 12 0 0 1600 1400 180 0 16 0 0 1200 100 0 12 0 0 20 0 0 180 0 1600 14 0 0 10 0 0 600 WH06 WH02 WH01 WH05 WH07WH00 WH04 Sausal Pond PICNIC UPPER-SPRING LOWER-SPRING WH01-VISTA 555PORTOLAROAD Sequoia MIDDLE-SPRING R U S S I A N R I D G E W I N D Y H I L L IPM Work Plan Windy Hill Windy Hill Pa t h : G : \ P r o j e c t s \ a _ D i s t r i c t w i d e \ N a t u r a l _ R e s o u r c e s \ I P M _ P r o g r a m \ W o r k P l a n M a p s \ I P M M a p E x p o r t 2 0 1 9 . m x d Cr e a t e d B y : t r e y e s 0 0.350.175 Miles I While the District strives to use the best available digital data, these data do not represent a legal survey and are merely a graphic illustration of geographic features. ÄÆ35 ÄÆ84 ÄÆ101 ÄÆ236 ÄÆ280 ÄÆ35 ÄÆ35 ÄÆ17 ÄÆ280 ÄÆ9 ÄÆ85 Los Altos Mountain View Palo Alto Cupertino Saratoga Los Gatos Santa Clara Area of Detail Invasive PlantsCalFlora_191125Weeds Acacia Blackberry Brooms Eucalyptus Low Priority Weeds; Teasel Other Thistles Perennial Grasses Purple star-thistle Stinkwort Woody Invasives Yellow star-thistle ATTACHMENT 2 P H Y T O S P H E R E R E S E A R C H 1027 Davis Street, Vacaville, CA 95687-5495 707-452-8735 Sudden Oak Death (SOD) Management and Monitoring in the Bay Area Forest Service Agreement No. 15-DG-11052021-208 Performance report for June 1 – December 31, 2019 31 December 2019 Prepared by: Tedmund J. Swiecki, Ph.D. Elizabeth Bernhardt, Ph.D. Prepared for: Phil Cannon, Ph.D. Forest Pathologist USDA Forest Service Pacific Southwest Regional Office 1323 Club Drive Vallejo, CA 94592 707-562-8913 Matching funding provided by Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District, 330 Distel Circle, Los Altos, CA 94022, and Phytosphere Research Summary This contract continues work which has been jointly funded by the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (MROSD) for management projects on District lands. During the performance period we monitored plots at Los Trancos, Monte Bello, and Russian Ridge Open Space Preserves where California bay removal is being used to reduce the risk of sudden oak death (SOD) in susceptible Shreve and canyon live oak. Bay removal treatments have been very effective. SOD incidence has continued to increase among nontreated controls whereas only a single stem in all of the treated areas has become symptomatic over the past several years. We also monitored tanoak plots in the Creighton Ridge area of Sonoma County and at El Corte de Madera Open Space in San Mateo County where trunk spray applications of potassium phosphite are being tested as a preventive treatment for SOD. SOD incidence has increased in a patchy fashion in these plots, so we cannot yet determine whether phosphite is an effective preventative treatment. We ordered phosphite needed to retreat the tanoak plots in 2020. ATTACHMENT 3 Progress report 15-DG-208: June-Dec 2019 Page 2 of 23 Project objectives Objectives for the USFS 2018-2019 contract year (1 July 2018 through 1 June 2019) are listed below in Table 1. Objectives Objectives for the project are listed below. 1 Continue management projects designed to protect vulnerable stands of tanoak by treating with potassium phosphite via bark spray application in plots located at: A. MROSD El Corte de Madera Open Space Preserve. B. Creighton Ridge, Sonoma County. . C. Healdsburg, Sonoma County. 2 Continue treatments and monitor effectiveness of the combined use of localized California bay removal and phosphite bark spray application for protecting large, high value oaks at: A. MROSD Rancho San Antonio Open Space Preserve (coast live oak). B. MROSD Los Trancos Open Space Preserve (canyon live oak). C. MROSD Russian Ridge Open Space Preserve (canyon live oak) 3 Monitor the effectiveness of area-wide California bay removal to protect vulnerable stands of oaks at: A. MROSD Rancho San Antonio Open Space Preserve (coast live oaks) B. MROSD Monte Bello Open Space Preserve (Shreve oaks) Summary of project activities to date A summary of management projects undertaken to date is shown in Tables 1 and 2. ATTACHMENT 3 Progress report 15-DG-208: June-Dec 2019 Page 3 of 23 Table 1. SOD management studies initiated on MROSD lands from 2008 through 2010. Open Space Preserve Host species present1 Treatment(s) and dates applied Treated sample size Control sample size Last evaluation El Corte de Madera (ECDM)—near gate CM06 tanoak, coast live oak, canyon live oak Phosphite trunk spray application with removal of small understory tanoak: Jan 2009, May 2009,Nov 2009, Nov 2010, Nov 2011, Nov 2012, Nov 2013, Jan 2015, Jan 2016, Dec 2016, Feb 2018, Feb 2019. 158 trunks 164 trunks Oct 2019 Monte Bello— Skid Road trail gate (MB06) shreve oak, canyon live oak Area-wide bay removal (includes hack and squirt herbicide bay treatments): Dec 2008 /Mar 2009 bay removal, stump treatment, hack and squirt July 2009, May 2010, Dec 2011 bay hack/squirt 95 trunks 84 trunks June 2019 Rancho San Antonio (RSA)—permit lot area coast live oak Localized bay removal (Nov 2008 and Jan 2015) and phosphite injection: Arborjet injectors Nov 2008, ArborSystems injectors Jan 2011. 9 trunks2 61 trunks Aug 2018 Localized bay removal (Nov 2008 and Jan 2015) and phosphite trunk spray application: Jan 2009, May 2009, Nov 2009, Nov 2010, Nov 2011, Nov 2012, Nov 2013, Jan 2015, Jan 2016. Dec 2016, Feb 2018, 14 trunks Aug 2018 Areawide bay removal only: Nov 2008 42 trunks Aug 2018 Los Trancos— Near Page Mill Road, Franciscan Loop Trail and Fault Trail canyon live oak, coast live oak Localized bay removal (Dec 2009, April 2010) and phosphite spray application: Nov 2009, April 2010, Nov 2010, Nov 2012, Nov 2013, Jan 2015, Jan 2016, Dec 2016, Feb 2018, Localized bay removal only: Dec 2009, April 2010, summer 2011 16 trunks 20 trunks 31 trunks June 2019 Russian Ridge—Near Ancient Oaks Trail canyon live oak Localized bay removal: Dec 2009, Sep 2010, summer 2011 36 trunks 34 trunks June 2019 1Bold font face= primary species 2One sprayed tree was removed in 11/09. One injected trunk of a multitrunked oak failed in 2009, and the three remaining trunks were switched to spray application in 2010. As a result, the number of injected trunks changed from 13 to 9 and sprayed trunks from 11 to 14. ATTACHMENT 3 Progress report 15-DG-208: June-Dec 2019 Page 4 of 23 Table 2. Overview of tanoak phosphite-treated and control plots established in Sonoma County and brought into this project beginning in 2013-2014 contract year. Study site Locality Plots Phosphite applications Notes Last evaluation SF Seaview Ranch, Creighton Ridge area phosphite treated+thinned 63 trunks; thinned control 61 trunks nonthinned control 72 trunks Dec 2005 May 2006 May 2007 May 2008 May 2009 May 2010 Oct 2011 Plots initially established under contract to Kashia Band of Pomo Indians. Plots no longer being treated due to the high amount of disease in the treated plot. September 2012. No longer in study due to high disease in phosphite treated plots BL Gualala Ranch Creighton Ridge area phosphite treated+thinned 57 trunks; thinned control 57 trunks; nonthinned control 56 trunks Dec 2005 May 2006 May 2007 May 2008 May 2009 June 2010 Oct -Nov 2011 Jan, Nov 2013 Dec 2014 Jan 2016 Feb 2017 Feb 2018 Mar 2019 Plots initially established under contract to Kashia Band of Pomo Indians. June 2019 PC Gualala Ranch Creighton Ridge area phosphite treated + thinned control + thinned, 75 trees per plot. Each plot reduced to 65 trunks during summer 2018 due to thinning designed to suppress fire risk. Jan, May 2007 May 2008 May 2009 May 2010 Nov 2011 Jan, Nov 2013 Dec 2014 Jan 2016 Feb 2017 Feb 2018 Mar 2019 Plots established with funding from PSW-USFS as part of a collaborative project with M. Garbelotto and Y. Valachovic. Understory tanoak mostly pre- thinned by landowner. Some minor additional thinning was conducted in treated and nontreated plots. June 2019 ATTACHMENT 3 Progress report 15-DG-208: June-Dec 2019 Page 5 of 23 Study site Locality Plots Phosphite applications Notes Last evaluation FE Mill Creek Road, Healdsburg 2 phosphite treated + thinned 36 and 34 trunks; 2 thinned control 30 and 41 trunks. Feb, May 2007 May 2008 May 2009 April 2010 Nov 2011 Jan, Nov 2013 Jan 2015 Jan 2016 Jan 2017 Feb 2018 Mar 2019 Plots established with funding from PSW-USFS as part of a collaborative project with M. Garbelotto and Y. Valachovic. Understory tanoak mostly pre- thinned by landowner. Some minor additional thinning was conducted in treated and nontreated plots June 2017 ATTACHMENT 3 Progress report 15-DG-208: June-Dec 2019 Page 6 of 23 Project activities Objective 1. Continue management projects designed to protect vulnerable stands of tanoak by treating plots with potassium phosphite via bark spray application In fall 2019, we ordered phosphite and Pentra-Bark surfactant for retreatment of all phosphite plots in early 2020 (Jan-Mar). A. El Corte de Madera Open Space Preserve At this location, we are comparing SOD levels in a large contiguous block of trees treated by bark application of phosphite with untreated trees in adjacent areas. Mean trunk diameter of plot trees is 26 cm. Phosphite was last applied to tanoak trees in February 2019. When these plots were established in 2008, they were thought to be at high risk of developing SOD within the next several years. However the drought conditions which prevailed for many years after plot establishment apparently retarded the spread of SOD into the plots. By the September 2016 plot evaluations, SOD infections were confirmed in tanoaks and California bay located to the northwest, about 120 m and 160 m from the edges of the nearest control plot and treated plot, respectively. Tree mortality in the plots through Sept. 2016 was observed primarily in somewhat suppressed understory trees and appeared to be mostly associated with Diplodia corticola trunk cankers, although Armillaria cankers were also observed on several tanoaks. After the historically rainy winter of 2016-2017, SOD symptoms were seen in the plots for the first time during the disease evaluations which were conducted in October 2017 (Figures 1 and 2). SOD symptoms have increased in a discontinuous and patchy fashion across the landscape in the two succeeding years. At the August 2019 evaluation, SOD symptoms were still relatively uncommon and spatially clustered in the study area. Two of the four control plots each had 5 SOD-affected trunks; one control plot had one SOD-affected trunk; no SOD symptoms have been seen in the remaining control plot (Figures 1, 2). The phosphite treated plot has had only one SOD-affected trunk to date. the overall difference in SOD incidence between the controls (7.53%, 11/145) and treated trunks (0.69%, 1/145) is significant (p=0.0054, Fisher’s exact test). Percentages are based on the number of trees that were live in 2017, the first year that SOD symptoms were observed within the plots. If the small number of shreve and canyon live oak tree included in the plots are omitted, the difference is similar (SOD incidence: controls 7.97%, 11/138; phosphite treated 0.75%, 1/134, p=0.0054, Fisher’s exact test. However, we are cautious about interpreting this significant difference as a treatment effect due to the low numbers of symptomatic trunks and the spatial clustering of SOD in the plots. In other phosphite treatment plots where no efficacy was seen, SOD incidence in the phosphite-treated plots was initially significantly greater in the treated plots than in the control plots and this differences persisted for multiple years. Hence, it is possible that differences in SOD incidence between the treated and control plots are simply due to chance related to the scatted spatial distribution of SOD. Mortality. High rates of mortality have been seen among the SOD-affected tanoaks. Of the 11 control trees that had SOD cankers by October 2019, 9 were dead, and 6 of these died between 2018 and 2019. Of the 36 trunks that have died in control plots since the study began, 9 died due ATTACHMENT 3 Progress report 15-DG-208: June-Dec 2019 Page 7 of 23 to SOD. In the treated plot, 19 trunks have died, none due to SOD as of 2019. Causes of tanoak mortality in the plots other than SOD include tree failures, Armillaria root disease, and trunk cankers caused by Diplodia corticola and possibly other fungi. Change in mortality within the plots over time is shown in Figure 3. Figure 1. Locations of tanoaks with SOD canker symptoms (red pointer “P” icons) and SOD incidence by plot (percentages) as of October 2019 at El Corte de Madera Open Space Preserve. Controls are monitored in four plots. Cyan = control plots, fuchsia = treated plot. Percent SOD incidence in plots is based on the number of live tanoak trunks in 2017, when SOD cankers were first observed in the plots. Figure 2. Percent of tanoak trunks with Phytophthora ramorum cankers in El Corte de Madera Open Space Preserve control and phosphite-treated plots. Number of live trunks per plot as of 2017 (first year of SOD in plots) was used to calculate percentages. 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% Oct-08 Oct-09 Oct-10 Oct-11 Oct-12 Oct-13 Oct-14 Oct-15 Oct-16 Oct-17 Oct-18 Oct-19 % o f t r u n k s w i t h S O D c a n k e r s Date Evaluated Control 1 (n=44) Control 2 (n=38) Control 3 (n=25) Control 4 (n=31) Control All (n=138) Phosphite+thin (n=134) ATTACHMENT 3 Progress report 15-DG-208: June-Dec 2019 Page 8 of 23 Figure 3. Mortality over time (% of trunks) at El Corte de Madera Open Space Preserve based on number live trunks at the start of the study in 2008 (157 trunks in phosphite treated plot, 166 trunks in control plots). Counts exclude two trunks removed from the treated plot within the first year due to damage from an adjacent root failure. Most mortality is due to Armillaria root disease or Diplodia corticola cankers. Death due to SOD was first seen in October 2018. As of Oct 2019, 16% of dead trunks were due to SOD. B. Creighton Ridge, Sonoma County. Locations of Sonoma County phosphite study plots are shown in Figure 4. SF plots were discontinued in 2012 due to high disease levels in the phosphite treated plots as explained below. At the Creighton Ridge sites, PC and BL locations, plots were relatively small and consist of mostly small-diameter tanoaks. The PC and BL plots are located about 0.56 km apart on separate ridges. Tree removal to increase defensible space near the residence at PC had been scheduled for the past 2 years and finally occurred sometime between our visits in June 2018 and March 2019. The plan for this work was to remove small diameter tanoaks (up to about 9 inches DBH) within a set radius of the residence. The tree removal area included portions of both the control and treated plots. The treated plots was initially set up near the residence so that if the phosphite treatment was effective, the landowners would achieve maximum benefit. This work had much less impact on the study plots than originally feared. Extensive clearing near the residence effectively moved the front of the phosphite-treated plot closer to the stand edge than it was initially. The control plot was initially located close to the stand edge because the ground slope became quite steep where the control plot was located, and additional tree removal did not substantially affect its environment relative to the stand edge. Ten of the original 75 trunks in each plot were felled. Similar sized trees were removed in each plot. Nine felled trees in the control plot were less than 9 inches DBH and one was 13 inches. In 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% Oct-08 Oct-09 Oct-10 Oct-11 Oct-12 Oct-13 Oct-14 Oct-15 Oct-16 Oct-17 Oct-18 Oct-19 % M o r t a l i t y Date Evaluated % Mortality El Corte de Madera Agri-Fos Trial Control 1 Control 2 Control 3 Control 4 Control All Phosphite+thin ATTACHMENT 3 Progress report 15-DG-208: June-Dec 2019 Page 9 of 23 the treated plot, nine felled trees were less than 6 inches DBH, and one tree was 14 inches. None of the felled trees were dead; 2 trees with SOD were felled in the control plot, 1 tree with SOD was felled in the treated plot. Figure 4. Sonoma County plot locations. PC and BL plots are in an area known as Creighton Ridge. Tanoaks with P. ramorum cankers were present within 100 m of both plot sets when they were first established. We last evaluated disease in the PC and BL plots in June 2019. Disease in the Creighton Ridge area has increased noticeably due to the record rainfall in 2016-17, but is still distributed in a patchy manner across the landscape. This is evident from aerial images of the plot locations (Figures 5 and 6). The problem with this patchy spatial distribution is that the percent SOD infection in any given untreated plot is highly dependent on its location. Shifting