HomeMy Public PortalAbout20071024 - Agenda Packet - Board of Directors (BOD) - 07-23Regional Open Space
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
Meeting 07-23
REGULAR AND SPECIAL MEETINGS
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
6:00 p.m.
Wednesday, October 24, 2007
330 Distel Circle
Los Altos, California
Please Note: 6:00 p.m. – Special Meeting (Workshop) – District General Manager Recruitment –
Attributes and Profile
7:30 p.m. – Regular Meeting Start Time
A G E N D A
The Special Meeting Workshop will begin at 6:00 p.m. At 7:30 p.m., the Board will convene the Regular
Meeting, which will include a Closed Session.
6:00 SPECIAL MEETING (WORKSHOP) OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL
OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
ROLL CALL
1. District General Manager Recruitment – Attributes and Profile
7:30
**
**
***
***
REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE
DISTRICT
ROLL CALL
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS – Public
ADOPTION OF AGENDA – K. Nitz
ADOPTION OF CONSENT CALENDAR – K. Nitz
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
SEPTEMBER 26, 2007
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS – K. Nitz
BOARD BUSINESS
7:40* 1 Approval of a Memorandum of Understanding Between the Santa Clara County Office of
the Sheriff and the District for the Provision of Law Enforcement Services on District
Lands (G. Baillie)
8:00* 2 Authorization to Amend the Use and Management Plan to Incorporate a Grazing
Management Plan and to Solicit bids from Potential Grazing Tenants for the Skyline Ridge
Open Space Preserve (L. Lenington)
Meeting 07-23 Page 2
8:20* 3 Approval of a Lease Agreement for the Historic Picchetti Winery Area, Picchetti Ranch
Open Space Preserve (Santa Clara County Assessor’s Parcel Numbers 351-18-023),
13100 Montebello Road, Cupertino, CA and Determine that the Recommended Actions are
Categorically Exempt from CEQA as Set Out in the Report (M. Williams)
*** 4 Report on Acceptance of Gift of the Delahay Property as an Addition to La Honda Creek
Open Space Preserve (San Mateo County Assessor’s Parcel Number 078-040-030
(M. Reeves)
*** 5 Appointment of District Clerk (C. Britton)
*** 6 Authorization to Change District’s Designation of Authorized Signatories for District
Checking Accounts and for Access to the District’s Safe Deposit Boxes (C. Britton)
*** 7 Revised Board Meeting Schedule for November, December 2007 and January 2008
(C. Britton)
*** REVISED CLAIMS
9:00* 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 matter at a future
meeting; or direct staff to place a matter on a future agenda.
9:15*
The Board will convene a Closed Session.
CLOSED SESSION
1. Conference with Real Property Negotiator – California Government Code § 54956.8
Real Property – San Mateo County APNs 066-140-080, 090, 100 & & 110, 3555 Higgins
Canyon Road, Half Moon Bay, CA
Agency Negotiator – Mike Williams, Real Property Manager
Negotiating Party – Walt Ferenz
Under Negotiation – Price and terms of real property transaction
2. Conference with Real Property Negotiator – California Government Code § 54956.8
Real Property – Santa Clara County APN 558-26-003, Location: Fireman’s Road,
Los Gatos, CA
Agency Negotiator – Mike Williams, Real Property Manager`
Negotiating Party – Gary Della Maggiore
Under Negotiation – Price and terms of real property transaction
3. Conference with Real Property Negotiator – California Government Code § 54956.8
Real Property – Portion of San Mateo County APN 066-240-070, 1 Lobitos
Creek Road, Half Moon Bay, CA
Agency Negotiator – Michael Reeves, Real Property Specialist
Negotiating Party – Carl A. Hoffman and Roxy Stone
Under Negotiation – Prices and terms of real property transaction
Meeting 07-23 Page 3
REPORT ON RETURN FROM CLOSED SESSION (If Necessary) – California Government Code Section
54957.1(a)
ADJOURNMENT
* Times are estimated and items may appear earlier or later than listed. Agenda is subject to change of order.
** TO ADDRESS THE BOARD: The 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.
*** 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.
CERTIFICATION OF POSTING OF AGENDA
I, Gordon Baillie, Interim District Clerk for the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (MROSD), declare that the foregoing
agenda for the October 24, 2007 Regular Meeting of the MROSD Board of Directors was posted and available for review on
October 19, 2007 at the Administrative Offices of MROSD, 330 Distel Circle, Los Altos, California, 94022. The agenda is also
available on the District’s web site at http://www.openspace.org.
Signed this 19th day of October 2007 at Los Altos, California.
_________________________________ Date: 10/19/07 Time: 2:00 p.m.
Gordon Baillie, Interim District Clerk
R-07-85
Meeting 07-23
October 24, 2007
AGENDA ITEM 1
AGENDA ITEM
Approval of a Memorandum of Understanding between the Santa Clara County Office of the
Sheriff and the District for the Provision of Law Enforcement Services on District Lands
GENERAL MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATION
Authorize the General Manager to approve the attached Memorandum of Understanding between
the Santa Clara County Office of the Sheriff and the District for the provision of law
enforcement services on District Lands
BACKGROUND
The provision of additional law enforcement services, beyond the basic services and emergency
response that the Santa Clara County Sheriff is obligated to provide, has been a topic of
consideration for a number of years.
In 1998, the Operations Program Review study had recommended “clear, written agreements
with the appropriate agencies to define law enforcement jurisdictions and responsibilities, and to
establish service expectations.” The study also recommended that issues that might pose a
concern to ranger staff should be referred to the sheriff or other appropriate law enforcement
agency. This procedure is also memorialized in the District’s Operation Manual.
Staff has also continued to express concerns about officer safety, and this is one measure that is
being implemented to address these concerns.
DISCUSSION
The purpose of the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) is to reduce response time for
Sheriff’s deputies when requested by District patrol staff. This will be accomplished by having a
Sheriff’s deputy assigned to patrol District lands for four (4) hours per day. The patrol times will
cover the later afternoon and evening periods. The four-hour per day time period will be subject
to change, after an evaluation by Operations staff to see if this schedule best meets the District’s
needs.
It is clearly stated in the MOU that the services provided will not replace, but will augment, the
existing services provided by Sheriff’s deputies.
R-07-85 Page 2
A contract with the Santa Clara County Sheriff was entered into in the past. The contract had
mixed results with the primary concern being that the deputies were not available when needed,
and the belief that deputies were responding to calls for services outside of District lands. The
attached MOU deals with these concerns by requiring that deputies assigned to patrol District
lands shall keep written records of their activities, and also specifies that they may only respond
to calls off of District lands where there is an immediate threat of serious harm. Log sheets will
be created by the deputies on a daily basis, and will be sent to the Foothills Area Superintendent
for review.
The MOU also requires that the deputy assigned to the patrol area be equipped with a 4X4
capable vehicle, and provided with a District radio, District patrol map book, and District visitor
publications, and a copy of the District Ordinances.
If approved, the term of the MOU shall be for a one year period, commencing upon final
approval of the agreement. The MOU will be renewable on a year-by-year basis if desired by
both parties.
BUDGET CONSIDERATIONS
Up to $94,000 dollars was budgeted for fiscal year 2007/2008 for this MOU. However, since the
MOU will not likely start until late in October 2007, it is anticipated that the cost for fiscal year
2007/2008 will be less than $40,000, but would be rebudgeted for next fiscal year, based upon
anticipated success.
Based on the current rates, a full fiscal year of service would cost an estimated $70,000.
List of Exhibits
Exhibit A – Memorandum of Understanding
Prepared by:
Gordon Baillie, Management Analyst
David Sanguinetti, Operations Manager
Michael Newburn, Area Superintendent
Contact Person:
Gordon Baillie, Management Analyst
Exhibit A – Memorandum of Understanding
Santa Clara County Preserve Service Areas
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
as
0
0
U
E0
N
0
0
0
I ',
is ood-
vood
Footle
ek as ancs�"�I
MROSD
Other public
open Space
Land Trust
VVatershed Land
MROSD Boundary
County Lines
Primary
Service Area
Response Through
Request of District
Supervisor
Monte
ello Picchetti
Ranch
Fren'ant
Olde
Saratoga
Gap
El Sereno
Bear Creek
Redwoods
M.O.U. Attachment A
Produced by Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District, August 2007
oseph's Hill
REQUEST SERVICE AREAS:
(Based on request from
District Supervisor)
Stevens Creek Nature
Study Area
Fremont Older
Saratoga Gap
Picchetti Ranch
Los Trancos
Foothills
PRIMARY SERVICE AREAS:
St. Josepth's Hill
Sierra Azul
Bear Creek Redwoods
These Preserves outlined in Red
Attachment B
DESCRIPTION
HOURLY
SALARY ADMIN COST
TOTAL
HOURLY
TOTAL
BIWEEKLY**
TOTAL
ANNUAL***
DEPUTY SHERIFF $40.00 $5.00 $45.00 $1,260.00 $32,760.00
SHERIFF'S SERGEANT $46.00 $5.00 $51.00 $1,428.00 $37,128.00
VEHICLE COST = $0.72 per mile
**Biweekly rate is representative of a 28-hour work week (4-Plan/7days a week)
***Annual rate is equal to the biweekly salary cost for 26 pay periods
Above pay job rates inlude all administrative overhead costs
COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA
PAY JOB RATES
EFFECTIVE NOVEMBER 1, 2007
o:\santa clara county sheriffs contract\SC SO MOU - Attachment B Pay Job Rates 9-24-07.xls
Regional Open Space
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
Meeting 07-19
REGULAR and SPECIAL MEETING
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
September 26, 2007
MINUTES
SPECIAL MEETING
I. ROLL CALL
Vice President P. Siemens called the Special Meeting to order at 6: 03 p.m.
Members Present: Jed Cyr, Nonette Hanko, Curt Riffle, Pete Siemens, and Mary
Davey.
Members Absent: Ken Nitz and L. Hassett
Staff Present: Craig Britton, Sue Schectman, Duncan Simmons, Michael
Williams, Michael Reeves
II. CLOSED SESSION
P. Siemens stated that there were no reportable items from the Closed Session regarding
Items 1, 2, 3 , 4 and 5.
REGULAR MEETING
III. P. Siemens called the Regular Meeting to order at 7:33 p.m.
Additional Staff Present: Camille Tavlian, David Sanguinetti, Kirk Lennington, Matt
Freeman, Stella Cousins, and Rudy Jurgensen, Tina Hugg, Vicky Gou.
IV. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS There were none.
Meeting 07-19 Page 2
V. ADOPTION OF AGENDA
Motion: C. Riffle moved to adopt the Agenda. M. Davey seconded the motion.
The motion passed 5 to 0.
VI. ADOPTION OF CONSENT CALENDAR
C. Britton requested that the Board table the Minutes of July 25, 2007 and said they
would be resubmitted for approval at a following Board meeting.
J. Cyr gave a correction to the Written Communication to staff.
N. Hanko said she would voluntarily recuse herself from voting on Revised Claim
number 7566-R. M. Davey stated that she would recuse herself from voting on Revised
Claim number 7566-R. S. Schectman pointed out that if N. Hanko voluntarily recused
herself from Revised Claim 7566-R, there would not be enough votes to pay that
particular bill. N. Hanko withdrew her voluntary recusal.
Motion: M. Davey moved that the Board adopt the Consent Calendar, including
the Revised Claims 07-15. C. Riffle seconded the motion. The motion
passed 4 to 0 on Revised Claim number 7566-R with one recusal, and
passed 5 to 0 on the remaining Revised Claims 07-15. The Board Minutes
dated July 25, 2007 were tabled and not included in the vote.
VII. NEW STAFF INTRODUCTIONS
M. Freeman introduced Tina Hugg, Planner II. The Board welcomed her to the District.
T. Hugg said she was happy to be working at the District.
R. Jurgensen introduced Vicky Gou, Website Coordinator within the Public Affairs
Department. The Board welcomed her to the District and told her that she should expect
Board inquiries about the Website updates. V. Gou said she looked forward to working
at the District.
VIII. BOARD BUSINESS
A. Agenda Item No. 1 – Adopt the Revised Good Neighbor Policy; As a Result of
the Successful Completion of its Assigned Task, Discontinue the Good Neighbor
Ad Hoc Committee – (Report R-07-96).
R. Jurgensen presented the staff report. He said that the Committee had reviewed
the suggested revisions from the February 7, 2007 Special Board meeting that had
been held in Half Moon Bay, CA. He told the Board that staff had mailed out
about 2,000 notices and placed three newspaper ad notices for tonight’s meeting.
Meeting 07-19 Page 3
R. Jurgensen highlighted the revisions of the policy. He said that the Board
would be committed to have the policy reviewed annually at a public meeting.
It was anticipated that this would be done by LFPAC Committee. C. Britton said
that he had met with L. Hassett and P. Siemens about the policy and had
addressed their questions. Legal counsel had reworded the language and P.
Siemens said he was comfortable with going forward with the policy.
N. Hanko asked if the brochure was ready to be produced and distributed.
R. Jurgensen said that the brochure was not yet developed and that it would take
approximately a half-year to produce. N. Hanko questioned whether the Ad Hoc
Committee should be disbanded because the brochure is not ready. C. Britton
replied that the brochures are not generally sent to committee. Staff can send
drafts of the brochure to the full Board for comment.
M. Davey said that this policy is a good document because it is inclusive.
Motion: M. Davey moved that the Board adopt the revised Good Neighbor
Policy and to discontinue the Good Neighbor Ad Hoc Committee.
J. Cyr seconded the motion.
Discussion: C. Riffle said he was in favor of the policy and that he agreed with
M. Davey. He asked if the website will be used to publish the
policy and if it will be able to be “pulled out”. R. Jurgensen said
that the policy would be published on the District’s website.
C. Riffle asked how the Board and staff will know if they are being
good neighbors. R. Jurgensen said that implementing the policy
will show if they are being good neighbors. S. Schectman
reminded the Board about the Ombudsman as a resource.
N. Hanko recalled the Open Space Conference and the tours of
District lands and how other agency staff had asked about the
District policy. She said she would give C. Britton the names of
those staff so that they can receive copies of the policy. She added
that the Board should continue to accept suggestions for changes
from the public. She asked if staff would keep the suggestions for
the annual review of the policy. C. Britton said that over the year,
if comments were received, staff would keep a file with the
suggestions and include them with the annual review of the policy.
N. Hanko reiterated that the public is the most affected by the
policy. R. Jurgensen said that the Public Affairs department would
keep the file for any policy suggestions.
Terry Gossett, 193 Reef Point, Moss Beach, CA, presented some
background on the meetings he has attended. He asked what a
good neighbor is and said that there are an abundant range of laws
Meeting 07-19 Page 4
from the different agencies in the coastal area. He said that the
final EIR had received about 220 public comments and said he
thought that the lack of people in tonight’s audience might mean
that the public is waiting for answers and that they have not
received answers, so they did not want to attend this meeting.
He thanked the Board for listening.
Richard Gieger, 714 E. Chatedon Road, Palo Alto, CA, said his
major concern was about fire protection. He said there is no
planning for fires – no fire breaks or hydrants. He said the District
should work with the City of Palo Alto to build a fire station in the
Monte Bello area. He noted that Palo Alto has responsibility for
installing hydrants, but that the District should put in the water
lines to access water tanks on District land. He said that the
District should have more Rangers trained for fire protection.
P. Siemens said that the fire protection issue is a separate policy
issue. C. Britton said that there would be a Special Meeting of the
Board of Directors on November 6 to discuss wildland fire.
D. Sanguinetti addressed Mr. Gieger’s issues regarding the
District’s preparedness for fire protection. He said that the
Rangers are trained in fire protection and that the District is a
member of the Fire Safe programs in both San Mateo County and
Santa Clara County and that they train regularly. He said there are
extensive fire breaks on District property and that they work with
Palo Alto’s station no. 8 at Foothill Park. The District provides
each Ranger with a truck with a 100-gallon fire pumper and 10-
gallon foam. Staff is trained 36 hours each year. which is the
national standard. The District owns a 1,800-gallon water truck,
which is often used by other agencies. He added that the District
Open Space Technicians are given the choice to train as optional
fire fighters and stated that all OST’s are currently involved in the
District’s fire protection program.
Vote: The motion passed 5 to 0.
B. Agenda Item No. 2 – Authorization to Amend Contract with Balance
Hydrologics, Inc., to Provide Additional In-Stream Sediment and Stream Gage
Monitoring Services at El Corte de Madera Creek Open Space Preserve;
Authorize the General Manager to Amend the Contract with Balance
Hydrologics, Inc., in the Amount of $25,000 for a Total Authorization Amount
Not to Exceed $133,256 – (Report R-07-91)
K. Lennington presented the staff report stating that the recommendation was to
amend the contract for sediment monitoring at El Corte de Madera Creek Open
Meeting 07-19 Page 5
Space Preserve. The contractor has completed three years of monitoring and they
are requesting two additional years of monitoring. K. Lennington described the
different types of sediment monitoring. He said that estimating sediment is
complicated and they develop correlations to gage the sediment and develop a
rating curve (he showed an example graph of the rating curve). He said that they
now have a good base flow data set on stored sediment. The contract amendment
is to gather further data.
P. Siemens asked if staff or the contractor will do V-star again this year. K.
Lennington said no and that it is their opinion to do a subset in pools, but that
there is not a lot of value in doing the V-star. He said that staff will monitor six
pools, not the contractor.
P. Siemens asked if the contractor had trained staff. K. Lennington said they had
and that M. Baldzikowski had received the training, but the specialized equipment
is very expensive and the contractor already owns the equipment.
C. Riffle asked why the monitoring is being done. K. Lennington said that they
have been able to assess the effectiveness of monitoring over time. The value is
to accurately assess how El Corte de Madera Creek Open Space Preserve is being
managed with the amount of sediment in the San Gregorio Creek Watershed area.
He said that the District’s data is very useful.
K. Lennington said it is staff’s goal and hope that the monitoring will be done in-
house.
C. Riffle asked if staff is working in any other streams. K. Lennington said that
people like knowing about water flow, but that the District is only responsible for
2% of the out-flow. It would be valuable to monitor other streams; however,
there are no staff resources available.
J. Cyr said that training staff to verify the sediment in the pools is valuable and
asked when the monitoring occurs. K. Lennington said that the staff monitors the
pools in the summer months.
Motion: M. Davey moved that the Board authorize amending the contract
with Balance Hydrologics, Inc., to provide additional in-stream
sediment and stream gage monitoring services at El Corte de
Madera Creek Open Space Preserve; Authorize the General
Manager to amend the contract with Balance Hydrologics, Inc., in
the amount of $25,000 for a total authorization amount not to
exceed $133,256. J. Cyr seconded the motion. The motion passed
5 to 0.
C. Agenda Item No. 3 – Authorization to Amend a Contract with Sage Associates in
an Amount Not to Exceed $14,000, for a Total Authorization Amount Not to
Meeting 07-19 Page 6
Exceed $39,000 to Provide Conservation Grazing Planning Services; Authorize
the General Manager to Amend the Contract with Sage Associates for Preparation
and Administration of Grazing Plans, Training of District Staff, and Related
Support of Conservation Grazing Activities on District Lands – (Report R-07-97).
S. Cousins presented the staff report and gave background information on the
grazing plans. She also reviewed the work of Sage Associates for the District
over the previous year.
N. Hanko asked if staff is satisfied with their work. S. Cousins said that staff was
very happy with their work.
Motion: M. Davey moved that the Board authorize to amend a contract with
Sage Associates in an amount not to exceed $14,000 for a total
authorization amount not to exceed $39,000 to provide
conservation grazing planning services; Authorize the General
Manager to amend the contract with Sage Associates for
preparation and administration of grazing plans, training of District
staff, and related support of conservation grazing activities on
District lands. N. Hanko seconded the motion.
Discussion: C. Riffle said that he was in favor of this contract. He asked if
Sage Associates would evaluate the District’s program. S. Cousins
said they were on-call experts and that they will be available to
assist. She said the Grazing Management Plan will serve as the
template for staff to follow. C. Britton said that C. Roessler would
oversee the plan.
P. Siemens asked if a grazing expert would be hired. C. Britton
said that when there is more land they will ultimately hire
someone.
C. Riffle asked if Sage Associates would help staff with Driscoll.
S. Cousins said that Sage Associates has already provided
suggestions.
Vote: The motion passed 5 to 0.
D. Agenda Item No. 4 – Approval of Application to the Habitat Conservation Fund
Program for Funding Assistance to Purchase the Peninsula Open Space Trust
Blue Brush Canyon and Lobitos Ridge Properties and a Portion of the University
of California Elkus 4H Ranch Property as an Addition to Purisima Creek
Redwoods Open Space Preserve (San Mateo County Assessor’s Parcel Numbers
066-230-060, 066-230-030, and a Portion of 066-200-070); Determine that the
Recommended Action is Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA), As Set Out in this Report; Adopt the Resolution of the Board of
Directors of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (District), Approving
Meeting 07-19 Page 7
the Application for Grant Funds from the Habitat Conservation Fund Program to
Purchase the Peninsula Open Space Trust (POST) Blue Brush Canyon and
Lobitos Ridge Properties and a Portion of the University of California (UC) Elkus
4H Ranch Property as an Addition to Purisima Creek Redwoods Open Space
Preserve – (Report R-07-95)
Motion: M. Davey moved for Board approval of application to the Habitat
Conservation Fund Program for funding assistance to purchase the
Peninsula Open Space Trust Blue Brush Canyon and Lobitos
Ridge Properties and a portion of the University of California
Elkus 4H Ranch Property as an addition to Purisima Creek
Redwoods Open Space Preserve (San Mateo County Assessor’s
Parcel Numbers 066-230-060, 066-230-030, and a Portion of 066-
200-070); Determine that the recommended action is exempt from
the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), as set out in
this report; Adopt Resolution No. 07-22 of the Board of Directors
of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (District),
approving the application for grant funds from the Habitat
Conservation Fund Program to purchase the Peninsula Open Space
Trust (POST) Blue Brush Canyon and Lobitos Ridge Properties
and a portion of the University of California (UC) Elkus 4H Ranch
property as an addition to Purisima Creek Redwoods Open Space
Preserve. J. Cyr seconded the motion.
Discussion: C. Riffle asked why the Anadromous Salmonids and Trout Habitat
category was chosen out of the seven categories. M. Williams
answered that the District has had the most success with this
category and that it best fit the application. C. Britton added that
the District has an excellent track record with this category.
Vote: The motion passed 5 to 0.
VIII. INFORMATIONAL REPORTS
C. Riffle said his only compensable meeting was tonight’s meeting (9/26). He said he
attended the Golden Spike ceremony and he commended staff and N. Hanko, adding that
he saw a great picture of her taken at the ceremony. He said he also attended the
Volunteer Recognition event and that everyone did a good job. He went to the
Committee for Green Foothills event with other Board members. He said that he has
received some topics for discussion at the workshop, but that he was still waiting for
input from J. Cyr and P. Siemens. He attended the Volunteer Ad Hoc meeting on
October 5 (non-compensable). He said he would be attending the Deer Hollow Farm
event on October 7 and that J. Cyr will be attending this event too. He said he will not be
at the October 12 Board meeting, but will be going to the Grand Canyon Trust (C. Britton
noted that there would be two important items on the October 12 meeting.). C. Riffle
said that Portola Valley is inquiring about a dog area at Windy Hill and that Rancho San
Meeting 07-19 Page 8
Antonio may receive a request from Los Altos for an off-leash dog area. He wondered if
off-leash dog parks belong on city land, not open space. C. Riffle asked if there would be
a half-year review of District progress. C. Britton said that they no longer do this, but
that the Administration and Budget Committee will meet and review the budget to date,
which will return to the Board for any adjustments.
