HomeMy Public PortalAbout20150624 - Agenda Packet - Board of Directors (BOD) - 15-16
SPECIAL AND REGULAR MEETING
BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
Grant Community Center
1575 Holt Ave.
Los Altos, CA 94022
Wednesday, June 24, 2015
Special Meeting begins at 5:00 PM
Regular Meeting begins at 7:00 PM
A G E N D A
5:00 SPECIAL MEETING OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE MIDPENINSULA
REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT – CLOSED SESSION
ROLL CALL
1. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS (Government Code Section
54956.8)
Property: Toepfer Property (San Mateo County Assessor Parcel Number 072-343-110)
Agency Negotiator: Mike Williams, Real Property Manager
Negotiating Party: Dee Toepfer, Property Owner
Under Negotiation: Terms of real property transaction
2. CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS (Government Code Section 54957.6)
Agency Designated Representatives: Steve Abbors, General Manager, Kevin
Woodhouse, Assistant General Manager, Sheryl Schaffner, General Counsel, Jack Hughes,
Liebert Cassidy Whitmore
Employee Organization: Field Employee Association
3. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL-EXISTING LITIGATION (Government Code
Section 54956.9)
M. Mahronich, et al v. Presentation Center, Los Gatos, Inc.
Santa Clara Superior Court Case No. 1-15-CV-276706
ADJOURNMENT
7:00 REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE MIDPENINSULA
REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
Meeting 15-16
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
The Board President will invite public comment on items not 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.
ADOPTION OF AGENDA
CONSENT CALENDAR
All items on the Consent Calendar may be approved without discussion by one motion. Board members,
the General Manager, and members of the public may request that an item be removed from the Consent
Calendar during consideration of the Consent Calendar.
1. Approve Board Meeting Minutes:
April 22, 2015
May 6, 2015
May 13, 2015
May 27, 2015
2. Approve Claims Report
3. Contract to Implement the Driscoll Ranch Roads Sediment Reduction and Pond
Restoration Project at the La Honda Creek Open Space Preserve (R-15-89)
Staff Contact: Julie Andersen, Planner II
General Manager’s Recommendations:
1. Authorize the General Manager to enter into an agreement with Half Moon Bay Grading and
Paving of Half Moon Bay, CA, for a total contract amount not to exceed $613,566, which
includes the project proposal amount of $533,536 and a fifteen percent contingency amount
of $80,030, to implement the Driscoll Ranch Roads Sediment Reduction and Pond
Restoration Project at the La Honda Creek Open Space Preserve.
2. Determine that the recommended action is consistent with the Mitigated Negative Declaration
and Mitigation Monitoring Plan for Implementation of the La Honda Creek Master Plan,
approved by the Board on August 22, 2012.
4.
Approve a Partnership with the County of San Mateo (County) to Provide Habitability
Improvements to 900 Sears Ranch Road, in the Town of La Honda, as Part of the County’s
Pilot Farm Labor Housing Program at La Honda Creek Open Space Preserve (R-15-88)
Staff Contact: Elaina Cuzick, Senior Real Property Agent
General Manager’s Recommendation:
1. Determine that the recommended actions are categorically exempt from the California
Environmental Quality Act, as set out in the staff report.
2. Adopt a Resolution authorizing the General Manager to partner with the County of San Mateo
to provide habitability improvements to 900 Sears Ranch Road Residence at La Honda Creek
Open Space Preserve as part of the County’s Pilot Farm Labor Housing Program.
3. Authorize the General Manager to negotiate and grant a License/Permit to Rebuilding
Together to perform the habitability improvements at the Residence.
4. Authorize the General Manager to amend the lease with AGCO Hay LLC to formalize the
requirements of the Farm labor Housing Program between the District and its grazing tenant.
5. Award of Contract to ClientFirst for Development of an Information Systems and
Technology Strategic Plan (R-15-86)
Staff Contact: Kate Drayson, Administrative Services Manager
General Manager’s Recommendation: Authorize the General Manager to enter into a professional
services contract with ClientFirst for $53,452, plus a contingency of $8,020, for a total amount
not to exceed $61,472, to prepare an Information Systems and Technology Strategic Plan.
6. Approval of Agreement with the County of Santa Clara for the District’s Management of
Rancho San Antonio County Park and Determination that the Recommended Actions are
Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (R-15-87)
Staff Contact: Gordon Baillie, Operations Analyst
General Manager’s Recommendation:
1. Authorize the Board President to enter into the attached Agreement with the County of Santa
Clara (County) for the District’s Management of Rancho San Antonio County Park.
2. Authorize the General Manager to extend the agreement for the second five-year period
(July 2020 through June 2025) subject to a staff review of the costs to manage Rancho San
Antonio County Park.
3. Determine that the recommended actions are categorically exempt from the California
Environmental Quality Act as set out in the staff report.
7. New Other Power-Driven Mobility Device Policy and amended Trail Use Policies (R-15-93)
Staff Contact: Brian Malone, Area Superintendent
General Manager’s Recommendation: The General Manager recommends that the Board approve
the following recommendations from the Planning and Natural Resources Committee:
1. Adopt the draft “Other Power-Driven Mobility Device Policy”
2. Adopt the amended “Trail Use Policies”
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.
8. Written Communications: Cornell Scanlan
9. Overview and CEQA Scoping Session for the Proposed Bear Creek Redwoods Preserve
Plan, Including Bear Creek Stables and the Former Alma College Site (R-15-92)
Staff Contact: Lisa Bankosh, Planner III
General Manager’s Recommendation:
1. Receive a presentation on the draft Bear Creek Redwoods Preserve Plan (Preserve Plan)
elements, including focus areas on public access, Bear Creek Stables, and Alma College site
rehabilitation.
2. Accept the description of the proposed Preserve Plan, including a range of potential options
for Bear Creek Stables and the former Alma College site, for the purposes of environmental
review under the California Environmental Quality Act.
3. Receive public comment on the proposed Preserve Plan and the scope of environmental
issues that should be addressed in a draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR).
4. Provide staff with any additional direction regarding the proposed Preserve Plan and EIR.
INFORMATIONAL REPORTS – Reports on compensable meetings attended. Brief reports or
announcements concerning activities of District Directors and staff; opportunity to refer public or Board
questions to staff for factual information; request staff to report back to the Board on a matter at a future
meeting; or direct staff to place a matter on a future agenda. Items in this category are for discussion and
direction to staff only. No final policy action will be taken by the Board.
A. Committee Reports
B. Staff Reports
C. Director Reports
ADJOURNMENT
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need assistance to participate in this meeting,
please contact the District Clerk at (650) 691-1200. Notification 48 hours prior to the meeting will enable the
District to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to this meeting.
Written materials relating to an item on this Agenda that are considered to be a public record and are distributed
to Board members less than 72 hours prior to the meeting, will be available for public inspection at the District’s
Administrative Office located at 330 Distel Circle, Los Altos, California 94022.
CERTIFICATION OF POSTING OF AGENDA
I, Jennifer Woodworth, District Clerk for the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (MROSD), declare that
the foregoing agenda for the special and regular meetings of the MROSD Board of Directors was posted and
available for review on June 19, 2015, at the Administrative Offices of MROSD, 330 Distel Circle, Los Altos
California, 94022. The agenda and any additional written materials are also available on the District’s web site at
http://www.openspace.org.
Jennifer Woodworth, CMC
District Clerk
Board Meeting 15-10
SPECIAL AND REGULAR MEETING
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
Administrative Office
330 Distel Circle
Los Altos, CA 94022
Wednesday, April 22, 2015
DRAFT MINUTES
SPECIAL MEETING – STUDY SESSION
CALL TO ORDER
President Siemens called the special meeting of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
Board of Directors to order at 5:03 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Members Present: Jed Cyr, Cecily Harris, Larry Hassett, Yoriko Kishimoto, Curt Riffle, and
Pete Siemens
Members Absent: Nonette Hanko
Staff Present: General Manager Steve Abbors, Assistant General Manager Kevin
Woodhouse, General Counsel Sheryl Schaffner, Operations Manager
Michael Newburn, Planning Manager Jane Mark, Public Affairs Manager,
Shelly Lewis, Natural Resources Kirk Lenington, Real Property Manager
Mike Williams, Clayton Koopmann Resource Management Specialist I,
and Interim District Clerk Kim Marie Smith
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
None.
BOARD BUSINESS
1. Conservation Grazing Program Overview 2015
Clayton Koopmann Resource Management Specialist I, provided the Board of Directors an
informational presentation summarizing the District’s Conservation Grazing Program proving
the Board an update, status, and program issues anticipated for FY2015-16.
Meeting 15-10 Page 2
2
Mr. Koopmann stated that the District has a commitment through its mission to protect the
diversity and integrity of natural resources for their value to the environment and people.
Mr. Koopmann reviewed the grazing policy and discussed in detail the preserves grazed, the type
of infrastructure improvements needed on certain properties, the type of animal grazing on the
property, water supply and which preserves proposed for grazing in the future.
Director Harris inquired regarding the District’s total acreage in San Mateo County and the percentage grazed. Mr. Koopmann explained the District currently owns and manages approximately 36% of grassland in San Mateo County, and the land the District owns and manages is largely grazed except for Russian Ridge, Windy Hill, and parts of Skyline.
Mr. Koopmann then discussed the ongoing drought and its impact on the Conservation Grazing
Program. In order to alleviate some of the issues caused by the drought and minimize the
impacts to the natural resources, most of the tenants have been stocking the properties extremely
light, anywhere from 30 to 50% of normal. The tenants have also changed their grazing pattern
and are grazing seasonally due to a lack of water. Director Riffle stated that the District should have a plan to help assist the grazing tenants due to the drought. Kirk Lenington, Natural Resources Manager, stated staff is studying off stream storage to store water. Mr. Lenington also stated that capturing rainfall from roofs or fog harvesting may be another option that staff will explore. Mr. Koopmann explained predation is another significant issue. In the last 3 years tenants have lost livestock from predation, primarily from mountain lions, but coyote predation also occurs on the smaller livestock. Between the years of 2012 and 2015 there have been 15 confirmed killed cattle from mountain lions, and grazing tenants were compensated for their loss of livestock for a total of $11,724 Mr. Koopmann explained the District will be developing a policy late this year or early 2016 regarding mountain lions. As part of the policy staff will address predation on live stock and the District’s response Mr. Koopmann provided a briefing on infrastructure and stated grazing tenants have contributed $180,000 of infrastructure in exchange for rent credit. The District has also budgeted $500,000 in FY2015-2016, for grazing related infrastructure projects. Mr. Koopmann then described the Public Recreation and Grazing program and stated that due to the recovery permit from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services (USFWS) and the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), Mindego Hill will be the first preserve with grazing and public recreation. The USFWS and the CDFW have recognized the benefit of livestock grazing to manage critical habitat. It is estimated that in November 2015 livestock grazing will be reintroduced and public access is estimated to be opened in the spring of 2016. Director Siemens asked Doniga Markegard, a District tenant if she would like to make any comments. Ms. Markegard spoke regarding the drought stating it is a significant issue for ranchers. She has been taking drought proofing measures for water infrastructure on POST land but has not been able to do any improvements on District land as of yet. Ms. Markegard stated that the process is much faster to work with private owners than the District, but she will be meeting with District staff in the summer to discuss the issue.
Director Riffle commented that going forward the District should encourage agricultural grazing
program in San Mateo County and also work with POST.
Meeting 15-10 Page 3
3
ADJOURNMENT
President Siemens adjourned the special meeting of the Board of Directors of the Midpeninsula
Regional Open Space District at 6:58 p.m.
REGULAR MEETING
CALL TO ORDER
President Siemens called the regular meeting of the Midpeninsula Regional Open
Space District to order at 7:08 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Members Present: Jed Cyr, Cecily Harris Larry Hassett, Yoriko Kishimoto, Curt Riffle,
and Pete Siemens
Members Absent: Nonette Hanko
Staff Present: General Manager Steve Abbors, Assistant General Manager Kevin
Woodhouse, Assistant General Manager Ana Ruiz, General Counsel
Sheryl Schaffner, Operations Manager Michael Newburn, Planning
Manager Jane Mark, Public Affairs Manager Shelley Lewis, Cydney
Bieber Web Administrator, Peggy Koenig Public Affairs Specialist,
Lisa Bankosh Planner III and Interim District Clerk Kim Marie Smith
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
None
ADOPTION OF AGENDA
Motion: Director Kishimoto moved, and Director Riffle seconded the motion to adopt the
agenda.
VOTE: 6-0-0 (Director Hanko absent.)
CONSENT CALENDAR
1. Approve the Minutes of the Regular Board Meeting of April 8, 2015.
2. Approve Claims Report
3. Amendment to Geotechnical Investigations Agreement with Haro Kasunich and
Associates Inc. for a Total Authorized Amount of $51,990 (R-15-66)
General Manager’s Recommendation: Authorize the General Manager to amend the existing
agreement with Haro Kasunich and Associates Inc. to increase the agreement amount by $26,990
Meeting 15-10 Page 4
4
for a total not to exceed amount of $51,990, to include additional geotechnical investigations,
design, and construction oversight associated with the La Honda Creek Open Space Preserve
Watershed Protection Program, Driscoll Ranch Roads sediment reduction project.
4. Approval of Agreement for Legislative Consulting Services (R-15-69)
General Manager’s Recommendation: Authorize the General Manager to execute a Consulting
Services Agreement with Public Policy Advocates, LLC, to provide California legislative and
advocacy services during Fiscal Year 2015-16 for an amount not-to-exceed $28,000.
Item number 4 was heard following the adoption of the consent calendar.
Director Harris expressed her disappointment with the services that has been provided by the
consulting firm and her concern for the length of years the District has been under contract
with the consultant. Director Harris asked if the contract had been advertised for bid.
Shelly Lewis, Public Affairs Manager stated the contract was issued as a sole source consultant
since relatively few consultants provide this type of service to Special Districts. In addition,
Ralph Heim and his associates have been working with the District since 1983 and has been an
advocate for emerging policy issues. Also due to the length of years the District has working
with the District a discounted rate was obtained.
Motion: Director Cyr moved, and Director Riffle seconded the motion to authorize the General
Manager to execute a Consulting Services Agreement with Public Policy Advocates, LLC, to
provide California legislative and advocacy services during Fiscal Year 2015-16 for an amount
not-to exceed $28,000.
VOTE: 6-0-0 (Director Hanko absent.)
Motion: Director Cyr moved and Director Harris seconded the motion to adopt the Consent
Calendar with the exception of the agenda number 4.
VOTE: 6-0-0 (Director Hanko absent.)
BOARD BUSINESS
5. Update and Preview on the Web Site Redesign (R-15-70)
Cydney Bieber, Web Administrator, provided a demonstration of the newly reformatted web site,
which is currently in progress and scheduled for release in mid-May. Ms. Bieber showcased
several new features along with some design changes to make the website more functional and
easier to navigate.
6. Contract Award for Landscape Architecture Services for Alma College Site
Rehabilitation Plan (R-15-68)
Lisa Bankosh, Planner III provided a presentation on the former Alma College site stating the
site is a historic district currently listed on the Santa Clara County Heritage Resource Inventory
Meeting 15-10 Page 5
5
and is eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. The former Alma College
site is located at a future access point for Bear Creek Redwoods Open Space Preserve, and as
such its disposition is critical to opening the preserve to the public. Design and planning
assistance from a historic landscape architect, with support from an architectural historian and
structural engineering consultants, is needed to develop a concept for cultural landscape
rehabilitation and identify partnership opportunities for reuse of the historic structures. PGA
Design Inc. was identified as the most qualified given their prior experience and expertise in the
field of historic landscape architecture.
Director Harris inquired if the District is unable to find a partner whether the structures will be
stabilized.
Ms. Bankosh explained this is one of the options until a future partner is identified.
Motion: Director Riffle moved and Director Harris seconded the motion to authorize the
General Manager to enter into a professional services contract with PGA Design, Inc., for an
amount of $133,775 to develop a cultural landscape rehabilitation plan and identify
partnership opportunities for the former Alma College site and authorize an additional
contingency of $16,225 to cover unforeseen requirements, for a total not-to-exceed potential
contract amount of $150,000.
VOTE: 6-0-0 (Director Hanko absent.)
INFORMATIONAL REPORTS
A. Committee Reports
Director Riffle provided information on what was presented at the April 14, April 21 and April
29 Planning and Natural Resources Committee meetings.
Director Siemens reported the Board Appointee Evaluation Committee will be meeting next
week.
B. Staff Reports
Assistant General Manager Kevin Woodhouse reported two Rangers will be graduating on April
24 from the academy. In addition, the District has completed the annual hiring of ten Seasonal
Open Space Technicians. Furthermore, Mr. Woodhouse reported he is serving as the District’s
representative for Stewardship 5.0 to build a tight-knit regional partnership through the entire
Santa Cruz Mountains.
Assistant General Manager Ana Ruiz reported she and Director Siemens attended a Historical
Heritage Commission meeting in Santa Clara County. County Planning staff recommended that
the Historical Heritage Commission not make a formal recommendation to the Board of
Supervisors at this time but to take more of a deliberate careful informative process before
recommending the Mt. Umunhum Radar Tower for listing the property on the Heritage Resource
Inventory which the District also supports. Ms. Ruiz stated the District will be working with
Santa Carla County to conduct a site tour of Mt. Umunhum with the commissioners followed by
Meeting 15-10 Page 6
6
one or two workshops to talk about the criteria that the county uses to consider eligibility for
listing and forwarding the analysis to the Board of Supervisors.
General Manager Abbors reported the District has responded to the Civil Grand Jury’s request
for following up on the “Will Implement” and “Will Study” type responses to the 2013-2014
Grand Jury Reports, providing them with the information on the status of implementation and
noted that he will be seeking the voluntary Special District Leadership Foundation Special
District Administrator Certification by the end of the year.
General Counsel Sheryl Schaffner expressed her appreciation to the Public Affairs Department
for their work in the public outreach program.
C. Director Reports
Director Harris gave a briefing on the Redwood City San Mateo County Chamber of Commerce
Annual Progress Seminar.
Director Harris reported that per the recommendations of the Public Affairs Manager Shelly
Lewis she wrote a 250 word essay about the earth in the April issue of the Half Moon Bay
Review.
Director Cyr reported he recently hiked the Santa Teresa County Park and also joined district
staff on April 15 for a wildflower hike lead by Sr. Resource Management Specialist Cindy
Roessler.
Director Hassett reported that he will be attending the May 7 Ancient Oaks Trail ribbon cutting.
Director Hassett reported that he attended the PMAC meeting.
Director Hassett reported that on May 14 he will be hiking with Tom Stienstra in El Corte De
Madera.
The Board submitted their compensatory forms to the District Clerk.
ADJOURNMENT
President Siemens adjourned the Regular Meeting at 8:53 p.m.
________________________________
Maria Soria
Deputy District Clerk
Board Meeting 15-11
SPECIAL MEETING
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
Administrative Office
330 Distel Circle
Los Altos, CA 94022
May 6, 2015
DRAFT MINUTES
SPECIAL MEETING – STUDY SESSION
CALL TO ORDER
President Siemens called the Special Meeting of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
Board of Directors to order at 5:36 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Members Present: Jed Cyr, Nonette Hanko, Cecily Harris, Larry Hassett, Yoriko Kishimoto,
Curt Riffle, and Pete Siemens
Members Absent: None
Staff Present: General Manager Steve Abbors, General Counsel Sheryl Schaffner,
Assistant General Manager Kevin Woodhouse, Controller Mike Foster
Interim District Clerk Kim Marie Smith
INFORMATIONAL PRESENTATION
1. Informational Presentation on General Obligation Bonds (R-15-78)
General Manager Steve Abbors stated that this meeting was for the Board to receive a high-level
informational presentation that explains the financing process, including the relevant
responsibilities and obligations of the District and of each individual Board member, to further
prepare the Board for its responsibilities under Measure AA. Mr. Abbors introduced Chris
Lynch wi th Jones Hall and Sohail Bengali with BPF Capital, LLC.
Mr. Lynch and Mr. Sohail presented the Board with a PowerPoint presentation highlighting the
available financing tools, bond issuance process, and initial and continuing disclosure. The Bond
consultants provided detailed description about the two broad categories of items how bonds
work and the Securities and Exchange Commission. The District has three financial tools
Meeting 15-11 Page 2
available to use: Promissory Notes, Lease Revenue Bonds and the General Obligation Bonds.
Finally, they discussed the annual debt service profile.
Controller, Mike Foster, informed the Board that the Preliminary Official Statement, as well as
other financing documents, will be brought to the Board on May 13, 2015 for review and
approval. Bonds are expected to go to sale at the end of July with proceeds delivered in mid-
August.
Director Harris asked if the sales of the Bonds are expected for sale in July when will the
property taxes likely show.
Mr. Sohail reported that it will appear late November with a line item showing Midpeninsula
Regional Open Space District.
Director Harris inquired if according to Rule 15c2-12, would the disclosure documents be posted
on the District’s website.
Mr. Lynch responded that the District’s website does not meet the requirements of Rule 15c2-12.
There is a separate website called EMMA, or Electronic Municipal Market Access, hosted by the
Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board where the documents would be posted.
Mr. Lynch summarized that under federal and state securities laws, the District, including the
issuing staff and Board of Directors, are ultimately legally responsible for the accuracy of
statements of facts provided in these documents, and if the disclosure provided contains material
misstatements or omissions, members of the staff and the Board of Directors can face civil or
even criminal penalties, depending on the nature of the omissions and the underlying
circumstances.
Mr. Lynch also mentioned that the Board should take the opportunity to go to the Municipal
Securities Rulemaking Board website as it is a useful resource page to help the Board learn the
terminology.
Director Cyr questioned if the District would have the sufficient staff to work on the bonds in a
timely manner.
General Manager Abbors reported the District does have adequate staff, and he is working with a
Budget and Finance team comprised of the two Assistant General Managers and staff from the
finance team. Mr. Abbors also indicated the District will be hiring a Chief Financial Officer.
Mr. Foster informed the Board to please ask him any questions they may have in regards to the
bonds.
Director Hassett inquired as to the type of training or background required for members of the
Bond Oversight Committee.
General Manager Abbors stated that the Oversight Committee will be tasked with ensuring the
District is spending the money on the projects included in Measure AA’s Expenditure Plan.
Meeting 15-11 Page 3
ADJOURNMENT
President Siemens adjourned the study session at 6:50 p.m.
CLOSED SESSION
CALL TO ORDER
President Siemens called the closed session of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
Board of Directors to order at 7:00 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Members Present: Jed Cyr, Nonette Hanko, Cecily Harris, Larry Hassett, Yoriko Kishimoto,
and Pete Siemens
Members Absent: Curt Riffle
1. CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS (Government Code Section
54957.6)
Agency Designated Representatives: Steve Abbors, General Manager, Kevin
Woodhouse, Assistant General Manager, Sheryl Schaffner, General Counsel, Jack
Hughes, Liebert Cassidy Whitmore
Employee Organization: Field Employee Association
2. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL (Government Code Section 54956.9)
Pending Litigation – One matter: Mahronich v. Presentation Center, et al.
ADJOURNMENT
President Siemens adjourned the meeting of the Board of Directors of the Midpeninsula
Regional Open Space District at 8:45 p.m.
________________________________
Maria Soria
Deputy District Clerk
Board Meeting 15-13
SPECIAL AND REGULAR MEETING
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
Administrative Office
330 Distel Circle
Los Altos, CA 94022
Wednesday, May 13, 2015
DRAFT MINUTES
SPECIAL MEETING – CLOSED SESSION
CALL TO ORDER
President Siemens called the Special Meeting of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
Board of Directors to order at 5:00 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Members Present: Nonette Hanko, Cecily Harris, Larry Hassett, Yoriko Kishimoto, Curt
Riffle, and Pete Siemens
Members Absent: Jed Cyr
Staff Present: General Manager Steve Abbors, General Counsel Sheryl Schaffner, and
Controller Mike Foster
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
None.
The Board convened into closed session at 5:00 p.m.
1. CLOSED SESSION: PUBLIC EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION
(GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54957(b)(1))
Title of Employees: Controller, General Counsel and General Manager
Meeting 15-13 Page 2
ADJOURNMENT
President Siemens adjourned the Special Meeting of the Board of Directors of the Midpeninsula
Regional Open Space District at 7:00 p.m.
REGULAR MEETING
CALL TO ORDER
President Siemens called the Regular Meeting of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
to order at 7:04 p.m.
President Siemens reported the Board met in closed session, and no reportable action was taken.
ROLL CALL
Members Present: Nonette Hanko, Cecily Harris, Larry Hassett, Yoriko Kishimoto, Curt
Riffle, and Pete Siemens
Members Absent: Jed Cyr
Staff Present: General Manager Steve Abbors, Assistant General Manager Kevin
Woodhouse, Assistant General Manager Ana Ruiz, General Counsel
Sheryl Schaffner, Controller Mike Foster, Operations Manager Michael
Newburn, Planning Manager Jane Mark, Casey Hiatt GIS Administrator,
Senior Planner Tina Hugg, Real Property Manager Mike Williams, Senior
Real Property Specialist Allen Ishibashi, and Interim District Clerk Kim
Marie Smith
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
None.
ADOPTION OF AGENDA
President Siemens stated that Item 9 will be heard after Item 7 followed by Items 8, 11 and 10, in
that order.
Motion: Director Kishimoto moved, and Director Riffle seconded the motion to adopt the
agenda, as amended.
VOTE: 6-0-0 (Director Cyr absent.)
SPECIAL ORDER OF THE DAY
Assistant General Manager Ana Ruiz introduced Frank Hernandez, Finance & Budget Analyst II
for the Administrative Services Department.
Meeting 15-13 Page 3
Natural Resources Manager Kirk Lenington introduced Coty Sifuentes-Winter, Integrated Pest
Management Coordinator.
CONSENT CALENDAR
1. Approve Claims Report
2. Written Communications: Karl Rowley
3. Contract for Completion of the Mindego Ranch Remediation and Demolition
Project at Russian Ridge Open Space Preserve (R-15-75)
General Manager’s Recommendation: Authorize the General Manager to enter into a contract
with Randazzo Enterprises, Inc., of Castroville, CA, for a not-to-exceed amount of $180,055 to
complete the Mindego Ranch Remediation and Demolition Project at the Russian Ridge Open
Space Preserve. The not-to-exceed amount includes a base bid of $145,995 for demolition and
remediation, a 15% contingency amount of $21,900, and an allowance of $12,160 for potential
stand down time related to delays to protect the federally-endangered San Francisco garter snake,
if encountered during construction.
4. Contract for Legal Services in Litigation, Mahronich et al v. Presentation Center, et
al. (R-15-80)
General Manager’s Recommendation: Approve a contract with Howard Rome Martin & Ridley
LLP for an amount not-to-exceed $30,000 for legal services relating to pending litigation.
5. Special Legal Services Contract relating to Real Property Issues (R-15-76)
General Manager’s Recommendation: Approve the proposed contract with Price, Postel &
Parma, LLP, for Special Legal Services relating to Real Property for a total not-to-exceed
amount of $100,000
Motion: Director Hassett moved and Director Harris seconded the motion to adopt the Consent
Calendar.
VOTE: 6-0-0 (Director Cyr absent.)
BOARD BUSINESS
6. Appointment of Chris Furniss and Natalie Hanna as Peace Officers (R-15-61)
Operations Manager Michael Newburn introduced Chris Furniss and Natalie Hanna as the
District’s two newest rangers.
Motion: Director Riffle moved, and Director Hanko seconded the motion to adopt two
resolutions of the Board of Directors of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
appointing Chris Furniss and Natalie Hanna as Peace Officers.
VOTE: 6-0-0 (Director Cyr absent.)
Meeting 15-13 Page 4
Rangers Chris Furniss and Natalie Hanna were sworn in as District Rangers by Mr. Newburn. Kevin Moon, his brother in law, performed the badging ceremony for Chris Furniss Supervising Ranger Chris Barresi performed the badging for Natalie Hanna.
7. Resolution Approving Documents Relating to Issuance of General Obligation
Bonds, Series 2015A (R-15-72)
Controller Mike Foster described the first tranche of bonds, which are planned to go on sale in
July 2015. The bonds will have debt service of approximately $2.5 million over 30 years, and
the current interest rate is approximately 3.8%. Mr. Foster described the next steps of the
process, including a presentation to Standard & Poors and Fitch on July 9th, determination of
whether any taxable bonds will be issued, and choosing an underwriter. The finalized interest
rate and audited financial statement will be included in the final Official Statement.
Director Harris stated that on page A-25 San Joaquin County is listed as being to the east of San
Mateo County and requested removal of Marin from the metropolitan district composition
description of San Mateo County on page A-27.
Director Siemens stated that in the fourth sentence of the second paragraph on A-8 it should be
corrected to say September 2015 instead of 20134.
Public hearing opened at 7:29 p.m.
No speakers present.
Public hearing closed at 7:29 p.m.
Motion: Director Hanko moved, and Director Kishimoto seconded the motion to adopt a
Resolution of the Board of Directors of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
authorizing the issuance and sale of General Obligation Bonds, Series 2015A, approving an
Official Statement, and providing other matters properly related thereto.
VOTE: 6-0-0 (Director Cyr absent.)
8. Resolution of Support Endorsing Six Priority Conservation Areas in San Mateo
County and Nine Priority Conservation Areas in Santa Clara County nominated by the
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District; and a Resolution of Support for Two Priority
Conservation Areas Nominated by the California State Coastal Conservancy and a
Resolution of Support for One Priority Conservation Area Nominated by the City of Menlo
Park (R-15-73)
Item 8 was heard after Item 11.
Planning Manager Jane Mark provided an overview of the project since staff last reported on this
item to the Board of Directors in January 2015. Ms. Mark explained that the District notified the
affected local jurisdictions with the Priority Conservation Areas (PCAs) in the spheres of
influence of the District’s desire to have the lands declared as PCAs. District staff received
requests from these jurisdictions to have additional lands included in the District’s PCA
application. Ms. Mark explained that District lands are also being included in the PCA
Meeting 15-13 Page 5
applications for other jurisdictions, including Ravenswood Open Space Preserve as part of
Menlo Park’s proposed Baylands PCA. Finally, Ms. Mark explained PCA designations can help
agencies attract funding for projects within a Priority Conservation Area, such as restoration
work or long-term agricultural preservation efforts, and if approved, 95% of the District’s lands
will have a PCA designation.
Director Kishimoto inquired why all District lands do not have a PCA designation.
Ms. Mark explained that a scientific justification is needed for PCA designation. The work
completed through the District’s Vision Plan has largely informed the application for the PCA
designation application.
Public hearing opened at 9:10 p.m.
No speakers present.
Public hearing closed at 9:10 p.m.
Motion: Director Riffle moved, and Director Hassett seconded the motion to
1. Adopt a resolution of support endorsing the nomination of six (6) Priority Conservation
Areas in San Mateo County and nine (9) Priority Conservation Areas in Santa Clara County,
as well as the PCA designation categories selected for the existing and new Priority
Conservation Areas.
2. Adopt resolutions of support for the nomination of the following Priority Conservation Areas
by other agencies: 1) the Menlo Park and East Palo Alto Baylands, which includes
Ravenswood Open Space Preserve, nominated by the City of Menlo Park and 2) the corridors
for the California Coastal Trail and San Francisco Bay Area Water Trail nominated by the
California State Coastal Conservancy.
VOTE: 6-0-0 (Director Cyr absent.)
9. Intent to Accept a Gift of a Conservation Easement over three Los Trancos County
Water District Parcels, two located in unincorporated San Mateo County (Assessor Parcel
Numbers 080-060-126 and 080-071-010) and one located in the Town of Portola Valley
(Assessor Parcel Number 080-241-410) (R-15-77)
Item 9 was heard after Item 7.
Assistant General Manager Ana Ruiz stated that acceptance of the Conservation Easement is a
result of the ongoing dissolution of the Los Trancos County Water District (LTCWD). Ms. Ruiz
described the locations, natural features of, and structures on the properties. Ms. Ruiz described
the terms of the conservation easements, including a duty to preserve and protect the
conservation values of the easements, the ability to enter the properties to monitor for
compliance, and notify fee title holders of any noncompliance.
Director Riffle inquired about the requirements of monitoring the easement.
Ms. Ruiz explained monitoring is completed by the Real Property department. The monitoring is
completed on various schedules for the District’s approximately 25 conservation easements.
Meeting 15-13 Page 6
When the Land and Facilities department is created, that department’s staff will take over
monitoring, which typically involves creation of a baseline document to which periodic photos
and notes will be compared to from subsequent site visits.
Public hearing opened at 7:50 p.m.
Bill Coats, President of Los Trancos County Water District, stated the LTCWD cannot currently
commit to cost reimbursement for the baseline document, but money has been set aside to cover
various aspects of the dissolution.
Charlie Krenz, member of the Silicon Valley Mountain Bikers Association, spoke in favor of a
400 foot proposed trail on the Red Shed property that would connect to Portola Valley trails.
Mr. Krenz also stated that the community is very active on this property and expressed the
thanks of the community that the District is accepting the conservation easements.
David Swernoff spoke regarding the historic value of the Red Shed and spoke in favor of the
District eventually owning the property.
Jerry Hearn, resident of Los Trancos Woods, spoke expressed support for the conservation
easements and spoke in favor of a single owner of the properties. Mr. Hearn also stated that
there are a number of individuals willing to work with the District to monitor the properties.
Public hearing closed at 8:06 p.m.
Motion: Director Kishimoto moved, and Director Hassett seconded the motion to:
1. Authorize the General Manager to negotiate the terms and conditions of a Conservation
Easement over three Los Trancos County Water District parcels with San Mateo County and
Woodside Fire Protection District, the successors in interest to the LTCWD property, to
conform to the terms specified in the staff report. Additionally, the District will be
reimbursed for fulfilling the responsibilities of the conservation easement, including creation
of the baseline document and ongoing monitoring. This authorization is contingent upon the
completion of the LTCWD dissolution and transfer of properties as further described in the
staff report.
2. Direct the General Manager to return to the Board of Directors for acceptance of the
Conservation Easement once the various dissolution and property transfer approvals are
secured through other agencies.
Director Hassett expressed his concerns regarding the potential costs of the conservation
easements that the District is currently unaware of and suggested the District be indemnified
against various liabilities.
VOTE: 6-0-0 (Director Cyr absent.)
10. Proposed Purchase of the Ashworth Property as an addition to La Honda Creek
Open Space Preserve located on Bear Gulch Road in unincorporated San Mateo County
(Assessor’s Parcel Number 075-340-240) (R-15-74)
Item 10 was heard after Item 8.
Meeting 15-13 Page 7
Senior Real Property Agent Allen Ishibashi provided the staff report describing the location and
features of the Ashworth property. Mr. Ishibashi explained that the purchase of the Ashworth
property brings the La Honda Creek Open Space Preserve and El Corte de Madera Creek Open
Space Preserve closer to connecting. Mr. Ishibashi stated that the purchase of the Ashworth
property is a Measure AA project important to a future Bay Area Ridge Trail connection
between the two preserves. Finally, Mr. Ishibashi described the use and management
considerations for the property and the terms and conditions of the sale.
Public hearing opened at 9:17 p.m.
No speakers present.
Public hearing closed at 9:17 p.m.
Motion: Director Hanko moved, and Director Harris seconded the motion to:
General Manager’s Recommendations:
1. Determine that the recommended actions are categorically exempt from the California
Environmental Quality Act, as set out in the staff report.
2. Adopt a Resolution authorizing the purchase of the Ashworth property.
3. Adopt a Preliminary Use and Management Plan for the property, as set out in the staff report.
4. Indicate the intention to withhold the Ashworth property as public open space.
VOTE: 6-0-0 (Director Cyr absent.)
11. Proposed purchase of the Peninsula Open Space Trust (Hendrys Creek) property in
partnership with Santa Clara Valley Water District as an addition to the Cathedral Oaks
Area of the Sierra Azul Open Space Preserve, located at 20610 Aldercroft Heights Road,
Los Gatos in unincorporated Santa Clara County (Santa Clara County Assessor’s Parcel
Numbers 558-27-007, 558-27-008, and 558-51-005) (R-15-71)
Item 11 was heard after Item 9.
Real Property Manager Mike Williams provided the staff report describing the Hendrys Creek
property, its location, history, and structures on the property. Mr. Williams described the habitat
and resource values of the property and the property’s transaction history. Mr. Williams outlined
the terms and conditions of the purchase, easement terms, and long term management plan.
Director Hassett inquired regarding passage over the Hendrys Creek 14 road crossings and
whether the crossings would need to be able to handle the weight and size of firefighting
apparatus.
Senior Planner Meredith Manning explained there will be a seasonal wet crossing, if necessary,
at the main stem of the creek where District patrol vehicles will be able to reach the area if
needed. All other road crossings will be removed.
Public hearing opened at 8:37 p.m.
Tricia Suvari, Vice President of POST in charge of land transactions, spoke in support of the
District’s purchase and expressed her thanks to the District for its management of the property.
Meeting 15-13 Page 8
Ngoc Nguyen, engineering unit manager at Santa Clara Valley Water District, thanked the Board
and the District for their support for the purchase of the property and the conservation easement
that will allow the Santa Clara Valley Water District to complete its mitigation monitoring
obligations.
Public hearing closed at 8:44 p.m.
Motion: Director Riffle moved, and Director Hanko seconded the motion to:
1. Adopt a Resolution approving the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration and the
Mitigation Monitoring Program for Hendrys Creek Project in accordance with the California
Environmental Quality Act, and adopt the findings set out in the Draft Resolution.
2. Adopt a Resolution authorizing execution of a Memorandum of Understanding with
Peninsula Open Space Trust and Santa Clara Valley Water District to purchase the property
and convey a Conservation Easement and Long-term Management Plan to Santa Clara
Valley Water District.
3. Adopt the Amended Preliminary Use and Management Plan, which will be incorporated into
the Long-term Management Plan, and name the property as an addition to the Cathedral Oaks
Area of Sierra Azul Open Space Preserve.
4. Dedicate the property as public open space pursuant to the District’s Annual Policy for Dedication of
Lands.
VOTE: 6-0-0 (Director Cyr absent.)
INFORMATIONAL REPORTS
A. Committee Reports
Director Hanko reported the Legislative, Funding and Public Affairs Committee will be meeting
soon to discuss a memorial bench to honor Herb Grench, the District’s first General Manager.
Director Siemens reported the Board Appointee Evaluation Committee met.
B. Staff Reports
Assistant General Manager Ana Ruiz reported that she and Planning Manager Jane Mark met
with Sara Rosenthal, aide to San Mateo County Supervisor Don Horsley, to discuss streamlining
the county’s planning permit process. Ms. Ruiz also reported that the first Mt. Umunhum
Conservancy site tour is scheduled for Saturday.
Assistant General Manager Kevin Woodhouse provided comments regarding implementation of
the Financial and Operational Sustainability Model Study.
General Counsel Sheryl Schaffner provided an update regarding a lawsuit by neighbors to the
Wozniak property along Summit Road in the Santa Cruz Mountains. Santa Cruz County’s
Environmental Impact Report related to the county’s approving permits for special events to be
held on property adjacent to the Bear Creek Redwoods Open Space Preserve.
Meeting 15-13 Page 9
C. Director Reports
The Board submitted their compensatory forms to the District Clerk.
Director Riffle reported that he spoke at a meeting of the League of Women Voters regarding the
current status of Measure AA implementation. Mr. Riffle also provided comments on a seminar
held by the District about engaging Latino communities.
Director Kishimoto reported that she toured the Bear Creek Redwoods with staff and also
attended the seminar regarding engaging Latino communities.
Director Hassett reported that he, Director Cyr, and Director Siemens attended the ribbon-cutting
ceremony at the Ancient Oaks Trail extension.
Director Hassett also reported that he attended the Wingding event at Skyline Ranch.
ADJOURNMENT
President Siemens adjourned the meeting at 9:40 p.m.
________________________________
Jennifer Woodworth, CMC
District Clerk
Board Meeting 15-14
SPECIAL AND REGULAR MEETING
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
Administrative Office
330 Distel Circle
Los Altos, CA 94022
Wednesday, May 27, 2015
DRAFT MINUTES
SPECIAL MEETING – CLOSED SESSION
CALL TO ORDER
President Siemens called the Special Meeting of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
Board of Directors to order at 5:09 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Members Present: Jed Cyr, Cecily Harris, Curt Riffle, and Pete Siemens
Members Absent: Nonette Hanko, Larry Hassett, Yoriko Kishimoto
Staff Present: General Manager Steve Abbors, Assistant General Manager Kevin
Woodhouse, General Counsel Sheryl Schaffner
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
None.
CLOSED SESSION The Board of Directors convened into closed session at 5:10 p.m.
1. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS (Government Code
Section 54956.8)
Property: Rancho San Antonio Contract with Santa Clara County
Agency Negotiator: Stephen E. Abbors, General Manager and Kevin Woodhouse, Assistant
General Manager
Negotiating Party: Robb Courtney, Santa Clara County Director of Parks and Recreation
Department
Under Negotiation: Terms of real property transaction
Meeting 15-14 Page 2
2. CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS (Government Code Section
54957.6)
Agency Designated Representatives: Steve Abbors, General Manager, Kevin Woodhouse,
Assistant General Manager, Sheryl Schaffner, General Counsel, Jack Hughes, Liebert Cassidy
Whitmore
Employee Organization: Field Employee Association ADJOURNMENT
President Siemens adjourned the Special Meeting of the Board of Directors of the Midpeninsula
Regional Open Space District at 7:00 p.m.
REGULAR MEETING
CALL TO ORDER
President Siemens called the Regular Meeting of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
to order at 7:04 p.m.
President Siemens reported the Board met in closed session, and no reportable action was taken.
ROLL CALL
Members Present: Jed Cyr, Cecily Harris, Curt Riffle, and Pete Siemens
Members Absent: Nonette Hanko, Larry Hassett, and Yoriko Kishimoto
Staff Present: General Manager Steve Abbors, Assistant General Manager Kevin
Woodhouse, Assistant General Manager Ana Ruiz, General Counsel
Sheryl Schaffner, Operations Manager Michael Newburn, Planning
Manager Jane Mark, Public Affairs Manager Shelly Lewis, Natural
Resources Kirk Lenington, Real Property Manager Mike Williams,
Administrative Services Manager Kate Drayson, and District Clerk
Jennifer Woodworth
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
None.
ADOPTION OF AGENDA
Motion: Director Cyr moved, and Director Riffle seconded the motion to adopt the agenda.
VOTE: 4-0-0 (Directors Hanko, Hassett, and Kishimoto absent.)
SPECIAL ORDER OF THE DAY Human Resources Supervisor introduced Rutuja Khare, Human Resources Technician.
Meeting 15-14 Page 3
CONSENT CALENDAR 1. Approve Claims Report 2. Written Communications: Andy Lott, Anne Paulson, Eric Solberg and Patrick Leal
3. Contract for Professional Legal Services (R-15-77)
General Manager’s Recommendations:
Authorize the General Manager to extend the professional services contract with Liebert Cassidy
Whitmore as follows:
1. Authorize extension of the contract for Fiscal Year 2015-16 with expenditures not to exceed
$80,000, for employment relations and labor negotiation consulting services.
2. Authorize the General Manager to extend the contract for up to two subsequent years (Fiscal
Years 2016-17 and 2017-18) with a not to exceed amount of $50,000 in each respective fiscal
year.
4. Contract Award for Hazardous Materials Remediation and Improvements to a
Tenant Residence at 4411 Alpine Road, Portola Valley, in the Hawthorns Area of Windy
Hill Open Space Preserve (R-15-81)
General Manager’s Recommendation: Authorize the General Manager to enter into a contract with Belz Construction, Inc. of Orangevale, CA, for a not-to-exceed amount of $188,600, which includes the base bid amount of $164,000 and a 15% contingency amount of $24,600, to complete a hazardous materials remediation and improvements to the Alpine Road residence in the Hawthorns Area of Windy Hill Open Space Preserve.
5. Use and Management Plan Amendment to Close Two Designated Trail Segments at Purisima Creek Open Space Preserve to Improve Visitor Safety (R-15-83)
General Manager’s Recommendations:
The General Manager recommends the Board approve the following recommendations from the
Planning and Natural Resources Committee:
1. Find that the recommended actions are Categorically Exempt under the California
Environmental Quality Act.
2. Adopt a Use and Management Plan Amendment to close the majority of the Lobitos Creek
Trail in Purisima Creek Open Space Preserve except for the first ¼ mile.
3. Adopt a Use and Management Plan Amendment to close the last ¼ mile of the North Ridge
Trail in Purisima Creek Open Space Preserve.
VOTE: 4-0-0 (Directors Hanko, Hassett, and Kishimoto absent.)
Motion: Director Riffle moved and Director Cyr seconded the motion to adopt the Consent
Calendar.
VOTE: 4-0-0 (Directors Hanko, Hassett, and Kishimoto absent.)
BOARD BUSINESS 6. Update on Actions of Mutual Interest taken by the District and by Lehigh
Southwest Cement Company during the Past Year (R-15-84)
Meeting 15-14 Page 4
General Manager Steve Abbors provided comments regarding District’s work with Lehigh
Hanson and the District’s ongoing relationship with the company.
Kari Saragusa, Region West President of Lehigh Hanson, described the history of the plant, the
cement manufacturing process used by Lehigh Hanson, and the agencies Lehigh Hanson works
with, including Bay Area Quality Management District, the Regional Water Quality Control
Board, and Santa Clara County. Mr. Saragusa described the ongoing oversight and reporting
requirements completed by Santa Clara County and Lehigh Hanson. Mr. Saragusa provided an
update on the East Materials Storage Area, such as recontouring the materials, working with the
Regional Water Quality Control Board to determine ideal cap and cover materials, and
eliminating disposal of overburden on the site. Finally, Mr. Saragusa described the terms of the
recent Environmental Protection Agency lawsuit settlement and Sierra Club Consent Decree,
including the proposed treatment process to lower selenium levels and restoration of Permanente
Creek.
Director Riffle inquired regarding the necessity of the lawsuit for Lehigh Hanson to complete
work to lower their selenium levels.
Mr. Saragusa explained that Lehigh Hanson was already working with the Bay Area Quality
Management District and the Regional Water Quality Control Board to lower selenium levels
prior to the lawsuit filed by the Sierra Club.
Public hearing opened at 7:54 p.m.
No speakers present.
Public hearing closed at 7:55 p.m.
7. Fiscal Year 2014-15 Action Plan Year End Review and List of Accomplishments (R-
15-79)
Mr. Abbors provided comments regarding previous fiscal year’s accomplishments and thanked
staff for their efforts.
The department managers provided brief descriptions of significant projects completed by their
departments during the 2014-15 fiscal year as described it the Action Plan Year End Review and
List of Accomplishments
8. Acceptance of the Financial and Operational Sustainability Model Study Final
Report (R-15-82)
Assistant General Manager Kevin Woodhouse provided a brief description of the Financial and
Operational Sustainability Model (FOSM) Study process to date including encouraging staff
members to provide input, Board study sessions, and implementation.
Nancy Hetrick of Management Partners provided a summary of the FOSM final report. Ms.
Hetrick described ongoing implementation measures including the Information Technology
Strategic Plan, reviewing classifications to provide for staff development and growth, and job
specification development and recruitment of newly created positions.
Meeting 15-14 Page 5
The Board thanked the members of District staff and also Management Partners for the hard
work and accomplishments achieved in the last year.
Motion: Director Cyr moved and Director Riffle seconded the motion to accept the Financial
and Operational Sustainability Model Study Final Report prepared by Management Partners.
VOTE: 4-0-0 (Directors Hanko, Hassett, and Kishimoto absent.)
INFORMATIONAL REPORTS
A. Committee Reports
No committee reports.
B. Staff Reports
Assistant General Manager Kevin Woodhouse provided an update on second session of
Stewardship 5.0 created to build trust among the 25 stakeholders. At an upcoming meeting
stakeholders will be working to determine the network’s structure, funding, projects, and
consider the implications of the network to the agencies and region.
Assistant General Manager Ana Ruiz provided an update on recruitment for capital project
managers. Ms. Ruiz also reported that the District will be applying for newly available grant
funds from Stanford University for the Ravenswood Bay Trail alignment. Ms. Ruiz also
reported staff will be bringing forward a proposal to move the start of the District’s fiscal year to
July 1 st.
Mr. Abbors provided additional information regarding the possible grant funding for the Bay
Trail, which would allow for Measure AA funds currently assigned to the Bay Trail project to be
freed for other Measure AA projects.
C. Director Reports
The Board submitted their compensatory forms to the District Clerk.
Director Siemens reported that he presented to the Silicon Valley Association of Realtors
providing information about the District, Measure AA, and ongoing District projects.
ADJOURNMENT
President Siemens adjourned the Regular Meeting at 9:22 p.m.
________________________________
Jennifer Woodworth, CMC
District Clerk
page 1 of 7
CLAIMS REPORT
MEETING 15-16
DATE 06-24-2015
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
Check
Number
Notes Vendor No. and Name Invoice Description Check Date Payment
Amount
69635 10205 - CALIFORNIA JPIA Annual Contribution Liability & WC FY15-16 & Retro Deposit 06/17/2015 $716,341.00
69537 *10215 - CALPERS-FISCAL SERVICES DIVISION Health Insurance Customer id 2857159579 06/02/2015 $130,869.88
69495 11509 - ASHRON CONSTRUCTION Mt Um Radar Tower Project April 2015 05/27/2015 $58,187.50
69632 11460 - ASBESTOS MANAGEMENT GROUP OF CALIFORNIA Mt Um Radar Tower Interior Remediation - SAU 06/17/2015 $34,090.76
69660 11500 - POPULOUS, INC.Bear Creek Redwoods Preserve Planning 06/17/2015 $32,018.96
69659 11523 - PGA DESIGN, INC.Alma College Site Rehabilitation Planning 06/17/2015 $30,311.72
69515 11500 - POPULOUS, INC.Bear Creek Preserve and Stables Planning 05/27/2015 $24,021.05
69627 11369 - BANK OF THE WEST COMMERCIAL CARD USA $607.15 MATERIALS & SUPPLIES-SFO 06/16/2015 $22,598.07
$600.00 Special Park Districts Forum Registration Fee
$226.90 Purchase of new field camera for NR staff
$935.96 Permit fees for bridges at ECDM & EIR Administrative fee
$137.60 First Aid Supplies (FFO)
$490.56 Field Supplies
$2,518.82 SUPPLIES, MATERIALS, SERVICES-SFO
$719.88 AO Office Supplies
$563.60 Web site expenses
$946.47 BCR Meeting Expenses, Knox Lock for Mindego Gate
$243.47 New Locks for 20000 Skyline Blvd. - RR
$481.00 WESCO BOOTS-SFO
$457.64 Trails Conference Fees -SFO
$126.90 Refreshments for Docent and Volunteer Enrichment Presentation
$1,792.76Training for HR & Ops, Survey Monkey, Membership Dues
$82.65 Volunteer Supplies
$1,272.29 Office Supply, Food/Bev for events, Name Badges, Shuttle, Photos
$234.44 Field Supplies
$515.80 Office Supplies, Mt. Umunhum legal meeting lunch,
$11.95 Field Supplies
$921.76 SUPPLIES/MATERIALS-SFO
$945.92 IT Credit Card Purchases - Hardware & Software
$1,818.24 Uniform Boots, Fire Gear, Vehicle & Portable Radio Parts
$160.41 First Aid Supplies (FFO)
$1,222.92 Air Ticket Trails Conf, SUPPLIES, MATERIALS, SERVICES-SFO
$41.00 Parking and Event Support
$75.00 Field Supplies
$172.11 Legislative days conference travel/parking, acterra awards ticke
$124.74 Event Supplies & Name Badges
$31.51 Field Supplies
page 2 of 7
CLAIMS REPORT
MEETING 15-16
DATE 06-24-2015
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
Check
Number
Notes Vendor No. and Name Invoice Description Check Date Payment
Amount
$146.94 SUPPLIES-SFO
$495.05 Food for Meetings, Internet Service
$62.97 Computer Hardware
$175.00 State Bar of CA Admin & Public Env Law Conferen-Hilary Stevenson
$1,575.08Wingding, Geocaching, Docent training and enrichment, supplies
$500.00 Facility Deposit - City of Los Altos 6/24 Board Meeting
$1,163.58 San Diego Conference, Training, negotiations lunch, copy keys
69644 10540 - CRAFTSMEN PRINTING Printing/Mailing/Postage of Summer OSV Newsletter/Maps 06/17/2015 $21,909.17
69512 11462 - MANAGEMENT PARTNERS Supplemental Activities Associated with FOSM 05/27/2015 $20,775.00
69517 10094 - RESTORATION DESIGN GROUP Mt Um Summit area design work 05/27/2015 $19,705.00
69589 *10218 - EDD Q1 Unemployment Charges 06/08/2015 $17,858.00
69652 10058 - LIEBERT CASSIDY WHITMORE Human Resources Consulting 06/17/2015 $14,987.00
69535 11152 - WELLINGTON PARK INVESTORS AO2/AO3 Rent - June 05/29/2015 $14,089.00
69559 10546 - ECOLOGICAL CONCERNS INC Herbicide spraying at Los Trancos and Russian Ridge 06/03/2015 $13,597.50
69567 11489 - HARO KASUNICH & ASSOCIATES INC.Geotechnical services for road work at Driscoll Ranch - LHC 06/03/2015 $13,112.79
69504 10137 - ESRI Arc GIS Software Licenses 05/27/2015 $12,825.94
69653 11462 - MANAGEMENT PARTNERS FOSM Implementation Consulting 06/17/2015 $12,112.50
69626 *11230 - SANTA CLARA COUNTY-C/O UNITED ADMINISTRATIVE SERVI Dental Insurance - Group #1766-0006 06/15/2015 $12,055.68
69678 *10216 - VALLEY OIL COMPANY Fuel for District vehicles 06/17/2015 $10,254.89
69599 11354 - ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE ASSOCIATES Stevens Creek Trail Bridges - MB 06/10/2015 $10,015.00
69645 10235 - DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES RICKEY DAM FEES 2015-16-SR 06/17/2015 $9,553.00
69493 *10702 - BARBARA S BERGMAN TRUST Interest payment quarter ended 5/31/2015 05/26/2015 $8,500.00
69514 *10180 - PG & E 6915 Electricity/gas 05/15 05/27/2015 $7,083.07
69604 10222 - HERTZ EQUIPMENT RENTAL INC EQUIPMENT RENTAL-JD 120D EXCAVATOR-ECdM 06/10/2015 $6,409.20
69575 10099 - SAN FRANCISCO BAY BIRD OBSERVATORY RM Grants - Montane Grassland bird communities 06/03/2015 $5,000.00
69541 *10419 - THE LINCOLN NATIONAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY MPOSD-BL-490450 AD&D/LIFE/LTD 06/02/2015 $4,981.79
69621 10102 - SHUTE, MIHALY & WEINBERGER LLP Legal advice for riparian easement at Event Center - LHC/Ravenswood RW 06/10/2015 $4,629.20
69558 10027 - CRESCO EQUIPMENT RENTALS Rental equipment -- Methuselah Bridge area project 06/03/2015 $4,537.50
69523 11512 - THREAT TRACK SECURITY Antivirus Software Renewal for 3 Years 05/27/2015 $4,326.00
69650 10222 - HERTZ EQUIPMENT RENTAL INC EQUIPMENT RENTAL-JOHN DEERE 650K DOZER-ECdM 06/17/2015 $4,092.95
69680 *11118 - WEX BANK Fuel for District vehicles 06/17/2015 $3,157.70
69646 11159 - FIREWHAT.COM Wildland Fire Refresher Training 06/17/2015 $2,960.00
69544 11278 - A-1 PARTY RENTAL AND EVENTS Canopy, tables, chair rentals for WingDing Event 06/03/2015 $2,927.00
69651 10046 - IHI ENVIRONMENTAL Mindego Pre-Renovation Hazardous Materials Survey 06/17/2015 $2,818.00
69665 10324 - RICH VOSS TRUCKING INC ROADS & TRAILS-LR 06/17/2015 $2,758.25
69551 11431 - CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES Harkins bridge botanical survey/Woodrat survey 06/03/2015 $2,677.98
69556 11397 - COMMITTEE FOR GREEN FOOTHILLS Sponsorship for Annual Gala: Nature's Inspiration 06/03/2015 $2,500.00
page 3 of 7
CLAIMS REPORT
MEETING 15-16
DATE 06-24-2015
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
Check
Number
Notes Vendor No. and Name Invoice Description Check Date Payment
Amount
69611 10076 - OFFICE TEAM GM Office/AO FRONT DESK TEMP 05/13-05/15 06/10/2015 $2,488.16
69603 11492 - HAWK DESIGN & CONSULTING Structural drawings for west facing deck at Silva House - RR 06/10/2015 $2,428.75
69539 10211 - PUBLIC POLICY ADVOCATES Legislative Advocacy Services 06/02/2015 $2,335.84
69561 10729 - FIRST AMERICAN TITLE COMPANY Escrow costs for Ashworth property - LHC 06/03/2015 $2,326.00
69605 10123 - HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES Field supplies, Methuselah bridge supplies 06/10/2015 $2,292.83
69509 11495 - HANNA, NATALIE Reimbursement For Ranger Academy Expenses 05/27/2015 $2,231.09
69502 10540 - CRAFTSMEN PRINTING Printing of Business cards: Khare/English Gen brochures 05/27/2015 $2,191.32
69622 10302 - STEVENS CREEK QUARRY INC ROADS & TRAILS-LR 06/10/2015 $2,113.45
69550 *10602 - CAGWIN & DORWARD AO LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE 06/03/2015 $2,080.00
69548 10606 - ASCENT ENVIRONMENTAL INC Hendry's Creek IS/MND CEQA Consulting - SAC 06/03/2015 $2,017.00
69554 10464 - CITY OF FOSTER CITY CalOpps Annual Fee 2015 (Recruiting website)06/03/2015 $2,000.00
69565 10509 - GEOCON CONSULTANTS INC Mindego Public access Project ( Ranch Remediation) - RR 06/03/2015 $1,989.00
69647 10169 - FOSTER BROTHERS SECURITY SYSTEMS Locks 06/17/2015 $1,957.47
69571 10076 - OFFICE TEAM Temporary Help G.M. Office 06/03/2015 $1,950.50
69582 *10583 - TELEPACIFIC COMMUNICATIONS District Telephone Service + SAO Internet 06/03/2015 $1,922.98
69656 10076 - OFFICE TEAM Temporary Help G.M. Office 06/17/2015 $1,880.00
69643 11318 - CONFLUENCE RESTORATION April Vegetation Maintenance at Bald Mtn Staging Area - SAU 06/17/2015 $1,875.00
69580 10468 - TANNERHECHT ARCHITECTURE, INC.SFO HVAC 06/03/2015 $1,861.50
69530 *10032 - DEL REY BUILDING MAINTENANCE May Services 05/29/2015 $1,815.00
69519 11005 - SAN MATEO COUNTY PLANNING & BUILDING DEPT General plan conformity fee for Ashworth & POST Apple Orchard 05/27/2015 $1,744.50
69546 10128 - AMERICAN TOWER CORPORATION Radio repeater site lease-Coyote Peak 06/03/2015 $1,668.00
69672 *10969 - THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON TRUST CO NA Admin Fee - 2011 Revenue Bonds 06/17/2015 $1,650.00
69507 11494 - FURNISS, CHRIS Reimbursement For Ranger Academy Expenses 05/27/2015 $1,642.47
69601 10187 - GARDENLAND POWER EQUIPMENT PARTS FOR TOOLS/EQUIPMENT-SFO 06/10/2015 $1,631.53
69538 10212 - PINNACLE TOWERS INC Tower rental - Crown site id 871823 06/02/2015 $1,600.20
69542 *11003 - UNITED ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES GLUG-45Y5 Basic Life/Supplemental Life 06/02/2015 $1,589.04
69520 *10952 - SONIC.NET, INC.AO Internet Service 05/27/2015 $1,573.63
69591 10428 - ALLIANT INSURANCE SERVICES Crime Insurance Program Renewal 7-1-15 to 7-1-16 06/10/2015 $1,546.00
69527 11176 - ZORO TOOLS PARTS/SUPPLIES FOR RM TOOLS-SFO 05/27/2015 $1,524.27
69525 10487 - TKO GENERAL ENGINEERING & CONSTRUCTION Retainage Release - 20000 Skyline Blvd (Main house)05/27/2015 $1,518.80
69596 11318 - CONFLUENCE RESTORATION Mindego planting and maintenance - RR 06/10/2015 $1,434.50
69500 11171 - COMMUNICATION ADVANTAGE April Services: Job reclassification, dept reorg consultation 05/27/2015 $1,387.50
69629 11442 - ACCO ENGINEERED SYSTEMS AO HVAC Repairs 06/17/2015 $1,350.28
69667 11268 - SANTA CLARA COUNTY PLANNING OFFICE Bear Creek Stables Site Plan Use Permit Fee 06/17/2015 $1,332.00
69595 10014 - CCOI GATE & FENCE Gate Repair (SA-MT UM)06/10/2015 $1,280.00
69624 **10203 - WOODSIDE & PORTOLA PRIVATE PATROL Patrol services for Hawthorn property 06/10/2015 $1,200.00
69557 *10445 - COMMUNICATION & CONTROL INC Repeater Site Lease 06/03/2015 $1,172.00
page 4 of 7
CLAIMS REPORT
MEETING 15-16
DATE 06-24-2015
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
Check
Number
Notes Vendor No. and Name Invoice Description Check Date Payment
Amount
69508 10173 - GREEN WASTE DEBRIS BOX EXCHANGE-SFO/MARIJUANA CLEANUP-SG 05/27/2015 $1,135.00
69587 11388 - WAGNER & BONSIGNORE Water Rights Engineering Services 06/03/2015 $1,100.20
69543 *10213 - VISION SERVICE PLAN-CA Vision Premium 00 106067 0010 06/02/2015 $1,091.88
69560 10793 - FALL CREEK ENGINEERING Engineering review of watersystems at Driscoll Ranch - LHC 06/03/2015 $1,060.00
69581 10199 - TARGET SPECIALTY PRODUCTS RESOURCE MANAGEMENT-SFO GENERAL 06/03/2015 $1,024.31
69638 11443 - CATERPILLAR FINANCIAL SERVICES CORPORATION Excavator Rental for Mt Umunhum Trail Construction 06/17/2015 $1,003.29
1224 11492 - HAWK DESIGN & CONSULTING Deposit for Alpine house asbestos removal 06/17/2015 $1,000.00
69636 10840 - CALIFORNIA PENSION GROUP, LLC Consulting - May 2014 06/17/2015 $1,000.00
69676 10403 - UNITED SITE SERVICES INC Portable restrooms RR/FOOSP/SA 06/17/2015 $952.35
69498 10488 - CLEAN HARBORS ENVIRONMENTAL SE HazMat Disposal 05/27/2015 $918.48
69620 *10580 - SHARP BUSINESS SYSTEMS MROSD PER PRINT CHARGES 06/10/2015 $908.58
69516 10195 - REDWOOD GENERAL TIRE CO INC VEHICLE MAINTENANCE & REPAIRS-SFO 05/27/2015 $906.83
69511 11392 - LENNIHAN LAW Water Rights Legal Consulting 05/27/2015 $890.40
69630 11170 - ALEXANDER ATKINS DESIGN, INC.Ad for girl Scouts 06/17/2015 $886.00
69674 10146 - TIRES ON THE GO Tire repair - P96/Tires - M22 06/17/2015 $880.23
69568 11475 - HEBERT, AARON,Tuition Reimbursement 06/03/2015 $800.00
69663 10176 - RE BORRMANN'S STEEL CO Restroom Doors (RSACP)06/17/2015 $793.46
69600 11151 - FASTENAL COMPANY Tools 06/10/2015 $776.89
69613 *10180 - PG & E 9254 Electricity/gas 05/15 06/10/2015 $771.87
69569 11376 - LAND TRUST OF SANTA CRUZ COUNTY Pathways For Wildlife Highway 17 Corridor 06/03/2015 $770.00
69594 10170 - CASCADE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY Fire gear & supplies 06/10/2015 $728.12
69675 10561 - ULINE DRIVERS' GLOVES-SFO 06/17/2015 $722.92
69616 10932 - RDO EQUIPMENT COMPANY Balance Due on Brush Mower Purchase 06/10/2015 $673.20
69545 10357 - A-TOTAL FIRE PROTECTION COMPANY Alarm Test (FFO)06/03/2015 $625.00
69625 11176 - ZORO TOOLS TOOLS-SFO 06/10/2015 $624.92
69666 *10136 - SAN JOSE WATER COMPANY Water Service (RSACP)06/17/2015 $605.14
69513 10190 - METROMOBILE COMMUNICATIONS Install SFO radio antenna 05/27/2015 $575.16
69522 10069 - THE WILFRED JARVIS INSTITUTE Leadership and Organizational Effectiveness 05/27/2015 $550.00
69671 11135 - TDN ELECTRIC, INC Repair wiring at Hawthorn Complex - WH 06/17/2015 $550.00
69614 10140 - PINE CONE LUMBER CO INC Construction Materials -METHUSELAH BRIDGE CONSTRUCTION-ECdM 06/10/2015 $543.60
69640 10352 - CMK AUTOMOTIVE INC Service - P84/M38 06/17/2015 $507.18
69655 11270 - MUNICIPAL MAINTENANCE EQUIPMENT, INC.Flail knives for tractor mower 06/17/2015 $503.00
69528 *10018 - CECILY HARRIS April/May Director meetings 05/29/2015 $500.00
69534 *10084 - PETE SIEMENS April/May Director meetings 05/29/2015 $500.00
69585 10403 - UNITED SITE SERVICES INC Restroom Rental for WingDing event 06/03/2015 $498.69
69658 10209 - PETTY CASH-MROSD SFO petty cash reimbursement 06/17/2015 $469.11
69576 11429 - SAN MATEO COUNTY PARKS DEPARTMENT Vinyl Maps with Magnetic Backing 06/03/2015 $468.45
page 5 of 7
CLAIMS REPORT
MEETING 15-16
DATE 06-24-2015
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
Check
Number
Notes Vendor No. and Name Invoice Description Check Date Payment
Amount
69637 *10454 - CALIFORNIA WATER SERVICE CO-949 Water Service (FFO)06/17/2015 $452.46
69492 10209 - PETTY CASH-MROSD AO Petty cash reimbursement 05/21/2015 $448.01
69564 10187 - GARDENLAND POWER EQUIPMENT Equipment Parts/Safety Supplies & Equipment 06/03/2015 $423.58
69584 10561 - ULINE SAFETY EAR PLUGS & LOAD BARS-SFO 06/03/2015 $406.62
69526 10796 - WEMORPH INC OPS PARKING FORMS & Time Cards 05/27/2015 $405.00
69536 *10118 - YORIKO KISHIMOTO April/May Director meetings 05/29/2015 $400.00
69664 10589 - RECOLOGY SOUTH BAY Garbage Service (RSACP)06/17/2015 $393.93
69590 11170 - ALEXANDER ATKINS DESIGN, INC.Bay Nature Ad: Challenge accepted 06/10/2015 $375.00
69609 10135 - MADCO Welding Supplies 06/10/2015 $373.44
69661 *10261 - PROTECTION ONE AO QUARTERLY ALARM MONITORING 06/17/2015 $359.44
69579 10957 - STATE BOARD OF EQUALIZATION Fire Prevention Fee Assessment 06/03/2015 $351.99
69540 *10093 - RENE HARDOY 05/15 Gardening services 06/02/2015 $325.00
69578 10157 - STAPLES CREDIT PLAN Office Supplies 06/03/2015 $324.35
69631 11048 - ARC Printing Services - Mt Um Summit - SAU 06/17/2015 $313.20
69562 10169 - FOSTER BROTHERS SECURITY SYSTEMS PROTECTIVE BARRIERS-SFO 06/03/2015 $306.10
69494 11459 - A.C. & H. CIVIL ENGINEERS INC Bergman house deck construction 05/27/2015 $300.00
69529 *10029 - CURT RIFFLE May Director meetings 05/29/2015 $300.00
69532 *10057 - LARRY HASSETT May Director meetings 05/29/2015 $300.00
69533 *10072 - NONETTE HANKO May Director meetings 05/29/2015 $300.00
69639 11532 - CHANEY, MATT Mileage Reimbursement/District Vehicle Wash 06/17/2015 $297.60
69657 10999 - PALO ALTO PLUMBING HEATING & AIR CLEAN KITCHEN/BATHROOMS DRAIN-SFO 06/17/2015 $290.00
69549 10183 - BARRON PARK SUPPLY CO INC Plumbing Parts (RSACP/FFO)06/03/2015 $282.87
69649 11492 - HAWK DESIGN & CONSULTING 4411 Alpine Road asbestos removal 06/17/2015 $280.00
69524 10146 - TIRES ON THE GO Tire replacement & repair 05/27/2015 $277.69
69563 10168 - G & K SERVICES INC Shop Towel Service (FFO & SFO)06/03/2015 $275.68
69597 10185 - COSTCO Office Supplies 06/10/2015 $260.60
69592 10294 - AMERIGAS-SAN JOSE SFO new propane tank installation 06/10/2015 $250.19
69593 10835 - BRIDGE WIRELESS Radio supplies 06/10/2015 $250.13
69499 10613 - COASTAL TRAIL RUNS Refund of Deposit 05/27/2015 $250.00
69510 11524 - KEITH LUBLINER Refund of Deposit 05/27/2015 $250.00
69670 10302 - STEVENS CREEK QUARRY INC Rock for Stock 06/17/2015 $242.39
69555 10352 - CMK AUTOMOTIVE INC P88 & P98 Service / Repair 06/03/2015 $233.45
69566 *10173 - GREEN WASTE WEEKLY GARBAGE/RECYCLE-SFO 06/03/2015 $217.59
69574 10151 - SAFETY KLEEN SYSTEMS INC Service Solvent Tank (FFO)06/03/2015 $216.41
69497 *10454 - CALIFORNIA WATER SERVICE CO-949 AO WATER 05/27/2015 $205.23
69648 10187 - GARDENLAND POWER EQUIPMENT Equipment Repair 06/17/2015 $201.06
69531 *10050 - JED CYR May Director meetings 05/29/2015 $200.00
page 6 of 7
CLAIMS REPORT
MEETING 15-16
DATE 06-24-2015
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
Check
Number
Notes Vendor No. and Name Invoice Description Check Date Payment
Amount
69618 10934 - REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD Water Quality Control Board fee for fisheries restoration - LHC 06/10/2015 $200.00
69608 11326 - LEXISNEXIS MATTHEW BENDER LexisNexis online service for May 2015 06/10/2015 $183.34
69679 *10685 - WEST VALLEY COLLECTION Garbage Service (SAO/ES)06/17/2015 $174.80
69668 11042 - SANTA CLARA COUNTY-OFFICE OF THE SHERIFF Fingerprint Background checks for HR Dept 06/17/2015 $160.00
69496 *10172 - CALIFORNIA WATER SERVICE CO-3525 Water service for rental residences - ECM/PCR/WH 05/27/2015 $159.33
69673 10706 - THE MERCURY NEWS R.F.B. for Bergman deck replacement 06/17/2015 $145.52
69628 11108 - SAN MATEO COUNTY HAZARDOUS WASTE DISPOSAL-SFO 06/16/2015 $143.61
69501 10184 - CONTINUING EDUCATION OF THE BAR Subscription-Neighbor Disputes: Law & Litigation Up15 05/27/2015 $141.64
69610 10160 - OFFICE DEPOT CREDIT PLAN Office Supplies 06/10/2015 $135.39
69577 10447 - SIMMS PLUMBING & WATER EQUIPMENT Replace plug for wasteline at rental residence - PCR 06/03/2015 $133.77
69586 *10309 - VERIZON WIRELESS Cell Phone Service 06/03/2015 $125.90
69654 *10664 - MISSION TRAIL WASTE SYSTEMS AO Garbage 06/17/2015 $120.16
69617 10195 - REDWOOD GENERAL TIRE CO INC Tires for damaged trailer tire 06/10/2015 $117.64
69619 *11526 - REPUBLIC SERVICES Garbage services - ECM 06/10/2015 $115.50
69612 10253 - PETERSON TRACTOR CO Excavator Battery 06/10/2015 $109.82
69641 11530 - COASTSIDE.NET INTERNET SERVICES-SFO 06/17/2015 $109.00
69607 10395 - JACKSON-HIRSH INC Laminating Supplies 06/10/2015 $101.00
69642 **10850 - COMPLETE PEST CONTROL Hawthorn Pest Control Service 5/15/15 06/17/2015 $100.00
69634 11316 - Buscaglia, Jeannie Mileage Reimbursement 06/17/2015 $88.67
69677 11037 - US HEALTHWORKS MEDICAL GROUP PC Medical Service - HR Dept 06/17/2015 $81.00
69572 10481 - PACIFIC TELEMANAGEMENT SERVICE CAMPGROUND PAY PHONE-MB 06/03/2015 $78.00
69547 10010 - ARRANGED4COMFORT Keyboard for Christina Yunker 06/03/2015 $76.07
69570 10670 - O'REILLY AUTO PARTS Auto Parts 06/03/2015 $74.06
69521 10162 - TERMINIX PROCESSING CENTER AO PEST CONTROL 05/27/2015 $74.00
69615 10261 - PROTECTION ONE AO FIRE INSPECTION MONITORING 06/10/2015 $70.18
69623 11348 - THE BACKFLOW GUY ANNUAL WATER SYSTEM TEST-WH 06/10/2015 $70.00
69602 10548 - GARTSIDE, ELLEN Volunteer Supplies 06/10/2015 $62.03
69588 10527 - WASTE MANAGEMENT Garbage Disposal (SA)06/03/2015 $59.31
69606 10421 - ID PLUS INC Staff name tags 06/10/2015 $58.25
69669 10960 - STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL WATER RECOURSES OPERATOR RENEWAL-PARRY 06/17/2015 $55.00
69633 10183 - BARRON PARK SUPPLY CO INC Plumbing Supplies (FFO)06/17/2015 $53.29
69552 10172 - CALIFORNIA WATER SERVICE CO-3525 MONTHLY WATER-WH 06/03/2015 $51.56
69518 *11426 - RIDGE WIRELESS INC.FFO Internet Access 05/27/2015 $50.00
69598 10540 - CRAFTSMEN PRINTING Printing of Business Cards: Laustsen 06/10/2015 $48.94
69505 10186 - FEDERAL EXPRESS Shipping charges 05/27/2015 $47.47
69506 10174 - FORESTRY SUPPLIERS INC Safety items 05/27/2015 $42.96
69503 11210 - DATA SAFE AO SHREDDING SERVICE 05/27/2015 $40.00
page 7 of 7
CLAIMS REPORT
MEETING 15-16
DATE 06-24-2015
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
Check
Number
Notes Vendor No. and Name Invoice Description Check Date Payment
Amount
69553 10170 - CASCADE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY TRUCK PUMPER REPAIR PARTS-SFO 06/03/2015 $32.91
69662 *10134 - RAYNE OF SAN JOSE Water Service (FOOSP)06/17/2015 $26.25
69573 11204 - PORTOLA VALLEY HARDWARE Fence repair supplies 06/03/2015 $19.04
69583 10201 - TURF & INDUSTRIAL EQUIP CO Tractor Part 06/03/2015 $10.85
GRAND TOTAL $1,430,648.19
*Annual Claims
**Hawthorn Expenses
BC = Bear Creek LH = La Honda Creek PR = Pulgas Ridge SG = Saratoga Gap TC = Tunitas Creek
CC = Coal Creek LR = Long Ridge PC = Purisima Creek SA = Sierra Azul WH = Windy Hill
ECdM = El Corte de Madera LT = Los Trancos RSA = Rancho San Antonio SR= Skyline Ridge AO = Administrative Office
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 PR = Picchetti Ranch SJH = St Joseph's Hill TW = Thornewood SAO = South Area Outpost
RR/MIN = Russian Ridge - Mindego Hill
R-15-89
Meeting 15-16
June 24, 2015
AGENDA ITEM 3
AGENDA ITEM
Contract to Implement the Driscoll Ranch Roads Sediment Reduction and Pond Restoration
Project at the La Honda Creek Open Space Preserve.
