Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My Public Portal
About
20210922 - Agenda Packet - Board of Directors (BOD) - 21-28
MIDPENINSULA R E G I DNA L OPEN SPACE Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District SPECIAL AND REGULAR MEETING BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT Wednesday, September 22, 2021 Special Meeting starts at 5:00 PM* Regular Meeting starts at 7:00 PM* AGENDA Meeting 21-28 Consistent with Governor Gavin Newsom's Executive Order N-29-20, the Governor has allowed local legislative bodies to hold public meetings via teleconference and to make public meetings accessible telephonically or otherwise electronically to all members of the public seeking to observe and to address the local legislative body or state body to avoid public gatherings, and has suspended all contrary provisions of the Brown Act. This executive order will extend beyond the June 15 termination of the Blueprint for a Safer Economy. THIS MEETING WILL BE VIA TELECONFERENCE ONLY 1. The meeting can be viewed in real-time at: https://openspace.zoom.us/j/82118212839 or listen to the meeting by dialing (669) 900-6833 or (346) 248-7799 (Webinar ID 821 1821 2839). 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. Comments via text or social media (Facebook, Twitter, etc.) will not be accepted. Any comments received after the deadline, will be provided to the Board after the meeting. 5:00 SPECIAL MEETING OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT — CLOSED SESSION ROLL CALL 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 ADJOURNMENT 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 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 September 8, 2021 Board meeting minutes 2. Claims Report 3. Award of Contract with RHAA Landscape Architects to Provide Technical Analysis, Site Planning, and Design Services for the La Honda Creek Parking Area and Trailhead Feasibility Study (R-21-120) Staff Contact: Melissa Borgesi, Planner II, Planning Department General Manager's Recommendation: 1. Authorize the General Manager to enter into a contract with RHAA Landscape Architects of Mill Valley, CA to complete the La Honda Creek Parking Area and Trailhead Feasibility Study Project for a base amount of $340,649. 2. Authorize a 10% contingency of $34,065 to cover unforeseen tasks beyond the current scope for a total not -to -exceed contract amount of $374,714. 4. Adoption of the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Open Space Maintenance and Restoration Program (R-21-126) Staff Contact: Aaron Hebert, Senior Resource Management Specialist, Natural Resources Department General Manager's Recommendation: Adopt a Resolution adopting the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Open Space Maintenance and Restoration Program. 5. Regional Water Quality Control Board Permit Fees for the Open Space Maintenance and Restoration Program (R-21-121) Staff Contact: Aaron Hebert, Senior Resource Management Specialist, Natural Resources Department General Manager's Recommendation: Authorize the General Manager to pay a one-time permit application fee to the Regional Water Quality Control Board for the Open Space Maintenance and Restoration Program in amount not -to -exceed $75,000. 6. Pacific Gas and Electric Monta Vista -Jefferson Electric Transmission Line Access Road Improvements and Apple Orchard Mitigation (R-21-122) Rev. 1/3/20 Staff Contact: Aaron Hebert, Senior Resource Management Specialist, Natural Resources Department General Manager's Recommendation: Authorize the General Manager to enter into an access, monitoring, and mitigation agreement with Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E) to permit stream restoration mitigation work at the Apple Orchard property in La Honda Creek Open Space Preserve to offset potential impacts related to PG&E road repairs along their Monte Vista - Jefferson Electric Transmission Line within Russian Ridge Open Space Preserve. The restoration work would be completed by the San Mateo Resource Conservation District on District lands on behalf of PG&E. 7. Contract amendments for H.T. Harvey and Associates to provide additional mitigation support and Hanford Applied Restoration & Conservation to provide additional replacement planting and plant maintenance for the Ravenswood Bay Trail Connection Project mitigation site at Ravenswood Open Space Preserve (R-21-123) Staff Contact: Amanda Mills, Resource Specialist II, Natural Resources Department General Manager's Recommendation: 1. Authorize the General Manager to execute a contract amendment with H.T. Harvey and Associates for additional mitigation support for the Ravenswood Bay Trail Connection Project mitigation site at Ravenswood Open Space Preserve in the amount of $61,453, for a total not - to -exceed contract amount of $701,615. 2. Authorize the General Manager to execute a contract amendment with Hanford Applied Restoration & Conservation for additional replacement planting and plant maintenance for the Ravenswood Bay Trail Connection Project mitigation site at Ravenswood Open Space Preserve in the amount of $115,540, for a total not -to -exceed amount of $501,830. 3. Authorize a 10% contingency of $11,554 on the contract amendment for Hanford Applied Restoration & Conservation to cover unforeseen environmental conditions that may affect plant survivability bringing the total contingency to $55,729, for a total not -to -exceed contract amount of $513,384. 8. Award of Contract to Geocon Consultants, Inc., for installation of a residential water well at Toto Ranch in Tunitas Creek Open Space Preserve (R-21-125) Staff Contact: Omar Smith, Senior Property Management Specialist, Land and Facilities Services Department General Manager's Recommendation: 1. Authorize the General Manager to enter into a base contract with Geocon Consultants, Inc., to install a residential well for a base amount of $68,947. 2. Authorize a contingency of $6,788 to be expended only if necessary, in the event conventional drilling methods are not possible due to geological issues bringing the contract to an amount not -to -exceed $75,735. 3. Authorize an Alternative Site Allowance of $57,104 specifically for exploring and developing a secondary well site in the event the first location proves unsuccessful at locating water, bringing the total contract to a not -to -exceed amount of $132,839 9. Contract Amendment for Engineering Services with ZFA Structural Engineers to complete Phase II of the La Honda Creek White Barn Structural Stabilization Project (R-21-124) Staff Contact: Paul Kvam, Capital Project Manager III, Engineering and Construction Department General Manager's Recommendation: 1. Authorize the General Manager to execute a contract amendment in the amount of $109,727 with ZFA Structural Engineers of San Carlos, California to provide conceptual design Rev. 1/3/20 drawings, construction documents, and bidding and construction administration for Phase II of the La Honda Creek White Barn Structural Stabilization Project, bringing the contract to a not -to -exceed amount of $312,857. 2. Authorize an additional 10% contingency of $10,973 to be reserved for unanticipated issues, bringing the amended total not -to -exceed contract amount to $323,830. BOARD BUSINESS Public comment on agenda items at the time each item is considered by the Board of Directors. Written public comments will be provided to the Board prior to the meeting and posted on the District's website at www.openspace.org. The names of all commenters will be read into the record. 10. Agricultural Policy Development: Update on process and timeline (R-21-127) Staff Contact: Lewis Reed, Rangeland Ecologist/Botanist, Natural Resources Department General Manager's Recommendation: Receive a presentation from staff on the status of and provide input on the timeline, key remaining steps, and potential topics to develop the Agricultural Policy. No Board action required. 11. Fiscal Year ending June 30, 2021 Annual Year End Report (R-21-128) Staff Contact: Ana Maria Ruiz, General Manager General Manager's Recommendation: No Board action required. INFORMATIONAL REPORTS — Reports on compensable meetings attended. Brief reports or announcements concerning activities of District Directors and staff; opportunity to refer public or Board questions to staff for information; request staff to report to the Board on a matter at a future meeting; or direct staff to place a matter on a future agenda. Items in this category are for discussion and direction to staff only. No final policy action will be taken by the Board. A. Committee Reports B. Staff Reports C. Director Reports ADJOURNMENT *Times are estimated and items may appear earlier or later than listed. Agenda is subject to change of order. In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the District Clerk at (650) 691-1200. Notification 48 hours prior to the meeting will enable the District to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to this meeting. Written materials relating to an item on this Agenda that are considered to be a public record and are distributed to Board members less than 72 hours prior to the meeting, will be available for public inspection at the District's Administrative Office located at 330 Distel Circle, Los Altos, California 94022. CERTIFICATION OF POSTING OF AGENDA I, Jennifer Woodworth, District Clerk for the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (MROSD), declare that the foregoing agenda for the special and regular meetings of the MROSD Board of Directors was posted and available for review on September 16, 2021, at the Administrative Offices of MROSD, 330 Distel Circle, Los Rev. 1/3/20 Altos California, 94022. The agenda and any additional written materials are also available on the District's web site at http://www.openspace.org. %�eeeb.mrAlt Jennifer Woodworth, MMC, CPMC District Clerk Rev. 1/3/20 MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE September 8, 2021 Midpeninsula Regional Board Meeting 21-27 Open Space District SPECIAL AND REGULAR MEETING BOARD OF DIRECTORS MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT Wednesday, September 8, 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 SPECIAL MEETING OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT — CLOSED SESSION President Riffle called the special meeting of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District to order at 5:00 p.m. ROLL CALL Members Present: Jed Cyr, Larry Hassett, Karen Holman, Zoe Kersteen-Tucker, Yoriko Kishimoto, Curt Riffle, and Pete Siemens Members Absent: None Staff Present: None 1. PUBLIC EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION. Government Code Section 54957(b)(1) Title of Employee: Controller General Counsel General Manager CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS. Government Code Section 54957.6 Agency designated representatives: Board Appointee Evaluation Committee (Directors Holman, Riffle, and Kersteen-Tucker) Unrepresented Employees: Controller General Counsel General Manager Public comment opened at 5:00 p.m. Ms. Woodworth reported no public comments were submitted for these items. Meeting 21-27 Page 2 Public comment closed at 5:00 p.m. The Board convened into closed session. ADJOURNMENT President Riffle continued the special meeting of the Board of Directors of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District until the close of the regular meeting at 6:52 p.m. REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT President Riffle 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, District Clerk/Assistant to the General Manager Jennifer Woodworth, President Riffle announced this meeting is being held in accordance with Governor Newsom's Executive Order allowing Board members to participate remotely. The District has done its best to conduct a meeting where everyone has an opportunity to listen to the meeting and to provide comment. The public has the opportunity to comment on the agenda, and the opportunity to listen to this meeting through the internet or via telephone. This information can be found on the meeting agenda, which was physically posted at the District's Administrative Office, and on the District website. President Riffle described the process and protocols for the meeting. REPORT OUT OF CLOSED SESSION President Riffle reported there was no reportable action from the closed session held on September 8, 2021. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Craig Gleason provided comments suggesting the District differentiate on its trail maps and planning documents between trails on existing roads and new trails. This is consistent with California State Parks maps and planning documents for projects, such as San Vicente Redwoods. Meeting 21-27 Page 3 ADOPTION OF AGENDA Motion: Director Kishimoto moved, and Director Kersteen-Tucker seconded the motion to adopt the agenda. ROLL CALL VOTE: 6-0-0 (Director Holman absent) CONSENT CALENDAR Public comment opened at 7:05 p.m. Ms. Woodworth read the submitted comments into the record. Alex Sabo, representing the Bay Area Ridge Trail Council, expressed support for the proposed grant application to provide funding for the Highway 17 crossing. The completed trail crossing is key to the Bay Area Ridge Trail mission. Public comment closed at 7:06 p.m. Director Holman joined the meeting at 7:06 p.m. Motion: Director Kersteen-Tucker moved, and Director Cyr seconded the motion to approve the Consent Calendar. ROLL CALL VOTE: 7-0-0 1. Approve the August 25, 2021 Board meeting minutes 2. Claims Report 3. Application for Grant Funding from the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation (R- 21-116) General Manager's Recommendation: Adopt a resolution authorizing the General Manager to submit a grant application to the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation and to enter into a grant funding agreement for up to $1,000,000 to support the planning and design of the Highway 17 Wildlife and Regional Trail Crossings and Trail Connections Project. BOARD BUSINESS 5. Prioritization Criteria for Measure AA Projects (R-21-119) Assistant General Manager Susanna Chan reviewed the background of the Measure AA prioritization criteria, which help the Board and staff prioritize potential Measure AA projects for inclusion in the 5 -year project list for incorporation in annual work plans and budgets. Ms. Chan reviewed progress on the current 5 -year project list, which extends through 2023. Assistant General Manager Brian Malone provided an overview of the process for Measure AA project planning and reviewed the various prioritization criteria. Meeting 21-27 Page 4 The Board requested and received clarification regarding the current prioritization criteria. President Riffle suggested a criterion explicitly related to climate change may be needed due to the increased impact of it on the District and region. Mr. Malone reported many of the District's projects to support its Climate Action Plan are funded by the general fund because they are often not Measure AA projects. Director Holman suggested the High Beneficial Impact for Natural Resources could be a Tier 1 criteria and modified to include an emphasis on climate change. Mr. Malone reported if this was a Tier 1 criteria, then it would likely lead to major projects already underway being removed from the 5 -year project list. The District's current resiliency work supports many of the District's Climate Action Plan goals. Director Kishimoto suggested including language related to public safety concerns for District land or flora and fauna in addition to District facilities and infrastructure. Director Siemens suggested adding a criterion to Tier 3 that the project will also have the benefit of mitigating the effects of climate change. President Riffle suggested including language related to combatting climate change and the need for timely action. Public comment opened at 8:00 p.m. Ms. Woodworth reported no public comments were submitted for this item. Public comments closed at 8:00 p.m. Director Kishimoto commented on potential risks to public safety due to loss of natural resources habitats. Director Kersteen-Tucker expressed concern that there could be unintended consequences of modifying the public safety criteria to include natural resources. President Riffle supported modifying the need for timely action criteria to address climate change and suggested shortening the public safety criteria to read "Immediate Public Safety Concern." Director Holman supported shortening the public safety criteria and reordering the Tier 2 Criteria. Director Hassett left the meeting at 8:25p.m. Motion: Director Kishimoto moved, and Director Kersteen-Tucker seconded the motion to affirm Measure AA project prioritization criteria, as modified, including the weighting and project screening methodology. Meeting 21-27 Page 5 ROLL CALL VOTE: 6-0-0 (Director Hassett absent) INFORMATIONAL REPORTS A. Committee Reports Director Kersteen-Tucker reported the Real Property Committee met on August 31, 2021 to consider the proposed acquisition of the Johnston Ranch property in Half Moon Bay. Director Cyr reported the Legislative, Funding, and Public Affairs Committee met on September 7, 2021 to discuss the proposed Stevens Creek Trail designation at Monte Bello OSP and Bay Area Ridge Trail designation at El Sereno OSP. Director Siemens reported the ad hoc committee on the 5050 El Camino Real furniture options met recently to continue discussion of the public -facing furniture. B. Staff Reports No staff reports. C. Director Reports Director Kishimoto reported she attended a meeting of the Bay Conservation and Development Committee. ADJOURNMENT President Riffle adjourned the regular meeting of the Board of Directors of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District at 8:33 p.m., and the Board returned to closed session. ADJOURNMENT President Riffle adjourned the special meeting of the Board of Directors of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District at 8:49 p.m. Jennifer Woodworth, MMC District Clerk MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT CLAIMS REPORT MEETING # 21-28 Electronic funds transfer (EFT) for accounts payable disbursements to reduce check printing and mailing, increase payment security, and ensure quicker receipt by vendors MEETING DATE: September 22, 2021 Fiscal Year 20-21 EFT: 63.44% Fiscal Year 21-22 EFT: 63.34% Payment Payment Payment Date Notes Vendor No. and Name Invoice Description Payment Amount Number Type 3595 EFT 09/10/2021 11272 - George Bianchi Construction Inc Mt Umunhum Radar Tower Repair Project -Jul 2021 218,836.06 3588 EFT 09/10/2021 11470 - Aecom Technical Services Inc Hwy 17 Wildlife & Trail Crossings Project - 5/29/21 - 06/30/21 94,298.67 3608 EFT 09/10/2021 * 10216 - Valley Oil Company Fuel for District vehicles 33,446.89 3592 EFT 09/10/2021 * 10214 - Delta Dental Dental Benefits - Sep 2021 18,168.00 3604 EFT 09/10/2021 12117 - Signet Testing Laboratories, Inc. AO Special Inspection Services 7/19/21- 7/30/21 14,157.80 3593 EFT 09/10/2021 10546 - Ecological Concerns, Inc. Plant Installation & Maintenance of Multiple Mitigation Sites -Jul 2021 12,095.50 3610 EFT 09/10/2021 * 11118 - Wex Bank Fuel for District vehicles 10,005.13 3584 EFT 09/03/2021 12117 - Signet Testing Laboratories, Inc. AO Special Inspection Services - Jun 2021 9,472.55 82058 Check 09/03/2021 11558 - Vida Verde Nature Education Grantmaking Program - Vida Verde Nature Ed - 5/1/21- 7/15/21 9,000.00 82060 Check 09/03/2021 10387 - WEST -MARK Pumper Installation - P127, P126 8,419.41 3597 EFT 09/10/2021 * 10419 - Lincoln National Life Insurance Co. AD&D/Life/LTD Benefit - Sep 2021 7,861.45 82063 Check 09/10/2021 11520 - Community Initiatives Production & promotion of Leave No Trace video 7,000.00 3590 EFT 09/10/2021 11430 - BioMaAS, Inc. BioOn-Call, Taskl, Marbled Murrelet Surveys - PCR, ECDM & LHC - Jul 2021 6,156.30 3577 EFT 09/03/2021 11906 - Law Offices of Gary M. Baum Legal Services Rendered - Jul 2021 5,177.00 3602 EFT 09/10/2021 10099 - San Francisco Bay Bird Observatory American Badger & Burrowing Owl Habitat Study - Jul 2021 4,478.28 3596 EFT 09/10/2021 10058 - Liebert Cassidy Whitmore Legal Services - Negotiations & Related Matters - Jul 2021 4,056.00 82068 Check 09/10/2021 11627 - South Bay Access Solutions SA -Mt Um - repair damaged solar panel SA13 & battery replacement (2) 3,990.00 82054 Check 09/03/2021 10102 - Shute, Mihaly & Weinberger LLP Coastal Commission Litigation Retainer - Jun 2021 3,941.95 3603 EFT 09/10/2021 10793 - Sherwood Design Engineers LHC Loop Trail - Trail Design & Engineering Services - Jul 2021 3,421.80 3576 EFT 09/03/2021 10222 - Herc Rentals, Inc. Mini -Excavator Rental (RSA) - 7/2/21- 8/1/21 3,309.30 82055 Check 09/03/2021 11779 - Turnrose Land Surveying Boundary Survey of West Line of APN 064-390-020 3,000.00 3581 EFT 09/03/2021 * 10212 - Pinnacle Towers LLC Tower Lease - Skeggs Point - Sep 2021 2,650.00 3578 EFT 09/03/2021 10190 - MetroMobile Communications Radio Purchase for P126 2,571.50 3589 EFT 09/10/2021 * 11799 - Aztec Leasing, Inc. Printer/copier leases - 6 machines - Aug 2021 2,357.10 3606 EFT 09/10/2021 10302 - Stevens Creek Quarry, Inc. Drain/Base Rock Phase II trails (BCR)/Rock for Roadwork (FOOSP) 2,332.77 3575 EFT 09/03/2021 10032 - Del Rey Building Maintenance Janitorial Services - SAO, SFO - Aug 2021 2,262.50 3579 EFT 09/03/2021 10125 - Moffett Field Supply Company Hand sanitizer foam (8) & Jumbo roll toilet paper (20) 2,246.75 3574 EFT 09/03/2021 * 10128 - American Tower Corporation Tower Lease - Coyote Peak - Aug 21 2,111.46 3605 EFT 09/10/2021 * 11730 - Standard Insurance Company RV County of Santa Clara MROSD Life Benefit - Sep 2021 2,092.67 3594 EFT 09/10/2021 10187 - Gardenland Power Equipment Stihl brushcutter repair, Ethanol fuel, chainsaw supplies 2,040.10 82056 Check 09/03/2021 10775 - Tyler Technologies Inc Tyler Munis ERP Migration - 7/8/21- 7/12/21 1,956.00 3591 EFT 09/10/2021 11318- Confluence Restoration Plant Site Maintenance for BCR/Alma/Webb Creek -Jul 2021 1,710.00 3583 EFT 09/03/2021 * 10136 - San Jose Water Company Water Service - RSACP, SAO Cristich - 06-18-21- 08-17-21 1,606.13 3580 EFT 09/03/2021 12151 - Navia Benefit Solutions Flexible Spending Account disbursements 1,530.28 3598 EFT 09/10/2021 10791- LSA Associates, Inc. Regulatory Permitting - Alpine Rd Trail Improvements Project - Jul 2021 1,490.56 3609 EFT 09/10/2021 * 10213 - Vision Service Plan -CA Vision Premium - Sep 2021 1,485.84 3573 EFT 09/03/2021 10813 - Almaden Spanish language brochures (qty 500) 1,380.62 3586 EFT 09/03/2021 10152 - Tadco Supply RSACP - Restroom Supplies 1,182.64 3585 EFT 09/03/2021 10952 - Sonic.net Internet service - 9/1/2021- 9/30/21 1,170.00 82050 Check 09/03/2021 * 10261 - ADT LLC (Protection One) Alarm Services AO/A02/A03/A04/FFO - 8/28/21- 9/27/21 1,081.34 82067 Check 09/10/2021 10292 - San Jose Boiler Works Inc Semi Annual Inspection - Rite Boiler AO 939.00 3607 EFT 09/10/2021 10143 - Summit Uniforms Ranger body armor - Maxwell 873.91 82052 Check 09/03/2021 11551- Green Team of San Jose Garbage Service (RSA) - Aug 2021 847.69 82062 Check 09/10/2021 10014 - CCOI Gate & Fence Routine Gate Service - SAO - Pheasant Rd, SA - Mt Um. (entry & exit) 733.60 3587 EFT 09/03/2021 10146 - Tires On The Go Tires (2) M213, Tire repair A100, Tire (1) M17 669.96 3600 EFT 09/10/2021 12169 - Nielsen Merksamer Parrinello Gross & Leoni, LLP The Ward Boundary Redistricting Project - 7/7/2021 571.50 3572 EFT 09/03/2021 10001- Aaron's Septic Tank Service Sanitation Services - PC Northridge lot 495.00 82061 Check 09/03/2021 11852- Western Exterminator Co. RSA-Annex/Garage - Rodent Control 434.55 82057 Check 09/03/2021 10403 - United Site Services Inc BCS Onsite Portable ADA Restroom - 7/30/21- 8/26/21 415.20 82051 Check 09/03/2021 11156 - Clean Earth Environmental Services LLC E -Waste & HazMat Disposal (FFO) 360.20 page 1 of 2 MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT CLAIMS REPORT MEETING # 21-28 MEETING DATE: September 22, 2021 Electronic funds transfer (EFT) for accounts payable disbursements to reduce check printing and mailing, increase payment security, and ensure quicker receipt by vendors Fiscal Year 20-21 EFT: 63.44% Fiscal Year 21-22 EFT: 63.34% Payment Number Payment Type Payment Date Notes Vendor No. and Name Invoice Description Payment Amount 82053 Check 09/03/2021 11526 - Republic Services Garbage Services -16060 Skyline 7/1/21- 8/31/21 328.09 3582 EFT 09/03/2021 10093- Rene Hardoy AO Gardening Services 325.00 82048 Check 09/03/2021 10810 -AT&T Phone Service - 5050 Elevator - Jul 2021 264.67 82059 Check 09/03/2021 10527 - Waste Management Waste Management - 7/1/21- 7/15/21 201.04 82066 Check 09/10/2021 10182- Royal Brass Inc Tractor Parts for M08 160.96 82065 Check 09/10/2021 10298- Killroy Pest Control Inc FFO - Rodent Control 135.00 3601 EFT 09/10/2021 12060 - Preferred Alliance, Inc. 11-20 Off -Site Participants Testing (13) Jul 2021 134.68 82064 Check 09/10/2021 10421 - ID Plus, Inc. Name tags for OST - Cook 98.50 82049 Check 09/03/2021 11880 - A T & T (Calnet3) Mt. Um Safety Phone - 7/7/21- 8/6/21 49.70 3599 EFT 09/10/2021 12151- Navia Benefit Solutions Flexible Spending Account disbursements 40.00 Total of Payments: 523,628.60 * Annual Claims Hawthorn Expenses A### = Administrative Office Vehicle A02, A03, A04 = Leased Office Space BCR = Bear Creek Redwoods CAO = Coastal Area Office CC = Coal Creek DHF = Dear Hollow Farm ECdM = El Corte de Madera ES = El Serena FFO = Foothills Field Office FOOSP = Fremont Older Open Space Pre GP = General Preserve Abbreviations HC = Hendry's Creek HR = Human Resources IPM = Invasive Plant Maintenance ISM = Invasive Species Management LH = La Honda Creek LR = Long Ridge LT = Los Trancos M### = Maintenance Vehicle MB = Monte Bello MR = Miramontes Ridge OSP = Open Space Preserve P### = Patrol Vehicle PCR = Purisima Creek Redwoods PIC= Picchetti Ranch PR = Pulgas Ridge RR = Russian Ridge RR/MIN = Russian Ridge - Mindego Hill RSA = Rancho San Antonio RV = Ravenswood SA = Sierra Azul SAO = South Area Outpost SAU = Mount Umunhum SCNT = Stevens Creek Nature Trail SCS = Stevens Creek Shoreline Nature SFO = Skyline Field Office SG = Saratoga Gap SJH = Saint Joseph's Hill SR= Skyline Ridge T### = Tractor or Trailer TC = Tunitas Creek TH = Teague Hill TW = Thornewood WH = Windy Hill page 2 of 2 MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District R-21-120 Meeting 21-28 September 22, 2021 AGENDA ITEM 3 AGENDA ITEM Award of Contract with RHAA Landscape Architects to Provide Technical Analysis, Site Planning, and Design Services for the La Honda Creek Parking Area and Trailhead Feasibility Study GENERAL MANAGER'S RECOMMENDATIONS 1. Authorize the General Manager to enter into a contract with RHAA Landscape Architects of Mill Valley, CA to complete the La Honda Creek Parking Area and Trailhead Feasibility Study Project for a base amount of $340,649. 2. Authorize a 10% contingency of $34,065 to cover unforeseen tasks beyond the current scope for a total not -to -exceed contract amount of $374,714. SUMMARY The Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (District) is conducting a feasibility study to evaluate four potential sites for expanded parking and trailhead access to La Honda Creek Open Space Preserve (Preserve) based on the La Honda Public Access Working Group's (PAWG) recommendations supported by the District Board of Directors (Board) on October 21, 2020 (R- 20-115). After issuing a Request for Proposals (RFP) on June 21, 2021, the General Manager recommends awarding a contract to RHAA Landscape Architects (RHAA) for a base contract amount of $340,649. In addition, the General Manager recommends authorizing a 10% contingency in the amount of $34,065 to cover additional or more in-depth technical studies, agency consultation, or public outreach support beyond the current scope, if needed, for a total not -to -exceed contract amount of $374,714. There are sufficient funds in the adopted Fiscal Year 2021-22 (FY22) project budget to complete the first year of work under this contract. If the project schedule accelerates such that additional funds are necessary, an adjustment would be requested as part of the quarterly budget amendment process. Funding for future year budgets will be requested as part of the annual Budget and Action Plan process. DISCUSSION The La Honda Creek Parking Area and Trailhead Feasibility Study Project (Project) seeks to provide ecologically sensitive public access to the central portion of La Honda Creek Open Space Preserve (Preserve) and offer opportunities to connect visitors to the upper and lower reaches of the Preserve. This Project is included in Phase I and Phase II of the Board -approved 2012 La Honda Creek Open Space Preserve Master Plan. The Project scope is based on PAWG recommendations, which were supported by the Board in October 2020. The recommendations Rev. 1/3/18 R-21-120 Page 2 distribute visitor access, amenities, and uses across different sites and form the basis of this Project's scope of work. The feasibility study will analyze various access elements, which differ per site, including trailheads, parking areas, restrooms, and bridge replacement, to ultimately facilitate a link between the northern and southern ends of the Preserve. The findings of the feasibility study will be used to prepare conceptual design options for each site in coordination with ongoing Phase II trail design work that is underway and led by District staff. Progress on the feasibility study will be brought to the Planning and Natural Resource Committee (PNR) for review and guidance. Final results of the feasibility study, including elements of the projects that are recommended for future implementation, will be reviewed by PNR and then forwarded to the full Board for concurrence. Subsequent implementation steps would include environmental review, final design, final Board approval of project elements, permitting, and installation/construction. Timing for the implementation of each individual element will be dependent on available funding and staff capacity. Contract Scope of Work RHAA's proposed scope of work includes planning and technical studies, field investigations, design services, and public and stakeholder engagement to analyze opportunities at each site as described below. Sites B2 and B3 — Sears Ranch Road — West of Existing Parking Lot and east of Gate LH 15 • Equestrian trailer parking • Overflow vehicular parking for the Sears Ranch Road entrance • Trail connection between existing trail system and new potential parking improvements • Potential Sears Ranch Road improvements Site D — Highway 84 — Gate LH07 • Vehicular parking area with trailhead and potential vault restroom facility • Safe vehicular access to and from Highway 84 • Potential Highway 84 improvements to enhance roadway safety • Trail connection, including a replacement bridge over La Honda Creek, between the planned trail system and new potential parking improvements Site E3 — Highway 84 — Area behind line of trees near White Shed and across from Red Barn • Unpaved vehicular parking area — docent or permit access only • Safe vehicular access to and from Highway 84 • Potential Highway 84 improvements to enhance roadway safety • Trail connection between planned trail system and new potential parking improvements To inform the feasibility study for each site listed above, the consultant will complete the following: • Background Review of Project History and PAWG Process • Traffic Studies • Boundary and Topographical Surveys • Geotechnical Study R-21-120 Page 3 • Archaeological / Cultural Resources Study • Biological and Botanical Resource Evaluation • Site Opportunities and Constraints Analysis • Public and Stakeholder Engagement • Feasibility Analysis • Agency Coordination and Permitting Strategy • Conceptual Site Design and Cost Estimates The District will continue to hold public meetings to share progress and information with interested parties and to collect feedback to inform site opportunities and constraints and feasibility study findings. Public and stakeholder engagement will include adjacent property owners and Preserve visitors as well as tenants. The District will continue to post updates online and will also notify the PAWG of upcoming events, meetings, or other key project information. Consultant Selection The District issued a Request for Proposals on June 21, 2021. A mandatory pre -proposal site tour was held on July 13 and attended by nine firms. Six proposals were received on July 30, 2021. Evaluation criteria included prior experience with coastal and/or rural, agricultural communities; background working in San Mateo County; Caltrans or traffic safety experience; project experience in park or recreation settings; experience with robust public engagement; understanding of prior project history, including the PAWG's work; and creative project approaches to the scope of work. Firm _ Location Proposed Base Fee CSW1ST2 Redwood City, CA $216,300 RHAA Mill Valley, CA $333,036 Zander Design Berkeley, CA $395,361 Sherwood Design Engineers Santa Cruz, CA $430,436 SWCA Half Moon Bay, CA $550,756 BFS Landscape Architects Mountain View/Monterey, CA $577,614 Upon review of the proposals and consultant qualifications, the District invited four teams, RHAA, Zander Design, CSWIST2, and SWCA for interviews. The interviews offered staff the opportunities to focus on each consultant team's understanding of project challenges, their project approaches, and experiences with local, rural or coastal communities. Staff ranked RHAA, located in Mill Valley, as the most qualified and best suited for the project at a fair and reasonable price. Though from outside the local area, RHAA's team members have extensive knowledge of San Mateo County, experience working on projects with similar traffic safety considerations, and a long history of public project engagement. During the site tour and interview, RHAA was the only one to clearly synthesize and identify key project characteristics — the site access constraints presented by Highway 84 and possible solutions, the need to engage the public from both in the area and from within the District's boundary, the role of the Board in decision making, and finding solutions within budgetary constraints. Additionally, RHAA's responses during the interview set themselves apart from other firms by demonstrating that they clearly understood the project, the District's environmentally sensitive considerations and priorities, and the PAWG's suite of recommendations. RHAA thus avoided focusing on one site R-21-120 Page 4 over another, and instead considered each of the four separate sites as being of equal importance with their own set of very different opportunities and challenges. The project team includes BKF as the civil engineer; LSA for environmental services and traffic analysis; R. Borinstein Company for cost estimating; and Cal Engineering & Geology for geotechnical services. LSA is currently working on La Honda's Phase II Trails project, bringing comprehensive knowledge of the natural resources in the area, and are well equipped to facilitate future public access efforts. RHAA's cost proposal is fair and reasonable. It reflects a clear understanding of the project scope, including the importance of Board and community involvement and input, significance of evaluating the potential visual impacts and roadway safety considerations, and ability to complete deliverables within the proposed timeframe. Overall, RHAA's cost proposal is the second lowest among the four firms invited for interview and significantly lower than the highest proposal within this group. During contract negotiations, staff and RHAA discussed increasing time for additional work and consultations with Caltrans regarding design requirements and proposed highway or traffic calming solutions. RHAA also suggested cost savings by completing a reconnaissance level geology study and hazard assessment prior to implementing a more in-depth geotechnical analysis that includes borings in future phases of the project. The negotiated base contract amount with the additional hours is $340,649. To cover potential additional, unanticipated scope if needed, the General Manager recommends a 10% contingency of $34,065, for a total contract amount not -to -exceed $374,714. Contingency funds may be necessary for additional or more in-depth technical studies, agency consultation, or additional public engagement to support the project goals. FISCAL IMPACT The FY22 adopted budget includes $274,750 for the La Honda Creek Parking and Trailhead Access project VP05-02. There are sufficient funds in the project budget to initiate the recommended action and expenditures. If the project schedule accelerates such that additional funds are necessary, an adjustment would be requested as part of the quarterly budget amendment process. La Honda Creek Parking and Trailhead Access - Feasibility Study VP05-002 Prior Year Actuals FY22 Adopted FY23 Projected FY24 Projected Estimated Future Years TOTAL Total Budget: $45,142 $274,750 $142,750 $0 $0 $462,642 Spent -to -Date (as of 08/20/2021): ($45,142) $0 $0 $0 $0 ($45,142) Encumbrances: $0 ($9,535) $0 $0 $0 ($9,535) RHAA Landscape Architects Contract: $0 ,000 $195 ( ) ($127,000) ($18,649) $0 ($340,649) 10% Contingency: $0 $0 $0 ($34,065) $0 ($34,065) Budget Remaining (Proposed): $0 $70,215 $15,750 ($52,714) $0 $33,251 The recommended action is not funded by Measure AA. R-21-120 Page 5 BOARD COMMITTEE REVIEW • July 28, 2020: PNR forwarded the PAWG recommendations to the full Board. o PNR Report o Minutes • October 21, 2020: The Board approved the PAWG recommendations. o Board Report o Minutes • March 10, 2021: The Board received a presentation on best practices from the PAWG. pilot process o Board Report o Minutes PUBLIC NOTICE Public notice was provided as required by the Brown Act. Additional notice of this award of contract and the initiation of the feasibility study work was provided to members of the PAWG as well as residences along the Highway 84 area between Highway 35 (Skyline Boulevard) and Highway 1. Additional notice was provided to parties interested in La Honda Creek Preserve, regional trails, natural resource management, coast side topics, and grazing. Notifications were posted at the Preserve's three trailheads (Event Center, Sears Ranch, and Allen Road) as well as the La Honda Post Office and General Store. The notification advised recipients to sign up for the Preserve list to continue receiving meeting notifications. CEQA COMPLIANCE The feasibility study and conceptual designs will identify and evaluate possible future actions, which the District has not yet approved, within the meaning of CEQA Section 15262. The feasibility study and conceptual designs will inform future actions that will be subject to CEQA, and subsequent environmental review will be conducted at that time. Retention of professional consultants will not result in a direct physical change to the environment [CEQA Guidelines Section 15060(c)(2)] and does not constitute Board approval of the proposed project or related proposed project elements. NEXT STEPS Following Board approval, the General Manager will execute a contract with RHAA. The tentative schedule to complete feasibility studies for the four project sites is provided below: Key Milestones Tentative Schedule Project kick off, background review, technical studies 2022-2023 Site opportunities and constraints analysis, conceptual designs, cost 2023-2024 estimations Feasibility studies Attachments 1. Preserve map 2. Project orientation map of study sites 2024 R-21-120 Page 6 3. Project limits of work by site Responsible Department Head: Jane Mark, Planning Manager, Planning Department Prepared by: Melissa Borgesi, Planner II, Planning Department ATTACHMENT 1 Preserve map 4-. r �inrO nc Cr® 4^ EL CORTE DE ai MADERA CREEK OPEN SPACE PRESERVE Spring Board Trail LA HONDA CREEK OPEN SPACE PRESERV E' ILI-1711 'tare[ 0 7:yTraiI required. Coho Vista Whoa u' Big Tree. s. Leap Trail ' Baru The only ,eFdea.ea.,tanathern La Hwn.a Crock Reg,. h on Al en aosil. l Ne li g outside4/s er, gave. In response to COVID-1 9 Troll wider Ryan b feel - Plan for rosfraoms, drinking fountains and picnic areas being dosed. - Hike solo or with the people you live with. - Stay 6 feet away From people you do not live with. - Hike single File to °Lexi a distance when passing others. - Do not park in crowded parking lot or use a crowded trail. - Do not hold social gatherings or form groups. - Roadside parking may be prohibited. Fclg Ir Ranch Loop Trail ., used,esismaly. on hikers and egaaslress, Leasn�,slsann management nont . r graCotle Pail it In Honda Creek Open Space Preserve 1.8 Additional information is nveilnble otopersparearg Na access Ire, 5kvfne Boulevard THORNEWOOD OPEN SPACE PRESERVE b \; 35' 1 4 051 C 1y vita point[ �cvo LA HONDA CREEK OPEN SPACE PRESERVE .I_OSSED AREA y{arfrn9ton Creek Lis 1.2 CI Pa Permit required Ray's Peak 1,037' .r, HONDA CREEK OPEN SPACE PRESERVE ,;Bu aed Barn ICJ All trait In o Hood. ' Creels Preserve ere closed daring Red slag WornIngs. Ti., Ir a world, rand. Viiturs must etey on designated roils. tOF t se. n,v, etJ No air_ism or parking on Hwy 84 z . To Wady [1,111 e HT Contour in ervol GO leer n , REGIONAL OPEN SPACE La Honda Creek Open Space Preserve For more information, visa epenapaceerg or coil 650.691.1200. Map Legend M2dpen preserve Closed area Other protected land. Private property {no public access) No public entry to Midpen waver areas - Rood Vehlcle driveway --- Hiking, equesMan troll — Hiking bicycling, equestrian trail ,_af-n Trail distance [mdesl •�+ Numbered trail 'unctions: — Gate (#) Parking area EM Equestrian perking area Resaaom O Point of interest 11 Notable Flora • Tunnel o Other public Or private buildlr.g o Residence Dogs an leash permitted an designated nails. db Bicycles not permitted in tl ,s preserve. In case of emergency, call 24 -hour emergency dispatch at 650-968-4411 or 911. For your safely and the protection dine preserves: The presere'7 open one -Half hour before officio[ sunrise until enahalt hour char official sunset. Leos no taw: do nordisturb natural features; plants or animals: Keep II -crumb clean: do not leave feed or litter behind. Take roluablss with you and lock your vehicle. ATTACHMENT 2 Project orientation map Ci I.'UK I C Lit MADERA CREEK OPEN SPACE PRESERVE IS individual Greserve brochure 'or rrlore datoih) 7andr Loop Toil rr e ,d' v -- .10 I My e 0 Ole only ..ehicie access ra norrhern Lr Hand, Creek Preserve pserrne on Allen Rood. No por ng ouhrdeal Proserra yore. r K t b t KK V Pr`rtrr' CieI iG ✓1Troil Wat Permit Gig ?. S '^.��y only 5r70. Coho Yi5Fp`jr %°itoI' 't Big Tree Loop Trail • rn LC'1 0.5;{ 0 Visl[t Poi " LA HONDA CREEK OPEN SPACE 'RESERVE pop [reek T� 3 21 Ray's Peak 1.037' 0 LA HONDA CREEK. OPEN SPACE PRESERVE gaesrrrun parking L1ypermit only Thos is o work.nci ranch. Visirors rnuP vloy pn 'Amigo-0*d trnih r�k1 ucce -, r;r purk,n,. o.:E+y84 b k .'c 'or more de'ai' 1 Cr, 0 0 tia Men Oy 35 x��ii te r _ r • • Prnrotay' rpropei ATTACHMENT 3 Project limits of work by site Project Limits - Site B2 Lines Override Bridge Present Parking Location Trail (classes) Lot Restroom - Paved Road - Unpaved All -Season Road ---- Abandoned i Unmaintained Rand 0 rni a Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District MROSD) W21/2021 0.025 005 Walla de O'st arms b use beFxt avdl&Je Ggye1 are, thse due do nel nrpemnta loolevvey and ere Irerely ugr i IRuodrem nI 01309193N r frabres_ Project Limits - Site B3 Project Area Trail - Paved Road - -- Abandoned ! Unmaintained Road Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (N5RO5D) 8/21/2021 0 0.025 0.05 OPEN SPACE Mile the Duet mNe. a av be Len ovdlrble digibl dab, theme doe do rot repesenta legal bobby and ue nerdy a grnb r Itlae+oAen al grugmpMc .frobres ATTACHMENT 3 Project limits of work by site Project Limits - Site D and Hwy 84 Project Area Trail Other Bridge - Unpaved Seasonal Road --- Trail Abandoned/ Unrnaontained Road !&P 0 4! Midpeninsuia Reg]anal Open Space District MROSD) 6/21/2021 0.025 0.05 6 while the DIsrla skive ewe /he Lest aMld,le digit me, de.edab d not aepesenta legal $vary and are me.ely o grapi r 14uamatm o4 geographic Feames. Project Limits - Site E3 Project Area Trail ° — Unpaved Seasonal Road Landing Zone - Paved Road — Unpaved All -Season Road Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District iMROSD! 6/21/2021 t co 0 0.025 0.05 OPEN SPACE %file the LariC>nes a we'fie 6a9 avd lchledio.rfie,fhaebb do netregesena legal survey and Ere merely a gap4t;Yla:pate a9 geogsplvc lealuas. MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District R-21-126 Meeting 21-28 September 22, 2021 AGENDA ITEM 4 AGENDA ITEM Adoption of the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Open Space Maintenance and Restoration Program GENERAL MANAGER'S RECOMMENDATION 41I,C_ Adopt a Resolution adopting the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Open Space Maintenance and Restoration Program. SUMMARY The Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (District) obtains as needed environmental permits for ongoing maintenance, operations, and construction activities that may affect protected waters and species. The District utilizes a mix of "programmatic" permits that cover many routine activities within District boundaries and "individual" permits that cover specific, non -routine projects. District staff have been working with regulatory staff from the US Army Corps of Engineers (Corps), US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), and California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) to refine a programmatic permitting approach for all routine land management activities described as the District's Open Space Maintenance and Restoration Program. The covered activities include road and trail maintenance, conservation grazing, habitat restoration, and vegetation management. An Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) was prepared and publicly circulated for 30 days. The IS/MND concludes that the proposed project, with mitigations, would not result in significant impacts on the environment. DISCUSSION Background Environmental permits largely fall within two categories: water and wildlife, which derive from the Clean Water Act and Endangered Species Act respectively, each having state and federal versions. Much of the District's work that generates the need for environmental permitting is centered around water that intersects with District infrastructure, including trails, roads, bridges, and ponds. Additionally, many of the protected species on District preserves (e.g., California red - legged frog, San Francisco garter snake, western pond turtle) are associated with aquatic habitats and obtaining permits for potential impacts to these species becomes a component of the environmental permitting process. Therefore, most projects require species and water -related permits from both state and federal agencies. Since the passage of Measure AA in 2014, the Rev. 1/3/18 R-21-126 Page 2 District has experienced a significant increase in the number of required permits given the growth of the maintenance and capital programs. The Open Space Maintenance and Restoration Program was developed in response to the need to renew a programmatic permit with the RWQCB for the "Stream Maintenance Program", which expired in 2018 and has been extended temporarily for three years. The Open Space Maintenance and Restoration Program largely describes existing District stewardship activities and practices, generally referred to as `routine maintenance'. The RWQCB's shared authority with the Corps under the Clean Water Act requires a joint 401/404 water quality certification for District activities. The Corps permit process ("Regional General Permit") entails federal consultation with USFWS, known as the Section 7 process under the Endangered Species Act, and consultation with the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) under Section 106. While each of the State and Federal agencies have different statutes, laws, and administrative processes, combining them into one permit process and program provides for greater efficiencies for District and Resource Agency staff. The potential environmental impacts of the project were analyzed in an Initial Study (IS) and Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND). Conclusions of the IS/MND, including mitigation measures, are discussed in the CEQA compliance section of this report. BOARD AND COMMITTEE REVIEW The Planning and Natural Resources Committee (PNR) received an overview presentation of the Open Space and Maintenance Program on January 26, 2021 (R-21-12). The PNR requested and received clarification regarding the types of small-scale facilities and improvements that would be covered by this programmatic permit, which include trails and ranching infrastructure (e.g., fencing and water lines). The PNR also received information regarding programmatic permitting related to historic resources and how the District's historic resource database would provide staff with initial, starting information to begin researching what historic, prehistoric, and cultural resources may exist onsite and what further studies may be needed to protect these resources. Finally, the PNR also received information about how the programmatic permits can extend to partner -owned land on a limited and project -specific basis where the District would provide project oversight. PUBLIC NOTICE A Notice of Intent to adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration (NOI) was submitted to the CEQAnet Web Portal at the Governor's Office of Planning and Research on August 5, 2021. Because their offices were closed on Labor Day, the public review period started on August 9, 2021 and ended on September 7, 2021. On August 5, 2021, a Notice of Intent was submitted to the Santa Clara, San Mateo, and Santa Cruz Counties for posting as well as posted at every primary public Preserve entrance with a signboard. Email notifications were sent to interested parties and any individuals who have requested mailed notices. The NOI and IS/MND were available for public review at the District's Administrative Office, Skyline Field Office, and Foothills Field Office, and on the District's website. All applicable notice requirements of CEQA have been met. Public notice of this Agenda Item was provided as required by the Brown Act. R-21-126 Page 3 CEQA COMPLIANCE Project Description The full project description is found in Attachment 1. In summary, the Open Space Maintenance and Restoration Program, which is described in the Program Manual, includes the various routine maintenance, small-scale facility improvements and new low intensity/small footprint facilities, and restoration and enhancement projects conducted by the District. Program activities include culvert and bridge maintenance; road and trail drainage feature maintenance; sediment and debris removal; streambank/pond berm stabilization; water supply structure maintenance; pond maintenance; vegetation management (i.e., mowing, brushing, pruning, aquatic herbicide application, conservation grazing, etc.); road and trail maintenance; roadway or trail slip- out/slide repairs; minor building repairs and utility improvements; recreational facility improvements, including new trails/roads and wildlife crossings; conservation grazing infrastructure improvements such as wildlife -friendly pasture fencing; aquatic habitat restoration; native vegetation plantings; invasive species removal; and road decommissioning. Each type of covered activity has an estimated annual frequency and a limit for that activity. Some activities occur every year at a larger scale (e.g., for road maintenance, the District replaces —25 culverts a year), while others are less frequent and smaller scale (e.g., for recreational improvements, the District replaces —2 trail bridges a year). The scale, frequency, and limits of these covered activities are described in Table 2-3, page 2-37 in Attachment 1. The Manual provides a comprehensive and consistent approach to conducting Program activities. Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Preparation In 2018, the District retained Horizon Environment and Water, LLC., to prepare an IS/MND for the project, pursuant to the CEQA requirements (CEQA, Public Resources Code sections 21000 et seq.) and guidelines (14 Cal. Code Regulations sections 15000 et seq.). The IS/MND, dated August 2021 (Attachment 1), includes mitigation measures for the Project that avoids or mitigates potentially significant adverse effects on the environment to less -than -significant levels. An NOI (Attachment 2) was released by the District on August 5, 2021 notifying that the IS/MND would be circulated for a minimum of 30 days, beginning on August 5, 2021 and ending on September 5, 2021. The Office of Planning and Research comment period ended two days later, due to Labor Day, and no comments were received between September 5 and September 7. CEQA Determination The District concludes that the project, with mitigation measures, will not have a significant effect on the environment. All potentially significant impacts and mitigation measures are summarized in the NOI (Attachment 2). Mitigation measures reduce potential effects to Biological Resources, Geology, Soils and Seismicity, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Noise, Public Services, Transportation, and Wildfire. Comments Received The District received one comment letter from Caltrans regarding concerns about potential impacts to the State's Right of Way from temporary access points and construction -related noise. The comment letter also noted the need for a Caltrans permit for the use of oversized vehicles and the potential need for a Transportation Management Plan. The comment did not raise any R-21-126 Page 4 significant new environmental impacts and did not result in any changes to the conclusions to the IS/MND. Implementation of Mitigation Measures TRANS -1 ensures emergency vehicle ingress/egress is provided through District preserves, including notification to Caltrans as needed, and NOI-1 ensures noise impacts to sensitive receptors and residences are minimized. Together, these measures adequately address the comments regarding potential impacts. Mitigation Monitoring Program In accordance with CEQA, the District prepared a Mitigation Monitoring Program (MMP) describing the project -specific mitigation measures and monitoring process (Attachment 3). The MMP ensures that all adopted measures intended to mitigate potentially significant environmental impacts will be implemented during construction and monitored during a designated post -construction period. The proposed project incorporates these mitigation measures. FISCAL IMPACT None. NEXT STEPS If the Board approves the General Manager's recommendations, staff will file a Notice of Determination with the San Mateo, Santa Clara, and Santa Cruz Counties. Permits from the California Department of Fish and Wildlife, Regional Water Quality Control Board, and the United States Army Corps of Engineers will then be obtained with the goal of implementation for the 2022 construction season. Attachments 1. Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (the appendices are available on the District website at: https://www.openspace.org/about-us/board-meetings) 2. Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration 3. Resolution Adopting the Mitigated Negative Declaration, the Mitigation Monitoring Program, and the Findings in Connection with the Proposed Open Space and Maintenance Restoration Program 4. Public Comments Received Responsible Department Head: Kirk Lenington, Natural Resources Manager Prepared by: Aaron Hebert, Sr. Resource Management Specialist Attachment 1 Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Open Space Maintenance and Restoration Program Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (ta Horizon i WATER and ENVIRONMENT September 2021 Attachment 1 Attachment 1 Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Open Space Maintenance and Restoration Program Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Prepared for: Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 330 Distel Circle Los Altos, CA 94022-1404 Contact: Aaron Hebert Senior Resource Management Specialist (650) 625-6561 ahebert@openspace.org Prepared by: Horizon Water and Environment, LLC 266 Grand Avenue, Suite 210 Oakland, CA 94610 Contact: Jeff Thomas (510) 986-4054 jeff@horizonh2o.com September 2021 Attachment 1 Horizon Water and Environment. 2021. Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Open Space Maintenance and Restoration Program — Public Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration. September. (18.041) Oakland, CA. Attachment 1 Table of Contents Chapter 1 Introduction 1-1 1.1 Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Open Space Maintenance and Restoration Program 1-1 1.2 Intent and Scope of this Document 1-1 1.1.1 Consistency with Other Midpen Programs 1-2 1.3 Public Involvement Process 1-3 1.4 Organization of this Document 1-3 1.5 Impact Terminology 1-4 Chapter 2 Project Description 2-1 2.1 Introduction 2-1 2.2 Program Objectives 2-1 2.3 Conservation Outcomes 2-2 2.4 Program Area 2-2 2.5 Program Activities 2-2 2.5.1 Culvert and Bridge Maintenance 2-5 2.5.2 Road and Trail Drainage Feature Maintenance 2-7 2.5.3 Sediment and Debris Removal 2-8 2.5.4 Streambank Stabilization 2-10 2.5.5 Water Supply Structure Maintenance 2-11 2.5.6 Ponds 2-11 2.5.7 Minor Maintenance Activities 2-12 2.5.8 Vegetation Management 2-12 2.5.9 Road and Trail Maintenance 2-18 2.5.10 New Small Scale Facilities Improvements 2-21 2.5.11 Restoration and Enhancement Projects 2-23 2.5.12 Activities Not Covered 2-27 2.6 Implementation and Oversight 2-28 2.6.1 Annual Maintenance and Facilities Improvements Work Cycle 2-28 2.6.2 Annual Program Work Plan Notification 2-28 Open Space Maintenance and Restoration Program September 2021 1 1 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Attachment 1 Table of Contents 2.6.3 Maintenance Crew, Work Durations, and Equipment 2-30 2.6.4 Annual Reporting and Agency Notification 2-33 2.7 Programmatic Avoidance and Minimization Measures 2-33 2.7.1 Activity Triggers 2-33 2.7.2 Work Limits and Best Management Practices 2-36 2.8 Permits and Approvals 2-43 Chapter 3 Environmental Checklist 3-1 Determination 3-2 3.1 Aesthetics 3-3 3.1.1 Environmental Setting 3-3 3.1.2 Discussion 3-4 3.2 Agriculture and Forestry Resources 3-11 3.2.1 Environmental Setting 3-11 3.2.2 Discussion 3-12 3.3 Air Quality 3-15 3.3.2 Environmental Setting 3-19 3.3.3 Discussion 3-22 3.4 Biological Resources 3-27 3.4.2 Setting 3-28 3.4.3 Regulatory Setting 3-77 3.4.4 Discussion 3-84 3.5 Cultural Resources 3-117 3.5.1 Environmental Setting 3-117 3.5.2 Existing Conditions 3-118 3.5.3 Discussion 3-123 3.6 Energy 3-129 3.6.1 Regulatory Setting 3-129 3.6.2 Environmental Setting 3-130 3.6.3 Discussion 3-131 3.7 Geology, Soils, and Seismicity 3-133 3.7.2 Environmental Setting 3-134 3.7.3 Discussion 3-139 3.8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions 3-147 3.8.1 Regulatory Setting 3-147 3.8.2 Environmental Setting 3-149 3.8.3 Discussion 3-149 Open Space Maintenance and Restoration Program September 2021 1 2 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Attachment 1 Table of Contents 3.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials 3-151 3.9.1 Environmental Setting 3-152 3.9.2 Discussion 3-155 3.10 Hydrology and Water Quality 3-165 3.10.2 Environmental Setting 3-166 3.10.3 Discussion 3-168 3.11 Land Use and Planning 3-179 3.11.1 Environmental Setting 3-179 3.11.2 Discussion 3-179 3.12 Mineral Resources 3-181 3.12.2 Environmental Setting 3-181 3.12.3 Discussion 3-182 3.13 Noise 3-183 3.13.1 Overview of Noise Concepts and Terminology 3-183 3.13.2 Regulatory Setting 3-185 3.13.3 Discussion 3-188 3.14 Population and Housing 3-193 3.14.2 Environmental Setting 3-193 3.14.3 Discussion 3-193 3.15 Public Services 3-195 3.15.2 Environmental Setting 3-195 3.15.3 Discussion 3-196 3.16 Recreation 3-199 3.16.2 Environmental Setting 3-199 3.16.3 Discussion 3-199 3.17 Transportation 3-201 3.17.2 Environmental Setting 3-201 3.17.3 Discussion 3-204 3.18 Tribal Cultural Resources 3-209 3.18.2 Environmental Setting 3-209 3.18.3 Discussion 3-211 3.19 Utilities and Service Systems 3-213 3.19.1 Environmental Setting 3-213 3.19.2 Discussion 3-215 3.20 Wildfire3-219 3.20.2 Environmental Setting 3-219 3.20.3 Discussion 3-220 Open Space Maintenance and Restoration Program September 2021 1 3 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Attachment 1 Table of Contents 3.21 Mandatory Findings of Significance 3-225 3.21.1 Discussion 3-225 Chapter 4 Report Preparation 4-1 Chapter 5 References 5-1 List of Appendices Appendix A. Program Best Management Practices Appendix B. Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Open Space Maintenance and Restoration Program Manual Appendix C. Air Quality/ Greenhouse Gas Emissions Calculations Appendix D. Biology Appendix Appendix E. Noise Calculations Appendix F. Public Comments List of Tables Table 2-1. Existing Midpen OSPs 2-1 Table 2-2. Summary of Program Activities by Facility or Feature 2-2 Table 2-3. Program Activity Work Limits Per Activity Type 2-37 Table 2-4. Proposed Program Regulatory Permits, Approvals, and Consultations 2-43 Table 3.3-1. SFBAAB and NCCAB Attainment Status of the State and Federal Ambient Air Quality Standards 3-17 Table 3.3-2. BAAQMD and MBARD CEQA Thresholds of Significance for Criteria Air Pollutants 3-19 Table 3.3-3. Daily Emissions Estimates (pounds per day) 3-23 Table 3.3-4. Maximum Annual Emissions Estimates (tons per year) 3-23 Table 3.4-1 Representative Common Species That May Occur on Midpen Lands 3-48 Table 3.4-2 Covered Species of the Santa Clara Valley Habitat Plan 3-59 Table 3.5-1. Surface Model Weights by Environmental Condition 3-120 Table 3.5-2. Buried Site Sensitivity Rankings 3-123 Table 3.5-3. Program Activities with the Greatest Potential to Impact Archaeological Resources 3-125 Table 3.6-1. Project Fossil Fuel Use 3-131 Table 3.8-1. Applicable BAAQMD CEQA Thresholds of Significance for GHGs 3-149 Table 3.9-1. Hazardous Materials Sites Within Midpen Lands on Government Database 3-153 Open Space Maintenance and Restoration Program September 2021 1 4 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Attachment 1 Table of Contents Table 3.9-2. Open Space Preserves within 0.25 -Mile of a School 3-157 Table 3.13-1. Examples of Common Noise Levels 3-184 Table 3.13-2. Noise Standards for the Counties and Incorporated Cities where Program Activities are Proposed 3-186 Table 3.13-3. Predicted Noise Levels of Heavy Equipment and Distances to Applicable Noise Thresholds 3-190 Table 3.13-4. Construction Equipment and Vibration Distance 3-192 Table 3.16-1. Local Access Roads Adjacent to Midpen Lands 3-202 Table 3.18-1. Native American Contacts 3-210 Table 3.21-1. Summary of Cumulative Projects in Midpen Lands and Surrounding Area 3-227 List of Figures Figure 2-1. Figure 2-2. Figure 3.4-1. Figure 3.4-2 Figure 3.4-3. Figure 3.4-4. Figure 3.4-5. Figure 3.5-1. Figure 3.7-1. Figure 3.9-1. Program Area 2-1 Skyline and Foothill Regions in the Program Area 2-3 Vegetation Communities Map 3-35 Designated Critical Habitat 3-51 Special -Status Plants Map 3-61 Special -Status Animals Map 3-69 Special -Status Animals Map 3-95 Surface Archaeological Sensitivity 3-121 Landslide Susceptibility Within the Program Area 3-137 CAL FIRE Fire Hazard Severity Zones within the Program Area 3-163 Open Space Maintenance and Restoration Program September 2021 1 5 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Acronyms and Abbreviations µg/m3 micrograms per cubic meter A AB Assembly Bill ADA Americans with Disabilities Act APLIC Avian Power Line Interaction Committee ASA architectural and site approval ATCM Airborne Toxic Control Measure B BAAQMD Bay Area Air Quality Management District Basin Plan Water Quality Control Plan BGEPA Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act BHS Biologically Highly Significant BMP best management practice BP before present C Attachment 1 Table of Contents C/CAG City/County Association of Governments CAL FIRE California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection CalRecycle California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery Caltrans California Department of Transportation CALVEG Classification and Assessment with Landsat of Visible Ecological Groupings CARB California Air Resources Board CBC California Building Code CCC California Coastal Commission CCH1 Consortium of California Herbaria CDP Coastal Development Permit CDFW California Department of Fish and Wildlife (since 2012) CDOC California Department of Conservation CEC California Energy Commission CEQA California Environmental Quality Act CESA California Endangered Species Act CGS California Geological Survey CHRIS California Historical Resources Information System CMP Congestion Management Program CNDDB California Natural Diversity Database Open Space Maintenance and Restoration Program September 2021 1 6 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Attachment 1 Table of Contents CNEL the energy average of the A -weighted sound levels during a 24 -hour period, with 5 dB added to the A -weighted sound levels between 7:00 p.m. and 10:00 p.m. and 10 dB added to the A -weighted sound levels between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. CNPS California Native Plant Society CO carbon monoxide Coastal Zone NEED DEFINITION CPUC California Public Utilities Commission CRHR California Register of Historical Resources CRLF California red -legged frog CRPR California Rare Plant Rank CWA Clean Water Act CWHR California Wildlife Habitat Relationship System CY cubic yards D dB decibels dBA A -weighted decibel dbh diameter at breast height DPM Diesel particulate matter DTSC Department of Toxic Substances Control DWR California Department of Water Resources E EIA U.S. Energy Information Administration EIR Environmental Impact Report EMFAC California Air Resources Control Board EMission FACtor model EO Executive Order ESA Endangered Species Act ESU Evolutionary Significant Unit F F&G Code California Fish and Game Code Farmland Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance FESA Federal Endangered Species Act FHSZ Very High and High fire hazard severity zone FHWA Federal Highway Administration FMMP Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program FTA Federal Transit Administration Open Space Maintenance and Restoration Program September 2021 1 7 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District FYLF foothill yellow -legged frog G GAMA Groundwater Ambient Monitoring and Assessment GGNPC Golden Gate National Parks Conservancy GHG Greenhouse Gas GIS Geographic Information System GSA Groundwater Sustainability Agency H Habitat Plan Santa Clara Valley Habitat Plan HCP habitat conservation plan HDPE high -density polyethylene I Interstate in/sec inches per second IPM Integrated Pest Management IPMP Integrated Pest Management Program IS/MND Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Attachment 1 Table of Contents 1 lb/day pounds/day LCP Local Coastal Program Ldn the energy average of the A -weighted sound levels occurring during a 24 -hour period, with 10 dB added to the A -weighted sound levels during the period from 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. (reflecting the elevated sensitivity during typical sleeping hours) Leg equivalent steady-state sound level that, in a given period, would contain the same acoustical energy as a time -varying sound level during that same period LF linear feet Lmax maximum sound level measured during a given measurement period Lmin minimum sound level measured during a given measurement period LUST leaking underground storage tank L. the sound level exceeded during x percent of a given measurement period (xx is the percent exceeded) M Manual Open Space Maintenance and Restoration Program Manual MBARD Monterey Bay Air Resources District Open Space Maintenance and Restoration Program September 2021 1 8 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District MBTA Migratory Bird Treaty Act MidPen Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District MOU Memorandum of Understanding MT metric tons MTCO2e metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent N NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards NAHC Native American Heritage Commission NCCAB North Central Coast Air Basin NCCP natural community conservation plan NHPA National Historic Preservation Act NHTSA National Highway Traffic Safety Administration NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service NOA naturally occurring asbestos NOx nitrogen oxides NRHP National Register of Historic Places NWIC Northwest Information Center 0 OHWM ordinary high water mark OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Administration OSP Open Space Preserve Attachment 1 Table of Contents P PCR Public Resource Code Peninsula San Francisco Peninsula PG&E Pacific Gas and Electric Company PM particulate matter PM2.5 particulate matter of aerodynamic radius of 10 micrometers or less PM10 particulate matter of aerodynamic radius of 10 micrometers or less Porter -Cologne Porter -Cologne Water Quality Control Act Act POST Peninsula Open Space Trust PPE personal protective equipment ppm parts per million PPV peak particle velocity Program Open Space Maintenance and Restoration Program Open Space Maintenance and Restoration Program September 2021 1 9 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District R RDM residual dry matter RH/DR residential hillside/design review ROG Reactive Organic Gas RPF Registered Professional Forester RPS Renewables Portfolio Standard RWQCB California Regional Water Quality Control Board 5 SB Senate Bill SF square feet SFBAAB San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin SFDFW San Francisco dusky -footed woodrat SFGS San Francisco garter snake SO2 sulfur dioxide SOD sudden oak death SOx sulfur oxide SR- State Route SWRCB State Water Resources Control Board T TAC toxic air contaminant TCR tribal cultural resources TEK traditional ecological knowledge TMDL total maximum daily load tpy tons per year u U.S. United States U.S. 101 U.S. Highway 101 USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers USC U.S. Code USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture USEPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency USFS U.S. Forest Service USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service UST underground storage tank Attachment 1 Table of Contents Open Space Maintenance and Restoration Program September 2021 1 10 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District V Valley Water Santa Clara Valley Water District VdB vibration velocity in decibels VMP Vegetation Management Plan VOC volatile organic compound VMT vehicle miles traveled VTA Valley Transit Authority w WPT WUI known western pond turtle wildland urban interface Attachment 1 Table of Contents Open Space Maintenance and Restoration Program September 2021 1 11 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District This page intentionally left blank Attachment 1 Table of Contents Open Space Maintenance and Restoration Program September 2021 1 12 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Attachment 1 Chapter 1 INTRODUCTION Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (Midpen) has prepared this Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) to provide the public, responsible agencies, and trustee agencies with information about the potential environmental effects of the proposed Open Space Maintenance and Restoration Program (Program). This document was prepared pursuant to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) of 1970 (as amended) and the State CEQA Guidelines (14 California Code of Regulations 15000 et seq.). 1.1 Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Open Space Maintenance and Restoration Program Consistent with Midpen's mission to acquire and preserve open space land, protect and restore and the natural environment, and provide opportunities for ecologically sensitive recreation and education, Midpen protects over 64,000 acres of open space in the South Bay and San Francisco Peninsula. Most of these lands are located within 26 open space preserves (OSPs) that form a connected greenbelt in the greater Santa Cruz Mountains region for plants and animals to thrive while also providing low -impact recreational opportunities to the public. Midpen manages its land to ensure protection and proper care of natural resources and to provide ecologically sensitive public access. Midpen developed the proposed Program to streamline the permitting process and provide an integrated approach to OSP maintenance, low -impact facility improvements, habitat enhancement, and environmental restoration. Administering these activities as a Program allows Midpen to apply a consistent set of methods, best management practices (BMPs), and impact avoidance approaches. A Draft Program Manual has been prepared that describes the ongoing, regular stewardship and maintenance activities within Midpen OSPs for the purpose of obtaining state and federal environmental permits. 1.2 Intent and Scope of this Document This IS/MND has been prepared in accordance with CEQA, under which the proposed Program is evaluated at a project level (CEQA Guidelines Section 15378). The Midpen Board of Directors, as the Lead Agency under CEQA, will consider the proposed Program's potential environmental impacts when considering whether to approve the Project. This IS/MND is an informational document to be used in the planning and decision -making process for the proposed Program and does not recommend approval or denial of the proposed Program. Open Space Maintenance and Restoration Program September 2021 1 1-1 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Attachment 1 1. Introduction This IS/MND describes the proposed Program; its environmental setting, including existing conditions and regulatory setting, as necessary; and the potential environmental impacts of the proposed Program with regard to the following topics: • Aesthetics • Agricultural/Forestry Resources • Air Quality • Biological Resources • Cultural Resources • Energy • Geology, Soils, and Seismicity Greenhouse Gas Emissions • Hazards and Hazardous Materials • Hydrology and Water Quality • Land Use and Planning • Mineral Resources • Noise • Population and Housing • Public Services • Recreation • Transportation • Tribal Cultural Resources • Utilities and Service Systems • Wildfire The proposed Program incorporates BMPs to ensure there would be no significant adverse impacts on the environment. Over the long term, the Project would benefit overall watershed functions, riparian and aquatic resources, and species located in the Program Area. 1.1.1 Consistency with Other Midpen Programs Many of the proposed Program vegetation management activities are components of other Midpen programs, namely the Integrated Pest Management Program (IPMP) (Midpen 2014) and the Wildland Fire Resiliency Program (Midpen 2021). These programs also include BMPs that specify the general work approach to avoid and/or minimize impacts to sensitive resources while conducting vegetation management activities that would apply to the proposed Program. Midpen's IPMP was developed to direct management of invasive plants and animals on OSPs, flammable vegetation near facilities, and rodents and insects in Midpen's buildings. Program activities covered under the IPMP include annual brushing/mowing along roads and trails, parking lots, gats, and stiles, and recreational areas; trimming and removing aquatic vegetation in ponds and along dams; limbing or removing hazard and downed trees; applying pesticides; conducting fuel management activities in Wildland/Urban Interface areas and around facilities (e.g., managing disclines along roads, trails, and borders, limbing trees, maintaining shaded fuel breaks, clearing around buildings, emergency helicopter landing zones, and driveways); removing invasive plant and animal species; and grazing. Potential environmental impacts associated with IPMP activities were analyzed in the 2014 IPMP Environmental Impact Report (EIR) as Addended (Midpen 2014, 2019). BMPs and mitigation measures included in the IPMP EIR as Addended would apply to comparable vegetation management activities described for the proposed Program. Midpen's Wildland Fire Resiliency Program was developed to expand Midpen's fuel management activities to promote healthy, resilient, fire -adapted ecosystems, reduce Open Space Maintenance and Restoration Program September 2021 1 1-2 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Attachment 1 1. Introduction wildland fire risk, and facilitate the response of fire agencies. Program activities covered under the Wildland Fire Resiliency Program include prescribed burns, disclines, shaded fuelbreaks, maintaining defensible space around facilities, removing flammable invasive species; limbing/removing trees and riparian vegetation; mowing and brushcutting; pesticide application; and grazing. Potential environmental impacts associated with Wildland Fire Resiliency Program activities are analyzed in the 2021 Wildland Fire Resiliency Program EIR (Panorama 2021). BMPs and mitigation measures included in Wildland Fire Resiliency Program EIR would apply to comparable vegetation and fuels management activities described for the proposed Program. Where appropriate, this IS/MND incorporates by reference these other Midpen programs and environmental documents for coverage of related proposed Program activities. 1.3 Public Involvement Process Public disclosure and dialogue are priorities under CEQA. CEQA Guidelines Section 15073 and Section 15105(b) require that the lead agency designate a period during the IS/MND process when the public and other agencies can provide comments on the potential impacts of the proposed Program. Accordingly, Midpen circulated this document for a 30 -day public and agency review period beginning August 9, 2021 and ending September 7, 2021. The Draft IS/MND was available for review at the following locations as well as on Midpen's website: ■ Midpen's main Administration Office (330 Distel Circle, Los Altos) ■ Foothills Field Office (222500 Cristo Rey Dr, Cupertino), and ■ Skyline Field Office (21150 Skyline Ranch Road, La Honda). Midpen considered all comments submitted in writing and received before 5:00 p.m. from the date identified for closure of the public comment period in the Notice of Intent. One public comment was received during the 30 -day review period. The comment letter is included in Appendix F. 1.4 Organization of this Document This IS/MND contains the following components: Chapter 1, Introduction, provides a brief description of the intent and scope of this IS/MND, the public involvement process under CEQA, and the organization of and terminology used in this IS/MND. Chapter 2, Project Description, describes the proposed Program, including its objectives and conservation outcomes; a description of the Program Area, Program Open Space Maintenance and Restoration Program September 2021 1 1-3 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Attachment 1 1. Introduction activities and facilities; Program implementation and oversight; programmatic avoidance and minimization measures; and related permits and approvals. Chapter 3, Environmental Checklist, presents the environmental checklist used to assess the proposed Program's potential environmental effects, which is based on the model provided in Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines. This chapter also includes a brief environmental setting description for each resource topic and identifies the proposed Program's anticipated environmental impacts, as well as any mitigation measures that would be required to reduce potentially significant impacts to a less - than -significant level. Chapter 4, References, provides a bibliography of printed references, websites, and personal communications used in preparing this IS/MND. The following appendices provide documentation in support of this IS/MND: Appendix A. Appendix B. Appendix C. Appendix D. Appendix E. Appendix F. Program Best Management Practices Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Open Space Maintenance and Restoration Program Manual Air Quality/ Greenhouse Gas Emissions Calculations Biology Appendix Noise Calculations Public Comments 1.5 Impact Terminology This IS/MND uses the following terminology to describe the environmental effects of the proposed Program: ■ A finding of no impact is made when the analysis concludes that the proposed Program would not affect the particular environmental resource or issue. ■ An impact is considered less than significant if the analysis concludes that no substantial adverse change in the environment would result and that no mitigation is needed. ■ An impact is considered less than significant with mitigation if the analysis concludes that no substantial adverse change in the environment would result with the implementation of the mitigation measures described. ■ An impact is considered significant or potentially significant if the analysis concludes that a substantial effect on the environment could result. ■ Mitigation refers to specific measures or activities that would be adopted by the lead agency to avoid, minimize, rectify, reduce, eliminate, or compensate for an otherwise significant impact. ■ A cumulative impact refers to one that can result when a change in the environment would result from the incremental impacts of a project along with other related past, present, or reasonably foreseeable future projects. Significant cumulative Open Space Maintenance and Restoration Program September 2021 1 1-4 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Attachment 1 1. Introduction impacts might result from impacts that are individually minor but collectively significant. The cumulative impact analysis in this IS/MND focuses on whether the proposed Program's incremental contribution to significant cumulative impacts caused by the project in combination with past, present, or probable future projects is cumulatively considerable. ■ Because the term "significant" has a specific usage in evaluating the impacts under CEQA, it is used to describe only the significance of impacts and is not used in other contexts within this document. Synonyms such as "substantial" are used when not discussing the significance of an environmental impact. Open Space Maintenance and Restoration Program September 2021 1 1-5 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District This page intentionally left blank Attachment 1 1. Introduction Open Space Maintenance and Restoration Program September 2021 1 1-6 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Attachment 1 Chapter 2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 2.1 Introduction This document evaluates the potential environmental effects of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District's (Midpen's) Open Space Maintenance and Restoration Program (Program) to provide the public, relevant public agencies, and stakeholders with information about proposed Program implementation and its potential environmental effects. The proposed Program is summarized below. The draft proposed Program Open Space Maintenance and Restoration Program Manual (Manual) is provided in Appendix B. The proposed Program activities described herein are currently conducted by Midpen. Thus, the proposed Program would not expand Midpen's existing activities but would rather repackage what Midpen already does in order to streamline the associated regulatory permitting processes. Many of the proposed Program activities are components of other Midpen Programs and described in other Midpen documents, including but not limited to, the Integrated Pest Management Program (IPMP) (Midpen 2014) and the Wildland Fire Resiliency Program (Midpen 2021c). Where appropriate, this Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) incorporates by reference these other Midpen programs and environmental documents for coverage of related proposed Program activities. 2.2 Program Objectives The objectives of the Program include: ■ Streamlining the regulatory permitting process by obtaining comprehensive long- term permits that improve work planning and implementation, and reduce delays. ■ Utilizing existing and planned Midpen restoration and enhancement efforts in a strategic manner to ensure that the overall Program has a net benefit to regulated habitats and special -status species. ■ Protecting and enhancing the natural environment and improving low -intensity public access throughout Midpen Open Space Preserves (OSPs). ■ Avoiding and minimizing potential impacts to the natural environment when conducting activities by assessing habitat, species, and resource conditions. Open Space Maintenance and Restoration Program September 2021 1 2-1 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 2. Project Description Attachment 1 ■ Identifying and prioritizing maintenance and facilities needs by weighing potential impacts vs. permitting requirements and timelines. 2.3 Conservation Outcomes Conservation outcomes of the Program, which were derived and modified from Midpen's Resource Management Policies, Integrated Pest Management (IPM) Guidance Manual, and Wildland Fire Resiliency Program, include: ■ Reduce soil disturbances, erosion, and water quality impacts associated with maintenance activities through careful planning combined with implementation of Best Management Practices (BMPs) that provide erosion control and protect water quality. ■ Promote growth of native vegetation and protect and restore special -status species and sensitive habitats, and rehabilitate areas disturbed prior to Midpen ownership. ■ Acquire and provide public access to lands while also protecting and restoring natural resources. ■ Remove and manage invasive species while protecting natural resources and public health. ■ Reduce fire fuels that contribute to the risk of catastrophic wildfire and restore ecosystems by removing invasive plant species and/or dead and excessive accumulated vegetation due to past fire suppression. 2.4 Program Area The Program area includes Midpen's Sphere of Influence, consisting of approximately 236,233 acres in northern Santa Clara and southern San Mateo counties, and a small portion of Santa Cruz County. Within the Program area, Midpen protects over 64,000 acres of open space in the South Bay and San Francisco Peninsula (refer to Figure 2-1). Most of these lands are located in 26 OSPs in the Santa Cruz Mountains (refer to Table 2-1) within either the Skyline region or Foothill region (refer to Figure 2-2). Open Space Maintenance and Restoration Program September 2021 1 2-2 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Attachment 1 Hal f Moon Ba y h1 It T. "'I r t O Pacific Ocean Legend Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District District Boundary i ; Bphere of Influence PreservesWithin the Program Area Easement or Management Agreement Within the Program Area N 4 A 2 0 4 Miles Au port f' rlirlY:. ;tie h ft lip t'.' oU h Mira m-ontes dge tgn o- \sa'e elaSte JTunita s Creek San Francisco Ba y ftiir (shod PulgasRdge Purisma Creek L+ B Gone de Maderat Tholne ood — t Ilnt�lln Creek ] L T� ° " J Os ,5 Eden Landing Ecological Reserve Windy.Hill Coal Creek Russian Los,Tranc ayline F c ,,aii�e10 [�" Long Ridcle c c•3<'-► ry rI L, �1 County F3u.an o Creek ^Jc "• • e 6 SAN MATE':-• non Greew Monterey Ba y Big Basin State Park t Gap I_Illil_�I'. 1_•9t F`trteou 5 e�pae:creak �� � I 1 SANTA CPL Z Frema Mission Peak Regional Park �\ 1 Ed Levin County 7. c Park Salt t;_i "- I r .3 Joseph's v 511110 Regional tiVrlderfleas Figure 2-1: Program Area Mid peninsula Regional Open Space District Routine Maintenance and Facilities Improvements Program May 2021 NTA R VALLE °tea Cl•num>trition State Forest Almaden uc ksilvet nty ,Ik Santa Teresa - County Park Calera Reservoir County Park SO NOM San Rafae MARIN 'r Martinez CONTRA COSTA SAN S Oakland FRANCISCO RedwooSIC Pa c ific Ocean ALA EDA California Stockton SA N JOAQUIN Program Area - II. San Jose SAN M A TEO Miles SANTA CLA RA SANTA CRUZ Santa Cruz 20 SAN E D. n't ' County F _ r. Salinas P( STA N I Hollister s Anderson Lake County Pan t.,l ' r I. I , I I-1 11 1 H. T. HARVEY & ASSOCIATES Ecological Consultants Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 2. Project Description Attachment 1 This page intentionally left blank Open Space Maintenance and Restoration Program September 2021 1 2-2 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Attachment 1 , .11 J II I C, 1 LIIIri if P. Pacific Ocean r.11ln r, r L San Francisco Bay I�III Ili.1 1ln-- HIIR.1 .rr.rjh 1. v I 1._ - y_-_ r' Sd, Ck e � L Foste City Et,u Isbi,I F adero Creek Portals County Park Redvrood _ A4PaA4 Crp04 State Park F .=110 4 it C Butauo Slate Fare r:5 nc W F. `•AN MATE+.r Big Basin Slate Park 86e sac' Eden Landing Ecological Reserve Coyote Nills� Regional Park I Park IJnion City �1. Newark ALAMEOq _i —tA._ 1 __ - Ed Lei n ,,SP I � O count), I Milpitas Vargas Plateau Fremont Mlsson Ptak Regional Park `,.' l e'N ._ C L- Altos -f1141'E'r tit-Illll,' 5. Castle Rork F State Park 0 SANTA CRUZ 0 Ebutder Creek L-- t1 Lomond S.:int.) Clara San ose 0 Campbell { ,Loa �,atcS It *re r at _ e Del Valle 'Regional Park Sunol Rs..ylonal Nhlder ne s, Alun, lao.:.I Palk Alum flock TA CLARA VALLEY. hoarie n ,K.k Av*r l uhr � I Santa Teresa -county Park Calero Rem toil County Park 4r c l E r Oj 04 4/41. ,ley D rn.006o — _' SANTA CLARA a. Joseph D Grant Jar County Park r jf / 7 \\'. And®rorl Lake . \ Ceunly Parr. 0 I.I� I L,II tiilt Carnegr S&Is '.'ehn_ulu Rc Araa r? : - 0 ho i : is lAJ , Q arp. / _• , a , \ Coyote Lair. \\ Count," Park �.,n r.brlin HILLS A 0 2 4 8 Miles Horizon IP WATER ,nd ENVIRONMENT 1 MROSD Boundary Sphere of Influence Foothill and Skyline Region Boundary Foothills Field Office Skyline Field Office Figure 2-2 Skyline and Foothill Regions in the Program Area ESFI ?na. MROSD '02p Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 2. Project Description Attachment 1 This page intentionally left blank Open Space Maintenance and Restoration Program September 2021 1 2-4 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 2. Project Description Table 2-1. Existing Midpen OSPs Attachment 1 OSP Miles of Existing Foothill or County/ Size (Acres) Trail Grazing Skyline Region Community Bear Creek Redwoods 1,437 7.2 No Foothill Los Gatos Coal Creek 508 3.7 No Skyline Palo Alto Foothills El Corte de Madera Creek 2,906 34.8 No Skyline Redwood City El Sereno 1,430 6.5 No Foothill Los Gatos/ Monte Sereno Foothills 212 0.2 No Skyline Palo Alto/ Los Altos Fremont Older 739 12.1 No Foothill Cupertino La Honda Creek 6,144 10.6 Yes Skyline Redwood City Long Ridge 2,226 14.1 No Skyline La Honda Los Trancos 274 6 No Skyline Los Altos Miramontes Ridge 1,716 No Skyline Half Moon Bay Monte Bello 3,537 18 No Skyline Palo Alto/ Los Altos Picchetti Ranch 308 3.1 No Foothill Cupertino Pulgas Ridge 366 6.2 No Foothill San Carlos Purisima Creek Redwoods 4,798 28.9 Yes Skyline Half Moon Bay Rancho San Antonio 3,988 25.2 No Foothill Los Altos Hills Russian Ridge 3,491 13.1 Yes Skyline Redwood City Saratoga Gap 1,613 1.4 No Skyline Santa Clara County Sierra Azul 18,939 25.8 No Foothill San Jose Skyline Ridge 2,143 12.4 Yes Skyline La Honda St. Joseph's Hill 270 4.2 No Foothill Los Gatos Teague Hill 626 .2 No Skyline Woodside Thornewood 167 1.6 No Skyline Woodside Tunitas Creek 1,660 Yes Skyline San Mateo County Windy Hill 1,414 13.6 No Skyline Portola Valley Note: Midpen owns properties along the Bayside within the Ravenswood and Stevens Creek OSPs; however, these OSPs are not included in this Program and thus, are not shown in this table. Open Space Maintenance and Restoration Program September 2021 1 2-1 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 2. Project Description Attachment 1 The Program area contains over approximately 900 culverts (including ditch relief and stream crossings), 150 trail bridges (including fords, puncheons, and boardwalks), 25 vehicle bridges, approximately 230 miles of streams (excluding many unmapped seasonal drainages and tributaries), 100 waterbodies (mostly ponds), 115 miles of single-track maintained unpaved trails, and 230 miles of maintained roads (including paved, unpaved seasonal, and unpaved all -season). Midpen acquires several hundred acres across multiple properties each year within their Sphere of Influence and sometimes thousands of contiguous acres at once from private landowners. Newly acquired properties often come with a number of environmental issues such as permitted and unpermitted structures in sensitive environmental areas, unpermitted ponds or water diversions, invasive species, poorly designed/maintained roads, or generally degraded infrastructure and/or degraded habitat. Midpen undertakes comprehensive planning processes for these properties; however, urgent items such as road repairs, invasive species, or other critical natural resources issue must be addressed rapidly to protect natural resources. Midpen also oversees and facilitates work on neighboring lands or partner properties within their Sphere of Influence such as lands of the Peninsula Open Space Trust (POST), State Parks, the San Mateo Resource Conservation District, San Francisco Public Utilities Commission, or the rights -of -way of local, County, and State roads. 2.5 Program Activities The vast majority of Midpen's proposed Program activities would benefit listed species and their habitats, consistent with Midpen's mission statement of acquiring and preserving a regional greenbelt of open space land in perpetuity, protecting and restoring the natural environment, and providing opportunities for ecologically sensitive public enjoyment and education. Table 2-2 summarizes activities that would be covered by the Program, which generally includes: (1) routine maintenance activities; (2) small-scale facility improvements and new low-intensity/small footprint facilities; and (3) restoration and enhancement projects. Facility improvements and new low intensity/small facility projects would be included in the Program when they are necessary to maintain OSP facilities and amenities in good condition while simultaneously reducing the threat of, or correct degradation of, natural environments, particularly where sensitive species would benefit. Table 2-2. Summary of Program Activities by Facility or Feature Facility or Feature Typical Examples of Activity Type Routine Maintenance Activities Ponds/lakes Berm repair/maintenance Outlet, inlet, and pipe repair Trash and woody debris removal Vegetation removal Sediment removal (may include some recontouring) Invasive plant treatment Wildlife structure installation (basking platforms/logs) Open Space Maintenance and Restoration Program September 2021 1 2-2 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Midpeninsula Regional Attachment 1 Open Space District 2. Project Description Facility or Feature Typical Examples of Activity Type Livestock exclusion fencing and gate repair Trash rack clearing Water supply structures Spring box and/or water tank maintenance or replacement Water line replacement, extensions, or realignments Instream diversion intake clearing Vegetation removal Roads Grading and shaping (may include rocking) Culvert repair and replacement Removal of asbestos from culverts and other structures Sediment and debris removal at inboard ditches and stream crossings (including culvert inlets, outlets, and rocked fords) Fords and swales repair and replacement (including new culverts in place of fords) Bank stabilization Repair of gabion rock or riprap Road brushing/mowing Vegetation management Minor relocation of road segments (unpaved) to correct resource concerns (e.g., erosion, rutting) Installation of new roadside and trailside ditch relief culverts at non -stream crossings Repair and replacement of driveways Bridges Replace decking and handrails Minor structural repairs Repair and fortify bridge abutments Sediment and debris removal Addition of surface material to puncheons Vegetation management/removal Bridge removal or replacement (e.g., increasing span to outside ordinary high water mark [OHWM]) Removal of lead paint Repainting bridges Roadside/trailside ditches Replace culverts and ditches Install new rolling dips and fords Replace and repair fords Sediment and debris removal Vegetation management Open Space Maintenance and Restoration Program September 2021 1 2-3 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Midpeninsula Regional Attachment 1 Open Space District 2. Project Description Facility or Feature Typical Examples of Activity Type Cleaning ditches Trails Grading and shaping Culvert repair and replacement Repair and replace fords and swales (including with new culverts) Bank stabilization Repair of gabion rock, riprap, or retaining walls Boardwalk repair Trail brushing/mowing Vegetation management Minor relocation/reroute Sediment and debris removal at channel/trail crossings Maintenance of rolling dips Fence, gate, and signage repair Creeks Vegetation management Sediment and debris removal Downed tree management and large woody material removal Bank stabilization Trash rack clearing Other Midpen Parks and Open Space features (picnic or rest areas, natural areas, rangeland, staging areas, parking lots, tenant structures, field offices, etc.) Invasive species removal (e.g., manual, mechanical, chemical, and biological) in natural lands Fire fuel management (e.g., manual, mechanical, grazing, and chemical) for disc lines and fuel breaks Maintenance/clearing of defensive space buffers around buildings, staging areas, roads, trails, water supply infrastructure, and use areas Mechanical and chemical treatment of vegetation at helicopter landing zones New Facilities and Improvements Bridges Bridge relocation or new installation to reduce resource/water quality impacts Interpretive facilities and signage Installation of new low -intensity, small -footprint interpretative facilities and signage at existing OSPs Ranching infrastructure Improve existing ranching infrastructure, including fences, corrals, stock water Utilities Maintenance of septic, telephone, telecommunications, and other utilities etc. Trails Reroute existing unpaved trails, provide new trail connections and public access, and single-track trail resurfacing for Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) compliance Wildlife crossings Construct wildlife crossings some of which may also provide public access Open Space Maintenance and Restoration Program September 2021 1 2-4 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Midpeninsula Regional Attachment 1 Open Space District 2. Project Description Facility or Feature Typical Examples of Activity Type Existing buildings and structures Repair existing structures to provide habitat for wildlife species Water infrastructure Replace or remove degraded water infrastructure facilities Restoration and Enhancement Activities Removal of in -stream infrastructure (i.e., impoundments) and collapsed structures (i.e., bridges or culverts) or upsizing of culverts Creation of aquatic habitat and/or improvement of fisheries habitat, flows, sediment transport Native vegetation plantings and seeding Habitat enhancement Traditional ecological knowledge practices (indigenous stewardship) Plant gathering, seed collection, and plantings Wildlife friendly spring box/troughs Habitat enhancement to prevent wildlife entrapment Pond and stream restoration Improve ponds and streams to restore aquatic habitat Treatment of invasive species Habitat enhancement Exclusion fencing Habitat enhancement to exclude cattle and protect species Prescribed burns Habitat enhancement, fuels management, and cultural fire Conservation grazing Fuels and species/grassland management Road decommissioning Restored hydrology and watershed processes Water well decommissioning Entrapment hazard removal and water quality protection Structural demolitions in riparian or other sensitive areas Habitat enhancement 2.5.1 Culvert and Bridge Maintenance Culvert Repair and Replacement Midpen maintains over 900 culverts, including ditch relief and stream crossings, which commonly require routine repair or replacement due to improper installation prior to Midpen land acquisition, material deterioration (e.g., bottom of a corrugated metal pipe culvert is beginning to rust), damaged headwalls and energy dissipaters, or eroding outfalls. More than 50% of culverts on Midpen lands are between 15 feet and 35 feet long, with an average culvert length of 30 feet. Open Space Maintenance and Restoration Program September 2021 1 2-5 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 2. Project Description Attachment 1 A typical culvert replacement would involve replacing existing pipe with corrugated metal pipe, high -density polyethylene (HDPE), or other pipe material, such as concrete, sized for adequate capacity (i.e., 100 -year flow or entire channel width, where feasible). Culvert replacement would entail trenching, installing shoring when necessary, removing the existing culvert, installing armored culvert outlet aprons prior to laying down the new pipe, replacing the culvert, backfilling the trench, and compacting the soil or fill material. Typically, work would occur within the same footprint as the original culvert. Culverts that are greater than 30 inches in diameter would include armored culvert inlets and outlets to dissipate water velocity. Culvert replacements would be installed at or below stream grade. The slope and gradient of replacement culverts would be aligned with the receiving water course to maintain stream course continuity and to avoid washout or erosion. Culverts in fish -bearing streams would be designed to provide sufficient depth and velocity of water for passage of native fish and other native aquatic species during high and low flow conditions. Repair of improperly installed or deteriorated culverts would include repairing eroded outfalls and rock armoring, replacing broken energy dissipators, adding rock slope protection, improving compaction to prevent piping, and clearing clogged culverts. In some instances, culverts may be replaced with rolling dips or rock fords to correct drainage conditions, improve sediment control, or limit disturbance. Adding rock material to reinforce or re -armor culverts at or below the streambed would be conducted by hand in remote areas or by using a bobcat or tractor in areas accessible by road or trail. Surface disturbance would be limited to 150 linear feet of channel or 3,000 square feet for each culvert repair/replacement project. For culvert replacement projects, total earthwork would not exceed 100 cubic yards per culvert, not including the energy dissipator. For culvert repair projects, up to 10 cubic yards of perched fill may be removed. Depending on where the culvert replacement takes place, equipment would generally be operated from the roadway, roadway shoulders, or trail. However, for large culvert repair, replacement, or relocation projects, it may be necessary to operate equipment within the channel. Culvert repair and replacement activities would occur during the summer season between April 15 and October 31 when water levels are low or absent. Dewatering may be required depending on site conditions and water levels. For the purposes of the proposed Program environmental analysis, it is assumed that Midpen would conduct up to a maximum of 50 culvert repair and replacement projects in a given year; however, on average 25 culvert replacements would occur annually. Bridge Maintenance and Replacement Midpen maintains over 150 trail bridges, including fords, puncheons, and boardwalks, and over 25 vehicular bridges throughout its OSPs. Vehicular and trail bridge maintenance activities would involve repairing or replacing guard or hand railings and decking on bridges, sealing joints, patching cracks on the bridge exterior, removing and re -applying paint, conducting general surface and deck treatments, adding surface material to low puncheons, clearing debris beneath the bridge abutments, and adding rock material to repair bridge abutments. Open Space Maintenance and Restoration Program September 2021 1 2-6 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 2. Project Description Attachment 1 Bridge maintenance activities would be conducted on the bridge itself with electric power tools or heavy equipment, such as excavators and backhoes, placed outside of the channel, on dry stream banks and adjoining upland areas to minimize stream disturbance and turbidity. Nets, tarping or other suitable material would be installed on the underside of the bridge to catch any falling debris. Typically, bridge maintenance work would occur between April 15 and October 31; however, work could occur between November 1 to April 14, depending on conditions. If bridge works occurs within salmonid habitat, work would occur between June 15 and October 31. If the lower portion of the bridge requires maintenance, work may occur during periods of dry or low flow or dewatering would be required. If dewatering is required, water would either be temporarily diverted or the work area would be isolated. Bridges may also be replaced if they are no longer passable by vehicles, are damaged or worn out, cannot withstand sufficient weight loads to accommodate emergency response vehicles, or are necessary for drainage correction purposes. Bridge replacements that involve the same size and location of the new bridge may occur under the proposed Program with limited in - channel work. Bridge replacements that involve a different location or size of bridge may also occur only if the replaced bridge reduces impacts to the surrounding habitat. The original bridge site would be restored to improve or match surrounding habitat conditions. For the purposes of the proposed Program environmental analysis, it is assumed that Midpen would conduct a maximum of 10 bridge maintenance and replacement projects in a given year; however, on average a total of five bridge projects would occur annually. 2.5.2 Road and Trail Drainage Feature Maintenance Road and trail ditches, ditch relief culverts, fords and swales, rolling dips, and other drainage features collect runoff from the adjacent road and trail surfaces and control and direct stream flow. Maintenance of these drainage features is necessary to reduce flooding by providing flow carrying capacity; prevent erosion and scouring of the drainage feature, channel/stream, and adjacent roadway/trail and slopes; and reduce the delivery of pollutants, including sediment to streams. These facilities are inspected year-round and are cleaned when capacity is reduced by 10% to 30%. For purposes of the proposed Program, it is assumed that Midpen would conduct a maximum of 56 road and trail drainage clearing and installation (average of 17 per year), including ford/swale maintenance, and a maximum of 200 annual pre -rainstorm preparation (i.e., clearing sediment and debris from road and trail drainage features with hand shovels) (average of 100 per year). Unpaved and Paved Road and Trail Ditches Unpaved roadside and trailside ditches are cleaned as -needed from spring to fall (April through November), as long as the ditches are dry. Rainy season ditch clearing may occur (November to April) but would usually be limited to hand tools unless there is a large debris blockage that must be cleared. Unpaved ditches would be cleaned to a depth that matches the existing grade to maintain a continuous slope for runoff to flow to the nearest outlet. Ditch maintenance would typically involve vegetation removal and sediment and debris removal. Open Space Maintenance and Restoration Program September 2021 1 2-7 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 2. Project Description Attachment 1 Ditches would be cleaned with hand tools or mechanical equipment such as dozers, excavators, backhoes, skid steers, box scrapers, and graders depending on the scale of work. Paved ditches would be cleaned on an as -needed basis to preserve drainage capacity. Methods to remove debris, trash, or sediment include manual cleaning with hand tools or mechanical cleaning by use of dozer, grader, excavator, backhoe, skid -steer, box scraper, or similar equipment, depending on the scale and location of work. Ditch Relief Culverts Ditch relief culverts are buried beneath the road or trail surface at the low point or dip and provide drainage of roadside and trailside ditches. Maintenance of ditch relief culverts would include removal of sediment and debris as well as installation of new ditch relief culverts, as needed to improve drainage. These culverts would be inspected and cleaned as needed, typically with hand tools. Ditches could also be cleared with vacuum equipment or high pressure/volume water flow to flush out the ditch. Debris would then be cleared by hand at the end of the pipe. Ditch relief culverts would be cleared when they are 30% blocked; however, it would vary depending on the condition. Armored Fords and Swales Ford crossings are typically located at trail and stream crossings and are designed for the road/trail to dip through the watercourse. Maintenance of fords and swales would involve replacing rock at the dip and apron and occasionally removing sediment and woody debris. Midpen also would install new fords and swales in locations where gullying or erosion has resulted from the stream draining across the road/trail. Midpen may also replace culverts with rock fords in cases where culverts frequently clog. Fords and swales would be cleaned as -needed with hand tools for small work or mechanical equipment, such as a dozer, excavator, backhoe, skid -steer, or skip loader. Rolling Dips Rolling dips (i.e., grade dips) are designed to be self-cleaning and to convey sediment off of the side of the road/trail surface. Maintenance of rolling dips would involve clearing sediment and debris and removing vegetation, as needed. Midpen also would install new rolling dips as necessary to provide drainage improvements to existing roads and trails. Rolling dips on roads would be excavated with an excavator, bulldozer with rippers, or a grader. Rolling dips on trails would be excavated with a mini excavator, skid steer, or hand tools. Rolling dips would be cleared as -needed and would be typically built to reduce maintenance to every 10 - years or more. 2.5.3 Sediment and Debris Removal Deposited or accumulated sediment and debris can reduce a channel's capacity to safely convey streamflow as well as a pond's capacity to hold water. Accumulated sediment or debris can also block culverts, bridges, ditches, and other drainage features, and direct flows into streambanks causing erosion, which could negatively impact water quality and the facility (i.e., road, trail, or bridge). In addition, sediment and debris accumulation could also flood and damage property or structures, thus threatening public safety. Sediment and debris Open Space Maintenance and Restoration Program September 2021 1 2-8 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 2. Project Description Attachment 1 removal primarily would occur in ponds and culverts, ditches, rolling dips and other drainage features at road/trail crossings and rarely would occur in channels, beneath bridges, and at trash racks and other minor facilities. Removing excess sediment and debris would improve water quality, decrease the risk of flooding and erosion, eliminate unpleasant odors, and improve aesthetic conditions. Sediment and debris removal activities typically would occur during the dry season, between April 15 and October 15; however, removal activities could be extended if conditions allow. Sediment Removal Although Midpen rarely removes sediment from channels, it may be necessary when sediment volume has reduced channel capacity or when localized sediment obstruction has the potential to divert flows, thereby resulting in erosion or flooding damage. Sediment removal in channels typically would occur at small, localized areas that experience sediment deposition or blockages. It is anticipated that Midpen would work on up to one in -channel sediment removal project per year. The total work limits would not exceed 100 linear feet per site. Sediment would be removed with mechanized equipment in creeks that do not support habitat for salmonids and with hand tools in creeks that do support salmonid habitat. No equipment would be operated in standing or flowing water within the channel. Work would generally occur under dry conditions; however, if maintenance is necessary where water is in the channel, the water would either be temporarily diverted or the work area would be isolated. Midpen also would remove sediment from ponds where accumulated sediment has decreased the depth of the pond, thereby reducing the water volume capacity and increasing the growth of aquatic vegetation such as cattails (Typha spp.). In order to restore the pond and return it to its previous depth and water capacity, sediment removal would be required. Sediment removal from ponds would occur as soon as the ponds are dry (if prior to August 15), or if pond draining is required, work would occur between August 15 and November 1. Draining of ponds would occur prior to the beginning of California red -legged frog (CRLF) breeding season. Heavy equipment such as dozers, loaders, excavators, rollers, and compactors would be used for sediment and vegetation removal and recontouring. In some areas, hand tools and hand laborers would be utilized. Portable pumps, with 1/4 inch mesh screens on the intakes, may be used for pond draining. Sediment removal from ponds would be limited to approximately 600 cubic yards per pond and total annual pond work would be limited to approximately one acre (or two or three ponds). Midpen is also responsible for clearing sediment from culvert inlets and outlets, ditches, rocked fords, rolling dips, and beneath bridges at road, trail, and stream crossings. The work is necessary when the drainage feature is blocked with sediment or debris and conveyance capacity is reduced by 10% to 30%, or sediment or debris deposits are actively causing scour erosion of streambanks supporting bridges or other public facilities like roads and trails. Midpen would remove sediment from blocked culverts approximately 3 to 8 times a year prior to the winter season and during and after storm events. Removing sediment may require digging sediment out by hand. Mechanized equipment, such as push loaders and excavators, may be used for larger drainage features or where hand removal is infeasible. Prior to the onset of the winter season and during/after storms, Midpen staff would walk the OSPs and remove any sediment that has filled drainage features with hand tools. Open Space Maintenance and Restoration Program September 2021 1 2-9 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 2. Project Description Attachment 1 Removed sediment would be reused on Midpen lands either adjacent to the site, within the same watershed, or within the same OSP. Sediment would be spread on stable, upland areas outside of channel corridor, or over unpaved roads. However, in the rare occurrence that soil is contaminated, it would be hauled offsite and disposed of at an appropriate landfill facility. Typically, this work would be conducted with hand shovels, backhoes, mini excavators, dozers, and/or graders. Debris Removal Debris removal would involve removing non -sedimentary materials (e.g., shopping carts, trash, tires, other substances) that are deposited into channels, lakes, or ponds as a result of high flows or through human activity. Prior occupants on Midpen lands used tires and other debris to stabilize streambanks and berms. Midpen routinely removes debris that impairs hydraulic conditions and reduces conveyance capacity in channels, lakes, ponds, ditches, or other drainage features. Debris removal would occur on an as -needed basis, and would be conducted using hand tools, including come -along cable pullers. Vehicle mounted winches may also be used to remove collected or heavy materials from channels or other heavy equipment, including excavators to remove debris such as tires. Debris would be disposed at an appropriate site or landfill. 2.5.4 Streambank Stabilization Streambank stabilization involves the repair and stabilization of eroded or eroding streambanks to minimize water quality and erosion impacts. Bank stabilization activities would include replacement or repair of damaged or failed sections of perched fill, rock riprap, geogrid embankment, timber pile walls, wooden or log cribwall bank revetments, and retaining walls. Bank stabilization activities would take place on an as -needed basis, based on the risk of flooding, erosion, or bank failure. In an average hydrologic year (based on average seasonal precipitation), Midpen may work on up to two streambank stabilization projects; the total annual work distance would not exceed 100 feet per site. Following a wet hydrologic year or period, Midpen may work on up to four streambank stabilization projects; the total work distance would not exceed 100 feet per site. If a streambank stabilization project is larger than 100 linear feet, the project would be conducted outside of the Program. Prior to initiating bank stabilization repair work, Midpen would first evaluate the type of bank failure that occurred (sheered slope, undercut bank, rotational slump, culvert failure, etc.). Second, Midpen would evaluate site -specific conditions, including location, hydraulic conditions (i.e., bank height, bank slope, water surface elevations, etc.), bank materials (i.e., soil type, strength, saturation conditions, etc.), and geomorphic conditions (i.e., instream features, confluence, channel bends, etc.). Midpen would then assess the upstream and downstream channel to determine overall stability of the channel and if elements that can improve habitat complexity, such as root wad revetments and brush layering, can be incorporated into the bank stabilization design. Lastly, and based on the site -specific conditions, Midpen would develop an individualized bank stabilization design that minimizes long-term environmental impacts. Midpen would prioritize the use of earthen and biotechnical bank stabilization treatment solutions that minimize adverse environmental effects and help restore and increase complexity of habitat at stabilization sites. Examples of biotechnical bank stabilization solutions include broadcast and hydro -seeding; riparian Open Space Maintenance and Restoration Program September 2021 1 2-10 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 2. Project Description Attachment 1 vegetation planting; armoring slopes with rocks or sandbags staked with live willows or interplanted with riparian species; willow staking; live willow pole drains; vegetated crib walls; or log or rootwads. If biotechnical bank stabilization solutions are determined to be unsuitable or have previously failed at a site, hardscape engineered solutions (e.g., riprap) may be used and keyed into the bank to provide stability. Bank stabilization work would be conducted with either hand and power tools (i.e., toter or mule) or with larger mechanized equipment such as excavators or dump trucks. Generally, these are small-scale projects and work can be conducted from the top of bank. However, for larger projects, work within the channel may be required. If water is present within the channel, dewatering would be required to gain access. This work would typically occur between April 15 and October 31; however, it maybe extended if certain conditions are met (e.g., no rainfall is forecasted for 7 -days). 2.5.5 Water Supply Structure Maintenance Water supply infrastructure primarily consists of spring boxes, wells, water tanks, waterlines, and livestock troughs. Maintenance of these facilities would be necessary to maintain water supply storage and availability; provide accessible water for livestock and wildlife; and supply clean water to residences. Primary maintenance activities would involve replacing, extending, or realigning water lines; repairing failed or dilapidated spring boxes or wells; cleaning out clogged spring boxes and pipes to improve spring system; installing new spring boxes or troughs; removing minor amounts of vegetation to ensure water supply structures are functioning properly, and creating defensible space around water infrastructure per the Board of Forestry Fire Safe Regulations (2021)1. These structures would be inspected year-round on a regular basis and would generally be maintained annually by hand, as needed. Rebuilding water supply structures would be done less frequently, typically once every 5-10 years. If extensive digging is required, such as for installation of new water line or spring box, small mechanical equipment may be used (i.e., bobcat or small backhoe). When servicing wells, larger mechanical equipment may be required. If mechanical equipment is required, activities would typically occur between April and November. For purposes of this proposed Program, Midpen anticipates working on a maximum of four water supply structure maintenance projects per year. On average, a total of two water supply structure maintenance projects would occur annually. 2.5.6 Ponds Ponds are important wetland features that serve as educational and aesthetic resources for OSP visitors, habitat for rare, threatened, and endangered species, water sources for livestock, as well as fire suppression benefits. Maintenance work would include vegetation and sediment removal to maintain optimum water levels; shoring and filling in gaps or low spots on earthen berms; rocking berm tops in heavy use areas, and clearing outlets, inlets, pipes, and spillways for proper depth of ponds. 1 As of July 2021, the Board of Forestry Fire Safe Regulations have not yet been approved. Open Space Maintenance and Restoration Program September 2021 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 2. Project Description Attachment 1 Heavy equipment such as dozers, loaders, excavators, rollers, and compactors would be used for repairing failing pond berms, improving inlets/ outlets, recontouring, and removing invasive vegetation. Excavators, chainsaws, brush cutters, mowers, and articulating arm mowers may be used for clearing and grubbing of vegetation to maintain a pond to the Division of Dam safety requirements, such as removing woody vegetation from a berm or aquatic vegetation from clogging a spillway. If pond draining is needed for berm stabilization or clearing work, portable pumps with 1/4 inch mesh screens on the intakes, may be used. In some areas, hand tools and hand laborers would be utilized. Pond berm stabilization work would be limited to a maximum length of 200 feet per pond berm. In addition, the amount of material (i.e., fill) would be limited to 300 cubic yards per pond berm. Midpen anticipates working on up to three ponds per year. Maintenance activities in ponds would occur as soon as the ponds are dry (if prior to August 15), or if pond draining is required and CRLF are present, work would occur between August 15 and November 1, prior to the beginning of CRLF breeding season. 2.5.7 Minor Maintenance Activities Other minor maintenance activities conducted by Midpen would include repair of fences, gates and signage and trash rack clearing. Fences and gates would be repaired as needed to protect the public and Midpen's property. Trail signs would be periodically kept clean from graffiti and repaired or replaced as needed. Graffiti removal would involve painting by hand or mechanical sprayers on trail signs or bridges or other structures. Additional structures that require minor repair would include scientific instrumentation (i.e., gages, sensors, etc.) and wildlife habitat structures (i.e., turtle platforms, exclusion screens, and spring box features). These structures would be maintained with hand tools annually and are generally small in scale. Midpen may also clear trash racks with the use of hand tools to remove the debris, which would be disposed of locally in a stable location away from the stream. The amount of debris removed annually would vary depending on the type of water year. For purposes of this proposed Program, it is assumed that Midpen would work on a maximum of 6 minor maintenance projects per year (average of three per year). 2.5.8 Vegetation Management Vegetation management activities are currently conducted consistent with Midpen's IPM Guidance Manual and Wildland Fire Resiliency Program's Vegetation Management Plan (VMP).2 The primary vegetation management activities that would be conducted under the proposed Program would be similar to those in the IPM and Wildland Fire Resiliency 2 Impacts associated with vegetation management activities are analyzed in the IPM Environmental Impact Report (EIR) (September 2014) and the Wildland Fire Resiliency Program EIR (Apri12021). Open Space Maintenance and Restoration Program September 2021 1 2-12 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 2. Project Description Attachment 1 Program, but would be initiated as part of routine maintenance, habitat enhancement, or during new construction for small-scale facilities improvements. Vegetation management activities in the proposed Program would include brushing, fuel management, pruning, tree removal, downed tree management, pesticide application, conservation grazing, invasive plant removal, and traditional ecological knowledge practices (indigenous stewardship) (i.e., small-scale plant gathering, seedling collection, and plantings). Midpen undertakes these types of vegetation management activities routinely and relatively consistently from year to year. For some activities, the work locations may change yearly; however, the type of work would remain consistent. For other activities, the work locations are the same year after year and would be conducted as part of the existing condition to maintain the status quo and would not result in any new effects (e.g., maintenance of established shaded fuel breaks on existing Midpen lands). Some facilities require annual vegetation management while others do not. This largely depends on the type of vegetation in, or adjacent to, the channel, road, trail, or other facility and other environmental factors including the degree of solar input, soil, and moisture conditions. Brushing and Mowing Annual brushing (i.e., mowing and pruning of vegetation along roads and trails) would be conducted along approximately 600 miles of roads and trails; around parking lots, gates and stiles; the Black Mountain campsite; and other recreational areas to maintain an open corridor for vehicular, horse, bicycle, and pedestrian use, maintain access to facilities, control vegetation, and to reduce fire and public safety risk. Road and trail brushing would be conducted with brushcutters (i.e., weedwhips), hedgers, chainsaws, pole saws, chippers, and tractor -operated mowers (mowing decks either pulled by a tractor or attached to the tractor as part of an articulated arm) to maintain grass and shrubs in short stature. Road and trail brushing would be conducted on annual or periodic basis and would be conducted at specific times of the year to abate the risk before it becomes a problem. Most trails would be mowed or brushcut on an annual basis. However, some trails may need to be brushed up to four times a year if it is a heavily used trail and if it is a high rainfall year. All roads would be mowed or brushcut one to four times per year depending on the rainfall/vegetation growth in a given year. On an annual basis, a strip of land around parking lots, gates and stiles would be brushcut or mowed. In addition, islands in the middle of parking lots, detention basins within parking lots, or parking lots with narrow grassy edges would be mowed. Timed mowing would also be used to control the reproductive spread and reduce populations of annual invasive plants. These activities would typically occur between April and November, with the specific timing determined by the phenology of the target species. Timed mowing usually would occur when a certain percentage of the population reaches a phenological threshold (i.e., 5 percent of the population is flowering). Vegetation would be mowed to a height of 4 to 6 inches, and may require multiple treatments in a given year. All mowing activities would be conducted in compliance with Midpen's IPM best management practices (BMPs). Open Space Maintenance and Restoration Program September 2021 1 2-13 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 2. Project Description Attachment 1 This brushing work would be re -occurring and conducted in the same place year after year along roads and trails; new areas would not be disturbed as part of the activity except when new properties are acquired, old roads are opened, or incidentally part of a larger project. Midpen also brushes patches of Coyote -brush that are impacting native grasslands or reducing forage for conservation grazing. For the purpose of this activity, old roads are those that have not been brushed/mowed within a five-year period and are more than 50% covered in vegetation. Tree and Shrub Pruning Pruning trees and shrubs would be routine activities performed as a component of facilities maintenance and fuel management projects to provide emergency, maintenance, and recreational access to Midpen facilities; improve visibility to inspect Midpen facilities; provide adequate sight distance for safety and aesthetic reasons protect infrastructure; and to meet local fire codes. Vegetation would be pruned within 3 feet of a trail and up to 12 feet for roads. Height clearance would depend on the use of the trail or road (e.g., trails with equestrian use have a 12 -foot height clearance). No more than 20% of an individual riparian tree canopy would be pruned. Pruning would be conducted with hand tools or mechanized equipment. Once work is completed, plant material that is free of exotic or invasive plant propagules would be chipped and re -used elsewhere on Midpen lands for other uses. However, in areas that are known to host Sudden Oak Death (SOD) or other plant pathogens, all chipped material would be left on - site. Tree Removal Native and non-native trees would be removed if the tree is creating a public safety risk along or near Midpen high -occupancy facilities (e.g., picnic areas, parking lots, buildings) or trails, is limiting stream capacity, or is a threat to streams, ponds or bed and banks of streams, natural areas, or water quality. Trees would be assessed by a licensed arborist to determine if they are a public safety risk where staff cannot make a determination. If a hazardous tree can be mitigated by pruning alone, the tree would not need to be removed. Identifying and removing hazardous trees would be conducted on a continual basis. When assessing hazardous trees, Midpen staff take into consideration human residence time (i.e., the duration of exposure that the public or staff have around the potential risk). Hazardous trees would be removed when they are within 1 Y2 times of their height to a high use facility. An estimated 50 to 200 trees would be limbed or removed every year along roads and trails and near facilities with chainsaws, pole saws and chippers to reduce the risk of tree failure in a high human residence time. Trees in riparian areas that are limiting stream capacity, are threatening ponds or bed and banks of streams, natural areas, or water quality, or are preventing necessary vehicle access along roads may also be removed. No trees or vegetation greater than 6 inches diameter at breast height (dbh) would be removed from within the stream. Trees within the riparian area would be removed with trimmers and chainsaws; no heavy equipment would be operated from the streambank. Mulch, limbs, and leafy materials would be left in place for site Open Space Maintenance and Restoration Program September 2021 1 2-14 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 2. Project Description Attachment 1 restoration and erosion control and larger sections would be stockpiled off site and reused for future Midpen projects. Downed Tree Management Midpen would remove downed trees in high visitor use areas if the downed tree presents a safety risk, is blocking a road, trail or other infrastructure, or if the fallen tree negatively affects hydrologic processes. Because downed trees play an important role in the ecosystem, they would be left in place if a fallen tree does not present a safety risk. If it is unlikely that the downed tree would increase any risks and there is adequate flood flow capacity, Midpen would seek opportunities to maintain the downed tree as a habitat feature. However, if it is likely that the downed tree would increase any risks or threatens infrastructure, the tree would be trimmed and repositioned with hand tools immediately. Equipment, such as a winch and cable, to remove the tree would be operated from the top of bank. Downed tree management activities would occur during the winter months, typically following a large storm event. Midpen anticipates working on up to two locations in a year on average; however, a hydrologically wet year may result in additional sites. Aquatic Vegetation Removal Cattails (Typha spp.) and other aquatic plant species are commonly found in ponds where sediment deposition has occurred. Midpen would remove tall cattails and other wetland vegetation in small select areas to maintain public viewing areas, public trails and maintenance access, prevent sedimentation, improve habitat for special -status species, and for pond monitoring purposes. In addition, the California Division of Dam Safety requires all woody debris to be removed and tall herbaceous vegetation to be cut on both faces of certain pond dams to improve visibility to see possible areas of failure. Vegetation on the water side of the dam would be trimmed with mowers and brush cutters. Vegetation on the dry side of the dam would be trimmed with mowers and approved pesticides. Woody vegetation would be trimmed in pond spillways to prevent the blockage of water. Fuel Management Fuel management is the practice of removing or modifying vegetation to reduce the risk of wildfire ignitions, rates of wildfire spread, and fire intensity. Fuel management activities are required when vegetation becomes overabundant or decadent; or close to facilities, structures, and communities that people inhabit and use. Midpen typically conducts fuel management activities within the Wildland Urban Interface (WUI) in accordance with the VMP of the Wildland Fire Resiliency Program and Conservation Grazing Program. Fuel management activities are described in more detail below. Prescribed Burns Prescribed burns help restore native upland habitats and control invasive exotic vegetation. Prescribed burns would generally be conducted every three to ten years to maintain a high diversity of plants. All burnings would be conducted according to California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE) regulations and burn protocols. Prescribed burns would be monitored to ensure burn prescriptions, including timing and frequency, are adhered to. Prescribed burns would adhere to the conditions outlined in the Wildland Fire Open Space Maintenance and Restoration Program September 2021 1 2-15 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 2. Project Description Attachment 1 Resiliency Program, which identifies total allowable burn acreage by vegetation type. Prescribed burn timing would be determined based on permit conditions from the relevant agencies, the constraints of each site, climatic conditions, and species requirements. Disclines Midpen annually maintains approximately 30 miles of disclines on its land as required by local fire agencies. Additional miles of disclines will likely be added under the Wildland Fire Resiliency Program as Midpen acquires new lands. A discline is cut with an agricultural cultivator attachment on a tractor. However, discing requires annual maintenance to be effective and to manage invasive weeds. Brush encroaching into disc lines along roads, trails, and borders would be removed with chainsaws, boom flails, and mowing or masticator equipment. Occasional pruning of overhanging branches with a chainsaw or pole pruner would also be undertaken along disclines where needed to allow passage of maintenance equipment. Discing generally would take place adjacent to major roads/highways, grasslands along WUI, around buildings, and where required by a local fire agency. Midpen typically maintains disclines between April 1 and July 1. Shaded Fuelbreaks Shaded fuelbreaks are a forest management approach that involves selective thinning and removal of the more flammable understory vegetation and leaving the majority of larger, more fire tolerant tree species in place. Typically, fuelbreaks are maintained along roads. Maintenance of fuelbreaks along roads would include annual mowing of vegetation 10 to 30 feet from the edge of the road, clearance of brush and all dead vegetation, and removal of ladder fuels in forested areas. Shaded fuelbreaks would also be maintained along road -width trails, staging areas, and helicopter landing zones. Shaded fuelbreaks would be maintained as -needed, typically every 3 to 5 years. This work would be conducted with both manual and mechanical tools, including tractors, brushcutters, chainsaws, chippers, masticators. Maintaining Defensible Space around Buildings, Emergency Helicopter Landing Zones, Driveways, and Water Supply Infrastructure Midpen or its tenants are responsible for maintaining defensible space around structures and along property boundaries. Flammable vegetation is generally cleared annually within 100 feet to 300 -feet of Midpen-owned structures/buildings, within 30 feet of a property boundary (where directed by a fire agency regulation), and 100 feet of water supply infrastructure. However, the amounts of clearance for defensible space can vary depending on the Fire District jurisdiction that a parcel is located within. Defensible space clearing would be conducted consistent with Midpen's Defensible Space Clearing Guidelines (Midpen 2011), Wildfire Management Policy (Midpen 2012), Wildland Fire Resiliency Program (2021), Board of Forestry Fire Safe Regulations (2021)3, and local or state defensible space requirements. This work would consist of manual and mechanical clearing of flammable vegetation by mowing, brushcutting, chainsaw work, pole pruning, chipping, masticator and spraying, 3 As of July 2021, the Board of Forestry Fire Safe Regulations have not yet been approved. Open Space Maintenance and Restoration Program September 2021 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 2. Project Description Attachment 1 dependent upon the site conditions. Work would generally be conducted between April and August. Emergency helicopter zones would be maintained annually or bi-annually by mowing with a tractor or brushcutter. Heavier vegetation/brush encroaching within the landing zone would be mechanically removed with a chainsaw or JAWZ equipment. Invasive Plant Removal Pesticide Application Consistent with Midpen's IPM Guidance Manual, the proposed Program would use an integrated approach of chemical, manual and mechanical methods to manage vegetation along trails, roads, and wildlands. Pesticides would be used in conjunction with manual and mechanical treatment methods to control invasive species, reduce fire risk, and to limit the spread of plant pathogens (e.g., SOD). Midpen aims to reduce per -acre pesticide use at individual sites in natural areas over time. Midpen would use the most selective pesticide application method that can achieve the desired results for any given project. Pesticide application techniques would include foliar/spot spray, cut -stump, basal bark application, wick/wipe application, and frill/injection. All pesticide applications conducted by Midpen would occur in accordance with federal, state, local regulations, labeled specifications, and any court injunctions in place. Pesticide application would only be conducted when the weather is dry and when wind speeds do not exceed 7 miles per hour. Pesticides would not be used in or within 15 feet of any fish -bearing stream, lake, pond, or other water bodies known to support special status aquatic species. For other water bodies, pesticide use would be limited to control non-native plant species where excess vegetation is determined to be the cause of sediment deposition and/or debris accumulations that result in flooding or damage to facilities. Only approved pesticides may be used on Midpen lands for vegetation management, including but not limited to, Glyphosate isopropylamine and potassium salts, Aminopyralid triisopropanolamine salt, Imazapyr isopropylamine, Clopyralid monoethanolamine salt, Clethodim, and Triclopyr triethylamine salt. All pesticides would be applied in accordance with Court -ordered injunctions concerning special -status species. Pesticide application in riparian areas would be limited to one to five sites per year and would be conducted in accordance with the IPMP BMPs. Only pesticides and adjuvants labeled for aquatic use would be allowed. Pesticide application adjacent to high risk fire areas would be necessary where perennial vegetation is not responding to manual or mechanical treatments. Flammable vegetation may be spot sprayed annually within 30 feet of a structure, in combination with mowing. Trees or large shrubs would be treated by cut -stump method to permanently remove them from this high risk zone. Conservation Grazing Conservation grazing is conducted on Midpen coastal rangeland and agricultural farms and fields to control growth of herbaceous weeds, brush, and non-native plants; enhance the diversity of native plants and animals; help sustain the local agricultural economy; foster the region's rural heritage; and manage fire fuel (i.e., flammable vegetation). Currently, Open Space Maintenance and Restoration Program September 2021 1 2-17 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 2. Project Description Attachment 1 approximately 11,000 acres are grazed and managed by multiple ranching tenants. Typically, lands would be grazed with cattle; however, in some instances, other animals such as goats or sheep may be more appropriate. All conservation grazing activities would be conducted in accordance with the goals, policies, and implementation measures included in Midpen's Grazing Management Policy (Midpen 2021a). Certified rangeland managers would prepare site -specific grazing management plans that incorporate BMPs for OSPs where grazing would be utilized based on the unique features of each site and determine the appropriate class of livestock and stocking rates. Before conservation grazing activities commence, a biologist would evaluate the area to be grazed to identify sensitive resources. In order to contain livestock grazing, wildlife -friendly fencing would be installed that allows for wildlife movement. Once fencing has been installed, cattle or other livestock would be put on parcels for a set amount of time and monitored to ensure appropriate amounts of residual dry matter (RDM) remain on the ground in order to accommodate new plant growth, prevent soil erosion, and maximize species richness. Conservation grazing would be conducted either seasonally, typically in late spring or early summer when vegetation is palatable to the grazing animals, or year-round. Fence repair and installation and surveys and monitoring may occur year-round. Traditional Ecological Knowledge Practices (Indigenous Plant Stewardship) Traditional ecological knowledge (TEK) practices are led by locally indigenous communities on the lands Midpen stewards. These include identification of culturally significant plants; assessing the phenology, growth, and abundance of plants that can support gathering or seed/fruit collection; harvesting and gathering native plant species; and the cultivation, tending, or planting of native species. None of the species are listed or protected by the California Native Plant Society, the State, or Federal agencies. The small-scale hand collection and manipulation of native plants is currently a limited activity in upland settings. Riparian and wetland gathering follows the same principals but has not occurred to date. TEK practices also include invasive plant removal (covered under the IPMP). 2.5.9 Road and Trail Maintenance Paved Road Surface Maintenance Activities Primary road maintenance activities would include repairing small potholes, repairing roadway base, repaving, sealing cracks, resurfacing, and oil and screen. These activities would be conducted to ensure a safe roadway surface for motorists and to prevent further roadway deterioration or failure. Most patching and resurfacing activities would occur between April and October. Potholes would be repaired shortly after they occur to prevent accidents and other traffic -related safety risk. Paved road surface maintenance activities may require removing asphalt using either manual or mechanical methods. For small areas, asphalt would be removed manually by sawcutting, jack hammering, or by using sledgehammers, shovels, wheelbarrows, or by mechanized equipment, such as a front-end loader or bobcat. For larger areas, asphalt would be ground down or pulverized and is either loaded directly into a dump truck or left in place and re - compacted as the base. Pavement striping and markings would also be replaced where Open Space Maintenance and Restoration Program September 2021 1 2-18 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 2. Project Description Attachment 1 removed or damaged; this work would be completed during the dry season. Re -paving efforts for small areas may be conducted by hand, spreading and compacting a hot mix with wheelbarrows, shovels and tampers. For larger areas, a paver box with a hopper and a 10 - wheel dump truck that holds the hot mix would be used to repave the site. On occasion, Midpen would clear paved roads to remove soil, organic material, and dust and debris to keep sediment from entering waterways and to provide a safe roadway for motorists. Paved road clearing typically would occur in the winter in response to debris and material being deposited onto the road but may occur year-round to maintain public safety. For purposes of this proposed Program environmental analysis, it is anticipated that Midpen would work on a maximum of four minor and 10 major paved road surface maintenance projects per year (annual averages would be two and five, respectively). Unpaved Road Surface Maintenance Activities In general, unpaved roads, particularly in steeper areas are susceptible to rapid erosion if not maintained properly. In many cases, unpaved roads on Midpen lands have inadequate or damaged drainage structures that need to be replaced. Depending on roadway conditions, unpaved road surface maintenance activities would include re -grading the road to its existing grade or original cut, installing additional drainage structures (i.e., culverts, inside ditches, rolling dips), repairing/cleaning rolling dips and roadside ditches, filling ruts, relocating road surface materials that have moved due to erosion, and removing debris from landslides. In addition, minor relocations of roads (i.e., within 400 feet upstream or downstream of original location) would be conducted as long as it improves drainage, removes roads from environmentally sensitive areas, or increases stability. Heavy equipment utilized for road repairs would include dozers, loaders, excavators, rollers, dump trucks, cables and winches, etc. Earthwork adjacent to a creek crossing or having the potential to direct drainage into a creek that provides habitat for salmonids would be limited to June 15 to October 31. Earthwork within and around creeks that do not provide habitat for salmonids would be limited to April 15 to October 31. Earthwork on all other roads would occur year-round during dry periods, scheduled around blooming periods for special -status plant species, and according to local grading ordinances. Midpen prepares Road and Trail Inventories and Maintenance Plans for its OSPs that identify sites in need of work. Each year, work would be conducted based on road assessment and project prioritization. Work would be performed during the dry season by Midpen staff or contractors. Roads that are solely used in support of ranching and agricultural activities may be maintained by the conservation grazing tenants. For purposes of this proposed Program, it is anticipated that Midpen would work on a maximum of 30 unpaved road surface maintenance projects per year (average of 15 annually). Trail Maintenance and Repair Midpen is responsible for maintaining numerous trails including single-track trails, roads, and easy access- ADA trails throughout its lands and other agency lands to ensure public Open Space Maintenance and Restoration Program September 2021 1 2-19 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 2. Project Description Attachment 1 safety for recreationists. Trail surfaces commonly wear down in areas where a particular trail is heavily used making trail surface repair or re -grading work necessary. Trail surface repair would involve adding the proper soil type to the problem area and re -compacting the soil. Re -grading a trail may be necessary to address problematic sections of a trail and would involve grading the trail back to the original cut and filling in ruts as needed. Earthen materials moved by erosion or landslides and washed into drainage ditches may require returning the earthen materials to the restructured trail. In some instances, due to severe erosion or the presence of landslides, short segments of a trail may require re-routing. Trails maybe relocated within 400 feet upstream or downstream of the original location as long as the new trail improves drainage, removes a path from environmentally sensitive area, increases trail stability, or increases long-term operation and maintenance sustainability of the trail. Other trail maintenance work would include repairing and installing new signage, removing graffiti, and repairing other trail structures. Trail maintenance adjacent to a creek crossing or having the potential to direct drainage into a creek that provides habitat for salmonids would be limited to June 15 to October 31. Trail work within and around creeks that do not provide habitat for salmonids would be limited to April 15 to October 31. Earthwork on all other trails would occur year-round during dry periods. As mentioned above, trails in need of repair would be identified in each Preserves Road and Trail Inventories and Maintenance Plan. Typically, hand tools such as shovels, McLeod tools, and pick -mattocks would be used by Midpen staff or volunteers for trail maintenance activities. Mechanical equipment would include power carriers, mini - excavators, and Sweco separators. For purposes of this proposed Program environmental analysis, it is anticipated that Midpen would work on a maximum of 15 trail maintenance projects per year (average of 10 annually). Roadway or Trail Slip -outs and Slide Repairs Roadway or trail slide repairs would be performed on an as -needed basis to prevent additional failure of supporting soils or structures, and to reduce the potential risk of falling debris. Slip-out/slide repairs are common in areas where soils underlying roadways or trails are unstable and erosive. The cause for slope failure depends on site -specific conditions such as soil type, historic road construction methods on uncompacted fill, topography, hydrologic and drainage conditions that contribute to slope instability, and a prior history of mass movement along the hillslope. To address slip -outs and slides, Midpen would evaluate the cause of the instability and first aim to use earthen and biotechnical solutions to minimize adverse environmental effects. However, depending on the severity of the road slip-out/slide, construction of retaining wall systems or placement of riprap may sometimes be necessary. If the road surface is still intact underneath a slide, Midpen would clear the slides and place the soil on nearby road surfaces with appropriate drainage structures. The site would be stabilized with large rock or compacted and sloped soil to fill in the road prism. Occasionally in areas with large scale landslides, the entire slide moves. In cases where no reroutes are available to avoid the slide, Midpen would grade through the slide to reconnect the ends of trail and install drainage features to pass water across the trail. Open Space Maintenance and Restoration Program September 2021 1 2-20 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 2. Project Description Attachment 1 Equipment used for slip-out/slide repair activities may include excavators, bulldozers, front- end loaders, and dump trucks. Material removed from slides would be deposited nearby, graded, and appropriate drainage features would be installed. Erosion control measures, such as strawing or local vegetation, would then be installed on top of the graded soil to prevent erosion. For purposes of this proposed Program environmental analysis, it is anticipated that Midpen would work on a maximum of 10 roadway/trail slip -outs and slide repair projects in an average year and 20 roadway/trail slip -outs and slide repairs in a wet year (average of 5 annually). 2.5.10 New Small Scale Facilities Improvements Existing Building and Structure Repairs and Utility Improvements Existing building and structure improvements and repairs would include stabilizing historic residences (e.g., Thornewood Estate house and Hawthorns house), barns, stables and other structures in working ranches/farms; removing dilapidated structures; designing and constructing structures for sensitive species (e.g., turtle basking platforms, bird boxes, bat boxes); remodeling field staff offices and accessory structures, and tenant and workforce housing within the existing footprint; replacing and potentially relocating restrooms to more suitable areas; and conducting driveway improvements. Typically, this work would occur in uplands but may occur along the edges of riparian areas. It is anticipated that five building and structure improvement projects would be conducted each year. Midpen is also responsible for maintaining septic, water supply, telephone, telecommunications, and other utilities within the proposed Program area. Utility work would be confined to areas surrounding existing residences, offices, restrooms, maintenance yards, and existing utility lines, typically located in areas that are already disturbed. Midpen anticipates working on two to four utility projects per year. Recreational Facility Improvements Recreational facility improvements would include new trails/road and reroutes, new trail and vehicle bridges, bridge replacements and bridge relocations, new interpretative facilities and signage, and wildlife crossings. A description of these activities is summarized below. New Trails, Roads, and Reroutes To facilitate improved access to Midpen's lands, new trail connections (including at grade road crossings) and loop routes or re-routes of existing trails/roads may be constructed. New trails would be constructed in whole or in part by re -use and conversion of an existing abandoned road. Re-routes of existing trails/roads would only be conducted if the new route would reduce habitat degradation associated with existing access; provide necessary access for other OSP habitat management or enhancement activities supporting sensitive species (e.g., pond maintenance); or if the original facility was sited improperly (e.g., located on unstable soils). This work may include installing puncheons and armored fords at small and ephemeral crossings or swales, ditch relief culverts, trail bridges and other features Open Space Maintenance and Restoration Program September 2021 1 2-21 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 2. Project Description Attachment 1 associated with new or rerouted trails. Midpen anticipates constructing one to four new trails and roads and/or reroutes per year with an average of 1 per year. New Bridges, Replacements, and Relocations Midpen seeks to replace degraded bridges, culverts or ford crossings with improved crossings that have a smaller footprint in the creek and are less impacting to the natural landscape. Midpen's preferred approach is to replace crossings in -kind at a higher elevation along the stream; however, sometimes relocation of the bridge crossing upstream or downstream of the original site is the only feasible means of correcting the issue. New trail bridges would involve the installation of concrete abutments 4 -feet below grade located outside of the 100 -year floodplain; installation of steel or glulam spanning beams; and installation of wood decking and railings (or fiberglass in more remote settings). Midpen anticipates working on two to four new trail bridges per year. Vehicle bridge replacements may be necessary when a bridge was sited improperly and has been redirecting flows, and thus increasing erosion and the risk of flooding. A typical vehicle bridge replacement project would consist of installation of erosion control measures (wattles, silt fencing, straw bales, gravel bags, and falsework or debris nets beneath the bridge); removal of the existing bridge with a crane or excavator; installation of a temporary culvert stream crossing where necessary; installation of dewatering bypass if necessary; excavation of abutments or drilling of piers; pouring concrete for the abutments; craning/hoisting in steel beams or steel prefabricated bridge; installation of railings; and pouring of a concrete deck. Midpen anticipates working on one to two new vehicles bridges per year to replace outdated crossings. New Interpretative Facilities and Signage New interpretative facilities and signage would be installed at existing OSPs typically at parking lots, trail heads, or near natural aesthetic features such as rock formations, ponds, overlooks, old -growth trees, etc. and would be located in already disturbed areas outside of sensitive habitats. Midpen anticipates working on two to four interpretative facilities and signage projects per year. Wildlife Crossings Safe wildlife passages would be provided underneath or over existing roads and highways. These wildlife crossings, when feasible, may also be used by the public to access trails and other areas of the OSPs, thus improving public access. Wildlife crossings would generally consist of pipes or tunnels that do not covey flow but accommodate the size of wildlife intended to use the structure. The lengths depend on the roadway and the surrounding habitat. Target species range from wide-ranging animals like mountain lions to small newts. Midpen anticipates working on one to two wildlife passage projects per year, but may conduct up to eight wildlife passage projects per year. Open Space Maintenance and Restoration Program September 2021 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 2. Project Description Attachment 1 Conservation Grazing Infrastructure Improvements Historic grazing operations prior to Midpen's ownership often did not design grazing improvements with the protection of species and habitats in mind. Thus, current grazing operations often require new small-scale construction to achieve conservation grazing objectives. New small-scale improvements would include installation of new fencing and gates around riparian areas and stock ponds/wetlands to keep livestock out of these sensitive areas and relocation of water lines/water troughs that extend from water sources/storage to a location that allows for the better distribution of cattle to achieve desirable habitat objectives for soil health and erosion. Most of this work would be limited to existing or previously disturbed grazing lands and would be similar in nature to the maintenance of fences, roads, and water supply facilities. Typical water infrastructure projects would include rebuilding historic spring boxes or repairing a water system that is in disrepair. Most water improvements would be associated with springs and include a spring box, water lines, and/or storage tanks. Wildlife -friendly measures include providing wildlife escape ramps in legacy infrastructure and excluding wildlife from primary water storage to prevent entrapment during repair or upgrade of these facilities. In addition, during repair and upgrade, an overflow and/or bypass water supply accessible to wildlife would be provided to prevent the risk of entrapment. This approach ensures ongoing water supply for wildlife while excluding them from the developed water supply system. Midpen would work on up to four to six water infrastructure projects per year. Direct consumption of pond water by cattle (and associated grazing in the wetland plants) is the most common form of water use on conservation grazing lands. To utilize the pond water appropriately, a pump or siphon would be installed to relocate water to trough, water tank, and water line for distribution further away. Pump intakes would be screened with a 1,4. inch steel mesh to avoid entrainment of aquatic inverts. Pumps would either be temporarily set in the pond or set floating in the interior away from emergent vegetation. Where a spring is passively diverted into a holding tank, pumps within the tank are used to pressurize water to distribute it to more distant pastures. Midpen would work on up to two pond diversion/pump projects per year. 2.5.11 Restoration and Enhancement Projects The purpose of restoration and enhancement projects are to improve and/or create habitat for plant and animal species and to restore ecosystem function within Midpen OSPs. These projects may be utilized to offset impacts associated with other Program activities. A description of Midpen's restoration and enhancement activities, including aquatic habitat restoration, native vegetation plantings, invasive species removal, road decommissioning, and other restoration activities, are described below. Aquatic Habitat Restoration Midpen would conduct aquatic habitat restoration activities within ponds, wetlands, seeps, and springs as well as along and adjacent to creeks and rivers within the Program area. Open Space Maintenance and Restoration Program September 2021 1 2-23 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 2. Project Description Attachment 1 Pond and Wetland Restoration Midpen would enhance pond and wetland habitat through reinforcing or repairing failing earthen berms; improving inlet or outlet features; removing sediment from aquatic features whose hydroperiod no longer supports suitable conditions for sensitive species; recontouring ponds to increase aquatic habitat; removing excessive aquatic vegetation and invasive species; installing wildlife habitat structures and escape features; placing large woody materials to restore and enhance aquatic habitat; and enlarging aquatic features to optimize geometry to support vegetative benches and open water areas for use by sensitive species, including CRLF. Ponds or wetland features that are detrimental to sensitive species may be modified or decommissioned and restored to a native condition (i.e., riparian channel, swale, or upland habitat), which returns water to the surrounding ecosystem and often benefits downstream species and/or habitat. Midpen's preferred approach is to modify an existing pond/wetland feature prior to decommissioning. In addition to modifying existing habitat, Midpen may create new features by restoring previously filled in wetlands or constructing off -channel pools to expand aquatic habitat for sensitive species. Heavy equipment such as dozers, loaders, excavators, rollers, compactors etc. as well as some hand work would be used for aquatic habitat restoration, enhancement and creation. These activities would occur once seasonal ponds or wetlands are dry (if prior to August 15) or if draining of features is required and CRLF are present, work would occur between August 15 and November 1, prior to the beginning of CRLF breeding season. Creek and River Restoration Restoration activities within creeks and rivers may include removal of in -stream infrastructure and barriers to fish passage; removal of old crossings, including culverts on no longer used roads or collapsed crossing structure; installation of habitat features, such as large woody material; removal of in -channel debris/trash (i.e., tires, trash, other non - sedimentary materials); riparian vegetation treatment and planting in accordance with Midpen's IPMP, and gravel augmentation. Removal of in -stream infrastructure, including diversion impoundments and collapsed structures, such as bridges and culverts that may block fish passage, would create and improve aquatic habitat and improve connectivity for fish and other species, including steelhead. Midpen also routinely removes debris/trash that may impair hydraulic conditions and reduce flow conveyance capacity. In -channel work would be limited to the dry season or during low flows. Removal of humanmade materials or refuse would be done by hand wherever possible. Cables, winches, and heavy equipment used to pull out large material would be staged above the top of bank. Where these materials are within the bank, streambank slopes would be stabilized to erosion with bioengineering techniques (i.e., willow stakes, slash packing, etc.), weed -free straw, or jute -netting. Large woody materials (i.e., downed trees) can provide habitat, and geomorphic or other channel stability benefits. However, fallen large woody materials may also have the potential to increase flooding or erosion threats by significantly obstructing flows or deflecting flows Open Space Maintenance and Restoration Program September 2021 1 2-24 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 2. Project Description Attachment 1 towards banks or other facilities. Midpen seeks to maintain the materials in place as a habitat feature if they do not pose a threat to the environment or infrastructure. Midpen may trim or limb branches or re -orient the large woody material in the channel. Cables, winches, and heavy equipment would be used to pull or tie large woody material into place. In some areas, hand tools and hand laborers would be utilized. Midpen may also install new large woody materials in the channel in accordance with techniques developed by California Department of Fish and Wildlife, National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration, and the Salmon Restoration Federation. Gravel augmentation provides direct benefits for improving fish spawning and rearing habitat by enhancing sedimentary materials within the channel bed. Midpen may use watershed specific gravels collected through sediment removal activities behind in -stream structures (i.e., dams) as the source for gravel augmentation projects. Midpen would collect, sort, separate, and reuse clean and appropriately sized gravel. When designing a gravel augmentation project, several factors would be considered, including: the existing channel conditions; the grain size distribution of the sediment to be added; the volume of gravel to deposit; the frequency of gravel addition that would be required in light of sediment transport; how the added gravel would interact with to the existing flow regime and/or channel geometry; and the extent of augmentation effects within the channel reach. In the future, Midpen may assess opportunities to augment gravel in salmonid streams. Restoration activities adjacent to creeks and rivers may include floodplain reconnection, including the lowering of artificial berms, streamside decommissioning of roads, and other measures to restore the lateral connectivity of streams. Some creeks within Midpen lands experience severe sedimentation due to upstream stream conditions. Midpen would proactively prevent failure and reduction of episodic release of road fill through enhancing native riparian habitats. Native riparian habitat enhancement projects would reduce in -stream sedimentation over time, improving water quality for the benefit of fish and other wildlife that rely on the creek for survival, resulting in a net environmental benefit across the region. Work within and around creeks and streams that provide habitat for salmonids would be limited to June 15 to October 31. Work within and around creeks that do not provide habitat for salmonids and do not discharge directly into such drainages would be limited to Apri115 to October 31. Native Vegetation Plantings The objective of native vegetation plantings is to enhance the complexity and diversity of upland and wetland habitats and restore areas disturbed during Program activities. Native vegetation plantings would also enhance habitat for birds, amphibians, and other wildlife using upland, wetland, and riparian areas. Native vegetation plantings would involve planting and seeding locally collected native species; installing temporary irrigation, as necessary; controlling weeds and invasive plants through manual, mechanical, or biological methods such as herbicide application, prescribed fire or use of grazing animals; installing herbivory protection structures. Erosion control BMPs such as straw wattles, coir rolls, certified weed - free straw, and erosion mats would be implemented to minimize impacts to streambanks and to prevent erosion and soil loss. Open Space Maintenance and Restoration Program September 2021 1 2-25 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 2. Project Description Attachment 1 Invasive Species Removal All invasive species removal would be conducted under Midpen's IPMP, which emphasizes an ecological approach to managing pests (plant and animal). Midpen actively treats 105 plant species on their lands using various methods including manual, mechanical, chemical (e.g., herbicide and fungicide), and biological control (e.g., bio-control agent). Manual removal may include the use of hand picks, planting knifes, weed wrenches and other hand tools. Mechanical removal methods may include the use of brushcutters, hedgers, chainsaws, chippers, and mowers. Chemical methods involve the use of herbicides, including Roundup Custom (Glyphosate), Roundup ProMax (Glyphosate), Milestone (Aminopyralid), Transline (Clopyralid), Polaris (Imazapyr), Stalker (Imazapyr), Envoy Plus (Clethodim), Capstone, and Garlon 4 Ultra. Biological methods may include using other organisms to control pests. Flaming of seedlings, burn piles, and prescribed fires may also be used. Depending on the target species, surveys, treatments, and monitoring may occur year-round. Midpen anticipates working on up to 100 invasive plant removal projects per year. Invasive animals are generally found in humanmade stock ponds and reservoirs but may occur in natural sag ponds. Midpen would employ several methods to control invasive animal species, including through temporary seasonal draining of ponds to control bullfrogs and/or non-native fish; shooting or trapping to eradicate bullfrogs and feral pigs, and trapping non- native turtles. Because it is challenging to completely eradicate a species, Midpen typically controls pest numbers, removes individuals that have the greatest impact on critical resources, or excludes a pest species from a defined sensitive area. Programs to control invasive plant and animal species often require a long-term commitment. Midpen anticipates working on up to three invasive animal species removal projects per year. Road Decommissioning Road decommissioning is used to reduce chronic sediment delivery, restore watershed hydrology, and reduce impacts to aquatic, riparian, and terrestrial ecosystems of roads crossings. Remnant ranch, logging, and other former roads are located through Midpen lands that are no longer necessary for access. Midpen has decommissioned and restored approximately 7 miles of old roads. The typical process would involve pulling fill from the outboard edge of a road with an excavator and placing the material on the original cut face of the road. Decommissioning would start from the end and work backwards towards the access road. The general goal is to provide a suitable substrate for natural revegetation to stabilize slopes in the longer term and to keep a drainage pattern that is similar to the inferred natural contour. Decommissioning of roads from within jurisdictional drainage features would require more specific engineering designs based on site conditions and stream morphology. The typical approach would be to remove any remnant, artificial crossing part (e.g., rusted culvert, bridge, crib wall, etc.) and to lay back the slopes at stable 2:1 repose. Less -active forms of decommissioning may occur as out -of -use roads become naturally revegetated. Midpen Natural Resources staff evaluate these former roads for decommissioning based on the level of disturbance necessary to achieve a beneficial effect on watershed conditions. Decommissioning is usually best combined with Midpen's project activities that require large heavy equipment. Open Space Maintenance and Restoration Program September 2021 1 2-26 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 2. Project Description Attachment 1 Other Restoration Activities Other restoration activities include well decommissioning, preservation of habitats, and partnerships with local watershed organizations, described in more detail below. Midpen often acquires rural residential or grazing properties with abandoned/inactive water wells that are required to be decommissioned by State law to protect surface water and groundwater quality. Well decommissioning would involve pulling the pump, removing the well head, and filling the well with concrete or grout to seal it to a certain depth. Water wells are also often entrapment hazards for wildlife, particularly creatures attracted to water sources (e.g., CRLF). Midpen has approximately 50 abandoned/inactive wells that require decommissioning. Once Midpen decommissions these existing water wells, Midpen anticipates Other restoration activities would include installing wildlife friendly spring boxes, troughs, and fences and other structures associated with conservation grazing. Some environmental settings (e.g., hardwood forests) typically have an overabundance of woody vegetation that can pose a fire risk to the ecosystem and/or require replacement plantings when affected. To avoid planting additional vegetation in overgrown and abundant forests, Midpen would protect other offsite habitats that could benefit from protection. Midpen acquires approximately 500 to 1,000 acres of land each year (i.e., 65,000 acres in 48 years) and thus would offset all permanent removal of vegetation from riparian areas (the largest cost category to Midpen) through acquisition and permanent protection of new riparian habitats. Midpen regularly partners with like-minded organizations to facilitate restoration and stewardship. The San Mateo Resource Conservation District is a frequent collaborator on fisheries, agricultural best practices, and invasive plant control. POST is a primary partner for the acquisition and preservation of habitats. Where cross -property cooperation and stewardship is required, Midpen engages with these partners for the benefit of the ecosystem. Midpen is also a member of the Santa Cruz Mountain Stewardship Network, which is a blend of public and private organizations representing the largest land managing entities in the region. 2.5.12 Activities Not Covered The proposed Program does not include large, complex projects, such as new paved parking areas, new ponds, new offices, or other projects that significantly increase visitor capacity to Midpen OSPs. These types of activities would be outside of the scope of the Program and thus, would be permitted separately (to the extent that permits are needed for those activities). In addition, emergency maintenance actions or unplanned repair work are not included in the Program. A situation is considered an "emergency" if it is a sudden, unexpected occurrence involving a clear and imminent danger that demands immediate action to prevent or mitigate loss of or damage to life, health, property, or essential public services (Public Resource Code Section (PRC) 21060.3). Although emergency situations will not be covered by the permits authorizing the activities of the proposed Program, Midpen would make every effort to follow the guidance provided in the Manual when implementing activities under emergency conditions. Open Space Maintenance and Restoration Program September 2021 1 2-27 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 2. Project Description Attachment 1 2.6 Implementation and Oversight 2.6.1 Annual Maintenance and Facilities Improvements Work Cycle Activities in the proposed Program would be conducted in response to winter storms, facilities inspections, scheduled re -occurring maintenance (e.g., trail brushing), and annual work plan development. Road -related activities would be prioritized by the condition of the facility, the volume of chronic and episodic sediment to be mitigated, or an operational problem. In some cases, an otherwise lower priority activity next to a high -priority may be undertaken to save costs and increase work efficiency. Facilities improvements largely originate from the Conservation Grazing Program and from the public access programs' within Midpen. The priority and development of facilities improvement projects would be based on site -specific plans. Grazing facility activities would address an operational need for the grazing operations, but also would serve to improve an ecological goal (e.g., replacing a spring box, water line, and trough to facilitate even grazing). New trails would be developed as part of a site -specific plan and would be constructed with the least impacting methods, would be located to avoid sensitive resources, and would be designed to minimize disturbance to riparian areas at stream crossings. Restoration projects, including wetland and species -specific recovery projects (e.g., for CRLF or San Francisco garter snake [SFGS]), would be undertaken as part of the current Recovery Permit and would be completed in consultation with the grazing staff to ensure that the modifications meet the operational needs of grazing. Approximately 100 ponds are located throughout Midpen lands. Thus, Midpen routinely conducts annual pond maintenance and pond improvement projects to maintain the ecological function and support recovery work. A subset of ponds is inspected annually from January through September as part of Midpen's CRLF population studies. The priority of a pond project would be dependent upon either the physical condition or ecological data. 2.6.2 Annual Program Work Plan Notification At the beginning of each year, Midpen would prepare an annual notification report summarizing proposed activities for that upcoming year. The notification report would describe the locations, natural resource conditions, and other key resource issues as well as summarize anticipated impacts on wetlands and waters of the United States (U.S.) and state, riparian resources, and federally and state listed species. The annual notification report would also describe avoidance and minimization measures, BMPs, and proposed mitigation that would be implemented. To evaluate resource sensitivity at work sites, Midpen would undertake the following process: (1) identify the type of activity and confirm the specific location; (2) conduct a desktop audit to evaluate whether suitable habitat for special -status species is present and determine if a site visit is necessary; and (3) classify the activity at the site in one of the four tiers defined below. The tiered approach is intended to help both Midpen and regulatory agency staff identify resource and site sensitivity and thereby prioritize impact avoidance and minimization measures and/or BMPs and mitigation needs. Open Space Maintenance and Restoration Program September 2021 1 2-28 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 2. Project Description Attachment 1 • Tier 1 (No Effect) - There is no potential for a special -status species to be present in the area at any time. Tier 1 is appropriate if the biologist determines that Program activities would occur in creek reaches inaccessible to special -status fish or, for terrestrial special -status species other than birds, in areas where no suitable breeding habitat is present and there is no connectivity between the site and known or potential breeding habitat (so that non -breeding individuals can also be presumed to be absent). Because foraging or roosting birds could easily fly away before being impacted by Program activities, the implementation of Program activities in non - breeding habitat for special -status bird species would also be considered a Tier 1 because such activities would not result in impacts on individuals that rise to the level of "take". ■ Tier 2 - A special -status species could occur at a site, but take will not occur. Tier 2 is applicable if the biologist determines that one or more special -status species are known to occur or could possibly occur on -site either because (1) suitable breeding habitat is present, or (2) for terrestrial species and fish, suitable non -breeding habitat is present and there is connectivity between the work site and suitable breeding habitat. - Tier 2A (Not Likely to Adversely Affect) - The activity will not result in take of special -status species based on the location and timing of work; although a special -status species could occur at the location at times, none would be present when the work will occur. - Tier 2B (Not Likely to Adversely Affect individuals, but may be considered Likely to Adversely Affect if permanent habitat impacts occur) - This activity will not result in take of special -status species with implementation of BMPs (such as pre -activity surveys, exclusion of individuals from the site, and/or implementation of non -disturbance buffers around active nests of special -status birds). Some Tier 2B activities may result in a permanent loss of habitat. • Tier 3 (Likely to Adversely Affect) - The activity may result in take of special -status species, even with implementation of BMPs. Tier 3 is applicable if the biologist determines that (1) special -status species are known to occur or may occur on site either because suitable breeding habitat is present or suitable non -breeding habitat with connectivity between the site and suitable breeding habitat is present; (2) special -status species may be present at the time of day/season in which the Program activity occurs; and (3) special -status species cannot be effectively excluded from the work area, pre -activity surveys cannot definitively determine the absence of the species, and/or "take" in the form of permanent loss of habitat cannot be avoided. These tiering categories would help guide Midpen in determining which avoidance and minimization measures are necessary to minimize potential take of species. Continuity in oversight and attention will enable the Program to run effectively. A designated staff person from Midpen would serve as the Midpen Project Manager. The Midpen Project Manager's primary responsibility would be to supervise and guide Program activities, including implementation of mitigation necessary. Open Space Maintenance and Restoration Program September 2021 1 2-29 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 2. Project Description Attachment 1 In general, proposed Program activities would take place on an annual cycle, depending on whether they are located away from wetlands and waters of the U.S. and state, riparian resources, and/or federally or state listed species; or activities occur near such resources. Activities occurring away from sensitive resources (Tier 1) may occur year-round, although a majority of these types of activities would take place in the spring and summer season. Activities occurring in areas where special -status species are known to occur or could possibly occur (Tiers 2A, 2B, and 3) would generally be limited to occur between May 15 and October 31. 