M. Davey said her only compensable meeting was tonight’s Board meeting (9/26). She
attended the Open Space Council meeting as the only District representative and she said
there were two excellent presentations: (1) Save the Bay, and (2) BCDC which discussed
why the bay is saved as it is. She said she attended the Golden Spike ceremony and the
Volunteer Recognition event adding that she enjoyed C. Britton’s presentation. She
attended a Docent party at Shoop Park and said it was a delightful evening that included a
talk by an author. She attended a League of Conservation Voters event. She announced
that the Committee for Green Foothills event made just under $100,000.00.
N. Hanko said her compensable meetings were the LFPAC meeting on September 14, the
Ad Hoc Evaluation Committee meeting on September 18, and tonight’s Board meeting
(9/26).
J. Cyr stated that his compensable meetings included the LFPAC meeting on September
14, the Ad Hoc Evaluation Committee meeting on September 18, and tonight’s Board
meeting (9/26). He said in August he had mentioned the Santa Clara County Open Space
Authority education program and tonight he gave R. Jurgensen a brochure about this
program. He said he attended the Ridge Trail Council meeting on September 13. He
attended the Golden Spike ceremony and said it was a wonderful event. He said he hiked
the new trail the previous Friday and said it was approximately a 10-1/2 mile hike down
to Arastradero. It was steep terrain, beautiful, and he shared a photo he took of the new
bridge. He commended staff on the lay out of the trail and gave special
acknowledgement to C. Beckman, adding that Gene Sheehan said he [C. Beckman] “has
a good eye for dirt”. On September 23, he went to the Committee for Green Foothills
event. He attended the September 24 Docent meeting. He said he would be volunteering
on the Ridge Trail crew on the upcoming Saturday. He acknowledged the work the
Public Affairs team had accomplished this month and said that they have done an
incredible job.
P. Siemens said his compensable meetings are the September 18 Ad Hoc Evaluation
Committee meeting and tonight’s Board meeting (9/26). He said he attended the Staff
Appreciation event, the Golden Spike ceremony and the Volunteer Recognition event.
C. Britton pointed out three items in the FYI’s, including a schedule of upcoming Board
meetings. He mentioned that the holiday schedule will include December 31st this year.
He pointed out a memo from C. Roessler discussing the discovery of a new weed at Mt.
Umunhum. He mentioned the Golden Spike event. He said he worked with C. Cleve and
that she did a fantastic job helping him prepare his presentation for the Volunteer
Recognition event. He said he was planning on giving a similar talk at the Staff
Recognition event; however, the weather caused him to reschedule. He said he was on an
Meeting 07-19 Page 9
interview panel for Santa Clara County Parks on September 21. He said that he met with
the Peninsula Work Group in San Mateo County on September 24 and that this group is
looking at several projects.
P. Siemens said that he would not be attending the October 24, 2007 Board meeting.
IX. ADJOURNMENT
The Regular meeting adjourned at 9:10 p.m.
Lisa Zadek
Recording Secretary
From: Craig Dremann [mailto:craig@astreet.com]
Sent: Friday, October 12, 2007 4:57 PM
To: Deanelittle@aol.com; Jed Cyr; Mary Davey; Nonette Hanko; Craig
Britton; Craig Beckman; Larry Hassett; Kenneth C. Nitz; Pete Siemens;
Curt Riffle; Kirk Lenington; Cindy Roessler; Rudy Jurgensen;
craig@astreet.com
Subject: Plan "B" if burn has killed the native grasses on Russian
ridge?
Dear Mr. Nitz and All,
Thanks for your letter of September 27th that I just received today,
regarding my emailed questions about the Russian Ridge prescribed burn
that the District conducted this summer.
You indicated in your letter that the District isn't going to seed with
the recommended 125,000 pounds of local native grass seed this winter,
and the District is hoping that the few native grass plants that
remained prior to the burn, will resprout?
The hope of "resprouting" native grass plants after a
burn---unfortunately does not always happen. Based on my 10-year study
1992-2002 of a Stipa prairie in Benicia that burned twice, the native
grass cover was 79% prior to the first burn, and the best that prairie
ever recovered was only 34.6%.
What will the District do, if the burn was too hot for the Russian
Ridge
native grass plants, and large parts of the Preserve becomes a solid
yellow star thistle or other weed patch---like what happened to the
star
thistle burn along I-505 in the Central Valley?
When managing yellow star thistle, 90 days after treatment to achieve
90% or better local native plant cover, is a very reasonable goal.
Anything less than 90% native cover at the 90-day point, and the whole
area can collapse into one big, giant exotic weed patch.
Does the District have a "Plan-B" for Russian Ridge and at least $5
million available to purchase or hand-collect the necessary local
native
seeds, to revive the native grass resources that may have been
exterminated, if the prescribed burn was too hot?
I'll look forward to your response.
Sincerely, Craig DREMANN
October 24, 2007
Craig Dremman
P.O. Box 609
Redwood City, CA 94064
Dear Mr. Dremann:
Subject: Russian Ridge Prescribed Burn
In response to your October 12, 2007 electronic mail, native grasses have started to
resprout in the prescribed burn area at the Russian Ridge Open Space Preserve. As in
previous years, we expect the native grasses to reoccupy the burn area and we will
control the invasive plants that also appear, including Harding grass and yellow
starthistle. Based on our previous experience with prescribed burns at Russian Ridge, we
do not believe that seeding with 125,000 pounds of native grasses at this location, as you
have recommended, will be necessary.
Sincerely,
Kenneth C. Nitz
President, Board of Directors
KN:CR/ct
cc: Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Board of Directors
R-07-107
Meeting 07-23
October 24, 2007
AGENDA ITEM 2
AGENDA ITEM
Authorization to Amend the Use and Management Plan to Incorporate a Grazing Management
Plan and to Solicit Proposals from Potential Grazing Tenants for the Skyline Ridge Open Space
Preserve
GENERAL MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Adopt a Use and Management Plan Amendment to incorporate a Grazing Management
Plan for the former Big Dipper and Silva/Kenyon Ranches area of Skyline Ridge Open
Space Preserve.
2. Authorize staff to solicit proposals from potential grazing tenants for the implementation
of the Grazing Management Plan.
3. Determine that the project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA), based on the findings contained in this report.
BACKGROUND
The former Big Dipper and Silva/Kenyon Ranches (Ranches), totaling approximately 955 acres,
comprise the majority of the closed areas at Skyline Ridge Open Space Preserve. About a
quarter (240 acres) of the land area on the Ranches is rolling hillside grasslands, which have
been grazed by cattle since approximately the 1920’s. The contiguous properties were managed
as two separate ranches for much of the last century: the larger Big Dipper Ranch was operated
from the retained home site and from a separate barn higher on the property. The smaller upper
ranch, which in recent decades was owned by the Silva family who still own land located across
Alpine Road, was operated from a caretaker residence with adjacent corrals.
The District completed the purchase of the Ranches in November 2002, incorporating the
properties into Skyline Ridge Open Space Preserve and adopting Use and Management Plan
amendments over the following years. Grazing operations on the former Silva property ceased in
November 2000. On Big Dipper Ranch, the prior tenant continued some grazing use through
spring of this year. After replacement of the boundary fences and necessary repairs to water
sources, the District engaged a local rancher to continue grazing operations on the Ranches and
assist in evaluation of the rangeland infrastructure. This arrangement was a temporary and
limited operation, lasting from June through August of this year.
In addition to the various rangeland uses on the Ranches, as of August the District has been
leasing the former caretaker residence at the Silva property to a District staff member with
expertise in resource management. This person will be responsible for conducting portions of the
annual monitoring required for the grazing operation as well as assisting with day-to-day
monitoring and oversight as part of the rent for the residence.
R-07-107 Page 2
DISCUSSION
Use and Management Committee Meeting
On August 30, 2007, the Use and Management Committee reviewed the Grazing Management
Plan for the Ranches as well as one for the Tunitas Creek Open Space Preserve. Thirteen
members of the community attended the committee meeting, which was held at the Skyline Area
Field Office and continued with site visits to the each of the subject properties. Staff reported on
the history of the properties and details of the Grazing Management Plan and gathered comments
from the Committee and from the public. The Committee recommended adopting an amendment
to the Comprehensive Use and Management Plan for Skyline Ridge Open Space Preserve to
implement a Grazing Management Plan for the portion of the Preserve formed by the Big Dipper
and Silva/Kenyon Ranches.
Grazing Management Plan
The Grazing Management Plan for the former Big Dipper and Silva/Kenyon Ranches is an
encompassing guide to conservation grazing that is customized to suit the management needs of
the Ranches. It includes a documentation of the natural resources of the site, an inventory and
assessment of infrastructure related to grazing operations, analysis of soils and rangeland
productivity, and baseline photo documentation of the Ranches. Further, the Grazing
Management Plan makes specific recommendations for number, type, distribution, and
movement of livestock on the property, as well as the necessary infrastructure and equipment
improvements to meet the District's resource management goals.
The District’s resource management goals for the Grazing Management Plan at the Ranches are
to manage the livestock grazing in a manner that is compatible with public access, maintain and
enhance the diversity of native plant and animal communities, manage vegetative fuel for fire
prevention, help sustain the local agricultural economy, and foster appreciation for the region’s
rural agricultural heritage. Specifically, the Grazing Management Plan calls for seasonal cattle
grazing in the late winter through early summer, rotating 30 to 60 head through the existing
pastures. A number of rangeland infrastructure improvements are recommended, including
upgrades to the network of water developments on the property and maintenance of fencing.
Further, a comprehensive plan for monitoring the Ranches, employing the National Resource
Conservation Service and UC Cooperative Extension standards for rangeland habitat health, is
outlined in the Grazing Management Plan.
The Grazing Management Plan is proposed not only as a portion of the Preserve’s
comprehensive Use and Management Plan, but serves also as the primary component of a
grazing lease. Through the Grazing Management Plan, a grazing tenant operating at the Ranches
will be aware of the District’s specific resource management goals and other important
expectations of the operator. In soliciting proposals from potential grazing tenants, the Grazing
Management Plan will serve as a key reference both for District staff and prospective tenants.
Grazing Tenant Solicitation Process
Should the Board approve this Agenda item, Staff will commence to release a request for
proposals from potential grazing tenants for the Ranches. A list of prospective grazing tenants
has been collected during the development of the Grazing Management Policy. This list will be
used to directly contact parties regarding the availability of grazing land at the Ranches.
R-07-107 Page 3
Additionally, advertisements will be run in local newspapers and notices will be distributed to
local partner agencies such as the San Mateo County Resource Conservation District, Natural
Resources Conservation Service, San Mateo County Farm Bureau, and San Mateo County
Agricultural Advisory Committee. District staff will review proposals received from prospective
tenants and will select a potential tenant based on: (1) ability to best meet the District’s criteria
for experience; (2) ability to meet Resource Management goals; (3) a review of references,
potentially including a review of other properties managed by producer; and (4) the applicant’s
proposed lease price. In adherence to the District’s Grazing Management Policy, preference will
be given to local producers. Staff will return to the Board for authorization to award a lease to
the selected grazing operator.
PUBLIC NOTIFICATION
Property owners of lands located adjacent to and surrounding the subject property have been
mailed written notices of this proposed Use and Management Plan Amendment. Local
newspaper advertisements, written mailings to parties interested in the District’s resource
management program, and notices to potentially involved agencies and organizations were also
utilized in publicizing the proposed amendment. Additionally, surrounding property owners,
organizations and individuals with interest in the District’s resource management program, and
various coastside agencies and organizations were mailed a written notice of the Use and
Management Committee meeting at which the draft Grazing Management Plan was discussed.
The Ranches are not located in the Coastside Protection Program area.
CEQA DETERMINATION
The project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
under Sections 15301 and 15304 as follows:
Section 15301 exempts the operation, repair, maintenance, leasing, or minor alteration of
existing structures, facilities, or topographical features not expanding existing uses.
Section 15304 exempts minor alterations in the condition of land, water, or vegetation that do
not affect sensitive resources.
Prepared by:
Stella Cousins
Open Space Planner I
Kirk Lenington
Resource Planner II
Contact Person:
Kirk Lenington
Resource Planner II
BIG DIPPER & SILVA RANCHES
SKYLINE RIDGE OPEN SPACE PRESERVE
GRAZING MANAGEMENT PLAN
PREPARED FOR:
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
330 Distel Circle Los Altos, CA 94022-1404
Attention: Mr. Kirk Lenington, Resource Planner
PREPARED BY:
SAGE Associates, Agricultural and Environmental Consultants, February 2007
1396 Danielson Rd, Santa Barbara, CA 93108
(805) 969-0557 Ph./ (805) 969-5003 Fx. sage@silcom.com
MROSD Updates
July 2007 and September 2007
Draft October 2007 SAGE Associates Sage Associates ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Page
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1
SUMMARY OF GRAZING LEASE TERMS 4
1.0 INTRODUCTION 5
1.1 Background and Location 5
1.2 Purpose, Goals, and Policies of the Grazing Management Plan 5
2.0 REGIONAL AGRICULTURAL USES IN SAN MATEO COUNTY 9
3.0 RANGELAND MANAGEMENT 10
3.1 Historical Rangeland Uses 10
3.2 Existing Rangeland Soil Agricultural Characteristics 10
3.3 Rangeland Operations and Management 21
3.3.1 Rangeland Uses and Livestock Grazing Suitability 21
3.3.2 Livestock Stocking and Distribution 23
3.3.3 Rangeland/Habitat Health and Residual Dry Matter 24
3.3.4 Livestock Facilities 28
3.3.5 Livestock Fencing 28
3.3.6 Livestock Water Sources 29
3.4 Existing Rangeland Road Access Maintenance 29
4.0 EXISTING NATURAL RESOURCE CONDITIONS 30
4.1 Natural Resources 30
4.1.1 Vegetation Communities 30
4.1.2 Wildlife 32
4.2 Invasive and or Noxious Species 33
5.0 GRAZING MANAGEMENT PLAN IMPLEMENTATION 36
5.1 Implementation of the Purpose of the Plan 36
5.2 Grazing Conservation Management Components 37
5.2.1 Grazing Management 37
5.2.1.1 Proposed Rangeland Conservation Mngmt Practices 37
5.2.1.2 Rangeland Infrastructure Requirements 43
5.2.2 Safety and Road Maintenance Requirements 46
Draft October 2007 SAGE Associates Sage Associates iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Page
5.2.3 Natural Resources Management 48
5.2.3.1 Vegetation 48
5.2.3.2 Wildlife 50
5.2.3.3 Riparian Corridors 51
5.2.3.4 Invasive and or Noxious Species 51
5.2.3.5 Water Quality 58
6.0 MONITORING PROGRAM 60
7.0 REFERENCES 68
7.1 Plan Preparers 68
7.2 Persons/Organizations Consulted 68
7.3 Bibliography 68
Appendices
Appendix A: Blank and Completed Monitoring Forms
Appendix B: California Rangeland Health Evaluation Matrix, NRCS 2007
Appendix C: Sample Stocking and Work Program
TABLE OF ILLUSTRATIONS
ITEMS Page
Figures
Figure 1 Vicinity Map Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 6
Figure 2 Big Dipper – Silva Fences, Gates, Water and Pastures 7
Figure 3 Photo Location Map 13
Figure 4 Proposed Livestock/Wildlife Water Infrastructure Map 44
Figure 5 Big Dipper – Silva Brush Conversion Areas 57
Tables
Table 1 Rangeland and Soil Characteristics 19
Table 2 Conservation Management Practices Summary 39
Draft October 2007 SAGE Associates Sage Associates iv
TABLE OF ILLUSTRATIONS
ITEMS Page
Photos
#1 View of natural brush barrier 14
#2 View of Big Dipper and Silva grazing areas 14
#3 View of holding pen in old corrals on Big Dipper property 14
#4 View of Big Dipper grazing area and barn 14
#5 View of access to proposed Silva corral site 15
#6 View of proposed Silva corral site 15
#7 View of Silva proposed new trough area and holding pens 15
#8 View of north Silva fenceline 15
#9 View of north Silva fenceline and brush barrier 16
#10 View of Silva grassland and tank/water trough locations 16
#11 View of Silva/Big Dipper fenceline 16
#12 View of Silva/Big Dipper fenceline and trough location 16
#13 View of Big Dipper pond and grassland 17
#14 View of Big Dipper barn, pond, and trough location 17
#15 View of Big Dipper trough location and thistle infestation 17
#16 View of Big Dipper grassland 17
#17 View of Big Dipper trough location and grassland 18
#18 View of Big Dipper brushland mowing area and cattle guard 18
A Example of moderately grazed annual and perennial grasses 27
Draft October 1, 2007
1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Setting: The ranches are located in San Mateo County, on the east side of Alpine Road, about
two miles south of the intersection of Alpine Road and Skyline Blvd, and fall within a closed
area of Skyline Ridge Open Space Preserve. The Big Dipper ranch is located to the south of, and
adjacent to, the Silva Property. The Silva ranch contains about 235 acres, and Big Dipper
contains about 720 acres. Within the total 955 acres, approximately 25 percent, or 240 acres are
suitable for livestock grazing.
MROSD goals are to manage District land with livestock grazing that is compatible with public
access, to maintain and enhance the diversity of native plant and animal communities, manage
vegetation fuel for fire protection, sustain the local agricultural economy, and preserve and
foster appreciation for the region’s rural agricultural heritage. In order to implement this goal,
the purpose of this Plan is to provide a framework around which resource managers can make
rangeland management decisions on the properties with adaptive management feedback.
As stipulated in this Plan, conservation management practices components will be
implemented by MROSD and the grazing lessee, for all grazing areas, and are intended
specifically to apply to Livestock Grazing and Rangeland Management; Livestock and Wildlife
Water Development; Livestock and Wildlife Fencing Development; Land Management; Roads
and Infrastructure Maintenance; and Wildlife, Water Quality, and Habitat Management on the
240-acre portion of the properties used for grazing land operations. The remaining 715 acres
include brushlands and woodlands that are not suitable for livestock grazing but provide
valuable wildlife habitat and cover.
Operation and Infrastructure Requirements: Cattle will be off-loaded at the Silva corral site at
291 Alpine Road. The cattle are to be fed certified weed-free hay for 24 hours in the pens (for
weed control from manure) and then rotated into the first of three pastures. Pasture
management grazing will follow a pattern whereby pasture rotation occurs generally as
follows:
1stYear Pasture #: 1 2 3
2nd Year Pasture #: 2 3 1
3rd Year Pasture #: 3 1 2 Etc.
The grazing season shall begin in February when the residual dry matter (RDM) must at least
meet minimum performance standards in the first utilized pasture or four inches of green grass
growth must be present in that pasture.
The above rotation schedule may vary on the properties, as the pastures are not equal in either
size or forage productivity. The grazing season shall end no later than June 30th, except by
special arrangement. The estimated carrying capacities are 24 AUMs for Pasture 31, 70 AUMs
for Pasture #2, and 50 AUMs for Pasture #3. Thus, movement from Pasture #1 would be most
frequent, Pasture #2 less frequently, and Pasture #3 somewhere in between. Total carrying
capacity for the properties for a five month grazing season of February through June is 144
AUMs or about 58 500-pound average weight steers or heifers for five months, or about 29
Draft October 1, 2007
2
cows (at 1000 pounds each) in an average forage production year. Stocking intensity may
require a downward or upward adjustment depending on rainfall amounts and distribution
and temperatures. The lessee may make necessary stocking adjustment during the grazing
season in order to achieve the performance standards as closely as possible. Performance
standards are included below per average slope:
0 to 30% slopes: an average minimum of two inches to three inches of residual dry
matter – approximately an average of 800 – 1,000 pounds per acre.
Greater than 30% slopes: an average minimum of three to four inches of residual dry
matter – approximately an average of 1,200 pounds per acre.
To improve RDM distribution and resource management, salt blocks are to be placed by the
lessee at least 1/8 mile away from accessible water sources and public access roads and trails.
Salt locations are to be moved periodically to further improved forage utilization and so as not
to over-utilize any given area. Supplemental feeding is not be allowed except in corral locations
when cattle are off loaded and held or shipped from the ranches.
The recommended water infrastructure improvements will require one water tank, eight water
troughs, and about 7,500 feet of 1 1/4 inch PVC Schedule 40 pipe (galvanized pipe may be
substituted if trenching is infeasible). Gravel pads for the water tank and troughs, pipe fittings,
float valves, pressure regulators/air vents, and escape ramps will also be needed for the
installation. MROSD has completed a portion of these improvements as of the 2007 season, but
remaining improvements are needed for full utilization of the rangelands at this site.
Boundary fences are new and in good condition. Some cross fencing and corral facilities may be
in need of repair or replacement; MROSD and the lessee will determine specific operational
needs each year according to the lease.
MROSD roads and road-related infrastructure are well maintained and in good condition. With
time, roads will require periodic water bar diversions, culvert and cattle guard clean out, and
gully maintenance. Secondary ranch roads shall be minimally graded and mowed in order to
maintain a natural ground cover to help prevent erosion. MROSD will be responsible for all
road maintenance except in emergencies or by special arrangement, as described in the lease.
Prior the beginning of the grazing season, an assessment of infrastructure and range condition
is important. A site inspection shall be conducted by the MROSD and the grazing lessee in
early January to assess rangeland RDM conditions, green feed growth, and infrastructure.
Upon determining the necessary upgrades in a given year, off-season infrastructure repairs
shall be completed by MROSD prior to commencement of the grazing season. During the
grazing season, fencing and water infrastructure maintenance and repairs shall be the
responsibility of the lessee. Work above and beyond upkeep of infrastructure must be
previously approved by MROSD, and is addressed as “Rent credit for performance of work” in
the lease.
The monitoring program for grazed MROSD lands must ensure that the specified rangeland
uses are in compliance with applicable land use regulations and the land stewardship goals,
Draft October 1, 2007
3
objectives, and implementing guidelines. Rangeland/habitat health checklists and photo point
monitoring forms will be utilized for the rangeland-monitoring program on an annual basis in
July after livestock have been removed for the season. The monitoring program implementation
shall be the responsibility of the MROSD staff. In addition, the seasonal rotation schedule, herd
type, and stocking rates shall be provided to the MROSD by the grazing lessee at the end of the
grazing season (end of June) and included with the season-end monitoring report. Monitoring
results will also be used as a guideline for any future adaptive management changes that may
be shown to be necessary from the monitoring.
