HomeMy Public PortalAbout20220209 - Agenda Packet - Board of Directors (BOD) - 22-04
REGULAR MEETING
BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
Wednesday, February 9, 2022
Regular meeting starts at 7:00 PM*
A G E N D A
Consistent with Government Code section 54953(e) and Midpeninsula Regional Open Space
District Resolution 21-33, and in light of the declared state of emergency, the meeting will not be
physically open to the public and all members will be teleconferencing into the meeting via a
virtual platform. To maximize public safety while still maintaining transparency and public access,
members of the public can listen to the meeting and participate using the following methods.
THIS MEETING WILL BE VIA TELECONFERENCE ONLY
1. The meeting can be viewed in real-time at: https://openspace.zoom.us/j/85672602735 or listen to the meeting
by dialing (669) 900-6833 or (346) 248-7799 (856 7260 2735).
2. Members of the public may provide written or oral comments by submitting a public comment form
at: https://www.openspace.org/public-comment
• Comments on matters not on the agenda must be submitted prior to the time the board president calls
for public comments.
• Comments on agenda items must be submitted prior to the time public comment on the agenda item is
closed.
• All comments shall be subject to the same rules as would otherwise govern speaker comments at the
board of directors meeting.
• All written comments or requests to speak must be submitted via the public comment form. Requests
to provide oral comments may be made by leaving a message at 650-772-3614 at least one hour prior to
the start of the meeting. Comments via text or social media (Facebook, Twitter, etc.) will not be accepted.
Any comments received after the deadline, will be provided to the Board after the meeting.
7:00 REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE MIDPENINSULA
REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
This portion of the agenda is for members of the public to comment on items not on the agenda;
however, the Brown Act (Open Meeting Law) does not allow action by the Board of Directors on items
not on the agenda. Individuals are limited to one comment during this section.
ADOPTION OF AGENDA
Meeting 22-04
Rev. 1/3/20
CONSENT CALENDAR
All items on the Consent Calendar may be approved without discussion by one motion. Board members,
the General Manager, and members of the public may request that an item be removed from the Consent
Calendar during consideration of the Consent Calendar.
1. Approve the January 26, 2022 Board meeting minutes
2. Claims Report
3. Quarter 2 Proposed Budget Amendments to the Fiscal Year ending June 30, 2022 (R-22-20)
Staff Contact: Rafaela Duran, Budget & Analysis Manager
General Manager’s Recommendation: Adopt a resolution approving the proposed Quarter 2
budget amendments for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2022.
4. Contract with Comcast Business, Inc. for Fiber Optic Internet Services (R-22-19)
Staff Contact: Owen Sterzl, IT Program Administrator, Information Systems and Technology
Department
General Manager’s Recommendation: Authorize the General Manager to enter into a contract
with Comcast Business Inc., for five years of high-speed fiber optic internet services at an annual
amount of $180,000, for a total not-to-exceed amount of $900,000, based upon a cooperative
purchasing agreement through the State of California CALNET contract.
5. Award of Contract for Botanical Services in Support of the Fire Safe San Mateo County-
Highway 35 Evacuation Route Shaded Fuel Break Partnership (R-22-16)
Staff Contact: Coty Sifuentes-Winter, Senior Resource Management Specialist, Natural
Resources
General Manager’s Recommendation:
1. Authorize the General Manager to enter into a multi-year contract with Avila and Associates
of Concord, California to provide botanical services in support of a collaborative partnership
for fuel reduction work with Fire Safe San Mateo County for a base amount of $65,950.
2. Authorize an allowance of $3,966 for the development of mitigation measures, if deemed
necessary for project implementation.
3. Authorize a 10% contingency of $6,595 to cover unforeseen conditions and complexities, for
a total contract amount not-to-exceed $76,511.
6. Award of Contract for Botanical Services for Multiple Projects within the Skyline Area (R-
22-15)
Staff Contact: Coty Sifuentes-Winter, Senior Resource Management Specialist, Natural
Resources
General Manager’s Recommendation:
1. Authorize the General Manager to enter into a multi-year contract with AECOM Technical
Services, Inc., of Oakland, California to provide botanical services to support multiple
projects for a base amount not to exceed $69,170.
2. Authorize an allowance of $14,517 for the development of mitigation measures if deemed
necessary for project implementation.
3. Authorize a 12% contingency of $8,300 to cover unforeseen conditions and complexities, for
a total contract amount not-to-exceed $91,987.
Rev. 1/3/20
7. Teleconferenced Board Meetings Pursuant to the Brown Act and Assembly Bill 361 (R-22-
21)
Staff Contact: Hilary Stevenson, General Counsel
General Manager’s Recommendation: Adopt a resolution affirming findings on the continued
need for remote teleconferenced public meetings pursuant to AB 361.
8. Award of Contract with Vollmar Natural Land Consulting for the Preparation of Habitat
Restoration Plans within the Irish Ridge Area of Purisima Creek Redwoods Open Space
Preserve (R-22-17)
Staff Contact: Coty Sifuentes-Winter, Senior Resource Management Specialist, Natural
Resources
General Manager’s Recommendation:
1. Authorize the General Manager to enter into a contract with Vollmar Natural Lands
Consulting to provide ecological surveys, analysis, planning, and permitting assistance for
land restoration work at Purisima Creek Redwoods Open Space Preserve for a base contract
amount of $160,820.
2. Authorize a 10% contingency of $16,082 to cover unforeseen complexities or additional
biological survey needs, bringing the total contract to a not-to-exceed amount of $176,902.
9. Renewal of Enterprise Agreement with Microsoft Corporation (R-22-18)
Staff Contact: Owen Sterzl, IT Program Administrator, Information Systems and Technology
Department
General Manager’s Recommendation: Authorize the General Manager to renew a five-year
Microsoft Enterprise Agreement with Microsoft Corporation via license service provider Crayon
Software Experts LLC through a cooperative purchasing agreement with the California
Department of Technology for an amount not-to-exceed $526,000.
BOARD BUSINESS
Public comment on agenda items at the time each item is considered by the Board of Directors.
10. Science Advisory Panel Findings on the Benefits and Impacts of Electric Bicycle Use on
Open Space Trails (R-22-13)
Staff Contact: Sophie Christel, Management Analyst I, Natural Resources Department
General Manager’s Recommendation: Receive a presentation on the Science Advisory Panel
findings regarding the benefit and impacts of electric bicycle use on open space lands. No Board
action required.
11. Human-Mountain Lion Interaction Study and Management Plan Annual Update (Year 1)
(R-22-14)
Staff Contact: Matt Sharp Chaney, Resource Management Specialist II
General Manager’s Recommendation: Receive a presentation and provide feedback on the first
annual update of the five-year Human-Mountain Lion Interaction Study. No Board action
required.
INFORMATIONAL MEMORANDA
• Highway 17 Wildlife and Regional Trail Crossings Project Status Update
Rev. 1/3/20
• Suggested Topics for the February 16, 2022 Board Retreat
INFORMATIONAL REPORTS – Reports on compensable meetings attended. Brief reports or
announcements concerning activities of District Directors and staff; opportunity to refer public or Board
questions to staff for information; request staff to report to the Board on a matter at a future meeting; or
direct staff to place a matter on a future agenda. Items in this category are for discussion and direction to
staff only. No final policy action will be taken by the Board.
A. Committee Reports
B. Staff Reports
C. Director Reports
ADJOURNMENT
*Times are estimated and items may appear earlier or later than listed. Agenda is subject to change of order.
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need assistance to participate in this meeting,
please contact the District Clerk at (650) 691-1200. Notification 48 hours prior to the meeting will enable the
District to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to this meeting.
Written materials relating to an item on this Agenda that are considered to be a public record and are distributed
to Board members less than 72 hours prior to the meeting, will be available for public inspection at the District’s
Administrative Office located at 330 Distel Circle, Los Altos, California 94022.
CERTIFICATION OF POSTING OF AGENDA
I, Jennifer Woodworth, District Clerk for the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (MROSD), declare that
the foregoing agenda for the regular meeting of the MROSD Board of Directors was posted and available for
review on February 3, 2022, at the Administrative Offices of MROSD, 330 Distel Circle, Los Altos California,
94022. The agenda and any additional written materials are also available on the District’s web site at
http://www.openspace.org.
Jennifer Woodworth, MMC, CPMC
District Clerk
January 26, 2022
Board Meeting 22-03
SPECIAL AND REGULAR MEETING
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
Wednesday, January 26, 2022
The Board of Directors conducted this meeting in accordance with California Government Code
section 54953(e) and Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Resolution 21-33. All Board
members and staff participated via teleconference.
DRAFT MINUTES
SPECIAL MEETING OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE MIDPENINSULA
REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT – CLOSED SESSION
President Kersteen-Tucker called the special meeting of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space
District to order at 6:00 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Members Present: Jed Cyr, Larry Hassett, Zoe Kersteen-Tucker, Yoriko Kishimoto, Curt
Riffle, and Pete Siemens
Members Absent: Karen Holman
Staff Present: General Manager Ana Ruiz, General Counsel Hilary Stevenson, Assistant
General Manager Brian Malone, Chief Financial Officer/Director of
Administrative Services Stefan Jaskulak, Human Resources Manager
Candice Basnight, Human Resources Supervisor Rebecca Wolfe
1. CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS (Government Code Section
54957.6)
Agency designated representatives: Ana Ruiz, General Manager, Brian Malone, Assistant
General Manager, Jack Hughes, Liebert Cassidy Whitmore
Employee organization: Midpeninsula Rangers Peace Officers Association
Public comment opened at 6:01 p.m.
Ms. Woodworth reported no public comments were submitted for these items.
Public comment closed at 6:01 p.m.
The Board convened into closed session.
Meeting 22-03 Page 2
Director Hassett joined the meeting at 6:02 p.m.
ADJOURNMENT
President Kersteen-Tucker adjourned the special meeting of the Board of Directors of the
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District at 6:54 p.m.
REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE MIDPENINSULA
REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
President Kersteen-Tucker called the regular meeting of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space
District to order at 7:00 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Members Present: Jed Cyr, Larry Hassett, Zoe Kersteen-Tucker, Yoriko Kishimoto, Curt
Riffle, and Pete Siemens
Members Absent: Karen Holman
Staff Present: General Manager Ana Ruiz, General Counsel Hilary Stevenson, Assistant
General Manager Brian Malone, Assistant General Manager Susanna
Chan, Chief Financial Officer/Director of Administrative Services Stefan
Jaskulak, District Clerk/Assistant to the General Manager Jennifer
Woodworth, IST Manager Casey Hiatt, GIS Program Administrator Jamie
Hawk, Grant Program Manager Deborah Hirst, Senior Grants &
Procurement Technician Jordan McDaniel, Public Affairs Manager Kori
Skinner
President Kersteen-Tucker announced this meeting is being held in accordance with Government
Code section 54953(e) and Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Resolution 21-33,
allowing Board members to participate remotely. The District has done its best to conduct a
meeting where everyone has an opportunity to listen to the meeting and to provide comment. The
public has the opportunity to comment on the agenda, and the opportunity to listen to this
meeting through the internet or via telephone. This information can be found on the meeting
agenda, which was physically posted at the District’s Administrative Office, and on the District
website. President Kersteen-Tucker described the process and protocols for the meeting.
Director Hassett joined the meeting at 7:04 p.m.
REPORT OUT OF CLOSED SESSION
General Counsel Hilary Stevenson reported the Board met in closed session and no reportable
action was taken
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
District Clerk Jennifer Woodworth read the submitted comments into the record.
Meeting 22-03 Page 3
SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY
• Proclamation Thanking California Assemblymember Marc Berman for his Support of the
Cloverdale Ranch Acquisition
• Presentation of Recognition by San Mateo County Board of Supervisors, Santa Clara
County of Board of Supervisors, and California State Legislature to the Midpeninsula
Regional Open Space District in Honor of its 50th Anniversary
• Introduction of staff
O Samantha Powell, Administrative Assistant
ADOPTION OF AGENDA
Motion: Director Riffle moved, and Director Cyr seconded the motion to adopt the agenda.
ROLL CALL VOTE: 6-0-0 (Director Holman absent)
CONSENT CALENDAR
Public comment opened at 7:26 p.m.
Ms. Woodworth reported no comments had been submitted for the Consent Calendar.
Public comment closed at 7:26 p.m.
Director Siemens commented the Board’s upcoming retreat may affect the District’s legislative
program, so changes to it may need to be considered by the Board at a future date.
Motion: Director Kishimoto moved, and Director Riffle seconded the motion to approve the
Consent Calendar.
ROLL CALL VOTE: 6-0-0 (Director Holman absent)
1. Approve January 12, 2022 Minutes
2. Approve Claims Report
3. 2022 Legislative Program (R-22-10)
General Manager’s Recommendation: Adopt the 2022 Legislative Program as recommended by
the Legislative, Funding, and Public Affairs Committee, with any final changes from the Board
of Directors, to set the legislative priorities and policies for Midpeninsula Regional Open Space
District.
4. Appointment of Board of Directors Standing Committee Members and
Representatives to Various Bodies, Including the Governing Board of the Midpeninsula
Regional Open Space District Financing Authority, for Calendar Year 2022 (R-22-09)
Meeting 22-03 Page 4
Board President’s Recommendation: Approve the Board President’s appointments to the Board
Standing Committees and other bodies, including the Governing Board of the Midpeninsula
Regional Open Space District Financing Authority, and determine the compensable status for
attendance at these meetings.
BOARD BUSINESS
5. Redistricting Scenario Review and Selection (R-22-11)
GIS Program Administrator Jamie Hawk reviewed the redistricting process to date, including
various public meetings and public hearings, draft redistricting scenarios reviewed by the Board
and public, etc. Ms. Hawk reviewed adjustments to the proposed mapping scenarios in response
to the Board’s direction regarding the boundaries between wards 6 and 7. Ms. Hawk highlighted
key features of each of the three mapping scenarios and described the public outreach process
and public comments received.
Director Riffle inquired regarding the number of public comments received as compared to the
number of public comments received by other agencies.
Ms. Stevenson and Ms. Hawk provided additional information regarding the public process
required for redistricting. Additionally, members of the public will be able to provide comments
up through the public hearing on March 23, 2022.
Director Cyr commented members of the public may be more concerned about redistricting for
other agencies.
Public comment opened at 7:55 p.m.
No public comments were submitted for this item.
Public comment closed at 7:55 p.m.
Public Affairs Manager Kori Skinner suggested the District’s outreach plan for the March public
hearing can also include affected homeowner’s association/neighborhood newsletters.
Motion: Director Riffle moved, and Director Siemens seconded the motion to select Scenario A
as the preferred scenario and direct the General Manager to bring the Scenario A for a public
hearing and Board adoption on March 23, 2022.
ROLL CALL VOTE: 6-0-0 (Director Holman absent)
6. Grant Awards for the 2021 Grantmaking Program (R-22-12)
Senior Grants & Procurement Technician Jordan McDaniel reviewed the purpose and funding
priorities of the District’s grantmaking program and the grant application process. Ms. McDaniel
described the various evaluation criteria used by the review committee when evaluating the grant
applications, including alignment with District mission and funding priorities, project scope,
Meeting 22-03 Page 5
project impact, etc., and summarized the applicants’ organizations, proposed projects, and
recommended grant award for each.
Director Riffle inquired regarding the awards and partners category and whether the category
should continue.
Ms. McDaniel reported that due to the high number of competitive grant proposals, no proposals
were selected for that category, but staff will brainstorm ideas to support proposals for this
category in the future.
Director Kishimoto inquired regarding the indirect costs to be covered by the grant funds.
Ms. McDaniel reported this is a fixed amount and is capped at a percentage of the total grant
award.
Director Siemens spoke in support of keeping the grant reporting process simple for the grantees.
Public comment opened at 8:34 p.m.
No public comments were submitted for this item.
Public comment closed at 8:34 p.m.
Motion: Director Cyr moved, and Director Kishimoto seconded the motion to
1. Approve grant awards totaling $341,977 for 10 proposals under the 2021 Grantmaking
Program as recommended by the Legislative, Funding, and Public Affairs Committee.
2. Approve a $91,977 increase to the original $250,000 three-year funding allocation for the
2021 Grantmaking Program, bringing the total to $341,977 to cover all recommended grant
funding amounts.
ROLL CALL VOTE: 6-0-0 (Director Holman absent)
7. Oral Update on Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 50th Anniversary
Ms. Skinner provided the staff presentation reviewing the project timeline including items
completed and events scheduled throughout 2022. Throughout the year, the District will be
engaging in various outreach efforts through media, partner and sponsor engagement,
community events, etc.
The members of the Board requested and received clarification regarding various District events.
Public comment opened at 8:51 p.m.
No public comments were submitted for this item.
Public comment closed at 8:51 p.m.
No Board action required.
Meeting 22-03 Page 6
INFORMATIONAL REPORTS
A. Committee Reports
President Kersteen-Tucker reported the Board retreat ad hoc committee met on January 14, 2022
to discuss potential retreat topics and described the topics selected for Board discussion at the
retreat on February 16, 2022.
Director Cyr reported the Legislative, Funding, and Public Affairs Committee met on January
18, 2022 to discuss the proposed trail name for the La Honda Creek Loop Trail.
B. Staff Reports
No staff reports.
C. Director Reports
Director Riffle commented on the Board members’ interagency assignments and suggested the
Board may want to review the various assignments in the future to determine where additional
assignments may be helpful.
Director Cyr reported he attended Valley Water’s Water Commission meeting today where the
drought conservation and public outreach program was discussed.
Director Kishimoto reported she attended a BCDC meeting on January 20, 2022 and received an
update on Bay Adapt, which seeks to address a rising San Francisco Bay.
Director Riffle reported he and Director Kishimoto met with the Friends of Stevens Creek Trail
and discussed proposed access to Rancho San Antonio.
ADJOURNMENT
President Kersteen-Tucker adjourned the regular meeting of the Board of Directors of the
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District at 9:07 p.m.
________________________________
Jennifer Woodworth, MMC
District Clerk
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
CLAIMS REPORT
MEETING # 22-04
MEETING DATE: February 09, 2022 Fiscal Year 20-21 EFT:63.44%
Fiscal Year 21-22 EFT:65.58%
Payment
Number
Payment
Type
Payment Date Notes Vendor No. and Name Invoice Description Payment Amount
4054 EFT 01/21/2022 12166 - BHM Construction, Inc.Administrative Office Renovation Project - Nov 2021 2,113,694.99
4085 EFT 01/28/2022 11272 - George Bianchi Construction Inc Alma Cultural Landscape Rehabilitation Project - Dec 2021 177,179.99
4081 EFT 01/28/2022 11470 - Aecom Technical Services Inc Hwy 17 Wildlife & Regional Trail Crossings & Trail Connections 91,244.50
4095 EFT 01/28/2022 12191 - SAE Consulting Engineering LHC Agricultural Workforce Housing - Nov 2021 45,456.36
4079 EFT 01/28/2022 12052 - 4984 EL Camino LLC A02 / A03 / A04 Rent - Feb 2022 37,774.00
4058 EFT 01/21/2022 10214 - Delta Dental Dental Benefits - Jan 2022 18,773.60
82292 Check 01/28/2022 12199 - CVE Demolition, Inc.Billingsley and Burton Properties Demolition - Dec 2021 17,525.85
4065 EFT 01/21/2022 12184 - Matter Unlimited, LLC 50th Anniversary Celebration Planning - Nov - Dec 2021 13,895.00
4078 EFT 01/21/2022 10978 - Vollmar Natural Lands Consulting, Inc Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting - 8/27/21 - 12/06/21 13,606.00
4086 EFT 01/28/2022 10005 - Grassroots Ecology Service Learning on District Preserves Oct - Nov 2021 12,242.93
4074 EFT 01/21/2022 12157 - SWCA Environmental Consultants Purisima-to-the-Sea Trail and Parking Feasibility Study - Nov 2021 10,367.50
4059 EFT 01/21/2022 11748 - Environmental & Energy Consulting State Legislative Consulting and Lobbying Services Dec 2021 & 6/16/21 - 7/15/21 10,210.00
4070 EFT 01/21/2022 10253 - Peterson Tractor Co.Parts for servicing Mini-Excavator / M18 Bandit Chipper fuel system repair 10,174.61
4055 EFT 01/21/2022 11430 - BioMaAS, Inc.Botanical Services Skyline Area - Oct 2021 / Marbled Murrelet Surveys - Dec 2021 10,004.21
4063 EFT 01/21/2022 10419 - Lincoln National Life Insurance Co.AD&D / Life / LTD - Jan 2022 8,346.08
82284 Check 01/21/2022 10135 - Linde Gas & Equipment Inc FFO - TIG welder for alluminum welding / regulator 7,580.64
82297 Check 01/28/2022 12188 - Parisi Transportation Consulting, Inc.Purisima Multimodal Access Study - Nov 2021 7,138.75
4088 EFT 01/28/2022 11859 - Horizon Water and Environment, LLC Programmatic Environmental Consulting - 11/1/21 - 12/31/21 5,596.58
82300 Check 01/28/2022 10775 - Tyler Technologies Inc Tyler Munis ERP Migration - 11/3/21 - 11/23/21 5,216.00
4097 EFT 01/28/2022 11432 - San Mateo County Resource Conserv. Dist.Conservation Carbon Farming Plan - 1/1/19 - 6/30/20 / 10/1/21 - 12/1/21 3,981.05
4091 EFT 01/28/2022 12151 - Navia Benefit Solutions Emp bene plan claims admin(FSA,commuter)& 125 plan doc Dec 2021 3,909.55
4067 EFT 01/21/2022 12151 - Navia Benefit Solutions Flexible Spending Account disbursements 3,571.43
4076 EFT 01/21/2022 10216 - Valley Oil Company Fuel for District vehicles 3,394.43
4099 EFT 01/28/2022 11118 - Wex Bank Fuel for District vehicles 2,930.35
4096 EFT 01/28/2022 10099 - San Francisco Bay Bird Observatory American Badger & Burrowing Owl Habitat Suitability Study - Dec 21 2,775.00
4073 EFT 01/21/2022 11730 - Standard Insurance Company RV County of Santa Clara MROSD - Life - Jan 2022 2,743.65
82298 Check 01/28/2022 10589 - Recology South Bay Debris & Recycling Service - Dec 2021 2,734.50
82293 Check 01/28/2022 10463 - Dell Business Credit Monitors (4) + hardware warranties, adv exchange service, pro support 2,322.30
82299 Check 01/28/2022 10292 - San Jose Boiler Works Inc Service work on AO boiler 2,229.59
4082 EFT 01/28/2022 10128 - American Tower Corporation Tower lease - Coyote Peak Jan. 2022 2,111.46
4072 EFT 01/21/2022 12117 - Signet Testing Laboratories, Inc.AO Special Inspection Services - Dec 2021 2,069.65
4064 EFT 01/21/2022 11664 - LSQ Funding Group, L.C.Admin Support Clout Staffing - 12/19/2021 1,980.00
4098 EFT 01/28/2022 10447 - Simms Plumbing & Water Equip., Inc.Replace booster pump at Folger Residence 1,900.93
82285 Check 01/21/2022 10921 - Ninyo & Moore Alma Geotechnical Construction Support Services - Nov 2021 1,831.50
4057 EFT 01/21/2022 11975 - Consolidated Engineering Laboratories Mt Umunhum Radar Tower Repair Project - Nov 2021 1,602.72
4093 EFT 01/28/2022 12088 - PSP, an RRD Company Bond Oversight Commitee Report Binder Text (Qty 27)1,590.28
4052 EFT 01/21/2022 10240 - Ace Fire Equipment & Service Inc Annual Fire Extinguisher Service (Qty 130)1,563.01
4071 EFT 01/21/2022 11523 - PGA Design, Inc.Alma Cultural Landscape Rehabilitation Plan - Nov 2021 1,540.00
4077 EFT 01/21/2022 10213 - Vision Service Plan-CA Vision Premium - Jan 2022 1,535.04
4090 EFT 01/28/2022 11664 - LSQ Funding Group, L.C.Admin Support Clout Staffing 12/26/202 1,485.00
82282 Check 01/21/2022 11414 - California Municipal Statistics CalMuni Report for FY21 ACFR Statistical Section 1,375.00
82286 Check 01/21/2022 10102 - Shute, Mihaly & Weinberger LLP Legal Services - Zellerbach Litigation - Sept 2021 / Muzzi Project - Oct 2021 1,346.92
4062 EFT 01/21/2022 11593 - H.T. Harvey & Associates Ravenswood Bay Trail - Nov 2021 1,239.75
4080 EFT 01/28/2022 10001 - Aaron's Septic Tank Service PC Upper & Northridge Restroom Vault - Sanitation Services 1,050.00
82291 Check 01/28/2022 11049 - City of East Palo Alto Cooley Landing 50th Anniversary Event Deposit 1,028.00
4068 EFT 01/21/2022 12020 - Panorama Environmental, Inc.WFRP Phase II - CEQA - Jul - Nov 2021 995.00
82295 Check 01/28/2022 11551 - Green Team of San Jose Garbage Service (RSACP) Jan 2022 847.69
82283 Check 01/21/2022 10189 - Life Assist Safety Supplies - rescue masks, blood pressure unit 805.46
Electronic funds transfer (EFT) for accounts payable disbursements
to reduce check printing and mailing, increase payment security,
and ensure quicker receipt by vendors
page 1 of 2
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
CLAIMS REPORT
MEETING # 22-04
MEETING DATE: February 09, 2022 Fiscal Year 20-21 EFT:63.44%
Fiscal Year 21-22 EFT:65.58%
Payment
Number
Payment
Type
Payment Date Notes Vendor No. and Name Invoice Description Payment Amount
Electronic funds transfer (EFT) for accounts payable disbursements
to reduce check printing and mailing, increase payment security,
and ensure quicker receipt by vendors
82290 Check 01/28/2022 10454 - California Water Service-949 Water Service (FFO) 12/3/21 - 1/4/22 774.56
4069 EFT 01/21/2022 10925 - Papé Machinery T23 JD210LE Tractor Service 728.86
82281 Check 01/21/2022 11851 - Andy's Roofing Company, Inc.Repair skylight leak at Bergman Main 707.88
4060 EFT 01/21/2022 10524 - Ergo Works Ergo chair + arms 683.38
4087 EFT 01/28/2022 11593 - H.T. Harvey & Associates Bio On-Call, Task 2, BCR Monitor, Trap & Bat Exclusion - Nov 2021 555.00
4053 EFT 01/21/2022 10815 - American Red Cross Red Cross Certificates (Qty 16)512.00
4061 EFT 01/21/2022 10187 - Gardenland Power Equipment Repair / Service Chainsaw / Chainsaw & Polesaw Parts / Chaps 419.94
4083 EFT 01/28/2022 11975 - Consolidated Engineering Laboratories Mt Um Radar Tower Repair Project Inspection - 12/13/21 & 12/17/21 389.76
82289 Check 01/28/2022 12041 - A T & T Mobility (FirstNet)EOC Emergency phones- 1/3/22 - 2/2/22 355.26
4094 EFT 01/28/2022 10093 - Rene Hardoy Gardening services - AO 325.00
82294 Check 01/28/2022 11359 - Garavaglia Architecture Inc Coal Creek Barn Historic Resource Evaluation 10/1/21 - 12/31/21 230.70
4066 EFT 01/21/2022 10190 - MetroMobile Communications 2 - Shoulder mics for handheld radios 224.34
4056 EFT 01/21/2022 10170 - Cascade Fire Equipment Company Replacement Hose for Fire Pumper / Push button on fire pumper 219.73
4075 EFT 01/21/2022 10152 - Tadco Supply Janitorial Supplies (RSA)210.02
82287 Check 01/21/2022 11961 - Telepath Corporation Laptop repair for P127 202.50
4092 EFT 01/28/2022 12060 - Preferred Alliance, Inc.11-20 Off-Site Participants Testing (13)134.68
4089 EFT 01/28/2022 11991 - Kunz Valley Trash, LLC Garbage Service at 20000 Skyline - 11/1/21 - 12/31/21 104.50
4084 EFT 01/28/2022 11042 - County of Santa Clara Office of the Sheriff Live Scan - Nov 2021 69.00
82288 Check 01/21/2022 10685 - West Valley Collection Garbage Service (SAO) - Jan 2022 51.79
82296 Check 01/28/2022 10189 - Life Assist Nursescope (Qty 5)31.37
Total of Payments:2,681,447.12
*Annual Claims
**Hawthorn Expenses
A### = Administrative Office Vehicle HC = Hendry's Creek P### = Patrol Vehicle
SCNT = Stevens Creek Nature Trail
AO2, AO3, AO4 = Leased Office Space HR = Human Resources PCR = Purisima Creek Redwoods SCS = Stevens Creek Shoreline Nature Area
BCR = Bear Creek Redwoods IPM = Invasive Plant Maintenance PIC= Picchetti Ranch SFO = Skyline Field Office
CAO = Coastal Area Office ISM = Invasive Species Management PR = Pulgas Ridge SG = Saratoga Gap
CC = Coal Creek LH = La Honda Creek RR = Russian Ridge SJH = Saint Joseph's Hill
DHF = Dear Hollow Farm LR = Long Ridge RR/MIN = Russian Ridge - Mindego
Hill
SR= Skyline Ridge
ECdM = El Corte de Madera LT = Los Trancos RSA = Rancho San Antonio T### = Tractor or Trailer
ES = El Sereno M### = Maintenance Vehicle RV = Ravenswood TC = Tunitas Creek
FFO = Foothills Field Office MB = Monte Bello SA = Sierra Azul TH = Teague Hill
FOOSP = Fremont Older Open Space PMR = Miramontes Ridge SAO = South Area Office TW = Thornewood
GP = General Preserve OSP = Open Space Preserve SAU = Mount Umunhum WH = Windy Hill
Abbreviations
page 2 of 2
R-22-20
Meeting 22-04
February 9, 2022
AGENDA ITEM 3
AGENDA ITEM
Quarter 2 Proposed Budget Amendments to the Fiscal Year ending June 30, 2022
GENERAL MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a resolution approving the proposed Quarter 2 budget amendments for the fiscal year
ending June 30, 2022.
SUMMARY
This report presents the Quarter 2 (Q2) proposed budget amendments by fund for both revenues
and expenses. Proposed budget adjustments for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2022 (FY22)
decrease revenue by $555,000 in the Fund 10 property tax budget because tax receipts in
December were below expected due to a reduction in supplemental taxes. Proposed Q2 FY22
expenditure budget adjustments for personnel services, services, supplies and capital
improvements result in a $706,763 net decrease from the amended budget. This decrease is
primarily due to project delays and cost savings, which are explained in more detail in the
discussion section of this report.
The quarterly budget amendment process includes an evaluation of the year-to-date financial
performance to highlight any potential material changes on future financial performance
expectations for Board consideration. The Q2 review of financial performance and economic
conditions indicates that the expected financial performance remains in line with longer-term
financial projections (see Attachments 5 and 6 for supporting commentary and schedules).
DISCUSSION
The Board adopted the FY22 Budget and Action Plan on June 9, 2021 (R-21-72) with a total
budget of $89.6 million. Prior Board-approved adjustments have brought the FY22 amended
budget to $91.3 million. The proposed Q2 adjustments decrease this number by $706,763 to
$90.6 million (see Table 2). The original FY22 revenues were projected at $69.2 million. Based
on revised projections, revenues are now estimated at $70 million (see Table 1).
Proposed FY22 Budget Quarter 2 Amendments – Revenues
The adopted FY22 revenue budget was $69.2 million. Prior Board-approved adjustments
amended the FY22 revenue projections to $70.5 million. The proposed Q2 revenue adjustments
include a decrease of $555,000 to the General Fund Operating (Fund 10) property tax revenue
given that tax receipts in December were below expected due to a reduction in supplemental
taxes. This decrease brings the amended FY22 revenue budget to $70 million, or $790,000 above
R-22-20 Page 2
the adopted revenue budget. Table 1 lists the projected revenue by Fund, including amendments
to date.
Table 1: Summary of Projected FY22 Revenue
DISTRICT REVENUE
BY FUND & CATEGORY
FY22
Adopted
Budget
YTD
Approved
Budget
Amendments
Amended
Budget
(as of
12/31/2021)
Quarter 2
Proposed
Budget
Amendments
FY22 Proposed
Amended
Budget
General Fund Operating (Fund
10) $60,291,232 $1,420,000 $61,711,232 ($555,000) $61,156,232
Property Tax 57,778,577 1,020,000 58,798,577 (555,000) 58,243,577
Grants 314,000 400,000 714,000 714,000
Interest Income 465,000 465,000 465,000
Rental Income 1,239,100 1,239,100 1,239,100
Rancho San Antonio Agreement 394,555 394,555 394,555
Miscellaneous 100,000 100,000 100,000
Hawthorns (Fund 20) $5,000 $0 $5,000 $0 $5,000
Interest Income 5,000 5,000 5,000
Measure AA Land/Capital (Fund
30) $3,297,932 ($75,000) $3,222,932 $0 $3,222,932
Grants 3,088,932 (75,000) 3,013,932 3,013,932
Interest Income 209,000 209,000 209,000
General Fund Land/Capital
(Fund 40) $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Grants 0 0 -
Debt Service Fund (Fund 50) $5,579,000 $0 $5,579,000 $0 5,579,000
Property Tax 5,560,000 5,560,000 5,560,000
Interest Income 19,000 19,000 19,000
TOTAL DISTRICT REVENUE $69,173,164 $1,345,000 $70,518,164 ($555,000) $69,963,164
Proposed Quarter 2 Amendments to the FY22 Budget – Expenses
The proposed Q2 budget amendments result in a net decrease of $706,763, bringing the total new
amended FY22 Budget to $90,569,759. Table 2 summarizes the FY22 adopted budget and
proposed Q2 budget amendments by Fund. A summary of changes by fund follows Table 2.
Table 2: Summary of FY22 Budget by Fund
DISTRICT BUDGET BY
FUNDING SOURCE
FY22
Adopted
Budget
YTD
Approved
Budget
Amendments
Amended
Budget
(as of
12/31/2021)
Quarter 2
Proposed
Budget
Amendments
FY22 Proposed
Amended Budget
Fund 10 - General Fund Operating $41,413,605 ($245,550) $41,168,055 $59,703 $41,227,758
Fund 20 - Hawthorn Fund $124,500 $0 $124,500 $0 $124,500
Fund 30 - MAA Land/Capital $8,697,439 $278,000 $8,975,439 ($296,466) $8,678,973
Fund 40 - General Fund Land/Capital $23,360,120 $1,603,520 $24,963,640 ($470,000) $24,493,640
Fund 50 - Debt Service $16,044,888 $0 $16,044,888 $0 $16,044,888
Total $89,640,552 $1,635,970 $91,276,522 ($706,763) $90,569,759
R-22-20 Page 3
The General Fund Operating (Fund 10) budget is proposed to increase by a net of $59,703
primarily due to the following:
• An increase of $96,466 in full time salaries due to give back from MAA projects where
labor budget was not needed. Projects include Purisima-to-the-Sea Trail and Parking
Area - Feasibility Study (MAA03-005) which is explained below and Purisima Upland
Site Clean Up and Soil Remediation (MAA03-002) which is explained in Attachment 2.
• A reduction of $58,000 to the Hwy 35 Multi-use Trail Crossing and Parking - Feasibility
Study (31903) project. Consultant costs came in under budget because some biological
surveys were determined not to be necessary due to the absence of rare species in the
area. Also, the certain design tasks are being shifted to FY23 to incorporate the technical
studies and program development work that is occurring this fiscal year.
• A reduction of $22,000 to training, conferences, and public meeting expenses. Fewer
events are being held and those that are taking place are being held virtually, resulting in
cost savings due to the ongoing pandemic.
The Measure AA Capital (Fund 30) budget is decreasing by a net of $296,466 primarily due to:
• A reduction of $150,000 to the Restoration Forestry Demonstration Project (MAA05-
010). Partner organizations have required additional time to provide feedback on the
project, extending the public input process and therefore also the project schedule.
• A reduction of $78,848 to the Purisima-to-the-Sea Trail and Parking Area - Feasibility
Study project (MAA03-005). The project budget had originally included funds for trail
scouting work, which has since been determined to not be MAA reimbursable.
The General Fund Capital (Fund 40) budget is decreasing by $470,000 primarily due to:
• A reduction of $210,500 to the Structures Disposition (35010) project. A cultural survey
performed for two candidate structures that may be approved for demolition confirmed a
lack of historic significance and therefore a streamlined CEQA process with significant
cost savings. Disposition options for these two structures will be brought to the Board for
consideration and selection in late February.
• A reduction of $139,500 to the Kennedy Restroom Replacements (35006) project. In light
of recently received neighborhood input, the scope of the project has expanded, and the
work moved to FY24, to study the feasibility of a parking area expansion with new
restroom facilities to reduce roadside parking impacts.
• A reduction of $120,000 to the Sierra Azul Ranger Residence (35004) project. Project
design services and subsequent project phases are delayed through the end of FY22, as
staff works to identify feasible repair design alternatives and confirm that these meet
Santa Clara County requirements; coordination with the County has been delayed due to
limited County staff availability.
The proposed budget amendments listed above (see Attachment 2 for full list) require Board
approval per Board policy 3.04 Budget and Expenditure Authority.
FISCAL IMPACT
The original projection for FY22 revenue was $69,173,164. The total amended revenues are now
estimated at $69,963,164. The District retains $23,422,551 in other funding sources, resulting in
R-22-20 Page 4
a total of $93,385,715 in available funding. The FY22 proposed Q2 budget amendments result in
a net budget decrease of $706,763 and a new amended budget of $90,569,759.
Table 3 summarizes the FY22 estimated change in fund balance as a positive change, with a
resulting total fund balance of $2,815,956.
Table 3: FY22 Estimated Change in Fund Balance
FY22 Estimated Change in
Fund Balance
Fund 10 Fund 20 Fund 30 Fund 40 Fund 50
Total General
Fund Hawthorn Measure AA
Capital
General
Fund Capital
Debt
Service
Total Amended Revenues $61,156,232 $5,000 $3,222,932 $0 $5,579,000 $69,963,164
Total Amended Other
Funding Sources (17,590,855) 119,500 5,665,041 24,493,640 10,735,225 23,422,551
Grand Total: Revenues &
Other Funding Sources $43,565,377 $124,500 $8,887,973 $24,493,640 $16,314,225 $93,385,715
Total Amended Expenses $41,227,758 $124,500 $8,678,973 $24,493,640 $16,044,888 $90,569,759
Adopted Change in Fund
Balance 765 0 209,000 0 269,337 479,102
Net Change in Fund Balance 2,336,854 0 0 0 0 2,336,854
Amended Change in Fund
Balance $2,337,619 $0 $209,000 $0 $269,337 $2,815,956
BOARD AND COMMITTEE REVIEW
• June 9, 2021: Board adoption of the Fiscal Year 2021-22 Budget and Capital
Improvement and Action Plan (R-21-72, minutes)
• August 11, 2021: Board approval of proposed amendments to the Fiscal Year 2021-22
Capital Improvement & Action Plan (CIAP) and Budget (R-21-104, minutes)
• November 10, 2021: Board adoption of the FY22 Quarter 1 budget adjustments (R-21-
151, minutes)
PUBLIC NOTICE
Public notice was provided as required by the Brown Act.
CEQA COMPLIANCE
This item is not a project subject to the California Environmental Quality Act.
NEXT STEPS
Upon Board approval, staff will make the necessary Budget amendments.
Attachments:
1. Resolution Amending the FY22 Budget by Fund
2. FY22 Quarter 2 Budget Amendments by Fund and Project
3. FY22 Quarter 2 Budget Amendments by Department & Budget Category
4. FY22 Quarter 2 Budget Amendments Detail by GL Account
R-22-20 Page 5
5. Q2 FY22 Financial Performance Comments
6. Q2 FY22 Budget Performance Report ‐ "Green Report"
7. Draft Budget and Action Plan meeting minutes for May 4, 2021
Responsible Department Head / Staff contact:
Rafaela Duran, Budget & Analysis Manager
Prepared by:
Rafaela Duran, Budget & Analysis Manager
Elissa Martinez, Management Analyst II
Lupe Hernandez, Management Analyst II
Resolutions/2022/22-__FY22 Q2 Budget Adjustments 1
RESOLUTION NO. 22-___
RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT AMENDING
THE BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2021-2022
WHEREAS, on June 9, 2021 the Board of Directors (Board) of the Midpeninsula
Regional Open Space District (District) adopted the Fiscal Year ending June 30, 2022 (FY22)
Budget and Action Plan; and
WHEREAS, on August 11, 2021, August 25, 2021, November 10, 2021, and January 12,
2022 the Board of Directors of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District amended the
FY22 Budget; and
WHEREAS, the General Manager recommends amending the FY22 Budget to reflect
changes resulting in a net budget decrease.
NOW, THEREFORE, the Board of Directors of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space
District does resolve as follows:
SECTION ONE. Approve the recommended revenue amendments to the District’s
FY22 Budget resulting in a net decrease as follows:
DISTRICT REVENUE BY
FUNDING SOURCE
FY22
Adopted
Budget
YTD
Approved
Budget
Amendments
Amended
Budget
(as of
12/31/2021)
Quarter 2
Proposed Budget
Amendments
FY22
Proposed
Amended
Budget
Fund 10 - General Fund Operating $60,291,232 $1,420,000 $61,711,232 ($555,000) $61,156,232
Fund 20 - Hawthorn Fund $5,000 $0 $5,000 $0 $5,000
Fund 30 - MAA Land/Capital $3,297,932 ($75,000) $3,222,932 $0 $3,222,932
Fund 40 - General Fund Land/Capital $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Fund 50 - Debt Service $5,579,000 $0 $5,579,000 $0 $5,579,000
Total $69,173,164 $1,345,000 $70,518,164 ($555,000) $69,963,164
SECTION TWO. Approve the recommended budget amendments to the District FY22
Budget resulting in a net decrease as follows:
DISTRICT BUDGET BY
FUNDING SOURCE
FY22
Adopted
Budget
YTD
Approved
Budget
Amendments
Amended
Budget
(as of
12/31/2021)
Quarter 2
Proposed
Budget
Amendments
FY22 Proposed
Amended Budget
Fund 10 - General Fund Operating $41,413,605 ($245,550) $41,168,055 $59,703 $41,227,758
Fund 20 - Hawthorn Fund $124,500 $0 $124,500 $0 $124,500
Fund 30 - MAA Land/Capital $8,697,439 $278,000 $8,975,439 ($296,466) $8,678,973
Fund 40 - General Fund Land/Capital $23,360,120 $1,603,520 $24,963,640 ($470,000) $24,493,640
Fund 50 - Debt Service $16,044,888 $0 $16,044,888 $0 $16,044,888
Total $89,640,552 $1,635,970 $91,276,522 ($706,763) $90,569,759
Attachment 1
Resolutions/2022/22-__FY22 Q2 Budget Adjustments 2
SECTION THREE. Monies are hereby appropriated in accordance with said budget by
fund.