of plot locations by as little as 10 m in various directions could result in much higher or lower disease percentages. The design of the plot layout at El Corte de Madera with multiple control plots, (discussed above) partially accounts for this effect because it allowed us to document the variation in disease incidence between multiple untreated plots within a localized area. Although the Sonoma plots were set up in a paired fashion and matched to similarities in stand composition to the extent possible, it was not possible to control for the spatially stochastic nature of disease development in areas where P. ramorum had not yet become established at the start of the study. Disease progress over time in the PC and BL plots is shown in Figures 5, 6 and 7. At BL, SOD incidence has increased most dramatically in the nonthinned control plot since 2017. From ATTACHMENT 3 Progress report 15-DG-208: June-Dec 2019 Page 10 of 23 Figure 5, it is evident that this plot is in a localized patch of high SOD incidence, based on the numbers of dead tanoak canopies visible. SOD incidence in the other two plots did not show a strong increase following the wet 2016-17 rainy season (Figure 7). At PC, both plots showed an increase in SOD incidence in response to the 2016-17 rains (Figure 7), with the thinned control plot showing a greater disease increase. Compared with the phosphite-treated plot, this plot had more trunks that were in relatively large clonal clumps resulting from coppice sprouting. Several of these clonal clumps had multiple trunks with SOD symptoms, which in part could account for the higher disease levels seen in that plot. SOD has developed in some phosphite-treated trees, and SOD incidence does not differ significantly between phosphite-treated and control plots at BL or PC. As with the plots at El Corte de Madera, data analysis is complicated by the patchy distribution of SOD at these sites. Many of the tanoaks at both BL and PC have relatively small trunk diameters, and the thin bark on these small trunks may allow for better phosphite uptake than is possible in larger trees with thicker bark. Nonetheless, we cannot yet determine with confidence whether long-term annual phosphite application has reduced the risk of P. ramorum infection in these plots. Figure 5. Percent SOD infection in phosphite treated and control BL plots at Creighton Ridge as of June 2019. Photo date 9/19/2018. Note patchy distribution of dead canopies. N=56-57 trunks per plot (see table 2). ATTACHMENT 3 Progress report 15-DG-208: June-Dec 2019 Page 11 of 23 Figure 6. Percent SOD infection in phosphite treated and control PC plots at Creighton Ridge as of June 2019. Photo date 9/19/2018. Tree removal in the plots for fuels management had not yet occurred at the time of this photo. N=75 trunks per plot at study start. ATTACHMENT 3 Progress report 15-DG-208: June-Dec 2019 Page 12 of 23 Figure 7. Percent of trunks diagnosed with SOD over time at BL and PC plots. N=56-57 trunks per plot at BL, N=75 for both treatments at PC. Vertical lines represent exact binomial confidence limits. Mortality. Mortality has increased steadily in the BL control plots, due primarily to Diplodia- type cankers on small suppressed trees (Figure 8). SOD was not a factor in the deaths of four trees in the phosphite-treated plot. Three of 18 dead trees in the thinned control and 14 of 17 dead trees in the nonthinned control are due to SOD. Due to a much lower incidence of Diplodia-type cankers, overall mortality at the PC plots is lower than at BL (Figure 8). SOD is the main factor associated with tanoak mortality at this location. Four of six dead trees in the phosphite-treated plot and 14 of 17 in the thinned control plot are due to SOD. 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50% May-05 May-06 May-07 May-08 May-09 May-10 May-11 May-12 May-13 May-14 May-15 Apr-16 Apr-17 Apr-18 Apr-19 Pe r c e n t S O D S y m p t o m s a l l t r u n k s Date Evaluated Percent SOD symptoms BL plots Phosphite+thin Thinned control Nonthinned control 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50% May-05 May-06 May-07 May-08 May-09 May-10 May-11 May-12 May-13 May-14 May-15 Apr-16 Apr-17 Apr-18 Apr-19 Pe r c e n t S O D s y m p t o m s a l l t r u n k s Date Evaluated Percent SOD symptoms PC plots Thinned control Phosphite+thin ATTACHMENT 3 Progress report 15-DG-208: June-Dec 2019 Page 13 of 23 Figure 8. Percent of dead trunks (bottom) over time at BL and PC plots. N=56-57 trunks per plot at BL, N=75 for both treatments at PC. Vertical lines represent exact binomial confidence limits. SF plots. The SF plots in the Creighton Ridge area were discontinued in 2012 due to high levels of SOD and SOD mortality in the phosphite-treated plots (Figure 9). SOD incidences shown in Figure 9 (top) are those at the time the plots were discontinued in 2012. Disease levels at the SF plots in 2012 were higher than those seen in 2019 at either PC or BL. A recent aerial photo (Sept 2018) of the SF plots is also shown in Figure 9. More brown canopies are visible now than at BL and PC locations, but local spatial variation in tanoak mortality is still apparent. 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50% 55% 60% Mar-04 Mar-05 Mar-06 Mar-07 Mar-08 Mar-09 Mar-10 Mar-11 Mar-12 Mar-13 Mar-14 Mar-15 Mar-16 Mar-17 Mar-18 Mar-19 Mar-20 Pe r c e n t D e a d T r u n k s Date Evaluated Percent mortality BL plots, all causes Phosphite+thin Thinned control Nonthinned control 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% Oct-06 Feb-08 Jul-09 Nov-10 Apr-12 Aug-13 Dec-14 May-16 Sep-17 Feb-19 P e r c e n t d e a d t r u n k s Date evaluated Percent all mortality PC plots, all causes Thinned control Phosphite+thin ATTACHMENT 3 Progress report 15-DG-208: June-Dec 2019 Page 14 of 23 . Figure 9. Discontinued SF plots in Sonoma County. Top, SOD disease progress and all mortality at SF plots through 2012. Bottom: Current aerial photo image (9/19/2018) showing plot outlines and SOD disease levels in 2012. Douglas fir is the predominant co-occurring species. Start date 2005 End date 2012 61-72 stems per plot mean stem diameter 27 cm, nonthinned control 21 cm 32 % phosphite + thin thinned control nonthinned control 28 % 21 % ATTACHMENT 3 Progress report 15-DG-208: June-Dec 2019 Page 15 of 23 C. Healdsburg, Sonoma County The FE plots (mean trunk diameter 19 cm) are west of Healdsburg in a hotter, drier, more inland location compared to Creighton Ridge (Figure 4). The two pairs of treated and control plots at this location are about 0.2 km apart. SOD-infected tanoaks were observed 100 m of these plots when they were first established. Although the plots have not had a full assessment for disease since 2017, we did not see any obvious change in SOD incidence in or near the plots when visiting this location to spray the trees in February 2018 or March 2019. Phytophthora ramorum has been sporadically isolated from cankers in trees in these plots, but disease has remained at low levels, as can be seen by the predominantly green canopies in the September 2018 aerial photo (Figure 10) and the disease progress graph (Figure 11). Mortality. Mortality from all causes in these plots is shown in Figure 11. Three trunks (1 phosphite-treated, 2 untreated) have died due to SOD. Mortality of 7 other trees (3 phosphite- treated, 4 untreated) was related to extensive Diplodia cankers. Figure 10. FE plots west of Healdsburg. Very few SOD symptoms have been seen in or near these plots. Redwood and Douglas fir co-occur with tanoak in these plots. Start date 2006 30-41 stems per plot mean diameter 20-24 cm 3% phosphite + thin thinned control 5% 0% phosphite + thin thinned control0% ATTACHMENT 3 Progress report 15-DG-208: June-Dec 2019 Page 16 of 23 Figure 11. Change in percent of trunks with SOD symptoms (top) and mortality due to all causes (bottom) over time at FE plots. N=30-41 trunks per plot. 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% Feb-06 Feb-07 Feb-08 Feb-09 Feb-10 Feb-11 Feb-12 Feb-13 Feb-14 Feb-15 Feb-16 Feb-17 Feb-18 Pe r c e n t S O D S y m p t o m s a l l t r u n k s Date Evaluated Percent SOD Symptoms FE plots Phosphite+thin lower plot Thinned control lower plot Phosphite+thin upper plot Thinned control upper plot 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% Feb-06 Feb-07 Feb-08 Feb-09 Feb-10 Feb-11 Feb-12 Feb-13 Feb-14 Feb-15 Feb-16 Feb-17 Feb-18 Pe r c e n t D e a d T r u n k s Date Evaluated Percent all-cause mortality FE plots Phosphite+thin lower plot Thinned control lower plot Phosphite+thin upper plot Thinned control upper plot ATTACHMENT 3 Progress report 15-DG-208: June-Dec 2019 Page 17 of 23 Objective 2. Monitor effectiveness of localized California bay removal for protecting large, high value oaks A. MROSD Rancho San Antonio Open Space Preserve (coast live oak). Some trees at this preserve were treated with localized California bay removal. These plots were last evaluated in August 2018. They were not evaluated during the last reporting interval. B. Los Trancos Open Space Preserve - canyon live oak. Of all the SOD-susceptible oaks, canyon live oak is the most difficult in which to observe and diagnose SOD symptoms. Cankers are often cryptic with no evident bleeding and it can be difficult to find the leading edge where a successful isolation can be made. In addition, although bleeding may occur shortly after infection, the amount of bleeding is generally small and may not persist to be observed in subsequent years. If the cankers continue to expand, they are eventually attacked by ambrosia beetles and commonly develop sporulation of Annulohypoxylon thouarsianium. However, when these late-stage symptoms are the first indication of infection, it is usually not possible to isolate P. ramorum from the cankers. As a result, there can be considerable uncertainty as to when P. ramorum infections occurred. This can affect the interpretation of treatment effects because some trees that appeared to be asymptomatic before bay removal treatments were imposed may actually have been cryptically infected. Hence, some of the symptoms that develop after treatment do not reflect the efficacy of the treatment. The plot layout at Los Trancos Open Space Preserve is shown in Figure 12. At the start of the study, it was difficult to find canyon live oaks that were close to California bay that did not already have SOD symptoms at this location. Consequently, we included a number of trees with SOD symptoms at the start of the study that we evaluated for disease progress, along with asymptomatic trees. Thirty six tree were treated with localized bay removal; of these 16 large- diameter canyon live oaks located along major trails were also treated with phosphite. Eight of the treated trees and 10 of the 31 control trees had SOD symptoms at the start of the study. The study trees were last re-evaluated for disease in June 2019. None of the 18 trees that were infected at the start of the study in 2010 had died by June 2019, although one of the initially- infected controls had >97% canopy dieback and was nearly dead. These data show that decline and mortality of SOD-affected canyon live oaks can be very slow, especially for large trees. Since the start of the study, no new SOD infections have been seen among any of the 28 initially asymptomatic trees treated with local California bay removal (Figure 13). In contrast, 5 of the 21 initially asymptomatic control canyon live oaks had developed symptoms by June 2019. None of these has yet died, although one was in severe decline with more than 80% canopy dieback. The difference in new disease incidence between the treated and control trees was not significant at P=0.05. ATTACHMENT 3 Progress report 15-DG-208: June-Dec 2019 Page 18 of 23 Figure 12. Los Trancos study plots. Bay removal has been conducted in the area bounded by the red line. Red icons represent control trees. Treated trees: green icons=localized bay removal at study start in 2009; blue=localized bay removal in 2011; purple icons=localized bay removal at study start + phosphite treated though 2018. Because no new disease had been seen in any of the trees with local California bay removal, it seemed unlikely that the additional treatment with phosphite could demonstrably improve disease suppression. The last phosphite application at this location was made in February 2018. Figure 13. Increase in SOD incidence over time at Los Trancos OSP among trees that were asymptomatic in 2010. New infections have only been seen to date among controls (n=21). Local bay removal (n=28) includes all trees with local bay removal; 12 of these were also treated with phosphite from 2010 through 2018. Error bars are exact binomial 95% confidence limits. 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50% De c - 0 9 De c - 1 0 De c - 1 1 De c - 1 2 De c - 1 3 De c - 1 4 De c - 1 5 De c - 1 6 De c - 1 7 De c - 1 8 De c - 1 9 Ne w S O D i n f e c t i o n s Canyon live oak, Los Trancos OSP Local bay removal Control Control Bay removal ATTACHMENT 3 Progress report 15-DG-208: June-Dec 2019 Page 19 of 23 C. Russian Ridge Open Space Preserve - canyon live oak At Russian Ridge Open Space Preserve, targeted bay removal is being evaluated to protect a population of very large canyon live oaks along and near the Ancient Oaks trail (Figure 14). No phosphite applications have been used at this location. Bay removal occurred in December 2009, September 2010, and summer 2011, generally close to the trail and localized around individual trees or groups of trees. Control trees are located further from the trail, beyond the bay removal areas. Localized bay removal has been very effective in preventing new SOD cankers among the large canyon live oaks (Figure 15). By May 2014, SOD symptoms appeared in two of 34 treated (bay removal) trunks of a large multitrunked canyon live oak that was initially asymptomatic. Given the cryptic nature of P. ramorum cankers in canyon live oak, it is likely that these infections occurred before the start of the study. Since that time, no new infections have been seen among initially asymptomatic oaks treated by local bay removal. In contrast, among initially asymptomatic control canyon live oaks (n=27), three trunks developed SOD symptoms by 2014 and the number of newly symptomatic trees has continued to increase to 12 (44%) in 2019. As at other locations, a steep increase in SOD incidence was seen after the wet 2016-2017 rainy season. Among initially asymptomatic trunks, the difference in SOD incidence between the bay removal treatment (5.9%) and controls (44%) is highly significant (P=0.0005, Fisher’s exact test). This is a conservative estimate of the difference because at least some of the infections of the treated trees likely predate the treatment. Initially symptomatic trees. As at other locations, a few trees that were symptomatic at the start of the study were included for monitoring. Among the 6 initially symptomatic controls, one has died. This tree had a large SOD canker and had failed at the base in 2017 but remained green, but was dead in June 2019. Most others have shown an increase in canker girdling rating since 2010, but several show callusing around old cankers. All four of the initially symptomatic canyon live oak trunks included in the bay removal areas are still alive, though canker girdling has increased on three of these. The tree showing the greatest canker expansion is a very large tree (270 cm DBH) located directly on a the trail that is commonly climbed upon by trail users. It appears that additional infections have been initiated through this activity from inoculum deposited from mud and debris on climbers’ shoes and wounds created on the bark. The canopy of this tree has died back and thinned noticeably as the amount of girdling has increased. Mortality. Two of the monitored trees in the control area died when they were knocked down by the failure of nearby adjacent dead trees in 2014 and 2015. These and the one SOD-killed and failed control noted above are the only study trees that have died to date at this study location. Trees were last evaluated on 3 June 2019. Bay foliage showed symptoms of very heavy P. ramorum infection levels, so we anticipate that there was a strong disease pressure from the 2018-19 wet season, but possibly not as high seen from the 2016-17 wet season. ATTACHMENT 3 Progress report 15-DG-208: June-Dec 2019 Page 20 of 23 Figure 14. Russian Ridge Open Space Preserve canyon live oak bay removal study. White icons are control trees, green icons are treated trees. F Figure 15. SOD incidence (2010-2019) in initially asymptomatic canyon live oaks at Russian Ridge Open Space Preserve treated by local California bay removal (N=34, solid line, square icons) and in untreated control areas (N=27, broken line, triangle icons ). Error bars are 95% exact binomial confidence intervals. 