Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout20201104 - Agenda Packet - Board of Directors (BOD) - 20-26 SPECIAL MEETING BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT Wednesday, November 4, 2020 Special Meeting starts at 5:00 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/83655866669 or listen to the meeting by dialing (669) 900-6833 or (346) 248-7799 (Webinar ID 83655866669). 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 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 ORDER OF THE DAY • Introduction of Staff Meeting 20-26 Rev. 1/3/20 o Brandon Stewart, Land & Facilities 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 October 21, 2020 and October 28, 2020 Minutes 2.Award of Contract with Ascent Environmental to provide Environmental Consulting Services for the White Barn Rehabilitation and Redwood Cabin Demolition Projects at La Honda Creek Open Space Preserve (R-20-127) Staff Contact: Aaron Peth, Planner III, Planning Department General Manager’s Recommendations: 1.Authorize the General Manager to enter into a contract with Ascent Environmental to provide environmental consulting services for the Redwood Cabin Removal Project and White Barn Structural Rehabilitation Project for a combined base amount of $216,531. 2.Authorize a 10% contingency, to be expended only if necessary, to cover unforeseen conditions, for a total contract amount not-to-exceed $238,184. 3.First Amendment to the Secured Promissory Note between Jacob Guenther and Tamara J. Shimizu (a.k.a. Tamara J. Guenther) and Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District for a Fee Determinable Estate at 5705 Alpine Road, Portola Valley, CA 94028, adjoining Skyline Ridge Open Space Preserve in unincorporated San Mateo County (Assessor’s Parcel Number 80-282-080) (R-20-128) Staff Contact: Jasmine Leong, Real Property Agent I General Manager’s Recommendations: 1.Determine that the recommended actions are categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), as set out in the staff report. 2. Adopt a Resolution authorizing the General Manager to enter into a First Amendment to the Secured Promissory Note held by Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District against Jacob Guenther and Tamara J. Shimizu as described in the staff report. 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.Science Advisory Panel Final Report on Multiple Grazing Topics (R-20-129) Staff Contact: Sophie Christel, Management Analyst I, Natural Resources General Manager’s Recommendations: Receive a presentation and findings report from the Science Advisory Panel on their scientific literature review regarding multiple Grazing topics and questions posed by the Board of Directors to inform future land management decisions. No Board action required. Rev. 1/3/20 INFORMATIONAL MEMORANDUM • La Honda Creek White Barn Bat Habitat 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 meeting of the MROSD Board of Directors was posted and available for review on October 29, 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 October 21, 2020 Board Meeting 20-24 SPECIAL AND REGULAR MEETING BOARD OF DIRECTORS MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT Wednesday, October 21, 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, Yoriko Kishimoto, Curt Riffle, and Pete Siemens Members Absent: Zoe Kersteen-Tucker 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, Planning Manager Jane Mark, Senior Planner Tina Hugg, Planner I Melissa Borgesi, Natural Resources Manager Kirk Lenington, Senior Resource Management Specialist Coty Sifuentes-Winter 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. ADOPTION OF AGENDA Motion: Director Cyr moved, and Director Riffle seconded the motion to adopt the agenda. ROLL CALL VOTE: 6-0-0 (Director Kersteen-Tucker absent) Meeting 20-24 Page 2 BOARD BUSINESS 1. La Honda Creek Open Space Preserve Parking, Trailhead, and Public Access Recommendations to Forward into the Feasibility Study Phase (R-20-115) General Manager Ana Ruiz provided opening comments thanking the La Honda Public Access Working Group (PAWG) and staff for their efforts on this multi-year project. Ms. Ruiz stated this is an important step in the project, and following Board consideration and action, the District will study of the sites to determine the feasibility and address the safety of the options that have been identified by the PAWG for meeting the Board-approved project goals and objectives. Senior Planner Tina Hugg provided the staff presentation describing the La Honda Open Space Preserve (OSP) and the creation and implementation to date of the La Honda Creek Master Plan adopted by the Board of Directors in 2012, including securing Measure AA funding, opening of the Sears Ranch Road parking lot, and formation of the PAWG. Ms. Hugg described the responsibilities and charge of the PAWG and the PAWG’s process for studying, visiting, and deliberating on the various potential sites and suites of options. Ms. Hugg provided information regarding future trail work, distances between points of interest and access, and traffic collision data, as requested by the Planning and Natural Resources Committee. Director Kersteen-Tucker joined the meeting at 5:20 p.m. Director Riffle inquired regarding traffic collisions in the area and whether any occurred on District preserves. Ms. Hugg reported staff was not provided with the location information for all of the collision data. Planner I Melissa Borgesi described the eleven site options considered by the PAWG, including the site locations, potential site uses, and site opportunities and challenges. Additionally, staff described various aspects of the sites that will require further study during the feasibility assessment. Ms. Hugg presented a summary of the PAWG deliberations and recommendations. Additionally, Ms. Hugg described feedback received from the Planning and Natural Resources Committee. In order to expand public access while long-term solutions are studied, near-term solutions were suggested by the PAWG, such as docent-led hikes into the closed areas of the preserve, prioritization of new trail connections to existing parking lots, and interpretive signage for the Red Barn at the existing pullout on Highway 84. Finally, Ms. Hugg described the potential timeline for project development and implementation. Director Riffle inquired if the District continues to explore potential acquisitions along Highway 84 for public access. Ms. Hugg reported real property staff continually looks at potential acquisitions as they arise, but the topography of the area is challenging making it unlikely to find other areas of flat land for public access. Director Siemens requested additional clarification for the size of the potential parking lots. Meeting 20-24 Page 3 Ms. Hugg reported additional study will be needed to determine how many parking spots will be feasible in an area due to the landscape. Director Hassett inquired regarding the uses for the Driscoll Event Center and suggested hiking access could be provided from the area and to seek a county permit for this use. Planning Manager Jane Mark reported there is no current use permit for the site, which would be required through a county use permitting process. Director Kersteen-Tucker supported expanding use of the Driscoll Event Center. Director Kishimoto inquired regarding potential effects of a parking area on trees at the “E” locations. Senior Resource Management Specialist Coty Sifuentes-Winter provided information regarding the process for studying the potential impact on trees in the area, which would occur based on the selected project options. Public comment opened at 6:35 p.m. District Clerk Jennifer Woodworth read the submitted comments into the record. Linda Rutherford stated additional paved trails are needed for older adults to be able to easily access and use the trails. Barbara Hooper, the PAWG Chair, thanked the Board for responding to concerns raised by the La Honda Community related to public access to the La Honda Creek OSP. Ms. Hooper recommended implementation of the near-term options and preservation of the rural character of the Red Barn area. Maryann Chwalek supported the near-term options and thanked the District for their attention to safety and traffic impacts when developing a public access plan. Alex Sabo, on behalf of the Bay Area Ridge Trail Council supported public access through the La Honda Creek OSP and the potential connections to the Bay Area Ridge Trail. Public comment closed at 6:38 p.m. Director Kishimoto commended the PAWG and staff for their work on the project and thanked staff for responding to the requests for information by the Planning and Natural Resources Committee. Director Kishimoto also spoke about the need to balance protection of natural resources with public access. Additionally, Director Kishimoto commented on the redwoods at La Honda Creek OSP. Director Riffle shared his thanks to the PAWG and District staff for the careful study of the project options and for the new and innovative options. Director Riffle expressed his appreciation for having PAWG members represent areas from throughout the District, which helped to create common interests between the coastside and bayside regions of the District. Meeting 20-24 Page 4 Director Hassett thanked Ms. Hugg and Ms. Borgesi for their tremendous efforts in supporting the PAWG and thanked his fellow PAWG members for their thoughtful work and efforts on the project. Director Kersteen-Tucker thanked the PAWG and the La Honda community for working well together on the project and thanked staff for their work to support the PAWG and this project. Director Cyr thanked his representative to the PAWG for her service and to the entire PAWG and project team for their time and effort spent on the project. Director Siemens thanked those who worked on the project and suggested increasing the number of parking spaces where possible due to the costs associated with highway improvements that will be required. President Holman thanked all who worked on this project to help move it forward. President Holman suggested the feasibility study seek that there be no net impact to the resources as a result of this project. Motion: Director Hassett moved, and Director Kersteen-Tucker seconded the motion to: 1. Direct the General Manager to proceed with feasibility studies of the parking, trailhead, and public access recommendations as presented by the La Honda Public Access Working Group, with any modifications requested by the Board of Directors. 2. Determine that the La Honda Public Access Working Group has fulfilled its charge and direct the General Manager to dissolve the group and issue a special recognition for their dedication and contributions, and keep members on the project notification list to solicit their individual input as part of future Committee and Board meetings on the project. 3. Approve the draft March 5, 2020 La Honda Public Access Working Group meeting summary since the Working Group will no longer meet as a body to approve their last meeting summary. Amendment to the Motion: Director Kersteen-Tucker offered an amendment to the motion to include hiking access at the Driscoll Event Center as part of the project feasibility study. Ms. Hugg stated the Driscoll Event Center is a large site that may require its own planning process, which was one of the reasons it was not previously included in the PAWG study of public access to area. Director Hassett stated the study of the Driscoll Event Center may need to be separated and focused on hiking access. ROLL CALL VOTE ON THE MAIN MOTION: 7-0-0 Substitute Motion: Director Kishimoto moved to direct staff to work with CHP to discuss Highway 84 corridor safety, which would include the Driscoll Event Center area. Substitute motion dies for lack of a second. Substitute Motion: Director Siemens moved, and Director Cyr seconded the motion to direct staff to explore allowing public parking for hiking access at the Driscoll Event Center. Meeting 20-24 Page 5 Director Riffle stated the recommendations from the PAWG were focused on providing access to the central portion of the preserve. ROLL CALL VOTE ON THE SUBSTITUTE MOTION: 7-0-0 Director Kersteen-Tucker’s amendment to the motion fails due to passage of Director Siemens’s substitute motion. ADJOURNMENT President Holman adjourned the special meeting of the Board of Directors of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District at 7:50 p.m. ________________________________ Jennifer Woodworth, MMC District Clerk October 28, 2020 Board Meeting 20-25 SPECIAL AND REGULAR MEETING BOARD OF DIRECTORS MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT Wednesday, October 28, 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 5:01 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 Brian Malone, Assistant General Manager Susanna Chan, Chief Financial Officer Stefan Jaskulak, Real Property Manager Mike Williams, and Senior Real Property Agent Allen Ishibashi, Chief Ranger Matt Anderson, Area Superintendent Brad Pennington, Supervising Ranger Miguel Perez, Ranger Greg Smutnak, Lead Ranger Steve Johnson, Equipment Mechanic Operator Dan Chamberlin, Ranger Jeff Smith, Equipment Mechanic Operator Stephanie Towne, and Ranger Marianne Chance Director Kersteen-Tucker 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. Director Kersteen-Tucker described the process and protocols for the meeting. Meeting 20-25 Page 2 1. Proposed Surplus Land Sale of Administrative Office property located at 330 Distel Circle, Los Altos (Santa Clara County Assessor’s Parcel Number 170-04-051) to the County of Santa Clara at a cost of $10,400,000 (R-20-117) Senior Real Property Agent Allen Ishibashi provided the staff presentation describing the District’s 1990 purchase of 330 Distel Circle and subsequent expansions into leased office space when the District outgrew 330 Distel Circle. Since that time, the District purchased 5050 El Camino Real, which will be ready for District occupancy in spring 2022. As a public agency, the District followed the guidelines under the Surplus Land Act for proposed sale of 330 Distel Circle. Santa Clara County and the City of Los Altos submitted a purchase proposal, intending to purchase the property to develop affordable housing. District negotiated the terms and conditions with Santa Clara County, and the County Board of Supervisors approved the offer on October 20, 2020. Six of the affordable housing units will be reserved for District staff members at or below a moderate-income level, which will also help support the District’s target reductions in operational greenhouse gas emissions under the Board-approved Climate Action Plan. Director Riffle inquired regarding the appraised value of 330 Distel Circle. Mr. Ishibashi provided the range for appraisals completed on behalf of the District and County near the end of 2019. The sale price is between the two appraisals, and the District will also have six housing units reserved for District employees. Director Riffle requested additional clarification regarding the six reserved housing units. Mr. Ishibashi reported that if District staff are available for a newly open unit (maximum of six), then District staff would receive priority for the unit prior to it being released to the open public. Director Hassett inquired how the proceeds from the sale will offset costs for the purchase of the 5050 El Camino Real building. Chief Financial Officer Stefan Jaskulak stated funding for the purchase of 5050 El Camino Real and the South Area Field Office in Campbell came from the dedicated infrastructure fund, and from issuance of parity bonds. When 330 Distel Circle is sold, the proceeds can be used to pay off the parity bonds and to fund the infrastructure projects. Members of the Board requested and received clarification regarding the terms and conditions of the sale, including the reservation of up to six units for District staff, development of the marketing plan, and the role of the City of Los Altos in the projects. Public comment opened at 5:45 p.m. District Clerk Jennifer Woodworth announced no public comments were submitted for the item. Public comment closed at 5:45 p.m. Motion: Director Riffle moved, and Director Holman seconded the motion to: 1. Determine that the recommended actions are categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act, as set out in the staff report. Meeting 20-25 Page 3 2. Adopt a Resolution authorizing the General Manager to enter into a purchase and sale agreement with the County of Santa Clara for the 330 Distel Circle, Los Altos property. ROLL CALL VOTE: 7-0-0 2. Oral Presentation Regarding District Staff’s Response to the CZU Fire Assistant General Manager Brian Malone provided background information regarding the CZU August Complex Fire, for which District staff provided aid and support to protect District lands and surrounding communities. Area Superintendent Brad Pennington described the efforts taken by District staff to prevent the CZU from crossing Old Haul Road and maintaining the fire line. Supervising Ranger Miguel Perez described his role in leading a task force of District personnel in helping to suppress the CZU fire. Mr. Perez reported no District staff were injured, and there was no damage to District equipment. Mr. Perez outlined the importance of maintaining the Old Haul Road fire line to protect surrounding communities and District lands from the CZU fire. Ranger Greg Smutnak, Lead Ranger Steve Johnson, Equipment Mechanic Operator Dan Chamberlin, Ranger Jeff Smith, Equipment Mechanic Operator Stephanie Towne, and Ranger Marianne Chance spoke regarding their experiences during the CZU fire. All commented on their roles on the task force and the importance of the work they did to protect surrounding communities from the effects of the CZU fire. They also spoke of the sense of pride and camaraderie among the task force members to be able to support the firefighting efforts. The members of the Board expressed their sincere thanks and appreciation to the District staff members who spoke and others who helped support their efforts and for staff’s contributions to fighting the CZU fire. The efforts to protect surrounding communities and District lands were invaluable. Director Riffle inquired if lessons learned are being captured for future reference and use. Chief Ranger Matt Anderson reported staff is assessing its firefighting program this fiscal year, and lessons learned from this event will be incorporated. Director Kersteen-Tucker inquired regarding potential effects from rainstorms in the burned areas. Mr. Pennington stated mudslides are not likely on District lands, and field staff are prepared in the event any do occur. Mr. Malone reported vegetation in the areas have been mapped, in coordination with other agencies, which will support the District’s response to any potential landslides. Director Kishimoto requested and received additional information regarding the incident command structure and communication among agencies during the incident. No Board action required. Meeting 20-25 Page 4 President Holman adjourned the special meeting at 7:04 p.m. REGULAR MEETING President Holman called the regular meeting of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District to order at 7:15 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, District Clerk/Assistant to the General Manager Jennifer Woodworth, Real Property Manager Mike Williams, Natural Resources Manager Kirk Lenington, Water Resources Specialist Aaron Hebert, Planning Manager Jane Mark, Planner III Aaron Peth, Water Resources Specialist David Liefert Board President Karen 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. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS District Clerk Jennifer Woodworth read the submitted public comments into the record. Neil Panton supported the recommendations of the La Honda Public Access Working Group, especially the near-term recommendations to support opening the area to public access. Mr. Panton thanked the District and working group for their careful consideration on the project. ADOPTION OF AGENDA Motion: Director Riffle moved, and Director Cyr seconded the motion to adopt the agenda. ROLL CALL VOTE: 7-0-0 SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY • Introduction of Staff Meeting 20-25 Page 5 O David Liefert, Water Resources Specialist CONSENT CALENDAR Public comment opened at 7:34 p.m. District Clerk Jennifer Woodworth announced no public comments were submitted for the Consent Calendar. Public comment closed at 7:34 p.m. Motion: Director Siemens moved, and Director Kishimoto seconded the motion to approve the Consent Calendar. ROLL CALL VOTE: 7-0-0 1. Approve October 14, 2020 Minutes 2. Claims Report 3. Award of Contract for Legislative Consulting and Lobbying Services (R-20-125) General Manager’s Recommendations: Authorize the General Manager to enter into a four-year contract with Energy and Environmental Consulting (EEC) for an amount not to exceed $79,070 for legislative consulting and lobbying services. This includes a 2% contingency ($1,550) to cover travel expenses to Board meetings and project locations should it be necessary. 4. Award of Contract for Engineering Services to Perform Above and Below Ground Site Investigations, Prepare Decommissioning Plans, and Assist with Securing Permits for Oil Well Decommissioning at Purisima Creek Redwoods Open Space Preserve (R-20-118) General Manager’s Recommendations: 1. Authorize the General Manager to enter into a contract with Bonkowski & Associates, Inc., of Emeryville, California for a not-to-exceed base amount of $59,330. 2. Authorize a 15% contingency of $8,900 to be reserved for unanticipated issues, bringing the total contract to a not-to-exceed amount of $68,230. 5. Award of Contract with Ascent Environmental to provide an Archeological Assessment and Environmental Review (CEQA) Services for the Purisima Upland Demolition and Site Cleanup Project at the Purisima Creek Redwoods Open Space Preserve (R-20-119) General Manager’s Recommendations: 1. Authorize the General Manager to enter into a contract with Ascent Environmental to provide services to support the Purisima Upland Demolition and Site Cleanup Project for a base amount not to exceed $80,831. 2. Authorize a 10% contingency of $8,083 to be awarded if necessary, to cover unforeseen conditions, for a total contract amount not-to-exceed $88,914. Meeting 20-25 Page 6 6. Consideration of an exchange of interests in real property between County of San Mateo (portion of San Mateo County APN 050-470-050) and the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (portion of San Mateo County APN 050-470-090) at Pulgas Ridge Open Space Preserve and acceptance of County of San Mateo mitigation funding to enhance California red-legged frog habitat (R-20-120) General Manager’s Recommendations: 1. Determine that the recommended actions are categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) as set out in the staff report. 2. By a unanimous vote of the Board of Directors, adopt a resolution authorizing the agreement to exchange interests in real property at no cost between the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (receiving an easement for 10 public parking spaces) and County of San Mateo (receiving an 11,874 square-foot water outfall easement and 11,472 square-foot subsurface easement). 3. Amend the Use and Management Plan to include the exchanged interests in real property. 4. Withhold dedication of the Exchange Property as public open space at this time. 5. Authorize the General Manager to enter into a mitigation funding agreement with the County of San Mateo for $380,000 to enhance California red-legged frog habitat and to select the best, most effective project to fulfill the agreement. 7. Award of a Three-Year Contract with Unitrends Inc., for Computer Server System Data Backup and Disaster Recovery Service (R-20-121) General Manager’s Recommendations: Authorize the General Manager to award a three-year service agreement with Unitrends Inc., via license service provider CDW-G procured through the Sourcewell cooperative purchasing agreement in an amount not-to-exceed $120,000 for computer server data backup and disaster recovery service. 8. Contract Amendment with Engineering/Remediation Resources Group, Inc., for the Madonna Creek Ranch Cleanup at Miramontes Ridge Open Space Preserve (R-20-124) General Manager’s Recommendations: Authorize the General Manager to increase the contract amount of $143,945 with Engineering/ Remediation Resources Group, Inc., by an additional $146,664 for a new, not-to-exceed contract amount of $290,609. Director Hassett inquired regarding the difference to the contract amount from when the item was continued from the October 14, 2020 agenda. Water Resources Specialist Aaron Hebert explained that the contract amount was revised due to the results received regarding lead concentration and the cost for disposal of the contaminated soil. BOARD BUSINESS 9. Proposed purchase of an undivided 54% interest in the Peninsula Open Space Trust (POST) South Cowell Property, located at 1000 Verde Road, Half Moon Bay, in unincorporated San Mateo County (Assessor’s Parcel Numbers 066-280-010, 066-280-020, 066-280-051 and 066-280-052), as an addition to Purisima Creek Redwoods Open Space Preserve (R-20-122) Meeting 20-25 Page 7 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 7:35 p.m. Real Property Manager Mike Williams provided the staff presentation describing the South Cowell Ranch property and displayed photos of the property and its geographical features, including the proposed property configuration after the land division, subject to approval by San Mateo County. Mr. Williams described expanded parking and trail access options for the conceptual extension of the Purisima-to-the-Sea Trail, and reported funds for the proposed purchase is included in Measure AA Portfolio 3 to support the “Purisima-to-the-Sea Trail, watershed protection, and conservation grazing.” Mr. Williams reported the proposed acquisition complies with the District’s Coastal Service Plan. Finally, Mr. Williams outlined the terms and conditions of the proposed purchase, including an agreement outlining District management of the Upland area, POST management of the residence area, and Marsh family ownership of the Farm area. Further purchase terms include the District entering into a future water agreement with POST and the Marsh family for distribution of Purisima Creek water rights per state adjudication and a conservation easement between POST and the Marsh family. Director Kersteen-Tucker inquired regarding potential farm labor housing for the site. Mr. Williams reported adjudicated water rights have been reserved for potential farm labor housing, which would be located on the farm property owned by POST and is allowed under the current zoning for the property. Public comment opened at 8:20 p.m. District Clerk Jennifer Woodworth announced no public comments were submitted for this item. Public comment closed at 8:20 p.m. Director Kersteen-Tucker commented on the importance of the acquisition and its ability to strengthen agriculture on the San Mateo County Coast. Motion: Director Kersteen-Tucker moved, and Director Hassett seconded the motion to: 1. Determine that the recommended actions are categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), as set out in the staff report. 2. Adopt a Resolution authorizing the purchase of an undivided 54% interest in the POST South Cowell Property for $4,750,000 with a corresponding authorization for a Fiscal Year 2020-21 budget increase in the same amount. 3. Adopt a Preliminary Use and Management Plan, as set out in the staff report. 4. Withhold dedication of the property as public open space at this time. ROLL CALL VOTE: 6-0-0 (Director Riffle recused) Director Riffle returned to the meeting at 8:30 p.m. 10. Grant Funding from the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission for the Highway 35 Multi-use Trail Crossing and Parking Study located at and near the North Ridge Parking Area of Purisima Creek Redwoods Open Space Preserve (R-20-123) Meeting 20-25 Page 8 Planner III Aaron Peth provided the staff presentation describing the background of the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC) South Skyline Ridge Trail Extension project, its planned terminus near the North Ridge parking area of upper Purisima Creek Redwoods Preserve, and the opportunity to partner with the SFPUC to evaluate and address trail user safety and parking needs in this area of the Preserve. The proposed project scope for this evaluation includes a feasibility analysis of a Ridge Trail crossing of Highway 35 and potential expansion of the North Ridge parking lot – with this portion of the study eligible for grant funding from the SFPUC. Additionally, multimodal access opportunities for the parking lot would also be studied, with the District funding this portion of the work. Director Riffle inquired regarding safe access and parking for the trails and suggested additional assistance is needed from other agencies to support public access. Planning Manager Jane Mark reported staff met with representatives from SFPUC regarding parking concerns at the North Ridge parking lot and the implications of the Ridge Trail Extension project on the Preserve parking lot. Subsequent discussions included looking for opportunities to alleviate the District’s concerns at the North Ridge lot. Mr. Peth reported an expansion of the North Ridge lot is being considered and SFPUC is planning a separate parking lot at the northern end of the trail near Highway 92. Director Kersteen-Tucker commented on the need for safe crossings to provide safe public access to regional trails. Director Siemens stated additional areas should be considered for parking. Mr. Malone reported the District has expressed to the SFPUC that additional parking is needed, and the area being considered is ideal due to the flat ground there. It is also the location for overflow parking for the Kings Mountain Art Faire. Public comment opened at 8:58 p.m. District Clerk Jennifer Woodworth read the submitted public comments into the record. Alex Sabo representing the Bay Area Ridge Trail Council supported the District’s acceptance of the grant funding, which will help support the Skyline Ridge Trail Extension Project. Public comment closed at 8:59 p.m. Motion: Director Riffle moved, and Director Siemens seconded the motion to adopt a resolution authorizing the General Manager to accept $114,000 in grant funding from the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission for the Highway 35 Multi-use Trail Crossing and Parking Study. ROLL CALL VOTE: 7-0-0 11. Written Response to Woodside Fire Protection District and Town of Portola Valley Assistant General Manager Brian Malone commented on regular fuel maintenance work completed by the District, which has increased in response to concerns raised by neighbors, Meeting 20-25 Page 9 Woodside Fire Protection District, and the Town of Portola Valley. District staff is currently working with the Sequoias neighbors to address their concerns regarding nearby eucalyptus trees. Mr. Malone stated the District is committing to more regular conversations with these agencies, with at least one formal meeting a year to discuss priorities. Director Siemens requested clarification regarding the application of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) on fuel reduction. Mr. Malone stated the District’s fire program has been evaluated under CEQA, and substantial changes to that program would require additional CEQA evaluation. Public comment opened at 9:16 p.m. District Clerk Jennifer Woodworth announced no public comments were submitted for this item. Public comment closed at 9:16 p.m. Motion: Director Riffle moved, and Director Siemens seconded the motion to approve the written response to comments submitted by the Woodside Fire Protection District and the Town of Portola Valley. ROLL CALL VOTE: 7-0-0 INFORMATIONAL MEMORANDUM • Ombudspersons Summary Report for Fiscal Year 2019-20 Activities INFORMATIONAL REPORTS A. Committee Reports Director Kersteen-Tucker reported the Legislative, Funding, and Public Affairs Committee (LFPAC) met on October 20, 2020 to discuss upgrades to the District’s website. Director Kersteen-Tucker reported the Board Self-Evaluation ad hoc committee met last week and will be meeting again on Friday to discuss the potential facilitators. B. Staff Reports Mr. Malone provided an update regarding funding agreements with the Umunhum Conservancy and with an individual donor. These items will be considered at the next LFPAC meeting. General Manager Ana Ruiz reported on recent tours of the Hawthorn property and the recent virtual tour for the Measure AA Bond Oversight Committee on recent and upcoming projects. C. Director Reports Director Cyr reported his attendance at a Santa Clara Valley Water Commission meeting where grant opportunities were discussed. Meeting 20-25 Page 10 Director Hassett reported the South Skyline Association is having a virtual meeting on Friday November 13, 2020 regarding the CZU fire. Director Riffle thanked the ombudspersons for their work for the District. Director Riffle reported he plans to meet with various city councilmembers in the new year to provide updates to them regarding District projects and suggested other Board members may be interested in doing the same. Director Kersteen-Tucker mentioned Abundant Grace, which is a non-profit group that provides work for homeless individuals to grow and harvest over 20,000 pounds of fresh, organic produce for free distribution to low-income families, and suggested the District may want to partner with them in the future. President Holman invited the Board members to attend an upcoming presentation by the Palo Alto Historic Association regarding the Alpine Inn on November 1, 2020. ADJOURNMENT President Holman adjourned the regular meeting of the Board of Directors of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District at 9:30 p.m. ________________________________ Jennifer Woodworth, MMC District Clerk Rev. 1/3/18 R-20-127 Meeting 20-26 November 4, 2020 AGENDA ITEM 2 AGENDA ITEM Award of Contract with Ascent Environmental to provide Environmental Consulting Services for the White Barn Rehabilitation and Redwood Cabin Demolition Projects at La Honda Creek Open Space Preserve GENERAL MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATIONS 1. Authorize the General Manager to enter into a contract with Ascent Environmental to provide environmental consulting services for the Redwood Cabin Removal Project and White Barn Structural Rehabilitation Project for a combined base amount of $216,531. 2. Authorize a 10% contingency, to be expended only if necessary, to cover unforeseen conditions, for a total contract amount not-to-exceed $238,184. SUMMARY In April 2020, the Board of Directors (Board) directed the General Manager to proceed with environmental review and plans and specifications to: 1) remove the La Honda Creek Redwood Cabin (Redwood Cabin) and restore the natural resource values of the former building footprint, and 2) stabilize the La Honda Creek White Barn (White Barn) primarily through foundation work, as well as minor modifications to the structure and the site to allow for interpretive opportunities. To proceed with these activities, the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (District) must first complete an environmental review and secure necessary permits. In July 2020, District staff released a Request for Proposals (RFP) for environmental services in support of the Redwood Cabin and White Barn projects. Ascent Environmental (Ascent) was selected through the RFP process as the most qualified consultant at the best value. The General Manager recommends awarding a contract to Ascent for a combined base amount of $216,531 ($147,879 for Redwood Cabin and $68,652 for White Barn), and authorizing a 10% contingency of $21,653, for a total amount not to exceed $238,184. The adopted Fiscal Year 2020-21 (FY21) budget includes sufficient funds for the White Barn work. The FY21 budget is insufficient for the Redwood Cabin, requiring a budget adjustment for this portion of the contract. Funding for future year budgets will be requested as part of the annual Budget and Action Plan process. BACKGROUND In August 2012, the Board approved the La Honda Creek Open Space Preserve Master Plan, which calls for an evaluation of the historical significance and structural integrity of the R-20-127 Page 2 Redwood Cabin and White Barn. A 2018 Historic Resources Evaluation Report concluded that the White Barn is eligible for individual listing in the National Register of Historic Places and the California Register of Historical Resources. Similarly, a 2019 Historic Resource Evaluation Report determined that the Redwood Cabin is eligible for individual listing in the California Register of Historical Resources. On April 8, 2020, staff presented the Redwood Cabin and White Barn design alternatives to the Board for consideration. The Board voted 5-2 in favor of directing the General Manager to proceed with next steps to remove the Redwood Cabin and restore the underlying natural resource values. A key next step for this work is to prepare a focused Environmental Impact Report (EIR) given the listing eligibility of the structure and to bring these findings to the Board to confirm the final action. Given the robust discussion on April 8, the Board voted unanimously to continue the discussion of the White Barn design alternatives to April 22, 2020. At the April 22, 2020 Board Meeting, the Board voted unanimously to stabilize the White Barn and add the following elements to the project as budget permits: enhanced foundation work, wildlife exclusion to protect the structure, interpretive signage, and plexiglass windows to allow public viewing of the interior construction and craftsmanship. The Board further directed the General Manager to return to the Board with options for exterior coatings (including a white, semi-transparent coating option) and an evaluation of potential bat habitat options near the structure. Upon further evaluation, staff has concluded that while building bat habitat near the White Barn is a feasible alternative, the barn itself provides optimal bat roosting habitat. A cost- effective solution may be to keep the bat habitat use inside the barn by installing interior bat boxes and openings for bat entry into the barn that are annually maintained by staff to protect the structure from wildlife damage. Staff has prepared an FYI memorandum for the Board regarding the use of White Barn as bat roosting habitat and will assess options for exterior coatings during the design phase. To proceed with the White Barn stabilization project, an environmental review of the project elements will need to be completed, which is expected to be an Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND). DISCUSSION In late 2019, the District issued a Request for Qualifications and Proposals (RFQP) for environmental consultant services to support District projects. Out of this process, the Board awarded on-call contracts to two qualified environmental consultants in December (R-19-158). In addition, the District established a pre-qualified list of 13 consultants for future use. On July 1, 2020, staff issued a Request for Proposals to four firms on the pre-qualification list to assist the District with the environmental review for the Redwood Cabin and White Barn. On July 21, 2020, all four firms attended a mandatory preproposal site tour of the Redwood Cabin and White Barn project sites. Following the project site tour, three of the four firms submitted proposals on August 7, 2020. After a thorough review of the proposals by the District selection committee, which included Planning and Engineering