SECTION FOUR. Except as herein modified, the FY22 Budget and CIAP, Resolution
No. 21-18 as amended, shall remain in full force and effect.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Board of Directors of the Midpeninsula Regional
Open Space District on __________, 2022, at a regular meeting thereof, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
ATTEST: APPROVED:
Karen Holman, Secretary
Board of Directors
Zoe Kersteen-Tucker, President
Board of Directors
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Hilary Stevenson, General Counsel
I, the District Clerk of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District, hereby certify
that the above is a true and correct copy of a resolution duly adopted by the Board of Directors
of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District by the above vote at a meeting thereof duly
held and called on the above day.
Jennifer Woodworth, District Clerk
Attachment 2
Operating (Fund 10) Project Adjustments Q2
Adjustment
Icon Explanation
31902 Historic Resources Procedural Guide/Library (15,000)Historical consulting services not needed this fiscal year because creating the internal historic resources guide, library, and GIS
database can be achieved using internal resources.
31903 Hwy 35 Multi‐use Trail Crossing and Parking ‐
Feasibility Study
(58,000)< $Consultant costs came in under budget because some biological surveys were determined not to be necessary due to absence
of rare species in the area. Also, the certain design tasks are being shifted to FY23 to incorporate the technical studies and
program development work that is occurring this fiscal year.
31904 Purisima Preserve Multimodal Access Study 30,000 Additional budget needed in light of increased consultant speed in project delivery.
61023 Los Gatos Creek Watershed ‐ Wildland Fire
Resiliency
(23,500)Correcting project budget to more accurately reflect how much work will be done per fiscal year. Total project costs remain the
same, change only reflects a fiscal year allocation correction.
80054 Badger/Burrowing Owl Habitat Assessment 20,000 Net zero adjustment, assigning funds from 5211 and 5202. Contract amendment changed annual budget breakdown for this
multi‐year project.
TOTAL FUND 10 (46,500)
Fund 10 ‐ net operating expense adjustments 106,203 < $Less events/trainings/conferences are being held and those that are taking place are being held virtually, resulting in cost
savings due to the ongoing pandemic. Also less labor needed for various MAA projects (explained below).
GRAND TOTAL FUND 10 59,703
Measure AA Capital (Fund 30) Project Adjustments Q2
Adjustment
Icon Explanation
MAA03‐002 Purisima Upland Site Clean Up and Soil
Remediation
(33,734)Most Engineering and Construction department labor not needed this fiscal year because project has moved to Natural
Resources department given staff vacancy. Sufficient labor is already budgeted in Natural Resources.
MAA03‐005 Purisima‐to‐the‐Sea Trail and Parking Area ‐
Feasibility Study
(78,848)The project budget had originally included funds for trail scouting work, which has since been determined to not be MAA
reimbursable.
MAA05‐008 La Honda Creek White Barn Structural
Rehabilitation
(23,000)FY22 scope of work for the White Barn is complete; remaining budget is shifting to Redwood Cabin to complete CEQA.
MAA05‐009 La Honda Creek Redwood Cabin Removal and Site
Restoration
23,000 FY22 scope of work for the White Barn is complete; remaining budget is shifting to Redwood Cabin to complete CEQA.
MAA05‐010 Restoration Forestry Demonstration Project (150,000)Partner organizations have required additional time to provide feedback on the project, extending the public input process and
therefore also the project schedule.
MAA07‐011 Phase II Loop Trails, Lower La Honda Creek OSP (50,000)CEQA services are not needed this fiscal year.
MAA20‐002 Bay Area Ridge Trail: Highway 17 Crossing 17,250 Additional labor funds needed to account for work completed by Senior Planner.
MAA25‐002 Billingsley Property Acquisition and Site Cleanup (1,134)< $Project nearly complete, Natural Resources MAA labor not needed to close out project.
TOTAL FUND 30 ($296,466)
FY22 Quarter 2 Budget Amendments by Project including description (Attachment 2)
Page 1 of 2
Attachment 2
FY22 Quarter 2 Budget Amendments by Project including description (Attachment 2)
General Fund Capital (Fund 40) Project Adjustments Q2
Adjustment
Icon Explanation
35004 Sierra Azul Ranger Residence (120,000)Project environmental, permitting, and construction inspection support services will be delayed until FY23 because the project
design services will continue through FY22.
35006 Kennedy Restroom Replacements (139,500)Project deferred to FY24 to further study the feasibility of a parking lot expansion project, that will be considered by the board
at a future date.
35010 Structure Disposition (210,500)< $Bio exclusion work can’t take place until after bat maternity roosting season and nesting bird season have concluded. Thus,
construction is delayed until after summer. Also, the cultural survey provided favorable results which includes a streamlined
CEQA process resulting in project savings.
TOTAL FUND 40 ($470,000)
GRAND TOTAL ($706,763)
Project will continue next fiscal year (or later)$0
Increase to project cost $30,000
Reallocation of funds, no net increase ($558,332)
< $Savings this fiscal year ($178,431)
TOTAL ($706,763)
Page 2 of 2
Attachment 3
FY22 Adopted Budget YTD Approved Budget
Amendments
Amended Budget
(as of 12/31/2021)
Quarter 2 Proposed
Budget Amendments
FY22 Proposed Amended
Budget
Administrative Services
Salaries and Benefits $5,791,536 $5,791,536 $5,791,536
Services and Supplies $2,181,406 $2,181,406 $2,181,406
Total Operating Expenditures $7,972,942 $0 $7,972,942 $0 $7,972,942
General Fund Capital $62,000 ($62,000)$0 $0
Total Capital Expenditures $62,000 ($62,000) $0 $0 $0
$8,034,942 ($62,000) $7,972,942 $0 $7,972,942
Engineering & Construction
Salaries and Benefits $1,206,827 $1,206,827 $1,206,827
Less: MAA Reimbursable Staff Costs ($258,414)($258,414)$33,734 ($224,680)
Net Salaries and Benefits $948,413 $0 $948,413 $33,734 $982,147
Services and Supplies $190,319 $190,319 ($20,000) $170,319
Total Operating Expenditures $1,138,732 $1,138,732 $13,734 $1,152,466
Hawthorn Capital $47,300 $47,300 $47,300
Total Hawthorn Expenditures $47,300 $0 $47,300 $0 $47,300
Measure AA Capital $5,814,803 ($300,975) $5,513,828 ($33,734) $5,480,094
General Fund Capital $19,634,983 $1,879,527 $21,514,510 ($467,000) $21,047,510
Total Capital Expenditures $25,449,786 $1,578,552 $27,028,338 ($500,734) $26,527,604
$26,635,818 $1,578,552 $28,214,370 ($487,000) $27,727,370
General Counsel
Salaries and Benefits $801,859 $801,859 $801,859
Services and Supplies $98,985 $98,985 $98,985
Total Operating Expenditures $900,844 $0 $900,844 $0 $900,844
$900,844 $0 $900,844 $0 $900,844
General Manager
Salaries and Benefits $1,855,225 $1,855,225 $1,855,225
Services and Supplies $402,125 $55,000 $457,125 $457,125
Total Operating Expenditures $2,257,350 $55,000 $2,312,350 $0 $2,312,350
$2,257,350 $55,000 $2,312,350 $0 $2,312,350
Land & Facilities
Salaries and Benefits $7,210,449 $7,210,449 $7,210,449
Less: MAA Reimbursable Staff Costs ($193,321) ($77,300)($270,621)$78,848 ($191,773)
Net Salaries and Benefits $7,017,128 ($77,300) $6,939,828 $78,848 $7,018,676
Services and Supplies $4,742,204 ($183,750) $4,558,454 ($23,500) $4,534,954
Total Operating Expenditures $11,759,332 ($261,050) $11,498,282 $55,348 $11,553,630
Hawthorn Services and Supplies $77,200 $77,200 $77,200
Total Hawthorn Expenditures $77,200 $0 $77,200 $0 $77,200
Measure AA Capital $419,821 $248,225 $668,046 ($78,848) $589,198
General Fund Capital $1,656,925 ($204,007)$1,452,918 $1,452,918
Total Capital Expenditures $2,076,746 $44,218 $2,120,964 ($78,848) $2,042,116
$13,913,278 ($216,832) $13,696,446 ($23,500) $13,672,946
Natural Resources
Salaries and Benefits $1,778,648 $1,778,648 $1,778,648
Less: MAA Reimbursable Staff Costs ($91,920)($91,920)$1,134 ($90,786)
Net Salaries and Benefits $1,686,728 $1,686,728 $1,134 $1,687,862
Services and Supplies $3,275,223 ($52,500)$3,222,723 $35,000 $3,257,723
Total Operating Expenditures $4,961,951 ($52,500) $4,909,451 $36,134 $4,945,585
Measure AA Capital $1,316,920 ($15,000)$1,301,920 ($151,134) $1,150,786
General Fund Capital $161,000 $161,000 $161,000
Total Capital Expenditures $1,477,920 ($15,000) $1,462,920 ($151,134) $1,311,786
$6,439,871 ($67,500) $6,372,371 ($115,000) $6,257,371Total Natural Resources Expenditures
Total General Counsel Expenditures
Total Engineering & Construction Expenditures
Total Land & Facilities Expenditures
FY22 Quarter 2 Budget Amendments by Department & Budget Category (Attachment 3)
DISTRICT BUDGET BY
EXPENDITURE CATEGORY
Total Administrative Services Expenditures
Total General Manager Expenditures
Page 1 of 2
Attachment 3
FY22 Quarter 2 Budget Amendments by Department & Budget Category (Attachment 3)
FY22 Adopted Budget YTD Approved Budget
Amendments
Amended Budget
(as of 12/31/2021)
Quarter 2 Proposed
Budget Amendments
FY22 Proposed Amended
Budget
Planning
Salaries and Benefits $1,727,229 $1,727,229 $1,727,229
Less: MAA Reimbursable Staff Costs ($75,645)($75,645)($17,250) ($92,895)
Net Salaries and Benefits $1,651,584 $1,651,584 ($17,250) $1,634,334
Services and Supplies $674,783 ($75,000) $599,783 ($28,263)$571,520
Total Operating Expenditures $2,326,367 ($75,000) $2,251,367 ($45,513) $2,205,854
Measure AA Capital $1,021,645 $107,000 $1,128,645 ($32,750) $1,095,895
General Fund Capital $33,000 $33,000 ($3,000) $30,000
Total Capital Expenditures $1,054,645 $107,000 $1,161,645 ($35,750)$1,125,895
$3,381,012 $32,000 $3,413,012 ($81,263) $3,331,749
Public Affairs
Salaries and Benefits $1,191,021 $43,000 $1,234,021 $1,234,021
Services and Supplies $1,204,292 ($10,000) $1,194,292 $1,194,292
Total Operating Expenditures $2,395,313 $33,000 $2,428,313 $0 $2,428,313
$2,395,313 $33,000 $2,428,313 $0 $2,428,313
Real Property
Salaries and Benefits $810,192 $810,192 $810,192
Services and Supplies $99,324 $99,324 $99,324
Total Operating Expenditures $909,516 $909,516 $0 $909,516
Measure AA Land and Associated Costs $124,250 $238,750 $363,000 $363,000
General Fund Land and Associated Costs $634,000 ($10,000) $624,000 $624,000
Total Land and Associated Costs $758,250 $228,750 $987,000 $0 $987,000
$1,667,766 $228,750 $1,896,516 $0 $1,896,516
Visitor Services
Salaries and Benefits $6,123,818 $30,000 $6,153,818 $6,153,818
Services and Supplies $667,440 $25,000 $692,440 $692,440
Total Operating Expenditures $6,791,258 $55,000 $6,846,258 $0 $6,846,258
General Fund Land and Associated Costs $1,178,212 $1,178,212 $1,178,212
Total Land and Associated Costs $1,178,212 $0 $1,178,212 $0 $1,178,212
$7,969,470 $55,000 $8,024,470 $0 $8,024,470
Debt Service
Debt Service $16,044,888 $16,044,888 $16,044,888
Total Debt Service Expenditures $16,044,888 $16,044,888 $16,044,888
$16,044,888 $16,044,888 $16,044,888
$89,640,552 $1,635,970 $91,276,522 ($706,763) $90,569,759
Total Debt Service Expenditures
DISTRICT BUDGET BY
EXPENDITURE CATEGORY
Total District Budget
Total Real Property Expenditures
Total Visitor Services Expenditures
Total Planning Expenditures
Total Public Affairs Expenditures
Page 2 of 2
Attachment 4
Budget Categories / Accounts Budget as of Dec
31
Quarter 2 Proposed
Budget Amendment
Quarter 2 Proposed
Amended Budget
10‐30‐310‐4101 ‐ Full Time $1,240,384 ($17,250) $1,223,134
10‐35‐315‐4101 ‐ Full Time $705,873 $33,734 $739,607
10‐61‐611‐4101 ‐ Full Time $4,670,456 $78,848 $4,749,304
10‐80‐810‐4101 ‐ Full Time $1,278,237 $1,134 $1,279,371
General Fund (10) Salaries & Benefits $96,466
10‐30‐310‐6501 ‐ Public Meeting Expense $22,000 ($12,000) $10,000
10‐30‐310‐6601 ‐ Training & Conferences $32,600 ($13,263) $19,337
10‐30‐320‐5218 ‐ Bio Survey $30,000 ($18,000) $12,000
10‐30‐320‐5299 ‐ Other Professional Services $342,250 $15,000 $357,250
10‐35‐315‐5004 ‐ Temporary Office Help $0 $20,000 $20,000
10‐35‐325‐5204 ‐ Architect/Engineering Fees $115,000 ($40,000) $75,000
10‐61‐631‐5211 ‐ Resource/Environmental $82,000 $20,000 $102,000
10‐61‐631‐5218 ‐ Bio Survey $102,000 ($10,000) $92,000
10‐61‐631‐5299 ‐ Other Professional Services $30,000 $32,500 $62,500
10‐61‐631‐7001 ‐ Field Equipment/Shop Supplies $25,000 $20,000 $45,000
10‐61‐631‐7109 ‐ Facility Maint ‐ Trails & Roads $235,000 ($85,000) $150,000
10‐61‐631‐7112.01 ‐ IPM Program ‐ Maintenance $0 $60,000 $60,000
10‐61‐631‐7112.07 ‐ Fuels Management $168,000 ($126,000) $42,000
10‐61‐651‐7101 ‐ Facility Maint ‐ Structures ‐ Exterior/Interior $12,000 $65,000 $77,000
10‐80‐820‐5218 ‐ Bio Survey $50,000 $35,000 $85,000
10‐80‐830‐5202 ‐ Graphic Design & Layout $15,000 ($10,000) $5,000
10‐80‐830‐5211 ‐ Resource/Environmental $754,239 $10,000 $764,239
General Fund (10) Services & Supplies ($36,763)
30‐30‐310‐4109 ‐ Measure AA Labor Reimbursement $75,645 $17,250 $92,895
30‐35‐315‐4109 ‐ Measure AA Labor Reimbursement $258,414 ($33,734) $224,680
30‐61‐611‐4109 ‐ Measure AA Labor Reimbursement $270,621 ($78,848) $191,773
30‐80‐810‐4109 ‐ Measure AA Labor Reimbursement $91,920 ($1,134) $90,786
MAA (30) Salaries & Benefits ($96,466)
30‐30‐320‐8201 ‐ ARCHITECT/ENGINEERING SERVS $268,000 ($10,000) $258,000
30‐30‐320‐8202 ‐ ENVIRONMENTAL/PLANNING SERVICES $720,000 ($40,000) $680,000
30‐80‐850‐8201 ‐ ARCHITECT/ENGINEERING SERVS $230,000 ($130,000) $100,000
30‐80‐850‐8202 ‐ ENVIRONMENTAL/PLANNING SERVICES $380,000 ($20,000) $360,000
MAA (30) Capital/Fixed Assets ($200,000)
40‐30‐320‐8201 ‐ ARCHITECT/ENGINEERING SERVS $33,000 ($3,000) $30,000
40‐35‐325‐8201 ‐ ARCHITECT/ENGINEERING SERVS $825,425 ($11,000) $814,425
40‐35‐325‐8202 ‐ ENVIRONMENTAL/PLANNING SERVICES $478,000 ($224,500) $253,500
40‐35‐325‐8203 ‐ CONSTRUCTION & SPECIAL INSPECTION/MONITORING $687,500 ($40,000) $647,500
40‐35‐325‐8204 ‐ PERMITTING FEES $276,000 ($70,000) $206,000
40‐35‐325‐8205 ‐ CONSTRUCTION $18,247,585 ($121,500) $18,126,085
General Fund (40) Capital/Fixed Assets ($470,000)
Total Budget Amendments ‐ Increase / (Decrease) ($706,763)
FY22 Quarter 2 Budget Amendments by GL Account (Attachment 4)
Page 1 of 1
Q2 FY22 Financial Performance Comments
Attachment 5
Overall District Financial Health:
With Fiscal Year 2022 (FY22) expenditures tracking to budget or less, and revenues tracking to budget or
better, District financial health is currently expected to be consistent with, or better than, the FY22
adopted budget.
Revenues:
The vast majority of budgeted annual revenue is derived from Property Taxes (92%), which are received
in Q2 (December) and Q4 (April). Accordingly, Q2 revenues of $29.7 million represent 43% of the annual
amended budget of $70 million. Additional commentary on Q2 revenue budget variances can be found
in the Q2 Budget Amendment Board report. The Controller’s Monthly Investment report for December
2021 indicates that the assessed value in both Santa Clara and San Mateo Counties continues to
increase at about a combined 6.1% annual rate. The inflation factor is now set at a 2% maximum for
annual assessed property valuations.
Expenditures:
Expenditures for Q2 were $41.7 million or about 46% of the annual amended budget. The Q2
percentage spend of the annual budget is tracking similarly to past years. If the proposed Q2 budget
amendments are adopted (see Board report for more detail), expenditures are expected to end the year
at or below the amended FY22 budget.
Other Financial Considerations:
Some important economic factors have improved since the initial economic impacts of the pandemic:
• The national unemployment rate fell from 4.7% in September to 3.9% in December 2021, with a
continuing declining trend (US Bureau of Labor Statistics, Civilian Unemployment Rate). For
comparison, the San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area
unemployment rate was 3.2% in November 2021 (the latest reporting period).
• The S&P 500 ended the year with positive returns, approximately 11% in the quarter ending
December 2021.
• The yield on a 10-Year U.S. Treasury Bond increased from 0.93% at the end of December 2020 to
1.52% at the end of December 2021. Interest rates are approximately 30 basis points lower
than pre-pandemic levels.
• Real GDP increased by 2.3% in the third quarter of 2021, the lowest increase since the beginning
of the pandemic. Bay Area CPI (San Francisco-Oakland-Hayward) increased by 2.2% from
December 2020 to December 2021.
Major fiscal stimulus actions have aided economic recovery, but many expired at the end of the calendar
year. It is uncertain how this might impact the overall economy and fiscal recovery efforts.
FY22 Budget Performance Report ‐ "Green Report" Revenue by Fund and Category
(through Dec 31)
Fund 10 ‐ General Fund 60,291,232 865,000 61,156,232 26,366,762 34,789,470 43%
General Property Taxes 57,778,577 465,000 58,243,577 25,438,564 32,805,013 44%
Grants Revenue 314,000 400,000 714,000 ‐ 714,000 0%
Interest Income 465,000 ‐ 465,000 253,800 211,200 55%
Rental Income 1,239,100 ‐ 1,239,100 380,869 858,231 31%
Other Revenues 494,555 ‐ 494,555 293,529 201,026 59%
Fund 20 ‐ Hawthorn Fund 5,000 ‐ 5,000 ‐ 5,000 0%
Interest Income 5,000 ‐ 5,000 ‐ 5,000 0%
Fund 30 ‐ MAA Fund 3,297,932 (75,000) 3,222,932 3,160,434 62,498 98%
Grants Revenue 3,088,932 (75,000) 3,013,932 3,160,434 (146,502) 105%
Interest Income 209,000 209,000 ‐ 209,000 0%
Fund 40 ‐ General Fund Capital ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 0%
Fund 50 ‐ Debt Service 5,579,000 ‐ 5,579,000 215,155 5,363,845 4%
General Property Taxes 5,560,000 ‐ 5,560,000 204,198 5,355,802 4%
Interest Income 19,000 ‐ 19,000 10,957 8,043 58%
DISTRICT REVENUES (All Funds)69,173,164 790,000 69,963,164 29,742,351 40,220,813 43%
Budget Remaining Budget Used (%)
DISTRICT REVENUES BY FUND &
CATEGORY
FY22
Adopted
Budget
FY22
Budget
Adjustments
FY22
Amended
Budget
FY22 Actual
(through 12/31)
Revenue Quarterly
Performance Report Actuals to Date
Second Quarter Status Update
Revised: 2/2/2022
Page 1 of 4
Attachment 6
FY22 Budget Performance Report ‐ "Green Report" by Fund
(through Dec 31)
FY22 FY22 FY21 FY21
Budget Spent
of Amended
(%)
Budget Spent of
Amended with
Encumbrances (%)
Budget Spent
of Amended
(%)
Budget Spent of
Amended with
Encumbrances (%)
Fund 10 ‐ General Fund 41,413,605 (185,847) 41,227,758 2,941,057 18,011,119 23,216,639 20,275,582 44%51% 43%52%
Fund 20 ‐ Hawthorn Fund 124,500 ‐ 124,500 12,470 8,837 115,663 103,193 7%17% 19%19%
Fund 30 ‐ MAA Fund 8,697,439 (18,466) 8,678,973 4,084,026 1,816,582 6,862,391 2,778,365 21%68% 40%51%
Fund 40 ‐ General Fund Capital 7,191,637 (893,582) 6,298,055 1,038,846 1,843,906 4,454,149 3,415,303 29%46% 24%73%
DISTRICT EXPENSES (Subtotal)57,427,181 (1,097,895) 56,329,286 8,076,399 21,680,444 34,648,842 26,572,443 38%53% 41%53%
Fund 40 ‐ One Time Expenses 16,168,483 2,027,102 18,195,585 8,413,564 7,851,695 10,343,890 1,930,326 43%89% 19%21%
Fund 50 ‐ Debt Service 16,044,888 ‐ 16,044,888 ‐ 12,166,081 3,878,807 3,878,807 76%76% 76%76%
DISTRICT EXPENSES (All Funds) 89,640,552 929,207 90,569,759 16,489,963 41,698,220 48,871,539 32,381,576 46%64% 44%53%
Budget
Remaining of
Amended with
Encumbrances
($)
Budget
Remaining of
Amended ($)
FY22 Actual
(through
12/31)
DISTRICT EXPENSES BY FUND FY22 Adopted
Budget
FY22 Budget
Adjustments
FY22
Amended
Budget
YTD
Encumbrances
Actual Spend to Date
Encumbrances
Expenses Quarterly
Performance Report
Second Quarter Status Update
Revised: 2/2/2022
Page 2 of 4
Attachment 6
FY22 Budget Performance Report ‐ "Green Report" by Category
(through Dec 31)
FY22 FY22 FY21 FY21
Budget Spent
of Amended
(%)
Budget Spent of
Amended with
Encumbrances (%)
Budget Spent of
Amended (%)
Budget Spent of Amended
with Encumbrances (%)
Fund 10 ‐ General Fund 41,413,605 (185,847) 41,227,758 2,941,057 18,011,119 23,216,639 20,275,582 44% 51%43%52%
Personnel Services 27,877,504 49,166 27,926,670 ‐ 14,555,225 13,371,445 13,371,445 52% 52%48%48%
Services and Supplies 13,536,101 (235,013) 13,301,088 2,941,057 3,455,894 9,845,194 6,904,137 26% 48%30%60%
Fund 20 ‐ Hawthorn Fund 124,500 ‐ 124,500 12,470 8,837 115,663 103,193 7% 17%19%19%
Services and Supplies 77,200 ‐ 77,200 ‐ 57 77,143 77,143 0%0%20%20%
Capital/Fixed Assets 47,300 ‐ 47,300 12,470 8,780 38,520 26,050 19% 45%0%0%
Fund 30 ‐ MAA Fund 8,697,439 (18,466) 8,678,973 4,084,026 1,816,582 6,862,391 2,778,365 21% 68%40%51%
Personnel Services 619,300 (19,166) 600,134 ‐ 315,975 284,159 284,159 53% 53%35%35%
Capital/Fixed Assets 8,078,139 700 8,078,839 4,084,026 1,500,607 6,578,232 2,494,206 19% 69%40%52%
Fund 40 ‐ General Fund Capital 7,191,637 (893,582) 6,298,055 1,038,846 1,843,906 4,454,149 3,415,303 29% 46%24%73%
Capital/Fixed Assets 7,191,637 (893,582) 6,298,055 1,038,846 1,843,906 4,454,149 3,415,303 29% 46%24%73%
DISTRICT EXPENSES (Subtotal)57,427,181 (1,097,895) 56,329,286 8,076,399 21,680,444 34,648,842 26,572,443 38% 53%41%53%
Fund 40 ‐ One Time Expenses 16,168,483 2,027,102 18,195,585 8,413,564 7,851,695 10,343,890 1,930,326 43% 89%19%21%
Fund 50 ‐ Debt Service 16,044,888 ‐ 16,044,888 12,166,081 3,878,807 3,878,807 76% 76%76%76%
DISTRICT EXPENSES (All Funds)89,640,552 929,207 90,569,759 16,489,963 41,698,220 48,871,539 32,381,576 46% 64%44%53%
FY22 FY22 FY21 FY21
Budget Spent
of Amended
(%)
Budget Spent of
Amended with
Encumbrances (%)
Budget Spent of
Amended (%)
Budget Spent of
Amended with
Encumbrances
(%)
Personnel Services 28,496,804 30,000 28,526,804 ‐ 14,871,200 13,655,604 13,655,604 52% 52%48%48%
Services and Supplies 13,613,301 (235,013) 13,378,288 2,941,057 3,455,951 9,922,337 6,981,280 26% 48%30%60%
Capital/Fixed Assets 15,317,076 (892,882) 14,424,194 5,135,342 3,353,293 11,070,901 5,935,559 23% 59%37%55%
DISTRICT EXPENSES (Subtotal)57,427,181 (1,097,895) 56,329,286 8,076,399 21,680,444 34,648,842 26,572,443 38% 53%41%53%
One Time Expenses 16,168,483 2,027,102 18,195,585 8,413,564 7,851,695 10,343,890 1,930,326 43% 89%19%21%
Debt Service 16,044,888 ‐ 16,044,888 ‐ 12,166,081 3,878,807 3,878,807 76% 76%76%76%
DISTRICT EXPENSES (All Funds)89,640,552 929,207 90,569,759 16,489,963 41,698,220 48,871,539 32,381,576 46% 64%44%53%
Budget
Remaining of
Amended with
Encumbrances
($)
Budget
Remaining of
Amended with
Encumbrances
($)
DISTRICT EXPENSES BY FUND &
CATEGORY
FY22 Adopted
Budget
FY22 Budget
Adjustments
FY22
Amended
Budget
YTD
Encumbrances
DISTRICT EXPENSES BY FUND &
CATEGORY
FY22 Adopted
Budget
FY22 Budget
Adjustments
FY22
Amended
Budget
YTD
Encumbrances
FY22 Actual
(through
12/31)
Budget
Remaining of
Amended ($)
Budget
Remaining of
Amended ($)
FY22 Actual
(through
12/31)
Second Quarter Status Update
Revised: 2/2/2022
Page 3 of 4
Attachment 6
FY22 Budget Performance Report ‐ "Green Report" by Department
(through Dec 31)
FY22 FY22 FY21 FY21
Budget Spent of
Amended (%)
Budget Spent of
Amended with
Encumbrances (%)
Budget Spent
of Amended
(%)
Budget Spent of Amended
with Encumbrances (%)
Administrative Services 8,034,942 (62,000) 7,972,942 412,890 4,114,801 3,858,141 3,445,251 52%57% 47%53%
Engineering & Construction 10,467,335 (935,550) 9,531,785 3,549,206 3,254,770 6,277,015 2,727,809 34%71% 39%41%
General Counsel 900,844 ‐ 900,844 24,327 439,480 461,364 437,037 49%51% 44%46%
General Manager 2,257,350 55,000 2,312,350 30,529 1,011,081 1,301,269 1,270,740 44%45% 40%41%
Land & Facilities 13,913,278 (240,332) 13,672,946 741,927 5,604,272 8,068,674 7,326,747 41%46% 43%48%
Natural Resources 6,439,871 (182,500) 6,257,371 1,555,172 1,571,160 4,686,211 3,131,039 25%50% 28%60%
Planning 3,381,012 (49,263) 3,331,749 944,072 1,212,927 2,118,822 1,174,750 36%65% 37%51%
Public Affairs 2,395,313 33,000 2,428,313 505,526 794,173 1,634,140 1,128,614 33%54% 36%86%
Real Property 1,667,766 228,750 1,896,516 188,516 496,215 1,400,301 1,211,784 26%36% 60%61%
Visitor Services 7,969,470 55,000 8,024,470 124,235 3,181,563 4,842,907 4,718,672 40%41% 47%49%
DISTRICT EXPENSES (Subtotal)57,427,181 (1,097,895) 56,329,286 8,076,399 21,680,444 34,648,842 26,572,443 38%53% 44%52%
One Time Expense: Fund 40 16,168,483 2,027,102 18,195,585 8,413,564 7,851,695 10,343,890 1,930,326 43%89%5%29%
Debt Service 16,044,888 ‐ 16,044,888 ‐ 12,166,081 3,878,807 3,878,807 76%76% 76%76%
DISTRICT EXPENSES (All Funds)89,640,552 929,207 90,569,759 16,489,963 41,698,220 48,871,539 32,381,576 46%64% 44%53%
DISTRICT EXPENSES BY DEPARTMENTS
(All Funds)
FY22 Adopted
Budget
FY22 Budget
Adjustments
FY22
Amended
Budget
YTD
Encumbrances
FY22 Actual
(through
12/31)
Budget
Remaining of
Amended ($)
Budget
Remaining of
Amended with
Encumbrances ($)
Second Quarter Status Update
Revised 2/2/2022
Page 4 of 4
Attachment 6
Attachment 7
1
ACTION PLAN AND BUDGET COMMITTEE
May 4, 2021
The Board of Directors conducted this meeting in accordance with California Governor
Newsom’s Executive Order N-29-20. All Board members and staff participated via
teleconference.
DRAFT MINUTES
ROLL CALL
Director Cyr called the meeting to order at 1:00 p.m.
Members Present: Jed Cyr, Larry Hassett, and Yoriko Kishimoto
Members Absent: None
Staff Present: General Manager Ana Ruiz, General Counsel Hilary Stevenson, Chief
Financial Officer Stefan Jaskulak, Assistant General Manager Brian
Malone, Assistant General Manager Susanna Chan, Controller Mike
Foster, District Clerk/Assistant to the General Manager Jennifer
Woodworth, Budget & Analysis Manager Rafaela Duran, Natural
Resources Manager Kirk Lenington, Visitor Services Manager Matt
Anderson, Planning Manager Jane Mark, Land & Facilities Manager
Brandon Stewart, Engineering & Construction Manager Jay Lin,
Information Systems & Technology Manager Casey Hiatt, Public Affairs
Manager Kori Skinner, Real Property Manager Mike Williams, Budget
Analyst I Lupe Hernandez, and Budget Analyst I Elissa Martinez
ADOPTION OF AGENDA
Motion: Director Hassett moved, and Director Kishimoto seconded the motion to adopt the
agenda.
ROLL CALL VOTE: 3-0-0
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
District Clerk Jennifer Woodworth reported no public comments have been submitted.
COMMITTEE BUSINESS
1. Approve the April 29, 2021 Action Plan & Budget Committee Minutes
Action Plan & Budget Committee May 4, 2021
2
Item 1 was heard after Item 2.
Motion: Director Hassett moved, and Director Kishimoto seconded the motion to approve the
April 29, 2021 Action Plan and Budget Committee minutes.
ROLL CALL VOTE: 3-0-0
2. Continued Discussion of Proposed Fiscal Year 2021-22 Budget and Action Plan
Overview (R-21-57)
Chief Financial Officer/Director of Administrative Services Stefan Jaskulak provided an
overview of changes to the proposed FY2021-22 budget based on updated expenditure
information and additional information regarding restricted funds in the general fund.
Assistant General Manager Susanna Chan reviewed projects included in the Public Access,
Education, and Outreach program, including numerous regional trails, such as the Purisima-to-
the-Sea Trail, Alpine Road Regional Trail, and Highway 17 trail crossing; Districtwide ADA
barrier removal; and expanding public access at District preserves, such as at La Honda Creek,
Bear Creek Redwoods, and Windy Hill Preserves.
Director Kishimoto requested and received an update regarding use of the Driscoll Event Center
parking lot for hiker use, which was recently opened by permit.
Director Hassett requested and received an update regarding implementation of short-term
measures to support public access, which were suggested by the La Honda Public Access
Working Group.
Assistant General Manager Brian Malone described projects included in the Assets and
Organizational Support Program. Projects include agricultural workforce housing at the La
Honda Creek Open Space Preserve, property management for residential, office, and other
building sites, and improvements to business systems and administrative processes.
Director Hassett requested an update regarding the Skyline Field Office remodel project and
spoke in support of making necessary facility updates.
Mr. Malone reported the permit requirements for the driveway improvements and water storage
requirements raised the project costs back in 2008/09, and the project was subsequently removed
at that time from the action plan. In lieu of a major expansion, Mr. Malone described updates and
small improvements to the facility, which have since been made.
Directors Hassett and Cyr spoke in favor of a live staff member answering District phones.
Mr. Jaskulak provided additional information regarding the District’s phone system, which
allows callers to reach individual staff members directly or speak with the front desk staff
member.
Director Kishimoto requested additional information regarding projects supporting the District’s
diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives.
Action Plan & Budget Committee May 4, 2021
3
Public Affairs Manager Kori Skinner reported many aspects of the 50th anniversary celebration
will include activities supporting DEI initiatives, and DEI components are also included in many
of the District’s other projects, such as for the grants program. The District also has internal staff
teams working on DEI initiatives.
Director Kishimoto suggested including information highlighting DEI initiatives and projects in
the budget book.
Director Kishimoto requested that when the Measure AA projects are prioritized again that a
status update on current progress also be included.
Mr. Malone reported staff has typically brought the prioritization criteria to the Board for
approval.
Director Kishimoto asked that the Board be able to provide more input into the prioritized list.
Public comments opened at 2:38 p.m.
Ms. Woodworth reported no public comments were received for this item.
Public comments closed at 2:38 p.m.
Motion: Director Kishimoto moved, and Director Hassett seconded the motion to recommend
Board adoption of the Fiscal Year 2021-22 Budget and Action Plan.
Director Hassett requested adding a project to the Budget and Action Plan to update the Skyline
Field Office.
Ms. Ruiz stated additional information is needed to understand staff deployment to support
current and future District preserves. This information and recommendations are being
developed as part of the Coastal Management Plan that is underway. Once that information is
gathered, potential projects scopes to update or expand field offices can be identified and
resource loaded for Board consideration. Findings from the Coastal Management Plan are
expected to be ready for Board review by late 2021.
ROLL CALL VOTE: 3-0-0
ADJOURNMENT
Director Cyr adjourned the meeting of the Action Plan and Budget Committee of the
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District at 2:45 p.m.
__________________________________
Jennifer Woodworth, MMC
District Clerk
Rev. 3/15/21
R-22-19
Meeting 22-04
February 9, 2022
AGENDA ITEM 4
AGENDA ITEM
Contract with Comcast Business, Inc., for Fiber Optic Internet Services
GENERAL MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATION
Authorize the General Manager to enter into a contract with Comcast Business Inc., for five
years of high-speed fiber optic internet services at an annual amount of $180,000, for a total not-
to-exceed amount of $900,000, based upon a cooperative purchasing agreement through the State
of California CALNET contract.
SUMMARY
The General Manager recommends entering into a contract for five years of service with
Comcast Business Inc., (Comcast) for continued high speed fiber optic internet services at
District offices to support business continuity. Comcast’s fiber optic internet services provide
high-speed internet to District offices and high-speed connections between offices. The annual
cost would amount to $180,000 for a not-to-exceed total amount of $900,000 over the next five
years. There are sufficient funds in the fiscal year 2021-22 (FY22) budget to cover the first year
of expenses. Future annual funds would be budgeted for in the subsequent four fiscal years.
DISCUSSION
In 2018, the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (District) Board of Directors
(Board) awarded a three-year contract to Comcast for $530,000 to install fiber optic lines and
$345,000 to provide high-speed internet services. Installation of the fiber optic internet was
completed for the new Administrative, Foothills, Skyline, and South Area offices in FY20. The
increased fiber optic internet bandwidth has made it possible for the District to expand its
information systems to improve and enhance numerous business needs (e.g., Enterprise GIS,
Cityworks (asset management system), SharePoint (document management system), and the
Microsoft Office suite). These information systems are reliant on high-speed internet, as are the
District’s telephone systems and online meeting platforms (i.e., Microsoft Teams, Zoom, and the
Microsoft Phone System planned for implementation in late FY22). Continuing to fund fiber
optic internet services will allow the District to meet critical communication needs, support
business continuity and maintain and expand upon organizational efficiencies.
As of the prior 2018 three-year contract, annual costs have increased from $115,000 to $180,000
to account for the addition of a fourth office (South Area in Campbell) and an increase in
bandwidth from 200Mbps (Megabits per second) to 1000Mbps. This increased bandwidth is
necessary for online meetings, which are now critical for holding remote/hybrid public Board
R-22-19 Page 2
and Committee meetings and for District staff to conduct their work with partner agencies,
vendors, contractors, remote workers, and attend trainings.
Pricing for the recommended contract is derived from the State of California CALNET Contract.
The California Department of Technology (CDT) service offerings available through the
CALNET Contract are designed to meet State agency purchasing requirements and are available
to qualified non-state agencies, including special districts like the District. Section IV.C of Board
Policy 3.03, Public Contract Bidding, Vendor and Professional Consultant Selection, and
Purchasing Policy provides that the District may "join in cooperative purchasing agreements
with other public agencies (e.g., the State of California, counties, cities, schools, or other special
districts) to purchase goods or services at a price established by that agency through a
competitive bidding process."
FISCAL IMPACT
The FY22 budget contains sufficient funds to cover the cost of the contract through June. Funds
for future fiscal years will be recommended as a part of the annual Budget and Action Plan
process. Annual fees are based on State of California CALNET five-year contract pricing.
Agreement Year Fiscal Year Annual Cost
Year 1 FY22 $180,000
Year 2 FY23 $180,000
Year 3 FY24 $180,000
Year 4 FY25 $180,000
Year 5 FY26 $180,000
Total Costs $ 900,000
PRIOR BOARD AND COMMITTEE REVIEW
On April 25, 2018, the Board of Directors approved the General Manager’s recommendation to
enter into a prior three-year contract with Comcast for fiber optic installation and internet
services for a total not-to-exceed amount of $875,000. (R-18-40, Meeting Minutes)
PUBLIC NOTICE
Public notice was provided as required by the Brown Act.
CEQA COMPLIANCE
This item is not a project subject to the California Environmental Quality Act.
NEXT STEPS
Upon Board approval, the General Manager will execute the contract for Comcast fiber optic
internet service.
Responsible Department Head:
Casey Hiatt, IST Manager, Information Systems and Technology Department
R-22-19 Page 3
Prepared by / Contact person:
Owen Sterzl, IT Program Administrator, Information Systems and Technology Department
Rev. 3/15/21
R-22-16
Meeting 22-04
February 9, 2022
AGENDA ITEM 5
AGENDA ITEM
Award of Contract for Botanical Services in Support of the Fire Safe San Mateo County-
Highway 35 Evacuation Route Shaded Fuel Break Partnership
GENERAL MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Authorize the General Manager to enter into a multi-year contract with Avila and Associates
of Concord, California to provide botanical services in support of a collaborative partnership
for fuel reduction work with Fire Safe San Mateo County for a base amount of $65,950.
2. Authorize an allowance of $3,966 for the development of mitigation measures, if deemed
necessary for project implementation.
3. Authorize a 10% contingency of $6,595 to cover unforeseen conditions and complexities, for
a total contract amount not-to-exceed $76,511.
SUMMARY
Fire response agencies have deemed Highway 35 (Skyline Blvd) as an important evacuation
route in the Skyline region. Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (District) seeks
assistance from a qualified consultant to complete botanical surveys on District-managed lands
and prepare mitigation recommendations, as necessary, for a collaborative partnership to reduce
fuels along Highway 35. A Request for Qualifications and Proposals (RFQP) was issued on
November 12, 2021. The General Manager recommends awarding a contract to Avila &
Associates Consulting Engineers, Inc., (Avila) to provide botanical services for a base amount of
$65,950, an allowance of $3,966 for the development of mitigation measures (if necessary), and
authorizing a 10% contingency amount of $6,595 for a total not-to-exceed contract amount of
$76,511. This contract work will be considered as a match to a Fire Safe San Mateo County-led
CAL FIRE Early Action Fire Prevention Grant and is anticipated to span two fiscal years. There
are sufficient funds in the Fiscal Year 2021-22 (FY22) budget to cover the recommended action
and expenditures through the end of the fiscal year. Funds to continue a second year of contract
work will be proposed as part of the FY23 budget and action plan process.
