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
###