Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout20180711 - Agenda Packet - Board of Directors (BOD) - 18-28 SPECIAL AND REGULAR MEETING BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT Administrative Office 330 Distel Circle Los Altos, CA 94022 Wednesday, July 11, 2018 Special Meeting starts at 5:15 PM* Regular Meeting starts at 7:00 PM* A G E N D A 5:15 SPECIAL MEETING OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT – CLOSED SESSION ROLL CALL 1. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL – EXISTING LITIGATION. (Government Code Section 54956.9(d)(1)) Name of Case: Burkhart v. Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District; Santa Clara County Superior Court Case Number 18CV329767. ADJOURNMENT 6:00 SPECIAL MEETING OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT – STUDY SESSION ROLL CALL 1. Measure AA Bond Oversight Committee Interviews ADJOURNMENT 7:00 REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT ORAL COMMUNICATIONS The Board President will invite public comment on items not on the agenda. Each speaker will ordinarily be limited to three minutes; however, the Brown Act (Open Meeting Law) does not allow action by the Board of Directors on items not on the agenda. If you wish to address the Board, please complete a speaker card and give it to the District Clerk. Individuals are limited to one appearance during this section. Meeting 18-28 Rev. 1/3/18 ADOPTION OF AGENDA SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY • Introduction of staff o Tom Reyes, Integrated Pest Management Coordinator o Sophie Christel, Planner I o Aaron Peth, Planner II o Loana Rich, Administrative Assistant o Luke Mulhall, Administrative Assistant O Audrey Paras, Administrative Assistant 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 June 27, 2018 Minutes 2. Claims Report 3. Extension to the American Tower L.P. License Agreement for Continued Use of Coyote Peak Radio Tower (R-18-78) Staff Contact: Deborah Bazar, Management Analyst II, Land and Facilities Services General Manager’s Recommendation: Authorize the General Manager to approve a five-year extension of an existing license agreement with American Tower, L.P., with three additional renewal periods of five years each, totaling twenty years, for continued use of the Coyote Peak Radio Tower. The cost for the first year of the license agreement will be $23,187.36 (August 1, 2018 to July 31, 2019), with an annual escalator of 3% effective each August 1 during the extension term and all renewal terms. 4. October Farm Grazing Lease at Purisima Creek Redwoods Open Space Preserve (R-18-79) Staff Contact: Susan Weidemann, Property Management Specialist II General Manager’s Recommendation: Adopt a resolution authorizing the General Manager to enter into a five-year grazing lease with one five-year extension, with Doug Edwards, at October Farm in the Purisima Creek Redwoods Open Space Preserve. 5. Proposed Agreement to Exchange Interests in Real Property between Eben and Carol Haber (Haber) and the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District to obtain access easements for properties located along Charcoal Road in unincorporated Santa Clara County (APNs: 351- 15-033 & 351-15-007), at Saratoga Gap Open Space Preserve requiring a unanimous vote of the Board of Directors. (R-18-60) Staff Contact: Iain Reilly, Real Property Agent II General Manager’s Recommendations: 1. Determine that the recommended actions are categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) as set out in the report. 2. By a unanimous vote of the Board of Directors, adopt a resolution authorizing the Agreement to Exchange Interests in Real Property between the District and Haber. 3. Adopt the Preliminary Use and Management Plan for the Exchange Property. Rev. 1/3/18 4. Withhold dedication of the Exchange Property as public open space at this time. 6. Establishing Fiscal Year 2018-2019 Tax Levy for the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District’s General Obligation Bonds - Series 2015A, Series 2015B and Series 2018 (R-18-78) Staff Contact: Andrew Taylor, Finance Manager General Manager’s Recommendation: Adopt Resolutions of the Board of Directors of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District for each of San Mateo, Santa Clara and Santa Cruz Counties to establish an ad valorem property tax levy of $1.80 per $100,000 (or $0.0018 per $100) in assessed value for the General Obligation Bonds – Series 2015A,Series 2015B and Series 2018 (Measure AA). BOARD BUSINESS The President will invite public comment on agenda items at the time each item is considered by the Board of Directors. Each speaker will ordinarily be limited to three minutes. Alternately, you may comment to the Board by a written communication, which the Board appreciates. 7. Approval of the General Counsel’s Employment Agreement (R-18-77) Staff Contact: Candice Basnight, Human Resources Manager Board President’s Recommendation: 1. Appoint Hilary Stevenson as the General Counsel for Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District effective July 11, 2018. 2. Adopt a resolution approving the General Counsel’s Employment Agreement. 8. Annual Integrated Pest Management Report for Calendar Year (R-18-81) Staff Contact: Coty Sifuentes-Winter, Senior Resource Management Specialist, Natural Resources General Manager’s Recommendation: No Board action required. 9. Glyphosate Review Report (R-18-82) Staff Contact: Coty Sifuentes-Winter, Senior Resource Management Specialist, Natural Resources 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. Committee Reports Staff Reports 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. Rev. 1/3/18 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 July 3, 2018, at the Administrative Offices of MROSD, 330 Distel Circle, Los Altos California, 94022. The agenda and any additional written materials are also available on the District’s web site at http://www.openspace.org. Maria Soria, CMC Deputy District Clerk June 27, 2018 Board Meeting 18-27 SPECIAL AND REGULAR MEETING BOARD OF DIRECTORS MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT Administrative Office 330 Distel Circle Los Altos, CA 94022 Wednesday, June 27, 2018 DRAFT MINUTES SPECIAL MEETING – CLOSED SESSION President Cyr called the special meeting of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District to order at 5:31 p.m. ROLL CALL Members Present: Jed Cyr, Cecily Harris, Larry Hassett, Yoriko Kishimoto, and Curt Riffle Members Absent: Nonette Hanko and Pete Siemens Staff Present: Interim General Counsel Gary Baum, Human Resources Manager Candice Basnight Public comments opened at 5:31 p.m. No speakers present. Public comments closed at 5:31 p.m. 1. CLOSED SESSION PUBLIC EMPLOYEE APPOINTMENT (GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54957) Title: General Counsel Recruitment Director Siemens arrived at 5:40 p.m. ADJOURNMENT President Cyr adjourned the special meeting of the Board of Directors of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District at 5:48 p.m. SPECIAL MEETING – STUDY SESSION Meeting 18-27 Page 2 President Cyr called the special meeting of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District to order at 6:02 p.m. ROLL CALL Members Present: Jed Cyr, Nonette Hanko, Cecily Harris, Larry Hassett, Yoriko Kishimoto, Pete Siemens, and Curt Riffle Members Absent: None Staff Present: General Manager Ana Ruiz, Interim General Counsel Gary Baum, Natural Resources Manager Kirk Lenington, Climate Resiliency Fellow Hayley Edmonson, District Clerk/Assistant to the General Manager Jennifer Woodworth 1. Greenhouse Gas Reduction Goals (R-18-67) Climate Resiliency Fellow Hayley Edmonston introduced Christy Shelton and Olivia Ashmoore from Cascadia Consulting Group who are assisting the District with analyzing District greenhouse gas emissions and development of the climate action plan. Ms. Shelton described the three target options for the climate action plan and the District’s current emissions. The District’s current emissions have been categorized into the total inventory of greenhouse gas emissions and an administrative scope of greenhouse gas emissions, which omits livestock emissions and includes vehicles, facilities, employee commutes, etc. Ms. Shelton described the reasoning for the recommendation to use 2016 as the District’s baseline year. Ms. Ashmoore described the climate goals set by various local agencies and the pros and cons for each of the three target options. Director Kishimoto inquired how other agencies are achieving carbon neutrality. Ms. Edmonson explained many of the other agencies that set a goal of carbon neutrality are purchasing carbon offsets. Each of the Board members spoke in favor of meeting the state emission goals, and Director Kishimoto also spoke in favor of potentially meeting more ambitious goals than those set by the state. Ms. Edmonson described the next steps in the project, including creation of a climate action plan and climate policy for future Board consideration. Director Hassett suggested staff contact the East Bay Regional Park District to determine how to account for livestock emissions. Ms. Edmonson stated that when she spoke with East Bay Regional Park District staff, they explained that they focus on facility and agency vehicle emissions. Meeting 18-27 Page 3 Public comments opened at 6:56 p.m. No speakers present. Public comments closed at 6:56 p.m. No Board action required. ADJOURNMENT President Cyr adjourned the special meeting of the Board of Directors of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District at 6:57 p.m. REGULAR MEETING President Cyr called the regular meeting of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District to order at 7:03 p.m. President Cyr reported the Board met in closed session, and no reportable action was taken. ROLL CALL Members Present: Jed Cyr, Nonette Hanko, Cecily Harris, Larry Hassett, Yoriko Kishimoto, Pete Siemens, and Curt Riffle Members Absent: None Staff Present: General Manager Ana Ruiz, Interim General Counsel Gary Baum, Chief Financial Officer/Director of Administrative Services Stefan Jaskulak, Acting Assistant General Manager Kirk Lenington, Acting Assistant General Manager Matt Anderson, District Clerk/Assistant to the General Manager Jennifer Woodworth, Land and Facilities Manager Brian Malone, Senior Real Property Agent Allen Ishibashi, Engineering & Construction Manager Jay Lin, Resource Management Specialist I Matt Chaney, Public Affairs Manager Christine Butterfield, Resource Specialist III Julie Andersen, Planning Manager Jane Mark, Senior Planner Meredith Manning, Governmental Affairs Specialist Josh Hugg ORAL COMMUNICATIONS No speakers present. ADOPTION OF AGENDA Motion: Director Kishimoto moved, and Director Harris seconded the motion to adopt the agenda. VOTE: 7-0-0 Meeting 18-27 Page 4 CONSENT CALENDAR Director Kishimoto pulled items 10 and 11 from the Consent Calendar. Public comment opened at 7:03 p.m. No speakers present. Public comment closed at 7:03 p.m. Motion: Director Siemens moved, and Director Hassett seconded the motion to approve the Consent Calendar, except for items 10 and 11. VOTE: 7-0-0 1. Approve June 12, 2018 and June 13, 2018 Minutes 2. Claims Report 3. New Board Policy 3.01 – Banking Relationship Management Policy, and Annual Review of Finance Policies for 2018 (R-18-69) General Manager’s Recommendation: 1. Approve the proposed new Board Policy 3.01 – Banking Relationship Management Policy 2. Retire Board Policy 3.02 – Safe Deposit Box 3. Approve updates to Board Policy 3.07 – Fund Balance 4. Approve Board Policy 3.08 – Statement of Investment for Fiscal Year 2018-19 5. Affirm Board Policy 3.09 – Debt Management for Fiscal Year 2018-19 4. Proposed Agreement with City of Mountain View to Provide District Radio Dispatch Services (R-18-65) General Manager’s Recommendation: Authorize the General Manager to execute the proposed five-year agreement with the City of Mountain View to provide District 24-hour radio dispatch services, with the option to extend the agreement for five additional one-year extensions, in an amount not-to-exceed $217,810 for Fiscal Year 2018–19, not-to-exceed $229,800 for Fiscal Year 2019–20, not-to-exceed $238,952 for Fiscal Year 2020–21, not-to-exceed $248,470 for Fiscal Year 2021–22, and not-to-exceed $258,369 for Fiscal Year 2022–23, for a total cost over five years of $1,193,401. 5. Authorization to Purchase Proposed Capital Equipment for Fiscal Year 2018–19 (R- 18-68) General Manager’s Recommendation: 1. Authorize the General Manager to execute a purchase contract with the California Department of General Services and associated contract dealers for five patrol vehicles, three maintenance vehicles, and one administrative office departmental vehicle for a total cost not-to-exceed $545,000. Meeting 18-27 Page 5 2. Authorize the General Manager to execute a purchase contract with the California Department of General Services and associated contract dealers for two excavators, two transport trailers, and one tractor, for a total cost not-to-exceed $350,000. 6. Award of Contract for Fire Ecology Services: Prescribed Fire Program Creation and Development (R-18-72) General Manager’s Recommendation: 1. Authorize the General Manager to enter into a contract with Spatial Informatics Group, LLC of Pleasanton, California to provide fire ecology services in an amount not to exceed $101,250. 2. Authorize a 15% contingency of $15,188, to be awarded only if necessary to cover unforeseen conditions, for a total contract amount not-to-exceed $116,438. 7. Award of Contracts to Six Firms for On-Call Graphic Design Services (R-18-71) General Manager’s Recommendation: Authorize the General Manager to enter into contracts for On-Call graphic design services with Alex Atkins Design, Conifer Creative, Cartwright Design, Eric Gouldsberry Design, Mills Design, and Switky Communications Group for amounts not-to- exceed $100,000 (each) through Fiscal Year (FY) 2021-22. 8. Award of Contract to Eric Gouldsberry Design for Graphic Design Services of District Annual Financial Reports including the Budget and Action Plan Report, and the Measure AA (MAA) Accountability Report (R-18-75) General Manager’s Recommendation: Authorize the General Manager to enter into contract for graphic design services of the Budget and Action Plan Report, and the MAA Accountability Report with Eric Gouldsberry Design for an amount not-to-exceed $70,000 through Fiscal Year (FY) 2021-22. 9. Saratoga-to-the-Sea Trail Partnership Agreement between the City of Saratoga and the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (R-18-73) General Manager’s Recommendation: Authorize the General Manager to enter into Partnership Agreement with the City of Saratoga to provide funding assistance for the engineering design and environmental review phase of the Saratoga-to-the-Sea Trail. 10. Award of Contract to Randazzo Enterprises, Inc. for the Twin Creeks Demolition Project (R-18-74) Director Kishimoto spoke in favor of putting the project out to bid again due to the higher bid presented by the only responsive bidder. Senior Real Property Agent Allen Ishibashi spoke regarding the need to remove the structures soon due to public safety concerns. Additionally, the recommended contractor completed previous projects for the District and provided excellent work for those projects on time and on budget. Director Kishimoto expressed concern regarding selecting the only bidder on a project. Meeting 18-27 Page 6 Director Hanko remarked regarding a previous demolition project in Half Moon Bay and recommended photographing the Twin Creeks site to document it prior to demolition. Mr. Ishibashi reported he photographed each of the structures prior to acquiring the demolition permit. Additionally, several former residents who contacted the District have visited the site to photograph the site. Public comment opened at 7:16 p.m. No speakers present. Public comment closed at 7:16 p.m. Motion: Director Riffle moved, and Director Siemens seconded the motion to: 1. Award a contract to Randazzo Enterprises, Inc. of Castroville, California for a not-to- exceed base contract amount of $667,132. 2. Authorize a 15% construction contract contingency of $100,069 to be reserved for unanticipated issues, thus allowing the total contract amount not-to-exceed $767,201. VOTE: 5-2-0 (Directors Hanko and Kishimoto dissenting) Director Kishimoto asked that her reason for dissenting be included in the record. Her concerns include the approximately $180,000 difference between the bids received and her desire to see more vendor competition. 11. Resolution in Support of the Water Supply and Water Quality Act of 2018 (R-18-29) Director Kishimoto spoke in favor of the General Manager’s recommendation. Public comment opened at 7:19 p.m. No speakers present. Public comment closed at 7:19 p.m. Motion: Director Kishimoto moved, and Director Riffle seconded the motion to consider adoption of a resolution in support of the Water Supply and Water Quality Act of 2018 put forth by citizens’ initiative on the ballot for the November 6, 2018 statewide general election. VOTE: 7-0-0 BOARD BUSINESS 12. Highway 17 Wildlife and Regional Trail Crossings Project Alternatives and Caltrans Project Study Report (R-18-66) Resource Specialist III Julie Andersen and Senior Planner Meredith Manning provided the staff report reviewing the project to date, including project origin, project goals, and Measure AA funding sources. In addition to the proposed wildlife crossing to increase wildlife connectivity, a Meeting 18-27 Page 7 regional trail connection is needed to close a critical gap in the Bay Area Ridge Trail, connect Sierra Azul Open Space Preserve (OSP) and El Sereno OSP, and provide an opportunity to establish a north-south connection from the Los Gatos Creek Trail to Bear Creek Redwoods OSP. Ms. Andersen and Ms. Manning described the project criteria for the potential wildlife and regional trail crossings and evaluated each of the eight options for crossings against the various criteria, costs, and advantages and disadvantages. Ms. Andersen described potential opportunities for grant and partner funding of the project and described various opportunities for stakeholder and public input. Finally, Ms. Andersen outlined the project next steps. Director Hanko expressed concerns regarding several of the presented alternatives. Ms. Andersen explained all eight alternatives can be studied and may be feasible; however, additional review by Caltrans is needed, which may eliminate one or more of the options. Public comments opened at 7:51 p.m. No speakers present. Public comments closed at 7:51 p.m. Motion: Director Riffle moved, and Director Hassett seconded the motion to: 1. Authorize the General Manager to advance eight alternatives to the Caltrans Project Study Report and Project Development Support (PSR-PDS) phase for the Highway 17 Wildlife and Regional Trail Crossings Project. 2. Authorize the General Manager to amend a contract with TrailPeople to bring all eight alternatives through the next phase of the Caltrans process, adding $86,645 to the contract for a total not-to-exceed amount of $386,305. VOTE: 7-0-0 13. Award of Contract to a Design Build Entity to complete the Mindego Ranch Ponds Enhancement Project (R-18-70) Engineering & Construction Manager Jay Lin described various differences between the design- build and design-bid-build processes and outlined various future projects in the District that may utilize the design-build process. Resource Management Specialist I Matthew Chaney described the location of the project site and the project goals and objectives, including reduction of downstream erosion, ensure continued water supply for conservation grazing, and preserve, protect, and restore habitat for threatened and endangered species. Mr. Chaney described the project scope for each of the ponds and estimated project cost. Mr. Chaney outlined the benefits of the design-build process and the proposed next steps for the project. Director Hassett expressed concerns related to ensuring the proposal submitted is cost efficient. Mr. Chaney explained few firms had the required experience to work with the protected species on this highly specialized project. The cost proposal is also similar to previous pond projects. Meeting 18-27 Page 8 Staff also notified potential contractors that the Board would likely not approve a contract that far exceeded the estimated costs. Public comments opened at 8:23 p.m. No speakers present. Public comments closed at 8:23 p.m. Motion: Director Hassett moved, and Director Siemens seconded the motion to: 1. Award a contract to the Design Build Entity consisting of Hanford ARC (contractor) and CBEC Inc. Eco Engineering (engineering/design) for a not-to-exceed base contract amount of $405,321. 2. Authorize a 15% construction contract contingency of $60,798 to be reserved for unanticipated issues, thus allowing the total contract amount not-to-exceed $466,119. VOTE: 7-0-0 INFORMATIONAL MEMORANDUM • Design Build Working Group and Update • Dunham Property Public Access Easement, El Sereno Open Space Preserve • Hawthorns Historic Complex Update at Windy Hill Open Space Preserve INFORMATIONAL REPORTS A. Committee Reports No Committee reports. B. Staff Reports General Manager Ana Ruiz reported staff is organizing a legislative day in Sacramento on August 7, 2018, and additional information will be coming. Land and Facilities Manager Brian Malone reported the Mount Umunhum Trail has been recognized as a National Recreation Trail for 2018. C. Director Reports The Board members submitted their compensatory reports. Director Hassett reported he recently spoke at the memorial service for Ruth Waldhauer, which was attended by many former District employees. Director Siemens and President Cyr reported on a recent meeting with Santa Clara County Supervisor Joe Simitian and City of Saratoga staff related to the Saratoga-to-the-Sea Trail. Meeting 18-27 Page 9 ADJOURNMENT President Cyr adjourned the regular meeting of the Board of Directors of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District at 8:34 p.m. ________________________________ Jennifer Woodworth, MMC District Clerk page 1 of 2 CLAIMS REPORT MEETING 18-28 DATE 07-11-18 MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT Check Number Payment Type Notes Vendor No. and Name Invoice Description Check Date Payment Amount 78280 Check 11049 - CITY OF EAST PALO ALTO Landscape Architect Services Reimbursement per Agreement 06/27/2018 88,009.81 78286 Check 10546 - ECOLOGICAL CONCERNS INC Riparian Invasive Removal: Ivy - Manual Removal (BCR) + Invasive Species Management - Thistle & Grass Control & Slender False Brome (LHC)06/27/2018 53,184.00 78328 Check *11152 - WELLINGTON PARK INVESTORS AO2/A03/A04 Rent - July 2018 06/27/2018 30,366.00 78274 Check 10141 - BIG CREEK LUMBER CO INC Lumber, Hardware, Fasteners, Hex Wood Screws & Concrete Mix for Oljon Trail 06/27/2018 19,276.43 78285 Check *10214 - DELTA DENTAL June 2018 Dental Premium 06/27/2018 16,545.20 78292 Check 10005 - GRASSROOTS ECOLOGY Hendrys Creek Restoration Project 7/1/17-5/31/18 06/27/2018 12,664.87 78299 Check 11617 - MIG, INC.ADA Self-Evaluation & Transition Plan + Alma College Cultural Landscape Rehabilitation 3/1/18 - 4/30/18 06/27/2018 11,851.01 78306 Check *10180 - PG & E Electricity & Gas Services (22 locations)06/27/2018 10,053.97 78293 Check 10222 - HERC RENTALS, INC. Equipment Rental - Excavator/Bucket 5/3 - 6/2 (BCR) + Mini Excavator 5/18/18 - 5/24/18 (FOOSP) + Compact Track Loader 5/14/18 - 6/1/18 (GP) 06/27/2018 9,286.80 78297 Check *10419 - LINCOLN NATIONAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY Employee Benefit - July 2018 Premium for AD&D/Life/LTD 06/27/2018 7,066.49 78278 Check 11431 - CALIFORNIAN ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES CRLF Surveys at Madonna Creek Ranch thru May 2018 06/27/2018 5,861.78 78311 Check 11869 - RW Jones and Associates Health & Safety Training Wildland Fire Refresher Training 2018 06/27/2018 5,800.00 78270 Check 11772 - AHERN RENTALS, INC.Kubota Excavator 3/30 - 6/22 + Mini Excavator 4/27/18 - 6/22/18 for Oljon Trail 06/27/2018 4,072.70 78302 Check 10461 - NORTHGATE ENVIRONMENTAL MGMT Twin Creeks Purchase - Review & Report Preparation 06/27/2018 3,250.00 78327 Check 11388 - WAGNER & BONSIGNORE Professional Services - Monitoring & Reporting Water Rights for May 2018, July 2017 & August 2017 06/27/2018 3,246.25 78295 Check 10452 - IFLAND SURVEY Lot Line Adjustment - Purisima Farms Uplands 06/27/2018 3,240.00 78309 Check *10211 - PUBLIC POLICY ADVOCATES 2018 Monthly Fee - Legislative Advocacy Services for June 2018 06/27/2018 3,147.99 78271 Check 11863 - ALBION ENVIRONMENTAL INC Professional Services - May 2018 Archaelogical Services BCR 06/27/2018 3,134.34 78284 Check 10032 - DEL REY BUILDING MAINTENANCE Janitorial Services & Supplies - June 2018 + Cleaning Services for District Rental after Tenant Moved Out 06/27/2018 2,765.10 78296 Check 11887 - KOOPMANN RANGELAND CONSULTING Professional Services - Toto Ranch Grazing Management 06/27/2018 2,074.90 78316 Check *11730 - STANDARD INSURANCE COMPANY RV Employee Benefit - Basic Life & Supplemental Premium - July 2018 06/27/2018 2,051.91 78307 Check *10212 - PINNACLE TOWERS LLC Tower Rental - July 2018 06/27/2018 1,852.43 78301 Check 11924 - NOMAD ECOLOGY, LLC Stevens Creek Nature Trail Bridge Construction Project 06/27/2018 1,800.92 78325 Check 10309 - VERIZON WIRELESS Monthly Mobile Device Internet Services 06/27/2018 1,592.51 78326 Check *10213 - VISION SERVICE PLAN-CA Employee Benefit - Vision Premium July 2018 06/27/2018 1,431.32 78300 Check 11953 - Mike's Truck & Offroad Center Truck Tool Box & Cover (M224)06/27/2018 1,386.48 78321 Check 10307 - THE SIGN SHOP Stephen E Abbors Sign for Rancho San Antonio + Replacement Signs for Los Trancos/Skyline Ridge/La Honda Phase I 06/27/2018 1,123.62 78273 Check 11873 - BEST BEST & KRIEGER LLP Professional Services thru May 2018 06/27/2018 1,085.00 78287 Check 11748 - ENVIRONMENTAL AND ENERGY CONSULTING Consulting & Lobbying for Wildlife Corridor Work Group thru May 2018 06/27/2018 1,000.00 78269 Check *10120 - ADT SECURITY SERVICES INC SFO Alarm Service 06/27/2018 841.68 78314 Check 11614 - Sequoia Union High School District Transportation Assistance Program - Woodside HS to Purisima 06/27/2018 723.05 78308 Check 10261 - PROTECTION ONE Alarm Services - AO 06/27/2018 705.04 78268 Check 10001 - AARON'S SEPTIC TANK SERVICE Sanitation Service (RSA-DHF)06/27/2018 700.00 78319 Check 11961 - Telepath Corporation Strip Code Three Eqiupment - P84 and P99 06/27/2018 700.00 78330 Check 11834 - WRECO Professional Services - Mud Lake Improvements - February 2018 06/27/2018 700.00 78317 Check 10302 - STEVENS CREEK QUARRY INC Base Rock (FOOSP)06/27/2018 656.41 78329 Check 11586 - WH DEMPSEY ENGINEERING Install Stand Pipe at End Of Drainfield at Dyer 06/27/2018 618.00 78322 Check 10561 - ULINE Ear Plugs & Dust Masks for SFO Supplies 06/27/2018 553.09 78275 Check 11430 - BIOMAAS Professional Services - Oljon Trail Phase 4/30/18 - 5/31/18 06/27/2018 548.15 78318 Check 10152 - TADCO SUPPLY Janitorial Supplies (RSA&CP)06/27/2018 497.13 78279 Check 10170 - CASCADE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY P107 Fire Pumper Repair Parts (P107) + Fire Equipment - Nozzle, Ball Shut Off Valve & Hose 06/27/2018 475.41 78310 Check 11479 - ROOTID Website Maintenance - 5 retainer hours 06/27/2018 472.50 78283 Check 10544 - CORELOGIC INFORMATION SOLUTION Property Research Services 06/27/2018 463.50 78312 Check 10697 - SANDIS Survey Services thru May 2018 06/27/2018 450.00 78324 Check 11037 - US HEALTHWORKS MEDICAL GROUP PC Medical Services-HR 06/27/2018 413.00 78276 Check *10172 - CALIFORNIA WATER SERVICE CO-3525 Water Service (WH) + District Rentals 06/27/2018 396.41 106 EFT 11559 - SIFUENTES-WINTER, JONATHAN Tuition Reimbursement - Managing a GIS Project 06/27/2018 395.00 78282 Check 10184 - CONTINUING EDUCATION OF THE BAR Subscription CA Civil Proced Before Trail 4th 06/27/2018 344.15 78303 Check 10160 - OFFICE DEPOT CREDIT PLAN Chairs for AO4, White-out, Post-it Notes & Bags 06/27/2018 336.08 78281 Check 10352 - CMK AUTOMOTIVE INC Tire Repair for (P114) + Battery Replacement (P99)06/27/2018 312.87 78323 Check 10403 - UNITED SITE SERVICES INC Temporary Fencing (SA-MT UM)06/27/2018 276.98 78272 Check 11170 - ALEXANDER ATKINS DESIGN, INC.Design of Midpen Logo Color Specifications & Proclamation for Waldhauer 06/27/2018 250.00 78288 Check 10186 - FEDERAL EXPRESS Shipping Charges-AO 06/27/2018 233.49 78315 Check 10349 - SHELTON ROOFING COMPANY INC Repair Roof Leak at October Farms 06/27/2018 230.00 78277 Check *10454 - CALIFORNIA WATER SERVICE CO-949 Water Service - AO 06/27/2018 224.76 Finance has started to roll out electronic funds transfer (EFT) for accounts payable disbursements to reduce check printing and mailing, increase payment security, and ensure quicker receipt by vendors page 2 of 2 CLAIMS REPORT MEETING 18-28 DATE 07-11-18 MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT Check Number Payment Type Notes Vendor No. and Name Invoice Description Check Date Payment Amount Finance has started to roll out electronic funds transfer (EFT) for accounts payable disbursements to reduce check printing and mailing, increase payment security, and ensure quicker receipt by vendors 103 EFT 11832 - GONZALES, ALICIA Per Diem & Reimbursement for Taxi for New World Conference 06/27/2018 212.10 78289 Check 10169 - FOSTER BROTHERS SECURITY SYSTEMS Padlocks Stock 06/27/2018 208.34 78298 Check 10190 - METROMOBILE COMMUNICATIONS Purchase Radio Chargers for 2402s 06/27/2018 186.39 78320 Check 10338 - THE ED JONES CO INC Uniform Badge 06/27/2018 158.06 104 EFT 11569 - JOHNSON, STEVEN Reimbursement: EMT Recertification 06/27/2018 137.00 78305 Check 10253 - PETERSON TRACTOR CO Tractor Battery + Battery Core Return 06/27/2018 123.12 78294 Check 10421 - ID PLUS INC Field Uniform 06/27/2018 117.50 78290 Check 10187 - GARDENLAND POWER EQUIPMENT Small Engine Fuel & Stihl Brushcutter Rider Plates 06/27/2018 103.78 105 EFT 11491 - LAU, CARMEN Parking, Transportation and Mileage Reimbursement thru 5/25/18 06/27/2018 100.90 78331 Check 11176 - ZORO TOOLS Pink/Taffeta Flagging Tape 06/27/2018 94.03 78304 Check 10481 - PACIFIC TELEMANAGEMENT SERVICE Campsite Pay Phone - MB 06/27/2018 78.00 102 EFT 11686 - CHAN, LESLIE Mileage Reimbursement 1/4/18-6/12/18 06/27/2018 65.73 107 EFT 10683 - STERZL, OWEN Cable Hooks & Mileage Reimbursement 6/17/18-6/18/18 06/27/2018 50.44 78291 Check 11195 - GOODYEAR AUTO SERVICE CENTER Maintenance Service for P114 06/27/2018 25.00 78313 Check 11289 - SANTA CLARA CO. PUBLIC HEALTH LAB Water Test at SAO 06/27/2018 20.00 Grand Total 322,418.92$ *Annual Claims **Hawthorn Expenses CCIWS = Central California Invasive Weed Symposium MISAC = Municipal Information Systems Association of California BCR = Bear Creek Redwoods LH = La Honda Creek PR = Pulgas Ridge SG = Saratoga Gap TC = Tunitas Creek CC = Coal Creek LR = Long Ridge PC = Purisima Creek SA(U) = Sierra Azul (Mt Um) WH = Windy Hill ECM = El Corte de Madera LT = Los Trancos RSA = Rancho San Antonio SR= Skyline Ridge AO2, 3, 4 = Administrative Office lease space ES = El Sereno MR = Miramontes Ridge RV = Ravenswood SCS = Stevens Creek Shoreline Nature FFO = Foothills Field Office FH = Foothills MB = Monte Bello RR = Russian Ridge TH = Teague Hill SFO = Skyline Field Office FO = Fremont Older PIC= Picchetti Ranch SJH = St Joseph's Hill TW = Thornewood SAO = South Area Outpost RR/MIN = Russian Ridge - Mindego Hill PR = Pulgas Ridge DHF = Dear Hollow Farm OSP = Open Space Preserve P## or M## = Patrol or Maintenance Vehicle Rev. 1/3/18 R-18-78 Meeting 18-28 July 11, 2018 AGENDA ITEM 3 AGENDA ITEM Extension to the American Tower L.P. License Agreement for Continued Use of Coyote Peak Radio Tower GENERAL MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATION Authorize the General Manager to approve a five-year extension of an existing license agreement with American Tower, L.P., with three additional renewal periods of five years each, totaling twenty years, for continued use of the Coyote Peak Radio Tower. The cost for the first year of the license agreement will be $23,187.36 (August 1, 2018 to July 31, 2019), with an annual escalator of 3% effective each August 1 during the extension term and all renewal terms. SUMMARY In September 2007, the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (District) entered into a license agreement with American Tower, L.P. for use of the Coyote Peak Radio Tower to provide critical radio coverage for the District’s radio system. The license was for one year, with ten additional periods of one year each. The ten extensions have been exercised, and the final extension expires July 31, 2018. An initial amendment to the license agreement was executed in October 2011 to modify the type of equipment housed in the tower that accommodated the District’s Radio Improvement Project. A second amendment would provide a five-year extension of the license agreement, with three additional renewal periods of five years each, totaling twenty years, to ensure ongoing stability of the District’s radio system. The current budget includes sufficient funds for costs incurred in Fiscal Year (FY) 2018-19 (calculated at $23,131.08). Future budgets would include fund allocations that increase 3% per year. DISCUSSION The District’s radio system is an essential tool to ensure public safety and effective internal communications. It must be functional and reliable at all times. The District’s radio system covers a broad and diverse geographic area utilizing a set of five repeaters that are located based upon requirements for coverage area and proximity to other repeaters (Attachment 1). The extensive design, planning, engineering, and implementation of the District’s radio communication system determined the location and coverage area for each repeater. Every repeater tower is critical and cannot be replaced, or the equipment relocated, without redesigning the entire system and reprogramming all of the radios in the District. The tower on Coyote Peak provides radio coverage in and around the southeast area of the District. While there sometimes may be overlap in radio coverage areas, the Coyote Peak repeater site is essential to the District’s system and provides coverage in areas not reachable by any other repeater. Since there are no R-18-78 Page 2 other repeater towers available with the same coverage capabilities, this licensor and the recommended agreement is considered a sole-source. In September 2007, the District entered into a license agreement with American Tower, L.P., for the District’s use of a certain portion of the Coyote Peak Radio Tower, described as a critical tower within the District’s radio communications system. The license was for one year, with ten additional periods of one year each. The ten extensions have been exercised, and the final extension expires July 31, 2018. A first amendment to the license agreement was executed in October 2011 to modify the type of equipment housed in the tower and accommodate the District’s Radio Improvement Project. This second recommended amendment provides a five-year extension of the license agreement with three additional renewal periods of five years each, totaling twenty years. Entering into a second amendment with long-term renewal options ensures the longevity and stability of the District’s radio system. Below is a table that shows the monthly costs and annual increases over the last three years of the current license agreement. Year Monthly Cost Annual Increase Aug 1, 2015 to July 31, 2016 $1735.00 N/A Aug 1, 2016 to July 31, 2017 $1804.00 4% Aug 1, 2017 to July 31, 2018 $1876.00 4% While the cost for licenses at radio repeater sites will vary based on location and demand, to provide comparison, the licensors and the monthly costs for the two repeaters that the District leases from commercial vendors are listed below. The District owns the other two radio repeater towers in the system. Tower Vendor Monthly Cost Mt. Umunhum Communication and Control $1172 Pise Peak Pinnacle $1852 FISCAL IMPACT There are sufficient funds in the Land and Facilities Services Department Support Services budget to cover the costs of the repeater site lease in Fiscal Year (FY) 2018-19. The current monthly cost is $1,876.00 through July 31, 2018. Starting on August 1, 2018, the monthly cost would not to exceed $1,932.28 for the first year of the agreement. Annual costs thereafter would increase 3% effective each August 1 for the duration of the initial extension term and all renewal terms. The District was able to negotiate the annual escalator with American Tower, L.P., down from 4% to 3%, resulting in a total savings of $2,485.38 for the first five years of the agreement. The total savings will be $67421.98 if the District chooses to exercise all of the renewal terms. Future annual funding will not exceed the amounts below. R-18-78 Page 3 Fiscal Year Month(s) Monthly Cost Number of Months Annual Cost FY2018–19 July 2018 $1,876.00 1 $23,131.08 August 2018 to June 2019 $1,932.28 11 FY2019–20 July 2019 $1,932.28 1 $23,825.01 August 2019 to June 2020 $1,990.25 11 FY2020–21 July 2020 $1,990.25 1 $24,539.76 August 2020 to June 2021 $2,049.96 11 FY2021–22 July 2021 $2,049.96 1 $25,275.96 August 2021 to June 2022 $2,111.45 11 FY2022–23 July 2022 $2,111.45 1 $26,034.23 August 2022 to June 2023 $2,174.80 11 Five-year Total $122,806.05 BOARD COMMITTEE REVIEW This item was not previously reviewed by a Board Committee. 