PROJECT BACKGROUND
The Highway 35 Evacuation Route Shaded Fuel Break Partnership project will protect life,
property, infrastructure and the watershed by reducing fuels and fire risk along approximately 22
miles of mostly forested lands. Collaborating organizations include: CalTrans, Fire Safe San
Mateo County, Woodside Fire Protection District (Woodside Fire), and the District.
R-22-16 Page 2
A CAL FIRE Early Action Fire Prevention Grant Award is partially funding this project, for
$2,679,223 over four years (Project Tracking Number 20-FP-CZU-0315). This funding will
cover approximately 280 acres on District lands, including areas of: Coal Creek, El Corte de
Madera, La Honda Creek, Long Ridge, Miramontes Ridge, Monte Bello, Purisima Creek
Redwoods, Russian Ridge, Skyline Ridge, and Windy Hill Open Space Preserves.
DISCUSSION
Staff issued a RFQP on November 12, 2021, with the following consultant requirements that are
consistent with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) guidelines for botanical
surveys:
• Knowledge of plant taxonomy and natural community ecology;
• Familiarity with the plants of the area, including special status species;
• Familiarity with natural communities of the area, including special status natural
communities;
• Experience conducting floristic field surveys or experience with floristic surveys
conducted under the direction of an experienced surveyor;
• Familiarity with appropriate state and federal statutes related to plants and plant
collecting; and
• Experience with analyzing impacts of development on native plant species and natural
communities.
Staff circulated the RFQP through email and by posting on the BidSync website. The following
five firms submitted proposals by the December 20, 2021, deadline.
Firm Location Proposed Fees
(over 2 years)
Proposed Fees for
Mitigation Measures
Development^
Sequoia Ecological Consulting, Inc. Danville, CA $53,134 Failed to Provide
Nomad Ecology, LLC Martinez, CA $54,928 $4,030
AECOM Technical Services, Inc. Oakland, CA $59,928 $13,174
Avila & Associates Consulting
Engineers, Inc.
Walnut Creek, CA $65,950* $3,966
Horizon Water and Environment, LLC Oakland, CA $91,988 $6,440
* District staff negotiated with Avila & Associates to reduce fees by 12% from the original proposal.
^At this time, it is uncertain whether mitigation measures will be required; therefore, this item is accounted for as an allowance in the event
this service is needed.
Evaluation criteria were determined prior to the release of the RFQP that included the quality of
the proposal, project approach, firm expertise, and alignment with the District’s sustainability
and Equity goals. After careful review of all proposals, Avila, a woman and minority owned
small business, was deemed most qualified and best suited for the project at a fair and reasonable
price. Avila’s proposal went above and beyond describing their alignment with District policies
and priorities, including recommendations for incorporating climate change considerations and
addressing wildfire resiliency. In addition, their Project Manager and Senior Botanist brings 15
R-22-16 Page 3
years of experience in rare plant surveys within the District’s region (a requirement of a
protocol-level survey).
The base contract includes three rounds of botanical surveys (as required by CDFW), a final
botanical survey report, and Worker Environmental Awareness documents. Vegetation
management projects are designed to avoid impacts, when feasible. If the consultant identifies
sensitive species or habitats during the survey, the recommended allowance provides funding for
the consultant to develop mitigation measures for any impact that cannot be avoided. Mitigation
measures would be consistent with the District’s Wildland Fire Resiliency Program
Environmental Impact Report (R-21-58, Minutes).
FISCAL IMPACT
The Avila contract work will be considered as a match to the CAL FIRE Early Action Fire
Prevention Grant and is anticipated to span two fiscal years. There are sufficient funds in the
FY22 budget to cover the cost of the recommendation. Funds to continue a second year of
contract work will be proposed as part of the FY23 budget and action plan process.
The recommended action is not funded by Measure AA.
BOARD AND COMMITTEE REVIEW
A Board Committee did not previously review this item.
PUBLIC NOTICE
Public notice was provided as required by the Brown Act.
CEQA COMPLIANCE
Award of a contract is not a project subject to the California Environmental Quality Act.
Additionally, the proposed botanical surveys to be provided by the District’s contractor is
categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under Article 19,
Sections 15306:
Section 15306 exempts basic data collection, research, experimental management, and
resource evaluation activities which do not result in a serious or major disturbance to an
environmental resource. These may be strictly for information gathering purposes, or as
part of a study leading to an action which a public agency has not yet approved, adopted,
or funded.
Implementation of the shaded fuel break along the Highway 35 corridor on District lands will
comply with the District’s Wildland Fire Resiliency Program and its associated Environmental
Impact Report. Best Management Practices and applicable mitigation measures will be
incorporated into the Project as required.
R-22-16 Page 4
NEXT STEPS
Following Board approval, the General Manager will execute a contract with Avila for a two-
year period beginning in FY22.
Attachment
1. Highway 35 Project Map
Responsible Department Head:
Kirk Lenington, Natural Resources
Prepared by:
Coty Sifuentes-Winter, Senior Resource Management Specialist, Natural Resources
Contact person for the Highway 35 Partnership:
Christian Bonner, Field Resource Specialist, Land and Facilities
Contact person for Botanical Surveys:
Coty Sifuentes-Winter, Senior Resource Management Specialist, Natural Resources
Graphics prepared by:
Jamie Hawk, GIS Program Administrator
!
!
!!
!
!!!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
District
Boundary
Campbell
Half Moon Bay
Redwood City
San
Carlos
Belmont
Foster City
Hillsborough
Burlingame Union City
East Palo Alto
Los Altos
Mountain View
Palo
Alto
Menlo
Park
Stanford
Newark
Cupertino
Saratoga
Los Gatos
Morgan Hill
Alum Rock
Milpitas
La Honda
Pescadero
San Gregorio
Portola
Valley
Woodside
Boulder Creek
Fremont
Santa
Clara
Sunnyvale
S
k
ylin
e
Blvd
35
9
1
17
84
35
87
82
84
82
237
1
92
17
84
680
85
880
280
101
35
35
SANTA CLARA
COUNTY
SANTA CRUZ
COUNTY
SAN MATEO
COUNTY
San Jose
Midpeninsula Regional
Open Space District
(Midpen)
1/14/2022
Hwy 35 Critical Evacuation Route
Pa
t
h
:
G
:
\
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
\
a
_
D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t
w
i
d
e
\
F
i
r
e
_
M
a
p
s
\
H
w
y
3
5
_
C
r
i
t
i
c
a
l
E
v
a
c
u
a
t
i
o
n
R
o
u
t
e
\
H
w
y
3
5
_
C
r
i
t
i
c
a
l
E
v
a
c
u
a
t
i
o
n
R
o
u
t
e
.
a
p
r
x
Cr
e
a
t
e
d
B
y
:
j
h
a
w
k
0 105
MilesIMidpen Preserves
While the District strives to use the best available digital data, these data do not represent a legal survey and are merely a graphic illustration of geographic features.
Hwy 35 Critical Evacuation Route in San Mateo County
County Boundaries
Midpen District Boundary
Rev. 3/15/21
R-22-15
Meeting 22-04
February 9, 2022
AGENDA ITEM 6
AGENDA ITEM
Award of Contract for Botanical Services for Multiple Projects within the Skyline Area
GENERAL MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Authorize the General Manager to enter into a multi-year contract with AECOM Technical
Services, Inc., of Oakland, California to provide botanical services to support multiple
projects for a base amount not to exceed $69,170.
2. Authorize an allowance of $14,517 for the development of mitigation measures, if deemed
necessary for project implementation.
3. Authorize a 12% contingency of $8,300 to cover unforeseen conditions and complexities, for
a total contract amount not-to-exceed $91,987.
SUMMARY
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (District) requires assistance from a qualified
consultant to complete botanical surveys and if necessary, prepare mitigation recommendations
at six project sites. A Request for Qualifications and Proposals (RFQP) was issued on November
12, 2021. The General Manager recommends awarding a botanical services contract to AECOM
Technical Services, Inc. (AECOM), for a base amount not to exceed $69,170 with an allowance
of $14,517 to develop mitigation measures (if deemed necessary) and authorizing a 12%
contingency amount of $8,300 for a total not-to-exceed contract amount of $91,987. The
contract work is anticipated to span two fiscal years. There are sufficient funds in the Fiscal Year
2021-22 (FY22) budget to cover the recommended action and expenditures through the end of
the fiscal year. Funds to continue the second year of contract work would be proposed as part of
the FY23 annual budget and action plan process.
BACKGROUND
The conservation of special status native plants and their habitats, as well as sensitive natural
communities, is integral to maintaining biological diversity. Protocol botanical surveys ensure a
consistent and systematic approach for surveying, locating, assessing, and mapping special status
plants and sensitive natural communities to properly protect and steward these land resources.
This work is also critical to ensure that proposed projects are properly designed to avoid and/or
reduce impacts to these resources.
The recommended contract would provide the necessary botanical services for the following six
planned projects in the Skyline Area:
R-22-15 Page 2
Alpine Road and Thornewood Fuel Reduction – Alpine Road is bordered by both Russian Ridge
and Skyline Ridge Open Space Preserves (OSPs). Under the Wildland Fire Resiliency Program
(WFRP), a shaded fuel-break is planned to facilitate evacuations and emergency vehicle access.
In Thornewood OSP, ecologically sensitive vegetation management will reduce wildland fire
risk while maintaining and improving high biodiversity and ecological health on the landscape.
Alpine Road Regional Trail at Coal Creek OSP – The existing overly steep Alpine Road Bypass
Trail is planned to be re-routed and converted to a year-round trail as part of the Alpine Road
Trail Improvements project.
Restoration Forestry Demonstration Project – This project will pilot actions to improve short-
and long-term forest health in upper La Honda Creek OSP, including wildfire resiliency,
restoration forestry, and watershed improvements. Any area where vegetation work will be
performed requires a botanical survey.
La Honda Creek Phase II Trail Connections – This project includes the construction of multiple
segments of new trail to connect the existing Sears Ranch Parking Area with upper La Honda
Creek OSP as envisioned in the La Honda Creek OSP Master Plan.
Lower Turtle Pond Enhancement – Lower Turtle Pond’s spillway is scheduled to be expanded to
improve pond stability during flooding events and support both grazing operations and aquatic
species like western pond turtle. Grading and other earth-moving work require botanical
surveys.
Structures Disposition – This project, if approved through separate Board action, would demolish
and remove a residence and a barn in Russian Ridge OSP, including associated abandoned
utilities, and involve minor site grading and debris removal. Botanical surveys for this work
would not be authorized until and if the Board approves the demolition work. This item is
planned to come before the Board for consideration on February 23, 2022.
DISCUSSION
Staff issued a RFQP on November 12, 2021, with the following consultant requirements that are
consistent with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) guidelines for botanical
surveys:
• Knowledge of plant taxonomy and natural community ecology;
• Familiarity with the plants of the area, including special status species;
• Familiarity with natural communities of the area, including special status natural
communities;
• Experience conducting floristic field surveys or experience with floristic surveys
conducted under the direction of an experienced surveyor;
• Familiarity with appropriate state and federal statutes related to plants and plant
collecting; and
• Experience with analyzing impacts of development on native plant species and natural
communities.
R-22-15 Page 3
Staff circulated the RFQP through email and by posting on the BidSync website. The following
six firms submitted proposals by the December 20, 2021 deadline.
Firm Location Proposed Fees
(over 2 years)
Proposed Fees for
Mitigation Measures
Development^
SummitWest Environmental, Inc. Bend, OR $56,662 $2,672
Sequoia Ecological Consulting, Inc. Danville, CA $63,794 Failed to Provide
AECOM Technical Services, Inc. Oakland, CA $68,897* $14,517
Avila & Associates Consulting
Engineers, Inc. Walnut Creek, CA $127,023 $13,654
Horizon Water and Environment, LLC Oakland, CA $204,586 $6,440
SWCA Environmental Consultants Half Moon Bay, CA $292,813 Failed to Provide
*District staff negotiated with AECOM Technical Services, Inc. to reduce fees by 3% from the original proposal.
^At this time, it is uncertain whether mitigation measures will be required; therefore, this item is accounted for as an allowance in the event
this service is needed.
Evaluation criteria were determined prior to the release of the RFQP that included the quality of
the proposal, project approach, firm expertise, and alignment with the District’s sustainability
and equity goals. After careful review of all proposals, AECOM was deemed most qualified and
best suited for the project at a fair and reasonable price. AECOM’s Project Manager and Senior
Botanist brings 15 years of experience of rare plant surveys within the District’s region (a
CDFW requirement of a protocol-level survey).
The base contract includes three rounds of botanical surveys (as required by CDFW), a final
botanical survey report, and Worker Environmental Awareness documents. If the consultant
identifies sensitive species or habitats during the survey, the recommended allowance provides
funding for the consultant to develop mitigation measures for any impact that cannot be avoided.
Botanical field surveys are conducted in the field at the times of year when plants will be both
evident and identifiable. Usually this is during flowering or fruiting. The timing and number of
visits necessary to determine if special status plants are present is determined by geographic
location, the natural communities present, and the weather patterns of the year(s) in which
botanical field surveys are conducted. Although all six projects are all geographical close,
microclimates in the area may require separate timing for each survey. A 12% contingency is
requested due to the complex nature and extent of the different projects.
FISCAL IMPACT
There are sufficient funds in the various Fiscal Year 2021-22 (FY22) project budgets to cover the
recommended action and expenditures through the end of the fiscal year; see tables below for the
breakdown of the contracted work amongst five of the six projects. Funding for Lower Turtle
Pond Enhancement (the sixth project) is not shown in the tables below since this funding being
held within Natural Resources operating budget. Funds to continue the second year of contract
work will be proposed as part of the annual FY23 budget and action plan process. The
allowance for the development of mitigation measures will be held separately from the project
budgets and only utilized if needed.
R-22-15 Page 4
Fuel Reduction
#61017
Prior Year
Actuals
FY22
Amended
FY23
Projected
FY24
Projected
Estimated
Future
Years
TOTAL
Total Budget: $115,175 $306,500 $660,000 $660,000 $610,000 $2,351,675
Spent-to-Date
(as of 1/13/22): ($115,175) ($15,471) $0 $0 $0 ($130,646)
Encumbrances: $0 ($30,250) $0 $0 $0 ($30,250)
AECOM Technical
Services, Inc., Contract: $0 ($11,750) ($11,750) $0 $0 ($23,500)
12% Contingency: $0 ($1,400) ($1,400) $0 $0 ($2,800)
Budget Remaining
(Proposed): $0 $247,629 $646,850 $660,000 $610,000 $2,164,479
Alpine Road Regional
Trail, Coal Creek
MAA10-001
Prior Year
Actuals
FY22
Adopted
FY23
Projected
FY24
Projected
Estimated
Future
Years
TOTAL
Total Budget: $467,648 $175,325 $2,980,840 $0 $0 $3,623,813
Spent-to-Date
(as of 01/13/22): ($467,648) ($13,993) $0 $0 $0 ($481,641)
Encumbrances: $0 ($46,701) $0 $0 $0 ($46,701)
AECOM Technical
Services, Inc., Contract: $0 ($3,850) ($3,850) $0 $0 ($7,700)
12% Contingency: $0 ($450) ($450) $0 $0 ($900)
Budget Remaining
(Proposed): $0 $110,331 $2,976,540 $0 $0 $3,086,871
Restoration Forestry
Demonstration Project
MAA05-010
Prior Year
Actuals
FY22
Amended*
FY23
Projected
FY24
Projected
Estimated
Future
Years
TOTAL
Total Budget: $32,067 $99,126 $571,706 $365,000 $0 $1,067,899
Spent-to-Date
(as of 01/13/22): $32,067 ($1,920) $0 $0 $0 ($33,987)
Encumbrances: $0 ($15,475) $0 $0 $0 ($15,475)
AECOM Technical
Services, Inc., Contract: $0 ($12,400) ($12,400) $0 $0 ($24,800)
12% Contingency: $0 ($1,500) ($1,500) $0 $0 ($3,000)
Budget Remaining
(Proposed): $0 $67,831 $557,806 $365,000 $0 $990,637
*FY22 amended budget includes proposed Q2 budget adjustment going to the Board at the same 02/09/22 meeting (R-22-XX)
La Honda Creek Phase
II Trail Connections
MAA05-007
Prior Year
Actuals
FY22
Adopted
FY23
Projected
FY24
Projected
Estimated
Future
Years
TOTAL
Total Budget: $0 $95,573 $191,049 $80,000 $105,000 $471,622
Spent-to-Date
(as of 01/13/22): $0 ($1,856) $0 $0 $0 ($1,856)
Encumbrances: $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
AECOM Technical
Services, Inc., Contract: $0 ($3,100) ($3,100) $0 $0 ($6,200)
12% Contingency: $0 ($350) ($350) $0 $0 ($700)
Budget Remaining
(Proposed): $0 $90,267 $187,599 $80,000 $105,000 $462,866
R-22-15 Page 5
Structures Disposition
#35010
Prior Year
Actuals
FY22
Amended*
FY23
Projected
FY24
Projected
Estimated
Future
Years
TOTAL
Total Budget: $0 $56,000 $524,500 $524,500 $0 $1,105,000
Spent-to-Date (as of
1/13/22): $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Encumbrances: $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
AECOM Technical
Services, Inc., Contract: $0 ($2,050) ($2,050) $0 $0 ($4,100)
12% Contingency: $0 ($250) ($250) $0 $0 ($500)
Budget Remaining
(Proposed): $0 $53,700 $522,200 $524,500 $0 $1,100,400
*FY22 amended budget includes proposed Q2 budget adjustment going to the Board at the same 02/09/22 meeting (R-22-20)
Note: Fuel Reductions project #61017, Lower Turtle Pond Enhancement project (no project
number), and Structures Disposition project #35010 are not funded by Measure AA.
PRIOR BOARD AND COMMITTEE REVIEW
Alpine Road and Thornewood Fuel Reduction
The Board approved the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) prepared for the WFRP on May 12,
2021 (R-21-58, Minutes). Under the WFRP, the project area is prioritized as a Tier 1 or 2, with
additional areas included for economy of scope.
Alpine Road Regional Trail at Coal Creek OSP
The Board certified the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Alpine Road Trail Improvements
on January 13, 2021 (R-21-04, Minutes). This project covers the proposed re-route of the
existing “Bypass Trail” alignment.
Restoration Forestry Demonstration Project
On July 28, 2021, the Board received a presentation on the findings of the La Honda
Forest Health Management Assessment (R-21-103, Minutes)
La Honda Creek Phase II Trail Connections
The Board certified the Mitigated Negative Declaration and approved the La Honda Creek
Master Plan on August 22, 2012 (R-22-15, Minutes). This project covers Phase II of the
proposed Master Plan trail alignments for public access.
Lower Turtle Pond Enhancement
A Board Committee did not previously review this item. The botanical survey is necessary to
determine the feasibility of the proposed pond improvements and to develop the project
description.
Structures Disposition
Botanical surveys for this work would not be authorized until and if the Board approves the
demolition work. This item is planned to come before the Board for consideration on February
23, 2022.
R-22-15 Page 6
PUBLIC NOTICE
Public notice was provided as required by the Brown Act.
CEQA COMPLIANCE
Award of a contract is not a project subject to the California Environmental Quality Act.
Additionally, the proposed botanical surveys to be provided by the consultant are categorically
exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under Article 19, Section
15306:
Section 15306 exempts basic data collection, research, experimental management, and
resource evaluation activities which do not result in a serious or major disturbance to an
environmental resource. These may be strictly for information gathering purposes, or as
part of a study leading to an action which a public agency has not yet approved, adopted,
or funded.
Implementation of the projects identified above require a separate CEQA analysis. For each
respective project, the Board has taken or will take a separate action to proceed with the project,
at which time the appropriate CEQA determination and findings are made.
NEXT STEPS
Following Board approval, the General Manager will execute a contract with AECOM Technical
Services, Inc., for a two-year period beginning in FY22.
Responsible Department Head:
Kirk Lenington, Natural Resources
Prepared by:
Coty Sifuentes-Winter, Senior Resource Management Specialist, Natural Resources
R-22-21
Meeting No. 22-04
February 9, 2022
AGENDA ITEM 7
AGENDA ITEM
Teleconferenced Board Meetings Pursuant to the Brown Act and Assembly Bill 361
GENERAL MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a resolution affirming findings on the continued need for remote teleconferenced public
meetings pursuant to AB 361.
SUMMARY
On October 13, 2021 the Board of Directors (Board) adopted Resolution 21-33, recognizing the
continuing state of emergency in California, and authorizing remote teleconferenced public
meetings of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (District). This action was taken
pursuant to new legislation modifying the Brown Act to empower local public agencies to
conduct meetings by teleconference, including video conference, without complying with
traditional Brown Act teleconference regulations during a period of emergency (“AB 361”). The
legislation requires the Board to reconsider the need for remote public meetings every 30 days.
DISCUSSION
On October 13, 2021 the Board of Directors (Board) adopted Resolution 21-33, recognizing the
continuing state of emergency in California, and authorizing remote teleconferenced public
meetings of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (District). This action was taken
pursuant to new legislation modifying the Brown Act to empower local public agencies to
conduct meetings by teleconference, including video conference, without complying with
traditional Brown Act teleconference regulations during a period of emergency (“AB 361”). The
legislation requires the Board to reconsider the need for remote public meetings every 30 days.
Pursuant to California Government Code section 54953(e), the General Manager recommends that
the Board continue to forego in-person meetings at this time in order to protect the health and
safety of attendees and District Board and staff due to the characteristics of the COVID-19
pandemic. The Resolution (Attachment 1) makes findings to allow the District to continue holding
teleconferenced meetings in light of the continuing risks to the health and safety of attendees.
It is uncertain when the COVID-19 pandemic will be fully brought under control. On September
21, 2021, the Santa Clara County Health Officer issued a formal recommendation that
governmental entities continue to hold remote public meetings given the ongoing threat of
COVID-19. In addition, the region continues to be impacted by a recent surge of infections
related to the Omicron variant. Therefore, emergency conditions related to COVID-19 are
R-22-21 Page 2
ongoing and the Board has ample evidence to conclude that there is a need to continue
teleconferencing for public meetings without posting the teleconferencing locations on the
agenda and without requiring the teleconference locations to be publicly accessible.
On November 10, 2021, Governor Newsom issued Executive Order N-21-21, extending the
proclaimed state of emergency in California through March 31, 2022.
Under AB 361, once the Board adopts a resolution to hold teleconferenced meetings, all of the
following requirements apply under the Brown Act:
1. Notice and agenda posting requirements generally remain the same.
2. No physical location is required for public attendance or public comment at public
meetings. However, the public must be able to access and participate in the meeting
through a call-in or an internet-based service, and instructions for how to participate must
appear in the posted notices or agenda.
3. Teleconferenced meetings must protect the statutory and constitutional rights of the parties
and the public.
4. If there is any disruption of the call-in or internet-based service, the agency must suspend
the meeting until the problem is fixed.
5. Legislative bodies may allow public comments to be submitted prior to a meeting and must
also allow the public to participate in real time through call-in or internet-based service.
6. If an internet-based service requires registration through a third-party, individuals can be
required to register with the third-party to participate in the meeting.
7. When providing a public comment period, whether after each item or during a general
comment period, a legislative body must allow reasonable time for members of the public
to comment and must also include reasonable time for members to register with a third-
party host, if applicable.
The District’s current remote meeting operations meet these requirements, and staff is prepared to
ensure compliance going forward.
FISCAL IMPACT
The cost of continuing teleconferenced meetings is approximately $500 per month for the Zoom
webinar subscription. There are sufficient funds in the FY22 budget for this expense.
BOARD AND COMMITTEE REVIEW
None.
PUBLIC NOTICE
Public notice was provided as required by the Brown Act.
CEQA COMPLIANCE
This item is not a project subject to the California Environmental Quality Act.
R-22-21 Page 3
NEXT STEPS
The Board of Directors will reconsider the need for remote meetings every 30 days.
Attachments:
1. Resolution affirming findings on the continued need for remote teleconferenced public
meetings of the Board of Directors and Board Committees
Responsible Department Head:
Ana Ruiz, General Manager
Prepared by:
Hilary Stevenson, General Counsel
Staff contact:
Ana Ruiz, General Manager
Hilary Stevenson, General Counsel
Resolutions/2022/22-xx_AffirmTeleconferenceMeetings 1
ATTACHMENT 1
RESOLUTION NO. 22-xx
RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE MIDPENINSULA
REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT AFFIRMING FINDINGS ON THE
CONTINUED NEED FOR REMOTE TELECONFERENCED PUBLIC
MEETINGS OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS AND BOARD COMMITTEES
WHEREAS, the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (“District”) is committed
to preserving and nurturing public access and participation in meetings of the Board of Directors;
and
WHEREAS, California Government Code section 54953(e) empowers local legislative
bodies to conduct meetings via teleconferencing under specified conditions, including that the
Board of Directors make specified findings every 30 days; and
WHEREAS, the Governor of the State of California’s March 4, 2020 Proclamation of a
State of Emergency remains in effect as of the date of this Resolution; and
WHEREAS, on September 21, 2021, the Santa Clara County Health Officer issued a
Recommendation Regarding Continued Remote Public Meetings of Governmental Entities,
basing the recommendation on: 1) the continued threat of COVID-19 to the community, 2) the
unique characteristics of public governmental meetings (such as the increased mixing associated
with bringing together people from across the community, the need to enable those who are
immunocompromised or unvaccinated to be able to safely continue to fully participate in public
governmental meetings, and the challenges with fully ascertaining and ensuring compliance with
vaccination and other safety recommendations at such meetings), and 3) the continued increased
safety protection that social distancing provides as one means by which to reduce the risk of
COVID-19 transmission; and
WHEREAS, for the reasons set forth in the Santa Clara County Health Officer’s
recommendation, the District is concerned about the health and safety of all individuals who
attend open and public meetings of the District; and
WHEREAS, the conditions under which Board of Directors initially determined that
there is a need to conduct meetings via teleconferencing as set forth in Resolution 21-33 are
therefore still in existence.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS
OF THE MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT AS FOLLOWS:
1. The Board of Directors has reviewed the need for continuing teleconferenced meetings.
2. In compliance with California Government Code section 54953(e), the Board makes the
following findings:
a. The state of emergency continues to impact the ability of the District’s legislative
bodies, as well as staff and members of the public, to meet safely in person.
b. State or local officials continue to impose or recommend measures to promote
social distancing.
Resolutions/2022/22-xx_AffirmTeleconferenceMeetings 2
ATTACHMENT 1
3. The Board of Directors authorizes and directs the General Manager and legislative bodies
of the District, including all standing and ad hoc committees of the Board of Directors,
and all advisory bodies created or appointed by the Board of Directors, including the
Bond Oversight Committee, to take all actions necessary to carry out the intent and
purpose of this Resolution, including conducting open and public meetings in accordance
with Government Code section 54953(e) and other applicable provisions of the Brown
Act.
4. This Resolution is effective upon adoption.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Board of Directors of the Midpeninsula Regional
Open Space District on ____, 2022, at a regular meeting thereof, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
ATTEST: APPROVED:
Secretary
Board of Directors
President
Board of Directors
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Hilary Stevenson, General Counsel
I, the District Clerk of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District, hereby certify
that the above is a true and correct copy of a resolution duly adopted by the Board of Directors
of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District by the above vote at a meeting thereof duly
held and called on the above day.
Jennifer Woodworth, District Clerk
Rev. 3/15/21
R-22-17
Meeting 22-04
February 9, 2022
AGENDA ITEM 8
AGENDA ITEM
Award of Contract with Vollmar Natural Land Consulting for the Preparation of Habitat
Restoration Plans for the Irish Ridge Area of Purisima Creek Redwoods Open Space Preserve
GENERAL MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Authorize the General Manager to enter into a contract with Vollmar Natural Lands
Consulting to provide ecological surveys, analysis, planning, and permitting assistance for
land restoration work at Purisima Creek Redwoods Open Space Preserve for a base contract
amount of $160,820.
2. Authorize a 10% contingency of $16,082 to cover unforeseen complexities or additional
biological survey needs, bringing the total contract to a not-to-exceed amount of $176,902.
SUMMARY
The Natural Resources Department has identified the Irish Ridge area of Purisima Creek
Redwoods Open Space Preserve as a high priority site for land restoration and by CalFire as a
high priority site for improved fire safety. This report provides an overview of natural resource
restoration options as well as informational gaps that need to be addressed to meet stewardship
objectives. The General Manager recommends awarding a contract to Vollmar Natural Lands
Consulting (Vollmar) of Berkeley, CA, for a not-to-exceed base amount of $160,820 to secure
ecological services for restoring and maximizing the long-term natural resource values within the
Irish Ridge area of Purisima Creek Redwoods Open Space Preserve. A 10% contingency of
$16,082 is also requested to address unforeseen complexities or additional biological surveys, for
a total not-to-exceed contract amount of $176,902. There are sufficient funds in the project
budget to cover the recommended action through the end of the fiscal year. Funds for FY23 will
be proposed as part of the annual budget and action plan process.
BACKGROUND
The Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (District) purchased the first Purisima Creek
Redwoods Open Space Preserve property in 1982 and has since incorporated additional
properties, growing the Preserve to its current size of 4,711 acres. The trees at Purisima Creek
Redwoods are predominantly second-growth redwoods of uneven age, with trees varying
between 50 and 100 years old. The original redwood forest was logged in the late 1800s and
early 1900s. The largest redwoods were approximately 1,000 years old when they were cut, with
diameters between 10 and 20 feet.
R-22-17 Page 2
Several large stands of non-native/non-local, invasive tree species have been identified in the
Preserve and are presumed to have been actively planted in the Irish Ridge area before District
ownership (Attachment 1: Project Location Map). These non-native trees were likely planted as
a potential lumber crop; however, as is the case with many planted trees in the San Mateo coastal
area, the trees proved to produce poor quality wood for lumber production due to twisted, uneven
growth. The non-native/non-local trees at Irish Ridge have since grown into a dense overstory
and now exclude many native species (including the rare Kings Mountain manzanita), provide
poor quality habitat for rare species (e.g., federally and state listed marbled murrelet), increase
the fire risk, and continue to invade surrounding areas, further displacing native species and
degrading habitats.
The site has been identified by the Natural Resources Department as a high priority area to
restore to more natural conditions, and by CalFire as a high priority to improve fire safety in the
area.
DISCUSSION
Project Design Objectives and Requirements
The planned restoration work at Irish Ridge has three objectives: (1) protect and restore the
natural resources, (2) increase climate change resiliency by increasing carbon sequestration
through native forest restoration, and (3) reduce wildfire risk and improve the Irish Ridge Trail
as a potential evacuation route per discussions with CalFire (the site is listed as a priority in the
District’s Wildland Fire Resiliency Program).
Strategies to meet the objectives include:
• Preventing or reducing/mitigating human-caused impacts, including erosion, invasion of
non-native species, disruption of the natural water flow, degradation of water quality,
trampling of vegetation, and displacement of wildlife;
• Protecting and restoring rare, endangered, special status species and sensitive habitats;
• Restoring the area as a composite resource, rather than as a separate and isolated area;
• Prioritizing ecosystem function, resilience, and ecological diversity focused on multiple
species benefits;
• Accounting for climate change impacts to natural resources; and
• Increasing public knowledge, understanding, and appreciation of the natural and cultural
resources of the preserves, and support for their conservation.
On November 18, 2020, the Board of Directors (Board) authorized the General Manager to enter
into contract with Applied Technology & Science (ATS) for restoration feasibility studies of the
Irish Ridge property (R-20-134, Minutes). ATS has since completed the Irish Ridge Restoration
Feasibility Study (Attachment 2) and the Biomass Disposition Alternatives White Paper
(Attachment 3).
The feasibility study completed by ATS focused on large, dense stands of non-native and/or non-
local trees in the southwest corner of the Preserve (Unit 1: approximately 14 acres). A second
potential restoration area has since been discovered by field staff during trail scoping for the
Purisima-to-the-Sea Trail project (Unit 2: approximately 10 acres). This area is 2,000 feet west
of where the Purisima-to-the-Sea Trail is expected to be located. Both of these areas were likely
a mix of habitat types, including redwood forest, scrub, and grassland habitats prior to logging
and habitat conversion resulting from the planting of non-native/non-local timber tree. The
R-22-17 Page 3
restoration goal for these areas is to restore a mix of native habitats, prioritizing redwood forest
habitat due to its natural fire resiliency and carbon sequestration benefits. The table below
describes the status and fire ecology of the non-native/non-local species recommended for
treatment.
Common Name Scientific Name Status Fire Ecology
Blackwood acacia Acacia melanoxylon Invasive, not native Tolerant
Eucalyptus Eucalyptus sp. Invasive, not native Tolerant
Knobcone pine Pinus attenuata Non-local, native Obligate
Obligate – fire is required to complete its life cycle.
Tolerant - withstands a degree of burning and continue growing. Fire germinates seeds. Highly flammable.
Knobcone pines are considered a non-local species and were specifically planted in this location
as a potential timber crop. The trees are of unknown origin. The nearest natural stand is over 20
miles to the south in Butano State Park. Knobcone pines are an obligate fire species; the species
is dependent upon stand-replacing crown fire for reproduction.
Pathogen
A recent local study identified the presence of two fungal species associated with significant Bay
Area-wide acacia mortality, including on San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC)
watershed lands. During a May 2021 inventory of Irish Ridge, the mortality and decline of
acacia trees was estimated to be around 30%. The cause of this mortality remains undetermined;
however, there is the potential for these fungal pathogens to also occur at this site. The mortality
of non-local, native knobcone pines growing in the Irish Ridge property is approximately 50%,
and significant amounts of leaking sap was observed on live trees.
Biomass Disposal
One of the largest obstacles to the restoration of these forest habitats is the large quantity of
biomass that will be generated from the non-native tree removal. The recommended biomass
disposal method for this site utilizes an air curtain burner. An air curtain burner blows high
velocity air (curtain) into the upper portion of a combustion chamber, entrapping particulates
(smoke) to significantly reduce air emissions and its affects to nearby sensitive
individuals/receptors. This is especially important on cold, calm days, when smoke can become
trapped close to the ground by a layer of warm air acting as a lid over a layer of cooler air (also
known as an inversion layer). Inversions prevent the air below from rising, which causes
pollutants to build up. Air curtain burners generate lower greenhouse gas emissions compared to
that of trucking the material to an offsite disposal facility and avoid generating truck traffic
disturbances to nearby residents. In addition, the proposed biomass disposal methodology
eliminates the risk of spreading plant pathogens to other locations and reduces wood waste by
98% to 99%. See the U.S. Forest Service website for more information:
https://www.fs.fed.us/eng/pubs/html/02511317/02511317.htm.
With the completion of Phase I – Feasibility Study, the District is now ready to proceed with
Phase II – Preparation of the Habitat Restoration Plans.
Consultant Scope of Work Under the Recommended Contract for Phase II
The consultant scope of work to inform and develop the Irish Ridge Habitat Restoration Plan
with the inclusion of Unit 2 and the known presence of two fungal pathogens includes:
R-22-17 Page 4
• Soil Sampling: including horizons, texture, pH, and nutrient levels up to 24 inches below
the surface;
• Plant Litter Sampling 1: Representative sampling of accumulated plant litter depth;
• Geomorphic Analysis: Parameters will include, but not be limited to, slope, aspect, and
solar radiation as developed from LiDAR data;
• Reconnaissance-level biological surveys within Unit 2 to identify additional high-
priority invasive weeds and native botanical resources; and
• Identification of outlying invasive tree seedlings and saplings.
These investigations will refine the revegetation objectives, define the desired future conditions,
and inform the selection of appropriate reference sites.
The Restoration Feasibility Study references the Kings Mountain manzanita habitat suitability
study and notes that there is potential habitat for this species within Irish Ridge. To recommend
the best locations for reestablishing this particular manzanita species, the consultant will need to
integrate field soil data with geomorphic and plant community modeling. This analysis and
modeling will provide a solid understanding of when and how to incorporate these rare plants as
part of the larger restoration project and provide a baseline for future monitoring and tracking to
understand the level of success for their reintroduction into historic habitat areas.
Consultant Selection
On September 9, 2020, staff issued a RFQP for all phases of the project (Phase I – Feasibility
Study, and Phase II – Preparation of Habitat Restoration Plans) by posting on the District’s
website and BidSync and emailing eleven firms with pertinent experience. A virtual pre-
proposal conference was held on September 8, 2020 and attended by ten firms. The District
received collaborative proposals from three separate teams by the October 9, 2020, deadline:
Lead Firm Location Phase I
Proposed Fees
Phase II
Proposed Fees
Total
Proposed Fees
ATS San Francisco, CA $34,785* $57,230 $92,015
Vollmar Berkeley, CA $34,840 $111,960* $146,800
GPA Consulting El Segundo, CA $54,980 $82,830 $146,921
*Original proposed amount for each phase; these amounts were revised after additional scope was included during negotiations.
After careful review of all proposals, staff interviewed the top two firms, ATS and Vollmar,
deeming ATS as the most qualified and best suited for the project at a fair and reasonable price.
ATS has since completed Phase I composed of the Irish Ridge Restoration Feasibility Study
(Attachment 2) and the Biomass Disposition Alternatives White Paper (Attachment 3). As of
completion of the feasibility study and white paper report, ATS has undergone numerous
personnel changes, causing District staff to reevaluate how to proceed with Phase II.
Given new project complexities related to the identification of pathogens and the addition of Unit
2, as well as the personnel changes at ATS, District staff recommends contracting with Vollmar
to complete Phase II. Vollmar was also deemed to be a highly qualified firm during the original
1 Litter may have altered the soil chemistry by adding allelotoxins or excessive nutrients (these tree species have
allelopathic effects on other plants, and blackwood acacia is also a nitrogen-fixer in the legume family). The litter
sampling will inform the potential need to remove accumulated litter.
R-22-17 Page 5
solicitation and can perform the scope of work at a fair and reasonable price. Since their
founding in 1996, Vollmar has completed more than 350 projects ranging from small site
assessments to large-scale conservation, mitigation, research, and development projects. They
possess expertise in the following key areas:
• Rare Plant and Wildlife Surveys, Habitat Assessments, and Species Restoration
• Formal Wetland Delineation and Sensitive Habitat Mapping
• Vegetation Ecology, Classification, and Mapping
• Regional Conservation Planning and Development Studies
• Conservation Land Management and Monitoring, and Invasive Species Control
• Wetland, Riparian, and Upland Habitat Restoration
• Biological Constraints Analysis, Impact Assessment, and Permitting
• Advanced GIS Analysis, Remote Sensing, and Cartography
The General Manager therefore recommends authorizing a contract with Vollmar, based on the
qualifications of their key personnel and expertise in restoration and land stewardship.
FISCAL IMPACT
The FY22 adopted budget includes $80,000 for the Irish Ridge Restoration project #80072.
There are sufficient funds in the project budget to cover the recommended action and
expenditures through the end of the fiscal year. Funds for FY23 will be proposed as part of the
upcoming budget and action plan process at which time the total project budget will be adjusted
to reflect the new cost estimates.
Irish Ridge Restoration
#80072
Prior
Year
Actuals
FY22
Adopted
FY23
Projected
FY24
Projected
Estimated
Future
Years
TOTAL
Total Budget: $0 $80,000 $230,000 $245,000 $245,000 $800,000
Spent-to-Date
(as of 01/12/22): $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Encumbrances: $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Vollmar Natural Land
Consulting Contract: $0 ($80,000) ($80,820) $0 $0 ($160,820)
10% Contingency: $0 $0 ($16,082) $0 $0 ($16,082)
Budget Remaining
(Proposed): $0 $0 $133,098 $245,000 $245,000 $623,098*
*The total project cost will be revised once the FY23 budget is approved in June 2022.
Cost Estimate for Future Restoration Work
The preliminary engineer’s estimate for restoration ranges from $795,000 to $1,420,000
(encompasses over 3 years of removal operations and 5 years of plant establishment) and
includes tree removal, soil and erosion management, disposal costs, planting and seeding, three
years of plant establishment, monitoring, and reporting. The cost range is attributed to the
disposal method used for non-native species. The estimated cost includes the restoration of both
the original, non-native acacia site and human-planted plantations of Eucalyptus and non-local
knobcone pine. The restoration work was not identified as a project under Measure AA and thus
would require general funds to complete. Preliminary analysis by both the Natural Resources
and Grants staff and early discussions with some granting agencies show that this restoration
R-22-17 Page 6
project would be competitive for a grant due to its three objectives: voluntary restoration, climate
change/improved carbon sequestration, and wildfire resiliency.
The recommended action is not funded by Measure AA.
BOARD AND COMMITTEE REVIEW
On November 18, 2020, the Board of Directors authorized the General Manager to enter into
contract with ATS to conduct the Irish Ridge restoration feasibility studies (R-20-134, Minutes).
PUBLIC NOTICE
Public notice was provided as required by the Brown Act. Adjoining neighbors near the project
site have been notified.
CEQA COMPLIANCE
Award of a contract is not a project subject to the California Environmental Quality Act.
Additionally, the proposed ecological surveys to be provided by the District’s consultant are
categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under Article 19,
Sections 15306:
Section 15306 exempts basic data collection, research, experimental management, and
resource evaluation activities which do not result in a serious or major disturbance to an
environmental resource. These may be strictly for information gathering purposes, or as
part of a study leading to an action which a public agency has not yet approved, adopted,
or funded.
A requirement of the consultant’s work is to produce a habitat restoration plan comprised of
actions that have already been fully evaluated in existing District CEQA documents, when
feasible. These existing CEQA documents include the Wildland Fire Resiliency Program EIR,
the Integrated Pest Management Program EIR, and the San Mateo Coastal Annexation EIR. The
District will determine if additional CEQA review is required once the habitat restoration plan is
prepared.
NEXT STEPS
Following Board approval, the General Manager will execute a contract with Vollmar.
