The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My Public Portal About20130327 - Agenda Packet - Board of Directors (BOD) - 13-08 Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Meeting 13-08 REGULAR MEETING BOARD OF DIRECTORS MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT Administrative Office 330 Distel Circle,Los Altos,CA 94022 Wednesday,March 27,2013 REGULAR MEETING BEGINS AT 7:00 P.m.* AGENDA 7:00 REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT- OPEN SESSION ORAL COMMUNICATIONS-PUBLIC ADOPTION OF AGENDA SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY Introduction of New District Staff-Alex Roa and Michelle Lanctot 7:05 CONSENT CALENDAR 1. Approve Minutes of the Special and Regular Board Meetings-March 13,2013 2. Approve Revised Claims Report 3. Written Communications-None 4. Approval of FY2013-14 Annual Claims List-K.Drayson 7:20 BOARD BUSINESS 5. Amend the Contract with Wilfred Jarvis Institute for Organizational and Leadership Consulting Services-K. Drayson 6. Adoption of an Addendum to the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Site-Specific Weed and Pest Management Project-K. Lenington 7. Authorization to Award Contract to Ecological Concerns Incorporated for Vegetation Management on Three Open Space Preserves in 2013 and 2014-C.Roessler 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 factual information;request staff to report back to the Board on a matter at a future meeting;or direct staff to place a matter on a future agenda. 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. TO ADDRESS THE BOARD: The President will invite public comment on agenda items at the time each item is considered by the Board of Directors. You may address the Board concerning other matters during Oral Communications. Each speaker will ordinarily be limited to three minutes.Alternately,you may comment to the Board by a written communication, which the Board appreciates. 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. 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 I'OSTING 01, AC E N DA 1,Michelle Radcliffe,District Clerk for the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District(MROSD),declare that the foregoing agenda for the Regular Meeting of the MROSD Board of Directors was posted and available for review on March 22,2013,at the Administrative Offices of MROSD,330 Distel Circle,Los Altos California,94022, The agenda is also available on the District's web site at http://www.openspace.org. Signed this 22"day of March,at Los Altos,California. ,r Q District Clerk March 22,2013 t, Claims No. 13-06 I Meeting 13-08 Date 3/27/13 Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District # Amount Name Description 19666 $22,442.00 Bay Area Asphalt&Cement Works Road Work At Rancho De Guadalupe 19667 $18,567.75 Shute,Mihaly&Weinberger LLP Assistant General Counsel Consultant Services 19668 $16,455,10 Geoinsite Engineering Services-Geotech Investigation For Landslide At The Alma Waterline 19669 $8,570.41 Accountemps Accounting Temps 19670 $8,540.00 Fall Creek Engineering Design&Engineering Services For Pond DR05 At La Honda Creek 19671 $6,670.10 Hsieh, Benny Reimbursement-Wireless Bridge Equipment For A02/Furniture &Equipment For A02/Seven Notebooks/Cell Phone/Mileage 19672 $6,400.00 Portola Park Heights Property Owners' Rock Delivery&Road Work For Portola Heights Road Association 19673 $5,450.00 Minh Le Leadership Consulting Services 19674 $5,160.30 *1 BluePoint Planning Mt. Umunhum Site Planning&Public Outreach 19675 $4,496.00 Binkley Associates Alma Waterline-Review Of Pipeline Condition 19676 $4,000,00 Communication Advantage Three Messaging&Communications Training Workshops 19677 $3,975.00 Schafer Consulting Consulting Services-Integrated Accounting&Financial Software Implementation 19678 $3,564.79 Sol's Mobile Service Vehicle Maintenance&Repairs 19679 $3,544.77 The Sign Shop Various Signs For Preserves 19680 $3,018.05 Mark Citret Photography Pre Demolition Photo Documentation For Mount Umunhum 19681 $3,011.48 Ross Recreation Equipment Company Picnic Table For Windy Hill 19682 $2,980.00 Complete Pest Control Pest Control Services-Rental Residence 19683 $2,925.37 Simms Plumbing&Water Equipment Water Heater Replacements, Faucet Repairs&Shower Valve Replacement-Rental Residences 19684 $2,851,56 West-Mark Front Discharge For Fire Pumper On Patrol Truck 19685 $2,847.89 Dummies Unlimited Defensive Tactics Training Supplies 19686 $2,350.00 Grossman Design Group Consulting Services-Prepare Mt. Umunhum Demolition Contract Documents 19687 $2,322.22 Ecological Concerns Native Revegetation Maintenance&Monitoring-Skyline Ridge Tree Farm Phase III 19688 $2,310.00 The Creative Group Temporary Media Communication Specialist 19689 $2,268.69 *2 First National Bank Field Supplies/SFO Shop Tools/Drill Bit Set/Supplies For SFO Back Up Generator/Parts For Mobile Compressor/Grinding Wheels/Supplies For Search&Rescue Kit/Parts For Water Main Repair At Rancho De Guadalupe 19690 $2,214.00 The Davey Tree Expert Company Tree Services-Tree Pruning At RSA 19691 $2,119.28 Summit Uniforms Uniform Expenses 19692 $2,035.44 *2 First National Bank Conferences&Training Expenses-Park Ranger Association Conference Expenses/California Rural Water Association Training/Conflict Management Training/City Attorneys Conference Expenses/Pesticide Applicators Professional Association Training 19693 $2,028.43 State Water Resources Control Board Mindego Landfill Oversight Costs 19694 $1,838,50 Hoge,Fenton,Jones&Appel Legal Services-Chiocchi Litigation 19695 $1,600.00 Gehrels Construction Window Replacement&Bathroom Repairs-Rental Residences 19696 $1,554.71 Smith Bros Electric Company Electrical Repairs&Installation Of New Hood For Range-Rental Residences 19697 $1,521,08 Tooland Tools For SFO Shop 19698 $1,498.32 Pine Cone Lumber Field Supplies&Tools-SFO 19699 $1,143.00 Shelton Roofing Company Roof&Skylight Repair-Rental Residences 19700 $1,048,63 Pape' Machinery Tractor Maintenance&Service 19701 $1,007.03 *2 First National Bank Computer,Website& Internet Expenses- Wi-Fi For GM iPad/ Web Hosting Service/Web Development Services/Three Computer Monitors/Charger For Laptop/Two Routers 19702 $839.24 CMK Automotive Vehicle Maintenance&Repairs Page t of 4 ` Claims No. 13-06 Meeting 13-08 Dote 3/27/13 Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District � | � # Amount Name Ommc6pt|mn � 13703 $828.60 Gardenland Power Equipment Field Supplies/CxoinemvParts&Supplies For GpO.FFO&DHF 19704 $735.73 Cascade Fire Equipment Company Fire Protection Clothing 19705 *775,00 Clean no,bom Environmental Services Hazardous Material Disposal | 19706 $762.31 ^2 First National Bank Vehicle Maintenance&Supplies 19707 $780.17 San Jose Water Company VVaterSemipo-RSA 19708 $729.49 Inner Workings Printing Services'Citations | 19709 *715.00 Bone. Ken Reimbursement'Uniform Expenses � 18710 $70&85 ^2 First National Bank Business Related Meals-Board Meetings/Closed Sessions / � � GM Meetings/Vision Plan Meeting/Lunch For Public Affairs � � Specialist Interview Panel � 19711 $665.00 Socialmentwn On-Line Public Participation Tool For The Vision Plan 18712 $828.53 `2 First National Bank Advertising,Subscriptions&Books-Books For Natural � Resources Department/Annual Subscription Fee For Online � Software Training Courses/CEOABooks | � 19713 $600.00 Heather Heights Road Association Annual Road Dues � 19/14 $580�14 Manning,Meredith Reimbursement-Cell Phone,Mileage&Coastal Conservancy � Grant Board Meeting Expenses � 19715 $553�35 Carlson, Kerry Reimbursement'Park Rangers Association OfCalifornia Conference Expenses � 19716 $517a7 Hooper,Stan waimuursement-unifoonExpnnaes � 19717 $500.00 Steven w. Hartsell Septic Tank Replacement Plan&Facilitation O,The Permit Application Process'Rental Residence 1e718 $*99.18 ^2 First National Bank Office Supplies/Emergency Cache Supplies/Camera Battery / � Vacuum For 8rO/Printer Toner/Light Bulbs � 19718 $47028 Semioewea,*mpaoa| Uniform Expenses � 19720 $450.00 ButanvGwpteoonica|Engineering Gomechniuu|Services For Pond oRn5AtLo Honda O8p 1e721 %37813 Reno|ngy South Bay oumpge,Sewice-RgA � 19722 $35726 wemomx P,inhnQServiuou-Citauonponmo 19723 $000uo Safe Deposit Box Operation Rental Fee For Three Safe Deposit Boxes 1e72* $347a5 .o First National Bank Uniform Expenses 1e725 $335.65 ARC Ranger Cut Out Display For Outreach Events � 19728 $331,05 `2 First National Bank Miscellaneous Expenses-Locate Water Pipe/0 Alma Waterline � 13727 $330,00 em'm Towing Service Towing Services 19728 $312.90 The Workingman's Emporium Uniform Expenses 19729 *29225 Stanton, Eric Reimbursement'Uniform Expenses � 1e730 $289,80 Malone,Brian weimbursement-UnihvnnExpenaea 19731 $278.02 Beckman,Craig neimbumemnnt-UnioonnE,penm»x 19732 $277.19 Leunn*n.Tum Reimbursement-California G'eenwuyn Conference Expense 19733 $260.00 U.S.xeakhwmmm Medical Group Employee Medical Services 1e734 *251�81 California Water Service Company vvate,Semiow-pFO 19735 %248.98 Metro Mobile Communications Radio Antennas 19736 $246.87 Davison,Steve nnimbumement-UnihonnExpenoom 19737 *237.89 Gorman,Michael Re|mbumement-VnihnnnEvpennw 19738 *233.*9 Life Assist First Aid Supplies 18739 $213.57 Wright, Elizabeth Reimbursement'Uniform Expense&Binoculars 19740 $210.82 West Payment Center Monthly Information Charges&Subscription 19741 *198.16 Green Waste Garbage Service'SFO � 19742 $175.15 MoKowan. Pov| Reimbursement'Mileage&Volunteer Supplies 137*3 $162.80 Greenfield Sullivan Dcea&Harrington Legal Services-Gregory Litigation 197*4 *160.15 Mission Valley Ford Truck Sales Strobe Light For Dump Truck 197*5 $145.72 CUyOfpn|ox|m-PpUoeDepuument Defensive Tactics Training 1e7*6 $/44ze Stevens Creek Quarry Base Rock For rFoStock Page um^ � Claims No. 13-06 Meeting 13-08 Date 3/27/13 Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District # Amount Name Description 19747 $140.00 Hugg,Tina Reimbursement-Cell Phone 19748 $130.73 R. E. Borrmann's Steel Company Expanded Steel For FFO Stock 19749 $120.00 Butano Geotechnical Engineering Engineering Services For The Silva Driveway Project 19750 $117.14 # United Site Services Sanitation Services For Crew Doing Work At The Hawthorn Property 19751 $111,90 *2 First National Bank Volunteer&Docent Events&Supplies-Nametags 19752 $104.38 Jackson-Hirsh Laminating Supplies 19753 $103.25 Schaffner,Sheryl Reimbursement-Public Contract Training Expenses/California Joint Powers Insurance Authority Conference Expenses/Lehigh Meeting Expenses 19754 $99.18 The Mercury News Legal Advertisement-Invitation To Bid For Vegetation Management At Various Preserves 19755 $9776 Neal, Holden Reimbursement-Uniform Expenses 19756 $95.00 Half Moon Bay Review Legal Advertisement-Invitation To Bid For Vegetation Management At Various Preserves 19757 $92.00 *3 San Mateo County Farm Bureau 65th Annual Meeting Reservation Fee 19758 $84.54 Specialty Truck Parts Exhaust For Water Truck&Mud Flaps For Maintenance Truck 19759 $82.61 #2 First National Bank Business Related Meals-Hawthorn Consultant Meeting 19760 $81.47 Foster Brothers Keys For SFO 19761 $81.00 ID Plus Name Tags 19762 $74.96 Mullen, Pamella Lunch For Planner I Interview Panel 19763 $71.99 Cabela's Tool For SFO 19764 $65.75 Wright,Leslie Reimbursement-Food For IAFS Meeting 19765 $62.17 Grand Prix Ignition Switch For Electric Utility Vehicle 19766 $60.76 Carpenter Rigging Of San Jose Tools For New Patrol Truck 19767 $48.77 Paterson,Loro Reimbursement-Uniform Expense 19768 $44.00 Ace Fire Equipment&Service Fire Extinguisher Service Company 19769 $40.00 Tires On The Go Tire Repairs 19770 $34.68 Langley Hill Quarry Base Rock For Lower Windy Hill Trail Work 19771 $30.00 *2 First National Bank Groundspeak Geocaching Annual Membership Dues 19772 $26.99 Barron Park Supply Faucet Replacement At Black Mountain 19773 $26.25 Rayne Of San Jose Water Service-Fremont Older 19774 $24.32 United Parcel Service Parcel Shipping 19775 $21.89 FedEx Shipping Charges 19776 $20.57 Grainger Hard Hat Suspension 19777 $19.90 O'Reilly Auto Parts Windshield Wash For Patrol Trucks 19778 $19.36 # FedEx Shipping Charges 19779 $5.51 Orlandi Trailer Light For Maintenance Truck Page 3 of 4 i Claims No. 13-06 Meeting 13-08 Date 3/27/13 Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District # Amount Name Description Total $185,727.69 '1 Urgent check issued 3/20/13 `2 Urgent check issued 3/4/13 The total amount for First National Bank is$8,813.12 "3 Urgent check issued 3/20/13 # Hawthorn expenses #2 Hawthorn expense and urgent check issued 3/4/13 This amount is included in the First National Bank total of $8,813.12 i i i i i i i i i i Page of � . Claims No. 13-06 Meeting 13-08 � Date 3/27Y13 Revised Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District # Amount Name Description � 19666 $22.*42.00 Bay Area Asphalt&Cement Works Road Work pu Rancho DeGuadalupe 19887 *18.587.75 Shute, Mihaly&Weinberger LLP Assistant General Counsel Consultant Services � 19668 *16.455.10 Gevinmim Engineering Services-Gemeux Investigation For Landslide At � The Alma Waterline � � 19669 $8.570.41 xccounoempn Accounting Temps 19070 $8.540.00 Fall Creek Engineering Design&Engineering Services For Pond DRV5AtLaHonda � Creek � 1*671 $8.670�10 nuiex. Benny Reimbursement'Wireless Bridge EquipmentFor AOo/Furniture m Equipment Fo'xOz/8even Notebooks/Cell Phone/Mileage 19672 $8.400.00 Pono|a Park Heights Property Owners' Rock Delivery&Road Work For pnmo|o Heights Road Asouc|unun 13873 *n.*nO.OU Minh Le Leadership Consulting Services � 19e7* *5.160.30 ^1 e|vepomtp|unning mt. Umunxum Site Planning&Public Outreach � 13675 $4.*90.00 BinxleyAsmwciatan Alma Waterline'Review[f Pipeline Condition � 1e676 $*.VOO.00 Communication Advantage Three Messaging&Communications Training Workshops 19677 $3.975.00 Gohooar Consulting Consulting Services-Integrated Accounting&Financial Svftwona Implementation � 19878 $3.56*.79 8orw Mobile Service Vehicle Maintenance&Repairs � 1e679 $3.514.77 The Sign Shop Various Signs For Preserves � 19880 *3.018.05 Mark CitnetPhotography Pre Demolition Photo Documentation For Mount Vmunhum 19e81 $3.011*8 Ross Recreation Equipment Company Picnic Table For Windy Hill � 19682 *2.980.00 Complete Pest Control Pest Control Services'Rental Residence � 1e683 *2 82a 3r Simms Plumbing&VVa*a,Equipment mm�m,n�a|e,Replacements, Faucet Repairs&Shower Valve � . � . � Replacement'Rental Residences � 19684 $2.851.56 West-Mark Front Discharge For Fire Pumper On Patrol Truck � 19585 $2.847.89 Dummies Unlimited Defensive Tactics Training Supplies � 19886 $2.350.00 Grossman Design Group Consulting Services-Prepare Mt. umunhum Demolition Contract Documents � 19887 $23222% Ecological Na�ivnRe,ogmo�pn�ainoanmnma&�onnv,mQ Skyline Ridge � . ' Tree Farm Phase III � 19688 $2.310D0 The Creative Group Temporary Media Communication Specialist � 19889 *2.260.59 ^3 First National Bank Field Supplies/SFV Shop Tools/Drill Bit Set/Supplies For GFO � aenx Up Generator/Parts For Mobile Compressor/Grinding � � Wheels/Supplies For Search&mnoovm xit/Parts For Water � Main Repair At Rancho De Guadalupe | 19690 *2.214.00 The Davey Tree Expert Company Tree Services-Tree Pruning/wRSA . 1yVS1 $2 11o�2o Summit Uniforms Uniform Expenses � � 19692 *2.035.44 ^2 First National Bank Conferences&Training E Park Ranger Association ="p='==°�vnha,mnce� /Californiao R"nm|Water Association � � Training/Conflict Management Training City Attorneys Conference Expenses/Pesticide xpp|wutom Professional � Association Training � 18893 $2.028.43 State Water Resources Control Board Mmuegv Landfill Oversight Costs 19894 $1.838.50 Hoge, Fenton,Jones&Appel Legal Services'Ch|ncchiLitigation 19695 $1.500.00 Gehe|uCnnatmmion Window Replacement&Bathroom Repairs'Rental Residences 198e6 $1.55*.71 Smith Bros Electric Company Electrical Repairs&Installation Cn New Hood For Range-Rental � Reoiuonooe � 19697 $1.521.08 Too|and Tools For 3rnShop � 19888 $1.4S833 Pine Cone Lumber Field Supplies&Tools- SpO � 19899 *1.143.00 Shelton Roofing Company Roof&Skylight Repair-Rental Residences 19700 $1.0*8.63 Pape' Machinery Tractor Maintenance&Snmimm 19701 $1.007.03 ~2 First National Bank Computer,Web site&Internet Expenses i'FiFur GMiP d/ � web Hosting Service/VVob Development Services/Three � Computer Monitors/Charger For Laptop/Two Routers � 19702 *859.24 CMx*vtnmoUve Vehicle Maintenance&Repairs � � Page`*» � ` � Claims No. 13-06 Meeting 13'08 Dote 3/27/13 � Revised � Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District � # Amount Name Description 19703 $828.68 Gurdnn|ond Power Equipment Field Supplies/ChamoawParts Supplies For 8FO.FFO&o*r � 1970* *795J3 Cascade Fire Equipment Company Fire Protection C|momg � 19705 $773.86 Clean Harbors Environmental Services Hazardous Material Disposal � 19706 $7h2�1 ~� First Vehio|e��in�enanoe&Supplies� 19707 $780.17 San Jose Water Company Water Service'RSA � 19708 $729.49 Inner Workings Printing Services-Citations � 13703 $715.00 BoUm. Kan Re|mhumoment-UnihonnExpenseu � 1e710 $708.85 ^2 First National Bank Business Related Meals'Board Meetings/Closed Sessions / � GM Meetings/Vision Plan Meeting/Lunch For Public Affairs � Specialist Interview Panel � 18711 $665.00 Souiu|mentum On-Line Public Participation Tool For The Vision Plan 19712 $82B53 `2 First Advertising,�v�mu/ipVonm�Bouku Books For mmmno| � � . - Resources Dopomnnm/Annva|Subscription Fee For Online � Software Training Courses/CEQ*Books � � 18713 %800.00 Heather Heights Road Association Annual Road Duns � 19714 $e80.14 Manning.Meredith Reimbursement'Cell phnnn.Mileage&Coastal Conservancy � � Grant Board Meeting Expenses � 19715 $559.35 Carlson,Kerry Reimbvmemen,-PomRungemAamouiaVonCVCa|ifbmim � Conference Expenses � 19718 $517.87 Hooper,Stan Reimbursement'Uniform Expenses � 19717 $500.00 Ote"unR. Hartsell Septic Tank Replacement Plan&Facilitation Cn The Permit � Application Process'Rental Residence � � � 19718 *499,18 ^2 First National Bank Office Supplies/Emergency Cache Supplies/Camera Battery � Vacuum For mpo/Printer Toner/Light Bulbs � 19719 $470.28 Semioeweor*ppore| Uniform Expenses � 19720 *450.00 8utsnoGumechnicu|Engineering Gooto,xnine|Services For Pond DRV5AuLo Honda D8P � 1e721 $379,23 necu|oqy South Bay oompst*,Service'RSA 18732 $35728 Vvemvnph Printing Semioea-Citmdnn pnnnu � 1e723� $35500 Safe Deposit Box Operation Rental Fee For Three Safe Deposit Bmmy � � 19724 $3*7.55 ~o First National Bank Uniform Expenses �yruo $xo*� msa ARC nuno�,Cv�ou� op|avFo,outneonxEwants � � 19720 *331.03 ^2 First National Bank Miscellaneous Expenses'Locate Water Pipe/0 Alma Waterline 19727 $330.00 Bm'nTmwing Service Towing Services � 19728 $312.90 The Workingman's Emporium Uniform Expenses � 19729 *292.25 Stanton. Eric Reimbursement'Uniform Expenses � 19730 $289.60 Malone,Brian Re|muursemmnt-UnioonnExpenmom � � 19731 $278,02 Beckman,Craig Reimbursement'Uniform Expenses � 18732 $277.13 Loumen.Tom Reimbursement'California GmenwayoConference Expense � � 1e733 *280.00 V.S. *ea|txww'ko Medical Group Employee Medical Services � � 19734 %251.81 California Water Service Company WaterSemioe-prO 19735 $24898 Metro Mobile Communications Radio Antennas � /9736 $2*6.87 Davison,Steve Reimbursement-unxvnn Expenses � 19737 *237.88 Gorman, Michael Reimbvrsement-UnUbnnExoenne � 1e738 $233.*e Life Assist First Aid Supplies � 19739 $213.57 Wright, Elizabeth neimbursement-UnifonnExnenve&ninocu|ars � � � 19740 $210.92 West Payment Center Monthly Information Charges&Subscription � 1e741 $198 1s One�n��o�e Garbage 8Fo � � - � 19742 $175.15 McKowon.Pou| Reimbursement'Mileage&Volunteer Supplies � 1e743 $1e2.80 Gnuonnnm Sullivan ox,ou Harrington Legal Services'Gregory Lmqounn � 197*4 $160.15 Mission Valley Ford Truck Sales Strobe Light For Dump Truck � 19745 *14572 CityOfPa|nA|to-PonwaDepnrtment Defensive Tactics Training � 1er*e $1^4oy Stevensna�x�vrny �ew,nvcx�u,rpO8�vox � � � Page 2mo � � Claims No. 13-06 Meeting 13-08 Date 3/27/13 Revised Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District # Amount Name Description 19747 $140.00 Hugg,Tina Reimbursement-Cell Phone 19748 $130.73 R.E. Borrmann's Steel Company Expanded Steel For FFO Stock 19749 $120.00 Butano Geotechnical Engineering Engineering Services For The Silva Driveway Project 19750 $117.14 # United Site Services Sanitation Services For Crew Doing Work At The Hawthorn Property 19751 $111,90 *2 First National Bank Volunteer&Docent Events&Supplies-Nametags 19752 $104.38 Jackson-Hirsh Laminating Supplies 19753 $103.25 Schaffner,Sheryl Reimbursement-Public Contract Training Expenses/California Joint Powers Insurance Authority Conference Expenses/Lehigh Meeting Expenses " 1 19754 $99.18 The Mercury News Legal Advertisement-Invitation To Bid For Vegetation Management At Various Preserves 19755 $97.76 Neal,Holden Reimbursement-Uniform Expenses 19756 $95m Half Moon Bay Review Legal Advertisement-Invitation To Bid For Vegetation Management At Various Preserves 19757 $92.00 *3 San Mateo County Farm Bureau 65th Annual Meeting Reservation Fee 19758 $84.54 Specialty Truck Parts Exhaust For Water Truck&Mud Flaps For Maintenance Truck 19759 $82.61 #2 First National Bank Business Related Meals-Hawthorn Consultant Meeting 19760 $81.47 Foster Brothers Keys For SFO 19761 $81.00 ID Plus Name Tags 19762 $74.96 Mullen, Parnella Lunch For Planner I Interview Panel 19763 $71.99 Cabela's Toot For SFO 19764 $65.75 Wright,Leslie Reimbursement-Food For 1AFS Meeting 19765 $62.17 Grand Prix Ignition Switch For Electric Utility Vehicle 19766 $60.76 Carpenter Rigging Of San Jose Tools For New Patrol Truck 19767 $48.77 Paterson,Loro Reimbursement-Uniform Expense 19768 $44.00 Ace Fire Equipment&Service Fire Extinguisher Service Company 19769 $40.00 Tires On The Go Tire Repairs 19770 $34.68 Langley Hill Quarry Base Rock For Lower Windy Hill Trail Work 19771 $30.00 *2 First National Bank Groundspeak Geocaching Annual Membership Dues 19772 $26.99 Barron Park Supply Faucet Replacement At Black Mountain 19773 $26.25 Rayne Of San Jose Water Service-Fremont Older 19774 $24.32 United Parcel Service Parcel Shipping 19775 $21.89 FedEx Shipping Charges 19776 $20.57 Grainger Hard Hat Suspension 19777 $19.90 O'Reilly Auto Parts Windshield Wash For Patrol Trucks 19778 $19.36 # FedEx Shipping Charges 19779 $5.51 Orlandi Trailer Light For Maintenance Truck 19780 R $21,632.50 Santa Clara County Communications Services Related To The Design, Installation And Maintenance Of A Two Way Radio System 19781 R $16,000.00 Alexander Atkins Design Vision Plan Marketing Collateral Phases I&11 19782 R $14,000.00 Langley Hill Quarry Septic System Repair At Toto Ranch 19783 R $13,948.01 Patsons Media Group Printing Services-Business Cards/Envelopes/Brochures Summer Newsletter 19784 R $12,894.00 Board Of Equalization Sale&Use Tax For Out Of State Purchases For Fiscal Years 2010-2012 19785 R $12,507.84 *4 Peckham&Mckenney Recruitment Services-Assistant General Manager&Public Affairs Manager 19786 R $8,987.15 Southwest Fence&Supply Company Fence Braces&T-Posts For Cattle Exclusion Fencing At Pond DR05-La Honda Creek 19787 R $4,537.50 The Creative Group Temporary Media Communications Specialist Page 3 of 5 Claims No. 13-06 Meeting 13-08 Date 3/27/13 Revised Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District # Amount Name Description 19788 R $4,500.00 Hulberg&Associates Appraisal Of General Public Access Easement Over PG&E Parcel On Mt. Umunhum Road 19789 R $3,593.30 Accountemps Accounting Temps 19790 R $3,361.25 # Knapp Architects Historial Documentation&Architectural Services-Hawthorn 19791 R $3,125.00 Conscious Creative Web Design&Development Services For Openspace.org 19792 R $2,206.25 *5 San Mateo County Clerk Recorder CEQA Filing Fees For Driscoll Ranch Vegetation Management Mitigated Negative Declaration 19793 R $742.37 Sears Field Supplies&Tools For SFO 19794 R $741.69 Office Team Office Temp-Temporary Front Desk Coverage 19795 R $700.00 Nate Donovan Photography Photography Services-Vision Plan Materials&Photoshop Work For Outreach 19796 R $624.75 Silverman,Joel Reimbursement-iPad Mini&Accessories For Field Work, Data Entry&Mapping 19797 R $620.00 Butano Geotechnical Engineering Geotechnical Services-Phase 1 Drawings For Silva Driveway Project 19798 R $559,32 United Site Services Sanitation Services-Sierra Azul&Fremont Older 19799 R $386.05 Foster Brothers Locks&Keys For Preserve Gates 19800 R $305.00 *6 San Mateo County Assessors Office Mailing Database For Public Notification 19801 R $255.07 # Hsieh, Benny Reimbursement-Cables For Installation Of Camera At the Hawthorn Property 19802 R $182.24 California Water Service Company Water Service-AO 19803 R $175.84 Koenig,Peggy Reimbursement-Food For Messaging Training,Photoshoot& Outreach Supplies 19804 R $168.37 Funiestas,April Reimbursement-Disaster Cache Supplies 19805 R $163.53 Staples Credit Plan Office&Breakroom Supplies 19806 R $149.56 Del Rey Building Maintenance Janitorial Supplies-AO 19807 R $114.57 Mission Trail Waste Systems Garbage Service-AO 19808 R $80.00 Williams,Michael Reimbursement-Cell Phone 19809 R $63.66 Protection One Fire Inspection&Monitoring-AO 19810 R $52.50 Laustsen,Gretchen Reimbursement-American Planning Association Membership Dues 19811 R $48.00 CMK Automotive Vehicle Maintenance&Repairs 19812 R $40.00 Beckman,Craig Reimbursement-Cell Phone 19813 R $40.00 Malone,Brian Reimbursement-Cell Phone Page 4 of 5 Claims No. 13-06 Meeting 13-08 Date 3/27/13 Revised Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District # Amount Name Description Total $313,233.01 *1 Urgent check issued 3/20/13 *2 Urgent check issued 3/4/13 The total amount for First National Bank is$8,813.12 *3 Urgent check issued 3/20/13 *4 Urgent check issued 3/26/13 *5 Urgent check issued 3/26/13 *6 Urgent check issued 3/26/13 # Hawthorn expenses #2 Hawthorn expense and urgent check issued 3/4/13 This amount is included in the First National Bank total of $8,813.12 Page 5 of 5 Midpeninsula Regional ' Open Space District { i I To: Board of Directors From: Stephen E. Abbors Date: March 22, 2013 Re: FY1s ail * ' la Regional Open Space District Memorandum DATE: March 12,2013 MEMO TO: MROSD Board of Directors THROUGH: Stephen E. Abbors,General Manager FROM: Kirk Lenington SUBJECT: Integrated Pest Management FYI i Ascent Environmental and expert subconsultants May Associates, Shelterbelt Builders and Cardno ENTRIX have been hired to help the District prepare an Integrated Pest Management (IPM) Program and conduct an environmental review. They are currently reviewing IPM policies and programs of other park agencies and interviewing MROSD staff. They will return on April 24, 2013 with a draft IPM Policy for a study session with the Board. The overall projected schedule is preparation of an IPM Guidance Manual and Weed Database Tpreparation f th nvir environmental review August 2013 through May through Jul 2013, and o e e o gu g y b Y 2014. This schedule includes two public meetings during the preparation of the environmental review, a meetingwith the Board's Planning and Natural. Resources Committee in early 2014, g and a final Board hearing in spring 2014. All documents and the enviromnental review should be finalized for implementation of the IPM Program by summer 2014. vegetation management activities that have occurred during the previous I There are several other egetat on manage e t act g year(FY 2012-13) and this current year(FY2013-14) intended to halt or minimize the spread of target weed or pests in areas where substantial progress has been made towards restoration of the site to natural conditions. These are temporary measures to allow a small number of projects to continue during preparation of the IPM Program. These activities include: • site specific weed and pest management project, • herbicide application and invasive species control at Mindego Ranch, • Slender False Brome management, and • Skyline Ridge tree farm restoration project These projects have separate environmental reviews and staff will be bringing certain items to the Board(such as the award of contract for vegetation management services on the agenda for this meeting) while work continues on the IPM Project. ii Michelle Radcliffe From: scott@Com-Ctl.com Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2013 4:39 PM To: BOARD; Clerk;Vicky Gou; General Information Subject: 02/20/2013-scott@Com-Ctl.com -Contact Board First Name: Scott Last Name: McQueen Phone Number: Email Address: Ward /Location: t.. mun um Road Repairs Comments: Several of you had mentioned to me when we visited on the Umunhum site, you like to be included on matters I feel important to the project. I'm attaching a letter sent to the District regarding the road leading to Mt. Unumhum and some very serious safety issues. If you have any direct questions please feel free to call me. Scott McQueen Sent 2/20/2013 Dear Gina: Thank you for the update on the timing of the patching of the road leading to Mt. Umunhum. It is imperative that the road be repaired immediately. As I have explained to you on several occasions, I have some serious concerns regarding the safety of the road conditions. Over the last few months the road conditions have deteriorated much more quickly than I have ever seen. With the lack in maintenance and the increase in heavy vehicle traffic during the start of the demolition along with the last two winters, the road is becoming unsafe to drive. Cars and trucks are traveling on all sides of the yellow line to try and miss the larger pot holes. Not only is this creating a dangerous condition for drivers, passengers and bicyclists on the road, it is also causing damage to car tires, suspensions, brakes, and steering. Although I am happy to hear that the patching work will begin at the end of this month, I am very concerned that it is not enough to eliminate the unsafe condition of the road. I understood that prior to demolition the road would be patched and brought up to a safe standard. Once the demolition work was complete, any new damage would be repaired. However, now with the extent of the damage on the road, the existing budget may only be able to work on the major holes and cracks. By ignoring the smaller deficiencies at this time, you are only allowing those conditions to further deteriorate and we will be in the same situation with large pot holes in a short matter of time. If the District does not have the budget or the staff for ongoing maintenance of the road, this problem is not going away and the dangerous condition will continue. I have always been concerned about safety and security on Mt. Umunhum and the road leading there. I have had my reservations that the District understood the extent of the issues on the mountain. This deferral of the maintenance and complete repair of the dangerous roadway only furthers my concerns. I urge the District to stand by its earlier commitment to bring the road up to a safe standard prior to demolition of the buildings on Mt. Umunhum. Your failure to do so only places the public and your employees and contractors at greater risk. I am happy to meet with you and the contractors to review the damage and issues on the road and offer my input. Please contact me to discuss this further. Thank you. � Michelle Radcliffe From: Meredith Manning Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2013 11:39 AM To: Michelle Radcliffe; Sheryl Schaffner Cu: David Smnguineth; Gina Subject: FVV Mount Umunhum Demolition Update Importance: High Here is the response that Gina sent ho the Mt. Urn neighbors io /pardaU response to Scott K4CDueen'a � correspondence of2/20/13. � Thanks Meredith � � | � From: Gina Coony ' � Sent: Friday. February22, 2013 11:38AM � To: | -- Subject: RE: Mount Umunhum Demolition Update Importance: High � � All, ' � Please see updates in red below. Please feel free to contact me should you have any questions, � | � Gina � | � From: Gina Conny � � == Thu rsday, � / Subject: rouuvnxxxuxx ue /uv/vm/ Update � |wanted mo give everyone an update on the status uf the Mount Unmunhunm Demolition Project: | � � ° Currently the Demolition Contractor is finalizing permits,submittals,and completing final coordination prior tm starting work onsite; � � Demolition activities PG&E has � | indicated that this work will becompletedat- rice they have completed in-house � environmental review and estimating. PG&E has not yet indicated when this will be complete, but is trying to � expedite the work. • 44-Once PG&E completes their work as planned,demolition on site will begin as soon as possible in March 2032, |will keep you all updated on the actual start date. � • WORK COMPLETE Next week trees will 6e felled onsite. This vvurknmostbecommpleted ahead of the bird � � � nesting season,which begins mn February 15. Trees will be felled io place and removed 6Y the demolition � � contractor in March/April. (Nobe,these trees were included in the BR and were always slated for removal) � • Road patching was to have been done back in fall,but rain kept postponing this work.We expect this road � patching to be implemented over the next month—weather permitting. ROAD PATCHING IS SLATED TQBEGIN ! � 1 � � � WEDNESDAY FEBRUARY 27. Please be aware that crews will be working on the road. Use caution and drive slowly and follow all directions given by flagmen and signage. I will be updating you with additional information and progress reports about this work over the next couple of weeks. As always,if you have any questions or concerns,please feel free to contact me directly. My direct line is: 650-625- 6513. All the best,and have a wonderful weekend. Gina Coony Planning Department gcoonyoagpenspace.org Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 330 Distel Circle, Los Altos, CA 94022 P: (650) 691-1200 - F: (650) 691-0485 Mid peninsula Regional ! ' Open Space District p R-13-40 Meeting 13-08 March 27, 2013 AGENDA ITEM 4 AGENDA ITEM Approval of FY2013-14 Annual Claims List CONTROLLER'S RECOMMENDATION Approve the FY2013-14 Annual Claims List, including debt service payments. DISCUSSION In accordance with Section 1.53 of the District's Rules of Procedure, this list of annual claims for the coming fiscal year(FY2013-14) is submitted for review and approval by the Board of Directors. These annual claims items are included in the proposed FY2013-14 Budget, which was presented to the Board at the Regular Meeting on March 13, 2013. Staff has included an annual claim recusal statement that will be read by the Board President for Director Hanko on her economic conflict of interests in AT&T and/or Verizon claims. The purpose of this annual recusal statement is to enable Director Hanko to meet her conflict of interest recusal responsibilities with respect to Verizon and AT&T at one annual meeting rather than being required to repeat the same recusal statement at each regular Board meeting when claims are presented on the Consent Calendar. If approved, recusals on AT&T and/or Verizon claims by Director Hanko will not need to be made at each regular Board meeting. The debt service claims list reflects payments required of the District to meet outstanding District debt obligations. Attachment A lists the District's current debt service annual claims for FY2013-14, and Attachment B provides a detailed list of debt service obligations. R-13-40 Page 2 ANNUAL CLAIMS ITEM DESCRIPTION AMOUNT Staff Salaries $9,911,921 Debt Service $8,874,965 Retirement Plans $1,812,027 Group Insurance Premiums $1,594,500 State Mandated Insurance-Unemployment &Workers Comp. $304,400 Fuel - Valley Oil Company $150,000 Dispatch Services(City of Mountain View) $145,000 Utilities - PG&E-Electrical & Propane $139,120 Wellington Park Investors (AO Office Lease) $97,152 Legislative Consultant(Public Policy Advocates) $58,000 Deer Hollow Farm Agreement(City of Mountain View) $50,000 Shell Oil $30,000 Director's Fees $29,000 Janitorial Services- 3 Offices $28,280 Sonic.net- Internet Provider $24,080 Verizon, AT&T*** &TelePacific Communications $23,879 American Tower Corporation(Coyote Peak Repeater) $20,000 Antenna Site Rental - Pinnacle(Repeater Site) $20,000 WEX(Union 76 credit card) $20,000 Payroll Services (ADP) $18,000 Copier Leases and Usage- 3 Offices $17,400 Tomita Radio Equipment Site Rental $15,000 The Ferguson Group $10,000 Amerigas $4,800 Landscaping Services (330 Distel Circle) $4,800 Protection One Alarm Service for District Office $2,550 Pitney Bowes Postage Machine Lease $1,860 Bank Fees $1,240 TOTAL: $23,407,974 ***Annual Recusal Statement: Director Hanko is voluntarily recusing herself from voting on the AT&T and Verizon Annual Claims. FISCAL IMPACT This item will have no cost impact as the listed Annual Claims were included in the proposed FY2013-14 Budget which was approved by the Board on March 13, 2013. Approval of the proposed Annual Claims will authorize the accounting office to pay salaries and benefits, debt service, and recurring services in a more timely and efficient manner. This item will minimize the occurrence of late fees, finance charges or urgent check requests. R-13-40 Page 3 PUBLIC NOTICE Public notice was provided as required by the Brown Act. No additional notice is required. CEQA COMPLIANCE Approval of the Annual Claims is not a project under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and no environmental review is required. NEXT STEPS If approved by the Board, staff will prepare open purchase orders for the listed vendors and pay bills as they are received. Attachments: A. Current Debt Service Annual Claims FY2013-2014 B. Detailed List of Debt Service Obligations FY2013-2014 Responsible Department Manager: Kate Drayson, Administrative Services Manager Prepared by: Kate Drayson, Administrative Services Manager Michael L. Foster, Controller Contact person: Same as above ATTACHMENT A ANNUAL CLAIMS DEBT SERVICE FISCAL YEAR 2013-2014 PRINCIPAL INTEREST NOTEHOLDER-LAND Daloia 18,887.59 5,883.49 Hunt 0.00 75,000.00 Bergman 0.00 34,000.00 Subtotal-Notes 18,887.59 114,883.49 BONDSPAYABLE 2004 Revenue Bonds 620,000.00 1,368,655.00 2005 Refunding 1,145,000.00 89,125.00 2007 Bonds- Series A 630,000.00 2,522,887.50 2011 Bonds 45,000.00 1,082,975.00 2012 Refunding 540,000.00 697,550.00 Subtotal-Notes 2,980,000.00 5,761,192.50 TOTALS -NOTEHOLDERS & BONDS 2,998,887.59 5,876,075.99 TOTAL DEBT SERVICE 8,874,963.58 I ATTACHMENT B DEBT SERVICE FISCAL.YEAR 2013-2014 Close of Remaining Principal Final FY 2013/2014-Debt Service Payments Payable to Escrow Original Note Rate% Term At March 31,2013 Payment Due Total Principal Interest Daloia 10/11/2002 240,000.00 6.25% 15 Years 101,127.16 10/10/2017 24,771.08 18,887.59 5,883.49 Hunt 04/15/2003 1,500,000.00 5.50% 10 years L500,000.00 04/01/2023 75,000.00 0.00 75,000.00 Bergman 10/27/2010 850,000.00 4.00% 5 Years 850,000.00 11/30/2015 34,000.00 0.00 34,000.00 2,590,000.00 2,451,127.16 133,771.08 18,887.59 114,883.49 2004 Bonds 01/30/2004 31,900,009.95 21/6-5% 30 years 31,068,789.00 * 04/01/2033 1,988,655,00 620,000.00 1,368,655.00 2005 Refunding Notes 07/28/2005 4,630,000.00 40/6-5% 10 years 2,355,000.00 09/01/2015 1.234.125.00 1,145,000.00 89,125.00 2007 Bonds Series A 12/15/2006 51415,000.00 40/0-5% 20 years 51,295,000.00 09/01/2027 3,152,887.50 630,000,00 2,522,887.50 2007 Bonds Series B 12/15/2006 6,785,000.00 5.15% 5 years 0.00 09/01/2012 0.00 0.00 0.00 2011 Bonds 05/05/201 l 20,500,000.00 2%to 6% 30 years 20,500,000.00 09/01/2041 1,127,975.00 45,000.00 1,082,975.00 2012 Refunding Notes 02/02/2012 31,264,707.20 2%to6% 30 years 32,233,537,50 * 09/01/2041 1.237.550.00 540.000.00 697,550.00 147,494.717,15 137,452,326.50 8.741.192.50 2,980,000.00 5,761,192.50 150,084,717.15 139,903,453.66 8,874,963.58 2,998,887.59 5,876,075.99 * Includes Accretions i Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District P R-13-39 Meeting 13-08 March 13, 2013 AGENDA ITEM 5 AGENDA ITEM i Amend the Contract with Wilfred Jarvis Institute for Organizational and Leadership Consulting Services GENERAL MANAGER'S RECOMMENDATIONS Authorize the General Manager to amend the professional services contract with Wilfred Jarvis Institute as follows: 1. Increase the total contract amount by$78,000 from$100,000 to a not to exceed amount of $178,000 for consulting services to enhance management, leadership, and organizational effectiveness. 