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 If approved by the Board, the General Manager will enter into a second amendment with American Tower, L.P. to provide a five-year extension of the license agreement, with three additional renewal periods of five years each totaling 20 years. Attachment 1. Map of District Radio Towers Responsible Department Head: Michael Jurich, Acting Land and Facilities Services Manager Prepared by: Deborah Bazar, Management Analyst II, Land and Facilities Services Contact person: Deborah Bazar, Management Analyst II, Land and Facilities Services Map of District Repeater Locations Below is a map that shows the locations of the District radio repeaters. Coyote Peak Tower is located in the lower right side of the map. ATTACHMENT 1 R-18-79 Meeting 18-28 July 11, 2018 AGENDA ITEM 4 AGENDA ITEM October Farm Grazing Lease at Purisima Creek Redwoods Open Space Preserve GENERAL MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATION Adopt a resolution authorizing the General Manager to enter into a five-year grazing lease with one five-year extension, with Doug Edwards, at October Farm in the Purisima Creek Redwoods Open Space Preserve. SUMMARY For the past six years, Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (District) has licensed, in holdover, the October Farm at Purisima Creek Redwoods Open Space Preserve (Preserve) to Mr. Doug Edwards for cattle grazing to support the District’s conservation grazing program. Consistent with District Resource Management and Property Management Policies, the General Manager recommends adoption of a resolution by the Board of Directors (Board) to execute a new long-term grazing lease with Mr. Edwards to continue grazing activities at the Preserve. The District’s conservation grazing program serves as a tool to manage native grasslands and reduce wildland fuel loads, while furthering the goals of the Coastal Service Plan by supporting sustainable agriculture on the San Mateo County coast. DISCUSSION The Board approved the acquisition of the 270-acre October Farm property from Peninsula Open Space Trust (POST) on March 14, 2012 (R-12-30). When POST acquired the property from Ms. Bonnie Rapley in July 2011, she was running cattle on the property and planned to fully vacate the premises and remove the cattle since she was moving out of state. Prior to Ms. Rapley’s ownership, Mr. Doug Edward’s father, Bob, leased the land. Doug and his father ran cattle on the property for about four years in the 2000s. When the District acquired the property from POST, Mr. Edwards was the grazing tenant on the District’s Tunitas Creek property, which is located near October Farm. Tunitas Creek Ranch lacked a stable source of water during the prior drought in 2012. After acquiring October Farm, in an effort to continue effective conservation grazing on both properties, the District agreed to license October Farm to Mr. Edwards and allow him to move his cattle from Tunitas Creek to October Farm when necessary until a water source could be developed on Tunitas Creek Ranch. The District drilled a well and installed a water tank and trough on Tunitas Creek Ranch in 2015. R-18-79 Page 2 The Preliminary Use and Management Plan (PUMP) for October Farm that was approved with the purchase allowed for interim cattle grazing until a Rangeland Management Plan (RMP) was prepared and approved by the Board. Soon after the acquisition, the District entered into an interim grazing license with Mr. Edwards for a one-year term from June 1, 2012 to May 31, 2013. This license has remained in holdover, first awaiting completion of the RMP, which Sage Associates completed and the Board approved in April 2017 (R-17-51), and subsequently due to staffing transitions that delayed finalization of the lease for Board consideration until now. Mr. Edwards has been managing both properties, Tunitas Creek Ranch and October Farm, together as a larger grazing operation. The Board recently approved a long-term (five-year term with one, five-year extension) grazing lease renewal with Mr. Edwards for Tunitas Creek on March 28, 2018 (R-18-27). Mr. Edwards rotates the cattle between Tunitas Creek Ranch and October Farm to take advantage of seasonal stock water and forage availability to ensure he meets the District’s rangeland management objectives, including the Residual Dry Matter targets to protect the grassland habitat quality. Tunitas Creek and October Farm work very well when managed together given the proximity and complementary resource availability of the properties. Mr. Edwards has worked closely with the District to protect areas of sensitive habitat on October Farm. He understands District policies and follows District guidelines, which include halting mowing activities during the nesting bird season and allowing the District to survey potential mowing areas to determine whether, when, and how, mowing should proceed to avoid impacts to natural resources. He has made significant improvement to the grasslands on the October Farm property through a methodical plan of coyote brush removal and thistle mowing. By utilizing a brush rake, which chops and rakes brush, he clears an area of coyote brush and then follows with the planting of approved grass seed. He realizes about a 50% recovery of the area with the first raking. By repeating the action in the same area the following season, he recovers nearly 100% of the area from invasive brush. He controls thistles by mowing and feeding his cattle on the clippings. The restored grasslands become forage for his cattle whose presence then prevents the recurrence of coyote brush. Mr. Edwards treats approximately 20 to 30 acres a year in this manner. In the past, the Board has approved entering into a long-term lease with existing tenants in good standing without issuing a request for proposals. As part of the management of grazing leases, District staff utilize the following criteria to evaluate grazing tenant performance: •Rent paid on time •Stays within the acceptable range for Residual Dry Matter as prescribed in Rangeland/Grazing Management Plan and lease •Follows stocking rate guidelines •Completes or makes progress on annual work plans •Refrains from performing unauthorized work •Works cooperatively with District staff to attain resource management goals •Meets District, local, state, or federal laws, regulations and/or policies •Accommodates public use of property (this property is closed to public use at this time) Mr. Edwards has satisfactorily met the above listed performance standards, and the District’s land stewardship and sustainability goals with respect to October Farm. As such, he is deemed to be a tenant in good standing. Continuing the conservation grazing program on this property under a lease to Mr. Edwards is the most efficient way to achieve the District’s resource R-18-79 Page 3 management goals to protect grassland habitat and native biodiversity, reduce wildland fuel loads, and meet Coastal Service Plan commitments to support sustainable agriculture on the San Mateo County coast. FISCAL IMPACT Sufficient funds remain in the Land & Facilities Department FY 2018-19 budget to cover the maintenance costs associated with the recommendation for chopping and/or raking of invasive coyote brush. Staff will request similar maintenance budgets for future fiscal years. The lease will also generate income, which will fluctuate depending on current Animal Unit Month (AUM) price and the number and age of cattle on the property. Similar rent incomes and management costs associated with the grazing lease are expected in future fiscal years and would be included in future fiscal year budgets. FY 2018-19 Budget Estimates Rent income $3,004.00 Chopping and/or raking expense $4,500.00 BOARD COMMITTEE REVIEW A Board Committee did not previously review this item. PUBLIC NOTICE Public notice was provided as required by the Brown Act. CEQA COMPLIANCE This item is not a project subject to the California Environmental Quality Act. NEXT STEPS If approved, the General Manager would sign a five-year cattle-grazing lease with the option for one additional five-year extension, for a total not to exceed ten-year term, with Doug Edwards, provided he has met all District requirements, including appropriate insurance certificates and endorsements. Attachment(s) 1. Location Map 2. Resolution Approving the Award of a Grazing Lease to Doug Edwards (October Farm, Purisima Creek Redwoods Open Space Preserve) Responsible Department Head: Michael Jurich, Acting Land & Facilities Services Manager Prepared by/Contact Person: Susan Weidemann, Property Management Specialist II PURISIMA CREEK REDWOODS OPEN SPACE PRESERVE T u n i ta s C r e e kPurisimaCreek E a s t F o r k T u n i t a s C r eek Lobitos Creek TUNITAS CREEK OPEN SPACE PRESERVE T u n itasCreek R d N a t i v e S o n s R d . P u r i s i m a C r e e k Rd T u n i t a s C r e e k R d S o uth LeafT r ail I r i s h R i d g eTrail Meyn Rd V e r d e R d Sta r H i l l R o a d N a ti v e S o n s Rd. Lob i t o s C r e e k R d LobitosCreekCut-off ÄÆ1 Chorus Frog Pond Bathtub Pond October Pond Pacific Ocean Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (MROSD) June 2018 October Farm Pa t h : G : \ P r o j e c t s \ P u r i s i m a _ C r e e k _ R e d w o o d s \ O c t o b e r F a r m \ P C R _ O c t o b e r F a r m _ T u n i t a s C r k R a n c h _ L o c a t i o n . m x d Cr e a t e d B y : t h a m m e r 0 0.50.25 MilesI MROSD Preserves Private Property 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. Non MROSD Conservation or Agricultural Easement Grazing Leases of Interest October Farm Tunitas Creek Ranch Area of Detail ÄÆ84 ÄÆ82 ÄÆ84 ÄÆ236 ÄÆ280 ÄÆ35 ÄÆ35 ÄÆ1 ÄÆ9 ÄÆ92 ÄÆ1 ÄÆ35 Half Moon Bay Redwood City Belmont East Palo Alto Los Altos Palo Alto Land Trust Other Public Agency October Farm ATTACHMENT 1 ATTACHMENT 2 Resolutions/2018/R-18-__TunitasCreekLease 1 RESOLUTION 18-__ RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT APPROVING THE AWARD OF A GRAZING LEASE TO DOUG EDWARDS (OCTOBER FARM, PURISIMA CREEK REDWOODS OPEN SPACE PRESERVE) WHEREAS, the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (District) may, under the provisions of California Public Resources Code section 5540, lease property owned by the District; and WHEREAS, the lease of the October Farm for grazing and rangeland management purposes is compatible with park and open space purposes, and the lease of such premises is in the public interest; and WHEREAS, the District wishes to renew its lease of October Farm to Doug Edwards on the terms hereinafter set forth. NOW, THEREFORE, the Board of Directors of Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District does hereby resolve as follows: 1.The General Manager is authorized to execute the Grazing Lease on behalf of the District. The General Manager, with the concurrence of the General Counsel, is authorized to make minor changes to the Grazing Lease that do not materially amend the terms and conditions thereof. 2. The General Manager is authorized to grant an extension of the Grazing Lease on the terms and conditions set forth in the Grazing Lease. The General Manager shall report any such extension of the Grazing Lease to the Board of Directors at the Board meeting immediately following the granting of the extension. The General Manager or designee is further authorized to sign and approve all other documents necessary or appropriate to entering into the Grazing Lease. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Board of Directors of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District on ______, 2018, at a regular meeting thereof, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Resolutions/2018/18-__RenewTunitasCreekLease 2 ATTEST: APPROVED: Secretary Board of Directors President Board of Directors APPROVED AS TO FORM: 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. District Clerk R-18-60 Meeting 18-28 July 11, 2018 AGENDA ITEM 5 AGENDA ITEM Proposed Agreement to Exchange Interests in Real Property between Eben and Carol Haber (Haber) and the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District to obtain access easements for properties located along Charcoal Road in unincorporated Santa Clara County (APNs: 351-15- 033 & 351-15-007), at Saratoga Gap Open Space Preserve requiring a unanimous vote of the Board of Directors. GENERAL MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATIONS 1. Determine that the recommended actions are categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) as set out in the report. 2. By a unanimous vote of the Board of Directors, adopt a resolution authorizing the Agreement to Exchange Interests in Real Property between the District and Haber. 3. Adopt the Preliminary Use and Management Plan for the Exchange Property. 4. Withhold dedication of the Exchange Property as public open space at this time. SUMMARY The General Manager recommends exchanging access rights between the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (District), and Eben and Carol Haber (Haber) along certain sections of Charcoal Road to formalize access uses that have existed for over 40 years. The easement exchange would formalize District patrol and maintenance access across Haber property to reach Saratoga Gap Open Space Preserve (Preserve), and Haber access over District property to reach their residence. The following report presents a description of the proposed exchange in real property interests, a Preliminary Use and Management Plan, the District’s environmental review, the exchange agreement terms DISCUSSION Background Charcoal Road is a seasonal patrol access road to Upper Stevens Creek County Park and Saratoga Gap Open Space Preserve (Preserve), which runs westerly from Stevens Canyon Road through several private properties. Charcoal Road is the sole means of ingress and egress to these private properties. Charcoal Road has also historically served as the route for County Parks and District staff to access Upper Stevens Creek County Park and the Preserve. R-18-60 Page 2 In July of 1976, the District was gifted a 1.04 acre property underlying a portion of Charcoal Road by the Boy Scouts of America as an addition to the Preserve (Report R-76-15). The gift included deeded legal access from Stevens Canyon Road along Charcoal Road to the property. In December of 1976, the District acquired the Gunnetti-Larrus property, located further up Charcoal Road (Report R-76-30). The Gunnetti-Larrus property included an unperfected prescriptive easement along Charcoal Road from Stevens Canyon Road through several private properties (including Haber). In late 2016, Haber requested that Santa Clara County Parks and the District refrain from crossing his property via Charcoal Road until a formal easement could be agreed upon. Santa Clara County Parks and the District agreed to Haber’s request. While researching the easement issues, it was discovered that Haber did not have a formal access easement to cross the District’s 1.04-acre property via Charcoal Road. In December of 2016, the District and Santa Clara County Parks began negotiating an agreement for an easement exchange with Haber (Exchange Agreement). As of the date of this Report, Santa Clara County Parks is no longer included in the Exchange Agreement due to issues still needing to be resolved between the County and Haber. Description of Charcoal Road Easements Haber to District: Under the Exchange Agreement, Haber would grant the District a road/right of way easement for patrol and maintenance use of the portion of Charcoal Road that crosses the owner’s property (Charcoal Road easement). The proposed easement would be 20 feet wide and 1,490 feet long, totaling 0.684 acres. District to Haber: Under the Exchange Agreement, the District would grant Haber an access easement for the portion of Charcoal Road that crosses District property. The proposed easement is 20 feet wide and 90 feet long, totaling 0.04 acres. USE AND MANAGEMENT Planning Considerations The underlying properties identified in the Exchange Agreement are located in unincorporated Santa Clara County (County) and outside the urban service area and sphere of influence of any incorporated municipality. They both have a Hillside General Plan and zoning designation. The District’s property is undeveloped. The Haber property is developed with a residence. Pursuant to the County General Plan and Zoning regulations, recreation, open space, and natural preserves are allowable uses. The Santa Clara County Planning Department made a finding of compliance with the General Plan for all open space acquisitions by the District in 1999. If acquired, the Charcoal Road easement would be incorporated into the Preserve. Subsequent planning would be coordinated with the District’s planning efforts for the Preserve and include consultation with appropriate agencies and organizations. Preliminary Use and Management Plan The Preliminary Use and Management Plan (PUMP) establishes a status quo land management approach in the interim between the acquisition of the road easement and the completion of a subsequent long-term plan. The PUMP would take effect upon recordation of the easements and remain effective until the PUMP is amended or a Comprehensive Use and Management Plan or Preserve Plan is approved for the Preserve. If changes to land use or the physical environment R-18-60 Page 3 are proposed in the future, the plan would be subject to further environmental review and public input. Public Access: Designate the Charcoal Road easement as closed to public use. Signs and Site Security: Install preserve boundary and closed area signs, as appropriate, on District property adjacent to the easement granted to Haber. Roads and Trails: Use the Charcoal Road easement for District patrol and maintenance access, and emergency purposes. Maintain the road easement as needed for District purposes. Implement minor erosion and sediment control measures in accordance with District standards as needed. Patrol: Routinely patrol the road easement using the existing access road. Name: Name the Charcoal Road easement Property as an addition to Saratoga Gap Open Space Preserve. Dedication: Indicate the District’s intention to withhold dedication of the Charcoal Road Easement as open space at this time. TERMS AND CONDITIONS As part of the proposed Exchange Agreement, District and Haber agree to the following: • District and Haber will grant the easements to each other at no cost to either party. The exchange of interest in real property is of equal or greater value to the District and the public it serves. Therefore, the exchange is determined to be in accordance with the District’s enabling legislation set out in Section 5540.5 of the California Public Resources Code. In accordance with Section 5540.5, the Board must approve such exchange by unanimous vote. FISCAL IMPACT This reciprocal no-cost exchange of easements will have no fiscal impact on the District. BOARD COMMITTEE REVIEW This item was not previously reviewed by a Board Committee. PUBLIC NOTICE Public notice was provided as required by the Brown Act. Adjoining property owners have also been mailed a copy of the agenda for this public meeting. R-18-60 Page 4 CEQA COMPLIANCE Project Description The project consists of the conveyance of an easement along Charcoal Road (an existing private, dirt and gravel one-lane road), as an addition to the Preserve, and concurrent adoption of a PUMP, including minor erosion and sediment control measures to prevent erosion and water quality degradation. Minor resource management activities may be conducted to control invasive plants. The easement is for patrol and maintenance ingress and egress and would be maintained in accordance with District rural roadway maintenance standards appropriate to the District’s occasional use. In exchange, the District will grant a 20-foot wide residential access easement over Charcoal Road to an adjoining private residential property (Haber) as it crosses a portion of District property. Under the terms of the easement, the District would have minimal and proportional responsibility for road repair or maintenance within the easement and provides no assurances that further California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) analysis for future repairs or improvements has been met. Any future roadway improvements within the easements would be subject to the County’s zoning restrictions, land development policies, and utility service requirements. CEQA Determination The District concludes that this project will not have a significant effect on the environment. The project is categorically exempt from CEQA under Article 19, Sections 15301and 15325, of the CEQA Guidelines as follows: Section 15301 exempts the conveyance of an access easement over an existing private road already in use by other private residents for the sole purpose of providing defined, deeded and legal access to a private parcel currently benefiting from a prescriptive rights claim as this constitutes a minor alteration of use of an existing facility involving a negligible expansion of use and having no significant impact to the environment. Section 15325(f) exempts transfers of ownership of interests in land to preserve open space. The District will acquire access rights across the adjoining private property (Haber) for the District to preserve, patrol, and maintain open space. NEXT STEPS Upon approval by the Board of Directors, staff will work to execute the terms of the Exchange Agreement and take the next steps identified in the PUMP. The District’s Skyline Field Office would manage the Charcoal Road easement as an addition to the Preserve. Attachments: 1. Resolution Authorizing Acceptance of Exchange Agreement Authorizing General Manager or Other Officer to Execute Certificate of Acceptance of Grant to District, District Grant of Access Easement, Authorizing General Manager or General Manager’s designee to Execute any and all Other Documents Necessary or Appropriate to Closing of the Transaction (Saratoga Gap Open Space Preserve - Lands of Haber). 2. Exhibit A: Location Map R-18-60 Page 5 Responsible Department Manager: Michael Williams, Real Property Manager Prepared by: Iain Reilly, Real Property Agent II Elish Ryan, Real Property Planner III Contact person: Iain Reilly, Real Property Agent II ATTACHMENT 1 Resolutions/2018/R-18-__Haber Exchange 1 RESOLUTION 18-__ RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT AUTHORIZING ACCEPTANCE OF EXCHANGE AGREEMENT, AUTHORIZING OFFICER TO EXECUTE ACCESS EASEMENT FOR THE DISTRICT’S REAL PROPERTY INTEREST BEING EXCHANGED, AUTHORIZING OFFICER TO EXECUTE ROAD/RIGHT OF WAY EASEMENT BEING GRANTED TO DISTRICT, AUTHORIZING OFFICER TO EXECUTE CERTIFICATE OF ACCEPTANCE OF GRANT TO DISTRICT, AUTHORIZING GENERAL MANAGER AND GENERAL COUNSEL TO EXECUTE ANY AND ALL OTHER DOCUMENTS NECESSARY OR APPROPRIATE TO CLOSING OF THE TRANSACTION (SARATOGA GAP OPEN SPACE PRESERVE - LANDS OF HABER). The Board of Directors of Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District does hereby resolve as follows: SECTION ONE. The Board of Directors of Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (District) does hereby accept the offer contained in that certain Exchange Agreement between Eben Merriam Haber, a married man as his sole and separate property, and Carol Avery Haber, a widowed woman, and the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District, a copy of which exchange agreement is attached hereto and by reference made a part hereof, and authorizes the President of the Board of Directors, General Manager, or other appropriate officer to execute the Agreement and all related transactional documents on behalf of the District to acquire the real property described therein (“the Haber Exchange Property”). SECTION TWO. The General Manager or President of the Board of Directors and/or other appropriate officer is authorized to execute the Road/Right of Way Easement for the real property interests being conveyed to the District, and the Access Easement for the real property interests being conveyed to Haber. SECTION THREE. The General Manager, President of the Board of Directors, or other appropriate officer is authorized to execute a Certificate of Acceptance for the Easement Deed on behalf of the District. SECTION FOUR. The General Manager or the General Manager’s designee is authorized to provide notice of acceptance to the seller, execute all title and escrow documents, and to extend escrow if necessary. SECTION FIVE. The Board of Directors finds and determines that, pursuant to Section 5540.5 of the Public Resources Code of the State of California, the granting and acceptance of these easement property interests are consistent with Public Resources Code 5540.5, and that the real properties being acquired by the District are of equal or greater value than the real property being transferred to Haber, and are necessary to be acquired for open space purposes. SECTION SIX. The General Manager and General Counsel are further authorized to approve any technical revisions to the attached Agreement and documents, which do not involve any material change to any term of the Agreement or documents, which are necessary or appropriate to the closing or implementation of this transaction. ATTACHMENT 1 Resolutions/2018/R-18-__Haber Exchange 2 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Board of Directors of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District on ________, 2018, at a regular meeting thereof, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: ATTEST: APPROVED: Secretary Board of Directors President Board of Directors APPROVED AS TO FORM: 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. District Clerk !P !P !P Charcoal Rd U P P E R S T E V E N S C R E E K C O U N T Y P A R K StevensCanyon Rd C harc oal Rd CanyonTrail MB10 Stevens Creek 1200 1 0 0 0 1 4 0 0 1 4 0 0 1200 Midp en i ns u la R egion al O p e n S pa c e Di s trict (MROSD) June 2018 Pro po s ed E as em e nt Ex c ha ng e: H ab er - M R OS D Path: G:\Projects\Saratoga_Gap\Haber_Easement_Exchange\SG_BrdRpt_ HaberEasementExchang e_2 0180 604.m xd Created By: thammer 0 500250 FeetI MR O SD Pr e s e r v e s Pr iv ate P ro pe r ty Whi le t he D istrict strive s to use the b est avai la b le digi ta l d a ta , these data d o n ot represent a legal survey a nd are merely a gra ph ic i llustra tion of geo gra p hi c feat ures. Habe r Pr o p e r ty Ar ea of Detail ÄÆ35 ÄÆ236 ÄÆ35 ÄÆ9 ÄÆ280ÄÆ84 ÄÆ9 Cupertino Ot h e r P ro te c te d L a nds Pr oposed Easement to H aber (9 0') Pr op ose d E a s e m ent Hab er to M RO S D Pr op ose d E a s e m ent MR O S D To H abe r M O N T E B E L L O O P E N S P A C E P R E S E R V E S A R A T O G A G A P O P E N S P A C E P R E S E R V E Pr oposed Easement to M ROSD (1 ,490') R-18-78 Meeting 18-28 July 11, 2108 AGENDA ITEM 6 AGENDA ITEM Establishing Fiscal Year 2018-2019 Tax Levy for the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District’s General Obligation Bonds - Series 2015A, Series 2015B and Series 2018 GENERAL MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATION Adopt Resolutions of the Board of Directors of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District for each of San Mateo, Santa Clara and Santa Cruz Counties to establish an ad valorem property tax levy of $1.80 per $100,000 (or $0.0018 per $100) in assessed value for the General Obligation Bonds – Series 2015A,Series 2015B and Series 2018 (Measure AA). SUMMARY On June 3, 2014, voters of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (District) approved the passage of Measure AA authorizing the District to issue up to $300 million of general obligation bonds (Bonds) over thirty years to finance Measure AA capital projects. By Resolution 2015-19 adopted on May 13, 2015, the Board of Directors authorized the issuance of up to $45,000,000 as the first tranche of the Bonds. The District subsequently issued $40,000,000 of tax-exempt bonds (Series A) and $5,000,000 of taxable bonds (Series B). By Resolution 2017-31 adopted on December 6, 2017, the Board of Directors authorized the issuance of up to $60,000,000 as the second tranche of the Bonds. The District subsequently issued $50,000,000 of tax-exempt bonds in February 2018. DISCUSSION Debt service payments on the Bonds are paid through ad valorem taxes on all taxable property within the District. Each year, the levy is calculated based on the assessed value and the debt service amount the District needs to collect. The evolution of the tax levy is as follows: 2015-16 $.0008 per $100 of assessed valuation 2016-17 $.0006 per $100 of assessed valuation 2017-18 $.0009 per $100 of assessed valuation 2018-19 $.0018 per $100 of assessed valuation (proposed) Based on the debt service schedule for the Bonds, and tax revenue projections provided by the District’s Tax Administration Consultant (Goodwin Consulting Group), the Board is asked to approve resolutions for each of the three Counties authorizing the placement of an ad valorem property tax levy of $0.0018 per $100, or $1.80 per $100,000 in assessed value. R-18-78 Page 2 FISCAL IMPACT The establishment of the ad valorem property tax levy will provide the District with sufficient revenues to pay the scheduled debt service payments on related debt service September 1, 2018, March 1, 2019 and September 1, 2019. BOARD COMMITTEE REVIEW This item was not previously reviewed by a Board Committee. PUBLIC NOTICE Notice was provided pursuant to the Brown Act. No additional notice is necessary. CEQA COMPLIANCE No compliance is required as this action is not a project under CEQA. NEXT STEPS If approved by the Board, the General Manager will direct staff to forward the resolutions to the relevant departments and Board of Supervisors of each County for inclusion in the 2018-2019 property tax bills. Attachments: 1. Resolution of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Setting the Tax Rate on Voter Approved General Obligation Bonds – County of San Mateo 2. Resolution of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Setting the Tax Rate on Voter Approved General Obligation Bonds – County of Santa Clara 3. Resolution of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Setting the Tax Rate on Voter Approved General Obligation Bonds – County of Santa Cruz Responsible Department Head: Stefan Jaskulak, Chief Financial Officer/Director of Administrative Services Prepared by: Andrew Taylor, Finance Manager Resolutions/2017/17-___SMC Measure AA Levy 1 RESOLUTION NO. 18-____ A RESOLUTION OF THE MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT SETTING THE 2018-19 TAX RATE FOR SAN MATEO COUNTY ON VOTER APPROVED GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS ______________________________________________________________________________ WHEREAS, the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (the “District”) is a regional open space district that includes territory in each of the County of San Mateo, the County of Santa Clara and the County of Santa Cruz (each, a “County”; collectively, the “Counties”); and WHEREAS, the District is empowered to issue general obligation bonds that are authorized by two-thirds of the qualified electors of the District pursuant to Article 3 (commencing with Section 5500) of Chapter 3 of Division 5 of the Public Resources Code and Article 4.5, commencing with Section 53506, of Chapter 3 of Part 1 of Division 2 of Title 5 of the Government Code of the State of California (collectively, the “Act”); and WHEREAS, a special bond election was duly and regularly held in the District on June 3, 2014, for the purpose of submitting a ballot measure to the qualified electors of the District (the "2014 Authorization"), and more than two-thirds of the votes cast at the election approved the issuance of up to $300 million of general obligation bonds to finance certain projects specified in the 2014 Authorization; and WHEREAS, for the purpose of financing the projects authorized by the 2014 Authorization (the “Projects”), by its Resolution No. 15-19, the District issued General Obligation Bonds, Series 2015, Series A and Series B for the aggregate amount of $45,000,000 pursuant to the Act. By Resolution No. 17-31, the District further issued General Obligation Bonds, Series 2018 for the aggregate amount of $50,000,000; and WHEREAS, Section 5569 of the Public Resources Code provides that, for the purpose of paying all sums coming due for principal and interest on all bonds of the District, there shall be levied and collected each year a tax sufficient to pay the annual interest on such bonds and, also, that part of the principal which will become due before the time for setting the next general tax levy; and WHEREAS, Section 5571 of the Public Resources Code provides that the Board of Supervisors of the County of San Mateo, at the time of making the general tax levy in each year, levy a tax upon all the real and personal property within the District and within its respective County at a rate sufficient to meet the proportion of taxes necessary to be raised in the County for the purpose of paying the principal and interest of the bonds and other indebtedness of the District; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Board of Directors of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District, as follows: SECTION 1. Levy of Tax. The Board of Directors of the District hereby determines that the tax rate necessary to pay the principal and interest on the Bonds coming due and payable on September 1, 2018, March 1, 2019 and September 1, 2019 is $0.0018 per $100 of assessed ATTACHMENT 1 Resolutions/2016/16-___SMC Measure AA Levy 2 valuation, and such tax rate shall be and is hereby levied in accordance with all applicable requirements of law. SECTION 2. Collection of Tax. The Controller is hereby directed to forward a copy of this Resolution to the Auditor-Controller of the County of San Mateo, and to the Board of Supervisors of the County, and to take such actions and execute such documents as may be required to cause the tax rate set forth in Section 1 to be placed on the 2018-2019 property tax bill and collected by each of the County. SECTION 3. Effective Date. This Resolution shall take effect from and after the date of its passage and adoption. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Board of Directors of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District on ______, 2018, at a Regular Meeting thereof, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: ATTEST: APPROVED: Secretary Board of Directors President Board of Directors APPROVED AS TO FORM: 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. District Clerk Resolutions/2017/17-___SCC Measure AA Levy 1 RESOLUTION NO. 18-___ A RESOLUTION OF THE MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPENSPACE DISTRICT SETTING THE 2018-19 TAX RATE FOR SANTA CLARA COUNTY ON VOTER APPROVED GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS ______________________________________________________________________________ WHEREAS, the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (the “District”) is a regional open space district that includes territory in each of the County of San Mateo, the County of Santa Clara and the County of Santa Cruz (each, a “County”; collectively, the “Counties”); and WHEREAS, the District is empowered to issue general obligation bonds that are authorized by two-thirds of the qualified electors of the District pursuant to Article 3 (commencing with Section 5500) of Chapter 3 of Division 5 of the Public Resources Code and Article 4.5, commencing with Section 53506, of Chapter 3 of Part 1 of Division 2 of Title 5 of the Government Code of the State of California (collectively, the “Act”); and WHEREAS, a special bond election was duly and regularly held in the District on June 3, 2014, for the purpose of submitting a ballot measure to the qualified electors of the District (the "2014 Authorization"), and more than two-thirds of the votes cast at the election approved the issuance of up to $300 million of general obligation bonds to finance certain projects specified in the 2014 Authorization; and WHEREAS, for the purpose of financing the projects authorized by the 2014 Authorization (the “Projects”), by its Resolution No. 15-19, the District issued General Obligation Bonds, Series 2015, Series A and Series B for the aggregate amount of $45,000,000 pursuant to the Act. By Resolution No. 17-31, the District further issued General Obligation Bonds, Series 2018 for the aggregate amount of $50,000,000; and WHEREAS, Section 5569 of the Public Resources Code provides that, for the purpose of paying all sums coming due for principal and interest on all bonds of the District, there shall be levied and collected each year a tax sufficient to pay the annual interest on such bonds and, also, that part of the principal which will become due before the time for setting the next general tax levy; and WHEREAS, Section 5571 of the Public Resources Code provides that the Board of Supervisors of the County of Santa Clara, at the time of making the general tax levy in each year, levy a tax upon all the real and personal property within the District and within its respective County at a rate sufficient to meet the proportion of taxes necessary to be raised in the County for the purpose of paying the principal and interest of the bonds and other indebtedness of the District; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Board of Directors of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District, as follows: SECTION 1. Levy of Tax. The Board of Directors of the District hereby determines that the tax rate necessary to pay the principal and interest on the Bonds coming due and payable on September 1, 2018, March 1, 2019, and September 1, 2019 is $0.0018 per $100 of assessed ATTACHMENT 2 Resolutions/2017/17-___SCC Measure AA Levy 2 valuation, and such tax rate shall be and is hereby levied in accordance with all applicable requirements of law. SECTION 2. Collection of Tax. The Controller is hereby directed to forward a copy of this Resolution to the Controller-Treasurer of the County of Santa Clara, and to the Board of Supervisors of the County, and to take such actions and execute such documents as may be required to cause the tax rate set forth in Section 1 to be placed on the 2018-2019 property tax bill and collected by each of the County. SECTION 3. Effective Date. This Resolution shall take effect from and after the date of its passage and adoption. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Board of Directors of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District on ______, 2018, at a Regular Meeting thereof, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: ATTEST: APPROVED: Secretary Board of Directors President Board of Directors APPROVED AS TO FORM: 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. District Clerk Resolutions/2017/17-___SCrC Measure AA Levy 1 RESOLUTION NO. 18-____ A RESOLUTION OF THE MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT SETTING THE 2018-19 TAX RATE FOR SANTA CRUZ COUNTY ON VOTER APPROVED GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS ______________________________________________________________________________ WHEREAS, the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (the “District”) is a regional open space district that includes territory in each of the County of San Mateo, the County of Santa Clara and the County of Santa Cruz (each, a “County”; collectively, the “Counties”); and WHEREAS, the District is empowered to issue general obligation bonds that are authorized by two-thirds of the qualified electors of the District pursuant to Article 3 (commencing with Section 5500) of Chapter 3 of Division 5 of the Public Resources Code and Article 4.5, commencing with Section 53506, of Chapter 3 of Part 1 of Division 2 of Title 5 of the Government Code of the State of California (collectively, the “Act”); and WHEREAS, a special bond election was duly and regularly held in the District on June 3, 2014, for the purpose of submitting a ballot measure to the qualified electors of the District (the "2014 Authorization"), and more than two-thirds of the votes cast at the election approved the issuance of up to $300 million of general obligation bonds to finance certain projects specified in the 2014 Authorization; and WHEREAS, for the purpose of financing the projects authorized by the 2014 Authorization (the “Projects”), by its Resolution No. 15-19, the District issued General Obligation Bonds, Series 2015, Series A and Series B for the aggregate amount of $45,000,000 pursuant to the Act. By Resolution No. 17-31, the District further issued General Obligation Bonds, Series 2018 for the aggregate amount of $50,000,000; and WHEREAS, Section 5569 of the Public Resources Code provides that, for the purpose of paying all sums coming due for principal and interest on all bonds of the District, there shall be levied and collected each year a tax sufficient to pay the annual interest on such bonds and, also, that part of the principal which will become due before the time for setting the next general tax levy; and WHEREAS, Section 5571 of the Public Resources Code provides that the Board of Supervisors of the County of San Mateo, at the time of making the general tax levy in each year, levy a tax upon all the real and personal property within the District and within its respective County at a rate sufficient to meet the proportion of taxes necessary to be raised in the County for the purpose of paying the principal and interest of the bonds and other indebtedness of the District; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Board of Directors of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District, as follows: SECTION 1. Levy of Tax. The Board of Directors of the District hereby determines that the tax rate necessary to pay the principal and interest on the Bonds coming due and payable on September 1, 2018, March 1, 2019, and September 1, 2019 is $0.0018 per $100 of assessed ATTACHMENT 3 Resolutions/2017/17-___SCrC Measure AA Levy 2 valuation, and such tax rate shall be and is hereby levied in accordance with all applicable requirements of law. SECTION 2. Collection of Tax. The Controller is hereby directed to forward a copy of this Resolution to the Auditor-Controller of the County of Santa Cruz, and to the Board of Supervisors of the County, and to take such actions and execute such documents as may be required to cause the tax rate set forth in Section 1 to be placed on the 2018-2019 property tax bill and collected by the County. SECTION 3. Effective Date. This Resolution shall take effect from and after the date of its passage and adoption. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Board of Directors of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District on ______, 2018, at a Regular Meeting thereof, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: ATTEST: APPROVED: Secretary Board of Directors President Board of Directors APPROVED AS TO FORM: 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. District Clerk Rev. 1/3/18 R-18-77 Meeting 18-28 July 11, 2018 AGENDA ITEM 7 AGENDA ITEM Approval of the General Counsel’s Employment Agreement BOARD PRESIDENT’S RECOMMENDATIONS 1. Appoint Hilary Stevenson as the General Counsel for Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District effective July 11, 2018. 2. Adopt a resolution approving the General Counsel’s Employment Agreement. SUMMARY As a result of the Board’s evaluation of applicants for employment as the District general counsel, the Board of Directors (Board) voted to hire Hilary Stevenson as new general counsel for Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District as of June 11, 2018. This action requires an adoption of a resolution to approve the General Counsel’s Employment Agreement. DISCUSSION General Counsel Sheryl Schaffner retired from the District in December of 2017. In the wake of Ms. Schaffner’s retirement, the Board selected the executive search firm Ralph Andersen & Associates to coordinate with human resources departmental staff to recruit for a new general counsel. Recruiter Heather Renschler conducted an extensive and widely publicized executive search under the direction of the Board. Candidates for the general counsel position were vetted through a highly competitive process, which included two days of interviews on June 19, and 20, 2018, with the Board. After thorough consideration of all qualified applicants, the Board recommends appointment of Hilary Stevenson as the District’s new general counsel, effective July 11, 2018. FISCAL IMPACT The salary for this position will be within the parameters of this budget and in alignment in the District’s Classification and Compensation Plan. There is no budget impact as funds are allocated for the general counsel position. BOARD COMMITTEE REVIEW This item does not require Board committee review. R-18-77 Page 2 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 If approved by the Board the new general counsel’s contract will be effective as of July 11, 2018. Attachment 1. Resolution approving the General Counsel Employment Agreement a. Exhibit A. Employment Agreement b. Exhibit B. Classification & Compensation Plan Responsible Department Head: Stefan Jaskulak, Chief Financial Officer/Director of Administrative Services Prepared by: Candice Basnight, Human Resources Manager, Human Resources Department Resolutions/2018/R-18-__/AppointGC 1 RESOLUTION NO. _____ RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT APPROVING A GENERAL COUNSEL EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT WITH HILARY STEVENSON WHEREAS, the Board of Directors of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District desires to enter into a District General Counsel Employment Agreement (“Agreement”) with Hilary Stevenson employing her as the District's General Counsel, effective July 11, 2018. NOW, THEREFORE, THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: 1. Authorize the President of the Board of Directors or other appropriate officer to execute the attached District General Counsel Employment Agreement on behalf of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District to appoint and employ Hilary Stevenson as the District’s General Counsel, effective July 11, 2018 at an annual salary of $205,000 pursuant to the terms and conditions of the attached Agreement (Exhibit A). 2. The Classification and Compensation Plan of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District shall be amended to include the salary range set forth in the exhibit attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit B. 3. Except as herein modified, the Classification and Compensation Plan, Resolution No. 18-22, as amended, shall remain in full force and effect. 4. This resolution shall be effective July 11, 2018. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Board of Directors of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District on _____, 2018, at a regular meeting thereof, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: ATTEST: APPROVED: Secretary Board of Directors President Board of Directors ATTACHMENT 1 Resolutions/2018/R-18-__/AppointGC 2 APPROVED AS TO FORM: 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. District Clerk MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT GENERAL COUNSEL EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT This Employment Agreement (“Agreement”) is made this 11th day of July 2018, by and between Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District, a California public entity (“District”), and Hilary Stevenson (“Employee” or “General Counsel”). 1. Appointment of District General Counsel Effective July 11, 2018, Employee is appointed and employed as the District’s General Counsel. 2. Essential Duties The General Counsel shall perform his or her duties consistent with due diligence, according to the highest and most professional standards, and in compliance with all federal, state and local laws, ordinances, rules and regulations which are applicable to or associated with the performance of such duties. A. Administrative Duties 1) The General Counsel shall attend all regular and special meetings of the District Board of Directors (“Board”) as needed, and may, when appropriate, delegate this duty to an Assistant General Counsel. The General Counsel’s duties in this connection shall be to render advice and opinions with respect to legal matters which may arise during such meetings, except legal matters which may pertain to proceedings wherein specialized legal services are to be provided by special counsel or which do not fall within the General Counsel’s scope of duties. 2) The General Counsel shall also attend meetings of committees and staff of the District when requested to do so by the Board or the General Manager and when necessary to render legal advice to committees and project teams. 3) When requested to do so by the Board, General Manager, or department managers, the General Counsel shall prepare and review resolutions, notices, contracts, leases, ordinances and other legal documents and papers in matters pertaining to the District, and shall also examine for legal sufficiency all documents submitted to him or her by the District. 4) The General Counsel shall perform legal research as required to attend to the legal needs of the District and shall review legislation and court decisions to determine their effect upon District affairs. 5) The General Counsel shall cooperate with and assist the District, its officers, directors, agents and employees on all general legal matters pertaining to the District, including the enforcement of District laws, ordinances and codes. EXHIBIT A District General Counsel Page 2 Employment Agreement General Counsel Employment Agreement 7-11-18 6) The General Counsel shall also perform such other related and appropriate legal services for the District as may be requested by the Board or the General Manager. 7) The General Counsel shall properly supervise, evaluate and manage those District employees that report to him or her. 8) The General Counsel shall be responsible for the District’s risk management program in coordination with the California Joint Powers Insurance Authority for all matters except the Worker’s Compensation Program. B. Litigation Duties When requested to do so by the District Board of Directors, the General Counsel shall represent the District in legal and administrative proceedings to which the District may be a party. In the alternative the General Counsel may recommend outside litigation counsel and shall provide general oversight. 3. Acting General Counsel The General Counsel shall select the District’s Assistant General Counsel to act as General Counsel to the District in cases where the General Counsel is unable to act due to illness, vacation or other reason. The selection of Acting General Counsel shall be subject to the approval of the Board where the appointment exceeds three weeks. 4. Other Duties and Responsibilities It is recognized that the District normally contracts with special counsel in certain matters pertaining to the District, such as employment and labor relations, worker’s compensation, general liability and bond issues. In the event legal services are provided by special counsel, the General Counsel will be responsible for general oversight in such cases to ensure the District is effectively represented in a high quality and cost-effective manner and for providing general legal assistance and support to the special counsel as needed. 5. Compensation and Benefits A. Salary: The General Counsel shall receive an annual base salary of $205,000. B. Annual Salary Adjustment and Performance Review: The Board shall annually review the General Counsel’s performance pursuant to the Board’s labor policy “Board Appointee Performance Process.” The Board’s annual review will generally be based upon the District’s fiscal year (July 1-June 30). The Board may also review Employee’s performance at any time as determined necessar y and appropriate by the Board. During the annual performance review, or such other District General Counsel Page 3 Employment Agreement General Counsel Employment Agreement 7-11-18 time as determined appropriate by the Board, either party may propose to modify, amend, or terminate this Agreement. Unless the parties agree otherwise, any such annual salary adjustment will be effective retroactive to the Employee’s anniversary date as the General Counsel. C. Merit Pay: The District may grant the General Counsel a merit pay increase, ranging from 0% to 5% over and above the General Counsel’s then current annual base salary. Such merit pay shall be based on the Board’s annual review of the General Counsel’s performance and pursuant to the Board’s labor policy “Board Appointee Performance Process” and the corresponding “Board Appointee Employment Class: Annual Evaluation System and Form” (both of which may be modified by the Board from time to time in its sole discretion). This policy and form set out the conditions and eligibility for such merit pay and the criteria and objectives to be considered during the evaluation. Merit pay shall not be a cost of living salary adjustment, but rather recognition for performance during the previous year of service. D. Leave and Holidays: The General Counsel shall earn vacation, personal, administrative and sick leave at the then current rate of accrual applicable to the District’s at-will department managers and will receive District-paid holidays, in accordance with the Manual. The General Counsel shall earn administrative leave at the accrual rate of 104 hours per year. E. Retirement Plan: The District contracts with the California Public Employees’ Retirement System (“PERS”) to provide its miscellaneous employees the Local Miscellaneous retirement plan (“the Plan”) at one of the following formulas, as determined to be applicable by CalPERS: 2.5% at 55 for classic members and 2% at 62 for new members. Employee is eligible to participate in the Plan. Pursuant to the Board resolution No. 15-14, effective February 11, 2015, the District does not pay any portion of the General Counsel’s normal member contribution. Employee is responsible for paying his or her entire share of the employee member contribution by payroll deduction. F. Benefit Plans: The General Counsel shall receive the benefits available to regular full time management employees of the District including those set out in the Manual on the same terms available to these management employees. The General Counsel may participate in any District optional benefit plan at his or her own cost. The District will also provide the cafeteria plan in accordance with Internal Revenue Code Section 125 as provided in the Manual. G. Mileage Allowance: The General Counsel will be eligible to receive mileage reimbursement at the applicable District rate for use of his or her personal vehicle on District business. District General Counsel Page 4 Employment Agreement General Counsel Employment Agreement 7-11-18 H. Membership and Conferences: The District shall pay for the General Counsel’s membership or participation in organizations and conferences necessary and desirable for his or her continued professional growth and advancement and/or related to the District’s business, in addition to any membership payments offered to employees in the Manual or the District’s Administrative Policy (Professional Dues, Membership Program & Tuition Reimbursement). The District shall reimburse the General Counsel for travel expenses consistent with the District’s travel, lodging, and meal reimbursement policy. 6. Term of Agreement The General Counsel shall begin service under this Agreement on July 11, 2018, and this Agreement shall remain in effect up to, and concluding, June 30, 2019, or unless terminated by either party pursuant to Section 7 of this Agreement or as modified by mutual written agreement. If the term expires before the Board completes its annual Performance Evaluation of the General Counsel, the term will be automatically extended on a month to month basis on the same terms and conditions until the completion of the evaluation process. The General Counsel shall not be entitled to, nor shall he/she receive, any severance pay upon expiration of this Agreement or in the event of a month to month extension of the Agreement. 7. Termination and Severance Pay Notwithstanding any other provision, the General Counsel is and at all times shall remain an at-will employee serving at the pleasure of the Board and may be discharged at any time by written notice with or without cause or prior notice. There is no express or implied promise made to the General Counsel of continued District employment. The General Counsel may terminate this Agreement upon 60 calendar days’ written notice to the Board President. In the event the General Counsel resigns or retires, or upon his or her death, the General Counsel shall not be entitled to, nor shall he or she receive, any severance pay as set forth in this Paragraph 7. In the event that the District terminates this Agreement for reasons other than cause, the District shall compensate the General Counsel with severance pay in the amount equal to six (6) months’ base salary as of the date of termination. This section is intended to comply with California Government Code section 53260 et seq. The General Counsel shall only be entitled to receive severance in exchange for an executed Release of All Claims against the District. This severance payment shall be made within thirty (30) calendar days of the effective date of the termination, and shall be subject to applicable withholding taxes. District General Counsel Page 5 Employment Agreement General Counsel Employment Agreement 7-11-18 Any severance pay that the General Counsel may receive from the District shall be fully reimbursed to the District if the General Counsel is convicted of a crime involving an abuse of his or her office or position. This Agreement shall be subject to the provisions of Government Code sections 53243-53243.4 which require reimbursement to the District under circumstances stated therein. If the Board at any time determines this Agreement should be terminated for cause, then the Board shall provide the General Counsel with written notice of termination specifying the effective date of the termination. The Board may, in its sole discretion, provide in this notice the general reasons for termination. The District will not be required to provide any notice period or to pay the General Counsel any severance pay if the Board terminates this Agreement for cause. The General Counsel will be provided an opportunity to request a meeting with the Board, which meeting will be held within 30 calendar days of the General Counsel’s request. Said meeting may be in closed session, unless the General Counsel asks that it be in open session. The Board’s decision on the appeal will be final. As used in this Agreement, “cause” shall include but shall not necessarily be limited to: a. Violation of administrative policies and procedures; b. Abuse of office or position; c. Theft of District property; d. Insubordination; e. Conviction of a felony, or conviction of a misdemeanor relating to General Counsel’s fitness to perform assigned duties; f. Unauthorized or excessive absences from the District; g. Failure to maintain satisfactory working relationships with other employees or the public; h. Improper use of District funds; i. Unauthorized use of District property; j. Willful misconduct or malfeasance; k. Any act of moral turpitude or dishonesty; l. Other failure of good behavior either during or outside of employment such that General Counsel’s conduct causes discredit to the District; m. Violation of the Political Reform Act or corresponding regulations; n. Loss or disbarment or suspension of California State Bar license, and/or o. Violation of Government Code Section 1090. 8. Entire Agreement This Agreement contains the entire agreement and understanding between the parties. There are no oral understandings, terms or conditions, and neither party has relied upon any representation, express or implied, not contained in this Agreement. District General Counsel Page 6 Employment Agreement General Counsel Employment Agreement 7-11-18 9. Effect of Waiver No waiver by a party of any provision of this Agreement shall be considered a waiver of any other provision or subsequent breach of the same or of any other provision, including the time for performance of any such provision. The exercise by a party of any remedy provided in this Agreement or at law shall not prevent the exercise by that party of any other remedy provided in this Agreement or at law. 10. Supersedes Prior Agreement This Agreement supersedes any and all previous employment agreements and amendments thereto entered into by and between the District and the General Counsel. 11. Amendment This Agreement cannot be changed or supplemented orally. No amendment, modification, alteration, or variation in the terms of this Agreement is valid unless made in writing and signed by both parties. 12. Notices Any notices to be given by either party to the other shall be made in writing by personal delivery, United States Postal Service, or Federal Express/overnight mail, with postage prepaid. Notices delivered personally shall be deemed received as of actual receipt; mailed notices shall be deemed received as of one business day following the date of mailing of the notice. Mailed notices shall be addressed to the respective parties as follows: To the District: Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Attention: President, Board of Directors 330 Distel Circle Los Altos, CA 94022 To the General Counsel: Hilary Stevenson, General Counsel [at his or her last known home address as reflected in the District’s personnel records] Any party may change his/her/its address for the purpose of this section by giving written notice of such change to the other party in the manner herein provided. District General Counsel Page 7 Employment Agreement General Counsel Employment Agreement 7-11-18 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement effective this 11th day of July 2018, at Los Altos, California. MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN GENERAL COUNSEL: SPACE DISTRICT: By: ____________________________ ________________________ Board President Jed Cyr Hilary Stevenson Date: ____________________________ Date: __________________ _______________________ ATTEST: __________________________________ Approved as to Form Jennifer Woodworth, District Clerk Gary M. Baum, Interim General Counsel Step Full/PT Range #Minimum Maximum Minimum Maximum Minimum Maximum Time Seasonal Open Space Technician 6 20.1000 25.0962 3,484 4,350 41,808 52,200 PT Seasonal Ranger Aide 6 20.1000 25.0962 3,484 4,350 41,808 52,200 PT Seasonal Ranger 16 25.6558 32.0308 4,447 5,552 53,364 66,624 PT Farm Maintenance Worker 19 27.6000 34.4712 4,784 5,975 57,408 71,700 FT Open Space Technician*19 27.6000 34.4712 4,784 5,975 57,408 71,700 FT Administrative Assistant 20 28.2865 35.3077 4,903 6,120 58,836 73,440 FT Accounting Technician 22 29.6885 37.0731 5,146 6,426 61,752 77,112 FT Human Resources Technician 22 29.6885 37.0731 5,146 6,426 61,752 77,112 FT Information Technology Technician I 22 29.6885 37.0731 5,146 6,426 61,752 77,112 FT Facilities Maintenance Specialist 23 30.4385 38.0077 5,276 6,588 63,312 79,056 FT GIS Technician 23 30.4385 38.0077 5,276 6,588 63,312 79,056 FT Lead Open Space Technician*23 30.4385 38.0077 5,276 6,588 63,312 79,056 FT Volunteer Program Lead 23 30.4385 38.0077 5,276 6,588 63,312 79,056 FT Risk Management Coordinator 24 31.1712 38.9365 5,403 6,749 64,836 80,988 FT Senior Administrative Assistant 24 31.1712 38.9365 5,403 6,749 64,836 80,988 FT Public Affairs Program Coordinator 25 31.9558 39.9058 5,539 6,917 66,468 83,004 FT Ranger 25 31.9558 39.9058 5,539 6,917 66,468 83,004 FT Senior Finance & Accounting Technician 26 32.7288 40.8750 5,673 7,085 68,076 85,020 FT Equipment Mechanic/Operator 27 33.5481 41.9019 5,815 7,263 69,780 87,156 FT Executive Assistant 27 33.5481 41.9019 5,815 7,263 69,780 87,156 FT Information Technology Technician II 27 33.5481 41.9019 5,815 7,263 69,780 87,156 FT Lead Ranger 27 33.5481 41.9019 5,815 7,263 69,780 87,156 FT Public Affairs Specialist I 27 33.5481 41.9019 5,815 7,263 69,780 87,156 FT Property Management Specialist I 28 34.3731 42.9173 5,958 7,439 71,496 89,268 FT Real Property Specialist I 28 34.3731 42.9173 5,958 7,439 71,496 89,268 FT Executive Assistant/Deputy District Clerk 29 35.2327 43.9904 6,107 7,625 73,284 91,500 FT Planner I 29 35.2327 43.9904 6,107 7,625 73,284 91,500 FT Data Analyst I 30 36.0923 45.0692 6,256 7,812 75,072 93,744 FT Docent Program Manager 30 36.0923 45.0692 6,256 7,812 75,072 93,744 FT Resource Management Specialist I 30 36.0923 45.0692 6,256 7,812 75,072 93,744 FT Volunteer Program Manager 30 36.0923 45.0692 6,256 7,812 75,072 93,744 FT Accountant 31 36.9923 46.1885 6,412 8,006 76,944 96,072 FT Capital Project Manager II 31 36.9923 46.1885 6,412 8,006 76,944 96,072 FT Planner II 31 36.9923 46.1885 6,412 8,006 76,944 96,072 FT Management Analyst I 31 36.9923 46.1885 6,412 8,006 76,944 96,072 FT Data Analyst II 34 39.7846 49.6904 6,896 8,613 82,752 103,356 FT Resource Management Specialist II 34 39.7846 49.6904 6,896 8,613 82,752 103,356 FT Grants Specialist 35 40.7769 50.9250 7,068 8,827 84,816 105,924 FT Maintenance, Construction & Resource Supv.35 40.7769 50.9250 7,068 8,827 84,816 105,924 FT Management Analyst II 35 40.7769 50.9250 7,068 8,827 84,816 105,924 FT Procurement & Contracting Agent/Specialist 35 40.7769 50.9250 7,068 8,827 84,816 105,924 FT Property Management Specialist II 35 40.7769 50.9250 7,068 8,827 84,816 105,924 FT Real Property Specialist II 35 40.7769 50.9250 7,068 8,827 84,816 105,924 FT Supervising Ranger 35 40.7769 50.9250 7,068 8,827 84,816 105,924 FT Training & Safety Specialist 35 40.7769 50.9250 7,068 8,827 84,816 105,924 FT Applications Engineer 36 41.7808 52.1712 7,242 9,043 86,904 108,516 FT Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District - CLASSIFICATION & COMPENSATION PLAN Fiscal Year 2017/2018 - Effective 7/11/2018 (Pay Period 18-15) Last revised: 7/11/2018, 6/13/2018, 1/24/2018, 12/13/2017, 7/1/17, 5/10/17, 4/12/2017, 2/22/2017, 10/26/16, 8/29/16 Classification Title Hourly Range $Monthly Range $Annual Range $ EXHIBIT B Public Affairs Specialist II 36 41.7808 52.1712 7,242 9,043 86,904 108,516 FT Data Administrator 38 43.8635 54.7904 7,603 9,497 91,236 113,964 FT Governmental Affairs Specialist 38 43.8635 54.7904 7,603 9,497 91,236 113,964 FT Senior Technologist 38 43.8635 54.7904 7,603 9,497 91,236 113,964 FT Facilities Maintenance Supervisor 39 44.9596 56.1404 7,793 9,731 93,516 116,772 FT Capital Projects Field Manager 39 44.9596 56.1404 7,793 9,731 93,516 116,772 FT Capital Project Manager III 39 44.9596 56.1404 7,793 9,731 93,516 116,772 FT Planner III 39 44.9596 56.1404 7,793 9,731 93,516 116,772 FT Public Affairs Specialist III 39 44.9596 56.1404 7,793 9,731 93,516 116,772 FT Resource Management Specialist III 39 44.9596 56.1404 7,793 9,731 93,516 116,772 FT Senior Property Management Specialist 40 46.0615 57.5192 7,984 9,970 95,808 119,640 FT Senior Real Property Specialist 40 46.0615 57.5192 7,984 9,970 95,808 119,640 FT Special Projects Manager 40 46.0615 57.5192 7,984 9,970 95,808 119,640 FT Senior Accountant 41 47.2038 58.9615 8,182 10,220 98,184 122,640 FT Senior Management Analyst 41 47.2038 58.9615 8,182 10,220 98,184 122,640 FT Area Manager 43 49.5692 61.9096 8,592 10,731 103,104 128,772 FT Area Superintendent 43 49.5692 61.9096 8,592 10,731 103,104 128,772 FT District Clerk/Assistant to General Manager 43 49.5692 61.9096 8,592 10,731 103,104 128,772 FT GIS Program Administrator 43 49.5692 61.9096 8,592 10,731 103,104 128,772 FT Information Technology Program Administrator 43 49.5692 61.9096 8,592 10,731 103,104 128,772 FT Human Resources Supervisor 43 49.5692 61.9096 8,592 10,731 103,104 128,772 FT Senior Capital Project Manager 43 49.5692 61.9096 8,592 10,731 103,104 128,772 FT Senior Planner 43 49.5692 61.9096 8,592 10,731 103,104 128,772 FT Senior Resource Management Specialist 43 49.5692 61.9096 8,592 10,731 103,104 128,772 FT Budget & Analysis Manager 48 55.9846 69.9173 9,704 12,119 116,448 145,428 FT Finance Manager 48 55.9846 69.9173 9,704 12,119 116,448 145,428 FT Human Resources Manager 48 55.9846 69.9173 9,704 12,119 116,448 145,428 FT Information Systems & Technology Manager 48 55.9846 69.9173 9,704 12,119 116,448 145,428 FT Engineering & Construction Manager 51 60.2481 75.2481 10,443 13,043 125,316 156,516 FT Land & Facilities Services Manager 51 60.2481 75.2481 10,443 13,043 125,316 156,516 FT Natural Resources Manager 51 60.2481 75.2481 10,443 13,043 125,316 156,516 FT Operations Manager 51 60.2481 75.2481 10,443 13,043 125,316 156,516 FT Planning Manager 51 60.2481 75.2481 10,443 13,043 125,316 156,516 FT Public Affairs Manager 51 60.2481 75.2481 10,443 13,043 125,316 156,516 FT Real Property Manager 51 60.2481 75.2481 10,443 13,043 125,316 156,516 FT Visitor Services Manager 51 60.2481 75.2481 10,443 13,043 125,316 156,516 FT Assistant General Counsel I 53 63.2596 79.0096 10,965 13,695 131,580 164,340 FT Assistant General Counsel II 55 66.4269 82.9615 11,514 14,380 138,168 172,560 FT Assistant General Manager 59 73.2404 91.4654 12,695 15,854 152,340 190,248 FT Chief Financial Officer/Director Administrative Services 59 73.2404 91.4654 12,695 15,854 152,340 190,248 FT *OST will receive an additional 1% stipend for Class A or B license; Lead OST 1% for Class A. Board Appointee Group Compensation Hourly Monthly Annual Effective General Manager $108.1731 $18,750 $225,000 6/13/2018 Controller - Part-time position $84.9750 $3,682 $44,187 12/13/2017 General Counsel $98.5577 $17,083 $205,000 7/11/2018 Elected Officials Compensation Board Director Monthly MaximumPer Meeting $100.00 $500.00 The District’s Personnel Policies and Procedures provide that the compensation for an employee’s temporary out-of-class / Acting Assignment shall be at least 5% but not more than 10% more than her/his current salary. Pursuant to Government Code 20480, out of class appointments shall not exceed a total of 960 hours in each fiscal year. 1/1/2006 Last Revised 12/13/2017 11/1/2016 12/13/2017 Effective Date Rev. 1/3/18 R-18-81 Meeting 18-28 July 11, 2018 AGENDA ITEM 8 Annual Integrated Pest Management Report for Calendar Year 2017 GENERAL MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATION No Board action required. SUMMARY On December 10, 2014 (R-14-34), the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District’s (District) Board of Directors (Board) adopted the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) for the Integrated Pest Management Program and approved the Integrated Pest Management (IPM) Program and Policy. The program requires an annual report of past pest control activities, both chemical and non-chemical, on District lands. This report presents the results of the third year of pest management activities prescribed under the District IPM Program. The District treated 44 species, including 16 listed noxious weeds (plants that have been defined as a pest by state law or regulation) using a variety of treatment methods. The District worked on controlling an additional 11 nonnative species as compared to 2016. In total, the number of hours for IPM - resource management work declined in 2017 as compared to 2015 due largely to a shift in District field crew time to focus on the completion of Measure AA capital projects, including the grand openings of the Mount Umunhum Summit and Lower La Honda Creek Open Space Preserve. DISCUSSION Integrated Pest Management (IPM) is a long-term, science-based, decision-making system that uses a specific methodology to manage damage from pests. The District defines pests in its Resource Management Policies as “animals or plants that proliferate beyond natural control and interfere with natural processes, which would otherwise occur on open space lands”. Moreover, the District defines target pests as “plant or animal species that have a negative impact on other organisms or the surrounding environment and are targeted for treatment.” Meeting IPM objectives requires monitoring site conditions before, during, and after treatment as well as revising methods as necessary in accordance with adaptive management principles. On December 10, 2014 (R-14-34), the District’s Board adopted the FEIR for the IPM Program and approved the IPM Program and Policy. As a component of the IPM Program, an Annual Report is required to be presented to the Board that includes the following information for IPM work completed the prior calendar year: •Summary of pest problems that the District encountered, and a comparison to past years; •Summary of District pest control treatments used; R-18-81 Page 2 • Qualitative assessment on the effectiveness of the District’s pest control program, and suggestions for increasing future effectiveness; • Summary of pesticide use; • Summary of public notifications and public inquiries about IPM on District lands; and • Assessment of compliance with the Guidance Manual. The attached Annual Report (Attachment 1) is the third annual report prepared for the IPM Program and describes the quantitative IPM activities undertaken in 2017, as well as a qualitative assessment of the Program. Trending data is required for per-acre herbicide use at individual sites in natural areas only. Scientifically valid trending data will be available in year four (4) of the Program and presented in the future 2018 IPM Annual Report, which the Board will receive in 2019. Although trend analysis is not yet available, selected sites have comparative per-acre herbicide use within the 2017 IPM Annual Report (see Attachment 1). IPM Annual Reports from 2015 (R-16-120) and 2016 (R-17-50) are also available for review. Listed below are the highlights from the third year of the program: Summary of Pest Problems and Comparison to Past Years Of the 874 non-native species found within District boundaries, 44 California Invasive Plant Council rated plant species were treated on an ongoing basis to control for natural resource protection and long-term management (Table 1). These species have the potential to invade natural areas, displace native species, and reduce biodiversity. In addition, the State of California considers 16 of these species as noxious weeds. Eight (8) new pest control projects were identified as high priority for treatment on District lands and implemented in 2017. Table 1: Treated Species by Rating for Ongoing and New Projects Year Species Treated Cal-IPC Rating CDFA Rated Alert Limited Moderate High 2017 44 5 17 9 16 4 2016 33 3 14 10 17 3 2015 31 4 12 8 12 4 The grand total number of hours for IPM - resource management work declined in 2017 as compared to 2015 due primarily to a significant shift in District field crew time to focus on the completion of Measure AA capital projects (Table 2). Since 2015, total hours have decreased 35%. Although staff time declined by 4,808 hours, contractor time increased by 775 hours, and volunteer time fluctuated over the three-year timeframe. Contractor time increased primarily due to the substantial planting and seed collection efforts for large scale, project-related restoration work (e.g. Mount Umunhum Summit and Bear Creek Redwoods restoration efforts), a portion of which is funded through a Santa Clara Valley Water District grant. Table 2: Comparison of Hours by Crew Type and Year Year Staff Contractor Volunteer Total 2015 5431 2132 1736 9299 2016 Unknown 1 1659 2883 4542 2017 623 2907 2559 6089 1 Staff hours were not recorded into the Weed Database or CalFlora as this was a transitional year from one database to another. R-18-81 Page 3 Table 3 shows the comparison of planned hours as described in the 2017 IPM Plan versus actual hours completed. The District completed 79% or 6,089 hours of the planned 7720 hours in 2017. The largest share of the reduced hours was in the Staff hours due to a shift in staff time to focus on Measure AA capital projects. Volunteers were on target to meet goals, but the resignation of one of the Volunteer Program Leads reduced the number of Preserve Partners programs and the recruitment of Advanced Resource Management Stewards. Table 3: Comparison of Planned versus Actual Hours for 2017 Hours Staff Contractor Volunteer Total Planned 1459 2989 3272 7720 Actual 623 2907 2559 6089 Difference 836 82 713 1631 % of Planned Accomplished 43 % 97 % 78 % 79 % Summary of District Pest Control Treatments A summary of hours for each treatment method expended by staff, contractors, and volunteers for the 2017 calendar year is presented in Table 4 below: Table 4: Treatment Methods and Crew Type 2 Treatment Method Hours Total % Staff Contractor Volunteer Brush Cut 13 242 - 255 4.2 % Cut 42 34 172 247 4.1 % Dig 27 268 211 506 8.3 % Flame - 56 - 56 0.9 % Herbicide 217 515 - 732 12.0 % Mow - 14 - 14 0.2 % Pull 324 1778 2176 4278 70.3 % TOTAL 623 2907 2559 6,089 100 % % 10.3 % 47.7 % 42.0 % 100 % Manual removal of weeds via pulling remains the most prevalent treatment method at 70% of all hours; herbicide use accounts for 12% of all hours. Changes to pest control treatment methods are determined each year using the best available science in weed management during the creation of the IPM Annual Plan, which is finalized each January and is used to lay out the work plan for the new calendar year. Table 5 presents a comparison of the treatment methods across the three years of the IPM Program. Table 5 shows that the largest shift has been in the reduction hours spent applying herbicide (reduced from 60.8% to 12.0%, with a relative reduction of 48.8 %) and the largest increase in the percentage of hours spent hand pulling (increased from 35.5% to 70.3%, with a relative increase of 34.8%). 2 Treatment hours for Natural and Rangeland areas only as brushing/mowing of roads, trails, defensible space, or emergency landing zones changes minimally from year to year. R-18-81 Page 4 Table 5: Percent of Time by Treatment Treatment Method % of Time 2015 2016 2017 Brush Cut 0.8 % 8.0 % 4.2 % Cut 0.0 % 8.1 % 4.1 % Dig 1.6 % 15.7 % 8.3 % Flame 1.3 % 0.0 % 0.9 % Herbicide 60.8 % 13.2 % 12.0 % Mow 0.0 % 0.0 % 0.2 % Pull 35.5 % 55.0 % 70.3 % Figure 1 (below) shows a comparative cost for each treatment method for 2017. Mowing and brush cutting are shown as cost per gross acre, as treatment is applied to the total project area. All other treatment methods are shown as cost per infested acre, as treatment is applied as spot treatment of target species. The District uses the following hourly costs estimates for comparative cost analysis purposes: • Contractor - $50.00 per hour • Staff – $43.45 per hour • Volunteers - $24.14 per hour 3 Figure 1: Treatment Cost per Infested Acre Effectiveness of Pest Control Program and Suggestions for Increasing Effectiveness Structural pest control in 2017 (e.g. Administrative Office, preserve restrooms) was limited to one of six approved pesticides for buildings, all of which are “Caution” labeled (as opposed to “Warning” or “Danger” labels), and therefore pose a reduced risk to workers or occupants of treated buildings. 