GENERAL MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Authorize the General Manager to enter into an agreement with Half Moon Bay Grading and
Paving of Half Moon Bay, CA, for a total contract amount not to exceed $613,566, which
includes the project proposal amount of $533,536 and a fifteen percent contingency amount
of $80,030, to implement the Driscoll Ranch Roads Sediment Reduction and Pond
Restoration Project at the La Honda Creek Open Space Preserve.
2. Determine that the recommended action is consistent with the Mitigated Negative
Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Plan for Implementation of the La Honda Creek
Master Plan, approved by the Board on August 22, 2012.
SUMMARY
The Request for Bids for the Driscoll Ranch Roads Sediment Reduction and Pond Restoration
Project (Project) was released on May 20, 2015. Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
(District) completed the bid process on Wednesday June 17, 2015 with Half Moon Bay Grading
and Paving as the apparent low bidder. This project was previously brought before the Board on
May 14, 2014 (See R-14-77) to authorize the District to enter into a grant agreement through the
Fisheries Restoration Grant Program with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife
(CDFW) to help fund this important sediment reduction and habitat restoration work. The
District has been awarded this grant, which will fund $230,970 of the project construction costs.
Upon implementation, the project will involve sediment and erosion control on 4.68 miles of
rural ranch road at the La Honda Creek Open Space Preserve (See Attachment 1, Project Maps).
Road upgrades will occur on 3.68 miles of road, and formal road abandonment will occur on 1.0
miles of road. Additionally, 4,400 linear feet of aging waterline embedded in the road will be
replaced and 1 stock pond will be repaired as a component of the project because the failed berm
is used to access a portion of the project sites (See R-15-66).
MEASURE AA
The 5-year Measure AA Project List was approved by the Board at the October 29, 2014
meeting. This project is a component of Measure AA Project 7-2: Fisheries Restoration, which is
R-15-89 Page 2
part of the larger La Honda Creek MAA Portfolio Number 7, Driscoll Ranch Public Access,
Endangered Wildlife Protection and Conservation Grazing.
DISCUSSION
Background
The District acquired the Driscoll Ranch portion of the La Honda Creek Open Space Preserve
(Preserve) in 2006. The existing road network on this portion of the preserve was created as a
result of the more than 100 year ranching history as well as to provide access to the former La
Honda oil field that was located on a portion of the property. Unfortunately, the road network has
been minimally maintained, resulting in erosion and sediment delivery to the surrounding creeks.
This grant funded project targets a reduction in sediment input from the rural road sources within
the Harrington, Bogess and La Honda Creek drainages, which are all tributaries to San Gregorio
Creek (see attached watershed map). San Gregorio Creek is a sediment impaired watershed that
is habitat for two federal and state endangered fish species: Coho salmon and steelhead.
Sediment is a known limiting factor for these species as it impacts their ability to breed and
thrive within a stream. In 2012, the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) issued the
Central California Coast Coho Recovery plan and identified core areas (those with highest
priority for immediate action) within the San Gregorio Creek Watershed. A presentation of this
fisheries plan and the core areas within the District was presented to the Board on October 24,
2012 (R-12-105). This grant funded project is located within these core areas.
Once implemented, this project is anticipated to permanently prevent 3,435 cubic yards of
sediment from the deteriorating ranch roads from reaching anadromous streams within the
sediment impaired San Gregorio Creek watershed. The project has been designed by a Certified
Engineering Geologist (Timothy Best), and a civil engineering firm (Haro, Kasunich and
Associates, Inc.) and uses best management practices for road maintenance, management and
decommissioning available. Previously in 2011, the District successfully worked under this same
grant program to implement the Big Dipper Ranch Roads project in the Skyline Ridge Open
Space Preserve within the Pescadero Creek watershed (also impacted by sedimentation and a
priority for restoration). That project had similar objectives and was implemented successfully
by contractors under the supervision of District staff.
Contractor Selection
The bid package was sent to eleven (11) contractors as well as released to five (5) builders’
exchanges. A legal notice was also posted in the San Mateo County Times and San Jose
Mercury News, and an Invitation to Bid was posted on the District website. A pre-bid meeting
was held on June 3, 2015. Nine contractors attended the pre-bid tour.
Sealed bids were due on Wednesday June 17, 2015, and five bids were received as shown below:
Bidder Location Base Bid
Percent Difference
from Base Bid
Estimate of $455,000
R-15-89 Page 3
1. Half Moon Bay Grading
and Paving
Half Moon Bay,
CA $533,536 +17%
2. TKO General Engineering
and Construction, Inc. Woodside, CA $646,416 +42%
3. Gradetech Inc. San Ramon, CA $691,360 +52%
4. Redwood Engineering Redwood City,
CA $703,000 +55%
5. Tucker Engineering Campbell, CA $1,716,900 +277%
Evaluation of the bids revealed that the apparent low bidder, Half Moon Bay Grading and Paving
presented a complete and responsive bid package. Therefore, staff recommends awarding the
contract for implementation of the Driscoll Ranch Roads Sediment Reduction and Pond
Restoration project to Half Moon Bay Grading and Paving for a total not-to-exceed amount of
$533,536. In addition, due to the complexity and multiple sites within the project, staff is
recommending the Board authorize a 15% contingency amount of $80,030.
The contingency will not be included in the contract at this time, but will be authorized through
change orders or contract amendments as warranted for any unanticipated conditions
encountered. Contingency costs, if approved, could include items such as: additional grading,
excavation, and compaction to implement the project safely due to site conditions, installation of
additional erosion control features when warranted by site conditions (additional reverse grade
dips, ditch relief culverts, digging out a longer section of roadside ditch, rocking additional
portions of road), or soil over excavation and re-compaction within the pond basin and/or
expansion of the existing toe drain to adequately convey water, or installation of additional cattle
fencing to keep cattle off of newly reconstructed culvert inlets, ditches, cutbanks, or restored
road sections.
As currently designed, the project provides for high quality work at a cost that is competitive for
grant funding. However additional work at some sites may be requested by the District to
minimize future maintenance, increase the longevity of the anticipated repairs and to ensure road
upgrades will also prepare the road for future public access as well as to meet sediment reduction
goals.
FISCAL IMPACT
Award of contract will result in a not-to-exceed contract amount of $533,536 being awarded to
Half Moon Bay Grading and Paving for the Project. Additionally, a contingency amount of
$80,030 is also being approved should unanticipated conditions arise during the construction of
the project. Therefore, the total potential construction cost for this project could total $613,566.
This amount is greater than the $503,000 budgeted in the Natural Resources Department for
these partially grant funded road work. The additional funds required to cover these construction
expenses would come from reallocating capital project budget funds from the MAA 5-2: Upper
La Honda Creek Grazing Infrastructure Project which is being delayed due to the continued
drought conditions on the McDonald Ranch, reducing the amount of available water for livestock
grazing and the need for additional pasture land this year. Additionally, $22,000 of project
expenses are to replace a deteriorating waterline embedded in one of the roadways to be regraded
R-15-89 Page 4
during project construction. Funds for this line item were included in the FY2015/16 Real
Property Department Budget, which was approved by the Board on March 26, 2015.
It should also be noted that the engineer’s estimate for construction of this project was $380,000;
however the actual bid for construction was $533,536. Unanticipated expenditures not originally
included in the project budget consist of: trucking in of water to achieve required soil
compaction (due to onsite water being reserved for tenant use during the fourth year of a
drought), as well as the need to repair an additional pond berm to access some of the grant
funded project sites. These two items alone account for an increase in $85,000 of the base bid
costs. The remainder of the difference ($68,536) is a result in higher than anticipated
construction costs for this project, likely accounted for due to an increase in overall construction
costs since 2012. The engineer’s estimate was completed in 2012 to apply for grant funding
through the California Department of Fish and Wildlife, Fisheries Restoration Grant Program.
Although unsuccessful in 2013, the District reapplied and was awarded grant funding through
2014 of $230,970.
The District funded amount for construction of this project without contingencies is $302,566
(57%), and the grant funded portion of the project is $230,970 (43%). Any project expenses
incurred for contingency measures would be fully paid by the District, potentially raising the
District funded portion of the project to 62%, and reducing the grant funded portion of the
project to 38%. A majority of the District funding will be paid using Measure AA bond funds.
BOARD COMMITTEE REVIEW
The full Board authorized the District to enter into a grant agreement with the California
Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), Fisheries Restoration Grant Program in 2012. Due to
the full Board’s review, separate Board Committee review was not necessary for this contract
award.
PUBLIC NOTICE
Public notice for the award of bid was provided as required by the Brown Act. No additional
notice is required.
CEQA COMPLIANCE
Awarding the bid and issuing a contract agreement for construction services for implementation
of the Driscoll Ranch Roads Sediment Reduction and Pond Restoration Project is consistent with
the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Plan for Implementation of the La
Honda Creek Master Plan, approved by the Board on August 22, 2012 (see Report R-12-83). No
negative environmental impacts are anticipated from this project beyond what was analyzed in
the MND/MMP.
NEXT STEPS
If approved by the Board, the General Manager will enter into a contract with Half Moon Bay
Grading and Paving for implementation of the Driscoll Ranch Roads Sediment Reduction and
Pond Restoration Project at the La Honda Creek Open Space Preserve. Final contract signature
R-15-89 Page 5
is subject to meeting all District requirements, such as having all required insurance and bonding
in place. Project construction is scheduled to begin in July and will be completed by October of
2015.
Attachments:
1. Project Maps
Responsible Department Manager:
Kirk Lenington, Natural Resources Manager
Prepared by:
Julie Andersen, Planner II
·|}þ84
·|}þ84
La Honda
La
H
o
n
d
a
R
o
a
d
Langley C r e e k
KingstonCreek
W o o d h a m s C r e e k
W e eks Creek
L aHondaCreek
PineTreeGulch
Road 30
Road 50
Road 10
Road 23
Road 40
Pond 10 & Select Sites Road 23
BogessCreek
HarringtonCreek
SanGregorioCreek
LaHonda C reek
W eeks Creek
LangleyCreek
WoodhamsCreek
Woo d r u f f C r ee k
L
a
H
o
n
d
a
C
r
e
e
k
Midpeninsula RegionalOpen Space District
Project Phasing
May, 2015
Pa
t
h
:
G
:
\
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
\
L
a
_
H
o
n
d
a
_
C
r
e
e
k
\
C
D
F
_
F
i
s
h
e
r
i
e
s
R
e
s
t
o
r
a
t
i
o
n
G
r
a
n
t
\
D
r
i
s
c
o
l
l
R
a
n
c
h
_
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
P
h
a
s
i
n
g
.
m
x
d
Cr
e
a
t
e
d
B
y
:
j
a
n
d
e
r
s
e
n
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
LA HONDA
WOODSIDE PALO ALTO
MINDEGO HILL
BIG BASINFRANKLIN POINT
0 10.5Miles
I
(MROSD)
While the District strives to use the best available digital data, this data does not represent a legal survey and is merely a graphic illustration of geographic features.
Area ofDetail
La Honda CreekOpen Space Preserve
!Project Sites
Linear Project Sites
MROSD Preserve
Minor Unpaved Road
Seasonal Unpaved Ranch Road
Minor Paved RoadStrategic Road Rocking
Major Road
Pond 10
Project Phase
Attachment 1
51
50 49
48
53.1
4746
43
42
58 54 16
13
11
9
6
57 55
54.256
36
15.1
40
·|}þ84
·|}þ84
La Honda
La
H
o
n
d
a
R
o
a
d
41
21
23
22
24
25
26
San Gregorio Creek
Kingston Creek
L a Honda Creek
Pine Tree Gulch
Bogess Creek
Harrington Creek
San Gregorio Creek
L
a
H
o
n
da
C
r
e
e
k
Alpine Creek
K
ingston Creek
La Honda Creek
Midpeninsula RegionalOpen Space District
Subwatersheds
March, 2013
Pa
t
h
:
G
:
\
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
\
L
a
_
H
o
n
d
a
_
C
r
e
e
k
\
C
D
F
_
F
i
s
h
e
r
i
e
s
R
e
s
t
o
r
a
t
i
o
n
G
r
a
n
t
\
2
0
1
3
D
r
i
s
c
o
l
l
R
a
n
c
h
_
W
a
t
e
r
s
h
e
d
1
.
m
x
d
Cr
e
a
t
e
d
B
y
:
j
a
n
d
e
r
s
e
n
LA HONDA
WOODSIDE
FRANKLIN POINT
SAN GREGORIO
HALF MOON BAY
PIGEON POINT
PALO ALTO
0 0.950.475Miles
I
(MROSD)
While the District strives to use the best available digital data, this data does not represent a legal survey and is merely a graphic illustration of geographic features.
Area ofDetail La Honda CreekOpen SpacePreserve
!Project Sites
Linear Project Sites
MROSD Preserve
Bogess Creek
Harrington Creek
San Gregorio Creek
La Honda Creek
Subwatersheds
Attachment 1
R-15-88
Meeting 15-15
June 24, 2015
AGENDA ITEM 4
AGENDA ITEM
Approve a Partnership with the County of San Mateo (County) to Provide Habitability
Improvements to 900 Sears Ranch Road, in the Town of La Honda, as Part of the County’s Pilot
Farm Labor Housing Program at La Honda Creek Open Space Preserve.
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 staff report.
2. Adopt a Resolution authorizing the General Manager to partner with the County of San
Mateo to provide habitability improvements to 900 Sears Ranch Road Residence at La
Honda Creek Open Space Preserve as part of the County’s Pilot Farm Labor Housing
Program.
3. Authorize the General Manager to negotiate and grant a License/Permit to Rebuilding
Together to perform the habitability improvements at the Residence.
4. Authorize the General Manager to amend the lease with AGCO Hay LLC to formalize the
requirements of the Farm labor Housing Program between the District and its grazing tenant.
SUMMARY
The Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (District) is proposing to enter into a
partnership with the County of San Mateo as part of the County’s Pilot Farm Labor Housing
Program to provide habitability improvements to 900 Sears Ranch Road (Residence) at La
Honda Creek Open Space Preserve (Preserve). As part of this partnership, the County will grant
Rebuilding Together, a nonprofit working with the County, $50,000 to make needed habitability
improvements to the Residence. In exchange, the District and its grazing tenant at Driscoll
Ranch, AGCO Hay LLC, agree to keep the Residence rented as farm labor housing and to hold
rent at the agreed upon level for three (3) years and six (6) months. The repairs will be
performed by Rebuilding Together volunteers and contractors as well as District volunteers.
DISCUSSION
At the Board’s April 8, 2015 meeting, an informational presentation was given by County
Supervisor Don Horsley on the County’s Pilot Farm Labor Housing Program (R-15-48). This
Program facilitates the rehabilitation and repair of farm labor housing and dilapidated mobile
home units within the agricultural community on the San Mateo coast. Supervisor Horsley
indicated to the Board that the County is interested in partnering with the District to improve
farm labor housing located on its open space preserves. The partnership would include funding
from the County in the form of a no-interest forgivable loan. In turn, the District would agree to
R-15-88 Page 2
use the housing for low income agricultural workers and to hold rental payments at an agreed
upon level for the loan term. The Board requested staff should return to the full Board with the
proposed Farm Labor Residence project.
In May of 2014, Real Property staff, Supervisor Don Horsley, and Sarah Rosendahl toured the
McDonald House near the Red Barn and the Sears Ranch Road Residence at the La Honda Creek
Open Space Preserve, as well as the in-law unit at the October Farm property addition to
Purisima Creek Redwoods Open Space Preserve as representative examples of possible
farm/ranch worker housing. The McDonald House was considered too dilapidated for
rehabilitation whereas the October Farm in-law unit may qualify in the future. The Sears Ranch
Road Residence (Residence) met many of the requirements for the County’s Program and is
worthy of Board consideration.
The Residence is located off of Sears Ranch Road adjacent to Sears Lake (see Exhibit A) in the
southern section of the Driscoll Ranch Area of the Preserve. It is currently occupied by Mr.
Silverio Jimenez and his family. Mr. Jimenez is the ranch caretaker working for the District’s
grazing tenant, AGCO Hay LLC. Their children attend the nearby La Honda Elementary
School. The Residence is a 3 bedroom 1 bath basic ranch house.
The Residence is in need of the following habitability repairs:
• New roof
• Remove/Replace all exterior siding
• Repair all dry rotted and/or infested framing
• Install new insulation prior to residing
• Replace all windows
• Replace both exterior doors
• Electrical and plumbing upgrades
• New bath and tub surround
• Exterior and Interior paint
Rebuilding Together and L.D. Johnson, a consultant working with the County, estimate the
repairs will cost between $40,000 and $50,000. These cost estimates assume that much of the
labor for the improvements will be provided by Rebuilding Together volunteers, their
contractors, and District volunteers. All repairs will comply with County building requirements,
and required permits will be pulled.
As indicated above, the partnership initially included funding from the County in the form of a
no-interest forgivable loan secured by a deed of trust recorded on District land. In turn, the
District would agree to use the housing for Farm Labor and to hold rental payments at an agreed
upon level for the duration of the loan. Since then, County staff has suggested a simpler
arrangement whereby funding would be provided directly to Rebuilding Together in the form of
$50,000 grant to perform the habitability repairs at the Residence outlined below.
TERMS AND CONDITIONS
To complete the habitability improvements to the Residence, the County will make available a
$50,000 grant to Rebuilding Together under the County’s Pilot Farm Labor Housing Program.
The $50,000 will be funded from the County’s Measure A funds and administered by the
R-15-88 Page 3
County’s Department of Housing. In exchange, the District would sign a Certificate of Intent
with the County ensuring the following:
1. The Residence would be continuously rented as Farm Labor housing for a period of three
(3) years and six (6) months (Term). During the Term, the rent would not increase the
first year and rent increases would be limited to a maximum of 1% annually for an
additional two years and six months of the Term.
2. In the extremely unlikely event of a transfer of the property by the District to another
party before the end of the Term, the District will inform the County of its intent to
transfer the property and will inform the potential new owner of this arrangement and that
a new Certificate will be required with the new owner.
In addition, the District will grant a License/Permit to Rebuilding Together which will outline
the scope of work to be completed for the $50,000, and both parties would need to sign a waiver
of liability.
District staff has discussed with the District’s grazing tenant, AGCO Hay LLC, the rent
requirements outlined in item one (1) above and they are willing to sign an amendment to their
grazing lease requiring them to uphold the rent terms for the Term.
CEQA REVIEW
Staff concludes that entering into this partnership with the County and Rebuilding Together to
perform habitability improvements at the Residence, is categorically exempt from the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 exempts minor
alterations, including interior and exterior renovations to public facilities, where there will be a
negligible expansion of use. This exemption is applicable to an addition of up to 10,000 square
feet, a level of development far beyond the proposed improvement design. The project will not
expand use of the District’s administrative office building.
FISCAL IMPACT
The County’s Pilot Farm Labor Housing Program will have no direct cost implications for the
District and will actually result in an anticipated cost savings of about $15,000 - $20,000. If the
District were to complete these habitability improvements through a standard bidding process,
the cost would likely be increased by 30-40%, or $65,000 to $70,000, as volunteers would not be
used for labor and prevailing wage would be a requirement.
BOARD COMMITTEE REVIEW
The County’s Pilot Farm Labor Housing Program was initially brought to the Board as an
informational item on April 8, 2015. At that meeting the Board agreed that it was not necessary
to refer the program to the Legislative, Funding, and Public Affairs Committee as originally
recommended, but instead staff should bring this project back to the full Board for consideration.
PUBLIC NOTICE
Public notice was provided as required by the Brown Act.
R-15-88 Page 4
NEXT STEPS
Upon Board approval, the General Manager will execute the County’s Certificate of Intent and
grant a License/Permit to Rebuilding Together outlining the work that will be completed at the
Residence and ensure that the appropriate liability waivers are signed by both parties. Staff will
work with the Supervisor Horsley’s office and Rebuilding Together to schedule and complete the
habitability improvements to the Residence in late summer 2015. The General Manager will
also amend the District’s grazing lease with AGCO Hay to ensure that the District’s tenant
complies with the Certificate of Intent during the Term of this program.
Attachments:
1. Resolution Authorizing and Supporting A Partnership with the County of San Mateo
under the County’s Pilot Farm Labor Housing Program to Rehabilitate the Sears Ranch
Residence, Execute a Certificate of Intent with the County and grant a License/Permit to
Rebuilding Together Peninsula (County of San Mateo – La Honda Creek Open Space
Preserve)
2. Location Map
Responsible Department Head:
Michael Williams, Real Property Manager
Prepared by:
Elaina M. Cuzick, Senior Real Property Agent
Graphics prepared by:
Michele Childs, GIS Technician
Resolutions/2015/15-__ SMC Farm Labor Housing 1
RESOLUTION NO. 15-____
RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT AUTHORIZING
AND SUPPORTING A PARTNERSHIP WITH THE COUNTY OF SAN
MATEO (COUNTY) UNDER THE COUNTY’S PILOT FARM LABOR
HOUSING PROGRAM TO REHABILITATE THE SEARS RANCH
RESIDENCE, EXECUTE A CERTIFICATE OF INTENT WITH THE
COUNTY AND GRANT A LICENSE/PERMIT TO REBUILDING
TOGETHER PENINSULA (COUNTY OF SAN MATEO – LA HONDA
CREEK OPEN SPACE PRESERVE)
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Board of Directors of the
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District, as follows:
Section One. The Board of Directors of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
does hereby authorize and support partnering with the County of San Mateo (County) through
the County’s Pilot Farm Labor Housing Program to rehabilitate and provide a farm labor
residence on District Land.
Section Two. The General Manager, President of the Board of Directors, or other
appropriate officer is authorized to execute the Certificate of Intent with the County, and grant a
License/Permit to Rebuilding Together on behalf of the District.
Section Three. The General Manager or the General Manager’s designee is further
authorized to execute any and all other documents necessary or appropriate to complete the
project identified under the County’s Pilot Farm Labor Housing Program.
Section Four. The General Manager and General Counsel are further authorized to
approve any technical revisions to the attached Certificate of Intent and documents which do not
involve any material change to any term of the Certificate of Intent or documents, which are
necessary and appropriate to completing the project.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Board of Directors of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space
District on _________, 2015, 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/2015/15-__ SMC Farm Labor Housing 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
Attachment 1
L a H o n d a C r e e kO p e n S p a c e P r e s e r v e
Se
a
r
s
R
a
n
c
h
R
o
a
d
84ToSears
Ranch
RoadSearsLake
Residence
Midpeninsula RegionalOpen Space District
June, 2015
Pa
t
h
:
G
:
\
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
\
L
a
_
H
o
n
d
a
_
C
r
e
e
k
\
D
r
i
s
c
o
l
l
\
S
e
a
r
s
_
R
a
n
c
h
_
R
o
a
d
\
S
e
a
r
s
_
R
a
n
c
h
_
R
o
a
d
_
F
a
r
m
_
L
a
b
o
r
_
H
o
u
s
i
n
g
.
m
x
d
Cr
e
a
t
e
d
B
y
:
m
c
h
i
l
d
s
0 0.0850.0425Miles
(MROSD)MROSD Preserves
While the District strives to use the best available digital data, this data does not represent a legal survey and is merely a graphic illustration of geographic features.
Sears Ranch Land Trust
Management Agreement Highway or Major Road
Minor Unpaved Road
Unmaintained Road Width
Exhibit A: Location Map
Residence Area
APN 078-290-060415 Acres
Farm Labor Housing Residence, 900 Sears Ranch Road.
Attachment 2
R-15-86
Meeting 15-15
June 24, 2015
AGENDA ITEM 5
AGENDA ITEM
Award of Contract to ClientFirst for Development of an Information Systems and Technology
Strategic Plan
GENERAL MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATION
Authorize the General Manager to enter into a professional services contract with ClientFirst for
$53,452, plus a contingency of $8,020, for a total amount not to exceed $61,472, to prepare an
Information Systems and Technology Strategic Plan (ISTSP).
SUMMARY
The Financial and Operational Sustainability Model Study (FOSM), prepared by Management
Partners and approved by the Board of Directors (Board) on May 27, 2015 (R-15-82),
recommended as one of its top priorities the development of an information systems and
technology strategic plan to establish a roadmap for improving the District’s business systems
and technology infrastructure. A Request for Proposals was issued on April 22, 2015 and five
proposals were received by the May 19, 2015 deadline. The General Manager recommends
awarding a contract to ClientFirst for a total not-to-exceed amount of $61,472, which includes a
15% contingency. The Fiscal Year (FY) 2015-16 Adopted Budget allocates $50,000 for this
project and the remaining $11,472 will come from savings in other projects.
BACKGROUND
The FOSM quickly identified early in its research phase the need to focus on expanding and
improving the District’s Information Systems and Technology (IST) resources, in terms of
staffing, systems and technology infrastructure. As a result, the FOSM includes the priority
recommendation to develop an Information Systems and Technology Strategic Plan (ISTSP) to
identify specific actions to address the District’s short and long term IST needs. The Plan would
focus heavily on core systems (cost accounting, human resources, work order systems, project
management, GIS, and document management), including those on the critical path to support
Measure AA, and establish the foundation for highly integrated systems with automated
interfaces to streamline data processing and information sharing. The strategic plan will help
improve the District’s overall operational effectiveness by providing system solutions that will
reduce many pain points throughout the agency, including redundant manual data entry and
duplicate databases. Selecting the right systems, technology, and processes is critical to
improving operational and staff efficiencies throughout the organization.
R-15-86 Page 2
DISCUSSION
District staff worked closely with Management Partners to prepare the scope and technical
specifications of the IS TSP Request for Proposals (RFP), which was released on April 22, 2015
via direct e-mail and posting on the District website. The RFP scope provides for two major
deliverables: a needs assessment and a Strategic Plan that identifies and prioritizes systems,
technology, and staffing recommendations with a focus on implementation in years one through
five. The deadline for submission was May 19, 2015. A total of five proposals were received as
shown below:
Firm Location Proposal Cost
Priest Consulting Dublin, CA $28,500.00
MindBoard Sterling, VA $39,902.50
ClientFirst
With Optional Expanded Assessment
Corona, CA $48, 906.00
$53,452.00
NexLevel Carmichael, CA $52,950.00
Moss Adams Campbell, CA $132,900.00
The proposals were carefully evaluated by District staff and Management Partners to assess the
qualifications of each proposer, and were rated based on the quality of the proposal, the
implementation approach, and overall team expertise. All five firms were determined to be well
qualified and were interviewed the week of May 25 to further evaluate each firm’s experience,
project methodology, and fit with the District.
Management Partners and District staff unanimously agreed that ClientFirst possesses the
superior expertise and experience to prepare an ISTSP for the District and the ability to do so in a
timely manner. Reference checks were conducted the week of June 1 and all references stated
ClientFirst possesses exceptional expertise and were responsive and good to work with.
ClientFirst was the only firm that included an optional expanded IT assessment to provide an in-
depth evaluation of the District’s network and targeted servers. This would include: IT network
and infrastructure; storage and back-ups; servers, server applications, and management; IT
security; desktop environment; and current communications systems (e.g., telephone, cabling).
The District has never had an in-depth systems analysis and staff recommends the selection of
this optional assessment to optimize the District’s network infrastructure and performance.
The General Manager recommends awarding the contract to ClientFirst for $53,452 to provide
the following scope of services:
• Evaluate the technology environment, including services provided, applications used,
infrastructure tools, funding, product lifecycle, and service methodology;
• Meet with key staff in all departments as well as IST, to determine desired business
systems, GIS, and technology needs;
• Assess the IST organizational structure and staffing levels to ensure that these best meet
the District’s business and technology needs;
• Prioritize application and infrastructure requirements based on current and proposed
business needs and goals, and evaluate alternative approaches for meeting those needs;
• Estimate the budget requirements for each recommended application and infrastructure
need for initial implementation and ongoing support;
• Develop recommendations for more effective technology use to support business needs;
R-15-86 Page 3
• Conduct an in-depth evaluation of the network system and targeted servers;
• Document and present findings in a comprehensive 3-5 year strategic plan.
In addition to the base contract amount of $53,452, the General Manager recommends a 15%
contingency of $8,020, for a total contract amount not-to-exceed $61,472 given that there is a
high likelihood of a desire by the District to request a greater in-depth assessment and more
detailed recommendations of specific technology systems (separate from the IT assessment
discussed previously). Given the large number of databases that the District currently maintains,
and the lack of integration and centralization, we may find a strong need to request more detailed
implementation steps to improve one or more of these systems. To avoid scheduling delays, the
General Manager requests a 15% contingency to allow for such potential increases in the scope
of work, if deemed important and beneficial.
FISCAL IMPACT
The cost of the IST Strategic Plan, including contingency, totals $61,472. The FY2015-16
Adopted Budget includes $50,000 for the IST Strategic Plan. The remaining $11,472 will be
covered by cost savings in other projects, including the new Document Management System,
which is being delayed to allow the ISTSP to provide high level guidance on its implementation
and integration with other business systems.
BOARD COMMITTEE REVIEW
This item was not previously reviewed by any Committee. However, the recommendation to
proceed with an ISTSP was reviewed by the full Board as part of the FOSM report.
PUBLIC NOTICE
Public notice was provided as required by the Brown Act.
CEQA COMPLIANCE
This item is not a project subject to the California Environmental Quality Act.
NEXT STEPS
Upon Board authorization, the General Manager will execute a contract with ClientFirst for
consulting services to develop an Information Systems and Technology Strategic Plan.
Responsible Department Head:
Ana Ruiz, Assistant General Manager
Prepared by:
Kate Drayson, Administrative Services Manager
Casey Hiatt, GIS Administrator
Benny Hsieh, IT Administrator
Contact person:
Kate Drayson, Administrative Services Manager
R-15-87
Meeting 15-16
June 24, 2015
AGENDA ITEM 6
AGENDA ITEM
Approval of Agreement with the County of Santa Clara for the District’s Management of Rancho
San Antonio County Park and Determination that the Recommended Actions are Exempt from
the California Environmental Quality Act.
GENERAL MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Authorize the Board President to enter into the attached Agreement with the County of Santa
Clara (County) for the District’s Management of Rancho San Antonio County Park.
2. Authorize the General Manager to extend the agreement for the second five-year period
(July 2020 through June 2025) subject to a staff review of the costs to manage Rancho San
Antonio County Park.
3. Determine that the recommended actions are categorically exempt from the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) as set out in the staff report.
SUMMARY
Approval of this Agreement (Attachment 1) will continue the District’s management of the
developed portion of Rancho San Antonio County Park and the lands added in prior agreements.
The Agreement increases the County of Santa Clara’s support for the City of Mountain View’s
Deer Hollow Farm program from $50,000 to $75,000 per year. The District in turn will enter into
a separate agreement with the City of Mountain View to support its programs at Deer Hollow
Farm. The Agreement is for 10 years, with a cost escalator of 2.5% per year, with farm funding
remaining at $75,000. A review of costs will be conducted after the first five years and
adjustments renegotiated if necessary. The Agreement also allows for the District’s Integrated
Pest Management Program to be utilized, the tennis courts to be removed at the County’s
expense, and ensures clear communications should either agency wishes to propose changes
which would affect park access or usage. Although not specified in the Agreement, the District
will be meeting with the County to explore ideas for improving transit options to the park.
DISCUSSION
Historical Background
In January 1999, the County of Santa Clara proposed entrance fees at all of its parks, including
Rancho San Antonio County Park. This park serves as the gateway to the District's 2,000 acre
Rancho San Antonio Open Space Preserve. In order to avoid entrance fees at Rancho San
Antonio the Board directed staff to negotiate with the County to reach an agreement whereby the
District would assume the lease and management responsibilities for the County Park, in
R-15-87 Page 2
exchange for financial support of future acquisitions, and a commitment by both the County and
the District to the continued support of Deer Hollow Farm. The initial agreement, approved in
May, 2000 was for ten-years (see report R-00-49), with $1,000,000 to be used for land
acquisition and $500,000 for support of Deer Hollow Farm.
In 2010 a five year agreement was negotiated. This agreement added 120 acres of land,
commonly known as the “Diocese Property,” to the existing management area. The agreement
also addressed concerns about the impact of remote controlled model aircraft and helicopters.
Integrated Pest Management issues were addressed, as well as compliance with restrictions the
County must work under for fire prevention.
Proposed New Agreement
The proposed new agreement has a five-year term with an additional five year extension, unless
either party chooses to renegotiate the terms. Provision is made for a review of the financial
terms of the agreement before the end of the initial five year period. The agreement addresses
issues such as use of the District’s Integrated Pest Management program, removal of the old
tennis courts, support for Deer Hollow Farm, and any proposals for additional projects which
might impact the park.
Management Issues
The majority of the provisions from the prior agreement remain in effect. These cover aspects
such as the District’s ability to enforce its regulations in the County park and maintenance
responsibilities.
The new agreement allows the District to request an exemption from the County’s Integrated
Pest Management Plan in order for the District to operate under its own Integrated Pest
Management Plan. Doing so allows staff to work more efficiently, since only one set of records
will need to be maintained and staff are familiar with the District’s standards.
In the park there is a set of four tennis courts. The tennis courts are in poor repair and are
infrequently used for tennis. The playing surface has deteriorated and would require
rehabilitation to bring it back to a playable surface. The County has agreed, at their expense, to
remove the tennis courts within two years of the execution of the agreement. The land would be
rehabilitated to a natural state.
The new agreement specifies that if either agency wishes to embark upon a program or facility
which affects the park or which involves an outside agency or entity, such as an adjacent city or
the Valley Transportation Authority, then the agency which initiates the action must contact the
other at least nine months in advance before any anticipated approval or implementation.
FISCAL IMPACT
During the negotiations an analysis of the costs to manage Rancho San Antonio County Park was
conducted. District staff was mindful that that the full cost of managing Rancho San Antonio
County Park should be acknowledged. The current annual cost of managing Rancho San
Antonio County Park is estimated to be $551,102. This includes labor and materials costs. In
negotiations with the County it was agreed that the past practice of splitting the cost between the
agencies ($275,551 by each agency) should continue. This amount will increase by 2.5% per
R-15-87 Page 3
year for the life of the agreement. Funds received from the County are placed in the District’s
General Fund to offset the operating expenses.
The County will pay $75,000 per year for support of Deer Hollow Farm. This amount will be
passed through to the City of Mountain View as part of the District’s ongoing support of Deer
Hollow Farm. This is an increase from the prior support, which was $50,000 per year. There is
no cost escalator for the $75,000 per year support.
Expenses related to managing Rancho San Antonio County Park were included in the Board
approved Operations’ Department FY2015-16 budget.
PUBLIC NOTICE
Public notice was provided as required by the Brown Act. No additional notice is required.
CEQA COMPLIANCE
The District concludes this project will not have a significant effect on the environment.
Additionally, it is categorically exempt from CEQA under Article 19, Section 15301 of the
CEQA Guidelines as follows:
Section 15301 exempts operation, repair, maintenance, permitting, leasing, licensing or
minor alteration of existing public or private structures, facilities, or topographical
features, involving negligible or no expansion of use beyond that existing at the time of
the lead agency’s determination. The property will not be changed by the District’s
continued management of the area.
NEXT STEPS
The Agreement includes language for concurrent approval by the District’s Board and Santa
Clara County’s Board of Supervisors. The Board of Supervisors has agendized this for review
at its meeting of June 23, 2015.
Upon approval of both agencies the agreement will go into effect. In the event that the
agreement is not approved by both agencies prior to the expiration of the current agreement
(June 30, 2015) then both agencies have agreed to continue the current management
arrangements until a new agreement is reached.
Attachments
1. Agreement for Operation and Management of Rancho San Antonio County Park
2. Map of Rancho San Antonio County Park
Responsible Department Manager:
Michael Newburn, Operations Manager
Kevin Woodhouse, Assistant General Manager
Prepared by:
Gordon Baillie, Operations Analyst
Agreement for
Operation and Management of
Rancho San Antonio County Park
between
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
and
the County of Santa Clara
June 30, 2015
Attachment 1
Page 1
This Operation and Management Agreement (“Agreement”) between the Midpeninsula Regional
Open Space District, a special district formed pursuant to California Public Resources Code
Article 3, Division 5, Chapter 3, Section 5500 et seq., (“District”) and the County of Santa Clara
(“County”), a political subdivision of the State of California, is for the operation and
management of Rancho San Antonio County Park (“Park”) as set forth herein. The District and
the County are each a party and collectively the parties to this Agreement.
WHEREAS, County owns and operates the Park, as a regional facility for public park and
recreation purposes with associated public improvements located in the unincorporated area of
Santa Clara County; and
WHEREAS, District owns and manages the adjacent Rancho San Antonio Open Space
Preserve, an open space preserve (“Preserve”); and
WHEREAS, County and District desire that District continue operation and management
of the Park, which serves as a gateway facility to the Preserve; and
WHEREAS, County and District desire to ensure continued funding of the District’s Deer
Hollow Farm (“Deer Hollow”), a cooperative educational and park component of both the Park
and Preserve, serving and fulfilling a County park purpose; and
WHEREAS, both Parties have determined that this Agreement is beneficial to the public
they serve, will prevent duplication of services, and will carry out their respective objectives and
purposes through the common planning, operation, and management of a cohesive system of
trails in the Park and Preserve for public use and enjoyment.
NOW THEREFORE, , in consideration of the mutual promises, covenants, and conditions
contained herein, District and County agree to the foregoing and as follows:
Article I Park
The term "Park" shall mean the existing 165-acre parcel, as identified in the Rancho San
Antonio County Park Master Plan Report of May 1992 (“Master Plan”), plus the areas generally
identified as the “Diocese Land”, all as more specifically shown on the Plat attached hereto and
incorporated herein as Exhibit 1.
Article II Term
The initial term (“Initial Term”) of this Agreement shall commence on July 1, 2015
(“Commencement Date”), and shall expire five (5) years thereafter on June 30, 2020, unless both
parties by written letter signed by the County’s Parks and Recreation Department Director and the
District’s General Manager agree to an additional five-year term on the same terms and conditions as
contained herein (the “Extended Term”). Both parties must agree to the Extended Term no later than
nine (9) months prior to the expiration of the Initial Term.
If either party wishes to propose amendments to the terms or conditions of this Agreement,
such proposed changes shall be communicated to the other party, in writing, nine (9) months before
Attachment 1
Page 2
the end of the Initial Term.
For purposes of any amendments to this Agreement, the County’s authorized representative is
the County of Santa Clara Board of Supervisors and the District’s authorized representative is the
District’s Board of Directors.
Article III Compensation
County shall pay to District funds as specified below:
Year # Fiscal year
(July - June)
Date to be
Paid Rancho
Deer
Hollow
Farm
Total Percentage
Increase
1 2015-16
W/I 90 Days
of Agreement $275,551 $75,000 $350,551 Initial
2 2016-17 9/1/2016 $282,440 $75,000 $357,440 2.50%
3 2017-18 9/1/2017 $289,501 $75,000 $364,501 2.50%
4 2018-19 9/1/2018 $296,738 $75,000 $371,738 2.50%
5 2019-20 9/1/2019 $304,157 $75,000 $379,157 2.50%
If the parties mutually agree to the Extended Term under the terms stated herein, the applicable payment
schedule would be as follows:
6 2020-21 9/1/2020 $311,761 $75,000 $386,761 2.50%
7 2021-22 9/1/2021 $319,555 $75,000 $394,555 2.50%
8 2022-23 9/1/2022 $327,544 $75,000 $402,544 2.50%
9 2023-24 9/1/2023 $335,732 $75,000 $410,732 2.50%
10 2024-25 9/1/2024 $344,125 $75,000 $419,125 2.50%
During the County’s Fiscal Year 2019-2020, or before if requested by either agency, District and County
staff shall meet to review the compensation terms of the Agreement. Alterations may be made to the
compensation terms at that time, so long as any such terms are recorded in writing as an amendment to
the Agreement and approved by both party’s authorized representative.
Article IV Rights and Responsibilities of District
In consideration of the County’s payments, District will maintain the Park in a clean and orderly
condition, and make the Park accessible to the public in such manner and by such means as will reflect
positively upon District and County. District’s responsibilities will include, but are not limited to:
a. District shall patrol and manage the Park in a manner consistent with its management of the
Preserve to endeavor to ensure that the Park is maintained in a safe and sanitary condition and
that deleterious or incompatible uses of the Park are prohibited. Should any unauthorized use or
activity occur in Park, District may exercise its authority to correct these matters, including,
where necessary, enforcing District regulations and ordinances and County ordinances. The
Park shall be deemed under District control for purposes of enforcement authority under Public
Resources Code Section 5558 and are "District Lands," as defined in District Ordinance No. 93-
1.
Attachment 1
Page 3
b. District shall report any encroachments or trespass by the neighboring properties upon the Park
to the County.
c. The parties acknowledge that the District will apply for an exemption under section B28-10 of
the IPM Ordinance. During the period of such exemption, if granted, the District will comply
with the District’s Integrated Pest Management Policy.
d. District shall conduct all maintenance and operations activities in accordance with the
County’s Memorandum of Understanding with the State of California Division of
Forestry (“CAL FIRE MOU”) and incorporated by reference for the operation of
equipment to prevent fires. The parties acknowledge that the District may propose to
CAL FIRE maintenance and operations practices in the Park that may supplement or
modify those set out in the CAL FIRE MOU and if approved by CAL FIRE and the
County, the District may undertake such practices.
e. District shall set hours of Park operation.
f. District shall issue and administer all permits for vending and special uses for the Park.
District shall set the standards for the issuance of such permits, the issuance of which shall be
within the sole discretion of District. County represents and warrants that no legal or valid
permits are outstanding as of the commencement of the Term.
g. District may undertake such other operational, enforcement or regulation activities, as District
deems appropriate to the safe and orderly operation of the Park, including but not limited to
areas with special use designations.
h. District shall provide routine maintenance and repair of the surfaced areas, including crack-
sealing, and repair of degraded Park areas.
i. Within two years of the execution of this contract County will remove the tennis court and
rehabilitate the area.
j. District shall provide grounds maintenance, including mowing of Park use areas, fencing,
landscaping adjacent to parking lots, emptying and replacement of garbage cans and associated
holders, and policing of the Park for litter and general appearance.
k. District shall provide maintenance and repair of all existing facilities, including restrooms,
water and irrigation systems, electric gates and bridges provided that the cost of any individual
repair or maintenance project does not exceed $25,000.00.
l. District shall have no maintenance or repair responsibilities for the pedestrian bridge over
Permanente Creek located on the northernmost boundary of the Park identified as such on
Exhibit 1.
m. District shall have the right to enact and implement management policies and practices
including, but not limited to resource, wildlife, and recreation management, wildland fire
protection, and any other matters necessary or appropriate for management of the Park by
District, as long as such policies and practices conform to the requirements in Exhibits 1 – 4,
and the County’s ordinance prohibiting smoking in County parkland.
n. District shall have the right to designate portions of the Permanente Creek riparian corridor as
closed to public use on both a seasonal and permanent basis as appropriate, and to enforce such
closures pursuant to District ordinances and regulations, to protect sensitive riparian habitat.
District may close other portions of the Park where and when deemed necessary to avoid or
correct a public health, safety or environmental hazard.
Attachment 1
Page 4
o. The District shall be responsible for compliance with applicable federal, state and local laws
with respect to its management activities. The District shall have no responsibility for violations
of such laws caused by pre-existing conditions, activities occurring on adjacent developments,
or any other factor outside of the District's control.
Article V Rights and Responsibilities of County
a. County shall be solely responsible for the management, operation, repair and maintenance of the
pedestrian bridge across Permanente Creek on the northernmost boundary of the Park.
b. County shall pay for mutually agreed upon single item capital expenditures, where these are
reasonably estimated to exceed $25,000.00 per project. The process for determining whether to
undertake such projects is as follows:
1. County and District will meet at least annually, on or before September 16 of
each year to identify the maintenance and repair needs of the Park and develop a
list of any maintenance projects proposed for the following County fiscal year.
The proposing party will provide cost estimates for such proposal.
2. The County Director of Parks and Recreation will determine at his or her sole
discretion if a project is to be undertaken and provide the District with his or her
written decision.
3. If the Director approves a project, County will submit its funding request for the
following County fiscal year (July 1- June 30) through its regular budget process.
4. If County's Board of Supervisors approves the project budget item, County will
proceed and complete the project.
5. If County disapproves a project reviewed pursuant to this subsection, District may,
but is not required to, undertake such project if District, in its reasonable discretion,
believes that such project is necessary for the protection of the public safety, health,
welfare or the environment.
6. In the event County's Board of Supervisors approve the project budget item, and
County and District agree that it is in the best interests of both agencies that
District carry out the County-funded project, then, prior to its commencement,
County and District shall mutually agree in writing upon appropriate procedures
for the bidding, contracting and payment for such project.
c. County shall be solely responsible for reviewing, negotiating and approving any easements,
rights-of-way, plans and construction of all utilities or facilities to be constructed on the
County's lands provided, however, that in no way shall any such easements, rights-of-way,
plans or construction of utilities or facilities in any way increase District responsibilities or
duties hereunder without the express written consent of District. County shall provide
opportunities for District to comment on the plans and construction arrangements. County shall
coordinate with District on the construction schedule, public information arrangements and
safety measures to be taken during the construction.
d. County shall be solely responsible for dealing with any encroachments or trespasses by the
neighboring properties upon the Park.
Article VI Signage and Brochures.
a. District may install, replace, modify or remove signage, including, but not limited to, trail
Attachment 1
Page 5
signs, directional signs, interpretive signs and information kiosks to conform to District's sign
standards. District and County shall agree upon standards for signs to be placed in the Park
or that refer to the Park. When the Agreement ends for any reason, County retains ownership
of trail signs and directional signs installed on County property unless otherwise requested in
writing by District; provided, however, that County shall not own intellectual property rights
to the signs (e.g., rights to reproduce the artwork, images, or design associated with the signs).
b. District has developed a trail map brochure that identifies the relationship of the County and
District in the Park and acknowledges the cooperation between the two jurisdictions in
providing a regional facility for the public. District will update the trail map brochure to include
any changes in the trail network or other facilities in the regular course of District map revision
and printing orders.
c. District shall include the following in all promotional materials about District’s operations in
the Park:
“Operated in partnership with the Santa Clara County Parks and Recreation
Department.”
The foregoing shall apply to signage or promotional materials created after the Agreement
Commencement Date and within 30 days from the date of full execution of this Agreement
by both Parties, District shall install a sign at each entrance in accordance with this.
Article VII Procedures for Alterations of Park Facilities
Either agency may propose alterations to Park facilities. County or District proposals
which would materially alter the Master Plan require approval by both County Board of
Supervisors and District Board of Directors. Proposals to add, remove or materially alter a
Park facility will utilize the following process:
a. County and District staff shall consult in good faith on the proposer's conceptual plan and attempt
to identify any areas of concern to each. The conceptual plan shall be modified, as reasonably
feasible, to address such concerns before proceeding with the next step.
b. The proposer shall serve as the lead agency and conduct environmental review as required by
California’s Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”), including preparation of required reports and
studies, circulation for review and notice and hearing requirements. If the proposed project is
determined to be categorically exempt from CEQA, the proposing agency must nonetheless hold a
public hearing, giving a minimum of 30 days' prior written notice to all neighbors within a quarter-
mile radius of the Park. Public input will be considered by County and District staff, in consultation,
to prepare the appropriate recommendations to their respective legislative bodies.
c. District Board of Directors and County Board of Supervisors shall thereafter receive the proposal
with the recommendation of their respective staffs and appropriate CEQA review.
d. If a District proposal for addition, removal or alteration is approved by District and County, District
shall carry out its proposal at its own expense and shall thereafter, if applicable, be responsible for
the operation, maintenance and repair of such added or altered Park facility. If the District and the
County approve a County proposal for addition, alteration or removal, the County shall carry out
its proposal at its own expense and shall thereafter, if applicable, be responsible for the operation,
maintenance and repair of such added or altered Park facility.
e. District staff shall coordinate with County in the planning and construction of new trails in the
Park.
f. In the event that either party wishes to embark upon a program or facility which involves an
outside agency or entity, such as an adjacent city or the Valley Transportation Authority, or the
Attachment 1
Page 6
Santa Clara Valley Water District, and which might affect park use, or park facilities, and/or the
costs of operation or maintenance, then the party which wishes to initiate the action shall confer
with the other party to this Agreement regarding such potential impacts at least nine (9) months
before any scheduled or anticipated approval or implementation, whichever is sooner.
However, under no circumstances shall the District enter into any third party agreements,
without County advance approval.
Article VIII Indemnification and Hold Harmless
a. In lieu of and notwithstanding the pro-rata risk allocation which might otherwise be imposed
between District and County pursuant to Government Code Section 895.6, Parties agree that all
losses or liabilities incurred by a Party shall not be shared pro- rata, but instead pursuant to
Government Code Section 895.4, each Party shall fully indemnify, defend and hold the other
Party, its officers, Board members, employees and agents, harmless from any claim, expense or
cost, damage or liability occurring by reason of the negligent acts or omissions, or willful
misconduct of the indemnifying party, its officers, board members, employees or agents, under or
in connection with, or arising out of any obligation, right, work, authority, or jurisdiction of such
party under this Agreement.
b. No party, nor any officer, Board member, employee or agent thereof, shall be responsible for any
damage or liability occurring by reason of the negligent or wrongful acts or omissions or willful
misconduct of the other party hereto, their officers, board members, employees or agents, under
or in connection with or arising out of any obligation, right, work authority or jurisdiction of such
other party under this Agreement. If liability arises due to the concurrent negligence of both
Parties, each party shall contribute costs of any such suits, defense, damages, costs and liability in
proportion to its fault as determined under the principles of comparative negligence.
Article IX Insurance
a. Without limiting the indemnification of either party to this Agreement, each party shall maintain
in full force, throughout the term of this Agreement , the following insurance coverages: (i) a
policy of commercial general liability insurance with limits of liability not less than Two Million
Dollars ($2,000,000.00) per occurrence/aggregate; (ii) ) a policy of workers’ compensation
providing statutory coverage; (iii) a policy of Environmental/Pollution liability with limits not
less than $1,000,000 per occurrence and aggregate for bodily injury, property damage and
environmental damage resulting from pollution and related clean up costs incurred arising out
of work or services to be performed under this Agreement. The requirements of this section
may be satisfied by the provision of similar coverage through a self-insurance program.
b. County represents that it is self-insured and meets the conditions for this Agreement as evidenced
by the Statement of Insurance/Self-Insurance, attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit
4.
c. District is a member of the California Joint Powers Insurance Association (CalJPIA) and shall
provide County a Certificate of Insurance evidencing the required coverages promptly after this
Agreement is executed and by July 31st of each year thereafter.
Article X Hazardous Materials
a. Hazardous Materials. County represents and warrants that, to the best of its knowledge based on
the inspection and review stated herein, no Hazardous Materials exist on, under, or in the Diocese
Land. For the purposes of this Agreement, such representation and warranty is based upon the
County Park and Recreation Department Real Estate Division’s visual inspection of the Diocese
Attachment 1
Page 7
Land and review of acquisition records for information related to hazardous material disclosures.
b. Indemnification by County. County shall indemnify, defend upon demand with counsel
reasonably acceptable to District, and hold harmless District from and against any liabilities,
losses, claims, damages, lost profits, consequential damages, interest, penalties, fines, monetary
sanctions, attorneys' fees, experts' fees, court costs, remediation costs, investigation costs, and
other expenses which result from or arise in any manner whatsoever out of the use, storage,
treatment, transportation, release, disposal, or presence of Hazardous Materials on, in, under, or
about the Park which are introduced or are permitted to be introduced by County or any of its
directors, officers, employees or agents, or which have migrated or in the future are migrating
from adjacent properties, or (hereinafter, "County Hazardous Materials").
c. Indemnification by District. District shall indemnify, defend upon demand with counsel
reasonably acceptable to County, and hold harmless County from and against any liabilities,
losses, claims, damages, lost profits, consequential damages, interest, penalties, fines, monetary
sanctions, attorneys' fees, experts' fees, court costs, remediation costs, investigation costs, and
other expenses which result from or arise in any manner whatsoever out of the use, storage,
treatment, transportation, release, disposal, or presence of Hazardous Materials on, in, under, or
about the Park, which are introduced, placed, used or permitted by District or any of its directors,
officers, employees or agents (hereinafter "District Hazardous Materials).
d. District Action. If the presence of District Hazardous Materials in the Park results in
contamination or deterioration of water or soil resulting in a level of contamination greater than
the levels established as acceptable by any governmental agency having jurisdiction over such
contamination, then District shall, at its sole cost and expense, promptly take any and all action
necessary to investigate and remediate such contamination if required by law or as a condition to
the issuance or continuing effectiveness of any governmental approval which relates to the use of
the Park or any part thereof, District shall further be solely responsible for, and shall defend,
indemnify and hold County and its agents harmless from and against, all claims, costs and
liabilities, including attorneys' fees and costs, arising out of or in connection with any investigation
and remediation required hereunder to return the Park to full compliance with all Hazardous
Materials Laws.
e. County Action. If the presence of County Hazardous Materials in the Park results in
contamination or deterioration of water or soil resulting in a level of contamination greater than
the levels established as acceptable by any governmental agency having jurisdiction over such
contamination, then County shall, at its sole cost and expense, promptly take any and all action
necessary to investigate and remediate such contamination if required by law or as a condition to
the issuance or continuing effectiveness of any governmental approval which relates to the use of
the Park or any part thereof, County shall further be solely responsible for, and shall defend,
indemnify and hold District and its agents harmless from and against, all claims, costs and
liabilities, including attorneys' fees and costs, arising out of or in connection with any investigation
and remediation required hereunder to return the Park to full compliance with all Hazardous
Materials Laws.
Article XI Notice
Any notice or notices required or permitted to be given pursuant to this Agreement may
be personally served on the other party by the party giving such notice, or may be served by U.S.
mail to the following addresses:
Attachment 1
Page 8
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Attn.: General Manager
330 Distel Circle Los Altos, CA 94022-1404
(650) 691-1200
(650) 691-0485 (facsimile)
Santa Clara County Parks & Recreation Attn.: Director
298 Garden Hill Drive Los Gatos, CA 95032
(408) 358-3741
(408) 358-3245 (facsimile)
Article XII Termination of Agreement
District may terminate this Agreement for non-payment of compensation due
hereunder. Should County fail to make any payment when due, District shall notify
County in writing and County shall make the required payment within ten (10) days of
such notice. Should County fail to make such late payment, District may terminate this
Agreement immediately upon written notice to County.
County may terminate this Agreement for District’s default following 30 days
written notice by County and District’s failure to cure within this 30 day period
(“Effective Date of Termination”). In the case of such termination for default, District
shall reimburse County for the unexpended portion of the County’s annual payment
calculated by apportioning an equal amount to each month and multiplying that amount
by the months (and fraction of a month) remaining after the Effective Date of
Termination.
County, in County’s sole discretion, may terminate this Agreement for its
convenience, including but not limited to budgetary reasons, upon six months’ notice to
the District.
District, in District’s sole discretion, may terminate this Agreement for its
convenience, including but not limited to budgetary reasons, upon six months’ notice to
the County.
Article XIII Miscellaneous Provisions
a. Assignment. Neither District nor County shall assign any rights or responsibilities under this
Agreement without the prior written consent of other party. Any assignment without such prior
written consent of the other party shall be void.
b. Severability. Should any part of this Agreement be declared by a final decision of a court or
tribunal of competent jurisdiction to be unconstitutional, invalid or beyond the authority of either
party to enter into or carry out, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remainder of this
Agreement, which shall continue in full force and effect, provided that the remainder of this
Agreement, absent the excised portion, can be reasonably interpreted to give effect to the
intentions of the parties.
c. Pronoun References. When appropriate, the use of the singular shall include the plural, and the
plural shall include the singular, and the use of any gender shall include the other gender.
d. Time. Time is of the essence with respect to the performance of every provision of this
Agreement in which time or performance is a factor.
Attachment 1
Page 9
e. Prior Agreements. This Agreement contains all of the agreements of the Parties with respect to
any matter covered or mentioned in this Agreement, and no prior agreement or understanding
pertaining to any such matter shall be effective for any purpose.
f. Amendments. No provision of this Agreement may be amended except by an agreement in
writing signed by the Parties or their respective successors-in-interest.
g. Waiver. The waiver by either party of any breach of any term, covenant, or condition herein
contained shall not be deemed to be a waiver of any subsequent breach of the same or any other
term, covenant or condition herein contained nor shall any custom or practice that may arise
between the Parties in the administration of the terms hereof be deemed a waiver of, or in any
way affect, the right of County or District to insist upon the performance by District or County in
accordance with said terms.
h. Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in several counterparts, and all of such
counterparts so executed together shall be deemed to constitute one and the same agreement, and
each such counterpart shall be deemed to be an original. Facsimile or electronic signatures shall
have the same legal effect as original or manual signatures if followed by mailing of a fully
executed original to both parties.
i. Conflicts of Interest. District as a local public agency organized under the laws of the state
of California, warrants and affirms that it complies, and requires its employees, contractors
and subcontractors to comply, with all applicable (i) requirements governing avoidance of
impermissible client conflicts; and (ii) federal, state and local conflict of interest laws and
regulations including, without limitation, California Government Code section 1090 et. seq.,
the California Political Reform Act (California Government Code section 87100 et. seq.)
and the regulations of the Fair Political Practices Commission concerning disclosure and
disqualification (2 California Code of Regulations section 18700 et. seq.). Failure to do so
constitutes a material breach of this Agreement and is grounds for immediate termination of
this Agreement by the County.
In accepting this Agreement, District covenants that it presently has no interest, and will not
acquire any interest, direct or indirect, financial or otherwise, which would conflict in any
manner or degree with the performance of this Agreement. District further covenants that,
in the performance of this Agreement, it will not employ any contractor or person having
such an interest. District, including but not limited to its employees, contractors and
subcontractors, warrants and affirms that it is subject to the disclosure and disqualification
provisions of the California Political Reform Act of 1974 (the “Act”).
If the disclosure provisions of the Political Reform Act are applicable to any individual providing
service under this Agreement, District shall ensure that all such individuals understand that they
are subject to the Act and shall conform to all requirements of the Act and other applicable laws
and regulations including, as required, filing of Statements of Economic Interests within 30 days
of commencing service pursuant to this Agreement, annually by April 1, and within 30 days of
their termination of service pursuant to this Agreement.
j. Governing Law, Venue. This Agreement has been executed and delivered in, and shall be
construed and enforced in accordance with, the laws of the State of California. Proper venue
for legal action regarding this Agreement shall be in the County of Santa Clara.
k. No Discrimination. District shall comply with all applicable Federal, State, and local laws
and regulations including Santa Clara County’s policies concerning nondiscrimination and
equal opportunity in contracting. Such laws include but are not limited to the following:
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 as amended; Americans with Disabilities Act of
1990; The Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (Sections 503 and 504); California Fair Employment
and Housing Act (Government Code sections 12900 et seq.); and California Labor Code
Attachment 1
Page 10
sections 1101 and 1102. District shall not discriminate against any subcontractor, employee,
or applicant for employment because of age, race, color, national origin, ancestry, religion,
sex/gender, sexual orientation, mental disability, physical disability, medical condition,
political beliefs, organizational affiliations, or marital status in the recruitment, selection for
training including apprenticeship, hiring, employment, utilization, promotion, layoff, rates
of pay or other forms of compensation. Nor shall District discriminate in provision of
services provided under this contract because of age, race, color, national origin, ancestry,
religion, sex/gender, sexual orientation, mental disability, physical disability, medical
condition, political beliefs, organizational affiliations, or marital status.
l. County Budget Contingency. This Agreement is contingent upon the appropriation of
sufficient funding by the County for the services covered by this Agreement. If funding is
reduced or deleted by the County for the services covered by this Agreement, the County
has the option to either terminate this Agreement with no liability occurring to the County
or to offer an amendment to this Agreement indicating the reduced amount.
m. County No-Smoking Policy. District and its employees, agents and subcontractors, shall
comply with the County’s No-Smoking Policy, as set forth in the Board of Supervisors
Policy Manual section 3.47 (as amended from time to time), which prohibits smoking: (1) at
the Santa Clara Valley Medical Center Campus and all County-owned and operated health
facilities, (2) within 30 feet surrounding County-owned buildings and leased buildings
where the County is the sole occupant, and (3) in all County vehicles.
n. County Food and Beverage Standards. Except in the event of an emergency or medical
necessity, the following nutritional standards shall apply to any foods and/or beverages
purchased by District with County funds for County-sponsored meetings or events. If food
is to be provided, healthier food options shall be offered. “Healthier food options” include
(1) fruits, vegetables, whole grains, and low fat and low calorie foods; (2) minimally
processed foods without added sugar and with low sodium; (3) foods prepared using healthy
cooking techniques; and (4) foods with less than 0.5 grams of trans fat per serving.
Whenever possible, District shall (1) offer seasonal and local produce; (2) serve fruit instead
of sugary, high calorie desserts; (3) attempt to accommodate special, dietary and cultural
needs; and (4) post nutritional information and/or a list of ingredients for items served. If
meals are to be provided, a vegetarian option shall be provided, and the District should
consider providing a vegan option. If pre-packaged snack foods are provided, the items
shall contain: (1) no more than 35% of calories from fat, unless the snack food items consist
solely of nuts or seeds; (2) no more than 10% of calories from saturated fat; (3) zero trans
fat; (4) no more than 35% of total weight from sugar and caloric sweeteners, except for
fruits and vegetables with no added sweeteners or fats; and (5) no more than 360 mg of
sodium per serving. If beverages are to be provided, beverages that meet the County’s
nutritional criteria are (1) water with no caloric sweeteners; (2) unsweetened coffee or tea,
provided that sugar and sugar substitutes may be provided as condiments; (3) unsweetened,
unflavored, reduced fat (either nonfat or 1% low fat) dairy milk; (4) plant-derived milk
(e.g., soy milk, rice milk, and almond milk) with no more than 130 calories per 8 ounce
serving; (5) 100% fruit or vegetable juice (limited to a maximum of 8 ounces per container);
and (6) other low-calorie beverages (including tea and/or diet soda) that do not exceed 40
calories per 8 ounce serving. Sugar-sweetened beverages shall not be provided.
o. County Contracting Principles. All entities that contract with the County to provide
services where the contract value is $100,000 or more per budget unit per fiscal year and/or
as otherwise directed by the Board, shall be fiscally responsible entities and shall treat their
employees fairly. To ensure compliance with these contracting principles, District, and all
Attachment 1
Page 11
contractors of District, shall: (1) comply with all applicable federal, state and local rules,
regulations and laws; (2) maintain financial records, and make those records available upon
request; (3) provide to the County copies of any financial audits that have been completed
during the term of the Agreement; (4) upon the County’s request, provide the County
reasonable access, through representatives of the District, to facilities, financial and
employee records that are related to the purpose of the Agreement, except where prohibited
by federal or state laws, regulations or rules.
p. California Public Records Act. All proposals become the property of the County, which is a
public agency subject to the disclosure requirements of the California Public Records Act
(“CPRA”). If District proprietary information is contained in documents submitted to
County, and District claims that such information falls within one or more CPRA
exemptions, District must clearly mark such information “CONFIDENTIAL AND
PROPRIETARY,” and identify the specific lines containing the information. In the event of
a request for such information, the County will make best efforts to provide notice to
District prior to such disclosure. If District contends that any documents are exempt from
the CPRA and wishes to prevent disclosure, it is required to obtain a protective order,
injunctive relief or other appropriate remedy from a court of law in Santa Clara County
before the County responds to the CPRA request. If District fails to obtain such a remedy
before the County responds to the CPRA request, County may disclose the requested
information. District further agrees that it shall defend, indemnify and hold County
harmless against any claim, action or litigation (including but not limited to all judgments,
costs, fees, and attorney’s fees) that may result from denial by County of a CPRA request
for information arising from any representation, or any action (or inaction), by the District.
q. No Third Party Beneficiaries. This Agreement does not, and is not intended to, confer any
rights or remedies upon any person or entity other than the parties.
r. County Data. “County Data” shall mean data and information received by District from
County. As between District and County, all County Data shall remain the property of the
County. District shall not acquire any ownership interest in the County Data. District shall
not, without County’s written permission consent, use or disclose the County Data other
than in the performance of its obligations under this Agreement. District shall be
responsible for establishing and maintaining an information security program that is
designed to ensure the security and confidentiality of County Data, protect against any
anticipated threats or hazards to the security or integrity of County Data, protect against
unauthorized access to or use of County Data that could result in substantial harm or
inconvenience to County or any end users; and ensure the proper disposal of County data
upon termination of this Agreement. District shall take appropriate action to address any
incident of unauthorized access to County Data, including addressing and/or remedying the
issue that resulted in such unauthorized access, notifying County as soon as possible of any
incident of unauthorized access to County Data, or any other breach in District’s security
that materially affects County or end users; and be responsible for ensuring compliance by
its officers, employees, agents, and subcontractors with the confidentiality provisions
hereof. Should confidential and/or legally protected County Data be divulged to
unauthorized third parties, District shall comply with all applicable federal and state laws
and regulations, including but not limited to California Civil Code Sections 1798.29 and
1798.82 at District’s sole expense (if applicable). District shall not charge the County for
any expenses associated with District’s compliance with the obligations set forth in this
section.
Attachment 1
Page 12
Article XIV Restoration and Surrender of Park
a. Restoration. When the Agreement ends for any reason, District shall vacate the Park,
remove District's personal property, except County owned improvements and repair any
damage or injury to the Park or facility caused by District's operation or removal. District
shall restore the Park to the same condition as when District took possession, less
reasonable wear and tear.
b. If District fails to remove District’s property and restore the Park within thirty (30) days
from termination, District shall be deemed to have abandoned the property not so removed
at County’s option. Abandoned property shall either become County’s property without
compensation, or County may cause it to be removed and the Park to be restored at
District’s sole expense. District shall pay to County the cost of such removal, disposal, and
restoration.
c. Surrender of Park. No act by County, its elected officials, officers, agents, or employees
during the term granted shall be deemed an acceptance of a surrender of the Park, and no
agreement to accept a surrender of the Park shall be valid, unless it is made in writing,
addressed to District, and signed by County.
Article XV Exhibits
Exhibit 1. Park Location Map and Description of Park
Exhibit 2. Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District’s Integrated Pest Management
(IPM) Program
Exhibit 3. Memorandum of Understanding – CAL FIRE and Santa Clara County Parks
Exhibit 4. County’s Statement of Insurance/Self-Insurance
IN WITNESS HEREOF, the parties duly execute this Agreement as of the last date signed
below by all parties (“Effective Date”:
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN
SPACE DISTRICT:
_______________________________
Pete Siemens President
Board of Directors
Date:
Attest:
Jennifer Woodworth, District Clerk
Approved as to form
Sheryl Schaffner
General Counsel
COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA:
_______________________________
David Cortese, President
Board of Supervisors
Date: ____________
Attest:
____________________________________
Megan Doyle, Clerk
of the Board of Supervisors
Approved as to form and legality:
Shirley R. Edwards
Deputy County Counsel
Attachment 1
Page 2
Exhibit 1 - Park Location Map and Description of Park
Rancho San Antonio County Park, a 165-acre parcel, as identified in the Rancho San Antonio
County Park Master Plan Report of May 1992 ("Master Plan"), plus the Park generally
identified as the "Diocese Land", approximately 120 acres of land adjacent to the Park. Both
areas are highlighted in the attached map.
Attachment 1
Attachment 1
Attachment 1
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
Integrated Pest Management Program
Guidance Manual
PREPARED FOR:
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
330 Distel Circle
Los Altos, CA 94022
PREPARED BY:
May & Associates, Inc.,
Shelterbelt Builders, Inc.
and
Ascent Environmental, Inc.
455 Capital Mall, Suite 300
Sacramento, CA 95814
September 2014
Attachment 1
Attachment 1
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
Integrated Pest Management Guidance Manual i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Page
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS ................................................................................................................. V
1 OVERVIEW ...................................................................................................................................... 1-1
1.1 The IPM Approach ........................................................................................................................ 1-2
1.2 QUICK REFERENCE TO THE IPM GUIDANCE MANUAL BY PEST TYPES ......................................... 1-3
2 IPM DEFINITION AND POLICY .......................................................................................................... 2-1
2.1 Defining IPM and pests................................................................................................................. 2-1
2.2 IPM PoLICY .................................................................................................................................... 2-2
3 THE IPM PROGRAM ........................................................................................................................ 3-1
3.1 Roles and Responsibilities ............................................................................................................ 3-1
3.2 Decision-Making and Record-keeping .......................................................................................... 3-5
3.3 Prioritization ................................................................................................................................. 3-7
3.4 Reporting ...................................................................................................................................... 3-9
3.5 Training and Safety ..................................................................................................................... 3-10
3.6 List of Approved Pesticides ........................................................................................................ 3-11
3.7 Notification ................................................................................................................................. 3-13
4 ASSESSING THE IPM PROGRAM AND UPDATING THE GUIDANCE MANUAL ....................................... 4-1
4.1 Criteria to assess the IPM Program .............................................................................................. 4-1
4.2 Tracking the Program ................................................................................................................... 4-2
4.3 Program Evaluation ...................................................................................................................... 4-2
4.4 Program Modifications ................................................................................................................. 4-3
4.5 Updating the IPM Guidance Manual ............................................................................................ 4-3
5 IPM PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION .................................................................................................. 5-1
6 IPM IN BUILDINGS ........................................................................................................................... 6-1
6.1 Definition and Purpose ................................................................................................................. 6-1
6.2 TypeS of Pests ............................................................................................................................... 6-1
6.3 Pest Identification ........................................................................................................................ 6-2
6.4 Preventive and General Maintenance Activities .......................................................................... 6-2
6.5 Damage Assessment..................................................................................................................... 6-6
6.6 Tolerance Levels/Threshold for Action ........................................................................................ 6-6
6.7 Active Pest Control Treatment Options ....................................................................................... 6-8
7 IPM FOR RECREATIONAL FACILITIES ................................................................................................. 7-1
7.1 Definition and Purpose ................................................................................................................. 7-1
7.2 Type of Pests ................................................................................................................................ 7-1
7.3 Pest Identification ........................................................................................................................ 7-2
7.4 Prevention and Retrofit ................................................................................................................ 7-2
7.5 Damage Assessment..................................................................................................................... 7-5
7.6 Tolerance Levels/Threshold for Action ........................................................................................ 7-5
7.7 Treatment Options ....................................................................................................................... 7-6
Attachment 1
Table of Contents Ascent Environmental
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
ii Integrated Pest Management Guidance Manual
8 IPM FOR FUEL MANAGEMENT ......................................................................................................... 8-1
8.1 Definition and Purpose ................................................................................................................. 8-1
8.2 Type of Pests ................................................................................................................................ 8-1
8.3 Pest Identification ........................................................................................................................ 8-1
8.4 Managing Plant Communities for Fire Safety ............................................................................... 8-2
8.5 Prevention .................................................................................................................................... 8-2
8.6 Tolerance Levels ........................................................................................................................... 8-3
8.7 Treatment Options ....................................................................................................................... 8-4
9 IPM FOR RANGELANDS AND AGRICULTURAL PROPERTIES ................................................................ 9-1
9.1 Definition and Purpose ................................................................................................................. 9-1
9.2 Rangelands ................................................................................................................................... 9-1
9.3 Agricultural Farms and Fields ....................................................................................................... 9-2
9.4 Prevention .................................................................................................................................... 9-5
9.5 Treatment Options ....................................................................................................................... 9-5
10 IPM IN NATURAL LANDS ................................................................................................................ 10-1
10.1 Definition and Purpose ............................................................................................................... 10-1
10.2 Regulatory Background .............................................................................................................. 10-2
10.3 Type of Pests .............................................................................................................................. 10-3
10.4 Pest Identification ...................................................................................................................... 10-4
10.5 Prevention .................................................................................................................................. 10-6
10.6 Damage Assessment................................................................................................................. 10-14
10.7 Tolerance Levels/Threshold for Action .................................................................................... 10-14
10.8 Treatment Options ................................................................................................................... 10-15
11 GLOSSARY .................................................................................................................................... 11-1
12 REFERENCES ................................................................................................................................. 12-1
Appendices
Appendix A Pesticide Technical Background Information
Appendix B Forms
Attachment 1
Ascent Environmental Table of Contents
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
Integrated Pest Management Guidance Manual iii
Tables
Table 3-1 Sample Project Ranking System ........................................................................................................... 3-8
Table 6-1 Maintenance Practices to Prevent and Reduce Structural Pests ......................................................... 6-4
Table 6-2 Management Thresholds and Treatment Options for Nuisance Insects in Buildings .......................... 6-7
Table 6-3 Management Thresholds and Treatment Options for Nuisance Wildlife in Buildings ........................ 6-8
Table 7-1 Management Thresholds and Treatment Options for Nuisance Insect, Animal, and Plant Pests in
Recreational Facilities .......................................................................................................................... 7-5
Table 8-1 Management Thresholds and Treatment Options for Wildfire Management Pests ........................... 8-3
Table 9-1 Management Thresholds and Treatment Options for Rangeland Pests .............................................. 9-2
Table 9-2 Management Thresholds and Treatment Options for Agricultural Pests ............................................ 9-4
Table 10-1 Invasive Plant Species Documented as Present on the District Lands ............................................... 10-4
Table 10-2 Best Management Practices to Prevent Invasive Species Introductions (Recommendations
selected from Cal-IPC) ........................................................................................................................ 10-7
Table 10-3 Ranking of Most Likely Pathways of Invasive Species Introductions (Identification of Areas and
Activities to Prioritize for Early Detection Monitoring) ...................................................................... 10-9
Table 10-4 Invasive Plant Watch List: Invasive Plants that are Known to be Problematic near District Lands
(for use in Early Detection and Rapid Response Efforts) ................................................................. 10-10
Table 10-5 Treatment Methods for American Bullfrogs .................................................................................... 10-18
Table 10-6 Treatment Methods for Feral and Wild Pigs .................................................................................... 10-20
Table 10-7 Treatment Thresholds and Methods for Annual and Biennial Invasive Plants ................................ 10-24
Table 10-8 Treatment Thresholds and Methods for Perennial Invasive Plants ................................................. 10-25
Table 10-9 Treatment Thresholds and Methods for Aquatic Invasive Plants .................................................... 10-29
Exhibits
Exhibit 3-1 Flow Chart of the District’s IPM Decision-Making Process 3-2
Attachment 1
Table of Contents Ascent Environmental
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
iv Integrated Pest Management Guidance Manual
This page intentionally left blank.
Attachment 1
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
Integrated Pest Management Guidance Manual v
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
BAEDN Bay Area Early Detection Network
Cal-IPC California Invasive Plant Council
CDFA California Department of Food and Agriculture
CDFW California Department of Fish and Wildlife (formerly Department of Fish and Game)
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
District Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
EDRR Early Detection and Rapid Response
GGNRA Golden Gate National Recreation Area
IPM Integrated Pest Management
MSDS Material Safety Data Sheets
OSP Open Space Preserve
PCA Pest Control Advisor
PCR Pest Control Recommendation
PPE Personal Protective Equipment
PSIS Pesticide Safety Information Series leaflets
QAC Qualified Applicator’s Certificate
QAL Qualified Applicator’s License
SPCA Structural Pest Control Applicator
SPCO Structural Pest Control Operator
SOD Sudden Oak Death
USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture
USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Attachment 1
Table of Contents Ascent Environmental
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
vi Integrated Pest Management Guidance Manual
This page intentionally left blank.
Attachment 1
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
Integrated Pest Management Guidance Manual 1-1
1 OVERVIEW
Integrated Pest Management (IPM) is a process of efficiently managing pests while protecting human health and
environmental quality. With this Guidance Manual, the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (District) is
adopting a comprehensive IPM approach throughout all of its preserves, other properties, and associated
buildings and facilities. The District’s definition of IPM and its IPM Policy are described in Chapter 2.
