2015 Midpen Open Space District

TAB1
TAB2
Appendix C: Healthy Nature
Planning and Analysis Reports
Appendix
TAB3 C
TAB4
Karl Gohl
TAB5
Rancho San Antonio Open Space Preserve
TAB6
TAB7

Appendix C-1:
Biodiversity of the Midpeninsula

Regional Open Space District
Prepared for:
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
330 Distel Circle, Los Altos, CA 94022
March 2015 Prepared by:

Jodi McGraw (Jodi McGraw Consulting)
with forest management input from Nadia Hamey (Hamey Woods)

Appendix C: Healthy Nature Planning and Analysis Reports
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ListofTables iii
ListofFigures iii
Preface v
ExecutiveSummary vi
TerrestrialCommunities 1
Vegetation 1
SensitiveandBiologicallyHighlySignificantCommunities 2
AquaticCommunities 10
StreamsandWatersheds 10
PondsandOtherWaterBodies 20
RareSpecies 22
LandscapeConnectivity 30
HabitatPatches 30
Linkages 30
TerrestrialLinkages 30
AquaticLinkages 31
ThreatstoBiodiversity 33
ErosionandSedimentation 36
NonnativePlants 40
GrasslandHabitatSuccession 45
ForestManagementandRestoration 48
ConiferForestManagement 48
HardwoodForestManagement 51
FireManagement 57
EcosystemNeeds 57
FireThreat 59
GlobalChange 62
ClimateChange 62
PotentialImpacts 62
PotentialforAreatoMitigateClimateChangeImpacts 62
SeaLevelRise 62
GeographicInformationSystemsData 67
References 68
Appendix C-1: Biodiversity of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District ii

LIST OF TABLES
Table1:Vegetation 3
Table2:Sensitiveplantcommunities 5
Table3:Vegetationandlandcovertypes 6
Table4:Streamsreachessupportingraresalmonids(Tier1) 12
Table5:Subwatershedsaccordingtotheirtierwhichindicatestheirpriorityforconservation 14
Table6:Rareandlocallyuniqueplants 22
Table7:Rareandlocallyuniqueanimals 25
Table8:Rarespecieshotspots 27
Table9:Threatstoecologicalviabilityofthespeciesandcommunities 33
Table10:Nonnativeplants 40
Table11:Examplesofimpactsofnonnativeplantspecies 42
Table12:ForestsoftheVisionPlanArea 48
Table13:Biologicallyimportantcharacteristicsofoldgrowthforests 49
Table14:Forestmanagementtreatments 53
Table15:Vegetationaccordingtoitsoriginandfirerelationship 58
Table16:BiologicalsystemsintheVisionPlanAreathatcouldbemostvulnerabletoclimatechange 64
Table17:Refugiaandaspectsofclimatechangeresiliency 65
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure1:Vegetationandotherlandcover 7
Figure2:Sensitiveplantcommunities 8
Figure3:Vegetationandlandcovertypesaccordingtotheirpriorityforconservation 9
Figure4:Streamreachesaccordingtotheirpriorityforconservation 17
Figure5:Districtsubwatershedinformationfrompriorplans 18
Figure6:Districtsubwatershedratingforconservation 19
Figure7:Pondsandotherwaterbodies 21
Figure8:Knownrarespeciesoccurrences 29
Figure9:Habitatpatchandlandscapelinkages 32
Figure10:SoilerosionpotentialbasedupontheUniversalSoilLossEquation 38
Figure11:Landslidesandgeologicformationspronetogullying 39
Figure12:Communitiesdominatedbynonnativeplants 44
Figure13:GrasslandswithinthreeungrazedDistrictOpenSpacePreserves 47
Appendix C-1: Biodiversity of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District iii
Figure14:Timberharvestsandtimberproductionzoning 55
Figure15:SuddenOakDeathobservations 56
Figure16:Vegetationadaptationsandrecordedfirehistory 60
Figure17:WildlandUrbanInterfaceandCommunityWildfireProtectionPlanPriorityAreas 61
Figure18:Areasofpotentialclimateresiliency 66
Appendix C-1: Biodiversity of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District iv

PREFACE
ThisreportprovidesanoverviewandassessmentofthebiologicalconservationvalueswithintheVision
PlanAreatheapproximately371,000acreareathatincludestheMidpeninsulaRegionalOpenSpace
Districtsjurisdiction,sphereofinfluence,andadjacentlandholdings.Thissummarytouchesonaspects
ofthebiologicalresourceswithintheDistrictsapproximately57,000acresofopenspacepreserves,
thoughimportantly,thishighlevelassessmentdoesnotaddressimportantsitelevelconditionsand
considerationsthatareinsteadthesubjectofgeneralplans,managementplans,andother
implementationplans.
Thereportintegratesexistinginformation,includingpriorregionalplans,Districtpolicies,reports,
scientificstudies,andgeographicinformationsystemdata.ItwasdevelopedbyecologistJodiMcGraw,
withtheassistanceofJustinBurks,andinputfromNadiaHamey,RegisteredProfessionalForester,on
forestmanagement(Section6).
ThereportcompletesacriticalfirsttaskinthetechnicalcomponentoftheVisionPlanningProcess,
whichisdesignedtoevaluatetheexistingconditionsofthebiologicalresourceswithintheplanarea.
InformationcontainedinthisreportcanbeusedtodevelopvariousaspectsoftheHealthyPlants,
Animals,andWatercomponentoftheVisionPlan,includingthegoals,criteria,andpriorityactions;it
alsoprovidesinformationthatmightaidoutreachtothecommunitythroughimplementationofthe
projectsCommunityEngagementandPublicParticipationPlan.
AsthenextstepintheVisionPlanningprocess,keycomponentsoftheanalysispresentedherewillbe
integratedinaspatialanalysisdesignedtoidentifyareaswithintheVisionPlanAreathataremost
importanttoconservingbiodiversity.Datacurrentlyanticipatedtobeincludedintheanalysisinclude:
Vegetation,withscoresforthevarioustypesbasedupontheirratings(Table3,Figure3);
Streams,scoredbaseduponthestreamrating(Table4,Figure4);
Watersheds,scoredbaseduponthewatershedrating(Table5,Figure5);
Ponds(Figure7);
Rarespeciesoccurrences,withscoresreflectingthefrequencyofrarespecies(Figure8);and
Landscapeconnectivity,includinglinkagesaswellashabitatpatchesweighedbytheirsize
(Figure9).
Additionaldatapresentedinthisreportcanbeintegratedintotheanalysis,whichwillbedesignedto
identifyareaswherehabitatprotection,restoration,and/ormanagementprotects,canbeconductedto
promoteoneormorebiodiversityconservationobjectives.
Importantly,themapsherearedevelopedforlargeformatprintingandwhiletheycanalsobeviewed
onacomputerscreen,theywilllackdetailifprintedonlettersizedpaper.
Appendix C-1: Biodiversity of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District v