2. Extend the contract by twelve months from March 31, 2013, to March 31, 2014. I SUMMARY At its regular Board meeting on July 13, 2011, the Board of Directors(Board) approved a contract with Minh Le of the Wilfred Jarvis Institute for$50,000 to provide professional consulting services for management, leadership, and organizational development (R-11-77). On August 22, 2012, the Board authorized an additional $50,000 and expanded the scope of services (R-12-81). The contract expires on March 31, 2013, and in order to continue Mr. Le's services for another year, the contract term must be extended and the compensation increased to provide the services required by the District. Mr. Le's training and consultation with both the Board and the staff has been instrumental in developing new skills and insights and in helping the District successfully navigate this necessary and critical transition period. i DISCUSSION The original two-year contract of$50,000 with the Wilfred Jarvis Institute was approved by the Board on July 13, 2011 (R-11-77) for management, leadership, and organizational effectiveness consulting and included the following elements: I. Management Team effectiveness development 2. One-on-one coaching for each member of Management Team 3. Meeting facilitation between members of Management Team 4. Organizational and leadership assessments 5. Leadership training I R-13-39 Page 2 On August 22, 2012, the Board approved a contract amendment to provide additional services and increase the contract amount from $50,000 to $100,000 (Report R-12-8 1). The additional scope of services included: 1. Facilitating Board Retreats 2. Facilitating activities with and among Board Directors, Board Appointees and Management Team as needed 3. Conducting activities to increase capacity and organizational health, including: a. Measuring leadership and organizational effectiveness b. Training, coaching and facilitation of efforts to increase effectiveness including Four-Quadrant leadership, time management and effective meetings. 4. Assisting the organization in navigating through change Continuing these services for FY2013-14 is estimated to cost $78,000. It is recommended that the Board approve the contract extension to March 31, 2014, and additional compensation of $78,000. FISCAL IMPACT The$78,000 cost has been included in the FY2013-14 Proposed Annual Budget which was approved by the Board on March 13, 2013 (R-13-3 7). BOARD COMMITTEE REVIEW Board Committee review of this item is not required. PUBLIC NOTICE Notice has been provided as required by the Brown Act. No additional notice is required. CEQA COMPLIANCE The proposed action is not a project under the California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA) and no environmental review is required. NEXT STEP Upon Board authorization, the General Manager will amend the contract with the Wilfred Jarvis Institute to revise the term and increase the contract amount. Responsible Department Manager: Kate Drayson, Administrative Services Manager Prepared by: Kate Drayson, Administrative Services Manager Contact person: Same as above 110 Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District R-13-23 Meeting 13-08 March 27, 2013 AGENDA ITEM 6 AGENDA ITEM Adoption of an Addendum to the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Site-Specific Weed and Pest Management Project GENERAL MANAGER'S RECOMMENDATIONS 1. Approve an Addendum to the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program for the Site-Specific Weed and Pest Management Project in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA). 2. Adopt the CEQA findings set out in the attached Resolution(Attachment 1). SUMMARY The Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District(District) Board of Directors is asked to consider approving an Addendum to the Mitigated.Negative Declaration(MND) and Mitigation Monitoring Program (MMP) for the Site-Specific Weed and Pest Management Project in accordance with CEQA, to implement control of invasive weeds and pest species at three additional treatment sites (for a total of 45 treatment sites) in FY 2013-14 and 2014-15. If approved and adopted, the work described under the Addendum to the MND will be performed by a combination of District field staff, volunteers, and a contractor(see Agenda Item 7, on this meeting's Agenda). DISCUSSION As part of its mission to protect and restore the natural environment of the Open Space Preserves (OSPs), and consistent with its Resource Management Policies, the District controls non-native and invasive plant species (also referred to as weeds) and pests that have a substantial impact on preserve resources. The District controls non-native invasive species because they are adapted to invade and subsequently dominate large areas, often leading to reduced native biodiversity. On May 9, 2012, the Board of Directors approved a Resolution to adopt the Site-Specific Weed and Pest Management Project MND and MMP. These documents guide weed and pest treatment at 42 sites. After one year of such treatment, staff has identified three additional sites (Attachment 2), similar in location and character to the previously approved 42 sites,that should be treated in coordination with the original sites. This would be accomplished through an R-13-23 Page 2 Addendum to the Site-Specific Weed and Pest Management Project MND and consists of three additional activities: 1. Pulling with weed wrenches and glyphosate spraying by backpack of French broom along the western roads of Bear Creek Redwoods OSP; 2. Pulling with weed wrenches and glyphosate spraying by backpack of French broom at gate PC03 and along Upper Purisima Creek Road at Purisima Creek Redwoods OSP; 3. Pulling and cutting Cape ivy with hand tools and chainsaws at Purisima Creek Redwoods OSP. The Addendum would not add any new preserves, treatment methods, or sensitive resources that have not already been evaluated in the original MND. One additional target pest, Cape ivy, would be included at an existing site where English ivy is already being treated. The two invasive vines are similar in character and their treatment methods are the same. A subsequent Negative Declaration was not prepared because the minor additions did not cause any new significant environmental effects or substantially increase the severity of previously identified effects, and because no new significant information has been added to the MND. Table 2-1 provides the original and revised treatment actions, annual gross work acres, and annual amount of herbicide to be used. Changes are indicated by the gray highlighting with new totals as a result of adding the three new sites shown in bold and prior totals shown with strike- through text. The total average annual number of gross work acres is estimated to increase from 1,958 to 2,413. The amount of gross work acres is defined as the total overall number of acres of work in one year. Within a treatment site, not every square inch is treated, only the actual target weeds are treated. Table 2-L Revised Estimated Treatment Actions',Gross Work Aram Treated,and Herbicide Amounts Treatment Action Gross Work Area Herbicide Amount Anticipated to be Used(gallons)l (acres) Brushcutting 18 N/A Chainsaw cutting of trees 16 N/A Digging 65 N/A Pulling 93S 4*9 N/A Green flaming 7 N/A Agri-Fos and Pentrabark spraying(by ATV) 27 40 Aminopyralid spraying 140 1 Glyphosate spraying 1110084 Glyphosate cut-stump application 91 Glyphosate wipe application 14 0.3 TOTAL Gross Work Acres ZAU�un Treatment action descriptions are provided in Section 2.6.3 of the MND. Source:MROSD 2012 Table 2-2 lists the treatment sites and type of management that will occur at each site. New treatment sites and the existing site with the new target weed are highlighted in gray. Refer to the original MND for descriptions of the preserves and types of management. R-13-23 Page 3 Table 2-2. Proposed Treatment Sites and Management Categories Preserve Site Name ManagementCategory Bear Creek Redwoods Alma College Broom control OSP BC01 Broom control Tree Farm Woodland weeds West Roads(crew site) Broom control Coal Creek OSP Page Mill&Highway 35 Broom control El Corte de Madera Creek Lawrence Creek Trail Sudden Oak Death OSP Methuselah Trail Broom control Future staging area between CM03&CM04 Broom control Virginia Mill Trail Broom control El Sereno OSP Aquinas Trail Broom control Loma Vista Trail Broom control Overlook Trail Broom control Satellite populations of priority weeds p p p Y Los Trancos OSP Event Meadow Grassland Weeds Fault Trail Sudden Oak Death Franciscan Loop Trail Sudden Oak Death Greater Los Trancos Sudden Oak Death Grassland Weeds Knoll Grassland Weeds LT02 Grassland Weeds Norton Grassland Weeds Parking Lot Grassland Weeds Monte Bello OSP Montebello Road Satellite populations of priority weeds Water Wheel Creek Satellite populations of priority weeds Pulgas Ridge OSP Hassler Loop Habitat restoration Purisima Creek OSP Harkins Ridge Cutover Broom control Harkins Ridge Trail Broom control North Ridge Satellite populations of priority weeds KOMnew to t s , rft PCOS newLite) Broom control Upper Purisma Creek Road new site) Broom control Rancho San Antonio OSP Lower Meadow Trail Sudden Oak Death Shop Satellite populations of priority weeds St.Joseph's Hill OSP Vineyard Broom control Vista/Y Star/Hilltop Broom control Saratoga Gap OSP Charcoal Residence Broom control Lysons Property Satellite populations of priority weeds Sierra Azul OSP Air Base State-rated noxious weeds Austrian Gulch(Moss Property) State-rated noxious weeds Beatty Broom control Satellite populations of priority weeds Hicks Creek Ranch Satellite populations of priority weeds Pheasant State-rated noxious weeds RDG Satellite populations of priority weeds Reynolds State-rated noxious weeds SA19 Broom control Williams Property Broom control Skyline Ridge OSP Tree Farm Restoration Habitat restoration Source:Data provided by MROSD in 2012,adapted by Ascent in 2012 R-13-23 Page 4 As part of this Addendum, all portions of the original MND were reviewed and the potential for new significant environmental effects was considered(Attachment 3). The review did not lead to any findings of additional potential significant effect(including cumulative effects), thus no new mitigation measures or best management practices are required. All text changes (additions and deletions) to the original MND are documented in the Addendum. FISCAL IMPACT The additional work under the Addendum will be carried out by existing staff and volunteers; therefore there will not be any new incremental fiscal impact. BOARD COMMITTEE REVIEW The Board of Directors has previously made findings on the Site-Specific Weed and Pest Management Project during the May 9, 2012 Board meeting. No additional Board Committee review is required. PUBLIC NOTICE CEQA Addendums do not require additional circulation for public review. Public notice of this Agenda Item was provided per the Brown Act. CEQA COMPLIANCE Revised CEQA Project Description with the Addendum The project consists of weed and pest management on select sites on open space preserves in Santa Clara and San Mateo Counties, California. Weed and pest management activities under the project occur at 45 distinct treatment sites within thirteen of the District's 26 designated open space preserves areas during the years 2012 through 2014 (Attachment 3). The purpose of the project is to control noxious and invasive weeds and pest species in high priority natural areas of the District to halt or minimize the spread of those species in areas where substantial progress has been made towards eradication or site restoration to more natural conditions. The District is carrying out an Integrated Pest Management approach in the implementation of this project. The Addendum consists of minor additions which will not involve new, significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects. The circumstances under which the project will be undertaken have not substantially changed, and no changes to mitigation measures are required. The recommended CEQA action before the Board is adoption of the proposed Addendum to the MND and associated documents and findings for this project. The Board is not determining how or when to implement any work efforts under the guidance of the Site-Specific Weed and Pest Management Project. Rather, the Board is completing CEQA compliance with regard to implementation of the Addendum to the Site-Specific Weed and Pest Management Project. Subsequent to Board approval, staff will implement the project. CEQA Determination An initial study for the Site-Specific Weed and Pest Management Project was completed and a MND was adopted on May 9, 2012. Three mitigation measures were identified in the original R-13-23 Page 5 MND to mitigate potential negative effects to biological and cultural resources to a level of insignificance. The Addendum makes minor additions(three new sites of similar location and character)with no additional potential negative effects to biological and cultural resources. The previously-adopted mitigation measures will avoid any such effects. Therefore, the Addendum does not change the conclusion of no significant effect and no additional mitigation measures are required. Mitigation Monitoring Pro ram In accordance with CEQA,the District has prepared a MMP, which describes project-specific mitigation measures and monitoring process. The MMP ensures that all adopted measures intended to mitigate potentially significant environmental impacts will be implemented. The project incorporates all of these mitigation measures. No changes to the MMP are required by the Addendum. CEQA Findings The Board Findings required by CEQA to adopt the Addendum to the MND are set out in the attached Resolution(Attachment 1). NEXT STEPS Should the Board approve the Addendum to the MND, staff would proceed with working at the three additional sites under the Addendum to the Site-Specific Weed and Pest Management Project. Attachments: 1. Resolution of the Board of Directors Adopting the Addendum to the Mitigated Negative Declaration and the CEQA Findings for Implementation of the Site-Specific Weed and Pest Management Project 2. Maps of Proposed Site Additions to the Site-Specific Weed and Pest Management Project 3. Addendum to the Mitigated Negative Declaration Responsible Department Head: Kirk Lenington, Natural Resources Manager Prepared by: Joel Silverman, Resource Management Specialist I Contact person: Joel Silverman, Resource Management Specialist I Graphics prepared by: Joel Silverman, Resource Management Specialist I ATTACHMENT I RESOLUTION NO. 13-XX A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT ADOPTING AN ADENDDUM TO A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION IN CONNECTION WITH THE SITE- SPECIFIC WEED AND PEST MANAGEMENT PROJECT I. An Initial Study(IS)was prepared for the Site-Specific Weed and Pest Management Project(Project)pursuant to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Public Resources Code sections 21000 et seq.) and the CEQA Guidelines(14 Cal. Code. Regulations sections 15000 et seq.). 11. The IS identified potentially significant adverse effects on the environment from the proposed project but found that mitigation measures for the proposed Project, which were made a part of the proposed Project, would avoid the effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant effects would occur. 111. The IS and a notice of intent to adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration(MND) and the Mitigated Monitoring Program(MMP) were circulated for public review from April 5, 2012 to May 4, 2012. IV. On May 9, 2012 the Board of Directors conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the adequacy of the MND (including the IS) at which oral and written comments and a staff recommendation for approval of the MND were presented to the Board of Directors. The Board of Directors reviewed and considered the information in the IS and MND as required by CEQA. V. On May 9, 2012 the Board of Directors adopted the proposed MND and MMP through Resolution 12-19 finding that all potentially significant effects identified in the MND would be avoided by the mitigation measures and changes made in the Project as described in the MND. VI. An Addendum to the MND was proposed by the District to address several sites and activities which were not addressed in the adopted MND. No additional mitigation measures are necessary in order to prevent potentially significant adverse effects on the environment. VII. On March 27, 2013 the Board of Directors conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the adequacy of the Addendum to the MND at which a staff recommendation for approval of the Addendum to the MND was presented to the Board of Directors. The changes proposed under the Addendum to the MND are minor additions only, with no significant impacts on the environment and requiring no new mitigation measures. The Board of Directors reviewed and considered the information in the Addendum to the MND as required by CEQA. ATTACHMENT I NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the District Board of Directors that, based upon the Initial Study, Mitigated Negative Declaration, Mitigation Monitoring Program, the Addendum to the Mitigated Negative Declaration, and all substantial evidence in light of the whole record presented, the Board of Directors finds that: 1. Notice of the hearing on the Addendum to the MND was given as required by law and the actions described herein were conducted pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA) and the CEQA Guidelines. 2. The Board finds that the Addendum to the MND does not(a) propose substantial changes to the Project requiring major revisions to the MND due to the involvement of new significant envirom-nental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects, or(b) involve new information of substantial importance showing that the Project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the MND or that mitigation measures previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible. 3. The Board further finds that there have been no substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which the Project will be undertaken which will require major revisions the MND. . 4. The Board finds that, on the basis of the whole record before it, including the Addendum to the MND, there is no substantial evidence that the Project will have a significant effect on the environment in that, adequate Mitigation Measures have been made a part of the Project to avoid any such effects. 5. The Board determines that the Addendum to the MND reflects the District's independent judgment and analysis and therefore adopts the Addendum to the MND. 8. The location and custodian of the documents or other material which constitute the record of proceedings upon which this decision is based are located at the offices of the District Clerk of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District, 330 Distel Circle, Los Altos, California 94022. ATTACHMENT 2 San Mateo •µ�rralk 05 Imont �Hdf Moon Bay ~lo park I.:LZN • •Stanwd Milpitas • f • Surmyvde r �' Wpertlno � ...lY Santga ld Wtos - '.4AiiLL'Lri7 \�_ d' �I• 9 Bear Creek Redwoods OSP -Broom at selected sites .Broom at Wimted sites$newly added under the Addendum) Mtdpeninsule Regional Open Space District(MROSD) -Woodland weeds .MROSD Prast," 0 025 05 e M les Bear Creek Redwoods Open Space Preserve •tMwrk aAA:AY++�LN HSill.Moon.Bay _East Palo Alto -Stanford • is ale • S•~ Eu�In Saato(at Purisima Creek Ktc�roor!s c:SP • Ut ® 1• `1 El Corte de 2dsra OSP Broom at selected sites a Broom at setected sites(newly added under the Addendum Micipenlnsula Regsonal Open Spaces District IMROSDI -Satettlte population =.V+ROW preser.ea 0 0.25 05 e of priority weeds momommK==Mlles Purisima Creek Redwoods Open Space Preserve Site Specific Weed and Pest Management Project . . Addendum to the Mitigated Negative Declaration "r �' }t• ti - .. riLiYr PREPARED BY: Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 330 Distel Circle Los Altos, CA 94022 Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Addendum to the Mitigated Negative Declaration forthe Site-Specific Weed and Pest Management Project i ADDENDUM TO THE MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION In May of 2012 the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District adopted the Site-specific Weed and Pest Management Project Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND). The following document is an Addendum to the MND,which contains minor changes to the project including the addition of 3 sites and 1 target plant species. The entire MND was re-evaluated for potentially significant effects to the environment. Because the added sites and species are similar to those reviewed previously and because they represent only a minor increase in scope, the original mitigation measures are adequate to prevent significant effects. Where changes were made to the original MND,the text was revised and is included below. For all unchanged sections of the original MND,see the original MND document. Since none of the mitigations changed and no additional significant effects were found,the following document is considered a minor technical change to the MND and no public recirculation of the Addendum is required. A Subsequent Negative Declaration was not prepared because the minor additions did not cause any new significant environmental effects or substantially increase the severity of previously identified effects. Project: Site-Specific Weed and Pest Management Project i Lead Agency: Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District PROJECT DESCRIPTION This Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND), supported by the attached Initial Study(IS), evaluates the environmental effects of the proposed Site-Specific Weed and Pest Management project,which would occur in Santa Clara and San Mateo Counties,California.The applicant, Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (District), is proposing to implement weed and pest management activities at 4542 distinct treatment sites within 13 of its 26 designated open space preserve (OSP)areas in the years 2012 through 2014. The District is the lead agency for this project and has prepared this MND. FINDINGS An IS has been prepared to assess the project's potential effects on the environment and the significance of those effects. Based on the Initial Study, it has been determined that the proposed project would not have any significant effects on the environment once mitigation measures are implemented.This conclusion is supported by the following findings: 1. The proposed project would have no impact related to land use and planning, mineral resources, population and housing, public services,or transportation and traffic. 2. The proposed project would have a less-than-significant impact on aesthetics,agriculture and forestry resources, air quality,geology and soils,greenhouse gases, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, noise, recreation,or utilities and service systems. 3. Mitigation is required to reduce potentially significant impacts related to biological and cultural resources. Mitigation measures would reduce all significant impacts to a less-than-significant level.The District has agreed to implement all required mitigation. Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Addendum to the Mitigated Negative Declaration forthe Site-Specific Weed and Pest Management Project i Addendum to the Mitigated Negative Declaration 4. Following are the mitigation measures that will be implemented by the applicant to avoid or minimize environmental impacts. Mal Pretreatment surveys for bay checkerspot butterfly larval host plants(dwarf plantain(Plantago erecta)and purple owl's clover(Castillejo exserta)), will be conducted by a District biologist on treatment sites where serpentine soil is present. This applies to Air Base,Austrian Gulch(Moss Property), Pheasant,and Williams Property on Sierra AzuI OSP and Vineyard on St.Joseph's Hill OSP. If no host plants are found on serpentine soils, then no further study is required. If host plants are determined to be present on serpentine soils,a 15-foot buffer will be established around the plants. No herbicides will be allowed within this buffer. Non-herbicide methods may be used within the 15-foot buffer but they will be designed to avoid damage to the host plant. B10-2. As directed by a qualified biologist,populations of special-status plants will be identified with high- visibility flagging at the time of treatment. Training will be conducted for all treatment field crews and contractors that may be performing manual treatments within 15 feet of special-status plants. Training will consist of a brief review of life history, field identification, habitat requirements for each species,known or potential locations in the vicinity of the treatment site,potential fines for violations,avoidance measures,and necessary actions if special-status species are encountered. A District botanist will monitor all work within 15-feet of a special-status plant. If no special-status plants are found during pretreatment surveys no further actions are required. CUL-1 If human remains are encountered,all work within 100 feet of the remains shall cease immediately and the contractor shall contact the District. The District will contact the appropriate county coroner(San Mateo County or Santa Clara County)to evaluate the remains,and follow the procedures and protocols set forth in§15064.5(e)of the CEQA Guidelines. No further disturbance of the site or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent remains shall occur until the County Coroner has made a determination of origin and disposition, which shall be made within two working days from the time the Coroner is notified of the discovery,pursuant to State Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 and Public Resources Code Section 5097.98. If the remains are determined to be Native American, the Coroner will notify the Native American Heritage Commission(NAHC)within 24 hours, which will determine and notify the Most Likely Descendant(MLD). The MLD may recommend within 48 hours of their notification by the NAHC the means of treating or disposing of, with appropriate dignity, the human remains and grave goods. in the event of difficulty locating a MLD or failure of the MLD to make a timely recommendation, the human remains and grave goods shall be reburied with appropriate dignity on the property in a location not subject to further subsurface disturbance. Questions ewe regarding this Addendum Mitigated Plegative PeelaFatiA_Rand_ Initi-al Study maybe addressed to: Ms. Cindy Reessle Mr.Joel Silverman SeRi9F Resource Management Specialist I Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 330 Distel Circle Los Altos,CA 94022-1404 Ph: (650)691-1200 Fax: (650)691-0485 (fax) croessier@openspace.org Aftpr r-.AFAPAeAts aFe Feeeiyed 49m the pUbliG and Feyi i !s,the PiStFiGt May(1) adept the MNP and appFeye the pFepesed ffejeetj (2) wAdeoake ad-d-itional eRYNFORmental studies;OF(3) diSappFeye the pFejeE4. if the PFOjeEt is appFOYed,the Disticiet may pFeceed with implemeAtatiE)A Of the PFOje Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District ii Addendum to the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Site-Specific Weed and Pest Management Project Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Addendum to the Mitigated Negative Declaration forthe Site-Specific Weed and Pest Management Project iii TABLE OF WNTENTS Chapter Page � ADDENDUM TO THE MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION d .------ -- --------- -. .. ------... ..... . ... ,...... .J � PojecDesnhption---------------------------------------------..i � Findings...........................................................................................................................................................i � | ---'-''----.—.--............-..'.--.'------------'------.-.-'-.........-'1-1 � ---_-__' � 1.1 Introduction and Regulatory Guidance........................................................................................ 1-1 1.2 Purpose ofthe Initial Study.......................................................................................................... 1-1 � 1.3 Summary of Findings.................................................................................................................... 1-1 � 1.4 Environmental Permits................................................................................................................. 1-1 � 1.S Document Organization............................................................................................................... 1-1 � 2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION...........................................................................................................2-1 � 2.1 Introduction..................................................................................................... ............................ 2-1 � � 2.2 Background................................... ............................................................................................... 2-1 2.2.1 Sudden Oak Death........................................................................................................... 2-4 � 2.2.2 Integrated Pest Management......................................................................................... %-4 2.3 PROJECT Objectives...................................................................................................................... 2-4 2.4 K4ROSD Resource Management Policies...................................................................................... 2-5 2.5 PROJECT Setting........................................................................................................................... J-5 2.6 Project Characteristics........................................ ......................................................................... 2-5 2.6.1 Treatment Site Selection Criteha---------------------------- 2-7 � 2.6.2 See IS/K8ND Management Categories............................................................................. 2-7 � � 2.63 Treatment Actions......................................................................................................... 2-11 � 2.6.4 Herbicides...................................................................................................................... 2-l3 � � See |5/MND------------------.-----------------------' 2-13 2.7 BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES INCORPORATED INTO THE PROJECT..................................... 2-lS � 3 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST.................................................................................................B'1 3.1 Aesthetics..................................................................................................................................... 3-4 � 3.1.1 Environmental Setting..................................................................................................... 3-4 � � 312 Discussion...................................................................................................................... 3-11 � � 3.2 Agriculture and Forest Resources................... ............ ............................................................. 3-14 � 3.2.1 Environmental 5etting ................................................................................................. ]'lS 3.2.2 Discussion...................................................................................................................... 3'1S 3] Air Quality................................................................................................................................... 3-16 � 33.1 Environmental Setting--------------------------------- 3-1G 3.3.2 Discussion...................................................................................................................... 3-16 34 Biological Resources................................................................................................................... 3-28 3.4.1 Environmental Setting................................................................................................... 3-21 3.4.2 Discussion...................................................................................................................... 3-25 3.5 Cultural Resources...................................................................................................................... 3-33 3.5.1 Environmental Setting................................................................................................... ]-E] 3.5.3 Discussion.................... ................................................................................................. 3-34 3.6 Geology and Soils....................................................................................................................... 3-34 I6.1 Environmental Setting................................................................................................... 3-34 Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Addendum mthe Mitigated Negative Declaration mrUmSite-Specifio Weed and Pest Management Project v � � Table Ascent�n�mnmonm| � � � 3.62 Discussion...................................................................................................................... 3'3S 3.7 greenhouse gas emissions........................... ........................ ..................................................... 3']G � 3.7.1 Environmental Setting--------------------------------- 3-35 � � 3.7.2 Discussion...................................................................................................................... 3-3G 3.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials.............................................................................................. 3-3O 3.8.1 Environmental Setting................................................................................................... 3-38 3J8.2 Dbcusaion---------------------------------------. 3`38 3.9 Hydrology and Water Quality..................................................................................................... 3'39 � 3.9.1 Environmental Setting--------------------------------- 3-]9 � 3.9.2 Discussion...................................................................................................................... 3'40 3.10 Land Use and Planning............................................................................................................... 3-41 � 3.10.1 Environmental Setting................................................................................................... 3'41 3.102 discussion...................................................................................................................... 3~41 With the additional sites,the projec 'senvironmenta| impactsnebtedtoLanduseandplannin8 � will be the same as those analyzed in the|S/K4ND.................................................................... 3-41 3.11 Mineral Resources...................................................................................................................... 3-4l 3.11.1 Environmental Setting................................................................................................... ]-41 | ! 3.11.2 Discussion...................................................................................................................... ]-42 � � 3.12 Noise........................................................................................................................................... 3-4] � 3.12.1 Environmental Setting--------------------------------- 3-43 � � 3.12.2 Discussion...................................................................................................................... 3-43 � 3�13 Popu�t�nandHous��------------------------------------. 3-43 � � � 3.13.1 Environmental Setting--------------------------------- ]-44 � � 3.I3.2 Discussion...................................................................................................................... 3-44 � � 3.14 PuNic Services............................................................................................................................ 3'44 � 9.14.1 Environmental Setting--------------------------------- 3-44 � 3.14.2 Discussion...................................................................................................................... ]-45 ]]5 Recreation.................................................................................................................................. 3-45 � 3.15.1 Environmental Setting--------------------------------- 3-45 � 3.152 Discussiun---------------------------------------. 3-47 � 3.16 Transportation/Traff ic................................................................................................................ 3'4Q 3.16.1 Environmental Setting--------------------------------- 3-48 � 3.162 Discussion...................................................................................................................... ]4Q � 3.17 Utilities and Service Systems...................................................................................................... 3'4g � 3.17.1 Environmental Setting--------------------------------- 3-49 � 3.17.2 Discussion...................................................................................................................... 3-49 � 3.18 Mandatory Findings nf Significance........................................................................................... 3'51 � 3.18.1 Discussion...................................................................................................................... 3-5l � 4 REFERENCES..........,..........-.—.------.---....----.—..—.......-----...~.~................