and Construction staff, Ascent was selected as the most qualified firm to complete the CEQA review for these projects at a fair and reasonable price. Ascent’s scope of work for the Redwood Cabin Focused EIR and the White Barn IS/MND includes: • Field surveys of the project areas; R-20-127 Page 3 • Analysis of environmental issues (including aesthetics, air quality, biological resources, cultural and historical resources, greenhouse gas emissions, and noise); • Preparation of all required CEQA notices (Notices of Preparation, Intent, Completion, and Determination); • Preparation of a detailed Project Description for environmental analysis and an Initial Study consistent with the environmental checklist included as Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines; and • Presentations at Board meetings for CEQA approval. Ascent’s scope for the Focused EIR includes additional tasks required by CEQA: • Evaluation of Redwood Cabin project alternatives; • Preparation of required sections for the EIR (Cumulative Impacts, Summary of Significant and Unavoidable Impacts, etc.); • Preparation of documents related to Responses to Public Comments, Final EIR, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan (MMRP) and CEQA Findings of Fact; and • Preparations and presentations at a public scoping meeting for EIR. Ascent has successfully provided CEQA services on past District projects that include historical/cultural resources, including the La Honda Creek Preserve Master Plan IS/MND, Bear Creek Redwoods Preserve Plan EIR, and Mt Umunhum Public Access and Site Restoration Plan EIR. Ascent tailored their proposal to meet the specific needs for the Redwood Cabin and White Barn, including the assignment of a cultural resources specialist as their project manager. Additionally, the Ascent proposal includes Page & Turnbull as a subconsultant to provide expert architectural historian services to support the CEQA analysis and development of mitigation measures. Ascent’s fee proposal came in at the lowest cost of the three firms. During contract negotiations, staff and Ascent identified areas of potential cost savings, further reducing Ascent’s CEQA costs for the Redwood Cabin project by approximately 9%. Firm Cost Location Ascent Environmental $216,531 Sacramento, CA AECOM $252,525 Sacramento, CA Horizon $281,314 Oakland, CA Ascent’s proposal for $216,531 includes $147,879 for the Redwood Cabin EIR and $68,652 for the White Barn IS/MND. The General Manager recommends a 10% contingency of $21,653 to be expended only if necessary for addressing a larger than anticipated number of public comments and to potentially complete an archaeological study. An archeological study may be needed if construction activities may affect previously undisturbed areas. FISCAL IMPACT The FY21 budget includes $106,386 for the La Honda Creek White Barn Structural Rehabilitation MAA05-008 project. There are sufficient funds in the budget to cover the recommended action and expenditures. R-20-127 Page 4 La Honda Creek White Barn Structural Rehabilitation MAA05-008 Prior Year Actuals FY21 Adopted FY22 Projected FY23 Projected TOTAL Total Budget: $81,918 $106,386 $202,500 $0 $390,804 Spent-to-Date (as of 10/01/2020): ($81,918) ($11,653) $0 $0 ($93,571) Encumbrances: $0 ($4,662) $0 $0 ($4,662) Ascent Environmental Contract: $0 ($68,652) $0 $0 ($68,652) 10% Contingency: $0 ($8,120) $0 $0 ($8,120) Budget Remaining (Proposed): $0 $13,299 $202,500 $0 $215,799 The FY21 budget includes $31,386 for the La Honda Creek Redwood Cabin Assessment, Removal and Site Restoration MAA05-009. There are insufficient funds in the budget and a budget adjustment will be included in the Quarter 2 Budget Review. Project savings and/or unspent project funds may be sufficient to allow for a net zero budget adjustment. Funding for future years budgets will be requested as part of the annual Budget and Action Plan process. LHC Redwood Cabin Assessment, Removal and Site Restoration MAA05-009 Prior Year Actuals FY21 Adopted FY22 Projected FY23 Projected TOTAL Total Budget: $88,486 $31,386 $462,500 $0 $582,372 Spent-to-Date (as of 10/01/2020): ($88,486) $0 $0 $0 ($88,486) Encumbrances: $0 ($9,323) $0 $0 ($9,323) Ascent Environmental Contract: $0 ($126,769) ($21,110) $0 ($147,879) 10% Contingency: $0 ($8,120) ($5,413) $0 ($13,533) Budget Remaining (Proposed): $0 ($112,826) $435,977 $0 $323,151 The following table outlines the Measure AA Portfolio 05 La Honda Creek: Upper Area Recreation, Habitat Restoration and Conservation Grazing Projects allocation, costs-to-date, projected future project expenditures and projected portfolio balance remaining. MAA05 La Honda Creek—Upper Area Recreation, Habitat Restoration and Conservation Grazing Projects Portfolio Allocation: $11,733,000 Life-to-Date Spent (as of 10/01/2020): ($2,488,519) Encumbrances: ($128,562) Remaining FY21 Project Budgets: (296,079) Future MAA05 project costs (projected through FY23): ($2,169,820) Total Portfolio Expenditures: ($5,082,980) Portfolio Balance Remaining (Proposed): $6,650,020 The following table outlines the Measure AA Portfolio 05 05 La Honda Creek: Upper Area Recreation, Habitat Restoration and Conservation Grazing Projects allocation, projected life of project expenditures and projected portfolio balance remaining. MAA05 La Honda Creek—Upper Area Recreation, Habitat Restoration and Conservation Grazing Projects Portfolio Allocation: $11,733,000 Projected Project Expenditures (life of project): MAA05-001 La Honda Creek Land Conservation Opportunities ($1,756,093) MAA05-002 Upper La Honda Creek Grazing Infrastructure ($209,765) MAA05-005 La Honda Creek Red Barn Parking Area and Easy Access Trail ($327,513) MAA05-008 La Honda Creek White Barn Structural Rehabilitation ($444,804) R-20-127 Page 5 MAA05-009 La Honda Creek Redwood Cabin Assessment, Removal and Site Restoration ($582,373) MAA05-010 Restoration Forestry Demonstration Project ($1,675,357) MAA05-011 Lone Madrone Ranch Fence Installation ($87,075) Total Portfolio Expenditures: ($5,082,980) Portfolio Balance Remaining (Proposed): $6,650,020 PUBLIC NOTICE Public notice was provided as required by the Brown Act. CEQA COMPLIANCE This item includes the award of contract to complete the necessary environmental review under CEQA for the Redwood Cabin and White Barn projects. Retention of professional consultants will not result in a direct physical change to the environment [CEQA Guidelines Section 15060(c)(2)] and does not constitute Board approval of the proposed project or related proposed project elements. NEXT STEPS Pending Board approval, the General Manager will execute the agreement for environmental consulting services with Ascent. White Barn – Tentative Schedule Milestones Tentative Timeline Environmental Review – IS/MND November 2020 to June 2021 Preliminary Design December 2020 to January 2021 Award of Design-Build Contract Winter 2021 Construction Activities Fall 2021 Redwood Cabin – Tentative Schedule Milestones Tentative Timeline Environmental Review – EIR* November 2020 to October 2021 Final Design / Permitting October 2021 to March 2022 Award of Demolition & Site Restoration Contract Spring 2022 Construction Activities Summer 2022 to Fall 2022 *The EIR process requires a longer timeline because it involves public scoping, review of project alternatives, and additional preparation of response to public comments and MMRP Attachment(s) 1. Project Map Responsible Department Head: Jane Mark, Planning Department Jason Lin, Engineering and Construction Department R-20-127 Page 6 Prepared by: Aaron Peth, Planner III, Planning Department Tanisha Werner, Senior Capital Project Manager Contact person: Aaron Peth, Planner III, Planning Department 88 S a n M a t e o C o. S a n t a C l a r a C o . 88 ÄÆ280 La Honda MROSD OPEN SPACE PRESERVE LA HONDA CREEK OPEN SPACE PRESERVE ÄÆ35 P e s c a d ero C r e e k Rd ÄÆ84 ÄÆ35 ÄÆ84 ÄÆ35 ÄÆ84 PortolaRd A r a s t r a deroR o a d A lpineRo a d Page M i l l R oad Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (MROSD) January 2019 Project Area Map Pa t h : E : \ 3 0 0 - P r o j e c t s \ S t r u c t u r e S t a b i l i z a t i o n \ 5 0 - M a p p i ng a n d D r a w i n g s \ 5 2 - G I S \ S t r u c t u r e S t a b _ P r o j e c t A r e a 2 0 1 9 0 1 1 4 . m x d Cr e a t e d B y : t w e r n e r 021 MilesI MROSD Preserves Private Property While the District strives to use the best available digital data, these data do not represent a legal survey and are merely a graphic illustration of geographic features. Watershed Land ***SEE GUIDELINES AND SYMBOL LIBRARY TO THE SIDES******SEE GUIDELINES AND SYMBOL LIBRARY TO THE SIDES*** Highlighted Property Area of Detail ÄÆ84 ÄÆ92 ÄÆ35ÄÆ9ÄÆ236 ÄÆ35 ÄÆ17 ÄÆ1 ÄÆ280 ÄÆ280 ÄÆ101 ÄÆ1 ÄÆ85 Half Moon Bay Redwood City East Palo Alto Mountain View Palo Alto Cupertino Saratoga La Honda Sunnyvale Other Protected Lands Land Trust Other Public Agency White Barn (Dyer Barn) Redwood Cabin Barn CabinCounty Boundary 88 88 R-20-128 Meeting 20-26 November 4, 2020 AGENDA ITEM 3 AGENDA ITEM First Amendment to the Secured Promissory Note between Jacob Guenther and Tamara J. Shimizu (a.k.a. Tamara J. Guenther) and Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District for a Fee Determinable Estate at 5705 Alpine Road, Portola Valley, CA 94028, adjoining Skyline Ridge Open Space Preserve in unincorporated San Mateo County (Assessor’s Parcel Number 080-282-080) GENERAL MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATIONS 1. Determine that the recommended actions are categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), as set out in the staff report. 2. Adopt a Resolution authorizing the General Manager to enter into a First Amendment to the Secured Promissory Note held by Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District against Jacob Guenther and Tamara J. Shimizu as described in the staff report. SUMMARY Due to the economic challenges presented by the COVID-19 pandemic, the General Manager recommends adopting a Resolution (Attachment 1) to enter into a First Amendment to the Secured Promissory Note (Amendment) held by Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (District) against Jacob Guenther and Tamara J. Shimizu (a.k.a. Tamara J. Guenther) (Guenthers) for a fee determinable estate at 5705 Alpine Road, Portola Valley, CA 94028. The Amendment would extend the Secured Promissory Note by ten years through the fall of 2033 and reduce the monthly payment amount. This action would allow the Guenthers to afford the monthly payments to remain in the residence and result in an additional $47,354.47 in interest payments (revenue) to the District. DISCUSSION On July 23, 1997, the District accepted an offer from the Guenthers to purchase a fifty (50) year fee determinable estate for a ten (10) acre parcel adjoining Skyline Ridge Open Space Preserve (R-97-109). On December 10, 1997, the Board of Directors (Board) approved an amendment to the purchase agreement and authorized the District to finance the sale by means of a promissory note secured by a first deed of trust (R-97-167). The sale price was $361,000, and the terms of the promissory note included a twenty-five (25) year financing in the amount of $288,000 at an interest rate of ten percent (10%), to be paid in full by December 1, 2022. The monthly payment of principal and interest was $2,624.00, with each payment due on the first day of each month. The Guenthers made timely payments to the District each month since their purchase of the fee determinable estate on December 17, 1997 until April 30, 2020. R-20-128 Page 2 On March 3, 2020, pursuant to Section 8630 of the California Government Code and Chapter 2.46 of the San Mateo County Ordinance Code, the San Mateo County Health Officer (Health Officer) proclaimed a local emergency throughout San Mateo County related to COVID-19, an ongoing global infectious disease caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2, which was first identified in December 2019. On the following day, March 4, 2020, Governor Gavin Newsom issued a Proclamation of a State of Emergency in the State of California as a result of the threat of COVID-19. On March 16, 2020, Governor Newsom issued Executive Order N-28-20, granting local jurisdictions broad authority to enact temporary moratoria on residential and commercial evictions based on non-payment of rent caused by the COVID-19 pandemic or the federal, state, and/or local response to the COVID-19 pandemic. On August 31, 2020, Governor Newsom signed statewide COVID-19 protections into law that shield tenants and small landlords from evictions and foreclosures due to the economic impacts of COVID-19 through February 1, 2021. As a result of the State of Emergency, the issuance of local and state-wide shelter-in-place orders, and the severe impact to business financials due to layoffs, reductions in work hours, and closures of businesses, the Guenthers lost significant income and are now unable to make full payments to the District. In an effort to not fall too far behind in payments, the Guenthers made partial monthly payments of $800.00 from May 1, 2020, through October 31, 2020. Although the District does not have a legal obligation to refinance the Secured Promissory Note, District staff recommends doing so in light of the hardships caused by COVID-19 thus allowing the Guenthers to remain in the residence while ensuring that the District recoups full payment with additional interest over an extended ten (10) years. As further described below, the Amendment would maintain the Guenthers’ tenancy at terms that allow the Guenthers to fully repay the principal due and increase the interest collected by the District. This item was brought to the Board on September 9, 2020 (R-20-98). The Board postponed the item and directed staff to further evaluate the Amendment’s terms and conditions to ensure it would result in a fair balance of both the District’s and the Guenthers’ interests. Staff has completed this evaluation, the results of which are described below. TERMS AND CONDITIONS Under the proposed Amendment to the Secured Promissory Note, the total monthly payment of principal and interest would decrease from $2,624.00 to $829.84 effective November 1, 2020. The loan would be paid in full by October 1, 2033, an additional ten (10) years and ten (10) months from the current loan end date. There are no prepayment penalties under the original Secured Promissory Note nor are there any prepayment penalties proposed in the Amendment, therefore the Guenthers can accelerate and increase their payments or return payments to prior levels at anytime if and when desired. A late fee of approximately fifteen percent (15%), or $120.00, would be added to any payments posted after the tenth (10th) day of the month for a total monthly payment of $949.84. The new monthly payment of $829.84 was determined through District staff negotiations and is based on the limited amount of monthly income the Guenthers are receiving. FISCAL IMPACT Two charts outlining the original loan and the new proposed loan are below: R-20-128 Page 3 Original Loan (Monthly Payments of $2,624.00) Payment Period (at 10% Interest) Total Principal Balance Remaining* Total Interest Due* Total Payment Due* 11/1/2020 – 12/1/2022 $72,295.61 $9,804.96 $82,100.57 * Recalculated amounts to account for partial payments of $800.00 per month from May 1 through October 31, 2020. New Proposed Loan (Monthly Payments of $829.84) Payment Period (at 10% Interest) Total Principal Balance Remaining Total Interest Due Total Payment Due 11/1/2020 – 10/1/2033 $72,295.61 $57,159.43 $129,455.04 With the original monthly loan payment amount of $2,624.00, annual receipts expected would total $31,488. With the new proposed loan payment amount of $829.84, annual receipts expected would total $9,958.08. The new proposed loan would generate an additional $47,354.47 in interest payments (revenue) to the District over the life of the New Proposed Loan. 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 This item is not a project subject to the California Environmental Quality Act. NEXT STEPS Upon approval by the Board of Directors, staff would execute the First Amendment to the Secured Promissory Note with the Guenthers per the terms and conditions described in this report. Attachments: 1. Resolution Approving and Authorizing the General Manager to Enter into a First Amendment to the Secured Promissory Note Held by the District Against Jacob Guenther and Tamara J. Shimizu for a Fee Determinable Estate at 5705 Alpine Road, Portola Valley, CA 94028, and Authorizing the General Manager and General Counsel to Execute Any and All Other Documents Necessary or Appropriate to Complete the Transaction 2. Project Location Map Responsible Department Manager: Michael Williams, Real Property Manager Prepared by: Jasmine Leong, Real Property Agent I R-20-128 Page 4 Graphics prepared by: Francisco Lopez Tapia, GIS Technician Resolutions/2020/R-20-x_Guenther 1 RESOLUTION 20-__ RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT APPROVING AND AUTHORIZING THE GENERAL MANAGER TO ENTER INTO A FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE SECURED PROMISSORY NOTE HELD BY THE DISTRICT AGAINST JACOB GUENTHER AND TAMARA J. SHIMIZU FOR A FEE DETERMINABLE ESTATE AT 5705 ALPINE ROAD, PORTOLA VALLEY, CA 94028, AND AUTHORIZING THE GENERAL MANAGER AND GENERAL COUNSEL TO EXECUTE ANY AND ALL OTHER DOCUMENTS NECESSARY OR APPROPRIATE TO COMPLETE THE TRANSACTION. THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT DOES RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION ONE. The General Manager is authorized to enter into a First Amendment to the Secured Promissory Note held by Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District against Jacob Guenther and Tamara J. Shimizu for a Fee Determinable Estate at 5705 Alpine Road, Portola Valley, CA 95028. SECTION TWO. The General Manager and General Counsel are authorized to execute any and all other documents necessary or appropriate to the completion of the transaction approved in this Resolution. The General Manager and General Counsel are further authorized to approve minor or technical revisions to the First Amendment that do not involve any substantial changes to any terms of the agreement, and which are necessary or appropriate to the completion or implementation of this transaction. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Board of Directors of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District on ________, 2020, at a Regular Meeting thereof, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: ATTEST: APPROVED: Jed Cyr, Secretary Board of Directors Karen Holman, President Board of Directors ATTACHMENT 1 Resolutions/2020/R-20-x_Guenther 2 APPROVED AS TO FORM: Hilary Stevenson, General Counsel I, the District Clerk of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District, hereby certify that the above is a true and correct copy of a resolution duly adopted by the Board of Directors of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District by the above vote at a meeting thereof duly held and called on the above day. Jennifer Woodworth, District Clerk A l p i n e R o ad GUENTHER PROPERTY APN 080282080 Jake Guenther Life E state House A n cie nt O a k s T r a i l Aud r e y 's Way M in d e go Hill Trail 2400 2000 2 4 0 0 2 2 0 0 18 0 0 2 0 0 0 RR04 RR03A RR03 G u n t h e r P o n d R U S S I A N R I D G E O P E N S P A C E P R E S E R V E S K Y L I N E R I D G E O P E N S P A C E P R E S E R V E M i d p en i n su la Re g i onal Op e n S p a ce D i st r i ct (M id pe n) 7/6 /2 0 2 0 Gu enther F ee D eter mi nab le E sta te Path: G:\Projects\Skyline_Ridge\GuentherLE\GuntherFee_DeterminableEstate\GuntherFee_DeterminableEstate_20200702.mxd Created By: flopez 0 500250 FeetI MROSD Preser ves 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. G uenther Proper ty Area of Detail ÄÆ35 ÄÆ84 ÄÆ82 ÄÆ85 ÄÆ9 ÄÆ35 ÄÆ84 ÄÆ280 ÄÆ101 ÄÆ280 ÄÆ280 ÄÆ85 ÄÆ9 ÄÆ35 Los Altos Mountain View Palo Alto Cupertino Pa rcel U np av ed All-Season Road Mi no r Unpaved Road U nm aintained Road Width Tr ail Rev. 1/3/18 R-20-129 Meeting 20-26 November 4, 2020 AGENDA ITEM 4 AGENDA ITEM Science Advisory Panel Final Report on Multiple Grazing Topics GENERAL MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATION(S) Receive a presentation and findings report from the Science Advisory Panel on their scientific literature review regarding multiple Grazing topics and questions posed by the Board of Directors to inform future land management decisions. No Board action required. SUMMARY The Science Advisory Panel (SAP), comprised of the San Francisco Estuary Institute (SFEI) and Point Blue Conservation Science (Point Blue), was tasked by the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (District) Board of Directors (Board) with assessing the effects of grazing on native ecosystems and biodiversity, its utility as a fuel/vegetation management tool, and its greenhouse gas emissions and carbon sequestration potential. SFEI and Point Blue, in consultation with a Technical Advisory Committee (TAC), carried out an extensive review of the scientific literature and have produced their final report (Attachment 1). The report concludes that grazing can benefit native plants and wildlife; that it is a valuable tool for reducing fire fuels and protecting grassland habitats from shrub encroachment; and that the greenhouse gas emissions inherent in any grazing operation are a tradeoff that can be partially offset by other land management activities to increase carbon sequestration. DISCUSSION Background On August 28, 2019, the Board awarded a contract to two locally-esteemed science institutions, SFEI and Point Blue, to form the SAP (R-19-120). 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 purpose of the SAP is to provide an independent review of scientific research on Board-selected topics regarding the District’s open space management practices. The SAP is tasked in preparing reports that interpret the best available science to enable the District in making data-driven land management decisions. 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 asks how the District can effectively and efficiently monitor changes in priority plant and animal populations. Topic 2 addresses benefits and tradeoffs of recreational access to open space. Topic 3, the subject of this report, reviews the benefits and tradeoffs of conservation grazing on District R-20-129 Page 2 lands. The specific questions on the grazing topic, as approved by the Board on January 8, 2020, are: • What is the net climate impact of cattle grazing (e.g., potential increase in soil carbon minus cattle methane emissions)? What are the District’s options, such as grazing regimes or dietary additives, to reduce emissions from cattle grazing? • What are the current scientific results on the effectiveness of managing grasslands and reducing fire risk with cattle grazing? • How does cattle grazing as a land management strategy compare to alternatives in achieving District goals including climate protection and what are the trade-offs?1 SFEI worked closely with staff from Point Blue, District staff, and a TAC selected by SFEI and District staff. Members of the TAC were selected to represent a broad knowledge base spanning topics of California rangeland ecology and history, carbon cycling in grasslands, and land and livestock management. The TAC was comprised of Dr. Lynn Huntsinger (Professor of Rangeland Ecology, U.C. Berkeley), Dr. Sheila Barry (Santa Clara County Director and Area Livestock and Natural Resources Advisor, UC Cooperative Extension), Dr. Richard Conant (Professor and associate dean, Colorado State University), and Dr. Rodrigo Sierra Corona (Director of Stewardship, Santa Lucia Preserve). SFEI conducted an extensive review of peer-reviewed scientific work regarding rangeland management, with a focus on grazing in coastal California. The peer-review process, in which scientists look for potential errors and/or biases in the research methodologies, data analysis techniques, and conclusions of studies they were not a part of ensures that research adheres to high standards for experimental design, data integrity, replicability, and objectivity. SFEI addressed the Board-approved topics to the best of their ability given the information in the available peer-reviewed body of science. Their findings are discussed in detail in their final report (Attachment 1). Conservation Grazing Program The District’s Conservation Grazing Program is a collaboration with ranchers on the San Mateo Coast. Program goals are to maintain and restore native grasslands and their unique biodiversity, manage vegetation to reduce wildland fire risk, and support the District’s Coastside Mission, which includes a commitment to “preserve rural character [and] encourage viable agricultural use of land resources.” The conservation grazing program began in 2007, and now encompasses nearly 9,000 acres that are managed through leases with seven cattle ranchers (see Attachment 2, “Map of Grazed Properties”). Grazing practices are subject to the guidelines in the District’s Resource Management Policies, Section XI (Grazing Management). A primary goal for the SAP has been to provide a backdrop of peer-reviewed scientific research against which to review, and potentially amend, the District’s grazing management policies and practices. Grazing Effects on Grassland Habitat and Biodiversity SFEI concluded that in coastal Californian grasslands, grazing can be used to maintain the open nature of grasslands, limit shrub encroachment, and create a mosaic of diverse vegetation statures (i.e. patches of bare ground, short grass, taller grass, and shrubs) that is 1 This third question was proposed and approved by the Board during the January 8, 2020 meeting, and thus does not appear in R-20-05. It can be found in the meeting minutes. R-20-129 Page 3 beneficial to wildlife, including insect pollinators, American badger, burrowing owl, grasshopper sparrow, horned lark, American kestrel, and Western meadowlark. Stock ponds, an integral part of grazing infrastructure, also provide vital habitat to sustain populations of California red-legged frog (federally threatened), San Francisco garter snake (federally endangered) and Western pond turtle (species of special concern). This type of managed wetland habitat is expected to become increasingly important for the health and protection of these species as climate change leads to drier, hotter conditions that could result in reduced habitat quality or full loss of wetland areas. Conservation grazing can also benefit native plant species and help control non-native, invasive species. Some evidence suggests that wet season grazing (winter to early summer) may be better than year-round grazing for reducing/controlling non-native, invasive species and increasing native plant cover. Native bunch grasses tend to respond well to grazing; these species were prevalent in California coastal grasslands when native herds of grazers dominated the grassland landscape. Grazing and Climate Change Impacts and Trade-offs The primary component of greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) from cattle in rangeland are enteric (produced by the digestive system) methane emissions. Considering the District’s multi-faceted land management goals, GHG emissions should be weighed alongside the benefits to landscape-level land management, grassland preservation, wildlife and plant diversity, preservation of rural character, support of viable local agriculture, and increased fire safety. Due to high variability in soil carbon capacity both by site and over time (with changing vegetation, precipitation, and other factors), numbers for “net climate impact of cattle grazing (e.g., potential increase in soil carbon minus cattle methane emissions)” as requested by the Board cannot be accurately estimated for District lands simply based on the available peer-reviewed scientific literature. To do so would require studies specific to District preserves. Consequently, SFEI presents a general discussion of opportunities to offset the methane emissions of livestock through land management techniques. Some opportunities exist for offsetting livestock emissions in a rangeland context. The peer- reviewed scientific literature suggests that in California coastal grasslands, it is infeasible to completely offset livestock emissions solely through grazing management techniques that increase soil carbon sequestration. Compost applications are an alternative strategy to enhance soil sequestration, but annual sequestration benefits from compost application decrease over time and the effects on native vegetation communities are not well understood. Management techniques to promote woody vegetation growth in target areas may offer a better sequestration opportunity, as woody ecosystems sequester and store much more carbon per acre in both biomass and soils than annual grasslands. Cattle can trample vegetation at the edges of ponds and stream channels, limiting woody growth and thus carbon sequestration. Fencing cattle out of riparian areas with added buffer zones can promote growth of woody vegetation along and near riparian corridors, thus increasing carbon sequestration. Expanding the exclusion areas has co-benefits beyond carbon sequestration, including further improved water quality and greater natural erosion control. This in turn enhances spawning habitat for salmonids, breeding habitat for amphibians and reptiles, nesting habitat for birds, tree-roosting habitat for bats, and both terrestrial and aquatic foraging areas for many species. R-20-129 Page 4 Grazing can also help prevent wildfire-related GHG emissions by keeping grassland patches open and limiting more flammable brush encroachment, and by preventing the accumulation of dry tall grass and thatch. Climate change and an expanding Wildland-Urban Interface (WUI) have contributed to elevating the wildfire risk to severe levels on open space lands across California. The state has faced multiple back-to-back years of catastrophic wildland fires, including the fires sparked by dry summer lightning storms that impacted all nine (9) Bay Area counties this past August/September. Grazing is an effective tool to manage fuel loads across vast acreages of land and reduce the likelihood of ignition. In the event of a fire, the speed and intensity of wildfire spread is lower across grazed grasslands, improving fire suppression success and reducing damage to the natural resources. Moreover, carbon in grasslands is highly resilient to fire. Much of the carbon is stored in roots and is not released during a fire, and carbon released from above-ground biomass is quickly taken up again as the grass grows back the following rainy season. Alternatives to Cattle Grazing SFEI assessed the feasibility of a variety of cattle grazing alternatives. SFEI reviewed studies demonstrating that grazing followed by other methods (e.g. mechanical treatment or prescribed fire) is the best method for managing wildfire risk. Multi-pronged approaches have also been shown to perform better for invasive species control. SFEI assessed numerous alternative methods including mechanical or manual vegetation removal, herbicides, prescribed fire, seeding with native plants, and using different grazing animals (e.g. goats or tule elk). Drawbacks to all of these methods include high costs and staff time, and most would not be feasible within District grazing areas because of terrain or other limitations. SFEI’s literature review suggests that integrating multiple strategies is preferable to relying on one when managing for vegetation communities or wildfire risk. Alternative methods are best applied in targeted areas as a complement to cattle grazing. This is in line with the District’s current rangeland management practices. Conclusions of SFEI’s Report After a thorough review of the scientific literature and consultation with an expert Technical Advisory Committee, SFEI concluded that grazing has both benefits and tradeoffs as a land management tool. It is an effective way to reduce brush encroachment, supports a diverse suite of wildlife, and can benefit native plants while reducing competition from exotic invasive species. District partnerships with local ranchers and grazers support local food production and help preserve the agricultural heritage of the San Mateo Coast, a heritage that is an important part of the region’s rural character. The primary tradeoff is the greenhouse gas emissions inherent in grazing. SFEI also emphasized that not all grazing is alike. There are many ways to manage cattle, some of which are more supportive of the benefits above and others of which may have more detrimental effects. SFEI and the TAC emphasized the need for site-specific analysis to best achieve program goals through conservation grazing. This is a practice that the District will continue to follow in developing custom rangeland management plans for individual properties that specify site-specific goals and actions based on the conditions and priority resource management goals for each location. FISCAL IMPACT There is no fiscal impact associated with the recommendation. R-20-129 Page 5 BOARD COMMITTEE REVIEW Given the level of interest, this item is being presented to the full Board PUBLIC NOTICE Public notice was provided by postcard mailing and/or email to 868 people on the interested parties lists. CEQA COMPLIANCE This item is not a project subject to the California Environmental Quality Act. NEXT STEPS This report concludes the SAP’s work on the multiple Grazing topics. Encouragingly, the scientific literature results from the SAP largely support the use of livestock within the Conservation Grazing Program in furthering the Coastside Mission to preserve local agriculture, as well as the Resource Management goals to reduce wildland fire risk and enhance biodiversity. Staff will next begin the process of evaluating the scientific literature results and the SAP findings to determine appropriate modifications or additions to the Conservation Grazing Program to better manage coastal grassland habitats both to enhance the beneficial effects and reduce the negative impacts associated with livestock grazing. One of the most significant areas of future work will be to evaluate management actions to address cattle methane emissions. Unfortunately, recent scientific studies indicate that soil carbon sequestration within California rangelands does not present a large opportunity to offset livestock methane. There are some opportunities to increase soil carbon storage within District rangelands, but the magnitude appears to be relatively small. However, where it does not conflict with wildland fuel management goals, encouraging and expanding woody vegetation within ranch properties does appear to be a viable means to increase carbon sequestration and offset some of the methane emissions. This may include focusing on expanding buffer zones around riparian habitats and ungrazed coastal scrub-dominated slopes. This management strategy may provide associated benefits in enhancing the health of aquatic habitat and protecting water quality. This finding presents an intriguing restoration and land management area of emphasis, the effectiveness and feasibility of which staff will explore with pilot projects and further research. Preparation of a Conservation Carbon Farming Plan in partnership with the San Mateo Resource Conservation District is on the current year’s Action Plan. This land management planning process will evaluate a suite of land management activities focused on increasing carbon storage on one of the District’s coastside agricultural preserves. In addition to potential compost application to increase soil carbon storage, the Conservation Carbon Farming Plan will also likely include actions such as increased riparian vegetation restoration (discussed above), installation of hedgerows, and other carbon-beneficial actions to increase carbon storage. Importantly, the Conservation Carbon Farming Plan will also calculate expected carbon storage quantities for various actions and prescribe monitoring to assess the effectiveness of the management actions. R-20-129 Page 6 The District continues to develop the Wildland Fire Resiliency Program and is preparing to begin implementing new fuel reduction priority projects, including using livestock to reduce wildland fire fuels. The SAP findings related to this topic support the effectiveness of cattle grazing to reduce fuel loads. Staff will look at expanding the types of livestock used for this purpose (e.g., goats) in order to most effectively achieve the goals of fuel reduction while minimizing the negative impacts associated with livestock use (physical ground disturbance, greenhouse gas emissions). Calculations are being completed to gain an understanding of how GHG emissions from livestock grazing compare to those from other management techniques to reduce vegetation biomass within rangeland systems. Mechanical equipment can be used to reduce vegetation in some, but not all, of the areas where livestock are able to graze. Larger equipment is necessary to manage acreages on the scale of the District’s conservation grazing program; however, large mechanical equipment presents other types of impact (e.g. ground disturbance, risk to wildlife), is costly, and still emits a large quantity of GHGs in addition to particulate emissions. Staff will continue to evaluate the use of livestock and other strategies to manage vegetation fuels, enhance biodiversity, and/or achieve other management objectives on a site by site basis. There is no ‘one-size-fits-all' approach to vegetation management. Staff will include GHG emissions as a factor in determining appropriate management techniques and will continue to incorporate new technology, new practices, and new tools to reduce emissions associated with District operations. Research is ongoing for the other two SAP topics, ecological monitoring and recreation benefits and tradeoffs, both of which are two-year efforts concluding in the latter half of 2021. The next step for those topics will be a Board meeting in early 2021 at which time SFEI and Point Blue will present progress reports. At this same meeting, the Board will have the opportunity to select a fourth topic for research by the SAP. Attachment(s) 1. Attachment 1: Final Report on the SAP Grazing Topic 2. Attachment 2: Map of Grazed Properties Responsible Department Head: Kirk Lenington, Natural Resources Prepared by/Contact person: Sophie Christel, Management Analyst I, Natural Resources Livestock grazing and its effects on ecosystem structure, processes, and conservation PREPARED BY San Francisco Estuary Institute with support from Point Blue Conservation Science AUTHORS Lydia Smith Vaughn, SFEI Stephanie Panlasigui, SFEI Erica Spotswood, SFEI PREPARED FOR Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Ph o t o b y M i d p e n i n s u l a R e g i o n a l O p e n S p a c e D i s t r i c t SAN FRANCISCO ESTUARY INSTITUTE PUBLICATION #1011 OCTOBER 2020 ATTACHMENT 1 Introduction 3 Grazing and grassland biodiversity 4 Effects on native and non-native grasses and forbs 4 Effects on serpentine grasslands 6 Effects on woody vegetation 7 Effects on native wildlife 7 Limitations to the scientific literature 8 Grazing and climate protection 9 Livestock management and soil carbon sequestration 9 Other approaches for rangeland carbon sequestration 10 Management alternatives to cattle grazing for coastal California grasslands 11 Mechanical approaches 12 Herbicide 12 Prescribed fire 12 Alternative herbivore species 13 Conclusions 14 References 15 CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Funding for this work was provided by the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District. We thank Lynn Huntsinger, Sheila Barry, Richard Conant, Rodrigo Sierra Corona, and Elizabeth