Draft October 1, 2007
4
SUMMARY OF GRAZING LEASE TERMS
The following is a summary (“Summary of Grazing Lease Terms”) of the principal terms and conditions
of the Grazing Lease. Each item below shall be deemed to incorporate all of the terms and conditions set
forth in the Grazing Lease pertaining to such item. In the event of any conflict between the information
in this Summary and any more specific provision of the Grazing Lease, the more specific Grazing Lease
provision shall control.
Landlord: Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
Tenant:
Initial Term: Commencement Date ________________ The Expiration Date is the date on which the
Initial Term expires and, if properly and effectively exercised under the Grazing Lease, the date of
expiration of any current Subsequent Term.
Grazing Season: Off season: __________________________
Use: Grazing Season - cattle grazing and authorized adjunct activities
Off season - authorized repair and maintenance activities
Initial Annual Rent: $__________ (Annual Adjustments thereafter)
Annual Payment Dates: First Payment Date:
Second Payment Date:
Initial Grazing Capacity: Pasture __: AUMs authorized
(Annual Adjustments thereafter) Pasture __: AUMs authorized
Pasture __: AUMs authorized
Notice Address of District:
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
Attn: Property Manager
330 Distel Circle
Los Altos, CA 94022-1404
Tel: (650) 691-1200 Fax: (650) 691-0485
with a copy to:
MROSD - Skyline Field Office
Attn: Area Superintendent
21150 Skyline Boulevard
La Honda, CA 94020
Tel: (650) 949-1848 Fax: (650) 949-1781
Primary District Contact:
Tel:
Alternate District Contact:
Tel: ________________________________
Notice Address of Tenant:
Primary Tenant Contact:
Tel:
Draft October 1, 2007
5
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background and Location
Sage Associates prepared the Big Dipper/Silva Properties Grazing Management Plan in
February 2007 at the request of Mr. Kirk Lenington-Resource Planner, for the Midpeninsula
Regional Open Space District (MROSD).
This plan is based on much of the information obtained in the Big Dipper/Silva Properties
Rangeland Assessment prepared by Mr. Ray Budzinski in March 2005 for the MROSD. This
assessment in available at the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District office at 330 Distel
Circle, Los Altos, CA. Figures in the August 2007 edition were prepared by MROSD Staff. A
field assessment was conducted in February 2007 by Sage Associates to update grazing and
resource information and to determine water and fence locations and potential monito ring
photo points.
The Big Dipper/Silva Properties are located in San Mateo County, on the east side of Alpine
Road, about two miles south of the intersection of Alpine Road and Skyline Blvd (Figure 1).
The ranches fall within a closed area of Skyline Ridge Open Space Preserve, and are currently
not accessible to the public. The Big Dipper property is located to the south of, and adjacent to,
the Silva Property (Figure 2 – Silva property encompasses pasture 3 and the Big Dipper
property encompasses pastures 1 and 2). The Silva property contains about 235 acres, and the
Big Dipper property contains about 720 acres. Within the total 955 acres, approximately 25
percent, or 240 acres are suitable for livestock grazing.
Purpose, Goals, and Policies of the Grazing Management Plan
The purpose of this plan is to provide a framework around which resource managers can make
rangeland management decisions on the properties with adaptive management feedback. The
plan addresses appropriate management practices for soil and water conservation, erosion
control, pest management, nutrient management, water quality, and habitat protection on the
240-acre portion of the properties used for grazing land operations. The remaining 715 acres
include brushland and woodland that are not suitable for livestock grazing but provide
valuable wildlife habitat and cover.
The Mission Statement of the MROSD 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.”
In the spirit of the Mission Statement, in September 2006 the MROSD staff formulated Goals,
Policies, and Implementation Measures for potential areas of grazing land within the District.
Draft October 1, 2007
6
Draft October 1, 2007
7
Draft October 1, 2007
8
Goal: Manage District land with livestock grazing that is compatible with public access; to maintain and
enhance the diversity of native plant and animal communities, manage vegetation fuel for fire protection,
sustain the local agricultural economy, and preserve and foster appreciation for the region’s rural
agricultural heritage.
Policies and Implementation Measures:
1 Ensure that grazing is compatible with and supports wildlife and wildlife habitats.
• Inventory and assess sensitive habitats to identify areas requiring special protection. The
conservation of these areas will take precedence over other uses and management practices that
are determined to have an adverse effect on these resources. Section 4 of Grazing Management
Plan (GMP).
• Prepare site-specific management plans by a certified rangeland manager for preserves where
grazing will be utilized as a resource management tool. Section 7.1 of GMP.
• Manage agricultural leases and easements to protect and enhance riparian areas and to
maximize the protection or enhancement of water quality. Sections 5.2.3.3 and 5.2.3.5 of GMP.
2 Provide necessary infrastructure to support and improve grazing management where
appropriate.
• Utilize fencing that allows wildlife movement and fosters habitat connectivity. Section 5.2.1.2
of GMP.
• Encourage and assist grazing tenants on District land to provide range improvements to
restore or conserve wildland resources and to enhance range condition. Section 5.2.1.2 of GMP.
• Inventory and assess roads and trails on District lands to identify significant erosion and
sediment sources abandon and where feasible restore to a natural condition poorly designed or
sited roads. Sections 3.4 and 5.2.2 of GMP.
• Provide water sources and protect water quality from degradation resulting from grazing
animals. Sections 5.2.1.2 and5.2.3.5 of GMP.
3 Monitor vegetation response to grazing on District lands.
• Monitor forage utilization and distribution by grazing animals to assure appropriate amounts
of residual dry matter remain on the ground to achieve desired resource management objectives.
Section 6 of GMP.
• Monitor livestock use levels and infrastructure condition to insure conformity with lease
provisions to contribute to improved management. Section 6 of GMP.
• Monitor wildland conditions with an emphasis on documenting the location, distribution and
abundance of native grasses, wildflowers, and other native flora and fauna. Section 6 of GMP.
Draft October 1, 2007
9
• Monitor non-native vegetation response to grazing with an emphasis on documenting the
location, distribution and abundance of target invasive species. Sections 4.2, 5.2.3.4 and 6 of
GMP.
4 Utilize different livestock species to accomplish vegetation management objectives.
• Research the effective use of cattle, goats, sheep, and horses to manage vegetation on District
lands. Section 5.2.1.1 of GMP.
5 Provide public access in a manner that does not fragment the grazing operation unless no
feasible alternative is available.
• Grazing operators on District lands or lands under easement to the District shall be consulted
when public access is being planned and considered for the property to minimize conflicts
between the public and the grazing operation. On-going with operators.
2.0 REGIONAL AGRICULTURAL USES IN SAN MATEO COUNTY
As stated in the MROSD Grazing Management goals statement:
“Livestock ranching is a small but vital part of the Bay Area’s agricultural economy. As with any
business that depends on local infrastructure and services, livestock ranching is increasingly threatened
with each ranch that goes out of business. Every livestock rancher depends on services and supplies
including veterinary care, feed sales and delivery, farm and ranch infrastructure supplies, and livestock
transportation services. As land is taken out of ranching, all of these services and supplies are
incrementally affected and may cease to operate, increasing the burden for families and businesses who
choose to keep ranching”.
In a regional context, for San Mateo County, agric ultural production continued to provide a
significant total gross value of $162,056,000 for 2005.
Specific 2005 production values for San Mateo County included the following:
COMMODITY GROSS VALUE
Floral and Nursery Crops $139,454,000
Vegetable Crops $13,706,000
Draft October 1, 2007
10
Forest Products $3,659,000
Livestock $2,047,000
Fruit and Nut Crops $1,723,000
Livestock and Apiary Products (cheese, eggs, wool) $754,000
Field Crops $713,000
Cattle and calves comprised 2,407 head with a total gross value of $1,363,000. Sheep and lambs
comprised 854 head with a total gross value of $83,000. Livestock are grazed on about 30,000
acres of rangeland in San Mateo County.
For every dollar on agricultural production, a multiplier of 3.5 may be applied to approximate
production, employment, and associated values. Thus, the economic value of agriculture in San
Mateo County is about $567,000,000 (San Mateo County Department of Agriculture, 2005).
Future agricultural activities on MROSD lands will contribute to the overall agricultural
productivity San Mateo County, and to that of the adjacent counties of Santa Clara and Santa
Cruz.
3.0 RANGELAND MANAGEMENT
3.1 Historical Agricultural Uses
Historical agricultural uses of the properties included grazing by one lessee on the Big Dipper
property from 1984 until 2005 with a year around cow/calf operation. The Silva property,
regularly grazed for many years in the past, has not been grazed since 2000. Cattle were bei ng
grazed on the southern in holding in 2007; these strayed into the lower portions of the Big
Dipper property.
3.2 Existing Rangeland Soil Agricultural Characteristics
To assess existing grazing land conditions representative photos were taken of the properties
in February of 2007 and are included below. The photo locations are shown regionally on the
Photo Point Location Map (Figure 3). These photos serve a dual purpose by showing existing
grazing land areas and habitat conditions and can also be utilized for photo monitoring of
grazing land and habitat conditions in the future as discussed in Section 6.0.
Draft October 1, 2007
11
For convenience, a “quick glance” list of photo location numbers and titles are summarized
below. The photo numbers may be referred to in subsequent text discussions and tables.
Photo #s #1 View of natural brush barrier
#2 View of Big Dipper and Silva grazing areas
#3 View of holding pen in old corrals on Big Dipper property
#4 View of Big Dipper grazing area and barn
#5 View of access to proposed Silva corral site
#6 View of proposed Silva corral site
#7 View of Silva proposed new trough area and holding pens
#8 View of north Silva fenceline
#9 View of north Silva fenceline and brush barrier
#10 View of Silva grassland and tank/water trough locations
#11 View of Silva/Big Dipper fenceline
#12 View of Silva/Big Dipper fenceline and trough location
#13 View of Big Dipper pond and grassland
#14 View of Big Dipper barn, pond, and trough location
#15 View of Big Dipper trough location and thistle infestation
#16 View of Big Dipper grassland
#17 View of Big Dipper trough location and grassland
#18 View of Big Dipper brushland mowing area and cattle guard
The properties encompass 13 Soil Series across the approximately 240 acres of grazing land (U.
S. Department of Agriculture - USDA, 1961, and 1969)(see Soil Survey published maps #28, 29,
33, and 34).
For brevity, the soil agricultural characteristics of the 13 Soil Series are included in Table 1. This
Table summarizes the available USDA Soil Survey data along with up to date field
observations and carrying capacities per Soil Series.
Salient soil agricultural characteristics are summarized below by table column. The
introduction and placement of these tables in this section facilitates reference and discus sion of
the content in later sections of this plan. The terms rangeland and grazing land have the same
meaning in this plan.
Column 1: Soil Series-Texture and Soil Survey Map Symbol (USDA): includes the Soil Series
name and soil texture such as Butano-loam and the Soil Survey map symbol BuF per the United
States Department of Agriculture (USDA) mapping.
Draft October 1, 2007
12
Column 2: Includes the USDA Range Sites that are comprised of Soil Series that have similar
textures and produce similar types and amounts of forage. Thes e sites are used as the basis for
forage production estimated by the USDA and the University of California Cooperative
Extension (UCCE). Range Sites within the rangeland areas include Loamy, Loamy Steep,
Loamy Very Steep, Fine Loamy and Fine Loamy Very Ste ep. Four Soil Series are not assigned
Range Sites due to their marginal forage production. The most productive Range Sites are the
Fine Loamy and Loamy.
Column 3: Pasture Numbers/Forage Acres: includes three possible pasture areas
(Figure2)(Budzinski, 2005). Pasture #1 contains about 62 acres, pasture #2 contains about 111
acres, and pasture #3 contains about 67 acres. Total rangeland acreage is about 240 acres.
Forage acres are summarized per Soil Series.
Column 4: Includes the average slope percentage for each Soil Series per USDA mapping.
Swales and ridgetops generally slope from seven to 15 percent, side hills range from about 15
to 45 percent, and steeper slope and canyon areas are greater than 45 percent. Slopes greater
than 45 percent are less well utilized by livestock and may also have a dense canopy cover and
require more ground cover to reduce erosion. Slope is factored into estimated carrying capacity
determinations.
Column 5: Shows the average percent canopy cover for the vegetation on each S oil Series as
observed in the field. The higher percentages of canopy cover greater than about 25 percent,
such as in coyote bush and in chaparral and timber, results in a lesser amount of palatable
grazing forage and usable grazing areas. For example, 50 percent canopy cover could reduce
forage production by 50 percent. Total canopy cover of 100 percent brush or timber would
reduce forage production to essentially zero. Canopy cover is factored into estimated carrying
capacity determinations.
Column 6: Shows the average year rangeland dry matter productivity by Range Site in animal
unit months (AUMs) per acre as determined by the USDA in the Soil Surveys, UCCE in
published research, and by assessing the amount of canopy cover observed in the field.
Favorable years will produce more forage and unfavorable years will produce less forage,
hence the variation in productivity. Rainfall amounts and distribution, and temperatures can
greatly influence rangeland productivity in any given year. By convention, rangel and
productivity is measured as dry matter in pounds per acre. For example, a 1,000 -pound cow
will consume about three percent of its body weight in the equivalent of dry forage per day.
Approximately 11.000 pounds of dry forage will be consumed by a 1,000-pound cow (an
animal unit) per year or about 30 pounds per day or slightly more than 900 pounds per month.
Column 7: Lists by Range Site the required recommended residual dry matter (RDM) per
average slope per USDA NRCS and University of California Cooperative Extension (UCCE)
guidelines. A moderate level of grazing is recommended by both the USDA and UCCE so that
all forage types are more evenly utilized, reseeding of annual and perennial grasses is
Draft October 1, 2007
13
Draft October 1, 2007
14
Draft October 1, 2007
15
Draft October 1, 2007
16
Draft October 1, 2007
17
Draft October 1, 2007
18
Draft October 1, 2007
19
Draft October 1, 2007
20
Draft October 1, 2007
21
encouraged, and erosion is controlled. A minimum of approximately 800 to 1,000 pounds per
acre of residual dry matter is required per NRCS guidelines by this plan on slopes from seven
to thirty percent, and 1,200 pounds per acre on slopes greater than 30 percent.
Column 8: Lists Livestock Use Limitations by Soil Series that may include timber cover, slope,
brush cover, weeds, rocks, and poor forage production.
Column 9: Rangeland health indicators have been developed by the USDA Natural Resource
Conservation Service (NRCS formerly the Soil Conservation Service) in order to assess
departures from normal rangeland characteristics. Overall normal rangeland health maintains
or improves soil fertility, reduces erosion and sedimentation, improves water quality, allows
for plant community biodiversity and management, and provides suitable habitat for wildlife.
Observations are made in the field that rely on rangeland health checklists. Most areas are near
normal but do contain areas of invasive plants such as coyote bush, mustard, and thistle t hat
can be managed.
Column 10: Portrays the dominant grazing suitability as observed in the field for each pasture
area. A summary of grazing suitability limitations is also included and discussed further in
later sections. Basically, weeds, brush, slope, water, forage productivity, access, and soil quality
determine whether an area has a higher, moderate, lower, or unsuitable suitability.
Column 11: Includes estimated carrying capacity determinations in an average production year
in animal unit months. An animal unit month is how much forage dry matter a 1,000-pound
grazing animal will consume in one month (typically 900 pounds). An animal unit is 1,000
pounds of grazing animal such as a cow/calve pair, two-500 pound steers, or five-200 pound
sheep, etc. One animal unit per year equates to one animal unit grazing for 12 months or 12
animal unit months.
Summaries of the above columns will be utilized in many of the following plan sections.
3.3 Existing Rangeland Operations and Management
The former Silva property and accessible areas of the Big Dipper ranch were grazed from late
May through mid-August 2007. At peak, 44 adult cows were on site. Prior to this use, the Silva
property was last grazed in 2000 and southern parts of the Big Dipper property we re last
grazed in 2005. About 10 occassional strays from the inholding area grazed the Big Dipper
Ranch until April 2007.
3.3.1 Rangeland Uses and Livestock Grazing Suitability
The 240 acres of grassland are well suited for livestock grazing due to the quality of the forage,
however, cross fencing and livestock water require repair, replacement, and maintenance.
Draft October 1, 2007
22
Taken together, the Silva and Big Dipper properties allow for management practices to occur
that will be favorable for enhancing grassland biodiversity.
The following general observations were made of the Silva/Big Dipper Properties during the
field assessments and mapping for the plan that will influence the implementation of future
rangeland and habitat management practices as discussed in Section 5.
• Topography and slopes vary from nearly level ridge tops and swales to steeply sloping side
hills and canyons. Steep side slopes are more difficult to graze.
• Rangeland areas vary from 100 percent grassland to habitats containing dense areas of coyote
bush and timbered woodland. Previously disturbed areas such as pond and barn areas contain a
profusion of thistle and mustard.
• Range conditions for palatable livestock forage are excellent where concentrations of wild
oats, various brome and fescue grasses, rye grass, plantain, filaree, concentrations of native
perennial bunch grasses and bur clover predominate outside of the decadent mustard and
thistle areas.
• Livestock water infrastructure is poor to fair throughout the unit, with the ex ception of
upgrades near the former Silva residence (May 2007).
• Cattle grazing distribution and access would be good across the properties except on the
numerous very steep side slopes, gullies, or where brush canopy cover precludes accessibility.
• Access roads are well maintained with minimal grading and provide sufficient pasture access.
• Perimeter fencing as constructed in March 2007 is in excellent condition. Pasture cross
fencing repair for pastures #1, #2, and #3 is needed for effective rotation and exclusion.
• The corral/holding pen at the Silva residence is in good condition, but may present a conflict
of use if the house is occupied. Relocation to the west, nearer Alpine Road, may be appropriate
if water development at the site is feasible.
• Site erosion is negligible as related to cattle grazing. Site erosion and slope failure does occur
in some of the roadside canyon areas.
From the field assessments, the dominate livestock grazing suitability was determined for the
properties which reflects the Higher, Moderate, Lower, or Unsuitable livestock grazing
suitability areas as summarized in Table 1.
Higher suitability areas have no constraints to grazing. Slopes average zero to about 30 percent.
Livestock water and access are good. Non-forage canopy cover ranges from about 0 to 25
Draft October 1, 2007
23
percent and is comprised primarily of areas of coyote bush, mustard, and/or thistle. Typical
areas include grassland-dominated swales, ridge tops, and flats (Photos 6, 10, 11 foreground,
12, 13, 14, and 17). Coyote bush (Photo 6), mustard and thistle may occur in these areas but are
considered manageable (Photo 15 lower portion). Livestock water development is needed.
Moderate suitability areas are well utilized; however, slopes average 30 to 45 percent with
average non-forage canopy cover to about 75 percent consisting mainly of areas of coyote bush
and woodland. Livestock water development is needed. Typical areas include steeper ridge
side-slopes (Photos 2, 4, 15, and 16). Livestock will readily use these ar eas but it requires more
energy to graze the slope areas or to walk further to water. More residual dry matter must be
left on side slopes to help prevent erosion. Coyote bush, mustard, and thistle may also occur.
Lower suitability areas are utilized less, or are more difficult for livestock access and water
availability. Slopes average usually greater than 45 percent and/or average non -forage canopy
cover varies from 25 to 100 percent. Typical areas include partial brushy and woodland steep
side-slopes, and difficult to access grassland in upland areas (Photo 18). Abundant edge areas
exist. In grassland areas, more residual dry matter is required on the steeper side slopes to help
prevent erosion. Livestock water development is needed. Cattle can utilize m any of these areas
but with greater energy expenditure due to more difficult access.
Unsuitable areas are primarily utilized for livestock shelter and shade with minor areas of
interior livestock forage (Photo 1, and woodland canyons of Photos 2, 4, 11, 17, and 18).
Average slopes may be greater than 45 percent with non -forage canopy cover up to 100
percent. Typical areas include dense brushy uplands, rock outcrops, timbered canyons,
woodlands, and steep slopes that cannot be traversed by livestock. Areas are commonly used
for nesting, denning, and browse by wildlife and as wildlife trails, corridors and shelter.
Wildlife water is abundant in most larger drainage areas that are inaccessible to livestock due
to steepness, or dense vegetation.
3.3.2 Livestock Stocking and Distribution
Rangeland assessments typically equate stocking rates to a particular "level" or intensity of
cattle grazing as is summarized below from UCCE research.
Stocking Intensity Visual Characteristics of Rangeland
Light Little or no patchy appearance; unused plant matter
greater than five inches and small objects on ground are
not visible. Plant decadence and invasive plant
infestations may occur.
Draft October 1, 2007
24
Moderate Two to five inches of unused plant material remains;
little bare soil; patchy vegetation appearance (UCCE
recommended).
Heavy Less than two inches plant material remains; small
objects and bare soil are highly visible.
Forage production estimates for each Soil Series and Range Type is summarized in Table 1 in
animal unit months per acre. For example, one animal unit month equates to the forage
consumption of one animal unit (1,000 pounds of grazing animal) in a month. The forage
consumption is typically 30 pounds of dry forage per day or about 900 pounds per month . Also
summarized are recommended required remaining RDM based on NRCS and UCCE standards
for a prescribed moderate level of grazing ranges from a minimum of 800 to 1,200 pounds per
acre depending on slope. A moderate level of grazing is recommended by NRC S and UCCE so
that all forage types are more evenly utilized, reseeding of annual and perennial grasses is
encouraged, and erosion is controlled. Heavy grazing does not leave adequate RDM for
reseeding and erosion control. Light grazing, even with rigorous planned pasture rotation,
often allows animals to pick and choose the more palatable plants while leaving less desirable
plants such as mustard, fennel, and thistles to more readily reproduce even though overall
RDM levels may be higher. Coyote bush encroachment into grassland is also encouraged by
light grazing or non-grazing of grassland areas.
Photo A shows an example of moderate grazing of annual grasses and forbs where purple
needlegrass and deergrass are lightly grazed due to being less palatable. than the annual
grasses in winter and spring.
Cattle distribution is predicated by management practices, available water, cross fencing,
temperatures, slope, and access. Placement of livestock watering locations and salt locations
can improve distribution and manipulate grazing patterns away from sensitive riparian
resources (George, 2007).
With the proposed management practices discussed in Section 5, cattle distribution should be
excellent to fair across the properties.
3.3.3 Rangeland/Habitat Health and Residual Dry Matter
Rangeland evaluations in previous years relied on a description of range conditions that
compared the present forage production capacity of an area to a desirable standard that was a
product of long-term grazing management. Numerically, range condition and production
standards were formulated whereby the following percentages of desirable range grasses and
forbs included (see next page):
Draft October 1, 2007
25
Range Condition Production*
Excellent 75 to 100%
Good 50 to 75%
Fair 25 to 50%
Poor-Very Poor less than 25%
*Percent of potential forage capacity.
Overall existing range conditions on the properties range from excellent to poor depending on
the type of forage or invasive vegetation present in the grassland are as. Areas of invasive
mustard and thistle, Harding grass, and coyote bush reduce range conditions by out competing
both native perennial and introduced palatable annual grassland forage species. Fortunately,
the areas of invasive plants can be controlled with proper management in the future.
In recent years, descriptions of rangeland conditions have focused on evaluating
rangeland/habitat health, and residual dry matter observations. These factors are dependent on
long-term stewardship management and climatic conditions and take into account the health of
all plant communities and not just grasslands.