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
CenteredontheSanFranciscoPeninsula,theVisionPlanAreafeaturesdiverseecosystemsoftheSanta
CruzMountainsBioregion,fromsaltwaterwetlandstotoweringredwoodforests.Theseecosystems
supportrichassemblagesofplantsandanimals,andprovideahostofimportantservices,including
waterfiltration,croppollination,andcarbonsequestration.Theirviabilityrequiresconservationoflarge
contiguoushabitatareasandmanagementtoaddressthevariousfactorsthatfragmentanddegrade
habitat.Conservationintheregion,whichisanimportantpartoftheCentralCoastEcoregion(TNC
2006)andtheCaliforniaFloristicProvince,whichisaglobalbiodiversityhotspot(Myersetal.2000),can
alsohelppromotestatewideandglobalconservation.
Nearly78%oftheapproximately370,000acreVisionPlanArea,whichincludestheDistrictsjurisdiction,
sphereofinfluence,andlandholdings,featuresnaturalorseminaturallandcover,includingvegetation
andwater(Table1,Figure1).Convertedlands,includingdevelopedareasandintensiveagriculture(e.g.
rowcrops),areconcentratedintherelativelyflatSantaClaraValley,leavingthewetlandsthatfringethe
SanFranciscoBay,andthevariableterrainoftheSantaCruzMountainsrelativelyintact(Figure1).
Terrestrial Communities
AcrosstheVisionPlanArea,finescalevariabilityingeology,soils,hydrology,andmicroclimate,aswell
ashistoryoflanduseandnaturaldisturbance,includingfire,interactincomplexwaystosupportdiverse
communitiesofplantsandanimals,whichinclude33mappednaturalplantcommunities(Table1,Figure
1).ThecomplexgeologyoftheSantaCruzMountainsplaysalargeroleinthediversityofnatural
systems,bycreatingvariabletopographyandgivingrisetouniquesoilsincludingserpentine,sandstone,
andshalederivedsoils,eachofwhichfeaturesuniqueassemblagesofplantsandanimalsadaptedtothe
theirinimicalconditions(Section1.2).
SerpentinecommunitiesandmaritimechaparralareamongtheVisionPlanAreassensitiveplant
communities:globallyrarecommunitiesthatcollectivelycoveronanestimated19,648acreswithinthe
planarea,including1,355acresintheDistrictsnearly57,000acresofopenspacepreserves(Table2,
Figure2).Othersensitivecommunitiesincludeextensivewetlands,riparianforests,valleyoak
woodlands,andoldgrowthredwoodforests.
Rare Species
Thesesensitivecommunitiescompriseseveraloftheregionsspecieshotspotsspeciesrichareas
thatsupportmanyoftheVisionPlanAreas96plantsand66animalsthatarerare,threatenedor
endangered(Table8).Thesespecies,whichinclude11plantsand16animalsthathavebeenlistedas
stateorfederallyendangered(Tables6and7),areconcentratedintheregionsgrassland,maritime
chaparral,riparian,serpentine,andoldgrowthforestcommunities,representativeareasofwhichare
foundwithintheDistrictsopenspacepreserves(Table8,Figure8).
Aquatic Ecosystems
Districtopenspacepreserves,andthebroaderVisionPlanArea,alsofeatureimportantaquaticsystems,
includingstreamsandponds,whichgiverisetowetlandsandriparianvegetation,provideasourceof
freewaterforterrestrialspecies,andsupportseveralrareandendangeredspecies(Section2).The
VisionPlanAreaspondsprovidebreedinghabitatforCaliforniaredleggedfrog,Californiatiger
salamander,SanFranciscogartersnake,andwesternpondturtle,whichrequireintact,adjacentupland
habitatsasoccurwithintheDistrictsopenspacepreserves(Section2.2).
Appendix C-1: Biodiversity of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District vi