3 Signifies the estimated value of volunteer work and not true cost, as this is pro bono, volunteer work. This value is provided for analysis purposes only. Refer to: https://independentsector.org/news-post/value-volunteer-time/ $- $1,000.00 $2,000.00 $3,000.00 $4,000.00 $5,000.00 $6,000.00 $7,000.00 $8,000.00 $9,000.00 Mow Flame Brush-cut Dig Herbicide Pull Cut Co s t p e r A c r e Treatment Method Comparative Costs R-18-81 Page 5 Non-Structural Pest Control, which is the control of high priority invasive plants in natural areas by both herbicidal and non-herbicidal methods, protects and restores native vegetation at preserves by eliminating or controlling the spread of competing invasive vegetation. The District has set a goal to reduce the per-acre usage of herbicides over time at individual sites, and acknowledges that in some instances use will initially increase, followed by a reduction in herbicide use once the pest is eliminated or reduced to a level that can be effectively managed with non-herbicidal methods. Methods used on District lands to reduce pesticide usage include the techniques of mow/spray/mow and timed mowing. These mechanical techniques greatly reduce herbicide use because workers first mow larger vegetation and, once the vegetation has re-sprouted to a vulnerable stage, spot treat the area with herbicide, and then re-mow once dead. Staff performed this technique on stinkwort (an invasive species first reported in California in 1984 in Santa Clara County that has since spread to 36 of the 58 California counties) with great success at the Hicks Creek Ranch parking area in Sierra Azul Open Space Preserve. Another method used is timed mowing, which is employed to control of yellow star thistle at Russian Ridge and Windy Hill Open Space Preserves. Timed mowing is mowing at a specific point in time in a plant’s growth cycle (when 2 to 5% of the total population of seedheads are in bloom) to reduce its density and seed dispersion. Due to a reduction of available staff time for pest control in natural areas and rangeland given other high priority needs, District staff will evaluate and reprioritize treatment sites to ensure that sufficient resources can be dedicated on select priority sites for effective IPM management. This will provide greater treatment success to target pests year over year. Pesticide Use Staff, contractors, and tenants each report on the pesticide use at District lands. Table 6 below summarizes the known use of pesticides on District lands, excluding that of PG&E, who is not covered under the District’s IPM Program. County Agricultural Departments require PG&E to report pesticide use directly to the County. District staff reviews all proposed PG&E work and the use of herbicide is limited to the approved pesticide list under the IPM program. PG&E adheres to the District’s herbicide Best Management Practices and mitigation measures. Table 6: Pesticide Use on District Lands Pesticide Active Ingredient Amount Used (ounces) Acres Treated Ounces/Acre Fungicide Potassium salts of phosphorus acid 4,841.86 22.6 214.24 Herbicide Aminopyralid 17.79 147.29 0.12 Clethodim 0.0 0.0 - Clopyralid 12.49 5.25 2.38 Glyphosate 2,181.59 172.89 12.62 Imazapyr 0.0 0.0 - Insecticide Pyrethrin 72 - - Rodenticide Cholecalciferol 0.0 0.0 - R-18-81 Page 6 Recommended application rates, as specified on the product label, vary by Active Ingredient and formulation of any particular pesticide product. For example, the specified application rate for Roundup ProMax with glyphosate as the Active Ingredient ranges from 32 to 160 ounces (oz) per acre, depending on the target plant species. The specified application rate for Milestone with Aminopyralid as the Active Ingredient ranges from three to seven oz per acre, depending on the target plant species. Figure 2 (below) presents an analysis of the herbicides used by District staff and contractors to control pest plant species. The main active ingredient used is glyphosate, the active ingredient in Round-Up. Herbicide use increased over the previous year. This increase is the direct result of intensive invasive species work to prepare and open Bear Creek Redwoods for public recreation in 2019. This initial knock down period within the Phase I area is expected to transition to manual and mechanical treatment methods in future years, partially replacing the need for chemical applications. Intensive invasive species work, focusing on initial knockdown of large populations is shifting to the Phase II and III portions of the Preserve (estimated to begin in 2019 and 2027 respectively). Figure 2: Herbicide Use 2016-2017 Public Notification and Inquiries Prior to, during, and after the application of a pesticide (including herbicides, insecticides, or other types of pesticides) on District preserves, employees and contractors post signs at the treatment area notifying the public, employees and contractors of the District’s use of pesticides. All contractors notify the District before application on any property, and comply with requirements for notification and posting of signs. In 2017, the District recorded sixteen public inquiries relating to the IPM Program. Inquiries ranged from sharing of District information with other agencies (i.e. Presidio Trust), the use and R-18-81 Page 7 safety of herbicides, to non-chemical weed control options. Please see Section 7.2 in Attachment 1 for more details. Because of the ongoing scientific evaluations regarding the toxicity of glyphosate and public concern over its use both in the US and Europe, staff proceeded to conduct an updated expert, third-party literature review of the toxicology of glyphosate, the results of which are discussed in a separate Agenda Item for the same July 11, 2018 regular Board meeting. Compliance with the Guidance Manual As the science of pest control advances and more effective, safer, and less harmful pesticides are developed, changes to the List of Approved Pesticides document is expected. As manufacturers update, discontinue, or substitute products, and as target pests change over time, recommended additions or deletions of approved products will be made by staff. Staff are evaluating three pesticides for potential inclusion in the District’s IPM Program and these pesticides are currently undergoing CEQA review by Blankinship and Associates of Davis, CA. The full Board will consider this review in September of 2018. FISCAL IMPACT Receipt of the 2017 Annual IPM Report will not result in a direct fiscal impact. Implementation of the IPM Program occurs across several different departments, including Land and Facilities, Visitor Services, and Natural Resources. Each department separately budgets for pest management activities under the General Fund – Operating Budget. Future annual reports will include analyses of the budgetary impacts of pest management activities as more data become available. BOARD COMMITTEE REVIEW The IPM Policy established direction that the General Manager present annual IPM Program reports for the Board. This report presents the annual review for calendar year 2017. PUBLIC NOTICE Public notice was provided as required by the Brown Act. Public notice was sent to 104 interested parties and tenants by postal or electronic mail. CEQA COMPLIANCE All of the activities undertaken in 2017 to manage pests on District lands, and summarized in this report, were conducted in compliance with the FEIR for the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Integrated Pest Management Program, which was approved by the Board on December 10, 2014. NEXT STEPS Staff will complete the CEQA review of additional recommended pesticide products and bring these to the full Board for possible inclusion on the List of Approved Pesticides document. Staff will continue implementation of the 2018 Annual IPM Plan (Year 4 of the IPM Program), consistent with the FEIR of the IPM Program. In October of 2018, staff will begin preparing the 2019 Annual IPM Plan to guide IPM work for calendar year 2019. District staff will evaluate and R-18-81 Page 8 reprioritize natural and rangeland treatment areas to better account for available staff time pending the availability of additional internal and/or external resources. The 2018 Annual IPM Report will present trends and a comprehensive analysis of the program. This evaluation will include trend analysis of pest management activities, including pesticide usage, for Board presentation. In addition, an analysis and evaluation of IPM on agricultural lands will be performed. Attachment 1. Integrated Pest Management Annual Report, 2017 Responsible Department Head: Kirk Lenington, Natural Resources Prepared by: Coty Sifuentes-Winter, Senior Resource Management Specialist, Natural Resources Contact person: Coty Sifuentes-Winter, Senior Resource Management Specialist, Natural Resources | Page 2017 Coty Sifuentes-Winter Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Annual IPM Report Integrated Pest Management Program Goal: “Control Pests by consistent implementation of IPM principles to protect and restore the natural environment and provide for human safety and enjoyment while visiting and working on District lands.” ATTACHMENT 1 i | Page i | Page Table of Contents List of Figures ........................................................................................................................................................ ii List of Tables ........................................................................................................................................................ iii 1 Introduction .............................................................................................................................................. - 1 - 2 Implementation of IPM Program.............................................................................................................. - 2 - 3 Summary of Pest Problems ...................................................................................................................... - 4 - 4 Summary of Pest Control Treatments ...................................................................................................... - 9 - 5 Effectiveness of Pest Control Program ................................................................................................... - 12 - 6 Summary of Pesticide Use ...................................................................................................................... - 27 - 7 Public Interactions .................................................................................................................................. - 29 - 8 Consultants and Contractors .................................................................................................................. - 32 - 9 Compliance with Guidance Manual........................................................................................................ - 33 - 10 List of Preparers and Contributors ......................................................................................................... - 34 - Appendix A - District Best Management Practices ......................................................................................... - 35 - ii | Page List of Figures Figure 1: Preserve Partners manually removing Stinkwort .................................................................................. ii Figure 2: French broom removal at Achistaca .................................................................................................. - 1 - Figure 4: French broom at Bear Creek Redwoods - Dec 2, 2017 ...................................................................... - 2 - Figure 3: French broom at Bear Creek Redwoods - Dec 1, 2017 ...................................................................... - 2 - Figure 5: Treatment Method Breakout ............................................................................................................. - 9 - Figure 6: Resource Management by Crew Type ............................................................................................. - 10 - Figure 7: Treatment Cost per Acre. ................................................................................................................. - 11 - Figure 8: Herbicide Use at Bear Creek Redwoods .......................................................................................... - 14 - Figure 9: Herbicide Use at Los Trancos ........................................................................................................... - 14 - Figure 10: Herbicide Use at Skyline Ridge....................................................................................................... - 15 - Figure 11: English ivy at Bear Creek Redwoods OSP - December 2017 .......................................................... - 16 - Figure 12: Purple star thistle rosettes manually removed by the old Wool House location .......................... - 18 - Figure 13: Distaff thistle sprayed with Milestone and blue dye at Kneudler Lake ......................................... - 20 - Figure 14: Weed wrench crew ........................................................................................................................ - 22 - Figure 15: Herbicide use from 2016 through 2017 ......................................................................................... - 28 - Figure 16: Pesticide Notification Sign ............................................................................................................. - 29 - Figure 1: Preserve Partners manually removing Stinkwort iii | Page List of Tables Table 1: Pre-Treatment Surveys ....................................................................................................................... - 4 - Table 2: Ongoing and general maintenance plant pest species ....................................................................... - 5 - Table 3: Treated Species by Rating for Ongoing and New Projects .................................................................. - 7 - Table 4: New Pests Control Projects ................................................................................................................. - 8 - Table 5: Treatment Methods and Hours in Natural Areas in 2017 ................................................................... - 9 - Table 6: Comparison of Hours by Crew Type and Year ................................................................................... - 10 - Table 7: Pesticides Approved for Use in Buildings and Recreational Structures ............................................ - 12 - Table 8: Herbicide Use at Bear Creek Redwoods ............................................................................................ - 13 - Table 9: Herbicide Use at Los Trancos ............................................................................................................ - 14 - Table 10: Herbicide use at Skyline Ridge ........................................................................................................ - 15 - - 1 - | Page 1 Introduction This report presents the results of the third year of pest management activities prescribed under the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (District) Integrated Pest Management (IPM) Program. The Program was established in 2014 upon adoption by the Board of Directors of the IPM Guidance Manual. Five policies set the foundation of the Program: • Develop specific pest management strategies and priorities that address each of the five work categories; • Take appropriate actions to prevent the introduction of new pest species to District preserves, especially new invasive plants in natural areas, rangeland, and agriculture properties; • Manage pests using the procedures outlined in the implementation measures; • Monitor pest occurrences and results of control actions, and use adaptive management to improve results; • Develop and implement an IPM Guidance Manual to standardize pest management, and IPM procedures across all District Lands. Figure 2: French broom removal at Achistaca - 2 - | Page 2 Implementation of IPM Program Full implementation of the IPM Program was originally scheduled to be completed by 2019. Due to Staff time commitments to Measure AA capital projects and staff shortages (e.g. retirement of the Senior Resource Management Specialist, resignation of the Rangeland Ecologist and Volunteer Program Lead) delayed some aspects of the IPM Program in 2017. The new fully implemented IPM Program is still scheduled for December of 2019. Major aspects of the IPM Program to be developed in 2019 include a landscape-level monitoring protocol and an Early Detection/Rapid Response Protocol. Figure 4: French broom at Bear Creek Redwoods - Dec 1, 2017 Figure 3: French broom at Bear Creek Redwoods - Dec 2, 2017 - 3 - | Page 2.1 Landscape-Level Monitoring Protocol To better assess both natural (e.g. succession, disturbances such as wildlife fire) and man-made effects (e.g. management activities, climate change) in natural areas, a landscape-level monitoring protocol is needed. This protocol will allow staff to see changes in vegetation and habitat over time. 2.2 Early Detection / Rapid Response Protocol Early Detection / Rapid Response (EDRR) places emphasis on preventing new pest populations from becoming established on District lands through increased surveys for pests. If new pest populations have become established, EDRR would implement rapid response measures to control pests before they spread. EDRR programs are known to increase the likelihood that pest invasions would be addressed successfully while the population size and extent are not beyond that which can be contained and eradicated on both practical and economic scales. The IPM Guidance Manual currently includes EDRR strategies to respond to pests, however, a comprehensive EDRR program cannot be undertaken with current staffing levels. Under this protocol, the District would dedicate additional resources (i.e., increased staff and budget) towards implementation of EDRR strategies that include: • identifying potential threats in time to allow control or mitigation measures to be taken; • detecting new invasive species in time to allow efficient and safe eradication or control decisions to be made; • taking additional preventive actions such as providing facilities to clean vehicles and tools to stop the spread of seeds of invasive plants; • responding to invasions effectively to prevent the spread and permanent establishment of invasive species; • providing adequate and timely information to decision-makers, the public, and to partner agencies concerned about the status of invasive species within an area; and • adaptively implementing detection and early response strategies over time. The purpose of more frequent pest surveys is to determine if and when a new pest population is being established. Increased pest surveying may allow District personnel and/or contractors to more rapidly identify and prevent pest infestations prior to establishment, thereby decreasing the amount of pest management treatments necessary on District lands over time. - 4 - | Page 3 Summary of Pest Problems This section is a summary of pest problems that the District has encountered during the year. 3.1 Treatment Surveys The District’s Best Management Practices from the FEIR Integrated Pest Management Program (Table 3-4) outlines the use of pretreatment surveys. Specifically it states, “A District biologist shall survey all selected treatment sites prior to work to determine site conditions and develop any necessary site-specific measures. On a repeating basis, grassland treatment sites shall be surveyed once every five years and brushy and wooded sites shall be surveyed once every three years. Brush removal on rangelands will require biological surveys before work is conducted in any year. Site inspections shall evaluate existing conditions at a given treatment site including the presence, population size, growth stage, and percent cover of target weeds and pests relative to native plant cover and the presence of special-status species and their habitat, or sensitive natural communities.” Surveys are inputted into CalFlora, an online database. In 2017, District biologists completed the following surveys: Table 1: Pre-Treatment Surveys Category Preserves Sites Surveyed Planned Site Surveys % Completed Fuel Management Coal Creek, Purisima Creek, Rancho San Antonio, and Russian Ridge 17 20 85 % Natural Lands 47 50 94 % Rangeland 9 10 90 % Recreational Facilities 62 60 103 % Total 135 140 96 % Surveys identified both biotic and abiotic environmental factors including: • Special status plants and animals in the area (i.e. California red-legged frog) • Cultural resources (i.e. known archeological sites) • Aquatic systems (i.e. ephemeral streams) • Erosive conditions (i.e. steep hill side with treatment to remove large areas of vegetation) • Presence of disease (i.e. Sudden Oak Death) 3.2 Ongoing and General Maintenance 3.2.1 Vegetative Pest Species Forty-four (44) plant pest species found on District lands are treated on an on-going basis (Table 1) to control for asset-based protection and long-term management, an increase of Eleven (11) species from 2016. These species have the potential to invade natural areas, displace native plant and wildlife species, and reduce biodiversity. Of the listed species, sixteen (16) are considered noxious weeds by the State of California (Table 2). - 5 - | Page Table 2: Ongoing and general maintenance plant pest species Scientific Name Common Name Cal-IPC rating CDFA rating Alert / Watch Additional Information Aegilops cylindrica Jointed goatgrass - Noxious Weed Watch Aegilops triuncialis Barbed goatgrass High Noxious Weed - Allium vineale Vineyard onion - Noxious Weed - Early Detection / Rapid Response species Baccharis pilularis Coyote brush - - - Native, grassland conversion Avena barbata Slim oat Moderate - - Brachypodium sylvaticum Slender false brome Moderate Noxious Weed ALERT Bromus diandrus Ripgut brome Moderate - - Carduus pycnocephalus Italian thistle Moderate Noxious Weed - Carex pendula Hanging sedge - - Watch Early Detection / Rapid Response species Carthamus creticus Smooth distaff thistle - Noxious Weed - Carthamus lanatus Woolly distaff thistle Moderate Noxious Weed - Centaurea calcitrapa Purple star thistle Moderate Noxious Weed - Centaurea melitensis Tocalote Moderate Noxious Weed - Centaurea solatitialis Yellow star thistle High Noxious Weed - Cirsium vulgare Bull thistle Moderate Noxious Weed - Conium maculatum Poison hemlock Moderate - - Cortaderia jubata Andean pampas grass High - - Cotoneaster franchetii Francheti cotoneaster Moderate - - Delairea odorata Cape ivy High Noxious Weed - Dipsacus fullonum Fuller’s teasel Moderate - - Dipsacus sativus Indian teasel Moderate - - Dittrichia graveolens Stinkwort Moderate Noxious Weed ALERT Ehrharta erecta Upright veldt grass Moderate - - Early Detection / Rapid Response species - 6 - | Page Scientific Name Common Name Cal-IPC rating CDFA rating Alert / Watch Additional Information Elymus caput- medusae Medusa head High Noxious Weed - Erigeron bonariensis Flax-leaved horseweed - - - Eucalyptus globulus Blue gum Limited 1 - - Ficus carica Common fig Moderate - - Foeniculum vulgare Fennel High - - Genista monspessulana French Broom High Noxious Weed - Geranium purpureum Herb robert Limited - - Geranium robertianum Robert’s geranium - - - Hedera helix English ivy High - - Ligustrum sinense Chinees privet - - - Lunaria annua Annual moonwort - - - Marrubium vulgare White horehound Limited - - Medicago polymorpha California burclover Limited - - Phalaris aquatica Harding grass Moderate - - Phytophthora ramorum Sudden Oak Death - - - Quarantine Rubus armeniacus Himalayan blackberry High - - Silybum marianum Milk thistle Limited - - Spartium junceum Spanish Broom High Noxious Weed - Vinca major Periwinkle Moderate - - Xanthium spinosum Spiny cocklebur - - - Native, California red-legged frog habitat areas 1 Although Cal-IPC rates this as a limited, the District rates it as a Moderate - 7 - | Page Table 3: Treated Species by Rating for Ongoing and New Projects Year Species Treated Cal-IPC Rating CDFA Rated Alert Limited Moderate High 2017 44 5 17 9 16 4 2016 33 3 14 10 17 3 2015 31 4 12 8 12 4 3.2.2 Fauna Pest Species Eight (8) species of fauna were monitored and/or treated in 2017. Scientific Name Common Name Preserve Location Activity Felis catus Cat, feral Rancho San Antonio Monitoring Mus musculus House mouse Multiple – see below Deer Hollow Farm; Residential Monitoring, Trapping Otospermophilus beecheyi California Ground squirrel Rancho San Antonio Deer Hollow Farm Exclusion Pseudemys nelsoni Florida red- bellied cooter Skyline Ridge Alpine Pond Attempted trapping Rattus norvegicus Norway rat Multiple – see below Deer Hollow Farm; Residential Monitoring, Trapping Rattus rattus Black rat Multiple – see below Deer Hollow Farm; Residential Monitoring, Trapping Sus scrofa Pig, feral Russian Ridge Mindego Ranch Monitoring Trachemys scripta elegans Red-eared slider Bear Creek Redwoods Mud Lake Monitoring, Trapping Between January and December of 2017, the District hired Complete Pest Control to do rodent control at ten residential locations throughout the District 2 as listed below: • El Corte de Madera OSP (1) • La Honda OSP (2) • Monte Bello OSP (1) • Russian Ridge OSP (2) • Skyline OSP (2) • Tunitas Creek OSP (2) • Windy Hill OSP (1) 2 The number in parenthesis is the number of building that pest control activities occurred. - 8 - | Page 3.3 New Pest Control Projects Potential pest control projects were summited to the IPM Coordinator using the District’s New Pest Control Project. Potential projects were evaluated using the Project Ranking System developed by the IPM Coordination Team. The Project Ranking System evaluates projects using five categories: • Safety o Human health o Environmental health • Prevents and controls the most destructive pests • Protects biodiversity • Provides for public engagement • Feasibility and effectiveness Eight (8) new pest control projects were determined to have high priority for treatment on District lands (Table 4). In addition, multiple projects at Bear Creek Redwoods were initiated in anticipation of its opening to the public in spring of 2019. Table 4: New Pests Control Projects Scientific Name Species Cal-IPC rating CDFA rating Alert Gross Acres Infested Acres Baccharis pilularis Coyote brush - - - Centaurea solstitialis Yellow star thistle High Noxious - 3.0 0.3 Cortaderia jubata Andean pampas grass High - - Trace Trace Dittrichia graveolens Stinkwort Moderate Noxious ALERT 0.4 0.3 Genista monspessulana French Broom High Noxious - Trace .01 Phalaris aquatica Harding grass Moderate - - Trace Trace Pinus radiata Monterey pine Moderate - - Trace Trace - 9 - | Page 4 Summary of Pest Control Treatments 4.1 Type of Control with Cost per Acre Treatment area and hours were not available for staff in 2016 due to the data collection protocol undergoing revisions. The following data reflects natural areas and does not take into account brushing/mowing of roads, trails, defensible space, or emergency landing zones. Data for brushing/mowing of roads, trails, defensible space, or emergency landing zones are not presented because these activities do not change from year to year. Table 5: Treatment Methods and Hours in Natural Areas in 2017 Treatment Method Hours Total % of Total Staff Contractor Volunteer Brush Cut 13 242 - 255 4 % Cut 42 34 172 247 4 % Dig 27 268 211 506 8 % Flame - 56 - 56 1 % Herbicide 217 515 - 732 12 % Mow - 14 - 14 0 % Pull 324 1778 2176 4278 70 % TOTAL 623 2907 2559 6089 % of Total 10 % 48 % 42 % Figure 5: Treatment Method Breakout Manual removal of weeds via pulling remains the most prevalent treatment method at 70% of all hours; herbicide accounts for 12% of all hours (Figure 5). Brush Cut 4% Cut 4% Dig 9% Flame 1% Herbicide 12% Mow 0% Pull 70% Treatment Method Breakout - 10 - | Page Figure 6: Resource Management by Crew Type Contractors make up the largest contributor to IPM - Resource Management activities for Natural Areas. Over 48% of staff hours (304 hours) were dedicated to run Preserve Partners projects or working with ARMS volunteers. Table 6: Comparison of Hours by Crew Type and Year Year Staff Contractor Volunteer Total 2015 5431 2132 1736 9299 2016 Unknown 3 1659 2883 4542 2017 623 2907 2559 6089 Total hours for IPM - resource management work (Table 6) declined as compared to 2015 due largely to a shift in focus for District field personnel to Measure AA capital projects. Since 2015, total hours have decreased 35%. Contractor hours, however, have increased and Volunteer hours have fluctuated between 2015 and 2017. Figure 7 (below) shows the comparative cost for different treatment methods for 2017. Mowing and brush cutting are shown as cost per gross acre. All other treatment methods are shown as cost per infested acre. The District uses the following hourly costs estimates for comparative cost analysis purposes only: 3 Staff hours were not recorded into the Weed Database or CalFlora as this was a transitional year from one database to another. Staff 10% Contractor 48% Volunteer 42% Resource Management by Crew Type - 11 - | Page • Contractor - $50.00 per hour • Staff – $43.45 per hour • Volunteers - $24.14 per hour 4 Figure 7: Treatment Cost per Acre. 4 Signifies the estimated value of volunteer work and not true cost, as this is pro bono, volunteer work. This value is used for analysis purposes only. Refer to: https://independentsector.org/news-post/value-volunteer-time/ $- $1,000.00 $2,000.00 $3,000.00 $4,000.00 $5,000.00 $6,000.00 $7,000.00 $8,000.00 $9,000.00 Mow Flame Brush-cut Dig Herbicide Pull Cut Co s t p e r A c r e Treatment Method Comparative Costs - 12 - | Page 5 Effectiveness of Pest Control Program The IPM Program identifies the following criteria for assessing the effectiveness of the Program every year: • Work health/exposure in buildings; • Reduction of pesticide use in buildings; • Per-acre herbicide use; • Preservation of biodiversity and natural resource values; • Public participation in pest control; and • Staff training, public outreach, and educational activities. Over time, the IPM Annual Report will evaluate the effects of reducing the amount of herbicide used at individual natural area sites. Baseline data is becoming available for use in future years. Actions undertaken in 2017to meet these criteria are described below. 5.1 Worker Health/Exposure in Buildings The District is committed to the use of lower pesticide worker health/exposure classifications in buildings. These pesticides were consistent with the six pesticides approved for use on buildings (Table 7) as described in the 2014 IPM Program Environmental Impact Report, all of which are Caution labeled and therefore pose a reduced risk to workers or occupants of treated buildings. A specific type of rodenticide bait is approved under very strict conditions; however, it was not utilized. Only prevention and traps were approved for rodent control in 2017. In addition, two applications of Termidor HE (Caution label, with fipronil as the active ingredient) was used at two District-owned buildings. Although termite control was not evaluated in the original IPM program, fipronil was an approved active ingredient evaluated for insect control under the original IPM Program and it was determined to be suitable for use and consistent with the intent and environmental review of the IPM Program. Table 7: Pesticides Approved for Use in Buildings and Recreational Structures Pesticide Category Active Ingredient Product Formulation Purpose Signal Word Rodenticide Cholecalciferol Cholecalciferol baits Rodent control Caution Insecticide5 Indoxacarb Advion Gel baits Structural pest control Caution Hydroprene Gentrol Point Source Pest Control Caution Fipronil Maxforce Bait Station Ant Control Caution Sodium tetraborate Terro Ant Killer II Ant Control Caution Diatomaceous earth Diatomaceous earth Structural pest control Caution 5 Employees, contractors and tenants may install approved ant and roach bait stations inside buildings in tamperproof containers without review by a Qualified Applicator License/Certificate holder. - 13 - | Page 5.2 Reduction of Pesticide Use in Buildings The District seeks to comprehensively oversee all pesticide use in and around District buildings, including use by tenants, which is expected to result in an overall reduction of pesticide use in buildings, and in particular, eliminate use of pesticides not appropriate for use around human occupants or visitors, or which can inadvertently escape into the surrounding wildland environment. 5.3 Per-acre Herbicide Use The District seeks a reduction in per-acre usage of herbicides over time at individual sites, and acknowledges that in some instances, use will initially increase, followed by a reduction in herbicide use once the pest is eliminated or reduced. Use of herbicides in natural areas was precautionary and comparative numbers cannot be provided until next year when work and data collection are conducted in a manner consistent with the IPM Program from year to year. A trend analysis will be performed after four years of data has been compiled. Baseline data is available for the following preserves: • Bear Creek Redwoods • La Honda Creek • Los Trancos • Rancho San Antonio • Russian Ridge • Sierra Azul • Skyline Ridge • Thornewood Below is data for three select preserves. Please note a trend analysis will be completed after 4 years of data has been collected (estimated to take place after the 2019 data has been collected). Table 8: Herbicide Use at Bear Creek Redwoods Herbicide Ounces Used (2016) Ounces Used (2017) Acres Per Acre Usage (2017) Aminopyralid 1.482 0 1,437 0 Clethodim 0 0 0 Clopyralid 0 0 0 Glyphosate 101.85 292.35 0.20 Imazapyr 243.32 0 0 - 14 - | Page Figure 8: Herbicide Use at Bear Creek Redwoods Table 9: Herbicide Use at Los Trancos Herbicide Ounces Used (2016) Ounces Used (2017) Acres Per Acre Usage (2017) Aminopyralid 4.328 0 274 0 Clethodim 0 0 0 Clopyralid 0 0 0 Glyphosate 28.25 37.18 0.14 Imazapyr 0 0 0 Figure 9: Herbicide Use at Los Trancos 1.482 0 0 101.85 243.32 0 0 0 292.35 0 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 Aminopyralid Clethodim Clopyralid Glyphosate Imazapyr Herbicide Use at Bear Creek Redwoods (Oz) 2016 2017 4.328 0 0 28.25 0000 37.18 00 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 Aminopyralid Clethodim Clopyralid Glyphosate Imazapyr Herbicide Use at Los Trancos (Oz) 2016 2017 - 15 - | Page Table 10: Herbicide use at Skyline Ridge Herbicide Ounces Used (2016) Ounces Used (2017) Acres Per Acre Usage (2017) Aminopyralid 0 0 2,143 0 Clethodim 0 0 0 Clopyralid 3.075 12.49 0.006 Glyphosate 0 0.5 0.0002 Imazapyr 0 0 0 Figure 10: Herbicide Use at Skyline Ridge 5.4 Preservation of Biodiversity and Natural Resource Values As part of this section, District staff provides an annual qualitative assessment of natural resources conditions of IPM projects in natural areas, rangelands, and agricultural properties in the Annual IPM Report. 5.4.1 Natural Areas In natural areas, herbicide and non-herbicide methods were used to control high priority invasive plants to protect and restore native vegetation at preserves. Qualitative observations of note are provided below by area or land use type. 5.4.1.1 Bear Creek Redwoods In 2017, efforts to control English Ivy (Hedera helix), French Broom (Genista monspessulana), Bigleaf periwinkle (Vinca major), and stinkwort (Dittrichia graveolens) continued in Bear Creek Redwoods Open Space Preserve. Populations of ivy, broom, and periwinkle are widespread throughout the preserve, and efforts were focused on strategic areas in order to be the most beneficial in terms of invasive control. 0 0 3.075 0 000 12.49 0.5 00 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 Aminopyralid Clethodim Clopyralid Glyphosate Imazapyr Herbicide Use at Skyline Ridge (Oz) 2016 2017 - 16 - | Page Stinkwort occurs in various areas throughout the preserve in much smaller population sizes. Since 2016, priority areas for each species have been targeted for control, and progress continued through 2017. Contractor efforts to control French Broom in the initial target areas within the preserve began in early May in 2016 and continued through 2017, focusing on the largest of the mapped patches above Mud Lake, through the BC05 gate. This large area with a high percentage of cover contained individuals up to 15 feet tall or more. Methods of control included manual removal when possible, followed by cut and paint herbicide treatment with Glyphosate when necessary. In the wet months, these areas were followed up with hand pulling and flame treatment of seedlings and smaller individuals. All removed and cut materials were piled in the shade to help prevent the germination of viable seed. The removal of dense stands of French Broom opened up several acres of forest understory, giving the existing natives room to grow while providing an opportunity to propagate on their own without the invasive competition. The control efforts to manage English Ivy on the preserve began in early July of 2016. The focus of treatment methods centered on the cutting and painting of upright vines climbing up the native trees in several areas close to gates BC03, BC09, and BC13. All upright vines were cut and painted with glyphosate in order to prevent the ivy from further constricting the trunks of native trees, and inhibiting future berry development, thereby preventing further propagation. During repeat treatment of French Broom, follow up efforts were performed to ensure any missed vines were cut in 2017. Invasive treatments of Periwinkle on the preserve also began in September of 2016 with a combination of manual removal and a chemical application of Polaris, and again in mid-May of 2017 with continued manual removal. Efforts primarily focused on populations surrounding the Upper Lake, near gate BC04. Stinkwort control efforts began in late June 2016 with an application of Milestone and a repeat treatment in August using glyphosate. Retreatment of stinkwort continued in mid-July of 2017 with another application of glyphosate, as that was proven to be a more effective herbicide than Milestone on this species. The control efforts were focused on several outlying populations found in the preserve, with the most attention and time spent on the open chaparral above Highway 17, close to gate BC01. An early scouting of this area in 2018 showed little to no signs of dittrichia skeletons, which had been present in the previous years, indicating that the glyphosate reached an effective Figure 11: English ivy at Bear Creek Redwoods OSP - December 2017 - 17 - | Page level of control in 2017. Stinkwort needs to continue to be treated to prevent this very invasive species from establishing itself as a large vector to infest the preserve in future years. It is recommended that the control efforts of French broom, English Ivy, periwinkle, and stinkwort be continued so the existing native plants and seed bank in the forest understory and chaparral can germinate and establish a foothold as the competition for resources will be reduced between the invasive and native species. In addition, the continued treatment of the limited stinkwort populations will help to prevent widespread distribution of this species within the preserve. 5.4.1.2 Mt. Umunhum Midpen Staff, Volunteers, and Contractors are removing target invasive weed species by hand at the Mt. Umunhum summit revegetation areas and along the Mt. Umunhum Trail in priority areas, some of which are rare plant habitat. Target species for hand removal include tocalote, Centaurea melitensis; yellow star thistle, Centaurea solsistalis; Italian thistle, Carduus pycnocephalus; stinkwort, Dittrichia graveolens; California burclover, Medicago polymorpha; Erodium sp.; several non-native annual grasses including Bermuda grass, Cynodon dactylon; ripgut brome, Bromus diandrus; velvet grass, Holcus lanatus; and soft chess, Bromus hordeaceus. Two priority weeds, spotted knapweed (Centaurea stoebe ssp. micranthos) and medusa head grass (Elymus caput-medusae) were located at the Mt Um summit in previous years, but were not detected in 2017. Monitoring will continue for these species throughout the Mt Um summit and Mt Um Trail to ensure these species are removed. 5.4.2 Rangeland Midpen uses conservation grazing to manage fuel (flammable vegetation) for fire protection; enhance the diversity of native plants and animals; help sustain the local agricultural economy; and foster the region's rural heritage. Midpen uses conservation grazing on approximately 10,800 acres as a tool to manage grassland habitat on portions of these five preserves: • Russian Ridge Open Space Preserve • Skyline Ridge Open Space Preserve • Purisima Creek Redwoods Open Space Preserve • Tunitas Creek Open Space Preserve • La Honda Creek Open Space Preserve In the absence of natural disturbance (i.e. fire), the District periodically does brush removal on grasslands to slow the encroachment. - 18 - | Page 5.4.2.1 Driscoll Ranch In 2017, treatment efforts to control purple star thistle, Centaurea calcitrapa, and smooth distaff thistle, Carthamus creticus continued in the Driscoll Ranch area of the La Honda Open Space Preserve. As in previous years of treatment, the priority areas identified for follow up efforts were pastures 4, 5, and 6, and small areas within pastures 2 and 3. Control efforts also continued along Sears Ranch Road from the entrance of the preserve up to the former Wool House area where the current boundary of the priority area ends. Areas around the former Wool House that were identified for control efforts prior to the demolition activities in 2016 were also followed up with repeat treatments with Milestone. Figure 12: Purple star thistle rosettes manually removed by the old Wool House location The contractor crew manually removed purple star thistle rosettes in late April of 2017 in the priority areas mentioned above. The control efforts began in the biologically sensitive areas around the upper and lower turtle ponds, and expanded outward through pasture 4, and small areas of pastures 1 and 2 adjacent to Sears Ranch Road. Manual removal then proceeded up both sides Sears Ranch Road into the previously treated areas of pasture 5, and 6, where it was observed that the numbers of purple star thistles are continuing to decline up to the former Wool House area. The small roadside patch of smooth distaff thistle treated in 2016 was removed by hand, and had also declined from the previous year. All of these areas were effectively treated by manual removal, with the exception of the former Wool House area where the demolition activities occurred. In this area, where there has been the most ground - 19 - | Page disturbance, the higher number of rosettes combined with the compacted soil in the area necessitated the use of herbicide treatment with Milestone. However, the number of purple star thistles in this area had also declined from 2016. In June of 2017, follow up treatments of previously targeted areas mentioned above was carried out to ensure the quality control of seasonal control efforts. This allowed for a clean sweep of any rosettes that were missed, or had germinated since the previous visit. All purple star and distaff thistles that were observed in pastures 1, 2, 4, 5, and 6 were removed by hand, with a small herbicide follow up in the former Wool House Area. The previous years of herbicide treatment with Milestone in combination with manual removal has resulted in a significant decline in the number of purple star thistle. Within the focus areas, population sizes had become sparse enough to switch to primarily manual removal in 2017. The former Wool House area is the only exception, as the disturbed soil from demolition activities in this area continues to flush out the seed bank from seasonal germination. The switch to primarily manual removal has resulted in increased efficiency in the treatment areas, as control efforts have gone faster and allowed more thorough inspections of the pastures relative to 2016. Purple star and smooth distaff thistle control efforts should continue on an annual basis in all areas that were previously treated in order to keep these invasive species from resurging. With continued funding for contractors and the continued efforts of MROSD staff and volunteers, the areas of treatments will be able to expand further into areas that have not yet been targeted for management. This will further increase the control of these target species, which will continue to enhance and preserve the grasslands for the environment and the public who visit the preserve. 