The IPM Policy and this Guidance Manual will be considered by the Board of Directors for adoption. Once
adopted, the Guidance Manual will be updated as needed. The Guidance Manual is intended to have a ten-year
planning timeframe. The Guidance Manual is split into two main sections: chapters that deal with program-wide
processes (Chapters 1-5), and chapters that guide individual pest management decisions (Chapters 6-10).
The IPM Coordinator and the IPM Coordination Team will play key roles in reviewing pest management projects
for consistency with the Guidance Manual and overseeing licensing, training, and safety (Chapter 3) in carrying
out the IPM Program. Other processes undertaken by the IPM Coordinator or staff throughout the year include
planning, notification, and monitoring of the projects(Chapters 3 and 4). The Guidance Manual primarily
emphasizes the review, prioritization and approval of pest management activities through the development of
an Annual IPM Work Plan (Chapter 3). Any new pest management activities not originally included in the Annual
IPM Work Plan will be reviewed on an individual basis throughout the year.
An Annual IPM Report will summarize the work completed in the year (Chapter 3), evaluate the program’s
progress in meeting overall goals, and recommend any modifications (Chapter 4).
To adopt a comprehensive IPM program, especially one that emphasizes prevention and monitoring, there are
certain tasks that are too large to implement all at once. Therefore, an IPM Implementation Plan will be
developed in the first year of the program (Chapter 5).
The most important decisions regarding IPM are made when individual projects are designed. This Guidance
Manual identifies specific approaches to pest management including: preventative and maintenance measures;
damage assessment procedures; tolerance levels and thresholds for action; and treatment options. Within the
District, situations that trigger the need for pest control fall into five distinct pest management categories.
Chapters 6 through 10 guide specific pest management decisions in these five major categories of work:
Buildings (Chapter 6),
Recreational facilities (Chapter 7),
Fuel managment areas (Chapter 8),
Rangelands and agriculture properties (Chapter 9), and
Natural areas (Chapter 10).
Human health, environmental quality, and effective and efficient management of District property is a concern
across all categories. Pests and treatment options are somewhat unique in each of the five work categories
because each category represents not only a different purpose under the District’s mission, but also a different
type of environment. In general, the first three categories represent conditions that have been altered to a
greater degree for human purposes, are more frequently occupied or visited by humans, and where the District
has greater concerns for human safety. The later two categories are in a more natural state, and environmental
quality is of great importance.
Attachment 1
Overview Ascent Environmental
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
1-2 Integrated Pest Management Guidance Manual
1.1 THE IPM APPROACH
This IPM program emphasizes pest prevention as a first approach, followed by actions to discourage or reduce
pest populations from reaching levels where active control may be required. Tolerance levels are described to
help staff determine when pest populations have reached levels where active pest control should be considered.
A wide array of physical (e.g., separation of the pest from the public), biological (e.g., bio-control agents), and
cultural (e.g., education and human behavior modification) actions are provided before chemical treatments can
be considered. Pest treatment options are provided, including the most effective and least environmentally
harmful options by pest type. Monitoring and adaptive management principles, both on the project level and on
the program level, are provided to help ensure improvements in efficiency and effectiveness of pest control over
time.
Certain vegetation management projects are primarily undertaken to meet legal requirements (e.g., defensible
space regarding wildfire protection) or District-adopted specifications (e.g., clearance adjacent to trails and
roads for hikers, bicyclists, equestrians and vehicles), and these types of projects are undertaken on a routine
basis at the same locations primarily by mechanical methods without the need to conduct detailed analysis or
monitoring of the appropriate treatment method every time.
Attachment 1
Ascent Environmental Acronyms and Abbreviations
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
Integrated Pest Management Guidance Manual 1-3
1.2 QUICK REFERENCE TO THE IPM GUIDANCE MANUAL BY
PEST TYPES
The following provides a quick cross-reference by types of pests to specific sections in the Guidance Manual.
Rodents, insects or other animals in buildings and vehicles –Chapter 6 Section 6.7.2, Nuisance Animals in
Buildings.
Rattlesnakes or stinging insects outside and near people –Chapter 7, Section 7.7.2 Nuisance Animals Near
Recreational Facilities.
Invasive animals in natural areas or rangelands – Chapter 10, Section 10.10.1 Invasive Animals In Natural
Areas (cross –referenced in Chapter 9, Section 9.9.1- Invasive Animals in Rangelands).
Vegetation encroaching on trails, roads, parking lots and other outside recreational facilities – Chapter 7,
Section 7.7.3 Vegetation Management of Trails and Other Recreational Facilities (cross referenced in
Chapter 8, Section 8.7.3, Maintaining Vegetation along Trails for Fire Safety).
Landscaping around buildings – Chapter 7, Section 7.4.2 Retrofit.
Flammable vegetation in designated fuel management areas – Chapter 8, Section 8.6 Treatment Options.
Weeds on rangelands or in agriculture fields – Chapter 9, Section 9.9.5 Weeds in Agricultural Fields and
9.9.2, Invasive Plants in Rangelands (Cross Referenced to Chapter 10, Section 10.8.2 Invasive Plants)
Invasive plants in natural areas – Chapter 10, Section 10.8.2 Invasive Plants.
Forest diseases - Chapter 10, Section 10.8.3 Forest Diseases.
Attachment 1
Attachment 1
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
Integrated Pest Management Guidance Manual 2-1
2 IPM DEFINITION AND POLICY
2.1 DEFINING IPM AND PESTS
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 the natural processes which would otherwise occur on open space
lands,” and target pests as “Plant or animal species that have a negative impact on other organisms or the
surrounding environment and are targeted for treatment.” This IPM Guidance Manual addresses plant, animal
and disease pests that occur on District properties including preserves and buildings or on lands otherwise
managed by the District.
IPM requires monitoring site conditions before, during, and after treatment to determine if objectives are being
met and if methods need to be revised. IPM can be used for many types of pests and situations, including
invasive species control, control of structural and agricultural pests, and control of other nuisance species (e.g.,
rattlesnakes and stinging insects). This methodology includes the following elements:
Correctly identify the pest and understand its life cycle.
Determine the extent of the problem or infestation.
Evaluate the site conditions.
Establish the tolerance level for control actions.
Utilize the least harmful suite of treatment methods to control the pest at the most vulnerable stages of its
life cycle.
Monitor pest populations and effectiveness of treatment methods.
IPM requires knowledge of the biology of pests, the available techniques for controlling them, and an
understanding of the secondary effects of the control techniques (e.g., soil erosion, pesticide drift, and
bioaccumulation). Control of a pest is only undertaken once a “tolerance level” has been exceeded. A tolerance
level, also referred to in IPM systems as a “tolerance threshold,” is the level below which pests can be present
without causing substantial economic damage, degradation of intended uses or human enjoyment of facilities,
disturbance of natural processes, or unacceptable human health risks.
The effectiveness, safety, and efficiency of control methods are important considerations as they apply to the
specific site conditions and life history of the target pest. IPM requires monitoring site conditions before, during,
and after treatment to determine if objectives are being met and if methods need to be revised. IPM requires
that non-chemical methods be considered in addition to chemical methods (i.e., pesticides, herbicides,
insecticides).
Pesticides is a broad term defined by the Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations as
“…a substance or mixture of substances intended for preventing, destroying or controlling any pest,
including vectors of human or animal disease, and unwanted species of plants or animals …”
Pesticides include insecticides (substances intended to control insect pests), rodenticides (substances intended
to control rodents), herbicides (substances intended to control plant pests), and fungicides (substances
intended to control fungi). Pesticides often include surfactants or adjuvants that are substances intended to
adhere and spread pesticides on a surface, typically an insect’s exoskeleton, a plant’s leaf, or dry soil.
Attachment 1
IPM Definition and Policy Ascent Environmental
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
2-2 Integrated Pest Management Guidance Manual
If the use of chemical methods is determined to be necessary to meet a pest control objective, the potential for
harm to workers and the public is carefully considered, as are effects on the environment, and then the least
harmful and most effective, efficient, and target-specific method is chosen.
IPM was originally developed in the 1960s for agricultural pests and then urban landscapes. Somewhat different
approaches are needed when implementing an IPM approach on natural lands. For purposes of managing pests
on District land, IPM is:
An adaptive process that takes into account new science, technology, and understanding of pests and their
environment.
A program to ensure judicious use of pesticides. It is not necessarily intended to eliminate pesticide use;
however, well-developed, science-based IPM programs typically reduce pesticide use per acre over time
because they employ a wider array of pest management techniques (i.e., physical, biological, and cultural
pest control as well as chemical control) that are more effective at eliminating pest issues.
A decision-making system that adapts to changing conditions. Control methods are determined based on
the pest and site-specific conditions, and methods are not universally applied to all pest problems or work
categories.
2.2 IPM POLICY
The District’s proposed IPM Policy, once adopted, will guide staff in defining, preventing, and managing pests on
District lands. The IPM goal, policies, and implementation measures were reviewed initially in 2013, and will be
considered for adoption by the Board of Directors concurrently with this Guidance Manual.
2.2.1 GOAL (PROPOSED)
Goal IPM- 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.
2.2.2 POLICIES (PROPOSED)
Policy IPM-1 Develop specific pest management strategies and priorities that address each of the five work
categories.
1. Manage pests in buildings to support existing uses, while also protecting human health and surrounding
natural resources.
2. Manage pests and potential human interactions in recreational facilities to minimize conflict, ensure visitor
safety and enjoyment, and protect the surrounding natural resources.
3. Manage pests in fuel management areas to reduce risk to human life and property, while also protecting
natural resources.
4. Manage pests in rangelands and on agricultural properties to support existing uses, while also protecting
human health and surrounding natural resources.
5. Manage invasive species in natural areas and set priorities for their control based on the potential risk to
sensitive native species and loss of native biodiversity.
Attachment 1
Ascent Environmental IPM Definition and Policy
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
Integrated Pest Management Guidance Manual 2-3
Policy IPM-2 Take appropriate actions to prevent the introduction of new pest species to District preserves,
especially new invasive plants in natural areas, rangelands, and agricultural properties.
Policy IPM-3 Manage pests using the procedures outlined in the following eight implementation measures.
1. Develop and implement tolerance levels for pests within each of the Work Categories to determine when to
undertake pest control (refer to Chapters 6 through 10 in this Guidance Manual).
2. Identify the pest, determine its life cycle and disruptive potential, and identify relevant site conditions prior
to implementing a pest control activity. Review pest control objectives for consistency with other site goals
and with established tolerance levels that must be exceeded before pest control is undertaken (refer to
Chapters 6 through 10 in this Guidance Manual).
3. Choose site-specific strategies and times of treatment that provide the best combination of protecting
preserve resources, human health, and non-target organisms and that are efficient and cost effective in
controlling the target pest. Wherever feasible, direct the control method narrowly at the most vulnerable
point in the target organism’s life cycle to avoid broad impacts (refer to Chapters 6 through 10 in this
Guidance Manual).
4. Monitor results and modify control methods over time as site conditions and treatment techniques change
and as needed to obtain an effective level of control (refer to Chapters 6 through 10 in this Guidance
Manual).
5. 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 (refer to Chapters 6 through 10 in this Guidance Manual).
6. Plan for repeat treatments as indicated by the pest’s regenerative capabilities.
7. Coordinate and cooperate with adjacent landowners, neighbors, and other responsible agencies to control
pests and limit secondary effects.
8. If eradication of a pest from a distinct location is not feasible, apply measures to achieve containment,
sustained control, slow down a pest’s rate of spread, or minimize pest damage.
Policy IPM-4 Monitor pest occurrences and results of control actions and use adaptive management to improve
results.
Policy IPM-5 Develop and implement a Guidance Manual to standardize pest management and IPM procedures
across all District lands.
Attachment 1
IPM Definition and Policy Ascent Environmental
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
2-4 Integrated Pest Management Guidance Manual
This page intentionally left blank.
Attachment 1
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
Integrated Pest Management Guidance Manual 3-1
3 THE IPM PROGRAM
This Chapter describes the IPM Program, including roles and responsibilities, management systems, and
organizational processes that will be used to implement IPM on District lands. To illustrate this, refer to
Exhibit 3-1 for a diagram of the decision-making process to be used by staff when implementing IPM in various
work situations.
3.1 ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES
This section describes roles and responsibilities for implementing the IPM program. The Board of Directors is
responsible for approving the IPM Policy. The General Manager is responsible for ensuring the implementation
of the IPM Policy through District managers and supervisors who train all staff on the IPM Guidance Manual and
guide its implementation within the departments.
3.1.1 IPM COORDINATION TEAM
The District will establish an IPM Coordination Team. The team will be made up of District staff working with the
advice of technical pest control experts. At a minimum, the team will include one staff representative from each
of the field offices, the Natural Resources Department, the Real Property Department, and the Volunteer
Program. As necessary, the IPM Coordination Team will consult with the Rangeland Ecologist regarding
rangeland and agricultural practices and properties, and with the Planning Department regarding long-range
plans and construction and maintenance of capital projects.
The IPM Coordination Team is responsible for the following:
review and approve an Annual Work Plan that is consistent with this Guidance Manual, feasible and within
the District’s projected staff and budget capabilities, and balances the District’s pest management and other
responsibilities while providing consistency from year-to-year so that effective progress can be made on
multi-year projects;
provide expertise and staff assistance to complete tasks in the IPM Implementation Plan to ensure that the
District’s approach to IPM principles and processes are continually improved;
review and approve Individual Pest Management Plans throughout the year that were not included in the
Annual Work Plan;
assess the IPM program for safety and effectiveness on an annual basis or whenever urgent changes are
indicated;
develop, periodically review, and recommend changes to the District’s List of Approved Pesticides (Section
3.7 and Appendix A) for initial approval by the General Manager; additions to the District’s List of Approved
Pesticides will be brought to the Planning and Natural Resources Committee before approval by the full
Board of Directors.
investigate lower risk/least hazardous alternatives to current practices described in this Guidance Manual,
and make recommendations for revising or updating District procedures as described herein;
review the Annual IPM Report to ensure that it accurately represents pest management work completed in
the year and that any recommendations for change are consistent with the District’s adopted IPM Policy;
and
oversee and peer review of the IPM Coordinator position.
Attachment 1
The IPM Program Ascent Environmental
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
3-2 Integrated Pest Management Guidance Manual
Exhibit 3-1 Flow Chart of the District’s IPM Decision-Making Process
Attachment 1
Ascent Environmental The IPM Program
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
Integrated Pest Management Guidance Manual 3-3
IPM COORDINATOR
The IPM Coordinator will have day-to-day oversight of the integrated pest management practices at the District,
including the following:
prepare the Annual Work Plan and Annual IPM Report for review by the IPM Coordination Team;
coordinate the meetings and tasks of the IPM Coordination Team;
coordinate staff, contractor, and volunteer IPM training;
coordinate/implement the pesticide safety program;
educate and respond to the public;
prepare other required reports, such as pesticide use reports to the County Agricultural Commissioner; and
undertake, tasks required by the IPM Implementation Plan with assistance from the IPM Coordination Team,
other staff and contractors or consultants.
The IPM Coordinator will report directly to the Natural Resources Manager who will have the overall
responsibility for ensuring that the program guidelines are followed. The District will hire an IPM Coordinator
who will need to have experience with pests in natural settings such as invasive plants and animals, insects, and
pathogens; and will need to have or gain experience with pest management in agricultural crops, rangelands,
forests, park facilities (such as non-crop lawn and landscape areas), rights-of-way, and aquatic environments.
The IPM Coordinator will have either a PCA, QAC, or QAL certification, or will obtain one or more of these
certifications within 2 years of hire date.
The IPM Coordinator must keep records of all pesticide recommendations for a minimum of two years.
Recommendations may be site-specific or programmatic (cover multiple sites within the same property or
preserve). Each written recommendation must include the following information:
category, active ingredient, pesticide formulation (i.e., brand name or common name) and dosage of each
pesticide to be used;
identity of each pest to be controlled by a name of common usage;
property owner and location on the property that will be treated;
description of commodity, crop, or site to be treated. This includes specific crops (i.e., wine grapes) or
descriptions of non-crop sites such as roadsides, habitat restoration sites, forests, etc.;
suggested schedule, time, or conditions for the pesticide application or other control method;
any warnings of the possibility of damages by the pesticide application that reasonably should have been
known by the agricultural pest control adviser to exist;
signature and address of the person making the recommendation, the date, and the name of the business
such person represents;
total acreage or units to be treated;
concentration and volume per acre or other units;
worker reentry interval, if one has been established; pre-harvest or pre-slaughter interval; and label
restrictions on use or disposition of the treated commodity, by-products or treated area;
criteria used for determining the need for the recommended treatment (tolerance level or tolerance
threshold); and
certification that alternatives and mitigation measures that would substantially lessen any significant
adverse impact on the environment have been considered and, if feasible, adopted.
Attachment 1
The IPM Program Ascent Environmental
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
3-4 Integrated Pest Management Guidance Manual
STRUCTURAL PEST CONTROL OPERATOR
The District will designate an employee with an active California Structural Pest Control Operator (Operator)
license, or will retain the services of a licensed Branch I (fumigation), II (General Pest), or III (Wood Destroying
Pest and Organisms) Structural Pest Control Operator as needed. The Operator will be responsible for reviewing
the Annual Work Plan, Individual Pest Management Plans, and developing guidelines for the control of pests in
all buildings within the District. Operator guidelines will be forwarded to the IPM Coordinator for a consistency
review with the IPM program before implementation.
In the event the District engages the services of a structural pest management company to operate in this capacity,
the company will be required to comply with all applicable provisions of the state of California’s Department of
Consumer Affairs Structural Pest Control Act dated October 2013 (available online at http://www.pestboard.ca.gov/
pestlaw/pestact.pdf). The District will require proof of company registration and proof of the companies’ qualifying
Operators license information before engaging in a contract. The company should be licensed in the applicable
Branch of the work being performed (as specified above). The District will monitor the work being done by the
company to ensure quality workmanship and compliance with the District’s IPM program.
QUALIFIED APPLICATOR
Pesticides will be applied in all areas except buildings by or under the supervision of a California licensed
Qualified Applicator (QAC/QAL) who will be licensed in categories relevant to the type of pest control work. The
QAC/QAL will be responsible for pesticide use records, work hours, and compliance with the Annual IPM Work
Plan, Individual Pest Management Plans, and pesticide labels. Qualified applicators may include District field
staff, contractors, and farmer/rancher tenants. Non-QAC or QAL certified District staff can apply pesticides, but
only under direct supervision of the QAC or QAL and after completing the District’s annual pesticide safety
training (Section 3.6).
All contract pest control applicators, the IPM Coordinator, and designated field supervisors must have a valid
California QAC or QAL license in one or more of the following categories:
Residential, industrial, institutional (A);
Landscape maintenance (B);
Right-of-way (C);
Plant agriculture (D);
Aquatic (F); and/or
Forestry (E)
Field supervisors who hold a QAC/QAL license or another certified trainer must train all staff who apply and
handle pesticides on an annual basis as described in the Training section below (see Section 3.6).
3.1.2 STRUCTURAL PEST CONTROL APPLICATOR
Household and structural pesticides will be applied under the supervision of a California licensed Branch I, II, or
III Structural Pest Control Applicator (SPCA). SPCA’s will be responsible for pesticide use records, work hours,
and compliance with written recommendations in the approved Annual Work Plan, Individual Pest Management
Plans, and compliance with pesticide labeling instructions. SPCA’s may include a combination of District field
staff and contractors. No unlicensed staff, contractors, volunteers, or tenants will perform structural or
household pest control except for the limited use of District approved ant/roach bait stations.
Attachment 1
Ascent Environmental The IPM Program
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
Integrated Pest Management Guidance Manual 3-5
Structural pesticide applications made on District property by an outside vendor will be by a registered
structural pest control company in accordance with the state of California’s Structural Pest Control Act dated
October 2013. Structural pesticide applications made by District staff will be carried out by trained applicators
under the supervision of the IPM Coordinator or designated field supervisors. All applications on District
property will be made in compliance with the Annual Work Plan, Individual Pest Management Plans, and
pesticide labeling instructions. No untrained staff, volunteers, or tenants will make structural pesticide
applications.
3.2 DECISION-MAKING AND RECORD-KEEPING
This section describes the procedures that the District will follow to make decisions and track pest management
throughout its lands and departments. The primary process by which pest management decisions will be made
and evaluated is through an Annual IPM Work Plan. Pesticide use record-keeping completed by each
department will be kept by the IPM Coordinator, who will be responsible for consolidating this information into
the Annual IPM Report, as described below.
3.2.1 DEVELOPMENT OF THE ANNUAL IPM WORK PLAN
The IPM Coordinator and the IPM Coordination Team will prepare an Annual IPM Work Plan each year that
describes planned pest control projects in the upcoming year. Working through department supervisors, staff
will provide the IPM Coordinator with a standardized spreadsheet or similar summary form describing upcoming
pest control for the following basic types of activities:
Routine minor pest control actions;
Ongoing pest control projects; and
New pest control projects.
Using this staff information, the Annual IPM Work Plan will be prepared by the IPM Coordinator, then reviewed
and approved by the IPM Coordination Team. Information in the Annual IPM Work Plan will also be used to
inform the Annual IPM Report (described below in Section 3.4.1).
The Annual IPM Work Plan will include the following basic information:
Summary (e.g., Excel spreadsheet) of routine minor and ongoing pest control projects;
Detailed descriptions of new pest control projects;
Projected amounts of pest control in the next year (acres, hours, acres treated per gallon, total gallons
used); and
Any new approaches to be implemented as a result of the adaptive management review in the Annual IPM
Report of the preceding year.
These types of pest control activities are described in more detail below. Refer to Appendix B for sample forms.
INDIVIDUAL PEST MANAGEMENT PLANS
If a project is proposed during the year which was not included in the Annual Work Plan, then a description of
the project will be prepared for review and approval by the IPM Coordinator and the IPM Coordination Team.
Examples of when individual pest management plans might be required are when new properties are acquired
or new pests of high priority are discovered in the course of a year.
Attachment 1
The IPM Program Ascent Environmental
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
3-6 Integrated Pest Management Guidance Manual
3.2.2 ROUTINE MINOR PEST CONTROL
Routine minor pest control activities include maintenance activities that generally utilize the same pest control
methods at the same site from year to year. These are primarily non-chemical methods such as brush cutting of
trails and mowing/discing for fuel management, but also include minor use of pesticides in cut-stump or spot-
spraying application at recreational facilities and fuel management areas, the use of approved insecticide baits
in buildings, or wasp spray for stinging insects in trails or bathrooms.
Staff will provide a brief projection of routine minor pest control activities in spreadsheet or similar format.
3.2.3 ONGOING PEST CONTROL PROJECTS
Ongoing pest control projects are existing projects that are expected to have an end date (even if it is takes ten
years) such as treatment of brush on rangelands or French broom on natural lands. Because these are ongoing
projects, they will have already been surveyed for site conditions, a multiple-year strategy will have been
developed. Tracking and monitoring of these ongoing projects will be important to determine if treatment is
effective and at what stage treatment methods should be adjusted (such as switching from herbicide to pulling
when the density of invasive weeds has substantially decreased). Ongoing pest control projects will be
summarized in the Annual Work Plan and tracked for staffing, costs, and adaptive management (effectiveness of
selected pest control) purposes.
Staff will provide a projection of ongoing pest control projects in a spreadsheet or similar format and will
specifically note any changes that are to be made to specific ongoing projects in the upcoming year (e.g. change
in treatment method, change in level of effort, requirements for periodic pre-treatment surveys).
3.2.4 NEW PEST CONTROL PROJECTS
New pest control projects will receive a more detailed review and assessment by the IPM Coordinator and IPM
Coordination Team. Staff will prepare a description of newly proposed projects and will specifically note how the
recommended treatment is consistent with the IPM Guidance Manual, best management practices and
mitigation measures.
Staff proposing new pest control actions will provide the following information:
name and purpose of the proposed pest control activity;
location (i.e., preserve name, building or trail name, or location including map where appropriate);
pest identification and the population size, location, life cycle, and density;
a brief assessment of damage caused by the pest, including the perceived threshold for action (e.g., severity
of the infestation/amount and type of damage);
site conditions including the presence of aquatic areas, rare species, steep slopes, access and other
environmental conditions that are relevant to the effectiveness of pest control and avoidance of
environmental impact;
a description of prevention, options that were considered/previously implemented before the active pest
control project was proposed;
proposed pest treatment options (e.g., grazing, brushing, mowing, herbicide application) and amount of
each type of treatment (e.g., acres to be treated), project duration, project timing, performance standards,
and remedial actions;
proposed labor force (staff, contractor, volunteers or special groups) projected labor hours or special
materials or equipment required, and direct costs for the next year.
Attachment 1
Ascent Environmental The IPM Program
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
Integrated Pest Management Guidance Manual 3-7
If new pest control projects are determined outside of the Annual IPM Work Plan, then an Individual Pest
Management Plan will likewise be prepared and reviewed and approved by the IPM Coordinator.
3.3 PRIORITIZATION
One of the most difficult aspects of implementing an IPM program is to develop a consistent, transparent, and
replicable decision-making and prioritization system that allows the District, or any other organization, to make
informed decisions about which pest control projects out of many potential ones will be funded. The decision-
making process must be flexible, so that staff can adjust workloads from year-to year while still resulting in
consistent IPM decisions across departments and staff. The prioritization approaches developed by the Golden
Gate National Recreation Area and Marin County Open Space District were examined for their advantages and
disadvantages since these two organizations are similar in size and mission to the District, and manage diverse
resources, interest groups, and stakeholder groups.
A prioritization system is most useful in determining relative importance of closely related pest management
activities. For example, a prioritization system can help staff compare the benefits of treating yellow starthistle
in two pastures, one of which is newly invaded with weeds, the other which is an ongoing treatment site.
Another example would be comparison of treatment of a newly-discovered invasive plant population with
treatment of an established population of French broom that is located in a sensitive habitat. The District will
use the prioritization system for IPM on rangeland, agricultural lands, and natural lands.
The District will not use the prioritization system for pest control in buildings, recreational facilities, or fuel
management because these routine activities are a relatively fixed, constant priority for the District and are
primarily undertaken to meet legal requirements (e.g., defensible space for wildfire protection) or District-
adopted specifications (e.g., fuel management clearance adjacent to trails and roads for hikers, bicyclists,
equestrians and vehicles), or to protect human health in or the structural integrity of a building. Although there
is little flexibility in whether to manage pests associated with these routine activities, there is flexibility in
deciding what treatment methods to use and how to conduct them.
The prioritization system will be used mostly when the IPM Coordination Team meets to finalize the Annual IPM
Work Plan. This process should be coordinated with the overall staffing, budgeting and objectives of the agency
and departments for the year.
Projects will be given a score within each category depending on how well it addresses the most important
criteria (at top of each list) and/or the number of criteria within that category (Table 3-1). The score within each
category will be within 0 through 3 points with 3 indicating a higher score. The category scores will be totaled at
the bottom of the table to provide an overall project priority score.
Attachment 1
The IPM Program Ascent Environmental
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
3-8 Integrated Pest Management Guidance Manual
Table 3-1 Sample Project Ranking System
Category and Criteria
Ranking
(Assign a score of 0,1,2, or 3 to each of the 5
categories using the criteria shown in each
category 0 =does not apply, 1 minimally meets
criteria to 3=meets all or most criteria)
1. Safe
Low level of risk (exposure) to human health, the environment and non-target
organisms for anticipated result.
Nonchemical method provides acceptable level of pest control especially for
structures frequently occupied by humans.
2. Prevents and Controls Most Destructive Pests
Prevents new populations of pest.
Activity is early detection of and rapid response to small populations of a new
pest species or new occurrences of known pests.
Pest has been ranked as or is otherwise known to be highly invasive or
destructive.
Continues, or completes an ongoing District pest control project or action.
Reduces, contains, or eliminates a target pest species.
Enhances or encourages natural predation or natural systemic control of pests.
3. Protects Biodiversity
Results in protection or enhancement of native biodiversity especially for
special-status species or sensitive plant communities such as wetlands,
serpentine grasslands, and coastal prairies.
Contributes to the long-term preservation of natural resources and functioning
ecosystems.
Reduces spread of plant pathogens that have the potential for large-scale and
long-term ecological change such as with Sudden Oak Death.
Reduces risk of vegetation converting to less native biological diversity
Improves rangeland or natural area health or otherwise provides for ecological
resiliency in light of future climate change and wildfire cycles.
4. Provides for Public Engagement
Has significant public interest and support particularly from collaborating
organizations or neighbors.
Provides for increased volunteer and/or stewardship
opportunities/participation in IPM program.
Increases public understanding and support of IPM program
5. Feasible and Effective
Can be accomplished with existing staffing and funding.
Project readiness (i.e., project can be accomplished within projected timeline,
including permitting and environmental compliance).
High level of anticipated outcome for the staffing and funding (cost/benefit).
Selected technique has been shown to be effective in controlling target pest
under relevant site conditions within 5 years.
Integrates with existing District programs, including grazing leases and
approved agricultural land uses.
Reduces overall maintenance costs.
TOTAL PROJECT SCORE (Add scores in each of the 5 categories to get a total scope for the
project. Range from 0=low priority to 15=high priority)
Attachment 1
Ascent Environmental The IPM Program
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
Integrated Pest Management Guidance Manual 3-9
3.4 REPORTING
3.4.1 ANNUAL IPM REPORT
The District will prepare an Annual IPM Report each year that describes past pest control activities (both
chemical and non-chemical) on District Lands. The draft Annual IPM Report will be prepared by the IPM
Coordinator and reviewed by the IPM Coordination Team. Once approved by the IPM Coordination Team, the
final report will be presented to the General Manager for initial approval. The report will then be forwarded to
the Board of Directors for review, and where necessary, approval (e.g., changes to the List of Approved
Pesticides).
At a minimum, the Annual IPM Report will include the following basic information:
A summary of pest problems that the District has encountered during the year, and a comparison to past
years.
A summary of District pest control treatments, presented by type of control (e.g., mowing, herbicide use).
Wherever possible, a comparison of units treated (e.g., acres, square feet, linear feet or miles) in the current
year and previous years will be provided for comparison purposes. A cost per acre will be provided for major
pest control treatment types.
A qualitative assessment of effectiveness of the District’s pest control program, and suggestions for
increasing future effectiveness (see Chapter 4 for additional details).
A summary of pesticide use, presented by category (e.g., herbicide, insecticide), active ingredient (e.g.,
glyphosate, imazapyr) or pesticide formulation (e.g., Roundup ProMaxTM).
A brief summary of public notifications and public inquiries about IPM on District lands;
Assessment of compliance with the Guidance Manual including:
An evaluation of the effectiveness of any changes in practices that were implemented in the past 12
months.
A description of any experimental pest control projects (test studies) and the results, including a
cost/benefits analysis.
Suggested changes to the IPM program or the Guidance Manual’s pest control practices proposed for
adoption within the next 12 months including:
Any substitute pesticides to replace phased out pesticides (additions to the List of Approved
Pesticides).
Any proposed alternative pesticides (additions to the List of Approved Pesticides) or pest control
methods proposed for adoption.
3.4.2 PESTICIDE REPORTING
As required by regulations of the California Department of Pesticide Regulation (California Code of Regulations,
Title 3, Division 6), the IPM Coordinator will report all pesticide use on a monthly basis to the County Agriculture
Departments (San Mateo, Santa Clara and Santa Cruz Counties); will prepare, or obtain Pest Control
Recommendations from a licensed Pest Control Advisor on an annual basis; will renew the District’s Operator
Identification with the County Agriculture Departments; and will most likely require designated field supervisors
to obtain either a Qualified Applicator License or a Qualified Applicator Certificate. The IPM Coordinator will also
collect monthly pesticide reporting from its contractors who apply pesticides on District lands (See Section
3.4.3).
Attachment 1
The IPM Program Ascent Environmental
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
3-10 Integrated Pest Management Guidance Manual
3.4.3 CONTRACTOR REPORTING
The District will ensure that all pest control contractors working on District lands comply with the Guidance
Manual, including restricting use of pesticides to products on the District’s List of Approved Pesticides (Appendix
A). As required by regulations of the California Department of Pesticide Regulation (California Code of
Regulations, Title 3, Division 6), contractors will report all pesticide use on a monthly basis to the County
Agriculture Departments (San Mateo, Santa Clara and Santa Cruz Counties); will obtain Pest Control
Recommendations from a licensed Pest Control Advisor (either from the District’s IPM Coordinator or from an
independent PCA); will renew its Operator Identification with the County Agriculture Departments; and require
Contractor’s field supervisors to obtain either a Qualified Applicator License or a Qualified Applicator Certificate.
The Contractor will provide copies of its reports to the IPM Coordinator.
Contractors who trap certain pest animal species must also obtain and comply with predation permit
requirements from CDFW to record the species, pounds captured, and final destination of the animals (to prove
that the species were not transported live or re-released elsewhere in California).
3.5 TRAINING AND SAFETY
3.5.1 TRAINING
The IPM Coordinator is responsible for coordinating staff training across departments, and for overseeing safety
procedures. In general, three types of trainings will be provided:
Pest identification training (for staff involved in pest control), and
Annual pesticide safety training (for staff that use/apply pesticides).
PEST IDENTIFICATION TRAINING
The pest identification training will be prepared by District staff, with assistance from the IPM Coordinator, then
provided to staff, particularly those who work in natural areas, rangelands, and agricultural properties. This
training will most likely be provided on an as needed basis (as determined by the IPM Coordinator and
department supervisors).
Pest identification training will include procedures for identifying and reporting pest sightings. Color
photographs of several life stages (e.g., seedling, flowering, fruiting stages or larval and adult stages), a brief
description and life history of each pest, associated habitat types, map of where the pest is found on District
preserves and summary of best management practices for working in and around infested areas will be covered
in this training. It may take several years to comprehensively develop information and train staff on all pests in
District preserves. The District’s Invasive Plant Control Notebook already contains information on approximately
150 invasive plants of the region and is already used as a key training and identification tool by the staff; it will
be expanded to include other types of pests.
ANNUAL PESTICIDE SAFETY TRAINING
The annual pesticide safety training is intended to help supervisors, managers, and other staff involved in pest
control application become familiar with non-chemical pest control actions; limit exposure and risk associated
with the use of pesticides; and understand Best Management Practices for environmental protection. The
District’s Annual Pesticide Safety Training will also describe regulatory requirements of the California
Department of Pesticide Regulation’s pesticide application requirements and CDFW’s wildlife handling
procedures.
Attachment 1
Ascent Environmental The IPM Program
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
Integrated Pest Management Guidance Manual 3-11
The annual pesticide safety training will be performed by the IPM Coordinator (if a licensed PCA QAL and/or
QAC), or a PCA-, QAL/QAC-licensed contractor who is familiar with District resources, pest management issues,
and staff work procedures.
The annual Pesticide safety training must include the following:
Pesticide product labeling format and meaning of information, such as precautionary statements about
human health hazards.
Hazards of pesticides (acute, chronic, delayed, and sensitization effects) identified in pesticide product
labeling, Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDS), or Pesticide Safety Information Series (PSIS) leaflets.
Pesticide safety requirements and procedures in regulation, PSIS leaflets, MSDS.
Engineering controls (closed systems, enclosed cabs) for handling, transporting, storing, and disposing of
pesticides.
Environmental concerns (drift, runoff, and endangered species best management practices to reduce risks
to sensitive natural resources).
Routes by which pesticides can enter the body.
Common signs/symptoms and emergency first aid for pesticide exposure.
How to obtain emergency medical care.
Routine and emergency decontamination procedures, including spill cleanup and the need to thoroughly
shower with soap and warm water after the exposure period.
Use and care of any required personal protective equipment.
Prevention, recognition, and first aid for heat-related illness.
Notification requirements.
Records of annual training will be retained by the IPM Coordinator or the District’s Training and Safety Specialist
and will be kept for two years in a location accessible to employees. Training records must indicate the topics
covered during training, the materials used for training, the name and qualifications of the trainer, and the
signature and date of all employees who received the training.
3.5.2 SAFETY
SAFETY PROCEDURES FOR HERBICIDE APPLICATION
Section 17.005 of the District’s Operations Maintenance Manual provides guidelines to the staff for safely
handling and applying pesticides. Upon adoption of the IPM Guidance Manual, those procedures will be updated
to be consistent with the IPM Guidance Manual and will be subsequently included herein.
3.6 LIST OF APPROVED PESTICIDES
A List of Approved Pesticides was developed specifically for use on District lands. Refer to Table 1.1 in
Appendix A for the complete list of approved pesticides, as well as detailed toxicological analysis and results
presented for each pesticide. This list presents pesticides by category (e.g., herbicide, insecticide); active
ingredient (e.g., glyphosate, imazapyr); and pesticide formulation (e.g., Roundup ProMaxTM) (sometimes
referred to as brand name or common name).
Attachment 1
The IPM Program Ascent Environmental
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
3-12 Integrated Pest Management Guidance Manual
This list of pesticides is intended only for use on the pests, environment, and microclimates of properties and
buildings managed by the District, and would not be used on other lands without additional analysis. Each
product on this list has been (and new proposed products would be):
screened for human toxicology, ecological toxicity environmental fate and transport, and proven efficacy
against target pests;
reviewed annually by the District’s IPM Coordinator and IPM Coordination Team;
reviewed and approved by the Board of Directors;
presented for public comments at public hearings; and
included in the environmental documentation and public notification procedures that are being prepared
for the IPM Program (i.e., the list is adopted as part of environmental review and approval process).
This list encompasses mostly products already in use by the District, as well as a few new pest control products.
Products on this list were reviewed for human and environmental safety, and efficacy on the District’s target
pest species. Additional details about the District’s screening process are provided below.
3.6.1 PESTICIDE SCREENING PROCESS
The District, using toxicologists, its IPM Coordinator and IPM Coordination Team and other licensed experts, has
or will screen proposed pesticides by the following three steps:
1. Conduct a toxicological analysis of each pesticide under consideration (Appendix A).
2. Assess the risk to the human health and safety of workers and visitors on District lands, as well as the risk to
the environment from proposed pesticide use.
3. Review the List of Approved Pesticides and associated background materials, then reject, modify, or adopt
the list for use by District staff, contractors and tenants.
3.6.2 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. The process for updating the List of
Approved Pesticides is as follows:
Product Substitutions. When manufacturers substitute a product or change a product name or formulation,
but when the active ingredient stays the same, the new product can be substituted for the old product on
the List of Approved Pesticides. In general, this type of change to the list would not trigger a change in
condition or result in the need for additional environmental documentation. Therefore, this change typically
will require a simple update to the List of Approved Pesticides (Table 1.1- Appendix A). Additional
environmental review would only be required if the change results in a substantive change in human health
exposure, environmental fate, or toxicity.
Product Eliminations. In instances where products on the list are no longer available from the manufacturer,
are found to be ineffective against the District’s target pests, or if new risks are discovered that were not
previously evaluated by the District (see Appendix A), a product may be eliminated from the List of
Attachment 1
Ascent Environmental The IPM Program
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
Integrated Pest Management Guidance Manual 3-13
Approved Pesticides. This type of change requires an update to the List of Approved Pesticides (Table 1.1-
Appendix A), but does not require additional environmental review.
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.
For simple substitutions and elimination of products from the List of Approved Pesticides, the IPM Coordinator
will, as necessary seek the advice of technical experts and independent Pest Control Advisors; keep the IPM
Coordination Team informed; and include such changes in the Annual IPM Report.
In instances where new pesticide formulations (products) are being recommended for addition to the List of
Approved Pesticides, the IPM Coordinator will, with assistance from technical experts such as independent PCAs,
conduct the same analysis on the proposed new pesticide formulation as was conducted on the approved
pesticide formulation (Appendix A). All new pesticide formulations (products) under consideration will be
evaluated using the same standards for human and environmental safety, and efficacy on the District’s target
pest species.
Based on the results, the IPM Coordinator will then present the findings to the IPM Coordination Team, along
with a recommendation to add or eliminate the new pesticide formulation from consideration. The IPM
Coordinator can also recommend a test study to provide additional information. Based on the information
provided by the IPM Coordinator, the IPM Coordination Team will advance the new pesticide formulation
(product) plus any required environmental review for consideration by the Board of Directors for approval,
request additional information, or eliminate the new pesticide formulation from consideration. If the IPM
Coordination Team recommends advancement, the IPM Coordinator will provide pertinent information about
the new pesticide formulation, including a description of why the new pesticide formulation is being considered,
risk, efficacy, cost, application standards and limitations for use, results of test studies (where available), and
environmental review to the Board of Directors for consideration. Approval of all new pesticide formulations is
the responsibility of the Board of Directors. If approved, the new pesticide formulations will be added to the List
of Approved Pesticides.
In the event of an emergency situation, such as a human health disease outbreak, pesticides that are not
included on the List of Approved Pesticides may be used for short periods of time. In these unusual situations
the District will comply with required regulatory procedures, then will evaluate the emergency response
pesticide use and determine if its IPM program needs to be modified to accommodate similar future
emergencies.
3.7 NOTIFICATION
The District has developed notification procedures for use of pesticides (Section 17.006 of the District’s
Maintenance Operations Manual will be updated accordingly). District procedures are summarized below.
Prior, during, and after the application of a pesticide (including herbicides, insecticides, or other types of
pesticides) on District preserves, employees or contractors will 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
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 will be posted at the treatment areas 24 hours
Attachment 1
The IPM Program Ascent Environmental
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
3-14 Integrated Pest Management Guidance Manual
before the start of treatment until 72 hours after the end of treatment. Signs stating “Pesticide Use
Notification” will be placed at each end of the outdoor treatment area and any intersecting trails.
For urgent application of pesticides to control stinging insects, signs will be 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 will
be 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 will 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 will 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 will usually be 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 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 will occur at the time of treatment but pre-
posting may not be possible.
All contractors and lessees need to also notify 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 land owners will be
notified if the District is conducting pest management near a property line.
At the discretion of the District staff, pest management activities that do not require pesticides (e.g., mowing,
discing) may or may not be posted, depending on the level of visitor use and the potential for conflicts between
site uses and planned pest management actions. Additional notification may also be provided in emails,
newsletters, and public meetings, depending on the level of public safety concerns, public interest, and the size
and duration of the planned pest control action.
Attachment 1
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
Integrated Pest Management Guidance Manual 4-1
4 ASSESSING THE IPM PROGRAM AND
UPDATING THE GUIDANCE MANUAL
This chapter describes procedures for assessing the effectiveness of the IPM program as a whole using adaptive
management, and the process for updating the Guidance Manual.
Adaptive management is a tool that allows natural resource managers to make good decisions and effective
action plans based on limited information, and provides a means of reducing uncertainty over time through
assessing the results of an action and changing subsequent actions (The Nature Conservancy 2007). Adaptive
management is often described as “learning by doing.” Given the types and rates of change observed on District
preserves resulting from global, regional, and local factors (many of which are beyond the District’s control),
adaptive management is an important tool to help the District implement IPM in the face of change and
uncertainty.
Adaptive management encompasses the following steps: establishing assessment criteria, collecting
information, evaluating the program, and undertaking program modifications to make the program safer, more
effective, and efficient.
4.1 CRITERIA TO ASSESS THE IPM PROGRAM
These criteria are intended to quantitatively and qualitatively measure and evaluate changes in the District’s
IPM program over time:
Compliance with the Guidance Manual and List of Approved Pesticides. The Guidance Manual’s procedures
are designed to select the least harmful pest control methods. When chemical control is selected, the
Guidance Manual requires the selection of the least harmful effective pesticides (through the review and
approval process).
Demonstrated use of lower pesticide worker health/exposure classifications in buildings and recreational
structures (as measured by totaling use of pesticides using the U.S. EPA Classifications I, II, III, and IV).
Reduction of pesticide use in buildings (i.e., in areas where human use levels are high and the potential for
human exposure to pesticides is greater than in other areas). The District will seek 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. Pesticide use in buildings will be measured in units of product used per
treatment area (each building), or by units of product used per total square footage for District buildings.
Reduction in per-acre herbicide use at individual sites in natural areas over time. The District will seek a
reduction in per-acre usage of herbicides over time at individual sites, but acknowledges that in some
instances, use will initially increase, followed by a reduction in herbicide use when the pest is eliminated or
reduced. As an example, as new properties are acquired or new invasive plant infestations are discovered,
overall herbicide use may initially go up, however, they are anticipated to drop over time as pests are
controlled or eliminated at such sites.
Preservation of biodiversity and natural resource values in natural areas, rangelands, and agricultural
properties. District staff will provide an annual qualitative assessment of natural resources conditions of IPM
projects in natural areas, rangelands, and agricultural properties in the Annual IPM Report.
Provide a brief summary of public notifications and responses to inquiries from the public. District staff
will provide a summary of public notifications in the Annual IPM Report. The District will also record public
Attachment 1
Assessing the IPM Program and Updating the Guidance Manual Ascent Environmental
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
4-2 Integrated Pest Management Guidance Manual
inquiries made by telephone or in person regarding the IPM program, and will briefly summarize inquiries
and its responses to such inquiries on an annual basis.
Provide an annual summary of public participation in pest control. The public is seen as an integral part of
the success of the IPM program. In particular, volunteers who assist with invasive plant identification and
control are a valuable asset to the IPM program. The District will tally volunteer hours spent on invasive
plant control, and where possible will identify future activities for volunteers, and/or new ways that the
public can participate in the IPM process.
Provide an annual summary of staff training, public outreach, and educational activities related to IPM.
The District will summarize staff trainings, public outreach efforts, and educational outreach efforts such as
working with tenants to use appropriate pesticides in structures and rangeland/agricultural areas.
4.2 TRACKING THE PROGRAM
Using the criteria described above, District staff will monitor pest control projects, and tally quantitative and
qualitative results on an annual basis.
Each Department will report pesticide use (quantities of each pesticide product per toxicity classification) to
the IPM Coordinator, as described in Chapter 3. The IPM Coordinator will present results in the Annual IPM
Report.
District staff will regularly update the District’s pest database, including a summary of District pests of
concern, pest control activities, acres treated, and geographic (mapping information) on treatment
locations. The IPM Coordinator will use this information to prepare an annual assessment of units of
herbicides per acres treated, as well as non-chemical treatments of pests. The IPM Coordinator will present
results in the Annual IPM Report.
The IPM Coordinator will qualitatively describe the condition of natural areas and managed landscape areas,
identifying problem pests or areas requiring further investigation or treatment. The IPM Coordinator will
present results in the Annual IPM Report
The volunteer coordinators will tally volunteer hours spent on invasive plant control and provide this
information to the IPM Coordinator.
The IPM Coordinator will track and record public inquiries, questions, comments, and concerns about the
IPM program.
4.3 PROGRAM EVALUATION
Using the information described above, the IPM Coordinator, with input from District staff, will evaluate the IPM
Program as a whole on the basis of:
Safety (i.e., did the IPM program reduce risks and help ensure the safety of people and the environment?);
Effectiveness (i.e., were pests controlled or eliminated in a cost effective and safe manner?); and
Purpose (i.e., are District buildings; recreational facilities; and agricultural lands, rangelands, and natural
areas functioning as intended?).
The results of the evaluation will be presented in the Annual IPM Report. The Annual IPM Report will be
presented to the IPM Coordination Team for review and approval. Using the monitoring protocol described
above in Section 4.1, the IPM Coordination Team will assess the effectiveness of the IPM Program, and
recommend changes to the program intended to increase effectiveness and efficiency of pest control activities.
Attachment 1
Ascent Environmental Assessing the IPM Program and Updating the Guidance Manual
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
Integrated Pest Management Guidance Manual 4-3
The final Annual IPM Report, which will include the IPM Coordination Team recommendations, will then be
submitted to the General Manager for initial approval and to the Board of Directors for review and acceptance,
including any changes to the Approved Pesticide List.
4.4 PROGRAM MODIFICATIONS
The Annual IPM Report, as approved by the General Manager and accepted/approved by the Board of Directors
will be the basis for making changes to the Guidance Manual, including modification of any IPM procedures or
changes to the List of Approved Pesticides.
Each year following Board of Directors review of the Annual IPM Report, the IPM Coordinator will implement
recommended changes to the Guidance Manual and IPM program.
4.5 UPDATING THE IPM GUIDANCE MANUAL
This Guidance Manual is intended to be a “living document,” in which minor changes that do not trigger
additional environmental effects can be made without needing to complete additional environmental analysis.
The document will be updated approximately every ten years, and as necessary, supplemental CEQA and other
environmental analysis will also be prepared in the interim. The IPM Coordinator and IPM Coordination Team
will review proposed changes to determine if they would result in changes to adopted IPM Policy and guidance
procedures (see Section 4.3 above). This review will include assessment of changes to the lists of target pest
species, pest control methods, and pesticide use trends.
When changes to the Guidance Manual are required, the IPM Coordinator will initiate a review process to
determine whether the proposed changes are minor (as defined under the CEQA approval process for the
project as not resulting in substantial new information or new significant environmental impacts). If the changes
are confirmed to be minor, these changes can be addressed through the IPM Coordination Team review and
approval process (described above). Examples of minor changes that would not likely trigger a new
environmental review include process updates and simple product substitutions for products on the District’s
List of Approved Pesticides (see Section 3.7.2).
Attachment 1
Assessing the IPM Program and Updating the Guidance Manual Ascent Environmental
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
4-4 Integrated Pest Management Guidance Manual
This page intentionally left blank.
Attachment 1
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
Integrated Pest Management Guidance Manual 5-1
5 IPM PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION
An IPM Implementation Plan will be developed in the first year of the program. The purpose of the
Implementation Plan is to systematically develop larger tasks (i.e., prevention and monitoring) and integrate
them into the Annual IPM Work Plan over a five-year period. Major tasks to be included the IPM
Implementation Plan in the first year include:
designate an IPM Coordinator and an IPM Coordination Team;
develop an Annual Work Plan;
develop a comprehensive pest database including forms to allow staff to record and report pests and
pesticide use to the IPM Coordinator in a streamlined fashion;
develop and implement training and safety programs to ensure IPM as described in the Guidance Manual is
properly implemented by staff;
assess, and as necessary modify, the Guidance Manual (adaptive management) in the Annual IPM Report to
the Board of Directors.
In future years, the following additional steps would be taken to further implement the IPMP:
test and revise a priority system to rank pest control projects on natural areas, rangelands, and agricultural
lands;
work with tenants to consistently apply IPM practices around people and in natural surroundings;
develop an early detection rapid response program and related landscape-level monitoring program for all
District lands; and
participate in regional pest management research and monitoring efforts to keep up on the most recent
innovations in pest control science, pest control methods, and pests that are detected near District
preserves but may not yet be problemmatic on District lands.
Attachment 1
IPM Program Implementation Ascent Environmental
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
5-2 Integrated Pest Management Guidance Manual
This page intentionally left blank.
Attachment 1
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
Integrated Pest Management Guidance Manual 6-1
6 IPM IN BUILDINGS
6.1 DEFINITION AND PURPOSE
District properties include over 182 buildings, including an administrative office in a city, three field offices, a
nature center, residences, and numerous outbuildings such as barns, sheds, and water tanks in the preserves.
Certain animals and plants may be incompatible with human use of these structures or may harm the building
itself. For example, rodents, ants, and similar structural pest species are typically controlled in buildings when
their population numbers may result in structural damage or health risks to humans. Management of pests in
buildings is estimated to occur in 103 of the total buildings and it may be conducted by District staff or by
residential, commercial or agricultural/rangeland tenants at some level almost every year. For purposes of this
management category, rodent infestation of vehicles that are parked for extended periods of time on District
preserves (reported by staff to happen regularly in ranger and crew trucks) will be treated similarly to rodent
infestations of buildings.
For the purposes of this manual, structural pests include common insects, plants and animals that routinely
occupy the open interiors and immediate exteriors of buildings. Structural pests that live within the soil and
wood components of these structures such as termites, wood boring beetles, and wood decaying fungi are not
included in the IPM program and will be addressed by the District on a case-by-case basis.
The purpose of pest control in District buildings is to manage pests for human health and safety, and to preserve
the intended uses of the building structure. Most structural pests only become problematic when there are
extra resources readily available (food, water, shelter) in and around the structure. Many of these types of
outbreaks can be managed with cultural control options such as changing human behavior (e.g., securing
garbage, cleaning up food) or engineered control options within structures (e.g., sealing up entrance area,
securing garbage disposal areas).
6.2 TYPES OF PESTS
This chapter is organized by pest, although many general concepts apply throughout. Organisms of all kinds,
whether vertebrate or invertebrate, are living creatures with specific biological needs and behavioral
preferences. They all require food, water, safety and a point of entry to become a structural pest. Cutting off
access to any one of these resources can often be sufficient to prevent or reduce a structural pest problem. The
prevention methods discussed below aim to reduce the conditions that support structural pests.
6.2.1 STRUCTURAL PESTS
Structural pests include insect, plant, fungi and animal pests that damage occupied buildings and other
structures, or pests that are a health threat to humans working in, living in, or visiting the buildings. Nuisance
insects and wildlife pests in buildings addressed within the District’s IPMP include ants, cockroaches, flies, mice,
rats, skunks, opossums, raccoons, and bats. These pests may be present throughout District lands, but they may
only be incompatible with planned District uses when their proximity or behavior conflict with human uses in
buildings. Some structural pests can only survive in a human-modified environment (e.g., German cockroaches)
versus others that are only opportunistic visitors from nearby wildlands (e.g., deer mice).
The definition of a structural pest can be highly variable between individuals and groups of people based on the
perception of damage versus any true damage to structures. Care must be exercised when defining tolerance
levels for each pest species. One must consider the actual damage potential of the organism, the cultural
Attachment 1
IPM in Buildings Ascent Environmental
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
6-2 Integrated Pest Management Guidance Manual
acceptance of the organism to humans who may have to live and work nearby, and any broader environmental
consequences to the natural environment. For example, deer mice may be tolerated if they occupy the exteriors
of human-occupied buildings, but once they penetrate the structure and begin to occupy building interiors, they
become unacceptable pests. The traditional approach to structural pest control is modified in the District’s IPM
program because District structures are located in natural areas. Native species (e.g., deer mice) that can move
freely between the inside (pest) environment and outside (native/natural) environment must be treated in a
manner that achieves control of the pest without compromising the natural resources around the structure. The
District’s structural IPM decision-making must always balance health and human safety concerns with District’s
goal of protection of natural resources.
Structural IPM focuses on first modifying the behavior of humans or the structure of our environment to
moderate or eliminate pest problems. The District can use familiar planning and building tools to engineer pests
out of conflict areas such as structures through the use of physical barriers, materials selection, and site
modifications. Tolerance levels for this category of pests take into consideration the risks of economic damage
along with the fact that these species will inevitably occur in the built environment.
6.3 PEST IDENTIFICATION
Structural pests are generally identified when routine building inspections are conducted by IPM professionals,
but are also commonly identified by the building occupants themselves. Because buildings are much more
intensively utilized than the District’s surrounding natural areas, structural pests can usually be identified
relatively quickly before major infestations become problematic. Visual inspections will focus on identifying
conditions where excess food, shelter, and access can support pests (e.g., the break room); signs of pest damage
or entry (e.g., holes in the building exterior); or on observations of the pest itself.
Some District buildings could benefit from routine inspections from IPM professionals who have specialized
training to find structural pests and their associated damage. Professionals may utilize special monitoring traps
for specific organisms to monitor the population thresholds of common pest species (e.g., “sticky” bait traps for
ants). These types of monitoring devices are useful in scenarios where the presence of the pest is inevitable, and
the pest population must be maintained at an acceptable tolerance level. Other buildings and structures that are
less intensively utilized will rely on the observations of the District’s employees, tenants, and visitors to identify
pests.
Employees, tenants, and visitors will have clear communication pathways to the IPM Coordinator to report
structural pest presence and damage in a timely manner. Structural pest problems will be reported to the IPM
Coordinator at any time during the year via telephone, email or meetings, in an Individual Pest Management
Plan, or as part of Annual IPM Reporting. The IPM Coordinator can help problem-solve structural pest situations
by providing the following types of assistance:
assist with determining pest control treatment threshold levels,
provide recommendations for building or human use modifications to reduce pest problems below
threshold levels,
review Individual Pest Management Plan and facilitate their implementation by staff or tenants, and/or
recommend professional assistance such as use of a structural pest control advisor or structural pest control
operator to actively control pests.
6.4 PREVENTIVE AND GENERAL MAINTENANCE ACTIVITIES
Modern IPM programs for buildings rely on prevention (i.e., building design and human behavior modification)
as the primary structural pest control treatment options to eliminate pest problems. Active pest control is used
Attachment 1
Ascent Environmental IPM in Buildings
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
Integrated Pest Management Guidance Manual 6-3
only as a last resort. Because humans occupy a highly engineered environment, use of such control options as
physical barriers, materials selection, and site modifications provide the primary means to eliminate pest from
buildings and other structures without the need to use pesticides or other lethal control.
If structural pest control in vacant structures is expensive, time-consuming, or otherwise damaging to the
surrounding natural environment, demolition of the buildings will be considered as part of the Annual IPM
Report (See Chapter 3, section 3.4 Reporting). Demolition activities will be subject to separate permitting
processes through respective County planning departments. Modern IPM programs for buildings rely on
prevention (i.e., building design and human behavior modification) as the primary structural pest control
treatment options) to eliminate pest problems. Therefore, a discussion of preventive and general maintenance
activities is summarized below.
6.4.1 PREVENTION
Preventing insects and wildlife pests in buildings include general guidelines that promote pest-resistant
materials, block common access points to buildings, and promote the modifications of common structures to
repel rather than attract common pests. These guidelines may include landscape design practices that can be
incorporated at District facilities in natural areas. For example, defensible space around structures should not be
planted with dense ground covers and/or climbing vines like ivy that could attract structural pests such as mice
and skunks.
Pests need a place to live – or harborage; most prefer a hidden space where they will not be disturbed.
Preventing access to hidden spaces can, therefore, assist pest management efforts: cracks, crevices, gaps, holes,
loose structural elements, and dense vegetation can all act to hide small pest organisms. In some cases, the
materials present in District structures can create a potential harborage, such as when rigid foam insulation - a
material that is known to attract termites - is used on the outside of foundations.
Incorporating some preventive measures will be simple, while others (like discontinuing the use of rigid foam
insulation) may directly conflict with building codes and other design goals for the structure. Generally, the
inclusion of standard pest prevention practices during the building design and construction or retrofit phase can
dramatically reduce pest problems in the future while still fulfilling all the requirements for modern building
codes. For example, proper placement of exterior lighting can significantly reduce the attraction of night flying
insects into the building. Eliminating ledges under roof eaves can discourage pigeons and swallows from taking
up residence. Planting and maintaining landscaping so that it does not touch building walls can help reduce the
transmission of pests inside the structure. All of these retrofit, design, and construction practices can help
prevent the establishment of pests in District structures, thereby reducing the need for pest management.
6.4.2 RETROFIT
Architects, planners, and engineers have only recently begun to consider pest control and building maintenance
in the design of new structures and within the retrofitting of existing structures. New local green building
ordinances and elective building rating systems now incorporate methods for enhancing modern buildings to be
more energy efficient and less toxic beyond modern building codes. Reducing the need for toxic pesticides to
control structural pests is especially feasible because much of their damage can be prevented by improved
design.
Designing pests out of new and existing structures may include structural materials selection and the addition of
non-structural components to reduce building access or utilization by pest species. Design guidelines are now
available from the International Code Council/San Francisco Department of the Environment (Geiger and Cox
2012). Much of the focus of these guidelines is on the building envelope and the building interface with soil and
landscaping. This allows buildings to repel ground-dwelling insects and rodents and significantly reduce their
Attachment 1
IPM in Buildings Ascent Environmental
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
6-4 Integrated Pest Management Guidance Manual
access to the building interior. Other more general guidelines promote pest-resistant materials, block common
access points to buildings, and promote the modifications of common structures to repel rather than attract
common pests. These guidelines include landscape design practices that can be incorporated at District facilities
in natural areas. For example, defensible space around structures should not be planted with dense ground
covers and/or climbing vines like ivy that could attract structural pests such as mice and skunks. Maintenance
practices that can reduce structural pest impacts are summarized in Table 6-1.
Table 6-1 Maintenance Practices to Prevent and Reduce Structural Pests
Minimize moisture. Moisture in and near structures can provide harborage for insect pests such as termites, wood-boring
beetles, cockroaches, flies, carpenter ants, silverfish, and millipedes. Utilize the following procedures to minimize building
moisture during construction or general maintenance and repairs:
Check for proper ventilation of crawl spaces; add vapor barriers in crawl spaces.
Ensure appropriate slopes and drainage next to structures.
Downspouts and gutters should discharge at least one foot away from walls; splash guards, rain barrels, or
gutter extensions may be added to reduce accumulation of moisture near structural walls.
Ensure that landscape irrigation does not introduce moisture to foundations – use drip irrigation and
position sprinklers to avoid structures.
Maintain landscaping next to structures.
Prune vines, shrubs, and trees at least six feet away from roofs and exterior walls, as rodents can use these
for access into buildings and shelter next to foundations.
Remove and avoid planting Algerian or English ivy, star jasmine, or honeysuckle vines, which provide
shelter and food sources for rats and other urban pests. Remove and avoid planting bamboo, cherry laurel,
fig, pine, and roses near buildings, which encourage scale, aphid, and ant populations.
Clear landscaping away from vent openings to crawlspaces to prevent moisture buildup.
Remove plants and wood mulch within several inches of foundations to minimize ants and other nests. A
gravel strip around foundations at least two feet wide and 0.5 feet deep of one-inch gravel or larger
discourages rodent burrowing and other insect nesting.
Select plants that attract beneficial insects such as parasitic wasp, native bees, and ladybugs.
Move stored materials away from structures.
Store compost and trash bins away from structures, as these can attract rodents, insects, and other
nuisance pests.
Store woodpiles and debris away from structures to prevent rodent, beetle, and termite infestation.
Seal off openings.
Inspect openings to crawlspaces and other ventilation features to ensure screens are intact.
Inspect, maintain, and use elastomeric sealant, polyurethane foam, and weather-stripping to seal all small
cracks in structures, around countertops and windows, pipe breaks, and areas where pipes enter walls. Use
stainless steel wool and mesh and fire block foam to re-seal larger openings in buildings and below decks.
Add door sweeps or high density pest brushes to seal gaps greater than ¼” below doors.
Block access for rodents to climb pipes and gutters.
In areas with Norway rats or other rodent issues, various items can be installed to prevent the rodents from
climbing downspouts and pipes, including flap valves or screens in downspouts, 12”-diameter downward-
facing cones or 18”-diameter discs, or a 12” band of glossy paint on exterior vertical pipes.
Add bird exclusion materials to lighting and other horizontal surfaces.
Bird spikes, wires, netting, or similar materials should be installed prevent birds from roosting or nesting on
structures or on light poles.
Reduce or move exterior lighting. Exterior lighting may encourage insects to gather near doors and windows.
Timers and motion detectors can be installed to minimize unnecessary lighting.
Use reflected light instead of direct light to illuminate entryways, as insects are more attracted to direct light.
Use yellow (sodium) bulbs to reduce insect attraction in exterior areas.
Attachment 1
Ascent Environmental IPM in Buildings
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
Integrated Pest Management Guidance Manual 6-5
Table 6-1 Maintenance Practices to Prevent and Reduce Structural Pests
Exclude rodents from refuse and recycling areas.
Enclose refuse and recycling areas with metal, concrete, or similar materials to prevent wildlife from
climbing, burrowing, or chewing into the enclosure. Do not plant ivy around the enclosure.
Use refuse containers that are heavy duty, rust resistant, rat and damage resistant, and equipped with
tight-fitting lids.
Notes: Recommendations selected from Pest Prevention By Design: Authoritative guidelines for designing pests out of structures (Geiger and Cox 2012).
In the same way that buildings can be re-engineered to resist and prevent pests, so can appropriate planning.
Architectural standards have long dictated how buildings should be situated in an environment for appropriate
function and appeal. In the same way that a subdivision of straw houses is not appropriate for high fire risk
areas, appropriate site planning and design can also reduce future pest problems. Better planning for lighting,
storage, building use and landscaping around existing buildings can all contribute to fewer pest problems in and
around District structures. District staff should assess how existing buildings are being used and how they are
arranged together and within the landscape to maximize the reduction of future pest management.
Pest impacts to wooden structures often result from the introduction of moisture. Subterranean termites,
carpenter ants, most wood boring beetles, and fungal rots only impact wood that is already impacted by
moisture. Maintaining structures so they remain dry at all times, especially in the high humidity of the Santa
Cruz Mountains and Central Coast, will reduce the potential for pest outbreaks in the structure. Maintenance of
older structures should focus on keeping the building envelope functional to minimize leaks and moisture
accumulation.
Other general maintenance practices in and near structures involve general cleanliness and vigilance in
preventing access to resources that encourage pests. For example, equipment that attracts rodents or provides
harborage should not be left in natural areas for long periods of time. Landscape maintenance should focus on
elimination of vegetation touching the building envelope, or reduction or elimination of the types of landscaping
that are known to provide harborage for structural pests.
6.4.3 SANITATION AND MAINTENANCE
Many pest species are present because of improper handling and storage of food and food waste, or improperly
cleaning up food scraps and dishes. Uncovered garbage containers, both inside and adjacent to buildings can
attract rats and other pests. Storing native plant seeds in paper envelopes rather than hard sealed plastic
containers may encourage mice to take up residence in storage areas. All of these types of pest attractants can
be eliminated with human behavioral modification as a prevention method. Optimally managing human
behavior can drastically reduce or even completely eliminate the need for pesticide products in District
structures and landscapes.
Recommendations for structural pest prevention measures to be implemented by District staff and volunteers in
food and waste storage areas are listed below. If behaviors cannot be easily modified, hire a janitor or cleaning
service for common area cleaning.
ADDITIONAL RESIDENTIAL/OFFICE UNIT PREVENTION STRATEGIES
The following additional measures may be applied in District residential and office buildings:
train staff, including building occupants and janitorial staff on safe food and trash handling procedures;
store all food and food wastes in sealed containers;
in communal spaces, provide extra containers, sealed cabinets, or a refrigerator for temporary food storage;
Attachment 1
IPM in Buildings Ascent Environmental
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
6-6 Integrated Pest Management Guidance Manual
do not allow food waste to remain in open areas overnight;
regularly clean dishes, floors and counter tops;
use sealed garbage cans, or alternatively place them on a crawling insect-proof platform;
rinse out cans and bottles before they are placed in a recycling bin; and
do not leave pet food out overnight.
INDUSTRIAL UNIT PREVENTION STRATEGIES
The following types of additional measures may be applied in District storage buildings, livestock structures such
as corrals, and for District projects utilizing contractors and outside construction materials such as fill dirt or
erosion control materials:
Train staff about proper storage of work supplies in non-occupied buildings.
Store all pet food, animal grains, and other consumable agricultural supplies in sealed containers
(metal/plastic).
Store plant seeds used for habitat restoration and landscaping in sealed containers.
Monitor landscaping and rooted plant materials for pests, and treat as necessary to prevent pest outbreaks.
Position attractive harborage areas, such as rock piles, soil storage piles, hay and erosion control materials
away from buildings.
Control food waste in contractor work areas, outbuildings, storage areas and other non-occupied structures.
Provide sealed garbage containers in or near such areas to prevent inadvertent disposal.
Reduce, monitor, and where possible eliminate use and import of natural materials that could introduce
pests onto District lands, such as reducing use of offsite fill (soil, gravel, and rock) and livestock feeds (hay)
that may contain weed seeds. Where possible, include requirements to utilize onsite fill, require balanced
cut and fill projects on District lands, and require use of certified weed-free erosion control materials for
construction projects on District lands.
6.5 DAMAGE ASSESSMENT
Determine what, if any, damage to the structure is present. If there is no structural damage, but a pest is
present that is in conflict with human use or enjoyment of the structure, determine the tolerance level for each
pest species to determine if control is warranted. To the extent possible, quantify the damage (square feet
affected or number of occurrences) and qualitatively describe the perceived damage in its context. As an
example, a staff person could estimate the square footage of a building affected by ants and evaluate if the ants
are always present at observed levels or if the incident is just a temporary outbreak.
6.6 TOLERANCE LEVELS/THRESHOLD FOR ACTION
Tolerance levels vary greatly for structural pests depending on the true or perceived impact of the pest to the
structure or human experience. Some species, such as cockroaches, are unwelcome guests but present no real
damage to either people or structures. Other species, such as woodrats, can seem more acceptable because
they are attractive native animals but they can also carry deadly, incurable human diseases. The District’s IPM
approach for structural pest species begins with establishing human and structural tolerance levels that balance
human safety, enjoyment, and comfort within the build environment with the ability to conserve natural
resources and cost/benefit assessment.
Human safety and enjoyment is the primary metric for establishing tolerance levels in structures. Although
structural pests can be both native, protected species, and non-native invasive species, staff and visitor safety is
Attachment 1
Ascent Environmental IPM in Buildings
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
Integrated Pest Management Guidance Manual 6-7
paramount in regulating treatment actions. Tolerance levels will consider conservation goals and impacts to the
larger surrounding natural system in determining treatment actions.
6.6.1 MANAGEMENT THRESHOLDS FOR STRUCTURAL INSECT PESTS
Refer to Table 6-2 for establishing management thresholds and treatment options for nuisance insects in
buildings.
Table 6-2 Management Thresholds and Treatment Options for Nuisance Insects in Buildings
Pest Category Management Threshold
(Population Size/Conditions) Treatment
Ants
Colonies near structures and
occasional trails indoors
Use a combination of the following:
Clean up ant trails with soapy water or sticky lint rollers.
Ensure all food sources are in sealed containers.
Fill entry points with caulk, silicone, or expanding foam.
Heavy invasion, more than
occasional seasonal nuisance
Use a combination of the following:
Inject diatomaceous earth dust into cracks before sealing if
there are multiple entry points.
Use Boric acid bait
Use Fipronil bait as last resort (extreme infestations, fast
control)
Homopteran insect populations
on plants (aphids, etc.) that
support ants invading structures
Use a combination of the following:
Prune vegetation that supports ants and/or Homopteran
insects away from structures.
Control Homopteran insects by dusting the infested
vegetation with diatomaceous earth
treat the infested vegetation with a soap and water solution.
Cockroaches
Occasional presence indoors in
low numbers
Use a combination of the following:
Fill entry points with caulk, silicone, or expanding foam.
Ensure all food and water is unavailable.
Heavy invasion, more than
occasional seasonal nuisance
Use a combination of tools and alternate to avoid resistance:
Inject diatomaceous earth dust into cracks before sealing if
there are multiple entry points.
Use Boric acid dust in walls, cracks, and other inaccessible
areas.
Use baits:
Hydropene
Indoxacarb bait
Fipronil bait as last resort
Flies
Heavy invasion, more than
occasional individual nuisance
indoors or in picnic areas
Use a combination of the following:
Fill entry points with caulk, silicone, or expanding foam
Install Sticky fly traps indoors
Install Baited electric traps outdoors
Remove food and breeding sources
Attachment 1
IPM in Buildings Ascent Environmental
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
6-8 Integrated Pest Management Guidance Manual
6.6.2 STRUCTURAL WILDLIFE PESTS
Refer to Table 6-3 for establishing management thresholds and treatment options for wildlife nuisance pests in
buildings.
Table 6-3 Management Thresholds and Treatment Options for Nuisance Wildlife in Buildings
Pest Category Management Threshold
(population size/conditions) Treatment
Mice & rats
Occasional presence
indoors in low numbers (<
10 individuals)
Use a combination of the following tools and alternate to avoid
resistance:
Snap traps 6 feet apart for initial population control and
maintenance. Prebait up to several weeks for rats.
Box traps for mice – inspect daily.
Glue boards – supplemental control.
Moderate to Heavy
infestation ( > 10
individuals of house mice,
Norway or roof rats
ONLY) AND
infestations posing risk to
human health that do not
respond to preventative
and non-chemical
methods
Use a combination of the tools and alternate to avoid resistance:
Tools listed above for occasional presence
Cholecalciferol – During instances when human health and
safety are in jeopardy
Moderate to Heavy
infestation ( (> 10
individuals) of Dusky-
footed woodrats
Use exclusion methods to prevent entry of native rats into structures.
Skunks, opossums &
raccoons
Individual animals
invading structures
Implement trapping. Animals must be released or euthanized
immediately. Relocation requires a permit from CDFW.
Feral Pets
Aggressive animals or
resident populations that
cause nuisance or impede
resource protection goals
Implement live trapping with city or county animal control departments
or animal shelters.
Bats
Roosting in structures
that allows access to
human-occupied rooms
Use a combination of the following:
Implement strategic exclusion.
Block entry to spaces where roosting causes conflict with
human health and safety.
6.7 ACTIVE PEST CONTROL TREATMENT OPTIONS
When thorough prevention measures have been undertaken and human health and safety dictates, District staff
may determine active pest control is required in buildings. The basic steps for planning active pest control in
buildings include:
Identification of a potential pest problem by trained professionals, staff, or tenants;
Inspections to establish pest activity and treatment options;
Identifying a preferred pest control approach;
Attachment 1
Ascent Environmental IPM in Buildings
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
Integrated Pest Management Guidance Manual 6-9
Implementing the selected pest control;
Monitoring the results of pest control; and
Reviewing results to inform and improve future pest control actions (adaptive management).
Some pest management options include:
Indoor monitoring/trapping stations (non-chemical options such as snap traps and glue traps are preferred
over other chemical control options);
Natural pest controls (e.g., diatomaceous earth);
Other active IPM controls (as described above in Tables 6.6.1 and 6.6.2).
Where pesticide use is determined to be the only viable treatment option to address the specific infestation of
concern, selection of least harmful products is required. Only pesticides on the District’s List of Approved
Pesticides (Table 1.1, Appendix A) may be utilized. As an example, structural pest infestation that poses an
immediate threat to human health or public safety would exceed District tolerance levels and warrant use of
pesticides if non-chemical control could not protect the public. The chemical control options presented in this
Chapter represent the least harmful, most efficient treatment methods for controlling structural pests. For
example, a wasp nest in a public restroom may require use of a pyrethroid wasp spray to immediately eliminate
the hazard of wasp injury to visitors. The inclusion of a variety of pest treatment method options in the IPM
program allows the District to respond with the necessary tools based on actual risk to the District, its visitors,
workers, structures, and lands.
6.7.1 INSECTS
Structural insects found on District lands include ants, cockroaches, flies, and wasps. As described above, these
species can be deterred from establishing in District structures through design, maintenance, and behavioral
modifications. However, some structural and nuisance pests may exceed tolerance levels for their presence in
buildings. The following section discusses treatment methods for populations that exceed tolerance levels.
The presence of insects in buildings is very unappealing to most facility users. Their occurrence tends to suggest
unsanitary conditions or deferred maintenance. Though these insect species usually do not pose a threat of
direct harm to humans, their presence is almost always deemed to be unacceptable in our homes and
landscapes. In the absence of immediate public health and safety risks, prevention and physical controls are the
first treatment methods implemented in an IPM program, and these methods typically provide the most long-
term effective control. Sanitation and cleanliness are the most effective methods for preventing and managing
these insect pests. Chemical treatment methods are generally only used if the other methods prove inadequate
to bring the insect pest population to within tolerance levels.
IPM strategies for common insect pests must utilize a spectrum of different control techniques to avoid
problems with pesticide resistance. For example, both Argentine ants and German cockroaches have developed
resistance to a number of common pesticides. For this reason, no single treatment or product can be
recommended for complete control. All products that have chemical modes of action – both natural and
synthetic – can promote resistance if used indiscriminately. All chemical products must only be used in the most
appropriate and effective manner and in parallel for consistent results.