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% Ju n - 1 0 Ju n - 1 1 Ju n - 1 2 Ju n - 1 3 Ju n - 1 4 Ju n - 1 5 Ju n - 1 6 Ju n - 1 7 Ju n - 1 8 Ju n - 1 9 Ne w S O D s y m p t o m s Canyon live oak, Russian Ridge OSP Local bay removal Control Bay removal- binomial confidence interval Control- binomial confidence interval ATTACHMENT 3 Progress report 15-DG-208: June-Dec 2019 Page 21 of 23 Objective 3. Monitor the effectiveness of area-wide California bay removal to protect vulnerable stands of oaks A. MROSD Rancho San Antonio Open Space Preserve -coast live oaks Some of the trees at this location were treated by area-wide California bay removal. As noted above, no new work occurred at this location during the reporting interval. B. Monte Bello Open Space Preserve - Shreve oaks At the Monte Bello Open Space Preserve, area-wide California bay removal is being evaluated to protect a unique stand of Shreve oaks. The plot layout is shown in Figure 16. Overstory and understory California bay was removed from a large central treated area and surrounding areas without bay removal were designated control areas. SOD symptoms in the plots were last evaluated in June 2019. SOD incidence in the controls has been significantly higher than in the area-wide bay removal plot since the 2013 evaluations. Starting with the 2018 evaluation and continuing into 2019, a large increase in SOD incidence was observed in untreated control trees, doubtless related to favorable conditions for disease spread and infection associated with the record rainfall in winter of 2016-17 (Figure 17). This has increased the difference in SOD incidence between the treated bay removal plot and the controls. In 2019, we confirmed that one of the Shreve oaks in the bay removal treatment area had developed a basal P. ramorum canker. Although no California bay trees or saplings were observed within 20 m of this tree, it was located in a very dense patch of poison oak (Figure 18), a P. ramorum host that supports sporulation. We have previously seen rare situations where poison oak climbing in oak canopies was the only apparent source of P. ramorum inoculum, but had not previously seen a situation where P. ramorum infection appeared to be associated with shrubby (up to 1 m) stands of poison oak around susceptible oaks. Figure 16. Area-wide bay removal study plots at Monte Bello Open Space Preserve. The orange polygon indicates where bay removal area occurred. Cyan polygons show where monitored control trees are located. ATTACHMENT 3 Progress report 15-DG-208: June-Dec 2019 Page 22 of 23 Figure 17. SOD incidence among initially-asymptomatic Shreve oaks in area-wide bay removal and untreated control areas at Monte Bello Open Space Preserve. N=66 control trunks and 60 treated trunks. Error bars are 95% exact binomial confidence intervals. Mortality. Among Shreve oaks that were asymptomatic at the study start, four control trees have died due to P. ramorum cankers. Three additional control trees and four trees in the bay removal area have died from factors other than SOD. Canyon live oaks. At this location, a few canyon live oaks occur that occur within control (10 trees) and bay removal (18 trees) areas have been monitored. Four of the canyon live oaks in the bay removal area (22%) and 3 control trees (30%) developed SOD symptoms by 2015, and one more control developed symptoms by 2016. Given the cryptic nature of SOD symptoms on canyon live oak and the long latent period between infection and symptom expression, most or all of these infections could have been initiated before the bay removal treatment was conducted. None of these monitored canyon live oaks have died over the course of the study, and in 6 of these 8 trees, SOD infections were rated as inactive in 2019. . ATTACHMENT 3 Progress report 15-DG-208: June-Dec 2019 Page 23 of 23 Figure 18. Staining on the trunk of tree 310 at Monte Bello was confirmed to be due to a P. ramorum canker. Although no California bay was nearby, the tree was in a dense and extensive stand of poison oak. ATTACHMENT 3 Rev. 1/3/18 R-20-88 Meeting 20-17 August 12, 2020 AGENDA ITEM 6 AGENDA ITEM Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District’s Youth Outreach Plan GENERAL MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATION(S) Review, provide input, and approve the Youth Outreach Plan. SUMMARY Based on input from the Legislative, Funding and Public Affairs Committee (LFPAC), staff has developed the attached Youth Outreach Plan to guide internal efforts in expanding youth outreach, engagement and education, furthering the Board of Director’s (Board) Strategic Plan Goals and Objectives. The Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (District) recognizes the importance of engaging youth as the next generation of environmental leaders and champions. The creation of a formalized Youth Outreach Plan was a Public Affairs Department project listed on the Fiscal Year 2019-20 (FY20) Budget and Action Plan. Implementation would begin in FY21, based on available funds and budgetary savings. DISCUSSION The Board of Directors Strategic Plan includes a goal to: Connect people to open space and a regional environmental protection vision that is accomplished by meeting the following objectives: • Refine and implement a comprehensive public engagement strategy, including the outreach to diverse communities and enhanced public education programs; and • Expand opportunities to connect people to their public open space preserves consistent with a regional environmental protection vision. The District’s 2017 Preserve Use Survey found that most preserve users are adults, with 49 years old as the mean age of all preserve users. With just 4.2% of all preserve users between 18-24 years of age, staff identified an opportunity to increase awareness of the District to youth and young adults through youth outreach, engagement and education initiatives. In the LFPAC meeting on February 5, 2019, Public Affairs staff presented a Youth Engagement briefing of the existing outreach activities targeting youth ages 4 to 21 that are led by the various departments (attachment 1, R-19-15). Based on Committee suggestions from that meeting and a follow-up Committee Review in July 2020, staff developed a Youth Outreach Plan (Attachment 2) that expands upon existing District programs and external partnerships. The Youth Outreach Plan’s objective is to increase outreach, engagement and education to youth to foster knowledge and appreciation for nature, conservation and land management. The target audiences are youth ages 4 to 21 residing within District boundaries, particularly in under-resourced communities. R-20-88 Page 2 The Youth Outreach Plan includes five recommended strategies: 1. Expand external partnership opportunities to new youth organizations and continue existing partnerships that meet participation goals. 2. Expand emphasis on youth-related events when choosing community tabling and outreach opportunities. 3. Expand promotion of ongoing youth programming efforts. 4. Develop engaging youth outreach materials and presentations. 5. Maintain a list of potential ideas for future consideration. These strategies (refer to Attachment 2) include specific action recommendations such as: • Pilot introductory outdoor program outings with four local youth groups. • Increase youth-related community tabling events from 30% to 40%. • Promote existing programming to raise awareness and increase participation. • Increase connection opportunities beyond existing programming. • Create a list of future youth outreach and programming ideas. In addition to the strategies and actions identified in this Youth Outreach Plan, the District is forming two internal diversity, equity and inclusion staff committees that may present opportunities for increased youth engagement in under-resourced and low-income communities. The community outreach and new partnerships committee may help identify pathways to reach new, underserved, and diverse people not already engaged with the District. The recruitment, hiring process and staff development committee may develop avenues to broaden exposure to science and outdoor careers through internships, mentorships and other opportunities. The General Manager seeks Board input on and approval of the proposed Youth Outreach Plan. If approved by the Board, Public Affairs will work cross-departmentally to coordinate and implement the Youth Outreach Plan. Staff will work together to develop effective record keeping methods and provide the Board with a summary update every two years. FISCAL IMPACT Costs associated with expanding youth outreach are itemized in the table below. Given budget constraints for FY21 in light of projected reductions in upcoming property tax revenue growth, the Youth Outreach Plan is currently planned to be implemented through operational budget savings. A budget adjustment may be brought to the Board at a future date in FY21 based on greater and favorable financial certainties about projected tax revenue growth. The anticipated costs for FY21 are listed below: Items Anticipated Costs (FY21) Youth Group Pilot Programs $10,000 Social Media Promotion $ 1,000 Outreach Materials $ 9,000 Total: $20,000 R-20-88 Page 3 BOARD COMMITTEE REVIEW LFPAC reviewed this item on July 7, 2020 and recommended Board input and approval (R-20- 70). Director Kersteen-Tucker inquired regarding current action items for the Youth Outreach Program during the COVID-19 pandemic. Staff reported that the District has a Nature at Home section on its homepage, which provides resources to help the public experience nature close to home even if they are currently unable to visit a preserve. Staff also reported that the District has expanded outreach through its partners and is engaging with cities in the District to encourage the public to enjoy open space near their homes. Director Kersteen-Tucker suggested reaching out to other organizations, such as Vida Verde and Pie Ranch, which work with underserved populations. Additionally, she suggested exploring future partnership opportunities with FFA and 4-H clubs, both of which operate through Half Moon Bay High School. Staff added these organizations to the Youth Outreach Plan’s list of potential youth partners. PUBLIC NOTICE Public notice was provided as required by the Brown Act. No additional notice is required. CEQA COMPLIANCE This item is not a project subject to the California Environmental Quality Act. NEXT STEPS Upon Board approval, Public Affairs will work cross-departmentally to coordinate and implement the plan. Attachments 1. February 5, 2019 LFPAC Report (R-19-15) 2. Youth Outreach Plan 3. July 7, 2020 LFPAC Report Minutes Responsible Department Head: Korrine Skinner, Public Affairs Manager Prepared by: Carmen Lau, Public Affairs Specialist I LEGISLATIVE, FUNDING, AND PUBLIC AFFAIRS COMMITTEE R-19-15 February 5, 2019 AGENDA ITEM 4 AGENDA ITEM Briefing on Midpeninsula Region Open Space District’s Youth Engagement Opportunities GENERAL MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATION 1. Receive an informational report on the 2018 Youth Engagement Recap. 2. Review and provide recommendations to inform the goals, direction, and next steps for the Youth Outreach Plan. SUMMARY The Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District’s (District) Board of Directors (Board) set a goal to expand educational programs to reach underserved communities. The District recognizes the importance of engaging youth as they are the next generation of environmental leaders. The development of a Youth Outreach Plan is a Public Affairs project on the Fiscal Year 2018-19 Action Plan. Public Affairs staff determined that a strategic next step in developing the Youth Outreach Plan is to document the District’s existing youth engagement activities. To set a benchmark, staff surveyed all the youth programs and outreach work currently underway at the District across all departments to understand the depth and breadth of this work, and identify gaps and potential new opportunities. Current programs target youth aged 5-21, in elementary school, middle school, high school, and college. DISCUSSION External Partnerships Since 2012, the District has partnered with external organizations and agencies to engage students and young adults with the outdoors in a variety of ways. These external partnerships have reached approximately 2,200 youth. Eagle Scouts and Girl Scouts Service Projects (2012 to present) District staff have worked with Eagle Scouts and Girl Scouts to complete their service projects and Silver Awards. The majority of the projects have been at Deer Hollow Farm in the Rancho San Antonio Open Space Preserve. Staffing changes at the farm are underway, and the District will reevaluate the program model in 2019. ATTACHMENT 1 R-19-15 Page 2 Morgan Center (2016 to present) The Morgan Center is an autism support center that provides educational services for children and adults with autism. District Volunteer Program staff have partnered with the Morgan Center since 2016. About two times a month, the Morgan Center sends a group of autistic youth and their teachers to work together to clean and rake leaves at Deer Hollow Farm. The outings provide the students a regular opportunity to work as a team while spending time in nature. Students also have a chance to visit Deer Hollow Farm during their trips. This is an ongoing program that will continue in 2019. San Jose Conservation Corps & Charter School (2017 to present) San Jose Conservation Corps & Charter School (SJCCCS) is a San Jose-based non-profit that provides job training to local youth, ages 18-27, in a wide variety of environmental fields while they work to obtain their GED. In September 2018, eleven (11) SJCCCS students spent a week working alongside District staff to create a fuel break in a closed area of Windy Hill Open Space Preserve. The students had an opportunity to cultivate teamwork, learn new technical skills, and develop a passion for the natural world. In November 2018, the District collaborated with SJCCCS to train six students to plant native plants in a closed area of Sierra Azul Open Space Preserve. District staff plan to continue collaborating with SJCCCS on at least three projects in 2019. Grassroots Ecology (2015 to present) Grassroots Ecology is a Palo Alto-based non-profit focused on engaging and educating the public to restore local ecosystems. They work with the District to provide stewardship and volunteer engagement services with youth and the community. In 2018, Grassroots Ecology facilitated 17 restoration projects with over 600 volunteers in District Preserves, focusing on the removal of invasive species and planting native plants at Windy Hill and Russian Ridge Preserves. The District plans to continue to partner with Grassroots Ecology in 2019. Student Conservation Association (2015 to present) Student Conservation Association (SCA) is a national youth agency that aims to build the next generation of conservation leaders through outdoor service experiences. SCA manages a GIS mapping program that recruits students from underserved schools to conduct field inventories using iPads and GIS collector applications. In summer 2018, the District’s GIS Department worked with nine SCA students and two program leaders to collect GIS data on trailhead structures at various Preserve parking lots. Students received iPad training on GIS data collection and learned how to use the ArcGIS application, measuring tapes, measuring wheels, and laser rangefinder tools on site visits. The program helped the students build awareness of the many career paths in conservation field. The data collected was used by the GIS Department to inform map requests and enhanced the data collection of visitor amenities at District preserves. In addition, a group of 10 SCA students worked with the Natural Resource Department to map invasive, non-native species in Purisima Creek Redwoods and Rancho San Antonio Open Space Preserves. Natural Resource staff worked closely with students, providing training on GIS mapping. By the end of the program, the SCA students were provided stipends for their five weeks of work. The partnership provides an excellent opportunity for underserved students to experience the open space preserves, learn new technical skills, and develop an appreciation for the natural environment. The District will continue to partner with SCA in 2019. ATTACHMENT 1 R-19-15 Page 3 Save the Redwoods League (2015 to present) Interpretation and