5.4.2.2 Mindego Hill In 2017, the treatment of purple star thistle (Centaurea calcitrapa) and smooth distaff thistle (Carthamus creticus) continued in the Mindego Hill area of the Russian Ridge Preserve. As in 2016, the abundance of these species continue to show significant evidence of decline from the ongoing control efforts. The purple star thistle population had the greatest decline, especially within the biomonitoring areas where populations of San Francisco Garter Snakes and California Red Legged Frogs are concentrated. The smooth distaff thistle has been more difficult to control, but has also shown an overall decline in population, especially in areas closer to Mindego Hill. Species abundance within the vicinity of the Kneudler Lake area continue to be more problematic. However, where proper timing and accessibility were aligned, herbicide treatment has shown effective levels of control. The endangered San Francisco Garter Snake population at Mindego Lake is continuing to increase in numbers. While a direct link between San Francisco Garter Snake populations and thistle presence is not available, it has been proven that invasive thistle populations have a negative impact on wildlife habitat and forage, deplete soil and water resources, and reduce plant and animal diversity (DiTomaso, 1999). Therefore, controlling these invasive populations will enhance grasslands and increase the level of biodiversity, which will increase the potential habitat for wildlife. - 20 - | Page In the Big Springs area of Mindego Hill, purple star thistle has become increasingly scarce, especially within the last few years of treatment. Ongoing invasive species control efforts have reduced previously large patches of harding grass, Phalaris aquatica, to only a few scattered individual grass stands. This will allow for more focus on the existing French broom, Genista monspessulana, in this area, which will need continuous follow up treatments. The larger individuals have been removed in previous control efforts, and the existing seed bank is continuing to flush out. Efforts need to continue as funding and volunteer availability allow as the long term seed bank of this species will continue to germinate every year. The addition of cattle grazing on the preserve has brought its own dynamic to the vegetation management of the grasslands. Grazing activities have decreased the biomass of invasive species on the preserve. Furthermore, the disturbance caused by the cattle activity has resulted in an increase in seed germination from the existing seed banks of purple star and smooth distaff thistles in the disturbed soil. Follow up treatments in these areas are recommended in order to keep these invasive species from returning in higher numbers, and will utilize the grazing activity as a means of flushing out the seed bank. As in 2016, smooth distaff thistle continues to be the most difficult invasive to control. Large areas on the steepest part of the hill above Kneudler Lake continue to exhibit large populations and a high percentage of coverage. However, other areas, specifically those within closer proximity to the lake, have shown gradually decreasing populations. The biomonitoring area around Kneudler Lake has been treated more consistently with Milestone in a more timely fashion relative to plant phenology, and the herbicide has shown positive effects. This biologically sensitive area was treated with Milestone in May in 2017, as opposed to early June as in 2016. As the control efforts progressed, the increased maturity of the thistles eventually prevented an effective use of herbicide, so control methods were switched to hand removal. Upon recent scouting in 2018, areas that had been treated with herbicide in May of 2017 showed significantly less coverage than areas that were hand pulled. Areas that were unable to be hand pulled or treated with Milestone showed the highest percent of thistle coverage. The difference in treatment response between manual removal and Milestone may be attributed to the preemergent effect of the herbicide, inhibiting seed germination. The more accessible Figure 13: Distaff thistle sprayed with Milestone and blue dye at Kneudler Lake - 21 - | Page areas where smooth distaff thistle populations had been treated with an application of Milestone around Mindego Hill Trail have shown a significant reduction in populations with each follow up treatment. In future years, it is highly recommended that smooth distaff thistle be treated with a Milestone application early in the season, which will increase the efficacy on seedlings and rosettes, and further utilize the preemergent qualities of the herbicide by preventing seed germination. 5.4.3 Agricultural Properties Assessment of agricultural properties did not occur in 2017 as planned due to staffing shortages within the Vegetation Program. Review and assessment of agricultural properties, which represent a small percentage of District land, will begin in FY 2018-19 once both a new IPM Coordinator (June 4, 2018) and Rangeland Ecologist (TBD) are hired. 5.5 Summary of Public Participation in Pest Control The public is an integral part of the success of the IPM program. Volunteers who assist with invasive plant identification and control are a valuable asset to the IPM program. In 2017, the District’s Preserve Partner volunteers contributed 2,664 hours to Resource Management through eighty-three outdoor service projects. The District hosted twenty-one Special Group projects, a subset of the Preserve Partners, which include school groups, technology companies, scout troops, running clubs and community groups. Preserve Partner projects were held in nineteen open space preserves. - 22 - | Page Figure 14: Weed wrench crew Preserve Partner projects focused primarily on invasive plant control addressing sixteen invasive species: French broom, Spanish broom, slender false brome, purple star thistle, yellow star thistle, Italian thistle, teasel, stinkwort, coyote brush, vinca, barbed goat grass, jointed goat grass, medusa head, and tocalote. There were Preserve Partner projects to remove two species previously not addressed: Ehrharta and hanging sedge. French broom removal dominated Preserve Partner projects with thirty-four French broom projects taking place in twelve open space preserves. There were twenty-one active Advanced Resource Management Stewards (ARMS) in 2017. The ARMS volunteers work independently on resource management projects on their own time. To attack key populations of invasive plants more effectively, the Volunteer Program Lead recruits ARMS for small mobile “strike teams”. In 2017, twenty ARMS “strike teams” were deployed to address nine species of invasive plants. In total, the ARMS volunteers contributed 889 hours to resource management with project sites located in twenty open space preserves. Stewardship partnerships formalized in 2016 continued in 2017. Grassroots Ecology contributed 914 hours of resource management at two sites. French broom removal continued at the Hawthorns in the Windy Hill - 23 - | Page Open Space Preserve. Over 200 native plants were installed at the Russian Ridge Open Space Preserve parking lot as part of the restoration project implemented there last year. Village Harvest contributed 150 hours of resource management in the orchard at the Steven’s Canyon Ranch in the Saratoga Gap Open Space Preserve. In 2017, the Volunteer Program Manager coordinated a new program with the Student Conservation Association (SCA). This program provided an opportunity for local, underserved students to learn Geographic Positioning System (GPS) skills and then apply these skills to map a variety of natural features and infrastructure on District land. The SCA contributed 2,000 resource management hours over 20 project days at various open space preserves. Volunteers were instrumental in assisting the Natural Resources Department complete native plant revegetation projects in 2017. Preserve Partners spent eight project days, approximately 400 hours, revegetating the Mt. Umunhum summit area as well as contributing time to planting projects at the Fremont Older parking lot, the Rosetta property on Mt. Umunhum Rd., and the Woods Trail in Sierra Azul. 5.6 Summary of Staff Training, Public Outreach, and Educational Activities 5.6.1 Staff Training The mandatory annual Pesticide Safety and Training was held at both field offices in May of 2017. All California Department of Pesticide Regulation required training information was presented by the District’s Pest Control Advisor (PCA), Mark Heath of Shelterbelt Builders, Inc. In October 2017, the IPM coordinator, Resource Management Specialist I, Volunteer Program Lead, and Maintenance Supervisor participated in the annual California Invasive Species Council symposium. - 24 - | Page 5.6.2 Public Outreach 5.6.2.1 Facebook Posts - 25 - | Page 5.6.2.2 Twitter - 26 - | Page - 27 - | Page 6 Summary of Pesticide Use The reporting of pesticide use on District lands includes the following entities: • Staff • Contractors • Tenants The following tables summarizes the known use of pesticides on District lands, excluding PG&E which is not covered under the District’s Integrated Pest Management Program, but is still required to report pesticide use to each County Agricultural Department. Pesticide Active Ingredient Product Used (oz) Acres Treated Oz / Acre Max Legal Rate (oz. per 36” tree)3 Fungicide (preventative treatment for Sudden Oak Death) Potassium salts of phosphorus acid 4,841.86 22.6 214.24 256 Oz. Pesticide Active Ingredient Product Used Acres Treated Oz / Acre6 Max Legal Rate 7 (Oz/Acre) Herbicide Aminopyralid 17.79 147.29 0.12 7.0 Clethodim 0.0 N/A N/A 26 Clopyralid 12.49 5.25 2.38 10.7 Glyphosate 2181.59 172.89 12.62 224 Imazapyr 0.0 N/A N/A 48 Pesticide Active Ingredient Product Used (oz) Acres Treated Oz / Acre Insecticide Pyrethrin 72 N/A N/A Pesticide Active Ingredient Product Used (oz) Acres Treated Oz / Acre Rodenticide Cholecalciferol 0 0 N/A 6 Ounces per acre can only be compared when product formulations have the same Active Ingredient. For example, the rate for Roundup ProMax with glyphosate as the Active Ingredient is 32 to 160 oz per acre. The rate for Milestone with Aminopyralid as the Active Ingredient is 3 to 7 oz per acre. 7 Maximum legal rate is the maximum amount of product that can legally be used per the label of the product. - 28 - | Page Figure 15: Herbicide use from 2016 through 2017 Aminopyralid Clethodim Clopyralid Glyphosate Imazapyr 2016 7.71 0.00 3.08 1475.50 170.75 2017 17.79 0.00 12.49 2179.32 0.00 0.00 500.00 1000.00 1500.00 2000.00 2500.00 Ou n c e o f C o n c e n t r a t e Herbicide Use 2016-2017 (Oz) 2016 2017 - 29 - | Page 7 Public Interactions 7.1 Notifications 7.1.1 Pesticide Applications Prior, during, and after the application of a pesticide (including herbicides, insecticides, or other types of pesticides) on District preserves, employees or contractors post signs at the treatment area notifying the public, employees and contractors of the District’s use of pesticide. Posting periods designated below are the District’s minimum requirements; signs may be posted earlier and left in place for longer periods of time if it serves a public purpose or if it provides staff flexibility in accessing remote locations. • For pesticide application in outdoor areas of all District-owned preserves and in buildings which are not occupied or are rarely visited (e.g. pump houses), signs are posted at the treatment areas 24 hours before the start of treatment until 72 hours after the end of treatment. Signs stating ] “Pesticide Use Notification” are placed at each end of the outdoor treatment area and any intersecting trails. • For urgent application of pesticides to control stinging insects, signs are posted at the treatment area 72 hours after the end of treatment, but no pre-treatment posting is required. • For pesticide application in occupied buildings such as visitor centers, offices and residences, notification is provided to building occupants (employees, visitors, residents) 24 hours before the start of treatment by email, letters or telephone calls. Additionally, for buildings which might be visited by more than just a single family, signs stating “Pesticide Use Notification” will be placed at the entrances to the building 24 hours before the start of treatment until 72 hours after the end of treatment. The use of approved insecticidal baits in tamper-proof containers require notification 24 hours before the start of treatment by email, letters or telephone calls, but will not require posting of signs. • The information contained in the pesticide application signs include: product name, EPA registration number, target pest, preserve name and/or building, date and time of application, and contact person with telephone number. The contact person is the IPM Coordinator. • On lands that the District manages but does not own (e.g., Rancho San Antonio County Park), the District will provide notification of pesticide use in the same manner and applying the same actions as it does with its properties, unless the contracting agencies have adopted more restrictive management Figure 16: Pesticide Notification Sign - 30 - | Page standards. In those cases, the more restrictive management standards would be implemented by the District. • In the event of an immediate public safety concern, notification occurs at the time of treatment but pre-posting may not be possible. All contractors notify the District before application on any property, and comply with requirements for notification and posting of signs described above. At the discretion of the District staff and depending on the site conditions, neighboring landowners are notified if the District is conducting pest management near a property line. 7.2 Inquiries The District received a number of inquiries in 2017 concerning the IPM Program. Date Staff Inquirer Contact Method Request/Comment Response 3/8/2017 C. Sifuentes S. Carlton, PG&E E-Mail Can herbicide be used on PG&E easement within 10 APNs List of species of concerned issued. Only herbicides listed on the District’s approved list allowed. 4/4/2017 S. Hooper POST E-Mail Protection measures for wildlife during treatment. Can District provide BMPs? District shared the IPM BMPs 4/10/2017 C. Sifuentes D. Johnson, Cal-IPC E-Mail Request for District to support funding for Weed Management Areas. Support letter issued 5/1/2017 C. Sifuentes / General Information G. Masciejewski E-Mail Concern over the lack of bees at Russian Ridge. District explained that honey bees are non- native and there are 100’s of native pollinators in the area 5/1/2017 M. Chaney P. Luong E-Mail Request for permit to keep honey bees within Preserve boundaries. Request was denied due to the non-native status 5/3/2017 C. Sifuentes J. Chayka, Marin County Parks E-Mail Can the District share the latest IPM Report. 2016 IPM Report was shared 5/15/2017 C. Sifuentes D. Johnson, Cal-IPC E-Mail Discuss non-chemical approaches to weed control Staff was assigned to participate in the Technical Advisor Committee 5/23/2017 C. Sifuentes E. Uhler, Central Coast Wilds E-Mail Alerting District to new population of Medusahead grass Field Staff assigned to remove new population - 31 - | Page Date Staff Inquirer Contact Method Request/Comment Response 6/13/2017 G. Baillie, C. Sifuentes P. Helmke, City of San Jose E-Mail Post fire rehab. Request for referrals for contractors to do stabilization. District shared contractor list with the City 7/25/2017 C. Sifuentes A. Forrestel, National Park Service Phone Can the District provide example of Pest Control Recommendation 2017 Pest Control Recommendations sent via e-mail 7/19/2017 General Information J. Crowther E-Mail Concern about yellow star thistle at Skyline Ridge and Monte Bello OSP Explained invasive species prioritization 8/2017- 9/2017 C. Sifuentes B. Leininger, M. Liebhold E-Mail Multiple question into PG&E use of herbicide and vegetation management practices Response e-mail issued 10/24/2017 Board of Directors M. Liebhold E-Mail Request for review of Glyphosate Response letter issued. District contracted with Blankinship & Associates to conduct an up to date literature review. 10/24/2017 C. Sifuentes B. Cody, IMS E-Mail Request for name of firm selected for the Pesticide Toxicological Service RFPQ Name of selected firm was sent (Blankinship & Associates) 11/15/2017 C. Sifuentes C. Conforti, Presidio Trust E-Mail Request for information on Envoy Plus herbicide Toxicological report was shared. Staff shared qualitative information of effectiveness 12/7/2017 C. Sifuentes B. Cody, IMS E-Mail Request for name of firm selected for the CEQA on three new pesticides and two species of special concern RFPQ Name of selected firm was sent (Blankinship & Associates) No changes to District protocol were made due to public comments. Because of the ongoing scientific evaluations regarding the toxicity of glyphosate and public concern over its use both in the US and Europe, staff determined it would be important to conduct an updated literature review of the toxicology of glyphosate - 32 - | Page 8 Consultants and Contractors 8.1 Blankinship & Associates - $28,970 Preparation of toxicological services for the inclusion of three new pesticides in the IPM Program, a review of glyphosate, and CEQA services 8.2 CalFlora - $2,900 Annual subscription to the CalFlora Database 8.3 California Environmental Services - $5,293 Relocation of Woodrats within treatment area of Woods Trail (Sierra Azul Open Space Preserve) 8.4 Community Tree Service - $10,801 Eucalyptus removal at Woods Trail (Sierra Azul Open Space Preserve) as part of mitigation for Mt. Umunhum 8.5 Ecological Concerns, Inc. - $296,418 Treatment of invasive species District wide 8.6 Shelterbelt Builders, Inc. - $5,690 Preparation of Pest Control Recommendations and the annual pesticide safety-training requirement - 33 - | Page 9 Compliance with Guidance Manual 9.1 Effectiveness of Changes 9.2 Experimental Pest Control Projects 9.2.1 Slender False Brome (Brachypodium sylvaticum) In spring of 2016, the District begun consultation with Santa Clara University to set up an experiment looking at non-herbicide and herbicide options on slender false brome. Test plots on a private property has been set up. Results are expected in two to three years. 9.3 Changes to Guidance Manual or Control 9.3.1 Updating the List of Approved Pesticides The List of Approved Pesticides is intended to change over time as the science of pest control advances and more effective, safer, and less harmful pesticides are developed; as manufacturers update, discontinue, or substitute products; and as the District’s target pests change over time. 9.3.1.1 Product Additions In instances where new products with new active ingredients are found to be safer, more effective, and/or less costly than products on the on the List of Approved Pesticides, the District may elect to add new pesticides. This type of change typically requires additional toxicological review, and depending on the results, may also require additional environmental review. A toxicological review has been completed on four new pesticides, three of which District staff has concluded should be reviewed for CEQA compliance and will be presented to the Board in the Fall of 2018: •Insecticide o Python Dust Bag (removed for consideration due to toxicity concerns) o Wasp Freeze II •Herbicide o Garlon 4 Ultra o Capstone - 34 - | Page 10 List of Preparers and Contributors MROSD Cydney Bieber, Web Administrator Jean Chung, Property Management Specialist I Ellen Gartside, Volunteer Program Lead Amanda Mills, Resource Management Specialist II Coty Sifuentes-Winter, Senior Resource Management Specialist Susan Weidemann, Property Management Specialist II Ecological Concerns, Inc. Garrick Hansen, Project Manager - 35 - | Page Appendix A - District Best Management Practices District BMPs for IPMP BMP ID# Best Management Practices 1 All pesticide use shall be implemented consistent with Pest Control Recommendations prepared annually by a licensed Pest Control Advisor. 2 Surfactants and other adjuvants shall be used and applied consistent with the District’s Pest Control Recommendations. 3 Applicators shall follow all pesticide label requirements and refer to all other BMPs regarding mandatory measures to protect sensitive resources and employee and public health during pesticide application. 4 Pesticide applicators shall have or work under the direction of a person with a Qualified Applicator License or Qualified Applicator Certificate. Contractors and grazing and agricultural tenants may apply approved herbicides after review and approval by the District and under the direction of QAL/QAC field supervisors. Employees, contractors and tenants may install approved ant and roach bait stations inside buildings in tamper-proof containers without review by a QAL/QAC. Tenants may not use rodenticides; only qualified District staff or District contractors may use approved rodenticides and these should only be used in the event of an urgent human health issue and in anchored, tamper-proof containers inside buildings. 5 All storage, loading and mixing of herbicides shall be set back at least 300 feet from any aquatic feature or special-status species or their habitat or sensitive natural communities. All mixing and transferring shall occur within a contained area. Any transfer or mixing on the ground shall be within containment pans or over protective tarps. 6 Appropriate non-toxic colorants or dyes shall be added to the herbicide mixture to determine treated areas and prevent over-spraying. 7 Application Requirements - The following general application parameters shall be employed during herbicide application:  Application shall cease when weather parameters exceed label specifications, when wind at site of application exceeds 7 miles per hour (MPH), or when precipitation (rain) occurs or is forecasted with greater than a 40 percent probability in the next 24-hour period to prevent sediment and herbicides from entering the water via surface runoff;  Spray nozzles shall be configured to produce a relatively large droplet size;  Low nozzle pressures (30-70 pounds per square inch [PSI]) shall be observed;  Spray nozzles shall be kept within 24 inches of vegetation during spraying;  Drift avoidance measures shall be used to prevent drift in locations where target weeds and pests are in proximity to special-status species or their habitat. Such measures can consist of, but would not be limited to the use of plastic shields around target weeds and pests and adjusting the spray nozzles of application equipment to limit the spray area. 8 Notification of Pesticide Application – Signs shall be posted notifying the public, employees, and contractors of the District’s use of pesticides. The signs shall consist of the following information: signal word, product name, and manufacturer; active ingredient; EPA registration number; target pest; preserve name; treatment location in preserve; date and time of application; date which notification sign may be removed; and contact person with telephone number. Signs shall generally be posted 24 hours before the start of treatment and notification shall remain in place for 72 hours after treatment ceases. In no event shall a sign be in place longer than 14 days without dates being updated. See the IPM Guidance Manual for details on posting locations, posting for pesticide use in buildings and for exceptions. 9 Disposal of Pesticides – Cleanup of all herbicide and adjuvant containers shall be triple rinsed with clean water at an approved site, and the rinsate shall be disposed of by placing it in the batch tank for application. Used containers shall be punctured on the top and bottom to render them unusable, unless said containers are part of a manufacturer’s container recycling program, in which case the manufacturer’s instructions shall be followed. Disposal of non-recyclable containers shall be at legal dumpsites. Equipment shall not be cleaned and personnel shall not bathe in a manner that allows contaminated water to directly enter any body of water within the treatment areas or adjacent watersheds. Disposal of all pesticides shall follow label requirements and local waste disposal regulations. 10 All appropriate laws and regulations pertaining to the use of pesticides and safety standards for employees and the public, as governed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the California Department of Pesticide Regulation, and local jurisdictions shall be followed. All applications shall adhere to label directions for application rates and methods, storage, transportation, mixing, and container disposal. All contracted applicators shall be appropriately licensed by the state. District staff shall coordinate with the County Agricultural Commissioners, and all required licenses and permits shall be obtained prior to pesticide application. 11 Sanitation and Prevention of Contamination - All personnel working in infested areas shall take appropriate precautions to not carry or spread weed seed or plant and soil diseases outside of the infested area. Such precautions will consist of, as necessary based on site conditions, cleaning of soil and plant materials from tools, equipment, shoes, clothing, or vehicles prior to entering or leaving the site. 12 All staff, contractors, tenants, and volunteers shall be properly trained to prevent spreading weeds and pests to other sites. 13 District staff shall appropriately maintain facilities where tools, equipment, and vehicles are stored free from invasive plants. - 36 - | Page District BMPs for IPMP BMP ID# Best Management Practices 14 District staff shall ensure that rental equipment and project materials (especially soil, rock, erosion control material and seed) are free of invasive plant material prior to their use at a worksite. 15 Suitable onsite disposal areas shall be identified to prevent the spread of weed seeds. 16 Invasive plant material shall be rendered nonviable when being retained onsite. Staff shall desiccate or decompose plant material until it is nonviable (partially decomposed, very slimy, or brittle). Depending on the type of plant, disposed plant material can be left out in the open as long as roots are not in contact with moist soil, or can be covered with a tarp to prevent material from blowing or washing away. 17 District staff shall monitor all sites where invasive plant material is disposed on-site and treat any newly emerged invasive plants. 18 When transporting invasive plant material off-site for disposal, the plant material shall be contained in enclosed bins, heavy-duty bags, or a securely covered truck bed. All vehicles used to transport invasive plant material shall be cleaned after each use. 19 Aquatic Areas –A District-approved biologist shall survey all treatment sites prior to work to determine whether any aquatic features are located onsite. On a repeating basis, grassland treatment sites shall be surveyed once every five years and brushy and wooded sites shall be surveyed once every three years. Brush removal on rangelands will require biological surveys before work is conducted in any year. Aquatic features are defined as any natural or manmade lake, pond, river, creek, drainage way, ditch, spring, saturated soils, or similar feature that holds water at the time of treatment or typically becomes inundated during winter rains. If during the survey it is found that aquatic features are present within 15 feet of the proposed treatment area, the District shall either eliminate all treatment activities within 15 feet of the aquatic feature from the project (i.e. do not implement treatment actions in those areas) or if the District chooses to continue treatment actions in these areas, it shall follow the requirements of the mitigation measure for special-status wildlife species and the CDFW Streambed Alteration Agreement. 20 Application of herbicides shall be conducted in accordance with the California Red-Legged Frog Injunction (Center For Biological Diversity v. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2006) Case No.: 02-1580-JSW) in known or potential California red-legged frog habitat specifically by: not applying specified pesticides within 15 feet of aquatic features (including areas that are wet at time of spraying or areas that are dry at time of spraying but subsequently might be wet during the next winter season); utilizing only spot-spraying techniques and equipment by a certified applicator or person working under the direct supervision of a certified applicator; and not spraying during precipitation or if precipitation is forecast to occur within 24 hours before or after the proposed application. Preserves in which these precautions must be undertaken are: Miramontes Ridge, Purisima Creek Redwoods, El Corte de Madera, La Honda Creek, Picchetti Ranch, Russian Ridge, Sierra Azul, Tunitas Creek, Skyline Ridge, Rancho San Antonio, Monte Bello and Coal Creek OSPs and Toto Ranch. 21 A District-approved biologist shall survey all selected treatment sites prior to work to determine site conditions and develop any necessary site- specific measures. On a repeating basis, grassland treatment sites shall be surveyed once every five years and brushy and wooded sites shall be surveyed once every three years. Brush removal on rangelands will require biological surveys before work is conducted in any year. Site inspections shall evaluate existing conditions at a given treatment site including the presence, population size, growth stage, and percent cover of target weeds and pests relative to native plant cover and the presence of special-status species and their habitat, or sensitive natural communities. In addition, worker environmental awareness training shall be conducted for all treatment field crews and contractors for special-status species and sensitive natural communities determined to have the potential to occur on the treatment site by a District-approved biologist. The education training shall be conducted prior to starting work at the treatment site and upon the arrival of any new worker onto sites with the potential for special-status species or sensitive natural communities. The training shall consist of a brief review of life history, field identification, and habitat requirements for each special-status species, their known or probable locations in the vicinity of the treatment site, potential fines for violations, avoidance measures, and necessary actions if special-status species or sensitive natural communities are encountered. 22 Nesting Birds - For all IPM activities that could result in potential noise and other land disturbances that could affect nesting birds (e.g., tree removal, mowing during nesting season, mastication, brush removal on rangelands), treatment sites shall be surveyed to evaluate the potential for nesting birds. Tree removal will be limited, whenever feasible, based on the presence or absence of nesting birds. For all other treatments, if birds exhibiting nesting behavior are found within the treatment sites during the bird nesting season: March 15 – August 30 for smaller bird species such as passerines and February 15 - August 30 for raptors, impacts on nesting birds will be avoided by the establishment of appropriate buffers around active nests. The distance of the protective buffers surrounding each active nest site are: 500 feet for large raptors such as buteos, 250 feet for small raptors such as accipiters, and 250 feet for passerines. The size of the buffer may be adjusted by a District biologist in consultation with CDFW and USFWS depending on site specific conditions. Monitoring of the nest by a District biologist during and after treatment activities will be required if the activity has potential to adversely affect the nest. These areas can be subsequently treated after a District-approved biologist or designated biological monitor confirms that the young have fully fledged, are no longer being fed by the parents and have left the nest site. For IPM activities that clearly would not have adverse impacts to nesting birds (e.g. treatments in buildings and spot spraying with herbicides), no survey for nesting birds would be required. - 37 - | Page District BMPs for IPMP BMP ID# Best Management Practices 23 San Francisco dusky-footed woodrat and Santa Cruz kangaroo rat – All District staff, volunteers, tenants, or contractors who will implement treatment actions shall receive training from a qualified biologist on the identification of dusky-footed woodrat, Santa Cruz kangaroo rat, and their nests. Generally, all San Francisco dusky-footed woodrat, Santa Cruz kangaroo rat, and their nests will be avoided and left undisturbed by proposed work activities. If a nest site will be affected, the District will consult with CDFW. Rodenticides, snap traps, and glue boards shall not be used in buildings within 100 feet of active San Francisco dusky-footed woodrat nests or Santa Cruz kangaroo rat nests; instead rodent control in these areas will be limited to non-lethal exclusion and relocation activities including relocation of nests if approved by CDFW. Tenants will contact the District for assistance in managing rat populations in buildings and under no circumstances will be allowed to use rodenticides. 24 Where appropriate, equipment modifications, mowing patterns, and buffer strips shall be incorporated into manual treatment methods to avoid disturbance of grassland wildlife. 25 Rare Plants – All selected treatment sites shall be surveyed prior to work to determine the potential presence of special-status plants. On a repeating basis, grassland treatment sites shall be surveyed once every five years and brushy and wooded sites shall be surveyed once every three years. Brush removal on rangelands will require biological surveys before work is conducted in any year. A 30-foot buffer shall be established from special-status plants. No application of herbicides shall be allowed within this buffer. Non-herbicide methods can be used within 30 feet of rare plants but they shall be designed to avoid damage to the rare plants (e.g., pulling). 26 Cultural Resources – District staff, volunteer crew leaders, and contractors implementing treatment activities shall receive training on the protection of sensitive archaeological, paleontological, or historic resources (e.g., projectile points, bowls, baskets, historic bottles, cans, trash deposits, or structures). In the event volunteers would be working in locations with potential cultural resources, staff shall provide instruction to protect and report any previously undiscovered cultural artifacts that might be uncovered during hand-digging activities. If archaeological or paleontological resources are encountered on a treatment site and the treatment method consists of physical disturbance of land surfaces (e.g., mowing, brushcutting, pulling, or digging), work shall avoid these areas or shall not commence until the significance of the find can be evaluated by a qualified archeologist. This measure is consistent with federal guidelines 36 CFR 800.13(a), which protects such resources in the event of unanticipated discovery. 27 Post-Treatment Monitoring – District staff shall monitor IPM activities within two months after herbicide treatment (except for routine minor maintenance activities which can be evaluated immediately after treatment) to determine if the target pest or weeds were effectively controlled with minimum effect to the environment and non-target organisms. Future treatment methods in the same season or future years shall be designed to respond to changes in site conditions. 28 Erosion Control and Revegetation - For sites with loose or unstable soils, steep slopes (greater than 30 percent), where a large percentage of the groundcover will be removed, or near aquatic features that could be adversely affected by an influx of sediment, erosion control measures shall be implemented after treatment. These measures could consist of the application of forest duff or mulches, straw bales, straw wattles, other erosion control material, seeding, or planting of appropriate native plant species to control erosion, restore natural areas, and prevent the spread or reestablishment of weeds. Prior to the start of the winter storm season, these sites shall be inspected to confirm that erosion control techniques are still effective. 29 Operation of noise-generating equipment (e.g., chainsaws, wood chippers, brush-cutters, pick-up trucks) shall abide by the time-of-day restrictions established by the applicable local jurisdiction (i.e., City and/or County) if such noise activities would be audible to receptors (e.g., residential land uses, schools, hospitals, places of worship) located in the applicable local jurisdiction. If the local, applicable jurisdiction does not have a noise ordinance or policy restricting the time-of-day when noise-generating activity can occur, then the noise-generating activity shall be limited to two hours after sunrise and two hours before sunset, generally Monday through Friday. Additionally, if noise-generating activity would take place on a site that spans over multiple jurisdictions, then the most stringent noise restriction, as described in this BMP or in a local noise regulation, would apply. For IPM sites where the marbled murrelet has the potential to nest, as identified in the District’s 2014 maps (see attachment) if noise- generating activities would occur during its breeding season (March 24 to September 15), the IPM activities would be subject to the noise requirements listed in the most current in the CDFW RMA issued to the District (see attachment). 30 All motorized equipment shall be shut down when not in use. Idling of equipment and off-highway vehicles will be limited to 5 minutes. 