2.6.3 Maintenance Crew, Work Durations, and Equipment The size of a work crew implementing proposed Program activities varies between 3 and 6 personnel. For routine maintenance activities, the crew size would be approximately 3 personnel. For vegetation management activities, the crew size would be approximately 7 personnel. Vegetation management activities would be temporary at any given location as crews are expected to cover a large area in a workday. For small facility improvements, the typical crew size would be approximately 2 personnel. For restoration related work, the crew size would be around 4 personnel. Most proposed maintenance activities and some scale facility improvements would be completed within a couple days but some larger -scale maintenance activities, facility improvement projects (e.g., culvert repair/replacements, road or trail slip-out/slide repairs, sediment removal in ponds, new trails/bridges), and restoration/enhancement projects may be more involved and require up to 3 weeks. Program activities would generally be conducted during daytime hours (between 7:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. depending on the time of year) on weekdays. Weekend operations would occur infrequently, except for volunteer -based events for invasive plant removal by hand. The specific pieces of equipment used for the proposed Program activities would vary depending on the facility and type of activity required. A summary of typical equipment used by project activity is included below. ■ For culvert repair and replacement activities, typical equipment includes compactors, dump trucks, and loaders. For culvert replacement activities that involve trenching or excavation, an excavator may be used. Culvert repair activities occurring at or below the streambed would be conducted by hand in remote areas or by using a bobcat or tractor in areas accessible road or trail. ■ Bridge maintenance activities occurring on the bridge itself would be conducted with electric power tools or heavy equipment (i.e., excavators and backhoes) operated outside of the channel. Bridge replacement activities would be conducted with excavators or cranes. ■ Typical equipment used for maintenance of road and trail drainage features would include hand shovels, backhoes, mini excavators, dozers, and/or graders. Paved and unpaved ditches would be cleaned with hand tools or mechanical equipment such as dozers, excavators, backhoes, skid steers, box scrapers, and graders depending on the Open Space Maintenance and Restoration Program September 2021 12-30 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 2. Project Description Attachment 1 scale of work and manual cleaned with hand tools. Ditches could also be cleared with vacuum equipment or high pressure/volume water flow to flush out the ditch. Debris would then be cleared by hand at the end of the pipe. Fords and swales would be cleaned as -needed with hand tools for small work or mechanical equipment, such as a dozer, excavator, backhoe, skid -steer, or skip loader. Rolling dips on roads would be excavated with an excavator, bulldozer with rippers, or a grader. Rolling dips on trails would be excavated with a mini excavator, skid steer, or hand tools. • Sediment and debris would be removed with mechanized equipment in creeks that do not support habitat for salmonids and with hand tools in creeks that do support salmonids. For sediment and vegetation removal and recontouring activities in ponds, heavy equipment such as dozers, loaders, excavators, rollers, and compactors would be used. In some areas, hand tools and hand laborers would be utilized. Portable pumps, with 1/4 inch mesh screens on the intakes, may be used for pond draining. Removing sediment in culverts, crossings, and other smaller drainage features may require digging sediment out by hand. Mechanized equipment, such as push loaders and excavators, may be used for larger drainage features or where hand removal is infeasible. Debris removal would be conducted by using hand tools, including come -along cable pullers. Vehicle mounted winches may also be used to remove collected or heavy materials from channels or other heavy equipment, including excavators to remove debris such as tires. • Bank stabilization work would be conducted with either hand and power tools (i.e., toter or mule) or with larger mechanized equipment such as excavators or dump trucks. • Water supply structure maintenance activities would generally be conducted by hand, as needed (e.g., cleaning out clogged spring boxes and pipes typically occurs every year). If extensive digging is required, such as for installation of new water line or spring box, small mechanical equipment may be used (i.e., bobcat or small backhoe). When servicing wells, larger mechanical equipment may be required. • Heavy equipment such as dozers, loaders, excavators, rollers, and compactors would be used for repairing failing pond berms, improving inlets/ outlets, recontouring, and removing invasive vegetation. Excavators, chainsaws, brush cutters, mowers, and articulating arm mowers may be used for clearing and grubbing of vegetation to maintain a pond to the Division of Dam safety requirements. If pond draining is needed for berm stabilization or clearing work, portable pumps with 1/4 inch mesh screens on the intakes, may be used. In some areas, hand tools and hand laborers would be utilized. • Minor maintenance activities would be conducted with hand tools annually and would be small in scale. • Road and trail brushing activities would be conducted with brushcutters (i.e., weedwhips), hedgers, chainsaws, pole saws, chippers, and tractor -operated mowers. Single-track trails would be mowed with handheld brushcutters, while road -width trails would be mowed with tractor -mounted mowing equipment. Open Space Maintenance and Restoration Program September 2021 1 2-31 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 2. Project Description Attachment 1 ■ Pruning trees and shrubs would be conducted with either hand tools or mechanized equipment (e.g., chainsaws). ■ Trees within the riparian area would be removed with trimmers and chainsaws; no heavy equipment would be operated from the streambank. For large trees, a licensed tree climber would use necessary equipment to climb and cut the tree into manageable sections and lower those sections to disturbed areas on the ground to prevent damage to nearby trees, vegetation or root zones. Stumps may be removed with a stump grinder; however, roots would be left in place to stabilization the slope. ■ Downed trees would be trimmed and repositioned with hand tools. If removal is necessary, equipment, such as a winch and cable, would be used and operated from the top of bank. ■ Aquatic vegetation on the water side of the dam would be trimmed with mowers and brush cutters. Vegetation on the dry side of the dam would be trimmed with mowers and approved pesticides. ■ Fuel management activities would involve a range of construction equipment and depend on the activity type. In general, fuel management activities would use low impact tools such as hand cutters and pruners where feasible. Equipment utilized for fuel management activities would include tractors, brushcutters, chainsaws, pole pruners, boom flails, chippers and mowing or masticator equipment. ■ Pesticide application would be conducted with backpack sprayers, vehicle sprayers, or other applicators. ■ Paved road surface maintenance activities would be conducted by hand tools or by using sledgehammers, shovels and wheelbarrows. Depending on the size of the area and quantity of material to removed, material may be removed with a front-end loader, bobcat, or for larger areas, asphalt would be ground down and loaded directly into a 10 -wheel dump truck or left in place. Re -paving efforts for small areas may be conducted by hand, utilizing wheelbarrows, shovels and tampers. For larger areas, a paver box with a hopper and a 10 -wheel dump truck that holds the hot mix would be used to repave the site. ■ Heavy equipment utilized for unpaved road repairs would include dozers, loaders, excavators, rollers, dump trucks, cables and winches. ■ Trail maintenance and repair activities would be conducted by hand tools such as shovels, McLeod tools, and pick -mattocks. Mechanical equipment would include power carriers, mini -excavators, and Sweco separators. ■ Equipment used for roadway or trail slip-out/slide repair activities may include excavators, bulldozers, front-end loaders, and dump trucks. Open Space Maintenance and Restoration Program September 2021 1 2-32 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 2. Project Description Attachment 1 • Small scale facility improvements would involve a range of construction equipment and depend on the activity type. Larger equipment would include excavators, bobcats, cranes, dozers, and compactors. • Aquatic habitat restoration, enhancement, and creation activities would be conducted with hand tools as well as heavy equipment such as dozers, loaders, excavators, rollers, and compactors. Removal of humanmade materials or refuse would be done by hand wherever possible. Cables, winches, and heavy equipment may be used to pull out large material including large woody material; however, equipment would be staged above the top of bank. Invasive plant removal activities would be conducted with hand picks, planting knifes, and weed wrenches or with mechanical equipment including brushcutters, hedgers, chainsaws, chippers, and mowers. 2.6.4 Annual Reporting and Agency Notification During March through April of each year, Midpen would notify the relevant regulatory agencies that have jurisdictional authority over or oversight of the year's planned projects that are occurring in wetlands and waters of the U.S./state, riparian resources, near federally and state listed species, or other facilities that involve Tiers 2A, 2B, and 3 project activities. The relevant regulatory agencies would be provided with information describing proposed Program activities, locations, natural resource conditions, and any other key resource issues. The notification package would describe which Program activities would result in temporary and permanent impacts on wetlands or waters of the U.S./state, riparian resources, and state or federally listed species. It would also describe in detail Midpen's proposal for providing compensatory mitigation for those impacts as described in more detail in Section 2.7.3 below. If requested, Midpen would host a tour of the identified Program sites. Following regulatory review and coordination, Tier 1 projects outside of sensitive habitat for federally and state listed species, riparian resources, wetlands, and waters of the U.S./state would be implemented between March and completed by December, and summary reporting would occur in winter. Tier 2A, 2B, and 3 projects occurring within sensitive habitat, riparian resources, wetlands, or waters of the U.S. and state would be implemented between May 15 and October 31, but consistent with applicable resource -specific BMPs, with summary reporting occurring in the late fall to winter. 2.7 Programmatic Avoidance and Minimization Measures 2.7.1 Activity Triggers Maintenance activities would only be conducted when determined to be necessary or in conjunction with other nearby essential work to provide cost saving efficiencies or to minimize equipment entries into an area. The triggers described below would be used by Midpen staff during annual inspections and site evaluations to identify which sites have exceeded the thresholds identified by the triggers. Midpen would then prioritize maintenance activities according to the degree in which the identified site exceeds the maintenance triggers. Sites that exceed the triggers in a greater or more intense manner would be identified as higher priorities. Open Space Maintenance and Restoration Program September 2021 1 2-33 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 2. Project Description Attachment 1 Maintenance Triggers for Culverts, Channels, Bridges, and Other Facilities ■ Repair or replacement of existing culverts would be conducted when an existing culvert has been crushed or otherwise damaged and cannot operate properly; is at risk of future failure or deterioration (e.g., bottom of a corrugated metal pipe culvert is beginning to rust); is clogged with debris, sediment and/or vegetation; is notably undersized and cannot provide adequate conveyance capacity; or has been dislodged, moved, or positioned in such a way that the culvert cannot function properly. ■ Bridge maintenance activities would be necessary when the bridge structure and/or abutments are deteriorating and protective paint coating has chipped off or cracks on the exterior have noticeably worsened. Erosion protection improvements at the base of a bridge would be necessary when scour damage begins to undermine the structural stability of bridge wingwalls and/or abutments. Maintenance along bridge decks would be necessary when damage or cracks on the surface have magnified to the degree that the damaged bridge could represent a public safety risk. Debris clearing would be necessary when the capacity beneath the bridge has been reduced by 30% or more due to debris build-up. ■ Road and trail drainage feature maintenance would be necessary when debris, sediment, or woody debris have reduced the conveyance capacity by 10% to 30%, or if rock or other materials that are part of the ford/swale have washed away. This work would be necessary to prevent the washout and flooding of roads and trails, and to prevent excess sediment loading and erosion. ■ Streambank stabilization work would be necessary when bank failure has occurred and must be repaired to re-establish the banks of a creek, protect the channel's flood conveyance capacity, and prevent additional sediment input to the channel. This work also would be necessary when bank erosion or failure poses a threat to existing infrastructure (e.g., utilities, roads, trails). This work would be necessary if persistent bank erosion is occurring, leading to excess sediment loading and/or damage to riparian vegetation. ■ Pond and lake berm stabilization would be necessary when berm erosion or sinking poses a threat to existing infrastructure (e.g., ponds, lakes, roads). This work also would be necessary to prevent excess sediment loading and erosion into the pond or lake. ■ Water supply facilities and structures maintenance would be necessary when overhanging shrubs and trees pose a safety risk to these structures, prevent proper intake, or impede access for maintenance. Defensible space around water supply facilities is also required per the Board of Forestry Fire Safe Regulations (2021). In addition, mowing would be necessary when overgrown weeds and grasses are encroaching on the structures. ■ Sediment removal from creeks, bridges, and ponds would be necessary when sediment or debris has reduced channel or pond capacity to the extent that the likelihood of overbank is significantly increased and flooding could damage property or substantially threaten public safety. This work also would be necessary when Open Space Maintenance and Restoration Program September 2021 12-34 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 2. Project Description Attachment 1 sediment or debris deposits are evidently causing scour erosion of streambanks supporting bridges or other public facilities like roads and trails. Sediment removal within ponds would occur when needed to maintain habitat for CRLF or storage capacity for cattle. ■ Sediment removal/clearing culverts, crossings, and other drainage features would be necessary when culvert inlets and outlets, are blocked with debris or sediment so that the conveyance capacity is reduced by at least 10% to 30%. Culverts that are more than 1/3 blocked may be cleaned at any time, even when the channel is wet. ■ Management of downed or standing dead trees may be appropriate if it has been determined that the downed or standing dead tree has potential to increase erosion, flooding, bank failure, or negative impacts to public infrastructure (e.g., bridges or culverts). If erosion and/or flooding risks are likely to occur, Midpen would consider removing or reusing the tree elsewhere. If such risks are unlikely, Midpen would explore options for preserving and/or repositioning the tree along the channel. Maintenance Triggers for Roads and Trails ■ Paved road surface maintenance activities (e.g., pothole repairs) would occur shortly after the road failure occurs to prevent accidents, vehicle damage and other traffic safety risks. Minor road repairs that entail patching cracks and resurfacing would be prioritized based on severity of traffic safety risks and would typically be conducted outside of the rainy season (between April and October). ■ Unpaved road surface maintenance activities would be necessary when a road surface has deteriorated or failed due to erosion or stormwater flows, is contributing sediment and subsequent adverse water quality and/or hydrology impacts, or led to erosion down slope. ■ Trail maintenance and repair would be necessary when trail tread has worn down and ruts are evident, thus requiring addition of the proper type of soil or surface material and/or re -compaction. The need for trail tread repair work would be determined during periodic inventories. Repair of trail signs and other structures would be conducted to address damaged. ■ Roadway/trail slip-out/slide repair work would be necessary when slope failures have occurred on the cut slope side of a roadway or trail; a slip -out repair would be necessary when slope failure has occurred on the fill side. This work would be necessary when the roadway/trail slip-out/slide poses a threat to existing roads or other facilities like utilities, or public safety. This work would be necessary when the roadway/trail slip-out/slide has contributed sediment to a nearby drainage, channel, or other waterbodies. ■ Vegetation and fuel management along roads (e.g., mowing, trimming and pruning) would be necessary to maintain appropriate line of sight clearance (usually 6 feet at an intersection), to maintain a 14 -foot height clearance for vehicles or equestrians, and to maintain a 7 -foot height clearance for pedestrians. Longer line of sight clearance is appropriate for mountain biking intersections. This work would be Open Space Maintenance and Restoration Program September 2021 1 2-35 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 2. Project Description Attachment 1 necessary when overhanging limbs or trees pose a public safety risk. This work may also include removal of ladder fuels to reduce the impacts of wildland fires or for the removal of invasive species for ecological reasons. Midpen staff inspect trails and roads on a 3 -5 -year rotation. Midpen aims to brush approximately 66% of all roads and trails each year as certain fast-growing vegetation communities require annual management to maintain the access width. ■ Vegetation and fuel management and maintenance of fire breaks along roads, trails, and other open space features (i.e., picnic or rest areas, natural areas, rangeland, staging areas, parking lots, structures) would typically be necessary when shrubs or trees are overhanging or encroaching on the trail or picnic or rest area. Mowing would be needed when overgrown weeds and other grasses encroach the trail or recreational facility. Tree removal would be necessary if a particular tree has a higher likelihood of failure along or near facilities and the situation cannot be fixed by limbing or pruning. Once established, the fuel breaks would be maintained once every five to ten years. 2.7.2 Work Limits and Best Management Practices The focus of Midpen's Program activities is to protect, maintain, and enhance the natural environment within its Preserves and managed lands. In effort to minimize impacts resulting from Program activities, Midpen developed self -imposing site, annual, and 5 -year Program work limits included in Table 2-3. Table 2-3 also provides an estimate of the typical jurisdictional disturbance per project and quantifies the number of jurisdictional projects per year per activity type. Open Space Maintenance and Restoration Program September 2021 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Attachment 1 2. Project Description ANMEMEME n Table 2-3. Program Activity Work Limits Per Activity Type Type of Activity Limits per site Average Number of Maximum Number of sites per year Sites Per Year Annual limits 5 -Year Program limits Estimated Typical Estimated Typical Jurisdictional Disturbance Jurisdictional Sites Per Per Project Year Culvert, Bridge, Channel, Pond and Other Maintenance Culvert repair/replacement 150 LF, 3,000 SF 25 50 20,000 SF 60,000 SF 360 SF 25 100 CY culvert replacement 5,000 CY 25,000 CY 50 CY 10 CY culvert repair 7,500 LF 15,000 LF 90 LF Bridge repair/maintenance (railing, decking, minor abutment or armoring) 100 LF; work area is limited to 25 LF upstream/downstream of site 5 10 400 LF 2,500 LF 50 LF; 1,500 SF 5 5 CY (grading primarily on approach) 20 CY 100 CY 2 CY Road and trail ditch clearing and installation 30 CY of sediment and debris removal for every 300 LF; 500 LF 15 50 9,000 LF 45,000 LF 150 LF; 5 CY; 600 SF 5 Fords/ swales replacement, repair, and maintenance 200 LF 2 6 2,000 LF; 5,000 SF 10,000 LF 100 LF; 600 SF 2 20 CY 120 CY 600 CY 10 CY Annual pre -rainstorm preparation and clearing (i.e., hand shovel clearing of fords, rolling dips, ditches, culverts, etc.) 5 CY 100 200 100 CY 500 CY 1 CY 50 Sediment removal from channels (e.g., from landslides, road failures, or slip -outs) 160 LF 10 20 1,000 LF for all sediment removal sites 1,000 LF 40 LF 10 4,000 SF Dewatering limit of 1,000 LF for all sites. 20,000 SF 200 SF 10 CY 100 CY 1,000 CY 4 CY Sediment removal from culverts, crossings, and other drainage features 150 LF Dewatering limit 300 LF 3 sites in an average hydrologic year (based on average seasonal precipitation) 8 23,000 LF; 12,000 SF 15,000 LF; 48,000 SF 100 LF 3 10 CY 8 sites in a wet hydrologic year 200 CY 1,000 CY 8 CY Open Space Maintenance and Restoration Program Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration September 2021 1 2-37 Attachment 1 Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 2. Project Description Type of Activity Limits per site Average Number of Maximum Number of sites per year Sites Per Year Annual limits 5 -Year Program limits Estimated Typical Estimated Typical Jurisdictional Disturbance Jurisdictional Sites Per Per Project Year Streambank Stabilization 100 LF; 1,000 SF 2 projects in an average hydrologic year 4 200 LF 1,000 LF 60 LF; 600 SF 2 4 projects in wet hydrologic year 400 LF 2,000 LF Water supply structure maintenance (instream) Vegetation removal is limited to 30 to 100 ft buffer; 4 CY removed per site 2 4 500 SF 2,500 SF 100 SF 2 Minor maintenance activities (i.e., repair of fences, gates, signage, and trash rack clearing) 200 SF 3 6 1,000 SF 5,000 SF 80 SF 1 I 4 CY 20 CY 100 CY 1 CY Vegetation Management Activities Riparian or pond adjacent tree removal(inclusive of all Program g activities) Trees between 6 inch dbh and 24inch dbh. No trees greater than 24 inch dbh would be removed (unless for public safety reasons). 12 trees 36 trees 30 trees 150 trees 750 SF (assumes 30 inch diameter canopy) 12 Tree trimming/pruning (inclusive of all Program activities) No more than 25% of individual tree canopy would be trimmed/pruned 300 trees 750 trees 750 trees 3,750 trees 500 SF 75 Non-native vegetation removal 4 acres of treatment per site Typical site involves 15% cover over 8 acres 300 acres 450 acres 450 acres 2,250 acres 2,000 SF 35 Vegetation management along roads/trails Typically, 10 feet on either side of a road or 3 feet along a trail. Steeper side slopes in chaparral and hardwood forest may call for a 10 -foot buffer along a road. 230 miles of road/trail 350 miles of road and trail; 665 acres 774 acres 3,870 acres 720 SF (assumed 60 -feet along riparian areas with 12 -foot treatment area) 50 Fuels management along roads and trails Typically 100 -foot shaded fuel break and 100 -foot lighter fuels treatment beyond in each area every 5 years. 8 sites 12 sites, approximately 1 mileper project p 1 80 acres 12 miles of roads 400 acres 60 miles of roads *See ecosystem resiliency; all Fuels treatments in jurisdictional areas will follow Resiliency treatments. 2 to 4 Open Space Maintenance and Restoration Program Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration September 2021 1 2-38 Attachment 1 Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 2. Project Description Type of Activity Limits per site Average Number of Maximum Number of sites per year Sites Per Year Annual limits 5 -Year Program limits Estimated Typical Estimated Typical Jurisdictional Disturbance Jurisdictional Sites Per Per Project Year Vegetation management around open space facilities (i.e., for defensible space) 100 foot buffer around each building, 15,000 SF 100 sites, 35 acres' 150 buildings 50 acres 250 acres 50 SF 10 Ecosystem Resiliency Fuel Treatments TBD 10 20 500 acres 2,500 acres 720 SF 2 to 4 fuel sites and 2 to 4 ecosystem resiliency sites Road and Trail Maintenance Paved road surface maintenance (major work) 10,000 LF 2 4 20,000 LF 60,000 LF 500 LF (adjacent to ditches) 1 Minor paved road repair (potholes, tack oil, small subgrade failures) 300 SF 200 LF 5 10 3,000 SF 2,000 LF 15,000 SF 10,000 LF 10 LF (adjacent to ditches) 1 Unpaved road surface maintenance (major sites more than 1,000 LF) 20,000 LF 100 CY 15 30 75,000 LF 375,000 LF 150 LF 12 Trail maintenance repair (major sites more than 1,000 LF) 20,000 LF 100 CY 10 15 25,000 LF 125,000 LF 600 LF 8 Road relocation 500 LF 1 2 1,000 LF 5,000 LF 60 LF 1 10,000 SF 20,000 SF 100,000 SF 850 SF 1,500 CY 2,500 CY 12,500 CY - Trail reroutes 500 LF 0 2 1,000 LF 5,000 LF 80 LF 0 3,000 SF 4,000 SF 20,000 SF 1,500 SF 200 CY 200 CY 1,000 CY 40 CY Roadway/trail slip -outs and slide repairs 250 LF 5 10 (or 20 sites in a wet hydrologic year) 2,500 LF 12,500 LF 100 LF 3 4,000 SF 40,000 SF 200,000 SF 2,000 SF 100 CY 1,000 CY 5,000 CY 20 CY 4 These numbers may increase as Midpen acquires new lands and constructs new trails and other facilities. Open Space Maintenance and Restoration Program Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration September 2021 1 2-39 Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Attachment 1 Type of Activity Limits per site Average Number of Maximum Number of sites per year Sites Per Year Annual limits 5 -Year Program limits Estimated Typical Estimated Typical Jurisdictional Disturbance Jurisdictional Sites Per Per Project Year Trail bridge replacemen New trail and trail bridg New trail (uplands) Vehicle bridge replacem Water lines Spring box Tanks, troughs Pond diversion New Small -Scale Facilities Improvements New trails and roads construction :s 100 LF 2 4 200 LF 10,000 LF 50 LF 2 2,000 SF 4,000 SF 20,000 SF 500 SF 20 CY 40 CY 200 CY 15 CY ?s 100 LF 2 4 400 LF 2,000 LF 100 LF 2 2,000 SF 8,000 SF 40,000 SF 1,500 SF 50 CY 200 CY 1,000 CY 25 CY 5,800 LF 2 4 10,000 LF 50,000 LF 100 LF 2 45,000 SF 90,000 SF 450,000 SF 1,500 SF 800 CY 16,000 CY 80,000 CY 25 CY nt 200 LF 1 2 200 LF 1,000 LF 3,000 SF 1 4,000 SF 4,000 SF 20,000 SF 200 CY 200 CY 1,000 CY New Conservation Grazing Infrastructure 6,000 LF 2 4 18,000 LF 90,000 LF 20 SF 1 60,000 SF 180,000 SF 900,000 SF 330 CY 1,000 CY 5,000 CY 200 LF 2 4 400 LF 2,000 LF 30 SF 2 100 SF 200 SF 1,000 SF 10 CY 20 CY 1000 CY 200 LF 2 4 8,000 LF 10 SF 1 300 SF 1,200 SF 10 CY 40 CY 200 LF 0 2 200 LF 50 SF 0 100 SF 100 SF 10 CY 10 CY Open Space Maintenance and Restoration Program Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration September 2021 1 Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Attachment 1 2. Project Description Type of Activity Limits per site Average Number of Maximum Number of sites per year Sites Per Year Annual limits 5 -Year Program limits Estimated Typical Estimated Typical Jurisdictional Disturbance Jurisdictional Sites Per Per Project Year Building Repairs, Utilities, and Other Misc. Electrical, plumbing, or other utility lines 1,000 LF 2 2 1,000 LF 5,000 LF 100 SF 0 6,000 SF 6,000 SF 30,000 SF 55 CY 55 CY 275 CY Septic line repair 1,000 LF 2 2 2,000 LF, 10,000 LF 400 SF 0 6,000 SF 6,000 SF 30,000 SF 10 CY 10 CY 50 CY New Interpretive Facilities/ Signage 50 LF 2 2 100 LF 500 LF 50 SF 1 100 SF 200 SF 1,000 SF 5 CY 10 CY 50 CY Existing building and structure repairs 200 LF 5 10 1,000LF 5,000 LF 50 SF 0 100 SF 500 SF 25,000 SF 10 CY 50 CY 250 CY Safe wildlife passages 200 LF 1 large and 2 small 1 large and 8 small 400 LF 20,000 LF 200 LF 1 1,200 SF 2,500 SF 12,500 SF 1,200 SF 100 CY 200 CY 1,000 CY 100 CY Restoration and Enhancement Projects Pond reconstruction 20,000 SF 1 2 20,000 SF 100,000 SF 12,000 SF 1 1,200 CY 1,200 CY 6,000 CY Pond Inlet/Outlet pipe or spillway overflow modifications 300LF 1 1 300 LF 1,500 LF 300 LF 1 2,000 SF 2,000 SF 10,000 SF 2000 SF 200 CY 200 CY 1,000 CY - Sediment removal from ponds 600 CY 2 4 1,800 CY 1 acre 9,000 CY 5 acres 900CY, 0.40acres. 2 Pond vegetation removal 2,500 SF 4 6 10,000 SF 50,000 SF 1,000 SF 4 s Note that many of these activities are typically aboveground maintenance. Midpen conducts these activities for maintenance or for restoration purposes. These activities may be duplicative to other pond activities listed above and below. Open Space Maintenance and Restoration Program Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration September 2021 1 2-41 Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Attachment 1 Type of Activity Limits per site Average Number of Maximum Number of sites per year Sites Per Year Annual limits 5 -Year Program limits Estimated Typical Estimated Typical Jurisdictional Disturbance Jurisdictional Sites Per Per Project Year 150 CY Pond berm stabilization 200 LF/berm Structure demolitions/ removal in riparian areas 400 CY/berm 1 4 In channel debris removal (i.e., removal of tires) 100 LF 3,000 SF 150 CY 2 3 8 6 600 CY 3,000 CY 600 LF 3,000 LF 200LF/400CY 1,200 CY 6,000 CY 1,500 SF 1 4 400 LF 2,000 LF 12,000 SF 60,000 SF 600 CY 3,000 CY 100 SF 2 Road decommissioning 10,000 LF 160,000 SF 10,000 CY 1 4 20,000 LF 100,000 LF 300,000 SF 1,500,000 20,000 CY 100,000 CY 2,000 SF 1 Stream crossing removal and restoration of natural channel 150 LF 4,000 SF 300 CY 4 12 1,000 LF 5,000 LF 24,000 SF 120,000 SF 1,800 CY 9,000 CY 2,000 SF 4 Traditional ecological knowledge practices (indigenous stewardship) 24,000 SF 6 12 300,000 SF 1,500,000 SF 100 SF 0 Note: LF = linear feet; SF = square feet; CY = cubic yards); dbh = diameter at breast height Open Space Maintenance and Restoration Program September 2021 1 2-42 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 2. Project Description Attachment 1 Midpen would implement general avoidance and minimization practices (or referred to as BMPs) as well as measures focused on biological resources and habitat protection, cultural resources protection, erosion control, sediment and water quality control, and dewatering. These BMPs reflect current recommended practices and are incorporated into the Program. These BMPs are included as Appendix A as well as in the Manual (Appendix B). 2.8 Permits and Approvals The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) documentation for the proposed Program will be used by various regulatory agencies issuing permits, as well as other approvals and consultations for the proposed Program. Specifically, information about the proposed Program and the environmental analysis will be used by several agencies as part of their decision -making process regarding regulations applicable to the proposed Program. Table 2-4 provides a list of these agencies and the applicable permits, approvals, and consultations that are expected to be required for the proposed Program. Table 2-4. Proposed Program Regulatory Permits, Approvals, and Consultations Agency Permit / Approval / Consultation Federal Agencies U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) — Regional General Permit National Historic Preservation Act Section 106 compliance U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Federal Endangered Species Act — issuance and authorization under 10(a)(1)(A) Recovery Permit or Section 7 incidental take provision of a Biological Opinion Migratory Bird Treaty Act compliance Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act compliance State Agencies California Department of Fish and Wildlife Section 1600 et seq. of the California Fish and Game Code — Routine Maintenance Agreement California Endangered Species Act (CESA) 2081(a) Memorandum of Understanding Native Plant Protection Act compliance San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (Region 2) and Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board (Region 3) Section 401 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) — water quality certification Porter -Cologne Water Quality Control Act — waste discharge requirements Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act — compliance with applicable total maximum daily load (TMDL) requirements or 303(d) listed waters Open Space Maintenance and Restoration Program September 2021 1 2-43 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Attachment 1 2. Project Description Agency Permit / Approval / Consultation Regional and Local Agencies Bay Area Air Quality Management District Burn permits for pile burning activities. County of San Mateo Coastal Development Permit for any activities that occur within the Coastal Zone Tree removal permit for removal of any protected trees or heritage trees as defined in the County's Significant and Heritage Tree Protection regulations. County of Santa Clara Tree removal permit for removal of protected trees. Santa Cruz County Tree removal permit for removal of significant trees. Open Space Maintenance and Restoration Program Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration September 2021 1 2-44 Attachment 1 Chapter 3 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 1. Project Title 2. Lead Agency Name and Address 3. Contact Person, Phone Number and Email 4. Project Location and APN 5. Property Owner(s) 6. General Plan Designation 7. Zoning 8. Description of Project 9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting 10. Other Public Agencies whose Approval or Input May Be Needed Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Open Space Maintenance and Restoration Program Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 330 Distel Circle, Los Altos CA 94022 Aaron Hebert, Senior Resource Management Specialist Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Email: ahebert@openspace.org Phone: (650) 625 - 6561 Various Varied Multiple Multiple See Chapter 2, Project Description. Varied See Table 2-4 in Chapter 2, Project Description. Open Space Maintenance and Restoration Program September 2021 1 3-1 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 3. Environmental Checklist Attachment 1 Determination On the basis of this initial evaluation: E I find that the Proposed Project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the Proposed Project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the Project have been made by or agreed to by the Project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the Proposed Project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I find that the Proposed Project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. I find that although the Proposed Project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the Proposed Project, nothing further is required. X frygl W1fy skpxr! by Man Malame Brian alone (KM -Man Malmo, Midpenlnit a Flegivnal Qrsvt Space Oispi[t.vu ernpll,nmalonegeopenspaceor9, c- US Oate 2021.07,28 iI:4SSii -0700' 7/28/2021 Signature Date Name: Brian Malone, Assistant General Manager Open Space Maintenance and Restoration Program August 2021 1 '3-2 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration IIIMidpeninsula Regional Attachment 1 Open Space District 3. Environmental Checklist 3.1 Aesthetics Less than Significant Potentially with Less -than - Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact Except as provided in Public Resources Code Section 21099, would the project: a. Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? b. Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? c. In non -urbanized areas, substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that are experienced from publicly accessible vantage points.) If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality? d. Create a new source of substantial light or glare that would adversely affect daytime or nighttime views in the area? u 0 ❑X ❑ u o u 3.1.1 Environmental Setting Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (Midpen) lands are located on the San Francisco Peninsula (Peninsula), primarily within the Santa Cruz Mountains. The Santa Cruz Mountains separate the flat bay lands and Santa Clara Valley on the east side of the peninsula from the coastal areas on the west side of the peninsula. The Santa Cruz Mountains are characterized by steep, narrow canyons, water courses, and rolling hills where seasonal streams flow from the upper watershed areas of the mountains through steep -sided forested canyons to the bay lands and to the coast. Visual Character Midpen lands are located in the upper portions of the Santa Cruz Mountains and consist of a variety of natural landscapes including ridge -top grasslands, forested canyons, chaparral - covered hillsides, and riparian vegetation along natural creeks. The natural landscapes provide a scenic backdrop to the urbanized areas of the Peninsula. Some lands include rural/agricultural structures such as barns and residences associated with conservation grazing operations. Other Midpen facilities such as trails, trailheads, restrooms, parking Open Space Maintenance and Restoration Program September 2021 1 3-3 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration IIIMidpeninsula Regional Attachment 1 Open Space District 3. Environmental Checklist areas, fencing, nature center, offices, and residences are designed to blend into the natural surroundings and are typically located within or adjacent to previously disturbed areas. Midpen lands offer scenic vistas from ridges and mountain tops featuring forested areas, grasslands, oak woodlands, and the Pacific Ocean and San Francisco Bay. Scenic vistas are found throughout Midpen lands along trails and roads where openings at higher elevations provide views of these natural areas. The overall scenic quality of Midpen lands is high because of the highly varied topography, vegetation patterns, water bodies, and uniqueness adjacent to an urban/suburban setting. Scenic Highways Several eligible and officially designated scenic highways identified by the State Scenic Highway Program implemented by California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) are in and adjacent to Midpen lands. Highways designated as Eligible that are bisecting or adjacent to Midpen lands include State Route (SR-) 9, SR -17, SR -35, SR -92, SR -152, and SR - 236 as well as portions of Interstate (I-) 280. Officially designated State Scenic Highways bisecting or adjacent to Midpen lands include SR -1, SR -9, SR -35, and I-280 (Caltrans 2021). Cities or counties may also identify scenic corridors, roadways, or trails, which are defined as lands that are visible from a highway that provide scenic and natural features. San Mateo County identifies state scenic corridors along SR -1 (Cabrillo Highway corridor), along SR -280 (Junipero Serra corridor), and along Skyline Boulevard (Skyline Boulevard corridor). San Mateo County also identifies designated scenic corridors along SR -92, SR -84, and several additional County roads (San Mateo County Planning and Building Division 1986). Santa Clara County identifies Bear Creek Road, which provides access to Bear Creek Redwoods Open Space Preserve (OSP) as a scenic roadway (Santa Clara County 1994). Viewer Groups Viewer groups include the general public recreating on trails or at recreation facilities in Midpen OSPs, residences within Preserves, tenants who are leasing land from Midpen, Midpen employees, and motorists traveling on roadways adjacent to Midpen lands. Viewer sensitivity would mostly be high because the public accessing and recreating on Midpen lands are more likely to value the natural environment, appreciate the visual experience, and be more sensitive to changes in views or incompatible elements. Groups who view Midpen lands from a distance or for short duration (i.e., motorists and adjoining neighbors) would experience a more moderate viewer sensitivity as they would be more focused on the overall surroundings. 3.1.2 Discussion a. Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? As described above, Midpen lands provide scenic viewing opportunities for the public. Scenic vistas of natural areas, the Pacific Ocean, and the San Francisco Bay are found throughout Midpen lands along trails and roads generally located at high elevations along ridgelines and in open areas. Open Space Maintenance and Restoration Program September 2021 1 3-4 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 3. Environmental Checklist Attachment 1 Some Open Space Maintenance and Restoration Program (Program) activities would occur within channels or ponds, situated at lower elevations (e.g., berm repair, bridge maintenance/replacement, sediment and debris removal, etc.). Due to their location and often the presence of surrounding vegetation, it is unlikely that those activities would have a pronounced effect on scenic vistas. However, some Program activities would occur along trails, roads or in other areas located at higher elevations where such activities would be visible from scenic viewpoints (e.g., roadside/trailside ditch maintenance, trail rerouting, roadway grading, etc.). Vegetation management activities associated with the Program also would influence the visual appearance of Midpen lands; the analysis of impacts associated with vegetation and fuel management activities to scenic vistas is covered in Midpen's Wildland Fire Resiliency Program Environmental Impact Report (EIR) (Panorama 2021). Depending on the visual sensitivity of an individual Project area, which would vary from moderate to high, temporary visual impacts to scenic vistas could occur but would not be considered significant as Program activities would involve minimal use of heavy equipment in any one area for a short period of time (a few hours to a few days) and would be limited to daytime hours on weekdays with infrequent weekend construction. Similarly, Program activities would not reduce the quality of views within Midpen lands or from nearby adjacent lands because the work would be performed in limited areas of Midpen lands at any given time. Visual changes related to the presence of equipment and workers is generally considered low because viewers perceive it as temporary and can quickly and easily move to uninterrupted areas of Midpen lands. As detailed in Chapter 2, Program activities would be performed to protect and enhance the natural environment and improve public access. Program activities would not result in the construction of any structures or facilities that would block views of surrounding scenic vistas. Midpen would implement the following Best Management Practices (BMPs), incorporated as part of the Program, to reduce temporary visual impacts on scenic vistas. Descriptions of each BMP are provided in Chapter 2, Project Description. ■ BMP GEN-2 ■ BMP GEN-7 ■ BMP GEN-16 ■ BMP GEN-21 ■ BMP GEN-22 ■ BMP GEN-23 ■ BMP GEN-24 ■ BMP BIO-24 ■ BMP EC -5 Minimize the Area of Disturbance and Site Maintenance Waste Management Site Stabilization Staged Materials Management and Excavation Ramps Spoils Management Vegetation and Tree Removal and Retention Vegetation Management with Prescribed Burns Riparian Restoration Revegetation of Disturbed Areas Implementation of the BMPs listed above would minimize temporary visual impacts on scenic vistas associated with maintenance by minimizing the area of disturbance, disposing waste and storing materials and equipment properly, minimizing the disturbance of Open Space Maintenance and Restoration Program September 2021 1 3-5 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 3. Environmental Checklist Attachment 1 vegetation, and restoring disturbed and riparian areas as quickly as possible following Program activities. Due to the sensitive manner in which Program activities would be performed, the temporary nature of these activities, and implementation of BMPs that would further minimize adverse effects, the impact on scenic vistas would be less than significant and no mitigation is required. b. Would the project substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic building within a state scenic highway? Scenic roadways and San Mateo County designated scenic corridors are located in and adjacent to many Midpen lands. Program activities may occur in areas adjacent to designated scenic roadways (e.g., construction of a wildlife crossing at Bear Creek Redwoods OSP adjacent to Bear Creek Road, culvert/repair replacement, trail maintenance, and other facility repairs/improvements). Although the presence of construction equipment in these locations could temporarily disrupt scenic views, such disruption would be temporary. The use of heavy equipment would be minimal and work activities would generally be completed within a few days up to three weeks. In addition, Midpen's Program activities are intended to restore and enhance the natural environment. Although tree removal may be conducted under the Program, tree removal would only occur under circumstances where the tree has or is in danger of falling, is causing damage, or is posing a safety or flood hazard. The analysis of visual impacts associated with other vegetation and fuel management activities is covered in Midpen's Wildland Fire Resiliency Program EIR (Panorama 2021). On the other hand, restoration activities (e.g., invasive plant removal, native riparian plantings, road decommissioning, etc.) conducted under the Program would enhance the natural habitat and scenic resources. Midpen would implement the following BMPs, incorporated as part of the Program, to reduce temporary visual impacts on scenic resources visible from scenic corridors. Descriptions of each BMP are provided in Chapter 2, Project Description. ■ BMP GEN-2 ■ BMP GEN-7 ■ BMP GEN-16 ■ BMP GEN-21 ■ BMP GEN-22 ■ BMP GEN-23 ■ BMP GEN-24 ■ BMP BIO-24 ■ BMP EC -5 Minimize the Area of Disturbance and Site Maintenance Waste Management Site Stabilization Staged Materials Management and Excavation Ramps Spoils Management Vegetation and Tree Removal and Retention Vegetation Management with Prescribed Burns Riparian Restoration Revegetation of Disturbed Areas Implementation of the BMPs listed above would minimize temporary visual impacts on scenic resources associated with maintenance by minimizing the area of disturbance, Open Space Maintenance and Restoration Program September 2021 1 3-6 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 3. Environmental Checklist Attachment 1 disposing waste and storing materials and equipment properly, minimizing the disturbance of vegetation, and restoring disturbed and riparian areas as quickly as possible following Program activities. Because Program activities would be short-term, visual disruptions along scenic corridors would be temporary, and implementation of BMPs would further minimize adverse effects, there would be no substantial or long-term degradation of scenic resources as viewed by various viewer groups. This impact would be less than significant and no mitigation is required. c. In non -urbanized areas, would the project substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that are experienced from publicly accessible vantage points.) If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality? As described above, the Program area is located in a non -urbanized area consisting of natural landscapes and open space. The Program area ranges from ridge -top grasslands, forested canyons, chaparral -covered hillsides, and redwood forests, among other natural landscapes. The visual character and quality of Program sites varies from site to site, but would generally be moderate to high. For example, some culvert repair/replacement along access roads and trails would be situated in redwood forests, along creeks, or near agricultural lands. Temporary degradation of the visual character of work sites could adversely affect public viewer groups such as recreationists and grazing tenants. However, the overall long-term effect of the Program would be to maintain the existing visual quality and in many instances would improve the visual quality, such as through Program activities that stabilize failed pond berms, remove tires, repair dilapidated culverts, and plant native vegetation in riparian areas. During Program activities, temporary visual impacts would occur from the presence of personnel and equipment, staging, vegetation removal, earthwork, and on -site stockpiling of materials. Specifically, the following effects would occur from the various work activities. Streambank and Pond Berm Stabilization and Sediment Removal. Pond berms and channel banks would be temporarily exposed and de -vegetated during berm/bank stabilization and sediment removal activities. Work sites would be revegetated and re - contoured to restore aquatic habitat and natural conditions; however, it would take a few years before the aesthetic character of the site would be fully re-established. This temporary visual change would be offset by the immediate aesthetic benefits of blockage removal and stabilization of eroding banks/berms that would allow the waterways and ponds to function more naturally. Vegetation Management. Vegetation management activities such as brushing and mowing, pruning, tree removal, and fuel management activities would alter densely vegetated areas to partially vegetated or bare until the area becomes re-established. Herbicide application could alter the visual character of a site where targeted vegetation has been treated. In addition, tree removal could alter the visual quality of certain locations. However, as described above, tree removal would only occur under circumstances where the tree has fallen or is in danger of falling (as determined by a Open Space Maintenance and Restoration Program September 2021 1 3-7 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration IIIMidpeninsula Regional Attachment 1 Open Space District 3. Environmental Checklist qualified individual), is causing damage, or poses a safety or flood hazard. The analysis of impacts to visual character or quality of public views associated with vegetation and fuel management activities is covered in Midpen's Wildland Fire Resiliency Program EIR (Panorama 2021). Overall, temporary changes in visual density and composition would result; however, the removal of invasive species, addition of native plantings, and other restoration type activities (described below) would restore the Program area to a more natural state. Therefore, revegetation efforts would further offset temporary visual impacts associated with vegetation management activities. Other Maintenance Activities. Other maintenance activities including culvert repair/replacement, drainage feature maintenance, bridge maintenance, and road and trail maintenance would occur at multiple locations, but would generally occur infrequently at any one site. During maintenance work, visual character may be temporarily degraded due to the presence of construction materials, equipment, and vehicles. However, construction activities at any given site would not last more than a few weeks. Implementation of the below -listed BMPs would reduce temporary effects on the visual character of maintenance sites. Depending on the maintenance site, visual conditions could be improved as a result of proposed maintenance activities. For example, in -stream debris removal would improve the cleanliness at the maintenance site and within the waterway. Further, conducting trail surface repair activities would improve access for the public and the aesthetic quality of the route. Small Scale Facility Improvements. Some small-scale facility improvement projects such as installation of new trails, roads, re-routes, and new bridges would change the visual character of the area. However, all small-scale facility improvements conducted under the Program would either reduce the threat to, or correct degradation of, the natural environment, thus improving the aesthetic quality of Midpen lands. Other facility improvements such as conservation grazing infrastructure and water infrastructure improvements would not be substantially notable to public viewers and would blend in with the existing infrastructure and facilities on site. Restoration Activities. Much of Midpen's work revolves around enhancing and restoring the natural environment by improving and/or creating habitat for plant and wildlife species and restoring ecosystem functions. Restoration activities conducted under the Program, including aquatic habitat restoration, native vegetation plantings, invasive species removal, road decommissioning, and conservation grazing improvements would enhance the natural habitat and protect species, thus resulting in a beneficial effect to the aesthetic quality and character of Midpen lands. Midpen would implement the following BMPs, incorporated as part of the Program, to reduce temporary impacts to visual character and quality of public views during Program activities. Descriptions of each BMP are provided in Chapter 2, Project Description. • BMP GEN-2 Minimize the Area of Disturbance and Site Maintenance • BMP GEN-7 Waste Management • BMP GEN-16 Site Stabilization Open Space Maintenance and Restoration Program September 2021 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 3. Environmental Checklist Attachment 1 • BMP GEN-21 • BMP GEN-22 • BMP GEN-23 • BMP GEN-24 • BMP BI0-24 • BMP EC -5 Staged Materials Management and Excavation Ramps Spoils Management Vegetation and Tree Removal and Retention Vegetation Management with Prescribed Burns Riparian Restoration Revegetation of Disturbed Areas Implementation of the BMPs listed above would minimize temporary impacts to visual character and quality associated with maintenance by minimizing the area of disturbance, disposing waste and storing materials and equipment properly, minimizing the disturbance of vegetation, and restoring disturbed and riparian areas as quickly as possible following Program activities. Because Program activities would be short-term, visual disruptions to public views would be temporary, implementation of BMPs would further minimize adverse effects, there would be no substantial degradation of the visual character and quality of the Program area. This impact would be less than significant and no mitigation is required. d. Would the project create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? Under the existing condition, lighting within Midpen lands is extremely limited, with a minimal amount of exterior lighting at residences and offices for safety. Because Program activities would be conducted during daylight hours only, no nighttime lighting would be needed. Although the Program includes installation of new facilities and small facility improvements (e.g., bridge relocation, installation of interpretive facilities/signage, construction of wildlife crossings, etc.) none of these facility improvements would result in new reflective surfaces or installation of lighting. Thus, no impacts would result from the Program. Open Space Maintenance and Restoration Program September 2021 1 3-9 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 3. Environmental Checklist Attachment 1 This page intentionally left blank Open Space Maintenance and Restoration Program September 2021 1 3-10 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration loollow I Open Space District 3. Environmental Checklist Midpeninsula Regional Attachment 1 3.2 Agriculture and Forestry Resources Less than Significant Potentially with Less -than - Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact Would the Project: a. Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (FMMP) of the California Resources Agency, to nonagricultural use? b. Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? c. Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Pub. Res. Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Pub. Res. Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g))? d. Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non -forest use? e. Involve other changes in the existing environment, which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to nonagricultural use? VI El 0 El 0 3.2.1 Environmental Setting Midpen manages approximately 6,500 acres of grazing within five OSPs along the coast, including La Honda Creek, Russian Ridge, Purisima Creek, Skyline Ridge, and Tunitas Creek OSPs under the current Conservation Grazing Program. Midpen also leases suitable agricultural lands (currently over 8,500 acres) to tenants with expertise in managing livestock for grazing purposes. Approximately 7,700 acres of OSP land is in Williamson Act contracts (Panorama 2021). The majority of Midpen lands are designated as "other land" or "grazing land" by Important Farmland maps published by the California Department of Conservation (CDOC), Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (CDOC 2016). "Other land" may consist of vacant, non- agricultural land; brush, timber, wetland, and riparian areas not suitable for livestock grazing; and confined livestock facilities. "Grazing land" is considered land where existing vegetation is used for grazing livestock. Open Space Maintenance and Restoration Program September 2021 1 3-11 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 3. Environmental Checklist Attachment 1 Forested lands are defined as land that can support 10 percent native tree cover of any species, including hardwoods, under natural conditions, and that allows for management of one or more forest resources, including timber, aesthetics, fish and wildlife, biodiversity, water quality, recreation, and other public benefits. Midpen lands encompass approximately 30,000 acres of forest and woodland habitat, including around 11,500 acres of coniferous forest consisting of redwood and Douglas fir and around 18,500 acres of other hardwood forest and woodlands. However, none of Midpen lands are zoned as timberland as defined by Public Resources Code Section 4526 or timberland zoned as timberland production as defined by Government Code Section 51104(g). 3.2.2 Discussion a, b, e. Would the project convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? Would the project conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? Would the project involve other changes in the existing environment, which due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of farmland, to non-agricultural use? Farmlands (primarily grazing lands) may be located in proximity to Program activities occurring within Midpen OSPs. Grazing lands that are currently managed and leased by Midpen would not be adversely affected by implementation of the Program. In contrary, conservation grazing operations would be enhanced through small-scale infrastructure improvements (e.g., rebuilding spring boxes, repairing water systems, installing fencing around riparian areas/stock ponds, etc.). Wildland fire practices benefiting grazing lands (e.g., prescribed burns) are discussed in more detail in Midpen's Wildland Fire Resiliency Program EIR (Panorama 2021). None of the proposed Program activities would convert or cause changes that would result in the conversion of designated farmland to non-agricultural uses nor conflict with an existing Williamson Act contract. No impacts to farmland or agricultural uses would occur with implementation of the Program. c, d. Would the project conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g) or conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g)? Would the project involve or result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non forest use? Implementation of the Program would involve routine and selective pruning and removal of trees if the tree is creating a public safety risk, limiting stream capacity, or threatening natural areas or water quality. Pruning trees may also be necessary to provide emergency, maintenance, and recreational access to Midpen facilities; improve visibility to inspect Midpen facilities; provide adequate sight distance for safety and aesthetic reasons protect Open Space Maintenance and Restoration Program September 2021 1 3-12 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration IIIMidpeninsula Regional Attachment 1 Open Space District 3. Environmental Checklist infrastructure; and to meet local fire codes. The intent of Midpen's work is to preserve and protect its forests and woodlands to enhance natural ecosystems and not to permanently convert forest land to non -forest uses. Implementation of the Program would not result in a loss of forest land nor would it convert forestry land to non -forestry use. No impacts to forest land would occur with implementation of the Program. Open Space Maintenance and Restoration Program September 2021 j 3-13 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 3. Environmental Checklist Attachment 1 This page intentionally left blank Open Space Maintenance and Restoration Program September 2021 1 3-14 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 3. Environmental Checklist Attachment 1 3.3 Air Quality Less than Significant Potentially with Less -than - Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact Would the project: a. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? b. Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non -attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard? c. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? d. Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people? The Clean Air Act is implemented by the United States (U.S.) Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) and sets ambient air limits, the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), for six criteria pollutants: particulate matter, carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides (N0x), ground -level ozone and lead. Of these criteria pollutants, particulate matter and ground -level ozone pose the greatest threat to human health. The California Air Resources Board (CARB) sets standards for criteria pollutants that are more stringent than NAAQS, and includes the following additional contaminants: visibility reducing particles, sulfates, and vinyl chloride. The Program area is largely located within the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin (SFBAAB), which is under the jurisdiction of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). A small portion of the Program area is located in the North Central Coast Air Basin (NCCAB), which is under the jurisdiction of the Monterey Bay Air Resources District (MBARD). BAAQMD and MBARD manage air quality within their jurisdictions for attainment and permitting purposes. Table 3.3-1 shows the current SFBAAB and NCCAB attainment statuses for the state and federal ambient air quality standards. Open Space Maintenance and Restoration Program September 2021 1 3-15 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration IIIMidpeninsula Regional Attachment 1 Open Space District 3. Environmental Checklist The BAAQMD and MBARD have also developed thresholds of significance for criteria air pollutants (BAAQMD 2017a, MBUAPCD 2008). Table 3.3-2 provides the BAAQMD's and MBARD's recommended significance criteria for analysis of air quality impacts, including cumulative impacts. The term "sensitive receptor" is used to refer to facilities or land uses that include members of the population particularly sensitive to the effects of air pollutants, such as children, the elderly and people with illnesses. Examples of sensitive receptors within the Project area include schools, hospitals, community centers, childcare facilities, and residential areas. The Santa Clara County General Plan, San Mateo County General Plan, and the Santa Cruz County General Plan each include policies to reduce air pollution by achieving and maintaining air quality which meets or exceeds state and federal standards. Open Space Maintenance and Restoration Program September 2021 1 3-16 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Table 3.3-1. SFBAAB and NCCAB Attainment Status of the State and Federal Ambient Air Quality Standards Attachment 1 3. Environmental Checklist Contaminant Averaging Time Concentration SFBAAB Attainment Status (San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties) NCCAB Attainment Status (Santa Cruz County) State Standards Attainment Status'. Federal Standards Attainment Status2 State Standards Attainment Status'. Federal Standards Attainment Status2 Ozone 1 -hour 0.09 ppm N 8 -hour 0.070 ppm N Carbon Monoxide 1 -hour 8 -hour 20 ppm 35 ppm 9.0 ppm A See footnote 3 N A A A4 Nitrogen Dioxide 1 -hour Annual arithmetic mean 0.18 ppm ................................................. 0.100 ppm' ................................................. 0.030 ppm ................................................. 0.053 ppm Sulfur Dioxide (S02) 1 -hour 24 -hour Annual arithmetic mean 50 µg/m3 150 µg/m3 .. . ..... ................................. 20 µg/m3 Particulate Matter (PM10) 24 -hour Annual arithmetic mean Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5) Sulfates Lead' Hydrogen Sulfide Vinyl Chloride8 (chloroethene) 24 -hour Annual arithmetic mean 24 -hour 30 -day average 1 -hour 35 µg/m3 ....................................... 12 µg/m3 25 µg/m3 1.5 µg/m3 0.03 ppm A A A A U A A N N N A A U 24 -hour 0.010 ppm U Visibility Reducing Particles 8 hour (10:00 to 18:00 PST) See footnote 5 U A A U N (Moderate)7 ............................................................. U/A T T A A A A A A N N A A A U U U See footnote 3 A U/A U/A U/A U U U U U U/A U/A A - Attainment U - Unclassified ppm - parts per million N - Non -attainment T - Nonattainment-Transitional µg/m3 - micrograms per cubic meter PST - pacific standard time Open Space Maintenance and Restoration Program September 2021 1 3-17 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration iiilOpen Space District 3. Environmental Checklist Notes: 1. Midpeninsula Regional Attachment 1 California standards for ozone, carbon monoxide, sulfur dioxide (1 -hour and 24 -hour), nitrogen dioxide, suspended particulate matter - particulate matter of aerodynamic radius of 10 micrometers or less (PM10), and visibility -reducing particles are values that are not to be exceeded. The standards for sulfates, lead, hydrogen sulfide, and vinyl chloride are not to be equaled or exceeded. If the standard is for a 1 -hour, 8 -hour, or 24 -hour average (i.e., all standards except for lead and the PM10 annual standard), then some measurements may be excluded. In particular, measurements that are excluded include those that the California Air Resources Board (CARB) determines would occur less than once per year on average. 2. National standards shown are the "primary standards" designed to protect public health. National air quality standards are set by U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) at levels determined to be protective of public health with an adequate margin of safety. National standards other than for ozone, particulates, and those based on annual averages are not to be exceeded more than once per year. The 1 -hour ozone standard is attained if, during the most recent 3 -year period, the average number of days per year with maximum hourly concentrations above the standard is equal to or less than one. The 8 -hour ozone standard is attained when the 3 -year average of the 4th highest daily concentrations is 0.075 ppm (75 parts per billion) or less. The 24 -hour PM10 standard is attained when the 3 -year average of the 99th percentile of monitored concentrations is less than 150 µg/m3. The 24 -hour particulate matter of aerodynamic radius of 10 micrometers or less (PM2.5) standard is attained when the 3 -year average of 98th percentiles is less than 35 µg/m3. Except for the national particulate standards, annual standards are met if the annual average falls below the standard at every site. The national annual particulate standard for PM10 is met if the 3 -year average falls below the standard at every site. The annual PM2.5 standard is met by spatially averaging annual averages across officially designated clusters of sites and then determining if the 3 -year average of these annual averages falls below the standard. 3. The national 1 -hour ozone standard was revoked by USEPA on June 15, 2005. On October 1, 2015, the national 8 -hour ozone primary and secondary standards were lowered from 0.075 ppm to 0.070 ppm. An area meets the standard if the fourth -highest maximum daily 8 -hour ozone concentration per year, averaged over three years, is equal to or less than 0.070 ppm. This table provides the attainment statuses for the 2015 standard of 0.070 ppm. 4. In April 1998, the Bay Area was redesignated to attainment for the national 8 -hour carbon monoxide standard. s. Statewide Visibility -Reducing Particle Standard (except Lake Tahoe Air Basin): Particles in sufficient amount to produce an extinction coefficient of 0.23 per kilometer when the relative humidity is less than 70 percent. This standard is intended to limit the frequency and severity of visibility impairment due to regional haze and is equivalent to a 10 -mile nominal visual range. 6. To attain this standard, the 3 -year average of the 98th percentile of the daily maximum 1 -hour average of nitrogen dioxide at each monitoring station within an area must not exceed 0.100 ppm (effective January 22, 2010). 7. On January 9, 2013, USEPA issued a final rule to determine that the Bay Area attains the 24 -hour PM2.5 national standard. 8. CARB has identified lead and vinyl chloride as toxic air contaminants with no threshold level of exposure below which there are no adverse health effects determined. Source: CARB 2019, USEPA 2020, BAAQMD 2017b Open Space Maintenance and Restoration Program September 2021 1 3-18 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Attachment 1 3. Environmental Checklist Table 3.3-2. BAAQMD and MBARD CEQA Thresholds of Significance for Criteria Air Pollutants Criteria Air Pollutants and Precursors (Regional) BAAQMD MBARD Operational Thresholds Daily Emissions (lb/day) Operational Thresholds Construction Thresholds Average Daily Emissions (lb/day) Maximum Annual Emissions (tpy) Average Daily Emissions (lb/clay) Reactive Organic Gases (ROG) 54 10 54 137a Nitrogen oxides (NOx) 54 10 54 137 b Particulate Matter (PM10) 82 15 82 (exhaust) 82 Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5) 54 10 54 (exhaust) None PM10/PM2.5 (fugitive dust) None BMPs None Local Carbon Monoxide (CO) 9.0 ppm (8 hour average), 20.0 ppm (1 -hour average) None 550 Sulfur oxide (SOx), as SO2 None None 150 Odors Five confirmed complaints per year averaged over 3 years None None tpy - tons per year; lb/day - pounds per day; ppm - parts per million; CEQA - California Environmental Quality Act a. Threshold for VOC (Volatile Organic Compounds) b• As NO2 Source: BAAQMD 2017a, Monterey Bay Unified Air Pollution Control District (MBUAPCD) 2008 3.3.2 Environmental Setting Study Area For the purposes of the air quality analysis, the study area consists of the locations where physical actions associated with the proposed Program would take place. Program activities would occur at Midpen preserves located in the Counties of San Mateo, Santa Clara, and Santa Cruz (described in Section 2.4). This area is largely located within the SFBAAB and under BAAQMD jurisdiction. A small portion of the study area, approximately 3% of the total Program area, is located in the NCCAB under MBARD jurisdiction. The study area for air quality impacts is evaluated at both local and regional scales. Air quality at the local scale involves evaluating the potential for local emissions "hot spots" to result in and adjacent to anticipated Program activity sites from Program -related emissions of pollutants of local concern, including carbon monoxide, particulate matter, and toxic air contaminants. Air quality at the regional scale involves evaluating air pollutants of regional concern such as ozone, ozone precursors, and particulate matter. Open Space Maintenance and Restoration Program September 2021 1 3-19 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 3. Environmental Checklist Attachment 1 San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin CARB has divided California into regional air basins according to topographic air drainage features. The SFBAAB, managed by the BAAQMD, comprises all of Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, Napa, San Francisco, San Mateo, and Santa Clara Counties, as well as portions of Solano and Yolo Counties. Air quality is determined by natural factors such as climate, topography, and meteorology, in addition to the presence of air pollution sources and ambient conditions. The SFBAAB is characterized by complex terrain, consisting of coastal mountain ranges, inland valleys, and bays, all of which distort normal wind flow patterns. The Coast Ranges split, resulting in a western coast gap, the Golden Gate, and an eastern coast gap, Carquinez Strait; these allow air to flow in and out of the SFBAAB and the Central Valley (BAAQMD 2017a). BAAQMD divides the SFBAAB into subregions with distinct climate and topographic features. The proposed Program area is located primarily in the Peninsula Subregion of the SFBAAB, with some preserves occurring also in the Santa Clara Valley Subregion. Peninsula Subregion The Peninsula subregion extends from northwest of San Jose to the Golden Gate. The Santa Cruz Mountains run up the center of the peninsula, with elevations exceeding 2,000 feet at the southern end, decreasing to 500 feet in South San Francisco. Coastal towns experience a high incidence of cool, foggy weather in the summer. Cities in the southeastern Peninsula experience warmer temperatures and fewer foggy days because the marine layer is blocked by the ridgeline to the west. The blocking effect of the Santa Cruz Mountains results in variations in summertime maximum temperatures in different parts of the Peninsula. For example, in coastal areas the mean maximum summer temperatures are in the mid -60's, while in Redwood City the mean maximum summer temperatures are in the low -80's. Mean minimum temperatures during the winter months are in the high -30's to low -40's on the eastern side of the Peninsula and in the low 40's on the coast. On the eastern side of the mountains, winds are generally from the west, although wind patterns in this area are often influenced greatly by local topographic features. Air pollution potential is highest along the southeastern portion of the Peninsula. This is the area most protected from the high winds and fog of the marine layer. Pollutant transport from upwind sites is common. In the southeastern portion of the Peninsula, air pollutant emissions are relatively high due to motor vehicle traffic as well as stationary sources. At the northern end of the Peninsula, pollutant emissions are high, especially from motor vehicle congestion. Localized pollutants, such as carbon monoxide, can build up in "urban canyons." Winds are generally fast enough to carry the pollutants away before they accumulate (BAAQMD 2017a). Santa Clara Valley The Santa Clara Valley is bounded by the Bay to the north and by mountains to the east, south and west. Temperatures are warm on summer days and cool on summer nights, and winter temperatures are fairly mild. At the northern end of the valley, mean maximum temperatures are in the low -80's during the summer and the high -50's during the winter, and mean Open Space Maintenance and Restoration Program September 2021 1 3-20 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration l& Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 3. Environmental Checklist Attachment 1 minimum temperatures range from the high -50's in the summer to the low -40's in the winter. Further inland, where the moderating effect of the Bay is not as strong, temperature extremes are greater. For example, in San Martin, located 27 miles south of the San Jose Airport, temperatures can be more than 10 degrees warmer on summer afternoons and more than 10 degrees cooler on winter nights. Winds in the valley are greatly influenced by the terrain, resulting in a prevailing flow that roughly parallels the valley's northwest -southeast axis. A north -northwesterly sea breeze flows through the valley during the afternoon and early evening, and a light south -southeasterly drainage flow occurs during the late evening and early morning. In the summer, the southern end of the valley sometimes becomes a "convergence zone," when air flowing from the Monterey Bay gets channeled northward into the southern end of the valley and meets with the prevailing north -northwesterly winds. Wind speeds are greatest in the spring and summer and weakest in the fall and winter. Nighttime and early morning hours frequently have calm winds in all seasons, while summer afternoons and evenings are quite breezy. Strong winds are rare, associated mostly with the occasional winter storm. The air pollution potential of the Santa Clara Valley is high. High summer temperatures, stable air and mountains surrounding the valley combine to promote ozone formation. In addition to the many local sources of pollution, ozone precursors from San Francisco, San Mateo and Alameda Counties are carried by prevailing winds to the Santa Clara Valley. The valley tends to channel pollutants to the southeast. In addition, on summer days with low level inversions, ozone can be recirculated by southerly drainage flows in the late evening and early morning and by the prevailing northwest winds in the afternoon. A similar recirculation pattern occurs in the winter, affecting levels of carbon monoxide and particulate matter. This movement of the air up and down the valley increases the impact of the pollutants significantly. Pollution sources are plentiful and complex in this subregion. The Santa Clara Valley has a high concentration of industry at the northern end, in the Silicon Valley. Some of these industries are sources of air toxics as well as criteria air pollutants. In addition, Santa Clara Valley's large population and many work -site destinations generate the highest mobile source emissions of any subregion in the SFBAAB. North Central Coast Air Basin The NCCAB consists of Santa Cruz, San Benito, and Monterey Counties. It covers an area of 5,159 square miles along the coast, and has a population of over 750,000 (CARB 2011). The Santa Cruz Mountains dominate the northwest portion of NCCAB, and the Diablo Range marks the northeastern boundary. The Santa Clara Valley extends into the northeastern tip of the basin. Further south, the Santa Clara Valley becomes the San Benito Valley, which runs northwest -southeast, with the Gabilan Range as its western boundary. To the west of the Gabilan Range is the Salinas Valley, which extends from Salinas at the northwest end to south of King City. In the summer, a high-pressure system over the Pacific Ocean is dominant and causes persistent west and northwest winds over the entire California coast. The onshore wind brings fog and relatively cool air into the coastal valleys. The northwest -southeast orientation of the mountain ridges tends to restrict and channel the summer onshore air. In the fall, the surface winds become weak. The airflow is occasionally reversed in a weak offshore movement and the relatively stationary air mass is held in place. During the winter, Open Space Maintenance and Restoration Program September 2021 1 3-21 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 1 Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 3. Environmental Checklist Attachment 1 the Pacific high-pressure system moves south and has less influence on the NCCAB. Air frequently flows in a southeasterly direction out of the Salinas and San Benito Valleys, especially during night and morning hours. 3.3.3 Discussion a., b. Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan, OR result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non -attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard? Use of vehicles and equipment, such as chainsaws, woodchippers, and excavators, for Program activities would generate emissions of criteria air pollutants. Fuel combustion involved with vehicle and equipment use would release particulate matter (PM) and other contaminants associated with motor vehicle operation, including carbon monoxide and ozone precursors (reactive organic gases [ROG] and NOx). Estimated average daily and maximum annual emissions of criteria air pollutants were modeled using CalEEMod 2016.3.2 and are presented in Tables 3.3-3 and 3.3-4. Emissions estimates present a conservative Program scenario based on a potential heavy year for each maintenance activity (i.e., anticipated maximum annual activities as presented in Table 2-3 of the Project Description); therefore, actual daily and annual emissions would often be lower. Emissions resulting from vegetation management and fuel management activities (e.g., controlled burns, conservation grazing, and herbicide application) were not included in the Program emissions modeling or analysis below. The analysis of impacts associated with vegetation and fuel management activities is covered in Midpen's Wildland Fire Resiliency Program EIR (Panorama 2021) and Integrated Pest Management Program (IPMP) EIR as Addended (Midpen, 2014; Midpen, 2019).1 Further, emissions provided in Table 3.3-3 represent the initial year of Program implementation. Over the duration of the Program, fleet vehicle turnover would gradually result in lower emissions of criteria air pollutants due to stricter emissions requirements for newer engines and adherence to Midpen's Climate Action Plan.2 For additional information on how emissions were estimated refer to Appendix C. 'While the emissions resulting from vegetation and fuel management activities are covered in Midpen's Wildland Fire Resiliency Program EIR and IPMP EIR as Addended, the emissions from vehicle and equipment trips to Program sites for the purpose of completing vegetation or fuel management activities have been included in the CalEEMod model for the proposed Program. z Midpen has adopted a Climate Action Plan to identify goals and strategies to reduce GHG emissions generated by Midpen activities. The Climate Action Plan calls for a 20 percent reduction from the 2016 baseline in 2022 and ultimately an 80 percent reduction by 2050. Strategies are identified to reduce GHG emissions associated with four different sectors, one of which is "vehicle fleet, equipment, and business travel," which would apply to the vehicles and equipment used during implementation of the Program. Open Space Maintenance and Restoration Program September 2021 1 3-22 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Attachment 1 3. Environmental Checklist Table 3.3-3. Daily Emissions Estimates (pounds per day) Source ROG NOx PM10 PM2.5 CO 0.05 Vehicles/Equipment 2.23 19.69 9.23 5.08 21.23 Chainsaws/Brushcutters/Chippers 25.54 0.62 0.15 0.15 63.08 0.00 Total 27.77 20.31 9.38 5.23 84.31 0.05 BAAQMD Thresholds 54 54 82b 54b - - MBARD Threshold 137 137 82 - 550 150 No No No No No No Note: See Table 3.3-2 for BAAQMD and MBARD CEQA Thresholds of Significance for criteria air pollutants. a• BAAQMD's threshold is for average daily emissions while MBARD's threshold is for maximum daily emissions. b. BAAQMD's operational thresholds for particulate matter (PM) apply only to exhaust emissions. c• MBARD's threshold is for volatile organic compound (VOCs). Source: Data compiled by Horizon in 2021 (refer to Appendix C). Table 3.3-4. Maximum Annual Emissions Estimates (tons per year) ourc.s Vehicles/Equipment .OG NOx PM10 (Exhaust) PM2.5 (Exhaust) 0.29 2.56 1.2 0.66 Chainsaws/Brushcutters/Chippers 3.32 0.08 0.02 0.02 Total 3.61 2.64 1.22 0.68 BAAQMD Thresholds 10 10 15 10 Note: See Table 3.3-2 for BAAQMD CEQA Thresholds of Significance for criteria air pollutants. a• MBARD does not have annual emissions thresholds. Source: Data compiled by Horizon in 2021 (refer to Appendix C). Tables 3.3-3 and 3-3.4 show that even under a conservative maximum scenario, Program activities would generate emissions substantially below both daily and annual BAAQMD significance thresholds for all criteria air pollutants. Emissions would also be below MBARD's significance thresholds, though only a small portion of the Program's activities would take place in MBARD's jurisdiction. As part of their Climate Action Plan, Midpen is increasing the use of electric and alternative fuel vehicles and equipment, increasing vehicle fuel economy, and increasing the use of electric transportation options, which will further decrease emissions of criteria air pollutants over time. Midpen also would implement the following BMPs, incorporated as part of the Program, to reduce emissions of criteria pollutants to the greatest extent feasible and ensure the Program meets BAAQMD's fugitive dust requirements. Descriptions of each BMP are provided in Chapter 2, Project Description. Open Space Maintenance and Restoration Program September 2021 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 3. Environmental Checklist Attachment 1 • BMP GEN-2 Minimize Area of Disturbance and Site Maintenance • BMP GEN-3 Construction Entrances and Perimeter • BMP GEN-15 Dust Management Controls • BMP GEN-16 Site Stabilization Implementation of the BMPs listed above would minimize the potential for fugitive dust by minimizing ground disturbance and the amount of earthwork, stabilizing active work sites along with construction entrances and exits to prevent track out, implementing BAQQMD basic dust control measures, and covering or restoring bare soil surfaces as quickly as possible. Due to the temporary nature of the Program activities and with the implementation of the above listed BMPs, the proposed Program would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan, or result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the region is non -attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard. This impact would be less than significant. No mitigation is required. c. Would the project expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? Sensitive receptors are those segments of the population most susceptible to poor air quality: children, the elderly, and individuals with pre-existing serious health problems affected by air quality (e.g., asthma) (CARB 2005). Examples of locations that contain sensitive receptors are residences, schools and school yards, parks and playgrounds, daycare centers, nursing homes, and medical facilities. Residences include houses, apartments, and senior living complexes. Medical facilities can include hospitals, convalescent homes, and health clinics. Playgrounds include play areas associated with parks or community centers. Program activities would occur in Midpen preserves; mostly along creeks, roads, trails, and culverts not in close proximity to sensitive receptors, except for activities conducted in some locations in Pulgas Ridge and Rancho San Antonio OSPs. Given the scale of the proposed Program covering thousands of acres over multiple OSPs, unknown locations of future preserves, and the anticipated limited duration of Program activities at any given site, individual sensitive receptors have not been identified. However, it is assumed that receptors in the vicinity of Program activities could include any of the receptor types mentioned previously, in particular single-family residences in rural, suburban, and urban settings. Operation of maintenance vehicles and equipment would generate diesel particulate matter (DPM), which CARB has identified as a toxic air contaminant (TAC). In the Program area, some small areas in and around the Mt. Umunhum Trail in the Sierra Azul Preserve contain ultramafic rock outcrops that may contain naturally occurring asbestos (NOA) (Jennings et al. 1977). NOA was identified as a TAC in 1986 by CARB. Open Space Maintenance and Restoration Program September 2021 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 3. Environmental Checklist Attachment 1 Sensitive receptors could be exposed to DPM and/or NOA during Program activity implementation; however, most of the Program -related work would take place in fairly remote locations inside large preserves, decreasing the likelihood and potential magnitude of sensitive receptor exposure. As discussed above, the Program would not generate emissions of criteria air pollutants in excess of BAAQMD significance thresholds, and any work near individual sensitive receptors would be both infrequent and temporary. Therefore, potential impacts from DPM would be less than significant. Midpen also would comply with CARB's Asbestos ATCM (Airborne Toxic Control Measure) for Construction, Grading, Quarrying, and Surface Mining Operations, which specifies construction and grading practices to be implemented when working in or adjacent to areas supporting NOA, including submittal of an Asbestos Dust Mitigation Plan for BAAQMD approval when disturbance exceeds one acre. ATCM measures include keeping vehicle speeds at or below 15 mph or less, applying water for dust control prior to and during ground disturbance, keeping storage piles wet or covered, and preventing track -out. Midpen also would implement the following BMPs, incorporated as part of the Program, to further decrease the risk of NOA exposure for sensitive receptors to the greatest extent feasible. Descriptions of each BMP are provided in Chapter 2, Project Description. • BMP GEN-2 Minimize Area of Disturbance and Site Maintenance • BMP GEN-3 Construction Entrances and Perimeter • BMP GEN-15 Dust Management Controls • BMP GEN-16 Site Stabilization Implementation of the BMPs listed above would minimize the potential for fugitive dust in NOA areas by minimizing ground disturbance and the amount of earthwork, stabilizing active work sites along with construction entrances and exits to prevent track out, implementing BAAQMD basic dust control measures, and covering or restoring bare soil surfaces as quickly as possible. Due to the temporary nature of the Program activities, Program emissions of criteria air pollutants being below significance thresholds based on a modeled conservative implementation scenario, and with the implementation of the above listed BMPs, the proposed Program would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. This impact would be less than significant. No mitigation is required. d. Would the project result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people? Sediment removal and diesel used for maintenance equipment have potential to generate localized objectionable odors. Excavated sediment from ponds or stream channels may contain high levels of organic material or reduced sulfur, which upon excavation and/or decomposition, could generate odors. On average Midpen expects to conduct up to 28 sediment and debris removal projects and three (3) pond maintenance projects annually. Open Space Maintenance and Restoration Program September 2021 1 3-25 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 21 Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 3. Environmental Checklist Attachment 1 The BAAQMD indicates that odor impacts could result from siting a new odor source near existing sensitive receptors. As the proposed Program's sediment removal and pond maintenance activities would be small and infrequent, the number of people exposed to odor from any sediment removal event would be small and the duration of exposure would be temporary and short. Therefore, the proposed Program is not considered to have the potential to generate substantial annoyances from odors to sensitive receptors. This impact would be less than significant. No mitigation is required. Open Space Maintenance and Restoration Program September 2021 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 3. Environmental Checklist Attachment 1 3.4 Biological Resources Less than Significant Potentially with Less -than - Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact Would the Project: a. Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special -status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? b. Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or .S. Fish and Wildlife Service? c. Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, and coastal wetland, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? d. Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? e. Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? f. Conflict with the provisions of an adopted habitat conservation plan (HCP); natural community conservation plan (NCCP); or other approved local, regional, or state HCP? ❑ ❑ ❑X ❑X ❑X Open Space Maintenance and Restoration Program September 2021 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 1 Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 3. Environmental Checklist Attachment 1 3.4.2 Setting Definitions Special -Status Plant Species For the purposes of this analysis, special -status plant species include the following: ■ Listed under the Federal Endangered Species Act (FESA) as threatened, endangered, proposed threatened, proposed endangered, or a candidate species ■ Listed under the California Endangered Species Act (CESA) as threatened, endangered, rare, or a candidate species ■ Listed by the California Native Plant Society (CNPS) as California Rare Plant Rank (CRPR) 1A, 1B, 2A, 2B, 3, or 4 ■ Considered sensitive or locally rare by qualified botanists, and/or tracked and given special consideration by Midpen. Examples include (but are not limited to) Nature Serve ranked species and International Union for Conservation of Nature listed species. The CNPS, a non -governmental conservation organization, has developed CRPRs for plant species of concern in California in the CNPS Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants. The CRPRs include lichens, vascular, and non -vascular plants, and are defined as follows: ■ CRPR 1A Plants considered extinct. ■ CRPR 1B Plants rare, threatened, or endangered in California and elsewhere. ■ CRPR 2A Plants considered extinct in California but more common elsewhere. ■ CRPR 2B Plants rare, threatened, or endangered in California but more common elsewhere. ■ CRPR 3 Plants about which more information is needed - review list. ■ CRPR 4 Plants of limited distribution -watch list. The CRPRs are further described by the following threat code extensions: ■ .1 —seriously endangered in California; ■ .2 —fairly endangered in California; .3 —not very endangered in California. Sensitive Natural Communities Sensitive natural communities are communities that are of limited distribution statewide or within a county or region and are often vulnerable to environmental effects of projects. These communities may or may not contain special -status plants or their habitat. California Open Space Maintenance and Restoration Program September 2021 1 3-28 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Midpeninsula Regional ill Attachment 1 Open Space District 3. Environmental Checklist Department of Fish and Wildlife's (CDFW's) California Natural Community List (CDFW 2020a) is based on the best available information, and indicates which natural communities are considered sensitive at the current stage of the California vegetation classification effort. Natural communities with ranks of S1, S2, and S3 are considered sensitive natural communities and therefore addressed under California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). A Manual of California Vegetation (Sawyer et al. 2009) defines the currently recognized method of vegetation classification and mapping in California, which is accepted by CNPS and CDFW, and is utilized to determine the rarity and endangerment of these vegetation types that can result in sensitive natural community designation. Midpen has also identified vegetation types within their lands as Biologically Highly Significant (BHS), which are considered sensitive natural communities herein. Natural communities designated as BHS within Midpen lands are globally rare, or restricted just to the San Francisco Bay Area or the Santa Cruz Mountains. Other communities, such as wetlands, riparian communities, and grasslands, though once more widespread, have been made rare because of widespread habitat conversion for urban and agricultural uses. Some communities designated as BHS by Midpen are ruderal or dominated by non-native or invasive species and have received a BHS designation due to the presence of sensitive native resources (botanical, wildlife, edaphic [from soils], occur in wetlands, or otherwise) within those communities. The sources of BHS designations are from Midpen's Conservation Atlas (Midpen 2014) and their vegetation classification Geographic Information System (GIS) dataset (Midpen 2018). The Program area contains vegetation communities, wetlands, and other landscape features (e.g., rock outcrops) that are: (1) classified as sensitive natural communities in California; (2) considered "biologically highly significant" by Midpen; or (3) both. Most of the riparian vegetation communities, wetlands, and other aquatic features in the Program area are protected under the federal Clean Water Act, the state's Porter -Cologne Water Quality Control Act (Porter -Cologne Act), the California Coastal Act, Section 1602 of California Fish and Game Code, or a combination of these regulations. These vegetation communities, wetlands, and landscape features are generally referred to as "sensitive communities" or "sensitive natural communities" in this section. Special -Status Wildlife Species For the purposes of this analysis, special -status wildlife species include the following: • Animal species listed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) or CDFW as Threatened or Endangered; proposed for listing as Threatened or Endangered; or as a candidate for listing as Threatened or Endangered. • Animal species considered as "Endangered, Rare or Threatened" as defined by Section 15380 of the CEQA Guidelines. Section 15380(b) states that a species of animal or plant is "Endangered" when its survival and reproduction in the wild are in immediate jeopardy from one or more causes, including loss of habitat, change in habitat, overexploitation, predation, competition, disease, or other factors. A species is "rare" when either "(A) although not presently threatened with extinction, the species is Open Space Maintenance and Restoration Program September 2021 1 3-29 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 3. Environmental Checklist Attachment 1 existing in such small numbers throughout all or a significant portion of its range that it may become Endangered if its environment worsens; or (B) the species is likely to become Endangered within the foreseeable future throughout all or a portion of its range and may be considered 'Threatened' as that term is used in the ESA [Endangered Species Act]." ■ Animal species designated as "Species of Special Concern" or "Fully Protected" by the CDFW. Although these species have no legal status under CESA, CDFW recommends their protection as their populations are generally declining and they could be listed as Threatened or Endangered (under CESA) in the future. "Fully Protected" species generally may not be taken or possessed at any time. ■ Birds designated by the USFWS as "Birds of Conservation Concern." Although these species have no legal status under FESA, USFWS recommends their protection as their populations are generally declining, and they could be listed as Threatened or Endangered (under FESA) in the future. In addition, Midpen maintains its own lists of sensitive plant and animal species, which include a number of species that do not necessarily meet the "special -status" definitions above. These additional species include, but are not limited to, species classified or listed under designations such as USFWS Birds of Management Concern or CDFW Watchlist species. These additional sensitive species also include species such as the Santa Cruz kangaroo rat, which is very scarce and local and is being considered by CDFW for addition to its list of mammal species of special concern. Midpen takes those species into consideration during planning and implementation of Program activities and may analyze impacts to these additional species under CEQA even if not strictly required or done by common practice. Therefore, Midpen may consider impacts of Program activities to selected sensitive plants and animals in addition to those listed in Tables 3.4-3 and 3.4-4. Critical Habitat Critical habitat is a term defined and used in FESA. It is a specific geographic area(s) that contains features essential for the conservation of a species listed by the USFWS as Threatened or Endangered and that may require special management and protection. Critical habitat may include an area that is not currently occupied by the species but that will be needed for its recovery. An area is designated as "critical habitat" after USFWS publishes a proposed federal regulation in the Federal Register and then they receive and consider public comments on the proposal. The final boundaries of the critical habitat area are also published in the Federal Register. Federal agencies are required to consult on actions they carry out, fund, or authorize to ensure that their actions will not destroy or adversely modify critical habitat. A critical habitat designation generally has no effect on situations or projects that do not involve a federal agency (USFWS 2020). Open Space Maintenance and Restoration Program September 2021 1 3-30 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 2SMidpeninsula Regional Open Space District 3. Environmental Checklist Existing Environment Regional Ecological Setting Overview Attachment 1 Midpen lands encompass portions of three counties: San Mateo, Santa Clara, and Santa Cruz counties. These lands, comprised of separate OSPs, are primarily managed to preserve a regional greenbelt of open space land. Midpen lands protect a variety of habitats rich in both numbers and variety of plants and animals. OSPs support tidal salt marshes in the east along the San Francisco Bay shoreline, home to the endangered Ridgway's rail (Rallus obsoletus) and salt marsh harvest mouse (Reithrodontomys raviventris) as well as used by thousands of migratory birds. The heart of Midpen lands is at higher elevations in the Santa Cruz Mountains. These lands are covered in a diverse mix of oak woodland, grassland, chaparral, coastal scrub, and both evergreen and coniferous forests that form an impressive scenic backdrop for the densely populated San Francisco Bay Area and Central California Coast. Creeks and streams that run through Midpen lands provide refuge area for endangered coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) and threatened steelhead trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss irideus). The waterways also provide important habitat and movement corridors for upland wildlife, and have been identified as part of the Conservation Lands Network's Bay Area Critical Linkages (Penrod et al. 2013), connecting wildlife habitat in the Santa Cruz Mountains east to the Diablo Range and south to the Gabilan Mountains. Ecological subregions (ecoregions) provide a relevant context for biological resources. Midpen lands are located within the Santa Cruz Mountains and Leeward Hills subsections of the Central California Coast Section (Griffith et al. 2016). Two OSPs are in the Bay Flats ecoregion. Each of these subsection ecoregions are further described below (Griffith et al. 2016). Santa Cruz Mountains The Santa Cruz Mountains subsection is located between the Pacific Ocean and San Andreas Fault. The majority of Midpen lands are located within this subsection, with the exception of Sierra Azul OSP, Ravenswood OSP, and Steven's Creek Shoreline Nature Area (Griffith et al. 2016). The climate is temperate to hot in this subsection, but generally very mild, due to prevalent marine effects. Mean annual precipitation is about 20 to 60 inches, practically all of which is precipitated via rain although some snow can occur at higher elevations. Summer fog is common. Water runoff is rapid and streams on the northeast side of the mountains are usually dry during summer, while those on the seaward side are generally perennial. Natural lakes, or sag ponds, occur in the San Andreas fault zone. The mountains in this subsection are northwest trending with rounded edges, steep sides, and narrow canyons. The crest of this range is near the northeast edge of the range, parallel to the San Andreas Fault on the northeast side of the mountains. Many of the streams present flow in a southwest direction. There are some dissected marine terraces along the coast, and narrow floodplains and terraces have some recent alluvium. The elevation range for this subsection is from sea -level to approximately 2,000 feet, with a high point of 3,231 feet on Castle Rock Ridge. Open Space Maintenance and Restoration Program September 2021 1 3-31 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration g lMidpeninsula Regional Open Space District 3. Environmental Checklist Leeward Hills Attachment 1 The Leeward Hills subsection is located on the interior, or northeast, side of the Santa Cruz Mountains between the San Andreas fault and the alluvial plain in the Santa Clara Valley at the south end of San Francisco Bay. Of all Midpen lands, only Sierra Azul OSP lies within this subsection. The Leeward Hill subsection is much drier than the seaward side of the mountains. The climate is hot and sub -humid, with moderate marine influence. Mean annual precipitation is about 15 to 30 inches, precipitated primarily as rain, except for some snow on at higher elevations. Runoff is rapid and the streams are generally dry during the summer. There are no natural lakes, but numerous reservoirs. The mountains in this subsection are northwest trending with rounded edges, steep sides, and narrow canyons. The crest of this range is near the northeast edge of the range, parallel to the San Andreas Fault on the northeast side of the mountains. Most of the streams on the leeward side that drain toward the northeast are relatively short. The San Andreas fault is near the southwest edge of the subsection, but generally lies in the adjacent Santa Cruz Mountains subsection to the west. Elevations range from about 200 feet up to 3,790 feet on Loma Prieta Peak. Bay Flats The Bay Flats ecoregion includes the near -water flats around San Pablo Bay in the north and those at the southern end of San Francisco Bay. Elevations are sea level to about 10 feet on Quaternary bay fill of silt and clay. High tides inundate most of the area. Soil temperature regimes are isomesic and soil moisture regimes are aquic. Common vegetation includes pickleweed and saltgrass. The southern part of the ecoregion is somewhat warmer and drier than the northern part and has less summer fog. The southern part receives 14 to 16 inches of annual precipitation, whereas the northern part receives 20 to 28 inches. Several salt evaporation ponds are found in the southern Bay Flats, where saltwater is impounded within levees in the former tidelands. As the water evaporates, microorganisms of several kinds change the color of the water. Restoration efforts are underway to return some salt ponds to a mix of tidal marsh, mudflat, and other wetland habitats. Ravenswood OSP and Steven's Creek Shoreline Nature Area are within Bay Flats. Biological Setting of Midpen Lands Overview Midpen lands generally flank the crest of the Santa Cruz Mountains from the cities of Half Moon Bay and San Carlos in the north to Loma Prieta Peak in the south and range from nearly sea level to 3,790 feet. From Miramontes Ridge OSP to the southern end of Castle Rock Ridge, near Bear Creek Redwoods OSP, the Santa Cruz Mountains crest runs parallel, and west, of the San Andreas Rift Zone. Only Sierra Azul OSP is included in the southern Santa Cruz Mountains. Many other notable peaks within the Santa Cruz Mountains fall within Midpen lands in addition to Loma Prieta Peak, such as Kings Mountain (2,315 feet), Black Mountain (2,810 feet), Saratoga Summit (580 feet), and Mount Umunhum (3,442 feet). Midpen lands on the west side of the Santa Cruz Mountain crest, especially those at lower elevations, have a stronger coastal influence especially in terms of higher precipitation and fog cover; Open Space Maintenance and Restoration Program September 2021 1 3-32 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 2SMidpeninsula Regional Open Space District 3. Environmental Checklist Attachment 1 including Miramontes Ridge, Purisima Creek Redwoods, Tunitas Creek, El Corte de Madera Creek, and La Honda Creek OSPs. Midpen lands on the east (leeward) side of the crest are less directly influenced by the coast and experience lower precipitation totals and fewer days of fog, except the OSPs located in passes, including Teague Hill, Rancho San Antonio, Picchetti Ranch, and Sierra Azul OSPs. Water Resources Midpen lands contain a variety of water resources that include freshwater, estuarine/brackish, and marine habitats. Water features on and immediately downstream of Midpen lands include year-round streams, ephemeral and perennial creeks, lakes, reservoirs, ponds, and wetlands. Salt marshes occur along the edge of San Francisco Bay. Within Midpen lands, seven major watersheds empty into either the Pacific Ocean (west of Santa Cruz Mountains crest) or San Francisco Bay (east of Santa Cruz Mountains crest). Hydrology in these watersheds is influenced by precipitation, surface water runoff, geologic stratigraphy, topography, soil permeability, and plant cover. Drainages range from ephemeral and intermittent to perennial streams. Additional information on waters and hydrology is provided in Section 3.10, "Hydrology and Water Quality." Significant and Influential Underlying Substrates Overview Certain geologic substrates found in the area have a significant effect on the plant species associations they support. Within Midpen lands, two primary bedrock types, serpentinite and Butano Sandstone, affect the constituent vegetation associates. These two bedrock types and derived soils support many of the endemic rare plants known to this region. Refer to Section 3.7, "Geology, Soils, and Seismicity" for more information on the bedrock types underlying Midpen lands. Serpentine Serpentine and other ultramafic rocks are the parent material for soils high in magnesium, iron, silicates, and nickel and low in calcium. These chemical and mineral properties create a toxic environment that most plant species are unable to tolerate. Evolutionary and distributional responses to these conditions have resulted in plant species that are endemic to serpentine, are locally or regionally confined to serpentine, are indifferent and occur both on and off serpentine, or are plant species that do not occur on serpentine (Kruckeberg 1984). Primary serpentinite bedrock is mostly found on the east side of the San Andreas Rift Zone in this region, with few exceptions. The OSPs that contain serpentine habitat include El Sereno, Long Ridge, Monte Bello, Rancho San Antonio, Saratoga Gap, Sierra Azul, Skyline Ridge, and St. Joseph's Hill. Of these OSPs, Sierra Azul, Monte Bello, and El Sereno contain the largest amount of serpentine habitat (Brabb et al. 2000; Wentworth et al. 1999). Butano Sandstone Butano sandstone is Eocene aged deposits forming sandstone, mudstone, and shale (Brabb et al. 2000). This sandstone is unique to the area due to its physical and chemical composition Open Space Maintenance and Restoration Program September 2021 1 3-33 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 2SMidpeninsula Regional Open Space District 3. Environmental Checklist Attachment 1 and is correlated to a local endemic manzanita species. Within Midpen lands this bedrock mainly occurs within Purisima Creek, El Corte de Madera Creek, and La Honda OSPs. Natural Communities and Habitats The Program area consists of approximately 64,000 acres of open space in the Counties of San Mateo, Santa Clara, and Santa Cruz (Figure 2-1) located in 26 open space preserves and a number of easements and/or areas of management agreement. However, the Ravenswood OSP and Stevens Creek Nature Study Area, as well as similar areas along the edge of San Francisco Bay and along the immediate Pacific Ocean shoreline (e.g., west of Highway 1) are not included in the Program area at this time. Biological resources unique to those areas are therefore not discussed further in this chapter. Otherwise, this chapter provides a regional and programmatic characterization of the Program area. Project -level analysis of biological resources present in the areas of specific Program activities cannot be conducted at this time because the Program Manual is designed for future covered activities that may occur in the Program area, rather than discrete Program sites. Vegetation communities and habitats within the Program area are shaped by the ecological forces at work in the region. Precipitation, topography, soil, climate, the frequency of natural disturbance, and human management (including fire suppression) are all factors that affect the type and pattern of vegetation communities present. The topography encompassing the Midpen boundary and Sphere of Influence is extremely varied, with elevations ranging from sea level to 3,476 feet above mean sea level atop Mt. Umunhum in Sierra Azul OSP. Overall, the Program area is characterized by dry, mild summers and moist, cool winters. Local temperatures are strongly influenced by the San Francisco Bay to the east, the Pacific Ocean to the west, and the Santa Cruz Mountains, which results in a variety of microclimates. The west side of the Santa Cruz Mountains experiences a marine climate, characterized by cool, foggy summers and relatively wet winters while the Bay side of the mountains is generally warmer and sunnier. Vegetation communities within the Program area were mapped using GIS vegetation data provided by Midpen, which is derived from Classification and Assessment with Landsat of Visible Ecological Groupings (CALVEG) data provided by the U.S. Forest Service (U.S. Department of Agriculture [USDA] U.S. Forest Service [USFS] 2004), and then further refined by vegetation mapping carried out by Midpen staff for individual projects. Figure 3.4-1 shows the general vegetation mapping, as provided by Midpen. Nomenclature of general vegetation types was provided by Midpen and is based on, but not identical to, that of the CALVEG classification system. In general, this mapping has a minimum mapping unit of 2.5 acres and captures general habitat conditions at a map scale unit larger than what would be appropriate for individual project -level analysis, because habitat features smaller than 2.5 acres are not included. Field surveys would be necessary to accurately delineate habitats at a specific Program activity site. Midpen is currently in the midst of a collaborative project led by the Golden Gate National Parks Conservancy (GGNPC) and including other regional open space partners, to produce a fine -scale (minimum mapping unit of 0.1 to 0.5 acre) vegetation map for San Mateo County. When those spatial data are available, they will be used in the annual assessment of Program activity impacts. Open Space Maintenance and Restoration Program September 2021 1 3-34 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Attachment 1 Legend Midpen Boundary ! ; Sphere of Influence Streams Vegetation Communities Chaparral Coastal Scrub Coastal Strand Conifer Forest Grassland Hardwood Forest Oak Savanna Riparian Communities Serpentine Communities Wetland Water Non-Native/Ornamental Woodland Cropland Barren/Rock Urb a n N 4 A 2 0 4 Miles Hal Moon Bay Pacific O c ea n San Francisco Ba y h d Eden Landing Ecological Reserve Coyote Hills/ Regional/ Park ALANIEDA Vargas Patesu Fremont �� s r e G 4r - - /'� ' - I/" `� iY}` ° ':.. J� ,♦• r(!f I•tl`�a 3 .1 Monterey Bay Gams C Eitg Bassin Sri le Park Castle Rock .State Park Henry Redwoods' ' od Mission Peak Regional Park '' Ed Levin County Park 5o4uel quiet Demonstration State Fprest Sunol Regional Wilderness Almaden Quicksilver County Park Calero Reservoir Cotinty Park Del Valle Regional Park seph D. n'1 County pr'O� 0 Moc SANTA CLARA Anderson Lake County Parl. F•:1 r 1.- , I-1111 H. T. HARVEY & ASSOCIATES Ecological Consultants Figure 3.4-1: Vegetation Communities Map Mid peninsula Regional Open Space District Routine Maintenance and Facilities Improvements Program November2019 Attachment 1 Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 3. Environmental Checklist Page intentionally left blank Open Space Maintenance and Restoration Program September 2021 1 3-36 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Midpeninsula Regional Attachment 1 Open Space District 3. Environmental Checklist Vegetation data provided by Midpen include 15 general vegetation communities or land use types within the Midpen boundary and Sphere of Influence (see Figure 3.4-1): chaparral, coastal scrub, coastal strand, conifer forest, grassland, hardwood forest, oak savanna, riparian communities, serpentine communities (described below as a subset of "grassland"), wetland, water (described below as "aquatic"), non-native/ornamental woodland, cropland, barren, and urban. The general distribution and dominant plant and animal species composition of each habitat/land use type is described below. Descriptions of the plant and animal species typically occurring in each community focus primarily on common (i.e., non -special -status) species. The potential occurrence of special -status species in the Program area is described in detail under the heading Special -Status Species. Vegetation descriptions below are based on the following resources: Holland's system of classification (Holland 1986), the California Manual of Vegetation (Sawyer et al. 2009), and the California Wildlife Habitat Relationship System (CWHR) (Meyer and Laudenslayer 1988). While shown on Figure 3.4-1 and present within the larger Midpen boundary and Sphere of Influence, coastal strand, cropland, and barren areas occur in minimal quantities within the Program area on which this biological resources evaluation focuses. Therefore, these communities or land use types are not discussed further below. Chaparral Chaparral is a shrub -dominated vegetation, with few to no trees, composed primarily of drought tolerant species. The vegetation structure and species composition of chaparral varies throughout the Program area, and therefore different chaparral types are largely a function of elevation, distance from the coast, slope, and aspect. In the Program area, chaparral vegetation has been mapped variously in the preserves as mixed chaparral, mesic chaparral, chamise chaparral, manzanita chaparral, ceanothus chaparral, leather oak chaparral, and black sage chaparral. Annual grasses and forbs, perennials, and/or short-lived shrubs can occur in young stands of chaparral, but are often crowded and shaded out by larger shrubs such as chamise (Adenostoma fasciculatum) as the vegetation matures. The short-lived shrubs that occur early on include species of buckwheat (Eriogonum spp.), deerweed (Acmispon glaber), and various species of ceanothus (Ceanothus spp.). In the Program area, chaparral occurs on slopes and ridges with thin soils and may occur on serpentine sites (see discussion of serpentine communities below). Chaparral communities are typically dry and provide relatively low and homogeneous structure. However, a variety of animal species do occur. Mammals that use chaparral and coastal scrub habitats for cover include the coyote (Canis latrans), mountain lion (Puma concolor), black -tailed deer (Odocoileus hemionus columbianus), bobcat (Lynx rufus), and brush rabbit (Sylvilagus bachmani), among others. Nests of San Francisco dusky -footed woodrats (Neotoma fuscipes annectens) are often present in abundance in chaparral. The Santa Cruz kangaroo rat (Dipodomys venustus venustus) occurs in limited areas where silverleaf manzanita chaparral is present on sandy soils of the Franciscan sandstone formation. Such specialized habitat occurs in the Program area only in Sierra Azul OSP, where this kangaroo rat is known to be present, and at Pulgas Ridge OSP, where the species occurred historically but is no longer present. Bats such as the pallid bat (Antrozous pallidus) and canyon bat (Parastrellus hesperus) forage over these arid scrublands. Bird species that nest Open Space Maintenance and Restoration Program September 2021 1 3-37 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Midpeninsula Regional Attachment 1 Open Space District 3. Environmental Checklist in these habitats include the California scrub -jay (Aphelocoma californica), blue -gray gnatcatcher (Polioptila caerulea), Bewick's wren (Thryomanes bewickii), California thrasher (Toxostoma redivivum), California towhee (Melozone crissalis), spotted towhee (Pipilo maculatus), California quail (Callipepla californica), wrentit (Chamaea fasciata), and both Allen's (Selasphorus sasin) and Anna's hummingbirds (Calypte anna). Reptiles that occur here include the gopher snake (Pituophis catenifer), western rattlesnake (Crotalus viridis), southern alligator lizard (Elgaria multicarinata), and western fence lizard (Sceloporus occidentalis). Amphibians may be scarce due to the dry conditions, but during the wet season, amphibians such as California newt (Taricha torosa) disperse through chaparral. Coastal Scrub Coastal scrub is a shrub -dominated vegetation, typically composed of low growing to moderate sized shrubs that occur closer to the coast in the Program area. Although precipitation is often limited, this community rarely experiences drought stress typical of inland habitats with similar levels of rainfall because of the high humidity and moderate temperatures typical of the coastal environment in which it is found. Coastal scrub differs from chaparral vegetation in that many of the shrubs have softer leaves with flexible branches. Shrub structure within the community can differ, and often depends on the degree of coastal influence. Along the coast, shrubs may be prostrate while further inland they may be several feet tall. The habitat supports a shrub overstory and an herbaceous, grassy understory. Common shrub species in coastal scrub include coyote brush (Baccharis pilularis), blue blossom ceanothus (Ceanothus thyrsiflorus), California sagebrush (Artemisia californica), California blackberry (Rubus ursinus), poison oak (Toxicodendron diversilobum), and wooly sunflower (Eriophyllum lanatum). In the herb understory, bracken fern (Pteridium aquilinum) and sword fern (Polystichum munitum) are dominant and other associates include cowparsnip (Heracleum maximum), Indian paintbrush (Castilleja spp.), yerba buena (Clinopodium douglasii), and California oatgrass (Danthonia calrfornica). Wildlife species found in coastal scrub communities are very similar those found in chaparral communities and provide habitat for a diverse assemblage of bird species. Conifer Forest In the Program area, conifer forest communities are represented by redwood forest, montane hardwood -conifer, and mixed Douglas -fir forests, which are differentiated by the dominance of one or another conifer species. Forested communities in the Program area are structurally similar and support dense stands of mature trees that form overlapping canopies. These conifer forest types are differentiated by the relative dominance of different tree species, which is largely controlled by moisture gradients and soil characteristics. Conifer forests dominate much of the Program area, particularly at higher elevations in, and along the less developed western slope of, the Santa Cruz Mountains. Redwood forest is a composite habitat name for a variety of conifer species that grow in the coastal influence zone, but which tend to be dominated in the tallest overstory by coast redwood (Sequoia sempervirens). The majority of redwood forests are second growth (i.e., they were previously logged). Old growth redwood forest stands occur but are scarce in the Program area. Redwood forests are largely restricted to areas of coastal influence with Open Space Maintenance and Restoration Program September 2021 1 3-38 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Midpeninsula Regional Attachment 1 Open Space District 3. Environmental Checklist relatively stable temperatures and summer coastal fog. Montane hardwood -conifer is a habitat type that contains both hardwoods and conifers in a closed canopy forest setting. Characteristically, this habitat contains a mixture of small stands, either pure conifer stands or small pure broadleaf tree stands. Common trees are redwood, Douglas -fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii), tanoak (Notholithocarpus densiflorus), Pacific madrone (Arbutus menziesii), coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia), big leaf maple (Acer macrophyllum), California bay (Umbellularia californica), and incense cedar (Calocedrus decurrens). Douglas -fir forests are typically more strongly dominated by Douglas -fir and tend to grow more inland and at higher elevations within the Program area. Wildlife species that occur in conifer forest communities of the Program area are generally similar among the various conifer forest types. In the Program area, conifer forests provide foraging and nesting habitat for many bird species, including the Pacific wren (Troglodytes pacificus), chestnut -backed chickadee (Poecile rufuscens), Pacific -slope flycatcher (Empidonax difficilis), Steller's jay (Cyanocitta stelleri), acorn woodpecker (Melanerpes formicivorus), brown creeper (Certhia americana), band -tailed pigeon (Patagioenas fasciata), and hermit warbler (Setophaga occidentalis). Marbled murrelets (Brachyramphus marmoratus) nest in forests of mature, especially old -growth, redwood and Douglas -fir. Winter residents of these forests include Townsend's warbler (Setophaga townsendi) and varied thrush (Ixoreus naevius). Mammals using conifer forests in the Program area include bobcat, mountain lion, black -tailed deer, and western gray squirrel (Sciurusgriseus). Hollow trees and logs provide denning sites and nesting sites for many species including the coyote and raccoon (Procyon lotor), while cavities in mature trees are used by cavity -dwelling species such as the acorn woodpecker, pileated woodpecker (Dryocopus pileatus), northern saw -whet owl (Aegolius acadicus), and western screech -owl (Megascops kennicottii), as well as bats such as the Yuma myotis (Myotis yumanensis) and Townsend's big -eared bat (Corynorhinus townsendii). Common amphibians and reptiles found in coniferous forests include the California newt, California slender salamander (Batrachoseps attenuatus), western fence lizard, southern alligator lizard and California giant salamander (Dicamptodon ensatus). Grassland Grassland communities are dominated by grasses and may also contain a diverse set of forbs. These communities provide many important environmental functions for soil stabilization, increasing water infiltrations, and nutrient cycling. In addition, grasslands serve as habitat for many special -status species. In the Program area, both annual and perennial grasslands occur. Annual grasslands are defined as those typically dominated by non-native grasses, whereas perennial grasslands are those in which a significant component of vegetative cover consists of native perennial bunchgrasses. Some of the perennial grassland habitat types in the Program area occur within areas mapped as "serpentine communities" shown on Figure 3.4-1. Open Space Maintenance and Restoration Program September 2021 1 3-39 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Midpeninsula Regional Attachment 1 Open Space District 3. Environmental Checklist Annual Grassland Annual grassland habitat occurs on flat plains and rolling hills, and is an open community composed mainly of annual plant species. Grasses begin to grow during the cool late fall and early winter months and by summer much of the biomass, although standing, is dead. Introduced annual grasses are dominant and include wild oats (Avena spp.) and non-native brome species (Bromus spp.). The forb community includes many non-native species such as filarees (Erodium spp.), mustards (Brassica spp. and Hirschfeldia spp.), and thistles such yellow star -thistle (Centaurea solstitialis) and Italian thistle (Carduus pycnocephalus). Native species can be a significant component of the composition, including native grass species such as bromes (Bromus spp.) and needlegrasses (Stipa spp.), and native forbs such as yarrow (Achillea millefolium), common fiddleneck (Amsinckia intermedia), clarkias (Clarkia spp.), blue-eyed grass (Sisyrinchium bellum), soap plant (Chlorogalum pomeridianum), and California poppy (Eschscholzia californica). Annual grasslands are found throughout the Program area, primarily in lower and middle elevations. In the more highly urbanized portions of the Program area, especially east of the Santa Cruz Mountain ridges, wildlife use of grasslands is limited by human disturbance, extent of the habitat in a specific area, abundance of non-native and invasive species, and isolation of grassland habitat remnants from more extensive grasslands. In more rural areas, large expanses of grassy open areas provide higher -quality habitat for these grassland -associated wildlife species. California ground squirrels (Spermophilus beecheyi), where they are present, are an important component of grassland communities, providing a prey base for diurnal raptors and terrestrial predators throughout the Program area. The burrows of California ground squirrels also provide refugia for wildlife species including fence lizards, garter (Thamnophis spp.) and gopher snakes, and wintering and migrant burrowing owls (Athene cunicularia). Other rodent species present in grassland habitats include the California vole (Microtus californicus), Botta's pocket gopher (Thomomys bottae), and deer mouse (Peromyscus maniculatus). Diurnal raptors such as red-tailed hawks (Buteojamaicensis), northern harriers (Circus hudsonius), white-tailed kites (Elanus leucurus), and American kestrels (Falco sparverius) forage for small mammals over grasslands during the day, and at night nocturnal raptors, such as barn owls (Tyto alba) and great horned owls (Bubo virginianus), forage for nocturnal rodents such as deer mice. Some bird species, such as western meadowlarks (Sturnella neglecta) and grasshopper sparrows (Ammodramus savannarum), breed and forage in the Program area solely in grasslands. Mammals such as the coyote, American badger (Taxidea taxus), black -tailed jackrabbit (Lepus californicus), and striped skunk (Mephitis mephitis) utilize grassland habitats in the Program area for foraging. Open grassland habitat with bare ground is important foraging habitat for the pallid bat and Mexican free -tailed bat (Tadarida brasiliensis). Amphibians occur in extensive grasslands in low numbers due to the relative lack of cover and the generally dry and hot microclimate; however, more mobile amphibians such as California red -legged frog (Rana draytonii) can traverse grasslands during the wet season. Reptiles present include western fence lizard, southern alligator lizard, western skink (Eumeces skiltonianus), western terrestrial garter snake (Thamnophis elegans), gopher snake, western rattlesnake, California kingsnake, and in some local areas, San Francisco garter snakes (Thamnophis sirtalis tetrataenia). Open Space Maintenance and Restoration Program September 2021 1 3-40 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Midpeninsula Regional Attachment 1 Open Space District 3. Environmental Checklist Perennial Grassland Perennial grasslands are typically dominated by native species including native, perennial bunchgrasses. Perennial grasslands of two main types occur in the Program area: coastal prairie and serpentine bunchgrass grassland. Coastal prairie is unmapped by CALVEG, and would be restricted in the Program area to preserves such as Tunitas Creek OSP, Miramontes Ridge OSP, or Purisima Creek Redwoods OSP that experience coastal influence. Serpentine bunchgrass grassland occurs in areas mapped as "serpentine communities" on Figure 3.4-1. Coastal Prairie Coastal prairies occur on marine terraces near the Pacific Coast and have a dense herbaceous layer with grasses as a significant portion of the vegetation, including Pacific reedgrass (Calamagrostis nutkaensis), California oatgrass, tufted hairgrass (Deschampsia cespitosa), and sedges (Carex spp.). Wildflowers and native forbs are a component and include goldfields (Lasthenia spp.), lupines (Lupinus spp.), and clovers (Trifolium spp.). Perennial bunchgrasses can be found in this habitat as well and can include needlegrasses (Stipa spp.), California oatgrass, Idaho fescue (Festuca idahoensis), one-sided bluegrass (Poa secunda), California brome (Bromus carinatus), and melic grasses (Melica spp.). Relic coastal prairies will often have native perennial bunchgrasses as a significant portion of the vegetation. The general vegetation structure of coastal prairie habitat is similar to that of non-native grassland habitat, and wildlife species composition in the Program area is similar between perennial and annual grasslands. However, small mammal abundance may be greater in areas dominated by perennial bunchgrasses, if such areas provide greater cover, and raptors may be more abundant in areas dominated by perennial bunchgrasses as a result. Serpentine Communities In the Program area, serpentine communities are found in four Midpen preserves in the Program area: Pulgas Ridge OSP, St. Joseph's Hill OSP, El Sereno OSP, and Sierra Azul OSP. Serpentine habitats in these preserves consist of serpentine bunchgrass grasslands, serpentine wildflower fields, serpentine chaparral, serpentine seeps, and serpentine barrens. Serpentine grasslands are grasslands dominated by perennial bunchgrass such as needlegrasses and melic grasses. Notably, non-native annual grasses are less abundant in serpentine communities than in annual grassland communities. The soils of serpentine communities have extremely high levels of iron and magnesium, making them inhospitable for many species of plants. Serpentine soils can also contain other metals such as chromium, cobalt or nickel that can cause plant toxicity. In addition, the nitrogen and water -holding capacity of the soils may also be low, making the soils less fertile. However, a unique group of vascular plant species, which can tolerate the relatively low calcium to magnesium ratio, has evolved in response to these conditions. As a result, serpentine grasslands generally support native plant communities, including a number of special -status plants (discussed in Special - Status Plant Species below). Serpentine wildflower fields occur where the vegetation is dominated by native forb cover consisting of species indicative of serpentine substrates. These communities occur in a matrix with serpentine grassland and serpentine barrens (e.g., Open Space Maintenance and Restoration Program September 2021 1 3-41 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Midpeninsula Regional Attachment 1 Open Space District 3. Environmental Checklist serpentine rock outcrops or thin soils where vegetation is sparse and limited to small pockets of herbaceous vegetation). Serpentine chaparral consists of fire -adapted shrub vegetation found on serpentine soils. Serpentine chaparral is generally more open than other chaparral types and shrubs tend to be shorter. A common dominant shrub species on serpentine chaparral in the Program area is leather oak (Quercus durata). As with serpentine grassland, serpentine chaparral supports special -status plants that are specially adapted and restricted to the unique soil conditions. Several invertebrate species, including the federally threatened Bay checkerspot butterfly (Euphydryas editha bayensis), which was extirpated from the Program area but recently reintroduced to Edgewood County Park and San Bruno Mountain State and County Park, depend on serpentine grasslands because their host -food plants are found primarily in this habitat. Although serpentine grassland habitats in the Program area provide unique habitat structure that may be attractive to certain grassland bird species, the relatively small size and of these habitat patches and their relative isolation from the few other patches of serpentine habitat limit their attractiveness to grassland bird species. Within the Program area, serpentine grassland in general provides habitat for generalist species that do not require large tracts of intact grassland, such as red-tailed hawks, American kestrels, savannah sparrows (Passerculus sandwichensis), grasshopper sparrows, and western meadowlarks. Rock Outcrops Rock outcrops are present in a variety of plant communities, including grasslands. These outcrops often support few plants due to the paucity of soil, but they provide unique habitat for some wildlife species. On large outcrops, white -throated swifts (Aeronautes saxatilis), common ravens (Corvus corax), barn owls, and other birds nest and roost in cavities or on ledges, and cliff swallows (Petrochelidon pyrrhonota) may attach mud nests under rock overhangs. Near -ground rock outcrops are used by western rattlesnake and other reptiles for thermoregulation. Outcrops may also provide roosting habitat for Pallid bat, big brown bat (Eptesicus fuscus), small -footed myotis (Myotis ciliolabrum), Yuma myotis, California myotis (Myotis californicus), little brown myotis (Myotis lucifugus), fringed myotis (Myotis thysanodes), long-legged myotis (Myotis volans), and canyon bat. Hardwood Forest In the Program area, hardwood forest communities are represented by closed -canopy forests dominated by hardwoods such as coast live oak or California bay. They generally occur in the transition zone between forests and woodland or scrub communities, and in the Program area occur in greatest abundance at somewhat lower elevations than much of the conifer forest. In the majority of the Program area, coast live oak tends to be the dominant canopy species in this forest type. Other co-occurring trees in the canopy include Pacific madrone, tanoak, and canyon live oak (Quercus chrysolepis). At drier sites, the co-occurring trees include valley oak (Quercus lobata), blue oak (Quercus douglasii), and gray pine (Pinus sabiniana). Depending on site moisture characteristics, the canopy tends to be closed on moister sites and open and widely spaced on drier sites. As with the overstory, the understory composition varies, including shade tolerant shrubs, ferns, and herbs. In the more open settings, grassland species typically occur. Where the hardwood forest intergrades with Open Space Maintenance and Restoration Program September 2021 1 3-42 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Midpeninsula Regional Attachment 1 Open Space District 3. Environmental Checklist chaparral and coastal scrub, the understory may contain California sagebrush, sticky monkeyflower (Diplacus aurantiacus), or coyote brush. Hardwood forests and woodlands produce mast crops that are an important food source for many birds and mammals, including wild turkey (Meleagris gallopavo), oak titmouse (Baeolophus inornatus), Bewick's wren, Hutton's vireo (Vireo huttoni), California scrub -jay, Steller's jay, acorn woodpecker, California quail, black -tailed deer, and San Francisco dusky - footed woodrat. Dusky -footed woodrats can be quite abundant in this habitat type, and the deer mouse and California mouse (Peromyscus californicus) also commonly occur. As with coniferous forests, hollow trees and logs, as well as cavities in older mature trees, provide important denning sites for coyotes, raccoons, striped skunks, and bobcats. Cavities in mature trees are also used by cavity -dwelling species such as the oak titmouse, acorn woodpecker, hairy woodpecker (Dryobates villosus), and chestnut -backed chickadee, as well as bats such as the Yuma myotis, California myotis, hoary bat (Lasiurus cinereus), big brown bat, long- eared myotis (Myotis evotis), and occasionally pallid bat. Common amphibians and reptiles found in hardwood forests and woodlands include the California slender salamander, western fence lizard, gopher snake, southern alligator lizard, and California kingsnake. Oak Savanna Oak savanna vegetation is mapped where the tree canopy is open and generally has an open grassland understory. Oak savanna habitats generally occur in the transition zone between forests and scrub or grassland communities, and oak savanna is much less extensive in the Program area than those adjacent communities. Oak savanna types include coast live oak woodland, California buckeye (Aesculus californica) woodland, gray pine woodland, and valley oak woodland. The herbaceous understory is typically composed of the one of the grassland types described above in Hardwood Forest. Wildlife using oak savanna includes many species that occur in hardwood forests, such as wild turkey, California scrub -jay, Steller's jay, as well as species that are associated primarily with open habitats, such as red-tailed hawk, American kestrel, lazuli bunting (Passerina amoena), western bluebird (Sialia mexicana), mourning dove (Zenaida macroura), and California towhee. Riparian Communities Riparian communities occur at the interfaces between terrestrial and aquatic communities, particularly along streams. In California, riparian habitats generally support exceptionally rich animal communities even though they occupy a limited amount of the land cover. The importance of riparian areas in the Program area far exceeds their minor proportion of the total acreage because of their prominent location within the landscape and the intricate linkages between terrestrial and aquatic communities (Gregory et al. 1991). The presence of at least seasonal (and often year-round) water and abundant invertebrates provide foraging opportunities for many species, and the diverse habitat structure provides cover and nesting opportunities. In the Program area, riparian communities are classified by habitat subcategories as riparian woodland or riparian shrubland, depending on whether a tree canopy is present or not. Open Space Maintenance and Restoration Program September 2021 1 3-43 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Midpeninsula Regional Attachment 1 Open Space District 3. Environmental Checklist Riparian woodland habitats are forest and woodland communities dominated by trees such as red willow (Salix laevigata), Fremont's cottonwood (Populus fremontii), western sycamore (Platanus racemosa), and valley oak in the tallest canopy layer. A lower subcanopy can occur that includes tree species such as white alder (Alnus rhombifolia), boxelder (Acer negundo), and black walnut (Juglans hindsii). Below the tree canopy is a shrub layer that can include native shrubs such as wild rose (Rosa californica), California blackberry, poison oak, and coyote brush. Understory herbs include grasses, miner's lettuce (Claytonia perfoliata), Douglas' sagewort (Artemisia douglasiana), poison hemlock (Conium maculatum), hoary nettle (Urtica dioica), rushes Uuncus spp.), and sedges (Carex spp. and Cyperus spp.). This habitat occurs along stream courses and rivers throughout the Program area. Riparian shrubland habitats are those dominated by shrubs such as sandbar willow (Salix exigua), arroyo willow (Salix lasiolepis), dogwood (Cornus sericea), coast twinberry (Lonicera involucrata), and California wax myrtle (Morella cahfornica), and in some areas currant (Ribes spp.). This habitat type often represents pioneer vegetation, which will colonize recently established sand or gravel bars within floodplains. Tall shrub vegetation may establish on gravel banks and terraces adjacent to the more active channels that are either open water or streambeds devoid of vegetation. If not cleared by either human or natural disturbance, this vegetation would, in many settings, develop into a tree -dominated riparian vegetation such as that described above. In some areas, particularly on channel banks and higher floodplain terraces, this vegetation consists of stands of coyote brush. The maturity and structural diversity of the riparian habitats in the Program area support a high diversity and density of vertebrate species, particularly birds. The wider, more mature riparian corridors provide suitable foraging and breeding habitat for several functional groups of birds including insectivores (e.g., warblers, flycatchers), seed -eaters (e.g., finches), raptors, and cavity -nesters (e.g., swallows and woodpeckers) in addition to a variety of common amphibians, reptiles, and mammals. Among the numerous species of birds that use the riparian habitats for breeding are the Pacific -slope flycatcher, black -headed grosbeak (Pheucticus melanocephalus), warbling vireo (Vireo gilvus), and Wilson's warbler (Cardellina pusilla). The yellow warbler (Setophaga petechia) may breed in small numbers at a few locations, but is a much more abundant spring and fall migrant. Raptors such as red - shouldered hawk (Buteo lineatus) and Cooper's hawk (Accipiter cooperii) nest within riparian corridors and forage in adjacent habitats. Riparian habitats are also used heavily by migrants, including many passerine species, such as western tanagers (Piranga ludoviciana) and western wood -pewees (Contopus sordidulus) as well as wintering birds. Silver -haired bat (Lasionycteris noctivagans), western red bat (Lasiurus blossevillii), and hoary bat are all foliage -roosting species that may roost in riparian trees. A number of species of reptiles and amphibians occur in riparian corridors within the County. Leaf litter, downed tree branches, and fallen logs provide cover for the arboreal salamander (Aneides lugubris), California newt, and Sierran chorus frog (Pseudacris sierra) among others. Several lizards may also occur here, including the western fence lizard, western skink, and southern alligator lizard. Mammals such as the ornate shrew (Sorex ornatus), California vole, Audubon's cottontail (Sylvilagus audubonii), San Francisco dusky -footed woodrat, and raccoon also use riparian habitats. Open Space Maintenance and Restoration Program September 2021 1 3-44 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Midpeninsula Regional Attachment 1 Open Space District 3. Environmental Checklist Aquatic and Wetland Communities Aquatic and wetland communities are those which are periodically to perennially saturated or inundated. These communities provide many important environmental functions, such as recycling nutrients, purifying water, attenuating floods, and recharging groundwater. In addition, they serve as habitat for many aquatic species. Aquatic and wetland communities present in the Program area include lacustrine habitats (shown as "water" on Figure 3.4-1), wetlands, and streams. Lacustrine habitats contain standing water in areas that are flooded year-round or for the majority of the year. These habitats form from depressions where small ponds may form (man-made in the case of stock ponds), or from dammed stream and river channels. Ponds, lakes, and reservoirs are all examples of lacustrine habitats. Wetlands are communities vegetated with herbaceous plants and occurring in soils that are inundated or saturated either temporarily or permanently. Freshwater emergent wetlands in the Program area consist of emergent, herbaceous vegetation occurring in portions of drainages where the water source is perennial and slow -moving throughout most of the year, or in depressions where the groundwater table may be high. Freshwater emergent wetlands in the Program area typically occur as dense growth of perennial, obligate wetland species such as cattail (Typha spp.), bulrush (Schoenoplectus spp.), sedges, water smartweeds (Persicaria spp.), and watercress (Nasturtium officinale). The exact composition of any wetland is variable and dependent on the hydrology of the landscape. Seasonal wetlands are dominated by hydrophytes (i.e., wetland -adapted plants) that will persist in channels or depressions that are only seasonally moist. These include ruderal, non-native species such as bristly ox tongue (Helminthotheca echioides), curly dock (Rumex crispus), Italian thistle (Carduus pycnocephalus), sheep sorrel (Rumex acetosella), rabbit's foot grass (Polypogon monspeliensis), Italian ryegrass (Festuca perennis), and cocklebur (Xanthium strumarium) and natives such as umbrella sedge (Cyperus eragrostis) and California mugwort (Artemisia douglasiana). Streams are shown on Figure 3.4-1 as blue -line features and include perennial and intermittent drainages throughout the Program area. Streams within the Program area often have some riparian, described as a separate vegetation community above, natural communities associated with them. These aquatic features also commonly support wetland vegetation, and lacustrine features may also be associated with streams, particularly when channels are impounded. Vegetation in stream habitats is more likely associated with the adjacent wetlands and riparian communities than the streams themselves. Aquatic vegetation such as algae may grow on stream beds, and in slower moving waters duckweed (Lemna spp.) and other floating and submerged aquatic species may be present. Aquatic and wetland habitats provide important habitat for a variety of wildlife species. Reservoirs and lakes, such as Lexington Reservoir, Howell Reservoir, and Lake Elsman, as well as other smaller lakes and bodies of water located throughout the Program area, provide habitat for waterbirds such as the double -crested cormorant (Phalacrocorax auritus), great blue heron (Ardea herodias), great egret (Ardea alba), Canada goose (Branta canadensis), and mallard (Anas platyrhynchos). Wintering ducks, such as bufflehead (Bucephala clangula) and Open Space Maintenance and Restoration Program September 2021 1 3-45 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Midpeninsula Regional Attachment 1 Open Space District 3. Environmental Checklist ring-necked duck (Aythya collaris), also use reservoirs, lakes, and small ponds throughout the Program area. Small numbers of some species of shorebirds, such as the spotted sandpiper (Actitis macularius), forage and roost at the edges of small ponds and lakes during migration and winter. Bald eagles (Haliaeetus leucocephalus), ospreys (Pandion haliaetus) and terns (Sterna spp.) forage at larger reservoirs and lakes, such as at Lexington reservoir. Aquatic and wetland habitats provide important foraging habitat for bats. Yuma myotis forage over open water habitat, almost exclusively. Silver -haired bats also forage over open water, while little brown myotis and western red bat often forage over woodland streams. Amphibian species that breed in ponds and lakes throughout the Program area include the native Sierran chorus frog and western toad (Anaxyrus boreas) and the non-native American bullfrog (Lithobates catesbeianus). The California red -legged frog is a widespread breeder in ponds, streams with suitable egg mass attachment sites, and wetlands that support deeper water. Western pond turtles (Actinemys [=Emys] marmorata) are also present in some ponds and lakes. Despite the limited amount of freshwater marsh habitat available in the Program area, small numbers of sora (Porzana carolina) and Virginia rail (Rallus limicola) forage in freshwater marshes in the Program area during migration and in winter. American coots (Fulica americana), common gallinules (Gallinula chloropus), pied -billed grebes (Podilymbus podiceps), and several species of ducks breed in freshwater wetlands, channels, and ponds in and around emergent vegetation. Passerine species that breed in freshwater marshes include the marsh wren (Cistothorus palustris), song sparrow (Melospiza melodia), common yellowthroat (Geothlypis trichas), and red -winged blackbird (Agelaius phoeniceus). Fish species present in aquatic habitats in the region are discussed below in Fish Resources. Non-Native/Ornamental Woodland The ornamental woodland cover type in the Program area consists of vegetation that is dominated by one or more species of non-native, often planted, trees. The most common expression of this habitat type in the Program area is that of eucalyptus (Eucalyptusglobulus) groves, some of which are remnant plantations, and some of which have established on their own. Other common tree species constituting ornamental woodland in the Program area include blackwood acacia (Acacia melanoxylon), cultivated Douglas -fir, non-native Monterey pine (Pinus radiata), and Monterey cypress (Hesperocyparis macrocarpa). These trees may provide nesting habitat for birds, but generally the habitat value of homogenous stands of trees is lower than native forest communities described above due to the lower diversity of structural and food resources of monotypic stands and the paucity of understory vegetation and ground cover below dense canopies of species such as eucalyptus and cypress. However, certain eucalyptus species can provide foraging and nesting habitat for breeding, wintering, and migrant birds. Bird species that often frequent eucalyptus trees include the Anna's hummingbird, yellow-rumped warbler (Setophaga coronata), and migrant yellow warbler. Red -shouldered hawks, red-tailed hawks, and white-tailed kites often nest in mature eucalyptus trees. Open Space Maintenance and Restoration Program September 2021 1 3-46 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Midpeninsula Regional Attachment 1 Open Space District 3. Environmental Checklist Eucalyptus trees also provide roosting habitat for several bat species. The exfoliating bark provides roosting habitat for Yuma myotis and California myotis, while the foliage provides roosting habitat for silver -haired bat, western red bat, and hoary bat. Urban The urban land cover type as depicted in Figure 3.4-1 can be described as a "developed" habitat. Within the Program area, urban land uses consist primarily of urban and suburban areas; within preserves, urban land uses would include paved roads, parking areas, office and maintenance buildings, and maintenance yards and gravel lots associated with those areas, as well as landscaped areas around historical sites and buildings, cultural landscapes (e.g., Alma Cultural Landscape), and visitors' centers. Vegetation within urban land uses is dominated by turf grass, ornamental, non-native plants associated with landscaping and irrigation, or ruderal non-native species such as Italian thistle, yellow star thistle (Centaurea solstitialis), and upright veldt grass (Ehrharta erecta). Urban habitats typically support a suite of relatively common wildlife species that are tolerant of periodic human disturbance. Some of the most abundant species in developed habitats, such as the Brewer's blackbird (Euphagus cyanocephalus), American crow (Corvus brachyrhynchos), Eurasian collared -dove (Streptopelia decaocto), European starling (Sturnus vulgaris), rock pigeon (Columba livia), Virginia opossum (Didelphis virginiana), house mouse (Mus musculus), eastern gray squirrel (Sciurus carolinensis), fox squirrel (Sciurus niger), Norway rat (Rattus norvegicus), and black rat (Rattus rattus), are non-native species that are well adapted to the cover, nesting/denning, and foraging conditions provided by developed areas. In addition, a number of native species have adapted to these conditions. Native bird species commonly found in urban habitats in the Program area include the black phoebe (Sayornis nigricans), house finch (Carpodacus mexicanus), northern mockingbird (Mimus polyglottos), Anna's hummingbird, and California towhee. Native mammals such as the deer mouse, raccoon, and striped skunk utilize these developed areas heavily as well. Many bridges and other structures, such as old barns, sheds, and other buildings in the Program area, including those on Midpen preserves, provide important nesting and roosting sites for some species of birds and bats. Bats such as the Yuma myotis, California myotis, Mexican free -tailed bat, Townsend's big -eared bat, pallid bat, and big brown bat may roost in bridges, structures, unoccupied buildings, and/or large trees throughout the Program area, including other structures on Midpen preserves. Caves and abandoned mines, although not common on Midpen properties, also provide roosting habitat for Townsend's big -eared bat, pallid bat, small -footed myotis, little brown myotis, fringed myotis, long-legged myotis, and Mexican free -tailed bat. Birds such as the black phoebe, cliff swallow, barn swallow (Hirundo rustica), northern rough -winged swallow (Stelgidopteryx serripennis), and white -throated swift also use bridges and other structures in the Program area for nesting. Open Space Maintenance and Restoration Program September 2021 1 3-47 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Midpeninsula Regional Attachment 1 Open Space District 3. Environmental Checklist Fish Resources Aquatic features in the Program area, including streams, sloughs, ponds, and lakes, provide habitat for both native and non-native fish species. Rivers, creeks, and streams within the Program area located on the west side of the crest of the Santa Cruz Mountains flow downstream to the Pacific Ocean, while those located on the east side of the crest of the Santa Cruz Mountains flow downstream to the San Francisco Bay. Perennial streams in the Program area support fish resources year-round, especially where wetland and riparian vegetation are present to provide cover, shade, and foraging opportunities. Intermittent drainages can provide habitat for fish species during wet periods, if fish are able to access these drainages from perennially wet areas, but typically dry out in the summer. Native fish that inhabit waterbodies in the Program area include the Pacific lamprey (Entosphenus tridentata), threespine stickleback (Gasterosteus aculeatus), prickly sculpin (Cottus asper), staghorn sculpin (Leptocottus armatus), and coastrange sculpin (Cottus aleuticus) (Leidy 2007). Rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) in the Program area include both resident individuals present in Program area streams throughout their lifetimes (including trout in stream reaches that are separated from marine and estuarine habitats by barriers such as dams) and anadromous Central California Coast steelhead that spawn in freshwater streams and forage as adults in marine habitats before returning to their natal streams to breed (Leidy et al. 2005). Central California Coast Coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) is another anadromous fish that spawns in limited coastal streams in the Program area. In addition, a number of non-native fishes have been introduced to the Program area, including the yellowfin goby (Acanthogobius flavimanus), common carp (Cyprinus carpio), white crappie (Pomoxis annularis), brown bullhead (Ameiurus nebulosus), mosquitofish (Gambusia affinis), largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides), and bluegill (Lepomis macrochirus) (University of California, Davis 2019, Leidy 2007). Common Wildlife Common wildlife species are defined as those that have no special status of any kind. Numerous common wildlife species are expected to occur on Midpen lands (Natural Resources Database 2020). Table 3.4-1 includes a list of some of the more prevalent and well-known common vertebrate species but is by no means a comprehensive accounting of all wildlife that may be present on Midpen lands. Table 3.4-1 Representative Common Species That May Occur on Midpen Lands Common Name Scientific Name Birds Acorn woodpecker American coot Melanerpes formicivorus Fulica americana American crow Corvus brachyrhynchos Anna's hummingbird Calypte anna Barn owl Tyto alba Open Space Maintenance and Restoration Program September 2021 1 3-48 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Attachment 1 3. Environmental Checklist Common Name Scientific Name 1 Barn swallow Hirundo rustica Bushtit Psaltriparus minimus California quail Callipepla californica California scrub -jay Aphelocoma californica Chestnut -backed chickadee Poecile rufescens Common merganser Mergus merganser Dark -eyed junco Junco hyemalis Great horned owl Bubo virginianus Mallard Anas platyrhynchos Northern flicker Colaptes auratus Pacific slope flycatcher Empidonax difficilis Red -shouldered hawk Buteo lineatus Red-tailed hawk Buteo jamaicensis Red -winged blackbird Agelaius phoeniceus Steller's jay Cyanocitta stelleri Turkey vulture Cathartes aura Mammals Black -tailed jackrabbit Lepus californicus Bobcat Lynx rufus Botta's pocket golpher Thomomys bottae Brush rabbit Sylvilagus bachmani California ground squirrel Otospermophilus beecheyi California myotis Myotis californicus California pocket mouse Peromyscus californicus California vole Microtus californicus Coyote Canis latrans Deer mouse Peromyscus maniculatus Gray fox Urocyon cinereoargenteus House mouse Mus musculus Mexican free -tailed bat Tadarida brasiliensis Mountain lion Puma concolor Mule deer Odocoileus hemionus Raccoon Procyon lotor Open Space Maintenance and Restoration Program Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration September 2021 1 3-49 Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Attachment 1 3. Environmental Checklist Common Name Scientific Name Striped skunk Mephitis Virginia opossum Didelphis virginiana Western gray squirrel Sciurus griseus Reptiles California alligator lizard Elgaria multicarinata California kingsnake Lampropeltis getula californiae Coast gartersnake Thamnophis elegans terrestris Coast range fence lizard Sceloporus occidentalis bocourtii Northern pacific rattlesnake Crotalus oreganus Pacific gopher snake Pituophis catenifer Red -eared slider* Trachemys scripta elegans SkiIton's skink Plestiodon skiltonianus Amphibians American bullfrog* Lithobates catesbeianus Arboreal salamander Aneides lugubris California newt Taricha torosa California slender salamander Bastrachoseps attenuatus California toad Anaxyrus boreas halophilus Sierran tree frog Pseudacris sierra Yellow -eyed ensatina Ensatina escscholzii xanthoptica Notes: *Denotes non-native species Critical Habitat Figure 3.4-2 shows the critical habitat areas in and around Midpen lands. Much of the northern portion of Midpen lands fall within California red -legged frog Critical Habitat Units SNM-1 and SNM-2 (USFWS 2010), including all or nearly all of El Corte Madera Creek, La Honda Creek, Russian Ridge, Skyline Ridge, and Tunitas Creek OSPs, and portions of Miramontes Ridge, Purisima Creek Redwoods, Windy Hill, Coal Creek, Monte Bello, and Long Ridge OSPs. A very small portion of Midpen lands fall within designated critical habitat for marbled murrelet (USFWS 2011). A sliver of land within Purisima Creek Redwoods OSP immediately west of Skyline Boulevard falls within Unit CA -13. This area is roughly 1,100 feet long and at most 250 feet wide, and totals approximately 3.3 acres. Critical Habitat Unit CA -14a is located immediately adjacent to Midpen lands, bordering Long Ridge OSP and Skyline Ridge OSP. Open Space Maintenance and Restoration Program September 2021 1 3-50 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Pa,. Ca { Skyline College 4\15.harp Park Golden Gate Naf 1 k,ro ation - Area emu''-drn , (ley ,url F,tk A N 1.75 0.875 A H. T. HARVEY & ASSOCIATES Ecological Consultants San Bruno San Francisco tnt'I Airport Millbrae Burlingame Hillsborough elf tvlcon y Golf inks Legend Midpen Boundary ! ; Sphere of Influence Preserves Within Program Area Easement or Management Agreement Within Program Area V Phdegar Fstate (Marbled murrelet k Bear ere rr Ca Iifomia red -legged frog' Designated Critical Habitat* / A Bay checkerspot butterfly California red -legged frog Marbled murrelet Tidewatergoby Western snowy plover Steelhead Hall O Attachment 1 San Francisco Bay Foster City Eaton Park vVunderlrh county Par►' in Ca flos Red) Wood s Bay checkersp'ot butterfly . Par °al *Spatial data not available for the Central California Coast ESU of coho salmon but designated Critical Habitat encompasses accessible reaches of all rivers between Punta Gorda and the San Lorenzo River (NMFS 1999). Rgure 3.4-2 Designated Critical Habitat Midpeninsula Regional Open 4)ace District Routine Maintenance and Facilities Improvements Program November2019 Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 3. Environmental Checklist Attachment 1 Page intentionally left blank. Open Space Maintenance and Restoration Program September 2021 1 3-52 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Attachment 1 Tidewater goby `? Tidewater goby Tidewater /g% by �Ca lifomia red -legged N 1.75 A 0.875 0 Miles 1.75 Ma rbled=murrelet Eat Ea:An State Park Legend Midpen Boundary ! ; Sphere of Influence PreservesWithin Program Area Easement or Management Agreement Within Program Area USFWS C ritic a I Habitat* L.� V Bay checkerspot butterfly California red -legged frog Marbled murrelet Tidewatergoby Steelhead *Spatial data not available for the Central California Coast ESU of coho salmon but Designated Critical Habitat encompasses accessible reaches of all rivers between Punta Gorda and the San Lorenzo River (NMFS 1999). H. T. HARVEY & ASSOCIATES e Ecological Consultants Fgure 3.4-2 Designated Critical Habitat Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Routine Maintenance and Facilities Improvements Program November2019 Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 3. Environmental Checklist Attachment 1 Page intentionally left blank. Open Space Maintenance and Restoration Program September 2021 1 3-54 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Attachment 1 San Francisco Bay oster City ecw Bair Island San Carlos R,edwoodrCity West Menlo Park Vii1_Ioi_l s li e Ca lifomia nnpr N 1.75 0.875 Stanford University Foothills Park Eden Landing Ecological Reserve East Palo Alto Palo Alto Stanford Coyote Hitls Rego na I Park Shoreline Golf Links Mountain View Los Altos Legend Midpen Boundary 'Sphere of Influence Preserves Within Program Area Easement or Management Agreement Within Program Area Gann ` Regional' - Park G' Union s �a`City WALPEa^.T Quarry Lakes Regional Rsc Area ,Newark Fremont Central Park Lake Etimateth p,IMANAV=1)A l�'cny Sfro SANTA CLAKA Sunnyvale- -Ste---rr-. '>repk-F% USFWS C ritic a I Habitat* r77i Bay checkerspot butterfly California red -legged frog 17/7Western snowy plover Steelhead V Santa -CI *Spatial data not available for the Central California Coast ESU of coho salmon but Designated Critical Habitat encompasses accessible reaches of all rivers between Punta Gorda and the San Lorenzo River (NMFS 1999). H. T. HARVEY & ASSOCIATES Ecological Consultants Fgure 3.4-2 Designated Critical Habitat Mid peninsula Regional Open 4)ace District Routine Maintenance and Facilities Improvements Program November2019 Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 3. Environmental Checklist Attachment 1 Page intentionally left blank. Open Space Maintenance and Restoration Program September 2021 1 3-56 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Attachment 1 oath :o liege Mountain View Los Altos 1 Stevens Creek County Park Marbled murrelet t oulcler r ek Los Gatos Be n Lo mo nd N 1.75 0.875 0 S'unnyvale Legend Midpen Boundary Sphere of Influence Preserves Within Program Area Easement or Management Agreement Within Program Area Campbell .`te k het San Jose Kelley Park The Plant ' i ttol-Expy ' Martial COO _Park fie° GG ada\& Soquel Cemonstraton State Forest USFWS C ritic a I Habitat* Marbled murrelet Steelhead Almaden Country Club Alum eek -r *Spatial data not available for the Central California Coast ESU of coho salmon but Designated Critical Habitat encompasses accessible reaches of all rivers between Punta Gorda and the San Lorenzo River (NMFS 1999). H. T. HARVEY & ASSOCIATES Ecological Consultants Fgure 3.4-2. Designated Critical Habitat Midpeninsula Regional Open 4)ace District Routine Maintenance and Facilities Improvements Program November2019 Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 3. Environmental Checklist Attachment 1 Page intentionally left blank. Open Space Maintenance and Restoration Program September 2021 1 3-58 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Midpeninsula Regional Attachment 1 Open Space District 3. Environmental Checklist Streams that have been designated as critical habitat for California central coast Evolutionary Significant Unit (ESU) of steelhead (National Marine Fisheries Service [NMFS] 2005) are present in Miramontes Ridge, Purisima Creek Redwoods, Tunitas Creek, La Honda Creek, Russian Ridge, Los Trancos, Skyline Ridge, Long Ridge, and Windy Hill OSPs. Streams designated as critical habitat for California central coast evolutionarily significant unit (ESU) coho salmon (NMFS 1999) are present in Miramontes Ridge, Tunitas Creek, La Honda Creek, and Skyline Ridge OSPs. The entirety of San Francisco Bay and its adjacent tidal marshes and sloughs are designated critical habitat for Southern DPS green sturgeon (Acipenser medirostris) (NMFS 2009). This area includes nearly all of the tidal marshes and sloughs within Ravenswood OSP as well as the reach of Stevens Creek that is immediately adjacent to Stevens Creek Shoreline Nature Study Area. Critical habitat for special -status plants does not occur within any Midpen OSPs. Regional Habitat Conservation Plans A very small portion of Midpen lands along the eastern boundary of Sierra Azul OSP are within the mapped Santa Clara Valley Habitat Plan (Habitat Plan) area (ICF International 2012). The Habitat Plan covers nine wildlife and nine plant species, listed in Table 3.4-2. Table 3.4-2 Covered Species of the Santa Clara Valley Habitat Plan Common Name Scientific Name Plants Tiburon Indian paintbrush Castilleja affinis ssp. neglecta Coyote ceanothus Ceanothus ferrisiae Mount Hamilton thistle Cirsium fontinale var. campylon Santa Clara Valley dudleya Dudleya abramsii ssp. setchellii Fragrant fritillary Fritillaria liliacea Loma Prieta hoita Hoita strobilina Smooth lessingia Lessingia micradenia var. glabrata Metcalf Canyon jewelflower Streptanthus albidus ssp. albidus Most beautiful jewelflower Streptanthus albidus ssp. peramoenus Invertebrates Bay checkerspot butterfly Euphydryas editha bayensis Amphibians California tiger salamander Ambystoma californiense Foothill yellow -legged frog Rana boylii California red -legged frog Rana draytonii Reptiles Western pond turtle Actinemys marmorata Open Space Maintenance and Restoration Program September 2021 1 3-59 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Midpeninsula Regional Attachment 1 Open Space District 3. Environmental Checklist Common Name Scientific Name 1 Birds Tricolored blackbird Agelaius tricolor Western burrowing owl Athene cunicularia hypugaea Least Bell's vireo Vireo bellii pusillus Mammals San Joaquin kit fox Vulpes macrotis mutica Sensitive Natural Communities Sensitive natural communities are of limited distribution statewide or within a county or region that provides important habitat value to native species. Most natural communities within Midpen OSPs are considered sensitive, with a few exceptions such as annual grasslands. Sensitive natural communities within OSPs include, but are not limited to California bay forests, redwood forests, California buckeye groves, oak woodlands, bigleaf maple forests, northern maritime chaparral, northern interior cypress forest, riparian woodlands, and wetlands. Serpentine grassland is a sensitive natural community that is not mapped in the study area because of the scale of mapping unit, but may be present in small patches. Special -Status Species Overview In evaluating habitat suitability for special -status plant and wildlife species to occur within the Program area, relevant literature, knowledge of regional biota, and available occurrence and distribution data were considered. Midpen maintains a GIS database and on-line web - based application that integrates the records Midpen's own past and recent detections of special -status species. Special -Status Plant Species A list of special -status plant species known to occur, or thought to have potential for occurrence, in the Program area was compiled using CNPS lists (CNPS 2020a); California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) records (CDFW 2020b) for San Mateo, Santa Clara, and Santa Cruz counties; data from CalFlora (2019) and the Consortium of California Herbaria (CCH1) (CCH1 2019); and occurrence records based on surveys by Midpen biologists (refer to Appendix D). Special -status plant records from CNDDB and Midpen surveys are mapped on Figure 3.4-3. Open Space Maintenance and Restoration Program September 2021 1 3-60 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Attachment 1 Franciscan thistle Sc o ule is ccla tchfly San Francisco collinsia r7 perennial goldfield KeKellogg' rkelfa, aF them Maritime Chaparral horn San Francisco-campion,� we stern leatherwood Monts ramanzanita Franciscan thistle ++t V Scouler's'catchfly, Kellogg hock ark j• F stir: st'C" Skyline College arp Park Gok1en : Gate Nat'l Reotisation Area ,island tube lichen San Francisco gumplant Hickmanrs,cinquefoil �1 �. /. San -Francisco campion perennra l goldfields / Choris'rpopcomflower Northern Maritime Chaparral 4-7 ,4;i) A'•r "1' 'Moontarra Ilanianita rose leptosiphon coast yelllow leptosiphon s, San Francisco campion n ,t-, = P -,,,-1A-1-,. Bla sd'a le'sbent grass Hickman' sc nqueffooil\ 0 rnd uffs dowfoa ma" '' %� 3 44, San Francisco owl's -clover y4 coastalVshrsh milk -vetch Vii/ frt %ose i+.:r to 1KeIlogg rkelia `tt4 7r_ 1 ,7 rose leptosiphon Choris' poop mflower N 1.75 0.875 0 A Miles 1.75 - San Francisco Int.' Airport Burlingame Hillsborough aff Moan, y Golf inks Choris'popcomflower lo woodla SANTA C Mwn Burleicrh H Mum, Ranch Kings Mountain manzanita SerpentineBunchgrass Suite e ,_� Parkp�toy°`onwood landrwoollyth'reads' San Mateo San Francisco Bay Foster City Point Reyesaltji bibir�d' Northe ;Co�`yi saline clover/y Hr�Fro'ihtl Re ye s salty bird's -b illsbo ugh c hoc olate/ lily Poin 4Vac�r Hillsborough chocolate lily DogF,rt odland w threads San Carlos two westem Ieaathe rw000d woodland woollythreadp -c # chaparra gwort Franciscan -onion �l71Jf0 San Francisco collinsia Et: arcuatebush-mallow 'Franciscan onion fragraran ;fritillary white-raye penta ha eta Choris' popcomflower 'rsiR11 . $•°f Choris'spopccom flower • coastal marsh milk -vetch • Choris's popcorn flower • \ an"tlfi Choris' popcomflower coastal marsh milk -vetch om .,nr_a Phiecp. r Estate Mann western flax Methuselah'sbeard he n‘ * X, i Kings MountairiPmanzanita San•Mat horn bent -flowered Marin westem•flax - fountain thistle San Matehom-mint fra g ra ritafntilla ry • F'Ank•ll"e - ,' x,,,1519 e 111) „ataiGngsMountain manzanita woodland wooIIyrreoacAst pa I Kings F"sign• 9 6 Ska•ae Serpentine Bun�� '9J r' two-f�rk.e.l�ov�err Franciscan on ,,� Jepson'sc woo:dland:wooltyth`reads westem'l."e-at Ch ns`p�_ m a nza'nita li rn g r1 •. ter. �� w,%;. 1 J .1; L� �'� f J / °Choris' popcomflower f %' /l f • J / 1- '..get t California bottle gra ,1 • Choris' popcomflowe Creek Bdir 77--� (we • Choris' cr Califomia bottle grass &n,M,,..406..daiatecT NMI westem leathe woodland woollythre ads` Gairdnersyampah • sIn woodland woollythreads Easement or Management Agreement Within Program Area Midpen Records (Ca !flora) • Plant Observation 11 Chor H. T. HARVEY & ASSOCIATES Ecofogicaf Consultants Figure 3.4-3 Specia l -Status Pla nts Ma p Mid peninsula Regional Open Space District Routine Maintenance and Facilities Improvements Program November2019 Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 3. Environmental Checklist Attachment 1 This Page intentionally left blank Open Space Maintenance and Restoration Program September 2021 1 3-62 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Attachment 1 Choris's pop'comy flower ill • coastal marsh milk -vetch~ eiti • • Choris'spopcorn flower `\ 4 if! f1.1,/, 4 Califomia bottle gra 1� Choris' popcomflowe sari `I rd, -r rk K B4If is ° sin Th` ' .A, Choris' popcomflower coastal marsh milk -vetch nip -,t tot 110 -. ; / Choris' popcomflower a• , i� -i �, coastal marsh milk -vetch ,I ..-ti. J ' / f: / r4 r ii .4 Air, f 44 J coastal marsh milk -vetch 4, t`, 4` Choris' popcomflower 1 _ :.0-• woodland woollythreads c a westem'leatherwood 8� I rt smanzanita Choris.popcomflower ;r , .� }. 1y Ande ol --� Los Altc+s. IGngsMountaln manzanita { arcuate'bush-mallow Hills 1\ coastal marsh milk -vetch r= marsh microseris rose leptosiphon F'es« idea marstr m icrose ri 81,tarr, coastal marsh milk -vetch r='r• rose leptosrphon Choris' popcomflower : r . hods' popcomflower Blasdale bent,grass a rsh: mic rose ris coastal marsh:milks-vetch/ wood a ollythreads westem leatherw oody�Garrdner'syampah • L,a Hon1i woodland woollythreads .Svn fe sin eta loo i=:o a 111 ht-=' r minute L ,111.3 Mar F,ri,. San Mateo woolly sunflower Pescadk Creeero County Pads arcuate bush -mallow Poi 1t\ReyeV eadowfoam :C ho Hs' popcomflowe r Crrt3 f minute pocket moss Park Sco ule its:ca tc hfly Scouler'scatchfly . . . Choris' popcomflowe NuriAlatclale:'S.be".nt:gra ss perennial goldfield J ChoriSLpopcornflower Choris' popcomflower I. Ranch S43r-- Fall.. San Franciscorpopcomflower Santa Cruz microsens J. Anderson'sima nza nits • $t/t`irro Anderson+�-s:manzanita Creek Eiuta o.F ge?cypress Northem Interior-Cypr j Forest Choris' popcomflow�� Franciscan onion orb woodland w^oollythread we stee?rnqle a the rwoo d Footh l rata Cruzelhaparraragwort Adobe Cre•,4_College leg l�/' ,g Chorisk,p�op+�c�omflower, Califomia bottle grass \ '°r woodland woollythreads 1 ,San•Mateo woolly sunflower (.c, t t.:r•ir western le a the rwoodOpen c-, '-°'-'' white4flowered rein orchid minute : poeket:moss::: . :13rtr,ll "' white-flowred rein]:orchid m a nza n ita Monterey pine slender -leaved pdndweed Franciscan thistle Mo nterey:sine sand -loving rwa Ilflpweri N 1.75 0.875 0 A Miles 1.75 • • ° Anderson'i7manzanita 00 -, o° woodland woollythreads • 0 - ' Andersorilsmanzanita • e—s Toren'sgrimmia manzanita KeIlman'slinstle moss' nd-woollythreads Abrams' eriastrum -11- q WOO enastrum gaito ahmrod Alp en Creek ma nzanitary Pa fia nc isc o:ic ollinsia_ 1. l nta Clara red ribbc Methusellahisbeard ''lichen Anderson' manzanita J o.. Basin =3�Fe Park r / r--" , - R.. ,t, ri, I, .e i 6, B E tI 6t0 N r4 IQ co,,,,, 4 ' A r/ ;r, ;: r:?'_:,J? -14 44,6, .r^. ti Easement or Management Agreement Within Program Area Midpen Records (Ca !flora) • Plant Observation "4141'...1 -� Ca II< F F • 1 Boulder H. T. HARVEY & ASSOCIATES Ecological Consultants Figure 3.4-3 Special -Status Plants Map Midpeninsula Regional Open Space Distract Routine Maintenance and Facilities Improvements Program November2019 Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 3. Environmental Checklist Attachment 1 This Page intentionally left blank Open Space Maintenance and Restoration Program September 2021 1 3-64 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Attachment 1 r San Francisco Bay 6,1m4 tAay'tj s �r. oster City Point Reye �.saltybibirdd'�beak Northam1Coastal Salt Marsh saline clover�"� lint rReyes salty /bird's -beak rough c colatelily L�rir olR' chocolate lily San Carlos • Point Reye salty bird •s -beak xi av •e �. • „r°° NorthmCoastal:SaltMarsh izef)• r rllinsia bent -flowered fiddleneck North Fair Oaks • tO ytront Perk Eden Landing Ecological Reserve Coyote Hills Reg b naI Park Northam Coastal Salt Marsh C ngdonlstarplant East Pal( Alto PointtF S es -salty bird's -beak Mannwestem"flax = Valley 05k.Woodland x� fountain thistle G alifomia seablite ti l'.1e nI A F°n rk. i�st�hr tle pan a eo round-headed"Chinese-houses a rit:fntilla ry • -1 :._ 1 ZIVIFLS slender -leaved pondweed G, r Hoover's button -celery lost thistleal nit A: Marin'we"stem flax Yve4.t tai' oint Reyessalty bird's -beak/ �'t (.�rolund-headed Chinese -houses : SamMat� m -mint Park \ alkalimilkvetch San Franeiwi,collinsia Hoovedsybutton-celery M t thorn -mint f I alkali milk vetch fragrant fritillary- Hoovers button -celery 3reline ' ountain manzanita • h Congdon tarplant Serpentine Bunchgrass two-fi)frkr o`e'r/n� 1 ttsc r' i n: • Franciscan onion ti: i //1 Jepson's coyote -thistle ads wastemIle'athennroold tvir / ChoriKpopcomflower zanita rtola .!S` ...!Sanan Francisco colli sia fragrant fritilla ryJ Unwers; a rc ua te'bt•ush-ma [low 1 ; Choris' pope omflower, v./ I Franci eck. an onion Franciscan onion woodland ,w_ ollythreads Los Altos Hills western leather�wood_ col) /r Pma god °Og O nta Cruzclover °° 0 haparral ragwort l adobe Cleft* bkl legene re � Ct # ,- C horisk,popc omflowe'r?. mia bottle grass �� \ 1 — woodland woollythreads n Mateo woolly, sunflower ' "o westem�le`atherwood western IeatheYwood 4 n l woodland woollythreads white-floweredire in orchid ®o �v 1.75 woodland-woollythreads ®+Iliii 1 Abrams' eriastrum Mountain View Los Altos read s N 1.75 0.875 0 A Miles Footh; College - Regional' WALPER RIOGE - Park U n i'an \' ' :14r s'ki_Cit 4/; c Quarry C¢� La I e s Regional Floc Area ti Newark _ at_p OA SANTA CI.AfsA Northem Coastal Salt Marsh • Opp S'unnyvale 280 — Steve r -C rp rr I.: r Fremont Central Park Lake E6mteth Congdo'ilstarplant 2 Cup0-0?ak t Sxake / 1 Santa C Legend Midpen Boundary ; 4>here of Influence PreservesWithin Program Area Easement or Management Agreement Within Program Area Midpen Records (Ca !flora) • Plant Observation CNDDBRecords • 0 Specific Location Approximate Location General Area Terrestrial Communities General Area H. T. HARVEY & ASSOCIATES Ecological Consultants Figure 3.4-3 Special -Status Plants Map Mid peninsula Regional Open Space District Routine Maintenance and Facilities Improvements Program November2019 Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 3. Environmental Checklist Attachment 1 This Page intentionally left blank Open Space Maintenance and Restoration Program September 2021 1 3-66 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Attachment 1 ria strum Mountain View os .Altos S'unnyvnle Tl rt , 212 ,arcuate bLish-maHow S arat Lorna Prieta hoita *woodland woollythreads Santa Clara red)ribbons &inborn County Park aft SANTA CRUZ I .sr Ake its , Campbell Loma Prieta hoita robust spineflower hairless op omflower o. I nd wooly thre arcuate bush -mallow robusSapin eflower most beauti ul jewelflowec3 westem leatherwood 010 wood la nd.w,00llythre a dsr bent -flowered fiddle - neck,-„ qa Prieta hoita oun rk • western leatherwood • r Santa Clara red ribbons Hickman 's popcom flog' rah hc'ulder =r��k; u • .4- #4 ; A t .4 -e' A' '_4 4- 3iyL F t Y 1.# fitr .1 �f r. t/ }� • 0 4 4* '' (F.! r - f7 10 CI et* Ern Lantond it L 1` �, y 0, 82 l',1', V . '.:: ' -,' ' -27;:/..4 ' ,Je 1.75 ,-! - ► .i /�i! Ar 41 N 1.75 0.875 0 Miles f San Jose The Plant `W-CAitol•Expy-Y Martial Cottle Park fra g ra ntifritilla ry •sm,00th lessingia Loma Pneta hoita Santa Clara valley dudleya San4F a nc iscoNcollinsia 4'1 Mt. Hamilton thistle western leatherwood Ri •Santa Clara.,red ribbons San F1'ariCiSaocollinsia Santa C_ la ra most bea ti 1 re ri bbon 'bb ons--r eweIflawer rock sanicle e ose Santa Clara red ribbons oodlan. woollythreads ea Mt. Hamilton thistle -. - Loma Prieta hoita - y nta S G ‘11,• as C Santa Clara red ribbons arcuate bush -mallow ' k ,-0—,!,..„,Santa . Gritz M'oua ins beardtongue Santa CruzMountains pussypaws ribbons Cru Mountain-beardtongue - S°`YUel t;r Santa CruzMoun Soquel Demonstration State Forest Easement or Management Agreement Within Program Area Midpen Records (Ca !flora) • Plant Observation Anderson' manzanita H. T. HARVEY & ASSOCIATES Ecological Consultants Figure 3.4-3 SpecisI-StatusPIants Mid peninsula Regional Open Space District Routine Maintenance and Facilities Improvements Prnativ November2019 Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 3. Environmental Checklist Attachment 1 This Page intentionally left blank Open Space Maintenance and Restoration Program September 2021 1 3-68 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Attachment 1 California Pa,-111ca { Skyline College s'imharp Park 1 77 t- red=legg dd frog ,, r' t_;� merican:b`adg•e `tea y!'. i:.�3 Califomia red=legged;frog:::;....i San Bruno! elfn:butterfly American badger !41' • 11' I.1- l�r ,1.� Califomia red -legged frog 1..bss • # ..j - Califomia red -legged frog, lf• cif (fp • saltmarsh common yellowthroat) - UNTAIN es steelhead - central Califomia San Francisco Intl Airport Millbrae Burlingame Hillsborough mar "", e"Ie; r Califomia rd legged frog 44, 4 coast DPS • San Francisco dusky -footed woodrat Califomia red;legged frog saltmarsh common4yellowthroat steelhead - central..Csalifomia coast DPS Califomia rree._d legged•frogd westem snowy plover N 1.75 0.875 0 A 1.75 Miles westem bun; tile lb'ee�r Califomia red -legged frog • II steelhead - centrahCalifomia coa San Mateo San Francisco Bay Foster C ibngfn srnei westem snowy plover '. Califomia Ridgway-s.rail • salt -marsh harvest mouse Califomia black rail r westem snowy plover( pallid:b.at northem ham er short —eared owl salt -marsh harvest prrvestmouse saIt-ma rsh`-harvestt'mrwise • Alameda song sparrow ••, northern hamar., Water Dog Lake Fark purple martin • San Francisco dusky -footed woodrat pallid at _>>n r . I I,. L I. Califomia Ridgway'sraill�, 0b ' e westem bumblebee westem snowy p very. yellow rait westem bumble bee California red-legged'frog H i.tuft r, F'�rn li Califomia red-leggecIffrog Califomia Bay checkerspo butterfly U...e Califomia red-leggedfrog `� I 'I iL-,Santa Cruz blacck salamander San Francisco dusky -footed woodrat Califomia giant salamander Califomia g2 an lamander elet fan rancisco dusky -footed woodrata aft Moon Califomia giant salamander marbled murr m re ,e ' 1 N TA CR1_`Z gyred -legged frog 0 Califomia red -legged frog • • • westem red;ba ' pallid bat :��isde marbled murrelet Califomia red -legged frog Cali is red -legged f rig Califomia giant salamander _ • Califomia giantsalamander American badgerbuurrowing owl marbled murrelet AmericAn saltmarsh common yellowthroat • • • • Califomia giant salamander foothill yellow -legged frog California red -legged frog • Califomia giant salamander Califomia giar' salamande ‘Galifomia rethlegged' frog • C•alifomia red -legged fro: Townsend'sbig-eared bat • westem red bat western\pond turtle �\ foothill yellow -legged if g American badger" ••Califomia giantsalamanderr \-San Cruz blacka mande�t\ • • California giant salamander r� 0 westem•bumble bee Townsend's'big-eared bat \wwestem �pond turtle, Santa Cruzblackr'salamande saltmarsh common yellowthro�i' F'or O Califomia red -legged American badger: burrowing: ow Aniericac badger • marbled murrelet • Califomia red -legged frog northern harrier San Fr! Cisco dusk footed woodrat opper:sparrow westem pond turtles burrowing owl American badgerr Ssh ownseritrsjbig-eared bat • '—loggerh�ead shrike San'�Francisco garter snake •® / :California nta /black salamander Califomia red -legged frog st'e'elhead - cential Califomia coast DPS • red )egg d frog saltmarsh common yellowthroat • • • San Francisco gartersnake Califomia giant salamander. Califomia red -legged frog grasshopper sparrow bald eagle `gan Francisco dusky- rioted woodrat steelhead trou westem•pondtturtle Legend Midpen Boundary ' 'Sphere of Influence • Preserves Within Program Area Easement or Management Agreement Within Program Area Midpen Records • Wildlife Observations CNDDB Records • Specific Location Approximate Location General Area H. T. HARVEY & ASSOCIATES Ecological Consultants Figure 3.4-4 Special-StatusAnimals Map Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Routine Maintenance and Facilities Improvements Program November2019 Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 3. Environmental Checklist Attachment 1 This Page intentionally left blank Open Space Maintenance and Restoration Program September 2021 1 3-70 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Attachment 1 H;,t-fi American badger • rancisco•dusky-footed woodrat • w�• + • burr westem pond turtle 'AAmerican badger encan adg rte.,\ ,�.�California red legged frog Cringed myotis $ - American bad � I San Fraanci garter snake. t�ie�r. � ,: ` �7'1 'Mir �. Cal is red -legged fro: 4.+s . f'��� ,. �I' • ''.. " 'gin, tcalliifomia,giant.salamander •s .1 • r-1 j� LIInty Lill. *American e,;� 'i1''- ' r ` marblevurrelet Califomia red leased frog air bank swallow ,/14: ,epj�!!