TheVisionPlanAreacontainsjustover1,100milesofcoastalstreams,including37milesofcool,
mountaincreeks,suchasSanGregorioCreek,thatdraintothePacificOceanandprovidehabitatfor
endangeredcohosalmonaspeciesthatisatthesouthernendofitsrangeintheSantaCruzMountains
(Table4,Figure4).Thesestreamsalsosupportthethreatenedsteelheadtrout,whichinhabitsan
additional160milesofcreeksintheVisionPlanArea,includingseveralsuchasStevensCreek,which
draintotheSanFranciscoBay(Table4,Figure4).Districtopenspacepreservescontainimportant
breedinghabitatwithintheseandotherstreams,andalsoprotectwatershedlandswhichareessential
tomaintaininginstreamhabitatconditions,aswellaswaterqualityintheSanFranciscoBayandnear
shoreenvironmentsofthePacificOcean(Table5,Figures5and6).
Landscape Connectivity
ConnectivitywithintheVisionPlanAreasstreamsiscriticaltomaintainingpopulationsofcohosalmon,
steelhead,andotheranadromousfish,suchasPacificlamprey,whichliveasadultsinthebayandocean
butreturntotheupperreachesofmountainstreamstobreed.Removaloffishpassagebarriers,
includingdamsaswellassomebridgesandculverts,canfacilitateaccesstoimportantspawninghabitat,
andincreasefishpopulations.Streamsalsoprovideimportantlinkagesforterrestrialspecies,
particularlyinurbanorintensivelycultivatedareaswheredenseriparianvegetationcreatesimportant
coverthatfacilitatesmovementbyanimals.Streamcorridorsmayfacilitatemovementofspeciesacross
thedenselydevelopedSantaClaraValleyandHighway101andInterstate280,thusconnectingthebay
landsinthenortheasternportionoftheDistricttointacthabitatwithintheSantaCruzMountains
foothills(Figure9).
SuchlandscapeconnectivityiscriticaltothemaintenanceofbiodiversitywithintheSantaCruz
Mountains.TheVisionPlanAreasupportlarge,contiguoushabitatpatches,includingthenorthern
portionofa61,000acrepatchcenteredonBigBasinStatePark,whichisthelargestareaofcontiguous
habitatintheSantaCruzMountains(Figure9).Suchlargehabitatareasareessential,astheysupporta
disproportionaterichnessofspecies,aremoreresistanttohabitatdegradationcausedbyedgeeffects,
andareimportantforwiderangingspecies.Thecentralandwesternportionsoftheplanareafeature
numerouslargepatches,whichtogethercansupportpopulationofspecieswithlargehomeranges,
includingmountainlions,whichfeaturehomerangesofupto100squaremiles(Beier1993).
Longtermpersistenceofmountainlionaswellasthegeneticdiversityandviabilityofotherspecies
withintheSantaCruzMountainsreliesonmaintainingconnectivitytotheadjacentDiabloandGabilan
mountainranges,whicharelocatedtotheeastandsouth.Thislinkage,whichcancreateamorethan
100milelatitudinalgradientthatcanenablespeciesrangeshiftsinresponsetoclimatechange,requires
restoringconnectivitythroughtheHighway17corridor,whichconstitutesamajorchokepointinthe
linkage.TheDistrict,whichmanagesaseriesofopenspacepreservesinthisarea,canpartnerwithstate
transportationandwildlifeagenciestopromoteconnectivitythroughthisarea(Figure9).
Habitat Management
TheDistrictsapproximately57,000acresofopenspacepreservescreatethebackboneofanetworkof
protectedlandsintheVisionPlanArea,whichincludes156,000acres(42%)ofparks,openspace,and
privatelandsprotectedthoughconservationeasements.Thoughsafeguardedfromdevelopment,
habitatwithintheseprotectedlandsisthreatenedbyavarietyoffactorsthatdegradeandfragment
habitat,imperilrarespeciespopulations,anddisruptimportantecosystemservices(Table9).
Toaddressthesethreats,theDistrictrecentlyadoptedacomprehensiveresourcemanagementpolicy,
whichidentifiesgoalsandspecificimplementationmeasurestoaddressthemyriad,ofteninterrelated,
threats(MROSD2011).Inadditiontoprovidingmeasuresfortheprotectionoflandscapeconnectivity,
Appendix C-1: Biodiversity of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District vii
specialstatusspeciespopulations,andsensitivecommunities,thepoliciesaddressbroaderissuesof
watershedmanagement.
Soil Erosion
Districtresourcemanagementpoliciesincludeimplementationmeasurestolimitsoilerosionand
sedimentation,thethreatofwhichisgreatestintheruggedwesternslopesunderlainbyerosive
sedimentaryrocks,andinthesoutheasternportionoftheDistrictwhereerosiveserpentineunderlies
steepslopescoveredbychaparral(Figures10and11).
Non-Native Plants
Thepoliciesalsoincorporatemeasurestocontrolandpreventtheestablishmentofinvasiveplants,
whichoutcompetenativeplants,degradehabitatforanimals,andcanalterecosystemstructureand
functions,includingbypromotingfire(Table11).Thesespeciesdominate9,557acres,860acres(9%)of
whicharewithinDistrictopenspacepreserves(Table10,Figure12),andinvasionsareongoing.
Grasslands
DistrictresourcemanagementpoliciesalsoaddresstheneedforstewardshipoftheVisionPlanAreas
widespreadplantcommunities.Inadditiontotheinvasionandspreadofnonnativeplants,theregions
grasslandsarebeingdegradedbyencroachmentfromwoodyplantspeciesintheabsenceoffire,which
isanaturalpartofthedisturbanceregime.Grazingmanagementinsixopenspacepreserveswithatotal
ofapproximately7,000acresofgrasslandsishelpingpreventunnaturalsuccession,reducecoverofnon
nativeplants,andreducefinefuelsthatcanpromotewildfire.Expandinggrazingmanagementtoother
preservesincludingWindyHill,MonteBello,andLongRidge(Figure13),mayhelpprotectanadditional
1,000acresofgrasslandsfromshrubandtreeencroachmentfromadjacentcoastalscrubandhardwood
woodlands,thusmaintainingimportanthabitatforseveralgrasslandplantsandanimals.
Hardwood Forests
TheVisionPlanAreasnearly47,902acresofhardwoodforest,37.8%ofwhicharelocatedinDistrict
openspacepreserves,arealsosubjecttounnaturalsuccession.Exclusionoffirefromtheseforests,
whichareotherwisedominatedbyspeciesofoak,tanoak,andCaliforniabay,facilitatesestablishment
ofDouglasfiraconifermappedasemergentorcodominanton17,848acresofhardwoodforest.
PrescribedfireorforestmanagementtreatmentsthatsimulatetheireffectsbykillingDouglasfircanbe
usedtomaintainhardwoodforestsandhabitatoakdependentanimals(Table14).Forestmanagement
treatmentsarealsoneededtoaddressthenegativeeffectsofsuddenoakdeathapathogenkilling
oaksandtanoaksinapproximatelyhalfoftheDistrictsopenspacepreserves(Figure15).Treatments
includeremovinginfectedcarriers(e.g.Californiabay),applyingfungicidetoheritageoaks,andfuel
managementprojectstoreducethethreatofseverewildfirecausedbythedeadwood(Table14).
Redwood-Douglas Fir Forests

Fireandotherforestmanagementandrestorationtechniquescanalsobeusedtorestorecoast
redwoodDouglasfirforests,whichcoveranestimated78,271acres(21%)oftheVisionPlanArea,
including12,915acresinDistrictopenspacepreserves(Figure14).Asaresultofextensiveharvests
duringthepasttwocenturies,Specifically,treethinningcancreatemorewidelyspaced,largerredwood
treesmorecharacteristicofoldgrowthforests.Suchthinningtreatmentsarebeingusedbyavarietyof
conservationorganizationsincentralandnorthernCaliforniatobufferandexpandoldgrowthforests,
whichprovideimportanthabitatformarbledmurrelet,Vauxsswift,andotherspeciesthatrequirelate
seralforests,whicharealsolessfireproneandmorefireresistant(Table14).
Appendix C-1: Biodiversity of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District viii
Fire Management
Firemanagementtreatments,includingprescribedfireaswellastreatmentsthatmimicitseffects,can
beusedtopromotethenaturalcommunitystructureandspeciescompositionwithingrasslands,
shrublands,andotherforestsintheVisionPlanArea.Asaresultoftheirevolutionwithrecurringfire,
manynativeplantsandanimalsfeatureadaptationstofireandthehabitatconditionsitcreates.An
estimated21,048acresofvegetationwithintheVisionPlanArea,including8,419acreswithinDistrict
openspacepreserves,featuresfiredependentcommunitieschaparralandclosedconeconiferforests
featuringplantsthatregeneratefollowingfire(Table15,Figure16).Treatmentstopromotefireadapted
andfiredependentspeciesshouldbedesignedtoprotectfiresensitivespecies,suchasCalifornia
sycamoreandotherriparianspecies.
Firemanagementprojectsforvegetationmanagementcanalsoreducetheriskofwildfire,which
threatenslivesandpropertyparticularlywhereresidentialdevelopmentoccursincloseproximityto
naturalvegetation.Notably,8,749acresofdevelopmentoccurswithinahalfmileofaDistrictopen
spacepreserve(Figure17).Developedbyintegratingavarietyofinformationandconsiderations,
includingfuelconditions,firebehavior,developmentpatterns,infrastructure,andcommunityinput,two
recentCommunityWildfireProtectionPlansdevelopedwithintheVisionPlanAreaidentifypriorities
areasforfuelreductionandotherwildfirethreatabatementprojects(Figure17).Vegetation
managementprotectsintheseareas,whichcanincludeshadedfuelbreaksandprescribedburning
withinDistrictopenspacepreserves,canreducethreatofwildfireintheregion.
Global Change
Bytheendofthecentury,theaverageannualtemperatureinCaliforniaispredictedtoincreasebyupto
8.1F(Cayanetal.2008).Thefuturehotterandlikelydrierclimateintheregionmaythreatenthe
viabilityofmanyrarespeciesintheVisionPlanArea,includingnarrowlyendemicspecies(e.g.
serpentineplantsandinsects),salmonids,pondbreedingspecies,andspeciesthatinhabitwetlandsand
coastredwoodDouglasfirforest(Table16).AspectsoftheVisionPlanareathatcanpromoteresiliency
ofspeciestoclimatechangeincludewetareas,suchasspringsandstreams,whichprovidewaterand
featuremoistermicroclimates;coolernorthfacingslopesandsteepcanyons(Table17,Figure18).
Bytheendofthecentury,sealevelisanticipatedtorisebymorethan4.5feet(Hebergeretal.2009).
Theresultinginundationandattendanterosionandfloodingcouldeliminatecoastalandbayhabitats,
includingrockoutcroppings,dunes,cliffs,andwetlands.Protectinglandadjacenttothecoastcan
facilitatemigrationofthesesystems,wherefeasible,andconservethesensitivecommunitiesand
speciestheysupportassealevelrises.
Appendix C-1: Biodiversity of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District ix

