The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My Public Portal About20120509 - Agenda Packet - Board of Directors (BOD) - 12-14 Midpeninsula Regional ' Open Space District Meeting 12-14 REGULAR MEETING BOARD OF DIRECTORS MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT Administrative Office 330 Distel Circle Los Altos,California 94022 Wednesday, May 9, 2012 REGULAR MEETING OF THE MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT BEGINS AT 7:00 P.M.* AGENDA REGULAR MEETING 7:00 REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT— PUBLIC SESSION ROLL CALL ORAL COMMUNICATIONS—PUBLIC ADOPTION OF AGENDA SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY Introduction of New District Staff: Executive Assistant Maria Soria and Human Resources Analyst Pamela Mullen 7:05 CONSENT CALENDAR 1. Approve Minutes of the Regular and Special Board Meetings—April 11,2012 2. Approve Revised Claims Report 3. Approve Written Communications—None 4. Appointment of Regular and Alternate Representatives to the California Joint Powers Insurance Authority (CaIJPIA)Board of Directors—M.Radcliffe BOARD BUSINESS 7:10 � 5. Authorization to Purchase Capital Equipment for Operations at a Total Cost Not to Exceed$370,000—D. Topley 6. Adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program for the Site-Specific Weed and Pest Management Project—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. TD ADDRESS THE eoARD: The Chair 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. CFRTIFICATION OF POSTING OFAGENDA I,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 Authority was posted and available for review on May 4,2012,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 htti)://www.openspace.org. Signed this 4t'day of May,at Los Altos,California. r.9.�: . District Clerk May 4,2012 Claims No. 12-09 m Meeting 12-14 , ~ Dote 689/12 Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District � # Amount Name Description � � 17608 $16.205.00 Asphalt Surfacing Road Repairs&Chip Sealing'Existing Asphalt Road From FFO | To Annex 17*09 $8.350.05 8orm Mobile Service Vehicle Maintenance&Repairs 17810 $6.343.02 Conlin Supply Gate&Fence Materials For MindeQv Hill Trail*«Russian Ridge 17e11 *5.000.00 Old Republic Title Company Purchase Option Payment'Land Acquisition � � 17512 $4.805.25 Schaffner,Sheryl Reimbursement'Relocation Expenses 17613 $4.000.00 Bay Area Open Space Council Sponsorship For Bay Area Open Space Council Annual Cun*omnpa / � 1761* $3.06*.71 Peterson Tractor Mini Excavator Service&Repairs � � 17015 *2.989.00 Tanya Diamond Consulting Services-Highway 17 Connectivity Project | � 17616 $2.742�8R West-Mark Front Diooxo�uFor FimPumper Unn0npptm|Truck � � 17617 $2.462.50 Cvnovm Annual Fee For Employee Assistance Program � 17818 $2.368.90 C&CEquipment |notaoaVonOf Electric Guumeue,AtBlack Mountain Radio Site ! � 17619 $2.286.37 New World Systems Integrated Accounting And Financial System Software& | � Implementation Services � 17820 $1.750.84 xcmvvnmmpo Accounting Temp � 17021 $1.676.34 wvrtoge^e Environmental Management Consulting Services-Powell Property Landfill Investigation � 17822 $1.08223 Cascade Fire Equipment Company Hoses Q Fittings For Water Truck | | 17833 $1.500.00 City[n Foster City Co|Oppo Annual Fee For Recruitment Database � � 17024 $1.178.46 Orchard Supply Hardware Field Supplies/Cleaning&Maintenance Supplies For FFO/ � � Hand Tools For Water Truck/Uniform Expenses/Supplies For Faucet Repair pu Rental Residence/Caution Tape | 17025 $1.172.00 Communication&Control RodioRemomo,SVeRont-TomnoHiU | 17628 $981.75 Rich Voss Trucking Trucking Services For Rock Delivery To Skyline Ridge � � 17627 *967.15 Stevens Creek Quarry Rock For Russian Ridge Road Repairs � � 17628 *936.2e Gnumocr Ear Protection For Field Staff/Safety Flares/Hazardous Material � Pmoommq For SpoShop | 17629 $769.00 County[f Santa Clara-Office 0fThe Fingerprinting Services � Gxeoff 17630 $750.00 uebert Cassidy Whitmore Lego|Semioes-LaborRe|mtions � 17631 $725.17 Peninsula Open Space Trust Reimbursement For aexmnz Property Taxes | 17632 *8*0.00 Cupertino Medical Group Medical Services For Employees | � �7sux $*892� Sherry Fo|ge,�emode|Ounsou�ionOv��ig»� � � � 17634 $550.16 United Site Services Sanitation Services-Sierra*zu|m Fremont Older � � 17635 *516.88 Jim Davis Automotive Vehicle Maintenance&Repair � � 1763* *508.91 Stevens Creek Chrysler Jeep Dodge Repair Air Conditioner|o Maintenance Truck ! � 17637 %ooO.DO Association[f Bay Area Governments Annual Membership Dues � 17e38 %472.02 onnmv Cleaning u Break Room Supplies For FFV 17639 $40000 # Pn�|nmmnam Sweep � / 17040 $445.00 A-Tota|Fire Protection Annual Inspection[aFFO Fire Sprinkler System � 17641 $438.00 ^1 San Mateo County Planning&Building Williamson Act Non Renewal Fee For POST October Farm Department � 17642 $420.00 8oiUia.Gondnn weimuvrsement-EMTRohenherCoume 17643 %396.19 Summit Uniforms Uniform Expenses | | 17644 $350.00 **amJonomi|lo Consulting Serciceo For Draft Environmental Impact Report For Mt. VmumoumProject � 17645 *30645 Congoon. 8unnv Lodging&Mileage'Accounting Department Support � 176*6 $302.77 omwServices Shop Towel Service'apo&rro | 1TG47 *274�24 All Star Glass VVindw»iw|dReplacement For Patm|Tmox | � � 17648 $273.07 Gofetyxksn Solvent Tank Service'3FO 176*8 *222J9 O'Reilly Auto Parts Batteries For Maintenance Truck � 17650 $215.00 Del Rey Building Maintenance Janitorial Supplies'AO | | Page,mz � Claims No. 12-09 Meeting 12-14 Date 5/9/12 Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District # Amount Name Description 17651 $200.00 City Of Palo Alto Utilities Utility Fees-Black Mountain 17652 $190.56 Target Specialty Products Landscaping Supplies 17653 $152.08 Perez,Mike Reimbursement-Patrol Bike Supplies 17654 $135.75 The Workingman's Emporium Uniform Expenses 17655 $131.93 Jurich,Michael Reimbursement-Supplies For Fremont Older Shed 17656 $118.33 Jurgensen, Rudy Reimbursement-Mileage 17657 $114.64 Barron Park Supply Plumbing Supplies For RSA Water Faucets 17658 $109.00 Coastal Sierra Internet Service-SFO 17659 $97.41 Hsieh,Benny Reimbursement-Computer Supplies 17660 $80.44 Life Assist First Aid Supplies 17661 $80.00 Northern Energy Propane Tank Rental-Annex 17662 $76.24 Metro Mobile Communications Maintenance Truck Radio Repair 17663 $72.71 Bird,Janine Reimbursement-Mileage 17664 $66.22 R. E.Borrmann's Steel Company Bat Box Supplies 17665 $60.00 Baldzikowski,Matt Reimbursement-Soil&Water Conservation Society Membership Dues 17666 $55.18 Gorman,Michael Reimbursement-Uniform Expenses 17667 $54.11 G.P.Sports Fuel Container For Transferring Fuel To Vehicles In The Field 17668 $40.00 Tires On The Go Tire Repairs 17669 $34.96 California Water Service Company Water Service-Windy Hill 17670 $32.00 Dolan,Brendan Reimbursement-Uniform Expenses 17671 $29.54 FedEx Shipping Charges 17672 $19.25 ID Plus Name Tags For Staff 17673 $16.95 Gou,Vicky Reimbursement-District Website Expense Total $84,493.87 *1 Urgent check issued 5/4/12 # Hawthorn expenses I Page 2 of 2 ' Claims No. 12-09 Meeting 12-14 Date 5/9/12 Revised Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District # Amount Name Description 17608 $16,205.00 Asphalt Surfacing Road Repairs&Chip Sealing-Existing Asphalt Road From FFO To Annex 17609 $8,350.05 Sol's Mobile Service Vehicle Maintenance&Repairs 17610 $6,343.02 Conlin Supply Gate&Fence Materials For Mindego Hill Trail At Russian Ridge 17611 $5,000.00 Old Republic Title Company Purchase Option Payment-Land Acquisition 17612 $4,805.25 Schaffner,Sheryl Reimbursement-Relocation Expenses 17613 $4,000.00 Bay Area Open Space Council Sponsorship For Bay Area Open Space Council Annual Conference 17614 $3,064.71 Peterson Tractor Mini Excavator Service&Repairs 17615 $2,999.00 Tanya Diamond Consulting Services-Highway 17 Connectivity Project 17616 $2,742.88 West-Mark Front Discharge For Fire Pumper Unit On Patrol Truck 17617 $2,462.50 Concern Annual Fee For Employee Assistance Program 17618 $2,368.90 C&C Equipment Installation Of Electric Submeter At Black Mountain Radio Site 17619 $2,266.37 New World Systems Integrated Accounting And Financial System Software& Implementation Services 17620 $1,750.84 Accountemps Accounting Temp 17621 $1,676.34 Northgate Environmental Management Consulting Services-Powell Property Landfill Investigation 17622 $1,662.23 Cascade Fire Equipment Company Hoses&Fittings For Water Truck 17623 $1,500.00 City Of Foster City CalOpps Annual Fee For Recruitment Database 17624 $1,178.46 Orchard Supply Hardware Field Supplies/Cleaning&Maintenance Supplies For FFO/ Hand Tools For Water Truck/Uniform Expenses/Supplies For Faucet Repair At Rental Residence/Caution Tape 17625 $1,172.00 Communication&Control Radio Repeater Site Rent-Tomita Hill 17626 $981.75 Rich Voss Trucking Trucking Services For Rock Delivery To Skyline Ridge 17627 $967.15 Stevens Creek Quarry Rock For Russian Ridge Road Repairs 17628 $936.22 Grainger Ear Protection For Field Staff/Safety Flares/Hazardous Material Placarding For SFO Shop 17629 $769.00 County Of Santa Clara-Office Of The Fingerprinting Services Sheriff 17630 $750.00 Liebert Cassidy Whitmore Legal Services-Labor Relations 17631 $725.17 Peninsula Open Space Trust Reimbursement For Behroozi Property Taxes 17632 $640.00 Cupertino Medical Group Medical Services For Employees 17633 $569.25 Sherry L Niswander&Associates Folger Remodel Construction Oversight 17634 $550.16 United Site Services Sanitation Services-Sierra Azul&Fremont Older 17635 $516.88 Jim Davis Automotive Vehicle Maintenance&Repair 17636 $509.91 Stevens Creek Chrysler Jeep Dodge Repair Air Conditioner In Maintenance Truck 17637 $500.00 Association Of Bay Area Governments Annual Membership Dues 17638 $472.02 Costco Cleaning&Break Room Supplies For FFO 17639 $450.00 # Pro-Installers Sweep Chimney-Rental Residence 17640 $445.00 A-Total Fire Protection Annual Inspection Of FFO Fire Sprinkler System 17641 $436.00 '1 San Mateo County Planning&Building Williamson Act Non Renewal Fee For POST October Farm Department 17642 $420.00 Baillie,Gordon Reimbursement-EMT Refresher Course 17643 $396.19 Summit Uniforms Uniform Expenses 17644 $350.00 Alvaro Jaramillo Consulting Sercices For Draft Environmental Impact Report For Mt. Umunhum Project 17645 $306.45 Congdon,Bunny Lodging&Mileage-Accounting Department Support 17646 $302.77 G&K Services Shop Towel Service-SFO&FFO 17647 $274.24 All Star Glass Windshield Replacement For Patrol Truck 17648 $273.07 Safety Kleen Solvent Tank Service-SFO 17649 $222.79 O'Reilly Auto Parts Batteries For Maintenance Truck 17650 $215.00 Del Rey Building Maintenance Janitorial Supplies-AO Page 1 of 3 f w Claims No. 12-09 Meeting 12-14 Date 5/9/12 Revised i Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District # Amount Name Description 17651 $200.00 City Of Palo Alto Utilities Utility Fees-Black Mountain 17652 $190.56 Target Specialty Products Landscaping Supplies 17653 $152.08 Perez,Mike Reimbursement-Patrol Bike Supplies 17654 $135.75 The Workingman's Emporium Uniform Expenses 17655 $131.93 Jurich,Michael Reimbursement-Supplies For Fremont Older Shed 17656 $118.33 Jurgensen,Rudy Reimbursement-Mileage 17657 $114.64 Barron Park Supply Plumbing Supplies For RSA Water Faucets 17658 $109.00 Coastal Sierra Internet Service-SFO 17659 $97.41 Hsieh,Benny Reimbursement-Computer Supplies 17660 $80.44 Life Assist First Aid Supplies 17661 $80.00 Northern Energy Propane Tank Rental-Annex 17662 $76.24 Metro Mobile Communications Maintenance Truck Radio Repair 17663 $72.71 Bird,Janine Reimbursement-Mileage 17664 $66.22 R.E.Borrmann's Steel Company Bat Box Supplies 17665 $60.00 Baldzikowski,Matt Reimbursement-Soil&Water Conservation Society Membership Dues 17666 $55.18 Gorman,Michael Reimbursement-Uniform Expenses 17667 $54.11 G.P.Sports Fuel Container For Transferring Fuel To Vehicles In The Field 17668 $40.00 Tires On The Go Tire Repairs 17669 $34.96 California Water Service Company Water Service-Windy Hill 17670 $32.00 Dolan, Brendan Reimbursement-Uniform Expenses 17671 $29.54 FedEx Shipping Charges 17672 $19.25 ID Plus Name Tags For Staff 17673 $16.95 Gou,Vicky Reimbursement-District Website Expense 17674 R $8,909.98 ESRI GIS Annual Maintenance 17675 R $8,442.00 Department Of Water Resources Rickey Dam Annual Fees 17676 R $2,400.00 Santa Clara County Cities Managers' Fees For 2012 Leadership Academy Association 17677 R $1,899.58 # The Sign Shop Signs For Hawthorn Property 17678 R $1,695.00 Sherry L Niswander&Associates Folger Remodel Construction Oversight 17679 R $1,520.00 Koff&Associates Classification&Compensation Study Services 17680 R $1,433.50 Old Republic Title Company Escrow Fees&Title Insurance-Land Acquisition 17681 R $1,122.00 Home Depot Field Supplies/Water Truck Supplies/Materials For Retaining Wall At FFO/Supplies For SFO Stable Building Repair/ Materials For Broken Window At SAO/Bat Box Supplies Supplies&Lumber For Reinforcing Stage Area At DHF 17682 R $1,096.14 Moffett Supply Company Janitorial Supplies 17683 R $1,037.25 Tadco Supply Janitorial Supplies 17684 R $1,013.18 Accountemps Accounting Temp 17685 R $657.75 Congdon,Bunny Lodging&Mileage-Accounting Department Support 17686 R $446.50 San Miguel Parent Association Transportation Assistance Program-Russian Ridge Field Trip 9 p 9 9 p 17687 R $370,56 Recology South Bay Dumpster Service-FFO 17688 R $360.00 Bill's Towing Service Towing Services 17689 R $346.40 The Sign Shop Signs For Silva Property/Handicap Parking Signs 17690 R $300.00 Metro Mobile Communications Programming For Two Way Radios 17691 R $238.69 Barron Park Supply Bat Box Supplies 17692 R $233.94 Safety Kleen Solvent Tank Service-FFO 17693 R $216.45 Koopmann,Clayton Reimbursement-Mileage 17694 R $215.39 United Site Services Sanitation Services-Fremont Older House Tours 17695 R $211.06 Turf&Industrial Equipment Company Safety Helmets 17696 R $105.06 CMK Automotive Vehicle Maintenance&Repairs Page 2 of 3 Claims No. 12-09 Meeting 12-14 Date 5/9/12 Revised Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District # Amount Name Description 17697 R $60.63 Protection One Fire Inspection&Monitoring-AO 17698 R $6.75 Pine Cone Lumber Redwood For Sign At RSA Total $118,831.68 *1 Urgent check issued 5/4/12 # Hawthorn expenses Page 3 of 3 Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District R-12-48 Meeting 12-14 May 9, 2012 AGENDA ITEM 4 AGENDA ITEM Appointment of Regular and Alternate Representatives to the California Joint Powers Insurance Authority(CaIJPIA) Board of Directors GENERAL MANAGER'S RECOMMENDATION Approve appointment of regular representative: President: Curt Riffle and alternate representatives: General Manager Steve Abbors and Administrative Services Manager Kate Drayson to the CaIJPIA Board of Directors. SUMMARY The District joined the CaIJPIA in 2001 as a cost effective alternative to commercial insurance. This relationship has repeatedly proven to be a financial benefit to the District. At the beginning of every calendar year, the Board appoints regular and alternate representatives to serve as members of the CaIJPIA Board of Directors. The recommended appointments are for Calendar Year 2012. DISCUSSION Background The District joined the CaIJPIA risk pool in 2001 in order to help control the overall costs of risk management, proving extremely cost effective compared to commercial insurance. CaIJPIA, as authorized by its Joint Powers Agreement, operates as a membership organization with a current membership of over 120 organizations and municipalities with good loss experience and risk management efforts. The District pays reasonable premiums for its Liability Protection, Property Insurance, Pollution and Remediation Legal Liability, Crime Insurance, and Workers' Compensation programs. The Special Events/Tenant User Liability program, which provides coverage for specific events, and the Vendor/Contractors Liability program, which provides the contractor or vendor with insurance for specific contracts with the District, are both on a"pay as you go", as-needed basis. As a pool member, the District pays an annual contribution for the Liability and Workers' Compensation programs. R-12-48 Page 2 District Participation The Joint Powers Agreement establishing the California Joint Powers Insurance Authority states that in addition to one representative from the member agency's legislative body, there shall be "at least one alternative who shall be an officer or employee of the member." The alternate member(s) shall have the same authority as the regular member. If the Board President is unable to attend the annual Ca1JPIA Board meeting in July or attend any other matter required by the Ca1JPIA Joint Powers Agreement, the alternate would perform these functions in the President's place. In 2009, the Board of Directors approved designating the General Manager and Administrative Services Manager as the first and second alternates, respectively, in place of the Board President. Recently, however, the Risk Management function, previously located in the Administrative Services Department was split between the Legal Program and the Administrative Services Department. As a result of this re-organization, three alternates were recommended in 2010 (General Manager, General Counsel, and Interim Administrative Services Manager) until the Administrative Services Manager position was filled. In November 2010, the District filled the position of Administrative Services Manager and it is recommended that Kate Drayson be the second alternate representative to the Ca1JPIA Board of Directors. According to the bylaws of the Ca1JPIA, each year the Board of Directors must name the specific individual representatives. FISCAL IMPACT There are no unbudgeted fiscal impacts associated with the recommended action. BOARD COMMITTEE REVIEW There was no Committee review for this agenda item. PUBLIC NOTICE Public notice was provided per the Brown Act. No additional notice is required. CEQA COMPLIANCE This proposed action is not a project under the California Environmental Quality Act and no environmental review is required. - R-12-48 Page 3 NEXT STEPS If approved by the Board, staff will advise Ca1JPIA of the names of the District Ca1JPIA representative and two alternates. Responsible Department Manager: Steve Abbors, General Manager Prepared by: Michelle Radcliffe, District Clerk Contact person: Stephen E. Abhors, General Manager Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District R-12-35 Meeting 12-14 May 9, 2012 AGENDA ITEM 5 AGENDA ITEM Authorization to Purchase Capital Equipment for Operations at a Total Cost Not to Exceed $370,000 GENERAL MANAGER'S RECOMMENDATIONS 1. Authorize the General Manager to execute a purchase contract with the State Department of General Services and Downtown Ford for two patrol vehicles and one maintenance vehicle for a total cost not to exceed $170,000. 2. Authorize the General Manager to execute a purchase contract with the State Department of General Services and Pape Machinery for one excavator for a total cost not to exceed $200,000. DISCUSSION The District's five-year capital equipment schedule provides for two replacement patrol vehicles, one replacement maintenance truck, and one excavator. The District's ability to purchase vehicles through existing contract with the California Department of General Services(DGS) provides a significant cost savings and greatly reduces the amount of staff time that would otherwise be required if the District conducted a separate bid process for each. The two new patrol vehicles will replace current patrol vehicles that have approximately 70,000- 80,000 miles. These higher mileage patrol vehicles will be reassigned to maintenance crews and will replace current maintenance vehicles. This includes the 1990 GMC Suburban that is at the end of its District life cycle and is typically sold at public auction. The new maintenance truck included in the recommendation will also replace a current maintenance vehicle that has reached to end of its useful service life. It will also be sold at public auction. The excavator is an important and versatile piece of equipment for management of Open Space. It will be used frequently during the spring, summer and fall for road maintenance including culvert replacement and drainage improvement projects. During the winter the excavator will be used with the heavy duty mulcher for vegetation management such as brush clearing for fire breaks and exotic vegetation removal. The excavator effectively saves labor and prevents I R-12-35 Page 2 injuries when it is used on jobs that would otherwise be performed manually or use less suitable equipment. The District has rented excavators in the past to perform larger road maintenance and vegetation management projects. By owning the excavator, in addition to handling the large projects, staff will be able to assist with many small projects that did not justify the cost of renting an excavator (including delivery charges). Owning the excavator allows operators to become more familiar with the controls and capabilities of a specific model and improves expertise and operator safety. The size of this excavator is compatible with our District transport equipment and can be delivered to various job sites by staff. It will be housed at the Skyline Field Office and made available District wide. The funding for the purchase of these four vehicles was included in the FY2012-13 budget (Report No. R-12-38), which was adopted by the Board at its March 28, 2012 Regular Meeting. FISCAL IMPACT i This purchase will not result in an incremental increase in the budget. The FY2012-13 budget includes $370,000 for the purchase of the subject field vehicles and equipment. BOARD COMMITTEE REVIEW There was no Committee review for this agenda item. PUBLIC NOTICE Public notice was provided as required by the Brown Act. No additional notice is required. CEQ A COMPLIANCE No environmental review is required as the recommended action is not a project under the California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA). NEXT STEPS If approved by the Board, staff will prepare a purchase order for the vehicles and excavator utilizing the State of California Department of General Services contracts. Responsible Department Head: C , David Sanguinetti, Operations Manager Prepared by: David Topley, Support Services Supervisor Contact person: Same as above Midpeninsula Regional OPEN I Open Space District R-12-4 7 Meeting 12-14 May 9, 2012 AGENDA ITEM 6 AGENDA ITEM i Adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program for the Site- Specific Weed and Pest Management Project GENERAL MANAGER'S RECOMMENDATIONS 1. Approve a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA) for the Site-Specific Weed and Pest Management Project. 2. Adopt the CEQA findings set out in the attached Resolution. SUMMARY The Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District(District) Board of Directors is asked to consider approving a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) and Mitigation Monitoring Program (MMP), in accordance with CEQA, to implement the Site-Specific Weed and Pest Management Project to control invasive weeds and pest species at 42 treatment sites in the years 2012 through 2014. 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 invade and dominate sufficiently large areas to cause a reduction in natural biodiversity, and once established, invasive species can become difficult to manage. One high-priority pest problem in preserves is the pathogen Phytophthora ramorum which causes the forest disease Sudden Oak Death(SOD), a disease which infects and leads to the rapid demise of a variety of species of oak trees. The Site-Specific Weed and Pest Management Project consists of activities to control weeds and other target pests at priority treatment sites in natural areas of the preserves over three years (2012-2014), implementing an Integrated Pest Management(IPM) approach(Attachment 2). R-12-47 Page 2 The purpose of the project is 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. Some sites may be treated more than once in a year, thus when calculating work acres these sites are counted more than once. To clearly present the acres of land treated under this project, work acres are presented both as gross work acres and net land acres. The amount of gross work acres is defined as the total overall number of acres of work in one year. 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. Within a treatment site,not every square inch is treated, only the actual target weeds are treated. Under the project, a total annual average of 1,958 gross work acres and 1,029 net land acres would be treated. Table 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 treatment method. Table 1. Estimated Treatment Actions, Gross Work Areas Treated, and Herbicide Amounts Treatment Action Gross Work Area Herbicide Amount Anticipated to be Used O (bons) Brushcutting 18 N/A Chainsaw cutting of trees 16 N/A Digging 65 N/A Pulling 708 N/A Green flaming 7 N/A Agri-Fos and Pentrabark spraying(by 27 40 ATV) Aminopyralid spraying 140 1 Glyphosate spraying 873 29 Glyphosate cut-stump application 91 1 Glyphosate wipe application 14 0.3 TOTAL Gross Work Acres 1,958 The District has identified seven categories for weed and pest management as described below. Table 2 identifies the OSPs, names for treatment sites, and management categories under review in this project. In order to protect both human health and the environment, the project includes 30 Best Management Practices (BMPs) as described in the MND. l. State-rated noxious weeds - eradication of small populations of two species of weeds assigned by the State of California as A- or B-rated noxious weeds: spotted knapweed (Centaurea stoebe, A-rated) and eggleaf spurge(Euphorbia oblongata, B-rated) in Sierra Azul OSP. 2. Grassland Weeds at Los Trancos OSP—treatment of four species of invasive weeds in grasslands of Los Trancos OSP: yellow starthistle(Centaurea solstitialis),medusa head (Elymus caput-medusae),jointed goat grass (Aegilops cylindrica), and Harding grass (Phalaris aquatica). R-12-47 Page 3 3. Woodland Weeds at Bear Creek Redwoods OSP—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 graveolens), and woolly mullein(Verbascum thapsus). 4. Sudden Oak Death Control-prevent the spread of the plant pathogen Phytophthora ramorum, the cause of Sudden Oak Death, at selected sites in El Corte de Madera Creek, Los Trancos and Rancho San Antonio OSPs b annualspraying ofa fun fungicide A -foss on Y bi ( Z� ) 151 oak trees and removal of up to 10 California bay (Umbellularia californica) trees over the three-year period within 15-foot radius of the 151 protected oaks. 5. Habitat Restoration Site Maintenance- 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). 6. Control of satellite populations of priority weeds - control of purple starthistle(Centaurea calcitrapa), stinkwort, Harding grass, English ivy(Hedera helix) and English holly trees (Ilex aquifolium)with limited distribution within selected areas of Monte Bello, Rancho San Antonio, St. Joseph's Hill, El Sereno, Sierra Azul, Bear Creek Redwoods, Purisima Creek Redwoods, and Saratoga Gap OSPs. The purpose is to prevent these priority weeds, which have exhibited the ability to reproduce widely and densely in other natural areas and cause destructive effects to native species and processes, from spreading and becoming common weeds throughout District preserves. 7. Broom Control- control of French and Spanish broom at selected sites in St. Joseph's Hill, El Sereno, Bear Creek Redwoods, Sierra Azul, Coal Creek, El Corte de Madera Creek, Purisima Creek Redwoods, and Saratoga Gap OSPs. Table 2. Proposed Treatment Sites and Management Categories Preserve Site Name Management Category Bear Creek Redwoods Alma College Broom control OSP BCO1 Broom control Tree Farm Woodland weeds Coal Creek OSP Page Mill & Highway 35 Broom control El Corte de Madera Lawrence Creek Trail Sudden Oak Death Creek OSP Methuselah Trail Broom control Future staging area between CM03 & Broom control CM04 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 R-12-47 Page 4 Table 2. Proposed Treatment Sites and Management Categories Preserve Site Name Management Category 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 i 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 PCOI Satellite populations of priority weeds P p p Y Rancho San Antonio Lower Meadow Trail Sudden Oak Death OSP Shop Satellite populations of priority weeds �I 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 SA 19 Broom control Williams Property Broom control Skyline Ridge OSP Tree Farm Restoration Habitat restoration i R-12-47 Page 5 FISCAL IMPACT The FY2011-12 budget includes $277,000 for evaluating and controlling weed and pest species in District preserves. BOARD COMMITTEE REVIEW No Committee business to report. PUBLIC NOTICE A copy of the Notice of Intent to Adopt the MND was provided to the Resource Management interested parties; San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties; Cities of Cupertino, Palo Alto and Los Gatos; the State Clearinghouse; a notice was posted in the San Jose Mercury News; and a notice was posted at each of the thirteen OSPs in which the project is proposed. The public and agency comment period for the project ended o n May 4 2012. Two comments were received one from p p J Y , the California Department of Transportation and one was an anonymous telephone conversation. Comments received and responses to comments are provided in Attachment 5. Public notice of this Agenda Item was also provided per the Brown Act. No additional notice is required. CEQA COMPLIANCE Project Description 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 would occur at 42 distinct treatment sites within thirteen of its 26 designated open space preserves areas in the years 2012 through 2014 (Attachment 2). 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 p p p �' eradication or site restoration to more natural conditions. The District would carry out an Integrated Pest Management approach in the implementation of this project. The recommended CEQA action before the Board is adoption of the proposed 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 Site-Specific Weed and Pest Management Project. Subsequent to Board approval, staff will begin implementing and will hire contractors to implement the project. Staff will return to the Board at a later time if contracts are of a size to require Board approval consideration. CEQA Determination An initial study for the Site-Specific Weed and Pest Management Project has been completed and a MND is proposed. Three mitigation measures identified in the MND have been designed to mitigate potential negative effects to biological and cultural resources to a level of insignificance. Copies of these documents are provided as Attachment 3. The public and agency review period ended on May 4, 2012. R-12-47 Page 6 Comments Received As of May 1, 2012, the District received two comments. In addition, a revision was made to the Project Map to correctly identify two preserves which had been mislabeled (Attachment 2). Please see the attached comments and responses to comments (Attachment 4). This completes the CEQA comment period for the project. Mitigation MonitoringP_rogram In accordance with CEQA, the District has prepared a Mitigation Monitoring Program, which describes project-specific mitigation measures and monitoring process (Attachment 5). The Mitigation Monitoring Program ensures that all adopted measures intended to mitigate potentially significant environmental impacts will be implemented. The project incorporates all of these mitigation measures. CEQA Findings The Board Findings required by CEQA to adopt the MND and the Mitigation Monitoring Program are set out in the attached Resolution(Attachment 1). NEXT STEPS Should the Board approve the MND and MMP, staff would proceed with the Site-Specific Weed and Pest Management Project. Attachments: l. Resolution of the Board of Directors Adopting the Mitigated Declaration, the Mitigation Monitoring Program, and the CEQA Findings for Implementation of the Site-Specific Weed and Pest Management Project 2. Open Space Preserves Proposed for Weed and Pest Management Activities 3. Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration 4. Comments Received and Response to Comments I 5. Mitigation Monitoring Program Responsible Department Head: Kirk Lenington,Natural Resources Manager Prepared by: Cindy Roessler, Senior Resource Management Specialist Contact person: CindyRoessler Senior Resource Management Specialist g p Graphics prepared by: Jamie Hawk, GIS Intern/Technician ATTACHMENT 1 RESOLUTION NO. 12-XX A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT ADOPTING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION INCLUDING A MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM IN CONNECTION WITH THE SITE-SPECIFIC WEED AND PEST MANAGEMENT PROJECT I. The Board of Directors of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (District)has reviewed the proposed Site-Specific Weed and Pest Management Project. 11. An Initial Study(IS) was prepared for the proposed 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.). 111. 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. IV.The IS and a notice of intent to adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration(MND) and the Mitigated Monitoring Program were circulated for public review from April 5, 2012 to May 4, 2012. V. 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. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the District Board of Directors that,based upon the Initial Study, Mitigated Negative Declaration, Mitigation Monitoring Program, all comments received, and all substantial evidence in light of the whole record presented, the Board of Directors finds that: 1. Notice of the availability of the Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration and all hearings on the MND was given as required by law and the actions were conducted pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the CEQA Guidelines. 2. All interested parties desiring to comment on the MND were given the opportunity to submit oral and written comments on the adequacy of the MND prior to this action by the Board of Directors and all comments raised during the public comment period and at the public hearings on the MND were responded to adequately. 3. Prior to approving the Project that is the subject of the MND, the Board has considered the MND, along with all comments received during the public review process. 4. The MND finds potentially significant effects and the Board hereby finds that these effects will be mitigated or avoided by the changes made in the Project as described in the Initial Study and the MND. 5. The Board finds that, on the basis of the whole record before it, including the MND and all comments received, there is no substantial evidence that the Project will have a significant effect on the environment in that, although the Project could have significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case since adequate Mitigation Measures have been made a part of the Project to avoid such effects. 6. The Board adopts the MND and determines that the MND reflects the District's independent judgment and analysis. 7. The Board adopts the attached Mitigation Monitoring Program and requires it to be implemented as art of the Project. p p J 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. i i Fran n °1 p Oakland SF. 92 O Bay yX A. San Carlos 01 Palo © Alto - •.- yv `O I N a Mountain View 411 �..._.. Sunnyvale O 84 O Cupertino 85 San � Jose Pescadero Saratoga Creek County Park O G 17 Castle Rock , Los Butano State Park State Park District BoundaryGat Big Basin 1 Redwoods State Park P,4 , C C G r i. Miles 0 2.5 5 Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Treatment Site Map Index 0 1 Pulgas Ridge (A-2) © 8' Skyline Ridge (A-5) MROSD Open Space Preserves = 2 r Purisima Creek Redwoods (A-3) c 9 Saratoga Gap(A-7) 0 3 El Corte de Madera(A-4) 0 10 El Sereno(A-8) Other Protected Open to 4 Coal Creek(A-5) 0 11 St. Joseph's Hill(A-9) Space or Park Lands = 5 Los Trancos(A-5) c 12, Sierra Azul (A-10) Land Trust, Watershed and o 6 Rancho San Antonio (A-6) 0 131 Bear Creek Redwoods (A-11) Other Public Agency Land ®7 r Monte Bello(A-7) Developed Land ATTACHMENT 2 SCENT ATTACHMENT 3ENV�RONMENTA� Weed and • • gement Project Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration �� - NE G10 N•L SPACE � 74 �Y. � �' � ✓" .. �" � R .' .Y'i.� ;;..tub.X,Fs 1. i 'Z IF��. _ !1 fir.?. /l�m� ..tf`. t-,_ '�•: `;V :1. '�'w /. MIAMI '� PREPARED O . Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Distel Circle Los Altos, ' 94022 April 4,Zolz Regiona' Midpeninsula Regional 0penSpace l Open Space District 330 Distei Circle to!;Altos,to 94022 Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated. Negative Declaration A notice,pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970,as amended(Public Resources Code 21,000,et sec.)that the following project will not have a significant effect on the environment. File Number TAZ APN(s) Date Various April 4, 2012 Project Name Project Type se Site-Specific Weed and Pest Management Project Weed &pest management In open space preserves Owner Applicant Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Project Location Western San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties, at 42 locations in 13 open space preserves. Project Description The Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District proposes to implement a site-specific weed and pest management project on select sites on open space preserves in Santa Clara and San Mateo Counties, California. Weed and pest management activities would occur at 42 distinct treatment sites within 13 of its 26 designated open space preserves(OSP)areas in the years 2012 through 2014. 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 would carry out an Integrated Pest Management approach in the implementation of this project. See Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for detailed project description. Purpose of Notice Provide for required 30-day public review of proposed project. Public Review Period: Begins: April 4,2012 Ends: May 4,2012 Date: Place:Board Room,MROSD administrative Public Meeting or Hearing: Wednesday, Time: 7:00 PM office at 330 Distel Circle,Los Altos,CA May 9 2012 94022 The Negative Declaration and Initial Study may be viewed at the following locations: (1)www.00enspace.org (2)Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District administrative office, 330 Distel Circle, Los Altos, CA 94022 Responsible Agencies sent a copy of this document: • California Department of Fish and Game, Regional Water Quality Control Board Significant effects on the environment(or lack thereof): Based on the analysis in the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration, the proposed project would not have any significant effects on the environment once mitigation measures are implemented. Mitigation Measures included in the project to reduce potentially significant impacts to a less than significant level: B1O-1. Pretreatment surveys for bay checkerspot butterfly larval host plants(dwarf plantain Plantago erecta and purple owl's clover Castilleja 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. B1O-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. A reporting or monitoring program must be adopted for measures to mitigate significant impacts at the time the Negative Declaration is approved,in accord with the requirements of section 21081.6 of the Public Resources Code. Prepared by: Cindy Roessler, Senior _ Resource Management Specialist S" ture Date Page 2 of 2 'M r EN Site-Specific Weed and Pest Management Project Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Prepared for: Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 33o Distel Circle Los Altos, CA 94022 Contact: ' Ms. Cindy Roessler Senior Resource Management Specialist j Phone: 650.691.1200 Fax:65o.69i.0485 croessler@openspace.org Y Prepared b : P Ascent Environmental, Inc. 455 Capitol Mall, Suite 205 Sacramento, CA 95814 www.ascentenvinc.com Contact: Gary Jakobs Principal g16.444.7301 April 4,2012 22010015.01 MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Project: Site-Specific Weed and Pest Management Project Lead Agency: Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District I 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 42 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. 