Porzig for their input and review. ATTACHMENT 1 Livestock grazing and its effects • SFEI 3 Introduction The San Mateo coast has a long history of grazing. Prior to the introduction of domesticated livestock by European settlers, large herds of Tule elk and deer grazed the grasslands, oak woodlands, and shrublands of the region. For the past 200 years, grazing—predominantly by cattle, with some sheep, goats, and horses—has dominated the landscape throughout coastal central California, largely replacing the native ungulates and shaping the region’s vegetation communities. With the addition of livestock to the region, European settlers also introduced, often unintentionally, a variety of non-native annual grass species, such as slender wild oat (Avena barbata), soft chess (Bromus hordeaceus), Italian rye grass (Festuca perennis), ripgut brome (Bromus diandrus), and wild oat (Avena fatua). The non-native annual grasses are well-adapted to surviving California’s annual and interannual droughts and can quickly take advantage of high rainfall periods. They have outcompeted many of the native forbs and grasses and now dominate the vegetation across the San Mateo coast. Today, roughly two-thirds of California’s Mediterranean-type grasslands and oak woodlands are grazed by livestock (Huntsinger and Bartolome, 2014; Huntsinger and Oviedo, 2014), which plays an important role in maintaining and managing the remaining native vegetation and wildlife habitat. Over the past two centuries, however, grazing across the region has been in decline, due in part to pressures from urban development and conversion to cultivated agriculture (Brunson and Huntsinger, 2008; Huntsinger and Oviedo, 2014). The loss of rangeland in California affects both human communities and ecosystems, altering the character of historically agricultural communities, the matrix of vegetation in previously grazed lands, and the quality of habitat for wildlife. Midpen lands on the San Mateo Coast include approximately 9000 acres managed through conservation grazing leases with ranchers1. In acquiring these lands, Midpen committed to a coupled social-ecological coastside mission: “to acquire and preserve in perpetuity open space land and agricultural land of regional significance, protect and restore the natural environment, preserve rural character, encourage viable agricultural use of land resources, and provide opportunities for ecologically sensitive public enjoyment and education.” This mission is premised on the long history of land stewardship and agriculture in the region, the wishes of local residents, and the concept that livestock grazing can support conservation. To evaluate this premise, this report reviews the science around conservation grazing—the use of grazing for biodiversity benefits—and Midpen’s goal to protect and restore the natural environment. This report offers an overview and synthesis of the peer-reviewed scientific literature on (a) livestock grazing and grassland biodiversity, (b) livestock grazing and climate protection, and (c) alternatives to livestock grazing for meeting Midpen management goals, including wildfire risk management. To address the conservation grazing practiced on Midpen lands, this review places special emphasis on low-intensity grazing and the use of grazing to support specific ecological outcomes. 1 The actual area grazed by cattle is smaller, because it excludes areas within the lease where steep terrain, dense brush, or other characteristics make the land unsuitable for grazing; cattle are kept out of these areas with fencing or natural barriers. Livestock grazing and its effects on ecosystem structure, processes, and conservation Provided to Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District by the San Francisco Estuary Institute with support from Point Blue Conservation Science ATTACHMENT 1 Livestock grazing and its effects • SFEI 4 The effects of livestock grazing on ecological processes depend on ecosystem characteristics such as the vegetation composition, seasonal patterns of growth, and climate factors like precipitation and drought. California’s Mediterranean ecosystems are characterized by mild, wet winters that foster abundant vegetation growth and a long summer period of drought. This combination makes California’s ecosystems particularly vulnerable to wildfire, and high variability in the amount and timing of rainfall often confounds California-based studies of vegetation change and responses to management (Huntsinger et al., 2007). Indeed, the effects of various management and restoration practices in individual studies are generally constrained by the rainfall patterns during the study period. This leads to seasonal, interannual, and regional variability in effects, which make it challenging to make predictions across space and time on how livestock grazing influences ecosystem properties. In the context of this variability, this report prioritizes studies, as available, from the San Mateo coast or other similar ecosystems in coastal Central California. Grazing and grassland biodiversity California grasslands are biodiversity hotspots. Though severely altered by exotic species invasions, these grasslands support a diverse community of native plants and animals with a large number of endangered and threatened species (Bartolome et al., 2014; Myers et al., 2000). Because of its unique climate and isolation by sea and mountain ranges, the state’s grasslands have a high proportion of endemic species (Bartolome et al 2014). Livestock grazing in this region influences grassland biodiversity through effects on vegetation composition, function, and structure, by reducing the buildup of herbaceous vegetation and litter (dead plant material) and maintaining the heterogeneous mix of vegetation heights, and bare ground patches that certain native wildlife species require (Gennet et al., 2017). Additionally, grazing plays an indirect role in local biodiversity conservation by increasing the viability of local ranching operations that maintain large areas of open grassland. In the highly developed Bay Area, ranchers commonly rely on a combination of public and private rangelands (Sulak and Huntsinger, 2007), and access to public grazing leases can be critical for maintaining ranching operations and protecting private ranches from development (Brunson and Huntsinger, 2008). EFFECTS ON NATIVE AND NON-NATIVE GRASSES AND FORBS Given the long history of grazing in the central coast of California, numerous studies have evaluated the effects of livestock grazing on grassland vegetation composition in the region. These studies include experimental treatments with livestock exclosures (e.g., Hatch et al., 1999; Skaer et al., 2013) or livestock introductions (e.g., Gornish et al., 2018), observational studies across previously grazed and highlight: Several general trends emerge from the literature on livestock grazing and grassland biodiversity in central coastal California. Grazing often benefits native forbs, as livestock preferentially consume introduced grasses, reduce vegetation height and cover, and limit dead plant material, effects that also benefit native songbirds and other wildlife species. Targeted, seasonal grazing can be an effective tool to manage medusahead, yellow starthistle, and other invasive species of concern, and grazing can halt or limit the process of coyote brush encroachment that often occurs in coastal grasslands in the absence of fire. Maintaining a mosaic across the landscapes of grazed sites, ungrazed sites, and different grazing regimes can benefit the various plant and wildlife species present on Midpen lands. ATTACHMENT 1 Livestock grazing and its effects • SFEI 5 ungrazed sites (e.g., Hayes and Holl, 2003a), and simulated grazing through vegetation clipping and litter manipulations (e.g., Hayes and Holl, 2003b; Holl and Hayes, 2006). In general, such studies have found that livestock grazing significantly alters the cover and richness (number of species present) of the various plant guilds such as annual and perennial grasses and forbs. The nature of this relationship, however, depends on specifics of the site, grazing system, and study design, with the presence or absence of livestock on the landscape and/or the intensity or timing of grazing demonstrating varied effects on native and introduced grasses and forbs. The historical composition of the region’s grassland vegetation is not well understood, but ecological evidence and historical accounts suggest that the grasslands of the San Mateo coast were once dominated by native perennial bunchgrasses such as purple needlegrass (Stipa [Nasella] pulchra) and California oatgrass (Danthonia californica), with interspersed annual forbs (Evett and Bartolome, 2013). Studies evaluating the effects of livestock grazing on these native perennial grasses have reported mixed findings, with grazing shown in some cases to have no effect on native perennial cover or richness (Hayes and Holl, 2003a; White, 1967), or in other cases to either increase or decrease native perennial cover and establishment success, depending on the specific grass species, site, experimental treatment, and soil characteristics (George et al., 2013; Hatch et al., 1999). In general, the effects of grazing on native perennial grasses in California’s Mediterranean grasslands are understood to be small relative to effects on native forbs or introduced species (reviewed in Bartolome et al., 2014; Huntsinger et al., 2007; Stahlheber and D’Antonio, 2013). Few of the existing studies, however, occurred on the San Mateo Coast or other coastal grasslands (e.g., Hatch et al., 1999; Hayes and Holl, 2003a), making it challenging to draw conclusions specific to Midpen lands. Coastal grasslands. (photo by Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District) ATTACHMENT 1 Livestock grazing and its effects • SFEI 6 A number of studies from central coastal California have found that livestock grazing benefits native forbs, more so than native grasses (reviewed in Bartolome et al., 2014; Stahlheber and D’Antonio, 2013). Cattle preferentially consume introduced grasses and maintain low levels of residual dry matter, two preferences that generally have the effect of favoring the success of native annual forbs over introduced grass species. Specific findings, however, have been mixed across sites, plant guilds, and studies (e.g., Gornish et al., 2018; Hayes and Holl, 2003b, 2003a; Holl and Hayes, 2006; Mariotte et al., 2017). One of the most well-cited studies from the region, for instance, surveyed paired grazed and ungrazed sites along a coastal California transect, finding that grazing increased annual native forb richness and cover but decreased the cover of perennial native forbs (Hayes and Holl, 2003a). Other studies have found either no effects of grazing on native forb cover (Hayes and Holl, 2003b) or a range of outcomes, such as a field experiment near Santa Cruz that found cattle exclusion to have highly variable effects on native plant cover when compared across years and plots (Hayes and Holl, 2011). At the same site, vegetation clipping was found to increase the seedling survival and flower production of Santa Cruz tarplant (Holocarpha macradenia), an endangered native annual forb (Holl and Hayes, 2006), suggesting that by maintaining short-statured vegetation, grazing enhances the viability of certain native forb species. Given the breadth of effects of livestock grazing on individual plant guilds and species, a common recommendation of many of these studies is to maintain a mosaic across the landscape of grazed sites, ungrazed sites, and different grazing regimes. In addition to these effects on native vegetation, livestock grazing has been found to have significant impacts on non-native forbs. On the one hand, livestock grazing has been found to increase the cover and richness of non-native forbs (Harrison et al., 2003; Hayes and Holl, 2003a; Skaer et al., 2013). On the other hand, grazing can be strategically applied to benefit native forbs and control non-native species, particularly invasive species of concern. Grazing targeted to specific species and seasons may be more effective than continuous, year-round grazing (Stahlheber and D’Antonio, 2013). By targeting seed production of medusahead (Taeniatherum caput-medusae), yellow starthistle (Centaurea solstitialis), and other invasive species, late-spring and early-summer cattle grazing have been shown to reduce invasive cover and increase native cover, more so than year-round or summer-fall grazing (George et al., 2013; Harrison et al., 2003). A study in the Western Sacramento Valley foothills found that high-intensity sheep grazing in April and May reduced medusahead cover by 86-100% and increased forb cover, native species richness, and plant diversity, effects that were not observed with early spring or fall grazing (DiTomaso et al., 2008). Removal of wet-season grazing for four years increased medusahead percent cover in a blue oak woodland (Reiner and Craig, 2011), and a meta-analysis of CA-wide studies found that winter or early spring grazing benefits native grassland species, particularly forbs (Stahlheber and D’Antonio, 2013). EFFECTS ON SERPENTINE GRASSLANDS Within the matrix of grasslands in central coastal California, serpentine grasslands offer hotspots of native biodiversity and are home to a large number of endangered or federally listed species, many of which are endemic (Murphy and Weiss, 1988; Safford et al., 2005). The low nutrient availability, low calcium levels, and high metal concentrations in serpentine grasslands limit invasibility by introduced species and provide a refuge for native vegetation and wildlife. However, nitrogen deposition from vehicles and other combustion sources has been shown to favor non-native vegetation over native species, threatening the sensitive communities persisting in these systems (Weiss, 1999). While Midpen’s grazing program does not currently include any serpentine sites, a large portion of the literature on grazing and grassland biodiversity from the central coast of California pertains to serpentine ATTACHMENT 1 Livestock grazing and its effects • SFEI 7 grasslands. Several studies from central California have demonstrated the importance of livestock grazing in maintaining serpentine grassland communities, finding that grazing generally benefits native plants and decreases non-native cover, particularly in the presence of background nitrogen deposition (Beck et al., 2015; Funk et al., 2015; Harrison et al., 2003; Pasari et al., 2014). In a Coyote Ridge serpentine grassland, for example, a livestock grazing and nitrogen fertilization experiment found that livestock exclusion decreased native plant richness and that non-native plant cover decreased with increased grazing intensity, effects that were more pronounced in fertilized plots (Pasari et al., 2014). An additional report from the same site found that grazing decreased non-native plant cover and increased the native vegetation cover, diversity and temporal community stability, a potentially important factor for insect pollinators (Beck et al., 2015). Other studies from the San Mateo coast have linked livestock grazing in serpentine sites to the persistence of dwarf plantain (Plantago erecta), an important host plant for the endangered Bay Checkerspot Butterfly, endemic to Bay Area serpentine grasslands (Funk et al., 2015; Weiss, 1999). EFFECTS ON WOODY VEGETATION In addition to its effects on herbaceous vegetation, livestock grazing in coastal California plays a role in the distribution of herbaceous and woody vegetation and may limit shrub encroachment, notably by coyote brush (Baccharis pilularis). Coyote brush encroachment into coastal grasslands has been extensive in coastal California over the past 100 years, and is widely attributed in part to exclusion of livestock grazing and fire suppression, though climate change may also play a role (Callaway and Davis, 1993; Keeley, 2005; McBride and Heady, 1968; McBride, 1974). Both observational and experimental studies have documented patterns of encroachment over both the short term (1-3 year experiments) and long term (20-50 years) associated with fire removal and the absence of grazing. Repeated aerial imagery from the central coast showed that unburned plots without livestock transitioned from grassland to coastal sage scrub at higher rates than unburned, grazed plots (Callaway and Davis, 1993), and aerial images of four parks in the East Bay showed widespread shrub expansion between 1935 and 1965 (McBride and Heady, 1968). In a seedling exclosure experiment at the same site, all coyote brush seedlings in unfenced plots were eaten or trampled by livestock within weeks, leading the authors to conclude that exclusion of fire and livestock likely contributes to coyote brush encroachment (McBride and Heady, 1968). Effects of coyote brush encroachment into coastal California grasslands include a loss of abundance and diversity of herbaceous species and an increase in fire hazard. At Jasper Ridge, abundance of all herbaceous species have been shown to decline greatly where coyote brush forms a closed canopy, (Hobbs and Mooney, 1986), and a Tule elk exclusion study at Point Reyes has linked increased shrub cover to a loss of plant richness due to declines in herbaceous species that do not grow beneath shrubs (Johnson and Cushman, 2007). At the same time, coyote brush is broadly considered “fire-hazardous.” As stands age, the proportion of highly flammable dead material increases, and shrubs can increase fire hazard and fire intensity (Schwilk, 2003). Additionally, shrub expansion in central coastal California has been linked to broader changes in the matrix of vegetation communities. Successional patterns in coastal California indicate that shrub encroachment facilitates grassland transition to woodland (Callaway and Davis, 1998; Hsu et al., 2012; McBride, 1974), as in a Jasper Ridge study in which coyote brush stands at least 15 years old were seen to facilitate oak recruitment (Zavaleta and Kettley, 2006). EFFECTS ON NATIVE WILDLIFE Through its effects on vegetation, livestock grazing is understood to benefit wildlife species that rely on native host plants, short or heterogeneous vegetation, or distributed water bodies for food, ATTACHMENT 1 Livestock grazing and its effects • SFEI 8 movement, refuge, or breeding. The endangered Bay Checkerspot Butterfly is a well-studied example of a species whose persistence has been linked to livestock grazing. A study from serpentine sites on the San Francisco Peninsula documented population crashes of the Bay Checkerspot Butterfly following the cessation of grazing, due to the replacement of host plant and nectar sources by non-native grasses (Weiss, 1999). For grassland birds, grazing has been shown to maintain foraging and breeding habitat. Burrowing owls require the short vegetation and matrix of open sites maintained by grazing livestock (Haug and Oliphaunt 1990), and a study in the Diablo range linked livestock grazing to native songbird conservation through the positive effects of grazing on native vegetation cover and structural heterogeneity (Gennet et al., 2017). Grazing has various benefits for California red-legged frog (Bartolome et al., 2014), as ground squirrel burrows in grazed lands offer refuge from predation (Fehmi et al., 2005; Schieltz and Rubenstein, 2016; Tatarian, 2008) and stock ponds are used for breeding or foraging (Alvarez et al., 2013). Stock ponds also provide foraging habitat for the endangered San Francisco garter snake (Preston and Johnson, 2012). LIMITATIONS TO THE SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE While numerous studies have evaluated the effects of grazing on native grassland biodiversity, variations in study design and site-specific outcomes make it challenging to draw clear and specific conclusions. Observational paired-plot studies such as Hayes and Holl (2003a) capture long-term, regional-scale