� westem bumble bee longfin smelt bank swallow tid ewa to steelhead • Califomia red -legged frog steelhead - central iGalifo is coast DPS • American badge •.:.American bad er • Czalifomia•red-legged frog • - 9 marbled murrelet ,r California red -legged frog �, • - • foothill yellow -Pegged frog Califomia red -legged frog • ' p,,il-, bald eagle L s hilt/ Califomia giantsalamander Califomia giantsalamande� T nsendsbig-eared bat, •--- ow Hill' Califomia red=legged frog • Califomia red -legged frog dl`ri Townsend'sbig-earetd bat saltmarsh common yellowthroat • • • • western red bat • 0 marbled murrelet American badger\ America badger Townsend'sbig-eard bat bald eagle,c * Townsend'sbig-eared bat Americanperegrine falcon • f Amenc adger c' Califomia red -legged frog • — westem red bat 411 Califomia red -legged log :�i r San Francisco gartersnake •north'em n harrier Sa Francisco dusky=footed woodrat • • • American badgew grassliopper. sparrow _ •Califomia red -legged frog r er San Francisco dusky -footed woodrat burrowh :owl western pond turtle • g burrowing owl westem pond turtle a \. • • •• Califomia giant salamander! •, •sit• M>� coast homed lizard • • to erhead shrike ^R* • ® ft American badger 99 v grass ppersparrow Califomia redtlegged frog bald eagle R .--„,„141` tidewaterCgoby Califomia red-leggedhfrog saltmarsh common yellowthroat steelhead - central Califomia coast DPS n1W!Ae Califomia red-legged'frog 1• h e Santa Cruz,.black+salamander •San Francisco garter snake San Francisco dusky -footed woodrat ' big -eared bat American badger Townsend �® Califomiajred-legged frog burro o owing owl w marbled murrelet , 7 41 -American badg • �� foothill yellow -legged frog r r it( Mateo Lle L., m, r.13 r Townsend'sbig -ea red ba 0 marbled mur"relet marbled urrelet 0 foothill yellow -legged frog r. ..Y Califomia pallid bat Califomia:red-legged frog marbl urrelet tidew,aFel‘ by Califomia giantsalama American badger Califomia'redslegged frog • Califomiaored-legged frog• S'.___ • O® `( American'badger marbled mu lerr et pahfomia,g a st • weermbumble bee steelhead a iht • 1 nom.. r Ccu➢n!•, Pad., es- ring=tailed cat ring-tailed cat steelhead - central'Galifomia co stDPS a'• steelhead routrout • • foothill yellowaeggedfrog ° I Santa rtiz,bla yk salamander �1 giaritfsalamander arti.led miiirelet` 0 Santa Cruz•.6lack.salamande F western bumble bee steelhead - central,Cali omia coast DPS / . 1.r ! c ,Chi! -I irSan Francisco dusky -footed FiNgawoodra`t; ollege \ A ree oot:z C coast homed lizard Io ea�red owl • tredjbellied newt marbled'murrelet westem bumble bee • Creek salamander mrbled°murrele omia cog DPS::::�: s. westem bumble bee steelhead - central Califomia c:o'ast DPS Townsend' b eared $f 9-. westem !bumble ;bee westem snowy plover bank swallow N 1.75 0.875 0 A 1.75 Miles 11 ste po nd nd turtle I II, I, 'State Park , .f marbledlmurrelet me ste m:snow bla ,k *plover swift westem bumble bee steelhead Z- • Califomia giant salamander" badger / •" nng-tailerd%cat Santa Cruz black salamander Califomia red -legged frog San Franciscifgartersnake foothill yellow -legged frog ••Townsend'sbig-ea red,baat -, l+. Califomia* iantsalamander marbled�murrelet�It g� - centralCalifornia coast DPS steelhead trout • _ 1-i western bumble bee' steelhe.ad,IcenntrnLGalifomia coastDPS • —f szog ♦1% r • -0' / t J• 4 eggliki 0- A▪ t rr r afs ; agar • -`'/ -; ,' a _ • i h: - III c ',I "/ :dr t B' °Wp. .02 8E%. 1,4OND WCt1NTR/N crr • ... '1.- J LI_I ulde Legend Midpen Boundary ' 'Sphere of Influence • Preserves Within Program Area Easement or Management Agreement Within Program Area Midpen Records • Wildlife Observations CNDDB Records • Specific Location Approximate Location General Area H. T. HARVEY & ASSOCIATES e Ecorngical Consultants Figure 3.4-4 Special -Status Animals Map Mid peninsula Regional Open Space District Routine Maintenance and Facilities Improvements Program November2019 Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 3. Environmental Checklist Attachment 1 This Page intentionally left blank Open Space Maintenance and Restoration Program September 2021 1 3-72 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Attachment 1 San Francisco Bay ster Cih, 41 tt.at9 Eden Landing Ecological Reserve Califomia Rid Mara ys:rar Ik-ma rsh.ha rvest mou lojngfin smelt;: westemfsnowy plover short -eared `norrtherri hame pallid -bat -TT Californialtlack salt -marsh harvest mouse : Alameaaksong //western San (_arl) yellowrai Alameda song �w westem bumble bee::: resternsnow 'lover Y`p . westem bumble bee Bay checkerspot butterfly sa North Fair Oaks American badger r.i.=fb F•irk Alameda song sparrowt California tigersalamander - =.1 .A rica�liadger, / Galifomia giant salamande"r ti r rrnlc 0 Crotch bumble bee yellow rail pallid bat e'''we 0a Califomia red -legged frog �Ca fom ggiiansalamanderl Coyote Hills Regional Park westem bumbblle ownsend'sbig-eared ba ;:L` - . ir e Califomia red legged frog t sa'Itmarsh common yellowthrroat ,• � ''f] • •Califomia red_leggedfrog• \ stem'.bumble'bee pallid bat Califomia tiger salamander foothill oiw-legged frog VCrot chlbumble bee westem bumble'bee yello• w-ra iI w-aststemrsnowy:ploue Califomia r�dgwa westemspondanroro turtle �r Unwersrty Townsendtsbig=eared bat foothill yellow -legged frog bald eagle Califomia red -legged frog westem pond turtle gj'Townsend's big -eared bat American peregrine falcon ..Ame can badger American"badge San Franc s o garter snake • alifomia giant salamander Fremont Central Park Lae ElrzLeth ALA1VM11=nA l'•1/4/el Ski LP SANTA Ct.Pk" ongfin,>smett:::= yellow rail burrowingCwl' sa \ / Califomia least tem salVhiarsh%harvest mouse Alameda song Califomia tiger; salamander c{ western pond turtle American badger San Francisco game! a 4Califomia red -legged frog N 1.75 0.875 0 1.75 pted woodrat Foothuils Park salt -ma- rshrharve saltmarsh common yellowthroat pond turtle sal -marsh harvest mouse burrow g owlrl salt -marsh -wandering shrew h1 Townse nd's big -eared db a t' • San Francisco9d'u`sky-footed woodrat Adobe crec Miles Cr • m Townsend'sbig eared bat San Francisco dusky -footed woodrat • • coast homed lizard •• Califomia red-legged1frog Cis lifo`mmia tige erg aml ander •westemhred bat 280 California redylegged frog Santa Cruz black salamander Steve ns. burrowing Legend Midpen Boundary • B3here of Influence Preserves Within Program Area Easement or Management Agreement Within Program Area Midpen Records • Wildlife Observations CNDDB Records • Specific Location Approximate Location General Area H. T. HARVEY & ASSOCIATES Ecoiogical Consultants Fgure 3.4-4 Special -Status Animals Map Midpeninsula Regional Open qpace District Routine Maintenance and Facilities Improvements Program November2019 Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 3. Environmental Checklist Attachment 1 This Page intentionally left blank Open Space Maintenance and Restoration Program September 2021 1 3-74 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Attachment 1 saIt-ma rshwandering shrew Townsen� big -eared at MO Main®s 'oothr �� :ollege Los Alt pallid bat Townsend'sbig !eared bat n Francisco dusky -footed woodrat Townsend'sbig-eared bat S'unnyvale coast homed lizard • • San Francisco dusky -footed woodrat •C`Iifomia•redtegged frog westem re bate� /"v"Galifoma tiger lsalamander California egged frog Santa Cruzlblacksalamander •Califomiagiiant salamander Califomia tiger _sala tinder • •coast homed lizard California red -legged frog Santa Gritz bla▪ ck salamander Califomia rediegged frog,., foothill -yellow -legged frog • � Amercanyellow warbler 1.1 Santa,Cruz black salamander 1 a Califomia red-leggedfrog California -10i 'salamander Santa(Ci zibla cksalamander BenLflilnd N 1.75 0.875 0 Miles 1.75 • Santa Cruz -black salamanderCalifomia-g is ntisa la ma nde r Ca_.tle Rock State Park O6. -1i t.Townsend'sbig-eared bat Santa`Cruz back salamander westem pond turtle 0 Califomia giant salamander 280-- Steve m-Greek-i^I CupE burrowing owl burrow▪ i- ng owl CC 1 j California red -legged frog I r Santa Cruz black salamander steelhead, centres Califomia coast DPS Norma Y Mineta Fan Jose Int'I Arpt Santa-Clara- /� 4 280 Califomia giantsalamander foothill yellow -legged frog Campbell foothill yellow -legged frog western pond/ turtle Santa Cruz'blacckk salamander iWestern red bat•pallid bat Califomia giant salamander • Califomia giant salamander \Califomia red -legged frog Santa Cruz black lamander San Francisco dusky -footed woodrat • Santa Cruz black salamander westem pond, turtle Zayante band -winged, grasshopper alifomia_grantsalamander Califomia • bald eagle pallid bat PUB pallid bat steelhead - central Califomia coast DPS r, westem'pond turtle it sterelhead - c ptrai Galifomia coast DPS ; 1 �.� Ba y • c he c ke rsp of b utte rfly :Almaden bald eagieesilver ring-tailed cat Y `♦ ounty Park western pond turtle • foothill yellow; legged frog westem pond turtle • foothill yellow -legged frog 1 r ` Santa Cruz black salamander II ' alifomia red-Ieggedlfrog4foothilIMIlow hggedfrog Califomia giant salamander t Califomia red -legged frog C • 4/a os @,40 a �! SAN TA CRUZ /114C2 Pt, ALA Ai "#.- yam , OP III r _ r -7- �..` 1110 ti' r f pi.I. , ,...1 u ` 0 7 .frl f�r r+ L tt �'- CG r' / - w., v Cree* 'California red-legge frog • , 311 le 74i 'YAlf "tit p„•! �, a, westemrredibat giantsalamander • tSanta Cruz black salamander steelhead trout American peregrine falcon* Califomia red-leggedlfrog Califomia redhlegged frog Country Club foothill yellow -legged frog steelhead - central Califomia coast DPs r c purple martinis II eag el ri g tailed cat a._a d nta Crurtblacksalamander Californiared-leggedfrog Califomia red el gged frog Califomia red -legged frog r 11•11110b purple artin. • western And turtle coast homed lizard 1 Townsend'sbig-ea red bat • T nw send'sbig-eared bat r homed,lizard uato \Yw Califomia gianttsalamander Soquel Denonstratian State Forest SoriUef Smith's blue butterfly `reek '• foothill yellow -legged frog H. T. HARVEY & ASSOCIATES Ecological Consu am -A& Figure 3.4-4 Special -Status Animals Map Midpeninsula Regional Open a)ace District Routine Maintenance and Facilities Improvements Program November2019 Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 3. Environmental Checklist Attachment 1 This Page intentionally left blank Open Space Maintenance and Restoration Program September 2021 1 3-76 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Midpeninsula Regional Attachment 1 Open Space District 3. Environmental Checklist Although the CNPS is not a regulatory agency, and the CNPS's CRPR designations confer no formal regulatory protection, plants appearing as CRPR 1B or 2 are, in general, considered to meet CEQA's Section 15380 criteria, and adverse effects on these species may be considered significant. Impacts on plants that are listed by the CNPS as CRPR 3 or 4 are also considered during CEQA review, although because these species are typically not as rare as CRPR 1B or 2, impacts on them are less frequently considered significant. Table 1 in Appendix D identifies the 97 special -status plant species known to occur, or thought to have potential for occurrence, in the Program area and describes their distribution, legal status, general habitat requirements, and known occurrences in the Program area. Special -status plants that are restricted to coastal dune, coastal strand, and/or coastal or bay salt marsh habitats are not included in Table 1 in Appendix D or discussed further, as the Program area does not include these areas and habitat types. Special -Status Wildlife Species Table 2 in Appendix D identifies 52 special -status animal species that are listed, proposed, or candidate species under the state or federal Endangered Species Act, designated as California species of special concern by CDFW, or listed as fully protected by the California Fish and Game Code and that are known to occur or may occur within the Program area, and characterizes their potential to occur within Midpen preserves. Their distribution, legal status, general habitat requirements, and known occurrences within Midpen preserves are also provided. Known occurrence locations of special -status animals, based on CNDDB (CDFW 2020b) and observations by Midpen staff, are provided in Figure 3.4-4. Designated critical habitat of federally -listed species within the vicinity of the Program area and Sphere of Influence is shown above in Figure 3.4-2. 3.4.3 Regulatory Setting Federal Federal Endangered Species Act FESA provides legislation to protect federally listed plant and animal species. USFWS also designates critical habitat for Endangered or Threatened species under FESA. A critical habitat designation protects areas that are necessary for the conservation of the species. Section 9 of the FESA (50 Code of Federal Regulations 17.3) prohibits the take, possession, sale, or transport of any FESA-listed species. Take is defined as "to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, capture, collect, or attempt to engage in any such conduct" (16 U.S. Code [USC] Section 1532[19]). Federal regulation 50 Code of Federal Regulations 17.3 further defines the term harm in the take definition to mean any act that actually kills or injures a federally listed species, including significant habitat modification or degradation. For plants, the FESA prohibits removing, possessing, maliciously damaging, or destroying any listed plant on areas under federal jurisdiction, and removing, cutting, digging up, damaging, or destroying any listed plant on non-federal land in knowing violation of state law (16 USC Section 1538[a] [2] [B]). Open Space Maintenance and Restoration Program September 2021 1 3-77 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Midpeninsula Regional Attachment 1 Open Space District 3. Environmental Checklist Midpen currently holds FESA Section 10(a)(1)(A) Recovery Permits for San Francisco garter snake and California red -legged frog. The Biological Opinion on the issuance of the permit also addresses marbled murrelet, Bay checkerspot butterfly, and Santa Clara Valley dudleya. Migratory Bird Treaty Act The Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) is administered by USFWS and implements four treaties between the U.S. and Canada, Mexico, Japan, and Russia, respectively, to manage and conserve migratory birds that cross national borders. The MBTA makes it unlawful in any manner, unless expressly authorized by permit pursuant to federal regulations, to pursue, hunt, take, capture, kill, attempt to take, capture or kill, possess, offer for sale, sell, offer to barter, barter, offer to purchase, purchase, deliver for shipment, ship, export, import, cause to be shipped, exported, or imported, deliver for transportation, transport or cause to be transported, carry or cause to be carried, or receive for shipment, transportation, carriage, or export at any time, or in any manner, any migratory bird, or any part, nest, or egg of any such bird. The definition of "take" referred to by MBTA is defined as any act to "pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture or collect, or attempt to pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture or collect." This includes most actions, direct and indirect, that could result in "take" or possession, whether temporary or permanent, of any protected species (Avian Power Line Interaction Committee and USFWS 2005). Although harassment and habitat modification do not constitute a take in themselves under MBTA, such actions that result in direct loss of birds, nests, or eggs including nest abandonment or failure, are considered take under such regulations. Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act The Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (BGEPA) declares it is illegal to take bald eagles, including their parts, nests, or eggs unless authorized. "Take" is defined as "pursue, shoot, shoot at, poison, wound, kill, capture, trap, collect, molest or disturb." Disturb means to agitate or bother a bald or golden eagle to a degree that causes, or is likely to cause injury to an eagle, a decrease in its productivity, by substantially interfering with normal breeding, feeding, or sheltering behavior, or nest abandonment. In addition to immediate impacts, this definition also covers impacts that result from human -induced alterations initiated around a previously used nest site during a time when eagles are not present, if, upon the eagle's return, such alterations agitate or bother an eagle to a degree that interferes with or interrupts normal breeding, feeding, or sheltering habits, and causes injury, death or nest abandonment. Bald eagles are known to nest in the region and could occur on Midpen lands. Activities conducted under the Program must comply with BGEPA. Clean Water Act of 1977 The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) has jurisdiction over waters of the U.S., which are classified as wetlands, navigable waters, or other waters and include marine waters, tidal areas, stream channels, and associated wetlands. Under federal regulations, wetlands are defined as "those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or ground water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions." Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bogs, and similar areas. USACE does not Open Space Maintenance and Restoration Program September 2021 1 3-78 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Midpeninsula Regional Attachment 1 Open Space District 3. Environmental Checklist consider "isolated" wetlands (i.e., waters not connected to navigable waters) to be waters of the U.S. Section 404 of the Federal Clean Water Act (CWA) requires a project applicant to obtain a permit before engaging in any activity that involves any discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the U.S., including wetlands. Fill material is material placed in waters of the U.S. where the material has the effect of replacing any portion of a water of the U.S. with dry land, or changing the bottom elevation of any portion of a water of the U.S. Waters of the U.S. include navigable waters; interstate waters; all other waters where the use, degradation, or destruction of the waters could affect interstate or foreign commerce; relatively permanent tributaries to any of these waters; and wetlands adjacent to these waters. Wetlands are defined as those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface water or groundwater at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. Potentially jurisdictional wetlands must meet three wetland delineation criteria: hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soil types, and wetland hydrology. Wetlands that meet the delineation criteria may be jurisdictional under Section 404 of CWA pending USACE verification. Under Section 401 of the CWA, an applicant for a Section 404 permit must obtain a certificate from the appropriate state agency stating that the intended dredging or filling activity is consistent with the state's water quality standards and criteria. In California, the authority to grant water quality certification is delegated by the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) to the nine Regional Water Quality Control Boards (RWQCBs). A primary objective of the proposed Program is streamlining the regulatory permitting process by obtaining comprehensive long-term permits that improve work planning and implementation, and reduce delays. Midpen is applying for a Section 404 Regional General Permit from USACE and Section 401 water quality certificate from the RWQCB to cover Program activities that would result in fill. State California Endangered Species Act CESA provides protection for candidate plants and animal species as well as those listed as threatened or endangered by CDFW. CESA prohibits the take of any such species unless authorized; however, California case law has not interpreted habitat destruction, alone, as included in the state's definition of take. Take is defined in the Fish and Game Code Section 86 as "hunt, pursue, catch, capture, or kill, or attempt to hunt, pursue, catch, capture, or kill" (California Fish and Game Code Section 86). CDFW administers the act and authorizes take through Section 2081 agreements, Section 2080.1 consistency determinations (for species that are also listed under the federal ESA), or NCCP. Midpen currently has a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with CDFW describing measures that will avoid take of San Francisco garter snake and California tiger salamander for activities that are performed on their lands for scientific research and habitat creation, enhancement, and maintenance activities related to the conservation and recovery of these Open Space Maintenance and Restoration Program September 2021 1 3-79 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Midpeninsula Regional Attachment 1 Open Space District 3. Environmental Checklist species. In addition, Midpen is currently able to take foothill yellow -legged frog for scientific, educational, or propagation purposes under a letter from CDFW (dated July 2017). This agreement is being revisited as part of Midpen's programmatic permitting effort. Midpen also maintains a Scientific Collecting Permit for state listed special -status reptiles and amphibians. Fish and Game Codes Wetlands and Nesting Birds Fish and Game Code governs state -designated wetlands, including riparian and stream habitat, and mandates that mitigation be implemented to replace wetland extent and value lost to development. Sections 1600-07 of the Fish and Game Code regulate activities that would alter the flow, substantially change or use any materials from the bed, channel, or bank of any river, stream, or lake, or dispose of any debris. Activities that affect these areas, as well as associated riparian habitats, require a Streambed Alteration Permit from CDFW. Midpen currently holds a Routine Maintenance Agreement under the California Fish and Game Code § 1602, Lake or Streambed Alteration Agreement, which is valid through 2024. Program activities would be covered under a new or amended Routine Maintenance Agreement. Fully Protected Species (Fish and Game Code sections 3511, 4700, 5000, 5050, 5515) The classification of a species as fully protected provides protection to rare, Threatened, or Endangered species. Fully Protected species may not be taken or possessed at any time and no licenses or permits may be issued for their take except for collecting these species for necessary scientific research and relocation of the bird species for the protection of livestock. Impacts to these species need to be avoided to ensure compliance with the regulations. Porter -Cologne Water Quality Control Act and Section 401 of the Clean Water Act The RWQCBs administers the Porter -Cologne Act and Section 401 of the CWA. The Porter - Cologne Act requires that "any person discharging waste, or proposing to discharge waste, within any region that could affect the `waters of the state' to file a report of discharge" with the local RWQCB. Waters of the state as defined in the Porter -Cologne Act are "any surface water or groundwater, including saline waters, within the boundaries of the state." Pursuant to Section 401 of the CWA, the RWQCB considers waters of the state to include, but not be limited to, rivers, streams, lakes, bays, marshes, mudflats, unvegetated seasonally ponded areas, drainage swales, sloughs, wet meadows, natural ponds, vernal pools, diked bay lands, seasonal wetlands, and riparian woodlands. RWQCB has also claimed jurisdiction and exercised discretionary authority over "isolated waters." Midpen conducts routine maintenance activities in compliance with a Section 401 Water Quality Certifications (WQCs) and Waste Discharge Requirements (WDRs) from the San Francisco Bay RWQCB, (Order No. R2-2010-0083, adopted in June 2010). The San Francisco Bay RWQCB has granted waiver letters to allow Midpen to continue conducting work under the existing Order while they apply for a new Section 401 permit. Open Space Maintenance and Restoration Program September 2021 1 3-80 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Midpeninsula Regional Attachment 1 Open Space District 3. Environmental Checklist California Coastal Act and San Mateo County's Local Coastal Program The California Coastal Act of 1976 requires new development (e.g., buildings, roads, pipe, and utility lines) that occur within the Coastal Zone to obtain a Coastal Development Permit (CDP) from either the California Coastal Commission (CCC) or the local government. While the CCC is the primary agency that issues these permits, once a local agency has a Local Coastal Program (LCP) that has been certified by the CCC, that local agency takes over the primary responsibility for issuing CDPs. All development planned in the Coastal Zone requires either issuance of a CDP or a CDP Exemption. Midpen activities occurring within the Coastal Zone would be located within San Mateo County. In 1980, the San Mateo County Board of Supervisors and the CCC approved the San Mateo County's LCP. Development must comply with the policies in the LCP. In 1981, the County's Planning and Building Development assumed responsibility for implementing the State Coastal Act in the unincorporated area of the County, including issuance of CDPs. Thus, under the proposed Program, activities that are planned within the Coastal Zone must either obtain a CDP or an exemption from these permit requirements. Activities that involve in -kind facility replacement (i.e., no expansion) are likely to be exempt; however, any upsizing or change in the location or size of infrastructure would require a CDP (e.g., a larger culvert would be considered an expansion and would require a CDP). In addition, activities occurring where sensitive species or habitat may occur would also require a CDP. Local Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District — Resource Management Policies Midpen's resource management includes management of natural, cultural, and agricultural resources. Midpen recognizes the protection of biological resources as one of the primary benefits of open space (Midpen 2021b). Midpen's resource management goals and policies adhere to a strategy of protecting and restoring known rare, endangered, special -status species and sensitive habitats, as well as seriously degraded or deteriorating areas. Further, Midpen's resource management policies give priority to sensitive habitats and consider the relative scarcity of the specific resources involved. Relevant goals to the implementation of the proposed Program include: Goal VM: Sustain and promote viable and diverse native plant communities characteristic of the region. Goal WM: Maintain and promote healthy and diverse native wildlife populations. Goal ES: Use sustainable land management techniques to maintain, restore, or simulate natural disturbance in priority habitats. Goal HC: Protect ecosystem integrity by maximizing habitat connectivity. Open Space Maintenance and Restoration Program September 2021 1 3-81 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 3. Environmental Checklist Attachment 1 Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District — Vision Plan Midpen prepared the Vision Plan to articulate the core values for conservation and management of open space over the next 40 years or more. The themes and goals were developed based on Midpen's mission statement and adopted policies (Midpen 2014). The following themes and goals pertain to the biological resources within Midpen lands that the proposed Program must be consistent with and support: Stewardship: • Restore the natural environment, control invasive plants and animals, and limit the spread of pathogens ■ Promote natural ecosystem processes • Protect watersheds and restore stream flow to improve habitat for fish and wildlife Biodiversity: ■ Protect large contiguous areas of intact habitat that represent the Peninsula and South Bay's full mosaic of natural communities • Conserve sensitive species and special natural communities Connectivity: ■ Increase connectivity between protected areas to support natural wildlife movement patterns San Mateo County Heritage Tree Ordinance According to the Heritage Tree Ordinance of San Mateo County (Ordinance No. 2427), a permit is required for the removal, destruction, or trimming of any Heritage Tree on public or private property, with Heritage Trees defined as: (a) Class 1 trees designated by the Board of Supervisors and (b) Class 2 - any one of 16 designated species of trees of specified diameter at breast height (dbh) (28 -inch dbh bigleaf maple [Acer macrophyllum]; 48 -inch dbh madrone (Arbutus menziesii]; 20 -inch dbh golden chinquapin [Chrysolepis chrysophylla]; all Santa Cruz cypress [Cupressus abramziana]; 12 -inch dbh Oregon ash [Fraxinus latifolia]; 48 -inch dbh tan oak [Lithocarpus densiflorus]; 48 -inch dbh coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia]; 40 -inch dbh canyon live oak [Quercus chrysolepis]; all Oregon white oak [Quercusgarryana]; 32 -inch dbh black oak [Quercus kelloggii]; 40 -inch dbh interior live oak [Quercus wislizenii]; 48 -inch dbh valley oak [Quercus lobata]; 30 -inch dbh blue oak [Quercus douglasii]; 48 -inch dbh California bay [Umbellularia californica]; 30 -inch dbh California nutmeg [Torreya californica]; or 72 - inch dbh coast redwood [Sequoia sempervirens]), healthy and generally free from disease. Removal or trimming of heritage trees would require a permit from the County. San Mateo County Significant Tree Ordinance According to the Significant Tree Ordinance of San Mateo County (Part Three of Division VIII of the Municipal Code), a permit is required for the removal or destruction of any Significant Tree within Design Review Districts or Scenic Corridors. A Significant Tree is any tree over Open Space Maintenance and Restoration Program September 2021 1 3-82 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Midpeninsula Regional Attachment 1 Open Space District 3. Environmental Checklist 38 inches in circumference (12 -inch dbh) measured at 4-1/2 feet above the ground or immediately below the lowest branch. In zoning areas for residential hillside/design review districts (RH/DR) the definition of a significant tree is any tree over 19 inches in circumference (6 -inch dbh). In the RH/DR district, permits are required for trimming indigenous trees (native to San Mateo County) as well as cutting trees. This ordinance is not the same as the Heritage Tree Ordinance, and is listed separately in the General Plan for San Mateo County (San Mateo County Planning and Building Division 1986). Removal or trimming of ordinance -sized trees would require a permit from the County. Note that the County is currently preparing updates to the Significant and Heritage Tree Removal regulations to improve management of individual trees and tree canopy in the County, and to improve the tree removal and trimming permit process in a manner that is consistent with the County's General Plan (San Mateo County 2021a). Interim regulations regarding Significant and Heritage trees went into effect on November 18, 2016 (San Mateo County 2021b). County of Santa Clara — Tree Preservation and Removal Ordinance (Section C16.6) The County of Santa Clara Tree Preservation and Removal Ordinance (County Code, Sections C16.1 -C16.17) protects trees meeting specified conditions. Any person proposing to remove a protected tree is required to file for an administrative permit no less than 10 days prior to removal, or for heritage trees, 90 days prior to removal. A protected tree on any private or public property consists of any of the following: ■ Any tree having a main trunk or stem measuring 37.7 inches or greater in circumference (12 inches or more in diameter) at a height of 4.5 feet above ground level, or in the case of multi -trunk trees a total of 75.4 inches in circumference (24 inches or more in diameter) of all trunks in the following areas of the county: - parcels zoned "Hillsides" (3 acres or less), - parcels within a "-d" (Design Review) combining zoning district, - parcels within the Los Gatos Specific Plan area. ■ Any tree having a main trunk or stem measuring 18.8 inches or greater in circumference (6 inches or more in diameter) at a height of 4.5 feet above ground level, or in the case of multi -trunk trees, a total of 37.7 inches in circumference of all trunks (12 inches or more of the diameter) in the "h1" New Almaden Historic Preservation zoning district. ■ Any heritage tree, as that term is defined in Section C16-2 of the Tree Preservation Ordinance. ■ Any tree required to be planted as a replacement for an unlawfully removed tree, pursuant to Section C16 -17(e) of the Tree Preservation Ordinance. ■ Any tree that was required to be planted or retained by the conditions of approval for any use permit, building site approval, grading permit, architectural and site approval (ASA), design review, special permit or subdivision. Open Space Maintenance and Restoration Program September 2021 1 3-83 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 3. Environmental Checklist Attachment 1 • On any property owned or leased by the County of Santa Clara, any tree that measures more than 37.7 inches in circumference (12 inches or more in diameter) measured 4.5 feet above the ground, or that exceeds 20 feet in height. • Any tree, regardless of size, within road rights -of -way and easements of the County, whether within or without the unincorporated territory of the County. Removal of any significant trees would be subject to the requirements of the County of Santa Clara County Code and thus require a permit. 3.4.4 Discussion a. Would the project have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or indirectly or through habitat modifications, on any species identifies as a candidate, sensitive or special -status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? To evaluate resource sensitivity at work sites under the proposed Program, Midpen would undertake the following process: (1) identify the type of activity and confirm the specific location; (2) conduct a desktop audit to evaluate whether suitable habitat for special -status species is present and determine if a site visit is necessary; and (3) classify the activity at the site in one of the four tiers defined below. The tiered approach is intended to help both Midpen and regulatory agency staff identify resource and site sensitivity and thereby prioritize impact avoidance and minimization measures and/or BMPs and mitigation needs. ■ Tier 1 (No Effect) - There is no potential for a special -status species to be present in the area at any time. Tier 1 is appropriate if the biologist determines that Program activities would occur in creek reaches inaccessible to special -status fish or, for terrestrial special -status species other than birds, in areas where no suitable breeding habitat is present and there is no connectivity between the site and known or potential breeding habitat (so that non -breeding individuals can also be presumed to be absent). Because foraging or roosting birds could easily fly away before being impacted by Program activities, the implementation of Program activities in non - breeding habitat for special -status bird species would also be considered a Tier 1 because such activities would not result in impacts on individuals that rise to the level of "take". ■ Tier 2 - A special -status species could occur, at least at times, at a site, but take will not occur. Tier 2 is applicable if the biologist determines that one or more special - status species are known to occur or could possibly occur on -site either because (1) suitable breeding habitat is present, or (2) for terrestrial species and fish, suitable non -breeding habitat is present and there is connectivity between the work site and suitable breeding habitat. - Tier 2A (Not Likely to Adversely Affect) - The activity will not result in take of special -status species based on the location and timing of work; although a special -status species could occur at the location at times, none would be present when the work will occur. Open Space Maintenance and Restoration Program September 2021 1 3-84 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Midpeninsula Regional Attachment 1 Open Space District 3. Environmental Checklist - Tier 2B (Not Likely to Adversely Affect individuals, but may be considered Likely to Adversely Affect if permanent habitat impacts occur) - This activity will not result in take of special -status species with implementation of BMPs (such as pre -activity surveys, exclusion of individuals from the site, and/or implementation of non -disturbance buffers around active nests of special -status birds). Some Tier 2B activities may result in a permanent loss of habitat. ■ Tier 3 (Likely to Adversely Affect) - The activity may result in take of special - status species, even with implementation of BMPs. Tier 3 is applicable if the biologist determines that (1) special -status species are known to occur or may occur on site either because suitable breeding habitat is present or suitable non -breeding habitat with connectivity between the site and suitable breeding habitat is present; (2) special -status species may be present at the time of day/season in which the Program activity occurs; and (3) special -status species cannot be effectively excluded from the work area, pre -activity surveys cannot definitively determine the absence of the species, and/or "take" in the form of permanent loss of habitat cannot be avoided. These tiering categories would help Midpen determine which avoidance and minimization measures are necessary to minimize potential take of species. In general, proposed Program activities would take place on an annual cycle, depending on whether they are located away from wetlands and waters of the U.S. and state, riparian resources, and/or federally or state listed species; or activities occur near such resources. In general, activities occurring away from sensitive resources (Tier 1) may occur year-round, although a majority of these types of activities would take place in the spring and summer season. Activities occurring in areas where special -status species are known to occur or could possibly occur (Tiers 2A, 2B, and 3) would generally be limited to occur between May 15 and October 31. Knowing which tier is applicable to Program activity sites helps guide the planning and impact avoidance approach. It is also noteworthy that Midpen has been conducting biological resources assessments for many years within its preserves as part of its ongoing land management; therefore, desktop reviews for Program activities would draw on existing documented knowledge regarding habitat suitability for special -status species, as well as the conditions (including habitat, time of day, and season) in which special -status species have been observed. Impacts to Special -status Plant Species Program activities would have the potential to destroy or otherwise harm special -status plant species if they are present in work areas. Table 1 in Appendix D lists the special -status plant species known to occur in the Program area. Midpen would implement the following BMPs, incorporated as part of the Program, to avoid impacts to special -status plant species to the greatest extent feasible. Descriptions of each BMP are provided in Chapter 2, Project Description. Open Space Maintenance and Restoration Program September 2021 1 3-85 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 3. Environmental Checklist Attachment 1 ■ BMP GEN-1 ■ BMP GEN-2 ■ BMP GEN-26 ■ BMP BI0-4 ■ BMP BI0-6 ■ BMP BI0-7 ■ BMP BI0-19 Measures ■ BMP BI0-24 Staging and Access Minimize Area of Disturbance and Site Maintenance Non-native Plant Removal and Herbicide Management Special -status Plant Species Avoidance Measures Invasive Plant Material Management and Disposal Sudden Oak Death and Plant Pathogen Control Bay Checkerspot Butterfly and Santa Clara Valley Dudleya Protection Riparian Avoidance Standard operating procedures for Program activities would include implementing BMP BI0- 4: Special -status Plant Species Avoidance Measures. This measure includes rare plant avoidance measures within riparian habitat or Waters of the State and/or U.S. and within one -quarter (1/4) mile of a known rare plant occurrence, or within suitable rare plant habitat. It includes protocol -level surveys for sensitive plant species, establishment of site - specific avoidance buffers in coordination with CDFW, avoidance of rare plants and associated buffer zones. If at any time rare plants cannot be avoided, Program activities would not be conducted until Midpen coordinates with CDFW and a mitigation plan is agreed upon. All prescribed grazing areas within Midpen have been mapped for sensitive status plant species and there are not currently any federally or State -listed plants within grazed properties. BMP BI0-19 requires annual monitoring of grazed properties by the Midpen rangeland ecologist to ensure no newly listed species or previously undiscovered species are present. Additionally, this BMP requires surveys by a qualified botanist for sensitive status plant species every 3 years for all Program roads and trail activities in grassland areas. Woodland, hardwood, shrub and scrub, and forested areas would be mapped by a qualified botanist every 5 years. Finally, BMP BIO-19 requires surveys prior to treatment of all areas having known occurrences of Santa Clara Valley dudleya for which recovery actions are proposed. Listed plants would be avoided either through timed activities (e.g., mowing after annuals set seed) or flagging individual plants for avoidance. The remaining BMPs listed above would further reduce the direct and indirect impacts to rare plants that could result from Program activities by minimizing disturbance areas, proper siting of activities, and properly managing invasive non-native species and the potential spread of pathogens. With implementation of these BMPs, the proposed Program would not result in a significant adverse effect on any special -status plant species or their habitat. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant and no mitigation is required. Impacts to Special -status Invertebrate Species Table 2 in Appendix D lists the special -status invertebrate species known to occur in the vicinity of the Program area. Most invertebrate species listed in 3.4-4 have no potential to be impacted by Program activities because the Program is not within the species current range, or the species are associated with habitats (e.g., vernal pools) that would not be impacted by Program activities. Two special -status invertebrate species are considered to have the Open Space Maintenance and Restoration Program September 2021 1 3-86 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Midpeninsula Regional Attachment 1 Open Space District 3. Environmental Checklist potential to occur in the Program area: Bay checkerspot butterfly (Euphydryas editha bayensis), and monarch butterfly (Danaus plexippus plexippus). No Bay checkerspot populations are currently present in existing Midpen preserves; however, the species was historically observed in the Sierra Azul OSP and has been reintroduced to Edgewood County Park (Friends of Edgewood 2021), located just south of Midpen's Pulgas Ridge OSP. There is some potential for very small numbers of individuals to occasionally disperse to Pulgas Ridge, though the species is not expected to breed there due to the absence of high -quality habitat. Designated critical habitat Unit 3 (Edgewood Park/Triangle) is present immediately adjacent to Midpen lands, and Midpen holds an easement over Edgewood Park. However, no critical habitat has been designated on existing Midpen preserves, and suitable habitat is not present at any other Midpen preserve. Along the Peninsula and throughout the Program area, monarch butterflies occur primarily as migrating individuals in the fall and spring (CDFW 2020b). Wintering sites are mostly coastal or near the edge of San Francisco Bay. Purisima Uplands property within Purisima Creek OSP and perhaps Tunitas Creek OSP contain wintering habitat. Midpen intends to avoid all impacts to special -status invertebrate species. Standard operating procedures for stream maintenance program activities would include implementing BMP BIO-19: Bay Checkerspot Butterfly and Santa Clara Valley Dudleya Protection Measures. This measure requires that all areas having known occurrences of Bay checkerspot butterfly host plants for which recovery actions are proposed be surveyed prior to treatment. Host plants would be avoided either through timed activities (e.g., mowing after annuals set seed) or flagging individual plants for avoidance. In any areas in which host plants cannot be avoided, seed would be collected and the area reseeded under approvals from the USFWS and CDFW. Prior to conducting any manual, mechanical, or chemical Integrated Pest Management (IPM) treatment in serpentine habitats (which may support larval host plants for Bay checkerspot butterfly), surveys would be conducted for dwarf plantain (Plantago erecta), purple owl's clover (Castilleja densiflora), and exserted paintbrush (Castilleja exserta) during the appropriate blooming period, and host plants containing eggs, larva, or pupa of Bay checkerspot butterfly would be avoided. As described above, monarch butterflies occur primarily as migrating individuals in the Program area. Program activities are not anticipated to have significant impacts on migrating individuals. Purisima Uplands property within Purisima Creek OSP and perhaps Tunitas Creek OSP contain wintering habitat. A 2016 Xerces society report on California monarch overwintering sites did not identify any priority wintering sites within the Program area (Xerces Society 2016). Disturbance of occupied monarch overwintering habitat, such through pruning, tree removal, or activity in close proximity to the overwintering habitat during the overwintering period could result in a significant impact to this species through death of individuals and habitat loss. Removal of milkweeds (Asclepias sp.) containing eggs, larva, or pupa of monarch butterflies would be a significant impact. Implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-1: Avoid Monarch Butterfly Wintering Habitat and Mitigation Measure BIO-2: Avoid Monarch Butterfly Host Plants would reduce these impacts to less than significant. Open Space Maintenance and Restoration Program September 2021 1 3-87 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 3. Environmental Checklist Attachment 1 Mitigation Measure BIO-1: Avoid Monarch Butterfly Wintering Habitat Prior to any Program activities in tree groves comprised primarily or entirely of pine, cypress, fir, or eucalyptus that are within 2 miles of the Pacific Coast, a qualified biologist or biological monitor working under a qualified biologist will survey the grove for aggregations of monarch butterflies during the overwintering season according to the Xerces Society's Western Monarch Count Protocol (Xerces Society 2019), available at https://www.westernmonarchcount.org: Two surveys will be conducted during the overwintering season, one during the Western Monarch Thanksgiving Count period (the three-week period centered on the Thanksgiving holiday), and a second during the New Year's Count period (the two- week period beginning the weekend prior to New Year's Day). ■ Each survey will be conducted by two surveyors to provide multiple independent estimates of monarch numbers. ■ Surveys will be conducted in the morning while temperatures are below 55° F (13° C) and monarchs are more likely to be clustered. • Surveys will not be conducted during rain or strong winds due to poor visibility and the chance that individual monarchs shall be scattered on the ground. ■ If no monarch overwintering aggregations are observed, Program activities may proceed pursuant as long as they occur prior to November 1. If Program activities are delayed beyond November 1, then the grove will be re -surveyed. ■ If a monarch overwintering aggregation of any size is detected, then no Program activities may take place inside the tree canopy within 200 feet of the aggregation, when present. Activities outside of the canopy line but within 200 feet may proceed (i.e., treatment of low -growing vegetation outside of the tree grove) if a qualified biologist or monitor determines that the activity does not pose a threat to the monarch aggregation. • Once the aggregation disperses (typically by March), treatment of vegetation within 200 feet of tree(s) where monarch aggregations were observed may proceed if, as determined by a qualified biologist or monitor, it will not result in significant alteration to wind and sunlight patterns within the grove. • If monarch overwintering aggregations are detected in eucalyptus removal areas, then a long-term tree planting strategy is necessary (see Protecting California's Butterfly Groves [Xerces Society 2017]). A long-term tree planting strategy will also be used for those stands which have historically been used as monarch overwintering habitat (https://www.westernmonarchcount.org /find-an-overwintering-site-near-you/). • Native tree species suitable for monarchs must be planted many years prior to eucalyptus removal with the understanding that they may not reach functional heights to provide wind protection and suitable dappled lighting for 15-30 years. Transplanting saplings from a local source may speed this Open Space Maintenance and Restoration Program September 2021 1 3-88 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 3. Environmental Checklist Attachment 1 process. Planting of eucalyptus will be prohibited. Removal of eucalyptus may proceed once native replacement trees have reached sufficient size to provide wind protection within the grove. ■ Standing dead trees generally do not contribute to monarch overwintering habitat (Xerces Society 2017) and may be removed within the grove between April 1 and August 31, outside of the overwintering period, as determined appropriate by a qualified biologist or monitor. Sites where invasive dead trees have been removed may create opportunities for native tree planting within the interior of the grove. ■ If a eucalyptus grove where a monarch overwintering aggregation was previously detected is re -surveyed using the Western Monarch Count Protocol (Xerces Society 2019) and found to be unoccupied for 5 consecutive years, then the grove may be removed before native replacement trees have reached full size. Mitigation Measure BIO-2: Avoid Monarch Butterfly Host Plants ■ For all Program activities that only have incidental vegetation removal, Midpen will conduct a pre -construction worker training to identify milkweeds (Asclepias sp.), the host plant for monarch butterflies, and survey for eggs/larvae. Following the training, workers will survey the site for milkweed. ■ For Program activities that have more than incidental vegetation removal, a qualified biologist or biological monitor working under a qualified biologist will conduct pre -construction surveys for milkweed. ■ Host plants containing eggs, larvae, or pupae of monarch butterflies will be avoided, and will be protected with an appropriately -sized buffer as determined by a qualified biologist, taking into account the characteristics of the plant species and the nature of the proposed treatment. ■ Vegetation treatment may proceed if a qualified biologist determines that the host plants (1) are not occupied by monarchs, and (2) may benefit from treatment (such as if the host plants have already set seed and post -treatment conditions will favor them over non-native weed species). With implementation of BMP BIO-19 and Mitigation Measures BIO-1 and BI0-2, Program related impacts to special -status invertebrate species or their habitat would be less than significant with mitigation. Impacts to Special -status Fish Species Table 2 in Appendix D lists the special -status fish species known to occur in the vicinity of the Program area. Two special -status fish species have the potential to occur in the Program area, steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss) and Central California Coast Coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch). Open Space Maintenance and Restoration Program September 2021 1 3-89 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Midpeninsula Regional Attachment 1 Open Space District 3. Environmental Checklist Central California Coast Coho salmon have recently been recorded spawning in the southwestern portion of the Program area in Pescadero Creek (Peninsula Open Space Trust [POST] 2021), and the species spawns in San Gregorio Creek, Pescadero Creek, and Gazos Creek, although it has not been recorded in Gazos Creek during annual monitoring since 2008 (Smith 2013 as cited in CDFW 2015, Midpen 2017). The species was historically collected from San Mateo Creek (Leidy 2007) and may have been present in the San Francisquito Creek watershed (Leidy et al. 2005). However, it has been extirpated from all San Mateo County streams flowing to the Bay (Leidy 2007). Designated critical habitat occurs in the Program area and includes all accessible reaches of all rivers including estuarine areas and tributaries between Punta Gorda and the San Lorenzo River (inclusive) in California. Designated critical habitat is present in or immediately adjacent to La Honda Creek OSP (NMFS 1999). In the Program area, steelhead are known to occur in a number of coastal streams, as well as in a few streams entering San Francisco Bay, such as Stevens Creek, Guadalupe River/Creek, and San Francisquito Creek (including Los Trancos Creek) (Spence et al. 2008, Center for Ecosystem Management and Restoration 2008). Designated critical habitat includes all river reaches and estuarine areas accessible to listed steelhead in coastal river basins from the Russian River to Aptos Creek, California (inclusive), and the drainages of San Francisco and San Pablo Bays (NMFS 2005). Designated critical habitat is present in or immediately adjacent to the following Midpen preserves: Tunitas Creek, La Honda Creek, Russian Ridge, Miramontes Ridge, Skyline Ridge, Long Ridge, Purisima Creek Redwoods, Fremont Older, Los Trancos, and Sierra Azul OSPs. Steelhead could therefore use those creek reaches for spawning, rearing, and/or migration. Program activities including culvert or bridge maintenance, sediment or debris removal, streambank stabilization, and vegetation management have the potential to result in significant impacts to special -status fish species and their habitat. Midpen would implement the following BMPs, incorporated as part of the Program, to avoid all impacts to special -status fish species to the greatest extent feasible. Descriptions of each BMP are provided in Chapter 2, Project Description. ■ BMP GEN-1 ■ BMP GEN-2 ■ BMP GEN-5 ■ BMP GEN-6 ■ BMP GEN-7 ■ BMP GEN-8 ■ BMP GEN-9 ■ BMP GEN-10 ■ BMP GEN-11 ■ BMP GEN-12 Staging and Access Minimize Area of Disturbance and Site Maintenance Hazardous Materials Storage/ Disposal Spill Prevention and Control Waste Management Vehicle Maintenance and Parking Equipment Maintenance & Fueling Paving and Asphalt Work Concrete, Grout and Mortar Application Exclude Concrete from Channel Open Space Maintenance and Restoration Program September 2021 1 3-90 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 3. Environmental Checklist Attachment 1 ■ BMP GEN-13 Concrete Washout Facilities ■ BMP GEN-14 Painting and Paint Removal ■ BMP GEN-16 Site Stabilization ■ BMP GEN-18 Project Completion by End of Work Period ■ BMP GEN-19 Avoid Inclement Weather ■ BMP GEN-20 Aquatic Resource Protection Measures ■ BMP GEN-22 Spoils Management ■ BMP GEN-23 Vegetation and Tree Removal and Retention ■ BMP GEN-26 Non-native Plant Removal and Herbicide Management ■ BMP GEN-28 Culvert Replacement ■ BMP GEN-29 Culvert Maintenance ■ BMP GEN-32 Bridge and Puncheon Replacement ■ BMP GEN-33 Bridge and Puncheon Repair and Maintenance ■ BMP GEN-34 Ford and Swale (including Drain Lenses and Causeways) Replacement ■ BMP BIO-1 Environmental Awareness Training ■ BMP BI0-2 Biological Monitor ■ BMP BI0-3 Work Area Designation ■ BMP BI0-8 Non -Native Animal Control ■ BMP BI0-9 General Wildlife Protection Measures ■ BMP BI0-21 Salmonid (Coho and Steelhead) Protection Measures ■ BMP BI0-22 Biological Monitoring for Stranded Aquatic Life ■ BMP BI0-23 Large Woody Material Management ■ BMP BI0-24 Riparian Avoidance ■ BMP BIO-25 Riparian Restoration ■ BMP EC -1 General Erosion Control Measures ■ BMP EC -2 Slope or Bank Stabilization ■ BMP EC -3 Road and Trail Drainage Maintenance ■ BMP EC -4 Road and Trail Minor Relocation ■ BMP EC -5 Revegetation of Disturbed Areas ■ BMP SWQ-1 Water Body Protection Measures ■ BMP SWQ-2 Turbidity Monitoring ■ BMP SWQ-3 Sediment Filtering Measures Open Space Maintenance and Restoration Program September 2021 1 3-91 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Midpeninsula Regional Attachment 1 Open Space District 3. Environmental Checklist ■ BMP DW-1 Stream/Aquatic Habitat Isolation ■ BMPDW-3 Pumps Standard operating procedures for Program activities include several BMPs that would avoid or minimize impacts by minimizing the footprint of work activities and minimizing impacts from staging and stockpiling of materials, spills or leaks of chemicals, and other adverse effects, including BMPs GEN-1, GEN-2, GEN-5, GEN-6, GEN-8, GEN-9, GEN-14, GEN-22, GEN- 23, and GEN-26. BMPs GEN-10, GEN-11, GEN-12, and GEN-13 would minimize the potential for concrete to result in adverse effects on aquatic habitats by limiting exposure of uncured concrete to these habitats. BMPs GEN-18 and GEN-19 would reduce the potential for erosion or sedimentation by restricting work to the dry season and dry periods. Implementation of BMPs GEN-16, EC -1, EC -2, EC -3, EC -4, EC -5, SWQ-1, SWQ-2, and SWQ-3 would further minimize potential for erosion or sedimentation by stabilizing work sites, implementing erosion control measures, and monitoring water quality. Implementation of BMP BIO-1 would minimize impacts through environmental awareness training of maintenance personnel regarding the sensitivity of special -status fish species. BMPs DW-1 and DW-3 would minimize impacts to aquatic habitat and special -status fish by isolating the work area from the flowing stream and screening pumps to prevent impingement, injury, or mortality. Implementation of BMP BI0-21: Salmonid (Coho and Steelhead) Protection Measures would require restriction on dewatering in Coho streams, seasonal work periods within and around critical habitat for steelhead and Coho that avoid sensitive periods, and seasonal work periods for other streams. BMP BI0-22 would minimize the potential for stranding of special - status fish by capturing or relocating and aquatic species stranded during dewatering and BMP BI0-8 would also minimize impacts through biological monitoring. BMPs BI0-23, BIO- 24, and BIO-25 would maintain special -status fish habitat by minimizing removal of large woody debris in streams, avoiding impacts to riparian habitat, and restoring any impacted riparian habitat. By implementing these measures impacts to special -status fish species and their habitat would be avoided or sufficiently minimized such that significant adverse impacts would not occur. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant. No mitigation is required. As part of the Program, Midpen may implement projects that improve fisheries habitat (e.g., culvert replacement with more fish -friendly options, bank repairs, planting of riparian trees). These measures are likely to result in beneficial effects to special -status fish species and their habitat in the long run. Impacts to Special -status Amphibian and Reptile Species Table 2 in Appendix D lists the special -status amphibian and reptile species known to occur in the vicinity of the Program area. These species include California red -legged frog (CRLF), California tiger salamander (Ambystoma californiense), San Francisco garter snake, foothill yellow -legged frog (FYLF) (Rana boylii), California giant salamander, Santa Cruz black salamander (Aneides flavipunctatus niger), Red -bellied newt (Taricha rivularis), western pond turtle (WPT), and Coast horned lizard (Phrynosoma blainvillii). Open Space Maintenance and Restoration Program September 2021 1 3-92 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 3. Environmental Checklist Attachment 1 California red -legged frogs are found primarily in or adjacent to creeks and reservoirs west of the mountain ridges in the less urbanized portions of the Program area. The species is known to occur, or potentially occur, at a number of Midpen preserves, including Tunitas Creek OSP, La Honda Creek OSP, La Purisima Creek Redwoods OSP, Rancho San Antonio OSP, Pichetti Ranch OSP, Coal Creek OSP, Russian Ridge OSP, Long Ridge OSP, Monte Bello OSP, Skyline Ridge OSP, Bear Creek Redwoods OSP, and Sierra Azul OSP (Figure 3.4-5). California red -legged frog designated critical habitat units SNM-1 (Cahill Ridge) and SNM-2 (Pescadero) are located in the Program area, and El Corte de Madera Creek OSP, La Honda Creek OSP, Long Ridge OSP, Russian Ridge OSP, Miramontes Ridge OSP, and Skyline Ridge OSP, all contain designated critical habitat. California red -legged frogs are widespread in suitable habitat within the Program area, and occur in a number of Midpen preserves. The CNDDB maps numerous records of California red -legged frogs within the Program area (CDFW 202b) (Figure 3.4-5). In addition, Midpen has been monitoring California red -legged frogs and their breeding habitats in its preserves since 2009, and has compiled a database of California red -legged frog records throughout many of its preserves (Figure 3.4-5). Monitoring work associated with Midpen's construction activities has also generated data on the occurrence of California red -legged frogs within the Program area. In their analysis, H.T. Harvey and Associates (H.T. Harvey) used available data from the CNDDB and Midpen to extrapolate the likelihood of California red -legged frog occurrence throughout the Program area (H.T. Harvey 2021). Midpen's monitoring data and observations indicate that California red -legged frogs are unlikely to occur in (a) densely forested, upper -watershed areas where the only waterbodies are ephemeral or intermittent streams or very cool, high -gradient perennial streams, or (b) upland areas away from water sources during the dry season. Based on California red -legged frog occurrence data from the CNDDB and Midpen, as well as habitat mapping data within Midpen's preserves showing the locations of streams and waterbodies (which provide breeding, foraging, and dispersal habitat for California red - legged frogs) and coniferous and hardwood forests (where Midpen's data indicate that California red -legged frogs are unlikely to occur, especially during the dry season), H.T. Harvey identified the likelihood of occurrence of California red -legged frogs within Midpen's preserves, easements, and management areas as follows (H.T. Harvey 2021): ■ Absent. California red -legged frogs are not known or expected to occur in the preserve. The preserve is isolated from nearby populations of the species by major roadways and development, and California red -legged frogs are considered extirpated from the area. ■ Lower Density/Lower Frequency of Occurrence. The preserve is located within the range of the California red -legged frog, but there are no known recent breeding occurrences within or adjacent to the preserve, records of the species are limited to infrequent encounters of nonbreeding individuals (e.g., along roads), red -legged frogs have not been detected during years of monitoring work by Midpen, and/or the preserve is predominantly vegetated by dense coniferous and/or hardwood forest Open Space Maintenance and Restoration Program September 2021 1 3-93 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Midpeninsula Regional Attachment 1 Open Space District 3. Environmental Checklist (within which California red -legged frogs are not expected to occur regularly, especially during the dry season). California red -legged frogs may be present in these preserves in low densities, and are primarily expected to occur during the wet season when individuals are dispersing across the landscape. ■ Higher Density/Higher Frequency of Occurrence. California red -legged frogs are known to occur in the preserve or in nearby areas, one or more known breeding ponds is present within the preserve or in nearby areas, the preserve supports one or more streams or waterbodies that provide potential breeding habitat, and/or the preserve supports suitable upland habitat in close proximity to breeding areas nearby. California red -legged frogs are expected to be present in these preserves in higher densities, and may be encountered year-round. The California tiger salamander is not known to occur in any Midpen preserves. If the California tiger salamander occurs on Midpen lands, it is most likely to occur along the northeastern edge of Sierra Azul OSP adjacent to Almaden Quicksilver County Park, where some potentially suitable upland (i.e., nonbreeding) habitat exists. No known ponds that provide suitable breeding habitat for California tiger salamanders are present in northeastern Sierra Azul OSP; thus, only nonbreeding dispersants are expected to occur on Midpen lands. Only Program activities in the northeastern portion of Sierra Azul OSP have any potential to adversely affect this species or its habitat. West of the crest of the Santa Cruz Mountains within the Program Area, the San Francisco garter snake is found in a few localized areas along the coast. East of the crest, it is found from the City of South San Francisco and the San Francisco airport, south to Crystal Springs Reservoir (Stanford University 2012). San Francisco garter snakes have been historically documented in four Midpen preserves: Tunitas Creek, Russian Ridge, Skyline Ridge, and Long Ridge OSP (USFWS 2016). However, this species currently has a very limited distribution on Midpen lands, and the only Preserve with confirmed presence at this time is Russian Ridge OSP. Suitable habitat for the foothill yellow -legged frog is present at multiple locations in the Program area, but the species has essentially been extirpated throughout much of San Mateo County, at least east of the crest of the Santa Cruz Mountains, as there are no records from that area since 1960 (CDFW 2020b). Single records west of the crest of the Santa Cruz Mountains within the past 25 years, from Pescadero Creek County Park and Portola Redwoods State Park, suggest the species may persist west of the crest. In Santa Clara County, east of State Route 17, the species is extant in suitable habitat, including in creeks in Sierra Azul OSP - the only Midpen preserve where the species is likely to occur. Suitable habitat for the California giant salamander is present in the Program area, and the species has been observed at many Midpen preserves, including Tunitas Creek OSP, Skyline Ridge OSP, Sierra Azul OSP, Saratoga Gap OSP, Purisima Creek Redwoods OSP, Monte Bello OSP, Long Ridge OSP, La Honda Creek OSP, El Sereno OSP, El Corte de Madera Creek OSP, and Bear Creek Redwoods OSP (Midpen 2019, CDFW 2020b). It is most likely to occur near streams, but dispersing individuals could occur in nearby upland habitats. Open Space Maintenance and Restoration Program September 2021 1 3-94 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Half South San Francisco San Bruno Millbrae Sea Frana,k r any Miramontes Ridge 11410 Purisima Creek Redwoods Santa Cruz Capltrl: Adis" San Mateo Foster City San Carlos Pulgas ldge Redwood City Mfr • Teague 'Hill , #b40 id '/91Corte de {Madera • Creek ��r r N 3.4 1.7 0 A 3.4 Miles North Fair Oaks Wesh M ne41 Park Thomewood r_ Attachment 1 Legend Program Area Midpen Boundary Sphere of Influence Conifer Forest Hardwood Forest USFWSCRLF Critical Habitat • Mid pen CRLFObservations CNDDBCRLF Records • Specific Location OApproximate and General Location Likelihood ofCRLFOccun-ence within Midpen Preserves, Easements, and Management Areas 17,./ Higher Density/Higher Frequency of Occurrence Lower Density/Lower Frequency of Occurrence Absent Note: CRLF= California Red -Legged Frog East Palo Alto Menlo idol* Palo Alto • St erdord Windddyy Hill 4,40 Foothills s' Coal Creek 44. 4Los Tranc tosp 4,4 lais+a dge. scone }: ]Ridge 4.4 Long; dge Davenport Mountain Los/dints View 1-nin L. Altos Rancho San Antonio r • t• Monte Bello 1 ;! it P'ic c hetti Ranch • ratoga a P/�,i► Boulder Greet Ben Lomond acdtls Valley Fellon Felton Station Sunnyvale Cupertino Fremont Older Saratoga • • F rc-rnon r Santa Clara. BSereno oscatas - .9E= �. • ,Joseph's -. Hill ',. °itt_ " • r C k + ,. .. Redwoods Item Laken Campbell Milpitas San Jose rraAzul' .: grit al H.T. HARVEY & ASSOCIATES Ecological Consultants Figure 3.4-5 Califomia Red -Legged Frog Distribution in the Program Area Mid peninsula Regional Open Space District Routine Maintenance and FacilitieslmprovementsProgram Biological Assessment (3835-04) February 2021 Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 3. Environmental Checklist Attachment 1 This page intentionally left blank Open Space Maintenance and Restoration Program September 2021 1 3-96 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Midpeninsula Regional Attachment 1 Open Space District 3. Environmental Checklist The Santa Cruz black salamander is endemic to California and is found in moist streamside habitats in woodlands and forests in the Santa Cruz Mountains in western Santa Clara, northern Santa Cruz, and southernmost San Mateo Counties. This species is found in moist forests and riparian zones in or near streams or seeps. This species has been observed at Sierra Azul OSP, as well as from Bear Creek Redwoods OSP, Long Ridge OSP, Monte Bello OSP, Russian Ridge OSP, and Saratoga Gap OSP (Midpen 2019, CDFW 2020b), and it likely occurs in suitable habitat at other Midpen preserves as well. Suitable habitat for the red -bellied newt is present in the Program area, and the species is known to occur at Monte Bello OSP. However, because this recently discovered population is disjunct and isolated from the primary population, which is located in Humboldt, Mendocino, Lake, and Sonoma Counties by 80 miles (Reilly et al. 2014), this species is unlikely to occur at any other Midpen preserve. Creeks, lakes, ponds, and freshwater marshes in the Program area provide suitable habitat for the western pond turtle. This species has been observed at La Honda Creek OSP, Bear Creek Redwoods OSP, Sierra Azul OSP, Russian Ridge OSP, Skyline Ridge OSP, Windy Hill OSP, and Long Ridge OSP (Midpen 2019; CDFW 2020b), and likely occurs in other preserves where suitable habitat is present. Coast horned lizard was historically known to occur throughout San Mateo County and the Program area. Although there are no recent records from San Mateo County, this species is known to persist in at least three Midpen preserves located in Santa Clara County, with recent records from Bald Mt in the Sierra Azul OSP (2009), Monte Bello OSP (2014), and five records from Rancho San Antonio OSP, including two recent records (2014 and 2018) (Midpen 2019; iNaturalist 2019). The vast majority of Program activities contribute to the management and enhancement of habitat for special -status amphibians and reptile species either directly (e.g., by constructing wildlife crossings, planting native vegetation, and restoring pond and stream habitats) or indirectly (e.g., by maintaining infrastructure needed to perform management activities), and the Program overall is anticipated to have a substantial net benefit to these species and their habitat. However, Program activities, including water supply structure and bridge maintenance, vegetation management, road and trail maintenance activities, and new facilities and improvements have the potential to result in significant impacts to special -status amphibian and reptile species, where present, and their habitat. These activities could directly impact individuals or reduce the habitat quality by removing breeding substrate, basking sites, and escape cover in areas where Program activities occur. Injury or mortality of individuals by equipment, vehicle traffic, and worker foot traffic and disturbance of emergent vegetation, boulders, or cobbles that support egg masses could occur; however, Midpen has successfully been operating under a recovery permit issued by USFWS for 10 years and no injury or mortality of CRLF has occurred. Adult special -status amphibians may use existing animal burrows and the undersides of root wads, old boards, and other debris as refugia. Thus, individuals may also be crushed in their burrows by the passage of heavy equipment or trapped and suffocated. In addition, petrochemicals, hydraulic fluids, and solvents that are Open Space Maintenance and Restoration Program September 2021 1 3-97 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Midpeninsula Regional Attachment 1 Open Space District 3. Environmental Checklist spilled or leaked from construction vehicles or equipment may kill individuals at any life stage. Equipment and boots of maintenance personnel could introduce or spread Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis (Bd), a pathogen that can result in impairment of health, and even mortality, of amphibians. Facility maintenance activities, including those that require dewatering and those that do not, may temporarily result in increased turbidity within and downstream from the footprint of the activities due to mobilization of fine sediments. Increased turbidity may impair the health of red -legged frog eggs or larvae and make detection of predators and prey more difficult. In addition, seasonal movements (i.e., breeding, aestivation) and/or daily movements may be temporarily affected during Program activities because of dewatering or disturbance of non-instream habitat. Program activities may also result in the temporary loss of habitat value within the specific activity site (e.g., due to physical prevention of red -legged frogs from reaching an area). Substrate vibrations or seismic sounds may cause individual amphibians to move out of refugia, exposing them to a greater risk of predation or desiccation, and may interfere with predator detection, resulting in a decrease in time spent foraging. Additionally, increases in human concentration and activity near suitable habitat may result in an increase in native and non-native predators that are attracted to trash left in the activity area. For example, raccoons, American crows, and common ravens are attracted to trash and prey opportunistically on amphibians. The loss of riparian vegetation on stream banks due to water supply structure and bridge maintenance activities may result in indirect effects due to an increase in erosion and sedimentation. Increased turbidity may impair the health of special -status amphibian eggs or larvae and make detection of predators and prey more difficult. Additionally, any replacement of natural banks, or banks that are armored but that provide numerous refugia for red -legged frogs or their prey, with banks that provide no such refugia (e.g., concrete crib walls or sacked concrete) could result in the loss of upland refugia in the form of crevices, cavities, or small mammal burrows. Such effects could also result in the displacement of invertebrates that serve as a food source for special -status amphibians. Replacement of natural banks with would also preclude the re-establishment of riparian vegetation that provides cover and food for red -legged frogs and their prey. Conversely, replacement of "hard" bank substrates with "softer" substrates, which could also potentially occur under the Program, would enhance special -status amphibian habitat by increasing the availability of riparian vegetation and small mammal burrows to special -status amphibians. Proposed vegetation management activities include the application of herbicides. Adherence to Midpen's IPMP would ensure that herbicide treatments include the most effective and least environmentally harmful options, and require active monitoring and adaptive management to over time. Herbicides are currently used on Midpen lands under the IPMP. The herbicides proposed for use as part of the Program are the same as those already analyzed and covered by the IPMP EIR and Addendum (Midpen 2014; Midpen, 2019). No new herbicides are proposed for use. Further, chemical use across Midpen lands would not increase with implementation of the proposed Program. Open Space Maintenance and Restoration Program September 2021 1 3-98 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 3. Environmental Checklist Attachment 1 Midpen would implement the following BMPs, incorporated as part of the Program, to avoid impacts to special -status amphibians and reptiles to the greatest extent feasible. Descriptions of each BMP are provided in Chapter 2, Project Description. ■ BMP GEN-1 Staging and Access ■ BMP GEN-2 Minimize Area of Disturbance and Site Maintenance ■ BMP GEN-3 Construction Entrances and Perimeter ■ BMP GEN-4 Salvage/Reuse of Plant and Woody Material ■ BMP GEN-5 Hazardous Materials Storage/ Disposal ■ BMP GEN-6 Spill Prevention and Control ■ BMP GEN-7 Waste Management ■ BMP GEN-8 Vehicle Maintenance and Parking ■ BMP GEN-9 Equipment Maintenance & Fueling ■ BMP GEN-10 Paving and Asphalt Work ■ BMP GEN-11 Concrete, Grout and Mortar Application ■ BMP GEN-12 Exclude Concrete from Channel ■ BMP GEN-13 Concrete Washout Facilities ■ BMP GEN-14 Painting and Paint Removal ■ BMP GEN-16 Site Stabilization ■ BMP GEN-18 Project Completion by End of Work Period ■ BMP GEN-19 Avoid Inclement Weather ■ BMP GEN-20 Aquatic Resource Protection Measures ■ BMP GEN-21 Staged Materials Management and Excavation Ramps ■ BMP GEN-22 Spoils Management ■ BMP GEN-23 Vegetation and Tree Removal and Retention ■ BMP GEN-26 Non-native Plant Removal and Herbicide Management ■ BMP GEN-28 Culvert Replacement ■ BMP GEN-29 Culvert Maintenance ■ BMP GEN-32 Bridge and Puncheon Replacement ■ BMP GEN-33 Bridge and Puncheon Repair and Maintenance ■ BMP GEN-34 Ford and Swale (including Drain Lenses and Causeways) Replacement ■ BMP BIO-1 Environmental Awareness Training ■ BMP BI0-2 Biological Monitor Open Space Maintenance and Restoration Program September 2021 1 3-99 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 3. Environmental Checklist Attachment 1 ■ BMP BI0-3 ■ BMP BI0-8 ■ BMP BI0-9 ■ BMP BIO-10 ■ BMP BIO-11 ■ BMP BI0-12 ■ BMP BI0-13 ■ BMP BI0-14 ■ BMP BIO-15 Work Area Designation Non -Native Animal Control General Wildlife Protection Measures Special -status Species Reporting San Francisco Garter Snake Protection Measures California Red -Legged Frog Protection Measures Foothill Yellow -Legged Frog Protection Measures Western Pond Turtle Protection Measures California Giant Salamander, Santa Cruz Black Salamander Protection Measures ■ BMP BI0-22 ■ BMP BI0-23 ■ BMP BI0-24 ■ BMP BIO-25 ■ BMP EC -1 ■ BMP EC -2 ■ BMP EC -3 ■ BMP EC -4 ■ BMP EC -5 ■ BMP SWQ-1 ■ BMP SWQ-2 ■ BMP SWQ-3 ■ BMP DW-1 ■ BMP DW-2 ■ BMP DW-3 Biological Monitoring for Stranded Aquatic Life Large Woody Material Management Riparian Avoidance Riparian Restoration General Erosion Control Measures Slope or Bank Stabilization Road and Trail Drainage Maintenance Road and Trail Minor Relocation Revegetation of Disturbed Areas Water Body Protection Measures Turbidity Monitoring Sediment Filtering Measures Stream/Aquatic Habitat Isolation Pond Dewatering Pumps The avoidance and minimization approaches related to California red -legged frog, California tiger salamander, and San Francisco garter snake are outlined below. The use of general BMPs applicable to all special -status amphibian and reptile species follow this discussion. Avoidance and Minimization Approach for the California Red -Legged Frog BMPs would be implemented for all activities; however, Midpen would adjust its strategy for implementation of California red -legged frog BMPs based on the impact tier assigned to each activity, as described in detail in BMP BIO-12. Implementation of BMP B10-12 would require handling by qualified biologists or biological monitors, disinfection of equipment, and limits on the number of California red -legged frog that could be captured at a location per year. For Open Space Maintenance and Restoration Program September 2021 1 3-100 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Midpeninsula Regional Attachment 1 Open Space District 3. Environmental Checklist work at Tier 2A sites, where California red -legged frogs are least likely to occur, a biological training would be conducted, maintenance personnel would watch for California red -legged frogs, and would contact the qualified biologist immediately if one is detected, and further avoidance and minimization measures would be implemented. For Tier 2B sites with greater potential to impact California red -legged frog, additional measures would include focused surveys by a biologist or biological monitor, biological monitoring if appropriate, inspection of parked vehicles before moving, specialized vegetation removal to maximize frog detection and avoidance, allowing California red -legged frog to move out of the project area of their own volition, or relocation by a qualified individual. For Tier 3 sites, additional measures would include presence of a biologist or biomonitor during activities, and specialized surveys, work periods, and procedures for work in ponds. Avoidance and Minimization Approach for the California Tiger Salamander The same avoidance and minimization approach described above for the California red - legged frog would be implemented for the California tiger salamander in the much more limited geographic locations and circumstances in which this species could occur in Program activity areas (see above for a description of the potential Program areas where this species may occur). A similar tiering approach would be used for California tiger salamander as that described for California red -legged frog, and the relevant Tier 2A, Tier 2B, or Tier 3 BMPs would be implemented for California tiger salamander per BMP BIO-12. No injury or mortality of individual California tiger salamanders is expected to occur with implementation of BMPs. Avoidance and Minimization Approach for the San Francisco Garter Snake A similar tiering approach would be used for San Francisco garter snake as that described for California red -legged frog, and the relevant Tier 2A, Tier 2B, or Tier 3 BMPs would be implemented for San Francisco garter snake per BMP BIO-12. BMP BIO-11 would also be implemented to specifically avoid and minimize impacts on the San Francisco garter snake. Individuals that are found during pre -activity surveys would be avoided; no injury or mortality of individuals is expected to occur with implementation of BMPs, and no relocation of individuals is expected to be necessary for Program activities. As described above, Midpen would implement BMPs specific to California red -legged frog (BMP BIO-12), and San Francisco garter snake (BMP BIO-11). Other BMPs specific to special - status amphibians and reptiles include those targeted towards avoidance of impacts to foothill yellow legged frog (BMP BIO-13), western pond turtle (BMP BIO-14), and California Giant Salamander and Santa Cruz Black Salamander (BMP BIO-15). Implementation of BMP BIO-13 would require work to stop if an individual is detected in the work area until the animal leaves of its own volition. BMP BIO-14 would require focused pre -construction surveys for western pond turtles, allowing the turtle to leave the work area on its own, or relocating the turtle out of the work area, and avoidance of western pond turtle nests. Implementation of BMP BIO-15 would require pre -construction training, biological monitoring of sensitive habitat, and avoidance or relocation of California giant salamander and Santa Cruz black salamander if present. Implementation of the BMPs described above would avoid and minimize impacts to these species. Several BMPs that would avoid or Open Space Maintenance and Restoration Program September 2021 1 3-101 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Midpeninsula Regional Attachment 1 Open Space District 3. Environmental Checklist minimize impacts by minimizing the footprint of work activities and minimizing impacts from staging and stockpiling of materials, spills or leaks of chemicals, and other adverse effects would include BMPs GEN-1, GEN-2, GEN-5, GEN-6, GEN-8, GEN-9, GEN-14, GEN-22, GEN-23, and GEN-26. BMPs GEN-10, GEN-11, GEN-12, and GEN-13 would minimize the potential for concrete to result in adverse effects on aquatic habitats by limiting exposure of uncured concrete to these habitats. BMPs GEN-18 and GEN-19 would reduce the potential for erosion or sedimentation by restricting work to the dry season and dry periods. Implementation of BMPs GEN-16, EC -1, EC -2, EC -3, EC -4, EC -5, SWQ-1, SWQ-2, and SWQ-3 would further minimize potential for erosion or sedimentation by stabilizing work sites, implementing erosion control measures and monitoring water quality. Implementation of BMP BIO-1 would minimize impacts through environmental awareness training of maintenance personnel regarding the sensitivity of special -status amphibian species and BMP BIO-2 would give the biological monitor stop -work authority to avoid impacts to special - status species. BMPs DW-1, DW-2, and DW-3 would minimize impacts to aquatic habitat by isolating the work area from the flowing stream, conducting dewatering outside of the California red -legged frog breeding season, and screening pumps to prevent impingement, injury, or mortality. Implementation of BMP BIO-8 would improve conditions for special - status amphibian species by controlling nonnative aquatic species and minimizing the attraction of predators into the work area. BMPs BIO-23, BIO-24, and BIO-25 would maintain special -status amphibian species by minimizing removal of large woody debris in streams, avoiding impacts to riparian habitat, and restoring any impacted riparian habitat. Further, the proposed Program is expected to result in a net benefit to these species and their habitats by planting native vegetation to enhance and restore upland, wetland, and riparian areas; creating new features such as wetlands and off -channel pools to expand aquatic habitats; decommissioning existing infrastructure (e.g., old roads and culverts) to restore habitats; removing nonnative invasive plants; maintaining high -quality grasslands using grazing and fuel management practices; reducing sediment accumulation in ponds and streams and removing debris; and maintaining infrastructure to ensure access for Midpen personnel conducting management activities and avoid detrimental effects of deteriorating structures on habitats. After implementation of BMPs, the Program would not have a significant residual impact on populations of any of these species; rather, the Program and its BMPs are designed to have a beneficial impact on these species and improve the likelihood of the survival and recovery of these species. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant. No mitigation is required. Impacts to Special -status Bird Species Table 2 in Appendix D lists the special -status bird species known to occur in the vicinity of the Program area. These include marbled murrelet, tricolored blackbird, white-tailed kite, bald eagle, golden eagle (Aquila chrysaetos), long-eared owl (Asio otus), Vaux's swift (Chaetura vauxi), black swift (Cypseloides niger), olive -sided flycatcher (Contopus cooperi), purple martin (Progne subis), loggerhead shrike (Lanius ludovicianus) yellow warbler, San Francisco common yellowthroat (Geothlypis trichas sinuosa), grasshopper sparrow, and Bryant's savannah sparrow (Passerculus sandwichensis alaudinus). Other bird species that are protected by the MBTA and California Fish and Game Code (§) 3503 and 3503.5 could nest in grasslands, shrubs, trees, and other substrates within the Program area. The marbled Open Space Maintenance and Restoration Program September 2021 1 3-102 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Midpeninsula Regional Attachment 1 Open Space District 3. Environmental Checklist murrelet is described in detail below, while impacts to other special -status birds are described more broadly. In the Program area, the marbled murrelet is restricted to old -growth redwood forests and isolated patches of late-seral forest, where it breeds, and to coastal waters, where it forages (Sequoia Audubon Society 2001, Cornell Lab of Ornithology 2021). This species is known to occur in Purisima Creek Redwoods OSP and Tunitas Creek OSP (Figure 3.4-4), and it may occur in or near other preserves if old -growth redwood forests or late seral forest are present. Records of the species are known along the southern boundary of El Corte de Madera Creek OSP and La Honda Creek OSP, and adjacent to an easement located south of Russian Ridge OSP (Figure 3.4-4). However, most known breeding areas are farther downslope from the crest of the Santa Cruz Mountains, and are centered in the area bounded by San Mateo County Memorial Park, Sam McDonald County Park, Pescadero Creek County Park, Portola Redwoods State Park, Butano State Park, and (in adjacent Santa Cruz County) Big Basin State Park (CNDDB 2021). Two marbled murrelet designated critical habitat units are present in the Program area (CA -13 and CA -14a); however, no Midpen preserves or easements include designated critical habitat. Designated critical habitat is located in Huddart County Park, immediately adjacent to Purisima Creek Redwoods OSP and Teague Hill OSP, as well as at Pescadero Creek County Park and Portola Redwoods State Park, immediately adjacent to La Honda Creek OSP, Long Ridge OSP, and Skyline Ridge OSP (Figure 3.4-2). Suitable nesting habitat for the marbled murrelet is present within Purisima Creek Redwood OSP, Tunitas Creek OSP, and an easement located south of Russian Ridge OSP, as well as immediately adjacent to La Honda Creek OSP, Skyline Ridge OSP, and Long Ridge OSP. A number of Program activities, such as maintenance of roads and trails, culverts, and bridges, as well as vegetation management and other activities, are proposed in these areas. Although Program activities are not expected to result in the loss of nesting habitat, it is feasible that such activities could (in the absence of BMPs) occur sufficiently close to active nests to result in disturbance. Adult birds are not expected to be killed or injured, as they could easily fly from the work site prior to such effects occurring; however, Program activities causing a substantial increase in noise, movement of equipment, or human presence near active nests could result in the abandonment of nests, and possibly the loss of eggs or young as a result. Similarly, Program activities such as maintenance of roads and trails, culverts, and bridges, as well as vegetation management have the potential to disturb other nesting special -status bird species and their habitat. In the absence of BMPs, this could cause nesting failure or reduced fitness, which could result in a significant impact to special -status birds. Midpen would implement the following BMPs, incorporated as part of the Program, to reduce impacts on special -status birds, and their habitats to the greatest extent feasible. Descriptions of each BMP are provided in Chapter 2, Project Description. ■ BMP GEN-1 Staging and Access ■ BMP GEN-2 Minimize Area of Disturbance and Site Maintenance ■ BMP GEN-8 Vehicle Maintenance and Parking Open Space Maintenance and Restoration Program September 2021 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Midpeninsula Regional Attachment 1 Open Space District 3. Environmental Checklist • BMP GEN-9 • BMP GEN-23 • BMP BI0-1 • BMP BI0-2 • BMP BI0-16 Murrelet) • BMP BI0-17 • BMP BI0-23 • BMP B10-24 Equipment Maintenance & Fueling Vegetation and Tree Removal and Retention Environmental Awareness Training Biological Monitor Migratory Bird Nest Protection Measures (excludes Marbled Marbled Murrelet Nest Protection Measures Riparian Avoidance Riparian Restoration Implementation of a number of BMPs that are routine for all Program activities would help to avoid impacts on nesting special -status birds and nesting birds protected by the MBTA and California Fish and Game Code § 3503 and 3503.5. Such general BMPs, which tend to minimize the footprint of work activities and minimize impacts from staging and stockpiling of materials, spills or leaks of chemicals, and other adverse effects, include BMPs GEN 1, 2, 8, 9 and 23. In addition, implementation of BMP BIO-1 would minimize impacts through environmental awareness training of maintenance personnel regarding the sensitivity of special -status bird species. BMP BIO-16 Migratory Bird Nest Protection Measures (excludes Marbled Murrelet) would be implemented to protect nesting birds (including special -status nesting birds). This BMP includes focused surveys for active nests during the nesting season (February 15 - August 30). If active nests are found, a buffer would be established around the nest and maintained until the young have fledged. This BMP also includes monitoring of bird behavior at the nest site to ensure nesting birds are not disturbed by Program activities. BMP BIO-17 would be implemented to specifically avoid and minimize impacts on the marbled murrelet. Program activities within 0.25 mile of suitable nesting habitat for the marbled murrelet, as determined by a qualified biologist, would be confined to the period of September 15 to March 23, outside of the typical nesting season for marbled murrelets (as defined by the Pacific Seabird Group Marbled Murrelet Technical Committee [2003]). BMPs BIO-23 and BIO-24 would also be protective of riparian habitat, where special -status bird species such as yellow warbler and long-eared owl may nest, which would further reduce impacts to these species. By implementing these measures, impacts to special -status bird species and their habitat would be avoided or sufficiently minimized such that significant adverse impacts would not occur. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant. No mitigation is required. Impacts to Special -status Mammal Species Table 2 in Appendix D lists the special -status mammal species known to occur in the vicinity of the Program area. These include mountain lion, San Francisco dusky -footed woodrat, pallid bat, western red bat, Townsend's big -eared bat, ringtail (Bassariscus astutus), and American badger. Several non -special -status but CEQA-relevant bat species (hereafter referred to as "CEQA-relevant bats") have potential to occur in the Program area, including Brazilian free - tailed bats (Tadarida brasiliensis), big brown bats (Eptesicus fuscus), and myotis bats (Myotis Open Space Maintenance and Restoration Program September 2021 1 3-104 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Midpeninsula Regional Attachment 1 Open Space District 3. Environmental Checklist spp.). These CEQA-relevant bat species may be present in trees, bridges, or rock crevices or under exfoliating tree bark in the vicinity of Program activities. Mountain lions are present in low densities throughout much of the Santa Cruz Mountains. Although they typically tend to avoid areas of high human activity, they occasionally venture into suburban areas. Mountain lions have been recorded in numerous Midpen preserves and could potentially occur in any preserve within the Program area. The San Francisco dusky -footed woodrat (SFDFW), a California species of special concern, occurs in woodlands and scrub habitats throughout much of the program area, and can be abundant in suitable habitat. Pallid bat has been recorded in scattered locations in open areas and along roads of the Pacific coastal regions and the Santa Cruz Mountains within the Program area. This species may occur in Midpen preserves with old buildings or large trees (especially oaks) with large cavities. However, pallid bats are expected to occur in low numbers and only in limited areas. The Townsend's big -eared bat is a scarce resident of the Program area, potentially roosting in old mines, caves, very large cavities in redwood trees, and barns and abandoned buildings in the Santa Cruz Mountains. Townsend's big -eared bats have been detected at several Midpen preserves, including Bear Creek Redwoods OSP, La Honda Creek OSP, Long Ridge OSP, Pichetti Ranch OSP, Russian Ridge OSP, Skyline Ridge OSP, Sierra Azul OSP, and Windy Hill OSP (Midpen data). This species has also been detected at Tunitas Creek Beach, less than 1/2 mile from Midpen's Tunitas Creek OSP. Many of these records are very recent, within the past three years, and in many instances, detections have occurred during the known breeding season for this species, which extends through August. In many cases, Townsend's big -eared bats detected in Midpen preserves have been found in buildings, such as sheds or barns. Therefore, this species may occur in a number of Midpen preserves, albeit in very small numbers. The western red bat does not breed in the Program area, so no maternity roosts would be affected by proposed Program activities. It does roost solitarily in the foliage of trees during winter or migration. Suitable habitat for ringtail is present in portions of the Program area that contain dense woodlands and/or rocky outcroppings. It is known to have occurred at Sierra Azul OSP, Saratoga Gap OSP, and Long Ridge OSP (Midpen 2019), and may be present at other Midpen preserves, although it is expected to be rare and local. Badgers are present in low numbers in open habitats of the Program area, with many recent records from Midpen preserves along the crest of the Santa Cruz Mountains that have open grasslands, including Skyline Ridge OSP, Russian Ridge OSP, Windy Hill OSP, Tunitas Creek OSP, Monte Bello OSP, Coal Creek OSP, and La Honda Creek OSP. Suitable habitat may exist at other preserves. However, populations of this species in the Santa Cruz Mountains are likely low, and this species is expected to occur only in low numbers in any Midpen preserve. Open Space Maintenance and Restoration Program September 2021 1 3-105 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Midpeninsula Regional Attachment 1 Open Space District 3. Environmental Checklist Program activities could result in accidental crushing of SFDFW stick nests, or direct mortality from crushing by mechanical equipment. Implementation of BMP BI0-16, which includes preconstruction surveys and relocation of nests that cannot be avoided, would be implemented to specifically avoid and minimize impacts on SFDFW. In the absence of BMPs, Program -related disturbance near a maternity roost of pallid or Townsend's big -eared bats could cause females to abandon their young. If trees or structures containing roosting colonies or individual pallid bats or Townsend's big -eared bats were removed or modified, individual bats could be physically injured or killed; could be subjected to physiological stress from being disturbed during torpor; or could face increased predation because of exposure during daylight, a potentially significant impact. Such impacts could be significant because these species' populations are limited locally and regionally and loss of individuals may have a substantial adverse effect on local and regional populations of these species. Implementation of BMP BI0-20, which requires preconstruction surveys for pallid and Townsend's big -eared bats, avoidance of work during the breeding season and winter torpor period if special -status bats are present, providing alternative roost sites, and preparing and implementing exclusion plans, would minimize impacts on special -status bats. The western red bat does not breed in the Program area but roosts in the foliage of trees during winter or migration. Individuals of this species roost solitarily in foliage, and the number of individuals that could be present on a project site at any given time (and thus the number that could be affected) is likely low. When trees supporting individual bats are removed or modified, individual western red bats could be affected, if present, in the same ways described above for adult pallid and Townsend's big -eared bats. Program activities could result in similar impacts to CEQA-relevant bat species. Proposed tree removal would have the potential to result in impacts on non -special -status bats. Loss of a small colony (i.e., fewer than 10) of non -special -status bats would not result in a substantial impact on regional populations because of the regional abundance of these species (e.g., in comparison to pallid bat and Townsend's big -eared bat); however, loss of multiple colonies, or of a particularly large colony, of these CEQA-relevant bat species may substantially affect regional populations of any of them. Implementation of BMP BI0-20 would be protective of CEQA-relevant bat species, in addition to special -status bat species. Suitable roost sites for non -special -status bats are expected to be widespread enough that the loss of a roost site resulting from proposed Program activities would not result in a substantial reduction in suitable roosts on a regional scale. Program activities are not expected to result in a substantial reduction in suitable roosts (on a regional scale) for common bat species. Therefore, the loss of roost sites used by common bat species would be a less -than -significant impact. Program activities may disturb foraging badgers or ringtails or temporarily cause these species to modify their foraging or dispersal areas, but such effects would be temporary. Badger or ringtail dens are not anticipated to be impacted by Program activities. Midpen would implement the following BMPs, incorporated as part of the Program, to reduce impacts on special -status mammals and their habitats to the greatest extent feasible. Descriptions of each BMP are provided in Chapter 2, Project Description. Open Space Maintenance and Restoration Program September 2021 1 3-106 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 3. Environmental Checklist Attachment 1 ■ BMP GEN-1 ■ BMP GEN-2 ■ BMP BIO-1 ■ BMP BI0-16 ■ BMP BI0-20 Staging and Access Minimize Area of Disturbance and Site Maintenance Environmental Awareness Training San Francisco Dusky -footed Woodrat and Nest Protection Measures Bat Colony Protection Measures Implementation of BMPs GEN-1, GEN-2, and BIO-1 would minimize impacts on all special - status mammal species through minimization of the area of disturbance and environmental awareness training of maintenance personnel regarding the sensitivity of these species. As described above, implementation of BMP BIO-16 includes preconstruction surveys for San Francisco dusky -footed woodrat and relocation of nests that cannot be avoided. Implementation of BMP BIO-20, which requires preconstruction surveys for pallid and Townsend's big -eared bats, avoidance of work during the breeding season and winter torpor period if special -status bats are present, providing alternative roost sites, and preparing and implementing exclusion plans, would minimize impacts on special -status bats. By implementing these measures, impacts to special -status mammal species and their habitat would be avoided or sufficiently minimized such that adverse impacts are not likely to occur. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant. No mitigation is required. b. Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, and regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? Note that impacts to wetlands are addressed separately in (c), below. As described above in the setting section, riparian communities and other sensitive natural communities are present within the Program area. Riparian communities provide a wide range of biological functions for fish and wildlife species. Program activities largely occur in sensitive natural communities including oak woodland, riparian habitat, freshwater wetlands, and riverine aquatic habitat. Program activities such as culvert and bridge and replacement, road and trail drainage feature maintenance, sediment and debris removal, streambank stabilization, road and trail maintenance, water supply structure maintenance, restoration and enhancement projects and vegetation management may occur within riparian corridors along channel banks. Thus, these activities have the potential to result in the loss and/or disturbance of riparian or other sensitive natural community vegetation through pruning and trimming for access, removal of fallen or hazardous trees, herbicide application, trampling, and other impacts. Program activities could also impact native riparian and other sensitive vegetation through the introduction and spread of pathogens such as Phytophthora. As described in Chapter 2, vegetation removal in a riparian area would typically be less than 1,200 square feet per site. Current permit conditions provide for a 20% maximum reduction in riparian canopy and to mitigate for any trees removed above 6" dbh within the top of bank. All vegetation removal activities would be conducted in compliance with the IPMP and the Open Space Maintenance and Restoration Program September 2021 1 3407 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Midpeninsula Regional Attachment 1 Open Space District 3. Environmental Checklist Wildland Fire Resiliency Program. Additionally, the work limits described in Chapter 2 would limit Program impacts on riparian and other sensitive natural communities. Pesticide application in riparian areas would be limited to one to five sites per year and would be conducted in accordance with the IPMP BMPs. Only pesticides and adjuvants labeled for aquatic use would be allowed. Conservation grazing activities are not anticipated to result in impacts to sensitive natural communities, as these activities would be conducted in accordance with the goals, policies, and implementation measures included in Midpen's Grazing Management Policy (2008). Certified rangeland managers would prepare site -specific grazing management plans that incorporate BMPs for preserves where grazing will be utilized based on the unique features of each site and determine the appropriate class of livestock and stocking rates. Before conservation grazing activities commence, a biologist would evaluate the area to be grazed to identify sensitive resources, including sensitive natural communities. The effects of sediment and debris removal, culvert and bridge maintenance, road and trail drainage feature maintenance, streambank stabilization, and vegetation management activities on riparian vegetation have been estimated on an annual basis on past Midpen projects (See Table 2-3 in Chapter 2, Project Description). A precise quantification of the Program impact areas is not possible at this time as Program activities will be determined and prioritized on an annual basis by Midpen within each OSP. Riparian vegetation that is removed by Program activities is expected to regrow, except in areas where capacity or other maintenance activities would require the permanent exclusion of vegetation or where repetitive impacts on riparian vegetation in certain areas could prevent regrowth. The Program also includes various enhancement and restoration activities, which are anticipated to result in a beneficial effect to native riparian vegetation. Midpen would implement the following BMPs, incorporated as part of the Program, to reduce impacts on sensitive natural communities to the greatest extent feasible. Descriptions of each BMP are provided in Chapter 2, Project Description. • BMP GEN-1 Staging and Access • BMP GEN-2 Minimize Area of Disturbance and Site Maintenance • BMP GEN-3 Construction Entrances and Perimeter • BMP GEN-5 Hazardous Materials Storage/ Disposal • BMP GEN-6 Spill Prevention and Control • BMP GEN-8 Vehicle Maintenance and Parking • BMP GEN-9 Equipment Maintenance & Fueling • BMP GEN-10 Paving and Asphalt Work • BMP GEN-11 Concrete, Grout and Mortar Application • BMP GEN-12 Exclude Concrete from Channel • BMP GEN-13 Concrete Washout Facilities Open Space Maintenance and Restoration Program September 2021 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 3. Environmental Checklist Attachment 1 ■ BMP GEN-14 Painting and Paint Removal ■ BMP GEN-16 Site Stabilization ■ BMP GEN-18 Project Completion by End of Work Period ■ BMP GEN-19 Avoid Inclement Weather ■ BMP GEN-20 Aquatic Resource Protection Measures ■ BMP GEN-21 Staged Materials Management and Excavation Ramps ■ BMP GEN-22 Spoils Management ■ BMP GEN-23 Vegetation and Tree Removal and Retention ■ BMP GEN-24 Vegetation Management with Prescribed Burns ■ BMP GEN-25 Vegetation Management with Livestock ■ BMP GEN-26 Non-native Plant Removal and Herbicide Management ■ BMP GEN-28 Culvert Replacement ■ BMP GEN-29 Culvert Maintenance ■ BMP GEN-30 Culvert Removal and/or Replacement with Rolling Dips or Fords ■ BMP GEN-31 New Culvert Installation (non -stream crossings) ■ BMP GEN-32 Bridge and Puncheon Replacement ■ BMP GEN-33 Bridge and Puncheon Repair and Maintenance ■ BMP GEN-34 Ford and Swale (including Drain Lenses and Causeways) Replacement ■ BMP BIO-1 Environmental Awareness Training ■ BMP BI0-2 Biological Monitor ■ BMP BI0-3 Work Area Designation ■ BMP BI0-5 Sensitive Natural Communities ■ BMP BI0-6 Invasive Plant Material Management and Disposal ■ BMP BI0-7 Sudden Oak Death and Plant Pathogen Control ■ BMP BI0-23 Large Woody Material Management ■ BMP BI0-24 Riparian Avoidance ■ BMP BI0-25 Riparian Restoration ■ BMP EC -1 General Erosion Control Measures ■ BMP EC -2 Slope or Bank Stabilization ■ BMP EC -3 Road and Trail Drainage Maintenance ■ BMP EC -4 Road and Trail Minor Relocation ■ BMP EC -5 Revegetation of Disturbed Areas Open Space Maintenance and Restoration Program September 2021 1 3409 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 3. Environmental Checklist Attachment 1 ■ BMP SWQ-1 Water Body Protection Measures ■ BMP SWQ-2 Turbidity Monitoring ■ BMP SWQ-3 Sediment Filtering Measures ■ BMP DW-1 Stream/Aquatic Habitat Isolation Standard operating procedures for Program activities include implementing BMP BI0-5: Sensitive Natural Communities, BMP BI0-24: Riparian Avoidance and BMP BI0-25: Riparian Restoration. During treatment of vegetation within a sensitive natural community, BMP BIO- 5 would require maintenance of the membership rules of the natural community by preferentially retaining characteristic species to maintain the structure and composition of the community. BMP BI0-24 would require protection of riparian trees from damage to the greatest extent possible, and that vegetation management not adversely impact the riparian zone. BMP BI0-25 would require prioritization of riparian restoration in the same preserve and watershed, tree replacement, revegetation, and the use of native species for revegetation (except in cases where non-native trees are culturally significant). For active revegetation, a revegetation plan would be submitted to CDFW with the annual notification, and monitoring and remediation of revegetation areas. I. BMPs that would avoid or minimize impacts by minimizing the footprint of work activities and minimize impacts from staging and stockpiling of materials, spills or leaks of chemicals, and other adverse effects include BMPs GEN-1, GEN-2, GEN-5, GEN-6, GEN-8, GEN-9, GEN-14, GEN-22, GEN-23, and GEN-26. BMPs GEN-10, GEN-11, GEN-12, and GEN-13 would minimize the potential for concrete to result in adverse effects on sensitive habitats by limiting exposure of uncured concrete to these habitats. BMPs GEN-18 and GEN-19 would reduce the potential for erosion or sedimentation by restricting work to the dry season and dry periods. Implementation of BMPs GEN-16, EC -1, EC -2, EC -3, EC -4, EC -5, SWQ-1, SWQ-2, and SWQ-3 would further minimize potential for erosion or sedimentation by stabilizing work sites, implementing erosion control measures and monitoring water quality. Implementation of BMP BIO-1 would minimize impacts through environmental awareness training of maintenance personnel regarding the sensitivity of riparian and other sensitive natural communities. BMP BI0-2 would give the biological monitor stop -work authority to avoid impacts to sensitive natural communities. BMP BI0-7 would minimize impacts from plant pathogens by sanitizing and not carrying infected materials into other areas. BMP DW-1 would minimize impacts to aquatic habitat by isolating the work area from the flowing stream. With these BMPs in place, the Program would have a less than significant or potentially beneficial impact to sensitive natural communities including riparian habitat. No mitigation is required. c. Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? Federally protected wetlands are present within the Program area in many OSPs. Program activities such as culvert and bridge and replacement, road and trail drainage feature Open Space Maintenance and Restoration Program Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration September 2021 1 3-110 Midpeninsula Regional Attachment 1 Open Space District 3. Environmental Checklist maintenance, sediment and debris removal, streambank stabilization, road and trail maintenance, work in ponds, water supply structure maintenance, restoration and enhancement projects and vegetation management may occur in areas supporting wetlands. Thus, these activities have the potential to result in the loss and/or disturbance of wetlands. Wetland vegetation may be lost as a result of mechanical or physical clearing in the work site (including access areas), removal of sediment containing vegetation, and damage to vegetation may occur as a result of crushing by equipment; trampling by personnel; and compaction of soil, which could result in damage to plant roots. Program activities would require temporary water diversions or dewatering. This activity would result in the temporary loss of aquatic and wetland communities and may result in increased turbidity within and downstream from the footprint of the activities caused by mobilization of fine sediments. In addition, because barren slopes are more susceptible to erosion from incident rainfall, the loss of wetland vegetation and non-instream vegetation along stream banks following bank stabilization activities may result in an increase in erosion and sedimentation. Increased erosion and sedimentation may lead to the filling in of pools and damage to wetland vegetation. Program also may affect downstream areas by altering flow patterns. These activities could result in the placement of fill, hydrological interruption (e.g., dewatering or diversion), alteration of bed and bank, degradation of water quality (e.g., increased sedimentation and turbidity), and other direct impacts, which would be a potentially significant impact. The activities would primarily result in the short-term loss and disturbance of wetlands and aquatic habitats; however, small permanent losses could occur because of the use of hardscape for bank stabilization activities. As described in Chapter 2, Midpen would continue to prioritize the use of earthen and biotechnical bank stabilization solutions over hardscape solutions. Midpen would implement the following BMPs, incorporated as part of the Program, to reduce impacts on wetlands. Descriptions of each BMP are provided in Chapter 2, Project Description. • BMP GEN-1 Staging and Access • BMP GEN-2 Minimize Area of Disturbance and Site Maintenance • BMP GEN-3 Construction Entrances and Perimeter • BMP GEN-5 Hazardous Materials Storage/ Disposal • BMP GEN-6 Spill Prevention and Control • BMP GEN-8 Vehicle Maintenance and Parking • BMP GEN-9 Equipment Maintenance & Fueling • BMP GEN-10 Paving and Asphalt Work • BMP GEN-11 Concrete, Grout and Mortar Application • BMP GEN-12 Exclude Concrete from Channel • BMP GEN-13 Concrete Washout Facilities • BMP GEN-14 Painting and Paint Removal Open Space Maintenance and Restoration Program September 2021 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 3. Environmental Checklist Attachment 1 ■ BMP GEN-16 Site Stabilization ■ BMP GEN-18 Project Completion by End of Work Period ■ BMP GEN-19 Avoid Inclement Weather ■ BMP GEN-20 Aquatic Resource Protection Measures ■ BMP GEN-21 Staged Materials Management and Excavation Ramps ■ BMP GEN-22 Spoils Management ■ BMP GEN-23 Vegetation and Tree Removal and Retention ■ BMP GEN-24 Vegetation Management with Prescribed Burns ■ BMP GEN-25 Vegetation Management with Livestock ■ BMP GEN-26 Non-native Plant Removal and Herbicide Management ■ BMP GEN-28 Culvert Replacement ■ BMP GEN-29 Culvert Maintenance ■ BMP GEN-30 Culvert Removal and/or Replacement with Rolling Dips or Fords ■ BMP GEN-31 New Culvert Installation (non -stream crossings) ■ BMP GEN-32 Bridge and Puncheon Replacement ■ BMP GEN-33 Bridge and Puncheon Repair and Maintenance ■ BMP GEN-34 Ford and Swale (including Drain Lenses and Causeways) Replacement ■ BMP BIO-1 Environmental Awareness Training ■ BMP BI0-2 Biological Monitor ■ BMP BI0-3 Work Area Designation ■ BMP BI0-6 Invasive Plant Material Management and Disposal ■ BMP EC -1 General Erosion Control Measures ■ BMP EC -2 Slope or Bank Stabilization ■ BMP EC -3 Road and Trail Drainage Maintenance ■ BMP EC -4 Road and Trail Minor Relocation ■ BMP EC -5 Revegetation of Disturbed Areas ■ BMP SWQ-1 Water Body Protection Measures ■ BMP SWQ-2 Turbidity Monitoring ■ BMP SWQ-3 Sediment Filtering Measures ■ BMP DW-1 Stream/Aquatic Habitat Isolation Open Space Maintenance and Restoration Program Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration September 2021 1 3-112 Midpeninsula Regional Attachment 1 Open Space District 3. Environmental Checklist Midpen would implement a number of BMPs to address the impacts of Program activities on wetlands and other waters. General BMPs tend to minimize the footprint of work activities and minimize impacts from staging, stockpiling of materials, spills or leaks of chemicals, and other adverse effects. Relevant general BMPs include BMPs GEN-1, GEN-2, GEN-5, GEN-22, GEN-23, and GEN-26. BMPs GEN 16, GEN-21, EC -1 through EC -5, and SWQ-1 through SWQ-3 are specifically designed to reduce adverse effects on water quality, such as increased turbidity. Petrochemicals, hydraulic fluids, and solvents that are spilled or leaked from maintenance vehicles or equipment may also adversely affect water quality within or downstream from the activity area, and fresh concrete may release harmful chemicals into the water if rewatering occurs before the concrete has cured. These impacts would be minimized by implementation of BMPs GEN-5 through GEN-16. BMPs GEN-18 and GEN-19 would reduce the potential for erosion or sedimentation by restricting work to the dry season and dry periods. Implementation of BMP BIO-1 would minimize impacts through environmental awareness training of maintenance personnel regarding the sensitivity of wetlands and waters. BMP BI0-2 would give the biological monitor stop -work authority to avoid impacts to sensitive habitats. BMP DW-1 would minimize impacts to aquatic habitat by isolating the work area from the flowing stream. Implementation of BMP BI0-6 would reduce impacts from invasive plants by requiring equipment to arrive clean on the work site and properly disposing of invasive plants. Implementation of the above BMPs would reduce and minimize impacts to state and federal wetlands. Midpen acquires dozens of acres of wetland habitats each year through its preservation efforts. As part of the proposed Program Midpen would offset all permanent removal of vegetation from jurisdictional areas through continued land acquisitions and permanent protection of riparian habitats. Additionally, implementation of the restoration and enhancement projects conducted by Midpen would be beneficial to wetlands and other waters associated with Program activities. Therefore, Program activities are not likely to result in the permanent reduction of wetland area, substantial conversion of wetland type, or a significant permanent decline in wetland functions and values. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant. No mitigation is required. d. Would the project interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of wildlife nursery sites? Impacts to nesting non -special -status birds and roosting CEQA-relevant bats are discussed in the responses to question (a), above. Aquatic features in the Program area, including streams, ponds, and lakes, provide habitat for both native and non-native fish. Program activities including sediment and large woody debris removal may affect the movement of fish species by altering flow paths or the distribution of stream substrate. Dewatering activities would result in short-term losses of available habitat for fish species, but would not result in permanent barriers. Culverts in fish - bearing streams would be designed to provide sufficient depth and velocity of water for passage of native fish and other native aquatic species during high and low flow conditions, which is anticipated to improve habitat conditions for native species. Open Space Maintenance and Restoration Program September 2021 1 3-113 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 1-vk Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 3. Environmental Checklist Attachment 1 Implementation of Program activities may cause wildlife to avoid implementation areas during active work due to noise or increased human presence. However, Program activities would be relatively short in duration and would not result in permanent access restrictions or barriers to movement for wildlife. Following the completion of Program activities in an area, wildlife dispersal through the affected area is expected to return to existing conditions. Midpen would implement the following BMPs, incorporated as part of the Program, to reduce impacts on the movement of native fish and wildlife. Descriptions of each BMP are provided in Chapter 2, Project Description. ■ BMP GEN-1 Staging and Access ■ BMP GEN-2 Minimize Area of Disturbance and Site Maintenance ■ BMP DW-1 Stream/Aquatic Habitat Isolation ■ BMP DW-2 Pond Dewatering ■ BMP DW-3 Pumps Implementation of BMPS GEN-1 and GEN-2 would avoid or minimize impacts by minimizing the footprint of work activities and minimize impacts from staging and stockpiling of materials. BMPs DW-1, DW-2, and DW-3 would minimize impacts to aquatic habitat by isolating the work area from the flowing stream, conducting dewatering outside of the California red -legged frog breeding season, and screening pumps to prevent impingement, injury, or mortality of aquatic species. After implementation of BMPs, the Program would not have a significant residual impact on native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species, established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of wildlife nursery sites. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant. No mitigation is required. e. Would the project conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? Conflict with Local Policies The Program would comply with local policies protecting biological resources, including Midpen's Resource Management Policies and Vision Plan, and the General Plans of San Mateo, Santa Cruz, and Santa Clara Counties. Therefore, impacts related to conflict with local policies would be less than significant. No mitigation is required. Conflict with the Local Tree Ordinance The majority of proposed Program activities would occur in unincorporated San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties, while some work would occur in various cities and towns. As described in Section 3.4.2, both San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties have ordinances protecting trees. Midpen would comply with all such ordinances where applicable, including obtaining a permit from the necessary jurisdictions to remove protected trees and complying with the conditions of such permits (including paying any applicable fees). Therefore, impacts related Open Space Maintenance and Restoration Program Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration September 2021 1 3414 Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 3. Environmental Checklist Attachment 1 to conflict with local policies or ordinances protecting trees would be less than significant. No mitigation is required. Conflict with Local Coastal Program As described in Section 3.4.2, all development planned in the Coastal Zone requires either issuance of a Coastal Development Permit or a Coastal Development Permit Exemption. Midpen would comply with the LCP by obtaining a permit or exemption for all Program activities that are planned within the Coastal Zone and complying with all applicable permit conditions. Therefore, impacts related to conflict with the LCP would be less than significant. No mitigation is required. f Would the project conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? A very small portion of Midpen lands along the eastern boundary of Sierra Azul OSP (approximately 200 acres) are within the mapped Habitat Plan area (ICF International 2012). The Habitat Plan covers nine wildlife and nine plant species, listed in Table 3.4-2. Midpen is not a signatory of the Habitat Plan, but coordinates with the signatory parties to the plan regarding any biological issues should they arise. Program activities that occur within the Habitat Plan area would not be covered by the Habitat Plan. Further, the Program includes BMPs to avoid and minimize impacts from Program activities on the species covered by the Habitat Plan, as described above under Impact Criterion a. Therefore, the Program would not conflict with the Habitat Plan. This impact would be less than significant. No mitigation is required. Open Space Maintenance and Restoration Program September 2021 1 3-115 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 3. Environmental Checklist Attachment 1 This page intentionally left blank Open Space Maintenance and Restoration Program Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration September 2021 1 3416 Midpeninsula Regional Attachment 1 Open Space District 3. Environmental Checklist 3.5 Cultural Resources Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact Would the project: a. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in Section 15064.5? b. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource as defined in Section 15064.5? c. Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? 3.5.1 Environmental Setting Cultural resources include prehistoric Native American archaeological sites; historic -era archaeological sites; tribal cultural resources (TCRs); traditional cultural properties; and historic era buildings, structures, landscapes, districts, and linear features. Cultural resources are protected by the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), CEQA, and the California Public Resources Code. These resources are the result of thousands of years of human presence on the landscape. It is widely believed that the San Francisco Bay region was likely inhabited by at least 10,000 B.C. (Milliken et al. 2010) by mobile groups of big game hunters. Over the centuries, indigenous populations became increasingly more sedentary and practiced a foraging subsistence pattern, incorporating the use of seeds and acorns into their diet to supplement animal sources. By the time of the earliest colonists, the Ohlone people were well established in the region. The first European explorers in the San Francisco Bay area were the Spanish, who arrived in the late 1760s and the 1770s to establish missions; first in San Francisco and then Santa Clara and San Jose. When Mexico became independent from Spain in 1821, the secular government began issuing grants of land to favored citizens. First granted only to Mexican nationals, these tracts of land were soon bestowed upon those outsiders (largely Americans) who agreed to become citizens (Kyle et al. 2002:xiii-xiv). During Mexican rule, 22 tracts of land, or Ranchos, were granted within the Program area, in what was to become San Mateo and Santa Clara counties (Ballard et al. 2013:38-39; California State Lands Commission 1982). American explorers, traders, and settlers began filtering into California in the early 1800s, , but it was not until after the end of the Mexican War and the signing of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo in 1848, that non -Hispanic Anglos began migrating in masses. This surge Open Space Maintenance and Restoration Program September 2021 1 3-117 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 14k Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 3. Environmental Checklist Attachment 1 in migration was bolstered by the discovery of gold in the Sierra Nevada foothills and the advent of the Gold Rush in 1849. During this era, the Program area was largely agricultural, though lumber was also a valued commodity. The entire region began to become more urban after World War II, and more so after the Korean War. By the middle of the 20th century, the wartime industry provided jobs and a fledgling local economy. By the middle of the 20th century, the wartime industry provided jobs and a fledgling local economy. At this time, San Mateo and Santa Clara counties became a focal point of the electronics industry, and over the next decades the region fully transformation into the "Silicon Valley" as it is known today. Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Midpen was established nearly 50 years ago upon passage of voter initiative, Measure R, in 1972. The Midpeninsula Regional Park District (as it was originally named) was formed in response to rapid suburban and commercial development in the 1960s by conservationists who were concerned about the encroachment of construction in the hills, open spaces, and bay lands that made living in the Bay Area so desirable (Midpen 2021a). In its infancy, Midpen was focused in northwestern Santa Clara County and, in 1974, 90 acres of the Foothills OSP (now expanded to 212 acres) was the first purchase made by the agency. The following year, voters approved adding southern San Mateo County to Midpen. Within a year, the first open space preserve in San Mateo County was secured: 274 acres of the Los Trancos OSP. Midpen had grown to include 19 preserves encompassing over 13,000 acres within the first decade of its existence. Midpen has continued to expand its land base throughout the following decades, including acquisition of land in Santa Cruz County in 1992. Significantly, in 2004, Midpen's boundaries were expanded to include more than 140,000 acres of the San Mateo County coast, from the Pacific Ocean to the Santa Cruz Mountain ridgeline, between Montara and the San Mateo and Santa Cruz County line. Today Midpen lands cover 227,900 acres in San Mateo, Santa Clara, and Santa Cruz counties. Midpen actively protects over 64,000 acres within 26 preserves, as listed in Table 2-1. Midpen manages land primarily to preserve a regional greenbelt of open space land; however, Midpen is also committed to protect the natural habitats found within the OSPs, and to restore, restore, enhance, and monitor native vegetation and wildlife, as well as protect the many watersheds within Midpen boundaries. As demonstrated by the policies defined by Midpen's Resource Management Policies (Midpen 2021) and the BMPs associated with the Program, Midpen understands the unique status of cultural resources as non-renewable resources that require protection equal to that of the natural environment. 3.5.2 Existing Conditions Cultural Resources Ballard et al. (2013) gathered data to establish baseline information on known cultural resources within the OSPs in support of Midpen's 2014 Vision Plan (Midpen 2014). The sources for these data included the Northwest Information Center (NWIC) of the California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS); files at Midpen's Administrative Offices; Open Space Maintenance and Restoration Program Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration September 2021 1 3-118 Midpeninsula Regional Attachment 1 Open Space District 3. Environmental Checklist and site records and base maps on file with Mark Hylkema, archaeologist with California State Parks who has worked extensively with Midpen. Altogether, Ballard et al (2013) identified 30 Native American prehistoric sites, 28 historic period resources, and five multicomponent (both Native American prehistoric and historic period) sites within the OSPs. The study found that, although no archaeological sites had previously been evaluated for National Register of Historic Places (NRHP)/California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR) eligibility, 12 built environment resources had been evaluated. Of these, two are listed on the NRHP/CRHR, one has been determined eligible, three have been recommended eligible, three have been determined not eligible, and two have been recommended not eligible. Midpen (Panorama 2021) recently provided an updated summary of resources, noting that 106 cultural resources have been recorded in or immediately adjacent to the OSPs. These include 35 Native American prehistoric resources, 65 historic period resources, and six multicomponent sites. Native American sites largely consist of bedrock milling sites, but habitation and resource procurement sites are also present. Historic era resources include both archaeological sites and built environment resources and reflect a broad spectrum of activities, most of which are representative of the American period. Historic period archaeological sites include, but are not limited to, trash deposits, building foundations and remnants, and industrial remains. Extant buildings and structures include barns, residences, cabins, bridges, water impoundment and conveyance features, and roads, among other built environment resources. The historic period resources represent ranching, lumbering, mining, recreation, water management, and military operations over nearly the last two centuries, some of which are identified as historic districts. Existing data indicate that some of the OSPs contain many more cultural resources than others within Midpen's holdings, and some do not contain any. However, it is important to note that systematic cultural surveys have not been completed for any of the OSPs, therefore many more resources are likely present. Only a small percentage of the recorded resources have been evaluated for the NRHP/CRHR. Data cited in Ballard et al. (2013:53-60) indicate that few resources have been evaluated at all (n=12), and those that have been evaluated, with one exception, have all been built environment resources. Therefore, there is a high probability that potentially eligible prehistoric and historic -era archaeological sites exist within the OSPs. It is also possible that unevaluated built environment resources within the OSPs would be determined NRHP/CRHR-eligible. Because all of the OSPs have not been inventoried for cultural resources, it is useful to have a sense of the potential for the presence of resources throughout the OSPs. Identification of built environment resources is, obviously, easier to ascertain than archaeological resources because they are visible above the ground. Therefore, it is particularly beneficial for the Program to have a way to determine the sensitivity of an area for surface or subsurface archaeological deposits in order to avoid disturbance of the resources during implementation of Program activities. Open Space Maintenance and Restoration Program September 2021 1 3-119 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Midpeninsula Regional Attachment 1 Open Space District 3. Environmental Checklist To help determine the potential for buried archaeological resources within the OSPs, a predictive model was developed using a geographic information system. The fundamental concept surrounding predictive models is to project known patterns or relationships into unknown areas. In the case of archaeological predictive modeling, the primary assumption is that archaeological sites tend to recur in areas favorable to human settlement. The model utilized those environmental characteristics of places where sites do or do not occur, and allowed for the extrapolation from small areas to broader geographic areas. Previous research by Meyer (2013) has indicated that among the multiple environmental conditions that may predict prehistoric human settlement or activity in central and northern California, three environmental factors —distance to water, slope, and distance to where a stream met the historical shoreline (or confluence) —are useful for predicting the majority of site locations (see Table 3.5-1). Table 3.5-1. Surface Model Weights by Environmental Condition Environmental Condition Slope (%) (20% Weight) >20 Distance to Streams (Feet (60% Weight) >1,200 15 to 20 10 to 15 600 to 1,200 300 to 600 10 to 5 0 to 5 150 to 300 0 to 150 Distance to Confluence at shoreline zone (Feet) (20% Weight) >1,200 Scale Value Sensitivity Rating 1 600 to 1,200 Lowest 2 300 to 600 Low 3 150 to 300 4 0 to 150 5 Moderate High Highest Surface site potential within the Program area is depicted in Figure 3.5-1. A review of the figure indicates that, largely due to the roughness of the terrain, most of the land within the OSPs falls within the low and lowest categories for surface site sensitivity, and that the potential for archaeological sites lies primarily along the many creeks and streams within the region. Still, only a small percentage of Midpen lands have a rating of high or highest for site sensitivity, and these areas are clustered around stream confluences or in small valleys within the watersheds. As noted previously, the model is a good indicator for identifying areas most likely to contain archaeological sites, but some caution must be used as not all site types would conform to the model. For example, some seasonal prehistoric sites might be resource -driven, and may in proximity to valuable resources even though the terrain might be steep, or water may not be nearby. Similarly, refuge sites (locations where Native Americans lived to hide from Spanish, Mexican, or American colonizers) might be located in generally less desirable places that would not be captured by the model. Spiritual or ceremonial sites would also be expected to include locations with unique characteristics that would not comport with the model. Locations for some historic period sites related to logging or mining might also not be easily identified through use of the model, as they would be focused on resource availability. Open Space Maintenance and Restoration Program September 2021 1 3-120 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Attachment 1 San Leandro Daly City Castro Valley Hayward South San Fran *Aetpt- San Pedro t i-ll San Francisco Bay 16 W Union City ` an hater 1 I 1— 1 ra Irk ♦♦♦�. �ryd e R t K&fMoc?Td exl Bay 1 1 "I.e---- 1 +•.,1,•i .� ' �} 1 �.. 1 29 I1 • �, ba ♦' r" * war 84 4.4 No" i •4, Ar . . li / * ti« l •r ♦ 1 �u \Isi j •?d. / .1 L. 1 1 V " ' 'may • =1 1 J �" �r r•+ i .:, :\� gA ._ II Santa Clara i. f.r71 1', X4.1. 0 j •.., it. ws 747:1-;" ,,i 2 • „.., 1 �' { - • \.D : P sit • ♦ Fremont 1 ♦♦ 1 • NI,` `mow 1 IPdlnt 411A Nuevo F:� • • 1 • 1 i l ♦t „ M. 1 \ ,.- �1 i 4 • 1 L. 4%. h1 " - i 1 4 /I rR ti 7 `. `<, '� !� 1l--1 i '• ` .. li .71 i s1, ,;; , ' `• assir 111• �- �1 4. 4.4. PI Milpitas San 7 1 0 A Mies Horizon WATFR ,nd FNVIRC.NNFNT MROSD Boundary Preserve Historical Baylands Extent Streams Archaeological Sensitivity (surface) L Highest High Moderate Low Lowest 3.5-1 Surface Archaeological Sensitivity Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Open Space Maintenance and Restoration Program Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative Declaration Source: SF8 2009; Mid Peninsula Open Space District Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 3. Environmental Checklist Attachment 1 This page intentionally left blank Open Space Maintenance and Restoration Program September 2021 1 3-122 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Midpeninsula Regional Attachment 1 Open Space District 3. Environmental Checklist In addition to favorable environmental conditions, buried site potential is predicated on two assumptions: (1) archaeological deposits cannot be buried within landforms that developed prior to human colonization of North America; and (2) older surface landforms are less likely to contain buried deposits because human occupation on these landforms was shorter, and the populations were smaller and less dense during periods of greater antiquity. Figure 3.5-1 depicts the age of landforms within the region, which are also listed in Table 3.5-2. The underlying landforms within the existing OSPs are overwhelmingly related to the pre - Pleistocene (>2.5 million years before present (BP)) and have no potential for containing buried cultural remains. Future OSPs, however, may be acquired in areas where the landforms are more likely to contain buried archaeological sites (i.e., Holocene deposits). Table 3.5-2. Buried Site Sensitivity Rankings Geological Period Age (Years BP) ZW Ranking Modern <150 Low Latest Holocene 1,000-150 High Mid to Late Holocene 1,000-11,800 High Latest Pleistocene to Holocene Late Pleistocene 11,800-30,000 Moderate to Low 30,000-129,000 Low Early to Late Pleistocene 30,000-1.8 Million Lowest Pre -Pleistocene >1.8 Million None 3.5.3 Discussion a. Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15064.5? Several built environment resources that are considered historical resources are known to exist within Midpen OSPs. However, not all built environment resources on Midpen lands have been evaluated for listing in the NRHP/CRHR; thus, it is possible that built environment resources would also meet the NRHP/CRHR eligibility criteria. Application of most of the routine maintenance activities outlined in Table 2-2 would not adversely affect built environment resources because these activities involve minor repairs to existing facilities (e.g., clearing of drainage features, regrading trail surface, etc.); however, some of the Program activities that include replacement or realignment of Midpen facilities could have a deleterious impact to historical resources. For example, although no bridges within the OSPs have been determined NRHP/CRHR-eligible to date, replacement of bridge decking and handrails would be an adverse effect if these elements are contributing elements to the historic structure and are not replaced in kind. Similarly, removal of a bridge that is determined to be a historical resource would be a significant effect. However, in this latter case, the project would be re-examined and it is likely that it would be conducted separately Open Space Maintenance and Restoration Program September 2021 1 3-123 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Midpeninsula Regional Attachment 1 Open Space District 3. Environmental Checklist from the Program. New small-scale facility improvement projects could adversely affect historical resources of the built environment if the modifications and improvements are not done in a manner that is compatible with the characteristics that contribute to the eligibility of the resource. Such activities include relocating bridges, improving existing ranching infrastructure, and repairing existing buildings. An adverse effect to NRHP/CRHR-eligible facilities would require reconsideration of the project and the potential need to address the project individually under CEQA, separately from the Program. It is not anticipated that any restoration and enhancement activities would cause a substantial adverse change to historical resources. To minimize potential impacts to historic resources, Midpen would implement BMP CUL-1: Review Internal Midpen Cultural Resources Archives (described in Chapter 2, Project Description), which would require Midpen to assess the cultural sensitivity of a site prior to conducting work. Assessing the cultural sensitivity of a site for historical resources would reduce potential impacts to built environment resources considered eligible for listing in the NRHP/CRHR by removing projects that could adversely affect historical resources from the Program and evaluating those projects on an individual basis. Thus, with implementation of BMP CUL-1, impacts of the proposed Program on historical resources would be less than significant. No mitigation is required. b. Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15064.5? Most of the known cultural resources within the OSPs are archaeological sites and, because the OSPs have not been systematically studied by pedestrian survey, it is highly probable that many unrecorded prehistoric and historic period sites are located on Midpen lands. It is also likely that some of the archaeological resources within the OSPs are eligible for listing in the NRHP/CRHR, or are eligible as unique archaeological resources under Public Resources Code Section 21083.2. Many Program activities involve some level of ground disturbance and, therefore, have the potential to impact archaeological deposits which may be visible on the ground surface or buried with no surface manifestation. Table 3.5-3 lists routine maintenance activities and new small-scale facilities improvement projects that have the greatest potential for affecting archaeological resources (although any ground disturbance by these activities may have an impact). Open Space Maintenance and Restoration Program September 2021 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 14k Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 3. Environmental Checklist Attachment 1 Table 3.5-3. Program Activities with the Greatest Potential to Impact Archaeological Resources Facility or Feature Activity Type Routine Maintenance Activities Ponds/lakes Sediment removal that requires excavation outside or deeper than the original engineered extent or depth Livestock exclusion fencing Water supply structures Spring box and/or water tank replacement Water line replacement, extensions, or realignments Roads Culvert repair and replacement Fords and swales repair and replacement (including new culverts in place of fords) Minor relocation of road segments (unpaved) to correct resource concerns (e.g., erosion, rutting) Installation of new roadside and trailside ditch relief culverts at non - stream crossings Replacement of driveways Bridges Repair and fortify bridge abutments Bridge removal or replacement Roadside/trailside ditches Replace culverts and ditches Replace and repair fords Sediment and debris removal that requires excavation outside or deeper than the original engineered extent or depth Cleaning ditches that requires excavation outside or deeper than the original engineered extent or depth Trails Grading and shaping Culvert repair and replacement Repair and replace fords and swales (including with new culverts) Bank stabilization Minor relocation Creeks Bank stabilization Other Midpen Parks and Open Space features (picnic or rest areas, natural areas, rangeland, staging areas, parking lots, tenant structures, field offices, etc.) Mechanical removal that involves removal of large woody plant roots of invasive species or for fire fuel management Open Space Maintenance and Restoration Program September 2021 1 3-125 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Midpeninsula Regional Attachment 1 Open Space District 3. Environmental Checklist Facility or Feature Activity Type New Facilities and Improvements Bridges Bridge relocation or new installation Interpretive facilities and signage Ranching infrastructure Trails Installation of new low -intensity, small -footprint interpretative facilities and signage at existing preserves Improve existing ranching infrastructure, including fences, corrals, stock water Reroute existing unpaved trails and provide new trail connections and public access Wildlife crossings Construct wildlife crossings some of which may also provide public access Water infrastructure Install or replace or remove degraded water infrastructure facilities Restoration and enhancement activities generally have a low potential for impacting archaeological sites; however, any ground disturbance could affect archaeological deposits. Examples of restoration and enhancement activities that may involve ground disturbance include exclusion fencing installation; removal of in -stream infrastructure (i.e., impoundments) and collapsed structures (i.e., bridges or culverts) and road decommissioning. Program activities listed in Table 3.5-3 have an enhanced potential for disturbing resources in areas identified with a high or moderate potential for either surface or buried archaeological sites. These sensitive areas are located primarily in the vicinity of watercourses, where many Program activities would occur. Thus, ground -disturbing activity in native soils or replacement or alteration of existing infrastructure could impact archaeological resources. Midpen would implement the following BMPs, incorporated as part of the Program, to avoid or reduce potential impacts to surface and subsurface archaeological resources. Descriptions of each BMP are provided in Chapter2, Project Description. ■ BMP CUL-1 ■ BMP CUL-2 Review Sensitivity Maps Record Search and Field Inventory for Highly or Moderately Sensitive Areas, and Areas of Unknown Sensitivity ■ BMP CUL-3 Consult with Native American Tribes ■ BMP CUL-4 Construction Monitoring ■ BMP CUL-5 Conduct Pre -Maintenance Educational Training ■ BMP CUL-6 Address Discovery of Cultural Remains For Program activities that involve excavation or repair in previously undisturbed native soils beyond existing engineered extent or depths (e.g., some culvert replacement projects), a desktop investigation to determine the presence of known resources and sensitivity of the project site would be conducted (BMP CUL-1). For areas with known sites, or high/moderate Open Space Maintenance and Restoration Program September 2021 1 3-126 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 3. Environmental Checklist Attachment 1 or unknown sensitivity, a cultural resources investigation would be conducted by a qualified professional archaeologist prior to performing the Program activity (BMP CUL-2) and appropriate Native American tribes would be consulted (BMP CUL-3). Construction monitoring (BMP CUL-4) may also be required during ground -disturbing activities within 50 feet of recorded archaeological resources and in areas identified as highly sensitive for cultural areas. All personnel would also receive an educational training by a qualified cultural resources specialist prior to the beginning of each maintenance season (BMP CUL-7) to learn how to identify cultural resources. For all Program activities, if unknown resources are discovered during work, all work would stop and appropriate treatments would be adhered to (BMP CUL-8). Overall, with implementation of the BMPs mentioned above, impacts on archaeological resources would be less than significant. No mitigation is required. c. Would the project disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5 prescribes the processes and procedures found under Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 and Public Resources Code Section 5097.95 for addressing the existence of, or probable likelihood of, Native American human remains, as well as the unexpected discovery of any human remains within the Program area. Program activities that require excavation in native soils, including clearing ditches beyond existing engineered depths or extent, have the potential to unearth unknown human remains. Midpen would implement the following BMPs, incorporated as part of the Program, to avoid or reduce potential impacts to human remains. Descriptions of each BMP are provided in Chapter2, Project Description. ■ BMP CUL-2 Record Search and Field Inventory for Highly or Moderately Sensitive Areas, and Areas of Unknown Sensitivity ■ BMP CUL-3 Consult with Native American Tribes ■ BMP CUL-6 Address Discovery of Cultural Remains Appropriately If human remains were discovered during a field inventory (BMP CUL-2), the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) and affiliated tribal members would be contacted (BMP CUL-3) to develop measures to avoid impacts to the remains. If human remains are unearthed during construction, the appropriate County would comply with Health Safety Code Section 7050.5 and adhere to the measures included in BMP CUL-6. With the implementation of the above -referenced BMPs, impacts resulting from the discovery of human remains would be less than significant. No mitigation is required. Open Space Maintenance and Restoration Program September 2021 1 3427 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 3. Environmental Checklist Attachment 1 This page intentionally left blank Open Space Maintenance and Restoration Program Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration September 2021 1 3428 Midpeninsula Regional Attachment 1 Open Space District 3. Environmental Checklist 3.6 Energy Less than Potentially Significant Less -than - Significant with Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact Would the Project: a. Result in potentially significant environmental impacts due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources during project construction or operation? b. Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency? El X 3.6.1 Regulatory Setting This section describes the federal, state, and local regulations related to energy resources. Section 3.8, "Greenhouse Gas Emissions," contains additional discussions of greenhouse gas (GHG)-related regulations that may also be relevant to energy resources. At the federal level, the USEPA and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) have developed regulations to improve the efficiency of cars, and light-, medium-, and heavy-duty vehicles. These regulations are discussed in greater detail in Section 3.8. Energy resource -related regulations, policies, and plans at the state level, require the regular analysis of energy data and developing recommendations to reduce statewide energy use, and setting requirements on the use of renewable energy sources. Senate Bill (SB) 1389, passed in 2002, requires the California Energy Commission (CEC) to prepare an Integrated Energy Policy Report for the governor and legislature every 2 years (CEC 2020a). The report contains an integrated assessment of major energy trends and issues facing California's electricity, natural gas, and transportation fuel sectors. The report provides policy recommendations to conserve resources, protect the environment, ensure reliable, secure, and diverse energy supplies, enhance the state's economy, and protect public health and safety (CEC 2020a). The 2019 Integrated Energy Policy Report includes policy recommendations such as addressing the vulnerability of California's energy infrastructure to extreme events related to climate change, including sea -level rise and coastal flooding (CEC 2020b). In addition, since 2002, California has established a Renewables Portfolio Standard (RPS) program, through multiple senate bills (SB 1078, SB 107, SB X1-2, SB 350, SB 100) and executive orders (S-14-08, B-55-18), that requires increasingly higher targets of electricity retail sales be served by eligible renewable resources. The established eligible renewable source targets include 20 percent of electricity retail sales by 2010, 33 percent of electricity retail sales by 2020, 50 percent by 2030, and 100 percent zero -carbon electricity for the state and statewide carbon neutrality by 2045 (CEC 2020b, CEC 2017). Open Space Maintenance and Restoration Program September 2021 1 3-129 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Midpeninsula Regional Attachment 1 Open Space District 3. Environmental Checklist Section 3.8, "Greenhouse Gas Emissions," provides additional details on California's 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan, which details the state's strategy for achieving the state's GHG targets, including energy -related goals and policies. It contains measures and actions that may pertain to the proposed Program relating to vehicle efficiency and transitioning to alternatively powered vehicles (CARB 2017). The General Plans for the Counties of San Mateo, Santa Clara, and Santa Cruz include policies aimed at reducing local contributions to global climate change. These policies include supporting efforts to reduce GHG emissions, promoting sustainable practices and green technology in development, and promoting the use of low -emission vehicles and equipment, among others. San Mateo County has a Government Operations Climate Action Plan and a Community Climate Action Plan (San Mateo County 2020) that contain GHG and energy - related strategies and measures. Santa Clara County's Climate Action Plan focuses on County Operations and Facilities and is not directly applicable to the proposed Program. Santa Cruz County has a Climate Action Strategy that contains GHG and energy -related goals, policies, and strategies (Santa Cruz County 2020). Midpen has adopted a Climate Action Plan to identify goals and strategies to reduce GHG emissions generated by Midpen activities. The Climate Action Plan calls for a 20 percent reduction from the 2016 baseline in 2022 and ultimately an 80 percent reduction by 2050. Strategies are identified to reduce GHG emissions associated with four different sectors, one of which is "vehicle fleet, equipment, and business travel," which would apply to the vehicles and equipment used during implementation of the Program. Some of the strategies correlate to reducing energy use, primarily non-renewable fuels. Applicable strategies include switching tanks and fueling stations to renewable diesel (V1, which was completed in September 2018), acquisition and testing of new electric equipment (V4), purchasing a hybrid or electric vehicle for field offices (V6), and assessing feasibility of alternative fire response models with lower emissions (V7) (Midpen 2018). 3.6.2 Environmental Setting Energy Resources and Consumption California has extensive energy resources, including an abundant supply of crude oil, high production of conventional hydroelectric power, and leads the nation in electricity generation from renewable resources (solar, geothermal, and biomass resources) (U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) 2020). California has the second highest total energy consumption in the United States but one of the lowest energy consumption rates per capita (48th in 2018) due to its mild climate and energy efficiency programs (EIA 2020). A comparison of California's energy consuming end -use sectors indicates that the transportation sector is the greatest energy consumer, by approximately two to three times compared to the other end -use sectors (Industrial, Commercial, and Residential, which are listed in order of greatest to least consumption) (EIA 2020). California is the largest consumer of motor gasoline and jet fuel in the United States (EIA 2020). In the San Francisco Bay Area, data collected for the Clean Air Plan indicates that the largest sources of GHG emissions (and presumably energy use) were from transportation (41 Open Space Maintenance and Restoration Program September 2021 1 3-130 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 3. Environmental Checklist Attachment 1 percent), followed by stationary sources such as refineries (26 percent), energy production (14 percent), and buildings (10 percent) (BAAQMD 2017). Midpen's largest sources of energy use are vehicles, equipment, employee commutes, facilities, and residences (Midpen 2019). Most Midpen vehicles and equipment use gasoline, diesel, or renewable diesel; while facilities use electricity, natural gas, and propane. In 2019, Midpen signed up for most facilities to receive 100% renewable electricity through Peninsula Clean Energy and Silicon Valley Clean Energy (Midpen 2019). 3.6.3 Discussion a, b. Result in potentially significant environmental impacts due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources during project construction or operation or Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency? The proposed Program's maintenance activities would require the consumption of energy (fossil fuels) for construction equipment, worker vehicles, and truck trips. The proposed Program would not involve any activities that require electricity -based energy use. The consumption of energy for equipment and vehicles would be minimized by spreading removed sediment and debris onsite rather than hauling it away and by minimizing vehicle idling (BMP GEN-15). Table 3.6-1 shows the estimated annual fuel use from construction equipment, worker vehicles, and truck trips. The calculations used to develop these estimates are presented in Appendix C. Table 3.6-1. Project Fossil Fuel Use Source Type Diesel Fuel Use (gallons) Gasoline Fuel Use (gallons) Off -road Construction Equipment' 118,892 Worker Vehicles' 6,308 Hauling Vehicles3 751 1. Fuel use for off -road construction equipment was estimated using a fuel use factor from CARB's off -road in -use engine emissions model of 0.347 pound of diesel per horsepower -hour and diesel fuel density of 7.37 pounds per gallon. 2. Fuel use for construction worker vehicles was estimated using fuel use estimates from EMission FACtor model (EMFAC) with an estimated rate of 21.7 gallons per mile. 3. Fuel use for hauling vehicles was estimated using fuel use estimates from EMFAC with an estimated rate of 5.5 gallons per mile. The energy consumption during maintenance and facilities upkeep work is necessary for resource protection and restoration. These activities would not cause wasteful, inefficient, and unnecessary consumption of energy or cause a substantial increase in energy demand and the need for additional energy resources. Implementation of BMP GEN-15 would further reduce the proposed Program's effect by requiring minimization of idling times and requiring Open Space Maintenance and Restoration Program September 2021 1 3-131 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 3. Environmental Checklist Attachment 1 that all equipment be properly maintained. As a result, the proposed Program would not result in wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy. In addition, Program activities would not conflict with any of the goals, policies, or implementation actions identified in the applicable energy plans, such as the 2019 Integrated Energy Policy Report or the general plans for the Counties of San Mateo, Santa Clara, and Santa Cruz, because the proposed Program would not create any future energy demands and would be completed as efficiently as possible. Further, Midpen would adhere to the goals and policies in its own Climate Action Plan. Thus, the proposed Program would not conflict with any plans relating to renewable energy or energy efficiency. Therefore, this impact is considered less than significant. No mitigation is required. Open Space Maintenance and Restoration Program September 2021 1 3432 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 14-k Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 3. Environmental Checklist Attachment 1 3.7 Geology, Soils, and Seismicity Less than Significant Potentially with Less -than - Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact Would the Project: a. Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury or death involving: i. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? ii. Strong seismic ground shaking? iii. Seismic -related ground failure, including liquefaction? iv. Landslides? b. Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? c. Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the Project, and potentially result in an on -site or off -site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse? d. Be located on expansive soil creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property? e. Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? f. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? ❑X ❑ ❑X ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑X ❑ O El El 0 ❑ n u o 0 0 El El El 0 Open Space Maintenance and Restoration Program September 2021 1 3-133 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Midpeninsula Regional Attachment 1 Open Space District 3. Environmental Checklist 3.7.2 Environmental Setting Midpen lands are located in the central portion the Coast Ranges geomorphic province, which is characterized by northwest -trending mountain ranges and valleys that parallel the San Andreas Fault. The Coast ranges geomorphic province is bounded by the Pacific Ocean to the west and the Great Valley to the east. The topography of Midpen lands includes a variety of terrain, including steep slopes and canyons along the Santa Cruz Mountains, rolling hills and terraces downslope in the western foothills of the Santa Cruz Mountains that drain into the Pacific Ocean, and rolling hills and valleys in the eastern foothills of the Santa Cruz Mountains that drain into the Santa Clara Valley and the San Francisco Bay (Panorama 2021). Elevations in Midpen lands ranges from 3,400 feet above sea level to approximately sea level. Over 100 soil types underlie Midpen lands. Soils in the Santa Cruz Mountains and foothills, consist of sandy to gravelly loams with intermixed silt and clay. In the foothills of the Santa Cruz Mountains and in the valleys, soils tend to be finer grained and consist of silty loams and clayey loams. These soils transition into fine-grained clayey silty soils or bay mud along the Bay margin (Panorama 2021). The San Francisco Bay Area is considered a highly seismically active region due to a network of active3 and potentially active faults associated with the San Andreas Fault. The San Andreas, Hayward, Monte Vista, Rodgers Creek, Calaveras, Sargent, Green Valley, and San Gregorio faults are all active faults that form part of the San Andreas Fault system. Portions of Midpen OSPs, including Sierra Azul, Bear Creek Redwoods, Saratoga Gap, Monte Bello, and Los Trancos are crossed by these active faults (Panorama 2021). Risk of fault rupture on California's mapped faults has been assessed by the California Department of Conservation under the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act. An Alquist-Priolo fault zone is a regulatory zone surrounding active faults (CDOC 2019). Some Midpen lands are located within Alquist-Priolo earthquake fault zones according to the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Maps (California Geological Survey [CGS] 2002; CGS 2005; CGS 2019). A landslide is the downslope movement of materials such as rock, soil, or fill from a slope. Landslides may occur due to several factors related to slope stability, including slope, weathering, climate, saturation, vegetation, erosion, earthquakes, and human -induced factors. In general, the relative likelihood of landsliding to occur is based on rock strength and steepness of slopes. Figure 3.7-1 shows landslide susceptibility for deep landslides to occur in the Program area. Generally, landslide susceptibility is lower in areas with low slopes and strong materials (shown as classes III, V, VI, VII on Figure 3.7-1). Landslide susceptibility increases with steeper slopes and weaker rocks. Very high landslide susceptibility classes including VIII, IX, and X, have very steep slopes and weak rocks. Note that Figure 3.7-1 does not show the potential for landslide triggering events (i.e., intense rainfall or earthquakes) or show the susceptibility of shallow landslides to occur (i.e., debris flows) (CGS 2011). As shown on Figure 3.7-1, some areas of the Program area in the Santa Cruz Mountains are moderately and highly susceptible to landslides based on steep slopes and weak underlying 3 Active faults are faults that have ruptured in the last 11,000 years. Open Space Maintenance and Restoration Program September 2021 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Midpeninsula Regional Attachment 1 Open Space District 3. Environmental Checklist rock material. The Santa Cruz Mountains also experience intense rainfall events and are within a highly seismically active region, increasing the potential for landsliding to occur. Another form of landslides common on Midpen lands are debris flows. Debris flows are fast- moving flows of mud consisting of rocks, vegetation, and other debris that are typically triggered by intense rainfall events. Generally, areas with steep slopes that are denude of vegetation and experience intense storm events are more susceptible to debris flows. Areas recently burned by forest fires are especially susceptible to debris flows. Liquefaction occurs when unconsolidated, saturated sediments at or near the ground surface lose their strength, typically during a ground shaking event, and are converted to a fluid -like state. Poorly consolidated and saturated soils and fill materials are the most susceptible to liquefaction. Portions of the Program area that are susceptible to liquefaction from ground shaking are primarily along the Bay margin (CGS 2005; CGS 2002; CGS 2019). Another potential effect of seismically induced liquefaction is lateral spreading and bank failure along creek channels. Lateral spreading is the horizontal movement of relatively flat -lying saturated sediments. Due to the San Andreas Fault and other faults, the bedrock of Midpen lands is broken up into different blocks from different periods and epochs. Volcanic rocks, sedimentary rocks, and alluvium are the major overlying rocks within Midpen lands. Volcanic rocks are primarily from the Miocene or Oligocene Epoch; sedimentary rocks are from the Pliocene, Miocene, Oligocene or Eocene Epoch; and sediments are from the Holocene or Pleistocene Epoch. The Franciscan Complex consisting of melange, sedimentary, and volcanic rocks and the Great Valley complex consisting of sedimentary and volcanic rocks are the basement rocks that underlie Midpen lands. Surficial sediments from the Holocene and Pleistocene Epochs overlie the basement rocks (Panorama 2021). The most prevalent geologic units include sedimentary rocks, which are located throughout Midpen lands, and Franciscan Complex which composes much of the Santa Cruz Mountains. Some geologic units have a higher potential to be composed of paleontological resources (i.e., fossils). This "sensitivity" is determined by rock type, age and method of formation, and fossil localities that are recorded in that unit. The vast majority of Midpen lands have low sensitivity for paleontological resources, except for portions of Sierra Azul and Rancho San Antonio OSPs, which contain large amounts of Pleistocene alluvium deposits that have a moderate paleontological sensitivity (Panorama 2021). Open Space Maintenance and Restoration Program September 2021 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 3. Environmental Checklist Attachment 1 This page intentionally left blank Open Space Maintenance and Restoration Program September 2021 1 3436 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Figure 3.7-1 Landslide Susceptibility within the Program Area San Francisco Bay Pacific Ocean Landslide Susceptibility Classes Class 0 - Low Class 7 - Moderate Class 3 - Low Class 8 - High Class 5 - Moderate MI Class 9 - High Class 6 - Moderate - Class 10 - High 0 1 2 4 1 i 1 I I Miles tT Horizon Q MROSD Boundary C.:!Sphere of Influence - Major Highway - State Route County Boundary huUG1110.; Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Routine Maintenance and Facilities Improvement Program Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 3. Environmental Checklist Attachment 1 This page intentionally left blank Open Space Maintenance and Restoration Program September 2021 1 3-138 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 1#k Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 3. Environmental Checklist Attachment 1 3.7.3 Discussion a. Would the project directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury or death involving: i. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? ii. Strong seismic ground shaking? iii. Seismic -related ground failure, including liquefaction? Several active faults that are susceptible to rupture and have historically created strong seismic ground shaking cross through the Program area. However, an impact is only considered significant if the project would exacerbate existing seismic hazards by increasing the severity or likelihood of such hazards affecting people above the existing condition. The number of workers on Midpen lands at any one time and throughout the term of the Program would increase as more routine maintenance, small facility improvement, and restoration projects would be conducted. Workers may be at risk of injury or death from various Program activities if activities are conducted in an area where fault rupture or seismic -related ground failure could occur. However, seismic ground shaking events are unpredictable and the potential for such events to coincide with Program activities is low. Earthquake safety training pursuant to Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) regulations would minimize potential impacts to workers. Further, all construction and design associated with the Program would comply with applicable California Building Code (CBC) standards (California Code of Regulations, Title 24), which includes standards for various aspects of construction, including but not limited to, excavation, grading, and earthwork; fill placement and embankment construction; foundation investigations; resistance to ground shaking in various zones of the state; and liquefaction potential and soil strength loss. Furthermore, the Program does not include any new structures or operational activities that could create or exacerbate a ground - shaking risk or involve construction of habitable structures that could expose people to adverse effects from earthquakes or strong seismic ground shaking. Implementation of Program activities would not cause an increased risk of loss, injury, or death involving rupture of a known earthquake fault, strong seismic ground shaking, or seismic -related ground failure, including liquefaction. This impact would be less than significant. No mitigation is required. ii. Landslides? As shown on Figure 3.7-1 and described above, areas within the Program area in the Santa Cruz Mountains are susceptible to landslides. During intense rainfall events or earthquakes, there may be an increased potential for landslides to occur. Although most Program activities would be conducted to improve or prevent unstable situations (e.g., bank/berm stabilization), there is a potential for new trails or road/trail re-routes to potentially cause landsliding by disturbing large areas and quantities of soil in unstable, Open Space Maintenance and Restoration Program September 2021 1 3-139 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Midpeninsula Regional Attachment 1 Open Space District 3. Environmental Checklist steep, and landslide prone areas. An increase in landslide risks would be considered a significant impact if it would cause substantial adverse effects. Mitigation Measure GEO-1 requires implementation of erosion and slope stabilization measures in areas susceptible to erosion and instability. With implementation of Mitigation Measure GEO-1, impacts associated with the Program increasing the severity or likelihood of landslides affecting people over the existing condition would be reduced to less than significant with mitigation. Mitigation Measure GEO-1: Erosion Control and Slope Stability Measures This mitigation measure applies to any Program activity areas determined to be at risk for erosion and slope instability, including if the activity exposes soils and leaves groundcover or native mulch/organic matter to be less than 70 percent following work; if work is proposed to occur on steep slopes (defined as over 35 percent slope); if evidence of unconsolidated soils or landslides is found on site; or if the scale of the proposed activity would disturb a large area. Prior to conducting work that could result in erosion or slope instability, qualified personnel will conduct a review of site conditions which may include, but is not limited to, a desktop review of slope, LiDAR, historic evidence of landslides (e.g., Wentworth et al. 1997), local hazard mapping and safety plans, proximity of the site to infrastructure, and modeling of landslide susceptibility GIS data (e.g., Wills et al. 2011). Qualified personnel are personnel who have knowledge and experience in the application of erosion and slope stabilization control measures through training or field experience with control measure installation. The qualified personnel may also conduct a site visit to look for existing signs of erosion or slope instability (e.g., rills or slumped soil). Depending on the slope and the downslope resources (e.g., roads that could be impacted if a slope failed or waterbodies or habitat that could be impacted from erosion.), erosion and slope stabilization measures (listed below) will be implemented. These measures will depend on the site's specific characteristics and the type and extent of work to be performed and will be determined by qualified personnel. The qualified personnel will memorialize in writing their field observations and corresponding recommendations regarding installation of control measures. Control measures may be adjusted as needed depending on the site's specific characteristics. For activities that involve substantial grading on active slide areas, unstable areas, or unstable soils (as defined in the California Forest Practice Rules), a licensed geologist or Registered Professional Forester (RPF) will conduct the site inspection. This includes activities occurring in previously undisturbed soils (e.g., would not apply for grading within an existing, engineered road or trail); or activities occurring above (within 0.5 mile) or below (within 0.25 mile) infrastructure, including residences or other potentially occupied structures. Activities involving substantial vegetation removal will be conducted consistent with the IPM and Wildland Fire Resiliency Program measures. Open Space Maintenance and Restoration Program September 2021 1 3-140 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 3. Environmental Checklist Attachment 1 A licensed geologist or RPF will also conduct site inspections where any road is proposed to be extended or re-routed by 600 feet or more, regardless of the proximity to active slide areas, unstable areas, or unstable soils. The licensed geologist or RPF will identify specific control measures to be implemented, which may include, but are not limited to, the control measures identified below. If the desktop review and/or site visit determine that a public safety hazard could occur from Program activities being conducted in unstable areas adjacent to existing infrastructure, sensitive habitat, or habitable structures, a licensed geologist/ engineer will perform a site assessment. Recommendations provided in the site assessment will be implemented as needed to ensure that slope instability and public safety hazards do not occur. Recommendations could include measures such as stabilizing slopes with mats or natural materials after tree removal and replanting denude areas to stabilize soils. In areas that were previously analyzed by an RPF or licensed geologist, Midpen will review the prior recommendations for consistency with the proposed activity and determine if a new review is warranted. General Control Measures In addition to Program BMPs GEN-2 and GEN-19, the following general control measure will be implemented during work as determined appropriate by the qualified personnel: ■ Shut down use of heavy equipment, skidding, and truck traffic when soils become saturated and unable to support the machines. Reduced Groundcover Control Measures In addition to Program BMPs EC -1 through EC -5, the following reduced groundcover control measures will be implemented during work as determined appropriate by the qualified personnel if the activity would leave less than 70 percent of groundcover or native mulch/organic material on site: ■ Sow native grasses and other herbs on denuded areas where natural colonization or other replanting will not occur rapidly; use slash or chips to prevent erosion on such areas. ■ Use surface mounds, depressions, logs, rocks, trees and stumps, slash and brush, the litter layer, and native herbaceous vegetation downslope of denuded areas to reduce sedimentation and erosion as necessary to prevent erosion or slope destabilization. ■ Install approved, biodegradable erosion -control measures and non -filament - based geotextiles (e.g., coir, jute) when: ■ Conducting substantial ground -disturbing work (e.g., use of heavy equipment, pulling large vegetation, etc.) within 100 feet and upslope of currently flowing or wet wetlands, streams, lakes, and riparian areas; Open Space Maintenance and Restoration Program Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration September 2021 1 3441 Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 3. Environmental Checklist Attachment 1 ■ Causing soil disturbance on moderate to steep (i.e., 10 percent slope and greater) slopes; and ■ Following the removal of invasive plants from stream banks to prevent sediment movement into watercourses and to protect bank stability. ■ Install certified weed -free sediment control devices as appropriate. Sediment control devices will be inspected daily during active construction by workers to ensure that the devices are in good working condition to prevent sediment transport into the waterbodies and will be repaired as needed. Steep Slopes Control Measures The following measures will be implemented during work conducted on steep slopes (i.e., greater than 35 percent) as determined appropriate by qualified personnel: ■ Avoid use of heavy equipment on slopes greater than 35 percent unless specialized equipment is used that does not impact slope stability as determined by the qualified personnel. ■ Prescribed burns and pile burns will be performed outside of perennial and intermittent streams and of riparian forest/ woodland. A 50 -foot buffer around perennial and intermittent streams will be maintained when the burn is proposed upslope of the stream on slopes greater than 35 percent. ■ Avoid installation of cleared areas, including spur roads or staging areas, on steep slopes, particularly over 50 percent slope, where feasible. Where not feasible, a licensed geologist/engineer or RPF will be consulted, as required above. The licensed geologist/engineer or RPF will identify and require implementation of appropriate design and control measures, including but not limited to, those identified in Low -Volume Roads Engineering (Keller & Sherar, 2003); Handbook for Forest, Ranch, and Rural Roads (Weaver, 2015); or the latest California Forest Practice Rules. Other suitable engineering guidance includes: ■ Locating roads on well -drained soils and slopes where drainage moves away from the road; ■ Providing adequate surface drainage; ■ Avoiding wet and unstable areas (seeps, springs, etc.); ■ Using the natural topography to control or dictate the ideal location of road or cleared area (e.g., staging area); use saddles, follow ridges, use bench areas, etc. Once work is completed, areas will be inspected as needed (but at least once annually) depending on the size, nature of the work, and the site conditions until groundcover exceeds 70 percent and it is clear that significant erosion and slope instability are not occurring (e.g., no evidence of soil rills, slumped soils, landslides, etc.). Once work is Open Space Maintenance and Restoration Program Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration September 2021 1 3442 Midpeninsula Regional Attachment 1 Open Space District 3. Environmental Checklist complete, erosion control and slope stability devices will be removed at the discretion of Midpen staff. b. Would the project result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? Erosion is a natural process in which rocks, soils, or natural materials are worn away over time by physical forces, including rainfall, water, or wind. The rate of erosion is dependent upon several factors such as material, soil type, slope, vegetation, etc. Erosion potential generally is higher in areas with steep and denuded slopes. Potential sources of erosion include channel incision below culvert crossings, washouts associated with drainage crossings along roads and trails, runoff from unpaved parking areas, overgrazing, and undersized or clogged culvert crossings. Program activities such as bank/berm repair, culvert clearing, road and trail drainage maintenance, vegetation removal, revegetation, bridge relocation, sediment and debris removal, and removal of in -stream structures would reduce erosion and sedimentation. The stabilization and treatment of streambanks and pond berms that are actively eroding or slumping would reduce long-term erosion and sedimentation of actively destabilized banks/berms. Maintaining and/or updating poorly constructed or non-functioning road and trail crossings and clearing clogged culverts and bridge crossings would prevent erosion and sediment delivery to aquatic resources and reduce the potential for erosive flows to be redirected towards banks, roads, or other facilities. Pruning and selective removal of trees on banks and removal of in -stream structures and debris that has the potential to capture debris or redirect erosive flows toward the banks would reduce erosion/sedimentation processes along banks. Revegetating banks with native species would further stabilize banks, reducing the potential for erosion. The Program would involve ground -disturbing activities including berm/bank repair, pond restoration, bridge relocation, road grading, culvert repair and replacement, vegetation removal, among others. Access and staging near streams may result in erosion from the streambanks or sediment loading into the channel. Sediment loads to the channel could also result if stockpiled soils or sediment -laden water at work sites enters the channel or if new areas are disturbed for staging activities. Erosion or sediment loading into the channel could also occur if the activities do not revegetate exposed soils or restore low -flow channels as closely as possible to their original location and form. Overgrazing can also enable erosion by compacting soil and removing vegetation. BMPs included below would reduce the potential for erosion and sedimentation during construction. Removal of vegetation could also result in soil erosion and loss of topsoil through the exposure of bare soils and removing root structures and the loss of evapotranspiration; however, potential erosion effects related to vegetation management activities are analyzed in the Wildland Fire Resiliency Program EIR (Panorama 2021). Constructing new trails and re-routing existing roads and trails may also increase the potential for erosion. However, trail and road re-routes would only occur if the previous route were sited improperly, such as located on a steep slope or on instable soils. Poorly designed and located roads and trails can lead to erosion and sediment delivery. Thus, re-routing existing, poorly situated routes would reduce the potential for erosion. Former routes would Open Space Maintenance and Restoration Program September 2021 1 3-143 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 3. Environmental Checklist Attachment 1 be regraded to minimize erosion and would be replanted with appropriate native plants. Construction of new trails and trail and trail re-routes would comply with the Handbook for Forest, Ranch & Rural Roads (Weaver, Weppner, and Hagans, 2015) and California Forest Practice Rules (California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection [CAL FIRE] 2020) guidelines for planning, designing, constructing, reconstructing, upgrading, maintaining, and closing roads. Further, the Program involves decommissioning old roads that are no longer necessary for access, which further reduces chronic sediment delivery and restores natural watershed hydrology within Midpen lands. Midpen would implement the following BMPs to minimize the potential for erosion and sedimentation to occur due to conducting Program activities. Descriptions of each BMP are provided in Chapter 2, Project Description. ■ BMP GEN-1 ■ BMP GEN-2 ■ BMP GEN-3 ■ BMP GEN-16 ■ BMP GEN-19 ■ BMP GEN-21 ■ BMP GEN-22 ■ BMP GEN-25 ■ BMP GEN-28 ■ BMP GEN-29 ■ BMP GEN-31 ■ BMP BI0-24 ■ BMP EC -1 ■ BMP EC -2 ■ BMP EC -3 ■ BMP EC -4 ■ BMP EC -5 ■ BMP SWQ-1 ■ BMP SWQ-3 ■ BMP DW-1 Staging and Access Minimize the Area of Disturbance and Site Maintenance Construction Entrances and Perimeter Site Stabilization Avoid Inclement Weather Staged Materials Management and Excavation Ramps Spoils Management Vegetation Management with Livestock Culvert Replacement Culvert Maintenance New Culvert Installation (non -stream crossings) Riparian Restoration General Erosion Control Measures Slope or Bank Stabilization Road and Trail Drainage Maintenance Road and Trail Minor Relocation Revegetation of Disturbed Areas Water Body Protection Measures Sediment Filtering Measures Stream/Aquatic Habitat Isolation Implementation of the BMPs listed above would minimize the potential for erosion and sedimentation by minimizing ground disturbance and the amount of earthwork, using previously disturbed areas for staging and access, stabilizing the active work site, restoring disturbed and riparian areas following Program activities, avoiding rainy weather, ensuring Open Space Maintenance and Restoration Program Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration September 2021 1 3-144 Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 3. Environmental Checklist Attachment 1 proper storage of materials, equipment, and spoils, and preventing overgrazing. Due to the temporary nature of the Program activities and with the implementation of the above listed BMPs, this impact would be less than significant. No mitigation is required. c. Would the project be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project and potentially result in on- or off -site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? Some of Midpen lands are subject to instability. As described above in 3.6(a), there is a potential for liquefaction and lateral spreading to occur on Midpen lands due to nearby active faults and ground shaking; however, Program activities would not exacerbate these conditions. Soil collapse may occur when high shrink -swell soils shrink during the dry season or when saturated soils are loaded or compressed. However, Program activities would not involve the construction of large, heavy structures that would cause soil collapse. Some Midpen lands in the Santa Cruz Mountains are susceptible to landslides due to topography and underlying geology and soils. Landslides or debris flows can damage infrastructure (e.g., roads, trails, or other facilities) and trees and habitat. Program activities that may alter the land and increase the potential for landslides to occur include vegetation removal and construction of new trails and road/trail re-routes. Potential landslide impacts associated with vegetation removal and fuel management activities are analyzed in the Wildland Fire Resiliency Program EIR (Panorama 2021). Although trail and road re-routes are typically conducted to relocate a route from an unstable area, these activities may disturb large previously undisturbed areas within unstable or landslide prone areas, which could result in a significant impact. New trails and road/trail re-routes would comply with the Handbook for Forest, Ranch & Rural Roads (Weaver, Weppner, and Hagans, 2015) and California Forest Practice Rules (CAL Fire 2020) guidelines for planning, designing, constructing, reconstructing, upgrading, maintaining, and closing roads to prevent impacts associated with unstable soils. Implementation of Mitigation Measure GEO-1 would further reduce impacts by requiring the implementation of erosion and slope stabilization measures in areas prone to erosion and slope instability. Other Program activities including bank/berm stabilization, native vegetation plantings/seeding, and road decommissioning would reduce the potential for landslides/debris flow to occur by stabilizing bank/berm slopes, revegetating denuded areas with native species, and removing roads to restore the natural hydrology and watershed processes. Overall, with the implementation of Mitigation Measure GEO-1 impacts associated with unstable areas would be less than significant with mitigation. d. Would the project be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property? Expansive soils or "shrink -swell" soils are soils that expand and contract due to changes in moisture content and are typically comprised of fine-grained clay sediments. Expansive soils may be present within Midpen OSPs along the Bay margin; however, this Program does not Open Space Maintenance and Restoration Program September 2021 1 3-145 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 3. Environmental Checklist Attachment 1 involve conducting activities within OSPs along the bay margin. Expansive soils are not present in other OSPs and the Program does not involve constructing new structures that would create a risk to life or property. Thus, implementation of the Program would not result in an increased risk to life or property associated with expansive soils. No impact would occur associated with the Program. e. Would the project have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? The Program would not result in the generation of wastewater, nor involve the construction or modification of any septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems. Thus, the Program would have no impact associated with placement of such systems on unsuitable soils in the Program area. f. Would the project directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? Most geologic units that underlie the Program area have low potential to yield unique paleontological resources. Pleistocene alluvium, which has a moderate potential to yield paleontological resources, is found in large quantities in Sierra Azul and Rancho San Antonio OSPs and in small quantities in several other OSPs. The Program would involve varying degrees of ground -disturbing activities including berm/bank repair, trail reroutes, pond restoration, bridge relocation, road grading, culvert replacement, etc. that could encounter paleontological resources in these OSPs. However, such disturbances would occur in previously disturbed soils and would not extend to great depths below ground; thus, the potential for ground -disturbing activities to uncover or destroy a unique paleontological resource is unlikely. Midpen would implement the following BMPs to minimize potential impacts to paleontological resources. Descriptions of each BMP are provided in Chapter 2, Project Description. ■ BMP GEN-2 Minimize Area of Disturbance and Site Maintenance ■ BMP GEN-16 Site Stabilization ■ BMP EC -2 Slope or Bank Stabilization ■ BMP GEO-1 Address Discovery of Paleontological Resources Implementation of the above listed BMPs would minimize potential impacts on paleontological resources by minimizing the area of disturbance, stabilizing active work sites and banks, ensuring that Midpen staff are trained in the recognition of paleontological resources, and stopping work and implementing treatment measures in the event of such a discovery. With implementation of the above -listed BMPs, potential impacts to paleontological resources would be less than significant. No mitigation is required. Open Space Maintenance and Restoration Program Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration September 2021 1 3-146 Midpeninsula Regional Attachment 1 Open Space District 3. Environmental Checklist 3.8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Less than Potentially Significant Less -than - Significant with Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact Would the Project: a. Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? b. Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? El 3.8.1 Regulatory Setting This section describes the federal, state, and local regulations related to GHG emissions and climate change. At the federal level, the USEPA has developed regulations to reduce GHG emissions from motor vehicles and has developed permitting requirements for large stationary emitters of GHGs. On April 1, 2010, USEPA and the NHTSA established a program to reduce GHG emissions and improve fuel economy standards for new model year 2012- 2016 cars and light trucks. On August 9, 2011, USEPA and the NHTSA announced standards to reduce GHG emissions and improve fuel efficiency for heavy-duty trucks and buses. In August 2016, USEPA and the NHTSA jointly finalized Phase 2 Heavy -Duty National Program standards to reduce GHG emissions and improve fuel efficiency of medium- and heavy-duty vehicles for model year 2018 and beyond (USEPA 2020). However, some of these standards have been stayed by a court order and USEPA has proposed repealing certain Phase 2 emissions standards (Center for Climate and Energy Solutions 2020). In recent years, California has enacted a number of policies and plans to address GHG emissions and climate change. In 2006, the California State Legislature enacted Assembly Bill (AB) 32, the Global Warming Solutions Act, which set the overall goals for reducing California's GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. SB 32 codified an overall goal for reducing California's GHG emissions to 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030. Executive Orders (EOs) S-3-05 and B-16-2012 further extend this goal to 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050. The CARB has completed rulemaking to implement several GHG emission reduction regulations and continues to investigate the feasibility of implementing additional GHG emission reduction regulations. These include the low carbon fuel standard, which reduces GHG emissions associated with fuel usage, and the RPS, which requires electricity suppliers to increase the amount of electricity generated from renewable sources to certain thresholds by various deadlines. In 2018, SB 100 updated the RPS to require 50 percent renewable resources by the end 2026, 60 percent by the end of 2030, and 100 percent renewable energy and zero carbon resources by 2045. EO B-55-18 signed by Governor Jerry Brown set a goal of statewide carbon neutrality by 2045 and net negative emissions thereafter. Open Space Maintenance and Restoration Program September 2021 1 3-147 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Midpeninsula Regional Attachment 1 Open Space District 3. Environmental Checklist CARB approved the First Update to the AB 32 Scoping Plan on May 22, 2014 (CARB 2014). This update defines climate change priorities for the next 5 years and also sets the groundwork to reach long-term goals set forth in EOs S-3-05 and B-16-2012. The update also highlights California's progress toward meeting the near -term 2020 GHG emission reduction goals and evaluates how to align the State's longer term GHG reduction strategies with other state policy priorities for water, waste, natural resources, clean energy, transportation, and land use. CARB is updating the Scoping Plan to reflect progress since 2005, additional reduction measures, and plans for reductions beyond 2020. CARB released and adopted a 2017 Scoping Plan Update (CARB 2017) to reflect the 2030 target set by EO B-30-15 and codified by SB 32 (CARB 2017, CARB 2021). California has adopted several vehicle emission reduction and fuel efficiency regulations that are similar and consistent with the federal USEPA and NHTSA regulations. These California vehicle regulations were granted under a waiver request by the USEPA and would not necessarily be affected by changes in the federal policies. The General Plans for the Counties of San Mateo, Santa Clara, and Santa Cruz include policies aimed at reducing local contributions to global climate change. These policies include supporting efforts to reduce GHG emissions, promoting sustainable practices and green technology in development, and promoting the use of low -emission vehicles and equipment, among others. San Mateo County has a Government Operations Climate Action Plan and a Community Climate Action Plan (San Mateo County 2020) that contain GHG and energy - related strategies and measures. Santa Clara County's Climate Action Plan focuses on County Operations and Facilities and is not directly applicable to the Program. Santa Cruz County has a Climate Action Strategy that contains GHG and energy -related goals, policies, and strategies (Santa Cruz County 2020). Midpen has adopted a Climate Action Plan to identify goals and strategies to reduce GHG emissions generated by Midpen activities. The Climate Action Plan calls for a 20 percent reduction from the 2016 baseline in 2022 and ultimately an 80 percent reduction by 2050. Strategies are identified to reduce GHG emissions associated with four different sectors, one of which is "vehicle fleet, equipment, and business travel," which would apply to the vehicles and equipment used during implementation of the Program. Some of the strategies correlate to reducing energy use, primarily non-renewable fuels. Applicable strategies include switching tanks and fueling stations to renewable diesel (V1, which was completed in September 2018), acquisition and testing of new electric equipment (V4), purchasing a hybrid or electric vehicle for field offices (V6), and assessing feasibility of alternative fire response models with lower emissions (V7) (Midpen 2018). The BAAQMD has an operational GHG threshold of 1,100 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalents (MTCO2e)/yr for non -stationary source projects (BAAQMD 2017a). For the purposes of this analysis, emissions below the 1,100 MTCO2e/year level were considered to not have a significant cumulative impact on climate change from GHG emissions. Table 3.8- 1 provides the BAAQMD's recommended significance criteria for analysis of GHG impacts, including cumulative impacts. A small portion of the program area falls within MBARD jurisdiction; however, MBARD's GHG thresholds apply to stationary sources. Open Space Maintenance and Restoration Program September 2021 1 3-148 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 3. Environmental Checklist Attachment 1 Table 3.8-1. Applicable BAAQMD CEQA Thresholds of Significance for GHGs Pollutant Operational Significance Thresholds a) Compliance with qualified GHG reduction strategy OR GHGs—projects other b) 1,100 metric tons (MT) of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) per than stationary sources year OR c) 4.6 MTCO2e/service population (residents and employees) per year Source: BAAQMD 2017a 3.8.2 Environmental Setting Anthropogenic emissions of GHGs are widely accepted in the scientific community as contributing to global climate change. Temperature rises associated with climate change are expected to negatively impact plant and animal species, cause ocean acidification and sea level rise, affect water supplies, impact agriculture, and harm public health. California has contributed to GHG emissions and was estimated in 2018 by the California Energy Commission to be responsible for approximately 1 percent of the world's total GHG emissions (CEC 2018). California's total GHG emissions were estimated as 429 million metric tons of CO2 equivalents in 2016 by CARB in its Greenhouse Gas Inventory Data (CARB 2018b). In the San Francisco Bay Area, data collected for the Clean Air Plan indicates that the largest sources of GHG emissions (and presumably energy use) were from transportation (41 percent), followed by stationary sources such as refineries (26 percent), energy production (14 percent), and buildings (10 percent) (BAAQMD 2017b). In 2018, Midpen's administrative GHG emissions were 1,307 MTCO2e, a decrease of 14% from 2016 (Midpen 2019). Midpen's largest sources of emissions are vehicles, equipment, and employee commutes. 3.8.3 Discussion a, b. Would the project generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment, OR conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? Use of vehicles and off -road equipment, such as woodchippers, chainsaws, excavators, tractors, and rollers, for proposed Program activities would generate emissions of GHGs. The maximum extent of Program activities would generate emissions of 544 MTCO2e per year, which is substantially below annual BAAQMD significance thresholds for GHGs. Maximum emissions estimates present a conservative scenario, as daily and annual emissions would often be less. Over the duration of the Program, GHG emissions from vehicles and equipment is expected to decrease due to increasing vehicle fleet efficiency, transition to electric vehicles, and California Air Resources Board's Low Carbon Fuel Open Space Maintenance and Restoration Program September 2021 1 3-149 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 3. Environmental Checklist Attachment 1 Standard. For additional information on how emissions were estimated refer to Appendix C of this IS/MND. Midpen's Climate Action Plan includes a goal to reduce administrative GHG emissions 20% below the 2016 baseline by 2022, 40% by 2030, and 80% by 2050 (Midpen 2018). The Climate Action Plan includes multiple strategies for achieving these goals, including increasing electric and alternative fuel vehicles and equipment, increasing vehicle fuel economy, increasing use of electric transportation options, and reducing miles driven. Midpen has already implemented multiple Climate Action Plan items that help decrease overall GHG emissions, which would also be consistent with the goals of other state and local climate action plans in the region (Midpen 2019). Therefore, the proposed Program would not generate GHG emissions with the potential to significantly affect the environment or conflict with any plans to reduce GHGs, and Program - related impacts would be less than significant. No mitigation is required. Open Space Maintenance and Restoration Program September 2021 1 3-150 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 3. Environmental Checklist Attachment 1 3.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials Less than Significant Potentially with Less -than - Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact Would the Project: a. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? b. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? c. Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one -quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d. Be located on a site that is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? e. For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? f. Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires? g. Open Space Maintenance and Restoration Program September 2021 1 3451 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Midpeninsula Regional Attachment 1 Open Space District 3. Environmental Checklist 3.9.1 Environmental Setting Hazardous materials are chemical and non -chemical substances that can pose a threat to the environment or the public if misused or released. Under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) in 40 Code of Federal Regulations part 261, explosives, flammable and combustible substances, poisons, radioactive materials, pesticides, petroleum products, and other materials are considered hazardous materials. These substances can be released during motor vehicle or equipment accidents. Hazardous substances also have the potential to contaminate soils, surface waters, and groundwater if they are not properly contained (Panorama 2021). Contamination in and near the Program area was identified using the SWRCB GeoTracker database and the Department of Toxic Substances Control's (DTSC's) EnviroStor database. No superfund sites, solid waste landfill sites, or radioactive materials were found to occur within the Program area. Known hazardous materials sites within the Program area are listed in Table 3.9-1. A majority of these sites are closed leaking underground storage tank (LUST) sites. Three known hazardous materials sites within the Program area are open and include the former Almaden Air Force Station (AFS), Madonna Creek Ranch, and Cooley Landing. Former Almaden AFS was a previous radar station and is located in the southern portion of Sierra Azul OSP. The former facilities on site include fuel -storage tanks and buildings with asbestos containing materials which led to soil and groundwater contamination. Although some of the contaminated areas have been cleaned up to meet agency remediation standards, contamination still remains on the site (Panorama 2021). Madonna Creek Ranch site was previously used for agriculture and is in the northwestern portion of Miramontes OSP. A historical, unpermitted dump site was uncovered associated with the past agriculture use. Samples conducted in 2019 detected lead, nickel, diesel, and dieldrin (pesticide) in the soil. Midpen has remediated this site to address the contamination (Panorama 2021). Cooley Landing is a former waste dump where construction debris was dumped and burned contaminating the soil and groundwater. This site is located within the Ravenswood OSP along the Bay margin. Soil and groundwater were remediated to meet standards and were covered with clean soil to allow for use as a public park; however, additional soil cleanup was approved to occur in 2015 (Panorama 2021). Soil contamination generally occurs in areas that are or have been previously developed, especially with industrial uses. Soil contamination can also occur in areas where pesticides have been historically applied or mining historically occurred or in areas with underground storage tanks (USTs). Contamination is also sometimes associated with leaking utilities (e.g., leaking petroleum or gas pipelines or leaking transformers on utility poles) or accidental spills. Sites that are currently under Midpen management, or may become under Midpen management, are on undeveloped lands. Remnant contamination from previous industrial uses, particularly in bayside areas, may be present within or near Midpen lands. Some active or abandoned agricultural sites may have residual contamination in soils or have hazardous materials present in containers or tanks (Panorama 2021). Open Space Maintenance and Restoration Program September 2021 1 3-152 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 3. Environmental Checklist Attachment 1 Several other open and closed hazardous materials sites are located directly adjacent to Midpen lands, such as the National Aeronautics and Space Administration's Ames Research Center site adjacent to the Stevens Creek Nature Study Area, a closed voluntary cleanup site due to past presence of petroleum hydrocarbons, methylene chloride, and herbicides (Panorama 2021). Midpen is aware of several locations of contamination not listed on government databases and actively conducts cleanup of these sites. Abandoned oil facilities and aboveground storage tanks remain on the Purisima Creek OSP from former oil production. Soil contaminated with oil and diesel was found in and around these facilities, but were determined to not pose a significant threat to the health of users or the environment. An historic dump site and former village, with possible aboveground or underground storage tanks, is located at Bear Creek Redwoods OSP. Concentrations of lead, zinc, and copper were found in excess of hazardous waste toxicity criteria but due to the use of the site as open space, removal is not recommended (Panorama 2021). Table 3.9-1. Hazardous Materials Sites Within Midpen Lands on Government Database Open Space Preserve (OSP) Hazardous Materials Site Name Type of Hazardous Site and Status Type of Contamination Sierra Azul Almaden Air Force Station- Formerly Used Defense Site Military Evaluation Soil: polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), asbestos, Freon, polyglycol Military UST site Open Remediation Groundwater: petroleum hydrocarbons, benzene, toluene, xylene El Corte de Madera Creek Western States Tanker Spill LUST cleanup site Completed — case closed Soil: gasoline La Honda Creek Driscoll Ranch Cleanup program site Completed — case closed Soil: petroleum hydrocarbons, pesticides, fumigants, herbicides Pearson- Arastradero Arastra Hostel LUST cleanup site Completed — case closed Soil: heating oil, fuel oil Rancho San Antonio Private Residence LUST cleanup site Completed — case closed Soil: gasoline Saratoga Gap Santa Clara Co. Trans. LUST cleanup site Completed — case closed Groundwater: diesel Open Space Maintenance and Restoration Program Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration September 2021 1 3-153 Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Attachment 1 3. Environmental Checklist Open Space Preserve (OSP) Hazardous Materials Site Name Type of Hazardous Site and Status Type of Contamination Bear Creek Redwoods Presentation Center and Alma College LUST cleanup site Completed —case closed Soil: heating oil, fuel oil, diesel Soil: surface water: gasoline g Ridge Pulgas Pulgas Ridge Open Space Preserve Cleanup program site Completed — case closed Groundwater: diesel Miramontes Madonna Creek Ranch Cleanup program site Open — assessment and interim remedial actions Soil: lead, nickel, diesel, dieldrin Ravenswood Cooley Landing, Ravenswood Industrial Area Cleanup program site Open — inactive Soil: arsenic, polychlorinated biphenyls, polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons, petroleum hydrocarbons Note: LUST - leaking underground storage tank; UST - underground storage tank Source: Panorama, 2021. Existing herbicide use in Midpen preserves is discussed detail in the Wildland Fire Resiliency Program EIR and IPMP EIR as Addended. In general, herbicides are applied to green leaves with a backpack applicator or spray bottle, wick (wiped on), or wand (sprayed on) or applied as pellets to the ground surface. Herbicides are also applied to trees around the circumference of the trunk on the intact bark (basal bark), to cuts in the trunk or stem (a.k.a. "frill and spray"), to cut stems and stumps (cut stump), or are injected into the inner bark with a hypo -hatchet. Most sites use an integrated treatment approach, in which initial treatment can consist of increased chemical or mechanical methods and then a shift towards low -intensity manual methods as the infestation becomes under control and the seedbank is eliminated. (Panorama 2021) Fire hazards present a considerable risk to vegetation and wildlife habitats throughout the Program area. Additionally, the potential for significant damage to life and property exists in wildland-urban interface areas, where development is adjacent to densely vegetated areas. The Program area lies within a combination of State and local responsibility areas generally identified by CAL FIRE as Very High and High fire hazard severity zones (FHSZs) (CAL FIRE 2007). The OSPs in the northern portion of the Program area within central and southern San Mateo County, as well as western Santa Clara County, fall within a combination of High and Very High FHSZs, with some areas designated as Moderate FHSZ and/or not rated. Midpen OSPs in the southern portion of the Program area within southwestern Santa Clara County fall within a combination of High and Very High FHSZs. Open Space Maintenance and Restoration Program September 2021 1 3454 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Attachment 1 Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 3. Environmental Checklist 3.9.2 Discussion a. Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? The proposed Program would involve the routine transport, use, and disposal of hazardous materials, such as pesticides, herbicides, fuel, oil, solvents, and related materials. For vegetation management activities involving herbicide use to minimize invasive species and fuel loads, Midpen would need to transport herbicides to those project sites, use herbicides to control nuisance vegetation, and then dispose of herbicide containers or applicator equipment after completing the job. The transport of fuels would also be required for activities such as prescribed burning and potentially prescribed herbivory (e.g., fuel for generators for electric fences). The Program also includes removing hazardous materials such as asbestos and lead based paint from culverts, bridges, and other structures. For other types of projects (e.g., road and bridge repair, road decommissioning, culvert repair and replacement, sediment and debris removal, bank stabilization, aquatic restoration, small- scale facility improvements, etc.), Midpen would use heavy construction equipment that would also require fuel, oil, lubricants, and other potentially hazardous materials. It is also possible that proposed Program activities could encounter contaminated soil or water, which would require transport and disposal. Such routine transport, use, and disposal of hazardous materials could potentially create a hazard to the public or the environment (e.g., if workers did not wear appropriate personal protective equipment (PPE) when applying herbicides, or if hazardous materials were not disposed of in proper locations or at approved facilities). However, regulations under the OSHA require that Midpen and its contractors provide workers with PPE to limit exposure to potentially harmful hazardous materials (Department of Labor 2019). Compliance with these existing laws and regulations would greatly reduce the potential for proposed Program activities to create a significant hazard to the public or the environment. Additionally, adherence to Midpen's IPMP would ensure that pest treatments include the most effective and least environmentally harmful options, and require active monitoring and adaptive management to over time. Herbicides are currently used on Midpen lands under the IPMP. The herbicides proposed for use as part of the Program are the same as those already analyzed and are covered by the IPMP EIR as Addended (Midpen 2014a; Midpen 2019). No new herbicides are proposed for use. The toxicity of each of the herbicides has already been analyzed in the IPMP and found to have a moderate to very low toxicity to humans. Chemical use across Midpen lands would not increase with implementation of the proposed Program. Finally, Midpen would implement the following BMPs, incorporated as part of the Program, to reduce potential impacts associated with improper storage, handling, use, transport, and disposal of hazardous materials. Descriptions of each BMP are provided in Chapter 2, Project Description. ■ BMP GEN-5 Hazardous Materials Storage/Disposal ■ BMP GEN-6 Spill Prevention and Control Open Space Maintenance and Restoration Program September 2021 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 3. Environmental Checklist Attachment 1 • BMP GEN-8 Vehicle Maintenance and Parking • BMP GEN-9 Equipment Maintenance & Fueling ■ BMP GEN-26 Non-native Plant Removal and Herbicide Management With implementation of the above -listed BMPs and adherence to Midpen's IPMP, impacts associated with the majority of hazardous materials transport, use, and disposal that would occur under the proposed Program would be less than significant. Although less frequent, Program -related ground disturbance could encounter contaminated soil, sediment, or groundwater that would expose workers, the public, or the environment to hazards if adequate precautions are not taken. This would be a significant impact. Implementation of Mitigation Measure HAZ-1 would minimize potential impacts in this scenario. Mitigation Measure HAZ-1: Proper Handling and Disposal of Contaminated Soil, Sediment, and Groundwater Prior to initiating ground -disturbing activities, Midpen or its contractors will inspect the soil, sediment, or groundwater for the presence of possible contamination. If indicators of contamination (e.g., foul odor, staining or sheen, etc.) are found, soil and groundwater sampling will be conducted by an appropriate licensed professional and testing of samples will be completed by a California Certified laboratory. In the event that soils to be excavated are found to be contaminated, the excavated soil will be treated as hazardous materials and disposed of at an approved hazardous waste disposal facility in compliance with state and federal regulations and Midpen operational procedures. Effective dust suppression procedures will be used in construction areas to reduce airborne emissions of these contaminants and reduce the risk of exposure to workers and the public. Regulatory agencies for the State of California (Department of Toxic Substances Control [DTSC] or RWQCB) and the appropriate county will be contacted by Midpen or its contractor to plan handling, treatment, and/or disposal options. In removing potentially contaminated soil, sediment, or groundwater, workers will wear protective clothing and equipment to limit their exposure. With implementation of the above -listed BMPs, adherence to Midpen's IPMP, and implementation of Mitigation Measure HAZ-1, impacts associated with hazardous materials transport, use, and disposal that would occur under the proposed Program would be less than significant with mitigation. b. Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the likely release of hazardous materials into the environment? Hazardous materials used or removed during maintenance activities (e.g., herbicides, fuel, oil, lubricants, solvents, asbestos, lead based paint, etc.) could potentially be released to the environment through upset or accidental spills if adequate precautions are not taken. Such a release could harm aquatic or terrestrial organisms and pose a hazard to maintenance workers and/or the public. Midpen would implement the following BMPs, incorporated as Open Space Maintenance and Restoration Program September 2021 1 3-156 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 3. Environmental Checklist Attachment 1 part of the Program, to reduce potential hazards impacts from reasonably foreseeable upset or accident conditions. Descriptions of each BMP are provided in Chapter 2, Project Description. • BMP GEN-5 Hazardous Materials Storage/Disposal • BMP GEN-6 Spill Prevention and Control • BMP GEN-8 Vehicle Maintenance and Parking • BMP GEN-9 Equipment Maintenance & Fueling • BMP GEN-26 Non-native Plant Removal and Herbicide Management Implementation of the BMPs listed above would minimize the potential for accidental releases by requiring proper storage of hazardous materials, including secondary containment, and implementing spill prevention and control measures. While implementation of the above -listed BMPs would address the majority of potential Program - related impacts, they do not fully address the potential for proposed Program activities to create a significant hazard to the public or environment through accidental release of hazardous materials that could result from exposure to contaminated soil, sediment and groundwater encountered during proposed maintenance activities. This would be a significant impact to the public or environment. Implementation of Mitigation Measure HAZ-1, which requires testing and proper disposal of contaminated soil, sediment and groundwater, would reduce potential impacts to less than significant with mitigation. c. Would the project emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one -quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? There are five schools located within 0.25 mile of Midpen OSPs, as shown in Table 3.9-2. As previously discussed, Program activities would involve the transport and use of herbicides, fuel, oil, lubricants, and solvents, which may be hazardous. Additionally, certain activities may occur in areas with existing soil or groundwater contamination. Program activities could occur within close proximity of a school, potentially exposing children to hazardous materials. Table 3.9-2. Open Space Preserves within 0.25 -Mile of a School OSP Name School(s) Within 0.25 -Mile Distance to School(s) (Miles) Windy Hill Corte Madera School 0.18 Rancho San Antonio Eastbrook Elementary School 0.19 Purisima Creek Redwoods Kings Mountain Elementary 0.10 School La Honda Creek La Honda Elementary School 0.03 Felton Station Lakeside Elementary School 0.13 Source: Panorama, 2021 Open Space Maintenance and Restoration Program September 2021 1 3-157 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Midpeninsula Regional Attachment 1 Open Space District 3. Environmental Checklist Heavy equipment used during routine maintenance activities would emit some diesel exhaust and related emissions that can be hazardous. In general, these emissions would be similar to emissions associated with road and other construction projects that commonly occur throughout San Mateo, Santa Clara, and Santa Cruz counties, which are in proximity to existing schools from time to time. While the amount and duration of the equipment and vehicle emissions would depend on the specific characteristics of the Program activity, these emissions would not pose an acute health hazard to children at any nearby school. Please refer to Section 3.3, "Air Quality" for further analysis regarding emissions from equipment and vehicles (including DPM). Further, while it is possible that handling of hazardous materials could occur in proximity to a school, these activities would not pose a significant health hazard to school children because the proposed Program would implement the following BMPs, as incorporated as part of the Program, to reduce hazardous impacts to schools. Descriptions of each BMP are provided in Chapter 2, Project Description. • BMP GEN-5 Hazardous Materials Storage/Disposal • BMP GEN-6 Spill Prevention and Control • BMP GEN-8 Vehicle Maintenance and Parking • BMP GEN-9 Equipment Maintenance & Fueling • BMP GEN-26 Non-native Plant Removal and Herbicide Management Implementation of the BMPs listed above would minimize the potential for accidental releases by requiring proper storage of hazardous materials, including secondary containment, and implementing spill prevention and control measures. While implementation of the above -listed BMPs would address the majority of potential Program - related impacts, they do not fully address the potential for accidental release of hazardous materials that could result from exposure to contaminated soil, sediment and groundwater encountered during proposed maintenance activities. This would be a significant impact, if located within one -quarter mile of an existing school. Implementation of Mitigation Measure HAZ-1, which requires testing and proper disposal of contaminated soil, sediment and groundwater, would reduce potential impacts to less than significant with mitigation. Note that herbicides are currently used on Midpen lands under the IPMP. Active ingredients associated with herbicides applied under the IPMP have low to very low toxicity to humans. The herbicides proposed for use as part of the Program are the same as those already analyzed and are covered by the IPMP EIR and EIR Addendum (Midpen, 2014; Midpen, 2019). No new herbicides are proposed for use. Chemical use across Midpen lands, including within one -quarter mile of an existing or proposed school, would not increase with implementation of the proposed Program. d. Would the project be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? Known contaminated hazardous sites are identified within and adjacent to the Program area, the majority of which are closed LUST sites (see Table 3.8-1). However, there are three Open Space Maintenance and Restoration Program September 2021 1 3-158 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Midpeninsula Regional Attachment 1 Open Space District 3. Environmental Checklist known open hazardous materials sites identified on the SWRCB's GeoTracker database and DTSC's EnviroStor database within the Program area located in the Sierra Azul OSP, Miramontes OSP, and Ravenswood OSP, as described in Section 3.8-1. Additionally, there are several contaminated areas not listed on government databases for which Midpen is involved in cleanup activities. Because Program activities would vary each year and the status of existing contamination and cleanup efforts changes frequently, it is difficult to determine the degree to which Program activities would impact (or be impacted by) existing contaminated sites. Because a number of locations within or adjacent to the Program area contain contaminated soils, it is possible that Program activities involving ground disturbance could occur on or in the vicinity of documented hazardous materials sites that are listed pursuant to California Government Code Section 65962.5. Were this to occur, Midpen staff or its contractors could be subjected to potential hazards from disturbed contaminated soils on the site, which would be a significant impact. Implementation of Mitigation Measure HAZ-2, which requires review of the proximity of Program -related ground disturbance sites to known hazardous materials clean-up sites and implementation of safety precautions, would reduce potential impacts to less than significant with mitigation. Mitigation Measure HAZ-2: Review of Proximity to Existing Known Hazardous Materials Clean-up Sites and Implementation of Safety Precautions Midpen and/or its contractors will evaluate the proximity of proposed Program sites that involve ground -disturbing activities to existing known hazardous material clean- up sites. This review will include examination of the planned Program activity footprint in relation to records of hazardous materials sites in the SWRCB's GeoTracker database and the DTSC's EnviroStor database. If the Program activity is located on or within 100 feet of a documented hazardous material contamination site, for which clean-up activities have not been completed or been successful, Midpen and/or its contractors will commission a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment to more fully characterize the past land uses and potential for soil and/or groundwater contamination to occur at or in close proximity to the site. If the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment demonstrates a reasonable likelihood that contamination remains within the Program activity's area of disturbance, Midpen and/or its contractors will commission a Phase II Environmental Site Assessment, including soils testing, to characterize the extent of the contamination and develop ways to avoid the contaminated areas during Program activities. Midpen will follow all recommendations of the Phase II Environmental Site Assessment and will avoid areas of contamination, to the extent feasible. In the event that it is not feasible to avoid all areas of contamination, Midpen and its contractors will follow all applicable laws regarding management of hazardous materials and wastes. This includes proper disposal of any contaminated soil in a hazardous waste landfill, and ensuring that workers are provided with adequate personal protective equipment to prevent unsafe exposure. Open Space Maintenance and Restoration Program September 2021 1 3-159 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 1#k Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 3. Environmental Checklist Attachment 1 e. For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area? The majority of Midpen lands are not located in an area with an airport land -use plan or within the vicinity of a public use airport or private airstrip. Ravenswood OSP is within 2 miles of the Palo Alto Airport but is not within the airport -influence area (Panorama 2021). Program activities that may occur within 2 miles of an airport would typically involve routine maintenance at culverts, bridges, channels, ponds, and roadside drainage features; vegetation management activities along roads, trails, around existing facilities, in ponds and channels, and restoration and enhancement projects. These activities would not introduce people permanently to an area that could be subject to safety hazards or excessive noise. In addition, the proposed Program would not involve construction of structures in the vicinity of an airport that could exceed height limitations for protection of navigable airspace. Any prescribed burning that may occur in the vicinity of an airport -influence area would be maintained at low intensities that would not generate sufficient smoke to affect air traffic as described in Midpen's Wildland Fire Resiliency Program EIR (Panorama 2021). This impact would be less than significant. f Would the project impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? Designated evacuation routes pass through or adjacent to most Midpen lands. Program activities that include the operation of heavy equipment on roadways could potentially interfere with traffic movement and impair evacuation procedures in the event of an emergency. Such activities include sediment and debris removal, fallen and hazardous tree removal, culvert repair/replacement, vegetation management (e.g., brushing or mowing), and fuel management activities (e.g., prescribed burning and maintenance of fuel breaks). Hindering evacuation and emergency response could be a significant impact. Mitigation Measure TRANS -1 requires Midpen to make provisions to allow emergency responders through any work area or clearly designate alternate routes. Minimal delays, lasting a few minutes, would occur while crews reposition equipment and vehicles to ensure adequate room for emergency vehicles to pass. Mitigation Measure TRANS -1 would ensure that unattended authorized work vehicles are not parked in such a way that blocks the road when there are no operators in attendance to move them and that the fire district and emergency - response agencies have prior notification of temporary access road closures. With implementation of Mitigation Measure TRANS -1, impacts associated with the interference of an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan would be less than significant with mitigation. g• Would the project expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires? The proposed Program would not involve construction of new habitable structures or homes; however, the potential for significant damage to life and property exists in areas designated as wildland-urban interface (WUI) areas, where existing development is adjacent to densely vegetated areas. In the Program area, this can range from a few scattered houses to larger Open Space Maintenance and Restoration Program Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration September 2021 1 3460 Midpeninsula Regional Attachment 1 Open Space District 3. Environmental Checklist subdivisions or communities (Midpen 2021b). Further, significant portions of the Program area fall within State Responsibility Areas designated as Very High and High Fire FHSZs, with some areas identified as Moderate or Unrated (CAL FIRE 2007) (See Figure 3.9-1). As such, Program -related routine maintenance (e.g., sediment and debris removal and culvert repair/replacement), vegetation management (e.g., brushing, mowing, pile burning, and chemical treatment), and fuel management activities (e.g., prescribed burning and maintenance of fuel breaks and disclines), involving the operation of mechanical equipment and/or the use of fuel or other flammable substances, would take place in these areas, thereby increasing the potential for igniting a brush fire and triggering a wildland fire. To minimize fire risk from most Program activities, particularly for routine maintenance and vegetation management activities, Midpen would implement BMP GEN-17: Fire Prevention (described in Chapter 2, Project Description), which would reduce potential wildland fire impacts associated with those activities by requiring on -site fire suppression equipment, spark arrestors on all equipment with internal combustion engines, restricting activities on high fire danger days, and coordinating with local fire districts. Prescribed burns and related fuel management activities under the proposed Program would be performed consistent with the methodologies and requirements of Midpen's Wildland Fire Resiliency Program. The purpose of the Wildland Fire Resiliency Program is, in large part, to reduce fuel loads and wildland-fire risks on Midpen lands compared with the baseline conditions. The analysis of wildland fire impacts associated prescribed burns and other fuel management activities is covered in the Wildland Fire Resiliency Program EIR (Panorama 2021). With implementation of BMP GEN-17, adherence to State and local regulations, and compliance with Midpen's Wildland Fire Resiliency Program, impacts of the proposed Program would be less than significant. Open Space Maintenance and Restoration Program September 2021 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 3. Environmental Checklist Attachment 1 This page intentionally left blank Open Space Maintenance and Restoration Program Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration September 2021 1 3462 Pacific Ocean 0 1 2 4 I i I I Miles ;r Horizon San Francisco Bay Wildfire Hazard and ResposibilityArea Q MROSD Boundary MI Very High Local Responsibility Area (LRA) 172 Sphere of Influence High State Responsibility Area (SRA) - Major Highway Moderate - State Route County Boundary Figure 3.9-1 CAL FIRE Fire Hazard Severity Zones within the Program Area Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Routine Maintenance and Facilities Improvement Program Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 3. Environmental Checklist Attachment 1 This page intentionally left blank Open Space Maintenance and Restoration Program September 2021 1 3-164 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 10-k Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 3. Environmental Checklist Attachment 1 3.10 Hydrology and Water Quality Less than Potentially Significant with Less -than - Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact Would the Project: a. Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality? b. Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin? c. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would: i. Result in substantial erosion or siltation on - or off -site? ii. Substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off -site? iii. Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? iv. Impede or redirect flood flows? d. In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation? e. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan? Open Space Maintenance and Restoration Program September 2021 1 3-165 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Midpeninsula Regional Attachment 1 Open Space District 3. Environmental Checklist 3.10.2 Environmental Setting The Program area is located in the Santa Cruz Mountains on the San Francisco Peninsula (Peninsula), primarily within southern San Mateo and northwestern Santa Clara counties, with a small portion in Santa Cruz County. The Peninsula separates the San Francisco Bay from the Pacific Ocean and extends from the Golden Gate south to the Santa Clara Valley and northern end of Monterey Bay. Runoff from the peninsula flows to the Pacific Ocean to the west and the San Francisco Bay and estuaries to the east. Climate and Precipitation The Program area exhibits a Mediterranean climate with mild, wet winters and warm, dry summers. Regional climatic conditions are moderated by a cooler, moist marine layer from the Pacific Ocean. The Santa Cruz Mountains influence the occurrence of frequent extreme storms with heavy precipitation that can be responsible for periodic flooding. Rainfall mostly occurs between November and April with seasonal rainfall totals varying depending upon topography, exposure, and elevation. The greatest rainfall quantities occur along the west facing slopes of the Santa Cruz Mountains near the summit of the mountain range where totals reach up to 40 to 50 inches per year. Typical average rainfall ranges from 20 to 30 inches per year. Many small creeks and streams are intermittent, which reflect the seasonal distribution of rainfall. Winter flows are higher, especially during and immediately following storms. Due to the open spaces and undeveloped lands within the Program area, rain is able to mostly percolate into the ground rather than rapidly run off the surface (Horizon 2021). Surface Water Hydrology and Quality The Program area can be separated into two hydrological regions by the Skyline -Loma Prieta Ridge in the Santa Cruz Mountains. Watersheds in coastal area of San Mateo County are to the west and southwest of the Skyline -Loma Prieta Ridge and drain towards the Pacific Ocean. Watersheds east of the Skyline -Loma Prieta Ridge are located in the South Bay Area and Santa Clara County and drain to the San Francisco Bay. The Program area is located within 25 watersheds within the Santa Cruz Mountains, including the following from north to south: San Pedro Creek, Denniston Creek, Arroyo Leon, San Mateo Creek, Purisima Creek, San Francisquito Creek, Cordilleras Creek, Oakland Inner Harbor -San Francisco Bay, San Francisco Bay Estuaries, San Gregorio Creek, La Honda Creek, Adobe Creek, Permanente Creek, Stevens Creek, Calabazas Creek, Lower Pescadero Creek, Upper Pescadero Creek, Butano Creek, Gazos Creek, Waddell Creek, Saratoga Creek, San Tomas Aquino Creek, Los Gatos Creek, Guadalupe River, and Alamitos Creek. Many of Midpen's OSPs are located within the headwaters or uppermost sections of these watersheds. Most of these watersheds contain steep slopes and deep canyons, typical of the Santa Cruz Mountains. Surfaces waters within the Program area are year-round streams, ephemeral and perennial creeks, lakes, reservoirs, and ponds. Major creeks and streams within the Program include, but are not limited to, Pescadero Creek, San Gregorio Creek, Tunitas Creek, Lobitos Creek, Purisima Creek, Pilarcitos Creek, Cordilleras Creek, San Francisquito Creek, Adobe Creek, Permanente Creek, Stevens Creek, Saratoga Creek, San Tomas Aquino Creek, Los Gatos Creek, and Guadalupe River. The CWA is the primary federal law that protects the quality of the nation's surface waters, including lakes, rivers, and coastal wetlands. Under CWA Section 303(d), states are required Open Space Maintenance and Restoration Program September 2021 1 3-166 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Midpeninsula Regional Attachment 1 Open Space District 3. Environmental Checklist to identify "impaired water bodies" (those that do not meet established water quality standards), identify the pollutants causing the impairment, establish priority rankings for waters on the list, and develop a schedule for developing control plans to improve water quality. A list of impaired waterbodies within and downstream of the Program is included in Table 3-4 of Chapter 3 of the Program Manual (Appendix B of this IS/MND). A Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) is developed by states, territories, or authorized tribes for constituents on the CWA Section 303(d) List to restore the quality of the waterbody. TMDLs identify the sources of pollutants and identify actions to restore water quality. TMDLs developed for waterbodies in the Program area include sediment/siltation in San Francisquito, San Gregorio, Pescadero, and Butano creeks; toxicity in urban creeks such as Calabazas, Corte Madera, Matadero, Permanente, and Stevens creeks; selenium in Permanente Creek; and mercury in Guadalupe River watershed. Refer to Chapter 3 of the Program Manual (Appendix B of this IS/MND) a further description of water quality impairments. In addition to major creeks and streams in the Program area, there are over 100 natural and humanmade ponds located on Midpen lands. A majority of these ponds are either humanmade or have been heavily modified from their natural condition. Ponds have many uses, including providing valuable habitat for rare plants and special -status species, supplying clean water for livestock, protecting water quality of creeks and streams, supporting fire suppression, and providing aesthetic value to visitors. Typically, ponds are spring fed year-round (Horizon 2021). Groundwater Hydrology and Quality The majority of the Program area within the Santa Cruz Mountains is not underlain by a groundwater basin. In the Santa Cruz Mountains, groundwater conditions vary locally depending on geologic conditions. The occurrence of groundwater is dependent on the presence of porous, permeable rock capable of storing and transmitting water. Hard, fine- grained rock formations underlie most areas of the Santa Cruz Mountains; however, deep weathering, shearing, and fracturing of the rock can create permeability and porosity in the rock units, allowing pockets of water to form. Groundwater can also occur locally in deep colluvial and landslide deposits (Horizon 2021). The eastern side of the Program is primarily located within the Santa Clara Valley Groundwater Basin, within the Santa Clara subbasin and the San Mateo Plain subbasin (California Department of Water Resources [DWR] 2020). The Santa Clara subbasin is bounded to the west by the Santa Cruz Mountains, to the east by the Diablo Range, to the north by Santa Clara County northern boundary line, and to the south by the groundwater divide near the town of Morgan Hill (DWR 2004a). The San Mateo Plain subbasin is bounded by the San Francisco Bay to the east, the Santa Cruz Mountains to the west, the Westside subbasin to the north, and San Francisquito Creek to the south (DWR 2004b). The primary source of groundwater recharge is infiltration of streamflow and precipitation. Artificial recharge also occurs as part of the Santa Clara Valley Water District (Valley Water) artificial facility recharge program where either locally conserved or imported water is released to in - stream and off -stream facilities to maintain groundwater levels. Valley Water is the Groundwater Sustainability Agency (GSA) for the portion of the Santa Clara subbasin within Open Space Maintenance and Restoration Program September 2021 1 3-167 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Midpeninsula Regional Attachment 1 Open Space District 3. Environmental Checklist Santa Clara County. Groundwater within the groundwater basin supplies approximately 50 percent of the potable water to residents in the Santa Clara Valley (Horizon 2021). Groundwater in the Santa Clara Valley Groundwater Basin is generally of good quality and drinking water standards are consistently met. The Priority Basin Project of the Groundwater Ambient Monitoring and Assessment (GAMA) study tested raw water samples for a variety of organic and inorganic constituents for the entire 620 -square mile San Francisco Bay, including the Santa Clara Valley Groundwater Basin. Fourteen volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and six pesticides were detected in the wells sampled; however, all detections of VOCs and pesticides in study area wells were below established safety thresholds (Horizon 2021). Flooding Because the Program area is generally located at areas of high elevation, flooding is not typically an issue. However, OSPs along the Bay margin (i.e., Ravenswood and Stevens Creek Shoreline Nature Study Area) are located in low-lying areas of the Bay and are thus located within the existing 100 -year floodplain. OSPs along the Bay margin would experience flooding from major storms and sea -level rise (Panorama 2021); however, activities at these OSPs are not included in the Program. 3.10.3 Discussion a. Would the project violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality? The following subsections describe the ways in which Program activities could temporarily degrade water quality. In many cases, Program activities (particularly repair/replacement of failed culverts and drainage features, berm/bank stabilization, removal of in -stream structures, and removal of sediment and debris) would benefit water quality as these activities would stabilize slopes, reduce sediment loading into creeks and other waterways, and remove pollutants from channels. Thus, in the long-term once Program activities are complete at a given site, water quality conditions would improve relative to existing conditions. Ground -Disturbing Activities Ground -disturbing activities including berm/bank repair, pond restoration, bridge relocation, road grading, trail repair, culvert repair and replacement, vegetation removal, over grazing, road and trail re-routes, among others could expose soils and increase the potential for soil erosion and transport of sediment downstream of the work area. During a storm event, soil erosion could occur at an accelerated rate. Sediment releases may increase turbidity, which could cause an increase in water temperature and a corresponding decrease in dissolved oxygen levels. Eroded sediments can also carry heavy metals, nutrients, or pathogens. The movement and transport of soil, sediment, and other loose material associated with these ground disturbing activities could also emit dust which could affect surface waters in the vicinity of the work areas. Although ground -disturbing activities would be short-term and temporary, discharge of sediment to surface waters could adversely Open Space Maintenance and Restoration Program September 2021 1 3-168 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 3. Environmental Checklist Attachment 1 impact water quality, endanger aquatic life, and/or result in a violation of water quality standards. As described in Chapter 2, Project Description, the Program has established size and length limits for ground -disturbing activities. These self-imposed limits, along with implementation of BMPs listed below, would minimize erosion and sediment transport during and after proposed Program activities. Midpen would implement the following BMPs, incorporated as part of the Program, to minimize potential temporary impacts to water and water quality due to ground -disturbing activities. Descriptions of each BMP are provided in Chapter 2, Project Description. ■ BMP GEN-1 ■ BMP GEN-2 ■ BMP GEN-3 ■ BMP GEN-7 ■ BMP GEN-8 ■ BMP GEN-15 ■ BMP GEN-16 ■ BMP GEN-19 ■ BMP GEN-22 ■ BMP GEN-25 ■ BMP BI0-3 ■ BMP BI0-24 ■ BMP EC -1 ■ BMP EC -2 ■ BMP EC -4 ■ BMP EC -5 ■ BMP SWQ-1 ■ BMP SWQ-2 ■ BMP SWQ-3 Staging and Access Minimize Area of Disturbance and Site Maintenance Construction Entrances and Perimeter Waste Management Vehicle Maintenance and Parking Dust Management Controls Site Stabilization Avoid Inclement Weather Spoils Management Vegetation Management with Livestock Work Area Designation Riparian Restoration General Erosion Control Measures Slope or Bank Stabilization Road and Trail Minor Relocation Revegetation of Disturbed Areas Water Body Protection Measures Turbidity Monitoring Sediment Filtering Measures Implementation of the above -listed BMPs would reduce temporary impacts to water quality due to ground -disturbing activities by minimizing ground disturbance and the amount of earthwork, using previously disturbed areas for staging and access, stabilizing the active work site, restoring disturbed and riparian areas following Program activities, avoiding rainy weather, ensuring proper storage of materials, equipment, and spoils, installing silt control and filtering devices, and monitoring water quality. The Program also includes restoration activities such as native vegetation plantings and road decommissioning that would further prevent erosion from occurring on Midpen lands by stabilizing bank/berm slopes, Open Space Maintenance and Restoration Program September 2021 1 3-169 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 3. Environmental Checklist Attachment 1 revegetating denuded areas with native species, and removing roads to restore the natural hydrology and watershed processes. In -Water Activities Program activities within stream channels and ponds associated with bridge repair/maintenance and replacement, bank/berm stabilization, sediment removal, in -stream structure removal, and other activities could result in short-term water quality impacts through the disturbance of bed, banks, and berms, which may result in increased turbidity in the water column and migration of sediment to areas downstream. Work would generally occur during the dry season when the stream channel is dry, except for perennial streams or during wet weather years in which the channel does not dry. If work is necessary where water is in the stream channel, work would be scheduled during low flow and dewatering would be conducted through the use of silt fences, wattles, and/or coffer dams. Work within ponds would occur when the pond is dry if prior to August 15 or if pond draining is necessary, work would occur between August 15 and November 1 to avoid CRLF breeding season. Midpen would implement the following BMPs, incorporated as part of the Program, to avoid and minimize water quality effects due to in -channel work including dewatering. Descriptions of each BMP are provided in Chapter 2, Project Description. ■ BMP GEN-8 ■ BMP GEN-9 ■ BMP GEN-12 ■ BMP GEN-18 ■ BMP GEN-19 ■ BMP GEN-20 ■ BMP GEN-28 ■ BMP GEN-29 ■ BMP GEN-31 ■ BMP GEN-32 ■ BMP GEN-33 ■ BMP GEN-34 Replacement ■ BMP SWQ-1 ■ BMP SWQ-2 ■ BMP DW-1 ■ BMP DW-2 Vehicle Maintenance and Parking Equipment Maintenance & Fueling Exclude Concrete from Channel Project Completion by End of Work Period Avoid Inclement Weather Aquatic Resource Protection Measures Culvert Replacement Culvert Maintenance New Culvert Installation (non -stream crossings) Bridge and Puncheon Replacement Bridge and Puncheon Repair and Maintenance Ford and Swale (including Drain Lenses and Causeways) Water Body Protection Measures Turbidity Monitoring Stream/Aquatic Habitat Isolation Pond Dewatering Open Space Maintenance and Restoration Program September 2021 1 3470 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Midpeninsula Regional Attachment 1 Open Space District 3. Environmental Checklist Implementation of the above -listed BMPs listed would minimize temporary impacts on water quality by reducing sediment pollution from work areas during dewatering and pond draining activities by avoiding rainy weather, excluding equipment and materials from channels with flows, ensuring in -channel activities are conducted properly, diverting flows around the active work area, and monitoring water quality. As noted above, once work is complete at road/trail slip -outs, bank/berm stabilization sites, and failed culverts/drainage features, water quality conditions would improve as proposed activities would repair erosion along banks/berms, slopes, and roads near creeks and other waterways. Accidental Release of Hazardous Materials Program activities would primarily be conducted by hand or with small gas -powered tools, such as chainsaws and brushcutters. Midpen strives to use the least impactful method when conducting Program activities. However, some activities such as sediment removal, pond and wetland restoration, culvert repair/replacement, and water supply structure maintenance could require the use of heavy equipment (e.g., excavators, bulldozers), typically operated from the top of bank/berm, or if unavoidable, within the stream channel. In such instances, work would occur during the dry season. Fuels and lubricants such as oil and grease are used in excavation and transportation equipment and vehicles. During Program activities, equipment and worker vehicles would be stored and refueled at designated staging areas adjacent to the work site, out of the channel or waterway. Maintenance of bridges and other instream facilities may require repainting or concrete repair using concrete, mortar, or grout. The Program also includes removing hazardous materials such as asbestos and lead based paint from culverts, bridges, and other structures. If hazardous materials (e.g., fuels, oils, concrete, lead -based paint) were accidentally released directly or indirectly into the stream channel, the sediment and water in and around the work site could be significantly degraded. Fine sediments contained within stream channels are particularly apt at absorbing pollutants such as petroleum products. Water in the stream channels can transport pollutants downstream and carry them through the soil into underlying groundwater, thus affecting a larger area. Accidental release of construction -related hazardous materials could adversely affect water quality. In addition, any on -site trash and debris generated from Program activities could pose a potential water quality risk if transported to surface waters. Any trash and debris generated during work would be limited and would be properly disposed of in accordance with BMPs to minimize the potential for waste to be transported to waters in the Program area. Midpen would implement the following BMPs, incorporated as part of the Program, to avoid and minimize impacts due to accidental release of hazardous materials. Descriptions of each BMP are provided in Chapter 2, Project Description. • BMP GEN-5 Hazardous Materials Storage/ Disposal • BMP GEN-6 Spill Prevention and Control • BMP GEN-7 Waste Management • BMP GEN-8 Vehicle Maintenance and Parking Open Space Maintenance and Restoration Program September 2021 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Midpeninsula Regional Attachment 1 Open Space District 3. Environmental Checklist • BMP GEN-9 • BMP GEN-10 • BMP GEN-11 • BMP GEN-15 • BMP GEN-16 • BMP GEN-14 Equipment Maintenance & Fueling Paving and Asphalt Work Concrete, Grout and Mortar Application Exclude Concrete from Channel Concrete Washout Facilities Painting and Paint Removal Implementation of the BMPs listed above would minimize the potential for accidental releases of hazardous materials into stream channels by requiring appropriate material and equipment staging, maintenance, and refueling areas, onsite hazardous materials management, spill prevention and response, and work site housekeeping. Vegetation Management Effects on Water Temperatures Proposed vegetation management activities include brushing, fuel management, pruning, tree removal, downed tree management, pesticide application, conservation grazing, and invasive plant removal. Some of these vegetation management activities are conducted as part of the existing condition to maintain the status quo and would not result in new effects. Vegetation management activities associated with fuel management are analyzed in the Wildland Fire Resiliency Program EIR (Panorama 2021). The discussion below analyzes potential effects of riparian vegetation management activities on water quality. Vegetation removal along creeks would be limited (i.e., removing trees if stream capacity is limited, or the tree is threatening streams, ponds or bed and banks of streams, or water quality) and would not involve significantly thinning the riparian corridor. The primary purpose of vegetation management activities within water bodies is to maintain natural hydrologic processes and protect facilities and the public. Midpen maintains downed trees to provide habitat; therefore, it is unlikely that Program activities would remove the canopy over stream channels to such an extent that water temperatures would increase and exceed Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) water quality objectives (e.g., increase of 52F above background conditions). As a result, vegetation management activities would not permanently affect water quality and thus would not cause water temperatures to increase and exceed water quality objectives. Additionally, thinning of vegetation and removal of dead branches may even result in a beneficial effect to water temperatures in the long-term by maintaining or promoting increased canopy cover over stream channels. The Program would also involve native vegetation plantings, which would increase canopy cover over stream channels thereby reducing water quality effects related to increased water temperature. Midpen would implement the following BMPs, incorporated as part of the Program, to avoid and minimize water quality effects due to vegetation management activities. Descriptions of each BMP are provided in Chapter 2, Project Description. • BMP GEN-2 • BMP GEN-4 Minimize Area of Disturbance and Site Maintenance Salvage/ Reuse of Plant and Woody Material Open Space Maintenance and Restoration Program September 2021 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Midpeninsula Regional Attachment 1 Open Space District 3. Environmental Checklist ■ BMP GEN-16 Site Stabilization ■ BMP GEN-23 Vegetation and Tree Removal and Retention ■ BMP GEN-27 Snags ■ BMP B10-22 Large Woody Material Management ■ BMP BI0-23 Riparian Avoidance ■ BMP BIO-24 Riparian Restoration Implementation of BMPs listed above would reduce any temporary effects associated with riparian vegetation removal activities by minimizing the area of disturbance and removal of vegetation, revegetating/restoring disturbed and riparian areas, reusing removed vegetative material for restoration purposes, retaining trees, snags, and vegetation where possible, and avoiding impacts to riparian areas. Use of Pesticides Midpen currently applies pesticides to control invasive plants within the framework of the IPMP. Pesticides would be used consistent with Midpen's IPM Guidance Manual, which uses an integrated approach of chemical, manual, and mechanical methods to manage vegetation along trails, roads, and wildlands. All pesticide applications would be in accordance with federal, state, local regulations, labeled specifications, and any court injunctions concerning special -status species in place. Midpen uses the following pesticide application methods to control invasive species: foliar/spot spray, cut -stump, basal bark application, wick/wipe application, and frill/injection. Existing herbicide use in Midpen preserves is discussed detail in the Wildland Fire Resiliency Program EIR and the IPMP EIR as Addended. Guidelines for safe handling and applying pesticides and other BMPs in the IPMP Guidance Manual (Midpen 2014b) would be implemented during treatment. Pesticide application near waterbodies and in riparian areas is only conducted when manual or mechanical methods are not feasible or appropriate for the site. Pesticides would not be used in or within 15 feet of any fish -bearing stream, lake, pond, or other water bodies known to support special -status aquatic species without prior consultation with CDFW. For other water bodies, pesticide use is limited to control non-native plant species where excess vegetation is determined to be the cause of sediment deposition and/or debris accumulations that result in flooding or damage to facilities. All pesticides and adjuvants used in aquatic areas would be labeled for aquatic use. Nonetheless, accidental release of pesticides or transport of applied pesticides in stormwater runoff to local surface waters would pose a significant water quality impact. Compliance with Program BMPs listed below, in addition to the BMPs and mitigation measures provided in the IPMP EIR as Addended, would prevent improper or over -application of chemicals and improper disposal and prevent discharge or runoff of chemicals into aquatic features. Refer to the IPMP EIR as Addended for analysis of impacts associated with pesticide application (Midpen 2014a; Midpen 2019). Open Space Maintenance and Restoration Program September 2021 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 3. Environmental Checklist Attachment 1 Midpen would implement the following BMPs, incorporated as part of the Program, to minimize impacts associated with pesticide application. Descriptions of each BMP are provided in Chapter 2, Project Description. • BMP GEN-2 Minimize Area of Disturbance and Site Maintenance • BMP GEN-5 Hazardous Materials Storage/ Disposal • BMP GEN-6 Spill Prevention and Control • BMP GEN-26 Non-native Plant Removal and Herbicide Management With implementation of the above -listed BMPs, and adherence to the to the BMPs and mitigation measures identified in the IPMP EIR as Addended, impacts to water quality from applying pesticides would be minimized by complying with exiting pesticide application regulations and label specifications, minimizing the work area, and ensuring proper storage and disposal of pesticides and spill prevention and response. Overall, implementation of the BMPs listed above would minimize the potential for proposed Program activities to substantially degrade water quality or violate water quality standards or waste discharge requirements. In addition, proposed Program activities such as culvert repair/replacement, clearing clogged drainage features, berm/bank stabilization, and sediment and debris removal would provide long-term water quality benefits by reducing sediment loading into creeks, minimizing existing erosion, and ensuring adequate hydraulic conveyance and capacity within creeks, drainages, and ponds. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant. No mitigation is required. b. Would the project substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin? Program activities would include maintenance of water supply infrastructure, including servicing existing wells, to maintain water supply, provide accessible water for livestock and wildlife, and supply clean water to residences. Additionally, restoration and enhancement activities would involve decommissioning abandoned/inactive water wells to protect surface water and groundwater quality. The Program would not install new wells or pumps as part of the Program. Program activities would not involve any actions that would substantially deplete groundwater supplies or affect the aquifer volume or groundwater table level. Out of the 280,000 acres that comprise the Program area, less than 10% of the area consists of impervious surfaces. Program activities would not substantially increase new impervious surfaces within Midpen lands that would affect groundwater recharge or groundwater supply. Further, Program activities may improve groundwater recharge functioning by removing sediment and debris in streams and ponds and conducting habitat enhancement activities, including potential gravel augmentation. Stream channel bottoms are some of the most effective groundwater recharge locations in a groundwater basin. Removal of sediments and debris from channel bottoms and addition of gravel would encourage groundwater recharge functioning in channel bottoms. This would have a beneficial impact on Open Space Maintenance and Restoration Program September 2021 1 3-174 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 3. Environmental Checklist Attachment 1 groundwater recharge. Overall, no impacts related to groundwater supply or groundwater recharge would occur. c. Would the project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would: i. Result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off -site? The proposed Program would involve culvert clearing and drainage feature maintenance, bridge repair/replacement, sediment and debris removal, pond decommissioning, among others that could affect existing drainage patterns in the Program area's stream channels and drainages. The proposed Program would not substantially alter existing drainage patterns as a goal of the Program is to maintain existing facilities to protect natural resources and water quality, including culverts, road and trail drainage features, bridges, and other recreational facilities. Without conducting needed repairs and improvements, areas subject to active erosion or sediment accumulation would continue to be subject to such conditions. Over time, erosion and sediment accumulation could increase at such sites, further degrading site conditions such that bank/berm failures or flooding may occur. Additionally, by not conducting work, erosive forces could redirect runoff such that new drainage pathways could be created and cause further damage to such facilities, thereby decreasing water quality. Although ground -disturbing activities could increase the potential for erosion and siltation, Program activities such as bank/berm repair, culvert clearing and road and trail drainage feature maintenance, vegetation removal, revegetation, bridge relocation, sediment and debris removal, and removal of in -stream structures would help reduce erosion and sedimentation. Refer to 3.6(b) for a further discussion on erosion. Midpen would implement the following BMPs, incorporated as part of the Program, to minimize the potential for erosion and siltation from Program activities. Descriptions of each BMP are provided in Chapter 2, Project Description. • BMP GEN-1 Staging and Access • BMP GEN-2 Minimize the Area of Disturbance and Site Maintenance • BMP GEN-3 Construction Entrances and Perimeter • BMP GEN-16 Site Stabilization • BMP GEN-19 Avoid Inclement Weather • BMP GEN-21 Staged Materials Management and Excavation Ramps • BMP GEN-22 Spoils Management • BMP GEN-25 Vegetation Management with Livestock • BMP GEN-28 Culvert Replacement • BMP GEN-29 Culvert Maintenance • BMP GEN-31 New Culvert Installation (non -stream crossings) Open Space Maintenance and Restoration Program September 2021 1 3-175 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 3. Environmental Checklist Attachment 1 ■ BMP BI0-24 ■ BMP EC -1 ■ BMP EC -2 ■ BMP EC -3 ■ BMP EC -4 ■ BMP EC -5 ■ BMP SWQ-1 ■ BMP SWQ-3 ■ BMP DW-1 Riparian Restoration General Erosion Control Measures Slope or Bank Stabilization Road and Trail Drainage Maintenance Road and Trail Minor Relocation Revegetation of Disturbed Areas Water Body Protection Measures Sediment Filtering Measures Stream/Aquatic Habitat Isolation Implementation of the BMPs listed above would reduce the potential for erosion and siltation to occur during and after Program activities by minimizing ground disturbance and the amount of earthwork, using previously disturbed areas for staging and access, stabilizing the active work site, restoring disturbed and riparian areas following Program activities, avoiding rainy weather, ensuring proper storage of materials, equipment, and spoils, installing silt control and filtering devices, and monitoring water quality. Due to the temporary nature of the Program activities and with adherence to the above listed BMPs, this impact would be less than significant. No mitigation is required. ii, iii. Substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off -site? Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems, provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? Proposed new facility improvements, such as new trails or water infrastructure improvements (e.g., water tanks, spring boxes, etc.), could result in an increase in hardened surfaces in Midpen lands, which could increase the rate and amount of runoff. However, any increase in impervious surface would be minimal in relation to the majority of open space and undeveloped lands in the Program area (less than 10 percent of Midpen lands consist of impervious surfaces). Thus, minor increases in surface runoff resulting from hardened surfaces would not be substantial. Most Midpen facilities are not served by a municipal storm drainage system and runoff would continue to infiltrate into the ground and drain to creeks and drainages, similar to the existing condition. In addition, many of the Program activities are needed to maintain hydraulic capacity in creeks, drainages, and ponds to prevent potential flooding from occurring. Implementation of applicable BMPs noted above in Section 3.8(a) would limit the potential for temporary work sites to generate polluted runoff (e.g., from accidental discharge of hazardous materials used in construction equipment). Thus, Program activities would not create runoff that would result in flooding, exceed the capacity of existing stormwater drainage systems, or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff. Impacts would be less than significant. No mitigation is required. Open Space Maintenance and Restoration Program September 2021 1 3476 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 14-k Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 3. Environmental Checklist Attachment 1 iv. Impede or redirect flood flows? The Program would not involve the construction of new structures that would impede or redirect flood flows. The Program would reduce the potential for flooding by providing sediment and debris removal, vegetation management, maintenance and repair or replacement of culverts and other drainage features, and bank and berm repair. Therefore, implementation of the Program would result in no impacts related to placing structures that would impede or redirect flood flows. d. In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, would the project risk release of pollutants due to project inundation? The Program area mostly lies inland within the Santa Cruz Mountains and thus would not be located in a tsunami inundation zone. Seiche events are not likely to occur within Midpen lands due to site elevation and distance from the Pacific Ocean and the San Francisco Bay. Flooding may occur along creeks and streams that travel from the upper watershed areas through San Mateo and Santa Clara counties. Midpen participates in flood -protection Programs, including constructing major flood protection projects and protection of properties in previously flooded areas (Panorama 2021). Risk of tidal flooding may also occur within OSPs along the Bay margin; however, no Program activities are proposed to occur along the Bay margin. Implementation of Program activities would not cause seiches to occur due to the nature of the activities. Although flooding could occur along creeks and stream within the Program area, Program activities, including clearing clogged culverts and drainage features; removing sediment from creeks, bridges, and ponds; and stabilizing pond berms/banks would reduce the potential for flooding to occur, and would thus reduce the risk of pollutant release due to inundation. . This impact would be less than significant. No mitigation is required. e. Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan? The Program area is primarily located in the San Francisco Bay RWQCB jurisdiction, though the area from Gazos Creek south is within the Central Coast RWQCB jurisdiction. Each RWQCB has developed a Basin Plan that designates beneficial uses for major surface waters and groundwater basins and establishes specific water quality objectives for those waters. Beneficial uses for many of the surface waters within and downstream of Midpen lands are identified in the Basin Plans. A project could conflict with a Basin Plan by degrading water quality in a manner where water -quality objectives are not met or beneficial uses are impacted or not achieved. As analyzed under 3.9(a), the Program could impact water quality through ground - disturbance, accidental release of hazardous materials, in -water activities, vegetation management activities, and use of pesticides. Increased erosion and consequent sedimentation could occur associated with ground -disturbing activities and in -channel work. Eroded sediments could carry metals, nutrients, or pathogens, impacting efforts to achieve or maintain identified TMDLs, water quality objectives, and identified beneficial uses. Accidental release of hazardous materials or pesticides could also impact downstream waterbodies. Increased contamination of an impaired waterbody, such as additional sedimentation in San Open Space Maintenance and Restoration Program September 2021 1 3-177 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Midpeninsula Regional Attachment 1 Open Space District 3. Environmental Checklist Gregorio Creek or San Francisquito Creek, would conflict with the Basin Plan, which would be considered a significant impact. BMPs listed above under 3.9(a) would reduce the potential for Program activities to impair waterbodies in such a manner that conflicts to identified TMDLs, water quality objectives, or beneficial uses identified in the Basin Plan would occur. As described above, a small portion of the Program area is within the Santa Clara subbasin, which is managed by Valley Water under the 2016 Groundwater Management Plan. Thus, the small portion of Midpen lands underlain by the subbasin are subject to Valley Water's 2016 Groundwater Management Plan goals and strategies. One of the sustainability goals of the 2016 Groundwater Management Plan is to protect groundwater from contamination. Valley Water conducts monitoring and implements numerous activities to protect groundwater resources (Panorama 2021). As discussed under 3.8(b), Program activities would not result in impacts related to depletion of groundwater supplies or reduce groundwater recharge. Thus, Program activities would not affect the implementation or success of Valley Water's 2016 Groundwater Management Plan. Overall, the Program would not conflict with the Basin Plan or with a sustainable groundwater management plan. This impact would be less than significant. No mitigation is required. Open Space Maintenance and Restoration Program September 2021 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Midpeninsula Regional Attachment 1 Open Space District 3. Environmental Checklist 3.11 Land Use and Planning Less than Potentially Significant Less -than - Significant with Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact Would the Project: a. Physically divide an established community? b. Cause a significant environmental impact due to conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? 3.11.1 Environmental Setting The Program area consists of approximately 227,900 acres in Santa Clara, San Mateo and Santa Cruz counties. Approximately 64,000 acres consist of open space, most of which are located in Midpen's 26 OSPs in the Santa Cruz Mountains. Land uses within Midpen's OSPs predominantly consist of natural open space and recreation. Agriculture uses (i.e., conservation grazing) and rural residential uses also occur in some OSPs. Many of Midpen's OSPs abut small areas of low -density residential development (Panorama 2021). The Program area is located within multiple jurisdictions, including 17 cities (i.e., Atherton, Cupertino, East Palo Alto, Half Moon Bay, Los Altos, Los Altos Hills, Los Gatos, Menlo Park, Monte Sereno, Mountain View, Palo Alto, Portola Valley, Redwood City, San Carlos, Saratoga, Sunnyvale, and Woodside) as well as unincorporated areas in San Mateo, Santa Clara, and northern Santa Cruz counties. Midpen's Ordinance for Use of Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Lands, first adopted in 1993, includes regulations intended to reduce environmental impacts associated with visitors, contractors, employees, and other users of Midpen lands (Midpen 2020). Other documents that guide the use and vision of Midpen lands include the Resource Management Policies (Midpen 2021) and the Vision Plan (Midpen 2014). Land use planning for residential areas adjacent to Midpen's OSPs is governed by local general plan documents and ordinances. In unincorporated areas, land uses are regulated by the respective county general plans (e.g., Santa Clara County General Plan [Santa Clara County 1994], San Mateo County General Plan [San Mateo County Planning and Building Division 1986], and Santa Cruz County General Plan [Santa Cruz County 1994], which provide goals and policies to guide development while protecting sensitive resources. 3.11.2 Discussion a. Would the project physically divide an established community? Implementation of the Program would not involve any new development that could physically divide a community. The proposed Program involves routine maintenance Open Space Maintenance and Restoration Program September 2021 1 3-179 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Midpeninsula Regional Attachment 1 Open Space District 3. Environmental Checklist activities, small-scale facility improvements, and restoration and enhancement projects. These activities would not change the overall natural landscape or uses of Midpen lands but would maintain/upgrade degraded and/or dilapidated facilities, such as trails, roads, bridges, culverts, drainage features, water supply infrastructure, and existing buildings. Further, new trails, roads, and reroutes constructed under the Program would provide new connections and facilitate improved access across Midpen lands. The proposed Program would streamline Midpen's management of its lands to ensure a consistent approach to conducting such activities. Although some Program activities along roadways and trails, including culvert repair/replacement, road grading and shaping, trail tread repair and regrading, and vegetation management could cause temporary disruptions to existing roadways or recreational trails that connect existing communities, Program activities would be short in duration. As such, the proposed Program would not permanently affect access to surrounding land uses or create any new permanent, physical barriers between established communities. Thus, this impact would be less than significant. No mitigation is required. b. Would the project cause a significant environmental impact due to conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? Midpen currently conducts routine maintenance activities, small scale facility improvements, and restoration and enhancement projects as individual projects. Thus, the proposed Program includes activities that already occur on Midpen lands. As described in Chapter 2, Project Description, the purpose of the Program is to apply a more comprehensive and consistent approach to conducting these types of activities. In addition, most Program activities would maintain/upgrade existing Midpen facilities and would not result in new development or alter land from its present use. Although some small-scale facility improvement projects, such as new roads, trails, or bridges, may be constructed, all activities conducted under the Program would comply with Midpen and local land use regulations and policies. The proposed Program would support Midpen and County General Plan goals and policies by reducing soil disturbances, erosion, and water quality impacts associated with Program activities through implementation of BMPs; promoting growth of native vegetation and protecting and restoring special -status species and sensitive habitats; rehabilitating areas disturbed prior to Midpen ownership; acquiring and providing public access to lands while protecting and restoring natural resources; removing and managing invasive species; and reducing fire fuels and restoring ecosystems. For the reasons stated above, the proposed Program would not conflict with any land use plans or policies and impacts would be less than significant. No mitigation is required. Open Space Maintenance and Restoration Program September 2021 1 3-180 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Midpeninsula Regional Attachment 1 Open Space District 3. Environmental Checklist 3.12 Mineral Resources Less than Significant Potentially with Less -than - Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact Would the Project: a. Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? b. Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan? ❑ ❑ ❑ n ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑X 3.12.2 Environmental Setting Mineral resources of significance found and extracted in Santa Clara County include construction aggregate deposits such as sand, gravel, and crushed stone, as well as salts found in the evaporation ponds along the San Francisco Bay margin (Santa Clara County 1994). There are four active mines located in Santa Clara County: (1) Curtner Quarry, (2) Permanente Quarry, (3) Stevens Creek Quarry, and (4) Lexington Quarry (CDOC 2016). Mineral resources of significance that are found and extracted in San Mateo County include mineral water, salines, and crushed stone (Midpen 2011). Two active mines are located in San Mateo County: (1) Pilarcitos Quarry and (2) Langley Hill Quarry (CDOC 2016). Active mineral operations in Santa Cruz County provide mineral resources for industrial and construction uses, including glass and cement. Four active mines are located in Santa Cruz County: (1) Felton Quarry, (2) Quail Hollow Quarry, (3) Olive Springs Quarry, and (4) Wilder Sand Plant (CDOC 2016). Mines within the three counties produce a combination of sand and gravel, stone, limestone and fill dirt. Mines located in San Mateo County and northern Santa Clara County are in the South San Francisco Bay Production -Consumption Region, while those located in southern Santa Clara County and Santa Cruz County are located in the Monterey Bay Production -Consumption Region (CDOC 2015). Within the Santa Cruz Mountains, rock suitable for road -base construction is found and extracted. Although there are no active quarries on Midpen lands, five of the ten active mines within the three counties are located within the Program area (CDOC 2016). The Kaiser Permanente and Stevens Creek quarries are near the Monte Bello, Picchetti Ranch, and Rancho San Antonio OSPs and the Lexington Quarry is in close proximity to the Sierra Azul OSP within the Program area. The Kaiser Permanente quarries located along Monte Bello Ridge are actively mined for cement. Active quarries are also located in proximity to the Miramontes and Russian Ridge OSPs (Panorama 2021). Additionally, a significant mineral resource area is also located near the Purisima Creek Redwood and Tunitas Creek OSPs within the Program area (Panorama 2021). Open Space Maintenance and Restoration Program September 2021 1 3-181 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 3. Environmental Checklist Attachment 1 3.12.3 Discussion a, b. Would the project result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? Would the project result in the loss of availability of a locally -important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? The proposed Program involves routine maintenance, small-scale facility improvements, and restoration and enhancement activities. Although Program activities may occur in proximity to active resource recovery sites, the Program would not involve activities that could directly affect the availability of a mineral resource. In addition, the proposed Program would not alter land uses, access, or subsurface areas that could impact mineral resources. The proposed Program would not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region nor result in the loss of an active mineral resource recovery site. As a result, no impact would occur. Open Space Maintenance and Restoration Program Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration September 2021 1 3482 Midpeninsula Regional Attachment 1 Open Space District 3. Environmental Checklist 3.13 Noise Less than Significant Potentially with Less -than - Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact Would the Project result in: a. Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? b. Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? c. For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? El 1E1 3.13.1 Overview of Noise Concepts and Terminology Noise In the CEQA context, noise can be defined as unwanted sound. Sound is characterized by various parameters, including the rate of oscillation of sound waves (frequency), the speed of propagation, and the pressure level or energy content (amplitude). In particular, the sound pressure level is the most common descriptor used to characterize the loudness of an ambient sound level, or sound intensity. The decibel (dB) scale is used to quantify sound intensity. Because sound pressure can vary enormously within the range of human hearing, a logarithmic scale is used to keep sound intensity numbers at a convenient and manageable level. The human ear is not equally sensitive to all frequencies in the spectrum, so noise measurements are weighted more heavily for frequencies to which humans are sensitive, creating the A -weighted decibel (dBA) scale. Different types of measurements are used to characterize the time -varying nature of sound. Below are brief definitions of these measurements and other terminology used in this section. ■ Decibel (dB) is a measure of sound on a logarithmic scale that indicates the squared ratio of sound pressure amplitude to a reference sound pressure amplitude. The reference pressure is 20 micro -pascals. Open Space Maintenance and Restoration Program September 2021 1 3-183 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 3. Environmental Checklist Attachment 1 ■ A -weighted decibel (dBA) is an overall frequency -weighted sound level in decibels that approximates the frequency response of the human ear. ■ Maximum sound level (Lmax) is the maximum sound level measured during a given measurement period. ■ Minimum sound level (Lmin) is the minimum sound level measured during a given measurement period. ■ Equivalent sound level (Ley) is the equivalent steady-state sound level that, in a given period, would contain the same acoustical energy as a time -varying sound level during that same period. ■ Percentile -exceeded sound level (LXX) is the sound level exceeded during x percent of a given measurement period. For example, L10 is the sound level exceeded 10 percent of the measurement period. ■ Day -night sound level (Ldn) is the energy average of the A -weighted sound levels occurring during a 24 -hour period, with 10 dB added to the A -weighted sound levels during the period from 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. (typical sleeping hours). This weighting adjustment reflects the elevated sensitivity of individuals to ambient sound during nighttime hours. ■ Community noise equivalent level (CNEL) is the energy average of the A -weighted sound levels during a 24 -hour period, with 5 dB added to the A -weighted sound levels between 7:00 p.m. and 10:00 p.m. and 10 dB added to the A -weighted sound levels between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. In general, human sound perception is such that a change in sound level of 3 dB is barely noticeable, a change of 5 dB is clearly noticeable, and a change of 10 dB is perceived as doubling or halving the sound level. Table 3.13-1 presents example noise levels for common noise sources; the levels are measured adjacent to the source. Table 3.13-1. Examples of Common Noise Levels Common Outdoor Activities Noise Level (dBA) Jet flyover at 1,000 feet 110 Gas lawnmower at 3 feet 100 Diesel truck at 50 feet traveling 50 miles per hour 90 Noisy urban area, daytime 80 Gas lawnmower at 100 feet, commercial area 70 Heavy traffic at 300 feet 60 Quiet urban area, daytime 50 Quiet urban area, nighttime 40 Quiet suburban area, nighttime 30 Quiet rural area, nighttime 20 Source: Caltrans 2013 Open Space Maintenance and Restoration Program Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration September 2021 1 3-184 Midpeninsula Regional Attachment 1 Open Space District 3. Environmental Checklist Vibration Ground -borne vibration propagates from the source through the ground to adjacent buildings by surface waves. Vibration may be composed of a single pulse, a series of pulses, or a continuous oscillatory motion. The frequency of a vibrating object describes how rapidly it is oscillating, measured in Hertz (Hz). Most environmental vibrations consist of a composite, or "spectrum," of many frequencies. The normal frequency range of most ground - borne vibrations that can be felt generally starts from a low frequency of less than 1 Hz to a high of about 200 Hz. Vibration information for this analysis has been described in terms of the peak particle velocity (PPV), measured in inches per second, or of the vibration level measured with respect to root -mean -square vibration velocity in decibels (VdB), with a reference quantity of 1 micro -inch per second. Vibration energy dissipates as it travels through the ground, causing the vibration amplitude to decrease with distance away from the source. High -frequency vibrations reduce much more rapidly than do those characterized by low frequencies, so that in a far -field zone distant from a source, the vibrations with lower frequency amplitudes tend to dominate. Soil properties also affect the propagation of vibration. When ground -borne vibration interacts with a building, a ground -to -foundation coupling loss usually results but the vibration also can be amplified by the structural resonances of the walls and floors. Vibration in buildings is typically perceived as rattling of windows, shaking of loose items, or the motion of building surfaces. In some cases, the vibration of building surfaces also can be radiated as sound and heard as a low -frequency rumbling noise, known as ground -borne noise. Ground -borne vibration is generally limited to areas within a few hundred feet of certain types of industrial operations and construction/demolition activities, such as pile driving. Road vehicles rarely create enough ground -borne vibration amplitude to be perceptible to humans unless the receiver is in immediate proximity to the source or the road surface is poorly maintained and has potholes or bumps. Human sensitivity to vibration varies by frequency and by receiver. Generally, people are more sensitive to low -frequency vibration. Human annoyance also is related to the number and duration of events; the more events or the greater the duration, the more annoying it becomes. 3.13.2 Regulatory Setting Local regulation of noise involves implementation of general plan policies and noise ordinance standards. Local general plans identify general principles intended to guide and influence development plans, and noise ordinances set forth the specific standards and procedures for addressing particular noise sources and activities. General plans recognize that different types of land uses have different sensitivities toward their noise environment; residential areas are generally considered to be the most sensitive type of land use to noise, and industrial/commercial areas are generally considered to be the least sensitive. Table 3.13-2 includes a summary of local noise standards for jurisdictions where Program activities are proposed. Note that the table only includes standards for incorporated areas that contain existing OSPs. It is possible that land acquired in the future may fall under the jurisdiction of a community not listed in the table below. Open Space Maintenance and Restoration Program September 2021 1 3-185 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 14-k Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 3. Environmental Checklist Attachment 1 Table 3.13-2. Noise Standards for the Counties and Incorporated Cities where Program Activities are Proposed Jurisdiction Noise Standards The San Mateo County Noise Ordinance exempts activities conducted on public San Mateo parks, in addition to, noise associated with construction, repair, or grading during County the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on weekdays and 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on Saturdays. The Santa Clara County Noise Ordinance prohibits the use of construction -related Santa Clara tools and equipment between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. on weekdays County and Saturdays or at any time on Sundays and holidays where the sound generated creates a noise disturbance across a residential or commercial real property line. The Santa Cruz County Noise Ordinance considers multiple factors in determining Santa Cruz whether a noise violation exists, including loudness, pitch, and duration of the County sound, time of day or night, necessity of the noise, level of customary background noise, and proximity to any building regularly used for sleeping purposes. Cupertino The City of Cupertino Noise Ordinance limits the use of motorized equipment for landscape maintenance activities to the hours of 8:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. on weekdays, and 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on weekends and holidays, with the exception of landscape maintenance activities for public schools, public and private golf courses, and public facilities, which are allowed to begin at 7:00 a.m. Construction equipment is exempt from noise standards provided that reasonable efforts are made by the user to minimize the disturbances to nearby residents. Grading, construction and demolition activities are allowed to exceed the noise limits of Section1 0.48.040 during daytime hours; provided, that the equipment utilized has high -quality noise muffler and abatement devices installed and in good condition, and the activity meets one of the following two criteria: 1. No individual device produces a noise level more than 87 dBA at a distance of 25 feet (7.5 meters); or 2. The noise level on any nearby property does not exceed 80 dBA. East Palo Alto The City of East Palo Alto Noise Ordinance exempts: 1) activities conducted in parks, public playgrounds and school grounds provided such parks, playgrounds and school grounds are owned and operated by a public entity; and 2) noise sources associated with demolition, construction, repair, remodeling or grading of any real property, provided such activities do not take place between the hours of 8:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. Los Altos Hills The Town of Los Altos Hills Municipal Code exempts construction equipment from noise standards when operated on weekdays between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:30 p.m. Los Gatos The Los Gatos Municipal Code allows construction, alteration or repair activities between the hours of 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. weekdays, and 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. Saturdays if they meet at least one of the following noise limitations: 1) No individual piece of equipment produces a noise level exceeding 85 dBA at 25 feet. 2) The noise level at any point outside of the property plane does not exceed 85 dBA. Open Space Maintenance and Restoration Program Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration September 2021 1 3-186 Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 3. Environmental Checklist Attachment 1 Jurisdiction Noise Standards Menlo Park The City of Menlo Park Municipal Code contains exceptions from noise limits for: construction activities performed between 8:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. on weekdays property owners undertaking construction activities to maintain or improve their property on weekends and holidays between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. powered equipment used on a temporary, occasional or infrequent basis operated between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. on weekdays. No piece of equipment shall generate noise in excess of 85 dBA at 50 feet. The City of Mountain View Municipal Code limits construction activity with respect Mountain View to development between 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday through Friday. Palo Alto The City of Palo Alto Municipal Code exempts any noise source which does not exceed a noise level of 70 dBA at a distance of 25 feet between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. Monday through Friday, 9:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. on Saturday, and 10:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. on Sundays and holidays. Construction on non- residential property is limited to Monday — Friday 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Saturday 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. During construction no individual piece of equipment shall produce a noise level exceeding 110 dBA at 25 feet and the noise level outside of the property plane of the project shall not exceed 110 dBA. Portola Valley The Town of Portola Valley Noise Element establishes non -transportation noise standards for receiving land uses. Daytime (7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.) standards are 50 Leq and 65 Lmax for residential land uses, and 55 Leq for other sensitive land uses including medical, convalescent, and religious facilities, schools, libraries, museums, playgrounds, and parks. The Town's noise control ordinance limits construction activities to between 8:00 a.m. and 5:30 p.m. on weekdays. San Carlos San Carlos limits construction hours to 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Monday through Friday and 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on Saturdays. San Jose The City of San Jose's acceptable exterior noise level objective is 60 dBA Day -Night Average Sound Level or less for residential and most institutional land uses. Saratoga The Town of Saratoga municipal code states that construction and grading activities are allowed Monday through Friday, between the hours of 7:30 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. and on Saturdays, between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Construction is not allowed on Sundays or on weekday holidays. These activities shall not exceed 100 dBA measured at any point 25 feet or more from the source of noise. Gasoline powered chainsaws may be utilized between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Monday through Friday and between 10:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. on Saturdays and Sundays. Woodchippers shall not exceed 100 dBA at any point 25 feet or more from the source of noise. Woodchippers may be utilized between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Monday through Friday and Saturdays between 10:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Use of woodchippers shall not be allowed on Sundays. Woodside The Town of Woodside Noise Element lists maximum noise levels of 55 Ldn for residential and open space land uses and 60 Ldn for commercial land uses. The Town's municipal code limits hours of construction on weekdays between 7:30 a.m. and 5:30 p.m., and on Saturdays between 8:00 a.m. and 1:00 p.m. Sources: San Mateo County 2020, Santa Clara County 2013, Santa Cruz County 2020, Cupertino 2020, East Palo Alto 2020, Los Altos Hills 2020, Los Gatos 2020, Menlo Park 2020, Mountain View 2020, Palo Alto 2020, Portola Valley 2020, San Carlos, 2021, San Jose 2020, Saratoga 2021, Woodside 2012, Woodside 2020 Open Space Maintenance and Restoration Program September 2021 1 3-187 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 1#k Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 3. Environmental Checklist Attachment 1 Environmental Setting Noise conditions in the Program area vary greatly based on local land uses. The majority of Midpen lands are located in quiet, rural areas comprised largely of open space. Major sources of noise in the Program area include highways, railroads, and airports. Interstate 280, U.S. Highway 101, and State Highways 92, 84, 35, 17, 9, and 1 influence noise conditions at multiple existing Midpen OSPs. Caltrain and VTA trains operate within the Program area and multiple airports are located in or near Midpen lands including, Moffett Federal Airfield, Palo Alto Airport, San Jose International Airport, San Carlos Airport, San Francisco International Airport, and Eddie Andreini Sr. Airfield. With respect to noise, sensitive receptors may include residences, schools and school yards, parks and playgrounds, daycare centers, nursing homes, places of worship, medical facilities, and facilities with vibration -sensitive equipment. Given the size of the Program area and uncertainty around the timing and location of Program activities, a detailed analysis of sensitive receptors is not practical; however, the most prevalent sensitive receptors within the Program area and in the vicinity of existing OSPs include rural and suburban residences and other recreational areas. 3.13.3 Discussion a. Would the project result in generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? The proposed Program would result in temporary increases in ambient noise levels during the day from the operation of heavy equipment and use of vehicles and trucks associated with Program activities. Noise from the operation of heavy equipment could affect sensitive receptors (e.g., residents, recreational users, school children) located in close proximity to active work areas. Table 3.13-2, above, summarizes specific noise criteria and noise restrictions on heavy equipment from general plans and noise ordinances of jurisdictions within the Program area. For the proposed Program, noise regulations and standards for San Mateo County, Santa Clara County, Santa Cruz County, Cupertino, East Palo Alto, Los Altos Hills, Los Gatos, Menlo Park, Mountain View, Palo Alto, Portola Valley, San Carlos, San Jose, Saratoga, and Woodside would be considered when Program activities occur within these jurisdictions. As indicated in Table 3.13-2, most jurisdictions restrict the hours of when construction activities may occur and many establish numeric noise level thresholds for residential areas or for specific types of equipment. In addition to the local criteria listed in Table 3.13-2, above, the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual (FTA 2018) recommends noise and vibration criteria for evaluating daytime construction equipment - related noise impacts in outdoor areas. The FTA recommends noise thresholds of 90 dBA equivalent continuous sound level (Leq) and 100 dBA Leq for residential and Open Space Maintenance and Restoration Program Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration September 2021 1 3-188 Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 3. Environmental Checklist Attachment 1 commercial/industrial areas, respectively (FTA 2018). For this analysis, local criteria and the FTA's criteria and guidance are jointly used to analyze the proposed Program's potential noise impacts. To roughly estimate anticipated noise levels at nearby sensitive receptor locations from construction equipment, the FTA recommends that the noisiest two pieces of equipment be used in these noise estimations along with the following assumptions: • full power operation for a full one hour, • there are no obstructions to the noise travel paths, ■ typical noise levels from construction equipment are used, and • all pieces of equipment operate at the center of the project site. Using these simplifying assumptions, the noise levels at specific distances can be obtained using the following equation: Lgq(equip) = EL soft — 201og1o(D/50) Where: Leg (equip) = the noise emission level at the receiver at distance D over 1 hour. ELsoft = noise emission level of a particular piece of equipment at reference distance of 50 feet. D = the distance from the receiver to the piece of equipment in feet. In order to add the two noisiest pieces of equipment together, the following equation applies: 10 !1 }} 1 11Li L2 10 LtOta! — lOy1�D (101D + 1010) Where: Lou = The noise emission level of two pieces of equipment combined L1 = The noise emission level of equipment type 1 L2 = The noise emission level of equipment type 2 Typical noise levels for the operation of the proposed Program's two loudest pieces of equipment were used to estimate the individual and combined noise levels at the nearest sensitive receptors (FTA 2018). Note that multiple types of equipment would generate high noise levels. For example, cranes, graders, excavators, bulldozers, rollers, and chainsaws may each generate noise levels of 85 dBA. Table 3.13-3 provides the values used for the reference equipment noise levels at 50 feet, and the distances needed from the equipment to comply with FTA's and the jurisdictions with the most stringent local noise thresholds (i.e., the city of Cupertino and town of Los Gatos). Appendix E of this IS/MND provides details on the assumptions for the operation of equipment used for Program activities and anticipated noise levels. It should be noted that estimated noise levels are conservative and represent the Open Space Maintenance and Restoration Program September 2021 1 3-189 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Midpeninsula Regional Attachment 1 Open Space District 3. Environmental Checklist noisiest potential combination of equipment operating in tandem, which would not be a frequent occurrence. Succumbing Table 3.13-3. Predicted Noise Levels of Heavy Equipment and Distances to Applicable Noise Thresholds 11Mir Equipment Type Noise Level at 50 feet (dBA) Distance (feet) to 90 dBA, FTA threshold Distance (feet) Distance (feet) to to 85 dBA, Los 80 dBA, Gatos Noise Cupertino Noise Threshold Threshold Excavator 85 28 50 89 Bulldozer 85 28 50 89 Combined 88 40 71 126 Source: FTA 2018, Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) 2019. Noise calculations are shown in Appendix E. Exceeding established noise thresholds in close proximity to sensitive receptors could be a potentially significant impact. While some of Midpen's Program activities would not involve operation of heavy equipment, other Program activities (e.g., pond maintenance, restoration and enhancement projects, and tree removal) may exceed established noise thresholds when activities occur in close proximity to sensitive residential receptors. Noise impacts associated with these activities at individual sites would be temporary, of short duration (up to three weeks for bridge maintenance and replacement and pond maintenance projects), infrequent, and similar in scale and frequency to those currently conducted by Midpen. Program activities would generally be conducted during daytime hours (between 7:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., depending on the time of year) on weekdays, which is largely in compliance with the construction hours listed in Table 3.13-2. Weekend operations would occur infrequently and may include volunteer -based events for invasive plant removal by hand. Given that the majority of Program activities would take place in fairly remote and sparsely populated locations on large OSPs and that the operation of noisy equipment would occur during hours permitted by applicable jurisdictions, the majority of potential noise impacts would be minimized. However, since the location of Program sites and future Midpen lands is uncertain, a potentially significant noise impact to nearby sensitive receptors remains. Implementation of Mitigation Measure NOI-1, which includes the implementation of best noise control practices and notification of nearby sensitive receptors of upcoming work, would reduce noise generated from heavy equipment used in close proximity to sensitive receptors. As stated above, work at each project site would be temporary, infrequent, and short in duration. Additionally, the operation of noisy equipment would only take place during normal construction hours (between 7:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m.) or in compliance with the applicable noise standard included in Table 3.13-2.. Therefore with implementation of Mitigation Measure NOI-1, temporary exceedances of thresholds established by the FTA and local jurisdictions (as applicable) from the use of heavy equipment would be less than significant with mitigation. Open Space Maintenance and Restoration Program September 2021 1 3-190 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 3. Environmental Checklist Attachment 1 Similar to equipment -related noise generated during maintenance activities, traffic -related noise from vehicles and trucks during maintenance activities would be temporary, infrequent, and of a short duration at any given maintenance location. The limited number of daily trips required for maintenance activities would occur during normal work hours, in compliance with local regulations, and would not result in a substantial increase in traffic causing ambient noise levels to substantially increase. Additionally, the proposed Program would not construct any stationary equipment or other permanent sources of noise that would permanently increase ambient noise levels in the Program area. Overall, with the implementation of Mitigation Measure NOI-1 the proposed Program would comply with applicable noise thresholds. This impact would be less than significant with mitigation. Mitigation Measure NOI-1 Noise Control For all Program activities, Midpen will implement the following noise control practices to minimize disturbances to residential areas surrounding work sites: ■ The operation of heavy construction equipment will be limited to occur between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday and comply with applicable local noise requirements. ■ Program activities in residential areas will not occur on Saturdays, Sundays, or any holidays except during emergencies, or with advance notification of surrounding residents. Powered equipment (vehicles, heavy equipment, and hand equipment such as chainsaws) will be equipped with adequate mufflers maintained in good condition. Best available noise control techniques (e.g., mufflers, intake silencers, ducts, engine enclosures, and acoustically attenuating shields or shrouds) will be used for all equipment and trucks, as necessary. ■ Staging areas will be located as far as possible from noise sensitive receptors during maintenance work. ■ At work sites where heavy equipment will be used within 40 feet of sensitive receptors for longer than 5 days within the Program area, residents/sensitive receptors will be notified at least one week prior to performing maintenance work. At Program sites where heavy equipment will be used within 75 feet and 130 feet in Los Gatos and Cupertino, residents/sensitive receptors will be notified at least one week prior to performing maintenance work. The notification will include the anticipated schedule and contact number for a Midpen representative who can address noise complaints. b. Would the project result in generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? The FTA guidelines establish a construction vibration annoyance threshold of 80 vibration velocity in decibels (VdB) for infrequent events (fewer than 30 vibration events per day) and a damage threshold of 0.12 inches per second (in/sec) PPV for buildings extremely Open Space Maintenance and Restoration Program September 2021 1 3491 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 3. Environmental Checklist Attachment 1 susceptible to vibration damage (FTA 2018). Buildings considered extremely susceptible to vibration damage include fragile historic buildings, ruins or ancient monuments. Vibration and ground -borne noise levels were estimated for the proposed Program by following the methods described in the FTA Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment (FTA 2018). For the purposes of this analysis, it was assumed that equipment used during proposed Program activities would have similar vibration sound levels as a large bulldozer or loaded trucks. Table 3.13-4 lists PPV and noise vibration levels for equipment used under the proposed Program as well as the distance to sensitive receptors that must be met in order to be comply with the FTA's established thresholds. Table 3.13-4. Construction Equipment and Vibration Distance Equipment PPV at 25 feet Distance to PPV of 0.12 in/sec (Building Damage Threshold) Noise Vibration Level at 25 feet Distance to Noise Vibration of 80 VdB (Annoyance Threshold) Large Bulldozer 0.089 in/sec 20.5 feet 87 VdB 43 feet Loaded Trucks 0.076 in/sec 18.4 feet 86 VdB 39.6 feet Because Midpen lands consists primarily of large areas of open space, it is unlikely that extremely susceptible buildings would be located within the building damage threshold of Program work areas. Although sensitive receptors (i.e., residences) may be located in areas within the noise vibration annoyance threshold, work at each project site would be temporary, infrequent, and short in duration. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant. In addition, and although not necessary to reduce this impact to less than significant, implementation of Mitigation Measure NOI-1 would further reduce groundborne vibration impacts to sensitive receptors by limiting work near sensitive receptors. c. For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? The closest OSPs to existing airports are the Ravenswood OSP and Stevens Creek Shoreline Nature Study Area. The Ravenswood OSP is located less than a mile from the Palo Alto Airport and falls within the airport's 60 dB CNEL noise contour (Santa Clara County Airport Land Use Commission 2016a). The Stevens Creek Shoreline Nature Study Area is adjacent to Moffett Field and falls within the airfield's 70 dB CNEL (Santa Clara County Airport Land Use Commission 2016b). However, no Program activities would be conducted at these OSPs along the Bay margin under the proposed Program. The San Carlos Airport and Eddie Andreini Sr. Airfield are located within the Program area; however, these two airports are not located within two miles of any current OSPs. Because no Program activities would be conducted at the OSPs along the Bay margin or within close proximity to any airports, the proposed Program would not expose workers to excessive noise levels from airport operations. Therefore, no impact would occur. Open Space Maintenance and Restoration Program September 2021 1 3-192 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 3. Environmental Checklist Attachment 1 3.14 Population and Housing Less than Significant Potentially with Less -than - Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact Would the Project: a. Induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (e.g., by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (e.g., through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b. Displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? 3.14.2 Environmental Setting As shown in Figure 2-1, the Program area consists of approximately 227,900 acres in Santa Clara, San Mateo, and Santa Cruz counties. Nearly 64,000 acres are protected open space, most of which are located in Midpen's 26 OSPs in the Santa Cruz Mountains. Midpen lands serve 17 cities and unincorporated areas in the three counties, with a combined population of over 700,000 residents (Panorama 2021). The predominant land uses in Midpen's OSPs are natural open space, recreation, and agriculture. There are several small, rural residences located on some OSPs as well as small areas of low -density residential development adjacent to Midpen lands. 3.14.3 Discussion a. Would the project induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (e.g., by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (e.g., through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? The proposed Program would not involve the construction of new housing or introduce new land uses associated with population increases (e.g., employment centers) that would directly induce population growth in the area. The proposed Program would involve facility improvements (e.g., roads, trails, bridges) to support public access; however, these recreational improvements are small-scale (e.g., construction of new trail connection between two existing trails or re-routing existing road/trail to avoid sensitive habitat) and would not draw new residents to the area. Because the number of activities conducted annually would increase under the Program, an increase in Midpen employees or contracted workers may be required. However, the overall increase in employment opportunities from the Program would be minimal and primarily seasonal (most likely fewer than 15 full -time - equivalent jobs). Additional workers would be sourced from the local available work force in Open Space Maintenance and Restoration Program September 2021 1 3-193 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 3. Environmental Checklist Attachment 1 the region. Thus, impacts associated with inducing population growth either directly or indirectly would be less than significant. No mitigation is required. b. Would the project displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? Program activities would occur on Midpen lands; however, these activities would be confined to specific sites, including ponds, lakes, creeks, water supply infrastructure, roads, trails, open spaces, and other recreational facilities. Although some residences are located on Midpen lands near facilities and open spaces requiring maintenance and/or improvement, the Proposed Project would not remove any housing units. Thus, no residents would be displaced by Program activities. Therefore, the proposed Program would not result in the displacement of existing housing or people from Midpen lands. As such, no impacts related to housing or people displacement would occur. Open Space Maintenance and Restoration Program September 2021 1 3-194 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 3. Environmental Checklist Attachment 1 3.15 Public Services Less than Potentially Significant Less -than - Significant with Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: a. Fire protection? ❑ ❑X ❑ ❑ b. Police protection? c. Schools? d. Parks? e. Other public facilities? ❑X 3.15.2 Environmental Setting Midpen collaborates with state and local agencies to ensure comprehensive provision of public services across their lands. Midpen rangers are hired to support police and fire protection services provided by other state and local agencies. Midpen's rangers are responsible for visitor contact and patrolling OSPs to enforce federal, state, and local laws, and Midpen regulations. Sometimes rangers perform fire suppression and emergency medical response. Fire protection services are provided by local fire departments and volunteer fire companies within Midpen lands, as well as CAL FIRE. CAL FIRE provides fire protection in the State Responsibility Areas, which encompasses the majority of Midpen lands within the OSPs. Law enforcement services on Midpen lands are provided by local police departments. County sheriffs' offices provide services to the unincorporated areas of San Mateo, Santa Clara, and Santa Cruz counties. The California Highway Patrol responds to vehicular accidents, including those involving pedestrians, bicyclists, and equestrians on Midpen lands. State and county park rangers also provide law enforcement within state and county parks adjacent to Midpen lands. (Panorama 2021) Emergency medical services in San Mateo County are provided by American Medical Response, the County's 9-1-1 ambulance provider, and local fire departments (San Mateo County 2021). Santa Clara County Ambulance is Santa Clara County's 911 ambulance provider, which is operated by Rural/Metro Ambulance (Santa Clara County Ambulance 2017). American Medical Response West provides emergency services in Santa Cruz County (Santa Cruz County 2021). Open Space Maintenance and Restoration Program September 2021 1 3-195 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Midpeninsula Regional Attachment 1 Open Space District 3. Environmental Checklist Several school district jurisdictions within San Mateo and Santa Clara counties overlap with the Program area. Four elementary schools and one middle school are located within 0.25 mile of Midpen OSPs. 3.15.3 Discussion Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: a. Fire Protection As discussed in Section 3.14, "Population and Housing," the proposed Program would not induce population growth in the Program area and therefore would not require construction of new or altered fire protection facilities in order to maintain acceptable response times. Some vegetation management activities, such as mowing, brushing, and tree removal, would involve the use of internal combustion -powered equipment (e.g., tractor -operated mowers and chippers), in addition to the use and storage of flammable and/or hazardous materials (e.g., fuel), which could temporarily increase fire risk or provide an ignition source. Such activities could require a response from the CAL FIRE or other local fire departments if a fire ignites, diverting resources from other calls for service. Midpen would implement BMP GEN- 17: Fire Prevention (described in Chapter 2, Project Description), which would reduce potential wildland fire impacts associated with those activities by requiring on -site fire suppression equipment, spark arrestors on all equipment with internal combustion engines, and restricting activities on high fire danger days. By implementing necessary safety precautions through BMP GEN-17, the potential for CAL FIRE or other local fire departments to provide resources to Midpen lands would be reduced. Additionally, the proposed Program involves fuel management activities that would overall reduce potential fire risks, including maintaining disclines, shaded fuel breaks, and defensible space around buildings and prescribed burns. All vegetation management activities would be conducted according to CAL FIRE regulations and burn protocols. Prescribed burns would be monitored to ensure adherence to burn prescriptions as well as the conditions outlined in the Wildland Fire Resiliency Program (Midpen 2020). As discussed in Section 3.17, "Transportation," Section 3.9, "Hazards and Hazardous Materials," and Section 3.20, "Wildfire," the proposed Program would include the operation of heavy equipment on roadways and may require temporary lane closures that could interfere with fire response times. Impeding fire protection and impacting response times could be a significant impact. Mitigation Measure TRANS -1 requires Midpen to make provisions to allow emergency responders through any work area or clearly designate alternate routes. Minimal delays, lasting a few minutes, would occur while crews reposition equipment and vehicles to ensure adequate room for emergency vehicles to pass. Mitigation Measure TRANS -1 would ensure that unattended authorized work vehicles are not parked in such a way that blocks the road when there are no operators in attendance to move them and Open Space Maintenance and Restoration Program September 2021 1 3-196 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 3. Environmental Checklist Attachment 1 that the fire district and emergency -response agencies have prior notification of temporary access road closures. With implementation of Mitigation Measure TRANS -1, impacts to fire protection response times would be less than significant with mitigation. b. Police Protection As discussed in Section 3.14, "Population and Housing," the proposed Program would not induce population growth in the Program area that would increase demand for police protection services or result in the need for new or physically altered police protection facilities. However, as discussed above, heavy equipment would be operated on roadways and temporary lane closures could affect response times of police services. Impeding police protection services and impacting response time could be a significant impact. Mitigation Measure TRANS -1 requires Midpen to make provisions to allow emergency responders through any work area or clearly designate alternate routes. Minimal delays, lasting a few minutes, would occur while crews reposition equipment and vehicles to ensure adequate room for emergency vehicles to pass. Therefore, with implementation of Mitigation Measure TRANS -1, impacts to police protection response times would be less than significant with mitigation. c, d, e. Schools, Parks and Other Facilities? As discussed in Section 3.14, "Population and Housing," the proposed Program would not involve the construction of new facilities that would directly or indirectly induce population growth in the area, necessitating the construction of additional schools, parks, or other public facilities. For an analysis of potential impacts on parks and other recreational uses, refer to Section 3.16, "Recreation." No impact would occur. Open Space Maintenance and Restoration Program September 2021 1 3497 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 3. Environmental Checklist Attachment 1 This page intentionally left blank Open Space Maintenance and Restoration Program September 2021 1 3498 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 3. Environmental Checklist Attachment 1 3.16 Recreation Less than Potentially Significant Less -than - Significant with Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact Would the Project: a. Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b. Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities, which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? ❑X 3.16.2 Environmental Setting Recreation is the primary use of nearly all Midpen lands. Ranging from 55 to over 19,000 acres, 24 out of the 26 OSPs are open to the public year-round, free of charge, from dawn until just after sunset (Midpen 2021). Recreational facilities available for public use within the OSPs include over 240 miles of trails, restrooms, picnic tables and benches, horse stables, visitor centers, and parking areas. Each year, an estimated two million recreationalists visit Midpen lands (Midpen 2019). Recreational activities include hiking, biking, horseback riding, bird watching, and picnicking. In addition, many other open space lands and trails maintained by various agencies, including state and county parks, abut Midpen lands and have trails connecting onto Midpen lands. 3.16.3 Discussion a. Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? As described in Section 3.14, "Population and Housing," the proposed Program would not induce population growth in the area. The proposed Program would involve routine maintenance of existing facilities, including road and trails; new small-scale facility improvements and facilities, including the construction of new trail/road bridges and trail re-routes; and restoration and enhancement projects. Some Program activities, particularly those involving trails and roads, would require temporary closure of those facilities such as trails, picnic areas, or parking areas in order to access the site or use as staging areas. Although temporary closures could briefly increase use of nearby recreational facilities, the proposed Program would not permanently increase the demand of other recreational Open Space Maintenance and Restoration Program September 2021 1 3499 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 3. Environmental Checklist Attachment 1 facilities such that substantial deterioration would occur. This impact would be less than significant. No mitigation is required. b. Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities, which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? The proposed Program would involve the routine maintenance of recreational facilities, such as trails and roads, and the construction of new small-scale recreational facility improvements including new trails/roads and re-routes, new bridges and replacements, and new interpretative facilities and signage. No new large-scale recreational facility projects would be conducted under the Program. Potential effects on the environment including to air quality, noise, traffic, and aesthetics associated with the proposed Program have been addressed in the other sections of this IS/MND and were found to be less than significant with mitigation. Although recreational users of trails, picnic areas, and other facilities may experience temporary disruptions during maintenance and construction as described above in Section 3.16 (a), alternative recreational opportunities would continue to be available in Program area. Further, implementation of the proposed Program would improve the condition of existing recreational facilities and improve public access throughout Midpen's OSPs. Thus, impacts would be less than significant. No mitigation is required. Open Space Maintenance and Restoration Program September 2021 1 3-200 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Midpeninsula Regional Attachment 1 Open Space District 3. Environmental Checklist 3.17 Transportation Less than Significant Potentially with Less -than - Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact Would the Project: a. Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities? b. Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3(b)? c. Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? d. Result in inadequate emergency access? El X El 0 El El El 0 El 0 3.17.2 Environmental Setting The circulation system within the Program area includes roads ranging from freeways and major arterials to local collector streets to rural roads. Regional access to the Program area is provided via U.S. Highway 101 (U.S. 101), I-280, I-880, and SR -1. Local access to the Program area is provided via SR -9, SR -17, SR -35, SR -84, and SR -92, all of which are part of the California State Highway System, with the exception of U.S. 101. SR -35 (Skyline Boulevard) runs adjacent to 15 of the 26 OSPs, serving as a key access route to the Program area. The San Mateo City/County Association of Governments (C/CAG) is the designated Congestion Management Agency for San Mateo County and the Valley Transit Authority (VTA) is the designated Congestion Management Agency for Santa Clara County. Each Congestion Management Agency is responsible for developing and updating the Congestion Management Program (CMP) in its respective jurisdiction. C/CAG's CMP identifies I-280, SR - 1, SR -35, SR -84, and SR -92 as CMP roadways. VTA's CMP contains a large list of CMP roadways, including SR -17 and SR -35, which pass adjacent to Midpen lands. Numerous County and local roads lead to parking lots where the public can access Midpen's OSPs (see Table 3.16-1 for a list of local access roads adjacent to Midpen OSPs). In general, local access roads that provide access to the majority of OSPs veer off of main highway routes, except for the Saratoga Gap OSP (which is accessed directly from Skyline Boulevard or Highway 9). Miramontes Ridge OSP is closed to the public and does not have publicly Open Space Maintenance and Restoration Program September 2021 1 3-201 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Midpeninsula Regional Attachment 1 Open Space District 3. Environmental Checklist accessible local roads (Panorama 2021). Public parking is available at all OSPs besides Miramontes Ridge, Teague Hill, and Tunitas Creek OSPs. Table 3.17-1. Local Access Roads Adjacent to Midpen Lands Managed Land Local Access Roads Bear Creek Redwoods OSP Bear Creek Road Coal Creek OSP El Corte de Madera Creek OSP Skyline Boulevard Page Mill Road Star Hill Road Skyline Boulevard Native Sons Road Bear Gulch Road El Sereno OSP Montevina Road Felton Station (Closed to the public) Black Rock Foothills OSP Page Mill Road Fremont Older OSP Prospect Road La Honda Creek OSP Long Ridge OSP Sears Ranch Road Allen Road' Portola Heights Road Portola Heights Road Los Trancos OSP Page Mill Road Miramontes Ridge OSP (Closed to the public) San Mateo Road Skyline Boulevard Monte Bello OSP Page Mill Road Picchetti Ranch OSP Montebello Road Pulgas Ridge OSP Edmonds Road Purisima Creek Redwoods OSP Edmonds Road Rancho San Antonio OSP Cristo Rey Drive Rancho San Antonio County Park Cristo Rey Drive Ravenswood OSP Bay Road Russian Ridge OSP Page Mill Road Alpine Road Saratoga Gap OSP Skyline Boulevard Highway 9 Sierra Azul OSP and Easements Alma Bridge Road Skyline Ridge OSP Edmonds Road 'Note that Midpen has an agreement with the neighbors on this private road pertaining to public access. The public is only allowed to the Allen Road parking area with a permit. Source: Panorama 2021 Open Space Maintenance and Restoration Program September 2021 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Midpeninsula Regional Attachment 1 Open Space District 3. Environmental Checklist There are a number of public transit operators who operate public bus and rail service within the vicinity of the Program area, including San Mateo County Transit District (SamTrans), Santa Clara VTA, and Santa Cruz Metro Transit District. SamTrans operates 76 bus routes throughout San Mateo County and portions of San Francisco and Santa Clara counties. Santa Clara VTA provides bus, light rail, and paratransit services to areas near the eastern and southern portions of the Program area in Santa Clara County, including Cupertino, Los Altos, Los Altos Hills, Los Gatos, Mountain View, Palo Alto, Saratoga, and Sunnyvale. Santa Cruz Metro Transit District provides transit service throughout Santa Cruz County near the southwestern portion of the Program area. While the SamTrans Bus Line 295 may come close to Pulgas Ridge OSP, with a stop at Cordilleras Center located approximately 0.15 mile away, and may provide limited weekday and no weekend service, there is no direct transit service to any of Midpen lands (Panorama 2021). Caltrain (a commuter railroad operating between the cities of San Francisco and San Jose) is operated by the Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board and serves the eastern portion of San Mateo County and the western and southern portions of Santa Clara County. Several stations within its Zones 2 and 3 from, Belmont to Sunnyvale, would provide access to the eastern portion of the Program area, though no direct service to any of the OSPs is provided. Public recreational opportunities are provided at most of the OSPs in the Program area and include 240 miles of easy-access/ADA accessible trails, hiking trails, mountain biking trails, and equestrian trails. Numerous state and County roads, including SR -35, SR -84, SR -92, Purisima Creek Road, Kings Mountain Road, La Honda Road, and Alpine Road, connect to and are within OSPs and may be used by bicyclists; however, none of these roadways are designated as Class 1, 2, or 3 bikeways4. OSPs near the Santa Clara and San Mateo County lines, including portions of Rancho San Antonio, Foothills, Los Trancos, and Monte Bello OSPs, can be accessed by a Class 2 bikeway along Stevens Creek Boulevard and Page Mill Road. Additionally, the Ravenswood OSP can be accessed by Class 1 and Class 2 bikeways, and the Stevens Creek Shoreline OSP can be accessed by the Stevens Creek Trail, a protected shared - use trail for pedestrians and bicyclists. The Ravenswood and Stevens Creek Shoreline OSPs are located along the San Francisco Bay and can be access by the San Francisco Bay Trail; however, activities conducted at these two OSPs are not included in the Program. 4 Bikeways are generally classified as follows (Caltrans 2017): • Class 1 bikeways, also known as bike paths or shared use paths, are facilities with exclusive right of way for bicyclists and pedestrians, away from the roadway and with cross flows by motor traffic minimized. • Class 2 bikeways are bike lanes established along streets and are defined by pavement striping and signage to delineate a portion of a roadway for bicycle travel. • Class 3 bikeways, or bike routes, designate a preferred route for bicyclists on streets shared with motor traffic not served by dedicated bikeways to provide continuity to the bikeway network. • Class 4 separated bikeways, often referred to as cycle tracks or protected bike lanes, are for the exclusive use of bicycles, physically separated from motor traffic with a vertical feature. Open Space Maintenance and Restoration Program September 2021 1 3-203 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 3. Environmental Checklist Attachment 1 3.17.3 Discussion a. Would the project conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities? Program activities would generate worker and Program -related vehicle trips, and, for activities along or in close proximity to public roadways (e.g., culvert repair/replacement, roadside drainage feature maintenance, bridge maintenance, road maintenance, and brushing and mowing), could require temporary lane closure along portions of state highways and local access roads in the Program area. Program activities also could require temporary re-routing of bicycle lanes or bicycle routes in the public right-of-way, as well as temporary closure of trails and other pedestrian facilities located within Midpen lands. As described in Chapter 2, Project Description, most Program activities typically would involve a 3 to 6 person crew, depending on the activity. Activities such as bridge maintenance and replacement may require up to 7 people. Other activities, such as conservation grazing and fuel management, would generally require a 2 person crew. In a given year, it is anticipated that the maximum number of projects that Midpen would conduct under the Program would be: ■ 50 culvert repair and replacement projects; ■ 10 bridge maintenance and replacements; ■ 256 road and trail drainage feature maintenance projects; ■ 28 sediment and debris removal projects; ■ 4 streambank stabilization projects; ■ 6 water supply structure maintenance projects; ■ 3 pond and lake repair projects; ■ 6 minor maintenance projects (e.g., repair of fences, gates and signage, and trash rack clearing); ■ 83 road and trail maintenance projects (e.g., paved and unpaved road projects, road/trail surface maintenance projects, and roadway/trail slip -outs and slide repairs); ■ 53 new small-scale facility improvements (e.g., trail bridges, interpretative facilities and signage, wildlife passage, building and structure improvement projects, etc.); and ■ 50 restoration and enhancement projects. In addition, Midpen would conduct annual brushing and mowing activities along approximately 600 miles of roads and trails, parking lots, and other recreational facilities, occurring over approximately 160 days. Midpen would also annually conduct 30 miles of discline maintenance, occurring over 8 days and 2 days of conservation grazing. IPMP Open Space Maintenance and Restoration Program Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration September 2021 1 3-204 Midpeninsula Regional Attachment 1 Open Space District 3. Environmental Checklist activities, including pesticide application and vegetation removal, would occur over approximately 300 days. Although it may vary from year to year, Program activities may generate up to 246 haul truck trips annually. Most of these estimated haul truck trips would be associated with the import of fill for culvert repair/replacement, bridge maintenance, road and trail drainage feature maintenance, unpaved road and trail maintenance, and roadway/trail slip -outs and slide repairs. These trips represent a conservative estimate, assuming the maximum number of Program activities that may occur annually on Midpen lands. However, most of these activities are ongoing and the periodic trips generated under the proposed Program would be similar to past levels of work for similar activities. Further, assuming haul truck trips associated with these activities would primarily occur over 6 months during the peak work season from April to October (or approximately 100 workdays), this would translate to approximately 2.5 haul trips per day, or 12.5 per week. Spread over an area of approximately 64,000 acres, these vehicle trips would not have a substantial effect on the local circulation systems in the Program area.5 During the peak work season, the work crew at any one project site may consist of up to 7 workers; however, projects occurring with the greatest frequency (e.g., road and trail drainage feature maintenance, culvert replacement, and restoration and enhancement projects) would have typical crew sizes of 3 to 5 workers. Additionally, it is likely that several projects would overlap in duration during the peak work season. Although it is unknown how many projects would occur in a typical day, if 10 crews were employed simultaneously, up to 50 workers would be driving to and from project sites. Even if each worker drove independently to the work site, these vehicle trips would have a negligible impact on the local circulation system given the size of the Program area and the diffuse locations of the OSPs, and would not substantially affect level -of -service or any other performance metric. Additionally, these trips would not affect bicycle routes on local roadways, trails or other pedestrian facilities on Midpen lands. Further, the Program would not involve construction of any housing or new retail or commercial uses that would generate any new long-term vehicle trips. Finally, a number of Program activities (e.g., culvert repair/replacement, drainage feature maintenance, bridge maintenance, road maintenance, and brushing and mowing) may take place along, or in close proximity to, public roadways. Where insufficient widths for both work vehicles/equipment and regular traffic occur, temporary closing or narrowing of lanes may be necessary, which could lead to temporary traffic delays and/or create traffic hazards if adequate precautions are not taken, resulting in a significant impact. Implementation of Mitigation Measure TRANS -1 would ensure that vehicle flow and emergency access is maintained during Program activities. Mitigation Measure TRANS -1 would ensure that appropriate agencies with jurisdiction are notified in advance of the closures as well as adjacent neighbors, unattended authorized work vehicles are not parked in such a way that blocks the road when there are no operators in attendance to move them, and traffic flaggers 5 Although Program vegetation management activities are discussed in the IPMP EIR as Addended (Midpen 2014, 2019) and the Wildland Fire Resiliency Program EIR (Panorama 2021), truck and worker trips are accounted for in this Program herein. Open Space Maintenance and Restoration Program September 2021 1 3-205 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 3. Environmental Checklist Attachment 1 are present to safely maintain traffic flow. Mitigation Measure TRANS -1 would also minimize impacts to neighbors who require driveway access, pedestrian and bicyclist traffic, and the limited public transit (e.g., occasional buses) that may travel through the Program area. Mitigation Measure TRANS -1: Emergency Responders and Access The following measures shall be implemented to ensure emergency access is maintained: 1. At least one week prior to temporary lane or full closure of a public road, Midpen shall contact the appropriate emergency response agency/agencies with jurisdiction (e.g., CalTrans, County, City) to ensure that each agency is notified of the closure and any temporary detours in advance. Midpen shall also notify adjacent neighbors along the road in advance of temporary closure. 2. In the event of an emergency, roads (public roads, and Midpen-owned or managed roads) or access trails blocked or obstructed by activities shall be cleared to allow emergency vehicles to pass. 3. During temporary lane or road closures on public roads, Midpen shall use flaggers equipped with two-way radios. During an emergency, flaggers shall radio to the crew to cease operations and reopen the public road to emergency vehicles. 4. In work areas, all vehicles and equipment shall be parked so the road is not blocked or obstructed when there is no operator present to move the vehicle. With implementation of Mitigation Measure TRANS -1, impacts on the local circulation system would be less than significant with mitigation. b. Would the project conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3(b)? Although many of the proposed Program activities would occur at a similar level of frequency as current conditions, the proposed Program would generate increased vehicle trips from both workers traveling to project sites as well as from truck haul trips associated with conducting Program activities. Based on the air quality modeling completed in Ca1EEMod, the proposed Program would generate approximately 178,984 vehicle miles traveled (VMT) annually. A majority of these trips would be from worker trips from Program activities such as bridge maintenance and replacement, unpaved road maintenance, roadway or trail slip - outs and slide repairs, culvert replacement, and road and trail drainage feature maintenance (see Appendix C, Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas Calculations for calculations). Because Program activities would occur at a similar level as current conditions, the proposed Program would not result in a substantial increase in VMT compared to existing conditions. Thus, the Program would not conflict with State CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3 subdivision (b); impacts would be less than significant. No mitigation is required. Open Space Maintenance and Restoration Program Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration September 2021 1 3-206 Midpeninsula Regional Attachment 1 Open Space District 3. Environmental Checklist c. Would the project substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? Program activities would not substantially change the design of any roadway or intersection. Rather, these activities would address potentially dangerous roadway and trail conditions, such as slip -outs and slides, fallen trees, potholes, and cracked or deteriorated surfaces (i.e., from erosion or stormwater damage). Managing vegetation along roads would also have the benefit of maintaining site distances for motorists, thereby minimizing potentially hazardous conditions resulting from roadside overgrowth. However, such activities could pose hazards to motorists, bicyclists and recreationalists due to incompatible uses, such as operation of heavy equipment and vehicles on roadsides/trailsides. Additionally, certain Program activities (e.g., road repaving, bridge maintenance, slip-out/slide repairs, culvert repair/replacement, and vegetation management) may require temporary closure of one or more lanes of traffic. In addition, operation of heavy construction equipment at work sites would be incompatible with other vehicles on local roads. Implementation of Mitigation Measure TRANS -1 would ensure that potential impacts from heavy equipment on local roadways are minimized by requiring flaggers to safely guide travelers during Program activities, notifying local agencies with jurisdiction regarding planned lane closures, and ensuring that unattended authorized work vehicles are not parked in such a way that blocks the road when there are no operators in attendance to move them. With implementation of Mitigation Measure TRANS -1, this impact would be less than significant with mitigation. d. Would the project result in inadequate emergency access? The proposed Program would not include any activities that would permanently block or constrain publicly accessible roadways or emergency access routes. Rather, in the long term, the Program would alleviate conditions that could impede emergency access by repairing deteriorated roads, reducing fuel loads, and clearing roadside vegetation to maintain line of site for emergency responders. During some Program activities (e.g., road repaving, bridge maintenance, slip-out/slide repairs, culvert repair/replacement, and vegetation management) partial lane closure may be required on a short-term basis and could temporarily limit the mobility of emergency response vehicles or residents attempting to evacuate the area. However, implementation of Mitigation Measure TRANS -1 would require that emergency responders are allowed through any work area or clearly designate alternate routes. Minimal delays, lasting a few minutes, would occur while crews reposition equipment and vehicles to ensure adequate room for emergency vehicles to pass. Mitigation Measure TRANS -1 would also ensure that unattended authorized work vehicles are not parked in such a way that blocks the road when there are no operators in attendance to move them and that the fire district and emergency -response agencies have prior notification of temporary access road closures. Program activities would have a beneficial effect on emergency response in the long term by ensuring that emergency vehicle and evacuation access is maintained along roadsides through roadway maintenance, vegetation clearance, and fuel reduction. With implementation of Mitigation Measure TRANS -1, impacts related to emergency access would be less than significant with mitigation. Open Space Maintenance and Restoration Program September 2021 1 3-207 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 3. Environmental Checklist Attachment 1 This page intentionally left blank Open Space Maintenance and Restoration Program Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration September 2021 1 3-208 Midpeninsula Regional Attachment 1 Open Space District 3. Environmental Checklist 3.18 Tribal Cultural Resources Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Pub. Res. Code section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is: a. Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k)? b. A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to ❑ ❑ ❑X ❑ criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1? 3.18.2 Environmental Setting Prior to the arrival of the Spanish explorers in northern California in the late 1700s, the Program area was occupied by numerous indigenous Ohlone groups, as described in Section 3.5, "Cultural Resources." Each group was a discrete political entity that controlled a defined territory that provided food and materials for daily sustenance, as well as connectivity to the spiritual world. The landscape remained largely natural but was nurtured through cultivation techniques that encouraged and increased the abundance of the most sought-after resources but also shaped the world view of the indigenous inhabitants. As Ballard et al (2013:5) eloquently stated: "We can also presume that the landscape was an integral part of the ideological world of the societies living within them. For tribes that used the study area as home and resource procurement lands, the ridges, valleys, streams and other features played crucial roles in establishing boundaries between communities, and were also features of the mind. Landforms and the flora and fauna fit within the context of native views of creation and the forces of the spiritual world. Thus, even though a given area may have served routine functional uses, it still could be seen as a special place where its attributes might trigger recollections of traditional lore and be read like a book The landscape was text, and through oral traditions including songs, stories and legends, or inheritance of gathering or hunting rights, it could be read symbolically by the various communities interfacing within it." Open Space Maintenance and Restoration Program September 2021 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Midpeninsula Regional Attachment 1 Open Space District 3. Environmental Checklist The lands within Midpen's modern-day OSPs have the potential to contain tribal cultural resources (TCRs), whether they be specific utilitarian or spiritual sites, or landscapes that reflect daily subsistence and invoke a deep attachment to their ancestors. Midpen contacted the NAHC on November 17, 2020 for a search of the Sacred Lands Files and for a list of tribes with a traditional and cultural affiliation with the Program area. The NAHC responded on December 1, 2020, noting that sacred sites are listed in the Sacred Lands File for the Program area. The NAHC also provided a list of twelve tribes and individuals traditionally affiliated with Midpen lands who might have knowledge of the sacred lands on file. Although none of the Native American tribes in the Program area have submitted letters of interest to Midpen pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21080.3.1(b) (1), in the spirit of compliance with Public Resources Code Section 21080.3.1, Midpen notified local tribes listed by the NAHC about the proposed Program via letter with a return receipt, mailed on December 10, 2020. The Native American tribes contacted by Midpen are listed in Table 3.18-1. Table 3.18-1. Native American Contacts Name of Contact Organization/Tribe Monica Arellano Muwekma Ohlone Indian Tribe of the San Fransisco Bay Area Tony Cerda, Chairperson Costanoan Rumsen Carmel Tribe Andrew Galvan Ohlone Indian Tribe Corrina Gould, Chairperson The Confederated Villages of Lisjan Valentin Lopez, Chairperson Amah Mutsun Tribal Band Charlene Nijmeh, Chairperson Muwekma Ohlone Indian Tribe of the San Fransisco Bay Area Patrick Orozco, Chairman Costanoan Ohlone Rumsen-Mutsun Tribe Ms. Katherine Erolinda Perez, Chairperson North Valley Yokuts Tribe Timothy Perez North Valley Yokuts Tribe Ms. Ann Marie Sayers, Chairperson Indian Canyon Mutsun Band of Costanoan Kanyon Sayers -Roods Indian Canyon Mutsun Band of Costanoan Ms. Irene Zwierlein, Chairperson Amah Mutsun Tribal Band of Mission San Juan Bautista No responses were received from the tribes contacted on December 20, 2020 and listed in Table 3.18-1. To date, Midpen is not aware of any TCRs within the Program area. Nevertheless, Midpen continually works with local tribal communities on implementation of TEK practices in the OSPs, such as in Purisima Creek, Sierra Azul, Russian Ridge, and Skyline Ridge (refer to Chapter 2, Project Description for additional information on this Program activity). Tribes are primarily interested in cultivating and harvesting plants with cultural significance. Through regular communication with the tribes, Midpen would be kept informed about the potential to impact TCRs with Program activities proposed under this Program. Open Space Maintenance and Restoration Program Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration September 2021 1 3-210 Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 3. Environmental Checklist Attachment 1 3.18.3 Discussion Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is: a. Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k)? Although the NAHC indicated that significant Native American resources are located within the region, no TCRs that are listed or eligible for listing in the CRHR or a local register of historical resources have been identified by contacted tribes within the Program area. Therefore, no impact to TCRs that are currently listed or eligible for listing in the CRHR or other historical resource registers would occur. TCRs that may be archaeological in nature and discovered during ground disturbance activities, or are otherwise known to tribes but not formally listed or determined eligible for listing, are discussed below. b. A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1? Only one of the Native American archaeological resources known to exist within the OSPs has been evaluated for significance, and it was determined not to be eligible for the CRHR and has not been determined to be a TCR. However, future studies are likely to identify additional archaeological sites that are evaluated as significant, or other significant resource types, some of which may be TCRs. In addition, because not all archaeological sites have surface manifestations, ground -disturbing Program activities may encounter unknown buried cultural resources. Similarly, unknown human remains may be uncovered during project excavations. Buried archaeological remains and human remains may be determined eligible for listing in the CRHR and as TCRs. The response from the NAHC indicated that significant cultural resource sites have been recorded within Midpen lands; thus, local Native American tribes likely have knowledge of locations and resources that are culturally significant and would be considered TCRs. However, tribes convey this information to Midpen on a need -to -know basis. As a result, ground disturbance under the Program has the potential to adversely impact TCRs that relate to significant gathering areas or locations of spiritual or ancestral importance that do not present as archaeological sites (i.e., they do not contain artifacts or other site indicators). Midpen would implement the following BMPs, incorporated as part of the Program, to avoid or reduce potential impacts to tribal cultural resources. Descriptions of each BMP are provided in Chapter2, Project Description. ■ BMP CUL-1 Review Sensitivity Maps Open Space Maintenance and Restoration Program Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration September 2021 1 3-211 Midpeninsula Regional Attachment 1 Open Space District 3. Environmental Checklist ■ BMP CUL-2 Record Search and Field Inventory for Highly or Moderately Sensitive Areas, and Areas of Unknown Sensitivity ■ BMP CUL-3 Consult with Native American Tribes ■ BMP CUL-4 Construction Monitoring ■ BMP CUL-5 Conduct Pre -Maintenance Educational Training ■ BMP CUL-6 Address Discovery of Cultural Remains or Paleontological Resources Appropriately Application of the BMPs listed above would prevent significant impacts to archaeological sites and human remains that could be identified as TCRs, whether observed through pedestrian survey or discovered during construction, as discussed in Section 3.5, "Cultural Resources." For Program activities that involve excavation or work in previously undisturbed native soils beyond existing engineered extent or depth, a desktop investigation to determine the presence of known resources and review of sensitivity of the Project site (BMP CUL-1) would be conducted. For areas with known sites, or high/moderate or unknown sensitivity, a cultural resources investigation would be conducted by a qualified professional archaeologist prior to performing the Program activity (BMP CUL-2) and appropriate Native American tribes would be consulted (BMP CUL-3). Construction monitoring (BMP CUL-4) may also be required during ground -disturbing activities within 50 feet of recorded archaeological resources and in areas identified as highly sensitive for cultural areas. All personnel would also receive an educational training by a qualified cultural resources specialist prior to the beginning of each maintenance season (BMP CUL-5) to learn how to identify cultural resources. If unknown resources are discovered during work, all work would stop and appropriate treatments would be adhered to (BMP CUL-6). In addition, for locations that are considered culturally significant and are unrelated to archaeological deposits, Midpen would annually notify tribes, with whom they have a working relationship, about the upcoming projects to allow the tribes the opportunity to express any concerns that they might have about the potential to impact TCRs. With the implementation of the BMPs listed above, impacts to TCRs would be less than significant. No mitigation is required. Open Space Maintenance and Restoration Program September 2021 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Attachment 1 3. Environmental Checklist 3.19 Utilities and Service Systems Less than Significant Potentially with Less -than - Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact Would the Project: a. Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment, or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunication facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects? b. Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry, and multiple dry years? Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider, which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? c. d. Generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals? e. Comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste? IX' El 0 3.19.1 Environmental Setting Water for use in buildings and public facilities in the Program area generally comes from springs, creeks, and groundwater or from commercial water supplies. Irrigation water for agricultural uses comes from surface waters, springs, and wells. Wastewater is generated from public restrooms in the Program area and is stored in on -site vaults before removal and disposal by local service providers. Solid waste disposal services are provided for residences by local providers. For OSPs located in San Mateo County, solid waste would be transferred to one of the four transfer stations to be sorted and separated into material that requires disposal at a landfill. There is one active Open Space Maintenance and Restoration Program September 2021 1 3-213 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 3. Environmental Checklist Attachment 1 landfill in San Mateo County, Ox Mountain Landfill (or Corinda Los Trancos Landfill), which is located in the city of Half Moon Bay and is a Class III Municipal Solid Waste Landfill. The Ox Mountain Landfill accepts all types of solid waste except hazardous waste. Ox Mountain Landfill has a maximum permitted throughput of 3,598 tons per day with a maximum permitted capacity is 60,500,000 cubic yards. As of December 2015, this landfill had a remaining capacity of 22,180,000 cubic yards and the estimated closure date for the Ox Mountain Landfill is January 2034 (California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery [CalRecycle] 2021a). In Santa Clara County, solid waste would be transferred to one of the three transfer stations, sorted and separated, and disposed of at one of the two active landfills or at composting facilities located in the cities of San Jose and Milpitas. ■ The Guadalupe Landfill is a Class III Municipal Solid Waste Landfill that accepts soil, concrete, asphalt, and other construction and demolition debris for recycling. The Guadalupe Landfill accepts up to 3,650 tons of material per day (Waste Management 2021). As of January 2011, this landfill has a remaining capacity of 11,055,000 cubic yards with an estimated closure date of January 2048 (CalRecycle 2021b). ■ The Kirby Canyon Landfill accepts construction and demolition debris and municipal special waste. The Kirby Canyon Landfill has a maximum permitted throughput of 2,600 tons per day with a maximum permitted capacity of 36,400,000 cubic yards. As of July 2015, this landfill had a remaining capacity of 16,191,600 cubic yards with an estimated closure date of December 2059 (CalRecycle 2021c). • The Newby Island Facility and the Zanker Road Facility are green material composting facilities that accept green materials and wastes. The Newby Island Facility has a maximum permitted throughput of 700 tons per day with a maximum permitted capacity of 146,600 cubic yards (CalRecycle 2021d). • Zanker Road Facility stopped operating as a landfill in 2015 and now has a maximum permitted throughput of 200 tons per day of green materials (CalRecycle 2021e). Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) maintains power lines and underground gas lines through the Program area. PG&E maintains these facilities through easements. PG&E retains the responsibility for vegetation clearance associated with PG&E infrastructure, under the jurisdiction of the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) (and not Midpen), by law and conducts vegetation management under PG&E utility lines in compliance with by General Order 95, Section III of the CPUC. Midpen facilities are not typically served by municipal storm drain facilities and thus, implementation of the proposed Program would not impact existing stormwater drainage facilities. Open Space Maintenance and Restoration Program Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration September 2021 1 3-214 Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 3. Environmental Checklist Attachment 1 3.19.2 Discussion a. Would the project require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment, or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunication facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects? The Program includes maintenance of septic, telephone, telecommunications, and other utilities, installation, or replacement of water infrastructure to support conservation grazing practices, and repair or replacement of existing drainage facilities (i.e., culvert repair/replacement, swale and ford maintenance, clearing drainage features, etc.). Although the proposed Program would not require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunication facilities, existing infrastructure may be expanded from its original location to provide connection to existing utilities. These expansions would be small and would not result in significant environmental effects as discussed throughout this IS/MND. Program activities would be conducted to maintain Midpen facilities while enhancing and protecting the natural environment. As such, no impact would occur. b. Would the project have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry, and multiple dry years? The proposed Program would not involve construction of any housing, commercial buildings, or any other structures or landscaping that would require permanent water supplies. Dust control activities at Program work sites (per BMP GEN-15) would require a minimal amount of water, which would likely be supplied by a water truck and would not adversely affect local water supplies or substantially increase the volume of water used in the Program area. Given the relatively limited amount of water needed, no additional water supplies or entitlements would be needed to support the proposed Program. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant. No mitigation is required. c. Would the project result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider, which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? The Program would not construct any new or expanded housing or other occupied buildings that would generate additional wastewater or require connection to the municipal wastewater collection and treatment system. A nominal amount of wastewater would be generated by maintenance workers using portable restrooms on site, which would be disposed of at a sewage treatment plant by the sanitation contractor. The limited amount of wastewater generated by the small number of workers on -site at one time would not substantially contribute to an exceedance of capacity at local wastewater treatment facilities. As such, implementation of the Program would not necessitate the expansion of any wastewater treatment facilities. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant. No mitigation is required. Open Space Maintenance and Restoration Program September 2021 1 3-215 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Midpeninsula Regional Attachment 1 Open Space District 3. Environmental Checklist d, e. Would the project generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals? Would the project comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste? Solid waste generated by the proposed Program activities would include excavated sediment from clearing culverts, ponds, streams, and drainage features; vegetative debris from vegetation management activities; trash and debris from other maintenance and facility improvement activities; hazardous materials such as asbestos and lead based paint from culverts, bridges, and other structures; and general refuse generated by Midpen workers. Removed sediment would be primarily used with Midpen lands or disposed of at an approved facility in accordance with applicable federal and state regulations. Prior to disposal, Midpen would test the material to determine the suitability for disposal or reuse. If suitable, Midpen may re -use the sediment on -site; at another wetland, channel, or restoration site; or reuse it at an upland area. If not suitable for reuse, the sediment may require landfill disposal or hazardous waste disposal. Excavated sediment may be stockpiled onsite for up to three working days so that it can be loaded into trucks for off -site disposal. Debris and materials from vegetation management activities would be processed using a masticator. The masticator would leave behind chips and pieces of shattered wood which would be hauled offsite to use as ground cover or erosion control in other areas. Midpen may also stockpile chips and other vegetative material at permanent composting sites near field offices for use on future projects. Generally, the proposed Program would not use local or regional composting facilities to dispose of vegetive materials. However, if off -site hauling is required, materials would be disposed of at a permitted facility that has capacity to accept the materials, such as the Newby Island or Zanker composting facilities. Otherwise, materials would be chipped on -site. Other organic materials would be distributed in upland areas similar to the surroundings of where the material was removed from. Removed hazardous materials, including asbestos, lead based paint, and soils with hazardous levels of contaminants would be disposed of at an appropriate hazardous waste disposal facility, discussed in more detail in Section 3.9 of this IS/MND. Trash, tires, and other debris may impair hydraulic conditions, reduce conveyance capacity, cause erosion or scour on banks, and/or threaten existing facilities. Midpen routinely removes such debris from channels, lakes, ponds, ditches, and other drainage features to improve hydraulic conditions. Removed debris would require disposal at an appropriate disposal facility. Other solid waste generated from Program activities including fence posts, watering troughs, pipes, metal infrastructure, and worker refuse would also require off -site disposal at an appropriate disposal facility. All waste and materials would be transported to local transfer stations to be sorted and separated in material that can be composted, recycled, or require landfill disposal. Because transfer stations prioritize reuse, recycling, and composing of incoming material, only a portion of the trash and debris would require disposal at a landfill facility. As described above, the Ox Mountain Landfill, Guadalupe Landfill, and Kirby Canyon Landfill all have sufficient capacity to dispose of any non -hazardous solid Open Space Maintenance and Restoration Program Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration September 2021 1 3-216 Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 3. Environmental Checklist Attachment 1 waste generated from the Program. Midpen has a Waste Diversion Policy that directs salvaging, recycling, and the proper disposal of all other materials. Midpen would implement the following BMPs, incorporated as part of the Program, to address temporary impacts associated with solid waste. Descriptions of each BMP are provided in Chapter 2, Project Description. ■ BMP GEN-7 Waste Management ■ BMP SWQ-1 Water Body Protection Measures ■ BMP GEN-5 Hazardous Materials Storage/ Disposal Implementation of the BMPs listed above would ensure that solid waste generated onsite would be stored and appropriately disposed of in accordance with all regulations related to solid waste. Implementation of the Program would not significantly affect permitted capacity of local or regional solid waste disposal services serving Midpen lands nor change existing levels of compliance with federal, state, and local regulations related to solid waste. For these reasons and with the implementation of the BMPs listed above, impacts associated with solid waste would be less than significant. No mitigation is required. Open Space Maintenance and Restoration Program September 2021 1 3-217 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 3. Environmental Checklist Attachment 1 This page intentionally left blank Open Space Maintenance and Restoration Program Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration September 2021 1 3-218 Midpeninsula Regional Attachment 1 Open Space District 3. Environmental Checklist 3.20 Wildfire Less than Significant Potentially with Less -than - Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project: a. Substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? b. Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project occupants to, pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire? c. Require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment? d. Expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post -fire slope instability, or drainage changes? 3.20.2 Environmental Setting The Office of the State Fire Marshal and the CAL FIRE administer state policies regarding wildland fire safety. Midpen staff and contractors must comply with applicable requirements in the Public Resources Code when implementing Program activities (i.e., routine maintenance, facility improvements, and restoration projects) at any sites with forest-, brush-, or grass -covered land. Additionally, Santa Mateo, Santa Clara, and Santa Cruz counties have established Hazard Mitigation Plans, which contain goals and policies to protect residents and structures from wildfires. The Program area lies within a combination of State and local responsibility areas generally identified by CAL FIRE as Very High and High FHSZs (CAL FIRE 2007). The OSPs in the northern portion of the Program area within central and southern San Mateo County as well as western Santa Clara County occur primarily in the Santa Cruz Mountains. These areas consist of rural land uses, are densely forested, and are highly susceptible to wildfire, particularly during the late summer and fall. These OSPs fall within a combination of High Open Space Maintenance and Restoration Program September 2021 1 3-219 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Midpeninsula Regional Attachment 1 Open Space District 3. Environmental Checklist and Very High FHSZs, with small areas designated as Moderate FHSZ and/or not rated. Midpen OSPs in the southern portion of the Program area within southwestern Santa Clara County occur within the Sierra Azul Range and the Santa Teresa Hills in densely forested areas. Due to a mix of topography, rural land uses, and vegetation, this portion of the Program area is also highly susceptible to wildfire. These OSPs fall within a combination of High and Very High FHSZs. Fire hazards present a considerable risk to vegetation and wildlife habitats throughout the Program area. Additionally, the potential for significant damage to life and property exists in areas designated as wildland-urban interface areas, where development is adjacent to densely vegetated areas. In the Program area, this can range from a few scattered houses to larger subdivisions or communities, which have the potential to become urban ignition sources as well as fire fuels (e.g., structures, vehicles, equipment, burn piles, barbeques, etc.) and pose a potential threat to OSPs (Midpen 2021). One of the primary anticipated outcomes of Midpen's recent Wildland Fire Resiliency Program is to reduce fire fuels that contribute to the risk of catastrophic wildfire and restore ecosystems by removing invasive plant species and/or dead and excessive accumulated vegetation due to past fire suppression. In recent years, the Santa Cruz Mountains have been prone to periodic wildfire events as a result of fire suppression, the introduction of invasive plant species, and changes in forest management (Fire Safe San Mateo County 2019). Significant fires in recent years in San Mateo County include the Skeggs Fire in 2017, which burned approximately 50 acres three miles west of the town of Woodside (CAL FIRE 2018), and the Cabrillo Fire in 2019, which burned 62 acres just south of Pescadero (CAL FIRE 2019). In August 2020, the CZU Lightening Complex fires burned a record 86,509 acres in San Mateo and Santa Cruz counties, resulting in one death, one injury, and the destruction of 1,490 structures. Numerous fires have occurred in Santa Clara County in recent years in proximity to the Program area, particularly in the Sierra Azul range. Prior to 2020, the most significant recent fire within proximity to the Program area was the Loma Fire in 2016, northwest of Morgan Hill, which burned 4,474 acres and destroyed 28 structures. In August 2020, the Crews Fire burned 5,513 acres north of Gilroy (CAL FIRE 2020), and the SCU Complex fires, the third largest in the State's history, burned 396,624 acres in eastern Santa Clara County and five other counties. The majority of the proposed Program activities would be conducted in areas where there is high to very high fire risk throughout San Mateo and Santa Clara counties, and a small portion of northern Santa Cruz County. Figure 3.9-1 shows the proposed Program area overlain with CAL FIRE FHSZs. 3.20.3 Discussion a. Substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? As described in Section 3-18, "Transportation," and Section 3-9, "Hazards and Hazardous Materials," proposed Program activities that include the operation of heavy equipment on roadways could potentially interfere with traffic movement and impair evacuation procedures in the event of an emergency, such as a wildfire. Such activities include sediment Open Space Maintenance and Restoration Program September 2021 1 3-220 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 3. Environmental Checklist Attachment 1 and debris removal, fallen and hazardous tree removal, culvert repair/replacement, vegetation management (e.g., brushing or mowing), and fuel management activities (e.g., prescribed burning and maintenance of fuel breaks). Temporary lane closures and operation of heavy equipment on public roadways could potentially impede movement of fire apparatus and vehicles, as well as residents attempting to flee a wildfire. Hindering evacuation and emergency response represents a potentially significant impact. Mitigation Measure TRANS -1 requires Midpen to make provisions to allow emergency responders through any work area or clearly designate alternate routes. Minimal delays, lasting a few minutes, could occur while crews reposition equipment and vehicles to ensure adequate room for emergency vehicle passage. Mitigation Measure TRANS -1 would ensure that unattended authorized work vehicles are not parked in such a way that blocks the road when there are no operators in attendance to move them and that the fire district and emergency - response agencies have prior notification of temporary access road closures. With implementation of Mitigation Measure TRANS -1, impacts associated with the interference of an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan would be less than significant with mitigation. b, d. Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby, expose project occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire / Expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post fire slope instability, or drainage changes? Program activities would not involve placement of people or habitable structures in areas without adequate fire protection. Additionally, proposed Program activities would not result in the creation of new wildland areas which could increase fire dangers. Rather, the proposed Program involves primarily routine maintenance activities, many of which would reduce potential wildland fire risks. In particular, fuel management activities such as maintaining disclines, shaded fuel breaks, and defensible space around buildings would help protect people, structures, and habitat from wildfire risks. Additionally, prescribed burns would help restore native upland habitats and control invasive vegetation, further reducing the likelihood of wildfires on Midpen lands. Additionally, maintenance activities such as downed tree management, erosion protection, and bank stabilization would minimize downstream flooding or landslides that could occur in the aftermath of a wildfire in the vicinity of the proposed Program. Because Program activities involving the use of vehicles and equipment would be conducted during the dry summer months when fire danger is the highest, there is a potential for an accidental ignition of a wildland fire. To ensure that necessary precautions are taken to reduce such risks, Midpen would implement BMP GEN-17: Fire Prevention (described in Chapter 2, Project Description), which would reduce potential wildland fire impacts associated with those activities by requiring on -site fire suppression equipment, spark arrestors on all equipment with internal combustion engines, and restricting activities on high fire danger days. Additionally, Midpen would conduct prescribed burns prior to the peak of wildfire season, which could also ignite a wildfire if not controlled properly. Prescribed burns and related fuel Open Space Maintenance and Restoration Program Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration September 2021 1 3-221 Midpeninsula Regional Attachment 1 Open Space District 3. Environmental Checklist management activities under the proposed Program would be performed consistent with the methodologies and requirements of Midpen's Wildland Fire Resiliency Program. The purpose of the Wildland Fire Resiliency Program is, in large part, to reduce fuel loads and wildland- fire risks on Midpen lands compared with the baseline conditions. The analysis of wildland fire impacts associated prescribed burns and other fuel management activities is covered in the Wildland Fire Resiliency Program EIR (Panorama 2021). With implementation of BMP GEN-17, adherence to State and local regulations, and compliance with Midpen's Wildland Fire Resiliency Program, the proposed Program would neither exacerbate wildfire risks and expose Program occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire, nor would it expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides. The proposed Program would reduce the risks and hazards associated with wildfire. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant. No mitigation is required. c. Require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment? The proposed Program would, by design, involve maintenance of infrastructure that would benefit the natural environment and ultimately achieve Program outcomes described in Chapter 2, Project Description. Maintenance activities specifically intended to reduce wildfire fuel loads such as discing adjacent to major roads/highways, grasslands along the wildland- urban interface areas, and around Midpen buildings; and maintenance of shaded fuel breaks along roads and road -width trails, staging areas, and helicopter landing zones would be beneficial by limiting the potential for wildland fires on Midpen lands and adjacent areas of residential development. Similarly, maintenance and replacement of existing infrastructure such as culverts, bridges, roadside drainage features, as well as re-routes of roads and trails, would both ensure access is maintained for emergency responders while also reducing soil disturbances, erosion, and water quality impacts. Additionally, the proposed Program would involve water infrastructure improvements, such as repairing spring boxes, water lines, and/or storage tanks. Such activities would support conservation grazing efforts and also ensure availability of an onsite water supply in the event of an emergency. Program activities would be conducted using a range of equipment, including mechanical tools such as tractors, brushcutters, chainsaws, chippers, masticators, to heavier equipment such as dozers, loaders, and excavators, which could temporarily exacerbate fire risk and potentially cause a fire in adjacent wildland fuel areas. As discussed above and in Section 3.9, "Hazards and Hazardous Materials," implementation of BMP GEN-17: Fire Prevention would minimize potential impacts associated with activities involving the use of vehicles and heavy equipment by requiring on -site fire suppression equipment, spark arrestors on all equipment with internal combustion engines, requiring a 10 -foot distance between flammable materials and any equipment that could produce a spark, and requiring a 25 -foot distance between portable tools powered by gasoline -fueled internal combustion engines and flammable materials. Additionally, BMP GEN-17 also includes specific protocols for the use of mechanical equipment in high fire risk areas, including restricting operation to outside the Open Space Maintenance and Restoration Program September 2021 1 3-222 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 3. Environmental Checklist Attachment 1 fire season (i.e., May 1 - November 30) when possible, and monitoring weather conditions prior to any high -risk activity. The maintenance of infrastructure associated with the proposed Program would ultimately help Midpen achieve its conservation goals and reduce the risk of wildland fires. Additionally, implementation of BMP GEN-17, would reduce potential impacts related to the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure that could exacerbate fire risk or result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant. No mitigation is required. Open Space Maintenance and Restoration Program September 2021 1 3-223 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 3. Environmental Checklist Attachment 1 This page intentionally left blank Open Space Maintenance and Restoration Program Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration September 2021 1 3-224 10-k Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 3. Environmental Checklist Attachment 1 3.21 Mandatory Findings of Significance Less than Significant Potentially with Less -than - Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact b. Does the Project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? c. Does the Project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.) d. Does the Project have environmental effects that will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? 3.21.1 Discussion a. Does the project have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? As discussed throughout this IS/MND, significant but mitigatable impacts were identified for biological resources; geology, soils, and seismicity; hazards and hazardous materials; noise; and transportation. With implementation of BMPs identified in Appendix A and Mitigation Measures BIO-1, BIO-2, GEO-1, HAZ-1, HAZ-2, NOI-1, and TRANS -1, the proposed Program would not have the potential to substantially reduce the habitat of fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered Open Space Maintenance and Restoration Program September 2021 1 3-225 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 3. Environmental Checklist Attachment 1 plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant with mitigation. b. Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.) A cumulative impact refers to the combined effect of "two or more individual effects which, when considered together, are considerable or which compound or increase other environmental impacts" (State CEQA Guidelines Section 15355). As defined by the State of California, cumulative impacts reflect "the change in the environment which results from the incremental impact of the project when added to other closely related past, present, and reasonably foreseeable probable future projects. Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but collectively significant projects taking place over a period of time." (State CEQA Guidelines Section 15355[b]). The following cumulative analysis evaluates the potential cumulative impacts from the proposed Program in combination with other related past, present, and probable future projects in the area, shown in Table 3.21-1. Open Space Maintenance and Restoration Program Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration September 2021 1 3-226 Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Table 3.21-1. Summary of Cumulative Projects in Midpen Lands and Surrounding Area Attachment 1 3. Environmental Checklist No. Project Name Description Planned or Expected Date 1 Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Integrated Pest Management Program (IPMP) The IPMP outlines management of all pests on Midpen lands. The IPMP also includes some rodent and insect pest management strategies at Midpen-owned structures. The IPMP involves use of manual and mechanical treatments as well as chemical methods, such as pesticides, herbicides, and insecticides. Ongoing since 2014 2 Forest Management Projects Midpen conducts forest management practices through various programs and plans including: • Los Trancos — Page Mill Eucalyptus Removal • Restoration Forestry Demonstration Project. Early phases of planning/ implementation 3 Preserve and Master Plans Midpen conducts specific OSP projects such as habitat restoration and recreational facility improvements through Preserve Plans including: • Bear Creek Redwoods Preserve Plan • La Honda Creek Master Plan • Hawthorns Area Plan • Mindego Ranch Use and Management Plan • Mt Umunhum Restoration and Public Access Site Plan • Ravenswood Comprehensive Use and Management Plan • Skyline Master Plan Ongoing or in Progress Open Space Maintenance and Restoration Program Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration September 2021 1 3-227 Midpeninsula Regional Attachment 1 Open Space District 3. Environmental Checklist No. Project Name Description Panne' or Expette 4 Natural Resource Protection and Restoration Projects Midpen implements numerous projects identified as key project portfolios in Midpen's Vision Plan including: ■ Mount Umunhum Environmental Restoration and Public Access Project ■ Miramontes Ridge: Gateway to the San Mateo Coast Public Access, Stream Restoration, and Agriculture Enhancement Projects ■ Purisima Creek Redwoods: Purisima-to-Sea Trail Completion, Watershed Protection, and Conservation Grazing Projects ■ La Honda Creek: Upper Area Recreation, Habitat Restoration, and Conservation Grazing Projects ■ La Honda Creek: Driscoll Ranch Area Public Access, Endangered Wildlife Protection, and Conservation Grazing Projects ■ Russian Ridge: Public Recreation, Grazing, and Wildlife Protection Projects ■ Cloverdale Ranch: Wildlife Protection, Grazing, and Trail Connections ■ Regional: Redwood Protection and Salmon Fishery Conservation ■ Long Ridge: Trail, Conservation, and Habitat Restoration Projects ■ Various additional small creek, pond, and tree restoration projects Ongoing Open Space Maintenance and Restoration Program September 2021 1 3-228 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Midpeninsula Regional Attachment 1 Open Space District 3. Environmental Checklist S Regional Trails, Public Access, and Education Projects Midpen implements many public access improvement projects throughout Midpen lands. Midpen has identified the following regional trail and public access projects, some of which were identified in Midpen's Vision Plan: ■ Coal Creek: Reopen Alpine Road for Trail Use ■ Beatty Parking Area and Trail Connections Project ■ Bear Creek Redwoods: Public Recreation and Facilities Projects ■ Highway 17 Wildlife and Regional Trail Crossings ■ Highway 17 Bay Area Ridge Trail Connections ■ Ravenswood Bay Trail Project ■ El Corte de Madera Creek: Bike Trail and Water Quality Projects ■ El Sereno: Dog Trails and Connections ■ Windy Hill: Trail Improvements and Preservation ■ Hawthorns Public Access Project ■ La Honda Creek/Russian Ridge: Preservation of Upper San Gregorio Watershed and Ridge Trail Completion ■ Peninsula and South Bay Cities: Partner to Complete Middle Stevens Creek Trail ■ Develop trails between Butano State Park, Pescadero Creek County Park, and Russian Ridge OSP, and between Skyline Ridge OSP, Portola Redwoods State Park, and Big Basin State Park ■ Regional: Complete Upper Stevens Creek Trail ■ South Bay Foothills: Saratoga -to -Sea Trail and Wildlife Corridor ■ Sierra Azul: Cathedral Oaks Public Access and Conservation Projects ■ Sierra Azul: Rancho de Guadalupe Family Recreation and Interpretive Projects ■ Sierra Azul: Loma Prieta Area Public Access, Regional Trails, and Habitat Projects Ongoing Open Space Maintenance and Restoration Program Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration September 2021 1 3-229 Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Attachment 1 3. Environmental Checklist No. Project Name Description Panneor Expected ate 6 Infrastructure Improvement Projects Midpen proposes several infrastructure improvement projects within Midpen lands, including: • Midpen Office Building Project • South Area Office (Campbell) • American Disabilities Act (ADA) Self -Evaluation and Transition Plan Update Implementation • La Honda Parking and Trailhead Feasibility Study and Short-term Measures • Rancho San Antonio: Interpretive Improvements and Refurbishing • Rancho San Antonio Multimodal Access Project Implementation • Purisima Creek Redwoods Multimodal Access Study • Highway 35 Multiuse Trail Crossing and Parking Feasibility Study • Mount Umunhum Radar Tower Project • Sierra Azul Ranger Residence • Solar Panels Installation at Skyline Field Office • Various additional grazing infrastructure projects • Various residential and structural maintenance and repairs projects (e.g. Hawthorns Historic House re - roof, Thornewood Historic Estate, La Honda White Barn stabilization, Rancho San Antonio Deer Hollow Farm White Barn stabilization, etc.) Ongoing 7 Wildland Fire Resiliency Program This program includes managing vegetation and infrastructure on Midpen lands to reduce wildland fire risks. Vegetation would be managed primarily with manual and mechanical methods, prescribed herbivory, and herbicides. Manual and mechanical methods include mowing, cutting, discing, masticating, pile burning, chipping, and flaming. Treatment types include fuelbreaks, evacuation routes, disclines, defensible space, invasive species removal, and prescribed burns. Planned implementation date of May 2021( Open Space Maintenance and Restoration Program Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration September 2021 1 3-230 Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Attachment 1 3. Environmental Checklist No. Project Name Description Planned or Expected Date 8 Memorial County Park Facility Improvement Project This project includes constructing a new restroom and shower buildings, resurfacing park roads, improving paths of travel, and accessible features that are ADA compliant. It is the first facility improvement project in Memorial County Park. Memorial County Park is located near La Honda Creek OSP. Under construction — anticipated to be complete summer 2021. 9 Memorial Park Wastewater Treatment Facilities Improvement Project This project would replace Memorial County Park's existing wastewater treatment plant facility and septic system with a new wastewater treatment plant. The collection system would also be repaired and pipe sections and manholes would be replaced to fix structural defects and reduce infiltration and inflow. Under construction -- complete October 2020. 10 Ohlone-Portola Heritage Trail Project This project will construct or use existing public trails for a 90 - mile Ohlone-Portola Heritage Trail alignment through San Mateo County. The trail will use segments of the California Coastal Trail, existing sidewalks and/or trails on POST and Midpen lands, state and County park, and the Golden Gate National Recreation Area. Project was approved by San Mateo County Board of Supervisors in June 2019. Currently in early stages of planning. 11 Tunitas Creek Beach Improvement Project This project will provide safe public access to Tunitas Creek Beach including improved environmental protection, equity and inclusion, education and environmental awareness, and outdoor experiences. Undergoing design 12 Sanborn County Park Master Plan This master plan provides for long range development and management of the park while balancing protecting natural resources. Implementation is underway Open Space Maintenance and Restoration Program Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration September 2021 1 3-231 Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Attachment 1 3. Environmental Checklist No. Project Name Description Planned or Expected Date 13 San Francisco Public Utilities Commission Southern Skyline Boulevard Bay Area Ridge Trail Extension Project This project will construct a new trail extension on the Peninsula Watershed that would link the existing Fifield-Cahill Ridge Trail with the Golden Gate Recreation Area (GGNRA) Phleger estate to the south in the future. The proposed Southern Skyline Boulevard Ridge Trail Extension would parallel upper Highway 35 from Highway 92 south to the Phleger Estate. The new extension would add six new trail miles, creating a single 16.5 -mile trail through the Peninsula Watershed when combined with the existing 10 -mile Fifield- Cahill Ridge Trail. City and County of San Francisco Planning Commission certified EIR in 2021. San Francisco Public Utilities Commission approved project in 2021. Final design is underway, and construction anticipated in 2022. Source: Panorama 2021. Open Space Maintenance and Restoration Program September 2021 1 3-232 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration IIIMidpeninsula Regional Attachment 1 Open Space District 3. Environmental Checklist Impacts Avoided The proposed Program would have no impact on the following resources and would therefore not contribute to potential cumulative impacts on these resources: • Agriculture and Forestry Resources • Mineral Resources • Population and Housing Cumulative Impacts Aesthetics Although temporary visual impacts would occur from the presence of personnel, equipment, staging, earthwork, and other Program -related activities, these activities would be temporary and would not result in significant visual impacts. Over the long term, visual conditions of Midpen facilities would generally improve as a result of implementation of the proposed Program (e.g., repairing dilapidated/failed culverts, removing trash and debris from ponds/channels, enhancing riparian habitat, etc.). For these reasons, the Program would not contribute to a cumulatively significant impact related to aesthetics. Air Quality Vehicles and other off -road equipment used for Program activities would cause daily and annual emissions of criteria air pollutants. As discussed in Section 3.3, "Air Quality," daily emissions of all criteria air pollutants are not significant/substantial because annual emissions would be well below annual BAAQMD and MBARD significance thresholds. These significance thresholds take into account the levels at which a project's individual emissions would be cumulatively considerable. If a project exceeds the identified significance thresholds, its emissions would be cumulatively considerable, resulting in significant adverse air quality impacts to the region's existing air quality conditions. As such, the BAAQMD and MBARD thresholds utilized also represent cumulative thresholds. Like the Program, the other projects identified in Table 3.21-1 would also generate criteria air pollutants subject to BAAQMD and MBARD thresholds. Therefore, because the proposed Project emissions would be below BAAQMD and MBARD significance thresholds, the proposed Project would not make a considerable contribution to cumulative impacts related to regional air quality. Biological Resources Program activities would occur in similar habitats to some of the other projects identified in Table 3.21-1. Thus, the Program could result in similar habitat impacts, including impacts to riparian areas, oak woodland, wetlands, and riverine aquatic habitat as the other cumulative projects. Midpen actively manages their lands to protect and restore the natural environment; thus, the vast majority of the proposed Program activities benefit listed species and their habitats (e.g., pond de -sedimentation, trash and debris removal, invasive species removal, etc.). Open Space Maintenance and Restoration Program September 2021 1 3-233 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration IIIMidpeninsula Regional Attachment 1 Open Space District 3. Environmental Checklist Although the Program may impact biological resources, most impacts would be temporary. Some permanent loss of habitat could occur as well as impacts to special -status species and habitat as a result of the proposed Program activities. These impacts would be reduced through implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO-1 and BIO-2 and Program BMPs. Further, any permanent impacts associated with Program activities would be offset through the various enhancement and restoration activities included under the Program. Given that (1) the nature of the Program, Midpen's mission and adopted Resource Management Policies (Midpen 2021), and the intent of other planned Midpen projects is to protect and restore the natural environment, (2) the Program's long-term effects on biological resources would be beneficial, and (3) the impacts of the Program would be effectively mitigated, the Program would not have a cumulatively considerable impact to biological resources. Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources Many of the other cumulative projects identified in Table 3.21-1 may involve some amount of ground disturbance, and thus may have the potential to uncovered buried archaeological resources, some of which could be TCRs. If proper protocols were not followed, this could result in adverse effects on cultural resources and TCRs. Additionally, similar to the proposed Program, none of the cumulative projects would be anticipated to significantly affect known built environment resources or substantially change a place or landscape. Also, natural resource, restoration, and infrastructure improvement projects would generally have less of a potential to adversely affect cultural resources and TCRs than other typical development projects in the region, such as housing developments. Given implementation of BMPs, significant effects on cultural resources and TCRs from the proposed Program would be avoided or minimized. Overall, the Program would not have a cumulatively considerable impact on cultural resources or TCRs. Energy Most of the other cumulative projects identified in Table 3.21-1 would involve operation of construction equipment and use of energy in the form of fossil fuels. However, similar to the proposed Program, the energy use associated with these other projects would be temporary. None of the projects would include construction of housing, buildings, or commercial or industrial uses that could create a substantial long-term demand for energy. As such, and given the fact that the Program's energy use would be relatively minor and similar to existing conditions, the Program would not have a cumulatively considerable impact to energy. Geology, Soils, and Seismicity Midpen lands and the surrounding area are located in a seismically active region that may be susceptible to seismic -related ground shaking and ground failure, as well as other geologic hazards including landslides. Although construction workers and recreationalists may be exposed to seismic -related hazards when conducting Program activities and recreating in the area, the proposed Program and other cumulative projects would not exacerbate existing seismic hazards, such as ground shaking. Further, no habitable structures would be constructed under the proposed Program or cumulative projects listed in Table 3.21-1. Program activities and other cumulative projects that disturb large areas located in unstable, landslide prone locations could cause landsliding. Implementation of Mitigation Measure Open Space Maintenance and Restoration Program September 2021 1 3-234 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration IIIMidpeninsula Regional Attachment 1 Open Space District 3. Environmental Checklist GEO-1 would require that erosion and slope stabilization measures are implemented in areas susceptible to erosion and instability. Similar requirements would be required for other cumulative projects located in landslide prone areas of the Santa Cruz Mountains in accordance with state and local regulations. Although the other cumulative projects shown in Table 3.21-1 may involve earthmoving activities, none of these projects would be expected to result in a substantial loss of topsoil. Implementation of BMPs would prevent or minimize Program -related effects on soils (e.g., erosion) and paleontological resources. Lastly, one of the benefits of the proposed Program is to maintain the functional integrity of Midpen facilities to prevent detrimental effects and to enhance the natural environment. As such, the proposed Program would not contribute to a cumulatively significant impact regarding geology, soils, and seismicity. Greenhouse Gas Emissions GHGs are cumulative in nature and the cumulative impact from GHG production at a global scale is significant. The proposed Program would generate GHG emissions during Program activities; however, these activities would be limited in nature and duration, similar to activities conducted in the existing condition and be required to comply with state and local regulations. Similar to the Program, the other projects identified in Table 3.21-1 would also generate GHG emission; however, these would be temporary and would be required to comply with state and local regulations. Thus, the proposed Program would not contribute to a cumulatively significant impact to greenhouse gas emissions. Hazards and Hazardous Materials Similar to the proposed Program, other cumulative projects would be required to comply with standard federal, state, and local requirements to minimize impacts related to hazardous materials. The other cumulative projects listed in Table 3.21-1 would be expected to use hazardous materials during construction and operation of construction equipment, and certain projects may involve the use of herbicides over the longer term for vegetation management. All herbicide application is required to comply with federal, state and local standards and label specifications. Midpen also aims to reduce per -acre pesticides use at individual sites in natural areas over time. As described in Section 3.9, "Hazards and Hazardous Materials," Program activities would be of short duration. Implementation of Mitigation Measures HAZ-1 and HAZ-2 would ensure that maintenance workers and the public are protected from any contaminated soils, sediment, or groundwater encountered during Program activities and any contamination associated with known hazardous materials cleanup sites in proximity to proposed activities. Given the above, the proposed Program would not substantially contribute to a cumulatively significantly impact related to hazards and hazardous materials. Hydrology and Water Quality Similar to the proposed Program, many of the other cumulative projects identified in Table 3.21-1 would benefit hydrology and water quality over the long term through enhancing riparian habitat and managing overgrown or invasive vegetation. Short-term construction - related impacts could occur, and many of the streams in Midpen lands are impaired for various constituents. As described Section 3.10, "Hydrology and Water Quality," the proposed Open Space Maintenance and Restoration Program September 2021 1 3-235 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration IIIMidpeninsula Regional Attachment 1 Open Space District 3. Environmental Checklist Program would implement BMPs to minimize potential construction -related impacts on hydrology and water quality. The proposed Program would also not include any new significant amounts of impervious surface that would generate additional runoff and create potential for generation of polluted stormwater. Given the long-term benefits of the Program and implementation of effective BMPs, the proposed Program would not substantially contribute to a cumulatively significant impact related to hydrology and water quality. Land Use and Planning The proposed Program would not divide an established community or conflict with existing land use plans or policies. Similar to the proposed Program, other identified cumulative projects would not include substantial above -ground structures or developments and would be primarily limited to habitat restoration and public access improvements. Thus, the proposed Program would not contribute to a cumulatively significant impact related to land use. Noise Similar to the proposed Program, the other cumulative projects identified in Table 3.21-1 would generate construction noise similar to or greater than the proposed Program. As described in Section 3.13, "Noise", noise generated during Program activities would be temporary and of short duration at any given location and generally localized. All Program activities would occur during normal work hours, in compliance with the relevant jurisdictions' noise standards. Implementation of Mitigation Measure NOI-1 would ensure that noise control measures are implemented in locations in close proximity to sensitive receptors. Further, the proposed Program would not permanently increase noise levels above the existing condition. For the reasons above, the proposed Program would not result in a cumulatively significant impact related to noise. Public Services The other cumulative projects identified in Table 3.21-1 would have limited potential to adversely affect public services, as these projects would not induce population growth (i.e., would not include housing, generate new permanent jobs, or remove barriers to growth) such as to increase demand for public services or directly impact any fire protection, police protection, school, or park facilities. Population density and public service facilities are variable throughout the Program area and cumulative impacts are likely to be more location - specific. While the proposed Program could increase fire risk from operation of internal combustion engine equipment in vegetated areas, compliance with applicable requirements (e.g., CAL FIRE) and implementation of BMPs would minimize this potential risk and any associated impacts on fire protection services. The proposed Program and other cumulative projects would not adversely affect other types of public services (e.g., police, schools, parks). Therefore, the proposed Program would not contribute to a cumulatively significant impact to public services. Recreation The proposed Program would not induce population growth that would result in a significant increased use of recreation facilities in the Program area. The proposed Program may result Open Space Maintenance and Restoration Program September 2021 1 3-236 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration IIIMidpeninsula Regional Attachment 1 Open Space District 3. Environmental Checklist in temporary disruptions to recreational trails and facilities; however, these activities would be of short duration. In addition, Midpen lands and surrounding state and County parks have a large number of trails and recreational facilities; thus, Program activities would not significantly affect the availability of public trails or recreational facilities. Similar to the proposed Program, other cumulative projects involve public access improvements that would increase recreational access and improve recreational facilities and opportunities throughout Midpen lands. Overall, the proposed Program would not contribute to a cumulatively significant impact related to recreation. Transportation During Program activities, the proposed Program would contribute some vehicle traffic to local roadways (e.g., vehicle trips to work sites and truck haul trips); however, the vehicle traffic and VMT from the proposed Program would be similar to existing conditions and the ongoing work conducted by Midpen. In addition, these trips would be spread over an area of approximately 64,000 acres and would not have an appreciable effect on the circulation system. For any activities occurring on or near roads that would result in temporary closures, appropriate traffic controls would be implemented to maintain traffic flow (particularly for emergency responders) and reduce potential safety hazards through implementation of Mitigation Measure TRANS -1. In general, traffic conditions throughout the region are variable and congestion -related cumulative impacts would be relatively localized. Some of the other cumulative projects listed in Table 3.21-1 may generate haul truck trips, but like the proposed Program would not create substantial long-term vehicle trips or VMT. As a result, the proposed Program would not contribute to a cumulatively significant impact related to transportation. Utilities and Service Systems The proposed Program would not directly nor indirectly induce growth in the Program area and therefore would not increase the cumulative demand for utilities and service systems. Given that the other cumulative projects identified in Table 3.21-1 would not include any housing or similar land uses that would require permanent water, wastewater, electricity, or other utilities services, these projects also would not increase cumulative demand for utilities and service systems. Any temporary need for water or wastewater service during construction or Program activities and other cumulative projects would be limited and would have no potential to substantially contribute to an exceedance in capacity or need for additional entitlements or sources. Therefore, the proposed Program would not contribute to a cumulatively significant impact to utilities and service systems. Wildfire As discussed under Section 3.20, "Wildfire," although Program activities would occur within very high or high fire hazard severity zones, compliance with applicable requirements and implementation of BMPs during Program activities would minimize the risk of accidental ignition of a wildfire. Further, the proposed Program includes activities such as maintaining disclines, shaded fuel breaks, and defensible spaces around buildings and other vegetation management activities that would protect people, structures, and habitat from wildfire risks. Similar to the proposed Program, other cumulative projects would be required to implement Open Space Maintenance and Restoration Program September 2021 1 3-237 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 3. Environmental Checklist Attachment 1 fire safety measures during construction activities, such that these projects would not substantially exacerbate wildfire risks. Over the long term, these projects would not establish land uses that could increase overall wildfire risk or place new people or structures in areas susceptible to wildfire. Therefore, the proposed Program would not contribute to a cumulatively significant impact to wildlife. Summary Based on the cumulative impact analysis provided above, and with implementation of BMPs and mitigation measures included herein, the proposed Program would not result in any significant cumulative environmental impacts. This impact would be less than significant with mitigation. c. Does the project have environmental effects, which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Based on the analysis provided in the above resource sections, the proposed Program would result in less than significant impacts for the following resources topics: aesthetics, air quality, energy, greenhouse gas, hydrology and water quality, land use, public services, recreation, utilities and service systems, and wildfire. Mitigation measures pertaining to biological resources, geology, soils, and seismicity, hazards and hazardous materials, noise, and transportation would reduce Program -related impacts to a less than significant level. As such, implementation of the already identified mitigation measures would ensure that the effects on human beings would be less than significant with mitigation. Open Space Maintenance and Restoration Program September 2021 1 3-238 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Attachment 1 Chapter 4 REPORT PREPARATION Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 330 Distel Circle Los Altos, CA 94022 (650) 691-1200 Aaron Hebert Senior Resource Management Specialist, Natural Resources Department Julie Andersen Senior Resource Management Specialist, Natural Resources Department Horizon Water and Environment, LLC 266 Grand Avenue, Suite 210 Oakland, CA 94610 (510) 986-1840 Jeff Thomas Principal, Project Manager Bridget Lillis Associate Consultant Janis Offermann Cultural Resources Specialist Johnnie Chamberlin Associate Consultant Robin Hunter Associate Biologist Alex Wolk Associate Consultant Lorrie Jo Williams Editor Open Space Maintenance and Restoration Program September 2021 1 4-1 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Midpeninsula Regional Attachment 1 Open Space District 4. Report Preparation This page intentionally left blank Open Space Maintenance and Restoration Program September 2021 1 4-2 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Attachment 1 Chapter 5 REFERENCES Chapter 1, Introduction None. Chapter 2, Project Description Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District. 2011. Defensible Space Clearing Guidelines. November. Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District. 2012. Wildfire Management Policy. Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District. 2014. Integrated Pest Management Program Guidance Manual. Prepared May & Associates, Shelterbelt Builders, and by Ascent Environmental. September. Available at: https://www.openspace.org/sites/default/files/IPM Guidance Manual.pdf. Accessed May 12, 2021. Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District. 2021a. Grazing Management Policy. Available at: https://www.openspace.org/sites/default/files/20210210_GMPA_R21-22.pdf. Accessed June 25, 2021. Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District. 2021b. Resource Management Policies. February. Available at: https://www.openspace.org/sites/default/files/Resource Management Policies.pd f. Accessed May 12, 2021. Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District. 2021c. Wildland Fire Resiliency Program. May. Available at: https://www.openspace.org/sites/default/files/WFRP Table of Contents F.pdf. Accessed June 29, 2021. Midpen. See Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District. Open Space Maintenance and Restoration Program September 2021 1 5-1 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Chapter 3, Environmental Checklist Attachment 1 5. References Section 3.1, Aesthetics California Department of Transportation. 2021. Scenic Highways. Available at: https://dot.ca.gov/programs/design/lap-landscape-architecture-and-community- livability/lap-liv-i-scenic-highways. Accessed February 3, 2021. Caltrans. See California Department of Transportation. San Mateo County Planning and Building Division. 1986. General Plan. Available at: https://planning.smcgov.org/sites/planning.smcgov.org/files/SMC- GP%201986.pdf. Accessed February 3, 2021. Santa Clara County. 1994. Santa Clara County General Plan 1995-2010. Available at: https://www.sccgov.org/sites/dpd/DocsForms/Documents/GP Book B.pdf. Accessed February 3, 2021. Panorama Environmental, Inc. 2021. Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Wildland Fire Resiliency Program Environmental Impact Report. SCH #2020049059. April. Available at: https://www.openspace.org/our-work/projects/wfrp. Accessed April 29, 2021. Section 3.2, Agricultural Resources and Forestry California Department of Conservation. 2016. California Important Farmland Finder. Available at: https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/DLRP/CIFF/. Last accessed January 28, 2021. CDOC. See California Department of Conservation. Panorama Environmental, Inc. 2021. Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Wildland Fire Resiliency Program Environmental Impact Report. SCH #2020049059. April. Available at: https://www.openspace.org/our-work/projects/wfrp. Accessed April 29, 2021. Section 3.3, Air Quality Bay Area Air Quality Management District. 2017a. California Environmental Quality Act, Air Quality Guidelines. Available at: https://www.baagmd.gov/—/media/files/planning-and- research/ceqa/cega guidelines may2017-pdf.pdf?la=en. Accessed December 1, 2020. Bay Area Air Quality Management District. 2017b. Air Quality Standards and Attainment Status. Available at: https://www.baagmd.gov/about-air-quality/research-and- data/air-quality-standards-and-attainment-status. Accessed December 1, 2020. BAAQMD. See Bay Area Air Quality Management District. Open Space Maintenance and Restoration Program September 2021 1 5-2 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Attachment 1 5. References California Air Resources Board. 2005. Air Quality and Land Use Handbook. Available at: https://ww3.arb.ca.gov/ch/handbook.pdf. Accessed April 5, 2021. California Air Resources Board. 2011. Appendix 1 Five Factor Analyses for California Air Basins. Available at: https://www.arb.ca.gov/desig/so2al.pdf. Accessed May 17, 2021. California Air Resources Board. 2019. Summaries of Historical Area Designations for State Standards. Available at: https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/our-work/programs/state-and- federal-area-designations/state-area-designations/summary-tables. Accessed December 1, 2020. CARB. See California Air Resources Board. Jennings, C.W., Strand, R.G., and Rogers, T.H. 1977. Geologic map of California: California Division of Mines and Geology. Available at: https://mrdata.usgs.gov/geology/state/state.php?state=CA. Accessed April 5, 2021. Monterey Bay Unified Air Pollution Control District. 2008. CEQA Air Quality Guidelines. Available at: https://www.mbard.org/files/f665829d1/CEQA full+%281%29.pdf. Accessed December 1, 2020. MBUAPCD. See Monterey Bay Unified Air Pollution Control District. United States Environmental Protection Agency. 2020. Green Book. Available at: https://www3.epa.gov/airquality/greenbook/anayo ca.html. Accessed December 1, 2020. USEPA. See United States Environmental Protection Agency. Section 3.4, Biological Resources APLIC and USFWS. 2005. Avian Protection Plan Guidelines. April. Brabb, E.E., Graymer, R.W. and Jones, D.L. 2000. Geologic Map and Map Database of the Palo Alto 30' x 60' Quadrangle, California. Miscellaneous Field Map Studies Map MF-2332 U.S. Geological Survey. Calflora. 2019. Web application. Berkeley, California: The Calflora Database. Available at: https://www.calflora.org/. California Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2015. Recovery Strategy for California Coho Salmon Progress Report 2004-2012. California Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2020a. California Natural Community List. September 9, 2020. Available at: https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Data/VegCAMP/Natural-Communities. Accessed December 18, 2020. Open Space Maintenance and Restoration Program September 2021 1 5-3 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Attachment 1 5. References California Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2020b. California Natural Diversity Database. Available at: https://wildlife.ca.gov/Data/CNDDB. Accessed December 2020. CDFW. See California Department of Fish and Wildlife California Native Plant Society. 2020. CNPS Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants of California. Retrieved from http://www.rareplants.cnps.org/. CNPS. See California Native Plant Society Center for Ecosystem Management and Restoration. 2008. Steelhead/Rainbow Trout Resources of San Mateo County. Prepared for the California Coastal Conservancy. Consortium of California Herbaria. 2019. Data provided by the participants of the Consortium of California Herbaria. Regents of the University of California, Berkeley. Website. Available at: https://ucjeps.berkeley.edu/consortium/. Accessed September 2019. CCH1. See Consortium of California Herbaria San Mateo County. 2021a. Tree Ordinances Update Project. Available at: https://planning.smcgov.org/tree-ordinances-update-project. Accessed March 23, 2021. San Mateo County. 2021b. Interim Significant and Heritage Tree Regulations Amendments. Available at: https://planning.smcgov.org/interim-significant-and-heritage-tree- regulations-amendments. Accessed March 23, 2021. Cornell Lab of Ornithology. 2021. eBird. Ithaca, New York. Available at: http://www.ebird.org. Accessed February 2, 2021. Friends of Edgewood. 2021. Bay Checkerspot Butterfly. Available at: https://friendsofedgewood.org/learn-about-edgewood-park/bay-checkerspot- butterfly. Accessed May 24, 2021. Gregory S. V., F. J. Swanson, W. A. McKee, and K. W. Cummins. 1991. An ecosystem perspective of riparian zones. Bioscience, 540-551. Griffith, G., Omernik, J., Smith, D., & Cook, T. 2016. Ecoregions of California (poster): U.S. Geological Survey Open -File Report 2016-1021, with map, scale 1:1,100,000. Retrieved from https://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/ofr20161021. Holland, R. 1986. Preliminary descriptions of the terrestrial natural communities of California. Unpublished document, California Department of Fish and Game, Natural Heritage Division. Sacramento, CA. Open Space Maintenance and Restoration Program September 2021 15-4 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Attachment 1 5. References H.T. Harvey and Associates. 2021. Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Open Space Maintenance and Restoration Program Biological Assessment Covering the California Red -legged Frog, California Tiger Salamander, San Francisco Garter Snake, and Marbled Murrelet. April 21. ICF International. 2012. Final Santa Clara Valley Habitat Plan. Prepared for the City of Gilroy, City of Morgan Hill, City of San Jose, County of Santa Clara, Santa Clara Valley Transportation Agency, and Santa Clara Valley Water District. August 2012. iNaturalist [website]. 2019. Available at: https://www.inaturalist.org/. Accessed October 31, 2019. Kruckeberg, A.R. 1984. California Serpentines: Flora, Vegetation, Geology, Soils, and Management Problems. University of California Press. Leidy, R.A. 2007. Ecology, Assemblage Structure, Distribution, and Status of Fishes in Streams Tributary to the San Francisco Estuary, California. San Francisco Estuary Institute. Leidy, R. A., G. S. Becker, B. N. Harvey. 2005. Historical distribution and current status of steelhead/rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) in streams of the San Francisco Estuary, California. Center for Ecosystem Management and Restoration, Oakland, CA. Meyer, K. E., and W. F. Laudenslayer. 1988. A guide to wildlife habitats of California. 1988. Sacramento. California Dept. of Fish and Game. Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District. 2014. 2014 Vision Plan Conservation Atlas. Available at: https://www.openspace.org/sites/default/files/Conservation Atlas.pdf. Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District. 2017. Sensitive species list. Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District. 2018. Vegetation Classification GIS dataset. Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District. 2019. Sensitive species occurrence data provided to H.T. Harvey & Associates. Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District. 2021a. Grazing Management Policy. Available at: https://www.openspace.org/sites/default/files/20210210 GMPA R 21-22.pdf. Accessed June 25, 2021. Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District. 2021b. Resource Management Policies. February. Available at: https://www.openspace.org/sites/default/files/Resource Management Policies.pd f. Midpen. See Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District. Open Space Maintenance and Restoration Program September 2021 1 5-5 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Attachment 1 5. References National Marine Fisheries Service. 1999. Designated Critical Habitat; Central California Coast and Southern Oregon/Northern California Coasts Coho Salmon. Federal Register 64(86):24049-24062. National Marine Fisheries Service. 2005. Endangered and Threatened Species: Designation of Critical Habitat for Seven Evolutionarily Significant Units of Pacific Salmon and Steelhead in California; Final Rule. FR Doc. 05-16389. Part II. 50 CFR. Part 226. Vol. 70. No. 170: pp. 52488-52627. September 2, 2005. National Marine Fisheries Service. 2009. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants: Final Rulemaking to Designate Critical Habitat for the Threatened Southern Distinct Population Segment of North American Green Sturgeon; Final Rule. FR Doc. E9- 24067. 50 CFR. Part 226. Vol. 74. No. 195: pp. 52300-52351. October 9, 2009. NMFS. See National Marine Fisheries Service. Natural Resources Database. 2020. Compilation of observations of flora and fauna made at open space and nature preserves and parks in the greater San Francisco Bay Area. May 30, 2019 Update. http://nrdb.org. Accessed April 2020. Pacific Seabird Group Marbled Murrelet Technical Committee. 2003. Methods for Surveying Marbled Murrelets in Forests: A Revised Protocol for Land Management and Research. Pacific Seabird Group Technical Publication Number 2. Peninsula Open Space Trust. 2021. Coho Salmon Return to Pescadero Creek. Available at: https://openspacetrust.org/coho-salmon-pescadero/. Accessed March 23, 2021. POST. See Peninsula Open Space Trust Penrod K, Garding PE, Paulman C, Beier P, Weiss S, Schaefer N, Branciforte R, Gaffney K. 2013. Critical Linkages: Bay Area 8z Beyond. Produced by Science & Collaboration for Connected Wildlands, Fair Oaks, CA in collaboration with the Bay Area Open Space Council's Conservation Lands Network. Reilly, Sean B., Daniel M. Portik, Michelle S. Koo, and David B. Wake. 2014. Discovery of a New, Disjunct Population of a Narrowly Distributed Salamander (Taricha rivularis) in California Presents Conservation Challenges. Journal of Herpetology, Vol. 48, No. 3, 371-379. Sawyer, J. 0., T. Keeler -Wolf, and J. Evens. 2009. A Manual of California Vegetation. Second edition. California Native Plant Society Press. Sequoia Audubon Society. 2001. San Mateo County Breeding Bird Atlas. 224 p. Spence B.C., Bjorkstedt E.P., Garza J.C., Smith J.J., Hankin D.G., Fuller D, Jones W.E., Macedo R, Williams T.H., Mora E. 2008. A framework for assessing the viability of threatened and endangered salmon and steelhead in the North-Central California Coast recovery domain. NOAA Tech Memo NMFS NOAA-TM-NM Open Space Maintenance and Restoration Program September 2021 1 5-6 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Attachment 1 5. References Stanford University. 2012. San Francisco garter snake Thamnophis sirtalis tetrataenia. Available at: http://hcp.stanford.edu/snake.html. University of California, Davis. 2019. California Fish Website. Available at: http://calfish.ucdavis.edu/. Accessed through October 31, 2019. U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. Forest Service. 2004. Existing Vegetation - CALVEG, [ESRI personal geodatabase]. USDA, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region, Remote Sensing Lab, McClellan, CA. EvegTile03B_99_04_v2. USDA USFS. See U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. Forest Service. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2010. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Revised Designation of Critical Habitat for California Red -Legged Frog. FR Doc. 2010-4656. 50 CFR. Part 17. Vol. 75. No. 51: pp. 12816-12959. March 17, 2010. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2011. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Revised Critical Habitat for the Marbled Murrelet. FR Doc. 2011-25583. 50 CFR. Part 17. Vol. 76. No. 193: pp. 61559-61621. October 5, 2011. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2016. Intra-Service Biological Opinion on the issuance of a 10(a)(1)(A) permit to Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District for the San Francisco Garter Snake and California Red -legged Frog Habitat Enhancement Projects at their Open Space Preserves in San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties, California. December 9, 2016. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2020. Critical Habitat. Available at: https://www.fws.gov/endangered/what-we-do/critical-habitats.html. Accessed December 18, 2020. USFWS See U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Wentworth, C.M., Blake Jr, M.C., McLaughlin, R.J., and Graymer, R.W. 1999. Preliminary Geologic Map of the San Jose 30 X 60 -Minute Quadrangle, California: A Digital Database. Open File Report 98-795. U.S. Geological Survey Xerces Society. 2016. State of the Monarch Butterfly Overwintering Sites in California. Report to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Xerces Society. 2017. Protecting California's Butterfly Groves: Management Guidelines for Monarch Butterfly Overwintering Habitat. Xerces Society. 2019. Western Monarch Count Instructions. Available at: https://www.westernmonarchcount.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/Count- Survey-Instructions updated2019.pdf. Accessed May 24, 2021. Open Space Maintenance and Restoration Program September 2021 1 5-7 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration IIIMidpeninsula Regional Open Space District Attachment 1 5. References Section 3.5, Cultural Resources Ballard, H., E. Reese, and M. Hylkema. 2013. Cultural Resources Existing Conditions Report for the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Vision Plan Appendix E of the Midpen Vision Plan. Report on file with Midpen, Los Altos, California. California State Lands Commission. 1982. Grants of Land in California Made by Spanish or Mexican Authorities. Available at: https://www.slc.ca.gov/land-types/grants-of- land-in-california-made-by-spanish-or-mexican-authorities/. Accessed March 1, 2019. Kyle, D. E., Hoover, M., H. E. Rensch, E. G. Rensch, and W. N. Abeloe. 2002. Historic Spots in California. 5th edition, Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Meyer, J. 2013. A Geoarchaeological Overview and Assessment of Northeast California: Cultural Resources Inventory of Caltrans County 2 Rural Conventional Highways: Lassen, Modoc, Plumas, Shasta, Siskiyou, Tehama, and Trinity Counties. Far Western Anthropological Research Group, Inc., Davis, California. Submitted to California Department of Transportation, County 2, Redding, California. Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District. 2014. Imagine the Vision of Open Space: 2014 Vision Plan. Available at: https://www.openspace.org/sites/default/files/2014 Vision Plan.pdf. Accessed May 12, 2021. Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District. 2021a. History. Available at https://www.openspace.org/about-us/history. Accessed January 5, 2021. Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District. 2021b. Resource Management Policies. February. Available at: https://www.openspace.org/sites/default/files/Resource Management Policies.pd f. Accessed May 12, 2021. Panorama Environmental, Inc. 2021. Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Wildland Fire Resiliency Program Environmental Impact Report. SCH #2020049059. April. Available at: https://www.openspace.org/our-work/projects/wfrp. Milliken, Randall, Richard T. Fitzgerald, Mark. G. Hylkema, Randy Groza, Tome Origer, David G. Bieling, Alan Leventhal, Randy S. Wiberg, Andrew Gottsfield, Donna Gillette, Viviana Bellifemine, Eric Strother, Robert Cartier, and David A. Fredrickson. 2010. Punctuated Culture Change in the San Francisco Bay Area. In California Prehistory, edited by Terry L. Jones and Kathryn A. Klar. Lanham, MD: Altamira Press. Section 3.6, Energy Bay Area Air Quality Management District. 2017. Final 2017 Clean Air Plan. Available at: https://www.baagmd.gov/—/media/files/planning-and-research/plans/2017- clean-air-plan/attachment-a -proposed-final-cap-vol-1-pdf.pdf?la=en. Accessed January 5, 2021. Open Space Maintenance and Restoration Program September 2021 1 5-8 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District BAAQMD. See Bay Area Air Quality Management District. Attachment 1 5. References California Air Resources Board. 2017. Available at: https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/classic//cc/scopingplan/scoping plan 2017.pdf. Accessed December 3, 2020. CARB. See California Air Resources Board. California Energy Commission. 2017. RPS Eligibility Guidebook. Available at: https://www.energy.ca.gov/programs-and-topics/programs/renewables-portfolio- standard. Accessed December 3, 2020. California Energy Commission. 2020a. Integrated Energy Policy Report - IEPR. Available at: https://www.energy.ca.gov/data-reports/reports/integrated-energy-policy-report. Accessed December 3, 2020. California Energy Commission. 2020b. 2019 Integrated Energy Policy Report. Available at: https://efiling.energy.ca.gov/getdocument.aspx?tn=232922. Accessed December 3, 2020. CEC. See California Energy Commission. Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District. 2018. Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Climate Action Plan. Available at: https://www.openspace.org/sites/default/files/20181015%20Climate%20Action %20Plan.pdf. Accessed April 5, 2021. Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District. 2019. Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 2018 Greenhouse Gas Inventory Report. Available at: https://www.openspace.org/sites/default/files/2018 Greenhouse Gas Inventory.p df. Accessed April 5, 2021. San Mateo County. 2020. Climate Action Plans. Available at: https://www.smcsustainability.org/climate-change/climate-action-plans/. Accessed December 3, 2020. Santa Cruz County. 2020. Climate Action Strategy. Available at: http://www.sccoplanning.com/PlanningHome/SustainabilityPlanning/ClimateActi onStrategy.aspx. Accessed December 3, 2020. United States Energy Information Administration. 2020. California State Energy Profile. Available at: https://www.eia.gov/state/print.php?sid=CA. Accessed December 3, 2020. EIA. See United States Energy Information Administration. Open Space Maintenance and Restoration Program September 2021 1 5-9 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Attachment 1 5. References Section 3.7, Geology/Soils California Department of Conservation. 2019. Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zones. Available at: https://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/alquist-priolo. Accessed February 18, 2021. CDOC. See California Department of Conservation. California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. 2020. California Forest Practice Rules. Available at: https://bof.fire.ca.gov/media/9478/2020-forest-practice-rules- and-act final ada.pdf. Accessed May 12, 2021. CAL FIRE. See California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. California Geologic Survey. 2002. Earthquake Zones of Required Investigation. Los Gatos Quadrangle. California Geologic Survey. 2005. Earthquake Zones of Required Investigation. Castle Rock Ridge; Mindego Hill Quadrangles. California Geologic Survey. 2011. Susceptibility to Deep -Seated Landslides in California. Available at: https://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/Documents/Publications/Map- Sheets/MS 058.pdf. Accessed March 8, 2021. California Geologic Survey. 2019. Earthquake Zones of Required Investigation. Woodside Quadrangle. CGS. See California Geologic Survey. Panorama Environmental, Inc. 2021. Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Wildland Fire Resiliency Program Environmental Impact Report. SCH #2020049059. April. Available at: https://www.openspace.org/our-work/projects/wfrp. Accessed April 29, 2021. Weaver, Weppner, and Hagans, 2015. Handbook for Forest, Ranch & Rural Road. Available at: http://www.pacificwatershed.com/sites/default/files/roadsenglishbookapri12015b 0.pdf. Accessed May 12, 2021 Wentworth et al. 1997. Estimating Earthquake Location and Magnitude from Seismic Intensity Data. Available at: https://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/ssa/bssa/article- abstract/87/6/1502/120272/Estimating-earthquake-location-and-magnitude- from?redirectedFrom=fulltext. Accessed May 12, 2021. Wills et al. 2011. Susceptibility to Deep -Seated Landslides in California. Available at: https://www.napawatersheds.org/img/managed/Document/4859/Susceptibility% 20to%20Deep-Seated%20Landslides%20in%2OCA%20-%20MS58.pdf. Accessed May 12, 2021. Open Space Maintenance and Restoration Program September 2021 1 5-10 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Attachment 1 5. References Section 3.8, Greenhouse Gas Emissions Bay Area Air Quality Management District. 2017a. California Environmental Quality Act, Air Quality Guidelines. Available at: https://www.baagmd.gov/-/media/files/planning-and- research/ceqa/ceqa guidelines may2017-pdf.pdf?la=en. Accessed December 1, 2020. Bay Area Air Quality Management District. 2017b. Final 2017 Clean Air Plan. Available at: https ://www.baagmd.gov/ -/media/files/planning-and-research/plans/ 2 017- clean-air-plan/attachment-a -proposed-final-cap-vol-1-pdf.pdf?la=en. Accessed January 5, 2021. BAAQMD. See Bay Area Air Quality Management District. California Air Resources Board. 2014. First Update to the Climate Change Scoping Plan. Available at: https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/classic//cc/scopingplan/2013 update/f irst update climate change scoping plan.pdf. Accessed January 5, 2021. California Air Resources Board. 2017. California's 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan. Available at: https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/classic//cc/scopingplan/scoping_plan 2017.pdf. Accessed January 5, 2021. California Air Resources Board, 2018b. California Greenhouse Gas Emissions for 2000 to 2016, Trends of Emissions and Other Indicators. Available at: California Greenhouse Gas Emissions for 2000 to 2016, Trends of Emissions and Other Indicators. Available at: https://ww3.arb.ca.gov/cc/inventory/pubs/reports/2000 2016/ghg inventory tre nds 00-16a.pdf. Accessed January 5, 2021. California Air Resources Board. 2021. 2017 Scoping Plan Documents. Available at: https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/our-work/programs/ab-32-climate-change-scoping- plan/2017-scoping-plan-documents. Accessed January 5, 2021. CARB. See California Air Resources Board. California Energy Commission. 2018. California Energy Commission - Tracking Progress, Greenhouse Gas Emission Reductions. Available at: https://www.energy.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2019- 12/Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reductions ada.pdf. Accessed January 5, 2021. CEC. See California Energy Commission. Center for Climate and Energy Solutions. 2020. Federal Vehicle Standards. Available at: https://www.c2es.org/content/regulating-transportation-sector-carbon- emissions/. Accessed December 6, 2020. Open Space Maintenance and Restoration Program September 2021 1 5-11 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Attachment 1 5. References Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District. 2018. Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Climate Action Plan. Available at: https://www.openspace.org/sites/default/files/20181015%20Climate%20Action %20Plan.pdf. Accessed April 5, 2021. Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District. 2019. Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 2018 Greenhouse Gas Inventory Report. Available at: https://www.openspace.org/sites/default/files/2018 Greenhouse Gas Inventory.p df. Accessed April 5, 2021. Midpen. See Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District. San Mateo County. 2020. Climate Action Plans. Available at: https://www.smcsustainability.org/climate-change/climate-action-plans/. Accessed December 3, 2020. Santa Cruz County. 2020. Climate Action Strategy. Available at: http://www.sccoplanning.com/PlanningHome/SustainabilityPlanning/ClimateActi onStrategy.aspx. Accessed December 3, 2020. United States Environmental Protection Agency. 2020. Final Rule for Phase 2 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Standards and Fuel Efficiency Standards for Medium- and Heavy - Duty Engines and Vehicles. Available at: https://www.epa.gov/regulations- emissions-vehicles-and-engines/final-rule-phase-2-greenhouse-gas-emissions- standards-and. Accessed December 6, 2020. USEPA. See United States Environmental Protection Agency. Section 3.9, Hazards and Hazardous Materials California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. 2007. Fire Hazard Severity Zones in State Responsibility Areas: Santa Clara County and San Mateo County. Available at: https://osfm.fire.ca.gov/divisions/wildfire-planning-engineering/wildland- hazards-building-codes/fire-hazard-severity-zones-maps/. Accessed February 19, 2021. CAL FIRE. See California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District. 2014. Environmental Impact Report for the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Integrated Pest Management Program. September 26. Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District. 2019. Addendum to the Environmental Impact Report Integrated Pest Management Program. SCH # 2013092033. January. Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District. 2021. Resource Management Policies. February. Available at: https://www.openspace.org/sites/default/files/Resource Management Policies.pd f. Accessed February 19, 2021. Open Space Maintenance and Restoration Program September 2021 1 5-12 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Midpen. See Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District. Attachment 1 5. References Panorama Environmental, Inc. 2021. Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Wildland Fire Resiliency Program Environmental Impact Report. SCH #2020049059. April. Available at: https://www.openspace.org/our-work/projects/wfrp. Accessed April 29, 2021. United States Department of Labor, Occupational Health and Safety Administration. 2016. Occupational Safety and Health Standards - 1910.132 - General requirements. Available at: https://www.osha.gov/laws- regs/regulations/standardnumber/1910/1910.132. Accessed May 4, 2021. Section 3.10, Hydrology/Water Quality California Department of Water Resources. 2020. CA Bulletin 118 Groundwater Basins. Available at: https://gis.data.ca.gov/datasets/b5325164abf94d5cbeb48bb542fa616e 0?geometr y=-122.739%2C37.255%2C-121.422%2C37.636. Accessed February 22, 2021. California Department of Water Resources. 2004a. Santa Clara Valley Groundwater Basin, Santa Clara Subbasin. Updated February 27, 2004. California Department of Water Resources. 2004b. Santa Clara Valley Groundwater Basin, San Mateo Plain Subbasin. Updated February 27. DWR. See California Department of Water Resources. Horizon Water & Environment. 2021. Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Open Space Maintenance and Restoration Program Manual. April. Horizon. See Horizon Water & Environment. Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District. 2014a. Environmental Impact Report for the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Integrated Pest Management Program. September 26. Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District. 2014b (September). Integrated Pest Management Program Guidance Manual. Prepared May & Associates, Shelterbelt Builders, and by Ascent Environmental. Available at: https://www.openspace.org/sites/default/files/IPM Guidance Manual.pdf. Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District. 2019. Addendum to the Environmental Impact Report Integrated Pest Management Program. SCH # 2013092033. January. Midpen. See Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District. Open Space Maintenance and Restoration Program September 2021 1 5-13 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Attachment 1 5. References Panorama Environmental, Inc. 2021. Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Wildland Fire Resiliency Program Environmental Impact Report. SCH #2020049059. April. Available at: https://www.openspace.org/our-work/projects/wfrp. Accessed April 29, 2021. Section 3.11, Land Use and Planning Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District. 2014. Imagine the Vision of Open Space: 2014 Vision Plan. Available at: https://www.openspace.org/sites/default/files/2014_Vision_Plan.pdf. Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District. 2020. Ordinance for Use of Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Lands. Ordinance No. 20-01, revised and adopted September 23, 2020. Available at: https://www.openspace.org/sites/default/files/District Regulations.pdf. Accessed April 29, 2021. Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District. 2021. Resource Management Policies. February. Available at: https://www.openspace.org/sites/default/files/Resource Management Policies.pd f. Accessed April 29, 2021. Midpen. See Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District. Panorama Environmental, Inc. 2021. Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Wildland Fire Resiliency Program Environmental Impact Report. SCH #2020049059. April. Available at: https://www.openspace.org/our-work/projects/wfrp. Accessed April 29, 2021. San Mateo County Planning and Building Division. 1986. General Plan. Available at: https://planning.smcgov.org/sites/planning.smcgov.org/files/SMC- GP%201986.pdf. Accessed February 3, 2021. Santa Clara County. 1994. Santa Clara County General Plan 1995-2010. Available at: https://www.sccgov.org/sites/dpd/DocsForms/Documents/GP Book B.pdf. Accessed February 3, 2021. Section 3.12, Mineral Resources California Department of Conservation. 2015. CGS Information Warehouse: Mineral Land Classification. Available at: https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/informationwarehouse/index.html?map=ml c. Accessed May 5, 2021. California Department of Conservation. 2016. Mines Online. Available at: https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/mol/index.html. Accessed May 5, 2021. CDOC. See California Department of Conservation. Open Space Maintenance and Restoration Program September 2021 15-14 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Attachment 1 5. References Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District. 2011. Resource Management Policies: Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration. October 2011. Available at: https://www.openspace.org/sites/default/files/RSMISMDM.pdf. Accessed May 5, 2021. Panorama Environmental, Inc. 2021. Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Wildland Fire Resiliency Program Environmental Impact Report. SCH #2020049059. April. Available at: https://www.openspace.org/our-work/projects/wfrp. Accessed April 29, 2021. Santa Clara County. 1994. Santa Clara County General Plan: Book B. Available at: https://www.sccgov.org/sites/dpd/DocsForms/Documents/GP Book B.pdf. Accessed May 5, 2021. Section 3.13, Noise California Department of Transportation. 2013. Caltrans Technical Noise Supplement to the Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol. Available at: https://dot.ca.gov/-/media/dot- media/programs/environmental-analysis/documents/env/tens-sep2013-ally.pdf. Accessed December 6, 2020. Caltrans. See California Department of Transportation. Cupertino. 2020. Municipal Code. Available at: https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/cupertino/latest/cupertino ca/0-0-0- 47646. Accessed December 10, 2020. East Palo Alto. 2020. Municipal Code. Available at: https://library.municode.com/ca/east palo alto/codes/code of ordinances?nodeId =TIT8HESA CH8.52N000 ARTVNOST. Accessed December 10, 2020. Federal Highway Administration. 2019. Construction Noise Handbook. Available at: https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/noise/construction noise/handbook/han dbook09.cfm. Accessed December 10, 2020. FHWA. See Federal Highway Administration. Federal Transit Administration. 2018. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual. Available at: https://www.transit.dot.gov/sites/fta.dot.gov/files/docs/research- innovation/118131/transit-noise-and-vibration-impact-assessment-manual-fta- report-no-0123 0.pdf. Accessed December 11, 2020. FTA. See Federal Transit Administration. Los Altos Hills. 2020. Municipal Code. Available at: https://www.losaltoshills.ca.gov/199/Municipal-Code. Accessed December 10, 2020. Open Space Maintenance and Restoration Program September 2021 1 5-15 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Attachment 1 5. References Los Gatos. 2020. Municipal Code. Available at: https://library.rnunicode.corn/ca/los gatos/codes/code of ordinances?nodeld=CO CH16NO. Accessed December 10, 2020. Menlo Park. 2020. Noise Ordinance. Available at: https://www.codepublishing.com/CA/MenloPark/html/MenloPark08/MenloParko 806.html. Accessed December 10, 2020. Mountain View. 2020. Municipal Code. Available at: https://library.municode.com/ca/mountain view/codes/code of ordinances?nodeI d=PTIITHCO CH8BU ARTVICONO S8.7000NO. Accessed December 10, 2020. Palo Alto. 2020. Municipal Code. Available at: https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/paloalto/latest/paloalto ca/0-0-0-6082. Accessed December 11, 2020. Portola Valley. 2020. Noise Ordinance. Available at: https://library.municode.com/ca/portola valley/codes/code of ordinances?nodeId =TIT9PUPEMOWE CH9.10NOCO. Accessed December 10, 2020. San Carlos. 2021. Frequently Asked Questions. Available at: https://www.cityofsancarlos.org/government/departments/community- development/building/building-permits/frequently-asked-questions- fags#:—:text=and%20fax%20permits.- ,What%20are%20the%20construction%20noise%20hours%20in%20San%20Car1 os%3F,to%205%20p.m.%20on%20Saturday. Accessed April 6, 2021. San Jose. 2020. Envision San Jose 2040 General Plan. Available at: https://www.sanjoseca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument?id=22359. Accessed April 6, 2021. San Mateo County. 2020. Noise Ordinance. Available at: https://library.municode.com/ca/san mateo county/codes/code of ordinances?no deId=TIT4SAHE CH4.88N000. Accessed December 6, 2020. Santa Clara County. 2013. Noise Ordinance. Available at: https://www.sccgov.org/sites/cpd/programs/NP/Documents/NP Noise Ordinance .pdf. Accessed December 6, 2020. Santa Clara County Airport Land Use Commission. 2016a. Comprehensive Land Use Plan Santa Clara County Palo Alto Airport. Available at: https://www.sccgov.org/sites/dpd/DocsForms/Documents/ALUC PAO CLUP.pdf. Accessed April 6, 2021. Santa Clara County Airport Land Use Commission. 2016b. Comprehensive Land Use Plan Santa Clara County Moffett Federal Airfield. Available at: https://www.sccgov.org/sites/dpd/DocsForms/Documents/ALUC PAO CLUP.pdf. Accessed April 6, 2021. Open Space Maintenance and Restoration Program September 2021 1 5-16 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Attachment 1 5. References Santa Cruz County. 2020. Noise Ordinance. Available at: https://www.codepublishing.com/CA/SantaCruzCounty/html/SantaCruzCounty08 /SantaCruzCounty0830.html. Accessed December 6, 2020. Saratoga. 2021. Municipal Code. Available at: https://library.municode.com/ca/saratoga/codes/code of ordinances?nodeId=CH7 HESA ART7-30NOCO#CH7HESA ART7-30NOCO 7-30.060EXSPAC. Accessed April 6, 2021. Woodside. 2012. Noise Element. Available at: https://www.woodsidetown.org/sites/default/files/fileattachments/planning/pag e/2601/9 noise element 3.pdf. Accessed December 10, 2020. Woodside. 2020. Municipal Code. Available at: https://library.municode.com/ca/woodside/codes/municipal code?nodeId=CD OR D TITXVLAUS CH151SIDE ARTIVOPRE S151.55CORERE. Accessed December 10, 2020. Section 3.14, Population/Housing Panorama Environmental, Inc. 2021. Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Wildland Fire Resiliency Program Environmental Impact Report. SCH #2020049059. April. Available at: https://www.openspace.org/our-work/projects/wfrp. Accessed April 29, 2021. Section 3.15, Public Services Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District. 2020. Wildland Fire Resiliency Program. Midpen. See Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District. Panorama Environmental, Inc. 2021. Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Wildland Fire Resiliency Program Environmental Impact Report. SCH #2020049059. April. Available at: https://www.openspace.org/our-work/projects/wfrp. Accessed April 29, 2021. San Mateo County. 2021. Public Safety Communications: Services [website]. Available at: https://911dispatch.smcgov.org/services. Accessed May 5, 2021. Santa Clara County Ambulance. 2017. 911 Paramedic and Emergency Ambulance Services [website]. Available at: https://www.santaclaracountyemsambulance.com/. Accessed May 5, 2021. Santa Cruz County. 2021.Emergency Medical Services [website]. Available at: http://www.santacruzhealth.org/HSAHome/HSADivisions/PublicHealth/Emergenc yMedicalServices.aspx. Accessed May 5, 2021. Open Space Maintenance and Restoration Program September 2021 1 5-17 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Attachment 1 5. References Section 3.16, Recreation Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District. 2019. Budget and Action Plan FY2019-20. June 26. Available at: https://www.openspace.org/sites/default/files/Budget ActionPlan FY19-20.pdf. Accessed April 8, 2021. Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District. 2021. Visit A Preserve. Available at: https://www.openspace.org/visit-a-preserve. Accessed April 1, 2021. Midpen. See Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District. Panorama Environmental, Inc. 2021. Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Wildland Fire Resiliency Program Environmental Impact Report. SCH #2020049059. April. Available at: https://www.openspace.org/our-work/projects/wfrp. Accessed April 29, 2021. Section 3.17, Transportation California Department of Transportation. 2017. A Guide to Bikeway Classification. Available at: www.dot.ca.gov/d4/bikeplan/docs/caltrans-d4-bike-plan bikeway - classification -brochure 072517.pdf. Caltrans. See California Department of Transportation. Panorama Environmental, Inc. 2021. Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Wildland Fire Resiliency Program Environmental Impact Report. SCH #2020049059. April. Available at: https://www.openspace.org/our-work/projects/wfrp. Accessed April 29, 2021. Section 3.18, Tribal Cultural Resources Ballard, H., E. Reese, and M. Hylkema. 2013. Cultural Resources Existing Conditions Report for the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Vision Plan Appendix E of the Midpen Vision Plan. Report on file with Midpen, Los Altos, California. Section 3.19, Utilities/Service Systems CalRecycle. 2021a. SWIS Facility/ Site Activity Details. Corinda Los Trancos Landfill (Ox Mtn) (41 -AA -0002). Available at: https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/SolidWaste/SiteActivity/Details/1561?siteID=322 3. Accessed March 7, 2021. CalRecycle. 2021b. SWIS Facility/ Site Activity Details. Guadalupe Sanitary Landfill (43 -AN - 0015). Available at: https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/SolidWaste/SiteActivity/Details/1376?siteID=339 9. Accessed March 7, 2021. Open Space Maintenance and Restoration Program September 2021 1 5-18 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Attachment 1 5. References CalRecycle. 2021c. SWIS Facility/ Site Activity Details. Kirby Canyon Recyl. & Disp. Facility (43 -AN -008). Available at: https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/SolidWaste/SiteActivity/Details/1370?siteID=339 3. Accessed March 7, 2021. CalRecycle 2021d. SWIS Facility/ Site Activity Details. Newby Island Compost Facility (43 - AN -0017). Available at: https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/SolidWaste/SiteActivity/Details/1378?siteID=340 1. Accessed March 7, 2021. CalRecycle 2021e. SWIS Facility/ Site Activity Details. Zanker Road Resource Recovery Operation (43 -AN -0007). Available at: https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/SolidWaste/SiteActivity/Details/1368?siteID=339 2. Accessed March 7, 2021. Waste Management. 2021. Guadalupe Landfill About Us. Available at: https://guadalupe.wm.cotn/about-us/index.jsp. Accessed March 7, 2021. Section 3.20, Wildfire California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. 2007. Fire Hazard Severity Zones in State Responsibility Areas: Santa Clara County and San Mateo County. Available at: https://osfm.fire.ca.gov/divisions/wildfire-planning-engineering/wildland- hazards-building-codes/fire-hazard-severity-zones-maps/. Accessed February 19, 2021. California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. 2018. Incident Information: Skeggs Fire [website]. Available at: https://www.fire.ca.gov/incidents/2017/9/11/skeggs- fire/. Accessed May 5, 2021. California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. 2019. Incident Information: Cabrillo Fire [website]. Available at: https://www.fire.ca.gov/incidents/2019/10/24/cabrillo-fire/. Accessed May 5, 2021. California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. 2020. Incident Information: Crews Fire [website]. Available at: https://www.fire.ca.gov/incidents/2020/7/5/crews- fire/. Accessed May 4, 2021. CAL FIRE. See California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. Fire Safe San Mateo County. 2019. San Mateo's History of Fire [website]. Available at: https://firesafesantnateo.org/resources/fire-history. Accessed May 5, 2021. Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District. 2021. Resource Management Policies. February 2021. Available at: https://www.openspace.org/sites/default/files/Resource Management Policies.pd f. Accessed February 19, 2021. Open Space Maintenance and Restoration Program September 2021 1 5-19 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Midpen. See Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District. Attachment 1 5. References Panorama Environmental, Inc. 2021. Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Wildland Fire Resiliency Program Environmental Impact Report. SCH #2020049059. April. Available at: https://www.openspace.org/our-work/projects/wfrp. Accessed April 29, 2021. Section 3.21, Mandatory Findings of Significance Panorama Environmental, Inc. 2021. Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Wildland Fire Resiliency Program Environmental Impact Report. SCH #2020049059. April. Available at: https://www.openspace.org/our-work/projects/wfrp. Accessed April 29, 2021. Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District. 2021. Resource Management Policies. February. Available at: https://www.openspace.org/sites/default/files/Resource Management Policies.pd f. Accessed May 12, 2021. Open Space Maintenance and Restoration Program September 2021 1 5-20 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Attachment 2 Regional OpenSpace I Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 330 Distel Circle Las Alias, CA g402Y Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration 1. Project Title: Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Open Space Maintenance and Restoration Program (Program) 2. Lead Agency: Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (Midpen) 3. Contact Person: Aaron Hebert, Senior Resource Management Specialist, ahebert@openspace.org; (650) 625-6561 4. Project Location and APN: The Program area includes Midpen's Sphere of Influence within northern Santa Clara and southern San Mateo counties, and a small portion of Santa Cruz County, Various APNs 5. General Plan designation: Multiple 6. Zoning: Multiple 7. Project Description: Midpen has developed the Open Space Maintenance and Restoration Program Manual to describe the various routine maintenance, small-scale facility improvements and new low intensity/small footprint facilities, and restoration and enhancement projects conducted by Midpen. Program activities include culvert and bridge maintenance; road and trail drainage feature maintenance; sediment and debris removal; streambank/pond berm stabilization; water supply structure maintenance; pond maintenance; vegetation management (i.e., mowing, brushing, pruning, aquatic herbicide application, conservation grazing, etc.); road and trail maintenance; roadway or trail slip-out/slide repairs; existing building repairs and utility improvements; recreational facility improvements, including new trails/roads and wildlife crossings; conservation grazing infrastructure improvements; aquatic habitat restoration; native vegetation plantings; invasive species removal; and road decommissioning. The Manual provides a comprehensive and consistent approach to conducting Program activities. 8. The project site is not located on the lists enumerated under Section 65962.5 of the Government Code, including, but not limited to lists of hazardous waste facilities. 9. Public Review Period: The IS/MND is available for a 30 -day public review period, which begins on August 5, 2021 and ends at 5 p.m. on September 5, 2021. Please send comments on the IS/MND via email to ahebert@openspace.org or to the following address: 330 Distel Circle, Los Altos, CA 94022. 10. Document Availability: Copies of the IS/MND are available for review at Midpen's main Administrative Office (330 Distel Circle, Los Altos); Foothills Field Office (222500 Cristo Rey Dr, Cupertino); and Skyline Field Office (21150 Skyline Ranch Road, La Honda). Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, please contact Aaron Hebert, ahebert@openspace.org to set up an appointment to view the paper copy. To view the hard copies at Midpen's Administrative Office, members of the public must first call or email ahead to schedule a review time given COVID- 19-related office closures and limited staff presence in the office. Midpen's COVID-19 safety protocols must be followed, including face masks and physical distancing of 6 feet, for entry into the Administrative Office and for duration of reviewing the document. An electronic copy of the IS/MND is also available to review on Midpen's website: https://www.openspace.org/about-us/notices Jul 28, 2021 (Ju l ( l 28, 202108:23 PDT) Ma ne Date By: Brian Malone, Assistant General Manager Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration: Open Space Maintenance and Restoration Program Page 1 of 1 Attachment 3 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT ADOPTING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION INCLUDING A MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM IN CONNECTION WITH THE OPEN SPACE MAINTENANCE AND RESTORATION PROGRAM WHEREAS, The Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District ("MROSD") is a lead agency, as provided for under section 21067 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA, Public Resources Code sections 21000 et seq.); and WHEREAS, an Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (collectively referred to as the MND), attached to the MROSD Board Report, dated September 22, 2021, and incorporated into this Resolution as if fully set forth herein; was prepared for the Open Space Maintenance and Restoration Program ("Project") pursuant to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA, Public Resources Code section 21000 et seq.) and the CEQA Guidelines (14 Cal. Code Regulations sections 15000 et seq.); and WHEREAS, a Notice of Intent (NOI) to adopt an MND was distributed to the California Office of Planning and Research's State Clearinghouse (CEQAnet), interested agencies, individuals, and on the MROSD website, notifying all parties of the availability and 30 -day public review period of the MND from August 9, 2021 to September 7, 2021. Copies of the full MND were available on the MROSD website, at the MROSD main Administrative Office (330 Distel Circle, Los Altos, CA 94022), at the Foothills Field Office (222500 Cristo Rey Drive, Cupertino, CA 95014), and at the Skyline Field Office (21150 Skyline Ranch Road, La Honda, CA 94020), and printed copies were available upon request; and WHEREAS, The MND identified potentially significant adverse impacts on the environment, including specific impacts to Biological Resources, Geology, Soils and Seismicity, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Noise, Public Services, Transportation, and Wildfire and found that the mitigation for the proposed Project would avoid or mitigate these impacts to below a level of significance by adoption and implementation of the Mitigation Monitoring Program (MMP); and WHEREAS, a Mitigation Monitoring Program (Exhibit A) was prepared to ensure compliance with the MND's mitigation measures and attached to the MROSD Board Report, dated September 22, 2021, and incorporated into this Resolution as if fully set forth herein; and WHEREAS On September 22, 2021, the Board of Directors of MROSD conducted a duly noticed public meeting whereby all oral and written comments received during the public review period and a staff recommendation for approval of the MND were presented to the Board of Directors of MROSD. The Board of Directors of MROSD reviewed and considered the information in the MND, administrative record, and Staff Reports for completeness and compliance with CEQA and CEQA Guidelines. Resolutions/2021 /OSMRP_CEQA-IS/MND_R-21- 1 Attachment 3 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT, BASED UPON THE INITIAL STUDY, MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION, MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM, ALL COM1VIENTS RECEIVED AND ALL SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE IN LIGHT OF THE WHOLE RECORD PRESENTED, THE MROSD BOARD OF DIRECTORS FINDS THAT: 1. The MND and NOI were prepared and publicly noticed in accordance with all legal requirements pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA, Public Resources Cod sections 21000 et seq.) and the CEQA Guidelines (14 Cal. Code. Regulations sections 15000 et seq.) 2. All interested parties desiring to comment on the MND were given the opportunity to submit oral and written comments on the adequacy of the MND prior to this action by the MROSD Board of Directors and all comments raised during the public comments period and at the public meeting on the MND were responded to adequately. 3. Prior to approving the Project, the MROSD Board has considered the MND, along with all comments received during the public review process. 4. The MND identified all potentially significant impacts to the environment and finds potentially significant impacts will be mitigated to less than significant or avoided by adoption of the mitigation measures as described in the MND as part of the Project and through implementation of the MMP. 5. The MROSD Board finds that, on the basis of the whole record before it, including the MND and all comments received, there is no substantial evidence that the Project will have a significant effect on the environment in that, although the Project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be significant effect since Mitigation Measures have been made a part of the Project to avoid such effects. 6. The MROSD Board determines that the MND reflects MROSD's independent judgement and analysis and adopts the MND. 7. The MROSD Board adopts the MMP and finds that these mitigation measures are fully enforceable conditions on the Project and shall be implemented as part of the Project. 8. The location and custodian of the documents or other material which constitute the record of proceedings upon which this decision is based are located at the offices of the General Manager of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District, 330 Distel Circle, Los Altos, California 94022. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Resolutions/2021 /OSMRP_CEQA-IS/MND_R-21- 2 Attachment 3 PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Board of Directors of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District on , 2021, at a Regular Meeting thereof, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: ATTEST: APPROVED: Secretary President Board of Directors 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 Resolutions/2021 /OSMRP_CEQA-IS/MND_R-21- 3 Attachment 3 EXHIBIT A MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM Open Space Maintenance and Restoration Program State Clearinghouse Number: 2021080129 San Mateo County, CA Santa Clara County, CA Santa Cruz County, CA September 2021 Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 330 Distel Circle Los Altos, CA 94022-1404 Resolutions/2021 /OSMRP_CEQA-IS/MND_R-21- 4 Attachment 3 OPEN SPACE MAINTENANCE AND RESTORATION PROGRAM MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM This mitigation monitoring program (MMP) includes a brief discussion of the legal basis and purpose of the program, a key to understanding the monitoring matrix, discussion and direction regarding noncompliance complaints, and the mitigation monitoring matrix itself. LEGAL BASIS AND PURPOSE OF THE MITGATION MONITORING PROGRAM Public Resources Code (PRC) 21081.6 requires public agencies to adopt mitigation monitoring or reporting programs whenever certifying and environmental impact report or mitigated negative declaration. This requirement facilitates implementation of all mitigation measures adopted through the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) process. MONITORING MATRIX The following pages provide a series of tables identifying the mitigations incorporated into the Open Space Maintenance and Restoration Program (the project). These mitigations are reproduced from the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the project. The columns within the tables have the following meanings: Number: The number in this column refers to the Initial Study section where the mitigation is discussed. Mitigation: This column lists the specific mitigation identified within the Mitigated Negative Declaration. Timing: This column identifies at what point in time, review process, or phase the mitigation will be completed. The mitigations are organized by order in which they appear in the Mitigated Negative Declaration. Who will verify? Agency / Department Consultation: Verification: This column references the District staff that will ensure implementation of the mitigation. This column references any public agency or District Department with which coordination is required to ensure implementation of the mitigation. California Department of Fish and Wildlife is listed as CDFW. The United States Fish and Wildlife Service is listed as USFWS. This column will be initialed and dated by the individual designated to confirm implementation. Resolutions/2021 /OSMRP_CEQA-IS/MND_R-21- 5 Attachment 3 NONCOMPLIANCE COMPLAINTS Any person or agency may file a complaint asserting noncompliance with the mitigation measure associated with the project. The complaint shall be directed to the District's General Manager in written form, providing specific information on the asserted violation. The General Manager shall cause an investigation and determine the validity of the complaint; if noncompliance with the mitigation has occurred, the General Manager shall cause appropriate actions to remedy any violation. The complainant shall receive written confirmation indicating the results of the investigation or the final action corresponding to the particular noncompliance. Resolutions/2021 /OSMRP_CEQA-IS/MND_R-21- 6 Attachment 3 Number Mitigation Timing Who will verify? Department or Agency Consultation Verification (Date & Initials) Mitigation Mitigation Measure BIO-1: Avoid Monarch Butterfly Prior to District USFWS in Section Wintering Habitat: Prior to any Program activities in tree groves construction Natural 3.4. comprised primarily or entirely of pine, cypress, fir, or eucalyptus that are within 2 miles of the Pacific Coast, a qualified biologist or biological monitor working under a qualified biologist will survey the grove for aggregations of monarch butterflies during the overwintering season according to the Xerces Society's Western Resource Specialist or their designee Monarch Count Protocol (Xerces Society 2019), available at https://www.westernmonarchcount.org: Two surveys will be conducted during the overwintering season, one during the Western Monarch Thanksgiving Count period (the three-week period centered on the Thanksgiving holiday), and a second during the New Year's Count period (the two-week period beginning the weekend prior to New Year's Day). • Each survey will be conducted by two surveyors to provide multiple independent estimates of monarch numbers. • Surveys will be conducted in the morning while temperatures are below 55° F (13° C) and monarchs are more likely to be clustered. • Surveys will not be conducted during rain or strong winds due to poor visibility and the chance that individual monarchs shall be scattered on the ground. • If no monarch overwintering aggregations are observed, Program activities may proceed pursuant as long as they occur prior to November 1. If Program activities are delayed beyond November 1, then the grove will be re -surveyed. • If a monarch overwintering aggregation of any size is detected, then no Program activities may take place inside the tree canopy within 200 feet of the aggregation, when present. Activities outside of the canopy line but within 200 feet may proceed (i.e., treatment of low -growing vegetation outside of the tree grove) if a qualified biologist or monitor determines Resol utions/2021 /O SMRP_CEQA-IS/MND_R-2I- 7 Attachment 3 Number Mitigation Timing Who will verify? Department or Agency Consultation Verification (Date & Initials) that the activity does not pose a threat to the monarch aggregation. • Once the aggregation disperses (typically by March), treatment of vegetation within 200 feet of tree(s) where monarch aggregations were observed may proceed if, as determined by a qualified biologist or monitor, it will not result in significant alteration to wind and sunlight patterns within the grove. • If monarch overwintering aggregations are detected in eucalyptus removal areas, then a long-term tree planting strategy is necessary (see Protecting California's Butterfly Groves [Xerces Society 2017]). A long-term tree planting strategy will also be used for those stands which have historically been used as monarch overwintering habitat (https: //www.westernmonarchcount. org/find-an-overwintering- site-near-you/). • Native tree species suitable for monarchs must be planted many years prior to eucalyptus removal with the understanding that they may not reach functional heights to provide wind protection and suitable dappled lighting for 15-30 years. Transplanting saplings from a local source may speed this process. Planting of eucalyptus will be prohibited. Removal of eucalyptus may proceed once native replacement trees have reached sufficient size to provide wind protection within the grove. • Standing dead trees generally do not contribute to monarch overwintering habitat (Xerces Society 2017) and may be removed within the grove between April 1 and August 31, outside of the overwintering period, as determined appropriate by a qualified biologist or monitor. Sites where invasive dead trees have been removed may create opportunities for native tree planting within the interior of the grove. • If a eucalyptus grove where a monarch overwintering aggregation was previously detected is re -surveyed using the Resolutions/2021 /OSMRP_CEQA-IS/MND_R-21- 8 Attachment 3 Number Mitigation Timing Who will verify? Department or Agency Consultation Verification (Date & Initials) Western Monarch Count Protocol (Xerces Society 2019) and found to be unoccupied for 5 consecutive years, then the grove may be removed before native replacement trees have reached full size. Mitigation in Section 3.4. Mitigation Measure BIO-2: Avoid Monarch Butterfly Host Plants: • For all Program activities that only have incidental vegetation removal, Midpen will conduct a pre -construction worker training to identify milkweeds (Asclepias sp.), the host plant for Prior to construction District Natural Resource Specialist or their designee USFWS monarch butterflies, and survey for eggs/larvae. Following the training, workers will survey the site for milkweed. • For Program activities that have more than incidental vegetation removal, a qualified biologist or biological monitor working under a qualified biologist will conduct pre - construction surveys for milkweed. • Host plants containing eggs, larvae, or pupae of monarch butterflies will be avoided, and will be protected with an appropriately -sized buffer as determined by a qualified biologist, taking into account the characteristics of the plant species and the nature of the proposed treatment. • Vegetation treatment may proceed if a qualified biologist determines that the host plants (1) are not occupied by monarchs, and (2) may benefit from treatment (such as if the host plants have already set seed and post -treatment conditions will favor them over non-native weed species). Mitigation in Section 3.7. Mitigation Measure GEO-1: Erosion Control and Slope Stability Measures:: This mitigation measure applies to any Program activity areas determined to be at risk for erosion and slope instability, including if the activity exposes soils and leaves groundcover or native mulch/organic matter to be less than 70 percent following work; if work is proposed to occur on steep slopes (defined as over 35 percent slope); if evidence of Prior to during construction District Natural Resource Specialist or their designee N/A Resolutions/2021 /OSMRP_CEQA-IS/MND_R-21- 9 Attachment 3 Number Mitigation Timing Who will verify? Department or Agency Consultation Verification (Date & Initials) unconsolidated soils or landslides is found on site; or if the scale of the proposed activity would disturb a large area. Prior to conducting work that could result in erosion or slope instability, qualified personnel will conduct a review of site conditions which may include, but is not limited to, a desktop review of slope, LiDAR, historic evidence of landslides (e.g., Wentworth et al. 1997), local hazard mapping and safety plans, proximity of the site to infrastructure, and modeling of landslide susceptibility GIS data (e.g., Wills et al. 2011). Qualified personnel are personnel who have knowledge and experience in the application of erosion and slope stabilization control measures through training or field experience with control measure installation. The qualified personnel may also conduct a site visit to look for existing signs of erosion or slope instability (e.g., rills or slumped soil). Depending on the slope and the downslope resources (e.g., roads that could be impacted if a slope failed or waterbodies or habitat that could be impacted from erosion.), erosion and slope stabilization measures (listed below) will be implemented. These measures will depend on the site's specific characteristics and the type and extent of work to be performed and will be determined by qualified personnel. The qualified personnel will memorialize in writing their field observations and corresponding recommendations regarding installation of control measures. Control measures may be adjusted as needed depending on the site's specific characteristics. For activities that involve substantial grading on active slide areas, unstable areas, or unstable soils (as defined in the California Forest Practice Rules), a licensed geologist or Registered Professional Forester (RPF) will conduct the site inspection. This includes activities occurring in previously undisturbed soils (e.g., would not apply for grading within an existing, engineered road or trail); or activities occurring above (within 0.5 mile) or below (within 0.25 mile) infrastructure, including residences or other potentially occupied structures. Activities involving substantial vegetation Resolutions/2021 /OSMRP_CEQA-IS/MND_R-21- 10 Attachment 3 Number Mitigation Timing Who will verify? Department or Agency Consultation Verification (Date & Initials) removal will be conducted consistent with the IPM and Wildland Fire Resiliency Program measures. A licensed geologist or RPF will also conduct site inspections where any road is proposed to be extended or re-routed by 600 feet or more, regardless of the proximity to active slide areas, unstable areas, or unstable soils. The licensed geologist or RPF will identify specific control measures to be implemented, which may include, but are not limited to, the control measures identified below. If the desktop review and/or site visit determine that a public safety hazard could occur from Program activities being conducted in unstable areas adjacent to existing infrastructure, sensitive habitat, or habitable structures, a licensed geologist/ engineer will perform a site assessment. Recommendations provided in the site assessment will be implemented as needed to ensure that slope instability and public safety hazards do not occur. Recommendations could include measures such as stabilizing slopes with mats or natural materials after tree removal and replanting denude areas to stabilize soils. In areas that were previously analyzed by an RPF or licensed geologist, Midpen will review the prior recommendations for consistency with the proposed activity and determine if a new review is warranted. General Control Measures In addition to Program BMPs GEN-2 and GEN-19, the following general control measure will be implemented during work as determined appropriate by the qualified personnel: • Shut down use of heavy equipment, skidding, and truck traffic when soils become saturated and unable to support the machines. Reduced Groundcover Control Measures Resol utions/2021 /O SMRP_CEQA-IS/MND_R-2I- 11 Attachment 3 Number Mitigation Timing Who will verify? Department or Agency Consultation Verification (Date & Initials) • In addition to Program BMPs EC -1 through EC -5, the following reduced groundcover control measures will be implemented during work as determined appropriate by the qualified personnel if the activity would leave less than 70 percent of groundcover or native mulch/organic material on site: • Sow native grasses and other herbs on denuded areas where natural colonization or other replanting will not occur rapidly; use slash or chips to prevent erosion on such areas. • Use surface mounds, depressions, logs, rocks, trees and stumps, slash and brush, the litter layer, and native herbaceous vegetation downslope of denuded areas to reduce sedimentation and erosion as necessary to prevent erosion or slope destabilization. • Install approved, biodegradable erosion -control measures and non -filament -based geotextiles (e.g., coir, jute) when: • Conducting substantial ground -disturbing work (e.g., use of heavy equipment, pulling large vegetation, etc.) within 100 feet and upslope of currently flowing or wet wetlands, streams, lakes, and riparian areas; • Causing soil disturbance on moderate to steep (i.e., 10 percent slope and greater) slopes; and • Following the removal of invasive plants from stream banks to prevent sediment movement into watercourses and to protect bank stability. • Install certified weed -free sediment control devices as appropriate. Sediment control devices will be inspected daily during active construction by workers to ensure that the devices are in good working condition to prevent sediment transport into the waterbodies and will be repaired as needed. Steep Slopes Control Measures Resol utions/2021 /O SMRP_CEQA-IS/MND_R-2I- 12 Attachment 3 Number Mitigation Timing Who will verify? Department or Agency Consultation Verification (Date & Initials) The following measures will be implemented during work conducted on steep slopes (i.e., greater than 35 percent) as determined appropriate by qualified personnel: • Avoid use of heavy equipment on slopes greater than 35 percent unless specialized equipment is used that does not impact slope stability as determined by the qualified personnel. • Prescribed burns and pile burns will be performed outside of perennial and intermittent streams and of riparian forest/ woodland. A 50 -foot buffer around perennial and intermittent streams will be maintained when the burn is proposed upslope of the stream on slopes greater than 35 percent. • Avoid installation of cleared areas, including spur roads or staging areas, on steep slopes, particularly over 50 percent slope, where feasible. Where not feasible, a licensed geologist/engineer or RPF will be consulted, as required above. The licensed geologist/engineer or RPF will identify and require implementation of appropriate design and control measures, including but not limited to, those identified in Low - Volume Roads Engineering (Keller & Sherar, 2003); Handbook for Forest, Ranch, and Rural Roads (Weaver, 2015); or the latest California Forest Practice Rules. Other suitable engineering guidance includes: • Locating roads on well -drained soils and slopes where drainage moves away from the road; • Providing adequate surface drainage; • Avoiding wet and unstable areas (seeps, springs, etc.); • Using the natural topography to control or dictate the ideal location of road or cleared area (e.g., staging area); use saddles, follow ridges, use bench areas, etc. Resol utions/2021 /O SMRP_CEQA-IS/MND_R-2I- 13 Attachment 3 Number Mitigation Timing Who will verify? Department or Agency Consultation Verification (Date & Initials) Mitigation Mitigation Measure HAZ-1: Proper Handling and Disposal of Prior to and District DTSC; Regional in Section Contaminated Soil, Sediment, and Groundwater: Prior to during Natural Water Quality 3.9 initiating ground -disturbing activities, Midpen or its contractors construction Resource Control Board will inspect the soil, sediment, or groundwater for the presence of Specialist (RWQCB); possible contamination. If indicators of contamination (e.g., foul or their appropriate odor, staining or sheen, etc.) are found, soil and groundwater sampling will be conducted by an appropriate licensed professional and testing of samples will be completed by a California Certified laboratory. In the event that soils to be excavated are found to be contaminated, the excavated soil will be treated as hazardous materials and disposed of at an approved hazardous waste disposal facility in compliance with state and federal regulations and designee County Midpen operational procedures. Effective dust suppression procedures will be used in construction areas to reduce airborne emissions of these contaminants and reduce the risk of exposure to workers and the public. Regulatory agencies for the State of California (Department of Toxic Substances Control [DTSC] or RWQCB) and the appropriate county will be contacted by Midpen or its contractor to plan handling, treatment, and/or disposal options. In removing potentially contaminated soil, sediment, or groundwater, workers will wear protective clothing and equipment to limit their exposure. Mitigation Mitigation Measure HAZ-2: Review of Proximity to Existing Prior to and District N/A in Section Known Hazardous Materials Clean-up Sites and during Natural 3.9 Implementation of Safety Precautions: Midpen and/or its contractors will evaluate the proximity of proposed Program sites that involve ground -disturbing activities to existing known hazardous material clean-up sites. This review will include examination of the planned Program activity footprint in relation to records of hazardous materials sites in the SWRCB's GeoTracker database and the DTSC's EnviroStor database. construction Resource Specialist or their designee If the Program activity is located on or within 100 feet of a documented hazardous material contamination site, for which clean-up activities have not been completed or been successful, Resolutions/2021 /OSMRP_CEQA-IS/MND_R-21- 14 Attachment 3 Number Mitigation Timing Who will verify? Department or Agency Consultation Verification (Date & Initials) Midpen and/or its contractors will commission a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment to more fully characterize the past land uses and potential for soil and/or groundwater contamination to occur at or in close proximity to the site. If the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment demonstrates a reasonable likelihood that contamination remains within the Program activity's area of disturbance, Midpen and/or its contractors will commission a Phase II Environmental Site Assessment, including soils testing, to characterize the extent of the contamination and develop ways to avoid the contaminated areas during Program activities. Midpen will follow all recommendations of the Phase II Environmental Site Assessment and will avoid areas of contamination, to the extent feasible. In the event that it is not feasible to avoid all areas of contamination, Midpen and its contractors will follow all applicable laws regarding management of hazardous materials and wastes. This includes proper disposal of any contaminated soil in a hazardous waste landfill, and ensuring that workers are provided with adequate personal protective equipment to prevent unsafe exposure. Mitigation Mitigation Measure NOI-1: Noise Control: For all Program During District N/A in Section activities, Midpen will implement the following noise control project Project 3.13. practices to minimize disturbances to residential areas surrounding work sites: • The operation of heavy construction equipment will be limited construction Manager or their designee to occur between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday and comply with applicable local noise requirements. • Program activities in residential areas will not occur on Saturdays, Sundays, or any holidays except during emergencies, or with advance notification of surrounding residents. Powered equipment (vehicles, heavy equipment, and hand equipment such as chainsaws) will be equipped with adequate mufflers maintained in good condition. Best available Resolutions/2021 /OSMRP_CEQA-IS/MND_R-21- 15 Attachment 3 Number Mitigation Timing Who will verify? Department or Agency Consultation Verification (Date & Initials) noise control techniques (e.g., mufflers, intake silencers, ducts, engine enclosures, and acoustically attenuating shields or shrouds) will be used for all equipment and trucks, as necessary. • Staging areas will be located as far as possible from noise sensitive receptors during maintenance work. • At work sites where heavy equipment will be used within 40 feet of sensitive receptors for longer than 5 days within the Program area, residents/sensitive receptors will be notified at least one week prior to performing maintenance work. At Program sites where heavy equipment will be used within 75 feet and 130 feet in Los Gatos and Cupertino, residents/sensitive receptors will be notified at least one week prior to performing maintenance work. The notification will include the anticipated schedule and contact number for a Midpen representative who can address noise complaints. Mitigation Mitigation Measure TRANS -1: Emergency Responders and Prior to and District Caltrans; in Section Access: The following measures shall be implemented to ensure during Project appropriate 3.17 emergency access is maintained: At least one week prior to temporary lane or full closure of a • public road, Midpen shall contact the appropriate emergency response agency/agencies with jurisdiction (e.g., CalTrans, County, City) to ensure that each agency is notified of the closure and any temporary detours in advance. Midpen shall also notify adjacent neighbors along the road in advance of temporary closure. construction Manager or their designee County or City • In the event of an emergency, roads (public roads, and Midpen- owned or managed roads) or access trails blocked or obstructed by activities shall be cleared to allow emergency vehicles to pass. • During temporary lane or road closures on public roads, Midpen shall use flaggers equipped with two-way radios. Resolutions/2021 /OSMRP_CEQA-IS/MND_R-21- 16 Attachment 3 Number Mitigation Timing Who will verify? Department or Agency Consultation Verification (Date & Initials) • During an emergency, flaggers shall radio to the crew to cease operations and reopen the public road to emergency vehicles. In work areas, all vehicles and equipment shall be parked so the road is not blocked or obstructed when there is no operator present to move the vehicle. Resol utions/2021 /O SMRP_CEQA-IS/MND_R-2I- 17 Attachment 4 CALIFORNIA STATE TRANSPORTATION AGENCY GAVIN NEWSOM, GOVERNOR California Department of Transportation DISTRICT 4 OFFICE OF TRANSIT AND COMMUNITY PLANNING P.O. BOX 23660, MS -10D 1 OAKLAND, CA 94623-0660 www.dot.ca.aov September 2, 2021 Aaron Hebert Senior Resource Management Specialist Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 330 Distel Circle Los Altos, CA 94022 SCH #: 2021080129 GTS #: 04 -MULTIPLE -2021-00270 GTS ID: 23880 Co/Rt/Pm: MULT/VAR/VAR Re: Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Open Space Maintenance and Restoration Program Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) Dear Aaron Hebert: Thank you for including the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) in the environmental review process for this project. We are committed to ensuring that impacts to the State's multimodal transportation system and to our natural environment are identified and mitigated to support a safe, sustainable, integrated and efficient transportation system. The following comments are based on our review of the August 2021 MND. Project Understanding The Open Space Maintenance and Restoration Program Manual provides a detailed and consistent approach for the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District to conducting program activities including routine maintenance, small-scale facility improvements, new facility construction, and restoration and enhancement projects. Construction -Related Impacts Potential impacts to the State Right -of -Way (ROW) from project -related temporary access points should be analyzed. Mitigation for significant impacts due to construction and noise should be identified. Project work that requires movement of oversized or excessive load vehicles on State roadways requires a transportation permit that is issued by Caltrans. To apply, visit: https://dot.ca.gov/programs/traffic- operations/transportation-permits. Prior to construction, coordination may be required with Caltrans to develop a Transportation Management Plan (TMP) to reduce construction traffic impacts to the State Transportation Network. "Provide a safe and reliable transportation network that serves all people and respects the environment" Attachment 4 Aaron Hebert, Senior Resource Management Specialist September 2, 2021 Page 2 Thank you again for including Caltrans in the environmental review process. Should you have any questions regarding this letter, please contact Llisel Ayon at Llisel.Ayon@dot.ca.gov. Additionally, for future notifications and requests for review of new projects, please email LDIGR-D4@dot.ca.gov. Sincerely, M4.4(_ ge.,.._ MARK LEONG District Branch Chief Local Development - Intergovernmental Review c: State Clearinghouse "Provide a safe and reliable transportation network that serves all people and respects the environment" MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District R-21-121 Meeting 21-28 September 22, 2021 AGENDA ITEM 5 AGENDA ITEM Regional Water Quality Control Board Permit Fees for the Open Space Maintenance and Restoration Program GENERAL MANAGER'S RECOMMENDATION _ ''a Authorize the General Manager to pay a one-time permit application fee to the Regional Water Quality Control Board for the Open Space Maintenance and Restoration Program in amount not - to -exceed $75,000. SUMMARY The Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (District) obtains environmental permits for ongoing maintenance, operations, and construction activities that may affect protected waters and species. The District utilizes a mix of "programmatic" permits that cover many routine activities within District boundaries and "individual" permits that cover specific, non -routine projects. Staff have been working with regulatory staff from the US Army Corps of Engineers (Corps), US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), and California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) to refine a programmatic permitting approach for all routine land management activities described as the District's Open Space Maintenance and Restoration Program (MRP). The RWQCB has a one-time permit application fee for this 5 -year permit that covers the Open Space Maintenance and Restoration Program, which may cost up to $75,000. Authorizing the General Manager to pay this one-time fee will allow the RWQCB to process the permit. There are sufficient funds in the adopted Fiscal Year 2021-22 (FY22) project budget to cover the cost of the recommendation. DISCUSSION This permit application to the RWQCB supports the District's routine land management activities that falls within the MRP, including road and trail maintenance, Integrated Pest Management, the Wildland Fire Resiliency Program, and habitat restoration projects. The District has had a permitting agreement with the RWQCB since 2010. In 2018, the RWQCB required the District seek a similar agreement with the Corps to support their joint authorities under the Clean Water Act in order to renew the permitting agreement. In support of this new permitting agreement with the Corps (called a Regional General Permit), District staff developed a consolidated program (MRP) for all State and Federal environmental permitting agencies. The MRP provides a comprehensive approach to all covered activities with respect to protected waters and species. The permit applications to each agency are to be submitted concurrently in order to address any comments holistically within the MRP and between agencies. Rev. 3/15/21 R-21-121 Page 2 RWQCB permit fees can only be estimated at this time based on the scale and elements of the proposed program; the exact cost will be determined by RWQCB staff once the materials are submitted for their review. The current estimate is $55,000. By authorizing the General Manager to approve a permit fee payment in an amount not -to -exceed $75,000 in advance of the final cost calculation, the District will be able to expediently process the payment and avoid the anticipated fee increases that are scheduled for October\November. In addition to the one-time permit application fee, additional annual permit fees are estimated to be approximately $2,500. In July of 2018, the Board of Directors (Board) authorized the General Manager to enter into a contract with Horizon for the first phase of work to determine the best programmatic environmental permitting approach for the District for a total not -to -exceed amount of $99,734 (R-18-90). In April of 2019, the Board authorized the General Manager to amend the contract with Horizon to undertake the second phase of work of obtaining the necessary permits for an amount not -to -exceed $799,563 (R-19-54). Their scope of work does not include the permit application fee. FISCAL IMPACT The FY22 adopted budget includes $265,000 for the Programmatic State and Federal Environmental Permitting project 80034-44-100000. There are sufficient funds in the project budget to cover the recommended action. Programmatic State and Federal Environmental Permitting 80034-44-100000 Prior Year Actuals FY22 Adopted FY23 Projected FY24 Projected Estimated Future Years TOTAL Total Budget: $420,404 $265,000 $65,000 $0 $0 $750,404 Spent -to -Date (as of08/25/21): ($420,404) $0 $0 $0 $0 ($420,404) Encumbrances: $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Regional Water Quality Control Board Permit Fee: $0 ($75,000) $0 $0 $0 ($75,000) Budget Remaining (Proposed): $0 $190,000 $65,000 $0 $0 $255,000 The recommended action is not funded by Measure AA. BOARD AND COMMITTEE REVIEW The Planning and Natural Resources Committee received an overview presentation of the Open Space and Maintenance Program on January 26, 2021 (R-21-12). PUBLIC NOTICE Public notice was provided as required by the Brown Act. R-21-121 Page 3 CEQA COMPLIANCE The payment of a permit fee is not a project subject to the California Environmental Quality Act. The implementation of the program was analyzed in an Initial Study and Mitigated Declaration (IS/MND), which was circulated for comments on August 5, 2021 and public comment closed on September 7, 2021. One comment was received from the Department of Transportation ("Caltrans"), regarding potential temporary access impacts to the State Right of Way and noise concerns. These comments are sufficiently addressed in the IS/MND through mitigation measures TRANS -1 (ensures emergency vehicle ingress/egress is provided through District preserves, including notification to Caltrans as needed), and NOI-1 (ensures noise impacts to sensitive receptors and residences are minimized). These comments did not raise any significant new environmental impacts or result in any changes to the conclusions of the IS/MND. The Certification of the Open Space and Maintenance Restoration Program CEQA is scheduled for the September 22, 2021 Board meeting. NEXT STEPS Should the Board approve the General Manager's recommendation, staff will submit the RWQCB permit application, work with RWQCB staff to determine the application fee, and pay the permit application fee. Negotiations on the permit will follow with the RWQCB and other agencies. Responsible Department Head: Kirk Lenington, Natural Resources Department Contact Person and Prepared by: Aaron Hebert, Senior Resource Management Specialist, Natural Resources Department MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District R-21-122 Meeting 21-28 September 22, 2021 AGENDA ITEM 6 AGENDA ITEM Pacific Gas and Electric Monta Vista -Jefferson Electric Transmission Line Access Road Improvements and Apple Orchard Mitigation GENERAL MANAGER'S RECOMMENDATION Authorize the General Manager to enter into an access, monitoring, and mitigation agreement with Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E) to permit stream restoration mitigation work at the Apple Orchard property in La Honda Creek Open Space Preserve to offset potential impacts related to PG&E road repairs along their Monte Vista -Jefferson Electric Transmission Line within Russian Ridge Open Space Preserve. The restoration work would be completed by the San Mateo Resource Conservation District on District lands on behalf of PG&E. SUMMARY Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E) needs to repair and improve an access road, including five stream crossings, to facilitate ongoing maintenance of the Monta Vista -Jefferson transmission line, which is located within the western portions of Russian Ridge Open Space Preserve. With input from Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (District) staff, PG&E modified its original project to reduce potential environmental impacts. Even with a reduced scope, permit agencies require PG&E to implement approximately 2,100 square feet of stream restoration to offset project impacts. Limited onsite restoration possibilities caused PG&E to approach the San Mateo Resource Conservation District (RCD) for local restoration opportunities. The RCD and District staff identified restoration opportunities at the Apple Orchard property in La Honda Creek Open Space Preserve, which is the site of a joint project completed in 2016 that installed large woody debris to improve steelhead and coho fisheries habitat. The proposed Mitigation Agreement would be paid for by PG&E to fund additional restoration work undertaken by the RCD at the Apple Orchard site on District lands. BACKGROUND In October 2020, PG&E approached the District about accessing a portion of Russian Ridge Open Space Preserve west of Rapley Ranch Road (the former Conner property) to maintain their Monta Vista -Jefferson transmission line and reduce tree encroachment on the power lines. The project involves the repair of existing access roads, which PG&E has a right to maintain. District staff made a number of requests to include integrated pest management, expand the scope of their California Environmental Quality Act analysis, and eliminate a secondary access road that PG&E was proposing to improve. PG&E agreed to these changes. Improving the stream crossings along the access road at Russian Ridge requires extending the length of the culverts (as is best practice) and reconstructing a culvert crossing that failed sometime between 2005 and Rev. 3/15/21 R-21-122 Page 2 2010. The Regional Water Quality Control Board (Water Board) determined that 2,100 square feet of stream restoration is needed to offset the environmental impacts of the road and stream crossing improvements. PG&E inquired if the District had any mitigation -restoration opportunities onsite. District staff did not have any identified, `shovel ready' stream restoration projects in the immediate area. Furthermore, at the time, the District had no mitigation policy under development to help guide the evaluation of such requests. At the April 28, 2021 Board of Directors (Board) meeting, District Natural Resources staff presented a draft Mitigation Policy to the Board for discussion and feedback as an additional chapter to the Resource Management Policies (R-21-50). No major edits were suggested by the Board and the next steps include additional stakeholder outreach, which is currently underway. Staff anticipate returning to the full Board for approval of a new mitigation policy this fall. After approximately six months of trying to locate suitable mitigation, PG&E approached the RCD about finding a mitigation -restoration site in the same watershed. The RCD has an informal policy of working to keep mitigation -restoration projects within the same bioregion. RCD staff then met with District staff at several locations in La Honda Creek Open Space Preserve where potential restoration sites have previously been identified. The RCD and District staff determined that adding more large woody material to improve in -stream fish habitat in San Gregorio Creek at the Apple Orchard site was the most ecologically desirable and reasonably actionable project. This conclusion borrows from prior assessments and the 2016 project that installed large tree trunks at the project site. Large wood within waterways creates pools that provide rearing habitat for young fish, sorts sediments and gravels for spawning, and creates high flow refugia during storm events for fish. Historically, large woody debris played an important role in the creation of complex habitat within streams systems. Since the 1970s, as rural residences have encroached onto the creek corridor, woody debris have been removed. Throughout California, and especially in the last decade, restoration practitioners have been installing large trunks of wood back into salmonid streams to recreate historic stream conditions. If the in -stream habitat restoration work is supported by the Board, staff would prepare terms for a draft Mitigation Agreement to facilitate the proposed mitigation -restoration work at the Apple Orchard Site. The terms would reflect the roles of each party: the RCD would hold and disburse all funds, provide project management, permitting, procure and oversee construction, and monitor the project afterwards. PG&E would fund the project at a current estimated cost of approximately $245,000, including a 20% contingency. PG&E is also responsible for any additional costs. The District would grant permission to the RCD and its consultants and contractors to undertake the restoration -mitigation and future monitoring. DISCUSSION While a Mitigation Policy has not yet been approved by the Board, a formal mitigation agreement for this work would facilitate restoration on District lands without adding substantial workload or increasing the budget to the District's workplan. Staff evaluated the proposed mitigation agreement using the guidelines in the proposed draft Mitigation Policy. Based on this analysis, the General Manager recommends proceeding with a mitigation agreement to permit the in -stream restoration work. Should the District decline this opportunity, PG&E will seek to spend mitigation funds elsewhere and the mitigation will likely happen in another watershed or R-21-122 Page 3 outside of the bioregion. While the District would not directly receive any funds for this project, its estimated value at $245,000 requires Board approval under the draft Mitigation Policy. The draft Mitigation Policy directs staff to evaluate proposals against five criteria. Below is a summary of the findings from this evaluation. 1. Alignment with District Mission, Policies, and Goals The road repair project is largely consistent with prior recommendations from a 2004 Road and Trail Assessment Report prepared by Tim Best, Engineering Geologist, for improving the road surface and reducing sediment. Reducing sedimentation from old culverts is a District priority and is supported by the Regional Water Quality Control Board. PG&E is proposing to complete work that might otherwise be done by the District for operational reasons or to further the priorities of the Water Quality Improvement Plan for the San Gregorio Watershed. Reducing the risks of wildfire from PG&E transmission lines is also aligned with District goals and public interest. Early on, District staff had the opportunity to vet and improve PG&E's proposed scope for the road improvement project. The accompanying mitigation project leverages existing knowledge acquired for the Apple Orchard property and facilitates restoration along an anadromous creek to improve fisheries habitat in a sediment -impacted watershed. 2. Proximity to District Lands and Regional Context The road repair project will be occurring on District lands. Thus, facilitating restoration and mitigation on District lands makes sense from a public -value perspective. Both the road repair and proposed mitigation project are in the San Gregorio watershed; the stream crossing that will be improved as part of the road repair project is on a tributary of Woodruff Creek that flows into La Honda Creek, which then flows into San Gregorio Creek. The proposed mitigation site lies downstream of the creek crossing improvement. Keeping the mitigation -restoration work in the San Gregorio watershed and focusing on a site that offers the potential to establish superior fish habitat is much desirable given ongoing and long-term efforts to improve water quality and habitat health to return historic salmonid runs to San Gregorio Creek. 3. Public, Partner, and Social Implications PG&E is a complex, multi -faceted entity and in the past has occasionally done a poor job in adequately prescribing and completing vegetation management and road work on District lands within their easements. However, in the case of this project, PG&E reached out to the District in the early project phases, gave the District time to provide input, and incorporated the input to reduce potential environmental impacts into the project design. The District continues to stress the need for environmentally sensitive maintenance techniques to mitigate fire risk from these power lines. The road repairs will improve access for future maintenance work of the power lines. These repairs will also improve emergency and District patrol access to the property. 4. Low -impact Project Design and Appropriate Mitigation By engaging the District early on in the design process for the road repair project, PG&E incorporated District input to reduce potential project impacts and the scope of the work. The resulting project is largely consistent with road repair recommendations prepared for District in 2004 to address sedimentation issues. Additional measures to adhere to District vegetation management practices were incorporated at the District's request. The project's remaining impacts relate to additional fill in the creek to accommodate culvert extensions. Stream restoration is a logical 'like for like' mitigation action to offset the creek impacts. R-21-122 Page 4 5. Ecological Impact versus Value The proposed mitigation would improve an area of interest that can offer high -quality breeding habitat for steelhead and coho salmon in the middle -lower watershed compared to the lower quality habitat found at the road repair site in the upper watershed (which is beyond the limit of steelhead and coho salmon). Building off the success of the District's 2016 Apple Orchard Project, which improved in -stream fisheries habitat through the installation of large woody debris, allows this proposed mitigation project to utilize existing relevant data to design and monitor the proposed mitigation -restoration work. In summary, the proposed mitigation meets the criteria established by the draft Mitigation Policy and furthers District natural resource goals and assists efforts in improving the health and quality of a sediment -impaired watershed. Therefore, the General Manager recommends entering into the Mitigation Agreement. FISCAL IMPACT The recommended action has no direct fiscal impact on the District's budget. If the agreement is approved, the RCD will hold and disburse all funds associated with the mitigation. BOARD AND COMMITTEE REVIEW The Board reviewed the draft Mitigation Policy at the April 28, 2021 meeting, R-21-50. A final proposed Mitigation Policy is scheduled to be presented to the full Board for review and adoption in October/November. PUBLIC NOTICE Public notice was provided as required by the Brown Act. CEQA COMPLIANCE The Mitigation Agreement is not a project subject to the California Environmental Quality Act. The implementation of the proposed mitigation work at the Apple Orchard site is a project subject to CEQA. The District and RCD would cooperate to determine who is the most appropriate agency to serve as the lead agency for CEQA and complete the CEQA analysis. If the RCD takes the lead, the District will work closely with the RCD to review and finalize the CEQA document prior to public distribution and review. NEXT STEPS Should the Board approve the General Manager's recommendation, staff will draft and enter into the Mitigation Agreement with the RCD. The mitigation -restoration implementation could occur as soon as Fall 2022 but is more likely Fall of 2023 and will be monitored for at least three years after installation. Attachments 1. Transmission Line Road Improvement Map 2. Apple Orchard Map R-21-122 Page 5 Responsible Department Head: Kirk Lenington, Natural Resources Department Contact Person and Prepared by: Aaron Hebert, Sr. Resource Management Specialist, Natural Resources Department CONNOR PROPERTY RAPLEY RANCH sir , r"' I fit' \\ ,,. 2; 11 ,\ \. / II .\ u n 11 11 11 �� II / oo.a°°°o n fi 1 `\\ \ 291 //\\ - N\ .. 3355'/,•„ 34 3090. 2837 -1922 1110 11 II ,ice �S` ,' �.`. �gi/ °°o \\ II I\ // 1 / 211812975 1 `.h/ • 33 , 3' _ 31.1 41 n // / 1i 3 if". R• 6i2 II Il `\\ II D 1 '5.;31 it 1 •'' ��—�`��` RQA_ 102 /,/ l / 4 �_ i Mindego reel, / 1 tf I:I\ Attachment 1 8420 4 RD'9p9v1 �\ 5237 19 •or; 48 ROAD 101.1 N 1:12,000 SYMBOL Stream culvert Existing • Stream culvert: Proposed • Ford ♦ Dip - new - clean 1 1 1 1 0 250 500 750 L Feet ♦ Dip - existing ❑ Ditch relief culvert: existing ® Ditch relief culvert: damaged O Ditch relief culvert:proposed ♦ Landslide- fill failure 1532 Station 0 Map Point 0 Wet area Gate Inboard road ditch PRIORITY ROADS Inboard road ditch: - • HIGH Gully MED ) LOW - Highway - Paved Permanent Principal _ _ _= Secondary Ranch Trail • • • • Tractor 7f # # Abandoned STREAMS Ephmerial Intermittent .---f Perennial TIMOTHY C. BEST, CEG ENGINEERING GEOLOGY AND HYDROLOGY 1002 Columbia Street, Santa Cruz, CA 95060 (831) 425 5832 (831) 425 5830 (fax) ROAD INVENTORY MAP RUSSIAN RIDGE Midpeninsula Regional Open Space Preserve FIGURE 3A Job: MPEN-RUSSIANR-381 Date: 11/20/2005 jmontgomery Path: G:\Projects\La_Honda_Creek\Driscoll\AppleOrchardEtEventCenter\AppleOrchard_BoardPacket_8.5x11.mxd "Apple Orchard" Property s creek Event Center Sam McDonald (S.M. Co. Park) Attachment 2: POST (Driscoll) Apple Orchard &t Event Center Apple Orchard Et Event Center ,71 Driscoll Ranch MROSD Preserves Other Protected Open Space Private Property or Park Lands (MROSD) Attachment 2 • Palo Alto l • Area of Detail R Russian\Ridge Open Spac'Preserve In Other Public Agency Land Trust -H Developed Land Non MROSD Conservation or Agricultural Easement Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District e Miles February, 2014 0 0.425 0.85 While the District strives to use the best available digital data, this data does not represent a legal survey and is merely a graphic illustration of geographic features. MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE AppleOrchard_BoardPacket_8.5x11&".mxd" Apple Orchard Large Woody Debris Installation Sites MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District R-21-123 Meeting 21-28 September 22, 2021 AGENDA ITEM 7 AGENDA ITEM Contract amendments for H.T. Harvey and Associates to provide additional mitigation support and Hanford Applied Restoration & Conservation to provide additional replacement planting and plant maintenance for the Ravenswood Bay Trail Connection Project mitigation site at Ravenswood Open Space Preserve GENERAL MANAGER'S RECOMMENDATIONS - 1. Authorize the General Manager to execute a contract amendment with H.T. Harvey and Associates for additional mitigation support for the Ravenswood Bay Trail Connection Project mitigation site at Ravenswood Open Space Preserve in the amount of $61,453, for a total not -to -exceed contract amount of $701,615. 2. Authorize the General Manager to execute a contract amendment with Hanford Applied Restoration & Conservation for additional replacement planting and plant maintenance for the Ravenswood Bay Trail Connection Project mitigation site at Ravenswood Open Space Preserve in the amount of $115,540, for a total not -to -exceed amount of $501,830. 3. Authorize a 10% contingency of $11,554 on the contract amendment for Hanford Applied Restoration & Conservation to cover unforeseen environmental conditions that may affect plant survivability bringing the total contingency to $55,729, for a total not -to -exceed contract amount of $513,384. SUMMARY The Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (District) completed and opened the Ravenswood Bay Trail Connection Project (Project) on August 7, 2020. The Project required mitigation for potential impacts to wetland vegetation that occurred during construction activities. Additional mitigation plantings, due to unforeseen conditions that caused low survival rates of installed plants, are required to meet regulatory permit success criteria. This additional work requires contract amendments with H.T. Harvey and Associates (H.T. Harvey) and Hanford Applied Restoration & Conservation (Hanford ARC). H.T. Harvey as the Project biological consultant provides regulatory agency and plant nursery coordination, as well as biological monitoring and reporting for mitigation activities. Hanford ARC is the restoration contractor that installs mitigation plantings, straw, browse control and gopher caging, and performs irrigation and weeding services. In combination, the work completed by the two firms ensures Project permit conditions are met and annual regulatory reporting is completed. The adopted Fiscal Year 2021-22 (FY22) budget includes sufficient funds to cover the work and the recommended contract amendments for the current fiscal year of this multi -year effort. Rev. 3/15/21 R-21-123 Page 2 BACKGROUND The District Board of Directors (Board) authorized a contract with H.T. Harvey in September 2017 (R-17-111) to provide environmental consulting services, including monitoring and handling of sensitive species that may occur at the site during construction and securing permits for work in the highly sensitive bayland habitat. Contract amendments on November 28, 2018 (R-18-138; mitigation and planting plans) and July 10, 2019 (R-19-94; additional monitoring requirements to satisfy regulatory permits) provided for additional environmental consulting and mitigation support for five years (2020-2024). The Board authorized a contract with Hanford ARC to complete onsite mitigation work and five years of plant maintenance for the Project on August 28, 2019 (R-19-119). DISCUSSION The Mitigation Monitoring Plan (MMP) for the Ravenswood Bay Trail Connection Project outlines the onsite mitigation, monitoring and reporting for potential impacts associated with the project. The onsite mitigation consisted of the construction of two wildlife refuge islands in the salt marsh, berm enhancements along approximately 2,000 linear feet of salt marsh transition zones along the levee trail, direct seeding of native grass and forbs, and the installation of approximately 2,600 native nursery plants. Regulatory permits require success criteria (e.g., percent cover of native species, maximum percent cover of invasive species) to be met within the five-year monitoring period. Failure to meet the criteria by year five will require additional consultation with the permitting agencies to identify remedial measures and will extend the plant maintenance, monitoring, and reporting for the project. Monitoring surveys completed by H.T. Harvey in September 2020 and April 2021 detected low survival rates of installed nursery plants along the berm enhancement areas. The increased mortality of plants was due to unforeseen conditions, including the COVID-19 County and State Shelter -in -Place Orders that prevented Hanford ARC from providing irrigation and weeding from March through May 2020, insufficient moisture retention around plantings, and higher than anticipated browse damage from wildlife. To offset the low survival rate and ensure the District can meet permitting requirements, additional replacement plantings, straw installation, browse control and gopher caging, and irrigation events are recommended during the plant establishment period. Amendments to two contracts would complete this work and assist the District in achieving the success criteria by year five (2024). A contract amendment in the amount of $61,453 with H.T. Harvey would provide nursery coordination, restoration oversight, and biological monitoring for the additional revegetation and plant maintenance activities. This amendment would bring the total not -to - exceed contract amount with H.T. Harvey to $701,615. A contract amendment in the amount of $115,540 with Hanford ACR would complete the additional replacement planting, watering, weeding, browse control, and gopher cage installation. A 10% contingency of $11,554 is recommended for the Hanford ACR contract given that site conditions, including low moisture levels, can impact new planting survivability. With the contingency, the total contract amount with Hanford ACR would not -to -exceed $513,384. R-21-123 Page 3 FISCAL IMPACT There are sufficient funds in the adopted FY22 budget to cover the cost of the recommendations. Should unforeseen drought periods occur this fiscal year between November 2021 and March 2022, additional irrigation funds may be requested during a quarterly budget review. Funding for future year budgets through year five (2024) will be requested as a part of the annual Budget and Action Plan process. BOARD AND COMMITTEE REVIEW On September 27, 2017, the Board authorized the General Manager to enter into contract with H.T. Harvey to provide environmental consulting services to support the Project (R-17-111, Minutes). On November 28, 2018, and July 10, 2019, the Board authorized the General Manager to amend the contract with H.T. Harvey a to provide additional environmental consulting and mitigation support services to support the Project (R-18-138, Minutes; R-19-94, Minutes). On August 28, 2019, the Board authorized the General Manager to enter into contract with Hanford ARC to provide revegetation and plant maintenance services (R-19-119, Minutes). PUBLIC NOTICE Public notice was provided as required by the Brown Act. CEQA COMPLIANCE The Project was evaluated in a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Initial Study for the Bay Trail Connection at Ravenswood Open Space Preserve, certified by the Board on November 16, 2016 (R-16-146, Minutes). NEXT STEPS If approved, the General Manager will amend the contracts with H.T. Harvey to provide additional mitigation site support and Hanford ARC to provide additional replacement planting, browse control and gopher cage installation and plant maintenance. Responsible Department Head: Kirk Lenington, Natural Resources Department Manager Prepared by: Amanda Mills, Resource Specialist II, Natural Resources Department Rev. 3/15/21 R-21-125 Meeting 21-28 September 22, 2021 AGENDA ITEM 8 AGENDA ITEM Award of Contract to Geocon Consultants, Inc., for installation of a residential water well at Toto Ranch in Tunitas Creek Open Space Preserve GENERAL MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATIONS 1. Authorize the General Manager to enter into a base contract with Geocon Consultants, Inc., to install a residential well for a base amount of $68,947. 2. Authorize a contingency of $6,788 to be expended only if necessary, in the event conventional drilling methods are not possible due to geological issues bringing the contract to an amount not-to-exceed $75,735. 3. Authorize an Alternative Site Allowance of $57,104 specifically for exploring and developing a secondary well site in the event the first location proves unsuccessful at locating water, bringing the total contract to a not-to-exceed amount of $132,839 SUMMARY The General Manager recommends awarding a contract to the only responsive bidder, Geocon Consultants, Inc., for a base contract amount of $68,947 and authorizing a contingency of $6,788 for a not-to-exceed contract amount to $75,735 to install a residential water well at Toto Ranch in Tunitas Creek Open Space Preserve. In addition, the General Manager recommends authorizing an Alternate Site Allowance amount of $57,104 in the event exploration and development of a secondary well site is necessary. If successful, the scope under the recommended contract will complete the first phase of the project to provide residential water to the Toto Ranch farmhouse. The second phase of the project will connect the well to the farmhouse. The estimated cost of the second phase is $90,000 and would be implemented through a separate contract at a later date. The Fiscal Year 2021-22 (FY22) budget includes sufficient funds for both phases of work. DISCUSSION Located in the 707-acre Tunitas Creek Open Space Preserve, Toto Ranch is one of twelve conservation grazing units within the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (District). A single-family house is rented to the grazing and agricultural tenant. The farmhouse has always obtained its water from a spring box. However, with ongoing extended periods of drought, the water source has become unreliable. The District has provided water deliveries to this property for part of the year over the last three years as a stop gap method until a new water source could be developed. The rate of water deliveries and related costs have increased from an initial 4- R-21-125 Page 2 month duration to a current 6-month-plus duration of water deliveries during the dry season. During the delivery period, the residence is required to conserve water. The residential lease does not require the tenant to pay for water since the spring was sufficient in the past to supply water, therefore the District has absorbed the cost of water deliveries. Staff submitted a permit application in December of 2019 to drill a domestic well at the ranch. In August of 2020, the San Mateo County Agriculture Advisory Board approved the project and forwarded it to the San Mateo County Planning Commission for final approval. In March of 2021 the San Mateo County Planning Commission approved the development of a domestic well. Phase I – Well Exploration and Installation In 2019, the District consulted with the subcontractor Earthflow and Rich Deeney, a local water expert, to identify two possible drilling locations. Both locations were reviewed by District staff to confirm that the sites were in an area with the highest potential for water discovery. If water is located at the first location without any drilling complications, the well will be completed for $68,947. However, it is typical to encounter conditions, such as bedrock, dense sand, or tight gravel formations that require more expensive mud-rotary drilling. If this method is required, it could add up to $6,788 in drilling cost, which would be covered by the recommended contingency amount. If no water is found at the first well hole location, the Alternative Site Allowance will be exercised at an additional cost of up to $57,104 to drill a second well. Earthflow will seal and abandon any unsuccessful test holes as part of approved contract amounts. If developing a well at this site is not successful through two drilling attempts, other options for the future of the residence and/or agricultural operation will need to be explored. Phase II – Infrastructure Installation If the well drilling is successful, a second phase under a separate future contract will install a solar pump with a connection for a backup generator, storage tank, water meter, and waterline to the residence. The estimated cost of this work is $90,000. It is estimated that the second phase can be completed within the FY22 project budget. Contractor Selection A Request for Bids (RFB) was issued on April 6, 2021 for the well installation (phase I). District staff posted a legal notice in the San Mateo County Times and the San Jose Mercury News, released the RFB to the local builders’ exchanges, posted an Invitation to Bid on the District website as well as BidSync, and solicited local drilling companies. No bids were received during the submittal timeframe, which ended May 3, 2021. Board Purchasing Policy 3.03 recognizes that the purchasing procedures set forth in the policy may need to be waived in specific circumstances such as when three (3) bids or proposals are unavailable. These special circumstances are applicable here. After making a reasonable attempt to obtain formal bids through a publicly advertised process, staff attempted to do the functional equivalent of obtaining competitive bids by contacting contractors individually to obtain pricing. Drilling operators from the North Bay and Central Valley were solicited, but no drilling companies could meet the permit and District requirements for the project. Staff was able to connect with Geocon, a consultant company that has worked with the District on several past projects, to act as the General Contractor and provide consulting support to move the project forward. Geocon secured Earthflow as a drilling sub-contractor to R-21-125 Page 3 perform the well exploration. Contracting with Geocon was deemed to be in the best interest of the District due to the following circumstances: 1. The District had already made a good faith attempt at obtaining publicly advertised bids, but this effort did not yield a responsible and responsive bidder. 2. The District wishes to secure a long-term domestic water supply at the site, and actively soliciting Geocon’s bid on the open market is the only means by which a well can be installed at this time. FISCAL IMPACT The FY21 adopted budget includes $227,425 for the Toto Ranch Well Drilling and Construction, Tunitas Creek (61010) project. There are sufficient funds in the project budget to cover the recommended action and expenditures. 61010 - Toto Ranch Well Drilling and Construction, Tunitas Creek Prior Year Actuals FY22 Adopted TOTAL District Funded (Fund 40): $9,365 $227,425 $236,790 Total Budget: $9,365 $227,425 $236,790 Spent-to-Date (as of 08/19/21): ($9,365) $0 ($9,365) Encumbrances: $0 $0 $0 GEOCON Base Contract: $0 ($68,947) ($68,947) Contingency: $0 ($6,788) ($6,788) Alternate Site Allowance: $0 ($57,104) ($57,104) Budget Remaining (Proposed): $0 $94,586 $94,586 BOARD AND COMMITTEE REVIEW None. PUBLIC NOTICE Public notice was provided as required by the Brown Act. CEQA COMPLIANCE This item is a project subject to the California Environmental Quality Act. CEQA documentation and review for this project was conducted by the San Mateo County Planning Department, recommended by the San Mateo County Agricultural Advisory Committee, and approved by the San Mateo County Building and Planning Commission. R-21-125 Page 4 NEXT STEPS If approved, the General Manger will enter into a contract with Geocon Consultants Inc. The project is expected to be completed by November 1, 2021. Attachment: 1. Toto Ranch Domestic Water Well Install Map Responsible Department Head: Brandon Stewart, Manager Land and Facilities Services Department Prepared by and staff contact: Omar Smith, Senior Property Management Specialist, Land and Facilities Services Department Attachment 1 Attachment 1 Attachment 1 Attachment 1 R-21-124 Meeting 21-28 September 22, 2021 AGENDA ITEM 9 AGENDA ITEM Contract Amendment for Engineering Services with ZFA Structural Engineers to complete Phase II of the La Honda Creek White Barn Structural Stabilization Project GENERAL MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATIONS 1. Authorize the General Manager to execute a contract amendment in the amount of $109,727 with ZFA Structural Engineers of San Carlos, California to provide conceptual design drawings, construction documents, and bidding and construction administration for Phase II of the La Honda Creek White Barn Structural Stabilization Project, bringing the contract to a not-to-exceed amount of $312,857. 2. Authorize an additional 10% contingency of $10,973 to be reserved for unanticipated issues, bringing the amended total not-to-exceed contract amount to $323,830. SUMMARY On May 15, 2019, the Board of Directors (Board) approved a contract with ZFA Structural Engineers (ZFA) for $203,130 to provide Phase I structural assessment and analysis services for La Honda Creek (LHC) Redwood Cabin, LHC White Barn, and Sierra Azul Beatty House. ZFA completed their scope, and the findings were presented to the Board in April 2020. For the LHC White Barn, the Board selected the option to stabilize the structure and directed the General Manager to return with a recommended award of contract for Phase II design development and implementation of the Board-selected alternative. Given ZFA’s technical qualifications and relevant experience, high-quality Phase I work product, and institutional knowledge of the project, the General Manager recommends amending ZFA’s contract to perform additional services, including preparation of conceptual design drawings, construction documents, and bidding and construction administration support in the amount of $109,727, for a not-to-exceed contract amount of $312,857. Additionally, the General Manager recommends a 10% contingency of $10,973 to address unforeseen conditions, bringing the total not-to-exceed contract amount to $323,830. DISCUSSION The purpose of the Structure Stabilization at Multiple Preserves Project was to assess and determine the disposition of three District-owned structures: LHC Redwood Cabin, LHC White Barn, and Sierra Azul Beatty Property Home. A Request for Proposals (RFP) was issued in January 2019 to solicit qualifications and proposals for Phase I of the project: structure assessment, basis of design report, and design alternative analysis. The RFP also stated that the Project would be divided into two phases, and that the consultant selected to complete Phase I R-21-124 Page 2 may also be selected to complete Phase II: design development and implementation of the Board selected alternatives. On April 24, 2019 and May 15, 2019, the Board authorized a two-phase project delivery approach and approved the Phase I scope (R-19-63). The following four design alternatives were presented to the Board for their review and approval of each structure: 1. Retain structure in current state. Address public safety issues and restrict perimeter access to the structures; structure remains visible from a distance. 2. Stabilize the structure and site access routes for perimeter and exterior viewing by the public. Under this alternative, visitors can walk around the perimeter and view the structure up close. 3. Repair and rehabilitate the structure for reuse. Structure is visible and accessible from the exterior and interior. 4. Remove the structure and restore the underlying natural resource values. On April 22, 2020, the Board selected a modified design alternative #2 for the LHC White Barn (R-20-39). With the selection of the design alternatives for the LHC White Barn and the other two structures, the project was separated into three projects to track the implementation of the respective alternatives. The contract amendment described in this report is for the LHC White Barn implementation only. La Honda Creek (LHC) White Barn The LHC White Barn, originally constructed sometime prior to 1860, is located in the upper portion of La Honda Creek Open Space Preserve. The White Barn is located along Allen Road, approximately 1.5 miles to the east of the intersection of Bear Gulch Road and Allen Road. The area surrounding the barn is bounded by rich vegetation, rolling grassland, and wooded areas. The White Barn is rectangular with redwood framing, a metal roof, and wood floor. The White Barn is eligible for individual listing in the National Register of Historic Places and the California Register of Historical Resources. Its character-defining features include its use of local construction materials, medium-pitched gable roof, simple rectangular form, vertical board and batten redwood siding, board and batten clad doors, variety of utilitarian fenestration, hand hewn redwood post and beam construction, and simple wide-plank wood floors. On April 22, 2022, the Board selected an enhanced design alternative #2 to stabilize the structure, upgrade the foundation, and explore wildlife exclusion, interpretive signage, and plexiglass coverings to allow public viewing from the exterior. In addition, the Board directed staff to explore options for exterior coatings, including both white and semi-transparent options. A Request for Proposals at the start of this project solicited pricing for both Phase I and Phase II consultant services, although only Phase I services were initially approved by the Board. To deliver the Board’s selected design alternative, Staff requested ZFA to update their previously submitted proposal to provide Phase II design services. Staff reviewed the updated proposal and negotiated their fee down by approximately 20%. Staff has determined that entering into a contract amendment with ZFA is a practical and cost-effective way to move the project forward to completion. ZFA has demonstrated their strong technical qualifications, relevant experience and institutional knowledge of the project. ZFA will include Page & Turnbull, a qualified historic architectural consultant, on their team to complete the Phase II work. R-21-124 Page 3 Therefore, the General Manager recommends amending ZFA’s existing contract by $109,727 to complete Phase II, including conceptual design, construction documents, bidding and construction administration. The General Manager further recommends authorizing a 10% contingency of $10,973 to address unforeseen issues, bringing the total amended contract amount to $323,830. Note that the original ZFA contract covered studies for three structures. The total cost for LHC White Barn alone (Phase I and Phase II) is $184,960 out of the total contract amount of $323,830. The original contract breakdown by project is shown in the table below. Structure Stabilization at Multiple Preserves Project Original Contract Base Contingency Proposed Amendments Totals MAA05-008 La Honda Creek White Barn Structural Rehabilitation (White Barn) $55,878 $8,382 $120,700 $184,960 MAA05-009 La Honda Creek Redwood Cabin Removal and Site Restoration (Redwood Cabin) $66,796 $10,019 $76,815 MAA22-004 Beatty Parking Area and Trail Connections (Beatty Property Home) $53,961 $8,094 $62,055 $176,635 $26,495 $120,700 $323,830 FISCAL IMPACT The FY22 adopted budget includes $210,137 for the La Honda Creek White Barn Structural Rehabilitation MAA05-008 project. There are sufficient funds in the project budget to cover the recommended action and expenditures. La Honda Creek White Barn Structural Rehabilitation MAA05-008 Prior Year Actuals FY22 Adopted FY23 Projected FY24 Projected TOTAL Total Budget: $142,811 $210,137 $226,797 $0 $579,745 Spent-to-Date (as of 08/31/21): ($142,811) ($4,253) $0 $0 ($147,064) Encumbrances: $0 ($40,000) $0 $0 ($40,000) ZFA Structural Engineers Contract Amendment: $0 ($83,000) ($26,727) $0 ($109,727) 10% Contingency: $0 ($8,300) ($2,673) $0 ($10,973) Budget Remaining (Proposed): $0 $74,584 $197,397 $0 $271,981 The following table outlines the Measure AA Portfolio 05 La Honda Creek - Upper Area Recreation, Habitat Restoration and Conservation Grazing Projects allocation, costs-to-date, projected future project expenditures and projected portfolio balance remaining. MAA05 La Honda Creek—Upper Area Recreation, Habitat Restoration and Conservation Grazing Projects Portfolio Allocation: $11,733,000 Total Portfolio Allocation: $11,733,000 Life-to-Date Spent (as of 08/31/21): ($2,680,804) Encumbrances: ($180,315) Remaining FY22 Project Budgets: ($591,736) Future MAA05 project costs (projected through FY25): ($2,748,382) Total Portfolio Expenditures: ($6,201,237) Portfolio Balance Remaining (Proposed): $5,531,763 R-21-124 Page 4 The following table outlines the Measure AA Portfolio 05 La Honda Creek- Upper Area Recreation, Habitat Restoration and Conservation Grazing Projects, projected life of project expenditures and projected portfolio balance remaining. MAA05 La Honda Creek—Upper Area Recreation, Habitat Restoration and Conservation Grazing Projects Portfolio Allocation: $11,733,000 Total Portfolio Allocation: $11,733,000 05-001 La Honda Creek Land Conservation Opportunities ($1,756,093) 05-002 Upper La Honda Creek Grazing Infrastructure ($297,432) 05-005 La Honda Creek Red Barn Parking Area and Easy Access Trail ($327,513) 05-007 La Honda Creek Phase II Trail Connection ($471,622) 05-008 La Honda Creek White Barn Structural Rehabilitation ($579,745) 05-009 La Honda Creek Redwood Cabin Removal and Site Restoration ($624,349) 05-010 Restoration Forestry Demonstration Project ($1,317,899) 05-011 Lone Madrone Ranch Fence Installation ($201,987) 05-012 Phase 2 - Paulin Bridge Replacements (2) ($624,597) Total Portfolio Expenditures: ($6,201,237) Portfolio Balance Remaining (Proposed): $5,531,763 BOARD AND COMMITTEE REVIEW The assessment of the LHC White Barn and exploration of different preservation and stabilization alternatives previously came before the full Board at the following public meetings: • April 24, 2019: Board review of contract with ZFA for structural assessment and construction documents for stabilization of three structure. (R-19-51, meeting minutes) • May 15, 2019: Board review and authorization of contract with ZFA for assessment of structures and exploration of different preservation and stabilization alternatives. (R-19- 63, meeting minutes) • April 22, 2020: Board review of ZFA’s Basis of Design and selection of Design Alternative #2 – Stabilization for the LHC White Barn (R-20-39, meeting minutes) • November 4, 2020: Board review and authorization of contract with Ascent Environmental to provide environmental consulting services (R-20-127, meeting minutes) PUBLIC NOTICE Public notice will be provided as required by the Brown Act. CEQA COMPLIANCE Retention of professional consultants is not a project under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Under a contract authorized by the Board in November 2020, a District consultant is currently finalizing an Addendum to the LHC Master Plan Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) to analyze potential environmental impacts related to the structural stabilization construction activities associated with the implementation of this project. Staff R-21-124 Page 5 anticipates presenting the Addendum to the IS/MND to the Board for adoption prior to the construction of the project. NEXT STEPS Pending Board approval, the General Manager will authorize WJE’s contract amendment to develop construction documents for the Board-selected stabilization option for the LHC White Barn. Construction is anticipated in Spring/Summer of 2022. Attachment: 1. LHC White Barn Basis of Design, Condition Assessment, and Estimate – ZFA Dec. 2019 Responsible Department Head: Jason Lin, PE, Engineering and Construction Department Manager Prepared by: Paul Kvam, Capital Project Manager III, Engineering and Construction Department WHITE (DYER) BARN Structure Stabilization Basis of Design Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District La Honda Creek Open Space Preserve, San Mateo County, California District Project Number: MAA05-008 December 20, 2019 Prepared For: Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 330 Distel Circle Los Altos, CA 94022 Prepared By: Steven Patton, SE, Senior Associate Matt Frantz, SE, Associate Principal Mark Moore, SE, Principal-in-Charge March 13, 2020 DR A F T Attachment 1 STRUCTURE STABILIZATION BASIS OF DESIGN – White Barn La Honda Creek Open Space Preserve, San Mateo County, CA TABLE OF CONTENTS BASIS OF DESIGN SUMMARY ............................................................................................................................. 1 Introduction .............................................................................................................................................................. 1 Consultants and Exhibits ......................................................................................................................................... 2 Permitting Agency .................................................................................................................................................... 2 Regulatory Requirements ........................................................................................................................................ 2 Governing Building Code ......................................................................................................................................... 3 Architectural Condition Assessment ........................................................................................................................ 3 Structural Condition Assessment ............................................................................................................................ 4 Geotechnical Investigation ...................................................................................................................................... 5 Hazardous Materials Survey ................................................................................................................................... 6 Archaeological Survey ............................................................................................................................................. 6 Arborist Report ......................................................................................................................................................... 6 Wildlife Survey ......................................................................................................................................................... 6 Site Access Constraints ........................................................................................................................................... 6 Design Alternatives .................................................................................................................................................. 7 EXHIBITS Exhibit A: Architectural Basis of Design and Alternative Evaluations by Page & Turnbull, Inc. Exhibit B: Structural Condition Assessment and Basis of Design by ZFA Structural Engineers Exhibit C: Geotechnical Investigation by Romig Engineers Exhibit D: Asbestos and Lead Survey by Terracon Consultants, Inc. Exhibit E: Structural Surveys for Special-Status Mammal Species by Swaim Biological, Incorporated Exhibit F: Topographic Site Plan by Sigma Prime Geosciences, Inc. Exhibit G: Mothballing Guidelines by ZFA Structural Engineers Exhibit H: Conceptual Cost Estimate by OCMI DR A F T Attachment 1 STRUCTURE STABILIZATION BASIS OF DESIGN – White Barn | 1 La Honda Creek Open Space Preserve, San Mateo County, CA BASIS OF DESIGN SUMMARY Introduction The White Barn (also referred to as the Dyer Barn) is located on a moderately sloping site off Allen Road in the La Honda Creek Open Space Preserve and is owned by Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (District). The White Barn is a rectangular wood-framed structure that was part of a working farmstead from the 1860s until 1973. The original construction date is unknown, but the District estimates that it was constructed before 1860 and was partially rebuilt after 1900. Figure 1. Project Area Map The exterior of the structure contains vertical redwood boards and doors on each façade. The primary structure is hand-hewn timber post and beam framing that is supported by a redwood beam foundation. The gable roof is comprised of skip sheathing supporting rusted, corrugated metal roofing. The District purchased this property in 1984 and the structure has been uninhabited under the District’s ownership. The building is eligible for individual inclusion in the National Register and California Register of Historic Places and qualifies as a h istorical resource. The lack of use and years of deferred maintenance have left the White Barn in poor condition. The District has initiated a project to assess the structure of the White Barn, along with the La Honda Creek Redwood Cabin and Beatty Property Home. The project is being performed in two phases: • Phase 1: Site reconnaissance and structure assessment • Phase 2: Improvement selection and construction documents DR A F T Attachment 1 STRUCTURE STABILIZATION BASIS OF DESIGN – White Barn | 2 La Honda Creek Open Space Preserve, San Mateo County, CA This report summarizes the findings and recommendations from the Phase 1 tasks including an assessment of the existing conditions, Basis of Design, conceptual design alternatives, and cost estimates. The proposed alternatives include: 1. Retain structure in current state. Address public safety issues and restrict perimeter access to the structure; structure remains visible from a distance and can be interpreted from a distance. 2. Stabilize the structure and site access routes for perimeter and exterior viewing by the public. Under this alternative, the structure can be viewed up close with interpretation information adjacent to the structure. 