Attachments
1. Location Map
2. Irish Ridge Restoration Feasibility Study
3. Biomass Disposition Alternatives White Paper
Responsible Department Head:
Kirk Lenington, Natural Resources
Prepared by:
Coty Sifuentes-Winter, Senior Resource Management Specialist, Natural Resources
R-22-17 Page 7
Graphics prepared by:
Bryan Apple, Capital Projects Field Manager, Land & Facilities
æ
æ
Lobi t o s Creek
Tunitas
Creek
Pu r i s i m a C r e e k
L o bi t o s C r eek
Tunit a s Creek R d
TunitasCreek R d
Purisi m a C r e e k R d
Irish Rid g e Trail
Lo b i t os Creek Tr
a
i
l
V
e
r
d
e
R
d
Lobi
t
o
s
C
r
e
e
k
R
d
ÄÆ1
Chorus
Frog Pond
October Pond
Pacific
Ocean TC01
South Cowell
Upland Upper
South Cowell
Upland Lower
TUNITAS CREEK
OPEN SPACE
PRESERVE
PURISIMA CREEK
REDWOODS OPEN
SPACE PRESERVE
Midpeninsula Regional
Open Space District
(Midpen)
11/2/2021
Pa
t
h
:
G
:
\
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
\
P
u
r
i
s
i
m
a
_
C
r
e
e
k
_
R
e
d
w
o
o
d
s
\
P
u
r
i
s
i
m
a
_
t
o
_
t
h
e
_
S
e
a
\
C
r
e
w
_
S
c
o
u
t
i
n
g
\
P
2
S
_
B
o
a
r
d
T
r
a
i
l
s
M
a
p
_
2
0
2
1
1
2
0
1
.
m
x
d
Cr
e
a
t
e
d
B
y
:
b
a
p
p
l
e
0 0.450.225
Miles
I
While the District strives to use the best available digital data, these data do not represent a legal survey and are merely a graphic illustration of geographic features.
Area of
Detail
Redwood City
Belmont
Los
Altos
Palo Alto
Menlo Park
Cupertino
Saratoga
Los Gatos
Milpitas
Santa Clara
Purisima-to-the-Sea
Trail Conceptual
Alignments
POST Trai
l
E
a
s
e
m
e
n
t
Proposed Purisima-to-the-
Sea Alignment (Connects
to Alternatives 1-3)
Alignment Alternative 1
Alignment Alternative 2
Alignment Alternative 3
POST Trail Easement
POST Trail Easement
Connector Trail Option
South Cowell
Property Boundary
Potential Restoration Site
Eucalyptus
and Pine
Plantation
Original
Acacia
Tree Site
ATTACHMENT 1
Prepared For: Midpeninsula Regional
Open Space District
Prepared By: Applied Technology &
Science
August 2021
Irish Ridge Restoration
Feasibility Study
ATTACHMENT 2
i
Contents
Introduction .................................................................................................................................................. 1
Goals and Objectives .................................................................................................................................... 1
Treatment Units ........................................................................................................................................... 2
Unit 1 – Acacia .......................................................................................................................................... 4
Unit 2 – Eucalyptus – Pine ........................................................................................................................ 4
Desired Outcomes and Reference Sites ...................................................................................................... 6
Coastal Redwood Forest and Woodland Alliance ................................................................................... 6
Kings Mountain Manzanita (Special-status species community type) ................................................. 6
California Coastal Scrub Macrogroup ...................................................................................................... 7
Nassella spp. - Melica spp. Herbaceous Alliance .................................................................................... 7
Biomass Disposal .......................................................................................................................................... 7
Offsite Transport and Disposal ................................................................................................................ 7
Compost ................................................................................................................................................ 7
Green Waste Recycling ......................................................................................................................... 8
Biomass Energy ..................................................................................................................................... 8
Landfill .................................................................................................................................................. 9
Onsite Disposal ......................................................................................................................................... 9
Plant Pathogens .......................................................................................................................................... 10
Invasive Plants ............................................................................................................................................ 10
Special Status Species ................................................................................................................................ 11
Bats ......................................................................................................................................................... 11
Other Special-Status Species.................................................................................................................. 11
Cultural Resources ...................................................................................................................................... 13
CEQA/Permit Analysis ................................................................................................................................ 13
California Coastal Commission – Coastal Development Permit ........................................................... 13
Wildland Fire Resiliency Program Environmental Impact Report (EIR) ............................................... 13
CAL FIRE – Timber Harvest Plan (THP) ................................................................................................... 13
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and California Department of Fish and Wildlife ................................... 13
State Water Quality Control Board – Storm Water Pollution Protection Plan (SWPPP) ..................... 14
Community Outreach and Research Opportunities .................................................................................. 14
Engineers Estimate ..................................................................................................................................... 15
Attachment A – Tree Inventory Methods ................................................................................................. 16
ATTACHMENT 2
ii
Attachment B – Site Photographs .............................................................................................................. 19
Attachment C – Acacia Pathogen Report .................................................................................................. 27
Pathogen Study .......................................................................................................................................... 50
References .................................................................................................................................................. 51
ATTACHMENT 2
1
Introduction
This document provides a feasibility assessment for the removal of approximately 24 acres of non-
native/out of range tree species in the Irish Ridge Area of the Midpeninsula Reginal Open Space
District’s (District) Purisima Creek Redwoods Open Space Preserve (OSP) in San Mateo County (Figure 1).
Figure 1. Map of project location
Goals and Objectives
The District’s mission 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. District policies include resources management to ensure proper care of the
lands which they manage consistent with ecological values and public safety. As part of those policies,
the District protects and restores the natural diversity and integrity of its resources for their value to the
environment, and the public, and provides for the use of the preserves consistent with resource
protection. Measure AA was passed in 2014 to improve access to hiking and biking opportunities;
protect and preserve redwood forests, natural open spaces, the scenic beauty of our region and
coastline, and critical wildlife habitat; restore creeks to protect water quality; and reduce forest fire risk.
Consistent with the intent of the District’s mission and Measure AA:
Goal: Restore the landscape to ecologically functioning native plant communities with the
removal of non-native trees and reduce fuel and fire risk, from approximately 24 acres
within the Purisima Creek Redwood OSP.
ATTACHMENT 2
2
Objectives:
• Remove an estimated 14,250 non-native blackwood acacia (Acacia melanoxylon), eucalyptus
(Eucalyptus spp.), and a non-local population of knobcone pine (Pinus attenuata) trees.
• Reduce fuel and fire risk by removing dead and dying trees, overly dense stands of non-native
trees, and ladder fuels.
• Prevent the spread of non-native species such as French broom (Genista monspessulana) and
jubata grass (Cortaderia jubata).
• Reestablish an appropriate, biologically-diverse native plant community based on current and
future site conditions of the treatment areas.
• Incorporate wildfire resiliency and climate change adaptation in the restoration and
revegetation design.
• Establish new populations of Kings Mountain manzanita (Arctostaphylos regismontana).
• Incorporate public outreach and education about ecological restoration and invasive species
management.
Treatment Units
This feasibility study is focused on large, dense stands of non-native and/or non-local trees in the
southwest corner of the preserve in the Irish Ridge Area. In May 2021, a 24-acre timber cruise (i.e., a
forest survey to locate and estimate the quantity of timber on a given area according to species, size,
quality, possible products or other characteristics) was designed as an efficient means to obtain
information regarding existing invasive blackwood acacia and eucalyptus trees, with a focus on
structure, health and regeneration, and aspects of removal operations. Details on the inventory
methods are provided in Attachment A. The inventory identified two treatment units. Unit 1 includes
approximately 14 acres dominated by blackwood acacia, and Unit 2 includes approximately 10 acres
dominated by eucalyptus and knobcone pine (Figure 2). Descriptions of these units are provided below,
and representative photographs are provided in Attachment B.
ATTACHMENT 2
3
Figure 2. Treatment Units
ATTACHMENT 2
4
Unit 1 – Acacia
Unit 1 contains an estimated 9,000 blackwood acacia trees and 5,429.4 cubic yards of biomass. Most of
the trees (90%) are less than 12 inches in diameter at breast height (DBH; Table 1). Low densities of
coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia) and California buckeye (Aesculus californica) trees are also present in
this unit. Several small coast redwoods (Sequoia sempervirens) are present on the northwest edge of the
unit where blackwood acacia are also present, but this is atypical of the unit, and coast redwood is not
present throughout the sample area. An old skid trail is present below the main road. This old road
provides good access for equipment.
Table 1. Unit 1 - Acacia Trees
DBH Class
(Inches)
Number of
Trees
Avg. Height
(Feet)
Volume (Cubic
Yards)
2 2380 20 38.5
4 4060 30 393.7
6 560 50 203.6
8 280 50 181.0
10 840 60 1018.1
12 224 70 456.1
14 266 70 737.2
16 140 80 579.2
18 126 90 742.2
20 84 90 610.9
22 14 80 109.5
24 14 80 130.3
30+ 14 90 229.1
Total 9,002 5,429.4
Unit 2 – Eucalyptus – Pine
This unit includes both eucalyptus and knobcone pine, but the species are generally not intermixed and
appear to have been planted in even age stands. Based on preliminary identification, the eucalyptus
appears to be a mixture of Manna gum (Eucalyptus cf. viminalis) and red gum (Eucalyptus cf.
camaldulensis) with a total of 4,089 trees and an estimated 3,501.5 cubic yards of biomass (Table 2).
Most of the eucalyptus trees (85%) are less than 12 inches in DBH. Eucalyptus health is generally good,
with mortality and decline typical for the species. A total of 1,158 knobcone pine trees are included in
this unit, where 90% of trees are between 10 and 16 inches in DBH. Knobcone pine are native to
California and are endemic to the Santa Cruz mountains near Davenport, but they are not naturally
occurring in the Irish Ridge area and appear to have been planted in this location. The total estimated
biomass for this unit is 1,156.1 cubic yards (Table 3). Mortality of knobcone pine in the unit is around
50%, and significant amounts of sap exudate was observed on live trees. The pine areas also have a large
ATTACHMENT 2
5
amount of dead wood debris in the understory that could act as ladder fuels, posing a high fire hazard in
this area. The high mortality of the knobcone pines is concerning, but the immediate cause for the high
mortality was not determined. There is also a small plantation (possibly olive trees [cf. Olea europaea])
to the east of the unit that was not included in the sampling. Access to this unit would follow an existing
trail/old road that has a generally gentle grade (never exceeding 10%). There is one small slip-out along
the old roadway, but the route can be easily realigned.
Table 2. Unit 2 – Eucalyptus Trees
DBH Class
(Inches)
Number of
Trees
Avg. Height
(Feet)
Thousands of
Cubic Feet
(Gross)
2 1,333 10 10.8
4 711 10 23.0
6 533 30 116.3
8 533 40 275.6
10 356 40 287.7
12 90 40 104.7
14 107 50 211.8
16 124 60 384.7
18 98 60 384.8
20 53 60 257.0
22 62 70 424.3
24 53 70 431.7
30+ 36 90 589.0
Total 4,089 3,501.5
ATTACHMENT 2
6
Table 3. Unit 2 – Knobcone Pine Trees
DBH Class
(Inches)
Number of
Trees Avg. Height
(Feet)
Thousands of
Cubic Feet
(Gross)
2 0 0 0.0
4 100 20 6.5
6 0 0 0.0
8 0 0 0.0
10 778 40 628.6
12 97 40 112.9
14 89 40 141.0
16 76 50 196.5
18 18 60 70.7
20 0 0 0.0
22 0 0 0.0
24 0 0 0.0
30+ 0 0 0.0
Total 1,158 1,156.1
Desired Outcomes and Reference Sites
The desired outcome is to restore the treatment units to California Department of Fish and Wildlife
(CDFW) defined natural communities. Depending on site specific locations, desired habitat types, three
primary natural communities and one special-status species community type have been identified:
Coastal Redwood Forest and Woodland Alliance
This community is characterized by coast redwood as the dominant or co-dominant tree species.
Associated trees include madrone (Arbutus menziesii), Douglas fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii), California
tanbark oak (Notholithocarpus densiflorus), California bay (Umbellularia californica), coast live oak,
California buckeye, and giant chinquapin (Chrysolepis chrysophylla).
Forest communities in the vicinity of the treatment units include some areas where coast redwood is the
sole dominant tree with a sparse understory, but other areas are more of a mixed forest community
with species such as Douglas fir, California tanbark oak and other species co-dominant.
Further refinement for desired outcomes down to Redwood associations would be developed due
Phase II.
Kings Mountain Manzanita (Special-status species community type)
Kings Mountain Manzanita (Arctostaphylos regismontana), a California Rare Plant Rank 1B.2
species with populations endemic both to the Santa Cruz Mountains in San Mateo and northern
Santa Cruz Counties, can be found within three to five miles generally east of the treatment
units but is not present in the treatment area. Nomad Ecology (Principal Investigator: Heath
ATTACHMENT 2
7
Bartosh) has been working with the District and the California Native Plant Society to evaluate
propagation of Kings Mountain Manzanita into other areas of the Santa Cruz Mountains where
there are suitable environmental conditions. Select areas may be suitable for the introduction of
Kings Mountain Manzanita as part of replanting and restoration following treatment.
California Coastal Scrub Macrogroup
Some areas adjacent to the treatment units are coastal scrub with coyote brush (Baccharis pilularis) as
the sole dominant shrub species. While diversity is low in the surrounding areas, some of the other
common native species found in this community include California sagebrush (Artemisia californica),
blue-blossom (Ceanothus thyrsiflorus), California hazelnut (Corylus cornuta), bush monkey flower
(Diplacus aurantiacus), buckwheat (Eriogonum fasciculatum), coffee berry (Frangula californica), bush
lupine (Lupinus arboreus), and California blackberry (Rubus ursinus). Even when plant biodiversity is low
at the reference site, it may be beneficial to cultivate more biodiverse restored plant communities, due
to the many benefits that plant biodiversity can provide to insect pollinators, birds, and other wildlife.
Nassella spp. - Melica spp. Herbaceous Alliance
This native grassland community is characterized by one or more native perennial grasses such as purple
needlegrass (Stipa pulchra) and/or onion grass (Melica californica; Melica torreyana) along with native
forbs such as soap root (Chlorogalum pomeridianum), California poppy (Eschscholzia californica)
Mariposa lily (Calochortus spp.), farewell to spring (Clarkia spp.), Common sandaster
(Corethrogyne filaginifolia), and blue-eyed grass (Sisyrinchium bellum).
Biomass Disposal
Due to large quantities of material, there are two primary options for biomass disposal: offsite transport
and disposal or onsite disposal.
Offsite Transport and Disposal
Disposal of woody biomass would involve trucking the material from the treatment units to an offsite
facility, such as: a composting facility, a recycling facility, a bioenergy plant, or a landfill. Biomass may be
removed as logs, or the material may be chipped and then hauled offsite for disposal. All offsite disposal
options will require the use of haul trucks to travel to and from the site (depending on the size of the
haul truck, this could be 30 or more trips to haul away the biomass). In addition to the cost of transport,
additional cost will be required for traffic control along Lobitos Creek Road. This option will also have a
greater impact on neighboring properties and residents in the area due to increased truck traffic and
temporary one-way road closures. In addition, off-site disposal methods will result in a higher carbon
footprint resulting from trucking materials from the site to a disposal facility as compared to more local
disposal options.
Offsite disposal options are briefly discussed in the following sections.
Compost
The volume of material is such that onsite composting is not a realistic option for disposal of all of the
biomass that would result from the tree removal. The Recyclery at Newby Island, located in Milpitas
(approximately 50 miles from the site) accepts clean wood waste including logs less than two feet in
ATTACHMENT 2
8
diameter for a cost of $38/ton. Nearly all trees estimated to be removed (14,131 out of 14,249) are less
than 2 feet in diameter. The Ox Mountain landfill in Half Moon Bay is another offsite disposal option
that operates three small volume green waste chipping and grinding operations. These are not open to
the public. The District could consult with the landfill to explore further the option of composting over
3,000 cubic yards of woody debris, but this may exceed the limit for “small volume.”
Ox Mountain Sanitary Landfill
12310 San Mateo Rd (Hwy 92),
Half Moon Bay, CA 94019
(13.5 miles from the treatment areas)
The Recyclery at Newby Island
1601 Dixon Landing Road
Milpitas, California 95035
(48.5 miles from the treatment areas)
Green Waste Recycling
Material accepted for recycling includes logs, shrub/brush, branches, log rounds and wood chips.
• Cost for general/mixed green waste: $25 per cubic yard for mixed small material (chips,
branches, brush). Assuming biomass is chipped and hauled to this location for disposal, cost is
estimated to be around $75,000 – $80,000 for disposal.
• Logs & rounds: $40 per cubic yard for loads containing logs or log rounds under 24” diameter. If
biomass is transported as logs, cost is estimated to be around $125,000.
Green Waste Recycle Yard
2550 Garden Tract Rd
Richmond CA 94801
(60 Miles from the treatment areas)
Biomass Energy
This option would involve offsite transport of logs or wood chips to a biomass-fuel power plant. There
are currently no operating plants in the San Francisco Bay Area and biomass would need to be trucked
to the Central Valley 100 miles away. Under this option, the District would require a formal service
agreement with the facility that would include the amount of material, as well as a specified schedule
for delivery to the plant.
While bioenergy facilities do impact air quality, the facilities produce significantly less emissions than
openly burning wood and slash piles, and they are subject to regulation by the local air pollution control
districts. However, transporting the treatment units to the facilities ranges 200 to 250 miles roundtrip
per truckload, resulting in additional greenhouse gas emissions and potentially higher costs.
ATTACHMENT 2
9
An advantage to this method is the facilities usually pay a small amount for the material, typically
between $7 and $20 per ton depending on the material and demand, amounting to an estimated $7,500
to $21,000; however, this benefit may be outweighed by the higher transport and hauling costs.
DTE Stockton
2526 West Washington Street
Stockton, CA 95203
(approximately 100 miles from the treatment area)
This is a 45-megawatt biomass-fueled energy generating facility that utilizes 320,000 tons of woody
biomass a year. Sources of biomass include wood chips, urban wood waste, logs from forest thinning,
tree/orchard trimmings, and agricultural waste such as nut shells and fruit pits.
Woodland Biomass Power, Ltd.
1786 East Kentucky Avenue,
Woodland, CA 95776
(approximately 120 miles from the treatment area)
This is a 25-megawatt biomass-fueled energy generating facility that utilizes 260,000 tons of woody
biomass a year from wood chips, urban wood waste, logs from forest thinning, tree/orchard trimmings,
and agricultural waste.
Landfill
The Ox Mountain Sanitary Land Fill is a Class III Municipal Solid Waste Landfill which accepts all types of
solid waste and woody biomass. This option provides no environmental benefit and has the highest
direct costs (not including transportation and GHG emission costs, at a minimum cost of $200 per ton,
with the total cost of landfill disposal ranging between $220,000 to $650,000.
Ox Mountain Sanitary Landfill
12310 San Mateo Rd (Hwy 92),
Half Moon Bay, CA 94019
(13.5 miles from the treatment area)
Onsite Disposal
One option for onsite disposal is the use of an air curtain burner. Under this option, the burn unit can be
delivered to the site and can remain in place for the duration of the tree removal project, thereby
eliminating the need for transportation costs, disposal fees, and one-way traffic controls. The use of an
air curtain burner would also result in lower GHG emissions than trucking material to an offsite disposal
facility and would eliminate the risk of spreading plant pathogens. The air curtain burner also reduces
wood waste by 98 to 99%. The residual material may be converted to biochar to be used as a soil
amendment or converted to ash. Biochar can be used as a soil amendment in Midpen restoration
projects, or it can be sold or donated to other organizations for use in conserved, landscaped, or
agricultural settings. A roll-off burn box can consume 2-5 tons of wood waste per hour. With a total
volume of wood up to 10,000 cubic yards (27,000 cubic feet at 50 lbs per cubic foot translates to 675
ATTACHMENT 2
10
tons), the burn box might need to run continuously for up to 350 hours. The project would need to
receive approval from the Bay Area Air Quality Management District and review whether a curtain
burner can operate at this site in the summer or fall, since the site is difficult to access in winter and
spring.
Purchase prices range from $100,000 to $180,000 for a roll-off type box depending on size and capacity.
Rental costs are estimated to be between $5000 - $10,000 per month.
Chipping and Grinding
Chipping and grinding can be used to convert the wood waste into mulch or wood chips, but this process
does not eliminate the waste. The estimated amount of biomass resulting from tree removal is
approximately 10,000 cubic yards of material. Large stockpiles of mulch or wood chips can pose a fire
hazard due to the potential for spontaneous-combustion and may also be considered unsightly.
Open Pile Burning
Open pile burning can be a cost-effective method for disposal of wood waste, but it also has several
drawbacks, including the impacts to air quality and carbon emissions due to smoke (black carbon). Open
pile burning also requires machines or workers to monitor the burn to mitigate wildfire risks. Moreover,
reducing the waste to ashes often takes a significant amount of time. Wood and slash piles may also be
considered visually unappealing, and this method is also subject to additional regulation and permitting
as compared to the previously described methods.
Plant Pathogens
A recent study by Matteo Garbelotto for the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC) and the
U.S. Forest Service Pacific Southwest Research Station found that two fungal species, Diaporthe
foeniculina and Dothiorella viticola, are associated with acacia dieback that is causing significant
mortality in acacia trees around the Bay Area, including sites on the SFPUC Peninsula watershed
(Attachment C). During the May 2021 inventory, the mortality and decline of Acacia trees in Unit 1 was
estimated to be around 30%. The cause of this mortality remains undetermined and requires additional
investigation; however, there is certainly the potential for these fungal pathogens to occur on site. It is
recommended that the District coordinate with SFPUC and the U.S. Forest Service Pacific Southwest
Research Station to further evaluate the risk of pathogens in the treatment area as well as prevention
measures to limit any further spread during the treatment operations. Management/mitigation
recommendations in that report should be considered the most current based on the state of
knowledge.
Invasive Plants
In addition to the nonnative trees in the treatment units, two invasive plants, French broom and jubata
grass, are common and widespread in the area. Disturbance associated with the tree removal, as well as
the removal of canopy cover, creates ideal conditions for the rapid spread of both species.
French broom is more common in and around the blackwood acacia unit (Unit 1), with many small
shrubs present in the open areas along the perimeter of the treatment unit as well as scattered
ATTACHMENT 2
11
individuals and sprouting seedlings throughout the treatment area. French broom was much less
common in the eucalyptus area. Jubata grass is very dense and widespread along the trail/former road
to the eucalyptus-pine area (Unit 2), as well as along the hillslopes around the unit. In some areas,
jubata grass is even dense in the understory of the eucalyptus trees. Jubata grass is also present in and
around Unit 1, but not as dense or widespread as in Unit 2.
Management, containment, and control of these and other invasive plants will be an important factor in
the successful treatment and restoration of native ecosystem processes in this area. To the extent
possible, treatment of these and other invasive species should be completed prior to the tree removal
activities. Follow-up monitoring and management will also be necessary to ensure successful ecological
restoration.
Special Status Species
The marbled murrelet (Brachyramphus marmoratus) is a federally listed threatened and state listed
endangered species. In 1994, an active nest was found in the Purisima Creek Redwood OSP
approximately two miles northeast of the treatment units, along Purisima Creek near Soda Gulch.
Several large coast redwood trees in and around Unit 1 are considered potential nesting habitat for
marbled murrelet. Given the presence of suitable habitat, consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service and CDFW will likely be required. Performing a full, protocol level survey can likely be avoided as
long as a habitat assessment is performed, and work is conducted outside of nesting season (Sept. 15 to
Oct. 30, or until the year’s first rains).
Bats
Townsend's big-eared bat (Corynorhinus townsendii), a CDFW species of special concern, has been
reported within five miles of the treatment areas. Suitable habitat for western red bat (Lasirurs
blossevillii), a state species of special concern, exists within one mile of the project site in riparian
drainages. Non-special status species bats may also utilize habitat within the restoration area for
roosting. Leila Harris, a PhD student and bat ecologist at U.C. Davis, affirms that the treatment areas
provide habitat for bat species and recommends conducting acoustic surveys to better understand the
species present in the area, in addition to a more detailed habitat assessment. Depending on the
findings of these additional surveys, detailed bat surveys may be required for some or all of the
treatment area to check for roosting bats prior to tree removal. The project may also allow for a long-
term pre- and post- restoration bat diversity and habitat use study. Appropriately designed acoustic
monitoring within the project site may be able to capture any changes in species composition and/or
habitat use (number of individual fly overs) within the area.
Other Special-Status Species
Several other special status-status animals have been reported within five miles of the treatment units,
including California red-legged frog, San Francisco garter snake, San Francisco dusky-footed woodrat,
mountain lion, American badger, and grasshopper sparrow.
ATTACHMENT 2
12
California Red-Legged Frog
There are reported occurrences of California red-legged frog (CRLF; Rana draytonii) less than a half mile
west and south of treatment Unit 2 along Lobitos Creek and its tributaries. There is also a small pond
just north of gate PC07 directly adjacent to Unit 1. According to the District’s data in Atlas, the pond is a
0.12-acre waterbody overgrown with willows. The treatment areas are considered to be upland
dispersal habitat for this species.
San Francisco Garter Snake
Aquatic habitats, including small ponds and streams in the vicinity of the treatment units, provide
suitable habitat for the San Francisco garter snake (Thamnophis sirtalis tetrataenia). The wooded area
with the treatment units provides upland dispersal habitat for this species. Accordingly, avoidance
measures from for this species should be included for this project.
San Francisco Dusky-Footed Woodrats
During the initial surveys, several San Francisco dusky-footed woodrat (Neotoma fuscipes annectens)
nests were observed in and around the treatment areas. Prior to tree removal, a qualified biologist shall
live trap all woodrat nests that cannot be avoided to determine if the nest is in use. Trapping activities
should occur prior to April and after mid-July each year to prevent impacts to woodrats rearing young or
young woodrats. If a nest is found to be unoccupied or not in use for 3 full days (2 nights of trapping),
then it may be removed. The nest shall be relocated or a pile of replacement sticks shall be placed
outside of the development footprint for future colonization or re-use.
Once trapped, nests shall be torn down and rebuilt surrounding a log based structure, an inverted
wooden planter, or similar structure having at least one entrance and exit hole that is slightly buried into
the ground to anchor.
Mountain Lion
Mountain lions (Puma concolor) are known to occur within the project area. Include avoidance
measures from Bear Creek Redwoods Project Specific Analysis.
American badger
American badgers (Taxidea taxus) are known to occur in the project area. The removal of invasive trees
and creation of open forest, shrubland and grassland habitats would be beneficial for this species.
Grasshopper Sparrow
The removal of invasive trees and creation of open grassland areas with limited shrub cover would be
beneficial for the grasshopper sparrow (Ammodramus savannarum).
ATTACHMENT 2
13
Cultural Resources
What appears to be an old homesite was observed on the east ridge in the vicinity of Unit 2. Additional
cultural resources investigations may be needed in this area.
CEQA/Permit Analysis
California Coastal Commission – Coastal Development Permit
Consulting forester McGuire was involved on a previous POST project (El Granada), which removed non-
native eucalyptus trees for a fuel break within the coastal zone (CZ). The District was required to obtain
a Coastal Development Permit (CDP) from the California Coastal Commission (CCC) for that work. As
some portions of the proposed treatment area fall within the CZ, it is possible a coastal development
permit would be required in this instance as well. This remains unclear at this time due to numerous
salvage projects in the CZ following the 2021 CZU Complex fire and a range of responses from the CCC in
this regard.
Wildland Fire Resiliency Program Environmental Impact Report (EIR)
The simplest permitting option is to use the District’s existing Wildland Fire Resiliency Program EIR,
which allows up to 20 acres of Eucalyptus and Acacia removal each year. The proposed project is ~24
acres.
CAL FIRE – Timber Harvest Plan (THP)
If the Wildland Fire Resiliency Program EIR is used, a THP will most likely not be required by Cal Fire. In
the event that Cal Fire does require a permit to be obtained, there are three possible filing options:
1) Fire Hazard Exemption: this is expected to cost around $5,000 to prepare. There is no guarantee
that an exemption would be granted, and this approach may be opposed or limited by other
regulatory agencies- primarily the CCC.
2) Modified THP (MTHP): while not as extensive as a full THP, this can be an onerous process and
includes risk as a public review document would also be subject to CCC input. An MTHP is
expected to cost between $40,000 and $50,000 to develop.
3) Regular THP: this option would be more robust and stand up to public review and agency
comment. It typically requires 1-3 years to develop and be approved. Like the MTHP, the permit
is valid for 5 yrs with the option to extend an additional two years if justified. Cost estimates
range from $60,000 - $100,000 to complete (i.e, obtain the permit and licensed forester
supervision of operations per the Forest Practice Rules).
Given the expense of options 2 and 3 , the District may want to consider additional treatment areas to
maintain some flexibility. Areas included in a THP can be removed if operations are not initiated. Option
1 is the preferred permit path if Cal Fire and the CCC would consider the District's EIR sufficient. Based
on our experience and discussions with Cal Fire, this matter will require continued discussions with
these agencies.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and California Department of Fish and Wildlife
There is suitable nesting habitat for the marbled murrelet and CRLF in or near the treatment areas. At a
minimum, mitigation measures to avoid impacts to listed species will need to be developed, potentially
ATTACHMENT 2
14
including a protocol for marbled murrelet surveys, nesting season work restrictions, presence of an
agency-approved biological monitor during treatment activities, or other measures as needed. Removal
of invasive trees and habitat restoration could include measures to aid in the recovery of CRLF. Existing
marbled murrelet avoidance measure from the District’s existing Section 10 recovery permit could be
used for this project; therefore, a USFWS permit is not likely to be needed for this project.
For any work involving the planting and establishment of new populations of Kings Mountain manzanita,
a CDFW Scientific, Educational, or Management Permit for work will be required.
State Water Quality Control Board – Storm Water Pollution Protection Plan (SWPPP)
An SWPPP would not be need if the project is required to prepare a THP because all the CEQA
mitigations and analysis required to protect “the State’s waters” include an Erosion Control Plan to be
developed and included in Section II of the plan. If the project does not require a THP, then an SWPPP
would need to be developed and submitted for approval.
Community Outreach and Research Opportunities
The tree removal and subsequent revegetation efforts discussed in this document provide many
opportunities to engage students and the public in citizen science and academic research projects, and it
creates ample opportunities to recruit volunteers from the public and promote environmental
education. Graduate and undergraduate students at local universities could be invited to study the
effects of tree removal and revegetation on wildlife, soil, hydrology, and the colonization patterns of
invasive species. Community members could contribute to the project by helping to manually remove
invasive species at certain subsites, they could collaborate with students on data collection, or they
could perform long-term ecological monitoring. School groups could visit the site to learn about the
impacts of invasive plant species. Active engagement with local universities, schools, and community
groups will be needed to achieve these extended benefits of this project.
ATTACHMENT 2
15
Engineers Estimate
Biomass Disposal Projected Costs
Task On -Site Biomass
Disposal
(Air Curtain Burner)
Off -Site Biomass
Disposal
(Biomass Recycling)
Off -Site Biomass
Disposal
(Bio Energy)
Off -Site Biomass
Disposal
(Landfill)
Tree Removal/Soil &Erosion
Management
$425,000 $425,000 $425,000 $425,000
Haul Cost1 $0 $15,000 $30,000 $5,000
Disposal Cost $100,000 – $200,0002 $75,000 – $125,000 $0 $220,000 – $650,000
Restoration/Planting/Seeding $300,000 $300,000 $300,000 $300,000
3 Year Plant Establishment3 $40,000 $40,000 $40,000 $40,000
Total Estimate $865,000 – $965,000 $855,000 – $905,000 $795,000 $990,000 –
$1,420,000
Notes:
1 Haul cost includes estimated trucking cost to offsite disposal areas.
2 Estimate based on purchase price rather than rental of an air curtain burner unit (renting a unit would likely lower cost)
additional cost would be for two-person crew to operate the burner.
3 Includes: monitoring, plant replacement, and reporting.
ATTACHMENT 2
16
Attachment A – Tree Inventory Methods
The 24-acre subject area was divided into two units: (1) An acacia-dominated area approximately 14
acres on both sides of an existing trail/road; (2) to the west, a eucalyptus- and knobcone pine-
dominated area of approximately 10 acres accessible via a trail from Unit 1. 21 slope-corrected, 1/10
acre fixed-radius plots, with 1/100-acre nested subplots are to be randomly installed and measured. Plot
locations are shown in Figure A1.
Figure A1. Inventory Map
Locating the Plot Center:
A-priori plot locations were loaded into Global Positioning System (GPS) units and were then navigated
to in the field. Paper maps showing nominal plot locations on orthophotos and topo maps were also
carried. Once in the approximate location, the GPS unit was used to record the location of the plot
center. Plot centers were monumented with pink flagging and inscribed with plot ID, date, and the
cruiser’s initials.
ATTACHMENT 2
17
Information Collected at Each Plot
Plot No.: The plot number loaded in the GPS data.
Slope: Average slope in %, e.g., 65%
Aspect: Compass aspect, e.g., NE or S
Position: ridge/side hill, flat, bench, etc.
Comments: Note Recent Disturbance:
E – “Major active anthropogenic erosion feature, such as crossing failure, diverted stream, gully, etc.”
S – “SOD present”.
O – “Other” - includes brief description
In addition, anything of significance observed in the plot or while walking between plots was recorded,
including: landslides, archaeological resources, trail/roads/landings, trail grade, stream crossings,
operational issues, wet areas and stream classes, presence of old growth, old growth stumps, large
woody debris, non-native species (e.g., French broom, jubata grass), sensitive plants (including King’s
Mountain manzanita [Arctostaphylos regismontana], Western leatherwood [Dirca occidentalis],
California bottlebrush grass [Elymus californicus], and Choris’s popcorn-flower [Plagiobothrys
chorisianus var. chorisianus]), understory condition (describe dominant species, dead and down), and
sensitive fauna (nests/whitewash, etc.).
Tree measurements:
Trees were measured and recorded in a generally clockwise manner starting from true north, but tree
sequence was not always perfectly circular due to onsite factors. The subplot was measured first at each
location.
1/100 acre subplot:
• 11.8-foot plot radius: A plot rope or tape planted on or at the plot center was used by the
cruiser to establish “in” and “out” trees while adjusting for slope per Table A1.
• All trees with DBH >=1” and <11.0” (2-10” classes) were measured using a Biltmore stick or
tape/caliper as needed. Any significant regeneration was noted if present (<1” DBH) by species.
The DBH size class was the median of that class. For example, the 8” DBH class includes trees
>=7” and <9”.
• Total height (TH) to the nearest foot on all trees (including snags) was measured using a
clinometer and logger’s tape or plot rope.
ATTACHMENT 2
18
1/10 acre major plot:
• 37.9-foot plot radius: A plot rope or tape fixed at the plot center was used to establish “in” and
“out” trees, while adjusting for slope per Table A1.
• All trees with DBH >11.1” (12”+ classes) were measured using a Biltmore stick or tape/caliper as
needed.
• Total height (TH) to the nearest foot was measured using a clinometer and logger’s tape or plot
rope.
Table A1 Plot Diameter Slope Corrections:
slope 1/100 ac 1/10 ac
0 11.8 37.2
10 11.8 37.5
20 12.0 37.9
30 12.3 38.9
40 12.7 40.1
50 13.2 41.6
60 13.7 43.4
70 14.4 45.5
80 15.1 47.7
90 15.8 50.1
100 16.7 52.7
Additional Information Collected:
• Comments on tree health, types of defects, and any diseases.
• Any observed habitat features such as presence of goose pen (basal hollow), large branches or
wolfy growth habit, broken tops, reiterated trunks, etc.
ATTACHMENT 2
19
Attachment B – Site Photographs
Blackwood Acacia Trees in Unit 1
Eucalyptus Trees in Unit 2
ATTACHMENT 2
20
Eucalyptus Trees in Unit 2
Knobcone Pine trees in Unit 2
ATTACHMENT 2
21
Knobcone Pine Unit 2
ATTACHMENT 2
22
Woody debris in understory of Unit 2
Native Redwood Stand north of Unit 1
ATTACHMENT 2
23
Mixed forest community in the vicinity of the treatment units
Shrub community characterized by coyote brush south of Unit 1
ATTACHMENT 2
24
French broom around the perimeter of Unit 1
Extensive and dense jubata grass on slopes in below access trail and around Unit 2
ATTACHMENT 2
25
Large redwood in the vicinity of Unit 1 that provides suitable habitat for Marbled Murrelet
Woodrat nest
ATTACHMENT 2
26
Air Curtain Burner in Operation
ATTACHMENT 2
27
Attachment C – Acacia Pathogen Report
ATTACHMENT 2
28
ATTACHMENT 2
29
ATTACHMENT 2
30
ATTACHMENT 2
31
ATTACHMENT 2
32
ATTACHMENT 2
33
ATTACHMENT 2
34
ATTACHMENT 2
35
ATTACHMENT 2
36
ATTACHMENT 2
37
ATTACHMENT 2
38
ATTACHMENT 2
39
ATTACHMENT 2
40
ATTACHMENT 2
41
ATTACHMENT 2
42
ATTACHMENT 2
43
ATTACHMENT 2
44
ATTACHMENT 2
45
ATTACHMENT 2
46
ATTACHMENT 2
47
ATTACHMENT 2
48
ATTACHMENT 2
49
ATTACHMENT 2
50
Pathogen Study
ATTACHMENT 2
51
References
Abbas, Dalia, et al. “Guidelines for Harvesting Forest Biomass for Energy: A Synthesis of Environmental
Considerations.” Biomass and Bioenergy, Pergamon, 15 July 2011,
www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0961953411003539.
California Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2021. California Natural Community List.
https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Data/VegCAMP/Natural-Communities.
California Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2021. California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB),
RareFind Desktop Commercial Subscription. Biogeographic Data Branch. Sacramento, California.
https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Data/CNDDB/Maps-and-Data.
Garbelotto, Matteo. 2021. “Investigating the causes of widespread Acacia spp. mortality in the San
Francisco Bay Area.”
Jones, Greg, et al. “Forest Treatment Residues for Thermal Energy Compared with Disposal by Onsite
Burning: Emissions and Energy Return.” Biomass and Bioenergy, Pergamon, 29 Jan. 2010,
www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0961953410000176.
Midpen. 2014. 2014 Vision Plan - Imagine the Future of Open Space.
https://www.openspace.org/sites/default/files/2014_Vision_Plan.pdf
Midpen. 2019. 2019 Annual IPM Report.
https://www.openspace.org/sites/default/files/Midpen_IPM_Annual_Report_2019.pdfhttps://www.op
enspace.org/sites/default/files/Midpen_IPM_Annual_Report_2019.pdf
Morris, Jeffrey. “Recycle, Bury, or Burn Wood Waste Biomass?: LCA Answer Depends on Carbon
Accounting, Emissions Controls, Displaced Fuels, and Impact Costs.” Wiley Online Library, John Wiley &
Sons, Ltd, 16 Aug. 2016, onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/jiec.12469
Panorama Environmental, Inc. (April 2021). Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Wildland Fire
Resiliency Program Final Environmental Impact Report SCH # 2020049059.
https://www.openspace.org/sites/default/files/20210512_FEIRWildlandFireResiliencyProgram_R-21-
58.pdf
Sawyer, J., Todd Keeler-Wolf and Julie Evens. 2009. A Manual of California Vegetation. California Native
Plant Society, Sacramento. https://vegetation.cnps.org/
Society for Ecological Restoration International Science & Policy Working Group. 2004. The SER
International Primer on Ecological Restoration. www.ser.org & Tucson: Society for Ecological Restoration
International.
Springsteen, Bruce, et al. “Emission Reductions from Woody Biomass Waste for Energy as an Alternative
to Open Burning,” 2011. Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association, 61:1, 63-68, DOI:
10.3155/1047-3289.61.1.63
ATTACHMENT 2
Prepared For: Midpeninsula Regional
Open Space District
Prepared By: Applied Technology &
Science
August 2021
Biomass Disposition Alternatives
ATTACHMENT 3
1
Contents
Biomass disposal methods ............................................................................................................ 2
Mulching and Mastication ....................................................................................................... 2
Lop and scatter .......................................................................................................................... 3
Brush piles ................................................................................................................................. 4
Girdling and leaving snag in place .......................................................................................... 5
Pile burns ................................................................................................................................... 5
Air curtain burners ................................................................................................................... 6
Other local reuses for both chips and logs .............................................................................. 7
Composting on-site.................................................................................................................... 7
Trucking off-site to other compost .......................................................................................... 8
Trucking off-site to a bioenergy power plant (waste-to-energy) .......................................... 8
Trucking off-site to landfill ...................................................................................................... 9
References .................................................................................................................................... 11
ATTACHMENT 3
2
Introduction
This document reviews the advantages and disadvantages of an array of plant biomass disposal
methods associated with multiple vegetation management strategies, including fuel reduction,
invasive species management, and trail maintenance. The document was prepared by A-T-S
biologists Russell Huddleston, Silas Ellison, and Roger Stephens. This paper considers a variety
of methods for biomass disposal, including mulching, lop and scatter, pile burns, brush piles,
girdling, trucking off-site to bioenergy power plants or compost yards, air curtain burners, and
other local reuses. The costs and benefits for each method are analyzed in terms of greenhouse
gas (GHG) emissions, air quality impacts (volatile organic compounds (VOC) and particulate
matter (PM)), biodiversity impacts, fire hazards, pathogen spread, cost, staff labor, the safety of
staff and visitors, impacts to wildlife habitats, and visual impacts. The appropriate disposal
method will often depend on site conditions such as accessibility, public access, and the amount
of material requiring disposal. The methods addressed in this document are intended to cover a
range of conditions and disposal options.
Biomass disposal methods
In this section, we examine the advantages and disadvantages of various methods for biomass
disposal, relying on evidence from the most recent scientific literature. Methods considered
include mulching, lop and scatter, pile burns, brush piles, girdling, trucking off-site to bioenergy
power plants or compost yards, air curtain burners, and other local reuses. Table 1 (at the end of
the text) provides a summary of the advantages and disadvantages of each method.