Rangeland and habitat health indicators have been developed by the Natural Resource
Conservation Service in order to assess departures from normal rangeland and habitat
characteristics. Overall normal rangeland and habitat health maintains or improves soil
fertility, reduces erosion and sedimentation, improves water quality, allows for plant
community biodiversity and management, and provides suitable habitat for wildlife.
Rangeland and habitat health evaluations include the following soil, water, and vegetation
attributes as classified from normal to extreme conditions:
ATTRIBUTES NORMAL TO EXTREME
Rills No recent formation to Severe and well defined.
Water Flow Patterns Minimal soil erosion to Active flow erosion
Soil Pedestalling Minimal pedestalling to Rocks and plants pedestalled
Bare Ground Small bare areas to Large bare areas that are connected
Gullying Natural stable channels to Active head cuts/down cutting
Wind Erosion None to infrequent to Extensive wind scouring
Cryptobiotic Soil Surface soil is stable to Loose soil surfaces
Crust
Draft October 1, 2007
26
ATTRIBUTES NORMAL TO EXTREME
Soil Organic Layer Organic materials present to Organic materials absent
Water Infiltration Normal per soil type to Compaction-no infiltration
Surface Water RunoffControlled by vegetation to No vegetation influence
Plant Mortality Few dead plants/decadence to Dead plants/decadence
abundant
Plant Community Closely matches historic to Climax community decreasing
Changes climax community with invasive plants dominant
mix of annual and native
perennial plants
Plant Litter Litter common for site to Minimal to no litter present
Perennial Plant Minimal signs of stress to Severe stress with
Stress dead/dying plants
Plant Growth Growth exceeds 80% of to Growth less than 20% of
Production potential production potential production
Invasive Plants Not present to Dominate the site
Plant Reproduction Seed& tiller reproduction to Severe reduction in seed and
are common tiller production
See Appendix B for a more detailed definition of Indicators.
During rangeland/habitat health studies or during monitoring assessments, the above
attributes are evaluated in categories that range from normal with none to slight deviations
from normal, to not normal with extreme deviations from normal. The above table gives the
range from normal to extreme.
Other than invasive plants, the vast majority of the pr operties have normal or near normal
rangeland and habitat health based on the assessment of the rangeland/habitat health
indicators. Many areas of the most common invasive plants such as mustard, thistle, and
coyote bush can be controlled. Maintenance of some of the invasive plants will be difficult,
especially if the plants originate from off-site of the grazing area or are due to climatic changes.
Draft October 1, 2007
27
Draft October 1, 2007
28
Residual dry matter (RDM) is a measure of the amount of dry vegetation left on the ground,
typically measured in the end of the summer or fall, prior to rainfall. Appropriate levels of
RDM strive to minimize thatch, which can inhibit new plant growth, while maintaining
adequate levels of vegetation to prohibit soil erosion. UCCE (2003), and USDA NRCS (2000)
recommended minimum residual dry matter of about 800 to 1,000 pounds per acre for slopes
up to 30 percent and about 1,200 pounds per acre is recommended for slopes greater than 30
percent. These RDM levels correspond to an average minimum of two to four inches of stubble
height. USDA NRCS residual dry matter material includes palatable forage and ground litter
and stalks that may not be palatable so pounds per acre weights may be slightly higher in
grasslands than for the UCCE recommended minimum heights. UCCE recommended
minimums include the amount of palatable residual dry matter required to maintain a
sustainable moderate level of grazing (i.e. where residual forage can average about two to five
inches in height with higher growth patchy areas and is sufficient to prevent erosion, and to
provide a seed crop), per average Soil Survey slope categories as recommended by the
University of California Cooperative Extension (1982 and 2003) for annual grasses in coastal
rainfall areas.
Estimates of pounds per acre of RDM are obtained by fall clippings of one square foot of
palatable dry forage, weighing in grams, and multiplying by 100 to achieve the pounds per
acre of RDM. Visual estimates of RDM can also be made whereby two -three inches of RDM
equates to about 1,000 pounds per acre.
Where the properties have not been grazed, the RDM for last year is at a maximum for a
favorable rainfall year where precipitation amounts were above normal with wide spread
monthly distribution from October into May. The 2006-2007-rainfall year is below normal with
poor monthly distribution.
3.3.4 Livestock Facilities
Livestock facilities include an old barn, feed pens, and scale shed, and an old set of corrals
along Alpine Road on the Big Dipper property. The barn can be repair ed and used for storage.
The corrals are beyond repair, however, a holding pen adjacent to the corrals was previously
used by the cattle from the inholding area (Photo 3).
Livestock facilities on the Silva property include one large holding pen east of th e residence
(Photo 7, prior to replacement).
3.3.5 Livestock Fencing
A high tensile barbed wire perimeter fence was installed along the length of Alpine Road in
March 2007. Fencing across the northern boundary of the grazing area and around the Silva
residence and holding pens was also extensively repaired and replaced at that time.
Draft October 1, 2007
29
The north boundary fence on the Silva property (Photos 8 and 9) was replaced during this
work. The cattle guard, fence, and gate north of the in holding on the Big Dipper property were
repaired and cleaned in May 2007, but may need further work to secure this property
boundary (Photo 18).
Natural slope, rock, and brush barriers have been historically utilized to contain cattle on the
properties. The brush barriers will be ineffective if wildfire should burn the east and south
boundaries of the grassland areas (Photo 9).
3.3.6 Livestock Water Sources
Livestock water sources are utilized from eight developed springs, and two perennial and two
intermittent ponds.
Water troughs exist of various types from bathtubs, containers, and metal troughs. Most are
inoperable, leak, or have clogged or broken water lines feeding them. Wildlife escape ramps
are absent at the troughs. It is recommended that most of these troughs and wa ter lines be
abandoned and replaced in key areas as discussed in Section 5 (Photos 7 and 17).
Spring boxes feed water into water tanks, and/or troughs. Excess flow exits through overflow
pipes. Spring boxes are covered or encased in concrete that protects the water sources from
wildlife or livestock damage.
Stock ponds also supply wildlife water and would be utilized seasonally by livestock. Ponds
may require maintenance in the future, otherwise, natural siltation and aquatic vegetation may
take over the pond leaving no available water for wildlife (Photo 13).
Livestock water sources have not been maintained and require maintenance and/or
replacement. Water troughs as proposed in Section 5 that would also be beneficial for livestock
distribution and wildlife water in some upland areas and would improve water quality and
riparian habitat in some of the smaller drainages.
In accordance with the recommendations above, two water sources near the Silva residence
have been upgraded or replaced to sustain a small herd in the 2007 grazing season. These
developments are reflected in Figure 2 as in-use troughs, while those in poor condition are
depicted as former troughs.
3.4 Existing Rangeland Road Access and Maintenance
Rangeland access roads are well-maintained gravel, are minimally graded, or have good
vegetative cover to reduce road-related runoff and erosion. Culvert inlets and outlets may
require riprap material to reduce gullying.
Draft October 1, 2007
30
The old barn access road on the Big Dipper property from Alpine Road is n o longer passable to
vehicles due to naturally occurring landslides and erosion. Livestock and foot travel is still
possible along the remaining roadbed. Furthermore, the access road from the Barn south
toward the inholding (aka Old Page Mill Road) is permanently blocked by a large landslide.
These sites are indicated in Figure 2.
4.0 EXISTING NATURAL RESOURCE CONDITIONS
4.1 Natural Resources
Natural resources of the properties are described more completely in the Big Dipper/Silva
Properties Rangeland Assessment (2005) with extensive plant species lists. This section of the
Grazing Management Plan therefore necessarily focuses on the natural resources that are
adjacent to, or may be directly affected by grazing operations. Vegetation types were ob served
during the early green feed season, thus, making it difficult to impossible to adequately list all
grassland plant species.
4.1.1 Vegetation Communities
About 164 plant species have been documented of which, about 138 species are grassland
plants, and 26 are wetland plants. About 56 percent are native plants and 44 percent are non -
native plants. Vegetation communities that may be affected by grazing operations include the
following:
Wetlands
Without conservation management practices, wetlands may expe rience runoff from grazed
areas that would impact water quality and sedimentation. The four stockponds located within
the pasture areas may also include wetland vegetation. An abundance of wetland plants are
located in these areas, which may include the following:
Spikerush (Eleocharis species)
Sedges (Carex species)
Rushes (Juncus species)
Cattail (Typha species)
Mimulus (Mimulus species)
Willows (Salix species)
Draft October 1, 2007
31
Wet-meadow wild rye (Leymus triticoides)
California Annual Grassland
Grazing areas of the properties are primarily included in the California annual grassland plant
community but may also include concentrations of native bunchgrasses and other endemic
plants. Non-native annual ryegrass, wild oats, bromes such as soft chess, ripgut, and red
brome, fescues, filaree, plantain, and bur clover predominate in the grassland areas.
Numerous native annual and perennial herbs and flowers may also occur in this community in
the spring, such as blue-eyed grass (Sisyrinchium bellum), California poppy (Eschscholzia
californica), California buttercup (Ranunculus californica), and wild hyacinth (Dichelostemma
pulchella), Checker lily (Fritilleria affinis), and Hoffman’s sanicle (Sanicula species)
In addition, grasses and some pentachaeta species that occur in these areas, include the
following:
California brome (Bromus carinatus)
California barley (Hordeum brachyantherum)
California Melic grass (Melica californica)
Purple needlegrass (Nassella pulchra)
Foothill needlegrass (Nassella lepida)
California dwarf plantain (Plantago erecta)
Coastal Scrub
Plants associated with this community would typically occur in various densities within many
of the pasture areas. Without wildland fire this community will eventually become the
predominate plant community in an otherwise grassland assemblage. Coyote bush was
observed to be especially invasive into the grassland community.
Dominant plants typically may include the following:
Coyote bush (Baccharis pilularis)
Coastal golden-yarrow (Eriophyllum species)
Figwort (Scrophularia californica)
California sagebush (Artemisia californica)
Poison oak (Toxicodendron diversilobum)
Bush monkey-flower (Mimilus aurantiacus)
Draft October 1, 2007
32
Woodlands
These communities are usually found at the edges of the rangeland grasses and extend into the
canyons and drainages of the properties. These areas are unsuitable for livestock grazing but
are valuable for wildlife where chaparral, oaks, firs, bays, madrone, and redwood
predominate.
4.1.2 Wildlife
The vegetative communities provide foraging, nesting, breeding and protection for a variety of
birds, mammals, amphibians, reptiles, fish and insects.
The well-vegetated drainages provide important wildlife migration corridors-if not too brushy-
offering protective cover through otherwise adjacent open rangelands. The mature trees are
particularly valuable to wildlife where there is both dense understory and canopy that
provides cover and shelter for many species.
Wildlife of the Wetlands
The wetland drainage courses can provide habitat for the following important species:
Western pond turtle (Clemmys marmorata)
Red-legged frog (Rana aurora draytonii)
Wildlife of the Grasslands
Several species of birds rely on open expanses of grasslands for hunting and foraging,
including the northern harrier, red-tailed hawk, turkey vulture, American kestrel, great horned
owl, and common barn owl. Grasslands that are bordered by woodlands are particularly
important for raptors, because the birds can use the large trees as “hawking” sites to observe
the activities of prey within nearby grassland habitats. California toad and pacific newt may
occur in the grasslands seasonally. Western skink, western fence lizard, California alligator
lizard, common kingsnake, western rattlesnake and gopher snake are the most common
species expected to frequent grasslands. Mammals expected to use the grasslands include
California ground squirrel, Botta's pocket gopher, western harvest house, and California vole.
Mammalian predators, including coyote, long-tailed weasel, and badger depend on grasslands
for foraging and denning sites. Grasslands are an important foraging habitat for mule deer and
for mountain lions that prey on deer. Grasslands that are bordered by woodlands or dense
brush are excellent foraging areas for small mammals such as cottontail and brush rabbits and
mice.
Draft October 1, 2007
33
4.2 Invasive and or Noxious Species
Most of the invasive and or noxious species include both plants and animals that were
introduced from Europe or Africa and have since escaped into the rangelan d, and wildland
areas. They can disrupt grazing and agricultural activities and can crowd out native plants and
animals, degrade wildlife habitat, and make areas more susceptible to flooding and erosion.
The San Mateo County Agricultural Commissioner’s Office has up to date information on these
species and can be helpful in providing information on new species that may be encountered
on the properties in the future and are not included in this plan at this time.
The most prolific invasive noxious plants that may be found within or adjacent to, the
rangeland areas of the properties today include the following: Yellow -star thistle (Centaurea
solstitialis), purple starthistle (Centaurea calcitrapa L.), fennel (Foeniculum vulgare), black mustard
(Brassica nigra), poison hemlock (Conium maculatum), Bull thistle (Cirsium vulgare), Milk thistle
(Silybum marianum), Italian thistle (Carduus pycnocephalus), Spanish thistle or Spiny clotbur
(Xanthium spinosum), and Harding grass (Phalaris aquatica).
Coyote bush (Baccharis pilularis) a native shrub, also was observed to be invading the annual
and perennial grasslands of certain areas of the properties (Photo 18) and will be discussed
below. The MROSD is currently involved in management of many of the invasive noxious
species including the various thistles. Spot herbicide applications are acceptable but only by
certified applicators per San Mateo County Agricultural Commissioner’s Office regulations. A
brief description of the above plant species are included below with t reatment practices
discussed in Section 5.
The following plant species are limited to previously disturbed areas such as barn, corral,
roadside, stockpond, and livestock watering areas:
Yellow Starthistle: Is also a noxious invasive weed that severely de grades rangeland and
farmland. The plant was introduced into California in the mid -1800s and now infests about 10
million acres of the state. The plant is toxic to horses, and its spines may cause mechanical
injuries to grazing or browsing animals. Dense stands can impede or block animal movement
and reduce quantity and quality of rangeland forage. Because it grows in the summer and
achieves high densities, it threatens the survival of native summer -active plants. The thistle can
achieve heights of from one to 4 feet and is also a prolific seed producer. Old farm fields are
commonly the source of yellow star thistle, and disturbed soil areas are also especially
susceptible to thistle infestation. Yellow starthistle may also be spread from contaminated hay.
Purple Starthistle: A noxious invasive weed that severely degrades rangelands. The thistle
typically grows as a biennial, completing its life cycle in two years. Mature plants are covered
with stout, sharp spines. Purple starthistle poses a dual risk for livestock ranchers; it degrades
forage quality by displacing palatable plants and by hindering or blocking access to grazing
areas. Its sharp spines can also injure eyes, noses, and mouths of grazing animals and wildlife.
Draft October 1, 2007
34
The spiny plant can achieve heights of one to 4 feet with purple colored spines and flower
heads. Reproduction is by prolific seed production which is distributed by wind, water,
animals, vehicles, and contaminated feed or seed. The plant prefers deep fertile soil such as
fallow cropland areas, disturbed areas, and often grows in bottomland areas and along roads.
Fennel: A perennial herb from southern Europe and the Mediterranean region, fennel
colonizes disturbed sites, especially areas adjacent to fresh or brackish water, pastures,
abandoned lots, and roadsides, and may also be found in open native habitats such as
grasslands and creek banks. Fennel reproduces from seed and from the root crown; seeds are
dispersed by water, birds, rodents, and on clothing and vehicles. Fennel forms den se,
homogenous stands, and is particularly aggressive in areas subjected to plowing or medium to
heavy grazing. Fennel can exclude or prevent reestablishment of native plants, resulting in the
drastic alteration of both the composition and structure of many plant communities. In
addition to the direct competition for light, nutrients, and water, fennel may also exude
allelopathic substances that inhibit growth of other plants. Once established, fennel is difficult
to control. Seed production is prolific, and the seeds can survive for a long time in the soil
seedbank. Cattle grazing can help to control the spread of fennel into rangeland areas.
Black Mustard: Black mustard is an annual herb that flowers early in the season, setting seed in
February. The plants are native to North Africa and the Mediterranean. Large concentrations
can choke out native plants and greatly increase fuel loads during wildland fires.
Poison Hemlock: Native to Europe, North Africa and Asia, poison hemlock has spread
throughout the United States and other countries. It is a biennial, and spreads only by seed.
Seeds are dispersed by water, mud, wind, animal fur, and by humans on clothing, boots, and
machinery. Seeds have a very long dispersal period, ranging from June through February. The
seeds can germinate in a wide range of soil, moisture and temperature conditions, and can
remain viable in the soil for up to three years. Poison hemlock spreads quickly after the rainy
season in areas cleared or disturbed. It is highly competitive and prevents the establishment of
native plants by over-shading; it does not appear to be allelopathic. It is poisonous to
vertebrates, causing death primarily by respiratory paralysis after ingestion (within 2 -3 hours
in livestock).
Bull Thistle: A biennial thistle originally from the Europe, western Asia and North Africa, Bull
thistle currently is most common in coastal grasslands, and disturbed pasture areas and along
roadsides. Its basal rosettes blanket the ground, severely reducing th e establishment of other
plants. Bull thistle reproduces from seed only after fall rains, with flowering peaking in July
and early August. Seeds released are wind-dispersed, and may remain dormant in the soil for
several years. Soil and vegetation disturbance, and drought favor an increase in the thistle.
Milk Thistle: Milk thistle can be an annual, winter annual or biennial herb, native to the
Mediterranean region. It is a pioneer species that colonizes disturbed areas, including grazed
areas under oak trees and along riparian corridors. Dense stands out -compete native plants as
Draft October 1, 2007
35
well as forage for livestock and wildlife. The rosettes may reach up to three feet in diameter,
effectively shading out other plants. Thick infestations hamper the movement of wildlife and
livestock, frequently limiting access to water. Milk thistle accumulates nitrate, making it lethal
to livestock that eat the plant. Seeds remain viable for nine years; older seeds have higher
germination rates.
Italian Thistle: A winter annual originally from the Mediterranean, Europe, Asia and Africa,
Italian thistle currently is widespread in temperate zones. It is common in the Coast Ranges
within oak savannas and disturbed areas, including grasslands, pastures, rangeland, and
roadsides. Italian thistle dominates large areas and excludes native species, impacting both
flora and fauna. Its basal rosettes blanket the ground, severely reducing the establishment of
other plants. Italian thistle reproduces from seed only, flowering from September through
December. Up to 20,000 seeds can be produced by a single plant in one season. Seeds are
wind-dispersed, and may remain dormant in the soil up to 8-10 years. Soil and vegetation
disturbance, and drought favor an increase in Italian thistle.
Spanish Thistle/Spiny Cocklebur/Spiny Clotbur: A widely distributed annual weed from
southern Europe whose leaves are narrow and shiny dark green on upper surfaces with a
white midrib. Burs and spines are prevalent along the stems.
Harding Grass: A waist-high coarse perennial grass with grayish to bluish green leaves.
Flowering heads are dense spike-like and two to five inches long. Native to the Mediterranean
region it was introduced for its value as livestock forage and has since spread beyond
introduced areas by seeds and will out compete other native perennial grasses.
Coyote bush: A dominant component of the coastal sage scrub plant community. Coyote bush
is a native bright green evergreen shrub with whitish or yellowish disk -shaped flowers that
bloom in the fall. The plant has a low browse value for cattle but does provide forage variety
and Vitamin A on dry grass rangeland where it is browsed in the summer and fall (Sampson,
1963). Coyote bush was observed to be encroaching into the southern portion many of the
grassland pastures (Figure 5).
An invasive animal species that may affect rangeland areas, spring, seeps, and stockponds, is
the feral pig (Sus scrofa).
Feral Pig: The feral pigs were introduced into California by the Spanish in the 1500’s. Pigs may
inhabit oak and other woodlands, coastal sage scrub, chaparral, and grassland habitats,
although they seem to prefer oak woodlands and riparian habitats. Pigs are highly adaptable,
reproduce rapidly, and lack effective predators. Potential predators of feral pigs include
mountain lion, bobcat, and coyote all species present within the properties
Feral pigs reach sexual maturity at age 6-8 months, and may breed year-round; most females
have two litters per year. Litter sizes average 5 pi glets, with a high mortality rate (70-90%). It
Draft October 1, 2007
36
should be noted that even with this mortality rate, an average of 5 piglets per litter and two
litters per year would result in a 33% annual population increase. Average life span is about 10
months, with some individuals surviving 5-6 years.
Pigs are opportunistic omnivores that tend to exploit seasonally available food resources. They
will eat berries, insects, roots, bulbs, soil grubs, and even small vertebrates, such as birds,
snakes, mammals, lizards and bird eggs. They will eat carrion if available. Pigs feed heavily in
oak woodlands on the mast crop, and cause extensive ground disturbance through there
rooting foraging behavior. Feral pigs reduce the recruitment of oak trees by direct
consumption of acorns and indirectly by uprooting oak seedlings. The pigs also disrupt the
growth of other native plants. In-stream habitats, riparian woodlands, and oak woodlands can
be heavily degraded by the trampling, rooting, foraging, and wallowing behaviors of feral pigs.
Pigs directly compete with mule deer, wild turkey and black bears for acorns, a critically
important seasonal food source. Pigs cause extensive damage to native plants and wildlife,
rangelands, agricultural crops, and landscaping. They degr ade natural wetland habitats and
increase erosion and sedimentation within riparian zones. Feral pigs may also transmit
diseases to domestic livestock, including swine brucellosis, trichinosis, foot and mouth disease,
African swine fever, pseudorabies, leptospirosis, and may serve as a reservoir for bovine
tuberculosis.
5.0 GRAZING MANAGEMENT PLAN IMPLEMENTATION
5.1 Implementation of the Plan
The management of MROSD grasslands through the utilization of livestock grazing will
promote grassland biodiversity with the implementation of the Grazing Management Plan.
A crucial part of grazing management is adaptive management that must respond to regional
markets, industry health, and production trends that in turn influence a lessee’s fiscal
responsibility. These management options can include decisions such as livestock markets,
livestock trends, pests, climate changes, energy costs, resource constraints, and water resource
uses. As livestock management and resource management science progresses, unforeseen
future management changes can be made that consider such resources through applying the
University of California Cooperative Extension and Natural Resource Conservation Service
conservation current and future management recommendations.
Draft October 1, 2007
37
5.2 Grazing Conservation Management Practice Components
The site-specific proposed conservation management practices often referred to as best
management practices, in this plan are consistent with those local and regional resource and
livestock management practices that are encouraged by various local, state and federal
agencies including but not limited to the California Regional Water Quality Control Board,
California EPA, California Department of Fish and Game, University of California Cooperative
Extension, the Agricultural Commissioner's Office for San Mateo County, Natural Resource
Conservation Service, Resource Conservation Districts, Bureau of Land Management, and the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
Conservation management practices components are to be implemented for all grazing areas,
and are included specifically to apply to Livestock Grazing and Rangeland Management;
Livestock and Wildlife Water Development; Livestock and Wildlife Fencing Development;
Land Management; Roads and Infrastructure Maintenance; and Wildlife, Water Quality, and
Habitat Management. Table 2 provides an “at a glance” summary of the selected conservation
management practices that are discussed in the following sections.