~/V-1 � 5 REPORT PREPARERS(A00EN00N).........................................................................................S-1 � � � � � � � Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District � m Addendum m the Mitigated Negative Declaration uvmo Site-Specific Weed and Pest Management Project � �� Ascent Environmental Table of Contents APPENDICES A Treatment Sites Maps (Updated; attached) B Pest Control Recommendation Report(No changes; see IS/MND) C Detailed Treatment Table of Past Activities (Updated; attached) D Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Modeling(No changes; see IS/MND) E Special-Status Species (Updated; attached) EXHIBITS EXHIBIT 2-1. REGIONAL OVERVIEW MAP....................................................................................................2-2 EXHIBIT 2-2. OPEN SPACE PRESERVES PROPOSED FOR WEED AND PEST MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES.............2-3 EXHIBIT 3-1A.TYPICAL VIEWS FOUND IN DISTRICT PRESERVES......................................................................3-5 EXHIBIT 3-1B.TYPICAL VIEWS FOUND IN DISTRICT PRESERVES......................................................................3-S EXHIBIT 3-2A.BEAR CREEK REDWOODS TREE FARM SITE..............................................................................3-6 EXHIBIT 3-2B.RESTORED AREA AT BEAR CREEK REDWOODS TREE FARM ......................................................3-6 EXHIBIT 3-3A.PREVIOUSLY TREATED GRASSLAND AT LOST TRANCOS OSP.....................................................3-9 EXHIBIT 3-3B.VIEW OF PULGAS RIDGE.......................................................................................................3-10 EXHIBIT 3-4A.RESTORATION TREATMENT SITE AT SKYLINE RIDGE OSP.......................................................3-12 EXHIBIT 3-413.DRAINAGE RESTORATION AT SKYLINE RIDGE........................................................................3-13 TABLES TABLE2-1. REVISED ESTIMATED TREATMENT ACTIONS GROSS WORK AREAS TREATED,AND HERBICIDEAMOUNTS.................................................................................................................................2-6 TABLE 2-2. PROPOSED TREATMENT SITES AND MANAGEMENT CATEGORIES..........................................2-10 TABLE 3.5-1. SUMMARY OF MODELED EMISSIONS OF CRITERIA AIR POLLUTANTS AND PRECURSORS ASSOCIATED WITH OPERATIONAL ONSITE WEED CONTROL ACTIVITIES......................................................3-17 TABLE3.6-1. VEGETATION AND GROUND COVER TYPES IN THE PROJECT AREA..........................................3-21 TABLE 3.7-1. SUMMARY OF MODELED ANNUAL GHG EMISSIONS ASSOCIATED WITH WEED CONTROL ACTIVITIES 3-36 TABLE 3.15-1.PROPOSED SITES AND RECREATION ACCESS STATUS.............................................................3-45 Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Addendum to the Mitigated Negative Declaration forthe Site-Specific Weed and Pest Management Project vii Table of Contents Ascent Environmental ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS equivalent/acre acid a.e. A a acre / q / AN all-terrain vehicle AB Assembly Bill ARB California Air Resources Board BAAQMD Bay Area Air Quality Management District BAEDN Bay Area Early Detection Network BMPs best management practices C/CAG City/County Association of Governments CAA federal Clean Air Act CAAA federal Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 Cal EPA California Environmental Protection Agency CAL FIRE California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection CalEEMod California Emissions Estimator Model Cal-IPC California Invasive Plant Council CCAA California Clean Air Act CDFA California Department of Food and Agriculture CEQA California Environmental Quality Act CH, methane CMP Congestion Management Program Natural CNDDB CaliforniaDiversity Database CLAPS California Native Plant Society CO carbon monoxide CO, carbon dioxide COze carbon dioxide equivalent dBA decibel A-weighted DFG California Department of Fish and Game District Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District DOC California Department of Conservation EIR Environmental Impact Report EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency FMMP Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program GHG greenhouse gas GHGs greenhouse gases GIS Geographic Information Systems GWP global warming potential HCP Habitat Conservation Plan IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District viii Addendum to the Mitigated Negative Declaration forthe Site-Specific Weed and Pest Management Project I Ascent Environmental Table of Contents / |RN integrated pest management is Initial Study � 0RCo San Mateo Local Agency Formation Commission / LUST leaking underground storage tank � [NLD Most Likely Descendant KxND Mitigated Negative Declaration � K8PM miles per hour � � IVITyyeor metric tons per year � NzO nitrous oxide � NAM[ Native American Heritage Commission � NOx nitrogen oxides � OSP open space preserve � | � PM particulate matter � RMPs Resource Management Policies ROG reactive organic gases 3amTr ns San. � SB Senate Bill SF8AAB San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin SOD Sudden Oak Death | � Sn]5 State Route 35 | � TACs toxic air contaminants � � U5FVVS U.S. Fish&Wildlife Service VIVIT vehicle miles traveled � | \nA Valley Transit Authority Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Addendurnto the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Site-Specific Weed and PestManagement Project ix � � � | � � � � � � . � � � �� ~N N �� mnmmmmODUCmmON � � � � N �N�� U� ��U�N � �� wn�m��mm�� m�� m GUIDANCE � � This Initial Study(IS) has been prepared by the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District(District)to evaluate the � potential environmental effects of implementing the Site-Specific Weed and Pest Management project within its open space preserve(OSP)system.The proposed project would implement weed and pest management activities � at 454-2 distinct treatment sites within 13 of its 26 designated OSPs in the years 2012 through 2014. This document has been prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CECA)(Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.)and the State CEQA Guidelines(Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations section 15000 et seq.).An IS is prepared by a lead agency to determine if a project may have a significant effect on the environment(CEQA Guidelines Section 15063[a]), and thus to determine the � appropriate environmental document. In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15070, a "public agency shall � prepare...a proposed negative declaration or mitigated negative declaration...when: (a)The IS shows that there is no substantial evidence that the project may have a significant impact on the environment,or(b)The IS � | identifies potentially significant effects but revisions to the project plans or proposal are agreed to by the applicant and such revisions would reduce potentially significant effects toa less-than-significant level." In this circumstance,the lead agency prepares a written statement describing its reasons for concluding that the | � proposed project would not have a significant effect on the environment and,therefore, does not require the � preparation of an Environmental Impact Report(EIR). By contrast, an EIR is required when the project may have a significant environmental impact that cannot clearly be reduced to a less-than-significant effect by adoption of mitigation orby revisions inthe project design. | � � � �� N�� N�� m-mmmmm-�p�m�� m �m�m� mu�mmm��m� ��mm�� m � See |S/K4ND. � � ��NN��N� �� A�U�N�� | ~�� +m��u�mn�mx�� m ��m mmw��mn��mw� � � See |S/K4ND � � �N N�0 N�� ' n�n��mmm�'x��mw�� m-u�m��mm* SeeLy/MND � � N� 0�U�X�y�' �� °�� mnm�� m��m�n� | � See1S/MUVD / � Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District � � � � Addendum m the Mitigated Negative Declaration formo Site-Specific Weed and Pest Management Project �1 � � � � �� Introduction Ascent Environmental This page intentionally left blank. Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 1-2 Addendum to the Mitigated Negative Declaration forthe Site-Specific Weed and Pest Management Project � - � � �� N��w�' | �� m-mmn��m��m DESCRIPTION | � � � w� � INTRODUCTION � �� mm�mm�m��m��wmm�po� � � The project would implement selected weed and pest management techniques in natural areas within the i N1hdpeninsula Regional Open Space District's (District) preserve lands.The District has permanently presemed | � over 6l0U0 acres within its 550- quaoemiheDisthctboundahesuntheSanFrandscopeninsu|a |n5antaC|ara, � � San Mateo, andheUi�1ricthases�eb|ished �Gopenspacepnesenx�s(O5Ps � ' California.. ' � preserves). Exhibit 2-1 presents a regional overview of the District boundaries and the OSPs. The proposed project would implement selected weed and pest management activities at 454.1 distinct treatment sites within | 13 of its 26 OSPs in the years 2012 through 2014. Exhibit 2-2 identifies the location of the 13 OSPs that would be � subject to weed and pest management activities.Within each identified OSP,one to multiple distinct treatment sites have been selected for assessment under this project. Exhibits of each individual treatment site are presented in Appendix A.The purpose of the project is to control noxious and invasive weed and pest species in � high priority natural areas of the District to halt or minimize the spread of those species in areas where substantial progress has been made towards eradication or site restoration to more natural conditions. �� NN|�U� �� m�*��'mmm�mm�'n�o�� See | /�� / � � � � �! � � � | � mwpem/nsum Regional Open Space ummm � Addendum m the Mitigated Negative nodumUnnfo,the Site-Specific Weed and Pest Management Project 2-1 � � � i BA v BRIDGE I—J GOLDEN GATE BRIDGE U 680 SAN FANCISCO OAKLAND Uy 'P, 580 — 16 Pacifica 's Hayward 0 t07 y� 92 880 680 SAN MATEO BRIDGE 260. Fremont San Mateo 1 92 84 O DUMB TO ' BRI Palo Alto. •Hall]f Moon Bay 23 Mountain 880 View Sunnyvale 66 35 r 280 Santa- Clara • San , AN JOS Gregorio ertino lie 17 Saratoga tot' •9 85 Los MROSD Open Gato Space Preserves p � • District Boundary :r 9 Lexington SANTA CRUZ Hills ® Sphere of Influence A10 UNTA 1 NS Boulder. Creek 1; 0 4.5 9 Scotts Approximate Scale Valley t In Miles CP 1201 DO 15.01 001 Source:MROSD,Adapted by Ascent in 2012 Exhibit 2-1. Regional Overview Map t 92 yf+ +�+ 0 $all Palo ®+' Alto '•,1fnGd•_.iU_ C 0 ti Mountain View © © i Sunnyvale Cupertino94 85{ 0 San Jose Pescadero Saratoga Creek O Countv Perk Butano Castle Pu:. G 'f, 17 Los State Prrk Dlstrtct Boundary State Park (D Gat AA 5g tlas.,. Redwo)ds Stet. Parl,. Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 1 Pulgas Ridge 8 Skyline Ridge 2 Punsima Creek Redwoods 9 Saratoga Gap Note. Only Open Space Preserves 3 El Corte de Madera 10 El Sereno Pertaining to This Document are Displayed a j Coal Creek 11 St.Joseph's Hill 5 Los Trancos 12 Sierra Azul 6 i Rancho San Antonio 13 Bear Creek Redwoods T Monte Bello no.� Exhibit 2-2. Open Space Preserves Proposed for Weed and Pest Management Activities Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Addendum to the Mitigated Negative Declaration forthe Site-Specific Weed and Pest Management Project 2-3 � Project Description Ascent EnWmommnm| � � � ��K�� =.=~� ==~~=�� "~ °~�"°""" See|S/MND. � � �� ^� ^� U��K� �� ~-..~.~~ .....-~~.~..�— ~ ��, ,.~�~~��,.�~.. � � � [v,nsntky,the District utilizes an integrated pest management(|PK8)approach tocontrol invasive species and | | � 1ar�et�es�.The D�tr�tdefnus� |PK4asa |ong�ennstsge0y that opec�ca|� rev�vvsabprnat�eoand mon�urs � � � conditions to effectively control a target pest with minimum impact to human health,the environment, and non-target organisms. An |PM approach can be used for many types of pests and situations (e.g. landscape weeds,ants in houses,thistles invading native grasslands). Chemical and non-chemical techniques are � considered,and techniques vary according to site conditions or as conditions at a treatment site change over � � time. If pesticides arenecessarytorneetapes control objective,the least toxic and most target-specific � pesticide is chosen. Pesticide is a broad term that consist of any material (natural,organic,or synthetic) used to control or prevent pests, including herbicides (weed or plant killers), insecticides(insect killers),and fungicides (kills fun8us),asa few examples. � |PK8 requires knowledge of the biology of pests, understanding of the available methods for controlling targeted species,and an understanding of the secondary effects associated with proposed treatment methods. Critical to the success of an IPM approach is the monitoring of site conditions before,during, and after treatment to determine if objectives are being met and if treatment methods need to be revised to respond to changed � conditions. As part of its annual planning,the District contracts with a licensed Pest Control Advisor to evaluate its invasive plant and pest control work.The Pest Control Advisor also develops Pest Control Recommendations for work i � that might require the use of pesticides.The Pest Control Recommendations provide important guidance on � how to use pesticides to control the target pest and protect the environment, public, and pesticide applicators � � from potential hazards. Each year the Pest Control Recommendations are updated to reflect changes in product � � labeling or new information about their use.The District's existing Pest Control Recommendations are included |n Appendix 8of this document. � � Concurrent with the evaluation nf this project,the District is undertaking a comprehensive review and update of � its IPM practices.This update will focus on district-wide pest management approaches for target pests and / � � invasive plant species.The district-wide IPM program will address all management techniques for all lands and � habitats within the District.This program is independent of the proposed project and will be subject to separate environmental review.The Site-Specific Weed and Pest Management Project reviewed herein consists of work � | at 454.2-sites in 13 preserves for a three-year period. As a short term strategy, it allows the District to avoid � losing substantial progress made in protecting priority preserve resources by controlling invasive plants � � or pests while the longer term and broader strategy is developed under the future district-wide IPM program � � that will cover many sites in all 25 preserves for multiple years. � �� °�� mrmmn��m��m ��m��&n#mm��w� � � See IS(MmKD / � � � � mNponinsNa Regional Vpu Space District 24 Addendum m the Mitigated Negative Declaration fortho Site-Specific Weed and Pest Management Project Ascent Environmental Project Description �� N �� A� A��S�NN�� N�� u�m�� `�� m��u�x�m�x�m ��u�� See IS/NND � �� N��N0��wi� ��0�0��|�� m-mm�m�m�n�� SETTING The proposed project would be implemented within 13 OSPs at 454�distinct treatment sites in the years 2012 through 2U14(Exhibit %-2). For the purposes nf this document,each of the 454-2 treatment sites has been | identified by a preserve name and by a site name.The site name usually reflects the name of a nearby trail,gate, � � or former property name. Each treatment site for this project is listed in Table 2-1 and mapped in Appendix A. � For example,treatment site BC01 is a 34-acre area located in Bear Creek Redwoods OSP near gate BCO1. Native � plant communities found on these preserves consist of: redwood forest, Douglas-fir forest, chaparral, mixed evergreen forest, riparian forest, native and annual grasslands, mixed coastal woodland, knobcone pine forest, � and freshwater marsh. Many of the proposed treatment sites have been disturbed by previous land uses � including logging,farming,and ranching operations;fire suppression;water development;transportation; and urban development.These previous land uses are partially responsible for the introduction of invasive plant species tu these areas. �� T �� U��N�� m-mmmam�m�n�m m�mmw�u�mm�m�mm~wmmw�mm��m� The project consists of activities to control weeds and other target pests in natural areas of the preserves.The project would occur over three years, 2012-2014, primarily during the spring and summer seasons. Project � activities would b implemented during daylight hours;m� non|gh1timeactivities wouldoccur.As with current practice,the District would carry out an IPM approach in the implementation of this project.The District has � selected a set of priority treatment sites and target weed species,where IPM activities are proposed to be � � implemented to control invasive and noxious weed and pest species.The purpose of the project istn halt or minimize the spread of those species in areas where substantial progress has been made towards eradication or � site restoration. � Under the project,a total annual average of2^£13479158 gross work acres and L239174,19 net land acres would | � be treated.The amount of gross work acres is defined as the total overall number of acres of work in one year. � Under the IPM approach,the District returns to sites to evaluate the effectiveness of the first treatment and � then, if necessary to prevent any remaining target plants from seeding, applies additional treatments in the same year. Some sites may be treated more than once in a year,thus their work acres are counted more than � once. For example,target weeds at a given site may be initially sprayed with glyphosate in the spring,and then several weeks later, any remaining living target weeds at that same site may be pulled. In this example,the location's acres would be counted twice under the gross work acres.The amount of net land acres is defined as the actual land acres treated, and retreatment of a site in the same year does not add to the sum of net land � � acres Furthermore,within not only � � � ' ' ' � � treated.Thus, if the target weed population isdense,the actual treated area could bein the range of5Oto100% of the site. If the target weed population is sparse,the actual treated area could be in the range of 1 to 10%of � � the site. � � Table 2-1 provides estimated annual work activities focusing on gross work acres by various treatment types. The estimated annual amount of gallons applied by each herbicide type and method are also provided.The data provided in the following table was compiled based on the detailed and comprehensive records that are maintained by the District for past treatment activities at each of the sites.The District has reviewed the past treatment activities for each of the selected sites and determined that the activities proposed under the project � would be substantially similar to past activities at these sites, particularly in area,type of activity, and type of M|Umminou|u Regional Open Space District � Addendum to the Mitigated Negative Declaration forthe Site-Specific Weed and Pest Management Project 2'5 � � � Project Description Ascent Environmental species to be controlled.Therefore,this data was used in assessing the project's potential environmental impacts at each site because it provides a reasonable and good-faith estimate of the work anticipated to occur � under the project. Table 2-1. RevisA EsUmated Treatment Actions',Gross Work Areas Treated,and Herbicide Amounts TreatmentAction GrossWorkArea Herbicide ArnountAnticlipated to be Used(gal" Chainsaw cutting of trees 16 N/A Digging 65 N/A Pulling 935 4-148 N/A Green flaming 7 N/A Agri-Fos and Pentrabark spraying(by ATV) 27 40 TOTAL Gross Work Acres 2,413:179-59 Treatment action descriptions are provided in Section 2.6.3. � � � | � . | / | / | / � The District selected the priority treatment sites based on a set of selection criteria (see Section 2.6.1).These sites contain weed and pest species that fall within one of seven management categories(see Section 2.6.2)and within these seven management categories, a selection of treatment actions (see Section 2.6.3)would be implemented in an integrated manner to control the weeds during the 3-year term of the project.The following � sections describe specific treatment actions (e.g., pulling by hand, herbicide application)for a specific species (e.g,starth|st|e)at a specific treatment site(e.g,Virginia Mill Trail). Other treatment actions are identified for the same site for different species.The selected treatment action is described because it is the primary action � � that is intended to be implemented based on what is currently known and observed at the site. However,during � the 3-year term of the project, site conditions could change such that an alternate or additional treatment action may be needed tu control the species. For example, in Year 1an herbicide|s applied; however, in Year Zh � is determined that only pulling of a few plants is required.Therefore, in Year 2,the plants are pulled.Then in � Year 3 some herbicide and pulling with a weed wrench may be required.The District uses an integrated set of � treatment actions such as that described above when controlling weed species.This integrated approach will be � � taken for this project. All treatment actions that are proposed under this project are described in Section 3.6.3. No other treatment � actions would be implemented.The analysis includes assumptions for the quantities of herbicide use,areas � where treatment actions would be implemented, equipment to be used,and number of person hours required to implement the project.These assumptions are based upon detailed accounts of past weed control activities at each of the treatment sites implemented consistent with the IPM approach described above and included in Appendix[. Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 2'8 Addendum to the Mitigated Negative Declaration forthe Site-Specific Weed and Pest Management Project � � Ascent Environmental Project Description � � � 2,6,1 TREATMENT SITE SELECTION CRITERIA � � � � � �� K�� =^~^°- "°�"��=��""��," ~=""�==^^^�= | � � | � . � The District has identified seven categories for weed and pest management as described below.The categories � described below identify the treatment actions for each site. A description of each treatment action is provided below in Section 2.6.3,Treatment Actions.Again, it is important to note that the District would implement the � treatment actions inan integrated manner(IPyW),so while a specific treatment action |s identified for aspecies � below,other treatment actions identified for the site may be implemented on a year-to-year basis according to the site conditions observed.Table 2-1 below identifies the OSPs, names for treatment sites, and management categories under review in this project. 1. State-rated noxious weeds.This category addresses the eradication of small populations of two species of weeds assigned by the State of California aaA'orU-roted noxious weeds: spottedknapvveed (Gentoureostoebe,A'rated) and egg|eaf spurge(Euphorb/o oblongata, 8'mted).The spotted knapweed infestation is the only known location of this noxious weed in Santa Clara County. Eggleaf spurge is of particular concern because its sap can cause severe rashes topeople. The California Department of Food and Agriculture(CDFA) and county agriculture commissioners oversee regulations regarding the control of officially designated noxious weeds as defined in the California Code ofRegulations. "A"-rated weeds are new invaders with limited distribution,determined � to be eradicable, are prevented from shipment into the state if found during inspections, and their eradication, containment, rejection or other holding actions are determined jointly by the CDFA and the � affected county agriculture commissioners. "B"-rated weeds are relatively new invaders,are firmly � established in one or a few parts of the state but eradicable in most other parts of the state,are held � and eradicated when found in nurseries, and their eradication,containment,control or other holding � actions outside of nurseries are determined at the discretion of the affected county agriculture commissioners([DFA ZOOS). Treatment Actions:The following treatment actions would be implemented: � m) Aminopyralid spraying by backpack of spotted knapweed in and along roads, parking lots, � building perimeters,and other disturbed areas at the former Almaden Air Force Station at Mount Umunhum. � � b) Glyphosate spraying by backpack of eggleaf spurge at the Austrian Gulch and Moss properties � � along Cathermole Road,along Pheasant Road and along Reynolds Road in Sierra Azul OSP. � � 2. Grassland Weeds at Los Trancos OSP—Thiscategoryaddnssesthetreatment of four species of invasive � weeds in grasslands of Los Trancos CISP:yellow starthistle (Centaureo solstitiolis), medusa head (Elymus � coput-/nodusoe),jninLed goat grass (Aeg8opocylindrico),and Harding grass(Pho/onisoquobto). District staff has identified a diverse collection of native grass species concentrated in the grasslands of � � Los Trancos CSP. Substantial progress has been made at the Los Trancos grasslands over many years to � � reduce the size and seed bank of these invasive weeds. Currently,minimal work is required to manage � � the invasive species at this location to maintain the populations at a low level and allow native grassland species to reoccupy treated areas. Further,the grassland areas within Los Trancos OSP are surrounded by barriers(forests or Page Mill Road)that minimize the potential spread of invasive species from offsite � areas. Midmminoulo Regional Open Space District Addendum m the Mitigated Negative Declaration fo'tho Site-Specific Weed and Pest Management Project 2'7 � r Description Project p tion Ascent Environmental Treatment Actions:The following treatment actions would be implemented: a) Aminopyralid spraying by backpack and pulling of yellow starthistle. b) Mowing medusa head with brushcutters before annual ripening of seedheads. c) Pulling jointed goat grass and disposal in dumpsters. d) Glyphosate spraying by backpack of Harding grass. e) Small compost piles would be established onsite to allow for the disposal of hand-pulled yellow starthistle plants (equivalent to approximately 200 plants per year).The plants would be placed under black plastic and allowed to decay.The covered compost piles would be anchored to the ground with rocks and heavy branches and monitored several times a year to ensure they are secure and to treat any yellow starthistle plants that might germinate on their edges. 3. Woodland Weeds at Bear Creek Redwoods OSP—This category addresses the removal of up to 30 Christmas trees per year and the control of the following invasive weeds in the former Christmas tree farm at Bear Creek Redwoods OSP: French and Spanish broom (Spartium junceum), Klamathweed (Hypericum perforatum ssp. perforatum),eggleaf spurge,ornamental perennial sweet pea (Lathyrus latifolius), stinkwort (Dittrichia groveolens), and woolly mullein (Verbascum thapsus). Former Christmas trees are removed to encourage natural regeneration of native plants and to allow access to control French and Spanish broom in the understory. Treatment Actions:The following treatment actions would be implemented: a) Up to 30 established trees(used as stock for a former Christmas tree farm) per year(total of 90 trees)would be removed selectively and in a dispersed pattern from the site.The trees would be cut down with chainsaws at a point below the bottom whorl of branches to prevent re- sprouting.Stumps would remain in place to decay.Wood material would be processed through a gas powered chipper and the chips would be spread in selected areas of the site to control the seed bank of weeds onsite. b) French and Spanish broom would be controlled at the Bear Creek Redwoods OSP. Mature plants would be removed with weed wrenches.Seedling broom plants would be controlled with green flaming, pulling,or glyphosate spraying by backpack. c) Stinkwort would be controlled by glyphosate spraying by backpack and pulling. d) Klamathweed,eggleaf spurge,and sweet pea and would be controlled by glyphosate spraying by backpack. e) Mullein would be controlled by pulling. 4. Sudden Oak Death Control.This category prevents the spread of the plant pathogen Phytophthora . This r would be implemented at treatment sites in El ramorum,the cause of Sudden Oak Death s strategy p Corte de Madera Creek, Los Trancos, and Rancho San Antonio OSPs.This strategy would address a pathogen that has been the subject of many years of research work,some conducted with funding from the U.S. Forest Service. Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 2-8 Addendum to the Mitigated Negative Declaration forthe Site-Specific Weed and Pest Management Project I Ascent Environmental Project Description Treatment Actions:The following treatment actions would be implemented: a) Annual spraying of a fungicide (Agri-fos®) by a hand-operated wand attached by hose to a 14- gallon tank mounted on an all-terrain vehicle(ATV)on the lower trunks of 151 oak trees. b) Removal of up to 10 California bay(Umbellularia californica)trees over the three-year period (no greater than 36 inches diameter at breast height)within 15-foot radius of the 151 protected oaks. Removal would occur via a gas-powered chainsaw. Bay tree trunks would be cut into large sections and branches would be sent through a chipper and disposed in the understory onsite to prevent spread of the disease. c) Hand application of glyphosate to cut stumps of bay trees. d) Backpack spraying of bay sprouts with glyphosate. e) Pulling or weed wrench removal of bay seedlings. 5. Habitat Restoration Site Maintenance.This category addresses the control of the following invasive weeds at the Hassler loop section of Pulgas Ridge OSP and the Skyline Ridge tree farm restoration site: eucalyptus trees (Eucalyptus globulus),thistles, French and Spanish broom, acacia (Acacia spp.), blue gum, stinkwort, Harding grass, and coyote brush(Baccharis pilularis).These treatment sites have undergone substantial site restoration and re-plantings and control of weeds at these locations is critical to ensuring site restoration success. Treatment Action:The following treatment actions would be implemented: a) Removal of 12 non-native blue gum trees via a gas-powered chainsaw and application of glyphosate via backpack to cut blue gum stumps at the Hassler Loop section of Pulgas Ridge OSP. b) Hand pulling, brushcutting, and glyphosate spraying of thistles, French and Spanish broom, acacia (Acacia spp.), blue gum, stinkwort and other miscellaneous weeds in restoration plantings areas at the Hassler Loop section of Pulgas Ridge OSP. c) Pulling or glyphosate spraying by backpack of thistles, Harding grass,and French broom at the Skyline Ridge tree farm restoration site. Y g ii d) Weed wrench removal or stump cutting with chainsaws of young, native coyote brush plants and treating stumps with glyphosate herbicide via backpack in areas here they are forming dense colonies(Skyline Ridge tree farm)which crowd out the diverse native plants that have been installed to restore the site to a mixed oak and evergreen forest. 6. Control of satellite populations of priority weeds.This category addresses the control of six4ve species of priority weeds with limited distribution within the OSPs.The purpose is to prevent these weeds, which have exhibited the ability to reproduce widely and densely in other natural areas and cause destructive effects to native species and processes(Cal-IPC 2008),from spreading and becoming common weeds throughout District preserves. Selected locations each have a high potential for successful control of these invasive species based on results of past work and demonstrated ability to control the target weeds with current practices. Treatment Actions:The followingtreatment actions would be implemented: p Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Addendum to the Mitigated Negative Declaration forthe Site-Specific Weed and Pest Management Project 2-9 � � Project Description Ascent Environmental a) Digging and aminopyralid spraying by backpack of purple starthistle (Centoureo cokitrapa)on and adjacent to Monte Bello Road and Waterwheel Creek Trail at Monte Bello OSP. b) Pulling and treating with glyphosate by spraying or wipe application of stinkwort along roads, trails, and in disturbed areas at the f ield off ice in Rancho San Antonio OSP,the Vista area of St. � Joseph's Hill{}SP,the Overlook weed zone ofE|SprenoOSP'the Beatty propedwand Hicks | � | Creek Ranch portion of Sierra Azul OSP, around the former Alma College buildings of Bear Creek Redwoods OSP'and the Lysons property of Saratoga Gap. � � 4—PuUin8 and cutting with hand tools and cha|nsavv of English ivy(8edero helix),Cape Ivy � and English holly trees(Ilex o4uifh8um)atPuds|ma Creek Redwoods O5P. � Stumps would be treated with 8k/phosate as English ivy and is located within an existing treatment site(PC01) in Purisima Cleek Redwoods OSP� � � | *4,|Sprayin8bybackpackofQ|yphouateonHandinQgrassandstinkxvortattheRDGportionofSiena Azu|OSP. ` 7. Broom Control.This strategy addresses the control of French and Spanish broom at Vineyard and Vista � weed zones of St.Joseph's Hill OSP;Aquinas Trail and Overlook weed zones of El Sereno OSP;around ' the former Alma College Du||dings'a+*4#+e-8[0 ( Beatty and Williams properties and SA19 weed zone of | Sierra Azu|O8P; near the intersection of Highway 35 and Page Mill Road of Coal Creek OSP; along the Methuselah and K4i||Troib and the staging of Corte Madera[reehOSP'' along � � | the o ' � . f � Purbima Creek Redwoods OSP;and at the residence area of Saratoga Gap OSP. Treatment Actions:The following treatment actions would beimplemented: a) Pulling with weed wrenches,green flaming mf seedlings, pulling,g|yphosate spraying by � backpack, andburn|n�approx|m�te|y��D��cubicyard�ofFrenchandSpanishbronminpi|ex ` � | ' � | � � ) � Table 2-2. Proposed Treatment Sites and Management Categories Preserve Site Name Management Categmy � BC01 Broom control � Bear Creek Redwoods OSP -Alma College Broom control Tree Farm Woodland weedsl � | West Roadsjntw site BroomCoal Creek OSP Page Mill& Highway 35 Broom control � El Corte de Madera Creek —Lawrence Creek Trail Sudden Oak Death OSP Methuselah Trail Broom control Future staging area between CM03&CM04 Broom control Virginia Mill Trail Broom control El Sereno OSP Aquinas Trail Broom control Loma Vista Trai I Broom control Overlook Trail Broom control Satellite populations of priority weeds Los Trancos OSP Event Meadow Grassland Weeds Fault Trail Sudden Oak Death Franciscan Loop Trail Sudden Oak Death Greater Los Trancos Sudden Oak Death Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District � � � � 2-10 Addendum mthe Mitigated Negative Declaration forthe Site-Specific Weed and Pest Management Project � | � � � �� Ascent Environmental Project Description Knoll Grassland Weeds LT02 Grassland Weeds Norton Grassland Weeds Parking Lot Grassland Weeds Monte Bello CISP —Montebello Road Satellite populations of priority weeds Water Wheel Creek Satellite populations of priority weeds Pulgas Ridge OSP Hassler Loop Habitat restoration Purisima Creek OSP Harkins Ridge Cutover Broom control North Ridge Satellite populations of priority weeds Grassland WeedsHarkins Ridge Trail Broom control !TLiemw�it Broom control Upper Purlsima Creek RoadLnew site Broom control Rancho San Antonio CISP Lower Meadow Trail Sudden Oak Death Shop Satellite populations of priority weeds St.Joseph's Hill CISP Vineyard Broom control Vista/Y Star/Hilltop Broom control Saratoga Gap OSP -Charcoal Residence Broom control Lysons Property Satellite populations of priority weeds Sierra Azul OSP Air Base State-rated noxious weeds Austrian Gulch(Moss Property) State-rated noxious weeds Beatty Broom control Satellite populations of priority weeds Hicks Creek Ranch Satellite populations of priority weeds Pheasant State-rated noxious weeds RDG Satellite populations of priority weeds Reynolds State-rated noxious weeds SA19 Broom control Williams Property Broom control NSkyline Ridge OSP Tree Farm Restoration Habitat restoration n this Addendum,new sites and an existina site with a ne��s are all high!Lq_hted in ray. Source:Data provided by MROSD in 2012,adapted by Ascent in 2012 � � � � � � � � | � � �� J� �^`°^� ^^^��"""��" ""��"~~"�� For each work item,the treatment action (manual control or herbicide)and treatment timing will be site-specific and based on the infestation size(small versus large), infestation density,the type and sensitivity of the site to be treated (upland or aquatic habitat,slope stability,etc.),the maturation of plants to be treated,the potential for the presence cf special-status species habitat to occur in proximity to the treatment site,and the availability of labor.Typical conditions for implementing each treatment method are described below. � MANUAL CONTROL TREATMENTS � Manual control treatments consist of pulling, digging,and mowing. Manual control methods are effective for the removal of small weed populations, individual occurrences, and populations near special-status species and � their habitat or sensitive natural communities.Additionally,they are often used as a follow-up treatment in � areas where larger populations have been sprayed with anherbicide. � .A Pull: Depending on the size of the plants,the stem of the target plant would be grasped by hand or with the assistance of a weed wrench and the entire plant including the roots would be pulled out of the ground. A � Midmminmla Regional Open Space District � Addendum m the Mitigated Negative Declaration m,mo Site-Specific Weed and Pest Management Project 2'/1 � Project Description Ascent Environmental � weed wrench is a lever-type tool that is used to pull up invasive plants that are between one and six feet tall � � � with roots that penetrate more than a few inches into the soil; usually shrubs such as French broom (Genisto � � mnonspessu�no)are ideal candidates for a weed wrench Pulling� . � � terrain,where the operator cannot gain a firm stance,or where the activity may lead to disruptive erosion. � A Burning ofBrush Piles:After|arRestands of broom are pulled,the green plants are stacked in piles no greater than six feet by six feet to dry out.The piles would be located on mineral soils with a 4-inch by 12- foot wide trench to catch debris. No piles are located under the drip line of trees. Brush piles would be � burned during the wet season on days that the BAAQMD designates as"open burn status" and the piles � would be monitored to ensure that all combustible material is consumed before leaving the site. � Approximately 200 to 500 gallons of water would be trucked to the site on burn pile days. Notification Form | | [for Hazard Reduction Fires would be filed with the 8AAQK8D and� ' � per8AAQMD regulations would be followed. � � A Dig: For small infestations,this would be completed by using a shovel, Pulaski,or similar hand-operated digging tool to loosen the soil around the roots of a plant several inches below the surface and then lifting � � out the entire plant.The amount of root that must be removed varies byspecies. � � ,A MowlCut:A brushcutter or other motorized cutting machine would be selected for mowing of weeds based � on the size of the infestation. Most species would require repeated cutting throughout the growing season � (generally late spring through mid-summer)or they could re-sprout from their base and continue to grow, � flower, and produce seed. Mowing would need to be carefully timed according to the phenology of each � � plant species to minimize the amount of re-sprouting and to avoid spreading ripe seed. Mowing is a � temporary measure that controls reproductive spread and can eventually reduce populations of annual � � plants, but other subsequent treatments(e.g., pulling, herbicide)would be necessary to eradicate perennial � plants. Mowing cannot be used on steep slopes orin locations with desirable native plants unless the timing � � of the mowing can be selected tn affect only target plants. GREEN FLAMING TREATMENTS � A Green Flaming:Specially designed small, hand-held propane torches would be used in small areas to kill � dense and newly emerged green seedlings. Green flaming would usually be conducted during light rains.e4:- � | a*4-wetdayswhenfones1 |itterorArass|undthatnhisnot |ike|ytocatchfireandaddidona| precuutionsare � implemented at the time of use including bringing truck-mounted or backpack water tanks, and operating | with more than one person onsite.This method works well on newly emerged broom seedlings. HERBICIDE TREATMENT A Cut-stump application:Under this treatment,the woody plant would be cut close tn the ground ata90- degree or 45-clegree angle with a chainsaw or pole saw. Debris is removed from the cut stump and herbicide � im immediately applied to the circle nf living cells. � � A Spray: Depending on the size of the infestation, herbicide is applied with a 5-gallon backpack sprayer or,for larger areas, a 14-gallon tank mounted on an all-terrain vehicle (ATV)or 150-gallon truck with a hose that is directly controlled by an operator. All methods of spraying under this project would be selective,that is,the operator(who is trained in identifying invasive plants) is in direct control of the sprayer, points the spray tip directly at the target weed or pest, and turns the spray equipment on and off to control the amount and ! direction of spray. A Wipe application: Under this treatment, herbicide is applied to the target plant using a sponge or rope wick applicator for selective treatment.This method results in less potential for herbicide drift than spraying, although care must be taken that the applicator does not drip or overlap onto non-target plants.This method works best on plants that form a basal rosette ofleaves. Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 2-12 Addendum to the Mitigated Negative Declaration forthe Site-Specific Weed and Pest Management Project Ascent Environmental Project Description 2.6.4 HERBICIDES See IS/MND 2.7 BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES INCORPORATED INTO THE PROJECT The District has developed standard practices in conducting weed and pest management activities that protect both human health and the environment. These practices are referred to as Best Management Practices(BMPs). The District will implement the following BMPs as an element of the project. Many of these BMPs have been adapted from publications of the California Invasive Plant Council (Cal-IPC)and were originally developed by a technical advisory team made up of experts in California with experience in invasive plant control and land management(California Invasive Plant Council 2011). Will 1 All herbicide spraying shall be implemented consistent with Pest Control Recommendations prepared annually by a licensed Pest Control Advisor. 