ANTS
The most common nuisance ant species in District structures is the Argentine ant (Iridomyrmex humilis). The
Argentine ant is a non-native species from South America that likely arrived in California in the early 1900s and
quickly spread throughout the state’s citrus growing regions. Argentine ants have largely replaced native ant
Attachment 1
IPM in Buildings Ascent Environmental
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
6-10 Integrated Pest Management Guidance Manual
species in the urban environments that they have invaded (Holway 1998). Although the species is usually
considered a nuisance pest in structures, the Argentine ant has eliminated nearly all native ant species in natural
areas as well. Other native insects and some populations of native birds, lizards, and salamanders may have
been similarly affected by the Argentine ant (Randall 2011). Many native plants rely on insect pollination and
insect-related seed dispersal; the loss of native insects resulting from the invasion of the Argentine ant has most
likely also reduced native plant seed production, dispersal and other mutualistic relationships between insects
and their host plants (Gomez 2003, Nygard 2008).
Argentine ants have four life stages: egg, larva, pupa (cocoon), and adult. They are social insects that live in
organized colonies where different adults have specialized duties and where numerous queens and workers mix
freely among spatially separated nests. Unlike native ants, Argentine ants mix freely between colonies without
any intraspecific competition and thus are capable of reaching unnaturally high population densities compared
to native ant species (Silverman 2008). For this reason, eradication of Argentine ant populations is impossible; if
a sub-colony collapses, other nearby queens will shift to fill the void. Argentine ants are omnivorous, preferring
high protein sources until those resources are exhausted and then shifting to plant and nectar based resources.
They are especially fond of honeydew produced by Homopteren insects (e.g., aphids, scale) and the pest
problems of each of these species in gardens and structures are often linked.
PEST MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES FOR ANTS
Prevention
Clean all kitchen and food storage surfaces regularly; sweep and vacuum kitchen floors daily. Shared-use
appliances such as sinks, microwaves, and vending machines should be cleaned regularly to eliminate spills.
Store all food properly. Argentine ants are especially small creatures that can easily crawl along the threads
of a screw-top jar and enter the container if there is no silicone or rubber seal on the lid. Store all food in
containers with tight fitting lids, or in the refrigerator or freezer.
Rinse recycling waste if it is temporarily stored in open bins. Alternatively, store all waste in containers with
tight fitting lids/seals or place open bins on insect-proof bases (e.g., AntserTM) and always line trash bins
with plastic bags. Regularly take out the garbage to an outside storage area/dumpster.
Do not leave pet food in open bowls overnight. Wash pet food bowls after the pet is done eating.
Inspect potted plants for ant nests regularly. If ant nests are found, remove the potted plant. If potted plants
become a frequent harborage for ant nests, use ant-proof platforms (e.g., AntserTM) or use a double saucer
system (inside saucer – water – outside saucer – soapy water) for all inside/outside potted plants. Flooding
the pot for several days can treat ant-infested potted plants.
Inspect landscaping for aphids, scale, and other honeydew producing insects. If found, treat plants for insect
pests, and manage ants in a coordinated effort to eliminate both problems.
Physical Control
Clean up ant trails when they are found with soapy water or sticky lint rollers. Note the location the ants
were headed and the location where they were coming from. Clean-up whatever was attracting the ants, if
possible.
Use caulking, silicone, or expanding foam to fill cracks, holes, or other entry points where ant trails originate.
If multiple entry points are suspected, inject diatomaceous earth dust into cracks before sealing.
Prune outside vegetation that is touching the structure if it supports ants, aphids, or scale. Some species,
such as Citrus, are especially susceptible to sucking Homopteran insects that in turn attract ants. Consider
replacing these species of plants with others that do not attract Homopteran pests. Treat infested
Attachment 1
Ascent Environmental IPM in Buildings
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
Integrated Pest Management Guidance Manual 6-11
vegetation by spraying with soapy water or insecticidal soap sprays, dusting with diatomaceous earth, or
physically removing insects.
Chemical Control
Chemical control of ants includes two options: 1) direct control using sprays for instant, but temporary
knockdown of individual ants and the treatment of Homopteran pests that attract ants, and 2) baits for colony
control. Sweet liquid baits are useful throughout the year because adult Argentine ants only feed on sugary
liquids. High protein baits are generally only useful to treat colonies during the periods of the year when they
are actively expanding because such solid food is typically used by the ants to feed larvae. Baiting is generally a
slower process than direct control but it has a much greater long term impact on controlling the entire local
colony. Baits are taken back to feed larvae and shared with other adults and queens so they potentially can
eliminate the entire colony rather than just a few individuals. Modern baits are designed to be extremely host-
specific compared to generalist insect sprays. Baits target the pest directly, rather than being applied to the
environment. Never use direct control (spray) around a bait station, as the spray will impede the bait’s ability to
attract the insects. Baits will only be used indoors in tamper-proof stations.
For the control of insects, multiple baits with different modes of action are recommended to prevent local
populations from developing resistance to the pesticides. Every structural insect management program should
include a few products to use in rotation to prevent resistance.
Insecticidal Soap Spray. Insecticidal soaps are specially designed mixes of fatty acids that are made to
penetrate an insect’s covering and dissolve its cell membranes causing dehydration and mortality. Generally,
the soaps are formulated to not dissolve plant cell membranes so are safe to apply directly to plants.
Insecticidal soaps are not effective on all insects, but soft bodied insects, such as Homopterans, are highly
susceptible. When used for ant control, soaps are most effective in controlling the Homopteran insects on
plants that attract and sustain ant colonies.
Boric Acid Bait. Boric acid is a naturally occurring compound found in many fruits and vegetables, but at
concentrated doses it can be an effective stomach poison for insects. Baits use low concentrations of boric
acid – sodium tetraborate decahydrate – in the range of 0.5 – 5% to allow for ants to ingest the bait and take
it back to the colony to share with other workers before there is a lethal effect. Higher concentrations risk
killing the individual before it has time to take the bait back to the colony. Studies show that the lowest
concentrations (<1%) are optimum for Argentine ant preference (Klotz 2000).
Fipronil. Fipronil is a broad-spectrum insecticide common in household cockroach/ant baits and flea sprays
for pets. When used as an ant bait, it is toxic to insects through ingestion where it blocks chloride channels
in the central nervous system; resulting in excess neuronal stimulation and death of the target insect pest. It
has higher binding affinity in insect receptor sites versus mammalian receptors so it is considered highly
selective for insects and safe to use in human environments (Jackson et al. 2009). It is considered one of the
most effective baits for colony control of Argentine ants in situations when boric acid-based baits are less
effective (Hooper-Bui and Rust 2000; Mathieson et al. 2012). Fipronil is relatively quick-acting compared to
other natural pesticides. It should be used as a last-resort option when extremely high populations of ants
must be controlled quickly. Only small amounts of bait are necessary to control ants compared to
knockdown sprays, which must be applied more widely in the environment to be effective. Small amounts of
fipronil will be used as a last-resort option when extremely high populations of ants must be controlled
quickly.
Diatomaceous Earth. Diatomaceous earth (DE) is a silica-based, naturally occurring mineral product that
works as a generalist insect pesticide. It is composed of the fossilized silica cases of marine diatoms that
have been mined from ancient marine sediments. The dusts are considered non-toxic although care should
be taken to not inhale large amounts of dust during application as all mineral and wood dusts are
considered hazardous in extremely large amounts. Food-grade DE is available to mix directly in human and
pet foods to manage pests that occur in bulk food storage. DE works by mechanically abrading an insect’s
Attachment 1
IPM in Buildings Ascent Environmental
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
6-12 Integrated Pest Management Guidance Manual
exoskeleton that leads to dehydration and eventual death of the insect. DE is non-selective so it must be
used only in specific areas where the target pests travel. The dusts are not eaten – so must be applied in
areas where they will make contact with the bodies of insect pests. For ant control, it is often applied to
cracks and crevices and may also be used in conjunction with caulks and foams to fill problem areas.
COCKROACHES
One of the most common structural nuisance insect pests in North America is the cockroach (Olkowski et al.
1991). Though rarely carrying disease or causing major economic damage to our structures, it is typically
considered unacceptable in our homes and workplaces; triggering psychological distress, embarrassment, and
general feelings of disgust. Cockroaches do consume human foodstuffs and wastes, and can contaminate them
with saliva and excrement. In some cases, they carry disease and may be linked to increased asthma rates (CDC
2013a).
Cockroaches are scavengers of plant materials; as a result, they prefer carbohydrates over fats and proteins.
They consume any human food or food waste that contains significant carbohydrates in addition to materials
such as pastes, glues, and soaps. Most common cockroach species can only exist in high humidity and high
temperature environments such as those present in human structures.
Several different species of cockroaches occur as pests in Northern California and each has separate behaviors
and habitat preferences that dictate different types of pest management. The non-native German cockroach is
the most common pest species in the counties in which the District is located. The German cockroach (Blatella
germanica) is the smallest and most widely spread pest cockroach in North America. It has three life stages: egg,
nymph, and adult. German cockroaches prefer dark, warm, and humid hiding places and they are common in
basements, kitchens, and bathrooms. They are thigmotactic, meaning they prefer to rest in small cracks where
their stomach and back touches surfaces during most of the day, so regular inspection of crack areas can
sometimes aid in cockroach detection in buildings. Unlike ants, they are solitary insects but since preferred
habitats are rare in buildings, it is common to find large numbers of cockroaches hiding in the same general
areas.
German cockroaches are ubiquitous in human environments that occur in temperate climates so complete pest
eradication is almost never achievable. Cockroaches regularly disperse in cartons, boxes and other containers
coming to and from grocery stores, warehouses, flower shops, and other shipments, and are thus are likely to
always be present in human environments. Strategies such as sealing exterior cracks/holes in buildings and strict
sanitation measures both inside and out of buildings will help maintain their populations at nearly indiscernible
levels which should be sufficient for most District properties.
PEST MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES FOR COCKROACHES
Prevention
Clean all kitchen and food storage surfaces regularly; sweep and vacuum kitchen floors daily. Shared-use
appliances such as sinks, microwaves, and vending machines should be cleaned regularly to eliminate spills.
Store all food properly. Store all food in containers with tight-fitting lids, or in the refrigerator or freezer.
Rinse recycling waste if it is temporarily stored in open bins. Alternatively, store all waste in containers with
tight fitting lids/seals or place open bins on insect-proof bases (AntserTM bases) and always line trash bins
with plastic bags. Regularly take out the garbage to an outside storage area/dumpster.
Do not leave pet food in open bowls overnight. Wash pet food bowls after the pet is done eating.
Ensure all exterior windows that open have insect screens to prevent roaches from gaining entry into
structures.
Attachment 1
Ascent Environmental IPM in Buildings
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
Integrated Pest Management Guidance Manual 6-13
Physical Control
Use caulking, silicone, or expanding foam to fill cracks, holes, or other entry points where cockroaches are
known to hide or enter structures. If multiple entry points are suspected, inject diatomaceous earth dust
into cracks before sealing.
If hiding places are unknown, use a sticky-trap monitoring program to determine where in the building
roaches are hiding.
Chemical Control
Only baits in tamper-proof stations will be used indoors.
Diatomaceous Earth. Diatomaceous earth (DE) is a silica-based, naturally occurring mineral product that
works as a generalist insect pesticide. It is composed of the fossilized silica cases of marine diatoms that
have been mined from ancient marine sediments. The dusts are considered non-toxic although care should
be taken to not inhale large amounts of dust during application as all mineral and wood dusts are
considered hazardous in extremely large amounts. Food-grade DE is available to mix directly in human and
pet foods to manage pests that occur in bulk food storage. DE works by mechanically abrading an insect’s
exoskeleton that leads to dehydration and eventual death of the insect. DE is non-selective so it must be
used only in specific areas where the target pests travel. The dusts are not eaten – so must be applied in
areas where they will make contact with the bodies of insect pests. For cockroach control, they are often
applied to cracks and crevices and may also be used in conjunction with caulks and foams to fill problem
areas.
Boric Acid Dusts. Boric acid is a naturally occurring compound found in many fruits and vegetables, but in
concentrated doses, can be an effective stomach poison for insects. Boric acid dusts are highly effective for
cockroach control when applied to cracks and crevices where cockroaches are known to occur. The dusts
(when kept dry) have a long service life and provide control for many years after application. They are
practically non-detectible to cockroaches, so unlike many other chemical products that cockroaches can
detect and avoid, they offer one of the more effective methods for cockroach control (Gore and Schel,
2004). Since they have such a long service life, they are effectively applied inside building walls, plenum
(false) ceilings, crawlspaces and other relatively inaccessible areas where cockroaches can occur. Boric acid
dusts are relatively slow acting compounds that take up to 10 to 15 days to achieve effective elimination of
problem insects so they should generally be used in compliment with a baiting program to achieve full
control of cockroach outbreaks.
Hydroprene. Hydroprene is a synthetic insect growth regulator (IGR) that mimics juvenile insect hormones
to regulate insect pest populations. Although they do not poison an insect directly to cause a lethal effect,
they do interrupt the development cycle of juvenile cockroaches so they do not ever reach a reproductive
stage. This mode of action can be important to reducing adult populations by preventing young insects from
reaching adulthood and breeding in a long term control strategy. For this same reason, hydroprene is
considered highly specific to insect pests and has low toxicity for birds and mammals, species that do not
possess these same types of growth hormones. IGRs are not an ideal stand-alone control, but they are
effective when used in combination with other methods to reduce populations of troublesome insects.
Fipronil insecticidal baits. Fipronil is a relatively recently developed, broad-spectrum insecticide common in
household cockroach/ant baits and flea sprays for pets. When used as cockroach bait, it is toxic to insects
through ingestion where it blocks chloride channels in the central nervous system. This results in excess
neuronal stimulation and death of the target insect pest. It has higher binding affinity in insect receptor sites
versus mammalian receptors so it is considered highly selective for insects and safe to use in human
environments (Jackson et al. 2009). Fipronil is relatively quick acting compared to other natural pesticides. It
should be used as a last-resort option when extremely high populations of cockroaches must be controlled
quickly. As it is insecticidal bait, only small amounts of bait are necessary to control cockroaches effectively
compared to knockdown sprays that must be applied much more widely in the environment.
Attachment 1
IPM in Buildings Ascent Environmental
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
6-14 Integrated Pest Management Guidance Manual
Indoxacarb insecticidal baits. Indoxacarb is a synthetic, non-systemic insecticide effective on chewing and
sucking insects. When used as cockroach bait, it is toxic to insects through ingestion where it blocks sodium
channels in the central nervous system resulting in paralysis and elimination of the target insect pest. Iit
replaces more hazardous organophosphate insecticides while still providing a fast acting, quick knockdown
pest control option. Indoxacarb is a quick acting insecticide and offers exceptional German cockroach
control potential. In laboratory conditions, small amounts of gel baits can provide several generations of
control when the product is re-consumed through feces, regurgitates, and through bodily contact from the
primary exposed individual cockroach (Buczkowski et.al, 2008). This product is recommended for last-resort
options in challenging cockroach pest control scenarios.
FLIES
Flying insect pests such as flies can be problematic inside buildings. In our region, the most common pest fly
species, also referred to as filth flies, are common house, stable, and greenbottle flies (Calliphoridae and
Muscidae families). Common houseflies and greenbottle flies tend to be the most problematic groups of filth
flies that cause pest problems in buildings and other public spaces. The presence of filth flies is generally
indicative of unsanitary conditions, which makes them undesirable. They can also carry disease pathogens to
humans through feces and regurgitation.
Pest flies breed in animal wastes and decaying organic material from which they can pick up bacteria and viruses
that may cause human diseases. In addition, adult stable flies feed on mammalian (livestock) blood and can offer
a painful bite. All flies undergo complete metamorphosis with egg, larva, pupa, and adult stages in their
development. The female fly deposits her eggs in animal waste or moist organic material where the larvae, or
“maggots,” complete their development, feeding on wastes until they pupate in a dry location.
PEST MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES FOR FILTH FLIES
Prevention
Clean all kitchen and food storage surfaces regularly; sweep and vacuum kitchen floors daily. Shared use
items such as sinks, microwaves, and vending machines should be cleaned regularly to eliminate spills.
Store all food properly. Store all food in containers with tight fitting lids, or in the refrigerator or freezer.
Rinse recycling waste if it is temporarily stored in open bins. Alternatively, store all waste in containers with
tight fitting lids/seals or place open bins on insect-proof bases (AntserTM bases) and always line trash bins
with plastic bags. Regularly take out the garbage to an outside storage area/dumpster.
Ensure outside garbage cans and dumpsters have tight-fitting lids to prevent flies from completing their life-
cycles in waste cans.
If garbage cans do not have tight fitting lids, use cedar sawdust to layer over wet/organic waste in the trash
bins to prevent flies from accessing food waste.
Clean trash bins regularly with pressure washer or soap/water to ensure no thick layers of organic wastes
build up in the bottom of cans.
Ensure all exterior windows that open have tight-fitting insect screens to prevent flies from gaining entry
from outside.
For stables and other livestock areas, remove animal wastes on a regular basis and dispose in sealed
containers or in managed compost piles.
Physical Control
Use caulking, silicone, or expanding foam to fill cracks, holes, or other entry points in building exteriors
where flies can gain entry.
Attachment 1
Ascent Environmental IPM in Buildings
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
Integrated Pest Management Guidance Manual 6-15
In problem areas, use sticky fly traps (ribbons) to capture excess adult flies and remove them from building
interiors.
Use baited electric traps for problem outside areas such as picnic grounds, barns, or livestock areas.
Chemical Control
In most residential and commercial situations, pesticides are not needed or recommended for control of flies, as
they are not effective. Sanitation methods along with screens to keep flies out of buildings should be sufficient
for nuisance fly control outside of agricultural facilities with livestock. Fly traps and strips used in problem trash
areas may be effective in reducing the number of adult flies if proper sanitation practices are followed.
6.7.2 STRUCTURAL WILDLIFE
Structural wildlife is a diverse group of native and non-native mammals and reptiles that are especially tolerant,
and even attracted to human behaviors and structures. This group includes common urban pests such as house
mice and roof rats as well as native forest dwellers such as woodrats, deer mice, skunks, raccoons, bats, and
rattlesnakes. House mice, roof, and Norway rats typically invade urban structures. More rural, natural areas may
be invaded by deer mice and woodrats. Some species (house mice, woodrats) can be controlled relatively easily
in single structures as they typically set-up single, temporary colonies in human structures. Others (roof and
Norway rats) can be especially challenging since they have much larger, regional populations that interconnect.
In all cases, the presence of increased shelter or food availability derived from the human world attracts these
animals to buildings, including residential buildings, offices and landscaped area where they can be problematic.
District structures have the potential to be invaded by numerous species of rodents – some of which are native
species that are naturally occurring in the natural areas surrounding District structures, while others are typical
urban pests. Because many of the District properties occur in natural areas, the natural populations of these
pest species can reinvade and repopulate the treated areas. Most native wildlife species that are common
structural pests are classified as non-game animals in California’s Fish & Game Code and can be controlled with
any method at any time they are found to be injuring human property. Some wildlife species have special
protections and additional regulations covering their management such as game species (e.g., grey squirrels,
deer), furbearers (e.g., skunks, raccoons) and threatened and endangered species (e.g., California red-legged
frogs).
The following sections present pest management information by species.
HOUSE AND DEER MICE
The house mouse (Mus musculus) and deer mouse (Peromyscus sp.) are both small rodents that readily invade
human structures in search of shelter and food. The house mouse is a widespread species that has been linked
to human culture for over 1,000 years (Timm 1994). It is now found on every continent except Antarctica. Deer
mice are native to California and most other parts of North America. They are common in nearly every habitat in
their range – from deserts to forests and also in urban and suburban areas that interface with natural areas.
Both types of mice are omnivorous but generally prefer grain, seeds, and nuts. Both are nocturnal, have similar
reproductive traits and reside in nests composed of fibrous materials. All mice species that are considered pests
are capable of extremely high reproductive rates anytime during the year, making control difficult. House mice
are rather plain looking versus deer mice that have light/dark fur color schemes, white feet, large eyes, and large
ears.
Mouse damage includes the consumption of human foods, building nests in human structures, defecation,
physical gnawing, damage to paper, clothing and other textiles and the vectoring of disease. House mice are
known to carry salmonellosis, leptospirosis, and a variety of other diseases but transmission to humans is rare.
Attachment 1
IPM in Buildings Ascent Environmental
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
6-16 Integrated Pest Management Guidance Manual
Deer mice, on the other hand, frequently carry Hantavirus – which has been linked to several human deaths in
California in the last decade.
PEST MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES FOR MICE
Prevention
Ensure outside garbage cans and dumpsters have tight-fitting lids to prevent mice from foraging on human
food waste. This is especially important in public gathering areas in parks and open spaces. Cans with domed
lids and self-closing, hinged lids are preferred in these outside areas.
Clean all kitchen and food storage surfaces regularly; sweep and vacuum kitchen floors daily. Shared use
items such as sinks, microwaves, and vending machines should be cleaned regularly to eliminate spills.
Store all food properly, in containers with tight fitting lids, or in the refrigerator or freezer.
Store native seeds, hay, and other vegetation-based materials that can attract mice properly in sealed
containers or designated sealed storage facilities.
Do not leave pet food in open bowls overnight. Wash pet food bowls immediately after feeding.
Habitat Modification
Use silicone caulking and stainless steel/bronze mesh to plug/fill cracks and holes greater than ¼” in the
exterior of building where mice could gain entry. Focus especially on utility penetrations, as mice are known
to travel along pipes/wires. Avoid using carbon steel wools and expandable foams that degrade quickly and
require repeat maintenance.
Ensure all exterior windows that open have tight-fitting insect screens to prevent mice from gaining entry
from the outside when windows are opened.
Use galvanized sheet metal to create climbing barriers and exclude mice from travelling up vertical posts
where necessary (pet cages/food storage tables/etc.).
Mouse-proof storage facilities and seasonal buildings after visitor season ends to reduce possible nesting
areas.
Physical Control
Snap Traps. Basic hardware store mouse traps offer one of the most effective means for mouse population
control when executed with enough preparation, time, and effort. When uncontrolled mouse populations
are present, snap traps can be used to “knockdown” large populations and then maintained to keep the
population under control. Mice generally travel very short distances throughout their life – space traps
approximately every six feet where mice are active. Time must be invested in determining where mice are
active and then setting traps in appropriate locations. Pre-baiting will help prevent trap shyness and allow
for the operator to test appropriate baits. Only highly desired baits should be used in the actual trapping
program. Most mice species are not as trap shy as roof and Norway rats.
Box Traps. Several types of box traps are available that are capable of trapping multiple individual mice per
trapping event. These traps operate on the principal that mice are attracted to small openings and are
naturally inquisitive. These traps are most successful for house mouse control. Traps should be inspected on
a daily basis so live trapped mice can be humanely dispatched.
Glue Boards. Glue or sticky boards are effective for supplementing other trapping methods in challenging
areas. Glue boards work especially well in established runways where other traps cannot be easily placed. If
a trapping program fails to trap all individuals that then become trap shy, glue boards are an alternative
method that can capture the remaining rogue individuals. Traps should be inspected on a daily basis so live
trapped mice can be humanely dispatched. Glue boards will be used indoors only to prevent incidental catch
of other wildlife.
Attachment 1
Ascent Environmental IPM in Buildings
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
Integrated Pest Management Guidance Manual 6-17
Chemical Control
Chemical control of mice should not be considered except under very unusual (human health and safety
considerations). In the unlikely event that chemical control of mice is deemed necessary, Refer to the Chemical
Control section for rats, below.
ROOF, NORWAY, AND WOOD RATS
Roof rat (Rattus rattus), Norway rat (Rattus norvegicus), and Dusky-footed woodrat (Neotoma fuscipes) are
medium sized rodents that readily invade human structures in search of shelter and food. With the exception of
the native woodrat, rats represent some of the most challenging pest rodents to control in urban environments
(Marsh 1994). Roof and Norway rats can be present in very large numbers in urban areas. Their home ranges are
much larger than those of mice so effective treatment is challenging and may require treatment of more than a
single structure. Both the roof and Norway rat are a widespread pest species that have co-evolved with humans
for thousands of years.
Dusky-footed woodrats are native California mammals that are occasionally considered pests when they invade
structures from nearby wildlands. All woodrats found on District lands are the San Francisco Dusky-footed
woodrat (Neotoma fuscipes annectens) which is a CDFW Species of Special Concern. Control of woodrats, as
with all native species, should first focus on prevention instead of physical or chemical control.
Like cockroaches, rats trigger general feelings of disgust in humans as they are thought to be representative of
dirty living conditions and squalor. They do bite, and many people in the U.S. suffer from rat bites each year.
Rats are known to carry diseases that can be transmitted to humans. The majority of actual rat damage in the
United States is due to structural damages caused by burrowing (Norway rats), defecation and contamination of
food products, textiles and living spaces (Norway/roof/wood rats), and damage to agricultural crops and
landscaping (roof rats). Woodrats typically build elaborate nests in wildland areas, but can also be nuisance
pests in structures where they make nests and cache food. Woodrats also are the only species of rat known to
carry Hantavirus and Arena virus in North America, both of which can be deadly to humans (Salmon and
Gorenzal, 1994).
PEST MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES FOR RATS
Prevention
Ensure outside garbage cans and dumpsters have tight-fitting lids to prevent rats from foraging on human
food waste. This is especially important in public gathering areas in parks and open spaces. Cans with domed
lids and self-closing, hinged lids are preferred in these outside areas.
Clean all kitchen and food storage surfaces regularly; sweep and vacuum kitchen floors daily. Shared use
items such as sinks, microwaves, and vending machines should be cleaned regularly to eliminate spills.
Store all food properly, in containers with tight fitting lids, or in the refrigerator or freezer.
Do not leave pet food in open bowls overnight. Wash pet food bowls immediately after feeding.
Habitat Modification
Inspect building exterior for possible rodent entryways. Especially inspect attics for signs of rat occupation
and openings or gaps between the structure and roofs or foundations. Use silicone caulking and stainless
steel/bronze mesh to plug/fill cracks and holes greater than ½” in the exterior of building where rats could
gain entry. Focus especially on areas where utilities enter the buildings, as rats are known to travel along
pipes/wires. Avoid using carbon steel wools and expandable foams that degrade quickly and require
repeated maintenance.
Ensure all exterior windows that open have tight-fitting insect screens to prevent rats from gaining entry
from the outside when windows are opened.
Attachment 1
IPM in Buildings Ascent Environmental
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
6-18 Integrated Pest Management Guidance Manual
Use galvanized sheet metal to create climbing barriers and exclude rats from travelling up vertical posts
where necessary (e.g., utility poles, pet cages, food storage areas, tables).
Rodent-proof storage facilities and seasonal buildings after visitor use season ends to reduce possible
nesting areas.
If they appear to be a constant source of infestation, woodrat nests within 100 feet of buildings will be
moved after consultation with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife.
Physical Control
Snap Traps. Basic hardware store rat traps offer one of the most effective means for rat population control
in small structures with small rodent populations. Where large rat populations are present, snap traps can
be used to “knock down” the population size in conjunction with other management techniques
(prevention, habitat modification) to keep the population under control. Time must be invested in
determining where rats are active and then setting traps in appropriate locations. Roof and Norway rats are
inherently wary of new objects in their environment, including rat traps. Pre-baiting is essential to allow rats
to associate rat traps with feeding stations, a process that may take several weeks. Only after rats have
become used to traps should the trapping portion of the control effort move forward.
Glue Boards. Glue or sticky boards are effective for supplementing other trapping methods in challenging
areas. Glue boards work especially well in established rat pathways of travel where other traps cannot be
easily placed. If a trapping program fails to trap all individuals that then become trap shy, glue boards are an
alternative method that can capture the remaining rogue individuals. Glue boards will only be used indoors
and will be checked daily.
Chemical Control
The District is aware of the potential for secondary effects of rodenticide use in and near natural lands on native
wildlife species, and is committed to strictly regulating rodenticide uses on its lands to the full extent possible.
The District intends to use all non-chemical control options before selecting rodenticides as a treatment option,
except in instances where rodent infestations are determined to present a public health issue. The District goal
is to reduce all rodenticide use on its lands over time to the full extent possible, while still protecting human
health. The following section carefully lays out the effects and limitations of each type of rodenticide product,
and provides guidance for District staff selection of the least toxic effective treatment option in the event that
chemical control of rodents must be utilized.
Primary versus Secondary Poisoning. Non-target poisoning is divided into two scenarios: 1) a non-target animal
intercepts the bait – referred to as “primary exposure”; and 2) a non-target animal ingests a prey species that
has been exposed to the toxicant – referred to as “secondary exposure.” Rodenticides typically have high
degrees of mammalian toxicity compared to other types of pesticides so it is important to control how these
compounds are presented to target rodent pests. Acute toxicant baits can attract non-target mammals and birds
so these baits must be presented in environments where only rodents have a chance of encountering them.
Sealed box bait stations are now common for nearly all rodent baits used in structures to prevent pets and
people from encountering the baits. Bait stations are usually designed for urban environments and they offer
little protection to stronger wildlife species such as raccoons, badgers and bears that can easily open them
(Erickson 2004). To better protect non-target wildlife species in the urban-wildlife interface, custom protective
devices can be installed to shield bait stations from non-target wildlife species. Because predators generally
prefer to catch and eat live prey, acute toxicants (the products that work quickly on the target animal resulting
in a quick mortality) rarely cause secondary exposures to predators and scavengers.
Acute Rodenticide – Cholecalciferol (Vitamin D3). Cholecalciferol is a natural form of Vitamin D that is
industrially synthesized from lanolin (sheep’s wool) to produce human dietary supplements and rodent poison.
In very high doses, it causes mobilization of calcium from the bone matrix to blood plasma, causing
hypercalcemia and death. It is especially toxic to rodents and a single dose of toxicant acts as an acute poison. It
Attachment 1
Ascent Environmental IPM in Buildings
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
Integrated Pest Management Guidance Manual 6-19
is the only current rodenticide in California labeled for organic food production (OMRI 2013). Cholecalciferol is
considered a novel mode of action for rodenticides and can be used in urban areas where rodents have
developed resistance to other anticoagulants (Marshall 1984). It is considered a low risk for secondary poisoning
in wildlife but can be a hazard to non-target pets that directly consume the bait. Rodenticides will only be used
inside in tamper-proof anchored containers.
SKUNKS, OPOSSUMS, AND RACCOONS
Skunks, opossums, and raccoons are native mammals that have the potential to take residence in District
structures as unwelcome guests. All these species are exceptionally common on District lands and generally will
not bother humans. On rare occasions, they may invade trash cans, open kitchens, or den under and within
structures. CDFW regulates these species as nongame or furbearer animals so they all may be controlled
without permits if found causing agricultural damage or nuisance problems.
PEST MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES FOR SKUNKS, OPOSSUMS AND RACCOONS
Prevention
Ensure outside garbage cans and dumpsters have tight-fitting lids to prevent foraging on human wastes. This
is especially important in public gathering areas in parks and open spaces. Cans with domed lids and self-
closing, hinged lids are preferred in these outside areas.
Clean all kitchen and food storage surfaces regularly; sweep and vacuum kitchen floors daily. Shared use
items such as sinks, microwaves, and vending machines should be cleaned regularly to eliminate spills.
Do not leave pet food in open bowls overnight. Wash pet food bowls immediately after feeding.
Habitat Modification
Use stainless steel/bronze mesh or welded wire to plug/fill cracks and holes in the exterior of building where
large animals could gain entry.
For larger openings, such as under decks and porches, fully enclose with plywood, concrete or wire mesh to
prevent animals from making dens under structures. If animals are already denning in the areas, use one-
way, hinged doors to allow them out but preventing them from returning. Confirm there are no juvenile
animals in the den before using one-way doors.
For raccoons in challenging areas, a single electrified strand of wire elevated eight inches from the ground
can be used to deter them entering the area.
Physical Control
Box and Cage Traps. All skunks, opossum, and raccoons are easily trapped with live box or cage traps. Trap
design varies but solid wall traps are preferred for skunks to shield the trapper from skunk spray during the
control operation. The use of live trapping methods ensures that non-target animals can be released
unharmed. Current CDFW trapping regulations requires that trapped animals are either released
immediately or euthanized, live animals may not be relocated without a permit from CDFW.
Chemical Control
Currently there are no toxicants or fertility control agents available in California for these species.
BATS
Bats are California’s only flying mammal. There are a wide variety of bats (more than 16 species in all) that
inhabit all habitats in the Bay Area; some are solitary and others colonial. All California bat species are
insectivorous and they provide an ecologically valuable service of consuming vast quantities of insect pests such
as mosquitos (Gannon 2003). Though they generally benefit humans greatly, bats secretive nature, nocturnal
Attachment 1
IPM in Buildings Ascent Environmental
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
6-20 Integrated Pest Management Guidance Manual
habits, coarse appearance, ability to fly, and habitation near humans have contributed to folklore, superstition,
fear and ultimately persecution.
Some species of colonial bats can become structural pests when they establish colonies in homes or other
human structures. Some species prefer dark open spaces, such as attics and basements and others prefer small
cracks/crevices, such as between roof tiles/shingles or behind shutters (Greenhall and Frantz, 1994). One human
structure can actually support a wide diversity of bat species. Though many bat species are tolerant of humans,
many humans are not tolerant of bats.
Common damages caused by bats are noise coming from bat roosts, smells coming from their urine and guano,
potential disease such as rabies and histoplasmosis, and discomfort anytime their presence is too close to
humans in structures (CDFW 2008). Most bat damage can be mitigated with prevention and habitat modification
techniques to make human structures less inviting or completely exclude bat roosting.
PREVENTION AND HABITAT MODIFICATION
Carefully assess where bats are entering structures and modify the building to exclude future entry. Since
bats are extremely small, fly and can squeeze into very small spaces, assessing bat entry points can be a
tedious and challenging exercise. Evaluate spaces during day/nighttime hours; use smoke pens, and infrared
cameras to assist in detecting breeches to the building envelope. Consult bat exclusion specialists for
challenging structural projects.
Install flashing, screening or netting in obvious roof/gable areas where bats can roost.
Caulk cracks in masonry, especially chimneys.
Use one-way trap doors to allow bats to escape roost areas after exclusionary methods are completed.
TRAPPING
Trapping is not recommended as its more time consuming and less effective than strategic exclusion as
discussed above.
CHEMICAL CONTROL
Currently there are no toxicants or fertility control agents available in California for these species.
6.7.3 FERAL DOMESTIC PETS
Domestic pets such as feral cats and stray dogs can sometimes become structural pests. Uncontrolled feral
domestic pets, unlike most wildlife, are often highly habituated to humans and therefore much more likely to
come in very close contact with District staff, tenants, visitors and livestock (Information Services 2012). These
close encounters can lead to increased chances of physical injury, disease transmission, contamination of District
facilities and injury to tenant livestock.
Cats and dogs are generally considered private personal property when ownership can be established through
collars, registration tags, microchips, tattoos, brands or other proof of ownership. Pets without identification can
be considered free roaming, uncontrolled private property or feral (wild) animals. In California, both state and
local laws govern domestic animal damage control under Fish & Game, agriculture codes and local ordinances.
District staff consult local city and county ordinances and animal control departments when conducting any
domestic animal control actions.
Attachment 1
Ascent Environmental IPM in Buildings
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
Integrated Pest Management Guidance Manual 6-21
PREVENTION AND HABITAT MODIFICATION
Feral domestic pets are often relics of old structures/settlements. If the District inherits older
buildings/infrastructure, consider demolition or wildlife exclusion retrofitting so the structures can no longer
support animals.
Control of excessive rodent populations in structures can also help control feral cat populations.
Ensure outside garbage cans and dumpsters have tight-fitting lids to prevent foraging on human food waste.
This is especially important in public gathering areas in parks and open spaces. Cans with domed lids and
self-closing, hinged lids are preferred in these outside areas.
Ensure District staff and tenants have properly placed any bird feeders or bird nest boxes such that they do
not also serve as cat feeding stations.
Prohibit staff and tenants from feeding feral domestic pets on District property. Develop education
programs to encourage the public not to feed wildlife or feral animals on District property.
TRAPPING
Live trapping is effective to capture problem cats but generally ineffective for dogs in California (Fitzwater
1994, Green 2012). Because feral domestic pets may be private property, District staff conducts all trapping
in conjunction with local animal control departments and/or animal shelters.
Attachment 1
IPM in Buildings Ascent Environmental
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
6-22 Integrated Pest Management Guidance Manual
This page intentionally left blank.
Attachment 1
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
Integrated Pest Management Guidance Manual 7-1
7 IPM FOR RECREATIONAL FACILITIES
7.1 DEFINITION AND PURPOSE
Human use is typically concentrated on preserves at the recreational facilities provided by the District.
Recreational facilities within District preserves currently include approximately 479 miles of access road and
trails as well as associated infrastructure (i.e., bridges, culverts, drainage ditches, parking lots, gates, stiles,
bathrooms), picnic areas, one campground, off-leash dog zones, managed turf and landscaped recreation areas,
pond viewing and dam areas, and Deer Hollow Farm).
Nuisance pests in and around recreational facilities include plants, insects and wildlife that can temporarily
affect the District’s visitor experience in a negative manner. Sometimes nuisance pests at recreational facilities
become problematic when there are extra resources readily available (e.g., food, water, shelter) and therefore
can be managed with physical control options (e.g., controlling food-trash in picnic and camping areas).
The purpose of pest control in and around recreational facilities is to manage pests for human enjoyment of the
the natural and scenic qualities of the preserves while also minimizing human exposure to pests. The
maintenance of vegetation alongside roads and trails and the control of stinging or biting insects or reptiles at
recreational facilities must incorporate protection of the surrounding natural resources as a primary
consideration. Unlike buildings, recreational facilities are almost always located in natural (undeveloped) areas,
therefore, pest control solutions must also consider protection of the surrounding natural resources as a
primary consideration.
7.2 TYPE OF PESTS
7.2.1 NUISANCE PESTS IN RECREATIONAL FACILITIES
Nuisance pests include native and naturalized plants, insects and wildlife that are present throughout the region
and are generally compatible with the District’s mission and goals. Conflict only occurs when these species
become overabundant or exceptionally close to staff and visitors. For example, native social wasps in outside
areas would normally be tolerated, but a wasp nest in a public bathroom would be considered an unacceptable
risk to visitor health and enjoyment of District lands.
The determination of a nuisance pest can be quite variable depending on the tolerance of staff or the visitor to
any real or perceived harm. Care must be exercised when defining tolerance levels for each pest species. One
must consider the actual damage potential of the organism versus the cultural acceptance to the risk that the
organism poses. For example, poison oak is an important native plant that occurs throughout District lands and
is quite common along trails. Educating the public about the effects of poison oak exposure to humans
(dermatitis) is the first option to reducing perceived risk of exposure to this pest. When visitors complain about
incidences of poison oak exposure, District staff must consider the context of the poison oak exposure risk. At
trailheads, campgrounds, and other areas where potential for frequent visitor interactions is high, staff may
elect to routinely control poison oak. In contrast, infrequent brushing and/or installation of educational signs
may be appropriate for poison oak at remote, backcountry trails that are rarely visited. The District’s
recreational facility IPM decision-making must always balance health and human safety concerns with the
District’s goals to protect natural resources.
Attachment 1
IPM for Recreation Facilities Ascent Environmental
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
7-2 Integrated Pest Management Guidance Manual
7.3 PEST IDENTIFICATION
Nuisance pests are generally identified by chance encounters by District staff, tenants and visitors. Because
recreational facilities have more intensive utilization than the District’s surrounding natural areas, nuisance
pests can usually be identified relatively quickly before the problem reaches levels where active pest
management is required. Routine inspections of recreational facilities should focus on identifying conditions
where visitor use levels are high, and where conditions can result in excess food, shelter, and access that
support pest problems.
Many nuisance pests can be anticipated and their management scheduled based on an understanding of their
biology and behavior. For example, some types of native vegetation growth outwards onto roads and trails in
search of light and space can be anticipated and preventative treatment (brushing) can be scheduled on an
annual or periodic basis. District staff can identify problem areas with excess vegetation along trails each year,
and schedule abatement accordingly. Other pests may present themselves randomly and/or rarely. For example,
a rattlesnake denning along a trailside is a relatively infrequent occurrence. These infrequent pest problems are
usually best reported when the staff and/or visitors encounter them.
7.4 PREVENTION AND RETROFIT
Nuisance pest control in recreational facilities focuses on first modifying the behavior of humans or the structure
of our environment to reduce or eliminate the problem. The District’s IPM program relies on cultural pest
control practices, such as product design or retrofit and behavior modification as the primary pest control
treatments, with active chemical or lethal controls used only as a last resort.
This section describes general operational procedures intended to prevent or minimize the need for pest control
in recreational facilities. The District will undertake some or all of the following to help prevent pest infestation
from reaching action thresholds:
staff training,
public education regarding identification and avoidance of naturally-occurring nuisance pests,
structural changes intended to pest-proof recreational facilities,
general sanitation and maintenance actions,
landscape maintenance, and
waste management procedures.
District procedures for these preventative actions are described in more detail below.
7.4.1 PREVENTION
Many pest outbreaks can be managed with cultural control options such as changing human behavior (e.g.,
promoting removal of food-related trash, installing educational signs promoting human avoidance of naturally
occurring pests, temporary closures of facilities during periods pests are most likely to be present to physically
separate visitors and pests) and engineered control options within our recreational facilities (e.g., securing
garbage cans, managing vegetation around heavily used recreational facilities, sealing off buildings and
structures ). Many open space and park districts throughout the nation have dramatically reduced human-
wildlife encounters by simply making food and garbage unavailable with wildlife-proof garbage cans (Decker et
al. 2008, Herrero et al. 2005). This simple, single engineering solution reduces wildlife habituation to humans,
ultimately reducing human conflicts with stinging insects, raccoons, skunks, coyotes and other naturally-
occurring nuisance pest species.
Attachment 1
Ascent Environmental IPM for Recreation Facilities
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
Integrated Pest Management Guidance Manual 7-3
Feeding wildlife can significantly increase nuisance wildlife problems in the District. Using postings and other
educational materials in District picnic areas, parking lots and trailheads can help inform the public that feeding
wildlife ultimately causes them great harm. Postings should emphasize that passive feeding (i.e., poor
sanitation) is as detrimental to wildlife as active feeding, and that visitors should remove their food-related trash
at the end of their visit. Educational postings for conservation related topics are best supported by both active
and passive enforcement, or otherwise tend to be ineffective (Baruch-Mordo et al. 2011).
Recreational facilities pest problems are often temporary in nature. Rattlesnakes and skunks may temporarily
occupy a facility, but otherwise remain unseen by visitors. Instead of actively managing the pest itself, the
District can install educational signs promoting human avoidance of naturally occurring pests, or the facility can
be temporarily closed (for buildings and other facilities) or rerouted (for trails) so District staff or visitors remain
safe during time periods when pests are most likely to occur.
7.4.2 RETROFIT
The District will train staff to regularly assess and manage the areas within recreational facilities that are known
to attract pests. Some examples of such areas include:
storage areas for tools, seeds and plant materials, food, research supplies,
waste management areas: trash cans, trash compactors, dumpsters, etc.,
drainage areas,
plumbing (faulty plumbing such as leaky pipes can support pests),
entryways and windows (ensure tight seals to prevent pest entry),
landscaped areas, especially immediately adjacent to buildings,
storage areas (such as woodpiles) located next to buildings.
District supervisors should regularly inspect such areas and provide additional training or educational materials
to encourage staff to keep such areas clean and pest free. In addition, for buildings used for storage of
equipment and vegetation materials such as seed, hay or livestock feeds, and all other materials that could
attract rodents will be sealed in plastic or metal containers with tight fitting lids. Actions to prevent or reduce
nuisance pests in recreational facilities include:
Train staff about proper storage of work supplies in non-occupied buildings.
Store all pet food, animal grains, hay, and other consumable agricultural supplies in sealed containers
metal/plastic containers.
Store plant seeds used for habitat restoration and landscaping in sealed containers.
Position attractive harborage areas, such as rock piles, soil storage piles, hay and erosion control materials
away from recreational facilities.
Control food waste in contractor work areas, outbuildings, storage areas and other non-occupied
recreational facilities. Provide sealed garbage containers in or near such areas to prevent inadvertent
disposal.
Reduce, monitor, and where possible eliminate use and import of natural materials that could introduce
pests onto District lands, such as reducing use of offsite fill (soil, gravel, and rock) and livestock feeds (hay)
that may contain weed seeds. Where possible, include requirements to utilize onsite fill, require balanced
cut and fill projects on District lands, and require use of certified weed-free erosion control materials for
construction projects on District lands.
Attachment 1
IPM for Recreation Facilities Ascent Environmental
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
7-4 Integrated Pest Management Guidance Manual
In addition, landscaping around recreational facilities can harbor pests. Maintenance staff should prune back or
remove dense vegetation such as ivy and any landscape vegetation that touches buildings, providing a physical
pathway for pests such as ants to access the building. In addition, maintenance of healthy landscapes through
proper fertilization, watering, pruning and aeration is also thought to reduce potential for pests to reach
problematic levels.
Landscape design and good landscape maintenance practices can discourage pests and encourage healthy
plantings that may resist pest establishment. Some options for pest prevention and reduction in landscaped
areas include:
appropriate cleaning and maintenance of tools and equipment;
selection of new landscape design intended to discourage landscape pest species;
replacement of older landscaping design when it is found to harbor pests (e.g., dense vegetation such as ivy
near buildings);
monitoring of landscaping plants for secondary pests (such as aphids or scale), and treatment as necessary
to prevent nuisance pest outbreaks (such as ants).
ensuring new planting materials are clean of pests and disease;
selection of pest-resistant plants for landscape maintenance projects;
positioning planting sites away from buildings;
proper irrigation design, proper watering practices.
In the event of a pest outbreak in landscaped areas, choose least environmentally disruptive and harmful,
effective treatments for landscape pest species.
7.4.1 TIMED MAINTENANCE
Many nuisance pests can be managed through preventative treatments based on an understanding of their
biology and behavior. This is especially true for the District’s routine maintenance needs for horticultural
landscaping and native vegetation along gates, stiles, trails and access roads. Native vegetation grows vigorously
after being cut because of plant hormone responses and changes in the availability of soil nutrients (Par and
Way, 1988). Vegetation types that are regularly mowed with mechanical equipment have predictable regrowth
times that can be measured and incorporated into routine District maintenance schedules. To prevent road and
trailside vegetation from becoming a nuisance pest, mechanical brushing can be scheduled for specific times of
year to abate the hazard before it becomes a problem. Roadside brushing also serves as secondary control for
other nuisance insect and wildlife species. The reduction of cover near trails reduces the chances that visitors
and staff will encounter ticks and rattlesnakes.
Some native perennial vegetation (e.g., poison oak or stinging nettles) is less tolerated by humans than other
types of native vegetation. The presence of such vegetation may not be appropriate for some trailside locations
that have high visitation rates. These special circumstances require the use of more complex management tools
for perennial plants such as chemical control. Refer to vegetation management options presented for perennial
plants, as detailed in Chapter 10, Section 10.8 for such special circumstances.
7.4.2 PLANT HEALTH CARE
Many nuisance pests in horticultural landscaping and turf (e.g., as mildews, rusts, aphids, whiteflies) can be
controlled with routine and proper horticultural practices. Proper watering, fertilization, and cutting/pruning can
insure horticultural plants have sufficient resources to grow well without providing support to fungal, insect and
mammalian pests. Horticultural plants that are especially susceptible to nuisance landscaping pests should be
Attachment 1
Ascent Environmental IPM for Recreation Facilities
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
Integrated Pest Management Guidance Manual 7-5
considered for replacement with more suitable varieties. Often pests can be ‘designed’ out of the landscape by
choosing more appropriate species or varieties for a specific location.
7.5 DAMAGE ASSESSMENT
Determine what, if any, damage to recreational facilities or the visitors using them is present. If there is no
damage to a recreational facility, but a nuisance pest is present that is in conflict with human use or enjoyment
of the structure, determine the tolerance level for each nuisance pest species to determine if control is
warranted. To the extent possible, quantify the damage (square feet or number of occurrences affected) and
qualitatively describe the perceived damage in its context.
7.6 TOLERANCE LEVELS/THRESHOLD FOR ACTION
Recreational facility IPM focuses on modifying the structure of the environment to balance nuisance pest
conflicts with visitor needs. In recreational facility pest management, often small retrofits or facility modification
can reduce risk of exposure, or manage the pest population down to acceptable tolerance levels.
Tolerance levels vary greatly for nuisance pests in recreational facilities. Most nuisance pest species are native
species that are compatible with the District’s goals for conservation. The District’s IPM approach for nuisance
pest species begins with establishing tolerance levels that balance human safety, enjoyment, and comfort within
visitor facilities with the ability to conserve natural resources, meet regulatory requirements and cost/benefit
assessment. Human safety and enjoyment is the primary metric for establishing tolerance levels in visitor
facilities. Staff and visitor safety is paramount in regulating treatment actions for nuisance pests. Tolerance
levels will consider conservation goals and impacts to the larger surrounding natural system in determining
treatment actions.
Refer to Table 7-1 below for management thresholds, and possible treatment options for nuisance pests in and
near recreational facilities, presented by pest category.
Table 7-1 Management Thresholds and Treatment Options for Nuisance Insect, Animal, and Plant
Pests in Recreational Facilities
Pest Category Management Threshold
(Population Size/Conditions) Treatment
Mosquitoes
Detection of pest at levels at
levels that could cause
human health problems,
populations causing visitor
discomfort or as required by
local regulatory agencies.
Use a combination of the following:
Inspect areas in vicinity of problem area for standing water and
other potential mosquito breeding sites. Where possible, repair or
drain /eliminate potential breeding habitats
Educate visitors about mosquitos and human health risks by posting
temporary signs in problem areas
Protect workers by requiring use of protective clothing when
working in affected areas
Use BTI discs in water troughs
For ongoing pest issues, contact a local county Mosquito and Vector
Control District to schedule treatment (District to comply with legal
requirements to control mosquitos for human health and safety).
Attachment 1
IPM for Recreation Facilities Ascent Environmental
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
7-6 Integrated Pest Management Guidance Manual
Table 7-1 Management Thresholds and Treatment Options for Nuisance Insect, Animal, and Plant
Pests in Recreational Facilities
Pest Category Management Threshold
(Population Size/Conditions) Treatment
Social Wasps
Populations causing conflict
with humans near structures
or other high use visitor areas
Use a combination of the following:
Remove or enclose attractants in well-sealed containers (trash cans,
etc.)
Use baited non-toxic water traps (late winter and early spring)
Use non-toxic lure traps set approximately 200 feet apart.
Nests determined to pose
immediate threat to human
safety
Use a combination of the following:
Physically remove problem nests with water jets or by digging
Use Pyrethrin aerosol spray to target individual nests.
Ticks
Detection of multiple
individual in work areas or
offices, tick populations
causing visitor discomfort.
Use a combination of the following:
Remove and destroy individual ticks.
(See also preventative trail maintenance for native vegetation
below.)
Rattlesnakes
Individuals within structures
or recreational facilities
where contact with humans
is likely
Use a combination of the following:
Trap and relocate (obtain appropriate permits from CDFW).
Block access to structures and remove hiding places adjacent to
structures and high public use areas.
Native vegetation
along trails and
roads (poison
oak, stinging or
scratching plants,
brush)
Conditions could cause
severe discomfort or health
hazards to visitors,
volunteers, and staff, or
vegetation that is blocking
emergency access.
Follow District guidelines for trail clearing in various habitats and slopes.
Mow and prune buffers along trails and roads to reduce direct
contact by visitors.
Herbicide use on perennial species only if permanent control is
needed.
7.7 TREATMENT OPTIONS
In recreational facilities, pest tolerance levels are based on ensuring the health and enjoyment of visitors, in
addition to human health and safety requirements, by following the District adopted details and specifications
for trail and other recreational facilities.
When the presence of pests in recreational facilities is determined to require action, pest prevention actions the
District may consider in recreational facilities include:
Reducing the attractiveness of the recreational facilities areas to pests. For example, remove rock and brush
piles that are attractive to snakes; seal small burrows and holes that attract ground-dwelling pests; regularly
remove food debris that can attract wildlife (e.g., skunks, ravens).
Educating the public about interactions with wild creatures such as snakes and ticks, and providing
suggestions for avoiding unpleasant or dangerous interactions. Support this action with proactive
enforcement.
Sealing up entrances in and near recreational facilities to discourage pest occupation (e.g., screening air
vents to bathrooms, screening in overhangs to prevent pests from entering the facility).
Cutting back unwanted brush such as poison oak along trailheads and high use trails to reduce potential for
visitor interaction.
Mowing high grasses along heavily used trails where ticks tend to congregate.
Attachment 1
Ascent Environmental IPM for Recreation Facilities
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
Integrated Pest Management Guidance Manual 7-7
Pest management options for nuisance pests in and around recreational facilities are the same for insect and
wildlife pests in buildings that is described above in Chapter 6. The following section describes additional
nuisance pests that are not covered in Chapter 6.
Where pesticide use is determined to be the only viable treatment option to address the specific infestation of
concern in and around recreational facilities, selection of least harmful products is required. In these limited
instances, only pesticides on the District’s List of Approved Pesticides (Table 1.1, Appendix A) may be utilized.
The chemical control options presented in this Chapter represent the least harmful, most efficient treatment
methods for controlling structural pests. For example, a wasp nest in a public restroom may require use of a
pyrethroid wasp spray to immediately eliminate the hazard of wasp injury to visitors. The inclusion of a variety
of pest treatment method options in the IPM program allows the District to respond with the necessary tools
based on actual risk to the District, its visitors, workers, structures, and lands.
7.7.1 STINGING INSECTS
MOSQUITOES
Mosquitoes are a family of small, midge-like flies in the Culicidae family. Most mosquitoes are considered a pest
species because they consume blood from vertebrates, including humans and can transmit diseases and cause
uncomfortable dermatitis. Mosquitoes go through four life stages: egg, larva, pupa, and adult. The first three life
stages are largely aquatic and last approximately 14 days. Control of wet areas, including stagnant standing rain
water, stock ponds, and even ponded water from leaky pipes is therefore an effective control strategy for
controlling this pest species. The females of many, but not all species of mosquitoes consume blood during a
portion of their life cycle. In feeding on blood, some species of mosquitos can transmit extremely harmful
human and livestock diseases, such as West Nile virus and Malaria. Therefore, pest control focuses on
elimination of stagnant water and wet area habitats, and on control of adults’ population numbers where a
health concern is detected.
Although mosquitos are members of the ecosystems of natural areas, the threat of mosquito bites makes them
unwelcome in and near buildings and recreational facilities. Mosquitos are generally only considered pests when
their population numbers are incompatible with human health and safety, at which point the District will
contact the appropriate county Mosquito and Vector Control District. The county Mosquito and Vector Control
District is the agency responsible for monitoring disease outbreaks, and implementing necessary pest control for
human health and safety.
PEST MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES FOR MOSQUITOES
Prevention
In addition to actions taken by local county Mosquito and Vector Control District to detect and control mosquito
populations in natural areas, the District can also implement many non-chemical, cultural control methods to
prevent infestation or reduce the number of adult mosquitoes that come into contact with workers and visitors.
Depending on the situation, the most important usually include:
source reduction (e.g., removing stagnant water around), and
education (e.g., posting public information signs to inform visitors about mosquitos and human health risks).
Physical Control
Install and maintain window screening in recreational buildings.
Attachment 1
IPM for Recreation Facilities Ascent Environmental
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
7-8 Integrated Pest Management Guidance Manual
Train staff to protect themselves from exposure by wearing long-sleeved clothing, tucking pant legs into
socks and/or taping pant cuffs close to the body.
Chemical Control
The District places Bti disks (Bacillus thuringiensis israelensis) in watering troughs throughout the preserves to
control mosquitoes. Bti is a specific type of bacteria that prevent mosquito larvae from developing.
Where other forms of chemical control are determined to be the only viable treatment option to address the
specific infestation of concern in and around recreational facilities, the District will contact the appropriate
county Mosquito and Vector Control District for assistance and will comply with legal requirements to control
mosquitos for human health and safety).
SOCIAL WASPS
Social wasps are a large group of native stinging insects that include yellow jackets, hornets, and mud daubers.
Wasps’ yellow and black color schemes and social behavior are shared with distantly related bees. Like bees,
wasps are an important group of native insects that perform valuable ecological functions in our natural world
(Hinkle et al. 2002). Most of the species in this group are generalist insect predators that are essential in their
natural environments to aid in decomposition, control populations of other insects, and some even pollinate
flowers like bees. Although wasps are important members of the ecosystems of natural areas, the threat of
wasp stings makes them unwelcome intruders in and near buildings and recreational facilities. Social wasps are
generally only considered pests when their nests are located in areas where they are incompatible with human
use. For example, when social wasps nest under the eaves of buildings or alongside trails, they can sometimes
exhibit aggressive protective behaviors that can threaten humans with painful and sometimes dangerous stings.
Where multiple stinging incidents occur, District staff will consider control of wasp nests.
Wasps belong to a large group of insects in the family Hymenoptera that includes ants, bees, and wasps. Many
genera and species within Hymenoptera are difficult to tell apart as they share similar body shapes and color
schemes. Because many of these Hymenopteran insects have protective stings and bites, even some other
species outside the family like flies have adapted their body styles to mimic wasps. For this reason, staff must be
careful to properly identify the pest to species to ensure that it is an actual nuisance pest species that can sting,
rather than a similarly shaped or colored harmless species.
Like bees, wasps are social organisms that live together in colonies where individuals have specialized roles.
Queens emerge from hibernation each spring to build nests and start larger colonies composed of workers.
Pupae are raised in cell-like structures within paper or mud nests that are tended by workers and queens.
Different species build different types of nests – from small mud structures that are attached to ledges to aerial
and underground paper-type nests. Different species also have different foraging habits. Some prefer hunting
for carrion and sweet liquids while others prefer hunting live prey. The species that forage for carrion and sweet
liquids are often the most problematic individuals that disturb picnickers.
PEST MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES FOR SOCIAL WASPS
Prevention
Ensure outside garbage cans and dumpsters have tight-fitting lids to prevent wasps from foraging on human
food wastes. This is especially important in public picnic and gathering areas in parks and open spaces. Cans
with domed lids and self-closing, hinged lids are preferred in these outside areas.
Periodically clean the hinged-lids of garbage and recycling bins so spilled sweet liquids do not attract wasps
to picnic areas.
Attachment 1
Ascent Environmental IPM for Recreation Facilities
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
Integrated Pest Management Guidance Manual 7-9
Ensure all exterior windows that open have tight-fitting insect screens to prevent wasps from gaining entry
from the outside when windows are opened.
If concessionaires sell soft drinks and other sweet liquids on District properties, require drinks to be sold
with straws and tight fitting lids to prevent wasps from entering drinking containers while in use.
Physical Control
Install baited non-toxic water traps in late winter and early spring to reduce queens in problem areas where
wasps are known to be regularly problematic.
Install pesticide-free lure traps set approximately 200 feet apart in outside problem areas where
human/wasp conflicts are known to occur (e.g., picnic areas, outside amphitheaters). Place traps between
the center of human activity and natural areas in an attempt to attract wasps away from humans instead of
attracting more wasps to human areas.
Physically remove problem wasp nests with water jets or by digging them out of underground locations.
Ensure pest control workers wear protective beekeeper suits to reduce the potential for dangerous stings.
Chemical Control
Pyrethrin Aerosol Sprays. Pyrethrin-type aerosol sprays containing d-trans allethrin and phenothrin are only
recommended where immediate threats exist to human health and safety. These aerosol sprays are
extremely effective at immediately eliminating single, problem wasp nests that threaten District staff or
visitors. The pyrethrin-type sprays work as a contact neuro-poison that results in near immediate mortality
of any insect (Jackson 2011). The sprays offer a relatively safe and effective means for park ranger and
maintenance workers responding to immediate threats of wasp nests. Contact pyrethrins are completely
non-selective, so care must be taken to target only the pest wasp and not to impact other beneficial insects.
Contact sprays do not offer population-level control for wasps; diligent sanitation and early seasonal queen
trapping are the only known methods to effectively reduce populations of stinging wasps in open
landscapes.
7.7.2 TICKS
The western black-legged tick (Ixodes pacificus) is a native arachnid (i.e., spider relative) that is very common in
grasslands, scrub, and woodlands throughout District lands. Black-legged ticks are common parasites of native
mammals such as deer, but they can also be problematic parasites of District visitors and staff. To complete their
life cycles, ticks must feed on blood and for this reason can also be dangerous vectors that can transmit blood-
borne diseases such as Rocky Mountain spotted fever, Lyme disease, and tularemia (CDC 2013b). Ticks are an
important part of the natural environment and are present on District lands in abundance. Due to their
prevalence in naturally occurring deer populations that move through District lands, eradication of ticks in
natural areas is impossible; however, some level of preventative control may be warranted in high visitor use
areas in and around recreational facilities and buildings. Ticks can be especially problematic indoors where field
staff work and store clothing; staff returning from field work can unknowingly introduce ticks into buildings
where they can be transmitted to unsuspecting office workers.
PEST MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES FOR TICKS
Prevention
In high visitor use areas, regularly cut or mow alongside trails and picnic areas to reduce the chance of
visitors and staff picking up ticks. Ticks often summit tall grass blades and shrub branches to “catch” or
brush against a passing animal. Keeping vegetation cut low and pruned reduces the opportunities for ticks to
utilize this strategy in areas with high pedestrian use.
Post tick educational materials in District offices and at major trailheads and parking areas.
Attachment 1
IPM for Recreation Facilities Ascent Environmental
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
7-10 Integrated Pest Management Guidance Manual
Regularly vacuum carpeted areas where District employees work.
Ensure all exterior windows that open have tight-fitting insect screens to prevent ticks from gaining entry
from outside when windows are opened.
Physical Control
Install carbon dioxide traps daily to collect ticks in field offices where field staff regularly begin and end field
days. This may be especially effective in staff changing rooms where field clothes are shed, changed, and
stored.
Train staff to protect themselves from exposure by wearing light colored long-sleeved clothing, tucking pant
legs into socks and/or taping pant cuffs close to the body; performing regular inspections of clothing and
exposed areas such as the head and neck; and showering or bathing and inspecting their bodies as soon as
possible upon completion of work.
Post educational signs with the information above to help inform visitors of tick prevention and detection
strategies they can employ before and after using recreational facilities.
As ticks are found, remove and destroy individuals.
Chemical Control
No chemical control strategies are recommended for ticks.
7.7.3 NUISANCE ANIMALS
RATTLESNAKES
Rattlesnakes are the only type of venomous snake found in California. They are native to California and are
considered to be important predators that help keep rodent populations under control. Rattlesnakes are
generally extremely wary of humans and tend to shy away from human activities. They are not aggressive
towards humans unless cornered, surprised, or stepped-on. Occasionally, they can be considered nuisance pests
when they find themselves too close to recreational facilities, occupied buildings, or other areas where human
encounters are likely. Though important to the natural world, the threat of rattlesnake bites makes them
unwelcome pests in certain portions of District lands.
PEST MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES FOR RATTLESNAKES
Prevention
District field staff can protect themselves from rattlesnake bites during workdays by wearing high-top
leather boots and snake-resistant chaps or gaiters. Snake gaiters are also useful in preventing the dispersal
of non-native weed seeds, since weed seeds usually do not penetrate the gaiters.
Educational materials can warn visitors about rattlesnake hazards and suggest preventative actions such as
wearing protective clothing, as described above for District field staff.
Habitat Modification
Eliminate hiding places for snakes by trailheads and parking areas with brushing, removing rock and brush
piles near busy human use areas especially those with children, and filling cracks and holes in publicly
accessible buildings. Use stainless steel/bronze mesh or welded wire to plug/fill cracks and holes in the
exterior of buildings where snakes could gain entry.
Where rattlesnake sightings are common, manage recreational facilities during the spring and summer
months to reduce suitable habitat, and especially eliminate hiding places for snakes (e.g., brushing
Attachment 1
Ascent Environmental IPM for Recreation Facilities
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
Integrated Pest Management Guidance Manual 7-11
trailheads and parking areas, removing rock and brush piles, managing localized prey populations near
known snake problem area, filling cracks and holes in public accessible buildings).
Physical Control
Tongs and Funnel Traps. In certain areas (especially in structures and recreational facilities where humans
gather and there is potential for snakebites), the District may elect to capture and relocate, or eliminate
single problem snakes.
Using snake tongs, snake hooks or shovels, capture and relocate or eliminate problem rattlesnakes.
Captured rattlesnakes can be placed in a secure container for relocation in the preserve to suitable
habitat away from people. Occasionally, because of site conditions or the urgency of the situation, a
staff member or tenant may need to kill a rattlesnake with a shovel.
Funnel traps can be used to collect problem snakes. Traps must be checked daily to ensure that non-
target wildlife is not trapped accidentally.
Chemical Control
Currently there are no toxicants or fertility control agents available in California for rattlesnakes.
OTHER NATIVE AND DOMESTIC MAMMALS
See discussion of skunks, raccoons, opossum, and feral cats/dogs in Chapter 6 above.
7.7.4 VEGETATION MANAGEMENT OF TRAILS AND OTHER RECREATIONAL
FACILITIES
The majority of IPM activity associated with recreational facilities is annual brushing (i.e., pruning of vegetation
along roads and trails) which keeps them open for vehicular, horse, bicycle and human foot traffic, and
furthermore provides a buffer area to separate humans from pests like ticks, rattlesnakes and poison oak. The
District maintains guidelines for road and trail brushing that prescribe different treatments for different
vegetation types and slope conditions (District 2013). Mowers and saws may be used by District staff to
maintain grass and shrubs near roads and trails in short stature, limb up overhanging tree branches, and remove
dead or decadent vegetation. Wider strips of brushing occur along certain roads to provide access for
emergency vehicles.
The following section outlines typical vegetation management actions conducted in right of way areas on District
lands.
PEST MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES FOR VEGETATION RIGHTS-OF-WAY
Prevention
Prepare an annual treatment schedule for maintaining designated trail and roadside rights-of way based on
use and vegetation types. Mechanically mow and brush annually to prevent nuisance vegetation from
impeding roads and trails.
Habitat Modification
Where possible, pave trailheads, parking lots or other heavily used right-of-ways to reduce annual
maintenance needs.
Eliminate roads, trails, or other rights-of-ways that are determined to be redundant or not necessary.
Attachment 1
IPM for Recreation Facilities Ascent Environmental
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
7-12 Integrated Pest Management Guidance Manual
Physical Control
Manual/mechanical control treatment options include maintenance of existing recreational facilities within
District preserves via brushing and/or mowing:
Road and trail brushing. Mechanical mowing is used to prevent nuisance vegetation from impeding roads
and trails. Vegetation along approximately 600 miles of trails and roads is cut back to maintain an open
corridor for trail and road use. This work is primarily mechanical work done with brushcutters (a.k.a. weed-
whips), hedgers, chainsaws, poles saws, chippers, and tractor-operated mowers (mowing decks either pulled
by a tractor or attached to the tractor as part of an articulated arm). All roads are mowed one to four times
per year depending on the rainfall/vegetation growth in any one year. Most trails are mowed or brushcut on
an annual basis; some trails may need to be brushed up to four times a year if there is a lot of rain and it is a
trail heavily used by the public. Some more remote trails may not be brushed every year.
Parking lots, gates, and stiles. On an annual basis, a strip of land around 13 parking lots and 213 gates and
stiles in the preserves are sprayed to maintain an open area for parking and visibility. A few of the locations
are brushcut or mowed instead if they are large grassy areas or if there is water too close to allow spraying.
Islands in the middle of parking lots or parking lots with narrow grassy edges are mowed.
Miscellaneous recreational areas. A few miscellaneous recreational areas are mowed one to five times a
year with a tractor pulling a mowing deck. This includes a model airplane field and three meadow areas
along Rogue Valley Trail maintained at Rancho San Antonio Open Space Preserve (OSP), the picnic table area
at the top of Anniversary Trail on Windy Hill OSP, and the hang gliding take off and landing areas at the top
and bottom of Spring Ridge Trail of Windy Hill OSP. In addition, special events occur in the preserves each
year (i.e.,Volunteer Recognition Event, summer camps, and other public gatherings) that require mowing of
grassy areas. At Deer Hollow Farm in Rancho San Antonio OSP, pastures, animal pens and the Ohlone village
are mowed four to five times per year with a tractor mower or brushcutters.
Campsite. The Black Mountain campsite is mowed once a year to provide a comfortable camping experience
and to reduce the risk of wildfire encroaching either into or out of the campground.
Pond Viewing Areas and Dams. At some ponds, aquatic and terrestrial vegetation is managed at viewing
areas and on dams. Windows of cattails and other tall wetland vegetation are removed in small select areas
to allow public viewing of these water bodies. The California Division of Dam Safety requires all woody
material be removed and tall herbaceous vegetation be cut on both faces of certain pond dams to improve
visibility to see possible failure hazards. Vegetation on the water side of the dam is clipped with mowers and
brush cutters; vegetation on the dry side of the dam is controlled with mowers and selective use of
herbicides to maintain a light grassy vegetation cover. Woody vegetation is cut in pond spillway to prevent
blockage of water flow. Duckweed or azola (aquatic fern) skimming has been done, with limited success, to
control these plants from covering the entire surface of some ponds. Downed trees that have fallen in a
pond can require removal for aesthetic or other management reasons.
Streambed Alteration. The District follows conditions of an annual routine maintenance Streambed
Alteration Agreement from CDFW for manual/mechanical vegetation management activities located within
CDFW’s jurisdiction.
Hazard and downed trees. An estimated 50 to 150 hazard and downed trees are limbed or removed every
year with chainsaws, pole saws and chippers because they are blocking roads, trails and parking lots or are
otherwise hazardous to visitors, staff, tenants or contractors They may be alive or dead. Stumps of live trees
may be treated with herbicide to prevent re-growth.
Attachment 1
Ascent Environmental IPM for Recreation Facilities
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
Integrated Pest Management Guidance Manual 7-13
Chemical Control
Chemical control is typically not used for right-of-way clearing unless perennial plants require permanent
treatment. For example, some problem vegetation, such as poison oak, can be eliminated from specific locations
with spot application of herbicides.
Glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup CustomTM (previously sold as AquamasterTM), is a broad-
spectrum non-selective systemic herbicide used to control a wide variety of plants, including annual
broadleaf weeds, grasses, perennials, and woody plants. It is absorbed through foliage and translocated to
growing points. Glyphosate’s mode of action is to inhibit an enzyme involved in the synthesis of aromatic
amino acids, making it effective on all herbaceous and woody growing plants. It is a rather slow-acting
herbicide with symptoms typically appearing with a week, including yellowing and stunting a young leaves
and growing points, however it may take up to several weeks for a plant to die.
Imazpyr, the active ingredient in PolarisTM (previously sold as HabitatTM), is a non-selective herbicide used to
control a broad range of weeds including grasses, broadleaf herbs, woody plants, riparian plants, and
emergent aquatic species. Imazapyr has a similar mode of action as glyphosate but acts on a different suite
of essential amino acids. Imazapyr is absorbed by leaves and roots, and moves to growing points; it disrupts
protein synthesis and interferes with cell growth and DNA synthesis, plants die as a result of AHS inhibition.
To be effective on aquatic plants, the majority of plant parts must be accessible above the waterline.
Imazapyr can be useful for difficult-to-control species when glyphosate is less effective, and with much
lower application rates.
Attachment 1
IPM for Recreation Facilities Ascent Environmental
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
7-14 Integrated Pest Management Guidance Manual
This page intentionally left blank.
Attachment 1
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
Integrated Pest Management Guidance Manual 8-1
8 IPM FOR FUEL MANAGEMENT
8.1 DEFINITION AND PURPOSE
This management category addresses IPM as it affects staff selection of options for required and ongoing
maintenance of fuel management activities. Fuel management is the practice of removing or modifying
vegetation to reduce the risk of wildfire ignitions, rates of wildfire spread, and fire intensity.
The District aims to manage fuels in a context that supports the maximum safety to adjacent human
communities while also allowing fire as a natural process to maintain native species diversity on its preserves.
The wildland urban interface (WUI) is the meeting point between wildland vegetation (i.e., fuels) and structures.
The WUI warrants fuel management consideration because it is the area where there is the most threat of
damage to human life and property. Other important areas to control flammable vegetation on District lands
include access roads on and adjacent to District lands that are necessary for emergency access.
Fuel management is the practice of removing or modifying vegetation to reduce wildfire ignitions, rate of fire
spread, and fire intensity. Changing the continuity of the vegetation, and reducing its volume are the two
primary actions in fuel management. Preventative treatment actions may include temporary trail or equipment
closures during fire season.
This chapter is not intended to replace a Fuel Management Plan, nor does it present the full range of fire risk
management options available on District preserves.
No new major fuel breaks or fuel management activities on District lands would be implemented as part of the
IPMP. The use of prescribed burns to restore natural conditions in preserves would also not be permitted as an
option under the proposed IPMP. The IPMP would provide guidance to District staff in selecting the safest, least
toxic, and most effective options to maintain existing fuel management activities. Consistent with current
activities on District lands, the District’s fuel management activities would first consider health, human safety,
and regulatory requirements for local and state fire codes, and then balance these requirements with the
District’s goals to protect natural resources. For example, defensible space around structures is required and
regulated under the Uniform Building Code, Uniform Fire Code, Public Resources Code Section 4291/4119, and
County and City municipal codes and ordinances).
8.2 TYPE OF PESTS
In the context of IPM, vegetation at the WUI and vegetation around structures that could contribute to large,
uncontrolled wildfires is considered a potential “pest” that may warrant control, depending on site-specific
circumstances.
8.3 PEST IDENTIFICATION
Vegetation may be considered a pest where it becomes overabundant, decadent or exceptionally close to
facilities, structures, and communities that people inhabit and use. At the same time, fire is a natural component
of many common plant communities in the District and helps to maintain species diversity of native grasslands,
shrublands, and forests.
Attachment 1
IPM for Fuel Management Ascent Environmental
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
8-2 Integrated Pest Management Guidance Manual
8.4 MANAGING PLANT COMMUNITIES FOR FIRE SAFETY
The District is faced with the difficult task of protecting the natural values in their OSPs while also protecting the
adjacent metropolitan and rural communities of San Mateo, Santa Clara, and Santa Cruz counties from
catastrophic wildfires. These goals are sometimes mutually beneficial and they are sometimes mutually
exclusive. Frequent, intense wildfires can be destructive to native plants, wildlife, and people. Conversely, our
attempts to reduce or eliminate wildfire can also be destructive and this may have significant impacts on
biodiversity (Keeley 2006). Use of fuel breaks and other fuel management techniques that disturb large areas
can significantly change the composition of native vegetation or eliminate species altogether and help to spread
and establish invasive weeds throughout natural areas.
In a natural burn cycle in shrublands and forests, recovering vegetation is less susceptible to repeat fires for
several years after the initial burn (Minnich 2001, Pyne et.al, 1996). The lush new growth of resprouting species
is supported by existing deep root systems that help reduce the plants’ flammability by maintaining high
moisture content in the above-ground growth. Shrub and tree species are also generally separated by bare
ground or short statured annual forbs that will not carry a fire over the larger landscape. Once invasive annuals
are introduced into this natural scenario, the dynamics change dramatically. The increased abundance of these
annual grasses and forbs in turn support increased ignition potential almost immediately following the initial
burn (Whisenant 1990). This in turn drives an even more increased fire frequency until shrubs and trees are
completely eliminated from the system altogether, leaving only weedy annual grasslands in their wake. This has
been described as a “grass-fire cycle” (D’Antonio and Vitousek 1992).
Fuel management is a complex process that must balance the needs of human communities with natural
resource goals. It is unrealistic to think that natural vegetation communities can be managed to create fire-safe,
wildfire resilient vegetation that also supports high natural biodiversity (Zedler 1995). Given that the District’s
lands are all fire prone, the best option for managing fire risk is to focus active management in the wildland-
urban interface where fire safety is needed most – adjacent to human communities. Because early successional
landscapes contain less biomass and are more resistant to fire, targeted management of plant succession in
early-successional brushlands and woodlands can be an effective fire management strategy.