3. Repair and rehabilitate the structure for reuse as a storage facility for District use. 4. Remove the structure and restore the underlying natural resource values Each alternative can include interpretive signage if or once the site is accessible to the public. Consultants and Exhibits The findings and recommendations contained in this summary are based on the following reports, which are provided as Exhibits: • Exhibit A: Architectural Basis of Design and Alternative Evaluations by Page & Turnbull, Inc. • Exhibit B: Structural Condition Assessment and Basis of Design by ZFA Structural Engineers • Exhibit C: Geotechnical Investigation by Romig Engineers • Exhibit D: Asbestos and Lead Survey by Terracon Consultants, Inc. • Exhibit E: Structural Surveys for Special-Status Mammal Species by Swaim Biological, Incorporated • Exhibit F: Topographic Site Plan by Sigma Prime Geosciences, Inc. • Exhibit G: Mothballing Guidelines by ZFA Structural Engineers • Exhibit H: Conceptual Cost Estimate by OCMI Permitting Agency The permitting agency for this building is the County of San Mateo Planning and Building Department (County). A preliminary coordination meeting was performed with the County to discuss the project. The County requested that a follow-up meeting be held once an option is selected by the District. In addition, the County of San Mateo Historic Resource Planner stated that the proposed option must be reviewed and approved by the County’s Historic Resources Advisory Board (HRAB). The County did not provide definitive guidance on the permitting schedule as this is dependent on the selected option, but the permitting and review schedule is expected to increase along with the scope of rehabilitation. For instance, the County stated that installation of a fence could likely be approved with an over-the-counter review, whereas rehabilitation for occupancy of the interior of the building would require a formal submittal review process. Demolition of the building or any significant alterations to the historic fabric would require greater review time by the HRAB. Regulatory Requirements The following regulatory contexts, summarized here from Exhibit A, were investigated and considered for this building: • National Register of Historic Places o The National Register of Historic Places is the nation’s most comprehensive inventory of historic resources. The National Register is administered by the National Park Service and includes buildings, structures, sites, objects, and districts that possess historic, architectural, engineering, archaeological, or cultural significance at the national, state, or local level. Based on a previous assessment, the White Barn was determined to be eligible for the National Register. DR A F T Attachment 1 STRUCTURE STABILIZATION BASIS OF DESIGN – White Barn | 3 La Honda Creek Open Space Preserve, San Mateo County, CA • California Register of Historic Resources o The California Register of Historical Resources (California Register) is an inventory of significant architectural, archaeological, and historical resources in the State of California. Based on a previous assessment, the White Barn was determined to be eligible for the California Register. • Secretary of The Interior’s Standards o The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties (Standards) establish the professional standards for work on historic buildings receiving funding assistance through the Historic Preservation Fund authorized by the National Historic Preservation Act. The Standards and associated guidelines are also often adopted by state and local permitting agencies for the purpose of reviewing potential projects involving historic resources. Governing Building Code Since the building is eligible for the National and California Registers, the California Historical Building Code (Part 8 of the California Code of Regulations, Title 24) is the governing building code. As discussed in Exhibit A, the code provides performance-oriented rather than prescriptive provisions for permitting repairs, alterations, and additions necessary for the preservation, rehabilitation, and other associated work to enable the continued use of historical resources. The code is intended to recognize the unique construction problems and obstacles to meeting code requirements of new construction when executing projects on historic resources that may have been constructed per earlier codes, or without any building code at all. Architectural Condition Assessment The results of the architectural conditions assessment, detailed in Exhibit A, are summarized below. Windows All exterior windows have been boarded up from the exterior and are now only visible from the interio r. The sash observed were in generally fair to poor condition as none retains the original glazing and framing is somewhat weathered and deteriorated. Exterior Doors There are four doors to the Barn, made of wood boards of similar characteristics to the boards used for the façades. Several of the boards are displaced in the vertical direction, giving an overall feeling of being out of square with the façade openings. In general, they are in fair to poor condition showing heavy weathering and exposure to the elements, even though still operable with some difficulty. Exterior Wood Cladding The exterior board-and-batten siding is in fair to poor condition. Many of the battens have collapsed or are missing, leaving the joints of the vertical boards open with varying gaps between them, which allows the intrusion of small animals, insects, water and humidity, and direct sun into the building, reducing its sheltering effect of the building interiors. The boards show a high degree of weathering from exposure to the elements. In some cases, the bottom of the boards has rotted away completely and no longer covers the grade beams. Foundations The foundation of this building is made of wood grade beams sitting on or partially buried in the ground, making it vulnerable to moisture from the ground, animals, and insects. Where the foundation beams were v isible at the building perimeter, they are in very poor condition, being spongy and brittle to the touch; the condition of intermediate foundation beams could not be visually assessed. Corrugated Metal Roof It is assumed that the existing galvanized, corrugated metal roof is a non-original replacement for the original roofing, however no remnants of earlier roofing were observed during the site visit. The corrugated metal roofing DR A F T Attachment 1 STRUCTURE STABILIZATION BASIS OF DESIGN – White Barn | 4 La Honda Creek Open Space Preserve, San Mateo County, CA exhibits some surface corrosion, but generally appears to be sound. Interior observations indicate that the panels may not be lapped properly which allows water to enter the building. Interior Floors The wood floorboards display signs of heavy use, discoloring and partial loss of mass along the edges next to the façade cladding. Some areas have been affected by termites and other insect attacks. Several floorboards are loose, and do not appear to be attached to the framing below, which creates a condition for unstable footing when walking inside the building. Interior Wood Feeding Crib, Pen and Partitions These partitions are formed by wood boards nailed to the main structure supports and some secondary posts mounted directly over the floorboards. They are in generally fair condition. Several pieces have biological growth where exposed to the elements, and some show signs of insect damage. Roof Framing The roof framing appears to represent a few different eras of construction. The roof framing appears to be in generally good condition, with the exception of the exposed rafter tails, which are in generally fair condition, where the wood is splitting and beginning to check in some locations. However, no significant deterioration or loss of profile was observed. Post and Beam Framing The main supporting structure is made of hand-hewn single pieces of redwood. All the main frame elements are in good condition, showing only minor signs of decoloring and humidity near the base of the posts, where they are in direct contact with the foundations. Structural Condition Assessment The results of the structural condition assessment are detailed in the report in Exhibit B. The structural assessment includes a review of the existing materials conditions as well as the expected performance of the structure under seismic and gravity loading. Overview The structure above grade appears to be in generally fair to good structural condition for the era of construction. The base of the structure in contact with soil appears to be in poor condition with obvious structural damage and deterioration apparent. Roof Framing The roof is composed of corrugated metal sheathing that is supported by 1x 6 skip sheathing spanning between 2x6 rafters spaced at 3 feet on center. The roof framing, viewed from the ground, appeared to be generally in good condition. Some localized deterioration due to weather ingress is assumed because of gaps observed in the corrugated metal roofing. Post and Beam Framing The primary structure is comprised of a timber post and beam system with 8x8 posts at 8 feet on center along the north and south ends of the building, as well as along the center of the building below the rid ge. These posts support 8x8 beams, which in turn support the roof rafters. The timber framing was observed to be in generally good condition. DR A F T Attachment 1 STRUCTURE STABILIZATION BASIS OF DESIGN – White Barn | 5 La Honda Creek Open Space Preserve, San Mateo County, CA Walls Walls are comprised of 1x vertical board and batten siding, which is generally in fair to poor condition with obvious signs of deterioration due to weather exposure particularly at the bottom of the walls adjacent to soil. Battens are also missing in many locations and the walls do not provide a waterproof or pest resistant façade for the interior o f the structure. Floor Framing At the ground floor level, the flooring is composed of 2x straight sheathing that is assumed to be supported by wood floor framing. The floor sheathing is in fair to poor condition with deterioration observed at some locati ons, particularly at the perimeter of the building. The floor framing sits just above or directly on the soil, so there is no access to observe the condition or type of framing. Deterioration due to soil contact is assumed in the floor framing throughout. Foundations The foundations for this structure are limited to wood grade beams placed directly on the soil. This wood has significantly deteriorated and contributed to settlement of the structure over time. Seismic Force-Resisting System The building generally lacks a seismic force-resisting system. De-facto lateral resistance is provided by the knee braces in the post and beam system, although this provides limited strength and ductility and is inadequate to resist the significant seismic forces that may occur at this site. The corrugated metal roofing serves as the de - facto roof diaphragm. A Tier 1 assessment of the structure using ASCE 41-17 Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Existing Buildings identified a number of potential deficiencies including the lack of a complete and well-defined seismic force-resisting system and the lack of steel hardware at post to beam connections. The structure is expected to perform poorly during a significant earthquake. Geotechnical Investigation A geotechnical investigation report has been prepared by Romig Engineers, which is in Exhibit C. Based on the geotechnical investigation, the primary geotechnical concerns at the site (and the reference page in the geotechnical investigation report) are: • The depth to competent bearing material appears to vary from the surface at the north side to up to 6 feet below ground surface at the south side. Foundations are recommended to extend down to competent bearing material to reduce the potential for differential settlement, or deepened excavations could be backfilled with compacted fill or lean concrete cement slurry (page 7). • The preliminary Hazard Zone Map indicates that the site is located in an area that is potentially susceptible to earthquake-induced landslides. However, it appears that the mapping is associated with the steep slopes in the general site vicinity, rather than the slopes in the immediate vicinity of the barn, and no obvious indications of slope instability immediately surrounding the barn wer e observed (page 4). • The potential for severe ground shaking at the site due to moderate to large earthquakes in the area (page 7). The bottom of all footing excavations should be cleaned of loose, soft, overly moist or collapsible soil and debris. A member of the geotechnical engineer’s staff should observe the excavations to confirm that they have at least the minimum recommended dimensions, are founded in competent residual soil or bedrock, and have been properly cleaned prior to placing concrete forms and reinforcing steel. If existing fill soil, colluvial soil, or disturbed bedrock is encountered at the foundation bearing depth, the geotechnical field representative will require these materials to be removed and a deeper embedment depth provided before reinforcing steel and concrete is placed. DR A F T Attachment 1 STRUCTURE STABILIZATION BASIS OF DESIGN – White Barn | 6 La Honda Creek Open Space Preserve, San Mateo County, CA Hazardous Materials Survey An Asbestos and Lead Survey was performed by Terracon, which is documented in the report in Exhibit D. In summary, no asbestos containing materials were detected in the tested materials. Lead based paint was confirmed in the building and is the only hazardous material identified. Disturbance of lead-containing paints and materials must be conducted in accordance with the requirements of Cal/OSHA (8CCR1532.1) and with the EPA Renovation, Repair and Painting (RRP) Rule. If loose and/or peeling paint is disturbed, it is required to be mitigated. Archaeological Survey An archaeological survey is not required for all Alternatives and was therefore not included in this Assessment. An archaeological survey would only be performed for Alternatives 3 and 4. Should these options be selected, the survey would be performed concurrent with the documentation for that phase. Arborist Report An arborist’s report was not required for this building, since there are no trees in the immediate vicinity of the building. Wildlife Survey A wildlife survey was performed by Swaim Biological, Incorporated, on June 17, 2019, which is in Exhibit E, to identify special status mammal species in and around the building. Suitable bat roost habitat is present within the structure and moderately suitable maternity roost habitat is found adjacent to the structure in the form of bat tree roost habitat. Based on the observed presence of at least three bats roosting within the structure , this site is presumed to be serving as a maternity roost. No signs of woodrats were present in the structure or surrounding natural habitat. While no woodrat nests were observed, the riparian habitat near the structure provides suitable habitat and absence of woodrats should not be assumed. Recommendations to address the presence of wildlife include: • Preconstruction surveys for bats and woodrats prior to stabilization activities. • Follow the general bat avoidance and minimization measures presented in Section 4.1 of SBI’s report. The bat wintering period is gener ally from November 16 through February 15, no building or tree work should be conducted during this time if bats are present. • Development of bat roost deterrent plan for approval by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) prior to structure stabilization activities. • The need for replacement habitat due to impacts on the maternity roost per District guidelines is dependent upon whether the planned stabilization activities will eliminate roosting habitat. Determination of the need for replacement habitat plan should coincide with the development of the deterrent plan. • Nesting bird surveys are required if work takes place between February 15 and August 30. Site Access Constraints The following items were considered when developing cost estimates for BOD options and should be considered for future planning of repairs and maintenance for the White Barn: • Wildlife Habitat – The presence of protected species in the area requires that personnel and visitors to the site follow District guidelines and advisory documents for access. District access permits are required for this site. Bird nesting season is February 15 to August 30. Bat maternity season is from April 15 to August 31. Torpor season is from November 15 to February 15. Construction restrictions will be in effect for these times. A biological monitor is required to be present during the first phases of construction or demolition to ensure bats are not harmed. Exclusion may also be warranted depending on the type of work taking place. DR A F T Attachment 1 STRUCTURE STABILIZATION BASIS OF DESIGN – White Barn | 7 La Honda Creek Open Space Preserve, San Mateo County, CA Design Alternatives To provide long-term stability of the structure and safety of the public and District staff, we recommend implementation of one of the following alternatives. Four alternatives are explored to address the existing condition of the structure, which range from minimal work with restricted public access to a complete rehabilitation to allow for re-occupancy. Demolition is also explored as an option. Cost estimates have been developed for each option to assist the District with decision making. Alternative 1: Retain structure in current state. Address public safety issues and restrict perimeter access to the structure; structure remains visible from a distance and can be interpreted from a distance. Recommendations: • Install a secure chain-link fence, a minimum of 8-foot-tall above grade, around the perimeter of the building. Assume standard pipe columns cast a minimum of 24" into 8" diameter concrete piers. The cost estimate assumes a chain link fence; other fence materials could be explored with the District’s guidance. The length of fencing is approximately 400 lineal feet and is recommended to be at least 20 feet from the perimeter of the building and porches to provide a safety “buffer” space in case collapse of the framing occurs in the future. Assume two gated locations for maintenance personnel access. Install signage at building and entry gates. • Weed abatement at perimeter. • Additional factors may need to be considered regarding the recommended lifespan of this option. The estimated cost for Alternative 1 is $39,004. This cost estimate includes markup and contingencies as noted in detail in the cost estimate report contained in Exhibit H. Additional maintenance costs are included as a separate line item in the cost estimate report. Alternative 2: Stabilize the structure and site access routes for perimeter and exterior viewing by the public. Under this alternative, the structure can be viewed up close with interpretation information adjacent to the structure. Recommendations: • Install pressure treated blocking/shims at locations of deteriorated wood grade beams to prevent further settlement of the superstructure and deterioration of the foundation. • Provide wood cross bracing at the interior of exterior walls. • The settled portions of the structure would not be required to be lifted back to their original (level) position, and the stabilization and shoring elements should be assumed to be left permanently in place until further remediation measures can be implemented. • Follow the Mothballing Guidelines outlined in Exhibit G, including: a. Secure the building and its component features to reduce vandalism or break-ins. b. Remove furnishings, trash, wildlife waste products and stored hazardous materials (i.e. poisons, paints, etc.) and ensure it is broom-clean. c. Provide adequate ventilation to the interior. d. Develop and implement a maintenance and monitoring plan for protection. • Secretary of the Interior’s Standards are the most appropriate basis for this proposed project alternative. • Weed abatement at perimeter. • Deteriorated elements of the building envelope, including siding, doors, and windows, should be repaired; where elements have deteriorated beyond repair or are missing, they should be replaced in-kind to match the existing sound elements. Fenestration that is currently boarded-up from the exterior should be repaired, and openings covered with clear Lexan to allow for viewing of the historic interior. The non- historic plywood should also be removed. DR A F T Attachment 1 STRUCTURE STABILIZATION BASIS OF DESIGN – White Barn | 8 La Honda Creek Open Space Preserve, San Mateo County, CA • Remove peeling, loose lead-containing paint from the exterior of the Barn. Disturbance of lead-containing paints and materials must be conducted in accordance with the requirements of Cal/OSHA (8CCR1532.1) and with the EPA Renovation, Repair and Painting (RRP) Ru le. Repaint the exterior to protect the historic redwood cladding from the elements. The preparation of the substrate for painting should be gentle, it is not recommended that the existing texture of the wood be significantly altered. The condition of the coating should be inspected annually, and the building will likely require repainting every 7-10 years to maintain a sound coating on the wood. • Develop a bat roost deterrent plan, including a replacement bat maternity roost habitat, for approval by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), and follow the general bat and woodrat avoidance measures (see Exhibit E). • Optional: Install motion activated cameras and signage at the site as an additional security measure; include additional maintenance costs for these measures. If internet or cellular service is unavailable, a motion activated camera system may be installed that stores footage on site that may be accessed by District staff in the event of security concerns. The estimated cost for Alternative 2 is $116,423. This cost estimate includes markup and contingencies as noted in detail in the cost estimate report contained in Exhibit H. Additional maintenance costs are included as a separate line item in the cost estimate report. Alternative 3: Repair and rehabilitate the structure for reuse as a storage facility for District use. The California Historic Building Code (CHBC) would be utilized to define the design criteria. Recommendations: • The stabilization methods proposed for this option target all code and safety concerns as specifically identified in the condition assessment to allow for re-occupancy of the building. For cost estimation purposes, it is assumed necessary to bring all elements of the unpermitted structure up to the current historical building code to allow for re-occupancy of the existing building. It is assumed there is no change of occupancy from the existing. • Provide new structural members including: o New concrete foundation o New vertical seismic force-resisting system o New roof diaphragm o Remove and replace deteriorated siding (assume 40% require repair). o New floor system • Secretary of the Interior’s Standards are the most appropriate basis for this proposed project alternative. • In addition to the envelope repair described in proposed project alternative #2 for the Barn, rehabilitating the building for a storage use should include the installation of interior lighting to meet code required minimums for safety. • Remove lead-containing paint. Disturbance of lead-containing paints and materials must be conducted in accordance with the requirements of Cal/OSHA (8CCR1532.1) and with the EPA Renovation, Repair and Painting (RRP) Rule. • Develop a bat roost deterrent plan, including a replacement bat maternity roost habitat, for approval by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), and follow the general bat and woodrat avoidance measures (see Exhibit E). • Given the wooden construction of the building, it would be inadvisable to store any flammable materials within the barn, or any items that would increase the risk of fire or damage to the historic resource. • Care should be taken to protect the door framing from impact damage; install temporary protection if necessary, in a manner that does not attach directly to or otherwise damage the historic fabric of the barn. DR A F T Attachment 1 STRUCTURE STABILIZATION BASIS OF DESIGN – White Barn | 9 La Honda Creek Open Space Preserve, San Mateo County, CA • Optional: Install motion activated cameras and signage at the site as an additional security measure; include additional maintenance costs for these measures. If internet or cellular service is unavailable, a motion activated camera system may be installed that stores footage on site that may be accessed by District staff in the event of security concerns. The estimated cost for Alternative 3 is $396,904. This cost estimate includes markup and contingencies as noted in detail in the cost estimate report contained in Exhibit H. Additional maintenance costs are included as a separate line item in the cost estimate report. Alternative 4: Remove the structure and restore the underlying natural resource values. Recommendations: • Demolishing the structure may require additional processes to obtain demolition permits. • Remove lead-containing paint prior to demolition. Disturbance of lead-containing paints and materials must be conducted in accordance with the requirements of Cal/OSHA (8CCR1532.1) and with the EPA Renovation, Repair and Painting (RRP) Rule. See Exhibit D. • Develop a replacement bat maternity roost habitat plan for approval by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), and follow the general bat and woodrat avoidance measures (see Exhibit E). • The site landscaping would be rehabilitated to return it as close as possible to its original condition prior to the construction of the building. • Installation of interpretive features (signage) documenting the pre-demo site conditions and previous use and inhabitants of the site should also be considered. • The demolition option is being requested pending completion of regulatory approval for cost estimation purposes only. • Complete removal of the building would result in the lowest continued annual maintenance costs for this site, but the feasibility of this option is dependent upon regulatory approval process. • Due to the relatively small size of the structure, the District may consider dismantling and relocating the structure as an alternative to demolition. The estimated cost for Alternative 4 is $171,982. This cost estimate includes markup and contingencies as noted in detail in the cost estimate report contained in Exhibit H. DR A F T Attachment 1 STRUCTURE STABILIZATION BASIS OF DESIGN – White Barn La Honda Creek Open Space Preserve, San Mateo County, CA EXHIBIT A Architectural Basis of Design and Alternative Evaluations By Page & Turnbull, Inc. DR A F T Attachment 1 Basis of Design and Alternative Evaluation Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District La Honda Creek White (Dyer) Barn September 20, 2019 Page & Turnbull, Inc. TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION..............................................................................................................2 METHODOLOGY...................................................................................................................................................2 GUIDING PRESERVATION PRINCIPLES AND CONTEXT......................................3 THE NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES...............................................................................3 Criteria.....................................................................................................................................................3 Integrity...................................................................................................................................................3 CALIFORNIA REGISTER OF HISTORICAL RESOURCES ......................................................................4 Criteria.....................................................................................................................................................4 Integrity...................................................................................................................................................4 SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR’S STANDARDS......................................................................................5 Preservation............................................................................................................................................5 Rehabilitation.........................................................................................................................................5 Restoration.............................................................................................................................................5 Reconstruction.......................................................................................................................................5 Standards for Preservation...................................................................................................................6 Standards for Rehabilitation................................................................................................................6 CALIFORNIA HISTORICAL BUILDING CODE..........................................................................................7 CALIFORNIA EXISTING BUILDING CODE...............................................................................................7 LA HONDA CREEK WHITE (DYER) BARN..................................................................8 CURRENT HISTORIC STATUS..........................................................................................................................8 CHARACTER-DEFINING FEATURES............................................................................................................8 Exterior...................................................................................................................................................8 Interior....................................................................................................................................................8 PERMITTING AGENCY – AUTHORITY HAVING JURISDICTION....................................................8 EXISTING CONDITIONS ASSESSMENT ......................................................................................................9 Exterior.................................................................................................................................................10 Interior..................................................................................................................................................11 PROPOSED PROJECT ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION.......................................................................13 DR A F T Attachment 1 Basis of Design and Alternative Evaluation Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District La Honda Creek - White (Dyer) Barn March 13, 2020 - 2 - Page & Turnbull, Inc. INTRODUCTION The purpose of this section of the Basis of Design report is to evaluate the existing architectural conditions and the potential impacts and implications of four proposed project alternatives/treatments for the White (Dyer) Barn in the La Honda Creek Open Space Preserve. The four proposed project alternatives/treatments are as follows: 1. Restrict Perimeter Access to the Structure, such that the public cannot enter the surrounding area, and remove or stabilize potential public safety hazards. 2. Stabilize the structure and site access routes to allow perimeter access for exterior viewing and interpretation. Retain structure for interpretive purposes. 3. Improve (Rehabilitate) the structure to be repurposed for a compatible occupancy. 4. Demolish the structure. METHODOLOGY To evaluate the existing conditions of the three subject buildings, Page & Turnbull conducted visual conditions assessments and documented the existing conditions with digital photography. The conditions were evaluated based on the following rating system of good, fair, and poor conditions: Good (G) The building element / feature is intact, structurally sound, and performing its intended purpose. The element / feature needs no repair or rehabilitation, but only routine or preventative maintenance. Fair (F) The building element / feature shows signs of aging and one or more of the following conditions is present: a) There are early signs of wear, failure, or deterioration though the element / feature and its components are generally structurally sound and performing their intended purpose; or b) There is failure of one individual component. Poor (P) The building element / feature shows signs of deterioration and one or more the following conditions is present: a) The element / feature is no longer performing its intended purpose; or b) Feature is missing; or c) Deterioration or damage affects more than 30% of the element / feature; or d) The element / feature shows signs of imminent failure or breakdown. Unknown (U) The element / feature was not accessible for assessment or not enough information is available to make an evaluation. Evaluation of the proposed project alternatives took into account the historic significance of the La Honda Creek White Barn, and the applicable preservation principles and context, including the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties, the 2016 California Building Code, the 2016 California Existing Building Code, and the 2016 California Historical Building Code. Evaluation of the structural conditions and recommendations for the remediation of structural deficiencies was performed by ZFA. Refer to the assessment report and treatment recommendations produced by ZFA for all structural considerations and impacts. 1. Retain structure in current state. Address public safety issues and restrict perimeter access to the structure; structure remains visible from a distance and can be interpreted from a distance. 2. Stabilize the structure and site access routes for perimeter and exterior viewing by the public. Under this alternative, the structure can be viewed up close with interpretation information adjacent to the structure. 3. Repair and rehabilitate the structure for reuse as a storage facility for District Use 4. Remove the structure and restore the underlying natural resource values. DR A F T Attachment 1 Basis of Design and Alternative Evaluation Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District La Honda Creek - White (Dyer) Barn March 13, 2020 - 3 - Page & Turnbull, Inc. GUIDING PRESERVATION PRINCIPLES AND CONTEXT The following section describes the various preservation principles and context that are applicable to the La Honda Creek White Barn. For analysis and considerations related to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) as it may apply to the proposed project alternatives, additional studies may need to be performed. THE NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES The National Register of Historic Places is the nation’s most comprehensive inventory of historic resources. The National Register is administered by the National Park Service and includes buildings, structures, sites, objects, and districts that possess historic, architectural, engineering, archaeological, or cultural significance at the national, state, or local level. Typically, resources over fifty years of age are eligible for listing in the National Register if they meet any one of the four criteria of significance and if they sufficiently retain historic integrity. However, resources under fifty years of age can be determined eligible if it can be demonstrated that they are of “exceptional importance,” or if they are contributors to a potential historic district. National Register criteria are defined in depth in National Register Bulletin Number 15: How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation. There are four basic criteria under which a structure, site, building, district, or object can be considered eligible for listing in the National Register. Criteria Criterion A (Event): Properties associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history; Criterion B (Person): Properties associated with the lives of persons significant in our past; Criterion C (Design/Construction): Properties that embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or that represent the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or that represent a significant distinguishable entity whose components lack individual distinction; and Criterion D (Information Potential): Properties that have yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history. Integrity Once a resource has been identified as being potentially eligible for listing in the National Register, its historic integrity must be evaluated. The National Register recognizes seven aspects or qualities that, in various combinations, define integrity. These aspects are location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling and association. Location is the place where the historic property was constructed or the place where the historic event occurred; Setting addresses the physical environment of the historic property inclusive of the landscape and spatial relationships of the building(s); Design is the combination of elements that create the form, plan, space, structure, and style of the property; Materials refer to the physical elements that were combined or deposited during a particular period of time and in a particular pattern or configuration to form the historic property; DR A F T Attachment 1 Basis of Design and Alternative Evaluation Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District La Honda Creek - White (Dyer) Barn March 13, 2020 - 4 - Page & Turnbull, Inc. Workmanship is the physical evidence of the crafts of a particular culture or people during any given period in history or prehistory; Feeling is the property’s expression of the aesthetic or historic sense of a particular period of time; and Association is the direct link between an important historic event or person and the historic property. In order to be determined eligible for listing, these aspects must closely relate to the resource’s significance and must be intact. CALIFORNIA REGISTER OF HISTORICAL RESOURCES The California Register of Historical Resources (California Register) is an inventory of significant architectural, archaeological, and historical resources in the State of California. Resources can be listed in the California Register through a number of methods. State Historical Landmarks and National Register-listed properties are automatically listed in the California Register. Properties can also be nominated to the California Register by local governments, private organizations, or citizens. The evaluative criteria used by the California Register for determining eligibility are closely based on those developed by the National Park Service for the National Register of Historic Places. In order for a property to be eligible for listing in the California Register, it must be found significant under one or more of the following criteria. Criteria Criterion 1 (Events): Resources that are associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of local or regional history, or the cultural heritage of California or the United States. Criterion 2 (Persons): Resources that are associated with the lives of persons important to local, California, or national history. Criterion 3 (Architecture): Resources that embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represent the work of a master, or possess high artistic values. Criterion 4 (Information Potential): Resources or sites that have yielded or have the potential to yield information important to the prehistory or history of the local area, California, or the nation. Resources eligible for the National Register are automatically listed in the California Register of Historical Resources. Integrity The process of determining integrity is similar for both the California Register and the National Register. The same seven variables or aspects that define integrity—location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling and association—are used to evaluate a resource’s eligibility for listing in the California Register and the National Register. There is a critical distinction between the two registers, however, and that is the degree of integrity that a property can retain and still be considered eligible for listing. According to the California Office of Historic Preservation: It is possible that historical resources may not retain sufficient integrity to meet the criteria for listing in the National Register, but they may still be eligible for listing in the California Register. A resource that has lost its DR A F T Attachment 1 Basis of Design and Alternative Evaluation Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District La Honda Creek - White (Dyer) Barn March 13, 2020 - 5 - Page & Turnbull, Inc. historic character or appearance may still have sufficient integrity for the California Register if it maintains the potential to yield significant or historical information or specific data.1 SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR’S STANDARDS The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties (hereafter “Standards”) establish the professional standards for work on historic buildings receiving funding assistance through the Historic Preservation Fund authorized by the National Historic Preservation Act. The Standards and associated guidelines are also often adopted by state and local permitting agencies for the purpose of reviewing potential projects involving historic resources. The Standards define four approaches to the treatment of historic properties, adapted below. A variety of factors contribute to the selection of an appropriate treatment, including the historic significance, physical condition, proposed use, and intended interpretation of the subject properties. Preservation: Focuses on the maintenance and repair of existing historic materials. Requires retention of the greatest amount of historic fabric, along with the building’s historic form, features, and detailing as they have evolved over time. When the property's distinctive materials, features, and spaces are essentially intact and thus convey the historic significance without extensive repair or replacement; when depiction at a particular period of time is not appropriate; and when a continuing or new use does not require additions or extensive alterations, Preservation may be considered as a treatment. Rehabilitation: Acknowledge the need to alter or add to a historic building to meet continuing or new uses while retaining the building’s historic character. When repair and replacement of deteriorated features are necessary; when alterations or additions to the property are planned for a new or continued use; and when its depiction at a particular period of time is not appropriate, Rehabilitation may be considered as a treatment. Restoration: Allow for the depiction of a building at a particular time in its history by preserving materials from the period of significance and removing materials from other periods. When the property's design, architectural, or historical significance during a particular period of time outweighs the potential loss of extant materials, features, spaces, and finishes that characterize other historical periods; when there is substantial physical and documentary evidence for the work; and when contemporary alterations and additions are not planned, Restoration may be considered as a treatment. Reconstruction: Establish a limited framework for re-creating a vanished or non-surviving building with new materials, primarily for interpretive purposes. When a contemporary depiction is required to understand and interpret a property's historic value (including the re-creation of missing components in a historic district or site); when no other property with the same associative value has survived; and when sufficient historical documentation exists to ensure an accurate reproduction, Reconstruction may be considered as a treatment. Once a treatment option has been established, an associated set of standards are applied. In addition to the Standards, the Secretary of the Interior publishes guidelines with specific examples to aid in interpreting how the standards are applied. For the purposes of this Basis of Design, the treatment approaches most appropriate to the four proposed project alternatives are Preservation and Rehabilitation. 1 California Office of Historic Preservation, Technical Assistance Series No. 6, California Register and National Register: A Comparison (Sacramento, CA: California Office of State Publishing, November 2004) DR A F T Attachment 1 Basis of Design and Alternative Evaluation Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District La Honda Creek - White (Dyer) Barn March 13, 2020 - 6 - Page & Turnbull, Inc. Standards for Preservation: 1. A property will be used as it was historically, or be given a new use that maximizes the retention of distinctive materials, features, spaces and spatial relationships. Where a treatment and use have not been identified, a property will be protected and, if necessary, stabilized until additional work may be undertaken. 2. The historic character of a property will be retained and preserved. The replacement of intact or repairable historic materials or alteration of features, spaces and spatial relationships that characterize a property will be avoided. 3. Each property will be recognized as a physical record of its time, place and use. Work needed to stabilize, consolidate and conserve existing historic materials and features will be physically and visually compatible, identifiable upon close inspection and properly documented for future research. 4. Changes to a property that have acquired historic significance in their own right will be retained and preserved. 5. Distinctive materials, features, finishes and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship that characterize a property will be preserved. 6. The existing condition of historic features will be evaluated to determine the appropriate level of intervention needed. Where the severity of deterioration requires repair or limited replacement of a distinctive feature, the new material will match the old in composition, design, color and texture. 7. Chemical or physical treatments, if appropriate, will be undertaken using the gentlest means possible. Treatments that cause damage to historic materials will not be used. 8. Archeological resources will be protected and preserved in place. If such resources must be disturbed, mitigation measures will be undertaken. Standards for Rehabilitation* 1. A property will be used as it was historically or be given a new use that requires minimal change to its distinctive materials, features, spaces and spatial relationships. 2. The historic character of a property will be retained and preserved. The removal of distinctive materials or alteration of features, spaces and spatial relationships that characterize a property will be avoided. 3. Each property will be recognized as a physical record of its time, place and use. Changes that create a false sense of historical development, such as adding conjectural features or elements from other historic properties, will not be undertaken. 4. Changes to a property that have acquired historic significance in their own right will be retained and preserved. 5. Distinctive materials, features, finishes and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship that characterize a property will be preserved. 6. Deteriorated historic features will be repaired rather than replaced. Where the severity of deterioration requires replacement of a distinctive feature, the new feature will match the old in design, color, texture and, where possible, materials. Replacement of missing features will be substantiated by documentary and physical evidence. 7. Chemical or physical treatments, if appropriate, will be undertaken using the gentlest means possible. Treatments that cause damage to historic materials will not be used. 8. Archeological resources will be protected and preserved in place. If such resources must be disturbed, mitigation measures will be undertaken. 9. New additions, exterior alterations or related new construction will not destroy historic materials, features and spatial relationships that characterize the property. The new work will be differentiated from the old and will be compatible with the historic materials, features, size, scale and proportion, and massing to protect the integrity of the property and its environment. 10. New additions and adjacent or related new construction will be undertaken in such a manner that, if removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the historic property and its environment would be unimpaired. DR A F T Attachment 1 Basis of Design and Alternative Evaluation Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District La Honda Creek - White (Dyer) Barn March 13, 2020 - 7 - Page & Turnbull, Inc. *For the Historic Preservation Tax Incentives Program, there is a similar but distinct set of standards. Further discussion of the appropriate treatment options for the La Honda Creek White Barn can be found in the following sections of this Basis of Design Report. CALIFORNIA HISTORICAL BUILDING CODE The California Historical Building Code is Part 8 of the California Building Standards Code (California Code of Regulations, Title 24). The code provides performance-oriented rather than prescriptive provisions for permitting repairs, alterations, and additions necessary for the preservation, rehabilitation, and other associated work to enable the continued use of historical resources.2 The code is intended to recognize the unique construction problems and obstacles to meeting code requirements of new construction when executing projects on historic resources that may have been constructed per earlier codes, or without any building code at all. From Section 8-101.2, Purpose: The purpose of the CHBC is to provide regulations for the preservation, restoration, rehabilitation, relocation, or reconstruction of buildings or properties designated as qualified historical buildings or properties (Chapter 8-2). The CHBC is intended to provide solutions for the preservation of qualified historical buildings or properties, to promote sustainability, to provide access for persons with disabilities, to provide a cost-effective approach to preservation, and to provide for the reasonable safety of the occupants or users. The CHBC requires enforcing agencies to accept solutions that are reasonably equivalent to the regular code (as defined in Chapter 8-2) when dealing with qualified historical buildings or properties. Generally, qualified historical buildings may continue to be used as they were historically unless the continued use or occupancy constitutes a distinct hazard to life safety as defined in the CHBC.3 For a change in occupancy, e.g. in the case of a rehabilitation or adaptive use, the property may need to be adapted to conform with the applicable requirements of its new use as defined in the CHBC.4 The White Barn has been determined to be an historic resource; see the Current Historic Status section in the continuation of this report for further information. CALIFORNIA EXISTING BUILDING CODE For existing buildings not designated as historic resources, the provisions of the California Existing Building Code (CEBC) apply to their repair, alteration, change of occupancy, addition, and relocation.5 Per the 2016 CEBC, Section 101.3, the intent of the code is to “provide flexibility to permit the use of alternative approaches to achieve compliance with minimum requirements to safeguard the public health, safety, and welfare insofar as they are affected by the repair, alteration, change of occupancy, addition, and relocation of existing buildings.” The White Barn is an historic resource, but the CEBC may still be applied by the Authority Having Jurisdiction where applicable. 2 California Historical Building Code, 2016, vii. 3 2016 California Historical Building Code, Section 8-102.1.4. 4 2016 California Historical Building Code, Section 8-302.2. 5 2016 California Existing Building Code, Section 101.2 DR A F T Attachment 1 Basis of Design and Alternative Evaluation Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District La Honda Creek - White (Dyer) Barn March 13, 2020 - 8 - Page & Turnbull, Inc. LA HONDA CREEK WHITE (DYER) BARN CURRENT HISTORIC STATUS The La Honda Creek White Barn (Barn), also known as the Dyer Barn, was evaluated for eligibility for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places and the California Register of Historical Resources in an Historical Resource Evaluation (HRE) prepared by LSA in February 2018. The HRE found that the Barn appears eligible for individual listing in both the National Register and the California Register under several different significance criteria. Under Criterion A of the National Register and Criterion 1 of the California Register, the Barn was found significant for its association with the early agricultural land use and development of San Mateo County in the mid-19th through the mid-20th centuries.6 Under Criterion C of the National Register and Criterion 3 of the California Register, the Barn was found significant as a representative example of a Vernacular utilitarian building type associated with the mid-19th century agricultural development of San Mateo County and California.7 And finally, under Criterion D of the National Register and Criterion 4 of the California Register, the Barn was found significant for its representation of and potential to yield further information about a local building tradition and joinery technology with labor-intensive craftsmanship, and the use of local redwood in its period of construction.8 CHARACTER-DEFINING FEATURES Exterior The siting of the Barn in a sparsely developed area that still conveys its rural history and association. Use of simple, utilitarian, and primarily local construction materials Medium-pitched gable roof. Simple, rectangular form and plan. Vertical board-and-batten redwood siding Board-and-batten clad doors. Variety of utilitarian fenestration associated with agricultural use Interior Hand-hewn redwood post-and-beam construction. Largely open volume from the floor to the roof framing without internal horizontal structural members. Simple, wide-plank wood floors PERMITTING AGENCY – AUTHORITY HAVING JURISDICTION The Barn is located in San Mateo County within a Resource Management zone. The authority having jurisdiction for environmental approvals including the issuance of planning approvals and building permits is the County of San Mateo Department of Planning and Building Department. Permitted uses within the Resource Management Zone include the following: Agricultural uses and accessory structures, on-site sales of agricultural products. Nurseries and greenhouses Temporary trailer parks and other housing for farm laborers Livestock raising and grazing 6 LSA Historical Resource Evaluation of the Dyer Barn, 2018, page 30. 7 Ibid, page 31. 8 Ibid, page 32. DR A F T Attachment 1 Basis of Design and Alternative Evaluation Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District La Honda Creek - White (Dyer) Barn March 13, 2020 - 9 - Page & Turnbull, Inc. Dairies Kennels or Catteries Timber Harvesting (see zoning code for specifications) Quarries and waste disposal Single-family residences Public and private clubs Public recreation Commercial recreation EXISTING CONDITIONS ASSESSMENT On July 10th, 2019 Page & Turnbull performed a visual conditions assessment of the exterior and interior of the White Barn (Barn), located at the end of Kebet Ridge Road, Redwood City, approximately 1.5 miles to the east of the intersection of Bear Gulch Road and Allen Road. It was built circa 1860 and it currently shares an open sloping hillside site with two contemporary buildings belonging to the La Honda Creek Preserve, which is operated by the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District. The site is generally characterized by rolling grassland bound by wooded areas. The Barn stands at an elevation below the contemporary structures at the toe of a hill on a narrow flat section. The hillside continues to fall away from the barn’s South face into a heavily wooded ravine. Conditions were examined from ground level for the building exteriors and interiors. For the assessment of structural conditions, please see the report produced by ZFA. The conditions assessment investigated the following exterior building elements: Wood Windows, Doors, Exterior wood cladding, Foundations, Roof framing, Metal elements Corrugated metal roof, Hinges, latches and miscellaneous elements. Landscape Surrounding hill slopes and possible affectation from natural rain water draining around the base of the building, The interior building elements investigated were the following: Wood Floors, Interior wood feeding crib, pen and partitions, Roof framing, Post and beam framing. Interiors were evaluated for the possible presence of protected animal species residing in the building, none of which were observed during this inspection. An analysis of specific code deficiencies for occupancy was not conducted, however general code considerations related to the four proposed project alternatives will be discussed as applicable. DR A F T Attachment 1 Basis of Design and Alternative Evaluation Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District La Honda Creek - White (Dyer) Barn March 13, 2020 - 10 -Page & Turnbull, Inc. Previous documentation provided to the Page & Turnbull team is listed below. The Conditions Assessment and Recommendations Report by Interactive Resources, Inc. provides a number of exterior and interior stabilization recommendations related to the structural stability and material maintenance of the building. It is Page & Turnbull’s understanding that none of the recommended interventions have occurred, and we therefore may reiterate the need for many of them. Conditions Assessment and Recommendations Report, by Interactive Resources, Inc. (11/30/2017). Historical Resource Evaluation of the Dyer Barn, by LSA (02/06/2018). While the scope of this report does not include the preparation of restoration documents or specific recommendations for repairs, any costing of such work should consider that the work is to be performed in accordance with the Secretary of Interiors Standards for Rehabilitation which indicate the following hierarchy: protect and retain, repair, or replace in-kind (if deteriorated beyond repair). Exterior Windows All exterior windows have been boarded up from the exterior and are now only visible from the interior. The sash observed were in generally fair to poor condition as none retains the original glazing and framing is somewhat weathered and deteriorated. The windows to the east façade are single sash six-lite windows. There is also an open panel on the south façade covered by a sliding panel which slides on wooden tracks. Doors There are four doors to the Barn, made of wood boards of similar characteristics to the boards used for the façades, two symmetrical on the east façade and the two others on the south and west façade near that corner of the building. The boards of the doors are nailed on the inside to a wood formed “Z” shape support on which the hinges are attached. Several of the boards are displaced in the vertical direction, giving an overall feeling of being out of square with the façade openings. In general they are in fair to poor condition showing heavy weathering and exposure to the elements, even though still operable with some difficulty. The door hinges are attached to the wood using highly rusted square headed nuts and bolts. Exterior Wood Cladding The exterior board-and-batten siding is in fair to poor condition. Many of the battens have collapsed or are missing, leaving only remnants and traces to indicate their prior size and position. The missing battens leave the joints of the vertical boards open with varying gaps between them, which allows the intrusion of small animals, insects, water and humidity, and direct sun into the building, reducing its sheltering effect of the building interiors. The boards show a high degree of weathering from exposure to the elements, warping lengthwise in most cases, which widens the gaps separating them. Some boards have partially collapsed or are missing along the façades. The boards display a greater degree of deterioration due to moisture toward the bottom of the boards; in some cases the bottom of the boards has rotted away completely and no longer covers the grade beams. Most boards display diverse degrees of weathering and biological growth, especially along the sides where battens are missing. Some of the boards bear evidence of termite and other insect attacks. UV damage is greatest on the west and south façades of the Barn, and appeared to be at least 1/8-inch deep in some areas. Foundations The foundation of this building is made of wood grade beams sitting on or partially buried in the ground, making it vulnerable to moisture from the ground, animals, and insects. Where the foundation beams were visible at the building perimeter, they are in very poor condition, being spongy and brittle to the touch; the condition of intermediate foundation beams could not be visually assessed. DR A F T Attachment 1 Basis of Design and Alternative Evaluation Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District La Honda Creek - White (Dyer) Barn March 13, 2020 - 11 -Page & Turnbull, Inc. Corrugated Metal Roof It is assumed that the existing galvanized, corrugated metal roof is a non-original replacement for the original roofing, however no remnants of earlier roofing were observed during the site visit. The corrugated metal roofing exhibits some surface corrosion, but generally appears to be sound. Interior observations indicate that the panels may not be lapped properly within the rows of roofing, as the joints between them show diffused light coming through in bright conditions. If light is getting through, then water likely is too to some degree. Hinges, Latches and Miscellaneous Elements Most of the other metal elements, such as hinges, nuts and bolts, and latches, although rusted in all their surface, appear not to be severely damaged, being in fairly good conditions and working properly. Rehabilitation would require removing and treating the existing corrosion, applying a corrosion-inhibiting coating, and oiling the hardware as required for proper operation. Site The barn is sited within the slope of a hill such that the land slopes toward the building on the north side and down from the building on the south side while being roughly level to the east and west. The primary approach to the building is from the east. With water from the northern portion of the site draining toward the building’s north side, combined with the greater shading from the sun on the north side, it is not surprising that the greatest deterioration and loss of historic fabric due to moisture was observed on the north side of the building at or near the ground. Interior Floors The wood floor boards display signs of heavy use, discoloring and partial loss of mass along the edges next to the façade cladding. Some areas have been affected by termites and other insect attacks and have biological growth, especially next to the cladding openings where boards are missing. Several floorboards are loose, and do not appear to be attached to the framing below, which creates a condition for unstable footing when walking inside the building. Interior Wood Feeding Crib, Pen and Partitions These partitions formed by wood boards nailed to the main structure supports and some secondary posts mounted directly over the floorboards. They are in generally fair condition for structures that were utilitarian in their original construction. In some areas the boards have split or become displaced, but otherwise the material is generally sound. Several pieces have biological growth where exposed the to the elements, and some show signs of insect damage. Roof framing The roof framing appears to represent a few different eras of construction. The ridge beam is supported by tall, hand-hewn redwood posts that and appear to be original, and are mortise and tenon jointed to the beam. The ridge beam, rafters, and purlins all appear to be machine-milled, and may be a later replacement for the original roof framing. The rafters lap each other over the ridge beam instead of being mitered and, form a 90-degree gable. Toe-nailed knee bracing is extant between the center posts and ridge beams in a few locations, but not all. Similarly, there are tie-beams between a few of the rafters running just underneath the ridge beam, but otherwise the volume of the barn inscribed by the framing is open. The roof framing appears to be in generally good condition, with the exception of the exposed rafter tails, which are in generally fair condition. Greater exposure to the elements has caused the rafter tails to be more weathered than the protected, interior sections of framing, and in several cases the wood is splitting and beginning to DR A F T Attachment 1 Basis of Design and Alternative Evaluation Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District La Honda Creek - White (Dyer) Barn March 13, 2020 - 12 -Page & Turnbull, Inc. check, however no significant deterioration or loss of profile was observed. The side closest to the corrugated metal displays some weather originated discoloring due to the heat originated by the metal and from humidity and rot possibly from filtering water or from condensation effects in the cooler hours of the day. Post and Beam Framing The main supporting structure is made of hand-hewn single pieces of redwood. Joints between the main framing elements are formed by the mortise-and-tenon system, not requiring nails or other auxiliary elements to secure the joints. All the main frame elements are in good conditions, showing only minor signs of decoloring and humidity near the base of the posts, where they are in direct contact with the foundations. These signs also show on beams in the locations next to the façade cladding where either or both boards and battens are missing. Figure 1 Figure 2 East façade has symmetric doors and windows. Traces of whitewash at the top part of the cladding. Skip sheathing boards covered by another that follows the roof line of the gale end. Roof at 45 degree angle Foundation beam. Deterioration along lower section of boards conforming all façades. Heavy use and weathering deterioration of floor boards. Figure 3 Figure 4 West façade, some boards have collapsed or are missing parts. Metal sheet addition to tie the boards to the beam on the other side Heavy weathering and deterioration of the cladding in lower section of all façades Figure 5 Figure 6 Square nuts and bolts holding hinges of doors Sliding window at the south façade. DR A F T Attachment 1 Basis of Design and Alternative Evaluation Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District La Honda Creek - White (Dyer) Barn March 13, 2020 - 13 -Page & Turnbull, Inc. Figure 7 Figure 8 Main structure elements are hand-hewn while exterior cladding is machine sawn. Open separation between cladding boards corresponds to missing battens. Some boards are missing or have collapsed Mortice and tenon joints between main structure elements. Hinges for doors are attached using square headed nuts and bolts. Some boards from the cladding are missing. Display of humidity and moss growth Figure 9 Figure 10 Main structure elements are hand-hewn while exterior cladding is machine sawn. Open separation between cladding boards corresponds to missing battens. Some boards are missing or have collapsed Image 35: Floor boards heavily weathered. Cladding boards missing or collapsed with openings due to missing battens. Evident signs of humidity and deterioration of floors and cladding Figure 11 Figure 12 Boarded window of the east façade. Interior partitions added and modified as required by use needs Rafters joints to the main structure beam by mortice and tenon or similar system, without use of metal elements. Corrugated metal roof PROPOSED PROJECT ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION The following evaluation concerns the work required to address architectural deterioration and deficiencies, and plan for the necessary building maintenance associated with the proposed project alternatives. For recommended structural stabilization and rehabilitation work, please see the report produced by ZFA. 1. Restrict Perimeter Access to the Structure, such that the public cannot enter the surrounding area, and remove or stabilize potential public safety hazards. DR A F T 1. Retain structure in current state. Address public safety issues and restrict perimeter access to the structure; structure remains visible from a distance and can be interpreted from a distance. Attachment 1 Basis of Design and Alternative Evaluation Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District La Honda Creek - White (Dyer) Barn March 13, 2020 - 14 -Page & Turnbull, Inc. This option proposes to install a fence around the perimeter of the property to restrict access to the home in order to mitigate potential public safety concerns associated with unauthorized access to the building. No distinct hazards were observed at the exterior of the building at the time of survey in July, 2019. Since this option does not seek to stabilize the resource for any future use or prevent further deterioration, it would not be consistent with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards. The absence of paint on the exterior of the building exposes the historic wood materials to further deterioration from weather and ultraviolet radiation. While it is difficult to estimate how long it would be before the building materials have deteriorated beyond repair, the cost of repair and rehabilitation will continue to increase with time as the deterioration progresses. Since the vernacular use of redwood framing and cladding is an important character-defining feature, maintenance and retention of those materials is important to the integrity of the resource and its eligibility for the National Register of Historic Places and the California Register of Historical Resources. Significant loss of material integrity could jeopardize the eligibility of the resource. 2. Stabilize the structure and site access routes to allow perimeter access for exterior viewing and interpretation. Retain structure for interpretive purposes. Of the treatments defined by the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards (Standards), the standards for Preservation are the most appropriate to this proposed project alternative. To mitigate potential falling hazards, the security of exterior features such as shutters, board-and-batten siding, and roofing should be inspected and re-secured as required. Fenestration that is currently boarded-up should be inspected semi-annually and plywood protection should be re-secured as required. The Barn foundation should be stabilized and repaired as described in the Structural recommendations. Once necessary repairs and selective replacement work have been completed, the Barn should be repainted to protect the historic redwood cladding from the elements. Due to the depth of the UV damage in some areas, the preparation of the substrate for painting should be as gentle as possible to achieve a sound coating, and it is not recommended that the existing texture of the wood be significantly altered. The condition of the coating should be inspected annually, and the building will likely require repainting every 7-10 years to maintain a sound coating on the wood. All doors and windows should be secured against unauthorized entry. Additional security measures to guard against unauthorized access should be installed at potential points of access in order to protect the building and the public. The building interior should be inspected at least semi-annually for signs of human, wildlife, or water intrusion into the building, and any observed intrusion should be addressed as soon as possible. 3. Improve the structure to be repurposed as a storage facility for District use. Of the treatments defined by the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards (Standards), the standard for Rehabilitation would be the most appropriate to this proposed project alternative. In addition to the envelope repair described in proposed project alternative #2 for the Barn, rehabilitating the building for a storage use should include the following: Deteriorated elements of the building envelope, including siding, doors, and windows, should be repaired; where elements have deteriorated beyond repair or are missing, they should be replaced in-kind to match the existing sound elements. The floor in the building should be rehabilitated Interior lighting should be installed to meet code required minimums for safety. Given the wooden construction of the building, it would be inadvisable to store any flammable materials within the barn, or any items that would increase the risk of fire or damage to the historic 2. Stabilize the structure and site access routes for perimeter and exterior viewing by the public. Under this alternative, the structure can be viewed up close with interpretation information adjacent to the structure. 3. Repair and rehabilitate the structure for reuse as a storage facility for District Use DR A F T Attachment 1 Basis of Design and Alternative Evaluation Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District La Honda Creek - White (Dyer) Barn March 13, 2020 - 15 -Page & Turnbull, Inc. resource. Care should be taken when moving items in and out of the building to protect the door framing from impact damage; install temporary protection if necessary in a manner that does not attach directly to or otherwise damage the historic fabric of the barn. 4. Demolish the structure. Demolishing the White (Dyer) Barn, which has been determined to be an historic resource, may require additional processes to obtain demolition permits. Debris from the demolished building, including all hazardous materials, would need to be disposed of in accordance with Local, State, and Federal Regulations, and the site would need to be cleaned up and remediated to allow for public access. DR A F T 4. Remove the structure and restore the underlying natural resource values. Attachment 1 STRUCTURE STABILIZATION BASIS OF DESIGN – White Barn La Honda Creek Open Space Preserve, San Mateo County, CA EXHIBIT B Structural Condition Assessment and Basis of Design by ZFA Structural Engineers DR A F T Attachment 1 WHITE (DYER) BARN STRUCTURAL CONDITION ASSESSMENT REPORT AND BASIS OF DESIGN (BOD) Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District La Honda Creek Open Space Preserve, San Mateo County, California District Project Number: MAA05-008 December 2019 Prepared For Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 330 Distel Circle Los Altos, CA 94022 Prepared By Steven Patton, SE, Senior Associate Mark Moore, SE, Principal-in-Charge San Carlos, California March 13, 2020 DR A F T Attachment 1 STRUCTURAL CONDITION ASSESSMENT AND BASIS OF DESIGN – White Barn | 1 La Honda Creek Open Space Preserve, San Mateo County, CA TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................................................2 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................................................4 EVALUATION OVERVIEW ........................................................................................................................................4 STRUCTURE OVERVIEW .........................................................................................................................................4 General Site Description .........................................................................................................................................4 Structural Performance Objective ...........................................................................................................................4 Site Seismicity (Earthquake Activity) ......................................................................................................................5 Structural Systems and Condition Assessment .....................................................................................................7 Building Type ....................................................................................................................................................... 12 Historical Performance ........................................................................................................................................ 12 Benchmark Buildings ........................................................................................................................................... 12 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................................................................ 13 Structural Seismic Deficiencies ........................................................................................................................... 13 Structural Gravity Deficiencies ............................................................................................................................ 13 BOD Alternatives and Recommended Repair Narrative ..................................................................................... 14 RELIABILITY OF SEISMIC EVALUATIONS .......................................................................................................... 16 CLOSING ................................................................................................................................................................ 16 APPENDIX A – SITE MAP ...................................................................................................................................... 17 APPENDIX B – STRUCTURAL STABILIZATION BASIS OF DESIGN ALTERNATIVES .................................... 19 APPENDIX C – SUMMARY DATA SHEET ............................................................................................................ 20 Summary Data Sheet .......................................................................................................................................... 21 Material Properties ............................................................................................................................................... 22 APPENDIX D – TIER 1 CHECKLISTS AND STRUCTURAL CALCULATIONS ................................................... 23 DR A F T Attachment 1 STRUCTURAL CONDITION ASSESSMENT AND BASIS OF DESIGN – White Barn | 2 La Honda Creek Open Space Preserve, San Mateo County, CA EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Introduction The following structural Basis of Design report provides an evaluation of the condition and anticipated performance of the existing White Barn structure to support seismic and gravity loading as well as a conceptual design of the structural scope required to achieve four proposed project alternatives. The findings and recommendations contained herein, in conjunction with those from the other team members, are intended to assist the District with cost evaluations and decision-making. The four alternatives being considered are: 1. Retain structure in current state. Address public safety issues and restrict perimeter access to the structure; structure remains visible from a distance and can be interpreted from a distance. 2. Stabilize the structure and site access routes for perimeter and exterior viewing by the public. Under this alternative, the structure can be viewed up close with interpretation information adjacent to the structure. 3. Repair and rehabilitate the structure for reuse as a storage facility for District use. 4. Remove the structure and restore the underlying natural resource values Structural Condition Assessment Visual assessments were performed during multiple site visits in 2019 by Steven Patton of ZFA. The exterior and interior of the structure was observed. The structure above grade appears to be in generally fair to good structural condition for the era of construction. The base of the structure in contact with s oil appears to be in poor condition with obvious structural damage and deterioration apparent. No original construction structural drawings are available for review. As-built drawings contained herein were created by ZFA based on visual observations and measurements made during site visits. The following major structural deficiencies were also observed in the existing building; all photos referenced can be found in the Structural Systems and Condition Assessment section. • The structure is founded on wood timber beams that are sit directly on the soil and have significantly deteriorated over time (see Photo 3 and Photo 4). No foundation is present. • Settlement was observed likely due to the deteriorating base of the structure. The structure is generally tilting in the downhill direction of the slope. • The structure supporting gravity loads is comprised of wood timber, which are connected with mortise and tenons. This connection is not acceptable by current building code standards. • Deterioration was observed at framing and exterior siding locations that have been exposed to weather and moisture (see Photo 5). Seismic Assessment The White Barn has been reviewed for the Collapse Prevention performance level using the Tier 1 evaluation of the ASCE 41-17 standard Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Existing Buildings. The building was reviewed based on the visual assessments performed by ZFA staff, geotechnical investigation performed by Romig Engineers and ASCE 41-17 structural Tier 1 checklists. Nonstructural elements were not included in the scope of the Tier 1 analysis. The building is constructed of roughhewn timber framing connected with mortise and tenon joints. The exterior walls are comprised of vertical board and batten siding. The structure lacks a conventional seismic force-resisting system, and is expected to perform poorly during a significant earthquake. Six (6) Tier 1 deficiencies were identified as noncompliant. See the Findings and Recommendations section of this report for additional information on the items noted below. DR A F T Attachment 1 STRUCTURAL CONDITION ASSESSMENT AND BASIS OF DESIGN – White Barn | 3 La Honda Creek Open Space Preserve, San Mateo County, CA • LOAD PATH: The structure does not contain a complete, well-defined load path, including structural elements and connections, that serve to transfer the inertial forces associated with the mass of all elements of the building to the foundation. o There is no defined lateral force-resisting system present in the existing structure. The timber frames and exterior siding are not adequate to transfer seismic forces to the foundation. The corrugated steel roof is not adequate to act as a roof diaphragm. o The structure is supported directly on the soil with no foundation. • REDUNDANCY: Shear walls are not present and therefore there is no redundancy in the lateral force - resisting system. • WOOD POSTS: There are no foundations, and therefore no positive connections between wood posts and the foundation. • GIRDER/COLUMN CONNECTION: Columns and girders are connected by mortise and tenon; no plates or connection hardware are present. • ROOF CHORD CONTINUITY: Continuous roof diaphragm chords are not present around the perimeter of the roof. • OTHER DIAPHRAGMS: The de-facto roof diaphragm is corrugated steel which is not adequate to resist seismic forces. Geotechnical Investigation A geotechnical investigation report has been prepared by Romig Engineers (Appendix C). Based on the geotechnical investigation, the primary geotechnical concerns at the site (and the reference page in the geotechnical investigation report) are: • Varying depth to competent bearing material up to 6 feet is anticipated across the structure (page 7). • The site is noted to be in an area that is potentially susceptible to earthquake-induced landslides, but due to the moderate slopes in the immediate vicinity of the barn, this is not likely to be of concern for this structure (page 4). • The potential for severe ground shaking at the site due to moderate to large earthquakes in the area (page 7). The following evaluation report details our structural findings and recommendations. DR A F T Attachment 1 STRUCTURAL CONDITION ASSESSMENT AND BASIS OF DESIGN – White Barn | 4 La Honda Creek Open Space Preserve, San Mateo County, CA INTRODUCTION The purpose of this evaluation is to review and evaluate the structure of the subject building using visual observations, engineering judgment and criteria provided by ASCE 41-17. The evaluation is focused on identifying deficiencies that are present in the structural system that may affect the performance of the building under gravity or seismic loads to identify structural scope that is required to stabilize the building for mothballing or rehabilitate it as an occupied structure. The seismic evaluation is based on criteria that has been tailored for specific building types and desired levels of building performance based on observation of structural and nonstructural damage occurring in previous earthquakes and provides a means to identify general deficiencies based on anticipated behavior of specific building types. The Tier 1 evaluation procedure of ASCE 41-17 was used to assess primary components and connections in the seismic force-resisting system using standard checklists and simplified structural calculations. Checklist items are general in nature and are intended to highlight building components that do not exceed conservative construction guidelines. If the element is compliant, it is anticipated to perform adequately under seismic loading without additional review or strengthening. Items indicated as non-compliant in a Tier 1 checklist are considered potential deficiencies that require further analysis. The results of the Tier 1 evaluation provide a general understanding of the anticipated performance of the structure in its current state and inform the structural scope required to provide overall stability if the building is to be mothballed with no public access to the inte rior. If the building is to be rehabilitated for an occupied use, the Tier 1 results indicate that retrofit of the structure is required. The retrofit is designed to the governing building code, which is the 2016 or 2019 California Historical Building Code. The structural scope for these alternatives, as well as restricted access and demolition options, are summarized in this report. EVALUATION OVERVIEW This structural evaluation report for the existing White Barn is based on the following: • The American Society of Civil Engineers/ Structural Engineering Institute (ASCE/SEI 41-17) Standard Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Existing Buildings using Tier 1, Collapse Prevention structural evaluation criteria. • Multiple site visits for general review of the structure were performed by Steven Patton of ZFA. No destructive testing or removal of finishes was performed or included in the scope. • Existing material properties as indicated in Appendix C. • Review of the following geotechnical report and hazard maps: • Geotechnical Report prepared by Romig Engineers dated October 2019 STRUCTURE OVERVIEW General Site Description The building is located on a moderately sloping site located in the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (District) La Honda Creek Preserve in an unincorporated area of San Mateo County near Woodside, California . The building site is in a remote area south of Skyline Boulevard on Kebet Ridge/Allen Road. The building is currently unoccupied. Structural Performance Objective In accordance with ASCE 41-17, a structural performance objective consists of a target performance level for structural elements in combination with a specific seismic hazard level. For the seismic assessment of the subject building, the Basic Performance Objective for Existing Buildings (BPOE) was selected. While the BPOE seeks DR A F T Attachment 1 STRUCTURAL CONDITION ASSESSMENT AND BASIS OF DESIGN – White Barn | 5 La Honda Creek Open Space Preserve, San Mateo County, CA safety for occupants with reasonable confidence, it allows existing structures to be assessed for seismic forces that are less than those required for the design of new structures under the current building code (2016 or 2019 California Building Code). Buildings meeting the BPOE are expected to experience nominal damage from relatively frequent, moderate earthquakes, but have the potential for significant damage and economic loss from the most severe, though less frequent, seismic events. It should be noted that the cost savings from not retrofitting the subject building up to current code standards may result in greate r repair costs in the event of an earthquake. For the purposes of this Tier 1 review to the BPOE, the specified level of performance is Collapse Prevention (S- 5) for this former agriculture building (assumed to be Risk Category II as defined by ASCE 7). The Collapse Prevention Structural Performance Level as described by ASCE/SEI 41-17 is defined as: “…the post-earthquake damage state in which a structure has damaged components and continues to support gravity loads but retains no margin against collapse. A structure in compliance with the acceptance criteria specified in this standard for this Structural Performance Level is expected to achieve this state.” Retrofit of the building to satisfy this performance objective would only be mandatory for Alternative 3 which would allow for re-occupancy of the unpermitted building. The S-5 Structural Performance Level can be defined as less than the Life Safety (S-3) performance level. For further context, the Life Safety Structural Performance Level (S-3), is described as: ‘… the post-earthquake damage state in which significant damage to the structure has occurred but some margin against either partial or total structural collapse remains.’ A Tier 1 evaluation of nonstructural elements was not included within the scope of this review. Site Seismicity (Earthquake Activity) In accordance with ASCE 41-17, ‘seismicity’, or the potential for ground motion, is classified into regions defined as Low, Moderate, or High. These regions are based on mapped site accelerations Ss and S1, which are then modified by site coefficients Fa and Fv to produce the Design Spectral Accelerations, SDS (short period) and SD1 (1-second period). The successful performance of buildings in areas of high seismicity depends on a combination of strength, ductility of structural components, and the presence of a fully interconnected, balanced, and complete seismic force-resisting system. Where buildings occur in lower levels of seismicity, the strength and ductility required for better performance is significantly reduced and building components or connections with additional strength capacity can in some cases be adequate despite lacking ductility. Based on the geotechnical investigation and report prepared for the subject site, the soil profile of this building has been determined by the geotechnical engineer to be classified as Site Class C as defined by ASCE 41-17 and is used in determination of site coefficients Fa and Fv. According to the site values indicated by the geotechnical report, USGS data and evaluated using seismic acceleration equations and tables of ASCE 41-17, the site is located in a region of High Seismicity with a design short-period spectral response acceleration parameter (SDS) of 1.556g and a design spectral response acceleration parameter at a one second period (S D1) of 0.97g. Per the table shown below, both of these parameters exceed the lower boundaries for high seismicity classification, 0.5g for SDS and 0.2g for SD1. DR A F T Attachment 1 STRUCTURAL CONDITION ASSESSMENT AND BASIS OF DESIGN – White Barn | 6 La Honda Creek Open Space Preserve, San Mateo County, CA Level of Seismicity* SDS SD1 Low < 0.167g < 0.067g Moderate ≥ 0.167g < 0.500g ≥ 0.067g < 0.200g High ≥ 0.500g ≥ 0.200g *Where SXS and SX1 values fall in different levels of seismicity, the higher level shall be used. The spectral response parameters SS and S1 were obtained for the BSE-2E seismic hazard level for existing structures (BPOE). The acceleration values were adjusted for the maximum direction and site class in accordance with ASCE 41-17 Section 2.4.1, and compared to BSE-2N (defined by current building code as the maximum considered earthquake for design of new buildings) to determine the design values for the Tier 1 analysis, since values obtained for the BSE-1E hazard level need not exceed the hazard levels for new construction. The following charts depict the response spectra for the multiple seismic hazard le vels defined by ASCE 41-17: two existing hazard levels and two hazard levels corresponding to code desi gn of new structures (ASCE 7). Note that the seismic hazard level for design of existing structures is lower than that for new construction for this structure (period <1.0). Seismic Hazard Level* Building Code Reference Design Spectral Acceleration Sa(XS)(T) BSE-1E ASCE 41-17 (20%/50yr) 0.98g BSE-1N ASCE 7-10 Design Basis Earthquake (DBE) 1.556g BSE-2E ASCE 41-17 (5%/50yr) 1.991g BSE-2N ASCE 7-10 Maximum Considered Earthquake (MCE) 2.334g * Seismic hazard levels denoted with 'E' for existing buildings or 'N' for new building equivalency. DR A F T Attachment 1 STRUCTURAL CONDITION ASSESSMENT AND BASIS OF DESIGN – White Barn | 7 La Honda Creek Open Space Preserve, San Mateo County, CA Structural Systems and Condition Assessment General The one-story, wood-framed barn structure was constructed around 1860. The building footprint is approximately 25 feet by 40 feet, with a floor area of approximately 960 square feet. Plans, sections and elevations are shown for reference in Figures 1 through 4. Refer to Appendix B for a complete set of annotated structural drawings. The building is rectangular in plan, with the long direction oriented in the East-West direction. Modifications to the existing structure, including the installation of some newer framing, appears to have occurred since the original construction. This is evident by the presence of machine-milled framing in some locations, which contrasts with the roughhewn original timber framing. Visual assessments were performed during multiple site visits in 2019 by Steven Patton of ZFA. The exterior and interior of the structure was observed. The structure above grade appears to be in generally fair to good structural condition for the era of construction. The base of the structure in contact with soil appears to be in poor condition with obvious structural damage and deterioration apparent. No original construction structural drawings are available for review. Roof Framing The roof is composed of corrugated metal sheathing that is supported by 1x6 skip sheathing at 16” on center. The corrugated metal roofing was added subsequent to the original construction. The 1x sheathing is supported by 2x6 rafters spaced at 3 feet on center. The rafters are supported by a ridge beam at the peak of the gable roof and an 8x8 beam at the exterior walls. There is an approximately 10” overhang at the ends of the gable roof. The roof framing, viewed from the ground, appeared to be generally in good condition. Some localized deterioration due to weather ingress is assumed because of gaps observed in the corrugated metal roofing. Post and Beam Framing The primary structure is comprised of a timber post and beam system with 8x8 posts at 8 feet on center along the north and south ends of the building, as well as along the center of the building below the ridge. These posts 0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2 Sp e c t r a l R e s p o n s e A c c e l e r a t i o n ( g ) Period (seconds) BSE-1E BSE-2E BSE-1N BSE-2N 75% BSE-1N BPOE Seismic Hazard (BSE-2E) DR A F T Attachment 1 STRUCTURAL CONDITION ASSESSMENT AND BASIS OF DESIGN – White Barn | 8 La Honda Creek Open Space Preserve, San Mateo County, CA support 8x8 beams, which in turn support the roof rafters. Posts and beams are typically connected with mortice and tenon joints. 4x4 knee braces are located along each column line, which were originally intended to provide lateral stability for wind loading. The roof framing plan is shown in Figure 2 and a section through the building is shown in Figure 3. An elevation of the south side of the building is shown in Figure 4. The timber framing was observed to be in generally good condition. Figure 1: Existing Ground Floor Framing Plan developed by ZFA DR A F T Attachment 1 STRUCTURAL CONDITION ASSESSMENT AND BASIS OF DESIGN – White Barn | 9 La Honda Creek Open Space Preserve, San Mateo County, CA Figure 2. Existing Roof Framing Plan developed by ZFA Figure 3. Transverse Section Through Building developed by ZFA DR A F T Attachment 1 STRUCTURAL CONDITION ASSESSMENT AND BASIS OF DESIGN – White Barn | 10 La Honda Creek Open Space Preserve, San Mateo County, CA Figure 4. South Elevation developed by ZFA Walls Walls are comprised of 1x vertical board and batten siding that spans between the wood grade beam and roof beam along the shorter sides of the building. At the gable ends of the building, a wind girt is located at the lower roof level and provides an intermediate support for 1x siding between the wood grade beam and perimeter roof rafters. The wall siding was generally in fair to poor condition with obvious signs of deterioration due to weather exposure particularly at the bottom of the walls adjacent to soil (see Photo 5). Battens are also missing in many locations and the walls do not provide a waterproof or pest resistant façade for the interior of the structure. Miscellaneous interior partial height walls are present in some locations and do not contribute to the structural integrity of the building. Floor Framing At the ground floor level, the flooring is composed of 2x straight sheathing that is assumed to be supported by wood floor framing. The floor sheathing is in fair to poor condition with deterioration observed at some locations, particularly at the perimeter of the building (see Photo 6). The floor framing sits just above or directly on the soil, so there is no access to observe the condition or type of framing. Deterioration due to soil contact is assumed in the floor framing throughout. Seismic Force-Resisting System The building generally lacks a seismic force-resisting system. De-facto lateral resistance is provided by the knee braces in the post and beam system, although this provides limited strength and ductility and is inadequate to resist the significant seismic forces that may occur at this site. The corrugated metal roofing serves as the de- facto roof diaphragm. Foundations The foundations for this structure are limited to wood grade beams placed directly on the soil. This wood has significantly deteriorated and contributed to settlement of the stru cture over time. DR A F T Attachment 1 STRUCTURAL CONDITION ASSESSMENT AND BASIS OF DESIGN – White Barn | 11 La Honda Creek Open Space Preserve, San Mateo County, CA Material Properties Basic properties for existing structural materials found on existing building documentation or in accordance with ASCE 41 code prescribed minimum structural values utilized in the analysis calculations can be found in Appendix C. Photo 1. Front elevation Photo 2. Side elevation Photo 3. Existing condition at foundation Photo 4. Existing condition at foundation Photo 5. Deterioration of exterior siding Photo 6. Deterioration at floor sheathing DR A F T Attachment 1 STRUCTURAL CONDITION ASSESSMENT AND BASIS OF DESIGN – White Barn | 12 La Honda Creek Open Space Preserve, San Mateo County, CA Photo 7. Deterioration at base of exterior wall Building Type This structure type is not defined specifically in ASCE 41-17. The closest type of structure this building can be classified as is Building Type W1: Wood-Light Frames, which was used for this evaluation. As described by ASCE/SEI 41-17: ‘These buildings are single- or multiple-family dwellings one or more stories high with plan areas less than or equal to 3,000 ft2. Building loads are light, and the framing spans are short. Floor and roof framing consist of wood joists or rafters on wood studs spaced no more than 24in. apart. The first floor framing is supported directly on the foundation system or is raised up on cripple studs and post-and-beam supports. The foundation is permitted to consist of a variety of elements. Chimneys, where present, consist of solid brick masonry, masonry veneer, or wood frame with internal metal flues. Seismic forces are resisted by wood frame diaphragms and shear-walls. Floor and roof diaphragms consist of straight or diagonal lumber sheathing, tongue- and-groove planks, oriented strand board, plywood, or other materials. Shear walls are permitted to consist of straight or lumber sheathing, plank siding, oriented strand board, plywood, stucco, gypsum board, particleboard, fiberboard, or similarly performing materials. Interior partitions are sheathed from floor to floor with plaster or gypsum board. Older construction often has open-front garages at the lowest story and is permitted to be split- level.’ Historical Performance Smaller wood-framed structures, particularly those with wood shear walls, have typically performed relatively well in earthquake events provided adequate shear wall length is maintained without localized stresses in short wall piers and there are no significant plan or vertical discontinuities such as a difference in stiffness between floors in a multi-storied structure. This structure is significantly different than these typical structures , entirely lacking any shear walls, and is expected to perform poorly during a significant earthquake. Benchmark Buildings In addition to classifying buildings by type of construction, ASCE 41 identifies ‘Benchmark Buildings’ for each type. The detailing of seismic force-resisting systems in Benchmark Buildings is generally considered to meet the performance requirements of ASCE 41. When a building is determined to meet Benchmark Building requirements through field verification of construction compliant with benchmark code requirements, only review of foundation and non-structural elements is required. The subject building was constructed in the 1860’s, well before the DR A F T Attachment 1 STRUCTURAL CONDITION ASSESSMENT AND BASIS OF DESIGN – White Barn | 13 La Honda Creek Open Space Preserve, San Mateo County, CA benchmark date for this type of construction. Since it does not meet the criteria of a Benchmark Building, a complete Tier 1 analysis is performed. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Structural Seismic Deficiencies The ASCE 41-17 Tier 1 Collapse Prevention and Building Type Specific Checklists indicate the primary building structure as non-compliant in six (6) areas. These items would all need to be addressed prior to re-occupancy of the building (Alternative 3). General recommendations to address the deficiencies are summarized below; more specific structural scope items are provided in Alternative 3 of the BOD Alternatives and Recommended Repair Narrative section and Appendix B. a) LOAD PATH: The structure does not contain a complete, well-defined load path, including structural elements and connections, that serve to transfer the inertial forces associated with the mass of all elements of the building to the foundation. i) Recommendation: In order to provide a complete seismic force-resisting system, provide the following: i. New vertical lateral system such as wood shear walls or tension braced frames. ii. New plywood sheathing on existing roof framing. iii. New foundations beneath the new lateral system. b) REDUNDANCY: Shear walls are not present and therefore there is no redundancy in the lateral force-resisting system. i) Recommendation: The recommendations for item (a) will address this deficiency. c) WOOD POSTS: There are no foundations, and therefore no positive connections between wood posts and the foundation. i) Recommendation: Provide new concrete spread footings with steel hardware connections to existing posts. d) GIRDER/COLUMN CONNECTION: Columns and girders are connected by mortise and tenon; no plates or connection hardware are present. i) Recommendation: Provide steel hardware at connection. Connection reinforcing may be designed to be hidden and not obscure the historical connections. e) ROOF CHORD CONTINUITY: Continuous roof diaphragm chords are not present around the perimeter of the roof. i) Recommendation: The recommendations for item (a) will address this deficiency. f) OTHER DIAPHRAGMS: The de-facto roof diaphragm is corrugated steel which is not adequate to resist seismic forces. i) Recommendation: The recommendations for item (a) will address this deficiency. Structural Gravity Deficiencies a) The structure is founded on wood timber beams that are sit directly on the soil and have significantly deteriorated over time (see Photo 3 and Photo 4). No foundation is present. i) Recommendation: Provide new concrete strip footing around perimeter of structure and concrete spread footings under interior posts. Repair deteriorated framing. b) Settlement was observed likely due to the deteriorating base of the structure. The structure is generally tilting in the downhill direction of the slope. i) Recommendation: The recommendations for item (a) will address this deficiency. DR A F T Attachment 1 STRUCTURAL CONDITION ASSESSMENT AND BASIS OF DESIGN – White Barn | 14 La Honda Creek Open Space Preserve, San Mateo County, CA c) The structure supporting gravity loads is comprised of wood timber, which are connected with mortise and tenons. While these connections have historically performed adequately, this connection is not commonly acceptable by current standards. i) Recommendation: The recommendations for item (a) of seismic deficiencies will address this deficiency. d) Deterioration was observed at some framing locations that have been exposed to weather and moisture (see Photo 5). i) Recommendation: Replace deteriorated framing in kind. Repair exterior of structure to mitigate future exposure to weather. BOD Alternatives and Recommended Repair Narrative Recommendations for the following alternatives are also shown in the conceptual structural drawings in Appendix A of this report. BASIS OF DESIGN ALTERNATIVE #1: Retain structure in current state. Address public safety issues and restrict perimeter access to the structure; structure remains visible from a distance and can be interpreted from a distance. (See drawing 1-S2.1) 1) Install a secure fence, a minimum of 8-foot-tall above grade, around the perimeter of the building. Assume standard pipe columns cast a minimum of 24" into 8" diameter concrete piers. The cost estimate assumes a chain link fence; other fence materials could be explored with the District’s guidance. The length of fencing is approximately 300 lineal feet and is recommended to be at least 20 feet from the perimeter of the building to provide a safety “buffer” space in case col lapse of the framing occurs in the future. Assume two gated locations for maintenance personnel access. Install signage at building and entry gates. BASIS OF DESIGN ALTERNATIVE #2: Stabilize the structure and site access routes for perimeter and exterior viewing by the public. Under this alternative, the structure can be viewed up close with interpretation information adjacent to the structure. (See drawings 2-S2.1 & 2-S3.1) The recommended stabilization methods specifically target only the gravity related structural deficiencies and would not allow for re-occupancy of the building. The settled portions of the structure would not be required to be lifted back to their original (level) position, and the stabilization and shoring elements should be assumed to be left permanently in place until further remediation measures can be implemented. 1) Install pressure treated blocking/shims at locations of deteriorated wood grade beams to prevent further settlement of the superstructure. 2) Provide 2x10 cross bracing at the interior of exterior walls. Assume two bays of cross bracing along each perimeter wall in longitudinal direction and one or two bays of bracing along each perimeter wall in the transverse direction (assume 7 bays total) to allow for access through at least one door opening. 3) Follow the Mothballing Guidelines including: a. Secure the building and its component features to reduce vandalism or break-ins. b. Remove furnishings, trash, wildlife waste products and stored hazardous materials (i.e. poisons, paints, etc) and ensure it is broom-clean. c. Provide adequate ventilation to the interior. d. Develop and implement a maintenance and monitoring plan for protection. 4) Deteriorated elements of the building envelope, including siding, doors, and windows, should be repaired; where elements have deteriorated beyond repair or are missing, they should be replaced in-kind to match the existing sound elements. Fenestration that is currently boarded-up from the exterior should be repaired, and the non-historic plywood should be removed. DR A F T Attachment 1 STRUCTURAL CONDITION ASSESSMENT AND BASIS OF DESIGN – White Barn | 15 La Honda Creek Open Space Preserve, San Mateo County, CA BASIS OF DESIGN ALTERNATIVE #3: Repair and rehabilitate the structure for reuse as a storage facility for District use. (See drawing 3-S2.1 & 3-S3.1) The stabilization methods proposed for this alternative target all code and safety concerns as specifically identified in the condition assessment to allow for re-occupancy of the building. For cost estimation purposes, it is assumed necessary to bring all elements of the unpermitted structure up to the current historical building code (2016 or 2019 California Historical Building Code) to allow for re-occupancy of the existing building. 1) New concrete foundation: a. Install new 18-inch wide by 30-inch deep shallow strip footing around the perimeter of the building that extends a minimum of 6” above grade. See geotechnical report for requirements. Assume 130 linear feet of continuous footing. b. Install new 24-inch square by 30-inch deep spread footings under existing posts. See geotechnical report for requirements. Spread footings to extend a minimum of 6” above grade. Assume 4 spread footings. c. The foundation can be installed in sections in a “hit and miss” sequence to avoid the need to shore the entire structure simultaneously. d. Provide new anchors and hardware for connection of existing structure to new foundation. e. Assume existing floor sheathing and framing will be removed and replaced after foundation installation. 2) New vertical seismic force-resisting system: a. New wood-framed walls with plywood sheathing may be installed on the interior of the perimeter walls. Shear walls would be anchored to new foundations. Plywood sheathing will be visible on the interior face of the exterior walls and will obstruct the view of the existing, exterior wood siding from the inside of the building. b. If sheathing of walls is not desired for historic or aesthetic reasons, provide steel tension rod bracing at each perimeter wall with connections to new foundations and new roof diaphragm. Assume two bays of cross bracing along each perimeter wall in longitudinal direction and one bay of bracing along each perimeter wall in the transverse direction (6 bays total). 3) New roof diaphragm: a. Remove existing roofing. Install new plywood on existing skip sheathing over roof rafters (approximately 1,100 square feet). Provide allowance for repair/replacement of 20% of roof framing. b. Connect roof diaphragm to new vertical lateral system with wood blocking, steel fasteners and steel connection hardware. c. Provide new roofing and underlayment over entire roof. Alternatively, existing corrugated metal roofing could be reused as long as a waterproof substrate is installed beneath. 4) Remove and replace deteriorated siding (assume 40% require repair). 5) New floor system: a. New wood-framed floor system (assume 2x10 joists at 16” on center) with minimum 8” clearance above grade to bottom of floor joists, sheathed with new ¾” plywood. Assume 24” of soil over entire floor area will be required to be excavated and removed from site to allow for site preparation in accordance with the geotechnical report and for adequate clearance of the floor framing above grade. BASIS OF DESIGN ALTERNATIVE #4: Remove the structure and restore the underlying natural resource values. For cost estimation purposes, the complete demolition of the structure, its foundations and site elements assuming that demolition would likely follow a more typical process for permitting and contracting the demolition work. Assume 60 tons of wood materials would need to be removed from the site. (See drawing 4-S2.1) • Remove lead-containing paint prior to demolition. Disturbance of lead-containing paints and materials must be conducted in accordance with the requirements of Cal/OSHA (8CCR1532.1) and with the EPA Renovation, Repair and Painting (RRP) Rule. See Exhibit D. DR A F T Attachment 1 STRUCTURAL CONDITION ASSESSMENT AND BASIS OF DESIGN – White Barn | 16 La Honda Creek Open Space Preserve, San Mateo County, CA • The site landscaping would be rehabilitated by planting native grasses and tress to return it as close as possible to its original condition prior to the construction of the building. • Installation of interpretive features (signage) documenting the pre-demo site conditions and previous use and inhabitants of the site should also be considered. • The demolition option is being requested pending completion of regulatory approval for cost estimation purposes only. • Complete removal of the building would result in the lowest continued annual maintenance costs for this site, but the feasibility of this option is dependent upon regulatory approval process. • Due to the relatively small size of the structure, the District may consider dismantling and relocating the structure as an alternative to demolition. RELIABILITY OF SEISMIC EVALUATIONS In general, structural engineers do not have the ability to predict the exact damage to a building as a result of an earthquake. There will be a wide variation of damage from building to building due to the variations in ground motion and varying types and quality of construction. In addition, engineers cannot predict the exact ground motions of the earthquake that may strike a given building. Design and evaluation of buildings are performed using general guidelines and information from past earthquakes. Engineers and the codes used for design and evaluation have been conservative when attempting to ensure that building design meets minimum standards of Collapse Prevention. This effort is based on science and technology as well as on observations ma de from actual seismic events. Building design and evaluation codes are constantly evolving to better meet performance targets based on this information. Continued research will improve predictive methods and facilitate performance-based engineering. It has been estimated that, given design ground motions, a small percent of new buildings and a slightly greater percent of retrofit buildings may fail to meet their expected performance. CLOSING The structural condition assessment, seismic review, analysis and BOD associated with this evaluation were based on the site review of framing and elements of the building which are plainly visible. No attempt was made to uncover hidden conditions or perform any destructive or non-destructive testing. The items discussed in this report are subject to revision should more information become available. This report is general in nature and does not imply that the recommendations listed above are the only structural requirements that must be made to the existing str ucture to meet current code criteria. We understand you may have questions regarding this evaluation and are available for comment and explanations. Please call with any questions you may have. Thank you for choosing ZFA Structural Engineers to assist you with this building seismic and structural stabilization review. Steven Patton, SE Mark Moore, SE Senior Associate Executive Principal DR A F T Attachment 1 STRUCTURAL CONDITION ASSESSMENT AND BASIS OF DESIGN – White Barn | 17 La Honda Creek Open Space Preserve, San Mateo County, CA APPENDIX A – SITE MAP DR A F T Attachment 1 STRUCTURAL CONDITION ASSESSMENT AND BASIS OF DESIGN – White Barn | 18 La Honda Creek Open Space Preserve, San Mateo County, CA DR A F T Attachment 1 STRUCTURAL CONDITION ASSESSMENT AND BASIS OF DESIGN – White Barn | 19 La Honda Creek Open Space Preserve, San Mateo County, CA APPENDIX B – STRUCTURAL STABILIZATION BASIS OF DESIGN ALTERNATIVES DR A F T Attachment 1 ___________1 2-S3.1___________2 2-S3.1 ___________4 2-S3.1 ___________5 2-S3.1 A A B B 1 1 2 2 3 3 C C D D E E F F 12 ' - 8 " 12 ' - 8 " 8'-0"8'-0"8'-0"8'-0"8'-0" 3 2-S3.1 ___________ 3 2-S3.1 ___________ 2x ROUGH LUMBER FLR7Éx8 ROUGH HEWN POST, TYP1x PARTIAL HT WALL, TYP 1x PARTIAL HT "MAKESHIFT" PARTITIONS 4" 4" 40'-0" 25 ' - 4 " 4" 4" 6 2-S3.1 ___________6 2-S3.1 ___________ 20 ' - 0 " 10'-0" 20 ' - 0 " 20'-0" ___________1 3-S3.1___________2 3-S3.1 ___________4 3-S3.1 ___________5 3-S3.1 3 3-S3.1 ___________ 3 3-S3.1 ___________ 6 3-S3.1 ___________6 3-S3.1 ___________ ___________1 2-S3.1___________2 2-S3.1 ___________4 2-S3.1 ___________5 2-S3.1 A A B B 1 1 2 2 3 3 C C D D E E F F 3 2-S3.1 ___________ 3 2-S3.1 ___________ SL O P E SL O P E RIDGE 6 2-S3.1 ___________6 2-S3.1 ___________ (E) CORRUGATED METAL ROOFING. ___________1 3-S3.1___________2 3-S3.1 ___________4 3-S3.1 ___________5 3-S3.1 3 3-S3.1 ___________ 3 3-S3.1 ___________ 6 3-S3.1 ___________6 3-S3.1 ___________ 13 9 0 e l c a m i n o r e a l | s u i t e 1 0 0 sa n c a r l o s c a 9 4 0 7 0 zf a j o b n o . zf a . c o m 65 0 . 3 9 4 . 8 8 6 9 co p y r i g h t © 2 0 1 9 SHEET DATE: SHEET DESCRIPTION PROJECT THIS DOCUMENT AND THE IDEAS INCORPORATED HEREIN, AS AN INSTRUMENT OF PROFESSIONAL SERVICE, IS THE PROPERTY OF THE ENGINEER AND IS NOT TO BE USED, IN WHOLE OR IN PART FOR ANY OTHER PROJECT WITHOUT THE PRIOR WRITTEN PM: ENGR: BO D O P T I O N 1 11/22/2019 1:49:34 PM C:\revit_local\R2019\19235_La Honda_White Barn_S19C_leos@zfa.com.rvt FLOOR AND ROOF FRAMING PLANS 1-S2.1 NOV 22, 2019 LA H O N D A C R E E K O P E N S P A C E PR E S E R V E AP N 0 7 5 3 3 0 2 2 0 DY E R B A R N 19 2 3 5 BA S I S O F D E S I G N D O C U M E N T - NO T F O R C O N S T R U C T I O N SRP SRP N O R T H 1/4" = 1'-0" FLOOR PLAN BOD OPTION 1 N O R T H 1/4" = 1'-0" ROOF FRAMING PLAN BOD OPTION 1 3 3D ISOMETRIC VIEW Revision Schedule # Revision Description Date PRINT TO 11x17 BASIS OF DESIGN ALTERNATIVE 1: 1) Install a secure fence, a minimum of 8-foot-tall above grade, around the perimeter of the building. Assume standard pipe columns cast a minimum of 24" into 8" diameter concrete piers. The cost estimate assumes a chain link fence; other fence materials could be explored with the District’s guidance. The length of fencing is approximately 400 lineal feet and is recommended to be at least 20 feet from the perimeter of the building and porches to provide a safety “buffer” space in case collapse of the framing occurs in the future. Assume two gated locations for maintenance personnel access. 2) Nesting bird surveys are required if work takes place between February 15 and August 30. NOTE 1 NOTE 1 DR A F T Attachment 1 ___________1 2-S3.1___________2 2-S3.1 ___________4 2-S3.1 ___________5 2-S3.1 A A B B 1 1 2 2 3 3 C C D D E E F F 3 2-S3.1 ___________ 3 2-S3.1 ___________ 6 2-S3.1 ___________6 2-S3.1 ___________ SL O P E SL O P E RIDGE (E) CORRUGATED METAL ROOFING. ___________1 3-S3.1___________2 3-S3.1 ___________4 3-S3.1 ___________5 3-S3.1 3 3-S3.1 ___________ 3 3-S3.1 ___________ 6 3-S3.1 ___________6 3-S3.1 ___________ ___________1 2-S3.1___________2 2-S3.1 ___________4 2-S3.1 ___________5 2-S3.1 A A B B 1 1 2 2 3 3 C C D D E E F F 3 2-S3.1 ___________ 3 2-S3.1 ___________ 6 2-S3.1 ___________6 2-S3.1 ___________ 12 ' - 8 " 12 ' - 8 " 8'-0"8'-0"8'-0"8'-0"8'-0" 2x ROUGH LUMBER FLR7Éx8 ROUGH HEWN POST, TYP1x PARTIAL HT WALL, TYP 1x PARTIAL HT "MAKESHIFT" PARTITIONS 4" 4" 40'-0" 25 ' - 4 " 4" 4" NOTE 2 TYPICAL AT (8) LOCATIONS NOTE 1 AS REQUIRED ___________1 3-S3.1___________2 3-S3.1 ___________4 3-S3.1 ___________5 3-S3.1 3 3-S3.1 ___________ 3 3-S3.1 ___________ 6 3-S3.1 ___________6 3-S3.1 ___________ 13 9 0 e l c a m i n o r e a l | s u i t e 1 0 0 sa n c a r l o s c a 9 4 0 7 0 zf a j o b n o . zf a . c o m 65 0 . 3 9 4 . 8 8 6 9 co p y r i g h t © 2 0 1 9 SHEET DATE: SHEET DESCRIPTION PROJECT THIS DOCUMENT AND THE IDEAS INCORPORATED HEREIN, AS AN INSTRUMENT OF PROFESSIONAL SERVICE, IS THE PROPERTY OF THE ENGINEER AND IS NOT TO BE USED, IN WHOLE OR IN PART FOR ANY OTHER PROJECT WITHOUT THE PRIOR WRITTEN PM: ENGR: BO D O P T I O N 2 11/22/2019 1:49:41 PM C:\revit_local\R2019\19235_La Honda_White Barn_S19C_leos@zfa.com.rvt FLOOR AND ROOF FRAMING PLANS 2-S2.1 NOV 22, 2019 LA H O N D A C R E E K O P E N S P A C E PR E S E R V E AP N 0 7 5 3 3 0 2 2 0 DY E R B A R N 19 2 3 5 BA S I S O F D E S I G N D O C U M E N T - NO T F O R C O N S T R U C T I O N SRP SRP 3 3D ISOMETRIC VIEW N O R T H 1/4" = 1'-0" ROOF FRAMING PLAN BOD OPTION 2 N O R T H 1/4" = 1'-0" FLOOR PLAN BOD OPTION 2 Revision Schedule # Revision Description Date PRINT TO 11x17 BASIS OF DESIGN ALTERNATIVE 2: 1) Install pressure treated blocking/shims at locations of deteriorated wood grade beams to prevent further settlement of the superstructure and deterioration of the foundation. 2) Provide wood cross bracing at the interior of exterior walls. 3) The settled portions of the structure would not be required to be lifted back to their original (level) position, and the stabilization and shoring elements should be assumed to be left permanently in place until further remediation measures can be implemented. 4) Follow the Mothballing Guidelines outlined in Exhibit G, including: a) Secure the building and its component features to reduce vandalism or break-ins. b) Remove furnishings, trash, wildlife waste products and stored hazardous materials (i.e. poisons, paints, etc.) and ensure it is broom-clean. c) Provide adequate ventilation to the interior. d) Develop and implement a maintenance and monitoring plan for protection. 5) Secretary of the Interior’s Standards are the most appropriate basis for this proposed project alternative. 6) Deteriorated elements of the building envelope, including siding, doors, and windows, should be repaired; where elements have deteriorated beyond repair or are missing, they should be replaced in-kind to match the existing sound elements. Fenestration that is currently boarded-up from the exterior should be repaired, and openings covered with clear Lexan to allow for viewing of the historic interior. The non-historic plywood should also be removed. 7) Remove peeling, loose lead-containing paint from the exterior of the Barn. Disturbance of lead-containing paints and materials must be conducted in accordance with the requirements of Cal/OSHA (8CCR1532.1) and with the EPA Renovation, Repair and Painting (RRP) Rule. Repaint the exterior to protect the historic redwood cladding from the elements. The preparation of the substrate for painting should be gentle, it is not recommended that the existing texture of the wood be significantly altered. The condition of the coating should be inspected annually, and the building will likely require repainting every 7-10 years to maintain a sound coating on the wood. 8) Develop a bat roost deterrent plan, including a replacement bat maternity roost habitat, for approval by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), and follow the general bat and woodrat avoidance measures (see Exhibit E). 9) Optional: Install motion activated cameras and signage at the site as an additional security measure; include additional maintenance costs for these measures. If internet or cellular service is unavailable, a motion activated camera system may be installed that stores footage on site that may be accessed by District staff in the event of security concerns. 10) Nesting bird surveys are required if work takes place between February 15 and August 30. NOTE 1NOTE 2 NOTE 7 NOTE 2 NOTE 7 NOTE 2 NOTE 1 NOTE 7 NOTE 6 DR A F T Attachment 1 0'-0" TO FLOOR 7'-8" TO BEAM 17'-2" TO RIDGE BEAM 123 6 2-S3.1 ___________ 6 2-S3.1 ___________ 6 3-S3.1 ___________ 6 3-S3.1 ___________ 0'-0" TO FLOOR 7'-8" TO BEAM 17'-2" TO RIDGE BEAM A B C D E F 4x4 KNEE BRACE, TYP 3 3-S3.1 ___________ 3 3-S3.1 ___________ 0'-0" TO FLOOR 7'-8" TO BEAM 17'-2" TO RIDGE BEAM 1 2 3 6 3-S3.1 ___________ 6 3-S3.1 ___________ 0'-0" TO FLOOR 7'-8" TO BEAM 17'-2" TO RIDGE BEAM ABCDEF 4x4 KNEE BRACE, TYP 0'-0" TO FLOOR 7'-8" TO BEAM 17'-2" TO RIDGE BEAM 123 8x POST, TYP PER PLAN TRUE DIM 2x6 RAFTERS @ 3'-0"oc, TYP 1x SIDING PER PLAN 8x8 ON GRADE2x FLR SHEATHING PER PLAN CORUGATED MTL ROOF DECK 1x6 CONT SHEATHING @ 16"oc 6 2-S3.1 ___________ 6 2-S3.1 ___________ GRADE TYP 6 3-S3.1 ___________ 6 3-S3.1 ___________ 0'-0" TO FLOOR 7'-8" TO BEAM 17'-2" TO RIDGE BEAM A B C D E F 4x4 KNEE BRACE, TYP 3 3-S3.1 ___________ 3 3-S3.1 ___________ 13 9 0 e l c a m i n o r e a l | s u i t e 1 0 0 sa n c a r l o s c a 9 4 0 7 0 zf a j o b n o . zf a . c o m 65 0 . 3 9 4 . 8 8 6 9 co p y r i g h t © 2 0 1 9 SHEET DATE: SHEET DESCRIPTION PROJECT THIS DOCUMENT AND THE IDEAS INCORPORATED HEREIN, AS AN INSTRUMENT OF PROFESSIONAL SERVICE, IS THE PROPERTY OF THE ENGINEER AND IS NOT TO BE USED, IN WHOLE OR IN PART FOR ANY OTHER PROJECT WITHOUT THE PRIOR WRITTEN PM: ENGR: BO D O P T I O N 2 11/22/2019 1:49:42 PM C:\revit_local\R2019\19235_La Honda_White Barn_S19C_leos@zfa.com.rvt ELEVATIONS & SECTIONS 2-S3.1 NOV 22, 2019 LA H O N D A C R E E K O P E N S P A C E PR E S E R V E AP N 0 7 5 3 3 0 2 2 0 DY E R B A R N 19 2 3 5 BA S I S O F D E S I G N D O C U M E N T - NO T F O R C O N S T R U C T I O N SRP SRP 1/4" = 1'-0"1 EAST ELEVATION BOD OPTION 2 1/4" = 1'-0"5 SOUTH ELEVATION BOD OPTION 2 1/4" = 1'-0"2 WEST ELEVATION BOD OPTION 2 1/4" = 1'-0"4 NORTH ELEVATION BOD OPTION 2 1/4" = 1'-0"3 BUILDING SECTION - TRANSVERSE BOD OPTION 2 1/4" = 1'-0"6 BUILDING SECTION - LONGITUDINAL BOD OPTION 2 Revision Schedule # Revision Description Date PRINT TO 11x17 BASIS OF DESIGN ALTERNATIVE 2: 1) Install pressure treated blocking/shims at locations of deteriorated wood grade beams to prevent further settlement of the superstructure and deterioration of the foundation. 2) Provide wood cross bracing at the interior of exterior walls. 3) The settled portions of the structure would not be required to be lifted back to their original (level) position, and the stabilization and shoring elements should be assumed to be left permanently in place until further remediation measures can be implemented. 4) Follow the Mothballing Guidelines outlined in Exhibit G, including: a) Secure the building and its component features to reduce vandalism or break-ins. b) Remove furnishings, trash, wildlife waste products and stored hazardous materials (i.e. poisons, paints, etc.) and ensure it is broom-clean. c) Provide adequate ventilation to the interior. d) Develop and implement a maintenance and monitoring plan for protection. 5) Secretary of the Interior’s Standards are the most appropriate basis for this proposed project alternative. 6) Deteriorated elements of the building envelope, including siding, doors, and windows, should be repaired; where elements have deteriorated beyond repair or are missing, they should be replaced in-kind to match the existing sound elements. Fenestration that is currently boarded-up from the exterior should be repaired, and openings covered with clear Lexan to allow for viewing of the historic interior. The non-historic plywood should also be removed. 7) Remove peeling, loose lead-containing paint from the exterior of the Barn. Disturbance of lead-containing paints and materials must be conducted in accordance with the requirements of Cal/OSHA (8CCR1532.1) and with the EPA Renovation, Repair and Painting (RRP) Rule. Repaint the exterior to protect the historic redwood cladding from the elements. The preparation of the substrate for painting should be gentle, it is not recommended that the existing texture of the wood be significantly altered. The condition of the coating should be inspected annually, and the building will likely require repainting every 7-10 years to maintain a sound coating on the wood. 8) Develop a bat roost deterrent plan, including a replacement bat maternity roost habitat, for approval by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), and follow the general bat and woodrat avoidance measures (see Exhibit E). 9) Optional: Install motion activated cameras and signage at the site as an additional security measure; include additional maintenance costs for these measures. If internet or cellular service is unavailable, a motion activated camera system may be installed that stores footage on site that may be accessed by District staff in the event of security concerns. 10) Nesting bird surveys are required if work takes place between February 15 and August 30. NOTE 1 NOTE 2 NOTE 7NOTE 6 DR A F T Attachment 1 ___________1 2-S3.1___________2 2-S3.1 ___________4 2-S3.1 ___________5 2-S3.1 A A B B 1 1 2 2 3 3 C C D D E E F F 3 2-S3.1 ___________ 3 2-S3.1 ___________ 6 2-S3.1 ___________6 2-S3.1 ___________ 12 ' - 8 " 12 ' - 8 " 8'-0"8'-0"8'-0"8'-0"8'-0" 2x ROUGH LUMBER FLR7Éx8 ROUGH HEWN POST, TYP1x PARTIAL HT WALL, TYP 1x PARTIAL HT "MAKESHIFT" PARTITIONS 4" 4" 40'-0" 25 ' - 4 " 4" 4" ___________1 3-S3.1___________2 3-S3.1 ___________4 3-S3.1 ___________5 3-S3.1 3 3-S3.1 ___________ 3 3-S3.1 ___________ 6 3-S3.1 ___________6 3-S3.1 ___________ ___________1 2-S3.1___________2 2-S3.1 ___________4 2-S3.1 ___________5 2-S3.1 A A B B 1 1 2 2 3 3 C C D D E E F F 3 2-S3.1 ___________ 3 2-S3.1 ___________ 6 2-S3.1 ___________6 2-S3.1 ___________ SL O P E SL O P E RIDGE (E) CORRUGATED METAL ROOFING. ___________1 3-S3.1___________2 3-S3.1 ___________4 3-S3.1 ___________5 3-S3.1 3 3-S3.1 ___________ 3 3-S3.1 ___________ 6 3-S3.1 ___________6 3-S3.1 ___________ 13 9 0 e l c a m i n o r e a l | s u i t e 1 0 0 sa n c a r l o s c a 9 4 0 7 0 zf a j o b n o . zf a . c o m 65 0 . 3 9 4 . 8 8 6 9 co p y r i g h t © 2 0 1 9 SHEET DATE: SHEET DESCRIPTION PROJECT THIS DOCUMENT AND THE IDEAS INCORPORATED HEREIN, AS AN INSTRUMENT OF PROFESSIONAL SERVICE, IS THE PROPERTY OF THE ENGINEER AND IS NOT TO BE USED, IN WHOLE OR IN PART FOR ANY OTHER PROJECT WITHOUT THE PRIOR WRITTEN PM: ENGR: BO D O P T I O N 3 11/22/2019 1:49:45 PM C:\revit_local\R2019\19235_La Honda_White Barn_S19C_leos@zfa.com.rvt FLOOR AND ROOF FRAMING PLANS 3-S2.1 NOV 22, 2019 LA H O N D A C R E E K O P E N S P A C E PR E S E R V E AP N 0 7 5 3 3 0 2 2 0 DY E R B A R N 19 2 3 5 BA S I S O F D E S I G N D O C U M E N T - NO T F O R C O N S T R U C T I O N SRP SRP 1 3D ISOMETRIC VIEW N O R T H 1/4" = 1'-0" FLOOR PLAN BOD OPTION 3 N O R T H 1/4" = 1'-0" ROOF FRAMING PLAN BOD OPTION 3 Revision Schedule # Revision Description Date PRINT TO 11x17 BASIS OF DESIGN ALTERNATIVE 3: 1) The stabilization methods proposed for this option target all code and safety concerns as specifically identified in the condition assessment to allow for re-occupancy of the building. For cost estimation purposes, it is assumed necessary to bring all elements of the unpermitted structure up to the current historical building code to allow for re-occupancy of the existing building. It is assumed there is no change of occupancy from the existing. 2) Provide new structural members including: a) New concrete foundation b) New vertical seismic force-resisting system c) New roof diaphragm d) Remove and replace deteriorated siding (assume 40% require repair). e) New floor system 3) Secretary of the Interior’s Standards are the most appropriate basis for this proposed project alternative. 4) In addition to the envelope repair described in proposed project alternative #2 for the Barn, rehabilitating the building for a storage use should include the installation of interior lighting to meet code required minimums for safety. 5) Remove lead-containing paint. Disturbance of lead-containing paints and materials must be conducted in accordance with the requirements of Cal/OSHA (8CCR1532.1) and with the EPA Renovation, Repair and Painting (RRP) Rule NOTE 2a NOTE 2b NOTE 2d NOTE 2e NOTE 5 NOTE 2c NOTE 2b NOTE 2dNOTE 5 NOTE 2a NOTE 2bNOTE 2d NOTE 5 NOTE 2c Develop a bat roost deterrent plan, including a replacement bat maternity roost habitat, for approval by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), and follow the general bat and woodrat avoidance measures (see Exhibit E). Given the wooden construction of the building, it would be inadvisable to store any flammable materials within the barn, or any items that would increase the risk of fire or damage to the historic resource. Care should be taken to protect the door framing from impact damage; install temporary protection if necessary, in a manner that does not attach directly to or otherwise damage the historic fabric of the barn. Optional: Install motion activated cameras and signage at the site as an additional security measure; include additional maintenance costs for these measures. If internet or cellular service is unavailable, a motion activated camera system may be installed that stores footage on site that may be accessed by District staff in the event of security concerns. Nesting bird surveys are required if work takes place between February 15 and August 30. 10) add 9) ins 8) sto 7) roo 6) DR A F T Attachment 1 0'-0" TO FLOOR 7'-8" TO BEAM 17'-2" TO RIDGE BEAM 123 6 2-S3.1 ___________ 6 2-S3.1 ___________ 6 3-S3.1 ___________ 6 3-S3.1 ___________ 0'-0" TO FLOOR 7'-8" TO BEAM 17'-2" TO RIDGE BEAM 1 2 3 6 3-S3.1 ___________ 6 3-S3.1 ___________ 0'-0" TO FLOOR 7'-8" TO BEAM 17'-2" TO RIDGE BEAM 123 6 2-S3.1 ___________ 6 2-S3.1 ___________ 8x POST, TYP PER PLAN TRUE DIM 2x6 RAFTERS @ 3'-0"oc, TYP 1x SIDING PER PLAN 8x8 ON GRADE2x FLR SHEATHING PER PLAN CORUGATED MTL ROOF DECK 1x6 CONT SHEATHING @ 16"oc 6 3-S3.1 ___________ 6 3-S3.1 ___________ 0'-0" TO FLOOR 7'-8" TO BEAM 17'-2" TO RIDGE BEAM ABCDEF 4x4 KNEE BRACE, TYP 0'-0" TO FLOOR 7'-8" TO BEAM 17'-2" TO RIDGE BEAM A B C D E F 4x4 KNEE BRACE, TYP 0'-0" TO FLOOR 7'-8" TO BEAM 17'-2" TO RIDGE BEAM A B C D E F 3 3-S3.1 ___________ 3 3-S3.1 ___________ 4x4 KNEE BRACE, TYP 13 9 0 e l c a m i n o r e a l | s u i t e 1 0 0 sa n c a r l o s c a 9 4 0 7 0 zf a j o b n o . zf a . c o m 65 0 . 3 9 4 . 8 8 6 9 co p y r i g h t © 2 0 1 9 SHEET DATE: SHEET DESCRIPTION PROJECT THIS DOCUMENT AND THE IDEAS INCORPORATED HEREIN, AS AN INSTRUMENT OF PROFESSIONAL SERVICE, IS THE PROPERTY OF THE ENGINEER AND IS NOT TO BE USED, IN WHOLE OR IN PART FOR ANY OTHER PROJECT WITHOUT THE PRIOR WRITTEN PM: ENGR: BO D O P T I O N 3 11/22/2019 1:49:46 PM C:\revit_local\R2019\19235_La Honda_White Barn_S19C_leos@zfa.com.rvt ELEVATIONS & SECTIONS 3-S3.1 NOV 22, 2019 LA H O N D A C R E E K O P E N S P A C E PR E S E R V E AP N 0 7 5 3 3 0 2 2 0 DY E R B A R N 19 2 3 5 BA S I S O F D E S I G N D O C U M E N T - NO T F O R C O N S T R U C T I O N SRP SRP 1/4" = 1'-0"1 EAST ELEVATION C BOD OPTION 3 1/4" = 1'-0"2 WEST ELEVATION BOD OPTION 3 1/4" = 1'-0"3 BUILDING SECTION - TRANSVERSE BOD OPTION 3 1/4" = 1'-0"4 NORTH ELEVATION BOD OPTION 3 1/4" = 1'-0"5 SOUTH ELEVATION BOD OPTION 3 1/4" = 1'-0"6 BUILDING SECTION - LONGITUDINAL BOD OPTION 3 Revision Schedule # Revision Description Date PRINT TO 11x17 NOTE 2a NOTE 2c NOTE 2e NOTE 2b NOTE 2b NOTE 2b NOTE 2b NOTE 2a NOTE 2e NOTE 2eNOTE 2e NOTE 2e NOTE 2c NOTE 2c NOTE 2c NOTE 2c NOTE 2c NOTE 2d NOTE 2d BASIS OF DESIGN ALTERNATIVE 3: 1) The stabilization methods proposed for this option target all code and safety concerns as specifically identified in the condition assessment to allow for re-occupancy of the building. For cost estimation purposes, it is assumed necessary to bring all elements of the unpermitted structure up to the current historical building code to allow for re-occupancy of the existing building. It is assumed there is no change of occupancy from the existing. 2) Provide new structural members including: a) New concrete foundation b) New vertical seismic force-resisting system c) New roof diaphragm d) Remove and replace deteriorated siding (assume 40% require repair). e) New floor system 3) Secretary of the Interior’s Standards are the most appropriate basis for this proposed project alternative. 4) In addition to the envelope repair described in proposed project alternative #2 for the Barn, rehabilitating the building for a storage use should include the installation of interior lighting to meet code required minimums for safety. 5) Remove lead-containing paint. Disturbance of lead-containing paints and materials must be conducted in accordance with the requirements of Cal/OSHA (8CCR1532.1) and with the EPA Renovation, Repair and Painting (RRP) Rule Develop a bat roost deterrent plan, including a replacement bat maternity roost habitat, for approval by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), and follow the general bat and woodrat avoidance measures (see Exhibit E). Given the wooden construction of the building, it would be inadvisable to store any flammable materials within the barn, or any items that would increase the risk of fire or damage to the historic resource. Care should be taken to protect the door framing from impact damage; install temporary protection if necessary, in a manner that does not attach directly to or otherwise damage the historic fabric of the barn. Optional: Install motion activated cameras and signage at the site as an additional security measure; include additional maintenance costs for these measures. If internet or cellular service is unavailable, a motion activated camera system may be installed that stores footage on site that may be accessed by District staff in the event of security concerns. Nesting bird surveys are required if work takes place between February 15 and August 30. 10) add 9) ins 8) sto 7) roo 6) DR A F T Attachment 1 ___________1 2-S3.1___________2 2-S3.1 ___________4 2-S3.1 ___________5 2-S3.1 A A B B 1 1 2 2 3 3 C C D D E E F F 3 2-S3.1 ___________ 3 2-S3.1 ___________ 6 2-S3.1 ___________6 2-S3.1 ___________ 12 ' - 8 " 12 ' - 8 " 8'-0"8'-0"8'-0"8'-0"8'-0" 2x ROUGH LUMBER FLR7Éx8 ROUGH HEWN POST, TYP1x PARTIAL HT WALL, TYP 1x PARTIAL HT "MAKESHIFT" PARTITIONS 4" 4" 40'-0" 25 ' - 4 " 4" 4" ___________1 3-S3.1___________2 3-S3.1 ___________4 3-S3.1 ___________5 3-S3.1 3 3-S3.1 ___________ 3 3-S3.1 ___________ 6 3-S3.1 ___________6 3-S3.1 ___________ DEMO ___________1 2-S3.1___________2 2-S3.1 ___________4 2-S3.1 ___________5 2-S3.1 A A B B 1 1 2 2 3 3 C C D D E E F F 3 2-S3.1 ___________ 3 2-S3.1 ___________ 6 2-S3.1 ___________6 2-S3.1 ___________ SL O P E SL O P E RIDGE (E) CORRUGATED METAL ROOFING. ___________1 3-S3.1___________2 3-S3.1 ___________4 3-S3.1 ___________5 3-S3.1 3 3-S3.1 ___________ 3 3-S3.1 ___________ 6 3-S3.1 ___________6 3-S3.1 ___________ DEMO 13 9 0 e l c a m i n o r e a l | s u i t e 1 0 0 sa n c a r l o s c a 9 4 0 7 0 zf a j o b n o . zf a . c o m 65 0 . 3 9 4 . 8 8 6 9 co p y r i g h t © 2 0 1 9 SHEET DATE: SHEET DESCRIPTION PROJECT THIS DOCUMENT AND THE IDEAS INCORPORATED HEREIN, AS AN INSTRUMENT OF PROFESSIONAL SERVICE, IS THE PROPERTY OF THE ENGINEER AND IS NOT TO BE USED, IN WHOLE OR IN PART FOR ANY OTHER PROJECT WITHOUT THE PRIOR WRITTEN PM: ENGR: BO D O P T I O N 4 11/22/2019 1:49:51 PM C:\revit_local\R2019\19235_La Honda_White Barn_S19C_leos@zfa.com.rvt FLOOR AND ROOF FRAMING PLANS 4-S2.1 NOV 22, 2019 LA H O N D A C R E E K O P E N S P A C E PR E S E R V E AP N 0 7 5 3 3 0 2 2 0 DY E R B A R N 19 2 3 5 BA S I S O F D E S I G N D O C U M E N T - NO T F O R C O N S T R U C T I O N SRP SRP 3 3D ISOMETRIC VIEW N O R T H 1/4" = 1'-0" FLOOR PLAN BOD OPTION 4 N O R T H 1/4" = 1'-0" ROOF FRAMING PLAN BOD OPTION 4 Revision Schedule # Revision Description Date DEMO PRINT TO 11x17 BASIS OF DESIGN ALTERNATIVE 4: 1) Demolishing the structure, which has been determined an historic resource, may require additional processes to obtain demolition permits. DR A F T 2) Remove lead-containing paint prior to demolition. Disturbance of lead-containing paints and materials must be conducted in accordance with the requirements of Cal/OSHA (8CCR1532.1) and with the EPA Renovation, Repair and Painting (RRP) Rule. See Exhibit D. 3) Develop a replacement bat maternity roost habitat plan for approval by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), and follow the general bat and woodrat avoidance measures (see Exhibit E). 4) The site landscaping would be rehabilitated to return it as close as possible to its original condition prior to the construction of the building. 5)Installation of interpretive features (signage) documenting the pre-demo site conditions and previous use and inhabitants of the site should also be considered. 6) The demolition option is being requested pending completion of regulatory approval for cost estimation purposes only. 7) Complete removal of the building would result in the lowest continued annual maintenance costs for this site, but the feasibility of this option is dependent upon regulatory approval process. 8) Due to the relatively small size of the structure, the District may consider dismantling and relocating the structure as an alternative to demolition. 9) Nesting bird surveys are required if work takes place between February 15 and August 30. Attachment 1 STRUCTURAL CONDITION ASSESSMENT AND BASIS OF DESIGN – White Barn | 20 La Honda Creek Open Space Preserve, San Mateo County, CA APPENDIX C – SUMMARY DATA SHEET DR A F T Attachment 1 STRUCTURAL CONDITION ASSESSMENT AND BASIS OF DESIGN – White Barn | 21 La Honda Creek Open Space Preserve, San Mateo County, CA Summary Data Sheet BUILDING DATA Building Name: White Barn Date: 10/3/19 Building Address: La Honda Creek Open Space Preserve Latitude: 37.3777 Longitude: -122.2798 By: Year Built: 1860’s Year(s) Remodeled: N/A Original Design Code: None Area (sf): 960 Length (ft): 40 Width (ft): 25 No. of Stories: 1 Story Height (ft): 8 to 18 Total Height (ft): 18 USE Industrial Office Warehouse Hospital Residential Educational Other: Storage CONSTRUCTION DATA Gravity Load Structural System: Timber Post and Beam Exterior Transverse Walls: Vertical Siding Openings? Yes Exterior Longitudinal Walls: Vertical Siding Openings? Yes Roof Materials/Framing: Wood rafters with skip sheathing and corrugated metal Intermediate Floors/Framing: N/A Ground Floor: Wood straight sheathing on framing Columns: 8x8 Foundation: Wood on ground General Condition of Structure: Poor to Fair Levels Below Grade? none Special Features and Comments: LATERAL-FORCE-RESISTING SYSTEM Longitudinal Transverse System: N/A N/A Vertical Elements: N/A N/A Diaphragms: N/A N/A Connections: N/A N/A EVALUATION DATA BSE-1N Spectral Response Accelerations: SDS= 1.556 SD1= 0.97 Soil Factors: Class= C Fa= 1.0 Fv= null BSE-2E Spectral Response Accelerations: SXS= 1.991 SX1= 1.351 Level of Seismicity: BSE-2E Performance Level: CP Building Period: T= Not determined Spectral Acceleration: Sa= 1.991 Modification Factor: CmC1C2= 1.300 Building Weight: W= 25k Pseudo Lateral Force: V=CmC1C2SaW= 64.7k DR A F T Attachment 1 STRUCTURAL CONDITION ASSESSMENT AND BASIS OF DESIGN – White Barn | 22 La Honda Creek Open Space Preserve, San Mateo County, CA BUILDING CLASSIFICATION: W1 – Wood Frames Commercial and Industrial REQUIRED TIER 1 CHECKLISTS Yes No Basic Configuration Checklist Building Type W2 Structural Checklist Nonstructural Component Checklist FURTHER EVALUATION REQUIREMENT: Tier 2 analysis on (6) structural deficiencies Material Properties To account for uncertainty in the as-built data, a knowledge factor, κ, is determined according to ASCE 41 Table 6-1. Where material properties are not listed in existing construction documents, a knowledge factor of κ=0.75 shall be applied to the component capacities for deformation-controlled and force-controlled actions. Default Value per ASCE 41, 4.2.3? Alternate Value Source? Concrete Table (4-2) Foundation Footings: f’c= 2,000 psi Slabs: f’c= 2,000 psi Reinforcing Steel Table (4-3) #3 Bars: fy= 40,000 psi #4 Bars and Larger: fy= 40,000 psi Carpentry Wall studs and light Framing Members Site Harvested first growth Redwood Sheathing – Horizontal 1x lumber Sawn Lumber Posts, Timbers, beams and Stringers Construction Grade DR A F T Attachment 1 STRUCTURAL CONDITION ASSESSMENT AND BASIS OF DESIGN – White Barn | 25 La Honda Creek Open Space Preserve, San Mateo County, CA APPENDIX D – TIER 1 CHECKLISTS AND STRUCTURAL CALCULATIONS DR A F T Attachment 1 Job #19235 17-1 Very Low Seismicity Engineer: SRP 11/22/2019 White (Dyer) Barn Condition Assessment TIER 1 CHECKLISTS Note: C = Compliant, NC = Noncompliant, N/A = Not Applicable, and U = Unknown. LOAD PATH: The structure contains a complete, well-defined load path,including structural elements and connections, that serves to transfer theinertial forces associated with the mass of all elements of the building to the foundation. (Commentary: Sec. A.2.1.1. Tier 2: Sec. 5.4.1.1) WALL ANCHORAGE: Exterior concrete or masonry walls that are dependenton the diaphragm for lateral support are anchored for out-of-plane forcesat each diaphragm level with steel anchors, reinforcing dowels, or straps thatare developed into the diaphragm. Connections have adequate strength toresist the connection force calculated in the Quick Check procedure ofSection 4.4.3.7. (Commentary: Sec. A.5.1.1. Tier 2: Sec. 5.7.1.1) Table 17-1. Very Low Seismicity Checklist Structural Components C NC N/A U C NC N/A U DR A F T Attachment 1 Job #19235 17-2 Basic Configuration (CP) Engineer: SRP 11/22/2019 White (Dyer) Barn Condition Assessment TIER 1 CHECKLISTS Note: C = Compliant, NC = Noncompliant, N/A = Not Applicable, and U = Unknown. LOAD PATH: The structure contains a complete, well-defined load path, including structural elements and connections, that serves to transfer the inertial forces associated with the mass of all elements of the building to the foundation. (Commentary: Sec. A.2.1.1. Tier 2: Sec. 5.4.1.1) There is no defined lateral force-resisting system. ADJACENT BUILDINGS: The clear distance between the building being evaluated and any adjacent building is greater than 0.25%of the height of the shorter building in low seismicity, 0.5% in moderate seismicity, and 1.5% in high seismicity. (Commentary: Sec. A.2.1.2. Tier 2: Sec. 5.4.1.2) MEZZANINES: Interior mezzanine levels are braced independently from the main structure or are anchored to the seismic-force-resisting elements of themain structure. (Commentary: Sec. A.2.1.3. Tier 2: Sec. 5.4.1.3) WEAK STORY: The sum of the shear strengths of the seismic-force-resisting system in any story in each direction is not less than 80% of the strength in the adjacent story above. (Commentary: Sec. A2.2.2. Tier 2: Sec. 5.4.2.1) One story building. SOFT STORY: The stiffness of the seismic-force-resisting system in any story is not less than 70% of the seismic-force-resisting system stiffness in an adjacent story above or less than 80% of the average seismic-force-resisting system stiffness of the three stories above. (Commentary: Sec. A.2.2.3. Tier 2: Sec. 5.4.2.2) One story building. VERTICAL IRREGULARITIES: All vertical elements in the seismic-force- resisting system are continuous to the foundation. (Commentary: Sec. A.2.2.4. Tier 2: Sec. 5.4.2.3) One story building. GEOMETRY: There are no changes in the net horizontal dimension of the seismic-force-resisting system of more than 30% in a story relative to adjacent stories, excluding one-story penthouses and mezzanines. (Commentary: Sec. A.2.2.5. Tier 2: Sec. 5.4.2.4) One story building. MASS:There is no change in effective mass of more than 50% from one story to the next. Light roofs, penthouses, and mezzanines need not be considered. (Commentary: Sec. A.2.2.6. Tier 2: Sec. 5.4.2.5) One story building. TORSION: The estimated distance between the story center of mass and the story center of rigidity is less than 20% of the building width in either plan dimension. (Commentary: Sec. A.2.2.7. Tier 2: Sec. 5.4.2.6) Moderate Seismicity (Complete the Following Items in Addition to the Items for Low Seismicity) Table 17-2. Collapse Prevention Basic Configuration Checklist Low Seismicity Building System—General Building System—Building Configuration C NC N/A U C NC N/A U C NC N/A U C NC N/A U C NC N/A U C NC N/A U C NC N/A U C NC N/A U C NC N/A U DR A F T Attachment 1 Job #19235 17-2 Basic Configuration (CP) Engineer: SRP 11/22/2019 White (Dyer) Barn Condition Assessment TIER 1 CHECKLISTS Note: C = Compliant, NC = Noncompliant, N/A = Not Applicable, and U = Unknown. Table 17-2. Collapse Prevention Basic Configuration Checklist LIQUEFACTION: Liquefaction-susceptible, saturated, loose granular soils that could jeopardize the building’s seismic performance do not exist in the foundation soils at depths within 50 ft (15.2 m) under the building. (Commentary: Sec. A.6.1.1. Tier 2: 5.4.3.1) SLOPE FAILURE: The building site is located away from potential earthquake- induced slope failures or rockfalls so that it is unaffected by such failures or is capable of accommodating any predicted movements without failure. (Commentary: Sec. A.6.1.2. Tier 2: 5.4.3.1) SURFACE FAULT RUPTURE: Surface fault rupture and surface displacement at the building site are not anticipated. (Commentary: Sec. A.6.1.3. Tier 2: 5.4.3.1) OVERTURNING:The ratio of the least horizontal dimension of the seismic-force- resisting system at the foundation level to the building height (base/height) is greater than 0.6Sa. (Commentary: Sec. A.6.2.1. Tier 2: Sec. 5.4.3.3) TIES BETWEEN FOUNDATION ELEMENTS:The foundation has ties adequate to resist seismic forces where footings, piles, and piers are not restrained by beams, slabs, or soils classified as Site Class A, B, or C. (Commentary: Sec. A.6.2.2. Tier 2: Sec. 5.4.3.4) No foundations are present. High Seismicity (Complete the Following Items in Addition to the Items for Moderate Seismicity) Foundation Configuration Geologic Site Hazards C NC N/A U C NC N/A U C NC N/A U C NC N/A U C NC N/A U DR A F T Attachment 1 Job #19235 17-4 W1 & W1a (CP) Engineer: SRP 11/22/2019 White (Dyer) Barn Condition Assessment TIER 1 CHECKLISTS Table 17-4. Collapse Prevention Structural Checklist for Building Types W1 and W1a Note: C = Compliant, NC = Noncompliant, N/A = Not Applicable, and U = Unknown. REDUNDANCY: The number of lines of shear walls in each principal direction is greater than or equal to 2. (Commentary: Sec. A.3.2.1.1. Tier 2: Sec. 5.5.1.1) No shearwalls are present. SHEAR STRESS CHECK: The shear stress in the shear walls, calculated using the Quick Check procedure of Section 4.4.3.3, is less than the following values (Commentary: Sec. A.3.2.7.1. Tier 2: Sec. 5.5.3.1.1): Structural panel sheathing 1,000 lb/ft Diagonal sheathing 700 lb/ft Straight sheathing 100 lb/ft All other conditions 100 lb/ft No shearwalls are present. STUCCO (EXTERIOR PLASTER) SHEAR WALLS: Multi-story buildings do not rely on exterior stucco walls as the primary seismic-force-resisting system. (Commentary: Sec. A.3.2.7.2. Tier 2: Sec. 5.5.3.6.1) GYPSUM WALLBOARD OR PLASTER SHEAR WALLS: Interior plaster or gypsum wallboard is not used for shear walls on buildings more than one story high with the exception of the uppermost level of a multi-story building. (Commentary: Sec. A.3.2.7.3. Tier 2: Sec. 5.5.3.6.1) NARROW WOOD SHEAR WALLS: Narrow wood shear walls with an aspect ratio greater than 2-to-1 are not used to resist seismic forces. (Commentary: Sec. A.3.2.7.4. Tier 2: Sec. 5.5.3.6.1) WALLS CONNECTED THROUGH FLOORS: Shear walls have an interconnection between stories to transfer overturning and shear forces through the floor. (Commentary: Sec. A.3.2.7.5. Tier 2: Sec. 5.5.3.6.2) Only one story. HILLSIDE SITE: For structures that are taller on at least one side by more than one-half story because of a sloping site, all shear walls on the downhill slope have an aspect ratio less than 1-to-1. (Commentary: Sec. A.3.2.7.6. Tier 2: Sec. 5.5.3.6.3) CRIPPLE WALLS: Cripple walls below first-floor-level shear walls are braced to the foundation with wood structural panels. (Commentary: Sec. A.3.2.7.7. Tier 2: Sec. 5.5.3.6.4) No cripple walls. OPENINGS: Walls with openings greater than 80% of the length are braced with wood structural panel shear walls with aspect ratios of not more than 1.5-to-1 or are supported by adjacent construction through positive ties capable of transferring the seismic forces. (Commentary: Sec. A.3.2.7.8. Tier 2: Sec. 5.5.3.6.5) WOOD POSTS: There is a positive connection of wood posts to the foundation. (Commentary: Sec. A.5.3.3. Tier 2: Sec. 5.7.3.3) There is no foundation. Low and Moderate Seismicity Seismic-Force-Resisting System Connections C NC N/A U C NC N/A U C NC N/A U C NC N/A U C NC N/A U C NC N/A U C NC N/A U C NC N/A U C NC N/A U C NC N/A U DR A F T Attachment 1 Job #19235 17-4 W1 & W1a (CP) Engineer: SRP 11/22/2019 White (Dyer) Barn Condition Assessment TIER 1 CHECKLISTS Table 17-4. Collapse Prevention Structural Checklist for Building Types W1 and W1a Note: C = Compliant, NC = Noncompliant, N/A = Not Applicable, and U = Unknown. WOOD SILLS: All wood sills are bolted to the foundation. (Commentary: Sec. A.5.3.4. Tier 2: Sec. 5.7.3.3) Wood grade beams sit on the soil. GIRDER/COLUMN CONNECTION: There is a positive connection using plates, connection hardware, or straps between the girder and the column support. (Commentary: Sec. A.5.4.1. Tier 2: Sec. 5.7.4.1) None present by obsevation WOOD SILL BOLTS: Sill bolts are spaced at 6 ft or less with proper edge and end distance provided for wood and concrete. (Commentary: Sec. A.5.3.7. Tier 2: Sec. 5.7.3.3) None present by observation DIAPHRAGM CONTINUITY: The diaphragms are not composed of split-level floors and do not have expansion joints. (Commentary: Sec. A.4.1.1. Tier 2: Sec. 5.6.1.1) ROOF CHORD CONTINUITY: All chord elements are continuous, regardless of changes in roof elevation. (Commentary: Sec. A.4.1.3. Tier 2: Sec. 5.6.1.1) STRAIGHT SHEATHING: All straight-sheathed diaphragms have aspect ratios less than 2-to-1 in the direction being considered. (Commentary: Sec. A.4.2.1. Tier 2: Sec. 5.6.2) SPANS: All wood diaphragms with spans greater than 24 ft consist of wood structural panels or diagonal sheathing. (Commentary: Sec. A.4.2.2. Tier 2: Sec. 5.6.2) No wood diphragms present. DIAGONALLY SHEATHED AND UNBLOCKED DIAPHRAGMS: All diagonally sheathed or unblocked wood structural panel diaphragms have horizontal spans less than 40 ft and shall have aspect ratios less than or equal to 4-to-1. (Commentary: Sec. A.4.2.3. Tier 2: Sec. 5.6.2) OTHER DIAPHRAGMS: The diaphragms do not consist of a system other than wood, metal deck, concrete, or horizontal bracing. (Commentary: Sec. A.4.7.1. Tier 2: Sec. 5.6.5) High Seismicity (Complete the Following Items in Addition to the Items for Low and Moderate Seismicity) Connections Diaphragms C NC N/A U C NC N/A U C NC N/A U C NC N/A U C NC N/A U C NC N/A U C NC N/A U C NC N/A U C NC N/A UDR A F T Attachment 1 Job #19235 Seismic Hazard (Tier 1) Engineer: SRP 11/22/2019 White (Dyer) Barn Condition Assessment SEISMIC HAZARD ANALYSIS ASCE 41-17 §2.4 Site Coordinates Latitude =37.3874 deg White (Dyer) Barn Condition Assessment Longitude =-122.2781 deg San Mateo County, California Spectral Response Acceleration Parameters ASCE 41-17 §2.4.1.4 Site Class =C Site Soil Classification SS =0.842 g Mapped Short-period Spectral Response Acceleration S1 =0.307 g Mapped 1-sec period Spectral Response Acceleration SXS =0.980 g Short-period Spectral Response Acceleration at BSE-1E SX1 =0.612 g 1-sec period Spectral Response Acceleration at BSE-1E SEISMIC FORCE ASCE 41-17 §4.5.2 Building Properties Type N/S =W1 Building Type in North-South Direction ASCE 41-17 Table 3-1 Type E/W =W1 Building Type in East-West Direction ASCE 41-17 Table 3-1 Height, hn =25.00 ft Height above base to roof level Stories =1 Number of stories Weight N/S =118.0 k Seismic Weight of Building in North-South Direction Weight E/W =118.0 k Seismic Weight of Building in East-West Direction Building Period ASCE 41-17 §4.5.2.4 North-South Direction: Ct =0.02 Period Adjustment Factor β =0.75 Empirical Fundamental Period Adjustment Factor T =0.224 sec Fundamental Period =C t *h n β East-West Direction: Ct =0.02 Period Adjustment Factor β =0.75 Empirical Fundamental Period Adjustment Factor T =0.224 sec Fundamental Period =C t *h n β Pseudo-Seismic Force ASCE 41-17 §4.5.2.1 North-South Direction: Sa =0.98 g Spectral Response Acceleration =S x1 /T < S xs C =1.30 Modification Factor Table 4-8 V =1.27 *W Pseudo-Seismic Force in Terms of Weight =C*Sa*W V =150.3 k Pseudo-Seismic Force East-West Direction: Sa =0.98 g Spectral Response Acceleration =S x1 /T < S xs C =1.30 Modification Factor Table 4-8 V =1.27 *W Pseudo-Seismic Force in Terms of Weight =C*Sa*W V =150.3 k Pseudo-Seismic Force DR A F T Attachment 1 STRUCTURE STABILIZATION BASIS OF DESIGN – White Barn La Honda Creek Open Space Preserve, San Mateo County, CA EXHIBIT C Geotechnical Investigation by Romig Engineers DR A F T Attachment 1 GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION WHITE BARN STRUCTURAL STABILIZATION MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT LA HONDA CREEK PRESERVE SAN MATEO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Prepared for ZFA Structural Engineers 1390 El Camino Real, Suite 100 San Carlos, California 94070 October 2019 Project No. 4907-2 DR A F T Attachment 1 October 4, 2019 4907-2 ZFA Structural Engineers 1390 El Camino Real, Suite 100 San Carlos, California 94070 RE: GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION STRUCTURAL STABILIZATION WHITE BARN MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT LA HONDA CREEK PRESERVE SAN MATEO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Attention: Mr. Steve Patton, P.E. Gentlemen: In accordance with your request, we have performed a geotechnical investigation for the structural stabilization of the White Barn located in the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District La Honda Creek Preserve in an unincorporated area of San Mateo County near Woodside, California. The accompanying report summarizes the results of our field exploration, laboratory testing, and engineering analysis, and presents geotechnical recommendations for the proposed improvements. We refer you to the text of our report for specific recommendations. Thank you for the opportunity to work with you on this project. If you have any questions or comments concerning the findings or recommendations from our investigation, please call. Very truly yours, ROMIG ENGINEERS, INC. Lucas J. Ottoboni, P.E. Glenn A. Romig, P.E., G.E. Copies: Addressee (1 + via email) Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (via email) Attn: Ms. Tanisha Werner GAR:LO:wfz:pf 1390 El Camino Real, Second Floor | San Carlos, CA 94070 | (650) 591-5224 | www.romigengineers.com DR A F T Attachment 1 GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION STRUCTURAL STABILIZATION – WHITE BARN MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT SAN MATEO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA PREPARED FOR: ZFA STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS 1390 EL CAMINO REAL, SUITE 100 SAN CARLOS, CALIFORNIA 94070 PREPARED BY: ROMIG ENGINEERS, INC. 1390 EL CAMINO REAL, SECOND FLOOR SAN CARLOS, CALIFORNIA 94070 OCTOBER 2019 DR A F T Attachment 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page No. Letter of transmittal Title Page TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION .........................................................................................................1 Project Description ................................................................................................1 Scope of Work .......................................................................................................1 Limitations .............................................................................................................2 SITE EXPLORATION AND RECONNAISSANCE ...................................................2 Surface Conditions ................................................................................................3 Subsurface Conditions ...........................................................................................3 Ground Water ........................................................................................................4 GEOLOGIC SETTING .................................................................................................4 Faulting and Seismicity .........................................................................................5 Table 1. Earthquake Magnitudes and Historical Earthquakes .....................5 Earthquake Design Parameters ..............................................................................6 Table 2. 2016 CBC Seismic Design Criteria ...............................................6 CONCLUSIONS............................................................................................................7 FOUNDATIONS ...........................................................................................................8 Spread Footing Foundations ..................................................................................8 Lateral Loads .........................................................................................................9 Settlement ..............................................................................................................9 SLABS-ON-GRADE .....................................................................................................9 General Slab Considerations .................................................................................9 Exterior Flatwork .................................................................................................10 EARTHWORK ............................................................................................................10 Clearing and Subgrade Preparation .....................................................................10 Material for Fill ...................................................................................................10 Compaction ..........................................................................................................11 Table 3. Compaction Recommendations ...................................................11 Temporary Slopes and Excavations ....................................................................11 Subdrain System ..................................................................................................12 Surface Drainage .................................................................................................12 Finished Slopes ....................................................................................................13 FUTURE SERVICES ..................................................................................................13 Plan Review .........................................................................................................13 Construction Observation and Testing ................................................................13 DR A F T Attachment 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) REFERENCES FIGURE 1 - VICINITY MAP FIGURE 2 - SITE PLAN FIGURE 3 - VICINITY GEOLOGIC MAP FIGURE 4 - REGIONAL FAULT AND SEISMICITY MAP APPENDIX A - FIELD INVESTIGATION Figure A-1 - Key to Exploratory Boring Logs Figure A-2 - Key to Bedrock Descriptions Exploratory Boring Logs EB-1 and EB-2 APPENDIX B - SUMMARY OF LABORATORY TESTS Figure B-1 - Plasticity Chart DR A F T Attachment 1 GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION FOR STRUCTURAL STABILIZATION – WHITE BARN MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT SAN MATEO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA INTRODUCTION This report presents the results of our geotechnical investigation for the proposed structural stabilization of the White Barn located in the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District La Honda Creek Preserve in an unincorporated area of San Mateo County near Woodside, California. The location of the site is shown on the Vicinity Map, Figure 1. The purpose of this investigation was to evaluate subsurface conditions at the site and to provide geotechnical recommendations for the proposed improvements. Project Description The project consists of improving or abandoning the White Barn structure in the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District La Honda Creek Preserve. Since the options to abandon the structure will not require engineering solutions, those options have not been addressed in our report. If improved, the existing structure will either be stabilized to allow for exterior viewing only or the existing structure will be retrofitted to become storage space for district use. Scope of Work The scope of our work for this investigation was presented in our agreement with ZFA Structural Engineers, dated June 25, 2019. In order to accomplish our investigation, we performed the following work. • Review of geologic, geotechnical, and seismic conditions in the vicinity of the site. • Subsurface exploration consisting of drilling and logging two exploratory borings near the barn. • Laboratory testing of selected samples to aid in soil classification and to help evaluate the engineering properties of the soil and bedrock encountered at the site. DR A F T Attachment 1 ZFA Structural Engineers White Barn Structural Stabilization Page 2 of 13 • Engineering analysis and evaluation of surface and subsurface data to develop earthwork guidelines and foundation design criteria for the project. • Preparation of this report presenting our findings, conclusions, and geotechnical recommendations for the proposed improvements. Limitations This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of ZFA Structural Engineers for specific application to developing geotechnical design criteria for the proposed structural stabilization of the White Barn located in the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District La Honda Creek Preserve in an unincorporated area of San Mateo County near Woodside, California. We make no warranty, expressed or implied, for the services performed for this project. Our services have been performed in accordance with the geotechnical engineering principles generally accepted at this time and location. This report was prepared to provide engineering opinions and recommendations only. In the event there are any changes in the nature, design, or location of the project, or if any future improvements are planned, the conclusions and recommendations presented in this report should not be considered valid unless: 1) the project changes are reviewed by us, and; 2) the conclusions and recommendations presented in this report are modified or verified in writing. The analysis, conclusions, and recommendations presented in this report are based on site conditions as they existed at the time of our investigation; the currently planned improvements; review of readily available reports relevant to the site conditions; and laboratory test results. In addition, it should be recognized that certain limitations are inherent in the evaluation of subsurface conditions, and that certain conditions may not be detected during an investigation of this type. Changes in the information or data gained from any of these sources could result in changes in our conclusions or recommendations. If such changes occur, we should be advised so that we can review our report in light of those changes. SITE EXPLORATION AND RECONNAISSANCE Site reconnaissance and subsurface exploration were performed on September 5, 2019. Subsurface exploration was performed using portable Minuteman drilling and sampling equipment. Two exploratory borings were advanced to sampler refusal conditions at depths of approximately 7.4 and 11.5 feet. The locations of the borings are shown on the Site Plan, Figure 2. The boring logs and the results of our laboratory tests performed on samples collected during our investigation are attached in Appendices A and B, respectively. DR A F T Attachment 1 ZFA Structural Engineers White Barn Structural Stabilization Page 3 of 13 Surface Conditions The site is located within the La Honda Creek Open Space Preserve along the south side of Kebet Ridge Road/Allen Road. At the time of our investigation, the site was occupied by a wood barn which had vertical wood exterior siding. The area immediately surrounding the barn was vegetated with native grasses. The barn was situated near the top of a ridge(s) that extended to the northwest and southeast in an area that sloped gently to the southwest towards the top/start of a natural drainage. The natural drainage was vegetated with shrubs and small trees and was located about 20 feet from the south side of the barn. The drainage extended and served the hillside areas to the west of the barn. At the time of our preliminary site walk on February 7, 2019 (pre-proposal job walk which was performed prior to the start of our work under contract with the District), we noted that the ground within and around the drainage and area south of the barn was saturated. The slopes appeared to be moderately to steeply sloping further west of the barn. The barn appeared to be supported on wood foundations at the perimeter and interior which were in direct contact with the earth. The existing barn was generally in fair to poor condition (given its age and use as a barn) with some of the wood siding and wood flooring observed to be deteriorating. The barn was generally tilting in the downslope/south direction. Subsurface Conditions At the location of our Exploratory Boring EB-1, we encountered about 4 feet of very stiff sandy silt of low plasticity underlain by about 2 feet of residual soil which consisted of hard sandy lean clay of low plasticity. Beneath the residual soil, we encountered sandstone bedrock of the Butano Formation to sampler refusal conditions at a depth of about 11.5 feet. At Boring EB-2, we encountered very severely weathered sandstone to siltstone bedrock of the Butano Formation beginning at the ground surface and extending to sampler refusal conditions at a depth of about 8.4 feet. We note that the upper 4 feet of Boring EB-1, located near the natural drainage way, was comprised of silts with pinhole voids. Through visual observation and previous experience with similar materials, we note that there may be a potential for these soils to be collapsible if water is introduced, which is likely to occur near the swale (as was observed during our job walk during the wet season). This phenomenon and the potential impacts are discussed later in this report. DR A F T Attachment 1 ZFA Structural Engineers White Barn Structural Stabilization Page 4 of 13 A Liquid Limit of 28 and a Plasticity Index of 7 were measured on a sample of near- surface soil obtained from Boring EB-1. These test results indicate the surface and near- surface soils we encountered at the site have low plasticity and a low potential for expansion. A free-swell test performed on a sample of bedrock obtained in Boring EB-2 indicated a free swell value of 30 percent. This free-swell test result along with our experience suggests the bedrock tested has a low potential for expansion. Ground Water Free ground water was not encountered in the borings during our investigation. The borings were backfilled with grout immediately after drilling and sampling was completed; therefore, a stabilized ground water level was not obtained. Please be cautioned that fluctuations in the level of ground water can occur due to variations in rainfall, landscaping, underground drainage patterns, and other factors. It is also possible and perhaps even likely that perched ground water conditions could develop in the soils and near the surface of the bedrock during and after significant rainfall or due to landscape watering at the property and the upslope areas. GEOLOGIC SETTING We have briefly reviewed our local experience and the geologic literature pertinent to the general site area. The information reviewed indicates that the site is located in an area mapped as middle and lower Eocene aged Butano Sandstone, Tb (Brabb, Graymer and Jones, 2000). This unit is expected to consist of light gray to buff, very fine to very coarse grained arkosic sandstone in thin to very thick beds interbedded with dark gray to brown mudstone and shale. The geology of the site vicinity is shown on the Vicinity Geologic Map, Figure 3. The preliminary State Seismic Hazard Zones Map of the Woodside Quadrangle (2018) prepared by the California Geological Survey indicates that the site is located in an area that is potentially susceptible to “Earthquake-Induced Landslides.” However, it appears that the mapping is associated with the steep slopes in the general site vicinity rather than the slopes in the immediate vicinity of the barn. In addition, we did not observe any obvious indications of slope instability immediately surrounding the white barn structure. The lot and immediate site vicinity are located in a moderately sloping hillside area at an elevation of approximately 2,160 feet above sea level, Figure 1. DR A F T Attachment 1 ZFA Structural Engineers White Barn Structural Stabilization Page 5 of 13 Faulting and Seismicity There are no mapped through-going faults within or adjacent to the site and the site is not located within a State of California Earthquake Fault Zone (formerly known as a Special Studies Zone), an area where the potential for fault rupture is considered probable. The closest active fault is the San Andreas fault, which is located approximately 2.5 miles northeast of the property. Thus, the likelihood of surface rupture occurring from active faulting at the site is low. The San Francisco Bay Area is an active seismic region. Earthquakes in the region result from strain energy constantly accumulating because of the northwestward movement of the Pacific Plate relative to the North American Plate. On average about 1.6-inches of movement occur per year. Historically, the Bay Area has experienced large, destructive earthquakes in 1838, 1868, 1906, and 1989. The faults considered most likely to produce large earthquakes in the area include the San Andreas, San Gregorio, Hayward, and Calaveras faults. The San Gregorio fault is located approximately 8.0 miles southwest of the site. The Hayward and Calaveras faults are located approximately 21 and 26 miles northeast of the site, respectively. These faults and significant earthquakes that have been documented in the Bay Area are listed in Table 1, and are shown on the Regional Fault and Seismicity Map, Figure 4. Table 1. Earthquake Magnitudes and Historical Earthquakes White Barn Structural Stabilization San Mateo County, California Maximum Historical Estimated Fault Magnitude (Mw) Earthquakes Magnitude San Andreas 7.9 1989 Loma Prieta 6.9 1906 San Francisco 7.9 1865 N. of 1989 Loma Prieta Earthquake 6.5 1838 San Francisco-Peninsula Segment 6.8 1836 East of Monterey 6.5 Hayward 7.1 1868 Hayward 6.8 1858 Hayward 6.8 Calaveras 6.8 1984 Morgan Hill 6.2 1911 Morgan Hill 6.2 1897 Gilroy 6.3 San Gregorio 7.3 1926 Monterey Bay 6.1 DR A F T Attachment 1 ZFA Structural Engineers White Barn Structural Stabilization Page 6 of 13 In the future, the subject property will undoubtedly experience severe ground shaking during moderate and large magnitude earthquakes produced along the San Andreas fault or other active Bay Area fault zones. Using information from recent earthquakes, improved mapping of active faults, ground motion prediction modeling, and a new model for estimating earthquake probabilities, a panel of experts convened by the U.S.G.S. have concluded there is a 72 percent chance for at least one earthquake of Magnitude 6.7 or larger in the Bay Area before 2043. The Hayward fault has the highest likelihood of an earthquake greater than or equal to magnitude 6.7 in the Bay Area, estimated at 33 percent, while the likelihood on the San Andreas and Calaveras faults is estimated at approximately 22 and 26 percent, respectively (Aagaard et al., 2016). Earthquake Design Parameters The State of California currently requires that buildings and structures be designed in accordance with the seismic design provisions presented in the 2016 California Building Code and in ASCE 7-10, “Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures.” Based on site geologic conditions and on information from our subsurface exploration at the site, the site may be classified as Site Class C, very dense soil and soft rock, in accordance with Chapter 20 of ASCE 7-10. Spectral Response Acceleration parameters and site coefficients may be taken directly from the U.S.G.S. website based on the longitude and latitude of the site. For site latitude (37.3777), longitude (-122.2798) and Site Class C, design parameters are presented on Table 2 on the following page. Table 2. 