Education Program (Visitor services) staff have partnered with Save the Redwoods League (SRL) to offer high school students field trip excursions at Purisima Creek Redwoods Open Space Preserve. SRL is a San Francisco-based non-profit whose mission is to protect and restore coastal redwood forests and connect people with nature. With staff guidance, students worked together to measure the height and diameter of redwood trees, calculated the carbon storage of the tree, studied the effects of climate change on sword ferns, and conducted plant observations. Students also participated in a Bioblitz, a citizen science activity that documents as many different species as possible with the iNaturalist app. The District provides transportation reimbursement for these field trips. Approximately 120 students have participated in these field trips in the 2017-2018 school year. The District will continue to partner with SRL in 2019. Ranger Talks at Deer Hollow Farm (2018 to present) Deer Hollow Farm is a working farm located within Rancho San Antonio Open Space Preserve. In 2018, District rangers began partnering with Deer Hollow Farm to provide support to school life science programs, providing 15 educational presentations to students. The rangers discuss trail safety, everyday ranger duties, and environmental protection guidelines. In 2019, the District’s ranger staff plans to continue to work with Deer Hollow Farm and find additional interpretive opportunities for youth programming. Environmental Volunteers (2018 to present) Environmental Volunteers (EV) is a Palo Alto-based non-profit whose mission is to promote environmental understanding through hands-on science education. The District’s Interpretation and Education Program has collaborated with EV to offer educational field trips to students at various District preserves. In the 2017- 2018 school year, 1,200 students from three different schools have participated in field trips to Monte Bello, Los Trancos, and Windy Hill Open Space Preserves. Internal Partnerships/Outreach The District offers youth opportunities to work directly with staff from different departments on a variety of special projects, offering insight into the large range of environmental career paths available. In addition, District staff conducts outreach via tabling at community events and presentations to libraries and schools. These internal outreach efforts have reached approximately 7,328 youth. Spaces & Species Program (2002 to present) Spaces & Species is a free field trip program designed for third- through fifth-grade students. The program offers 20 field trips every spring and fall and reaches about 750 students a year. Staff work with Outdoor Education Leader (OEL) docents to plan, schedule, and coordinate environmental education programming. OEL docents lead a group of about 30 students with adult chaperones on a guided walk at Skyline Ridge Open Space Preserve, including a visit to the Daniels Nature Center. This program offers children a hands-on opportunity to learn about the natural world and understand the benefit of open space. Internships (2009 to present) In 2018, the District offered several internships across different departments. Two GIS interns worked closely with GIS staff to complete map requests. Two Natural Resources ATTACHMENT 1 R-19-15 Page 4 interns helped conduct field research and assisted with department projects. A high school intern worked with Visitor Services Department to create a new electronic communication platform to bridge communication between staff and volunteers. In most cases, interns have a maximum of 1000 internship hours and are compensated for their work. The District will continue to offer internships across different departments. Daniels Nature Center (1996 to present) The Daniels Nature Center at Skyline Ridge is the District’s only nature center facility. Open on weekends from April to October, the Nature Center offers interpretative information about local habitats, with emphasis on Alpine Pond. District docents host and greet visitors (more than 2000 each year), sharing natural history information, and wildlife viewing activities. Inside the Nature Center, there are pond strata mobiles, a large-scale natural community exhibits, pond food webs, and a skulls and skins display. Community Outreach Events (2011 to present) Since 2011, District staff have conducted community outreach at a variety of different public events. In 2018, Public Affairs staff have provided informational resources at 27 community events. Thirty percent (8 in total) of these events were targeted to children, youth, and families, including the Siena Youth Center Bike Rodeo, Half Moon Bay Kids Health and Wellness Fair, Saratoga Elementary School Earth Day, Wildlife & Harvest Day. Anecdotally, participants are typically interested in finding information on beginner hiking trails suitable for all age levels, so staff provides brochures, maps, and information to cater to new users, families, and youth. Staff will continue to table at community events that have a focus on youth and the outdoors. Youth Category in District Photo Contest (2018 to present) The District has hosted an annual photo contest since 2008. The photo contest encourages community members to visit a Preserve and submit photographs taken at the Preserves. In 2018, the Public Affairs department added a youth category (grades 6-12) and promoted the contest to middle school and high schools within the District via a flyer. Youth had the option to submit their photo entries through the District’s website or through Instagram, and the District received 20 photo submissions from nine youth participants. The winner of the youth category of the photo contest was highlighted in the fall 2018 Views Newsletter. Public affairs staff will continue to offer the youth category in the 2019 photo contest and increase outreach efforts. Community Presentations District staff have provided many educational presentations to engage youth in 2018. District rangers have provided classroom visits on an ad-hoc basis, discussing the different duties of a ranger and offering tips on how to get started in the environmental field. These engagements are not typically tracked by ranger staff. In 2019, staff with work together to develop a method for tracking District staff’s presentations and talks to youth. In August 2018, Public Affairs staff provided an introductory presentation at Los Altos Library to 15 community members. In December 2018, Public Affairs staff provided an introductory presentation to 25 students in an environmental club at Menlo-Atherton High School. Staff plans to continue to connect to youth through presentations at local high schools and public libraries. ATTACHMENT 1 R-19-15 Page 5 New Programs In 2019, the District will be working closely with several partner agencies to offer new youth programming. Latino Outdoors Pilot Program (2019) In 2015 the District began collaborating with Latino Outdoors (LO) to bring families, youth, seniors, and new users to District preserves for outdoor programming, including family- friendly monthly hikes, an annual backpacking trip, and to participate in habitat restoration volunteer projects. In 2019, a new component of the partnership includes creating a pilot program focused on bringing youth and families from local community groups to District preserves. LO and District staff will facilitate several guided hikes for youth-focused community organizations within District’s service area. The goal is to introduce these youth- focused community groups to the District’s preserves, promote environmental stewardship, and foster a love for nature in young minds. LO staff will facilitate contact with the community groups and recruit participants. District staff will provide transportation services for the program. At the end of the year, staff will evaluate the pilot program and provide a summary report. District Grantmaking Program (2019) In 2007, the District began awarding Resource Management grants to local researchers to support the District’s mission, enhances public education, and advance the understanding of natural processes while strengthening local partnerships. In 2019, the grantmaking program was expanded to $250,000 annually and included additional funding categories; applied science, network and partnership support, and environmental education, interpretation, and access. The updated program aims to build a more communitywide approach to environmental stewardship by building the capacity of local academic, nonprofit, and community organizations. District staff will work to promote the grant program to local partners, community groups, and youth-focused agencies. Amah Mutsun Tribal Band Stewardship Program (2019) In 2014, the Amah Mutsun Tribal Band was awarded a five-year grant to survey and map culturally significant plant species at Mt. Umunhum in Sierra Azul OSP. The Tribal Band is involving the next generation of tribal members to conduct land surveys, mapping, and document significant plant species. In 2019, the Amah Mutsun Tribal Band will be working with the District to develop a program to bring young members to Mt. Umunhum to work on a variety of restoration and land stewardship projects. This new program is a promising collaboration effort to develop local conservation stewards. FISCAL IMPACT The costs associated with providing these youth engagement opportunities are listed below and were included in the FY2018-19 operating budget. External Partnerships Contract Amount Budgeted in FY 18-19 Eagle Scouts and Girl Scouts Service Projects Staff time Grassroots Ecology $47,956 Student Conservation Association $49,683 ATTACHMENT 1 R-19-15 Page 6 Save the Redwoods League Staff and docent time San Jose Conservation Corps & Charter School $33,422 Ranger Talks at Deer Hollow Farm Staff time Environmental Volunteers Staff and docent time Latino Outdoors $35,000 Internal Programs Contract Amount Budgeted in FY 18-19 Internships $60,000 Spaces and Species Program Staff and docent time Daniels Nature Center Staff and docent time Community Outreach Events Staff time Youth Category in District Photo Contest Staff time Community Presentations Staff time District Grantmaking Program $250,000 PUBLIC NOTICE Public notice was provided as required by the Brown Act. No additional notice is required. CEQA COMPLIANCE This item is not a project subject to the California Environmental Quality Act. NEXT STEPS Incorporating the Committee’s input and recommendations, staff will work cross- departmentally to identify gaps and brainstorm opportunities to expand youth outreach. Public Affairs will compile a draft Youth Outreach Plan to present to the Committee for its review and consideration in forwarding the item to the full Board. Responsible Department Head: Korrine Skinner, Public Affairs Manager Prepared by: Carmen Lau, Public Affairs Specialist I ATTACHMENT 1 Attachment 2 - Youth Outreach Plan Youth Outreach Plan Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District YOUTH OUTREACH PLAN Objective: Increase youth outreach, engagement and education to foster knowledge and appreciation for nature, conservation and land management. Target audiences: All youth ages 4 to 21 residing within Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (Midpen) boundaries, particularly in under-resourced communities. Background: Midpen provides a variety of youth outreach, engagement, and education programming that further the Board of Directors’ (Board) 2020-21 Strategic Plan Goals and Objectives, in particular: Goal 3: Connect people to open space and a regional environmental protection vision Obj. 2: Refine and implement a comprehensive public engagement strategy, including the outreach to diverse communities and enhanced public education programs; and Obj. 3: Expand opportunities to connect people to their public open space preserves consistent with a regional environmental protection vision. Youth outreach, engagement and education primarily takes the form of external partnerships and internal programming. Public Affairs’ role focuses on outreach to youth through the promotion of Midpen preserves and raising awareness of Midpen through information sharing and outreach to new users. Visitor Services’ role focuses on providing youth with environmental education and outdoor engagement experiences. Midpen has partnered with local organizations to provide environmental education and outdoor experience opportunities to youth, reaching approximately 2,200 youth annually 1 through external partnerships with numerous groups, including Latino Outdoors, San Jose Conservation Corps and Charter School, girls and boys scout groups, the Morgan Center, Grassroots Ecology, Save the Redwoods League, Environmental Volunteers, Deer Hollow Farm, and the Student Conservation Association. Midpen also provides direct student programming, events, and special youth conservation projects that are coordinated by staff. School field trips delivered by Midpen docents began in 1996 with the Spaces & Species environmental science education program. Other internal programming includes family visits to the Daniels Nature Center, volunteer stewardship and conservation projects, ranger talks at Deer Hollow Farm, natural resource internships, community outreach events and presentations, and the annual photo contest. Currently, Midpen reaches an approximately 7,300 youth each year through these programming efforts. Please refer to Appendix 1 for information on the geographic distribution and Appendix 2 for descriptions of these various programs and partnerships organizations. Recommended Strategies and Tactics To identify additional opportunities for youth outreach, engagement, and education, staff collaborated to develop the following recommendations: 1Summary information on youth outreach, engagement and education programming to date can be found in attachment 1, R-19-15 1. Expand external partnership opportunities to new youth organizations and continue existing partnerships that meet participation goals. Midpen’s partnership agreement with Latino Outdoors (LO) stands as an example of how Midpen can facilitate a path for diverse communities to explore the outdoors and engage in new experiences. In 2019, LO hosted six guided hikes on Midpen preserves, joined two Midpen volunteer restoration projects, participated in three joint community outreach tabling events and attended one weekend backpacking trip for beginners. These experiences allowed 746 youth and families to learn more about nature, many for the first time. The LO partnership also spawned partnerships with the Siena Youth Center and Girls to Women organization. Girls to Women (G2W) is an East Palo Alto-based nonprofit that provides year- round programming for local girls to support healthy development. Midpen partnered with LO and G2W to offer a series of four nature experiences to a group of 35 youth in G2W’s summer camp program. In the first week, Midpen and LO staff provided an introductory presentation on safety guidelines and things to be aware of when visiting the outdoors. In the following three weeks, the youth were taken to three different preserves and guided on an introductory, short hike. Midpen covered the cost of a shuttle bus to transport the students from East Palo Alto to the preserves. Siena Youth Center is a youth community center based in North Fair Oaks with a mission to provide essential services that help residents become self-sufficient members of the community. Midpen has been offering an outreach table at Siena’s annual health fair and bike rodeo for the past three years and have made positive connections with their staff. Recognizing that the success of the partnership agreement with LO is likely related to the complementary missions of LO and Midpen, staff set out to identify other like-minded youth organizations operating within District boundaries that might be interested in replicating the program. After several months of research and investigation of 23 local youth groups, staff was unable to locate a group ready to launch such an initiative (see Appendix 2). However, staff was able to identify four local youth organizations interested in piloting outdoor programs to assess their constituency’s interest and participation. RECOMMENDED ACTION 1 (cost ~ $10,000): Staff recommends conducting a one-year outdoor program pilot with the following four youth groups to provide outreach, engagement and educational services to youth and families residing within District boundaries: Fresh Lifelines for Youth (FLY), Siena Youth Center, Puente, and Coastside Children’s Programs (CCP). Public Affairs staff would coordinate the