Mulching and Mastication
Mulching is an increasingly popular method for biomass disposal due to several advantages over
other disposal methods (Frame, 2011). In this technique, woody debris is chipped or chopped
using a masticator and spread over the ground near the biomass source. Because the biomass is
not transported off-site, there are no transportation-related
costs or GHG emissions associated with off-site transport,
although the chipping and spreading equipment does
produce a small quantity of GHGs. Additionally, mulching
poses no safety risk for visitors, creates minimal adverse
air quality impacts, poses minimal safety risks for staff and
equipment operators, and creates minimal visual impacts
for park visitors. Chippers can produce some particulate
pollution in the form of dust, but this can be reduced by chipping material soon after it is cut, or
by adding water to the chipper along with woody debris. The labor and equipment costs are also
quite low relative to other methods since the main tasks associated with mulching are chipping
and spreading the woody debris. Mulching or other on-site disposal methods are highly
recommended when the plant material is suspected to be infected with sudden oak death (SOD;
causal agent: Phytophthora ramorum) or other plant pathogens, since transporting plant material
off-site may result in the spread of the pathogen to uninfected areas (Alexander & Swain, 2010).
This method is most applicable for sites with low to moderate amounts of biomass consisting
mostly of woody shrubs and small trees (maximum 8 inches in diameter).
ATTACHMENT 3
3
The use of a tractor-mounted masticator may be an effective
method for small trees and shrubs along roads, trails, and other
areas. However, these methods may result in more unsightly
vegetation for periods following the mastication and typically
leave more coarse woody debris than chipping methods, which can
result in a longer burn time and slower decomposition rate. Use of
a trailer-mounted masticator near roads or trails may also require public access control while
work is being performed.
Depending on the equipment used, the mulch can be considered a quick-burning 1-hour fuel, or a
larger particle 10-hour fuel (Frame, 2011). While mulching does increase the fuel load of the
forest floor, it also reduces the probability of a fire spreading from the forest floor to the canopy,
since mulch on the forest floor is less likely to act as a fuel ladder than dense understory
vegetation. When mulch is applied at a low to moderate thickness (typically < 3 inches)
mulching does not suppress understory vegetation development or decrease plant species
richness, although it is sometimes associated with the introduction of new non-native plant
species (likely due to the significant habitat disturbance and the difficulty of perfectly
decontaminating masticators and associated equipment). Mulch thickness of greater than 3
inches can lead to decreased availability of soil nitrogen and corresponding suppression of
understory vegetation development (Frame, 2011). However, if rare annual plants are present at
the biomass removal site, a thick layer of mulch is likely to suppress germination. To minimize
negative impacts to soils on site, mulch should be spread evenly across the biomass removal site
and work should be conducted in the dry season (Abbas et al., 2011). If the plant material being
spread produces allelopathic chemicals (especially Eucalyptus sp., but also including native trees
like Umbellularia californica and non-native herbaceous plants like Conium maculatum and
Elymus caput-medusae), mulching may change local soil chemistry or negatively impact living
plants. Additionally, since the masticator needs to be transported to the biomass removal site, it
may not be well suited to remote or difficult-to-access sites.
Lop and scatter
Lop and scatter, in which woody debris is chopped into
smaller pieces and spread throughout the biomass
removal site, is one of the most common treatments in
commercial forestry settings. It shares several of the
same advantages as mulching: there are no costs or
GHG emissions related to the off-site transportation of
debris, no air quality impacts or safety risk for visitors,
a minimal safety risk for equipment operators, minimal
visual impacts, and low cost of labor and equipment. In
addition, scattered woody debris with a diameter greater
than or equal to 2.5cm is known to offer substantial benefit as habitat for a variety of wildlife
species (Abbas et al., 2011); however, the recent widespread tree mortality caused by the rapid
spread of SOD has led to an unusually high abundance of woody debris in many Bay Area forest
habitats, so the placement of additional woody debris may have only a marginal benefit to
ATTACHMENT 3
4
wildlife. This method also requires less heavy equipment than mulching and is, therefore, better
suited for remote sites or those difficult to access. Similar to mulching, the power tools and
machinery used to chop and scatter the woody debris do produce a limited quantity of GHGs, in
addition to volatile organic compounds (VOCs) that may adversely impact local air quality.
However, logs decompose more slowly than the smaller wood chips produced by a masticator,
and therefore carbon dioxide is released more slowly from logs when compared to mulch
(Nowak et al., 2002). If the plant material produces allelopathic chemicals (e.g., Eucalyptus sp.,
Conium maculatum, etc.), this method may impact soil and living plants at the site, although the
impacts are likely to be less than mulching due to slower decomposition rates. Similarly to
mulching, lop and scatter will increase the fuel load of the forest floor but reduce the canopy
density fire risk (Frame, 2011). Scattering logs locally can also prevent the spread of plant
diseases like SOD to uninfected sites; if small logs are placed near roads, they may be gathered
for unauthorized use as firewood and transported off-site (Alexander & Swain, 2010).
Therefore, lop and scatter is better suited for areas that are not immediately adjacent to roads.
This method is best used for relatively small, localized areas with low amounts of biomass.
Brush piles
Brush piles retain several of the advantages and
disadvantages of lop and scatter, with the potential for
the creation of high-quality wildlife habitat and with
any impacts from allelopathic chemicals or seeds from
non-native species concentrated into a smaller area.
Here, we use the term “brush piles” to refer to debris
that is piled and allowed to decompose naturally;
debris piles that are intentionally burned are
considered later in the text and are referred to as “pile burns”. Again, there are no off-site
transportation-related costs, no air quality impacts or safety risks for visitors, minimal safety
risks for equipment operators, and low labor and equipment costs. This method results in
minimal GHG emissions, primarily from power tools and machinery and some slow release from
wood decomposition. Like lop and scatter, brush piles are well-suited to remote areas since less
heavy equipment is required. Brush piles may provide superior habitat for wildlife compared to
lop and scatter, as evidence shows that large brush piles are utilized by a wide variety of birds
and small mammals, although branches with a small diameter appear to provide better quality
habitat than large logs (Gorenzel et al., 1995). Brush piles do create local concentrations of
increased fuel load and may lead to localized higher intensity burns in the event of a wildfire.
They can also be very effective ladder fuels, increasing the chance that a brush fire on the forest
floor will reach forest canopy height. The impacts of allelopathic chemicals and seeds from non-
native plants may be reduced compared to lop and scatter or mulching since the debris is
concentrated in a smaller number of discrete piles. If brush piles are located near roads or trails,
some members of the public may consider them to be visually unappealing. This method is best
suited for sites with relatively low amounts of biomass.
ATTACHMENT 3
5
Girdling and leaving snag in place
Girdling trees (removing the living inner bark tissue
in a ring around the tree) and leaving them in place is
the fastest and cheapest options available for biomass
disposal, with the lowest carbon and GHG impacts of
any method considered here; however, increased fuel
loads, safety hazards, and visual impacts are
significant disadvantages. Like the other on-site
disposal methods considered so far, there are no off-
site transportation-related costs or GHG emissions,
and very minimal CO2, VOC, and PM emissions.
Labor and equipment costs are lower than all other methods. Because very little equipment is
needed, this method is very well suited to sites that are remote or difficult to access, and there are
minimal GHG, COV, and PM emissions associated with equipment use. Snags also provide
important habitat for wildlife such as cavity-nesting birds (Eklund et al., 2009). Evidence
suggests that girdling may decrease soil respiration underneath the girdled trees, potentially
reducing the local rate of carbon released into the atmosphere (Chen et al., 2010). The release of
nutrients into the soil is also typically slower than for treatments such as mulching, which
accelerate the decomposition of woody debris. However, over time, standing dead trees pose a
safety hazard in well-traveled areas. Numerous dry, girdled snags can significantly increase the
fuel load in an area, potentially leading to higher intensity fires; however, fire risk can vary
significantly between sites based on the number, density, and position of snags, and site
conditions, such as slope, aspect, wind, etc. Snags may represent increasing safety risks to
visitors over time due to increasing fire and deadfall risk, especially if they are located near roads
or trails, and some may consider high densities of snags to be visually unappealing. These
methods should only be used for carefully selected trees.
Pile burns
Since pile burns are an on-site biomass disposal method, they involve no transportation-related
costs or transportation-related GHG emissions, and there is no risk of spreading plant pathogens
to uninfected areas. Burning immediately kills most pathogens the biomass may contain, and it is
especially effective for fungal and oomycete pathogens, including P. ramorum (Sosnowski et al.,
2009). There are minimal long-term visual impacts, and less labor and equipment are required
than for some other methods such as mulching.
All fires produce smoke, and the amount of smoke that
will be produced is dependent on the moisture of the
wood burning. To minimize smoke, Midpeninsula
Regional Open Space District (MROSD) should allow
the piles to dry out or "cure" for approximately 18
months. Weather conditions may also affect the
amount of smoke produced. Impacts from pile burning
smoke are short term and less intense than that of a
wildfire.
ATTACHMENT 3
6
Additionally, while very unlikely, the possibility of fire escaping a pile burn would pose a safety
risk to staff, visitors, and nearby infrastructure. Careful planning is required to avoid this
unlikely scenario. Best management practices outlined in the Midpen Wildland Fire Resiliency
Program are important tools to minimize the risks of fire escaping a pile burn.
Seasonal timing, weather conditions, and air quality can limit when burning may occur and some
piles may remain in place for several months, resulting in short-term visual impacts in publicly
accessible areas. Climate change, which has led to many years with longer, hotter dry seasons,
has already caused the window of time in which pile burns are possible and safe to shorten, and
these trends are predicted to become even more severe in the future. Because of the temporary
nature of the debris piles, this method can be used to dispose of low to moderate amounts of
biomass, depending on site conditions.
Air curtain burners
Air curtain burners (also called Air Curtain Incinerators, or Fireboxes) are structures with
specialized air filters in which controlled burns can be conducted. Compared to pile burns, air
curtain burners significantly reduce wood smoke GHG emissions, as well as negative impacts on
local air quality from particulate pollution. In a 2007 review paper published by the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, PM emissions were found to be approximately 2 orders of
magnitude lower in air curtain burners than open pile burns (0.05g PM/kg fuel for air curtain
burners vs. 10g/kg for open burns; Miller & Lemieux,
2007). Similarly, CO emissions were reduced by
approximately 2 orders of magnitude when burns were
performed in an air curtain burner. The process can be
used to incinerate the woody material or create biochar.
Biochar is a kind of charcoal produced by burning
biomass in a low-oxygen environment. Biochar has been touted as a product for improving soil
quality by increasing soil structure complexity and reducing acidity, restoring degraded soils,
improving agricultural productivity, and helping soils retain water, as well as a means of
sequestering carbon. However, recent studies have shown that the use of biochar can alter the
composition and biomass of soil communities, hindering plant growth and causing broader
ecosystem impacts (Nash et al., 2021).
Like the other local biomass disposal methods, there are no off-site transportation-related costs
or GHG emissions, and like pile burns, there are no long-term visual impacts. However, the air
curtain machinery has a much higher cost than other disposal methods. Air curtain burners
significantly reduce GHG emissions compared to open pile burning. Because air curtain burners
are large structures and need to be transported to sites, they may not be well suited to remote
sites. However, once in place, large quantities of material can be treated. Purchase prices range
from $100,000 to $200,000 depending on the size and amount of material handled (2-13 tons per
hour; the maximum quantity of material that can be processed per hour is determined by the size
of the air curtain burner). The advantage of this method is that any amount of material can be
treated, although it is more efficient to collect enough material in advance to operate the
machinery continuously for a short period, rather than starting and stopping over a period of
ATTACHMENT 3
7
weeks. In some situations, it may be necessary to temporarily stockpile biomass from several
small sites until enough material has been amassed to spend a day burning the material. Due to
the size of the machinery required, air curtain burners are most easily transported to and operated
in locations near roads and trails, and therefore can temporarily impact public access to those
areas. Because this method allows for the continuous on-site disposal of materials, it can be
advantageous for larger sites with greater amounts of biomass.
Other local reuses for both chips and logs
Woody plant debris may also be transported off-site and used for a variety of purposes on
MROSD land or within the local community. For instance, wood chips may be used for trails or
parking areas, as well as in playgrounds and parks. Logs may be used in erosion control
structures, road barriers, etc, or they may be delivered to MROSD employees to be used to help
heat poorly insulated homes. These local reuse strategies may be advantageous because they
have limited impact on the biomass removal site: little debris is left behind after the biomass is
removed, minimizing visual impacts and the potential impacts of allelopathic chemicals. There
are no also local air quality impacts or safety risks for visitors. On the other hand, the potential
for pathogen spread outside the removal site is greatly increased, including Phytophthora sp. and
the recently detected pistachio canker, Leptosillia pistaciae (California Department of Food and
Agriculture, 2020). While this method focuses on local reuse, the cost and GHG emissions
associated with transportation increase proportionally with the distance of the reuse site from the
removal site. The safety risks for equipment operators are small, roughly equivalent to the risks
for the corresponding on-site reuse strategy (primarily risks from masticators, chain saws, etc.).
Given that large vehicles are needed to transport the biomass off-site for local reuse, these
strategies are best suited for sites close to an access road. Likewise, due to the limited potential
for on-site use, this method is generally best for sites with smaller amounts of biomass.
Composting on-site
Similar to local reuse methods such as mulch and erosion control, composting has the advantage
of potentially reduced impacts at the biomass removal site, but the disadvantages of increased
costs, GHG emissions, and potential for pathogen spread. Again, this strategy creates no visual
impacts, air quality impacts, a safety risk for visitors, and only minimal safety risk for staff and
equipment operators. The compost created by several invasive trees common in the Bay Area is a
viable alternative to more traditional soil amendments in horticultural settings. A 2015 study
found that Acacia longifolia and A. melanoxylon compost had favorable physical properties,
roughly comparable to native peat moss and pine bark treatments, after just 146 days (Brito et
al., 2015). Another study found that the bark of A. melanoxylon had a high lignin content and
high mineral element concentrations, suggesting that it may be appropriate for horticultural
uses such as organic substrate formulation (Chemetova et al., 2020). Composting has also been
shown to be effective at eliminating fungal and fungus-like pathogens, including P. ramorum,
provided that temperature and duration are sufficiently high (Alexander & Swain, 2010). In a
2009 study, 33 of 38 fungal pathogens examined were reduced to levels below detection limits
when exposed to peak composting temperatures of 64–70°C for 21 days (Sosnowski et al.,
2009). However, untreated biomass has the potential to spread pathogens to new areas during
transit or before being composted (Shelly et al., 2006). GHG emissions are also associated with
ATTACHMENT 3
8
both transportation of the debris (if MROSD compost facilities are not located directly in the
biomass removal site), and the rapid decomposition of wood in a high-temperature compost pile.
Allelopathic chemical impacts are reduced in the biomass removal site, but the presence of
allelopathic chemicals limits the potential for beneficial reuse of the compost. The cost of
transportation is also higher, and the efficiency of this strategy decreases with the increasing
distance of the biomass removal site from the nearest road. As this method requires long-term
storage of materials in piles, this method is best suited for limited amounts of biomass.
Trucking off-site to other compost
The advantages and disadvantages for composting at another off-site facility are largely the same
as those for composting at a MROSD site, except that the distance between the biomass removal
sites and the compost facility are likely to be greater. Therefore, the transportation costs in terms
of both GHG emissions and trucking fees are likely to be higher, and labor costs are likely to be
higher as well. There is also a higher chance of unintentionally introducing pathogens to
previously uninfected areas during transit, although proper precautions taken when preparing the
biomass for transit can mitigate these risks. The advantage of this option is it allows for the
removal of a higher amount of material than would likely be possible using on-site methods.
Trucking off-site to a bioenergy power plant (waste-to-energy)
In 2020, a total of 87 operating biomass power plants (including 14 located in the nine Bay Area
counties) accounted for 2.95% of California's in-state electricity generation portfolio. Trucking
biomass off-site to a bioenergy power plant shares some of the same advantages and
disadvantages of the other off-site strategies discussed so far: minimal visual impacts and no
safety risks for visitors on-site, and minimal safety risk for staff and equipment operators are
advantages; increased cost and GHG emissions associated with transportation and increased risk
of pathogen spread during transit are disadvantages. Bioenergy power plants have the advantages
of generating electricity and creating biomass ash as a byproduct. When biomass ash reacts with
carbon dioxide, it can be mineralized and used in cement and construction products, hence
reducing the reliance on raw resource extraction (Tripathi et al., 2019); however, this advantage
is contingent on the strength of the demand for such construction products in the region of the
bioenergy power plant. On the other hand, the conversion of biomass to energy results in
substantial GHG emissions and negative local impacts on air quality due to wood smoke. Several
bioenergy plants in the Bay Area are located in or near low-income, minority communities (e.g.,
the Hunter’s Point neighborhood of San Francisco, East Palo Alto, and other bayside
communities); therefore, the negative impacts on local air quality caused by bioenergy plants
may exacerbate health inequalities, among other environmental justice concerns. Recent studies
suggest that the negative impacts of bioenergy power plants outweigh the advantages of the
energy and products produced (Morris, 2017). Bioenergy power plants can reduce the amount of
methane gas and particulate matter produced relative to pile burns (Jones et al., 2010). However,
a 2011 study found that burning biomass in a bioenergy power plant did not significantly
mitigate the environmental impacts of burning the biomass on-site and that the costs of
transporting the biomass to a bioenergy power plant were high relative to on-site pile burns
(Springsteen et al., 2011). For these reasons, other techniques for biomass disposal are generally
preferred over bioenergy power plants. Like the other off-site disposal options, this strategy is
ATTACHMENT 3
9
better suited for sites located close to access roads. To be cost-effective, this method would
require moderate to large amounts of biomass and disposal may be subject to variable supply and
demand of the bioenergy facility.
Trucking off-site to landfill
Trucking biomass off-site to a landfill for disposal is similar to other off-site disposal options in
terms of the advantages: there are minimal visual impacts, safety risks for visitors on-site, and
minimal safety risks for operators. However, this option provides no environmental benefits and
has an increased cost associated with transportation, disposal, and GHG emissions. This option is
recommended only for moderate to large amounts of biomass for which there are no other
feasible disposal options available.
ATTACHMENT 3
10
Table 1. Summary of Biomass Disposal Options
Disposal Method GHG
Emissions1
Air
Quality
Impacts
Visual
Impacts
Potential
Pathogen
Spread
Wildfire
Risk/
Hazards
Transport
Cost
Labor Costs Equipment
Cost
Use in
Remote
Locations
Amount of
Material
Mulching/Mastication Minimal None Low Localized Minimal None Low Low Yes Low -
Moderate
Lop and Scatter
Minimal None Low Localized Minimal None Low Low Yes Low
Brush Piles
Minimal None Low Localized Minimal None Low Low Yes Low
Tree Girdling Minimal None Moderate None High None Low Low Yes Low
Pile Burns Minimal High Moderate None Moderate2 None Low Low Yes Low -
Moderate
Air Curtain Burner
Low Low None None Low None Moderate High3 No Low - High
Other Local Reuses Minimal None None High None Low Low Low No Low
Local Composting Minimal None None Low None Low Low Low No Low
Trucking off-site for
Compost
Moderate
to High
None None Low None Moderate -
High
Moderate -
High4
Moderate -
High4
No Moderate –
High
Trucking off-site to
Bioenergy Power
Plant (Waste-to-
Energy)
Moderate
to High
Moderate None Low None Moderate –
High
Moderate –
High4
Moderate –
High4
No Moderate -
High
Trucking off-site to
Landfill
Moderate
to High
Moderate None Low None High5 Moderate –
High4
Moderate –
High4
No Moderate -
High
Notes:
1 Green House Gas (GHG) emissions are associated with the burning of fossil fuels; use of power tools and equipment considered to have minimal impacts; moderate to high impacts
are associated with off-site trucking for the removal of biomass.
2 Pile burns pose a higher risk for potential wildfires, but this risk can be mitigated by seasonal timing and other factors.
3This method would require the lease or purchase of equipment, but an initial investment could reduce costs over time.
4Methods that require off-site transport will require expenses associated with additional drivers and trucks to haul materials.
5This method is likely to have additional costs associated with disposal in addition to transportation costs
ATTACHMENT 3
11
References
Abbas, D., Current, D., Phillips, M., Rossman, R., Hoganson, H., & Brooks, K. N. (2011).
Guidelines for harvesting forest biomass for energy: A synthesis of environmental
considerations. Biomass and Bioenergy, 35(11), 4538–4546.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2011.06.029
Alexander, J. M., & Swain, S. V. (2010). Sudden Oak Death: Integrated Pest Management in the
Landscape. UC ANR Publication 74151, September, 1–8.
http://www.ipm.ucdavis.edu/PDF/PESTNOTES/pnsuddenoakdeath.pdf
Brito, L. M., Reis, M., Mourão, I., & Coutinho, J. (2015). Use of Acacia Waste Compost as an
Alternative Component for Horticultural Substrates. Communications in Soil Science and
Plant Analysis, 46(14), 1814–1826. https://doi.org/10.1080/00103624.2015.1059843
California Department of Food and Agriculture. (2020). California Pest Rating Proposal for
Leptosillia pistaciae. blogs.cdfa.ca.gov/Section3162/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/L-
pistaciae_-PRP_ADA.pdf
Chemetova, C., Ribeiro, H., Fabião, A., & Gominho, J. (2020). Towards sustainable valorisation
of Acacia melanoxylon biomass: Characterization of mature and juvenile plant tissues.
Environmental Research, 191(June). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2020.110090
Chen, D., Zhang, Y., Lin, Y., Zhu, W., & Fu, S. (2010). Changes in belowground carbon in
Acacia crassicarpa and Eucalyptus urophylla plantations after tree girdling. Plant and Soil,
326(1), 123–135. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11104-009-9986-0
Eklund, A., Wing, M. G., & Sessions, J. (2009). Evaluating economic and wildlife habitat
considerations for snag retention policies in burned landscapes. Western Journal of Applied
Forestry, 24(2), 67–75. https://doi.org/10.1093/wjaf/24.2.67
Frame, C. (2011). Reducing Fuels through Mulching Treatments: What are the Ecological
Effects? JFSP Briefs, 140, 1–6. http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/jfspbriefs/127/
Gorenzel, W. P., Mastrup, S. A., & Fitzhugh, E. L. (1995). Characteristics of Brushpiles Used by
Birds in Northern California. The Southwestern Naturalist, 40(1), 86–93.
http://www.jstor.org/stable/30054398
Jones, G., Loeffler, D., Calkin, D., & Chung, W. (2010). Forest treatment residues for thermal
energy compared with disposal by onsite burning: Emissions and energy return. Biomass
and Bioenergy, 34(5), 737–746. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2010.01.016
Miller, C. A., & Lemieux, P. M. (2007). Emissions from the burning of vegetative debris in air
curtain destructors. Journal of the Air and Waste Management Association, 57(8), 959–967.
https://doi.org/10.3155/1047-3289.57.8.959
Morris, J. (2017). Recycle, Bury, or Burn Wood Waste Biomass?: LCA Answer Depends on
Carbon Accounting, Emissions Controls, Displaced Fuels, and Impact Costs. Journal of
Industrial Ecology, 21(4), 844–856. https://doi.org/10.1111/jiec.12469
Nowak, D. J., Stevens, J. C., Sisinni, S. M., & Luley, C. (2002). Effects of urban tree
management and species selection on atmospheric carbon dioxide. Journal of Arboriculture,
ATTACHMENT 3
12
28(3), 113–122.
Shelly, J., Singh, R., Langford, C., & Mason, T. (2006). Understanding the disposal and
utilization options for Phytophthora ramorum infested wood. General Technical Report
Pacific Southwest Research Station, USDA Forest Service, 196, 467–482.
http://www.fs.fed.us/psw/publications/documents/psw_gtr196/psw_gtr196_007_074Shelly.
pdf
http://ovidsp.ovid.com/ovidweb.cgi?T=JS&CSC=Y&NEWS=N&PAGE=fulltext&D=caba6
&AN=20083315838
http://oxfordsfx.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/oxford?sid=OVID:cabadb&id=pmid:&id=
Sosnowski, M. R., Fletcher, J. D., Daly, A. M., Rodoni, B. C., & Viljanen-Rollinson, S. L. H.
(2009). Techniques for the treatment, removal and disposal of host material during
programmes for plant pathogen eradication. Plant Pathology, 58(4), 621–635.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-3059.2009.02042.x
Springsteen, B., Christofk, T., Eubanks, S., Mason, T., Clavin, C., & Storey, B. (2011). Emission
reductions from woody biomass waste for energy as an alternative to open burning. Journal
of the Air and Waste Management Association, 61(1), 63–68. https://doi.org/10.3155/1047-
3289.61.1.63
Tripathi, N., Hills, C. D., Singh, R. S., & Atkinson, C. J. (2019). Biomass waste utilisation in
low-carbon products: harnessing a major potential resource. Climate and Atmospheric
Science, 2(1), 35. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41612-019-0093-5
ATTACHMENT 3
Rev. 3/15/21
R-22-18
Meeting 22-04
February 9, 2022
AGENDA ITEM 9
AGENDA ITEM
Renewal of Enterprise Agreement with Microsoft Corporation
GENERAL MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATION
Authorize the General Manager to renew a five-year Microsoft Enterprise Agreement with Microsoft
Corporation via license service provider Crayon Software Experts LLC through a cooperative
purchasing agreement with the California Department of Technology for an amount not-to-exceed
$526,000.
SUMMARY
The Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District’s (District) current three-year Microsoft Enterprise
Agreement expires April 2022. Renewing this agreement will allow the District to continue using the
Microsoft platform to deliver cloud-based email, document management services, enterprise systems,
and desktop computing (e.g., Exchange, Windows OS, Word, Excel, SQL Server, and PowerPoint).
The General Manager recommends renewing the five-year Microsoft Enterprise Agreement with
Microsoft Corporation using license service provider (software reseller) Crayon Software Experts
LLC and the California Department of Technology for an amount not to exceed $526,000. There are
sufficient funds in the Fiscal Year 2021-22 (FY22) budget to cover the first-year expenses.
Additional funds would be budgeted for upcoming fiscal years FY23 through FY26.
DISCUSSION
The District’s current three-year Microsoft Enterprise Agreement expires April 2022. Consistent with
the recommendations in the District’s 2015 Information Technology Master Plan, the District has
implemented a variety of functionality from the Microsoft Suite. The primary Microsoft products the
District depends on to meet daily operational needs include:
• Windows 10 Enterprise
• Microsoft Office 365 Suite
• Exchange Online (email)
• Sharepoint/OneDrive (document management and cloud storage)
• Microsoft Teams (online/remote enterprise communication platform)
• Microsoft Teams Phone System (Office phone & Conference Calling)
• Microsoft Intune device management platform
• Numerous Microsoft security features
In addition to the core office tools and security features, Microsoft SQL Service Database software
provide the backbone to the District’s enterprise systems (i.e., Cityworks, Enterprise GIS, New
R-22-18 Page 2
World Systems) and to maintaining the on-premises servers. Renewing the Microsoft Enterprise
Agreement will allow the District to meet critical computing needs, support business continuity, and
provide organizational efficiencies.
The Microsoft Enterprise Agreement is a volume licensing agreement that allows the District to
streamline the software ordering process. California Department of Technology (CDT) conducted a
full procurement through a Request for Offer (RFO) process and awarded the contract for
Microsoft Enterprise Agreement to software reseller Crayon Software Experts, LLC, negotiating
pricing for five years. This contract and negotiated pricing are available to state and local
agencies within California. Section IV.C of Board Purchasing Policy 3.03, Public Contract
Bidding, Vendor and Professional Consultant Selection, and Purchasing Policy provides that the
District may "join in cooperative purchasing agreements with other public agencies (e.g., the
State of California, counties, cities, schools, or other special districts) to purchase goods or
services at a price established by that agency through a competitive bidding process."
FISCAL IMPACT
There are sufficient funds in the adopted FY22 budget to cover the cost of the recommendation in
FY22. Funds for subsequent fiscal years would be recommended as part of future budgets during the
annual Budget and Action Plan process. The discounted pricing negotiated by CDT includes a 40%
overall discount for the first year and a 10% discount in year five.
Agreement Year Fiscal Year Cost
Year 1 FY22 $ 15,000*
Year 2 FY23 $ 118,000
Year 3 FY24 $ 118,000
Year 4 FY25 $ 133,000
Year 5 FY26 $ 142,000
Total Costs $ 526,000
*Please note this is only for two months of services.
PRIOR BOARD AND COMMITTEE REVIEW
On March 27, 2019, the Board of Directors approved the General Manager’s recommendation to
enter into a prior three-year agreement with Microsoft and CDW-G for services, including email,
SharePoint, Windows 10, for a not-to-exceed amount of $211,000. (R-19-34, Meeting Minutes).
This agreement ends in April 2022.
PUBLIC NOTICE
Public notice was provided as required by the Brown Act.
CEQA COMPLIANCE
This item is not a project subject to the California Environmental Quality Act.
R-22-18 Page 3
NEXT STEPS
Upon Board approval, the General Manager will enter into a contract with Crayon Software
Experts LLC and the CDT for a five-year enterprise agreement for Microsoft services.
Responsible Department Head:
Casey Hiatt, Acting IST Manager, Information Systems and Technology Department
Prepared by / Contact person:
Owen Sterzl, IT Program Administrator, Information Systems and Technology Department
Rev. 3/15/21
R-22-13
Meeting 22-04
February 9, 2022
AGENDA ITEM 10
AGENDA ITEM
Science Advisory Panel Findings on the Benefits and Impacts of Electric Bicycle Use on Open
Space Trails
GENERAL MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATION
Receive a presentation on the Science Advisory Panel findings regarding the benefit and impacts
of electric bicycle use on open space lands. No Board action required.
SUMMARY
On March 10, 2021 (R-21-38), the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (District) Board
of Directors (Board) directed the Science Advisory Panel (SAP) to conduct a review and
synthesis of the scientific literature regarding the benefits and impacts of electric bicycle (e-bike)
use in open spaces. The report discusses the potential impacts to wildlife, vegetation, trails and
soils, water, and visitor experience and outlines methods for reducing these impacts. Overall, the
SAP concluded that there is limited research on e-bikes. The limited findings indicate a
differentiation in high-frequency noise emissions between e-bikes and traditional mountain bikes
that may potentially disturb certain bat and bird species. The findings also suggest the potential
for increased recreational benefits via increased bicycle use in preserves, particularly for people
with certain mobility challenges or who seek a less challenging means to travel through the
preserve; an increase in use, however, may also increase impacts to natural resources and/or the
visitor experience of other user groups if the frequency of bike encounters and/or the interior
distance travelled increases with the addition of e-bikes.
BACKGROUND
On August 28, 2019 (R-19-120), the Board awarded a contract to San Francisco Estuary Institute
(SFEI) and sub-consultant Point Blue to form the SAP. The SAP’s initial responsibility was to
prepare summary white papers on three key topics of interest to the District, as approved by the
Board on January 8, 2020 (R-20-05). Reports on the three initial topics, including impacts and
benefits of recreation, cattle grazing, and landscape-level monitoring of plant and animal
populations, have been reported to the Board. The Board selected e-bikes as a fourth
topic on March 10, 2021 (R-21-38).
Topic 4: What do the scientific literature and practitioner studies suggest about the benefits
and impacts of class 1 electric bike access on multi-use recreational trails in natural areas?
For the final topic of e-bikes, SFEI has examined the body of scientific and practitioner studies
on e-bike use in open space lands. They also consulted with District subject matter experts and
R-22-13 Page 2
a Technical Advisory Committee comprised of resource and recreation management practitioners
and scholars, several of whom have had direct experience with managing e-bike use in open
space settings. SFEI’s final report compares the potential impacts from e-bikes to those from
traditional mountain bikes, provides information on how other agencies in California and across
the country are regulating e-bike use, and offers suggestions for visitor use management to
reduce the possible impacts, should the District choose to allow e-bikes on trails.
DISCUSSION
The SAP determined that very few studies have been done to assess the impacts of e-bikes on
open space. Of those that do exist, some were too limited for meaningful statistical analysis.
However, based on the available research, consultation with a Technical Advisory Committee of
experts, and an assessment of the similarities and differences between e-bikes and traditional
mountain bikes from a mechanical and use perspective, SFEI drew several conclusions about
how e-bikes may impact open space and offered suggestions for possible management strategies.
The potential e-bike benefits and impacts to consider are summarized below.
Benefits
Benefits of e-bike use are similar to benefits of other open space recreational uses, and especially
similar to traditional mountain biking. A small number of studies show that heart rates reached
similar levels regardless of whether the cyclist rode a traditional bike or an e-bike on a test route.
Exercising on an e-bike can help reduce the risk of certain diseases, improve mental health, and
increase conservation-minded behavior, much like other types of outdoor recreation. The full
suite of benefits is discussed in detail in part one of the SAP’s previous report on the Benefits
and Impacts of Recreation in Open Space, which was presented to the Board on February 24,
2021 (R-21-31). E-bikes, specifically, can improve access to open space for people with certain
mobility challenges and those who seek a less challenging means to travel through preserves.
Surveys showed that e-bike riders tend to be older than traditional mountain bikers, and many
choose to transition to an e-bike to continue riding, to keep up with younger friends and family,
etc., as they age.
Wildlife Disturbance
Both e-bikes and traditional mountain bikes can impact wildlife. These impacts result from a
variety of elements and include human presence (not unique to mountain bikes), rapid
movement, and noise, which all have the potential to disturb animals and disrupt their behaviors
or cause them to flee or avoid an area. Unfortunately, because e-bike technology is relatively
new and rapidly evolving, there has been little study of the impacts of e-bikes on wildlife as
distinct from the impacts of traditional mountain bikes or other forms of recreation. The limited
research has to date only identified one clear differentiating factor between traditional bicycles
and e-bikes: noise emissions as a source of potential impacts to bat and bird species (see details
below).
Noise
Limited research recently conducted by the District and consultant H.T. Harvey & Associates
clearly identified noise as a difference between e-bikes and traditional bikes. The District and H.
T. Harvey & Associates conducted a study of sounds produced by both types of bicycles during
typical modes of use (pedaling uphill, pedaling or coasting downhill, braking). The study showed
that e-bikes produce louder sounds in high-frequency ranges audible to certain bat species and in
lower-frequency ranges audible to birds (and other wildlife). The study measured the attenuation
R-22-13 Page 3
of these sounds to identify buffer distances that would protect sensitive nesting and roosting
areas from disturbance. Both that study and SFEI’s report recommend the use of buffer distances
to manage potential noise-related e-bike impacts.
Distance and Duration
Another area in which e-bikes appear to differ from traditional mountain bikes is the ability for
e-bikes riders to ride longer without tiring and thus reach areas of preserves where wildlife is less
habituated to existing mountain bike use, increasing impacts to wildlife. This particular concern
is unlikely to be an issue within District lands given the size and trail networks within preserves.
An analysis of District trails that are open to bicycles showed that Sierra Azul is the only
preserve with bicycle trail segments more than 5 miles from a trailhead (i.e., not reachable on a
10-mile round trip). A 10-mile ride is a considered a moderate distance for traditional mountain
bikes. The Kennedy Trail, Woods Trail, and Limekiln reach more than 5 miles into the heart of
Sierra Azul (Figure 1), meaning there is a small area at the center that could not be accessed on a
10-mile round-trip ride. That area could be reached on a 15-mile round trip ride, which is still
well within the norm for many mountain bikers on traditional bikes.
A separate concern that may be more pertinent to District preserves is the higher likelihood for e-
bikes riders to revisit the same trail alignment multiple times during their preserve visit, or to
travel overall greater distances by connecting to nearby open spaces/parks and thus spend
Figure 1. Segment of trail in Sierra Azul more than 5 miles from a trailhead.
R-22-13 Page 4
additional time and cross more terrain in open space lands given the ability for e-bikes to enable
their riders to ride longer without tiring. In addition, the introduction of e-bikes may also lead to
a greater total count of bicycle use, which depending on the numbers, may also increase the level
of disturbance to wildlife, vegetation, soils, and other visitors.
Soils/Erosion
E-bikes and traditional mountain bikes are likely to have similar impacts to soils and trails.
Bicycles impact trail surfaces by displacing soil and widening and/or incising the trail tread. This
is more likely to happen in wetter conditions, or if cyclists ride faster and or recklessly. While
the pedal-assist on e-bikes gives their riders the ability to travel faster with less effort, studies did
not provide strong evidence that e-bike riders actually ride faster than traditional mountain
bikers. Two studies showed marginally higher speeds for e-bikes going uphill and slower speeds
for e-bikes going downhill, however, neither study had a large enough sample size for
meaningful statistical analysis. Another study assessing soil displacement found no notable
differences between e-bikes and traditional mountain bikes, though its authors cautioned that
additional research is needed to confirm their findings.
Vegetation
Impacts to vegetation primarily occur when cyclists ride off-trail or disperse seeds/pathogens
carried on their tire tread. The District does not allow off-trail mountain bicycle use. Restrictions
on off-trail bicycle use are monitored and enforced through signing, fencing, restoration,
education, and patrol/citations. Seed dispersal can occur through shoes, bicycle tires or any other
medium that contains residue soil. The District provides boot brushes and wheel brushes at
several trailheads to help visitors clean up before leaving. No studies examined differences in
vegetation impacts from e-bikes compared to traditional mountain bikes.
Visitor Experience
Visitor experience is another area in which e-bikes and traditional bicycles may differ. There
have been a handful of studies addressing how non-e-bike visitors respond to e-bike presence on
trails. In general, complaints about bicyclists are more common than complaints from bicyclists.
Concerns and complaints about e-bikes, however, do not always reflect the data collected about
their use, speed, and impacts. Visitor surveys from various locations where e-bikes are permitted
reveal concerns about cyclists riding too fast, generating greater environmental damage, and
resulting in noise impacts to people, horses, and wildlife. A study in Jefferson County, Colorado,
showed that visitors are not generally able to distinguish between e-bikes and traditional
mountain bikes during brief trail encounters, and that if given an opportunity to try an e-bike,
visitor concerns are somewhat alleviated, and may be more likely to accept e-bikes.
Finally, the demographics of e-bike users suggest that allowing e-bikes in preserves could
increase the overall number of bicyclists and the frequency with which they ride in open space
preserves. Surveys of e-bike riders show that in general, they tend to be older than traditional
mountain bikers, most have ridden traditional mountain bikes in the past and they are using an e-
bike to extend their ability to ride (and the health benefits conferred from this activity) as they
age. Surveys have also shown that e-bike riders in urban settings ride more frequently; it is not
known if this translates to open space recreation. Though e-bikes are easier to ride and could
enable people with lower physical fitness, injuries, or certain disabilities to take up mountain
biking when they could not use a traditional mountain bike, few cyclists use an e-bike as their
introduction to mountain biking. This may be due to the high cost of purchasing an e-bike (which
could change as they become more common). Taken together, the possibility for e-bikes to
R-22-13 Page 5
extend the cycling careers of current mountain bikers, and their use as “other powered mobility
devices” could lead to more bicyclists on the trails.
Recommended Management Strategies
Should the District decide to allow e-bikes on trails, SFEI concluded that current practices for
managing mountain bike recreation can also extend to e-bikes. SFEI cautioned against policies that
would create separate rules for e-bike and traditional mountain bikes, given the difficulty in
enforcing such policies. Based on the current science, e-bikes do not seem more likely to exceed
the speed limit or leave the trail than traditional mountain bikes. The two potential impacts to
natural resources relate to noise emissions and potentially to overall wildlife disturbance if the
level of bicycle use increases substantially. To address noise impacts, trails allowing bicycles
should be located with appropriate buffer distances from specific sensitive bat and bird roosting
and breeding sites. A GIS analysis of trails and known sensitive wildlife receptors showed that this
is currently the case. As noted in the SAP recreation report, increases in any type of recreational
use (hiking, equestrian, dog-walking and bicycling), has the potential to increase wildlife impacts.
The primary mitigation for increases in recreational use is to designate sensitive areas not
appropriate for public access. Another measure is to prohibit off-trail travel, which is already the
case for bicycles in District preserves. Impacts caused by increased visitation are difficult to
quantify or predict, and furthermore may be difficult to attribute specifically to e-bikes.
To minimize visitor conflict, SFEI’s primary recommendation was outreach and education. They
suggest that single use hiking or bicycling trails may reduce visitor conflict; however, adopting
new use restrictions on existing trails creates significant enforcement challenges and constructing
new, single use trails to isolate uses exacerbates habitat fragmentation and results in impacts to
the natural resources. Another possible strategy to reduce visitor conflict could be one-way trails,
which reduce the number of visitor interactions. One-way trails were implemented during the
COVID-19 pandemic in some areas. One-way trails were difficult to manage due to opposition
from some visitors. It was never enforced with citations and relied on voluntary compliance.
SFEI’s final, overarching recommendation is to continue seeking out new science on this subject,
to further study it with partners or on District lands and take an adaptive management approach
that keeps pace with the most current scientific and practitioner understanding of the issues.
Should the District allow e-bikes in its preserves, SFEI recommends an ongoing monitoring
program that evaluates how e-bikes are being used and how they are impacting the landscape and
other visitors over time. This is in line with their findings in the previous report on the benefits
and impacts of recreation, in which they recommend monitoring the impacts of recreation
generally. They do caution that in many cases it may not be possible to separate the impacts of e-
bikes from the impacts of traditional mountain bikes or other recreational uses. The best way to
examine e-bike impacts specifically would be through scientific experiments, perhaps in
partnership with local research institutions and/or other land management agencies.
FISCAL IMPACT
None
BOARD AND COMMITTEE REVIEW
This item is being brought directly to the full Board of Directors given full Board interest.
Previous Board and committee materials related to this item:
R-22-13 Page 6
• August 28, 2019 – Award of Contract for the SAP
o Board Report
o Minutes
• November 19, 2019 – Review of Potential SAP Topics
o Planning and Natural Resources Committee Report
o Minutes
• January 8, 2020 – Topic Selection
o Board Report
o Minutes
• February 24, 2021 – Benefits of Recreation in Open Space
• Board Report
• Minutes
• March 10, 2021 – Selection of Topic 4
o Board Report
o Minutes
PUBLIC NOTICE
Public notice was provided as required by the Brown Act.