31 Grazing Animals – Animals that have grazed in areas treated with Milestone herbicide will be moved to an untreated holding area for three days prior to being transferred to an area containing plant species of concern. Rev. 1/3/18 R-18-82 Meeting 18-28 July 11, 2018 AGENDA ITEM 9 AGENDA ITEM Glyphosate Review Report GENERAL MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATION No Board action required. SUMMARY Recent staff and public concerns over the potential human health and environmental impacts associated with the use of glyphosate (the main active ingredient in Roundup) prompted the need for a toxicologist to review the latest data regarding this chemical and the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District’s (District) use within the Integrated Pest Management (IPM) Program. Extensive research within the United States and around the world has provided strong lines of evidence that its application does not cause significant harm to humans or the environment when label directions are followed. Worldwide, glyphosate remains approved for use in the European Union. Members of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, which is an intergovernmental economic stimulus organization comprised of 35 countries (including the United States), also allow the use of glyphosate in their respective countries. In the United States, use of glyphosate is permitted and a re-registration review of the herbicide is underway. A proposed interim re-registration review decision for glyphosate is expected to be published in 2019. Recent conflicting conclusions about the herbicide prompted a closer inspection by the District ahead of the re-registration review decision to confirm its safe use. Findings from a recent literature review conducted by an expert consultant confirmed the low exposure and ongoing safety of visitors, staff, and the environment with the implementation of current Best Management Practices (BMPs) and new, recommended BMPs. DISCUSSION Background On December 10, 2014 (R-14-34), the District’s Board of Directors adopted the Final Environmental Impact Report for the IPM Program and approved the IPM Policy, including the use of certain pesticides such as glyphosate. As part of the IPM Program, a goal of the District is to reduce the per-acre usage of herbicide over time at individual sites. In addition, Policy IPM-3 states: “Use the least harmful method(s) to control identified pests. Where the use of pesticides is necessary, apply according to the label using all safety precautions and take all measures needed to protect the environment, the health and safety of visitors, employees, neighbors, and the surrounding natural areas including water and soil resources.” R-18-82 Page 2 The District uses herbicides, including glyphosate, in its IPM Program to protect and restore the natural resources, lessen fuel loads, and increase visitor safety during ecological sensitive recreation. The selection of herbicide for controlling pest species is evaluated based on a variety of factors that may include: •Negative plant responses to other methods; •Reducing ground disturbance; •Reducing environmental impacts from manual and mechanical removal (i.e. soil compaction, erosion, damage to non-target species); •Worker safety (i.e. roadside work, working in poison oak, topography/steepness); and •Reducing time in the field that may affect wildlife behavior. Glyphosate is a nonselective herbicide that is used for post-emergent applications. Since its use first began in 1974, glyphosate has become the most widely used and among the most comprehensively evaluated herbicides. In the United States, agriculture accounts for 90% of its use. Given the widespread and extensive history of use, glyphosate has also been the subject of extensive research and repeated safety assessments by regulatory authorities throughout the world. In 2015, one branch of the World Health Organization (WHO), the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), issued a statement that re-classified glyphosate as “probably carcinogenic to humans” (see Table 1 below), raising questions about prior findings and conclusions regarding the safety of the herbicide. This determination was based on: “limited evidence of carcinogenicity in humans for non-Hodgkin lymphoma. The evidence in humans is from studies of exposures, mostly agricultural, in the United States, Canada, and Sweden published since 2001. In addition, there is convincing evidence that glyphosate can also cause cancer in laboratory animals.”1 In response and per protocol, the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) added glyphosate to the Proposition 65 list in 2017 via the Labor Code mechanism. The Labor Code mechanism requires that substances identified as probable human or animal carcinogens by IARC be listed as known to cause cancer under Proposition 65. Under this mechanism, OEHHA “cannot consider scientific arguments concerning the weight or quality of the evidence considered by IARC when it identified these chemicals.” These actions have raised confusion given the conflicting classifications from numerous expert governmental organizations. At this time, only the IARC and OEHHA have classified the chemical as a possible carcinogenic to humans. In contrast, 11 organizations, including the US Environmental Protection Agency and three branches under the World Health Organization classify the chemical as not a likely carcinogen (Table 1). 1 World Health Organization (WHO). 2015. IARC Monographs Volume 112: evaluation of five organophosphate insecticides and herbicides. Available: https://www.iarc.fr/en/media-centre/iarcnews/pdf/MonographVolume112.pdf (Accessed: February 9, 2018). R-18-82 Page 3 Table 1: Classification of Glyphosate by Government Organizations Not Likely to be Carcinogenic to Humans Probable Carcinogen to Humans US Environmental Protection Agency World Health Organization – IARC World Health Organization – International Programme on Chemical Safety State of California - Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) World Health Organization – Core Assessment Group World Health Organization – Guidelines for Drinking-water Quality Health Canada’s Pest Management Regulatory Agency European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) New Zealand Environmental Protection Authority European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority Food Safety Commission of Japan German Federal Institute of Risk Assessment To provide the District with a deeper understanding of the toxicology of glyphosate given the conflicting carcinogenic information between expert governmental organizations, staff contracted with Blankinship & Associates, Inc., (Blankinship) in March of 2017. Blankinship was hired to complete an up-to-date, extensive literature review of the latest peer-reviewed research information (Attachment 1), and identify any additional IPM recommendations accordingly. The main points of the literature and research review are summarized below. Risk Evaluation Available studies indicate that the potential for glyphosate toxicity to humans is extremely limited. No adverse health effects have been identified for glyphosate at the highest doses tested in skin and inhalation studies. Furthermore, the use of District Best Management Practices (BMPs) and label directions, including the use of personal protection equipment (PPE), reduces the potential for human exposure to glyphosate when used for vegetation control. For Calendar years 2016 and 2017, total District staff and contractor hours applying pesticides amounted to just under 1,440 hours. Of this, 48% (688 hours) was in the application of a glyphosate product. District Staff and Contractors – Potential contact with glyphosate residues may occur during pesticide mixing, loading, or application; when handling treated vegetation; and by accidentally wearing contaminated gloves. Skin exposure from pesticide handling activities is greatly reduced by the use of PPE (such as long sleeve shirts, eye protection, and gloves). The use of PPE is a requirement under the District’s IPM Program. Once glyphosate residues have dried, transfer to the skin is minimal. Furthermore, glyphosate is poorly absorbed through the skin. Skin exposure, both by direct contact and contact with contaminated gloves, is therefore considered low. Aerosolized glyphosate from the use of application equipment, such as backpack sprayers, may be present and result in inhalation exposure during application. Post-application inhalation exposure is low due to low vapor R-18-82 Page 4 pressure. Inhalation exposure is further reduced through the District’s use of spot spray applications and spray nozzle BMPs intended to keep pesticide droplets within the spray area. Park Visitors – Potential contact with glyphosate residues may occur when park visitors brush up against contaminated vegetation on or near the application site. Direct contact with the pesticide is not expected to occur due to the District’s use of spot spray applications, implementation of spray nozzle, application of notification BMPs, and the use of blue indicator dye; however, accidental skin exposure may still occur and is limited due to the low skin absorption rate of glyphosate. IPM Program Recommendations Based on the human health effects, environmental fate, and the risk evaluation described above, the use of glyphosate within the District’s IPM Program does not pose significant harm, if any, to employees, visitors, or the environment when following label directions and District current and enhanced BMPs. To improve clarity, enhance protective measures for the environment, and expand upon current best practices, the following BMP updates are recommended and have been added to the IPM Program: • Surface water runoff and groundwater Applicators will use pesticides with aquatic labels in areas known or suspected to be wet. Pesticides without an aquatic label will not be applied to permeable soils, soils prone to or with evidence of erosion without containment strategies (e.g., vegetative buffers, sediment barriers), or in areas where aquatic habitats are located within 15 feet of the application site. • Federally listed endangered species including, but not limited to, tidewater goby (Eucyclogobius newberryi) Application of certain pesticides will be used in accordance with the Goby -11 Injunction, which requires a no-use buffer zone of 60 to 300 feet depending on species and product used. FISCAL IMPACT Receipt of the information contained in this report does not result in a direct fiscal impact. Implementation of the recommended additional BMPs for the IPM Program may result in negligible fiscal impacts that are expected to be covered with the current IPM budget. BOARD COMMITTEE REVIEW This item was not previously reviewed by a Board Committee. PUBLIC NOTICE Public notice was provided as required by the Brown Act. Public notice was sent to 104 interested parties and tenants by postal or electronic mail. R-18-82 Page 5 CEQA COMPLIANCE This item is not a project subject to the California Environmental Quality Act. NEXT STEPS The General Manager has directed staff to update the IPM Program’s BMPs per the consultant’s recommendations and continue to include glyphosate in the list of approved herbicides. Attachment 1. Glyphosate Summary Paper Responsible Department Head: Kirk Lenington, Natural Resources Prepared by: Coty Sifuentes-Winter, Senior Resource Management Specialist, Natural Resources Glyphosate in Review Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District June 27, 2018 Page Blankinship & Associates, Inc. GLYPHOSATE IN REVIEW Prepared for: Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 330 Distel Circle Los Altos, CA 94022 Prepared by: Blankinship & Associates, Inc. 1615 5th Street Davis, CA 95616 June 27, 2018 ATTACHMENT 1 Glyphosate in Review Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District June 27, 2018 Page i Blankinship & Associates, Inc. TABLE OF CONTENTS Table of Contents ......................................................................................................................... i Acronyms and Abbreviations ....................................................................................................... ii 1. Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 1 2. Human Health ..................................................................................................................... 1 2.1. Background Exposure .................................................................................................. 1 2.2. Non-Cancer Effects ...................................................................................................... 2 2.3. Carcinogenicity ............................................................................................................ 4 2.3.1. USEPA ................................................................................................................. 5 2.3.2. IARC ..................................................................................................................... 5 2.3.3. Other Agencies ..................................................................................................... 5 2.3.4. Discussion on Evaluation Approach ...................................................................... 6 3. Glyphosate Policy Updates ................................................................................................. 6 3.1. Europe ......................................................................................................................... 7 3.2. Canada ........................................................................................................................ 8 3.3. United States ............................................................................................................... 9 3.4. California ....................................................................................................................11 4. Environmental Fate ............................................................................................................13 4.1. Water Pollution Potential .............................................................................................14 5. Screening-Level Risk Evaluation ........................................................................................15 5.1. District Glyphosate Use ..............................................................................................15 5.2. Glyphosate Exposure ..................................................................................................17 5.2.1. District Staff .........................................................................................................17 5.2.2. Preserve Visitors ..................................................................................................18 5.3. Glyphosate Toxicity .....................................................................................................18 5.4. Adjuvants and Inert Ingredients...................................................................................19 5.5. Risk Characterization ..................................................................................................20 6. IPM Program Recommendations .......................................................................................21 7. Conclusions .......................................................................................................................22 8. References ........................................................................................................................23 Glyphosate in Review Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District June 27, 2018 Page ii Blankinship & Associates, Inc. ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS a.e. Acid equivalent AMPA Aminomethylphosphonic acid AOP Adverse outcome pathway ATV All-terrain vehicle BMP Best Management Practice CAG Core Assessment Group CalEPA California Environmental Protection Agency Cal-IPC California Invasive Plant Council CARC USEPA Cancer Assessment Review Committee CDPH California Department of Public Health CFIA Canadian Food Inspection Agency CLP Regulation on the Classification, Labelling and Packaging of Substances and Mixtures District Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District DPR California Department of Pesticide Regulation EC European Commission ECHA European Chemicals Agency ECI European Citizens' Initiative EFSA European Food Safety Authority EU European Union FAO Food and Agriculture Organization FDA U.S. Food and Drug Administration FIFRA Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act GRAS Generally Recognized as Safe IARC International Agency for Research on Cancer IPA Isopropylamine (salt) IPCS International Programme on Chemical Safety IPM Integrated Pest Management Glyphosate in Review Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District June 27, 2018 Page iii Blankinship & Associates, Inc. JMPR Joint FAO/WHO Meeting on Pesticide Residues K OC Organic carbon binding coefficient K OW Octanol-water partitioning coefficient LC50 Median lethal concentration LD50 Median lethal dose LOAEC Lowest Observed Adverse Effect Concentration LOAEL Lowest Observed Adverse Effect Level MCL Maximum Contaminant Level MOA Mode of action MRL Maximum Residue Limit NHL Non-Hodgkin lymphoma NOAEC No Observed Adverse Effect Concentration NOAEL No Observed Adverse Effect Level NOI Notice of Intent NPDES SWCRB National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System NSRL No Significant Risk Level NTP National Toxicology Program OECD Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development OEHHA Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment PCA Pest Control Adviser PHG Public Health Goal PMRA Pest Management Regulatory Agency POD Point of Departure POEA Polyethoxylated tallowamine PPE Personal Protective Equipment Prop 65 Proposition 65 (Safe Drinking and Toxic Enforcement Act) QAC Qualified Applicator Certificate QAL Qualified Applicator License REACH Regulation on the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals Glyphosate in Review Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District June 27, 2018 Page iv Blankinship & Associates, Inc. REI Restricted Entry Interval RfD Reference Dose SAP FIFRA Scientific Advisory Panel SDS Safety Data Sheet SURF DPR Surface Water Monitoring Database SWRCB State Water Resources Control Board USEPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency USFS U.S. Forest Service WHO World Health Organization Glyphosate in Review Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District June 27, 2018 Page 1 Blankinship & Associates, Inc. 1. INTRODUCTION Glyphosate is a nonselective herbicide that can be used for post-emergent applications to over 100 terrestrial food crops as well as non-agricultural sites such as aquatic and residential areas (USEPA, 2017a; 40 CFR § 180.364 ,1997). Since its use first began in 1974, glyphosate has become the most widely used and among the most comprehensively evaluated herbicides. In its more than 40 years of use, it has served as an important agricultural and environmental management tool in more than 160 countries worldwide. In the U.S., total glyphosate use has increased from approximately 1.4 million pounds at the time of its initial registration to 280-290 million pounds in 2014, with agriculture accounting for 90% of use. Given its widespread and extensive history of use, glyphosate has also been the subject of extensive research and repeated safety assessments by regulatory authorities throughout the world. In Sections 2 through 4 below, the major topics of concern regarding glyphosate are addressed. Its use within Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District’s (District’s) Integrated Pest Management (IPM) Program is assessed and in Section 5, it’s risk is characterized for preserve users and District employees. Recommendations for the District’s IPM Program are presented in Section 6. The active ingredient glyphosate, its potential hazards, and its health effects are the focus of this evaluation. Although some ready-to-use glyphosate-based herbicides are formulated to contain adjuvants and other inert ingredients, the quantity and types of adjuvants and inert ingredients in such products are variable and the available literature regarding toxicity, if any, is limited due in part to the proprietary nature of many of these constituents. Based on the information available, however, the role and significance of adjuvants and inert ingredients and their potential contribution to human health risks associated with the use of glyphosate is addressed. 2. HUMAN HEALTH The human health effects of glyphosate are among the most thoroughly evaluated in the scientific, regulatory and risk assessment literature. It is of critical importance to note that characterization of human health risk can only be evaluated by considering both the degree of exposure and toxicity. The following sections provide a summary of the general background exposure, non-cancer effects, and carcinogenicity findings associated with glyphosate. Based on the toxicity information presented in this section and an evaluation of exposure related to District activities (Section 5.2), the risk associated with District glyphosate use is characterized in Section 5. 2.1. Background Exposure This section presents information on potential exposure to glyphosate resulting from activities other than those of the District activities. Refer to Section 5.2 for a discussion on the potential glyphosate exposures that may result from District activities. Because glyphosate is registered for use on a variety of agricultural commodities, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) has established food tolerances for residues of glyphosate resulting from its application. These tolerances represent the limits on the amount of Glyphosate in Review Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District June 27, 2018 Page 2 Blankinship & Associates, Inc. pesticides that may remain in or on foods marketed in the U.S. and are determined using risk assessment methodology (i.e., by considering both toxicity and exposure data). The food tolerances established for glyphosate range from 0.1 to 300 ppm for different crops (40 CFR § 180.364, 1997) which can also be expressed in units of µg/g and mg/kg. Crops grown for human food and animal feed with glyphosate residues below the established tolerance level are not anticipated to cause substantial adverse health impacts. Recently, Moms Across America (2017) tested a variety of lunch foods including almond milk, bread, veggie burgers, tea, and peanut butter for residues of glyphosate and aminomethylphosphonic acid (AMPA), the major breakdown product of glyphosate. Of the 11 analyzed product samples, a sample of Lipton® Pure Green Tea was the only product with glyphosate residues (0.19 µg/g) exceeding the lowest tolerance for glyphosate. The concentration of combined glyphosate and AMPA residues in the sample was found to be 0.21 µg/g, which is approximately 5 times lower than the tolerance established for glyphosate in dried tea of 1.0 µg/g. In another study, a research team from the University of California at San Diego analyzed urinary glyphosate and AMPA levels in 100 people living in a Southern California community who provided samples during clinic visits between 1993 to 1996 and 2014 to 2016 (Mills et al., 2017). Samples were obtained from a population-based investigation known as the Rancho Bernardo Study of Healthy Aging. Approximately 70% of samples taken between 2014 and 2016 had detectable levels of glyphosate and AMPA, while only 12% and 5% of samples taken between 1993-1996 had detectable levels of glyphosate and AMPA, respectively. The authors suggest that the increased prevalence rate observed is likely associated with the increased use of glyphosate since the introduction of genetically modified crops in the U.S. in 1994. From the 1993-1996 period to the 2014-2016 period, average concentrations in urine increased from 0.203 μg/L to 0.449 μg/L for glyphosate and from 0.285 μg/L to 0.401 μg/L for AMPA. Because no other pathways of exposure were presented, the study suggests that consumption of food treated with glyphosate was the primary cause of glyphosate detections in urine. The authors acknowledge the study’s limitations due to the cohort being a small population in which an undisclosed subset was examined. No correlation was made between the relationship between chronic glyphosate exposure and human health. Because District activities do not include the treatment of edible vegetation and it is unlikely that District or preserve users are harvesting and eating treated vegetation, this pathway and the likelihood that District staff or preserve users would have exposure is unlikely. 2.2. Non-Cancer Effects Toxicity for non-cancer effects is measured in a number of ways. In human health risk assessment, toxicity is often characterized by the No Observed Adverse Effect Level (NOAEL)/Concentration (NOAEC). These values represent the highest dose/concentration of a chemical that causes no significant predetermined adverse effects in an experimental population. The lowest dose or concentration of a chemical that causes a significant predetermined adverse effect in an experimental population is referred to as the Lowest Observed Adverse Effect Level (LOAEL) and Lowest Observed Adverse Concentration (LOAEC), respectively. LOAELs and LOAECs are used to describe the first observable signs of chemical-induced toxicity. Glyphosate in Review Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District June 27, 2018 Page 3 Blankinship & Associates, Inc. While NOAELs, NOAECs, LOAELs, and LOAECs are used as benchmarks for evaluating human health risks associated with individual chemicals, median lethal doses (LD50s) and median lethal concentration (LC50s) are used to broadly categorize general magnitude of toxicity relative to other chemicals. The LD50 or LC50 is the dose or concentration of a chemical that is expected to cause death in 50% of test organisms. LD50s, NOAELs, and LOAELs are typically determined for oral and dermal exposures, while LC50s, NOAECs, and LOAECs are determined for inhalation and drinking water (or dietary) exposures. Chemicals with higher endpoint values (i.e., higher NOAELs, NOAECs, LOAELs, LOAECs, LD50s, or LC50s) are considered to be less toxic relative to chemicals with lower endpoint values. Unlike NOAELs, NOAECs, LOAELs, and LOAECs, however, USEPA uses LD50s and LC50s to classify pesticides such as glyphosate into one of four toxicity categories for each route of exposure: high toxicity (Category I), moderate toxicity (Category II), low toxicity (Category III), or very low toxicity (Category IV). Glyphosate has very low (Category IV) acute toxicity in mammals through the oral and dermal routes. The LD50 for glyphosate is >5,000 mg/kg/day via oral exposure in rats and >5,000 mg/kg/day via dermal exposure in rabbits (USEPA, 2017a). The oral LD50 in rats is ≥5,000 mg/kg/day and 4,613 mg/kg/day for the isopropylamine (IPA) salt and the ammonium salt, respectively (USEPA, 1993). In rabbits, the dermal LD50 is ≥5,000 mg/kg/day for both salts (Miller et al., 2010). Because its technical form is a nonvolatile solid and adequate inhalation studies of end-use products demonstrate low toxicity, risk associated with the inhalation exposure is expected to be low when glyphosate is used as a pesticide. This is consistent with USEPA’s (1993) decision to waive the requirement for an acute inhalation toxicity study and an inhalation toxicity category designation as it relates to the registration of glyphosate-based pesticides. Based on a whole-body exposure study in rats, a 4-hour LC50 of >1.3 mg/L and >1.9 mg/L has been reported for the IPA salt and the ammonium salt, respectively (Miller et al., 2010). Exposure to glyphosate may result in acute eye (temporary corneal opacity or irritation; Category III) or dermal (mild or slight irritation; Category IV) irritation (USEPA, 2017a). Glyphosate is not a dermal sensitizer. The incidental oral short- and intermediate-term toxicity to glyphosate is characterized by a developmental toxicity study in rabbits. In developmental studies, pregnant experimental animals are exposed to a chemical. Effects experienced by the mother are characterized by the maternal NOAEL/LOAEL, while effects to the developing fetus are characterized by the developmental NOAEL/LOAEL. Chemicals that result in a lower developmental LOAEL than maternal LOAEL are considered developmental toxicants because they elicit toxic responses in fetuses at doses that do not result in maternal toxicity. Rabbits exposed to glyphosate via gavage began to show clinical signs of toxicity (i.e., diarrhea and few or no feces) at the maternal LOAEL of 175 mg/kg/day (USEPA, 2017a). The maternal NOAEL was 100 mg/kg/day while the developmental NOAEL was 300 mg/kg/day. A developmental LOAEL was not established. The same study was also selected by USEPA (2017a) as the critical study for chronic dietary risk assessment and used to establish the Reference Dose (RfD) of 1 mg/kg/day for glyphosate. The RfD is defined as an estimate of a daily oral exposure to the human population (including sensitive subgroups) that is likely to be without an appreciable risk of deleterious effects during a lifetime. In a 21-day dermal toxicity study in rabbits, no adverse effects were observed at the limit dose of 1,000 mg/kg/day (USEPA, 2017a). A LOAEL of 5,000 mg/kg/day was established based on Glyphosate in Review Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District June 27, 2018 Page 4 Blankinship & Associates, Inc. mild erythema and edema on male and female skin and decreased food consumption in females. In another study, rats were exposed to glyphosate via inhalation for six hours per day, five days per week for four weeks (USEPA, 2017a). No adverse effects were observed at the highest concentration tested (0.36 mg/L). Because no dermal toxicity was observed at the limit dose in the dermal toxicity study and no portal of entry effects were observed at the highest concentration tested in the inhalation toxicity study, exposure to glyphosate through these routes is not expected to result in unacceptable risk when label directions are followed. For this reason, USEPA (2017a) did not require quantitative human health risk assessments for the dermal and inhalation risk associated with glyphosate during the registration review process. In rats administered glyphosate in the diet, no reproductive or developmental toxicity was seen at any dose up to and including the limit dose of 1,000 mg/kg/day (USEPA, 2017a). The maternal LOAEL was not observed, while the offspring LOAEL was observed at the highest dose tested (1,234 mg/kg/day in males and 1,273 mg/kg/day in females) based on delayed age and increased weight at attainment of preputial separation. The offspring NOAEL was 408 mg/kg/day and 423 mg/kg/day in males and females, respectively. In general, the limit dose in acute, subchronic, and chronic toxicity studies is considered adequate to characterize effects that are relevant to human health (FDA, 2010). Based on registered uses in the U.S., pesticide exposures exceeding the limit dose are unlikely to occur outside of test conditions. Like the developmental LOAEL, the reproductive NOAEL was 1,234 mg/kg/day in males and 1,273 mg/kg/day in females. Glyphosate has not been shown to cause adverse effects to nerve tissue (i.e., neurotoxicity) or the immune system (i.e., immunotoxicity) (USEPA, 2017a). Furthermore, weight-of-evidence analyses of endocrine disruption potential indicate that glyphosate does not interact with the estrogen, androgen, or thyroid pathways (USEPA, 2015a). While individuals may be more likely to be exposed to glyphosate through the dermal and inhalation routes, oral exposure is considered the primary route of glyphosate exposure. Following oral administration, USEPA (2017a) estimates that up to 30-40% of glyphosate can be absorbed by the gastrointestinal tract. Unmetabolized glyphosate is the primary form excreted in urine and feces. In rats given 10 or 1,000 mg/kg/day of glyphosate, 97.5% of the administered dose was excreted as the unchanged parent compound (Williams et al., 2000). Glyphosate is expected to have low tissue retention following dosing and, based on findings that elimination was essentially complete within 24 hours in tested dose ranges, does not bioaccumulate in animal tissue (USEPA, 2017a). Experimental evidence also suggests that its major metabolite AMPA does not bioaccumulate (Williams et al., 2000). 2.3. Carcinogenicity The carcinogenic potential of glyphosate has been evaluated by multiple regulatory and scientific agencies around the world. While many organizations have concluded that glyphosate is not likely to be a carcinogenic risk to humans, others disagree. In the sections below, the carcinogenicity determinations of USEPA, the World Health Organization’s (WHO’s) International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), and other agencies are addressed. A discussion on the evaluation approaches that may contribute to the conflicting viewpoints of these agencies is also provided. Glyphosate in Review Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District June 27, 2018 Page 5 Blankinship & Associates, Inc. 2.3.1. USEPA In 2015, USEPA (2015b) classified glyphosate as “Not Likely to be Carcinogenic to Humans” based on a weight-of-evidence evaluation which points out that tumor incidence in animal carcinogenicity studies was typically only increased at the highest doses tested (≥1,000 mg/kg). Previous assessments by USEPA (1986, 1991) resulted in classifications of “Not Classifiable as to Human Carcinogenicity” and “Evidence of Non-Carcinogenicity for Humans.” Based on its currently registered use patterns, the potential oral exposure of glyphosate for the most highly exposed residential population subgroup (1-2-year-old children) is more than 2,000 times lower than the highest doses tested, while the maximum potential exposure calculated for occupational handlers is more than 140 times lower than the highest doses tested. Because it is considered implausible for humans to be exposed to such excessive dietary doses over time, evidence of carcinogenicity at these levels is not relevant to human health risk assessment. In subsequent assessments in 2016 and 2017, USEPA (2016, 2017b) concluded that the strongest support based on the weight-of-evidence was still for the “Not Likely to be Carcinogenic to Humans” cancer descriptor, reaffirming its 2015 carcinogenicity determination for glyphosate based on evaluation of additional studies which were not available during the 2015 assessment. Based in part on the results of these carcinogenicity evaluations, USEPA’s proposed interim registration review decision for glyphosate is expected to be published in 2019, including any proposed mitigation measures to reduce unacceptable risk. Refer to Section 3.3 for additional information pertaining to USEPA’s review of glyphosate as a candidate for pesticide registration renewal. 2.3.2. IARC IARC is an intergovernmental agency forming part of the WHO and is one of four WHO programs that have reviewed glyphosate. In 2015, IARC issued a statement that re-classified glyphosate as “probably carcinogenic to humans” (WHO, 2015). This determination was based on “limited evidence of carcinogenicity in humans for non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL). The evidence in humans is from studies of exposure, mostly agricultural, in the U.S., Canada, and Sweden published since 2001. In addition, there is convincing evidence that glyphosate can also cause cancer in laboratory animals.” Consequently, glyphosate was added to the Proposition 65 (Prop 65) list by the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) in 2017 via the Labor Code mechanism. The Labor Code mechanism requires that substances listed as human or animal carcinogens by IARC be listed as known to cause cancer under Prop 65 (HSC § 25249.8, 1986). Under this mechanism, OEHHA does not and “cannot consider scientific arguments concerning the weight or quality of the evidence considered by IARC when it identified these chemicals” (OEHHA, 2015). 2.3.3. Other Agencies IARC’s conclusions that glyphosate is a probable human carcinogen are contrasted by the three other WHO agencies that evaluated glyphosate. These WHO agencies are: the International Programme on Chemical Safety (IPCS), the Core Assessment Group (CAG), and the Guidelines for Drinking-water Quality (WHO, 1994, 2005; WHO and FAO, 2016). Further, the following additional agencies have evaluated glyphosate and have concluded that glyphosate is not likely to be carcinogenic: Health Canada’s Pest Management Regulatory Agency (PMRA, Glyphosate in Review Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District June 27, 2018 Page 6 Blankinship & Associates, Inc. 2017), the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA, 2015), the New Zealand Environmental Protection Authority (NZ EPA, 2016), the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA, 2016), the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority (APVMA, 2017), the Food Safety Commission of Japan (FSCJ, 2016), and the German Federal Institute of Risk Assessment (BfR, 2015). Despite the consensus among multiple agencies that glyphosate is unlikely to pose a carcinogenic risk to humans, some individual countries in Europe (e.g., France, Sweden) have considered banning glyphosate uses based on the IARC decision (USEPA, 2017b). 2.3.4. Discussion on Evaluation Approach The conclusions reached by IARC and those reached by other agencies may differ due to diverging evaluation approaches. In the U.S., for instance, some studies included in the IARC evaluation were excluded from USEPA’s (2017b) evaluation if they did not collect exposure information on glyphosate from individual subjects, did not assess an outcome (e.g., biomonitoring studies), and/or did not provide a quantitative measure of an association between glyphosate and a cancer outcome. Furthermore, USEPA’s (2005) Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk Assessment indicates that the highest dose selected for carcinogenicity studies should elicit toxicity without substantially impacting mortality from non-cancer effects or how the body handles the chemical (e.g., overwhelming absorption and detoxification mechanisms, or reduced consumption of treated food due to poor palatability in dietary studies). In studies where exposure doses are excessively high, tumors may be secondary effects to general toxicity rather than directly attributable to the chemical. For glyphosate, an adequately high dose (i.e., the limit dose) for carcinogenicity studies has been established at 1,000 mg/kg/day (USEPA, 2017b). As such, USEPA puts less weight on observations of increased incidence of tumors that only occur near or above the limit dose (USEPA, 2017b). In contrast, observations of tumors occurring only near or above the limit dose were given equal weight in the IARC evaluation. Another point of contention is IARC’s evaluation of glyphosate formulated products. Health Canada’s Pest Management Regulatory Agency (PMRA) points out that while the composition of glyphosate formulated products differs around the world, the IARC assessment relied on many studies that did not characterize the composition of the formulations and/or evaluated all glyphosate formulated products as a group, regardless of their composition (PMRA, 2017). Consequently, the toxicity resulting from such an approach may be caused by contributions from other constituents in the formulation rather than those of glyphosate itself. In some studies, for example, genotoxicity (i.e., damage to cellular genetic material) is observed following exposure to glyphosate formulations but not following exposure to glyphosate alone (USEPA, 2017b). Because such findings suggest that glyphosate formulations may be more toxic than glyphosate alone, USEPA (USEPA, 2017b) intends to evaluate the role of glyphosate in product formulations and the differences in formulation toxicity in future research. 