4. Following are the mitigation measures that will be implemented by the applicant to avoid or minimize environmental impacts. B10-1 Pretreatment surveys for bay checkerspot butterfly larval host plants(dwarf plantain(Plantago erecta)and purple owl's clover(Castilleja 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. 8/0-2. 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. Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Site-Specific Weed and Pest Management Project i i Mitigated Negative Declaration 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 or comments regarding this Mitigated Negative Declaration and Initial Study may be addressed to: Ms. Cindy Roessler n i Senior Resource Management e emn t Specialist ali st g p Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 330 Distel Circle Los Altos,CA 94022-1404 Ph: (650)691-1200 Fax: (650)691-0485 (fax) croessler@o ens ace.or p p g i After comments are received from the public and reviewing agencies,the District may(1)adopt the MND and approve the proposed project; (2) undertake additional environmental studies;or(3)disapprove the project. If the project is approved,the District may proceed with implementation of the project. i Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District ii Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration forthe Site-Specific Weed and Pest Management Project TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter Page MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION................................................................................................................1 ProjectDescription.........................................................................................................................................i Findings...........................................................................................................................................................i 1 INTRODUCTION................................................................................................................................ 1-1 1.1 Introduction and Regulatory Guidance........................................................................................ 1-1 1.2 Purpose of the Initial Study.......................................................................................................... 1-1 1.3 Summary of Findings.................................................................................................................... 1-2 1.4 Environmental Permits................................................................................................................. 1-2 1.5 Document Organization 1-2 2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION...................................................................................................................... 2-1 2.1 Introduction.................................................................................................................................. 2-1 2.2 Background................................................................................................................................... 2-1 2.3 Project Objectives......................................................................................................................... 2-5 2.4 MROSD Resource Management Policies...................................................................................... 2-5 2.5 Project Setting.............................................................................................................................. 2-7 2.6 Project Characteristics.................................................................................................................. 2-7 2.7 Best Management Practices Incorporated into the Project....................................................... 2-16 3 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST............................................................................................................3-1 3.1 Aesthetics 3.2 Agriculture and Forest Resources.............................................................................................. 3-14 3.3 Air Quality................................................................................................................................... 3-17 3.4 Biological Resources................................................................................................................... 3-22 3.5 Cultural Resources...................................................................................................................... 3-34 3.6 Geology and Soils....................................................................................................................... 3-36 3.7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions ........................................................................................................ 3-39 3.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials.............................................................................................. 3-42 3.9 Hydrology and Water Quality..................................................................................................... 3-46 3.10 Land Use and Planning............................................................................................................... 3-49 3.11 Mineral Resources...................................................................................................................... 3-51 3.12 Noise........................................................................................................................................... 3-52 3.13 Population and Housing............................................................................................................. 3-57 3.14 Public Services............................................................................................................................ 3-58 3.15 Recreation.................................................................................................................................. 3-60 3.16 Transportation/Traffic................................................................................................................ 3-63 3.17 Utilities and Service Systems...................................................................................................... 3-66 3.18 Mandatory Findings of Significance........................................................................................... 3-68 4 REFERENCES .....................................................................................................................................4-1 5 REPORT PREPARERS..........................................................................................................................5-1 Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Site-Specific Weed and Pest Management Project iii Table of Contents Ascent Environmental APPENDICES A Treatment Sites Maps B Pest Control Recommendation Report C Detailed Treatment Table of Past Activities D Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Modeling E Special-Status Species 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.................................................................................... 3-5 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 Exhibit3-3b. View of Pulgas Ridge.................................................................................................................... 3-9 Exhibit 3-4a. Restoration Treatment Site at Skyline Ridge OSP...................................................................... 3-12 Exhibit 3-4b. Drainage Restoration at Skyline Ridge....................................................................................... 3-12 TABLES Table 2-1. Estimated Treatment Actionsl,Gross Work Areas Treated,and Herbicide Amounts................ 2-8 Table 2-2. Proposed Treatment Sites and Management Categories.......................................................... 2-13 Table 3.5-1. Summary of Modeled Emissions of Criteria Air Pollutants and Precursors Associated with Operational Onsite Weed Control Activities.............................................................................. 3-19 Table 3.6-1. Vegetation and Ground Cover Types in the Project Area.......................................................... 3-23 Table 3.7-1. Summary of Modeled Annual GHG Emissions Associated with Weed Control Activities.......... 3-40 Table 3.12-1. Exterior Noise Limits................................................................................................................... 3-54 Table 3.15-1. Proposed Sites and Recreation Access Status............................................................................ 3-60 Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District IV Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration forthe Site-Specific Weed and Pest Management Project Ascent Environmental Table of Contents ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS a.e./A acid equivalent/acre 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 CaIEEMod 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 CNDDB California Natural Diversity Database CNPS 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 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration far the Site-Specific Weed and Pest Management Project v Table of Contents Ascent Environmental IPM integrated pest management IS Initial Study LAFCo San Mateo Local Agency Formation Commission LUST leaking underground storage tank MLD Most Likely Descendant MND Mitigated Negative Declaration MPH miles per hour MT/year metric tons per year N,O nitrous oxide NAHC Native American Heritage Commission NO, nitrogen oxides OSP open space preserve PM particulate matter RMPs Resource Management Policies ROG reactive organic gases SamTrans San Mateo County Transit Authority SB Senate Bill SFBAAB San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin SOD Sudden Oak Death SR 35 State Route 35 TACs toxic air contaminants USFWS U.S.Fish&Wildlife Service VMT vehicle miles traveled VTA Valley Transit Authority I li Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District vi Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Site-Specific Weed and Pest Management Project I i I INTRODUCTION 1.1 INTRODUCTION AND REGULATORY 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 42 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 (CEQA)(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 to a 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 or by revisions in the project design. 1.2 PURPOSE OF THE INITIAL STUDY As described in the environmental checklist(Chapter 3),the proposed project would not result in significant environmental impacts, after imposition of certain mitigation measures.This IS concludes that a Mitigated Negative Declaration(MND) is the appropriate document for compliance with the requirements of CEQA. Under CEQA,the lead agency is the public agency with primary responsibility over approval of the proposed project.The District is the lead agency for the proposed project and has directed the preparation of an analysis that complies with CEQA. The purpose of this document is to present to decision-makers and the public the environmental consequences of implementing the proposed project.An IS is required in support of an MND and is attached to the MND.This disclosure document is being made available to the public for review and comment.The MND (with the attached IS) is available for a 30-day public review. Comments should be addressed to: Ms.Cindy Roessler Senior Resource Management Specialist Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 330 Distel Circle Los Altos, CA 94022-1404 Ph: (650)691-1200 Fax: (650)691-0485(fax) croessler@openspace.org Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration forthe Site-Specific Weed and Pest Management Project i i Introduction Ascent Environmental After comments are received from the public and reviewing agencies,the District may(1)adopt the MND and approve the proposed project; (2)undertake additional environmental studies; or(3)disapprove the project. If the project is approved,the District may proceed with implementation of the project. 1.3 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS Chapter 3 of this document contains the analysis and discussion of potential environmental impacts of the proposed project. Based on the issues evaluated in that chapter, it was determined that the proposed project would have no impact related to the following issue areas: Land use and Planning Mineral Resources i Population and Housing a Public Services A Transportation and Traffic impacts of the proposed project for the following issue areas would be less than significant: A Aesthetics A Agriculture and Forestry Resources A Air Quality i Geology and Soils d Greenhouse Gases Hazards and Hazardous Materials i Hydrology and Water Quality i Noise i Recreation i Utilities and Service Systems Impacts of the proposed project for the following issue areas would be less than significant with the incorporation of the mitigation measures described in Chapter 3: i Biological Resources i Cultural Resources 1.4 ENVIRONMENTAL PERMITS The project would require approval from the District. No other permits or approvals for this project would be required. Use of herbicides or fungicide must be consistent with state and federal regulations. 1.5 DOCUMENT ORGANIZATION This IS/MND is organized as follows: Chapter 1:Introduction.This chapter provides an introduction to the environmental review process. It describes the purpose and organization of this document as well as presents a summary of findings. Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 1-2 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Site-Specific Weed and Pest Management Project Ascent Environmental Introduction Chapter 2: Project Description and Background.This chapter describes the purpose of and need for the proposed project, identifies project objectives,and provides a detailed description of the proposed project. Chapter 3:Environmental Checklist.This chapter presents an analysis of a range of environmental issues identified in the CEQA Environmental Checklist and determines if each issue would result in no impact,a less- than-significant impact,a less-than-significant impact with mitigation incorporated,or a potentially significant impact. If any impacts were determined to be potentially significant,an EIR would be required. For this project, however, none of the impacts were determined to be significant after implementation of recommended mitigation measures. Chapter 4: References.This chapter lists the references used in preparation of this IS/MND. Chapter 5:Ust of Preparers.This chapter identifies report preparers. Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Site-Specific Weed and Pest Management Project 1-3 Introduction Ascent Environmental This page intentionally left blank. Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 1-4 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Site-Specific Weed and Pest Management Project 2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 2.1 INTRODUCTION i The project would implement selected weed and pest management techniques in natural areas within the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District's(District) preserve lands.The District has permanently preserved over 60,000 acres within its 550-square mile District boundaries on the San Francisco peninsula in Santa Clara, r .T District h established 2 n a reserves OSPs San Mateo and Santa Cruz counties California. he D str ct as estab s ed 6 open space P p P (OSPs, 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 42 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 has been made towards eradication or site restoration to more natural conditions. progress i 2.2 BACKGROUND The District's 26 OSPs are kept in natural condition for the protection of natural ecology and habitats.Within these OSPs,development is limited to low-intensity recreation.The preserves are characterized by a range of habitat types including redwood forest, Douglas-fir forest,chaparral, mixed evergreen forest, riparian forest, native and annual grasslands, mixed coastal woodland, knobcone pine forest,and freshwater marsh. As part of its mission to protect and restore the natural environment of the OSPs,the District controls non- native and invasive plant species(also referred to as weeds in this document)that have a substantial impact on preserve resources. Not all invasive plants can be controlled at one time,so the District sets priorities to protect the most valuable and threatened natural resources and to concentrate on work that can provide feasible and effective control based on available funds, labor,tools,and time. In addition,the District has identified other high-priority projects where other types of pests are controlled in the natural areas of the preserves. For example, one such high-priority project is control of the pathogen Phytophthora ramorum which causes the forest disease Sudden Oak Death (SOD), a disease which,as it name implies, infects and leads to the rapid demise of a variety of species of oak trees. The District controls non-native invasive species because they invade and dominate sufficiently large areas to cause a reduction in biodiversity. Non-native invasive species proliferate in the absence of natural control and interfere with the natural processes that would otherwise occur on wildlands.Once established, invasive species can become difficult to manage and they can eliminate native species or otherwise alter the ecosystem. Invasive plants have greatly altered many of California's natural plant communities. Because they originated elsewhere, many invasive plants are not susceptible to natural predation or diseases of this region.They are extremely adaptable and can thrive in a wide range of conditions.They can grow quickly, reproduce early, produce many long-lasting seeds, and tolerate disturbance. Finally,they can reduce native biodiversity by gradually crowding out or competing with native plants for water and sun,and by reducing or modifying wildlife habitat. Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Site-Specific Weed and Pest Management Project 2-1 i BAY BRIDGE - GOLDEN GATE BRIDGE - 680' SAN FANCISCO OAKLAND \ 580 \ 9 Z 580 Z. Pacifica 0� Hayward j 0 101 92 880 68 SAN MATEO BRIDGE 280 Fremont San Mateo t 92 a DUMB A TON ORID Palo Alto. �r Half Moon =n Bay 23 r% Mountain D 880 'i View 2 Sunnyvale 68 r z Santa- Clara • San y AN JOS Gregono ertino r t ■ Saratoga i 101, 85 9 Los Gatos MROSD Open ^I Space Preserves District Boundary 9 L®ltingto SANTA CRL'Z Hills ® Sphere of Influence uou,vr.+r.ws Boulder Creek 0 4.5 9 Scotts Valley Approximate Scale in Miles CP12010015.01 001 Source:Adapted by Ascent in 2012 Exhibit 2-1. Regional Overview Map 92 s j7 © San Froncisco 0 Carlos 0 Bay Palo Alto © Woodsi Mountain O View 0 © Sunnyvale e Cupertino bs 84 San Jose AW O Saratoga m 17 Los Gat Is X72o1omal oo1 Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Pulgas Ridge 6 Skyline Ridge 2 Purisima Creek Redwoods 9 Saratoga Gap 3 Et Corte de Madera 10 El Sereno Note. Only Open Space Preserves 4 Coal Creek 11 St.Joseph's Hill pertaining to this document are displayed 5 Los 7rancos 12 Sierra Azul 6 • 6 Rancho San Antonio 13 Bear Creek Redwoods T I Monte Bello Source:Data received from MROSD 2012 Exhibit 2-2. Open Space Preserves Proposed for Weed and Pest Management Activities Project Description Ascent Environmental The California Invasive Plant Council maintains an Invasive Plant Inventory that rates the threat of non-native plant species by evaluating their ecological impacts, invasive potential, and ecological distribution.Along with local knowledge,the District uses this list to evaluate the invasive risk of existing and new non-native plants found on District preserves.The District also collaborates with the Bay Area Early Detection Network(BAEDN)to identify and proactively control new infestations of invasive plants before they grow into large and costly environmental threats on District preserves and to the larger San Francisco Bay region.The District has contributed to and refers to the BAEDN's Early Detection& Rapid Response Target Species List to guide priorities for invasive plant control on its preserves.The BAEDN list is limited to those highly invasive species of limited distribution in the San Francisco Bay area that represent a high threat to natural systems if left unchecked but for which there is a high feasibility of eradication or control if acted upon promptly(BAEDN 2010). Programs to control invasive plant and pest species require long-term commitment and management. With many invasive species,short-term lapses in management activity may negate years of expensive control efforts. I 2.2.1 SUDDEN OAK DEATH Sudden Oak Death (SOD) is a prevalent disease of particular concern within District forested lands.SOD has killed over one million native oak and tanoak trees and infests many other forest species in one Oregon and 14 coastal California counties, including in the project area.Thousands of dead tanoak trees and other symptoms of the SOD pathogen,Phytophthora ramorum,are commonly seen on the District's preserves.SOD has the potential to adversely affect forests within the preserves and the region, presenting a number of social and ecological concerns.There currently is no cure for SOD,and as with other extensive forest diseases,a response and management strategy will take decades to develop and implement.The District adopted a 10-year plan to slow the spread of SOD,collaboratively study impacts on wildland ecology and recreation,and develop a restoration strategy for heavily SOD-infested forests(MROSD 2005). Under the guidance of academic researchers,the District is currently participating in limited treatment strategies including removal of a primary host plant,the California bay laurel,and spraying of a select number of oak and tanoak trees with a fungicide. 2.2.2 INTEGRATED PEST MANAGEMENT Currently,the District utilizes an integrated pest management(IPM)approach to control invasive species and target pests.The District defines IPM as a long-term strategy that specifically reviews alternatives and monitors conditions to effectively control a target pest with minimum impact to human health,the environment,and non-target organisms.An IPM 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 are necessary to meet a pest 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 fungus), as a few examples. i IPM 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 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 Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 2-4 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration forthe Site-Specific Weed and Pest Management Project Ascent Environmental Project Description 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 in Appendix B of this document. Concurrent with the evaluation of 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 42 sites in 13 preserves for a three-year period.As a short term strategy, it allows the District to avoid losing substantial progress already 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 26 preserves for multiple years. 2.3 PROJECT OBJECTIVES The primary objective of the project is to control noxious and invasive weeds or other pests in high-priority natural areas of the District's OSPs.Other objectives of the project consist of the following: A Protect and restore the diversity and integrity of the District's resources; A Minimize the spread of non-native invasive species in OSPs; Prevent the introduction of invasive species to District preserves; i Manage forest diseases,when necessary,to protect native biological diversity and critical ecosystem functions,and A Implement control measures in a way that is protective of the environment. 2.4 MR40SD RESOURCE MANAGEMENT POLICIES The following resource management strategies and policies are applicable to the proposed project and were adopted by the District in 2012 (MROSD 2012): Resource Management Mission Statement The District will protect and restore the diversity and integrity of its resources and ecological processes for their value to the environment and to people, and will provide for the use of the preserves consistent with resource protection. Resource Management Strategy 3 Prevent or minimize human-caused and accelerated impacts, including erosion, invasion by non-native species, disruption of the natural flow of water,degradation of water quality,trampling of vegetation,and displacement of wildlife. Resource Management Strategy 4 Protect and restore known rare,endangered and other special status species and sensitive habitats, as well as seriously degraded or deteriorating areas.Give priority to sensitive habitats and consider the relative scarcity of the specific resources involved. i Vegetation Management Policy-1:Maintain the diversity of native plant communities. Includes specific actions to: Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration forthe Site-Specific Weed and Pest Management Project 2-5 Project Description Ascent Environmental / Manage native grassland sites to encourage reestablishment and perpetuation of California native grasses;and / Control invasive non-native plants. Invasive Species Goal Control invasive species that have a substantial impact on preserve resources in order to foster the restoration of native vegetation and habitat. Invasive Species Policy-1:Prevent the introduction of invasive species to District preserves. / Incorporate measures to avoid spreading invasive species into work areas and,where reasonably possible, control any invasive species currently on the site when designing District projects that may result in ground disturbance. / Use best management practices (BMPs)during District maintenance and other field activities to avoid introducing invasive species into new areas. A Invasive Species Policy-3:Control invasive species using a system of priorities and integrated pest management (IPM)techniques. Includes specific actions to: / Set priorities for invasive species control based on the potential risk to sensitive native species and loss of native biodiversity;feasibility for effective control;availability of necessary labor,tools and time; collaboration with adjacent landowners and other responsible agencies;and consistency with other District goals. / Determine the biology of the invading species, its disruptive potential and relevant site conditions prior to implementing a pest control activity. Review pest control objectives for consistency with other site goals and determine acceptable levels of damage to biodiversity and the natural environment. / Consider the full range of pest control alternatives using an IPM approach. Choose site-specific strategies and times of treatment that provide the best combination of protecting preserve resources, human health,and non-target organisms and that are efficient and cost-effective in controlling the target invasive species. Direct the control method narrowly at the target organism to avoid broad impacts on the ecosystem. Modify control methods over time as site conditions and treatment techniques change. / Use non-native biological control agents to control invasive species only if sufficient information is available to determine that non-target native and agriculture species will not be adversely affected and the biological control agent will not otherwise become a subsequent pest. / Use the least toxic but effective pesticides,and use only where alternative methods are known to be ineffective.Apply pesticides in an environmentally safe manner.Take all reasonable precautions to protect the environment,the health and safety of District employees, adjacent lands and preserve visitors. / Plan for repeat treatments as indicated by the invasive species' regenerative capabilities. Manage the addition of new sites to the invasive control program to ensure that existing sites are sufficiently controlled. / Coordinate and cooperate with adjacent landowners and other responsible agencies to control invasive species. / Consider the impact of removal of invasive species on native wildlife. / Keep records of all pesticides applied and submit monthly and annual reports to the County Agricultural Departments. Obtain pest control recommendations and provide field staff safety training in the storage, mixing and application of pesticides. Continue to follow all federal,state and local regulations regarding the use of pesticides. Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 2-6 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Site-Specific Weed and Pest Management Project Ascent Environmental Project Description / Report on the effectiveness of invasive species management. / Plan for and monitor natural regeneration or install native plants and provide short-term maintenance at sites from which invasive plants have been removed. Generally,this will occur after several years when the number of invasive individuals and their potential for reseeding, re-sprouting or otherwise reoccupying the site has been substantially reduced. f invasive i from a distinct location is not feasible apply measures to contain If eradication o an asive species es d ct o / p pP Y the population or slow down its rate of spread. i Vegetation Management Policy-4:Manage forest diseases,when necessary,to protect native biological diversity and critical ecosystem functions. / Develop a plan to detect, report,and monitor areas infested by high priority insects and diseases; utilize sanitation and best management practices(BMPs)to control the spread of infestations;train staff and educate the public;and support research to guide land management decisions. / Prioritize research and management activities to slow the spread of Sudden Oak Death (SOD)and actively pursue partnerships with other public agencies to develop treatment alternatives. i Forest Management Policy-6:Protect forest health from intense wildfire, pests,and pathogens with high potential to cause damage. / Manage forest diseases when necessary to protect natural biological diversity and critical ecosystem functions. Regarding Sudden Oak Death (SOD):detect, report,and monitor infested areas; utilize sanitation and best management practices (BMPs)to control the spread of the SOD pathogen;train staff and educate the public;and support SOD research to guide land management decisions. 2.5 PROJECT SETTING The proposed project would be implemented within 13 OSPs at 42 distinct treatment sites in the years 2012 through 2014(Exhibit 2-2). For the purposes of this document,each of the 42 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 BC01. 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 to these areas. 2.6 PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS 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 be implemented during daylight hours; no nighttime activities would occur. 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 is to halt or minimize the spread of those species in areas where substantial progress has been made towards eradication or site restoration. Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Site-Specific Weed and Pest Management Project 2-7 Project Description Ascent Environmental i Under the project, a total annual average of 1,958 gross work acres and 1,029 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 a treatment site, not every square inch is treated,only the actual target weeds are treated. Thus, if the target weed population is dense,the actual treated area could be in the range of 50 to 100%of the 0 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 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. Estimated Treatment Actions',Grass Work Areas Treated,and Herbicide Amounts TreatmentAcbon GrvssWorkArea Herbicide AmountAnticipatedtobe Used(gallons) ( ) Brushcutting 18 N/A Chainsaw cutting of trees 16 N/A i g Digging 65 N/A Pulling 708 N/A Green flaming 7 N/A Agri-Fos and Pentrabark spraying(by ATV) 27 40 Aminopyralid spraying 140 1 Glyphosate spraying 873 29 Glyphosate cut-stump application 91 1 Glyphosate wipe application 14 0.3 TOTAL Gross Work Acres 1,958 Treatment action descriptions are provided in Section 2.6.3. Source:MROSD 2012 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 g g ( 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.,starthistle) 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 Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 2-8 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Site-Specific Weed and Pest Management Project Ascent Environmental Project Description 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 to control the species. For example, in Year 1 an herbicide is applied; however, in Year 2 it 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 2.6.3. 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 C. 2.6.1 TREATMENT SITE SELECTION CRITERIA The District identified several criteria to determine which treatment sites would be included within the project. The following presents the list of criteria used to select the priority treatment sites for consideration in this project. The site has valuable natural resources that would be damaged if invasive plant control or pest control is not implemented. A Work is needed within the next 3 years to avoid losing substantial progress already made in controlling an invasive plant or pest. A The work site may require the use of herbicides in addition to non-herbicide treatment methods in the next 3 years to control weed species. i The site has been the subject of many years of work to remove the reproductive capacity of the pest(i.e., few to no mature seeding plants remain). The soil seed bank is estimated to be low either because of past work or because it is a relatively new infestation. • The work has a high likelihood of success as a result of past work and demonstrated ability to control the target pest with current practices. i The District determined that adequate funding,staffing,and technologies are available to control the existing infestation at the project site. • Adequate access to the site is available. Plants at the site could mature and seed if work is delayed for 3 years. A The site has high public use or is otherwise highly valued by the public. Work at the site would not result in any disturbances or other impacts to listed species. 2.6.2 MANAGEMENT CATEGORIES 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 in an integrated manner(IPM),so while a specific treatment action is identified for a species below, other treatment actions identified for the site may be implemented on a year-to-year basis according to Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Site-Specific Weed and Pest Management Project 2-9 i Project Description Ascent Environmental 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 as A-or B-rated noxious weeds:spotted knapweed (Centaurea stoebe,A-rated)and eggleaf spurge(Euphorbia oblongata, B-rated).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 to people. 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 of Regulations. "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 (CDFA 2005). Treatment Actions:The following treatment actions would be implemented: a) 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—This category addresses the treatment of four species of invasive weeds in grasslands of Los Trancos OSP:yellow starthistle(Centaurea solstitiolis),medusa head (Elymus coput-medusae),jointed goat grass(Aegilops cylindrica),and Harding grass (Phalaris aquatics). District staff has identified a diverse collection of native grass species concentrated in the grasslands of Los Trancos OSP.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. Treatment Actions:The following treatment actions would be implemented: Amin r li spraying b backpack and pullingof yellow starthistle. a o ads a } pY p Y g Y p 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. Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 2-10 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Site-Specific Weed and Pest Management Project Ascent Environmental Project Description 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.perforotum),eggleaf spurge, ornamental perennial sweet pea (Lathyrus latifolius), stinkwort(Dittrichia graveolens),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 ramorum,the cause of Sudden Oak Death.This strategy would be implemented at treatment sites in El 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. 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. Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration forthe Site-Specific Weed and Pest Management Project 2-11 f Project Description Ascent Environmental c) Hand application of glyphosate to cut stumps of bay trees. Backpack spraying of ba s routs with glyphosate. d) p Y p g Yp 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 (eaccharfs 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. 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 five 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 following treatment actions would be implemented: a) Digging and aminopyralid spraying by backpack of purple starthistle(Centaurea calcitrapa)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 field office in Rancho San Antonio OSP,the Vista area of St. Joseph's Hill OSP,the Overlook weed zone of El Sereno OSP,the Beatty property and 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. Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 2-12 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration forthe Site-Specific Weed and Pest Management Project Ascent Environmental Project Description c) Pulling and cutting with hand tools and chainsaws of English ivy(Hedera helix)and English holly trees(Ilex aquifolium)at Purisima Creek Redwoods OSP.Stumps would be treated with glyphosate. I d) Spraying by backpack of glyphosate on Harding grass and stinkwort at the RDG portion of Sierra Azul 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 Buildings and the BCO1 weed zone of Bear Creek Redwoods OSP; Beatty and Williams properties and SA19 weed zone of Sierra Azul OSP; near the intersection of Highway 35 and Page Mill Road of Coal Creek OSP;along the Methuselah and Virginia Mill Trails and the future staging area of El Corte de Madera Creek OSP;along the Harkins Ridge Trail and Harkins Ridge Cutover of Purisima Creek Redwoods OSP;and at the residence area of Saratoga Gap OSP. Treatment Actions:The following treatment actions would be implemented: a) Pulling with weed wrenches,green flaming of seedlings, pulling,glyphosate spraying by r it backpack, and burning approximately 200 cubic yards of French and Spanish broom in piles. Table 2-2. Proposed Treatment Sites and Management Categories Preserve Site Name Management Category Bear Creek Redwoods OSP Alma College Broom control BC01 Broom control Tree Farm Woodland weeds 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 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 I Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Site-Specific Weed and Pest Management Project 2-13 Project Description Ascent Environmental Table 2-2. Proposed Treatment Sites and Management Categories Preserve Site Name Management Category 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 PCO1 Satellite populations of priority weeds Rancho San Antonio OSP Lower Meadow Trail Sudden Oak Death Shop Satellite populations of priority weeds St.Joseph's Hill OS Vine h' P and Broom control y 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 2.6.3 TREATMENT ACTIONS 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 of 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 an herbicide. Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 2-14 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Site-Specific Weed and Pest Management Project Ascent Environmental Project Description i 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 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(Genista monspessulana)are ideal candidates for a weed wrench. Pulling is not suitable in areas where there is steep terrain,where the operator cannot gain a firm stance, or where the activity may lead to disruptive erosion. i Burning of Brush Piles:After large stands 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 C for Hazard Reduction Fires would be filed with the BAAQMD,and all conditions of Hazard Reduction Fires per BAAQMD regulations would be followed. i 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 by species. i Mow/Cut: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 or in locations with desirable native plants unless the timing of the mowing can be selected to affect only target plants. GREEN FLAMING TREATMENTS i 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 or on wet days when forest litter or grassland thatch is not likely to catch fire and additional precautions are 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 Cut-stump application: Under this treatment,the woody plant would be cut close to the ground at a 90- degree or 45-degree angle with a chainsaw or pole saw. Debris is removed from the cut stump and herbicide is immediately applied to the circle of living cells. i 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. 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, Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration forthe Site-Specific Weed and Pest Management Project 2-15 Project Description Ascent Environmental 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 of leaves. 2.6.4 HERBICIDES The District has selected a limited number of herbicides that would be used under the project. In general, Roundup PROMAX® (glyphosate herbicide)would be the primary herbicide used at the selected sites. AquaMasterTM or other aquatic habitat approved glyphosate-based herbicide formulations with an appropriate non-ionic surfactant such as the soybean-based surfactant Liberate TM would be used in areas near but not within 15 feet of aquatic features. No herbicides would be used within 15 feet of water and nonherbicide methods would be used instead. Blazon Colorant would be added to the herbicide to allow easy visual identification of where spraying has occurred. TRoundup PROMAX and A uaMasterM are non selective herbicides that is the affect any pI nt th at photosynthesizes.They have very little residual effect, break down in water quickly,and are post-emergent herbicides (i.e.,they kill plants that have already sprouted leaves).Specific Pest Control Recommendations for the application of these herbicides in this project are found in Appendix B. The other herbicide proposed for use as part of this project is aminopyralid in the formulation of Milestone® VM.Aminopyralid is a growth regulator that is absorbed by plant leaves and roots and moves through the transportation system of vascular plants. Milestone®VM is used primarily as a post-emergent herbicide to control plants which have germinated, but has some pre-emergent activity that prevents seeds from germinating.Aminopyralid is primarily effective on plants in the sunflower family,and in this project, is primarily used to control thistles. Agri-Fos®, a selective,systemic fungicide consisting of potassium phosphite,would be used to treat trees to prevent Sudden Oak Death.Agri-FosO has a high level of environmental safety,very low non-target toxicity,and has shown good levels of efficacy in various trials against the SOD pathogen. Pentra-BarkTM, a nonionic organosilicone wetting agent,would be combined with the Agri-Fos®to allow greater absorption through the trunk into the plant's vascular system. I Most herbicide use in this project would be applied by 5-gallon backpack sprayers by trained operators.A few treatment sites would require the application of herbicide or fungicide with spray equipment which consists of calibrated wands controlled by the operator with hoses connected to either 14-gallon tanks on ATVs or 150- gallon tanks on trucks.As required by regulations of the California Department of Pesticide Regulation (CCR Title 3, Division 6),the District or its contractors would continue to report all herbicide and fungicide use on a monthly basis to the County Agriculture Departments(San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties);would obtain Pest Control Recommendations from a licensed Pest Control Advisor on an annual basis;would renew the District's Operator Identification with the County Agriculture Departments; and would require key employees to obtain either a Qualified Applicator License or a Qualified Applicator Certificate. 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 Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 2-16 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration forthe Site-Specific Weed and Pest Management Project Ascent Environmental Project Description technical advisory team made up of experts in California with experience in invasive plant control and land management(California Invasive Plant Council 2011). BMP IN BMP Description 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. i 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. r 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 70 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 high public use(Rancho San Antonio, Fremont Older, Picchetti,St.Joseph's Hill,Pulgas Ridge and Windy Hill 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. Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration forthe Site-Specific Weed and Pest Management Project 2-17 I Project Description Ascent Environmental BMP ID#I BMP Description 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 marmoroto),and San Francisco garter snake (Thomnophis sirtolis tetratoenia). 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", i http://www.epa.gov/espp/litstatus/redleg-frog/rlf.htm,retrieved on 1/23/2009)in known or potential 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 dry at time of spraying but subsequently 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. Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 2-18 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Site-Specific Weed and Pest Management Project Ascent Environmental Project Description BMP ID# BMP Description 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 o 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 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 Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration forthe Site-Specific Weed and Pest Management Project 2-19 Project Description Ascent Environmental BMP ID# BMP Description 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. 30 All motorized equipment shall be shut down when not in use. Idling of equipment and off-highway vehicles will be limited to 5 minutes. Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 2-20 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the 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 g 1 2. Lead Agency Name and Address: Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District,330 Distel Circle Los Altos,CA 94022 3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Cindy Roessler(650)691-1200 4. Project Location: Western Santa Clara and San Mateo counties 5. Project Sponsoes 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 i n I en S Midpeninsula Regional Op ace District o p Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Site-Specific Weed and Pest Management Project 3-1 I Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental DETERMINATION(To be completed by the Lead Agency) On the basis of this initial evaluation: 1 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-1 I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment,and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT Is required. F❑-1 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. ❑ 1 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. April 4, 2012 nature Date Kirk Lenington Natural Resource Manager Printed Name Title Midpenlnsula Regional Open Space District Agency Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 3-2 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Site-Speclflc Weed and Pest Management Project i 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 CEO.A 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 ation measures based on the earlier analysis. Y 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 an used to evaluate each question;and g Y, b) the mitigation measure identified,if any,to reduce the impact to less than significance. S en Mid peninsula Regional 0 ace District P g P P Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Site-Specific Weed and Pest Management Project 3-3 Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental 3.1 AESTHETICS Lesslhan Potentially Significant LessThan ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES Significant with Significant No Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated 1. Aesthetics.Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ b) Substantially damage scenic resources,including,but ❑ ❑ ® ❑ not limited to,trees,rock outcroppings,and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or ❑ El ® ❑ quality of the site and its surroundings? d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare ❑ ❑ El Z which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? 3.1.1 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING The visual character in the OSPs that contain the project site is largely composed of natural elements with limited built elements such as roadways,parking lots,directional signs,trails fences, es, kiosks and restrooms. 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 OSPs 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 i Bear Creek Redwoods Preserve consists of approximately 1,400 acres of mixed evergreen forest with Douglas- 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 to receive the news of the attack on Pearl Harbor.Currently, hiking and equestrian uses are allowed by permit only.The three sites proposed for on-going vegetation management on this preserve are BC01,Alma 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 new growth of native shrubs in a previously treated area. Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 3-4 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration forthe Site-Specific Weed and Pest Management Project J Ascent Environmental Environmental Checklist 216. Exhibit 3-1a. Typical Views Found in District Preserves Exhibit 3-1b. Typical Views Found in District Preserves Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration forthe Site-Specific Weed and Pest Management Project 3-5 Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental n Exhibit 3-2a. Bear Creek Redwoods Tree Farm site w i Exhibit 3-2b. Restored Area at Bear Creek Redwoods Tree Farm Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 3-6 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the 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. COAL CREEK OPEN SPACE PRESERVE Coal Creek Preserve consists of rollingmeadows oaks grasslands, large madrone trees and is the forested ,g g 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 Serena 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. LOS TRANCOS OPEN SPACE PRESERVE Los Trancos OSP is a 274-acre area located in the Santa Cruz Mountains above Palo Alto.The preserve is characterized by rolling grassland knolls alternating with oak woodland and shaded forest. On a 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 Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Site-Specific Weed and Pest Management Project 3-7 Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental 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. MONTE BELLO OPEN 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 to be 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 of watersheds 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 a 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 east located 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 on the ridge top with preserved forested hillside below the ridge. PURISIMA 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 of this 4,412-acre preserve is Purisima 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 I suitable for visitors of all physical abilities,winds through tall redwoods just off Skyline Boulevard.Treatment sites in this preserve consist of PCO1,Harkins Ridge Trail, Harkins Cutover,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 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. Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 3-8 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration forthe Site-Specific Weed and Pest Management Project i Ascent Environmental Environmental Checklist I •f: 9 4 r 9�ia�lT Exhibit 3-3a. Previously Treated Grassland at Lost Trancos OSP Exhibit 3-3b. View of Pulgas Ridge Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Site-Specific Weed and Pest Management Project 3-9 I'I � Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental 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. 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-degree views 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 Ridge Trail.The Skyline Ridge Tree Farm Restoration treatment site is located within this preserve.This site provides a visually distinctive setting because it is the site of a 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 vegetation is developing to provide natural drainage protection.The treatment sites are visible from nearby 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 in cages. Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 3-10 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Site-Specific Weed and Pest Management Project Ascent Environmental Environmental Checklist 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, Monte Bello,Coal Creek, El Corte de Madera 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 a 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 a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? Less-than-significant Impact. For the most part,the treatment sites are in areas that are not part of a scenic 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 to large areas at one 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 or dead vegetation. However,this would be a 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 of dying 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 overtime 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. Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Site-Specific Weed and Pest Management Project 3-11 Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental 'A x � , G.l� f : yy C yn, Exhibit 3-4a. Restoration Treatment Site at Skyline Ridge OSP 1w' A", - :.a Exhibit 3-4b. Drainage Restoration at Skyline Ridge Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 3-12 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration forthe Site-Specific Weed and Pest Management Project Ascent Environmental Environmental Checklist 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.The only treatment site located near or adjacent to a state scenic highway, 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. 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 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; El 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 impactwould be less than significant. g d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in 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. Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Site-Specific Weed and Pest Management Project 3-13 Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental i 3.2 AGRICULTURE AND FOREST RESOURCES LessThan Potentially Significant Less?han ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES Significant with Significant No Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated 11. Agriculture and Forest Resources. In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land j Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997,as updated) prepared by the California Department of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. In determining 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 g Y p J measurement methodology provided in Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board. Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland,or EJ Farmland of Statewide Importance(Farmland),as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency,to non-agricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a EJ Williamson Act contract? c) Conflict with existing zoning for,or cause rezoning of, ❑ El forest land(as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)),timberland(as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526),or timberland zoned Timberland Production(as defined by Government Code section 51104(g))? d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? e) Involve other changes in the existing environment, ® ❑ which,due to their location or nature,could result in conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? j Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 3-14 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Site-Specific Weed and Pest Management Project j I Ascent Environmental Environmental Checklist I 3.2.1 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING Farmland is classified by the California Department of Conservation according to its ability to support crops or livestock.The most commonly used system for classifying agriculture in California is the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program(FMMP).The FMMP categorizes farmland into five types.These are described in order of productivity,from the most productive to the least productive farmland. A Prime Farmlands are lands with an ability to produce agricultural crops over a long period of time. Not only must the site have a dependable water supply of adequate quality during the growing season, it must have fertile,well-drained soils. Furthermore,the site must have been used for the production of irrigated crops within four years of FMMP mapping. i Farmlands of Statewide Importance are similar to Prime Farmlands, but with minor deficiencies (i.e.,steeper slopes,slightly poorer soils, etc.). • Unique Farmlands are lands that are used to produce California cash crops, but which have poorer soils than both Prime Farmlands and Farmlands of Statewide Importance.These lands may consist of non-irrigated orchards or vineyards. i Farmlands of Local Importance have importance to local agricultural economies, but generally have poorer soils and a less reliable water supply. Grazing Land is land with natural vegetation that is well-suited for grazing. The California Land Conservation Act of 1965(California Government Code 51200-51295),commonly known as the Williamson Act, provides incentives to property owners(property tax reductions)to keep their lands in active agricultural production. Property owners sign contracts,agreeing not to develop their properties for a period of at least ten years.The contract renews automatically unless the property owners file notices of II nonrenewal or a petition for cancellation. District lands currently contain approximately 5,300 acres of grassland habitat, including lands which were put into agricultural production with the arrival of earl Spanish and Anglo settlers.The California Division of Land g P Y P Resource Protection's Map of Important Farmland shows only a very small amount of Important Farmland and Unique Farmland within District borders. None of the treatment sites are classified as Important Farmland (DOC 2011a, 2011b). In 2003,the District prepared a Service Plan for the San Mateo Coastal Annexation Area and approved a Final EIR(MROSD 2003). In 2004,the San Mateo Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo)approved the annexation.The Coastside Protection Area,as the annexation area is referred to consists of lands in the western portion of San Mateo County lying south of the City of Pacifica and generally between Skyline Boulevard and the Pacific Ocean and south to the Santa Cruz County line.The Coastside Protection Area included the following Mitigation Measure: "Where herbicides are used for vegetation control, including control of noxious weeds, they must be handled, applied, and disposed of in such a manner that they do not adversely affect adjacent agriculture. Herbicide use shall be guided by label restrictions and any advisories published by the California Department of Pesticide Regulation (CDPR)or the County Agricultural Commission. These chemicals shall only be applied by a person who is properly trained in their application." The western side of the Harkins Ridge Trail treatment site is the only work in the project that is within the Coastside Protection Area. Broom removal at Harkins Ridge Trail will be consistent with this provision of the Coastal Protection Area because it is not adjacent to agriculture use and herbicide use otherwise follows regulatory and advisory requirements. Preserves where grazing is used as a method of wildland fuel reduction and vegetation management consist of Purisima Creek Redwoods and Skyline Ridge.The District leases suitable agricultural lands to tenants with Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Site-Specific Weed and Pest Management Project 3-15 Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental expertise in managing livestock for this purpose.All leases are subject to grazing management plans to support sustainable agriculture consistent with sound resource management practices. Recent District land acquisitions in the vicinity of Purisima Creek Redwoods consist of an active commercial horticultural flower production through a lease agreement.The site of production is approximately 1.5 miles west of the closest treatment area. Additionally,there are a total of 11,500 acres of Williamson Act lands within the District OSPs, including Bear Creek, Coal Creek, El Sereno, Purisima Creek Redwoods,Saratoga Gap,Sierra Azul, and Skyline Ridge OSPs. The primary role for the District is the preservation and protection of forests and woodlands on its preserves. In the past,the redwood and Douglas-fir forests of the Santa Cruz Mountains were the center of intense commercial logging activities; however,there are no ongoing commercial timber harvesting activities on District preserve lands today,except for the active Christmas tree farm (approximately 50 acres)at Skyline Ridge Preserve,which is separate but adjacent to the Skyline Ridge Tree Farm Restoration work site.The tree farm at Bear Creek Redwoods Preserve is no longer in production,and the trees have become overgrown and unsuitable for harvest as Christmas trees. 3.2.2 DISCUSSION a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency,to non-agricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act contract? c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of,forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g))? d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? e Involve other changes in the existing environment, which, due to their location or nature, g g could result in conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? Response to Items a through e. Less-than-significant Impact. The project would not result in any land use changes, including conversion of land from agricultural to other uses. Moreover,while two treatment sites are located on land subject to a Williamson Act contract, in 2007 the District filed for non-renewal of these contracts,which is expected to be complete in 2017. Neither of these sites are located on land designated as Important Farmland by the FMMP.While evergreen trees on the Tree Farm site at Bear Creek Redwoods OSP would be removed,these trees have become overgrown and are not suitable for commercial harvest as Christmas trees.The removal of trees from the Bear Creek Redwoods tree farm would restore the site to natural condition and would have no adverse effect on forestry resources.Overall, impacts to Important Farmland or conflicts with Williamson Act contracts would be less than significant. i I I Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 3-16 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration forthe Site-Specific Weed and Pest Management Project Ascent Environmental Environmental Checklist 3.3 AIR QUALITY LmThan Potentially Significant LessThan ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES Significant with Significant No Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated III. 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 El applicable air quality plan? b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute El El 1:1 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 El El number of people? 3.3.1 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING All of the treatment sites are located in Santa Clara and San Mateo County, both of which lie in the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin and are under the jurisdiction of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). With respect to ozone,Santa Clara and San Mateo County are currently designated as a nonattainment area for the 1-hour state ambient air quality standard and the 8-hour state and national ambient air quality standards (ARB 2010). Both counties are designated as unclassified for the national PM10(i.e., respirable particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter of 10 micrometers or less)standard;and are designated as nonattainment for the state and national PMZ.s(i.e., respirable particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter of 2.5 micrometers or less)standards(California Air Resources Board 2010). Air quality within Santa Clara and San Mateo County is regulated by such agencies as the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency(EPA),and California Air Resources Board (ARB)at the federal and state levels, respectively, and locally by the BAAQMD.The BAAQMD seeks to improve air quality conditions through a comprehensive program of planning, regulation, enforcement,technical innovation,and promotion of the understanding of air quality issues.The clean air strategy of the BAAQMD consists of the development of programs for the attainment of ambient air quality standards,adoption and enforcement of rules and regulations,and issuance of permits for stationary sources. BAAQMD also inspects stationary sources, responds to citizen complaints, monitors ambient air quality and meteorological conditions,and implements other programs and regulations Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Site-Specific Weed and Pest Management Project 3-17 Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental required by the federal Clean Air Act(CAA),federal Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990(CAAA), and the California Clean Air Act(CCAA). The BAAQMD prepared the Draft Bay Area 2010 Clean Air Plan,which defines a strategy to: (1) reduce emissions and decrease ambient concentrations of harmful pollutants; (2)safeguard public health by reducing exposure to air pollutants that pose the greatest health risk,with an emphasis on protecting the communities most heavily impacted by air pollution;and (3)reduce greenhouse gas(GHG)emissions to protect the climate(BAAQMD 2010c). In compliance with the requirements set forth in the CCAA,the plan specifically addresses the nonattainment status for ozone and to a lesser extent, PMlo and PM2.5. BAAQMD adopted new thresholds of significance and guidance for the evaluation of projects under CEQA in early June of 2010(BAAQMD 2010a;BAAQMD 2010b).These documents provide detailed guidance for evaluating both short-term construction projects and the long-term operations of a project.The BAAQMD has adopted thresholds of significance for the evaluation of criteria air pollutants and precursors generated by construction and operational activities,which are listed below: 54 pounds per day(lb/day)of reactive organic gases(ROG), 54 lb/day of nitrogen oxide(NOx), i 82 lb/clay of PMlo exhaust,and A 54 lb/day of PM2.5 exhaust. 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 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. Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 3-18 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Site-Specific Weed and Pest Management Project Ascent Environmental Environmental Checklist 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 42 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 equipment conducted is considered conservative because it assumed simultaneous use of motorized a ui ment 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. Table 3.5-1. Summary of Modeled Emissions of Criteria Air Pollutants and Precursors Associated with Operational Onsite Weed Control Activities Operational Activities ROG NOx PM1oExhaust PMasExhaust b day) Obldah Obldahb da Onsite Activities(Tractor mower,ATVs) 3.6 20.6 1.0 1.0 Mobile Source(worker commute) <0.1 <0.1 <1.0 <0.1 Total 3.6 20.6 1.0 1.0 BAAQMD Thresholds of Significance 54 54 82 54 Notes: Onsite activities would occur on an annual basis from 2012 through 2014.Modeled emissions represent a daily maximum level of activity with simultaneous use of ATVs for tank spraying application and motorized brushcutters. Source:Modeling Conducted by Ascent Environmental 2012. As indicated by the modeling, implementation of the project would not result in long-term operational emissions of ROG, NOx, PM10,or PM2.5 that exceed BAAQMD's thresholds of significance (54 lb/day for ROG, NOx, PM10,and 82 lb/day for PM2.5)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. Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Site-Specific Weed and Pest Management Project 3-19 i Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental Additionally,the BAAQMD has established Regulation 5:Open Burning,which generally prohibits open burning 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 BAAQMD designates as "open burn status"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 project would 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. II' 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 roadway). 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 projects will require an average of 1 trip per day when considering the total work of staff,volunteers and contractors.Therefore,the proposed project would not be expected to substantially increase traffic on the surrounding streets or intersections.As a result,this impact would be less than significant. 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)? Less-than-significant Impact. The SFBAAB is currently designated as a nonattainment area for state and national ozone standards and nonattainment for the state PMlo standards and state and national PM2.5 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 a cumulative impact. No single project is sufficient in size, 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 BAAQMD's CEQA Guidelines, and consistent Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 3-20 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration forthe Site-Specific Weed and Pest Management Project i Ascent Environmental Environmental Checklist i with CEQA, if a project's contribution to the cumulative impact is considerable,then the project's impact on air quality would be considered significant(BAAQMD 2010b). 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-generated emissions would not exceed applicable thresholds,the project would not violate or contribute substantially to an existing or projected 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 to substantial 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 TACs. I i 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 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. BAAQMD 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 a substantial number of people.As a result,this impact would be less than significant. Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Site-Specific Weed and Pest Management Project 3-21 i Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental 3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Lessihan Potentially Significant LessThan 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 or 0 El through habitat modifications,on any species identified as a candidate,sensitive,or special-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? b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparianEl El 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? c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act(including,but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool,coastal,etc.)through direct removal, filling,hydrological interruption,or other means? d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native ❑ resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources,such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? 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? 3.4.1 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING The proposed project would be implemented within 13 OSPs at 42 distinct sites within the District.The OSPs 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 San Francisco Peninsula cities. VEGETATION AND WILDLIFE The project area largely consists of natural elements with intermittent built elements,such as roadways, parking lots,and restrooms. 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. Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 3-22 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Site-Specific Weed and Pest Management Project j it Ascent Environmental Environmental Checklist Table 3.6-L Vegetation and Ground Cover Types in the Project Area b Z !� d Preserve Site Namelo c Bear Creek Alma College X X X Redwoods OSP BC01 X X X X Tree Farm X 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 OSP Future staging area between CM03&CM04 X X X X Virginia Mill Trail X X El Sereno OSP Aquinas Trail X X X Loma Vista Trail X X Overlook Trail X X Los Trancos OSP Event Meadow X X X X Fault Trail X X Franciscan Loop Trail X Greater Los Trancos X X X X Knoll X X X X LT02 X X X X X Norton X X X X Parking Lot X X X X Monte Bello OSP Montebello Road X X Water Wheel Creek X X X X Pulgas Ridge OSP Hassler Loop X X X X Purisima Creek Harkins Ridge Cutover X X X OSP Harkins Ridge Trail X X X X X North Ridge X X PCO1 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 Source:MROSD 2012 Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Site-Specific Weed and Pest Management Project 3-23 Environmental checklist Ascent Environmental 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 of 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 glauco),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 (Artemisio 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 oreganus), California kingsnake(Lampropeltis getula californioe), 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(Avena barbata), soft chess (Bromus hordeaceus), ripgut grass(Bromus diandrus), and six-weeks fescue(Vulpia bromoides). Native perennial grasses such as purple needlegrass (Nossella pulchra)and meadow barley(Hordeum brochyantherum)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(Poa secunda ssp.secundo), big squirreltail grass(Elymus multisetus),June grass(Koeleria macrantha),California melic grass (Melica colifornica), and purple needlegrass.A diverse and somewhat distinctive assemblage of native herb species is associated with these serpentine grasslands, including hayfield tarweed (Hemizonia congesta ssp.luzulifolia), Fremont's western rosinweed (Calycadenia fremontii), California plantain (Plantago erecta),flaxflowered linanthus (Linanthus 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 (Elgaria coerulea)and common gopher snake(Thamnophis sirtalis). Birds that are common in this habitat consist of western meadowlark(Sturnella neglecta)and savannah sparrow(Passerculus sandwichensis).Annual Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 3-24 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration forthe Site-Speck Weed and Pest Management Project i Ascent Environmental Environmental Checklist I grassland also provides important foraging habitat for turkey vulture(Cothartes aura), northern harrier(Circus cyaneus),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 BC01 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 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(Pseudacris regillo). MIXED-CONIFER FOREST Mixed conifer forest occurs 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 colifornica). 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(Peromyscus maniculatus), dusky-footed woodrat(Neotoma fuscipes), and Trowbridge's shrew(Sorex trowbridgii). KNOBCONE PINE FOREST Knobcone pine forest is a generally open-canopy forest of more or less evenly spaced trees of knobcone pine (Pinus attenuata),a pine that is essentially dependent on fire for its reproduction. Few other tree species occur 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 Azual OSP(Table 3.6-1). Representative wildlife species consist of:California mountain kingsnake (Lampropeltis zonota), hairy woodpecker(Picoides villosus),western wood-pewee(Contopus sordidulus), brown creeper(Certhia americana), and western gray squirrel (Sciurus 9riseus . REDWOOD FOREST Redwood forest habitat in the project area is dominated by redwoods (Sequoia sempervirens). Other species may consist of big-leaf maple(Acer macrophyllum)and Douglas-fir. Redwood habitats provide food,cover,or special habitat elements for 193 wildlife species.This total is composed of 12 reptiles, 18 amphibians, 109 birds,and 54 mammals(Mayer 2012).Species such as the red- legged frog(Rana spp.),ensatma (Ensatrna escholtzii),osprey(Pondion haliaetus), rmgta (Basso sous a ), and marbled murrelet(Brachyramphus marmoratus)show a relatively high preference for redwood habitat. Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration forthe Site-Specific Weed and Pest Management Project 3-25 Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental RIPARIAN FOREST The riparian forest of the study area is located in sites within Los Trancos, Purisima Creek,Sierra Azul,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(Solix lasiolepis), white alder(Alnus rhombifolia), and big- leaf maple(Acer macrophyllum). Other willows (Salix 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(Dendroica petechia), red-shouldered hawk(Buteo lineatus),song sparrow(Melospiza melodia),and black-headed grosbeak(Pheucticus melanocephalus). MIXED COASTAL WOODLAND Mixed coastal woodland habitats at the treatment sites (Table 3.6-1)consist of plant communities dominated by coast live oak(Quercus agrifolia),valley oak(Quercus lobata), California bay(Umbellularia californica),and 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 PIF 2 r n f I m oaks in n habitat type increases wildlife abundance Cal 200 trees. In fact the presence o at east some a s a YP (p Y � 8).Typical reptiles and amphibians that use this habitat consist of rin neck snake Diado his unctatus P ) Yp p p g ( p p ) 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(Melanerpes formicivorus),and oak titmouse(Baeolophus inornatus). Common mammals in coastal woodlands consist of black-tailed deer(Odocoileus hemionus), mountain lion(Fe/is concolor), and wild boar(Sus scrofa). LANDSLIDES, CLIFFS,AND ROCKY OUTCROPS Landslides,cliffs,and rocky outcrops are only found on the Air Base treatment site in the Sierra Azul 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. Fremont s western rosinweed,smooth lessingia (Lessingia micradenia var.globrata),flax-flowered linanthus (Linanthus liniflorus),coast range false bindweed (Calystegia collina ssp.collina),and most beautiful jewel-flower (Streptanthus albidus ssp.peramoenus)are species that are entirely or largely restricted to serpentine substrate or are regionally uncommon. OTHER(DISTURBED, DEVELOPED, PLANTATION, RESTORATION, UNVEGETATED) Disturbed land dominated by yellow star-thistle(Centaurea solstitialis), an invasive weed, is located on sites within Bear Creek Redwoods, El Corte de 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 de Madera Creek, and Sierra Azul OSPs.Artificially established forests,groves, and farms are located in the project area.A Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 3-26 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Site-Specific Weed and Pest Management Project i Ascent Environmental Environmental Checklist Christmas tree farm is located within Bear Creek Redwoods OSP, olive groves in Sierra Azul 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 of unvegetated land have been mapped within seven OSPs (Table 3.6-1). 3.4.2 DISCUSSION i a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special-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 OSPs at 42 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 to adversely affect special-status species.The District's qualified biological 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- 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 of suitable 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 on a review of the results of the CNDDB and MROSD database searches,documented species ranges,and available habitat,a list of 26 special-status wildlife i 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 BMPs that 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 2S). 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 i crews and contractors for special-status species determined to have the potential to occur on 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 (BMP 21). Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Site-Specific Weed and Pest Management Project 3-27 Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental I HERBICIDE TREATMENTS As described in Section 2.6.2,the District is proposing the use of the following pesticides:glyphosate herbicide (Roundup PROMAX or AquaMaster with a Liberate surfactant);aminopyralid herbicide(Milestone VM);and a 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 a backpack 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 a person with a Qualified Applicator License or Qualified 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 by 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. 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-STATUS ANIMALS Herbicide treatment under the proposed project has the potential to affect special-status animal species through habitat modification or direct mortality. Special-Status Invertebrates The project has the potential to harm non-target plant species during herbicide treatment of target species,as discussed above. Indirect impacts to the bay checkerspot butterfly(Euphydryas editho bayensis)could result if its primary larval host plants,dwarf plantain (Plantago erecta)and purple owl's clover(Castilleja exserta), 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 checkerspot butterfly. Special-Status Fish Species I 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 BMPs that will avoid impacts to special-status fish species. BMP 19 requires that 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 i Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 3-28 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Site-Specific Weed and Pest Management Project ................_. Ascent Environmental Environmental Checklist 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 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 (BMP 19). BMP 5 requires that all mixing and handling of concentrated pesticide solution take place at least 300 feet from aquatic features. BMP 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. BMP 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(Ambystoma californiense),foothill yellow- legged frog(Rana boylii),and western pond turtle(Actinemys marmorata).As described above under Special- Status Fish Species, BMPs 5,7, 19, and 28 would minimize impacts to aquatic features from herbicide treatment 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. As part of the 2006 Stipulated Injunction regarding pesticides and the California red-legged frog,the 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): i 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 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 i 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 Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Site-Specific Weed and Pest Management Project 3-29 Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental 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 shrubs rather than on open ground. For these reasons,the dusky-footed woodrat would be unlikely to consume treated plant material. BMP 23 prohibits disturbance of woodrat nests. 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 brushcutting(direct mortality). BMP 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-STATUS ANIMALS 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 Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 3-30 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration forthe Site-Specific Weed and Pest Management Project _ I Ascent Environmental Environmental Checklist I 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(BMP 21).The District biologist would also evaluate the presence of suitable habitat for special-status species. BMP 23 prohibits disturbance of woodrat nests and BMP 19 requires pretreatment surveys for special-status aquatic wildlife species. 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 (BMP 28). 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 special-status species. 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 1310-2 would reduce these impacts to a less than significant level. Mitigation Measures: BIO-L 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 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. BI0-2. 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. LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION Implementation of mitigation measures 13I0-1 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 Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Site-Specific Weed and Pest Management Project 3-31 Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental 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? i Less-Than-Significant Impact. Sensitive natural communities are of limited distribution statewide or within a county or region that provide important habitat value to native species. Most types of wetlands and riparian 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. In the project area,the oak woodland,freshwater marsh,serpentine bunchgrass, redwood forest,and riparian 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 BMPs would ensure that sensitive natural communities would not be affected by herbicide use, manual control,or green flaming treatments. BMPs are incorporated into the proposed project to protect riparian habitats (BMP 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(BMP 7). Within 15 feet of aquatic features only the use of manual treatments would be permitted (BMP 19). Prior to treatment activities a District biologist would survey the treatment site for the presence of sensitive natural communities(BMP 21). If present,a District biologist would develop site-specific avoidance measures(BMP 21).To minimize impacts to sensitive natural communities from drift,general herbicide application parameters would be implemented (BMP 7), including weather parameters,spray nozzle configurations, and spray distances. Through implementation of BMPs 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 as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act(including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal 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 or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of 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 Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 3-32 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration forthe Site-Specific Weed and Pest Management Project Ascent Environmental Environmental Checklist movement corridors as 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 a tree preservation policy or ordinance? Less-than-Significant Impact.The District's mission statement is "To acquire and preserve a regional greenbelt of open space land in perpetuity; protect and restore the natural environment;and provide opportunities for ecologically sensitive public enjoyment and education."One of the District's goals is 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 goals and policies on the protection and restoration of the natural environment. 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 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 draft habitat plan for the Santa Clara Valley Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP)was released in December 2010,and proposed revisions to the plan were released in August 2011.The proposed treatment sites are not within the HCP planning area.A final plan is currently being prepared for public review in mid-2012, but has not been adopted.The project would result in no impact related to conflicts with an adopted HCP. i Mid peninsula Regional Open Space District Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration forthe Site-Specific Weed and Pest Management Project 3-33 | �s��m��Environmental C�xm� � i �� U�� =�" vw~*m�mm*mmo�u�. RESOURCES LessThan Potentially Significant LessThan ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES Signftnt with Sigifficarit No Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated � V. Cultural Resources.Would the project: a} Cause a substantial adveo [l [l �� echan�eintbe �� significance ofa historical resource as defined in Section15D64.5? b} Cause o substantial adverse change inthe El Fl M El significance ofan archaeological resource pursuant � to Section 15064.5? � c} Directly or indirectly destroy aunique � paleontological resource or site ur unique geologic | � | feature? d> Disturb any human remains,including those interred El El outside of formal cemeteries? � 3^5~1 ENVIRONMENTAL SMING� The San Francisco Peninsula has had a rich and diverse history, including settlement by Native American groups; the Spanish (1776-1821)and Mexican Republican (1821-1848)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 � historicallysignificant. Wor ld War U and Cold War military sites are now � considered historically significant resources throughout California. Collectively,these sites,structures,features, and artifacts comprise the cultural resources mf 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 over time 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). i � Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District � � � � � | | 3-34 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration xxum Site-Specific Weed and Pest Management Project Ascent Environmental Environmental Cheddist 3.5.2 DISCUSSION a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in Section 15064.5? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5? c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? Response to items a through c. Less-than-significant Impact. Because of the largely non-invasive nature of the treatment action (i.e.,spot spraying,weed pulling by hand,shallow soil disturbance from digging out roots) it is not likely that disturbance of archaeological, paleontological,or historic resources would occur.While it is possible that previously undiscovered paleontological,archaeological,or historic resources could be disturbed by the uprooting of plants or minor digging activities,as described in the project description, BMP 26 requires that District staff at each site has received training in the recognition of sensitive cultural resources and that in the event of a find,a qualified archaeologist shall evaluate the significance of any discovered cultural resources prior to commencement or recommencement of work. Because none of the treatment sites support known cultural resources,and adequate measures would be implemented (i.e., BMP 26)to properly identify and protect any discovered resources during treatment activities,this impact would be considered less than significant. d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? Less-than-significant with Miti tion.A noted above i is unlike) that cultural resources such as a burial a s t 9 Y would be disturbed by the treatment activities because of their largely non-invasive nature and shallow soil disturbance. Nevertheless,the potential exists for previously undiscovered human resources to be discovered when soils are disturbed.This would be a potentially significant impact. Implementation of mitigation measure CUB-1 would reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level because actions to appropriately handle any human remains that are discovered would be implemented. Mitigation Measure: 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. Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration forthe Site-Specific Weed and Pest Management Project 3-35 Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental 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 ® ❑ 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? El El N F iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including El El F-1 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, ❑ ❑ El 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 El 1:1 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 District lands consist of a diverse set of dynamic geological resources characterized by steep slopes,earthquake faults, landslides, unstable and erosive soils,and attractive but fragile rock formations. General conditions on District OSPs are discussed below under the respective impact criteria.The San Andreas Fault passes through the midpeninsula region,and numerous District OSPs fall within fault rupture hazard zones identified in the San Mateo County and Santa Clara County General Plans. Of the preserves included in this project,the Bear Creek Redwoods, El Sereno, Los Trancos, Monte Bello, Rancho San Antonio,Saratoga Gap,Sierra Azul,and St.Joseph's Hill OSPs are located within identified fault rupture hazard zones. Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 3-36 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration forthe Site-Specific Weed and Pest Management Project Ascent Environmental Environmental Checklist � � � �U�K~��U�� ~°^=^= �==~"�=="="" a) Expose people or structures tm potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk mf loss, injury, ordeath |nvo|ving: N Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent A|qmist-Prio|o � Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based onother � substantial evidence of a known fault?(Refer to California Geological Survey Special � Pub|icatimnuK2'\ i0 Strong seismic ground shaking) Response to Items (a)(i)and (a)(ii). Less-than-significant Impact.While the treatment sites are located in areas subject to strong seismic ground shaking,they are in an unpopulated setting with no overhead hazards. No new structures or roadways are � proposed.While seismic ground shaking could occur during implementation of proposed treatment actions, � District staff and volunteers would be located in open areas and would have the ability to flee a site in the event � of ground rupture.Therefore, no significant safety risks in the event of seismic ground shaking orground rupture would occur with implementation of the project.This would be a less-than-significant impact. iii\ Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? � 1ess'tham-SigmifioamC Impact. Liquefaction is most likely to occur in sandy or silty soils along riverbeds, beaches, � and dunes.As such,the risk of liquefaction is greatest at the District's coastal preserves. None of the treatment � � sites are located within coastal preserves,and according to the Association of Bay Area Governments online � liquefaction map,and San Mateo County Hazard and Mitigation maps,there is very low potential to experience liquefaction in the vicinity of the treatment sites(MROSD 2011[MROSD RMP ISIVIND October 2011).Therefore, � this isa |eo-than-siBnificantimpact. iv) Landslides? � Less-than-significant Impact.Although the proposed project is located in an area where landslides may occur, the limited scope of the project is not expected to increase the potential for landslides.The only site on which there in landslide potential iu the Sierra Azu|O5P,at the Air Force site. No habitable structures are located on the site and none are within the landslide potential area. No cut,fill, or grading of material would be required as a result of this project. Further,the project would not be expected to remove deeply-rooted vegetation from the � toe of any landslides,so would not be expected to cause a landslide hazard (see item (b) below).This would be a less-than-significant impact. � Result��m|t in substantial soil erosion or the loss oftopsoil? � ' � � Leuadhan_s8gnifiuwmt/e9»mct The application of herbicides and manual treatment activities would remove � � targeted invasive species, potentially exposing soil to increased erosion hazard.To minimize erosion of exposed soils,targeted herbicide application would occur in the spring, after larger winter storms have passed and when � most annual grasses begin seasonal dieback. For most sites,the roots of dead vegetation and leaf litter would � remain in place which would help to stabilize soils until reseeding occurs.Summer follow up application would � occur after annual grasses and wildflowers have already set seed.To minimize ground disturbance from vehicles � on steep slopes, backpack spraying and hand removal would occur. Further,as described in BK8P 28' if needed, � � placement of forest duff or mulches,seeding,or planting of appropriate native plant species to control erosion � would occur to stabilize exposed soils and to reduce the potential for erosion as a result of this project.With | | Midmmhu laRegional Ope Space oetno Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration fo,tho Site-Specific Weed and Pest Management Project 3-37 Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental implementation of the project and BMP 28, no significant soil erosion impacts would occur.This would be a less- than-significant impact. 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? No Impact.The proposed project does not involve excavation or the placement of structures on the sites; therefore,there would be no potential for adverse impacts related to unstable geologic conditions. 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? No Impact.The proposed project does not involve placement of structures on the sites,therefore,there would be no potential for adverse impacts related to expansive soils. 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? No Impact. The proposed project does not consist of uses that would require wastewater disposal facilities. No impact would occur. Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 3-38 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration forthe Site-Specific Weed and Pest Management Project i Ascent Environmental Environmental Checklist 3.7 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS LessThan Potentially Significant LessThan ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES Significant with Significant No Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incogwdted VII. Greenhouse Gas Emissions.Would the project: a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions,either directly or ❑ ❑ indirectly,that may have a significant impact on the environment? b) Conflict with an applicable plan,policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? 3.7.1 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING Certain gases in the earth's atmosphere,classified as greenhouse gases(GHGs), play a critical role in determining the earth's surface temperature. GHGs are responsible for"trapping"solar radiation in the earth's atmosphere, a phenomenon known as the greenhouse effect. Prominent GHGs contributing to the greenhouse effect are carbon dioxide (CO2), methane, nitrous oxide,hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons,and sulfur hexafluoride. Human-caused emissions of these GHGs in excess of natural ambient concentrations are responsible for intensifying the greenhouse effect and have led to a trend of unnatural warming of the earth's climate, known as global climate change or global warming. It is extremely unlikely that global climate change of the past SO years can be explained without the contribution from human activities(Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [IPCC] 2007). By adoption of Assembly Bill (AB)32,the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, and Senate Bill (SB)97,the state of California has acknowledged that the effects of GHG emissions cause adverse environmental impacts. Emissions of GHGs have the potential to adversely affect the environment because such emissions contribute, on a cumulative basis,to global climate change. Although the emissions of one single project will not cause global climate change,GHG emissions from multiple projects throughout the world could result in a cumulative impact with respect to global climate change. Legislation and executive orders on the subject of climate change in California have established a statewide context for and a process for developing an enforceable statewide cap on GHG emissions.Given the nature of environmental consequences from GHGs and global climate change,CEQA requires that lead agencies consider evaluating the cumulative impacts of GHGs,even relatively small (on a global basis)additions.Small contributions to this cumulative impact(from which significant effects are occurring and are expected to worsen over time) may be potentially considerable and,therefore,significant. Therefore,the global climate change analysis presented in this section estimates and analyzes the GHG emissions associated with weed and pest control activities that would be performed under the proposed project. All of the treatment sites are located in the jurisdiction of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD),which has developed recommended thresholds of significance for the evaluation of different types Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Site-Specific Weed and Pest Management Project 3-39 Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental of GHG-emitting activities and project types(BAAQMD 2010a). BAAQMD's thresholds are based on the emissions reduction targets for the year 2020 mandated by AB 32 and address emissions of carbon dioxide equivalent(CO2e),which is a measurement used to account for the fact that different GHGs have different potential to retain infrared radiation in the atmosphere and contribute to the greenhouse effect.This potential, known as the global warming potential of a GHG, is dependent on the lifetime,or persistence,of the gas molecule in the atmosphere. BAAQMD considers the GHG emissions associated with land use development projects to be less than significant if the mass emissions generated by the project would be less than 1,100 metric tons per year(MT/year)of CO2e.Though the proposed project does not consist of land use development This approach iconsideredbe conservative h threshold of 1,100 MT ear of CO a is used in this analysis. s a oac s to the /Y 2pP because the proposed project would not result in any long-term operations of GHG-emitting activities such as the use of buildings or motor vehicle trips beyond the minimal amount of activity that would take place to transport employees and volunteers to the treatment sites. Furthermore,the use of 1,100 MT/year of CO2e is more conservative than applying the threshold BAAQMD developed for the operation of stationary sources(e.g., power plants, refineries)of 10,000 MT/year of CO2e. 3.7.2 DISCUSSION a) 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 of CO2 from the exhaust associated with worker commute trips and equipment used on site(e.g., off- highway trucks,tractor mower).While emissions of other GHGs such as methane(CH4)and nitrous oxide(N20) are important with respect to global 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 (GWP).Therefore, all GHG emissions for construction are reported as CO2. GHG emissions associated with the 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. 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 activities.The modeling conducted is considered conservative because it 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 Appendix D for model input and output parameters and detailed assumptions. Table 3.7-1. Summary of Modeled Annual GHG Emissions Associated with Weed Control Activities Weed Control Activities CO2 MT/yr Onsite Activities(Tractor mower,off-highway trucks) 5.4 Mobile-source(worker commute) 3.9 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. Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 3-40 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration forthe Site-Specific Weed and Pest Management Project Ascent Environmental Environmental Checklist Based on the modeling conducted, project-related activities would result in a total of 9.3 MT of COZ.These emissions levels are well below BAAQMD's threshold of significance of 1,100 MT/year.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, project-generated operational emissions would not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of GHGs. As a 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 of greenhouse gases? Less-than-significant Impact.As discussed under item a)above,the total GHG emissions associated with this project would be less than BAAQMD's threshold of 1,100 MT/year. Because this threshold is based on the emissions reduction targets established by AB 32 for the year 2020 and because project-generated GHG emissions would not conflict with any other applicable plans, policies,or regulations established for the r I there would no w mobile area or stationar y Alsopurposes sources of GHGs associated with the proposed project.Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not result in a net increase of long-term operation-related GHG emissions from mobile,stationary,or area sources. Project-generated operational emissions would not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of GHGs,and this impact would be less than significant. i i Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration forthe Site-Specific Weed and Pest Management Project 3-41 J Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental 3.8 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS LessThan Potentially Significant LessThan ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES Significant with Significant No Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated Vlll.Hazards and Hazardous Materials.Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the ❑ El D environment through the routine transport,use,or disposal of hazardous materials? b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and/or accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or El Z acutely hazardous materials,substances,or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of EJ ❑ hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and,as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan EJ or,where such a plan has not been adopted,within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere F-1 El with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of F-1 El loss,injury,or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? 3.8.1 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING California Government Code Section 65962.5 requires the California Environmental Protection Agency(Cal EPA) to prepare an annual Hazardous Waste and Substances Sites List,commonly referred to as the"Cortese List". The location of sites that are included on this list and that are near the site of a proposed program must be disclosed in environmental documents pursuant to the requirements of CECI,A. Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 3-42 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Site-Specific Weed and Pest Management Project Ascent Environmental Environmental Checklist Based on a review of the State Water Resources Control Board,Geotracker database(2012),there is one listed contaminated site at the Alma site on the Bear Creek Redwoods Preserve.The site is located at 19480 Bear Creek Road and is identified as a leaking underground storage tank(LUST) site(gasoline). The status of the site is "open" (site characterization, investigation, risk evaluation are occurring at the site) (SWRCB 2012). Listed at the same address is another LUST(diesel) case with a status"completed-case closed" (a formal closure document has been issued).Two other closed-completed LUST clean-up sites are located along the Santa Cruz Highway on the east side of the Bear Creek Redwoods OSP, (SWRCB 2012).There are four additional closed-completed cases near treatment sites:Sierra Azul Preserve at Mt. Umunhum; 17100 Monte Bello Road near the Water Wheel Creek treatment site;3300 Page Mill Road downslope from the Los Trancos treatment site; and the one site on Pulgas Ridge OSP at Hassler Road.The Mt. Umunhum site involved groundwater and soil contamination and has been remediated according to the Department of Water Resources records(MROSD 2011:4-35).Additional contamination at Mt. Umunhum involved removal of asbestos and lead-based paint from existing structures, and this activity was completed in 2011.The Hassler site at Pulgas Ridge Preserve involved groundwater(other than drinking water)and soil.The case has been closed. Based on a Cortese List query conducted in March of 2012 and the SWRCB Geotracker database,there are no other known hazardous materials sites near the treatment sites(DTSC 2012,SWRCB 2012). The project area is in western portion of Santa Clara County and San Mateo County in the Santa Cruz Mountains. The biggest potential public hazard on District OSPs is unplanned wildland fires. Factors contributing to higher risk of wildland fires are frequency of critical fire weather,slope, and fuel load in grasslands or on forest floors. The California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE)designates the project area as a zone of moderate to high fire hazard severity, based on local vegetation type(fuel loading), slope, and weather. 3.8.2 DISCUSSION a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? Less-than-significant Impact. Hazardous materials (herbicides and pesticides)would be transported to and from the project site using public roads.The District's standard BMPs 1 through 10(Section 2.7),set out the specific actions District staff and contractors would implement in the handling of chemicals and equipment.These BMPs address supervision of personnel, public noticing,safety procedures,storage and mixing,and appropriate cleanup activities. Only an applicator with or working under the direction of a Qualified Applicator License or Qualified Applicator Certificate would be approved to transport herbicides/fungicides to and from treatment sites(BMP 4). Applicators would follow all applicable federal,State, and local regulations addressing the transportation and storage of hazardous materials, including regulations outlined by the Department of Pesticide Regulation (BMPs 5 and 10).Signs would be posted at treatment sites at the start of treatment and would remain in place 72 hours after treatment ceases.Where there is high public use,signs would be posted from 48 hours prior to start of treatment to 72 hours after the end of treatment to provide adequate prior notice,and to provide time for pesticide liquids to dry to prevent human contact with the chemicals(BMP 8).Trained applicators wearing appropriate personal protective equipment would apply the herbicide in accordance with product labels or other known handling procedures (see Appendix B). Further, District staff would follow the recommendations of a licensed Pest Control Adviser in the handling and use of herbicides and fungicides at the treatment sites(BMPs 1 and 2).All product label specifications would be followed (BMP 3),colorants would be used to limit over spraying(BMP 6), and all storage, mixing,filling, and handling would be setback 300 feet from aquatic features and would occur within contained areas (BMP 5).Application of the chemicals would occur in conformance with specified application procedures(BMP 7)and when complete, cleanup of the materials and containers would be properly handled and disposed (BMP 9). Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Site-Specific Weed and Pest Management Project 3-43 Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental I Based on the requirements of the District's BMPs,use and handling of the proposed chemicals would not create a substantial hazard to the public or the environment if used properly and in accordance with the BMPs. Substantial measures are in place to prevent the exposure of people, plants,wildlife,and the environment to a significant hazard as a result of the use of herbicides/fungicides. With implementation of the District's standard BMPs, no significant hazards would occur as a result of the storage, use,or transportation of herbicides/fungicides.This would be a less-than-significant impact. b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and/or accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? Less-than-significant Impact.Three different herbicides/pesticides would be used at the treatment sites, depending upon the invasive plant and/or pest requiring control.These herbicides/pesticides are:Glyphosate herbicide(usual formulations consist of Roundup PROMAXII,or AquaMasterTM with a non-ionic,soybean-based surfactant Liberate');Aminopyralid herbicide (usual formulation MilestoneO VM with Liberate TM surfactant); and Mono-and di-potassium salts of Phosphorous Acid fungicide(usual formulation Agri-Fos®with Pentra-Bark surfactant).These materials are described in the Project Description under"Herbicide Treatment". The District's standard BMPs 1 through 10 address proper procedures for the handling of herbicides and equipment, including supervision of personnel, public noticing,safety procedures,storage, mixing,and cleanup and would minimize the potential for accidents that would result in release of hazardous materials. In the event an unintended spill or other hazardous material incident occurs, District Rangers are trained in coordinating response with local fire departments (MROSD 2010). Rangers are also trained in first aid and would be available as first responders to potential emergencies, until a hazardous materials team arrives.The District's radio and repeater system together with ranger and staff availability on call 24 hours per day provides for effective communication for prompt notification to emergency service providers in the event of a hazardous materials emergency.Therefore,this impact would be less than significant. c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? No impact. None of the treatment sites are within one-quarter mile of a school. No impact would occur. d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code §65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? No Impact. As described in the Setting section above, there are no active cleanup sites on the proposed treatment sites. No impact would occur. e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted,within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? No Impact.The treatment sites are not within 2 miles of a public airport or public use airport. No impact would occur. I Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 3-44 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Site-Specific Weed and Pest Management Project Ascent Environmental Environmental Checklist f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? No Impact. The treatment sites are not within the vicinity of a private airstrip. No impact would occur. g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? No Impact. The proposed project consists of vegetation treatments and would not result in changes to site access or the construction of new structures on the treatments sites that would interfere with emergency evacuation or emergency response planning. District Rangers are trained in first aid and are available to serve as first responders to potential emergencies. Further,the District's radio and repeater system together with ranger and staff availability on call 24 hours per day provides for effective communication for prompt notification in the event that emergency response is required.Therefore,the project would result in no impacts related to interference with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? Less-than-significant Impact.The proposed project consists of vegetation treatments and would not result in the construction of structures on the sites or increase human habitation in wildland areas.According to the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection the project area is located in a moderate to high fire P Y P 1 g hazard zone, based on vegetation type(fuel loading), slope,and weather.This designation notwithstanding,the project would not change the degree of exposure to wildfires. Equipment operation has the potential to ignite fires; however District staff implement the following procedures to minimize the risk of starting a fire in a wildland area (District Maintenance and Operations Manual): have a fire extinguisher or shovel within 25 feet - functioning spark when operating a chainsaw or other portable gas powered tool; maintain a functio g spa arrestor on all internal combustion engines;and modify the use of power equipment and fueling of equipment in easily ignited fuels in conditions of low humidity, high winds,or steep slopes Furthermore, District Rangers are trained and respond to reports of wildland fires on District lands by providing size-up, evacuation,and initial attack,and their trucks have equipment to provide such initial responses. With implementation of the District's standard fire prevention and response protocols,this impact would be less than significant. i Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration forthe Site-Specific Weed and Pest Management Project 3-45 i Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental 3.9 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY LessThan Potentially Significant Less7han 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 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)? I c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the ❑ 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 0 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 ❑ VN 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 VN 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 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? ❑ El El 3.9.1 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING The elevation of the treatment sites range between approximately 600 feet and 2,400 feet above mean sea level,and the topography consists of a number of steep slopes and valleys.A number of surface water bodies, including reservoirs, ponds,ephemeral and perennial streams are located on or near the preserves in which the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 3-46 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Site-Specific Weed and Pest Management Project I Ascent Environmental Environmental Checklist treatment sites are located.Surface water bodies nearest the treatment sites consist of Lexington Reservoir on the west side of the Sierra Azul Preserve and Horseshoe Lake at Skyline Ridge Preserve. Drainages in which treatment sites are located consist of Los Gatos Creek and Guadalupe Creek on the Sierra Azul Preserve, Lambert Creek at Skyline Ridge Preserve, Steven's Creek at Monte Bello and Saratoga Gap OSPs, Los Trancos Creek at Los Trancos Preserve, Purisima Creek at Purisima Creek Redwoods Preserve, El Corte de Madera Creek at El Corte de Madera Creek Preserve,and Cordilleras Creek at Pulgas Ridge Preserve. Annual rainfall can be heavy within much of the program area.A notable climactic feature of the Santa Cruz Mountains is the occurrence of storms of extreme intensity and duration that can be responsible for periodic flooding in the area.The extensive open spaces and undeveloped private lands within the program area provide a vegetated setting for the proposed program and allow rain to percolate into the ground rather than running off rapidly.According to the Federal Emergency Management Agency(FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Maps, none of the treatment sites are located in 100-year flood zones. 3.9.2 DISCUSSION a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? No Impact.The project would not result in waste discharge. Herbicides and fungicides would be directly applied to the target plant and measures would be implemented (e.g.,shielding, nozzle adjustments)to limit over spraying(BMP 7).All storage, mixing,filling,and handling of pesticides would be set back 300 feet from aquatic features and would occur within contained areas(BMP 5). Further, no unused pesticides or pesticide containers would be disposed of at the treatment sites and all rinsate from containers would be disposed of by placing in a batch tank(BMP 9).With implementation of the District's standard BMPs,the project would not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements. b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or 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)? No Impact. The proposed project would not use groundwater or otherwise interfere with groundwater recharge (i.e., no impermeable surfaces are proposed).Therefore, no impact would occur. c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the 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? Less-than-significant Impact.The proposed project would not create additional hardscape resulting in increased runoff, and would not create substantial ground disturbance or alter drainage patterns. If needed, placement of ground cover,or seeding of native perennial grasses and pasture grasses would occur to stabilize exposed soils and to reduce the potential for increased runoff as a result of this project(see BMP 28).With implementation of this BMP, no significant erosion or siltation impacts would occur. This would be a less-than-significant impact. Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Site-Specific Weed and Pest Management Project 3-47 �I Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the 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? Less-than-significant Impact.The proposed project would not create substantial ground disturbance that would alter drainage patterns (refer to response to Item c, above).This would be a less-than-significant impact. e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? Less-than-significant Impact.The proposed project consists of vegetation treatment and would not result in changes to the landscape(e.g.,grading, compaction, paving)such that substantial increases in water runoff from the sites would result in sediment carrying herbicides would enter adjacent aquatic areas. BMP 22 requires that no herbicide treatments shall be applied within 24 hours of forecasted rain events to prevent sediment and herbicides from entering the water via surface runoff.This would be a less-than-significant impact. f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? Less-than-significant Impact. As described in Items a through d above,the District's standard BMPs would implement measures that are protective of water quality. No other significant water quality impacts would occur as a result of this project.This would be a less-than-significant impact. 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 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? Response to Items g through j. No Impact.The proposed project consists of vegetation treatment and would not result in the construction of structures on any of the sites.The treatment sites are located on OSPs that are generally situated in mountainous terrain and are not located within FEMA-designated flood hazard areas.The project would not place people or structures within an area subject to inundation by seiche or tsunami because none of the treatment sites are located near an open water body or near the coast.While some steep slopes on the OSPs may be susceptible to mudflow,vegetation management activities would not take place on the sites during or immediately after times of heavy rain and,therefore,would not expose people to potential mudflow risks. No impact would occur. Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 3-48 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Site-Specific Weed and Pest Management Project Ascent Environmental Environmental Checklist 3.14 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? ❑ ❑ ❑ 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 The District is a public agency that owns and manages 26 OSPs totaling over 60,000 acres of land.The District's Resource Management Policies (RMPs) (see Section 2.4)define the policies and practices used by the District to protect and manage resources on District lands. Resource management at the District consists of management of natural,cultural,and agricultural resources. Natural resource management generally consists of protecting, restoring,enhancing, and monitoring native vegetation and wildlife and monitoring and protecting the quality of geological and hydrological conditions.Cultural resource management consists of identifying and evaluating and protecting archeological sites and cultural landscapes.Agricultural land uses including grazing are managed consistent with the protection of special-status species and resources. Predominant land uses on District OSPs are open space and recreational facilities; however, many of the OSPs abut or surround low density residential development located in the incorporated communities or unincorporated areas of San Mateo,Santa Cruz,and Santa Clara counties. Residential land uses adjacent to all District OSPs total approximately 75 acres of land, which is less than 0.2 percent of the total area (MROSD 2011:4-50).There are no approved habitat conservation plans that apply to District lands. 3.10.2 DISCUSSION a) Physically divide an established community? No impact. Implementation of the project would not involve development that would physically divide a community.Treatment actions would not change the overall natural landscape of the site. No impact would occur. 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? No Impact.The proposed vegetation management activities are consistent with District RMPs to maintain diversity of native plant communities;to prevent introduction of invasive species to OSPs;to control invasive Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration forthe Site-Specific Weed and Pest Management Project 3-49 Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental species using IPM techniques;and to manage forest diseases to protect native biological diversity and critical ecosystem functions.The project would not conflict with any applicable District plans or policies. No impact would occur. c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? No Impact. No approved habitat conservation plans apply to District lands.Therefore, no impact would occur. i III I� Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 3-50 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration forthe Site-Specific Weed and Pest Management Project i Ascent Environmental Environmental Checklist I I 3.11 MINERAL RESOURCES LessThan Potentially Significant LessThan ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES Significant with Significant No Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated XI. Mineral Resources.Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral 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 El mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan,specific plan,or other land use plan? 3.11.1 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING The San Mateo County General Plan identifies a significant mineral resource area adjacent to the Purisima Creek Redwoods,while the Santa Clara County General Plan EIR identifies valuable limestone deposits currently mined for cement in the Kaiser Permanente quarries along Monte Bello Ridge, near the Monte Bello Preserve. Although there are no active quarries on District lands,the Kaiser Permanente quarry is in close proximity to the Monte Bello Preserve(MROSD 2011:4-53). 3.11.2 DISCUSSION a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral 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 mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan? Response to items a and b. No Impact. No known mineral resource recovery sites are located on any of the treatment sites. Further, vegetation management activities would not result in land use changes or development which would prevent recovery of minerals on adjacent sites. No impact would occur. Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration forthe Site-Specific Weed and Pest Management Project 3-51 Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental i 3A2 NOISE LessThan Potentially Significant 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 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 groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise D El levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan 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? p 1 f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, El would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? 3.12.1 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING Existing conditions are governed by the presence of noise-sensitive receptors,the location and type of noise sources,and overall ambient levels. Noise-sensitive land uses are generally considered to consist of those uses where noise exposure could result in health-related risks to individuals,as well as places where a quiet setting is an essential element of their intended purpose. Residential dwellings are of primary concern because of the potential for increased and prolonged exposure of individuals to both interior and exterior noise levels. Additional land uses such as parks,schools, historic sites,cemeteries,and recreation areas are also generally considered sensitive to increases in exterior noise levels. Places of worship and transit lodging,and other places where low interior noise levels are essential are also considered noise-sensitive.Those noted above are also considered vibration-sensitive land uses in addition to commercial and industrial buildings where vibration would interfere with operations within the building, including levels that may be well below those associated with human annoyance. The boundaries of the project area are defined as work at 42 distinct treatment sites in 13 OSPs(Exhibit 2-2).All of these treatment sites are contained within either San Mateo or Santa Clara County.Generally,the treatment sites are located in rural parts of their respective counties and are not in close proximity to sensitive receptors. However,some sites such as the ones located in Monte Bello OSP are in close proximity to residential dwelling units (i.e.,within 150 feet of a single-family home). i Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 3-52 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Site-Specific Weed and Pest Management Project Ascent Environmental Environmental Checklist The existing noise environment at the 13 OSPs is primarily influenced by vehicle traffic from surrounding roadways.The level of vehicle traffic could vary depending on the size of the nearby roadway and time of the day(i.e., peak traffic hours).Other noise sources that may contribute to the existing noise environment consist of human activity from low-impact recreational activities (e.g.,sightseeing, hiking, biking, horseback riding) taking place on the preserve, noise from nearby residential neighborhoods (e.g., landscape maintenance, dogs barking, people talking), aircraft flyover,and natural sounds such as leaves rustling and birds chirping. Various private and public agencies have established noise guidelines and standards to protect citizens from potential hearing damage and other adverse physiological and social effects associated with noise.Applicable policies and regulations are contained in the San Mateo Zoning Regulations,the Santa Clara County General Plan,and the Santa Clara Noise Ordinance. COUNTY OF SAN MATEO ZONING REGULATIONS SECTION 6163.6 PERFORMANCE STANDARDS All uses,facilities and operations must conform to the following performance standards: 1. Noise. No use,facility or operation shall create any unusually loud, uncommon noise which would disturb the ill peace. neighborhood g p i The maximum noise level permitted, measured at the building site boundary,shall be: Time of Day Maximum Noise Level(dBA) 30 Minutes in Any Hour 15 Minutes in Any Hour 5 Minutes in Any Hour 7:00 a.m.to 10:00 p.m. 55 60 65 10:00 p.m.to 7:00 a.m. 50 55 60 Short-term construction noise may exceed these standards, providing that all construction activities are limited between 7:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA GENERAL PLAN The Health and Safety Chapter of the Santa Clara General Plan provides recommended interior noise levels for various land uses.These are shown below: Recommended Maximum Interior Noise Levels for Intermittent Noise Land Use Sound Level(dBA) Residential 45 Commercial Hotel-Motel 45 Executive Offices,Conference Rooms 55 Staff Offices 60 Restaurants, Markets, Retail Stores 60 Sales,Secretarial 65 Sports Arena,Bowling Alley,etc. 75 Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Site-Specific Weed and Pest Management Project 3-53 Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental Recommended Maximum Interior Noise Levels for Intermittent Noise Land Use Sound Level(dBA) Industrial Offices(same as above) 55-60 Laboratory 60 Machine shop,Assembly and others 75 Mineral Extraction 75 Public or Semi-Public Facility Concert Hall&Legitimate Theatre 30 Auditorium, Movie Theater&Church 45 Hospital, Nursing Home&Firehouse(sleeping quarters) 45 School Classroom 50 Library 50 Other Public Buildings 55 Source:Santa Clara County 1994:p.1-31 County of Santa Clara Noise Ordinance Chapter VII Control of Nose and Vibration of the Santa Clara County Code was adopted with the intent to control unnecessary, excessive, and annoying noise and vibration in the County of Santa Clara. Recommended maximum sound levels for various activities are provided in this section below. Section B11-192. Exterior noise limits This section establishes maximum permissible sound levels according to receiving land uses.These are shown below in Table 3.12-1. Table 3.12-L Exterior Noise Limits Receiving Land Use Category Time Period Noise Level(dBA) One-and Two-Family 10:00 p.m.—7:00 a.m. 45 Residential 7:00 a.m.-10:OOp.m. 55 Multiple-Family Dwelling 10:00 p.m.-7:OOp.m. 50 Residential Public Space 7:00a.m.-10:00 p.m. 55 10:00 p.m.-7:OOp.m. 60 Commercial 7:00 a.m.-10:OOp.m. 65 Light Industry Any Time 70 Heavy Industry Any Time 75 Notes:Levels not to be exceeded more than 30 minutes in any hour Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 3-54 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Site-Specific Weed and Pest Management Project Ascent Environmental Environmental Checklist Sec. B11-194. Prohibited acts(2.1) Domestic Power Tools This section prohibits noise disturbances from various activities. Specifically, it provides limits on the use of certain domestic power tools as described below: (a) Operating or permitting the operation of any mechanically powered saw,sander,drill,grinder, lawn or garden tool,or similar tool between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m.the following day so as to create a noise disturbance across a residential or commercial real property line. 3.12.2 DISCUSSION a Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in p p the local general plan or noise ordinance, or in other applicable local, state,or federal standards? Less-than-significant impact.The proposed project would implement weed control activities from 2012 through 2014 at 42 treatment sites throughout Santa Clara and San Mateo County.The project comprises weed and pest management maintenance. No new stationary noise sources, land development,or construction activities are proposed and,therefore, no short-term construction noise would result from the proposed project. Proposed activities could take place at any one of the 42 treatment sites and would occur for up to one to two weeks per year at any of the sites over a three-year period.As described above,for most sites, no sensitive receptors are located in close proximity. Noise would result from the use of motorized equipment required for the control and removal of some weed and pest species which could consist of the use of chainsaws,wood chippers, motorized brush-cutters,and all- terrain vehicles(ATVs). Noise generated from these pieces of equipment would be intermittent and short in duration as typical use is characterized by short periods of full-power operation followed by extended periods of operation at lower power, idling,or powered-off conditions.These characteristics are similar in nature to noise f this analysis, it is assumed that generated from typical construction activities and therefore for the purposes o t s g YP p P use of weed and pest control equipment would be exempt from the San Mateo County noise ordinance, provided that all activity would take place between 7:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. daily.The use of domestic power tools(defined by Santa Clara County as a mechanically powered saw,sander,drill,grinder, lawn or garden tool, or similar tool)are explicitly excluded from the construction related standards by the Santa Clara county noise ordinance and therefore,weed and pest control activities taking place in Santa Clara County would be allowed under Section 811-194. Prohibited acts (2.1) Domestic Power Tools of the Santa Clara Noise Ordinance, provided that the use of domestic power tools does not occur between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m.the following day so as to create a noise disturbance across a residential or commercial real property line. Some of the treatment sites are located in close proximity to residential neighborhoods and therefore it is possible that noise-generating activities could affect sensitive receptors. However, noise generated from weed control equipment would be intermittent, relatively short in duration (i.e.,one to two weeks at a time),and would be generally consistent with typical yard maintenance activities. Therefore, noise generated from the use of weed control equipment would be similar in nature and noise levels to typical construction activities and would be considered exempt from the San Mateo and exterior noise standards for residential dwelling units.The use of weed control equipment would be consistent with the use of domestic power tools as described in the Santa Clara noise ordinance and,therefore,would not result in a noise disturbance across a residential or commercial property. Further,all treatment activities would occur during the less noise-sensitive daytime hours. Equipment would also be appropriately handled and not left in full power or Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration forthe Site-Specific Weed and Pest Management Project 3-55 Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental idling for long periods of time as required by BMP 29. For these reasons, project-related activities would not result in the exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels that exceed applicable standards.This would be a less-than-significant impact. b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? No Impact.The proposed project would not implement any construction activities involving the use of heavy impact equipment,drilling,or blasting. Some activities would require the use of an ATV.These are not heavy- duty pieces of equipment that could result in ground vibration.All other weed and pest control activities would involve the use of hand held (e.g.,shovels, Pulaski)or small motorized tools(e.g.,chainsaw, brush-cutter)and, therefore,the proposed project would not expose people to excessive ground vibration.The project would result in no impact. c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? No Impact. Most of the proposed weed control activities would involve the use of hand held (e.g.,shovels, Pulaski)or small motorized tools (e.g.,chainsaw, brush-cutter),and all work would take place for a relatively short period of time (i.e.,one to two weeks at a time) repeated annually over the course of three years. No new stationary noise sources or land development would be included in the project.Therefore,the project would not result in any permanent increase in ambient noise levels.The project would result in no impact. d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? Less-than-significant Impact.As discussed under"a"above,the proposed project would involve the use of some motorized noise-generating equipment.These types of noise-generating equipment do not operate for extended periods of time(e.g.,chainsaws run for a few minutes at a time)and all weed control activities would take place during the less sensitive daytime hours(i.e.,7:00 AM to 5:00 PM),as required by BMP 29 when people are not likely to be sleeping or to be in their homes.,Therefore,this temporary increase in ambient noise would not result in a significant increase in noise levels at sensitive receptors.This impact would be less than significant. e) For a project located within an airport land use plan 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? 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? Response for Items a and f. No Impact.There are multiple airports in San Mateo and Santa Clara County(e.g.,San Francisco International Airport and San lose International Airport), however based on the San Mateo and Santa Clara County Comprehensive Airport Land Use Plan, none of the treatment sites are included in the planning areas(or influence areas) as defined by these plans (Santa Mateo County 1996,Santa Clara County 2011). None of the treatment sites are located within two miles of any other public airport.Additionally,the proposed project would not implement any new residential land uses or permanent structures where people would live or work. Therefore, because none of treatment sites are located within close proximity to an airport or private airstrip, the proposed project would not expose weed abatement workers to excessive noise levels from airports or airstrips.There would be no impact. Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 3-56 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Site-Specific Weed and Pest Management Project II I Ascent Environmental Environmental Checklist 3J 3 POPULATION AND HOUSING LessThan Potentially Significant LessThan ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES Significant with Significant No Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated XIII.Population and Housing.Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, ❑ either directly(for example,by proposing new homes and businesses)or indirectly(for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing homes, ❑ ❑ necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? c) Displace substantial numbers of people, ❑ El El necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? 3.13.1 ENVIRONMENTAL SEITING The District serves 25 communities in San Mateo, Santa Clara,and northern Santa Cruz counties with a combined population of over 700,000 residents. District OSPs are made up predominantly of natural open space and land in agricultural or timber production; however many OSPs abut small areas of low-density residential development. Residential land uses adjacent to District OSPs total approximately 75 acres of land.The District employs approximately 100 full-time staff in its Administrative Services,Operations, Planning, Public Affairs,and Real Property departments.Approximately 20 part-time and seasonal employees are also employed by the District. 3.13.2 DISCUSSION a) Induce substantial population growth in an area,either directly(for example, by proposing new homes and businesses)or indirectly(for example,through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing homes, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? Response to items a through c: No Impact. The proposed project would not induce population growth because it would not involve any alteration of existing land uses or the introduction of new land uses associated with population increases(e.g., housing, employment centers). Moreover,the project would not involve new infrastructure or services that would draw new residents to the area. Because the proposed project would not alter existing land uses, it would not displace housing units or people. No impact related to population and housing would occur with implementation of the proposed project. Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration forthe Site-Specific Weed and Pest Management Project 3-57 I 1 Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental 3.14 PUBLIC SERVICES L.ess7han Poteritially Significant LessThan ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES Significant with Signif cant 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? ❑ ❑ ❑ Police protection? ❑ ❑ ❑ Schools? ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Parks? ❑ ❑ ❑ Other public facilities? ❑ ❑ ❑ 3.14.1 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING The District collaborates with other local agencies in providing public services.The District employs 18 rangers,4 supervising rangers,and 2 area superintendents to augment police and fire protection services provided by other agencies. Rangers are peace officers and patrol OSPs to enforce federal State and local laws and to g g P perform fire suppression duties as needed.Supervising rangers are responsible for overseeing the ranger activities as well as for coordinating with police,fire,and other park agencies regarding public safety concerns on or adjacent to District lands. Within the District,fire protection services are provided by local fire departments and volunteer fire companies, as well as the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE),which provides fire protection in the rural areas which comprise the majority of land on District OSPs. Law enforcement services are provided by local police departments,and the respective County sheriffs'offices serve unincorporated areas of San Mateo, Santa Clara, and Santa Cruz counties.The California Highway Patrol responds to vehicular accidents, including those involving pedestrians, bicyclists,and equestrians. State and county park rangers provide law enforcement within state and county parks, respectively. The District offers environmental science-based educational programming to school children and members of the general public at the David Daniels Nature Center at Skyline Ridge Open Space Preserve and other District facilities.The District's docent and volunteer programs also train adults in conducting activities such as environmental science-based field trips as well as interpreting District resources. Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 3-58 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration forthe Site-Specific Weed and Pest Management Project Ascent Environmental Environmental Checklist 3.14.2 DISCUSSION 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: No Impact.The proposed project would not construct additional housing,commercial,or industrial development, nor would the project directly or indirectly increase the local population.Therefore, no new or altered governmental facilities would be needed to provide public services as a result of the project, nor,would the project result in increased demand for public services.Therefore, no impacts would occur related to adverse physical impacts from the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities. Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration forthe Site-Specific Weed and Pest Management Project 3-59 Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental 3.15 RECREATION LessThan Potentially Significant Lessihan ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES Significant with Significant No Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incogaated XV. Recreation.Would the project: a) Increase the use of existing neighborhood and ❑ 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 El ❑ ® ❑ 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 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 Virginia Mill Trail Open El Sereno Aquinas Trail Open Loma vista Open Overlook Open Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 3-60 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration forthe Site-Specific Weed and Pest Management Project Ascent Environmental Environmental Checklist I Table 3.15-1. Proposed Sites and Recreation Access Status Open Space Preserve Site Name Recreation Status 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 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 Vista/Y Star/Hilltop Open Source:MROSD 2012 I I II Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration forthe Site-Specific Weed and Pest Management Project 3-61 � Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental - � �� U��UK�� .�=~� ==~==�="=," � a) Increase the use of existing neighborhood and regionalparks om 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? Response to items a and b: Less-than-significant Impact.The proposed project consists of vegetation treatment and would not result in the � construction of any structures.As a result,the project would not result in an increase in population in the area � that would result in an increase in use of parks and recreational facilities, or require construction or expansion of recreational facilities that could have an adverse effect on the environment.Any closures as a result of � treatment would be temporary,generally no more than five days and would not have an adverse effect on recreational opportunities in the District orin adjacent parks.This would be o less-than-significant impact. | | Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District � � � � � � / | 3-62 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration m,mo Site-Specific Weed and Pest Management Project � Ascent Environmental Environmental Checklist 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 El D El establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulations stem,taking p Y g 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 0 El T 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 feature(e.g.,sharp curves or dangerous intersections)or incompatible uses(e.g.,farm equipment)? e) Result in inadequate emergency access? T ❑ T f) Conflict with adopted policies, plans,or programs El El 0 regarding public transit,bicycle,or pedestrian facilities,or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities? 3.16.1 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING Major roadways providing access to District OSPs include State Routes 9, 17, 35,84,and 92, as well as Interstate 280.State Route 35(SR-35), also known as Skyline Boulevard, runs adjacent to 15 of the District's 26 OSPs, serving as a key gateway to the area.The San Mateo City/County Association of Governments (C/CAG) is the designated Congestion Management Agency for San Mateo County,while the Valley Transit Authority(VTA) is the designated Congestion Management Agency for Santa Clara County. Each agency is responsible for developing and updating the Congestion Management Program (CMP)in its respective jurisdiction.The San Mateo County Congestion Management Program (C/CAG 2009) identifies 1-280,SR-1,SR-35, SR-84,and SR-92 as CMP roadways,while the VTA's Congestion Management Program contains a more extensive list of CMP roadways, including SR-17 and SR-35,which pass adjacent to District OSPs. The San Mateo County Transit Authority(SamTrans)and the Santa Clara VTA operate public bus and rail service within the region,although there is no direct service to any District OSPs. Public parking is available at all of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Site-Specific Weed and Pest Management Project 3-63 Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental District's OSPs,except Bear Creek Redwoods, La Honda Creek, Miramontes Ridge,Teague Hill, and Tunitas Creek OSPs. The use of private motorized vehicles is not permitted on District lands,except in parking lots and on access roads leading to them. However,the District OSPs offer a 220-mile network of hiking, bicycling,and equestrian trails for use by the general public. 3.16.2 DISCUSSION 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? Response to items a and- b: No Impact.The proposed project consists of vegetation treatment actions.These activities would be implemented by existing District staff,volunteers,and/or contractors consistent with existing levels of operation and maintenance activities (although for the purposes of this analysis,these trips are considered new to the road network). Most staff trips from home to a given field office are by individuals driving personal vehicles(not carpooling), although the District does provide alternative transportation incentives. From the field office, District staff drives in teams of two to work sites. Anticipated travel by staff to/from work sites would require an average of 0.6 one-way trips per day.Volunteers generally drive personal vehicles from their homes to an OSP parking lot and walk the remaining distance to the work site,creating an anticipated 1.1 trips per day.The District provides information on carpooling to volunteers and an estimated 20 percent of volunteers travel between home and work site is via carpool. Contractors usually carpool from their respective offices to the given work site,creating an anticipated 0.3 trips per day. In total, it is anticipated all workers combined would create an average of 2 trips per day by conducting the proposed work.The proposed project would not be expected to substantially increase traffic on the surrounding streets or intersections.As a result,this impact would be less than significant. No new construction would occur such that the project would result in substantial increases in population that could adversely affect area traffic.The two additional trips per day to the roadway network would be indistinguishable from background traffic conditions.Therefore,the project would not increase population in the area such that traffic circulation would be affected.The proposed project would have no effect on transportation planning or congestion management programs. c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? No Impact.The proposed project consists of vegetation treatment action and would have no effect on air traffic patterns. No impact would occur. Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 3-64 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Site-Specific Weed and Pest Management Project Ascent Environmental Environmental Checklist d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature(e.g.,sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses(e.g.,farm equipment)? No Impact. Equipment used for the proposed project would consist of backpack sprayers that would be transported by vehicles on OSP access roads or hand carried to the sites.ATVs would operate on park access roads and trails and would not operate on standard roadways. No oversized equipment would be used requiring special transport precautions on local streets, roads,or highways. No changes to access points or roadway design would occur with implementation of the project.Therefore, no impact would occur related to increased hazards due to a design feature or incompatible uses. e) Result in inadequate emergency access? No Impact.The proposed project consists of vegetation treatment action and would not result in the construction of any structures,the increase in population of the area that would result in an increased need for emergency access.The proposed project would not affect and existing emergency access roads or facilities. Therefore, no impact would occur. f) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities,or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities? No Impact. There are no adopted policies or plans that pertain to public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities within the District OSPs.Therefore, no conflict would occur. i Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration forthe Site-Specific Weed and Pest Management Project 3-65 A. Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental 3.17 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS Lessihan Potentially Significant Less7han ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES Significant with Significant No Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated XVII. Utilities and Service Systems.Would the project: a} Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities,the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? c) Require or result in the construction of new storm El water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities,the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? i d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the El El entitlements and resources or project from existing p 1 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 j project's projected demand,in addition to the provider's existing commitments? 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 El regulations related to solid waste? 3.17.1 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING District OSPs are made up predominantly of natural open space and land in agricultural production.As such,the need for water,wastewater,and stormwater infrastructure and solid waste disposal services is minimal.Water for use in administrative buildings and public facilities on District OSPs generally comes from springs,local streams,creeks,and groundwater. Irrigation water for agricultural production on District OSPs comes from onsite surface waters for which the District has obtained appropriative rights. Wastewater from public restrooms and other facilities on District OSPs is stored in onsite septic tanks before removal and disposal by local service providers.Trash bins are provided at select OSPs in public parking areas and around restrooms and other public facilities.Solid waste disposal services on District OSPs are provided by local providers. Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 3-66 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration forthe Site-Specific Weed and Pest Management Project Ascent Environmental Environmental Checklist 3.17.2 DISCUSSION a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or 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. 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? i 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. j 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 projece'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 200 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. I Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration forthe Site-Specific Weed and Pest Management Project 3-67 i j Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental 3.18 MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE Less?han Potentially Significant LessThan ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES Significant with Significant No Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated XVIII. Mandatory Findings of Significance. i a) Does the project have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the 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 plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of an endangered,rare,or threatened species,or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have impacts that are individually El ❑ limited,but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable"means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects,the effects of other current projects,and the effects of probable future projects.) c) Does the project have environmental effects that ❑ El X El will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings,either directly or indirectly? Authority: Public Resources Code Sections 21083,21083.5. 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 the Historic Amador Waterways v.Amador Water Agency(2004)116 Cal.App.4th at 1109;San Franciscans Upholding the Downtown Plan v.City and County of San Francisco(2002)102 Cal.App.4th 656. i 3.18.1 DISCUSSION a) Does the project have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the 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 plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of an endangered, rare,or threatened species, or eliminate important examples of the 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 OSPs on which they are located. Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 3-68 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration forthe Site-Specific Weed and Pest Management Project -Ascent Environmental Environmental Checklist BMPs identified in the Project Description (Section 2.7)and mitigation recommended as part of this IS would 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 connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.) Less-than-significant Impact.The proposed project consists of a 42 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 location of these projects,the environmental effects are site-specific and generally do not combine to create cumulative impacts. Impacts associated with population increases or demand for services and infrastructure would not result from these types of projects 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. will substantial adverse effects on c Does the project have environmental effects that cause subs p J human beings, either directly or indirectly? h r x Less-than-significant/mpact. No substantial adverse effects on humans n a s are expected.As described in the Hazards and Hazardous Materials section, implementation of BMP's 1 through 10 would 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 to be less than significant in these sections. Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Site-Specific Weed and Pest Management Project 3-69 Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental This page intentionally left blank. i I Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 3-70 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration forthe Site-Specific Weed and Pest Management Project 4 REFERENCES Bay Area Air Quality Management District. 2010a.Adopted Air Quality CEQA Thresholds of Significance. Available:<http://www.baagmd.gov/Divisions/Planning-and-Research/CEQA-GUIDELINES/Updated- CEQA-Guidelines.aspx>. San Francisco,CA.Accessed June 21, 2010. Bay Area Air Quality Management District. 2010b. BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines.Available: <http://www.baagmd.gov/Divisions/Planning-and-Research/CEQA-GUIDELINES/Updated-CEQA- Guidelines.aspx>. San Francisco, CA.Accessed June 21,2010. Bay Area Air Quality Management District. 2010c. Draft Bay Area 2010 Clean Air Plan.Available: <http://www.baagmd.gov/Divisions/Planning-and-Research/Plans/Clean-Air-Plans.aspx>. San Francisco, CA.Accessed June 21, 2010. Bay Area Early Detection Network(BAEDN), Early Detection&Rapid Response Target Species, 2010, 1 http://baed n.org/images/stories/BAEDN_EDRR_priority_species—list_abstract_l0_OS_2010.pdf Bird,Janine. Natural Resources Intern, Document Review of MROSD Cultural Resources Files, March 2012. California Air Resources Board. 2011(February). 2011 Area Designation Maps/State and National Available: http://www.arb.ca.gov/desig/adm/adm.htm.Accessed March 15, 2012. 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 L. Hill California Department of Conservation.2011a. Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program Santa Clara County Important Farmland 2010. California Department of Conservation.2011b. Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program San Mateo County Important Farmland 2010. I 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,2011. http://www.ca1-ipc.org/ip/prevention/landmanagers.php California Invasive Plant Council, California Invasive Plant Inventory, 2008. http://www.cal- ipc.org/ip/inventory/index.php#inventory CaIPIF 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: http://www.prbo.org/calpif/plans.htmi California Department of Transportation. 2009(December). Eligible and Officially Designated Routes.Available: http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/LandArch/scenic/cahisys2.htm.Accessed March 13,2012. S en Mid peninsula Regional 0 ace District p g p p Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the 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/CAG See City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County I CDFA.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 2009. DOC.See California Department of Conservation. EPA See U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 2007, Climate Change 2007:The Physical Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the IPCC. Geneva,Switzerland. Available: <http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/ar4-wgl.htm>.Accessed March 13, 2012. Mayer, K.E. and W.F. Laudenslayer,Jr. 1988.A Guide to Wildlife Habitats of California.State of California, Resources Agency, Department of Fish and Game,Sacramento, CA. 166 pp. Mayer, Kenneth E. Redwood Vegetation. California Wildlife Habitat Relationships System.Available at: http://www.dfg.ca.gov/biogeodata/cwhr/pdfs/RDW.pdf.Accessed 17 March 2012. 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. I Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District. 2010, Ranger Operations Manual. Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District. 2005. Progress Report and Further Recommendations Regarding Management of Sudden Oak Death and Slender False Brome on and Near District Preserves. Board of E Directors Agenda Item 4, December 14, 2005. j i E 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: 1995-2010.Adopted December 20, 1994.Santa Clara,CA. Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 4-2 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Site-Specific Weed and Pest Management Project I Ascent Environmental References Santa Clara County. 2011(March, 24).Comprehensive Land Use Plan-Updated Draft.Santa Jose,CA. Prepared by Walter B.Windus. 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. 2012.Geotracker Database.Available: http://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/profile_report.asp.Accessed March 19, 2012. SWRCB.See State Water Resources Control Board. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2012a. Court Issues Stipulated Injunction Regarding Pesticides and the California Red-Legged Frog.Available at: http://www.epa.gov/espp/litstatus/redleg-frog/rif.htm. Accessed 16 March 2012. 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 D.C. Prepared by Bolt, Beranek and Newman. i U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2012.Steps and Information for Pesticide Users.Available at: i http://epa.gov/espp/litstatus/redleg-frog/steps-info.htm#five.Accessed 16 March 2012. Ii II Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration forthe Site-Specific Weed and Pest Management Project 4-3 I References Ascent Environmental it I I This page intentionally left blank. i i i i I I Midpeninsula Regional open Space District 4-4 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration forthe Site-Specific Weed and Pest Management Project ' -- � �� *� mmEwOmmm PREPARERS EmAREmmS � M|DPEN|NSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT � Cindy Roessler.............................................................................................Senior Resource Management Specialist Joel Silverman....................................................................................................... Resource Management Specialist | � JulieAndersen .............................................................................................................................................. Planner U Janine Bird----------------------------------------.. Natural Resources Intern � | Stan Hooper --------------.-------------------'Maintenance 8'Resource Supervisor � Michael 8ankosh ...............................................................................................Maintenance& Resource Supervisor ASCENT ENVIRONMENTAL, INC. GaryO.]akobs.....................................................................................................................Phndpal/CEQAStrategist Amanda K.O|ekszuUn........................................................................................................Principal/Project Manager Melinda Rivesplata..................................................................................................................Environmental Planner LisaKashkwase.........................................................................................................................8iologbt/G|SSpecialist DimnbhAntoniou...............................................................................................................................Air/Noise Analyst AustinKerr----------------------------------------.SeniorAh/NobeSpedolist � AmberGiffin-----------------------------------------'DocumentProductkzn � � . � � � � � � � Mmnnnmo la Regional Open Space mmnm � Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration aorum Site-Specific Weed and Pest Management Project o'/ � � � Report Preparers Ascent Environmental I i i I This page intentionally left blank. Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 5-2 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration forthe Site-Specific Weed and Pest Management Project i I i I i i I I i I� Appendmix Treatment Site Maps i i )0... . 92 Ji1 f7 © San Francisco O Carlos 01 Bay Palo Alto © oodsi a Mountain © View O © Sunnyvale Cupertino as San Jose A . O Saratoga 17 Los Gat ® A ■ C` r x1201001501 ou Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Preserve Name(Page Number) 1 Pulgas Ridge(A•2) 8 Skyline Ridge(A 5) 2 Punsima Creek Redwoods(A-3 9 Saratoga Gap(A-7) 3 El Corte de MaderalA-4) 10 El Sereno(A-s) Note Only Open Space Preserves 4'Coal Creek(A-5) 11 St.Joseph's Hill(A-9) pertaining to this document are displayed 5'LosTrancos(A-51 12 Sierra Azul cA-10) 6 • 6 Rancho San Antonio(A-e) 13 Bear Creek Redwoods(A-u) 7 Monte Bello(A-7) Source:Data received from MR050 2012 Treatment Site Map Index A i • •Ntark Belmont Half Moon Bay East Palo Alto *Stanford t • Sunn vale Y Cupertin Saratoga r_. t I - Pulgas Ridge OSP ' Hassler Trail S ' s sie . O'-k eig Hassler Loop Trail _ Ed9e�o0d X. I X12ota015 of 0.25 0.5 a Habitat restoration site Miles .._. MROSD Preserves ePnle the District the nest available digital data,this data does not represent a legal survey and is merely a graphic illustration of geographic leatures. Source:Data received from MROSD 2012 Pulgas Ridge Open Space Preserve0l DA- •Hi ls4orough 0Ntark �� Imont Half Moon Bay' •East Palo Alto *Stanford • Sunnyvale • 35 Cupe--lrtlin ra a w Saratoga .� i �� e 8, r .. Purisima Creek Redwoods OSP r . X1201001601 W3 0 0.25 0.5 0 Broom at selected sites Miles a Satellite population of priority weeds • MROSD Preserves While the orsti strives to use the best available digital data,this data does not represent a legal survey and is merely a graphic illustration of geographic features. Source:Data received from MROSD 2012 NT Purisima Creek Redwoods Open Space Preserve A-3 --- -PU OSP - NIP •Hi Is orough a ` elmont �Ne ark \ � .. .Teague Hill OS'P East Palo Alto Half Moon.Bay�_ *Stanford ` Poge,Trail • r • Sunnyvale Cupertin j Saratoga CL :E i El Corte de Madera Creek . _. .... lb z.t 6 Goiston � U, � railCD f M h`se El Corte de-Madera.OSP S`ed�, • 0041 V7 aria �a '�►R11-d s Miu Trail ID � me °jr✓i _La Honda Cr-eek-os SOD 0 0.25 0.5 e__o.. - Broom at selected sites Miles .• -MROSD Preserves Wlide the District strives to use the nest r-:able digital data.this data does not represent a legs:survey and is merely a graphic illustration of geographic features. Source:Data received from MROSD 2012 El Corte de Madera Creek Open Space Preserve PA- i . Sao _ - `�� • � •Newark Imont Half on y East Palo \ *Stanford • S nnyvale Cuperti Saratoga i3 F Los:1 i an6Ds., P m •6 C v_ Qak T�ai� d5yo 7. FC �a U. IV IV Monte Bello OSP o d OSP 4 ussian OSP CD estorati '�!nn �C Skyline Ridge OSP s - $ A. �N 1005 0 0.25 0.5 Habitat restoration site Broom at selected sites Miles e LT grassland weeds -Satellite population of priority weeds) -SOD - MROSD Preserves While the District stnves to use the nest available disc.,r,..data,this data does not represent i r,-ey and is merely a graphic illustration of geographic features. Source:Data received from MROSD 2012 Coal Creek, Los Trancos, and Skyline Ridge Open Space Preserves 1 WIA-5 i •H Is\korough ONtark \ 1 l elmont Half Moon Bay , st Palo Alto Stanford • S nnyvale• J a \ o Cupertin t4* Saratoga 8 1 a Rancho San Antonia OS } NEW t s,t x14ii0016ot aoe 0 0.25 0.5 Soo Miles a Satellite population of priority weeds • xr. MROSD Preserves Whtle the Wstnct stnve.<,to use the hest available chgdtm data.this data dne;not represent a legal survey and a merely a graph,c ttlustra Uon ut geographic teatuies. Source:Data received from MROSD 1011 Rancho San Antonio Open Space Preserve A-6 e ' I�fe Bello Rom 'Hi Is orough MINI, elmont Newark Half Moon,Bay }East Palo Alto Stanford • Sunnyvale r _ ® Cupertin Saratoga ' fP I i p1170 way IF MW i Il T Picchetti Ranch OS y r — 40 IIA Ica .• �•. Saratoga Gap OSP ° = N 44 0 Broom at selected sites 0.25 0.5 Miles e - Satellite population of priority weeds �-- MROSD Preserves while the District strives to use the best available digital data,this data does not represent a legal survey and is merely a graphic illustration of geographic features. Source:Data received from MROSD 2012 Monte Bello and Saratoga Gap Open Space Preserves DA- •Hilsliorough .` \Belmont Newark m Half Moon,Bay t_East Palo Alto •Stanford o f • S nnyvale . t 6pertin t fai Saratoga } • + # 4 `r r ' I i #Y.: t>ryfr ; o,,e=' Agg . 5 '4quiRas Trail 40 r El Sereno OSP for Ca x17U10015M aos 0 0.25 0.5 e � Broom at selected sites Miles - Satellite population of priority weeds MROSD Preserves While the District strives to use the best available digital data,this data does not represent a legal survey and is merely a graphic illustration of geographic features. Source:Data received from MROSD 2012 El Sereno Open Space Preserve A i Imont wark Half Moon ay �East Palo Alto r \ *Stanford r A • Sunnyvale• \ }I Cupertin r 4 Saratoga tar, j . r � 7t0. 'y Ai . r Pc •D y a ��Atia<e�t2t� 't..�C •• VIS c St. Josephs Hill OSP oPo Alma _ x,-oiooip of opt _ Broom at selected sites 0.25 0.5 a Satellite population of priority weeds Miles �... - MROSD Preserves While the District strives to use the hest available digital data,this data does not represent a legal survey and is merety a graphic illustration of geographic features. Source:Data received from MROSD 2012 St.Joseph's Hill Open Space Preserve PPA-9 -Hi Is`aorough j N ark • Imont 5 �. T gust Palo Alto Half Moon.Bay -.} Stanford p She • Sunn ale eY• Kenned Rom J. Cupe�rt N P- f Sa tOQd oa e Kennedy TrailSt N�Cks R i 0 �. .� A R g Sierra Azul,OSP 4 Wood Road D • r� `gyp 'Po y e p Roo 'z p y ya � J�,r COjh p 00, 4 a'�Qc R°aa O 0 0.250.5 a Broom at selected sites Satellite population of priority weeds I � EMK=Miles _.e State rated noxious weed MROSD Preserves While the District strives to use the best available digital data,this data does not represent a legal survey and is merely a graphic illustration of geographic features. Source:Data received from MROSD 2012 Sierra Azul Open Space Preserve A-10 •Hijist2Drough I •Newark elrnont East Palo Alto El Sereno OSP Half Moon Bay` _- Stanford f • Sunnyvale• - `—� .,T ' Cupertin • Saratoga MAW v. ✓ t / ,7 Bear Creek Redwoods OSP —0000ONK-W01501 oil !' l` 0 0.25 0.5 e BCR woodland weeds - Broom at selected sites miles _ �w MROSD Pteserves While the District strives to use the best available digital data,this data does not represent a legal survey and is merely a graphic illustration of geographic features. Source.'Data received from MROSD 2012 Bear Creek Redwoods Open Space Preserve A-11 �� j i Appendmix Pest Control Recommendation Report I INIJ $T CONTROL RECOMMENDATION - FOLIAR, HABITAT RESTORATION Owner: Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District No.2011_MROSD_2_Resor_RPMax 330 Distel Circle Los Altos,CA 94022 CONTACT:Cindy Roessler Effective Date:3/2011—3/2012 SITE DESCRIPTION Non-Crop, Habitat Management Areas. Native habitat restoration sites with Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District to control non-native,invasive species of grasses,broadleaves,vines and undesirable native brush.Total acreage to be treated is variable. Refer to project maps for exact locations within District. TARGET PESTS: Grasses-Brachypodium,Cortidaria,Erharta,Pha/aris,Piptatherum,etc Brush—Acacia,Bacchoris,Cytisus,Genista,Sportium,etc Vines—Vinca,Hedera, etc Thistles—Carduus, Carthamus,Cirsium,Centaurea, Dittrichia,Silybum,etc. • Material(Add to tank in order, 00 gal Rate per gal(handhelds) Volume/Acre C (1)Adjust Buffer —17545-50024 %-4 pints To be used if water has pH>7(see label) (2)Roundup ProMax*—524-579 0.4—1.5 gallon 0.5-2 oz. Spot spray-Variable Rate (3)dye(if necessary) 0.25 gallon(1 qt) 0.25 oz. *Do not exceed maximum use rate of 7 quarts of product per acre per year. HAZARDS—RESTRICTIONS 0 OBSERVE ALL LABEL PRECAUTIONS 0 WORKER RE-ENTRY INTERVAL:KEEP WORKERS,PEOPLE AND PETS OFF TREATED AREAS UNTIL DRY • 0 THIS PRODUCT IS NON-SELECTIVE - DO NOT ALLOW SPRAY SOLUTION TO DRIFT OUT OF TREATMENT AREA — SOLUTION MAY DAMAGE NON-TARGET VEGETATION 0 LIMIT APPLICATIONS TO PERIODS WHEN WIND IS BETWEEN 2-7 MPH TO REDUCE DRIFT POTENTIAL i APPLICATION NOTES This recommendation is for targeted spray-to-wet applications for invasive annual thistles,brush,vines and perennial grasses within a regional open space preserve. All sprays shall be directed to target vegetation and evenly applied on a spray-to-wet basis with low pressure(20-80 psi),hand held wands or guns(incl.hand,backpack and truck mounted sprayers). Low Rate— 0.4%-Use for winter and early spring annual weeds.Time for optimum effectiveness from cotyledon stage <6" in height when propane flaming is not a safe or effective option. High Rate-1.5%-Use for late spring,summer and fall perennial weeds. For grasses,apply just before mature seedheads g P g. p g pPY) i form. For broadleaves,apply during flower bud stage(spiny bud in yellow starthistle)but before plants set viable seeds. Use only when hand pulling and mowing are not safe or effective options. This recommendation covers pesticide applications within habitats for federally and state listed endangered species.A qualified biologist/staff representative that can identify all rare plant and wildlife species present within Open Space Preserves shall supervise all applications of pesticide. This application will occur in counties where the California red-legged frog 2006 stipulated injunction and order is in effect. No critical habitat is currently defined within the District but red-legged frogs may still be present near project sites. Applicators must maintain a 15'buffer(hand held)or 260'buffer(truck)from any aquatic feature known to contain frogs within the District and not apply any pesticide if rain is forecast within 24 hours. See page 2 for defined locations where frogs occur. For the remainder of District areas,buffers do not apply. This pest control application incorporates all United States Environmental Protection Agency voluntary interim endangered species pesticide protection measures and it complies with the 2006 California red-legged frog stipulated injunction and order 0 requirements for Santa Clara,Santa Cruz and San Mateo counties.I certify that alternative methods and mitigation measures that will substantially reduce adverse environmental impacts have been considered and adopted as necessary and feasible. ` • Advisors Signature Mark A.Heath,PCA License No. 118861 March 1,2011 Produced by Shelterbelt Builders Inc,38 Pier,Ste 140,San Francisco,CA 94107 Ph. (415) 357-1500 � PEST CONTROL RECOMMENDATION - FOLIAR, HABITAT RESTIORATION � | � | ° Coal[reekO5P � ° La Honda USp including Driscoll Ranch ° Monte Bello OGP * Purisima Creek Redwoods O5P&E|Corte de Madera OSP—around gates P[O3A and pCO3'TunitasCreek Road from Highway 35 to approximately one-half mile west of intersection with Star Hill Road,unnamed | local use trail from pumphousein gate[KxO7 ° Rancho San Antonio O5P Rogue Valley Pond ° Rancho San Antonio County Park—eastern corner ° RussianRidgeOSP—,NindeguRanchPonds ° Skyline Ridge OSp—Alpine Pond, Horseshoe Lake, Big Dipper ponds ° Sierra Azu|OSP near Guadalupe Reservoir along Hicks Road,and near Lake Elsman in area near Cathermo|e Road,Sears Road,VVriAh|s Station Road and Cothran Road. ° Tunitas Creek Ranch'Southeast corner � � ° nranyother|uca�ons�ubsequendyhoundtopmvidehabitatforred'|e��edfn�sbyDi/�hctsta� ' � � . � � � � � � � | | � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � Produced byShelterbelt Builders Inc, ]O Pier,Ste 14O San Francisco,CA941O7 Ph. (41S)367-l5OO | � � NJ PEST CONTROL RECOMMENDATION — FOLIAR, ASTER — SELECTIVE Owner: Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District No.2011_MROSD_3_Resor—MilesT 330 Distel Circle Los Altos,CA 94022 CONTACT:Cindy Roessler Effective Date:3/2011—3/2012 SITE DESCRIPTION Non-Crop, Habitat Management Areas. Native habitat restoration sites with Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District to • control non-native, invasive species of broadleaves. Total acreage to be treated is variable. Refer to project maps for exact locations within District. TARGET PESTS: Thistles—Carduus, Carthamus,Cirsium, Centourea, Dittrichia,Silyburn,etc. Material(Add to tank in order) Rate per Acre Rate per 1000 sq.ft Volume/Acre > (1) Milestone VM Herbicide* — 3-7 oz. Lo:2 ml or 0.07 fl.oz. Variable-Applicator 62719-537 Hi:4.8 ml or 0.16 fl.oz. responsible to calibrate (2) Liberate NIS** — 34704-50030 or Variable per acre Variable equipment for proper equiv. (0.5%v/v) application rate (3)Hi-light Blue Dye or equiv. Variable Variable * Do Not exceed maximum rate of 7 oz.of product per acre during a single growing season or 14 oz.per acre where no more than 50%of the acre is treated by spot spraying **2 quarts of surfactant per 100 gal.spray HAZARDS—RESTRICTIONS ` o OBSERVE ALL LABEL PRECAUTIONS o DO NOT SPRAY DIRECTLY INTO OPEN WATER SUCH AS LAKES, RIVERS OR STREAMS • o DO NOT TRANSFER GRAZING ANIMALS FROM TREATED RANGE TO UNTREATED RANGE FOR 3 DAYS o WORKER RE-ENTRY INTERVAL: KEEP WORKERS, PEOPLE AND PETS OFF TREATED AREAS UNTIL DRY • o THIS PRODUCT IS EXTREMELY PHYTOTOXIC - DO NOT ALLOW SPRAY SOLUTION TO DRIFT OUT OF TREATMENTAREA—SOLUTION MAY DAMAGE NON-TARGET DICOT PLANTS o LIMIT APPLICATIONS TO PERIODS WHEN WIND IS BETWEEN 2-7 MPH TO REDUCE DRIFT POTENTIAL APPLICATION NOTES This recommendation is for early season spot and broadcast treatments for invasive thistles and other susceptible weeds that cannot be treated by hand or mechanical methods. Spot and broadcast treatments should completely and uniformly cover foliage. Do not apply near rare Asteraceae, Rosaceae, Polygonaceae, Onograceae, Lamiaceae, Fabaceae or other broadleaf plants as damage may occur to these plants. Timine Pre-Emergent Applications:Use LOW rate for winter/early spring applications just before seedlings emerge through cotyledon • stage. Post-Emergent Applications: Use HIGH rate for later season applications from time first true leaves emerge through basal rosette stage. This recommendation covers pesticide applications within habitats for federally and state listed endangered species.A qualified biologist/staff representative that can identify all rare plant and wildlife species present within Open Space Preserves shall supervise all applications of pesticide. This application is exempt from the California red-legged frog 2006 stipulated injunction and order. This pest control application incorporates all United States Environmental Protection Agency voluntary and injunction specified Call interim endangered species pesticide protection measures for Santa Clara,Santa Cruz and San Mateo counties.I certify that • alternative methods and mitigation measures that will substantially reduce adverse environmental impacts have been considered and adopted as necessary and feasible. • I Advisors Signature -- IV I - Mark A.Heath,PCA License No. 118861 March 1,2011 Produced by Shelterbeit Builders Inc, 38 Pier,Ste 140,San Francisco,CA 94107 Ph. (415)357-1500 r PEST CONTROL RECOMMENDATION - CUT STUMP Owner: Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District No.2011_MROSD-4_Stump_RPM 330 Distel Circle Los Altos,CA 94022 CONTACT:Cindy Roessler Effective Date:3/2011—3/2012 SITE DESCRIPTION Non-Crop, Habitat Management Areas. Native habitat restoration sites with Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District to control non-native and undesirable native species of woody shrubs and trees.Total acreage to be treated is variable. Refer to project maps for exact locations within District. ` TARGET PESTS: Unwanted woody shrubs and trees e.g.Acacia,Bacchoris, Cystus, Eucalyptus, Genista, !flex, Sportium Material(Add s tank in order) Rate per 1i (handheld • • (1) Roundup ProMax Herbicide* — 50 gallons 64 oz. Cut Stump 524-579 Variable Rate (2)dye(if necessary) 1 quart 0.25 oz. *Do Not exceed maximum rate of 7 quarts/acre per year—especially when treating dense stands of cut stumps. HAZARDS—RESTRICTIONS • o OBSERVE ALL LABEL PRECAUTIONS a DO NOT SPRAY DIRECTLY INTO OPEN WATER SUCH AS LAKES, RIVERS OR STREAMS • o WORKER RE-ENTRY INTERVAL: KEEP WORKERS, PEOPLE AND PETS OFF TREATED AREAS UNTIL DRY o THIS PRODUCT IS NON-SELECTIVE - DO NOT ALLOW SPRAY SOLUTION TO DRIFT OUT OF TREATMENT AREA — SOLUTION MAY DAMAGE NON-TARGET VEGETATION APPLICATION NOTES This recommendation is for cut stump treatments on invasive woody plants. Cut woody stems and then IMMEDIATELY flow solution around the cambium tissue around the perimeter of the stump. Repeat application until no additional solution is absorbed by the plant tissue but before the point of runoff. If there is a delay between cutting the stem and before an application can be made, recut the stump before applying the herbicide. Avoid over spray to exterior bark or interior heartwood. Low pressure(20-30 psi)application equipment,such as backpack or hand applicators,for all applications. TIMING —perform applications during periods of the plants active growth cycle for best results,avoid periods when plants are dormant or stressed. This recommendation covers pesticide applications within habitats for federally and state listed endangered species.A qualified biologist/staff representative that can identify all rare plant and wildlife species present within Open Space Preserves shall supervise all applications of pesticide. This application will occur in counties where the California red-legged frog 2006 stipulated injunction and order is in effect. No critical habitat is currently defined within the District but red-legged frogs may still be present near project sites. Applicators must maintain a 60'buffer(hand held)from any aquatic feature known to contain frogs within the District and not apply any pesticide if rain is forecast within 24 hours. See page 2 for defined locations ` where frogs occur. For the remainder of District areas,buffers do not apply. This pest control application incorporates all United States Environmental Protection Agency voluntary interim endangered species pesticide protection measures and it complies with the 2006 California red-legged frog stipulated injunction and order 0 requirements for Santa Clara,Santa Cruz and San Mateo counties.I certify that alternative methods and mitigation measures that will substantially reduce adverse environmental impacts have been considered and adopted as necessary and feasible. ` • Advisors Signature • Mark A.Heath,PCA License No. 118861 March 1,2011 Produced by Shelterbelt Builders Inc,38 Pier,Ste 140,San Francisco,CA 94107 Ph. (415)357-1500 PEST CONTROL RECOMMENDATION -CUT STUMP LoCATIONS WHERE RED-LEGGED FROGS ARE KNOWN TO OCCUR LIM • La Honda OSP including Driscoll Ranch > • Monte Bello OSP • Purisima Creek Redwoods OSP&El Corte de Madera OSP—around gates PC03A and PC03,Tunitas Creek > Road from Highway 35 to approximately � local use trail from pumphousein gate CM07 ° Rancho San Antonio OSP Rogue Valley Pond ° nanchoSanAnuznio[ountypark—easterncome, ° Russian Ridge O5P—K8indeXo Ranch Ponds ° Skyline Ridge DSP—Alpine Pond,Horseshoe Lake, Big Dipper ponds ° Sierra Azul OSP-near Guadalupe Reservoir along Hicks Road,and near Lake Elsman in area near [athermo|e Road,Sears Road,vVhghts Station Road and Cothran Road. ° TunNas Creek Ranch Southeast corner � ° or any other locations subsequently found to provide habitat for red-legged frogs by District staff LA � � Produced byShekerbeh Builders Inc,38 Pier,Ste 14O San Francisco,[A 94107 Ph. (41S)357'1S0J i Appendmix Detailed Treatment Table of Past Activities i I I I I III ��..�.�,',i.......... j I Appendix C. Detailed Treatment Table of Past Activities Gallons of Gross Treatment Preserve Site Name Management Category Target Pest Treatment Method Type of Herbicide Application Method 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 B001 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 34.4 Bear Creek Redwoods Woodland weeds French broom Herbicide Round Up Pro Max backpack/spot sprayer 0.8 1.4 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 s ra er 0.8 15.5 Woodland weeds Xmas trees Chainsaw N/A N/A N/A 16.9 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 Trail Sudden Oak Death Bay laurel Pull N/A N/A N/A 14.3 Sudden Oak Death Phytophthora ramorum Herbicide Agri-Fos&Pentrabark tanksprayer 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 El Corte de Madera 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 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 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 I 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 Preserve Site Name Management Category Target Pest Treatment Method Type of Herbicide Application Method Gallons of Gross Treatment herbicide Acres Event Meadow Grassland weeds handing ass Herbicide Round Up Pro Max backpack/spot s ra er 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 Baylaurel 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-stumpsquirt 0.00 35.6 Sudden Oak Death -Bay Iaurel Pull N/A N/A N/A 21.9 Sudden Oak Death Ba Iaurel Herbicide Round Up Pro Max backpack/spot s ra er 0.2 6.