2016 CBC Seismic Design Criteria White Barn Structural Stabilization San Mateo County, California Spectral Response Acceleration Parameters Design Value Mapped Value for Short Period - SS 2.050 Mapped Value for 1-sec Period - S1 0.968 Site Coefficient - Fa 1.0 Site Coefficient - Fv 1.3 Adjusted for Site Class - SMS 2.050 Adjusted for Site Class - SM1 1.258 Value for Design Earthquake - SDS 1.367 Value for Design Earthquake - SD1 0.839 DR A F T Attachment 1 ZFA Structural Engineers White Barn Structural Stabilization Page 7 of 13 CONCLUSIONS From a geotechnical viewpoint, the site is suitable for the proposed structural stabilization of the white barn, provided the recommendations presented in this report are followed during design and construction. Specific geotechnical recommendations are provided in the following sections of this report. The primary geotechnical concerns for the proposed project are the localized drainage swale located south of the barn, the presence of up to about 4 feet of potentially collapsible silt at the location of Boring EB-1 (near/within the drainage way), and the potential for severe ground shaking at the site due to moderate to large earthquakes in the area. In our opinion, the civil design should consider the flow path of the localized drainage way in relation to the existing structure, i.e. capturing surface and/or subsurface water at the upslope areas and re-routing to a suitable location along the downslope areas. Also, depending upon where the structures are situated and/or the conditions exposed during grading and foundation trenching, a subdrain or foundation drain along the upslope side may be beneficial. In addition, we note that thickness of the silty soils and/or the depth to bedrock appears to increase from the upslope side (bedrock at the surface) to the south side (4 to 6 feet from the surface). In order to reduce the potential impact on the proposed structures from differential settlement, we recommend that foundations extend beneath the silty soils and extend into competent residual soil or weathered bedrock. Since this could result in foundation excavations of about 4 feet deep in certain areas (or deeper depending on the location of the structures in relation to the swale), alternatively, deepened footing excavations could be backfilled with compacted fill or lean concrete cement slurry. Specific geotechnical recommendations are provided in the following sections of this report. Because subsurface conditions may vary from those encountered at the locations of our borings, and to observe that our recommendations are properly implemented, we recommend that we be retained to 1) review the project plans for conformance with our recommendations; and 2) observe and test during earthwork and foundation construction. DR A F T Attachment 1 ZFA Structural Engineers White Barn Structural Stabilization Page 8 of 13 FOUNDATIONS Spread Footing Foundations In our opinion, the barn may be supported on conventional continuous and isolated spread footing foundations bearing in competent residual soil or weathered bedrock. The footings should have a width of at least 15 inches and should extend at least 24 inches below lowest adjacent grade, 15 inches below the crawl space grade, and at least 18 inches below the bottom of slab elevation, whichever is deeper. Lowest adjacent grade should be considered to be the lowest grade within 5 feet from the edge of the foundation. In addition, the footing excavations should extend below the silty soils and at least 6 inches into residual soil and/or bedrock, even if this requires a deeper embedment depth. As mentioned in the above sections, up to about 4 feet of firm near-surface soils were encountered during our subsurface exploration in Boring EB-1. If this requires footings to be excavated to a depth of about 4 to 5 feet, lean concrete or compacted fill may be placed at the deepened portion of the footing excavations. If compacted fill is used, we recommend that aggregate base rock or other granular soil be used and be compacted and tested per the earthwork guidelines of this report. Footings with at least these minimum dimensions may be designed for an allowable bearing pressure of 3,000 pounds per square foot for dead plus live loads with a one-third increase allowed when considering additional short-term wind or seismic loading. All footings located adjacent to utility lines should be embedded below a 1:1 plane extending up from the bottom edge of the utility trench. All continuous footings should be reinforced with top and bottom steel, to provide structural continuity and to permit spanning of local irregularities. The bottom of all footing excavations should be cleaned of loose, soft, overly moist or collapsible soil and debris. A member of our staff should observe the excavations to confirm that they have at least the minimum recommended dimensions, are founded in competent residual soil or bedrock, and have been properly cleaned prior to placing concrete forms and reinforcing steel. If existing fill soil, colluvial soil, or disturbed bedrock is encountered at the foundation bearing depth, our field representative will require these materials to be removed and a deeper embedment depth before reinforcing steel is placed. DR A F T Attachment 1 ZFA Structural Engineers White Barn Structural Stabilization Page 9 of 13 Lateral Loads Lateral loads will be resisted by friction between the bottom of the spread footings/piers and the supporting subgrade. A coefficient of friction of 0.30 may be assumed for design. Lateral resistance may also be provided by passive soil pressure acting against foundations cast neat in footing excavations or backfilled with properly compacted structural fill. We recommend a passive pressure based on an equivalent fluid pressure of 350 pounds per cubic foot be used in design. The upper foot of passive soil resistance should be neglected where soil adjacent to the footing is not covered with a slab or pavement. Settlement Thirty-year differential settlement due to static loads is not expected to exceed 1-inch across the areas supported on new foundations, provided foundations are designed and constructed as recommended. SLABS-ON-GRADE General Slab Considerations To reduce the potential for movement of the slab subgrade, at least the upper 6 inches of subgrade soil should be scarified and compacted at a moisture content near the laboratory optimum. The native soil subgrade should be kept moist up until the time the non- expansive fill, crushed rock and vapor barrier, and/or aggregate base is placed. Slab subgrades and non-expansive fill should be prepared and compacted as recommended in the section of this report titled “Earthwork.” Overly soft or moist soils should be removed from slab-on-grade areas. Exterior flatwork and interior slabs-on-grade should be underlain by a layer of non-expansive fill as discussed below. The non-expansive fill should consist of aggregate base rock or a clayey soil with a plasticity index of 15 or less. Considering the potential for some differential movement of the surface and near-surface soils, we expect that reinforced slabs will perform better than unreinforced slabs. Consideration should be given to using a control joint spacing on the order of 2 feet in each direction for each inch of slab thickness. DR A F T Attachment 1 ZFA Structural Engineers White Barn Structural Stabilization Page 10 of 13 Exterior Flatwork Concrete walkways and exterior flatwork should be at least 4 inches thick and should be constructed on at least 6 inches of Class 2 aggregate base. To improved performance, exterior slabs-on-grade, such as for patios, may be constructed with a thickened edge to improve edge stiffness and to reduce the potential for water seepage under the edge of the slabs and into the underlying base and subgrade. In our opinion, the thickened edges should be at least 8 inches wide and ideally should extend at least 4 inches below the bottom of the underlying aggregate base layer. EARTHWORK Clearing and Subgrade Preparation All deleterious materials, such as designated existing foundations and retaining walls, slabs and utilities to be abandoned, surface fills, concrete, vegetation, roots, topsoil, etc., should be cleared from areas to be built on or paved. The actual stripping depth should be determined by a member of our staff at the time of construction. Excavations that extend below finish grade should be backfilled with structural fill that is water- conditioned, placed, and compacted as recommended in the section titled “Compaction.” After the site has been properly cleared, stripped, and excavated to the required grades, exposed soil surfaces in areas to receive structural fill or slabs-on-grade should be scarified to a depth of 6 inches, moisture conditioned, and compacted as recommended for structural fill in the section titled "Compaction." Large fills are generally not desirable on a hillside site like this. However, if fills are to be constructed on natural slopes having an inclination steeper than 6 horizontal to 1 vertical, the fill should be benched, and a key excavated into the underlying bedrock, and subdrains installed if required by our field representative. If significant fills are required, we can evaluate their feasibility and provide benching criteria as necessary. Material for Fill All on-site soil containing less than 3 percent organic material by weight (ASTM D2974) is suitable for use as structural fill. However, structural fill placed at the site, should not contain rocks or pieces larger than 6 inches in greatest dimension, and contain no more than 15 percent larger than 2.5 inches. Imported fill should have a plasticity index of less than 15 percent or be predominately granular. Our representative should approve import materials prior to their use on-site. DR A F T Attachment 1 ZFA Structural Engineers White Barn Structural Stabilization Page 11 of 13 Compaction Scarified soil surfaces and all structural fill should be compacted in uniform lifts no thicker than 8 inches in pre-compacted thickness, and should be water conditioned and compacted as recommended for structural fill on Table 3. The relative compaction and moisture content recommended in Table 3 is based on ASTM Test D1557, latest edition. Table 3. Compaction Recommendations White Barn Structural Stabilization San Mateo County, California Relative Compaction* Moisture Content* General • Scarified subgrade in areas 90 percent Above optimum to receive structural fill. • Structural fill composed 90 percent Above optimum of fill or native soils. • Structural fill composed 90 percent Near optimum of non-expansive fill. • Structural fill below a 93 percent Near optimum depth of 4 feet. Pavement Areas • Upper 6-inches of soil 95 percent Above optimum below aggregate base. • Aggregate base. 95 percent Near optimum Utility Trench Backfill • On-site soil. 90 percent Above optimum • Imported sand 95 percent Near optimum * Relative to ASTM Test D1557, latest edition. Temporary Slopes and Excavations The contractor should be responsible for the design and construction of all temporary slopes and any required shoring. Shoring and bracing should be provided in accordance with all applicable local, state and federal safety regulations, including the current OSHA excavation and trench safety standards. Because of the potential for variation of the on-site soils, field modification of temporary cut slopes may be required. Unstable materials encountered on slopes during and after excavation should be trimmed off even if this requires cutting the slopes back to a flatter inclination. DR A F T Attachment 1 ZFA Structural Engineers White Barn Structural Stabilization Page 12 of 13 Protection of structures near cuts should also be the responsibility of the contractor. In our experience, a preconstruction survey is generally performed to document existing conditions prior to construction, with intermittent monitoring of the structures during construction. Subdrain System To reduce the potential for water intrusion beneath the barn, subdrains could be installed around the upslope sides of the structure. If installed, the subdrains should extend to at least 3 to 4 feet deep from current site grades and should be located at least 2 feet from the edge of the barn. The subdrains should consist of a 12-inch width of free-draining crushed rock wrapped in an approved filter fabric or Class 2 Permeable Material. Four- inch diameter rigid plastic pipe (schedule 40 PVC, SDR 3 or equal) should be placed with perforations down on a 4-inch thick bed of crushed rock. The subdrain rock should be continued up to within about 12 to 18 inches of finished grade. Water collected in the subdrain system should be discharged to a suitable discharge location (such as the natural swale south of the barn). In addition, cleanouts should be provided as needed. Surface Drainage Finished grades should be designed to prevent ponding of water and to direct surface water runoff away from foundations, and edges of slabs and pavements, and toward suitable collection and discharge facilities. Slopes of at least 2 percent are recommended for flatwork and pavement areas with 5 percent preferred in landscape areas within 8 feet of the structures, where possible. At a minimum, splash blocks should be provided at the discharge ends of roof downspouts to carry water away from perimeter foundations. Preferably, roof downspout water should be collected in a closed pipe system that is routed to a storm drain system or other suitable location. Drainage facilities should be observed to verify that they are adequate and that no adjustments need to be made, especially during the first two years following construction. We recommend preparing an as-built plan showing the locations of surface and subsurface drain lines and clean-outs. The drainage facilities should be periodically checked to verify that they are continuing to function properly. It is likely the drainage facilities will need to be periodically cleaned of silt and debris that may build up in the lines. DR A F T Attachment 1 ZFA Structural Engineers White Barn Structural Stabilization Page 13 of 13 Finished Slopes We recommend that finished slopes be cut or filled to an inclination no steeper than 2:1 (horizontal:vertical). Exposed slopes may be subject to minor sloughing and erosion that may require periodic maintenance. We recommend that all slopes and soil surfaces disturbed during construction be planted with erosion-resistant vegetation. FUTURE SERVICES Plan Review Romig Engineers should review the completed grading and foundation plans for conformance with the recommendations presented in this report. We should be provided with these plans as soon as possible upon their completion in order to limit the potential for delays in the permitting process that might otherwise be attributed to our review process. The County will require a “clean” geotechnical plan review letter prior to their review and acceptance of the plans. Since our plan reviews often result in recommendations for modification of the plans, our generation of a “clean” review letter often requires two iterations. At a minimum, we recommend the following note be added to the plans: “Earthwork, slab subgrade and non-expansive fill preparation, foundation and slab construction, utility trench backfilling, subdrain construction (if selected), site drainage and grading should be performed in accordance with the geotechnical report prepared by Romig Engineers, Inc., dated October 4, 2019. Romig Engineers should be notified at least 48 hours in advance of any earthwork or foundation construction and should observe and test during earthwork and foundation construction as recommended in the geotechnical report.” Construction Observation and Testing All earthwork and foundation construction should be observed and tested by us to 1) establish that subsurface conditions are compatible with those used in the analysis and design; 2) observe compliance with the design concepts, specifications and recommendations; and 3) allow design changes in the event that subsurface conditions differ from those anticipated. The recommendations in this report are based on a limited number of borings. The nature and extent of variation across the site may not become evident until construction. If variations are exposed during construction, it will be necessary to reevaluate our recommendations. DR A F T Attachment 1 REFERENCES Aagaard, B.T., Blair, J.L., Boatwright, J., Garcia, S.H., Harris, R.A., Michael, A.J., Schwartz, D.P., and DiLeo, J.S., 2016, Earthquake outlook for the San Francisco Bay region 2014–2043 (ver. 1.1, August 2016): U.S. Geological Survey Fact Sheet 2016–3020, 6 p., http://dx.doi.org/10.3133/fs20163020. American Society of Civil Engineers, 2010, Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures, ASCE Standard 7-10. Brabb, E.E., Graymer, R.W., and Jones, D.L., 2000, Geology of the Palo Alto 30 x 30 Minute Quadrangle, California: U.S. Geological Survey Miscellaneous Field Studies Map MF-2332. California Building Standards Commission, and International Code Council, 2016 California Building Code, California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 2. California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology (DMG), 1994, Fault-Rupture Hazard Zones in California, Special Publication 42. California Geological Survey, 2019, Seismic Hazard Zone Report for the Woodside 7.5- Minute Quadrangle, Santa Clara, Alameda, and San Mateo Counties, California, Seismic Hazard Zone Report 129. U.S.G.S., 2018, U.S. Seismic Design Maps, Earthquake Hazards Program, http://earthquake.usgs.gov/designmaps/us/application.php. DR A F T Attachment 1 Insert map here and add line around picture - size 1 in black Scale: 1 inch = 2000 feet Base is United States Geological Survey Palo Alto 7.5 Minute Quadrangle, dated 1997. VICINITY MAP FIGURE 1 MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE WHITE BARN OCTOBER 2019 SAN MATEO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA PROJECT NO. 4907-2 SITE DR A F T Attachment 1 LEGEND EB-2 Approximate Locations of Exploratory Borings. Approximate Scale: 1 inch = 60 feet. Base is aerial photograph, retrieved from Google Earth. SITE PLAN FIGURE 2 MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE WHITE BARN OCTOBER 2019 SAN MATEO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA PROJECT NO. 4907-2 EB-1 EB-2 KEBET RIDGE ROAD/ ALLEN ROAD DR A F T Attachment 1 Insert map here and add line around picture - size 1 in black Butano Formation Geologic Contact - dashed where approximate, dotted where inferred. Lambert Shale Mindego Basalt Strike and dip of bedding Whiskey Hill Formation Scale: 1 inch = 2000 feet Base is Geologic Map of Palo Alto 30 x 60 Minute Quadrangle (Brabb, Graymer, and Jones, 2000). VICINITY GEOLOGIC MAP FIGURE 3 MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE WHITE BARN OCTOBER 2019 SAN MATEO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA PROJECT NO. 4907-2 SITE MAP LEGEND Tb Tla Tw Tb Tla Tmb Tw DR A F T Attachment 1 Insert map here and add line around picture - size 1 in black Earthquakes with M5+ from 1900 to 1980, M2.5+ from 1980 to January 2015. Faults with activity in last 15,000 years. Based on data sources from Northern California Earthquake Data Center and USGS Quaternary Fault and Fold Database, accessed May 2015. REGIONAL FAULT AND SEISMICITY MAP FIGURE 4 MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE WHITE BARN OCTOBER 2019 SAN MATEO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA PROJECT NO. 4907-2 SITE Magnitude Year 0 3 6 12 milesDR A F T Attachment 1 APPENDIX A FIELD INVESTIGATION The soils and bedrock encountered during drilling were logged by our representative and samples were obtained at depths appropriate to the investigation. The samples were taken to our laboratory where they were examined and classified in accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System. The logs of our borings, as well as a summary of the soil classification system (Figure A-1) and bedrock descriptions (Figure A-2) used on the logs, are attached. Several tests were performed in the field during drilling. The standard penetration test resistance was determined by dropping a 140-pound hammer through a 30-inch free fall and recording the blows required to drive the 2-inch (outside diameter) sampler 18 inches. The standard penetration test (SPT) resistance is the number of blows required to drive the sampler the last 12 inches and is recorded on the boring logs at the appropriate depths. Soil samples were also collected using 2.5-inch and 3.0-inch O.D. drive samplers. The blow counts shown on the logs for these larger diameter samplers do not represent SPT values and have not been corrected in any way. The locations of the borings were established by pacing using the satellite imagery retrieved from Google Earth on September 30, 2019. The locations of the borings should be considered accurate only to the degree implied by the method used. The boring logs and related information depict our interpretation of subsurface conditions only at the specific location and time indicated. Subsurface conditions and ground water levels at other locations may differ from conditions at the locations where sampling was conducted. The passage of time may also result in changes in the subsurface conditions. DR A F T Attachment 1 USCS SOIL CLASSIFICATION SOIL TYPE CLEAN GRAVEL GW Well graded gravel, gravel-sand mixtures, little or no fines. COARSE GRAVEL (< 5% Fines) GP Poorly graded gravel or gravel-sand mixtures, little or no fines. GRAINED GRAVEL with GM Silty gravels, gravel-sand-silt mixtures, non-plastic fines. SOILS FINES GC Clayey gravels, gravel-sand-clay mixtures, plastic fines. (< 50 % Fines)CLEAN SAND SW Well graded sands, gravelly sands, little or no fines. SAND (< 5% Fines) SP Poorly graded sands or gravelly sands, little or no fines. SAND SM Silty sands, sand-silt mixtures, non-plastic fines. WITH FINES SC Clayey sands, sand-clay mixtures, plastic fines. ML Inorganic silts and very fine sands, with slight plasticity. FINE SILT AND CLAY CL Inorganic clays of low to medium plasticity, lean clays. GRAINED Liquid limit < 50%OL Organic silts and organic clays of low plasticity. SOILS MH Inorganic silt, micaceous or diatomaceous fine sandy or silty soil. (> 50 % Fines)SILT AND CLAY CH Inorganic clays of high plasticity, fat clays. Liquid limit > 50%OH Organic clays of medium to high plasticity, organic silts. HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS Pt Peat and other highly organic soils. BEDROCK BR Weathered bedrock. RELATIVE DENSITY CONSISTENCY SAND & GRAVEL BLOWS/FOOT* SILT & CLAY STRENGTH^BLOWS/FOOT* VERY LOOSE 0 to 4 VERY SOFT 0 to 0.25 0 to 2 LOOSE 4 to 10 SOFT 0.25 to 0.5 2 to 4 MEDIUM DENSE 10 to 30 FIRM 0.5 to 1 4 to 8 DENSE 30 to 50 STIFF 1 to 2 8 to 16 VERY DENSE OVER 50 VERY STIFF 2 to 4 16 to 32 HARD OVER 4 OVER 32 GRAIN SIZES BOULDERS COBBLES GRAVEL SAND SILT & CLAY COARSE FINE COARSE MEDIUM FINE 12 "3"0.75"4 10 40 200 SIEVE OPENINGS U.S. STANDARD SERIES SIEVE Classification is based on the Unified Soil Classification System; fines refer to soil passing a No. 200 sieve. * Standard Penetration Test (SPT) resistance, using a 140 pound hammer falling 30 inches on a 2 inch O.D. split spoon sampler; blow counts not corrected for larger diameter samplers. ^ Unconfined Compressive strength in tons/sq. ft. as estimated by SPT resistance, field and laboratory tests, and/or visual observation. KEY TO SAMPLERS z Modified California Sampler (3-inch O.D.) y Mid-size Sampler (2.5-inch O.D.) x Standard Penetration Test Sampler (2-inch O.D.) KEY TO EXPLORATORY BORING LOGS FIGURE A-1 MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE WHITE BARN OCTOBER 2019 SAN MATEO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA PROJECT NO. 4907-2 SECONDARY DIVISIONS PRIMARY DIVISIONS DR A F T Attachment 1 Fresh Moderately Severe Rock fresh, crystals bright, few joints may show All rock except quartz discolored or stained. In granitoid rocks, slight staining. Rock rings under hammer if crystalline.all feldspars dull and discolored and majority show kaolinization. Rock shows severe loss of strength and can be excavated with geologist's pick. Rock goes "clunk" when struck. Very Slight Rock generally fresh, joints stained, some joints may Severe show thin clay coatings, crystals in broken face All rock except quartz discolored or stained. Rock "fabric" clear show bright. Rock rings under hammer if crystalline.and evident, but reduced in strength to strong soil. In granitoid rocks, all feldspars kaolinized to some extent. Some fragments of Slight strong rock usually left. Rock generally fresh, joints stained, and discoloration extends into rock up to 1 inch. Joints may contain clay. Very Severe In granitoid rocks some occasional feldspar crystals are All rock except quartz discolored and stained. Rock "fabric" dull and discolored. Crystalline rocks ring under hammer.discernible, but mass effectively reduced to "soil" with only fragments of strong rock remaining. Moderate Significant portions of rock show discoloration and Complete weathering effects. In granitoid rocks, most feldspars Rock reduced to "soil". Rock fabric not discernible or discernible are dull and discolored; some are clayey. Rock has dull only in small scattered locations. Quartz may be present as dikes sound under hammer and shows significant loss of or stringers. strength as compared with fresh rock. Very hard Medium Cannot be scratched with knife or sharp pick. Hand Can be grooved or gouged 1/16 inch deep by firm pressure on knife specimens requires several hard blows of geologist's.or pick point. Can be excavated in small chips to pieces about 1 inch maximum size by hard blows of the point of a geologist's pick. Hard Can be scratched with knife or pick only with difficulty.Soft Hard blow of hammer required to detach hand Can be gouged or grooved readily with knife or pick point. Can be specimen.excavated in chips to pieces several inches in size by moderate blows of a pick point. Small thin pieces can be brocken by finger pressure. Moderately Hard Can be scratched with knife or pick. Gouges or grooves Very Soft to 1/4 inch deep can be excavated by hard blow of point Can be carved with knife. Can be excavated readily with point of of a geologist's pick. Hard specimen can be detached pick. Pieces 1 inch or more in thickness can be broken with finger by moderate blow.pressure. Can be scratched readily by fingernail. JOINT BEDDING AND FOLIATION SPACING ROCK QUALITY DESIGNATOR (RQD) Spacing Joints Bedding and Foliation RQD, as a percentage Descriptor Less than 2 in.Very Close Very Thin Exceeding 90 Excellent 2 in. to 1 ft.Close Thin 90 to 75 Good 1 ft. to 3 ft.Moderately Close Medium 75 to 50 Fair 3 ft. to 10 ft.Wide Thick 50 to 25 Poor More than 10 ft.Very Wide Very Thick Less than 25 Very Poor KEY TO BEDROCK DESCRIPTIONS FIGURE A-2 MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE WHITE BARN OCTOBER 2019 SAN MATEO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA PROJECT NO. 4907-2 WEATHERING HARDNESS DR A F T Attachment 1 DRILL TYPE: Minuteman with 3-1/4" Continuous Flight Auger LOGGED BY: RL DEPTH TO GROUND WATER: Not Encountered SURFACE ELEVATION: NA DATE DRILLED: 09/05/19 CLASSIFICATION AND DESCRIPTION SO I L C O N S I S T E N C Y / DE N S I T Y o r R O C K HA R D N E S S Q ( F i g u r e A - 2 ) SO I L T Y P E SO I L S Y M B O L DE P T H ( F E E T ) SA M P L E I N T E R V A L PE N . R E S I S T A N C E ( B l o w s / f t ) WA T E R C O N T E N T ( % ) SH E A R S T R E N G T H ( T S F ) * UN C O N F I N . C O M P . ( T S F ) * ML 0 z z z 19 12 z z z n 19 14 z CL y 5 y y 38 22 y BR y y y 47 20 y x x x 32 16 10 x x x x 50/6"15 15 20 EXPLORATORY BORING LOG EB-1 BORING EB-1 MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE WHITE BARN OCTOBER 2019 SAN MATEO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA PROJECT NO. 4907-2 Note: The stratification lines represent the approximate boundary between soil and rock types, the actual transition may be gradual. *Measured using Torvane and Pocket Penetrometer devices. Bottom of Boring at 11.5 Feet. Butano Formation: Brown, Sandstone, moist, fine grained sand, friable, severely weathered. Dark brown, Sandy Silt, moist, fine to coarse grained sand, low plasticity, some roots, pinholes observed. n Liquid Limit = 28, Plasticity Index = 7. Residual Soil: Brown, Sandy Lean Clay, moist, fine to coarse grained sand, low to moderate plasticity. Stiff Very Hard Soft to Hard DR A F T Attachment 1 DRILL TYPE: Minuteman with 3-1/4" Continuous Flight Auger LOGGED BY: RL DEPTH TO GROUND WATER: Not Encountered SURFACE ELEVATION: NA DATE DRILLED: 09/05/19 CLASSIFICATION AND DESCRIPTION SO I L C O N S I S T E N C Y / DE N S I T Y o r R O C K HA R D N E S S Q ( F i g u r e A - 2 ) SO I L T Y P E SO I L S Y M B O L DE P T H ( F E E T ) SA M P L E I N T E R V A L PE N . R E S I S T A N C E ( B l o w s / f t ) WA T E R C O N T E N T ( % ) SH E A R S T R E N G T H ( T S F ) * UN C O N F I N . C O M P . ( T S F ) * BR 0 z z z 16 12 z z z s 81 20 z 50/5" y 5 y 50/6"15 x x x 55 18 x x 50/5"17 10 15 20 EXPLORATORY BORING LOG EB-2 BORING EB-2 MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE WHITE BARN OCTOBER 2019 SAN MATEO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA PROJECT NO. 4907-2 Butano Formation: Brown, Sandstone to Siltstone, moist, Medium fine grained, fractured, friable, severely weathered. s Free Swell = 13%. Bottom of Boring at 7.4 feet. Note: The stratification lines represent the approximate boundary between soil and rock types, the actual transition may be gradual. *Measured using Torvane and Pocket Penetrometer devices. DR A F T Attachment 1 APPENDIX B LABORATORY TESTS Samples collected during subsurface exploration were selected for tests to help evaluate the physical and engineering properties of the soils and bedrock that was encountered. The tests that were performed are briefly described below. The natural moisture content was determined in accordance with ASTM D2216 on nearly all of the samples recovered from the borings. This test determines the moisture content, representative of field conditions, at the time the samples were collected. The results are presented on the boring logs at the appropriate sample depths. The Atterberg Limits were determined on one sample of soil in accordance with ASTM D4318. The Atterberg Limits are the moisture content within which the soil is workable or plastic. The results of this test are presented in Figure B-1 and on the log of Boring EB-1 at the appropriate sample depth. A free swell test was performed on one sample of the weathered bedrock recovered from Boring EB-2. The result is presented on the boring log at the appropriate sample depth. DR A F T Attachment 1 Passing USCS Chart Boring Sample Water Liquid Plasticity Liquidity No. 200 Soil Symbol Number Depth Content Limit Index Index Sieve Classification (feet)(percent)(percent)(percent)(percent)(percent) EB-1 2-4 14 28 7 -100 ML PLASTICITY CHART FIGURE B-1 MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE WHITE BARN OCTOBER 2019 SAN MATEO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA PROJECT NO. 4907-2 DR A F T Attachment 1 ROMIG ENGINEERS, INC. 1390 El Camino Real, 2nd Floor San Carlos, California 94070 Phone: (650) 591-5224 www.romigengineers.com DR A F T Attachment 1 STRUCTURE STABILIZATION BASIS OF DESIGN – White Barn La Honda Creek Open Space Preserve, San Mateo County, CA EXHIBIT D Asbestos and Lead Survey by Terracon Consultants, Inc. DR A F T Attachment 1 Asbestos & Lead Survey Three Buildings Beatty House, La Honda White Barn, and La Honda Log Cabin Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District August 20, 2019 Revised November 14, 2019 Terracon Project No. R1197192 Prepared for: ZFA Structural Engineers San Carlos, CA 94070 Prepared by: Terracon Consultants, Inc. Emeryville, CADR A F T Attachment 1 Responsive ■Resourceful ■Reliable TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .......................................................................................................................... i 1.0 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................ 2 1.1 Scope of Work ................................................................................................................ 2 2.0 ASBESTOS AND LEAD survey ................................................................................................. 3 2.1 Visual Assessment of Suspect ACM ............................................................................... 3 2.2 Bulk Sampling Suspect ACM .......................................................................................... 3 2.3 Physical Assessment of Suspect ACM ............................................................................ 4 2.4 Sample Analysis of Suspect ACM ................................................................................... 4 2.5 Bulk Sampling of Lead Paint and Suspect Bulk Materials ................................................ 4 3.0 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ..................................................................................... 5 3.1 Asbestos ........................................................................................................................ 5 3.2 Lead-Containing Paints and Materials ............................................................................. 6 4.0 Regulatory Summary ................................................................................................................ 7 4.1 Asbestos ........................................................................................................................ 7 4.2 Lead ............................................................................................................................... 7 5.0 LIMITATIONS/GENERAL COMMENTS ...................................................................................... 8 6.0 Conclusions and Recommendations ....................................................................................... 9 APPENDIX A IDENTIFIED ASBESTOS CONTAINING MATERIALS BY HOMOGENEOUS AREA (HA) APPENDIX B ASBESTOS SAMPLE SUMMARY APPENDIX C ASBESTOS ANALYTICAL LABORATORY DATA APPENDIX D LEAD ANALYTICAL LABORATORY DATA APPENDIX E LICENSES AND CERTIFICATIONS APPENDIX F PHOTOGRAPHS APPENDIX G SAMPLE LOCATION DRAWINGSDR A F T Attachment 1 Responsive ■Resourceful ■Reliable i EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Terracon Consultants, Inc. (Terracon) conducted a pre-renovation asbestos and lead survey of three buildings, the Beatty House, La Honda White Barn, and La Honda Log Cabin near La Honda, California. We understand this asbestos survey was requested in support of the planned renovation of the building(s). The purpose of this survey was to sample and identify suspect materials and provide information regarding the identity, location, condition, and approximate quantities of asbestos containing materials (ACM), lead containing paint, mercury containing switches and light fixtures, PCB containing lighting ballasts and ozone depleting coolants. The survey was performed on July 2, 2019 by Mike Harrington and Mike Reed, asbestos inspectors in general accordance with the sampling protocols established in United State Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 763 Subpart E 763, known as the Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response Act, (AHERA). Terracon collected 89 bulk samples from homogeneous areas of suspect ACM. Terracon collected seventy (70) samples from twenty-two (22) homogeneous area of suspected asbestos-containing materials (ACM). Laboratory analysis reported that seven (7) samples and two (2) materials contain asbestos. Terracon collected two (2) paint chip samples from the La Honda Log cabin, one (1) from the La Honda White Barn, and six (6) from the Beatty House. Analysis of the paint samples reported that all of paint-chip samples had detectable concentrations of lead. One (1) sample from the La Honda White Barn and three (3) samples from the Beatty House had lead concentrations in excess of the California Department of Public Health definition of Lead-Based Paint. DR A F T Attachment 1 Hazardous Materials Survey ZFA - Three Buildings ■ Midpen August 13, 2019 ■ Terracon Project No. R1197192 Reliable ■Responsive ■Resourceful ii HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SURVEY ZFA - Three Buildings Pre-Renovation Survey Beatty House, La Honda White Barn, and La Honda Log Cabin Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Terracon Project No. R1197192 43697 1.0 INTRODUCTION Terracon Consultants, Inc. (Terracon) was contracted by ZFA Structural Engineers (ZFA) to conduct a hazardous materials survey of three buildings owned by the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District, including the Beatty House near Los Gatos and the La Honda White Barn and La Honda Log Cabin near La Honda, California. The survey was conducted on July 2, 2019 by Mike Harrington and Mike Reed, asbestos inspectors. The survey included the interior and exterior building components. Homogeneous areas of suspect asbestos-containing materials (ACM), lead-containing paints, PCB containing lighting ballasts, mercury containing thermostats, and mercury containing lighting tubes were visually identified and documented. Although reasonable effort was made to survey accessible suspect materials, additional suspect but un- sampled materials could be located in walls, in voids or in other concealed areas. 1.1 Scope of Work The scope of the survey was as follows: n Inspect the subject buildings for the presence of suspect ACMs, lead-containing paint, mercury-containing products, polychlorinated biphenyl lighting ballasts. n Collect samples of suspect ACMs following a National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPS) protocol for sample collection for a demolition survey. n Asbestos bulk samples will be analyzed using polarized light microscopy (PLM) in accordance with the EPA’s July 1993 method for the determination of asbestos in bulk building materials - EPA 600/R-93/116. n Collect bulk paint chip samples of primary painted surfaces and other materials suspected to be lead containing. Bulk samples will be analyzed at an accredited laboratory by Flame Atomic Absorption (AA) for Total Lead reported in parts per million (ppm). n Submit written report including analytical results, regulatory requirements and conclusions. The subject spaces included in the scope of were limited to: n The interior and exterior of the Beatty House, n The interior and exterior of the La Honda Log Cabin, and DR A F T Attachment 1 Hazardous Materials Survey ZFA - Three Buildings ■ Midpen August 13, 2019 ■ Terracon Project No. R1197192 Responsive ■Resourceful ■Reliable 3 n The interior and exterior of the La Honda White Barn. 2.0 ASBESTOS AND LEAD SURVEY The survey was conducted by Mike Harrington and Mike Reed, asbestos inspectors. Mike Harrington is certified by the Division of Occupational Safety and Health (Cal/OSHA) as a Site Surveillance Technician (SST # 01-3017). Mike Reed is also certified by Cal/OSHA (SST # 08- 4464). The survey was managed and supervised by Michael Benefield. Mr. Benefield is certified by Cal/OSHA as a Certified Asbestos Consultant (CAC # 06-3938). Terracon’s project personnel’s certifications can be found in Appendix E of this report. The survey was conducted in general accordance with the sampling protocols outlined in United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 763 Subpart E 763, known as the Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response Act (AHERA). Samples were delivered to an accredited laboratory for analysis by Polarized Light Microscopy (PLM). 2.1 Visual Assessment of Suspect ACM Survey activities were initiated with visual observation of the interior and exterior of the building to identify homogeneous areas of suspect ACM. A homogeneous area (HA) consists of building materials that appear similar throughout in terms of color and texture with consideration given to the date of application. Interior assessment was conducted in visually accessible areas of the building proposed for demolition. Terracon typically investigated for flooring beneath carpeting by lifting small corner sections of carpet. If additional flooring was seen, they have been identified in the report. If flooring was not seen at corners under the carpet, it does not imply that there are no tiles beneath the carpeted floor. Terracon inspected the walls in multiple places throughout the building and did not observe additional coverings/layers except where noted in this report, but there may be areas of additional suspect material present within the building walls not investigated. Terracon did not inspect in concealed wall cavities or in sub grade areas. 2.2 Bulk Sampling Suspect ACM Bulk samples were collected of homogeneous suspect materials that were within the area covered by the scope of work. A homogeneous material is defined as a surfacing material, thermal system insulation, or miscellaneous material that is uniform in color, texture and age of construction. Examples of homogeneous materials include: n Pipe insulation produced by the same manufacturer and installed during the same time period; n Resilient flooring of identical color and pattern; DR A F T Attachment 1 Hazardous Materials Survey ZFA - Three Buildings ■ Midpen August 13, 2019 ■ Terracon Project No. R1197192 Responsive ■Resourceful ■Reliable 4 n Troweled on surfacing materials located in contiguous areas. The buildings were visually inspected for the presence of suspect materials. As materials were identified, bulk samples were obtained with the aid of a coring device or other hand tool and placed into individual sampling bags. Each sample was given a discreet identification number and recorded on field notes as well as chain of custody forms. Refer to accompanying tables and appendices for details on material sample locations and results. 2.3 Physical Assessment of Suspect ACM A physical assessment of each homogeneous area (HA) of suspect ACM was conducted to assess the friability and condition of the materials. A friable material is defined by the USEPA as a material which can be crumbled, pulverized or reduced to powder by hand pressure when dry. Friability was assessed by physically touching suspect materials. 2.4 Sample Analysis of Suspect ACM Bulk samples of suspect ACM were analyzed by EM Lab P&K of Phoenix, AZ. EML is accredited under the National Institute of Standards and Technology's National Voluntary Laboratory Accreditation Program (NVLAP). Analysis was conducted by Polarized Light Microscopy (PLM) in accordance with EPA 600/R92-116 (1993) method. Asbestos content was determined by visual estimation. The lower quantitation limit of PLM is recognized to be 1%. To reliably determine that a material in which asbestos was detected by PLM, contains less than 1% asbestos the samples must be re-analyzed by PLM Point Count. In accordance with EPA assessment criteria, if a single sample of a homogeneous material tests positive for asbestos, all areas of that homogeneous material are considered to be asbestos-containing. 2.5 Bulk Sampling of Lead Paint and Suspect Bulk Materials Paint chip and bulk samples were collected using a hand scraper or chisel and were placed into individual plastic sampling containers. Each sample was provided a discreet sample number, which was recorded on a chain of custody form. The samples were transported under chain of custody procedures to J3 Resources of Pasadena, TX. Please refer to Table III for details on sample locations and sample results. All paint and ceramic tile glazing samples were analyzed for lead content using the Flame Atomic Absorption spectroscopy in accordance to EPA Method SW846-7420. DR A F T Attachment 1 Hazardous Materials Survey ZFA - Three Buildings ■ Midpen August 13, 2019 ■ Terracon Project No. R1197192 Responsive ■Resourceful ■Reliable 5 3.0 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 3.1 Asbestos The following asbestos-containing materials were identified as a result of laboratory analysis or assumed to be asbestos containing: HM # / Material Description General Material Location NESHAP Category Asbestos Type Estimated Quantity Tan vinyl sheet flooring Beatty House: Living room Friable – RACM 25% Chrysotile 360 Wallboard joint compound Beatty House: Throughout, walls and ceilings NA 2% Chrysotile in the joint compound, and 0.5% chrysotile composite 3,700 NA = Not Applicable, CH = Chrysotile, lf = linear feet, sf = square feet, RACM = Regulated asbestos containing material (friable), Cat. I = Non- friable (note ACM must be reclassified as a RACM if rendered friable during removal), Cat. II = Category II Non-friable (note ACM must be reclassified as a RACM if rendered friable during removal), sf = square feet, lf = linear feet No asbestos was detected in any of the samples collected in the La Honda Log Cabin or in the La Honda White Barn. No identified materials were unable to be sampled and assumed to contain asbestos in any of the three buildings. Vinyl sheet flooring in the Beatty House Living Room is friable ACM. Friable ACM is Regulated Asbestos-Containing Material (RACM) and must be removed prior to start of demolition or renovation activities. The wallboard system in the Beatty House has ACM joint compound. Composite analysis of the joint compound and the wallboard by PLM point count reported that the composite contained less than 1% asbestos. This material is not an ACM as defined by NESHAP and BAAQMD. However, Cal/OSHA does not allow composite analysis, so the joint compound is an ACM as defined by Cal/OSHA. All removal of ACM materials including materials non-friable materials left in the building must be conducted by a licensed and registered asbestos abatement contractor in accordance with 8CCR1529 and the BAAQMD Regulation 11 Rule 2. If additional suspect materials that have not been characterized in this report are discovered during demolition, these materials must be assumed to contain asbestos and be treated accordingly until proven otherwise by appropriate sampling and laboratory analysis. A summary of the classification, condition and approximate quantity of identified ACM is presented in Appendix A. The summary of sample locations is presented in Appendix B. Laboratory analytical reports are included in Appendix C. DR A F T Attachment 1 Hazardous Materials Survey ZFA - Three Buildings ■ Midpen August 13, 2019 ■ Terracon Project No. R1197192 Responsive ■Resourceful ■Reliable 6 3.2 Lead-Containing Paints and Materials Nine (9) painted surfaces were sampled and analyzed for potential lead content. Nine (9) of the painted surfaces were found to contain lead content above the laboratory detection limit. Four (4) painted surfaces were found to contain lead in concentrations exceeding 5,000 parts per million. The laboratory results for lead testing are summarized in Table III below. TABLE III LEAD SAMPLE RESULTS Sample Number Material Description and Location Results mg/kg (ppm)Le a d - Co n t a i n i n g Le a d - Ba s e d Pa i n t L-01 La Honda Log Cabin: Green paint on wood floor in the Log Cabin Kitchen 4,200 Y N L-02 La Honda Log Cabin:White paint on glass and wood on the Log Cabin south exterior 780 Y N L-03 La Honda White Barn:48,000 Y Y L-04 Beatty House:Brown paint on wood exterior wall 1,500 Y N L-05 Beatty House:White paint on wood window frame 1,800 Y N L-06 Beatty House: White paint on wallboard wall in the living room 18,000 Y Y L-07 Beatty House: Brown paint on wood door frame between living room and kitchen 12,000 Y Y L-08 Beatty House: White paint on wood door frame in the kitchen 460 Y N L-09 Beatty House: White paint on glass and window frame on the exterior 43,000 Y Y mg/kg= Milligram per kilogram, ppm = parts per million Disturbance of lead-containing paints and materials must be conducted in accordance with the requirements of Cal/OSHA (8CCR1532.1). Disturbance of lead-based paints must be conducted in accordance with the EPA RRP rule. DR A F T Attachment 1 Hazardous Materials Survey ZFA - Three Buildings ■ Midpen August 13, 2019 ■ Terracon Project No. R1197192 Responsive ■Resourceful ■Reliable 7 4.0 REGULATORY SUMMARY 4.1 Asbestos Disturbance of materials containing asbestos is regulated by Cal-OSHA in the Asbestos in Construction Industry Standard, 8 CCR 1529. Some of the key requirements are summarized below. n Any individual who contracts to provide health and safety services relating to materials containing more than 0.1% asbestos must be certified by Cal-OSHA as either a Certified Asbestos Consultant or a Site Surveillance Technician. The activities that require certification include: conducting asbestos surveys; writing work plans or specifications for abatement; monitoring the work of abatement contractors; collecting air samples; and determining if the work area is safe for re- occupancy by non-asbestos workers. Regulation: Cal-OSHA 8 CCR 1529 (q)(1). n If more than 100 square feet of materials that contain greater than 0.1% asbestos will be disturbed, the materials must be removed by a Cal-OSHA registered asbestos abatement contractor. Regulation: Cal-OSHA 8 CCR 1529 (r). n ACMs that are classified by OSHA as thermal system insulation/surfacing materials are present. Removal of these materials is considered a Class I activity according to Cal-OSHA regulations. Work practices and engineering controls for Class I work are specified in Cal-OSHA 8 CCR 1529 (g) (4-6). n ACMs that are classified by OSHA as other/miscellaneous materials are present. Removal of these materials is considered a Class II activity according to Cal-OSHA regulations. Work practices and engineering controls for Class II work are specified in Cal-OSHA 8 CCR 1529 (g) (7-8). n Removal of friable ACMs greater than 100 square feet or 100 linear feet requires notification of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District ten (10) working days in advance of intended removal. n Friable ACM waste must be manifested, transported, and disposed of as hazardous waste in accordance with the Department of Toxic and Substances Control (DTSC) and under a Waste Shipment Record as required by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District. DTSC regulates disposal of asbestos waste. DTSC issues U.S. EPA hazardous waste generator identification numbers. 4.2 Lead Disturbing materials containing any detectable concentration of lead either through repair, maintenance, renovation or demolition activities triggers several regulations enforced by such agencies as OSHA (worker protection), EPA (environmental exposure, transportation and DR A F T Attachment 1 Hazardous Materials Survey ZFA - Three Buildings ■ Midpen August 13, 2019 ■ Terracon Project No. R1197192 Responsive ■Resourceful ■Reliable 8 disposal), and Department of Public Health (DPH). Some of the key requirements of the regulations are summarized below. n There are presently no federal, state or local regulations limiting the concentration of lead in public sector buildings, however several regulations established for the private sector as well as for government subsidized housing are used industry wide as guidelines for assessing exposure to lead. The Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) has set a maximum limit of 90 ppm in paint used for residential purposes. The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) requires abatement of lead hazards involving paint in concentrations exceeding 5,000 ppm. n Disposal of all lead-containing materials is regulated at concentrations at or exceeding 1,000 ppm as stated in 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 263 - Land Disposal Regulations and Title 22, Division 4 Environmental Health of the California Administrative Code. Lead containing materials that exceed 50 ppm must be additionally analyzed to determine possible waste disposal restrictions with respect to lead. n Federal OSHA and Cal-OSHA regulate all worker exposure during construction activities that impact lead-containing paint. Cal-OSHA enforces the Lead in Construction Standard in Title 8 CCR 1532.1. The scope covers construction work where employees may be exposed to lead during such activities as demolition, removal, surface preparation for re-painting, renovation, clean-up and routine maintenance. The OSHA specified method of compliance includes respiratory protection, protective clothing and equipment, housekeeping, hygiene facilities, medical surveillance, and training, among other requirements. 5.0 LIMITATIONS/GENERAL COMMENTS Terracon did not perform sampling which required demolition or destructive activities such as knocking holes in walls, dismantling of equipment or removal of protective coverings. Reasonable efforts to access suspect materials within known areas of restricted access (e.g., crawl spaces) were made; however, confined spaces or areas which may pose a health or safety risk to Terracon personnel were not sampled. Sampling did not include suspect materials which could not be safely reached with available ladders/man-lifts. DR A F T Attachment 1 Hazardous Materials Survey ZFA - Three Buildings ■ Midpen August 13, 2019 ■ Terracon Project No. R1197192 Responsive ■Resourceful ■Reliable 9 6.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Based upon the survey results, Terracon concludes the following: n Asbestos was detected in various materials including vinyl floor tile and mastics, joint compound associated with drywall, thermal system insulation, ceramic tile mastic, sink undercoating, roof mastics, transite (asbestos cement) panels, metal roof cap sealant, and flashing sealant. n If additional suspect materials that have not been characterized as ACM or non- ACM in this report are discovered during demolition, these materials should be assumed to contain asbestos and be treated accordingly until proven otherwise by appropriate sampling and laboratory analysis. n Lead was detected above the laboratory detection limit on nine (9) various painted surfaces throughout the building. Two (2) of the painted surfaces had lead concentrations above 5,000 ppm, the threshold for designation of lead-based paint. This asbestos survey was conducted in a manner consistent with the level of care and skill ordinarily exercised by members of the profession currently practicing under similar conditions in the same locale. The results, findings, conclusions and recommendations expressed in this report are based on conditions observed during our survey of the building. The information contained in this report is relevant to the date on which this survey was performed and should not be relied upon to represent conditions at a later date. This report has been prepared on behalf of and exclusively for use by ZFA Structural Engineers for specific application to their project as discussed. This report is not a bidding document. Contractors or consultants reviewing this report must draw their own conclusions regarding further investigation or remediation deemed necessary. Terracon does not warrant the work of regulatory agencies, laboratories or other third parties supplying information which may have been used in the preparation of this report. No warranty, express or implied is made.DR A F T Attachment 1 APPENDIX A ZFA Structural Engineers - Three Buildings Pre-Renovation Survey Beatty House, La Honda White Barn, and La Honda Log Cabin, Near IDENTIFIED ASBESTOS CONTAINING MATERIALS BY HOMOGENEOUS AREA (HA) HA No.Material Description Material Location NESHAP Classification % and Type Asbestos** Estimated Quantity* 201 Tan vinyl sheet flooring Beatty House: Living room Friable – RACM 25% Chrysotile 360 SF 204 Wallboard joint compound Beatty House: Throughout, walls and ceilings NA 2% Chrysotile in the joint compound, and 0.5% Chrysotile composite 3,700 SF *Estimated quantities are based on a cursory field evaluation, and actual quantities may vary significantly, especially if asbestos containing materials are present in hidden and/or inaccessible areas not evaluated as part of this survey. **%& Type Asbestos = this column contains both the analytical result of the sample with the highest concentration of asbestos detected in the samples that make up the HA and the types of asbestos identified. The materials listed in this table have been sampled and determined to contain asbestos in concentrations greater than 1%. When disturbed, various federal, state and local regulations may apply. These materials should be monitored for damage over time and repaired as necessary by appropriately trained personnel. Removal may be necessary before renovations and in most cases before a demolition. See Appendix B for a summary of samples collected. See Appendix C for detailed analytical results.DR A F T Attachment 1 APPENDIX B ASBESTOS SAMPLE LOCATION SUMMARY DR A F T Attachment 1 Asbestos Samples Summary Material Sample Sample Location Description Asbestos Content NESHAP Category OSHA Work Class Material Quantity Log Cabin 1 1A Flooring-Lino 1x1 Squares Tan/Beige;Restroom-North Tan Sheet Flooring with Fibrous Backing and Gray Paint None detected NA NA 1 1A Flooring-Lino 1x1 Squares Tan/Beige;Restroom-North Brown Fibrous Material with Gray Paint None detected 1 1B Flooring-Lino 1x1 Squares Tan/Beige;Restroom-North Tan Sheet Flooring with Fibrous Backing and Gray Paint None detected 1 1B Flooring-Lino 1x1 Squares Tan/Beige;Restroom-North Brown Fibrous Material with Gray Paint None detected 1 1C Flooring-Lino 1x1 Squares Tan/Beige;Restroom-North Tan Sheet Flooring with Fibrous Backing and Gray Paint None detected 1 1C Flooring-Lino 1x1 Squares Tan/Beige;Restroom-North Brown Fibrous Material with Gray Paint None detected 2 2A Flooring-Lino Green Square Pattern;Kitchen-West Green Sheet Flooring with Fibrous Backing None detected NA NA 2 2A Flooring-Lino Green Square Pattern;Kitchen-West Brown Mastic None detected 2 2B Flooring-Lino Green Square Pattern;Kitchen-West Green Sheet Flooring with Fibrous Backing None detected 2 2B Flooring-Lino Green Square Pattern;Kitchen-West Light Brown Mastic None detected 2 2B Flooring-Lino Green Square Pattern;Kitchen-West Dark Brown Mastic None detected 2 2B Flooring-Lino Green Square Pattern;Kitchen-West Orange Wood None detected 2 2C Flooring-Lino Green Square Pattern;Kitchen-West Green Sheet Flooring with Fibrous Backing None detected 2 2C Flooring-Lino Green Square Pattern;Kitchen-West Light Brown Mastic None detected 2 2C Flooring-Lino Green Square Pattern;Kitchen-West Dark Brown Mastic None detected 3 3A Window Glaze;Ext Window Glaze-South Glass to Frame White Window Glazing None detected NA NA 3 3B Window Glaze;Ext Window Glaze-South Glass to Frame White Window Glazing None detected 3 3C Window Glaze;Ext Window Glaze-South Glass to Frame White Window Glazing None detected 4 4A Fireplace Brick /Mortar;Living Rm -South Off-White Mortar None detected NA NA 4 4B Fireplace Brick /Mortar;Living Rm -South Off-White Mortar None detected 4 4C Fireplace Brick /Mortar;Living Rm -South Off-White Mortar None detected 5 5A Roof Felt Double Layer Under Wood Shingle;Roof Black Roofing Felt None detected NA NA 5 5A Roof Felt Double Layer Under Wood Shingle;Roof Tan Fibrous Material None detected 5 5B Roof Felt Double Layer Under Wood Shingle;Roof Black Roofing Felt None detected 5 5B Roof Felt Double Layer Under Wood Shingle;Roof Tan Fibrous Material None detected 5 5C Roof Felt Double Layer Under Wood Shingle;Roof Black Roofing Felt None detected 5 5C Roof Felt Double Layer Under Wood Shingle;Roof Tan Fibrous Material None detected 6 6A Wiring Black;Cabin Black Coating None detected NA NA 6 6A Wiring Black;Cabin White Wiring Insulation None detected 6 6B Wiring Black;Cabin Black Coating None detected 6 6B Wiring Black;Cabin White Wiring Insulation None detected 6 6C Wiring Black;Cabin Black Coating None detected 6 6C Wiring Black;Cabin White Wiring Insulation None detected 7 7A Concrete Foundation;Under Porch White Concrete None detected NA NA 7 7B Concrete Foundation;Under Porch White Concrete None detected 7 7C Concrete Foundation;Under Porch White Concrete None detected 8 8A Wiring-White 1/8 in;Interior Yellow Wiring Insulation None detected NA NA 8 8A Wiring-White 1/8 in;Interior Black Coating None detected 8 8B Wiring-White 1/8 in;Interior Yellow Wiring Insulation None detected 8 8B Wiring-White 1/8 in;Interior Black Coating None detected 8 8C Wiring-White 1/8 in;Interior Yellow Wiring Insulation None detected 8 8C Wiring-White 1/8 in;Interior Black Coating None detected Terracon Project # R1197192 1 of 4 DR A F T Attachment 1 Asbestos Samples Summary Material Sample Sample Location Description Asbestos Content NESHAP Category OSHA Work Class Material Quantity 9 9A Wiring-Black 1/4 in;Cabin Black Coating None detected 9 9A Wiring-Black 1/4 in;Cabin Brown Wiring Insulation None detected 9 9B Wiring-Black 1/4 in;Cabin Black Coating None detected 9 9B Wiring-Black 1/4 in;Cabin Brown Wiring Insulation None detected 9 9C Wiring-Black 1/4 in;Cabin Black Coating None detected 9 9C Wiring-Black 1/4 in;Cabin Brown Wiring Insulation None detected Barn 100 100A Wiring;Black 1/8 In;Interior Barn;N Black Wiring Insulation None detected NA NA 100 100B Wiring;Black 1/8 In;Interior Barn;C Black Wiring Insulation None detected 100 100B Wiring;Black 1/8 In;Interior Barn;C Black Tar Insulator None detected 100 100C Wiring;Black 1/8 In;Interior Barn;S Black Wiring Insulation None detected Beatty House 200 200A Window Putty; Ext Windows Off-White Window Putty with White Paint None detected NA NA 200 200B Window Putty; Ext Windows Off-White Window Putty with White Paint None detected 200 200C Window Putty; Ext Windows Off-White Window Putty with White Paint None detected 201 201A Flooring Lino Tan; Living Rm Tan Linoleum with Fibrous Backing 25% Chrysotile Friable Class 2 360 SF 201 201A Flooring Lino Tan; Living Rm Black Felt None detected RACM 201 201A Flooring Lino Tan; Living Rm Gray Fibrous Material None detected 201 201B Flooring Lino Tan; Living Rm Tan Linoleum with Fibrous Backing 25% Chrysotile 201 201B Flooring Lino Tan; Living Rm Black Felt None detected 201 201B Flooring Lino Tan; Living Rm Gray Fibrous Material None detected 201 201C Flooring Lino Tan; Living Rm Tan Linoleum with Fibrous Backing 25% Chrysotile 201 201C Flooring Lino Tan; Living Rm Black Felt None detected 201 201C Flooring Lino Tan; Living Rm Gray Fibrous Material None detected 202 202A Flooring Multi Layer; Back Room; 4 Multicolored Linoleum with Fibrous Backing None detected NA NA 202 202A Flooring Multi Layer; Back Room; 4 Multicolored Linoleum with Fibrous Backing None detected 202 202A Flooring Multi Layer; Back Room; 4 Black Felt None detected 202 202A Flooring Multi Layer; Back Room; 4 Gray Fibrous Material None detected 202 202B Flooring Multi Layer; Back Room; 4 Multicolored Linoleum with Fibrous Backing None detected 202 202B Flooring Multi Layer; Back Room; 4 Multicolored Linoleum with Fibrous Backing None detected 202 202B Flooring Multi Layer; Back Room; 4 Black Felt None detected 202 202B Flooring Multi Layer; Back Room; 4 Gray Fibrous Material None detected 202 202C Flooring Multi Layer; Back Room; 4 Multicolored Linoleum with Fibrous Backing None detected 202 202C Flooring Multi Layer; Back Room; 4 Multicolored Linoleum with Fibrous Backing None detected 202 202C Flooring Multi Layer; Back Room; 4 Black Felt None detected 202 202C Flooring Multi Layer; Back Room; 4 Gray Fibrous Material None detected 203 203A Flooring Dark Gray Flower Pat; Bedroom 1 Dark Gray Linoleum with Fibrous Backing None detected NA NA 203 203B Flooring Dark Gray Flower Pat; Bedroom 1 Dark Gray Linoleum with Fibrous Backing None detected 203 203C Flooring Dark Gray Flower Pat; Bedroom 1 Dark Gray Linoleum with Fibrous Backing None detected Terracon Project # R1197192 2 of 4 DR A F T Attachment 1 Asbestos Samples Summary Material Sample Sample Location Description Asbestos Content NESHAP Category OSHA Work Class Material Quantity 204 204A Wallboard Joint Compound; Hall Gray Fibrous Material with Multilayered Paint None detected NA Class 2 3,700 SF 204 204A Wallboard Joint Compound; Hall White Drywall with Brown Paper and Multilayered Paint None detected 204 204B Wallboard Joint Compound; Ceil; Living Rm Brown Fibrous Material with White Paint None detected 204 204B Wallboard Joint Compound; Ceil; Living Rm Brown Drywall with Brown Paper None detected 204 204C Wallboard Joint Compound; Ceil; Back; 4 Brown Fibrous Material with White Paint None detected 204 204C Wallboard Joint Compound; Ceil; Back; 4 Brown Drywall with Brown Paper None detected 204 204D Wallboard Joint Compound; RR; West Tan Joint Compound with Multilayered Paint 2% Chrysotile 204 204D Wallboard Joint Compound; RR; West White Drywall with Brown Paper None detected 204 204D Wallboard Joint Compound; RR; West Composite by PLM Point Count <0.25% Chrysoltile 204 204E Wallboard Joint Compound; East Brown/Green Paper None detected 204 204E Wallboard Joint Compound; East Tan Compound with Multilayered Paint 2% Chrysotile 204 204E Wallboard Joint Compound; East Cream Tape None detected 204 204E Wallboard Joint Compound; East Tan Joint Compound 2% Chrysotile 204 204E Wallboard Joint Compound; East White Drywall with Brown Paper None detected 204 204E Wallboard Joint Compound; East Composite by PLM Point Count <0.25% Chrysoltile 204 204F Wallboard Joint Compound; South Tan Compound with Multilayered Paint 2% Chrysotile 204 204F Wallboard Joint Compound; South Cream Tape None detected 204 204F Wallboard Joint Compound; South Tan Joint Compound 2% Chrysotile 204 204F Wallboard Joint Compound; South White Drywall with Brown Paper None detected 204 204F Wallboard Joint Compound; South Composite by PLM Point Count <0.25% Chrysoltile 204 204G Wallboard Joint Compound; North Tan Compound with Multilayered Paint 2% Chrysotile 204 204G Wallboard Joint Compound; North Cream Tape None detected 204 204G Wallboard Joint Compound; North Tan Joint Compound 2% Chrysotile 204 204G Wallboard Joint Compound; North White Drywall with Brown Paper None detected 204 204G Wallboard Joint Compound; North Composite by PLM Point Count 0.5% Chrysotile 205 205A Flooring Hallway Gray; Hall; West Black Felt with Pebbles and Gray Surface None detected NA NA 205 205B Flooring Hallway Gray; Hall; Center Black Felt with Pebbles and Gray Surface None detected 205 205C Flooring Hallway Gray; Hall; East Black Felt with Pebbles and Gray Surface None detected 206 206A Cove Base/Flooring Creme Yellow Mastic; Kitchen; West Cream Mastic with Yellow Paint None detected NA NA 206 206B Cove Base/Flooring Creme Yellow Mastic; Kitchen; Center Cream Mastic with Yellow Paint None detected 206 206C Cove Base/Flooring Creme Yellow Mastic; Kitchen; East Cream Mastic with Yellow Paint None detected 207 207A Flooring Peach/Tan; Bedroom 2 Brown/Beige Linoleum with Fibrous Backing None detected NA NA 207 207B Flooring Peach/Tan; Bedroom 2 Brown/Beige Linoleum with Fibrous Backing None detected 207 207C Flooring Peach/Tan; Bedroom 2 Brown/Beige Linoleum with Fibrous Backing None detected 208 208A Flooring Lino Tan; Kitchen; West Tan Linoleum with Fibrous Backing None detected NA NA 208 208A Flooring Lino Tan; Kitchen; West White Mastic None detected 208 208A Flooring Lino Tan; Kitchen; West Brown Fiberboard Flooring None detected 208 208B Flooring Lino Tan; Kitchen; Center Tan Linoleum with Fibrous Backing None detected 208 208B Flooring Lino Tan; Kitchen; Center White Mastic with Brown Fibrous Material None detected 208 208C Flooring Lino Tan; Kitchen; East Tan Linoleum with Fibrous Backing None detected 208 208C Flooring Lino Tan; Kitchen; East White Mastic None detected 208 208C Flooring Lino Tan; Kitchen; East Brown Fiberboard Flooring None detected Terracon Project # R1197192 3 of 4 DR A F T Attachment 1 Asbestos Samples Summary Material Sample Sample Location Description Asbestos Content NESHAP Category OSHA Work Class Material Quantity 209 209A Flooring Creme/Tan; Bath; East Tan Flooring None detected NA NA 209 209A Flooring Creme/Tan; Bath; East Semi-Transparent Adhesive None detected 209 209A Flooring Creme/Tan; Bath; East Black Felt with Gray Coating None detected 209 209B Flooring Creme/Tan; Bath; Center Tan Flooring None detected 209 209B Flooring Creme/Tan; Bath; Center Semi-Transparent Adhesive None detected 209 209B Flooring Creme/Tan; Bath; Center Black Felt with Gray Coating None detected 209 209C Flooring Creme/Tan; Bath; West Tan Flooring None detected 209 209C Flooring Creme/Tan; Bath; West Semi-Transparent Adhesive None detected 209 209C Flooring Creme/Tan; Bath; West Black Felt with Gray Coating None detected 210 210A Roofing; Shingles; Green; Roof; NW Black Roofing Shingle with Green Pebbles None detected NA NA 210 210A Roofing; Shingles; Green; Roof; NW Black Roofing Tar None detected 210 210A Roofing; Shingles; Green; Roof; NW Black Roofing Felt None detected 210 210B Roofing; Shingles; Green; Roof; SW Black Roofing Shingle with Green Pebbles None detected 210 210B Roofing; Shingles; Green; Roof; SW Black Roofing Tar None detected 210 210B Roofing; Shingles; Green; Roof; SW Black Roofing Felt None detected 210 210C Roofing; Shingles; Green; Roof; West Black Roofing Shingle with Green Pebbles None detected 210 210C Roofing; Shingles; Green; Roof; West Black Roofing Tar None detected 210 210C Roofing; Shingles; Green; Roof; West Black Roofing Shingle with Green Pebbles None detected 210 210C Roofing; Shingles; Green; Roof; West Black Roofing Tar None detected 210 210C Roofing; Shingles; Green; Roof; West Black Roofing Felt None detected 211 211A Concrete Porch Gray Concrete None detected NA NA 211 211B Concrete Porch Gray Concrete None detected 211 211C Concrete Porch Gray Concrete None detected Terracon Project # R1197192 4 of 4 DR A F T Attachment 1 APPENDIX C ASBESTOS ANALYTICAL LABORATORY DATA DR A F T Attachment 1 Approved by: Approved Signatory Renee Luna-Trepczynski Report for: Mr. Michael Benefield, PE Terracon Consultants, Inc. - Emeryville 1466 66th Street Emeryville, CA 94608 Regarding:Project: R1197192; ZFA Structural Engineers-La Honda Redwood Cabin EML ID: 2198987 All samples were received in acceptable condition unless noted in the Report Comments portion in the body of the report. The results relate only to the samples as received. The results include an inherent uncertainty of measurement associated with estimating percentages by polarized light microscopy. Measurement uncertainty data for sample results with >1% asbestos concentration can be provided when requested. EMLab P&K ("the Company") shall have no liability to the client or the client's customer with respect to decisions or recommendations made, actions taken or courses of conduct implemented by either the client or the client's customer as a result of or based upon the Test Results. In no event shall the Company be liable to the client with respect to the Test Results except for the Company's own willful misconduct or gross negligence nor shall the Company be liable for incidental or consequential damages or lost profits or revenues to the fullest extent such liability may be disclaimed by law, even if the Company has been advised of the possibility of such damages, lost profits or lost revenues. In no event shall the Company's liability with respect to the Test Results exceed the amount paid to the Company by the client therefor. Dates of Analysis: Asbestos PLM: 07-08-2019 Service SOPs: Asbestos PLM (EPA 40CFR App E to Sub E of Part 763 & EPA METHOD 600/R-93-116, SOP EM-AS-S-1267) EMLab ID: 2198987, Page 1 of 8Aerotech Laboratories, Inc DR A F T Attachment 1 EMLab P&K 1501 West Knudsen Drive, Phoenix, AZ 85027 (800) 651-4802 Fax (623) 780-7695 www.emlab.com Client: Terracon Consultants, Inc. - Emeryville C/O: Mr. Michael Benefield, PE Re: R1197192; ZFA Structural Engineers-La Honda Redwood Cabin Date of Sampling: 07-02-2019 Date of Receipt: 07-05-2019 Date of Report: 07-08-2019 ASBESTOS PLM REPORT Total Samples Submitted:27 Total Samples Analyzed:27 Total Samples with Layer Asbestos Content > 1%:0 Location: 1A, Flooring-Lino 1x1 Squares Tan/Beige;Restroom-North Lab ID-Version‡: 10447612-1 Sample Layers Asbestos Content Tan Sheet Flooring with Fibrous Backing and Gray Paint ND Brown Fibrous Material with Gray Paint ND Composite Non-Asbestos Content: 15% Cellulose Sample Composite Homogeneity: Moderate Location: 1B, Flooring-Lino 1x1 Squares Tan/Beige;Restroom-North Lab ID-Version‡: 10447613-1 Sample Layers Asbestos Content Tan Sheet Flooring with Fibrous Backing and Gray Paint ND Brown Fibrous Material with Gray Paint ND Composite Non-Asbestos Content: 15% Cellulose Sample Composite Homogeneity: Moderate Location: 1C, Flooring-Lino 1x1 Squares Tan/Beige;Restroom-North Lab ID-Version‡: 10447614-1 Sample Layers Asbestos Content Tan Sheet Flooring with Fibrous Backing and Gray Paint ND Brown Fibrous Material with Gray Paint ND Composite Non-Asbestos Content: 15% Cellulose Sample Composite Homogeneity: Moderate Location: 2A, Flooring-Lino Green Square Pattern;Kitchen-West Lab ID-Version‡: 10447615-1 Sample Layers Asbestos Content Green Sheet Flooring with Fibrous Backing ND Brown Mastic ND Composite Non-Asbestos Content: 20% Cellulose Sample Composite Homogeneity: Moderate EMLab ID: 2198987, Page 2 of 8Aerotech Laboratories, Inc The test report shall not be reproduced except in full, without written approval of the laboratory. The report must not be used by the client to claim product certification, approval, or endorsement by any agency of the federal government. EMLab P&K reserves the right to dispose of all samples after a period of thirty (30) days, according to all state and federal guidelines, unless otherwise specified. Inhomogeneous samples are separated into homogeneous subsamples and analyzed individually. ND means no fibers were detected. When detected, the minimum detection and reporting limit is less than 1% unless point counting is performed. Floor tile samples may contain large amounts of interference material and it is recommended that the sample be analyzed by gravimetric point count analysis to lower the detection limit and to aid in asbestos identification. ‡ A "Version" indicated by -"x" after the Lab ID# with a value greater than 1 indicates a sample with amended data. The revision number is reflected by the value of "x". DR A F T Attachment 1 EMLab P&K 1501 West Knudsen Drive, Phoenix, AZ 85027 (800) 651-4802 Fax (623) 780-7695 www.emlab.com Client: Terracon Consultants, Inc. - Emeryville C/O: Mr. Michael Benefield, PE Re: R1197192; ZFA Structural Engineers-La Honda Redwood Cabin Date of Sampling: 07-02-2019 Date of Receipt: 07-05-2019 Date of Report: 07-08-2019 ASBESTOS PLM REPORT Location: 2B, Flooring-Lino Green Square Pattern;Kitchen-West Lab ID-Version‡: 10447616-1 Sample Layers Asbestos Content Green Sheet Flooring with Fibrous Backing ND Light Brown Mastic ND Dark Brown Mastic ND Orange Wood ND Composite Non-Asbestos Content: 25% Cellulose Sample Composite Homogeneity: Poor Location: 2C, Flooring-Lino Green Square Pattern;Kitchen-West Lab ID-Version‡: 10447617-1 Sample Layers Asbestos Content Green Sheet Flooring with Fibrous Backing ND Light Brown Mastic ND Dark Brown Mastic ND Composite Non-Asbestos Content: 25% Cellulose Sample Composite Homogeneity: Poor Location: 3A, Window Glaze;Ext Window Glaze-South Glass to Frame Lab ID-Version‡: 10447618-1 Sample Layers Asbestos Content White Window Glazing ND Sample Composite Homogeneity: Good Location: 3B, Window Glaze;Ext Window Glaze-South Glass to Frame Lab ID-Version‡: 10447619-1 Sample Layers Asbestos Content White Window Glazing ND Sample Composite Homogeneity: Good EMLab ID: 2198987, Page 3 of 8Aerotech Laboratories, Inc The test report shall not be reproduced except in full, without written approval of the laboratory. The report must not be used by the client to claim product certification, approval, or endorsement by any agency of the federal government. EMLab P&K reserves the right to dispose of all samples after a period of thirty (30) days, according to all state and federal guidelines, unless otherwise specified. Inhomogeneous samples are separated into homogeneous subsamples and analyzed individually. ND means no fibers were detected. When detected, the minimum detection and reporting limit is less than 1% unless point counting is performed. Floor tile samples may contain large amounts of interference material and it is recommended that the sample be analyzed by gravimetric point count analysis to lower the detection limit and to aid in asbestos identification. ‡ A "Version" indicated by -"x" after the Lab ID# with a value greater than 1 indicates a sample with amended data. The revision number is reflected by the value of "x". DR A F T Attachment 1 EMLab P&K 1501 West Knudsen Drive, Phoenix, AZ 85027 (800) 651-4802 Fax (623) 780-7695 www.emlab.com Client: Terracon Consultants, Inc. - Emeryville C/O: Mr. Michael Benefield, PE Re: R1197192; ZFA Structural Engineers-La Honda Redwood Cabin Date of Sampling: 07-02-2019 Date of Receipt: 07-05-2019 Date of Report: 07-08-2019 ASBESTOS PLM REPORT Location: 3C, Window Glaze;Ext Window Glaze-South Glass to Frame Lab ID-Version‡: 10447620-1 Sample Layers Asbestos Content White Window Glazing ND Sample Composite Homogeneity: Good Location: 4A, Fireplace Brick /Mortar;Living Rm -South Lab ID-Version‡: 10447621-1 Sample Layers Asbestos Content Off-White Mortar ND Sample Composite Homogeneity: Good Location: 4B, Fireplace Brick /Mortar;Living Rm -South Lab ID-Version‡: 10447622-1 Sample Layers Asbestos Content Off-White Mortar ND Sample Composite Homogeneity: Good Location: 4C, Fireplace Brick /Mortar;Living Rm -South Lab ID-Version‡: 10447623-1 Sample Layers Asbestos Content Off-White Mortar ND Sample Composite Homogeneity: Good EMLab ID: 2198987, Page 4 of 8Aerotech Laboratories, Inc The test report shall not be reproduced except in full, without written approval of the laboratory. The report must not be used by the client to claim product certification, approval, or endorsement by any agency of the federal government. EMLab P&K reserves the right to dispose of all samples after a period of thirty (30) days, according to all state and federal guidelines, unless otherwise specified. Inhomogeneous samples are separated into homogeneous subsamples and analyzed individually. ND means no fibers were detected. When detected, the minimum detection and reporting limit is less than 1% unless point counting is performed. Floor tile samples may contain large amounts of interference material and it is recommended that the sample be analyzed by gravimetric point count analysis to lower the detection limit and to aid in asbestos identification. ‡ A "Version" indicated by -"x" after the Lab ID# with a value greater than 1 indicates a sample with amended data. The revision number is reflected by the value of "x". DR A F T Attachment 1 EMLab P&K 1501 West Knudsen Drive, Phoenix, AZ 85027 (800) 651-4802 Fax (623) 780-7695 www.emlab.com Client: Terracon Consultants, Inc. - Emeryville C/O: Mr. Michael Benefield, PE Re: R1197192; ZFA Structural Engineers-La Honda Redwood Cabin Date of Sampling: 07-02-2019 Date of Receipt: 07-05-2019 Date of Report: 07-08-2019 ASBESTOS PLM REPORT Location: 5A, Roof Felt Double Layer Under Wood Shingle;Roof Lab ID-Version‡: 10447624-1 Sample Layers Asbestos Content Black Roofing Felt ND Tan Fibrous Material ND Composite Non-Asbestos Content: 15% Cellulose Sample Composite Homogeneity: Moderate Location: 5B, Roof Felt Double Layer Under Wood Shingle;Roof Lab ID-Version‡: 10447625-1 Sample Layers Asbestos Content Black Roofing Felt ND Tan Fibrous Material ND Composite Non-Asbestos Content: 15% Cellulose Sample Composite Homogeneity: Moderate Location: 5C, Roof Felt Double Layer Under Wood Shingle;Roof Lab ID-Version‡: 10447626-1 Sample Layers Asbestos Content Black Roofing Felt ND Tan Fibrous Material ND Composite Non-Asbestos Content: 15% Cellulose Sample Composite Homogeneity: Moderate Location: 6A, Wiring Black;Cabin Lab ID-Version‡: 10447627-1 Sample Layers Asbestos Content Black Coating ND White Wiring Insulation ND Composite Non-Asbestos Content: 95% Cellulose Sample Composite Homogeneity: Moderate EMLab ID: 2198987, Page 5 of 8Aerotech Laboratories, Inc The test report shall not be reproduced except in full, without written approval of the laboratory. The report must not be used by the client to claim product certification, approval, or endorsement by any agency of the federal government. EMLab P&K reserves the right to dispose of all samples after a period of thirty (30) days, according to all state and federal guidelines, unless otherwise specified. Inhomogeneous samples are separated into homogeneous subsamples and analyzed individually. ND means no fibers were detected. When detected, the minimum detection and reporting limit is less than 1% unless point counting is performed. Floor tile samples may contain large amounts of interference material and it is recommended that the sample be analyzed by gravimetric point count analysis to lower the detection limit and to aid in asbestos identification. ‡ A "Version" indicated by -"x" after the Lab ID# with a value greater than 1 indicates a sample with amended data. The revision number is reflected by the value of "x". DR A F T Attachment 1 EMLab P&K 1501 West Knudsen Drive, Phoenix, AZ 85027 (800) 651-4802 Fax (623) 780-7695 www.emlab.com Client: Terracon Consultants, Inc. - Emeryville C/O: Mr. Michael Benefield, PE Re: R1197192; ZFA Structural Engineers-La Honda Redwood Cabin Date of Sampling: 07-02-2019 Date of Receipt: 07-05-2019 Date of Report: 07-08-2019 ASBESTOS PLM REPORT Location: 6B, Wiring Black;Cabin Lab ID-Version‡: 10447628-1 Sample Layers Asbestos Content Black Coating ND White Wiring Insulation ND Composite Non-Asbestos Content: 95% Cellulose Sample Composite Homogeneity: Moderate Location: 6C, Wiring Black;Cabin Lab ID-Version‡: 10447629-1 Sample Layers Asbestos Content Black Coating ND White Wiring Insulation ND Composite Non-Asbestos Content: 95% Cellulose Sample Composite Homogeneity: Moderate Location: 7A, Concrete Foundation;Under Porch Lab ID-Version‡: 10447630-1 Sample Layers Asbestos Content White Concrete ND Sample Composite Homogeneity: Good Location: 7B, Concrete Foundation;Under Porch Lab ID-Version‡: 10447631-1 Sample Layers Asbestos Content White Concrete ND Sample Composite Homogeneity: Good EMLab ID: 2198987, Page 6 of 8Aerotech Laboratories, Inc The test report shall not be reproduced except in full, without written approval of the laboratory. The report must not be used by the client to claim product certification, approval, or endorsement by any agency of the federal government. EMLab P&K reserves the right to dispose of all samples after a period of thirty (30) days, according to all state and federal guidelines, unless otherwise specified. Inhomogeneous samples are separated into homogeneous subsamples and analyzed individually. ND means no fibers were detected. When detected, the minimum detection and reporting limit is less than 1% unless point counting is performed. Floor tile samples may contain large amounts of interference material and it is recommended that the sample be analyzed by gravimetric point count analysis to lower the detection limit and to aid in asbestos identification. ‡ A "Version" indicated by -"x" after the Lab ID# with a value greater than 1 indicates a sample with amended data. The revision number is reflected by the value of "x". DR A F T Attachment 1 EMLab P&K 1501 West Knudsen Drive, Phoenix, AZ 85027 (800) 651-4802 Fax (623) 780-7695 www.emlab.com Client: Terracon Consultants, Inc. - Emeryville C/O: Mr. Michael Benefield, PE Re: R1197192; ZFA Structural Engineers-La Honda Redwood Cabin Date of Sampling: 07-02-2019 Date of Receipt: 07-05-2019 Date of Report: 07-08-2019 ASBESTOS PLM REPORT Location: 7C, Concrete Foundation;Under Porch Lab ID-Version‡: 10447632-1 Sample Layers Asbestos Content White Concrete ND Sample Composite Homogeneity: Good Location: 8A, Wiring-White 1/8 in;Interior Lab ID-Version‡: 10447633-1 Sample Layers Asbestos Content Yellow Wiring Insulation ND Black Coating ND Composite Non-Asbestos Content: 70% Cellulose Sample Composite Homogeneity: Moderate Location: 8B, Wiring-White 1/8 in;Interior Lab ID-Version‡: 10447634-1 Sample Layers Asbestos Content Yellow Wiring Insulation ND Black Coating ND Composite Non-Asbestos Content: 70% Cellulose Sample Composite Homogeneity: Moderate Location: 8C, Wiring-White 1/8 in;Interior Lab ID-Version‡: 10447635-1 Sample Layers Asbestos Content Yellow Wiring Insulation ND Black Coating ND Composite Non-Asbestos Content: 70% Cellulose Sample Composite Homogeneity: Moderate EMLab ID: 2198987, Page 7 of 8Aerotech Laboratories, Inc The test report shall not be reproduced except in full, without written approval of the laboratory. The report must not be used by the client to claim product certification, approval, or endorsement by any agency of the federal government. EMLab P&K reserves the right to dispose of all samples after a period of thirty (30) days, according to all state and federal guidelines, unless otherwise specified. Inhomogeneous samples are separated into homogeneous subsamples and analyzed individually. ND means no fibers were detected. When detected, the minimum detection and reporting limit is less than 1% unless point counting is performed. Floor tile samples may contain large amounts of interference material and it is recommended that the sample be analyzed by gravimetric point count analysis to lower the detection limit and to aid in asbestos identification. ‡ A "Version" indicated by -"x" after the Lab ID# with a value greater than 1 indicates a sample with amended data. The revision number is reflected by the value of "x". DR A F T Attachment 1 EMLab P&K 1501 West Knudsen Drive, Phoenix, AZ 85027 (800) 651-4802 Fax (623) 780-7695 www.emlab.com Client: Terracon Consultants, Inc. - Emeryville C/O: Mr. Michael Benefield, PE Re: R1197192; ZFA Structural Engineers-La Honda Redwood Cabin Date of Sampling: 07-02-2019 Date of Receipt: 07-05-2019 Date of Report: 07-08-2019 ASBESTOS PLM REPORT Location: 9A, Wiring-Black 1/4 in;Cabin Lab ID-Version‡: 10447636-1 Sample Layers Asbestos Content Black Coating ND Brown Wiring Insulation ND Composite Non-Asbestos Content: 60% Cellulose Sample Composite Homogeneity: Moderate Location: 9B, Wiring-Black 1/4 in;Cabin Lab ID-Version‡: 10447637-1 Sample Layers Asbestos Content Black Coating ND Brown Wiring Insulation ND Composite Non-Asbestos Content: 60% Cellulose Sample Composite Homogeneity: Moderate Location: 9C, Wiring-Black 1/4 in;Cabin Lab ID-Version‡: 10447638-1 Sample Layers Asbestos Content Black Coating ND Brown Wiring Insulation ND Composite Non-Asbestos Content: 60% Cellulose Sample Composite Homogeneity: Moderate EMLab ID: 2198987, Page 8 of 8Aerotech Laboratories, Inc The test report shall not be reproduced except in full, without written approval of the laboratory. The report must not be used by the client to claim product certification, approval, or endorsement by any agency of the federal government. EMLab P&K reserves the right to dispose of all samples after a period of thirty (30) days, according to all state and federal guidelines, unless otherwise specified. Inhomogeneous samples are separated into homogeneous subsamples and analyzed individually. ND means no fibers were detected. When detected, the minimum detection and reporting limit is less than 1% unless point counting is performed. Floor tile samples may contain large amounts of interference material and it is recommended that the sample be analyzed by gravimetric point count analysis to lower the detection limit and to aid in asbestos identification. ‡ A "Version" indicated by -"x" after the Lab ID# with a value greater than 1 indicates a sample with amended data. The revision number is reflected by the value of "x". DR A F T Attachment 1 DR A F T Attachment 1 DR A F T Attachment 1 DR A F T Attachment 1 Approved by: Approved Signatory Renee Luna-Trepczynski Report for: Mr. Michael Benefield, PE Terracon Consultants, Inc. - Emeryville 1466 66th Street Emeryville, CA 94608 Regarding:Project: R1197192; ZFA Structural Engineers-LA Honda White Barn EML ID: 2198983 All samples were received in acceptable condition unless noted in the Report Comments portion in the body of the report. The results relate only to the samples as received. The results include an inherent uncertainty of measurement associated with estimating percentages by polarized light microscopy. Measurement uncertainty data for sample results with >1% asbestos concentration can be provided when requested. EMLab P&K ("the Company") shall have no liability to the client or the client's customer with respect to decisions or recommendations made, actions taken or courses of conduct implemented by either the client or the client's customer as a result of or based upon the Test Results. In no event shall the Company be liable to the client with respect to the Test Results except for the Company's own willful misconduct or gross negligence nor shall the Company be liable for incidental or consequential damages or lost profits or revenues to the fullest extent such liability may be disclaimed by law, even if the Company has been advised of the possibility of such damages, lost profits or lost revenues. In no event shall the Company's liability with respect to the Test Results exceed the amount paid to the Company by the client therefor. REVISED REPORT Dates of Analysis: Asbestos PLM: 07-09-2019 and 07-10-2019 Service SOPs: Asbestos PLM (EPA 40CFR App E to Sub E of Part 763 & EPA METHOD 600/R-93-116, SOP EM-AS-S-1267) EMLab ID: 2198983, Page 1 of 3Aerotech Laboratories, Inc DR A F T Attachment 1 EMLab P&K 1501 West Knudsen Drive, Phoenix, AZ 85027 (800) 651-4802 Fax (623) 780-7695 www.emlab.com Client: Terracon Consultants, Inc. - Emeryville C/O: Mr. Michael Benefield, PE Re: R1197192; ZFA Structural Engineers-LA Honda White Barn Date of Sampling: 07-02-2019 Date of Receipt: 07-05-2019 Date of Report: 07-10-2019 ASBESTOS PLM REPORT Total Samples Submitted:3 Total Samples Analyzed:3 Total Samples with Layer Asbestos Content > 1%:0 Location: 100A, Wiring;Black 1/8 In;Interior Barn;N Lab ID-Version‡: 10447309-1 Sample Layers Asbestos Content Black Wiring Insulation ND Composite Non-Asbestos Content: 15% Cotton 4% Synthetic Fibers Sample Composite Homogeneity: Moderate Location: 100B, Wiring;Black 1/8 In;Interior Barn;C Lab ID-Version‡: 10447310-2 Sample Layers Asbestos Content Black Wiring Insulation ND Black Tar Insulator ND Composite Non-Asbestos Content: 15% Cotton 4% Synthetic Fibers Sample Composite Homogeneity: Moderate Location: 100C, Wiring;Black 1/8 In;Interior Barn;S Lab ID-Version‡: 10447311-1 Sample Layers Asbestos Content Black Wiring Insulation ND Composite Non-Asbestos Content: 15% Cotton 4% Synthetic Fibers Sample Composite Homogeneity: Moderate EMLab ID: 2198983, Page 2 of 3Aerotech Laboratories, Inc The test report shall not be reproduced except in full, without written approval of the laboratory. The report must not be used by the client to claim product certification, approval, or endorsement by any agency of the federal government. EMLab P&K reserves the right to dispose of all samples after a period of thirty (30) days, according to all state and federal guidelines, unless otherwise specified. Inhomogeneous samples are separated into homogeneous subsamples and analyzed individually. ND means no fibers were detected. When detected, the minimum detection and reporting limit is less than 1% unless point counting is performed. Floor tile samples may contain large amounts of interference material and it is recommended that the sample be analyzed by gravimetric point count analysis to lower the detection limit and to aid in asbestos identification. ‡ A "Version" indicated by -"x" after the Lab ID# with a value greater than 1 indicates a sample with amended data. The revision number is reflected by the value of "x". DR A F T Attachment 1 EMLab P&K 1501 West Knudsen Drive, Phoenix, AZ 85027 (800) 651-4802 Fax (623) 780-7695 www.emlab.com Client: Terracon Consultants, Inc. - Emeryville C/O: Mr. Michael Benefield, PE Re: R1197192; ZFA Structural Engineers-LA Honda White Barn Date of Sampling: 07-02-2019 Date of Receipt: 07-05-2019 Date of Report: 07-10-2019 SUMMARY OF REVISIONS ‡ A "Version" indicated by -"x" after the Lab ID# with a value greater than 1 indicates a sample with amended data. The revision number is reflected by the value of "x". Location: 100B; Wiring;Black 1/8 In;Interior Barn;C Lab ID-Version‡: 10447310-2 Analysis Time revised. Sample Layers revised. EMLab ID: 2198983, Page 3 of 3Aerotech Laboratories, Inc DR A F T Attachment 1 DR A F T Attachment 1 Approved by: Approved Signatory Renee Luna-Trepczynski Report for: Mr. Michael Benefield, PE Terracon Consultants, Inc. - Emeryville 1466 66th Street Emeryville, CA 94608 Regarding:Project: R1197192; ZFA Structual Engineers - Beatty House 17820 Alma Bridge Rd EML ID: 2198988 All samples were received in acceptable condition unless noted in the Report Comments portion in the body of the report. The results relate only to the samples as received. The results include an inherent uncertainty of measurement associated with estimating percentages by polarized light microscopy. Measurement uncertainty data for sample results with >1% asbestos concentration can be provided when requested. EMLab P&K ("the Company") shall have no liability to the client or the client's customer with respect to decisions or recommendations made, actions taken or courses of conduct implemented by either the client or the client's customer as a result of or based upon the Test Results. In no event shall the Company be liable to the client with respect to the Test Results except for the Company's own willful misconduct or gross negligence nor shall the Company be liable for incidental or consequential damages or lost profits or revenues to the fullest extent such liability may be disclaimed by law, even if the Company has been advised of the possibility of such damages, lost profits or lost revenues. In no event shall the Company's liability with respect to the Test Results exceed the amount paid to the Company by the client therefor. Dates of Analysis: Asbestos PLM: 07-08-2019 Service SOPs: Asbestos PLM (EPA 40CFR App E to Sub E of Part 763 & EPA METHOD 600/R-93-116, SOP EM-AS-S-1267) EMLab ID: 2198988, Page 1 of 13Aerotech Laboratories, Inc DR A F T Attachment 1 EMLab P&K 1501 West Knudsen Drive, Phoenix, AZ 85027 (800) 651-4802 Fax (623) 780-7695 www.emlab.com Client: Terracon Consultants, Inc. - Emeryville C/O: Mr. Michael Benefield, PE Re: R1197192; ZFA Structual Engineers - Beatty House 17820 Alma Bridge Rd Date of Sampling: 07-02-2019 Date of Receipt: 07-05-2019 Date of Report: 07-08-2019 ASBESTOS PLM REPORT Total Samples Submitted:40 Total Samples Analyzed:40 Total Samples with Layer Asbestos Content > 1%:7 Location: 200A, Window Putty; Ext Windows Lab ID-Version‡: 10447674-1 Sample Layers Asbestos Content Off-White Window Putty with White Paint ND Sample Composite Homogeneity: Good Location: 200B, Window Putty; Ext Windows Lab ID-Version‡: 10447675-1 Sample Layers Asbestos Content Off-White Window Putty with White Paint ND Sample Composite Homogeneity: Good Location: 200C, Window Putty; Ext Windows Lab ID-Version‡: 10447676-1 Sample Layers Asbestos Content Off-White Window Putty with White Paint ND Sample Composite Homogeneity: Good Location: 201A, Flooring Lino Tan; Living Rm Lab ID-Version‡: 10447677-1 Sample Layers Asbestos Content Tan Linoleum with Fibrous Backing 25% Chrysotile Black Felt ND Gray Fibrous Material ND Composite Non-Asbestos Content: 20% Cotton 15% Cellulose 3% Hair/Wool Sample Composite Homogeneity: Poor EMLab ID: 2198988, Page 2 of 13Aerotech Laboratories, Inc The test report shall not be reproduced except in full, without written approval of the laboratory. The report must not be used by the client to claim product certification, approval, or endorsement by any agency of the federal government. EMLab P&K reserves the right to dispose of all samples after a period of thirty (30) days, according to all state and federal guidelines, unless otherwise specified. Inhomogeneous samples are separated into homogeneous subsamples and analyzed individually. ND means no fibers were detected. When detected, the minimum detection and reporting limit is less than 1% unless point counting is performed. Floor tile samples may contain large amounts of interference material and it is recommended that the sample be analyzed by gravimetric point count analysis to lower the detection limit and to aid in asbestos identification. ‡ A "Version" indicated by -"x" after the Lab ID# with a value greater than 1 indicates a sample with amended data. The revision number is reflected by the value of "x". DR A F T Attachment 1 EMLab P&K 1501 West Knudsen Drive, Phoenix, AZ 85027 (800) 651-4802 Fax (623) 780-7695 www.emlab.com Client: Terracon Consultants, Inc. - Emeryville C/O: Mr. Michael Benefield, PE Re: R1197192; ZFA Structual Engineers - Beatty House 17820 Alma Bridge Rd Date of Sampling: 07-02-2019 Date of Receipt: 07-05-2019 Date of Report: 07-08-2019 ASBESTOS PLM REPORT Location: 201B, Flooring Lino Tan; Living Rm Lab ID-Version‡: 10447678-1 Sample Layers Asbestos Content Tan Linoleum with Fibrous Backing 25% Chrysotile Black Felt ND Gray Fibrous Material ND Composite Non-Asbestos Content: 20% Cotton 15% Cellulose 3% Hair/Wool Sample Composite Homogeneity: Poor Location: 201C, Flooring Lino Tan; Living Rm Lab ID-Version‡: 10447679-1 Sample Layers Asbestos Content Tan Linoleum with Fibrous Backing 25% Chrysotile Black Felt ND Gray Fibrous Material ND Composite Non-Asbestos Content: 20% Cotton 15% Cellulose 3% Hair/Wool Sample Composite Homogeneity: Poor Location: 202A, Flooring Multi Layer; Back Room; 4 Lab ID-Version‡: 10447680-1 Sample Layers Asbestos Content Multicolored Linoleum with Fibrous Backing ND Multicolored Linoleum with Fibrous Backing ND Black Felt ND Gray Fibrous Material ND Composite Non-Asbestos Content: 30% Cellulose 12% Cotton 3% Hair/Wool Sample Composite Homogeneity: Poor EMLab ID: 2198988, Page 3 of 13Aerotech Laboratories, Inc The test report shall not be reproduced except in full, without written approval of the laboratory. The report must not be used by the client to claim product certification, approval, or endorsement by any agency of the federal government. EMLab P&K reserves the right to dispose of all samples after a period of thirty (30) days, according to all state and federal guidelines, unless otherwise specified. Inhomogeneous samples are separated into homogeneous subsamples and analyzed individually. ND means no fibers were detected. When detected, the minimum detection and reporting limit is less than 1% unless point counting is performed. Floor tile samples may contain large amounts of interference material and it is recommended that the sample be analyzed by gravimetric point count analysis to lower the detection limit and to aid in asbestos identification. ‡ A "Version" indicated by -"x" after the Lab ID# with a value greater than 1 indicates a sample with amended data. The revision number is reflected by the value of "x". DR A F T Attachment 1 EMLab P&K 1501 West Knudsen Drive, Phoenix, AZ 85027 (800) 651-4802 Fax (623) 780-7695 www.emlab.com Client: Terracon Consultants, Inc. - Emeryville C/O: Mr. Michael Benefield, PE Re: R1197192; ZFA Structual Engineers - Beatty House 17820 Alma Bridge Rd Date of Sampling: 07-02-2019 Date of Receipt: 07-05-2019 Date of Report: 07-08-2019 ASBESTOS PLM REPORT Location: 202B, Flooring Multi Layer; Back Room; 4 Lab ID-Version‡: 10447681-1 Sample Layers Asbestos Content Multicolored Linoleum with Fibrous Backing ND Multicolored Linoleum with Fibrous Backing ND Black Felt ND Gray Fibrous Material ND Composite Non-Asbestos Content: 30% Cellulose 12% Cotton 3% Hair/Wool Sample Composite Homogeneity: Poor EMLab ID: 2198988, Page 4 of 13Aerotech Laboratories, Inc The test report shall not be reproduced except in full, without written approval of the laboratory. The report must not be used by the client to claim product certification, approval, or endorsement by any agency of the federal government. EMLab P&K reserves the right to dispose of all samples after a period of thirty (30) days, according to all state and federal guidelines, unless otherwise specified. Inhomogeneous samples are separated into homogeneous subsamples and analyzed individually. ND means no fibers were detected. When detected, the minimum detection and reporting limit is less than 1% unless point counting is performed. Floor tile samples may contain large amounts of interference material and it is recommended that the sample be analyzed by gravimetric point count analysis to lower the detection limit and to aid in asbestos identification. ‡ A "Version" indicated by -"x" after the Lab ID# with a value greater than 1 indicates a sample with amended data. The revision number is reflected by the value of "x". DR A F T Attachment 1 EMLab P&K 1501 West Knudsen Drive, Phoenix, AZ 85027 (800) 651-4802 Fax (623) 780-7695 www.emlab.com Client: Terracon Consultants, Inc. - Emeryville C/O: Mr. Michael Benefield, PE Re: R1197192; ZFA Structual Engineers - Beatty House 17820 Alma Bridge Rd Date of Sampling: 07-02-2019 Date of Receipt: 07-05-2019 Date of Report: 07-08-2019 ASBESTOS PLM REPORT Location: 202C, Flooring Multi Layer; Back Room; 4 Lab ID-Version‡: 10447682-1 Sample Layers Asbestos Content Multicolored Linoleum with Fibrous Backing ND Multicolored Linoleum with Fibrous Backing ND Black Felt ND Gray Fibrous Material ND Composite Non-Asbestos Content: 30% Cellulose 12% Cotton 3% Hair/Wool Sample Composite Homogeneity: Poor Location: 203A, Flooring Dark Gray Flower Pat; Bedroom 1 Lab ID-Version‡: 10447683-1 Sample Layers Asbestos Content Dark Gray Linoleum with Fibrous Backing ND Composite Non-Asbestos Content: 35% Cellulose 3% Hair/Wool Sample Composite Homogeneity: Moderate Location: 203B, Flooring Dark Gray Flower Pat; Bedroom 1 Lab ID-Version‡: 10447684-1 Sample Layers Asbestos Content Dark Gray Linoleum with Fibrous Backing ND Composite Non-Asbestos Content: 35% Cellulose 3% Hair/Wool Sample Composite Homogeneity: Moderate Location: 203C, Flooring Dark Gray Flower Pat; Bedroom 1 Lab ID-Version‡: 10447685-1 Sample Layers Asbestos Content Dark Gray Linoleum with Fibrous Backing ND Composite Non-Asbestos Content: 35% Cellulose 3% Hair/Wool Sample Composite Homogeneity: Moderate EMLab ID: 2198988, Page 5 of 13Aerotech Laboratories, Inc The test report shall not be reproduced except in full, without written approval of the laboratory. The report must not be used by the client to claim product certification, approval, or endorsement by any agency of the federal government. EMLab P&K reserves the right to dispose of all samples after a period of thirty (30) days, according to all state and federal guidelines, unless otherwise specified. Inhomogeneous samples are separated into homogeneous subsamples and analyzed individually. ND means no fibers were detected. When detected, the minimum detection and reporting limit is less than 1% unless point counting is performed. Floor tile samples may contain large amounts of interference material and it is recommended that the sample be analyzed by gravimetric point count analysis to lower the detection limit and to aid in asbestos identification. ‡ A "Version" indicated by -"x" after the Lab ID# with a value greater than 1 indicates a sample with amended data. The revision number is reflected by the value of "x". DR A F T Attachment 1 EMLab P&K 1501 West Knudsen Drive, Phoenix, AZ 85027 (800) 651-4802 Fax (623) 780-7695 www.emlab.com Client: Terracon Consultants, Inc. - Emeryville C/O: Mr. Michael Benefield, PE Re: R1197192; ZFA Structual Engineers - Beatty House 17820 Alma Bridge Rd Date of Sampling: 07-02-2019 Date of Receipt: 07-05-2019 Date of Report: 07-08-2019 ASBESTOS PLM REPORT Location: 204A, Wallboard Joint Compound; Hall Lab ID-Version‡: 10447686-1 Sample Layers Asbestos Content Gray Fibrous Material with Multilayered Paint ND White Drywall with Brown Paper and Multilayered Paint ND Composite Non-Asbestos Content: 20% Cotton 10% Cellulose 2% Hair/Wool Sample Composite Homogeneity: Moderate Location: 204B, Wallboard Joint Compound; Ceil; Living Rm Lab ID-Version‡: 10447687-1 Sample Layers Asbestos Content Brown Fibrous Material with White Paint ND Brown Drywall with Brown Paper ND Composite Non-Asbestos Content: 15% Cellulose Sample Composite Homogeneity: Moderate Location: 204C, Wallboard Joint Compound; Ceil; Back; 4 Lab ID-Version‡: 10447688-1 Sample Layers Asbestos Content Brown Fibrous Material with White Paint ND Brown Drywall with Brown Paper ND Composite Non-Asbestos Content: 15% Cellulose Sample Composite Homogeneity: Moderate Location: 204D, Wallboard Joint Compound; RR; West Lab ID-Version‡: 10447689-1 Sample Layers Asbestos Content Tan Joint Compound with Multilayered Paint 2% Chrysotile White Drywall with Brown Paper ND Composite Asbestos Fibrous Content: < 1% Asbestos Composite Non-Asbestos Content: 10% Cellulose Sample Composite Homogeneity: Moderate Comments:Composite content provided for this analysis has been performed by following the NESHAP guidelines. EMLab ID: 2198988, Page 6 of 13Aerotech Laboratories, Inc The test report shall not be reproduced except in full, without written approval of the laboratory. The report must not be used by the client to claim product certification, approval, or endorsement by any agency of the federal government. EMLab P&K reserves the right to dispose of all samples after a period of thirty (30) days, according to all state and federal guidelines, unless otherwise specified. Inhomogeneous samples are separated into homogeneous subsamples and analyzed individually. ND means no fibers were detected. When detected, the minimum detection and reporting limit is less than 1% unless point counting is performed. Floor tile samples may contain large amounts of interference material and it is recommended that the sample be analyzed by gravimetric point count analysis to lower the detection limit and to aid in asbestos identification. ‡ A "Version" indicated by -"x" after the Lab ID# with a value greater than 1 indicates a sample with amended data. The revision number is reflected by the value of "x". DR A F T Attachment 1 EMLab P&K 1501 West Knudsen Drive, Phoenix, AZ 85027 (800) 651-4802 Fax (623) 780-7695 www.emlab.com Client: Terracon Consultants, Inc. - Emeryville C/O: Mr. Michael Benefield, PE Re: R1197192; ZFA Structual Engineers - Beatty House 17820 Alma Bridge Rd Date of Sampling: 07-02-2019 Date of Receipt: 07-05-2019 Date of Report: 07-08-2019 ASBESTOS PLM REPORT Location: 204E, Wallboard Joint Compound; East Lab ID-Version‡: 10447690-1 Sample Layers Asbestos Content Brown/Green Paper ND Tan Compound with Multilayered Paint 2% Chrysotile Cream Tape ND Tan Joint Compound 2% Chrysotile White Drywall with Brown Paper ND Composite Asbestos Fibrous Content: < 1% Asbestos Composite Non-Asbestos Content: 20% Cellulose Sample Composite Homogeneity: Poor Comments:Composite asbestos content provided is only for Drywall/Joint compound. Composite content provided for this analysis has been performed by following the NESHAP guidelines. Location: 204F, Wallboard Joint Compound; South Lab ID-Version‡: 10447691-1 Sample Layers Asbestos Content Tan Compound with Multilayered Paint 2% Chrysotile Cream Tape ND Tan Joint Compound 2% Chrysotile White Drywall with Brown Paper ND Composite Asbestos Fibrous Content: < 1% Asbestos Composite Non-Asbestos Content: 15% Cellulose Sample Composite Homogeneity: Poor Comments:Composite asbestos content provided is only for Drywall/Joint compound. Composite content provided for this analysis has been performed by following the NESHAP guidelines. Location: 204G, Wallboard Joint Compound; North Lab ID-Version‡: 10447692-1 Sample Layers Asbestos Content Tan Compound with Multilayered Paint 2% Chrysotile Cream Tape ND Tan Joint Compound 2% Chrysotile White Drywall with Brown Paper ND Composite Asbestos Fibrous Content: < 1% Asbestos Composite Non-Asbestos Content: 15% Cellulose Sample Composite Homogeneity: Poor Comments:Composite asbestos content provided is only for Drywall/Joint compound. Composite content provided for this analysis has been performed by following the NESHAP guidelines. EMLab ID: 2198988, Page 7 of 13Aerotech Laboratories, Inc The test report shall not be reproduced except in full, without written approval of the laboratory. The report must not be used by the client to claim product certification, approval, or endorsement by any agency of the federal government. EMLab P&K reserves the right to dispose of all samples after a period of thirty (30) days, according to all state and federal guidelines, unless otherwise specified. Inhomogeneous samples are separated into homogeneous subsamples and analyzed individually. ND means no fibers were detected. When detected, the minimum detection and reporting limit is less than 1% unless point counting is performed. Floor tile samples may contain large amounts of interference material and it is recommended that the sample be analyzed by gravimetric point count analysis to lower the detection limit and to aid in asbestos identification. ‡ A "Version" indicated by -"x" after the Lab ID# with a value greater than 1 indicates a sample with amended data. The revision number is reflected by the value of "x". DR A F T Attachment 1 EMLab P&K 1501 West Knudsen Drive, Phoenix, AZ 85027 (800) 651-4802 Fax (623) 780-7695 www.emlab.com Client: Terracon Consultants, Inc. - Emeryville C/O: Mr. Michael Benefield, PE Re: R1197192; ZFA Structual Engineers - Beatty House 17820 Alma Bridge Rd Date of Sampling: 07-02-2019 Date of Receipt: 07-05-2019 Date of Report: 07-08-2019 ASBESTOS PLM REPORT Location: 205A, Flooring Hallway Gray; Hall; West Lab ID-Version‡: 10447693-1 Sample Layers Asbestos Content Black Felt with Pebbles and Gray Surface ND Composite Non-Asbestos Content: 60% Cellulose 2% Hair/Wool Sample Composite Homogeneity: Moderate EMLab ID: 2198988, Page 8 of 13Aerotech Laboratories, Inc The test report shall not be reproduced except in full, without written approval of the laboratory. The report must not be used by the client to claim product certification, approval, or endorsement by any agency of the federal government. EMLab P&K reserves the right to dispose of all samples after a period of thirty (30) days, according to all state and federal guidelines, unless otherwise specified. Inhomogeneous samples are separated into homogeneous subsamples and analyzed individually. ND means no fibers were detected. When detected, the minimum detection and reporting limit is less than 1% unless point counting is performed. Floor tile samples may contain large amounts of interference material and it is recommended that the sample be analyzed by gravimetric point count analysis to lower the detection limit and to aid in asbestos identification. ‡ A "Version" indicated by -"x" after the Lab ID# with a value greater than 1 indicates a sample with amended data. The revision number is reflected by the value of "x". DR A F T Attachment 1 EMLab P&K 1501 West Knudsen Drive, Phoenix, AZ 85027 (800) 651-4802 Fax (623) 780-7695 www.emlab.com Client: Terracon Consultants, Inc. - Emeryville C/O: Mr. Michael Benefield, PE Re: R1197192; ZFA Structual Engineers - Beatty House 17820 Alma Bridge Rd Date of Sampling: 07-02-2019 Date of Receipt: 07-05-2019 Date of Report: 07-08-2019 ASBESTOS PLM REPORT Location: 205B, Flooring Hallway Gray; Hall; Center Lab ID-Version‡: 10447694-1 Sample Layers Asbestos Content Black Felt with Pebbles and Gray Surface ND Composite Non-Asbestos Content: 60% Cellulose 2% Hair/Wool Sample Composite Homogeneity: Moderate Location: 205C, Flooring Hallway Gray; Hall; East Lab ID-Version‡: 10447695-1 Sample Layers Asbestos Content Black Felt with Pebbles and Gray Surface ND Composite Non-Asbestos Content: 60% Cellulose 2% Hair/Wool Sample Composite Homogeneity: Moderate Location: 206A, Cove Base/Flooring Creme Yellow Mastic; Kitchen; West Lab ID-Version‡: 10447696-1 Sample Layers Asbestos Content Cream Mastic with Yellow Paint ND Sample Composite Homogeneity: Good Location: 206B, Cove Base/Flooring Creme Yellow Mastic; Kitchen; Center Lab ID-Version‡: 10447697-1 Sample Layers Asbestos Content Cream Mastic with Yellow Paint ND Sample Composite Homogeneity: Good EMLab ID: 2198988, Page 9 of 13Aerotech Laboratories, Inc The test report shall not be reproduced except in full, without written approval of the laboratory. The report must not be used by the client to claim product certification, approval, or endorsement by any agency of the federal government. EMLab P&K reserves the right to dispose of all samples after a period of thirty (30) days, according to all state and federal guidelines, unless otherwise specified. Inhomogeneous samples are separated into homogeneous subsamples and analyzed individually. ND means no fibers were detected. When detected, the minimum detection and reporting limit is less than 1% unless point counting is performed. Floor tile samples may contain large amounts of interference material and it is recommended that the sample be analyzed by gravimetric point count analysis to lower the detection limit and to aid in asbestos identification. ‡ A "Version" indicated by -"x" after the Lab ID# with a value greater than 1 indicates a sample with amended data. The revision number is reflected by the value of "x". DR A F T Attachment 1 EMLab P&K 1501 West Knudsen Drive, Phoenix, AZ 85027 (800) 651-4802 Fax (623) 780-7695 www.emlab.com Client: Terracon Consultants, Inc. - Emeryville C/O: Mr. Michael Benefield, PE Re: R1197192; ZFA Structual Engineers - Beatty House 17820 Alma Bridge Rd Date of Sampling: 07-02-2019 Date of Receipt: 07-05-2019 Date of Report: 07-08-2019 ASBESTOS PLM REPORT Location: 206C, Cove Base/Flooring Creme Yellow Mastic; Kitchen; East Lab ID-Version‡: 10447698-1 Sample Layers Asbestos Content Cream Mastic with Yellow Paint ND Sample Composite Homogeneity: Good Location: 207A, Flooring Peach/Tan; Bedroom 2 Lab ID-Version‡: 10447699-1 Sample Layers Asbestos Content Brown/Beige Linoleum with Fibrous Backing ND Composite Non-Asbestos Content: 50% Cellulose 4% Hair/Wool Sample Composite Homogeneity: Moderate Location: 207B, Flooring Peach/Tan; Bedroom 2 Lab ID-Version‡: 10447700-1 Sample Layers Asbestos Content Brown/Beige Linoleum with Fibrous Backing ND Composite Non-Asbestos Content: 50% Cellulose 4% Hair/Wool Sample Composite Homogeneity: Moderate Location: 207C, Flooring Peach/Tan; Bedroom 2 Lab ID-Version‡: 10447701-1 Sample Layers Asbestos Content Brown/Beige Linoleum with Fibrous Backing ND Composite Non-Asbestos Content: 50% Cellulose 4% Hair/Wool Sample Composite Homogeneity: Moderate EMLab ID: 2198988, Page 10 of 13Aerotech Laboratories, Inc The test report shall not be reproduced except in full, without written approval of the laboratory. The report must not be used by the client to claim product certification, approval, or endorsement by any agency of the federal government. EMLab P&K reserves the right to dispose of all samples after a period of thirty (30) days, according to all state and federal guidelines, unless otherwise specified. Inhomogeneous samples are separated into homogeneous subsamples and analyzed individually. ND means no fibers were detected. When detected, the minimum detection and reporting limit is less than 1% unless point counting is performed. Floor tile samples may contain large amounts of interference material and it is recommended that the sample be analyzed by gravimetric point count analysis to lower the detection limit and to aid in asbestos identification. ‡ A "Version" indicated by -"x" after the Lab ID# with a value greater than 1 indicates a sample with amended data. The revision number is reflected by the value of "x". DR A F T Attachment 1 EMLab P&K 1501 West Knudsen Drive, Phoenix, AZ 85027 (800) 651-4802 Fax (623) 780-7695 www.emlab.com Client: Terracon Consultants, Inc. - Emeryville C/O: Mr. Michael Benefield, PE Re: R1197192; ZFA Structual Engineers - Beatty House 17820 Alma Bridge Rd Date of Sampling: 07-02-2019 Date of Receipt: 07-05-2019 Date of Report: 07-08-2019 ASBESTOS PLM REPORT Location: 208A, Flooring Lino Tan; Kitchen; West Lab ID-Version‡: 10447702-1 Sample Layers Asbestos Content Tan Linoleum with Fibrous Backing ND White Mastic ND Brown Fiberboard Flooring ND Composite Non-Asbestos Content: 50% Cellulose < 1% Glass Fibers Sample Composite Homogeneity: Poor Location: 208B, Flooring Lino Tan; Kitchen; Center Lab ID-Version‡: 10447703-1 Sample Layers Asbestos Content Tan Linoleum with Fibrous Backing ND White Mastic with Brown Fibrous Material ND Composite Non-Asbestos Content: 20% Cellulose < 1% Glass Fibers Sample Composite Homogeneity: Moderate Location: 208C, Flooring Lino Tan; Kitchen; East Lab ID-Version‡: 10447704-1 Sample Layers Asbestos Content Tan Linoleum with Fibrous Backing ND White Mastic ND Brown Fiberboard Flooring ND Composite Non-Asbestos Content: 50% Cellulose < 1% Glass Fibers Sample Composite Homogeneity: Poor Location: 209A, Flooring Creme/Tan; Bath; East Lab ID-Version‡: 10447705-1 Sample Layers Asbestos Content Tan Flooring ND Semi-Transparent Adhesive ND Black Felt with Gray Coating ND Composite Non-Asbestos Content: 25% Cellulose 3% Hair/Wool Sample Composite Homogeneity: Poor EMLab ID: 2198988, Page 11 of 13Aerotech Laboratories, Inc The test report shall not be reproduced except in full, without written approval of the laboratory. The report must not be used by the client to claim product certification, approval, or endorsement by any agency of the federal government. EMLab P&K reserves the right to dispose of all samples after a period of thirty (30) days, according to all state and federal guidelines, unless otherwise specified. Inhomogeneous samples are separated into homogeneous subsamples and analyzed individually. ND means no fibers were detected. When detected, the minimum detection and reporting limit is less than 1% unless point counting is performed. Floor tile samples may contain large amounts of interference material and it is recommended that the sample be analyzed by gravimetric point count analysis to lower the detection limit and to aid in asbestos identification. ‡ A "Version" indicated by -"x" after the Lab ID# with a value greater than 1 indicates a sample with amended data. The revision number is reflected by the value of "x". DR A F T Attachment 1 EMLab P&K 1501 West Knudsen Drive, Phoenix, AZ 85027 (800) 651-4802 Fax (623) 780-7695 www.emlab.com Client: Terracon Consultants, Inc. - Emeryville C/O: Mr. Michael Benefield, PE Re: R1197192; ZFA Structual Engineers - Beatty House 17820 Alma Bridge Rd Date of Sampling: 07-02-2019 Date of Receipt: 07-05-2019 Date of Report: 07-08-2019 ASBESTOS PLM REPORT Location: 209B, Flooring Creme/Tan; Bath; Center Lab ID-Version‡: 10447706-1 Sample Layers Asbestos Content Tan Flooring ND Semi-Transparent Adhesive ND Black Felt with Gray Coating ND Composite Non-Asbestos Content: 25% Cellulose 3% Hair/Wool Sample Composite Homogeneity: Poor Location: 209C, Flooring Creme/Tan; Bath; West Lab ID-Version‡: 10447707-1 Sample Layers Asbestos Content Tan Flooring ND Semi-Transparent Adhesive ND Black Felt with Gray Coating ND Composite Non-Asbestos Content: 25% Cellulose 3% Hair/Wool Sample Composite Homogeneity: Poor Location: 210A, Roofing; Shingles; Green; Roof; NW Lab ID-Version‡: 10447708-1 Sample Layers Asbestos Content Black Roofing Shingle with Green Pebbles ND Black Roofing Tar ND Black Roofing Felt ND Composite Non-Asbestos Content: 15% Cellulose 10% Glass Fibers Sample Composite Homogeneity: Poor Location: 210B, Roofing; Shingles; Green; Roof; SW Lab ID-Version‡: 10447709-1 Sample Layers Asbestos Content Black Roofing Shingle with Green Pebbles ND Black Roofing Tar ND Black Roofing Felt ND Composite Non-Asbestos Content: 15% Cellulose 10% Glass Fibers Sample Composite Homogeneity: Poor EMLab ID: 2198988, Page 12 of 13Aerotech Laboratories, Inc The test report shall not be reproduced except in full, without written approval of the laboratory. The report must not be used by the client to claim product certification, approval, or endorsement by any agency of the federal government. EMLab P&K reserves the right to dispose of all samples after a period of thirty (30) days, according to all state and federal guidelines, unless otherwise specified. Inhomogeneous samples are separated into homogeneous subsamples and analyzed individually. ND means no fibers were detected. When detected, the minimum detection and reporting limit is less than 1% unless point counting is performed. Floor tile samples may contain large amounts of interference material and it is recommended that the sample be analyzed by gravimetric point count analysis to lower the detection limit and to aid in asbestos identification. ‡ A "Version" indicated by -"x" after the Lab ID# with a value greater than 1 indicates a sample with amended data. The revision number is reflected by the value of "x". DR A F T Attachment 1 EMLab P&K 1501 West Knudsen Drive, Phoenix, AZ 85027 (800) 651-4802 Fax (623) 780-7695 www.emlab.com Client: Terracon Consultants, Inc. - Emeryville C/O: Mr. Michael Benefield, PE Re: R1197192; ZFA Structual Engineers - Beatty House 17820 Alma Bridge Rd Date of Sampling: 07-02-2019 Date of Receipt: 07-05-2019 Date of Report: 07-08-2019 ASBESTOS PLM REPORT Location: 210C, Roofing; Shingles; Green; Roof; West Lab ID-Version‡: 10447710-1 Sample Layers Asbestos Content Black Roofing Shingle with Green Pebbles ND Black Roofing Tar ND Black Roofing Shingle with Green Pebbles ND Black Roofing Tar ND Black Roofing Felt ND Composite Non-Asbestos Content: 12% Glass Fibers 10% Cellulose Sample Composite Homogeneity: Poor Location: 211A, Concrete Porch Lab ID-Version‡: 10447711-1 Sample Layers Asbestos Content Gray Concrete ND Sample Composite Homogeneity: Moderate Location: 211B, Concrete Porch Lab ID-Version‡: 10447712-1 Sample Layers Asbestos Content Gray Concrete ND Sample Composite Homogeneity: Moderate Location: 211C, Concrete Porch Lab ID-Version‡: 10447713-1 Sample Layers Asbestos Content Gray Concrete ND Sample Composite Homogeneity: Moderate EMLab ID: 2198988, Page 13 of 13Aerotech Laboratories, Inc The test report shall not be reproduced except in full, without written approval of the laboratory. The report must not be used by the client to claim product certification, approval, or endorsement by any agency of the federal government. EMLab P&K reserves the right to dispose of all samples after a period of thirty (30) days, according to all state and federal guidelines, unless otherwise specified. Inhomogeneous samples are separated into homogeneous subsamples and analyzed individually. ND means no fibers were detected. When detected, the minimum detection and reporting limit is less than 1% unless point counting is performed. Floor tile samples may contain large amounts of interference material and it is recommended that the sample be analyzed by gravimetric point count analysis to lower the detection limit and to aid in asbestos identification. ‡ A "Version" indicated by -"x" after the Lab ID# with a value greater than 1 indicates a sample with amended data. The revision number is reflected by the value of "x". DR A F T Attachment 1 DR A F T Attachment 1 DR A F T Attachment 1 DR A F T Attachment 1 DR A F T Attachment 1 APPENDIX D LEAD ANALYTICAL LABORATORY DATA DR A F T Attachment 1 Analysis Report Client: Project/Test Address: Eurofins EMLab P&K 7469 Whitepine Rd Telephone: 800.347.4010 Richmond, VA 23237 Environmental Hazards Services, L.L.C. 2199222 Client Number: 201676 Fax Number: 330-497-0772Laboratory Results Analyzed Date: Client Sample Number Lab Sample Number Pb (ug/g) ppm Lead Paint Chip 07/10/2019 07/09/2019 19-07-01313 Reported Date: Received Date: Report Number: 4101 Shuffel Street NW North Canton, OH 44720 Narrative ID 07/10/2019 Collection Location % Pb by Wt. Collection Date: L-119-07-01313-001 4200 0.42 L-219-07-01313-002 780 0.078 Tariq Mohammed QC Clerk Analysis Method:EPA SW846 7000B The HUD lead guidelines for lead paint chips are 0.50% by Weight, 5000 ppm, or 1.0 mg/cm². The Reporting Limit (RL) for samples prepared by ASTM E-1979-17 is 10.0 ug Total Pb. The RL for samples prepared by EPA SW846 3050B is 25.0 ug Total Pb. Paint chip area and results are calculated based on area measurements determined by the client. All internal quality control requirements associated with this batch were met, unless otherwise noted. LEGEND Pb= lead ug = microgram ppm = parts per million ug/g = micrograms per gram Wt. = weight Reviewed By Authorized Signatory: OH 10028Accreditation #: Preparation Method:ASTM E-1979-17 The condition of the samples analyzed was acceptable upon receipt per laboratory protocol unless otherwise noted on this report. Results represent the analysis of samples submitted by the client. Sample location, description, area, etc., was provided by the client. Results reported above in mg/cm3 are calculated based on area supplied by client. This report shall not be reproduced except in full, without the written consent of the Environmental Hazards Service, L.L.C. ELLAP Accredtitation through AIHA-LAP, LLC (100420), NY ELAP #11714. Page 1of1 DR A F T Attachment 1 DR A F T Attachment 1 DR A F T Attachment 1 JP191014468 3042679 8-Jul-2019 10-Jul-2019 10-Jul-2019 J3 Resources, Inc. 3113 Red Bluff Road Pasadena, Texas 77503 Phone: (713) 290-0223 – Fax: (832) 831-5669 j3resources.com Lead in Paint Performed by Flame AA – USEPA SW846 7420/3050B Project #:EMLab P&K J3 Order #: 48000 1501 W Knudsen Dr Phoenix, AZ 85027 Report Date: L-3 LEAD CONCENTRATION (%) Receipt Date: Analysis Date: Paint Chip 4.8% LEAD CONCENTRATION (mg/kg) Scott Ward, Ph.D. Lab Director Reporting Limit = 50.0 mg/kg N/A = Not Applicable Analyst:Korry Huddleston 2199099 This report relates only to the samples submitted. The analysis has been conducted according to the method(s) listed above. Blank corrections are not applied to data unless requested by the customer. This report is for the exclusive use of the addressed customer and shall not be reproduced except in full without written approval by J3 Resources, Inc. (J3). Unless otherwise noted, all quality control samples performed within specifications established by the laboratory. INS = Insufficient Sample Weight NS = Not Submitted Angela Hetherington SAMPLE ID PAINT COLOR Page 1 of 1 DR A F T Attachment 1 3042679 Per S.D./n.t. DR A F T Attachment 1 DR A F T Attachment 1 DR A F T Attachment 1 Approved by: Operations Manager Joshua Cox Report for: Mr. Michael Benefield, PE Terracon Consultants, Inc. - Emeryville 1466 66th Street Emeryville, CA 94608 Regarding:Project: R1197192; ZFA Structual Engineers - Beatty House 17820 Alma Bridge Rd EML ID: 2199075 All samples were received in acceptable condition unless noted in the Report Comments portion in the body of the report. Due to the nature of the analyses performed, field blank correction of results is not applied. The results relate only to the samples as received. EMLab P&K ("the Company") shall have no liability to the client or the client's customer with respect to decisions or recommendations made, actions taken or courses of conduct implemented by either the client or the client's customer as a result of or based upon the Test Results. In no event shall the Company be liable to the client with respect to the Test Results except for the Company's own willful misconduct or gross negligence nor shall the Company be liable for incidental or consequential damages or lost profits or revenues to the fullest extent such liability may be disclaimed by law, even if the Company has been advised of the possibility of such damages, lost profits or lost revenues. In no event shall the Company's liability with respect to the Test Results exceed the amount paid to the Company by the client therefor. Dates of Analysis: Lead Analysis (sub-contracted): 07-09-2019 DR A F T Attachment 1 JP191014467 3042648 8-Jul-2019 9-Jul-2019 9-Jul-2019 This report relates only to the samples submitted. The analysis has been conducted according to the method(s) listed above. Blank corrections are not applied to data unless requested by the customer. This report is for the exclusive use of the addressed customer and shall not be reproduced except in full without written approval by J3 Resources, Inc. (J3). Unless otherwise noted, all quality control samples performed within specifications established by the laboratory. INS = Insufficient Sample Weight NS = Not Submitted Angela Hetherington SAMPLE ID PAINT COLOR 2199075 12000 1.2% 18000 1800 0.18% 1.8% L-5 Paint Chip L-6 Paint Chip L-7 Paint Chip L-8 Paint Chip L-9 Paint Chip 43000 4.3% 0.046%460 Scott Ward, Ph.D. Lab Director Reporting Limit = 50.0 mg/kg N/A = Not Applicable Analyst:Korry Huddleston 1500 1501 W Knudsen Dr Phoenix, AZ 85027 Report Date: L-4 LEAD CONCENTRATION (%) Receipt Date: Analysis Date: Paint Chip 0.15% LEAD CONCENTRATION (mg/kg) J3 Resources, Inc. 3113 Red Bluff Road Pasadena, Texas 77503 Phone: (713) 290-0223 – Fax: (832) 831-5669 j3resources.com Lead in Paint Performed by Flame AA – USEPA SW846 7420/3050B Project #:EMLab P&K J3 Order #: Page 1 of 1 DR A F T Attachment 1 3042648 Per D.H./n.t. DR A F T Attachment 1 DR A F T Attachment 1 DR A F T Attachment 1 DR A F T Attachment 1 APPENDIX E LICENSES AND CERTIFICATIONS DR A F T Attachment 1 DR A F T Attachment 1 IN D I V I D U A L : C E R T I F I C A T E T Y P E : NU M B E R : EX P I R A T I O N D A T E : Le a d S a m p l i n g T e c h n i c i a n LR C - 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 4 5/ 2 1 / 2 0 2 0 Mi c h e a l R e e d ST A T E O F C A L I F O R N I A DE P A R T M E N T O F P U B L I C H E A L T H LE A D - R E L A T E D C O N S T R U C T I O N C E R T I F I C A T E Di s c l a i m e r : T h i s d o c u m e n t a l o n e s h o u l d n o t b e r e l i e d u p o n t o c o n f i r m c e r t i f i c a t i o n s t a t u s . C o m p a r e t h e i n d i v i d u a l ’ s p h o t o a n d n a m e t o a n o t h e r v a l i d f o r m o f go v e r n m e n t i s s u e d p h o t o i d e n t i f i c a t i o n . V e r i f y t h e i n d i v i d u a l ’ s c e r t i f i c a t i o n s t a t u s b y s e a r c h i n g f o r L e a d - R e l a t e d C o n s t r u c t i o n P r o f e s s i o n a l s a t ww w . c d p h . c a . g o v / p r o g r a m s / c l p p b o r c a l l i n g ( 8 0 0 ) 5 9 7 - L E A D . DR A F T Attachment 1 DR A F T Attachment 1 DR A F T Attachment 1 DR A F T Attachment 1 DR A F T Attachment 1 APPENDIX F PHOTOGRAPHS DR A F T Attachment 1 ZFA MPROSD 3 Structures Hazardous Materials Survey ■17820 Alma Bridge Rd. Los Gatos, CA Date Pictures Taken: July 11, 2019 ■Terracon Project No. R1197192 Responsive ■Resourceful ■Reliable Photo 1 La Honda Log Cabin Photo 2 La Honda White Barn DR A F T Attachment 1 ZFA MPROSD 3 Structures Hazardous Materials Survey ■17820 Alma Bridge Rd. Los Gatos, CA Date Pictures Taken: July 11, 2019 ■Terracon Project No. R1197192 Responsive ■Resourceful ■Reliable Photo 3 Beatty House Photo 4 Material 204 - ACM joint Compound on wallboard walls and ceilings in the Beatty House DR A F T Attachment 1 ZFA MPROSD 3 Structures Hazardous Materials Survey ■17820 Alma Bridge Rd. Los Gatos, CA Date Pictures Taken: July 11, 2019 ■Terracon Project No. R1197192 Responsive ■Resourceful ■Reliable Photo 5 Material 201 ACM vinyl sheet flooring in the Beatty House DR A F T Attachment 1 APPENDIX G SAMPLE LOCATION DRAWINGS DR A F T Attachment 1 17820 Alma Bridge Road Los Gatos, CA Checked By: MB FIGURE:2 Beatty House La Honda Creek Open Space Preserve Not to ScaleDrafted By: DW SURVEY DATE: July 2, 2019 PROJECT NO.: R1197192 N 209B 209A 209C 204D 203A 203B 205C 203C 206A 208B 206B 204G 208C 206C 200A 205B 204A 205A 200C L-5 202A 202B 202C 204C 204E 204B 207A 207B 207C 210A, 210B, 210C L-6 201B 211A, 211B, 211C 201C L-7 208A L-8 201A 200B L-9 L-4DR A F T Attachment 1 17820 Alma Bridge Road Los Gatos, CA Checked By: MB FIGURE:2 Redwood Log Cabin La Honda Creek Open Space Preserve Not to ScaleDrafted By: DW SURVEY DATE: July 2, 2019 PROJECT NO.: R1197192 N BATH FIREPLACE KITCHEN 8C 6B 9C 3C 6C 7A, 7B, 7C 8A 3A L-2 4A 1A 1B 1C 4B 4C 2B 5A, 5B, 5C 2C 2A L-1 9A 9B 6A 8B 3B LIVING ROOM DR A F T Attachment 1 17820 Alma Bridge Road Los Gatos, CA Checked By: MB FIGURE:3 White Barn Not to ScaleDrafted By: DW SURVEY DATE: July 2, 2019 PROJECT NO.: R1197192 Sample L-3 white paint on wood siding collected from exterior of barn Samples 100A, 100B, and 100C Black 1/8” wiring collected from interior of barnDR A F T Attachment 1 STRUCTURE STABILIZATION BASIS OF DESIGN – White Barn La Honda Creek Open Space Preserve, San Mateo County, CA EXHIBIT E Structural Surveys for Special-Status Mammal Species by Swaim Biological, Incorporated DR A F T Attachment 1 Page 1 of 29 Swaim Biological, Incorporated 4435 First Street PMB #312 Livermore, CA 94551 TO Matthew Chaney, Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 330 Distel Circle Los Altos, Ca 94022 FROM Karen Swaim and Ryan Byrnes, Swaim Biological Incorporated 4435 First Street Livermore, CA 94551 DATE June 30, 2019 SUBJECT La Honda Creek Preserve, Sierra Azul Preserve, Purisima Uplands and Rancho San Antonio Preserve – Structural Surveys for Special-Status Mammal Species 1. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND Per Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District’s (District) request, Swaim Biological Incorporated (SBI) has conducted habitat and occupancy surveys for special status mammal species at the La Honda Creek Preserve, Sierra Azul Preserve, Purisima Uplands (Guisti Property) and Rancho San Antonio Preserve in June 2019. Surveys evaluated structures and the surrounding areas in preparation for structure stabilization and demolition projects. SBI’s qualified biologists surveyed for San Francisco dusky-footed woodrats (Neotoma fuscipes annectens) and roosting bats at nine (9) structures, twelve (12) storage tanks and multiple debris piles at six (6) separate locations. This report details the methods and provides a summary of our survey results and recommendations. A follow-up bat emergence survey was conducted at the Sierra Azul Preserve - Beatty Property by District Biologist Matthew Chaney on July 30, 2019. 2. METHODS Special Status Bat Surveys Surveys for bats are difficult to standardize because of the large amount of variability that exists at individual survey sites and among survey sites in a project area, much less across the range of a species. Nevertheless, several practices were used to survey for bats, including; bat habitat assessments, daytime maternity roost and signs of bats use surveys (i.e., guano pellets and urine staining), emergence surveys, and acoustic surveys. SBI biologists conducted a daytime bat survey at each location to determine if the structures, storage tanks, and associated debris piles are currently in use by bats. During the surveys, the biologists inspected habitat DR A F T Attachment 1 Page 2 of 29 features on the exterior of each structure and searched for bats or signs of bat occupancy including maternity roosts, day roosting bats, guano pellets and urine staining. Coordinates and photographs were taken of each roost identified. The bat emergence and acoustic surveys began one-half hour before sunset and continued until at least one hour after sunset or until it was otherwise too dark to see emerging bats. Surveyors positioned themselves so that emerging bats would be silhouetted against the sky as they exited the roost. Surveyors were close enough to the roost to observe all exiting bats, but not close enough to influence emergence. Acoustic detectors were deployed in conjunction with emergence survey efforts to monitor bat activity within the proposed project area. Bat vocalization calls were recorded with SonoBatLIVE (using the Petterson M500 USB mic), Anabat Swift, and Pettersson D500 (bat acoustical detectors). Bat vocalization files were analyzed and vetted through SonoBat 4.4 using the SonoVet utility (bat call analysis software) by qualified biologists. In locations where suitable bat habitat was observed but no bats or signs of bats were observed, absence is not presumed. Bats may switch roosts on a nightly basis and the surveys conducted are not interpreted as presence/absence surveys. Bat occupancy was determined as a potential maternity colony whenever an aggregate of bats were observed roosting or emerging at a specific structure. Classification as a maternity colony is a conservative/cautious estimate for aggregates of bats and is therefore not discriminating between non- reproductive male or female roosts. A single bat could be a "maternity colony" (i.e. One adult bat with a pup) and even small maternity roosts could represent a large portion of the local bat population and are therefore "significant". Bats (including females with pups) may switch roosts on a nightly basis and therefore might use suitable habitat, if present, though not observed during the surveys. Therefore, we classified and reported aggregates of bats observed as maternity colonies during the summer/maternity season. San Francisco Dusky-footed Woodrat Surveys SBI qualified biologists also conducted detailed surveys for woodrats by searching the interior and exterior of all structures, storage tanks (exterior only), and associated debris piles for signs of woodrat occupancy (nests and droppings) within 50-foot of the project area. SBI flagged and photographed any nests that were encountered. Coordinates of each nest was recorded along with a description of the nest. 3. SURVEY RESULTS Survey results for each survey location are provided below. Site specific recommendations are provided at the end of each location section. Descriptions of recommendations for all sites are compiled at the end of the report. DR A F T Attachment 1 Page 3 of 29 3.1 LA HONDA CREEK PRESERVE – WHITE BARN (DYER BARN) SUMMARY The survey for White Barn on Allen Road, Woodside, California was conducted on June 17, 2019 by biologists Ashley Estacio and Leslie Koenig. The biologists conducted a daytime survey at the barn and surrounding area evaluating potential bat roosts and woodrat nest structures (Photo 1-2). Three roosting bats were detected during the daytime survey. No dusky-footed woodrat nest structures were observed inside or near existing structures although signs of rodent activity were observed throughout the barn. STRUCTURE The barn surveyed receives partial shade from the riparian corridor to the west (Photo 3). Surrounding the barn is signs of wetland / wet meadow as demonstrated by the presence of (giant plantago (Plantago major), sedges (Scirpus spp.), elderberry (Sambucus nigra spp. Caerulea.), and willows (Salix sp). A concrete drainage adjacent to the east side of the barn appears to drain overland flow into the adjacent drainage (Photo 4). The barn itself is in a flat that leads to a downstream ravine and riparian corridor. The interior of the barn (Photo 5 and 6) is comprised of one area subdivided into sections by feeding stalls, an interior enclosed chicken coop, and an open space area. The barn has a pitched roof with corrugated metal sheets held up in regular intervals by rafters (Photo 7). RESULTS The entire structure is accessible to bats and rodents through the gaps between the floor, roof and the walls of the barn. The gaps as well as multiple missing wood slats allow bats to easily enter the building and roost. These conditions provide suitable bat roosting habitat within the structure including the crevice habitat between the rafters and the corrugated roof. Moderately suitable maternity roost habitat is found adjacent to the structure in the form of bat tree roost habitat, no other structures or outbuildings were observed in the immediate area to provide additional maternity roost habitat. Suitable bat foraging habitat is found throughout the White Barn survey area. Bat guano was observed in the interior of the structure on the floor along the north wall (Photo 8). Three Myotis sp. (Photo 9 and 10) were observed day roosting in these rafters on the north side of the barn. Abundant insect activity was observed in the adjacent riparian area providing suitable bat foraging habitat. Rodent sign is present throughout the structure with multiple large grass nests (Photo 11) and a significant number of rodent droppings observed (Photo 12). While the biologists were within the chicken coop, they heard a rodent scurrying directly overhead. No woodrat nests were observed on the premises or within the 50-foot buffer. There was a woodrat squeaking repeatedly in the nearby riparian corridor although no middens were observed where the noise was coming from. DR A F T Attachment 1 Page 4 of 29 DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS Suitable bat roost habitat is present within the structure and moderately suitable maternity roost habitat is found adjacent to the structure in the form of bat tree roost habitat. Based on the observed presence of at least three bats roosting within the structure this site is presumed to be serving as a maternity roost. No signs of woodrats were present in the structure or surrounding natural habitat. While no woodrat nests were observed, the riparian habitat near the structure provides suitable habitat and absence of woodrats should not be assumed. Recommendations for the White Barn include: Preconstruction surveys for bats and woodrats prior to stabilization activities. Follow the general bat avoidance and minimization measures presented in Section 4.1. Development of bat roost deterrent plan for approval by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) prior to structure stabilization activities. The need for replacement habitat due to impacts on the maternity roost per District guidelines is dependent upon whether the planned stabilization activities will eliminate roosting habitat. Determination of the need for replacement habitat plan should coincide with the development of the deterrent plan. Photo 1. White Barn exterior. Photo 2. White Barn exterior. DR A F T Attachment 1 Page 5 of 29 Photo 3. White Barn exterior missing wooden slats and entry points for bats. Photo 4. Concrete drainage to the east of White Barn that feeds into the riparian corridor. Photo 5. Interior of White Barn. Photo 6. Interior of White Barn. Photo 7. Corrugated roof slats and rafters provide suitable bat roosting habitat. Photo 8. Bat guano present on the floor. DR A F T Attachment 1 Page 6 of 29 Photo 9. Myotis sp. (circled in red) observed roosting in rafters. Photo 10. Myotis sp. (circled in red) observed roosting in rafters. Photo 11. Rodent nests observed within the barn. These grass nests are most likely deer mouse (Peromyscus sp.) nests. Photo 12. Rodent droppings and destroyed food caches observed within the barn. DR A F T Attachment 1 Page 7 of 29 3.2 LA HONDA CREEK PRESERVE – REDWOOD CABIN SUMMARY An external survey for Redwood Cabin on Skyline Boulevard, Redwood City, California was conducted on June 17, 2019 by biologists Ashley Estacio and Leslie Koenig. An internal and emergence survey was completed on June 26, 2019 by biologists Rachael Burnham and Leslie Rivas. No signs of roosting bats were detected during the internal and external survey of existing structures within. Four dusky-footed woodrat nest structures were observed inside the structure. No bats were observed emerging from the Redwood Cabin during the emergence survey. Acoustic recordings identified fringed myotis (Myotis thysanodes) foraging calls in the vicinity. STRUCTURE The Redwood Cabin is a one-story structure situated in a redwood forest and is well shaded with only dappled light coming through to the cabin and forest floor (Photo 13 and 14). The log cabin has several rooms, including a kitchen and two bathrooms. On the east side, the deck and portion of the house are supported off the ground by pillars and other support structure. RESULTS There are several possible entryways that bats and woodrats could enter the house: open/broken window, chimney, and crevices in the floor and roof. The ample space underneath the house had numerous crevices that could be used by roosting bats. There were also many cracks and crevices that could provide bat roosting habitat under the eaves, between the logs, and inside the cabin. However, no roosting bats nor signs of bats (i.e., guano pellets and urine staining) were observed during the survey. In general, moderately to highly suitable bat maternity roost habitat surrounds the Redwood Cabin and nearby riparian area. Bat tree roost crevice and cavity roost habitat can be found through the Redwood Cabin work area. Signs of woodrats were present throughout the cabin including a large number of fecal pellets in all rooms of the cabin. One woodrat nest structure was built into a cabinet in the kitchen (Photo 15), twigs around and behind the oven, twigs on ceiling beams in between rooms (Photo 16), and two nest structures built on top of sinks in two rooms (possibly connected behind the wall) (Photo 17 – 18). EMERGENCE RESULTS The bat emergence survey at the Redwood Cabin was conducted one hour before sunset and continued until one-half hour after sunset. No bats were observed emerging from the structure. The acoustic recording device set up in front of the cabin identified one species of bats: fringed myotis. During the emergence survey, no bats were detected emerging from the cabin. DR A F T Attachment 1 Page 8 of 29 DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS The cabin provides suitable bat roost habitat outside and within the cabin with multiple entry points. Moderately to highly suitable bat maternity roost habitat surrounds the Redwood Cabin and nearby riparian area. While no bats or signs were observed within or outside the cabin during day surveys and no bats were observed emerging during night surveys, a single bat (fringed myotis) was detected with acoustics within proximity of the cabin. Therefore, there is still potential of bat roosting given the available habitat outside and within the cabin. However, this structure receives little light throughout the day and the building is unlikely to warm up sufficiently enough to support a bat maternity roost. Signs of woodrats were present throughout the structure, however no natural nests were observed outside of the structure. The riparian habitat near the structure provides moderately to highly suitable habitat and may become occupied by woodrats prior to project work. Recommendations for the Redwood Cabin include: Preconstruction surveys for bats and woodrats prior to stabilization activities. Follow the general bat avoidance and minimization measures presented in Section 4.1. Development of bat roost deterrent plan for approval by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) prior to structure stabilization activities. Follow general woodrat avoidance measures presented in Section 4.2. Photo 13. North side of Redwood cabin. Photo 14. Redwood cabin. DR A F T Attachment 1 Page 9 of 29 Photo 15. Woodrat nest built into kitchen cabinet of redwood cabin. Photo 16. Woodrat nest on ceiling beams of redwood cabin. Photo 17. Woodrat nest on sink in Room A of redwood cabin. Photo 18. Woodrat nest on sink in a Room B of redwood cabin. DR A F T Attachment 1 Page 10 of 29 3.3 SIERRA AZUL PRESERVE‐ MEYER PROPERTY SUMMARY An external survey for Meyer Property on Mount Umunhum Road, San Jose, California was conducted on June 11, 2019 by biologists Ben Dudek and Joie de Leon. An internal and emergence survey was completed on June 25, 2019 by biologists Elizabeth Armistead, Ben Dudek, Kathleen Grady, and Leslie Rivas. The biologists conducted a daytime survey at all three structures (labeled A, B, and C) for bat roosts and woodrat nest structures, and a nighttime bat emergence survey. No roosting bats nor signs of bats (i.e., guano pellets and urine staining) were observed inside any of the three structures. One Myotis Sp. (Photo 27) was observed in a crevice in a nearby shed on June 11th but not on June 25th. Two dusky-footed woodrat nest structures were observed in oak trees Structure A. Two bats were observed emerging from two exit points during the emergence survey from Structure B. Acoustic recordings identified two species of bats foraging within the vicinity: California myotis (Myotis californicus) and big brown bat (Eptesicus fuscus). STRUCTURES Structure A is a two-level house that is set to be demolished (Photo 19 and 20). Structure A is well shaded on the north and west sides of the house by oak trees and is unshaded on the east and south sides of the house. Structure B is the one-level studio apartment that will not be demolished (Photo 25). The structure is mostly unshaded with a flat-topped roof. There is a garage with an open-air shed space attached. Structure C is a shed that will also remain and not be demolished (Photo 26). In general, moderately – highly suitable bat maternity habitat is found adjacent to the structures listed above and within the structures scheduled to remain. Figure 1. Meyer Property Structures DR A F T Attachment 1 Page 11 of 29 RESULTS Structure A: The ceiling of Structure A is accessible to bats through a few entry points under the roof eves and the interior is accessible through the chimney (Photo 21). The interior of the house is comprised of a lower level with six sections (kitchen, dining room, laundry room, living room, bedroom, bathroom, and a crawl space) and an upper level with two sections (hallway and bedroom). No visible sign of bat occupancy was observed inside the house. Some nearby oaks had hollows that could provide moderately to highly suitable bat maternity habitat, including a tree with full sun exposure with 20% exfoliating bark. Two woodrat nests were located approximately 25-feet from Structure A in the hollowed-out trunks of two large coast live oaks (Quercus agrifolia) (Photo 22). A black phoebe (Sayornis nigricans) nest was observed under the eve of Structure A. Structure B: A seam running under the roof eaves of Structure B was observed that could provide suitable bat roosting habitat although no roosting bats or signs of roosting bats were observed (Photo 23). Inside Structure B large quantities of woodrat fecal pellets were observed scattered throughout the shed. Structure C: The open structure has suitable bat maternity and night roosting habitat within (Photo 24). A potential woodrat midden is located outside of the shed on an upper shelf (Photo 25). Shed: There is a shed to the west of the structures that were to be surveyed where a day roosting Myotis sp. was observed on June 11 (Photo 26). No roosting bats were observed on June 25. EMERGENCE RESULTS The bat emergence surveys at Structure A and B were conducted one-half hour before sunset and continued until one and a half hours after sunset. No bats were observed emerging from Structure A. However, bats were observed foraging in the oaks about 25-feet north of Structure A. At Structure B, the biologists observed two bats emerge from two points (Table 1) and fly west towards the coast live oak trees. Acoustic surveys positioned over the open space south of Structure B confirmed the presence of California myotis and big brown bat foraging in the vicinity. Table 1. Bat Emergence Results at Sierra Azul – Meyer Property (Structure B) Time No. of Bats Emerging Location Latitude Longitude 2048 1 Structure B - northwest 37° 10' 2.46" N 121° 52' 9.22" W 2053 1 Structure B - southwest 37° 10' 2.24" N 121° 52' 8.87" W Table 2. Woodrat nest locations – Meyer Property Location Latitude Longitude Flagging Color Oak tree near Structure A 37.1670993 -121.8695911 Pink Oak tree near Structure A 37.1670114 -121.8696032 Pink Structure C 37.1670462 -121.8690466 Not flagged DR A F T Attachment 1 Page 12 of 29 DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS Since these some structures are scheduled for removal and others only stabilization (as described above), we present recommendations for each specific structure. All structures are potentially suitable bat day and night roost habitat. Bats were observed foraging in the in the oaks near these structures which serve as moderately to highly suitable maternity roost habitat nearby. Structure A: The structure provides potential bat entry points to the structure through ventilation holes in the roof eaves and the chimney. The structure provides suitable roosting habitat under the roof eaves and within the structure if access was obtained through any of the current entry points. While no bats or signs were observed within or outside of the structure during day surveys and no bats were observed emerging from the structure during night surveys, absence cannot be assumed. Two natural woodrat nests were observed outside of the structure in two large coast live oaks although they are likely outside of the disturbance area for demolition activities. Recommendations for the Meyer Property Structure A include: Preconstruction surveys for bats and woodrats prior to demolition activities. Follow the general bat avoidance and minimization measures presented in Section 4.1. Development of bat roost deterrent plan for approval by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) prior to structure demolition activities. General woodrat avoidance measures presented in Section 4.2. Structure B: The roof eaves of the structure provide suitable bat roosting habitat. While no bats or signs were observed within or outside of the structure during day surveys, two bats were observed emerging from the structure during the night survey. Based on the observed presence of more than one bat emerging from the structure this site is presumed to be serving as a maternity roost. Woodrat sign was observed within the structure although no natural nests were observed. Recommendations for the Meyer Property Structure B include: Preconstruction surveys for bats and woodrats prior to stabilization activities. Follow the general bat avoidance and minimization measures presented in Section 4.1. Development of bat roost deterrent plan for approval by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) prior to structure stabilization activities. Follow general woodrat avoidance measures presented in Section 4.2. Provide replacement bat maternity roost habitat as part of the deterrent plan for approval by CDFW. This replacement habitat will serve as replacement habitat for any habitat removed or disturbed within all structures at the Meyer Property. No additional replacement habitat is recommended unless required by CDFW. DR A F T Attachment 1 Page 13 of 29 Structure C: While no bats or signs were observed within the shed during day surveys, though potentially suitable bat day and night roost habitat is present. Signs of woodrats were present in the structure, however no natural nests were observed outside in the vicinity. Recommendations for the Meyer Property Structure C include: Preconstruction surveys for bats and woodrats prior to stabilization activities. Follow the general bat avoidance and minimization measures presented in Section 4.1. Develop a bat roost deterrent plan for approval by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) prior to structure stabilization activities. Follow general woodrat avoidance measures presented in Section 4.2. Photo 19. Structure A is partially shaded by oak trees. Photo 20. Structure A Photo 21. Ventilation holes under the eve of Structure A. Photo 22. Woodrat middens in hollows of oak trees west of Structure A. DR A F T Attachment 1 Page 14 of 29 Photo 23. Structure B – north-side view. Photo 24. Structure C – shed west of Structure A. Photo 25. Possible woodrat midden on shelf in Structure C. Photo 26. Myotis sp. (circled in red) observed roosting in crevice in nearby shed to the west of the structure to be removed. DR A F T Attachment 1 Page 15 of 29 3.4 SIERRA AZUL PRESERVE – BEATTY PROPERTY SUMMARY An external survey for Beatty Property off Alma Bridge Road, Los Gatos, California was conducted on June 19, 2019 by Hailey Pexton and Ben Dudek. An internal and emergence survey was completed on June 28, 2019 by biologists Elizabeth Armistead, Rachael Burnham, and Leslie Rivas. The biologists conducted a daytime survey for bat roosts and woodrat nest structures and a night emergence survey. No bats were observed on the June 19 survey. On June 28 six roosting Myotis sp. bats were detected during the daytime survey and eight bats were observed emerging from four exit points during the emergence survey. On July 30, District staff completed follow up emergence surveys and observed 11 bats emerging from the structure. Habitat surrounding the structure is highly suitable for maternity bat roost and foraging habitat. Three dusky-footed woodrat nest structures were observed within 50 feet of the existing structure with large amounts of woodrat sign (e.g., fecal pellets) observed throughout the entire house. STRUCTURE The structure is a one-story house with crawl space and is situated in oak woodland with nearby grassland and Lexington Reservoir within 500 feet of the property (Photo 27). There was a total of nine rooms in the house, including a kitchen, laundry room, and bathroom. The house is shaded on the north, east, and south sides and has full sun exposure on the west side. RESULTS Biologists fully surveyed around the exterior of the house and found multiple potential bat and woodrat entry and exit points on all sides of the house (Photo 27 and 28). Several large oaks surrounding the structure could support roosting bat habitat; two snags on the west side with 5 – 10% exfoliating bark with full sun exposure, one snag of the east side with 5% exfoliating bark with full sun exposure (Photo 29). The house is in disrepair with many decaying eaves around the roofline that bats could be obtaining access through. There is space between many of the boarded-up windows and doors, and some wooden slats of the house are broken that could also provide bat entry points (Photos 30 – 35). There are various holes and broken wooden slats along the bottom of the house that could provide bat or woodrat entry. There are large amounts of bat signs (e.g., urine staining and guano) on the walls of the interior of the house and all rooms showed signs of bat use (Photo 36). Six bats (Myotis sp.) were observed in various places throughout the house. Upon entry to the house, large amounts of woodrat sign (e.g., fecal pellets) were observed throughout the entire house (Photo 37 and 38). Lots of debris on the floor of the house and two stick piles observed, one on top of the stove in the kitchen and one on top of the sink in the bathroom (Photos 37 - 42). No substantial woodrat nests were observed inside the structure, but there are numerous woodrat access points to the crawl space and area between ceiling and roof that were not surveyed. Three woodrat nests were observed within the 50 feet of the Beatty house structure (Photos 39 – 41). DR A F T Attachment 1 Page 16 of 29 EMERGENCE RESULTS The bat emergence survey was conducted one-half hour before sunset and continued until one half hour after sunset. Eight bats were observed exiting the structure (Table 3) at four locations (Photo 34 and 35). Table 3. Bat Emergence at Sierra Azul – Beatty Property Time No. of Bats Emerging Location Latitude Longitude 2032 1 east 37° 11' 26.97" N 121° 59' 8.18" W 2033 1 east 37° 11' 26.97" N 121° 59' 8.18" W 2033 1 west 37° 11' 26.91" N 121° 59' 8.55" W 2038 1 east 37° 11' 26.97" N 121° 59' 8.18" W 2046 1 west 37° 11' 26.91" N 121° 59' 8.55" W 2047 2 west 37° 11' 26.91" N 121° 59' 8.55" W 2048 1 south 37° 11' 26.84" N 121° 59' 8.45" W Table 4. Woodrat nest locations Beatty Property Location (see photos 39-41) Latitude Longitude Flagging Color South of house – woodrat number 1 37.1906508 -121.9856141 Pink Down hillside from house – woodrat number 2 37.1909208 -121.9857824 Pink In tree adjacent to house – woodrat number 3 37.1909558 -121.9858746 Pink DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS The Beatty Property provides highly suitable bat roosting habitat. Based on the observed presence of bat signs throughout the structure, observed bats roosting within, and bats emerging from the structure this site is presumed to be serving as a maternity roost. Woodrat sign was observed throughout the structure and natural nests observed outside. Recommendations for the Beatty Property include: Preconstruction surveys for bats and woodrats prior to removal activities. Follow the general bat avoidance and minimization measures presented in Section 4.1. Development of bat roost deterrent plan for approval by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) prior to structure stabilization activities. Provide replacement bat maternity roost habitat as part of the deterrent plan for approval by CDFW. Follow general woodrat avoidance measures presented in Section 4.2. DR A F T Attachment 1 Page 17 of 29 Photo 27. Beatty property. Photo 28. The housing structure is located beneath a canopy of coast live oaks (photo facing west). Photo 29. Two snags that could support roosting bats on west side of Beatty structure. Photo 32. Hole on wall that could provide bat access. Photo 33. Wooden slats peeling away from the wall. Photo 34. Bats observed emerging from hole in wall (circled in red) on east side of the house. DR A F T Attachment 1 Page 18 of 29 Photo 35. Bats observed emerging from wooden slats (circled in red) on west side of the house. Photo 36. Bat urine staining and guano on wall; Myotis sp. (circled in red) observed roosting. Photo 37. Stick pile on top of stove in kitchen. Photo 38. Large amount of woodrat feces on floor. Photo 39. Woodrat nest number 1 is located under an ornamental bush 9 meters south of the structure . Photo 40. Woodrat nest number 2 is located along a fence 10 meters northeast of the structure. DR A F T Attachment 1 Page 19 of 29 Photo 41. Woodrat nest number 3 is located in a tree, northwest of the structure. Photo 42. Woodrat A large amount of woodrat feces was observed in one location along the exterior of the structure. DR A F T Attachment 1 Page 20 of 29 3.5 PURISIMA UPLANDS SUMMARY A survey for Purisima Uplands in San Mateo County, California was conducted on June 27, 2019 by biologists Victoria Brunal, Rachael Burnham, Ryan Byrnes, and Ben Dudek. The biologists conducted a daytime survey at all locations for bat roosts and woodrat nest structures, and a nighttime bat emergence survey at Areas B and E. No sign of roosting bats was detected during the daytime survey of existing structures. Fourteen dusky-footed woodrat nest structures were observed inside or near existing structures. Three bats were observed emerging from the roofline of the hunting cabin in Area E during the emergence survey. Acoustic recordings at Area E identified these three individual bats as two species: California myotis and Mexican free-tailed bat (Tadarida brasiliensis). No bats were observed during the emergence survey at Area B. RESULTS AREA A: The structure at Area A is a small, open, un-shaded shed with a corrugated tin roof. No sign of bats (e.g., guano pellets and urine staining) was observed on the inside of the structure. The exposure of the shed, and lack of small crevices inside the structure may make this building sub-optimal for day roosting bats. Dusky-footed woodrat sign (e.g., pellets) were observed inside the shed. Additionally, five woodrat nest structures were observed throughout the site, including a nest underneath Tank 13 and a second nest in a pipe leading away from the tank. AREA B: The inside of Tanks 1-2 could not be observed due to their height, but both tanks appeared to be single-walled and open on the top. These tanks are likely unsuitable for day roosting bats due to exposure to the elements and the lack of additional surfaces that could create crevices. The distillation column was capped on the top but appeared to have a small opening on its side about 15 feet off the ground that could potentially be used by roosting bats (Photo 43). The structure on the east side of Area B included a series of iron grates over a concrete box filled with water as well as a dilapidated shed with a corrugated tin roof. The shed contained pieces of wood attached to corrugated tin that created small crevices that could be suitable for bats, but no signs of bats were observed. Large woodrat nest structures were observed inside the series of iron gates and inside the dilapidated shed, as well as behind the shed (Photo 44 and 45). AREA C: Tanks 3-6 appeared sealed and therefore unlikely to support any bat roosting habitat. The roof on Tank 7 is in the process of falling off the structure. Where the ceiling hung over the tank, there was a small area where bats could find shelter, but no sign of bats was observed. One woodrat nest was observed near Tank 3, and another nest was observed near Tank 6. AREA D: Tanks 8-12, the area around the concrete pylons, and the various debris piles all were searched. The tanks all appeared to be single-walled without any additional surfaces to create crevices suitable for day-roosting bats. Open tops, or open sides in the cases of tanks lying on their sides, created exposure to DR A F T Attachment 1 Page 21 of 29 the elements that may preclude these structures from being used by bats (Photo 46). A large woodrat nest was observed inside Tank 11, and two smaller satellite nests were observed surrounding the tank. AREA E: The exterior of the hunting cabin had rotted and loose wood paneling, especially near the roofline, that could be suitable for roosting bats (Photo 47 and 48). A search of the structure’s exterior found no sign of bats, however, many holes and crevices that led to the space between the roof and the structure’s interior could not be fully observed. A search of the interior of the structure revealed that the previous owners had used the cabin recently. Maternity colony day-roosting habitat was observed inside the structure and no guano pellets or urine staining were observed. Additionally, no sign of woodrats were observed inside the cabin, however small mammals droppings (likely Peromyscus sp.) were present throughout the cabin. One large woodrat nest structure was observed behind the cabin. EMERGENCE RESULTS The bat emergence surveys at Areas B and E were conducted one-half hour before sunset and continued until one and half hours after sunset. At Area B, the biologists observed the dilapidated building and an opening on the distillation column. No bats were observed emerging from the small opening on the distillation column, or from the dilapidated structure on the east side of Area B. Additionally no bats were observed flying over the habitat. At Area E, the biologist observed the roofline along the front of the hunting cabin. Three bats were observed emerging from the front of the hunting cabin near the roofline. As the bats were seen flying from the cabin, the acoustic recording device set up in front of the cabin identified two species of bats: California myotis and Mexican free-tailed bat. After emergence, bats were observed flying over the habitat and continued to be recorded by the recording device. Table 5. Woodrat nest locations Purisma Uplands Location Latitude Longitude Flagging Color Area A – woodrat nest 1 wooden shed 37.401899 -122.410356 Pink Area A – woodrat nest 2 near T13 37.401916 -122.410164 Pink Area A – woodrat nest 3 near T13 37.401961 -122.410085 Pink Area A – woodrat nest 4 near T13 37.402006 -122.410073 Pink Area A – woodrat nest 5 near T13 37.402015 -122.409983 Pink Area D – woodrat nest 6 near T11 37.402713 -122.409107 Pink Area D – woodrat nest 7 near T11 37.402723 -122.409152 Pink Area D – woodrat nest 8 near T11 37.402731 -122.409062 Pink Area C – woodrat nest 9 near T6 37.402968 -122.407817 Pink Area C – woodrat nest 10 near T3 37.403112 -122.407635 Pink Area B – woodrat nest 11 near Storage Shed 37.403192 -122.407431 Pink Area B – woodrat nest 12 near Storage Shed 37.403155 -122.407364 Pink Area B – woodrat nest 13 near Storage Shed 37.403191 -122.407363 Pink Hunting Cabin – woodrat nest 14 37.406049 -122.403736 Pink DR A F T Attachment 1 Page 22 of 29 DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS None of the tanks to be removed provide suitable bat roost habitat. The structure in Area A provides sub- optimal day roosting habitat and the shed in Area B provides suitable bat roosting habitat in the form of crevices although no bats or signs of bats were observed at either structure. No bats or signs of bats were observed during inspections of the interior of the Hunting Cabin in Area E, however, three bats were observed emerging during night surveys. Based on the observation of bats emerging from the Hunting Cabin this site is presumed to be serving as a maternity roost. Woodrat signs and nests were observed throughout the property in structures, debris piles and natural nests. Recommendations for the Purisima Property include: Preconstruction surveys for bats and woodrats prior to demolition and debris removal activities. Follow the general bat avoidance and minimization measures presented in Section 4.1. Development of bat roost deterrent plan for approval by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) prior to structure demolition activities at the Area E Hunting Cabin. Provide replacement bat maternity roost habitat for impacts to removal of maternity roost habitat at Area E Hunting Cabin as part of the deterrent plan for approval by CDFW. This replacement habitat will serve as replacement habitat for all bat roost habitat removed or disturbed during removal activities. Follow general woodrat avoidance measures presented in Section 4.2. Photo 43. Area B – the distillation column was sealed on top but appeared to have a small opening on the left-hand side near the valve connection. Photo 44. Area B – woodrat nest structure inside the series of iron grates. This structure sits over a concrete spring box filled with water. DR A F T Attachment 1 Page 23 of 29 Photo 45. Area B – woodrat nest structure inside the dilapidated building. Photo 46. Area D – most tanks were single-walled without any small crevice space for roosting bats. Photo 47. Area E – additional openings and interstitial spaces underneath the roofline. Photo 48. Area E – openings underneath the roofline of the hunting cabin. DR A F T Attachment 1 Page 24 of 29 3.6 RANCHO SAN ANTONIO PRESERVE‐ DEER HOLLOW FARM WHITE BARN SUMMARY The survey for White Barn at Deer Hollow Farm in Cupertino, California was conducted on June 18, 2019 by biologists Ashley Estacio and Leslie Koenig. The biologists conducted a daytime survey at the barn and surrounding area evaluating potential bat roosts and woodrat nest structures. Though the barn provides potentially suitable bat day and night roost habitat, no roosting bats were observed. Signs (bat guano) of bat roosting were observed in the upper level of the barn. In general, highly suitable bat maternity roost habitat and foraging habitat was observed throughout the site in the form of bat tree roosts and man-made structures. No dusky-footed woodrat nest structures were observed inside or near existing structures although signs of rodent activity were observed throughout the barn. STRUCTURE The barn that was surveyed is one of many structures in Deer Hollow Farm that is an active educational farm. The lower level of the barn is actively used as a goat milk barn, storage location, and hay barn (Photos 49 and 50). The upper level / former hayloft of the barn is less stable although it too is actively used for storage. The barn receives partial shade from the riparian corridor to the north and a large valley oak to the south. The barn has a pitched roof with corrugated metal sheets held up in regular intervals by rafters (Photo 51 and 52). RESULTS The entire structure is accessible to bats and rodents through the gaps between the roof and hayloft doors which are left open. The openings allow for bats to easily enter the building and roost although the openness may reduce the ability for the barn to be used as a maternity roost. These conditions provide suitable bat roosting habitat within the structure including the crevice habitat between the rafters and the corrugated roof. Bat guano was observed in the interior of the structure on the floor throughout the hayloft (Photo 53). Abundant insect activity was observed in the adjacent riparian area providing suitable bat foraging habitat and the adjacent riparian area has plentiful tree roost habitat available. Rodent sign is present throughout the structure with rodent droppings observed (Photo 54). No woodrat nests were observed on the premises or within the 50-foot buffer. While no woodrat nests were observed, the riparian habitat near the structure provides suitable habitat and absence of woodrats should not be assumed. DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS While no day roosting bats were observed during the surveys, signs of bats presence (guano) was observed. The site serves a potentially suitable day and night roosting habitat with adjacent suitable bat foraging and tree roost habitat. DR A F T Attachment 1 Page 25 of 29 No signs of woodrats were present in the structure or surrounding habitat. The active farm nearby likely limits the potential of woodrats to occur within a construction footprint for the barn, however, the nearby riparian habitat provides suitable habitat and therefore woodrat absence should not be assumed. Recommendations for the Deer Hollow White Barn include: Preconstruction surveys for bats and woodrats prior to stabilization activities. Follow the general bat avoidance and minimization measures presented in Section 4.1. Development of bat roost deterrent plan for approval by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) prior to structure stabilization activities. Follow general woodrat avoidance measures presented in Section 4.2. Photo 49. White Barn exterior showing hayloft doors and open access points. Photo 50. White Barn exterior showing hayloft doors and open access points. Photo 51. White Barn hayloft with crevice roost habitat between roof and rafters. Photo 52. Interior of hayloft with wooden slat openings DR A F T Attachment 1 Page 26 of 29 Photo 53. Bat guano on floorboards. Photo 54. Lower level with hay storage and milk barn DR A F T Attachment 1 Page 27 of 29 4. RECOMMENDATIONS Based on the results of these surveys, bats and woodrats are currently using multiple locations within and adjacent to the structures surveyed. 4.1 BATS The recommendations below should be implemented for each survey location as discussed above in Section 3. At some of these locations suitable bat habitat was observed but no bats were observed during the daytime roost surveys or during emergence. However, bats may switch roosts on a nightly basis, therefore, there is still potential of bats roosting within these structures where suitable habitat is observed. A demolition and deterrent plan for each location that identifies locations for deterrence and what mitigation measures (i.e., replacement habitat) are warranted prior to structure demolition and/or stabilization should be completed as recommended above for each survey location. The following measures and recommendations for bat deterrence and demolition will be included in the exclusion/deterrent plan. Recommendations should be implemented on a site by site, case by case basis. Not all recommendations are appropriate for all locations, see the Discussion and Recommendations section for each survey location above for reference. General bat avoidance and minimization measures Within two days of the start of work, at all project locations, preconstruction bat roost surveys should be conducted. If work is anticipated to occur during the bat wintering period (generally from November 16 through February 15) preconstruction winter roost surveys should be conducted. No building or tree work (over 16” dbh) should be conducted during this time if surveys determine that special status bats or hibernacula are present during winter roost surveys. If individual nonbreeding and non‐special status bats are present, a qualified biologist may be retained to remove the bats and work may proceed year-round at La Honda Creek Preserve – Redwood Cabin, Sierra Azul Preserve – Meyer Property structures, and the Rancho San Antonio Preserve site. If a maternity roost or special status species bat is observed, no work is allowed without first excluding and providing alternate roost site(s) outside of the breeding season. Demolition should be conducted during warmer weather when nighttime lows are not below 50° Fahrenheit, and most bats are likely to be active. Recommend that crevices first be demolished with hand tools. Initiate demolition in the early evening after sunset with a bat biologist present to capture and temporarily hold any bats that are uncovered. If evening work is not feasible, initiate demolition in the early afternoon with a qualified bat biologist present. Early afternoon work will ensure that any remaining roosting bats are not in torpor, as torpid bats may not immediately arouse and escape with disturbance. If any bats are DR A F T Attachment 1 Page 28 of 29 uncovered, they should be temporarily held and released in the evening. Bat roost deterrent/exclusion plan At survey locations with potentially suitable bat roost habitat observed, a site-specific bat roost deterrent plan for is recommended. The following measures below should be considered but may not be applicable to all sites. Alternative roost deterrents may be implemented if approved by qualified biologist. The site- specific deterrent plan shall be submitted to CDFW for approval. Deterrents shall be placed outside of April through August maternity season. At least seven (7) days before the properties are demolished and/or stabilized, open all windows and doors to increase airflow. Deploy ultrasonic acoustic deterrents inside the structures and/or near areas where bats may roost. No acoustic deterrents shall be places next to roosting bats, if bats are observed, deterrents will be placed once bats have left the site. Deploy/Install one-way bat doors at locations where bats are observed entering and exiting structures. One-way bat doors and exclusion of bats from the building should occur outside of the April through August maternity season. Replacement maternity roost habitat At survey locations with identified maternity roosts, no building demolition or tree work (over 16” dbh) should be conducted April 15 – August 31. Where structures with identified maternity roost habitat will be eliminated, replacement habitat is recommended. CDFW may not require mitigation for these locations, therefore, CDFW should be contacted for guidance for each specific location. If CDFW requires replacement habitat, no work should occur without first excluding and providing natural or manmade alternate roost site(s) outside of the breeding season. Alternate roost site(s) should be developed by District Natural Resources staff or a consulting biologist and submitted to CDFW before installation. Whenever possible alternative roost site(s) should be provided 6 months to 1 year prior to the removal of maternity roosting habitat to allow bats adequate time to discover the new locations. Artificial alternative roost site(s) shall be monitored for occupancy by a qualified biologist within one year of installation. 4.2 WOODRATS The recommendations below should be implemented for each survey location as discussed above in Section 3. A preconstruction survey is warranted at all locations as woodrat houses may become occupied or unoccupied, and new nests constructed prior to project work. General woodrat avoidance measures DR A F T Attachment 1 Page 29 of 29 Conduct focused follow up surveys are at all structures at least five days before construction to confirm the presence of woodrat houses and develop a deterrence/relocation plan if necessary. For all woodrat nests that occur in natural habitats (i.e. not within any structure footprint) and cannot be avoided by project activities, a qualified biologist shall live trap 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. In some District locations, woodrats have colonized abandoned buildings, old vehicles, diffuse garbage piles, or other locations where nests are difficult to locate, individuals cannot be live- trapped consistently, and/or there is a lack of woody materials for nest reconstruction. In these instances, live trapping is not required (especially if there is a risk to human health) if the surrounding area provides suitable habitat or supports a healthy colony that is being avoided and/or can be enhanced. Work at these locations must occur prior to April and after mid-July to prevent impacts to woodrats rearing young. 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. Any cached food and nest material encountered shall be placed within the new structure during rebuilding. If individual rats are present, they will be encouraged to leave the area on their own which may include demolition or cleanup in phases, and/or hand removal of materials. If individual woodrats are observed during implementation, work in the immediate area shall cease until the animal leaves the area on its own. Work may continue at other locations away from the observation location. If the animal does not leave the area on its own, the project biologist or a biological monitor shall be notified. Work may proceed at the observation site, once the animal has left the area on its own or a biological monitor is present to ensure that the individual woodrats are not harmed. If nests are present that cannot be trapped or removed, woody debris piles that look like woodrat houses can be constructed to provide opportunities for sheltering and colonization by displaced woodrats. Relocated nests are expected to eventually be re-colonized and should be monitored one-year post construction using visual surveys and/or wildlife cameras to determine if a relocated nest has returned to use. DR A F T Attachment 1 STRUCTURE STABILIZATION BASIS OF DESIGN – White Barn La Honda Creek Open Space Preserve, San Mateo County, CA EXHIBIT F Topographic Site Plan by Sigma Prime Geosciences, Inc. DR A F T Attachment 1 GARAGE NOT IN SCOPE DR A F T Attachment 1 STRUCTURE STABILIZATION BASIS OF DESIGN – White Barn La Honda Creek Open Space Preserve, San Mateo County, CA EXHIBIT G Mothballing Guidelines by ZFA Structural Engineers DR A F T Attachment 1 Mothballing Guidelines The focus of mothballing procedures is to stabilize and secure the building: Stabilization • Structurally stabilize the building, based on a professional condition assessment. • Exterminate or control pests, including termites and rodents. • Protect the exterior from moisture penetration. Mothballing • Secure the building and its component features to reduce vandalism or break-ins. • Provide adequate ventilation to the interior. • Secure or modify utilities. • Develop and implement a maintenance and monitoring plan for protection. Mothballing Checklist In developing mothballing procedures, the following checklist should be used to ensure that work items are not inadvertently omitted. Moisture • Is the roof watertight? • Do the gutters retain their proper pitch and are they clean? • Are downspout joints intact? • Are drains unobstructed? • Is wood siding in good condition? • Is site properly graded for water run-off? • Is vegetation cleared from around the building foundation to avoid trapping moisture? Pests • Have nests/pests been removed from the building's interior and eaves? • Are adequate screens in place to guard against pests? • Has the building been inspected and treated for termites, carpenter ants, rodents, etc.? • If toxic droppings from bats, rats and pigeons are present, has a special company been brought in for its disposal? Housekeeping • Have the following been removed from the interior: trash, hazardous materials such as inflammable liquids, poisons, and paints and canned goods that could freeze and burst? • Is the interior broom-clean? • Have furnishings been removed to a safe location? • If furnishings are remaining in the building, are they properly protected from dust, pests, ultraviolet light, and other potentially harmful problems? • Have significant architectural elements that have become detached from the building been labeled and stored in a safe place? • Is there a building file? Security • Have fire and police departments been notified that the building will be mothballed? DR A F T Attachment 1 • Are smoke and fire detectors in working order? • Are the exterior doors and windows securely fastened? • Are plans in place to monitor the building on a regular basis? • Are the keys to the building in a secure but accessible location? • Are the grounds being kept from becoming overgrown? Utilities • Have utility companies disconnected/shut off or fully inspected water, gas, and electric lines? • If the building will not remain heated, have water pipes been drained and glycol added? Ventilation • Have steps been taken to ensure proper ventilation of the building? • Have interior doors been left open for ventilation purposes? • Has the secured building been checked within the last 3 months for interior dampness or excessive humidity? Maintenance Chart The following maintenance action items should be considered when developing the maintenance program for the building to be mothballed. 1-3 months; periodic • Regular drive by surveillance • Check attic during storms if possible • Monthly walk arounds • Check entrances • Check window coverings for breakage • Mowing as required • Check for graffiti or vandalism • Enter every 3 months to air out • Check for musty air • Check for moisture damage • Check battery packs and monitoring equipment • Check for evidence of pest intrusion Every 6 months; spring and fall • Site clean-up; pruning and trimming • Gutter and downspout check • Check crawlspace for pests • Clean out storm drains Every 12 months • Maintenance contract inspections for equipment/utilities • Check roof for loose or missing shingles • Termite and pest inspection/treatment • Exterior materials spot repair and touch up painting • Remove bird droppings or other stains from exterior • Maintain building defensible space per Cal Fire standards • Check and update building file Reference: Park, Sharon C., 1993. Mothballing Historic Buildings. Preservation Brief No. 31. Department of the Interior, National Park Service. Washington, DC: Government. Printing Office. 15 p. Available online at https://www.nps.gov/tps/how-to-preserve/briefs/31-mothballing.htm DR A F T Attachment 1 STRUCTURE STABILIZATION BASIS OF DESIGN – White Barn La Honda Creek Open Space Preserve, San Mateo County, CA EXHIBIT H Conceptual Cost Estimate by OCMI DR A F T Attachment 1 Mid-Peninsula Open Space District Mid-Peninsula Stabilization La Honda, CA ZFA Structural Engineers CONCEPTUAL COST ESTIMATE,R2 OCMI JOB #: 19414.000 18 December 2019 DR A F T Attachment 1 Mid-Peninsula Stabilization La Honda, CA CONCEPTUAL COST ESTIMATE,R2 OCMI JOB #: 19414.000 | 18 December 2019 Page & Turnbull Inc. BOD & Alternative Evaluation dated 9-30-19. ZFA Structural Engineers draft estimate review comments 10-31-19. Comments and clarifications received through 11 December 2019. • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • COST ESTIMATE INTRODUCTORY NOTES This estimate is based on verbal direction from the client and the following items, received 30 September 2019: General ZFA Structural Engineers BOD Reports dated October 2019. Sketches of 11 July 2019 with BOD option notes per Report. Terracon Hazmat report dated 8-13-19. Kielty Arborist Services LLC Report dated 9-30-19. Construction start date of July 2020 The following items are excluded from this estimate: Professional fees. Building permits and fees. Inspections and tests. Furniture, fixtures & equipment, except as noted. Installation of owner furnished equipment. Construction change order contingency. Overtime. Items referenced as NOT INCLUDED or NIC in estimate. The midpoint of construction of January 2021 is based on: We strongly advise the client to review this estimate in detail. If any interpretations in this estimate appear to differ from those intended by the design documents, they should be addressed immediately. Estimated construction duration of 12 months This estimate is based on a Design-Bid-Build delivery method. This estimate is based on prevailing wage labor rates. This estimate is based on a detailed measurement of quantities. We have made allowances for items that were not clearly defined in the drawings. The client should verify these allowances. This estimate is based on a minimum of four competitive bids and a stable bidding market. This estimate should be updated if more definitive information becomes available, or if there is any change in scope. DR A F T Attachment 1 Mid-Peninsula Stabilization La Honda, CA CONCEPTUAL COST ESTIMATE,R2 OCMI JOB #: 19414.000 | 18 December 2019 ELEMENT TOTAL COST GFA $/SF AREA WHITE BARN OPTIONS: 01. WHITE BARN - OPTION 1 $39,004 1,012 $38.54 01A. OPTION 1 MAINTENANCE COSTS $144,000 02. WHITE BARN - OPTION 2 $116,423 1,012 $115.04 02A. OPTION 2 MAINTENANCE COSTS $288,000 03. WHITE BARN - OPTION 3 $396,904 1,012 $392.20 03A. OPTION 3 MAINTENANCE COSTS $288,000 04. WHITE BARN - OPTION 4 $171,982 1,012 $169.94 REDWOOD CABIN OPTIONS: 05. REDWOOD LOG CABIN - OPTION 1 $54,250 1,980 $27.40 05A. OPTION 1 MAINTENANCE COSTS $144,000 06. REDWOOD LOG CABIN - OPTION 2 $194,501 1,980 $98.23 06A. OPTION 2 MAINTENANCE COSTS $288,000 07. REDWOOD LOG CABIN - OPTION 3 $736,793 1,980 $372.12 07A. OPTION 3 MAINTENANCE COSTS $288,000 08. REDWOOD LOG CABIN - OPTION 4 $245,869 1,980 $124.18 BEATTY PROPERTY OPTIONS: 09. BEATTY PROPERTY - OPTION 1 $63,920 1,912 $33.43 09A. OPTION 1 MAINTENANCE COSTS $144,000 10. BEATTY PROPERTY - OPTION 2 $208,791 1,912 $109.20 10A. OPTION 2 MAINTENANCE COSTS $288,000 11. BEATTY PROPERTY - OPTION 3 $674,313 1,912 $352.67 11A. OPTION 3 MAINTENANCE COSTS $288,000 12. BEATTY PROPERTY - OPTION 4 $233,284 1,912 $122.01 1.) The numbers above include mark-ups including escalation to January 2021 at 5% Per Annum. contractor general conditions and insurances. 2.) Design contingency is zero for options 1 and 4. 5% for option 2, and 10% for option 3. 3.) The Owner should add for soft costs and include a separate construction contingency. 