2 Surfactants and other adjuvants shall be used and applied consistent with the District's Pest Control Recommendations. 3 Applicators shall follow all herbicide label requirements and refer to all other BMPs regarding mandatory measures to protect sensitive resources and employee and public health during herbicide application. 4 Herbicide applicators shall have or work under the direction of a person with a Qualified Applicator License or Qualified Applicator Certificate. 5 All storage, loading and mixing of herbicides shall be set back at least 300 feet from any aquatic feature or special-status species or their habitat or sensitive natural communities.All mixing and transferring shall occur within a contained area.Any transfer or mixing on the ground shall be within containment pans or over protective tarps. 6 Appropriate non-toxic colorants or dyes shall be added to the herbicide mixture where needed to determine treated areas and prevent over-spraying. 7 Application Requirements-The following general application parameters shall be employed during treatment application: Application shall cease when weather parameters exceed label specifications,when wind at site of application exceeds 7 miles per hour(MPH),or when precipitation (rain)occurs or is forecasted with greater than a 4070 percent probability in the next 24-hour period to prevent sediment and herbicides from entering the water via surface runoff; Spray nozzles shall be configured to produce a relatively large droplet size; Low nozzle pressures(30-70 pounds per square inch [PSI])shall be observed; Spray nozzles shall be kept within 24 inches of vegetation during spraying; Drift avoidance measures shall be used to prevent drift in locations where target weeds and pests are in proximity to special-status species or their habitat.Such measures can consist of, but would not be limited to the use of plastic shields around target weeds and pests and adjusting the spray nozzles of application equipment to limit the spray area. 8 Herbicide application in public areas—Consistent with the District's guidelines regarding Public Notification of Pesticide Use,signs shall be posted at each end of herbicide treatment areas and any intersecting trails notifying the public,employees, and contractors of the District's use of herbicides.The signs shall consist of the following information:signal word, product name,and manufacturer;active ingredient; EPA registration number;target pest; preserve name;treatment location in preserve;date and time of application;date which notification sign may be removed; and contact person with telephone number.Signs shall be posted at the start of treatment and notification shall remain in place for 72 hours after treatment ceases. In preserves with Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Addendum to the Mitigated Negative Declaration forthe Site-Specific Weed and Pest Management Project 2-13 Project Description Ascent Environmental high public use(Rancho San Antonio, Fremont Older, Picchetti,St.Joseph's Hill, Pul as Ridge and Wind Hill g P p g g Y OSPs),signs shall be posted 48 hours prior to the start of treatment and 72 hours after the end of treatment. In areas normally closed to the public,treatment areas shall be posted for 24 hours after treatment. 9 Cleanup of Containers-All herbicide and adjuvant containers shall be triple rinsed with clean water at an approved site,and the rinsate shall be disposed of by placing it in the batch tank for application. Used containers shall be punctured on the top and bottom to render them unusable,unless said containers are part of a manufacturer's container recycling program,in which case the manufacturer's instructions shall be followed. Disposal of non-recyclable containers shall be at legal dumpsites. Equipment shall not be cleaned and personnel shall not bathe in a manner that allows contaminated water to directly enter any body of water within the treatment areas or adjacent watersheds. 10 All appropriate laws and regulations pertaining to the use of herbicides and safety standards for employees and the public,as governed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,the California Department of Pesticide Regulation,and local jurisdictions shall be followed.All applications shall adhere to label directions for application rates and methods,storage,transportation, mixing,and container disposal.All contracted applicators shall be appropriately licensed by the state. District staff shall coordinate with the County Agricultural Commissioners,and all required licenses and permits shall be obtained prior to herbicide application. 11 Sanitation and Prevention of Contamination-All personnel working in infested areas shall take appropriate precautions to not carry or spread weed seed or SOD-associated spores outside of the infested area.Such precautions will consist of,as necessary based on site conditions,cleaning of soil and plant materials from tools,equipment,shoes,clothing,or vehicles prior to entering or leaving the site. 12 All staff,contractors,and volunteer crew leaders shall be properly trained to prevent spreading weeds and pests to other sites. 13 District staff shall appropriately maintain facilities where tools,equipment,and vehicles are stored free from invasive plants. 14 District staff shall ensure that rental equipment and project materials(especially soil, rock,erosion control material and seed)are free of invasive plant material prior to their use at a worksite. 15 Suitable onsite disposal areas shall be identified to prevent the spread of weed seeds. 16 Invasive plant material shall be rendered nonviable when being retained onsite.Staff shall desiccate or decompose plant material until it is nonviable(partially decomposed,very slimy,or brittle). Depending on the type of plant,disposed plant material can be left out in the open as long as roots are not in contact with moist soil,or can be covered with a tarp to prevent material from blowing or washing away. 17 Monitor all sites where invasive plant material is disposed on-site and treat any newly emerged invasive plants. 18 When transporting invasive plant material off-site for disposal,the plant material shall be contained in enclosed bins,heavy-duty bags,or a securely covered truck bed.All vehicles used to transport invasive plant material shall be cleaned after each use. 19 Special-Status Aquatic Wildlife Species—A District biologist shall survey all treatment sites in the field every year prior to work to determine whether any aquatic features are located onsite.No herbicide treatments shall occur within 15 feet of aquatic features.Aquatic features are defined as any natural or manmade lake,pond, river,creek,drainageway,ditch,spring,saturated soils,or similar feature that holds water at the time of treatment or typically becomes inundated during winter rains. If during the survey it is found that aquatic features are present within 15 feet of the proposed treatment area,the District shall either eliminate all areas within 15 feet of the aquatic feature from the project(i.e.,do not implement treatment actions in those areas) or if the District wishes to continue treatment actions in these areas,it shall survey the work area prior to treatment to determine presence of suitable habitat or critical habitat for California red-legged frog,central- coast steelhead trout(Onchorhynchus mykiss),western pond turtle(Clemmys marmorata),and San Francisco garter snake(Thamnophis sirtalis tetrataenia). If suitable habitat for these species is found,and if nonherbicide treatment methods have the potential for affecting the potential species,coordination with the California Department of Fish and Game,the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,and/or National Marine Fisheries shall occur before weed treatment activities may be conducted within this buffer or activities shall be canceled in this area. If the District biologist determines no suitable habitat is present,treatment activities may occur. 20 Application of herbicides shall be conducted in accordance with the California Red-Legged Frog Injunction ("Court Issues Stipulated Injunction Regarding Pesticides and the California Red-Legged Frog", http://www.epa.gov/espp/litstatus/redleg-frog/rlf.htm,retrieved on 1/23/2009)in known or potential Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 2-14 Addendum to the Mitigated Negative Declaration forthe Site-Specific Weed and Pest Management Project Ascent Environmental Project Description California red-legged frog habitat specifically by:not applying glyphosate within 15 feet of aquatic features (including areas that are wet at time of spraying or areas that are d at time of spraying but subsequently ( g dry q Y might be wet during the next winter season); utilizing only spot-spraying techniques and equipment by a certified applicator or person working under the direct supervision of a certified applicator;and not spraying during precipitation or if precipitation is forecast within 24 hours. Preserves in which these precautions must be undertaken are: Purisima Creek Redwoods, El Corte de Madera,Skyline Ridge, Rancho San Antonio, Monte Bello and Coal Creek. 21 A District biologist shall survey all treatment sites in the field every year prior to work to determine site conditions and develop any necessary site-specific measures.Site inspections shall evaluate existing conditions at a given treatment site including the presence, population size,growth stage,and percent cover of target weeds and pests relative to native plant cover and the presence of special-status species and their habitat,or sensitive natural communities. In addition,worker environmental awareness training shall be conducted for all treatment field crews and contractors for special-status species and sensitive natural communities determined to have the potential to occur on the treatment site by a District biologist.The education training shall be conducted prior to starting work at the treatment site and upon the arrival of any new worker onto sites with the potential for special- status species or sensitive natural communities.The training shall consist of a brief review of life history,field identification,and habitat requirements for each special-status species,their known or probable locations in the vicinity of the treatment site,potential fines for violations,avoidance measures,and necessary actions if special-status species or sensitive natural communities are encountered. 22 Nesting Birds-All treatment sites shall be reviewed to evaluate the potential for nesting birds.Tree removal will be limited to the non-breeding season. For all other treatments,if birds exhibiting nesting behavior are found within the treatment sites during the bird nesting season(February 15 through August 31),impacts on nesting birds will be avoided by the establishment of appropriate buffers around the nests.A 500-foot buffer around raptor nests and 50-foot buffer around songbird nests are generally adequate to protect them from disturbance,but the size of the buffer may be adjusted by a District biologist in consultation with USFWS depending on site specific conditions. Monitoring of the nest by a District biologist during and after treatment activities will be required if the activity has potential to adversely affect the nest.These areas can be subsequently treated after a District biologist confirms that any young have fledged or the nest is no longer active. 23 San Francisco Dusky-footed Woodrat—All District staff or contractors who will implement treatment actions shall receive training from a qualified biologist on the identification of dusky-footed woodrat nests.All San Francisco dusky-footed woodrat nests shall be avoided and left undisturbed by proposed work activities. 24 Where appropriate,equipment modifications, mowing patterns,and buffer strips shall be incorporated into manual treatment methods to avoid disturbance of grassland wildlife. 25 Rare Plants—All treatment sites shall be surveyed in the field every year prior to work to determine the potential presence of special-status plants.A 15-foot buffer shall be established from special-status plants.No application of herbicides shall be allowed within this buffer. Non-herbicide methods can be used within 15 feet of rare plants but they shall be designed to avoid damage to the rare plants(e.g., pulling). 26 Cultural Resources—District staff,volunteer crew leaders,and contractors implementing treatment activities shall receive training on the protection of sensitive archaeological, paleontological,or historic resources(e.g., projectile points,bowls, baskets,historic bottles,cans,trash deposits,or structures). In the event volunteers would be working in locations with potential cultural resources,staff shall provide instruction to protect and report any previously undiscovered cultural artifacts that might be uncovered during hand-digging activities. If archaeological or paleontological resources are encountered on a treatment site and the treatment method consists of physical disturbance of land surfaces(e.g.,mowing,brushcutting,pulling,or digging),work shall avoid these areas or shall not commence until the significance of the find can be evaluated by a qualified archeologist.This measure is consistent with federal guidelines 36 CFR 800.13(a),which protects such resources in the event of unanticipated discovery. 27 Post-Treatment Monitoring—District staff shall monitor sites within 2 months after treatment to determine if the target pest or weeds were effectively controlled with minimum effect to the environment and non-target organisms. Future treatment methods in the same season or future years shall be designed to respond to changes in site conditions. 28 Erosion Control and Revegetation-For sites with loose or unstable soils,steep slopes(greater than 30 Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Addendum to the Mitigated Negative Declaration forthe Site-Specific Weed and Pest Management Project 2-15 Project Description Ascent Environmental percent),where a large percentage of the groundcover will be removed,or near aquatic features that could be adversely affected by an influx of sediment,erosion control measures shall be implemented after treatment. These measures could consist of the application of forest duff or mulches,seeding,or planting of appropriate native plant species to control erosion,restore natural areas,and prevent the spread or reestablishment of weeds. Prior to the start of the winter storm season,these sites shall be inspected to confirm that erosion control techniques are still effective. 29 Operation of noise-generating equipment(e.g.,chainsaws,wood chippers,brush-cutters, pick-up trucks)shall abide by the time-of-day restrictions established by the applicable local jurisdiction(i.e.,City and/or County)if such noise activities would be audible to receptors(e.g., residential land uses,schools,hospitals,places of worship)located in the applicable local jurisdiction.If the local,applicable jurisdiction does not have a noise ordinance or policy restricting the time-of-day when noise-generating activity can occur,then the noise- generating activity shall be limited to the hours of 7:00 AM to 5:00 PM Monday through Friday.Additionally, if noise-generating activity would take place on a site that spans over multiple jurisdictions,then the most stringent noise restriction,as described in this BMP or in a local noise regulation,would apply. i 30 All motorized equipment shall be shut down when not in use. Idlingof equipment and off-highway vehicles will g Y be limited to 5 minutes. j i i i Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 2-16 Addendum to the Mitigated Negative Declaration forthe Site-Specific Weed and Pest Management Project 3 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST PROJECT INFORMATION 1. Project Title: Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Site-Specific Weed and Pest Management Project(Addendum) 2. Lead Agency Name and Address: Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District,330 Distel Circle Los Altos,CA 94022 3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Qndy Reess!P�Ioel Silverman(650)691-1200 4. Project Location: Western Santa Clara and San Mateo counties 5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District,330 Distel Circle Los Altos,CA 94022 6. General Plan Designation: Santa Clara County:Other Public Lands, Hillsides;San Mateo County:Open Space, Public Recreation 7. Zoning: N/A 8. Description of Project: See attached 9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: See attached 10: Other public agencies whose approval is required: None ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. ❑ Aesthetics ❑ Agriculture and Forest Resources ❑ Air Quality ❑ Biological Resources ❑ Cultural Resources ❑ Geology/Soils ❑ Greenhouse Gas Emissions ❑ Hazards&Hazardous Materials ❑ Hydrology/Water Quality ❑ Land Use/Planning ❑ Mineral Resources ❑ Noise ❑ Population/Housing ❑ Public Services ❑ Recreation ❑ Transportation/Traffic ❑ Utilities/Service Systems ❑ mandatory Findings of Significance None With Mitigation Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Addendum to the Mitigated Negative Declaration forthe Site-Specific Weed and Pest Management Project 3-1 Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental DETERMINATION(To be completed by the Lead Agency) On the basis of this initial evaluation: ❑ I find that the proposed project could not have a significant effect on the environment,and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project COULD have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent.A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. F❑ I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment,and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. M I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact"or"potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets.An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. F-1 I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. Signature Date Printed Name Title Agency Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 3-2 Addendum to the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Site-Specific Weed and Pest Management Project Ascent Environmental Environmental Checklist EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 1. A brief explanation is required for all answers except"No Impact"answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question.A"No Impact"answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved(e.g.,the project falls outside a fault rupture zone).A"No Impact"answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards(e.g.,the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants,based on a project-specific screening analysis). 2. All answers must take account of the whole action involved,including off-site as well as on-site,cumulative as well as project-level,indirect as well as direct,and construction as well as operational impacts. 3. Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur,then the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation,or less than significant. "Potentially Significant Impact"is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant.If there are one or more"Potentially Significant Impact"entries when the determination is made,an EIR is required. 4. "Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated"applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from"Potentially Significant Impact"to a"Less Than Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures,and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level(mitigation measures from"Earlier Analyses,"as described in(5)below, may be cross- referenced). 5. Earlier analyses may be used where,pursuant to the tiering, program EIR,or other CEQA process,an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration.Section 15063(c)(3)(D).In this case,a brief discussion should identify the following: a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review. b) Impacts Adequately Addressed.Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards,and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are"Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project. 6. Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts(e.g.,general plans,zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate,include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. 7. Supporting Information Sources:A source list should be attached,and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. 8. This is only a suggested form,and lead agencies are free to use different formats; however, lead agencies should normally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to a project's environmental effects in whatever format is selected. 9. The explanation of each issue should identify: a) the significance criteria or threshold,if any, used to evaluate each question;and b) the mitigation measure identified, if any,to reduce the impact to less than significance. Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Addendum to the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Site-Specific Weed and Pest Management Project 3-3 � Environmental Checklist Ascent[nwmnmonm| �� N ��°�� AMmmEmmCS LesmThon Potentially Significant LessThm � ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES Significant with Significant No Impact � Impact Mitigation Impact � Incorporated � � |. Aesthetics.Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect nna scenic vista? b> Substantially damage scenic resources,including, but [l El � not limited to,trees,rock outcroppings,and historic � buildings within a state scenic highway? d Substantially degrade the existing visual character or Z 0 quality of the site and its surroundings? ��[� d) Create anevv source of substantial light o/glare [l�� u which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? � 3,1,1 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING � � The visual character in the C8Ps that contain the project site is largely composed of natural elements with � limited built elements,such as roadways, parking lots,directional signs,trails,fences, kiosks,and resLmmoms. Typical views found in District preserves are shown in Exhibit 3-1a and Exhibit 3-1b. None of the treatment sites or adjacent areas support any defining human-made structures. However, many of the treatment sites and surrounding areas are largely in an intact natural state with visually distinctive natural features and,therefore, possess a high level of scenic integrity.The high level of scenic integrity,combined with public access to � recreation trails and open space that provide striking vistas of forested areas,grasslands, oak woodlands, and the Bay Area,create a high quality scenic resource.The treatment sites are located on 13 CSPs within the District. While only a small portion of each of the 13 OSPs would be affected by the project as described above in the Project Description,the overall visual characteristics of these OSPs are summarized below. BEAR CREEK OPEN SPACE PRESERVE � | � � Bear Creek Redwoods Preserve consists of approximately 1,400 acres of mixed evergreen forestwith DouQbs- � fir,oak, and madrone as well as coast redwoods in ravines and oak woodlands on ridges with pockets of � grasslands.The ridges within the preserve provide views of Lexington Reservoir to the east.There are also five � � ponds and three perennial creeks within the preserve.This preserve is the site of the former Alma College and once contained the first mainland radio tower tn receive the news of the attack on Pearl Harbor. Currently, � hiking and equestrian uses are allowed by permit only. The fourthFee sites proposed for on-going vegetation � | management onthis preserve are 8[01'A|ma College, and the Tree Farm (see Table 2'1). Exhibit 3- � 2a provides a view of the Bear Creek Redwoods Tree Farm site showing cultivated trees in foreground with � natural vegetation above. Exhibit 3-2b shows a restored area at Bear Creek Redwoods tree farm with preserved � Douglas-fir forest behind nevv8nowthofnadveshrubs in a previous|ytreated area � � . � � � � � - � � �4 4ouenovmmummu�m�uwmAauv onmamuv nnmmona�voumoWooummpo�munu8omoo Pm�m � � �� Ascent Environmental Environmental Checklist h p A- 31 � r � r Exhibit 3-1a. Typical Views Found in District Preserves Exhibit 3-1b. Typical Views Found in District Preserves Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Addendum to the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Site-Specific Weed and Pest Management Project 3-5 Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental Exhibit 3-2a. Bear Creek Redwoods Tree Farm site i , I .2 •4 I3 ' Exhibit 3-2b. Restored Area at Bear Creek Redwoods Tree Farm Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 3-6 Addendum to the Mitigated Negative Declaration forthe Site-Specific Weed and Pest Management Project Ascent Environmental Environmental Checklist One of the treatment sites with a more distinct visual appearance within the Bear Creek OSP is the Bear Creek Redwoods Tree Farm.The former tree farm is located on the east side of Summit Road where it intersects with Bear Creek Road.The site is on a hillside with terrain that slopes down to the roadway intersection.The site is visible for drivers approaching the site from the south on Summit Road but is screened by terrain and vegetation along the road side for drivers approaching from the north on Bear Creek Road.Vegetation on the site is a mix of young closely-spaced conifers,which were planted as part of the tree farming operation. Interspersed in open areas created by previous tree removal activities are coyote brush, madrone,and other native shrubs,along with invasive French broom.The taller, more mature mixed evergreen forest that grows on the undisturbed portion of the preserve to the east is visible on the hilltop behind the young tree farm conifer stand.At the present time this site is closed to public use. The West Roads treatment site is contains a mix of invasive French broom, coyote brush, and mixed evergreen forest as is found in the other treatment sites in Bear Creek OSP. The West Roads site is in a portion of the preserve that is closed to the public and is mostly not visible to passersby. COAL CREEK OPEN SPACE PRESERVE Coal Creek Preserve consists of rolling meadows, oaks,grasslands, large madrone trees,and is the forested headwaters of two creeks.The preserve is visible from Skyline Boulevard and Page Mill Road,and the preserve's five miles of trails provide important trail connections between Skyline Boulevard and Alpine Road for hikers, bicyclists,and equestrians. Mountain bicyclists take advantage of this connection to complete loops through Russian Ridge OSP back to Portola Valley.Views of the San Francisco Bay Area can be seen from the open grassland ridges below the Caltrans vista point parking area.The only treatment site located within the Coal Creek Preserve is the Page Mill and Highway 35 treatment site. EL CORTE DE MADERA CREEK OPEN SPACE PRESERVE El Corte de Madera Creek OSP consists of steep, heavily forested terrain with mixed evergreen forests and redwoods. Rare and fragile sandstone formations and creek headwaters are among the scenic resources at the preserve.The site has 36 miles of multi-use trail that are popular with bicyclists,and also has hiking and horseback riding opportunities.Scenic vistas consist of coastal and forest views,and special features,such as the rare sandstone formations.Treatment sites located within the El Corte de Madera Creek preserve consist of the Methuselah Trail,Virginia Mill Trail, Lawrence Creek Trail,and a future staging area.Vegetation surrounding the trails consists of mixed evergreen forest with an understory of ferns,thimbleberry,and tan oaks in some locations. EL SERENO OPEN SPACE PRESERVE El Sereno OSP is named for the 2,249-foot Mt. El Sereno,part of a prominent ridge located south of the town of Saratoga and west of the town of Los Gatos.The 1,415-acre preserve provides a distinctive scenic backdrop to these cities,and primarily consists of a chaparral community with some wooded areas near the creeks.The preserve has nearly 7.4 miles of wide,gradual trails that provide numerous opportunities for recreation.At the north end,the Overlook Trail accommodates hikers, bicyclists,and dogs on leash.At the south end,trails are open to hikers, bicyclists,and equestrians.Along the ridge,a three-mile trek offers panoramic views of Sierra Azul and St.Joseph's Hill OSPs,as well as Lexington Reservoir and the South Bay.Treatment sites located within El Sereno Preserve consist of the Aquinas Trail sites(west and east), Loma Vista Trail,and the Overlook Trail. All trails are wide fire roads that traverse through chaparral and provide varying views of the surrounding landscape. Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Addendum to the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Site-Specific Weed and Pest Management Project 3-7 � Environmental Checklist Ascent EnWnmmonm| � � � LO��.- OPEN�� SPACE PRESERVE � � � LooTrancos 05P is a 274-acreawea located in the Santa Cruz Mountains above Palo Alto.The preserve is � � characterized by rolling grassland knolls alternating with oak woodland and shaded forest.Ona clear day, Mt. � Diablo and skyscrapers of San Francisco are visible across the bay.A five-mile trail system is available for visitor � ! enjoyment. Treatment sites located within the Los Trancos Open Space Preserve consist of the Greater Los Trancos, Norton, LT02,and Knoll sites; Fault Trail and Franciscan Loop Trail; Event Meadow; and the parking lot. � � Exhibit 3-3a shows previously treated grassland at Lost Trancos OSP with views of the South Bay Area. � K�� PEN SPACE PRESERVE � � � This preserve encompasses the upper Stevens Creek watershed from Monte Bello Ridge to Skyline Ridge.The � Stevens Creek riparian corridor is considered by some tobc one of the finest in the Santa Cruz Mountains.Views from the top of Black Mountain,within the preserve,consist of the Santa Clara Valley and the Mt. Hamilton range. The 3,177-acre preserve is one of the District's richest in wildlife and ecosystem diversity.The preserve offers approximately 15 miles of trails including the Stevens Creek Nature Trail,with a self-guided 3 mile loop with � interpretation.Treatment sites within this preserve consist of the Montebello Road and Water Wheel Creek sites. � � PULGAS RIDGE OPEN SPACE PRESERVE � This preserve consists of canyons and ridge top with views ofwatersheds to the west.The preserve also features � an easy-access trail and an off-leash dog area.The Cordilleras Trail,which is designed to accommodate wheelchairs,strollers,or visitors desiring less strenuous open space experience, adjoins the parking lot and � travels through a meadow to a bench located in a quiet,wooded area by Cordilleras Creek.Across the creek,the � � one-mile Polly Geraci Trail ascends an oak-covered hillside to the top of the preserve,where vegetation changes � to chaparral.Visitors may let their dogs roam off-leash in the 17.5-acre area in the center of the preserve.The � � Hassler Loop treatment site is located within this preserve.This site consists of eucalyptus trees that line the � � � ridge top.The ridge is visible from residences (multi-story condominiums)to the north eastlocated off of � � Crestview Drive.Views from these residences consist of foreground views of the ridge and more distant higher � forested ridges to the west. Exhibit 3-3b provides a view of Pulgas Ridge showing eucalyptus trees and conifers � prominent unthe ridge top with preserved forested hillside below the ridge. � PURUSUMA CREEK REDWOODS OPEN SPACE PRESERVE � The Purisima Creek Redwoods OSP is located on the western slopes of the Santa Cruz Mountains overlooking Half Moon Bay.The centerpiece mf this 4'412-acrepreserve isPuhdma Creek Canyon,with its towering redwoods, rushing creek,and understory of ferns, berries,and wildflowers.Coastal scrub and hardwood forests of tanoak, madrone,and Douglas-fir border the cool moist canyon.Striking views of the coast and Half Moon Bay are visible from the northern part of the preserve.Twenty-one miles of developed trails and historical logging roads provide opportunities for easy walks or long, strenuous hikes or rides.The specially surfaced Redwood Trail,which is suitable for visitors of all physical abilities,winds through tall redwoods just off Skyline Boulevard.Treatment sites | in this preserve consist ofP[U Upper Road, Harkins Ridge Trail, Harkins[utover,and North Ridge. RANCHO SAN ANTONIO OPEN SPACE PRESERVE The 3,988-acre preserve,combined with the adjoining 165-acre County Park, offers visitors a unique experience of diverse environments, interesting cultural history,and a variety of activities.This preserve is characterized by oak woodlands,shaded creeks, and meadows.The preserve supports Deer Hollow Farm and provides views of south bay, Monte Bello Ridge,and Black Mountain.Treatment sites within this preserve consist of the Shop area Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 3-8 Addendum to the Mitigated Negative Declaration fo,tho Site-Specific Weed andPmst Management Project �� Ascent Environmental Environmental Checklist and the Lower Meadow Trail. The Shop area consists of the staff workshop, the Foothills Field Office,vehicle sheds, storage sheds, parking areas, and a fuel pump station. The 7-acre Shop area primarily has a gravel surface,with pavement along the driveway and encircling the center structures. None of the Shop area is visible from the public trails or private residences in the area. The Lower Meadow Trail consists of large oaks, riparian forest, and open grassland. vex t . ti Exhibit 3-3a. Previously Treated Grassland at Lost Trancos OSP Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Addendum to the Mitigated Negative Declaration forthe Site-Specific Weed and Pest Management Project 3-9 Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental h, •r` Exhibit 3-3b. View of Pulgas Ridge ST. JOSEPH'S HILL OPEN SPACE PRESERVE St. Joseph's Hill provides a scenic backdrop to the Town of Los Gatos. The preserve is 270 acres in area. At the eastern edge of the preserve,the top of the 1,250-foot St.Joseph's Hill features panoramic views of Santa Clara Valley, Lexington Reservoir, and the Sierra Azul mountain range.There are a number of regional trails that provide access to St.Joseph's Hill and other nearby open space areas.The Los Gatos Creek Trail provides a connection from the City of San Jose directly into Los Gatos. St.Joseph's Hill is a popular destination, offering trails for hikers, bicyclists, and equestrians. Treatment sites within this preserve consist of the Vista/YStar/Hilltop (referred to hereafter as Vista site), and Vineyard sites. SARATOGA GAP OPEN SPACE PRESERVE Saratoga Gap Preserve is a 1,540-acre preserve.The Saratoga Gap Trail parallels Skyline Boulevard passing under the spreading branches of weathered oaks before dropping into a cool, wooded Douglas-fir forest. The trail ends across from the Hickory Oaks trailhead to Long Ridge Open Space Preserve and Highway 35. Attractive lichen- covered boulders and sandstone rock outcrops add to the scenic value of this area. The preserve also includes chaparral, some of which recently burned in a wildfire. Treatment sites within this preserve consist of the Charcoal Residence and Lysons property. SIERRA AZUL OPEN SPACE PRESERVE Sierra Azul encompasses more than 18,400 acres. Because of its size, the Preserve is divided into four areas: the Kennedy-Limekiln area adjacent to Lexington Reservoir County Park;the Cathedral Oaks area, which is almost entirely surrounded by private property and is therefore currently closed to the public;the RDG area,which is also currently closed to the public pending the planning and development of public access facilities; and the Mt. Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 3-10 Addendum to the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Site-Specific Weed and Pest Management Project Ascent Environmental Environmental Checklist Umunhum area, a former radar tracking facility(formerly the Almaden Air Force Station) named for the 3,486- foot mountain that is its most dominant feature and also closed to the public(a project-specific EIR is in progress,examining options for public use)and with dramatic 360'de8reevievvx of the Bay Area and coast. Although known for its chaparral-covered slopes,Sierra Azul has pockets of serpentine grasslands, bay and blue � oak woodlands, knobcone pine, and lush riparian corridors, including the headwaters of Guadalupe Creek. It has the beauty and ruggedness of an unspoiled wilderness and attracts visitors seeking a more vigorous hiking, biking, or equestrian experience.Treatment sites within this preserve consist of SA19,Williams Property, Beatty, � Reynolds, Pheasant,Austrian Gulch (Moss),Air Base, Hicks Creek Ranch,and RDG sites. � SKYLINE RIDGE OPEN SPACE PRESERVE This 2,143-acre preserve offers 10 miles of trail for exploration.The preserve offers a varied landscape that � consist of ridge top vistas,expansive meadows,a pond for nature study,and a quiet lake frequented by � � migrating birds.Two quarter-mile trails are accessible to wheelchairs and baby strollers:one encircling Alpine � � Pond and another hugging the shores of Horseshoe Lake. Scenic vistas of the Lambert Creek watershed, Butano � � Ridge,and Portola State Park are visible from the preserve.The preserve contains a 3-mile segment of the Bay � � Area The This � � � . � � provides a visually distinctive setting because it is the site ofa former tree farm that has been undergoing � � restoration.The site is characterized by open areas where native grasses have been restored along with caged � � oak trees and other native shrubs. Erosion control measures are visible in the drainage areas where native � v�Aeta1ionisdev�|opin�t� provid� natu�a|drainaQeprotectiun�Thetreatmentsitesarevisib|efrnmnearby � � trails and parking lot. Exhibit 3-4a shows the restoration treatment site at Skyline Ridge OSP with view of the | active tree farm on the left and mature mixed evergreen forest on the right in the background. Exhibit 3-4b � shows drainage restoration at Skyline Ridge with erosion control features and young willow plantings incaQes� � � � � Additionally, a segment of Skyline Boulevard (State Route 35) is an officially designated State Scenic Highway � � from the Santa Cruz County Line to State Route 92 in San Mateo County. OSPs located along the officially � designated section of Skyline Boulevard consist of Skyline Ridge' y�onte8eUo,Coal[ree� B[o�edeK4adera � � Creek,and Purisima Creek Redwoods.An additional segment of Skyline Boulevard is an Eligible State Scenic � Highway(Caltrans 2009)from the SR 17 to the Santa Cruz County Line. OSPs located along this section of Skyline � Boulevard consist of Bear Creek Redwoods, and Saratoga Gap. The goal of the California Scenic Highway Program is to preserve and enhance the natural beauty of California and to protect scenic highway corridors � from changes that would affect the aesthetic value of the land adjacent to designated highways.The Program � � consists of process for the designation of official State or County Scenic Highways whereby cities and/or counties develop and implement a Corridor Protection Program containing five legislatively required elements, � � generally accepted as land use planning standards. � � 3.1.2 DISCUSSION � � � a) Have substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? � � � Impact. For the most part,the treatment sites are in areas that are not part ofascenic � � vista.Additionally,vegetation management on most of the sites would consist of spraying and/or pulling of selected invasive plants.These procedures would not result in substantial visual changes or result in vegetation changes tm large areas atone time. Herbicide application would be specific to targeted broadleaf vegetation and conducted with spot-spraying. In most areas, residual grasses and other non-targeted vegetation would remain, which would provide for a similar visual appearance to the existing condition. In heavily infested areas, � treatment may result in patches of dying ur dead vegetation. However,this would bea temporary condition, which would be reduced or eliminated because most treatment sites are dominated by annual grasses that naturally dry out and die back in the summer of each year. Once the drying season begins,any patches ofdying MNmmioov|u Regional Open Space Distdct Addendum m the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Site-Specific Weed undPomManoAomont Project 3'11 � Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental or dead vegetation would be visually consistent with the overall appearance of the project area. Because dead plant material would remain in place, and non-targeted vegetation would be minimally affected, large patches of exposed soils are not expected. Nonetheless, as described in BMP 27, after herbicide application, an annual inspection would be conducted to determine if re-seeding of any disturbed areas with native plants and grasses would be needed prior to the rainy season each year to promote uniform vegetation cover. Re-seeding of disturbed areas would further reduce the potential for visual impacts from patchy vegetation. Management activities at the Pulgas Ridge treatment site could potentially affect a scenic vista. Treatment actions at this site would consist of the gradual removal of existing 12 eucalyptus trees on the ridge. The ridge is visible from condominium residences located in the area off of Crestview Drive to the northeast of the site, approximately 1,100 feet away. Four of the trees screen views of a water tank on the ridge. However,the water tank is scheduled for removal and the trees immediately surrounding it would remain until in the tank would be removed sometime in 2013 or 2014. Removal of the eucalyptus trees over time would not result in a substantial degradation of views of the ridge from private homes off of Crestview Drive because the natural vegetation would remain undisturbed and views of the vegetated ridgeline and the ridgelines in distant views would remain uninterrupted. AS i.1 Y •� .4 Exhibit 3-4a. Restoration Treatment Site at Skyline Ridge OSP Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 3-12 Addendum to the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Site-Specific Weed and Pest Management Project Ascent Environmental Environmental Checklist ti k- '•ti _, F��`�^� ��i• � ', It' s `., :4- r � Exhibit 3-4b. Drainage Restoration at Skyline Ridge b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? Less-than-Significant Impact. TwoTe eily-treatment sites are located near or adjacent to a state scenic highway. The first, is the Page Mill and 35 treatment site in Coal Creek OSP located adjacent to Skyline Boulevard and Page Mill Road. This section of Skyline Boulevard is an officially designated State Scenic Highway (SR 35). The site has not been previously treated and the understory is overgrown with relatively large Spanish broom and French broom plants. Removal of these invasive plants by herbicide treatment and pulling on roadside sites would create a temporary noticeable visual change. However, this vegetation change would not substantially degrade scenic resources because the surrounding native vegetation would remain and the overall natural state of the site would remain intact. Removal of the broom plants would allow native plants to regenerate, and would open up the understory so that native trees would be more visible. This could be considered a visual improvement for this site. Although some change to the visual appearance would occur, it would not be substantial,therefore, this impact is considered to be less than significant. The second site is also adjacent to an officially designated portion of Skyline Boulevard, just north of the intersection with Kings Mountain Road. The same temporary changes and lack of long-term change in the overall natural state apply to this site as well. In addition, only small amounts of broom currently exist within view of Skyline Boulevard at P CO3. c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? Less-than-significant Impact. Although some dieback of vegetation would occur at treatment sites, as described under Item a, above, procedures would not create substantial visual changes or result in vegetation changes to large areas at one time. Herbicide application would be specific to targeted broadleaf vegetation and conducted with spot-spraying.Therefore,this is a temporary condition that would not significantly degrade the overall Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Addendum to the Mitigated Negative Declaration forthe Site-Specific Weed and Pest Management Project 3-13 � � Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental � visual character of the area. Herbicide application and hand removal of non-native species would provide the opportunity for native grasses, pasture grasses,and wildflower species to establish at the sites.This could be � considered a visual improvement. While some change to the visual appearance would occur, it would not be � � substantial, and this impact would be less than significant. For areas such as Bear Creek Redwoods Tree Farm,which consists of more than 1,000 planted trees,visual � changes would be gradual because tree removal would occur in increments(i.e., no more than 30 trees per year � dispersed through the site)over a 3-year period.Additionally,trees would be removed in a dispersed pattern, and would not result in large open blocks of land. Native vegetation would then be allowed to fill in open areas. Once removed,taller native trees growing in undisturbed portions of the preserve would be more visible to visitors of the site. Bay tree removal would occur at treatment sites at Los Trancos, Fault Line Trail; E| Corte de Madera, Creek Lawrence Creek Trail; and Rancho San Antonio, Lower Meadow Trail as part of the effort to control spread of Sudden Oak Death. No more than 10 trees with diameters at breast height of 36 inches or less would be removed at the three sites. While the cut trunks would be visible and would be interspersed among other trees onsite,views of the forest environment would not substantially change compared to existing conditions.This impact would be less than significant. d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views |n the area? � No Impact.The proposed project would not result in the construction or installation of new buildings, lighting facilities,or other potential sources of light and glare. No work would take place at night time requiring lighting. � No impacts related to light and glare would occur with implementation of the project. �� &��N��NNN ��N��N� �&N�� 0��0�N��" ��N�N��NN �� m��m�� m�� m��m ��nn CES Le%Than Potentially 8ignftnt LmmeThon ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES SigrifficamL with Significant No Impact Impact Mitiption Impact Incorporated ||. Agriculture and Forest Resources. |n determining whether impacts toagricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead � agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land � Evaluation and Site Assessment Model(1997'as � updated) prepared by the California Department of � Conservation asan optional model to use inassessing � � impacts on agriculture and farmland. |ndetermining � whether impacts to forest resources, including timberland,are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the � California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection � regarding the state's inventory of forest land, including the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the � � Forest Legacy Assessment project; and forest carbon � measurement methodology provided inForest Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District � 3'14 Addendum m the Mitigated Negative Declaration fortho Site-Specific Weed and Pest Management Project � Amon� Environmental Environmental ' Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources � � Board. . � Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland,m [ l � � Farmland of Statewide Importance(Fann|and),as shown nn the maps prepared pursuant tothe � Farmland K8 i d Monitoring i P �th Mapping on rnQ Program e California Resources Agency,tn non-agricultural use? � b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use ora �l �� 6fN [l � VVi||iamsonAct contra��? � d Conflict with existing zoning for,or cause rezoning of, F-1 El 0 [l � forest land(as defined in Public Resources Code section 1Z220<0>)'timberland(as defined byPublic � Resources Code section 4526)'or timberland zoned � Timberland Production(as defined byGovernment � Code section 51104(D))? � d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of Fl El � forest land tu non-forest use? e> involve other changes in the existing environment, El El El | which,due to their location or nature,could result in � conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use or � conversion nf forest land tu non-forest use? � � � � � ��K�K��K��U �� .°.=-.� ="°..~=.".."~�"."��~,°-° °"."= See IS/NMD � � � K�U«%��UA«%�U��N� ��^� �"��"�"� With the additional sites,the project's environmental impacts related to agriculture and forest resources will be the same as those analyzed in the IS/MNDMND. MNnenmoulu Regional Open SpacoDistdm Addendum m the Mitigated Negative Declaration hnmo Site-Specific Weed and Pest Management Project 3'15 I Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental 3.3 AIR QUALITY U%Than Potentially Significant LessThan ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES Significant with Significant No Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated 111. Air Quality. Where available,the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied on to make the following determinations. Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of ® [] any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard(including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? 3.3.1 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING See ISIMND 3.3.2 DISCUSSION a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? Less-than-significant Impact. The emissions inventories used to develop a region's air quality attainment plans are based primarily on projected population growth and vehicle miles traveled (VMT)for the region,which are based, in part,on the planned growth identified in regional and community plans.Therefore, projects that would result in increases in population or employment growth beyond that projected in regional or community plans could result in increases in VMT above that planned in the attainment plan,further resulting in increases in mobile source emissions that could conflict with a region's air quality planning efforts. Increases in VMT beyond that projected in area plans generally would be considered to have a significant adverse incremental effect on the region's ability to attain or maintain state and federal ambient air quality standards. The weed and pest control activities associated with operation of the proposed project would utilize existing District staff. In addition,contractors would be employed to perform treatment activities.The District currently Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 3-16 Addendum to the Mitigated Negative Declaration forthe Site-Specific Weed and Pest Management Project Ascent Environmental Environmental Checklist utilizes contractors to perform weed and pest management services.The project is not anticipated to result in a substantial increase in the frequency or numbers of contract or volunteer work required compared to existing conditions.Therefore,this is not the type of project that would lead to regional population growth beyond what is planned. Consequently, project implementation would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of BAAQMD's air quality planning efforts. Furthermore,the project is not anticipated to result in the operation of any major stationary emission sources or extensive use of heavy-duty off-road equipment. Finally, because the proposed project would not change the amount of development projected in the Santa Clara or San Mateo County General Plans, it would be consistent with the population growth and VMT projections for the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin (SFBAAB)contained in the BAAQMD's Clean Air Plan,which is based on general plan projections of all counties within the SFBAAB,and thus would not interfere with the region's ability to attain or maintain state and national ambient air quality standards. Implementation of the proposed project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of any air quality planning efforts.As a result,this impact would be less than significant. b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? Less-than-significant Impact. The proposed project consists of operation and maintenance activities(e.g., brush-cutting, herbicide application)associated with weed and pest removal and management at 45-2 treatment sites in San Mateo and Santa Clara counties from 2012 to 2014. No new construction activities are proposed. Therefore,the project would not result in any short-term construction-related emissions of criteria air pollutants and precursors.The project would not consist of any new area or stationary sources of air pollutant emissions. Weed and pest control activities may consist of removal of weed species by hand (e.g.,chainsaw, herbicide application, pulling,digging),the use of brushcutters,tank herbicide sprayers (transported and applied with off- highway vehicles [all-terrain vehicles,ATVs]),occasional green flaming with propane torches,and burning of brush piles.Activities that would result in criteria air pollutants (and precursor)emissions consist of vehicle trips by District staff,contractor and volunteer workers,and emissions associated with onsite weed control activities from the use of off-road equipment(e.g.,ATVs).The use of ATVs would be limited to the few treatment sites requiring a tank sprayer for herbicide application.The ATVs would be used to carry the tank of herbicide throughout the treatment site using established roads and trails as a worker applies the herbicide with a hand- held sprayer attached by hose to the tank. No heavy-duty equipment such as a loader,dozer,or excavator would be used, because all other weed removal activities would be conducted by hand and/or small hand held power tools(e.g., chainsaw, brushcutter, handsaw,shovels). Emissions of criteria air pollutants and precursors associated with operation of the proposed project were calculated using applicable portions of the California Emissions Estimator Model(CalEEMod), as recommended by BAAQMD. Modeling was based on past and anticipated future weed control activities for each site.The modeling conducted is considered conservative because it assumed simultaneous use of motorized equipment and conservatively high worker commute trip lengths.Table 3.5-1 below summarizes the modeled operational emissions of criteria air pollutants and precursors for the proposed project.See Appendix D for model input and output parameters and detailed assumptions. The model was not recalculated for the three sites added under the Addendum to the NMD but the additional sites would add only a small fractional increase in the number of activities which create emission of criteria air pollutants and precursors. Even if the three additional sites doubled the emissions categories listed below,the project would fall below the BAAQMD thresholds of significance. Table 3.5-1. Summary of Modeled Emissions of Criteria Air Pollutants and Precursors Associated with Operational Onslte Weed Control Activities Operational Activities ROG NO. PM io Exhaust PM 25 Exhaust Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Addendum to the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Site-Specific Weed and Pest Management Project 3-17 Environmental Checklist Ascent EnWwomuom| Mobile Source(worker commute) <O.1 <0.1 <1.0 <O.1 Onsite Activities(Tractor mower,ATVs) 3.6 20.6 1.0 Lo � Onsite activities would occur on an annual basis from 2012 through 2014.Modeled emissions represent a daily maximum level of activity withSource:Modeling Conducted by Ascent Environmental 2012, � simultaneous use of ATVs for tank spraying application and motorized brushcutters. � � � Ao indicated by the modeling, implementation of the project would not result in long-term operational � emissions ofROG' N0^' PVNm' orPM 2, that exceed BAAQMD/s thresholds of significance(S4 lb/day for ROG' � � NOx' PK410' and 8J lb/day for PK8z,5)or substantially contribute to concentrations that exceed the National � � � Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS)or California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS). Although the use � of green flaming or brush pile burning was not accounted for in the modeling,these methods of weed control � are used occasionally by the District. Green flaming could potentially be used for infestations of new seedlings, � but based on past use by the District it is not anticipated to take place for more than three days a year. � AdditinnaUy,the 8AAQK8D has estabU 'Open whi ch� . � within the SFBAAB,with exemptions of certain types of fires. Included in these exemptions, under Section 5-110 � � Exemptions,the use of flame cultivation when the burning is performed with liquefied petroleum gas (i.e., � propane gas)or natural gas-fired burners designed and used to kill seedling grass and weeds and the growth is such that the combustion would not continue without the burner, is exempt from Regulation 5. Brush piles � � would be burned only during the wet season on days that the B/V\QK8Dded "open npenbonnatatus.and all � � conditions of Hazard Reduction Fires per BAAQMD regulations would be followed.Thus,these methods would not violate any air quality standards. Further,all weed control activities would be relatively short in duration � (e.g., one to two weeks) at each treatment site. For these reasons,operation of the proposed projectwould not violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation.This � � impact is considered less than significant. Local CO � Carbon Monoxide (CO)concentration is a direct function of vehicle idling time and,thus,traffic flow conditions. � Under specific meteorological conditions, CO concentrations near congested roadways and/or intersections may � � � reach unhealthy levels with respect to local sensitive land uses such as residential areas,schools, and hospitals. � As a result, it is recommended that CO not be analyzed at the regional level, but at the local level. � BAAQMD provides a screening methodology to determine project impacts from localized CO emissions.This � screening methodology was utilized to analyze local CO emissions from the operation of this project (BAAQMD 2010b). It states that the following criteria must be met: A Project is consistent with an applicable congestion management program established by the county � congestion management agency for designated roads or highways, regional transportation plan, and local congestion management agency plans. A The project traffic would not increase traffic volumes at affected intersections to more than 44,000 vehicles per hour. A The project traffic would not increase traffic volumes at affected intersections to more than 24,000 vehicles per hour where vertical and/or horizontal mixing is substantially limited (e.g.,tunnel, parking garage, bridge underpass, natural or urban street canyon, below-grade moadway). Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 3'18 Addendum to the Mitigated Negative Declaration forthe Site-Specific Weed and Pest Management Project � Ascent Eovimnmmnta| Envimnmenm|CxockUm � The proposed project would not increase the population or bring new employees to the area.All work would be performed by existing District staff,volunteers or contractors. It is anticipated that projectswill require an average of 1 trip per day when considering the total work of staff,volunteers and contractors. The 3 additional sites are expected to add no more than an additional 9 trips per year added to the anticipated 365 trips per year estimate under the IS/MND. Even with the three sites added under this Addendum to the MND,the average number of trips per day would not increase more than 3 percent(Since 9�365=0.025). erefore'thepmmposed | � project would not be expected tosubstantially increase traffic on the surrounding streets or intersections.Asa � � result,this impact would he less than significant. � c) Result 1na cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the � project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality � � standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone � precursors)? Less-than-significant Impact. The SF8AABix currently designated asanonatLminment area for state and national ozone standards and nonattainment for the state PM lo standards and state and national PM 2.5 standards. SFBAAB's nonattainment status is attributed to the region's development history. Past, present and future development projects contribute to the region's adverse air quality impacts on a cumulative basis. By its very nature,air pollution is largely acumulative impact. No single project is sufficient insize, by itself,to result in nonattainment of ambient air quality standards. Instead, a project's individual emissions contribute to existing � � cumulatively significant adverse air quality impacts.As explained in 8AAL}K8D's CE(AGuide|ineo'and consistent � with CECA, if a project's contribution to the cumulative impact is considerable,then the project's impact on air quality would be considered significant(8AAQK8D2O10b). In developing thresholds of significance for air pollutants, BAAQMD considered the emission levels for which a project's individual emissions would be cumulatively considerable. If a project exceeds the identified significance � thresholds, its emissions would be cumulatively considerable, resulting in significant adverse air quality impacts � to the region's existing air quality conditions. Because the project would not exceed identified significance � thresholds as discussed in the analysis under item b)above, no,additional analysis to assess cumulative impacts is necessary. � � � Because project-gene rated emissions would not exceed applicable thresholds,the project would not violate or contribute substantially toan existing orprojected air quality violation.As a result, project-generated emissions � � � of criteria air pollutants and precursors would not be cumulatively considerable.This impact would be less than significant. d) Expose sensitive receptors tmsubstantial pollutant concentrations? Less-than-significant Impact. Exposure of sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations of criteria air pollutants were addressed above in Items a through c,above.This section is focused on exposure of sensitive � receptors to emissions of toxic air contaminants (TACs) (i.e., diesel particulate matter; asbestos). � � None of the District's equipment is powered by diesel and gasoline-powered hand-held equipment is not a major source of TACs. Further, power equipment would not be used in any single location for an extended period of time.Therefore, nearby sensitive receptors would not be exposed to substantial concentrations of TA[s. The proposed project consists of weed control activities on multiple treatment sites throughout San Mateo and � Santa Clara counties. Both counties have areas that are known to contain naturally occurring asbestos(DOC � 2000)and,therefore, it is possible that project activities could take place on or near sites containing asbestos. � However,the proposed project would not consist of implement activities that raise substantial dust in soils MiVpeninnu|u Regional Open Space District Addendum to the Mitigated Negative Declaration forthe Site-Specific Weed and Pest Management Project 3'19 � Environmental Checklist Ascent Envimnmenta| � containing asbestos;weed pulling would be done by hand.Therefore, it is not anticipated that emissions of � asbestos would occur associated with project operation.This impact would be less than significant. e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? � Less-than-significant Impact. The occurrence and severity of odor impacts depend on numerous factors, including the nature,frequency,and intensity of the source; wind speed and direction;and the presence of sensitive receptors.Although offensive odors rarely cause any physical harm,they still can be very unpleasant, � leading to considerable distress and often generating citizen complaints to local governments and regulatory � agencies. � � 8AAQK8D has established Regulation 7 (Odorous Emissions)to address odor issues. Regulation 7 places general � limitations on odorous substances and specific emission limitations on certain odorous compounds. Project � implementation would not result in any major sources of odor and the project type is not one of the common types of facilities or activities that are known to produce odors(e.g., landfill,coffee roaster,wastewater � treatment facility). In addition,the exhaust from the use of onsite equipment during weed and pest management activities would be intermittent and temporary,and would dissipate rapidly from the source with � an increase in distance.Thus, project implementation would not create objectionable odors affecting � substantial number of people.As a result,this impact would be less than significant. � �� N ��0 �� p ��pm�m��m�wm�mm� RESOURCES LessThan PotenUe|l� 9igniftnt LmssThan ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES Significant with Significant No Impact � Impact Mitigation Impact � Incorporated � IV. Biological Resources.Would the project: � a} Have a substantial adverse effect,either directly o/ � through habitat modifications,on any species � identified asa candidate,sensitive,urspecial-status � species in local or regional plans, policies,or regulations,orbythe California Department ufFish � � and Game or the U.5. Fish and Wildlife Service? � b) Have a substantial adverse effect un any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community � identified in local or regional plans, policies,nr � regulations orby the California Department ofFish � � and Game or the U.5. Fish and Wildlife Service? � d Have a substantial adverse effect nnfederally �� protected wetlands as defined by Section 4O4ofthe � Clean Water Act(induding, but not limited to,marsh, vernal pool,coastal,etc.)through direct removal, filling,hydrological intenuption,or other means? d> interfere substantially with the movement uf any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species orwith established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, o,impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? e) Conflict with any local policies orordinances protecting biological resources,such asatree Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 3'20 Addendum m the Mitigated Negative Declaration forthm Site-Specific Weed and Pest Management Project Ascent Environmental Environmental Checklist � preservation policy orordinance? � q Conflict with the provisions ofan adopted Habitat El D El � Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan,o,other approved local, regional,orstate � habitat conservation plan? � 3,4,1 ENVIRONMENTAL SEffING The proposed project would be implemented within 13 OSPsat42 distinct sites within the District.The CBPs are located along the San Francisco peninsula between the Pacific Ocean and the San Francisco Bay.The unique � location is dominated by the Santa Cruz Mountains which are influenced by a Mediterranean climate comprised � � of mild wet winters and long hot and dry summers cooled by coastal fog.The eastern edge of the District is heavily influenced by the urban areas of San Francisco,San Jose, and other Francisco Peninsula cities. � ' . � VEGETATION AND WILDLIFE � The project area largely consists of natural elements with intermittent built elements,such as roadways, parking � lots,and nestrooms. District vegetation geographic information systems(GIS)data and treatment site locations � were used to determine vegetation and ground cover types.Table 3.6-1 identifies the vegetation and ground cover types found within each of the specific treatment sites and descriptions are provided below. | � Table 3.6-1. Vegetation and Ground Cover Types In the Projed Area Preserve Site Name Bear Creek Alma College x X x Coal Creek OSP Page Mill&Highway 35 x x x El Corte de Lawrence Creek Trail x x Madera Creek Methuselah Trail x x CISP Future staging area between Virginia Mill Trail x x Loma Vista Trail x x Overlook Trail x x Fault Trail x x � � � � � � � � � � � � � Franciscan Loop Trail � � Greater Los Trancos x x x x � � Knoll x x x x � � � � � Monte Bello � Pulgas Ridge CISP Hassler Loop x x x Eli � � � � Midponinomo Regional Opo Space District � Addendum m the Mitigated Negative Declaration nx#m Site-Specific Weed and pamMonuAomomProject 3-21 ^ Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental Table 3.6-1. Vegetation and Ground Cover Types In the Project Area a46 a: CD — Preserve Site Name Le 2 $ q Purisima Creek Harkins Ridge Cutover X X X OSP Harkins Ridge Trail X X X X X North Ridge X X PC01 X X X PC03 X X Upper Purlsima Creek X X X X Rancho San Lower Meadow Trail X X X Antonio OSP Shop X X X X Saratoga Gap OSP Charcoal Residence X X X Lysons Property X X St.Joseph's Hill Vineyard X X X X OSP Vista/Y Star/Hilltop X X X X Sierra Azul OSP Air Base X X X X X Austrian Gulch(Moss Property) X X X X X Beatty X X X X Hicks Creek Ranch X X X Pheasant X X RDG X X X X X Reynolds X X SA19 X X X Williams Property X X X X X X X Skyline Ridge OSP Tree Farm Restoration X X X X AQUATIC HABITAT Aquatic habitat does not occur within the project area but does occurs near the following work sites in the form of: a small pond near the Alma College treatment site and a small pond across Bear Creek Road from the West Roads site both within Bear Creek Redwoods OSP;sag ponds near the Page Mill and Highway 35 treatment site in Coal Creek OSP; near the Monte Bello Road treatment site on Monte Bello OSP; Cherry Springs Reservoir near the RDG treatment site; Lexington Reservoir across from the Beatty treatment site in Sierra Azul OSP; and Horseshoe Lake near the Tree Farm Restoration treatment site in Skyline Ridge OSP (Table 3.6-1).These perennial ponds provide habitat for certain invertebrates,as well as for many amphibians, such as frogs, salamanders, and turtles. CHAPARRAL Chaparral is widespread throughout the project area (Table 3.6-1) and typically consists of dense,often impenetrable scrub dominated by a variety of shrub species,especially including chamise(Adenostoma fasciculatum), big berry manzanita (Arctostaphylos glauca), coyote brush (Baccharis pilularis), birch leafed mountain mahogany(Cercocarpus betuloides),and poison oak(Toxicodendron diversilobum). It may also consist of such species as manzanita (Arctostaphylos spp.) and California sagebrush (Artemisia californica). Chaparral habitat generally has lower wildlife diversity than most forest and woodland habitats (Mayer and Laudenslayer 1988, pp. 104-107). However,scrub does provide habitat for many wildlife species, including some that are considered rare elsewhere. Common reptiles found in chaparral consist of western rattlesnake (Crotalus Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 3-22 Addendum to the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Site-Specific Weed and Pest Management Project Ascent Environmental Environmental Checklist oreganus), California kingsnake (Lampropeltis getula californiae), and western fence lizard (Sceloporus occidentalis). Common birds in scrub habitat consist of California thrasher(Toxostoma redivivum), Bewick's wren (Thryomanes bewickii),and California quail(Callipepla californica). Mammals commonly associated with scrub consist of gray fox(Urocyon cinereoargenteus) and black-tailed deer(Odocoileus hemionus). GRASSLAND California grasslands in the project area (Table 3.6-1)are typically dominated by non-native, mostly annual grasses such as slender wild oat(Aveno borbato),soft chess(Bromus hordeaceus), ripgut grass(Bromus diandrus),and six-weeks fescue(Vulpia bromoides). Native perennial grasses such as purple needlegrass (Nassello pulchra) and meadow barley(Hordeum brachyantherum)are often present, but few areas are dominated by native grasses. In areas where serpentine soils are present,serpentine grassland may mix with California grassland.Serpentine grassland is characterized by having generally lower vegetation cover than is typical for most California annual grassland,and generally lower plant stature.The serpentine grasslands on District lands are quite variable in species composition, but native grasses are typically among the dominant species.These consist of perennial species such as one-sided bluegrass (Poo secunda ssp.secunda), big squirreltail grass (Elymus multisetus),June grass (Koeleria macrantha),California melic grass (Melica californica), and purple needlegrass.A diverse and somewhat distinctive assemblage of native herb species is associated with these serpentine grasslands, including hayfield tarweed(Hemizonia congests ssp. luzulifolia), Fremont's western rosinweed (Calycadenia fremontii), California plantain (Plantago erects),flaxflowered linanthus(Linonthus liniflorus),and blue-eyed grass(Sisyrinchium bellum). In general, grasslands support lower wildlife diversity than woodland and shrub-dominated habitats, but are invaluable to a number of grassland-dependent species (Mayer and Laudenslayer 1988, p. 118).A great diversity and abundance of insects rely on grasslands. Reptiles found in annual grasslands consist of northern alligator lizard (Elgario coerulea)and common gopher snake(Thomnophis sirtalis). Birds that are common in this habitat consist of western meadowlark(Sturnella neglecta)and savannah sparrow(Passerculus sandwichensis).Annual grassland also provides important foraging habitat for turkey vulture(Cathartes aura), northern harrier(Circus cyoneus),American kestrel (Falco sparverius),and red-tailed hawk(Buteo jamaicensis). Mammals known to use this habitat consist of California ground squirrel(Spermophilus beecheyi), black-tailed jackrabbit(Lepus californicus),and Botta's pocket gopher(Thomomys bottae). FRESHWATER MARSH Freshwater marsh habitat is located in BCO1 within the Bear Creek Redwoods OSP and on RDG within the Sierra Azul OSP Table 3.6-1 . Freshwater marsh habitat develops in shallow,standing or slow-moving water at the ( ) p g I n edge of lakes, ponds,and rivers that support emergent vegetation adapted to permanently or seasonally flooded soils. Dominant vegetation consists of cattails(Typha spp.),sedges (Carex spp.),and rushes (luncus spp.). Wildlife values of freshwater marsh habitat is generally high, due to the available surface water, abundance of insects,algae, and plant forage,and protective cover.Various birds, amphibians,and reptiles are often abundant.Typical species consist of marsh wren (Cistothorus palustris), red-winged blackbird (Agelaius phoeniceus), and Pacific chorus frog(Pseudocris regillo). Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Addendum to the Mitigated Negative Declaration forthe Site-Specific Weed and Pest Management Project 3-23 � � Environmental Checklist Ascent snwmnmonta| � MIXED-CONIFER FOREST Mixed conifer forestoccurs on six of the OSPs (Table 3.6-1) dominated by Douglas-fir(Pseudotsuga menziesii). Other species consist of coast redwoods (Sequoia sempervirens)and California Bay(Umbellularia californica). Bird species typical of this habitat consist of western flycatcher,chestnut-backed chickadee, and solitary vireo. Other species consist of Pacific giant salamander(Dicamptodon ensatus),deer mouse Peoo/nyscus/noniculatus) � dusky-footed woodst (Neotonnu/uscipex)'and Tnovvbhd8e's shrew(Sonextrowbridg/A. � KNOBCONE PINE FOREST � � Knobcone pine forest isa generally open-canopy forest of more orless evenly spaced trees nfknobcone pine (Pinusottenuoto) apinetha1isessentia||ydependen�unfirefori�srepnoduc�ion Few' . � in well-developed knobcone pine forest.The understory vegetation in knobcone pine forest consists of chaparral � � shrubs species and grassland species. Knobcone pine forest is found on three sites (Air Base,Austrian Gulch, and � Williams Property) in the Sierra Azua|O8P (Table].6-1). � Representative wildlife species consist of: California mountain kingsnake(Lo/npropeltis zonoto), hairy woodpecker(Picoides villusus),western wood-pewee ([ontopussordidu/us)' brown creeper([erth/oo/ncricmno)' � and western gray squirrel (Sc/urusgniseus). REDWOOD FOREST � Redwood forest habitat in the project area is dominated by redwoods (Sequoia sempervirens). Other species may consist of big-leaf maple (Acerxnocruphy0unn) and Dnug|as-fir. Redwood habitats provide food,cover, or special habitat elements for 193 wildlife species.This total is composed of13 reptiles, 18amphibians' 109 birds,and 54 mammals(yWayer3O12). Species such as the red' � |eBged frog(Rona spp.),ensatina (£nsotinoeschu/tzii)'osprey(Pondion ho0uetus), rin8tai| (Bossorbcusostutus), � and marbled mune|et (8rochyrornphusnnonn000Uxs)show a relatively high preference for redwood habitat. � � RIPARIAN FOREST � � The riparian forest of the study area is located in sites within Los Trancos, Purisima Creek,Sierra Azu[Skyline � Ridge,and St.Joseph's Hill OSPs. Riparian forest is typically tree-or shrub dominated and occurs along streams � and rivers. Dominant species consist of arroyo willow(Sa0xlas/olepis). vvh�ea|derLA/nusrhon/b@o&r)' �ndbiA- . � |eafmap|e (Acer macrophyllum).Other willows(Solix spp.)and alders(Alnus spp.) may also be present. � � Riparian forests are particularly valuable in their function as an interface between aquatic and terrestrial � � communities. Riparian zones provide nutrients,shade, and bank stabilization for aquatic systems,as well as nesting and foraging habitat, migration corridors,and refuges for wildlife.Common mammals found in this � habitat type consist of raccoon (Procyon lotor),gray fox,striped skunk(Mephitis mephitis),and dusky-footed � woodrat, Numerous birds are also found in this habitat,such as Wilson's warbler(Wilsonia pusilla),yellow � � warbler(Dendroicopetech/o)' red-shouldered hawk(8uteolinmztus)'song sparrow(Me/nspizon/elodia).and black-headed grosbeak(Pheucbtus/ne/onucepho/us). � � � MIXED COASTAL WOODLAND � � Mixed coastal woodland habitats at the treatment sites(Table 3.6-1)consist of plant communities dominated by � coast live oak(Ouenz/ ognfuKo)'valley oak(Uuercus/nbuAr), California bay(U»/be8ularioco6ƒbrnica),and � --,-----Regional--Open—Space District _ � 3-24 Addendum m the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Site-Specific Weed and Pest Management Project ~ Ascent Environmental Environmental Checklist California buckeye (Aesculus californica). Blue oak(Quercus douglasii)and eucalyptus (Eucalyptus globulus) may also be present. Most of the woodlands are dense,closed-canopy broadleaved evergreen forests, but some areas are deciduous. Woodland habitats support a wide variety of wildlife species(Mayer and Laudenslayer 1988, pp. 72-79).This rich fauna largely results from acorn production and the availability of cavities for breeding and cover in large oak trees. in fact,the presence of at least some oaks in any habitat type increases wildlife abundance (CalPIF 2002, p.8).Typical reptiles and amphibians that use this habitat consist of ringneck snake (Diadophis punctatus), California slender salamander(Batrachoseps attenuatus),western skink(Eumeces skiltonianus). Representative bird species consist of:wild turkey(Meleagris gallopavo),Cooper's hawk(Accipiter cooperii),great horned owl (Bubo virginianus), acorn woodpecker(Melanerpesformicivorus),and oak titmouse(Boeolophus inornatus). Common mammals in coastal woodlands consist of black-tailed deer(Odocoileus hernionus), mountain lion(Felis � conco/or), and wild boar(Sus scro/b). � LANDSLIDES, CLIFFS,AND ROCKY OUTCROPS � Landslides, cliffs,and rocky outcrops are only found on the Air Base treatment site in the Sierra AzuI OSP(Table 3.6-1). Due to the thin soil layer developed on the serpentine bedrock,a low moisture-holding capacity and a � unique chemical composition,the serpentine areas support numerous endemic plant species. Fnemnont's western mosinvveed'smooth |essin8ia (Less/ng/nnnicroden/ovar. g6abooto)'flax~Oovvered |inanthus(L/nonthus liniflorus), coast range false bindweed (Calystegia collina ssp.collina), and most beautiful jewel-flower (Streptanthusm/h/dusssp.peno/noenus)are species that are entirely or largely restricted to serpentine substrate or are regionally uncommon. OTHER(D|STUR0ED, DEVELOPED, PLANTATION, RESTORATION, UNVEGBATED) Disturbed land dominated by yellow star-thistle(Centaurea solstitialis),an invasive weed, is located on sites � within Bear Creek Redwoods, El Corte cle Madera Creek,and St.Joseph's Hill OSPs. Developed ground cover in the project area is largely composed of intermittent built elements,such as roadways, parking lots,and � restrooms.These occur on treatment sites within Bear Creek Redwoods,Coal Creek, El Corte cle Madera Creek, � and Sierra Aau|OSPs.Artificially established forests,groves, and farms are located in the project area.A � � Christmas tree farm is located within Bear Creek Redwoods OSP,olive groves in Sierra AzuI OSP, plantation pines on Coal Creek OSP,and planted stands of pine on Los Trancos OSP.These trees may provide nesting habitat for � birds.Vegetation restoration sites have been mapped on Pulgas Ridge and St.Joseph's Hill OSPs. Small amounts � ofunvegetated land have been mapped within seven OSPs (Table 3.5'1). � � �� K�K��UU��U��Pd =._,~= �.