& Franciscan Loop Trail Sudden Oak Death Bay laurel Herbicide Round Up Pro Max cut-stump,s uirt 0.2 35.6 Sudden Oak Death Barylaurel Herbicide Round Up Pro Max cut-stump,squirt 0.0 35.6 Los Trancos Grassland weeds Jointed Goat grass 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 16.8 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 harding 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/spat sprayer 0.02 23.9 Satellite populations of priority weeds Purple Star Thistle Di 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 13 Water Wheel Creek Satellite populations nt riorit weeds Purple le Star Thistle Herbicide Milestone VM back ack/spot sprayer 0.02 3.5 Satellite populations of priority weeds Purple Star Thistle Dig N/A N/A N/A 453 Preserve 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 s rayer 0.1 22.0 Habitat restoration French Broom Herbicide Round Up Pro Max backpack/spot sprayer 0.1 22.0 Pulgas Ridge 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 s rayer 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 59.2 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 back ack/s of 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 Purisima Creek 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 Satellite populations of priority weeds English ivy Herbicide Round Up Pro Max cut-stump,squirt 0.03 23.9 PC01 Satellite populations of priority weeds English ivy Herbicide Round Up Pro Max cut-stump,squirt 0.03 110.4 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 Sudden Oak Death Bay laurel Herbicide Round Up Pro Max cut-stump,squirt 0.1 110.4 Rancho San Antonio Lower Meadow Trail Sudden Oak Death Bay laurel Pull N/A N/A N/A 146.4 Sudden Oak Death Phytophthora ramorum Herbicide Agri-Fos&Pentrabark tank sprayer 4.6 14.3 Shop Satellite populations of priority weeds Stinkwort Herbicide Round Up Pro Max backpack/spot 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 Broom control French broom Herbicide Round Up Pro Max backpack/spot sprayer 03 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 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 s ra er 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 1.1 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 0.9 12.5 Broom control French broom Pull N/A N/A N/A 15.6 Broom control French broom Herbicide Round Up Pro Max backpack/spot sprayer 4.7 2.4 Williams property 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 oxtongue Pull N/A N/A N/A 15.6 Habitat restoration bull thistle Di 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 Skyline Ridge 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 Ue 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 rass Puil N/A N/A NJA 15.6 Habitat restoration eilaw starthistle Herbicide Milestone VM backpack/spot sprayer 0.02 0.5 Habitat restoration yellow starthistle Pull N/A N/A N/A 15.6 Appendix D Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Modeling Activities and Work Trip Assumptions Assumptions Worker commute trips were based data provided by MROSD Staff as indicated in the Transportation/Traffic section of the IS/MND. Modeling is considered conservatively high as additional trips were added to allow for potential unplanned additional work. Trip Type Assumptions: home-work=longer trip lengths for staff to and from work site, 100%primary trips. Home-Sho =Short trips between work sites 100%primary trips. Wrk Days OSP Worker #workers Work hrs/person Total Total Trips Bear Creek Redwoods Staff 2.0 0.5 1 2 Bear Creek Redwoods Staff 2.0 1.0 1 2 Bear Creek Redwoods Staff 2.0 40.0 5 10 Sierra Azul Staff 2.0 6.0 1 2 Sierra Azul Staff 2.0 80.0 10 20 Sierra Azul Staff 2.0 12.0 2 4 Sierra Azul Staff 2.0 6.0 1 2 Sierra Azul Staff 2.0 1.0 1 2 Sierra Azul Staff 2.0 1.5 1 2 Sierra Azul Staff 2.0 2.0 1 2 St.Joseph's Hill Staff 2.0 40.0 5 10 St.Joseph's Hill Staff 2.0 8.0 1 2 El Sereno Staff 2.0 5.0 1 2 El Sereno Staff 2.0 8.0 1 2 El Sereno Staff 2.0 8.0 1 2 El Sereno Staff 2.0 2.0 1 2 El Sereno Staff 2.0 1.0 1 2 Sierra Azul Staff 2.0 1.0 1 2 Sierra Azul Staff 2.0 6.0 1 2 Sierra Azul Staff 2.0 5.0 1 2 Sierra Azul Staff 2.0 2.5 1 2 Sierra Azul Contractor 10.0 4.0 1 2 Bear Creek Redwoods Staff 2.0 18.0 3 6 Bear Creek Redwoods Staff 2.0 6.0 1 2 Bear Creek Redwoods Staff 6.0 6.0 1 4 Sierra Azul Staff 2.0 4.0 1 2 Sierra Azul Staff 2.0 2.0 1 2 Rancho San Antonio Contractor 3.0 4.0 1 2 Rancho San Antonio Staff 2.0 4.0 1 2 Rancho San Antonio Staff 2.0 2.0 1 2 Sierra AM Volunteer 10.0 4.0 1 2 Sierra Azul Volunteer 10.0 4.0 1 2 Sierra Azul Volunteer 10.0 4.0 1 2 St.Joseph's Hill Volunteer 10.0 8.0 1 2 El Sereno Staff 2.0 4.0 1 2 El Sereno Staff 2.0 4.0 1 2 St.Joseph's Hill Volunteer 10.0 4.0 1 2 Activities and Work Trip Assumptions Bear Creek Redwoods Volunteer 2.0 80.0 10 2 Bear Creek Redwoods Staff 2.0 1.0 1 2 Bear Creek Redwoods Staff 2.0 2.0 1 2 Bear Creek Redwoods Staff 2.0 0.5 1 2 Bear Creek Redwoods Volunteer 10.0 6.3 1 2 Bear Creek Redwoods Staff 2.0 16.0 2 4 Bear Creek Redwoods Staff 2.0 16.0 2 4 EI Sereno Staff 2.0 8.0 1 2 Pulgas Ridge Staff 2.0 1.0 1 2 Rancho San Antonio Staff 2.0 2.0 1 2 St.Joseph's Hill Staff 2.0 4.0 1 2 Monte Bello Staff 2.0 2.0 1 2 Monte Bello Staff 2.0 3.0 1 2 Saratoga Gap Staff 0.0 16.0 2 4 Los Trancos Volunteer 10.0 1.6 1 2 Los Trancos Volunteer 10.0 1.9 1 2 Los Trancos Volunteer 10.0 1.9 1 2 Los Trancos Volunteer 10.0 5.6 1 2 El Corte de Madera Staff 2.0 10.0 2 4 El Corte de Madera Volunteer 0.0 0.0 0 Los Trancos Contractor 6.0 4.0 1 4 Los Trancos Contractor 6.0 6.0 1 4 Monte Bello Staff 2.0 2.0 1 4 Purisima Creek Staff 2.0 32.0 4 8 Los Trancos Contractor 6.0 8.0 1 4 i Los Trancos Contractor 6.0 1.0 1 4 Los Trancos Contractor 6.0 1.0 1 4 Los Trancos Contractor 6.0 4.0 1 4 Monte Bello Staff 2.0 2.0 1 2 Purisima Creek Staff 0.0 24.0 3 6 Purisima Creek Staff 0.0 0.0 0 Coal Creek Staff 3.0 2.0 1 2 Los Trancos Staff 2.0 8.0 1 2 Los Trancos Staff 2.0 4.0 1 2 Los Trancos Staff 2.0 8.0 1 2 Los Trancos Staff 2.0 0.9 1 2 Los Trancos Staff 2.0 0.9 1 2 Los Trancos Staff 2.0 0.9 1 2 Los Trancos Staff 2.0 0.9 1 2 Los Trancos Staff 2.0 0.9 1 2 Los Trancos Staff 2.0 0.9 1 2 Los Trancos Staff 2.0 0.9 1 2 Los Trancos Staff 2.0 0.9 1 2 Los Trancos Staff 2.0 4.0 1 2 Purisima Creek Volunteer 0.0 6.0 1 2 Activities and Work Trip Assumptions Coal Creek Staff 0.0 0.0 1 2 i Saratoga Gap Staff 2.0 4.0 1 2 Purisima Creek Staff 3.0 4.0 1 2 Los Trancos Contractor 6.0 7.0 1 2 Los Trancos Contractor 6.0 7.0 1 2 Los Trancos Contractor 6.0 4.0 1 2 Los Trancos Contractor 6.0 4.0 1 2 Los Trancos Contractor 4.0 6.5 1 2 Los Trancos Contractor 6.0 8.0 1 2 Los Trancos Contractor 4.0 6.5 1 2 Pulgas Ridge Volunteer 10.0 1.5 1 2 Pulgas Ridge Staff 2.0 4.0 1 2 j Pulgas Ridge Volunteer 10.0 1.5 1 2 Pulgas Ridge Staff 2.0 1.0 1 2 Pulgas Ridge Staff 2.0 4.0 1 2 Pulgas Ridge Staff 2.0 1.0 1 2 Pulgas Ridge Staff 2.0 4.0 1 2 Pulgas Ridge Volunteer 10.0 1.5 1 2 Pulgas Ridge Staff 2.0 1.0 1 2 Pulgas Ridge Staff 2.0 4.0 1 2 Pulgas Ridge Volunteer 10.0 1.5 1 2 Volunteer 20.0 0.5 1 4 Skyline Rid tee Y Ridge Skyline Ridge Staff 2.0 6.0 1 2 Skyline Ridge Volunteer 20.0 0.8 1 4 j Skyline Ridge Staff 2.0 3.0 1 2 Skyline Ridge Volunteer 20.0 0.8 1 4 Skyline Ridge Staff 2.0 3.0 1 2 Skyline Ridge Volunteer 20.0 0.8 1 4 Skyline Ridge Staff 2.0 3.0 1 2 Skyline Ridge Volunteer 20.0 0.8 1 4 Skyline Ridge Staff 2.0 3.0 1 2 Skyline Ridge Volunteer 20.0 0.8 1 4 Skyline Ridge Staff 2.0 3.0 1 2 Skyline Ridge Volunteer 20.0 0.8 1 4 Skyline Ridge Staff 2.0 6.0 1 2 Skyline Ridge Volunteer 20.0 0.8 1 4 Skyline Ridge Staff 2.0 0.3 1 2 Purisima Creek Volunteer 10.0 5.5 1 2 Purisima Creek Volunteer 10.0 5.5 1 2 Purisima Creek Staff 3.0 4.0 1 2 Sierra Azul Staff 2.0 4.0 1 2 Monte Bello Staff 1.0 2.0 1 2 Monte Bello Staff 1.0 2.0 1 2 Monte Bello Staff 1.0 2.0 1 2 EI Corte de Madera Staff 3.0 2.0 1 2 i Activities and Work Trip Assumptions Purisima Creek Volunteer 10.0 4.0 1 2 Saratoga Gap Staff 2.0 8.0 1 2 ! Sierra Azul Staff 2.0 8.0 1 2 Los Trancos Volunteer 10.0 1.9 1 2 Los Trancos Volunteer 10.0 5.5 1 2 i El Corte de Madera Staff 2.0 8.0 1 2 El Corte de Madera Volunteer 10.0 4.0 1 2 El Corte de Madera Contractor 3.0 12.0 2 4 Los Trancos Contractor 3.0 8.0 1 2 El Corte de Madera Staff 2.0 8.0 1 2 El Corte de Madera 10.0 4.0 1 2 Sierra Azul Staff 2.0 4.0 1 2 Sierra Azul Volunteer 10.0 4.0 1 2 Sierra Azul Volunteer 10.0 4.0 1 2 Bear Creek Redwoods Staff 2.0 0.5 1 2 Purisima Creek Staff 3.0 2.0 1 2 Coal Creek Staff 3.0 2.0 1 2 Coal Creek Staff 3.0 2.0 1 2 Purisima Creek Staff 3.0 4.0 1 2 El Corte de Madera Staff 2.0 4.0 1 2 El Corte de Madera Staff 3.0 2.0 1 2 El Corte de Madera Staff 3.0 6.0 1 2 Purisima Creek Volunteer 10.0 5.5 1 2 388 Adjusted Total Calculation For each site requiring 10 or more workers, 5 additional (short)trips were added to the total Sites (10 or more workers) Added Trips Total Added Trips Adjusted Total 32 5 160 548 II i ROG NOx PM10 PM2.5 Ibs/day Onsite 3.62 20.57 1.03 1.03 Mobile 0.02 0.04 0 0 Total(Max) 3.64 20.61 1.03 1.03 Threshold 54 54 82 54 CO2 MT tons/yr Onsite 5.4 4 Mobile 3.87 Total 9.31 Threshold 1,100 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2011.1.1 Date:3/14/2012 MROSD Weed Abatement Operational Emissions Bay Area AQMD Air District,Annual 1.0 Project Characteristics 1.1 Land Usage Land Uses Size Metric Single Family Housing 1 Dwelling Unit 1.2 Other Project Characteristics Urbanization Rural Wind Speed(m/s) 2.2 Utility Company Pacific Gas&Electric Company Climate Zone 5 Precipitation Freq(Days) 64 1.3 User Entered Comments Project Characteristics- Land Use-No Construction activities Construction Phase-CalEEMod Construction is equivalent to operational onsite activties of proposed project Trips and VMT-All commute trips are accounted for under"operational"phase Vehicle Trips-Total Trips 550 per year 160 of these are assumed to be short trips from carpool pickop locations.(30%of total) All trips are primary(worker commute) 1 of 14 Off-road Equipment-Trucks are used for tank sprayers and tractor lawn mowers could potentially be used for weed clearing. Ride-on lawnmower would be no more than 50 horespower Grading-Acreage based on the size of work sites previously requiring the use of off-highway trucks Woodstoves-No development 2.0 Emissions Summary 2.1 Overall Construction Unmitigated Construction ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio Total CO2 CH4 I N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total CO2 Year tonstyr MTtyr 2012 0.01 0.05 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.42 5.42 0.00 0.00 5.44 Total 0.01 0.05 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.42 5.42 0.00 0.00 5.44 Mitigated Construction ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio- Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total CO2 Year tonsfyr MTlyr 2012 0.01 0.05 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.42 5.42 0.00 0.00 5.44 Total 0.01 0.05 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.42 5.42 0.00 0.00 5.44 2of14 2.2 Overall Operational Unmitigated Operational ROG NOx I CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total CO2 Category tonsiyr MTJyr Area 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.01 ._.._.._. ------ ____ ---' ---- ---' ___' ------ ____ ------ --- ___' ------ ---- ------ ---- .... Energy 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.90 3.90 0,00 0.00 3.92 ---------- v------*------r------*------*------*------*------*------*------------- ------I---- T --- -__ I------ Mobile 0.00 0.01 0.03 0.00 0.00 0,00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.86 IN 0.00 r 0.00 3.87 ------'--+----' ............. ---- ---- ---- --- ---- --- ---- ------ ------; ------*------ --- Waste 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.26 0.00 0.26 0.02 0.00 0.57 ........... ------*------*------*------*------*------ ------*------*------------- ------*------*------*---- --- Water 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.15 0.15 0.00 0.00 T 0.20 Total 0.01 0.01 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.26 7.92 8.18 0.02 0.00 8.57 3of14 2.2 Overall Operational Mitigated Operational ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total CO2 Category tonstyr MT/yr Area 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.01 ------- ------------*.... --- --- --- --- --- ...... ............. ------ --- --- --- --- Energy 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.90 3.90 0.00 0.00 3.92 ....... ... --- --- --- --- --- ---- ------*---- ----- ---- --- --- --- --- --- Mobile 0.00 T 0.01 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.86 3.86 T 0.00 0.00 3.87 ....... --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---- ------ --- --- --- --- --- ------*---- Waste 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.26 0.00 0.26 0.02 0.00 0.57 ........... ...... ------ ------ ------*------ ------*------*------ ------*-------------T---- --- --- --- --- Water 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.15 r 0.15 0.00 0.00 0.20 Total 0.01 0.01 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.26 7.92 8.18 0.02 0.00 8.57 3.0 Construction Detail 3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction 4of14 3.2 Onsite weed clearing -2012 Unmitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bic CO2 NBio- TotalCO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total CO2 Category tons/yr MT/yr Fugitive Dust 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 ........... ------ •-- -. .. .... .. ------ .... .. ............. . ......y ......1 ------ --- Off-Road 0.01 0.05 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.42 5.42 0.00 0.00 5.44 Total 0.01 0.05 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.42 5.42 0.00 0.00 5." Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio- Total 2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total C0 CO 2 Category I tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 V;ndo . - - --- �---- ---- ---------- --- --- --- ......•... -----F------F----- .0 --- Vendor 0.00 T 0.00 0.00 T 0.00 T 0.00 0.00 0.00 r 0.00 r 0.00 r 0.00 0.00 T 0.00 0.00 0.00 T 0.00 T 0.00 ----------- ------r------*------; ------*------*------*------ ------.------*------�---- --- ---- --- --- --- Worker 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 T 0.00 0.00 r 0.00 r 0.00 r 0.00 Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 5of14 3.2 Onsite weed clearing -2012 Mitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 eta CO2 NBio Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total CO2 Category tonstyr MT/yr Fugitive Dust 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 ........... T------*------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------r......r..... ------ ---- Off-Road 0.01 0.05 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.42 5.42 0.00 0.00 5.44 Total 0.01 0.05 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.42 5.42 0.00 0.00 5.44 Mitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total CO2 Category tonstyr MTlyr Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 ---------- ------T------ ------*------*------ ------*------*------*------*------�------*----------. ---- ---- --- Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 ---------- ------ ------ -------------*------*------ ------ ------*------r------p----- ---- ._.. ---- ..._ ---- Worker 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 T 0.00 0.00 Y 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.0 Mobile Detail 4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile 6of14 ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio- Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total CO2 Category tonstyr MT/yr Mitigated 0.00 0.01 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.86 3.86 0.00 0.00 3.87 ----'9----;---------------------------*------*------*------*------*------*------•------*------*-------------*------}------ Unmitigated 0.00 0.01 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.86 3.86 0.00 0.00 3.87 Total NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA j NA NA 4.2 Trip Summary Information Averse Daily Trip Rate Unmitigated Mitigated Land Use Weekday Saturday Sunday Annual VMT Annual VMT Single Family Housing 1.50 1.50 1.50 8,463 8,463 Total 1.50 1.50 1.50 8,463 8,463 4.3 Trip Type Information Miles Trip% Land Use H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW Single Family Housing 20.00 5,00 0.00 70.00 30.00 0.00 5.0 Energy Detail 7of14 5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio- Total CO2 CH4 I N2O I CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total CO2 Category tons/yr MT/yr Electricity 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.83 1.83 0.00 0.00 1.84 Mitigated ........... ......r------*-------------*------*------*------ ------*------*------.------r------ ------*------*------*------ Electricity 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.83 1.83 0.00 0.00 1.84 Unmitigated ..._............. ......................." r_...._r_... r----- •------ ------ ---- --- NaturalGas 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.07 2.07 0.00 T 0.00 r 2.08 Mitigated ........... ....... ......�...... ------*------*------ ------*------ ---------------------------,.__.. ---- --- NaturalGas 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.07 2.07 0.00 * 0.00 2.08 Unmitigated Total NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 5.2 Energy by Land Use -NaturalGas Unmitigated NaturalGas Use ROG NOx I CO I SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 TO CO2 Land Use kBTU tons/yr MTlyr Single Family 38748.1 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.07 2.07 0.00 0.00 2.08 Housing Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.07 2.07 0.00 0.00 2.08 8of14 5.2 Energy by Land Use -NaturalGas Mitigated NaturalGas Use ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio- Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total CO2 Land Use kBTU tons/yr MTlyr Single Family 38748.1 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0,00 2.07 2.07 0.00 0.00 2.08 Housing Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.07 2.07 0.00 0.00 2.08 5.3 Energy by Land Use-Electricity Unmitigated Electricity Use ROG NOx CO SO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Land Use kWh tonstyr MT/yr Single Family 6284.78 1.83 0.00 0.00 1.84 Housing Total 1.83 0.00 0.00 1.84 9of14 5.3 Energy by Land Use-Electricity Miitioated Electricity Use ROG NOx I CO S02 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Land Use kWh tons/yr MT/yr Single Family 6284.78 1.83 0.00 0.00 1.84 Housing Total 1.83 0.00 0.00 1.84 6.0 Area Detail 6.1 Mitigation Measures Area ROG NOx I CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio- Total CO2 CH4 N20 72. PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Cq2 Category tons/yr MT/yr Mitigated 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.01 ----------- --- --- --- --- ---- .... ---- ---- ---- ............. .... _.... ------ ---- ---- Unmitigated 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.01 Total NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 10 of 14 6.2 Area by SubCategory Unmitigated ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBia Tota1CO2 CH4 N2p CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total CO2 SubCategory tons/yr MT/yr Architectural 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Coating ....__r......r......r--------------------------- •-----------------------•----- .... Consumer 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 • 0.00 Products •-•._ - --- . --- ----- ------ --- --- -----*------;---- --- --- --- -----r---- ------;---- Hearth 0.00 0.00 r 0.00 0.00 r 0.00 T 0.00 0.00 r 0.00 0.00 T 0.00 * 0.00 0.00 r 0.00 0.00 ------- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ----- ---- -----6---- --- --- ------ ----- ---- Landscaping 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.01 Total 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 Q01 Mitiaated ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBia 7T.tWalCO;2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total CO2 SubCategory tonstyr MTlyr Architectural 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Coating .......?... ....................*------•------*------•------•------•------ ...... .............,...... ------ ------ --- Consumer 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Products Hearth 0 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 • 0.00 0.00 ----------+------ ------ ...... ------*------ ...... ------*-------------*------*------*------ ------r...... Landscaping 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.01 Total 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.01 11 of 14 7.0 Water Detail 7.1 Mitigation Measures Water ROG NOx I CO I SO2 Total CO2 CH4 I N2O I CO2e Category tonstyr MT/yr Mitigated 015 0.00 0.00 0.20 ...........;......;....---------------- ------*------ ------ ------ Unmitigated 0.15 0.00 0.00 0.20 Total NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 7.2 Water by Land Use Unmitigated Indoor/Outdoor ROG NOx I CO SO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Use Land Use Mgal tonstyr MT/yr Single Family 0.065154/ 0.15 0.00 0.00 0.20 Housing 0.0410754 Total 0.15 0.00 0.00 0.20 12of14 7.2 Water by Land Use Mitigated Indoor/Outdoor ROG NOx I CO SO2 Total CO2 CH4 I N2O CO2e Use Land Use Mgal tons/yr MT/yr Single Family 0.065154/ 0.15 0.00 0.00 0.20 Housing 0.0410754 Total 0.15 0.00 0.00 0.20 8.0 Waste Detail 8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste Categorv/Year ROG NOx I CO SO2 Total CO2 CH4 I N2O CO2e tonslyr MT/yr Mitigated 0.26 OA2 0.00 0.57 �-.....; . *-------------*- Unmitigated 0.26 0.02 0.00 0.57 Total NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 13 of 14 8.2 Waste by Land Use Unmitigated Waste ROG NOx I CO I SO2 Total CO2 CH4 I N2O I CO2e Disposed Land Use tons tonslyr MTtyr Single Family 1.26 0.26 0.02 0.00 0.57 Housing Total 0.26 0.02 0.00 0.57 Mitigated Waste ROG NOx CO SO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Disposed Land Use tons tons/yr MTlyr Single Family 116 0.26 0.02 OM 0.57 Housing Total 0.26 0.02 0.00 0.57 9.0 Vegetation 14 of 14 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2011.1.1 Date:3/14/2012 MROSD Weed Abatement Operational Emissions Bay Area AQMD Air District,Summer 1.0 Project Characteristics 1.1 Land Usage Land Uses Size Metric Single Family Housing 1 Dwelling Unit 1.2 Other Project Characteristics Urbanization Rural Wind Speed(m/s) 2.2 Utility Company Pacific Gas&Electric Company Climate Zone 5 Precipitation Freq(Days) 64 1.3 User Entered Comments Project Characteristics- Land Use-No Construction activities Construction Phase-CalEEMod Construction is equivalent to operational onsite activties of proposed project Trips and VMT-All commute trips are accounted for under"operational"phase Vehicle Trips-Total Trips 550 per year 160 of these are assumed to be short trips from carpool pickop locations.(30%of total) All trips are primary(worker commute) 1 of 10 Off-road Equipment-Trucks are used for tank sprayers and tractor lawn mowers could potentially be used for weed clearing. Ride-on lawnmower would be no more than 50 horespower Grading-Acreage based on the size of work sites previously requiring the use of off-highway trucks Woodstoves-No development 2.0 Emissions Summary 2.1 Overall Construction (Maximum Daily Emission) Unmitigated Construction ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust FM25 Bio-CO2 NBio ITotalCO2 CH4 N24 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 CO2 Year Iblday btday 2012 3.62 20.57 10.94 0.03 1.27 1.03 2.31 0.00 1.03 1.03 0.00 2,392.07' 0.00 0.32 0.00 '2,398.88 Total NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA71 Mitigated Construction ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio- Total CO2 CH4 I N20 I CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total CO2 Year lb/day lb/day 2012 3.62 20,57 10.94 0.03 1.27 1.03 2.31 0.00 1.03 1.03 0.00 2,392.07 ' 0,00 0.32 0.00 2,398.88 Total NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 2of10 2.2 Overall Operational Unmitigated Operational ROG NOx I CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio Totat CO2 CH4 I N20 I CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total CO2 Category lb/day lb/day Area 0.06 0.00 0.09 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.15 0.00 0.00 0.15 -- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---- ---------- ---------- --- --- --- --- --- Energy 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 12.49 0.00 0.00 12.57 .......... ------:---------------------------*------ ------*------, ------, ------I-------*------*------*------*------; ------ Mobile 0.02 0.04 0.18 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 25.36 0.00 25.39 Total 0.08 0.05 0.27 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 38.00 0.00 0.00 38.11 Mitigated Operational ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio- Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total CO2 Category I lb/day lb/day Area 0.06 0.00 0.09 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.15 0.00 0.00 0.15 o......... ......r------*-------------------------- -....., ------ ------*------------- ------------- ------*------*------ Energy 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 12.49 0.00 0.00 12.57 ...........+------T------*------*------*------ ------r------r------= ------------------ ------------ ------*------*------ Mobile 0.02 0.04 0.18 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 25.36 0.00 25.39 Total 0.08 0.05 0.27 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 38.00 0.00 0.00 38.11 3.0 Construction Detail 3of10 3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction 3.2 Onsite weed clearing -2012 Unmitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive I Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio- Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total CO2 Category Ib/day lb/day Fugitive Dust 1.27 0.00 1,27 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 --- ----- ---- ---- ------ --- ------ Off-Road 3.62 20.57 10.94 0.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 T 2,392.07* 0.32 *2,398.88 Total 3.62 20.57 10.94 0.03 1.27 1.03 2.30 0,00 1.03 1.03 2,392.07 0.32 2,398.88 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio- Total CO2 CH4 N20 I CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total CO2 Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 ---------- ------*------*------}------*------r------; ------ ------ -------------------------- ---- ----- ----- .... Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 T 0.00 T 0,00 _...__.. ------ ------ ------{ ------4......4-------i------ ..... ----- ......i...... 1..... ---- ---- --- ----- Worker 0.00 0.00 0,00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 O.Op 4of10 3.2 Onsite weed clearing -2012 Mitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NSio- Total CO2 1CH4 IN20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total CO2 Category lb/day lb/day Fugitive Dust 1.27 0.00 1.27 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 ........... ...... ------ ------ --•--- ------*------*------ ------*......r.......------ ...... ------ ------*------*------ Oft-Road 3.62 20.57 10.94 0.03 1.03 1,03 1.03 1.03 • 0.00 2,392,07 0.32 2,398.88 Total 3.62 j 20.57 j 10.94 j 0.03 j 1.27 j 1.03 j 2.30 j 0.00 j 1.03 j 1.03 j 0.00 j 2,392.07 j j 0.32 j j 2,398.88 Mitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio- Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total CO2 Category lb/day Iblday Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Vendor 0,00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0,00 0.00 0.00 0.00 ------- --- ---- -.--- _-- --- --- ---- --- --- -----It----- --- --- --- ------ ---- Worker 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.0 Mobile Detail 4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile 5of10 ROG NOx I CO I S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio- ITotaICO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total CO2 Category Iblday lb/day Mitigated 0.02 0.04 0.18 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 25.36 0.00 25.39 ------9.... ...... ...... ......:...... ......*------*------+------*------+------•------T-----.+..-..-; ------------*------ Unmitigated 0.02 0.04 0.18 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.03 0.00 Om 0.00 25.36 0.00 25.39 Total NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 4.2 Trip Summary Information Average Daily Trip Rate Unmitigated Mitigated Land Use Weekday Saturday Sunday Annual VMT Annual VMT Single Family Housing 1.50 1.50 1.50 8,463 8,463 Total 1.50 1.50 1.50 8,463 8,463 4.3 Trip Type Information Miles Trip% Land Use H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-0 or C-NW H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-0 or C-NW Single Family Housing 20.00 5.00 0.00 70.00 30,00 0.00 5.0 Energy Detail 6of10 5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBi=T.tW 2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day NaturalGas 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 12.49 0.00 0.00 12.57 Mitigated .... ........................... --- --- --- --- --- --- --- T -----•----- . --- --- NaturalGas 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 r 0.00 0.00 T 0.00 0.00 12.49 0.00 0.00 12.57 Unmitigated Total NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 5.2 Energy by Land Use -NaturalGas Unmitigated NaturalGas Use R0G NOx I CO I S02 I Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total P 12.5 PM2.5 Total CO2 Land Use kBTU Ottday kr/day Single Family 106.159 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 12.49 0.00 0.00 12.57 Housing Total 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 12.49 0.00 0.00 12.57 7of10 5.2 Energy by Land Use -NaturalGas Mitigated NaturalGas Use ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive I Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio- Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total CO2 Land Use kBTU lb/day lb/day Single Family 0.106159 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 12.49 0.00 0.00 12.57 Housing Total 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 12.49 0.00 0.00 12.57 6.0 Area Detail 6.1 Mitigation Measures Area ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive I Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-0O2 NBio- Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 I PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total CO2 Category W/day lb/day Mitigated 0.06 0.00 0.09 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.15 0.00 0.00 0.15 -----------%------ -------------------- ------F------ ------*-------------*--------------------*------ ------------- ------ Unmitigated 0.06 0.00 0.09 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.15 0.00 0.00 0.15 Total NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 8of10 6.2 Area by SubCategory Unmitigated ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio- Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total CO2 SubCategory lb/day b/day Architectural 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Coating Consumer 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Products ...-'-------------------- ------ ------*------*------*------*------*------*------•------*-------------------- ----.-!-.---- Hearth 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 a00 0.00 0.00 ------- --- --- ---- ---- --- ---- --- --- --- -----*----- --- --- --- ----- ---- Landscaping 0.00 0.00 0.09 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.15 0.00 0.15 Total 0.06 0.00 0.09 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.15 0.00 0.00 tj Mitigated ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio- Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total CO2 SubCategory lb/day I)/day Architectural 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Coating Consumer 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Products ........... ....... ...... ............. ...... ....................,......, ......,.............•`--- --- --- Hearth 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 • 0.00 w 0.00 ------- --- --- --- --- ---- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- -----*---- --- Landscaping 0.00 0.00 0.09 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.15 0.00 0.15 Total 0.06 0.00 0.09 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.15 0.00 0.00 0.15 9of10 7.0 Water Detail 7.1 Mitigation Measures Water 8.0 Waste Detail 8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste 9.0 Vegetation 10 of 10 Appendmix Special-Status Species Table E-1 Special Status Plants in Vicinity of the Project Area Status, Species CA Rare Habitat Blooming Potential to Occur FESA CFSA Plaurt Rank Period in ProjectArea2 Acanthomintha duttonii E E 16.1 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. Ailium peninsulare var. — — 1B.2 Clay,volcanic, May-June Could occur.Serpentine habitat fronciscanum 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 regismontana 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 OSP. Arenario paludicola E E 16.1 Freshwater marshes May- Could occur.Suitable habitat is marsh sandwort August present on sites in the project area Chorizanthe robusta var. E — 16.1 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 fontinole var. — — 113.2 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 fontinole 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. Clarkia concinnol spp. — — 4.3 Chaparral and April-July Could occur.Suitable habitat is outomixo cismontane woodland present on sites in the project Santa Clara red-ribbons area.Known locations at Bear Creek Redwoods OSP. Collinsia multicolor — — 18.2 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 i Table E-1 Special Status Plants in Vicinity of the Project Area Status, Blooming Potential to Occur Species FESA CESA CA Rare HabitatPeriod in ProjectAreaz Plant Rank Dirca occidentolis — — 16.2 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 Dudleya abramsii ssp. E — 16.1 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. — — 16.1 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 Erysimum teretifolium E E 1B.1 Lower montane March- Could occur.Suitable habitat is Santa Cruz wallflower coniferous forest, July present on sites in the project chaparral area Eriophyllum 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 liliacea — — 18.2 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 18.2 Closed-cone coniferous Not Could occur.Suitable habitat is abramsiana forest,chaparral, applicable present on sites in the project Santa Cruz cypress sandhill ponderosa pine area forest on sandstone or granitic substrate Hesperocyparis E E 113.2 Sanstone,closed-cone Not Could occur.Suitable habitat is abramsiana var. coniferous forest, applicable present on sites in the project butanoensis chaparral,lower area p i Butano Ridge cypress r ss montane coniferous e g 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. Hoita strobilino — — 18.1 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 Status, Species CA Rare Habitat Blooming Potential to Occur ,cA CESA 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 1.13.1 Coastal prairie,coastal June- Could occur.Suitable habitat is Santa Cruz tarplant scrub,grasslands October present on sites in the project area Lessingia arochnoidea — — 16.2 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 mirodenia var. — — 16.2 Serpentine soil, July- Could occur.Serpentine habitat glabrata chaparral,often November is present on treatment sites in smooth lessingia disturbed areas the project area. i Malocothamnus arcuotus — — 16.2 Chaparral,cismontane April- Could occur.Suitable habitat is arcuate bush-mallow woodland September present on sites in the project area. Monolopia grocilens — — 16.2 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 Pentachaeta 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 area Piperia candida — — 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 Plagiobothrys 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 P/agiobothrys glaber lA Alkaline soil in March Not expected to occu r.No hairless popcorn-flower meadows,coastal salt May suitable habitat in project area. marshes Polygonum hickmanii E E 113.1 Grassland May- Could occur.Suitable habitat is Scotts Valley polygonum August present on sites in the project area Silene verecunda ssp. — — 18.2 Coastal bluff scrub, March- Could occur.Suitable habitat is verecunda chaparral,coastal June present on sites in the project San Francisco campion prairie,coastal scrub, area grassland,in sandy or rocky soil Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration forthe Site-Specific Weed and Pest Management Project E-3 Table E-1 Special Status Plants in Vicinity of the Project Area Statist Blooming Potential to Occur Species FESA CESA CA Rare Habitat Period in ProjectArea2 Plant Rank Streptanthus albidus ssp. E — 1B.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. — — 113.2 Serpentine soil, April-June Could occur.Serpentine habitat peramoenus chaparral,cismontane is present on treatment sites in most beautiful jewel- woodland,grassland the project area. flower Status definitions: Federal Endangered Species Act(FESA): Exi ensions E Endangered .1 Seriously endangered in California(>80%of occurrences are threatened T Threatened and/or high degree and immediacy of threat) Calftnis 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 2 Potential to occur in the project area based on CNDDB records,CNPS 1B 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. i I Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District E-4 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Site-Specific Weed and Pest Management Project i Table E-2 Special,Status Wildlife in vicinity of the Project Site Species Status 1 Habitat PotentialtD Occur in FESA CESA Oter h PtojectAtea2 INVERTEBRATES Bay checkerspot butterfly T — — Serpentine grassland containing Could occur. Euphydryas editha boyensis oviposition and larval food plant Plantago Serpentine soils on erects 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. Ambystomo coliforniense minimum 10-week inundation period and Do not occur in surrounding uplands, primarily grasslands, Santa Cruz with burrows and other below ground Mountains except ref ugia(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 boylii 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 sirtalis tetrataenia marshes and sloughs. occur.No suitable aquatic habitat in project area. western pond turtle — — CSC Ponds,marshes,slow-moving streams, Could occur. Actinemys marmorata sloughs,and irrigation/drainage ditches; Suitable aquatic nests in nearby uplands with low,sparse habitat present at vegetation. Bear Creek Redwoods OSP. g Mid peninsula Regional Open Space District p Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration forthe Site-Specific Weed and Pest Management Project E-5 Table E-2 Special-Status Wildlife in vicinity of the Project Site 1 PoUmbal to Occur in Species Habitat ProjedAfW FBA CESA Otlter BIRDS Alameda song sparrow — — CSC Tidal salt marshes adjacent to San Not expected to Melospiza melodia pusillula Francisco Bay occur.Project sites (year round) are not within species range. burrowing owl — — CSC Nests and forages in grasslands, Could occur. Athene cunicuoria 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 savannorum 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. Lanius 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 cyaneus 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. Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District E-6 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Site-Specific Weed and Pest Management Project Table E-2 Special-Status Wildlife in vicinity of the Project Site Statis 1 Potential to Occur in Species Habitat PMjedArea2 FESA CESA Other Vaux's swift — — CSC Mature coniferous forests,with snags or Could occur. Chaetura vouxi 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. Elonus leucurus fields; nests in riparian zones,oak Suitable habitat is (breeding) woodlands, and isolated trees. present on sites in the j roect area. P 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 pallidus 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 Neotoma fuscipes 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 Special Status Wildlife in vicinity of the Project Site Species Status 1 Habitat Potential to Occur in FESA CESA Otter Habitat western red bat — — CSC Roosts primarily in tree foliage,especially Could occur. Lasiurus b/osse vlll in cottonwood sycamore,and other Suitable roosti ng g 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 1 hr Inds and open rass ands,s ub a , g P woodlands. 