Many of the proposed conservation management practices have already been implemented by
the MROSD. These practices help to reduce erosion and sedimentation, improve water quality,
and protect natural resources.
5.2.1 Grazing Management
The livestock grazing management and implementation of the conservation management
components shall be the responsibility of the MROSD working in conjunction with the grazing
lessee.
5.2.1.1 Proposed Rangeland Conservation Management Practices
The application of conservation management practices are an integral part of the long -term
implementation of the grazing management plan. These conservation management practices
are applicable to any domestic grazing animal(s) on the properties now and in the future
including, but not limited to, horses, cattle, sheep, and goats.
Livestock Considerations:
The ultimate choice of livestock type in part depends on the livestock feasibly available to
graze MROSD grasslands. Available operators may have one or more types of livestock in need
of forage; common species and breeds are described be low.
• Cattle – English breeds such as Angus, Charolais, Hereford, Holstein, or
Draft October 1, 2007
38
English breed cross breeds would be favorable over less complacent animals such as
Mexican steers or Brahma that range more vigorously and are more apt to test fences
and natural barriers. Public safety is another issue in considering bulls, or cows with
newborn calves. Ideally, mid-weight heifers or steers, dry cows, or dairy replacement
heifers would be favored. Distribution should not be a problem for these classes of
animals with sufficient water, roads/trails, and appropriate salt placement.
• Sheep – are grazers that are utilized in the county to a limited extent. Sheep, without
herding, may graze grass closer than cattle. Sheep with herding would be ideal for
distribution, however, sheep are more susceptible to predators and dogs and would
need to be confined at night.
• Goats – are browsers, similar to deer, and are very effective at stripping vegetation
from shrubs. Goats would require day herding to avoid heavy grazing, and would also
need to be penned at night. Goats would be most effective at browsing on mustard,
thistle, and coyote bush but would tend to leave branches and stalks.
• Horses – are more opportunistic grazers and will browse on shrubs. Horses are le ast
favored for MROSD grasslands because of solid shod hoof impacts that compact soil
(versus an unshod cloven-hoofed animal), trailing tendencies, dentition that can uproot
or damage plants, and safety, since children are attracted to horses. Equestrian trail uses
represent minimal additional grazing.
• Other – this may include future possibilities such as llamas that would be acceptable
as long as performance standards are met if consistent with MROSD guidelines.
Livestock Grazing and Rangeland Management:
Livestock grazing and rangeland management shall be based on an approximation of carrying
capacity whereby general rangeland dry matter productivity averages for the have been
determined from, prior studies by Budzinski (2005), the NRCS Soil Surveys, and UCCE range
clippings and research. Adherence to specified performance standards shall determine the
actual operational carrying capacity that may vary from year to year based on climatic
conditions and rotation.
The University of California grazing management courses emphasizes that overgrazing is a
function of time and uniformity of utilization is a function of stock density. High stock density
for short periods of time results in more uniform utilization -less picking and choosing-by
cattle. Higher stock density for shorter periods of time increases competition for feed and
causes cattle to be less selective about what they graze.
Overgrazing occurs when animals remain in a pasture too long so that regrowth gets regrazed
or when cattle return to a pasture too soon before plants have recovered from the previous
Draft October 1, 2007
39
TABLE 2: SUMMARY OF SELECTED
CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PRACTICE OPTIONS
X
CMPs SELECTED
DESCRIPTION OF CMPs
LIVESTOCK GRAZING AND RANGELAND MANAGEMENT
X Prescribed grazing/salt placement Improves forage and use of grazing and salt
areas.
X Mowing invasive plant management Improves forage/access for grazing.
LIVESTOCK AND WILDLIFE WATER DEVELOPMENT
X
Water lines, tanks and troughs
Provides additional reliable/well-distributed
water
that will be placed away from sensitive
resources.
LIVESTOCK AND WILDLIFE FENCING DEVELOPMENT
X
Future option for additional
pastures
Creates management options for rotational
grazing
or pasture cross fencing and allows for sensitive resources management
of
the grazing areas.
X
Exclusionary fencing of spring
sources
Protects appropriate spring sources from
livestock
damage and improves water quality.
LAND MANAGEMENT
X
Invasive plant control other than Provides for habitat protection and management
of
mowing invasive plants.
X
Restoration planting Utilize native plants for restoration.
ROAD AND INFRASTRUCTURE MAINTENANCE
X
Rip rap and straw bale placement Retards culvert, and gully erosion.
X Minimal road maintenance
grading
Grade only where necessary for repairs.
X
Water bars Install to drain water from steep road areas.
WILDLIFE, WATER QUALITY, AND HABITAT MANAGEMENT
X
Exclusionary fencing or boxing of Protects spring sources and vegetation from
springs feral pig damage.
X
Mechanical mowing Maintains edge area between grassland and
scrub.
X
Prescribed burning Improves wildlife habitat and reduces fuel load.
X Rotational grazing Fuel management and reduces invasive plants
in
grassland areas.
Draft October 1, 2007
40
grazing. Light stocking combined with too much time in a pasture leads to a selection of more
palatable plants where less palatable plants are left ungrazed. The longer plants remain
ungrazed, the more decadent, coarser, and less digestible they become.
Grazing timing and rotation are based on management goals. For this plan, a major goal is to
manage the grassland bio-diversity by enhancing perennial grass composition. Perennial
grasses respond well to grazing if not grazed too early in the season, nor grazed too late in the
season. Perennial grasses grazed too early in the season -late fall to early winter are stressed
prior to a build-up or carbohydrate reserves. Perennial grasses grazed too late in the season-
summer to early fall are usually over utilized by livestock seeking green feed. Probably ideal
grazing of perennial grasses would occur from early February through June in the upland areas
of the Santa Cruz Mountains. By February, annual grasses have begun to grow along with the
perennial grasses. Livestock, will seek out the annual grasses and forbs first due to palatability
and will continue to graze these plants until they turn brown. Grazing preference will then
shift to the perennial grasses through the summer and fall months. By grazing through June,
the annual grass competition will be reduced and the perennial grasses will be moderately
grazed. During the summer, adequate soil moisture and sunlight should be present to allow for
the perennial grasses to flourish without grazing pressure. This season may vary somewhat,
based on contributing factors such as rainfall quantity and distribution and/or forage
production.
The recommended access for loading and unloading cattle is 291 Alpine Road. The ranch road
at this location leads to a holding pen at the District residence. Relocation of the primary
holding pens may be appropriate in the future; the potential corral site is indicated in Figure 2.
Upon unloading, the cattle shall be fed for 24 hours in pens (for weed control from manure)
and then rotated into the pastures as described below. To minimize introduction of
agricultural weeds, only locally sourced and/or certified weed-free hay shall be fed.
For example, pasture management grazing can follow a pattern whereby pasture rotation can
occur as follows:
1stYear Pasture #: 1 2 3
2nd Year Pasture #: 2 3 1
3rd Year Pasture #: 3 1 2 Etc.
The above rotation is recommended as a guide for the fast growth phase, from February
through June. In this season, livestock are moved frequently, with duration also based on the
performance standards. However, revisiting a pasture within four weeks is not advised. Year -
long rest of any pasture is not recommended, unless burned, because of the al ready existing
ample seed supply and because of the tendency of invasive plants such as fennel, hemlock,
thistle, and mustard to expand without grazing pressure. In the event a noxious weed
Draft October 1, 2007
41
population occurs on the property, distribution of supplements an d modification of the
rotation regime may required to meet the resource management goals set by the District.
Beginning each February, the RDM must at least meet minimum performance standards in the
first utilized pasture or four inches of green grass growth must be present in that pasture for
grazing to begin. The grazing season shall conclude on June 30 th or upon achievement of the
performance standards as determined by the District.
The above rotation schedule may vary, as the pastures are not equal in either size or forage
productivity. From Table 1, the estimated carrying capacities are 24 AUMs for Pasture #1, 70
AUMs for Pasture #2, and 50 AUMs for Pasture #3 so movement from Pasture #1 would be
most frequent, Pasture #2 less frequent, and Pasture #3 somewhere in between.
Total carrying capacity for the grazing management area for a five month grazing season
from February through June would be 144 AUMs or 58 500-pound average weight steers or
heifers for five months or about 29 cows (1000 pounds avg.) for an average forage production
year. Stocking intensity may require a downward or upward adjustment depending on
rainfall amounts, rainfall distribution, and temperatures. The lessee may make necessary
stocking adjustment during the grazing season in order to achieve the performance
standards as closely as possible.
Performance standards are included below per average slope:
0 to 30% slopes: an average minimum of two inches to three inches of residual dry
matter – approximately an average of 800 – 1,000 pounds per acre per NRCS and UCCE
definition. Description: In some areas rangeland will show evidence of extensive grazing.
Residual vegetation is patchy with some areas grazed to less than one inch and other areas
with greater vegetation remaining. Bare ground showing evidence of pocket gopher activity
may exist. Golf ball objects are clearly visible at a distance of 10 feet and mostly visible at a
distance of 20 feet.
Greater than 30% slopes: an average minimum of three to four inches of residual dry
matter – approximately an average of 1,200 pounds per acre per NRCS and UCCE definition.
Description: In some areas rangeland will typically show clear evidence of grazing. Seed stalks
may be heavily utilized or trampled. Considerable ground cover and leaf litter may be present
in some areas. Some bare soil will be apparent including pocket gopher activity, visible from a
distance of 20 feet. Many golf ball sized objects are partially visible at a distance of 10 feet, and
some may be barely visible at a distance of 20 feet.
Commonly observed key rangeland forage species within the pastures grassland areas include
soft chess, annual rye, ripgut brome, filaree, bur clover, wild oats, purple needlegrass,
California brome, and California barley.
Draft October 1, 2007
42
Areas that are to be considered exempt from the above performance standards include the
following:
• Pastures that are burned, roads, tanks and unfenced pond sites, and rock outcrops.
• Areas within 100 yards of watering troughs, water tanks, salt and mineral l icks, holding
fields/traps, animal handling corrals, or where animals may naturally congregate due to
topography or weather.
• Areas of low fertility due to insufficient soil depth or quality, sand, and steep slopes
regardless of grazing pressure.
• Areas with extensive tree or shrub canopy cover.
• Areas subject to periodic insect infestations such as from grasshoppers and crickets.
• Areas subject to feral pig ground damage, or other wild animal use and disturbance.
Seasonal climatic data including rainfall and distribution, prolonged drought of two or more
years, flooding, and high and low temperatures shall be included in evaluating the
performance standards in the pasture areas. For example, during drought conditions 50% of
unfavorable year grassland production within the NRCS Range Sites should be managed to
remain as residual dry matter.
The above grazing management recommendations are consistent with UCCE, NRCS, RWQCB,
and BLM grazing management objectives or standards. The above standards are at a
recommended "moderate" level of grazing which has been recommended for sustainable
livestock performance and range protection (Jensen, 2000). Studies by Holechek and Galt (2000)
also corroborate that specific levels of residual vegetation levels needed for range protection
are utilized for the California annual grassland type.
Salt locations are based on the National Range Handbook standards that require salt locations
to be no more than 1/2 mile apart on rough rangeland. Upland swales, ridgetops and livestock
trail intersections away from water sources and away from public -used trails and roads shall
be utilized for the placement of salt. Cattle will typically go from salt to forage to water so to
make the most of the forage utilization and to improve grazing distribution, salt and
supplements shall be placed away from water sources. To improve RDM distribution and
resource management, salt blocks shall be placed at least 1/8 mile away from accessible water
sources and public access roads and trails. Salt locations should be moved periodically to
further improved forage utilization and so as not to over utilize any given area.
Supplemental feeding is not allowed, except in the following circumstances: 1) Distribution of
supplements (vitamins, minerals, etc) to aid in the achievement of District resource
Draft October 1, 2007
43
management goals and livestock movement and 2) Feeding in corral/holding pen locations,
when cattle are off loaded and held or shipped from the properties. To minimize the
introduction of agricultural weeds, any hay shall be locally sourced and/or certified weed-free.
Supplemental feeding apart from these circumstances should not be necessary given the
grazing seasonality and the performance standards that yield a conservative stocking level for
an average year.
5.2.1.2 Rangeland Infrastructure Requirements
Prior the beginning of the grazing season, an assessment of infrastructure and range condition
is important because of wear and tear or other changes in condition during the off season. A
site inspection shall be conducted by the MROSD and the grazing lessee in early January to
assess rangeland RDM conditions, green feed growth, and infrastructure. (See also Monitoring,
section 6)
Upon determining the necessary upgrades in a given year, off-season infrastructure repairs
shall be completed by MROSD prior to commencement of the grazing season. During the
grazing season, fencing and water infrastructure maintenance and repairs shall be the
responsibility of the lessee. Work above and beyond upkeep of infrastructure must be
previously approved by MROSD, and is addressed as “Rent credit for performance of work” in
the lease.
Determining the locations of livestock and wildlife water development and livestock and
wildlife fencing development was based on the field assessment and previous information
prepared by Budzinski (2005). These proposed new locations are shown on Figure 4. Specific
locations are to be determined in the field but shall avoid individual trees and wetland areas
and public trails and roads to the extent feasible. The infrastructure improvements are
proposed to aid in the operational management of livestock, and rangeland and natural
resources. Existing troughs are comprised of variable sizes and materials and should be
replaced with concrete cast troughs (if available, otherwise galvanized troughs would suffice as
a second choice) and placed on gravel pads with wildlife escape ramps.
Livestock and Wildlife Water Development:
Livestock water facility development was generally designe d based on the National Range
Handbook standards that require the following:
- A clean, dependable water supply;
- Adequate size to allow livestock to water within a two hour period;
- Spacing of watering areas 1/4 to 1/2 mile in rough terrain; and
- A 10-20 gallon per day requirement per a 1,000 pound animal.
Studies by U.C. Cooperative Extension have shown that when higher quality trough water is
available instead of ponds, calves often weigh an extra 50 pounds at weaning. Yearling steers
Draft October 1, 2007
44
can gain an extra three-tenths to four-tenths of a pound per day (Western Livestock Journal,
Draft October 1, 2007
45
2001). Historic research and experience has shown that stock water developments do divert
livestock use, improving grazing distribution and forage management flexibility . For example,
having clean trough water available away from streams diverted cattle use from those areas.
As long as the grass was green on the uplands, the majority of the cattle stayed on the hillsides
and came down only to water and loaf. After the upland grass dried, use of the riparian areas
increased, however, cattle still used water troughs and loafed near the troughs away from the
riparian areas (Chamberlain and Doverspike, 2001). Water development combined with
existing pasture cross fencing, bene fits management, livestock, wildlife, and wetland habitats
positively.
Proposed water trough improvements are dispersed along ridgelines and swales, and to the
extent possible, away from public access roads and trails, that will aid in the distribution of
cattle and will improve the existing water supply. Troughs are also located away from existing
natural water sources so as to benefit wildlife, to reduce siltation, and to improve water quality
and the potential for wetland habitat management. MROSD will install sufficient wildlife-
friendly water troughs whereby a wooden, concrete, rock, or mesh “escape ramp” is installed
inside the trough to allow trapped birds and mammals to not drown. Water quality is thereby
also improved for livestock and wildlife. For flow-through water troughs, outlets should be
rock or concrete lined to reduce erosion, improve water quality, and provide water for smaller
animals and birds.
New roads should not have to be constructed for any of the proposed waterline and trough
installation. Waterbar diversions will be required as a conservation management practice on
any bulldozer trails established for access of equipment and materials or on any trenching that
may occur on slopes.
Water sources for the water tanks and troughs would come from the existing spring
development located at the wooden water tank east of the residence. The wooden shed located
adjacent to the water tank contains a pump and pressure tank that can probably be modified to
supply water to the eight new water troughs and one water storage tank shown on Figure 5.
From the wooden tank, extending along the access road to the east:
- Place a 5,000 gallon water storage tank near the crest of the ridge;
- Gravity flow water to a 250 gallon precast concrete trough in pasture 3;
- Gravity flow water to a 250 gallon precast concrete trough at the top of pasture 1;
- Gravity flow water to a 250 gallon precast concrete trough north of the old barn.
From the wooden tank, extending along the access road to the west:
- Gravity flow water to a 250 gallon precast concrete trough to be located in the
pens east of the house for pasture 1;
- Gravity flow water to a 250 gallon precast concrete trough to be located just
Draft October 1, 2007
46
the west of the house for pasture 1;
- Gravity flow water to the south to a 250 gallon precast concrete trough for pasture 2;
- Gravity flow water to the southwest to a 250 gallon precast concrete trough for
pasture 2.
Replace the existing trough and water line in the southern portion of pasture 2 as shown on
Figure 5.
The water infrastructure improvements will require one water tank, eight water troughs, and
about 7,500 feet of 1 1/4 inch PVC Schedule 40 pipe (galvanized pipe may be substituted if
trenching is infeasible). Gravel pads for the water tank and troughs, pipe fit tings, float valves,
pressure regulators/air vents, and escape ramps will also be needed to complete the
installation. NRCS specifications are included in Appendix A as a guide.
Existing and any future spring developments shall be fenced or covered to pre clude livestock
and feral pigs. All of the water supply improvements will provide an additional dependable
year-around good water quality water source for livestock and wildlife.
Livestock and Wildlife Fencing Development:
Proposed infrastructure improvements:
• Replace/repair the Silva/Big Dipper boundary fence;
• Repair the fence along the Silva property residence from Alpine Road to the holding pens;
• Repair the road boundaries north of the inholding (Photo 18). This includes upgrades and
maintenance of the cattle guard, gate, and fence.
Existing pasture rotation and seasonal usage, coupled with mowing and water development,
should improve management options and ease of the moving of livestock, pasture
management, natural resource management, and wetland management through livestock
rotation and timing of grazing. RDM standards, water quality, and rangeland/habitat health
will all benefit. Managing the rotation from one pasture to another will also reduce potential
trampling, trailing, and soil compaction.
5.2.2 Safety and Road Maintenance Requirements
Roads and road infrastructure maintenance are well maintained and are in good condition. In
time, roads will require periodic water bar diversions, culvert, cattle guard clean out, and gully
maintenance. Secondary ranch roads will be minimally graded and mowed in order to
maintain a natural ground cover to help prevent erosion. New culverts will require riprap
protection at inlets and outlets. Existing roads may be mowed to reduce fire hazard. Gully
Draft October 1, 2007
47
maintenance may extend to areas that receive access road runoff. MROSD must perform or
pre-approve all road-related maintenance, except in emergencies, as outlined in the lease.
The following conservation management practices shall be followed on access r oads and
gullies.
Management Item Silva/Big Dipper Access Roads Conservation Management Practices
Grading Minimize grading for repairs and maintenance. Allow cover crop to be
established and mowed on most road surfaces. Cant road surface to
sheet water.
Erosion Control Install water bars across road slopes, install road drains, install V
ditches, and rip rap outlets. Drainage diversions to reduce sheet
washing and rilling of road surfaces shall be placed at least every 200
feet on roads with gradients greater than eight percent. Maintain cattle
guard by removing sediment and provide clean out.
Dust Control Speed limit of 5 MPH, maintain cover crop on road, soil seal road
surfaces if necessary. Utilize minimal grading.
Existing Gullies If renewed erosion occurs, place riprap in gully to control erosion.
Straw bales may also be placed in gullies. Willow cuttings may be
planted in wet gullies. Utilize certified weed-free straw bales.
Drainages Do not side-cast material into drainages. Utilize existing drainage
crossings or span new crossings with suitable bridging that does not
disturb channel bank or channel bottom. If culverts are used at smaller
drainage crossings, then, provide inlet and outlet protection with riprap
material. Grade drainage crossing only after water flow has ceased.
Reseeding Reseed and mulch cut and fill slopes. Install necessary sand bags, straw
bales to retard erosion until slopes are revegetated. Use certified weed
free straw.
Borrow Areas Original ground topsoil or berms shall be left at the edge of any
excavated borrow areas to allow for natural reseeding. Runoff from
excavated areas shall not enter drainage courses. Runoff shall be kept
within the excavated area or filter through straw bales and/or sediment
traps. Straw bales shall be weed free grain or rice straw when used for
mulch or sediment barriers.
Draft October 1, 2007
48
To permit patrol and emergency access, all roads and trails are to remain clear of moveable
obstructions including, but not limited to, salt, supplements, water troughs, and livestock
carcasses at all times. Livestock that expire while on the premises shall be removed from the
property or buried on site promptly in accordance with the lease. District must be notified of
the location and proposed method of disposal as soon as possible upon discovery of dead
livestock. When burying a carcass on site, the location must not fall within 50 feet of any road or
trail or 200 feet of any water source or residence. The site must be restored to natural
topography and the District notified of its location.
5.2.3 Natural Resources Management
Adoption of the rangeland management policies described herein will aid in the conservation
of the natural resource habitat conditions throughout the grazing land on the propertie s.
Land, Wildlife, Water Quality, and Habitat Management
Plant communities and wildlife habitats throughout the properties will benefit from rangeland
management practices, allowing the continued natural growth of native plant communities,
and the concomitant improvement of wildlife habitat values. Benefits to the natural resources
of the properties through grazing and rangeland management will result from measures that
will improve water quality in creeks and ponds, reduce bank erosion, increase slope stability,
reduce sedimentation, and reduce soil compaction.
5.2.3.1 Vegetation
The extant native plant communities will benefit from suggested removal of invasive and
encroaching plants which presently out-compete native grassland species and encroach into
grassland areas. Livestock management practices will continue to result in managed rangeland
habitat conditions, allowing the native grassland communities to expand their abundance,
diversity, and areal extent.
Grassland/Coastal Scrub Habitats
Grasslands, and coastal scrub, communities occur on uplands and will be managed, where
applicable, by the proposed prescribed grazing practices that have been previously discussed.
Grasslands will be grazed through improved pasture rotation and timing that results in
achieving, at a minimum, the RDM performance standards, concomitant with maintaining
overall rangeland health. Performance standards, rotation, and grazing seasonality will favor
grassland bio-diversity by enhancing perennial grass growth, reducing annual grass
competition with perennial grasses, and favor wildflower production.
Draft October 1, 2007
49
Coastal scrub will continue to flourish since livestock and wildlife frequent the edge areas and
deer actively browse well into the interior of the coastal scrub. Deer and cattle browsing
encourages new plant growth and sunlight within the community. Coyote bush despite
livestock and wildlife browsing, are encroaching upon areas of annual and perennial
grasslands. These areas shall require mechanical management through mowing in order to
maintain the grasslands and the grassland/coastal scrub edge areas and wildland mosaics.
Erosion Control Using Native Plants
Bio-remediation using the native plants listed in Budzinski (2005) may be used to restore any
eroded creek banks, gullies, and roadwork, as needed.
Prescribed Burn Management
The grazing management described can be effective in removing grassland fuel loads and
significantly reducing the risks associated with wildland fire. However, periodic use of fire as a
natural management tool for some areas may be desirable. Planning a prescribed burn is a
complex process that insures the protection of structures, surrounding lands, and air quality,
and emphasizes safety as a priority. MROSD cooperation with local fir e agencies will be
necessary, with possible assistance from the California Department of Forestry (CDF) and local
air pollution agencies under their permitting requirements.