CEQA COMPLIANCE
This item is not a project subject to the California Environmental Quality Act.
NEXT STEPS
Following the presentation of the SAP’s findings to the Board, the Planning and Natural
Resources (PNR) Committee will receive a presentation from the Visitor Services Department on
results from District pilots of e-bike use on paved trails at Rancho San Antonio and Ravenswood
Preserves, and from visitor surveys regarding e-bike use and visitor experience on unpaved trails,
conducted at Calero and Sanborn County Parks. The PNR Committee will make a
recommendation to the full Board regarding the next steps for consideration of e-bikes access in
District preserves.
Attachment:
1. E-bikes and Open Space Final Report
Responsible Department Head:
Kirk Lenington, Natural Resources Department
Prepared by:
Sophie Christel, Management Analyst I, Natural Resources Department
Graphics prepared by:
Francisco Lopez Tapia, Data Analyst I, Information Services and Technology Department
PREPARED BY
San Francisco Estuary Institute
AUTHORS
Stephanie Panlasigui, SFEI
Sean Baumgarten, SFEI
Erica Spotswood, SFEI
PREPARED FOR
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
Photo by Karl Gohl, courtesy of Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
SAN FRANCISCO ESTUARY INSTITUTE PUBLICATION #1064
DECEMBER 2021
E-BIKES AND OPEN SPACE:
THE CURRENT STATE OF RESEARCH
AND MANAGEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS
Executive Summary ...............................................................................3
Introduction ...............................................................................................5
Impacts of traditional mountain bikes ......................................7
Wildlife .....................................................................................................................................................................................7
Soil ............................................................................................................................................................................................9
Vegetation ............................................................................................................................................................................10
Water ......................................................................................................................................................................................10
Visitor experience ...............................................................................................................................................................11
Unique considerations of e-bikes ...............................................12
Demographics .......................................................................................................................................................................12
Uphill speed ..........................................................................................................................................................................13
Soil impacts ...........................................................................................................................................................................14
Conflicts between visitors ..................................................................................................................................................14
Noise pollution ......................................................................................................................................................................15
Longer distance traveled ...................................................................................................................................................15
Fire risk ..................................................................................................................................................................................15
Management recommendations .................................................16
Education and outreach .....................................................................................................................................................19
Sustainable trail design ......................................................................................................................................................19
On-trail management ..........................................................................................................................................................20
Monitoring and research ....................................................................................................................................................22
Conclusion ..................................................................................................22
References .................................................................................................23
CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Funding for this work was provided by the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District. We are grateful to
Mary Ann Bonnell, Peter Cowan, Natalie Dayal, Mia Monroe, Jennifer Thomsen, Lynne Trulio, and Letitia
Grenier for their input and review. We also thank Ruth Askevold for design and production of this report.
Attachment 1
Benefits of Experiences in Nature • SFEI
3
Executive Summary
Electric bikes (hereafter “e-bikes”) are a new technology that is growing in popularity. There are
three classes of e-bike, all of which have a battery-powered motor that assists the rider. Classes 1
and 3 require the rider to pedal to engage the motor, while class 2 can use the motor exclusively to
propel the bike.
As e-bikes have risen in popularity and other land managers have begun allowing e-bikes on trails
and roads within parks and preserves, the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (hereafter
“Midpen”) has received many public comments expressing interest in riding e-bikes in its preserves.
Currently, two-thirds of Midpen’s trail system allows traditional non-motorized bicycles, but their
regulations prohibit e-bikes. Little information is available to predict whether e-bikes, relative to
traditional bikes, would have different ecological and social impacts. Like many other agencies,
Midpen is looking to emerging scientific studies to better understand the potential impacts of
e-bikes on the natural resources and ecosystem functions in public open space. This information
will help Midpen evaluate whether e-bike use is compatible with its mission for the management
of the preserves, part of which is to “protect and restore the natural environment, and provide
opportunities for ecologically sensitive public enjoyment and education.” If Midpen determines that
e-bikes are compatible with its goals, the science will also help in crafting a policy that allows for
e-bike use in a way that serves the interests of both users and the environment.
This report is part of Midpen’s effort to gain a deeper understanding of the range of possible
outcomes of allowing e-bike use in the preserves. For this science synthesis, over 75 papers were
reviewed, and a committee of advisors (see Introduction) contributed their knowledge and expert
opinions. The goals of this report are to summarize the impacts of traditional mountain bikes,
identify how e-bike impacts are likely to be similar or different, and provide recommendations for
managing e-bike use if Midpen decides to allow it. The literature review revealed a number of key
themes:
1. Very few studies have been published about e-bike use in public open space.
Most studies are about e-bikes for commuter use. Much of this information will be relevant
only to urban settings, though some portion may translate to open space settings. In
addition, among the few studies conducted in open space settings, some did not yield
statistically meaningful results due to small sample sizes. More research is needed to
understand e-bike use in open space and its potential impacts to trails, wildlife, and other
visitors. Regular reviews of new research and ongoing collaboration between Midpen and
other recreation land managers would help ensure that Midpen’s e-bike policy continues to
be guided by the most recent science and expertise.
E-bikes and open space: the current state of research
and management recommendations
Prepared for Midpeninsula Open Space District by the San Francisco Estuary Institute
Attachment 1
Benefits of Experiences in Nature • SFEI
4
2. Noise pollution is likely to be an important impact of e-bikes, leading to disturbances to
some wildlife species.
Noise emitted by the motor has the potential to disturb some wildlife species. E-bikes emit
both high- and low- frequency sounds in the audible range of many bird and bat species.
Other species that hear in these frequencies are likely to experience some disturbance as
well when using trail-adjacent habitat. Continued research on sounds from e-bike motors
and wildlife disturbance will be valuable. If allowing e-bikes, Midpen should use buffer
distances based on the best available research to separate trails from sensitive nesting and
roosting sites.
3. Potential areas of difference between e-bikes and traditional bikes include uphill speed,
trail degradation, distance traveled and number of users.
At this time, the limited amount of available research is insufficient for drawing general
conclusions about the trends or impacts related to e-bike use in open space settings.
Surveys of e-bike users highlight their motivations to use e-bikes, including extending
their ability to ride into older age (thus increasing the number of users) and being able to
travel longer distances. Surveys of other visitors identified speed of e-bikes to be a major
concern, for reasons related to safety and environmental degradation. More quantitative
research is needed to understand whether these motivations and concerns are reflected in
reality in open space settings where e-bikes are allowed.
4. As more e-bike research becomes available, an adaptive management strategy would
facilitate future adjustments to management practices. Many of the management
strategies used for mountain bikes are likely to apply to e-bikes as well.
Education and outreach, including signage and education programs, are key tools for
promoting responsible cyclist behavior as well as reducing conflicts between visitors.
Sustainable trail design and other on-trail management strategies can help to minimize
traditional mountain bike impacts to natural resources while maintaining high quality
recreation experiences. These strategies are likely to continue to be effective for
managing potential trail impacts of e-bikes, but continued monitoring and research
will be critical to increasing knowledge and improving management of e-bikes in
Midpen preserves over time.
Finally, many agencies that manage open space face a challenge in developing a policy for e-bikes
based on a very limited amount of information. For instance, a 2016 survey of land management
agencies found that the vast majority of land managers (91%) are concerned about possible
environmental impacts of e-bikes and would find more research to be useful (Trail Use and
Management of Electric Mountain Bikes: Land Manager Survey Results, 2016). Given the lack of
information, if Midpen proceeds with a policy allowing e-bikes, an adaptive management approach
is highly recommended. As new studies are published and as e-bikes continue to evolve, Midpen
should be prepared to review the new information and potentially integrate it into a revised policy
to ensure that e-bike use will remain compatible with its mission.
Attachment 1
Benefits of Experiences in Nature • SFEI
5
Introduction
Electric bicycles, hereafter “e-bikes,” are a relatively new technology that is growing in popularity in the
United States (MacArthur et al., 2018). E-bikes are equipped with a battery-powered motor that assists
the rider in propelling the bike forward. Around the world, urban residents are rapidly adopting e-bikes
for their commutes, and therefore most scientific research on e-bikes focuses on urban settings and
outcomes like greenhouse gas emissions, urban noise pollution, and traffic collisions (e.g., McQueen et
al., 2020; Schepers et al., 2014; Weiss et al., 2015). However, e-bikes are becoming increasingly popular
in natural areas as well. For instance, a survey of Colorado e-bike users found that most (93%) intend to
use their e-bikes on public lands and a substantial portion of e-bike users (34%) are interested in using
their e-bikes for mountain biking (Perry and Casey, 2020). Given that e-bikes are fairly new technology,
available studies on e-bikes are limited. Nonetheless, many open space agencies are pressed to establish
an e-bike policy as public interest in e-bike use grows. By default, California Vehicle Code Section 21207.5
allows some types of e-bikes on unpaved trails unless the managing agency’s policy specifically prohibits
them. A survey of land managers found that the vast majority (91%) are concerned about possible
environmental impacts of electric mountain bikes and would find studies on these and other impacts
useful (Trail Use and Management of Electric Mountain Bikes: Land Manager Survey Results, 2016).
The Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (hereafter “Midpen”) is one of many agencies seeking
to establish an e-bike policy. In Santa Clara, San Mateo and Santa Cruz counties, Midpen has preserved
approximately 65,000 acres of land, more than half of which is open to the public. Many people in the region
visit Midpen’s preserves to participate in various activities, such as hiking, mountain biking, horseback
riding, and other more leisurely activities like bird-watching and nature photography. Approximately two-
thirds of Midpen’s trail system is multi-use and allows bicyclists. Currently, Midpen does not allow e-bike
use on preserves except under an e-bike pilot program at two preserves and primarily on paved trails, as well
as for people with mobility disabilities under the Other Power-Driven Mobility Devices policy in conformity
with federal land management laws and regulations. Recently, Midpen has received many public comments
expressing interest in riding e-bikes in the preserves, prompting this literature review and other efforts to
evaluate the feasibility and potential impacts of introducing e-bike use on trails.
Like many other agencies, Midpen is looking to existing scientific studies to better understand the
potential impacts of e-bikes on natural resources in public open space. This information will help
Midpen evaluate whether e-bike use is compatible with its mission to “protect and restore the natural
environment, and provide opportunities for ecologically sensitive public enjoyment and education.” This
report presents a synthesis of the current body of scientific literature and aims to achieve the following:
• Summarize the impacts of traditional mountain bikes
• Identify potential impacts that may be unique to e-bikes
• Identify which traditional mountain bike impacts are likely to also be true of e-bikes
• Provide management recommendations to reduce potential negative impacts of e-bikes
In addition to this study, Midpen has collaborated with partners on a study of motor noise emissions and
the potential to disturb wildlife (discussed in this report), and an ongoing study of visitor perceptions of
e-bikes. The broader literature on e-bikes includes several other topics that this report will not address,
because these topics are likely to not be relevant to public open space settings. Such topics are more
relevant to urban areas and include greenhouse gas emissions reductions (i.e., when replacing a gas-
powered vehicle with an e-bike), urban noise pollution reduction, and traffic collisions.
Attachment 1
Additionally, this report has benefited from the involvement of a committee of six advisors, representing
a range of relevant areas of expertise. They contributed their knowledge and expert opinion during two
workshop meetings and through review of this report. The advisors were Mary Ann Bonnell (Jefferson
County Open Space), Peter Cowan (Peninsula Open Space Trust), Natalie Dayal (National Park Service,
Golden Gate National Recreation Area), Mia Monroe (National Park Service, Golden Gate National
Recreation Area), Jennifer Thomsen (University of Montana), and Lynne Trulio (San Jose State University).
classes of e-bikes
California Vehicle Code Section 312.5(a) defines an “electric bicycle” as “a bicycle equipped with
fully operable pedals and an electric motor of less than 750 watts.” The section also defines the
three classes of electric bicycle as follows:
• “A “class 1 electric bicycle,” or “low-speed pedal-assisted electric bicycle,” is a bicycle
equipped with a motor that provides assistance only when the rider is pedaling, and that
ceases to provide assistance when the bicycle reaches the speed of 20 miles per hour.”
• “A “class 2 electric bicycle,” or “low-speed throttle-assisted electric bicycle,” is a bicycle
equipped with a motor that may be used exclusively to propel the bicycle, and that is not
capable of providing assistance when the bicycle reaches the speed of 20 miles per hour.”
• “A “class 3 electric bicycle,” or “speed pedal-assisted electric bicycle,” is a bicycle equipped
with a motor that provides assistance only when the rider is pedaling, and that ceases
to provide assistance when the bicycle reaches the speed of 28 miles per hour, and is
equipped with a speedometer.”
At the time of writing, Midpen is only considering allowing class 1 e-bikes on unpaved trails and
classes 1 and 2 e-bikes on limited paved trails.
Electric bicycle near trail. (photo by Fabrice Florin, courtesy of CC BY 2.0)
Benefits of Experiences in Nature • SFEI
6
Attachment 1
Benefits of Experiences in Nature • SFEI
7
about the literature
This literature review primarily focused on peer-reviewed studies. The peer review system
among academic journals gives other scientists a chance to critique the paper to ensure
the research is of high quality before it is accepted for publication. Because peer-reviewed
studies on both traditional mountain bikes and e-bikes are limited in number, to gather as
much evidence as possible this review also includes studies that have not been peer reviewed.
Whether or not a resource is peer-reviewed, when very few studies are available on a particular
topic, it is important to note that additional research is necessary to build more evidence before
broad conclusions may be drawn.
Studies that are not peer-reviewed fall into two categories: student research and white papers.
Student research (e.g., master’s theses and Ph.D. dissertations) is overseen by university faculty
to ensure that the student develops a rigorous study design and produces a high quality report.
A white paper is a report or guide that is independently produced by a company or organization.
Some white papers in this report were produced by government agencies (e.g., Boulder
County Parks and Open Space) and others by non-profit organizations (e.g., PeopleForBikes
and International Mountain Biking Association). Some caution regarding literature that has
not been peer reviewed is warranted. Non-peer-reviewed works were included as long as the
authors provided clearly stated methods and results, and their interpretation did not overstate
the results. The latter is particularly important when the sample size is too low to yield a
statistically powerful result.
Impacts of traditional mountain bikes
Because traditional mountain bikes have been around since the 1970s, more is known about the
ecological impacts of mountain bikes in open space than e-bikes. In the broader body of literature on
recreation outcomes, mountain biking has received less attention than hiking, which is by far the most
studied activity (Larson et al., 2016; Thomsen et al., 2018).
This chapter summarizes the impacts of mountain biking on the four major landscape components that
are affected by recreation: wildlife, soil, vegetation and water (Cole, 1993). A brief section on visitor
experience addresses the benefits received by participants in the sport and the potential for negative
interactions between user groups on multi-use trails.
WILDLIFE
Mountain biking, as with other forms of recreation, can cause both short term and longer term
disturbance to wildlife. Wildlife may respond to the presence of bicyclists through increased alertness or
fleeing, as well as longer term avoidance of areas around trails. A recent review indicates that the level of
disturbance varies widely depending on taxonomic group, frequency of recreational use, environmental
characteristics, and other factors, making it difficult to draw generalizations (Marion, 2019).
Wildlife species that are disturbed by human presence may decrease in abundance at a site, or a species
may no longer occupy the site at all. Some studies have reported reduced abundance of small mammals
and mesocarnivores (small to medium sized predators), such as coyotes and bobcats, in response to
recreational use (biking, hiking, and horseback riding) and human-modification in open space (Reed
Attachment 1
Benefits of Experiences in Nature • SFEI
8
Bobcat near Mount Hamilton. (photo by Don DeBold, courtesy by CC BY 2.0)
and Merenlender, 2011, 2008; Sauvajot et al., 1998), while other studies have found little relationship
between mesocarnivore habitat occupancy and recreational use (Reilly et al., 2017; Townsend et al.,
2020). These contradictory findings may be explained in part by different methodologies, such as the use
of scat as a proxy for occupancy, which can be less accurate due to domestic dogs consuming scat and
humans having low visual detection ability for scat (Townsend et al., 2020). Mountain lions are especially
sensitive to humans, and have been observed in the Santa Cruz Mountains using GPS trackers to avoid
areas where they perceive human presence by sound (Suraci et al., 2019). Their reduced occupancy led
to a secondary effect of small mammals using more habitat area. After the opening of a new multi-use
(biking, hiking, and horseback riding) trail in Sonoma County, mountain lions disappeared from the site
and nine months of surveys post-opening did not observe any individuals returning to the site (Townsend
et al., 2020). In some contexts, some wildlife species may habituate to recreational use and rebound to
occupancy levels observed prior to the introduction of recreation (Townsend et al., 2020). For example,
Townsend et al. (2020) found that detection of black-tailed deer around trails in North Sonoma Mountain
Regional Park and Open Space Preserve decreased for two years after trail opening but then returned to
pre-opening levels.
Literature regarding the impacts of mountain biking on wildlife relative to other forms of recreation is
limited, and findings are mixed. In addition, much of the research has been conducted in other regions
and is not focused on local species of interest in Santa Clara and San Mateo counties. (Taylor and Knight,
2003) found that bison, pronghorn antelope, and mule deer on Antelope Island, UT, responded similarly
to hiking and mountain biking, and exhibited a 70% probability of flushing from on-trail visitors within
100 m of trails regardless of the type of activity. However, the potential for mountain bikers to disturb
more wildlife within a given time period due to greater distance traveled was not examined. (Papouchis
et al., 2001) found that desert bighorn sheep in Canyonlands National Park, UT, were much more likely to
respond behaviorally to hikers than to mountain bikers; the authors hypothesize that this was due to the
less predictable activity of hikers. In contrast, a study by (Naidoo and Burton, 2020) in British Columbia
found that the timing of wildlife activity was affected more by mountain biking and motorized recreation
than by hikers or horse riders. Townsend et al. (2020) found in Sonoma County that in the same four
seasons post-trail opening, some wildlife species’ occupancy levels rebounded and mountain biking rates
decreased, both to pre-trail opening levels; the authors suggest that some wildlife may tolerate high
hiking levels but low rates of bicycle use.
Attachment 1
Benefits of Experiences in Nature • SFEI
9
SOIL
Studies on soil-related impacts of recreation typically focus on forms of trail degradation. While type of
use does influence trail degradation (Svajda et al., 2016), it is not as significant as certain aspects of trail
design. The two primary drivers of trail sustainability are low trail slope alignment and low trail grade
(Marion and Wimpey, 2017). Trail slope alignment (TSA) is the difference between the trail and the slope
of the land. On more sustainable “side-hill” trails, TSA is low and the trail ascends more gradually, whereas
a less sustainable “fall-line” trail is highly aligned with the slope and ascends the slope more directly.
Studies conducted in the Southwestern US and on the Appalachian Trail have found that the steepest
trail sections experienced the most soil loss, as measured by the amount of trail incision or change in trail
depth (Meadema et al., 2020; White et al., 2006).
Mountain bikes can cause trail degradation through skidding and the construction of informal trails,
jumps and bridges (Pickering et al., 2010). The riding style (speed, control) and trail conditions (grade and
moisture) influence the severity of mountain bike impacts (Pickering et al., 2010). Another factor is the bike’s
contact patch (the area of the tire that touches a surface) which is determined by tire width and pressure.
In comparison to a cyclocross bike with 35mm wide tires inflated to higher pressure, a mountain bike with
60mm wide tires inflated to lower pressure had less impact on soil compaction (Martin et al., 2018).
Generally, impacts of mountain biking are mostly confined to the main tread (the surface of the trail where
people walk or ride; (White et al., 2006). Mountain biking causes a very similar but slightly higher rate of
soil loss compared to hiking (Evju et al., 2021; Olive and Marion, 2009). Mountain biking can cause soil
compaction at similar rates as hiking (Martin et al., 2018). Studies of trail width expansion have found
mountain bikes to have a relatively low effect that is comparable or greater relative to hiking (Evju et al.,
2021; White et al., 2006). Wet conditions on natural-surface trails can exacerbate degradation caused
Mountain biking in the forest. (photo by TJ N, courtesy of Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District and CC BY 2.0)
Attachment 1
Benefits of Experiences in Nature • SFEI
10
by mountain bikers and other recreationists (Evju et al., 2021; Landsberg et al., 2001). The contribution
of mountain bikes to trail widening is relatively small compared to horse riding and off-highway vehicles
(White et al., 2006).
Mountain bikers cause negative impacts through the unauthorized construction of trails (Pickering et al.,
2010). Compared to trails carefully planned and constructed by land management staff, the unplanned
nature of informal trails typically means that sustainability is not factored into their creation. Informal
trails are more susceptible to degradation because they tend to feature higher trail grade and greater trail
slope alignment (Wimpey and Marion, 2011).
VEGETATION
As with soil, vegetation impacts of mountain bikes stem from skidding, creation of informal trails, and
addition of other unauthorized features like jumps (Pickering et al., 2010). Vegetation trampling is a well-
studied impact of recreation, and is particularly problematic where users go off trail and create informal
trails. In previously untrampled areas, after just 400 passes by a mountain bike (or a hiker), at least 50% of
vegetation cover may be lost (Martin et al., 2018). Compared across recreational activities, mountain biking
has a greater impact on vegetation cover than either hiking or running (Havlick et al., 2016). Within mountain
biking, more vegetation loss occurs when riding uphill than downhill (Havlick et al., 2016). As mentioned
earlier, wet trail conditions can lead mountain bikers and hikers to move around the muddy section,
contributing to trail widening (Evju et al., 2021), which results from the trampling of trail-adjacent vegetation.
Vegetation trampling also occurs when bikers move off trail to yield to hikers on multi-use trails where
equestrians yield to bikers, who yield to hikers.
Mountain biking may also lead to human-mediated dispersal of pathogens. Pathogens may be accidentally
spread on contaminated footwear, clothing, bike tires, or other objects (Kolby and Daszak, 2016). In the case
of sudden oak death, a disease that affects oak trees in coastal California, spores of the fungus that causes
the disease can stick to bike tires and thus travel between recreation sites (Davidson et al., 2005).
Similarly, mountain biking can also facilitate the dispersal of non-native plants. Especially in wet
conditions, mountain biking can disperse plant seeds up to 500m (Weiss et al., 2016).
WATER
Mountain biking impacts to water quality have not been a major focus of scientific research. A review in
2010 found no published studies specific to mountain bike impacts on water (Quinn and Chernoff, 2010);
more recent reviews have confirmed the lack of studies (Claussen, 2021). Potential impacts of mountain
biking may be inferred from the broader body of literature on recreation impacts to water quality,
although water quality impacts from recreation are not as well studied as wildlife, vegetation and soil
impacts (Marion et al., 2016).
Recreation impacts to water quality often occur via impacts to soil. Except during wet conditions, well-
designed trails are rather resilient to recreation impacts like soil compaction, widening and soil loss (Evju
et al., 2021; Landsberg et al., 2001). Soil erosion may be higher where trails cross streams, especially
where best management practices for trails are not implemented, and the soil enters the water (Kidd et
al., 2014). The extra input of sediment and nutrients increases turbidity, reduces dissolved oxygen, and
may promote algal blooms (Hammitt et al., 2015). Some algae produce toxins, and these harmful algal
blooms (often referred to as “HABs”) can make water unsafe for recreation or drinking (Wurtsbaugh et
al., 2019). Deaths as a result of algal toxins have been recorded for livestock and birds (Wurtsbaugh et al.,
Attachment 1
Benefits of Experiences in Nature • SFEI
11
2019). Extra input of sediment also reduces habitat quality for protected salmonids, which are present
in several of the watersheds on Midpen lands. Excessive sedimentation reduces the quality of salmonid
spawning gravels and egg survival rates (Wood and Armitage, 1997). Juvenile salmonids also experience
decreased growth and survival rates as a result of fine sediment deposition according to a study in
Northern California (Suttle et al., 2004).
VISITOR EXPERIENCE
People who participate in mountain biking receive physical and mental health benefits. Studies have
found that mountain biking can be as healthful an activity as road cycling (Dillard, 2017), which imparts
many health benefits like cardiorespiratory fitness, lower risk of heart disease, lower risk of stroke,
improved muscular fitness, and reduced depression (Oja et al., 2011). Beyond physical fitness benefits,
participation in mountain biking helps people feel more connected to nature, which plays a significant role
in supporting general well-being (Mayer and Frantz, 2004; Roberts et al., 2018; Shanahan et al., 2016).
Mountain bikers also report stress reduction, improved self-esteem, and greater life satisfaction as a
result of participation (Hill and Gómez, 2020; Roberts et al., 2018).
When different types of recreationists interact on the trail, there is a possibility for a negative experience
or conflict. One study conducted in Montana received survey responses from 161 recreationists who
were a mix of bicyclists and non-bicyclists to understand their perspectives of each other (Watson et
al., 1991). The survey revealed that the perceived conflict was asymmetrical, with about 60% of hikers
reporting issues with mountain bikers (“Bicycles traveling too fast or too many bicycles”), whereas 25-
30% of bicyclists reported issues with hikers. Conflict can manifest in the form of negative interpersonal
interactions, such as mountain bikers traveling too fast or passing too closely from the perspective of
hikers (Carothers et al., 2001). High speeds of mountain bikers can also startle horses, leading some
equestrians to report conflict (Napp and Longsdorf, 2005). Hikers may also perceive mountain biking
as in conflict with their social values (e.g., causing more environmental degradation or increasing safety
concerns; Carothers et al., 2001). A survey of 270 people living within 4 km of two national parks in
Australia found that primary concerns about mountain bikes include the potential for collisions and
environmental impacts (e.g., damage to plants and animals; (Rossi et al., 2014).
Mountain biking in the forest. (photo by TJ N, courtesy of Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District and CC BY 2.0)
Attachment 1
Benefits of Experiences in Nature • SFEI
12
Electric bicycle on trail. (photo by Fabrice Florin, courtesy of CC BY 2.0)
Unique considerations of e-bikes
While many of the impacts from the use of e-bikes in natural areas are likely to be similar to the impacts
from traditional mountain bikes discussed above, there are some areas in which the impacts from e-bikes
may differ. Some of these potential differences are associated with the technology itself, such as noise
produced by the e-bike motor. Other potential differences are associated with changes in visitor behavior
or perceptions — such as increased number of unique visitors or distance traveled — that might result
from land managers establishing a policy allowing the use of e-bikes. Very little empirical research has
been conducted directly comparing the impacts of e-bikes and traditional mountain bikes in natural areas,
and thus the focus of this chapter is on identifying the ways in which e-bike impacts are most likely to be
similar to or different from traditional mountain bike impacts and summarizing the minimal amount of
literature currently available on e-bike impacts in natural areas.
DEMOGRAPHICS
One of the potential effects of allowing e-bikes in open space is an increase in the total number of bicycles
on trails. If riders are switching to e-bikes to extend their mountain biking careers as they reach older age,
this would increase the overall number of mountain bikers, assuming new people continue to take up
mountain biking at similar rates. This concept is supported by recent surveys conducted among bicycle
riders on public lands in Colorado: the average age of e-bike riders (58 years old) is higher than that of
traditional mountain bike riders (32 years old), and the average e-bike user had ridden bicycles on public
lands for over 18 years (Perry and Casey, 2020).
Attachment 1
Benefits of Experiences in Nature • SFEI
13
The attraction of new users to the sport due specifically to e-bikes may also increase the total number of
bicycles on trails. Recent surveys in North America have found that demographic trends among e-bike
users (predominantly older, highly educated, higher-income white males) are similar to trends among
traditional bicycle users (Ling et al., 2017; MacArthur et al., 2018, 2014). These surveys have focused on
early adopters (Ling et al., 2017), and therefore the demographics among e-bike users may change over
time as technology becomes more broadly adopted. The current socioeconomic disparity among e-bike
users may be in part due to the high cost of e-bikes, which has been identified as a significant barrier to
e-bike adoption (Ling et al., 2017; Perry and Casey, 2020). Furthermore, new users may join the sport
because e-bikes lower the physical fitness level necessary to participate. In North America, the use of
e-bikes for recreation and exercise (as opposed to utilitarian purposes) is particularly common not only
among older riders, but also among those with physical limitations (e.g., limitations related to mobility,
respiratory disease, weight, or dexterity; MacArthur et al., 2018). These survey results are supported
by other studies that found that study participants perceive their exertion to be lower on an e-bike than
a traditional bike (Hall et al., 2019). Despite this perception and the pedal assistance, a comparison of
measured heart rates found e-bike riding to provide many of the same health benefits as traditional bike
use (Hall et al., 2019; Hoj et al., 2018).
Another potential effect of allowing e-bikes in open space is an increase in the frequency of bicycle use.
Survey responses from 553 e-bike users across North America found that e-bikes can result in more
frequent participation, increasing from only 31% to 89% of users riding weekly or daily after the purchase
of an e-bike (MacArthur et al., 2018). This survey was more focused on urban and suburban settings,
and could feasibly translate to the open space setting; however, more research is needed to determine
whether this trend of increasing frequency of bicycle use will hold true in open space.
UPHILL SPEED
The electric assistance provided by e-bike motors may allow them to travel faster than traditional
bicycles, particularly when traveling uphill. Surveys have shown that visitors may have safety concerns
related to speed, especially on narrow trails or around blind corners (Chaney et al., 2019; Schachinger,
2020). However, very few studies have quantified e-bike speeds in open space settings, and the limited
data are insufficient for drawing general conclusions. A pilot study in Boulder County conducted by
Boulder County Parks & Open Space (Nielsen et al., 2019b) observed the speeds of 492 conventional
bikes and 12 e-bikes on open space trails, and found that on average e-bike speed (13.8 mph) was slightly
lower than conventional bike speed (14.9 mph). E-bikes traveled faster than conventional bikes in uphill
settings (13.8 vs. 12.9 mph) and slower in downhill settings (13.5 vs. 15 mph). Statistical tests were not
conducted due to the low number of e-bike observations. An undergraduate project from the Worcester
Polytechnic Institute, which used trail cameras to compare the speeds of 152 conventional bikes and 3
e-bikes in Acadia National Park, similarly found that e-bikes traveled faster on average than conventional
bikes in uphill settings (7 mph vs. 4.5 mph; Williams et al., 2020). In this study the maximum speed
observed was 16 mph, but the authors did not state which type of bicycle achieved this speed.
The small sample size of e-bikes in both studies limits the utility of these findings, and further study is
needed. If new research provides sufficient evidence of significant differences in speed between e-bikes
and traditional bikes, then negative impacts to the trail may become a concern. This may be especially
true in combination with the heavier weight of e-bikes; although the combined weight of a rider and their
bike ranges widely, the additional weight of the motor and battery will shift the average weight, and thus
cumulative impacts could be greater. Faster speeds may also contribute to increased safety concerns or
Attachment 1
Benefits of Experiences in Nature • SFEI
14
conflicts with other visitors. For example, Pickering et al. (2010) state that impacts from mountain biking
“ are likely to be greater when riding is faster, less controlled, occurs on steeper slopes and in wetter
conditions.”
SOIL IMPACTS
There is a lack of data about the specific impacts of e-bikes on trails and soils. To date, only one study,
conducted by the International Mountain Bicycling Association in 2015, has directly measured the trail
impacts of electric mountain bikes compared with traditional mountain bikes (IMBA (International
Mountain Bicycling Association), 2016). This study, conducted on a test trail in northwestern Oregon,
measured soil displacement from class 1 electric mountain bikes, traditional mountain bikes, and
off-road motorcycles, controlling for variables such as trail grade, tread texture, and soil moisture.
Soil displacement was quantified by measuring trail cross sectional area following a set number of
laps by each bicycle type. The study found no significant difference between the impacts of electric
mountain bikes and traditional mountain bikes on trail cross sectional area, while motorcycles resulted
in significantly more soil displacement than either electric or traditional mountain bikes. (Midpen does
not allow visitors to ride motorcycles on trails, and is not considering doing so.) The study authors
caution against drawing general conclusions from this limited study, as similar research has not yet been
conducted in other study locations.
CONFLICTS BETWEEN VISITORS
The presence of e-bikes in preserves may cause concern among other user groups for similar reasons as
traditional mountain bikes. Surveys have shown that visitors may have safety concerns related to speed,
and may disapprove of perceived increased environmental damage or heightened noise pollution from
e-bikes (Chaney et al., 2019; Schachinger, 2020). General disapproval is directed at all riders, whether
on an e-bike or traditional bike, as some participants indicated in a Jefferson County, Colorado survey
(Jefferson County Open Space, 2017).
In addition, e-bikes may spark new concerns. A common perception among traditional mountain bikers
is that electric mountain bikers are “cheating” (Chaney et al. 2019, Jefferson County 2017, Nielsen et al.),
and potential e-bike users have indicated that shaming, especially from other cyclists, poses a barrier
to use (Mayer, 2020). The motorized aspect of e-bikes is a great concern (Baechle and Kressler, 2020),
and has led participants in two surveys to raise the idea of a “slippery slope,” meaning that if motorized
e-bikes are allowed on trails not previously open to motorized recreational vehicles, then other uses that
conflict with visitors’ values and expectations for open space recreation may be allowed as well (Baechle
and Kressler, 2020; Jefferson County Open Space, 2017). Despite these concerns, surveys have found
that in practice the ability of trail users to distinguish e-bikes from traditional mountain bikes is relatively
low (Jefferson County Open Space, 2017). In addition, trail users may be more likely to approve of e-bikes
if they have experience with them. A study in which participants shared their perceptions before and after
test riding an e-bike revealed the experience led to an increase in approval of e-bikes (Jefferson County
Open Space, 2017).
Currently, Midpen is collaborating with Santa Clara County Parks (SCCP), which allows e-bike classes 1
and 2 where traditional bikes are allowed, on a study of perceptions of e-bikes among other user groups.
The results (anticipated for release in 2022) will be a valuable addition to the literature on e-bikes.
Attachment 1
Benefits of Experiences in Nature • SFEI
15
NOISE POLLUTION
In the first study of its kind, H.T. Harvey and Associates (2021) measured the noise output from both
traditional bikes and e-bikes in Midpen preserves to predict impacts of e-bike noise on bats and birds.
Bats and birds hear in the high and low frequency range, respectively, and therefore both ranges were
measured. In general, terrestrial wildlife responds to sound levels of 40 dB and greater (Shannon et al.,
2016), and the loudest measurements in the study were 90-96 dB, generated by pedaling uphill (when
the motor is engaged for pedal-assist) and braking. (Note that decibels are a logarithmic scale. For
comparison, the sound level of a motorcycle 25 ft away is about 90 dB, and bird calls are around 44 dB
(IAC Acoustics, 2021).) The researchers calculated the distance at which the noise output would attenuate
to ambient noise levels of 20 decibels. Low and high frequency noise from e-bikes sufficiently attenuated
around 45 ft and 100-231 ft, respectively. The attenuation distance for sounds in the high frequency
range depends on the exact frequency. To protect known locations of nesting birds and roosting bats,
land managers can use these attenuation distances as the minimum buffer distance required to prevent
human-generated noise disturbance. Other wildlife species with similar auditory ranges may also be
affected by e-bike noise output when using trail-adjacent habitat.
A recent literature review found no other studies of noise output from e-bikes, and in lieu reviewed
wildlife impacts of drones as a proxy for e-bike motor noise (Nielsen et al., 2019a). Like e-bikes, drones are
an emerging technology, and therefore the scientific literature is also emerging and limited. Drones can
cause disturbance to wildlife when they are visibly and audibly detected by wildlife. Evidence indicates
that drones can elicit behavioral changes including alertness, escape or attack (Barr et al., 2020; Rebolo-
Ifrán et al., 2019). Therefore, it is plausible given the evidence from drone research and the new evidence
from H.T. Harvey that e-bike motor noise can disturb and elicit behavioral responses from wildlife.
LONGER DISTANCE TRAVELED
E-bikes enable riders to travel longer distances. Surveys conducted in Sacramento and across North
America have found that traveling longer distances is a motivation for e-bike users, and that e-bikes
enable users to travel longer distances that might not have been possible for them on a traditional bike
(MacArthur et al., 2014; Perry and Casey, 2020). These surveys were broadly focused on e-bike use,
including urban and suburban settings. The findings could feasibly translate to open space settings;
however, more research is needed to determine whether this trend of increasing distance traveled will
hold true in open space.
The ability to travel longer distances may have implications for wildlife. If e-bike use results in increased
traffic on more remote trails, wildlife may encounter more frequent disturbance. Depending on the
frequency, as well as the wildlife species, wildlife response may intensify or wildlife may habituate.
With infrequent disturbance, wildlife tend to have greater behavior response (e.g., alert distance, flight;
(Marion, 2019). The habituation of wildlife may be more likely with greater predictability and greater
frequency of visitors (Miller et al., 2001; Trulio et al., 2013; Westekemper et al., 2018).
FIRE RISK
While not common, there are a number of documented cases of the lithium-ion batteries used on e-bikes
catching fire or exploding. Most of the reported incidents involved damaged batteries that caught fire
while being charged or stored; fires may also be more likely to occur in aftermarket batteries (NBC New
York, 2021; Roe, 2019). Fires that ignite mid-ride appear to be much less common, although there are
documented cases (Pagones and Meyer, 2019; Tremblay, 2019).
Attachment 1
Benefits of Experiences in Nature • SFEI
16
Management recommendations
Similar to many other agencies who manage open space areas, Midpen will need to establish a policy
on e-bikes in response to growing interest from the public. (At the time of writing, Midpen is only
considering e-bikes of classes 1 and 2. Midpen is not considering class 3 e-bikes, which can travel
at speeds up to 28 mph.) The decision depends on careful consideration of both the health and
accessibility benefits to e-bike users and the potential negative impacts to natural resources and other
visitors. Many agencies have already created policies on e-bikes (Table 1), and Midpen has interviewed
staff at local agencies to understand their decision-making process, justifications, approach to rolling
out the policy, and enforcement of the policy. Agencies interviewed by Midpen staff did not report
major management challenges unique to e-bikes beyond those associated with traditional mountain
bikes (B. Malone pers. comm.). Most local agencies that allow e-bikes did so after a classification
system was adopted by the state and after California Vehicle Code was amended to allow e-bike trail
use unless specifically prohibited. Similar action followed at the Federal level for land management
agencies under the U.S. Department of the Interior. The existing policies represent a range of
approaches across the three class types of e-bike and types of trail (paved or unpaved). Notably, only
Marin Municipal Water District mentioned aftermarket kits (which are used to retrofit a traditional
bike with a motor and battery), banning their use while allowing class 1 e-bikes with a special use
permit. Given the potential fire hazard associated with aftermarket kits, Midpen may consider a similar
stipulation in its future e-bike policy.
Short of allowing e-bikes on all trails currently open to traditional bikes, there are a number of
intermediate policies that Midpen could consider. Midpen could establish a temporary pilot program in
which e-bikes are allowed for a finite time period on a subset of trails. During this trial period, information
about e-bike use, environmental impacts, impacts to visitor experience, and noise output can be
collected. If findings from the pilot program are favorable, Midpen could permit e-bikes on a subset of
trails where impacts are expected to be minimal, based on a review of ecological conditions that would
inform the resiliency and durability of the vegetation, soil and wildlife (see sections on sustainable trail
design and on-trail management below). Alternatively, Midpen could require e-bike riders to obtain a
special use permit. A fee to obtain a special use permit (or any other approach to gain access) may have
implications to equitable access, which should be considered because cost is often recognized as a barrier
to participation (Gibson et al., 2019).
One factor to consider is the potential difficulty in enforcing a given e-bike policy that separates e-bikes
from traditional bikes or divides use by area, trail type, or requires a greater level of oversight, such as
a permit system. Detection may pose another challenge to policy enforcement. To the casual observer,
e-bikes may be difficult to differentiate from traditional, and surveys have found that other recreationists
in open spaces are often unable to distinguish e-bikes from traditional bikes (Jefferson County Open
Space, 2017). E-bikes may be more easily identifiable to trained rangers; education and training of Midpen
Rangers should be continued as new models are introduced.
In the event that Midpen decides to proceed with a policy that allows e-bikes, this chapter presents
a compilation of management strategies and recommendations drawn from the scientific literature,
guidance documents and advisors to this project. Management recommendations are grouped under
education and outreach, sustainable trail design, on-trail management, and monitoring and research.
Attachment 1
Benefits of Experiences in Nature • SFEI
17
AGENCY POLICY
Agencies in California
California State Parks
“State recreation areas:
Except for public roadways, only class 1 e-bikes shall be allowed by Superintendent’s
Order on controlled-access roads and trails.
Except for public roadways, class 2 or 3 e-bikes are not allowed.
Class 1 e-bikes may be designated for use only on trails and controlled-access roads
that already allow traditional (non-electric) bicycles.
State vehicular recreation areas:
Class 1, 2 and 3 e-bikes may be allowed by Superintendent’s Order for use on trails and
controlled-access roads.
All other park unit classifications:
Class 1 e-bikes may be temporarily allowed by Superintendent’s Order for use on trails
and nonpublic, controlled-access roads for research and demonstration purposes.
Except for public roadways, class 2 or 3 e-bikes are not allowed.”
City of East Palo Alto
In the process of amending their municipal code to allow e-bikes on paved bicycle
paths, which includes a section of the Bay Trail south of Bay Rd which is managed by
the City of Palo Alto.
City of Menlo Park All e-bikes are allowed on paved trails, including Bay Trail.
City of Palo Alto E-bikes are allowed under ADA, but the City will consider amending ordinance to be
consistent with neighboring agencies for Bay Trail management.
City of San Jose Class 1 and 2 only are allowed where bikes are permitted.
East Bay Regional Parks District "Class I and II eBikes are allowed on select park trails"
Golden Gate National
Recreation Area
"Allow e-bikes on all routes open to traditional bicycles"
"The motor may not be used to propel an e-bike without the rider also pedaling.