TERRESTRIAL COMMUNITIES VegetationConservationValues

Vegetation Providehabitatfordiverseassemblagesof
TheVisionPlanAreafeaturesacomplexanddiverse plantsandanimals
mosaicofvegetation,including33mappednatural Facilitatemovementofplants,animals,and
plantcommunitiesthatsupportdiverseassemblagesof ecologicalprocesses,suchasfire
nativeplantsandanimals(Table1,Figure1).Broadly Provideecosystemservicesbenefitsto
speaking,thecoastalterracesandadjacentfoothills humankindfromincluding:
supportextensivegrasslandswithpatchesofcoastal
Waterfiltration(wetlandsandriparian
scrubandmaritimechaparral,whichareinnervatedby vegetationtrapsediment)
hardwoodwoodlandsandconiferforeststhatlinethe
Soilstabilization/erosionregulation
canyons(Figure1).Theseforests,whichinclude
extensiveareasofcoastredwoodandDouglasfir Carbonsequestration
forest(Section6),predominateonthehigherelevation Pollinationforcrops
westernslopeandridgelineoftheSantaCruz Pestcontrol
Mountains,wherewinterrainfallandsummerfogare Naturalhazardregulation(e.g.prevent
moreplentiful.Thewarmeranddriereasternslopeof flooding)
therangeisdominatedbychaparral,withforests Provideaestheticvalues(e.g.scenery)
comprisedofoaks,Californiabay,andother
hardwoodsonthecoolernorthfacingslopesand
canyons.Theinlandfoothillssupportgrasslandsandoaksavannas,whichgivewaytoflatexpansesof
landthathaslargelybeenconvertedtourbanuseintheSantaClaraValley.Extensivewetlandsringthe
southernSanFranciscoBayinthenortheasternportionoftheDistrict,whiletheSanMateoCoast
featuresarangeofcommunitiesalongthecoastalstrand,includingbeaches,dunes,bluffs,cliffs,and
wetlands(Figure1).
AcrosstheVisionPlanArea,finescalevariabilityingeology,soils,hydrology,andmicroclimate,aswell
ashistoryoflanduseandnaturaldisturbance,includingfire,interactincomplexwaystogiverisetoa
diversityofplantsandanimals,eachofwhichisadaptedtotheuniqueconditions.
Thebayandestuariessupportcoastalsaltmarshcommunities,thedominantspeciesofwhich
dependonthehydrology,andgradefromcordgrass(Spartinafoliosa)inthelowtidalzone,to
pickleweed(Salicorniapacifica)inthemiddlezone,saltgrass(Distichlisspicata)inthehightide
zone.
Streamcorridorsarelinedbyriparianforests,whichonthecoastsideprimarilysupportred
alder(Alnusrubra),andarroyowillows(Salixlasiolepis)whilethoseontheeasternslopeofthe
SantaCruzMountainsfeaturebigleafmaple(Acermacrophyllum),Californiasycamore
(Platanusracemosa),andcottonwood(Populusspp.).
Oakforestsaredominatedbycoastliveoakparticularlyalongthecoastandinlowerelevation
areas,interiorliveoak(Quercuswislizenii)furtherinland,andcanyonliveoak(Q.chrysolepis)at
higherelevations;standsofblackoakarerestrictedtothehighestelevationridgeline,whileblue
oak(Q.douglasii)occuronthelowerelevationfoothillsoftheinterior.
Coniferforestsaredominatedbycoastredwood(Sequoiasempervirens)andDouglasfir
(Pseudotsugamenziesii)onthewesternslopeoftheSantaCruzMountainsandindrainageson
theeasternslope,wherefoothillpines(Pinussabiniana)andknobconepines(Pinusattenuata)
arescatteredamidstmanzanitasinthehigherelevationareasinthesoutheasternportionofthe
VisionPlanArea.
Appendix C-1: Biodiversity of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 1

GeologyandsoilsplayaparticularlyimportantroleinaddingtothebiodiversityoftheDistrict.The
SantaCruzMountainsfeaturelargelygraniticandmetamorphicSalinianBlockbasementrocksthatare
overlainbyaseriesofmarinesedimentaryrocksfromPaleocenetoPlioceneera,whichinturn,are
oftenoverlainbynonmarinesedimentsofthePleistoceneandHolocene(Thomas1961).Mountain
building,includinguplift,folding,andfaulting,combinedwitherosionincludinglandslides,havecreated
finescalevariationingeologicformationsthatprovidetheparentmaterialforsoildevelopment,which
isalsoinfluencedbythevariableclimate,hydrology,andthevegetationitself.Biologicallysignificant
geologyandsoilsinclude:
1. OutcroppingsofserpentinesoilontheeasternslopeoftheSantaCruzMountains,whichare
derivedfromtheFranciscanComplex.Thesesoilshavehighconcentrationsofheavymetalsthat
aretoxictomostplants;however,serpentinesoilssupportuniqueanddiversecommunitiesthat
includenumerousnarrowlyendemicspeciesadaptedtotheinimicalsoilconditions(Section3).
WithintheDistrict,serpentineareasarearoundtheSierraAzulOpenSpacePreserve,inthe
southeast,andintheinlandfoothillsnearthecityofWoodside.
2. Outcroppingsofsandysoilsderivedfromsandstoneandgranitethatsupportspeciesendemic
tothenorthernportionoftheSantaCruzMountains,includingMontaramanzanita
(Arctostaphylosmontaraensis),KingsMountainManzanita(Arctostaphylosregismontana)and
SantaCruzcypress(Hesperocyparisabramsiana).
3. Outcroppingsofshalewhichsupportsparsemaritimechaparralandknobconepineina
communityknownasTheChalksintheWaddell,GreenOaks,andCascadecreekwatershedsin
thesouthwesternportionoftheDistrict.
Sensitive and Biologically-Highly Significant Communities