3. GLYPHOSATE POLICY UPDATES Government regulatory agencies worldwide, international organizations, and various scientific institutions and experts have reviewed the available scientific data to make a determination on the safety of glyphosate use as it relates to human health. Additional assessments were prompted by IARC’s (2015) evaluation in order to make informed decisions about and Glyphosate in Review Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District June 27, 2018 Page 7 Blankinship & Associates, Inc. implement modernized policy updates for glyphosate-based pesticides. In this section, recent glyphosate policy updates in Europe, Canada, the U.S., and California are discussed. 3.1. Europe In Europe, products containing glyphosate are commonly used agriculture, horticulture, and in some non-cultivated areas to control weeds that compete with cultivated crops or plants that are otherwise problematic (EC, 2017a). Pursuant to the European Union’s (EU’s) Regulations on the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH) and on the Classification, Labelling and Packaging of Substances and Mixtures (CLP), glyphosate has been thoroughly evaluated by EU Member States, the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), and the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) from 2012 to 2017 to determine whether its use results in any unacceptable effects on humans, animals, or the environment (EC, 2017b). Following IARC’s determination that glyphosate is a probable human carcinogen, the European Commission (EC) mandated the EFSA to review the relevant data in an effort to make a determination on the renewal of glyphosate approval within the EU. In October 2015, EFSA published its conclusion, supported by Member States, that glyphosate is unlikely to pose a carcinogenic hazard to humans; however, additional data was needed to determine its potential endocrine disrupting properties (EC, 2018). This data gap was later addressed in September 2017 based on a weight-of-evidence evaluation indicating that glyphosate does not have endocrine disrupting properties through estrogen, androgen, thyroid, or steroidogenesis pathways (EC, 2017c). Ecotoxicity studies reviewed during the evaluation also supported this finding. In an independent evaluation, ECHA also determined that, based on available information, glyphosate is unlikely to cause cancer in humans (EC, 2018). ECHA further concluded that glyphosate is neither mutagenic (i.e., capable of causing genetic damage) nor a reproductive toxicant. Despite these findings, some EU Member States such as France and Sweden have considered banning glyphosate uses based on the IARC decision (USEPA, 2017b). In July 2016, EU Member States voted to amend the conditions of the existing approval of glyphosate in an effort to increase protection of human health and the environment (EC, 2018). Three conditions for further use of glyphosate in the Member States were established: (1) Ban the co-formulant polyethoxylated tallowamine (POEA) from glyphosate formulations; (2) Minimize use in public parks, public playgrounds, and gardens; and (3) Minimize pre-harvest use. In October the following year, a European Citizens' Initiative (ECI) signed by over 1,000,000 European citizens was submitted to the EC in October 2017 with an aim "to ban glyphosate- based herbicides, exposure to which has been linked to cancer in humans, and has led to ecosystems degradation (EC, 2017b)." In its response, the EC reiterated the findings of ECHA and EFSA that glyphosate should not be classified as carcinogenic, mutagenic, or toxic for reproduction, pointing out that IARC likely reached a different conclusion due to differences in evaluation method. While IARC assessments considered both glyphosate as the active chemical and as part of various formulations, EU assessments focused only on glyphosate. Furthermore, the EU assessment included studies submitted by industry that are not in the public domain. The EC response further stated that, based on EU’s ecological risk assessment considering environmental concentrations of glyphosate in various media, glyphosate is not Glyphosate in Review Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District June 27, 2018 Page 8 Blankinship & Associates, Inc. expected to cause ecosystem degradation when used in accordance with its established conditions of use and “in line with good agricultural practices” imposed by Member States. When necessary, these practices may include mechanisms to reduce ecological impacts associated with agricultural pesticides, such as no-spray zones and use of drift reduction technology. Based on the findings of EU Member States, EFSA, and ECHA, the EC renewed the approval of glyphosate for five years in December 2017 (EC, 2018). Although EU legislation allows for renewal periods of up to 15 years, a shorter renewal period was granted in light of the rapidly expanding body of knowledge on glyphosate (EC, 2017b). The approval of glyphosate is anticipated to be reassessed in five years; however, reassessment may occur at any time in the event that new scientific evidence indicates that glyphosate no longer satisfies the criteria for herbicide approval in the EU. 3.2. Canada In Canada, glyphosate is registered for use on a wide variety of sites including terrestrial feed and food crops, terrestrial non-food, non-feed and fiber crops, and for non-agricultural, industrial, and residential weed management for non-food sites, forests and woodlots, outdoor ornamentals and turf (PMRA, 2017). Pesticides such as glyphosate are registered by Health Canada’s Pest Management Regulatory Agency (PMRA) before they can be imported, sold, or used in Canada. Similar to the pesticide tolerances established by USEPA, PMRA sets Maximum Residue Limits (MRLs) for pesticide residues on food. MRLs represent the maximum amount of residue that is expected to remain on food products when pesticides are used according to label instructions and are set for individual products at levels protective of human health. In 2015-2016 the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) tested for glyphosate residues in over 3,000 samples of domestic and imported food products including fresh and processed fruits and vegetables, grains, and bean, pea, lentil, chickpea, and soy products (CFIA, 2017). While glyphosate residues were detected in nearly 30% of samples; the overall compliance rate was 98.7% based on Canadian MRLs. Most samples exceeding the MRLs were associated with grain products. All pesticides registered for use in Canada are reevaluated by PMRA on a 15-year cycle to determine whether their use continues to meet modern health and environment safety standards. In its recent reevaluation of glyphosate, PMRA (2015) conducted a human health and ecological risk assessment of the active ingredient and formulated products, taking into consideration the potential human health impacts of glyphosate from drinking water, food, and occupational and bystander exposure. In April 2015, PRMA concluded that formulated glyphosate products do not pose unacceptable risks to human health or the environment when used according to revised label instructions. Specifically, PMRA (2015) found that glyphosate is not genotoxic, unlikely to cause a human cancer risk, and unlikely to cause a health risk for individuals exposed via food and drinking water. With the implementation of revised product label directions, undue risks to the environment as well as occupational and non-occupational risks associated with the use of glyphosate are not expected; however, spray buffer zones are necessary to reduce potential risks to non-target organisms such as nearby vegetation, aquatic invertebrates, and fish. Glyphosate in Review Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District June 27, 2018 Page 9 Blankinship & Associates, Inc. As it pertains to the carcinogenic potential of glyphosate, PMRA (2015) acknowledged that its evaluation was based on different datasets and considerations than that of IARC. The primary difference between the two evaluations was PMRA’s use of a weight-of-evidence approach, which gave more weight to studies showing reliable, relevant, and consistent results. Although the active ingredient and its formulated products were both included in the evaluation, studies of glyphosate alone were often given more weight than studies of formulated products. Because formulations contain a variety of inert ingredients that could not be identified due to their proprietary nature, studies of such mixtures were considered less relevant than their glyphosate-only counterparts. Studies conducted in accordance to internationally accepted test guidelines were also considered more relevant and reliable than studies conducted with other methodologies. Furthermore, the PMRA evaluation included several studies not considered by IARC, including industry-supplied lifetime cancer bioassays and mutagenicity studies and epidemiological data. Based on the 2015 evaluation, PMRA (2017) granted continued registration of glyphosate- based products in Canada, with the requirement that all products implement revised label language by 2019. To minimize human exposure to glyphosate, revised label directions must restrict commercial and residential applicators from using hand-wicking or hand-daubing methods; require a Restricted Entry Interval (REI) of 12 hours for agricultural uses; and indicate that the product is to be applied only when the potential for drift to areas of human habitation or areas of human activity is minimal. To minimize environmental risks associated with the use of glyphosate, revised label directions must: include environmental hazard statements to inform users of toxicity to non-target species; require spray buffer zones to protect non-target terrestrial and aquatic habitats; and include precautionary statements for sites with characteristics or weather conditions that may be conducive to runoff to reduce the potential for runoff to aquatic habitats. Canada is one of 34 member countries, including the United States, Australia and the EU, within the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) the routinely collaborate on the regulation of pesticides. As of March 2017, no decision by an OECD member country to prohibit all uses of glyphosate for health or environmental reasons has been identified (PMRA, 2017). 3.3. United States In the U.S., glyphosate is registered to control weeds in various agricultural and non-agricultural settings. As mandated by the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), glyphosate is currently undergoing Registration Review. Under this program, the hazards and exposures associated with registered pesticides are reviewed at least every 15 years to determine the potential risks to human and environmental health. Risks are assessed using current practices and policies to ensure pesticide products can still be used safely. As part of this process, several draft human health and ecological risk assessments have recently been conducted. In September 2015, USEPA’s (2015c) preliminary ecological risk assessment found that, while glyphosate residues in water resulting from spray drift or aquatic applications may impact certain non-target aquatic plants (i.e., emergent aquatic vascular plants), exposures are not expected to impact the survival, growth, or reproduction of aquatic invertebrates, fish, aquatic non-vascular plants, or submerged vascular plants. Acute exposure Glyphosate in Review Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District June 27, 2018 Page 10 Blankinship & Associates, Inc. to glyphosate is not expected to cause unacceptable risk to birds or terrestrial mammals; however, small mammals may be impacted by chronic (generally >10% of the mammal’s lifespan) dietary exposure to glyphosate that has been applied to food trees, vines, berries, and small fruit (via ground application up to the maximum combined annual use rate) and in non- agricultural uses such as non-crop areas, forests, and pastures. Exposure at application rates below 1.92 lb a.e./acre for honeybee larvae and below 5.7 lb a.e./acre for adult honeybees are not expected to result in unacceptable risk. Additional toxicity tests are needed to determine risks to terrestrial invertebrates at greater doses. Because use of glyphosate includes direct applications to potable source waters, this may result in drinking water contamination. USEPA (2017c) conducted a drinking water assessment in 2017 based on label language that defines the maximum allowable glyphosate concentration at the intake of a treated drinking water system as 700 μg/L. In this assessment, the highest estimated glyphosate concentrations in surface source drinking water were associated with aquatic applications in potable water sources. Based on monitoring data, the maximum concentration detected in surface water was 35.1 μg/L. Glyphosate was not expected to impact groundwater during a 100-year simulation. Monitoring data indicated that the median detection frequency of glyphosate was < 0.1%, with a maximum concentration of 2.2 μg/L for groundwater used as a drinking water source. In a dietary exposure analysis, chronic risk associated with long-term exposure to tolerance- level glyphosate residues in food and drinking water were not of concern for the most highly exposed population (1- to 2-year-old children) (USEPA, 2017d). Quantitative acute and cancer dietary risk assessments were not conducted since appropriate impacts resulting from single- dose exposures were not identified and glyphosate is classified as not likely to be a human carcinogen, respectively. A residential exposure analysis was also conducted to characterize the risk associated with glyphosate use in non-occupational settings (USEPA, 2017e). Based on the registered turf and aquatic use patterns, USEPA evaluated potential acute dermal and inhalation exposures to residential pesticide handlers and dermal, inhalation, and incidental oral exposures from post- application activities. As mentioned in Section 2.1, USEPA (2017a) does not require quantitative human health risk assessments for dermal and inhalation risk associated with glyphosate due to the low toxicity exhibited through these routes of exposure. Thus, an assessment of the non- occupational incidental oral exposure was conducted to characterize the potential risks to children and swimmers who may have short-term post-application incidental oral exposures from hand-to-mouth behavior on treated turf and from aquatic uses, respectively. No residential risk estimates of concern were identified. In a human health risk assessment, USEPA (2017a) considered the findings from the dietary and residential exposure analyses to evaluate the total risk from exposures via food, drinking water, and residential use. The resulting aggregate risk estimates were not of concern. While there is potential for acute dermal and inhalation exposures to occupational pesticide handlers and from post-application activities, a quantitative exposure risk assessment was not required due to the low toxicity via these routes of exposure. The carcinogenic potential of glyphosate has also been extensively reviewed during recent years. Following IARC’s determination that glyphosate is probably carcinogenic to humans, USEPA’s (2015b) Cancer Assessment Review Committee (CARC) re-evaluated the Glyphosate in Review Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District June 27, 2018 Page 11 Blankinship & Associates, Inc. carcinogenic potential of glyphosate in accordance with the 2005 Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk Assessment (USEPA, 2005). The assessment included studies reviewed by IARC but which were not previously available to USEPA and concluded that glyphosate is not likely to be carcinogenic to humans. IARC’s evaluation also prompted independent review by EFSA and the Joint Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO)/WHO Meeting on Pesticide Residues (JMPR). While JMPR’s evaluation specifically reviewed carcinogenic risk through the diet, both organizations concluded that glyphosate was unlikely to pose a carcinogenic hazard to humans (EFSA, 2015; WHO and FAO, 2016). In 2016, USEPA (2016) issued a follow-up evaluation which included additional relevant studies reviewed in these assessments but which were not previously available to USEPA. A systematic review of the open literature and toxicological databases for glyphosate was also conducted. All studies were evaluated for quality and consistency and given appropriate weight in the evaluation. Based on epidemiological, carcinogenicity, and genotoxicity studies for glyphosate, the determination that glyphosate is not likely to be carcinogenic to humans was retained. Later in 2016, the FIFRA Scientific Advisory Panel (SAP) was convened to evaluate USEPA’s 2016 Issue Paper. In 2017, USEPA (2017b) published a revised Issue Paper incorporating revisions based on FIFRA SAP’s evaluation report (USEPA, 2017f) and in addition to recently published carcinogenicity data. Based on available data, USEPA concluded that the strongest support was still for the “Not Likely to be Carcinogenic to Humans” cancer descriptor. However, due to conflicting results and various limitations identified in studies investigating NHL, the risk of NHL onset associated with glyphosate exposure could not be determined. USEPA is currently collaborating with the National Toxicology Program (NTP) Division of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences to develop a research plan intended to address data gaps, such as an in-depth understanding of the mode of action (MOA)/adverse outcome pathway (AOP) of glyphosate and how the toxicity of glyphosate formulations is influenced by formulation components (e.g., adjuvants including surfactants, wetting agents, drift retardants, etc.). USEPA is scheduled to publish the proposed interim registration review decision for glyphosate in 2019. If necessary, the proposed interim registration review decision will outline any proposed mitigation measures to reduce unacceptable risk. 3.4. California In 1986, California voters passed the Safe Drinking and Toxic Enforcement Act, better known as Prop 65 (OEHHA, 2013). Prop 65 requires the State of California publish a list of chemicals known to cause cancer or birth defects or other forms of reproductive harm. These chemicals include a variety of pesticides, food and drugs. Listed chemicals may also be used in or be byproducts of manufacturing, chemical processing, and construction. The list must be updated at least once a year and has accumulated over 800 chemicals since it was first published in 1987. Prop 65 requires that businesses provide a “clear and reasonable” warning before knowingly and intentionally exposing anyone to a listed chemical. This “right to know” law enables Californians to make informed decisions about protecting themselves from exposure to these chemicals. Prop 65 also forbids businesses from knowingly discharging significant amounts of listed chemicals into sources of drinking water. OEHHA, which is part of the California Glyphosate in Review Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District June 27, 2018 Page 12 Blankinship & Associates, Inc. Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA), is the agency responsible for administering the requirements of the law. OEHHA evaluates all currently available scientific information on substances. Pursuant to the Labor Code listing mechanism, OEHHA (2015) issued a Notice of Intent (NOI) to list glyphosate under Prop 65 in September 2015 following IARC’s (2015) determination that glyphosate is “probably carcinogenic to humans.” As previously mentioned, this mechanism requires that certain substances identified by IARC be listed as carcinogenic under Prop 65 and prohibits OEHHA from evaluating the scientific merit behind IARC’s decision. As such, the Labor Code mechanism is a strictly ministerial process and does not reflect an exercise of discretion or judgment by OEHHA. Due to the conflicting conclusions of IARC and other agencies such as USEPA, the decision to list glyphosate under Prop 65 has been controversial among the scientific community and strongly opposed by a leading manufacturer of glyphosate formulated products, Monsanto. In January 2016, Monsanto filed a lawsuit against OEHHA in an effort to prevent the glyphosate listing, citing a 2007 risk assessment conducted by OEHHA for purposes of setting a Public Health Goal (PHG) for glyphosate in drinking water. In the assessment, OEHHA (2007) evaluated the same animal carcinogenicity studies included in the IARC evaluation, and found that glyphosate is unlikely to pose a risk of cancer in humans. The lawsuit claims that by listing glyphosate under Prop 65, OEHHA would be violating Monsanto’s right to free speech by requiring it to affix "false and/or misleading" statements to its products. Because the Labor Code mechanism is ministerial in nature and does not allow for OEHHA to reject classification decisions made by IARC, the lawsuit further claims that glyphosate’s listing violates Monsanto’s right to procedural due process. The lawsuit states that the IARC decision was made by an “unelected, undemocratic, foreign body through a non- transparent process” and was not subject to review by other entities. Despite this criticism, Fresno County Superior Court ruled against Monsanto in March 2017, allowing OEHHA to proceed with the glyphosate listing (Fresno County Superior Court, 2017). Following this ruling, OEHHA (2017a) posted a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, proposing to adopt a No Significant Risk Level (NSRL) of 1,100 µg/day for glyphosate. NSRLs represent the amount of a chemical that would result in a cancer risk of no more than 1 in 100,000 for individuals exposed to the chemical over a 70-year time period. Pursuant to Prop 65, products containing chemicals known to cause carcinogenic harm must provide a warning of exposure if they contain levels exceeding the NSRL. The glyphosate listing under Prop 65 became effective in July 2017 (OEHHA, 2017b); however, in February 2018, a federal judge temporarily dismissed the requirement for Monsanto to print cancer warnings on its products, stating that the warnings would be misleading to ordinary consumers “given the heavy weight of evidence in the record that glyphosate is not in fact known to cause cancer” (Eastern District of California U.S. District Court, 2018). OEHHA (2017c) has previously expressed that in the event that IARC were to change its classification of glyphosate, a reconsideration of the glyphosate listing would be possible. OEHHA’s listing of glyphosate under Prop 65 remains controversial, largely due to the controversial nature in which IARC used data to reach its conclusions and the inability OEHHA has to independently exercise its scientific judgement in making its listing determination. Despite the Prop 65 listing, various groups support continued use of glyphosate. In October 2017, for Glyphosate in Review Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District June 27, 2018 Page 13 Blankinship & Associates, Inc. example, the California Invasive Plant Council (Cal-IPC) published its position on the issue, stating that it continues to support the use of glyphosate in invasive plant management as part of an IPM approach and that, when used according to the product label with appropriate Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) and Best Management Practices (BMPs), glyphosate is low-risk for wildlife, applicators, and the public (Cal-IPC, 2017). 4. ENVIRONMENTAL FATE The environmental fate of glyphosate-based herbicides is one of the most evaluated and well understood amongst herbicides. The vapor pressure (<7x10-9 mmHg; USEPA, 2008) and resultant volatility of glyphosate are very low, minimizing offsite movement during or after application. Its low Henry’s Law constant of <2.07x10-12 atm-m3/mol (USFS, 2011) indicates that when in water, glyphosate is unlikely to volatilize. Both the low volatility and low Henry’s Law constant indicate that glyphosate is not expected to be found in air when label-specific application techniques are employed. Because glyphosate is a broad spectrum, non- discriminatory herbicide, mist produced during glyphosate applications has the potential to impact nearby nontarget vegetation. Therefore, consideration of drift control practices such as the addition of a drift control agent, selection of correct nozzle pressure and selection of appropriate nozzle type is recommended in all cases of glyphosate use. Always read and follow label directions. Glyphosate is primarily broken down by microbes and fungi in or on the soil and in surface water (Giesy et al., 2000). Other forms of degradation, such as photodegradation (i.e., via sunlight) and hydrolysis (i.e., via water), are not expected to contribute significantly to glyphosate degradation (USEPA, 2008). When glyphosate degrades in soil and water, its primary breakdown product is AMPA (Giesy et al., 2000). AMPA exhibits similar or less toxicity than glyphosate (Borggaard and Gimsing, 2008) and further degrades to naturally-occurring compounds such as carbon dioxide and phosphate. Although this process may result in a contribution of phosphate to an aquatic environment, this contribution is not expected to make a meaningful contribution to nutrients that may be used by aquatic plants and algae. Glyphosate is very soluble in water (12,000 mg/L; USEPA, 2008) and has a low octanol-water partitioning coefficient (K OW < 0.00063; USFS, 2011), indicating that it is not likely to bioaccumulate in animal tissue. In addition to microbial degradation, glyphosate also dissipates in aquatic environments by way of dispersion, dilution when rivers or streams flow into a larger river or lake, and loss through processes such as adsorption to suspended particulate matter or sediments (Giesy et al., 2000). In non-flowing water systems, the rate of glyphosate dissipation may be influenced more heavily by site-specific chemical, physical, and biological conditions. Based on analysis of field and laboratory studies, a conservative range of aquatic half-life values has been estimated to be from 7 to 14 days (Giesy et al., 2000). Half-lives of AMPA are considered comparable to that of glyphosate. In soil, the rate of glyphosate degradation depends largely on the overall microbial activity of the soil (Carlisle and Trevors, 1988; Moshie and Penner, 1978). The soil metabolism half -life of glyphosate is 1.8 to 5.4 days (USEPA, 2008) under aerobic conditions (i.e., in the presence of oxygen) and 22.1 days (USFS, 2011) under anaerobic conditions (i.e., in the absence of oxygen). Because application scenarios involve application to plants on the ground surface, aerobic conditions are expected to be predominant. Other factors, such as temperature, plant Glyphosate in Review Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District June 27, 2018 Page 14 Blankinship & Associates, Inc. debris, weather conditions, and soil moisture content contribute to variability in its degradation rate (University of California, Davis, 2010). The dissipation half-life of glyphosate in soils typically ranges from 3 to 174 days (WHO, 1994). A similar range of field dissipation half-lives (2.4 to 160 days) was reported by USEPA (2008). In these studies, glyphosate appeared to persist longer in cold climates than in warm ones. Based on a meta-analysis of 47 soil degradation studies conducted in diverse soil conditions, the average half-life for glyphosate was estimated to be 32 days (Giesy et al., 2000). The degradation of glyphosate in broom-infested soil in Mt. Tamalpais of Marin County was also investigated by the University of California, Davis (2010). Their study reported glyphosate and AMPA half-lives of 44 and 46 days, respectively. In another terrestrial dissipation study of eight test sites, the median half-life of AMPA was 240 days, with a range of 119 to 958 days (USEPA, 1993). Consistent with its positive charge and like many cations, USEPA reports that there is very little uptake into plants of either glyphosate or AMPA from soil due to their strong binding properties, even immediately after application (40 CFR § 180, 2002). In addition to cationic bonding to soil particles, another important contributing factor in the binding properties of a chemical is often described by its organic carbon binding coefficient (K OC ), described in Section 4.1 below. 4.1. Water Pollution Potential Glyphosate is not included on the California Department of Pesticide Regulation’s (DPR’s) Groundwater Protection List, indicating that it is not recognized as a chemical likely to pollute groundwater (3 CCR § 6800, 2014). Chemicals are added to the Groundwater Protection List if they are both mobile (i.e., solubility >3 mg/L, K OC <1,900) and persistent (i.e., hydrolysis half-life >14 days, aerobic soil metabolism half-life >610 days, anaerobic soil metabolism half-life >9 days), and applied in certain ways (i.e., applied to soil via ground-based application equipment or chemigation, or application is followed by flood or furrow irrigation; DPR, 2013a). Glyphosate’s relatively high degradation rate in soil and water, in addition to its strong soil- and sediment-binding potential (K OC = 3,100-58,000; USEPA, 2008), reduces its ability to leach through the soil and into groundwater. While the leaching potential of glyphosate is influenced by factors such as rainfall, soil composition, and drainage type, its vertical movement through soil is generally limited to the top 15 centimeters (USEPA, 1993). This is supported by the fact that glyphosate is not typically detected in groundwater (DPR, 2013b, 2014, 2015, 2016a, 2016b). Between 2004 and 2015, 2,578 wells across up to 38 California counties were sampled for glyphosate by the California Department of Public Health (CDPH) and the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). During this period, no glyphosate detections in groundwater were reported. In a drinking water assessment conducted by USEPA (2017c), glyphosate was not expected to impact groundwater during a 100-year simulation. Monitoring data indicated that the median detection frequency of glyphosate was < 0.1%, with a maximum concentration of 2.2 μg/L for groundwater used as a drinking water source. The same properties that limit leaching to groundwater (i.e., high degradation rate and high K OC ) also limit the amount of glyphosate that is transported to surface water via runoff. In a three-year study evaluating glyphosate transport from agricultural fields to surface water, less than 1% of applied glyphosate was typically lost as runoff when the recommended application rate was applied (Edwards et al., 1980). The maximum amount of glyphosate transport by runoff Glyphosate in Review Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District June 27, 2018 Page 15 Blankinship & Associates, Inc. observed by the study occurred in a field treated at twice the recommended application rate with a severe rainstorm occurring one day after application. Additionally, glyphosate’s strong soil- binding potential indicates that, when glyphosate-containing soil particles are washed or blown into surface waters, most of the chemical will remain adsorbed to the particle surface rather than be released into water. Glyphosate-containing soil particles will eventually settle to the bottom of the sediment, where glyphosate is degraded over time by microorganisms (DPR, 1998). Glyphosate has no short- or long-term adverse effects on sediment-dwelling organisms (Simenstad et al., 1996). Data from DPR’s Surface Water Monitoring Database (SURF) indicates that between 1999 and 2017, 477 out of 4,564 surface water samples (10.4%) from California contained detectable concentrations of glyphosate (DPR, 2017). The maximum concentration reported was 1,800 µg/L, and was measured in an agriculture return flow canal immediately after aquatic application of glyphosate (Siemering et al., 2005). All other glyphosate detections reported in SURF were below the PHG of 900 µg/L; all but two glyphosate detections were below the Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) of 700 µg/L (DPR, 2017; OEHHA, 2017d). PHGs are established by OEHHA and represent the level of a chemical contaminant in drinking water that does not pose a significant risk to health, while MCLs are enforceable standards established by USEPA that represent the maximum allowable amount of a contaminant in drinking water which is delivered to consumers. In USEPA’s (2017c) drinking water assessment, the highest estimated glyphosate concentrations in surface source drinking water were similarly associated with aquatic applications in potable water sources. Based on monitoring data, the maximum concentration detected in surface water was 35.1 μg/L. It should be pointed out the glyphosate is allowed for use in aquatic systems and so its detection after its use is neither surprising nor inconsistent with the product label. Furthermore, the SWRCB National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit for residual aquatic pesticide discharges to waters of the United States allows for aquatic use of glyphosate. 5. SCREENING-LEVEL RISK EVALUATION In the following section, the risk of glyphosate applications to pesticide handlers (i.e., District staff) and District preserve visitors is evaluated based on District activities, glyphosate toxicity, and estimated exposure within District preserves. Exposure pathways considered were ingestion, inhalation, and dermal absorption. 5.1. District Glyphosate Use In 2014, the District began implementing an IPM Program to control pests through consistent implementation of IPM principles to protect and restore the natural environment and provide for human safety and enjoyment while visiting and working on District lands. IPM involves using a combination of pest identification and control techniques (i.e., mechanical, chemical, biological, and cultural controls) to manage pest problems while minimizing risks to humans and the environment. As needed, chemical controls such as herbicides are used to manage plants that pose a fire hazard, outcompete native vegetation, are non-native and/or invasive, or are otherwise undesirable. Glyphosate in Review Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District June 27, 2018 Page 16 Blankinship & Associates, Inc. In 2017, the District utilized two herbicide products containing glyphosate: Roundup® ProMax® (i.e., glyphosate potassium salt) and Roundup® CustomTM (i.e., glyphosate IPA salt). In general, the District uses glyphosate during the spring and summer to manage invasive plants such as yellow starthistle, stinkwort, and French broom. These plants pose a fire hazard when dry and have been rated as having a Moderate to High adverse impact to the ecosystem by Cal-IPC depending on the severity of ecological impacts on physical processes, plant and animal communities, and vegetation structure they impose. Further, if present on or near areas used by preserve visitors, these plants are aesthetically unpleasing and in the case of yellow starthistle, can make trails impassable due to its vigorous and dense growth and sharp thistles. Applications were made by District staff or contractors to small, targeted areas using a backpack sprayer or, for larger areas, a truck- or an all-terrain vehicle- (ATV-) mounted boom sprayer. In total, approximately 77 lb acid equivalent (a.e.) of glyphosate were applied within an area of approximately 170 acres of District property (0.45 lb a.e./acre). Plant-specific herbicide application rates are described on the product label. After site-scouting to determine the type and density of plant(s) requiring control, specific detail on the application rate, method of application, and other details are presented in a written recommendation prepared by a DPR-licensed Pest Control Adviser (PCA) with expertise in vegetation management. Details addressed in the written recommendation include the criteria used to determine the need for pesticide use; potential hazards and restrictions; crop and site restrictions; notes on the allowable proximity of the application to people, pets, and livestock; and a statement indicating that alternatives and mitigation measures that would substantially lessen any significant adverse impact on the environment have been considered and if feasible, adopted. PCAs must complete no less than 40 hours of continuing education every two years that includes review of laws and regulations and compliance with label directions. PCAs may also recommend the use of adjuvants to increase efficacy, address tank mix water quality and mitigate drift. In some cases, the use of an adjuvant is required by the product label Currently, the District uses Liberate®, a non-ionic surfactant, when making applications of Roundup Custom. In addition to the guidance provided by a PCA, the District has implemented a number of BMPs to further reduce human health and environmental risks associated with the use of pesticides. For example, as required by Federal law and reiterated in District BMPs, applicators must follow all label directions when using pesticides. Among other things, this includes the use of PPE and abiding by an REI which prohibits entry into an area of treated vegetation until such time has elapsed that the pesticide cannot be dislodged from the plant surface. District staff also restrict treated areas from public entry until the pesticide has dried. Per label instructions, typical PPE includes a long-sleeved shirt, long pants, shoes, and socks are required for applications of Roundup ProMax and Roundup Custom. Applicators also wear gloves and eye protection in accordance with 3 CCR §§ 6738.1 (2015), 6738.2 (2015), 6738.3 (2016), 6738.4 (2016). For agricultural use, workers are instructed by label language not to enter treated areas during the REI of four (4) hours. For non-agricultural use, people and pets must be kept off treated areas until the pesticide has dried. All pesticide applicators must hold or be supervised by a person who holds a Qualified Applicator License (QAL) or a Qualified Applicator Certificate (QAC). Like PCAs, QAL/QAC holders are licensed by DPR and trained in techniques to minimize impacts to human health and the environment. QAL/QAC holders are required to obtain 20 hours of continuing education Glyphosate in Review Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District June 27, 2018 Page 17 Blankinship & Associates, Inc. every two years and may, as needed, recommend additional protective measures beyond what is required by the product label. Furthermore, a written pesticide safety training program is required for training employees who handle pesticides and fieldworkers who may enter treated fields. The training program must meet the requirements described in 3 CCR §§ 6724 (2018) and 6764 (2018), and be presented by a qualified individual annually to pesticide handlers and fieldworkers that do not hold a QAC/QAL. Other herbicide-related BMPs such buffer zones, use of spray nozzles to reduce drift and posted pesticide application notification requirements are also implemented under the IPM Program. Details can be found in the District’s (2014a) Environmental Impact Report and the District’s (2014b) IPM Guidance Manual and their respective addenda. 