The use of fire as a fuel management tool on gently to moderately sloping areas of coyote bush
dominated coastal scrub, should increase upland water infiltration and help in fuel
management. Prescribed burning appears to be less effective at controlling coyote bush
because of its high moisture content in the green leaves. Where fire ha s been used in the coast
ranges, a combination of a follow-up Roundup herbicide treatment for two consecutive years
after the prescribed burning approximately 90 percent control is achieved with the
combination burning and herbicide treatments (Hill -El Sur Ranch, pers. comm. 2006).
Therefore, any prescribed burning of coyote bush must be in the fall when fires would burn
hotter and should be over a pilot area to determine effectiveness.
Brush management techniques for improving cattle and wildlife forage will be limited to
crushing and/or burning of coyote bush dominated coastal scrub in areas on average slopes of
less than 30 percent where deeper soil profiles typically occur. Typical vegetation includes
coastal sage, coyote bush, and poison oak. This will prevent increases in surface runoff, erosion
and sedimentation during the improvement period. Additional requirements would include
the following: provision of a 50 foot vegetated buffer strip between drainage courses; riparian
vegetation will not be disturbed; high soil erosion areas will be avoided; all cultural resource
areas shall be avoided; equipment will be excluded from drainage channels; burning will leave
a mosaic pattern of burned and unburned vegetation; no late spring burning in March and
April will be allowed due to potential high runoff; and in heavy fuel load areas mechanical
clearing around trees shall be completed prior to burning.
Draft October 1, 2007
50
A minimum of fire lines should be established. Hand clearing of some firelines can occur and
existing roads can be used as firelines Dead brush can also be spot burned in the fall or late
spring to minimize the construction of firelines. Brush can be crushed a year in advance to
improve the effect of the burn. Minimal ground disturbance shall occur. If fire l ines have to be
cut, then, site-specific conservation management practices for reseeding and for waterbar
diversions shall be followed. This program can be repeated every five to seven years. Grazing
of the burned areas shall be deferred until new grass gr owth has been established. Native grass
broadcast reseeding is encouraged in the burn areas.
Prescribed burning is included as a possible future management tool but is not required at this
time. Liability, costs, permitting, and logistics may make this option impractical at this time but
the practice is still a possibility for future adaptive management.
5.2.3.2 Wildlife
Wildlife resources will continue to be managed in part through the continued implementation
of rangeland management practices as previously described. Because native plants will also
continue to benefit from livestock control and the removal of invasive plants, native plant
communities will flourish.
Wildlife Game Animals
Feral pig management through MROSD-approved trapping is most important to rangeland
management in order to reduce damage to wetland, ponds, and spring sources.
Wildlife Corridors
Wildlife and livestock movement corridors will not be adversely affected by the proposed
rangeland management practices. Mowing of dense ar eas of coyote bush will provide more
edge areas, grassland mosaics, improve wildlife movement, and provide additional browse of
mowed coyote bush sprouts.
Wildlife Water
Wildlife water sources will be improved through placement of reliable year around w ildlife-
friendly water troughs. New and existing water troughs will contain wildlife escape ramps.
Protection of spring water sources will also continue to improve wildlife water quantity and
quality adjacent to these areas.
Trees
Draft October 1, 2007
51
MROSD will be responsible for all removal or modification of live and dead trees, unless they pose an
immediate danger to ranch operations or the public. Such trees provide important habitat for
cavity nesting bird species and for bats. Taller dead trees also provide importan t “hawking”
sites for raptors to hunt from, providing an unobstructed view. Dead trees should be
considered an important part of integrated pest management because of the habitat they
provide to beneficial wildlife. Raptors also help to control ground squirrels and gophers.
Ponds and Wetlands
The California red-legged frog (Rana aurora draytonii – Federally threatened, DFG: CSC) is
present in the “Frog pond” (west of the barn, under tree canopy) and has been reported from
the perennial pond just south of the same barn.
On-going natural siltation and vegetation encroachment of the ponds is currently occurring.
Maintenance of these ponds and other pond sites on the ranches may be necessary in the future
and is the responsibility of the MROSD. Rotational grazing would be beneficial to manage bank
and invasive plant vegetation. Feral pigs currently may use these ponds for wallowing.
Springs on the properties that are used as livestock and wildlife water trough sources are
boxed and fenced to preclude cattle. Any new fencing or other structures should also exclude
feral pigs since wallowing can destroy spring boxes, clog pipes, disrupt or stop spring flow,
and reduce water quality.
Studies corroborate that overall wetland species composition is not sensiti ve to periodic intense
grazing use if coupled with moderate grazing levels on uplands (Allen -Diaz and Jackson,
2000).
5.2.3.3 Riparian Corridors
Riparian corridors are primarily located in woodland drainages that are inaccessible to
livestock and contain little forage value.
The new larger water troughs are located outside of riparian corridors, and shall be utilized to
improve the livestock water use management by providing a larger volume of water. New,
larger water troughs, and salt blocks are to be placed in upland areas in order to draw livestock
and wildlife away from the riparian corridors.
5.2.3.4 Invasive and or Noxious Species
This plan recommends the implementation of management measures for invasive plant and
animal species found within the property boundaries that could affect existing and future
rangeland areas. This plan discusses management options for invasive noxious non-native
species that compete with native plant species and are of little value to livestock and/or
Draft October 1, 2007
52
wildlife, resulting in an over-all reduction in habitat values to both flora and fauna and
negatively affecting grassland areas. A balance must be struck regarding maintenance
requirements since many of these invasive plants originated from outside the property and are
regional problems that may be uncontrollable.
This plan may be amended by MROSD to cover additional invasive plants or animals if their
populations become problematic in the future as determined by annual monitoring visits.
Collaborative efforts with other agencies aimed at target invasive noxious species shall be
encouraged for long-term management options for existing and future invasive noxious
species. Agencies may include California State Parks, California Conservation Corps, BLM,
U.S. Forest Service, U.C. Cooperative Extension, Natural Resource Conservation Service, and
the San Mateo County Agricultural Commissioner’s Office. Control and removal may not
necessarily be viable management options depending on infestations. All herbicide applica tion
shall follow the San Mateo County Agricultural Commissioner’s office restricted pesticide
permit application requirements.
The following treatment practices have proven effective as a means to help control the species
listed below. Current MROSD-initiated treatment practices, if different than below, may
continue or the following treatment practices may be implemented. New treatment practices
may also be utilized with MROSD approval as part of the adaptive management requirement
of this plan. Suggested rangeland management techniques discussed in previous portions of
this plan, including rotational grazing at a moderate level of intensity, will help to control, but
not eradicate, many of the plant species discussed below.
Yellow Starthistle
Management of any yellow starthistle infestations may be accomplished by a variety of
measures including the following:
1) Tillage of infestations in previously disturbed farm field areas and the planting of either
harvest crops or cover crops. Late season and/or multiple tillage are best. However, ground
disturbance should not occur in undisturbed areas since any new ground disturbance will
create seed germination areas.
2) Mowing of erect tall plants at the early flowering stage (late spring -early summer depend on
conditions) will help to control or eradicate the plant. Mowing must cut below the lowest
branch of the main stem. Re-mowing may be necessary. If mowing is done too early, then, star
thistle can take advantage of the reduced competition for space, light, and water.
3) Prescribed burning may only be effective if done in multiple three -year periods. Single-year
fire treatments are ineffective at controlling the plant.
Draft October 1, 2007
53
4) Grazing can be effective at controlling the thistle when the plant is green and c ontains 11 to
28 percent crude proteins. However, grazing early (February/March) and allowing late season
grazing rest (May/June) can favor starthistle production. Too heavy or too light grazing can
also favor starthistle production.
5) Use of herbicides such as Clopyralid (Transline) may also be acceptable means of controlling
star thistle. Transline is a growth-regulator herbicide that arrests development of the growing
points of the plants. It was recently registered for use in non-crop areas of California, including
pastures, rangeland, and wildlands. Transline has proven to be safe for use on grasses, and also
has excellent pre-emergent thistle control qualities at very low use rates. Applications at the
early rosette stage of plant development between January and April at an application rate of at
least one ounce per acre has shown to be an effective means of control. Spot application of this
herbicide may also be considered as an aid in thistle eradication.
6) Planting of clovers and/or perennial bunch grasses as competitive plants in combination
with mowing or grazing can further reduce the star thistle infestations.
7) Minimizing the grading of road surfaces and ground disturbances will further reduce plant
densities and seed germination areas.
8) Experimental uses of a small beetle from Eurasia named Eustenopus villosus may be effective
at eradicating star thistle. Experiments are being conducted by the USDA's Exotic and Invasive
Weeds Research Unit in Albany, California and may be coordinated through the San Mateo
County Agricultural Commissioner's Office.
Purple Starthistle
Management of purple starthistle is the most difficult because the plants can germinate from
fall through spring, therefore plant maturity can be staggered within a stan d. This makes
control particularly difficult as different growth stages respond differently to different control
techniques.
The following procedures may be used to help eradicate the plant:
• Control all isolated plants and small outlying populations to prevent establishment of new
stands.
• Implement yearly control measures before flower maturity and seed set or remove and
dispose of seed heads or mature flowering heads. Control methods may have to be repeated
several times during a season for plants with staggered maturities.
• Limit ground disturbance.
Draft October 1, 2007
54
• Maximize vegetative cover of affected areas. Reseeding bare areas and maintaining
recommended residual dry matter and riparian stubble height levels will help prevent
establishment of new seedlings.
Specific control measures for purple star thistle may include the following:
• Hoeing can be effective in controlling small infestations and controlling plant spreading into
adjacent areas. Hoeing should occur when the plants are in the rosette stage o r after they have
bolted but before the flowers start to show color. If the flowers show color, then, the plants
should be removed from the site and disposed of properly. Plant crowns should be dug up,
removing at least 1.5 inches of taproot below ground to prevent resprouting.
• Mowing is not an effective control method because plants in the rosette stage generally grow
below the height of a mower bar and because the robust taproot will resprout if top growth is
removed. Mature plants that are mowed may become bushier and will be more prolific seed
producers.
• Systemic herbicide spraying should be done in late winter or early spring, ideally in January
or February. Most plants will be small rosettes at this time and may be difficult to locate.
Broadleaf selective herbicides are the conservation choice. In late spring or summer, non -
selective herbicides may be used. Additional eradication methods may also be acceptable, for
example, discussions with Yolo County ranchers have indicated that a mixture of Roundup and
Transline herbicides has been very effective at controlling infestations.
• Grazing management may aid in control where cattle will seasonally browse on immature
seedlings and help to retard their growth.
• Prescribed burning may not be effective since the taproot will usually be undamaged and
plant resprouting will occur.
Fennel
Fennel control requires control of soil disturbance and an on -going effort, due to the long-term
survivability of seeds in the soil bank. Livestock grazing will help reduce fennel stands in
areas where the fennel is not dense and occurs in a small area. Grazing should occur when the
plants are small, and be carefully managed to avoid further soil disturbance. Use of triclopyr
(trade name Garlon 3A; Garlon4) achieved 95-100 percent kill when applied in early spring at
the rate of 6-lbs/100 gallons water (1 lb active ingredient per acre). Lower concentrations were
less effective, and treatments in late summer were less effective. Cutting the fennel and
treating the cut stems did not increase the effectiveness of the herbicide. Grazing is especially
important at controlling the spread of fennel.
Draft October 1, 2007
55
Black Mustard
Early season grazing during February and rotational grazing thereafter, may help to reduce the
spread of the seeds and plant propagation. Chemical control with Roundup spot treatments
may be effective in small areas. The plant flourishes after late season rains and in clay soils
where moisture retention is greatest. Rotational grazing may favor consumption (J ensen-UCCE
and Dale-Cesmat-NRCS, pers. comms. 2006). Spring mowing will be part of the rotational
grazing program.
Poison Hemlock
Because poison hemlock is poisonous to humans, it is recommended that gloves and masks be
worn while removing this species. Soil disturbance must be minimized in any control method.
Hand pulling is effective for small infestations; it is not necessary for the entire root system to
be removed. Timing is critical; however, since pulling when seeds are viable would spread the
seeds.
Mowing in spring and late summer over several seasons has been effective; subsequent
mowings are required to control newly sprouted plants emerging from the soil seed bank.
Post-emergent herbicides shown to be effective include 2,4 D ester, 2,4 D amine, and
glyphosate plus surfactant, all applied in late spring. Glyphosate plus surfactant has been
effective at the rate of 1.0 lb/acre, especially at the rosette stage. (Note: surfactants are generally
not approved for use in wetland or streamside areas. Trade names: glyophosate plus surfactant
= RoundUp glyophosate without surfactant = Rodeo)
Bull Thistle
Mowing and hand cutting shortly before plants flower is an effective means of control. Spot
application of the herbicide 2,4 D has been shown to be effective during the rosette growth
stage. Cattle and horses may also eat the plant prior to the growth of the harder and larger
spines.
Milk Thistle
Thistles seedling require light to germinate, and do not compete well in areas with cover crops
of grasses or native plants. Thistles are the most susceptible to control during the seedling
state, or as they grow from seedlings to rosette. Fall is the appropriate time for chemical
control of annual thistles; while the early spring rosette stage is most susceptible for biennial
thistles. Mowing is appropriate in spring prior to seed head formation.
Italian Thistle
Draft October 1, 2007
56
Herbicides are most effective during life states other that the rosette stage; Clopyralid,
glyphosate (as Roundup), 2,4 D ester, and MCPA have all been shown effective (Bossard, 2000).
Livestock grazing using sheep or goats has shown promising results in trials in Australia.
Seedlings cannot establish in areas of dense groundcover, and thus should be considered for
control of re-invasion after initial control measures.
Spanish Thistle/Spiny Cocklebur
Roundup herbicide or mechanical or hand removal is effective since the thistle is mostly found
in small disturbed areas. Utilize Rodeo herbicide if near water.
Harding Grass
Rotational grazing when new shoots form in the spring may help to reduce plant density,
however, other annual and perennial grasses are more palatable so care must be taken not to
overgraze. Herbicides are not suggested due to the shear expanse of the plant surface.
Prescribed burning after mid-January appears to retard growth. Mowing prior to seed set in
May or June and follow up rotational grazing can also help to control plant density.
Coyote bush: Where MROSD seeks to manage grassland biodiversity and fuel loads, then
reduction of coyote bush (also Harding grass, fennel, mustard, and thistles) encroaching into
grassland areas will be implemented as a part of this plan. Field experience has shown that
early summer to early fall mowing (before seeds are set), is ef fective at helping to control the
spread of coyote bush and other invasives into grassland areas. Follow up intensive rotational
grazing is important as new grow shoots occur from the mowed areas. The mowing should be
at a two-inch height to avoid ground disturbance and follow existing topographic contours in a
curvilinear fashion. Mowed slopes shall be 20 percent or less: typically what a wheel tractor
can be operated on with necessary wheel and bumper weights. A setback of 25 feet from all
drainages or gully areas shall be observed. In sandy soil areas, to control erosion, mow only
where there is a developed grass understory. Repeated mowing will be necessary in three to
five years. For summer and early fall mowing, a fire control brush rig may be needed b ecause
of the potential for spark-generated fires. Otherwise, mowing shall be restricted to foggy
mornings in the summer and early fall.
This plan therefore proposes that mowing shall occur in areas of infestation followed by
rotational grazing into those pasture areas. Carrying capacity may be increased with the
reduction of coyote bush canopy cover in grassland areas. Wildfire fuel loads will be
decreased. Oak and other native trees such as willows, shall not be mowed. Mowing can begin
next year prior to seed setting of the various plants. Figure 5 identifies potential areas. Other
areas of coyote bush not shown on the map are also eligible for mowing.
Draft October 1, 2007
57
Draft October 1, 2007
58
Feral Pigs
Exclusionary fencing of springs; and trapping shall continue for control as authorized by
MROSD. Springs, seeps, ponds, and watercourses within rangeland areas are especially
susceptible to damage from feral pigs. As discussed above, spring sources, should continue to
be fenced to exclude feral pigs.
5.2.3.5 Water Quality
Non-Point Source Pollution results from land use practices where waste is not collected and
disposed of in some identifiable manner. Non-point sources of pollution include: urban
drainage, agricultural runoff, road construction activities, mining, grassland management,
logging and other harvest activities, and natural sources such as effects of fire, flood, and
landslide. Management of rangeland and cropland may have a vast effect upon water quality,
but currently is subject to only limited regulation. Because the source of pollution is difficult to
determine, regulation and enforcement has also been difficult. With more political pressure
upon water quality governing bodies to control the water quality more effectively within their
jurisdiction, agricultural practices may not continue to be exempt. Therefore, agriculture
operations need to be proactive in determining what standards are likely to be and
implementing their own monitoring protocols in order to determine whether they will be in
compliance.
Suggested practices for protection of sensitive areas such as stream banks, wetlands, estuaries,
ponds, lakeshores and riparian zones include: exclusion of livestock, providing stream
crossings, construction of hardened water access for drinking, providing alternative dri nking
water sources, salting and providing shade away from sensitive areas and the use of improved
grazing management such as rest rotational grazing to reduce impact upon sensitive areas
(CCSWRCB, 2003).
Specific RWQCB suggested water quality management practices include the following, which
are consistent with the required conservation management practices of this plan:
Grazing Water Quality Management
• Implement one or more of the following to protect sensitive resources such as
streambanks, wetlands, ponds, riparian zones: exclude livestock, provide stream crossings
or hardened access to water, provide alternate water sources, locate salt and supplements
away from water, and improve animal grazing management.
• Utilize USDA NRCS planning approaches to maintain grazing lands to reduce erosion.
Wetland and Riparian Water Quality Management
Draft October 1, 2007 59 SAGE Associates
• Maintain riparian functionality within the watershed. For example, photographic
observation of stream channels will help determine whether stream functionality is
improving or decreasing. Representative riparian corridor areas should be photographed
for increased woody and herbaceous growth in the stream channel, reduced sloughing of
the stream bank and for increased amount of water present in the stream during the fall
low flow periods. Increased stream functioning conditions will help reduce sedimentation
and will increase the amount of infiltration of water into the rangeland. Increased
infiltration of water during high flow periods will increase the amount of water available to
riparian plants, thereby increasing biomass and beneficial species. It will also increase
water levels during low flow periods, which will help to decrease water temperatures.
• Encourage the use of programs that restore wetlands and riparian areas.
• Reduce erosion and, to the extent practicable, retain sediment onsite during and after
earth disturbances.
• Use vegetative filter strips to remove sediments and reduce pollutants from entering
riparian and wetland systems.
Erosion and Sediment Control Water Quality Management
• Utilize prescribed grazing and riparian management techniques such as rotational
grazing, and residual dry matter management.
Conservation management practices as proposed in this plan are consistent with t he above
management practices suggested by the RWQCB including riparian fencing, erosion
control, water troughs, rotational grazing, and residual dry matter performance standards.
Draft October 1, 2007 60 SAGE Associates
6.0 MONITORING PROGRAM
The monitoring program for grazed MROSD lands must ensure that the specified
rangeland uses are in compliance with the applicable land use regulations and the land
stewardship goals, objectives, and implementing guidelines.
Monitoring programs will adhere to the MROSD guidelines listed below.
• Monitor vegetation response to grazing on District lands.
• Monitor forage utilization and distribution by grazing animals to assure appropriate
amounts of residual dry matter remain on the ground to achieve desired resource
management objectives.
• Monitor livestock use levels and infrastructure condition to insure conformity with lease
provisions to contribute to improved management.
• Monitor wildland conditions with an emphasis on documenting the location, distribution
and abundance of native grasses, wildflowers, and other native flora and fauna.
• Monitor non-native vegetation response to grazing with an emphasis on documenting the
location, distribution and abundance of target invasive species.
To satisfy the above requirement, the following checklists a nd photo point monitoring
forms are to be utilized for the rangeland monitoring program on an annual basis in July
after livestock have been removed for the season. The monitoring program implementation
shall be the responsibility of the MROSD staff. In addition, the seasonal rotation schedule,
herd type, and stocking rates shall be provided to MROSD by the grazing lessee at the end
of the grazing season (end of June) and included with the season -end monitoring report.
Natural climatic changes, geologic processes, and biologic cycles that are beyond lessee
control shall be noted, as applicable, in the checklist monitoring discussion summaries.
Natural processes may include, but are not limited to, drought, flooding, landslides, fault
movements, wildfires, and vegetation responses to climate changes such as global
warming, invasive noxious plants, pathogens, and pests.
Monitoring shall require the use of techniques consistent with the University of California
Cooperative Extension, the U.S. Department of Agriculture Natural Resources
Conservation Service, and the U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management
monitoring and management practices for working landscapes.
The following photo point monitoring checklist and the rangeland/habitat healt h checklist
have been established for monitoring the Silva/Big Dipper pasture grazing areas and
include a broad selection of indicators.
Draft October 1, 2007 61 SAGE Associates
The checklists include those items that require yearly inspection to assure that rangeland
management practices are consistent with this grazing management plan. Existing photos
utilized in this plan may also be utilized as photo points for the monitoring. Photo points
should be used that best characterize the grazing management. A completed photo point
and checklist is included at the end of this section including the monitoring methodology
used in the completion of the checklist. The photo point and checklist completion shall be
repeated yearly in July. Additional photo point locations may be added at the discretion of
MROSD.
Monitoring results can also be used as a guideline for any future adaptive management
changes that may be shown to be necessary from the monitoring. For example, prolonged
drought may cause a reduction in carrying capacity in order to still achiev e the minimum
residual dry matter performance standards.
Photo Point Checklist #1 Description of Monitoring Items:
Representative photo points are instrumental in determining overall landscape and
vegetative changes over time that may be related to manag ement, climate, natural
processes such as fire and flood, and biological processes. A photo point form is included as
Photo Point Monitoring Checklist #1 and shall be utilized yearly in July or near the end of
the grazing season by the monitors for each ph oto point location. The initial photo point
determinations in this plan will provide the representative baseline condition for that
specific area of the rangeland that is to be monitored as long as grazing occurs. All photo
point locations shall be shown on an ortho-photo topographic base Monitoring Photo
Location Map along with GPS coordinates and direction of photo for each photo point and
entered into the MROSD GIS mapping system. It is imperative that the field and subject of
the photos remain static from year to year; recording azimuth and focal length may aid in
this accuracy, but matching views in the field is generally sufficient. A larger -scale map can
also be made desired. Photo points shall be representative of rangeland and resource
community landscapes within the grazed areas. At each photo point location, the
description of monitoring items checklist shall be completed through methodology
described at the end of this section on a completed example of Photo Point Checklist #1 and
Rangeland-Habitat Health Checklist #2 that are used to illustrate the monitoring protocol.
____Rangeland-Habitat Health Monitoring – if this can be determined from the photo, then
complete Checklist #2 for each applicable photo point location. Rangeland-habitat health
monitoring will not pertain to some photo monitoring sites. For example, “not applicable”
photos might include a photo of road maintenance or water trough infrastructure.