TheseandothernaturalcommunitieswithintheDistrictareagloballyrare,beingrestrictedjusttothe
SanFranciscoBayArea,orinsomecases,theSantaCruzMountains.Thesesensitivecommunities,
whichcover19,648acreswithintheVisionPlanArea,areprioritiesforconservation(Table2,Figure2).
Othercommunities,suchaswetlands,ripariancommunities,andgrasslands,thoughoncemore
widespread,havebeenmaderareasaresultofwidespreadhabitatconversionforurbanand
agriculturaluses(Table2).Thesebiologicallyhighlysignificantcommunitiessupportrichassemblagesof
plantsandanimals,manyofwhichareindeclinewithinthestateorglobally(Section3).
MaintainingbiodiversitywithintheVisionPlanarea,andSantaCruzMountainsmorebroadly,will
requireconservingthesensitiveandbiologicallyhighlysignificantcommunities,aswellas
representativeareasoftheothernaturallycommunities,includingthemorewidespreadtypes,which
provideextensivehabitatandimportantecosystemservices.ToidentifytheareaswithintheVisionPlan
Areathataremostimportantforbiodiversityconservation,thenaturalcommunitieswereprioritized
(Table3,Figure3).
Districtopenspacepreservessupport1,356acresofsensitivecommunities(Table3,Figure3).These
includeextensiveareasofserpentinewithinSierraAzulOSP,saltwaterwetlandsinRavenswoodOSPand
StevensCreekShorelineNatureStudyArea,maritimechaparralatPulgasRidgeOSP,andCalifornia
buckeyewoodlandsscatteredwithinthepreservesalongSkyline.TheDistrictresourcemanagement
policiesaddressprotectionoftheseandothersensitivecommunitiesandhabitatsonDistrictlands,
includingthroughthepoliciesforthemanagementofvegetation,grazing,forest,wildlandfire,and
invasivespecies,aswellasthepolicyrelatedtoecologicalsuccession.

Table 1: Vegetation within the District Vision Plan Area

Vegetationand Percentin
OtherLandCover PlantCommunities Acres DistrictPreserves
CoastalStrand Coastalstrand 405 0%
Grassland Californiaannualgrassland 36,174 16.6%
Nativegrassland 278 23.7%
GrasslandSubtotal 36,451 16.7%
CoastalScrub Coastalscrub 16,570 0.1%
Mixedcoastalscrub 2,158 10.9%
Coastalbluffscrub 102 0%
Californiasagebrushscrub 204 66.7%
Coyotebrushscrub 960 45.1%
Mixedcoyotebrushscrub 21,171 21.0%
Poisonoakscrub 1,338 33.5%
CoastalScrubSubtotal 42,503 13.4%
Chaparral Ceanothuschaparral 473 47.1%
Chamisechaparral 7,875 23.4%
Manzanitachaparral 851 71.6%
Mesicchaparral 2,805 70.5%
Mixedchaparral 11,021 47.1%
ChaparralSubtotal 23,026 42.8%
Oaksavanna Oaksavanna 41 22.8%
HardwoodForest Californiabay 3,303 31.3%
Californiabuckeye 921 29.8%
Coastliveoak 14,206 18.7%
Mixedhardwoodforest 26,779 51.8%
Oakwoodland 3,049 15.0%
HardwoodForestSubtotal 48,257 37.9%
ConiferForest Foothillpinewoodland 236 70.3%
Knobconepineforest 591 74.6%
Montereypineforest 189 0%
Redwoodforest 52,195 12.6%
Douglasfirforest 8,141 1.9%
MixedDouglasfirforest 17,849 34.7%
SantaCruzcypressforest 6 0%
ConiferForestSubtotal 79,206 17.1%
Riparian Riparianshrubland 1,743 18.3%
Riparianwoodland 4,236 23.4%
RiparianSubtotal 5,980 21.9%
Wetland Wetmeadows 64 14.2%
Freshwatermarsh 884 5.2%
Salt/brackishmarsh 4,704 2.4%
WetlandSubtotal 5,652 3.0%

Table 1: Vegetation within the District Vision Plan Area

Vegetationand Percentin
OtherLandCover PlantCommunities Acres DistrictPreserves
OtherNaturalandSemi Water 27,216 0.8%
NaturalLandCover Barren/Rock 255 47.3%
Nonnativeorornamentalplants 9,557 9.0%

Sparselyvegetatedorunvegetated 9,425 3.9%
OtherNaturalandSemiNaturalLandCoverSubtotal 46,452 3.4%
ConvertedLandCover Agriculture 3,924 2.5%
Quarry/Mine 1,590 0%
Builtup/Urban 77,464 0.3%
ConvertedLandCoverSubtotal 82,978 0.4%
Total 370,951 15.3%
Biologicallyhighlysignificantplantcommunitiesareitalicized.

Table 2: Sensitive plant communities within the District Vision Plan Area
Percentin
Type Community Acres DistrictPreserves
CoastalStrand Dune 31 0%
Grassland Californiaannualgrasslandpurpleneedlegrass 40 57.2%
Purpleneedlegrass 2 100.0%
Nativegrassland 63 55.9%
Meadowbarley 5 93.7%
Dwarfcoyotebrushprairie 167 0%
GrasslandSubtotal 276 23.3%
Chaparral Brittleleafmanzanita 79 99.7%
Chamiseleatheroak 10 100.0%
Leatheroak <1 0%
Giantchinquapin 5 76.4%
InteriorliveoakKingsMountainmanzanita 85 0.8%
Manzanitachaparralknobconepine 420 0%
ChaparralSubtotal 600 15.6%
HardwoodForest Californiabuckeyewoodland 919 29.9%
Valleyoakwoodland 1,674 4.1%
HardwoodForestSubtotal 2,593 13.2%
ConiferForest Douglasfirchinquapinforest 47 93.1%
Oldgrowthcoastredwoodforest 3,349 0.1%
Oldersecondgrowthandotherolderredwoodforests 4,554 1.9%
Montereypineforest 189 0%
SantaCruzcypressforest 4 0%
ConiferForestSubtotal 8,143 1.7%
Riparian Boxelderforest 40 2.1%
Californiasycamorewoodland 35 22.2%
CentralCoastriparianforest 955 1.8%
RiparianSubtotal 1,030 2.5%
Wetland Bulrushmarsh 14 2.4%
Cattailmarsh 18 36.1%
Freshwatermarsh 820 4.7%
Salt/brackishmarsh 4,704 2.4%
Sedgerushmeadow 29 30.8%
WetlandSubtotal 5,652 3.0%
Serpentine NativePlantCommunitiesonSerpentineSoils 1,390 38.0%
Total 19,648 7.1%
Communitiesalongcoast,includingdunesandbluffs
Communityonserpentine(ultramafic)soil,whichtypically supportsrichassemblagesofrareanduniqueplants
andanimals
Coastalknobconepineforestsareactuallymaritimechaparral(e.g.'TheChalks')