8.5 PREVENTION
Preventive treatment actions include temporary trail closures or adjustment in equipment use during some high
fire hazard conditions. In addition, the following actions may also be considered to prevent vegetation from
becoming a fire risk:
Focus fuel management activities in WUI areas adjacent to neighborhood communities, structures, and
other at-risk assets.
Work with local fire organizations to amplify results by encouraging neighbors to also manage adjoining
properties for fire (reduce fuel loads) within the WUI.
Conduct visitor and neighbor outreach and education about wildfire dangers on and near District preserves.
Eliminate any redundant, unnecessary, or high maintenance roads and trails that are determined to be not
necessary on individual District preserves.
Continue to control flammable invasive plants such as French broom in established fuel management areas.
Encourage the establishment of native plant communities (which are more resistant to wildfires than
invasive plants such as French broom).
Attachment 1
Ascent Environmental IPM for Fuel Management
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
Integrated Pest Management Guidance Manual 8-3
The following management approach is recommended to help promote high diversity natural vegetation
communities that are relatively fire safe.
Focus vegetation biomass reduction on non-native vegetation and avoid damaging native grasses, and
mature shrublands and forests wherever possible. Where active treatment is needed, seek to break the
vertical fuel ladder connection between the ground and the canopy layer, and create some horizontal
physical separation between plants where possible. Prioritize projects where invasive plant removal alone
can result in fire-safe landscapes.
Implement fuel management projects with low impact tools and methods such as hand cutting and pruning
rather than vegetation removal or soil disturbance with hand methods or machines. Although managing
woody plant communities can reduce fuel volume, increased disturbance resulting from the active
management can counteract the process by promoting the establishment of invasive plants and reducing
native plant diversity (Lavin et al. 2013, Keeley 2002). Hand cutting and pruning is not feasible on a large
scale because it takes too long across large areas and can result in injuries to staff doing this kind of work
over extended periods of time.
Prioritize leaving forest duff and organic soil layers undisturbed in all fuel management actions.
Avoid removing/thinning the canopy layer in mature, established forests and woodlands to maximize
shading (thereby promoting shade and related increased moisture under the canopy level) and increase
resistance to non-native plant invasion.
8.6 TOLERANCE LEVELS
Consistent with current activities on District lands, the District’s tolerance for vegetation that poses a fire risk
would first consider health, human safety, and regulatory requirements for local and state fire codes, and then
balance these requirements with the District’s goals to protect natural resources. For example, defensible space
around structures is required and regulated under the Uniform Building Code, Uniform Fire Code, Public
Resources Code Section 4291/4119, and County and City municipal codes and ordinances).
Refer to Table 8-1 for management thresholds, and potential treatment options for fuel management presented
by type of vegetation.
Table 8-1 Management Thresholds and Treatment Options for Wildfire Management Pests
Pest Category Management Threshold
(Population Size/Conditions) Treatment
Grasslands
Site-specific management
needs are determined based on
proximity to developed areas
that could be damaged by fire,
proximity of ignition sources,
current fuel loads within the
site, and weather conditions.
Annual mowing in summer to reduce fuel loads, especially near
likely ignition sources (trails, roads, recreational facilities, and
parking lots).
Shrublands (coastal
scrub, chaparral)
Thin brush and mow tall grasses to reduce fuel loads and break
fuel ladders. In shrublands, increase spacing between shrub
clusters.
Forests Limb up trees to a height of 8 to10 feet, thin brush, and mow tall
grasses to reduce fuel loads and break fuel ladders.
Agricultural
Landscapes
Mowing and brush thinning along roads that could provide
ignition sources for adjacent natural areas.
Discing along borders of agricultural and rangeland properties to
ensure fires do not spread beyond different management units.
Conservation grazing reduces fuel loads.
Attachment 1
IPM for Fuel Management Ascent Environmental
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
8-4 Integrated Pest Management Guidance Manual
8.7 TREATMENT OPTIONS
8.7.1 PHYSICAL CONTROL
Use tractor, truck, and hand mowers to cut or disc vegetation along roads, trails and borders.
Limb up trees to a height of 8 to 10 feet, thin brush, and mow tall grasses to reduce fuel loads and break fuel
ladders in high risk fire areas.
Target control of invasive species such as French broom that are known to form dense, highly flammable
brush stands.
If they appear to be a wildland fire hazard, woodrat nests within 100 feet of buildings will be moved after
consultation with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife. Refer to treatment options under the
Buildings section.
Additional details on physical control options are provided below, presented by the type of work that staff
routinely conduct on District preserves.
DISC LINES
Disc lines are a type of mechanical fuel treatment that utilize an agricultural cultivator attachment for a tractor
to cut and overturn many parallel small trenches in the soil 6 to 12 inches deep. A disc line is typically placed
along the perimeter of undeveloped land, ranches, and roadways. The District would continue to maintain 31
miles of disc lines on its land annually as required by local fire agencies. Occasional trimming of overhanging
branches with a chainsaw or pole pruner would also be undertaken along disc lines where needed to allow
passage of the tractor. Brush encroaching into disc lines is removed with chainsaws, boom flails, and mowing or
masticator equipment. Discing is only practical in grassland vegetation types that do not contain many woody
shrub or tree species. The intent of discing is to create small swaths of barren soil that do not support fuel or
conduct fire. This technique has limited applications in reducing fire risk in natural areas because the soil
disturbance associated with this technique is known to encourage establishment of invasive plants such as
invasive annual plants, often exacerbating the fuel load problem. Disc lines are more temporary than shaded
fuel breaks (described below), but offer the advantage of being a rougher surface that is less prone to soil
erosion (Amphion Environmental 1995). Discing requires annual maintenance to be effective, and once
cultivation modifies native soil, must be done in perpetuity to manage invasive weeds thereafter.
SHADED FUEL BREAKS
Shaded fuel breaks is a forest management strategy that requires selective thinning and removal of the more
flammable understory vegetation while leaving the majority of larger, more fire tolerant tree species in place.
On District lands, a shaded fuel break is maintained along Monte Bello Road in Monte Bello OSP. Maintenance of
the fuel break along the road includes annual mowing in grasslands adjacent to the road, clearance of brush and
all dead vegetation, and removal of ladder fuels to the canopy in forested areas. Manual and mechanical tools
used for these activities include tractors, brushcutters, chainsaws, chippers, masticators, and/or a JAWZ
implement.
CLEARING AROUND BUILDINGS
Manual and mechanical clearing of flammable vegetation to provide defensible space occurs on an annual basis
around an estimated 117 structures by District staff or by residential, commercial or agricultural/rangeland
tenants. This work consists of manual and/or tractor mowing, brushcutting, chainsaw work, pole pruning,
chipping, masticator and spraying depending on the site conditions and generally occurs within 100 feet of the
Attachment 1
Ascent Environmental IPM for Fuel Management
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
Integrated Pest Management Guidance Manual 8-5
structures although some jurisdictions require clearing within 30 feet of a property boundary or other additional
precautions. The District developed Defensible Space Clearing Guidelines that it adheres by (refer to Appendix C
of this EIR). The required amount of clearance for defensible space can vary depending on the Fire District
jurisdiction that a parcel falls within. Implementation of the proposed IPMP would not result in any changes to
the District’s Wildfire Management Policy (District 2012, 76-84) or defensible space requirements (District, local,
or state) on or adjacent to District lands. As needed to control fire risk, staff should consult local authorities to
update and improve preserve-specific guidelines for clearing around buildings.
EMERGENCY HELICOPTER LANDING ZONES
Emergency helicopter zones are maintained annually or bi-annually via mowing with a tractor or brushcutter at
39 locations on District lands. As needed, encroaching brush is mechanically removed using a chainsaw or JAWZ
implement.
TRAIL AND ROAD BRUSHING
Trail and road brushing is an activity undertaken to facilitate visitor recreation and safety. Refer to discussion
above, IPM For Recreational Facilities, for a more detailed discussion of mechanical and manual treatments used
to maintain trails and roads.
DRIVEWAYS
Driveways to residences and other key structures receive additional treatment for ingress and egress in a
fire emergency. Vegetation would be maintained to minimize flame length:
Within 10 feet of the road edge where flames are predicted to be 0-8 feet in length (generally grassy
locations and in oak woodlands)
Within 30 feet of the road edge where flames are predicted to be over 8 feet in length (generally brushy
locations and where understory shrubs are developed in woodlands)
Occasionally, controlling invasive plants as described in the Natural Areas section below also provide fire
management benefits by removing dense, highly flammable brush stands such as French broom.
8.7.2 CHEMICAL CONTROL
Chemical control is used for fuel management directly adjacent to structures as required and in some high risk
fire areas where perennial plants are not responding to manual or mechanical treatments and require
permanent treatment. Chemical control treatment options for fuel management include:
Glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup CustomTM (previously sold as AquamasterTM), is a broad-
spectrum non-selective systemic herbicide used to control a wide variety of plants, including annual
broadleaf weeds, grasses, perennials, and woody plants. It is absorbed through foliage and translocated to
growing points. Glyphosate’s mode of action is to inhibit an enzyme involved in the synthesis of aromatic
amino acids, making it effective on all herbaceous and woody growing plants. It is a rather slow-acting
herbicide with symptoms appearing with a week, including yellowing and stunting a young leaves and
growing points, however it may take up to several weeks for a plant to die.
Imazapyr, the active ingredient in PolarisTM (previously sold as HabitatTM), is a non-selective herbicide used
to control a broad range of weeds including grasses, broadleaf herbs, woody plants, riparian plants, and
emergent aquatic species. Imazapyr has a similar mode of action as glyphosate but acts on a different suite
of essential amino acids. Imazapyr is absorbed by leaves and roots, and moves to growing points; it disrupts
protein synthesis and interferes with cell growth and DNA synthesis, plants die as a result of AHS inhibition.
To be effective on aquatic plants, the majority of plant parts must be accessible above the waterline.
Attachment 1
IPM for Fuel Management Ascent Environmental
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
8-6 Integrated Pest Management Guidance Manual
Imazapyr can be useful for difficult-to-control species when glyphosate is less effective, and with much
lower application rates.
Chemical options should be applied in the following situations:
WUI Areas and Defensible Space. To meet legal requirements (District, local, and/or state) for defensible
space, flammable vegetation may be spot sprayed annually within the inner 30 feet of land surrounding a
structure with glyphosphate in addition to mowing within this area. Trees or large shrubs that require
removal within the inner 30 feet of defensible space are typically treated by cut-stump method with
glyphosphate to permanently remove them from this high hazard zone. For example, some native
resprouting brush species that are also known to be flammable, such as coyote brush and chamise, can be
eliminated from proximity to buildings with cut-stump or spot spraying. Spraying around buildings further
avoids having to run a brushcutter blade against or around buildings, fences, pipes, rocks, and other
obstacles that can be a fire hazard by causing sparks.
Disc lines. Although brush encroaching into disc lines is primarily removed with chainsaws (as discussed
above), more stubborn woody plants may require treatment with herbicides by cut-stump method with
glyphosphate or imazapyr).
Shaded fuel breaks. Use of glyphosphate in a cut-stump method is used to maintain fuel breaks that contain
decadent woody vegetation.
Attachment 1
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
Integrated Pest Management Guidance Manual 9-1
9 IPM FOR RANGELANDS AND AGRICULTURAL PROPERTIES
9.1 DEFINITION AND PURPOSE
Some District lands encompass rangelands, crop fields, and orchards that are actively managed as grazing or
agricultural operations. Rangeland and agriculture activities on District preserves are primarily managed by
lessees who typically operate under a Rangeland Management Plan or Agricultural Management Plan that is
attached to their lease. These site-specific management plans guide the rangeland and agricultural activities to
ensure compatibility with natural resource protection and low-intensity public recreation.
This IPMP does not replace the requirements of the individual range or agricultural management plans, nor does
it present the full range of agricultural or range management options. Rather, it seeks to provide staff with tools
that are consistent with IPM principles to select the safest, least harmful, and most effective treatment options
for rangeland and agricultural pests.
9.2 RANGELANDS
IPM in rangelands focuses on maintaining land uses (e.g., grazing) while also managing for the long-term
functioning and stability of high value natural resources (e.g., grasslands, creeks) that surround the rangelands
and agriculture. This requires landscape level monitoring to determine when pests such as agricultural pests and
invasive plants are present in sufficient numbers to reduce the intended land uses or quality of the managed
habitats.
The District established a Conservation Grazing Program in February 2007 with the goal of managing District
land with livestock grazing that is protective of natural resources, compatible with public access, maintaining or
enhancing the diversity of native plant and animal communities, managing vegetation fuel for fire protection,
helping to sustain the local agricultural economy, and preserve or foster appreciation for the region’s rural
agricultural heritage.
By 2015, a total of 10 properties, totaling over 10,800 acres, is projected to be managed with livestock grazing.
Stocking rates and either year-round or seasonal grazing are prescribed for each property based on site-specific
factors such as soil fertility, terrain, plant composition, water availability, and available infrastructure. Typical
vegetation pests on rangelands include thistles, Harding and velvet grass, poison hemlock and encroaching
brush.
The IPM Coordinator is responsible for reviewing Rangeland Management Plans and periodically reviewing
existing rangeland practices to make sure they are implemented using current IPM practices outlined herein,
and, if pesticides are used, follow the District’s list of approved pesticides.
9.2.1 TYPES OF RANGELAND PESTS
Typical pests on rangelands include weeds poisonous to livestock or otherwise detrimental to productive
pastures, primarily invasive thistles, Harding and velvet grass, poison hemlock and encroaching brush.
9.2.2 PEST IDENTIFICATION IN RANGELANDS
Because the extent of grassland communities on District lands are so large and interconnected with leased
rangeland properties, rangeland pests are inherently difficult to detect. The District will assess a subset of
Attachment 1
IPM for Rangelands and Agricultural Properties Ascent Environmental
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
9-2 Integrated Pest Management Guidance Manual
grasslands in and adjacent to leased rangelands on a routine basis to detect problem pests (most commonly to
be conducted during a lease renewal or establishment of a new lease). Monitoring rangelands should focus on:
Sites most likely for pests to invade (e.g., corrals and areas around water troughs and feed stations);
High value areas (e.g., grassland areas that support special-status species).
Map pests of concern, record in the District’s Pest Database, and evaluate.
9.2.3 TOLERANCE LEVELS IN RANGELANDS
Determining tolerance levels for pests in grazing lands is largely done by the grazing lessee, in consultation with
District staff and rangeland experts. Active pest management would only occur where the lessee determines
that tolerance level for a pest is exceeded- for example, where livestock forage quality is severely reduced,
resulting in a loss of livestock production value. In some limited instances, the District may assess leased grazing
land pests and determine a tolerance level, for example, when the presence of the pest is a target invasive
species or particularly if it threatens the persistence of a special-status species or other high value area. Refer to
Table 9-1 for an overview of management thresholds and treatment options available for use on District
rangelands.
Table 9-1 Management Thresholds and Treatment Options for Rangeland Pests
Pest Category Management Threshold
(Population Size/Conditions) Treatment
Grasslands
Site-specific management
needs are determined by lessee
and District in Rangeland
Management Plans based on
assessment of rangeland
condition, type of livestock to
be used, and stocking
rates/seasons of use. District to
work with individual rangeland
lessees when rangeland forage
values decrease such that
stocking rates decline, and or
when lessees identify pests that
warrant control.
Lessee to monitor forage values in grasslands. In coordination
with District, lessee responsible for detection, District
notification, and control of rangeland pests such as French
broom and invasive thistles that lower value of forage and
grassland habitat.
Shrublands (coastal
scrub, chaparral)
Lessee to monitor brush encroachment in grasslands. Lessee to
work with District to thin brush in grasslands when brush
encroachment significantly reduces value of forage and grassland
habitat. In shrublands, increase spacing between shrub clusters.
9.3 AGRICULTURAL FARMS AND FIELDS
The purpose of IPM in on agricultural properties is to manage pests to maintain the specific land uses (e.g., crop
production), while also providing natural resource protection and visitor access. Agricultural pests that may be
encountered include weeds, pathogens and insects in croplands; and rodents in farm fields and buildings.
Two District properties contain agriculture fields. The Lobitos Ridge property consists of two crop fields
containing flowers and vegetables on seven acres of Purisima Creek Redwoods OSP and the Madonna Creek
Ranch property consists of 27 acres on Miramontes OSP on which a tenant cultivates dry farmed hay as well as
smaller irrigated areas for pumpkins and other truck crops.
Attachment 1
Ascent Environmental IPM for Rangelands and Agricultural Properties
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
Integrated Pest Management Guidance Manual 9-3
A draft Agriculture Production Plan has been prepared for the Lobitos property and includes the IPM approach
on District agriculture properties. It requires that best management practices (BMPs) as defined by the
University of California Cooperative Extension Service and the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service for
farm production be followed, and specifically, that IPM techniques, as defined by the crop specific University of
California Cooperative Extension Service are employed along with BMPs. Methods for control of weeds on the
site can be by mowing, grazing, flaming or the use of an approved herbicide.
Lessees operate a Christmas tree farm and chestnut orchard at Skyline Ridge OSP and a vineyard at Picchetti
OSP. A historic fruit orchard is maintained by District staff and volunteers on the Stevens Canyon property. The
City of Mountain View operates an educational farm located in the Rancho San Antonio OSP that offers classes
and camps for thousands of schoolchildren in farm, garden, native peoples and history.
The IPM Coordinator is responsible for reviewing existing Agricultural Production Plans and periodically
reviewing existing agricultural practices to make they are implemented using current IPM practices outlined
herein and, if pesticides are used, follow the District’s list of approved pesticides. As new agricultural lands are
acquired, District staff will help draft new Agricultural Production Plans that follow the procedures outlined in
this Guidance Manual.
9.3.1 TYPES OF AGRICULTURAL PESTS
Insect management in field crops is very specific to the type of crop grown. Because the District has few
properties that currently support row crops, agriculture insect pest management for agricultural fields is not
covered under the IPMP but would be covered in future Agriculture Management Plans and incorporated into
the IPMP.
9.3.2 REGULATED AGRICULTURAL PESTS
Though the definition of a ‘pest’ can depend on perspective and location, some species are regulated as various
types of pests by state and federal laws. Plants classified as ‘Noxious’ are regulated by the California Department
of Food and Agriculture (CDFA) and the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). Wildlife species
classified as ‘Injurious’ are regulated by the CDFW and United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). Other
species that transmit diseases may be regulated by local, state, or federal health departments. Regulated pests
pose a risk to the environment, public health, or economic resources. Many times the acceptable IPM tolerance
level of regulated pests is zero, so that any detected individual initiates a management action. These are species
that the District has a legal responsibility to control per state and federal laws and regulations though control is
often conducted by other agencies.
9.3.3 PEST IDENTIFICATION IN AGRICULTURAL FARMS AND FIELDS
Due to the limited number of agricultural lands on District property, pest identification is the responsibility of
the lessee, who is to report significant pest infestations to the District. Once pests are reported, they should be
mapped and recorded in the District’s Pest Database, and evaluated for their impacts to the surrounding natural
areas.
9.3.4 TOLERANCE LEVELS IN AGRICULTURAL FARMS AND FIELDS
Active pest management would only occur where tolerance levels are exceeded- for example, where agricultural
crop production is greatly reduced, or where the presence of the pest threatens the persistence of a special-
status species occurring in adjacent areas. Refer to Table 9-2 for an overview of management thresholds and
treatment options available for use on District rangelands.
Attachment 1
IPM for Rangelands and Agricultural Properties Ascent Environmental
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
9-4 Integrated Pest Management Guidance Manual
Table 9-2 Management Thresholds and Treatment Options for Agricultural Pests
Pest Category Management Threshold
(Population Size/Conditions) Treatment
Agricultural Insect
Pests
Site-specific management
needs to be determined by
lessee and District in individual
Agricultural Management Plans
based on assessment of farm
and field conditions, type of
crops, and anticipated crop
yields. District to work with
individual rangeland lessees
when crop yields decrease such
that economic damage or
environmental damage warrant
control.
Lessee to monitor insect damage of crops. Agriculture insect pest
management to be addressed in future Agriculture Management
Plans. Staff and tenants to consult crop-specific IPM guidebooks
published by University of California Davis -
http://www.ipm.ucdavis.edu for both organic and conventional
crop production and include pest management actions in the
Agricultural Management Plan for individual parcels.
Rodents and Other
Nuisance Pests in
Agricultural Areas
Lessee to monitor rodent damage. In coordination with District,
lessee responsible for detection, District notification, and control
of problem rodents in farm buildings or crop fields using
procedures in the Buildings section above (Chapter 6).
Invasive Plants in
Agricultural farms and
fields
Cultural Control Options:
Crop Rotation
Cover Crops and Smother Crops
Late-Season Planting
Planting Rates and Crop Density
Water and Nutrient Management
Crop Variety Selection
Covering/soil Sterilization
Mulching
Soil Sterilization
Physical Control Options:
Mowing
Pulling
Green Flaming,
Mulching
Use Of Weedmats
Hoeing
Discing
Cultivating with tractor implements
Chemical Control Options:
To be determined by lessee and District in Agricultural
Management Plans. Staff and tenants to consult crop-
specific IPM guidebooks published by University of California
Davis - http://www.ipm.ucdavis.edu for both organic and
conventional crop production and include pest management
actions in the Agricultural Management Plan for individual
parcels.
Attachment 1
Ascent Environmental IPM for Rangelands and Agricultural Properties
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
Integrated Pest Management Guidance Manual 9-5
9.4 PREVENTION
Using existing Rangeland Management Plans and Agricultural Management Plans, the District will work with
lessees to encourage management practices that prevent the establishment of pest species. Prevention
strategies for District lands in agricultural production may include:
During development of new Agricultural Management Plans, encourage lessees to keep lands healthy
through soil management, proper irrigation, and by providing sufficient habitat (refugia) for natural insect
pest predators (natural enemies) in and near crop production areas.
During development of new Agricultural Management Plans, and as practical, incorporate good stewardship
practices such as rotational cropping, integrating annuals into perennial crops (such as Christmas tree
farms), implementing no-till cropping, and, where possible, promoting organic farming practices to reduce
annual disturbance and increase farm biodiversity (Coll 2004).
During acquisition planning for new preserve lands, encourage landscape mosaics (i.e., plan for a mixture of
natural and agricultural or grazing lands) to help maintain natural pest predator populations.
During lease renewal periods, monitor pest invasions at the edges of agricultural and grazing lands,
especially in and near roads, trails, and fuel breaks. Determine if tolerance thresholds are exceeded (both in
and adjacent to leased lands), and develop pest control requirements accordingly in the new lease
requirements.
During preparation of new Rangeland Management Plans and lease renewals, monitor livestock feeding
locations, corrals, watering troughs and livestock feeding for pests. Consider rotational grazing, changing
livestock stocking rates and/or requiring different types of grazing animals to prevent spread of pests and to
promote healthy, diverse grassland areas.
9.5 TREATMENT OPTIONS
Working with lessees, the District will determine a site-specific solution that meets the needs of the lessee,
maintains natural resource values and District lands, and addresses the identified pest issue. The general steps
involved in implementing IPM in rangelands and agricultural properties are similar, but not identical to those
described for buildings and natural areas, and generally include the actions described below.
9.5.1 STRUCTURAL PEST CONTROL
MECHNICAL CONTROL OPTIONS
Mechanical control treatment options for rangeland and agricultural properties on District lands include:
Rodents. For rodents in farm buildings or crop fields, refer to the procedures for controlling rodents under
the Buildings section above (Chapter 6).
CHEMICAL CONTROL OPTIONS
Chemical control treatment options for rangeland and agricultural properties on District lands include:
Rodents. For rodents in farm buildings or crop fields, refer to the procedures for controlling rodents under
the Buildings (Chapter 6) and Natural Areas sections (Chapter 10), respectively.
Attachment 1
IPM for Rangelands and Agricultural Properties Ascent Environmental
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
9-6 Integrated Pest Management Guidance Manual
9.5.2 INVASIVE INSECTS
Because the District has few properties that currently support row crops, agriculture insect pest management
for agricultural fields is not covered under the IPMP. If new pesticides are proposed for agricultural insects, they
will be evaluated, included in future Agriculture Management Plans, an environmental review will be conducted,
and the IPMP will be revised to include the new pesticide, new treatment method and any required precautions.
Staff and tenants should consult crop-specific IPM guidebooks published by University of California Davis -
http://www.ipm.ucdavis.edu for both organic and conventional crop production and include pest management
actions in the Agricultural Management Plan for individual parcels.
9.5.3 INVASIVE PLANTS
RANGELAND CONTROL OPTIONS
Consistent with existent management plans, grazing and agricultural lessees are allowed to control pests
through grazing, mowing, pulling and careful application of District-approved herbicides. Brush, commonly the
native coyote brush, limits the available forage for livestock, reduces grassland habitat areas and creates an
increased wildfire fuel load. Grazing tenants typically treat brush encroachment with herbicide and then use a
tractor and drag bar to break up dead vegetation for the following season.
Manual/mechanical control treatment options for invasive plants on rangelands include:
Mow/Cut. A brushcutter, disc, brushrake or other motorized cutting machine would be selected for mowing
of weeds and cutting of brush based on the size of the infestation. Most species would require repeated
cutting throughout the growing season (generally late spring through mid-summer) or they could re-sprout
from their base and continue to grow, flower, and produce seed. Mowing would be carefully timed
according to the phenology of each plant species to minimize the amount of re-sprouting and to avoid
spreading ripe seed. Mowing is a temporary measure that controls reproductive spread and can eventually
reduce populations of annual plants, but other subsequent treatments (e.g., pulling, herbicide) would be
necessary to eradicate perennial plants. Mowing cannot be used on steep slopes or in locations with
desirable native plants unless the timing of the mowing can be selected to affect only target plants.
Grazing Regime Modifications. Invasive plants can also be partially or fully controlled using carefully timed
grazing rotation, and or/ manipulating the types and seasons of grazing livestock (for example, using goats
instead of cattle to forage on invasive thistle species in spring before seed set). As described in Chapter 8,
Possible actions to be considered include:
changing types of livestock to include browsing livestock that eat shrubs (e.g., goats);
installing physical barriers (cross fencing);
controlling brush through hand or mechanical treatments;
applying pesticides in a specific location (e.g., directly onto individual plants or small patches of brush);
or
implementing a combination of mowing, foliar spraying, and hand removal (for very large brush
encroachments).
Chemical Control Treatment Options. Any of the herbicides approved under the IPM Program may be used
to treat weeds on rangelands or agricultural fields if cultural or mechanical methods are not effective.
Glyphosate will likely be the primary herbicide used on thistles and brush on rangelands, and for weeds in
agriculture fields and orchards.
Attachment 1
Ascent Environmental IPM for Rangelands and Agricultural Properties
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
Integrated Pest Management Guidance Manual 9-7
AGRICULTURAL FARM AND FIELD CONTROL OPTIONS
Cultural weed control includes crop rotations, water and nutrient management, late-season planting, and
cover/smothering crops (Smith 2000, Gunsolus et al. 2010). Cultural methods are the first line of defense in
weed management and primary tools for organic crop production. Manual/mechanical control treatment
options for invasive plants on agricultural lands include the following cultural, mechanical, and manual weed
control options:
Crop Rotation. Diversifying a rotation is one of the most effective tools against weeds. Over time, routine
planting and cultivation dates will select for weeds that are adapted to these strategies. Varying crops by
different planting date or growing perennial crops in rotation with row crops can prevent weeds from
adapting to the planting regimen.
Cover Crops and Smother Crops. Offseason cover crops and smother crops are effective strategies to
outcompete weeds. Cover crops occupy vacant space in an ordinarily fallow field and displace weeds that
would otherwise occupy the space. Some species also have allelopathic effects on weeds.
Smother crops are vigorously-growing crops that growers use to suppress weeds. Generally, a smother crop
is not harvested, but plowed down instead. The primary risk in using smother crops is that their
effectiveness in weed control may be inconsistent and unpredictable or they may become weeds
themselves.
Late-Season Planting. Delayed planting past the traditional planting times is an option in weed
management, but depending on growing season and crop, may also reduce crop yields. Later season
planting allows crop seedlings to bypass the competitive flush of weed seedlings and also allows for
additional time for mechanical weed control operations.
Planting Rates and Crop Density. Increasing the planting rate is another common strategy for weed
management. Higher crop densities can lead to greater competitiveness against weeds. In addition, higher
planting rates can compensate for crop losses that occur during mechanical weed control operations.
Water and Nutrient Management. Effective water and nutrient management can ensure crops benefit from
farming practices rather than weeds. Switching to drip irrigation from flood or broadcast styles, monitoring
nutrient requirements instead of blanket fertilization, timing compost applications, and burying irrigation
pipe may all help to reduce weed problems.
Crop Variety Selection. Selecting the proper variety of a specific crop that is best adapted for local
conditions can reduce the resources necessary for production and consequently reduce weed management
problems. If the crop is better adapted to local conditions than the weed, the site will favor the crop over
the weed.
Mechanical weed control. Mechanical weed control is the most widely used weed control method for
agriculture fields and can occur before, during, and after the crop is planted. This method includes primary
tillage, row crop cultivating tillage, use of mulches (i.e., plastic sheeting, straw, wood chips, and sawdust),
and/or soil sterilization techniques that use heat to kill weeds and weed seeds in soil. Passive sterilization
uses clear plastic tarps to foster the germination of weeds under the tarp and then exposes the seedlings to
hostile growing conditions and they perish and active sterilization uses extremely high temperature steam to
eliminate weed seeds and bulbs with direct contact. Both processes are expensive and require specialized
equipment and/or high labor output.
Attachment 1
IPM for Rangelands and Agricultural Properties Ascent Environmental
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
9-8 Integrated Pest Management Guidance Manual
Primary Tillage. Primary tillage is the initial step in seedbed preparation. It incorporates residues from the
previous crop and can incorporate compost, manures, and other nutrients. It buries some weed seeds so
deeply they cannot germinate, but it also brings other seeds to the surface allowing them greater
opportunity for germination. Tillage is best combined with a forced germination program, where multiple
tillage and watering events are coupled to force the germination of weeds and then eliminate them. The
timing of primary tillage will encourage different weed species to predominate so the farmer must time the
actions to correspond with the primary weed targets.
A fundamental aspect to consider in seed bed preparation is the concept of providing the crop with an “even
start.” An even start means controlling weeds that germinate before the crop germinates. Once seed bed
preparation is complete, the crop must be planted as soon as possible because if crop planting is delayed,
weeds can germinate and get a head start on the crop.
Cultivation. Row crop cultivating tillage is performed after the crop is planted. Cultivation kills weeds by
digging them out, burying them, breaking them apart, or drying them out. In addition to controlling weeds,
cultivation can break up soil crusting and thus can increase crop emergence, water infiltration,
mineralization of nutrients, and soil aeration during the growing cycle.
A short window of time usually exists for timely use of cultivation. Weeds that emerge before or with the
crop are the most critical to eliminate. Weeds that emerge after crop emergence will have less negative
impact on yield, but may still contribute to the weed seed bank for problems in future years. When it comes
to weeds that emerge with the crop, it is best to be proactive, rather than reactive. Waiting until weeds are
noticeable will limit the control options.
Mulches. Mulch is any artificial or natural soil cover. Plastic sheeting, straw, wood chips, and sawdust are all
common types of mulches for crop production. Mulches work by eliminating light availability to small
weeds. The larger the weed, the deeper the mulch needs to be for effective control. Mulches have the
added benefit of also conserving soil moisture and reducing soil erosion. Many organic types of mulch
ultimately decompose into necessary plant nutrients for the following growing season.
Sterilization. Soil sterilization uses heat to kill weeds and weed seeds in soil. Two types are common in
agriculture, 1) passive soil sterilization with clear plastic tarps and 2) active soil sterilization with injected
steam. Passive sterilization uses clear plastic tarps to foster the germination of weeds under the tarp and
then exposes the seedlings to hostile growing conditions and they perish. Active sterilization uses extremely
high temperature steam to eliminate weed seeds and bulbs with direct contact. Both processes are
expensive and require specialized equipment and/or high labor output.
Manual weed treatment. Specific manual weed treatment methods allowed under the Lobitos Agricultural
Management plan are mowing, pulling, flaming, mowing, mulching, weedmats, and hoeing.
Attachment 1
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
Integrated Pest Management Guidance Manual 10-1
10 IPM IN NATURAL LANDS
10.1 DEFINITION AND PURPOSE
Natural areas make up the majority of District lands, and typically experience minimal levels of human use. The
purpose of IPM in natural areas is to preserve and restore natural resources while also maintaining safe and
enjoyable human access for visitors and staff.
IPM in the District’s natural areas focuses primarily on the control of pests that threaten the long-term viability
of natural resources on District preserves. Pests that are commonly encountered on natural areas include
invasive plants and invasive animals, including regulated species (i.e., plants and wildlife that are regulated
under state and federal law or CDFW Code, and feral pets. The District spends the majority of its IPM
management efforts in natural areas on control of invasive plants.
Invasive plants are implicated in many natural resource and conservation problems and are considered by
most land managers to be a threat to their resource management goals. When transplanted to a foreign
landscape, invasive plants leave behind their associated predators, prey, and diseases that previously helped
to balanced their growth and abundance. In addition, many invasive plants have inherent biological traits
that allow them to rapidly reproduce and colonize new areas faster than the native plants of the invaded
habitat. Some of these invasive plants become problematic because of abundance – they displace native
species by outcompeting them for space and resources (CA Coastal Conservancy 2003, San Mateo County
1983, State of Washington 2003). Some invasive plants can alter ecosystem processes, such as reducing or
changing seasonal food sources for wildlife, hydrological patterns, fire regimes, or soil chemistry (Keeley
2006, D’Antonio 1992, Vitousek and Walker 1989).
The California Department of Food and Agriculture designates a plant species as a noxious weed if they find
it to be “troublesome, aggressive, intrusive, detrimental, or destructive to agriculture, silviculture, or
important native species, and difficult to control or eradicate” (CDFA 2014). The Department designates a
rating for each noxious weed species based on the present distribution of the pest within the state and the
likelihood that eradication or control efforts will be successful. The ratings are not laws, but are policy
guidelines that indicate the appropriate actions to take against pests. The District works closely with the
Agricultural Commissioners for San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties to address state-designated noxious
weeds on preserves. The California Invasive Plant Council maintains an Invasive Plant Inventory that rates
the threat of non-native plant species by evaluating their ecological impacts, invasive potential and
ecological distribution (Cal-IPC 2014). The Bay Area Early Detection Network along with the San Mateo
County Weed Management Area and the Santa Clara County Weed Management Area set regional priorities
for eradication of invasive plants in the San Francisco Bay Area, particularly those for which early action
could substantially reduce future risk (Cal-IPC 2009). District staff members are active with these
organizations and further apply local knowledge to evaluate the invasive risk of existing and new non-native
plants found on District preserves and to determine the best responses.
Invasive animals pose another threat to natural areas. Escaped/released domestic animals and other non-
native wildlife species can thrive in the favorable climate of the San Francisco peninsula. Once established in
a preserve, they compete for valuable resources and disturb the sensitive balance of natural food
webs. Bullfrogs and wild pigs are examples of invasive introduced animals found in District preserves that
physically displace or consume the native plants and wildlife that normally inhabit natural areas, or
otherwise alter natural processes.
Attachment 1
IPM in Natural Lands Ascent Environmental
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
10-2 Integrated Pest Management Guidance Manual
Wild (feral) pigs are an example of an invasive wildlife species with obvious impact on District lands. They
have been widespread in the central coast of California since about 1970, reproduce rapidly, dig up
meadows and wetlands, and carry diseases that can affect people and livestock. They eat acorns, bulbs, and
roots in soil, and are difficult to control. Feral pigs were abundant in the South Skyline region in the 1990s.
The District has been trapping feral pigs since 2000 and has substantially reduced their population and
damage from their rooting.
The management of invasive species may sometimes involve eradication (i.e., the removal of all of the pest
species, typically only achievable for new invasive species and small populations of pests), but more
common natural area management methods involve incremental reduction of pest numbers (control),
removal of individuals that have the greatest impact on critical resources, or the exclusion of a pest species
from a defined sensitive area (containment). Programs to control invasive plant and animal species often
require a long-term commitment. With many invasive species, short-term lapses in active management can
negate years of expensive control programs.
First steps in all invasive species management focus on preventing the establishment of any new pest
populations. Prevention or detection actions can minimize many invasive species problems in the future,
reducing the need for more active management and costly treatment methods. In the future, the pest
prevention tactics identified below will be based on minimizing dispersal or reacting quickly to new invasions
through anticipation and surveillance.
10.2 REGULATORY BACKGROUND
Invasive species are regulated to some extent by state and federal laws. The USDA, CDFA, USFWS, and CDFW all
regulate the importation, sale, transportation, and control of designated invasive species.
10.2.1 REGULATED WILDLIFE
Under the Lacey Act, the Secretary of the Interior is authorized to regulate the importation and transport of
species, including offspring and eggs, determined to be injurious to the health and welfare of humans, the
interests of agriculture, horticulture or forestry, and the welfare and survival of wildlife resources. Wild
mammals, birds, fish, mollusks, crustaceans, amphibians, and reptiles are the only organisms that can be added
to the injurious wildlife list. The current 2013 list includes 236 species, many of which are kept as pets around
the world (USFWS 2013). All species listed as injurious may not be imported or transported between states or
any United States territory without a permit issued by the USFWS. No injurious species of wildlife are currently
known to occur on District lands. The importation of any live amphibians from outside the United States (such as
bullfrogs imported from China) has been petitioned by environmental groups for inclusion on the list to prevent
the importation of the chytrid fungal pathogen. The USFWS is still reviewing the petition to list exotic
amphibians as injurious wildlife.
10.2.2 REGULATED PLANTS
Some species of invasive plants are regulated as noxious weeds by the CDFA and USDA. Because the two
agencies work cooperatively, California’s classification scheme is representative of both federal and state
regulations. CDFA currently lists 251 invasive plant species as noxious weeds (CDFA 2013a). Control actions are
determined by a ranking system based on a species’ threat to economic or environmental resources. The
following is California’s ranking system for invasive pest plant species:
Class A Noxious Weed – A pest of known economic or environmental detriment which is either not known
to be established in California or has limited distribution that allows for the possibility of eradication or
Attachment 1
Ascent Environmental IPM in Natural Lands
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
Integrated Pest Management Guidance Manual 10-3
successful containment. A-rated pests are prohibited from entering the state because, by virtue of their
rating, they have been placed on the Plant Health and Pest Prevention Services Director’s list of organisms
“detrimental to agriculture” in accordance with the FAC Sections 5261 and 6461. The only exception is for
organisms accompanied by a CDFA or USDA live organism permit for contained exhibit or research purposes.
If found entering or established in the state, A-rated pests are subject to state (or commissioner when acting
as a state agent) enforced action involving eradication, quarantine regulation, containment, rejection, or
other holding action.
Class B Noxious Weed – A pest of known economic or environmental detriment that, if present in California,
has a limited distribution. B-rated pests are eligible to enter the state if the receiving county has agreed to
accept them. If found in the state, they are subject to state endorsed holding action and eradication only to
provide for containment, as when found in a nursery. At the discretion of the individual county agricultural
commissioner they are subject to eradication, containment, suppression, control, or other holding action.
Class C Noxious Weed – A pest of known economic or environmental detriment that, if present in California,
is usually widespread. C-rated organisms are eligible to enter the state as long as the commodities with
which they are associated conform to pest cleanliness standards when found in nursery stock shipments. If
found in the state, they are subject to regulations designed to retard spread or to suppress at the discretion
of the individual county agricultural commissioner. There is no state enforced action other than providing
for pest cleanliness.
Class Q Noxious Weed – An organism or disorder suspected to be of economic or environmental detriment,
but whose status is uncertain because of incomplete identification or inadequate information.
10.3 TYPE OF PESTS
Pests in natural areas include invasive plants and invasive animals. This section presents an overview of IPM
practices presented by for each type of pest.
Traditional IPM concepts can be difficult to apply to invasive species. The ecosystems invaded by these species
normally do not support the same predators and parasites that may regulate the species populations in its
native range, so simply facilitating increased natural controls may not be effective. Modern IPM strategies for
invasive species emphasize use of standardized decision-making processes supported by science-based
understanding of invasive species biology and ecological interactions with their host environment. Tolerance
levels may vary greatly for invasive species; invasive species impacts range in severity and extent, and some
species may be so widespread or complexly woven into their host environment that control is not technically or
economically feasible. Monitoring is a critical part of the District’s IPM program; prevention and early
detection/eradication strategies can be implemented to prevent new invasive species pest problems before they
become unmanageable.
Programs to control invasive plant and animal species require long-term commitment. With many invasive
species, short-term lapses in management activity may negate years of expensive control programs. IPM is
considered an integral part of a strategy to efficiently and effectively control invasive species on District lands.
10.3.1 INVASIVE ANIMALS IN NATURAL LANDS
Invasive animal management in natural areas focuses on first modifying the behavior of humans or the habitat
of natural areas to moderate or eliminate invasive animal pest problems. After these prevention actions are
exhausted, invasive animal populations will be managed to a defined tolerance level. Tolerance levels focus
reducing the pest population down to a level that does not cause substantial harm to the natural resource; does
not cause severe economic harm; and/or does not cause disruption of natural processes or severe displacement
of native species. The District’s goal is to maintain the long-term stability and resiliency of its natural areas.
Attachment 1
IPM in Natural Lands Ascent Environmental
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
10-4 Integrated Pest Management Guidance Manual
State regulations concerning invasive animals are complex. Some invasive animals in California are regulated for
sport and commercial purposes (e.g., feral pigs and bull frogs), others expressly prohibited (e.g., northern pike
fish) and others are currently unregulated (e.g., snapping turtles and parrots). Some invasive wildlife species can
be difficult to manage where adjacent landowners manage the same species for sport or profit. The District
prioritizes specific invasive animals for management that have the greatest potential to impact natural areas.
Some regulated game species (e.g., feral pigs) must be controlled under special permits obtained from the
CDFW.
10.3.2 INVASIVE PLANTS IN NATURAL LANDS
The District has identified numerous species of invasive plant species present on District lands; 75 invasive plants
were observed in a study conducted in 2004 (see Table 10-1 below). The following section presents IPM
strategies for these target invasive plant species, organized by general life history (i.e., annual and biennial,
perennial, aquatic plants). Because there is a great diversity of invasive plant species managed on District lands,
specific treatments and management strategies must also take into account the life history traits of each species
in the context of its specific environment – the details of which cannot be outlined in a single document.
Ultimately, land managers, biologists, and pest control professionals must develop site-specific management for
individual projects and species, using the information provided in this manual and the District Invasive Plant
Control Handbook as guides. The District’s goal is to maintain the long-term stability and resiliency of its natural
areas.
10.4 PEST IDENTIFICATION
Pest identification for invasive plants and wildlife can be readily undertaken using existing District resources
such as invasive plant identification materials, and field guides. Staff should identify the pest to species, and
then investigate its life history and life cycle, and document the distribution, density, population size and
population structure (i.e., percentage of each population in immature, adult, and reproductive stages) within the
natural areas. Use the target pest list presented in Table 10-1 above as a starting point of identifying pests that
currently occur on District lands. New pest species may invade District lands over time: if the pest is not listed in
Table 10-1, staff should then do basic web searches to determine if the pest is regulated by statute, by which
agency it is regulated, or determine if it is an unregulated pest on District lands.
Table 10-1 Invasive Plant Species Documented as Present on the District Lands
Scientific Name Common Name Life Form Cal-IPC Invasive
Status (2014)
CDFA Rating
(2014)
Acacia baileyana cootamundra wattle Tree Watchlist Acacia dealbata silver wattle Tree or shrub Moderate Acacia melanoxylon blackwood acacia Tree Limited Aegilops cylindrica jointed goatgrass Annual herb Watchlist B
Aegilops triuncialis barbed goatgrass Annual herb High B
Ailanthus altissima tree of heaven Tree Moderate C
Arundo donax giant reed Perennial herb High B
Asphodelus fistulosus asphodel, onion weed Perennial herb Moderate–ALERT B
Brachypodium sylvaticum slender false brome Perennial herb Moderate–ALERT A
Brassica (nigra?) mustard Annual herb Moderate Carduus pycnocephalus Italian thistle Annual herb Moderate C
Carthamus lanatus woolly distaff thistle Annual herb Moderate B
Centaurea calcitrapa purple star-thistle Annual or Perennial herb Moderate B
Attachment 1
Ascent Environmental IPM in Natural Lands
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
Integrated Pest Management Guidance Manual 10-5
Table 10-1 Invasive Plant Species Documented as Present on the District Lands
Scientific Name Common Name Life Form Cal-IPC Invasive
Status (2014)
CDFA Rating
(2014)
Centaurea melitensis tocolate, Malta star-
thistle Annual herb Moderate C
Centaurea solstitialis yellow star-thistle Annual herb High C
Centaurea stoebe ssp. micranthus spotted knapweed Perennial herb High A
Cirsium vulgare bull thistle Biennial herb Moderate C
Conium maculatum poison hemlock Biennial herb Moderate Cortaderia jubata Jubata grass Perennial herb High B
Cortaderia selloana pampas grass Perennial herb High
Cotoneaster spp. cotoneaster Shrub Moderate (several
species)
Cynara cardunculus artichoke thistle Perennial herb Moderate B
Cytisus scoparius Scotch broom Shrub High C
Dactylis glomerata orchard grass Perennial herb Limited Delairea odorata Cape ivy Perennial herb High B
Dipsacus sativus teasel Biennial herb Moderate
Dittrichia graveolens stinkweed Annual herb Moderate
Elymus caput-medusae Medusa head grass Annual herb High C
Ehrharta calycina Perennial velt grass Perennial herb High
Ehrharta erecta Erect velt grass Perennial herb Moderate
Eucalyptus camaldulensis red river gum Tree Limited Eucalyptus globulus blue gum Tree Moderate Euphorbia oblongata Oblong spurge Perennial herb Limited
Foeniculum vulgare fennel Perennial herb High Genista monspessulana French broom Shrub High C
Hedera helix English ivy Woody vine High Helminthotheca (Picris) echioides bristly ox-tongue Annual or biennial herb Limited
Hesperocyperis (Cupressus)
macrocarpa Monterey cypress Tree Moderate (when
outside native range)
Hypericum perforatum Klamath weed Perennial herb Moderate C
Lathyrus latifolius sweet pea Perennial herb Watchlist Ligustrum lucidum glossy privet Tree or shrub Watchlist Lythrum salicaria purple loosestrife Perennial herb High B
Marrubium vulgare horehound Perennial herb Limited Mentha pulegium pennyroyal Perennial herb Moderate Mesembryanthemum crystallinum crystalline iceplant Annual herb Moderate–ALERT Myosotis (latifolia?) forget-me-not Perennial herb Limited Nerium oleander oleander Tree Watchlist
Olea europaea olive Tree or shrub Limited Oxalis pes-caprae Bermuda buttercup Perennial herb Moderate Phalaris aquatica Harding grass Perennial herb Moderate
Pinus radiata Monterey pine Tree Limited (when
outside native range)
Robinia pseudoacacia black locust Tree Limited Rubus armeniacus (discolor) Himalayan blackberry Shrub High Senecio minimus (Erechtites minima) coastal burnweed Annual or perennial herb Moderate Silybum marianum milk thistle Annual or biennial herb Limited
Attachment 1
IPM in Natural Lands Ascent Environmental
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
10-6 Integrated Pest Management Guidance Manual
Table 10-1 Invasive Plant Species Documented as Present on the District Lands
Scientific Name Common Name Life Form Cal-IPC Invasive
Status (2014)
CDFA Rating
(2014)
Spartium junceum Spanish broom Shrub High C
Stipa mileacea var. mileacea
(Piptatherum miliaceum) Smilo grass Perennial herb Limited
Ulex europaeus gorse Shrub High B
Verbascum (thapsus?) mullein Biennial herb Limited
Vinca major periwinkle Perennial herb Moderate Zantedeschia aethiopica calla lily Perennial herb Limited
Notes: Species documented during 2004 study (District/Shelterbelt Builders Inc. 2004).
CalIPC Invasive Status Definitions:
• High- Species with severe ecological impacts on physical processes, plant and animal communities, and vegetation structure. Their
reproductive biology and other attributes are conducive to moderate to high rates of dispersal and establishment. Most are widely distributed
ecologically.
• Moderate- ALERT – Species on an active Cal-IPC watch list as a species suspected to causing severe impacts (may be moved to High status).
These species have substantial and apparent-but generally not severe-ecological impacts on physical processes, plant and animal
communities, and vegetation structure. Their reproductive biology and other attributes are conducive to moderate to high rates of dispersal,
though establishment is generally dependent upon ecological disturbance. Ecological amplitude and distribution may range from limited to
widespread.
• Moderate – See above---same as above but not on active Cal-IPC Watch list
• Limited –Species that are invasive, but that ecological impacts are minor on a statewide level or there was not enough information to justify a
higher score. Their reproductive biology and other attributes result in low to moderate rates of invasiveness. Ecological amplitude and
distribution are generally limited, but these species may be locally persistent and problematic.
• Watch List - - On a list of species that require further evaluation and monitoring to determine impact.
CDFA Rating Definitions:
• A = A pest of known economic or environmental detriment and is either not known to be established in California or it is present in a limited
distribution that allows for the possibility of eradication or successful containment. A-rated pests are prohibited from entering the state
because, by virtue of their rating, they have been placed on the of Plant Health and Pest Prevention Services Director’s list of organisms
“detrimental to agriculture” in accordance with the FAC Sections 5261 and 6461. The only exception is for organisms accompanied by an
approved CDFA or USDA live organism permit for contained exhibit or research purposes. If found entering or established in the state, A-rated
pests are subject to state (or commissioner when acting as a state agent) enforced action involving eradication, quarantine regulation,
containment, rejection, or other holding action.
• B – A pest of known economic or environmental detriment and, if present in California, it is of limited distribution. B-rated pests are eligible to
enter the state if the receiving county has agreed to accept them. If found in the state, they are subject to state endorsed holding action and
eradication only to provide for containment, as when found in a nursery. At the discretion of the individual county agricultural commissioner
they are subject to eradication, containment, suppression, control, or other holding action.
• C - A pest of known economic or environmental detriment and, if present in California, it is usually widespread. C-rated organisms are eligible
to enter the state as long as the commodities with which they are associated conform to pest cleanliness standards when found in nursery
stock shipments. If found in the state, they are subject to regulations designed to retard spread or to suppress at the discretion of the
individual county agricultural commissioner. There is no state enforced action other than providing for pest cleanliness.
10.5 PREVENTION
IPM in natural areas focuses first on preventative actions. Preventative actions include modifying human
behavior and land use practices to minimize conditions that favor invasive plant infestation and establishment.
When combined with landscape-level invasive plant monitoring and early detection/rapid response methods,
this approach ensures that invasive plants can be managed when they are small, rather than large populations.
Many invasive plants establish themselves in ruderal or disturbed areas, for example, freshly graded, flooded, or
mechanically cleared land, while others exploit more subtle disturbance areas, such as edges of trails and roads
or overgrazed rangelands. Management of these species can often be accomplished by implementing better
land use practices. Landscape management changes such as restoring natural processes (e.g., fire and flooding),
reducing stocking rates/utilize rotational grazing on rangelands, increasing biodiversity in croplands or altering
forestry practices on timber tracts, can reduce invasive species populations to a level where active management
is not required (Jackson et al. 2007). Other invasive species can invade stable, intact landscapes. These
competitive species usually require active management to achieve effective control.
Attachment 1
Ascent Environmental IPM in Natural Lands
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
Integrated Pest Management Guidance Manual 10-7
Seeds, insects, pets, and pathogens from anywhere in the world can easily arrive on District lands via numerous
sources. The District’s mission includes providing recreational access to 60,000 acres of public open space, so
visitors are one of many sources of potential new pest infestations. For example, a nature-loving tourist may
take a plane from another region of the world with a climate similar to California’s, and visit one of the District’s
properties for a hike, inadvertently introducing seeds from invasive species on their hiking boots.
Agricultural pest prevention programs have been implemented by governments throughout the world, with
point-of-entry and trade distribution inspections, insect trap monitoring, and nursery certification. In California,
more than 30 million vehicles are monitored annually at California agricultural inspection stations when entering
the state (CDFA 2013b). From these inspection stations, tens of thousands of prohibited materials are
intercepted and seized annually which include a wide variety of agricultural pest species. Similar inspection
systems are in place in many international ports of entry throughout the state, including airports, ports, and
border crossings. Only more recently have regional entities and local governments begun to develop similar
programs for species of local interest. These programs face many challenges in locations where defined borders
where effective monitoring can occur do not exist. There is no clear regulatory oversight for local programs, and
there is little funding and staffing available. The most successful examples of local control programs have so far
been limited to the management of aquatic pest species of restricted distribution (e.g., California’s
quagga/zebra mussel quarantines using boating restrictions in recreational waterways) (California State Parks
2013).
Although the District may have limited opportunities to restrict the flow of invasive species into its preserves
from world trade and tourism, prevention is possible at smaller scales. Project-specific best management
practices and improved planning can help prevent inadvertent species introductions by requiring staff training
on new invasive species that could invade District lands; inspection of outside materials, equipment and
vehicles; and requiring staff ad contractors to only use clean materials equipment and vehicles on District lands.
These best management practices intended to prevent introduction or establishment of new invasive species
should be incorporated into the construction and maintenance of facilities, road maintenance, fire prevention,
firefighting, and routine tool maintenance. Table 10-2 identifies specific preventative actions to reduce the
potential to introduce and spread invasive species to District lands. Likewise, District visitors can be trained to
identify, look for and report new invasive species that can invade District lands. Educational materials and boot
cleaning stations at key entrance points can help prevent inadvertent introductions, or catch them early. And
finally, managing lands in a manner that monitors and reduces areas of soil disturbance, reduces unnecessary
and redundant trails and roads, and helps promote larger, intact areas of undeveloped natural areas can also
make District lands more resilient to new invasive species invasions.
Table 10-2 Best Management Practices to Prevent Invasive Species Introductions
(Recommendations selected from Cal-IPC)
Sanitation and Prevention of Contamination - All personnel working in infested areas will take appropriate
precautions to not carry or spread weed seed or SOD-associated spores outside of the infested area. Such
precautions will consist of, as necessary based on site conditions, cleaning of soil and plant materials from tools,
equipment, shoes, clothing, or vehicles before entering or leaving the site.
All staff, contractors, and volunteer crew leaders will be properly trained to prevent spreading weeds and pests
to other sites.
District staff will appropriately maintain facilities where tools, equipment, and vehicles are stored free from
invasive plants.
District staff will inspect rental equipment and project materials (especially soil, rock, erosion control material,
and seed) to confirm as much possible that they are free of invasive plant material before their use at a worksite.
Suitable onsite disposal areas will be identified to prevent the spread of weed seeds.
Attachment 1
IPM in Natural Lands Ascent Environmental
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
10-8 Integrated Pest Management Guidance Manual
Table 10-2 Best Management Practices to Prevent Invasive Species Introductions
(Recommendations selected from Cal-IPC)
Invasive plant material will be rendered nonviable when being retained onsite. Staff will 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.
Monitor all sites where invasive plant material is disposed onsite and treat any newly emerged invasive plants.
When transporting invasive plant material offsite for disposal, the plant material will be contained in enclosed
bins, heavy-duty bags, or a securely covered truck bed. All vehicles used to transport invasive plant material will
be cleaned after each use.
10.5.1 EARLY DETECTION/RAPID RESPONSE
Preventing the introduction of invasive species is the first line of defense against invasions. However, even the
best prevention practices will not stop all invasive species introductions. Early Detection and Rapid Response
(EDRR) programs increase the likelihood that invasions will 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.
According to the 2005 California State Noxious Weed Plan, “early detection is the single most important element
in successful and economical eradication of new weeds before they become permanently established in new
localities” (CDFA 2005).
An EDRR Program is a formalized monitoring program that utilizes active and passive land surveillance as a
method to discover and identify new invasive species or their symptoms before they become widely established.
This can be accomplished with 1) active detection, 2) passive detection, and 3) syndromic surveillance as defined
by the National Invasive Species Working Group (National Invasive Species Counsel 2003, 2008).
Active Detection. Active detection programs have structure, staffing, and dedicated funding to accomplish
land surveillance (landscape-level invasive plant monitoring). Dedicated staff, volunteers, or contractors
under a specific set of goals may run these programs. Active detection programs for invasive species often
have limited resources so it is important to be focused on high-priority targets, such as high-risk locations,
high-value resources, important pathways, and populations and species of concern.
Passive Detection. Passive detection programs have more limited goals and structure that are embedded
into existing programs and activities. These programs fortuitously detect invasive species as staff,
volunteers, or contractors conduct other activities and may or may not have specific training or funding for
the detection of invasive species.
Syndromic Surveillance. Syndromic surveillance uses the analysis of other resource management problems to
detect invasive species indirectly through their direct damage or other ecosystem disruption. Detecting the
damage associated with invasive species may be the first indication of a new invasion. This is often the case with
invasive pathogens and parasites that are difficult to detect. Regardless of which detection system is selected for
use by the District, EDRR efforts should include the following objectives:
identify potential threats in time to allow control or mitigation measures to be taken;
detect new invasive species in time to allow efficient and safe eradication or control decisions to be made;
respond to invasions effectively to prevent the spread and permanent establishment of invasive species;
provide adequate and timely information to decision-makers, the public, and to partner agencies concerned
about the status of invasive species within an area; andadaptively implement detection and early response
strategies over time.
Attachment 1
Ascent Environmental IPM in Natural Lands
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
Integrated Pest Management Guidance Manual 10-9
The District currently does not have a well-developed EDRR program, or dedicated staff or contractors to
implement such a program on a comprehensive basis. Some aspects of an EDRR program are implemented as
District staff work on other projects.
DETECTION STRATEGIES
New invasive species may arrive in the District through sudden, unpredictable pathways (e.g., boots on a
traveler) and more constant, predictable pathways (e.g., roads, trails, and/or horticultural escapees from
neighboring properties). District lands are scattered throughout the San Francisco Peninsula, adjacent to urban
development, rural private residences and hobby farms, and production agricultural landscapes including
rangelands, dairies, commercial nurseries, and row and cereal crops. Each of these lands uses account for some
possible introductions of invasive species along preserve borders, roads, trails, and easements.
The most efficient way to prevent routine introductions of invasive species into District lands is to use vigilant
patrol and monitoring protocols along District boundaries that interface with urban and agricultural landscapes.
Trails, roads, and waterways intersecting District lands are the most likely routes of invasion for new species.
Many of these common pathways have been confirmed by previous District mapping and planning work (District
2004). Refer to Chapter 5, IPM Program Implementation, for more information on how the District intends to
implement this action during IPM Program implementation.
MODELING INVASION PATHWAYS
The District maintains approximately 142 miles of single-track trail, 444 miles of road, and has a geographic
border (not including adjacent District parcels) totaling 397 miles. Not all of these trails, roads, and edges have
the same potential to introduce new invasive species into District properties. Locations within the District that
receive the most intense impacts from disturbance, visitation, utility maintenance, and neighboring land use are
the most likely sources for new species introductions. Simple models can be used on a local preserve level to
analyze probable pathways for key invasive species the District may expect to encounter. The District can
identify routine and sporadic activities that have a high probability of introducing invasive species and also the
types of species anticipated.
Refer to Chapter 5, IPM Program Implementation, for more information on how the District intends to address
EDRR during the IPM Program implementation. Table 10-3 defines a ranking system for the District to identify
activities on preserves that are most likely to promote invasive species introductions. Table 10-4 provides a
summary of known occurrences of novel invasive species (i.e., current targets of early detection programs that
are considered likely to invade and impact California ecosystems if allowed to establish), and is intended to be a
“Watch List” for use by the District in raising awareness of new invasive plants that may be found in the future
on District lands. By understanding both the activities that promote invasions and the candidate species for
likely invasion, the District can more successfully plan for prevention, detection, and control activities.
Table 10-3 Ranking of Most Likely Pathways of Invasive Species Introductions (Identification of Areas
and Activities to Prioritize for Early Detection Monitoring)
Ranking of vectors’ Probability to Import/Distribute Invasive Plants
1 Heavy equipment from outside District
2 Top soil importation for construction
3 Sand or gravel for road construction
4 Work activities along rights-of-way external to District (e.g., PG&E, CalWater)
5 Work activities of District employees or contractors
Attachment 1
IPM in Natural Lands Ascent Environmental
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
10-10 Integrated Pest Management Guidance Manual
Table 10-3 Ranking of Most Likely Pathways of Invasive Species Introductions (Identification of Areas
and Activities to Prioritize for Early Detection Monitoring)
6 Grazing lessees/livestock grazing
7 Visitor vehicle traffic
8 Wind
9 Visitors hiking
10 Wildlife
11 Water
Prioritization of Specific Areas for Monitoring Based on Suitability
for Invasion and Volume of New Plant Material (Seeds, etc.) likely to be Introduced
Very high priority
1 Construction/maintenance areas
2 Buildings, houses at the urban interface
3 Paved areas (e.g., roads/parking lots/trailheads)
4 Landscaped areas
5 Disturbance from human intervention (e.g., emergency fuel breaks during fire fires)
6 Trails
7 Areas of high visitor use
8 Utilities (e.g., cell towers, powerline corridors)
9 Pastures/agricultural areas
Medium priority
10 District offices, structures
11 Riparian areas
12 Natural disturbances with no human intervention (e.g., fire, rockfall)
Low priority
16 Off-trail wilderness areas
Source: adapted from Gerlach et al. 2001
Table 10-4 Invasive Plant Watch List: Invasive Plants that are Known to be Problematic near District
Lands (for use in Early Detection and Rapid Response Efforts)
Scientific Name Common Name
Species Reported (X) to Occur in:
District San Mateo
County
Santa Clara
County
Santa Cruz
County
Plants
Acacia paradoxa Kangaroo thorn X X X
Acaena novae-zelandiae Biddy biddy X
Achnatherum brachychaetum Puna needle grass
Acroptilon repens Russian knapweed X X
Aegilops cylindrica Jointed goatgrass X X X
Aegilops triuncialis Barbed Goatgrass X X X X
Ambrosia trifida Giant ragweed
Attachment 1
Ascent Environmental IPM in Natural Lands
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
Integrated Pest Management Guidance Manual 10-11
Table 10-4 Invasive Plant Watch List: Invasive Plants that are Known to be Problematic near District
Lands (for use in Early Detection and Rapid Response Efforts)
Scientific Name Common Name
Species Reported (X) to Occur in:
District San Mateo
County
Santa Clara
County
Santa Cruz
County
Araujia sericifera Bladderflower X X X
Arctotheca calendula Cape weed X X
Arrhenatherum elatius Tall oatgrass X X X
Asparagus asparagoides African asparagus fern X X
Asphodelus fistulosus Onionweed
Brachypodium sylvaticum Slender false brome X X X
Buddleja davidii Butterfly bush X X
Carduus acanthoides Spiny plumeless thistle
Carex pendula Hanging sedge X X
Carthamus leucocaulos White stemmed distaff thistle
Centaurea diffusa Diffuse knapweed X
Centaurea iberica Iberian knapweed X
Centaurea stoebe ssp. micranthos Spotted knapweed X X
Centaurea sulphurea Sicilian starthistle X X
Cestrum parqui Chilean Jessamine
Chondrilla juncea Skeleton weed X X
Cirsium undulatum Wavy leaved thistle
Coprosma repens Creeping mirrorplant X X
Crupina vulgaris Bearded creeper
Cuscuta japonica Japanese dodder
Cytisus striatus Portuguese broom X X
Dittrichia graveolens Stinkweed X X X X
Echium plantagineum Salvation echium
Elymus caput-medusae Medusa head grass X X X X
Ehrharta calycina Perennial velt grass X
Ehrharta erecta Erect velt grass X X X
Euphorbia esula Leafy spurge
Euphorbia oblongata Oblong spurge X X X X
Euphorbia terracina Geraldton carnation weed
Fallopia japonica Japanese knotweed X X
Festuca pratensis Meadow fescue X X
Gazania linearis Gazania X X X
Gunnera tinctoria Chilean gunnera
Halimodendron halodendron Russian salt tree
Helichrysum petiolare Licorice plant
Hypericum canariense Canary Island St John’s Wort X X
Isatis tinctoria Dyers woad
Lepidium appelianum Hairy whitetop X X X
Lepidium campestre Field pepper grass X
Attachment 1
IPM in Natural Lands Ascent Environmental
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
10-12 Integrated Pest Management Guidance Manual
Table 10-4 Invasive Plant Watch List: Invasive Plants that are Known to be Problematic near District
Lands (for use in Early Detection and Rapid Response Efforts)
Scientific Name Common Name
Species Reported (X) to Occur in:
District San Mateo
County
Santa Clara
County
Santa Cruz
County
Ligustrum lucidum Glossy privet
Ligustrum ovalifolium California privet X
Limonium ramosissimum Algerian sealavender X X
Linaria genistifolia ssp. dalmatica Dalmatian toadflax X X
Linaria vulgaris Butter and eggs X
Lonicera japonica Japanese honeysuckle X X
Lythrum salicaria Purple loosestrife X X
Nassella formicarum Andean tussockgrass
Nassella tenuissima Finestem needlegrass X X X
Oenothera sinuosa Wavy-leaved gaura X X X
Oenothera xenogaura Drummond’s gaura X X
Onopordum acanthium Scotch cottonthistle
Onopordum Illyricum Illyrian thistle X
Paspalum urvillei Vasey’s grass X X
Persicaria wallichii Himalayan knotweed X
Polygonum aubertii Bukhara fleeceflower
Pyracantha coccinea Scarlet firethorn
Pyracantha crenulata Nepalese firethorn
Ricinus communis Castor bean X X X
Rubus laciniatus Cut leaved blackberry
Rumex dentatus Toothed dock
Rytidosperma penicillatum Purple awned Wallaby Grass X X X
Saccharum ravennae Ravennagrass
Sapium sebiferum Chinese tallowtree
Scolymus hispanicus Golden thistle X X
Senecio jacobaea Tansy ragwort X
Senna multiglandulosa Glandular cassia X
Sesbania punicea Rattlebox X
Solanum carolinense Carolina horse nettle
Solanum rostratum Buffalo berry X
Spartina alterniflora Salt water cord grass
Spartina densiflora Dense flowered cord grass X
Spartina patens Salt meadow cord grass
Notes: Species list and occurrences compiled from the Bay Area Early Detection Network (BAEDN) Priority Weeds and CalFlora (2013), District Weed
List. Records of occurrence shown below may be extirpated, but indicate some likelihood of current or future occurrence on District properties.
Attachment 1
Ascent Environmental IPM in Natural Lands
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
Integrated Pest Management Guidance Manual 10-13
STAFF TRAINING
Early detection monitoring can be accomplished by staff, volunteers, park patrons, or contractors. The utilization
of existing natural resource management and maintenance staff and volunteers provides the best value for the
District. With limited training, existing staff resources can be utilized and repurposed for early detection
monitoring at minimal additional cost although it will not be a comprehensive effort. Refer to Chapter 3, Section
3.6 for a more detailed description of planned IPM trainings.
In a world with millions of species, detecting a new arrival can sometimes be a challenge since very few people
have adequate training to identify foreign and unfamiliar species. However, there is potential to train staff and
volunteers familiar with District habitats to notice and report when species are found that appear unusual or
out-of-place. In addition to new invasive species, other resource management targets such as rare plants and
animals may also be discovered through this type of observation.
The following techniques should be implemented to support an effective early detection program:
Develop a simple invasive species identification guide for use by laypeople. Include invasive species currently
known to occur in District preserves (Table 10-2), as well as “Watch List” species known to occur in the
regions (Table 10-4). The identification guide should include photographs (several life stages), life cycle, and
associated habitats. As funding and staffing allow, update this identification guide over time to ensure its
usefulness in EDRR efforts. The IPM Coordinator will coordinate regularly with local agencies who track and
monitor invasive plants in the region, such as California State Parks, San Mateo/Santa Clara Weed
Management Areas, and BAEDN.
Train permanent and seasonal Rangers, Open Space Technicians, volunteers, and contractors in using
electronic and/or paper weed mapping methods. Practice data collection with staff and volunteers so data
recording and processing is consistent. Start with basic paper mapping methods, which can be suitably
accurate, easier, and cheaper to manage than digital systems. Enter this information into the District’ Pest
Database.
Develop simple workflows that incorporate all District departments/staff that perform pest control. Develop
a methodology to receive and organize weed mapping information so none is lost or forgotten. Consider
ways to incorporate this information into existing forms or maps to keep things simple and reduce
paperwork.
Produce and post baseline weed maps for each preserve at field offices so staff can stay informed about
current populations and make updates in real-time directly on maps.
Ensure that data collection methods are relevant to partner organizations such as California State Parks, San
Mateo/Santa Clara Weed Management Areas, and BAEDN so the information can be shared with other
cooperating agencies.
If using volunteers, support a specialized group of committed individuals that receive training for invasive
species identification and mapping activities. Ensure the goals for use of volunteers in this capacity are clear
and that the resulting data generated by the volunteers is useful to District staff.
RAPID RESPONSE STRATEGIES
Small infestations of invasive species generally offer the greatest number of treatment method options for
successful eradication. Many times, hand removal of individuals is the control method with the greatest
selectivity and cost effectiveness with the least amount of indirect impacts. Individual specimens or small
patches identified incidentally or during regular monitoring can often be immediately removed. For vegetation
removal, hand digging, cutting, or pulling are all examples of selective hand removal. For vertebrate species,
hand removal usually means trapping or shooting. Small-scale removal is most effective on newly-established
and small populations with limited distributions.
Attachment 1
IPM in Natural Lands Ascent Environmental
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
10-14 Integrated Pest Management Guidance Manual
Pesticides may also be an efficient treatment method for rapid response actions. In some cases, a specific
pesticide may be identified to abate an immediate invasive species hazard when it is found. Pesticides may be
especially effective for species where hand removal actions are impractical (e.g., steep cliffs) or where hand or
mechanical removal methods would risk spread of the species (e.g., where plants that can spread from broken
root fragments). It is critical that herbicides be on the List of Approved Pesticides (Appendix A) so there is no
delay because of the approval process for implementing a rapid response.
In all cases, the District will map the occurrence before control, and then revisit the control site several times to
ensure full control was achieved. Eradication may require multiple visits in a year, or possibly multiple years of
monitoring and treatment.
10.6 DAMAGE ASSESSMENT
Staff will determine what, if any damage to the natural area and its natural resource values has resulted from
the presence of the pest species. To the extent possible, quantify the damage (in acres, square feet or numbers
of occurrences affected) and qualitatively describe the perceived damage in its context. As an example, a staff
person could determine that a certain percentage of the District’s native perennial grassland acres are infested
with yellow star-thistle, a target pest species, resulting in displacement native species and degradation of a large
percentage of the natural resources on District lands. Ultimately, the District’s goal is to maintain the long-term
stability and resiliency of its natural areas, therefore damage assessments must consider the long term effects of
the pest infestation.
10.7 TOLERANCE LEVELS/THRESHOLD FOR ACTION
Tolerance levels vary greatly for invasive species; some species have much greater impacts on the environment
than others, or they may be so completely mixed with native species such that control methods would result in
unacceptable damage to native habitats or rare species, or simply be technologically impossible. The District’s
IPM approach for invasive species begins with establishing site-specific conservation goals, leading to a
determination of the targeted actions with which specific individuals or populations can be managed to achieve
the stated goals.
Tolerance levels and treatment methods for invasive species are based on the potential of the invasive species
to degrade wildlife habitat and other natural resource values such that the long-term stability and resiliency of
its natural areas are compromised. To do so, staff must consider worker health and safety, visitor safety, and the
technical feasibility of meaningful control (i.e., a cost/benefits analysis). Because many of the District’s invasive
species populations are present across multiple preserves or present throughout the entire region, scale is an
important variable in determining the feasibility and need for control and the selection of a treatment method.
Unlike pest management in structural landscapes, invasive species tolerance levels must factor in the scale at
which a management tool is both appropriate and effective. Treatments such as hand removal may have
minimal negative unintended impacts when a few individuals are removed, but substantially greater impacts
(e.g., soil erosion or damage to non-target species, injury to staff) when the same treatment is applied to large
areas. Similarly, the control of large populations of invasive plants using mechanical control methods can be cost
prohibitive, impractical, and dangerous. The population size and habitat conditions for which each management
technique is useful and appropriate is discussed for each section below. Tolerance levels not only differ by
species, but also location and spatial scales. All treatment method selections will balance the net negative
impacts to the natural environment, safety of the public, District workers and contractors, and the visitor
experience.
Establishing tolerance level for insipient and widespread invasive plants in common, widespread natural
communities (e.g., yellow star-thistle in annual grasslands or French broom in oak woodlands) will be
Attachment 1
Ascent Environmental IPM in Natural Lands
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
Integrated Pest Management Guidance Manual 10-15
established on a case-by case basis by comparing the anticipated benefit against the cost and potential for
success of the target invasive control efforts. As an example, tolerance levels for French broom in oak
woodlands will be determined based on the total amount of infested areas within total oak woodlands on the
subject preserve. As a general rule of thumb, the tolerance level for invasive plants will be exceeded where
infestations exceed more than 10 percent of the total amount of a sensitive vegetation type, or 25 percent of
the total amount of a common vegetation type. When tolerance levels are exceeded, District staff will then
assess if active control is feasible by conducting a quick cost/benefit analysis. If staff determines that control is
technically feasible and can be accomplished using existing staff and budgeting parameters, an Individual Pest
Plan will be prepared (Chapter 3). If however, available pest control options are not likely to be successful, staff
may elect not to implement active pest control.
For federal and state listed species, certain protections are required under the state and federal Endangered
Species Acts, and tolerance levels will be linked to compliance with the ESA’s. For wetlands, tolerance levels are
linked to federal regulations under the federal Section 404 Clean Water Act and to state regulations as described
in Section 401 Clean Water Act and in the Porter-Cologne Act. For natural communities, tolerance levels will be
related to degree of rarity in the region (as indicated by experts such as the state California Natural Diversity
Database, California Native Plant Society, and local experts); the relative rarity of the community on District
lands; the technical and cost feasibility of the pest to be controlled; and the sensitivity of the natural community
to pest damage.
Following procedures outlined in this Chapter, District staff will qualitatively and quantitatively determine the
degree of pest damage to the natural resource, then determine if action is warranted.
10.8 TREATMENT OPTIONS
When all other options for preventing or actively reducing pest population levels to below specified tolerance
levels have been exhausted, District staff will determine treatment options. Because natural area pest
control (typically control of invasive plants) is one of the most expensive and time-consuming aspects of District
preserve management, special attention will be given to selecting proven, technically feasible, and cost-efficient
least environmentally disruptive and harmful pest control solutions. Refer to Chapter 3 for project prioritization
procedures intended to maximize the effectiveness and efficiency of District pest control actions.
Staff will evaluate pests in natural areas as follows:
Pests will be treated (eradicated or controlled) when their presence could directly threaten the health and
safety of visitors and staff.
For pest infestations that are affecting listed species, pest species will be treated to comply with state and
federal Endangered Species Acts, and tolerance levels will be linked to compliance with the ESA’s.
For pests in wetlands, pest species will be treated to comply with the Federal Section 404 Clean Water Act,
and state wetland regulations as described in Section 401 Clean Water Act and in the Porter-Cologne Act.
Pest species may be considered for treatment (eradicated, controlled, or contained) if and when District
staff determines that their presence is likely to result in the loss of the long-term stability and resiliency of
the natural areas as a whole.
Pest species may be considered for treatment (eradicated, controlled, or contained) if and when District
staff determines that the pest could displace or degrade individual natural resources (e.g., where the
presence of an invasive species is displacing a rare plant or animal population).