differences between grazed and ungrazed sites, but obscure potentially important effects of variable grazing practices. With more focused experimental studies, the scope of inference is limited to the specific system and the specific experimental treatment, and results of short-term grazing manipulation studies may differ from long-term effects (e.g., Hayes and Holl, 2003a vs. Hayes and Holl 2003b). Livestock exclosure experiments test the effects of livestock removal, but may not pertain equally to the effects of grazing per se. Finally, the effects of grazing on grassland biodiversity may depend on a particular site’s land management history. Historical cultivation, for example, which was widespread in grasslands of the San Mateo coast, can influence the effects of grazing on grassland vegetation communities (Stromberg and Griffin, 1996). Coastal grasslands. (photo by Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District) ATTACHMENT 1 Livestock grazing and its effects • SFEI 9 Grazing and climate protection Livestock grazing is a net source of greenhouse gases to the atmosphere. Methane, a powerful greenhouse gas, is produced in the guts of cattle, sheep, and other ruminants by microbes that aid in their digestion. Globally, methane emitted by livestock accounts for nearly a third of total anthropogenic methane emissions (Jackson et al., 2020), and is a well-known contributor to climate change. A single grass-fed cow emits approximately 80-100 kg of methane to the atmosphere each year (Allard et al., 2007; Harper et al., 1999), roughly equivalent to half the annual carbon dioxide emissions from a gas-powered car.2 With low stocking rates and seasonal land use, methane emissions from Midpen’s grazing program are far lower than those from industrial livestock systems, when considered on a per-acre basis. Nevertheless, cattle grazing on Midpen lands is a source of methane and other greenhouse gases, presenting a tradeoff between climate protection and other management goals. LIVESTOCK MANAGEMENT AND SOIL CARBON SEQUESTRATION Given the carbon footprint associated with livestock production, numerous studies have evaluated opportunities to reduce or offset these greenhouse gas emissions (Crosson et al., 2011; DeRamus et al., 2003; Harper et al., 1999; Henderson et al., 2015; Herrero et al., 2016; Pelletier et al., 2010; Smith et al., 2008). Management interventions to reduce livestock emissions include agricultural intensification (increased agricultural production per acre), improvements to livestock feed, manure management, and enhanced soil carbon sequestration through altered stocking rates, fertilization or compost applications, land conversion, fire management, and high-intensity rotational grazing (where paddocks are rotated between periods of intensive grazing and rest) (Conant et al., 2017; Schuman et al., 2002). In general, these interventions can offset some, but not all, of the greenhouse gas emissions associated with livestock production (Herrero et al., 2016). Among the suite of livestock-related greenhouse gas management strategies, managing rangelands to sequester soil carbon is the most relevant to conservation grazing on Midpen lands. In California rangelands, livestock grazing affects soil carbon through a variety of mechanisms (reviewed in Conant et al., 2017; Piñeiro et al., 2010; Schuman et al., 2002). Grazing can alter carbon input rates into soils by changing aboveground and belowground vegetation production, and can increase or decrease soil carbon losses through decomposition and leaching. On longer timescales, grazing influences these carbon input and output rates indirectly through effects on vegetation composition, soil quality, and nutrient availability. Given this complex suite of interacting factors, livestock grazing affects soil carbon storage in variable and system-dependent ways (Abdalla et al., 2018; Conant et al., 2017; McSherry and Ritchie, 2013), making it challenging to predict how livestock management may translate to soil carbon sequestration, particularly under California’s highly variable precipitation regimes. 2 Estimated using the 100-year global warming potential for methane highlight: Grazing on Midpen lands confers a number of ecological benefits, but the presence of livestock, particularly cattle, entails a cost to the climate from methane and other greenhouse gas emissions. To minimize this tradeoff between climate impacts and other land stewardship goals, conservation grazing may be coupled with other strategies to offset carbon emissions. Increased riparian fencing to promote natural regeneration is an example of such a strategy, which can sequester carbon in vegetation and soil while improving habitat for local wildlife. ATTACHMENT 1 Livestock grazing and its effects • SFEI 10 Predicting the effects of grazing on soil carbon storage is particularly difficult for coastal California, where there is a limited amount of primary research. In general, California-based studies have found that effects of cattle grazing on soil carbon storage are small relative to the effects of vegetation composition (Camping, 2002; Carey et al., 2020; Dahlgren et al., 1997; Silver et al., 2010). However, most studies from California are from other regions of the state and compare only the presence or absence of grazing rather than specific management systems. Of those studies that report grazing intensity or seasonality, very few evaluate very low- or high-intensity grazing or year-round or dormant season grazing (Carey et al., 2020). In sum, existing research suggests that optimizing livestock grazing for soil carbon sequestration is probably not an effective strategy to offset greenhouse gas emissions. Given the scarcity of literature, however, management decisions may benefit from future site-specific research targeting specific management practices such as high-intensity rotational grazing. OTHER APPROACHES FOR RANGELAND CARBON SEQUESTRATION To offset livestock carbon emissions, compost amendments are an alternative strategy to sequester carbon in California rangeland soils. Supporting this approach, data from two California sites suggest that compost applications may sequester ~0.16 metric tons of carbon per acre per year over a 10-year period (Ryals et al., 2015) while increasing the productivity and drought resilience of vegetation (Ryals et al., 2016; Ryals and Silver, 2013), important co-benefits for ranchers. While these findings are promising from a carbon sequestration perspective, they are based on a very small number of measurements from only two sites that may not reflect the conditions and sequestration potential of other California grasslands (Carey et al., 2020). Additionally, the effects of compost on vegetation communities are not well understood, particularly whether increased nitrogen availability and increased drought resilience benefit more nitrogen-loving and drought-intolerant species (Hallett et al., 2017; Ryals et al., 2016). For Midpen lands, where native grassland biodiversity is a primary management priority, widespread compost applications may present a risky approach to offset cattle-based greenhouse gas emissions. Further research or pilot projects would be warranted to evaluate the potential carbon gains and biodiversity tradeoffs of organic matter amendments. While much of the research on rangeland carbon is focused on soil carbon sequestration, livestock grazing in California influences carbon storage through the distribution of woody and herbaceous vegetation. In Jasper Ridge, 25 years of shrub encroachment was found to increase ecosystem carbon storage by 40 metric tons per acre, or roughly 1.6 tons of carbon per acre per year (Zavaleta and Kettley, 2006). While much of this increase was in aboveground vegetation, soil carbon stocks were seen to increase as well, a finding that aligns with other California-based studies that have found no differences in soil carbon storage between grazed and ungrazed plots, but up to 2x the carbon storage in soils beneath woody vegetation relative to open Jasper Ridge. (courtesy of CC 2.0, photo by quintin) ATTACHMENT 1 Livestock grazing and its effects • SFEI 11 annual grassland (Camping, 2002; Dahlgren et al., 1997; Silver et al., 2010). A recent review of the literature on California rangelands identified silvopasture, or managing for the presence of oak trees, as an effective means to increase soil carbon storage and fertility in grazed California grasslands (Carey et al., 2020), and restoration or natural regeneration of riparian forest has been seen to sequester carbon in vegetation and soils at rates of ~1.5 tons per acre per year over the first 2-3 decades (Dybala et al., 2019; Matzek et al., 2015; Matzek et al., 2020). These findings support managing for woody cover to sequester carbon in rangelands, with the caveat that these effects have not been well studied in California perennial grasslands, where deep- rooted perennial grasses promote higher soil carbon storage than annual grassland systems (Koteen et al., 2011). In annual-dominated rangelands, research suggests that targeting areas for woody regeneration—by promoting oak regeneration or fencing riparian areas that are currently grazed—offers a promising opportunity to sequester carbon without detracting from biodiversity goals (Dybala et al., 2019). Management alternatives to cattle grazing for coastal California grasslands Where conservation grazing is practiced on Midpen lands, it continues to shape the composition and structure of vegetation, on both small scales and landscape scales. Livestock grazing on Midpen lands not only supports Midpen’s commitment to preserve the rural agricultural heritage of the region, but also contributes to vegetation management in support of native biodiversity. Across California, livestock grazing is also widely used to limit the risk of wildfire, a management need of increasing importance as climate change and urban development increase wildfire risk across the state (Goss et al., 2020). Since the mid-20th century, an increase in wildfire across federally-managed rangelands in California has been attributed to a decline in grazing (Starrs et al., 2018), and transitions from grassland to coyote brush-dominated shrublands increase the risk of high- intensity fire (Russell and McBride, 2003). These findings suggest that by reducing herbaceous biomass and limiting certain woody fuels, grazing can change wildfire behavior to reduce fire intensity and decrease flame height, important for the success and safety of firefighting efforts (Davies et al., 2016). On longer timescales, carbon sequestered in California rangelands may be more stable and resilient than forest carbon stocks due to climate change-induced increases in wildfire risk (Dass et al., 2018). highlight: In the absence of cattle grazing, several alternatives exist for managing fire risk or native grassland biodiversity. Commonly used practices include mechanical approaches, herbicide, prescribed fire, and grazing with multiple or alternative species such as sheep, goats, or Tule elk. Used in combination or alone, these practices have been widely applied in other settings for weed and brush control, but vary in their suitability across the diverse terrain, vegetation, and management needs of Midpen lands. Where these practices are too expensive, risky, ineffective, or otherwise poorly suited for large-scale management of Midpen lands, livestock grazing has been shown to be an effective alternative or complementary method. ATTACHMENT 1 Livestock grazing and its effects • SFEI 12 A number of methods can be used to manage wildfire risk and control invasive species in California grasslands. In addition to cattle grazing, these methods include mechanical vegetation removal, herbicide applications, prescribed fire, and grazing or browsing by species other than cattle. Each of these methods may be applied beneficially on certain terrain or habitat types within Midpen lands, but each has shortcomings or challenges. In many instances, these methods are most effective when used in combination rather than alone (DiTomaso 2000). For example, grazing combined with prescribed fire or mechanical shrub removal has been identified as the best way to control fuels for wildfire risk management (Nader et al., 2007). Accordingly, each of these options may best be seen as a complement, rather than an alternative, to conservation livestock grazing. MECHANICAL APPROACHES Mowing, hand-pulling, and other mechanized treatment can be used to maintain open grassland and target invasive species. Mowing and hand control are commonly used invasive species control measures in other systems (Aslan et al., 2009; DiTomaso, 2000; Kephart, 2001; Matzek and Hill, 2012) and can be highly effective at reducing the cover of non-native and invasive species. These methods, however, are expensive, are only feasible on gentle terrain, carry a large carbon footprint, and are not likely to lead to the type of structural heterogeneity created by livestock grazing (Aslan et al., 2009; DiTomaso, 2000; Kephart, 2001; Wolf et al., 2017). In serpentine outcrops, for example, mowing is largely infeasible due to rocky and steep terrain, whereas grazing has been shown repeatedly to benefit native vegetation and wildlife (Beck et al., 2015; Funk et al., 2015; Harrison et al., 2003; Pasari et al., 2014). Midpen uses biological monitors during mowing to avoid direct wildlife mortality, particularly important due to the widespread presence of the federally threatened California red-legged frog on the San Mateo coast. This monitoring adds to the expense of treatment, as do annual pre- and post-treatment assessments that Midpen requires when mowing is used for brush management. Mechanical treatment can also contribute to erosion by disturbing soil and in some cases can worsen species invasions, for example by spreading seeds (Aslan et al., 2009). HERBICIDE Herbicide application is one of the most effective management strategies for invasive species control and is widely used in rangelands across the western United States (Aslan et al., 2009; DiTomaso, 2000; Holl et al., 2014; Kephart, 2001; Nafus and Davies, 2014; Peters et al., 1996). Herbicide applications are used in targeted applications on Midpen lands. To mitigate environmental and human health concerns, Midpen incorporates a thorough review of the scientific literature, screening each herbicide for toxicity to humans and other organisms, persistence and mobility in the environment, and efficacy against target invasive species. Herbicide applications, however, are more expensive than grazing, and several of the herbicides used (e.g., glyphosate or imazapyr) are non-selective and toxic to all woody and herbaceous plants, making them appropriate for spot applications to individual plants rather than broadcast treatments (DiTomaso 2000). With these considerations, herbicide offers an effective complement to Midpen’s grazing program to be used in targeted applications, rather than a replacement for the large-scale vegetation management that conservation grazing offers. PRESCRIBED FIRE Prescribed fire is commonly used in California to manage invasive species, maintain open grassland, and reduce the risk of high-intensity wildfire (Halstead et al., 2019; Keeley, 2002; Newman et al., 2018; ATTACHMENT 1 Livestock grazing and its effects • SFEI 13 Potts et al., 2010; Potts and Stephens, 2009). Fire is a natural process on the San Mateo coast, but fire suppression and cessation of Native American burning have reduced the frequency of fire on Midpen and surrounding lands (Keeley, 2002). Controlled burns, or prescribed fire, aim to reintroduce fire to the landscape in ways that reduce the risk of severe wildfire while benefiting the local ecosystem. In coordination with local fire agencies, Midpen’s wildfire management policy includes the use of prescribed fire to manage fuel loads and invasive species. The scientific literature generally supports this policy, indicating that prescribed fire can be an effective component of open space management. However, the effects of prescribed fire on invasive and native species may depend on site characteristics, burning frequency, and the timing of the burn. In particular, multiple consecutive years of prescribed burning are often required for effective invasive species control. Selective burning has been used as an effective management strategy for medusahead control, but burning must be timed to coincide with late spring seedhead production, which can be dangerous in dry years, and repeated burning in consecutive years may be needed to sufficiently reduce the viable seedbank (Nafus and Davies, 2014). In central California, fire has been successfully used to manage barbed goatgrass, but only with two consecutive years of burning (DiTomaso et al., 2001), and prescribed fire has been seen to reduce yellow starthistle cover and seedbank while benefiting native vegetation, more so after two or three consecutive annual burns (DiTomaso et al., 1999). Similarly, a study in Point Pinole Regional Shoreline found that two consecutive years of prescribed burns yielded a significant reduction of coyote brush encroachment relative to unburned plots, with minimal impacts on native herbaceous species of concern (Hopkinson et al., 2020). With careful planning and execution, prescribed fire can be a beneficial vegetation management strategy for Midpen lands. Addressing concerns about sensitive wildlife species, studies have found prescribed fire to be compatible with conservation of San Francisco garter snake and chaparral bird communities (Halstead et al., 2019; Newman et al., 2018). As with mechanical approaches and herbicide, however, the use of fire may not present a viable replacement for livestock grazing. Prescribed fire is expensive, requires permitting, may not be practical over large areas, and cannot be conducted with enough frequency or selectivity to control annual vegetation (e.g., DiTomaso et al., 2001, DiTomaso et al., 1999, Nafus and Davies, 2014). It is broadly understood, also, that prescribed burning releases greenhouse gases and has negative impacts on air quality—though generally less severely than wildfire. Rather than a standalone management tool, prescribed fire may thus be most effectively used in conjunction with grazing to address wildfire risk and invasive species concerns across the variety of Midpen lands. ALTERNATIVE HERBIVORE SPECIES Herbivores other than cattle, such as sheep and goats, can be employed for targeted grazing to combat shrub encroachment, manage fire risk, and manage invasive species. For wildfire risk management, grazing and browsing by sheep and goats can reduce herbaceous and woody fuels, with goats particularly effective at limiting shrub encroachment and reducing ladder fuels (Tsiouvaras et al., 1989). While few peer-reviewed studies have addressed this topic, livestock—particularly goats—have been seen to be most effective at controlling woody vegetation when they are concentrated in small areas for short periods of time, which encourages them to consume less palatable woody forage (Nader et al., 2007). In addition to controlling woody brush, grazing by goats and sheep can effectively manage invasive herbaceous species such as yellow starthistle, if timed appropriately to match the plant’s life stage with foraging preferences (Thomsen et al., 1993). As a complement to cattle, goats and sheep thus present an effective vegetation management strategy, particularly on steep terrain where other brush control methods may not be feasible. Like cattle, however, goats and sheep are ruminants, releasing methane to the atmosphere that ATTACHMENT 1 Livestock grazing and its effects • SFEI 14 is produced by gut microbes that break down fiber that is indigestible to other mammals. Additionally, a shift to grazing by smaller animals can increase the risk of livestock-predator conflict and may benefit from investment in a non-lethal