____Residual Dry Matter (RDM) Average Inches per Slope %: ___0-30% ___>30% is based
on UCCE (2003) and NRCS (2000) prescribed grazing performance standards included in
Appendix A of this plan. The performance standard for a moderate level of grazing is an
Draft October 1, 2007 62 SAGE Associates
average minimum of two to three inches RDM for slopes of 0 to 30 percent (about 800 t o
1,000 pounds per acre of dry matter) and three to four inches RDM for slopes greater than
30 percent (about 1,000 to 1,200 pounds per acre of dry matter). Adequate levels of residual
dry matter are important for providing next years annual and perennial grassland seed
crop, for promoting the vigor of perennial grasslands, for reducing erosion and
sedimentation, and for preserving water quality and rangeland health.
Example for 0-30% slope: In some areas rangeland will show evidence of extensive grazing.
Residual vegetation is patchy with some areas grazed to less than one inch and other areas
with greater vegetation remaining. Bare ground showing evidence of pocket gopher
activity may exist. Golf ball objects are clearly visible at a distance of 10 feet a nd mostly
visible at a distance of 20 feet. In some areas rangeland will typically show clear evidence of
grazing. Seed stalks may be heavily utilized or trampled. Considerable ground cover and
leaf litter may be present. Some bare soil will be apparent in cluding pocket gopher activity,
visible from a distance of 20 feet. Many golf ball sized objects are partially visible at a
distance of 10 feet, and some may be barely visible at a distance of 20 feet.
Example for greater than 30% slopes: In some areas rangeland may show evidence of
considerable grazing use. Seed stalks may be heavily utilized. Ground cover is essentially
complete. Little bare soil is apparent except for occasional pocket gopher activity and
livestock/game trails. Some golf ball sized obje cts may be visible or only barely visible at a
distance of 10 feet but seldom visible at a distance of 20 feet.
Exempt from the RDM performance standards include the following:
• Pastures that are burned, roads, tanks and reservoir sites, and rock outcrops.
• Areas within one hundred (100) yards of watering troughs, water tanks, salt licks,
holding fields/traps, animal handling corrals, or where animals may naturally congregate
due to topography or weather.
• Areas of low fertility due to insufficient soil depth, sand, or quality and steep slopes
regardless of grazing pressure.
• Areas with extensive tree or shrub canopy cover.
• Areas subject to periodic insect infestations such as from grasshoppers and crickets.
• Areas subject to feral pig ground damage, or other wild animal use and disturbance.
A measure for impairment or non-compliance can be identified from Residual Dry Matter
performance standards. In an above average rainfall year and in an average rainfall year,
the residual dry matter performance standards should be met as described above. In below
Draft October 1, 2007 63 SAGE Associates
average rainfall years performance standards may be exceeded but not for more than two
years in a row. In above average rainfall years, stocking may necessarily increase to achieve
target performance standards. Ranch operational management should be able to adapt to
lower rainfall amounts and distribution over a two-year period. Long-term impairment of
resources will not be permanent if management changes meet performance standards
within the two-year period.
___ Plant Communities Observed: Include a list of plant communities viewed in the photo
such as annual grassland, coastal sage scrub, wetland, woodland, etc. based on Section 4 of
this plan. Also include relative abundance of perennial grasslan ds if present. Note if coyote
bush areas have been mowed and plant resprouting over successive years of monitoring.
___ Wildlife Observed: Especially important for photo points at ponds, and wetlands per
Section 4 of this plan.
___ Grazing Infrastructure Maintenance: Important for fencing and water trough and water
tank maintenance. Look for wildlife escape ramps on troughs, spring exclusionary fencing,
and gravel or cement pads at troughs.
___ Access Road Maintenance Observations: Important items include minimal grading,
mowing, culvert rip rap and gully repair.
___ Yearly Rainfall in Inches and Distribution: Annual precipitation records are an
important part of any monitoring effort and shall be included in each yearly monitoring
report on the spaces provided in the relevant monitoring checklists. A comparison with
available average rainfall and average rainfall distribution records shall be made yearly to
ascertain whether or not the rainfall was normal in monthly amount and distribution for
the monitoring year.
___ Invasive Species: note species and relative abundance, identifying number of plants if
possible.
In summary, the choosing of the representative photo point and the checking of the
monitoring items is part of the monitoring protocol. It is expected that a walking transect of
the foreground areas of the photo point be completed as a part of filling in the appropriate
checklist items, examining site details such as invasive plants, drainage patterns, road
condition, livestock behavior, and aquatic habitats. Some photo points may be only
representative of landscapes so no detailed checklist evaluations would be made other than
to note landscape changes over time and the possible causes of such changes. The time
spent at each photo point will necessarily be variable depending on the checklist
requirements. Time may vary from a few minutes to about one half hour in most cases.
Draft October 1, 2007 64 SAGE Associates
A blank Checklist #1 form is included in Appendix A. Additional pages may be attached
as needed.
Rangeland-Habitat Health Checklist #2:
Rangeland and habitat health will require a yearly evaluation in the fall of seventeen
Indicators that are shown on Checklist #2. These factors have been previously discussed in
the plan and will be utilized for the determination of overall rangeland and habitat health
as well as for soil conditions, erosion occurrences, plant community and reproduction
characteristics, invasive plant problems, and overall plant mortality and stress. Overall
health of the habitat communities is easily incorporated in this checklist per applicable
representative photo point. These factors shall be observed and recorded in checklist form
at each applicable designated photo point location. This method is to be used as a
qualitative indicator to see what you may want to monitor quantitatively that can help
guide management responses. Use the NRCS Range or Ecological Site descriptions from the
soil survey for baseline information.
The rangeland and habitat health indicators have been developed by the Natural Res ource
Conservation Service (1997)(revised in 2007) for working landscapes in order to assess
departures from normal characteristics. Overall normal rangeland health maintains or
improves soil fertility, reduces erosion and sedimentation, improves water quality, allows
for plant community biodiversity and management, and provides suitable habitat for
wildlife.
For the evaluation, the rangeland and habitat health Indicators are evaluated in categories
that range from normal with none to slight deviations from normal, to not normal with
extreme deviations from normal that are to be filled in on Checklist #2. A summary
discussion is also to be included for deviations from normal and for rainfall amounts and
distribution.
A measure for change can be identified from the Rangeland-Habitat Health Checklist when
listed indicators show “moderate to extreme or becoming not normal”. The MROSD and
lessee should work together to reverse the changes as conditions are noted in the
monitoring reports if due to grazing operational management. In working landscapes,
changes can usually be reversed so as to avoid irreversible changes to the resources.
Climatic, geologic, and biologic processes beyond the lessee control may also be a source of
impairment and should be stated as such.
A blank Rangeland-Habitat Health Checklist #2 form is included in Appendix A.
The completed Monitoring Checklists #1 and #2 shall be compiled and stored for long -term
reference. Monitoring shall commence following the 2007 grazing season. MROSD sh all be
responsible for safeguarding all monitoring records. Subsequent monitoring year
Draft October 1, 2007 65 SAGE Associates
checklists and information should be stored with previous years for comparison and
consistency.
Some of the representative photos used in this plan may also be utilize d as photo
monitoring points. For example, Photos 1, 2, 4, and 11 can be used to monitor landscape
changes over time; Photos 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, and 18 can be used to monitor
residual dry matter, rangeland/habitat health, and invasive pla nts; Photos 6 and 18 can be
used to monitor brushland conversion; and Photos 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 15, 17, and 18
can be used to monitor facility infrastructure use and maintenance.
A short executive summary shall be included in the monitoring report that summarizes the
results of each monitoring year for each of the grazing areas and compared to the previous
year(s) monitoring results in text and/or tabular form. The results of each monitoring year
shall then be discussed amongst the MROSD staff to see if any adaptive management
changes are required to be implemented.
The results of the yearly monitoring will determine if any anticipated or unanticipated
adaptive management changes are necessary. This plan attempts to foresee anticipated
changes and proposes conservation management practices that are responsive to such
changes. However, unforeseen changes may occur that may require plan updates as
determined by MROSD as a part of this plan or more detailed quantitative monitoring
methods.
MROSD may also choose, in addition to the yearly monitoring, to have detailed research
studies performed by academic researchers that would yield more in -depth data on
rangeland trends and long-term habitat responses to grazing.
A graphic example of a representative Photo Point Monitoring Checklist #1 and Rangeland-
Habitat Health Monitoring Checklist #2 for the perennial pond on the Big Dipper property
are included on the following pages to illustrate the monitoring protocol for these two
checklists. Strays from the Big Dipper Ranch in holding currently lightly graze this area.
The photo point was chosen to illustrate grassland habitat, to monitor for potential invasive
species, and for aquatic pond habitat. The photo was taken on February 20, 2007. The actual
monitoring would be done at the end of the grazing season and before fall rain. In
February, individual perennial grasses or invasive plants could not be identified.
Methodology for the completed photo point in Appendix A:
Choose a Representative Photo Point Location.
The area was chosen for the perennial pond, and grassland habitats.
Draft October 1, 2007 66 SAGE Associates
Take the photo and record the compass bearing location of the photo and the GPS
coordinates on the photo point form. A permanent photo point marker such as a steel tee
post or a flexible fiberglass marker may be used.
Fill in the General Form Information.
This includes the monitoring form page and photo point number, the names of the
monitors, the date, and the location. The location of the photo point will also be shown o n a
Monitoring Photo Location Map.
Description of Monitoring Items.
Check the applicable monitoring items that you have photographed. Make your field
observations of the area within this photograph. The field observations will require a
walking transect of the field of view in the foreground of this photograph and filling in the
appropriate checklist information. Examine site details such as invasive plants, drainage
patterns, road condition, livestock behavior, and aquatic habitats.
In the case of this photo we have checked the following:
X Rangeland-Habitat Health Monitoring – proceed to completing Checklist #2 as shown
on the next page.
Rangeland-Habitat Health Monitoring – by checking this item, you must then complete
Checklist #2 (completed on the next page) that evaluates rangeland/habitat health attributes
that are described in the plan. This checklist also requires a discussion of rainfall amounts
and distribution.
X Residual Dry Matter – this item is checked because the photo point includes re sidual dry
matter in the lightly grazed grassland area. Average height is greater than 12 inches on a
nearly level slope that far exceeds performance standards of two to three inches.
X Plant Communities Observed – this item is checked and the plant communities would
include annual grassland, and aquatic vegetation in the pond area. Plant community health
and function was evaluated in Checklist #2. A walking transect in the foreground was
conducted. Perennial grasses relative abundance was also noted. A mo re through
identification would be possible in July.
X Wildlife Observed - included two pairs of mallard ducks.
Grazing Infrastructure Maintenance – no troughs or fences were in the area so this item
would not be checked.
Draft October 1, 2007 67 SAGE Associates
Access Road Maintenance Observations – no secondary roads were in the photo.
X Yearly Rainfall in Inches from the closest rainfall station would be included at the end of
the rainfall year. Rainfall seasonal distribution would also be included.
X Invasive Species would also be noted along with their relative abundance.
The results of the yearly monitoring will determine if any anticipated or unanticipated
adaptive management changes are necessary. This plan attempts to foresee anticipated
changes and proposes conservation management practices that are responsive to such
changes. However, unforeseen changes may occur that may require plan updates as
determined by MROSD.
Draft October 1, 2007 68 SAGE Associates
7.0 REFERENCES
7.1 Plan Preparers
Orrin Sage, Ph.D Geological Sciences (emphasis sedimentology); Prin cipal Sage
Associates; California Board of Forestry Registered Certified Rangeland Manager
#64. Certified Professional Erosion/Sediment Control #692. Agricultural Resources
sections.
Cindy Sage, B.A. Zoology, M.A. Geological Sciences - environmental
multidisciplinary degree in geology and biological resources; Owner Sage
Associates. Natural Resources sections.
7.2 Persons/Organizations Consulted
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Representatives
Stella Cousins – Open Space Planner
Matt Freeman – Planning Manager
Stan Hooper – Maintenance & Resource Supervisor
Kirk Lenington – Resource Planner
Cindy Roessler – Resource Management Specialist
Mike Williams – Real Estate
Natural Resources Conservation Service
Jim Howard – Soils Survey
7.3 Bibliography
Allen-Diaz, Barbara, and others, 1998, Detecting Channel Morphology Change in
California's Hardwood Rangeland Spring Ecosystems: Journal of Range Management v. 51.
Allen-Diaz, Barbara, and Jackson, Randall, D., March 2000, Grazing Effects on Spring
Ecosystem Vegetation of California's Hardwood Rangelands: Journal of Range
Management, v. 53.
Draft October 1, 2007 69 SAGE Associates
Barbour, M.G. and J. Major, 1988. Terrestrial Vegetation of California. California Native
Plant Society, Sacramento, CA.
Barrett, R.H., 1980. Mammals of California Oak Habitats: Management Implications. IN:
Ecology, management, and utilization of California oaks. US Dept. of Agriculture, Forest
Service. General Technical Report PSW-44.
Bossard, C., J.M. Randall, and M. Hoshovsky, editors, 2000. Invasive Plants of California’s
Wildlands. University of California Press.
Budzinski, Ray, and others, March 2005, Big Dipper/Silva Properties Rangeland
Assessment: EcoLogic.
Camp Dresser & McKee, and others, 1993, California Storm Water Conservation
Management Practice Handbooks.
Chamberlain, David J., and Doverspike, Mark S., April 2001, Water Tanks Protect
Streambanks: Rangelands v. 23.
Cooperative Extension, 1982, Guidelines for Residue Management on Annual Range:
Leaflet 21327 University of California Division of Agricultural Sciences.
Cooperative Extension, 1984, Annual Grassland Forage Productivity: Leaflet 21378
University of California Division of Agricultural and Natural Resources.
Cooperative Extension, 1985, Preliminary Guidelines for Managing California's Hardwood
Rangelands: University of California Division of Agriculture and Natural Resources
Publication 21413.
Cooperative Extension, 1990, Monitoring California's Annual Rangeland Vegetation: Leaflet
21486 University of California Division of Agriculture and Natural Resources.
Crampton, B. 1974. Grasses of California. University of California Press.
Faber, Phyllis and Holland, Robert, 1988, Common Riparian Plants of California:
Picklewood Press, Mill Valley, California.
Federal Interagency Stream Restoration Working Group, 1998, Stream Corridor Restoration
Principles, Processes, and Practices: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C.
Frost, Rachel A., and Launchbaugh, Karen L., December 2003, Prescription Grazing for
Rangeland Weed Management: Rangelands.
Draft October 1, 2007 70 SAGE Associates
George, Melvin, and others, 2007, Factors and Practices that Influence Livestock
Distribution: University of California Rangeland Management Series Publication 8217.
Guenther, Keith, 1998, Residual Dry Matter (RDM) Monitoring Photo Guide: Wildland
Solutions, Clyde, California.
Hickman, James C., editor, 1993. The Jepson Manual: Higher Plants of California.
University of California Press.
Holechek, Jerry, and Galt, Dee, June 2000, Grazing Intensity Guidelines: Rangelands, v. 22.
Holechek, Jerry, and others, 1995, Range Management: Prentice Hall.
Holland, Robert F., October 1986. Preliminary Description of the Terrestrial Natural
Communities of California. Non-Game Heritage Program, Department of Fish and Game,
State of California Resources Agency.
Holland, V. L., and Keil, David J., 1995, California Vegetation: Kendall Hunt Publishing
Company, Iowa.
Jensen, Wayne, June 2000, Central Coast Agriculture Highlights: U. C. Cooperative
Extension.
McDougald, Neil, and others, 1996, Establishing Livestock Carrying Capacity From GIS &
Range Science Research: Oaks & Folks publication.
Munz, P.A.,1974. A Flora of Southern California. University of California Press.
Munz, P.A. and D.D. Keck, 1973. A California Flora and Supplement. University of
California Press.
Nader, Glenn, and DiTomaso, Joseph M., 1998, Starthistle Control: University of California
Cooperative Extension Sutter/Yuba Counties, California.
National Research Council, 1994, Rangeland Health: National Academy Press.
San Mateo County, 2004, Annual Crop Report: Agricultural Commissioner’s Office.
San Mateo County, 2005, Annual Crop Report: Agricultural Commissioner’s Office.
Sheley, Roger L., and others, February 2003, Mowing: An Important Part of Integrated
Weed Management: Rangelands 25 (1).
Draft October 1, 2007 71 SAGE Associates
Thomsen, Craig D., and others, 1997, Mowing and Subclover Plantings Suppress Yellow
Starthistle: California Agriculture November-December 1997.
United States Department of Agriculture, 1961, Soil Survey of San Mateo Area California:
Soil Conservation Service.
United States Department of Agriculture, 1980, Soil Survey of Santa Cruz County,
California: Soil Conservation Service.
United States Department of Agriculture, 1969, A Supplement to the Soil Survey of San
Mateo Area California: Soil Conservation Service.
United States Department of Agriculture, 1976, National Range Handbook: Soil
Conservation Service.
United States Department of Agriculture, 1979, Recommended Plan of Conservation
Management Practices: Soil Conservation Service Planning Staff, Davis, California.
United States Department of Agriculture, 1990, Proceedings of the Symposium on Oak
Woodlands and Hardwood Range Management: Pacific Southwest Research Station
General Technical Report PSW-126.
United States Department of Agriculture, 1996, Conservation Standards and Specifications
Technical Guide Section IV: Natural Resource Conservation Service.
United States Department of Agriculture, 1997, National Range and Pasture Handbook:
Natural Resource Conservation Service.
United States Department of Agriculture, 1998, A User Guide to Assessing Proper
Functioning Condition for Stream Areas: TR 1737-15 Natural Resources Conservation
Service, Bureau of Land Management, Forest Service.
United States Department of Agriculture, 2000, Prescribed Grazing: Natural Resources
Conservation Service Code 528A.
United States Department of the Interior, 1988, Fences: Bureau of Land Management.
United States Department of the Interior, 1998, Assessment of Rangel and Health Standards,
Contributing Factors and Appropriate Actions: Bureau of Land Management Hollister
District.
Draft October 1, 2007 72 SAGE Associates
United States Department of the Interior, 1998, Rangeland Health Standards and
Guidelines for California and Northwestern Nevada Final EIS: Bureau of Land
Management.
University of California, 1951, California Grasslands and Range Forage Grasses: California
Agricultural Experiment Station Bulletin 724.
University of California, 1963, California Range Brushlands and Browse Plants:
Agricultural Experimental Station Extension Service.
University of California Cooperative Extension, 1982, Guidelines for Residue Management
on Annual Range: Leaflet 21327 Division of Agricultural Sciences.
University of California Cooperative Extension, 1990, Monitoring California's Annual
Rangeland Vegetation: Leaflet 21486 Division of Agriculture and Natural Resources.
University of California Cooperative Extension, 1994, "How To" Monitor Rangeland
Resources: Division of Agriculture and Natural Resources.
University of California Press, 2000, Invasive Plants of California’s Wildlands.
University of California Cooperative Extension, 2003, California Guidelines for Residual
Dry Matter (RDM) Management on Coastal and Foothill Annual Rangelands: Publication
8092.
Weltz, Mark, and others, 1998, Influence of Abiotic and Biotic Factors in Measuring and
Modeling Soil Erosion on Rangelands: State of Knowledge: Journal Range Management v.
51.
Western Livestock Journal, April 2001, Water Tanks Have Advantages Over Ponds.
Western Livestock Journal, February 3, 2003, Water Wisdom Boosts Cattle Performance,
Protects Environment.
Willms, Walter D., and others, September 2002, Effects of Water Quality on Cattle
Performance: Journal of Range Management 55 (5).
Draft October 1, 2007 73 SAGE Associates
APPENDICES
A: Completed and Template Monitoring Forms
B: California Rangeland Health Evaluation Matrix, NRCS 2007
C: Sample Stocking and Work Program
Draft October 1, 2007 74 SAGE Associates
APPENDIX A
Draft October 1, 2007 75 SAGE Associates
Draft October 1, 2007 76 SAGE Associates
Draft October 1, 2007 77 SAGE Associates
APPENDIX C
Draft October 1, 2007 78 SAGE Associates
APPENDIX B
Draft October 1, 2007 79 SAGE Associates
Draft October 1, 2007 80 SAGE Associates
Draft October 1, 2007 81 SAGE Associates
Draft October 1, 2007 82 SAGE Associates
APPENDIX C
SAMPLE
Annual Stocking and Work Program
ABC Grazing Unit
XYZ Open Space Preserve
Date ___12/02/2007______
Tenant___N. Body____________________________________
Grazing Year ______Feb1 –Jun 15 2008__________________
Total AUMs authorized ____480_________________________
Total Available Rent Credit:____$XX,000__________________
A. Stocking Plan
The following livestock and rotations are proposed by the tenant, subject to the
approval of the District:
1. Number/breed: 98 total head, Hereford/Angus stock
2. Origin/ownership:
a. 32 Cow/calf pairs owned by tenant, Half Moon Bay, CA.
b. 50 dry cows owned by tenant, Davenport, CA.
3. Add/Remove Dates: On site February 2, off site by June 30th, 2008.
4. Summary of animal units:
Add Date Cows Calves Heifers Steers Bulls Total Animal
units
Feb 2 50 50
Feb 15-16 32 32 48
Remove Date
June 26 -82 -32 -98
Total AUM =
466
Draft October 1, 2007 83 SAGE Associates
5. Grazing Season Rotation
Month/
Pasture JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUNE JULY
#1
50 cows 32 pair 32 pair
2wks - 50
#2 32 pair 32 pair 32 pair
#3 50 cows 2wks – 50
#4 2wks - 50 50 cows 2wks -50
B. Work Plan
The following projects and/or improvements to the premises are proposed by the
tenant, subject to the approval of the District:
1. Install 2 Troughs
Install two troughs at the locations specified in the Grazing Managem ent Plan
in pastures 1 and 4. Use precast concrete troughs with wildlife friendly design
and install on gravel pad as described in GMP. Fence out approximately
6’x6’ area around existing spring (pasture 1), also as described in GMP.
Troughs, pads, and fence will be constructed per District and NRCS
specifications, provided November 2007.
a. Materials:
2 Concrete troughs, 8’x4’x2’ x $500 = $1,000
Float valves, pipe, and fittings = $300
Gravel, 1 ½”, 8 tons = $200
Fencing Materials (barbed wire, galvanized Tposts) = $275
b. Equipment and Labor:
Trencher/Ditchwitch: Rental, $400
Labor: $25/hr x 37hrs = $925
c. Timeline: Complete pasture 4 trough February, pasture 1 trough
April, 2008.
d. Other Information: Seeking EQuIP matching grant funding for ½ of
costs. Notification expected by Jan 15, 2008.
e. Total cost = $3,100 (2 troughs @ approximately $1,550 each)
2. Coyote Brush control
Mow 5 acres of brush encroachment area in east end of pasture 2 (see map).
Arrange for District survey of area (for special status species) prior to start of
project.
a. Equipment and Labor:
Brush Hog Mower, property of lessee = $0
Operator (Lessee) $30/hr x 10 hours = $300
Draft October 1, 2007 84 SAGE Associates
b. Timeline: to be completed March 2008.
c. Total cost = $300.
C. Explanation of Program
The goals of the stocking and work program for 2008 are the continued
improvement of ranch infrastructure, protection of the significant native grass
populations in pastures 2 and 3, and control of the encroaching coyote brush at the
east end of pasture 2.