For natural communities, tolerance levels will be related to the sensitivity of the natural community to
pest damage and the degree of rarity of the individual natural community in the region (as indicated by
Attachment 1
IPM in Natural Lands Ascent Environmental
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
10-16 Integrated Pest Management Guidance Manual
experts such as the state California Natural Diversity Database, California Native Plant Society, and local
experts)
For native species, tolerance levels will be related to the sensitivity of the individual species to pest
damage and the relative rarity of the individual species in the region or on District preserves. (Note:
rarity to be determined by experts such as the state California Natural Diversity Database, California
Native Plant Society, and local experts)
Pest species may not receive treatment when their presence is not likely to result in the loss or severe
displacement or degradation of natural resources and/or when treatment is considered technically
infeasible, unsafe, or harmful to the environment.
If the target pest exceeds specified tolerance levels, the District will begin to investigate pest control options.
This includes the following general steps involved in pest control planning:
delineate a project area;
determine pest control objectives;
identify any dispersal routes or mechanisms that may have helped the pest enter or spread onto District
lands;
identify a range of possible pest control options using information presented below;
select a preferred pest control approach;
prepare an Individual Pest Management Plan (if necessary- see Chapter 3);
implement the selected pest control approach; and
using adaptive management, monitor, report (see Chapter 3) and adjust the selected pest control approach
to achieve project objectives.
10.8.1 INVASIVE ANIMALS IN NATURAL AREAS
NON-NATIVE FISH
Known species of non-native fish in the District include black bass (Micropterus sp.), sunfish (Lepomis sp.), catfish
(Ameiurus/Ictalurus sp.) and mosquitofish (Gambusia sp.) (Anderson 2013). These species are generally found in
man-made stock ponds and reservoirs but some also occur in natural sag ponds. The District does not actively
manage non-native fish in man-made water bodies unless the water body also supports protected native species
such as the California red-legged frog. In special cases where protected species are present, ponds are typically
drained for sufficient time to eliminate all non-native fish species and then refilled. As most nonnative fish species
are managed as game fish by the CDFW, special permits are typically obtained for their control.
BULLFROGS
The American bullfrog (Rana [Lithobates] catesbeiana) is a large, brilliant green amphibian that is native to eastern
North America. Its natural range does not extend west of the Rocky Mountains and Great Plains but it is an
increasingly common invasive animal in the western United States. Bullfrogs are sold throughout the world as food,
pets, fish bait, and for educational purposes. They sometimes become unwanted pets or escape from frog farms and
grocery stores, and as a result have readily established themselves in all suitable habitats throughout California.
Bullfrogs are classified by the CDFW as a game amphibian and are regulated by state fishing regulations. As a
game amphibian, commercial and sport collection is permitted with commercial and sport fishing licenses, but
individuals cannot be controlled as an invasive species unless they are specifically utilized for a purpose (i.e.,
wanton waste is prohibited by statute). State fishing regulations do not include any depredation conditions, so
Attachment 1
Ascent Environmental IPM in Natural Lands
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
Integrated Pest Management Guidance Manual 10-17
all bullfrog control efforts and programs require a specific Memorandum of Understanding or Special Permit
from the CDFW (Kasteen, pers. comm., 2013).
American bullfrogs are most problematic in the District because they directly affect the federally Threatened
California red-legged frog (Rana draytonii) (Lawler et al. 1999). In habitats where they exist together, large,
overwintering bullfrog tadpoles can compete with California Red-Legged Frog tadpoles or even consume them
directly. Adult bullfrogs consume California red-legged frogs in all forms (i.e., as tadpoles, metamorphs, or as
adult frogs), in addition to other native wildlife species such as newts, salamanders, garter snakes, birds, and
bats. Their voracious appetites have been implicated in the declines of many North American amphibian species.
In addition to competition and predation, bullfrogs spread chytrid fungus – a lethal skin disease known as
chytridmycosis that impacts many of California’s native amphibians (Schloegel et al. 2009). Chytrid fungus is a
non-native fungal pathogen from Asia that has spread to decimate amphibian populations all over the world.
Because bullfrogs are domestically raised for food and educational purposes worldwide, many that are imported
to California each year carry the chytrid fungus from unregulated foreign frog farms. As these individual frogs
are accidentally or intentionally released into the wild, they help to spread the fungal disease throughout native
amphibian populations.
PEST MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES FOR BULLFROGS
Prevention and control of American Bullfrogs is discussed below. Tolerance levels and treatment methods are
also outlined in Table 10-5.
Prevention
Education. Education can be an important tool for the District in preventing captive frogs from being
intentionally released onto District lands. Some people feel ethically motivated to release captive pets and
food animals back into natural environments for humane reasons or when they no longer wish to care for
them. Public outreach and judiciously placed educational materials such as signs and brochures in District
preserves with wetlands may be a useful strategy to curb intentional releases of animals.
Fencing. Exclusionary fencing to keep bullfrogs from entering non-infested wetlands is a temporary tool for
use while other control methods are applied concurrently. Fencing is not considered a long-term solution
because it disrupts movement of other wildlife, can entrap non-target wildlife species, and may disrupt the
natural processes of the wetlands. Exclusionary fences are useful during pond draining to limit the potential
for dispersal of bullfrogs out of the treatment area. Exclusionary fencing may also be used in conjunction
with funnel traps to collect bullfrogs as they attempt to disperse from drying ponds.
Physical Control
Gigging or shooting. Gigging or shooting American bullfrogs ( a pest species not native to California) are two
methods that are implemented with small caliber air rifles and lead-free ammunition to eliminate individual
adult bullfrogs. Gigging is the targeted spearing of fish or frogs with barbed tines mounted on a long pole.
Both gigging and shooting are effective and humane methods for selective removal of target adult bullfrogs.
However, this treatment method alone will rarely eradicate bullfrogs from the target area because only a
portion of adults are usually found, and it does not control eggs or larval stages. Some studies have
indicated that adult metamorph removal (i.e., removal of immature bullfrogs) is the most economical
removal method for population suppression (Govindarajulu 2005). Egg masses can also be collected to
remove additional life stages at the appropriate time of year.
Trapping. Submerged funnel traps and floating cage traps can be used to control different life stages of
American bullfrogs. Funnel traps designed for catching baitfish can be used to live capture bullfrog tadpoles.
Floating cage traps have been successfully used to catch adult frogs. Trap designs for bullfrog removal are
relatively recent and mainly rely on modifying Australian cane toad traps. Methods designed to trap multiple
Attachment 1
IPM in Natural Lands Ascent Environmental
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
10-18 Integrated Pest Management Guidance Manual
life stages of frogs in parallel have proven to be effective for bullfrog management (Snow and Witmer 2011).
Though trapping is a recently-developed treatment method for bullfrogs, it may be effective especially
where other sensitive amphibian species are present to which impacts must be avoided.
Electrical currents. Use of electrical currents (electroshocking) to temporary disable frogs in netting and
gigging operations have proved to be effective in some control programs (Orchard 2011). 12v DC
electroshockers that are typically used in fisheries management are mounted either on small boats or on
backpacks, then the electroshock current applied to the surface of the wetland. This treatment is non-
specific, and will affect all aquatic species within the range of the electroshocking ‘wand’. Electroshocking is
not lethal, rather it shocks and lifts the affected individuals to the surface where they can be netted or
otherwise collected. This treatment method, therefore, must be followed by another treatment method
such as hand removal or gigging. Even with follow-up control of individuals found by electroshocking, this
treatment method alone will rarely eradicate bullfrogs from the target area because only a portion of adults
are usually found, and it does not control eggs or larval stages.
Habitat Manipulation. Pond draining is one of the most common methods used for bullfrog control in
California, especially in projects where protected species may be present such as the native California red-
legged frog. American bullfrogs need a perennial water source to complete their lifestyle. In contrast,
California red-legged frogs only need water during their breeding cycle. The USFWS California Red-legged frog
Recovery Plan and others recommend draining ponds that contain both bullfrog and California red-legged frog
species every other year to reduce the habitat suitability for bullfrogs (Grey 2009). Type conversion of
permanent stock ponds to ephemeral wetlands can also reduce bullfrog populations across a landscape scale.
Exclusionary Fencing. The District may install exclusionary fencing to keep bullfrogs from entering non-
infested wetlands as a temporary preventive tool for use while other control methods are applied
concurrently. Fencing is not considered a long-term solution because it disrupts movement of other wildlife,
can entrap non-target wildlife species, and may disrupt the natural processes of the wetlands. Exclusionary
fences are useful during pond draining to limit the potential for dispersal of bullfrogs out of the treatment
area. Exclusionary fencing may also be used in conjunction with funnel traps (described below) to collect
bullfrogs as they attempt to disperse from drying ponds.
Chemical Control
No toxicants or fertility control treatments are registered for use in controlling bullfrogs in California (Table 10-5).
Table 10-5 Treatment Methods for American Bullfrogs
Pest Category Treatment Method Thresholds Timing Treatment Treatment Constraints
American
Bullfrogs
Incipient: < 25 individuals
Adults present in
breeding ponds
(February-July)
Hand removal of
adults; gigging,
shooting adults and
metamorphs, egg
mass collection
Small populations - accessible
water bodies only
Medium - Expanding
Population
Adults and juveniles
present in breeding
ponds (February-August)
Funnel and cage
trapping,
exclusionary fencing
Requires combined trapping
of tadpoles and adults
Large - established
populations in managed
ponds
Adults present in
breeding ponds (April-
October)
Pond draining with
exclusionary fencing
Not possible in wetlands or
where other natural resource
may be damaged by draining
Large - established
populations in wetland
areas that cannot be
drained
Adults present in
breeding ponds and
wetlands (April-October)
Electroshocking with
boats and nets
exclusionary fencing
Attachment 1
Ascent Environmental IPM in Natural Lands
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
Integrated Pest Management Guidance Manual 10-19
OTHER NON-NATIVE AMPHIBIANS AND REPTILES
Several species of non-native turtles are known to occur in District ponds and water bodies. These species are
common food items for Bay Area ethnic communities and/or pet species. The red-eared slider (Trachemys
scripta elegans) is the most common species known to occur within the District and an eastern snapping turtle
(Chelydra serpentina serpentina) has been documented in at least one District pond. Red-eared sliders are
managed as game fish species and snapping turtles are a restricted species in California. The District does not
actively manage red-eared sliders unless the water body also supports protected, native species such as
California red-legged frogs. The District will attempt to trap non-native turtles and remove them in compliance
with CDFW when they share habitat with protected, native species. The District will attempt to trap restricted
amphibian and reptile species in compliance with CDFW. Traps are designed specific to the target species and
meant to capture the turtles without harm. Traps are checked daily for release and documentation of any native
species and removal of any non-native species. A qualified biologist determines if any native species are present
in the trapping area and consults with CDFW and USFWS if special status species are present. A qualified
biologist complies with CDFW recommendations for restricted species since they are illegal to possess in
California without a special permit. In special cases, ponds are drained for sufficient time to collect and eliminate
non-native amphibian species (in compliance with CDFW Code) and then refilled. See information on pond
draining presented above for bullfrogs.
FERAL PIGS
Feral pigs (Sus scofra) are one of the most destructive wildlife species in California and continue to expand their
range throughout the entire United States. Feral domestic and wild Eurasian pigs are not native to North
America but have been introduced in multiple events. These wild pigs have hybridized to become unique,
abundant invasive pests in California, and they are thought to be one of the most prolific large mammals on
earth (West et al. 2009).
Any pig living unassisted in the wild in California is classified as a game animal by current CDFW Code, which
regulates the sport harvest of game animals in California. Pigs have extremely generous allowable methods of
sport take, and can be harvested year-round in unlimited quantities with a hunting license and valid pig tag.
Because they are also regulated as an agricultural pest in California by the USDA – APHIS Wildlife Damage
Control Services and the CDFA, their management is often regulated by depredation permits from the CDFW.
These permits can be obtained by private growers, ranchers, or other land owners and public agencies when
proof of economic damage can be documented to the CDFW.
Pigs are mammals that are capable of extremely high reproductive rates when environmental conditions are
favorable. In California’s Coast Ranges, they can reach high populations densities because of cool weather, year-
round access to water, and food (including acorns, a favored food source) through the winter months. Their
invasive potential is largely because of their ability to quickly increase population size; they reach sexual
maturity at young ages, females can have multiple litters each year, and natural mortality rates are generally low
with few native predators. They can also disperse over large distances to invade new habitats and so cannot be
managed effectively on a local basis.
Pigs cause damage to California agriculture and native fish and wildlife. Their destructive rooting behavior is
visible in many natural areas. Rooting increases erosion and soil sedimentation, decreases water quality, directly
reduces native plant species (e.g., ingestion of tubers, acorns), and promotes the establishment of non-native
and invasive plants in disturbed soils (Seward et al. 2004, Kotanen 1995). They also create competition for food
resources that would normally be consumed by native wildlife (especially winter acorns), spread disease to
wildlife, and consume ground nesting birds, reptiles, amphibians and small mammals (The Nature Conservancy
2009, Barrett 1982). Wild pigs are also estimated to cause $1.5 billion of crop damage annually through the
Attachment 1
IPM in Natural Lands Ascent Environmental
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
10-20 Integrated Pest Management Guidance Manual
direct consumption and damage to crops, transmission of disease to livestock, and other damages to property
and agricultural infrastructure (USDA 2009). The District has in the past conducted feral pig predation under a
CDFW permit.
PEST MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES FOR FERAL AND WILD PIGS
Under the direction of the California Department of Fish and Wildlife, the District has developed a management
program to capture feral pigs using baited traps and humane termination (shooting). As part of the program, the
District coordinates with other regional land management agencies that are controlling feral pig populations.
Since 2000, over 300 feral pigs have been dispatched and pig rooting, damage, and sightings have substantially
decreased. Prevention and control of feral and wild pigs is discussed below. Tolerance levels and treatment
methods are also outlined in Table 10-6.
Table 10-6 Treatment Methods for Feral and Wild Pigs
Pest Category Treatment Method Threshold Timing Treatment Treatment Constraints
Feral &
Wild Pigs
Incipient: < 2 individuals Year-round Shooting incidentally observed
individuals
Not possible in heavy
visitor use areas
Medium to large
populations Year-round Cage and corral trapping
program
Prevention
Fencing. Exclusion of pigs with pig-proof fencing can be effective in preventing high value areas from being
invaded by pigs. Fencing must be maintained annually to be effective. Pig-proof fencing is usually very
expensive to install and maintain and also has the possibility of restricting the movement of native animal
species. It is an effective strategy for protecting extremely high value natural areas, agricultural lands, or
archeological sites in small areas.
Physical Control
Shooting. Shooting (either hunting or professional depredation) is the most common method for feral pig
control throughout California (CDFW 2013). Though state sport hunting is regulated in such a way to offer
some control of pig populations, there can still be a population increase above target levels because pigs
often change their behaviors to avoid hunting pressure. Permitted depredation hunting with the assistance
of tracking dogs or using nighttime vision aids and thermal imaging can increase the effectiveness of
managing populations. Shooting methods should only employ lead-free, copper-based ammunition to
reduce non-target mortality to pig carcass scavengers. Shooting has limited public appeal in and near
recreational facilities and may not be a practical option for the District.
Trapping. Trapping is the most effective means for regulating wild pig populations on a small landscape
scale, although it must be done in perpetuity to maintain low population numbers. Cage- or corral-type
traps are the most commonly used trap design in California. Snares have been found to be highly successful
in Hawaii and Texas. Cage traps function by attracting single or multiple pigs into traps with bait through a
one-way or guillotine trap door. Since pigs have large home ranges and they can disperse over large
landscapes, effective trapping must focus on areas pigs are actively using. This requires the trapper to scout
large landscapes or use a network of camera-traps to identify locations where pigs are actively travelling and
feeding. Pre-baiting increases the effectiveness of live-catch traps. Trapping requires great effort and costs
are typically high, but it is currently one of the most effective available methods for population control. All
cage trap and snaring methods must be permitted through the CDFW on a project-by-project basis.
Attachment 1
Ascent Environmental IPM in Natural Lands
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
Integrated Pest Management Guidance Manual 10-21
Chemical Control
Toxicants. No toxicants are currently registered for the control of pigs, although some are in development
for Federal registration through the EPA (Lapidge 2012).
Contraception. Currently, no immuno-contraceptives are registered for use on wild pigs although some are
in development. The Wildlife Society considers wild pig contraception controls to be impractical in the field
(Fagerstone 2002), so they are likely not a viable treatment method for managing feral pigs on District lands.
FERAL PETS
As with non-native turtles, domestic animals are sometimes released by preserve visitors, or wander into
preserves on their own. Some people feel ethically motivated to release captive pets and food animals back into
natural environments for humane reasons or when they no longer wish to care for them. As a result, domestic
cats, dogs, rabbits and other species end up living in preserves, and utilizing native rodents, plants, and insects
for food.
Prevention
Education. Education can be an important tool for the District in preventing pets from being intentionally
released onto District lands. Public outreach and judiciously placed educational materials such as signs and
brochures in District preserves may be a useful strategy to curb intentional releases of animals.
Live Capture
Utilize catch pole or otherwise trap dogs, cats, turtles, rabbits and other domesticated animals found escaped or
released in the preserves and return them to their owners or turn them over to local animal control
departments or animal shelters.
10.8.2 INSECT PESTS IN NATURAL AREAS
In general, insects are considered a natural component of the District’s natural areas and do not warrant
control. In some limited circumstances, such as restoration of a native habitat through active planting, short
term insect control may be warranted (for example, to control stinging insects or Argentine ants within a
specified area during clearing or planting to protect worker or volunteer safety, plant health, and promote
native insect pollination). For information regarding control of insect pests in natural areas, refer to the Buildings
section (Chapter 6).
10.8.3 INVASIVE PLANTS
The selection of physical control, chemical control, or other treatment methods for the District’s target invasive
plant species on over 60,000 acres of terrestrial and aquatic habitats in natural areas, various rangelands, and
agricultural properties is an extremely complex task. This document is only intended to summarize generalized
options for simplified management scenarios, and to provide decision-making tools for the thoughtful
implementation of an IPM strategy. Staff who are selecting a project-level IPM strategy must take into account
site-specific conditions, detailed life history information for a target invasive plant, project history, an
understanding of the native vegetation where these plants occur, the impacts of the target plant, and the
feasibility for safe and effective long-term control. Maintaining pest levels below a desired tolerance level will
ultimately rely on several integrated methods for various stages of the project; rarely will a single method,
pesticide or otherwise, suffice to achieve long-term success.
Attachment 1
IPM in Natural Lands Ascent Environmental
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
10-22 Integrated Pest Management Guidance Manual
ANNUAL AND BIENNIAL INVASIVE PLANTS
Annual plants live for one growing season and germinate from seed. Only the dormant seed bridges the gap
between one generation and the next. Biennial plants have a similar life history except they can live for several
growing seasons before flowering and death. After germination, many species develop into prostrate (i.e.,
ground-hugging) basal rosettes. This growth form allows the plant to suppress germination of other plants near
its root zone to maximize the solar energy reaching its leaves. After a critical amount of energy is collected and
stored in the basal rosette form, the plant initiates its final growth stage and elongates or ‘bolts’ to produce a
flowering stalk. Environmental cues that initiate bolting, flowering, and seed production include changes in day
length, light and temperature, soil moisture and other stresses to the plant (Lanini 2002).
Many annual plants, both native and non-native, are considered ‘weedy’ because they have generalist rather
than specialist life history traits. Annuals may be self-fertile or require pollination, or may utilize a combination
of both pollination strategies. Often, invasive plants are highly successful because they produce many viable
seeds with or without specialized pollination. In contrast, many native plants rely on specific native pollinators
such as solitary native bees and cannot compete with the volume of seed production of invasive plants. Since
annuals rely entirely on seed production for survival, the most successful invasive annual plants typically
produce tremendous amounts of seeds each year. Many invasive (and native) species also have specialized seed
coats that aid in seed dormancy in the soil, allowing the seed bank of a plant to persist in the soil for many years.
Seed dormancy allows the plant to germinate only when environmental conditions ideal for growth are present
and allows for seedling emergence over several decades instead of just one or a few years. The extended
germination period of some invasive species can be problematic for control efforts, as follow-up treatments for
new seedlings may be required for many years.
Within District lands there are two main growing seasons for annual and biennial invasive plants: referred to as
early season and late season. Early season annuals and biennials germinate, flower, and seed between
November and June, while late season annuals and biennials germinate, flower, and seed between February and
August. Common annual invasive plants that the District currently manages include yellow star-thistle
(Centaurea solstitialis), wooly distaff thistle (Carthamus lanatus), and Italian thistle (Carduus pycnocephalus).
Biennials include purple star-thistle (Centaurea calcitrapa) and poison hemlock (Conium maculatum).
PERENNIAL INVASIVE PLANTS
Perennial plants persist for many growing seasons and have a great diversity of growth strategies. Perennials
include ferns, bulbs, herbaceous plants, woody shrubs, and trees. Herbaceous perennial plants typically go
dormant, die back, and or lose their leaves each winter and regrow from the root system the following spring.
Evergreen perennial plants retain their above-ground stems and leaves throughout their life, except sometimes
in cases of extreme stress (e.g., drought). Deciduous perennial plants retain their aboveground stems but lose
their leaves seasonally when they are not actively growing. Trees and shrubs are perennial plants with woody
stems, and can be either evergreen or deciduous.
Understanding the biology and reproduction method of perennials is essential to developing effective control
strategies. Perennial plants can have multiple reproduction methods, including seeds, re-growing from
vegetation fragments, or resprouting or colonizing from roots. In some cases species may use a combination of
all these reproductive strategies for successful establishment and expansion. Perennial plants can spread
vegetatively from many different portions of the plant (e.g., from runners, tubers or bulbs, root fragments)
depending on species. Preventing seed production in perennial invasive species that rely exclusively on seeds for
regeneration can deplete the existing seed bank, (as with annuals), but this strategy does not address the parent
population which must also be controlled. Control of perennial plants often focuses on removal of the roots or
other underground storage tissues, where energy reserves are stored. However, this treatment method may
result in ground disturbance and/or soil erosion that must also be mitigated or avoided.
Attachment 1
Ascent Environmental IPM in Natural Lands
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
Integrated Pest Management Guidance Manual 10-23
PEST MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES FOR INVASIVE PLANTS
Prevention and control of invasive plants is discussed below. Tolerance levels and treatment methods are also
outlined in Tables 10-7 (Annual Plants) 10-8 (Perennial Plants), and 10-9 (Aquatic Plants).
Prevention
Develop and implement an employee and contractor prevention training program; include invasive plant
identification and cleaning protocols for clothing, tools, and vehicles.
Inspect recreational facilities (e.g., parking lots, trails, visitor centers) that experience high visitor use often
during target invasive plant flowering and seed production times. Treat any detected target invasive plant
populations to prevent spread from the facility into the preserves.
Establish and maintain cleaning and prevention facilities (e.g., boot cleaning stations) and post educational
materials in parking lots and trailheads to encourage visitors to clean their boots, socks, pants, etc. before
entering District lands.
If target invasive plants have already begun to flower and set seed before management, consider manual
control methods (e.g., cutting and bagging the flower/seed heads) intended to reduce the amount of new
seed released. This type of active management is only feasible for small populations.
Prevent the spread of plant fragments (roots, stems) of certain perennial species that can produce new
plants from these plant fragments during soil disturbing activities such as trail and road maintenance.
Physical Control
Physical control of invasive plants includes actions that physically remove plants in part or in their entirely,
including (but not limited to) hand pulling using weed wrenches, shovel; mechanical control using brushcutters,
chainsaws, mowers and similar equipment; and other types of control to remove plants such as green flaming
(i.e.,use of a propane torch on emergent seedlings), or grazing the plant using livestock. These types of controls
are described in more detail below.
Attachment 1
IPM in Natural Lands Ascent Environmental
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
10-24 Integrated Pest Management Report
Table 10-7 Treatment Thresholds and Methods for Annual and Biennial Invasive Plants
Pest Category Treatment Method
Thresholds Phenology Timing Treatment Treatment Constraints - Assets
Annual/
Biennial
Invasive
Plants
Incipient/small:
< 100 individuals
Basal rosette or bolting before
seed production
February -
May Manual (Hand removal) Use for small infestations only; worker hazards
may occur when applied at larger scales
Small to
medium: < 5
acres
Bolt stage – flowering March -
June Cutting (Mowing)
Not effective on most species - especially not
biennials; to be used for
suppression/containment goals only
Small to
medium: < 5
acres
Early seedling - from germination
to appearance of first true leaves
November
- January
Propane Torch (Green
Flaming)
Narrow timing window; only appropriate for
sparse vegetation with low ignition potential.
Usually applied during rain events to reduce
wildfire risk.
Medium to
large: > 5 acres
Seedling to pre-flowering grasses December
- April Herbicide: clethodim Highly selective to monocots only; rate selective
for annual grasses only
Seedling stage through late
flowering/bud stage
December
- April Herbicide: glyphosate Spot treatments; non-selective
Pre-germination to flowering
stage
November
- July
Herbicide: imazapyr
(pre/post emergent)
Spot treatments where residual control of
seedlings is desired; non-selective
Large: > 5 acres
Pre-germination to dicot seedling
stage
December
- February
Herbicide: aminopyralid
(pre/post emergent )
Moderately selective for specific dicot plant
families only; promotes grass and unaffected
dicot species
Later dicot seedling stages –
bolting
January -
March
Herbicide: clopyralid
(pre/post emergent)
Highly selective for specific dicot plant families
only; promotes grass and unaffected dicot
species
Bolt stage – flowering March -
June Grazing
Effective on only some species; effectiveness
varies by stock type, grazing season, grazing
rotation and intensity
Attachment 1
Ascent Environmental IPM in Natural Lands
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
Integrated Pest Management Report 10-25
Table 10-8 Treatment Thresholds and Methods for Perennial Invasive Plants
Pest Category Treatment Method Thresholds Phenology Timing Treatment Treatment Constraints - Assets
Perennial
Invasive
Plants
Incipient/small: < 100
individuals
Herbaceous perennials -
seedling to mature Any time Manual (Hand
removal)
Use for small infestations only; worker hazards may occur
when applied at larger scales
Incipient/small: woody
plants with trunk diameter
< 2”
Woody plants/trees -
Seedling to mature Any time Manual (Digging -
Leveraged Pulling)
Use for small infestations only; worker hazards may occur
when applied at larger scales
Small to medium: < 5 acres Flowering to bud stage December
- July Cutting (Mowing) Not effective on most species; for
suppression/containment/pre-treatment goals only
Small to medium: < 5 acres
Early seedling - from
germination to appearance
of first true leaves
November
- January
Propane Torch
(Green Flaming)
Narrow timing window; only appropriate for bare ground
areas with no ignition potential
Medium to large: > 5 acres
Seedling to pre-flowering
grasses
December
- April Herbicide: clethodim Highly selective to monocots
Seedling stage OR late
flowering/bud stage
December
- July Herbicide: glyphosate Spot treatments; non-selective
Seedling or actively
growing
December
- June
Herbicide:
aminopyralid
(pre/post emergent)
Moderately selective for specific dicot plant families only;
good for difficult to control vines/brambles
Seedling or actively
growing
December
- June
Herbicide: clopyralid
(pre/post emergent)
Highly selective for specific dicot plant families only; good
for difficult to control vines/brambles
Pre-germination to
flowering stage
November
- October Herbicide: imazapyr Spot treatments where residual control of seedlings is
desired or difficult to control species; non-selective
Trees > 6” stump diameter
Actively growing, post-
flowering Anytime Herbicide: glyphosate Spot treatments; non-selective
Actively growing, post-
flowering Anytime Herbicide: imazapyr
Spot treatments where residual control of seedlings is
desired or difficult to control species; non-selective; basal
bark treatments
Conifers – mature Anytime Cutting Hand methods time consuming; mechanical harvesters for
large areas > 10 acres
Attachment 1
IPM in Natural Lands Ascent Environmental
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
10-26 Integrated Pest Management Guidance Manual
Pulling of individual plants by hand before flowering and seed development. Given the stout taproot of
many annuals and biennials, it is best to undertake hand removal after regular periods of rain when the soil
is moist and the entire taproot can be easily removed. Grasp the plant at the base and pull straight up.
Leaving the portion of the root deeper than a quarter to a half inch below the surface is usually acceptable
for annual species as they are not likely to re-sprout from a remaining root fragment. Digging tools can also
be used to loosen the root out of the soil, however, limit the amount of soil disturbance as much as possible.
Cutting plants below the root crown with a pick or shovel before flowering or seed set (to be applied only to
crown-sprouting plant species). Perennial invasive plants with large amounts of vegetative material are
often be easier to control once the mass of above-ground vegetation is cut to near-ground level (e.g., large
perennial grasses and shrubs) to improve access to the root system. For plants that can regenerate from
underground root fragments, root and/or stem material would be carefully collected, then disposed of in
compost or garbage offsite or completely covered (composted, solarized) onsite to prevent it from re-
establishing onsite.
Mowing of late season annuals/biennials when a very small percentage of plants are beginning to flower.
Mow as close to the ground as is safe (hitting rocks with mowing equipment may cause sparks and risk start
a fire). Follow-up mowing may be required at four- to six-week intervals. Mowing early season
annuals/biennials, or mowing late season annuals/biennials too early will likely result in resprouting and
formation of multiple flowering stalks during bolting (thereby increasing seed production).
Green flaming of young seedlings with a hot propane flame immediately following germination. This method
is typically applied in early winter, during or immediately after a rain event to reduce potential for wildfires.
Green, referred to in this report as “green flaming” is only effective on some species of non-fire adapted
herbaceous and shrub species (dicots), and it is not effective on grasses (monocots).
Selective grazing to remove or suppress some species when grazing is timed for periods when the plants are
both palatable to the selected type of livestock (e.g., goats for brush, cattle or sheep for grasses) and
susceptible to grazing effects (i.e., when plants are very young and do not have substantial underground
energy reserves built up to support re-sprouting).
Hand removal of small insipient populations of perennial invasive plants. Hand-removal of mature plant
parts would be accomplished using a weed wrench, or by digging up individual plants, including as much of
the root system as possible. Multiple re-treatments would be required for the control of most invasive
perennials, because their root systems are often large and challenging to pull manually and many species
have regenerating roots, stolons, and rhizomes that can break off during the removal effort and regrow.
Digging can also promote soil disturbance, a secondary effect that can promote the germination of new
seedlings in disturbed soils areas.
Burning to reduce greenwaste. After large stands of broom are pulled, the green plants would be stacked in
piles no greater than six feet by six feet to dry out. The piles would be located on mineral soils with a 4-inch
by 12-foot wide trench to catch debris and would not be located under the drip line of trees. Brush piles
would be burned during the wet season on days that the Bay Area Air Quality Management District
(BAAQMD) designates as “open burn status” and the piles would be monitored to ensure that all
combustible material is consumed before leaving the site. Notification Form C for Hazard Reduction Fires
would be filed with the BAAQMD, and all conditions of Hazard Reduction Fires per BAAQMD regulations
would be followed.
Use of tractor-mounted implements. Jawz is a hydraulic implement mounted onto an excavator or other
tractor. Opposing jaws pinch the stalk of the plant and the arm of the excavator pulls the plant out by its
roots and then drops it in a pile for future burning, chipping, or composting. The use of Jawz would be
limited in steep terrain and areas where there is excessive soil. Removal of coyote brush is the most
common species that Jawz are used for on District lands.
Use of a masticator for brushing. A masticator is a high-rotation drum with fixed teeth mounted on the
hydraulic arm of an excavator that pulverizes vegetation. A masticator would be used for structure brushing,
road brushing, parking lot brushing, fuel breaks, and brush removal in grasslands. The masticator would cut
Attachment 1
Ascent Environmental IPM in Natural Lands
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
Integrated Pest Management Guidance Manual 10-27
vegetation ranging from grass to 6-inch diameter trees and can reach up to 22 feet horizontally. Masticators
leave behind mulch and pieces of shattered wood up to approximately 12 inches long and can require,
depending on vegetation, follow-up use of chainsaws by field staff. Use of a masticator would be limited by
terrain and soil moisture (i.e.,soft ground). A masticator would be used less than four miles per year.
Hairy weevil biocontrol insects for yellow starthistle. Release of approximately 20,000 hairy weevils
(Eustenopus villosus) on approximately 800 acres per year at Fremont Older, Monte Bello, Rancho San
Antonio, Russian Ridge, Skyline Ridge and St. Joseph’s Hill and possibly biocontrol at other preserves in the
future. This form of biocontrol is intended to control seed production of yellow starthistle. Selected areas
are typically heavily infested with yellow starthistle, and other forms of control were determined to be
infeasible due to site access limitations, labor costs or staffing safety issues. In these instances, biocontrol is
intended to keep the infestations from spreading or becoming denser, until such time as other methods can
be utilized.
Chemical Control
Chemical control of annual and biennial weeds includes two strategies to treat different life stages: 1) post-
emergent (i.e., direct application of herbicide to eliminate the plant), and 2) pre-emergent (i.e., treatment to
prevent the germination of seeds). Herbicides are also classified as either selective or non-selective. Selective
herbicides control plants in specific plant families or life stages, while allowing other plants to survive uninjured.
Utilizing selective herbicides can be a powerful tool in balancing active management with protecting desirable,
native vegetation types. Non-selective herbicides and application methods injure all plant species that are
directly exposed to treatment, so should be directed only to the target species. Selectivity may be based on the
chemistry of the herbicide, but can change with the timing of the application.
Aminopyralid, the active ingredient in MilestoneTM, is a selective herbicide used to control broadleaf
invasive plants, especially sunflower and bean plant families. MilestoneTM is an EPA Reduced-Risk pesticide
product that is considered to have low exposure risks associated with wildlife and humans, especially in
natural areas where exposure levels will be of short duration and low total exposure rates (Appendix A).
Plants in the nightshade, bean, rose, and sunflower families are particularly sensitive to this herbicide.
However, grasses are not affected by the herbicide when used after grass seed germination, making it an
attractive IPM option for annual plant control in grasslands. Aminopyralid controls plants by disrupting the
normal hormone balance, targeting auxins, and causing uncontrolled growth in susceptible plants.
Symptoms of effective aminopyralid application include bending and twisting of stems and petioles, swelling
at nodes, stem elongation, leaf curling, chlorosis (yellowing) of growing points, and plant mortality within
three to five weeks. Aminopyralid persists in the soil and is absorbed by plant roots, and thus prevents
germination of new seeds after an initial treatment. It can be used before an invasive plant species
germinates in a known population area, or well after seedlings emerge, making it a nimble tool for invasive
species plant control.
Clopyralid, the active ingredient in TranslineTM, is a selective herbicide used to control broadleaf invasive
plants, especially thistles and clovers, and woody leguminous plants. Plants in the nightshade, bean, and
sunflower families are particularly sensitive to this herbicide. Grasses are not affected by it, making it an
attractive IPM option for annual invasive plant control of these susceptible broadleaf plants in grasslands.
Clopyralid is a growth regulator, is rapidly transported through plants primarily through the phloem and
accumulates in growing points. It is absorbed into the plant by leaves, stems, and roots. Symptoms of
effective clopyralid application include bending and twisting of stems and petioles, swelling at nodes, stem
elongation, leaf curling, chlorosis (yellowing) of growing points, and plant mortality within three to five
weeks. Clopyralid can travel through soil and should not be used where soils have very rapid permeability,
such as loamy sand to sand. TranslineTM is very similar to MilestoneTM but it is more selective (i.e., active on a
narrower list of susceptible plant families). It is useful in controlling invasive thistles and legumes on
rangelands, so is used in situations when the less-selective MilestoneTM could impact desirable native plants.
Attachment 1
IPM in Natural Lands Ascent Environmental
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
10-28 Integrated Pest Management Guidance Manual
TranslineTM is also generally more effective than MilestoneTM on later plant growth stages so it is a valuable
backup for Milestone in certain conditions.
Glyphosate, the active ingredient in both Roundup ProMaxTM and Roundup CustomTM (formerly sold as
AquamasterTM), is a non-selective herbicide used to control a wide variety of plants, including annual
broadleaf plants, grasses, perennials, and woody invasive plants. It is absorbed through foliage and moves
throughout the plant’s growing points. Glyphosate’s mode of action is to inhibit an enzyme involved in the
synthesis of aromatic amino acids, making it effective on all herbaceous and woody growing plants, but not
effective as a pre-emergent herbicide. It is a rather slow-acting herbicide with symptoms appearing within
about a week, including yellowing and stunting of young leaves and growing points, however it may take up
to two weeks for complete plant mortality. Young, actively growing plants are most susceptible to
glyphosate treatments when applied during warm weather. Perennial woody plants are best treated in the
late summer or fall when plants are moving carbohydrates into their underground storage tissues.
Glyphosate is the most commonly used herbicide in invasive plant control in natural areas, and herbicide
resistance is a growing problem in some annual species (Monsanto 2008).
Roundup ProMaxTM contains a surfactant (i.e., a substance that adhere pesticides to plant leaves) that
enhances the absorption of glyphosate on treated leaves so it is considered by herbicide applicators to be an
efficient product to mix and apply. Roundup CustomTM contains only glyphosate dissolved in water with no
surfactant, and is thus recommended for use on plants in aquatic, riparian, and other sensitive habitats. It is
often mixed with an appropriately labeled surfactant to enhance the spread, adhesion, and penetration to
the target plant, thereby increasing effectiveness of the entire mixture.
Imazapyr, the active ingredient in StalkerTM and PolarisTM /HabitatTM, is a non-selective herbicide used to
control a broad range of invasive plants including grasses, broadleaf herbs, woody plants, riparian plants,
and emergent aquatic species. Imazapyr has a similar mode of action as glyphosate but acts on a different
suite of essential amino acids. Imazapyr is absorbed by leaves and roots, and moves to growing points; it
disrupts protein synthesis and interferes with cell growth and DNA synthesis, causing plant mortality. Unlike
glyphosate, imazaypyr has pre- and post-emergent effects. It also has moderate soil persistence, which can
be useful for difficult-to-control species for which glyphosate is less effective or when parallel treatments of
the parent population and seedlings are desired.
Clethodim, the active ingredient in Envoy PlusTM, is a selective herbicide that provides post-emergent
control of grasses. It does not affect broadleaf plants or sedges and has no uptake through roots or pre-
emergent effect. Clethodim is a lipid-synthesis regulating herbicide that impacts chemical pathways that are
only present in some monocots (e.g., grasses). Clethodim is most effective on young grasses, especially
annuals, and thus is recommended for early season application only. Grass-specific herbicides are highly
effective tools for problem invasive grasses that grow in complex native vegetation. They are effective tools
for the elimination of annual and perennial grasses in broadleaf (dicot) dominated environments or in
eliminating annual grasses from some perennial grassland systems.
AQUATIC INVASIVE PLANTS
Aquatic invasive plants, like terrestrial invasive plants, can arrive on District preserves from a variety of sources
including migrating birds, animals, and humans or they are already present on properties that the District
purchases. Often, a small seed or plant fragment stuck to a duck’s foot or canoe paddle is all that is necessary to
expose a wetland habitat to a new invasive aquatic species. Aquatic invasive plants are divided into two major
groups; 1) emergent invasive plants and 2) submerged invasive plants. Each group requires a different control
strategy. Emergent invasive plants, in general, are rooted in soil below shallow water from one inch to 24 inches
deep, and extend leaves above the water surface at least seasonally; or they can grow in neighboring upland
areas as long as their roots can easily reach the water table (Anderson 2002). Some emergent invasive plants are
actually floating plants that need no soil contact. Submerged invasive plants are those that grow on the bottom
of lakes, rivers, and streams and do not need exposure to the air to complete their life cycles.
Attachment 1
Ascent Environmental IPM in Natural Lands
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
Integrated Pest Management Guidance Manual 10-29
Aquatic invasive plants can compromise both fish and wildlife habitat, promote flooding, provide breeding
habitat for mosquitoes, and can impede or slow the distribution of water in irrigation canals/ditches (Thunberg
1992). All aquatic invasive plant control requires specialized expertise and equipment to effectively manage the
target pest. Submerged invasive plants are especially difficult to control and often require specialty floating
equipment and boats to access the plants.
Native aquatic plants can require management as well to maintain navigational, recreational and agricultural
uses of water bodies. Native vegetation in ponds and other static water bodies decomposes to naturally fill-in to
a point where they eventually cease to be water bodies. At times, the District manages water bodies to support
aquatic wildlife and agriculture that requires occasional maintenance. Plants and sediments are mechanically
removed to increase shoreline areas and sustain open water habitats.
PEST MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES FOR AQUATIC INVASIVE PLANTS
Prevention and control of aquatic invasive plants is discussed below. Tolerance levels and treatment methods
are also outlined in Table 10-9.
Table 10-9 Treatment Thresholds and Methods for Aquatic Invasive Plants
Treatment Method
Thresholds Phenology Timing Treatment Treatment Constraints - Assets
Incipient/small:
< 10 individuals
Emergent perennials -
seedling to mature
Varies by
species
Manual (Hand
removal)
Small amounts only; worker hazards at
larger scales
Small to medium:
< 5 acres
Emergent perennials -
mature
Varies by
species Cutting (Mowing)
Not effective on most species; for
suppression/containment/pre-
treatment goals only
Small to medium:
< 5 acres All stages Varies by
species
Pond draining, pond
skimming
Non-selective. Can be combined with
aquatic animal control.
Large: > 5 acres Floating perennials -
mature
Varies by
species Harvesting Requires specialized aquatic weed
control machines
Prevention
Develop and implement an employee and contractor training program; include aquatic invasive plant
identification and cleaning protocols for clothing, tools, vehicles, and boats.
Inspect recreational facilities that contain aquatic features often during target invasive plant flowering and
seed production times. Treat any detected target invasive plant populations to prevent spread into District
lands.
Prevent the spread of plant fragments (roots, stems) of certain species that can produce new plants in
irrigation ditches, canals, and streams.
Physical Control
Pulling aquatic plants is similar to pulling terrestrial weeds, and requires removing the entire plant, including
leaves, stems, and roots, and disposing of the material away from the shoreline. In wetlands and shallow
water less than three feet deep, no special tools are required. Deeper water may require SCUBA divers
equipped with mesh bags to collect plant fragments as they work. Additional precautions are required for
staff working in aquatic locations to protect both the habitat and the staff.
Specialized equipment can be used to excavate or ‘harvest’ floating or submerged aquatic vegetation.
Generally these types of control efforts seek to clear waterways for adequate water flow or boat access
Attachment 1
IPM in Natural Lands Ascent Environmental
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
10-30 Integrated Pest Management Guidance Manual
rather than completely eliminate the problem plant. They can be effective tools for the removal of biomass
from flood control channels and navigable waterways.
Pond draining may be implemented for small water bodies to eliminate invasive aquatic plants and invasive
animals such as bullfrogs concurrently. Some plants have propagules that can remain viable during dry
periods, so this method is only effective on some aquatic plant species. All projects that temporarily divert
water and discharge sediment may require permits from regulatory agencies, and may require additional
monitoring and reporting.
Chemical Control
Some of the herbicides included in the IPMP include those that are formulated for use in and near aquatic
habitats (Roundup CustomTM for example, which can also be used with an added surfactant). The District on rare
occasions may need to use chemical treatments within or very near to aquatic habitats including treatments in
seasonal wetlands (during the dry season) to control pest species (e.g., to remove slender false brome or
cattails). In these situations, the District would use herbicides suitable for aquatic habitats. The aquatic
formulations for selected herbicides in the IPMP would most often be used in upland habitats within the District.
These formulations are useful in upland areas for certain pest species because the surfactants included in the
formulation provide increased adhesion to selected target plant species than the non-aquatic formulations and
are, therefore, more effective at providing the desired control of the pest species.
Roundup CustomTM contains only glyphosate dissolved in water with no surfactant, and is thus
recommended for use on plants in aquatic, riparian, and other sensitive habitats.
Imazapyr, the active ingredient in StalkerTM and PolarisTM /HabitatTM, a non-selective herbicide used to
control a broad range of invasive plants including grasses, broadleaf herbs, woody plants, riparian plants,
and emergent aquatic species.
10.8.4 FOREST DISEASES
At present, the District manages forests primarily for ecological and recreational values (rather than for timber
value), therefore management actions are focused on maintaining the long-term stability and resiliency of
forests to disruptive changes such as climate change and forest diseases. The threshold for active management
of forest diseases and invasive species focuses on the level of damage from a forest disease that could result in a
substantial alteration in the forest species composition, extent, or density.
SUDDEN OAK DEATH
Sudden oak death (SOD) is plant disease caused by an exotic water mold (Phytophthora ramorum) that has been
implicated in native oak and tanoak deaths throughout coastal California and Oregon (CA Oak Mortality
Taskforce 2013). The disease often results in mortality of certain species of oaks, mainly tanoak
(Notholithocarpus densiflorus), coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia), black oak (Quercus kelloggii), and canyon live
oak (Quercus chrysolepis) but can also cause twig and foliar disease symptoms in many other native plant
species. The wholesale loss of oak tree species in coastal forests can cause major ecosystem disruptions,
especially because so many native species depend on oaks and their fall acorn masts. Sick and dying trees also
greatly increase the wildfire risk in native coastal forests dominated by oaks.
It is still uncertain how the invasive forest pathogen Phytophthora ramorum causing sudden oak death (SOD) will
impact the native forests and woodlands of the greater Bay Area. Methods such as selective removal of
California bay laurel trees (known to harbor the pathogen), pesticide applications, and promoting conifers over
hardwoods have all been proposed for local and landscape scale management of the SOD pathogen (Filipe
2012). The SOD pathogen is extremely difficult to detect until advanced infection and symptoms are visible in
Attachment 1
Ascent Environmental IPM in Natural Lands
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
Integrated Pest Management Guidance Manual 10-31
individual plants. Because this pathogen is a water mold, it can move great distances through the landscape
using wind (e.g., windborne transport of spores) or through water (e.g., transport of spores in waterways and
through fog drip) making management very difficult at any scale (Filipe and Cobb 2012). The landscape scale
management of high value forested areas (e.g., selective removal of diseased trees, selective removal of host
plants such as California bay laurel, replanting conifers and other disease-resistant tees) may be one of the few
ways to slow the spread of the disease. District staff should consult the California Oak Mortality Task Force
(http://www.suddenoakdeath.org) for the most recent information on effective control of SOD.
PEST MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES FOR SUDDEN OAK DEATH
At present, the District monitors and manages SOD on Rancho San Antonio, Monte Bello, El Corte de Madera
Creek, Los Trancos, Russian Ridge, Skyline Ridge, Long Ridge and Saratoga Gap OSPs. It is unclear if the
vegetation composition shift is a temporary phenomenon, or a more permanent result of the disease
infestations. Because the long-term effect of the disease on California’s forests are unknown, the District is
working with the California Oak Mortality Task Force to further study and monitor the impacts of the disease on
District lands. In 2006, the District adopted a ten-year Sudden Oak Death plan to map oak trees on District
Preserves that are potentially resistant to the SOD pathogen, treat a selected number of specimen oak trees,
and establish collaborative funding for SOD research to help guide land management decisions.
The following list outlines general steps that District staff will follow when managing SOD infestations:
Track the effects of SOD disease (mapping dead oaks as staffing and budgeting permit), and share this
information with the California Oak Mortality Task Force (www.suddenoakdeath.org) as staffing and funding
allow.
Removal of California bay trees or their branches within 15 feet of the trunks of high value oaks. Ongoing
research at the District and other locations in the state are evaluating whether bay removal is effective for
managing larger stands or forests infested with SOD or to prevent or slow down the spread of SOD. This
option is costly and requires regular maintenance and monitoring and, therefore, is implemented in limited
areas.
For individual high value oaks such as very large mature oaks near picnic facilities, consider spot treatment
of individual oaks with pest control sprays (e.g., Agri-FosTM) intended to reduce potential for SOD infection.
Due to high cost, this option should not be applied on a landscape level.
Attachment 1
IPM in Natural Lands Ascent Environmental
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
10-32 Integrated Pest Management Guidance Manual
This page intentionally left blank.
Attachment 1
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
Integrated Pest Management Guidance Manual 11-1
11 GLOSSARY
Active management — Physical actions intended to manage natural resources or built facilities for a desired
outcome. Active management may include physical control (hand, mechanical control), or chemical
control of pests or manipulation of their habitats. For example, mowing yellow star-thistle to remove it
from an infested rangeland would be considered active management. In contrast, passive management
includes design and cultural practices intended to change human behavior or the physical environmental
in a manner that discourages pests from occurring. For example, installing boot cleaning stations, or
requiring ranchers to inspect feed for yellow star-thistle seeds would be considered passive
management.
Allelopathy/Allelopathic effect — The suppression of growth of one plant species by another because of the
release of toxic substances. The effect of suppressing the growth around a plant resulting from the
release of toxic substances.
Auxin — A class of substances that in minute amounts regulate or modify the growth of plants, especially root
formation, bud growth, and fruit and leaf drop.
Basal rosette — A cluster of leaves spreading outward from the base of a low-growing plant. In thistles, such as
yellow star-thistle, a basal rosette forms just before the plant bolts (i.e., sends up a main stem on which
flowers are produced). Often, the timing of pest control treatment of plants is recommended for the
“basal rosette stage.”
Bolt stage — A plant developmental stage during which a young plant sends up a main stem on which flowers
are produced. The timing of pest control treatment of plants is often recommended for either just
before or just after “bolt stage”
Broadleaf — Plants possessing broad (as opposed to needlelike or grass-like) leaves. Most of the trees and
shrubs on District preserves are broadleaves. Pest control treatments prescribe different treatments for
broadleaf plants than for grasses, sedges, and needle-bearing trees such as pine trees.
Chlorosis — A condition in which leaves produce insufficient chlorophyll. As chlorophyll is responsible for the
green color of leaves, chlorotic leaves are pale, yellow, or yellow-white. The affected plant has little or
no ability to manufacture carbohydrates through photosynthesis and typically dies. Some pest control of
plants induces chlorosis, thereby eliminating the pest plant’s ability to survive and reproduce.
Containment — A pest control strategy that focuses on establishing a pest-free area (e.g., a mowed or cleared
area around a well-established population of invasive plants), and ensuring, through active
management, that the target pest does not move past the defined area into the surrounding (pest free)
areas. Containment is typically used when eradication of a target pest is no longer considered a viable
an option.
Control — A pest control strategy that focuses on reducing the number, amount, or extent of a pest over time to
achieve a defined tolerance level. Control may result in full eradication of a pest, or reduction in the pest
such that is no longer causes economic or environmental damage, or human health concerns.
Dicot — Dicotyledons, (also known as dicots), are a group of flowering plants whose seed typically produce two
embryonic leaves or cotyledons when first germinating. Pest control techniques often prescribe
different treatment for dicot plants than for monocots (i.e., grasses, sedges and bulbaceous plants that
only produce one embryonic leaf)
Attachment 1
Glossary Ascent Environmental
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
11-2 Integrated Pest Management Guidance Manual
Eradicate — A pest control strategy that focuses on eliminating all members of a target pest population.
Gigging — A pest control method typically used to kill bullfrogs, fish, and other aquatic pests whereby the
animal is speared with a trident or spear while in water.
Herbicide — A pesticide (see definition below) intended for preventing, destroying, or controlling plant pests.
Herbivory — A type of predation typically used to describe the consuming of plants by animals. Herbivory has an
impact on the health, structure, and diversity of natural plant communities. For example, low level
herbivory can remove aging roots and leaves, allowing new growth of young roots and shoots resulting
in healthy plant growth. At high levels, herbivory can damage plants, changing the composition, and
reducing the quality of the natural plant community.
Homopteran Insect — A suborder of insects, including cicadas, aphids, and scale insects, having wings of a
uniform texture held over the back at rest
Hypercalcemia — An abnormally high level of calcium in the blood. In pest control, hypercalcemia is usually
associated with rodenticide use.
Injurious — The term “injurious wildlife” refers to a defined list of species identified in either the federal Lacey
Act (18 U.S.C. 42) or related implementing regulations (50 CFR 16). The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Office of Law Enforcement plays a role in preventing the introduction of invasive species into the U.S.
through the enforcement of the Lacey Act which makes it illegal in the United States to import injurious
wildlife, or transport such wildlife between states without a permit. Species are placed on the list when
they are determined to be injurious to: human beings; the interests of agriculture, horticulture, forestry,
or wildlife; or wildlife resources in the U.S.
Insecticide — A pesticide (see definition below) intended for preventing, destroying or controlling insect pests.
Insipient (invasive population) — A population (usually referring to an invasive plant) that is small, but is
beginning to reproduce and become established in a location or a region.
Metamorph (amphibian) — A major change in the form or structure of some animals or insects that happens as
the animal or insect becomes an adult. For amphibians, a metamorph refers to the stage of
development between larval and adult. For example, the stage between a tadpole and adult frog. Some
pest control techniques recommend treatment timing before or after the metamorph stage.
Monocot — Monocotyledons, (also known as monocots), are a group of plants whose seed typically produce
only one embryonic leaves or cotyledon when first germinating (e.g., grasses, sedges and bulbaceous
plants). Pest control techniques often prescribe different treatment for monocot plants than for dicots
(i.e., plants that produce two embryonic leaves when first germinating, such as flowering plants)
Non-Native Species — An introduced, alien, exotic, non-indigenous, or non-native species. Includes species
living outside their native distributional range, which have arrived there by human activity, either
deliberate or accidental. Some introduced species are damaging to the ecosystem they are introduced
into, others have no negative effect and can, in fact, be beneficial as an alternative to pesticides in
agriculture for example. Refer to the definition of pest and invasive species (below) to differentiate non-
native species that cause harm from other non-native species.
Noxious weeds — A plant species that has been designated by country, state, provincial, or national agricultural
authority as one that is injurious to agricultural and/or horticultural crops, natural habitats and/or
ecosystems, and/or humans or livestock. These weeds are typically agricultural pests, though many also
Attachment 1
Ascent Environmental Glossary
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
Integrated Pest Management Guidance Manual 11-3
have impacts on natural areas. Many noxious weeds have come to new regions and countries through
contaminated shipments of feed and crop seeds or intentional introductions such as ornamental plants
for horticultural use.
Pest Species — Insects, animals, or plant species that are incompatible with the District’s goal of protecting and
restoring the natural environment, and with providing opportunities to enjoy and learn about the
natural environment. Several categories of pest species are defined below:
Invasive species are animal or plant species that invade and dominate sufficiently large areas,
causing a reduction in biodiversity. They proliferate in the absence of natural control and interfere
with the natural processes that would otherwise occur in natural areas. Once established, invasive
species can become difficult to manage and can eliminate native species or otherwise alter the
ecosystem. Invasive species are targeted in natural areas and rangelands. Invasive species can alter
ecosystem processes by changing biotic ecosystem characteristics (such as plant community
composition, structure, and interactions; trophic relationships; and genetic integrity) and abiotic
characteristics and processes (such as fire regimes, erosion, sedimentation, hydrological regimes,
nutrient, and mineral conditions, and light availability).
Structural and agricultural pests include insect, plant, and animal pests that damage occupied
buildings, formal landscapes, or agricultural crops, or pests that are a health threat to humans
working in, living in, or visiting the buildings. Examples of structural pests include termites, ants,
rodents, and stinging insects in buildings, and weeds in formal landscaped areas. Examples of
agricultural pests include insects, weeds, and burrowing mammals such as moles and voles that
damage crops. Structural and agricultural pests are targeted in buildings, recreational facilities, and
agricultural properties.
Nuisance pest species include species that commonly occur on District lands, such as stinging
insects, but whose presence can be incompatible when their proximity or behavior conflict with
human use of buildings and recreational facilities in the preserves. For example, hornets that locate
their ground nests in trails must be removed if they are stinging hikers and horses using the trail.
Branches and other types of vegetation must be trimmed back from trails, parking lots, picnic tables,
and benches to allow safe visitor use. Similarly, vegetation must be cut back from the sides of roads
to keep them open for patrol, maintenance, and emergency vehicles. Problem pest species are
targeted in areas with focused visitor use.
Pesticide — A substance or mixture of substances intended for preventing, destroying or controlling any pest,
including vectors of human or animal disease, unwanted species of plants or animals causing harm
during or otherwise interfering with the production, processing, storage, transport or marketing of food,
agricultural commodities, wood and wood products or animal feedstuffs, or substances which may be
administered to animals for the control of insects, arachnids or other pests in or on their bodies.
Pesticide is a broad term that encompasses:
Herbicides (substances intended to control plant pests),
Insecticides (substances intended to control insect pests),
Rodenticides (substances intended to control rodent pests),
Other Substances, such as Fungicides (substances intended to fungus pests) and Surfactants
(substances that adhere pesticides to surfaces such as plant leaves) and other substances often used
with other pesticides to increase treatment results.
Phloem — The living tissue in plants that carries soluble organic material made during photosynthesis -in
particular, sucrose, to all parts of the plant where it is used for growth and reproduction. Many pest
Attachment 1
Glossary Ascent Environmental
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
11-4 Integrated Pest Management Guidance Manual
control treatments focus on disrupting the phloem through mechanical or chemical means, thereby
disrupting the flow of nutrients to the plants, causing plant death.
Pre-bait — A substance used to attract pests (e.g., rodents or other animals) to a feeding site as a preliminary
step to use of a rodenticide or other pesticide to control the target pest.
Propagule — Any vegetative portions of a plant, such as a bud, stolon, root, tuber, rhizome, or other offshoot,
that aids in the dispersal of the species and from which a new plant may grow. In pest control, follow-up
treatments for invasive plants often focus on prevention and control of propagules after the initial
mature plants are treated.
Rhizome — A modified subterranean stem of a plant that is usually found underground from which a new plant
may grow. Plants often send out roots and shoots from these modified stems, resulting in vegetative
(asexual) reproduction of a plant. In pest control, follow-up treatments for invasive plants often focus on
prevention and control of rhizomes after the initial mature plants are treated.
Root Crown — The junction between the root and shoot portion of a plant. Crown sprouting is the ability of a
plant to regenerate its shoot system after destruction of the above –ground portions of the plant. Crown
sprouting plants typically have extensive root systems in which they store nutrients allowing them to
survive after damage to the above-ground parts of the plant. In pest control, follow-up treatments for
crown-sprouting plant species often focus on control of resprouting vegetation after the initial mature
plants are treated.
Shooting — A plant that sends up shoots (new growth) from the underground portions of the plant. In pest
control, recommended treatments are often timed for when invasive plants are actively ‘shooting’ or
sending up new growth.
Seed Bank — In natural systems, the natural storage of seeds, often dormant, within the soil below the parent
plant. In invasive plant control, treatment often focus on long-term management of plants that sprout
from the seed bank, often years after the initial removal of mature invasive plants.
Stolon — A prostrate plant stem, at or just below the surface of the ground, that produces new plants from buds
at its tips or nodes. In pest control, treatments for plants that produce stolons often focus on removal of
existing stolons, and retreatment of new plants produced from any remaining stolons.
Taproot — A large, somewhat straight to tapering plant root that grows downward that forms a center from
which other roots sprout laterally. The taproot system contrasts with fibrous root system, which
typically have with many branched roots. Pest control of invasive plants often focuses on removal of the
entire taproot to kill the target invasive plant.
Tolerance Levels — The level at which pests can be present without disturbing or disrupting natural processes,
causing economic damage, degrading intended uses or human enjoyment of built facilities, or resulting
Attachment 1
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
Integrated Pest Management Guidance Manual 12-1
12 REFERENCES
Chapters 1 through 5 - IPM Program References
Elzinga, Carly L, Daniel W. Salzer and John W. Willoby. 1998 (July). Measuring and Monitoring Plant Populations.
Published by the Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Department of the Interior.
The Nature Conservancy. 2007 (February). Conservation Action Planning: Developing Strategies, Taking Action,
and Measuring Success at Any Scale.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1998. Guidelines for Ecological Risk. Available online:
http://www.epa.gov/raf/publications/guidelines-ecological-risk-assessment.htm
Chapters 6 and 7 - IPM in Buildings and Recreational Facilities
Baruch-Mordo, S., S.W. Breck, K.R. Wilson, J. Broderick. 2011. The carrot or the stick? Evaluation of education
and enforcement as management tools for human-wildlife conflicts. PLoS One: 6(1). E15681.
Buczkowski, G., C.W. Scherer, and G.W. Bennett. 2008. Horizontal transfer of bait in the German cockroach:
Indoxacarb causes secondary and tertiary mortality. J Econ Entomol. 101 (3): 894-901.
California Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2008. Trapping License Examination Reference Guide.
CDC. See Center for Disease Control and Prevention.
CDFW. See California Department of Fish and Wildlife.
Center for Disease Control and Prevention. 2013a. Asthma Fact Sheet.
http://www.cdc.gov/asthma/triggers.html.
______. 2013b. Tickborne Diseases of the United State: A Reference Manual for Health Care Providers. U.S.
Dept. of Health and Human Services. http://www.cdc.gov/ticks/.
Decker, Dan, H.W. Hudenko, B. Siemer, P. Curtis, Cornell University, J. Major, L Berchielli. Living with Wildlife on
the Rural-Urban Interface. 2008. Cornell University Research & Policy Brief Series, Published Issue 31,
Sept 2009.
District. See Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District.
EPA. See U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Erickson, W., and D. Urban. 2004. Potential risks of nine rodenticides to birds and non-target mammals: a
comparative approach. U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs, Washington DC.
Fitzwater, W.D. 1994. House Cats. In: Prevention and Control of Wildlife Damage. Ed: S.E. Hygnstrom, R.M.
Timm, G.E. Larson. University of Nebraska – Lincoln. 2 vols.
http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/icwdmhandbook/.
Gannon, W.L. 2003. Bats. In: Wild Mammals of North America – Biology, Conservation and Management. Ed.
Feldhamer, J.A., B.C. Thompson, J.A. Chapman. Johns Hopkins University Press.
Attachment 1
References Ascent Environmental
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
12-2 Integrated Pest Management Guidance Manual
Geiger, C., and C. Cox. 2012. Pest Prevention By Design: Authoritative guidelines for designing pests out of
Structures. San Francisco Department of the Environment and International Code Council.
http://www.sfenvironment.org/sites/default/files/fliers/files/final_ppbd_guidelines_12-5-12.pdf.
Gomez, C., P. Pons, and J.M. Bas. 2003. Effects of the Argentine ant Linepithema humile on seed dispersal and
seedling emergence of Rhamnus alaternus. Ecography. 26(4): 532-538.
Gore, J.C., and C. Schal. 2004. Laboratory evaluation of boric acid-sugar solutions as baits for management of
German cockroach infestations. Journal of Economic Entomology 97(2): 581-587.
Green G. S., P.S. Gipson. 1994. Feral dogs. In: Prevention and Control of Wildlife Damage. Ed: S.E. Hygnstrom,
R.M. Timm, G.E. Larson. University of Nebraska – Lincoln. 2 vols.
http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/icwdmhandbook/.
Greenhall A. M., S.C. Frantz. 1994. Bats. In: Prevention and Control of Wildlife Damage. Ed: S.E. Hygnstrom, R.M.
Timm, G.E. Larson. University of Nebraska – Lincoln. 2 vols.
http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/icwdmhandbook/.
Herrero, S., T. Smith, T.D. DeBruyn, T.D. Gunther, C.A. Matt. 2005. From the field: brown bear habitation to
people – safety, risks, and benefits. Wildlife Society Bul. 33(1): 362-373.
Hildreth, A.M., S.M. Vantassel, S.E. Hygnstrom. 2010. Feral cats and their management. University of Nebraska-
Lincoln Extension. http://www.ianrpubs.unl.edu/epublic/live/ec1781/build/ec1781.pdf.
Hinkle, N.C., J. Klotz, D. Silva, V. Lazaneo. 2002. Household and structural pests. In: California Master Gardener
Handbook. Ed. D.R. Pittenger. University of California Agriculture and Natural Resources Publication No.
3382. Oakland, CA.
Holway, D.A. 1998. Effect of Argentine ants invasions on ground-dwelling arthropods in Northern California
riparian woodlands. Oecologia. 116: 252-258.
Hooper-Bui, L.M., and M.K. Rust. 2000. Oral toxicity of abamecitin, boric acid, fipronil, and hydramethylnon to
laboratory colonies of Argentine ants (Hymenoptera: Formicidae). Journal of Economic Entomology
93(3): 858-64.
Information Services Division, Armed Forces Pest Management Board. 2012. Integrated management of stray
animals on military installations. Pest Management Board Website – http://www.afpmb.org/sites/
default/files/pubs/techguides/tg37.pdf
Jackson, D., C.B. Cornell, B. Luukinen, K. Buhl, D. Stone. 2009. Fipronil Technical Fact Sheet; National Pesticide.
Jackson, D., B. Luukinen, J. Gervais, K. Buhl, and D. Stone. 2011. d-Phenothrin Technical Fact Sheet; National.
Klotz, J.H., L. Greenberg, C. Amrhein, M.K. Rust. 2000. Toxicity and repellency of borate-sucrose water baits to
Argentine ants (Hymenoptera: Formicidae). Journal of Economic Entomology 93(4): 1256-1258.
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District. 2013. Vegetation and Biodiversity Management Plan. Administrative
Draft dated April 13, 2013. May & Associates, Inc.
Marsh, R.E. 1994. Roof and Norway rats. In: Prevention and Control of Wildlife Damage. Ed: S.E. Hygnstrom,
R.M. Timm, G.E. Larson. University of Nebraska – Lincoln. 2 vols.
http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/icwdmhandbook/.
Attachment 1
Ascent Environmental References
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
Integrated Pest Management Guidance Manual 12-3
Marshall, E.F. 1984. Cholecalciferol: a unique toxicant for rodent control. Proceedings of the 11th Vertebrate Pest
Conference. Paper 22. http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/vpc11/22.
Mathieson, M., R. Toft, and P.J. Lester. 2012. Influence of toxic bait type and starvation on worker and queen
mortality in laboratory colonies of Argentine ant (Hymenoptera: Formicidae). Journal of Economic
Entomology 105(4): 1139-44.
Nygard, J.P., N.J. Sanders, E.F. Connor. 2008. The effects of the invasive Argentine ant (Linepithema humile) and
the native ant Prenolepis imparis on the structure of insect herbivore communities on willow trees (Salix
lasiolepsis). Ecological Entomology. 33: 789-795.
Olkowski, W., S. Daar, and H. Olkowski. 1991. Common Sense Pest Control. Tauton Press. Newtown, CT.
OMRI – Organic Materials Review Institute. 2013 Generic Materials List. http://www.omri.org/omri-lists.
Oregon State University Extension Services - Information Center. http://npic.orst.edu/factsheets/fiptech.pdf.
Parr, T.W., J.M. Way. 1988. Management of roadside vegetation: long-term effects of cutting. J. Applied Eco.
25(3): 1073-1087.
Randall, J.M., K.R. Faulkner, C. Boser, C. Cory, P. Power, L.A. Vermeer, and L. Lozier. 2011. Argentine ants on
Santa Cruz Island, California: conservation issues and management options. In: Island Invasives:
eradication and management. IUCN. Switzerland.
Salmon, T.P., and W.P. Gorenzel. 1994. Woodrats. In: Prevention and Control of Wildlife Damage. Ed: S.E.
Hygnstrom, R.M. Timm, and G.E. Larson. University of Nebraska – Lincoln. 2 vols.
http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/icwdmhandbook/.
Silverman, J., R.J. Brightwell. 2008. The Argentine ant: challenges in managing an invasive unicolonial pest.
Annual Review of Entomology 53: 231-252.
Timm, R.M. 1994. House Mice. In: Prevention and Control of Wildlife Damage. Ed: S.E. Hygnstrom, R.M. Timm,
G.E. Larson. University of Nebraska – Lincoln. 2 vols. http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/icwdmhandbook/.
Timm, R.M., and W.E. Howard. 1994. White-footed and deer mice. In: Prevention and Control of Wildlife
Damage. Ed: S.E. Hygnstrom, R.M. Timm, G.E. Larson. University of Nebraska – Lincoln. 2 vols.
http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/icwdmhandbook/.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2000. New Pesticide Fact Sheet - Indoxacarb; U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances, Office of Pesticide Programs,
U.S. Government Printing Office Washington, DC. pp 1-10.
Chapter 8 - IPM in Fuel Modification Areas
D’Antonio, C. M., and P. M. Vitousek. 1992. Biological invasions by exotic grasses, the grass/fire cycle and global
change. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 23: 63-87.
Keeley, J.E. 2002. Fire and invasive species in Mediterranean-climate ecosystems of California. Pages 81-94 in
K.E.M. Galley and T.P. Wilson (eds.). Proceedings of the Invasive Species Workshop: The Role of Fire in
the Control and Spread of Invasive Species. Fire Conference 2000: The First National Congress on Fire
Ecology, Prevention and Management. Miscellaneous Publication No. 11, Tall Timbers Research Station,
Tallahassee, Fl.
Attachment 1
References Ascent Environmental
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
12-4 Integrated Pest Management Guidance Manual
Keeley, J.E. 2006. Fire management impacts on invasive plants in the Western United States. Conservation
Biology 20(2): 375-384.
Lavin, M., T.J. Brummer, L.J. Rew. 2013. Physical disturbance shapes vascular plant diversity more profoundly
than fire in the sagebrush steppe of southeastern Idaho, USA. Ecol. Evol. 3(6): 1626-1641.
Minnich, R.A. 2001. An integrated model for two fire regimes. Conservation Biology 15(6): 1549-1553.
Prestemon, J.P., T.J. Hawbreaker, M. Bowden, J. Carpenter, M.T. Brooks, K.L. Abt, R. Sutphen, S. Scranton. 2013.
Wildfire ignitions: a review of the science and recommendations for empirical modeling. USDA Forest
Service. Gen. Tech. Report SRS-171. Southern Research Station.
Pyne, S. J., P.L. Andrews, R.D. Laven. 1996. Introduction to wildland fire, 2nd ed. John Wiley and Sons. NY, NY.
Spies, T.A., and J.F. Franklin. 1991. The structure of natural young, mature and old-growth Douglas-fir forests in
Oregon and Washington. In: Wildlife and Vegetation of Unmanaged Douglas-Fir Forests. U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. Pacific Northwest Research Station Gen. Tech. Report PNW-
GTR-285. Portland, OR.
Whisenant, Steven G. 1990. Changing fire frequencies on Idaho’s Snake River Plains: ecological and management
implications. In: McArthur, E. Durant; Romney, Evan M.; Smith, Stanley D.; Tueller, Paul T., compilers.
Proceedings--symposium on cheatgrass invasion, shrub die-off, and other aspects of shrub biology and
management; 1989 April 5-7; Las Vegas, NV. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-276. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station. 4-10.
Zedler, P. H. 1995. Fire frequency in southern California shrublands: biological effects and management options.
Pages 101-112 in J. E. Keeley and T. L. Scott, (eds.) Brushfires in California: ecology and management.
International Association of Wildland Fire, Fairfield, Washington, USA.
Chapter 9 - IPM in Agricultural Properties and Rangelands
Altieri, M.A., G.M. Gurr, and S.D. Wratten. 2004. Genetic engineering and ecological engineering: a clash of
paradigms or scope for synergy. In: Ecological Engineering for Pest Management. CSIRO, pp. 133-142.
Anderson, E.W. 1967. Grazing systems as methods of managing the range resource. Proc. 20th Ann. Mtg. Am.
Soc. Range Management: Seattle, WA.
Austin, M.P., R.H. Groves, L.M.F. Fresco, P.E. Kaye. 1985. Relative growth of six thistle species along a nutrient
gradient with multispecies competition. Journal of Ecology 73: 667-684.
Bianchi, F.J, C.J.H. Booij, T. Tscharntke. 2006. Sustainable pest regulation in agricultural landscapes: a review on
landscape composition, biodiversity and natural pest control. Proc. R. Soc B. 273. 1715-1727.
Coll, M. 2004. Precision agriculture approaches in support of ecological engineering for pest management. In:
Ecological Engineering for Pest Management. CSIRO. pp. 133-142.
Gelbard, J.L., and J. Belnap. 2003. Roads as conduits for exotic plant invasions in a semiarid landscape.
Conservation Biology 17: 420-432.
Grace, B.S., R.D.B. Whalley, A.W. Sheppard, B.M. Sindel. 2002. Managing saffron thistle in pastures with
strategic grazing. Rangeland Journal 24(2): 313-325.
Attachment 1
Ascent Environmental References
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
Integrated Pest Management Guidance Manual 12-5
Gunsolus, J., D. Wyse, K. Moncada, C. Fernholz. 2010. Weed management. IN: Risk Management Guide for
Organic Producers. University of Minnesota.
Gurr, G.M., S.L. Scarratt, S.D. Wratten, L. Berndt, N. Irvin. 2004. Effects of agroforestry systems on the ecology
and management of insect pest populations. In: Ecological Engineering for Pest Management. CSIRO. pp.
133-142.
Hastings, J.D., K. Branting, and J. Lockwood. 1996. A multi-paradigm reasoning system for rangeland
management. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture 16(1): 47-67.
Higley, L.F. 2009. Economic Decision Rules for IPM. In: Integrated Pest Management: Concepts, Tactics,
Strategies and Case Studies. Ed: B.E. Radcliffe, W.D. Hutchison, R.E. Cancelado. Cambridge University
Press. 529 pp.
Jackson, L.E. U. Pascual, T. Hodgkin. 2007. Utilizing and conserving agrobiodiversity in agricultural landscapes.
Agricultural, Ecosystems and Environment. 121: 196-210.
Kogan, M. 1998. Integrated Pest Management: Historical perspectives and contemporary development. Annu.
Rev. Entomol. 43:243-70.
Lewis, W.J., J.C. van Lenteren, S.C. Phatak, and J.H. Tumlinson. 1997. A total system approach to sustainable pest
management. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 94(23): 12243-12248.
Matson, P.A., W.J. Parton, A.G. Power, M.J. Swift. 1997. Agricultural intensification and ecosystem properties.
Science 277: 504-509.
Nicholls, C.I., and M.A. Altieri. 2004. Precision agriculture approaches in support of ecological engineering for
pest management. In: Ecological Engineering for Pest Management. CSIRO. pp. 133-142.
Onsager, Jerome A. and USDA, Agricultural Research Service. 1987. Integrated Pest Management on Rangeland:
State of the Art in the Sagebrush Ecosystem. All U.S. Government Documents (Utah Regional
Depository). Paper 511. http://digitalcommons.usu.edu/govdocs/511.
Onsager, Jerome A., editor. 1987. Integrated Pest Management: State-of-the-Art in the Sagebrush. Pyne, S. J.,
Andrews, P. L., and Laven, R. D. 1996. Introduction to Wildland Fire. John Wiley and Sons; New York, NY.
769 pp.
Pedigo, L.P., M.E. Rice. 2006. Entomology and Pest Management, 5th Ed. Prentice Hall. Columbus, OH. 747 pp.
Smith, R. W.T. Lanini, M. Gaskell, J. Mitchell, S.T. Koike, C. Fouche. 2000. Weed management for organic crops.
Organic Vegetable Production in California Series. Pub. 7250. Vegetable Research and Information
Center. UC Davis.
Stern, V.M., R.F. Smith, R. van den Bosch, and K.S. Hagen. 1959. The integrated control concept. Hilgardia 29: 81-
101.
Chapter 10 - IPM for Natural Areas
Anderson, L.W.J. 2002. Aquatic Vegetation Management. In: Principals of Weed Control. California Weed
Science Society.
Anderson, J. 2013. District Staff. Personal communication.
Attachment 1
References Ascent Environmental
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
12-6 Integrated Pest Management Guidance Manual
Barrett, R.H. 1982. Habitat preferences of feral hogs, deer, and cattle on a Sierra Foothill Range. Journal of
Range Management 35(3): 342-346.
Calflora: Information on California plants for education, research and conservation [web application]. 2013.
Berkeley, California: The Calflora Database [a non-profit organization]. http://www.calflora.org/
California Coastal Conservancy. 2003. Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental
Impact Report, San Francisco Estuary Invasive Spartina Project: Spartina Control Program.
California Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2013. Wild Pig Management Program.
California Department of Food and Agriculture. 2005. California Noxious and Invasive Weed Action Plan.
______. 2013a. Noxious Weed List.
______. 2013b. CA Border Protection Station Program Summary.
California Invasive Plant Council. 2013a. Calweed Mapper Program.