predator deterrent such as guard animals or shepherds (Andelt, 2004; Macon et al., 2018). Tule elk may also be managed to meet conservation objectives. Studies from point Reyes have found that in fenced/unfenced plots, grazing by Tule elk limited shrub encroachment and increased the richness of native annual plant species (Johnson and Cushman, 2007), and limited invasion in grassland habitat by a nonnative grass species (Ender et al., 2017). Elk are challenging to manage, however. They require more robust fencing than cattle and other smaller livestock (Watt, 2015), and managing herd sizes can present a challenge with elk reintroductions (Howell et al., 2002). Like the other herbivores mentioned above, elk are ruminants and release methane to the atmosphere as well. Conclusions The grasslands of central coastal California have been shaped in part by a long history of grazing, by native ungulates in the historical landscape and by introduced livestock for the past 200 years. Today, livestock grazing on the San Mateo Coast continues to influence the matrix of grassland and wooded sites, the composition and structure of herbaceous vegetation, and the quality of habitat for numerous wildlife species. By acquiring grazed lands on the San Mateo Coast, Midpen committed to preserving both the region’s agricultural character and its open grassland systems that host a large number of sensitive plant and animal species. There are many ways to graze. At the global scale, livestock grazing has had devastating consequences for biodiversity and the climate through land clearing, habitat loss, overgrazing, and greenhouse gas emissions (Asner et al., 2004). In stark contrast, livestock are managed on Midpen lands through a conservation grazing program that is tailored to the unique ecology of California’s Mediterranean grasslands. This program entails low stocking rates, residual dry matter (RDM) targets, biodiversity monitoring to support data-driven management decisions, and fencing of riparian areas, while maintaining wetland habitat in Midpen’s ~100 ponds, the majority of which are stock ponds. Following these practices, grazing by cattle and other livestock can be a beneficial management tool to protect open grassland, increase the richness and cover of native grassland plants, control the spread of invasive species, and offer suitable habitat for native wildlife, including sensitive species like California red-legged frog. The existing scientific literature generally supports Midpen’s use of livestock grazing to achieve its management goals. However, while numerous studies have evaluated the effects of livestock grazing on ecosystem properties, only a subset of studies have been conducted on the San Mateo Coast or other coastal California grasslands, making it challenging to draw conclusions specific to Midpen lands. As research in this field continues, findings may emerge that are directly relevant to management on Midpen lands on the San Mateo Coast. Opportunities for further research on Midpen lands would be particularly valuable for informing management decisions and contributing to the existing literature. An adaptive and science-based management approach is recommended as more research becomes available. Cattle at a stockpond. (photo by Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District) ATTACHMENT 1 Livestock grazing and its effects • SFEI 15 References Abdalla, M., Hastings, A., Chadwick, D.R., Jones, D.L., Evans, C.D., Jones, M.B., Rees, R.M., Smith, P., 2018. Critical review of the impacts of grazing intensity on soil organic carbon storage and other soil quality indicators in extensively managed grasslands. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 253, 62–81. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.agee.2017.10.023 Allard, V., Soussana, J.-F., Falcimagne, R., Berbigier, P., Bonnefond, J.M., Ceschia, E., D’hour, P., Hénault, C., Laville, P., Martin, C., Pinarès-Patino, C., 2007. The role of grazing management for the net biome productivity and greenhouse gas budget (CO2, N2O and CH4) of semi-natural grassland. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ., The Greenhouse Gas Balance of Grasslands in Europe 121, 47–58. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.agee.2006.12.004 Alvarez, J.A., Cook, D.G., Yee, J.L., van Hattem, M.G., Fong, D.R., Fisher, R.N., 2013. Comparative microhabitat characteristics at oviposition sites of the California Red-legged Frog (Rana draytonii). Herpetol. Conserv. Biol. 8, 539–551. Andelt, W.F., 2004. Use of livestock guarding animals to reduce predation on livestock. Sheep Goat Res. J. 3. Aslan, C.E., Hufford, M.B., Epanchin-Niell, R.S., Port, J.D., Sexton, J.P., Waring, T.M., 2009. Practical Challenges in Private Stewardship of Rangeland Ecosystems: Yellow Starthistle Control in Sierra Nevadan Foothills. Rangel. Ecol. Manag. 62, 28–37. https://doi.org/10.2111/07-123 Asner, G.P., Elmore, A.J., Olander, L.P., Martin, R.E., Harris, A.T., 2004. Grazing systems, ecosystem responses, and global change. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 29, 261–299. https://doi.org/10.1146/ annurev.energy.29.062403.102142 Bartolome, J.W., Allen-Diaz, B.H., Barry, S., Ford, L.D., Hammond, M., Hopkinson, P., Ratcliff, F., Spiegal, S., White, M.D., 2014. Grazing for Biodiversity in Californian Mediterranean Grasslands. Rangelands 36, 36–43. https://doi.org/10.2111/Rangelands-D-14-00024.1 Beck, J.J., Hernández, D.L., Pasari, J.R., Zavaleta, E.S., 2015. Grazing maintains native plant diversity and promotes community stability in an annual grassland. Ecol. Appl. 25, 1259–1270. https://doi. org/10.1890/14-1093.1 Bohnenblust, E.W., Vaudo, A.D., Egan, J.F., Mortensen, D.A., Tooker, J.F., 2016. Effects of the herbicide dicamba on nontarget plants and pollinator visitation. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 35, 144–151. https://doi. org/10.1002/etc.3169 Brunson, M.W., Huntsinger, L., 2008. Ranching as a conservation strategy: can old ranchers save the new west? Rangel. Ecol. Manag. 61, 137–147. Callaway, R.M., Davis, F.W., 1998. Recruitment of Quercus agrifolia in central California: the importance of shrub‐dominated patches. J. Veg. Sci. 9, 647–656. https://doi.org/10.2307/3237283 Callaway, R.M., Davis, F.W., 1993. Vegetation Dynamics, Fire, and the Physical Environment in Coastal Central California. Ecology 74, 1567–1578. https://doi.org/10.2307/1940084 ATTACHMENT 1 Livestock grazing and its effects • SFEI 16 Camping, 2002. Proceedings of the Fifth Symposium on Oak Woodlands: Oaks in California’s Changing Landscape, October 22-25, 2001, San Diego, California. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station. Carey, C.J., Gravuer, K., Gennet, S., Osleger, D., Wood, S.A., 2020. Supporting evidence varies for rangeland management practices that seek to improve soil properties and forage production in California. Calif. Agric. 74, 101–111. https://doi.org/10.3733/ca.2020a0015 Conant, R.T., Cerri, C.E.P., Osborne, B.B., Paustian, K., 2017. Grassland management impacts on soil carbon stocks: a new synthesis. Ecol. Appl. 27, 662–668. https://doi.org/10.1002/eap.1473 Conant, R.T., Paustian, K., 2002. Potential soil carbon sequestration in overgrazed grassland ecosystems. Glob. Biogeochem. Cycles 16, 90–1. https://doi.org/10.1029/2001GB001661 Crosson, P., Shalloo, L., O’Brien, D., Lanigan, G.J., Foley, P.A., Boland, T.M., Kenny, D.A., 2011. A review of whole farm systems models of greenhouse gas emissions from beef and dairy cattle production systems. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol., Special Issue: Greenhouse Gases in Animal Agriculture - Finding a Balance between Food and Emissions 166–167, 29–45. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. anifeedsci.2011.04.001 Dahlgren, R.A., Singer, M.J., Huang, X., 1997. Oak tree and grazing impacts on soil properties and nutrients in a California oak woodland. Biogeochemistry 39, 45–64. https://doi. org/10.1023/A:1005812621312 Dass, P., Houlton, B.Z., Wang, Y., Warlind, D., 2018. Grasslands may be more reliable carbon sinks than forests in California. Environ. Res. Lett. 13, 074027. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/aacb39 Davies, K.W., Boyd, C.S., Bates, J.D., Hulet, A., 2016. Winter grazing can reduce wildfire size, intensity and behaviour in a shrub-grassland. Int. J. Wildland Fire 25, 191–199. https://doi.org/10.1071/WF15055 DeRamus, H.A., Clement, T.C., Giampola, D.D., Dickison, P.C., 2003. Methane emissions of beef cattle on forages: efficiency of grazing management systems. J. Environ. Qual. 32, 269–277. DiTomaso, J.M., 2000. Invasive weeds in rangelands: Species, impacts, and management. Weed Sci. 48, 255–265. https://doi.org/10.1614/0043-1745(2000)048[0255:IWIRSI]2.0.CO;2 DiTomaso, J.M., Kyser, G.B., George, M.R., Doran, M.P., Laca, E.A., 2008. Control of Medusahead (Taeniatherum caput-medusae) Using Timely Sheep Grazing. Invasive Plant Sci. Manag. 1, 241–247. https://doi.org/10.1614/IPSM-07-031.1 DiTomaso, J., Heise, K., Kyser, G., Merenlender, A., Keiffer, R., 2001. Carefully timed burning can control barb goatgrass. Calif. Agric. 55, 47–53. DiTomaso, J.M., Kyser, G.B., Hastings, M.S., 1999. Prescribed Burning for Control of Yellow Starthistle (Centaurea solstitialis) and Enhanced Native Plant Diversity. Weed Sci. 47, 233–242. Dybala, K.E., Steger, K., Walsh, R.G., Smart, D.R., Gardali, T., Seavy, N.E., 2019. Optimizing carbon storage and biodiversity co‐benefits in reforested riparian zones. J. Appl. Ecol. 56, 343–353. https://doi. org/10.1111/1365-2664.13272 Ender, C.L., Christian, C.E., Cushman, J.H., 2017. Native herbivores and environmental heterogeneity as mediators of an exotic grass invasion. Ecol. Evol. 7, 1561–1571. https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.2727 ATTACHMENT 1 Livestock grazing and its effects • SFEI 17 Evett, R.R., Bartolome, J.W., 2013. Phytolith evidence for the extent and nature of prehistoric Californian grasslands. The Holocene 23, 1644–1649. Fehmi, J.S., Russo, S.E., Bartolome, J.W., 2005. The Effects of Livestock on California Ground Squirrels (Spermophilus beecheyii). Rangel. Ecol. Manag. 58, 352–359. https://doi.org/10.2111/1551- 5028(2005)058[0352:TEOLOC]2.0.CO;2 Funk, J.L., Hoffacker, M.K., Matzek, V., 2015. Summer irrigation, grazing and seed addition differentially influence community composition in an invaded serpentine grassland. Restor. Ecol. 23, 122–130. https://doi.org/10.1111/rec.12162 Gennet, S., Spotswood, E., Hammond, M., Bartolome, J.W., 2017. Livestock grazing supports native plants and songbirds in a California annual grassland. PLoS ONE 12. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal. pone.0176367 George, M.R., Larson-Praplan, S., Doran, M., Tate, K.W., 2013. Grazing Nassella: maintaining purple needlegrass in a sea of aggressive annuals. Rangelands 35, 17–21. https://doi.org/10.2111/ RANGELANDS-D-12-00077.1 Gornish, E.S., Eastburn, D.J., Oneto, S., Roche, L.M., 2018. Livestock grazing and topographic site effects on grassland plant communities after long-term grazing cessation. Rangel. J. 40, 577–582. Goss, M., Swain, D.L., Abatzoglou, J.T., Sarhadi, A., Kolden, C.A., Williams, A.P., Diffenbaugh, N.S., 2020. Climate change is increasing the likelihood of extreme autumn wildfire conditions across California. Environ. Res. Lett. 15, 094016. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/ab83a7 Hallett, L.M., Stein, C., Suding, K.N., 2017. Functional diversity increases ecological stability in a grazed grassland. Oecologia 183, 831–840. Halstead, B.J., Thompson, M.E., Amarello, M., Smith, J.J., Wylie, G.D., Routman, E.J., Casazza, M.L., 2019. Effects of prescribed fire on San Francisco gartersnake survival and movement. J. Wildl. Manag. 83, 231–240. https://doi.org/10.1002/jwmg.21585 Harper, L.A., Denmead, O.T., Freney, J.R., Byers, F.M., 1999. Direct measurements of methane emissions from grazing and feedlot cattle. J. Anim. Sci. 77, 1392–1401. https://doi.org/10.2527/1999.7761392x Harrison, S., Inouye, B.D., Safford, H.D., 2003. Ecological Heterogeneity in the Effects of Grazing and Fire on Grassland Diversity. Conserv. Biol. 17, 837–845. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1523-1739.2003.01633.x Hatch, D.A., Bartolome, J.W., Fehmi, J.S., Hillyard, D.S., 1999. Effects of Burning and Grazing on a Coastal California Grassland. Restor. Ecol. 7, 376–381. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1526-100X.1999.72032.x Hayes, G.F., Holl, K.D., 2011. Manipulating disturbance regimes and seeding to restore mesic Mediterranean grasslands. Appl. Veg. Sci. 14, 304–315. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1654- 109X.2011.01127.x Hayes, G.F., Holl, K.D., 2003a. Cattle Grazing Impacts on Annual Forbs and Vegetation Composition of Mesic Grasslands in California. Conserv. Biol. 17, 1694–1702. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523- 1739.2003.00281.x ATTACHMENT 1 Livestock grazing and its effects • SFEI 18 Hayes, G.F., Holl, K.D., 2003b. Site-specific responses of native and exotic species to disturbances in a mesic grassland community. Appl. Veg. Sci. 6, 235–244. Henderson, B.B., Gerber, P.J., Hilinski, T.E., Falcucci, A., Ojima, D.S., Salvatore, M., Conant, R.T., 2015. Greenhouse gas mitigation potential of the world’s grazing lands: Modeling soil carbon and nitrogen fluxes of mitigation practices. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 207, 91–100. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. agee.2015.03.029 Herrero, M., Henderson, B., Havlík, P., Thornton, P.K., Conant, R.T., Smith, P., Wirsenius, S., Hristov, A.N., Gerber, P., Gill, M., Butterbach-Bahl, K., Valin, H., Garnett, T., Stehfest, E., 2016. Greenhouse gas mitigation potentials in the livestock sector. Nat. Clim. Change 6, 452–461. https://doi.org/10.1038/ nclimate2925 Hobbs, R.J., Mooney, H.A., 1986. Community changes following shrub invasion of grassland. Oecologia 70, 508–513. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00379896 Holl, K.D., Hayes, G.F., 2006. Challenges to Introducing and Managing Disturbance Regimes for Holocarpha macradenia, an Endangered Annual Grassland Forb. Conserv. Biol. 20, 1121–1131. https:// doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2006.00416.x Holl, K.D., Howard, E.A., Brown, T.M., Chan, R.G., de Silva, T.S., Mann, E.T., Russell, J.A., Spangler, W.H., 2014. Efficacy of exotic control strategies for restoring coastal prairie grasses. Invasive Plant Sci. Manag. 7, 590–598. Hopkinson, P., Hammond, M., Bartolome, J.W., Macaulay, L., 2020. Using consecutive prescribed fires to reduce shrub encroachment in grassland by increasing shrub mortality. Restor. Ecol. Howell, J.A., Brooks, G.C., Semenoff-Irving, M., Greene, C., 2002. Population Dynamics of Tule Elk at Point Reyes National Seashore, California. J. Wildl. Manag. 66, 478–490. https://doi. org/10.2307/3803181 Hsu, W.-C., Remar, A., Williams, E., McClure, A., Kannan, S., Steers, R., Schmidt, C., Skiles, J.W., 2012. The changing California coast: relationships between climatic variables and coastal vegetation succession 13. Huntsinger, L., Bartolome, J.W., 2014. Cows? In California? Rangelands and Livestock in the Golden State. Rangelands 36, 4–10. https://doi.org/10.2111/Rangelands-D-14-00019.1 Huntsinger, L., Bartolome, J.W., D’Antonio, C.M., 2007. Grazing management on California’s Mediterranean grasslands, in: California Grasslands: Ecology and Management. University of California Press. https://doi.org/10.1525/california/9780520252202.001.0001 Huntsinger, L., Oviedo, J.L., 2014. Ecosystem services are social–ecological services in a traditional pastoral system: The case of California’s Mediterranean rangelands. Ecol. Soc. 19. Jackson, R.B., Saunois, M., Bousquet, P., Canadell, J.G., Poulter, B., Stavert, A.R., Bergamaschi, P., Niwa, Y., Segers, A., Tsuruta, A., 2020. Increasing anthropogenic methane emissions arise equally from agricultural and fossil fuel sources. Environ. Res. Lett. 15, 071002. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/ ab9ed2 ATTACHMENT 1 Livestock grazing and its effects • SFEI 19 Johnson, B.E., Cushman, J.H., 2007. Influence of a Large Herbivore Reintroduction on Plant Invasions and Community Composition in a California Grassland. Conserv. Biol. 21, 515–526. https://doi.org/10.1111/ j.1523-1739.2006.00610.x Keeley, J.E., 2005. Fire history of the San Francisco East Bay region and implications for landscape patterns. Int. J. Wildland Fire 14, 285. https://doi.org/10.1071/WF05003 Keeley, J.E., 2002. Fire Management of California Shrubland Landscapes. Environ. Manage. 29, 395– 408. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-001-0034-Y Keeley, J.E., 2002. Native American impacts on fire regimes of the California coastal ranges. J. Biogeogr. 29, 303–320. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2699.2002.00676.x Kephart, P., 2001. Resource management demonstration at Russian ridge preserve. Grasslands 11, 8–11. Koteen, L.E., Baldocchi, D.D., Harte, J., 2011. Invasion of non-native grasses causes a drop in soil carbon storage in California grasslands. Environ. Res. Lett. 6, 044001. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748- 9326/6/4/044001 Macon, D., Baldwin, R., Lile, D., Stackhouse, J., Rivers, C.K., Saitone, T., Schohr, T., Snell, L., Harper, J., Ingram, R., 2018. Livestock protection tools for California ranchers. Mariotte, P., Spotswood, E.N., Farrer, E.C., Suding, K.N., 2017. Positive litter feedbacks of an introduced species reduce native diversity and promote invasion in Californian grasslands. Appl. Veg. Sci. 20, 28–39. https://doi.org/10.1111/avsc.12291 Matzek, V., Hill, S. a. n. n., 2012. Response of Biomass and Seedbanks of Rangeland Functional Groups to Mechanical Control of Yellow Starthistle. Rangel. Ecol. Manag. 65, 96–100. https://doi.org/10.2111/ REM-D-11-00013.1 Matzek, V., Lewis, D., O’Geen, A., Lennox, M., Hogan, S.D., Feirer, S.T., Eviner, V., Tate, K.W., 2020. Increases in soil and woody biomass carbon stocks as a result of rangeland riparian restoration. Carbon Balance Manag. 15, 16. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13021-020-00150-7 Matzek, V., Puleston, C., Gunn, J., 2015. Can carbon credits fund riparian forest restoration? Restor. Ecol. 23, 7–14. https://doi.org/10.1111/rec.12153 McBride, J., Heady, H.F., 1968. Invasion of Grassland by Baccharis pilularis DC. J. Range Manag. 21, 106. https://doi.org/10.2307/3896366 McBride, J.R., 1974. Plant Succession In The Berkeley Hills, California. Madroño 22, 317–329. McSherry, M.E., Ritchie, M.E., 2013. Effects of grazing on grassland soil carbon: a global review. Glob. Change Biol. 19, 1347–1357. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.12144 Murphy, D.D., Weiss, S.B., 1988. Ecological studies and the conservation of the bay checkerspot butterfly, Euphydryas editha bayensis. Biol. Conserv. 46, 183–200. https://doi.org/10.1016/0006- 3207(88)90067-5 Myers, N., Mittermeier, R.A., Mittermeier, C.G., da Fonseca, G.A.B., Kent, J., 2000. Biodiversity hotspots for conservation priorities. Nature 403, 853–858. ATTACHMENT 1 Livestock grazing and its effects • SFEI 20 Nader, G., Henkin, Z., Smith, E., Ingram, R., Narvaez, N., 2007. Planned Herbivory in the Management of Wildfire Fuels. Rangelands 29, 18–24. https://doi.org/10.2111/1551- 501X(2007)29[18:PHITMO]2.0.CO;2 Nafus, A.M., Davies, K.W., 2014. Medusahead ecology and management: California annual grasslands to the Intermountain West. Invasive Plant Sci. Manag. 7, 210–221. Newman, E.A., Potts, J.B., Tingley, M.W., Vaughn, C., Stephens, S.L., 2018. Chaparral bird community responses to prescribed fire and shrub removal in three management seasons. J. Appl. Ecol. 55, 1615–1625. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.13099 Pasari, J.R., Hernández, D.L., Zavaleta, E.S., 2014. Interactive Effects of Nitrogen Deposition and Grazing on Plant Species Composition in a Serpentine Grassland. Rangel. Ecol. Manag. 