As described in the GMP, pastures 1 and 4 have developed water sources, but do
not have working troughs. Construction of wildlife friendly troughs in the sites
indicated in the GMP will improve cattle rotation to all of the areas of the grazing
unit, and help meet the management goal of evenly distributed grazing throughout
the ranch. Additionally, the wildlife-friendly design will create a year round water
source for larger animals without creating a hazard for those that might drown in a
traditional trough.
In pastures 2 and 3, the planned rotation of cattle is designed to minimize grazing
pressure on the documented populations of perennial and native grasses there. For
the upcoming lease year, grazing is planned for early in the season to target annual
grasses, and does not continue after May, when relative pressure on perennials
begins to increase. Although Pasture 2 still has the longest duration and number of
head of any of the pastures, this is the largest pasture on the property; both and the
GMP and past practices on site indicate that pasture 2 has adequate capacity for
this plan.
The mowing in the east end of pasture 2 is proposed to control the encroachment
of the coyote brush in this area. The brushy area has expanded in recent years,
partially due to lack of grazing. Removal of the coyote brush in the marginal
grassland areas will expand forage availability in this pasture, and also increase
potential habitat for perennial grasses.
As discussed with District staff, staging in February and June will take place in
pasture 1, as this is the closest location to the corral site and road access.
Draft October 1, 2007 85 SAGE Associates
D. Signature of Tenant and Approval of District
I, the undersigned Tenant of the ______________________________ Grazing
Lease, hereby certify that the foregoing representations and p roposals are made in
good faith and are true and correct to the best of my knowledge.
_____________________________ ________________
Tenant DATE
Stocking and Work Program for 2008-2009 approved:
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
By:
_____________________________ ________________
Real Property Manager DATE
Alpine Road
Page
Mill Road
101
101
101
880
85
85
85
82
82
82
280
280
280
280
84
84
92
17
17
237
35
35
35
9
San JoseSan Jose
SunnyvaleSunnyvale
Redwood
City
San
Carlos
Redwood
City
San
Carlos
Los
Gatos
Los
Gatos
PaloAltoPaloAlto
Saratoga
CupertinoCupertino
Mountain
View
Mountain
View
Saratoga
Woodside
San
Mateo
County
Santa
Clara
County
San
Francisco
Bay
Santa
Cruz
County
San
Mateo
County
Pacific
Ocean
3 4
Scale in Miles
1 2 50
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District preserves
Major city, county, state & federal parks, open space
preserves, and publicly-owned watershed
Exhibit A: Regional Location
Skyline Ridge O.S.P.
Former Big Dipper &
Silva/Kenyon Ranches
San
Francisco
San
Francisco
Bay
Santa Cruz
Oakland
San Jose
Half
Moon
Bay
Midpeninsula
Regional Open Space
District
Midpeninsula
Regional Open Space
District
R-07-109
Meeting: 07-23
October 24, 2007
AGENDA ITEM 3
AGENDA ITEM
Approval of a Lease Agreement for the Historic Picchetti Winery Area, Picchetti Ranch Open
Space Preserve, 13100 Montebello Road, Cupertino, CA
GENERAL MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Determine that the recommended actions are categorically exempt from the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) as set out in this report.
2. Approve, and Authorize the President of the Board of Directors to execute the attached
Lease Agreement, including a Site Improvement and Implementation Plan for the
Historic Picchetti Winery with Picchetti Winery, Inc.
DESCRIPTION (See Attached Maps, Exhibit A.1 and A.2)
In October 1982, the District entered into a 25-year Lease with Ronald and Rolayne Stortz for
the Picchetti Winery complex, an approximately six-acre area including the Winery, Main
House, Stables, Homestead House and related buildings, for the purpose of creating a
public/private partnership to restore the historic Picchetti site and building complex as a small
winery (See Report R-82-39). In January 1988, the Board approved Lease Amendment No. 1
expanding the Premises to include roughly 3-acres of the historic Zinfandel vineyard uphill and
south of the winery complex (see Report R-88-07). In May 1995, a second Lease Amendment
was approved that set a new schedule for renovation of the historic structures and guidelines for
public access to resolve lease compliance failures and minimize conflicts between public use of
the historic property and private winery operation and events (see Report R-95-64). In May
1998, the Board approved an assignment of the remaining eight and one-half years of the Lease
to Leslie Pantling, then operating as Santa Cruz Mountains Wine Company (see Report R-98-
58).
Ms. Pantling immediately began to enhance the Picchetti Winery operation. She approached the
Picchetti family and secured permission to use the Picchetti name and its historic roots as
California Bonded Winery No.148. Ms. Pantling has actively improved the wine tasting area of
the Winery, the picnic grounds, and has increased Winery business hours and public use of the
historic property to seven days a week. Picchetti Winery consistently produces award-winning
wines.
R-07-109 Page 2
During the last year and a half, staff has worked with Ms. Pantling to negotiate the new long-
term lease arrangement, which includes a Site Improvement and Implementation Plan for the
historic structures and grounds (see Exhibit B). The Lease and Site Plan together provide for
continued management and public use of the property, a schedule for ongoing maintenance and
repair of the historic structures, the Vineyard, and opportunities for expansion of District
educational and interpretative use. The Site Plan and conditions of the new Lease are further
discussed below.
Use of the Picchetti Winery as a leased site with actual winery operations that are accessible and
open to the general public will continue. No change in use or the spatial extent of the leased area
is proposed. For this reason, no change to the Preserve’s Use and Management Plan is required
for this lease. Ms. Pantling has approached the District expressing a desire to expand the scope
of the Use Permit granted by the County of Santa Clara to accommodate larger catered events
and receptions, including increasing permitted capacity of the Winery building where tasting is
offered. However, based on the last discussions with County staff, Ms. Pantling is not pursuing
this idea further at this time. In the event that discussions resume regarding expansion of the Use
Permit, staff would return to the Board to seek further guidance on any expansion of use at that
time.
SITE IMPROVEMENT AND IMPLEMENTATION PLAN
Staff’s recommendation to enter into a new Lease Agreement with the current winery operator is
anchored upon the attached Site Improvement and Implementation Plan (SIIP), which addresses
four main issues: (1) restoration of past disturbance caused by the current Lessee of the riparian
corridor located between the parking area and winery complex; (2) addressing visual impacts
resulting from the presence of debris, signage clutter and the unorganized placement of, and/or
lack of adequate screening for winery equipment and supplies; (3) preparation of a new
maintenance plan for the structures and facilities with time-frames and procedures; and (4)
improved public access to facilitate interpretation and education as an added public benefit. The
implementation actions to address these issues are presented in detail below.
Visual Impacts
Prior to the inception of the lease negotiations, staff noted a general lack of onsite organization
and insufficient routine cleanup by the Lessee during various site visits, as well as clutter in site
signage. Equipment, materials, and supplies were placed arbitrarily throughout the leased
premises. Debris, including obsolete material, could be seen from different vantage points. The
site was marked with repetitive and inappropriate signs, all resulting in undesirable visual
impacts for the public that did not reflect well on the District or the Lessee. Staff is pleased to
report that the Lessee has made a substantial and noticeable effort to organize, de-clutter, and
clean the Premises, including storing personal property in a neat and orderly way so as to not
detract from the aesthetic and historic value of the site. District Staff will continue to work with
the Lessee to organize storage of items associated with the winery operation to minimize or
eliminate visual impacts from current and future public and interpretive viewing areas on the
property. The SIIP includes the requirement to maintain the Premises in a clean and organized
manner, and specifies the type of property that can and cannot be stored within the historic
R-07-109 Page 3
structures. Specific signs are also to be removed with some to be relocated and/or replaced using
District standard signs.
Maintenance and Repair
To ensure that the structures and facilities are adequately maintained throughout the life of the
Lease, a maintenance plan with time frames was developed to proactively prevent these
important District resources from falling into disrepair. The SIIP includes a list of routine repairs
and maintenance work with associated time frames that the Lessee will be responsible for,
including such things as re-roofing and re-painting. Larger repair and maintenance projects akin
to the recent seismic upgrades completed for the Winery building will continue to be the
District’s responsibility.
Riparian Corridor Restoration
In the spring of 2006, the Lessee independently made improvements to the site in an effort to
accommodate the turning radius needs of local garbage company trucks by expanding the
compacted gravel area leading to the onsite dumpsters that are located between the chicken coop
and tributary drainage. As a result, the riparian corridor was negatively disturbed with
conditions making it inhospitable for riparian vegetation to reestablishment along the banks of
the drainage. To restore the health of the riparian corridor, the SIIP requires the Lessee to remove
debris located within the creek drainage and within a 15-foot buffer from its centerline. The
Lessee is also responsible for removing the baserock, de-compacting the ground, and re-
vegetating the disturbed areas within the 15-foot buffer. District staff has offered to perform this
restoration work with the Lessee paying the cost of staff labor, equipment rental, and materials.
The District will be responsible for demarcating the edge of the 15-foot buffer, using split rail
fencing to prevent future encroachments.
Added Public Benefit
Numerous rehabilitation projects have been implemented at the historic Picchetti Winery site, many
of them supported through public grants, including $50,000 from Proposition 12 through the
California Heritage Fund (seismic upgrades to the winery), $192,000 from Proposition 70 through
the California State Historic Preservation grant (restoration of the barn and blacksmith shop),
$100,000 from the California Park and Recreation Historic Restoration grant (restoration of the
fermentation building), $64,000 from the Santa Clara County Historical Society (restoration of the
fermentation building), and $129,000 from the Santa Clara County Historical Heritage Commission
(seismic upgrades to the winery and stabilization/restoration of the homestead house), for a total
amount of $535,000. Given the substantial public financial support received for ongoing restoration
and preservation projects, its significance as a unique cultural resource that is listed on the National
Register of Historic Places, and the District’s intention of maximizing the interpretive and
educational opportunities, the SIIP also includes a list of site improvements to be completed by the
Lessee to help expand the public benefit of the site. These include yearly striping of the parking lot
to delineate available parking spaces, ongoing maintenance of access pathways, and removal of
obstructions that prevent adequate view of the historic structures. Moreover, the Lease calls for the
District and Lessee to work together to increase public access within the Premises, particularly to
structures that have been rehabilitated through public investment, with the expectation of installing
interpretive displays and/or artifact exhibits in the future.
R-07-109 Page 4
CEQA DETERMINATION
It has been concluded that this project will not have a significant effect on the environment. It is
categorically exempt from CEQA (the California Environmental Quality Act) under Guidelines
Article 19, Section 15301 which exempts the operation, repair, maintenance, or minor alteration
of existing public or private structures and facilities involving negligible or no expansion of use
beyond that previously existing. The current winery operation and public use of the Picchetti
grounds, as well as routine repairs and maintenance of the structures and facilities will remain
constant.
LEASE TERMS AND CONDITIONS
The proposed Lease for the historic Picchetti Winery and Ranch includes the following key
terms and conditions:
• The initial lease term is for ten-years, with options to extend for three (3) additional five-year
terms. Extension under each option term is contingent upon Lessee meeting specific
performance criteria such as financial stability, compliance with site plan, ongoing
recognition of District in advertising and signage, and satisfactory performance of
management services.
• The initial fair market rent shall be $4,250 per month, increasing annually between 2% and
5% based on the Consumer Price Index.
• The leased premises shall be used only for wine production, tasting and sales. The Lessee
will continue to maintain an on-site caretaker residing in the Main House for site safety and
security.
• The Lease provides for expanded use of the historic facilities in the future, compatible with
the historic and open space character of the property. Any expanded use of the property will
be subject to District and Santa Clara County approval, and the capacity of any expanded use
of the Winery building will not exceed 100 people. The cost of any approvals for expanded
use of the Premises will be the responsibility of the Lessee.
• The Lessee will continue to provide for ongoing maintenance and repair of the Picchetti
facilities and grounds, the opening and closing of the gate to the Picchetti parking lot in
accordance with Preserve hours, and maintenance and clean up of the public restrooms.
• A Capital Reserve Fund will be established. Lessee and District will each deposit $5,000
annually to this fund to be used specifically for major repairs or capital expenditures on the
historic structures.
• Lessee is responsible for complying with the Site Improvement and Implementation Plan (see
Exhibit B).
• A Vineyard Management Plan will be jointly developed by District and Lessee for the
historic vineyard area.
• The lessee is responsible for providing Commercial General Liability insurance in the
amount of $5,000,000 including appropriate liquor liability.
• Insurance for Property Damage or Destruction. The District and Lessee will split the annual
premium cost for extended fire insurance coverage carried through CalJPIA. This provision
R-07-109 Page 5
is a particularly important component of the Lease. Picchetti Winery is a readily accessible
and highly visible District gateway. The site offers both near and distant scenic vistas. The
historic complex harkens back to another era of Santa Clara Valley agricultural life, while
providing an inviting and relaxing area to picnic before or after a hike on the Preserve. These
attributes could be lost if the Winery, or any of the most important structures, were to be
destroyed or significantly damaged. The District’s interest in preserving this slice of a
bygone time is best protected by procuring insurance through the CalJPIA which allows
greater flexibility in coverage amounts at significantly less expensive rates than commercial
carriers offer. The structures are generally divided into two categories reflecting their
relative importance to each party. For example, the Winery, Main House, Blacksmith Shop
and Pressing and Fermentation Barn are important components of the winery operation. The
Homestead House and the Stables and Paddock are less important to the winery operation,
but of significant value to the District in preserving the historic setting. A balance between
these priorities was struck by an equal sharing of the premium costs and a reasonable
allocation of responsibilities for rebuilding or restoring based on these priorities.
Staff wishes to also acknowledge Ms. Pantling’s recent work to re-roof and re-paint the main
house, which will help extend the life of the structure and restore its visual integrity. This work
demonstrates the lessee’s good faith and willingness to work with the District to preserve the
historic quality of the site. Staff recommends approving the new Lease Agreement with Ms.
Pantling for the historic Picchetti Winery.
PUBLIC NOTIFICATION
Adjacent property owners have been mailed written notices of this item.
Prepared by:
Michael C. Williams, Real Property Manager
Ana Ruiz, Senior Planner
Duncan Simmons, Assistant General Counsel
Map prepared by:
Erica Simmons, Open Space Technician
Contact person:
Michael C. Williams, Real Property Manager
R-07-109 Page 6
RESOLUTION NO. _____
RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
APPROVING THE LEASE AGREEMENT WITH PICCHETTI WINERY, INC.,
A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION
(PICCHETTI RANCH OPEN SPACE PRESERVE)
The Board of Directors of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District does resolve as follows:
Section One. The District may, under the provisions of Sections 5540 and 5563 of the
Public Resources Code, lease property owned by the District for a period of up to twenty-five
(25) years, and the Board of Directors finds that the premises to be leased for Historic
Preservation and Winery Operations is compatible with park and open space purposes and
considers the lease of such premises is in the public interest on the terms hereinafter set forth.
Section Two. The Board of Directors of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
does hereby approve the Lease Agreement between the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space
District and Picchetti Winery, Inc., a copy of which is attached hereto and by reference made a
part hereof, and does hereby authorize the President of the Board of Directors or other
appropriate officer to execute said Lease Agreement on behalf of the District.
Section Three. The General Manager and General Counsel are authorized to approve
any technical revisions to the attached Lease Agreement and other related documents which
do not involve any material change to any term of the Agreement or other related documents,
which are necessary and appropriate for the implementation of this Lease Agreement.
Section Four. The General Manager of the District shall be authorized to approve any
Lease Agreement Extensions and report the Board of Directors at the following Board meeting.
The General Manager or the General Manager’s designee is authorized to approve
expenditures of Improvements to the Historic Structures in accordance with the General
Manager’s spending authority. The General Manager or the General Manager’s designee is
further authorized to sign and approve all other documents necessary or appropriate to entering
into the Lease Agreement.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
R-07-115
Meeting: 07-23
October 24, 2007
AGENDA ITEM 4
AGENDA ITEM
Report on Acceptance of Gift of the Delahay Property as an Addition to La Honda Creek Open
Space Preserve (San Mateo County Assessor’s Parcel Number 078-040-030)
GENERAL MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATION
Adopt the Preliminary Use and Management Plan recommendations as set forth in the attached
Staff Memorandum, and name the property as an addition to La Honda Creek Open Space
Preserve
DISCUSSION
The District accepted a gift of the 0.73-acre Delahay property under the General Manager’s
authority to approve and accept a gift interest in real property in accordance with the District’s
Rules of Procedure, Section 2.60 B.2. The Delahay property consists of one legal parcel within
the La Honda Vista subdivision, located off of State Highway 84 near the unincorporated
community of La Honda. The General Manager has determined that this property is an
appropriate addition to La Honda Creek Open Space Preserve. Therefore, it is recommended
that you adopt the Preliminary Use and Management Plan as set forth in the attached
memorandum.
Prepared by:
Michael Reeves, Real Property Specialist
Maps prepared by:
Gail Basson, GIS Intern
Contact person:
Michael Reeves, Real Property Specialist
Attachment:
Preliminary Use & Management Plan Recommendations and CEQA Compliance Determination
Memorandum
R-07-114
Meeting 07-23
October 24, 2007
AGENDA ITEM 5
AGENDA ITEM
Appointment of District Clerk
GENERAL MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATION
Appoint Gregory Sam, Administration and Human Resources Manager, as District Clerk.
DISCUSSION
After the departure of Sally Rice (former Administration and Human Resources Manager and
District Clerk) on June 8, 2007, Gordon Baillie, Management Analyst, Operations, was
appointed District Clerk on an interim basis because he is a Notary Public and because of his
familiarity with Board meeting procedures (See Report 07-71) .
It was planned that when the new Administration and Human Resources Manager was hired, that
individual would resume the duties of District Clerk. As Gregory Sam will assume the duties of
Administration and Human Resources Manager beginning on October 22, 2007, staff
recommends the appointment of Gregory Sam as District Clerk.
Staff acknowledges and commends the services of Gordon Baillie during his interim
appointment as District Clerk and encourages the Board to join staff in welcoming Gregory Sam
to the District.
Prepared by:
Camille Tavlian, Office Manager/Deputy District Clerk
Contact person:
Craig Britton, General Manager
R-07-110
Meeting 07-23
October 24, 2007
AGENDA ITEM 6
AGENDA ITEM
Authorization to Change District’s Designation of Authorized Signatories for District Checking
Accounts and for Access to the District’s Safe Deposit Boxes
GENERAL MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Adopt the attached Resolution of the Board of Directors of the Midpeninsula Regional
Open Space District Establishing Signatories for the General, Payroll and Certificate of
Deposit Accounts (Mid-Peninsula Bank),
2. Adopt the attached Resolution of the Board of Directors of Midpeninsula Regional Open
Space District Establishing Financial Instrument Signatories of the District for the County
of Santa Clara Account.
3. Adopt the attached Resolution of the Board of Directors of the Midpeninsula Regional
Open Space District Updating the Authorized Signatories for Entering District Safe
Deposit Boxes (Mid-Peninsula Bank).
DISCUSSION
Section 2.40, “Financial Instrument Signatories,” of your Rules of Procedure states that, “The
authorized signatories…for payroll or for amounts less than $5,000 shall be any one of the
following six employees: (i) General Manager, (ii) the Administrative/HR Manager, (iii) the
Operations manager, (iv) the Public Affairs Manager, (v) the Planning Manager, or (vi) the Real
Property Manager” and that, “The authorized signatories for …amounts of $5,000 or greater
shall be any two of the following employees: (i) the General Manager, (ii) the
Administrative/HR Manager, (iii) the Operations Manager, (iv) the Public Affairs Manager, (v)
the Planning Manager or (vi) Real Property Manager.”
While the Rules of Procedure are specific regarding positions designated as signatories, the
District’s bank requires that resolutions be adopted by the Board each time individuals
occupying signatory positions change. With the resignation of the Administration/HR Manager,
and the retirement of the Operations Manager, identification of new signatories is in order.
Because the District does transfers from the County of Santa Clara, a further resolution is
required identifying changes in named signatories when they occur.
Prepared by:
Bunny Congdon, Senior Accounting Specialist
Contact Person:
Craig Britton, General Manager
R-05-50 Page 2
RESOLUTION NO. _____
A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
ESTABLISHING FINANCIAL INSTRUMENT SIGNATORIES OF THE
DISTRICT FOR MID-PENINSULA BANK AND COUNTY OF
SANTA CLARA ACCOUNTS
The Board of Directors of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District does
resolve as follows:
WHEREAS, Section 2.40 of the Rules of Procedure (required by Public Resources
Code, Division 5, Chapter 3, Article 3, Section 5536) of the Board of Directors of the
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District authorizes signatories to make disbursements on
behalf of the District.
NOW, THEREFORE, the Board of Directors of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space
District does hereby resolve as follows:
Section 2.40: The signatures of the present holders of said offices are as follows, and the
Director of Finance of Santa Clara County is authorized to make disbursements on behalf of the
District based on any one signature for amounts under $5,000.00 and any two signatures for
amounts of $5,000 and over, as set forth below:
GENERAL MANAGER
__________________________
L. Craig Britton
ADMINISTRATION /HUMAN RESOURCES MANAGER
__________________________
Gregory Sam
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
R-07-112
Meeting: 07-23
October 24, 2007
AGENDA ITEM 7
AGENDA ITEM
Revised Board Meeting Schedule for November, December 2007 and January 2008
GENERAL MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Cancel the November 28, 2007 Regular Board of Directors Meeting
2. Cancel the December 26, 2007 Regular Board of Directors Meeting
3. Reschedule the Regular Board of Directors Meeting from January 9, 2008
to January 16, 2008
4. Reschedule the January 23, 2008 Board of Directors Meeting to January 30, 2008
DISCUSSION
During the holiday months each year (November and December), staff reviews the calendar to make
sure there are a sufficient number of meetings to complete Board business, while trying not to
infringe on normal holiday schedules.
This year, in order to produce a Board agenda for the November 28 Regular meeting, staff would be
required to perform the mailing on November 23 (the day after Thanksgiving, which is a District
holiday). Staff, therefore, recommends canceling the November 28 meeting. In November, the
Board would then meet on November 6 (Special Meeting) and November 14 (Regular Meeting).
Similarly, the second Regular meeting of December (December 26) is scheduled during the annual
holiday closure for administrative staff. Staff, therefore, recommends canceling the December 26
meeting. In December, the Board would then meet on December 5 (Special meeting) and December
12 (Regular Meeting).
It is anticipated that this proposed meeting schedule for November and December would suffice to
accommodate the items under Board consideration through the end of the year.
The District has also traditionally shifted its Regular meetings for January, when there have been five
Wednesdays in a month. In addition, a majority of the members of the Board may cancel a meeting
for cause or call the Regular meeting for a different date or time. Staff, therefore, recommends
rescheduling the January Regular Board meetings from January 9 and January 23 to January 16 (third
Wednesday) and January 30 (fifth Wednesday) of the month. If approved, the Board would return to
its normal scheduling on the second and fourth Wednesdays of each month, beginning in February,
with meetings on February 13, 2008 and February 27, 2008.
Prepared by:
Camille Tavlian, Office Manager/Deputy District Clerk
Contact person: Same