Table 3: Vegetation and land cover types in the Vision Plan Area according to their priority
for conservation
Percent
ofTotal InDistrict
Priority Category Acres Vegetation Preserves
SensitiveandBiologicallyHighlySignificantNativeCommunities
1 Sensitive 19,648 5.3% 6.9%
2 BiologicallyHighlySignificant 69,667 18.8% 11.1%
SensitiveandBiologicallyHighlySignificantSubtotal 89,315 24.1% 10.2%
OtherNativeCommunitiesBasedonRelativeRarityinVisionPlanArea
3 Uncommon(1,000acres) 3,065 0.8% 63.7%
4 FairlyCommon(>1,000acres10,000acres) 34,589 9.3% 49.3%
5 Common(>10,000acres) 142,071 38.3% 19.1%
OtherNativeCommunitiesSubtotal 179,725 48.4% 23.6%
OtherLandCover
6 NonNative 18,953 5.1% 6.4%
7 DegradedandAgricultural 3,924 1.1% 2.5%
8 Urban/BuiltUp 79,034 21.3% 0.3%
OtherLandCoverSubtotal 101,911 27.5% 1.5%
Total 370,951 100% 15.3%
CommunitiesdesignatedasrareinCalifornia(S1S3)and/orglobally(G1G3)
Nonsensitivetypesthathavehighrichnessparticularlyofspecialstatusspecies


Figure 1: Vegetation and other land cover

Figure 2: Sensitive plant communities

Figure 3: Vegetation and land cover types according to their priority for conservation

AQUATIC COMMUNITIES StreamConservationValues

Streams and Watersheds Providehabitatforriverinespecies,including
TheVisionPlanAreafeaturesjustover1,100milesof avarietyofinvertebratesandfish;most
coastalstreamsthatdraintothePacificOceandirectly notably,endangeredcohosalmonand
orviatheSanFranciscoBay(Table4,Figure4).These threatenedsteelheadtrout.
streamssupportawealthofbiodiversityconservation Providebreedinghabitatforamphibiansand
values(insetbox). reptiles,includingfoothillyellowleggedfrog,
Californiaredleggedfrog,westernpond
Importantly,nearly37milesofcoolmountainstreams turtle,andSanFranciscogartersnake.
thatdraindirectlytothePacificOceansupportthe Supportfreshwaterwetlandsandriparian
endangeredCentralCaliforniaCoastcohosalmon forests,whichprovideimportantnesting
(Oncorhynchuskisutch);theSantaCruzMountains habitatformanyNeotropicalmigratorybirds.
constitutethesouthernendofthisspeciesrange.An
Providefreshwatertoterrestrialanimals,
additional160milesofstreamssupportthreatened
suchasblacktaileddeerandmountainlion.
CentralCaliforniaCoaststeelheadtrout(Oncorhynchus
mykissirideus);theseincludestreamsthatdraintothe Featureripariancorridorsthatcanfacilitate
SanFranciscoBay(Table4,Figure4). animalmovementthroughurbanizedor
cultivatedareas
Stepstoconservetheimperiledsalmonids,anadromous SafeguardwaterqualityintheSanFrancisco
fishthatbreedincoastalstreamsbutlivetheiradult BayandPacificOcean.
livesinthePacificOcean,canhelpconserveawide
rangeofresidentfishspeciesandotherriverinespecies,
suchasfoothillyellowleggedfrog(Ranaboylii),aswellaspromoteotherstreamconservationvalues.
Therefore,forpurposesofplanning,streamsweregenerallycharacterizedaccordingtotheirvaluefor
cohosalmonandsteelhead,andaccordingtotheirhydrology;specifically,whethertheyflowyearround
(perennial)orflowseasonallyintypicalrainfallyears(intermittent)(Table4).
Aspartofpriorplans,watershedswereratedaccordingtotheirimportanceforrecoveryofendangered
cohosalmon(NMFS2010)andthreatenedsteelheadtrout(CDFW2012;Figure5),aswellasthe
conditionofthewatershedthelanddrainedbyastreamwhichcangreatlyinfluencestreamwater
qualityandotherhabitatconditionsdownstream,includinghabitatwithintheSanFranciscoBayand
nearshoreenvironmentofthePacificOcean.
WatershedsintheBayAreawerealsopreviouslycharacterizedaccordingtotheirexistingconditions
basedonavarietyoflanduses,includingurbanization,cultivation,andtimberharvest(BAOSC2012).
MostwatershedsonthenorthernandeasternportionoftheDistrictwerecharacterizedassuburban
orurban,owingtheirrelativedensityofdevelopment.WatershedsonthewesternslopeoftheSanta
CruzMountainswerelargelyclassifiedasrural,reflectingtheirlowerdensityresidentialdevelopment;
withafewcharacterizedasagriculturalorforestrybasedontheirrespectivelanduses(Figure5).
Notably,theMindegoSubwatershedofSanGregorioCreekWatershed,andtheUpperStevensCreek
Watershed,aswellasseveralupperwatershedsoftheGuadalupeRiverinthesoutheasternportionof
theDistrict,wereratedasWildland,reflectingtheirlowintensityandfrequencyoflanduse.
ResultsofthesepriorplanswereusedtoratewatershedswithintheVisionPlanAreaaccordingtotheir
valueforconservation(Table5,Figure6).Forsteelheadwatersheds,thelanduseconditionwasalso
factoredin,toreflectthefactthatconservationoflandwithinurbanandsuburbanwatershedsisless
likelytoinfluencestreamhabitatconditionsthanconservationoflandsinwatershedsofrelatively
lowerintensitylanduse(Table5).

DistrictopenspacepreservesfeatureseveraltributariestoSanGregorioCreek,acohostreamincluding
Bogess,Harrington,andLaHondacreeksintheLaHondaCreekOSP,andMindegoandAlpinecreeksin
RussianRidgeOSP(Figure6).AlongwithElCortedeMaderaOSP,theseDistrictlandsprotectsignificant
portionsofthewatershedsofthesecreeks,whichareamongthehighestprioritiesforconservation,as
wellasotherheadwatersoftheSanGregorioCreekWatershed.
TheDistrictOSPsalsocontainsignificantportionsofseveralsteelheadstreams,includingTunitasCreek
(TunitasCreekOSP)andLobitosCreek(PurisimaCreekRedwoodsOSP)inSanMateosnortherncoastal
watersheds,aswellasstreamsthatdraintotheSanFranciscoBay,includingStevensCreek(MonteBello
OSP)andupperGuadalupeCreek(SierraAzulOSP;Table6).
TheDistrictsresourcemanagementpoliciesforwildlifemanagementandwaterresourcesfeature
numerousgoalsandpracticestoprotectandenhancestreamhabitatforallriparianandriverine
species,aswellassafeguardwaterquality.Thepoliciesandpracticesaddressseveralfactorsthat
fragmentanddegradestreamhabitatandwatersheds(Section5),includingsedimentationand
pollution,unnaturalbarrierstoupstreammigration,maintenanceandrestorationofimportantstream
habitatfeatures,includingpoolscreatedthroughlargewoodydebrisrecruitment.