~°=�=="=� a\ �mw�� m�mt�nt��| ��v�rm� ��,��r�1v��t|y�r�hr�u�M habitat mn��iNc�ti�� #m any' ~ � species identified as a candidate, memsitive, orspecial-status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or the U.S. � Fish and Wildlife Service? � Less-than-Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. Implementation of the proposed project would result in � activities to control weeds and other target pests within 13 OSI)s at 454�distinct sites over the next three years, | � 2012-2014.The proposed project would result in an overall improvement to the natural environment by removing invasive weeds that displace natural vegetation. However,treatment actions associated with the proposed project have the potential toadveo � d d Di strict's staff is familiar with all treatment sites and with known locations of special-status species, and are not aware of any special-status species known to currently occur within any of the treatment areas. Occurrences of special- Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Addendum m the Mitigated Negative Declaration fortha Site-Specific Weed undpomManaAvmont Project 3'25 � Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental � status species within 1-mile of the treatment sites were compiled using the California Natural Diversity Database � (CNDDB), District GIS data,and the California Native Plant Society's(CNPS's)online Inventory of Rare and � Endangered Plants.Tables E-1 and E-2 in Appendix E provide information on special-status plant and wildlife � species, respectively,that might potentially occur on the treatment sites. Potential to occur was determined by the presence of suitable habitat and District biologist knowledge of treatment sites and locations of special- status species. Searches of the CNDDB,CNPS online electronic inventory,and MROSD database identified 32 special-status plant species that have been documented within 1-mile of the treatment sites (Appendix E'Table � E-1). One of these species is not expected to occur in the study area due to lack ofsuitable habitat, such as coastal dunes and coastal scrub.The remaining 31 plant species have potential to occur within the treatment sites based on suitable habitat(Appendix E'Table E-1). Based ona review mfthe results of the CNDD8and MROSD database searches,documented species ranges, and available habitat,a list of 26 special-status wildlife species within 1-mile of the treatment sites was compiled (Appendix E,Table E-2). Eighteen special-status wildlife species have the potential to occur within the treatment sites. Impacts to special-status species would either be avoided or reduced to less than significant by following standard District best management practices(BMPs described under Section 2.7)and incorporated mitigation measures.All treatment actions that are proposed under this project are described in Section 2.6.2 and their potential effects are listed below, including actions required by BK8Psthot reduce potential impacts. Prior to any work activity,site surveys would be conducted by a District biologist to determine site conditions and develop any necessary site-specific avoidance measures (BMP 21).All treatment sites would be surveyed to determine the presence of special-status species which could occur in the project area (BMPs 19, 22,and 25). District biological staff would consult database records and conduct site assessments to determine the presence of special status-species or potential habitat prior to work being conducted.To minimize potential impacts to special-status species,worker environmental awareness training would be conducted for all treatment field crews and contractors for special-status species determined to have the potential to occur mn the treatment site by a District biologist.The education training would be conducted prior to starting work on the project and upon the arrival of any new worker.The training would consist of a brief review of life history,field identification, habitat requirements for each species, known or potential locations, possible fines for violations,avoidance measures,and necessary actions if special-status species are encountered (BK8P I1). HERBICIDE TREATMENTS As described in Section 2.6.2,the District is proposing the use of the following pesticides:glyphosate herbicide (Roundup PROMAXo/AquaK4asterwith a Liberate surfac1ant);aminopyra|id herbicide(Milestone VK8);and systematic fungicide consisting of potassium phosphite (Agri-Fos with Pentra-Bark surfactant).These herbicides � may be applied utilizing a variety of equipment depending on the size of the infestation, including abackpack � sprayer(spot spraying), hand-application (cut-stump or wipe application),or,for larger areas, a tank mounted on an all-terrain vehicle or truck with a hose that is manually controlled.As described in BMP 4, herbicide application would be completed by or under the direction of person with a Qualified Applicator License or � Owa|UOed Applicator Certificate. SPECIAL-STATUS PLANTS � Herbicide treatment under the proposed project has the potential to adversely affect special-status plant � species through over spraying or spray drift. Herbicide application would be completed in areas primarily � infested with invasive weeds. As described in BMP 25, impacts to special-status plant species would be � minimized hy establishing a 15-foot no spray buffer around special-status plants identified by District biologists. � BMP 6 would further minimize impacts from over spraying by mixing an appropriate non-toxic colorant or dye to the herbicide. BMP 6 also minimizes potential impacts to non-target plants during spot treatment applications. � Mmwmmoum Regional Open Space District � 3'28 Addendum to the Mitigated Negative Declaration forthe Site-Specific Weed and Pest Management Project � Ascent EnWwnmoom| Environmental Checklist Potential spray drift impacts would be minimized through the implementation of general herbicide application / parameters (BMP 7), including weather parameters,spray nozzle configurations,and spray distances. SPECIAL-STATuGAN|MALS | Herbicide treatment under the proposed project has the potential to affect special-status animal species | through habitat modification nr direct mortality. | � SpeciaNStatus |nvertebrate$ � The project has the potential to harm nnntargetp|antspeciesdurin8herbicidetneatmentoftaq§etspedesas ' ' � � discussed above. Indirect impacts to the bay checkerspot butterfly(Euphydryas editha bayensis)could result if � � its primary larval host plants, dwarf plantain (Plantogoererto)and purple owl's clover([asti0ejoemserto),were harmed.All habitats for the bay checkerspot butterfly exist on shallow, serpentine soils. Serpentine soils is present on five treatment sites:Air Base'Austrian Gulch (Moss Property)' Pheasant.and Williams Property on � Sierra Azul OSP and Vineyard on St.Joseph's Hill OSP.The proposed project contains a number of BMPs to � prevent adverse effects upon non-target vegetation,as described above. However, any incidental damage to � bay checkerspot butterfly larval host plants on serpentine soils within the treatment sites could result in a � potentially significant impact to the bay uheckempotbutterfly. � Special-Status Fish Species � � Critical habitat for Central Coast(ESU)steelhead (Oncorhynchus(=Salmo)mykiss) is present in Los Trancos, � Purisima Creek Redwoods,and Skyline Ridge OSPs, but does not occur within any of the treatment sites. � � However,some treatment sites are within 500 feet of critical habitat for steelhead and indirect impacts could occur from herbicides entering the water via surface runoff. Herbicide releases resulting from the proposed � � project could result in impacts to special-status fish species. However,the project contains BIVIPs that will avoid impacts to special-status fish species. BMP 19 requires that a District biologist shall survey all treatment sites in �he8e|d�veryyearprinr�ovvorktods�erminewhetheranyaquadcfeeturesave|o�atedons�e No herbicide � . treatments shall occur within 15 feet of aquatic features.Aquatic features are defined as any natural or | manmade lake, pond rive�creekdnaina8�way'di�ch'�prinA' satura�edsoUs,orsinni|arfeotun*�hotho|dywater, / � ' ' � � at the time of treatment or typically becomes inundated during winter rains. If during the survey it is found that � aquatic features are present within 15 feet of the proposed treatment area,the District shall either eliminate all � areas within 15 feet of the aquatic feature from the project (i.e.,do not implement treatment actions in those � areas)orif the District wishes to continue treatment actions in these areas, it shall survey the work area prior to treatment to determine presence of suitable habitat or critical habitat for central-coast steelhead trout (Onchorhynchus mykiss). If suitable habitat is found,coordination with the National Marine Fisheries shall occur before weed treatment activities may be conducted within this buffer or activities shall be canceled in this area. If suitable habitat is not found,treatment may proceed (BIVIP 19). BIVIP 5 requires that all mixing and handling of concentrated pesticide solution take place at least 3OO feet from aquatic features. 8K8P 7 prohibits herbicide treatment during precipitation or if rain is forecasted with greater than a 70 percent probability in the next 24 hour period to prevent herbicides and sediment from entering aquatic features via surface runoff. BIVIP 28 requires that erosion control measures and revegetation occur on certain treated sites to prevent sedimentation � into nearby aquatic features. � Special-Status Amphibian and Reptile Species � Pesticide releases, erosion-related sediment, and habitat modification could result from the proposed herbicide � treatment resulting in indirect impacts to special-status amphibian and reptile species, including California red- legged frog(Rana aurora draytonii), California tiger salamander(Ambystorna californiense),foothill yellow � � |e88edfrnB(Ronoboyfli),andwesternpondturt|e(Acbnenmys/nonnoruta).AsdescribedabnveunderSpecia|- � � 5tatusFishSpedes, BK8Ps5' 7. 19' andZQvvou|dminimizeirnpactstmaquaticfeaturesfromherbiddetreatment � MWponinoulu Regional Opo Space District � Addendum m the Mitigated Negative Declaration fo,tho Site-Specific WoedaodPost Management Project 3-27 � Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental by ensuring that non-aquatic approved pesticides are not accidentally released into aquatic habitat and erosion control measures are implemented to prevent sedimentation of aquatic features. A f the 2006 Stipulated Injunction regarding pesticides and the California red-legged fro the s part o , p p J g g p gg g Environmental Protection Agency developed effects determinations for 66 named pesticides including glyphosate.The results of the risk assessment for glyphosate based products determined that California red- legged frog eating broadleaf plants (as well as small insects and small herbivorous mammals) may be at risk to direct effects following chronic exposure to glyphosate at application rates of 7.5 lb(3 quarts)acid equivalent/acre(a.e./A) and above.Additionally, indirect effects could affect aquatic-phase California red-legged frog due to reduction in the prey base with aquatic weed management uses at an application rate of 3.75 lb(1.5 quarts)a.e./A. Indirect effects could also occur at any registered rate due to reduction in prey base for terrestrial CRLF(EPA 2012a).The stipulated injunction restricts the use of certain pesticides in potential California red- legged frog habitat.The injunction generally applies to invasive species and noxious weed control. However,the injunction does not apply to the proposed pesticide use if all of the following conditions are met(EPA 2012b): ,d The pesticide is applied for purposes of controlling state-designated invasive species and noxious weeds under a program administered by a public entity.The pesticide is not applied within hin 15 feet of aquatic breeding critical habitat or non-breeding aquatic critical habitat within critical habitat areas,or within 15 feet of aquatic features within non-critical habitat sections subject to the injunction; Application is limited to localized spot treatment using hand-held devices; Precipitation is not occurring or forecast to occur within 24 hours;and The person applying the pesticide is a certified applicator or working under the direct supervision of a certified applicator. Purisima Creek Redwoods, El Corte de Madera Creek,and Skyline Ridge OSPs are designated California red- legged frog critical habitat. Under the injunction, Purisima Creek Redwoods, El Corte de Madera Creek,Skyline Ridge, and small areas of Sierra Azul and Rancho San Antonio OSPs are specifically identified as including aquatic areas and surrounding uplands suitable for California red-legged frog.The District has identified locations in Monte Bello and Coal Creek OSPs where California red-legged frog are known to occur,and therefore has committed to following the provisions of the injunction at these additional locations (Roessler 2012). No red- legged frog aquatic breeding or non-breeding habitat is present on the proposed treatment sites; however, some treatment sites are within the critical habitat designation. BMP 19 requires that no herbicide treatment will occur within 15 feet of aquatic features; BMP 20 further requires that herbicide spraying of invasive plants be conducted in a manner consistent with the red-legged frog injunction;and BMP 21 requires that treatment sites be surveyed for suitable habitat for special-status species(including California red-legged frog),and training and consultation be undertaken accordingly. Special-Status Mammals Herbicide treatment could coat the food sources of special-status mammals(e.g., understory plants browsed by San Francisco dusky-footed woodrat(Neotomo fuscipes annectens)and insects on the surface of treated vegetation which are the primary diet of special-status bats), resulting in indirect pesticide ingestion. However, impacts to these species resulting from food source exposure would be less than significant due to a limited potential for exposure and due to the low toxicity to small mammals of the dilute herbicides used for this project.Treatment sites represent a small percentage of the overall vegetative cover within the project area, and treatments would not occur more than a few times a year. Given the limited nature of the treatment application, it is unlikely that moths and other prey insects would be exposed to herbicide spray, and less likely that that special-status bat species would consume such insects as they would represent only a tiny portion of the overall food supply.The San Francisco dusky-footed woodrat browses on shrubs and trees,such as willows or poison oak, in the area surrounding its nest.The woodrat prefers foraging in the branches of the trees and Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 3-28 Addendum to the Mitigated Negative Declaration forthe Site-Specific Weed and Pest Management Project Ascent Environmental Environmental Checklist � shrubs rather than on open ground. For these reasons,the dusky-footed woodrat would be unlikely to consume | treated plant material. 8K8P23 prohibits disturbance ofwnodratnests. / � MANUAL CONTROL TREATMENTS � Manual control treatments consist of pulling(by hand and with a weed wrench),digging,and cutting. Manual � control methods are effective for the removal of small populations, individual occurrences, and populations near � aquatic areas or special-status species. SPECIAL-STATUS PLANTS Manual treatments have the potential to adversely affect special-status plant species through pulling(root disturbance),digging(root disturbance)and brushcutdn8(direct mortality). BW1P 25 requires pretreatment surveys for special-status plants and a 15-foot buffer around special-status plants. Manual treatments can be used within 15 feet of special-status plants. Manual control treatments could result in smothering, compaction � of soils,or crushing of root systems which could affect the survival of special-status plants if they are present. � � SPECIAL-STATusAN|K8ALS | � � Manual removal of large trees with chainsaws and brushcutting of vegetation could adversely affect nesting birds by disturbing nests or nesting behavior during treatment activities.Ground nesting species often place � � their nests in or near low vegetation and could be vulnerable to brushcutting activities associated with the proposed project. Raptors are also particularly sensitive to human disturbance while nesting. During pre- treatment planning,the potential for nesting birds in trees, brush,or grasslands would be considered and incorporated into treatment timing. Disturbance to nesting birds could result in nest abandonment by the adults � and mortality of chicks and eggs. BMP 22 requires that all treatment sites be reviewed to evaluate the potential � for nesting birds.Tree removal will be limited to the non-breeding season. For all other treatments, if birds exhibiting nesting behavior are found within the treatment sites during the bird nesting season (February 15 � through August 31), impacts on nesting birds would be avoided by the establishment of appropriate buffers | around the nests.A 500-foot buffer around raptor nests and 50-foot buffer around songbird nests are generally � adequate to protect them from disturbance, but the size of the buffer may be adjusted by a District biologist in � consultation with the U.S. Fish &Wildlife Service (USFWS)depending on site specific conditions. Monitoring of the nest by a District biologist during and after treatment activities will be required if the activity has potential to adversely affect the nest.These areas can be subsequently treated after a District biologist confirms that any young have fledged or the nest is no longer active. In addition, as described above under"Herbicide Treatments",the proposed project contains a number of BMPs that would prevent adverse effects to special- status animals. Prior to treatment activities, a District biologist would survey all treatment sites to determine ' � site conditions and develop any necessary site-specific avoidance measures (8KnP21)�The District biologist � � � � would also evaluate the presence of suitable habitat for special-status species. BMP 23 prohibits disturbance of / � xvoodratnest�andBK8P19nequiresp�tneatmentsurveys for specia|'statusaquoticvvi|d|ihsxpecies. Erosion � � � control and revegetation measures would be implemented for sites with loose or unstable soils,steep slopes � (greater than 30 percent),where a large percentage of the groundcover will be removed,or near aquatic ! features (0yWP2D). � � GREEN FLAMING TREATMENTS � | � in green flaming,specially designed propane torches are used to kill dense areas of newly emerged invasive � � weed seedlings. The use of green flaming has the potential to impact specia|'statusspedes. � � Midmm�s�aRo�o�|OpsD�hm � Space— � Addendum mtho Mitigated Negative Declaration forthe Site-Specific Weed and PestManagement Project 3-29 Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental Green flaming would only be conducted in a small area for this project, and would be conducted during light rains or on wet days when forest litter or grassland thatch is not likely to catch fire. Green flaming would only be used on dense patches of small seedlings which makes it easy to see and avoid any non-target plants or animals during this type of treatment. Most impacts to special-status species would either be avoided or reduced to less than significant by following standard District BMPs, however potentially significant impacts to special-status invertebrates from herbicide treatment and special-status plants from manual treatments may occur. Implementation of BIO-1 and BIO-2 would reduce these impacts to a less than significant level. MAVVWn MMWIU Bias. Pretreatment surveys for bay checkerspot butterfly larval host plants(dwarf plantain(Plantago erecta)and purple owl's clover(Costilleja exserta)), will be conducted by a District biologist on treatment sites where serpentine soil is present. This applies to Air Base,Austrian Gulch(Moss Property), Pheasant,and Williams Property on Sierra Azul OSP and Vineyard on St.Joseph's Hill OSP. If no host plants are found on serpentine soils, then no further study is required. If host plants are determined to be present on serpentine soils,a 15-foot buffer will be established around the plants. No herbicides will be allowed within this buffer. Non-herbicide methods may be used within the 15-foot buffer but they will be designed to avoid damage to the host plant. B10-2. As directed by a qualified biologist,populations of special-status plants will be identified with high-visibility flagging at the time of treatment. Training will be conducted for all treatment field crews and contractors that may be performing manual treatments within 15 feet of special- status plants. Training will consist of a brief review of life history, field identification, habitat h i known r potential locations in the vicinity of the treatment requirements for each species, o o p ty site potential fines for violations avoidance measures and necessary actions if special-status p � rY species are encountered.A District botanist will monitor all work within 15-feet of a special- status plant. If no special-status plants are found during pretreatment surveys no further actions are required. LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION Implementation of mitigation measures 1310-1 would require surveys for larval host plants for the bay checkerspot butterfly that could potentially occur on serpentine soils within specified treatment sites. If host plants are found, a buffer would be established and no herbicide treatments would be allowed within the buffer. Implementation of BIO-2 would require high-visibility flagging of special-status plants and minimizing direct and indirect impacts associated with manual treatments. Implementation of these mitigation measures would reduce the impact to a less-than-significant level. b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? Less-Than-Significant Impact. Sensitive natural communities are of limited distribution statewide or within a count or region that provide important habitat value to natives species. Most types of wetlands and riparian Y p Y g p p p p communities are considered sensitive natural communities due to their limited distribution in California. Sensitive natural communities are of special concern because they have high potential to support special-status plant and animal species.Sensitive natural communities can also provide other important ecological functions, such as enhancing flood and erosion control and maintaining water quality. Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 3-30 Addendum to the Mitigated Negative Declaration forthe Site-Specific Weed and Pest Management Project Ascent Environmental Environmental Checklist |n the project area,the oak woodland,freshwater mamh,serpentinebunchB/ass, redwuodforestandhpahan woodland are considered sensitive natural communities.The proposed project would control invasive weed | populations and, over the long-term, promote natural ecological function within natural communities. Short- term vegetation management activities are not expected to have substantial adverse effects on riparian or other sensitive natural community.The following BIVIPs would ensure that sensitive natural communities would not be affected by herbicide use, manual control,or green flaming treatments. BIVIPs are incorporated into the proposed project to protect riparian habitats(BIVIP 7, 19-20). In order to prevent herbicides from adversely affecting riparian vegetation, no herbicide application would be applied if rain is forecasted with greater than a � 70 percent probability in the next 24 hour period to prevent sediment and herbicides from entering the water � via surface runoff(BIVIP 7).Within 15 feet of aquatic features only the use of manual treatments would be � permitted (BIVIP 19). Prior to treatment activities a District biologist would survey the treatment site for the presence of sensitive natural communities(BIVIP 21). If present,a District biologist would develop site-specific � � avoidance measures (BIVIP 21).To minimize impacts to sensitive natural communities from drift,general herbicide application parameters would be implemented (8K8P 7)' including weather parameters,spray nozzle configurations, and spray distances. Through implementation of BIVIPs designed to protect riparian habitat or other sensitive natural communities, � implementation of the proposed project is not expected to have a substantial adverse effect.Therefore, impacts on sensitive natural communities would be less than significant. C\ Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands amdefined by Section ! 404 of the Clean Water Act (hnc|udimg, but not limited to. marsh, Vermm| pool,coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? Less-than-significant Impact. Wetlands or other jurisdictional waters do not exist on the treatment sites. Furthermore,the proposed project does not consist of any substantial soil disturbing activities.Therefore,the project would not remove,fill, or hydrologically interrupt federally protected wetlands.The impact is less than significant. d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident mr migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or � impede the use cf native wildlife nursery sites? � No Impact. Wildlife corridors are features that provide connections between two or more areas of habitat that would otherwise be isolated and unusable. Often drainages, creeks,or riparian areas are used by wildlife as movement corridors os these features can provide cover and access across a landscape.The control of invasive weed species in the project area would not impede wildlife use of corridors or interfere with movement. No � � native wildlife nursery sites,such as important deer fawning areas or bat nursery colonies,would be affected. e\ Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as tree � preservation policy orordinance? Lass-than-S/gnificamt Impact.The District's mission statement is"To acquire and preserve regional greenbelt � of open space land in perpetuity; protect and restore the natural environment;and provide opportunities for � ecn|oRica||ysensitivepuh|icenioymentandeducat|on."DneoftheDistrict'sgoa|sis to control invasive species � that have a substantial impact on preserve resources in order to foster the restoration of native vegetation and � � habitat.The proposed project would control invasive weed populations and, over the long-term, promote � natural ecological function within natural communities.The treatments under the proposed project are � consistent with the District's Boa|:and poUcieynn the p�¢ertinnand nestusad .restoration In � addition, prior to implementing projects or activities,the District consults with federal,State, and local agencies � � having jurisdiction over biological resources in order to comply with all regulations, ordinances, and policies and � � MWmminmula Regional Open Space District � Addendum tothe Mitigated Negative Declaration forthe Site-Specific Weed and Pest Management Project 3'31 Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental to obtain necessary permits.Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would be consistent with local ordinances and policies designed to preserve and protect biological resources and associated impacts would be less than significant. f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? No Impact.A dfa4 habitat plan for the Santa Clara Valley Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP)was released in The pFepesed treatment sites are not within the HCP planning area.AThe final ElR/ElS_plaA is euFFeRtly beiAg pFepaFed fel: publiG Feview *A rAad— 20-1-2clocument, but has met-been adopted-and t-The project would result in no impact related to conflicts with an adopte4Lhe HCP. Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 3-32 Addendum to the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Site-Specific Weed and Pest Management Project [ � � � Ascent Environmental Environmental Checklist � � �� D� ��0�N ��NN��N � ��°�p CULTURAL RESOURCES Uss'ffian Potenda|l� Sign0naui LessThan ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES Siol0canL with 8igi0mmnt No Impact Impact Miltigation Impact � Incorporated � V. Cultural Resources.Would the project: � a) Cause a substantial adverse change inthe �l �7 �� l � �� ~ �� ~ significance ufa historical resource as defined in 5ectiun1SO64.5? � � b) Cause substantial adverse change in the [l � significance of an archaeological resource pursuant � tn Section 15O64.57 � c> Directly or indirectly destroy aunique El paleontological resource or site ur unique geologic � feature? d> Disturb any human remains, including those interred F Fl [l � outside of formal cemeteries? � � � ��yU��y��U ��U�� `~°^� "�"�~""��'""��"�"�"�� ""^�� The San Francisco Peninsula has had a rich and diverse history, including settlement by Native American groups; the Spanish (1775-1821)and Mexican Republican (1821-1Q48)colonization of the region;the annexation of � California by the United States in 1848;and subsequent industrial,agricultural,and residential development. � � There are remains from each of these periods on District lands, including Native American village sites, bedrock mortars, barns and other ranching features,orchards,wineries, historic homes,sawmills, mines, historic roads � and trails, and outdoor recreational sites.As time passes, more recent periods of California's history become � � historically significant.As such, some 20th century sites such as World War 11 and Cold War military sites are now considered historically significant resources throughout California. Collectively,these sites,structures,features, and artifacts comprise the cultural resources of the District. The District maintains in-house records regarding the confidential locations of all known cultural resources within its boundaries. The District has compiled this information overtime through direct information provided by qualified archaeologists as well as a variety of reports and record searches that have been performed for many projects throughout the District.At the time District staff identified sites for consideration as part of this project, staff reviewed the in-house records regarding known cultural resources locations to determine whether any known historic resources were located at the proposed treatment sites. No known cultural resources or historic structures are located at any of the selected treatment sites(Bird 2012). Staff reviewed the threeadditional sites in the same manner to determine whether any known historic or cultural resources were located within their boundaries. No known cultural resources or historic structures are located within the three additional sites. � MWpwxinama Regional Ope Space District � Addendum m the Mitigated Negative Declaration hxmo Site-Specific Weed and Pest Management Project 3-33 � Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental 3.5.2 DISCUSSION With the additional sites the roect s environmental impacts related to Cultural Resources will be the same as p I those analyzed in the ISIMND. Mitigation Measure CUL-1 will apply to the new sites and will ensure that any impacts related to currently unknown human remains will be reduced to a less than significant level. 3.6 GEOLOGY AND SOILS LessThan Potentially Significant LessThan ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES Significant with Significant No Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated VI. Geology and Soils.Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects,including the risk of loss, injury,or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault,as El El ® ❑ delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault?(Refer to California Geological Survey Special Publication 42.) ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? n El El iii) Seismic-related ground failure,including R ❑ ® ❑ liquefaction? iv) Landslides? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of ❑ ® ❑ topsoil? c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project,and potentially result in on-or off-site landslide,lateral spreading,subsidence,liquefaction, or collapse? d) Be located on expansive soil,as defined in Table 18-1- B of the Uniform Building Code(1994,as updated), creating substantial risks to life or property? e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? 3.6.1 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING See IS/MND Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 3-34 Addendum to the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Site-Specific Weed and Pest Management Project Ascent Environmental Environmental Checklist 3.6.2 DISCUSSION With the additional sites,the proiect's environmental impacts related to geology and soils will be the same as those analyzed in the IS/MND. 1 j i i Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Addendum to the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Site-Specific Weed and Pest Management Project 3-35 I�� Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental �� N�0�N��N�� N�N�NN��: ��°m `�mm��w�mm�� n�m��mONS LaeuThon PotenUm|l� 8igi0oant LwamThan ENMRONMENTAL ISSUES Signilicant with Sigriftnt No Impact Impact KAki�m Impact � Incorporated VU. Greenhouse Gas Emissions.Would the project: � a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions,either directly or �l � �� indirectly,thotmayhaveasiOnificantimpactonthe � environment? ! b} Conflict with an applicable plan, policy orregulation El � � adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of � | � greenhouse gases? | � 3,7,1 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING � � S±eLB/MUVD � � � � K�U��UU��UK�*J � =^ " ~� �"=~~====="" | � � m) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a � significant impact on the environment? Less-than-significant Impact. GHG emissions generated by the proposed project would predominantly be in the � form ofU]x from the exhaust associated with worker commute trips and equipment used on site(e.Q, off- highway trucks,tractormnovver).VVhi|eenn|ssionsofotherGHGssuchosmethane ([H*} andnitrousoxide(N'O) � � are important with respect to global d ' climate change,the emission levels of these GHGs for the sources associated with project activities are nominal compared with CO2 emissions,even considering their higher global warming potential(GVVP).Therefore,aUGHG emissions for construction are reported os[Oz. � GHG emissions associated with the project were calculated using applicable portions of the California Emissions Estimator Model ([a|EEK8od),as recommended by BAAQK4D. Modeling was based on past and anticipated | � � future weed control activities. Because weed control methods (e.g.,tank spraying of herbicide,tractor mower) � � are chosen based on the type of weed/pest infestation on the treatment site,the proposed project consists of � � continued maintenance and follow-up weed control activities of existing infestations, and the District has implemented similar management activities throughout its lands,future activities would be similar to past / aotk/ities.The mndeU �modeling considered conservative �e because assumed simultaneous use of � � � motorized equipment and conservatively high worker commute trip lengths.Table 3.7'1 below summarizes the � � modeled annual operational GHG emissions for the proposed project See � � output parameters and detailed assumptions.Table 3.7-L Summary of Modeled Annual GHG Emissions Associated with Weed Control Activities � � | MT/yr � | � � Onsite Activities(Tractor mower,off-highway trucks) 5,4 � KMobile-source(worker commute) 3.9 A � Midpeninsula..g~.~.,~..,.~~~.~~ � 3-36 Addendum m the Mitigated Negative Declaration hxtho Site-Specific WeoVundPomMuno8nmmntpmjem � � Ascent Environmental Environmental Checklist Yearly Total 9.3 BAAQMD Thresholds of Significance 1,100 Notes:CO2=carbon dioxide;GHG=greenhouse gas;MT/yr=metric tons per year. See Appendix D for detailed modeling results. Source:Modeling Conducted by Ascent Environmental 2012. Based on the modeling conducted, project-related activities for the original 42 sites wouldresult ina total of9.3 MT Of CO2.These emissions levels are well below BAAQMD's threshold of significance of 1,100 additional 3 proiect sites addressed in this document are similar in respect to the original 42 project sites in regards to the production of GHG emission (similar onsite activities, similar work commutes). No new analysis MT/year. The � was preformed for the additional 3 sites, but GHG emissions were assumed to rise proportionally to the number of proiect sites (3—.42x100=7.1% increase). Even if total annual GHG emissions for the project doubled (100% increase)with the 3 added sites,the total for the year would only be 18.6 metric tons Of CO2 per year(CO2_ MlZvr). This is far below the BAAQMD threshold of significance of 1,100(CO2 MT/yr). Additionally,the project | would involve minimal activity over the duration of the entire operational phase(i.e., 1-2 weeks per site), and overall project-related GHG emissions would not be considered substantial (i.e., less than 10 MT of CO2).Thus, � puojeci-Aenerated operational emissions would not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase ofGHGs. � Asa result,this impact would be less than significant. b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions ofgreenhouse gases? � Less-than-significant Impact.As discussed under item a) above,the total GHG emissions associated with this � project would be less than BAADK4D'sthresho|d of1'1O0 MT/year. Because this threshold is based on the | emissions reduction targets established by AB 32 for the year 2020 and because p roj ect-gene rated GHG � emissions would not conflict with any other applicable plans, policies,or regulations established for the purposes of GHG emissions reduction.Also stated above,there would be no new mobile, area,or stationary sources of GHGs associated with the proposed project.Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not result in a net increase oflong-term operation-related 6HG emissions from mobile,stationary,or � area sources. Project-generated operational emissions would not result in a cumulatively considerable net � increase ofGHGs' and this impact would be less than significant. � � � � MNpaninoulu Regional Vpe Space District � Addendum tomw Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Site-Specific Weed and Pest Management Project 3-3/ Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental �� 0�x�: ��N�� N��N�N� �� m�� x�� mm�� x�m��" � � LemaThan Potentially Significant LemmThmn ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES Sigiftaryt With Signftnt No Impact Impact MffigaWn Impact |numqoxmted � h1U.Hazards and Hazardous Materials.Would the project: � a> Create a significant hazard to the public orthe �l [l �� environment through the routine transport,use,or � disposal of hazardous materials? � � � b> Create a significant hazard to the public or the [l R 1Z El � � environment through reasonably foreseeable upset � and/or accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? c> Emit hazardous emissions ur handle hazardous or [l�� acutely hazardous materials,substances,urwaste � � within one-quarter mile ofan existing orproposed school? d> De located una site which is included ona list cf El El El hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 6596Z.5 and,asaresult, � would it create a significant hazard to the public or � the environment? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan El El F7 or,where such a plan has not been adopted,within two miles ofa public airport ur public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing o/working in the project area? f} For a project within the vicinity nfa private airstrip, El 0 [l would the project result ina safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? � g> impair implementation ofor physically interfere Fl [l F7 � with an adopted emergency response plan or -- �� emergency evacuation plan? � � h) Expose people or structures toa significant risk of El [l Z El loss,injury,or death involving wi|d|andfires, � including where wi|d|ands are adjacent tourbanized � areas o/where residences are intermixed with wi|d|ands? | � � � � � � �� ^~^~^� �~^~~^^~'~'`'--'--- ~—' U '—'— � � See IS/MND | � � � K�U��U��0� �^�^� �"��"�"� | � With the additional sites,the proiect's environmental impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials will be the same as those analyzed in the IS/1VIND. � . � mmvom"^ .u"o»w" l Open Space"m""x � 3-38 Addendum m the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Site-Specific Weed and Pest Management Project �� Ascent Environmental Environmental Checklist 3.9 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUAMY LessThan Potentially Significant LessThan ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES Significant With Significant No Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated IX. Hydrology and Water Quality.Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or 0 El El X interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level(e.g.,the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level that would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the 0 El site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial on-or off-site erosion or siltation? d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the El EJ X El site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river,or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in on-or off-site flooding? e) Create or contribute runoff water which would El exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures that would impede or redirect flood flows? i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of El loss,injury,or death involving flooding,including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? j) Result in inundation by seiche,tsunami,or mudflow? ❑ ❑ ❑ 3.9.1 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING See ISIMND Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Addendum to the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Site-Specific Weed and Pest Management Project 3-39 Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental 3.9.2 DISCUSSION With the additional sites,the proiect's environmental impacts related to hydrology and water quality will be the same as those analyzed in the IS/MND. III I i i I I Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 3-40 Addendum to the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Site-Specific Weed and Pest Management Project Ascent Environmental Environmental Checklist 37.10 LAND USE AND PLANNING LessThan Potentially Significant LessThan ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES Significant with Significant No Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated X. Land Use and Planning.Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? ❑ ❑ ❑ x b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan,policy,or ❑ regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project(including, but not limited to,a general plan, specific plan,local coastal program,or zoning ordinance)adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ plan or natural community conservation plan? 3.10.1 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING See IS/MND 3.10.2 DISCUSSION With the additional sites,the project's environmental impacts related to land use and planning will be the same as those analyzed in the IS/MND. 3.11 MINERAL RESOURCES LessThan Potentially Significant LessThan ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES Significant with Significant No Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated X1. Mineral Resources.Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral El ❑ ❑ resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important El ❑ F1 mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan,specific plan,or other land use plan? 3.11.1 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING See IS/MND Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Addendum to the Mitigated Negative Declaration forthe Site-Specific Weed and Pest Management Project 3-41 Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental 3.11.2 DISCUSSION With the additional sites,the proiect's environmental impacts related to mineral resources will be the same as those analyzed in the IS/MND. i I i i I I i I Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 1 3-42 Addendum to the Mitigated Negative Declaration forthe Site-Specific Weed and Pest Management Project Ascent Environmental Environmental Checklist '0 V.7.12 NOISE LessThan Potentially Sigiftnt LessThan ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES Significant With Significant No Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated XII. Noise.Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels 0 El z El in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance,or in other applicable local, state,or federal standards? b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive EJ 1-1 z groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise El levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in El z El ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan El El z or,where such a plan has not been adopted,within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? rVI f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? 3.12.1 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING See IS/IVIND 3.12.2 DISCUSSION With the additional sites,the proiect's environmental impacts related to noise will be the same as those analyzed in the IVIVIND. 3J POPULATION AND HOUSING LessThan Potentially Significant LessThan ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES Significant With Sigiftnt No Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorpordled XIII.Population and Housing.Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, El El z either directly(for example, by proposing new Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Addendum to the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Site-Specific Weed and Pest Management Project 3-43 Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental homes and businesses)or indirectly(for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing homes, El necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? c) Displace substantial numbers of people, D necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? 3.13.1 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING See IS/MND 3.13.2 DISCUSSION With the additional sites,the proiect's environmental impacts related to population and housing will be the same as those analyzed in the IS/MND. MA PUBLIC SERVICES LessThan Potentially Significant LessThan ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES Significant with Significant No Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated XIV.Public Services.Would the project: a) Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities,or the need for new or physically altered governmental facilities,the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts,in order to maintain acceptable service ratios,response times,or other performance objectives for any of the public services: Fire protection? ❑ El El Police protection? El Schools? F] z Parks? 1-1 z Other public facilities? ❑ El 1:1 3.14.1 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING See IS/MND Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 3-44 Addendum to the Mitigated Negative Declaration forthe Site-Specific Weed and Pest Management Project Ascent Environmental Environmental Checklist 3.14.2 DISCUSSION With the additional sites,the proiect's environmental impacts related to public services will be the same as those analyzed in the IS/MND. 3.1.5 RECREATION LessThan Potentially Significant LessThan ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES Significant with Significant No Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated XV. Recreation.Would the project: a) Increase the use of existing neighborhood and El ❑ ® ❑ regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b) Include recreational facilities or require the ® ❑ construction or expansion of recreational facilities that might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? 3.15.1 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING The District manages land primarily to preserve a regional greenbelt of open space land. District OSPs offer a variety of recreational opportunities to residents and visitors to the San Francisco Bay area. With over 220 miles of public trails inviting low-intensity recreational activities such as hiking, biking,jogging, horse-back riding, dog walking, and picnicking,District OSPs serve as popular weekday and weekend recreational destinations.There are relatively few improvements on District OSPs,other than gravel parking areas, public restrooms, informational signs,and maintenance and staging facilities. Most treatment sites are located along trails and in areas that are open to public recreation; however a few of the sites are closed or are in areas that do not have recreational facilities (trails).Table 3.15-1 shows access information for the vegetation treatment sites. Table 3.15-1. Proposed Sites and Recreation Access Status Open Space Preserve Site Name Recreation Status Bear Creek Redwoods Alma Closed BC01 Open by permit only Tree Farm Closed West Roads Coal Creek Page Mill&35 Open,area with no trail or facilities El Corte de Madera Creek Lawrence Creek Open Methuselah Trail Open Future staging area between CM03& Open CM04 Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Addendum to the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Site-Specific Weed and Pest Management Project 3-45 Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental Table 3.15-1. Pro Sites and Recreation Access Status Proposed Open Space Presen a Site Name Recreation Statts Virginia Mill Trail Open n Aquinas Trail O El Sere no A en 4 P Loma vista Open Overlook Open Los Trancos Event Meadow Open Fault Trail Open Franciscan Loop Trail Open Greater Los Trancos Open Knoll Open LT02 Open Norton Open Parking Lot Open Monte Bello Montebello Road Open Water Wheel Creek Open Pulgas Ridge Hassler Loop Open Purisima Creek Harkins Ridge Cut-over Open Harkins Ridge Trail Open North Ridge Open PCO1 Open PC03 Open Upper Purisima Creek Open Rancho San Antonio Lower Meadow Trail Open Shop Open Saratoga Gap Charcoal Residence Closed Lysons Property Closed Sierra Azul Air Base Closed Austrian Gulch(Moss Property) Closed Beatty Closed Hicks Creek Ranch Closed Pheasant Closed RDG Closed Reynolds Closed SA19 Closed Williams property Closed Skyline Ridge Tree Farm Restoration Open St.Joseph's Hill Vineyard Open Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 3-46 Addendum to the Mitigated Negative Declaration forthe Site-Specific Weed and Pest Management Project Ascent Environmental Environmental Checklist Table 3.15-1. Proposed Sites and Recreation Access Status Open Space Preserve Site Name Reaeatiion Status Vista/Y Star/Hilltop Open Source:MROSD 2012;*Sites added. n Qr this�dp n ere highlighted in gray 3.15.2 DISCUSSION With the additional sites,the proiect's environmental impacts related to recreation will be the same as those analyzed in the IS/MND. i II, Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Addendum to the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Site-Specific Weed and Pest Management Project 3-47 Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental 3.16 TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC LessThan potentially Significant LessThan ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES Significant with Significant No Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated XVI.Transportation/Traffic.Would the project: a Conflict with an applicable plan,ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system,taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and non-motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system,including but not limited to intersections,streets,highways and freeways,pedestrian and bicycle paths,and mass transit? b) Conflict with an applicable congestion management ❑ program,including,but not limited to level of service standards and travel demand measures,or other standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns,including ❑ EJ El either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design El El El 0 feature(e.g.,sharp curves or dangerous intersections)or incompatible uses(e.g.,farm equipment)? e) Result in inadequate emergency access? ❑ ❑ ❑ f) Conflict with adopted policies,plans,or programs ❑ M ❑ regarding public transit,bicycle,or pedestrian facilities,or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities? 3.16.1 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING See IS/MND 3.16.2 DISCUSSION With the additional sites,the proiect's environmental impacts related to transportation/traffic will be the same as those analyzed in the IS/MND. 3.17 WILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS Potentially LessThan LessThan ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES No Impact Significant Significant Significant Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 3-48 Addendum to the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Site-Specific Weed and Pest Management Project Ascent Environmental Environmental Checklist Impact with Impact Mitigation Incotpomted XxU. Utilities and Service Systems.Would the project: � � a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements nfthe El 0 applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? b} Require nr result in the construction nf new water or 11;�71 wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of � existing facilities,the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? � c} Requireor result in the construction nfnestorm Fl � vv �� water drainage facilities nr expansion nfexisting � facilities,the construction nf which could cause significant environmental effects? � d> Have sufficient water supplies available tu serve the project from existing entitlements and resources,or ! are new o,expanded entitlements needed? � � e) Result ino determination by the wastewater El � treatment provider that serves or may serve the � project that it has adequate capacity to serve the � � � pnoject's projected demand,in addition tnthe � provider's existing commitments? f) Be served bya landfill with sufficient permitted El El -211 � [l | capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste | disposal needs? � g) Comply with federa| s�ateand |oca|gatutesa�� l �� l � ' ' �u �� regulations related to solid waste? � 3,17,1 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING See|S/1VUVD | | � � � � K�U��U��A�� .�" ^� ��.�,. / a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements ofthe applicable Regional Water Quality � Control Board? � b) Require or noam|t in the construction of nevvvvater orm/ostevvatertm*mtmmentfa.�Uit|emor' . expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant | environmental effects? � Response to items a and b. � � No Impact. The project would not generate any wastewater. No impact would occur. � � MWmmmsma Regional Open Space District Addendum mtho Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Site-Specific WoodunoPmst Management Project 3-49 � Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental C) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? No Impact. Proposed project activities would be limited to vegetation management and would not result in any activities or uses that would increase stormwater runoff(e.g.,grading,compaction, paving) such that new or expanded facilities would be required. No impact would occur. d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider that serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand, in addition to the provider's existing commitments? Response to items d and e. No Impact. The proposed project would not consume water beyond existing use levels, and would not generate any wastewater. No impact would occur. f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? Response to items f and g. Less-than-significant Impact. The project would generate minimal solid waste consistent with existing waste generation rates. No more than 2202400 cubic yards of plant material would be disposed of into landfills. When appropriate, plant material would be left to decompose on site.The District's BMP 9 identifies the proper disposal requirements for herbicide containers. Because the project would not generate substantial solid waste above existing levels and appropriate disposal of waste containers would occur,the project would have less- than-significant impacts related to landfill capacity and compliance with applicable solid waste regulations. Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 3-50 Addendum to the Mitigated Negative Declaration forthe Site-Specific Weed and Pest Management Project � Ascent Environmental Environmental Checklist �� N� 0�� N��@� ��N� N�N��N � �� mnmm��wmrmm��mmm FINDINGS LessThen � � � PntenUe|� Sign0cant LwseThun � EWRONIVIENTAL ISSUES Significant with Significant No Impact � � Impact K8N@adnn Impact � � |ncorpollated � � %w|U. Mandatory Findings mfSignificance. a) Does the project have the potential tosubstantially � degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat ofa fish o,wildlife � species, cause a fish or wildlife population todrop below self-sustaining|eve|s �hreatentoe|iminatea � . � � plant or animal community,reduce the number or � � restrict the range ofan endangered,rare,ur � threatened species,nr eliminate important � examples cf the major periods of California history or prehistory? � � b) Does the project have impacts that are individually � limited, but cumulatively considerable? � (^Cumu|ative|yconsidemb|e^means that the incremental effects ofa project are considerable � � when viewed in connection with the effects ofpast � projects,the effects of other current projects,and the effects of probable future projects.) � c) Does the project have environmental effects that Fl Fl VN will cause substantial adverse effects onhuman beings,either directly orindirectly? � Authority: Public Resources Code Sections 21083 210835. Reference: Government Code Sections 65088.4. � Public Resources Code Sections 21080,21083.5,21095;Eureka Citizens for Responsible Govt.v.City of Eureka(2007)147 Cal.App.4th 357; Protect meommwvxvmumwwm ��x^ � mvwa - (uucw)11scv/.xvp.4toptxxoy;San Franciscans Upholding the Downtown Plan � ^ow �m and County (2002)102oa/.Apn.4m656. � 3,18,1 DISCUSSION � a\ Does the project have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife � population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number mr restrict the range ofan endangered, rare, mrthreatened species, or eliminate important examples ofthe major periods of California history or � prehistory? � Less-than-significant with Mitigation Incorporated. As discussed in previous sections,the proposed project � would not degrade the natural environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels,threaten to eliminate a native plant or animal � community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate � important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory.The proposed project is expected to restore and protect the long-term ecological integrity of the OSPson which they are located. � � MWpo insu|aRegional Ope Space District � Addendum mtho Mitigated Negative Declaration forthe Site-Specific Weed and Pest Management Project 3-51 � Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental � 8W1Ps identified 1n the Project Description (Section 2.7)and mitigation recommended as part of this |6would � prevent impacts on natural resources. No sensitive special-status plant or animal species would be harmed,and no sensitive natural communities or habitats would be permanently or substantially affected.The project would � not obstruct habitat corridors necessary for the movement of species.The project would not disturb geological, � archaeological, paleontological, or historical resources. Impacts pertaining to biological and cultural resources were determined to be less than significant with mitigation incorporated. b\ Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in cmmmmotimn with the effects of past projects,the effects of | other current projects, andtheeffectsmfprobabUefuturapr projects.) . � � | Less-than-significant Impact. The proposed project consists of a 454-2 distinct and separate sites on 13 OSPs. In � addition,the District has been implementing habitat improvement projects and vegetation management � projects using IPM techniques for control of invasive species on a variety of sites throughout the district,and in some cases on adjacent lands. Recent and on-going vegetation management projects include invasive species | � control at Mindego Ranch on the Russian Ridge Preserve, pond improvements on the La Honda Preserve, and an � � IPM program for slender false brome on District lands and other adjacent open space lands. Because of the � dispersed � � � � create cumulative impacts. Impacts associated with population increases or demand for services and | � infrastructure would not result from these types ofprojects and,therefore,would not combine to create a � significant cumulative impact. Impacts associated with water quality are minimized at each site through the use ! � of protective measures or the District's standard BMPs, such that no cumulative impacts would occur with � � � projects located within the same drainages. Air emissions associated with the project in combination with other � cumulative projects would be minimal and would be substantially below adopted thresholds.Therefore,the � proposed project would not result in a considerable contribution to any significant cumulative impacts. m\ Does the project Maveenxinonmmenta| effectsthatwxiUsausemubmtantia| adverse effects on � human beings, either directly or indirectly? Less-than-significant Impact. No substantial adverse effects on humans are expected.As described in the � Hazards and Hazardous Materials section, implementation of8MP'o 1throuQh lOwou|d result in the appropriate storage, use, and transport of pesticides including minimizing over spray and potential contact with � non-target species.As discussed in the Project Description, herbicides that would be used for treatment of | invasive plants and SOD pathogen have low toxicity to humans. Section 3.8, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, � describes potential impacts associated with general pesticide handling and Section 3.9, Hydrology and Water � Quality, describes potential impacts associated with water quality degradation. Impacts on human health and � safety were determined tobe less than significant in these sections. Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District � |� 3-52 Addendum wthe Mitigated Negative Declaration forthe Site-Specific Weed and Pest Management Project � / � � � Ascent Environmental Environmental Checklist This page intentionally left blank. l I i 1 I I Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Addendum to the Mitigated Negative Declaration forthe Site-Specific Weed and Pest Management Project 3-53 .� U� ~� REFERENCES Bay Area Air Quality Management District. 2010a.Adopted Air Quality CEQA Thresholds of Significance. � Available:<http://vvww.baaqnnd.8uv/Divisions/P|onning-and'Reoearch/[E[V\-GU|DEUNES/Updated- [EQA'Guide|ineo.aspx>. San Francisco,CA.Accessed June 21' JO1O. Bay Area Air Quality Management District. 2010b. BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines.Available: � <http://www.baaqmd.gov/Divisions/P|anning'and-Research/[EUA-GU|DEL|NES/Updated-[EOA- � Guide|ines.aspx>. SanFrano|sco'CA.Acceoed]une21, 2O1U. Bay Area Air Quality Management District. 2010c. Draft Bay Area 2010 Clean Air Plan.Available: <http://vvww.baaqrnd.8ov/Divisions/P|annin8'and-Research/P|ans/C|ean-Air-P|ans.espx».San Francisco, CA. Accessed June 21, IDlO. � Bay Area Early Detection Network(BAEDN), Early Detection & Rapid Response Target Species,2010, http://haedn.org/ima8es/stoden/BAEDN_EDRR_priority_species_|ix1abstract_1O_Ol_2O1O.pdf | | Bird,Janine. Natural Resources Intern, Document Review ofK8ROSD Cultural Resources Files, March 3013. California Air Resources Board. 2011(February). 2011 Area Designation Maps/State and National Available: N1p://www.arb.ca.Rov/desig/adm/adm.htm.AccessedK8arch1S' 2O12. California Department of Conservation.2000(August). General Location Guide for Ultramafic Rocks in California � Areas More Likely to Contain Naturally Occurring Asbestos.California Division of Mines and Geology. � Prepared by Ronald K.Churchill and Robert LHill � � | California Department of Conservation.201 la. Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program Santa Clara County important Farmland 2D1O. California Department of Conservation.2011 b. Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program San Mateo County � Important Farmland 2O1O. � � California Department of Toxic Substances Control. 2012. Envirostor database search. California Invasive Plant Council, Preventing the Spread of Invasive Plants: Best Management Practices for Land � Managers, I011. http://vvww.ca|-ipcorg/ip/pnevention/|andmanagers.php � � California Invasive Plant Council, California Invasive Plant Inventory, 2008. http://www.cal- ipc.org/ip/inventory/index.php#inventory � [a|P|F See California Partners in Flight � California Partners in Flight). 2002.Version 2.0.The oak woodland bird conservation plan: a strategy for � protecting and managing oak woodland habitats and associated birds in California (S.Zack, lead author). � � Point Reyes Bird Observatory,Stinson Beach,CA.Available: h11p://wvvw.prbo.oru/ca|Aif/p|�ns�htm| � ~ � California Department nfTransportation. 2UO9(December). Eligible and Officially Designated Routes.Available: h1tp://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/LandAoh/scenic/cahisysJ.htm.Accessed March 18, 2012. } � MNmminyulm Regional Open Space District � � Addendum m the Mitigated Negative Declaration fo,tho Site-Specific Weed and Pest Management Project 4'1 � � � References Ascent Environmental California Department of Food and Agriculture and California Invasive Weed Awareness Coalition. 2005 (September). California Noxious and Invasive Weed Action Plan. � � C/[AG See City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County [DFA.See California Department of Food and Agriculture. � City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County. 2009(September). Final San Mateo County Congestion Management Program 2U89. DO[See California Department ofConservation. | � EPA See U.S. Environmental Protection Agency � Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 2007. Climate Change 2007: The Physical Basis. Contribution of � Working Group/to the Fourth Assessment Report of the/P[[Geneva,Sxv�zer|and. Available: � | «h11p://wvvw.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/ar4'wg1.htm>. Accessed March 13, 2012. � � Mayer' K.E. andVV.F. Laudens|ayer,]r. 198A.A Guide to Wildlife Habitats of California.State ofCalifornia, Resources Agency, Department of Fish and Game,Sacramento,CA. 166pp. � Mayer, Kenneth E. Redwood Vegetation. California Wildlife Habitat Relationships System.Available at: � | ht1p://vvww.df8.ca.Qov/bkoQeodata/cwhr/pdfs/RDVV.pdf.Accessed 17 March 2O1I. | � � Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District, Invasive Plant Control Notebook, 2012. � Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District(MROSD), Resource Management Policies,January 2012. � Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District. 2011(October). Resource Management Policies Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration. Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District. 2010, Ranger Operations Manual. � � K8idpeninsu|a Regional Open Space District. 2OO5. Progress Report and Further Recommendations Regarding Management of Sudden Oak Death and Slender False Brome on and Near District Preserves. Board of Directors Agenda Item 4, December 14^ 2OOS. � Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District. 2012.Open space recreation maps available at www.openspace.org. Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District, San Mateo Coastal Annexation, Final Environmental Impact Report/Responses to Comments, May 2003. � � Roessler,Cindy. Memo to Stan Hooper,SFO, and Michael Bankosh, FFO. Restrictions on Use of Pesticides in Red- Legged Frog Areas. 8 February 2012. San Mateo County. 1996(December). San Mateo County Comprehensive Airport Land Use Plan.City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County. Adopted November 14, 1996. � Santa Clara County. 1994(December). Santa Clara County General Plan-Charting a Course for Santa Clara's Future: 199S-2U1O. Adopted December 2O' 1994.Santa Clara, CA. � � Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 4'2 Addendum to the Mitigated Negative Declaration forthe Site-Specific Weed and Pest Management Project � Ascent Environmental References Santa Clara County. 2011(March, 24).Comprehensive Land Use Plan-Updated Draft. Santa Jose,CA. Prepared by VVa|ter8. VVindus. Steve Schoenig,editor,California Department of Food and Agriculture and California Invasive Weed Awareness � Coalition,California Noxious and Invasive Weed Action Plan,September 2005. � State Water Resources Control Board. 2D13.Geotn*rker Database.Available: http://geotracker.xvaterboards.ca.gov/profi|e_^eport.usp.Accessed March 19' 2012. � SVVR[8.See State Water Resources Control Board. � U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. ZD1Ia. Court Issues Stipulated Injunction Regarding Pesticides and the � California Red-Legged Frog. Available at: http://wvvwapa.gov/enpp/|itstatus/red|eR-fvog/r|f.htm. � Accessed 1G March 2O12. � U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1971 (December, 31). Noise from Construction Equipment and � � Operations' Building Equipment,and Home Appliances. Office of Noise Abatement and Control. Washington DI. Prepared by Bolt, Beranek and Newman. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2013. Steps and Information for Pesticide Users. Available at: � http://epa.gov/espp/litstatus/redleg-frog/steps-info.htm#five.Accessed I6 March 2Ol2. � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District � Addendum to the Mitigated Negative Declaration formo Site-Specific Weed and Pest Management Project 4-3 References Ascent Environmental This page a e intentional) left blank. Y Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 4-4 Addendum to the Mitigated Negative Declaration forthe Site-Speck Weed and Pest Management Project 5 REPORT PREPARERS ADDENDUM MIDPENINSUIr4 REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT ICI Joel Silverman .............................................................................. ......... .........Resource Management Specialist I ��n�Y_R��.��I�r .,.... .._...�. ...�.. .�.�,__�_,� .....`', ._,_ :___�,�:��.r�i�r R��_►'ce M�na�emenp �lis Julie Andersen ..................................................... Planner II arsine Dire) Alatural De,re UFee s inte FA Stan Hooper.......................................................................................................Maintenance&Resource Supervisor Michael Bankosh .....................Maintenance&Resource Supervisor ... .......................................................................... AFGEN:F ENVIRONMENTAL, I . ed V !'11 !n Drinr'r�-+1/Dre.ie..-+ �A-.n-.e.�r AFY�vmd;l K Qle`l SzUl ........................................................................................................ elia splata 1;ny're,.,rr eRtal Plap e f WsaKashiwase.........................................................................................................................Biel st/GIS Sp alist 1}I + n + ............................................................................................. nittnle,ire,................................. Anal + p� 5t ........... 'ear n` !AI 're,C 1'r+ ftCF72� V .... ....................................................................................................7G�11V1 !II r7 I��p l'C�ipeCiPli7C I Afflbpff f Ff ......................he,e•..me nt Dre dwetie s I I I n 1 en Space District Mldpenmsula Regional Op Spa i Addendum to the Mitigated Negative Declaration forthe Site-Specific Weed and Pest Management Project 5-1 Report Preparers Ascent Environmental p p i This page intentionally left blank. 465206.1 i i I i Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 5-2 Addendum to the Mitigated Negative Declaration forthe Site-Specific Weed and Pest Management Project 92 0 San Carlos Of Palo © Alto Woodsic t V 10 0� a Mountain View 0 © 0 Sunnyvale _ I �, 0 Cupertino 0 San Jose 1ef ayer Saratoga Creek County Park Bu[ano Castle P.. r 17 Los State Park District Boundary State Pa,.: Gat 1 Bap Basin Redwoods State Par4. r ■ Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 1 Pulgas Ridge 8 Skyline Ridge 2 Purisima Creek Redwoods 9 Saratoga Gap Note Only Open Space Preserves 3 El Corte de Madera 10 El Sereno Pertaining to This Document are Displayed 4 Coal Creek 11 St.Joseph's Hill 5 Los Trancos 12 Sierra Azul 6 Rancho San Antonio 13 Bear Creek Redwoods 7 Monte Bello Treatment Site Map Index A_1 I • •Ne�rark Belmont Half n BayEast Palo Alto •Stan for d • Sunnyvale i. Cupertino ti ,tN1 Saratoga l i4 G �t. .., 01 -e��!Tsai/ bray = dJ' T �►~ . C, q"a k Pulgas Ridge OSP T }�asster Trod N "kA his i iassler Loop Trail Oa od EdB ° O �i l7 Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District(MROSD) Habitat restoration site i e MROSD Preserves 0 0.25 0.5 - --• Miles ' Pulgas Ridge Open Space Preserve iO ""H!a�k elmont at 1 t' _-- W`Jjj; Half Moon.BayEast Palo AI\to *Stanford v -- • Sunnyvale �( 0 Cupertino a � Saratoga moo 35 Purisima Creek K�u:��oo�'s t;SP s_°:� 4� 0 El Corte de xa OSP -Broom at selected sites li Broom at selected sites Inewly added under the Addendum Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District(MROSDI I � -Satellite population jrj..MY05D Preserve; 0 0.25 0.5 9 P of priority weeds Miles Purisima Creek Redwoods Open Space Preserve ' ` Purisima Creek Redwoods Open Space Preserve �-3 P OSP •H ls&rrou t •Newark `s r Teague Hill OSP Half Moon,B �Fast Palo Alto yt •Stanford R,dc Trail • S nnyvale Cupeertin f Saratoga � 0 U C_ 1" [I Corte de Madera Creek T _ \ N ��14r!Mil rail �Z El Corte de Madera,OSP I / p O � don �a Rotlr' Vrgina MN Trail Cn Ufa j 4/ La Honda Cre k OSP 0 0 U co SOD Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District(MROSD) - • Broom at selected sites e0 0.25 0.5 .VROSO Preserve,.. Miles elm El Corte de Madera OSP n-4 elmont Newark B Half Moon, East Palo Alto *Stanford A • Sunnyvale Cupertin FSara oga j Los Trancos OSP A `J O OV �k t yo O C Monte Bello OSP Coal Creek OSP ussian Ridge OSP mp @��d _ • 2,q�^ O Skyline Ridge OSP A !'e D-;tnct strlKj to. -A 4'1.- ,^.'- .•-_.••.,.,.,. Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District(MROSD) _ Habitat restoration site _ Broom at selected sites _ LT grassland weeds -Satellite population of priority weeds 0 0.25 0.5 -SOD ,u.ROSD Preserves Miles Los Trancos Open Space Preserve p A-5 1 •Hlllstorough 4Belmont •Hewark --' / Halay`� East Palo Alto f Moon.B •S[anford b r,/ r • Sunnyvale .. rt r Cupertino 0 e a, r ' Sara op AWj""y Or a cho San Antonnio bSP 4 - SOD Midpemnsula Regional Open Space District(MROSD) Satellite population of priority weeds 0 0.25 0.5 e MROSD Preserve. Miles Rancho San Antonio Open Space Preserve A-6 F•'ionle Bello R/jad 4* £ •HillsN' rough •Newark r q elmont 14 Half Moon.Bay"k, +East Palo Alto 'Stanford } • Sunnyvale ® ;w Cuperto in Saratoga Cyoh rr2// i Monte Bello OS ~ r Picchetti Ranch OS R is J 3 ' s /3 6i a Saratoga Gap OSP G • a z fi idge:. SP it the te..s eats,this Oita boas ow mix#s"t•'tC ' Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District(MROSD) - Broom at selected sites - Satellite population of priority weeds 0 0.25 0.5 e MROSD Preserve, Miles .. II Monte Bello and Saratoga Gap Open Space Preserves •H hOorough •Newark efmont Half Moon,Bay East Palo Alto St ford • Sunnyvale tit Cupe�i Saratoga O 01,° O d d a9uioas rrall • l El Sereno OSP 0 MOn fey/o` ` _Satellite population of priority weeds Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District(MROSD) Broom at selected sites 0 0.25 0.5 e MROSD Preserves Miles El Sereno Open Space Preserves A-8 Belmont Half Moon.B. Palo Alto, *Stanford 0 Sunnyvale 1 t Cup rtl Saratoga O m a Ise, IOD A i a�\ � �i�itd\P' 'Go - r �C St. Joseph's Hill OSP Pa Alma Bridge Road JyiNt x Sierra Azul OSP F�-t r kO�'4 Broom at selected sites Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District(MROSD) - e • _Satellite population of priority weeds 0 0,25 0.5 a* v.uo D I-rt.ervc,. Miles St. Joesph's Hill Openspace Preserve n-t> r •Hillsltorough � Newark elmont \ - Half Mi East Palo Alto , •Stan(vrd y 5 nnyvale• Kvnne R nOi RoHcl Cupertino tY v s Saratoga e Ke oay Trail �av� ® h c w S .. r O l kO�k °- y V- AMPA Sierra Azul OSP a Wood Road a u 53 s .ne1,JEr Ro � o a h if• t Lonna Prieta RoadQ l i SSS✓'' ��' pob!!®oyry 4 0 a . 1 Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District(MROSD) - Broom at selected sites - MROSD Preserves • 0.250.5 - State rated noxious weed mom=Miles - satellite population of priority weeds Siarra Azul Open Space Preserve A-IU Seri Mateo •Newark -- •Belmont Half Moon Bay Menlo Park Milpitas Stanford ` • • Sunnyvale Cupertino TV Saratoga tF ' r Los Gatos i s - E y c / - 17 '.. S 36t G) u of -.. O O 3 !