initial pilots, develop the relationships with the community partners, secure and manage agreements, and offer each group $2,500 to cover programmatic materials, coordination and transportation expenses. With a mindset of collaboration, staff would work together and find a balanced approach to coordinate and deliver the outdoor engagement experiences with each youth group. Due to the current public health crisis, the planning and implementation of the pilot programs would begin after group activities are back in place. The pilot program’s timeframe may be modified based on staff workload and priorities. A short description of each of the four youth organizations is provided below: Fresh Lifelines for Youth (FLY) – serving the Bayside Founded in 2000, FLY is a nonprofit dedicated to breaking the cycle of violence, crime and incarceration of teens. FLY serves at-risk teens in Redwood City and East Palo Alto, among other areas, offering legal education, leadership training, and mentoring programs. FLY provides youth involved in the juvenile justice system with the motivation and support to remain productive members of society. As part of their mentor program, FLY offers an annual retreat at a campsite to provide teens and mentors a way to develop teambuilding skills and bond through experiences in nature. FLY is interested in exploring outdoor activities at Midpen preserves. Siena Youth Center – serving the Bayside Siena Youth Center is an after-school program that serves youth ages 10 to17 from Redwood City and North Fair Oaks. Through mentorship and guidance, the Siena Youth Center offers academic support, arts, youth leadership, advocacy programs, biking clubs, and academic enrichment activities. Midpen has attended Siena Youth Center’s community health fair and bike rodeo for the past three years. Siena has expressed an interest to doing group activities in the preserves, specifically group backpacking and bike rides. Puente – serving the Coastside As the region’s only Community Resource Center, Puente serves the south San Mateo County coastal communities of Pescadero, La Honda, Loma Mar and San Gregorio. Puente advocates for local Coastside communities and leverages resources that promote individual and community health. The Puente office is located in Pescadero and has partnerships with Pescadero Elementary and Pescadero High School. Puente is interested in partnering with Midpen to offer the families and students of Pescadero an opportunity to visit a local Coastside preserve. Coastside Children’s Programs (CCP) – serving the Coastside Started in 1975, CCP’s mission is to provide a safe and caring environment where children learn through experience, play and friendships. This nonprofit offers two preschools, three after-school programs, and annual summer camps for children in kindergarten through fifth grade. CCP is interested in organizing guided summer field trips for their elementary students to a local Coastside preserve. Metrics will include recording the number of attendees who attend each pilot program. A post-event survey will also be administered to ask for participant feedback on the event, what they learned, what they liked and what aspects could be improved for future events. The post-event surveys will be reviewed and used to improve future pilot program events. 2. Expand emphasis on youth-related events when choosing community tabling and outreach opportunities. Typically, Midpen participates in approximately 31 tabling opportunities annually at various community events within our geographic boundaries. Midpen’s participation in outreach events is generally balanced across all seven wards, and about 30% of the events are aimed specifically at children and families. Staff will add a “focus on youth” criterion when determining which events to participate in, with the goal of increasing attendance at youth-focused community outreach events by 10% (from 10 to 12 events). Staff will continue to balance participation across District wards. Additionally, staff will remain focused on youth in weighing other outreach opportunities. For example, Midpen staff is partnering with Hidden Villa to offer a series of free, educational events for families and children highlighting natural resource topics, including mountain lion awareness, the Highway 17 wildlife crossing, and habitat restoration projects to raise awareness of Midpen activities. Staff plans to provide community educational presentations along with an outreach table at Hidden Villa in calendar year 2020, should normal outreach activities resume. RECOMMENDED ACTION 2 (cost ~ $0): Staff recommends continuing to emphasize youth-related events when choosing community tabling opportunities and increasing youth-focused events from 30% to 40% of total community outreach. Staff will evaluate event outcomes on an annual basis. Additionally, staff recommends continuing educational events with Hidden Villa and other partner organizations that are aligned with Midpen’s mission. Metrics will include tracking the number of youth-related events and recording event outcomes, including estimated number of event attendees, estimated number of participants who visited the Midpen table, common questions from visitors, popular conversation topics and feedback from visitors. The feedback will allow staff to make more informed decisions when choosing community outreach tabling events and youth-related events in the future. 3. Expand promotion of ongoing youth programming efforts. Midpen’s ongoing programming for students and families has been successful and remains vibrant. Due to the current public health crisis and future implications of COVID-19 on group gatherings, staff will work on assessing new methodologies and engagement strategies to provide meaningful programming in new ways. Ongoing programs and activities include: • Spaces & Species is the free field trip program designed for third- through fifth-grade students and provides a hands-on, science-based learning experience focused on the natural world and the benefits of open space conservation. This Interpretation & Education Program (part of the Visitor Services department) has historically offered between 18–24 field trips every spring and fall, reaching between 500–750 students a year. These field trips are coordinated by Interpretation & Education Program staff and provided by volunteer Outdoor Education Docents. Staff are working to modify the program curriculum to better support teachers and schools to meet Next Generation Science Standards in the classroom. Midpen provides transportation reimbursement for these field trips as needed. • Interpretation & Education staff has partnered with Save the Redwoods League (SRL) since 2015 to offer high school students redwood ecology and climate change field learning excursions at Purisima Creek Redwoods Preserve. The students examine redwood trees and study the effects of climate change on plants. The field learning experiences are based on SRL curriculum and receive support from both Midpen and SRL staff. Approximately 80–100 students have participated annually. Midpen provides transportation reimbursement for these field trips as needed. • The Daniels Nature Center at Alpine Pond, Skyline Ridge Preserve offers interpretive experiences and information about regional ecosystems and outdoor recreation opportunities at Midpen preserves. Under the direction of Interpretation & Education Program staff, Nature Center Docents greet visitors (more than 2,000 visitors each year) and share natural history information and activities. Inside the Nature Center, there are a variety of displays and exhibits including pond strata mobiles, a large-scale natural pond community exhibit, pond food webs and a skulls and skins display. • Also, under the direction of Interpretation & Education Program staff, Midpen Docent Naturalists develop and offer guided interpretive hikes, many of which are suitable or intended for families with children. Approximately 20% of all docent-led hikes are suitable for children. • Midpen’s Geocaching Program is an engaging introductory nature activity for youth and families. There are 22 Midpen preserves with Preserve Circuit geocaches. Children 16 years and younger who complete the Preserve Circuit Passport receive a special geocache limited edition cache tag. Interpretation & Education Program staff are evaluating new geocaching challenges and engagement opportunities for 2021. • The Midpen Volunteer Program has worked with several partner organizations to offer outdoor service experiences to engage and educate youth in restoration and stewardship practices. These partner organizations bring youth from primarily Santa Clara and San Mateo Counties. These experiences provide youth with leadership skills, education about the local ecosystem and job training in environmental fields. For the full list of partner programs, refer to Attachment 1. • In 2007, Midpen began awarding resource management grants to regional researchers as a way to further support Midpen’s mission, enhance public education and advance the understanding of natural processes, while strengthening local partnerships. In 2019, the grantmaking program was expanded to offer a maximum of $250,000 with the additional funding categories: applied science, network and partnership support, and access, interpretation and education. The new grantmaking program helps to build the capacity of local academic, nonprofit, and community organizations. There are several current grantees with projects that involve youth outreach, engagement and education, including Vida Verde Education Center, San Francisco Bay Bird Observatory and Groundswell Coastal Ecology. RECOMMENDED ACTION 3 (cost~ $1,000): Staff recommends increasing the promotion and awareness of Midpen’s successful and popular programs via multiple communication channels (Midpen webpage, social media, e-news, Open Space Views newsletter, inserts and partner collaboratives) to raise awareness of Midpen’s programs and to increase youth engagement. Metrics will include tracking the number of newsletter articles, social media posts, webpage content, inserts and partner collaborative efforts that promote ongoing youth- related programs and activities. Staff will review the metrics overtime to determine if there is a correlation with an increase in engagement in Midpen’s youth-related programs. 4. Develop engaging youth outreach materials and presentations. As outlined above, Midpen’s youth outreach successfully reaches approximately 9,500 young people through both internal programs and external partnerships, and the ability to significantly expand those opportunities is contingent on expanding staff resources. What is more readily achievable is to increase connections through outreach and engagement. RECOMMENDED ACTIONS 4-9 (cost ~$9,000): Staff recommends expanding initial connections through the following activities: • Supplement current community outreach presentations by creating a specific youth- oriented master slide deck and work with local teachers and community groups to expand presentations to youth-focused audiences. Provide at least four youth-focused presentations to organizations within the District’s jurisdiction annually. Staff will keep a record of the number of participants at the presentations and keep a list of the youth organizations interested in future presentations. • Increase number of posts on social media aimed at youth (ages 13 to 21) and families to build a community of followers. Provide one post per month aimed specifically at youth on the topic of outdoor education. Test video posts to determine if videos garner more engagement from youth. Staff will track the engagement, reach and number of likes of each these social media posts. • Identify Midpen staff with subject matter expertise that can be shared with youth groups and create a list of speakers with readymade presentation topics. Identify at least one designated subject matter speaker from each department each year that can offer presentations aimed at youth audiences. • Develop family-friendly games and activities that can be handed out at tabling events or downloaded online. Examples include a coloring sheet, word seek, scavenger hunt, nature bingo or I-Spy activity. Develop one new family-friendly activity each year. Staff will bring the games and activities to community events as an engagement tool. • Continue to add family-friendly resources to Midpen’s new Nature at Home webpage. • Explore creating a specific category for youth in the What To Do section of openspace.org that promotes youth-friendly activities and introductory open space and nature content as the web redesign project moves forward. 5. Maintain a list of potential ideas for future consideration. A number of ideas generated in staff brainstorming sessions were deemed too labor intensive for current staffing situations. However, these should be captured in the event additional capacity is secured in future years. RECOMMENDED ACTION 10 (cost ~ to be determined): Keep a list of new ideas for future consideration, including: • Create a job shadowing, internship and/or mentorship program for high school students interested in conservation, outdoor education and public lands management. • Research the potential benefits and constraints of creating a youth advisory committee. • Evaluate enhanced communication and coordination with county Offices of Education and associated school districts. • Evaluate the potential to co-train youth as docents, along with adult docent partners. • Consider modified outreach to reach new docents with bilingual abilities. • Develop or collaborate on a new agricultural education program for youth on the Coastside, perhaps in partnership with Pie Ranch, 4-H Farms or the Half Moon Bay FFA chapter. • Track the time and staff contributions of Midpen’s youth outreach efforts (new and existing youth programs). Tracking, Reporting, and Future Plan Updates Public Affairs and Visitor Services staff will work together to develop effective tracking and record keeping methods to assess the progress of the Youth Outreach Plan goals. Staff will provide a summary update to the Board every two years of progress made on meeting the Youth Outreach Plan goals that include significant accomplishments and milestones. As part of these reports, staff will identify any recommended updates or changes to the Plan and present these to the Board for approval. The first progress report is anticipated in September 2022. APPENDIX 1 This map shows the internal and external youth engagement activities and programs that took place in Midpen preserves in the 2018 calendar year. Community outreach events occur outside of the preserves and are not highlighted on the map. APPENDIX 2 Staff researched the following youth-focused organizations in seeking to build upon the Latino Outdoors partnership agreement model: Organization Location Partnership Opportunity Notes Puente Pescadero, La Honda, Loma Mar, and San Gregorio. As the region’s only Community Resource Center, Puente serves the San Mateo County South Coast communities of Pescadero, La Honda, Loma Mar, and San Gregorio. Puente advocates for local Coastside communities and leverages resources that promote individual and community health. Puente offices is located in Pescadero and has partnerships with Pescadero Elementary and Pescadero High School. Puente is interested in partnering with Midpen to offer the families and students of Pescadero an opportunity to visit a local Coastside preserve. Fresh Lifelines for Youth (FLY) Redwood City, East Palo Alto, San Bruno and South San Francisco Founded in 2000, FLY is a nonprofit dedicated to breaking the cycle of violence, crime and incarceration of teens. FLY serves at-risk teens and offer legal education, leadership training and mentoring programs. FLY provides youth involved in the juvenile justice system with the motivation and support to stay out of trouble with the law, get engaged in school. As part of their mentor program, they offer an annual retreat at a campsite. This recreational event allows the teens and mentors to bond through nature experiences and develop teambuilding skills. FLY is interested in exploring outdoor activities at Midpen preserves. Siena Youth Center Redwood City Siena Youth Center is an after-school program that serves youth ages 10-17 from Redwood City and North Fair Oaks. Through mentorship and guidance, the Center offers academic support, arts, youth leadership and advocacy programs, biking clubs and academic enrichment activities. Midpen has attended Siena Youth Center’s community health fair and bike rodeo for the past 3 years. The Center is familiar