______. 2013b. California Invasive Plant Inventory. http://www.cal-ipc.org/ip/inventory/ .
California Oak Mortality Task Force. 2013. (http://www.suddenoakdeath.org). Database search referenced 2013.
California State Parks, Division of Boating and Waterways. 2013. Quagga and Zebra Mussel Program.
Cal-IPC. See California Invasive Plant Council.
CDFA. See California Department of Food and Agriculture.
CDFW. See California Department of Fish and Wildlife.
D’Antonio, C. M., and P. M. Vitousek. 1992. Biological invasions by exotic grasses, the grass/fire cycle and global
change. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 23: 63-87.
District. See Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District.
Fagerstone, K.A., M.A. Coffey, P.D. Curtis, R.A. Dolbeer, G.J Killian, L.A. Miller, and L.M.Wilmot. 2002. Wildlife
fertility control. Wildl. Soc. Tech. Rev. 02-2, 29 pp.
Filipe, J.A.N., R.C. Cobb, M. Salmon, D.M. Rizzo, and C.A. Gilligan. 2012. Management of Phytophthora ramorum
in plot and landscape scales for disease control, tanoak conservation, and forest regeneration – insights
from epidemiological and ecosystem models. Proceedings of the Sudden Oak Death Fifth Science
Symposium.
Filipe, J.A.N., R.C. Cobb, R.K. Meentemeyer, C.A. Lee, Y.S. Valachovic, et al. 2012. Landscape epidemiology and
control of pathogens with cryptic and long-distance dispersal: sudden oak death in northern California
forests. PLoS Comput Biol. 8(1): e1002328. doi: 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1002328.
Gerlach, J.D., P. Moore, D.M. Lubin, B. Johnson, G. Roy, P. Whitmarsh, D.M. Graber, and J.E. Keeley. 2001. Exotic
species threat assessment and management prioritization for Sequoia-Kings and Yosemite National
Parks. USGS Western Ecological Research Center.
Attachment 1
Ascent Environmental References
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
Integrated Pest Management Guidance Manual 12-7
Govindarajulu, P., R. Altwegg, and B.R. Anholt. 2005. Matrix model investigation of invasive species control:
Bullfrogs on Vancouver Island, Ecological Applications 15(6): 2161-2170.
Kasteen, T. 2013 (August 1). Regional Biologist, CDFW, personal communication.
Keeley, J.E. 2006. Fire management impacts on invasive plants in the Western United States. Conservation
Biology 20(2): 375-384.
Kotanen, P.M. 1995. Responses of vegetation to a changing regime of disturbance: effects of feral pigs in a
Californian coastal prairie. Ecography 18: 190-199.
Lanini, W.T., J.M. DiTomaso, R.F. Norris. 2002. Weed Biology and Ecology. In: Principals of Weed Control. CA
Weed Science Society.
Lapidge, S., J. Wishart, L. Staples, K. Fagerstone, T.Campbell, J. Eisemann. 2012. Development of a Feral Swine
Toxic Bait (Hog-Gone®) and Bait Hopper (Hog-Hopper™) in Australia and the USA. Proceedings of the
14th Wildlife Damage Management Conference. Nebraska City, NE.
Lawler, S.P., D.Dritz, T. Strange, and M. Holyoak. 1999. Effects of introduced mosquitofish and bullfrogs on the
threatened California red-legged frog. Conservation Biology 13(3): 613-622.
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District. 2004. The Status and Management of Invasive Plants on the
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District. Shelterbelt Builders Inc.
______. 2013. Vegetation and Biodiversity Management Plan. Administrative Draft dated April 13, 2013. May &
Associates, Inc.
Monsanto. 2008. Management Guide for Mare’s tail. http://www.weedresistancemanagement.com.
National Invasive Species Council. 2003. General Guidelines for the Establishment and Evaluation of Invasive
Species Early Detection and Rapid Response Systems. Version 1. 16 pp
National Invasive Species Council. 2008 (amended 2012). 2008-2012 National Invasive Species Management
Plan. 35 pp.
Orchard, S.A. 2011. Removal of the American bullfrog Rana (Lithobates) catesbeiana from a pond and a lake on
Vancouver Island, British Columbia, Canada. In: Island Invasives: Eradication and Management. IUCN.
Switzerland. pp. 217-221.
San Mateo County. 1983. San Bruno Mountain Habitat Conservation Plan.
Schloegel, L.M., A.M. Picco, A.M. Kilpatrick, A.J. Davies, A.D. Hyatt. 2009. Magnitude of the U.S. trade in
amphibians and presence of Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis and ranavirus infection in imported North
American bullfrogs (Rana catesbeiana). Biological Conservation. 142. 1420-1426.
Seward, N. W., VerCauteren, K.C., Witmer, G. W., Engeman, R. M. 2004. Feral swine impacts on agriculture and
the environment. Sheep & Goat Research Journal. Paper 12
Snow, N.P., G.W. Witmer. 2011. A field evaluation of a trap for invasive American bullfrogs. Pacific Conservation
Biology 17: 285-291.
Attachment 1
References Ascent Environmental
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
12-8 Integrated Pest Management Guidance Manual
State of Washington. 2003. Washington State Sage Grouse Recovery Plan. Washington State Fish & Wildlife
Service.
The Nature Conservancy. 2009. An assessment of the known and potential impacts of feral pigs (Sus scofra) in
and near San Diego County with management recommendations. Conservation Biology Institute.
Thunberg, E.M., C.N. Pearson, and J.W. Milon. 1992. Residential flood control of benefits of aquatic plant
control. Journal of Aquatic Plant Management 30: 66-70.
United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). 2009. Feral swine: damage and disease threats. Animal and
Plant Health Inspection Service Program Aid No. 2086.
United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2013. Injurious Species List.
http://www.fws.gov/injuriouswildlife/pdf_files/Current_Listed_IW.pdf.
Vitousek, P.M., L.R. Walker. 1989. Biological invasion by Myrica faya in Hawaii: plant demography, nitrogen
fixation, ecosystem effects. Eco. Mon. 59. 247-65.
West, B.C., A.L. Cooper, J.B. Armstrong. 2009. Managing wild pigs: a technical guide. Human-Wildlife Interactions
Monograph. 1:1 - 55.
Attachment 1
Appendix A
Pesticide Technical
Background Information
Attachment 1
Attachment 1
Appendix B
Forms
[Forms to be created with District]
Attachment 1
Santa Clara County
Parks and Recreation Department
Roads and Airport Department
Fire Prevention
Operational Procedure
When Mowing, Disking and Performing Hot Work
In Non-Irrigated
Grass, Brush or Forest
Covered Areas of the County
In Cooperation With
The California Department of Forestry
And Fire Protection
Santa Clara Unit
Revised August 2012
Attachment 1
2
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. Procedural Objective
2. Fire Season and Other Risk Periods Defined
3. Operational Procedures and Required Equipment
4. Trained Observer and Truck Mounted Pump Requirements
5. Equipment Inspection and Record Keeping
6. Initial and Annual Refresher Training
7. Applicable Laws and Regulations
8. Contact Information
Attachment A: Weather Monitoring Form
Attachment 1
3
1. Procedural Objective
It is the objective of the County of Santa Clara Parks and Recreation
Department (Parks) and the Roads and Airports Department (Roads) to be in
compliance with all codes, regulations, and ordinances pertaining to fire
prevention standards.
This document serves as a procedural guideline for the Parks and Roads
Departments when performing mowing, disking and hot work operations in
the non-irrigated grass, brush or forest covered areas of Santa Clara County.
Hot Work includes metal cutting, torching, grinding or welding activities.
Mowing and Disking includes metal blade contact with non-irrigated ground
areas with sufficient vegetation that the risk of fire exists.
The following equipment and activities are expressly excluded from these
procedural guidelines at all times of the year, so long as the Department
inspects all equipment annually, prior to commencement of fire season;
maintains inspection records that demonstrate that the equipment’s engine is
properly equipped with a spark arrester that is in effective working order per
California Public Resource Code § 4442 a); and, keeps a radio and round
point shovel in the vicinity of the work:
Blower
String Trimmer
DR String Trimmer Mower
Articulating Hedge Trimmer
Chainsaw
Pole Pruner
Grading Activity on Cleared Fire Roads
Track Ripping Activity on Cleared Motorcycle Park Tracks
Billy Goat Mower (smaller mower used by Roads)
Generator Use
The Departments are encouraged to complete as many mowing, disking and
hot work projects in the non-irrigated grass, brush or forest covered areas of
the County prior to the drying of flammable vegetation if such work is practical
and does not lead to the spread of invasive plant species. Early mowing prior
to annual/perennial native grass seed set removes the plant competition cover
and allows for growth of invasive species which flower later in the year.
Attachment 1
4
2. “Fire Season” and “Non-Fire Season Risk Period”
Defined
A) For purpose of this document, “Fire Season” is defined as the following:
1) The period of the year, which may change from year to year, during
which wildfires are likely to occur, spread, and do sufficient damage
to warrant organized fire control measures as declared by Cal Fire.
a) All procedural guidelines contained in this document will be
followed for non-excluded activities at all times during declared
fire season regardless of weather monitoring readings.
B) For purposes of this document, “Non-Fire Season Risk Period” is
defined as the following:
1) Anytime of the year, when weather monitoring indicates that
relative humidity is less than 30%.
a) All procedural guidelines contained in this document will be
followed during non-fire season for non-excluded activities
anytime relative humidity is less than 30%
3. Operational Procedures and Required Equipment
DURING FIRE SEASON, OPERATIONS Involving Mowing,
Disking or Hot Work which will be CONDUCTED WITHIN OR
ADJACENT TO NON-IRRIGATED GRASS, BRUSH OR FOREST
AREAS WILL BE CONDUCTED USING THE FOLLOWING
PROCEDURES:
A) Prior to Commencement of Operations:
1) Staff will secure the current fire conditions from Santa Clara
County Communications via radio or by calling (408) 299-2507.
a) No OPERATIONS shall occur within 24 hours preceding a
predicted Red Flag Day AS DETERMINED BY Cal Fire. Once
a Red Flag has been lifted, work can resume following these
guidelines.
2) Staff will assess current weather conditions at the planned
Attachment 1
5
site of operation every two hours.
a) In the event one of the following readings are noted, Operations
shall not begin, or will cease IMMEDIATELY!
THE RELATIVE HUMIDITY IS AT OR BELOW 30%
SUSTAINED WIND SPEEDS REACH 10 MPH
3) If ambient temperature reaches 80 degrees fahrenheit at any time
during the operation, weather samples must be taken hourly.
B) Required Equipment:
1) During Fire Season, THE FOLLOWING EQUIPMENT MUST
BE IMMEDIATELY AVAILABLE AT the Actual JOB SITE:
One serviceable round point shovel with an overall length
of not less than 46 inches; and,
One (5 gallon) water backpack pump fire extinguisher;
and,
One weather sampling device.
2) In addition, a Non-divertible Truck-mounted Water Pump and
Trained Observer is Required For High Risk Activities:
All high-risk activities must have a non-divertible water pump
equipped truck with a trained observer assigned to the operation
in lieu of a backpack water pump.
a) High Risk Activities Include the Following:
(i) Flailing, Disking, Operating Brush Hog Equipment and
Grading in heavy brush areas.(Heavy brush areas are
those where bare mineral soil is not visible).
3) A Non-divertible Truck mounted water pump and Trained
Observer is Not Required for Low Risk Activities:
Low risk activities do not require a non-divertible water pump
equipped truck or trained observer. However, weather monitoring
must still be followed. And, a shovel, a backpack water pump
and weather-sampling device must still be immediately available
Attachment 1
6
at the actual job site.
a) Low Risk Activities Include the Following:
(i) Cutting, Grinding, Torching and Welding is a low risk
activity so long as there is a 10’ clearance. (If a 10’
clearance cannot be achieved, then the work must be
adequately shielded to prevent sparks from flying from
the work site into adjacent vegetation.
Mowing light grass immediately adjacent to irrigated
lawns where natural fire breaks like roads, creeks or
paved paths are present is a low risk activity.
Cutting new trails with a Sweco, or other type of
Grading equipment for new trail construction if the
equipment pushes dirt over existing vegetation and any
risk of spark or ignition is minimal.
DURING NON- FIRE SEASON, OPERATIONS CONDUCTED WITHIN OR
ADJACENT TO GRASS, BRUSH OR FOREST AREAS WILL BE
CONDUCTED USING THE FOLLOWING RULES:
A) Prior to Commencement of Operations:
1) Weather Samples will be taken at the job site.
a) If relative humidity is more than 30% operations can proceed
without further weather monitoring or other fire fighting
devices.
b) If relative humidity reading is less than 30% the preceding
operational rules for fire season will be followed.
c) If relative humidity drops below 30% and sustained winds
exceed 10 MPH, operations will cease.
4. Trained Observer and Truck Mounted Water Pump
Requirements
A) When a trained observer is required under these procedural guidelines,
the observer must be familiar with the work being performed; how to
conduct weather monitoring; how to use the water pump equipment;
and, how to use a vehicle and/or hand held radio.
Attachment 1
7
B) The trained observer must remain in the immediate area of the truck
with the mounted water pumper; and, the truck must remain in the
immediate area of the work activity being monitored.
C) The trained observer will actively watch for sparks caused by the
equipment and shall notify the person conducting the actual work to
cease activity when sparks are observed. If the cause of the spark can
be identified and eliminated work may resume; otherwise, work must
stop until the cause of the sparking can be rectified.
D) Should a spark ignite dry vegetation the trained observer shall stop the
work, and call County Communications to report the location of the fire.
5. Equipment Inspection and Record Keeping
A) Prior to declared Fire Season of each calendar year, the Parks and
Roads Departments will inspect all of their assigned combustible
engine equipment that is intended for use in or adjacent to any grass,
brush or forested areas within the County.
1) The equipment must have a working spark arrestor that meets
the requirements of section 4442 of the Public Resource Code.
2) Equipment that has not been inspected shall not be used in the
noted areas.
B) Hired or contracted private equipment must meet the requirements of
this operational plan.
1) The provider of the equipment or the contractor who owns the
equipment shall certify in writing that the equipment has been
properly inspected and meets the requirements of these
guidelines.
C) The Parks Department and the Roads Department will maintain
maintenance and inspection records for their equipment related to this
plan and make them available for inspection by Cal Fire upon request.
D) Upon completion of a mowing or disking operation, equipment
operators shall inspect the equipment onsite and remove any build up
of potentially combustible material prior to leaving the area. This
serves the dual strategy of preventing invasive weed seed dispersal,
and potential combustible material build-up.
Attachment 1
8
1) If a piece of equipment needs to be parked in the field, it shall be
parked on mineral soil whenever possible.
2) The equipment shall be inspected for possible build-up of
combustible material, and possible sources of heat.
3) If the equipment has a hot undercarriage, the ground shall be
wetted prior to parking, and staff will confirm that the equipment
has cooled prior to leaving the equipment unattended.
6. Initial and Annual Refresher Training
A) Initial Training
Prior to commencing work that falls within these procedural guidelines
staff will receive initial training in the proper use of the piece of
equipment being used; how to follow the procedural guidelines of this
policy as it applies to that piece of equipment; the use of the water
pumper; and, the use of the weather sampling device from either their
direct supervisor or a designated training coordinator.
1) This initial training occurs throughout the year as new employees
are hired. All initial training records shall be kept in the
employees training record and shall be made available to Cal Fire
for inspection upon request.
B) Annual Refresher Training
All staff performing work that falls within these procedural guidelines will
also receive annual refresher training on the guidelines, the use of the
water pumper, and the weather sampling device.
1) Site senior staff and/or supervisors will meet once a year prior to
fire season to review the procedural guidelines and training
materials. A representative from Cal Fire will be invited to this
meeting and may elect to attend in order to discuss the
guidelines and answer any questions.
2) Within two weeks of this meeting, senior and/or supervisorial
staff will meet with their direct reports who conduct work that fall
within these guidelines and conduct a field site training.
1) Annual refresher training will occur in or about the month of April
Attachment 1
9
each year. All refresher training records shall be kept in the
employees training record and shall be made available to Cal Fire
for inspection upon request.
7. Applicable Laws and Regulations
CALIFORNIA HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE REFERENCE SECTIONS:
H&S §13001 - Causing Fire
“Every person is guilty of a misdemeanor who, through careless or
negligent action, throws or places any lighted cigarette, cigar, ashes,
or other flaming or glowing substance, or any substance or thing
which may cause a fire, in any place where it may directly or
indirectly start a fire, or who uses or operates a welding torch, tar pot
or any other device which may cause a fire, who does not clear the
inflammable material surrounding the operation or take such other
reasonable precautions necessary to insure against the starting and
spreading of fire.”
H&S § 13005 - Engine Without Exhaust Spark Arrester
“Every person is guilty of a misdemeanor who:
(a) Sells, offers for sale, leases, or rents to any person any tractor,
engine, machine, or truck equipped with an internal combustion
engine that uses hydrocarbon fuels, if either:
(1) It is specifically designed for use in harvesting or moving
grain or hay or for use on land covered with any other
flammable agricultural crop, unless the exhaust system of
the engine is equipped with a spark arrester in effective
working order or the engine is constructed, equipped, and
maintained for the prevention of fire pursuant to Section
4443 of the Public Resources Code.
(2) It is not specifically designed for any of the uses described in
paragraph (1) but could be used for any of those uses,
unless the person provides written notice to the purchaser or
bailee at the time of sale or at the time of entering into the
lease or rental contract stating that the use or operation of
the engine on any flammable agricultural cropland is a
violation of subdivision (b), unless the exhaust system is
equipped with a spark arrester in effective working order or
Attachment 1
10
the engine is constructed, equipped, and maintained for the
prevention of fire pursuant to Section 4443 of the Public
Resources Code.
(b) Operates or causes to be operated any tractor, engine, machine,
or truck equipped with an internal combustion engine that uses
hydrocarbon fuels in harvesting or moving grain or hay, or on
land covered with any other flammable agricultural crop, unless
the engine is equipped with a spark arrester maintained in
effective working order or the engine is constructed, equipped,
and maintained for the prevention of fire pursuant to Section 4443
of the Public Resources Code”.
Spark arrester, as used in this section, is as defined in Section
4442 of the Public Resources Code. Spark arresters attached to the
exhaust system of engines on equipment or vehicles, as described
in this section, shall not be placed or mounted in such a manner as
to allow flames or heat from the exhaust system to ignite any
flammable material. Motortrucks, truck tractors, buses, and
passenger vehicles, except motorcycles, are not subject to the
provisions of paragraph (2) of subdivision (a) if the exhaust system
is equipped with a muffler as defined in the Vehicle Code.
H&S § 13007 – Liability For Negligent Starting Of Fire
“Any person who personally or through another willfully, negligently,
or in violation of law, sets fire to, allows fire to be set to, or allows a
fire kindled or attended by him to escape to, the property of another,
whether privately or publicly owned, is liable to the owner of such
property for any damages to the property caused by the fire”.
CALIFORNIA PUBLIC RESOURCE CODE REFERENCES SECTIONS:
PRC § 4427 - Limits on Work When Burning Permits Required
“During any time of the year when burning permits are required in an
area pursuant to this article, no person shall use or operate any motor,
engine, boiler, stationary equipment, welding equipment, cutting
torches, tarpots, or grinding devices from which a spark, fire, or flame
may originate, which is located on or near any forest-covered land,
brush-covered land, or grass-covered land, without doing both of the
following:
(a) First clearing away all flammable material, including snags,
from the area around such operation for a distance of 10 feet.
Attachment 1
11
(b) Maintain one serviceable round point shovel with an overall
length of not less than forty-six (46) inches and one backpack
pump water-type fire extinguisher fully equipped and ready
for use at the immediate area during the operation”.
Section 4427 (b) of the Public Resource Code also requires these
tools to be carried on each piece of equipment and that they be kept
in a serviceable condition.
PRC § 4442 – Spark Arrestor Required
“(a) Except as otherwise provided in this section, no person shall use,
operate, or allow to be used or operated, any internal combustion
engine which uses hydrocarbon fuels on any forest-covered land,
brush-covered land, or grass-covered land unless the engine is
equipped with a spark arrester, as defined in subdivision (c),
maintained in effective working order or the engine is constructed,
equipped, and maintained for the prevention of fire.”
PRC § 4443 – Spark Arrestor Placement And Exclusions
“(b) Spark arresters affixed to the exhaust system of engines or
vehicles subject to this section shall not be placed or mounted in such
a manner as to allow flames or heat from the exhaust system to ignite
any flammable material.
(c) A spark arrester is a device constructed of nonflammable materials
specifically for the purpose of removing and retaining carbon and
other flammable particles over 0.0232 of an inch in size from the
exhaust flow of an internal combustion engine that uses hydrocarbon
fuels or which is qualified and rated by the United States Forest
Service.
(d) Engines used to provide motive power for trucks, truck tractors,
buses, and passenger vehicles, except motorcycles, are not subject to
this section if the exhaust system is equipped with a muffler as
defined in the Vehicle Code.
(e) Turbocharged engines are not subject to this section if all
exhausted gases pass through the rotating turbine wheel, there is no
exhaust bypass to the atmosphere, and the turbocharger is in
effective mechanical condition.”
Attachment 1
12
8. CONTACT INFORMATION
County Communications
Weather Conditions (408) 299-2507
Cal Fire
Morgan Hill Headquarters (408) 779-2121
ANY Fire Emergency 9-1-1
Attachment 1
Attachment 1
280
Rancho San Antonio OSP
Rancho San Antonio
Rancho San Antonio (Diocese)
CRISTO REY DR
F
O
O
T
H
I
L
L
B
LV
D
DEODARA DR
FOOTHILL EXPYGRANT RD
MORA DR
ARBORETUM DR
WOODS LN
ALPINE D
R
S A L E M AV E
CRIST DRLOYOLA D R
KENT DR
O
A
K V
A
LL
E
Y R
D
FARM RD
HIGHLANDS CIR
R
A
M
P
BEECHWOOD LN
VISTA K
N
OLL BLV
D
WINDIMER DR
STONEHAVEN DR
H
I
L
L
C
R
E
S
T
R
D
STARLING DR
CANYON OAK WAY
V I N E Y A R D D R
SAINT JOSE
PH AVE
REDWOOD DR
C
E
D
A
R PL
CRESTON DR
KENBAR RD
FARNDON AVE
CUPERTINO RD
MORA GLEN DR
ASPEN DR
B A H L S T
S
U
N
H
I
L
L
S
D
R
EL SERENO AVE
H
E
N
E
Y
C
R
E
E
K
P
L
BAXTER AVE
LOUIS
E LN
SEQUOIA DR
AINSWORTH DR
ROLLY RD
VIA ESPLENDOR
S
Y
C
A
M
O
R
E
D
R
PINECREST DR
MANZANITA CT
WOODVIEW TER
HARTMAN DR
M
I
M
O
S
A C
T
FRIARS LN
VIA MADEROS
S E R R A S T
HOMESTEAD RD
CALIFO
RNIA OAK W
AY
L
O
C
K
H
A
V
E
N
D
R
V I A H U E R T A
FIR LN
HAMMOND WAY
C A RTA BLA N C A ST
OXFORD DR
POPPY DR
ENGLISH OAK WAY
W
I
S
T
A
R
I
A
L
N
SERENO DR
BLACK OAK WAY
J O N E S L N
S I LV E R OA K WAY
C
I
TAT
I
ON
D
R
SAINT MARK CT
V
I
A
E
S
C
A
L
E
R
A
C
R
I
S
T
O
R
E
Y
P
L
A
N
T
H
O
N
Y P
L
VIA V
E
N
T
U
R
A
K R I N G W A Y
ROYAL OAK WAY
VIN
E
Y
A
R
D C
T
AMAPOLO CT
VICTORIA CT
LINDA ANN CT
M O R A Q U I T A C T
O A S I S C T
P
O
L
O
M
A
C
T
F
O
O
T
H
I
L
L
B
LV
D
RAMP
RAMP
FOOTHILL EXPY
RAMP
FIR LN
H E N E Y C R E E K
PER
M
A
N
E
N
T
E
C
R
E
E
K
O HLONE CREEK
WEST BRANCH PERMANENTE CREEK
L O Y O L A C R EEK
This map generated by the County of Santa Clara Department of Parks and Recreation. The GIS files were compiled from various sources. While deemed reliable, the Department assumes no liability.
Title:
Date:
Comments:
Created By:Scale:
0 360 720 1,080 1,440180Feet
Rancho San Antonio County Park& the Diocese Property
October 29, 2010
EXHIBIT 1
R-15-93
Meeting 15-16
June 24, 2015
AGENDA ITEM 7
AGENDA ITEM
New Other Power-Driven Mobility Device Policy and amended Trail Use Policies
GENERAL MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATION
The General Manager recommends that the Board approve the following recommendations from
the Planning and Natural Resources Committee:
1. Adopt the draft “Other Power-Driven Mobility Device Policy”
2. Adopt the amended “Trail Use Policies”
SUMMARY
The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA- Title II Regulations, 28 C.F.R. Part 35) requires that
people with mobility related disabilities be allowed to use Other Power-Driven Mobility Devices
to access public facilities. Other Power-Driven Mobility Device use can be limited by policy to
those areas that are safe for such use and do not unreasonably interfere with others’ use of the
facility. Approval of the draft policy would allow people with disabilities to use Other Power-
Driven Mobility Devices on District lands while at the same time instituting limitations for safety
and resource protection. The Planning and Natural Resources Committee reviewed this topic on
April 14, 2015, and unanimously supports the recommendations for the full Board’s
consideration.
DISCUSSION
An Other Power-Driven Mobility Device (OPDMD) is a battery, fuel or other engine-powered
mobility device that is used by individuals with mobility disabilities for the purpose of
locomotion. Examples of OPDMDs include electric golf carts, personal assistance mobility
devices (EPAMDs) such as a Segway® PT, ATVs, electric bicycles or other mobility devices
designed to operate in areas without routes designed for disabled access. The “other” in Other
Power-Driven Mobility Devices is used to distinguish a wide range of potential power driven
devices from wheelchairs and mobility scooters. By federal law wheelchairs and mobility
scooters are generally allowed to go any place that pedestrians are allowed. In the absence of a
Board approved policy, people with disabilities that affect their mobility are allowed to use a
variety of devices including gas powered devices and devices larger than can be accommodated
on District trails.
The Americans with Disabilities Act requires that people with mobility related disabilities be
allowed to use OPDMDs and also allows public agencies to institute reasonable restrictions.
R-15-93 Page 2
In evaluating the types of restrictions that are reasonable for OPDMD use, the rules require that
the agency conduct an assessment that includes an evaluation regarding:
• The type, size, weight, dimensions, and speed of the device.
• The facility’s volume of pedestrian traffic, which may vary at different times of the
day, week, month or year.
• The facility’s design and operational characteristics (i.e., whether its service, program
or activity is conducted indoors; its square footage; the density and placement of
stationary devices; and the availability of storage for the device, if requested by the
user).
• The establishment of legitimate safety requirements to permit the safe operation of
the OPDMD in the specific facility.
• The consideration as to whether the use of the OPDMD creates a substantial risk of
serious harm to the immediate environment or natural or cultural resources, or poses a
conflict with federal land-management laws and regulations.
The draft policy was developed using the above criteria and by reviewing the policies of other
parks and open space agencies that have established OPDMD policies, including East Bay
Regional Park District, Santa Clara County Parks, Santa Clara County Open Space Authority,
California State Parks and Orange County Parks. All of these policies are very similar, generally
only allow zero emission devices, and have size and weight restrictions for safety. All of the
policies except state parks allow for the use of electric bicycles in the same manner as self
propelled bicycles. The draft District policy follows the same guidelines, including allowing the
use of electric bicycles as OPDMDs.
There is also a related conforming amendment to the Board’s Trail Use Policies, a minor change
to include a reference to allowing OPDMDs. Without the amendment the Trail Use Policies
would be in conflict with the OPDMD policy and the Americans with Disabilities Act because
there is a prohibition on all motorized vehicles in the policy which would exclude OPDMDs.
FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact associated with the General Manager’s Recommendation.
BOARD COMMITTEE REVIEW
The District’s Planning and Natural Resources Committee held a meeting on April 14, 2015. The
Committee approved recommending the approval of the draft “Other Power-Driven Mobility
Device Policy” and the amended “Trail Use Policies” to the full Board of Directors by a 3-0
vote.
PUBLIC NOTICE
Public notice was provided as required by the Brown Act. Notifications were also sent to parties
interested in access for persons with disabilities and parties interested in trail use.
CEQA COMPLIANCE
This item is not a project subject to the California Environmental Quality Act.
R-15-93 Page 3
NEXT STEPS
If the Board approves the General Manager’s recommendation, the Other Power Driven Device
Policy will be adopted as a Board Policy and be posted on the District’s web site. The Trail Use
Policies will be amended and the web site updated with the amendments.
Attachments
1. Draft Board Policy 4.10 Other Power Driven Mobility Devices
2. Amended Board Policy 4.07 Trail Use
3. Assessment Factors
4. Comparison of OPDMD Policies
5. U.S. Dept. of Justice ADA Fact sheet Wheelchairs, Mobility Aids, and
Other Power-Driven Mobility Devices
Responsible Department Head:
Michael Newburn, Operations Manager
Prepared by:
Brian Malone, Area Superintendent, Operations
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
Board Policy Manual
Other Power-Driven Mobility
Devices
Policy 4.10
Chapter 4 – Acquisition & Maintenance of District
Lands
Effective Date: 6/24/15 Revised Date: N/A
Prior Versions: N/A
Board Policy 4.10 Page 1 of 4
Introduction
The Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (“District”) accommodates recreational
opportunities for people with mobility disabilities by allowing the use of other power‐driven
mobility devices (“OPDMD”) in areas where they can be operated safely, without posing risk of
serious harm to natural and cultural resources, and in conformity with federal land
management laws and regulations.
To ensure that OPDMD operation does not pose significant safety risks or fundamentally alter
the nature of services, programs, and activities provided by the District, all OPDMDs operated
on District Lands must meet the standards below. (See
Section IV)
This policy applies only to OPDMD (non‐wheelchair) usage. In accordance with federal law,
wheelchairs including mobility scooters and manually powered mobility aids, such as walkers,
crutches, canes, braces, and other similar devices are permitted anywhere in the District where
pedestrian travel is allowed.
Due to the variety of OPDMDs available and the fact that most District trails were not designed
for such use, visitors with mobility impairments should use their judgment in assessing the
practicality of using their device on a particular trail. Due to slope, surface condition, or many
other factors OPDMD use may be physically impossible or unsafe even when allowed.
Purpose
The purpose of this policy is to provide guidelines for use of OPDMDs on District Lands, trails,
and facilities pursuant to the U.S. Department of Justice regulations amending the Americans
with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), Title II regulations, 28 C.F.R., Part 35.
OPDMD Defined
Other power‐driven mobility device means any mobility device powered by batteries, fuel, or
other engines—whether or not designed for use by individuals with mobility disabilities—that is
used by individuals with mobility disabilities for the purpose of locomotion, including golf cars,
electronic personal assistance mobility devices (EPAMDs), such as the Segway PT, or any
Attachment 1
Board Policy 4.10 Page 2 of 4
mobility device designed to operate in areas without defined pedestrian routes (defined
pedestrian routes are those routes that are required to be wheelchair and disability accessible
such as routes from parking to restrooms and public facilities), but that is not a wheelchair.
Standards and Areas of Authorized Use
A. Size
OPDMDs shall not be wider than 36” or longer than 48”, except for electric bicycles
which may exceed 48” in length. OPDMDs shall not exceed 550 lbs. including the
operator.
B. Gas Powered OPDMDs Prohibited
OPDMDs shall not exceed zero emissions during use. Only manually or
battery/electricity operated devices are permitted. The use of gas or other fuel powered
mobility devices is prohibited.
C. Speed Limit
1. Trails: No person shall operate an OPDMD at a speed in excess of 5 miles per
hour, except for electric powered bicycles which must comply with all the
regulations for bicycles, including the 5 mph maximum on blind turns and when
passing and 15 mph maximum speed.
2. Basic Speed Limit: Notwithstanding the above speed limits, no person shall
operate an OPDMD at a speed greater than is reasonable or prudent having due
regard for trail sight‐lines, trail traffic, and the surface and width of a trail, or at a
speed which endangers the safety of persons or property.
D. Areas of Authorized Use
OPDMDs are authorized on/in:
1. “Paths of travel” (e.g., sidewalks, driveways, parking lots, ramps, and restrooms)
2. Trails designated as Easy Access (e.g., typically surfaced trails designed for
accessibility)
3. Paved Trails
4. Wide unimproved or surfaced trails.
5. Although OPDMDs are generally authorized in these areas, they may be
restricted in specific circumstances due to design limitations or operational
Attachment 1
Board Policy 4.10 Page 3 of 4
characteristics of the trail/facility. OPDMDs must stay on designated trails at all
times.
6. Electric powered bicycles are authorized where bicycles are allowed including
narrow width unpaved trails.
Restrictions and Limitations
A. Closed/Restricted Areas
OPDMDs are not permitted in areas that are closed or restricted to the general public
due to safety concerns or for resource protection.
B. Trails
OPDMDs are not permitted on the following:
1. Narrow width unpaved trails except for electric powered bicycles which may go
where bicycles are allowed.
2. Trails where the width of the OPDMD exceeds half the trail width.
C. Interpretive/Visitor Centers; Reservable Facilities; Public Buildings (“Facility”)
Due to design characteristics, the District may restrict OPDMDs in certain
interpretive/visitor centers, reservable facilities, and public buildings. Individuals are
encouraged to contact the facility prior to their visit to determine if there are any
restrictions or limitations. The District reserves the right to further restrict the use of
OPDMDs during special events or during periods of high volume pedestrian traffic.
Use and Inquiry into Use of OPDMD
Only individuals with a mobility disability may use OPDMDs on District lands. The District may
stop individuals who are using an OPDMD because all powered devices except wheelchairs are
prohibited under District ordinance.
The District shall not ask an individual using a wheelchair or OPDMD questions about the nature
and extent of the individual’s disability. If a person using an OPDMD states they are using the
device due to a mobility disability the District may ask them to provide credible assurance that
the mobility device is required because of the person’s disability. The District shall accept the
presentation of a valid, state‐issued, disability parking placard or card, or other state‐issued
proof of disability as a credible assurance that the use of the OPDMD is for the individual’s
mobility disability. In lieu of a valid, state‐issued disability parking placard or card, or
state‐issued proof of disability, the District shall accept as a credible assurance a verbal
representation, not contradicted by observable fact, that the OPDMD is being used for a
mobility disability. A “valid” disability placard or card is one that is presented by the person to
Attachment 1
Board Policy 4.10 Page 4 of 4
whom it was issued and is otherwise in compliance with the state of issuance’s requirements
for disability placards or cards.
Variance Procedure
Persons desiring to use an OPDMD which does not meet the standards for types of devices
allowed or for use in a location where OPDMDs are prohibited, may request a change of use by
submitting the request in writing to the District’s Americans with Disabilities Act Coordinator
addressed as follows:
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
Attention: Americans with Disabilities Act Coordinator
330 Distel Circle
Los Altos, CA 94022
by email to info@openspace.org, or by calling (650) 691‐1200. The requested variance shall be
evaluated by District staff and a decision shall be communicated to the person(s) requesting the
variance within ten business days.
If there is a physical barrier that prevents the use of an OPDMD a visitor may use the same
process to request an accommodation to allow their use.
Revisions
This policy may be revised as trails and facilities are further assessed to determine the extent of
physical constraints, resource protection criteria, and safety concerns for all trail users.
Governing Authority
Americans with Disabilities Act, Title II regulation, 28 C.F.R. Part 35.
Attachment 1
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
Board Policy Manual
Trail Use Policy 4.07
Chapter 4 – Acquisition & Maintenance of
District Lands
Effective Date: 11/14/90 Revised Date: 6/24/15
Prior Versions: 11/14/90, 7/12/00, 11/13/13
Board Policy 4.07 Page 1 of 4
PREAMBLE
One of the District’s basic policy statements is that it will “follow a land management policy that
provides proper care of open space land, allowing access appropriate to the nature of the land
and consistent with ecological values.” As a result of the rapidly increasing level of trail use and
the increased types of trail use, it is necessary to adopt more specific policies on trail use in
order to effectively implement this basic policy statement.
The District is concerned both with the safety of all trail users and the enjoyment of their open
space experience. The purpose for which people use open space trails varies depending on
individual or group needs. Visitors may come to observe nature in a protected environment,
experience tranquility, exercise in a non-urban setting, or any combination of these. The means
by which visitors use trails also varies—be it hiking, running, on bicycle, on horseback, or in a
wheelchair. Motorized vehicles are prohibited, except electric wheelchairs and other power-
driven mobility devices as further set out in the Board Policy on Other Power Driven Mobility
Devices.
The combination of trail conditions, level of use, and the mix of uses may lead to conflicts.
Conflicts result in negative environment impacts, unpleasant user experiences, or unsafe
situations. Conflicts are related to several factors, including:
• The relative speeds of different users
• Existing trail conditions, such as poor line-of-sight, narrowness, steep slopes and wide-
open stretches of trail that might encourage excessive speed.
• A lack of knowledge of, or disregard for, trail use etiquette and regulations by all types
of users
• A high concentration of use in certain areas
This set of policies is intended as a guide in establishing trail use designations throughout the
District which will promote safe and enjoyable experiences for all who use the District lands.
These policies are not intended to restrict who may use the District trails, but they may restrict
how, or under what conditions, the trails are to be used.
POLICIES
Attachment 2
Board Policy 4.07 Page 2 of 4
1.0 The District will endeavor to provide a variety of satisfying trail use opportunities on
open space preserves throughout the District. More specifically, the District will endeavor to:
1.1 Provide multiple use on individual trails where such use is consistent with the
balance of these policies.
1.2 Protect the opportunity for tranquil nature study and observation, especially in
those areas identified as providing a unique wilderness experience.
2.0 The District will designate appropriate use(s) for each trail. Uses will be allowed that are
consistent with District’s objectives for sound resource management and safe and compatible
use. More specifically, the District will:
2.1 Allow trail use appropriate to the nature of the land and consistent with the
protection of the natural, scenic and aesthetic values of open space.
2.2 Within budgetary and staffing constraints, make reasonable efforts to provide
safe conditions for trail users.
2.3 Evaluate trail user needs, concerns, quality of experience, impacts, and the
compatibility of various uses. Those uses creating the least conflict among trail users
and the least environmental impact will be given greatest preference in trail use
planning.
2.4 Ensure that all District trails will be accessible to hiking. When consistent with
this policy, if a non-hiking use adversely impacts user safety, the use may be restricted
or redirected. The intention is not to restrict access by any individual, but rather to
limit incompatible uses and means of travel.
2.5 The District will strive to provide multi-use trail access (including bicycles) to
dedicated sections of the Bay Area Ridge Trail and other regional trails by allowing
exceptions to preserve bicycle closures for the Ridge Trail. The District will also strive
to provide multi use trail access to regional trails connecting urban areas to the Ridge
Trail. Access to such regional connecting trails will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis,
including consideration of availability of suitable regional trailhead staging, the
availability of other alternative multi-use trail connections in the same region, and the
completion of the CEQA process.
The district will encourage other agencies to provide Ridge Trail and regional trail
connections on the same basis.
3.0 The Board of Directors will adopt qualitative and quantitative trail use guidelines to aid
the Board and staff in determining trail use designations in the implementation of these
policies.
3.1 As a planning tool to aid the Board and staff in determining future trail use
designations, the District will consider, along with the Trail Use Guidelines and these
Attachment 2
Board Policy 4.07 Page 3 of 4
Policies, a guideline target trail use designation ratio of 60% to 65% multi- use trails
(including bicycles) to 35% to 40% hiking or hiking-and-equestrian trails (excluding
bicycles). This will not be a quantitative restriction, but a flexible planning tool to
consider. Actual use designation of trails and preserves will only be established after
the Use and Management Planning Process and CEQA process have been completed.
4.0 Specific trail use designations will be established and reviewed periodically through the
Use and Management Planning Process, and will be subject to adopted Public Notification
Procedures. Trail use designations may change if use patterns develop that are in conflict with
these policies.
4.1 In extreme cases where there is not sufficient time to comply with the Use and
Management Planning Process, the Board of Directors or General Manager may make
an interim decision to limit use while providing an evaluation process and timeline for
final determination of the designated use.
5.0 The District will endeavor to provide trail access for a variety of physical capabilities and
user needs (including persons with physical limitations) in a manner consistent with resource
protection goals, budgetary constraints, and state and federal regulations.
6.0 The District will carry out management programs necessary for the implementation of
these trail use policies. The designation of appropriate trail use as a method of minimizing trail
use conflicts and environmental impacts will require a significant increase in trail use measures
such as education, physical improvements to trails, and enforcement of trail use regulations.
More specifically, the District will:
6.1 Support trail use actions with a strong educational program. The District
recognizes that education in proper trail etiquette and low-impact use is a key measure
towards the reduction of negative trail use impacts.
6.2 Monitor trail use conditions on a regular basis. The purpose of a monitoring
program will be to evaluate current conditions and to determine whether or not
trail management programs, including maintenance, reconstruction, education, and use
regulations, are effective in addressing user conflicts and environmental impacts, and to
recommend changes if necessary.
6.3 Include implementation costs in determining the feasibility of trail use
designations and regulations.
7.0 The District will work with other agencies, interest groups, and private landowners in an
effort to promote an interconnecting trail system throughout the region. The District
recognizes that connections should be compatible with other jurisdiction designations and land
owner objectives as well as these policies and trail use guidelines.
8.0 The District recognizes that existing trail use characteristics such as the types of use,
conflicts, and impacts may change over time so that certain policies may no longer be
Attachment 2
Board Policy 4.07 Page 4 of 4
appropriate or a new policy may be required. Hence, these policies will be subject to review
and revision as deemed necessary by the Board of Directors, following adopted Public
Notification procedures.
Attachment 2
Assessment Factors for the Development of a Draft Policy on the Use of Other Power-Driven Mobility Devices
Assessment
Factors
Proposed District Standards/
Restrictions/Limitations
Authority:
Americans with
Disabilities
Act, Title II
Regulation, 28
C.F.R., Part 35
Justification
Size OPDMDs shall not be wider than 36” or
longer than 48” except for electric
bicycles which may exceed 48” in
length. OPDMDs shall not exceed
550lbs including the weight of the
operator.
Section 35.137(b)(2)(i) The District’s trails vary in width. The 36 inch or half of trail width
maximum width will allow for safe passage in the opposite direction,
allow for the OPDMD to be turned safely on most trails, and permit
other users to pass.
The weight limit is designed to limit heavier loads for two reasons.
Heavier loads may cause damage to trails. Heavier devices may also
be unstable on District trails which are primarily un-compacted dirt
surfaces that may not be able to accommodate heavier loads safely.
Gas Powered OPDMDs shall not exceed zero
emissions during use. The use of
gas or other fuel-powered mobility
devices is prohibited.
Section 35.137(b)(2)(i)
to (v)
1) Gasoline engine exhausts produces particulate matter and
exhaust fumes which pose an increased health risk for the
recreational user1;
2) District trails provide a cleaner air alternative by providing
recreation and a green transportation commute corridor away from
exposure to exhaust fumes;
3) Spilled or leaked fuel or oil poses a safety risk to other users,
especially bicyclists and runners, and in natural areas poses an
environmental hazard;
4) Heat from a gas-fired engine creates a fire danger in natural
areas;
5) Engine noise from gas powered vehicles disturbs and diminishes
the experience for other users and disturbs wildlife;
6) Gasoline operated devices would fundamentally alter the natural
and recreational values of District trails; and
7) The terms of conservation easements, regulations, and other
permit conditions on certain District lands may prohibit the use of
motor vehicles for recreational purposes.
1 Study by Transport Research Institute at Hasselt University in Belgium found that bicyclists inhale 5 times more toxic nano-particles than pedestrians. A 2007 study published in New England
Journal of Medicine that pedestrians exposed to exhaust fumes suffered from asthma symptoms, reduced breathing capacity and lung inflammation.
A 2010 study published in the journal of Environmental Health Perspectives showed a link between heavy traffic and heart health risks, with cyclists having irregularities in the hours after their
exposure to a variety of air pollutants on busy roads.
Attachment 3
Assessment Factors for the Development of a Draft Policy on the Use of Other Power-Driven Mobility Devices
Assessment
Factors
Proposed District Standards/
Restrictions/Limitations
Authority:
Americans with
Disabilities
Act, Title II
Regulation, 28
C.F.R., Part 35
Justification
Speed Limit:
Paved and
Unpaved Trails
No person shall operate an OPDMD at a
speed in excess of 5 miles per hour or
at a speed greater than is safe under
existing trail conditions except for
electric powered bicycles which must
comply with all the regulations for
bicycles, including the 5mph maximum
on blind turns and when passing and
the maximum speed limit of 15 mph.
Section
35.137(b)(2)(i);
Section 35.137(b)
(2)(iv)
OPDMDs are comprised of a variety of different devices. The
variety of designs and configurations, combined with trails that
were not designed for vehicle travel, limit the speed at which an
OPDMD can travel safely. Five MPH or the maximum safe speed
for conditions allows for access but limits the potential for
accidents. Electric powered bicycles have maneuverability and
control similar to self propelled bicycles and therefore should
follow the same speed regulations.
Closed and
Restricted
Areas
OPDMDs are not permitted in areas
that are closed or restricted to the
general public due to safety concerns or
for resource protection.
Section
35.137(b)(2)(v)
When areas are closed to all use the same rational for restricting
access applies, regardless of the mode of transportation.
Closed Trails OPDMDs are not permitted on narrow
track unpaved trails except for electric
powered bicycles which may go where
bicycles are allowed.
OPDMDs are not permitted on trails
where the width of the OPDMD exceeds
half the trail width.
Section 35.137(b)(2)(i)
to (v)
These are trail areas that are by definition narrow and where two-
way traffic is limited. Exceeding the trail width poses a risk of
substantial harm to the environment and natural resources.
Narrow trails also are in natural areas where steep terrain and trail
conditions are unsuitable for OPDMDs.
Electric bicycles Electric powered bicycle OPDMDs are
restricted to the areas where self
propelled bicycles are allowed.
Section 35.137(b)(2)(i)
to (v)
Trails that allow bicycles have been designed or evaluated for the
suitability of such use. Trails where bicycles are prohibited are not
appropriate for such use.
Attachment 3
Comparison of Other Power-Driven Mobility Devices Policies for Local Agencies with Comparable Lands
Assessment
Factors
Proposed District Policy Santa Clara County Parks Santa Clara County Open
Space Authority
California State Parks East Bay Regional Parks
Size OPDMDs shall not be wider 36”
or longer than 48” except for
electric bicycles which may
exceed 48” in length.
OPDMDs shall not exceed
550lbs including the weight of
the operator.
OPDMDs shall not be wider than
36” or longer than 48”, except for
electric bicycles which may exceed
48” in length.
OPDMDs shall not be wider than
36” or longer than 48”, or weigh
more than 550 pounds.
OPDMDs shall not be wider than 36” or
longer than 48”.
The overall weight of the device and
user(s) shall not exceed 550 pounds.
OPDMDs shall not be wider than
36” or longer than 48”, except for
electric bicycles which may exceed
48” in length.
Gas Powered OPDMDs shall not exceed zero
emissions during use. The use of
gas or other fuel-powered
mobility devices is prohibited.
In order to ensure zero emissions,
only manually or
battery/electricity operated
devices are permitted. The use of
gas powered mobility devices is
prohibited.
In order to ensure zero emissions,
only manually or battery powered
OPDMDs are permitted.
OPDMDs shall not exceed zero
emissions during use.
OPDMDs shall not produce noise levels
in excess of 70 decibels.
OPDMDs shall not exceed zero
emissions during use.
Only manually or
battery/electricity operated
devices are permitted. The use of
gas powered mobility devices is
prohibited.
Speed Limit:
Paved and
Unpaved Trails
No person shall operate an
OPDMD at a speed in excess of 5
miles per hour or at a speed
greater than is safe under
existing trail conditions except
for electric powered bicycles
which must comply with all the
regulations for bicycles,
including the 5mph maximum
on blind turns and when passing
and the maximum speed limit of
15 mph.
No person shall operate an
OPDMD at a speed in excess of 10
miles per hour. Electric bicycles
shall not be operated in excess of
the posted speed limit or 15 miles
per hour. Notwithstanding the
above speed limits, no person
shall operate an OPDMD at a
speed greater than is reasonable
or prudent having due regard for
trail sight-lines, the traffic on, and
the surface and width of a trail,
nor at a speed which endangers
the safety of persons or property.
No person shall operate an OPDMD
at a speed in excess of 10 miles per
hour. Notwithstanding this speed
limit, no person shall operate an
OPDMD at a speed greater than is
reasonable and prudent having due
regard for other users, trail sight-
lines, and the surface of the trail.
OPDMDs shall not be operated at
speeds in excess of 5 miles per hour.
Devices capable of exceeding speeds of
5 mph will not be prohibited from use
but individuals observed exceeding the
speed limit will be subject to citation
and penalties.
No person shall operate an
OPDMD at a speed in excess of 10
miles per hour. Electric bicycles
shall not be operated in excess of
the posted speed limit or 15 miles
per hour. Notwithstanding the
above speed limits, no person
shall operate an OPDMD at a
speed greater than is reasonable
or prudent having due regard for
trail sight-lines, the traffic on, and
the surface and width of a trail,
nor at a speed which endangers
the safety of persons or property.
Attachment 4
Comparison of Other Power-Driven Mobility Devices Policies for Local Agencies with Comparable Lands
Assessment
Factors
Proposed District Policy Santa Clara County Parks Santa Clara County Open
Space Authority
California State Parks East Bay Regional Parks
Closed Trails OPDMDs are not permitted on
narrow unpaved trails except for
electric powered bicycles which
may go where bicycles are
allowed.
OPDMDs are not permitted on
trails where the width of the
OPDMD exceeds half the trail
width.
OPDMDs are not permitted on
narrow single track trails (except
for electric bicycles which are
permitted under this policy
anywhere bicycles are allowed).
OPDMDs are not permitted on
trails where the width of the
OPDMD exceeds half the trail
width.
OPDMDs are not permitted on
single-track trails within the
Authority’s preserves, except for
electric bicycles as specified above.
Electric bicycles are prohibited on
single-track trails where other
bicycles are excluded due to safety
concerns and for the protection of
natural resources.
OPDMDs are not permitted in areas
other than those listed is prohibited.
Areas of authorized use are listed as
designated Class I accessible or
multiple use trails, access roads open
to multiple recreation use, accessible
pathways in campgrounds and picnic
areas, and exterior routes of travel
designed for pedestrian use within
developed public use areas.
OPDMDs are not permitted on
narrow track trails (except for
electric bicycles which are
permitted under this policy
anywhere bicycles are allowed).
OPDMDs are not permitted on
trails where the width of the
OPDMD exceeds half the trail
width.
Closed and
Restricted Areas
OPDMDs are not permitted in
areas that are closed or
restricted to the general public
due to safety concerns or for
resource protection.
OPDMDs are not permitted in
areas that are closed or restricted
to the general public due to safety
concerns or for resource
protection.
OPDMDs are not permitted in areas
that are closed to the general
public.
List of areas where they are allowed
which does not include areas generally
closed to the public.
OPDMDs are not permitted in
areas that are closed or restricted
to the general public due to safety
concerns or for resource protect
Electric bicycles Electric powered bicycle
OPDMDs are restricted to the
areas where self propelled
bicycles are allowed.
Electric bicycles which are
permitted under this policy
anywhere bicycles are allowed.
Electric bicycles used by persons
with mobility disabilities are
permitted on single track multi-use
trails that are open to other
bicycles.
Not specifically addressed but almost
all adult bicycles exceed 48” in length.
Electric bicycles which are
permitted under this policy
anywhere bicycles are allowed.
Attachment 4
U.s. Department of Justice
Civil Rights Division
Disability Rights Section
The Department of
Justice published
revised final regulations
implementing the
Americans with
Disabilities Act (ADA) for
title II (State and local
government services)
and title III (public
accommodations and
commercial facilities)
on September 15, 2010,
in the Federal Register.
These requirements, or
rules, clarify and refine
issues that have arisen
over the past 20 years
and contain new, and
updated, requirements,
including the 2010
Standards for Accessible
Design (2010 Standards).
Wheelchairs, Mobility Aids, and
Other Power-Driven Mobility Devices
People with mobility, circulatory, respiratory, or neurological
disabilities use many kinds of devices for mobility. Some
use walkers, canes, crutches, or braces. Some use manual
or power wheelchairs or electric scooters. In addition, ad
vances in technology have given rise to new devices, such as
Segways®, that some people with disabilities use as mobil
ity devices, including many veterans injured while serving in
the military. And more advanced devices will inevitably be
invented, providing more mobility options for people with
disabilities.
This publication is designed to help title II entities (State and
local governments) and title III entities (businesses and non
profit organizations that serve the public) (together, IIcovered
entities") understand how the new rules for mobility devices
apply to them. These rules went into effect on March 15,
2011.
• Covered entities must allow people with disabilities
who use manual or power wheelchairs or scooters,
and manually-powered mobility aids such as walkers,
crutches, and canes, into all areas where members of the
public are allowed to go.
• Covered entities must also allow people with disabilities
who use other types of power-driven mobility devices
into their facilities, unless a particular type of device
cannot be accommodated because of legitimate safety
requirements. Where legitimate safety requirements
bar accommodation for a particular type of device,
the covered entity must provide the service it offers in
alternate ways if possible.
Attachment 5
�therPo�er Driven �obil�y Devices ��������������������_
• The rules set out five specific factors
to consider in deciding whether or
not a particular type of device can be
accom modated.
*,"" "" "" X
/ V «
� Wheelchairs
� � � /'
Most people are familiar with the manual
and power wheelchairs and electric scoot
ers used by people with mobility disabilities.
The term "wheelchair" is defined in the new
rules as "a manually-operated or power
driven device designed primarily for use
by an individual with a mobility disability
for the main purpose of indoor or of both
indoor and outdoor locomotion:'
In recent years, some people with mobility
disabilities have begun using less tradi
tional mobility devices such as golf cars or
Segways®. These devices are called "o ther
power-driven mobility device" (OPDMD) in
the rule. OPDMD is defined in the new rules
as "any mobility device powered by batter
ies, fuel, or other engines ...
that is used by individuals with
mobility disabilities for the pur
pose of locomotion, including
golf cars, electronic personal
assistance mobility devices
... such as the Segway® PT, or
any mobility device designed
to operate in areas without
defined pedestrian routes, but
that is not a wheelchair': When
an OPDMD is being used by a
person with a mobility disabil-
� �DA Requirements
ity, different rules apply under the ADA than
when it is being used by a person without a
disability.
«/ /
Choice of Device
/ ««
People with disabilities have the right to
choose whatever mobility device best suits
their needs. For example, someone may
choose to use a manual wheelchair rather
than a power wheelchair because it enables
her to maintain her upper body strength.
Similarly, someone who is able to stand
may choose to use a Segway® rather than
a manual wheelchair because of the health
benefits gained by standing. A facility may
be required to allow a type of device that
is generally prohibited when being used
by someone without a disability when it is
being used by a person who needs it be
cause of a mobility disability. For example,
if golf cars are generally prohibited in a
park, the park may be required to allow a
golf car when it is being used because of a
person's mobility disability, unless there is
a legitimate safety reason that it cannot be
accommodated.
Attachment 5
Requirements RegarCiing
MoBility; Devices anCi �iCls A � � 0 y
Under the new rules, covered entities must
allow people with disabilities who use
wheelchairs (including manual wheelchairs,
power wheelchairs, and electric scooters)
and manually-powered mobility aids such as
walkers, crutches, canes, braces, and other
similar devices into all areas of a facility
where members of the public are allowed to
go.
In addition, covered entities must allow
people with disabilities who use any
OPDMD to enter the premises unless a par
ticular type of device cannot be accommo
dated because of legitimate safety require
ments. Such safety requirements must be
based on actual risks, not on speculation or
stereotypes about a particular type of device
or how it might be operated by people with
disabilities using them.
• For some facilities --such as a
hospital, a shopping mall, a large
home improvement store with
wide aisles, a public park, or
an outdoor amusement park
-covered entities will likely
determine that certain classes
of OPDMDs being used by
people with disabilities can
be accommodated. These
entities must allow people with
disabilities using these types of
OPDMDs into all areas where
members of the public are
allowed to go.
• In some cases, even in facilities
such as those described
above, an OPDMD can be
accommodated in some areas of a
facility, but not in others because of
legitimate safety concerns. For example,
a cruise ship may decide that people
with disabilities using Segways® can
generally be accommodated, except in
constricted areas, such as passageways
to cabins that are very narrow and have
low ceilings.
• For other facilities -such as a small
convenience store, or a small town
manager's office -covered entities
may determine that certain classes of
OPDMDs cannot be accommodated. In
that case, they are still required to serve
a person with a disability using one of
these devices in an alternate manner
if possible, such as providing curbside
service or meeting the person at an
alternate location.
Covered entities are encouraged to develop
written poliCies specifying which kinds of
OPDMDs will be permitted and where and
when they will be permitted, based on the
following assessment factors.
fADA' Requirements 3
Attachment 5
�ther Po�er Driven �obility Devices ���������������������
A
�ssessment Eaators
�/;: '-"--0/7 'tV;; /� x
In deciding whether a particular type of
OPDMD can be accommodated in a particu
lar facility, the following factors must be
considered:
• the type, size, weight, dimensions, and
speed of the device;
• the facility's volume of pedestrian traffic
(which may vary at different times of the
day, week, month, or year);
• the facility's design and operational
characteristics (e.g., whether its
business is conducted indoors or
outdoors, its square footage, the density
and placement of furniture and other
stationary devices, and the availability
of storage for the OPDMD if needed and
requested by the user);
• whether legitimate safety requirements
(such as limiting speed to the pace of
pedestrian traffic or prohibiting use on
escalators) can be established to permit
the safe operation of the OPDMD in the
specific facility; and
• whether the use of the OPDMD creates
a substantial risk of serious harm to the
immediate environment or natural or
cultural resources, or poses a conflict
with Federal land management laws and
regulations.
It is important to understand that these as-
sessment factors relate to an entire class
of device type, notto how a person with a
disability might operate the device. (See
next topic for operational issues.) All types
of devices powered by fuel or combustion
engines, for example, may be excluded from
indoor settings for health or environmental
reasons, but may be deemed acceptable
in some outdoor settings. Also, for safety
,---------------;7'--:;-..-.--.--;-;:;;>'-------, reaso n s, I a rge r el ectri c devices su ch as
golf cars may be excluded from narrow or
crowded settings where there is no valid
reason to exclude smaller electric devices
like Segways®.
Based on these assessment factors, the
Department of Justice expects that de
vices such as Segways® can be accom
modated in most circumstances. The
Department also expects that, in most
circumstances, people with disabilities
using AT Vs and other combustion engine
driven devices may be prohibited indoors
and in outdoor areas with heavy pedes
trian traffic.
Attachment 5
���������������������OtherPo�er Driven �obilhy Devices
/
/ Rolicies on the Use of GBBNlBs
?-x ""
/' "" ,.;-: � ",,0 ;:*» 8
In deciding whether a type of OPDMD can
be accommodated, covered entities must
consider all assessment factors and, where
appropriate, should develop and publicize
rules for people with disabilities using these
devices.
Such rules may include -
• requiring the user to operate the device
at the speed of pedestrian traffic;
• identifying specific locations, terms, or
circumstances (if any) where the devices
cannot be accommodated;
• setting out instructions for going
through security screening machines
if the device contains technology that
could be harmed by the machine; and
• specifying whether or not storage
is available for the device when it is
not being used.
An entity that determines it can ac
commodate one or more types of
OPDMDs in its facility is allowed to ask
the person using the device to provide
credible assurance that the device is
used because of a disability. If the
person presents a valid, State-issued
disability parking placard or card or
a State-issued proof of disability, that
must be accepted as credible assur
ance on its face. If the person does not
have this documentation, but states
verbally that the OPDMD is being used be
cause of a mobility disability, that also must
be accepted as credible assurance, unless
the person is observed doing something
that contradicts the assurance. For example,
if a person is observed running and jump
ing, that may be evidence that contradicts
the person's assertion of a mobility disabili
ty. However, it is very important for covered
entities and their staff to understand that the
fact that a person with a disability is able
to walk for a short distance does not neces
sarily contradict a verbal assurance --many
people with mobility disabilities can walk,
but need their mobility device for longer dis
tances or uneven terrain. This is particularly
true for people who lack stamina, have poor
balance, or use mobility devices because of
respiratory, cardiac, or neurological dis
abilities. A covered entity cannot ask people
about their disabilities.
Attachment 5
�ther Po�er Driven �obility Devices ��������������������
/
: / Staff rn�aining y
;;"" /x "" "" ""y
Ongoing staff training is essential to ensure
that people �ith disabilities �ho use
OPDMDs for mobility are not turned away
or treated inappropriately. Tr aining should
include instruction on the types of OPDMDs
that can be accommodated, the rules for
obtaining credible assurance that the device
is being used because of a disability, and the
rules for operation of the devices within the
facility.
Attachment 5
From:Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
To:web
Subject:Cornell
Date:Monday, June 15, 2015 10:47:59 AM
Submitted on Sun, 06/14/2015 - 6:05pm
Submitted by anonymous user: [2602:306:35c5:b420:e557:752c:efc4:eba]
Submitted values are:
First Name: Cornell
Last Name: Scanlan
Select a choice: Full Board of Directors and District Clerk
Email:
Location: (i.e. City, Address or District Ward): Sunnyvale
Daytime Phone Number (if you wish to be contacted by phone):
Comments:
Mid Peninsula Regional Open Space District (MPROSD) modified its hiking rules Feb 2014, but it has just
becoming apparent how this modification has affected who is allowed to have small group hikes (20
people or less). Essentially these rules allow some folks to not need a permit for a small group hike,
but dictates that other folks must have a permit. What distinguishes the two groups is the way they
were formed. If a small group is formed using internet software such as meetup, a permit is required.
If an equally sized group is formed by word of mouth for example, no permit is required. A small size
group could be 2 to 20 people. The required permits for internet connected small groups are free, but
the individual permit holder is required to indemnify MPROSD in case MPROSD is sued due to anything
going wrong during the hiking activity. That means that if somebody wins a large lawsuit against
MPROSD then the individual permit holder now has to reimburse MPROSD for all cost
s out of the permit holders own assets. This policy allows MPROSD to transferring all its liability to
individuals no matter who is at fault. One MPROSD individual has suggested to me that to organize get
together hikes without risk that I become an LLC (Limited Liability Corporation), have all hikers sign the
LLC’s waiver, and buy special LLC insurance in case someone who may or may not be on the hike sues.
This is how LLC’s such as Sierra Club and other corporations put on hikes without personal risk. My
understanding as to why these rules were put into place was that some individuals using internet
software claimed they had no control over the number of hikers who would show up, and places such
as Rancho San Antonio have gotten overrun. However internet software such as meetup does allow
limiting participants, and if someone uninvited insists on joining a hike, they are chased away. Using
internet software should not be the criteria to force an individual to risk everythi
ng to hike with a few friends. Currently unless there is an overt violation, my understanding is that
MPROSD is not issuing criminal misdemeanor citations if there are 20 or less hikers. These citations
could come with a $400 fine. Small groups all have the same impact. MPROSD lands used to be a
friendly place to hike with friends. Is MPROSD trying to discourage small group get together hikes?
If MPROSD wants to issue easy to get permits to better track possible overbooking issues, they should
drop the indemnify clause to get better cooperation from individuals fearful that by getting a permit,
they can lose everything. Indemnification is an agreement to be an insurer, and my umbrella policy
does not cover bad agreements. However without an indemnify agreement, and if something were
totally my fault, then I would have some protection under my umbrella policy. Under which
circumstances would you like to organize a hiking get together?
The results of this submission may be viewed at:
http://www.openspace.org/node/3/submission/16
June 24, 2015
Dear Mr. Scanlan;
Thank you for your inquiry regarding the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District’s (District)
requirements for permits on group uses of District lands.
Our records show that you presently hold a permit good for the year of January 12, 2015, through
December 31, 2015, covering hiking activities for 20 people - with advance telephone notice to the
appropriate District field office for particular dates in that period - at any of twenty (20) listed preserves.
You hold that permit on behalf of “San Jose Mid-Week Hikers,” which sets up organized hikes via a
“Meetup” website. The Meetup website states that is comprised of 1,177 hikers, with a range of 6 to 23
hikers shown as planning to attend the various hikes listed on the website as of June 17, 2015.
From your letter we understand that you have two primary concerns. One is that you object to the
District’s ordinance (Section 408.1(a)) in that it requires permits for “any event or activity which is
advertized or noticed in any publication, poster, electronic posting, social media, or flyer.” More
specifically you object to the “electronic posting, or social media” aspect.
The second concern you raise is the requirement in the group permit that the organizer or group
applying for the permit must indemnify and hold harmless the District against any injuries or other
damages arising from your group’s event.
As to the first concern, your objection is noted. While we appreciate the fact that an electronic or social
media posting might or might not generate a large group of attendees (i.e, 20 or more people per the
other trigger for a permit requirement in Section 408.1(c)), it is the very fact of the open-ended nature
of the size of the group that dictates the need for that trigger. Just as with a hard-copy publication or
flyer, the electronic posting or social media publication leaves it unknown as to how many people your
organizing efforts might attract for an event. You assure us that, in response to the need to control the
number of hikers who would show up, if any “uninvited guests insists on joining a hike, they are chased
away.” Despite your implied intent to limit participation numbers, relying on organizers to chase people
away is not a protocol on which the District Ordinance presently relies for being able to responsibly and
safely manage group events.
As to the second concern, and as has been explained to you by staff previously, the indemnification
requirement in the District’s group permit is based on the notion that whomever controls the conduct of
DRAFT RESPONSE FOR BOARD CONSIDERATION
2
a group activity is in the best position to ensure that it is done safely, and the most appropriate
allocation of liability for risk is on that individual in control of how the activity is organized and led. Our
California Joint Powers Insurance Authority, the source of the District’ s insurance coverage, expects the
District to follow best practices for risk allocation, including specifically the requirement that group
activity organizers must indemnify the District as set out in the permit.
Note also that in certain circumstances, such as competitive events, alcohol, or groups of a larger (50+)
size, there are also requirements that the organizer provide proof of insurance sufficient to stand behind
that indemnification, with “additional insured” coverage specifically covering the District. We
understand that this insurance requirement, however, has not been imposed on you and your group
activities.
We hope that this explanation of the District’s Ordinance and its permit requirements is helpful, and
that we can move forward together in providing excellent and safe experiences for the community on
the District’s properties and trails.
Sincerely,
Pete Siemens
President, Board of Directors
DRAFT RESPONSE FOR BOARD CONSIDERATION
R-15-92
Meeting 15-16
June 24, 2015
AGENDA ITEM 9
AGENDA ITEM
Overview and CEQA Scoping Session for the Proposed Bear Creek Redwoods Preserve Plan,
Including Bear Creek Stables and the Former Alma College Site
GENERAL MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Receive a presentation on the draft Bear Creek Redwoods Preserve Plan (Preserve Plan)
elements, including focus areas on public access, Bear Creek Stables, and Alma College site
rehabilitation.
2. Accept the description of the proposed Preserve Plan, including a range of potential options
for Bear Creek Stables and the former Alma College site, for the purposes of environmental
review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
3. Receive public comment on the proposed Preserve Plan and the scope of environmental
issues that should be addressed in a draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR).
4. Provide staff with any additional direction regarding the proposed Preserve Plan and EIR.
SUMMARY
The Bear Creek Redwoods Preserve Plan will provide for balanced use and management of Bear
Creek Redwoods Open Space Preserve through broad prescriptions for public access, natural and
cultural resource management, and operations and maintenance actions over the long term. The
Preserve Plan will also provide conceptual-level site plans for new public access facilities, Bear
Creek Stables improvements, and rehabilitation of the former Alma College site. The purpose of
this meeting is to present the draft Preserve Plan and receive public comment on the scope of
environmental issues that should be addressed in an Environmental Impact Report.
MEASURE AA
The Bear Creek Redwoods Preserve Plan supports Measure AA Project #21-6, Phase I Public
Access Improvements, and includes portions of Project #21-4, Bear Creek Stables Site Plan, and
Project #21-5, Alma College Landscape Rehabilitation Plan. The Preserve Plan Project furthers
the goals of Project Portfolio #21 as it identifies and plans for new facilities, including trails and
parking areas to open Bear Creek Redwoods Open Space Preserve to general public access.
BACKGROUND
Since its acquisition in 1999, Bear Creek Redwoods Open Space Preserve (Preserve) has been
the subject of discrete use and management planning processes that have largely focused on
R-15-92 Page 2
immediate stewardship concerns while maintaining status-quo public use patterns pending a
more comprehensive planning process. The Bear Creek Redwoods Preserve Plan builds on these
previous efforts and will establish preserve-wide goals and identify long-term management
actions to protect and enhance its unique natural and cultural resources and special character, and
define the level and extent of allowable uses that are compatible with the land and the goals
established for the Preserve. In addition to these broad planning considerations, the Preserve Plan
will also include priority actions for two specific focus areas, Bear Creek Stables and Alma
College, both of which are identified as priorities in the Open Space Vision Plan and as part of
the Measure AA Five-Year Implementation project list.
The Preserve Plan was initiated in late 2014. Soon after, the Landscape Architecture firm
Populous was contracted to provide design and planning assistance (R-15-25) for both Bear
Creek Stables and the overall Bear Creek Redwoods Preserve, with the goal of opening the
Preserve to general public access on an expedited timeline. The firm PGA Design was then
contracted in April to provide site rehabilitation alternatives for Alma College (R-15-68).
DISCUSSION
Overview of the Planning Process
The Preserve Plan builds on the extensive data collection and public outreach that was completed
as part of the Sierra Azul/Bear Creek Redwoods Master Plan process, which was put on hold in
2009. Using the vision statement and broad use and management prescriptions for Bear Creek
Redwoods that were developed as part of the Master Plan, staff and the consultant team have
completed a thorough yet expedient planning update that includes the following actions:
1. Held a series of public workshops and meetings to gather public input on the proposed
actions for the Preserve. Opportunities for public input included two stakeholder workshops
to develop site design alternatives for Bear Creek Stables, a neighborhood workshop to
generate general public feedback on public access, resource management, and operations,
and three additional public meetings of the Planning and Natural Resource Committee.
Additional input was received via written communications to staff and the Board of
Directors. All meetings were widely noticed and well attended, with more than 150 people in
attendance at the neighborhood workshop.
2. Obtained input from Operations staff regarding site access, management, and maintenance
considerations.
3. Developed a proposed public access phasing plan that includes new parking areas and a
potential multi-use trail alignment to provide a new regional connection from the Lexington
Basin to Skyline Boulevard (Attachment 1), that balances concerns from both the equestrian
and mountain-bicycling communities.
4. With extensive stakeholder input, developed three site design alternatives and a series of
management guidelines for Bear Creek Stables (Attachment 2).
5. Developed two site reuse schemes for the former Alma College site (Attachment 3) that
conform to federal guidelines for the rehabilitation of cultural landscapes.
6. Released a Notice of Preparation indicating the District’s intent to prepare an Environmental
Impact Report (Attachment 4), initiating the environmental review process.
R-15-92 Page 3
Summary of the Proposed Preserve Plan
The Preserve Plan will provide an overview of the District and its regional planning framework,
a description of the public outreach process and feedback received during the Plan development,
and a summary of the Preserve’s existing conditions. Management actions and projects will also
be included and organized into the following four Preserve Plan elements:
• Public Use and Facilities
• Natural Resources
• Cultural Resources
• Maintenance and Operations
Each Preserve Plan element will include an analysis of challenges and opportunities presented by
the existing conditions of the Preserve. Recommendations and guidelines to address these
challenges and develop opportunities will follow.
The Public Use and Facilities element will include new parking areas and visitor facilities,
expanded public access as shown in the proposed trail use and phasing plan (Attachment 1), and
enhanced visitor facilities and programming at Bear Creek Stables. Standards and guidelines will
be provided for new trail construction, as will be prototypes for parking lots, trailheads, and a
pedestrian crossing of Bear Creek Road.
Primary components of the Natural Resources element will include development of an invasive
plant management plan and implementation of high-priority erosion control projects prescribed
in the Bear Creek Redwoods Road and Trail Inventory (Best 2010). Key Cultural Resources
actions will include protection of sensitive archaeological resources, and rehabilitation and re-use
alternatives for the former Alma College site (Attachment 2). The Maintenance and Operations
element will provide site design alternatives for improvements to Bear Creek Stables, as well as
standards and guidelines for ongoing Stables use and management (Attachment 3). This element
will also include safety and security guidelines as well as actions to address hazards.
Finally, the Preserve Plan will provide an implementation plan for phased improvements over the
next 15 to 20 years, with the first phase occurring in the first 2 to 5 years. This implementation
plan will be developed with extensive input from all departments, and will incorporate the
recommendations from the Financial Operational Sustainability Model (FOSM) study. The full
implementation plan will be ready for review as part of the draft Preserve Plan document in Fall
2015. Groundbreaking for the first phase of public access improvements will occur as early as
Fall 2016.
Overview of the CEQA Process
A brief Project Description for the Preserve Plan is included in the attached Notice of
Preparation (Attachment 4), which was sent to responsible and trustee agencies, posted on the
District website, posted on site, and widely noticed to interested parties and adjoining neighbors.
The Project Description includes all the potential Preserve Plan elements, including alternative
options for Bear Creek Stables and the former Alma College site. This Project Description has
been prepared to initiate the environmental review process and ensure that all of the viable
potential alternatives and project elements for the Preserve Plan are analyzed as required under
CEQA.
A detailed presentation of the Preserve Plan elements and focus areas will be provided at the
meeting of June 24. At this meeting, the Board will consider acceptance of the description of the
proposed Preserve Plan, including a range of potential options for Bear Creek Stables and the
R-15-92 Page 4
former Alma College site, for the purposes of environmental review under the CEQA. As this
meeting also serves as a scoping session, the Board will receive public comment on the scope of
the environmental issues that should be addressed in the draft EIR. The Board may direct staff to
add, alter, or remove elements of the proposed Preserve Plan at this time, to ensure an accurate
and efficient environmental review process. A draft EIR is anticipated to be released for public
comment in the fall.
On June 24, the Board is not approving the Preserve Plan or any element, facility, or use,
including any alternative for Bear Creek Stables or the former Alma College site. Instead, the
Board is accepting the range of project elements that should be analyzed for their potential
environmental affect. Board approval of the final Preserve Plan, expected in the spring of 2016,
after the environmental review process is complete.
FISCAL IMPACT
No direct fiscal impact will result from acceptance of the Preserve Plan Project Description.
Sufficient funds are included in the FY15-16 Planning Department budget for the development
and finalization of the Preserve Plan and EIR, and the associated site plans at Bear Creek Stables
and Alma College. Development of each Plan element will include a list of projects and
implementation costs, which the Board of Directors will consider as part of their review and
approval process. Many of these projects are expected to be eligible for Measure AA funds.
BOARD COMMITTEE REVIEW
The previous planning process for the Sierra Azul/Bear Creek Redwoods Master Plan included
three stakeholder meetings and two public workshops, as well as over 10 meetings of the Sierra
Azul/Bear Creek Redwoods Master Plan Ad Hoc Committee. Since the re-initiation of the
Preserve Plan process, three Planning and Natural Resources (PNR) Committee meetings have
been held. On April 14, 2015, the PNR Committee received an update on the planning process
and schedule. On April 29, 2015, the PNR Committee attended a community workshop to gather
public input. On June 2, 2015, the PNR Committee reviewed the draft Plan elements, including
the proposed Alma College re-use schemes, Preserve public access phasing plan, and Bear Creek
Stables site plan options and management guidelines.