� Bear Creek Redwoods OSP o o whOe the Dlitiict st*tws to use the best available d1o,s, �a i. ]a, �: r,ol r;•rr.er, __ - _ .rzature:. - L - Broom at selected sites .Broom at selected sites(newly added under the Addendum) Midpeninsula f glonal Open Space District(MROSD) -Woodland Weeds A MROSD Preserves 0 0.25 0.5 Miles e_ uatvaeesa,,Demo � ' Bear Creek Redwoods Open Space Preserve A-I I Appendix C. Detailed Treatment Table of Past Activities (Updated for Addendum) Preserve Site Name Management Category Target Pest Treatment Method Type of Herbicide Application Method Gallons of Gross Treatment herbicide Acres Alma College Broom control French broom Herbicide Round Up Pro Max backpack/spot sprayer 1.8 11.9 Broom control French broom Herbicide Round Up Pro Max backpack/spot sprayer 3.1 11.9 Broom control French broom Pull N/A N/A N/A 17.3 Broom control French broom Pull N/A N/A N/A 17.3 Woodland weeds Eggleaf spurge Herbicide Round Up Pro Max backpack/spot sprayer 0.1 34.4 Woodland weeds French broom Herbicide Round Up Pro Max backpack/spot sprayer 0.5 34A Woodland weeds French broom Herbicide Round Up Pro Max backpack/spot sprayer 0.8 1.4 Bear Creel,Redwoods Woodland weeds French broom Pull N/A N/A N/A 17.3 Tree Farm Woodland weeds mullein Pull N/A N/A N/A 16.9 Woodland weeds St.John's wort Herbicide Round Up Pro Max backpack/spot sprayer 0.05 15.5 Woodland weeds stinkwort Herbicide Round Up Pro Max backpack/spot sprayer 0.01 15.5 Woodland weeds stinkwort Pull N/A N/A N/A 16.9 Woodland weeds sweet pea Herbicide Round Up Pro Max backpack/spot sprayer 0.8 15.5 Woodland weeds Xmas trees Chainsaw N/A N/A N/A 16.9 West Roads Broom control French broom Herbicide Round Up Pro Max backpack/spot sprayer 3.0 55.9 Broom control French broom Pull N/A N/A N/A 55.9 Broom control French broom Herbicide Round Up Pro Max backpack/spot sprayer 0.04 15.5 Coal Creek Page Mill&Highway 35 Broom control French broom Pull N/A N/A N/A 16.9 Broom control Spanish broom Herbicide Round Up Pro Max backpack/spot sprayer 0.04 15.5 Broom control Spanish broom Herbicide Round Up Pro Max backpack/spot sprayer 0.04 15.5 Sudden Oak Death Bay laurel Herbicide Round Up Pro Max cut-stump,squirt 0.2 48.6 Lawrence Creek"rad Sudden Oak Death Bay laurel Pull N/A N/A N/A 14.3 Sudden Oak Death Phytophthora ramorum Herbicide Agri-Fos&Pentrabark tank sprayer 18.3 14.3 Methuselah Trail Broom control French broom Herbicide Round Up Pro Max backpack/spot sprayer 0.2 15.5 Broom control French broom Flaming N/A N/A N/A 7.4 --te ce V adera Broom control French broom Herbicide Round Up Pro Max backpack/spot sprayer 0.04 15.5 Future staging areas between Broom control French broom Herbicide Round Up Pro Max backpack/spot sprayer 0.04 15.5 CM03&CM04 Broom control French broom Herbicide Round Up Pro Max backpack/spot sprayer 0.1 24.8 Broom control French broom Pull N/A N/A N/A 14.3 Virginia Mill Trail Broom control French broom Pull N/A N/A N/A 14.3 Broom control French broom Pull N/A N/A N/A 15.2 Broom control French broom Herbicide Round Up Pro Max backpack/spot sprayer 0.3 24.8 Aquinas Trail Broom control French broom Herbicide Round Up Pro Max backpack/spot sprayer 0.5 24.8 Broom control French broom Pull N/A N/A N/A 15.2 Ei.Sereno Loma Vista Trail Broom control French broom Herbicide Round Up Pro Max backpack/spot sprayer 0.2 24.8 Broom control French broom Pull N/A N/A N/A 20.5 Broom control French broom Herbicide Round Up Pro Max backpack/spot sprayer 0.8 6.4 Overlook Trail Broom control French Broom Herbicide Round Up Pro Max backpack/spot sprayer 1.6 6.4 Satellite populations of priority weeds Stinkwort Herbicide Round Up Pro Max backpack/spot sprayer 0.2 6.4 _ fa Preserwe Site Name Management Category Target Pest Treatment Method Type of Herbicide Application Method Gallons of Gross Treatment herbicide Acres Event Meadow Grassland weeds harding grass Herbicide Round Up Pro Max backpack/spot sprayer 0.05 49.3 Grassland weeds yellow starthistle Herbicide Milestone VM backpack/spot sprayer 0.02 49.3 Sudden Oak Death Bay laurel Herbicide Round Up Pro Max cut-stump,squirt 0.2 48.6 Sudden Oak Death Bay laurel Herbicide Round Up Pro Max cut-stump,squirt 0.1 48.6 Sudden Oak Death Bay laurel Herbicide Round Up Pro Max cut-stump,squirt 0.00 35.6 Sudden Oak Death Bay laurel Herbicide Round Up Pro Max cut-stump,squirt 0.00 35.6 Fault Trail Sudden Oak Death Bay laurel Herbicide Round Up Pro Max cut-stump,squirt 0.00 35.6 Sudden Oak Death Bay laurel Herbicide Round Up Pro Max cut-stump,squirt 0.00 35.6 Sudden Oak Death Bay laurel Herbicide Round Up Pro Max cut-stump,squirt 0.00 35.6 Sudden Oak Death Bay laurel Herbicide Round Up Pro Max cut-stump,squirt 0.00 35.6 Sudden Oak Death Bay laurel Herbicide Round Up Pro Max cut-stump,squirt 0.00 35.6 Sudden Oak Death Bay laurel Pull N/A N/A N/A 21.9 Sudden Oak Death Bay laurel Herbicide Round Up Pro Max backpack/spot sprayer 0.2 6.6 Franciscan Loop Trail Sudden Oak Death Bay laurel Herbicide Round Up Pro Max cut-stump,squirt 0.2 35.6 Sudden Oak Death Say laurel Herbicide Round Up Pro Max cut-stump,squirt 0.0 35.6 Los Tra ncos Grassland weeds Jointed Goatgrass Pull N/A N/A N/A 27.2 Greater Los Trancos Grassland weeds yellow starthistle Pull N/A N/A N/A 14.0 Sudden Oak Death Phytophthora ramorum Herbicide Agri-Fos&Pentrabark tank sprayer 168 14.3 Grassland weeds yellow starthistle Herbicide Milestone VM backpack/spot sprayer 0,05 6.6 Knoll Grassland weeds medusahead Brush-cut N/A N/A N/A 14.0 Grassland weeds yellow starthistle Pull N/A N/A N/A 14.0 LT02 Grassland weeds yellow starthistle Herbicide Milestone VM backpack/spot sprayer 0.5 6.6 Grassland weeds harding grass Herbicide Round Up Pro Max backpack/spot sprayer 0.1 6.6 Grassland weeds harding grass Herbicide Round Up Pro Max backpack/spot sprayer 0.1 9.7 Grassland weeds yellow starthistle Herbicide Milestone VM backpack/spot sprayer 0.04 9.7 Norton Grassland weeds yellow starthistle Herbicide Milestone VM backpack/spot sprayer 0.04 6.5 Grassland weeds medusahead Brush-cut N/A N/A N/A 14.0 Grassland weeds yellow starthistle Pull N/A N/A N/A 14.0 Grassland weeds yellow starthistle Pull N/A N/A N/A 14.0 Grassland weeds harding grass Herbicide Round Up Pro Max backpack/spot sprayer 0.05 15.4 Parking Lot Grassland weeds ha rding grass Herbicide Round Up Pro Max backpack/spot sprayer 0.4 15.4 Grassland weeds yellow starthistle Herbicide Milestone VM backpack/spot sprayer 0.03 11.2 Satellite populations of priority weeds Purple Star Thistle Herbicide Milestone VM backpack/spot sprayer 0.02 11.2 Montebello Road Satellite populations of priority weeds Purple Star Thistle Herbicide Milestone VM backpack/spot sprayer 0.02 23.9 Satellite populations of priority weeds Purple Star Thistle Dig N/A N/A N/A 14.0 Monte Bello Satellite populations of priority weeds Purple Star Thistle Dig N/A N/A N/A 14.0 Satellite populations of priority weeds Purple Star Thistle Herbicide Milestone VM backpack/spot sprayer 0.02 30.7 Water Wheel Creek Satellite populations of priority weeds Purple Star Thistle Herbicide Milestone VM backpack/spot sprayer 0.02 3.5 Satellite populations of priority weeds Purple Star Thistle Dig N/A N/A N/A 45.7 told Presem Site Name Management Category Target Pest Treatment Method Type of Herbicide Application Method Gallons of Gross Treatment herbicide Acres Habitat restoration Acacia sprouts Pull N/A N/A N/A 3.5 Habitat restoration eucalyptus Herbicide Round Up Pro Max cut-stump,squirt 0.1 35.6 Habitat restoration eucalyptus Herbicide Round Up Pro Max cut-stump,squirt 0.1 35.6 Habitat restoration French Broom Herbicide Round Up Pro Max backpack/spot sprayer 0.1 22.0 Habitat restoration French Broom Herbicide Round Up Pro Max backpack/spot sprayer 0.1 22.0 "IF-R dge Hassler Loop Habitat restoration French broom Pull N/A N/A N/A 4.0 Habitat restoration Stinkwort Herbicide Round Up Pro Max backpack/spot sprayer 0.2 0,02 Habitat restoration Stinkwort Herbicide Round Up Pro Max backpack/spot sprayer 0.2 0.02 Habitat restoration Stinkwort Herbicide Round Up Pro Max backpack/spot sprayer 0.2 0.02 Habitat restoration Stinkwort Herbicide Round Up Pro Max backpack/spot sprayer 0.2 0.02 Habitat restoration Stinkwort Pull N/A N/A N/A 59.1 Habitat restoration Stinkwort Pull N/A N/A N/A 59.1 Harkins Ridge Cutover Broom control French broom Herbicide Round Up Pro Max backpack/spot sprayer 0.00 0.02 Broom control French broom Pull N/A N/A N/A 13.1 Broom control French broom Herbicide Round Up Pro Max backpack/spot sprayer 0.3 0.02 Harkins Ridge Trail Broom control French broom Herbicide Round Up Pro Max backpack/spot sprayer 1.0 0,02 Broom control French broom Pull N/A N/A N/A 30.1 Satellite populations of priority weeds English holly Herbicide Round Up Pro Max cut-stump,squirt 0,02 35.6 North Ridge Satellite populations of priority weeds English ivy Herbicide Round Up Pro Max cut-stump,squirt 0.03 23.9 Satellite populations of priority weeds English ivy Pull N/A N/A N/A 30 1 Punsima Creek Satellite populations of priority weeds English ivy Herbicide Round Up Pro Max cut-stump,squirt 0.03 23.9 Satellite populations of priority weeds English ivy Herbicide Round Up Pro Max cut-stump,squirt 0.03 110.4 PCO1 Satellite populations of priority weeds Cape ivy Herbicide Round Up Pro Max cut-stump,squirt 0.01 16.9 Satellite populations of priority weeds English ivy Pull N/A N/A N/A 30.1 Satellite populations of priority weeds English ivy Pull N/A N/A N/A 30.1 PC03 Broom control French Broom Herbicide Round Up Pro Max backpack/spot sprayer 1.0 37.1 Broom control French Broom Pull N/A N/A N/A 37.1 Upper Purisima Creek Rd. Broom control French Broom Herbicide Round Up Pro Max backpack/spot sprayer 2.0 116.9 Broom control French Broom Pull N/A N/A N/A 116.9 Sudden Oak Death Bay laurel Herbicide Round Up Pro Max cut-stump,squirt 0.1 110A Rancho San Antonio Lower Meadow Trail Sudden Oak Death Bay laurel Pull N/A N/A N/A 146A Sudden Oak Death Phytophthora ramorum Herbicide Agn-Fos&Pentra ba rk tank sprayer 4.6 14.3 Shop Satellite populations of priority weeds Stinkwort Herbicide Round Up Pro Max backpack/spat sprayer 0.2 0.02 Vineyard Broom control French broom Herbicide Round Up Pro Max backpack/spot sprayer 0.2 0.5 Broom control French broom Pull N/A N/A N/A 15.6 St.Joseph's Hill Broom control French Broom Herbicide Round Up Pro Max backpack/spot sprayer 3.1 0.4 Vista/Y Star/Hilltop Broom control French broom Pull N/A N/A N/A 2.8 Satellite populations of priority weeds Stinkwort Pull N/A N/A N/A 2.8 Charcoal Residence er Broom control French broom Herbicide Round Up Pro Max backpack/spot spray 0.7 0.02 Saratoga Gap Broom control French broom Pull N/A N/A N/A 146.4 Lysons Property Satellite populations of priority weeds stinkwort Herbicide Round Up Pro Max backpack/spot sprayer 0.1 6,0 3 of Preserve Site Name Management Category Target Pest Treatment Method Type of Herbicide Application Method Gallons of Gross Treatment herbicide Acres Air Base State-rated noxious weeds Spotted Knapweed Herbicide Milestone VM backpack/spot sprayer 0.1 0.02 Austrian Gulch(Moss Property) State-rated noxious weeds Eggleaf spurge Herbicide Round Up Pro Max backpack/spot sprayer 0.2 0.02 Broom control French broom Herbicide Round Up Pro Max backpack/spot sprayer 0.6 0.03 Satellite populations of priority weeds Stinkwort Herbicide Round Up Pro Max backpack/spot sprayer 1A 4.6 Satellite populations of priority weeds Stinkwort Herbicide Round Up Pro Max herbicide wand/brush/wick 0.3 110.4 Beatty Broom control French broom Pull N/A N/A N/A 15.6 Broom control French broom Pull N/A N/A N/A 15.6 Broom control French broom Pull N/A N/A N/A 15.6 Broom control French broom Pull N/A N/A N/A 15.6 Broom control French broom Pull N/A N/A N/A 15.6 Sierra Azul Hicks Creek Ranch Satellite populations of priority weeds Stinkwort Herbicide Round Up Pro Max backpack/spot sprayer 0.9 2.7 Pheasant State-rated noxious weeds Eggleaf spurge Herbicide Round Up Pro Max backpack/spot sprayer 0.2 6.0 State-rated noxious weeds Eggleaf Spurge Herbicide Round Up Pro Max backpack/spot sprayer 0.1 5.5 RDG Satellite populations of priority weeds harding grass Herbicide Round Up Pro Max backpack/spot sprayer 0.5 5.5 Satellite populations of priority weeds Stinkwort Herbicide Round Up Pro Max backpack/spot sprayer 0.5 4.8 Reynolds State-rated noxious weeds Eggleaf spurge Herbicide Round Up Pro Max backpack/spot sprayer 0-2 14.1 Broom control French broom Herbicide Round Up Pro Max backpack/spot sprayer 0.3 12.5 SA19 Broom control French broom Herbicide Round Up Pro Max backpack/spot sprayer 0.5 12.5 Broom control French broom Herbicide Round Up Pro Max backpack/spot sprayer 09 12.5 Broom control French broom Pull N/A N/A N/A 15.6 Williams property Broom control French broom Herbicide Round Up Pro Max backpack/spot sprayer 4.7 2.4 Broom control French broom Pull N/A N/A N/A 15.6 Habitat restoration bristly ox tongue Herbicide Milestone VM backpack/spot sprayer 0.02 12.5 Habitat restoration bristly ox tongue Pull N/A N/A N/A 15.6 Habitat restoration bull thistle Dig N/A N/A N/A 15.6 Habitat restoration bull thistle Herbicide Milestone VM backpack/spot sprayer 0.02 12.5 Habitat restoration French broom Herbicide Round Up Pro Max backpack/spot sprayer 0.1 12.5 Habitat restoration French broom Pull N/A N/A N/A 15.6 Habitat restoration Italian thistle Herbicide Milestone VM backpack/spot sprayer 0.02 4.8 5 hyh ne Rioge Tree Farm Restoration Habitat restoration Italian thistle Pull N/A N/A N/A 15.6 Habitat restoration milk thistle Herbicide Milestone VM backpack/spot sprayer 0.02 4.8 Habitat restoration milk thistle Pull N/A N/A N/A 15.6 Habitat restoration Stinkwort Herbicide Round Up Pro Max backpack/spot sprayer 0.02 4.8 Habitat restoration Stinkwort Pull N/A N/A N/A 15.6 Habitat restoration velvet grass Herbicide Round Up Pro Max backpack/spot sprayer 0.1 0.4 Habitat restoration velvet grass Pull N/A N/A N/A 15.6 Habitat restoration yellow starthistle Herbicide Milestone VM backpack/spot sprayer 0.02 0.5 Habitat restoration yellow starthistle Pull N/A N/A N/A 15.6 Table E-1 Special Status Plants in Vicinity of the Project Area Status' Species CA Rare Habitat Blooming Potential to Occur FESA CESA Period in ProjectArea2 Plant Rank Acanthomintho duttonii E E 1B.1 Serpentine soil, April-June Could occur.Serpentine habitat San Mateo thorn-mint chaparral,valley and is present on treatment sites in foothill grassland the project area. Allium peninsulare var. — — 113.2 Clay, volcanic, May-June Could occur.Serpentine habitat froncisconum serpentine soils, is present on treatment sites in Franciscan onion cismonane woodland, the project area. valley and foothill grassland Arctostaphylos andersonii — — 113.2 Chaparral;openings in November Could occur.Suitable habitat is Anderson's manzanita and edges of broadleaf -April present on sites in the project upland forest and area coniferous forest Arctostaphylos — — 1B.2 Broadleafed upland January- Could occur. Suitable habitat is regismontona Kings forest, chaparral, North April present on sites in the project Mountain manzanita Coast coniferous forest area. Known locations at El Corte de Madera Creek and Purisima Creek OSP. Arenorio poludicolo E E 1B.1 Freshwater marshes May- Could occur.Suitable habitat is marsh sandwort August present on sites in the project area Chorizanthe robusta var. E — 1B.1 Coastal dunes, coastal April- Could occur.Suitable habitat is robusta scrub,openings in September present on sites in the project robust spineflower cismontane woodland, area. in sandy or gravelly soil Cirsium fontinale var. — — 1B.2 Seeps, moist places in February- Could occur.Serpentine habitat compylon serpentine soil, October is present on treatment sites in Mt. Hamilton fountain chaparral,cismontane the project area. Known thistle woodland,grassland locations at Sierra Azul OSP. Cirsium fontinale var. E E 1B.1 Serpentine seeps, May- Could occur.Serpentine habitat fontinale chaparral openings, October is present on treatment sites in Crystal Springs fountain cismontane woodland, the project area. Known thistle valley and foothill locations near Crystal Springs grassland Reservoir, District biologists have not detected it on OSPs further south. Clarkio concinnal spp. — — 4.3 Chaparral and April-July Could occur.Suitable habitat is automixa cismontane woodland present on sites in the project Santa Clara red-ribbons area. Known locations at Bear Creek Redwoods OSP. Collinsio multicolor — — 1B.2 Closed-cone coniferous March- Could occur.Suitable habitat is San Francisco collinsia forest,coastal scrub, May present on sites in the project broad-leafed upland area. forest Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration forthe Site-Specific Weed and Pest Management Project E-1 Table E-1 Special Status Plants In Vicinhy of the Project Area Statust Species CA Rare Habitat Blooming Potential to Occur FESA CESA Period in Project Area2 Plant Rank Dirco occidentolis 1B.2 Moist places, broad- January- Could occur.Suitable habitat is western leatherwood leafed upland forest, April present on sites in the project closed-cone coniferous area. Known locations at forest,chaparral, Rancho San Antonio, Pulgas cismontane woodland, Ridge,and Coal Creek OSPs. north coast coniferous forest,riparian forest, riparian woodland, coastal scrub Dudleyo obromsii ssp. E 113.1 Rocky areas in April- Could occur.Serpentine habitat setchellii serpentine soil, October is present on treatment sites in Santa Clara Valley dudleya cismontane woodland, the project area. Known grassland locations at Sierra Azul OSP. Eriogonum nudum var. 113.1 Inland marine sands in June- Could occur.Suitable habitat is decurrens chaparral,closed-cone October present on sites in the project Ben Lomond buckwheat coniferous forest,sand area parkland,sandhill ponderosa pine forest I Erysimum teretifolium E E 113.1 Lower montane March- Could occur.Suitable habitat is Santa Cruz wallflower coniferous forest, July present on sites in the project chaparral area Eriophyflum latilobum E E 113.1 Serpentine soils, May-June Could occur.Serpentine habitat San Mateo woolly chaparral,valley and is present on treatment sites in sunflower foothill grassland the project area. Fritillaria liflacea 113.2 Heavy clay soil, February- Could occur.Suitable habitat is fragrant fritillary cismontane woodland, April present on sites in the project coastal prairie,coastal area scrub,valley and foothill grassland Hesperocyparis E E 113.2 Closed-cone coniferous Not Could occur.Suitable habitat is abramsiano forest,chaparral, applicable present on sites in the project Santa Cruz cypress sandhill ponderosa pine area forest on sandstone or granitic substrate Hesperocyporis E E 113.2 Sanstone,closed-cone Not Could occur.Suitable habitat is abramsiona var. coniferous forest, applicable present on sites in the project butonoensis chaparral, lower area Butano Ridge cypress montane coniferous forest Hesperolinon congestum T T 113.1 Serpentine soils, April-July Could occur.Serpentine habitat Marin western flax chaparral,valley and is present on treatment sites in foothill grassland the project area. 1Hoita strobilino 113.1 Moist sites in chaparral, May- Could occur.Serpentine habitat is Loma Prieta hoita cismontane woodland, October present on treatment sites in the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District E-2 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration forthe Site-Specific Weed and Pest Management Project Table E-1 Special Status Plants In Vicinity of the Project Area Statusl Species Habitat Blooming Potential to Occur FESA CESA CA Rare Period in ProjectArea2 Plant Rank riparian woodland, project area.Known locations at usually serpentine soil Sierra Azul,El Sereno,and St. Joseph's Hill OSPs. Holocarpho macradenia T E 1.B.1 Coastal prairie,coastal June- Could occur.Suitable habitat is Santa Cruz tarplant scrub,grasslands October present on sites in the project area Lessingia arochnoideo — — 113.2 Serpentine soils, July- Could occur.Serpentine habitat Crystal Springs lessingia cismontane woodland, October is present on treatment sites in coastal scrub,valley the project area. and foothill grassland Lessingia macradenia var. — — 1B.2 Serpentine soil, July- Could occur.Serpentine habitat globrata chaparral,often November is present on treatment sites in smooth lessingia disturbed areas the project area. Malacothomnus arcuatus — — 113.2 Chaparral,cismontane April- Could occur.Suitable habitat is arcuate bush-mallow woodland September present on sites in the project area. Monolopio gracilens — — 18.2 Openings on serpentine March-July Could occur.Suitable habitat is woodland woolythreads soils in broadleaf forest, present on sites in the project chaparral,cismontane area woodland,coniferous forest,and grassland Pentachoeta bellidiflora E E 16.1 Grassland,coastal March- Could occur.Suitable habitat is white-rayed pentachaeta scrub,coastal prairie May present on sites in the project i area Piperio condido — — 16.2 Broadleaf upland May- Could occur.Suitable habitat is white-flowered rein orchid forest, lower montane September present on sites in the project coniferous forest,north area coast coniferous forest Plagiabothrys chorisianus — — 113.2 Mesic soil in chaparral, March- Could occur.Suitable habitat is var.chorisianus coastal prairie,coastal June present on sites in the project Choris'popcorn-flower scrub area Plogiobothrys glaber — — 1A Alkaline soil in March- Not expected to occur. No hairless popcorn-flower meadows,coastal salt May suitable habitat in project area. marshes Polygonum hickmonii E E 1B.1 Grassland May- Could occur.Suitable habitat is Scotts Valley polygonum August present on sites in the project area Silene verecunda ssp. — — 16.2 Coastal bluff scrub, March- Could occur.Suitable habitat is verecunda chaparral,coastal June present on sites in the project San Francisco tampion prairie,coastal scrub, area grassland,in sandy or rocky soil Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Site-Specific Weed and Pest Management Project E-3 Table E-1 Special Status Plants in Vicinity of the Project Area Status' Species CA Rare Habitat Blooming Potential to Occur FESA CESA Plant Rank Period in Project Area Streptanthus albidus ssp. E — 16.1 Serpentine soil, April-July Could occur. Serpentine habitat albidus grassland is present on treatment sites in Metcalf Canyon jewel- the project area. flower Streptanthus albidus ssp. — — 16.2 Serpentine soil, April-June Could occur.Serpentine habitat peromoenus chaparral, cismontane is present on treatment sites in most beautiful jewel- woodland,grassland the project area. flower Status definitions: Federal Endangered Species Act(FESA): Extensions: E Endangered .1 Seriously endangered in California(>80%of occurrences are threatened T Threatened and/or high degree and immediacy of threat) California Endangered Species Act(CESA): .2 Fairly endangered in California(20 to 80%of occurrences are E Endangered threatened/moderate degree and immediacy of threat) T Threatened .3 Not very threatened in California(<20%of occurrences threatened/low California Rare Plant Rank: degree and immediacy of threat or no current threats known) 1A Presumed extinct in California z Potential to occur in the project area based on CNDDB records,CNPS 18 Considered rare or endangered in California and elsewhere records,District GIS data,and suitable habitat.See Table E-3 for Special - (protected under CEQA,but not legally protected under ESA or Status Plants with Potential to Occur in Weed Management Sites CESA) 4 Limited distribution or infrequent throughout a broader area in California Source: CNDDB 2012,CNPS 2012,MROSD 2012. Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District E-4 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration forthe Site-Specific Weed and Pest Management Project Table E-2 SpeclakStatus Wildlife In vicinity of the Project Site Spmies sotm HabitatPotential to O=r in FEM ICESA I Other I ftjedArW INVERTEBRATES Bay checkerspot butterfly T Serpentine grassland containing Could occur. Euphydryas editho bayensis oviposition and larval food plant Plantago Serpentine soils on erecta Air Base,Austrian Gulch(Moss Property), Pheasant,and Williams Property on Sierra Azul OSP and Vineyard on St. Joseph's Hill OSP. Zayante band-winged E Restricted Zayante sandy soils in barren or Not expected to grasshopper sparsely-vegetated,sunlit areas occur. No suitable Trimerotropis infantalis habitat in project area. AMPHIBIANS AND REPTILES California red-legged frog T CSC Ponds or slow moving deep water with Could occur. Rana draytonii dense shrubby or emergent riparian Suitable aquatic vegetation,minimum 11-20 weeks of habitat present at water for larval development,and upland Monte Bello and refugia for aestivation. Rancho San Antonio OSPs. California tiger salamander T T Vernal pools and seasonal wetlands with a Unlikely to occur. Ambystoma californiense minimum 10-week inundation period and Do not occur in surrounding uplands,primarily grasslands, Santa Cruz with burrows and other below ground Mountains except refugia(e.g., rock or soil crevices). in southern Santa Clara County and on Standford lands. foothill yellow-legged frog CSC Perennial streams with predominantly Not expected to Rana boyfli cobble,boulder,and gravel substrates. occur.No suitable aquatic habitat in project area. San Francisco garter snake E E FP Grasslands or wetlands near ponds, Not expected to Thamnophis sirtolis tetratcenia marshes and sloughs. occur.No suitable aquatic habitat in project area. western pond turtle CSC Ponds,marshes,slow-moving streams, Could occur. Actinemys mormorata sloughs,and irrigation/drainage ditches; Suitable aquatic nests in nearby uplands with low,sparse habitat present at vegetation. Bear Creek Redwoods OSP. Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration forthe Site-Specific Weed and Pest Management Project E-5 Table E-2 Speclal-Status Wildlife in vicinity of the Project Site Status 1 Potential to Occur in Speci es Habitat FESA ICESA I Other ProjectArea2 BIRDS Alameda song sparrow — — CSC Tidal salt marshes adjacent to San Not expected to Melospiza melodia pusillulo Francisco Bay occur. Project sites (year round) are not within species range. burrowing owl — — CSC Nests and forages in grasslands, Could occur. Athene cunicuaria agricultural lands,open shrublands,and Suitable habitat is (breeding) open woodlands with existing ground present on sites in squirrel burrows or friable soils. the project area. Golden eagle — — FP Nests in large trees in open woodlands. Could occur. Aquila chrysoetos BGEPA Forages in large open areas of foothill Suitable habitat is woodlands and grassland habitats and present on sites in occasionally croplands. the project area. grasshopper sparrow — — CSC Nests and forages in dense grasslands; Could occur. Ammodramus savannarum favors a mix of native grasses,forbs,and Suitable habitat is (breeding) scattered shrubs. present on sites in the project area. long-eared owl — — CSC Woodlands with nearby open meadows Could occur. Asia otus for foraging. Suitable habitat is (breeding) present on sites in the project area. loggerhead shrike — — CSC Forages and nests in grasslands, Could occur. tanius ludovicianus shrublands,and open woodlands. Suitable habitat is (breeding) present on sites in the project area. northern harrier — — CSC Nests and forages in grasslands, Could occur. Circus cyoneus agricultural fields,and marshes. Suitable habitat is (breeding) present on sites in the project area. purple martin — — CSC Open riparian forests with large trees such Could occur. Progne subis as sycamores or snags with cavities for Suitable habitat is (breeding) nesting present on sites in the project area. olive-sided flycatcher — — CSC Montane forests dominated by Douglas fir, Could occur. Contopus cooperi but also tan oak,live oak and madrone Suitable habitat is (breeding) present on sites in the project area. tricolored blackbird — — CSC Forages in agricultural lands and Not expected to Agelaius tricolor grasslands; nests in marshes,riparian breed on sites in (breeding) scrub,and other areas that support cattails project area as no or dense thickets of shrubs or herbs. suitable nesting habitat is present. i Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District E-6 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration forthe Site-Specific Weed and Pest Management Project I Table E-2 SpeclakSUItuis Wildlife In vlclnfty of the Project Site Species Status I Habitat Potential to Occur in FESA CESA Other ProjectArM2 Vaux's swift CSC Mature coniferous forests,with snags or Could occur. Choetura vauxi cavities for nesting.Also in chimneys. Suitable habitat is (breeding) present on sites in the project area. white-tailed kite FP Forages in grasslands and agricultural Could occur. Elanus leucurus fields;nests in riparian zones,oak Suitable habitat is (breeding) woodlands,and isolated trees. present on sites in the project area. yellow-breasted chat CSC Well developed riparian habitats with Not expected to Icteria virens cottonwoods,willows,and thick breed in project (nesting) understory of brambles and brush area as breeding range does not include Santa Cruz mountains. yellow warbler CSC Streams supporting willow,alder,and Could occur. Dendroica petechia brewsteri bigleaf maple with thick shrub understory Suitable habitat is (nesting) present on sites in the project area. MAMMALS pallid bat CSC Deserts,grasslands,shrublands, Could occur. Anthrozous pollidus woodlands,and forests. Most common in Suitable roosting open,dry habitats.Roosts in rock crevices, habitat may be oak hollows,bridges or buildings.Colonies present on sites in are usually small and may contain 12 to the project area. 100 bats. San Francisco dusky-footed CSC Oak woodlands. Could occur. woodrat Suitable habitat is Neotomafuscipes annectens present on sites in the project area. Townsend's CSC Typically roosts in caves;however, Not expected to big-eared bat colonies of<100 individuals occasionally roost in the project Corynorhinus townsendii nest in buildings or bridges. Forages in all area as suitable habitats except alpine and subalpine, roosting habitat is though most commonly in moist forests absent. and woodlands. western mastiff bat CSC Typically roosts in high cliffs and rock Not expected to Eumops perotis colifornicus crevices in small colonies of<100 roost in the project individuals. Forages in a variety of area as suitable grassland,shrub and wooded habitats roosting habitat is including riparian and urban areas,though absent. most commonly in open,and lands. Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration forthe Site-Specific Weed and Pest Management Project E-7 Table E 2 Speclak tatus Wildlife in vicinityy of the Project Site Status Potential to Occur in Specs FESA CESA Other Habitat PmjectkW western red bat — — CSC Roosts primarily in tree foliage,especially Could occur. Lasiurus blossevill in cottonwood,sycamore,and other Suitable roosting riparian trees or orchards.Prefers habitat habitat may be edges and mosaics with trees that are present on sites in protected from above and open below the project area. with open areas for foraging, including grasslands,shrublands,and open woodlands. 1 Status dennitlons: Fed"I E'ndatV~Spec%sAct#E E Endangered T Threatened Califomlis Endangered Species Act(CESA): E Endangered T Threatened offier CSC Considered California species of special concern by DFG(no formal protection other than CEpA consideration) FP Fully protected(legally protected under Fish and Game Code) BGEPA Legally protected under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act 2 Potential to occur in the project area based on District GIS data,District biologist,and suitable habitat. Sources:CNDDB 201,MROSD 2012 I it Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District E-8 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Site-Specific Weed and Pest Management Project Table E-3. Special-Status Plants with Potential to Occur in Weed Management Sites' c c m t Preserie Site Name Nyc � . co Bear Creek Alma College X x X x % x x x x X x Redwoods OSP BCOI x x X X x X X x X X re 151]Farm X X x X x X X X X X x x X X West Roads X X X Coal Creek OSP Page Mill&Highway 35 X X x x x X X X X X EI Corte de Madera Lawrence Creek Trail X X X x x X X Creek OSP Methuselah Trail X X x x X X x Future staging area between X x x x x x X x x X x x CM03&CM04 Virginia Mill Trail X X X X x x X El Sereno OSP Aquinas Trail X x X X X x x x x x X X X x X x Loma Vista Trail X % X X x X x x x X x X x Overlook Trail X x X X x X X x x X x x x Los Tra ncos OSP Event Meadow x x x x x x x x x x X x X % X X x Fault Trail X X x x X X x x X X x Franciscan Loop Trail x % X x x X x X x Greater Los Trancos X X X X X X X x x X X x x x X X x Knoll X X X x X X X x x x X X x X X X x LT02 X X X x X X X X X x X X X X X X x Norton X X X X X X x X X % x X x x X X X X Parking Lot X x X x X x x X x x x X x x x X x Monte Bello OSP Montebello Road X X X x X x % X x X X x Water Wheel Creek x x x x x x X x x x x x x x x x Pulgas Ridge OSP Hassler Loop X X X X X x X X x X X X X x X X x x X x Purisima Creek OSP Harkins Ridge Cutover % X X x x X X X X x X Harkins Ridge Trail X X X X X X X X x X X X North Ridge X X X X x X X X X X X x PCO1 X X x X x x x x X x X Upper Purisima Creek Road x x x x PC03 X x x x Rancho San Antonio Lower Meadow Trail X X x X x X X OSP Shop X X X X X % X X x x x x X X St.Joseph's Hill OSP Vineyard X x X X X X X X x x X X x X X X X X x X x X X Vista/y Star/Hilltop X X % x X x x X X X X x xr x x X X Saratoga Gap OSP Charcoal Residence x x X X X x X X X x x X X X Lysonz Property X % X X X X X X % % % X Sierra Azul OSP Air Base X X X x X X X X X X X X X x x X X X X x X X X Austrian Gulch(Moss Property) x X X X X X X X X x x X X x X x x X X X x X X % x Beatty x x x X X X X X X X X x x X x Hicks Creek Ranch X x X XX x X X X X x x X X X X x Pheasant X X X X x X X X x X x X X X x X X X X X RDG X x x % % X X X x X X x x x x x x X X X Reynolds X x x X X x x X X x X X X X X SA19 X X x X X X X X x x x X x x % Williams property X X x X X X x x x x x X X X X X X X X X x X X X X % Skyline Ridge OSP Tree Farm Restoration X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X x X X X X 'PotenDN to«cur m the treatment sites based on CNDDS records,CNPS records,Datnct GIS I.U,and.d bk haDrta[. Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration forthe Site-Specific Weed and Pest Management Project E•9 it Midpeninsula Regional ' Open Space District R-13-25 Meeting 13-08 March 27, 2013 AGENDA ITEM 7 AGENDA ITEM Authorization to Award Contract to Ecological Concerns Incorporated for Vegetation Management on Three Open Space Preserves in FY2013-14 and 2014-15. GENERAL MANAGER'S RECOMMENDATION Authorize the General Manager to enter into a contract with Ecological Concerns Incorporated of Santa Cruz, California in the amount not to exceed $92,970 to provide vegetation management services including safe application of herbicides on Los Trancos, Skyline Ridge, and Russian Ridge Open Space Preserves in FY 2013-14 and 2014-15. SUMMARY The proposed work under this contract for services is the safe application of various herbicides and mechanical methods to control non-native plants and weeds on approximately 300 acres on three District open space preserves in FY2013-14 and 2014-15. A Request for Bids was sent to eleven selected vegetation management firms and one bid proposal was received. After thorough review of the proposal, staff recommends awarding the contract to Ecological Concerns Incorporated of Santa Cruz, California. Although Ecological Concerns, Inc. was the only bid proposal received, staff believes they have provided a responsible bid with a competitive Total Base Bid and they have the necessary licenses and prior experience performing invasive plant control in wildland conditions. This contract pertains to work that has been previously reviewed by the Board under three separate Mitigated Negative Declarations. DISCUSSION The District manages invasive plants and weeds on preserves to protect and restore the natural environment and to support conservation grazing. District field staff, contractors, the California Conservation Corps, and volunteers all assist in management of vegetation on preserves. Contractors are most frequently used for the initial control of large infestations. District staff oversees the work of contractors. When contractors are working near sensitive areas such as ponds with rare aquatic species, a District biologist is present to monitor the work and ensure that sensitive resources are protected. The District uses Integrated Pest Management practices when controlling invasive plants and weeds, and the contractor is required to follow 30 best management practices to protect the environment and human health. R-13-25 Page 2 The preserves included in this contract are: 0 Los Trancos grasslands (Los Trancos Open Space Preserve) - spot spraying aminopyralid on yellow starthistle, spot spraying glyphosate on Harding grass, and mowing medusa head. 0 Skyline Ridge tree farm restoration(Skyline Ridge Open Space Preserve)-spot spraying aminopyralid on thistles, and spot spraying glyphosate on nonnative invasive grasses, broom and stinkwort. 0 Mindego Ranch(Russian Ridge Open Space Preserve)-spot spraying thistles with aminopyralid, and spot spraying thistles and Harding grass with glyphosate. Consultant Selection A Request for Bids was issued on February 13, 2013, and advertised in local newspapers and on the District website. Eleven firms, known to have experience managing vegetation in park environments, were initially contacted by staff about the Request for Bids. An additional four firms inquired about the bid. Eight firms attended a mandatory pre-bid tour on February 21, 2013, at a representative treatment site. An addendum was issued on February 26, 2013, clarifying questions on the Request for Bids during and after the pre-bid tour. Bids were due on March 7, 2013. The results are as follows: Bidder Location Total Base Bid 1. 1 Ecological Concerns, Inc. Santa Cruz, California $92,970 Although eight firms attended the mandatory pre-bid tour, most of the firms dropped out of the bid process. These firms told us they decided not to submit bids because their business is too far away, they could not take on this level of work in addition to their existing commitments, they decided to bid on another District project instead, or they were too slow in getting a bid bond. The Total Base Bid received from Ecological Concerns Inc. was approximately$4,600 or five percent (5%) less than the staffs estimate, and the rates in Ecological Concerns' bid are similar to four other recent vegetation management contracts which the staff reviewed prior to issuance of the Request for Bids. Ecological Concerns' main business is doing vegetation management in wildland environments and they have provided the District with satisfactory work in the past. FISCAL IMPACT The District's FY2013-14 Action Plan and Budget for Facility Maintenance-- Resource Management and Landscaping includes $260,300, of which approximately $61,000 was budgeted for one year of work with a vegetation management contractor. A similar amount is projected for FY2014-15. R-13-25 Page 3 BOARD COMMITTEE REVIEW As noted below, the Board of Directors has previously made findings on each of the vegetation management activities covered under this contract. No additional Board Committee review is required. PUBLIC NOTICE Public notice of this Agenda Item was provided per the Brown Act. No additional notice is required. CEQA COMPLIANCE The vegetation management activities covered by this contract have all been previously reviewed in one or more of the following environmental documents under the California Environmental Quality Act: • Site-Specific Weed and Pest Management Project Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration approved by the Board on May 9, 2012 (for Los Trancos grasslands site) • Skyline Ridge Tree Farm Restoration Project Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration, August 20, 2007(for Skyline Ridge tree farm restoration site) • Herbicide Application and Invasive Species Control at Mindego Ranch Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration approved by the Board on May 27, 2009(for the Mindego Ranch site) NEXT STEPS Upon approval by the Board of Directors, the General Manager will be authorized to enter into a contract with Ecological Concerns, Incorporated, to conduct vegetation management on the three preserves. Responsible Department Head: Kirk Lenington,Natural Resources Manager Prepared by: Cindy Roessler, Senior Resource Management Specialist Contact person: Same