with a few Midpen preserves and have an interest to doing group activities, specifically group backpacking and bike rides. Coastside Children’s Programs (CCP) Half Moon Bay Started in 1975, Coastside Children's Program's (CCP) mission is to provide a safe and caring environment where children learn through experience, play and friendships. This non-profit offer two preschools, three after-school programs and annual summer camps for children K - 5th grade. CCP is interested in organizing guided summer field trips for their elementary students to a local Coastside preserve. Black Girls Hike Global National Black Girls Hike is community group with national chapters. Their mission is to make it possible for women around the globe to come together and enjoy outdoor adventures. They currently do not have an active local chapter. YUCA (Youth United for Community Action) East Palo Alto YUCA is grassroots community organization created, led, and run by young people of color, majority from low-income communities. They provide a safe space for young people to empower themselves and work on environmental and social justice issues to establish positive systemic change. They are currently focused on community organizing and leadership development efforts. Youth Community Service (YCS) Palo Alto, serves whole Peninsula YCS engages young people from diverse Mid-Peninsula communities in meaningful service-based learning. They help students build leadership and life skills, gain empathy for others, and build a sense of connectedness, purpose and efficacy while making a positive difference in the lives of others. Staff was unable to get a hold of a contact person from YCS. San Mateo County Youth Commission San Mateo The San Mateo County Youth Commission increases awareness of and advocates for youth issues, advises the Board of Supervisors, presents policy recommendations, and creates projects that serve the community. The Commission consists of 26 members, which is a smaller audience group. Staff is interested in continuing conversations with this group. Youth Leadership Initiative (YLI) San Mateo, San Francisco, Marin YLI’s mission is to build communities where young people and their adult allies come together to create positive community change that promotes social justice and racial equity. YLI’s San Mateo chapter is currently focused on issues such as transportation equality and smoke- free initiatives. TransForm San Jose, Oakland, Sacramento TransForm promotes walkable communities with excellent transportation choices to connect people of all incomes to opportunity, keep California affordable, and help solve our climate crisis. Their main focus is on transportation equity and climate change. Their service area is outside of Midpen’s jurisdiction. Canopy Palo Alto Canopy’s mission is to plants and cares for trees where people need them the most, growing the urban forest and creating greener, healthier communities. Their focus is on growing trees in urban settings instead of open space. Missions are not strongly aligned. Wild Child Freeschool Santa Cruz Wild Child Freeschool supports kids as they form deep connections with each other and the natural world. They are an after-school program that provides self-directed learning and inclusive programs as a way to provide powerful life lessons in social, emotional, and educational growth for every child. Their mission and the youth they serve is similar to Coastside Children’s Programs (CCP). Midpen currently partners with Wild Child Freeschool to offer quarterly volunteer projects at various preserves. Girl Ventures Oakland Girl Ventures’ mission is to create a world where girls and women lead inclusive, resilient communities, and where nature is accessible to everyone and conserved for future generations. They combine outdoor adventure with social emotional learning for adolescent girls, at a critical time in their lives. They build girls’ confidence, skills, and leadership as they backpack, hike, kayak and rock climb in the Northern California wilderness. This organization is aligned with Midpen’s mission but is located outside of Midpen’s jurisdiction. The Morgan Center San Jose The Morgan Center’s mission is to help children and adults with autism or other developmental disabilities maximize their potential in a dignified, positive and loving environment. Midpen currently partners with them to offer volunteer opportunities at Deer Hollow Farm twice monthly Youth@Work Cupertino, Los Altos, Milpitas, Mountain View, Palo Alto, Santa Clara, Sunnyvale Youth@Work serves as an online employment database and resource operated by the NOVA Youth Employment Program. The NOVA Youth Employment office provides opportunities for young people ages 16-24 learn to conduct effective job searches, research careers, access job listings, and find volunteer opportunities. Their mission is focused on career and job resources. Reach Potential Movement (RPM) Sunnyvale RPM’s mission is to equip underserved youth and families with leadership, learning and life skills to strengthen the community. They focus on providing foundational skills and experiences for kids and families, with a focus on education and college readiness. Staff was unable to get a hold of a contact person from YCS. Hands On Bay Area Bay Area wide Hands on Bay Area connects companies and people with volunteer projects through our extensive network of local nonprofits and schools in need. They are focused on their community calendar as a resource for youth. Staff can in continuing conversations with this group and provide them with Midpen resources. Vida Verde Nature Center San Gregorio, La Honda Vida Verde Nature Education is a San Gregorio based non-profit with a goal to promote educational equity by providing free overnight environmental learning experiences for students who don't otherwise have the opportunity. In 2019, a Midpen grant of $50,000 was used to fund Vida Verde’s programs to help youth from urban neighborhoods feel comfortable in the outdoors, build confidence and spark a lifelong interest in learning and exploring. Since the Midpen grant was awarded, over 270 students from 11 classes have participated in the programs. Staff is interested in continuing conversations with this group. Pie Ranch Pescadero Pie Ranch's Mission is to cultivate a healthy and just food system from seed to table through food education, farmer training, and regional partnerships. Pie Ranch staff voluntarily participated in Midpen’s Community Advisory Committee and attended monthly project related meetings, field trips and spent numerous hours reviewing materials during the Midpen vision planning process. Staff is interested in continuing conversations with this group on youth outreach opportunities. 4-H Farms Youth Development Program San Mateo County The University of California 4-H Youth Development Program serves youth through traditional clubs, after-school programs, state- wide leadership conferences, and camps. Through hands-on learning, youth-adult partnerships, and research-based educational programs, youth enhance their leadership abilities and develop a wide range of skills. 4-H Farms is part of the 4-H Youth Development Program. There are five local 4-H farms in San Mateo County. These farms are active agriculture laboratories where youth members learn about gardening and livestock, participate in service-learning activities and engage in science, engineering and technology experiments. Staff is interested in starting conversations with this group on youth outreach opportunities. Half Moon Bay FFA Half Moon Bay Half Moon Bay FFA is an agricultural science program. This chapter has 129 student accounts and 2 teachers. Students develop their potential for premier leadership, personal growth and career success through agricultural education. Staff is interested in starting conversations with this group on youth outreach opportunities. Half Moon Bay Farmers Market Half Moon Bay The Half Moon Bay Farmers Market serves the Coastside community from Pacifica to Pescadero and the many visitors in the area. They are a farmers market designed to link Coastside residents with their neighbors. Twice a week they showcase various producers as well as provide tabling opportunities for emerging local businesses and community organizations. Midpen sponsored the Half Moon Bay Farmers Market in FY19-20 and tabled at several farmer market days. HEAL Project San Mateo County The HEAL Project offers lessons on health, environment and agriculture at school sites, in the classroom and at the San Mateo County School Farm. They provide Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS) and Common Core State Standards in programs for environmental literacy and nutrition education. They envision a world where everyone understands the connection between our food, our health and our environment. Midpen sponsored the HEAL project in FY19-20. Outdoor Afro Bay Area and nationwide Outdoor Afro is a national non-profit with nearly 80 leaders in 30 states from around the country. Outdoor Afro connects thousands of people to outdoor experiences and leads the way for inclusion in outdoor recreation, nature and conservation for all. Midpen sponsored the Outdoor Afro Glamp Out in FY19-20. MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT LEGISLATIVE, FUNDING, AND PUBLIC AFFAIRS COMMITTEE The Committee conducted this meeting in accordance with California Governor Newsom’s Executive Order N-29-20. All Board members and staff participated via teleconference. Tuesday, July 7, 2020 DRAFT MINUTES CALL TO ORDER Director Kersteen-Tucker called the meeting of the Legislative, Funding, and Public Affairs Committee to order at 2:06 p.m. ROLL CALL Members present: Jed Cyr and Zoe Kersteen-Tucker Members absent: Larry Hassett Staff present: General Manager Ana Ruiz, General Counsel Hilary Stevenson, Assistant General Manager Brian Malone, Assistant General Manager Susanna Chan, Chief Financial Officer Stefan Jaskulak, District Clerk/Assistant to the General Manager Jennifer Woodworth, Deputy District Clerk Maria Soria, Public Affairs Manager Kori Skinner, Public Affairs Specialist I Carmen Lau Deputy District Clerk Maria Soria announced this meeting is being held in accordance with Governor Newsom’s Executive Order allowing Committee 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. Ms. Soria described the process and protocols for the meeting. Ms. Soria also reported that Director Hassett was able to hear the meeting but is currently having technical difficulties in providing audio. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Deputy District Clerk Maria Soria reported no public comments had been submitted. ATTACHMENT 3 LFPAC Page 2 July 7, 2020 ADOPTION OF AGENDA Motion: Director Cyr moved, and Director Kersteen-Tucker seconded the motion to adopt the agenda. ROLL CALL VOTE: 2-0-0 (Director Hassett absent) COMMITTEE BUSINESS 1. Approve the April 14, 2020 Legislative, Funding, & Public Affairs Committee Meeting Minutes. Motion: Director Cyr moved, and Director Kersteen-Tucker seconded the motion to approve the May 26, 2020 Legislative, Funding, and Public Affairs committee meeting minutes. Public comment opened at 2:08 p.m. Deputy District Clerk Maria Soria reported no public comments had been submitted. Public comment closed at 2:08 p.m. ROLL CALL VOTE: 2-0-0 (Director Hassett absent) 2. Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District’s Youth Outreach (R-20-70) Public Affairs Specialist I Carmen Lau provided the staff presentation describing the District’s Youth Outreach Plan, which seeks to foster knowledge and appreciation for nature, conservation, and land management among youth ages four to twenty-one. Staff is working with new youth groups to provide outreach engagement and educational services to youth and families in the District and creating additional youth outreach materials and events. Directors Cyr and Kersteen-Tucker commended staff on their efforts and the importance of connecting youth to open space lands. Director Kersteen-Tucker inquired regarding current action items for the Youth Outreach Program during the COVID-19 pandemic. Ms. Lau reported the District has a “promoting nature” section on its homepage, which provides resources to help the public experience nature close to home even if they are currently unable to visit a District preserve. Public Affairs Manager Kori Skinner reported the District is not currently promoting organized hikes for children or encouraging the public to visit preserves in order to prevent over-crowding and to promote social distancing. However, the District has expanded outreach through its partners and is also engaging with cities in the District to encourage the public to interact with open space near their homes. Director Kersteen-Tucker suggested reaching out to other organizations, such as Vida Verde and Pie Ranch, which work with underserved populations. Additionally, the District could consider ATTACHMENT 3 LFPAC Page 3 July 7, 2020 partnering with Future Farmers of America and 4H clubs both of which operate through Half Moon Bay high school. Ms. Lau stated that she will add these organizations to her list of potential partners for future youth outreach programs. Public comment opened at 2:34 p.m. District Clerk Jennifer Woodworth announced no public comments were submitted. Public comment closed at 2:34 p.m. Motion: Director Cyr moved, and Director Kersteen-Tucker seconded the motion to forward the Youth Outreach Plan to the Board of Directors for approval. ROLL CALL VOTE: 2-0-0 (Director Hassett absent) ADJOURNMENT Director Kersteen-Tucker adjourned the meeting of the Legislative, Funding, and Public Affairs Committee at 2:35 p.m. ____________________________ Jennifer Woodworth, MMC District Clerk ATTACHMENT 3 DATE: August 12, 2020 MEMO TO: Board of Directors THROUGH: Ana Ruiz, General Manager FROM: Leigh Guggemos, Capital Project Manager III SUBJECT: Deer Hollow Farm White Barn -- Replacement of Attic Stairs with Pull-down Ladder ______________________________________________________________________ On March 11, 2020 (R-20-27), the Board of Directors approved the following General Manager’s recommendation for the Deer Hollow Farm (DHF) White Barn Structural Stabilization Project: Approve the structural stabilization measures for the Deer Hollow Farm White Barn as recommended in the Basis of Design Report prepared by Wiss, Janney, Elstner Associates, Inc. (WJE), dated December 18, 2019. The Basis of Design Report recommended improvements to the existing stairs that lead to the attic level of the White Barn. Staff recommended replacing the existing stairs with a prefabricated pull-down style attic ladder. The Board inquired about the usability, cost, safety, and visual impact of a pull-down ladder and suggested that staff explore alternatives. Suggestions included leaving the existing stairs as-is, asking the project architect to design custom stairs, and to have DHF staff test different options. The General Manager stated that District staff would explore the alternatives and test different options with DHF staff. The current and future use of the attic is for light storage only. DHF staff occasionally stores small items such as holiday decorations and raincoats. The attic framing is not rated to support heavier loads. As such, DHF staff does not regularly access the attic and they do not bring large and heavy items up and down the stairs. The public is prohibited from entering the attic level. The existing stairs do not comply with the current building code for either a stair or a ladder. Deficiencies include the steep pitch, narrow width, low head room, and varying sizes of the treads and risers. The base of the stairs and posts are supported directly on the soil and show signs of insect damage. See Attachment 1 for photographs of the existing stairs. District staff explored the option of keeping the existing stairs as-is. The California Existing Building Code allows existing non-compliant stairs and handrails to remain. However, DHF staff as the primary users of the White Barn do not feel safe using the stairs in its current condition due to the steep pitch, narrow width, low head room, and non-uniform treads and risers. Additionally, the finished floor elevation of the ground level will be higher than current conditions once the new concrete slab is installed as part of the rehabilitation project to achieve proper drainage. The higher elevation will change the riser height of the bottom step, further exacerbating the unsafe situation. Alternatively, all riser heights could be modified, however, Santa Clara County may consider the change in riser height an alteration