Table 4: Streams reaches supporting rare salmonids (Tier 1)

StreambyMajorWatershed Miles
GazosCreekWatershed
GazosCreek 7.7
MiddleForkGazosCreek 1.1
GazosCreekWatershedTotal 8.9
PescaderoCreekWatershed
BradleyCreek 2.2
ButanoCreek 8.8
EvansCreek 0.4
HonsingerCreek 3.6
LambertCreek 0.6
LittleBoulderCreek 0.7
OilCreek 4.1
PescaderoCreek 24.9
PetersCreek 4.9
SlateCreek 1.3
TarwaterCreek 0.9
PescaderoCreekWatershedTotal 52.4
PilarcitosCreekWatershed
ApanolioCreek 3.5
ArroyoLeon 8.2
MillsCreek 2.6
PilarcitosCreek 5.9
TributarytoMillsCreek 1.5
PilarcitosCreekWatershedTotal 21.6
SanFrancisquitoCreekWatershed
BearCreek 3.5
LosTrancosCreek 6.7
SanFrancisquitoCreek 13.3
TributarytoBearCreek 5.2
TributarytoLosTrancosCreek 2.5
SanFrancisquitoCreekWatershedTotal 31.2
SanPedroCreekWatershed
SouthForkSanPedroCreek 0.4
MiddleForkSanPedroCreek 0.1
SanPedroCreekWatershedTotal 0.5
SanGregorioCreekWatershed
AlpineCreek 5.5
BogessCreek 5.0
HarringtonCreek 4.8
LaHondaCreek 5.0
LangleyCreek 1.7
MindegoCreek 2.9
SanGregorioCreek 11.3
TributarytoSanGregorioCreek 3.8
WoodruffCreek 1.3
SanGregorioCreekWatershedTotal 41.2
TunitasCreekWatershed

Table 4: Streams reaches supporting rare salmonids (Tier 1)

StreambyMajorWatershed Miles
EastForkTunitasCreek 2.7
TunitasCreek 5.2
TunitasCreekWatershedTotal 7.9
OtherWatersheds
DennistonCreek 1.1
FrenchmansCreek 3.4
GuadalupeCreek 0.1
LobitosCreek 5.0
OldWomansCreek 1.7
PomponioCreek 1.9
SoquelCreek 1.8
StevensCreek 12.3
WatermanCreek 2.9
WhitehouseCreek 3.4
OtherWatershedsTotal 33.6
AllTier1Streams 196.3
Criteriausedtoratestreams.OnlyTier1streamsarelistedinthistable;allstreamsareillustratedin
Figure4.
Tier1a:Streamreachsupportscohosalmon
Tier1b:Streamreachsupportssteelhead,butnotcohosalmon
Tier2a:Streamreachisperennialandislocatedinawatershedthatsupportscohosalmonorsteelhead;
however,thestreamitselfisnotoccupied.
Tier2b:Streamreachisintermittentandislocatedinawatershedthatsupportscohosalmonor
steelhead
Tier3:Streamreachisperennialandnotlocatedinacohosalmonorsteelheadwatershed
Tier4:Streamreachisephemeral/intermittentandnotlocatedinacohosalmonorsteelheadwatershed

Table 5: Subwatersheds according to their tier which indicates their priority for
conservation
Subwatershed MajorWatershed Acres %ofTotalArea
Tier1a:CoreWatershedsforCohoRecovery(NMFS2010)
GazosCreek GazosCreek 7,174 2.1%
AlpineCreek SanGregorio 3,548 1.0%
BogessCreek SanGregorio 2,542 0.7%
HarringtonCreek SanGregorio 3,092 0.9%
KingstonCreek SanGregorio 787 0.2%
MindegoCreek SanGregorio 2,464 0.7%
SanGregorioCreek SanGregorio 5,371 1.6%
Soquel Soquel 710 0.2%
Tier1aTotal 25,688 7.6%
Tier1b:PhaseIWatershedsforCohoRecovery(NMFS2010)
HonsingerCreek Pescadero 1,682 0.5%
OilCreek Pescadero 2,819 0.8%
PescaderoCreek Pescadero 13,633 4.0%
PetersCreek Pescadero 6,307 1.9%
SlateCreek Pescadero 1,929 0.6%
TarwaterCreek Pescadero 1,194 0.4%
UpperPescaderoCreek Pescadero 3,817 1.1%
ClearCreek SanGregorio 956 0.3%
CoyoteCreek SanGregorio 1,126 0.3%
ElCortedeMaderaCreek SanGregorio 4,742 1.4%
LaHondaCreek SanGregorio 3,940 1.2%
LangleyCreek SanGregorio 273 0.1%
LawrenceCreek SanGregorio 1,557 0.5%
WeeksCreek SanGregorio 644 0.2%
WoodhamsCreek SanGregorio 545 0.2%
WoodruffCreek SanGregorio 1,923 0.6%
SanLorenzoRiver SanLorenzo 213 0.1%
WaddellCreek 812 0.2%
WatermanCreek 1,175 0.3%
Tier1bTotal 49,286 14.5%
Tier1c:PhaseIIWatershedsforCohoRecovery(NMFS2010)
BradleyCreek Pescadero 3,918 1.2%
LittleButanoCreek Pescadero 2,607 0.8%
LowerButanoCreek Pescadero 3,205 0.9%
SouthForkButanoCreek Pescadero 1,961 0.6%
UpperButanoCreek Pescadero 6,010 1.8%
EastWaddellCreek 11 0.0%
Tier1cTotal 17,712 5.2%
Tier2a:SteelheadWatershed(nonUrbanorsuburban)
ApanolioCreek Pilarcitos 1,251 0.4%
ArroyoLeon Pilarcitos 3,020 0.9%
MillsCreek Pilarcitos 2,419 0.7%
BearCreek SanFrancisquito 1,087 0.3%
BearGulch SanFrancisquito 1,939 0.6%
DryCreek(SanFrancisquito) SanFrancisquito 1,012 0.3%