4.) Long term maintenance costs have been separated to delineate from capitol costs. PROJECT SUMMARY Prepared by: OCMI Sheet 1 of 54 DR A F T Attachment 1 Mid-Peninsula Stabilization WHITE BARN - OPTION 1 La Honda, CA CONCEPTUAL COST ESTIMATE,R2 OCMI JOB #: 19414.000 | 18 December 2019 ELEMENT TOTAL COST $/SF AREA 01 FOUNDATIONS 02 SUBSTRUCTURE 03 SUPERSTRUCTURE 04 EXTERIOR CLOSURE 05 ROOFING 06 INTERIOR CONSTRUCTION 07 CONVEYING 08 MECHANICAL 09 ELECTRICAL 10 EQUIPMENT 11 SITEWORK $34,249 $33.84 NET DIRECT BUILDING COST $34,249 $33.84 GENERAL CONDITIONS, OVERHEAD & PROFIT 10.00%$3,425 $3.38 SUBTOTAL $37,674 $37.23 INSURANCE 2.00%$753 $0.74 SUBTOTAL $38,427 $37.97 BONDS: CONTRACTOR 1.50%$576 $0.57 TOTAL BUILDING COST $39,004 $38.54 GROSS FLOOR AREA:1,012 SF BUILDING SUMMARY Prepared by: OCMI Sheet 2 of 54 DR A F T Attachment 1 Mid-Peninsula Stabilization WHITE BARN - OPTION 1 La Honda, CA CONCEPTUAL COST ESTIMATE,R2 OCMI JOB #: 19414.000 | 18 December 2019 TOTAL ELEMENT AMOUNT TOTAL COST $/SF AREA $/SF AREA 01 FOUNDATIONS 011 Standard Foundations 012 Special Foundations 02 SUBSTRUCTURE 021 Slab On Grade 022 Basement Excavation 023 Basement Walls 03 SUPERSTRUCTURE 031 Floor and Roof Construction 032 Stair Construction 04 EXTERIOR CLOSURE 041 Exterior Walls 042 Exterior Doors/Windows 05 ROOFING 051 Roofing 06 INTERIOR CONSTRUCTION 061 Partitions 062 Interior Finishes 063 Specialties 064 Interior Doors/Windows 07 CONVEYING 071 Elevators 08 MECHANICAL 081 Plumbing 082 H.V.A.C. 083 Fire Protection 084 Special Mechanical 09 ELECTRICAL 091 Standard Electrical 092 Special Electrical 10 EQUIPMENT 101 Fixed/Movable Equipment 102 Furnishings 103 Special Construction 11 SITEWORK $34,249 $33.84 111 Site Preparation $6,850 $6.77 112 Site Improvements $27,399 $27.07 113 Site Utilities 114 Off-Site Work NET DIRECT BUILDING COST $34,249 $33.84 DETAILED BUILDING SUMMARY Prepared by: OCMI Sheet 3 of 54 DR A F T Attachment 1 Mid-Peninsula Stabilization WHITE BARN - OPTION 1 La Honda, CA CONCEPTUAL COST ESTIMATE,R2 OCMI JOB #: 19414.000 | 18 December 2019 DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT UNIT RATE ESTIMATED COST ELEMENT - EXTERIOR CLOSURE 041 EXTERIOR WALLS Mothballing building - Scope eliminated NIC TOTAL - 041 EXTERIOR WALLS ELEMENT - ELECTRICAL 092 SPECIAL ELECTRICAL Security measures (option for self sufficient solar power for electrical panel)NIC This design idea was not practical due to location TOTAL - 092 SPECIAL ELECTRICAL ELEMENT - SITEWORK 111 SITE PREPARATION Remove / stabilize public safety hazards Weed wacking and abatement product to perimeter 140 LF 2.50 $350 Wildlife management Removal of unwanted wildlife 1 LS 2,500.00 $2,500 Treatment of insect infestations 1 LS 4,000.00 $4,000 On-going maintenance, 20 year period - separated out TOTAL - 111 SITE PREPARATION $6,850 ELEMENT - SITEWORK 112 SITE IMPROVEMENTS Restrict perimeter access approach Perimeter boundary fence Chain link, 9 gauge, 8' high (Remote undulating install)300 LF 67.42 $20,226 Add for barbed wire outrigger 300 LF 7.42 $2,225 Double gates, chainlink, 8' wide 2 EA 1,473.81 $2,948 Signage to property Signage at building 2 EA 500.00 $1,000 Signage at entry gates 2 EA 500.00 $1,000 TOTAL - 112 SITE IMPROVEMENTS $27,399 Maintenance costs: On-going maintenance, 20 year period Monthly visit to maintain, 2 men x 1/2 day 240 MnDay 600.00 $144,000 Exterior site, trees and shrubs Prepared by: OCMI Sheet 4 of 54 DR A F T Attachment 1 Mid-Peninsula Stabilization WHITE BARN - OPTION 1 La Honda, CA CONCEPTUAL COST ESTIMATE,R2 OCMI JOB #: 19414.000 | 18 December 2019 DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT UNIT RATE ESTIMATED COST Check exterior and interior and clean, fix as needed Prepared by: OCMI Sheet 5 of 54 DR A F T Attachment 1 Mid-Peninsula Stabilization WHITE BARN - OPTION 2 La Honda, CA CONCEPTUAL COST ESTIMATE,R2 OCMI JOB #: 19414.000 | 18 December 2019 ELEMENT TOTAL COST $/SF AREA 01 FOUNDATIONS 02 SUBSTRUCTURE 03 SUPERSTRUCTURE $25,040 $24.74 04 EXTERIOR CLOSURE $23,320 $23.04 05 ROOFING 06 INTERIOR CONSTRUCTION 07 CONVEYING 08 MECHANICAL 09 ELECTRICAL 10 EQUIPMENT 11 SITEWORK $49,002 $48.42 NET DIRECT BUILDING COST $97,362 $96.21 DESIGN CONTINGENCY 5.00%$4,868 $4.81 SUBTOTAL $102,230 $101.02 GENERAL CONDITIONS, OVERHEAD & PROFIT 10.00%$10,223 $10.10 SUBTOTAL $112,453 $111.12 INSURANCE 2.00%$2,249 $2.22 SUBTOTAL $114,702 $113.34 BONDS: CONTRACTOR 1.50%$1,721 $1.70 TOTAL BUILDING COST $116,423 $115.04 GROSS FLOOR AREA:1,012 SF BUILDING SUMMARY Prepared by: OCMI Sheet 6 of 54 DR A F T Attachment 1 Mid-Peninsula Stabilization WHITE BARN - OPTION 2 La Honda, CA CONCEPTUAL COST ESTIMATE,R2 OCMI JOB #: 19414.000 | 18 December 2019 TOTAL ELEMENT AMOUNT TOTAL COST $/SF AREA $/SF AREA 01 FOUNDATIONS 011 Standard Foundations 012 Special Foundations 02 SUBSTRUCTURE 021 Slab On Grade 022 Basement Excavation 023 Basement Walls 03 SUPERSTRUCTURE $25,040 $24.74 031 Floor and Roof Construction $25,040 $24.74 032 Stair Construction 04 EXTERIOR CLOSURE $23,320 $23.04 041 Exterior Walls $23,320 $23.04 042 Exterior Doors/Windows 05 ROOFING 051 Roofing 06 INTERIOR CONSTRUCTION 061 Partitions 062 Interior Finishes 063 Specialties 064 Interior Doors/Windows 07 CONVEYING 071 Elevators 08 MECHANICAL 081 Plumbing 082 H.V.A.C. 083 Fire Protection 084 Special Mechanical 09 ELECTRICAL 091 Standard Electrical 092 Special Electrical 10 EQUIPMENT 101 Fixed/Movable Equipment 102 Furnishings 103 Special Construction 11 SITEWORK $49,002 $48.42 111 Site Preparation $49,002 $48.42 112 Site Improvements 113 Site Utilities 114 Off-Site Work NET DIRECT BUILDING COST $97,362 $96.21 DETAILED BUILDING SUMMARY Prepared by: OCMI Sheet 7 of 54 DR A F T Attachment 1 Mid-Peninsula Stabilization WHITE BARN - OPTION 2 La Honda, CA CONCEPTUAL COST ESTIMATE,R2 OCMI JOB #: 19414.000 | 18 December 2019 DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT UNIT RATE ESTIMATED COST ELEMENT - SUPERSTRUCTURE 031 FLOOR AND ROOF CONSTRUCTION Sub floor replacement work Add pressure treated blocking and shims at deteriorated 120 LF 30.00 $3,600 wood grade beams to prevent further settlement Structure strengthening at walls Wall braces inside exterior wall for lateral strengthening Treated timber cross braces, 2x10 each side of post Cross braces at Grid 1 & 3, 18' average lengths 288 LF 27.50 $7,920 Fix braces T&B to posts 16 EA 175.00 $2,800 Cross braces at Grid A & F, 18' long 288 LF 27.50 $7,920 Fix braces T&B to posts 16 EA 175.00 $2,800 TOTAL - 031 FLOOR AND ROOF CONSTRUCTION $25,040 ELEMENT - EXTERIOR CLOSURE 041 EXTERIOR WALLS Mothballing building, limited Close off doors, board up with plywood 240 SF 15.00 $3,600 Fill other miscellaneous openings, windows and gaps 1,012 SF 10.00 $10,120 Rehab windows Repair window frames 56 LF 50.00 $2,800 Add / replace sills with stop and bead for new pane 56 LF 45.00 $2,520 Clear lexan view panel 86 SF 40.00 $3,440 Paint and seal window frames 56 LF 15.00 $840 TOTAL - 041 EXTERIOR WALLS $23,320 ELEMENT - ELECTRICAL 092 SPECIAL ELECTRICAL Security measures (option for self sufficient solar power for electrical panel) This design idea was not practical due to location NIC TOTAL - 092 SPECIAL ELECTRICAL ELEMENT - SITEWORK 111 SITE PREPARATION Stabilization of structure Shoring and support work, Allowance 1,012 SF 10.00 $10,120 Remove / stabilize public safety hazards Weed wacking and abatement product to perimeter 140 LF 2.50 $350 Hazmat demolition Prepared by: OCMI Sheet 8 of 54 DR A F T Attachment 1 Mid-Peninsula Stabilization WHITE BARN - OPTION 2 La Honda, CA CONCEPTUAL COST ESTIMATE,R2 OCMI JOB #: 19414.000 | 18 December 2019 DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT UNIT RATE ESTIMATED COST Remove flaking paint from exterior wall paneling 412 SF 25.00 $10,295 (Assume 33% is flaking and failing) Collate/collect and dispose lead paint 412 SF 7.50 $3,089 Paint / encapsulation Encapsulate and paint the building exterior 1,430 SF 3.60 $5,148 Testing / hazmat contamination Test soil to perimeter of buiding for lead contamination 1 EA 5,000.00 $5,000 Allowance for clean up of contaminated soil 1 EA 15,000.00 $15,000 On-going maintenance, 20 year period - separated out TOTAL - 111 SITE PREPARATION $49,002 Maintenance costs: On-going maintenance, 20 year period Monthly visit to maintain, 2 men x 1 day 480 MnDay 600.00 $288,000 Exterior site, trees and shrubs Check exterior and interior and clean, fix as needed Prepared by: OCMI Sheet 9 of 54 DR A F T Attachment 1 Mid-Peninsula Stabilization WHITE BARN - OPTION 3 La Honda, CA CONCEPTUAL COST ESTIMATE,R2 OCMI JOB #: 19414.000 | 18 December 2019 ELEMENT TOTAL COST $/SF AREA 01 FOUNDATIONS $26,117 $25.81 02 SUBSTRUCTURE 03 SUPERSTRUCTURE $83,050 $82.07 04 EXTERIOR CLOSURE $26,571 $26.26 05 ROOFING $32,872 $32.48 06 INTERIOR CONSTRUCTION 07 CONVEYING 08 MECHANICAL 09 ELECTRICAL 10 EQUIPMENT 11 SITEWORK $146,258 $144.52 NET DIRECT BUILDING COST $314,868 $311.13 DESIGN CONTINGENCY 5.00%$15,743 $15.56 SUBTOTAL $330,611 $326.69 ESCALATION TO MIDPOINT 01/2021 5.42%$17,908 $17.70 SUBTOTAL $348,520 $344.39 GENERAL CONDITIONS, OVERHEAD & PROFIT 10.00%$34,852 $34.44 SUBTOTAL $383,371 $378.83 INSURANCE 2.00%$7,667 $7.58 SUBTOTAL $391,039 $386.40 BONDS: CONTRACTOR 1.50%$5,866 $5.80 TOTAL BUILDING COST $396,904 $392.20 GROSS FLOOR AREA:1,012 SF BUILDING SUMMARY Prepared by: OCMI Sheet 10 of 54 DR A F T Attachment 1 Mid-Peninsula Stabilization WHITE BARN - OPTION 3 La Honda, CA CONCEPTUAL COST ESTIMATE,R2 OCMI JOB #: 19414.000 | 18 December 2019 TOTAL ELEMENT AMOUNT TOTAL COST $/SF AREA $/SF AREA 01 FOUNDATIONS $26,117 $25.81 011 Standard Foundations $26,117 $25.81 012 Special Foundations 02 SUBSTRUCTURE 021 Slab On Grade 022 Basement Excavation 023 Basement Walls 03 SUPERSTRUCTURE $83,050 $82.07 031 Floor and Roof Construction $83,050 $82.07 032 Stair Construction 04 EXTERIOR CLOSURE $26,571 $26.26 041 Exterior Walls $26,571 $26.26 042 Exterior Doors/Windows 05 ROOFING $32,872 $32.48 051 Roofing $32,872 $32.48 06 INTERIOR CONSTRUCTION 061 Partitions 062 Interior Finishes 063 Specialties 064 Interior Doors/Windows 07 CONVEYING 071 Elevators 08 MECHANICAL 081 Plumbing 082 H.V.A.C. 083 Fire Protection 084 Special Mechanical 09 ELECTRICAL 091 Standard Electrical 092 Special Electrical 10 EQUIPMENT 101 Fixed/Movable Equipment 102 Furnishings 103 Special Construction 11 SITEWORK $146,258 $144.52 111 Site Preparation $98,758 $97.59 112 Site Improvements $47,500 $46.94 113 Site Utilities 114 Off-Site Work NET DIRECT BUILDING COST $314,868 $311.13 DETAILED BUILDING SUMMARY Prepared by: OCMI Sheet 11 of 54 DR A F T Attachment 1 Mid-Peninsula Stabilization WHITE BARN - OPTION 3 La Honda, CA CONCEPTUAL COST ESTIMATE,R2 OCMI JOB #: 19414.000 | 18 December 2019 DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT UNIT RATE ESTIMATED COST ELEMENT - FOUNDATIONS 011 STANDARD FOUNDATIONS Seismic retrofit work (Stabilization of building) Perimeter footing, 1.5' wide x 2' deep, hit and miss (130 lf)14 CY 1,520.72 $21,966 Spread/pad footings under posts, 3'x3'x2.5' deep (4ea)3 CY 1,245.34 $4,151 TOTAL - 011 STANDARD FOUNDATIONS $26,117 ELEMENT - SUBSTRUCTURE 021 SLAB ON GRADE Slab on grade retrofit work Note: Alternate option of slab on grade in lieu of replacing NIC sub floor framing assumed not required TOTAL - 021 SLAB ON GRADE ELEMENT - SUPERSTRUCTURE 031 FLOOR AND ROOF CONSTRUCTION Sub floor replacement work Replace 8x8 bearers, mount on new footings 120 LF 30.00 $3,600 Replace floor joists, 2x10 joists @ 16" o.c 1,012 SF 17.50 $17,710 Replace floor sheathing, 3/4" plywood 1,012 SF 6.40 $6,477 Anchors, joists and bearers into foundations 18 EA 250.00 $4,500 Roofing replacement work Replace rafters tails (2x6 Rafters @ 3' o.c, sloped)243 SF 30.00 $7,286 Install roof sheathing, 1/2" plywood over skip sheathing 1,214 SF 5.40 $6,558 Repair skip sheathing 1,214 SF 2.50 $3,036 Blocking between rafters at perimeter wall 140 LF 27.50 $3,850 Strengthening structure at walls Replace 4x4 knee braces to side bays 8 EA 240.00 $1,920 Shear wall retrofit work Stud framing, 2x4 @16" o.c (Shear wall sections)1,048 SF 15.00 $15,720 Plywood sheathing, 1/2" 1,048 SF 4.60 $4,821 Plywood shear nailing 1,048 SF 1.50 $1,572 HDU's, hold downs bolted to sub structure framing 12 EA 150.00 $1,800 Seismic anchors below wall into foundations 12 EA 350.00 $4,200 Alternate option of steel tension rod bracing from roof to NIC foundations not anticipated TOTAL - 031 FLOOR AND ROOF CONSTRUCTION $83,050 ELEMENT - EXTERIOR CLOSURE 041 EXTERIOR WALLS Exterior wall cladding work Prepared by: OCMI Sheet 12 of 54 DR A F T Attachment 1 Mid-Peninsula Stabilization WHITE BARN - OPTION 3 La Honda, CA CONCEPTUAL COST ESTIMATE,R2 OCMI JOB #: 19414.000 | 18 December 2019 DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT UNIT RATE ESTIMATED COST 378 SF 17.50 $6,608 Check battens/ sub structure for status and report Paint exterior Exterior wood cladding (Paint entire building)1,248 SF 3.23 $4,025 Premium at barn swing doors 2 EA 500.00 $1,000 Page & Turnbull Recommendations: Replace doors, windows & locks, ADA, fine grading, planting, pathways Solid heavy duty panel doors on frame with H.D Hinges Single, wide swing 2 EA 3,626.93 $7,254 Locks and associated hardware 2 EA 630.00 $1,260 Wood windows, dual glazed 75 SF 70.65 $5,299 Paint window frames 75 SF 15.00 $1,125 TOTAL - 041 EXTERIOR WALLS $26,571 ELEMENT - ROOFING 051 ROOFING Roof replacement Skip sheathing to remain 1,214 SF 3.21 $3,898 Corrugated metal roofing, steel pitch premium 1,214 SF 21.35 $25,922 (saving of $11,960 to project if metall roofing salvaged) Flashings and roof plumbing Metal cap ridge flashings 40 LF 31.84 $1,273 Metal edge rake coping 62 LF 28.51 $1,779 TOTAL - 051 ROOFING $32,872 ELEMENT - SITEWORK 111 SITE PREPARATION Earthwork Excavate existing soil under the building, 24" deep Excavate, small machine (Temporary demo access)82 CY 150.00 $12,369 Machine move dirt to outside building 82 CY 75.00 $6,184 Clean out dirt around posts and structure, by hand 1,012 SF 10.00 $10,120 Site off haul Load tracks 99 CY 25.00 $2,474 Haul dirt 99 CY 60.00 $5,937 Dispose dirt 99 CY 30.00 $2,969 Sub floor replacement work Selective replacement 10% - 20%, old growth wood siding, vertically run Plywood sheathing or underlayment board installed over skip sheathing Prepared by: OCMI Sheet 13 of 54 DR A F T Attachment 1 Mid-Peninsula Stabilization WHITE BARN - OPTION 3 La Honda, CA CONCEPTUAL COST ESTIMATE,R2 OCMI JOB #: 19414.000 | 18 December 2019 DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT UNIT RATE ESTIMATED COST Remove 8x8 bearers, mounted on grade 120 LF 10.00 $1,200 Remove floor joists, piecemeal in existing structure 1,012 SF 5.00 $5,060 Remove floor sheathing, piecemeal in existing structure 1,012 SF 1.75 $1,771 Roofing replacement work Remove rafter tails, for replacement 243 SF 10.00 $2,429 Skip sheathing to remain Roof replacement Remove corrugated metal roofing 1,214 SF 2.40 $2,915 Remove flashings and roof plumbing Metal cap ridge flashings 40 LF 6.00 $240 Metal edge rake coping 62 LF 5.00 $310 Exterior wall cladding work Remove 10% to 20% old growth wood siding, vertically run 250 SF 5.00 $1,248 Check battens/ sub structure for status and report Hazmat demolition Remove flaking paint from exterior wall paneling 412 SF 25.00 $10,295 (Assume 33% is flaking and failing) Collate/collect and dispose lead paint 412 SF 7.50 $3,089 Paint / encapsulation Encapsulate and paint the building exterior 1,430 SF 3.60 $5,148 Testing / hazmat contamination Test soil to perimeter of buiding for lead contamination 1 EA 10,000.00 $10,000 Allowance for clean up of contaminated soil 1 EA 15,000.00 $15,000 On-going maintenance, 20 year period - separated out TOTAL - 111 SITE PREPARATION $98,758 ELEMENT - SITEWORK 112 SITE IMPROVEMENTS Page & Turnbull Recommendations: Replace doors, windows & locks, ADA, fine grading, planting, pathways Site accessibility Grading to improve ADA accessibility 1 LS 10,000.00 $10,000 New hardscape pathway, ADA Compliant 1 LS 27,500.00 $27,500 Planting improvements 1 LS 10,000.00 $10,000 TOTAL - 112 SITE IMPROVEMENTS $47,500 On-going maintenance, 20 year period Prepared by: OCMI Sheet 14 of 54 DR A F T Attachment 1 Mid-Peninsula Stabilization WHITE BARN - OPTION 3 La Honda, CA CONCEPTUAL COST ESTIMATE,R2 OCMI JOB #: 19414.000 | 18 December 2019 DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT UNIT RATE ESTIMATED COST Monthly visit to maintain, 2 men x 1 day 480 MnDay 600.00 $288,000 Exterior site, trees and shrubs Check exterior and interior and clean, fix as needed Prepared by: OCMI Sheet 15 of 54 DR A F T Attachment 1 Mid-Peninsula Stabilization WHITE BARN - OPTION 4 La Honda, CA CONCEPTUAL COST ESTIMATE,R2 OCMI JOB #: 19414.000 | 18 December 2019 ELEMENT TOTAL COST $/SF AREA 01 FOUNDATIONS 02 SUBSTRUCTURE 03 SUPERSTRUCTURE 04 EXTERIOR CLOSURE 05 ROOFING 06 INTERIOR CONSTRUCTION 07 CONVEYING 08 MECHANICAL 09 ELECTRICAL 10 EQUIPMENT 11 SITEWORK $151,016 $149.23 NET DIRECT BUILDING COST $151,016 $149.23 GENERAL CONDITIONS, OVERHEAD & PROFIT 10.00%$15,102 $14.92 SUBTOTAL $166,118 $164.15 INSURANCE 2.00%$3,322 $3.28 SUBTOTAL $169,440 $167.43 BONDS: CONTRACTOR 1.50%$2,542 $2.51 TOTAL BUILDING COST $171,982 $169.94 GROSS FLOOR AREA:1,012 SF BUILDING SUMMARY Prepared by: OCMI Sheet 16 of 54 DR A F T Attachment 1 Mid-Peninsula Stabilization WHITE BARN - OPTION 4 La Honda, CA CONCEPTUAL COST ESTIMATE,R2 OCMI JOB #: 19414.000 | 18 December 2019 TOTAL ELEMENT AMOUNT TOTAL COST $/SF AREA $/SF AREA 01 FOUNDATIONS 011 Standard Foundations 012 Special Foundations 02 SUBSTRUCTURE 021 Slab On Grade 022 Basement Excavation 023 Basement Walls 03 SUPERSTRUCTURE 031 Floor and Roof Construction 032 Stair Construction 04 EXTERIOR CLOSURE 041 Exterior Walls 042 Exterior Doors/Windows 05 ROOFING 051 Roofing 06 INTERIOR CONSTRUCTION 061 Partitions 062 Interior Finishes 063 Specialties 064 Interior Doors/Windows 07 CONVEYING 071 Elevators 08 MECHANICAL 081 Plumbing 082 H.V.A.C. 083 Fire Protection 084 Special Mechanical 09 ELECTRICAL 091 Standard Electrical 092 Special Electrical 10 EQUIPMENT 101 Fixed/Movable Equipment 102 Furnishings 103 Special Construction 11 SITEWORK $151,016 $149.23 111 Site Preparation $151,016 $149.23 112 Site Improvements 113 Site Utilities 114 Off-Site Work NET DIRECT BUILDING COST $151,016 $149.23 DETAILED BUILDING SUMMARY Prepared by: OCMI Sheet 17 of 54 DR A F T Attachment 1 Mid-Peninsula Stabilization WHITE BARN - OPTION 4 La Honda, CA CONCEPTUAL COST ESTIMATE,R2 OCMI JOB #: 19414.000 | 18 December 2019 DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT UNIT RATE ESTIMATED COST ELEMENT - SITEWORK 111 SITE PREPARATION Building/structure demolition Remove roofing 1,012 SF 2.00 $2,024 Remove metal flashings 130 LF 5.00 $650 Remove exterior siding 1,500 SF 5.00 $7,500 Remove barn doors 3 EA 300.00 $900 Remove roof sheathing 1,012 SF 2.00 $2,024 Demolish wood framed structure 1,012 SF 20.00 $20,240 Demolish flooring 1,012 SF 5.00 $5,060 Demolish sub floor framing 1,012 SF 10.00 $10,120 Remove wood Load wood debris in trucks 187 CY 20.00 $3,748 Haul wood in trucks 187 CY 40.00 $7,496 Dispose 187 CY 15.00 $2,811 Hazmat demolition Hazmat monitoring and clearance 412 SF 5.00 $2,059 Remove flaking paint from exterior wall paneling 412 SF 25.00 $10,295 (Assume 33% is flaking and failing) Collate/collect and dispose lead paint 412 SF 7.50 $3,089 Testing / hazmat contamination Test soil to perimeter of buiding for lead contamination 1 EA 5,000.00 $5,000 Allowance for clean up of contaminated soil 1 EA 15,000.00 $15,000 Biologist monitoring 1 LS 3,000.00 $3,000 Environmental impact report Report to cover CEQA requirements for demolition option 1 EA 40,000.00 $40,000 Site restoration, allowance 1 LS 10,000.00 $10,000 TOTAL - 111 SITE PREPARATION $151,016 Prepared by: OCMI Sheet 18 of 54 DR A F T Attachment 1 Mid-Peninsula Stabilization REDWOOD LOG CABIN - OPTION 1 La Honda, CA CONCEPTUAL COST ESTIMATE,R2 OCMI JOB #: 19414.000 | 18 December 2019 ELEMENT TOTAL COST $/SF AREA 01 FOUNDATIONS 02 SUBSTRUCTURE 03 SUPERSTRUCTURE 04 EXTERIOR CLOSURE 05 ROOFING 06 INTERIOR CONSTRUCTION 07 CONVEYING 08 MECHANICAL 09 ELECTRICAL 10 EQUIPMENT 11 SITEWORK $47,637 $24.06 NET DIRECT BUILDING COST $47,637 $24.06 GENERAL CONDITIONS, OVERHEAD & PROFIT 10.00%$4,764 $2.41 SUBTOTAL $52,401 $26.47 INSURANCE 2.00%$1,048 $0.53 SUBTOTAL $53,449 $26.99 BONDS: CONTRACTOR 1.50%$802 $0.40 TOTAL BUILDING COST $54,250 $27.40 GROSS FLOOR AREA:1,980 SF BUILDING SUMMARY Prepared by: OCMI Sheet 19 of 54 DR A F T Attachment 1 Mid-Peninsula Stabilization REDWOOD LOG CABIN - OPTION 1 La Honda, CA CONCEPTUAL COST ESTIMATE,R2 OCMI JOB #: 19414.000 | 18 December 2019 TOTAL ELEMENT AMOUNT TOTAL COST $/SF AREA $/SF AREA 01 FOUNDATIONS 011 Standard Foundations 012 Special Foundations 02 SUBSTRUCTURE 021 Slab On Grade 022 Basement Excavation 023 Basement Walls 03 SUPERSTRUCTURE 031 Floor and Roof Construction 032 Stair Construction 04 EXTERIOR CLOSURE 041 Exterior Walls 042 Exterior Doors/Windows 05 ROOFING 051 Roofing 06 INTERIOR CONSTRUCTION 061 Partitions 062 Interior Finishes 063 Specialties 064 Interior Doors/Windows 07 CONVEYING 071 Elevators 08 MECHANICAL 081 Plumbing 082 H.V.A.C. 083 Fire Protection 084 Special Mechanical 09 ELECTRICAL 091 Standard Electrical 092 Special Electrical 10 EQUIPMENT 101 Fixed/Movable Equipment 102 Furnishings 103 Special Construction 11 SITEWORK $47,637 $24.06 111 Site Preparation $17,245 $8.71 112 Site Improvements $30,392 $15.35 113 Site Utilities 114 Off-Site Work NET DIRECT BUILDING COST $47,637 $24.06 DETAILED BUILDING SUMMARY Prepared by: OCMI Sheet 20 of 54 DR A F T Attachment 1 Mid-Peninsula Stabilization REDWOOD LOG CABIN - OPTION 1 La Honda, CA CONCEPTUAL COST ESTIMATE,R2 OCMI JOB #: 19414.000 | 18 December 2019 DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT UNIT RATE ESTIMATED COST ELEMENT - EXTERIOR CLOSURE 041 EXTERIOR WALLS Mothballing building - Scope eliminated NIC TOTAL - 041 EXTERIOR WALLS ELEMENT - ELECTRICAL 092 SPECIAL ELECTRICAL Security measures (option for self sufficient solar power for electrical panel) This design idea was not practical due to location NIC TOTAL - 092 SPECIAL ELECTRICAL ELEMENT - SITEWORK 111 SITE PREPARATION Remove / stabilize public safety hazards Allow shrub removal along west side 1 LS 2,000.00 $2,000 Removal and disposal of shrubs 1 LS 750.00 $750 Approved weed abatement product to perimeter of structure 198 LF 2.50 $495 Trim large trees hanging over property 3 EA 2,000.00 $6,000 Removal and disposal of debris 3 EA 500.00 $1,500 Wildlife management Removal of unwanted wildlife 1 LS 2,500.00 $2,500 Treatment of insect infestations 1 LS 4,000.00 $4,000 On-going maintenance, 20 year period - separated out TOTAL - 111 SITE PREPARATION $17,245 ELEMENT - SITEWORK 112 SITE IMPROVEMENTS Restrict perimeter access approach Perimeter boundary fence Chain link, 9 gauge, 8' high (Remote undulating install)340 LF 67.42 $22,922 Add for barbed wire outrigger 340 LF 7.42 $2,522 Double gates, chainlink, 8' wide 2 EA 1,473.81 $2,948 Signage to property Signage at building 2 EA 500.00 $1,000 Signage at entry gates 2 EA 500.00 $1,000 TOTAL - 112 SITE IMPROVEMENTS $30,392 Prepared by: OCMI Sheet 21 of 54 DR A F T Attachment 1 Mid-Peninsula Stabilization REDWOOD LOG CABIN - OPTION 1 La Honda, CA CONCEPTUAL COST ESTIMATE,R2 OCMI JOB #: 19414.000 | 18 December 2019 DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT UNIT RATE ESTIMATED COST On-going maintenance, 20 year period Monthly visit to maintain, 2 men x 1/2 day 240 MnDay 600.00 $144,000 Exterior site, trees and shrubs Check exterior and interior and clean, fix as needed Prepared by: OCMI Sheet 22 of 54 DR A F T Attachment 1 Mid-Peninsula Stabilization REDWOOD LOG CABIN - OPTION 2 La Honda, CA CONCEPTUAL COST ESTIMATE,R2 OCMI JOB #: 19414.000 | 18 December 2019 ELEMENT TOTAL COST $/SF AREA 01 FOUNDATIONS 02 SUBSTRUCTURE 03 SUPERSTRUCTURE $42,979 $21.71 04 EXTERIOR CLOSURE $27,023 $13.65 05 ROOFING 06 INTERIOR CONSTRUCTION 07 CONVEYING 08 MECHANICAL 09 ELECTRICAL 10 EQUIPMENT 11 SITEWORK $92,655 $46.80 NET DIRECT BUILDING COST $162,657 $82.15 DESIGN CONTINGENCY 5.00%$8,133 $4.11 SUBTOTAL $170,790 $86.26 GENERAL CONDITIONS, OVERHEAD & PROFIT 10.00%$17,079 $8.63 SUBTOTAL $187,869 $94.88 INSURANCE 2.00%$3,757 $1.90 SUBTOTAL $191,626 $96.78 BONDS: CONTRACTOR 1.50%$2,874 $1.45 TOTAL BUILDING COST $194,501 $98.23 GROSS FLOOR AREA:1,980 SF BUILDING SUMMARY Prepared by: OCMI Sheet 23 of 54 DR A F T Attachment 1 Mid-Peninsula Stabilization REDWOOD LOG CABIN - OPTION 2 La Honda, CA CONCEPTUAL COST ESTIMATE,R2 OCMI JOB #: 19414.000 | 18 December 2019 TOTAL ELEMENT AMOUNT TOTAL COST $/SF AREA $/SF AREA 01 FOUNDATIONS 011 Standard Foundations 012 Special Foundations 02 SUBSTRUCTURE 021 Slab On Grade 022 Basement Excavation 023 Basement Walls 03 SUPERSTRUCTURE $42,979 $21.71 031 Floor and Roof Construction $42,979 $21.71 032 Stair Construction 04 EXTERIOR CLOSURE $27,023 $13.65 041 Exterior Walls $27,023 $13.65 042 Exterior Doors/Windows 05 ROOFING 051 Roofing 06 INTERIOR CONSTRUCTION 061 Partitions 062 Interior Finishes 063 Specialties 064 Interior Doors/Windows 07 CONVEYING 071 Elevators 08 MECHANICAL 081 Plumbing 082 H.V.A.C. 083 Fire Protection 084 Special Mechanical 09 ELECTRICAL 091 Standard Electrical 092 Special Electrical 10 EQUIPMENT 101 Fixed/Movable Equipment 102 Furnishings 103 Special Construction 11 SITEWORK $92,655 $46.80 111 Site Preparation $87,185 $44.03 112 Site Improvements 113 Site Utilities $5,470 $2.76 114 Off-Site Work NET DIRECT BUILDING COST $162,657 $82.15 DETAILED BUILDING SUMMARY Prepared by: OCMI Sheet 24 of 54 DR A F T Attachment 1 Mid-Peninsula Stabilization REDWOOD LOG CABIN - OPTION 2 La Honda, CA CONCEPTUAL COST ESTIMATE,R2 OCMI JOB #: 19414.000 | 18 December 2019 DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT UNIT RATE ESTIMATED COST ELEMENT - FOUNDATIONS 011 STANDARD FOUNDATIONS Foundation support for building Cribbing per Corp of Engineers - refer to Site Preparation TOTAL - 011 STANDARD FOUNDATIONS ELEMENT - SUPERSTRUCTURE 031 FLOOR AND ROOF CONSTRUCTION Exterior porch Replace porch framing, North, South & West side Joists, PTDF 2x6 @ 16" o.c 559 SF 17.85 $9,978 Bracing and blocking joists 559 SF 5.00 $2,795 Replace porch decking, North, South & West sides Redwood decking, 2x6 with 1" spacing 559 SF 17.50 $9,783 Replace porch handrailing Replace horizontal log rails, 3 high at perimeter 191 LF 22.00 $4,202 Replace porch framing, East side (Allow 50%) Joists, PTDF 2x6 @ 16" o.c 402 SF 17.85 $7,176 Bracing and blocking joists 402 SF 5.00 $2,010 Replace porch decking, East side (Allow 50%) Redwood decking, 2x6 with 1" spacing 402 SF 17.50 $7,035 TOTAL - 031 FLOOR AND ROOF CONSTRUCTION $42,979 ELEMENT - EXTERIOR CLOSURE 041 EXTERIOR WALLS Mothballing building Close off windows, board up with plywood 285 SF 12.50 $3,563 Close off doors, board up with plywood 84 SF 15.00 $1,260 Close off skylights, bpard up with plywood 240 SF 10.00 $2,400 Fill other miscellaneous openings and gaps 1,980 SF 10.00 $19,800 TOTAL - 041 EXTERIOR WALLS $27,023 ELEMENT - ELECTRICAL 092 SPECIAL ELECTRICAL Security measures (option for self sufficient solar power for electrical panel) This design idea was not practical due to location NIC TOTAL - 092 SPECIAL ELECTRICAL ELEMENT - SITEWORK 111 SITE PREPARATION Stabilization of structure - support from underneath Prepared by: OCMI Sheet 25 of 54 DR A F T Attachment 1 Mid-Peninsula Stabilization REDWOOD LOG CABIN - OPTION 2 La Honda, CA CONCEPTUAL COST ESTIMATE,R2 OCMI JOB #: 19414.000 | 18 December 2019 DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT UNIT RATE ESTIMATED COST Pressure treated wood box cribbing, 6x6 members West elevation, 6' high, 2 blocks per lvl, 3' long(24 EA)7 EA 2,160.00 $15,120 Prepare grade and sub floor for cribbing 7 EA 420.00 $2,940 North elevation, 8' high, 2 blocks per lvl, 3' long(32 EA)4 EA 2,880.00 $11,520 Prepare grade and sub floor for cribbing 4 EA 420.00 $1,680 South elevation, 6' high, 2 blocks per lvl, 3' long(24EA)3 EA 2,160.00 $6,480 Prepare grade and sub floor for cribbing 3 EA 420.00 $1,260 East elevation, 8' high, 2 blocks per lvl, 3' long(32 EA)4 EA 2,880.00 $11,520 Prepare grade and sub floor for cribbing 4 EA 420.00 $1,680 East elevation, 12' high, 2 blocks per lvl, 3' long(48 EA)1 EA 4,320.00 $4,320 Prepare grade and sub floor for cribbing 1 EA 420.00 $420 Remove / stabilize public safety hazards Allow shrub removal along west side 1 LS 500.00 $500 Removal and disposal of shrubs 1 LS 250.00 $250 Weed wacking and abatement product to perimeter 198 LF 2.50 $495 Large tree removal (3 Tan oaks, 2 Madrones) - 5 Total 5 EA 2,500.00 $12,500 Debris removal, grinding 5 EA 1,500.00 $7,500 Remove girdle from Redwood trees, per Arborist report 2 EA 500.00 $1,000 Wildlife management Removal of unwanted wildlife 1 LS 2,500.00 $2,500 Treatment of insect infestations 1 LS 4,000.00 $4,000 Replacement maternity roost 1 EA 1,500.00 $1,500 TOTAL - 111 SITE PREPARATION $87,185 ELEMENT - SITEWORK 113 SITE UTILITIES Utility disconnections Disconnect plumbing and provide cap/valve 1 LS 2,380.00 $2,380 Disconnect power and safe off 1 LS 2,210.00 $2,210 Remove obsolete power board 1 LS 880.00 $880 On-going maintenance, 20 year period - separated out TOTAL - 113 SITE UTILITIES $5,470 On-going maintenance, 20 year period Monthly visit to maintain, 2 men x 1 day 480 MnDay 600.00 $288,000 Exterior site, trees and shrubs Check exterior and interior and clean, fix as needed Prepared by: OCMI Sheet 26 of 54 DR A F T Attachment 1 Mid-Peninsula Stabilization REDWOOD LOG CABIN - OPTION 3 La Honda, CA CONCEPTUAL COST ESTIMATE,R2 OCMI JOB #: 19414.000 | 18 December 2019 ELEMENT TOTAL COST $/SF AREA 01 FOUNDATIONS $141,497 $71.46 02 SUBSTRUCTURE 03 SUPERSTRUCTURE $165,195 $83.43 04 EXTERIOR CLOSURE $36,720 $18.55 05 ROOFING 06 INTERIOR CONSTRUCTION $10,280 $5.19 07 CONVEYING 08 MECHANICAL $86,770 $43.82 09 ELECTRICAL $44,150 $22.30 10 EQUIPMENT $15,381 $7.77 11 SITEWORK $84,512 $42.68 NET DIRECT BUILDING COST $584,505 $295.20 DESIGN CONTINGENCY 5.00%$29,225 $14.76 SUBTOTAL $613,730 $309.96 ESCALATION TO MIDPOINT 01/2021 5.42%$33,244 $16.79 SUBTOTAL $646,974 $326.75 GENERAL CONDITIONS, OVERHEAD & PROFIT 10.00%$64,697 $32.68 SUBTOTAL $711,671 $359.43 INSURANCE 2.00%$14,233 $7.19 SUBTOTAL $725,905 $366.62 BONDS: CONTRACTOR 1.50%$10,889 $5.50 TOTAL BUILDING COST $736,793 $372.12 GROSS FLOOR AREA:1,980 SF BUILDING SUMMARY Prepared by: OCMI Sheet 27 of 54 DR A F T Attachment 1 Mid-Peninsula Stabilization REDWOOD LOG CABIN - OPTION 3 La Honda, CA CONCEPTUAL COST ESTIMATE,R2 OCMI JOB #: 19414.000 | 18 December 2019 TOTAL ELEMENT AMOUNT TOTAL COST $/SF AREA $/SF AREA 01 FOUNDATIONS $141,497 $71.46 011 Standard Foundations $141,497 $71.46 012 Special Foundations 02 SUBSTRUCTURE 021 Slab On Grade 022 Basement Excavation 023 Basement Walls 03 SUPERSTRUCTURE $165,195 $83.43 031 Floor and Roof Construction $165,195 $83.43 032 Stair Construction 04 EXTERIOR CLOSURE $36,720 $18.55 041 Exterior Walls $36,720 $18.55 042 Exterior Doors/Windows 05 ROOFING 051 Roofing 06 INTERIOR CONSTRUCTION $10,280 $5.19 061 Partitions 062 Interior Finishes $10,280 $5.19 063 Specialties 064 Interior Doors/Windows 07 CONVEYING 071 Elevators 08 MECHANICAL $86,770 $43.82 081 Plumbing $83,470 $42.16 082 H.V.A.C.$3,300 $1.67 083 Fire Protection 084 Special Mechanical 09 ELECTRICAL $44,150 $22.30 091 Standard Electrical $44,150 $22.30 092 Special Electrical 10 EQUIPMENT $15,381 $7.77 101 Fixed/Movable Equipment 102 Furnishings $15,381 $7.77 103 Special Construction 11 SITEWORK $84,512 $42.68 111 Site Preparation $24,512 $12.38 112 Site Improvements $35,000 $17.68 113 Site Utilities $25,000 $12.63 114 Off-Site Work NET DIRECT BUILDING COST $584,505 $295.20 DETAILED BUILDING SUMMARY Prepared by: OCMI Sheet 28 of 54 DR A F T Attachment 1 Mid-Peninsula Stabilization REDWOOD LOG CABIN - OPTION 3 La Honda, CA CONCEPTUAL COST ESTIMATE,R2 OCMI JOB #: 19414.000 | 18 December 2019 DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT UNIT RATE ESTIMATED COST ELEMENT - FOUNDATIONS 011 STANDARD FOUNDATIONS Seismic retrofit work (Stabilization of building) 46 CY 1,188.13 $54,707 51 CY 1,188.13 $60,621 Spread/pad footings under posts, 3'x3'x3.5' deep, exterior 14.0 CY 983.81 $13,773 Spread/pad footings under posts, 3'x3'x3.5' deep, interior 12.6 CY 983.81 $12,396 TOTAL - 011 STANDARD FOUNDATIONS $141,497 ELEMENT - SUPERSTRUCTURE 031 FLOOR AND ROOF CONSTRUCTION Sub floor framing repairs Trim 12" off base of existing timber posts resting on grade 19 EA 340.00 $6,460 Treat seal base of poles 19 EA 320.00 $6,080 Achor base plates with knife plates connected into footing 19 EA 750.00 $14,250 Anchors connecting poles into new footings 19 EA 450.00 $8,550 Floor leveling Systematically level floor to correct settlement Hydraulic jack at new pad locations - see item below Lift/level floor level, hydraulic jack, difficult terrain 990 SF 13.00 $12,870 (Allow 50% floor area) Sub floor strengthening Add sub floor braces at foundation tie beams Treated timber cross braces, 4x10 each side of post Cross braces at Grid 1 & 3, 12' average lengths 192 LF 35.00 $6,720 Fix braces T&B to posts (Hardware & Connections)32 EA 195.00 $6,240 Cross braces at Grid A,B,C,D, 12' average lengths 192 LF 35.00 $6,720 Fix braces T&B to posts (Hardware & Connections)32 EA 195.00 $6,240 Wall/structure strengthening Retrofit 8x8 posts, 8' o.c, inside face of exterior walls 30 EA 432.00 $12,960 Fix posts to logs, simpson 0.22"x15" log screws (x2)30 EA 495.00 $14,850 (Assume 12 logs per post and 24 fixings) Anchor posts, T&B (Roof diaphram & bottom to sub floor)30 EA 425.00 $12,750 Exterior porch Replace porch framing, North, South & West side Joists, PTDF 2x6 @ 16" o.c 559 SF 17.85 $9,978 Bracing and blocking joists 559 SF 5.00 $2,795 Replace porch decking, North, South & West sides Redwood decking, 2x6 with 1" spacing 559 SF 17.50 $9,783 Repair/replace porch handrailing Replace horizontal log rails, 3 high at perimeter 191 LF 12.00 $2,292 Replace porch framing, East side (Allow 50%) Foundation tie beams, stepped, 4'wide x 3.5' deep (Grid 1 & 3) Part hand machine dig/ rebar cages Foundation tie beams, stepped, 4'wide x 3.5' deep (Grid A,B,C,D) Part hand machine dig/ rebar cages Prepared by: OCMI Sheet 29 of 54 DR A F T Attachment 1 Mid-Peninsula Stabilization REDWOOD LOG CABIN - OPTION 3 La Honda, CA CONCEPTUAL COST ESTIMATE,R2 OCMI JOB #: 19414.000 | 18 December 2019 DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT UNIT RATE ESTIMATED COST Joists, PTDF 2x6 @ 16" o.c 402 SF 17.85 $7,176 Bracing and blocking joists 402 SF 5.00 $2,010 Replace porch decking, East side (Allow 50%) Redwood decking, 2x6 with 1" spacing 402 SF 17.50 $7,035 Floor system inside building, part replacement 10% T&G flooring, 1x6 fixed over Diagnol sheathing 198 SF 25.00 $4,950 Diagnol sheathing, 1x6 fixed over framing 198 SF 10.00 $1,980 Floor joists, 4"x5-1/2" @ 24" o.c 198 SF 9.50 $1,881 floor beams/bearers, 2"x5-1/2" over posts 50 LF 12.50 $625 TOTAL - 031 FLOOR AND ROOF CONSTRUCTION $165,195 ELEMENT - EXTERIOR CLOSURE 041 EXTERIOR WALLS Exterior wall repairs Replace lower 3 rows of logs to perimeter walls, install 194 LF 64.00 $12,416 piecemeal so deconstruct is not required, crafting of new logs to match existing geometries and texture Replace additional 4' at ends of corner logs, staggered laps 256 LF 67.83 $17,364 splicing of new to existing logs Allow to re-secure walls/ stacked logs 194 LF 10.00 $1,940 Allow shoring for the work 1 LS 5,000.00 $5,000 TOTAL - 041 EXTERIOR WALLS $36,720 ELEMENT - INTERIOR CONSTRUCTION 062 INTERIOR FINISHES Bathroom renovation New flooring 80 SF 30.00 $2,400 Floor base 33 LF 20.00 $660 Refinish existing wood flooring Finish wood floor with Tung oil 1,900 SF 3.80 $7,220 TOTAL - 062 INTERIOR FINISHES $10,280 ELEMENT - MECHANICAL 081 PLUMBING Building Renovation/upgrades Equipment HWU 1 EA 3,250.00 $3,250 Instahot at Kitchen sink 1 EA 1,265.00 $1,265 Oven - Not required per City NIC Stove - Not required per City NIC Prepared by: OCMI Sheet 30 of 54 DR A F T Attachment 1 Mid-Peninsula Stabilization REDWOOD LOG CABIN - OPTION 3 La Honda, CA CONCEPTUAL COST ESTIMATE,R2 OCMI JOB #: 19414.000 | 18 December 2019 DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT UNIT RATE ESTIMATED COST Septic & potable water systems, Allowance 1 EA 60,000.00 $60,000 Fixtures WC with cistern 1 EA 775.00 $775 Lavatory with faucet 1 EA 640.00 $640 Bath/shower - Replacement not required per City NIC Stainless steel sink, double 1 EA 825.00 $825 Rough at fixtures WC 1 EA 420.00 $420 Lavatory 1 EA 750.00 $750 Bath/shower - Replacement not required per City NIC Stainless steel sink, double 1 EA 775.00 $775 Rough plumbing WC 1 EA 3,200.00 $3,200 Lavatory 1 EA 2,800.00 $2,800 Bath/shower - Replacement not required per City NIC Stainless steel sink, double 1 EA 3,200.00 $3,200 Seismic bracing 6 EA 300.00 $1,800 Seal penetrations 6 EA 120.00 $720 Test and chlorinate water outlets 2 EA 275.00 $550 Filtration and potability tests 1 LS 2,500.00 $2,500 TOTAL - 081 PLUMBING $83,470 ELEMENT - MECHANICAL 082 H.V.A.C. Kitchen renovation Replace kitchen flue 1 LS 1,800.00 $1,800 Stove vent, per city no stove NIC Hot water vent 1 LS 1,500.00 $1,500 TOTAL - 082 H.V.A.C.$3,300 ELEMENT - ELECTRICAL 091 STANDARD ELECTRICAL Upgrade/ Renovation work Upgrade/ replace switchboard 1 EA 4,500.00 $4,500 Replace feeders to switchboard 1 LS 3,500.00 $3,500 Equipment connections 1 LS 1,500.00 $1,500 Light fixtures (Budget Allowance, as no design)1,980 SF 12.50 $24,750 Conduit and wiring 1,980 SF 5.00 $9,900 TOTAL - 091 STANDARD ELECTRICAL $44,150 Prepared by: OCMI Sheet 31 of 54 DR A F T Attachment 1 Mid-Peninsula Stabilization REDWOOD LOG CABIN - OPTION 3 La Honda, CA CONCEPTUAL COST ESTIMATE,R2 OCMI JOB #: 19414.000 | 18 December 2019 DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT UNIT RATE ESTIMATED COST ELEMENT - EQUIPMENT 102 FURNISHINGS Kitchen renovation Base cabinet, plastic laminate 20 LF 374.23 $7,485 Countertop, plastic laminate with backsplash 20 LF 114.50 $2,290 Wall cabinet, plastic laminate 20 LF 280.30 $5,606 TOTAL - 102 FURNISHINGS $15,381 ELEMENT - SITEWORK 111 SITE PREPARATION Building demolition Electrical demolition Remove existing Knob & Tube wiring 1,980 SF 1.40 $2,772 Exterior porch Remove porch framing, North, South & West side Joists, PTDF 2x6 @ 16" o.c 559 SF 10.00 $5,590 Remove porch decking, North, South & West sides Redwood decking, 2x6 with 1" spacing 559 SF 7.50 $4,193 Remove porch handrailing Replace horizontal log rails, 3 high at perimeter 107 LF 9.50 $1,017 Exterior wall repairs Remove lower 3 rows of logs to perimeter walls (Per level)194 LF 25.00 $4,850 piecemeal method so deconstruct not required Replace additional 4' at ends of corner logs, staggered laps 256 LF 15.00 $3,840 Hazmat demolition Remove linoleum floor to Kitchen floor glue product 300 SF 7.50 $2,250 (Prior to renovating the cabin floor) On-going maintenance, 20 year period - separated out TOTAL - 111 SITE PREPARATION $24,512 ELEMENT - SITEWORK 112 SITE IMPROVEMENTS ADA Improvements, S.W Corner (#10 page 18) Site accessibility Grading to improve ADA accessibility 1 LS 10,000.00 $10,000 New hardscape pathway, ADA Compliant 1 LS 20,000.00 $20,000 Planting improvements 1 LS 5,000.00 $5,000 TOTAL - 112 SITE IMPROVEMENTS $35,000 Prepared by: OCMI Sheet 32 of 54 DR A F T Attachment 1 Mid-Peninsula Stabilization REDWOOD LOG CABIN - OPTION 3 La Honda, CA CONCEPTUAL COST ESTIMATE,R2 OCMI JOB #: 19414.000 | 18 December 2019 DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT UNIT RATE ESTIMATED COST ELEMENT - SITEWORK 113 SITE UTILITIES Reconnections, Allowances only Reconnect electrical service to building 1 LS 10,000.00 $10,000 Reconnect / re-run piping for water and sewer to building 1 LS 15,000.00 $15,000 TOTAL - 113 SITE UTILITIES $25,000<-- DO NOT REMOVE THAT X Maintenance costs: On-going maintenance, 20 year period Monthly visit to maintain, 2 men x 1 day 480 MnDay 600.00 $288,000 Exterior site, trees and shrubs Check exterior and interior and clean, fix as needed Prepared by: OCMI Sheet 33 of 54 DR A F T Attachment 1 Mid-Peninsula Stabilization REDWOOD LOG CABIN - OPTION 4 La Honda, CA CONCEPTUAL COST ESTIMATE,R2 OCMI JOB #: 19414.000 | 18 December 2019 ELEMENT TOTAL COST $/SF AREA 01 FOUNDATIONS 02 SUBSTRUCTURE 03 SUPERSTRUCTURE 04 EXTERIOR CLOSURE 05 ROOFING 06 INTERIOR CONSTRUCTION 07 CONVEYING 08 MECHANICAL 09 ELECTRICAL 10 EQUIPMENT 11 SITEWORK $215,896 $109.04 NET DIRECT BUILDING COST $215,896 $109.04 GENERAL CONDITIONS, OVERHEAD & PROFIT 10.00%$21,590 $10.90 SUBTOTAL $237,486 $119.94 INSURANCE 2.00%$4,750 $2.40 SUBTOTAL $242,235 $122.34 BONDS: CONTRACTOR 1.50%$3,634 $1.84 TOTAL BUILDING COST $245,869 $124.18 GROSS FLOOR AREA:1,980 SF BUILDING SUMMARY Prepared by: OCMI Sheet 34 of 54 DR A F T Attachment 1 Mid-Peninsula Stabilization REDWOOD LOG CABIN - OPTION 4 La Honda, CA CONCEPTUAL COST ESTIMATE,R2 OCMI JOB #: 19414.000 | 18 December 2019 TOTAL ELEMENT AMOUNT TOTAL COST $/SF AREA $/SF AREA 01 FOUNDATIONS 011 Standard Foundations 012 Special Foundations 02 SUBSTRUCTURE 021 Slab On Grade 022 Basement Excavation 023 Basement Walls 03 SUPERSTRUCTURE 031 Floor and Roof Construction 032 Stair Construction 04 EXTERIOR CLOSURE 041 Exterior Walls 042 Exterior Doors/Windows 05 ROOFING 051 Roofing 06 INTERIOR CONSTRUCTION 061 Partitions 062 Interior Finishes 063 Specialties 064 Interior Doors/Windows 07 CONVEYING 071 Elevators 08 MECHANICAL 081 Plumbing 082 H.V.A.C. 083 Fire Protection 084 Special Mechanical 09 ELECTRICAL 091 Standard Electrical 092 Special Electrical 10 EQUIPMENT 101 Fixed/Movable Equipment 102 Furnishings 103 Special Construction 11 SITEWORK $215,896 $109.04 111 Site Preparation $215,896 $109.04 112 Site Improvements 113 Site Utilities 114 Off-Site Work NET DIRECT BUILDING COST $215,896 $109.04 DETAILED BUILDING SUMMARY Prepared by: OCMI Sheet 35 of 54 DR A F T Attachment 1 Mid-Peninsula Stabilization REDWOOD LOG CABIN - OPTION 4 La Honda, CA CONCEPTUAL COST ESTIMATE,R2 OCMI JOB #: 19414.000 | 18 December 2019 DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT UNIT RATE ESTIMATED COST ELEMENT - SITEWORK 111 SITE PREPARATION Building/structure demolition Remove roofing 2,633 SF 2.00 $5,267 Remove doors, single 6 EA 100.00 $600 Remove roof sheathing 2,633 SF 2.00 $5,267 Demolish wood framed structure 1,980 SF 20.00 $39,600 Demolish flooring (Building and Decking)3,840 SF 2.50 $9,600 Demolish sub floor framing with crawl space (Building and 3,840 SF 5.00 $19,200 Decking) Demolish concrete foundations to building (Minimal)3,840 SF 2.50 $9,600 Demolish stone and masonry fireplace 720 SF 25.00 $18,000 Demolish concrete foundations to fireplace 1 LS 10,000.00 $10,000 Trim large trees hanging over property 3 EA 2,000.00 $6,000 Removal and disposal of debris 3 EA 500.00 $1,500 Dispose stone and masonry Move out of building, hand 27 CY 150.00 $4,000 Load trucks 27 CY 40.00 $1,067 Haul debris 27 CY 50.00 $1,333 Dispose/recycle debris 27 CY 30.00 $800 Dispose concrete (Foundations) Load trucks 53 CY 75.00 $3,956 Haul debris 53 CY 50.00 $2,637 Dispose/recycle debris 53 CY 25.00 $1,319 Remove wood Load wood debris in trucks 293 CY 15.00 $4,400 Haul wood in trucks 293 CY 30.00 $8,800 Dispose 293 CY 15.00 $4,400 Hazmat demolition Hazmat monitoring and clearance 300 SF 5.00 $1,500 Remove linoleum floor to Kitchen floor glue product 300 SF 7.50 $2,250 (Prior to renovating the cabin floor) Biologist monitoring 1 LS 4,800.00 $4,800 Environmental impact report Report to cover CEQA requirements for demolition option 1 EA 40,000.00 $40,000 Site restoration, allowance 1 LS 10,000.00 $10,000 TOTAL - 111 SITE PREPARATION $215,896 Prepared by: OCMI Sheet 36 of 54 DR A F T Attachment 1 Mid-Peninsula Stabilization BEATTY PROPERTY - OPTION 1 La Honda, CA CONCEPTUAL COST ESTIMATE,R2 OCMI JOB #: 19414.000 | 18 December 2019 ELEMENT TOTAL COST $/SF AREA 01 FOUNDATIONS 02 SUBSTRUCTURE 03 SUPERSTRUCTURE 04 EXTERIOR CLOSURE 05 ROOFING 06 INTERIOR CONSTRUCTION 07 CONVEYING 08 MECHANICAL 09 ELECTRICAL 10 EQUIPMENT 11 SITEWORK $56,128 $29.36 NET DIRECT BUILDING COST $56,128 $29.36 GENERAL CONDITIONS, OVERHEAD & PROFIT 10.00%$5,613 $2.94 SUBTOTAL $61,741 $32.29 INSURANCE 2.00%$1,235 $0.65 SUBTOTAL $62,976 $32.94 BONDS: CONTRACTOR 1.50%$945 $0.49 TOTAL BUILDING COST $63,920 $33.43 GROSS FLOOR AREA:1,912 SF BUILDING SUMMARY Prepared by: OCMI Sheet 37 of 54 DR A F T Attachment 1 Mid-Peninsula Stabilization BEATTY PROPERTY - OPTION 1 La Honda, CA CONCEPTUAL COST ESTIMATE,R2 OCMI JOB #: 19414.000 | 18 December 2019 TOTAL ELEMENT AMOUNT TOTAL COST $/SF AREA $/SF AREA 01 FOUNDATIONS 011 Standard Foundations 012 Special Foundations 02 SUBSTRUCTURE 021 Slab On Grade 022 Basement Excavation 023 Basement Walls 03 SUPERSTRUCTURE 031 Floor and Roof Construction 032 Stair Construction 04 EXTERIOR CLOSURE 041 Exterior Walls 042 Exterior Doors/Windows 05 ROOFING 051 Roofing 06 INTERIOR CONSTRUCTION 061 Partitions 062 Interior Finishes 063 Specialties 064 Interior Doors/Windows 07 CONVEYING 071 Elevators 08 MECHANICAL 081 Plumbing 082 H.V.A.C. 083 Fire Protection 084 Special Mechanical 09 ELECTRICAL 091 Standard Electrical 092 Special Electrical 10 EQUIPMENT 101 Fixed/Movable Equipment 102 Furnishings 103 Special Construction 11 SITEWORK $56,128 $29.36 111 Site Preparation $21,245 $11.11 112 Site Improvements $34,883 $18.24 113 Site Utilities 114 Off-Site Work NET DIRECT BUILDING COST $56,128 $29.36 DETAILED BUILDING SUMMARY Prepared by: OCMI Sheet 38 of 54 DR A F T Attachment 1 Mid-Peninsula Stabilization BEATTY PROPERTY - OPTION 1 La Honda, CA CONCEPTUAL COST ESTIMATE,R2 OCMI JOB #: 19414.000 | 18 December 2019 DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT UNIT RATE ESTIMATED COST ELEMENT - EXTERIOR CLOSURE 041 EXTERIOR WALLS Mothballing building - Scope eliminated NIC TOTAL - 041 EXTERIOR WALLS ELEMENT - ELECTRICAL 092 SPECIAL ELECTRICAL Security measures (option for self sufficient solar power for electrical panel) This design idea was not practical due to location NIC TOTAL - 092 SPECIAL ELECTRICAL ELEMENT - SITEWORK 111 SITE PREPARATION Remove / stabilize public safety hazards Allow shrub removal along west side 1 LS 2,000.00 $2,000 Removal and disposal of shrubs 1 LS 750.00 $750 Weed wacking and abatement product to perimeter 198 LF 2.50 $495 Remove trees 2 EA 2,000.00 $4,000 Trim large trees hanging over property 3 EA 2,000.00 $6,000 Removal and disposal of debris 3 EA 500.00 $1,500 Wildlife management Removal of unwanted wildlife 1 LS 2,500.00 $2,500 Treatment of insect infestations 1 LS 4,000.00 $4,000 On-going maintenance, 20 year period - separated out TOTAL - 111 SITE PREPARATION $21,245 ELEMENT - SITEWORK 112 SITE IMPROVEMENTS Restrict perimeter access approach Perimeter boundary fence Chain link, 9 gauge, 8' high (Remote undulating install)400 LF 67.42 $26,968 Add for barbed wire outrigger 400 LF 7.42 $2,967 Double gates, chainlink, 8' wide 2 EA 1,473.81 $2,948 Signage to property Signage at building 2 EA 500.00 $1,000 Signage at entry gates 2 EA 500.00 $1,000 TOTAL - 112 SITE IMPROVEMENTS $34,883 Prepared by: OCMI Sheet 39 of 54 DR A F T Attachment 1 Mid-Peninsula Stabilization BEATTY PROPERTY - OPTION 1 La Honda, CA CONCEPTUAL COST ESTIMATE,R2 OCMI JOB #: 19414.000 | 18 December 2019 DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT UNIT RATE ESTIMATED COST On-going maintenance, 20 year period Monthly visit to maintain, 2 men x 1/2 day 240 MnDay 600.00 $144,000 Exterior site, trees and shrubs Check exterior and interior and clean, fix as needed Prepared by: OCMI Sheet 40 of 54 DR A F T Attachment 1 Mid-Peninsula Stabilization BEATTY PROPERTY - OPTION 2 La Honda, CA CONCEPTUAL COST ESTIMATE,R2 OCMI JOB #: 19414.000 | 18 December 2019 ELEMENT TOTAL COST $/SF AREA 01 FOUNDATIONS 02 SUBSTRUCTURE 03 SUPERSTRUCTURE $3,500 $1.83 04 EXTERIOR CLOSURE $41,380 $21.64 05 ROOFING 06 INTERIOR CONSTRUCTION 07 CONVEYING 08 MECHANICAL 09 ELECTRICAL 10 EQUIPMENT 11 SITEWORK $129,728 $67.85 NET DIRECT BUILDING COST $174,608 $91.32 DESIGN CONTINGENCY 5.00%$8,730 $4.57 SUBTOTAL $183,338 $95.89 GENERAL CONDITIONS, OVERHEAD & PROFIT 10.00%$18,334 $9.59 SUBTOTAL $201,672 $105.48 INSURANCE 2.00%$4,033 $2.11 SUBTOTAL $205,706 $107.59 BONDS: CONTRACTOR 1.50%$3,086 $1.61 TOTAL BUILDING COST $208,791 $109.20 GROSS FLOOR AREA:1,912 SF BUILDING SUMMARY Prepared by: OCMI Sheet 41 of 54 DR A F T Attachment 1 Mid-Peninsula Stabilization BEATTY PROPERTY - OPTION 2 La Honda, CA CONCEPTUAL COST ESTIMATE,R2 OCMI JOB #: 19414.000 | 18 December 2019 TOTAL ELEMENT AMOUNT TOTAL COST $/SF AREA $/SF AREA 01 FOUNDATIONS 011 Standard Foundations 012 Special Foundations 02 SUBSTRUCTURE 021 Slab On Grade 022 Basement Excavation 023 Basement Walls 03 SUPERSTRUCTURE $3,500 $1.83 031 Floor and Roof Construction $3,500 $1.83 032 Stair Construction 04 EXTERIOR CLOSURE $41,380 $21.64 041 Exterior Walls $41,380 $21.64 042 Exterior Doors/Windows 05 ROOFING 051 Roofing 06 INTERIOR CONSTRUCTION 061 Partitions 062 Interior Finishes 063 Specialties 064 Interior Doors/Windows 07 CONVEYING 071 Elevators 08 MECHANICAL 081 Plumbing 082 H.V.A.C. 083 Fire Protection 084 Special Mechanical 09 ELECTRICAL 091 Standard Electrical 092 Special Electrical 10 EQUIPMENT 101 Fixed/Movable Equipment 102 Furnishings 103 Special Construction 11 SITEWORK $129,728 $67.85 111 Site Preparation $129,728 $67.85 112 Site Improvements 113 Site Utilities 114 Off-Site Work NET DIRECT BUILDING COST $174,608 $91.32 DETAILED BUILDING SUMMARY Prepared by: OCMI Sheet 42 of 54 DR A F T Attachment 1 Mid-Peninsula Stabilization BEATTY PROPERTY - OPTION 2 La Honda, CA CONCEPTUAL COST ESTIMATE,R2 OCMI JOB #: 19414.000 | 18 December 2019 DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT UNIT RATE ESTIMATED COST ELEMENT - SUPERSTRUCTURE 031 FLOOR AND ROOF CONSTRUCTION Roof repairs Repair shed roof along south 1 LS 3,500.00 $3,500 TOTAL - 031 FLOOR AND ROOF CONSTRUCTION $3,500 ELEMENT - EXTERIOR CLOSURE 041 EXTERIOR WALLS Mothballing building Close off doors, board up with plywood 112 SF 15.00 $1,680 Fill other miscellaneous openings and gaps 1,912 SF 2.50 $4,780 Rehab windows Repair window frames 80 LF 50.00 $4,000 Add / replace sills with stop and bead for new pane 80 LF 45.00 $3,600 Clear lexan view panel 258 SF 40.00 $10,320 Paint and seal window frames 80 LF 15.00 $1,200 Strengthening at exterior walls Wood bracing, 2x10 with screw fixings Interior face exterior wall (10 locations)300 LF 30.00 $9,000 Fix bracing, screw connections (4 points per location)10 EA 680.00 $6,800 TOTAL - 041 EXTERIOR WALLS $41,380 ELEMENT - ELECTRICAL 092 SPECIAL ELECTRICAL Security measures (option for self sufficient solar power for electrical panel) This design idea was not practical due to location NIC TOTAL - 092 SPECIAL ELECTRICAL ELEMENT - SITEWORK 111 SITE PREPARATION Stabilization of structure - support from underneath Pressure treated wood box cribbing, 6x6 members Exterior, (av) 3' high, 2 blocks per lvl, 3' long(30EA)25 EA 1,080.00 $27,000 Prepare grade and sub floor for cribbing 25 EA 420.00 $10,500 Interior, (av) 3' high, 2 blocks per lvl, 3' long(20EA)20 EA 1,080.00 $21,600 Prepare grade and sub floor for cribbing 20 EA 420.00 $8,400 Building demolition Remove dilapidated shed 84 SF 22.50 $1,890 Hazmat demolition Prepared by: OCMI Sheet 43 of 54 DR A F T Attachment 1 Mid-Peninsula Stabilization BEATTY PROPERTY - OPTION 2 La Honda, CA CONCEPTUAL COST ESTIMATE,R2 OCMI JOB #: 19414.000 | 18 December 2019 DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT UNIT RATE ESTIMATED COST Hazmat monitoring and clearance 1 LS 5,000.00 $5,000 Remove wallboard for bracing walls, Hazmat 1,000 SF 4.50 $4,500 Collate and dispose material 1,000 SF 1.50 $1,500 Hazmat demolition, remove flaking paint Window frames 258 SF 17.50 $4,515 Door and frame, interior 590 SF 15.00 $8,850 Door and frame, exterior 309 SF 15.00 $4,635 Collect and dispose lead paint waste 1,157 SF 3.00 $3,471 Paint / encapsulation Encapsulate and paint the building exterior to match doors 2,256 SF 3.60 $8,122 Remove / stabilize public safety hazards Allow shrub removal along west side 1 LS 2,000.00 $2,000 Removal and disposal of shrubs 1 LS 750.00 $750 Weed wacking and abatement product to perimeter 198 LF 2.50 $495 Remove trees 2 EA 2,000.00 $4,000 Trim large trees hanging over property 3 EA 2,000.00 $6,000 Wildlife management Removal of unwanted wildlife 1 LS 2,500.00 $2,500 Treatment of insect infestations 1 LS 4,000.00 $4,000 On-going maintenance, 20 year period - separated out TOTAL - 111 SITE PREPARATION $129,728 Maintenance costs: On-going maintenance, 20 year period Monthly visit to maintain, 2 men x 1 day 480 MnDay 600.00 $288,000 Exterior site, trees and shrubs Check exterior and interior and clean, fix as needed Prepared by: OCMI Sheet 44 of 54 DR A F T Attachment 1 Mid-Peninsula Stabilization BEATTY PROPERTY - OPTION 3 La Honda, CA CONCEPTUAL COST ESTIMATE,R2 OCMI JOB #: 19414.000 | 18 December 2019 ELEMENT TOTAL COST $/SF AREA 01 FOUNDATIONS $53,644 $28.06 02 SUBSTRUCTURE 03 SUPERSTRUCTURE $115,711 $60.52 04 EXTERIOR CLOSURE $78,956 $41.29 05 ROOFING $24,238 $12.68 06 INTERIOR CONSTRUCTION $3,060 $1.60 07 CONVEYING 08 MECHANICAL $83,470 $43.66 09 ELECTRICAL $42,960 $22.47 10 EQUIPMENT $7,690 $4.02 11 SITEWORK $125,210 $65.49 NET DIRECT BUILDING COST $534,939 $279.78 DESIGN CONTINGENCY 5.00%$26,747 $13.99 SUBTOTAL $561,686 $293.77 ESCALATION TO MIDPOINT 01/2021 5.42%$30,425 $15.91 SUBTOTAL $592,111 $309.68 GENERAL CONDITIONS, OVERHEAD & PROFIT 10.00%$59,211 $30.97 SUBTOTAL $651,322 $340.65 INSURANCE 2.00%$13,026 $6.81 SUBTOTAL $664,348 $347.46 BONDS: CONTRACTOR 1.50%$9,965 $5.21 TOTAL BUILDING COST $674,313 $352.67 GROSS FLOOR AREA:1,912 SF BUILDING SUMMARY Prepared by: OCMI Sheet 45 of 54 DR A F T Attachment 1 Mid-Peninsula Stabilization BEATTY PROPERTY - OPTION 3 La Honda, CA CONCEPTUAL COST ESTIMATE,R2 OCMI JOB #: 19414.000 | 18 December 2019 TOTAL ELEMENT AMOUNT TOTAL COST $/SF AREA $/SF AREA 01 FOUNDATIONS $53,644 $28.06 011 Standard Foundations $53,644 $28.06 012 Special Foundations 02 SUBSTRUCTURE 021 Slab On Grade 022 Basement Excavation 023 Basement Walls 03 SUPERSTRUCTURE $115,711 $60.52 031 Floor and Roof Construction $115,711 $60.52 032 Stair Construction 04 EXTERIOR CLOSURE $78,956 $41.29 041 Exterior Walls $78,956 $41.29 042 Exterior Doors/Windows 05 ROOFING $24,238 $12.68 051 Roofing $24,238 $12.68 06 INTERIOR CONSTRUCTION $3,060 $1.60 061 Partitions 062 Interior Finishes $3,060 $1.60 063 Specialties 064 Interior Doors/Windows 07 CONVEYING 071 Elevators 08 MECHANICAL $83,470 $43.66 081 Plumbing $83,470 $43.66 082 H.V.A.C. 083 Fire Protection 084 Special Mechanical 09 ELECTRICAL $42,960 $22.47 091 Standard Electrical $42,960 $22.47 092 Special Electrical 10 EQUIPMENT $7,690 $4.02 101 Fixed/Movable Equipment 102 Furnishings $7,690 $4.02 103 Special Construction 11 SITEWORK $125,210 $65.49 111 Site Preparation $100,210 $52.41 112 Site Improvements 113 Site Utilities $25,000 $13.08 114 Off-Site Work NET DIRECT BUILDING COST $534,939 $279.78 DETAILED BUILDING SUMMARY Prepared by: OCMI Sheet 46 of 54 DR A F T Attachment 1 Mid-Peninsula Stabilization BEATTY PROPERTY - OPTION 3 La Honda, CA CONCEPTUAL COST ESTIMATE,R2 OCMI JOB #: 19414.000 | 18 December 2019 DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT UNIT RATE ESTIMATED COST ELEMENT - FOUNDATIONS 011 STANDARD FOUNDATIONS Seismic retrofit work (Stabilization of building) Perimeter footing, 1.5' wide x 2' deep, hit and miss (184 LF)20 CY 1,729.72 $35,363 Interior footing, 1.5' wide x 2' deep, hit and miss (40 LF)4 CY 1,729.72 $7,688 Spread/pad footings under posts, 2'x2'x2.5' deep (20 EA)7 CY 1,430.02 $10,593 TOTAL - 011 STANDARD FOUNDATIONS $53,644 ELEMENT - SUPERSTRUCTURE 031 FLOOR AND ROOF CONSTRUCTION Sub floor framing Replace crawl space posts, 4x4x N.E 4' high 20 EA 400.00 $8,000 Exterior cripple wall - see Exterior walls Flooring Replace missing/ damaged 1x6 floor planks (Provisional 50 sf)50 SF 22.50 $1,125 Steel frame clips to connect joists, girders and posts 20 EA 75.00 $1,500 Retrofit sister 2x8 joists ea side girders (double) @48" o.c 1,008 LF 25.00 $25,188 Premium to pre drill and screw sister joists (or bolt)1,008 LF 7.50 $7,556 Exterior cripple wall - see Exterior walls Strengthening structure at walls Shear wall retrofit work Stud framing, 2x4 @16" o.c (Shear wall) Allow 100LF 800 SF 15.00 $12,000 Plywood sheathing, 1/2" 800 SF 4.60 $3,680 Plywood shear nailing 800 SF 1.50 $1,200 HDU's, hold downs bolted to sub structure framing 20 EA 150.00 $3,000 Seismic anchors below wall into foundations 20 EA 350.00 $7,000 Roof framing Retrofit x2 Ridge beams, span between rafters 117 LF 50.00 $5,850 Connect hardware ends of ridge beams 59 EA 115.00 $6,785 Blocking between rafters, exterior perimeter walls 236 LF 17.50 $4,130 Blocking between rafters, interior walls 153 LF 17.50 $2,678 Retrofit collar ties to supplement existing 59 EA 77.50 $4,534 Roofing replacement work Replace part rafters, 2x8 Rafters@ 2'o.c (Allowance, 20%)402 SF 29.50 $11,847 New roof sheathing, 5/8", pitched roof 2,008 SF 4.80 $9,638 TOTAL - 031 FLOOR AND ROOF CONSTRUCTION $115,711 ELEMENT - EXTERIOR CLOSURE 041 EXTERIOR WALLS Exterior walls Cripple wall retrofit work Stud framing, 2x4 @16" o.c (Cripple wall)582 SF 15.00 $8,730 Prepared by: OCMI Sheet 47 of 54 DR A F T Attachment 1 Mid-Peninsula Stabilization BEATTY PROPERTY - OPTION 3 La Honda, CA CONCEPTUAL COST ESTIMATE,R2 OCMI JOB #: 19414.000 | 18 December 2019 DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT UNIT RATE ESTIMATED COST Plywood sheathing, 1/2" 582 SF 4.60 $2,677 Sill/ bearer, 3x4 bolted to foundations, 24" o.c 200 LF 62.50 $12,500 New wood siding, 1x12 to match historical planks, cripple wall North elevation, N.E 3.5' high 224 SF 22.50 $5,040 East & West Elevation, N.E 2.5' high 230 SF 22.50 $5,175 South Elevation, N.E 2' high 128 SF 22.50 $2,880 HDU's, hold downs bolted to bearer, 4' o.c 50 EA 125.00 $6,250 Exterior wall cladding work Replace siding,1x12 salvaged old-growth redwood, Allowance 150 SF 35.00 $5,250 Check battens/ sub structure for status and report Rehab windows Repair window frames 138 LF 50.00 $6,900 Add / replace sills with stop and bead for new pane 138 LF 45.00 $6,210 Replace glass to windows 146 SF 30.00 $4,380 Paint and seal window frames 138 LF 15.00 $2,070 Rehab doors, restore to working condition with repair and paint Exterior 4 EA 750.00 $3,000 Interior, rooms 4 EA 400.00 $1,600 Interior, cupboards 2 EA 250.00 $500 Paint exterior Exterior wood cladding, prepare and paint 2,448 SF 2.37 $5,794 TOTAL - 041 EXTERIOR WALLS $78,956 ELEMENT - ROOFING 051 ROOFING Roof Replacement Asphalt shingles (standard strip shingles)1,912 SF 4.87 $9,317 Adhered membrane 1,912 SF 1.72 $3,282 Rigid insulation, 2"1,912 SF 2.77 $5,295 Flashings and roof plumbing Asphalt shingle ridge cap flashing 117 LF 6.39 $747 Asphalt shingle valley flashing 25 LF 5.88 $147 Metal eave edge flashing 147 LF 23.47 $3,450 Raked metal roof end flashing 85 LF 23.47 $2,000 TOTAL - 051 ROOFING $24,238 ELEMENT - INTERIOR CONSTRUCTION 062 INTERIOR FINISHES Bathroom renovation New flooring 80 SF 30.00 $2,400 Floor base 33 LF 20.00 $660 Prepared by: OCMI Sheet 48 of 54 DR A F T Attachment 1 Mid-Peninsula Stabilization BEATTY PROPERTY - OPTION 3 La Honda, CA CONCEPTUAL COST ESTIMATE,R2 OCMI JOB #: 19414.000 | 18 December 2019 DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT UNIT RATE ESTIMATED COST TOTAL - 062 INTERIOR FINISHES $3,060 ELEMENT - MECHANICAL 081 PLUMBING Building Renovation/upgrades Equipment HWU 1 EA 3,250.00 $3,250 Instahot at Kitchen sink 1 EA 1,265.00 $1,265 Oven - Not required per City NIC Stove - Not required per City NIC Septic & potable water systems, Allowance 1 EA 60,000.00 $60,000 Fixtures WC with cistern 1 EA 775.00 $775 Lavatory with faucet 1 EA 640.00 $640 Bath/shower - Replacement not required per City NIC Stainless steel sink, double 1 EA 825.00 $825 Rough at fixtures WC 1 EA 420.00 $420 Lavatory 1 EA 750.00 $750 Bath/shower - Replacement not required per City NIC Stainless steel sink, double 1 EA 775.00 $775 Rough plumbing WC 1 EA 3,200.00 $3,200 Lavatory 1 EA 2,800.00 $2,800 Bath/shower - Replacement not required per City NIC Stainless steel sink, double 1 EA 3,200.00 $3,200 Seismic bracing 6 EA 300.00 $1,800 Seal penetrations 6 EA 120.00 $720 Test and chlorinate water outlets 2 EA 275.00 $550 Filtration and potability tests 1 LS 2,500.00 $2,500 TOTAL - 081 PLUMBING $83,470 ELEMENT - ELECTRICAL 091 STANDARD ELECTRICAL Upgrade/ Renovation work Upgrade/ replace switchboard 1 EA 4,500.00 $4,500 Replace feeders to swicthboard 1 LS 3,500.00 $3,500 Equipment connections 1 LS 1,500.00 $1,500 Light fixtures (Budget Allowance, as no design)1,912 SF 12.50 $23,900 Conduit and wiring 1,912 SF 5.00 $9,560 Prepared by: OCMI Sheet 49 of 54 DR A F T Attachment 1 Mid-Peninsula Stabilization BEATTY PROPERTY - OPTION 3 La Honda, CA CONCEPTUAL COST ESTIMATE,R2 OCMI JOB #: 19414.000 | 18 December 2019 DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT UNIT RATE ESTIMATED COST TOTAL - 091 STANDARD ELECTRICAL $42,960 ELEMENT - EQUIPMENT 102 FURNISHINGS Kitchen renovation Base cabinet, plastic laminate 10 LF 374.23 $3,742 Countertop, plastic laminate with backsplash 10 LF 114.50 $1,145 Wall cabinet, plastic laminate 10 LF 280.30 $2,803 TOTAL - 102 FURNISHINGS $7,690 ELEMENT - SITEWORK 111 SITE PREPARATION Demolition, piecemeal at building Remove roof shingles 1,912 SF 2.60 $4,971 Remove roof underlayment 1,912 SF 1.20 $2,294 Remove wood siding to replace, Allowance 150 sf 150 SF 5.00 $750 Remove flashings and roof plumbing Asphalt shingle ridge cap flashing 117 LF 4.00 $468 Asphalt shingle valley flashing 25 LF 4.00 $100 Metal eave edge flashing 147 LF 6.00 $882 Raked metal roof end flashing 85 LF 6.50 $554 Sub floor framing repairs Remove crawl space posts, N.E 4' high 20 EA 390.00 $7,800 Remove sub floor exterior wall paneling 582 SF 12.50 $7,275 Flooring Remove missing/ damaged 1x6 floor planks (Provisional 50 sf)50 SF 10.00 $500 Building demolition Remove dilapidated shed 84 SF 22.50 $1,890 Roofing replacement work Remove damaged rafters, 2x8 Rafters @ 2' o.c, sloped (Allowance, 20%)402 SF 12.50 $5,020 Remove roof sheathing, 5/8", pitched roof 2,008 SF 2.40 $4,819 Wildlife management Removal of unwanted wildlife 1 LS 2,500.00 $2,500 Treatment of insect infestations 1 LS 4,000.00 $4,000 Replacement maternity roost 1 EA 1,500.00 $1,500 Hazmat demolition Set up - contain building 1 LS 2,560.00 $2,560 Hazmat monioring and clearance 2 DYS 2,400.00 $4,800 ACM vinyl flooring with ACM mastic 360 SF 8.71 $3,136 Dispose vinyl product 360 SF 2.00 $720 Prepared by: OCMI Sheet 50 of 54 DR A F T Attachment 1 Mid-Peninsula Stabilization BEATTY PROPERTY - OPTION 3 La Honda, CA CONCEPTUAL COST ESTIMATE,R2 OCMI JOB #: 19414.000 | 18 December 2019 DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT UNIT RATE ESTIMATED COST Wallboard with joint compound 3,700 SF 4.50 $16,650 Dispose wallboard product with ACM joint compound 3,700 SF 1.50 $5,550 Hazmat demolition, remove flaking paint Window frames 258 SF 17.50 $4,515 Door and frame, interior 590 SF 15.00 $8,850 Door and frame, exterior 309 SF 15.00 $4,635 Collect and dispose lead paint waste 1,157 SF 3.00 $3,471 On-going maintenance, 20 year period - separated out TOTAL - 111 SITE PREPARATION $100,210 ELEMENT - SITEWORK 113 SITE UTILITIES Reconnections, Allowances only Reconnect electrical service to building 1 LS 10,000.00 $10,000 Reconnect / correct piping into site to building 1 LS 15,000.00 $15,000 TOTAL - 113 SITE UTILITIES $25,000<-- DO NOT REMOVE THAT X Maintenance costs: On-going maintenance, 20 year period Monthly visit to maintain, 2 men x 1 day 480 MnDay 600.00 $288,000 Exterior site, trees and shrubs Check exterior and interior and clean, fix as needed Prepared by: OCMI Sheet 51 of 54 DR A F T Attachment 1 Mid-Peninsula Stabilization BEATTY PROPERTY - OPTION 4 La Honda, CA CONCEPTUAL COST ESTIMATE,R2 OCMI JOB #: 19414.000 | 18 December 2019 ELEMENT TOTAL COST $/SF AREA 01 FOUNDATIONS 02 SUBSTRUCTURE 03 SUPERSTRUCTURE 04 EXTERIOR CLOSURE 05 ROOFING 06 INTERIOR CONSTRUCTION 07 CONVEYING 08 MECHANICAL 09 ELECTRICAL 10 EQUIPMENT 11 SITEWORK $204,845 $107.14 NET DIRECT BUILDING COST $204,845 $107.14 GENERAL CONDITIONS, OVERHEAD & PROFIT 10.00%$20,485 $10.71 SUBTOTAL $225,330 $117.85 INSURANCE 2.00%$4,507 $2.36 SUBTOTAL $229,836 $120.21 BONDS: CONTRACTOR 1.50%$3,448 $1.80 TOTAL BUILDING COST $233,284 $122.01 GROSS FLOOR AREA:1,912 SF BUILDING SUMMARY Prepared by: OCMI Sheet 52 of 54 DR A F T Attachment 1 Mid-Peninsula Stabilization BEATTY PROPERTY - OPTION 4 La Honda, CA CONCEPTUAL COST ESTIMATE,R2 OCMI JOB #: 19414.000 | 18 December 2019 TOTAL ELEMENT AMOUNT TOTAL COST $/SF AREA $/SF AREA 01 FOUNDATIONS 011 Standard Foundations 012 Special Foundations 02 SUBSTRUCTURE 021 Slab On Grade 022 Basement Excavation 023 Basement Walls 03 SUPERSTRUCTURE 031 Floor and Roof Construction 032 Stair Construction 04 EXTERIOR CLOSURE 041 Exterior Walls 042 Exterior Doors/Windows 05 ROOFING 051 Roofing 06 INTERIOR CONSTRUCTION 061 Partitions 062 Interior Finishes 063 Specialties 064 Interior Doors/Windows 07 CONVEYING 071 Elevators 08 MECHANICAL 081 Plumbing 082 H.V.A.C. 083 Fire Protection 084 Special Mechanical 09 ELECTRICAL 091 Standard Electrical 092 Special Electrical 10 EQUIPMENT 101 Fixed/Movable Equipment 102 Furnishings 103 Special Construction 11 SITEWORK $204,845 $107.14 111 Site Preparation $204,845 $107.14 112 Site Improvements 113 Site Utilities 114 Off-Site Work NET DIRECT BUILDING COST $204,845 $107.14 DETAILED BUILDING SUMMARY Prepared by: OCMI Sheet 53 of 54 DR A F T Attachment 1 Mid-Peninsula Stabilization BEATTY PROPERTY - OPTION 4 La Honda, CA CONCEPTUAL COST ESTIMATE,R2 OCMI JOB #: 19414.000 | 18 December 2019 DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT UNIT RATE ESTIMATED COST ELEMENT - SITEWORK 111 SITE PREPARATION Building/structure demolition Remove roofing 1,912 SF 2.00 $3,824 Remove metal flashings 232 LF 5.00 $1,160 Remove exterior siding 2,472 SF 5.00 $12,360 Remove doors, single 12 EA 100.00 $1,200 Remove roof sheathing 1,912 SF 2.00 $3,824 Demolish wood framed structure 1,912 SF 15.00 $28,680 Demolish flooring 1,912 SF 2.00 $3,824 Demolish sub floor framing 1,912 SF 3.50 $6,692 Remove dead tree 2 EA 2,000.00 $4,000 Remove large trees hanging over property 2 EA 2,000.00 $4,000 Recycle wood Load wood debris in trucks 212 CY 25.00 $5,311 Haul wood in trucks 212 CY 50.00 $10,622 Dispose/recycle wood 212 CY 35.00 $7,436 Hazmat demolition Set up - contain building 1 LS 2,560.00 $2,560 Consultant monitoring, inspections and clearance 2 DYS 2,400.00 $4,800 ACM vinyl flooring with ACM mastic 360 SF 8.71 $3,136 Dispose vinyl product 360 SF 2.00 $720 Wallboard with joint compound 3,700 SF 4.50 $16,650 Dispose wallboard product with ACM joint compound 3,700 SF 0.75 $2,775 Hazmat demolition, remove flaking paint Window frames 258 SF 17.50 $4,515 Door and frame, interior 590 SF 15.00 $8,850 Door and frame, exterior 309 SF 15.00 $4,635 Collect and dispose lead paint waste 1,157 SF 3.00 $3,471 Biologist monitoring 1 LS 4,800.00 $4,800 Environmental impact report Report to cover CEQA requirements for demolition option 1 EA 40,000.00 $40,000 Site restoration, allowance 1 LS 15,000.00 $15,000 TOTAL - 111 SITE PREPARATION $204,845 Prepared by: OCMI Sheet 54 of 54 DR A F T Attachment 1 Rev. 3/15/21 R-21-127 Meeting 21-28 September 22, 2021 AGENDA ITEM 10 AGENDA ITEM Agricultural Policy Development: Update on process and timeline GENERAL MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATION Receive a presentation from staff on the status of and provide input on the timeline, key remaining steps, and potential topics to develop the Agricultural Policy. No Board action required. SUMMARY This study session will provide the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District’s (District) Board of Directors (Board) with an update and an opportunity for Board input on the process, content, and timeline for consolidating, refining, and developing the Agricultural Policy (Ag Policy). The Ag Policy guiding document will be used to set the framework for the District’s role in agriculture within the region and provide guidance on the management of District-owned and/or managed lands. This process was an Action Plan item in Fiscal Year 2018-19 and 2019- 20; however, the District deferred this effort to allow staff to focus on other time-sensitive work and organizational needs during the COVID-19 pandemic. The policy development has resumed for Fiscal Year 2021-22 by the Natural Resources Department, with support from the Land & Facilities and Planning Departments. BACKGROUND Each year, the District sets aside funding and resources to pursue programs, projects, and activities that support sustainable agriculture consistent with its mission on the San Mateo County coastside, which includes protection of regionally significant agricultural land, preservation of the rural character, and viable agricultural use of land resources. Public agricultural preservation efforts throughout the Bay Area involve complex partnerships that balance the private economic interests and viability of agricultural producers and businesses with the resource conservation and open space goals of public agencies and non-profit organizations. In 2019, the District convened a Board study session focused on summarizing existing relevant District policies and guidelines; existing agricultural uses on District lands; and identifying gaps in policies and guidelines that the Board may wish to address (R-19-36, minutes). At that time, staff identified and began a robust engagement process to solicit input from partners, producers, stakeholders, and tenants to gather input on potential roles for the District in regional agriculture. On November 6, 2019, staff led a day of field tours, providing the Board an opportunity to see firsthand examples of the different types of agricultural uses that currently occur on District R-21-127 Page 2 lands and to meet with some of the producers who are operating on these lands. This full day tour included stops at the Skyline Christmas Tree Farm, Toto Ranch and Farmyard, Blue Brush Ranch, and Madonna Creek Ranch Agricultural Fields and Equestrian Facility with presentations from District tenants at each site (Attachment 1). On November 20, 2019, the District hosted a peer-agency workshop at the Mountain View Community Center, allowing staff and Board members to gain insights from other regional agencies and organizations that are involved at the intersection of agricultural and open space preservation. Participants in this workshop included representatives from Peninsula Open Space Trust, San Mateo Resource Conservation District, Coastside Land Trust, Santa Clara Valley Open Space Authority, Point Blue Conservation Science, UC Cooperative Extension, Sonoma County Agriculture and Open Space, and Marin Agricultural Land Trust. Two District Board members and several District staff were in attendance. The group heard two guest presentations: one on the San Mateo Resource Conservation District’s programs to protect stream habitat while providing agricultural water security, and another presentation on Peninsula Open Space Trust’s Farmland Futures program, which aims to keep agricultural lands in production under private ownership with resource protections through the overlay of conservation easements. Participants shared their thoughts on key issues in regional agriculture, such as climate change, water reliability, balancing tradeoffs between conservation and production, agricultural work force housing, and sustaining local food production. Participants also shared perspectives on appropriate roles for the District in the agriculture-open space mosaic, such as protecting riparian areas within agricultural landscapes and educating the public about the conservation values and benefits of working lands. The original timeline for the Ag Policy development was put on hold to allow staff time to focus on the Conservation Grazing Management Policy Amendment (R-21-22), which was underway at that time and had garnered substantial public interest. The process was further delayed by restrictions associated with the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. Given the lapse in time since the Ag Policy was under active Board review in 2020, this Board study session will provide an important review of accomplishments to date and what remains to complete the process. As a reminder, in January 2021, the Board adopted amendments to the Conservation Grazing Management Policy focused on management actions for mitigating and reducing livestock and predator conflicts that are protective of native wildlife, including mountain lions and coyotes. Given the recent review of the Conservation Grazing Management Policy, additional changes are not anticipated to that policy, however the Ag Policy review may touch upon some elements such as lease renewals that apply to all agricultural leases. The recent science panel review of the benefits and impacts of grazing reaffirmed the usefulness of conservation grazing to manage coastal grasslands and preserve their biodiversity. The Agricultural Policy development is expected to evaluate elements of agriculture on District lands and the compatibility of non- grazing agricultural operations with open space and natural resource conservation goals, which are currently a minor component of District agricultural leases. The aim will be to understand where best to focus District resources, what new elements to fold into the District’s agricultural program, and whether to reaffirm or amend the District’s current agricultural practices. DISCUSSION The Purpose of the Ag Policy is to: • Set the policy framework for the District’s scope and breadth in agriculture; R-21-127 Page 3 • Inform the public of the purpose and intent of the District’s role in local agriculture and its contributions to the agricultural community; • Provide staff and the Board with a tool for informed, consistent, and effective decision making on agricultural topics; and • Provide general guidance for issue-specific and site-specific planning, management, and operations of agricultural topics. Clarifying and further defining the District’s role in agricultural preservation, consistent with its San Mateo Coastal Service Plan, is part of the Fiscal Year 2021-22 Action Plan. This review is particularly important since Board-adopted agricultural policies exist in numerous documents (e.g., Basic Policy, Resource Management Policies, Coastal Service Plan and Environmental Impact Report (EIR)) with the potential for inconsistencies and/or conflicts. This work will also evaluate gaps and areas requiring greater clarification, such as understanding the District’s role in the provision of Agricultural Workforce Housing. Ag Policy Development Schedule The goal in Fiscal Year 2021-22 is to draft a comprehensive agricultural policy for Board consideration and adoption that will guide future District work involving agricultural lands. To meet this goal, the General Manager requests Board review and input on the proposed schedule of meetings. Agricultural Producer Workshop - Feedback and Input from Agricultural Stakeholders on Existing and Potential Agricultural Policies, Guidelines, Mitigation Measures and Practices The San Mateo Coastal Area Service Plan and EIR establishes the policies, guidelines, mitigation measures, and practices by which the District purchases and manages lands in the San Mateo County coastside area, including agricultural lands. The Service Plan, combined with the Basic Policy, Resource Management Policies, property management policies, and various other board and administrative policies, provides the framework within which the Ag Policy will operate. Staff plans to host an additional Agricultural Producer workshop to gather agricultural stakeholder feedback that can inform development of the Ag Policy. This event will also provide an opportunity to further inform the Board about the acreage and types of agricultural uses on District lands and the natural resource management policies, guidelines, and practices that support and affect agricultural uses. Potential attendees include grazing, row crop, orchard, and tree farm operators on the San Mateo Coast, including District tenants and other interested members of the public. Desired outcomes include understanding the current agricultural landscape on the San Mateo Coast and how agricultural producer goals, vision, and expectations align with current and potential District Ag Policy guidance for agriculture operations on District lands. Staff will also explore options to solicit input from diverse stakeholders, such as working through the San Mateo Food Systems Alliance and with community leaders to ensure outreach to the wide and diverse agricultural community on the San Mateo Coast. If this outreach requires separate one-on-one meetings, staff may need to extend the overall policy development schedule by numerous months. – November 2021 Board Study Session - Review existing District Agricultural Policy, Guidelines, Practices During this study session the Board would review existing District policies related to agriculture R-21-127 Page 4 and consider feedback from agricultural stakeholders and the public received at the producer workshop. This will be an opportunity for the board to provide input on the topics for staff to address in the new draft policy language. This work is particularly important because of the existing commitments made to preserving agriculture that contained within the Coastside Service Plan and Measure AA Bond language, among other documents. A summary of these existing policies is attached to this report at Attachment 2.– January 2022 Board Study Session - Review Proposed Updates to the Agricultural Policy, Guidelines, Practices Information, feedback, Board direction, and public input received at previous workshops will be used to draft an Ag Policy and consider updates to existing policies. During the study session, the Board will review and provide input on draft policies and inform the development of a final recommendation that would be brought at a later date to the Board for approval. – April 2022 Board Meeting - Amend and Approve District Agricultural Policy, Guidelines, and Practices Finally, the Board would review and consider approval of updates to amend existing policies and adoption of a new Ag Policy. – June 2022 Ag Policy Content The Board previously reviewed the following list of potential topics for inclusion in the Ag Policy review. The General Manager requests that the Board review, provide input and confirm these potential topics for inclusion in the Ag Policy review. • Agricultural production plans • Agricultural workforce housing • Agricultural infrastructure • Agricultural education and outreach • Fertilizer, soil health, and carbon farming practices • Manure management • Crop diversity • Responding to and/or accommodating regional changes in types of agricultural land use • Public facing branding for Midpen agricultural lands • Water supply and use • Pesticide use • Predation and pest management • Brush management • Balance with resource protection • Invasive species management • Compatible public access • Lease terms and renewals • Riparian and aquatic habitat protection • Marketing and promotion • Use of conservation easements and fee title • Types of uses permitted (e.g., grazing, row crops, small livestock and poultry, greenhouses, processing plants, cannabis, vineyards, tree farms, horse breeding, dairy, cultural land management, native plant harvesting, orchards, apiaries, aquaculture agriculture tourism (e.g., farm dinners, tours), environmental education, etc.) FISCAL IMPACT Update on process and timeline of the District’s Ag Policy development has no immediate fiscal impact. Depending on the specific components adopted in the final policy, further financial impact analysis may be needed. R-21-127 Page 5 BOARD AND COMMITTEE REVIEW In 2019, the District convened a Board study session focused on summarizing existing District policy and guidelines; summarizing existing agricultural uses on District lands; and identifying gaps in policies and guidelines that the Board may wish to address (R-19-36, minutes). Topics raised by the Board during this study session have been integrated into the list of topics provided above to consider during the policy development process. 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 this study session, staff will collate input from the Board, stakeholders and community received at this and previous meetings and draft the initial framework and language of the policy. Staff will then review the draft policy and solicit input from the coastal agricultural community stakeholders. Staff will further revise the policy language with consideration of input from agricultural stakeholders and then review the revised language with the full Board. Staff plans to have the new policy language completed and ready for the Board to consider approval by the end of this Fiscal Year. The tentative timeline for the remaining key steps in the process is as follows: • November 2021 - Agricultural Producer Workshop • January 2022 - Board Study Session: Review Existing Agricultural Policies, Guidelines, and Practices • April 2022 - Board Study Session of proposed new policy language • June 2022 - Board consideration for approval of new policy language Attachment 1. Map of Agricultural Field Tour, November 2019 2. Summary of Existing Agricultural Policies Responsible Department Head: Kirk Lenington, Natural Resources Department Prepared by: Lewis Reed, Rangeland Ecologist/Botanist, Natural Resources Department Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (MROSD) 8/30/2021 0 73.5 miI While the District strives to use the best available digital data, these data do not represent a legal survey and are merely a graphic illustration of geographic features. Agricultural Field Tour Sites November 2019 Preserve Boundary (fill) Da t a S o u r c e ( s ) : S o u r c e s : E s r i , A i r b u s D S , U S G S , N G A , N A S A , C G I A R , N R o b i n s o n , N C E A S , N L S , O S , N M A , G e o d a t a s t y r e l s e n , R i j k s w a t e r s t a a t , G S A , G e o l a n d , F E M A , I n t e r m a p a n d t h e G I S u s e r c o m m u n i t y Lewis Reed Attachment 1 Attachment 2 Page 1 Summary of Agricultural Policies The Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District’s (District) agricultural policies are covered in several different documents and policies. The value of agricultural lands are addressed in both the Basic Policy and the District’s coastal mission statement. More specific policies are included in the Coastal Service Plan (and associated EIR), Resource Management Policies, Housing Policy, Improvements on District Lands, Integrated Pest Management Program Guidance Manual, and Agricultural Use Policy Statements. Relevant policy statements and implementation measures from each of the following documents are excerpted below. • Agricultural Use Policy Statements (1978) • Basic Policy (1999) • Service Plan for the Coastal Annexation Area and accompanying Environmental Impact Report (2003) • Resource Management Policies (2012) Agricultural Use Policy Statement (1978) (See attached) • Sets authority for approving leases Basic Policy (2008) • OPEN SPACE: • Is land area that is allowed to remain in or return to its natural state. Open space lands may include compatible agricultural uses • Agriculture and Revenue-Producing Use Section f. The District supports the continued agricultural use of land acquired for open space as an economic and cultural resource, including, but not limited to, grazing, orchards, row crops, and vineyards. The District does not consider commercial logging as agriculture. The District requires sound agricultural management practices on land it manages or monitors, in accordance with its Resource Management Policies. Coastal Service Plan (2004) Coastal Mission Statement • District To acquire and preserve in perpetuity open space land and agricultural land of regional significance, protect and restore the natural environment, preserve rural character, encourage viable agricultural use of land resources, and provide opportunities for ecologically sensitive public enjoyment and education. Role & Objectives • “….protect both the agricultural and natural resources of the Coastal Annexation Area. Although the District is not an agricultural preservation district, and does not propose any Attachment 2 Page 2 agricultural subsidy programs, its Service Plan does recognize the important of agriculture to the economy and heritage of the Coastal Annexation Area.” • “As the District extends its services to the Coast, agricultural preservation will play a larger role in the District’s activities than it has within existing District boundaries.” • Permanent Policy PA.1 When acquiring lands in agricultural use, the acquisition shall be subject to continued use by the owner or operator until such time as it is sold or leased pursuant to the use and management plan adopted for the property. All agricultural land which is not needed for recreation or for the protection and vital functioning of a sensitive habitat will be permanently protected for agriculture and, whenever legally feasible, the District will offer for sale or lease the maximum amount of agricultural land to active farm operators on terms compatible with the recreational and habitat use. Lands that do not have significant recreation or sensitive habitat values and which can clearly support productive agricultural operations will generally be offered for sale while other agricultural lands will generally be offered for lease. (Reference: Mitigation Measure AGR-3g) • Permanent Policy PA.2 The District shall actively work with lessees of District lands and with the owners of land in which the District has an agricultural easement interest to: a) Facilitate the provision of farm worker housing on District owned lands by providing technical assistance in obtaining permits for such housing from the County of San Mateo. b) Seek grant funding for the continuation or establishment of viable agriculture through the California Farmland Conservancy Program and other agriculture grant programs. c) Provide technical assistance to secure water rights for the continuation or establishment of viable agriculture consistent with protection of sensitive habitats. (Reference: Mitigation Measure AGR-3j) • Permanent Policy PA.3 The District shall actively pursue opportunities to enter agricultural easements and leases with interested farmers and ranchers. All agricultural easements and agricultural leases in the Coastal Annexation Area shall: a) Be tailored to meet individual farmers and ranchers needs while respecting the unique characteristics of the property; b) Specify uses that are unconditionally permitted pursuant to the easement or lease to provide certainty to the farmer or rancher entering the lease or easement with the District; c) Include terms that allow farmers and ranchers to adapt and expand their operations and farming practices to adjust to changing economic conditions; d) Include terms that ensure farmers or ranchers may provide farm labor housing as defined and approved by San Mateo County; e) Ensure compatibility of resource protection and management, low-intensity public recreation and viable agricultural operations; and f) In the case of leases, be for a sufficient period of time to gain a return on the investment in the agricultural operation. (Reference: Mitigation Measure AGR-3k) • Guideline G.3.2 Improvements or public uses located upon open space lands other than agriculture shall be located away from existing prime agricultural lands toward areas containing non-prime agricultural lands, unless such location would not promote the planned, orderly, efficient use of an area. Attachment 2 Page 3 • Guideline G.3.3 …The use and management plan shall include an agricultural production plan for District-owned agricultural lands or District lands adjacent to agricultural lands. For district-owned lands, the plan shall describe the crop and/or livestock potential for the property together with the management actions required to protect existing agricultural production (e.g., growing seasons, water requirements, pesticide, manure, and waste management) and the agricultural potential of the land. The plan shall consider the following factors: a) Availability of labor, including farm labor housing; b) Availability of farm support services and goods; c) Necessary capital improvements (e.g. water storage, fencing, land leveling) San Mateo Coastal Annexation Area – Service Plan Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District as approved by the District Board of Directors, June 6, 2003 Page 16 d) Farm operations, including erosion control, the season(s) and times of pesticide or herbicide usage, manure and waste management; e) Water use and availability; f) Access to transportation and markets; and g) Promoting agricultural production on District-owned land. Resource Management Policies (2021) - Conservation Grazing Management Policy Key Points • Policy GM-1 Ensure that conservation grazing is compatible with and supports wildlife and wildlife habitats. • Inventory and assess sensitive habitats to identify areas requiring special management practices. The conservation of these areas will take precedence over other uses and management practices that are determined to have an adverse effect on these resources. • Prepare site-specific grazing management plans by a certified rangeland manager including best management practices (BMPs) for preserves where grazing will be utilized as a resource management tool. The site-specific grazing management plan will be a component of the agricultural production plan developed through the Use and Management Planning process. The Use and Management Planning process provides for public input and Board approval of site-specific grazing management plans. • Manage agricultural leases and easements to protect and enhance riparian areas and to maximize the protection or enhancement of water quality. (See WR-4) • Per the District’s long-standing policy of protecting native predators, continue to prohibit the lethal take of predators in response to livestock depredation. • Policy GM-2 Provide necessary infrastructure to support and improve grazing management where appropriate. • Utilize fencing that allows wildlife movement and fosters habitat connectivity (See WM-3:Measure 3). • Manage access to existing water features and where needed supply supplemental drinking water through stock ponds and water troughs to preserve clean water for livestock, protect water quality, and enhance habitat for wildlife. Attachment 2 Page 4 • Encourage and assist grazing tenants on District land to provide range improvements to restore or conserve wildland resources and to enhance range condition. • Inventory and assess roads and trails on District lands to identify significant erosion and sediment sources – abandon and where feasible restore to a natural condition poorly designed or sited roads (See WR-4). • Policy GM-3 Monitor environmental response to grazing on District lands. • Monitor forage utilization and distribution by grazing animals to assure appropriate amounts of residual dry matter (RDM) remain on the ground to achieve desired resource management objectives. In the course of RDM monitoring, evaluate and report on wildland fire fuel levels that may result in an increased risk of wildland fire (See WF policies). • Monitor livestock use levels and agricultural infrastructure condition to insure conformity with lease provisions to contribute to improved management. • Monitor wildland conditions with an emphasis on documenting the location, distribution and abundance of native grasses, wildflowers, and other native flora and fauna. • Monitor water quality in ponds, wetlands, and watercourses with unrestricted livestock access. • Monitor non-native vegetation response to grazing with an emphasis on documenting the location, distribution and abundance of target, invasive species. • Use information collected from monitoring to annually review rangeland conditions and response to livestock grazing. Use adaptive resource management decision making framework within grazing management plans. • Policy GM-4 Utilize different livestock species to accomplish vegetation management objectives. • Research the effective use of cattle, goats, sheep, and horses to manage vegetation on District lands. • Utilize appropriate species depending on management needs. • Policy GM-5 Preserve and foster existing and potential conservation grazing operations to help sustain the local agricultural economy. • Establish longer term grazing leases to promote financial viability for the operators and efficient land stewardship for the District. • Seek grants or other economic support for agricultural infrastructure maintenance and improvements. • Ensure site-specific grazing management plans are economically feasible and practical for conservation grazing operators. • Policy GM-6 Provide information to the public about the region’s rural agricultural heritage. (See PI-1) • Install display boards and give presentations highlighting historical and educational facts about ranching families and industry at appropriate sites. Attachment 2 Page 5 • Policy GM-7 Provide public access in a manner that minimizes impacts on the conservation grazing operation. (See PI-1) • Conservation Grazing operators on District lands or lands under easement to the District shall be consulted when public access is being planned and considered for the property to minimize conflicts between the public and the conservation grazing operation. • Prepare and distribute a brochure to educate visitors about etiquette for use of open space property with livestock animals. • Install signage where appropriate to educate the public about the resource benefits of conservation grazing and to educate visitors about approaching animals, closing gates, and other etiquette appropriate for moving through lands with livestock animals. • Policy GM-8 Conservation Grazing operations on District lands in San Mateo County will be managed in accordance with the policies established in the Service Plan for the San Mateo Coastal Annexation Area. • Consult with appropriate agencies and interest groups, including the San Mateo County Farm Bureau and San Mateo County Agricultural Advisory Committee in the development of site-specific Use and Management plans and agricultural production plan components in the Coastside Protection Area. • Policy GM-9 Safeguard native plants and wildlife while promoting the economic sustainability of conservation cattle grazing as a resource management toll and reducing predation of livestock. • Consider the economic impact of predation in setting lease rates for conservation grazing tenants. • Provide economic relief for conservation grazing tenants who, as required per conditions of a Board of Directors approved lease, are performing resource management services and are in good standing with the District, in response to confirmed cattle losses from predation to sustain conservation grazing as a viable tool for natural resource management. Require cattle grazing tenants to document annual livestock losses due to both predation and non-predation-related causes. • Support and promote scientific research on the effectiveness of wildlife and livestock protection methods, and their influence on wildlife behavior, grazing productivity, and livestock health. Periodically review research results and consider findings in future policy development. Resource Management Policies (2021) – Integrated Pest Management Policy Key Points Policy IPM-1 Develop specific pest management strategies and priorities that address each of the five work categories. Attachment 2 Page 6 • Manage pests in rangelands and on agricultural properties to support existing uses, while also protecting human health and surrounding natural resources. Policy IPM-2 Take appropriate actions to prevent the introduction of new pest species to District preserves, especially new invasive plants in natural areas, rangelands, and agricultural properties. Housing Policy (2017) • 2. Agricultural. a. Agricultural Lease Holder. District housing offered for agricultural lease holder will either be negotiated in conjunction with an agricultural lease or be market rate. b. Agricultural Labor. District housing offered for agricultural labor is generally governed by a District lease or license. Agricultural housing rents and associated discounts are negotiated on a case-by-case basis and brought to the Board consistent with the policy regarding Improvements on District Lands (Policy 4.02). If District housing is made available to agricultural labor outside of a District Lease or License, the agricultural labor tenant is required to work for a District agricultural tenant on District Lands. Rent will either be negotiated in the agricultural lease, market rate, or an affordable housing rate. • 2. Agricultural. The selection of agricultural residential sites shall be based on their proximity to the District agricultural leases on District Lands. Due to the need for an on-site presence for some agricultural lands, this use may take priority over employees that provide direct services in some cases. Improvements on District Lands (2017) • C (1) As the District acquires agricultural properties, housing is needed for agricultural lease holders and their agricultural workers. Residences on District agricultural properties should be evaluated as potential housing for agricultural labor. • C (3) Improvements which Contribute to the Character of the Site: (e.g., Buildings with Unique Historical or Architectural merit, Barns, Sheds and Fences) Some structures associated with agriculture or other former uses of the site can contribute significantly to the site without detracting from its open space character. When economically feasible within the constraints of the land management budget, examples of these structures will be retained, maintained, and when possible put to use. • C (4) Improvements for Agriculture and Other Special Uses: Agricultural use which is consistent with the open space use of a site is encouraged by the District. Improvements for agriculture or other special uses will be retained or constructed as approved by the Board and stated in the site planning documents. In Attachment 2 Page 7 the Coastside Protection Area; leases, use, and improvements shall be consistent with the District’s Service Plan Policies Integrated Pest Management Program Guidance Manual (2014) 9 IPM FOR RANGELANDS AND AGRICULTURAL PROPERTIES 9.1 DEFINITION AND PURPOSE Some District lands encompass rangelands, crop fields, and orchards that are actively managed as grazing or agricultural operations. Rangeland and agriculture activities on District preserves are primarily managed by lessees who typically operate under a Rangeland Management Plan or Agricultural Management Plan that is attached to their lease. These site-specific management plans guide the rangeland and agricultural activities to ensure compatibility with natural resource protection and low-intensity public recreation. This IPMP does not replace the requirements of the individual range or agricultural management plans, nor does it present the full range of agricultural or range management options. Rather, it seeks to provide staff with tools that are consistent with IPM principles to select the safest, least harmful, and most effective treatment options for rangeland and agricultural pests. ### Attachment 2 R-21-128 Meeting 21-28 September 22, 2021 AGENDA ITEM 11 AGENDA ITEM Fiscal Year ending June 30, 2021 Annual Year End Report GENERAL MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATION No Board action required. SUMMARY Over the course of the last fiscal year, the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (District) accomplished major milestones and made considerable progress on the 116 Key Action Plan Projects. Of this total, 101 projects were approved as part of the Fiscal Year (FY) 21 Capital Improvement and Action Plan by the Board of Directors (Board) in June 2020, and 15 were subsequently added and approved during the fiscal year. The District fully completed or made considerable progress on 102 Key Action Plan Projects, or 88% of the 116 total projects, despite ongoing COVID-19 pandemic disruptions and shifting public health orders affecting project progress to ensure preserves visitors and staff remain safe. Significant Vision Plan and Measure AA-funded projects completed last fiscal year included the South Cowell Upland land purchase at Purisima Creek Redwoods Open Space Preserve, the completion of the Ravenswood Bay Trail and the completion of the Saratoga to the Skyline Trail. A list of notable accomplishments is captured in the FY21 Major Accomplishments Report (refer to Attachment 1). In addition, the Year-End Action Plan Review provides a status update for each key project at the end of FY21 and, if applicable, the reason(s) for any variance from the anticipated schedule (refer to Attachment 2). DISCUSSION Major Accomplishments Report: A comprehensive list of the major accomplishments for FY21 is included as Attachment 1. Accomplishments are captured in five categories: (1) Land Acquisition and Preservation; (2) Natural Resources Protection and Restoration; (3) Public Access, Education and Outreach; (4) General/Midpen-Wide Support of Mission; and, (5) Awards/Grants/Recognition. R-21-128 Page 2 The list includes major and notable projects and milestones that were completed or underway as part of the FY21 Action Plan, as well as unanticipated projects initiated during the fiscal year. Highlights of the major accomplishments are provided below. Purchased, exchanged, or received gifts of 686 acres of land valued at $7.87 million dollars, including: • Acquired a 54% undivided interest of the 600-acre South Cowell property with exclusive use and possession of the 371-acre Upland Area from the Peninsula Open Space Trust, supporting our Coastal mission by preserving viable agriculture and rural character, and protecting valuable watersheds for rare fish recovery. • Purchased the 130-acre Billingsley property as an addition to the Loma Prieta area of the Sierra Azul Preserve, facilitating the proposed Mount Umunhum-to-Sea regional trail corridor and eliminating an inholding to the preserve. Completed, continued or began numerous projects to restore and enhance the natural environment, including: • Amended the District’s Conservation Grazing Management Policy to support conservation grazing operations that maintain native grasslands and reduce fire risk while at the same time protecting our native predators, mountain lions and coyotes. • Completed construction of pond improvements that support the endangered San Francisco garter snake and threatened red legged frog. • Removed an old ranch dumpsite from a stream bank, including 300 tons of hazardous waste and restore the riparian area by planting native willow trees. Completed a 0.6-mile segment of the San Francisco Bay Trail with a new boardwalk and bridge across sensitive bay wetlands that closes a critical regional trail gap at Ravenswood Preserve and creates 80 miles of continuous Bay Trail access. Celebrated the grand opening with an innovative virtual event. Supported and funded the completion of the Saratoga-to-the-Skyline Trail, a City of Saratoga project through the final stages of trail and bridge construction and assisted with the grand opening. The completed trail connects the City of Saratoga through Sanborn Park to the Skyline-to-the-Sea Trail, creating a new valley to the sea trail connection. Made significant progress on removing ADA accessibility barriers to improve access for people with different physical abilities: • Completed ADA restroom replacements at Windy Hill, Russian Ridge, and Monte Bello preserves. • Completed ADA-related improvements at Rancho San Antonio Preserve to the Permanente Trail, Rhus Ridge parking area, entrance stiles, and visitor-serving amenities. • In multiple preserves across the Skyline area, completed ADA-related improvements to parking spaces, door closers, and entrance stiles. • Initiated the design of easy access trail improvements at Pulgas Ridge Preserve and in areas surrounding Horseshoe Lake and Alpine Pond at Skyline Ridge Preserve. • Developed draft ADA Guidelines for future improved trail signage. Made significant progress to bring new Midpen office facilities online for improved administrative functions and delivery of projects and services: R-21-128 Page 3 • Finalized new design for Administrative Office, received building permits from the City of Los Altos and began construction improvements. • Awarded contract to create interpretive elements in public areas of the new facility. Received board approval of scope and initial design scheme. Made significant progress in the design of key elements for final board approval. • Completed the South Area Field Office construction improvements and moved staff into the building. Completed furniture and technology set-up. • Completed fiber-optic connections to Skyline Field Office, Foothills Field Office, and the new South Area Office, greatly improving network bandwidth and quality of service. Year-End Action Plan Review: The FY21 Action Plan, for the period July 1, 2020 to June 30, 2021, was adopted by the Board at its Regular meeting on June 24, 2020 (R-20-68). Of the 116 Key Action Plan Projects, the District made considerable progress on 102 Key Action Plan Projects, or 88% of the total project list as shown in Table 1 below. Of these, the District completed the projected fiscal year scope of work for 50 Key Projects (43%) as of June 30, 2021. A total of 52 Key Projects (45%) remain in progress, and of the remaining 14 projects (12%), 11 were deferred to FY22 or beyond and three were determined as unnecessary due to changing circumstances and therefore cancelled (see Attachment 2, items 10, 82 and 116 for more details). Compared to prior years, the District is in line with past percentages of action plan items completed and in progress. The District made progress or fully completed on average 89% of annual projects undertaken in each of the last three fiscal years. Table 1 – Year-End Action Plan Project Fiscal Year Scope Status Project Scope Status FY21 FY20 FY19 Total Total (%) Total Total Total Total (%) Complete 50 43% 41 36% 60 46% In Progress 52 45% 60 53% 55 43% Deferred or Cancelled 14 12% 12 11% 14 11% Total 116 100% 113 100% 129 100% A total of 116 key action plan projects were adopted by the Board last fiscal year; 101 at the time of Budget and Action Plan adoption and an additional 15 during the fiscal year. One of the projects added during the fiscal year was related to land acquisition; the Billingsley Property Acquisition. Others included Coal Creek Fuel Break, Alma Bridge Road Newt Mortality and Population Study, and Tyler Munis ERP Migration. Attachment 2 includes details on these project additions. FISCAL IMPACT The Annual Accomplishments report and FY21 Action Plan Year-End review have no fiscal impact on the FY22 budget. R-21-128 Page 4 BOARD AND COMMITTEE REVIEW • June 24, 2020: Board adopted the FY21 Budget and Action Plan (R-20-68, minutes) PUBLIC NOTICE Public notice was provided as required by the Brown Act. No additional notice is required. CEQA COMPLIANCE This item is not a project subject to the California Environmental Quality Act. Attachments: 1. Fiscal Year 2021 Major Accomplishments 2. Year-End Review of Fiscal Year 2021 Action Plan Key Projects Responsible Department Head: Ana María Ruiz, General Manager Prepared by: Rafaela Duran, Budget & Analysis Manager Elissa Martinez, Management Analyst II Lupe Hernandez, Management Analyst II Contact person: Ana María Ruiz, General Manager covid Major Accomplishments Report July 1, 2020- June 30, 2021 Attachment 1 Page 2 FY21 MAJOR ACCOMPLISHMENTS Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Mission: 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. Coastside Mission: To acquire and preserve in perpetuity open space land and agricultural land of regional significance, protect and restore the natural environment, preserve rural character, encourage viable agricultural use of land resources, and provide opportunities for ecologically sensitive public enjoyment and education. The following accomplishments highlight the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District’s (Midpen) focus on a balanced mission: land acquisition and preservation; natural resources protection and restoration; public access and education; and for the Coastside, encouraging agricultural use of land resources and preserving rural character. These accomplishments encompass projects to expand trail connectivity, including the completion of the Saratoga-to-the-Sea Trail Connection in partnership with the City of Saratoga that connects Saratoga Quarry Park to Sanborn County Park. They also show progress on various priorities and goals, such as: habitat restoration; wildlife corridors; reduction of wildland fire severity and risk; engagement and outreach to diverse visitors; land conservation partnerships; and the protection of more than 65,000 acres of public open space lands. On the San Mateo County Coast, accomplishments also include acquiring additional agricultural lands to preserve important natural resources and scenic open space values, and improving agricultural infrastructure to support the conservation grazing program that helps protect the biodiversity of coastal grasslands. In addition to completing projects on the land, Midpen has also placed significant effort in strengthening the administrative and organizational systems that are necessary to support our mission, now and into the future. COVID-19 had a major impact on project and program delivery in 2020, which continued into FY21. Field staff operations were limited to essential functions, and group events, permits and volunteer activities were cancelled for most of the fiscal year. Some construction activities were initially shut down or delayed. Many staff efforts shifted to keeping preserves open as a haven for safe outdoor recreation, one of the few safe outlets for the public under shelter-in-place orders that began in March of 2020. Midpen preserves saw record visitation levels throughout most of the fiscal year. All in all, FY21 was a busy, productive, and rewarding year. Much was accomplished and staff was able to adapt to keep preserves open, providing an essential public health service. Attachment 1 Page 3 LAND ACQUISITION AND PRESERVATION Purchased, exchanged, or received gifts of 686 acres of land valued at $7.87 million dollars: • Acquired a 54% undivided interest of the 600-acre South Cowell property as an addition to Purisima Creek Redwoods Preserve with exclusive possession of the 371- acre upland area from Peninsula Open Space Trust (POST). This purchase provides opportunities for future parking and trails to support the Purisima-to-the-Sea regional trail, for which plans are underway to connect Purisima Creek Redwoods to the Cowell-Purisima Coastal Trail. The purchase also supports Midpen’s coastal mission by encouraging agricultural use of land resources, preserving the rural character, and protecting valuable watersheds for rare fish recovery. • Partnered with POST to purchase a 182-acre property from San Jose Water Company as an addition to El Sereno Preserve that connects two segments of the Aquinas Trail that may become a future addition to the regional Bay Area Ridge Trail. • Purchased the 130-acre Billingsley property as an addition to the Loma Prieta area of the Sierra Azul Preserve, facilitating the proposed Mount Umunhum-to-Sea regional trail corridor and eliminating an inholding to the preserve. • Purchased the 2.46-acre Riser-Nelson property adjacent to the South Cowell property as an addition to Purisima Creek Redwoods. • Received a 0.12-acre gift parcel as an addition to Sierra Azul. • Received a 0.06-acre gift parcel as an addition to Purisima Creek Redwoods. Entered into an exchange agreement with San Mateo County at Pulgas Ridge Preserve, which granted Midpen a 10-car parking easement and $380,000 in mitigation funding for California red-legged frog habitat in exchange for a stormwater outfall easement. Received approval from the San Mateo County Board of Supervisors and State Coastal Commission for minor amendments to the County zoning and subdivision ordinances that align County regulations with the State Coastal Act and support public recreation. Negotiated reciprocal road access and waterline easements with neighboring property owners at the La Honda Creek Preserve Red Barn area. Worked with POST to initiate botanical studies and complete water infrastructure assessments at the Cloverdale Ranch property in preparation for a potential future purchase. NATURAL RESOURCES PROTECTION AND RESTORATION Completed projects and actions that protect sensitive animal species and wildlife corridors: • Monitored sensitive species populations to assess the success of habitat restoration projects in La Honda Creek and Russian Ridge preserves. • Conducted a newt mortality study along Alma Bridge Road (a public road) using drift fence/pitfall traps near Sierra Azul via a partnership with POST and with assistance Attachment 1 Page 4 from Santa Clara County Parks to understand the roadway impact on the local migrating newt population. Engaged volunteers to count road mortalities and live newts found in the traps (which were subsequently safely relocated across the roadway). A consultant tabulated and analyzed the data and provided a draft report to document findings. This data will inform potential partnership projects to protect newts migrating to their breeding habitat in Lexington Reservoir. • Continued the Highway 17 Wildlife and Regional Trail Crossings project that will provide a safe wildlife corridor and a separate regional trail crossing the highway: Completed the Request for Proposals process and contracted with AECOM for CEQA/National Environmental Policy Act services. Hosted monthly meetings with Caltrans. Completed cultural and biological field studies for the entire project, and engineering and geotechnical studies within the Caltrans right of way. Developed a mitigation credit agreement strategy. • Collaborated with outside researchers to perform bird counts at multiple preserves, these surveys help assess populations and protect sensitive resources during maintenance and construction activities. • Analyzed acoustic data and worked on the Habitat Suitability Assessment for the Marbled Murrelet Recovery project and completed the 2021 early season surveys at Purisima Creek Redwoods and El Corte de Madera preserves. The recorded data is used to detect the presence of marbled murrelets, which are critically endangered seabirds that nests almost exclusively in old-growth forests. • Collected survey data and genetic samples, including data from conservation partners on lands outside Midpen preserves, to identify the presence and ranges of American badgers and burrowing owls and the critical habitat linkages that need protection to ensure these species thrive. Created a Badger/Burrowing Owl Habitat Assessment project webpage and offered a public virtual event to share information. • Began a multi-year study of mountain lions in Midpen preserves where reported human and mountain lion interactions are more frequent. Collared two individual mountain lions in high use preserves to track their movements and study whether heavy visitor use influences mountain lion behavior and determine if special management actions are necessary to protect wildlife and visitors. Completed projects and actions that protect sensitive plant species and restore habitats: • Began 4th year of targeted invasive species removal at Bear Creek Redwoods Preserve with partial funding from a 5-year Valley Water grant following Midpen’s Integrated Pest Management Program to restore native habitats. • Continued a partnership with the San Mateo County Resource Conservation District to conduct outreach and treatment of high-priority invasive plants on adjacent private properties. This initiative expands citizen awareness and action to control Attachment 1 Page 5 invasive plants on private lands and avoid reinfestation of adjacent, protected open space lands. • Completed a forest inventory and road assessments and drafted the La Honda Forest Health Assessment to inform the development of a forest health plan for lands in La Honda Creek Preserve. • Implemented annual Integrated Pest Management (IPM) program activities to improve native habitats by removing invasive plants that negatively impact native plant and animal communities. • Completed phytophthora research with Oregon State University regarding soil pathogens at restoration sites to protect native plants from fungal disease. • Collaborated with outside researchers to perform botanical surveys at multiple preserves, these surveys help assess the health of Midpen habitats and protect sensitive plants during maintenance and construction activities. Completed projects and actions to rehabilitate lands: • Removed over 300 tons of hazardous waste from a riparian corridor and planted ~240 willow stakes to reintroduce native plants and reclaim habitat for special status species at an old landfill site in Miramontes Ridge Preserve. • Decommissioned four abandoned wells in Sierra Azul Preserve to protect underground water aquifers from potential pollution. Submitted a letter to Lehigh Quarry outlining critical issues of concern that affect Midpen visitors, employees, and the resources at the neighboring Rancho San Antonio Preserve. Midpen and Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors agreed in concept to a partnership to enforce potential violations of the Ridgeline Easement, which was set aside to keep the ridgeline intact and serves to protect the preserve from ongoing quarry operations. Presented the Science Advisory Panel (SAP) analysis on the following topics: • Grazing – with the finding that conservation cattle grazing is an effective tool to manage and preserve vital grassland habitats. • Landscape Monitoring – recommending key species and habitats to monitor at the regional landscape level for assessing changes in populations and distribution over time. • Recreation – presenting the physical and mental health benefits of outdoor recreation as part 1 of the study. Part 2 will identify potential impacts of recreation and include an assessment of e-bike use. Midpen formed the SAP in 2019 to provide an independent, science-based review of key issues and serve as a resource for guiding future land management decisions. The panel includes scientists and experts in local ecology and natural history, climate change, and land management from two locally-esteemed research organizations: San Francisco Estuary Institute and Point Blue Conservation Science. Attachment 1 Page 6 Completed projects that support Midpen’s conservation grazing program and grassland management, including: • Completed construction of livestock fencing along the eastern and northern boundaries of the Bluebrush grazing property in Purisima Creek Preserve. • Completed design, permitting, and construction of the Mindego Pond Improvements project at Russian Ridge Preserve to maintain stock ponds that support endangered San Francisco garter snakes and threatened red-legged frogs. • Made significant improvements to a spring box at the Lone Madrone grazing property in La Honda Creek Preserve. Installed a new water line from the improved spring box to a new water tank in pasture 3 and to a new water trough in pasture 4. These improvements provide water for cattle and wildlife and distribute grazing activities to effectively manage the grassland habitat. • Improved the water system at Purisima Creek Redwoods Preserve to expand active grassland management through conservation grazing. • Amended Midpen’s grazing policy and the affected leases to support the use of conservation grazing for managing grasslands. These amendments provide for ongoing research of safe wildlife and livestock protection measures that reduce conflicts and allow for modest reimbursements to address livestock loss. • Began five years of research on the effectiveness of safe wildlife and livestock protection measures and their effect on animal behavior, health, and grazing productivity to identify effective practices that deter wildlife-livestock conflicts to continue supporting the conservation grazing program. PUBLIC ACCESS, EDUCATION AND OUTREACH Completed construction of a 0.6-mile segment of the San Francisco Bay Trail with a new boardwalk and bridge across sensitive bay wetlands that closes a critical regional trail gap at Ravenswood Preserve and creates 80 miles of continuous Bay Trail access. Celebrated the grand opening with an innovative virtual event that attracted 1,400 views. Resumed volunteer-assisted plant restoration activities and installed public interpretive information in and around Cooley Landing Park (entry sign, ethnobotany garden). Continued progress on public access projects at Bear Creek Redwoods Preserve: • Demolished non-historic structures utilizing bat protection measures. Successfully bid out the Alma College public access and cultural rehabilitation/interpretive site improvement work with construction anticipated to begin August 2021. • Submitted permits to California Department of Fish & Wildlife and United States Army Corps of Engineers for Phase II Trail Improvements that will open a new trail network in the northeast corner of the preserve. Completed construction of the Briggs Creek Trail, Stables Loop Trail, and segments of a Multi-use Trail. Attachment 1 Page 7 • Completed traffic studies along Bear Creek Road to inform the final design of a future trail/pedestrian crossing located at the northeast corner of the preserve. • Consulted with Santa Clara County Planning, Building and Fire departments on the Bear Creek Stables Project. Received Board approval to proceed with a Use Permit process to secure County permits. Completed 50% of the construction document set. Made significant progress on removing ADA accessibility barriers to improve access for people with different physical abilities: • Completed ADA restroom replacements at Windy Hill, Russian Ridge, and Monte Bello preserves. • Initiated the design of easy access trail improvements at Pulgas Ridge Preserve and in areas surrounding Horseshoe Lake and Alpine Pond at Skyline Ridge Preserve. • Completed ADA-related improvements at Rancho San Antonio Preserve to the Permanente Trail, Rhus Ridge parking area, entrance stiles, and visitor-serving amenities. • In multiple preserves across the Skyline area, completed ADA-related improvements to parking spaces, door closers, and entrance stiles. • Developed draft ADA Guidelines for future improved trail signage. Continued efforts to open additional areas of the La Honda Creek Preserve to the public: • Completed the La Honda Creek Public Access Working Group pilot engagement process with Committee review and Board approval of the recommendations for new public access and parking improvements to open the middle area of the preserve. Released a Request for Proposals to conduct technical surveys, site opportunities and constraints analysis, and a feasibility study of the recommendations. • Began the environmental review process (CEQA compliance) for the demolition and site cleanup of the dilapidated Redwood Cabin and stabilization/public interpretation of the White Barn. • Completed San Mateo County permits (grading, resource management, and building) for the Phase II Loop Trails in Lower La Honda Creek. Performed pre-construction biological surveys and completed 3,400 linear feet of trail construction with compacted aggregate base surfacing. Made significant progress on multimodal access projects to improve transit, bicycle, and pedestrian access to preserves, including: • Completed the Multimodal Access Study at Rancho San Antonio Preserve with Committee review and Board approval of the recommended transportation demand management strategies. Prepared a high-level implementation plan for next steps. Completed signage installation efforts on Foothills Expressway and St. Joseph's Avenue in Los Altos. Attachment 1 Page 8 • Issued a Request for Proposals and awarded a contract to conduct a Multimodal Access Study at Purisima Creek Redwoods Preserve. Completed environmental review and certification of the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Alpine Trail in Coal Creek Preserve. Submitted permit applications to California Department of Fish and Wildlife, Regional Water Quality Control Boards, and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Coordinated with San Mateo County Public Works on a memorandum of understanding to streamline County permitting. Completed numerous projects and actions to improve public access and safety at Purisima Creek Redwoods Preserve: • Refined the project scope of work and schedule for the Highway 35 Multi-use Trail Crossing and Parking Project. Completed partnership funding agreements and received funding from partners to begin studies. • Worked with neighbors to address overflow parking issues on Purisima Creek Road that impact roadway circulation at the lower preserve entrance; applied for and received San Mateo County approval to expand the no parking zone in areas with narrow roadside shoulders and poor line of sight. • Hired expert consultants to initiate the Purisima-to-the-Sea Trail and Parking Area Feasibility and Planning project. Identified three potential regional trail options for consideration. Initiated preliminary technical studies for the proposed trail alignment and parking area. Developed and initiated the public engagement plan to solicit input. Completed numerous projects and actions to improve public access and safety at Sierra Azul Preserve: • Completed geotechnical and traffic studies, confirmed the feasibility of restroom and parking upgrades, and established a permitting and public engagement approach with the Town of Los Gatos for the replacement of the Kennedy Trailhead restroom. • Presented programming alternatives for Committee review and received feedback for the Beatty Parking Area and Trail Connections Project. Coordinated with partner agencies on project elements and regulatory requirements. Shared Committee feedback and project status with the Board. • Completed design, received County permits, and began construction of the Mount Umunhum Radar Tower repairs, which are necessary to reopen the eastern area of the summit to public access. • Finalized construction, implemented signage, and completed striping and pavement improvements along Mount Umunhum Road. Initiated vision and goal-setting process with the Planning and Natural Resource Committee for the Hawthorns area of Windy Hill Preserve. Developed the stakeholder outreach plan for future consideration by the Planning and Natural Resource Committee. Reviewed the Attachment 1 Page 9 proposed planning process and potential permit requirements with the Town of Portola Valley. Supported and funded the City of Saratoga through the final stages of trail and bridge construction and assisted with preparations for the grand opening for the Saratoga-to-the- Skyline Trail. Completed the rehabilitation of the Deer Hollow Farm White Barn at Rancho San Antonio Preserve to preserve an important historic and interpretive asset. Made significant progress on evaluating potential e-bike use, including: • Implemented a one-year pilot program and completed a four-month survey of e-bike use on designated paved and improved trails in Rancho San Antonio and Ravenswood preserves. The survey generated 399 intercept responses and observations in Rancho San Antonio and 158 in Ravenswood. • Partnered with Santa Clara County Parks to conduct intercept surveys on their unpaved multi-use trails where e-bikes are allowed. Developed the survey instrument and identified two suitable locations in two different parks to conduct the surveys starting July 2021. Identified trails proposed to be designated as part of the regional Stevens Creek Trail in Monte Bello Preserve and initiated development of the sign plan for the pilot signage program. This work is being done in collaboration with Friends of Stevens Creek Trail, Cupertino, Mountain View, Sunnyvale, and Santa Clara County Parks. Improved trail tread and drainage features on 15 miles of fire road and 6 miles of single-track trail. Replaced and upgraded 16 culverts. Collaborated with regional partners to expand trail connectivity on the Peninsula through the Peninsula Trails Team/Santa Cruz Mountains Stewardship Network, Bay to Sea Trail Planning Coalition, and Dumbarton Rail Corridor Stakeholder Advisory Group. Hired two interns to collect trail data for developing new trail signage that will include trail conditions information to better inform visitors about the trail network; developed the methodology and mapping protocols to perform the work. Completed multiple Districtwide actions in support of public outreach goals: • Increased circulation of the quarterly newsletter by 150% with an insertion in local newspapers. • Received Board approval for the Youth Outreach Plan and initiated a pilot program with four youth organizations. Activities were disrupted by COVID-19 for much of the year and are being restarted in Fiscal Year 2022. • Clarified the Ombudsperson Program process by improving upon the online inquiry form, resulting in more effective public use of the program. • Pitched 13 ideas about Midpen projects and activities resulting in nine stories published by local media outlets to continue informing the public of recent events. Attachment 1 Page 10 • Received 370 entries for the Annual Photo Contest through successful online promotion and outreach. • Increased social media use, expanding the number of followers by nearly 16% to more than 23,000 and the total reach by social media platform to over 2.5 million. Pivoted the Interpretive and Education, Volunteer, and Community Outreach Programs to develop and post online educational and engaging content: • Created more than 80 videos interpreting the natural resources, inspiring outdoor exploration, and sharing trail experiences. • Produced two “Pocket Naturalist Outings,” with a group of docent naturalists on the OuterSpatial app for public use that provide digitally curated hikes. • Produced Poetry in the Preserves weekly poetry reading video series where docents shared favorite poems in nature to celebrate National Poetry Month. • Produced a quarterly virtual nature engagement series for social media and web titled Seasons of Open Space that explores seasonal natural phenomena around Alpine Pond at Skyline Ridge Preserve in a video format. • Created a virtual school field trip called “Notes on Habitat” that can be accessed at any time by the public and schools. Developed a pilot live virtual field trip. Three 4th grade classes each received two online real-time classroom visits with staff prior to the end of the 2021 school year. • Hosted activities (five virtual and one in-person) with Latino Outdoors that attracted over 5,400 views and 14 participants for an in-person event. • Installed a livestream camera at the Daniels Nature Center to provide a remote view into nature. • Midpen’s use of online content increased public participation, generating as much as 3,300 views for one of the most viewed events. Returned volunteer programing with new safety protocols beginning in the fall of 2020 as allowed under public health regulations. • Volunteer Trail Patrol returned and contributed over 5,000 hours along the trails and submitted 2,105 Patrol Reports, which included 619 reports of trail conditions or violations, supporting Midpen’s land stewardship and public outreach goals. • Provided 76 COVID-safe resource management volunteer project opportunities for long-term volunteers who perform crucial ongoing stewardship work in preserves. • Trained eight new Advanced Resource Management Steward (ARMS) volunteers who began ‘adopt-a-site' restoration efforts. • ARMS volunteers contributed over 1,000 hours at their assigned resource management project sites, helping to restore native habitat across Midpen preserves by removing nonnative vegetation. Attachment 1 Page 11 Created a monthly volunteer stewardship newsletter, “What’s the Dirt”, to keep volunteers connected to Midpen and other area land management stewardship efforts. Hosted the annual Volunteer Recognition Event online to honor and thank our volunteers and docents for their hard work in support of Midpen’s mission. Issued 2,574 permits for a variety of activities, including research work, public use of the backpack campground, and after-hours astronomy viewing as allowed under the changing public health orders. Reviewed and amended Midpen’s land use regulations to respond to new use trends and changes in the law. GENERAL/MIDPEN-WIDE SUPPORT OF MISSION Launched two Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Staff Committees, one focusing on community outreach/partnerships and the other on recruitment/hiring/staff development to identify recommendations that promote Midpen’s Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion goals and policy. Made significant progress in implementing the Climate Action Plan. Continued to purchase offsets for air travel, purchased 100% renewable electricity, utilized renewable diesel, and expanded telecommuting. Emissions were calculated to be 23% below the 2016 baseline, ahead of schedule for the first goal of achieving 20% reductions by 2022. Continued work to prevent, prepare for, and respond to wildland fires in response to the increasing fire threat in California: • Contracted with Santa Clara Fire Safe to remove approximately 100 fire-prone eucalyptus trees along Page Mill Road in Los Trancos Preserve. Completed a 4-mile fuel break installation on Loma Prieta Ridge in Sierra Azul Preserve and Eucalyptus tree removal in El Sereno Preserve. Removed six eucalyptus trees near the Sequoias Retirement complex at Windy Hill Preserve. • Participated in a Santa Clara County Fire Safe Council-led community project for fuel reduction at Summit Road and Bear Creek Road at Bear Creek Redwoods Preserve. • Attended coordination meetings for the Los Gatos Creek Watershed Forest Health Grant project and participated in budget discussion and planning. Reviewed scope of work and project areas for treatment that includes Sierra Azul Preserve. • Assessed Midpen’s Fire Suppression Program and developed draft recommendations. • Completed the 36-acre Coal Creek fuel break project at Coal Creek Preserve with the assistance of the California Conservation Corps (CCC) crew to reduce flammable fuels and improve emergency and evacuation access. • Treated fire-prone invasive species at Picchetti Ranch, Rancho San Antonio, and Bear Creek Redwoods preserves. Attachment 1 Page 12 • In August 2020, Midpen staff and fire agencies located and extinguished four lightning-caused fire starts on Midpen lands before they could grow into larger fires. At the request of CalFire, Midpen sent a team to hold one flank of the CZU Lighting Fire Complex on the Old Haul Road in Pescadero Creek County Park while firefighters fought the front of the fire. Midpen staff held the line and kept the fire from crossing the road and heading toward Skyline Boulevard over a two-week period. • Released an interactive mapping application to the public to provide a one-stop resource for those affected by the August 2020 Lightning Complex fires across our region. The CZU-SCU Fire Map web page received over 250,000 visits after its launch and went viral on social media. Staff presented the app at the Santa Clara County GIS Day virtual event in November 2020. This app remains available with real-time fire data and is expected to be a valuable resource for future fire seasons. • During the wildfire season, expanded the use of social media to create a real-time information channel for changing conditions, increasing our audience each by 16% and increasing web traffic by 50%. • The Board adopted the Wildland Fire Resiliency Program and certified the Programmatic Environmental Impact Report. Conducted significant public outreach to communicate how Midpen's proactive expansion of environmentally sensitive vegetation management promotes healthy, resilient, fire-adapted ecosystems to reduce wildland fire risk and facilitate the response of fire agencies. • Completed early and mid-season work to assess and verify plant communities as part of the Santa Clara and Santa Cruz Vegetation mapping project. • Reviewed wildland fire fuel GIS data for the Santa Cruz Mountain portion of San Mateo County and posted them to Midpen's ArcGIS Online site. • Completed wildland fire pre-plan maps at nine preserves to support emergency response and planning. • Mowed and maintained approximately 561 acres of vegetation for fire safety and public access. Maintained defensible space around Midpen-owned structures. • Participated in planning for fuel reduction projects along Skyline Boulevard and in the La Honda community in partnership with the San Mateo County FireSafe Council, CalFire, and Resource Conservation District. Selected Laserfiche as Midpen’s new electronic document management system and developed the protocols and process for converting paper files into digital files. Inventoried 80% of historic preserve files. Developed the initial scope for a year-long celebration commemorating accomplishments, milestones, and public support of Midpen's first 50 years. Retained consultant for overall plan and event logistics and separate consultant for documentary video. Attachment 1 Page 13 Continued systems implementation of critical Financial and Operational Sustainability Model Study recommendations to enhance Midpen’s delivery of Measure AA and Vision Plan projects: • Continued development of the Work Order and Asset Management System. The Natural Resources department is now integrated into the system, providing staff a streamlined approach for tracking California Department of Fish and Wildlife notifications and department requests for project support. • Built a robust GIS database of Midpen's real property interests and land acquisitions, a medley of nearly 900 transactions dating back to 1974. Developed four interactive dashboard applications and a custom PDF reporting tool that summarizes property information, executes queries, and visualizes trends. Built a custom editor application for Real Property staff to manage the database independently and with confidence. This cutting-edge suite of enterprise GIS tools allows staff to centralize institutional knowledge, understand complex land histories, and streamline information sharing about Midpen’s 50-year history of land protection. • Gathered business requirements, scoped project, procured Tyler Munis Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) system, and began implementation/configuration. Munis will result in a more robust functionality, introduce numerous efficiencies, expand capabilities, and replace multiple legacy Access databases. • Redesigned website structure using equity based Libertory Design Process. Designed new page templates with a refreshed color palette. Migrated and updated 40% of the content for the Website Redesign project. Created social media content strategy to increase outreach and web traffic. • Continued to migrate files to SharePoint from network servers. Streamlined several complex workflows in SharePoint, including the Docent Activity development workflow and Land and Facilities uniform orders, and upgraded aging workflows, including Visitor Services time-off requests and service requests. • Gathered business requirements, scoped project, and evaluated twelve Customer Relationship Management (CRM) software solutions, for a go-live next fiscal year. The CRM will improve Midpen’s communication with the public. Made significant improvements to Midpen's notification guidelines to streamline the process, increase consistency and efficiency, and improve transparency. Made significant progress to bring new Midpen office facilities online for improved administrative functions and delivery of projects and services: • Finalized new design for Administrative Office, received building permits from the City of Los Altos and began construction improvements. • Awarded contract to create interpretive elements in public areas of the new facility. Received board approval of scope and initial design scheme. Made significant progress in the design of key elements for final board approval. Attachment 1 Page 14 • Completed the South Area Field Office construction improvements and moved staff into the building. Completed furniture and technology set-up. • Completed fiber-optic connections to Skyline Field Office, Foothills Field Office, and the new South Area Office, greatly improving network bandwidth and quality of service. Implemented Unitrend’s disaster recovery system, which allows Midpen to maintain business functions should on-premises servers be destroyed. This is critical in maintaining business continuity at a time when numerous natural, cyber, and technical disruptions exist that have been known to result in very high costs, loss of productivity, loss of irreplaceable records, and damage to IT infrastructure. Selected, procured, and configured Omnigo Citations Management System. This is a mobile- friendly software that functions in disconnected remote environments to issue citations, track incidents, and provide the ability to query and run analytical reports. Configured and deployed 24 iPhones to ranger staff for use in conjunction with the Omnigo system that will be going live in FY22. Formed a project team for the Ward Redistricting Plan to develop the timeline, communication plan, and draft webpage to support public outreach and engagement. Consolidated geospatial data and began work with a consultant to develop mapping applications. Continued to enhance and expand GIS capabilities and datasets, as well as provide departments with more direct access: • Released the 2020 Patrol Map Book update that includes a redesigned 55-page weatherized binder and seamless geo PDF map file featuring over 50 authoritative layers and the U.S. National Grid reference system. • Released Trail Designer, an advanced mapping application, for Land & Facilities staff to design potential trail alignments and scope opportunities and constraints as part of their feasibility assessment. The app includes slope calculation and visualization tools to convey terrain conditions and allows staff to make informed decision-making, saving Midpen time and money on consultant services. • Created an offline-enabled mapping solution to capture detailed physical attributes about Midpen public trails. Developed custom sample datasets and built web mapping applications for editing and visualizing data. Trained staff on GPS equipment and data entry methods using ArcGIS Field Maps. These tasks directly support the Trail Information System Project. • Developed editing application for Planning and Visitor Services staff to update the Parking Location GIS dataset with official addresses, IDs, and descriptive names as part of the Parking Area Naming Convention project. Attachment 1 Page 15 • Mapped grazing infrastructure at the extensive Cloverdale Coastal Ranch property to support the due diligence work for this potential acquisition. Coordinated with POST on securing property access. • Digitized and refined important regional trail networks in the enterprise GIS database, including the Saratoga-to-the-Skyline, Skyline-to-the-Sea, Bay Area Ridge Trail, and the Bay Trail. Completed extensive research in coordination with Planning, Real Property, and Public Affairs staff to ensure trail alignments are accurately mapped and correctly attributed. Provided data to the organization through an interactive mapping application that allows users to view the planning status of these regional trail connections. • Developed a highly stylized vector tile base map for Midpen’s new website that will provide the public an engaging experience while exploring the Preserve webpages and trail lists. • Facilitated the second annual Collector and Asset Subject Matter Expert group session. Provided technical training and completed several asset mapping initiatives using enterprise GIS technology. This cross-department coordination streamlines workflows and empowers field staff, ultimately resulting in a more comprehensive and accurate GIS database. • Partnered with Santa Clara County to share costs on county-wide LiDAR and orthoimagery mapping data acquisition. Reviewed consultant deliverables and made high-quality datasets available for future mapping and analysis work. Conducted significant outreach to educate the public on the critical role of conservation grazing in protecting and managing coastal grassland habitat in Midpen preserves. Prepared Historic Resources Administrative Procedural Manual to collect policy information and internal procedures. Centralized existing Midpen historic resource documentation into a digital library. Retained four historic resource consultants through a competitive on-call contract process to support ongoing projects. Completed repairs to multiple Midpen-owned residences, some of which house rangers and maintenance staff who provide onsite, after-hours monitoring of the preserves. Work included completion of the Bergman Residences Reconstruction at Russian Ridge Preserve. Completed demolition of fire-damaged structures at the Thornewood Preserve. Completed short-term repairs to the Hawthorns House foundation and temporary roof covering. Received San Mateo County permits for the Agricultural Workforce Housing project in La Honda Creek Preserve. Construction will begin in August 2021. Repainted the historic Red Barn in lower La Honda Creek Preserve and repaired siding to restore its namesake color. Timed project to avoid disturbance of special status bat species. Repaired a small part of deteriorated roofing. Replaced two patrol vehicles and one mini-excavator. Attachment 1 Page 16 Collaborated with Santa Clara County and Santa Clara Valley Open Space Authority on the Board of Supervisor’s approval of a Zoning Ordinance amendment exempting public agency- led low-intensity, passive recreational use development to streamline the permitting process for low-impact outdoor recreational facilities. In response to COVID-19: • 100% of staff were offered a COVID-19 vaccine – resulting in more than 96% of staff being vaccinated Midpen-wide. Continued to vigilantly respond to changes in State, OSHA, and County protocols to protect Midpen from an outbreak. • Regularly upgraded Midpen’s COVID-19 Health Check application to support evolving health guidelines. Added new workflows for travel restrictions, facilities warnings, and vaccinated employees. • Published an article detailing Midpen's seamless pivot to remote work and its COVID- 19 Health Check application that keeps Midpen workers safe. • Revised and updated the policies to facilitate a reduced carbon footprint of staff and provide more flexibility for the workforce. • Coordinated extensively to comply with and educate visitors on public health requirements, monitoring county health orders, developed and installed signage, and coordinated with public health officials and adjacent park agencies to keep preserves open and accessible to the greatest extent possible. • Led partner group in creating public service announcements regarding health orders and safe-visit guidelines that aired extensively on local media. Created regional lands story map to guide visitors to open areas for safe outdoor recreation in the early months of the pandemic. Created web page outlining the essential benefits of nature for human health and well-being. • Developed extensive safety protocols, processes, procedures, and trainings to limit the spread of COVID-19 and to keep the workforce and the public safe while Midpen continued to work through the pandemic. These efforts included securing and distributing personal protective equipment and collaborating with staff to meet the health guidelines of federal, state, and local authorities. • Provided technology tools to staff for greater productivity at home, including increasing bandwidth at the administrative office to improve VPN speeds. • Continued to improve electronic signature routing, allowing staff to efficiently route and sign documents digitally and promoting an increase in transparency and accessibility while telecommuting. • Maintained the preserve guide map series to ensure continual updates on COVID-19 restrictions, closures, and new features, like wider trails and one-way routes. Attachment 1 Page 17 AWARDS/GRANTS/RECOGNITION Completed eight successful grant applications totaling $9,758,539: • $5,000,000 from the Wildlife Conservation Board for the Highway 17 Crossings Project to assist with the planning, environmental review, and design phases. • $1,577,000 indirect award from CAL FIRE to the Santa Clara County FireSafe Council for the Los Gatos Creek Watershed Forest Health Project in Bear Creek Redwoods, Saratoga Gap, Sierra Azul, and Long Ridge Preserves. • $1,214,590 from the California Department of Parks and Recreation for the Alma Cultural Landscape Rehabilitation Project at Bear Creek Redwoods Preserve. • $1,075,000 from the Wildlife Conservation Board for the El Sereno Keyhole Acquisition Project at El Sereno Preserve. • $400,000 from the State Coastal Conservancy to support work under the Wildland Fire Resiliency Program at multiple preserves. • $232,358 indirect award in Proposition 68 funds from the California Conservation Corps for the Coal Creek Fuel Break Project at Coal Creek Preserve. • $145,591 from the Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery for the Remediation Plan and Ranch Dump Cleanup Project at Madonna Creek Ranch in Miramontes Ridge Preserve and the Purisima Upland Site Clean Up and Soil Remediation Project at Purisima Creek Redwood Preserve. • $114,000 from the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission for the Highway 35 Multi-use Trail Crossing and Parking/Multimodal Access Study. At the request of Assemblymember Marc Berman, an $8M allocation was successfully approved in the FY22 state budget for Midpen’s potential purchase of the Cloverdale Ranch property. In addition, Proposition 68 State Parks and Recreation Department’s Proposition 68 Recreational Infrastructure Revenue Enhancement Program allocated Midpen $1,482,282 which may also support the possible acquisition of the Cloverdale Ranch property. The Grantmaking program distributed $37,000 to three organizations in support of local environmental education programs. Received the Distinguished Budget Presentation Award from the Government Finance Officers Association for the fifth year in a row. Received the Operating Budget – Excellence Award from the California Society of Municipal Finance Officers for the third time in a row. Received the Outstanding Financial Reporting Award from the Government Finance Officers Association (GFOA) for the Consolidated Annual Financial Report (third year) and Popular Annual Financial Report (second year). Attachment 1 Page 18 Awarded first place for the Public Outreach Award from the Northern Section California Chapter American Planning Association for La Honda Public Access Working Group public engagement work. Received a medal from Supervisor Joe Simitian from the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors for Midpen’s exemplary service to provide a safe outdoor outlet for the community during the COVID-19 pandemic. Honored by California State Senator Josh Becker as a “Senate District 13 Community Champion” for efforts during the pandemic. Awarded the 2020 Municipal Information Systems Association of California (MISAC) prestigious Technology Innovation Award for the COVID-19 Health Check Application. This is a statewide competition (second year). FRONT COVER PHOTO CREDITS Top (L to R): Borel Hill by Midpen; People on Top of Windy Hill by Rachel Pandipati; Fantastic Mr. Fox by Chris Perry Bottom (L to R): Butterfly by Midpen; Wild Iris by Dean Little; Last Light by Jim Mosher. YEAR-END REVIEW OF FY21 ACTION PLAN KEY PROJECTS ATTACHMENT 2 Project Number Project Name FY21 Adopted Project Scope FY21 Scope Status Reason for FY21 Scope Variances or Delays Land Acquisition and Preservation 1 MAA01-005 (formerly VP01- 001) Johnston Ranch Land Acquisition Complete Planned Agricultural District Zoning amendment process, partner with POST as co-applicant to resubmit lot line adjustment application, and complete purchase. Work with City of Half Moon Bay to coordinate on future shared parking and future trails at Historic Johnston House, and shared patrol and farm access road. Work with neighbor and State Parks on future trail connection to Burleigh Murray State Park. Continue to pursue additional land purchase grant funds. Complete 2 MAA03-006 (formerly VP03- 002) South Cowell Upland Land Conservation Purchase property and begin trail and parking planning for Preliminary Use and Management Plan preparation. Complete 3 MAA19-004 (formerly VP19- 001) San Jose Water Co. Land Purchase Work with public agency and private land owners to purchase property and trail easements to connect El Sereno Preserve to Sanborn County Park and protect wildlife corridors at El Sereno Preserve. Complete 4 None Districtwide purchase options and low-value Land Fund Budget allocations for purchase option funds to enter into purchase and sale agreements for other open space lands with property owners. These funds are also used for low-value land purchases under the general manager’s purchasing authority such as small parcels, public trail easements or patrol and maintenance access easements. Complete 5 MAA03-008 Rieser-Nelson Land Purchase N/A Complete (Added Mid-Year) This project was added mid-year when an opportunity to purchase became available. 6 MAA25-002 Billingsley Property Acquisition N/A Complete (Added Mid-Year) This project was added mid-year when an opportunity to purchase a key property along Loma Prieta Way became available. 7 VP05-001 La Honda Creek Upper Area Land Conservation N/A Complete (Added Mid-Year) Added mid-year; previously deferred but opportunities to negotiate arose. 8 20125 Cal-Water Land Exchange, Teague Hill Preserve Pursue trail connections between Huddart Park and Teague Hill Preserve, and pursue future land conservation protections in the Bear Creek watershed in exchange for land rights to allow the installation of Cal Water water tanks for fire suppression at El Corte de Madera Preserve. In Progress Change in Cal Water project managers twice has delayed this project. Page 1 of 15 YEAR-END REVIEW OF FY21 ACTION PLAN KEY PROJECTS ATTACHMENT 2 Project Number Project Name FY21 Adopted Project Scope FY21 Scope Status Reason for FY21 Scope Variances or Delays Land Acquisition and Preservation 9 Coordination Purposes Only Land Conservation Guidance Document Review existing Policies and Procedures to keep what is relevant and identify changes such as lands acquired under the Coastal Service Plan and Farm Bureau MOU. Outline policy updates/changes and review with departments. Draft new Land Acquisition Policies and Procedures to be consistent with District Policies. Develop a strategic road map for Vision Plan and MAA land conservation projects. In Progress Review and update of existing land acquisition polices has been delayed due to work on Coastal Management Plan and San Mateo Co. & Coastal Commission Local Coastal Plan (LCP) text amendments and Farm Bureau litigation. Land Conservation Guidance plan identifying future land conservation priorities will be done in FY22. 10 MAA15-004 Irish Ridge Land Conservation Complete Planed Agricultural District zoning amendment process, submit lot split application and complete purchase. Cancelled Purchase agreement amendment with sellers extended close of escrow to 6/30/2021 to provide for approval of lot split. California Coastal Commission (CCC) approved minor Local Coastal Plan amendments in January 2021. Irish Ridge project was recommended for approval to the San Mateo County Planning Commission in March 2021. San Mateo Farm Bureau filed lawsuit against CCC in March 2021 delaying lot split approval, resulting in District falling out of contract with property owners on 6/30/2021. 11 VP08-001 Upper San Gregorio Land Conservation Continue to work with neighboring private property owner on access alternative to the Woodruff Redwoods addition to La Honda Creek Open Space Preserve. Next steps include surveying alternative access road and entering into a new access easement. In Progress Experienced delay due to COVID and CZU fire as property location was located within the evacuation zone. Brushing and survey of alternative access, and drafting and negotiation of new easement will begin in August 2021. 12 VP13-001 Cloverdale Ranch Land Opportunity Work with POST to complete additional studies and/or restoration projects needed prior to land transfer, including roads and trails assessment, water system infrastructure assessment, botanical surveys. Initiate community engagement, outreach and meetings. Identify natural resource management goals and outline staffing and management plan to be put in place for the first years after land transfer and inform the Coastal Management Plan. Work with POST to develop an integrated rangeland management plan for lease area. Pursue grant funding opportunities to support purchase. In Progress Botanical studies were delayed until the spring of 2021; road inventory and assessment, and community outreach and engagement were delayed due to COVID and the CZU fires. 13 VP19-002 El Sereno Land Conservation Pursue land rights for a trail connection between El Sereno Preserve and Sanborn County Park as part of the Bay Area Ridge Trail. In Progress Survey of trail easement connecting El Sereno OSP to Sanborn County Park underway. Transactional documents being reviewed by property owners attorney. Page 2 of 15 YEAR-END REVIEW OF FY21 ACTION PLAN KEY PROJECTS ATTACHMENT 2 Project Number Project Name FY21 Adopted Project Scope FY21 Scope Status Reason for FY21 Scope Variances or Delays Land Acquisition and Preservation 14 VP25-001 Sierra Azul Loma Prieta Land Conservation Pursue land purchase opportunities in the Loma Prieta area of Sierra Azul Preserve.In Progress Discussions with property owner is ongoing. 15 VP08-002 Pratt Trust Property Purchase N/A In Progress (Added Mid-Year) Responded to opportunity to negotiate purchase of Upper Alpine Creek forested land as a potential addition to Russian Ridge OSP. Property owner and Midpen are far apart on property value. 16 VP15-001 Redwood Forest Land Opportunity Pursue opportunities in the Oil Creek and Slate Creek watersheds.Deferred Slaght Creek property owners not interested in selling properties at this time. 17 VP24-002 SCVWD Exchange Agreement at Rancho de Guadalupe Area of SAOSP Enter into exchange agreement with Valley Water for license to use Pheasant and Hicks Road intersection as a staging area for Guadalupe Dam repairs in exchange for Valley Water's construction of a public parking lot for accessing the Rancho de Guadalupe area of Sierra Azul Preserve. Work with Santa Clara County Planning Department to change zoning of Pheasant and Hicks Road property to Hillside to be compatible with open space use. Deferred Delayed because Guadalupe Dam repairs will not start until 2025. 18 VP39-001 Lower San Gregorio Creek Watershed Land Conservation Work with POST to prepare conservation easement for San Gregorio Farm property to ensure protection of lower San Gregorio creek riparian corridor and provide for future creek habitat restoration, including a conceptual plan for creek and floodplain restoration. Deferred Delayed while POST pursued NRCS grant opportunity. Work to evaluate flood plain restoration options and enter into a letter of intent with POST on water rights, riparian and agricultural protections reschedule for FY22. Natural Resource Protection and Restoration 19 61008 Los Trancos - Page Mill Fire Safety Eucalyptus Removal Complete eucalyptus removal and restoration. Complete 20 61014 BCR Stables Road Drainage Repairs and Mitigation Assess and repair drainage and erosion issues from arena area to Briggs Creek. Develop and implement mitigation plan for trees removed from riparian area. Complete 21 61017 Fuel Reduction Implementation Continue fuel reduction in critical areas along roads, infrastructure and adjacent properties. Complete 22 80063 Districtwide Vegetation Mapping (formerly San Mateo County Vegetation Map) Provide technical project support and coordination (staff to review GIS deliverables and provide feedback on project). Complete 23 80065 IPM Implementation of Santa Clara Valley Water District Grant Oversee contractor to implement IPM on high priority weeds in riparian areas at Bear Creek Redwoods, Rancho San Antonio, and Picchetti Ranch preserves. Complete 24 80068 Santa Clara & Santa Cruz Vegetation Mapping Provide technical project support and coordination.Complete Merged into project 80063 given similar scopes. Page 3 of 15 YEAR-END REVIEW OF FY21 ACTION PLAN KEY PROJECTS ATTACHMENT 2 Project Number Project Name FY21 Adopted Project Scope FY21 Scope Status Reason for FY21 Scope Variances or Delays Natural Resource Protection and Restoration 25 80069 (formerly Coordination Purposes Only) Mountain Lion Collaring Effort - Rancho San Antonio/Foothills Area Preserve Retain a qualified researcher to study mountain lion use of Midpen preserves where reported human and mountain lion interactions are more frequent. Initiate first year mountain lion collaring efforts. Complete 26 Coordination Purposes Only Science Advisory Panel Complete first round of analysis of selected topics, presenting results on at least one topic; review process and revise Science Advisory Panel process as necessary; select second round topics and begin analysis of new and continuing topics. Complete 27 MAA01-004 Remediation Plan Development and Ranch Debris Site Clean Up - Madonna Creek Ranch Permit and implement remediation plan to remove all ranch and farm dump debris from riparian area and restore vegetation. Complete 28 MAA09-003 Russian Ridge Mindego Pond Improvement Complete project design, permitting and construction, with support of a subject matter expert. Complete 29 MAA21-007 Bear Creek Redwoods Preserve Plan: Invasive Weed Treatment and Restoration Continue targeted invasive species at Bear Creek Redwoods Preserve (phase I and phase II) Complete 30 61022 Coal Creek Fuel Break N/A Complete (Added Mid-Year) Added mid-year to take advantage of Prop 68 grant opportunity. 31 80060 Marbled Murrelet Recovery Planning N/A Complete (Added Mid-Year) Added mid-year. Project was previously core function for Natural Resources, but due to level of work involved and intersection with numerous District projects and routine maintenance work, project was elevated to a full project. 32 MAA03-003 Purisima Creek Fence Construction, Purisima Creek Redwoods N/A Complete (Added Mid-Year) Project was supposed to be completed in late FY20. Completed in FY21 instead because the project pre-bid meeting and site visit was delayed due to COVID-19. 33 MAA05-002 Upper La Honda Creek Grazing Infrastructure N/A Complete (Added Mid-Year) Project was supposed to be completed in late FY20. Completed in FY21 instead because the project pre-bid meeting and site visit was delayed due to COVID-19. 34 VP22-001 Alma Bridge Road Newt Mortality and Population Study N/A Complete (Added Mid-Year) Added mid-year in response to Board-approved funding for a multiagency newt study in September 2020 after receiving PNR Committee recommendations to study newt mortality on Alma Bridge Road. Page 4 of 15 YEAR-END REVIEW OF FY21 ACTION PLAN KEY PROJECTS ATTACHMENT 2 Project Number Project Name FY21 Adopted Project Scope FY21 Scope Status Reason for FY21 Scope Variances or Delays Natural Resource Protection and Restoration 35 80054 Badger/Burrowing Owl Habitat Assessment Continue data collection, including field surveys, wildlife camera trapping, hair/genetics collection and incidental reports of observations/roadkill. Conduct ongoing calibration of habitat and linkage models using new data. Engage public interest through outreach, community events and volunteer opportunities. Facilitate interest from partner agencies for a long-term goal of regional species protection and habitat management. In Progress Data collection and field surveys completed in FY21. Compilation, analysis, and calibration of data and drafting final report with management recommendations will be completed in FY22. 36 80059 Groundwater Well Decommissioning Evaluate, obtain permits for, and bid out the decommissioning of 10 unused and abandoned wells in Sierra Azul Preserve. In Progress Bids for decommissioning all 10 wells exceeded the budget, but 4 wells were decommissioned. 37 80003-10 Wildland Fire Resiliency Program Complete phase I of the Wildland Fire Resiliency Program development, including the Vegetation Management Plan, pre-plan maps, and monitoring plan. Complete scoping of phase II (prescribed fire) and start the CEQA process. In Progress Scoping for the Phase II (prescribed Fire) was delayed due increased workload with other projects in response to either the pandemic or unanticipated needs on other projects. 38 80034-44 Programmatic State and Federal Environmental Permitting Finalize and obtain permits with the permit agencies and begin program implementation and staff training as needed. In Progress CEQA circulation delayed to summer 2021. Most permit negotiations are near completion. 39 Coordination Purposes Only Grazing Management Policy Amendment Hold PNR meeting to review amendments and Board meeting for adoption of policy amendment; develop research approach; deploy wildlife and livestock protection measures; begin research on efficacy of wildlife and livestock protection measures; update lease agreements; develop framework for conservation grazing tenant loss reporting. In Progress Contract for deployment of wildlife protection measures awarded June 23, 2021 and research will begin in FY22. Framework for tenant loss reporting will be developed in FY22 as well. 40 MAA03-002 Purisima Upland Site Clean up and Soil Remediation Assessment Finalize permits, release request for bids, and complete construction activities. Begin revegetation, seeding. In Progress Special status plants required the project to undergo substantial scope changes and added CEQA process to the project. Additional hazardous materials investigations and oil well decommissioning investigations were added to the scope. Negotiations with CalGem on the responsible party for decommissioning was initiated. 41 MAA05-010 Restoration Forestry Demonstration Project Develop restoration forestry prescription, prepare designs for roads and creek restoration, and begin permitting. In Progress The draft La Honda Forest Management Plan is now ready for Board and public review, but the prescription, designs, and permitting were delayed due to COVID-19 stopping fieldwork and then the CZU wildfire delaying fieldwork that supported the Plan. 42 MAA05-011 Lone Madrone Ranch Fence Installation Project contingent on resolution of an agreement with neighbor for access. Construct a livestock boundary fence along riparian corridor. In Progress Project start was delayed until neighbor signed easement agreements. Page 5 of 15 YEAR-END REVIEW OF FY21 ACTION PLAN KEY PROJECTS ATTACHMENT 2 Project Number Project Name FY21 Adopted Project Scope FY21 Scope Status Reason for FY21 Scope Variances or Delays Natural Resource Protection and Restoration 43 MAA09-006 Mindego Ranch South Pasture Install livestock fencing, water infrastructure, and perform invasive removal in south pasture area. In Progress Completed mowing of coyote brush to allow for fence construction and water system improvements. Obtained Board approval for tenant to do work on both the fence and the water system. Water system work will follow fence construction as NRCS delayed their start of the water system project until mid- summer. 44 MAA20-001 Wildlife Corridor: Highway 17 Crossing Continue CEQA/NEPA and Caltrans Project Approval/Environmental Document (environmental review documents). Continue working with consultant (TBD) to develop CEQA documents in conjunction with Caltrans lead on NEPA documents. Continue public and partner outreach, and seek funding opportunities. In Progress All items completed with the exception of Caltrans leading NEPA. Although Caltrans agreed to lead NEPA in the Cooperative Agreement signed for the project, they have since indicated they cannot lead NEPA until federal funding is programmed. The project team is working to secure federal funding either directly through Caltrans, VTA, competitive grants, or an earmark to allow Caltrans to initiate NEPA oversight. 45 61023 Los Gatos Creek Watershed Forest Health Grant N/A In Progress (Added Mid-Year) Added mid-year, in progress. Award selection and funding amount are approved by an external funding organization (per grant opportunity timeline). 46 MAA07-008 Lower Turtle Pond Maintenance N/A In Progress (Added Mid-Year) Lower Turtle Pond berm was identified as a risk for failure, potentially harming ecological and grazing values, and therefore added mid-year. 47 61021 Toto Ranch North Water Line Tenant will subcontract work to install new water line.Deferred Project deferred until well is completed so that a determination can be made as to the quantity of water available. 48 Coordination Purposes Only Agricultural Policy Review and Development Prepare or amend agricultural policies in consultation with partners and stakeholders. Hold Board of Directors workshop on proposed policies, conduct necessary environmental review, and adopt policies. Deferred Project deferred to accommodate increased workload to complete the Grazing Management Policy amendment. 49 MAA21-010 Bear Creek Redwoods Landfill Characterization and Remediation Implement remediation plan to remove toxic substances from landfill site, including data recovery of historic resources within landfill, and restore site to stable configuration. Deferred Deferred until FY22 due to staff retirement and workloads. Page 6 of 15 YEAR-END REVIEW OF FY21 ACTION PLAN KEY PROJECTS ATTACHMENT 2 Project Number Project Name FY21 Adopted Project Scope FY21 Scope Status Reason for FY21 Scope Variances or Delays Public Access Education and Outreach 50 31901 ADA Barrier Removal Complete year two of barrier removals.Complete 51 Coordination Purposes Only Parking Area Naming Conventions Coordinate with Mountain View Dispatch and the counties of San Mateo and Santa Clara, and apply for official addresses for all the existing parking lots that currently do not have addresses. Coordinate with field and patrol staff to determine, by preserve, the names for parking areas that are already in use at Midpen when speaking to Mountain View Dispatch. Submit applications to counties. Complete 52 Coordination Purposes Only E-Bike Policy Evaluation Explore pilot program for e-bike access on District paved trails.Complete 53 MAA02-001 Cooley Landing Interpretative Facilities Design and Implementation Complete habitat restoration work (second year of three-year contract).Complete 54 MAA02-002 Ravenswood Bay Trail Design and Implementation Finalize construction and continue plant maintenance and monitoring.Complete 55 MAA03-005 (formerly VP03- 003) Purisima-to-the-Sea Trail and Parking Area Feasibility and Planning Pending acquisition of land rights, initiate a feasibility analysis in collaboration with POST to study parking area alternatives to facilitate the Purisima-to-the-Sea regional trail connection. Perform preliminary field reconnaissance for potential trail alignment depending on location of proposed parking area. Initiate preliminary technical studies and assessments (e.g., cultural resources, biological, geotechnical, traffic) to inform feasibility studies. Complete 56 MAA07-011 Phase II Loop Trails, Lower La Honda Creek OSP Begin construction of easy access loop trail in pasture one of Lower La Honda, pending permitting approval. Perform biomonitoring, permitting assistance and begin mitigation implementation and revegetation/reseeding. Complete 57 MAA11-002 Rancho San Antonio - Deer Hollow Farm - White Barn Rehabilitation Complete construction for stabilization and weatherproofing improvements.Complete 58 MAA18-002 Saratoga-to-the-Sea Regional Trail Connection Continue to provide the City of Saratoga with technical and financial support. The city anticipates completing phase I of construction (trail work) in FY20 and completing the phase II of construction (bridge construction) in FY21. Complete 59 VP11-001 Rancho San Antonio (RSA) Multimodal Access Study Complete multimodal access study and identify strategies for reducing parking issues. The analysis will expand upon a suite of recommendations for managing parking demand and improving multimodal access and present a menu of short-, med-, and long-term strategies. Implement short-term measures. Complete 60 VP23-002 Traffic Study for Mt. Umunhum Road Finalize construction and implement selected signage, striping, and pavement improvements; completion anticipated by fall 2020. Complete Page 7 of 15 YEAR-END REVIEW OF FY21 ACTION PLAN KEY PROJECTS ATTACHMENT 2 Project Number Project Name FY21 Adopted Project Scope FY21 Scope Status Reason for FY21 Scope Variances or Delays 61 VP23-003 Mt. Umunhum - Radar Tower Repair Complete Mount Umunhum radar tower repair design, acquire permits, and begin construction. Complete Public Access Education and Outreach 62 31904 Purisima Preserve Multimodal Access Study N/A Complete (Added Mid-Year) Added mid-year per Board request to support and inform the planning and design efforts of the Purisima-to-the-Sea Trail and Parking Feasibility Study project and the Hwy 35 Multi-use Trail Crossing and Parking project. 63 31903 Hwy 35 Multi-use Trail Crossing and Parking In coordination with Bay Area Ridge Trail Council and SFPUC, conduct feasibility analysis and technical studies for potential pedestrian crossing at Highway 35 and parking expansion opportunity at North Ridge parking lot at Purisima Creek Redwoods Preserve. In Progress Feasibility studies delayed due to extensive process to receive external partner funding and internal coordination efforts to implement in-house design approach, requiring additional time with scoping, project co-lead responsibilities, and schedule development. 64 35006 Restroom Replacements Perform the feasibility study, design, and begin permitting for the Purisima North and Kennedy Trailhead restrooms. In Progress Purisima North restroom is following the timeline of the Hwy35 Trail Crossing project due to interrelationship. The Kennedy restroom completed technical studies; due to public interests from neighbors, additional time is required for community engagement process. 65 40011 Website Redesign Work with contractor to redesign structure. Retain contractor to design and migrate current site to new platform; develop new content. In Progress Deferred full migration and initial development of new content until FY22 due to COVID disruptions, staff vacancies and opportunity to expand scope to create better site. 66 Coordination Purposes Only Preserve Use Survey Implementation Develop a system for rating and describing Midpen trails to allow the public the ability to choose the trail routes that fit their needs. In Progress This FY21 project scope is now the Trail Information System project and is on the action plan for FY22. The trail information system will take several years to complete. 67 Coordination Purposes Only Stevens Creek Trail Signage Complete pilot signage program for Stevens Creek Trail at Monte Bello Preserve.In Progress Presentation of the proposed Stevens Creek Trail designation to Committee and Board delayed to allow time for the Friends of Stevens Creek Trail to hold a multi-agency meeting with agencies who hold jurisdiction where the proposed regional trail runs. This meeting ensures all agencies agree with the regional trail designation and use of a Stevens Creek Trail medallion. 68 Coordination Purposes Only Regional Trails Planning and Coordination Continue to participate in planning coalition and stakeholder working groups to provide technical support on regional trail connections to Midpen trails and preserves. In Progress Due to the nature of this coordination work, Midpen continues to participate in ongoing regional trails partnership meetings such as the Peninsula Trails Team, although the Bay to Sea Trail Planning Coalition was temporarily suspended due to the pandemic. 69 MAA05-008 La Honda Creek White Barn Structural Rehabilitation Environmental review and design development for structural stabilization of the white barn. In Progress Environmental review will continue into FY22. Design development, to stabilize the structure will begin in FY22. Delays due to staff availability. Page 8 of 15 YEAR-END REVIEW OF FY21 ACTION PLAN KEY PROJECTS ATTACHMENT 2 Project Number Project Name FY21 Adopted Project Scope FY21 Scope Status Reason for FY21 Scope Variances or Delays Public Access Education and Outreach 70 MAA05-009 La Honda Creek Redwood Cabin Assessment, Removal and Site Restoration Environmental review for demolition of the Redwood Cabin.In Progress Initiated environmental review for demolition of the Redwood Cabin. 71 MAA06-002 Hawthorns Public Access Site Plan and CEQA Work with contract planner/consultant to amend the Preliminary Use and Management Plan; develop and initiate stakeholder outreach plan with board committee; initiate design and engineering of public access improvements. Work closely with Town of Portola Valley to obtain use permit. In Progress Staff initiated the project with the PNR Committee, conducted public outreach, and established a preliminary planning and permitting pathway with the Town of Portola Valley. Due to COVID-19 and coordination with the partner agency, staff required additional time before launching the project with the PNR Committee in May 2021. Preparing the Preliminary Use and Management Plan Amendment, designing public access improvements, and obtaining permits will occur in future fiscal years after the Board adopts vision and goals and staff develops a public access alternatives concept through a robust public process. 72 MAA10-001 Alpine Road Regional Trail, Coal Creek Prepare design documents and garner permits for the construction of trail and drainage improvements. Perform biomonitoring and begin revegetation/reseeding activities. In Progress Project permitting was delayed due to challenges in corresponding with the regulatory agencies, along with changes in the permitting process at the federal level. Regional Water Quality Control Board permit was issued in August 2021. The California Department of Fish and Wildlife draft permit is anticipated in late September 2021. The US Army Corps of Engineers permit application is still under review and is currently moving through the required consultations. Planning permit applications were submitted to San Mateo County Planning in early September 2021. Construction is targeted for Summer 2022. 73 MAA20-002 Bay Area Ridge Trail: Highway 17 Crossing Continue CEQA/NEPA and Caltrans PAED (environmental review documents). Continue working with consultant (TBD) to develop CEQA documents in conjunction with Caltrans lead on NEPA documents. Continue public and partner outreach, and seek funding opportunities. In Progress All items completed with the exception of Caltrans leading NEPA. Although Caltrans agreed to lead NEPA in the Cooperative Agreement signed for the project, they have since indicated they cannot lead NEPA until federal funding is programmed. The project team is working to secure federal funding either directly through Caltrans, VTA, competitive grants, or an earmark to allow Caltrans to initiate NEPA oversight. 74 MAA21-004 Bear Creek Stables Site Plan Implementation Complete construction documents for stables site plan and water system. Continue to coordinate with Santa Clara County Planning regarding permitting as necessary. Confirm adequacy of the environmental impact report for the modified project. Prepare and release request for bids. Secure project permits. In Progress Project was delayed due to prolonged process with County to identify best permitting approach. In FY21, Board confirmed staff recommendation to pursue a Use Permit for the site to then secure building permits. Construction documents have since been largely finalized and a use permit application is scheduled to be submitted in September. Page 9 of 15 YEAR-END REVIEW OF FY21 ACTION PLAN KEY PROJECTS ATTACHMENT 2 Project Number Project Name FY21 Adopted Project Scope FY21 Scope Status Reason for FY21 Scope Variances or Delays 75 MAA21-006 Bear Creek Redwoods - Alma College Cultural Landscape Rehabilitation Complete construction, including Upper Lake overflow and access.In Progress Construction of site improvements and structure rehabilitation was not completed due to a prolonged permitting phase and initial bid results that exceeding budget. New bid was received in summer 2021 and construction is now scheduled to begin in the fall. Page 10 of 15 YEAR-END REVIEW OF FY21 ACTION PLAN KEY PROJECTS ATTACHMENT 2 Project Number Project Name FY21 Adopted Project Scope FY21 Scope Status Reason for FY21 Scope Variances or Delays Public Access Education and Outreach 76 MAA21-011 Phase II Trail Improvements, Bear Creek Redwoods OSP Complete the planning and permitting for trail infrastructure requiring permits, while beginning in-house construction of trail segments that do not require permits. Complete the necessary traffic studies for the trailheads of the multiuse trail and begin the trailhead design. In Progress Postponed submittal of Regional Water Quality Control Board permit application to receive feedback from Water Board staff on pre-application materials. Anticipate submitting permit application early in Q1 FY22. 77 VP05-002 La Honda Creek Parking and Trailhead Access Feasibility Study PENDING BOARD DIRECTION anticipated July/August 2020 following Public Access Working Group input and PNR recommendations. Conduct feasibility study and technical analyses for public access alternative(s). In Progress Presentation of Public Access Working Group final report and recommendations to Committee and Board delayed due to pandemic. Committee review and Board approval eventually held virtually. Contract to initiate feasibility studies scheduled to go before the Board in Sept. 78 Coordination Purposes Only Cooley Landing Park Business and Operation Plan Continue to support the City of East Palo Alto’s efforts to recruit and select an operator to provide environmental stewardship programing at Cooley Landing that is reflective of the community’s culture. Midpen will provide funding for the development of a business and operating plan for the preferred operator. Deferred On hold until the City of East Palo Alto is able to dedicate resources to the project. 79 Coordination Purposes Only Cooley Landing Site Use Agreements Resolve informal and formal agreements for the operation and use of Cooley Landing not completed in FY20. Including patrol agreements, maintenance agreements, soil cap institutional controls and maintenance, Menlo Fire use agreement for airboat ramp, adjust EPA access easement to center of driveway, and Bay Trail designation of spur to Cooley Landing. Deferred Delayed due to COVID related impacts and unavailability of East Palo Alto staff. 80 Coordination Purposes Only La Honda Elementary Path to Pond As needed: refine curriculum, (re)train La Honda Elementary School staff using the curriculum to avoid impacts to California red-legged frog and cattle, and mow pathway to maintain safe access. Assess impacts to California red-legged frog and cattle after the first year of implementation and renew, revise or suspend annual use permit accordingly. Deferred Due to COVID shutdown, school was not able to work on this project. 81 MAA22-004 Beatty Parking Area and Trail Connections Project on hold. Pending newt study results, initiate discussion in FY2021-22 re: time extension for 2008 conservation easement agreement, which will be led by Real Property and supported by other depts. Deferred Project placed on hold to allow newt study to be completed. Newt study findings will inform scope and timeline of the public access project. 82 MAA22-005 Beatty House Removal and Site Restoration N/A Cancelled Cancelled project in response to Board direction provided on March 24, 2021. Page 11 of 15 YEAR-END REVIEW OF FY21 ACTION PLAN KEY PROJECTS ATTACHMENT 2 Project Number Project Name FY21 Adopted Project Scope FY21 Scope Status Reason for FY21 Scope Variances or Delays Assets and Organizational Support 83 10001 Records Management Select and implement an electronic document management system. Perform records inventory and disposition of records in accordance with board-adopted records retention schedule. Begin document scanning, digitization and input of digital records into EDMS. Complete 84 31202 New Administrative Office (AO) Facility Finalize design and begin construction.Complete 85 31601 New South Area Field Office Facility Complete construction and receive building occupancy. Purchase, setup and install technology. Complete 86 51701 Work Order and Asset Management System Conduct phase II for Natural Resources. Migrate SharePoint request form to Cityworks. All NR requests will go through Cityworks thereafter. Complete 87 51703 Real Property Database Migrate legacy content into new database, develop web applications, provide user training, go live with new system and retire old database. Complete 88 61019 Repaint Red Barn Repaint red barn at La Honda Creek Open Space Preserve.Complete 89 Coordination Purposes Only Citation Management System Finalize business requirements and select software solution.Complete 90 Coordination Purposes Only SharePoint - Document Management System Continue effort to migrate files from network drives to SharePoint. Implement additional workflows to move toward paperless routing. Complete 91 Coordination Purposes Only Customer Relationship Management Investigate a customer relationship management solution to replace the legacy contact’s database. A CRM provides the ability to manage, track and communicate with customers (the public), contacts, organizations and partners. Business requirements will be assessed and CRM solutions will be evaluated. Complete 92 Coordination Purposes Only Coastside Lands Management Plan Work with various departments to assess operational needs and capacity, and develop a management plan for existing and future Coastal preserves. Pursue opportunities for new centralized field office in vicinity of Highway 1. Integrate into Field Office Infrastructure Assessments. Complete Page 12 of 15 YEAR-END REVIEW OF FY21 ACTION PLAN KEY PROJECTS ATTACHMENT 2 Project Number Project Name FY21 Adopted Project Scope FY21 Scope Status Reason for FY21 Scope Variances or Delays Assets and Organizational Support 93 None Vehicle and Machinery/Equipment Purchases Vehicles: Replace two Patrol vehicles and one maintenance vehicle that have reached their mileage and/or years in service limit. New patrol vehicles are planned to be Ford F-350 or similar to accommodate the additional load for water tanks and pumps to support the fire suppression program. In anticipation of ongoing social distancing requirements staff will evaluate all viable alternatives for transporting crews to safely perform planned field work. This will include exploring all green and fuel efficient modes of transportation, identifying vehicles that need to be replaced in the near future (beyond FY21), and vehicles that can be kept in service longer than anticipated. Machinery: Replace one mini excavator that has reached its end of life and isn't cost effective to repair. Complete 94 VP06-001 Hawthorns Historic Complex Partnership and Lease Evaluate and implement short term measures to prevent deterioration of the Hawthorns house. Complete 95 50005 Tyler Munis ERP Migration N/A Complete (Added Mid-Year) Added Mid-year to replace the Human Resources Information System project. The migration from New World Systems ERP to Munis ERP results in more robust functionality and introduce numerous efficiencies, including expanded HRIS capabilities, and allow for the replacement of multiple legacy Access databases. 96 51702 District Wide Fiber Optics N/A Complete (Added Mid-Year) Added mid-year because the SFO part of the project was not completed in prior year due to delays in getting pole permits and a signed easement with a private property owner. 97 10002 San Mateo County Master Permit Complete zoning and subdivision ordinance amendments with the County of San Mateo to streamline land divisions. Complete master permit application; begin stakeholders engagement. In Progress Zoning and subdivision ordinance amendments process delayed due to Farm Bureau lawsuit. Master permit application delayed due to County staff turnover. 98 35004 Sierra Azul Ranger Residence Continue design and begin construction. Complete the structural assessment and receive direction on future uses. Continue to work closely with County of Santa Clara Planning Department to address and resolve violation and updated Conditional Use Permit. In Progress Construction has not begun on this project. Design services to complete the basis of design document will continue into fiscal year 2022. Staff will continue to coordinate with the County of Santa Clara to resolve the violation notice. Delays due to Midpen and County staff availability during pandemic. Page 13 of 15 YEAR-END REVIEW OF FY21 ACTION PLAN KEY PROJECTS ATTACHMENT 2 Project Number Project Name FY21 Adopted Project Scope FY21 Scope Status Reason for FY21 Scope Variances or Delays Assets and Organizational Support 99 51704 Ward Boundary Redistricting Plan Host board study sessions to introduce the redistricting process, review relevant federal laws and state guidelines, and finalize redistricting criteria. Begin analyzing census and demographic data and develop potential boundary realignment scenarios. Develop communication plan and web page for public information. In Progress The Board study session and redistricting analyses will start in upcoming fiscal year due to a 5-month U.S. Census Bureau delay in releasing population data. 100 61009 Russian Ridge - Bergman Residences Reconstruction Demolish grandma house, stable building and small shed. Natural Resources to provide biomonitoring. In Progress No response to the initial Request for Bids. Required additional contractor outreach to secure successful bid. 101 61010 Toto Ranch Well Drilling and Construction, Tunitas Creek Finalize permitting and construction of well. Planning to assist with permitting as needed. In Progress No response to the initial Request for Bids. Direct phone calls to C57 licensed contractors from San Jose to Sonoma County yielded one contractor who can start work in late summer 2021. 102 61011 Install Solar Panels at Skyline Field Office Solar panel installation slated for completion in FY20; may continue into FY21 to complete work. In Progress Negotiating details of Design-Build contract took longer than expected. Bats found in the attic of the Skyline Office delayed work until September 2021 to avoid disturbing maternity colony. 103 61015 Bear Creek Stables Operator RFP/Lease Issue RFP for new tenant and negotiate lease. In Progress The Request for Proposals (RFP) has been drafted and under legal review. Board presentation to solicit feedback on objectives and selection criteria of the RFP occurred on July 14. 104 61016 Burkhart Spring Construction Permitting and construction.In Progress Currently negotiating with Mr. Burkhart to finalize construction details in order to release the Request for Bids. 105 61020 Thornewood Residence Evaluation Complete historic evaluation and structural evaluation of the Thornewood residence.In Progress Historical evaluation is in progress with on-call historical evaluation contractor. Delay due to need to first conduct Request for Proposals to establish an on-call consultant list to support this type of work. 106 31902 (formerly Coordination Purposes Only) Historic Resources Procedural Guide/Inventory Research and centralize policy information, procedures and processes and begin development of historic resources procedural guide. Research and develop selection criteria for a historic resources consultant to support the development of a historic resource database framework that is consistent with the National Park Service Secretary of Interior standards. Retain historic resources consultant if funding allows. In Progress Prepared Historic Resources Administrative Procedural Manual to centralize policy information and provide guidance regarding the identification, evaluation, documentation, disposition, and management of historic resources. Prepared and released RPFQ with associated selection criteria and executed on- call contracts with four qualified historic resource consultants to assist with historic evaluations, GIS database design, and etc. Page 14 of 15 YEAR-END REVIEW OF FY21 ACTION PLAN KEY PROJECTS ATTACHMENT 2 Project Number Project Name FY21 Adopted Project Scope FY21 Scope Status Reason for FY21 Scope Variances or Delays Assets and Organizational Support 107 40013 (formerly Coordination Purposes Only) 50th Anniversary Planning Develop consensus plan for signature event and celebrations to commemorate 1972 founding of Midpen. In Progress Delayed comprehensive plan development due to contracting issues and staff vacancy. 108 Coordination Purposes Only Emergency/Disaster Preparedness Response and Recovery Plan Develop Business Continuity Plan for Administrative Office and IT infrastructure. Update Emergency/Disaster Preparedness Response and Recovery Plan and align with Business Continuity Plan. In Progress Pandemic response to COVID completed and will be added to Disaster Preparedness Plan and will be added to current emergency protocol. The Emergency Action Plan (EAP) is under review. The Business Continuity Plan (BCP) is in the drafting and research stage. 109 Coordination Purposes Only Fire Suppression Program: Review Staffing, Equipment and Training Form subcommittee of wildfire coordination team to review and make recommendations to update current program. In Progress Draft recommendations for Midpen's fire suppression program are in the review stage. Finalization expected by end of 2021. 110 Coordination Purposes Only Volunteer and Docent Management System Obtain business requirements, select software solution, configure system, and Go- Live. In Progress GetConnected will be going live in August 2021 in coordination with the website Go-live date. 111 Coordination Purposes Only Digital Asset Management Train other departments in the processes for submitting photos and important metadata for ingestion into the digital asset management system, for photos to be used for publication. In Progress Delayed due to staff vacancy. 112 Coordination Purposes Only Basic Policy Update Update Basic Policy to incorporate the Coastal Annexation Area, and conduct public engagement and study sessions as appropriate. In Progress Delayed due to COVID impacts; project deferred to after FY22. 113 Coordination Purposes Only Interim Coastal Area Field Office Finalize permitting and environmental review for the interim Coastal Area Field Office and equestrian uses of the Event Center property. In Progress Delayed due to permitting issues and reduced capacity of San Mateo County Planning staff due to the pandemic and staff vacancies. 114 VP07-002 Agricultural Workforce Housing - La Honda Creek Begin and complete construction. Natural Resources to provide biomonitoring and begin revegetation/reseeding. In Progress COVID-related delays in San Mateo County staff availability to process permits and loan application. Recently received Board approval for construction contract. Construction will begin August 2021. 115 Coordination Purposes Only Good Neighbor Policy Update Review and update Good Neighbor Policy.Deferred Delayed due to COVID impacts; project deferred to after FY22. 116 Coordination Purposes Only Human Resources Information System Phase I: Select software and begin to implement high priority modules. Cancelled This project is now part of the Munis Migration project. Munis offers a robust HRIS that meets the District's business requirements. Page 15 of 15