67, 693–700. https:// doi.org/10.2111/REM-D-13-00116.1 Pelletier, N., Pirog, R., Rasmussen, R., 2010. Comparative life cycle environmental impacts of three beef production strategies in the Upper Midwestern United States. Agric. Syst. 103, 380–389. Peters, A., Johnson, D.E., George, M.R., 1996. Barb goatgrass: a threat to California rangelands. Piñeiro, G., Paruelo, J.M., Oesterheld, M., Jobbágy, E.G., 2010. Pathways of grazing effects on soil organic carbon and nitrogen. Rangel. Ecol. Manag. 63, 109–119. Potts, J.B., Marino, E., Stephens, S.L., 2010. Chaparral shrub recovery after fuel reduction: a comparison of prescribed fire and mastication techniques. Plant Ecol. 210, 303–315. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s11258-010-9758-1 Potts, J.B., Stephens, S.L., 2009. Invasive and native plant responses to shrubland fuel reduction: comparing prescribed fire, mastication, and treatment season. Biol. Conserv. 142, 1657–1664. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2009.03.001 Preston, D.L., Johnson, P.T.J., 2012. Importance of Native Amphibians in the Diet and Distribution of the Aquatic Gartersnake (Thamnophis atratus) in the San Francisco Bay Area of California. J. Herpetol. 46, 221–227. https://doi.org/10.1670/10-065 Reiner, R., Craig, A., 2011. Conservation Easements in California Blue Oak Woodlands: Testing the Assumption of Livestock Grazing as a Compatible use. Nat. Areas J. 31, 408–413. https://doi. org/10.3375/043.031.0411 Russell, W.H., McBride, J.R., 2003. Landscape scale vegetation-type conversion and fire hazard in the San Francisco bay area open spaces. Landsc. Urban Plan. 64, 201–208. https://doi.org/10.1016/ S0169-2046(02)00233-5 Ryals, R., Eviner, V.T., Stein, C., Suding, K.N., Silver, W.L., 2016. Grassland compost amendments increase plant production without changing plant communities. Ecosphere 7. https://doi.org/10.1002/ecs2.1270 Ryals, R., Hartman, M.D., Parton, W.J., DeLonge, M.S., Silver, W.L., 2015. Long-term climate change mitigation potential with organic matter management on grasslands. Ecol. Appl. 25, 531–545. https:// doi.org/10.1890/13-2126.1 ATTACHMENT 1 Livestock grazing and its effects • SFEI 21 Ryals, R., Silver, W.L., 2013. Effects of organic matter amendments on net primary productivity and greenhouse gas emissions in annual grasslands. Ecol. Appl. 23, 46–59. https://doi.org/10.1890/12- 0620.1 Safford, H.D., Viers, J.H., Harrison, S.P., 2005. Serpentine Endemism In The California Flora: A Database Of Serpentine Affinity. Madroño 52, 222–257. https://doi.org/10.3120/0024-9637(2005)52[222:SEIT CF]2.0.CO;2 Saunois, M., Stavert, A.R., Poulter, B., Bousquet, P., Canadell, J.G., Jackson, R.B., Raymond, P.A., Dlugokencky, E.J., Houweling, S., Patra, P.K., Ciais, P., Arora, V.K., Bastviken, D., Bergamaschi, P., Blake, D.R., Brailsford, G., Bruhwiler, L., Carlson, K.M., Carrol, M., Castaldi, S., Chandra, N., Crevoisier, C., Crill, P.M., Covey, K., Curry, C.L., Etiope, G., Frankenberg, C., Gedney, N., Hegglin, M.I., Höglund-Isaksson, L., Hugelius, G., Ishizawa, M., Ito, A., Janssens-Maenhout, G., Jensen, K.M., Joos, F., Kleinen, T., Krummel, P.B., Langenfelds, R.L., Laruelle, G.G., Liu, L., Machida, T., Maksyutov, S., McDonald, K.C., McNorton, J., Miller, P.A., Melton, J.R., Morino, I., Müller, J., Murguia-Flores, F., Naik, V., Niwa, Y., Noce, S., O’Doherty, S., Parker, R.J., Peng, C., Peng, S., Peters, G.P., Prigent, C., Prinn, R., Ramonet, M., Regnier, P., Riley, W.J., Rosentreter, J.A., Segers, A., Simpson, I.J., Shi, H., Smith, S.J., Steele, L.P., Thornton, B.F., Tian, H., Tohjima, Y., Tubiello, F.N., Tsuruta, A., Viovy, N., Voulgarakis, A., Weber, T.S., Weele, M. van, Werf, G.R. van der, Weiss, R.F., Worthy, D., Wunch, D., Yin, Y., Yoshida, Y., Zhang, W., Zhang, Z., Zhao, Y., Zheng, B., Zhu, Qing, Zhu, Qiuan, Zhuang, Q., 2020. The Global Methane Budget 2000–2017. Earth Syst. Sci. Data 12, 1561–1623. https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-12-1561-2020 Schieltz, J.M., Rubenstein, D.I., 2016. Evidence based review: positive versus negative effects of livestock grazing on wildlife. What do we really know? Environ. Res. Lett. 11, 113003. https://doi. org/10.1088/1748-9326/11/11/113003 Schuman, G.E., Janzen, H.H., Herrick, J.E., 2002. Soil carbon dynamics and potential carbon sequestration by rangelands. Environ. Pollut. 116, 391–396. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0269- 7491(01)00215-9 Schwilk, D.W., 2003. Flammability Is a Niche Construction Trait: Canopy Architecture Affects Fire Intensity. Am. Nat. 162, 725–733. https://doi.org/10.1086/379351 Silver, W.L., Ryals, R., Eviner, V., 2010. Soil Carbon Pools in California’s Annual Grassland Ecosystems. Rangel. Ecol. Manag. 63, 128–136. https://doi.org/10.2111/REM-D-09-00106.1 Skaer, M.J., Graydon, D.J., Cushman, J.H., 2013. Community-level consequences of cattle grazing for an invaded grassland: variable responses of native and exotic vegetation. J. Veg. Sci. 24, 332–343. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1654-1103.2012.01460.x Smith, P., Martino, D., Cai, Z., Gwary, D., Janzen, H., Kumar, P., McCarl, B., Ogle, S., O’Mara, F., Rice, C., 2008. Greenhouse gas mitigation in agriculture. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 363, 789–813. Stahlheber, K.A., D’Antonio, C.M., 2013. Using livestock to manage plant composition: A meta-analysis of grazing in California Mediterranean grasslands. Biol. Conserv. 157, 300–308. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. biocon.2012.09.008 Stanton, C.Y., Mach, K.J., Turner, P.A., Lalonde, S.J., Sanchez, D.L., Field, C.B., 2018. Managing cropland and rangeland for climate mitigation: an expert elicitation on soil carbon in California. Clim. Change 147, 633–646. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-018-2142-1 ATTACHMENT 1 Livestock grazing and its effects • SFEI 22 Starrs, C.F., Butsic, V., Stephens, C., Stewart, W., 2018. The impact of land ownership, firefighting, and reserve status on fire probability in California. Environ. Res. Lett. 13, 034025. https://doi. org/10.1088/1748-9326/aaaad1 Sulak, A., Huntsinger, L., 2007. Public land grazing in California: untapped conservation potential for private lands? Rangelands 29, 9–12. Tatarian, P.J., 2008. Movement patterns of California red-legged frogs (Rana draytonii) in an inland California environment. Herpetol. Conserv. Biol. 3, 155–169. Thomsen, C., Williams, W., Vayssiéres, M., Bell, F., George, M., 1993. Controlled grazing on annual grassland decreases yellow starthistle. Calif. Agric. 47, 36–40. Tsiouvaras, C.N., Havlik, N.A., Bartolome, J.W., 1989. Effects of Goats on Understory Vegetation and Fire Hazard Reduction in a Coastal Forest in California. For. Sci. 35, 1125–1131. https://doi.org/10.1093/ forestscience/35.4.1125 Watt, L.A., 2015. The Continuously Managed Wild: Tule Elk at Point Reyes National Seashore. J. Int. Wildl. Law Policy 18, 289–308. https://doi.org/10.1080/13880292.2015.1096159 Weiss, S.B., 1999. Cars, Cows, and Checkerspot Butterflies: Nitrogen Deposition and Management of Nutrient-Poor Grasslands for a Threatened Species. Conserv. Biol. 13, 1476–1486. https://doi. org/10.1046/j.1523-1739.1999.98468.x White, K.L., 1967. Native Bunchgrass (Stipa Pulchra) on Hastings Reservation, California. Ecology 48, 949–955. https://doi.org/10.2307/1934539 Wolf, K.M., Baldwin, R.A., Barry, S., 2017. Compatibility of Livestock Grazing and Recreational Use on Coastal California Public Lands: Importance, Interactions, and Management Solutions. Rangel. Ecol. Manag. 70, 192–201. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rama.2016.08.008 Zavaleta, E.S., Kettley, L.S., 2006. Ecosystem change along a woody invasion chronosequence in a California grassland. J. Arid Environ. 66, 290–306. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaridenv.2005.11.008 ATTACHMENT 1 Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (MROSD) 10/14/2020 0 3.51.75 miI 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. Midpen Atlas Waterbody Stream Perennial Intermittent Lease Area GrazingPreserve Boundary (fill) Esri, NASA, NGA, USGS | Esri, HERE, Garmin, SafeGraph, METI/NASA, USGS, Bureau of Land Management, EPA, NPS, USDA | MROSD | County of Santa Clara; The Sanborn Map Co. | County of Santa Clara, Sanborn | Golden Gate National Parks Conservancy and San Mateo County | Da t a S o u r c e ( s ) : S o u r c e s : E s r i , A i r b u s D S , U S G S , N G A , N A S A , C G I A R , N R o b i n s o n , N C E A S , N L S , O S , N M A , G e o d a t a s t y r e l s e n , R i j k s w a t e r s t a a t , G S A , G e o l a n d , F E M A , I n t e r m a p a n d t h e G I S u s e r c o m m u n i t y , C o u n t y o f S a n t a C l a r a ; T h e S a n b o r n M a p C o . , G o l d e n G a t e N a t i o n a l P a r k s C o n s e r v a n c y a n d S a n M a t e o C o u n t y Web AppBuilder for ArcGIS Lobitos/Elkus 837 acres Bluebrush Canyon 303 acres October Farms 283 acres Tunitas Creek 703 acres Toto 769 acres Gordon Ridge 543 acres Driscoll 2,711 acres Lone Madrone 631 acres Apple Orchard 301 acres Mindego 1050 acres Big Dipper 861 acres Midpen Grazing Leases Lease acreage includes both grazed and ungrazed areas ATTACHMENT 2 Page 1 of 4 DATE: October 28, 2020 MEMO TO: Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Board of Directors THROUGH: Ana Ruiz, General Manager FROM: Matt Sharp Chaney, Resource Management Specialist II CC: Kirk Lenington, Natural Resource Manager Jay Lin, Engineering & Construction Manager Jane Mark, Planning Manager Tanisha Werner, Senior Capital Project Manager SUBJECT: La Honda Creek White Barn Bat Habitat _____________________________________________________________________________ The La Honda Creek White Barn (White Barn) is a structure and landscape feature at upper La Honda Creek Open Space Preserve representing a long history of ranching and mid-19th century vernacular architecture. Although its original construction date is unknown, a records search revealed that it was an integral part of cattle rangelands between 1860 and 1973. The site is in located in the upper reaches of the Preserve where access is limited to 10 visitor permits per day. The White Barn is access off Allen Road, approximately 1.5 miles to the east of the intersection of Bear Gulch Road and Allen Road. Allen Road is a private road with traffic generally limited to area residents. The surrounding landscape is characterized by rich vegetation, rolling grasslands, and wooded areas. The White Barn is rectangular with redwood framing, a metal roof, and a wood floor. In June 2019, Swaim Biological conducted a wildlife survey for the structure. Three bats were observed roosting in its interior. The area surrounding the structure provides suitable bat habitat. The White Barn is presumed to serve as a maternity roost site. Signs of woodrats were not observed in the structure. At the April 22, 2020 public meeting, the Board directed the General Manager to mothball the structure, with repairs made to the exterior and enhanced foundation work performed in accordance with the Secretary of the Interior standards, as well as install wildlife exclusionary measures, new interpretive signage, and plexiglass window covering to allowing public viewing of the interior architecture and craftsmanship of the structure. The Board also directed the General Manager to evaluate options for providing bat habitat replacement near the barn. Upon further evaluation of bat habitat options, staff concluded that while building new bat habitat near the White Barn is a feasible alternative, the barn itself provides optimal bat roosting habitat. In Page 2 of 4 particular, the White Barn provides maternity roosting habitat for bats that cannot be effectively replaced in kind without building a structure with similar characteristics to the existing barn. While the construction of stand-alone bat boxes in the area may provide roosting habitat, it is unlikely to support the successful reproduction of bats, or provide habitat for the same assemblage of bat species. A cost-effective solution may be to keep the bat habitat use inside the barn by installing interior bat boxes and openings for bat entry into the barn while protecting the historic and structural character of the building through regularly scheduled maintenance as described below. BAT HABITAT USE INSIDE THE BARN In 2000, the District’s consultants from the Central Coast Bat Research Group completed a District-wide bat inventory identifying bat roosts and species composition at 13 representative locations across District preserves. Surveys took place during the maternity roost season, from April 15 through August 31, when many bats utilize roosting habitat to raise their young. This allowed for the identification of essential maternity roost habitats that play a significant role in the long-term population viability of bats in the region. The La Honda White Barn structure was included in this survey effort. Acoustic surveys detected 8 species of bats in the immediate area, including Townsend’s big-eared bat, pallid bat, and western red bat, which are three California state species of special concern. In addition, surveys of the interior of the White Barn determined that the structure was being used as day-roosting habitat for Townsend’s big eared bat, and a colony of over 10 long-eared myotis that were likely using the structure as a maternity roost. While long-eared myotis are not a species of special concern, the loss of maternity roosting habitat for any bat species would be considered an impact under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The White Barn structure was re-surveyed for bat presence in July of 2019 by Swaim Biological Consultants (Attachment II). This survey found bat guano inside of the White Barn and identified three individuals of an unknown myotis species day-roosting in the rafters of the structure. This survey was limited in scope and did not include mist netting to capture and handle bats, or acoustic surveys, which would have allowed for species identification. This survey verified that the White Barn is still functioning as bat roost habitat. The District has successfully managed bat habitat use in historic structures at Alma College in Bear Creek Redwoods Open Space Preserve, as well as at the historic Red Barn structure in lower La Honda Creek Open Space Preserve. At Alma College, the District worked with bat experts from H.T. Harvey and Land and Facilities crew to design and construct two new 10’x10’x16’ cinderblock structures at the nearby Bear Creek Stables, and three alternative bat habitat structures in the former Alma College carport. These structures were designed to support multiple species of bats by maintaining consistent temperatures and providing both crevice roosting and cave roosting habitat, greatly improving the probability of use as maternity roosting habitat. At the La Honda Red Barn, the District has implemented best management practices to avoid disturbing the existing maternity colony of pallid bats, while continuing to maintain the structure and allow use by the current grazing tenant. With these prior successes and understandings on the limitations of pole-mounted bat boxes, District staff explored effective alternatives for continued bat use at the White Barn that also preserve the structure’s historical character. In September 2020, ZFA and Page & Turnbull assessed the feasibility of allowing bats to continue entering and using the White Barn as bat roost habitat. Several exterior entry points were evaluated for constructability, costs, and implications to the historic character of the Page 3 of 4 structure. The findings concluded that if the District were to proceed with providing bat roost habitat inside the barn, new openings at the exterior wall below the roof overhang is the recommended best option. Based on Page and Turnbull’s assessment, the proposed openings are deemed consistent with the Secretary of Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties since the alterations will be minimal and fully reversible with no significant alteration to the exterior character of the barn. While wildlife exclusion is generally recommended to protect structures, the proposed measures maintain bat habitat and protects the barn from impacts due to roosting bats. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR CONTINUED BAT USE The District’s Resource Management Policies include wildlife policies that pertain to the bat roosting habitat found within the White Barn structure. These policies are listed below: Wildlife Policy WM - Maintain and promote healthy and diverse native wildlife populations. WM-2 Protect, maintain and enhance habitat features that have particular value to native wildlife • Evaluate the wildlife habitat value associated with human-made structures before altering or removing them and avoid or mitigate any impacts. Directed by these policies District staff worked with H.T. Harvey and Associates to develop the following recommendations for balancing the preservation of this historic structure with continued use by bat species, while allowing the public to admire and learn about local history (see also related cost estimates below). • Bat access: remove two vertical side-boards from the gable area on the west side of the White barn to allow bats to continue accessing the structure. This would minimize any visual impact to the structure as there is already a horizontal cut along these-side boards, and this area is located on the opposite side from the primary public view of the structure. This location is over 10 feet off the ground, which is ideal for access by larger, slower- flying species like Townsend’s big-eared bat. In addition, the eaves of the roof are directly above the proposed openings, offering added protection against weather intrusion. • Bat roosting structures: Install four multi-chamber bat boxes on the interior east and west wall of the structure to provide bat roosting habitat and attempt to concentrate bat use to these areas for increased ease of maintenance in removing bat guano. These bat boxes would be placed away from identified historically-significant features and would be fully removable. ZFA has designed movable platforms that would keep guano off of the interior floor of the structure. Accumulation of guano is expected to be minimal and, with appropriate maintenance, would not negatively impact the integrity of the structure. • Maintenance: H.T. Harvey has recommended a scheduled cleaning and maintenance of the interior of the structure every 10 years. The ZFA report recommends annual inspection of the interior of the structure to confirm whether it should be cleaned more frequently. Based on these reports the District is recommending annual inspections of the structure with cleaning as needed. Maintenance would include removal of accumulated guano and urine deposits on the movable platforms that would be installed under the bat Page 4 of 4 boxes, as well as in other areas where bats may continue to roost inside the building. Additionally, the H.T. Harvey report details health and safety recommendations for removal of bat waste that may require contracting with outside consultants experienced with biohazard cleanup. • Public viewing: In order to limit light intrusion into the structure, which can reduce habitat suitability for certain bat species. H.T. Harvey has recommended limiting the number of plexiglass viewing windows to one. • Signage: While some species of bats are extremely tolerant of disturbance, others like Townsend’s big-eared bat have been known to abandon young when disturbed by human activity. H.T. Harvey has recommended installing simple signage along the future access trail to the White Barn directing members of the public to minimize noise levels to avoid disturbing roosting bats. Estimated Costs Item Estimated Cost Bat Access $500 Bat Roosting Structure $1,700 Maintenance $300/year Signage $400 Total $2600 + $300/year for maintenance ###