Motorbikes with a throttle are not e-bikes. The operator of an e-bike must also comply
with speed limits that apply to traditional bikes (15 mph in most places and 5 mph in
high-congestion areas) and obey state traffic laws."
Marin County
"Marin’s updated ordinance allows Class 1 and Class 2 e-bikes on public roads and
parking lots within Marin County Parks facilities, and on County paved bicycle and
multiuse pathways. Class 1 and Class 2 e-bikes also would be allowed in other areas
when specifically signed to permit them. Class 3 e-bikes are prohibited within Parks
facilities except upon public roadways and parking lots or when specifically signed to
permit them."
Marin Municipal Water District
E-bikes are currently prohibited. A Community Advisory Committee (CAC) was
assembled to investigate and develop recommendations. The recommendation is to
allow riders with class 1 e-bikes to apply for a special use permit (good for 3 years) and
prohibit classes 2 and 3 and after market e-bike kits.
Table 1. E-bike policies at various agencies in the U.S. This table is not an exhaustive list of agencies with
existing e-bike policies or policies in development.
Attachment 1
Benefits of Experiences in Nature • SFEI
18
AGENCY POLICY
Pt. Reyes National Seashore
"E-bike usage is limited to Class I e-bikes where traditional bikes are allowed and as
listed below, except as noted (Abbotts Lagoon Trail). Only class I e-bikes are permitted;
class II and class III e-bikes are prohibited. E-bikes are prohibited where traditional
bikes are prohibited. Except where uswe of motor vehicles by the public is allowed,
using the electric motor to move an e-bike without pedaling is prohibited."
San Mateo County Parks Class 1 and 2 only where bikes are allowed. However, allowed bicycle use is limited.
Santa Clara County Parks Class 1 and 2 only where bikes are permitted, paved and unpaved.
Santa Clara Valley OSA Gathering more information, no formal policy for or against ebikes.
Sonoma County Parks Class 1 and 2 only where bikes are permitted.
Soquel State Demonstration
Forest (CalFire)
"Electric bicycles (including all classes) are not allowed."
Tahoe Donner "Class 1 ebikes (pedal assist bikes) are allowed on Tahoe Donner fire access roads and
doubletrack trails"
Town of Mammoth Lakes
"All e-bikes are allowed on roads and streets"
"Class 1 e-bikes are allowed on all paved multi-use pathways and in the Mammoth
Mountain Bike Park"
"E-bikes are not allowed on any trail designated as non-motorized"
Agencies nation-wide
Jefferson County Open Space
(Colorado)
“Class 1 e-bikes are allowed on natural surface trails within the parks.
Class 1 and Class 2 e-bikes are allowed on paved trails within the parks.”
Oregon Parks and Recreation
Department
"A person may operate an electric assisted bicycle on roads and trails eight feet or
wider unless otherwise posted to restrict or permit such activity."
Washington State Parks Class 1 and 3 e-bikes are allowed on natural surface trails.
King County Parks E-bikes are prohibited.
U.S. National Park Service Superintendents may establish their own e-bike policy for their park.
Cuyahoga Valley National Park "Allow class 1 and class 2 e-bikes on all routes open to traditional bicycles"
Arches National Park "You can ride your bike or e-bike on all paved and unpaved roads in the park. You may
not ride your bike on trails or anywhere off a road."
Acadia National Park "Only Class-1 e-Bikes are allowed on park Carriage Roads."
"Class 2 & 3 e-Bikes are prohibited."
U.S. Bureau of Reclamation E-bikes are allowed only where traditional bicycles are allowed.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service E-bikes are allowed only where traditional bicycles are allowed.
U.S. Bureau of Land
Management
E-bikes are allowed only where traditional bicycles are allowed.
U.S. Forest Service
“Class 1, 2, and 3 e-bikes and electric mountain bicycles (eMTBs) are allowed on
approximately 60,000 miles or nearly 40 percent of trails on national forests and
grasslands. These vehicles are also allowed on thousands of miles of roads on national
forests and grasslands at maintenance level 2, 3, or 4.”
Attachment 1
Benefits of Experiences in Nature • SFEI
19
EDUCATION AND OUTREACH
As with any policy change, efforts to educate and inform visitors about the reasons for, and the effects of,
allowing e-bikes on trails are likely to increase both behavioral compliance and levels of acceptance, and
thus ultimately reduce both environmental impacts and visitor conflicts. For instance, a number of studies
have found that education is an effective tool for reducing conflict between hikers and mountain bikers
(e.g., Carothers et al., 2001; Watson et al., 1991), and the same is likely to be true for e-bikes as well.
Education and outreach can help promote responsible, lower-impact behavior among e-bike riders, such
as staying on trails, slowing down in crowded areas or at trail intersections, wearing bright colored or
reflective clothing to increase visibility, and cleaning bicycle equipment before and after rides to reduce
the spread of pathogens or invasive species. Signage or education programs could be paired with the
tools to enact behavior changes, such as shoe brushes and bike cleaning supplies at the trailhead. Midpen
currently provides boot and wheel brushes at trailheads for hikers and bikers to remove dirt both before
and after recreating (S. Christel pers. comm.).
Education can also help visitors understand what e-bikes are, and what to expect if they encounter
them on trails. Studies have found that there is a general lack of understanding — and some prevalent
misconceptions — about the nature of e-bikes among other trail users, and in particular among traditional
mountain bikers (Chaney et al., 2019). This lack of familiarity can sometimes lead to conflicts or negative
perceptions. Concerns about e-bikes tend to decrease once visitors become more familiar with the
technology (Nielsen et al., 2019a), and thus education and outreach is likely to be a critical tool for
reducing visitor conflict.
SUSTAINABLE TRAIL DESIGN
As with other recreational activities such as hiking and traditional mountain biking, a number of the
impacts from e-bikes — such as soil erosion or vegetation trampling — can be partially mitigated through
sustainable trail design. While further research is needed to better understand the potential for unique
soil impacts associated with e-bikes, such as increased erosion resulting from greater uphill speeds,
overall the recommendations and best management practices pertaining to traditional mountain bikes are
also likely to be appropriate for e-bikes on trails.
The scientific literature, as well as existing guidance documents from land management agencies and
bicycling industry/advocacy groups, identify a number of best practices for sustainable trail design. Midpen’s
existing trail design best practices are similar to those of other agencies including California State Parks.
Additionally, Midpen made improvements to 24 miles of trail in El Corte de Madera Creek Preserve, which is
a popular preserve for mountain bikers, and a study showed a 63% reduction in sedimentation in the creek
as a result (Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District, 2020). While an exhaustive treatment of trail design
is beyond the scope of this study, several key considerations are provided below:
• Trail grade. In general, lower grade trails are less susceptible to erosion (Meadema et al., 2020;
White et al., 2006), though very flat trails are prone to muddiness, which can result in trail
widening if users go off-trail to avoid muddy sections (Marion and Wimpey, 2017). Marion and
Wimpey (2017) recommend trail grades of 3-10% with periodic grade reversals (or dips) that
promote the drainage of water off of the trail.
• Trail slope alignment. “Side-hill” trails (i.e., trails aligned more closely with local topography) tend
to drain water more effectively than “fall-line” trails that ascend slopes more directly, and thus are
more resistant to soil erosion and trail degradation (Marion and Wimpey, 2017).
Attachment 1
Benefits of Experiences in Nature • SFEI
20
• Water diversion structures. Where sufficient drainage cannot be achieved through trail grade and
trail slope alignment, water diversion structures may be useful in reducing soil loss (Salesa and
Cerdà, 2020).
• Armoring substrate. High traffic trails can be hardened, or armored, with embedded rock or
crushed gravel to reduce trail degradation. Armoring may be particularly effective on steep
trail segments or in wet areas (Marion and Wimpey, 2017). Land managers should consider the
siting of armor, as armoring may have tradeoffs (e.g., downhill displacement problems, extra
maintenance required) where the trail grade is too steep and receives heavy traffic.
• Trail siting. Where possible, trails should be sited in areas with dense and resistant vegetation
cover and stable, well-drained soils. Trail creation should be avoided around streams, wetlands,
and waterbodies; in large patches of unfragmented habitat; and in areas with sensitive soils, flora
or fauna (Salesa and Cerdà, 2020).
• Barriers. Physical barriers or borders like boulders can be used to indicate the trail location and
prevent trail widening (PeopleForBikes et al., 2017).
• Maintenance. Regular trail maintenance is important to ensure that features like water diversion
structures continue to function properly and that trail degradation does not occur over time
(Salesa and Cerdà, 2020).
Existing and planned trails should be evaluated using the Trail Sustainability Rating system (Marion and
Wimpey, 2017) or other standardized methods, and unsustainable trails should be closed or rerouted if
suitable alternatives exist (Evju et al., 2021). Midpen works with consultants to evaluate trails and roads
that are not built to Midpen’s specifications (e.g. ranch or logging roads inherited when Midpen purchases
a new property) and determine if treatment, rerouting, or closure is necessary (S. Christel pers. comm.).
When assessing trails and implementing sustainable trail design, if necessary, certain trail segments
can be prioritized based on need and/or level of use. For trails specifically intended for mountain biking,
principles of sustainable trail design may also need to be balanced with incorporation of features and
experiences desired by mountain bike users (PeopleForBikes et al., 2017). Additionally, Midpen should
assess its current trail network to identify more remote trail segments that may be most likely to
experience a substantial increase in bicycle use if e-bikes are permitted (given the potential for e-bikes to
travel longer distances than traditional mountain bikes).
ON-TRAIL MANAGEMENT
In combination with sustainable trail design, a variety of on-trail management strategies can be employed
to reduce impacts from both e-bikes and traditional mountain bikes, improve on-trail safety for all visitors,
and minimize the potential for conflicts between visitors:
• Post speed limits at the trailhead and at the top and bottom of hills. Use a lower speed limit (e.g.,
5 mph) on trail sections with greater use or limited line of sight. Current practice at Midpen is to
post the speed limit (15 mph) at all trailheads. The speed limit is reduced to 5 mph on blind curves
and when passing. Trails with steep slopes where bicycle accidents or speed issues have occurred
have the speed limit posted.
• Encourage positive trail behavior by posting yield signs on multi-use trails, especially at
intersections (Figure 1). Signage specifically targeting e-bike riders or other user groups is not
recommended, as singling out certain user groups can foster resentment or conflict between
groups. Midpen has limited use of yield signs to a few locations where conflicts have occurred.
Attachment 1
Benefits of Experiences in Nature • SFEI
21
• Close trails during wet and semi-wet conditions to prevent trail degradation and potential spread
of non-native plant seeds and pathogens (Weiss et al., 2016). Midpen’s existing policy is to
seasonally close some trails to mountain bikers and equestrians during the rainy season, when
soil moisture is higher.
• Restrict bicycle use around waterbodies and streams (if trails are permitted at all), particularly
during amphibian migration season. Midpen closes sensitive areas, such as habitat for endangered
species, to all use. Creek fords are changed to culvert or bridge crossings when feasible.
• Take measures to prevent informal trail creation, such as posting signage, developing educational
programs, creating physical or visual barriers along trail margins, and monitoring off-trail usage
(Barros and Pickering, 2017). Midpen currently prohibits the construction of informal trails, as well
as off-trail use by bicyclists and equestrians. Pedestrians are allowed off-trail except for specific
closure areas. Midpen monitors and closes informal trails if impacts like erosion are apparent.
• Consider zoning or designating certain trails as single-use. The single-use approach may be
particularly appropriate for trails where more visitor conflict has been reported or trails that are
too narrow to accommodate both hiking and mountain biking. Deciding where and which user
groups share trails depends on the local context, as well as conflicts reported to and observed
by management staff. For example, some researchers have reported conflict when horses and
bikers share trails (Koemle and Morawetz, 2016; Napp and Longsdorf, 2005), or when hikers and
bikers share trails (Carothers et al., 2001). Separating e-bike and traditional mountain bike users
is unlikely to be necessary or effective. Midpen currently designates about 60% of trails as multi-
use, including equestrians, bicyclists and hikers. Trade-offs of shifting toward more single-use
trails may include restriction of access or an increase in negative impacts if new trails are built to
accommodate separate user groups.
• Similarly, consider designating certain trails as uni-directional. Directional trails reduce the
frequency of visitor interactions, and can thus reduce the potential for conflict among or between
user groups (PeopleForBikes et al., 2017).
• Caution signs in advance of rough terrain can inform riders and remind them not to exceed their
ability level (Napp and Longsdorf, 2005).
Right-of-way signs (Forest Service sign (left) and Bureau of Land Management sign (right) courtesy of CC BY 2.0)
Attachment 1
Benefits of Experiences in Nature • SFEI
22
MONITORING AND RESEARCH
Given the lack of information about e-bike use and impacts, a key element of any policy change
allowing e-bikes in Midpen’s preserves will be a robust monitoring and research program to evaluate
how e-bikes are being used and the impacts of e-bike use over time. Some of the high priority areas for
further research on e-bike use and impacts may include soil displacement and loss in different settings
(uphill, downhill, different trail grades), speed, rates of e-bike use, distance traveled within preserves,
demographic make-up of e-bike users, and visitor conflicts related to e-bike use. Sharing research
findings would be a benefit to other land management agencies considering policy changes or seeking to
assess the impacts of e-bike use.
A report prepared for Midpen by the (San Francisco Estuary Institute, 2021), titled An Examination of
the Costs and Benefits of Visitation and Recreational Use of Public Open Space, summarizes monitoring
techniques and metrics to measure the impacts from mountain biking and other recreational activities.
There are a number of established techniques for measuring mountain bike use and impacts that can
be applied to e-bikes as well. For example, trail cams can be deployed to document rates of e-bike use
and measure speed. Soil incision and erosion can be measured by systematically sampling trail depth or
cross-sectional area. In many cases, it may not be possible to separate e-bike impacts from the impacts of
other forms of trail use. Partnering with researchers to run a designed experiment would enable Midpen
to isolate and measure impacts from each type of trail use and to compare across use types. Partnerships
with local scientists and students could be a mutually beneficial, cost-effective way to conduct
monitoring and research on e-bike impacts. Certain collaborators may be willing to share research costs.
Whether studies are conducted by university research groups or even by volunteer community scientists,
proper training and oversight by expert scientists or university faculty would help to ensure high quality of
data to inform decisions.
Conclusion
As Midpen evaluates whether e-bike use is compatible with its mission for the management of its
preserves, factors to consider include challenges to policy enforcement, potential physical and ecological
impacts, the potential for visitor conflicts or changes to the visitor experience, as well as the health
benefits of recreational e-bike use. While the scientific literature pertaining to e-bike impacts in open
space is quite limited, insights from research on traditional mountain bike impacts provide an important
foundation for decision making. Survey-based research shows that land managers and other visitors
suspect there are a number of areas in which e-bike use and impacts may differ from those of traditional
mountain bikes, including demographics, uphill speed, soil displacement, conflicts between visitors,
noise, and distance traveled. At this time, the very limited research on e-bikes provides a basis for drawing
tentative conclusions about some of these impacts, but further research is needed to provide a more
robust understanding and address unresolved questions. Until additional information becomes available,
the existing research seems to indicate that many of the same management strategies used for traditional
mountain bikes will apply to e-bikes as well. If Midpen decides to establish a policy allowing e-bikes on
some of its trails, there are a number of practical management strategies Midpen can use, and others
already in place that can be continued, to educate e-bike riders and other visitors, ensure sustainable trail
design, manage on-trail use, and contribute to the knowledge base around e-bike use through monitoring
and research.
Attachment 1
Benefits of Experiences in Nature • SFEI
23
References
Baechle, T.J., Kressler, K.M., 2020. Perceptions of conflict surrounding future e-bike use on the Arizona
Trail. Arizona Trail Association, Tucson.
Barr, J.R., Green, M.C., DeMaso, S.J., Hardy, T.B., 2020. Drone surveys do not increase colony-wide flight
behaviour at waterbird nesting sites, but sensitivity varies among species. Scientific reports 10, 1–10.
Barros, A., Pickering, C., 2017. How Networks of Informal Trails Cause Landscape Level Damage to Vege-
tation. Environmental Management 60, 57–68. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-017-0865-9
Carothers, P., Vaske, J., Donnelly, M., 2001. Social Values versus Interpersonal Conflict among Hikers and
Mountain Bikers. Leisure Sciences 23, 47–61. https://doi.org/10.1080/01490400150502243
Chaney, R., Hall, P., Crowder, A., Crookston, B., West, J., 2019. Mountain biker attitudes and perceptions
of eMTBs (electric-mountain bikes). Sport Sciences for Health 15. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11332-
019-00555-z
Claussen, L.N., 2021. Recreational mountain biking: A case study of sustainable trail development at
Boggs Demonstration State Forest, Cobb, California. (Master’s Thesis). Oregon State University, Cor-
vallis.
Cole, D., 1993. Minimizing conflict between recreation and nature conservation, in: Ecology of Green-
ways: Design and Function of Linear Conservation Areas. University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis,
pp. 105–122.
Davidson, J.M., Wickland, A.C., Patterson, H.A., Falk, K.R., Rizzo, D.M., 2005. Transmission of Phytoph-
thora ramorum in Mixed-Evergreen Forest in California. Phytopathology® 95, 587–596. https://doi.
org/10.1094/PHYTO-95-0587
Dillard, S.C., 2017. Mountain Biking as a Means to Encourage Public Health and Wellbeing. Wright State
University, Dayton, Ohio.
Evju, M., Hagen, D., Jokerud, M., Olsen, S.L., Selvaag, S.K., Vistad, O.I., 2021. Effects of mountain biking
versus hiking on trails under different environmental conditions. Journal of Environmental Manage-
ment 278, 111554. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2020.111554
Gibson, S., Loukaitou-Sideris, A., Mukhija, V., 2019. Ensuring park equity: a California case study. Journal
of Urban Design 24, 385–405. https://doi.org/10.1080/13574809.2018.1497927
Hall, C., Hoj, T.H., Julian, C., Wright, G., Chaney, R.A., Crookston, B., West, J., 2019. Pedal-Assist Mountain
Bikes: A Pilot Study Comparison of the Exercise Response, Perceptions, and Beliefs of Experienced
Mountain Bikers. JMIR Formative Research 3, e13643. https://doi.org/10.2196/13643
Havlick, D.G., Billmeyer, E., Huber, T., Vogt, B., Rodman, K., 2016. Informal trail creation: hiking, trail
running, and mountain bicycling in shortgrass prairie. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 24, 1041–1058.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2015.1101127
Hill, E., Gómez, E., 2020. Perceived Health Outcomes of Mountain Bikers: A National Demographic Inqui-
ry. The Journal of Park and Recreation Administration. https://doi.org/10.18666/JPRA-2019-9492
Hoj, T.H., Bramwell, J.J., Lister, C., Grant, E., Crookston, B.T., Hall, C., West, J.H., 2018. Increasing Active
Transportation Through E-Bike Use: Pilot Study Comparing the Health Benefits, Attitudes, and Beliefs
Surrounding E-Bikes and Conventional Bikes. JMIR Public Health Surveill 4, e10461. https://doi.
org/10.2196/10461
IAC Acoustics, 2021. Comparative Examples of Noise Levels [WWW Document]. URL https://www.
iacacoustics.com/blog-full/comparative-examples-of-noise-levels.html (accessed 11.12.21).
Attachment 1
Benefits of Experiences in Nature • SFEI
24
IMBA (International Mountain Bicycling Association), 2016. A Comparison of Environmental Impacts
from Mountain Bicycles, Class 1 Electric Mountain Bicycles, and Motorcycles: Soil Displacement and
Erosion on Bike-Optimized Trails in a Western Oregon Forest.
Jefferson County Open Space, 2017. E-bikes and trails: Measuring impact and acceptance of Class 1
e-bikes on trails.
Kidd, K.R., Aust, W.M., Copenheaver, C.A., 2014. Recreational Stream Crossing Effects on Sediment
Delivery and Macroinvertebrates in Southwestern Virginia, USA. Environmental Management 54,
505–516. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-014-0328-5
Koemle, D.B.A., Morawetz, U.B., 2016. Improving mountain bike trails in Austria: An assessment of trail
preferences and benefits from trail features using choice experiments. Journal of Outdoor Recreation
and Tourism 15, 55–65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jort.2016.04.003
Kolby, J.E., Daszak, P., 2016. The Emerging Amphibian Fungal Disease, Chytridiomycosis: A Key Example
of the Global Phenomenon of Wildlife Emerging Infectious Diseases. Microbiology Spectrum 4, 4.3.11.
https://doi.org/10.1128/microbiolspec.EI10-0004-2015
Landsberg, J., Logan, B., Shorthouse, D., 2001. Horse riding in urban conservation areas: Reviewing sci-
entific evidence to guide management. Ecological Management & Restoration 2, 36–46. https://doi.
org/10.1046/j.1442-8903.2001.00067.x
Larson, C.L., Reed, S.E., Merenlender, A.M., Crooks, K.R., 2016. Effects of Recreation on Animals Revealed
as Widespread through a Global Systematic Review. PLOS ONE 11, e0167259. https://doi.org/10.1371/
journal.pone.0167259
Ling, Z., Cherry, C.R., MacArthur, J.H., Weinert, J.X., 2017. Differences of Cycling Experiences and Per-
ceptions between E-Bike and Bicycle Users in the United States. Sustainability 9, 1662. https://doi.
org/10.3390/su9091662
MacArthur, J., Cherry, C., Harpool, M., Scheppke, D., 2018. A North American Survey of Electric Bicycle
Owners. Transportation Research and Education Center, Portland. https://doi.org/10.15760/trec.197
MacArthur, J., Dill, J., Person, M., 2014. Electric bikes in North America: Results of an online survey.
Transportation Research Record 2468, 123–130.
Marion, J.L., 2019. Impacts to wildlife: Managing visitors and resources to protect wildlife. Interagency
Visitor Use Management Council.
Marion, J.L., Leung, Y.-F., Eagleston, H., Burroughs, K., 2016. A Review and Synthesis of Recreation
Ecology Research Findings on Visitor Impacts to Wilderness and Protected Natural Areas. Journal of
Forestry 114, 352–362. https://doi.org/10.5849/jof.15-498
Marion, J.L., Wimpey, J., 2017. Assessing the influence of sustainable trail design and maintenance
on soil loss. Journal of Environmental Management 189, 46–57. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jen-
vman.2016.11.074
Martin, R.H., Butler, D.R., Klier, J., 2018. The influence of tire size on bicycle impacts to soil and
vegetation. Journal of Outdoor Recreation and Tourism 24, 52–58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jort.2018.08.002
Mayer, A., 2020. Motivations and barriers to electric bike use in the U.S.: views from online forum partici-
pants. International Journal of Urban Sustainable Development 12, 160–168. https://doi.org/10.1080/
19463138.2019.1672696
Attachment 1
Benefits of Experiences in Nature • SFEI
25
Mayer, F.S., Frantz, C.M., 2004. The connectedness to nature scale: A measure of individuals’ feeling in
community with nature. Journal of environmental psychology 24, 503–515.
McQueen, M., MacArthur, J., Cherry, C., 2020. The E-Bike Potential: Estimating regional e-bike impacts
on greenhouse gas emissions. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment 87,
102482. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2020.102482
Meadema, F., Marion, J.L., Arredondo, J., Wimpey, J., 2020. The influence of layout on Appalachian Trail
soil loss, widening, and muddiness: Implications for sustainable trail design and management. Journal
of environmental management 257, 109986.
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District, 2020. El Corte de Madera Watershed Protection Program
[WWW Document]. Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District. URL https://www.openspace.org/
what-we-do/projects/el-corte-de-madera-watershed-protection-program
Miller, S.G., Knight, R.L., Miller, C.K., 2001. Wildlife responses to pedestrians and dogs. Wildlife Society
Bulletin 124–132.
Naidoo, R., Burton, A.C., 2020. Relative effects of recreational activities on a temperate terrestrial wildlife
assemblage. Conservation Science and Practice 2, e271. https://doi.org/10.1111/csp2.271
Napp, J., Longsdorf, E.L., 2005. Mountain Biking Access and Issues in USDA Eastern Region Forests.
University of Toledo.
NBC New York, 2021. FDNY Issues Warning in Wake of E-Bike Battery Fires.
Nielsen, T., Palmatier, S.M., Proffitt, A., 2019a. Recreation Conflicts Focused on Emerging E-bike Technol-
ogy. Boulder County Parks & Open Space, Boulder.
Nielsen, T., Palmatier, S.M., Proffitt, A., Marotti, M., 2019b. Boulder County E-bike Pilot Study Results.
Boulder County Parks & Open Space.
Oja, P., Titze, S., Bauman, A., De Geus, B., Krenn, P., Reger‐Nash, B., Kohlberger, T., 2011. Health benefits
of cycling: a systematic review. Scandinavian journal of medicine & science in sports 21, 496–509.
Olive, N.D., Marion, J.L., 2009. The influence of use-related, environmental, and managerial factors on
soil loss from recreational trails. Journal of Environmental Management 90, 1483–1493. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2008.10.004
Pagones, S., Meyer, D., 2019. Lime bike apparently explodes, injuring rider in Queens. New York Post.
Papouchis, C.M., Singer, F.J., Sloan, W.B., 2001. Responses of Desert Bighorn Sheep to Increased Human
Recreation. The Journal of Wildlife Management 65, 573. https://doi.org/10.2307/3803110
PeopleForBikes, Bicycle Product Suppliers Association, Bureau of Land Management, 2017. eMTB Land
Manager Handbook. PeopleForBikes.
Perry, N., Casey, T., 2020. E-bikes on public lands. Colorado Mesa University.
Pickering, C.M., Hill, W., Newsome, D., Leung, Y.-F., 2010. Comparing hiking, mountain biking and horse
riding impacts on vegetation and soils in Australia and the United States of America. Journal of Envi-
ronmental Management 91, 551–562. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2009.09.025
Quinn, M., Chernoff, G., 2010. Mountain Biking: A Review of the Ecological Effects. A Literature Review
for Parks Canada - National Office (Visitor Experience Branch). Miistakis Institute.
Rebolo-Ifrán, N., Grilli, M.G., Lambertucci, S.A., 2019. Drones as a Threat to Wildlife: YouTube Comple-
ments Science in Providing Evidence about Their Effect. Environmental Conservation 46, 205–210.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0376892919000080
Attachment 1
Benefits of Experiences in Nature • SFEI
26
Reed, S.E., Merenlender, A.M., 2011. Effects of Management of Domestic Dogs and Recreation on Car-
nivores in Protected Areas in Northern California. Conservation Biology 25, 504–513. https://doi.
org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2010.01641.x
Reed, S.E., Merenlender, A.M., 2008. Quiet, Nonconsumptive Recreation Reduces Protected Area Effec-
tiveness. Conservation Letters 1, 146–154. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1755-263X.2008.00019.x
Reilly, M.L., Tobler, M.W., Sonderegger, D.L., Beier, P., 2017. Spatial and temporal response of wildlife
to recreational activities in the San Francisco Bay ecoregion. Biological Conservation 207, 117–126.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2016.11.003
Roberts, L., Jones, G., Brooks, R., 2018. Why Do You Ride?: A Characterization of Mountain Bikers, Their
Engagement Methods, and Perceived Links to Mental Health and Well-Being. Front. Psychol. 9.
https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01642
Roe, D., 2019. Why Do E-Bikes Catch Fire? [WWW Document]. Bicycling. URL https://www.bicycling.
com/bikes-gear/a28778383/electric-bike-explosion/
Rossi, S.D., Pickering, C.M., Byrne, J.A., 2014. Local community perceptions about mountain bike riding in
peri-urban national parks. Presented at the The 7th International Conference on Monitoring and Man-
agement of Visitors in Recreational and Protected Areas, Local Community and Outdoor Recreation,
Tallinn University Tallinn, pp. 69–71.
Salesa, D., Cerdà, A., 2020. Soil erosion on mountain trails as a consequence of recreational activities. A
comprehensive review of the scientific literature. Journal of Environmental Management 271, 110990.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2020.110990
San Francisco Estuary Institute, 2021. An examination of the costs and benefits of visitation and recre-
ational use of public open space (No. 1020). Richmond, CA.
Sauvajot, R.M., Buechner, M., Kamradt, D.A., Schonewald, C.M., 1998. Patterns of human disturbance and
response by small mammals and birds in chaparral near urban development. Urban Ecosystems 2,
279–297. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1009588723665
Schachinger, S., 2020. Mountain bikers vs. E-mountain bikers: New conflicts in outdoor recreation? (Ph.D.
Dissertation). University of Innsbruck, Innsbruck.
Schepers, J.P., Fishman, E., Den Hertog, P., Wolt, K.K., Schwab, A.L., 2014. The safety of electrically assist-
ed bicycles compared to classic bicycles. Accident Analysis & Prevention 73, 174–180.
Shanahan, D.F., Bush, R., Gaston, K.J., Lin, B.B., Dean, J., Barber, E., Fuller, R.A., 2016. Health Benefits
from Nature Experiences Depend on Dose. Sci Rep 6, 28551. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep28551
Shannon, G., McKenna, M.F., Angeloni, L.M., Crooks, K.R., Fristrup, K.M., Brown, E., Warner, K.A., Nelson,
M.D., White, C., Briggs, J., McFarland, S., Wittemyer, G., 2016. A synthesis of two decades of research
documenting the effects of noise on wildlife. Biological Reviews 91, 982–1005. https://doi.org/10.1111/
brv.12207
Suraci, J.P., Clinchy, M., Zanette, L.Y., Wilmers, C.C., 2019. Fear of humans as apex predators has land-
scape-scale impacts from mountain lions to mice. Ecology Letters 22, 1578–1586. https://doi.
org/10.1111/ele.13344
Suttle, K.B., Power, M.E., Levine, J.M., McNeely, C., 2004. How Fine Sediment in Riverbeds Impairs
Growth and Survival of Juvenile Salmonids. Ecological Applications 14, 969–974. https://doi.
org/10.1890/03-5190
Attachment 1
Benefits of Experiences in Nature • SFEI
27
Svajda, J., Korony, S., Brighton, I., Esser, S., Ciapala, S., 2016. Trail impact monitoring in Rocky Mountain
National Park, USA. Solid Earth 7, 115–128.
Taylor, A.R., Knight, R.L., 2003. Wildlife responses to recreation and associated visitor perceptions.
Ecological Applications 13, 951–963. https://doi.org/10.1890/1051-0761(2003)13[951:WRTRAA]2.0.
CO;2
Thomsen, J.M., Powell, R.B., Monz, C., 2018. A Systematic Review of the Physical and Mental Health Ben-
efits of Wildland Recreation. Journal of Park & Recreation Administration 36.
Townsend, S.E., Hammerich, S., Halbur, M., 2020. Wildlife occupancy and trail use before and after a park
opens to the public. California Fish and Wildlife, Recreation Special Issue 74–94.
Trail Use and Management of Electric Mountain Bikes: Land Manager Survey Results, 2016. . The Interna-
tional Mountain Bicycling Association, Boulder.
Tremblay, P., 2019. E-bike explodes into flames causing bush fire on Tour Down Under climb [WWW
Document]. Canadian Cycling Magazine. URL https://cyclingmagazine.ca/sections/news/e-bike-ex-
plodes-into-flames-causing-bush-fire-on-tour-down-under-climb/
Trulio, L., Sokale, J., Chromczak, D., 2013. Experimental study of shorebird response to new trail use in the
South Bay salt pond restoration project.
U.S. Forest Service, n.d. Sharing the Trails [WWW Document]. URL https://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/btnf/
recreation/?cid=fseprd509212
Watson, A., Williams, D., Daigle, J., 1991. Sources of conflict between hikers and mountain bike riders in
the Rattlesnake NRA. Journal of Park and Recreation Administration 9, 59–71.
Weiss, F., Brummer, T.J., Pufal, G., 2016. Mountain bikes as seed dispersers and their potential so-
cio-ecological consequences. Journal of Environmental Management 181, 326–332. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2016.06.037
Weiss, M., Dekker, P., Moro, A., Scholz, H., Patel, M.K., 2015. On the electrification of road transporta-
tion–a review of the environmental, economic, and social performance of electric two-wheelers.
Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment 41, 348–366.
Westekemper, K., Reinecke, H., Signer, J., Meißner, M., Herzog, S., Balkenhol, N., 2018. Stay on trails –
effects of human recreation on the spatiotemporal behavior of red deer Cervus elaphus in a German
national park. wbio 2018. https://doi.org/10.2981/wlb.00403
White, D.D., Waskey, M.T., Brodehl, G.P., Foti, P.E., 2006. A comparative study of impacts to mountain
bike trails in five common ecological regions of the southwestern U.S. Journal of Parks and Recre-
ation Administration 21–41.
Williams, C., DeFranco, C., Alhejaili, A., Wang, B., 2020. Exploring Electric Bicycle and Bicycle Use in Aca-
dia National Park. Worcester Polytechnic Institute.
Wimpey, J., Marion, J.L., 2011. A spatial exploration of informal trail networks within Great Falls Park, VA.
Journal of Environmental Management 92, 1012–1022. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2010.11.015
Wood, P., Armitage, P., 1997. Biological Effects of Fine Sediment in the Lotic Environment. Environmental
management 21, 203–17.
Wurtsbaugh, W.A., Paerl, H.W., Dodds, W.K., 2019. Nutrients, eutrophication and harmful algal blooms
along the freshwater to marine continuum. WIREs Water 6, e1373. https://doi.org/10.1002/
wat2.1373
Attachment 1
R-22-14
Meeting 22-04
February 9, 2022
AGENDA ITEM 11
AGENDA ITEM
Human-Mountain Lion Interaction Study and Management Plan Annual Update (Year 1)
GENERAL MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATION
Receive a presentation and provide feedback on the first annual update of the five-year Human-
Mountain Lion Interaction Study. No Board action required.
SUMMARY
The Santa Cruz Puma Project (Puma Project) has completed the first year of a five-year Human-
Mountain Lion Interaction Study and submitted their annual progress report (Attachment I). The
purpose of this study is to understand factors that influence human-mountain lion interactions
and develop a site-specific management plan to reduce human-mountain lion conflicts.
BACKGROUND
The Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (District) Board of Directors (Board) approved
an agreement with the Puma Project to complete a five-year Human-Mountain Lion Interaction
Study and Management Plan on July 22, 2020 (R-20-79, minutes). The purpose of this study is to
understand factors that influence human-mountain lion interactions and develop a site-specific
management plan to reduce human-mountain lion conflicts. Efforts are focused in areas where
human and mountain lion interactions are most common, which include Rancho San Antonio,
Fremont Older, and Picchetti Ranch Open Space Preserves.
Research Approach
The research effort has the following objectives:
• Collar mountain lions at top priority study sites (Rancho San Antonio, Fremont Older,
and Picchetti Ranch Open Space Preserves), secondary priority sites (Monte Bello,
Foothills, and Los Trancos Open Space Preserves), and third priority sites (Saratoga Gap,
Coal Creek and Windy Hill Open Space Preserves);
• Estimate the number of individual mountain lions within Rancho San Antonio
using a District-provided wildlife camera grid;
• Compare collared mountain lion home ranges within the study area to other parts of the
Santa Cruz Mountains;
• Assess factors influencing human-mountain lion interactions;
• Experimentally test the efficacy of mountain lion behavioral modification methods;
R-22-14 Page 2
• Develop a habitat use map that depicts mountain lion space/use, with attention to overlap
between high human use and high mountain lion use areas; and
• Develop a site-specific human-mountain lion interaction management plan with
actionable strategies for minimizing potential conflicts that is informed by prior research
and survey findings.
Human-Mountain Lion Interaction Management Plan
The human-mountain lion interaction study will inform the development of a human-mountain
lion interaction management plan (anticipated in years 4 and 5) that will provide management
strategies for the District to reduce potential conflicts between preserve visitors and mountain
lions. Potential strategies will be dependent on research results and may include the following:
• Preserve access modifications (by type, number, time of day, location, etc.);
• Reduction of vegetative cover in areas with high levels of human use; and
• Mountain lion behavioral modification methods, including the use of deterrents to modify
mountain lion activity in areas with high levels of human use.
DISCUSSION
The majority of work to date has focused on safely and humanely collaring mountain lions
(Puma concolor) and gathering fine-scale data on lion movement. During year one, the Puma
Project successfully collared two (2) adult mountain lions within top priority District Open Space
Preserves. They have also successfully collared eight (8) additional mountain lions outside of the
study area, which will provide valuable comparative data on lion behavior in other areas with
lower levels of human activity. In addition, the Puma Project has been gathering human trail use
data within the study area and working to develop models to understand mountain lion
behavioral responses to recreational activity. Furthermore, they have developed a protocol for
experimentally testing the efficacy of behavioral modification methods to reduce human-
mountain lion interactions. The Puma Project is also coordinating with District staff to
incorporate data from the ongoing Wildlife Picture Index study at Rancho San Antonio Open
Space Preserve to develop a population estimate for mountain lions within this preserve.
Collaring of mountain lions at top priority study sites
The Puma Project has successfully collared two adult mountain lions in top priority District
preserves since beginning fieldwork on November 24, 2020. The first lion was collared at
Rancho San Antonio on December 23, 2020. This two-year-old female was designated 115F.
Female mountain lions typically begin breeding at around 2.5 years old. 115F is now likely of
breeding age and may provide valuable data on lion denning behavior within the Preserve. On
April 11, 2021 the Puma Project collared a seven- to eight-year-old male mountain lion in Monte
Bello Preserve. This mountain lion is on the upper end of the typical life expectancy for this
species, which in the wild generally tops out at approximately 10 years. This lion was designated
118M and is likely an established dominant male. To date, the range of these individuals
overlaps with several top priority preserves, including Rancho San Antonio, Fremont Older, and
Picchetti Ranch Open Space Preserves.
R-22-14 Page 3
Other lions collared
A three-year-old female lion was collared at Skyline Ridge Open Space Preserve on October 21,
2021. This lion was designated 121F. While this individual was not collared in a priority
preserve, the proximity of the collar location indicates that there is a high likelihood that this lion
may enter priority preserves and contribute valuable data to the study.
The Puma Project also collared seven additional mountain lions on non-District properties during
the last year. Two of these mountain lions, 114F, and 116M, have territories that overlap with
District preserves and were collared during the timeframe of this study. While the remaining five
lions are not known to have territories that overlap with District preserves, they will provide
useful data that will allow for direct comparisons between lion behavior in areas with high levels
of human activity (i.e., Rancho San Antonio) and other locations in the Santa Cruz Mountains
where human activity is lower.
Mountain lion population estimate
District staff began a Wildlife Picture Index (WPI) study at Rancho San Antonio in the fall of
2020. The study utilizes a grid of wildlife cameras to assess habitat use by mountain lions and
other wildlife. The WPI helps the District to better understand species diversity and relative
abundance (for example, the abundance of deer relative to the abundance of mountain lions
within Rancho San Antonio), species distribution, and what factors (such as human activity) may
affect wildlife behavior or use within the Preserve.
The Puma Project will use images captured from the WPI along with GPS collar data from lions
moving through RSA to compare the proportion of collared and uncollared mountain lions and
create an estimate of the mountain lion population within the Preserve. The data analysis portion
of the collaring study will take place in years four (4) through five (5) and a population estimate
will not be available until the end of the study’s timeframe.
Comparison of mountain lion home ranges
The Puma Project currently has GPS location data from five collared mountain lions that have
territories overlapping with District preserves (114F, 115F, 116M, 118M and 121F). A list of the
available data on District preserves used by each individual collared mountain lion is listed
below:
• 114F: Sierra Azul. 114F has an estimated home range of 22 square kilometers.
• 115F: Rancho San Antonio, Los Trancos, Monte Bello, and Coal Creek Open Space
Preserves. 115F has a home range estimate of 35 square kilometers (Attachment 2).
• 116M: Sierra Azul, Bear Creek Redwoods, and St. Joseph’s Hill. 116M has an estimated
home range of 150 square kilometers.
• 118M: Monte Bello, Rancho San Antonio, Fremont Older, Picchetti Ranch, Foothills,
Los Trancos, and Saratoga Gap Open Space Preserves. 118M has an estimated home
range of 130 square kilometers (Attachment 3)
• 121F: This lion was collared too recently, and the collar data has not yet been analyzed.
The Puma Project will continue efforts to collar additional mountain lions near priority preserves
to increase the sample size for the study and better understand habitat use on District lands.
R-22-14 Page 4
Further analysis of home ranges, along with a comparison of home ranges for mountain lions
outside of District preserves will be completed during the next year of the study.
The Puma Project maintains a public facing “Puma Tracker” website
(http://www.santacruzpumas.org/puma-tracker/), which includes an interactive map of collared
mountain lion movement data. There is an eight-week delay before location data becomes
available on the website to ensure that the data is not used to seek out the location of mountain
lions in real time. Data from 115F and 118M are currently available on this website.
Assess factors influencing mountain lion-human interactions
The Puma Project is utilizing data from Strava Metro (a fitness tracking app that records
recreational activities like hiking, jogging, and biking) to quantify the level of human activity
and create a comprehensive trail map covering the study area that can expand into the greater
Santa Cruz Mountains. These data will be incorporated into the data analyses of movement and
habitat use by collared lions to better understand mountain lion behavioral responses related to
recreational trails. In addition, the Puma Project will use data on the intensity of human activity
to understand how different human activity levels affect lion behavior. These data will be used to
assess the hypothesis that mountain lions are becoming habituated to human activity in areas
with high levels of recreation and trail use.
The WPI study will allow for calibration of the Strava data by comparing actual trail use
quantified by camera trap data, and trail use estimates based on Strava data, which only captures
trail use by Strava users. The WPI will also provide an index of deer activity to evaluate its effect
on mountain lion behavior.
The Puma Project will also assess whether mountain lion age affects the behavioral response to
human activity. This analysis will require additional collared lions representing diverse age-
classes.
All the above-mentioned factors will be evaluated to determine the probability of human-
mountain lion interactions within District preserves. This will help prioritize management
objectives to reduce the potential for human-mountain lion conflict.