PUBLIC NOTICE
Public notice of this Agenda Item was provided per the Brown Act. Additional notice was
provided as required by CEQA to all Responsible Agencies, stakeholders, as well as to interested
parties and adjoining neighbors of Bear Creek Redwoods Open Space Preserve.
CEQA COMPLIANCE
This meeting is for the Board to accept the description of the proposed Bear Creek Redwoods
Preserve Plan for the purposes environmental review pursuant to CEQA and receive public
scoping comments.
NEXT STEPS
Following confirmation of the General Manager’s recommendations, and any additional
direction from the Board, staff and the consultant team will continue to refine the Preserve Plan
R-15-92 Page 5
elements and develop the Environmental Impact Report. The table below provides a project
schedule.
Task Date
Presentation of Proposed Preserve Plan / CEQA Scoping Meeting June 24, 2015
Refinement of Preserve Plan elements based on further focused
studies, environmental review, and permitting feasibility.
Summer 2015
Draft Preserve Plan and Administrative Draft EIR released for
review
September 2015
EIR Public Comment Period Fall 2015
Board of Directors considers EIR certification and approval of the
Preserve Plan
Winter 2015
Attachments
1. Preliminary Public Access Plan Map
2. Bear Creek Stables Site Plan Draft
3. Alma College Site Re-Use Schemes
4. Project Description and Notice of Preparation of an Environmental Impact Report
5. Public Comments received through June 18, 2015
Responsible Department Manager:
Jane Mark, AICP, Planning Manager
Prepared by:
Lisa Bankosh, Planner III
Gretchen Laustsen, Planner III
Contact person:
Lisa Bankosh, Planner III
BC01
BC16
BC12
BC04
BC02
BC05
BC06
BC07 BC08
BC09
BC10
BC14
BC15
BC11
BC19 BC18
BC17
BC03BC13
PHASE 2
PHASE 1
(PHASE 2)
PARKING AREA 3
(PHASE 2)
(PHASE 1)
PARKING IN
PARKING AREA 1
BEAR CREEK
STABLES
PARKING AREA 2
PEDESTRIAN CROSSING STUDY AREA
Alma College
ON TO LEXINGTON RESERVOIR TRAIL(VIA ALMA BRIDGE RD)
ON TO SKYLINEBLVD
Bear Creek
Stables
PresentationCenter
17
35
35
amlA
egdirB
R
o
a
d
Summit Roa
d
L
e
x
i
n
g
t
o
n
R
e
s
e
r
v
o
i
r
Moody Gulch
Bear Creek R o a d
add Bear Creek Road
crossing + open west
side + open multi-use
through trail + add
pa rking areas 2 and 3
PHASE 2:
add pa rking
area 1 +
open east side
PHASE 1:
1,000 2,000500 Feet
Roads and Trails PR OPOSED
Prese r ve Bounda r y
Other Public Lands
Multi-use Trail
Eliminate Trail
or Close to Public Access
Potential N e w Trail Connection(Hiking & Equestrian Only)
Regional Connection
HIGH WAY
MAJOR R OADS
0
Phase 2
Phase 1
ATTACHMENT 1. Preliminar y Public Access Plan Map
Hiking & Equestrian Only
Potential N ew Trail Connection(Multi-use)
Multi-use Trail Control Point( “No Bi kes B eyond This Point”)
New Pedestrian Crossing(Bear Creek Road)
Attachment 2: Bear Creek Stables Site Plan Draft
Page 1
Bear Creek Stables Site Plan Draft
The final Site Plan will include each of the following elements:
•Site Design
•Stables Improvement Standards
•Stables Management Guidelines
•Public Access Programs and Improvements
•Maintenance and Operations Projects
P r elim in a r y Sit e Design Alt er n a t ives
Three preliminary site design alternatives were presented at the April 14, 2015 PNR Committee
meeting.These alternatives will be refined based on ongoing work to determine the permitting
feasibility and water availability/reliability needed for each alternative.
Alternative A is the most basic and least cost alternative and includes the essential improvements
for the Stables. Public access improvements would include a visitor information kiosk, visitor
parking, restroom and a public open air riding arena. Pasture areas would be fully restored to
natural landscapes and the paddock area would be rebuilt for improved drainage and equestrian
health and safety.A new caretaker’s residence would be constructed near the entrance to the
Stables site to provide greater site security.
Alternative B includes the essential improvement as well as improvements that would greatly
increase the public’s access to equestrian facilities and programs. The improvements would
include a livery stable to facilitate public trail riding program and a large public arena with
bleacher seating to better facilitate equine education programs and clinics.
Alternative C includes the essential improvements as well as public access facilities for the
overall community.These improvements would include a visitor center, reuse of the existing
barn for a public meeting space, a farm animals barn, and a public covered arena.
St a b les I m p r ovem en t St a nda r d s
The following improvement standards would be implemented to improve the resource
management and water quality at the site:
•Remove from use and restore pastures and hillsides to native landscape.
•Eliminate paddocks outside of “boarder area.”
•Maintain vegetative filter strips between and down slope of paddocks.These areas are
not to be used for horse grazing.
• Require a roof for each paddock and ensure that the orientation of the roof directs water
away from the enclosure or areas of bare soil and into the filter strip areas.
• Line each enclosure with base rock and geogrid matting for stabilization.
• Stabilize and/or restore existing stables building.
• Demolish, improve and/or construct structures in accordance with the final approved site
design and structure design guidelines.
These improvement standards will be finalized based on the site design alternative that the Board
approves for the Stables.
Stables Management Guidelines
The following draft management guidelines will accompany a long-term lease for the stables to
ensure a safe and healthy environment is provided for horses as well as a safe environment for
equestrians and the general public visiting the site:
• Strive to maintain a horse capacity as close as possible to, but not exceeding, the 72
maximum allowed by the Santa Clara County Use Permit.
• Implement a manure management program that requires:
o Paddocks to be cleaned a minimum of once daily,
o Manure must be stored in storage enclosures that will be covered during rain and
before off hauling, and
o Drainage from storage enclosures must flow into vegetated filter strips.
• Develop, jointly between District and tenant, rules and regulations for maintaining a safe
environment for visitors, riders and horses. Post the rules and regulations in prominent
locations throughout the facility.
• Develop, jointly between the District and tenant, rules and regulations for parking and/or
storage of horse trailers and other mobile equipment related to the horse boarding operation.
• Require quarterly visual inspections and reporting of facilities and horses by a qualified
animal husbandry practitioner to ensure safety and health of horses.
• Require tenant to establish emergency plans, including Emergency Animal Evacuation and
Protection Plan, providing an emergency land line phone and basic medical first-aide
provisions for humans and horses.
• Establish operating hours to be during daylight hours until adequate outdoor lighting is
provided in riding arenas. In accordance to District ordinance, trail system will remain closed
to users between dusk and dawn.
• Require tenant to provide a qualified on-site caretaker, subject to background checks and
approval of the District.
• Require tenant to provide monthly reporting of activities, such as horse population,
maintenance activities, incident occurrence, complaints, public access/education activities,
etc.
• Require tenant to provide a public access plan, outlining intent and planned methods of
engaging the public in boarding, tours, education, clinics and other methods of public
engagement.
Public Access Programs and Improvements
To maximize public benefit of the site, a safe, welcoming and inclusive public access program
will be implemented.
• Designate public access areas as part of the Stables.
• Install a visitor kiosk or center with equestrian program brochures, interpretive
information, and District standard signage.
Attachment 2: Bear Creek Stables Site Plan Draft
• Offer public equestrian programs and horse boarding.
• Design and install monument signage at the facility entry.
• Provide public restrooms and visitor parking.
• Designate a trail connection that would tie into the rest of the preserve’s trail system as
part of the Bear Creek Redwoods Open Space Preserve Plan.
Maintenance and Operations Projects
Major maintenance and operations projects include the following:
• Upgrade access roads to improve safety and reduce erosion.
• Improve and maintain roads and trails in accordance with District Road and Trail Inventory.
• Upgrade water system to provide adequate, reliable water supply.
Attachment 2: Bear Creek Stables Site Plan Draft
10'
FEET
120'0'
KEY ELEMENTS
• Interpret the myriad landscape features that tell the narrative of this site and its development in parallel with
the development of California;
• Historic: milling period, estates under Knowles, Flood and Tevis, the Jesuits
• Geologic: this site as a living geomorphological text book
• Water systems: Harr y Tevis’ water system and Upper Lake
• Rehabilitate the 1909 chapel, rehabilitate or stabilize the 1934 librar y, stabilize the 1950 librar y
• Strengthen the nor th retaining wall, stabilize the south retaining wall
• Due to their position on the San Andreas fault trace, remove the classroom and garage
• Build two open-air structures – roofed or open trellises -- for picnicking and event use
• Seek a project par tner or par tners for use of rehabilitated buildings and gardens
• Establish parking at trail head within the site, accessible parking at event venue
• Establish a regime of vegetation management
UPPER LAKE
education, collection of water samples, and viewing.
NEW ENTRY FROM BEAR CREEK ROAD
At the new pedestrian crossing of Bear Creek Road provide a new vehicular entry to the
MROSD-standard vault toilet is located in the proposed parking area.
DORMITORIES AND CLASSROOMS
Interpret the remaining foundations of the dormitories. Remove the upper part of
the classroom building retaining its clay-tile paved porch. Reintroduce grape vines
and orchards within the footprints of these 3 buildings.
CHAPEL , 1934 AND 1950 LIBRARIES
Rehabilitate the wooden Chapel for event use with a project partner or as a visitor center by
MROSD. Reconstruct the roofed breezeway to the mansion; provide an overlook and
interpret the mansion from this vantage point. Rehabilitate the wooden 1934 Librar y, or
alternatively stabilize it focusing on the exterior. Stabilize the concrete and tile 1950 Librar y.
Provide water, septic for bathrooms, and power to the rehabilitated building(s).
CULTURAL LANDSCAPE FEATURES
Rehabilitate and interpret features that illustrate
the layers of development and past functions on the
proper ty. Milling Period: Upper Lake and Bear Creek
Road. Estate Period; Tevis’ post-1906 reconstruction
including the north and south retaining walls, pedestrian
paths, gardens, terracing of the central open space of the
property, mansion site, 1909 library (now chapel), 1934 library,
garage, landscape spaces at the meadow/lily pond/Roman
Plunge. Jesuit Period: gardens, St Joseph and Marion Shrines, 1950
librar y, dormitories, and classroom buildings.
SITE AND SAFETY CODE COMPLIANCE
Provide elegant and well-integrated interpretive
materials into walls and railings to narrate the cultural
landscape components, provide a 42-inch guard rail at
railings will be standard in their design, the rest is
customized to the existing brick parapet walls or to the
features being interpreted. Where historic path
accessible routes are provided to ensure the site is fully
accessible.
INTRODUCED AND NATIVE VEGETATION
Introduced species eg. blue cedars, liquidambar, Canary Island palms, Italian Cypress,
dawn redwood and others, indicate patterns of former use. Selectively clear native species
from areas of introduced vegetation; clear introduced species within native woodland.
rehabilitate historic plantings including evergreen shrub plantings at radial paths and the path
through the middle of the site, at the shrines also as a barrier near the south retaining wall. With a
project partner, such as a master gardener group or horticultural association, rehabilitate the radial
t garden areas with low-water use natives or
native grasses; mow the terraces 2-4 times per year.
MEADOW, LILY POND, AND ROMAN
PLUNGE
Clear the meadow of invasive species,
rehabilitate and interpret the lily pond and
Roman Plunge suitable for events, eg.
weddings, picnics and gatherings. Reinstate
the arbor, outline the lily pond, provide low
walls and steps to the lily pond terrace. Provide
an accessible routes throughout. Reinstate
historic plantings.
GARAGE
Interpret the garage site and provide an
PEDESTRIAN PATHS
Incorporate historic path alignments at the radial
gardens and spine walkway.
FORMER TEVIS MANSION FOOTPRINT
Columns identify the extent of the NW wing of the Tevis mansion. Interpretive paving
element marks the threshold. A pair of high, open-air structures demark two wings of the
Tevis mansion and integrate the extant ruins. Either roofed or trellis-like, these provide
space for events and group picnics.
NORTH AND SOUTH RETAINING WALLS
Structurally stabilize the north retaining wall with tiebacks. The Chapel,
and 1934 and 1950 Libraries appear to be independent structures that
do not bear on the north retaining wall except in one location – at the
east corner of the chapel; close the lower level to use. The south
retaining wall lies on the San Andreas fault trace, stabilize broken ends
where failure has occurred.
U.S. Geological Survey. Aerial Photograph SLC 8-133-95, 1965 May 15. Source: Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District.
ALMA COLLEGE REHABILITATION PLAN
S CHE M E A
06.19.15 1”=60’
Attachment 3
10'
FEET
120'0'10'120'
KEY ELEMENTS
• Interpret the myriad landscape features that tell the narrative of this site and its development in parallel with
the development of California;
• Historic: milling period, estates under Knowles, Flood and Tevis, the Jesuits
• Scientific: natural biodiversity, hydrology, fauna
• Geologic: site as a living geomorphological text book
• Water systems: Tevis water system and Upper Lake
• Rehabilitate the 1909 chapel, retain the 1934 library roof structure
• Strengthen north retaining wall, minimally stabilize south retaining wall
• Due to their position on the San Andreas fault trace, remove the classroom and garage. Remove the 1950 library
• Seek a project partner or partners for the use of the rehabilitated building and gardens
• Provide visitor amenities – flush bathrooms, visitor information
• Establish parking for approximately 60 cars in two lots at the NW end of the site. Utilize existing graded
areas for parking
• Establish a regime of vegetation management
UPPER LAKE
A small pontoon offers access to the water for science
education, collection of water samples, and viewing. This
location offers long views down the length of the site to the
view-stop at the plantings, marking the former mansion.
NEW ENTRY FROM BEAR CREEK ROAD
At the new pedestrian crossing of Bear Creek Road, provide a new vehicular entry to the
Alma College site and parking. Locate parking for 60 cars in two parking areas utilizing exist-
ing graded areas between the lake and classroom. Improve the existing road as needed. A
MROSD-standard vault toilet is located near the parking.
DORMITORIES AND CLASSROOMS
Interpret the Jesuit period through the remaining foundations of the dormitories. Remove
and interpret the classroom building, retaining its clay-tile paved porch and foundation.
CHAPEL AND 1934 LIBRARY
Rehabilitate the wooden Chapel for event use with a project partner or as a visitor center by the MROSD. Close the lower floor
for structural strengthening. Rehabilitate the patio on the north side for use by self-guided visitors. Provide water, septic and
power to the rehabilitated building. Retain the roof of the wooden 1934 Library, removing most or all of its walls so that it
becomes an open-air pavilion for use as an interpretive center.
1950 LIBRARY
Remove the 1950 library to reopen views along length of the site, as between the late 1800s to
1950. Retain terraces created by Tevis for use as picnic areas. Rehabilitate historic stairs.
CULTURAL LANDSCAPE FEATURES
Rehabilitate and interpret the features that illustrate the
layers of development and use of the property. Milling
Period: Upper Lake and Bear Creek Road. Estate Period: north
and south retaining walls, pedestrian path system and terracing
of the central spine, gardens, mansion site, 1909 library (now
chapel), 1934 library and garage, landscape spaces at the meadow/lily
pond/Roman Plunge. Jesuit Period: gardens, St Joseph and Marion
Shrines, 1950 library, dormitories, and classroom buildings.
SITE AND SAFETY CODE COMPLIANCE
Provide elegant, well-integrated interpretive materials at
walls and railings to narrate the cultural landscape
components, provide a 42-inch high guard rail at
significant level changes. Approximately half the railings
will be standard in their design, the rest is customized to
the existing brick parapet walls or to the features being
interpreted. Where historic path alignments include
flights of stairs, alternative accessible routes are
provided to ensure the site is fully accessible.
INTRODUCED AND NATIVE VEGETATION
Introduced species, eg. blue cedars, liquidambar, Canary Island palms, Italian Cypress, dawn
redwood and others, indicate patterns of former use. Selectively clear native species from areas
of introduced vegetation; clear introduced species within native woodland. Ensure native forest
grows up to the Alma College features defining a firm edge. Reinstate or rehabilitate historic
plantings including evergreen shrub plantings the path through the middle of the site, at the
shrines, and in lieu of radial paths. Provide extensive areas of introduced shrub plantings along the
south retaining wall as a barrier. With a project partner, such as a master gardener group or
horticultural association, rehabilitate the radial gardens near the lake. Until a partner is identified,
plant garden areas with unirrigated wildflower and grass mixes for improved habitat. These terraces
are intended to be mown 2 to 4 times per year.
MEADOW, LILY POND, AND ROMAN
PLUNGE
With a lighter touch than Scheme A, rehabilitate
this sequence of spaces. Clear the meadow of
invasive species. Rehabilitate and interpret the lily
pond and Roman Plunge suitable for picnics and
gatherings. With few level changes. Reinstate the
arbor, outline the lily pond, provide low walls and a
few steps to the lily pond terrace. Provide an
accessible route to each of the spaces. Retain and
strengthen the bilaterally symmetrical view to the
SE between the blue cedars. Reinstate historical
plantings.
GARAGE
Interpret the garage site and provide an
overlook to the lower floor.
PEDESTRIAN PATHS
Reinstate the central path of the former historic radial path system. Reinstate the former central path through the site
incorporating existing lengths of path where they remain. Where historic paths are not extant, align central path towards the
north side of the available space to maximize distance from the fault. Materials for paths vary: existing red-tile paver and
concrete in the central part of the site, to stabilized decomposed granite and gravel at the outer areas.
FORMER TEVIS MANSION FOOTPRINT
This is a flexible-use picnic area. Interpretive paving element marks the threshold of the NW wing of
the mansion. Enhance the extant remnants of the mansion foundation, flush with the pavement
grade. Stabilize remnant carport columns and walls. Reinstate and interpret the location of the
exterior walls, indicating the building’s wings, some as sitting elements.
NORTH AND SOUTH RETAINING WALLS
Structurally stabilize the north retaining wall with tiebacks. The Chapel and
1934 Library are independent of the north retaining wall except in one
location – at the east corner of the chapel. Close the chapel’s lower floor,
provide structural modifications. The south retaining wall lies on the fault
trace, stabilize the broken ends where failure has occurred. Provide modest
repairs to brickwork at the parapet edge.
U.S. Geological Survey. Aerial Photograph SLC 8-133-95, 1965 May 15. Source: Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District.
ALMA COLLEGE REHABILITATION PLAN
SCHEME B
06.19.15 1”=60’
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
Bear Creek Redwoods Open Space Preserve Plan 1
NOTICE OF PREPARATION OF A
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Date: June 11, 2015
To: Agencies and Interested Parties
From: Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
Subject: Notice of Preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Bear Creek Redwoods
Open Space Preserve Plan (includes the Bear Creek Stables Site Plan and Alma College
Rehabilitation Plan)
Review Period: June 11 to July 10, 2015
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (MROSD) is in the process of preparing a Preserve Plan for Bear
Creek Redwoods Open Space Preserve (Preserve). MROSD will prepare an environmental impact report (EIR) for
the Preserve Plan to satisfy the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Public
Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.) and will serve as the lead agency for CEQA compliance. The purpose of
the Preserve Plan is to identify objectives and guide future use and management of low-intensity recreation and
the natural and cultural resources at the Preserve.
PURPOSE OF THIS NOTICE OF PREPARATION
In accordance with the State CEQA Guidelines (Title 14 California Code of Regulations [CCR] Section 15082),
MROSD has prepared this notice of preparation (NOP) to inform agencies and interested parties that an EIR will
be prepared for the above-referenced project. The purpose of an NOP is to provide sufficient information about
the proposed project and its potential environmental impacts to allow agencies and interested parties the
opportunity to provide a meaningful response related to the scope and content of the EIR, including mitigation
measures that should be considered and alternatives that should be addressed (14 CCR Section 15082[b]).
MROSD PURPOSE
MROSD’s purpose is to purchase and permanently protect a regional greenbelt of open space lands, preserve
and restore wildlife habitat, watersheds, viewsheds, and fragile ecosystems, and provide opportunities for low-
intensity recreation and environmental education. MROSD has protected more than 62,000 acres of land and
currently manages 26 Open Space Preserves with more than 225 miles of low-intensity recreational trails,
including segments of four regional trails. MROSD lands extend from San Carlos in San Mateo County in the
north to the unincorporated Santa Clara County area located south of Los Gatos in the south and represent a
wide spectrum of habitat communities, including bayside tidal wetlands, grasslands, oak woodlands, riparian
corridors, coyote brush scrubland, and evergreen forests. MROSD’s mission statement outlines the critical
functions of the agency and prioritizes how the land is managed, balancing the preservation of open space with
land restoration and the provision for low-intensity public recreation. Specifically, MROSD’S mission is:
“To acquire and preserve a regional greenbelt of open space in perpetuity; protect and restore the
natural environment; and provide opportunities for ecologically sensitive public enjoyment and
education.”
This mission statement serves as the policy framework with which all Preserve Plan goals, objectives, and
implementation actions must remain consistent.
Notice of Preparation Ascent Environmental
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
2 Bear Creek Redwoods Open Space Preserve Plan
PROJECT BACKGROUND AND NEED
Bear Creek Redwoods Open Space Preserve was established in 1999 with the purchase of two large properties
from MROSD’s private land trust partner, Peninsula Open Space Trust. These properties were previously owned
by Hong Kong Metro Realty Company and had been the subject of planned residential and golf course
development. Shortly after the purchase, MROSD entered into a month-to-month rental agreement with the
existing tenant of Bear Creek Stables, and perimeter fencing was installed around the former Alma College site.
Big Creek Lumber owned prior timber harvest rights to portions of the Preserve, and selective harvesting was
carried out in 1999 and 2000.
Since its acquisition, the Preserve has been the subject of discrete use and management planning processes that
have largely focused on critical and immediate stewardship concerns and maintained status-quo public use
patterns. A comprehensive plan for Bear Creek Redwoods will provide Preserve-wide goals to help reinforce the
Preserve’s character, identify long-term management actions to protect and enhance its unique natural and
cultural resources, and define the level and extent of allowable uses that are compatible with the land and the
goals established for the Preserve.
PREVIOUS PLANNING EFFORTS
The close proximity of the Preserve to major South Bay cities and the proposed upgrades of existing logging and
access roads to establish a continuous, wooded trail system provides high recreational value, and the Preserve is
expected to receive heavy visitor use once it is open to the public. Planning studies to guide future public access
and stewardship actions were initiated shortly after Preserve acquisition. These initial plans culminated with the
preparation of a draft Sierra Azul/Bear Creek Redwoods Master Plan and EIR (draft Master Plan) in 2009. As part
of the development of the draft Master Plan, a series of stakeholder interviews and public workshops were
conducted under the guidance of an Ad Hoc Committee of the Board. As part of the draft Master Plan process,
MROSD developed a vision for the Preserve that has served to guide the completion of the Preserve Plan, which
states:
Hosting Santa Clara County’s best-preserved, second growth redwood forest, Bear Creek Redwoods Open Space
Preserve contains a rich historical past that has served to influence and shape the surrounding landscape. The
Preserve shall provide the public with a South Peninsula opportunity for tranquil nature study and exploration in
a cool, heavily forested canopy environment. The stewardship of this public open space preserve shall be of
highest priority, followed by an extended trail system with greater access. Focus will be placed on restoring
native habitats; reducing erosion and sedimentation for improved water quality; interpreting the land’s historical
and cultural resources; providing new staging opportunities to allow for greater public access; and expanding the
interior trail connections within the Preserve.
Due to other pressing project priorities, adoption of the larger multi-preserve Master Plan was deferred.
Nonetheless, individual planning efforts for the Preserve did continue, including additional analysis for the Alma
College site and Bear Creek Stables, and completion of a Road and Trail Inventory. In 2014, MROSD reinitiated
and decoupled the larger Master Plan project to focus on Bear Creek Redwoods Open Space Preserve. Data and
findings from the prior Master Plan effort served to inform and streamline the preparation of the Preserve Plan.
PRESERVE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION
The Bear Creek Redwoods Open Space Preserve is located west of Lexington Reservoir and Sierra Azul Preserve,
south of El Sereno Open Space Preserve, southeast of Sanborn-Skyline County Park, and just north of Moody
Gulch property owned by the County of Santa Clara. Private property abuts the entire Preserve except for the
southeast corner, which is bordered by the County’s Moody Gulch property that is under Santa Clara County
Ascent Environmental Notice of Preparation
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
Bear Creek Redwoods Open Space Preserve Plan 3
Park management and currently closed. Highway 17 is adjacent to the northeast corner of the Preserve, from
which Bear Creek Road provides access to the Preserve (Exhibits 1 and 2).
The Preserve encompasses more than 1,400 acres of native evergreen forest, with smaller extents of grassland
and oak woodland habitats. Three ponds provide year-round aquatic habitat. Much of Bear Creek Redwoods is
steep and rugged, with several perennial and seasonal streams draining northeast to Lexington Reservoir.
EXISTING FACILITIES AND ACCESS
Existing Facilities
Trails and Parking Areas
In 2000, a permit system was established for stable riders and the public for hiking and equestrian use of
approximately 10 miles of historic logging and access roads on the eastern side of the Preserve. An existing, 10-
vehicle permit parking lot was designated to serve permit holders. Because of the lack of additional parking and
the absence of an established pedestrian crossing at Bear Creek Road, the western portion of the Preserve, and
its additional 8 to 10 miles of historic roads, have remained closed. Purchase of the former Holmes Lumber
Company property in 2010 brought the Preserve to its current size of 1,432 acres and closed the gap between
the Preserve’s eastern and western sides south of Summit Road.
Former Alma College Site
The former Alma College Site was originally developed as a sawmill site in the 1850s and was transitioned into
an estate by Captain Stillman H. Knowles in 1887. In 1894 the Flood family expanded the estate, and in 1906, Dr.
Harry Tevis purchased the land from the Floods and spent the next 25 years enlarging and rebuilding the estate
with a bungalow mansion, a system of private roads and an extensive water system that fed his many highly
specialized gardens. The Jesuits purchased the property for Alma College, the first Jesuit school of theology on
the West Coast, in 1934. After the Jesuits moved in 1969, the Main House and Dormitories suffered fire damage.
While a few buildings survived, most have been damaged or destroyed, and the remaining buildings are
currently unoccupied and in disrepair. A surviving chapel was determined to be eligible for listing on the
California Register of Historic Resources, and the site as a whole is listed on the Santa Clara County Heritage
Resource Inventory due to its multi-layered history.
Bear Creek Stables
Bear Creek Stables is located within the northeastern portion of Bear Creek Redwoods Open Space Preserve, off
of Bear Creek Road and approximately 0.25-mile west of Highway 17. The site is accessed via a hardened
driveway entrance off Bear Creek Road. The interior area of the Stables includes an unpaved loop road that
circulates the main paddocks areas. The property’s northwestern corner includes a permit parking space for one
vehicle with a trailer. The stables contain a Main Pasture, “Old Folks” Pasture, Upper Arena, Dressage Arena, and
paddocks for a maximum of 72 horses. Structures include a Main House, cottage, stables/shop, hay barn, hay
barn/shop, and office. Activities and programs at the Stables currently include horseback riding along trails
located around the facility and extending throughout the eastern half of the Preserve, educational programs for
children (nature walks, caring for small farm animals in the Stables area) and occasional horse riding clinics.
Public Access
Currently, the western half of the Preserve is closed to the public, and the eastern half is open to trail-riding use
by boarders at Bear Creek Stables and to the general public by permit only for hiking and equestrian use.
Permits are issued for single-day use only, and the Preserve is open a half hour before sunrise until a half hour
after sunset. The Preserve is publicly accessed via Bear Creek Road off Highway 17; several gates block public
road access into the Preserve from other areas.
Midpeninsula RegionalOpen Space DistrictExhibit 1 Regional Location
June, 2015
Pa
t
h
:
G
:
\
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
\
B
e
a
r
_
C
r
e
e
k
_
R
e
d
w
o
o
d
s
\
P
r
e
s
e
r
v
e
P
l
a
n
\
B
C
R
_
E
x
h
i
b
i
t
1
_
R
e
g
i
o
n
a
l
L
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
.
m
x
d
Cr
e
a
t
e
d
B
y
:
m
c
h
i
l
d
s
(MROSD)
While the District strives to use the best available digital data, this data does not represent a legal survey and is merely a graphic illustration of geographic features.
Area ofDetail
MROSD Preserves
Other Protected Open Spaceor Park Lands
La H o nda C re e k Op e n S pac e P r e se r v e
84
MROSD Sphere of Influence
MROSD Boundary
Urban Area
35
280
San Francisco
San Jose
Santa Cruz
Oakland
MountainView
BearCreekRedwoodsOpen SpacePreserve
S a n F r a n c i s c o B a y
P a c i f i c
O c e a n
M o n t e r e y B a y
H a l fM o o n B a y
S A N M AT E O C O U N T Y
S A N TA C R U Z C O U N T Y
S A N TA C L A R A C O U N T Y
A L A M E D A C O U N T Y
San Mateo
County Boundary 0 105Miles
84
280 101
85
1
17
35
880
680
Brig
g
s
C
r
e
e
k
B ri g g s C reek
Ald
e
r
c
r
o
f
t
C
r
e
e
k
Aldercr o f t Creek
We b b C r e e k
C o ll i n s C reek
D y erCreek
Z
a
y
a
nt
e
C
re
e
k
Lo
s
G
a
t
o
s
C
reek
BearCreek
ZayanteCreek
16
0
0
16
4
0
1680
1
7
2
0
1
5
6
0
1
7
6
0
15
2
0
1
8
0
0
14
4
0
14
8
0
1840
1400
188
0
960
192
0
92
0
1360
1320
880
840
128
0
800
76
0
720
1240
12
0
0
1160
1120
108
0
1
0
4
0
6
8
0
1000
1
9
6
0
2000
20
4
0
2
0
8
0
2
1
2
0
2160
22
0
0
2
2
4
0
23
2
0
2
2
8
0
23
6
0
240
0
2120
2040
2200
960
2
0
8
0
2320
228
0
2
0
8
0
212
0
2200
15
2
0
1000
840
2120
1
4
0
0
1
4
0
0
2
2
8
0
760
23
6
0
1120
880
680
2040
144
0
2200
2
2
4
0
9
6
0
6
8
0
1600
2
1
6
0
1
0
4
0
180
0
2
0
0
0
216
0
2
2
0
0
14
8
0
68
0
200
0
1960
2
1
6
0
80
0
11
6
0
68
0
2120
920
2
1
2
0
2
2
4
0
17
Easement over MROSD
Urban Area
BearCreekStablesFormer Alma College
Midpeninsula RegionalOpen Space District
Exhibit 2 Preserve Location
June, 2015
(MROSD)
While the District strives to use the best available digital data, this data does not represent a legal survey and is merely a graphic illustration of geographic features.
MROSD Preserves
Other Protected Open Spaceor Park Lands
0 0.50.25 MilesWatershed Land
MROSD Conservation or Agricultural Easement
Bear Creek RedwoodsBear Creek RedwoodsOpen Space PreserveOpen Space Preserve
35 BearCreekRoad
L
e
x
i
n
g
t
o
n
R
e
s
e
r
v
o
i
r
Moody Gulch(Santa Clara Co.)
Lexington ReservoirCounty Park
Existing Roads
Highways
Notice of Preparation Ascent Environmental
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
6 Bear Creek Redwoods Open Space Preserve Plan
PROJECT GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
Goals and objectives for the planning process include the following:
Create a long-term vision to guide decisions and management;
Catalog and prioritize future site improvement needs;
Involve the public and raise awareness of this valuable resource; and
Uncover issues and adopt policies to address them.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The proposed Preserve Plan would: expand access to the Preserve, upgrade existing logging and access roads,
and create additional trails for public use; enhance native habitats and protect sensitive biotic resources;
interpret and protect cultural resources; and expand, restore, maintain, and operate Preserve facilities over the
long term. Expansion of Preserve public access facilities and implementation of resource protection and
enhancement projects will be phased over the course of 15 to 20 years. The Preserve Plan will include four
elements: 1) Public Use and Facilities, 2) Natural Resources, 3) Cultural Resources, and 4) Maintenance and
Operations.
PUBLIC USE AND FACILITIES ELEMENT
The Public Use and Facilities element of the Preserve Plan seeks to promote, enhance, and protect wilderness
values by creating new trail connections to key Preserve destinations and adjacent open space areas, providing
low-impact, site-sensitive interpretation and education activities, and actively involving the public in the use and
management of the Preserve. Key actions of the public use and facilities element include opening up to 20 miles
of trails to expanded hiking and equestrian use, potentially creating a multi-use through-trail (that includes
mountain bicycle access ) connecting the Lexington Basin to the Skyline area, constructing three new parking
areas, creating a safe pedestrian crossing of Bear Creek Road, formalizing key trailheads, expanding public
equestrian programs at Bear Creek Stables, and interpreting the former Alma College historic site and other
cultural resources.
NATURAL RESOURCES ELEMENT
The Natural Resources element of the Preserve Plan will protect natural areas, wildlife corridors, and habitat for
special status species, repair and monitor ecologically disturbed areas, and protect waterways to maintain water
quality and healthy aquatic habitat. To achieve these goals, this element will focus on invasive plant
management, restoration of highly disturbed or eroded areas, correction of high-priority sedimentation sources,
protection of resident special-status bat populations, creation of habitat for common migratory bats, and
protection of the Preserve’s three year-round ponds and other aquatic habitat. The project will also include
monitoring, mapping, providing cleaning stations for, and posting information on Sudden Oak Death to reduce
its spread.
CULTURAL RESOURCES ELEMENT
The Preserve Plan’s Cultural Resources element would protect and interpret significant archaeological and
historic resources at Bear Creek Redwoods over the long term. Key actions of this element include stabilization
and/or rehabilitation of the former Alma College site and interpretation of the site’s multi-layered history, which
Ascent Environmental Notice of Preparation
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
Bear Creek Redwoods Open Space Preserve Plan 7
has been extensively documented. This history would be revived and interpreted through restoration of certain
landscape elements, including pathways/circulation patterns, remnant shrines, fountains, and other minor site
features; native vegetation management to regain the site’s former open and ordered character; and
installation of signage and other interpretive materials. In addition, the chapel and library buildings are
important to local history and retain sufficient structural and aesthetic soundness to be stabilized and/or
rehabilitated with substantial partnership support. Design and planning for the former Alma College site is
underway with assistance from an historic landscape architect, architectural historian, and structural engineer.
This process will produce a concept for cultural landscape rehabilitation and interpretation, and will identify
partnership opportunities for the potential rehabilitation and re-use of the historic structure(s). MROSD is
currently exploring funding sources for stabilization/rehabilitation, re-use, and long-term maintenance of the
former Alma College site structures, including potential vendor-operated, daytime special events.
Actions at the former Alma College site would conform to National Park Service Guidelines for
Rehabilitating Cultural Landscapes and would create a new use for the site that: 1) retains its distinctive
features and spatial relationships, 2) preserves the historic character of the property, and 3) retains
historic structures that hold integrity and significance to the cultural landscape. Site rehabilitation may
include selective demolition of existing structures if they are found to present a hazard to the public or
cannot be repaired to current standards because of local geological conditions or cost constraints.
Cultural resource actions will also include mapping, protecting, and monitoring stone mortars and other
prehistoric sites and elements.
MAINTENANCE AND OPERATIONS ELEMENT
Maintenance and Operations Element actions of the Preserve Plan would include maintenance of roads, trails,
and facilities to protect the natural environment and provide for a quality visitor experience, address potential
environmental and safety hazards, and ensure that all Preserve leases, easements, and other legal agreements
are consistent with MROSD’s mission. Such actions will likely include phased implementation of priority road
and trail improvements to minimize erosion and ensure adequate patrol access in the long term (including repair
or replacement of stream crossings), seasonal closure of poorly-drained trails, and sufficient patrol staff to
ensure site security and visitor safety. This element will also identify phased improvements to Bear Creek Stables
infrastructure to provide for increased public access, environmental protection, and equine health and safety.
Bear Creek Stables
A Preliminary Stables Study described three potential scenarios for improving the Stables facilities and
increasing public access. The alternatives include the reduction of the maximum number of boarded horses in
paddocks from 72 to between 60 and 64 (with the option of introducing a livery for an additional 8 to 12 horses),
improved access roads, a new parking lot for visitors, a dedicated horse trailer parking area, a new house for a
groundskeeper at the Stables entry, office, a composting station, larger hay barn (3-month hay supply capacity),
shop and storage building, and a visitor center facility. Alternatives for the visitor facility to date have included
an outdoor classroom, restoring or replacing an old stables building, a new multi-use covered arena, but could
also potentially include a re-configured plan that would reduce the area of disturbance by consolidating
structures into a larger multi-use structure that could include storage, office space, and a visitor center.. The
studies also recommend reducing the size of the Main Pasture and formalizing access trails to avoid additional
erosion.
PROJECT CONSTRUCTION
The Preserve Plan would be implemented as funding becomes available for specific features and facilities and
would most likely be phased over 15 to 200 years, with the elements of the first phase completed within the first 2
years. During construction of individual project features and facilities, equipment and materials would be
Notice of Preparation Ascent Environmental
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
8 Bear Creek Redwoods Open Space Preserve Plan
temporarily stored on-site during construction of the proposed project. Equipment and materials would be
limited to that needed to perform the work. Project construction would occur during the daytime on weekdays.
The Preserve Plan will include environmental protection features, including Best Management Practices (BMPs)
and design elements that would protect valuable environmental resources from damage during construction.
MAINTENANCE AND OPERATION
The overall long-term management goal for the Preserve is to protect and enhance the habitats on-site and
provide for low-intensity recreation. Long-term management of the Preserve would include conducting ongoing
patrols and monitoring of streams, springs, native vegetation, habitats, and use to determine stability and
trends. Invasive species would also be monitored and removed as needed. Long-term management of the
property would be primarily conducted by various MROSD departments.
Equipment and materials would also be stored on-site periodically for maintenance and management purposes.
Equipment would be limited to that needed to perform the work. BMPs similar to those described above for
construction would be included in the Preserve Plan for any equipment or materials storage areas.
MROSD would conduct monitoring and maintenance as part of the routine management of the Preserve.
POTENTIAL APPROVALS AND PERMITS REQUIRED
The project would require approval from MROSD as the lead agency for purposes of CEQA compliance and
project implementation. Permits and approvals may be required from the following federal, state, and local
agencies for construction of the proposed project:
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers—Clean Water Act Section 404 permit,
California Department of Fish and Wildlife—California Fish and Game Code Section 1600,
Bay Area Air Quality Management District—demolition permit
County of Santa Clara—Landmark Alteration permit (requires review and approval by the Historic Heritage
Commission), conditional use permit, demolition permit, grading permit, and building permits.
Other permits and approvals may be identified during preparation of the Draft EIR.
POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
The EIR will describe the direct and indirect significant environmental impacts of the proposed Preserve Plan.
The EIR will also evaluate the cumulative impacts of the project when considered in conjunction with other
related past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects. The Draft EIR will focus on the following
environmental issues:
Aesthetics. The proposed Preserve Plan would result in physical changes to the existing site, including
demolition of structures (including historic-era buildings), development of trails, installation of new parking
facilities, and construction of new buildings. The Draft EIR will evaluate the potential for the proposed
project to result in visual impacts, including effects to scenic views and the site’s visual character, as well as
light-and-glare-related impacts.
Air Quality. Implementation of the proposed Preserve Plan would result in construction activities that would
emit air pollutants. Increased visitor use would also increase vehicle trips and auto-related air emissions.
Potential air-quality-related impacts will be addressed in this section of the Draft EIR.
Biological Resources. The Preserve encompasses both common and sensitive habitats, and plant and
wildlife species. Implementation of the proposed project will involve ground-disturbance during
Ascent Environmental Notice of Preparation
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
Bear Creek Redwoods Open Space Preserve Plan 9
construction, as well as placement of permanent new facilities and structures within currently undeveloped
areas of the Preserve. Potential impacts to these sensitive habitats and special-status species will be
evaluated in the Draft EIR.
Cultural Resources. The project site has a rich history, and several historic-era buildings exist on the site,
including structures currently listed on the County of Santa Clara’s local register. The proposed project
includes demolition of some structures. The Draft EIR will evaluate potential impacts to historic resources, as
well as impacts to archaeological and paleontological resources.
Geology, Soils, and Seismicity. The San Andreas Fault traverses the project site. Existing structures on the
project site, especially those associated with the former Alma College site, are located very close to the San
Andreas Fault and an associated fault trace. The Draft EIR will examine potential impacts related to allowing
public access to the project site, especially in terms of seismic risk associated with existing structures. The
Draft EIR will also examine potential hazards related to soil and slope stability, especially with respect to
project site seismicity.
Greenhouse Gas Emissions. The proposed project would increase visitation at the Preserve, which would
generate additional vehicle trips. Also, new and expanded public use facilities may require additional energy
demand. The Draft EIR will evaluate whether the increased vehicle trips and potential increased energy
demand would generate a substantial amount of Greenhouse Gas.
Hazards and Hazardous Materials. Previous studies conducted at the project site indicate the potential for
hazardous materials to be present on the project site. The Draft EIR will examine whether hazardous
materials are present on the site and whether implementation of the proposed project could expose
construction workers, visitors, or nearby land uses to existing onsite hazardous materials.
Hydrology and Water Quality. Implementation of the proposed Preserve Plan would result in ground-
disturbing activities. Stormwater runoff could carry sediment from exposed soils into nearby waterways,
thus affecting water quality. The proposed Preserve Plan will include Best Management Practices (BMPs) to
reduce the potential for water quality impacts. However, the Draft EIR will examine the potential for these
impacts and will identify mitigation measures, as necessary, to further reduce these impacts. Water-quality
impacts related to potential septic tank improvements will also be addressed. Also, potential impacts related
to flooding will be discussed.
Land Use. It is anticipated that the project could require land use entitlements from Santa Clara County. The
Draft EIR will evaluate the project’s consistency with the County’s General Plan land use designation and
zoning.
Noise. Construction activities associated with the proposed Preserve Plan would generate noise. Also,
operation of the Preserve Plan would increase visitorship and would expand the existing uses currently
allowed on the Property, including the potential for special events at the former Alma College site and
spectator events at the Stables site. The Draft EIR will evaluate potential noise impacts resulting from
construction and operation of the proposed Preserve Plan.
Recreation. The proposed Preserve Plan would increase the number of visitors accessing trails and would
provide increased connectivity to other regional trails (many operated by other agencies, such as Santa Clara
County Parks). The EIR will examine potential effects associated with increased use of other parks and open
space lands.
Traffic and Transportation. Implementation of the proposed Preserve Plan would generate additional traffic
during both the construction and the operation phases. The Draft EIR will evaluate potential impacts related
to increased traffic, as well as potential impacts associated with project design features, including line-of-
site and access configuration.
Utilities. The proposed project would increase visitation at the site and would include expanded public use
facilities, including potential special events. This will create additional demand for potable water and other
public utilities. The Draft EIR will include an evaluation of the supply and demand for potable water and
other utilities, as well as any potential infrastructure upgrades.
Notice of Preparation Ascent Environmental
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
10 Bear Creek Redwoods Open Space Preserve Plan
The Preserve Plan will include environmental protection features, including Best Management Practices (BMPs)
and design elements that would protect valuable environmental resources from damage during construction.
Practicable mitigation measures will be recommended in the Draft EIR to reduce any identified potentially
significant and significant impacts. It is anticipated that the project would not result in potentially significant
impacts related to Agriculture and Forestry Resources, Population and Housing, and Public Services; therefore,
these issues are not anticipated to require detailed evaluation in the Draft EIR.
ALTERNATIVES TO BE EVALUATED IN THE EIR
In accordance with the State CEQA Guidelines (14 CCR Section 15126.6), the EIR will describe a range of
reasonable alternatives to the proposed project that are capable of meeting most of the projects’ objectives,
and would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project. The EIR will also identify any
alternatives that were considered but rejected by the lead agency as infeasible and briefly explain the reasons
why. The EIR will provide an analysis of the No Project Alternative and will also identify the environmentally
superior alternative.
DOCUMENTS AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC REVIEW
A hard-copy of the NOP is available for public review at:
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
330 Distel Circle
Los Altos, CA 94022
The NOP is also available for public review online at: http://www.openspace.org/news/public_notices.asp
Preliminary Preserve Plan materials illustrating draft alternatives for Bear Creek Stables, Alma College Site
Rehabilitation, and a proposed public access and phasing map are also available at:
http://www.openspace.org/our-work/projects/bcr-plan
PROVIDING COMMENTS
Agencies and interested parties may provide MROSD with written comments on topics to be addressed in the
EIR for the project. Because of time limits mandated by State law, comments should be provided no later than
5:00 PM on July 10, 2015. Please send all comments to:
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
Attention: Lisa Infante Bankosh, Open Space Planner III
Mailing Address: 330 Distel Circle, Los Altos, CA 94022
Email: lbankosh@openspace.org
Comments provided by email should include “Bear Creek Redwoods NOP Scoping Comment” in the subject line,
and the name and physical address of the commenter in the body of the email.
All comments on environmental issues received during the public comment period will be considered and
addressed in the Draft EIR, which is anticipated to be available for public review in October 2015.
Ascent Environmental Notice of Preparation
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
Bear Creek Redwoods Open Space Preserve Plan 11
PUBLIC SCOPING MEETING
A public scoping meeting will be held by MROSD to inform interested parties about the proposed Preserve Plan,
and to provide agencies and the public with an opportunity to provide comments on the scope and content of
the EIR. The meeting time and location are as follows:
June 24, 2015
7:00 p.m.
Grant Park Community Center
1575 Holt Avenue
Los Altos, CA 94022
The meeting space is accessible to persons with disabilities. Individuals needing special assistive devices will be
accommodated to MROSD’s best ability. For more information, please contact Lisa Bankosh (at the contact
information above) at least 48 hours before the meeting.
Attachment 5
Public comments received through
June 18, 2015
Jennifer Woodworth
Subject:RE: Board correspondence
From: Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District <web@openspace.org>
Date: June 15, 2015 at 1:12:53 PM EDT
To: <web@openspace.org>
Subject: Reed
Submitted on Mon, 06/15/2015 - 10:12am
Submitted by anonymous user: [99.4.120.139]
Submitted values are:
First Name: Reed
Last Name: Williams
Select a choice: Full Board of Directors and District Clerk
Email:
Location: (i.e. City, Address or District Ward): Portola valley
Daytime Phone Number (if you wish to be contacted by phone):
Comments: Riding my bike has kept me from staying inside all day and playing video games. It
has changed who I am and it has made me a happier and a better person. By opening up the west
side of Bear Creek Reserve I'll have one more place to ride. Having this place will hopefully
allow me and my friends a way to spend more time in nature.
The results of this submission may be viewed at:
http://www.openspace.org/node/3/submission/17
To:Clerk
Subject:Communication to the Board
Date:Sunday, June 14, 2015 2:39:48 PM
________________________________________
From: Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District [web@openspace.org]
Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2015 1:23 PM
To: web
Subject: Alan
Submitted on Thu, 06/11/2015 - 1:23pm
Submitted by anonymous user: [12.217.161.130]
Submitted values are:
First Name: Alan
Last Name: Ting
Select a choice: Full Board of Directors and District Clerk
Email:
Location: (i.e. City, Address or District Ward): Palo Alto
Daytime Phone Number (if you wish to be contacted by phone):
Comments: I really enjoy riding my bike in the woods and nature, and look forward to riding with my 2
young children (currently 2.5 and 1 yrs. old) when they are a bit older. Please open up the West side of
Bear Creek Preserve to mountain bikes so we can all enjoy it together. Thank you.
The results of this submission may be viewed at:
http://www.openspace.org/node/3/submission/11
To:Clerk
Subject:Communication to the Board
Date:Sunday, June 14, 2015 2:38:51 PM
________________________________________
From: Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District [web@openspace.org]
Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2015 6:39 AM
To: web
Subject: Ranka
Submitted on Thu, 06/11/2015 - 6:39am
Submitted by anonymous user: [66.87.119.67]
Submitted values are:
First Name: Ranka
Last Name: Diklic
Select a choice: Full Board of Directors and District Clerk
Email:
District Ward): 544 west Latimer ave.
Daytime Phone Number (if you wish to be contacted by phone): 4083862946
Comments:
I have 2 boys that are 12 and 13 and budding mountain bikers. We ride from Campbell to Los Gatos on
LG creek trail (so nice not to be on the road with kids!) then we ride to Lexington reservoir and up
Jones trail, have burgers in downtown and ride back home. I love spending time riding with my boys
and they love dirt single track. Please develop more trails so kids can ride, it is the best thing to be
done, and send us invite so we can come and help build!
Thank you,
Ranka
The results of this submission may be viewed at:
http://www.openspace.org/node/3/submission/10
To:Clerk
Subject:Communication to the Board
Date:Sunday, June 14, 2015 2:39:23 PM
________________________________________
From: Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District [web@openspace.org]
Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2015 11:10 PM
To: web
Subject: Scott
Submitted on Thu, 06/11/2015 - 11:10pm
Submitted by anonymous user: [71.92.93.22]
Submitted values are:
First Name: Scott
Last Name: McDonald
Select a choice: Full Board of Directors and District Clerk
Email:
Location: (i.e. City, Address or District Ward): Cupertino
Daytime Phone Number (if you wish to be contacted by phone):
Comments: Please approve the Bear Creek trail so my kids and I don't have to ride on the dangerous
and narrow Bear Creek Road. Thanks!
The results of this submission may be viewed at:
http://www.openspace.org/node/3/submission/14
From:Jennifer Woodworth
Subject:Director Questions Re: 6/24/15 Agenda Packet
Date:Wednesday, June 24, 2015 12:29:33 PM
Attachments:2015.05.13_Draft_Minutes_REVISED.pdf
2015.06.24.agreement_district_management_of _ranch_san_antonio_R_15-87_REVISED.pdf
ECDM07_06_05_0181.jpg
CIMG3625.jpg
Good afternoon all,
Please find the answers below (in blue) to several questions asked by Board members in advance
of tonight’s meeting. I will also have copies on the dais and available to the public. Also there were
two minor corrections to the minutes for the May 13, 2015 meeting and a correction of a typo to
the report for item 6. I have attached the corrected documents and will have blue sheets tonight.
As always, thank you very much for sending your questions in advance of the meeting.
Jen
From Director Kishimoto
Item 2. Claims
10205 $716341 - how does this break down please?
CALJPIA bill:
$172,592 current year liability
$431,739 current year workers’ compensation
$112,010 retrospective adjustment workers’ compensation
Item 4 - do you have a photo of the house?
Attached is a view of the east face of the house and entry as well as the overall area as you enter
the farm area.
Item 5 - IT strategy
since the company has work with many other agencies, I assume scope will include looking
at case studies and “best practices” ?
when is it due to be finished?
Because each agency has its unique systems, issues, and challenges, there is not a one-size-fits-all
solution that can often be found in case studies. However, the consultant will definitely take into
consideration solutions that successfully addressed other organizations will similar challenges as
the District. In addition to looking at Best Practices, the consultant will also evaluate IT
governance, operations, security, Telecommunications, and staffing.
The data collection, analysis and recommendations are scheduled to be completed by the end of
August with the final report available in September. The recommendations will be prioritized so
that the District has a roadmap for implementation over the next three to five years.
Item 9 – Bear Creek Stables
* how many horses are stabled there today?
* have we assessed what the right number is given the water situation, etc.? What is the industry
standard on what 72 horses would require and what is current (or historical) capacity/flow?
* I saw a mention of night lights - what is proposed?
The stables currently boards 72 horses. This is the maximum number allowed for the site by the
County as a legal non-conforming use.
72 horses is the maximum number that any of the draft alternatives provides for. Two of the
alternatives reduce the number of horses to 63. The Natural Resources department is currently
conducting a water assessment of Bear Creek Preserve to determine water availability and need.
The draft alternatives will be revised using this information.
The potential for night lights will be considered as part of the alternatives. The conceptual plans
do not provide that level of detail at this time.
From Director Hanko
Prior to the start of the June 23 rd Real Property Committee meeting, Director Hanko asked staff
about Segway uses, as related to agenda item #7 (New Other Power-Driven Mobility Device Policy
and amended Trail Use Policies). As noted in the Board report, a Segway is an example of an Other
Power-Driven Mobility Device (OPDMD) which include electric golf carts, personal assistance
mobility devices (EPAMDs) such as a Segway® PT, ATVs, electric bicycles or other mobility devices
designed to operate in areas without routes designed for disabled access. By federal law
wheelchairs, mobility scooters and OPDMDs are generally allowed to go any place that pedestrians
are allowed.
Director Hanko wanted to understand how Segways would work in an outdoor setting, specifically
on trails. Below are two videos demonstrating Segway uses.
o This is a Segway tour guide video. It is very safety sensitive. 7 minutes
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z4HJTCSwiyQ
o This is a how it works video and shows some examples of riding very rough trails. 4
minutes https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rmlg5QkusFQ
Board Meeting 15-13
SPECIAL AND REGULAR MEETING
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
Administrative Office
330 Distel Circle
Los Altos, CA 94022
Wednesday, May 13, 2015
DRAFT MINUTES
SPECIAL MEETING – CLOSED SESSION
CALL TO ORDER
President Siemens called the Special Meeting of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
Board of Directors to order at 5:00 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Members Present: Nonette Hanko, Cecily Harris, Larry Hassett, Yoriko Kishimoto, Curt
Riffle, and Pete Siemens
Members Absent: Jed Cyr
Staff Present: General Manager Steve Abbors, General Counsel Sheryl Schaffner, and
Controller Mike Foster
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
None.
The Board convened into closed session at 5:00 p.m.
1. CLOSED SESSION: PUBLIC EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION
(GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54957(b)(1))
Title of Employees: Controller, General Counsel and General Manager
Meeting 15-13 Page 2
ADJOURNMENT
President Siemens adjourned the Special Meeting of the Board of Directors of the Midpeninsula
Regional Open Space District at 7:00 p.m.
REGULAR MEETING
CALL TO ORDER
President Siemens called the Regular Meeting of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
to order at 7:04 p.m.
President Siemens reported the Board met in closed session, and no reportable action was taken.
ROLL CALL
Members Present: Nonette Hanko, Cecily Harris, Larry Hassett, Yoriko Kishimoto, Curt
Riffle, and Pete Siemens
Members Absent: Jed Cyr
Staff Present: General Manager Steve Abbors, Assistant General Manager Kevin
Woodhouse, Assistant General Manager Ana Ruiz, General Counsel
Sheryl Schaffner, Controller Mike Foster, Operations Manager Michael
Newburn, Planning Manager Jane Mark, Casey Hiatt GIS Administrator,
Senior Planner Tina Hugg, Real Property Manager Mike Williams, Senior
Real Property Specialist Allen Ishibashi, and Interim District Clerk Kim
Marie Smith
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
None.
ADOPTION OF AGENDA
President Siemens stated that Item 9 will be heard after Item 7 followed by Items 8, 11 and 10, in
that order.
Motion: Director Kishimoto moved, and Director Riffle seconded the motion to adopt the
agenda, as amended.
VOTE: 6-0-0 (Director Cyr absent.)
SPECIAL ORDER OF THE DAY
Assistant General Manager Ana Ruiz introduced Frank Hernandez, Finance & Budget Analyst II
for the Administrative Services Department.
Meeting 15-13 Page 3
Natural Resources Manager Kirk Lenington introduced Coty Sifuentes-Winter, Integrated Pest
Management Coordinator.
CONSENT CALENDAR
1. Approve Claims Report
2. Written Communications: Karl Rowley
3. Contract for Completion of the Mindego Ranch Remediation and Demolition
Project at Russian Ridge Open Space Preserve (R-15-75)
General Manager’s Recommendation: Authorize the General Manager to enter into a contract
with Randazzo Enterprises, Inc., of Castroville, CA, for a not-to-exceed amount of $180,055 to
complete the Mindego Ranch Remediation and Demolition Project at the Russian Ridge Open
Space Preserve. The not-to-exceed amount includes a base bid of $145,995 for demolition and
remediation, a 15% contingency amount of $21,900, and an allowance of $12,160 for potential
stand down time related to delays to protect the federally-endangered San Francisco garter snake,
if encountered during construction.
4. Contract for Legal Services in Litigation, Mahronich et al v. Presentation Center, et
al. (R-15-80)
General Manager’s Recommendation: Approve a contract with Howard Rome Martin & Ridley
LLP for an amount not-to-exceed $30,000 for legal services relating to pending litigation.
5. Special Legal Services Contract relating to Real Property Issues (R-15-76)
General Manager’s Recommendation: Approve the proposed contract with Price, Postel &
Parma, LLP, for Special Legal Services relating to Real Property for a total not-to-exceed
amount of $100,000
Motion: Director Hassett moved and Director Harris seconded the motion to adopt the Consent
Calendar.
VOTE: 6-0-0 (Director Cyr absent.)
BOARD BUSINESS
6. Appointment of Chris Furniss and Natalie Hanna as Peace Officers (R-15-61)
Operations Manager Michael Newburn introduced Chris Furniss and Natalie Hanna as the
District’s two newest rangers.
Motion: Director Riffle moved, and Director Hanko seconded the motion to adopt two
resolutions of the Board of Directors of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
appointing Chris Furniss and Natalie Hanna as Peace Officers.
VOTE: 6-0-0 (Director Cyr absent.)
Meeting 15-13 Page 4
Rangers Chris Furniss and Natalie Hanna were sworn in as District Rangers by Mr. Newburn. Kevin Moon, his brother in law, performed the badging ceremony for Chris Furniss Supervising Ranger Chris Barresi performed the badging for Natalie Hanna.
7. Resolution Approving Documents Relating to Issuance of General Obligation
Bonds, Series 2015A (R-15-72)
Controller Mike Foster described the first tranche of bonds, which are planned to go on sale in
July 2015. The bonds will have debt service of approximately $2.5 million over 30 years, and
the current interest rate is approximately 3.8%. Mr. Foster described the next steps of the
process, including a presentation to Standard & Poors and Fitch on July 9th, determination of
whether any taxable bonds will be issued, and choosing an underwriter. The finalized interest
rate and audited financial statement will be included in the final Official Statement.
Director Harris stated that on page A-25 San Joaquin County is listed as being to the east of San
Mateo County and requested removal of Marin from the metropolitan district composition
description of San Mateo County on page A-27.
Director Siemens stated that in the fourth sentence of the second paragraph on A-8 it should be
corrected to say September 2015 instead of 20134.
Public hearing opened at 7:29 p.m.
No speakers present.
Public hearing closed at 7:29 p.m.
Motion: Director Hanko moved, and Director Kishimoto seconded the motion to adopt a
Resolution of the Board of Directors of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
authorizing the issuance and sale of General Obligation Bonds, Series 2015A, approving an
Official Statement, and providing other matters properly related thereto.
VOTE: 6-0-0 (Director Cyr absent.)
8. Resolution of Support Endorsing Six Priority Conservation Areas in San Mateo
County and Nine Priority Conservation Areas in Santa Clara County nominated by the
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District; and a Resolution of Support for Two Priority
Conservation Areas Nominated by the California State Coastal Conservancy and a
Resolution of Support for One Priority Conservation Area Nominated by the City of Menlo
Park (R-15-73)
Item 8 was heard after Item 11.
Planning Manager Jane Mark provided an overview of the project since staff last reported on this
item to the Board of Directors in January 2015. Ms. Mark explained that the District notified the
affected local jurisdictions with the Priority Conservation Areas (PCAs) in the spheres of
influence of the District’s desire to have the lands declared as PCAs. District staff received
requests from these jurisdictions to have additional lands included in the District’s PCA
application. Ms. Mark explained that District lands are also being included in the PCA
Meeting 15-13 Page 5
applications for other jurisdictions, including Ravenswood Open Space Preserve as part of
Menlo Park’s proposed Baylands PCA. Finally, Ms. Mark explained PCA designations can help
agencies attract funding for projects within a Priority Conservation Area, such as restoration
work or long-term agricultural preservation efforts, and if approved, 95% of the District’s lands
will have a PCA designation.
Director Kishimoto inquired why all District lands do not have a PCA designation.
Ms. Mark explained that a scientific justification is needed for PCA designation. The work
completed through the District’s Vision Plan has largely informed the application for the PCA
designation application.
Public hearing opened at 9:10 p.m.
No speakers present.
Public hearing closed at 9:10 p.m.
Motion: Director Riffle moved, and Director Hassett seconded the motion to
1. Adopt a resolution of support endorsing the nomination of six (6) Priority Conservation
Areas in San Mateo County and nine (9) Priority Conservation Areas in Santa Clara County,
as well as the PCA designation categories selected for the existing and new Priority
Conservation Areas.
2. Adopt resolutions of support for the nomination of the following Priority Conservation Areas
by other agencies: 1) the Menlo Park and East Palo Alto Baylands, which includes
Ravenswood Open Space Preserve, nominated by the City of Menlo Park and 2) the corridors
for the California Coastal Trail and San Francisco Bay Area Water Trail nominated by the
California State Coastal Conservancy.
VOTE: 6-0-0 (Director Cyr absent.)
9. Intent to Accept a Gift of a Conservation Easement over three Los Trancos County
Water District Parcels, two located in unincorporated San Mateo County (Assessor Parcel
Numbers 080-060-126 and 080-071-010) and one located in the Town of Portola Valley
(Assessor Parcel Number 080-241-410) (R-15-77)
Item 9 was heard after Item 7.
Assistant General Manager Ana Ruiz stated that acceptance of the Conservation Easement is a
result of the ongoing dissolution of the Los Trancos County Water District (LTCWD). Ms. Ruiz
described the locations, natural features of, and structures on the properties. Ms. Ruiz described
the terms of the conservation easements, including a duty to preserve and protect the
conservation values of the easements, the ability to enter the properties to monitor for
compliance, and notify fee title holders of any noncompliance.
Director Riffle inquired about the requirements of monitoring the easement.
Ms. Ruiz explained monitoring is completed by the Real Property department. The monitoring is
completed on various schedules for the District’s approximately 25 conservation easements.
Meeting 15-13 Page 6
When the Land and Facilities department is created, that department’s staff will take over
monitoring, which typically involves creation of a baseline document to which periodic photos
and notes will be compared to from subsequent site visits.
Public hearing opened at 7:50 p.m.
Bill Coats, President of Los Trancos County Water District, stated the LTCWD cannot currently
commit to cost reimbursement for the baseline document, but money has been set aside to cover
various aspects of the dissolution.
Charlie Krenz, member of the Silicon Valley Mountain Bikers Association, spoke in favor of a
400 foot proposed trail on the Red Shed property that would connect to Portola Valley trails.
Mr. Krenz also stated that the community is very active on this property and expressed the
thanks of the community that the District is accepting the conservation easements.
David Swernoff spoke regarding the historic value of the Red Shed and spoke in favor of the
District eventually owning the property.
Jerry Hearn, resident of Los Trancos Woods, spoke expressed support for the conservation
easements and spoke in favor of a single owner of the properties. Mr. Hearn also stated that
there are a number of individuals willing to work with the District to monitor the properties.
Public hearing closed at 8:06 p.m.
Motion: Director Kishimoto moved, and Director Hassett seconded the motion to:
1. Authorize the General Manager to negotiate the terms and conditions of a Conservation
Easement over three Los Trancos County Water District parcels with San Mateo County and
Woodside Fire Protection District, the successors in interest to the LTCWD property, to
conform to the terms specified in the staff report. Additionally, the District will be
reimbursed for fulfilling the responsibilities of the conservation easement, including creation
of the baseline document and ongoing monitoring. This authorization is contingent upon the
completion of the LTCWD dissolution and transfer of properties as further described in the
staff report.
2. Direct the General Manager to return to the Board of Directors for acceptance of the
Conservation Easement once the various dissolution and property transfer approvals are
secured through other agencies.
Director Hassett expressed his concerns regarding the potential costs of the conservation
easements that the District is currently unaware of and suggested the District be indemnified
against various liabilities.
VOTE: 6-0-0 (Director Cyr absent.)
10. Proposed Purchase of the Ashworth Property as an addition to La Honda Creek
Open Space Preserve located on Bear Gulch Road in unincorporated San Mateo County
(Assessor’s Parcel Number 075-340-240) (R-15-74)
Item 10 was heard after Item 8.
Meeting 15-13 Page 7
Senior Real Property Agent Allen Ishibashi provided the staff report describing the location and
features of the Ashworth property. Mr. Ishibashi explained that the purchase of the Ashworth
property brings the La Honda Creek Open Space Preserve and El Corte de Madera Creek Open
Space Preserve closer to connecting. Mr. Ishibashi stated that the purchase of the Ashworth
property is a Measure AA project important to a future Bay Area Ridge Trail connection
between the two preserves. Finally, Mr. Ishibashi described the use and management
considerations for the property and the terms and conditions of the sale.
Public hearing opened at 9:17 p.m.
No speakers present.
Public hearing closed at 9:17 p.m.
Motion: Director Hanko moved, and Director Harris seconded the motion to:
General Manager’s Recommendations:
1. Determine that the recommended actions are categorically exempt from the California
Environmental Quality Act, as set out in the staff report.
2. Adopt a Resolution authorizing the purchase of the Ashworth property.
3. Adopt a Preliminary Use and Management Plan for the property, as set out in the staff report.
4. Indicate the intention to withhold the Ashworth property as public open space.
VOTE: 6-0-0 (Director Cyr absent.)
11. Proposed purchase of the Peninsula Open Space Trust (Hendrys Creek) property in
partnership with Santa Clara Valley Water District as an addition to the Cathedral Oaks
Area of the Sierra Azul Open Space Preserve, located at 20610 Aldercroft Heights Road,
Los Gatos in unincorporated Santa Clara County (Santa Clara County Assessor’s Parcel
Numbers 558-27-007, 558-27-008, and 558-51-005) (R-15-71)
Item 11 was heard after Item 9.
Real Property Manager Mike Williams provided the staff report describing the Hendrys Creek
property, its location, history, and structures on the property. Mr. Williams described the habitat
and resource values of the property and the property’s transaction history. Mr. Williams outlined
the terms and conditions of the purchase, easement terms, and long term management plan.
Director Hassett inquired regarding passage over the Hendrys Creek 14 road crossings and
whether the crossings would need to be able to handle the weight and size of firefighting
apparatus.
Senior Planner Meredith Manning explained there will be a seasonal wet crossing, if necessary,
at the main stem of the creek where District patrol vehicles will be able to reach the area if
needed. All other road crossings will be removed.
Public hearing opened at 8:37 p.m.
Tricia Suvari, Vice President of POST in charge of land transactions, spoke in support of the
District’s purchase and expressed her thanks to the District for its management of the property.
Meeting 15-13 Page 8
Ngoc Nguyen, engineering unit manager at Santa Clara Valley Water District, thanked the Board
and the District for their support for the purchase of the property and the conservation easement
that will allow the Santa Clara Valley Water District to complete its mitigation monitoring
obligations.
Public hearing closed at 8:44 p.m.
Motion: Director Riffle moved, and Director Hanko seconded the motion to:
1. Adopt a Resolution approving the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration and the
Mitigation Monitoring Program for Hendrys Creek Project in accordance with the California
Environmental Quality Act, and adopt the findings set out in the Draft Resolution.
2. Adopt a Resolution authorizing execution of a Memorandum of Understanding with
Peninsula Open Space Trust and Santa Clara Valley Water District to purchase the property
and convey a Conservation Easement and Long-term Management Plan to Santa Clara
Valley Water District.
3. Adopt the Amended Preliminary Use and Management Plan, which will be incorporated into
the Long-term Management Plan, and name the property as an addition to the Cathedral Oaks
Area of Sierra Azul Open Space Preserve.
4. Dedicate the property as public open space pursuant to the District’s Annual Policy for Dedication of
Lands.
VOTE: 6-0-0 (Director Cyr absent.)
INFORMATIONAL REPORTS
A. Committee Reports
Director Hanko reported the Legislative, Funding and Public Affairs Committee will be meeting
soon to discuss a memorial bench to honor Herb Grench, the District’s first General Manager.
Director Siemens reported the Board Appointee Evaluation Committee met.
B. Staff Reports
Assistant General Manager Ana Ruiz reported that she and Planning Manager Jane Mark met
with Sara Rosenthal, aide to San Mateo County Supervisor Don Horsley, to discuss streamlining
the county’s planning permit process. Ms. Ruiz also reported that the first Mt. Umunhum
Conservancy site tour is scheduled for Saturday.
Assistant General Manager Kevin Woodhouse provided comments regarding implementation of
the Financial and Operational Sustainability Model Study.
General Counsel Sheryl Schaffner provided an update regarding a lawsuit by neighbors to the
Wozniak property along Summit Road in the Santa Cruz Mountains. Santa Cruz County’s
Environmental Impact Report related to the county’s approving permits for special events to be
held on property adjacent to the Bear Creek Redwoods Open Space Preserve.
Meeting 15-13 Page 9
C. Director Reports
The Board submitted their compensatory forms to the District Clerk.
Director Riffle reported that he spoke at a meeting of the League of Women Voters regarding the
current status of Measure AA implementation. Mr. Riffle also provided comments on a seminar
held by the District about engaging Latino communities.
Director Kishimoto reported that she toured the Bear Creek Redwoods with staff and also
attended the seminar regarding engaging Latino communities.
Director Hassett reported that he, Director Cyr, and Director Siemens attended the ribbon-cutting
ceremony at the Ancient Oaks Trail extension.
Director Hassett also reported that he attended the Wingding event at Skyline Ranch.
ADJOURNMENT
President Siemens adjourned the meeting at 9:40 p.m.
________________________________
Jennifer Woodworth, CMC
District Clerk
R-15-87
Meeting 15-16
June 24, 2015
AGENDA ITEM 6
AGENDA ITEM
Approval of Agreement with the County of Santa Clara for the District’s Management of Rancho
San Antonio County Park and Determination that the Recommended Actions are Exempt from
the California Environmental Quality Act.
GENERAL MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Authorize the Board President to enter into the attached Agreement with the County of Santa
Clara (County) for the District’s Management of Rancho San Antonio County Park.
2. Authorize the General Manager to extend the agreement for the second five-year period
(July 2020 through June 2025) subject to a staff review of the costs to manage Rancho San
Antonio County Park.
3. Determine that the recommended actions are categorically exempt from the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) as set out in the staff report.
SUMMARY
Approval of this Agreement (Attachment 1) will continue the District’s management of the
developed portion of Rancho San Antonio County Park and the lands added in prior agreements.
The Agreement increases the County of Santa Clara’s support for the City of Mountain View’s
Deer Hollow Farm program from $50,000 to $75,000 per year. The District in turn will enter into
a separate agreement with the City of Mountain View to support its programs at Deer Hollow
Farm. The Agreement is for 10 years, with a cost escalator of 2.5% per year, with farm funding
remaining at $75,000. A review of costs will be conducted after the first five years and
adjustments renegotiated if necessary. The Agreement also allows for the District’s Integrated
Pest Management Program to be utilized, the tennis courts to be removed at the County’s
expense, and ensures clear communications should either agency wishes wish to propose
changes which would affect park access or usage. Although not specified in the Agreement, the
District will be meeting with the County to explore ideas for improving transit options to the
park.
DISCUSSION
Historical Background
In January 1999, the County of Santa Clara proposed entrance fees at all of its parks, including
Rancho San Antonio County Park. This park serves as the gateway to the District's 2,000 acre
Rancho San Antonio Open Space Preserve. In order to avoid entrance fees at Rancho San
Antonio the Board directed staff to negotiate with the County to reach an agreement whereby the
R-15-87 Page 2
District would assume the lease and management responsibilities for the County Park, in
exchange for financial support of future acquisitions, and a commitment by both the County and
the District to the continued support of Deer Hollow Farm. The initial agreement, approved in
May, 2000 was for ten-years (see report R-00-49), with $1,000,000 to be used for land
acquisition and $500,000 for support of Deer Hollow Farm.
In 2010 a five year agreement was negotiated. This agreement added 120 acres of land,
commonly known as the “Diocese Property,” to the existing management area. The agreement
also addressed concerns about the impact of remote controlled model aircraft and helicopters.
Integrated Pest Management issues were addressed, as well as compliance with restrictions the
County must work under for fire prevention.
Proposed New Agreement
The proposed new agreement has a five-year term with an additional five year extension, unless
either party chooses to renegotiate the terms. Provision is made for a review of the financial
terms of the agreement before the end of the initial five year period. The agreement addresses
issues such as use of the District’s Integrated Pest Management program, removal of the old
tennis courts, support for Deer Hollow Farm, and any proposals for additional projects which
might impact the park.
Management Issues
The majority of the provisions from the prior agreement remain in effect. These cover aspects
such as the District’s ability to enforce its regulations in the County park and maintenance
responsibilities.
The new agreement allows the District to request an exemption from the County’s Integrated
Pest Management Plan in order for the District to operate under its own Integrated Pest
Management Plan. Doing so allows staff to work more efficiently, since only one set of records
will need to be maintained and staff are familiar with the District’s standards.
In the park there is a set of four tennis courts. The tennis courts are in poor repair and are
infrequently used for tennis. The playing surface has deteriorated and would require
rehabilitation to bring it back to a playable surface. The County has agreed, at their expense, to
remove the tennis courts within two years of the execution of the agreement. The land would be
rehabilitated to a natural state.
The new agreement specifies that if either agency wishes to embark upon a program or facility
which affects the park or which involves an outside agency or entity, such as an adjacent city or
the Valley Transportation Authority, then the agency which initiates the action must contact the
other at least nine months in advance before any anticipated approval or implementation.
FISCAL IMPACT
During the negotiations an analysis of the costs to manage Rancho San Antonio County Park was
conducted. District staff was mindful that that the full cost of managing Rancho San Antonio
County Park should be acknowledged. The current annual cost of managing Rancho San
Antonio County Park is estimated to be $551,102. This includes labor and materials costs. In
negotiations with the County it was agreed that the past practice of splitting the cost between the
R-15-87 Page 3
agencies ($275,551 by each agency) should continue. This amount will increase by 2.5% per
year for the life of the agreement. Funds received from the County are placed in the District’s
General Fund to offset the operating expenses.
The County will pay $75,000 per year for support of Deer Hollow Farm. This amount will be
passed through to the City of Mountain View as part of the District’s ongoing support of Deer
Hollow Farm. This is an increase from the prior support, which was $50,000 per year. There is
no cost escalator for the $75,000 per year support.
Expenses related to managing Rancho San Antonio County Park were included in the Board
approved Operations’ Department FY2015-16 budget.
PUBLIC NOTICE
Public notice was provided as required by the Brown Act. No additional notice is required.
CEQA COMPLIANCE
The District concludes this project will not have a significant effect on the environment.
Additionally, it is categorically exempt from CEQA under Article 19, Section 15301 of the
CEQA Guidelines as follows:
Section 15301 exempts operation, repair, maintenance, permitting, leasing, licensing or
minor alteration of existing public or private structures, facilities, or topographical
features, involving negligible or no expansion of use beyond that existing at the time of
the lead agency’s determination. The property will not be changed by the District’s
continued management of the area.
NEXT STEPS
The Agreement includes language for concurrent approval by the District’s Board and Santa
Clara County’s Board of Supervisors. The Board of Supervisors has agendized this for review
at its meeting of June 23, 2015.
Upon approval of both agencies the agreement will go into effect. In the event that the
agreement is not approved by both agencies prior to the expiration of the current agreement
(June 30, 2015) then both agencies have agreed to continue the current management
arrangements until a new agreement is reached.
Attachments
1. Agreement for Operation and Management of Rancho San Antonio County Park
2. Map of Rancho San Antonio County Park
Responsible Department Manager:
Michael Newburn, Operations Manager
Kevin Woodhouse, Assistant General Manager
Prepared by:
Gordon Baillie, Operations Analyst
1
,Ic e
r.
i, ' , •f .
-Ni i�/. .. . 1i ,
V ,l•! .-__ .fit
St �';M _�'�_ ►
•
•
.t
-t •
V
�.
i .
sr
•
r'
re
•
•
1
1
"n
r
•
,
•
j
1.
•