5.2. Glyphosate Exposure Two potentially exposed groups were considered: preserve users and District staff. Based on the manner in which the District uses glyphosate and the associated BMPs that are employed, relevant pathways of exposure are the acute (i.e., short-term) dermal and inhalation routes. Incidental ingestion of glyphosate residues is not expected because it is assumed that neither group intentionally consumes treated vegetation. Because of the small volume of glyphosate applied, methods of application, areas being treated subject to posting and REIs, and the employment of BMPs, preserve users are not expected to have chronic (i.e., long-term, continuous) exposure to glyphosate by any route of exposure. Similarly, because of the low frequency of use, methods of application, small volume of material handled and applied, use of PPE and the employment of BMPs, District staff are not expected to have chronic exposure (i.e., long-term, continuous) to glyphosate by any route of exposure. Acute exposure scenarios to District staff include contacting pesticide residues during pesticide mixing, loading, or application; contacting contaminated vegetation; accidentally wearing contaminated gloves; accidentally ingesting pesticide residues on contaminated skin; and inhaling aerosolized pesticide during application. Acute exposure to preserve visitors include contact with contaminated vegetation, accidental ingestion of pesticide residues following contact with contaminated vegetation, and inhalation of glyphosate during application by District staff. 5.2.1. District Staff Dermal contact with glyphosate may occur during pesticide mixing, loading, or application; when handling treated vegetation; and by accidentally wearing contaminated gloves. Dermal exposure from pesticide handling activities is greatly reduced by the use of PPE and REIs. Once pesticide residues have dried, transfer to the skin during dermal contact is minimal. Furthermore, glyphosate is poorly absorbed through the skin; the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) estimates a dermal absorption rate of 0.04% per hour (USFS, 2011). Dermal exposure, both by direct contact and contact with contaminated gloves, is therefore considered de minimis for this receptor. Because District applicators are either a QAL/QAC or supervised by one, the use of appropriate PPE and adherence to the REI is highly likely and as a result dermal exposure is de minimis. Glyphosate in Review Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District June 27, 2018 Page 18 Blankinship & Associates, Inc. Incidental ingestion of glyphosate may occur if proper PPE is not worn, if hands are not properly washed, if the REI is not adhered to or if proper care is not taken to avoid unintentional transfer of pesticide residues on the skin to the mouth. As mentioned above, all District pesticide applicators must hold or be supervised by someone who holds a QAL/QAC. Because District applicators are QAL/QACs or supervised by one, they are trained not to ingest pesticides, therefore oral exposure is expected to be de minimis. Inhalation exposure of aerosolized glyphosate from the use of application equipment, such as backpack sprayers, may occur during application. As described in Section 4, glyphosate has a low vapor pressure. Inhalation exposure is further reduced due to the District’s use of spray nozzle BMPs intended to keep pesticide droplets within the intended spray area. As a result, post-application inhalation exposure is anticipated to be de minimis. 5.2.2. Preserve Visitors Contact with glyphosate residue may occur when preserve visitors brush up against treated vegetation on the application site. Although incidental hand-to-mouth ingestion of glyphosate residue may occur following dermal contact with treated vegetation, the resultant dermal and incidental oral exposures are anticipated de minimis due to posting done by the District to restrict access to treated areas and adherence to the pesticide label that states that that people and pets must be kept off treated areas until the pesticide has dried. Once pesticide residues have dried, transfer to the skin during dermal contact is considered de minimis. Intentional contact with treated vegetation is similarly anticipated to be de minimis based on regulations for use of District lands, which state that no person shall possess, damage, injure, take, place, plant, collect, or remove any plant, fungi, tree, or portion thereof, whether living or dead, including, but not limited to flowers, lichens, mosses, mushrooms, bushes, trees, tree limbs, tree branches, vines, grass, cones, seeds, and deadwood located on District Lands. Direct contact with glyphosate is not expected to occur due to the District’s implementation of application notification BMPs that keep preserve users away from application areas and glyphosate’s low dermal absorption rate. Exposure via consumption of treated vegetation is not expected to occur because vegetation being treated with glyphosate is not generally considered edible and is unlikely to be harvested and consumed. While some products containing glyphosate are labeled for use on food crops and some food crops are grown on District property, pesticide application to food crops are not permitted in the District’s IPM Program. Thus, ingestion of glyphosate residues on contaminated vegetation is not likely to occur. Inhalation of glyphosate may occur if preserve visitors are in or near the treatment area during application. Based on the low vapor pressure of glyphosate, District posting and label language indicating that people and pets must stay out of treated areas until glyphosate is dry, and the District’s implementation of spray nozzle and application notification BMPs, the potential for inhalation exposure to aerosolized pesticide is de minimis. 5.3. Glyphosate Toxicity Refer to Section 2 above for a description of the human toxicity associated with glyphosate. Pesticides such as glyphosate are subject to thorough scientific evaluation in order to be registered for use within the U.S. Human health risk assessments involve evaluating toxicity and relevant exposure data to estimate the risk to human health associated with pesticide use. In Glyphosate in Review Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District June 27, 2018 Page 19 Blankinship & Associates, Inc. such assessments, a Point of Departure (POD) is established from experimental data and typically corresponds to effects observed near the lower end of a dose-response curve (e.g., NOAEL, LOAEL). PODs are selected for different routes of exposure and used to quantify the risk expected for each exposure pathway. Based on a study in rabbits in which maternal toxicity (i.e., diarrhea and few or no feces) was observed at the LOAEL of 175 mg/kg/day, a maternal NOAEL of 100 mg/kg/day is available for use as the POD for incidental acute oral exposure to glyphosate. Effects observed in the study were minor and temporary (USEPA, 2017a). No POD was selected for the acute dietary, dermal, and inhalation routes of exposure due to the low toxicity of glyphosate through these pathways and lack of identified adverse health effects at doses relevant to human health risk assessment (i.e., below the limit dose or highest dose tested). 5.4. Adjuvants and Inert Ingredients Adjuvants are materials that are added to a pesticide solution to enhance its efficacy. Adjuvants may be standalone products that are added to a spray tank containing an herbicide-water mixture (e.g., Liberate) or may be part of a ready-to-use herbicide formulated product (e.g., Roundup ProMax). Adjuvants include materials that perform a variety of functions, including, but not limited to: aiding in water conditioning and pH stabilization in order keep herbicides dissolved in solution; enhancing the penetration of a herbicide into the plant’s waxy cuticle layer in order to increase efficacy and limit the amount of herbicide needed; controlling spray drift to limit the amount of herbicide that may travel with wind to non-target locations; and decreasing the surface tension of a herbicide mixture to allow for better deposition and coverage on the plant surface. Surfactants are a type of adjuvant designed to enhance the absorbing, emulsifying, dispersing, spreading, sticking, wetting, or penetrating properties of an herbicide (Bakke, 2007). When surfactants are used during spray applications, water droplets spread into a thin layer over the leaf surface, increasing contact surface area and allowing herbicides to more readily penetrate through waxy leaf cuticles. Surfactants also aid in controlling spray drift by decreasing the surface tension of the solution. The decreased surface tension serves to reduce the formation of small or fine droplets which are more easily carried by the wind. Typically, USEPA requires naming only active ingredients on pesticide product labels and Safety Data Sheets (SDSs). In some cases, adjuvants are called “inert ingredients” on a pesticide product label and their identification is often considered proprietary and a “trade secret”. In other cases, inert ingredients may be named, but the percent composition may not be specified. Although the details of these inert ingredients are often not available to the public, they are disclosed to and evaluated by USEPA during the pesticide registration process. Unidentified or trade secret inert ingredients contained within registered pesticide formulations have been evaluated by USEPA as not expected to result in unacceptable risk when used according to the product label. Registration of pesticide products under FIFRA includes a determination that the entire product formulation, including inert ingredients, meets the registration standard under FIFRA Section 3 (USEPA, 2017g). This standard includes demonstrating that there is a lack of unreasonable Glyphosate in Review Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District June 27, 2018 Page 20 Blankinship & Associates, Inc. adverse effects on humans or the environment. In California, both formulated products and adjuvants sold as standalone products are also evaluated by DPR during a registration process separate from that of USEPA. Although the surfactants contained in Roundup ProMax are not disclosed on the product label or SDS, the surfactant components contained in Liberate, the adjuvant used by the District during Roundup Custom applications, have been broadly identified as lecithin, methyl esters of fatty acids, and alcohol ethoxylates (Liberate Label, 2014). Lecithins are naturally occurring phospholipids that are ubiquitous in biological cell membranes. Like methyl esters of fatty acids, lecithins have very low toxicity and have been approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) as food grade additives (Bakke, 2007; FDA, 2017). Lecithins have also been categorized as “generally recognized as safe” (GRAS) for human consumption (FDA, 2017). Alcohol ethoxylates are common ingredients in household products such as soaps and detergents and have a range of toxicity between very low to moderate. In general, risk assessments focus on the herbicide active ingredient, although in some cases it may consider inclusion of herbicide formulations and inert ingredients when sufficient data are available. For numerous herbicide products containing inert ingredients as part of the formulation, the compounds and their percent composition within the product are not explicitly or sufficiently identified on the label or SDS. Additionally, quantitative risk evaluations may only be conducted for chemicals for which toxicity data as well as physical, chemical, and environmental fate properties are available. Because California requires registration on adjuvants as pesticide products but USEPA does not, there is relatively less information available on adjuvants than there is on active ingredients (Cal-IPC, 2015). Without more detailed information, it is not possible to present a comprehensive quantitative risk evaluation on adjuvants and other inert ingredients in this document. Note that factors limiting glyphosate exposure discussed in Section 5.2 (e.g., PPE, REI, label language) are also applicable to the adjuvants and inert ingredients used with glyphosate. Therefore, similar to glyphosate, no chronic exposure to adjuvants and inert ingredients are anticipated. USFS conducted a thorough review how surfactants may affect the absorption rate of herbicides through the skin (Bakke, 2007). Based on the available literature, USFS concluded that, for a surfactant to increase the absorption of an herbicide, the surfactant must have a physical effect on the upper layer of the skin. The review also indicated that non-ionic surfactants, which are often required for applications of Roundup Custom, have less of an effect on the skin, and therefore absorption, than cationic or anionic surfactants. Studies suggested that, in contrast to expectation, the addition of surfactants may actually decrease the absorption of herbicides through the skin. 5.5. Risk Characterization Based on the toxicity data available and expected levels of exposure for both District staff and preserve visitors, use of glyphosate as a pesticide within the District’s IPM Program is not anticipated to result in adverse effects on human health for any exposure pathway. The available toxicity data indicates that the acute toxicity to humans is extremely limited and that glyphosate is of very low toxicity through all pathways of exposure. Additionally, acute adverse health effects have not been identified through dermal exposure at the limit dose or inhalation exposure at the highest dose tested. Although effects have been observed for the acute oral Glyphosate in Review Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District June 27, 2018 Page 21 Blankinship & Associates, Inc. pathway, the effects identified are minor and reversible. Chronic health effects are not anticipated as chronic exposure to glyphosate is unlikely to result from District activities. Although potential for human exposure to glyphosate exists when glyphosate is used within the District’s IPM Program for vegetation control, exposure is significantly limited due to a number of mitigating factors including District BMP practices as well as label requirements, which include the use of PPE and observance of an REI. The potential for oral exposure, the most relevant pathway of toxicity for glyphosate, is considered extremely remote within the IPM Program’s settings, which currently excludes applications to edible vegetation. The required QAL/QAC training of District staff, posting and notification BMPs, and the limited potential for dried residues to transfer onto the skin further limits the potential of incidental oral exposures. To the degree that information is available, adjuvants and inert ingredients have been identified and characterized to provide basic background information on their identity and use. Although a more definitive, quantitative evaluation of risk due to adjuvants and inert ingredients cannot be completed with the data available at this time, available information indicates that adjuvants and inert ingredients are not anticipated to appreciably increase the absorption of glyphosate through the skin. Furthermore, implementation of District BMP practices, label requirements, the use of PPE, and observance of an REI taken together limit exposure to glyphosate. Because they are applied together and in the same manner, the conclusion of de minimis glyphosate exposure is applicable to adjuvant and inert ingredient exposure. The use of adjuvants and inert ingredients included or mixed with glyphosate products during District IPM activities is therefore not anticipated to result in adverse effects on human health for any exposure pathway. While exposures to glyphosate, adjuvants and inert ingredients due to District activities are expected to be de minimis through all pathways, high-end occupational exposures were also of minimal concern in the USFS (2011) assessment which compared worker exposure estimates to the glyphosate RfD of 2 mg/kg/day. General worker exposure was estimated to be the highest during broadcast treatments and lowest for spot spray treatments; however, even at the highest labeled application rate for terrestrial applications (approximately 8 lb a.e./acre) and without the use of PPE, this exposure was not expected to result in unacceptable risk. Accidental worker exposures to glyphosate via skin contact were associated with doses much lower than those associated with general exposures due to poor dermal absorption and relatively brief period of contact. 6. IPM PROGRAM RECOMMENDATIONS Based on the analysis presented above, no adverse impacts to human health were identified for glyphosate used within the District’s IPM Program and therefore no changes to existing mitigation measures are recommended at this time. However, to proactively protect District water resources, the addition of BMP #32 is suggested: Surface and Groundwater Protection – Applicators shall use BMPs regarding the prevention of drift, runoff, erosion, and water quality impairment. All work shall be in compliance with the 3 CCR § 6800 (Groundwater Protection). When possible, plant covers such as landscaping shall be established on bare soil and hillsides to minimize pesticide and sediment runoff. Pesticides without an aquatic label shall not be applied to permeable soils, soils prone to or with Glyphosate in Review Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District June 27, 2018 Page 22 Blankinship & Associates, Inc. evidence of erosion without containment strategies (e.g., vegetative buffers, sediment barriers), or in areas where aquatic habitats are located within 15 feet of the application site. In no cases should pesticides be applied to surface water bodies unless appropriate permits are obtained. Although impacts to ecological receptors were not addressed in this document, the addition of BMP #33 is also suggested. The purpose of BMP #33 is to address the on-going ‘Goby-11” court injunction pertaining to the enhanced the protection of eleven special status species (Alameda whipsnake, bay checkerspot butterfly, California clapper rail (Ridgeway’s rail), California freshwater shrimp, California tiger salamander, delta smelt, salt marsh harvest mouse, San Francisco garter snake, San Joaquin kit fox, tidewater goby, and valley elderberry longhorn beetle) that occur within the San Francisco Bay Area: Application of glyphosate and cholecalciferol shall be conducted in accordance with the Goby -11 Injunction (Center for Biological Diversity v. EPA, Case No. 07-2794-JCS (N.D. Cal.), May 30, 2007) in applicable and relevant habitats for those species named in the Injunction that occur within the District. Applicable habitats for each species named in the Injunction are defined in the 2010 court order for the Center for Biological Diversity v. EPA. Because the interim protective measures (i.e., no-use buffer zones adjacent to certain features within certain geographic areas) established in the 2010 order vary depending on the species at issue and the pesticide being used, buffer zones between glyphosate treatment areas and species habitat vary, the USEPA webpage should be consulted: https://www.epa.gov/endangered- species/interim-use-limitations-eleven-threatened-or-endangered-species-san- francisco-bay. In addition, District internal special status species mapping resources, buffer zones established on the CNDDB webpage, and an interactive species location map (https://www.epa.gov/endangered- species/san-francisco-bay-area-map-tool-identify-interim-pesticide-use- limitations) should be consulted. The interim use limitations remain in effects until USEPA completes effects determinations for four pesticides named under the 2015 revised settlement agreement for the Center for Biological Diversity v. EPA. The effects determinations are expected to be completed by 2020. Suggested minor modifications to existing District BMPs address herbicide-related practices already being conducted by District staff. These include, for example, using an air gap or anti- siphon device to prevent backflow while loading pesticides into application equipment; conducting transfer/mixing activities away from drain inlets, culverts, wells, areas with porous or erosion-prone soil, or other features that may allow for runoff; not irrigating treatment sites immediately after application unless specified by label requirements; calibrating application equipment; and maintaining sufficient vegetative cover to reduce erosion when applying herbicides. 7. CONCLUSIONS Extensive research on glyphosate within the U.S. and around the world has provided strong lines of evidence that, despite recent concerns over the potential human health and Glyphosate in Review Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District June 27, 2018 Page 23 Blankinship & Associates, Inc. environmental impacts associated with it use, this use is not anticipated to result in adverse effects on human health when label directions are followed. Although glyphosate has been characterized as a probable human carcinogen by IARC, the current consensus among numerous national and international regulatory agencies including other WHO programs and USEPA suggests that there appears to be insufficient data to indicate that glyphosate is a human carcinogen. Glyphosate remains approved for use in the United States, Canada, and the European Union. In the U.S., glyphosate is currently undergoing Registration Review and a proposed interim registration review decision for glyphosate is expected to be published in 2019. Due to its low human toxicity and limited exposure when used as an herbicide in the District’s IPM program, glyphosate is not anticipated to result in adverse effects to District staff or preserve visitors. Glyphosate can be used with adjuvants and inert ingredients to improve its efficacy. Because of a lack of available information, a comprehensive quantitative risk analysis on adjuvants and inert ingredients was not possible. Because they are applied together and in the same manner and numerous BMPs exist to reduce exposure, the conclusion of de minimis glyphosate exposure is applicable to adjuvant and inert ingredient exposure. Therefore, the use of adjuvants and inert ingredients is not anticipated to result in adverse effects on human health for any exposure pathway. Although no adverse impacts to human health are anticipated, additions and updates to the District’s IPM Program BMPs will serve to proactively protect District water resources and threatened and threatened species. 8. REFERENCES Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority (APVMA). 2017. Final regulatory position: Consideration of the evidence for a formal reconsideration of glyphosate. Armidale, Australia. Bakke, D. 2007. Analysis of Issues Surrounding the Use of Spray Adjuvants With Herbicides. Available: https://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/fsbdev3_045552.pdf (Accessed: March 29, 2018). Borggaard, O.K. and A.L. Gimsing. 2008. Fate of glyphosate in soil and the possibility of leaching to ground and surface waters: a review. Pest Management Science 64, 441-456. California Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR). 1998. Environmental Fate of Glyphosate. California Environmental Protection Agency. Sacramento, CA. California Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR). 2013a. Guidelines for Identifying Pesticides to be Added to and Removed from the Groundwater Protection List: Title 3, California Code of Regulations Section 6800(b). Memorandum. California Environmental Protection Agency. Sacramento, CA. California Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR). 2013b. Sampling for Pesticide Residues in California Well Water. 2012 Update. Twenty-seventh Annual Report Pursuant to the Pesticide Contamination Prevention Act. California Environmental Protection Agency. Sacramento, CA. Glyphosate in Review Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District June 27, 2018 Page 24 Blankinship & Associates, Inc. California Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR). 2014. Sampling for Pesticide Residues in California Well Water. 2013 Update. Twenty-eighth Annual Report Pursuant to the Pesticide Contamination Prevention Act. California Environmental Protection Agency. Sacramento, CA. California Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR). 2015. Sampling for Pesticide Residues in California Well Water. 2014 Update. Twenty-ninth Annual Report Pursuant to the Pesticide Contamination Prevention Act. California Environmental Protection Agency. Sacramento, CA. California Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR). 2016a. Sampling for Pesticide Residues in California Well Water. 2015 Annual Report. Pursuant to the Pesticide Contamination Prevention Act. California Environmental Protection Agency. Sacramento, CA. California Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR). 2016b. Sampling for Pesticide Residues in California Well Water. 2016 Annual Report. Pursuant to the Pesticide Contamination Prevention Act. California Environmental Protection Agency. Sacramento, CA. California Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR). 2017. Surface Water Monitoring Database (SURF). California Environmental Protection Agency. Available http://www.cdpr.ca.gov/docs/emon/surfwtr/surfdata.htm (Accessed: October 26, 2017). California Invasive Plant Council (Cal-IPC). 2015. Best Management Practices (BMPs) for Wildland Stewardship. California Invasive Plant Council. Berkeley, CA. California Invasive Plant Council (Cal-IPC). 2017. Cal-IPC Fact Sheet and Position Statement: The Use of Glyphosate for Invasive Plant Management. Available: http://www.cal-ipc.org/wp- content/uploads/2017/11/Cal-IPC-glyphosate-policy.pdf (Accessed: November 14, 2017). Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA). 2017. Safeguarding with Science: Glyphosate Testing in 2015-2016. Ottawa, Ontario. Carlisle, S.M. and J.T. Trevors. 1988. Glyphosate in the environment. Water, Air, and Soil Pollution 39:409-420. Eastern District of California U.S. District Court. 2018. Memorandum and Order Re: Motion for Preliminary Injunction for National Association of Wheat Growers; National Corn Growers Association; United States Durum Growers Association; Western Plant Health Association; Iowa Soybean Association; South Dakota Agri-Business Association; North Dakota Grain Growers Association; Missouri Chamber of Commerce and Industry; Monsanto Company; Associated Industries of Missouri; Agribusiness Association of Iowa; Croplife America; and Agricultural Retailers Association v. Lauren Zeise, in Her Official Capacity As Director of the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment; and Xavier Becerra, in His Official Capacity as Attorney General of the State of California (Case 2:17-cv-02401-WBS-EFB). Edwards, W.M., G.B. Triplett, and R.M. Kramer. 1980. A watershed study of glyphosate transport in runoff. Journal of Environmental Quality 9(4):661-665. European Chemicals Agency (ECHA). 2016. Proposal for Harmonised Classification and Labelling. Substance Name: N-(phosphonomethyl)glycine; Glyphosate (ISO). Dortmund, Germany. Glyphosate in Review Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District June 27, 2018 Page 25 Blankinship & Associates, Inc. European Commission (EC). 2017a. Frequently Asked Questions: Glyphosate. Available: https://ec.europa.eu/food/sites/food/files/plant/docs/pesticides_faq_glyphosate_20170719_final. pdf (Accessed: February 15, 2018). European Commission (EC). 2017b. Communication from the Commission on the European Citizens' Initiative "Ban glyphosate and protect people and the environment from toxic pesticides". Available: http://ec.europa.eu/transparency/regdoc/rep/3/2017/EN/C-2017-8414-F1- EN-MAIN-PART-1.PDF (Accessed: February 15, 2018). European Commission (EC). 2017c. Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/2324 of 12 December 2017 renewing the approval of the active substance glyphosate in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market, and amending the Annex to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 540/2011. Official Journal of the European Union 333: 10-16. European Commission (EC). 2018. Glyphosate. Available: https://ec.europa.eu/food/plant/pesticides/glyphosate_en (Accessed: February 15, 2018). European Food Safety Authority (EFSA). 2015. Conclusion on the peer review of the pesticide risk assessment of the active substance glyphosate. EFSA Journal. 13(11): 1-107. Fieldworker Training, 3 CCR § 6764 (2018). Food and Drug Administration (FDA). 2010. Guidance for Industry: M3(R2) Nonclinical Safety Studies for the Conduct of Human Clinical Trials and Marketing Authorization for Pharmaceuticals. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. W ashington, D.C. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). 2017. Select Committee on GRAS Substances (SCOGS) Opinion: Lecithin and Lecithin, Hydrogen Peroxide Bleached. Available: http://wayback.archive- it.org/7993/20180124002145/https://www.fda.gov/Food/IngredientsPackagingLabeling/GRAS/S COGS/ucm260453.htm (Accessed: March 30, 2018). Food Safety Commission of Japan (FSCJ). 2016. Glyphosate Summary. Cabinet Office, Government of Japan. Tokyo, Japan. Fresno County Superior Court. 2017. Stipulation and [Proposed] Order and Judgement for Monsanto Company v. Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, et al. (Case No.: 16CECG00183). German Federal Institute of Risk Assessment (BfR). 2015. Does glyphosate cause cancer? BfR Communication No 007/2015, 23 March 2015. Available: http://www.bfr.bund.de/cm/349/does- glyphosate-cause-cancer.pdf (Accessed: February 9, 2018). Giesy, J.P., S. Dobson, and K.R. Solomon. 2000. Ecotoxicological risk assessment for Roundup (R) Herbicide. Reviews of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology 167: 35-120. Glyphosate; Pesticide Tolerances, 40 CFR § 180 (2002). Glyphosate; tolerance for residues, 40 CFR § 180.364 (1997). Groundwater Protection List, 3 CCR § 6800 (2014). Handler Training, 3 CCR § 6724 (2018). Glyphosate in Review Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District June 27, 2018 Page 26 Blankinship & Associates, Inc. International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC). 2015. IARC Monographs Volume 112: evaluation of five organophosphate insecticides and herbicides. Available: http://www.iarc.fr/en/media-centre/iarcnews/pdf/MonographVolume112.pdf (Accessed: February 23, 2018). International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC). 2017. IARC Monographs Volume 112: Some Organophosphate Insecticides and Herbicides. World Health Organization. Lyon, France. Liberate Label. 2014. Loveland Products. Greely, CO. List of Chemicals Known to Cause Cancer or Reproductive Toxicity, HSC § 25249.8 (1986). Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (District). 2014a. Final Environmental Impact Report for the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Integrated Pest Management Program. Los Altos, CA. Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (District). 2014b. Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Integrated Pest Management Program Guidance Manual. Los Altos, CA. Miller, A., J.A. Gervais, B. Luukinen, K. Buhl, and D. Stone. 2010. Glyphosate Technical Fact Sheet. National Pesticide Information Center, Oregon State University Extension Services. Available: http://npic.orst.edu/factsheets/archive/glyphotech.html (Accessed: February 9, 2018). Mills, P.J., I. Kanta-Korwel, J. Fagan, L.K. McEvoy, G.A. Laughlin, and E. Barrett-Connor. 2017. Excretion of the Herbicide Glyphosate in Older Adults Between 1993 and 2016. JAMA 318(16): 1610-1611. Moms Across America. 2017. Lunch Food Test Results. Available: https://www.momsacrossamerica.com/lunch_food_test_results (Accessed: February 19, 2018). Moshie, L.J. and D. Penner. 1978. Factors influencing microbrial degradation of 14C-glyphosate to 14CO 2 in soil. Weed Science 26:686-691. New Zealand Environmental Protection Authority (NZ EPA). 2016. Review of the Evidence Relating to Glyphosate and Carcinogenicity. Wellington, New Zealand. Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA). Public Health Goals for Chemicals in Drinking Water: Glyphosate. California Environmental Protection Agency. Sacramento, CA. Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA). 2013. Proposition 65 in Plain Language. California Environmental Protection Agency. Available: https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/proposition-65/general-info/p65plain.pdf (Accessed: March 11, 2018). Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA). 2015. Notice of Intent to List Chemicals by the Labor Code Mechanism: Tetrachlorvinphos, Parathion, Malathion, Glyphosate. California Environmental Protection Agency. Sacramento, CA. Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA). 2017a. Notice of Proposed Rulemaking: Amendment to Section 25705, Specific Regulatory Levels Posing No Significant Risk: Glyphosate. California Environmental Protection Agency. Sacramento, CA. Glyphosate in Review Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District June 27, 2018 Page 27 Blankinship & Associates, Inc. Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA). 2017b. Glyphosate Listed Effective July 7, 2017, as Known to the State of California to Cause Cancer. California Environmental Protection Agency. Available: https://oehha.ca.gov/proposition- 65/crnr/glyphosate-listed-effective-july-7-2017-known-state-california-cause-cancer (Accessed: February 19, 2018). Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA). 2017c. RE: Petition for Reconsideration of the Proposition 65 Listing of Glyphosate Pursuant to the Labor Code Mechanism. California Environmental Protection Agency. Available: https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/proposition- 65/crnr/comments/letterphilipmiller06262017.pdf (Accessed: February 19, 2018). Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA). 2017d. Glyphosate. Available: https://oehha.ca.gov/chemicals/glyphosate (Accessed October 25, 2017). Personal Protective Equipment Exemptions, 3 CCR § 6738.4 (2016). Personal Protective Equipment Use, 3 CCR § 6738.1 (2015). Pest Management Regulatory Agency (PMRA). 2015. Proposed Re-evaluation Decision: Glyphosate. Health Canada. Ottawa, Ontario. Pest Management Regulatory Agency (PMRA). 2017. Re-evaluation Decision: Glyphosate. Health Canada. Ottawa, Ontario. Selection of Protective Eyewear, 3 CCR § 6738.2 (2015). Selection of Gloves, 3 CCR § 6738.3 (2016). Siemering, G., J. Hayworth, and A. Melwani. 2005. Aquatic Pesticide Monitoring Program Final Report. SFEI Contribution Number 392. San Francisco Estuary Institute, Oakland, CA. Simenstad, C.A., J.R. Cordell, L. Tear, L.A. Weitkamp, F.L. Paveglio, K.M. Kilbride, K.L. Fresh, and C.E. Grue. 1996. Use of Rodeo® and X-77® Spreader to Control Cordgrass (Spartina alterniflora) in a Southwestern Washington Estuary: 2. Effects on Benthic Microflroa and Invertebrates. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 15(6):969-978. University of California, Davis. 2010. Environmental Decay of Glyphosate in Broom-Infested Mt. Tamalpais Soils. Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering. Davis, CA. Available: https://www.marinwater.org/DocumentCenter/View/244 (Accessed: May 5, 2014). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 1986. A Set of Scientific Issues Being Considered by the Agency in Connection with the Registration Standard for Glyphosate. Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act Scientific Advisory Panel, Office of Pesticides and Toxic Substances. Washington, D.C. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 1991. Second Peer Review of Glyphosate. Carcinogenicity Peer Review Committee, Office of Pesticides and Toxic Substances. Washington, D.C. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 1993. Reregistration Eligibility Decision (RED): Glyphosate. Office of Prevention, Pesticides, and Toxic Substances. Washington, D.C. Glyphosate in Review Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District June 27, 2018 Page 28 Blankinship & Associates, Inc. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2005. Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk Assessment. Washington, D.C. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2008. Risks of Glyphosate Use to Federally Threatened California Red-legged Frog (Rana aurora draytonii). Office of Pesticide Programs. Washington, D.C. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2015a. EDSP: Weight of Evidence Analysis of Potential Interaction with the Estrogen, Androgen or Thyroid Pathways: Glyphosate. Office of Pesticide Programs. Washington, D.C. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2015b. Evaluation of the Carcinogenic Potential of Glyphosate. Office of Pesticide Programs. Washington, D.C. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2015c. Preliminary Ecological Risk Assessment in Support of the Registration Review of Glyphosate and Its Salts. Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention. Washington, D.C. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2016. Glyphosate Issue Paper: Evaluation of Carcinogenic Potential. Office of Pesticide Programs. Washington, D.C. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2017a. Glyphosate. Draft Human Health Risk Assessment in Support of Registration Review. Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention. Washington, D.C. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2017b. Revised Glyphosate Issue Paper: Evaluation of Carcinogenic Potential. Office of Pesticide Programs. Washington, D.C. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2017c. Drinking Water Assessment for the Registration Review of Glyphosate. Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention. Washington, D.C. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2017d. Glyphosate. Dietary Exposure Analysis in Support of Registration Review. Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention. Washington, D.C. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2017e. Glyphosate. Amended Residential Exposure Assessment for a Registration Review. Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention. Washington, D.C. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2017f. FIFRA Scientific Advisory Panel Meeting Minutes and Final Report No. 2017-01. A Set of Scientific Issues Being Considered by the Environmental Protection Agency Regarding: EPA's Evaluation of the Carcinogenic Potential of Glyphosate. Washington, D.C. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2017g. Pesticide Registration Manual: Chapter 8 – Inert Ingredients. Available: https://www.epa.gov/pesticide-registration/pesticide- registration-manual-chapter-8-inert-ingredients (Accessed: March 27, 2018). U.S. Forest Service (USFS). 2011. Glyphosate Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment: Final Report. Washington, D.C. Glyphosate in Review Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District June 27, 2018 Page 29 Blankinship & Associates, Inc. Williams, G.M., R. Kroes, I.C. Munro. 2000. Safety evaluation and risk assessment of the herbicide Roundup and its active ingredient, glyphosate, for humans. Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology 31: 117-165. World Health Organization (WHO) and Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). 2016. Report of the special session of the Joint Meeting of the FAO Panel of Experts on Pesticide Residues in Food and the Environment and the WHO Core Assessment Group on Pesticide Residues Geneva, Switzerland, 9–13 May 2016. Geneva, Switzerland. World Health Organization (WHO). 1994. Environmental Health Criteria 159: Glyphosate. International Programme on Chemical Safety. Geneva, Switzerland. World Health Organization (WHO). 2005. Glyphosate and AMPA in Drinking-water. Guidelines for Drinking-water Quality. Geneva, Switzerland. World Health Organization (WHO). 2015. IARC Monographs Volume 112: evaluation of five organophosphate insecticides and herbicides. Available: https://www.iarc.fr/en/media- centre/iarcnews/pdf/MonographVolume112.pdf (Accessed: February 9, 2018).