Experimentally test the efficacy of deterrents
On June 25, 2021, the Puma Project received approval for mountain lion behavioral modification
protocols from the University of California, Santa Cruz Institutional Animal Care and Use
Committee, which oversees the responsible use of animals in university research and ensures the
proper treatment of animals to maintain research integrity and ethical practices. These protocols
were also accepted by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife and were reviewed by
District Natural Resources and Visitors Services Department staff. The goal of behavioral
modification is to expose mountain lions to a stimulus that can safely and effectively ward off
unwanted behavior, in this case habituated mountain lions remaining in close proximity to
preserve visitors, and/or displaying unprovoked aggression. The Puma Project is attempting to
instill an appropriate and otherwise instinctual mountain lion response of avoiding humans when
coming into contact with human voices. A similar behavioral modification technique that utilizes
trained dogs and human voices is also being implemented in northeastern Washington. The
Washington project is showing some preliminary success, though findings have not yet been
published.
R-22-14 Page 5
For research on District lands, the Puma Project would locate collared mountain lions by using
the signal emitted from the collar and the assistance of dogs specially trained to track their scent.
Once a mountain lion is located, the researchers would play audio recordings of human voices to
simulate what a mountain lion is likely to hear from hikers along a recreational trail. The
researchers would then tag the treed lion with no more than five water-based paintballs on its
side and rear. The researchers and dogs would then withdraw and allow the mountain lion to
leave the area. The researchers would repeat the process once last time on the same day, if
feasible.
As part of this work, the Puma Project would collect data on the mountain lion flight initiation
distance (the distance at which animals move away) using the GPS accelerometer located within
its collar both before and after the behavioral modification activities are conducted. These data
would inform how lions subsequently react when they come into contact with human voices
(absent all other factors, including the presence of dogs) and whether they move away and avoid
humans. This research is scheduled to begin in late February 2022. The Puma Project would
continue to carefully monitor collared mountain lions following the behavioral modification to
quantify the response to these actions and determine if behavioral modification is an effective
management tool. Behavioral modification experiments are a part of years two and three of the
study with an additional year four if additional data is needed
The Puma Project would also investigate the effect of habitat modification (i.e., fuels breaks) on
mountain lion behavior. Mountain lions do not typically move through open habitat and prefer to
stay under cover of dense vegetation when possible. Data from previously collared mountain
lions would determine how they respond to the presence of established fuel breaks. The Puma
Project would also opportunistically investigate any changes in lion behavior due to the
development of new fuel breaks on the landscape. The data would further be used to identify
habitats that are of significant value to mountain lions (i.e., denning and/or hunting sites) so that
these remain protected when developing new fuel breaks.
The Puma Project has conducted numerous activities using specially trained dogs to collar and
monitor mountain lions in areas open to the public. However, in order to conduct this study
without impacting the research or visitor experience, preserves or areas of preserves would need
to be temporarily closed to public use. The behavioral modification study would only take place
on weekdays to reduce the impact of these closures on visitors. Notifications of potential
closures would be posted on site, on the District’s website, and emailed/mailed to adjacent
neighbors and use permit holders one week prior to potential closures. Preserves would reopen
once the researchers complete the day’s activities. Given the large number of neighborhood
access points to District preserves, it would be impossible to staff all entry points; therefore, a
District staff member would accompany the research team to contact any visitors that
inadvertently enter a closed area. At most, 12 days of closures are expected as part of this
research work.
FISCAL IMPACT
None
R-22-14 Page 6
BOARD AND COMMITTEE REVIEW
This item was first introduced at the July 8, 2020 Special Board Meeting regarding the District’s
Mountain Lion Conservation Efforts, and the agreement was adopted by the full Board on July
22, 2020 (R-20-79, minutes).
PUBLIC NOTICE
Public notice was provided as required by the Brown Act. Public notice was sent to the
Resource Management and Rancho San Antonio interested parties electronic mail lists.
NEXT STEPS
The Puma Project will continue collaring efforts with District support through years two and
three of the study. The Puma Project is preparing to begin the behavioral modification study,
which is scheduled to start onsite in late February. Years four and five of the study will focus on
data analysis and the creation of a site-specific human-mountain lion interaction management
plan. The results of the study may also be published in peer-reviewed scientific journals and
contribute to the current understanding of mountain lion behavior in relation to human activity.
A project update will be provided to the Board annually.
Attachments:
1. Annual Report
2. Lion 115F Home Range
3. Lion 118M Home Range
Responsible Department Head:
Kirk Lenington, Natural Resources Manager
Prepared by:
Matt Sharp Chaney, Resource Management Specialist II
Julie Andersen, Senior Resource Management Specialist
Staff contact:
Matt Sharp Chaney, Resource Management Specialist II
Human-Mountain Lion Interaction Study Annual 2020-2021 Report
NOTE: This report was received in September of 2021 and does not
include information on the lion designated as 121F which was collared
on October 21, 2021. Including 121F brings to total number of lions
collared in the Santa Cruz Mountains during the course of this study to
10.Details in the associated Board Report reflect the addition of 121F.
ATTACHMENT 1
1
Human-Mountain Lion Interaction Study
Santa Cruz Puma Project
Annual Progress Report 2020 - 2021
Background and objectives:
In July 2020 the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (District) and the Santa Cruz Puma
Project (SCPP) entered into an agreement to conduct a five year mountain lion collaring study to
better understand the factors that influence human-mountain lion interactions, and develop a s ite-
specific management plan that includes recommendations for reducing potential human-
mountain lion conflict. This comes in response to an increase in mountain lion sightings on
District preserves, especially high-use preserves such as Rancho San Antonio. Using a research
based approach the SCPP will collect data related to local mountain lion population size, habitat
use, and activity patterns. This information will help inform recreation and management plans
that minimize the risk of potential conflict between preserve visitors and mountain lions.
The primary objectives of the Human-Mountain Lion Interaction Study are:
1.Estimate local mountain lion population size
i.Capture and collar mountain lions that utilize top priority study sites identified by
the District
ii.Design and implement a mark-recapture study in order to estimate mountain lion
abundance on District properties
2.Compare mountain lion home range sizes within the study area versus other parts of the
Santa Cruz Mountains
i.Create home range maps for animals collared on District properties and compare
those to data gathered from other animals collared in the Santa Cruz Mountains
3.Assess factors influencing human-mountain lion interactions
i.Investigate the relationship between mountain lion habitat use and recreational
trails
ii.Evaluate the hypothesis that mountain lions are becoming habituated to human
activities through repeated exposure to humans on District lands
iii.Investigate the role that deer play in mountain lion habitat use
iv.Evaluate the hypothesis th at young and/or dispersing individuals select for areas
with high human activity, leading to an increase in human-mountain lion
interactions
v.Evaluate the hypothesis that high human use and higher mountain lion use cause
more interactions as a matter of probability rather than mountain lion behavior
4.Experimentally test the efficacy of deterrents
i.Design and implement a study in which behavioral modifications using dogs
and/or people are administered to evaluate mountain lion behavioral response
ii.Investigate the potential for forested firebreaks to serve as a deterrent that might
shift mountain lion activity away from hiking trails
Each of these objectives will be addressed in the following annual report.
ATTACHMENT 1
2
Annual Report 2021:
The following document is an annual progress report compiled by the Santa Cruz Puma Project
and describes research updates related to the Human-Mountain Lion Interaction Study. The
majority of work during the first year of the project has focused on data collection. SCPP has
been working to capture and collar mountain lions within the study area and is collecting fine-
scale animal movement data from collared individuals. SCPP is also downloading, organizing,
and analyzing human trail use data within the study area and is developing models that quantify
mountain lion response to outdoor recreational activity. Finally, SCPP is developing a protocol
to experimentally test the efficacy of deterrents in reducing human-mountain lion interactions
and will begin conducting fieldwork on this part of the project within the next few months.
Overall, the first year of work has successfully generated a preliminary dataset that will
contribute to a better understanding of human-mountain lion interactions.
Specific project objectives and updates:
Objective 1: Estimate local mountain lion population size
i. We have successfully captured and collared nine mountain lions (7 adults, 2
kittens) since our capture permit was approved for the project in November 2020.
Four of these mountain lions (114F, 115F, 116M, 118M) have territories
overlapping District properties, and two lions (115F, 118M) overlap with top
priority sites (Rancho San Antonio, Fremont Older, and Pichetti Ranch). All
captured lions were fitted with GPS collars, which allow us to remotely monitor
their habitat use, movement, and space use. While collaring mountain lions that
overlap District property is our top priority, data from mountain lions at other
sites will be used to obtain a sufficient sample size to address all objectives of this
project. Moving forward we will continue to capture mountain lions and collect
fine-scale movement data. Current movement data from mountain lions
overlapping District properties can be found in Figure 1.
ii. District researchers deployed 9 camera traps in Rancho San Antonio (RSA) in
September 2020 using a standardized grid design (Fig. 2). We have been in close
contact with District researchers about this camera grid and District staff and
volunteers plan to begin tagging photos during the coming year. So far only
photos containing mountain lions have been extracted, but no other data have
been scored. Once scored, data from these camera traps will be combined with
GPS collar data from overlapping mountain lions to estimate mountain lion
abundance on District properties. In addition to the grid cameras, District
researchers have deployed cameras at 21 sites along trails within RSA. These sites
differ in their intensity of human use and vehicle use. These data will be scored
and used to correct Strava trail use estimates so that we have an understanding of
actual human trail use (objective 3.ii).
Objective 2: Compare mountain lion home range sizes within the study area versus other
parts of the Santa Cruz Mountains
i. We are currently collecting GPS location data from 4 collared mountain lions that
utilize District properties. Two of these mountain lions (115F and 118M) have
territories overlapping high priority sites. 115F was captured on December 23,
2020 in Rancho San Antonio and has since spent time in Los Trancos, Monte
Bello, and Coal Creek Preserves. 118M was captured on April 11, 2021 in Monte
ATTACHMENT 1
3
Bello Preserve and has since spent time in Rancho San Antonio, Fremont Older
and Picchetti Ranch, as well as Foothills, Los Trancos, Saratoga Gap, El Sereno,
and Bear Creek. Preliminary 95% MCP home range estimates for these
individuals are 35km^2 and 130km^2 respectively. During the coming year we
will continue to focus on collaring more mountain lions near priority sites. This
will incr ease our sample size and allow for a more accurate understanding of
mountain lion space use. Following year two we expect to have sufficient data to
begin calculating home range sizes using Local Convex Hull (LoCoH) estimates.
We will compare these estimates to LoCoHs estimated from collared mountain
lions in other parts of the Santa Cruz Mountains.
Objective 3: Assess factors influencing mountain lion-human interactions
i. We are using Strava Metro to investigate the relationship between mountain lion
habitat use and human recreational activity. Using Strava data we have created a
comprehensive trail map for the Santa Cruz Mountains (Fig. 3) based on active
human use. This means that the map more accurately reflects real trails in the
study area and offers a better representation of their ecological effects. This trail
map will be incorporated into habitat selection and movement analyses to
understand how mountain lions respond to the presence of recreational trails. We
are also using Strava to quantify the intensity of human use on these trails at
multiple temporal scales. Although the download process has been tedious, we
expect to have hourly, daily, monthly, and yearly trail use estimates fo r all trails
in Santa Cruz, Santa Clara, and San Mateo counties from 2016-present by the end
of 2021. These data will be used to understand how the intensity of human
activity on trails might affect mountain lion behavior near recreation areas. These
findings will inform the creation of the final, site-specific human-mountain lion
interaction management plan.
ii. Using the Strava data described above we will evaluate the hypothesis that
mountain lions are becoming habituated to human activities through repeated
exposure to humans on District lands. The Strava data will provide an estimate of
human activity and we will compare the behaviors of mountain lions that are
exposed to high levels of human activity to those that are less exposed to human
activity. We will calibrate Strava trail use estimates to get an estimate of actual
trail use (including non-Strava users) using data from camera traps and trail
counters. This will allow us to estimate the true number of people using trails
within each mountain lion territory. The calibration process will begin after
camera data are processed.
iii. The index of deer activity will depend on data from the District camera grid
(objective 1.i). These cameras have been deployed and photo scoring is expected
to begin in 2022.
iv. Hypotheses related to the influence of mountain lion age on responses to human
activity will require more collared animals, which will occur during years 2 and 3
of the project.
v. The factors that affect the probability of human-mountain lion encounters will be
evaluated after mountain lion abundance estimates (objective 1.ii) and intensity of
trail use (objective 3.i) have been calculated. These preliminary steps are
currently in progress.
ATTACHMENT 1
4
Objective 4: Experimentally test the efficacy of deterrents
i. The University of California, Santa Cruz Institutional Animal Care and Use
Committee (UCSC IACUC) approved our mountain lion behavioral
conditioning protocol amendment on June 25, 2021. We are currently
developing a rigorous field protocol, which we will share with District staff
when complete, and we plan to begin experimentally conditioning collared
mountain lions in fall 2021. Behavioral conditioning involves exposing an
animal involved in an unwanted behavior to a negative stimulus in an attempt
to reduce or eliminate the unwanted behavior. For our purposes, mountain
lions coming into close proximity of park visitors is the unwanted behavior,
and we will attempt to help mountain lions associate human voices with
behavioral conditioning to encourage mountain lions to avoid recreationists.
We will use a combination of dogs, human voice, and non-injurious
projectiles (i.e., paintballs) as the negative stimulus and we will monitor the
habitat selection, movement behavior, and space use of each mountain lion
before and after each conditioning event. If successful, this will serve as a
potential management strategy that can promote human-mountain lion
coexistence and allow mountain lions to safely use habitat without the risk of
human conflict. This work will continue throughout years 2 and 3 of the
project.
ii. Forested firebreaks refer to forested areas where understory has been cleared
in an attempt to reduce wildfire risk. These areas may also be less appealing to
mountain lions because they lack dense vegetative cover suitable for
concealing their movements. Thus forested firebreaks may serve dual
functions, fuel breaks for preventing fire spread, and as a potential strategy to
deter mountain lions from approaching recreational areas. We will begin
testing the effects of firebreaks during year 2 of this project. First, we will
analyze data from previously tagged individuals to test how they respond to
already established firebreaks. If we observe avoidance or a shift in movement
behavior near these locations we will work closely with District staff to
further test the potential of firebreaks to shift mountain lion activity away
from high-use hiking trails on District property. We will also work closely
with District staff to determine the best locations for future firebreaks and
ensure that proposed locations do not not interfere with critical mountain lion
habitat.
Insights from other ongoing Puma Project research:
1. Recent work published by members of the Puma Project and collaborators found that
Covid-19 shelter-in-place orders caused a temporary reduction in human mobility in the
Santa Cruz Mountains (Wilmers et al., 2021). Mountain lions responded to this period of
reduced human mobility by showing decreased aversion to urban areas. This finding
suggests that human presence on the landscape can have significant impacts on mountain
lion space use, and that mountain lions respond to changes in human activity over
relatively short time scales. This research supports our hypothesis that human outdoor
recreational activity might affect mountain lion space use. Interestingly, despite a
reduction in human mobility more broadly, shelter-in -place orders have caused a marked
ATTACHMENT 1
5
increase in recreational activity, with unknown consequences for mountain lions. Our
current work will help us understand how future changes in trail use might affect
mountain lion behavior.
Other recent research findings indicate that fear of humans not only affects mountain lion
space use, but also has significant impacts on mountain lion energetic demands (Nickel et
al. 2021). Further, we have found that mountain lion s’ fear of humans can indirectly
affect plant architecture, causing a shift in ecological community structure near human
activity centers (Yovovich et al., 2021). All of this work continues to improve our
understanding of human-mountain lion interactions a nd highlights the importance of our
current research in collaboration with the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District.
Management recommendations:
1. Management recommendations will be provided upon further data collection and
analyses.
Conclusions and next steps:
During the first year of the Human-Mountain Lion Interaction Study we successfully collared
four mountain lions utilizing District properties and an additional three mountain lions in other
parts of the Santa Cruz Mountains. We are actively collecting data on mountain lion space use
and human recreational activity. As we move into year two of the project we continue collecting
these data and begin preliminary analyses related to mountain lion habitat selection and
movement behavior in and around District properties. We will also begin experimentally testing
the efficacy of deterrents in changing mountain lion behavior. These data will contribute to our
final human-mountain lion interaction management plan. This management plan will attempt to
provide actionable strategies for minimizing human-mountain lion conflict, such as preserve
access modifications, habitat modifications along trails, or mountain lion behavioral
modifications. This final management plan will aim to reduce potential conflicts between
preserve visitors and mountain lions and will contribute to a better understanding of human-
mountain lion coexistence in multi-use landscapes.
Literature cited:
Wilmers, C. C., Nisi, A. C., & Ranc, N. (2021). COVID-19 suppression of human mobility releases mountain lions
from a landscape of fear. Current Biology, 1–4. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2021.06.050
Nickel, B. A., Suraci, J. P., Nisi, A. C., & Wilmers, C. C. (2021). Energetics and fear of humans constrain the spatial
ecology of pumas. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 118(5).
https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2004592118
Yovovich, V., Thomsen, M., & Wilmers, C. C. (2021). Pumas ’ fear of humans precipitates changes in plant
architecture. Ecosphere, 12(1). https://doi.org/10.1002/ecs2.3309
ATTACHMENT 1
Figure 1: Collared mountain lions utilizing District properties during year 1 of the Human-Mountain Lion Interaction Study
ATTACHMENT 1
"
""
"
"
"
"
"
""
"
""
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!!
!
!!
!
!
A
B
C
D
1 2 3 4 5
C
risto
R
ey
Drive
M a g d a l ena Ave n u e
EastbrookAvenu
e
RhusRidg eR
o
a
d
M
ora
Tra
i
l
Mo r a D riv e
Moo d y R o a d
W il d c a t L o o p T r a il
R
a
ncho S a n A n tonio
Bik
e
P
a
t
h
StephenE.A
b
bors Tra i l
R o g u e Valley Trail
Mar
y
D
ave y Loo p T r a i l
C o y o t e T r ail
H igh Meadow Trail
B l a ck M ountain
T
r
a
i
l
HillTr a il
Chamise Trail
Qua rr y Trail
FarmB
y
p
ass Tra il
Upper Rogue Valley Trail
L o w er M e a d owTrail
UpperHigh M e adowTra il
Mora T r a i l
D
e
e
r
MeadowT r ail
UpperWildcat CanyonTrail
MaryStutz P ath
ÄÆ280
ÄÆ280GR-B1 and
LUP-2
LUV-2
GR-C4
NBH-2
HUV-1
GR-B2
GR-D5
GR-C1
HUV-3
RSA 2 and
LUV-5
HUP-2
HUV-4
LUV-1
GR-C5
LUV-3
LUV-6
LUP-3
NBH-3
NBH-1
GR-D1
HUP-1
LUP-1
RSA3 and
HUV-2
HUP-5
RSA 4 and
HUV-5
GR-C2 GR-C3
LUP-5
LUP-4
LUV-4
HUP-3
RSA 3 and
HUP-4
Midpeninsula Regional
Open Space District
(Midpen)
7/9/2020
Wildlife Camera WPI Grid Map
Pa
t
h
:
G
:
\
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
\
R
a
n
c
h
o
_
S
a
n
_
A
n
t
o
n
i
o
\
W
i
l
d
l
i
f
e
C
a
m
e
r
a
_
G
r
i
d
M
a
p
\
R
S
A
_
C
a
m
e
r
a
G
r
i
d
_
2
0
2
0
0
7
0
9
.
m
x
d
Cr
e
a
t
e
d
B
y
:
n
g
r
e
i
g
0 10.5
MilesI
While the District strives to use the best available digital data, these data do not represent a legal survey and are merely a graphic illustration of geographic features.
!
!
!
!
!
"
"
High Use Pedestrian Trail (n = 5)
High Use Vehicle Road (n = 5)
Low Use Pedestrian Trail (n = 5)
Low Use Vehicle Road (n = 6)
Neighborhood (n = 3)
Grid (n = 9)
Active Trail Camera (n = 4)
ATTACHMENT 1
Figure 3: Regional trails network derived from Strava Metro data
Recreational trail
Midpen property
ATTACHMENT 1
W I N D Y H I L L
C O A L C R E E K
F O O T H I L L S
L O S T R A N C O S
M O N T E B E L L O
R A N C H O S A N
A N T O N I O
|ÿ280
|ÿ35
Secondary project preserve
Other Midpen preserve 0 1 20.5
Miles
Primary project preserve115F home range
Tertiary project preserve
Midpeninsula Regional
Open Space District
(Midpen)
12/16/2021
Cr
e
a
t
e
d
b
y
:
n
g
r
e
i
g
Pa
t
h
:
G
:
\
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
\
a
_
D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t
w
i
d
e
\
M
o
u
n
t
a
i
n
L
i
o
n
C
o
l
l
a
r
i
n
g
\
M
o
u
n
t
a
i
n
Li
o
n
C
o
l
l
a
r
i
n
g
.
a
p
r
x
While the District strives to use the best available digital data, these data do not represent a legal survey and are merely a graphic illustration of geographic features.
Mountain Lion 115F 95% MCP Home Range
ATTACHMENT 2
S A R AT O G A G A P
W I N D Y
H I L L
C O A L
C R E E K
F O O T H I L L S
L O S T R A N C O S
M O N T E
B E L L O
F R E M O N T
O L D E R
P I C C H E T T I
R A N C H
R A N C H O S A N
A N T O N I O
|ÿ9
|ÿ87
|ÿ9
|ÿ880|ÿ84
|ÿ82
|ÿ85
|ÿ280
|ÿ17
|ÿ35
Campbell
Cupertino
Santa Clara
Saratoga
Los Gatos
Secondary project preserve
Other Midpen preserve 0 2 41
Miles
Primary project preserve118M home range
Tertiary project preserve
Midpeninsula Regional
Open Space District
(Midpen)
12/16/2021
Cr
e
a
t
e
d
b
y
:
n
g
r
e
i
g
Pa
t
h
:
G
:
\
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
\
a
_
D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t
w
i
d
e
\
M
o
u
n
t
a
i
n
L
i
o
n
C
o
l
l
a
r
i
n
g
\
M
o
u
n
t
a
i
n
Li
o
n
C
o
l
l
a
r
i
n
g
.
a
p
r
x
While the District strives to use the best available digital data, these data do not represent a legal survey and are merely a graphic illustration of geographic features.
Mountain Lion 118M 95% MCP Home Range
ATTACHMENT 3
DATE: February 9, 2022
MEMO TO: Board of Directors
THROUGH: Ana Ruiz, General Manager
FROM: Jared Hart, Senior Planner
Julie Andersen, Senior Resource Management Specialist
Aaron Peth, Real Property Planner III
Deborah Hirst, Grants Program Manager
SUBJECT: Highway 17 Wildlife and Regional Trail Crossings Project Status Update
_____________________________________________________________________________
BACKGROUND
The Highway 17 Wildlife and Regional Trails Projects: MAA20-001 (Wildlife Crossing) and
MAA20-002 (Regional Trail Crossing) were among the highest ranked priority actions during
the Vison Plan Process in 2014. The Project supports the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space
District (District) goal of providing safe, regional wildlife and trail access across Highway 17
near the Lexington Reservoir just south of the towns of Monte Sereno and Los Gatos. A total of
$14 million in Measure AA funds is allocated to the two projects. Project construction is
anticipated to begin in 2025/2026 pending the securing of full construction funding.
District staff began working on the project in 2014, and completed the Caltrans Project Initiation
Document phase, including finalization of the Project Study Report- Project Development
Support (PSR-PDS) process in October 2019. At that time, the Board approved moving forward
with the environmental analysis of four crossing alternatives for the Highway 17 Project (R-19-
136) as part of the Caltrans Project Approval and Environmental Document (PA&ED) phase.
Work on the PA&ED phase is underway, and staff is currently working with the District’s
consultant (AECOM) to complete preliminary engineering designs and environmental review.
DISCUSSION
Partnerships and Project Delivery Approach
The current phase of work includes preparation of the: 1) Caltrans Draft and Final Project
Reports; 2) California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) document; and 3) National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) document.
The cooperative agreement with Caltrans for the PA&ED phase establishes the District as the
CEQA lead agency and Caltrans as the NEPA lead agency. Caltrans has the authority delegated
2
by the Federal Highway Administration (FHA) to act as a lead agency for NEPA. NEPA is the
federal equivalent of CEQA and is required for the Project to receive federal funding.
The most common actions that require or create a nexus to NEPA for local agencies are projects
proposed on federal lands, have a federal partner, and/or where federal funding is involved. The
Highway 17 Project (Project) is not located on federal lands, and the District does not currently
have a formal federal partner or federal funding allocated to the Project. This has created a
challenge because while Caltrans has agreed to be the lead agency for NEPA, Caltrans cannot
initiate federal agency consultations that are required under NEPA or consider approval of a
NEPA document for the Project until there is a NEPA nexus. Out of the three common actions,
securing federal funding, is the most practical way to establish a NEPA nexus for the Project.
To this end, the District has been working with the Metropolitan Transportation Commission
(MTC) and Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) to identify federal funds that
could be directed to the Project to establish a NEPA nexus. Through discussions with MTC and
VTA, a solution has been identified for a funding exchange agreement with MTC whereby the
District would exchange District funds with discretionary federal transportation funding that is
administered through MTC. With this approach, MTC would direct federal transportation funds
to the Project for construction, anticipated to be in the amount of $500,000, effectively
establishing a NEPA nexus. In exchange, the District would provide the same amount of local
District funding to MTC. This is the most expedient approach to secure a NEPA nexus for the
project while reserving critical funds for future construction. By establishing a NEPA nexus
now, the District would be able to proceed with preparing the NEPA document on schedule (with
Caltrans remaining as the lead NEPA agency) and efficiently utilize consultant services to both
complete the CEQA/NEPA analysis and ensure that the findings are consistent. Once the NEPA
document is completed, the Project will become eligible to compete for funds from other federal
funding sources.
In order to pursue this opportunity and keep the concurrent CEQA/NEPA process on track, the
District needs to partner with a Project Sponsor eligible to encumber MTC’s federal funds. To
receive MTC’s federal transportation funding, the Project must have a Project Sponsor that is a
transportation agency with the expertise and staff resources necessary to deliver the project and
meet all federal aid requirements. VTA has been actively engaged with the Project and has the
necessary transportation agency authority to take on the Project Sponsor role and encumber
federal funding identified by MTC.
On October 9, 2021, the General Manger submitted a letter to VTA requesting that VTA
consider becoming the Project Sponsor during the current phase and enter into discussions with
the District to become the Project Delivery Partner during the next phase. As the Project
Delivery Partner, VTA would lead the Plans, Specifications and Estimates (PS&E) phase of the
Project and manage a prime consultant to complete final designs, develop operation and
maintenance agreements and move the Project through final construction, working in
collaboration with the District and Caltrans.
At VTA’s November 4, 2021 Board of Directors meeting, Director and Santa Clara County
Board of Supervisor Cindy Chavez submitted a Referral to the VTA Administration (agenda
item No. 8.3), directing VTA staff to work with the District to analyze the resources and project
timeline necessary for VTA to become the Project Sponsor and Project Delivery Partner to
support efforts in securing near-term federal transportation funding and ultimately deliver the
project through construction. Following the November VTA Board meeting, District staff have
worked with VTA and MTC on identifying the steps necessary for VTA to become the Project
3
Sponsor and Project Delivery Partner, and the process for a funding exchange agreement with
MTC that would bring federal funding to the Project quickly and allow Caltrans to fulfill its
NEPA lead agency role within the current Project timeline.
MTC Funding Exchange
For the District to enter into a funding exchange agreement with MTC, the Project must be added
to the Bay Area’s Transportation Improvement Program (TIP), which is managed by MTC and
approved by Caltrans, through a TIP amendment. The TIP lists regionally significant
transportation projects and programs receiving Federal Highway Administration/Federal Transit
Administration funds or for which an action by a federal agency is expected. MTC would first
need to identify federal funds for the Project and then submit the TIP amendment for final
approval by Caltrans. The District and MTC would then enter into a funding exchange
agreement to exchange District funding for federal funding. Listing the Project in the region’s
TIP with programmed federal funds would establish a NEPA nexus and make the Project eligible
for additional future federal funding opportunities to support construction. It is anticipated that
District staff would forward a funding exchange agreement with MTC to the Board for
consideration in Spring 2022.
VTA Project Sponsor/Project Delivery Partner Agreement
For the Project to be included in the region’s TIP and to enter into an exchange agreement with
MTC, the District needs to partner with a transportation agency with the ability to encumber
federal transportation funds. For federal funding eligibility and because the Project includes
significant transportation infrastructure outside of the District’s open space preserves, the District
has been exploring partnership opportunities with Caltrans, VTA, and County of Santa Clara
Roads and Airports. Through those discussions, VTA has been identified as the best suited
Project Sponsor and Delivery Partner because of their shared goals, ability to work with MTC’s
federal transportation funds, technical expertise, and their experience in delivering transportation
infrastructure projects through the Caltrans process.
As a Project Sponsor, VTA fulfills the requirement for the District to execute a funding exchange
agreement with MTC. As a Project Delivery Partner, VTA would lead the PS&E phase of the
Project and manage a prime consultant to complete final designs, develop an operation and
maintenance agreement, and move the components of the Project within the Caltrans right-of-
way through permitting and construction. The District would work in partnership with VTA as
VTA takes the lead role for the Project through construction. The tradeoff with VTA leading the
remainder of the project delivery process includes: (a) transferring control over subsequent
components of the Project such as final design, and (b) transferring oversight of the Project
schedule, budget and construction cost management. The benefits significantly outweigh the
tradeoffs and include: (a) eligibility through VTA to encumber MTC’s federal funding by
March/April 2022 for construction; (b) bringing on greater staffing, expertise and resources
through VTA to facilitate project completion of a major capital transportation project; and (c)
access to additional sources of federal funding to fill the $16 to $20 million funding gap.
District staff do not have the same level of expertise in delivering transportation infrastructure
projects of this scale, nor the ability to maintain infrastructure on the state highway system. In
addition, the District is not eligible to encumber federal funds managed by MTC since it is not a
transportation agency. While the District is eligible to secure federal funding through future
competitive grant program applications, the outcomes of competitive applications are uncertain
and construction grants must be timed for use in 2025 through end of construction. Working with
4
an experienced transportation partner such as VTA could significantly strengthen our position to
compete for federal grants.
VTA staff have provided example partner agreements for District review. The District will have
the opportunity to meet with VTA on the draft Project Delivery Partner Agreement (Agreement)
concurrently with the MTC TIP Amendment process. District staff will request a key role in
providing input on aesthetic elements of the Project’s engineered infrastructure, including the
overcrossing and bridge railing, retaining walls and sound barriers, fencing, and
interpretive/educational features that will educate the public of the wildlife crossing.
Additionally, involvement in the PS&E design consultant selection, and other factors such as
District participation in monthly Project Development Team meetings with VTA, Caltrans, and
the consultant for the PS&E phase may also be requested for inclusion in the Agreement.
In order to meet the overall Project construction timeline, District staff will need to continue
working with VTA to develop a Project Delivery Partner Agreement that defines roles and
responsibilities through the final phases of the project, including long term operation and
maintenance of infrastructure within the Caltrans right-of-way. It is anticipated that a draft
Project Delivery Partner Agreement would be presented to the Board for input in Spring 2022,
followed by consideration of final Board approval in Summer 2022.
Funding Opportunities
The pre-construction phases of the Project are fully funded. Current grants are being
administered by the Wildlife Conservation Board (WCB), California Department of Parks and
Recreation (CDPR), the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation, and a private fund. District state
and federal consultants, Environmental & Energy Consulting (EEC) and The Ferguson Group
(TFG), are coordinating to support the exchange agreement with MTC and partner agreement
with VTA.
With the District allocation of $14M in Measure AA funding and approximately $9M in external
support, the funding gap to complete construction of the wildlife undercrossing, trail
overcrossing, directional fencing, and trail connections is estimated to be $16M to $20M. The
District’s overall funding strategy for the construction phase anticipates securing external grants
from state (55%), federal (40%), and local (5%) sources to leverage District funds. District staff
have had initial conversations with potential funding agencies and anticipate applying to the
State Coastal Conservancy (SCC) San Francisco Bay Program for Bay Area Ridge Trail and
wildlife corridor priorities, WCB’s Fish Passage and Wildlife Corridor Program for a second
grant, and CDPR’s Recreational Trails Program for connector trails outside the state right of
way. EEC continues to support District staff with state agency coordination and state budget
member requests in addition to tracking state agency funding allocations in the Governor's
FY2023 Budget. With billions of federal dollars available for transportation, regional trails, and
wildlife habitat projects, completing NEPA/CEQA in 2023, partnering with an experienced
transportation agency, and securing significant state and local funding will position the District
well to be competitive for federal grant programs. The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act
will fund a new US Department of Transportation Wildlife/Vehicle Collision Pilot Program,
which VTA and the District have discussed pursuing collaboratively. TFG has also facilitated
initial discussions with Congresswoman Anna Eshoo’s office on a federal Community Project
Funding request for the Project. Locally, Valley Water has met with the District on new wildlife
corridor funding and possible local partner support.
5
Removal of the Ravine Creek Wildlife Undercrossing Alternative from Further Consideration
The District was advised by the Project consultant, AECOM, that based on refined topographic
mapping completed during environmental field studies, the proposed wildlife crossing at Ravine
Creek (Alternative 1) is infeasible to construct. Refined topography indicates that to provide
adequate dimensions needed to successfully cross large wildlife at this location, the
undercrossing would need to be placed at the flow line of Ravine Creek, resulting in stormwater
and/or flooding of the new crossing during storm events. This would render the wildlife crossing
ineffective and cause stormwater to discharge onto the Los Gatos Creek Trail on the other side of
Highway 17. Due to the very limited area in which to construct a crossing at this location, it was
determined that there is not a viable or cost-effective way to successfully engineer a crossing at
Ravine Creek that would meet the Project’s intended purpose.
District staff recommended to Caltrans that this Alternative be removed from further
consideration and not be advanced into additional design or environmental review to reduce
overall project costs. AECOM submitted a technical memo to Caltrans on December 14, 2021
requesting written concurrence from Caltrans in eliminating this alternative. Caltrans responded
on January 20, 2022 confirming their concurrence with the recommendation.
The remaining wildlife crossing alternative at Trout Creek (Alternative 2) remains feasible to
construct, meets the Project’s purpose and need, and will continue into environmental review and
design.
NEXT STEPS
In summary, District staff will be proceeding with the following tentative schedule for the
partnership agreements with MTC and VTA.
MTC and VTA Partner
Agreement Milestones
Lead Agency(s) Tentative Completion
Timeline
Transportation Improvement
Program (TIP) Amendment
MTC Spring 2022
District/MTC Funding Exchange
Agreement
MTC and District Spring 2022
Project Sponsor/Project Delivery
Partner Agreement
VTA and District Summer 2022
Finally, AECOM is currently preparing an “aesthetics” informational memo for District staff that
will provide information on different options and general costs for design elements of the
Project’s engineered infrastructure. This information will be shared with the Board upon
completion of the memo (anticipated in March 2022).
###
DATE: February 9, 2022
MEMO TO: Board of Directors
THROUGH: Ana Ruiz, General Manager
FROM: Jennifer Woodworth, District Clerk/Assistant to the General Manager
SUBJECT: Suggested Topics for the February 16, 2022 Board Retreat
_____________________________________________________________________________
In preparation for the Board of Directors’ strategic planning retreat in December 2021, the Board
President conducted a survey of fellow Board members to gauge interest for a half-day working
session to discuss topics of interest. The Board supported this suggestion and appointed an ad
hoc committee to review and select topics for the working session. The Board also directed staff
to suggest additional topics for Board consideration. The ad hoc committee met in January 2022
to review and discuss the suggested topics and selected two topics for discussion at a Board
retreat on February 16, 2022. This memo provides updates and additional information on the
topics not selected by the ad hoc committee to explain how these other topics will be separately
addressed through Board FYIs, separate informational presentations, or by Board Committees.
Continuation/addition of new operational practices generated by COVID
1. Reduction of Paper Use/Paper Products (including brochures) – referred to the
Legislative, Finding, and Public Affairs Committee (LFPAC) for discussion.
2. Format for public meetings (including how comments are taken/use of raised hand) – to
be discussed in March when in-person public meetings may resume, depending on the
current state of the COVID-19 pandemic in the area.
3. Innovative technology at the new AO to improve Board function and public engagement
– a Board FYI will be prepared once staff is further experienced with the use of the new
technology in the new Administrative Office located at 5050 El Camino Real.
District Housing
1. Housing opportunities for staff – the District’s Housing Policy was revamped in 2018,
doubling the number of staff in District housing. Additional information on this topic will
be presented at the February 23, 2022 Board meeting.
2. Support of Farm Worker Housing; leasing of District property for farm worker housing
with housing funded and built by other organizations, such as SMC – this topic is
2
expected to be addressed as part of Agricultural Policy project, currently scheduled for
completion in FY22.
Regional Role – Topics 1 and 2 below will be addressed at the February 16 Board Retreat.
1. Leadership in conservation, resource/environmental protection
i. District as an important regional player, no longer an unknown agency
ii. Continued education to public and agencies about the importance of enhancing,
restoring, creating safe migration paths for wildlife
2. Level of active engagement in nontraditional regional issues that indirectly may affect
Midpen goals and interests
i. Insufficient staff capacity to maintain high level of engagement in
nontraditional regional issues; concerns about impacts to core District work
and projects --- understanding level of priority for this work will inform the
need for additional staffing to conduct this work
ii. Regional housing: SB9 and higher densification of communities and housing
1. State housing mandates may add pressure to locate housing in
unincorporated, rural areas, impacting goals for a continuous open space
greenbelt and sustainable wildlife corridors and habitat ranges
2. Advocacy for concentrating housing in developed urban/suburban areas
to preserve surrounding open space greenbelt/ecosystem services
3. Increased housing expected to bring higher use and demands on open
spaces and the potential for greater impacts on natural resources and
wildlife habitats, and therefore may require new/revised policies to
carefully manage use and protect sensitive resources
iii. Regional solutions and trends that support multi-modal access to recreational
destination points, including parks/open spaces; engagement in regional
transportation and transit plans
1. Solutions require nonconventional partnerships and may be most
effective if a diverse coalition is created that pursues common goals and
objectives, with transit/transportation agencies leading the
implementation actions
2. Midpen’s role in working with transportation agencies and local
jurisdictions in transit to trails (e.g., community shuttles, micro-transit,
bikeway systems, etc.)
3. Regional Trails --- has priority for this work changed? – this priority has not changed,
and the District continues to take a lead and/or partnership role in supporting these and
other regional trails.
Mission Driven Activities
1. Challenges in balancing natural resource preservation and public access – the Board of
Directors continues to address this issue while understanding that tension between the
protection of natural resources and allowing for and increasing public access will be an
on ongoing topic to be addressed on a case-by-case basis for new and continuing
projects and acquisitions.
3
2. Incorporating latest Science Advisory Panel (SAP) findings to continue responsibly
managing visitor use/capacity in open space lands – District staff will continue to
incorporate best practices recommended by the SAP into their work and projects. The
information learned from the SAP informs recommendations and decisions on an
ongoing basis.
3. The District’s role in combatting climate change – droughts, flooding, soil health,
wildfire, high temperature, infestations/invasive, changing eco-system; should the
District expand work beyond District lands? – expanding the District’s role in combatting
climate change beyond its boundaries would require additional staffing to avoid impacts
to core projects, programs, and functions. The ad hoc committee recommends focusing
on current partnerships, such as with the San Mateo County Resource Conservation
District, POST, FireSafe Councils, etc.
4. Calculating carbon sequestration of District lands (understanding and communicating
climate resiliency benefits of District lands) – this item will be addressed with an
informational memo from staff.
5. Environmental management/herbicide concerns – this item will be addressed as part of
next Integrated Pest Management Annual Update, currently scheduled for Summer 2022.
6. District’s role in protecting the Baylands area of the District (specifically former Cargill
property); should the District expand further land holdings/expertise/resources/
management in the baylands area or support existing partners who are focused on these
areas? – this topic will be addressed at the upcoming February 16 Retreat.
7. Use of multimodal options to equitably connect people to open space – the District is
currently pursuing multimodal options for public access as part of two pilot projects –
Rancho San Antonio and Purisima Creek Open Space Preserves. Additional information
on this topic will be provided to the Board as part of those projects.
8. Development of metrics for implementing Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI)
Initiatives – A staff team to support DEI initiatives is scheduled to be assembled in early
2022 and will be tasked with developing measurable DEI metrics, tracking progress, and
reporting back on the results.
Operational Enhancements
1. Streamline planning, permitting and construction processes to increase efficiency – this is
an ongoing effort happening at various levels of the organization. Current work includes
securing a programmatic permit with Resource Agencies for maintenance work and
small-scale projects; negotiating a Master Permit with San Mateo County for standard,
small-scale, noncontroversial District projects; and maximizing temporary CEQA
exemption for habitat restoration projects.
2. Numbering District trail junctions to assist with wayfinding – a trail junction numbering
system was implemented as part of a pilot project in lower La Honda Creek Open Space
Preserve and Bear Creek Redwoods Open Space Preserve. District staff plans to
continue this work and expand to other preserves.
4
3. Interest in understanding engagement and outreach plans and timeframe/tools/activities;
importance of increasing public awareness (both on the bayside and coastside) of the
District’s role in coastside protection and of the District’s mission there; desire to
improve and grow the District’s relationship with Coastal communities – the General
Manager and Public Affairs Manager will be holding brainstorming session(s) with
Directors Riffle and Kersteen-Tucker and include Peninsula Open Space Trust’s Chief
Marketing Officer to explore opportunities for engagement and outreach and areas
where the organizations can partner on new engagement efforts.
4. Opportunities to build awareness/recognition and improve engagement with urban
communities on the bayside and peninsula (Cities of East Palo Alto, Palo Alto, Redwood
City, Sunnyvale, San Carlos, Unincorporated North Fair Oaks area, etc.) – the District’s
50th anniversary program and community events are expected to create extensive
awareness among community members and increase engagement throughout the region.
These opportunities will provide staff with lessons learned including new engagement
tools and tactics that may be replicated in future years.
###