1 Status definitions: Federal Endangered Species Act fFESAX E Endangered T Threatened California Endangered Species Act(CESA): E Endangered T Threatened Other: CSC Considered California species of special concern by DFG(no formal protection other than CEQA 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 Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District E-8 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Site-Specific Weed and Pest Management Project T"E-& SpeciskStaUn Plants with Potentlel to Occur In Weed Menegament Sites' Tag g g g Ism" Site Narne Bear Creek Alma College X X X X X x X x x X X Redwoods OSP BC01 x X x X X X X X X X Tree Farm x X X X x x X x X X X x X x Coal Creek OSP Page Mill&Highway 35 X X X X X X X X X X El 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 A ulnas 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 X Overlook Trail X % X X X X X X x X X X X Los Trancos OSP Event Meadow 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 Franciscan Loop Trail X 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 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 x Parkin 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 Xrx X X X X X Water Wheel Creek X x x X X X X X X X x x x X x PuI as Ridge OSP Hassler Loopx 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 XX x x Harkins Ridge Trail x X X X X X X X xX X X North Ride x X X X X X X X XX X X PCOI X X X X x X X XX X % Rancho San Antonio Lower Meadow Trail X X X X X x OSP Shop X X X x X X X X x x X X X X St. oseph'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/Hliito X X X X X X x X X X x X X X X X x X Saratoga Gap OSP Charcoal Residence X X X X X X X X X X X x X X x Lysons Property x X X X 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 x Austrian Gulch(Moss Property) X x X X X X r 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 ROG X 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 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 Skyline Rid a 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 Potential to attar in the treatment sites baud on CNDDa records,CNPS records,District GIS data,and suitable habitat. Midpeninsaia Regional Open Space District Initial Study/Mi9gated Negative Declaration torthe She-Spedfic Weed and Pest Management Pro(ect E-9 ATTACHMENT 4 MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT SITE-SPECIFIC WEED AND PEST MANAGEMENT PROJECT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION May 4, 2012 Pursuant to CEQA Guideline 15073, the Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration were circulated for public review. The public comment period began on April 4, 2012, and concluded on May 4, 2012. The document was distributed in compliance with CEQA and also posted on the District's website. The purpose of this document is to respond to comments pertaining to the potential for significant effect on the environment as a result of adoption of the Site-Specific Weed and Pest Management Project. During the public comment period, comments were received from two commenters. This document responds to those comments. The District received both verbal and written comments. The comments are attached to this Response as Exhibit A. Responses are provided in numerical order to correspond with the attached compilation of comments received. RESPONSE TO COMMENTS Response to Commenter 1: California Department of Transportation(CalTrans) 1.) The commenter requested that the District apply for an encroachment permit for any work or traffic control that encroaches onto the state right of way (ROW). Accompanying the encroachment permit application must be environmental documentation and five sets of plans clearly indicating the state right of way. Comment noted. Two weed treatment sites may encroach onto the state right of way: at Coal Creek OSP, and at the future staging area of El Corte de Madera OSP, where broom plants may occur along Highway 35. Prior to work occurring within CalTrans ROW, District staff will call the CalTrans area superintendent to confirm ROW boundaries,review the project, and then will subsequently follow any directions provided by the CalTrans area superintendent. Based on prior coordination, we generally expect the following conditions to occur: Staff will wear Class 3 safety vests and white hardhats, and"shoulder work ahead" signs and safety cones will be placed per CalTrans specifications. Response to Commenter 2: Member of the public 1.) The commenter questioned whether any trapping of vertebrate species such as feral pigs would occur as part of the Weed and Pest Management Project. No vertebrate species or feral pigs are targeted under this Weed and Pest Management Project. Exhibit A: Comments and Correspondence Received on Resource Management Policies Commenters: 1. Gary Arnold, District Branch Chief, California Department of Transportation, letter to Cindy Roessler, Senior Resource Management Specialist on 04/11/2012. 2. Anonymous, Member of the public, telephone call to Joel Silverman, Resource Specialist I, on 04/05/2012. U&,k"r, :A-, #tISIMI-st ANDIINII.W. DEPARTIMENT OF TRAMPORTATTON i i I ORAND AVENUE P.t).mix 21664) CiN PHONE (510)286-:5541 Flu mw FAX(710)286-5559 PI Y 711 April 11,2012 BAC.035054 SO-I#2012042OU9 Ms.Cindy Rocsslor AfilpminsulA Open SIR=DiMtrid 330 DWel Circle Los Altos,C.A 194022 Dew M.i.Rejemler. Site-Specific Weed and Peat-IlLanagentent Project—h1itipted Negathv Declaration Thank you tar including the California Dejmtmeat of'ftauWrta-don(10cportnimt)in the cnviro=cntaf rovicw procce5 for thcSitc-Spocific Wccd and Pe*ManagemmL ImsjouL The fulLowing Qummcmis arr based on the Mifigmtml KvgO vc ML;1 mutiom Fnerimckjarent Penuir Please be advised that any work or craffic,control that encroaches onto the"r,right of way (ROW)requires an cacroacLuncnt permit that is issued by the Y)cptvtmcnL To aMly,a a anplelal en=achynenl pt'XMi L alVI kKifM I an virontrierLml dominenution,and five(3)sets of plans clearly indicating the state ROW ratist be submitted to:Office of 11=45,Califomia Dcpartm-car of Transportation,District 4,11.0,Box 21660,Oaldand,CA 94623-0660-25,0C flit wobsite,link bolow for more information ca. Plcasc f)Dcl firoc,to call or camil Sandra Fimgmi at(.110)622-1644 or mundra linezygaloLcA.opy wish any quamtimnq tagArding this letter. ()ARY ARNOUT) DiSEYiCA Branch Chief Local Vmtopnicift—Imagavcnumcrital Rcvicw el State C l&rri"lkW%e ATTACHMENT 5 MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM II Site-Specific Weed and Pest Management Project Bear Creek Redwoods,Coal Creek, El Corte de Madera Creek, El Sereno,Los Trancos, Monte Bello Pul as Ridge, Puri k Redwoods Rancho San Antonio St.Joseph's sim a Creek Hill Saratoga Gap, Sierra Azul and Skyline Ridge Open Space Preserves i State Clearinghouse Number: 2012042009 San Mateo and Santa Clara County, CA May 9, 2012 Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 330 Distel Circle Los Altos, CA 94022-1404 Site-Specific Weed and Pest Management Project Bear Creek Redwoods, Coal Creek, El Corte de Madera Creek, El Sereno,Los Trancos, Monte Bello, Pulgas Ridge, Purisima Creek Redwoods, Rancho San Antonio, St. Joseph's Hill, Saratoga Gap, Sierra Azul, and Skyline Ridge Open Space Preserves MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM This mitigation monitoring program(MMP) includes a brief discussion of the legal basis and purpose of the program, a key to understanding the monitoring matrix, discussion and direction regarding noncompliance complaints, and the mitigation monitoring matrix itself. LEGAL BASIS AND PURPOSE OF THE MITGATION MONITORING PROGRAM Public Resources Code(PRC) 21081.6 requires public agencies to adopt mitigation monitoring or reporting programs whenever certifying and environmental impact report or mitigated negative declaration. This requirement facilitates implementation of all mitigation measures adopted through the California Environmental Quality Act (CE A)process. MONITORING MATRIX The following pages provide a series of tables identifying the mitigations incorporated into the Site-Specific Weed and Pest Management Project at Bear Creek Redwoods, Coal Creek, El Corte de Madera Creek, El Sereno, Los Trancos, Monte Bello, Pulgas Ridge, Purisima Creek Redwoods, Rancho San Antonio, St. Joseph's Hill, Saratoga Gap, Sierra Azul, and Skyline Ridge Open Space Preserves (the project). These mitigations are reproduced from the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the project. The columns within the tables have the following g p J g i meanings: Number: The number in this column refers to the Initial Study section where the mitigation is discussed. Mitigation: This column lists the specific mitigation identified within the Mitigated Negative Declaration. Timing: This column identifies at what point in time, review process, or phase the mitigation will be completed. The mitigations are organized by order in which they appear in the Mitigated Negative Declaration. Who will This column references the District staff that will ensure implementation verify? of the mitigation. Agency f This column references any public agency or District Department with Department which coordination is required to ensure implementation of the mitigation. p q p Consultation: California Department of Fish and Game is listed as CDFG. The United States Fish and Wildlife Service is listed as USFWS. Verification: This column will be initialed and dated by the individual designated to confirm implementation. NONCOMPLIANCE COMPLAINTS Any person or agency may file a complaint asserting noncompliance with the mitigation measure associated with the project. The complaint shall be directed to the District's General Manager in written form, providing specific information on the asserted violation. The General Manager shall cause an investigation to be conducted, and determine the validity of the complaint. If noncompliance with the mitigation has occurred, the General Manager shall cause appropriate actions to be taken to remedy any violation. The complainant shall receive written confirmation indicating the results of the investigation or the final action corresponding to the particular noncompliance. Who will Department Verification Number Mitigation Timing or Agency (Date& verify.? Consultation Initials Mitigation (BIO-1)Pretreatment surveys for bay checkerspot butterfly larval host Prior to work and in District N/A in Section plants(dwarf plantain(Plantago erecta)and purple owl's clover the spring season Resource 3.4 (CastiAl ja exserta)),will be conducted by a District biologist on treatment when flowering or Specialist I, sites where serpentine soil is present.This applies to Air Base, Austrian young plants are Senior Gulch(Moss Property),Pheasant,and Williams Property on Sierra Azul evident(February Resource OSP and Vineyard on St.Joseph's Hill OSP. If no host plants are found on through June). Specialist,or serpentine soils,then no further study is required.If host plants are their determined to be present on serpentine soils,a 15-foot buffer will be designee 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. Mitigation (BIO-2)As directed by a qualified biologist,populations of special-status Flagging and training District N/A in Section plants will be identified with high-visibility flagging at the time of will occur prior to Resource 3.4 treatment.Training will be conducted for all treatment field crews and work. Monitoring, if Specialist I, contractors that may be performing manual treatments within 15 feet of required by presence Senior special-status plants.Training will consist of a brief review of life history, of special-status Resource field identification,habitat requirements for each species,known or species in the work Specialist,or potential locations in the vicinity of the treatment site,potential fines for area,will be their violations,avoidance measures,and necessary actions if special-status conducted at the time designee species are encountered.A District botanist will monitor all work within of work. 15-feet of a special-status plant. If no special-status plants are found during pretreatment surveys no further actions are required. Who will Department Verification Number Mitigation Timing or Agency (Date& verify? Consultation Initials) Mitigation (CUL-1) If human remains are encountered, all work within 100 feet At time of work if If human County in Section of the remains shall cease immediately and the contractor shall contact human remains are remains are Coroner 3.5 the District. The District will contact the appropriate county coroner encountered. found, (San Mateo County or Santa Clara County)to evaluate the remains, Constructio and follow the procedures and protocols set forth in §15064.5(e)of n the CEQA Guidelines. No further disturbance of the site or any nearby superintend area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent remains shall occur until ant will stop the County Coroner has made a determination of origin and work, disposition,which shall be made within two working days from the District time the Coroner is notified of the discovery,pursuant to State Health Planner III and Safety Code Section 7050.5 and Public Resources Code Section will make 5097.98. If the remains are determined to be Native American,the contacts. 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. ATTACHMENT 4, REVISED MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT SITE-SPECIFIC WEED AND PEST MANAGEMENT PROJECT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION May 9, 2012 Pursuant to California Envirom-nental Quality Act (CEQA) Guideline 15073, the Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) were circulated for public review. The public comment period began on April 4, 2012, and concluded on May 4, 2012. The document was distributed in compliance with CEQA and also posted on the District's website. The purpose of this document is to respond to comments pertaining to the potential for significant effect on the environment as a result of adoption of the Site-Specific Weed and Pest Management Project. During the public comment period, comments were received from four commenters. This document responds to those comments. The District received both verbal and written comments. The comments are attached to this Response as Exhibit A. Responses are provided in numerical order to correspond with the attached compilation of comments received. RESPONSE TO COMMENTS Response to Commenter 1: California Department of Transportation (CalTrans) 1.) The commenter requests the District apply for an encroachment permit for any work or traffic control that encroaches onto the state right of way(ROW). Accompanying the encroachment permit application must be environmental documentation and five sets of plans clearly indicating the state right of way. Two weed treatment sites may encroach onto the state right of way: at Coal Creek OSP, and at the future staging area of El Corte de Madera OSP, where broom plants may occur along Highway 35. Prior to work occurring within CalTrans ROW, District staff will call the CalTrans area superintendent to confirm ROW boundaries, review the project, and then will subsequently follow any directions provided by the CalTrans area superintendent. Based on prior coordination, we generally expect the following conditions to occur: Staff will wear Class 3 safety vests and white hardhats, and "shoulder work ahead" signs and safety cones will be placed per CalTrans specifications. Response to Commenter 2: Member of the public 1.) The commenter questions whether any trapping of vertebrate species such as feral pigs would occur as part of the Weed and Pest Management Project. No trapping of feral pigs or other vertebrate species will occur under this Weed and Pest Management Project. Response to Commenter 3: Craig Dremann, letter of May 4, 2012 1.) The commenter states that the Draft IS/MND is inadequate because no alternative to the use of herbicides is offered to the public or Board. The IS/MND was prepared consistent with the requirements outlined in Sections 15070 through 15074 of the State CEQA Guidelines. As described in Section 15071, CEQA does not require lead agencies to evaluate alternatives to a project within an IS/MND. An MND is prepared when the Initial Study"shows that there is no substantial evidence, in light of the whole record before the agency, that the project may have a significant effect on the environment." (CEQA Guidelines Section 15070[a]). Based on the evaluation contained within the IS, the project would not result in any significant effects on the envirorn-nent. 2.) The commenter states that mitigation measures are not adequate for grassland or wildflower habitats because they only focus on bay checkerspot larval host plants on serpentine soil. The commenter appears to be concerned that the mitigation measures recommended in the IS/MND only address impacts associated with bay checkerspot larval host plants on serpentine soil. This is incorrect. As described in the M-ND (pages i and ii), mitigation has been recommended for those impacts that were determined to be potentially significant. Potentially significant impacts were identified in the areas of Biological Resources and Cultural Resources (see pages 3-22 to 3-35 of the IS). With regard to biological resources, potentially significant impacts to special-status invertebrates from herbicide treatment and special-status plants from manual treatments were identified (see pages 3-28, 3- 30, and 3-31 of the IS). Therefore, mitigation was recommended to reduce these impacts to a less-than-significant level: pretreatment surveys for checkerspot butterfly larval host plants and purple owl's clover; and identification and flagging of populations of special-status plants within or near treatment areas. With regard to Cultural Resources, potentially significant impacts were identified associated with encountering previously undiscovered human remains (see page 3-35 of the IS). Mitigation was recommended that identifies the specific handling and notification procedures that would be implemented consistent with relevant laws in the event human remains are discovered during project activities. The commenter does not identify any specific inadequacies of mitigation recommended in the IS; therefore, no further response can be provided. 3.) The commenter states that mitigation measures should study and monitor the impact of weed control methods on native grassland and wildflower habitats, 2 As described on page 2-4 of the IS, the District utilizes an integrated pest management (IPM) approach to control invasive species and target pests, and this approach would be used in the implementation of the project. As part of this approach, the District would conduct post-treatment surveys of each of the treatment sites on a yearly basis (during the 3-year treatment plan) to observe how the past weed control methods,best management practices and the mitigation measures have performed, and adjust implementation as needed (see BMP #27, page 2-19). Response to Commenter 3: Craig Dremann, supplemental comment in electronic mail of May 9, 2012 1.) The commenter appears to disagree with the weed control methods proposed for the project. This comment is noted for the Board's consideration. Because the comment did not address the environmental analysis presented in the IS/MND, no further response is required. 2.) The commenter suggests the use of other weed control methods but is not specific on what those methods would include. Because the comment did not address the environmental analysis presented in the IS/MND, no further response is required. Please see the concluding paragraph below regarding the District's interest in working further with you in the future to find out more about your proposed methods of weed control. 3.) The IS/MND was prepared consistent with the requirements outlined in Sections 15070 through 15074 of the State CEQA Guidelines. As described in Section 15071, CEQA does not require lead agencies to evaluate alternatives to a project within an IS/MND. An MND is prepared when the Initial Study"shows that there is no substantial evidence, in light of the whole record before the agency,that the project may have a significant effect on the environment." (CEQA Guidelines Section 15070[a]). Based on the evaluation contained within the IS/MND, the project would not result in any significant effects on the environment. 4.) Please refer to response to comment 3 above regarding evaluation of alternatives in an IS/MND. With regard to consideration of other weed control methods, please see the concluding paragraph below regarding the District's interest in working further with you in the future. 5.) The commenter's infonnation regarding weed control management results is noted for the Board's consideration. Because the comment did not address the environmental analysis presented in the IS/MND, no further response is required. 6.) Please refer to response to comment 3 above regarding the evaluation of alternatives in an IS/MND. 7.) This comment is not specific to the environmental analysis presented in the IS/MND; therefore, no further response is required. 3 8.) With regards to the requirements for preparing an EIR, as described in CEQA Guidelines Section 15064(1) if the lead agency determines that there is substantial evidence in light of the whole record that the project may have a significant effect on the environment, the agency shall prepare an EIR. The purpose of the Initial Study prepared for the project was to determine whether the project may have a significant effect on the environment (CEQA Guidelines Section 15063(a). As shown in the IS/MND, with implementation of recommended mitigation, the project would not result in any significant impacts. Therefore,preparation of an EIR is not required. Because the comment did not address the environmental analysis presented in IS/MND, no further response is required. 9.) This comment is not specific to this project or to the environmental analysis presented in the project's IS/MND; therefore, no further response is required. 10.) This comment is not specific to this project or to the environmental analysis presented in the project's IS/MND; therefore, no further response is required. 11.) Please refer to response to comment 3 above regarding evaluation of alternatives in an IS/MND. With regard to consideration of other weed control methods,please see the concluding paragraph regarding the District's interest in working further with you in the future. The commenter offers no evidence on how the analysis in the IS/MND is inadequate; therefore, no further response can be provided. 12.) With regard to the goals and objectives of the project,please refer to Section 2.3, Project Objective; and 2.4, MROSD Resource Management Policies in the IS/MND. As described therein, the overall objectives for the project are to: protect and restore the diversity and integrity of the District's resources; minimize the spread of non-native invasive species in open space preserves; prevent the introduction of invasive species to District preserves; manage forest diseases, when necessary, to protect native biological diversity and critical ecosystem functions; and to implement control measures in a way that are protective of the environment. In addition, MROSD has outlined a series of resource management policies that would be followed in implementation of the project. Therefore, MROSD has identified a series of management activities and policies that would achieve the management and eradication of weed species and establishment of native species. 13.) This comment is not specific to the environmental analysis presented in the IS/MND; therefore, no further response is required. 14.) This comment is not specific to the environmental analysis presented in the IS/MND; therefore, no further response is required. 15.) This comment is not specific to this project or to the environmental analysis presented in the project's IS/MND; therefore, no further response is required. 4 For future reference, we are interested in hearing more about the other weed control methods you mention in your electronic mail of today. To maximize the educational value of this information and to reach many parties, we recommend that you present your natural allelochemical mulching technique to the San Mateo County Weed Management Area. The San Mateo County Weed Management Area is a group of local stakeholders collaboratively working on weed projects. Since the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District is an official partner of the San Mateo County Weed Management Area and has signed the group's Memorandum of Understanding, and you frequently attend and participate in the group's meetings, we believe this is a good forum for sharing detailed infonnation about how this method is implemented, and its results, for review by multiple parties interested and experienced in weed management. Response to Commenter 4: Shani Kleinhaus, Santa Clara Valley Audubon Society 1.) The commenter recommends the District use a precautionary approach on the use of Roundup herbicide near any water feature that might be used by any amphibian species for reproduction, not just water features that might support endangered species. No herbicide treatments under this project shall occur within 15 feet of any aquatic feature and this condition is not dependent on whether the aquatic feature support endangered species or not. To make this clearer, we are amending BMP #19 on page 2-18 as follows: BMP #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 non-herbicide treatment actions in these areas, it shall survey the work area prior to treatment to detennine presence of suitable habitat or critical habitat for California red- legged frog, central-coast steelhead trout (Onchorl�ynchus n ykiss), western pond turtle(Clenin7ys 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, non-herbicide treatment activities may occur. 5 Exhibit A: Comments and Correspondence Received on Site-Specific Weed and Pest Management Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Commenters: 1. Gary Arnold, District Branch Chief, California Department of Transportation, letter to Cindy Roessler, Senior Resource Management Specialist on 04/11/2012. 2. Anonymous, Member of the public, telephone call to Joel Silverman, Resource Specialist 1, on 04/05/2012. 3. Craig Dremann, letter to Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District on 05/04/2012; and supplemental electronic mail to Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District on 05/09/2012. 4. Shani Kleinhaus, Santa Clara Valley Audubon Society, letter to Cindy Roessler, Senior Resource Management Specialist on 05/04/2012. 6 �rqF rnt iyOAhle OUSINFSS TRANSI'ORTATIGN ANR__k��S(NG AOFNCY �. FDMUNDG BAGWN JRr G.avernar DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 111 GRAND AVENUE P.O.BOX 23660 OAKLAND,CA 94623-0660 PHONE (510)286-5541 Flnergy a fiend Be energy afflctend FAX (510)286-5559 TTY 711 April 11,2012 sAGo35os4 SCH#2012042009 Ms.Cindy Roessler Midpeninsula Open Space District 330 Distel Circle Los Altos,CA 94022 Dear Ms.Roessler: Site-Specific Weed and Pest Management Project—Mitigated Negative Declaration Thank you for including the California Department of Transportation(Department)in the environmental review process for the Site-Specific Weed and Pest Management project.The following comments are based on the Mitigated Negative Declaration. Encroachment Permit Please be advised that any work or traffic control that encroaches onto the state right of way (ROW)requires an encroachment permit that is issued by the Department.To apply,a completed encroachment permit application,environmental documentation,and five(5)sets of plans clearly indicating the state ROW must be submitted to:office of Permits,California Department of Transportation,District 4,P.O.Box.23660,Oakland,CA 94623-0660.See the website link below for more information. http://www dot ca nov/hq/traffops/developsety/Rermitsl Please feel free to call or email Sandra Finegan at(510)622-1644 or sandra finegan @dot.caQov with any questions regarding this letter. Sincerely, GARY ARNOLD r District Branch Chief ✓`u[ Local Development—lntergoverrunental Review c: State Clearinghouse "Calirans imp—ws inability across Caltjwrda" MAY 0 4 2012 ` ,�PgCg�,�7flICT 1)rzql�r /AA�--� Dom, - cl t C.-'t+-lql 7 901 - ��YLv,tii ; CAZAtc^ 'TRL-y A-rUkl 6sa-32S-t7333 -- 13cy?.� 3(,1 t 263)wrvZ7 GCry, G4 , Rtjo�4 -n-fo I fzA- r I s A<,+Dc--.vim &GZ44jS 6- ! DI- AI tl PUBt1tc OfZ T7-fe C3OAjP-'D frsv 11-W li 04 � wl l -a C-A-TI o w 1 S AIVI- .,+VC--Q UAT f!t piCIKinT '-T74-C W IT7C-A-rt),J MC/1'SUkEESI `M 6N ' r-ocvs ON Q ffDSSr fb+p is oN (-o S 77L--W9D IA- 8 ` From:Craig oremann'Redwood City Seed Company Sent:Wednesday,May O9,2O121Vo1AM To:Sheryl Schaffner Cu Subject:Please cancel Adoption n[Mitigated Neg.Dec.for weed spraying Importance:High Dear Sheryl, Thanks for Vouremall,and Wednesday May 23 atyouroffice at 10AM would be fine,and I will look forward tu meeting you then. In the meanwhile,there is a CECA conflict arising this evening,when the Board Is being asked tv adopt a � Mitigated Neg.Dec.for a two-year weed spraying program,on the agenda for 7:10 tonight. � The problem}s the conflict regarding the 1,DOU acres o[grasslands that is proposed tnbe sprayed with herbicides,and the$30\OOURana Creek consultant's report that the District ordered 14 years ago tn learn the results of various options nf weed control in grassland habitats. � The District has never retested any of those options on a small scale,and did detailed before and after � plant species vegetation measurements over time,to find the Most Mellow Means to manage the weeds,without destroying the existing native species, � And Rana Creek nr the District,never tested any nf the methods|use,like natural e||eloxhemica| mulching,or any of the methods used by Michael Shaw,that he used to get his 74 acres in Santa Cruz T�^ County back tm9Zm native cover? Or any nf Mark vandppn|'s methods u,get his grasslands back m L::] 9nf%native cover. I /am hoping that you will cancel the adoption of the Mitigated Neg.Dec, � h today, �� n�m e,methods and alternatives m spraying for managing the ! 1,0oU acres nf grasslands is offered u`the public and the Board. |t does not make any sense for the District u,spend L:] SsoU'n0Uonavar|etyufmethods to control weeds,and not offer those same methods asalternatives | to weed control? | And no investigation has been done or offered,like my allelochemical mulch method,which gets rid of the Yellow star thistle and Italian thistle weeds permanently within 60 days or less,without any herbicides,that|have been using since 19m5nn local projects. �~ The District has known about Shaw's methods not using fire or broad herbicides and my methods among the District's land managers since mv report was given m them inzoOa.and the Board knew that these more mellow means of managing grasslands usan alternative tnsprawimg,was available since 2OO6. But neither Shaw's nor my method has never been investigated or offered to the public or the Board for grasslands management. | | � � g � You can see photos of my method working in 60 days m less,from tests that|did this winter,at � The District has been doing different management, And � you can see photos ofSha*/s and Mark VawdePw|'s beautiful grasslands,and also see how the District �^ | � grasslands measured up when|did vegetation transects|o your grasslands inZ0O6 and last year at Russian Ridge at | | It does not make any sense for the Board to adopt that Neg.Dec.tonight,when only one method of weed management is being proposed,and that the monitoring of the spraying in those grasslands is Y�l absent or inadequate to evaluate If the method is any better than another one of Rana Creek's methods, ormy method,urSba"/so,k8ark's methods,that would accomplish the same goals,but he much less harmful to the existing native grassland plants. � U The only reason why this Neg.Dec.was written|o the first place,b because|protested that spraying was done in the last decade or longer at Russian Ridge,without ANY CEQA documents being written, and that CEQA does not give a Categorical Exemption for herbicide use,as I wrote the Board|omyemail last May. | � � The basic m|e is ' | T�� application of herbicides,then you must write a full BR. | But in some cases,you can claim a Categorical Exemption,but Title 14 of the California Code of | Regulations,section 15301 for existing facilities,section(h)allows an exemption for"Maintenance of existing landscaping,native growth,and water supply reservoirs",but the law excludes this exemption, F� � when there is the use of pesticides,as defined in Section 12753,Division 7,Chapter 2,Food and Agricultural Code,whichindv�esherbici�e� | � ' . � The main problem|am having with k4id'pen,is that they wrote|ntheir 7001 Resolution,that they are ALWAYS exempt from ever writing nn[|R,which massively expands what is allowed as a Categorical Exemption by the law,like what the McQueen decision by the court of � appeals said,that the District lost. U�| - Plus it must be embarrassing to have the Governor's Office to use your District as an example of flow you are not supposed m expand CEQAexemptions. The web page at cites the McQueen lawsuit,where Mid- pen inI988wasexpmndinQtheCategurioa|Exemptionbeyondwhmt|sa||owmdby|aw. � . Since this current Neg,Dec.is inadequate and does not give the public or the Board a range of alternatives that would accomplish the same goals,like my natural allelochemical mulch,or Shaw's technique,and the monitoring is absent or inadequate,please cancel that Adoption today,and schedule ^—� | some future meetings with the public to explore the Most Mellow Means to accomplish whatever the goals Districts wants tu accomplish|o those grasslands. U v That is another issue that b missing,what goals io the grasslands b the District trying u/achieve? if you merely eradicate a particular weed in a grasslands in California by burning or spraying,there is no guarantee that the space formerly occupied by that weed|o not just taken upby another weed. Your Y�| weed management plan absolutely must include a method to assure that a native plant immediately takes the place of that weed,once that weed ismanaged. U x � � 10 That is what my pictures at shows,the weed b100%gone,but you have done something so that empty space isnow filled 100%by U� a native plant,and that was all accomplished without burning or herbicides,In 60 days or less. | — � And while you are canceling the Adoption today,please also cancel and submit m the Board mnew resolution canceling that illegal clause that was passed the Board in passing in Resolution 01-29 to adopt �� guidelines for CEQA'gave the District aCateOodcu|Exempdon,Section S(iv)kAaintenanceofexisdnA [ native vegetation. U � I have attached a copy of my May 2011 email from last year,and feel free to share this email with � anyone. � � � Sincerely, Craig Dremann (650)325-7133 =============== WHAT 8ANEXEK4PTION7 � CEQA permits the exemption,from environmental review requirements,of certain types of projects � which are not expected tn damage the environment. ! � The State Secretary ofResources reviews candidate classes and lists them as exempt when appropriate. Some examples of class,or Categorical Exemptions,are:(1)repair,remodel or minor additions to existing facilities; (Z)construction of single-family residence;and(3)gardening,landscaping,or minor grading for a driveway or sidewalk.General Rule Exemptions are sometimes applied to proposals which are not expected to harm the environment. QUESTION 4tn the Board. |n20n1,the Board in passing Resolution O1'29m adopt guidelines for CECA � gave the District a Categorical Exemption,Section 5(iv)Maintenance of existing native vegetation. � Apparently,��e�m�oow�n��emm�mair�ini�a��aap|�amund��e0�� . buildings,but was painted broadly to cover all ofthe District's tens of thousands ofvW|dlandacres. Mid-pen was sued in 1988 for painting their exemptions too broadly,in the court case the District lost, the McQueen x Mid-Peninsula Regional Open Space case. Ynur19V8 court case is cited at asa bad example, showing exactly what an agency|s NOT supposed tn do,regarding CEQA exemptions,and you can read the details of the decision at In McQueen,the court reiterated that categorical exemptions are construed strictly,shall not be unreasonably expanded beyond their terms,and may not be used where thee is substantial evidence � that there are circumstances(including future activities)resulting in(or which might reasonably result in) significant impacts which threaten the environment. A lawyer today,could practically cut and paste the 1988 court case into a new lawsuit covering the numerous burns conducted without any BPmon the District's preserves. Ll � � Furthermore,Categorical Exemptions are void,whenever the use uf y� | pesticides bin,ohed—pest|cidesus defined in Section 1275S, Division 7,Chapter 2,Food and Agricultural Code. 5o the current herbicide spraying vf Russian Ridge preserve, «^w+- xhou|dhavehadanBRdonea|so. Does the Board agree that the 2001 exemption Is Illegal under CEQA because the Board is painting the Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations,Section 15300 et seq.exemptions much too broadly,and the Board agrees that it will start the process to amend that Resolution,and cancel that exemption? | | ! � � � � i i � 12 Santa Clara Valley Audubon Society May 4"',2012 Via email Dear Ms Roessler, Santa Clara Valley Audubon Society(SCVAS)submits the following comment on the Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration(IS/MND)for the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District(District)"Site Specific Weed and Pest Management Project"("Project"). The Project would implement weed and pest management activities at 42 distinct treatment sites within 13 open space preserves(OSP)in the years 2012-2014,This project is a temporary "bridge"that would allow weed and pest management activities to occur while a comprehensive review and update of the District's Integrated Pest Management program is being prepared for all lands and habitats in the District's 26 OSPs Coffl=n:Use of glyphosate(Round-up,Rodeo) Studies suggest that glyphosate and/or the surfactant used to facilitate this toxin's uptake by weeds may have adverse impacts on aquatic fauna,including the induction of morphological change in amphibians(see blIV26MAApjtt.eduL—bighome _Ifip d] ) The District proposes to use Best Management Practices(BMP)and mitigations to reduce the risk of exposing Special-Status Aquatic Wildlife species to glyphosate(including the California red legged frog),to a less than significant level(Page 2-18,BMPs 19 and 20).We recommend that the district use a precautionary approach to the spraying of Round-Up formulations near any water feature that may be used by ANY native amphibian species for reproduction,and not limit the mitigation/BMP to water features with the potential to host endangered species. We thank you for the opportunity to provide input;please do not hesitate to contact us if you have questions, Shani Kleinhaus, Environmental Advocate P.I of] 22221 McClellan itoad,Cupertino,CA 95014 Phone: (409)252-3748 Fix: (408)252-2850 email: &qM(d_J;,�10 www.scvas.org 13 R Midpeninsula Regional ' Open Space District To: Board of Directors From: Stephen E. Abbors Date: May 9, 2012 Re: FYIs Midpeninsula Regional • ' Open Space District CLOSING MEMORANDUM To: Stephen E. Abbors, General Manageo*ov From: Jean Chung, Real Property Administrative Assistant l� Date: April 24, 2012 Subject: Woods Property Addition, Redwood Park Subdivision area of Purisima Creek Redwoods Open Space Preserve The General Manager signed Certificates of Acceptance on April 17, 2012 for the Woods, 0.11- acre parcel based upon the determination that acceptance of this low value property or gift is in accordance with the District Rules of Procedure. The Grant Deed was recorded on April 19, 2012 and title to and possession of the property has passed to the District. In accordance with the District Use and Management Planning policy the Preliminary Use and Management Plan was approved by the General Manager on April 17, 2012. Recordation marks the final adoption of the Preliminary Use and Management Plan. The following chart presents dedication and acquisition details for this property: DEDICATION&ACQUISITION INFORMATION Preserve Ownership Status: Board Approval Date& & County Grantor Acres (Fee,Easement,Lease, Resolution Number or Area & Mgmt Agreement) General Manager A.P.N. Approval Date Purisima Creek Redwoods, San Mateo Woods 0.11 Fee General Manager Redwood Park 067-135-030 April 17,2012 Subdivision Mgmt.Status: Dedication Date Closing Date (Open,Closed,CMU, & Type Funding Value GIS Code or Other) Status(Intended or Withheld) April 19,2012 Closed Withheld Gift 0 0 2175 Misc.Notes: Attachments: Acceptance of Low Value Interest in Real Property by General Manager Area Map cc: Accounting Management Analyst Real Property Administrative Assistant Board of Directors Operations Manager Senior Real Property Planner Field Offices(SFO&FFO) Planning Manager GIS Administrator Public Affairs Administrative Assistant Legal Administrative Assistant Public Affairs Manager Redwood Park Subdivision - Purisima Creek Redwood Open Space Preserve Parcel of Interest MROSD ,fsz MY ram ontF- 0 Private R•i.d g e+ 0 Other Public Open Space `3s *Half Moon Bay San Mateo Co Dedication Boundary Area Of Detai I RO MA Woods APN 067-135-030 �O G Dedication 9 Boundary �O (Set by San Mateo County) E J a � POP 4 Ob a Od, a RIDGE ROAD b eM�M FILBERT AVENUE PPW E •• YE MANZANITA AVENI( G ROAD MANZANITA AVENUE R 3 i7 rc a a , Exhibit A: Map 0 3 7 750 1.500 Produced by Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District, April, 2012 e Feet