that will require the stairs to comply with the current building code. Installing custom-designed code compliant stairs would require blocking a door and/or significant reframing at the attic level. The shallower pitch required of new stairs would take up a larger footprint at the ground level and reduce the amount of usable space on the first floor. A custom-designed ladder could be installed in lieu of the stairs. A ladder would still have a narrow width and steep pitch, which are the current concerns with the existing stairs. However, the treads and risers would be uniform and the head room improved by widening the opening in the attic floor framing. A prefabricated pull-down style ladder would function similarly to a custom ladder, with the additional benefit of being out of the way while not in use. Hay is stored right up against the existing stairs on the ground level as DHF staff needs to maximize usable space within the first level of the barn. A pull-down ladder would allow more room to unload and access the hay while still providing access to the attic when needed. The draft Basis of Design Report dated October 29, 2019 included options to replace the stairs with a permanently installed system or a pull-down attic ladder. DHF staff reviewed the draft BOD report and informed the District that their preference is the pull-down attic ladder. District staff presented their preferred option to the Board at the March 11, 2020 board meeting. During the Board meeting, several Board members raised concerns about pull-down attic ladders. The Board commented that in their experience, pull-down attic ladders are too narrow and the treads are too shallow. District staff reached out to DHF staff after the Board meeting to relay Board concerns on pull-down attic ladders and to confirm DHF staff concerns with the existing stairs, their minimal usage, and their continued preference for a pull-down ladder to be installed. DHF staff confirmed that a pull-down ladder remains their preference. To address Board concerns, District staff directed WJE to provide options for pull-down ladders with the greatest width and deepest treads. WJE provided three prefabricated ladder options for District staff and DHF staff to review. The ladders are all similar in appearance, installation, and function. The table below shows the ladder options and key dimensions for safety and usability. Werner WH3010 Fakro LWP Louisville L305P Tread Width 20.75" 13.25" 20.5" Tread Depth 4.5" 3.125" 5.25" Pitch 61° 60° 58° The Louisville and Werner ladders have similar width and the Louisville has deeper treads and a slightly shallower pitch. The Fakro is both narrower and the treads are not as deep. The Fakro dimensions are similar to what is more commonly seen in residential or small business applications. On May 5, 2020, the above ladder options with specifications and photos were sent to the DHF staff and they selected the Louisville L305P as their preferred option. See Attachment 2 for ladder cutsheets. On July 24, 2020, District staff acquired a Louisville ladder for DHF staff to try firsthand and the ladder was setup temporarily in the shop at the Foothills Field Office. Due to error in the shipping process, the Louisville ladder that was setup is narrower than the preferred model with a tread width of 14 inches instead of 20.5 inches. Nevertheless, DHF staff was pleased with the Louisville ladder, felt that it was easy to operate, and did not pose any safety or usability concerns. Based on DHF staff’s input, the Louisville L305P appears to be the appropriate choice. See Attachment 3 for photos of the sample ladder setup. The estimated cost for the prefabricated pull-down ladder option is $3,000, including removal of the existing stairs, strengthening the opening framing, and installation of the new ladder. The cost of the ladder itself is approximately $300, with most of the cost in strengthening the existing framing and installation. WJE’s analysis determined that the existing opening framing needs to be strengthened for all options, including keeping the existing stairs as-is. Custom built options have higher installation costs as well as additional design fees. In conclusion, based on the additional follow-up work, replacing the existing White Barn attic stairs with a prefabricated pull-down attic ladder is District staff’s recommendation and the preferred option of DHF staff. This option addresses safety concerns of the existing stairs and allows the ladder to be stowed while not in use. The attic is not regularly accessed and the additional working space below the ladder is most desirable. Keeping the existing stairs in place would still require strengthening of the opening framing and would likely need additional modifications due the raised ground floor elevation. The Louisville L305P is the preferred option among the prefabricated ladder options, with deeper treads and similar or wider width than other options. As an additional safety feature, District staff will consider incorporating a handrail attached the barn wall adjacent to where the ladder pulls down. Staff will proceed as described above unless additional concerns are raised by the Board. ### ATTACHMENT 1 - EXISTING STAIRS 1. Stairs are steep with low headroom. Posts rest directly on soil. 2 View of the stairs after a hay delivery. 3 Stairs are used infrequently. Often inaccessible after hay deliveries. 4 View behind the stairs. Wood SERIES BIG BOY LO SWLW LADDER DDX60 WOOD ATTIC LADDER, 350- POWD LOAD CAWC TY, L305P Duty Rating: Load: 350 This Louisville Big Boy Series wood attic ladder has a working load capability of 3501bs. This wood attic ladder fits ceiling heights of 8' 9" to 10' and has a rough opening of 30' X 60 The Big Boy L305P features extra -deep 5-1/4" reinforced steps, adjustable spring, an ergonomic T -handle, and easy -hang straps. FEATURES • "30" Wide Opening" • "Extra -Deep 51/2"" Reinforced Steps" • Easy -Hang Strap • Adjustable Spring • Ergonomic T -Handle For An Easier Opening Attic Instructions NEW STYLE 1 SHEET FORMAT> I Is Big Boy 350 • Product: Attic Ladders • SKU: L305P • StyleBig Boy • Load Capacity (Ws). 350 • Rung Type. Standard • Material, Wood • Weight: 82 • Ceiling Height Minimum (ft): 8,75 • Ceiling Height Maximum (ft): 10 • Rough Opening (in): 30x60 • Landing Space (in). 70 • Project Width or Clearance Century (in): 79 • Approx, Cubes (ft): 14,2 • Step Width (in): 5,25 • Rail Size (in). 0.75x4.375 • ANSI Certified 1/3 >LOUISVILL6 . LADDERS TRUSTED BY THE PROS FOR OVER 55 YEARS ATTIC LADDER INSTALLATION INSTRUCTIONS MODELS: 5224P, S254P, AS226P, AS2S6P, AL226P, AL256P, CS224P, C52241, CS254P, CS2541, CL224P, CL2241, CL254P, CL2541, L224P, 1254P, 5305P, CS305P, L305P, CL3o5P, AL228P, AL258P Before you start installing your new Louisville Ceiling Mounted Folding Attic Ladder, you must read and understand the following: 1. For residential use only. Not for use in a commercial or industrial setting 2. Installation requires two people. 3. Check the ceiling height to make sure the ladder length is correct. If the ladder is too short, return it to the point of purchase for an exchange. Under no circumstance is any folding attic ladder to be used when the ceiling —to — floor measurement exceeds the maximum ceiling height as indicated for the Ceiling Mounted Folding Attic Ladder you are installing (See "Max Ceiling Height" column in table 2, page 3). 4. This folding attic ladder is completely assembled and is ready for installation. Do not disassemble it to install. 5.The springs on this folding attic ladder are under pressure. Do not attempt to remove or replace before installation. 6. Prior to installation, verify that all fasteners are properly tightened. Re —check these periodically after initial installation. 7. Make sure there is no wiring or piping that the saw or drill can come in contact with during installation. 8. Opening or standing on the folding attic ladder's climbing sections prior to properly fastening to ceiling joists could cause serious bodily injury. 9. Verify that the unit meets local building codes and that the intended area of installation is of sufficient strength to be used for a walking or working surface. 10. If the home has roof trusses, do not cut the ceiling joists without consulting an engineer for approval. 11. Before installation, read all the instruction labels on the folding attic ladder. 12. Improper installation could result in serious bodily injury. 13. Do not attempt to open the door prior to installation. 14. Only use 16d nails or 1/d' x 3" lag screws (not included) for the permanent installation step. 15. Follow the "AdjustThe Ladder Length" instructions on Step 3 for proper trimming instructions. 113 16. Annually lubricate (spray silicon recommended) pivot points of right and left folding arm mechanism (power arm assembly) to provide smooth, long—lasting operation. FIGURE 3 STEP 1: PRELIMINARY INSTALLATION INSTRUCTIONS A. Attach four E —Z Hang temporary support straps to the frame. Refer to figure 3 and instructions listed below. Door opening • Place the folding attic ladder on the floor with the door opening on your right—hand side. • Using the roofing nails and straps provided, attach one strap using two nails on the outside of the attic ladder frame at the extreme right hand corner near the door stop block. • Attach the second strap opposite the first strap on the far outside frame. • The third and fourth straps should be positioned on the door hinge side near each corner opposite the door opening. B. Position one person up in the attic, and position one person in the room below. When using a step ladder make sure ladder is fully open, all feet firmly supported and user's weight and materials does not exceed the load rating of the ladder. C.The person in the room below will need to raise the attic ladder into the rough opening and position the attic ladder's door frame flush with the ceiling surface. D.The person in the attic should then bend the metal E —Z Hang strapping at the four corners of the attic ladder frame over the adjoining ceiling joists and nail through the metal strapping using four of the 16d nails provided to temporarily suspend the attic ladder. CAUTION: This is only a temporary connection, NEVER climb on ladder in this condition. E. Carefully open attic ladder door but do not unfold the climbing section until indicated in step 3. Place the frame on the door hinge side of the ladder up against the header and center side to side in the rough opening. Temporarily secure to header with 16d nail. Make sure frame is flush with ceiling before nailing (figure 4, next page). Included with your Folding Attic Ladder MIR 172. Everest Models Aluminum Irolodels FIGURE 1:All models NO. ITEM QTY. 1 Pull cord -36" 1 2 Support Straps 4 3 16d nails 8 4 Installation Instructions 1 S Roofing nails —%/e" 8 6 '"Aluminum feet 2 7 ** 3/4' Bolts 2 8 *• 1/4" Lock nuts & washers 2 9 +Eyebolt, nut & washer 1 10 +Pole hook 1 **Aluminum models I + Everest models TABLE 1 F. Center and square the opposite side of attic ladder frame using shims. Ensure ladder frame is square by measuring diagonals of the frame within Ya". Secure other sides of ladder frame to ceiling joists with remaining three 16d nails (figure 4). STEP 2: PERMANENT INSTALLATION A. Install fasteners at the 12 locations shown in figure 5 for permanent installation. Either 1/4" x 3" lag screws or 16d nails should be used. Install shims when necessary to fill any gaps between the door frame and rough opening. Make sure to install the fasteners in the holes provided in the corner brackets and pivot plates. NOTE: When using lag screws first drill 1/4" diameter holes through the frame at each location to prevent splitting and niint hnloc i , thn roilinn inict farilitate inctallatinn of the Ian screw. Door hinge end Header Shim Rough opening FIGURE 4 Series Premium Champion Big Boy ATTIC LADDER SERIES NAME AND MODEL NUMBER CROSS REFERENCE S224P CS224P CS2241 5305P WOOD Models S254P CS254P CS2541 CS305P L224P CL224P CL2241 L305P L254P CL254P CL2541 CL305P MATERIALS REQUIRED Series Summit Everest AS226P ALUMINUM Models AS256P AL228P AL226P AL256P AL258P [1.] Stepladder [2.] Hammer [3.] Adjustable wrench [4.] Tape measure [5.] Hand saw [6.1 Hack saw [7.] Drill [8.] Drill bit 3/16",1/4" [9.] Phillips screw driver [10.] (12) '/4" x 3" lag screws or 16d nails [11]. Shims B. WARNING: Never use deck or sheetrocic screws for permanent installation. /Shim ii X x Corner Bracket / X x xx T Pivot Plate 1 xx x x xt xc I FIGURE 5 Installation instructions for wood models and for aluminum models Read instructions and warnings completely before starting IMPORTANT: DO NOT OPEN FOLDING ATTIC LADDER UNTIL INSTRUCTED TO IN STEP NUMBER 3. Folding Attic Ladder Location: Allow ample room for the swing clearance and the landing space of the folding attic ladder when it is opened (see figure 2 and table 2). Locate the folding attic ladder rough opening so that when you enter the storage area, you will have adequate head clearance. You must have a rough opening as shown for your model in table 2. If not, proceed to the appendix for framing instructions. FIGURE 2 ROUGH MAX. CEILING LANDING SWING MODEL OPENING HT. "A" SPACE* "B" CLEARANCE "C" 5224P, AS226P, CS224P, C52241 22'/2" x 54" 8' 9" 63" S254P, AS256P, CS254P, C52541 25 1/2" x 54" 8' 9" 63" 66" 66" L224P, AL226P, CL224P, CL2241 L254P, AL256P, CL254P, CL2541 S305P C5305P L305P CL305P AL228P AL258P 22'/2" x 54" 251/2" x 54" 30" x 60" 30" x 54" 30" x 60" 30" x 54" 22 '/2" x 63" 25'/x" x 63" 10' 10' 8' 9" 8' 9" 10' 10' 1 " 12' 12' `When installed at maximum ceiling height 71" 71" 63" 60" 71" 67" 85" 85" 75" 75" 66" 69" 75" 79" 87" 87" TABLE 2 FIGURE 6 STEP 3: ADJUST LADDER LENGTH A. Carefully unfold ladder to the ground rotating bottom section behind middle section (figure 6). Press down on top and middle sections of the ladder to ensure the power arms are fully extended before taking measurements for trimming your ladder. CUTTING LINE FIGURE 7 B. With a straight edge, measure distances from middle section to floor, for both A & B lengths (figure 7). WOOD MODELS: Proceed to "C" ALUMINUM MODELS: Skip to page 7 "Additional steps for aluminum models only" C. Record A & B values in table 3 for both rails. LEFT RAIL RIGHT RAIL A B A B Measurement to floor TABLE 3 (Wood models only) D. Transfer these dimensions to the bottom section of the ladder right and left rails and draw a cutting line between the two points. Trim bottom section to length using wood saw (figure 7). Proceed to "Check the length after making your cuts" on page 8... ADDITIONAL STEPS FOR ALUMINUM MODELS ONLY: A. For aluminum models, complete table 4. Subtract 3/4" from each measurement and record the results in row titled "Rail cut length". LEFT RAIL RIGHT RAIL A B A B Measurement to floor Subtract for shoe (-3/4") (-3/4!") (_3/4p1) (_3/4") Rail cut length TABLE 4 (Aluminum models only) B. Transfer cut length dimensions from table 4 to the bottom section of the ladder right and left rails and draw a cutting line between the two points. Trim bottom section to length using a metal cutting saw (figure 7). C. Rotate bottom section back in line with top sections and press down on the middle section to ensure that the power arms are fully extended. FIGURE 7 (repeated from previous page) D. Slide aluminum foot over ladder rail. Position foot so that the extended sections remain straight and the foot is in full contact with the floor. Drill 1/4" hole through the rail using the hole provided on the foot as a template. Anchor securely with 3/n" bolts and locknuts provided. EVEREST ALUMINUM 12' FOLDING ATTIC LADDER OPENING AND CLOSING INSTRUCTIONS Closely follow instructions attached to pole hook when opening and closing Everest Folding Attic ladder. Required to operate: Two People Attic ladder Pole hook I Stepladder or Step Stool Opening Instructions: 1. Standing on the floor, reach up with the pole hook and firmly hook the eye -bolt on the attic door and pull to open door. 2. Position a stepladder to the side of the attic ladder's climbing section drop -down area. DANGER: never place stepladder or person in the path of the attic ladder's climbing section drop -down area. 3. Position the two people (one on the stepladder and one on the floor) on either side of the attic ladder drop -down area. 4. The person on the stepladder should slowly and carefully begin unfolding the two hinged sections of the attic ladder to the person on the floor. 5. Continue to unfold the attic ladder until both sections are fully extended. Press downward on the climbing section to ensure power arm assembly is fully open and in the locked position. Closing Instruct(ppsl 1. Position one person on the stepladder and' the other on the floor on either side of the attic ladder. 2.The person on the floor should begin to fold up the bottom and middle sections, handing off to the person on the steplatlde((to complefe(the fo(ding(process. 3. Use the pole hook(to(thp'the(pofvkr arm(toliv(3rd(t(ie open(end of(thVattic ladder (away from the door hinge) to release power arm (See figure 12). 4. Hook the eye—bolton the door with the pole hook and push firmly upward until the springs engage. Slow(y(co(rtrol(the door with`the pole hook until completely closed. 5. Remove pole hook and store in a safe place. FIGURE 12 CHECK THE LENGTH AFTER MAKING YOUR CUTS Again, be sure the attic ladder power arms are fully extended. Trimmed correctly, your attic ladder should look like figure 9. Verify that there are no gaps in the section and both feet are flat on the floor. APPENDIX — Framing A Rough Opening Parallel To Ceiling Joist Make a rough opening to the size as required in table 2 (page 3) ensuring that the dimensions of the diagonals of the frame are the same as illustrated in figure 13. A. For Rough opening without joist removal (figure 13) • Locate headers in front and rear of the opening as shown in figure 13. • Check for squareness by making sure that diagonal measurements are within '/a". • Secure using (3) 16d nails into each end of the Header. B. Rough opening with joist removal (figure 14) • Install temporary support boards spanning both sides of joists to be removed. • Remove joist at length to allow for double headers to be installed on both ends of opening. FIGURE 13 FIGURE 8 with floor flush with floor v FIGURE 9 FIGURE 10 If the attic ladder looks like figure 10, then both of the legs are too long and need to be trimmed further. If the attic ladder looks like figure 8, then both of the legs are too short, and the attic ladder is not safe to use. A new lower section would need to be purchased from the manufacturer. +."�, r '!.' ,Pis. orcustorrler servic r � Lo Isvl�le adder ar 1-206:664-48 arse;mad'In„�oCLoYaiisuIle;Latldercom • ADJUSTING THE SPRING TENSION (IF NEEDED) [C5305P & CL305P models only] Your stairway is equipped with a unique and easy way to adjust the tension on each of the two springs. With the stairway in the closed position, use an adjustable or MC" wrench and tighten (turn clockwise) the red kep nut on the 1 -bolts that attach the springs to the door panel. Alternate the tightening of each spring to raise the door panel evenly so it ends up flush with the ceiling. INSTALLING HARDWARE A. Ladders with pull cord and pendant. • Thread pull cord through pre -drilled hole in door and tie a knot in end of cord. • Be sure the knot is large enough to not slip through the hole. B. Ladders with eye -bolt and pole hook. • Slide eye -bolt through the hole in the attic ladder door. • Install washer onto eye -bolt on the opposite side of the door. • Securely fasten nut onto the eye -bolt. TRIM INSTALLATION To install trim molding leave 1/2" clearance between the door panel at the hinge end and 1/2" clearance on the other 3 sides. (figure 15) • Locate double headers at each end of opening and secure with (3) 16d nails into each end of the headers. • Install stringer and check for squareness by making sure that diagonals are within 'Ai". • Secure using (3) 4" nails into each end of the stringer. CAUTION. Consult an engineer or obtain architectural approval for installations that require the removal of roof trusses or rough openings perpendicular to the ceiling joists. Diagonal Measurements Headers FIGURE 15 Louisville Ladder Inc. 7765 National Turnpike, Unit 190 Louisville, KY 40214 LADDERS TRUSTED ace TNE'PROS FOP OVER 6S YEARS C,Istorner St vjte:1800-666-281.1 ore-mail info@Lo,uisvilleLadder,com 1-(800)-666-2811 (U.S. & CANADA) 1-(502)-636-2811 I FAX: 1-(800)-274-4566 www.LouisvilleLadder.com Spring -based Attic Ladder Installation Instructions 2014 v1 [F9018] April 20141© 2014 Louisville Ladder, Inc. All rights reserved. PRODUCTS >ATTIC LADDERS >WH SERIES > WH3010 30.5IN W X 54IN L X 10FT H CEILING HEAVY DUTY WOOD ATTIC LADDER VIDEOS ► United States [Change] RESOURCES View WH Series Page Attic Ladder Installation Instructions Replacement Parts ► WH3010 30.5IN W X 54IN L X 10FT H CEILING HEAVY DUTY WOOD ATTIC LADDER 0 Reviews 144 questions and 145 answers for this product Write a review Ask a question OVERVIEW SIZE STYLE ROUGH OPENING WIDTH X LENGTH LOAD CAPACITY MATERIAL 10ft Folding 30.5in x 54in 350lb Wood The WH3010 Heavy Duty Wood Attic Ladder boasts a duty rating of 350lb. These ladders come fully assembled and ready to install. Full wrap-around door hinge minimizes heat loss. High quality door can be painted or stained. Pull string allows for easy opening and closing. Hinges butt metal to metal to maintain ladder rigidity. Counter-balance mechanism eliminates sag and springiness. FEATURES • Counter-balance mechanism eliminates sag and springiness • Full wrap-around door hinge minimizes heat loss • High quality door can be painted or stained • Hinges butt metal to metal to maintain ladder rigidity • Pull string allows for easy operation • Easy to open and close • Fully assembled and ready to install SPECIFICATIONS FEATURE SIZE / DETAILS Unique Features Compact Designs Size 10ft Max Floor to Ceiling Height Range 105in-124in Max Floor to Ceiling Height 10ft 3in Min Floor to Ceiling Height 8ft 9in BUY NOW Rough Opening Width x Length 30.5in x 54in Load Capacity 350lb Step Width 20-3/4in Grooved Steps-Actual Lumber Size 3/4in x 4-1/2in Rail Size 3/4in x 4-1/2in Approx. Product Weight (lb) 63 Performance Professional Approx. Shipping Weight (lb) 63 CertiCcations ANSI A14.9 (2010) Closed Depth 54.25in Closed Height 14.69in Closed Width 30.5in Door Material Plywood Foot Material Wood Frame Material Pine Full Width Door Hinge Yes Door Included Yes Handrail Included Yes Landing Space Range 64in Locking Device Spring Material Wood Materials Warning TSCA Title VI Compliant, Wood Dust Warning Required Metal-to-Metal Rail hinge Yes Swing Clearance 72in Number of People for Installation 2 Number of Steps 11 Opening Device Rope Separate Foot Attachment Yes Style Folding ADDITIONAL WH SERIES MODELS MODEL NO.UNIQUE FEATURES SIZE MAX FLOOR TO CEILING HEIGHT RANGE MAX FLOOR TO CEILING HEIGHT MIN FLOOR TO CEILING HEIGHT WH2208 Compact Designs 8ft 84in- 105in 8ft 9in 7ft WH2210 Compact Designs 10ft 105in- 124in 10ft 3in 8ft 9in WH2508 Compact Designs 8ft 84in- 105in 8ft 9in 7ft WH2510 Compact Designs 10ft 105in- 124in 10ft 3in 8ft 9in WH3008 Compact Designs 8ft 84in- 105in 8ft 9in 7ft WH3010 Compact Designs 10ft 105in- 124in 10ft 3in 8ft 9in TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION ATTIC LADDER LWP I. APPLICATION LWP is an insulated folding attic ladder designed to provide safe and easy access to non-inhabited spaces. It eliminates a need for installing more expensive and space consuming staircases. Fakro LWP model is recommended for garage and inside a house installation. II. STRUCTURE No.Element Description 1 Hatch insulated, sandwich type, beige thickness: 13/8”. thermal insulation thickness: 11/8”. hatch equipped with a lock. 2 Frame pinewood height: 51/2” gasket: 1 pcs 3 Ladder pinewood ladder width: 15” stringer height: 311/8” distance between steps: 97/8”. 4 Steps made of pinewood, equipped with anti-slip profile. step width: 31/8” thickness: 7/8” length: 131/4” 5 Standard Accessories handrail in red colour. control rod for opening the hatch. III. DIMENSIONS No.Rough Opening Room height 1 22,5” x 47”7’5” - 8’11”2 25” x 47” 3 22,5” x 54” 7’10” - 10’1”4 25” x 54” 5 30” x 54” 6 22,5” x 54” 8’8½” - 10’8”7 25”x54” 8 30”x54” IV. TECHNICAL PARAMETERS Maximum loading 300 lbs Heat transfer coefficient R-value: 5.9 © FAKRO FAKRO America LLC, 39 Factory Rd. Addison, IL 60101, www.fakrousa.com V. COMPATIBLE ACCESSORIES Plastic ends LXS Available for all sizes Metal handrail LXH While ordering handrail please provide attic ladder type. Handrail can be mounted on the left or right side of ladder. Ladder Balustrade LXB-U The balustrade is available in one standard size 30”x54” for all attic ladders. Wooden trim LXL-W The trims are available in one size 30”x54” for smaller sizes have to be cut. PCV trim LXL-PVC The trims are available in one size 30”x54” for smaller sizes have to be cut. Box extension LXN The standard box height is 4”. While ordering the LXN please provide ladder type and size. Upper hatch LXW The height of the upper hatch box is 73/4“. Installation brackets LXK Maximum ceiling 133/4” ANSI TO 14.9 2004FOR — M ANUF A C T U RER CE R T I F I E S — A TTIC LA D D E R S CO N F O RMAN C E 5.9R-value © FAKRO FAKRO America LLC, 39 Factory Rd. Addison, IL 60101, www.fakrousa.com The LWP Attic Ladder is delivered to the customer fully assembled and does not require any pre-installation work.New design of the loft ladder (hatch fastened by means of special the so-called “clicks”) allows for easy and quick installation without the need for entering the attic. The length of the last segment should be cut on-site to suit to existing ceiling height. Installation of the product must be carried out in accordance with the included fitting instructions. VII.DETAILED DIMENSIONS Pre-installation, installation and safety instruction: http://www.fakrousa.com/our-products/offer/-installation-instructions/ Installation movies: http://www.fakrousa.com/our-products/offer/attic-ladders/ VI. ASSEMBLY INFORMATION A E RC K H B P schody_LWP_3-segm(nowa_konstrukcja,z_porecza,bez_stopek)_2015-08-15 LWP 221/2x47 25x47 221/2x54 25x54 30x54 221/2 x 54 25x54 30x54 Manufacturer’s part number 66801 66802 66803 66804 66809 66853 66854 66855 Ceiling height H 7’5” - 8’11”7’10” - 10’1”8’8” - 10’8” Rough opening AxB 221/2”x47”25”x47”221/2”x54”25”x54”30”x54” 221/2”x54”25”x54”30”x54” Outside frame dimensions 22”x465/8”241/2”x465/8”22”x531/2”241/2”x531/2”291/2”x531/2” 22”x531/2”241/2”x531/2”291/2”x531/2” Internal frame dimensions 201/2”x447/8”23”x44 7/8”20 1/2”x513/4”23”x513/4”28”x513/4”201/2”x513/4”23”x513/4”28”x513/4” Projection R 641/2”72”75”1/2” Landing space C 571/2”64”65”1/2” Folded ladder height K 103/4” Board movement after opening P 11/4” Frame height 51/2” ATTACHMENT 3 - SAMPLE ATTIC LADDER 1. Sample Louisville ladder in FFO. Final ladder will be 6 inches wider. 2. District and DHF staff tried the sample ladder first hand. 3. The deep treads feel safe and comfortable to use. 4. The ladder when closed sits flush with the framing and it is easy to operate. DATE: August 12, 2020 MEMO TO: Board of Directors THROUGH: Ana Ruiz, General Manager FROM: Sophie Christel, Management Analyst I, Project Manager Kirk Lenington, Natural Resources Manager SUBJECT: Updated Scope and Timeline for the Science Advisory Panel _____________________________________________________________________________ SUMMARY This memorandum is brought to the Board of Directors (Board) to keep them apprised of recent activities regarding the work of the Science Advisory Panel (SAP), which allow for an additional research topic to be added to the scope of work during year two and a potential slight increase in costs to account for additional time needed in fully scoping out the first two years of SAP work and to address disruptions related to early COVID-19 restrictions. BACKGROUND On August 28, 2019 (R-19-120), the Board awarded a contract to the San Francisco Estuary Institute (SFEI) to form the Science Advisory Panel (SAP), enhancing the scientific validity of open space management decisions and providing an important resource to inform regional land management topics. Additionally, the SAP will provide an independent science-based review of land management practices and decisions by the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (District). The District selected two locally-esteemed science institutions, SFEI and Point Blue Conservation Science (Point Blue), to comprise the SAP. These institutions were described at the Board Retreat (R-18-148) and further discussed by the Board on March 27, 2019 (R-19-32). The initial responsibility of the SAP is to prepare summary white papers on three key topics of interest to the District, as approved by the Board on January 8, 2020 (R-20-05): Topic 1. How can the District effectively and efficiently monitor changes in priority plant and animal populations at the landscape scale? Topic 2: What are the visitation and recreational use benefits and trade-offs to fulfilling District goals, including natural resource protection and ecologically-sensitive public enjoyment and education? Topic 3: Review cattle grazing benefits and impacts: o What is the net climate impact of cattle grazing (e.g., potential increase in soil carbon minus cattle methane emissions)? What are the options, such as grazing regimes or dietary additives, to reduce emissions from cattle grazing? o What are the current scientific results on the effectiveness of managing grasslands and reducing fire risk with cattle grazing? o How does cattle grazing as a land management strategy compare to alternatives in achieving District goals including climate protection and what are the trade-offs? Revised Cost Estimate The original Board authorization with SFEI was for $200,000: $100,000 for an initial phase of topic selection and research, with an additional $100,000 to be added for a second phase pending General Manager approval upon satisfactory progress and demonstrated benefits. Following the Board approval, the scoping process took longer than anticipated due in part to COVID-19. This extended scoping process, as well as scope changes (including more meetings and coordination with the District to better achieve an institutional learning during the SAP process) have increased the total cost to an estimated $219,000 for both rounds of research. Staff will return to the Board for a contract amendment if and when the General Manager authorizes the second round of research and this amendment will include the anticipated $19,000 in increased costs. Staff does not expect costs for the first phase of research to exceed the authorized amount of $100,000. PROGRESS AND NEXT STEPS SFEI and Point Blue have commenced research on the three Board-selected topics. District staff teams have attended kickoff meetings with SFEI and Point Blue staff, and a Technical Advisory Committee has been selected for the Grazing topic, comprised of academic and practitioner experts. Additional meetings will be held in August and September prior to development of draft deliverables. In November, SFEI and Point Blue will present the final results of their research on the Grazing topic to the Board, and preliminary results from the first phase of research on the Recreation and Monitoring Topics are anticipated to be presented later in November or December. Following these presentations, the General Manager will determine whether to authorize the second phase of research and bring the contract to the Board for the amendment. If the second phase of research proceeds, the Board will be able to select a fourth research topic from the topics recommended in 2019. Research results for the second round are anticipated to be shared with the Board between June and December 2021. ### NOTICE OF ADJOURNMENT SPECIAL MEETING OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT, AUGUST 12, 2020 Notice is hereby given that the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Board of Directors, at their special meeting of August 12, 2020, adjourned said meeting to August 13, 2020 at 5:00 p.m. to be held as a virtual meeting and may be viewed in real-time at: https://openspace.zoom.us/j/84865201782 or listen to the meeting by dialing (669) 900-6833 or (346) 248-7799 (Webinar ID 84865201782). Members of the public may provide written comments by submitting a public comment form at: https://www.openspace.org/public-comment • 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. AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING NOTICE OF ADJOURNMENT I, Jennifer Woodworth, declare as follows: That I am the District Clerk of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District; at a special meeting of the Board of Directors of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District held on August 12, 2020; that the members present authorized adjournment of said meeting to August 13, 2020 at the hour of 5:00 p.m.; and that a copy of said notice was posted at a conspicuous place near the door of the room at which said meeting was held, within 24 hours of said adjournment. I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on August 13, 2020 at 33 Distel Circle, Los Altos, CA 94022. _________________________________________ Jennifer Woodworth, MMC District Clerk