conservation
WestUnionCreek SanFrancisquito 3,548 1.0%
DryCreek(Pilarcitos) Tunitas 1,495 0.4%
EastForkTunitasCreek Tunitas 1,490 0.4%
TunitasCreek Tunitas 4,472 1.3%
DennistonCreek 2,578 0.8%
Frenchman'sCreek 2,622 0.8%
PomponioCreek 4,548 1.3%
SoquelCreek 165 0.0%
WhitehouseCreek 1,836 0.5%
Tier2b:SteelheadWatershedCharacterizedasUrbanorSuburban
AlbertCanyon Pilarcitos 735 0.2%
PilarcitosCreek Pilarcitos 3,829 1.1%
CorteMaderaCreek SanFrancisquito 9,290 2.7%
LosTrancosCreek SanFrancisquito 4,473 1.3%
SanFrancisquitoCreek SanFrancisquito 8,960 2.6%
StevensCreek Stevens 10,282 3.0%
GuadalupeCreek Guadalupe 4,065 1.2%
GuadalupeRiver 286 0.1%
HaleCreek 2,292 0.62%
LobitosCreek 2,580 0.8%
PermanenteCreek 5,492 1.48%
SanPedroCreek 1,466 0.4%
SFBayandEstuary 33,374 9.8%
WestBranchPermanenteCreek 2,263 0.61%
Tier3a:Nonanadromousfishwatershed(Notcharacterizedasurban orsuburban)
UpperGuadalupeCreek Guadalupe 3,059 0.9%
UpperLosGatosCreek Guadalupe 23,688 7.0%
MadonnaCreek Pilarcitos 1,073 0.3%
NuffCreek Pilarcitos 683 0.2%
UpperStevensCreek Stevens 10,837 3.2%
ArroyodelosFrijoles 2,251 0.7%
CascadeCreek 1,334 0.4%
ColdDipCreek 1,106 0.3%
GreenOaksCreek 1,140 0.3%
MartiniCreek 822 0.2%
PurisimaCreek 5,649 1.7%
UnknownCoastalCreek 7,664 2.3%
UpperPilarcitosCreek 89 0.0%
UpperSanMateoCreek 556 0.2%
UvasCreek 154 0.0%
SmallCoastalDrainages 2,034 0.6%
Tier3b:NonAnadromousFishWatershedCharacterzedasUrbanorSuburban
AlamitosCreekWatershed Guadalupe 4,983 1.5%

conservation
LosGatosCreek Guadalupe 5,147 1.5%
RossCreek Guadalupe 2,943 0.9%
CorindaLosTrancosCreek Pilarcitos 561 0.2%
AdobeCreek 7,679 2.3%
ArroyoCanadaVerde 2,025 0.6%
ArroyodeenMedio 1,621 0.5%
AthertonChannel 8,386 2.5%
BarronCreek 2,017 0.54%
BelmontCreek 760 0.2%
CalabazasCreek 10,721 3.2%
CordillerasCreek 4,169 1.2%
DeerCreek 961 0.3%
KanoffCreek 400 0.1%
MataderoCreek 5,705 1.54%
MontaraCreek 1,035 0.3%
PillarPointMarsh 763 0.2%
RedwoodCreek 7,304 2.2%
SanTomasAquinoCreek 6,283 1.69%
SanVicenteCreek(SanMateoCounty) 1,057 0.3%
SaratogaCreek 7,763 2.09%
SunnyvaleChannel 9,403 2.8%
SmallCoastalDrainages 1,457 0.4%
GrandTotal 370,838 100.0%
Tier1:CohoSalmonRecoveryPlanWatersheds(NMFS2010)
Tier1a:CoreWatershed
Tier1b:Phase1Watershed
Tier1c:PhaseIIWatershed
Tier2:Steelhead(noncohosalmon)watershedsintheWatershedIntegrityanalysis(BAOSC2012)
Tier2a:Notcharacterizedasurbanorsuburban
Tier2b:Characterizedasurbanorsuburban
Tier3:NonanadromousfishwatershedsintheWatershedIntegrityanalysis(BAOSC2012)
Tier3a:Notcharacterizedasurbanorsuburban
Tier3b:Characterizedasurbanorsuburban

Figure 4: Stream reaches according to their priority for conservation

Figure 5: District subwatershed information from prior plans

Figure 6: District subwatershed rating for conservation

Ponds and Other Water Bodies

TheDistrictfeaturesnumerouswaterbodies,including PondConservationValues
aportionoftheSanFranciscoBay,severalreservoirs, Supportrarewetlandsincludingfreshwater
lakes,andponds(Figure7).Likestreams,pondswithin marshesalongtheirmargins
theVisionPlanAreafeatureadiversityofimportant Providehabitatfornativeaquaticspecies,
biodiversityconservationvalues(insetbox). includingpondbreedingamphibianssuchas
SanFranciscogartersnake,Californiared
ExistingDistrictpreservesfeaturesnumerousponds, leggedfrog,andwesternpondturtle.
includingseveralthatprovideimportantbreeding
Providehabitatforbirdsincludingmigrants
habitatforspecialstatusspecies,includingSan alongthePacificflywayandresidentand
Franciscogartersnake,Californiaredleggedfrog,and breedingbirdsthatnestinadjacentmarshes
westernpondturtle(Section3).Thoughmanyofthese andriparianareas.
pondswereartificiallycreatedaspartofhistoriccattle
Supplywaterforterrestrialspecies,including
ranchingoperations,thesepondsreplacehabitatlost blacktaileddeerandmountainlion.
elsewhereincludingintheurbanizedportionsofthe
District,andarecriticaltotherecoveryofmany Mayconferresiliencytoafuturehotter,and
endangeredspeciespopulations(USFWS2003). likelydrier,climate.
TheDistrictopenspacepreserves(OSPs)contain12
pondsthathavefailed.LocatedwithintheLaHondaCreek,SkylineRidge,MonteBello,andFremont
OlderOSPs,thesepondsrequirerepairstorestoretheirhydrologyandhabitat(Figure7).Such
restorationsupportstheDistrictsresourcemanagementpolicytomaintainandenhancehabitatthat
hasparticularvaluefornativeanimals,andmayalsofacilitateconservationgrazing,whichtheDistrict
usestomaintaingrasslandhabitatandreducefirethreatonselectedlands.


Figure 7: Ponds and other water bodies

RARE SPECIES
TheVisionPlanAreasupportsatleast96rare,threatened,orendangeredplantspecies,11ofwhichare
stateorfederallylistedasthreatenedorendangered(Table6).Theplanareaalsosupportsatleast66
speciesofrare,threatened,orendangeredanimals;theseinclude16speciesthathavebeenlistedas
threatenedorendangered(Table7).
WithintheVisionPlanArea,rareplantsandanimalsareconcentratedwithinaseriesofhotspots,
includingsensitivecommunities(Table8,Figure8).TheDistrictsOSPssafeguardportionsofmanyof
areas,whicharecriticalforregionalbiodiversityconservation(Table8).
SeveralrarespecieswithintheVisionPlanAreaareexperiencingdeclinesduetoavarietyoffactors,
includinghabitatconversion,fragmentation,anddegradation(Section5).TheDistrictresource
managementpolicesincorporatenumerousgoalsandimplementationmeasuresdesignedtoprotect
andenhancerarespecieshabitatwithinDistrictopenspacepreserves.Coordinatedmeasuresbythe
Districtandotherconservationagenciesandorganizationsworkingwithintheregionwillbeessentialto
therecoveryandlongtermpersistenceoftheseandotherspecies.
Table 6: Rare and locally unique plants

ScientificName CommonName Status
Acanthominthaduttonii SanMateothornmint FE,SE,List1B.1
Agrostisblasdalei Blasdale'sbentgrass List1B.2
Alliumpeninsularevar.franciscanum Franciscanonion List1B.2
Amsinckiadouglasiana Douglas'fiddleneck List4.2
Androsaceelongatassp.acuta Californiarockjasmine List4.2
Arabisblepharophylla coastrockcress List4.3
Arctostaphylosandersonii Anderson'smanzanita List1B.2
Arctostaphylosmontaraensis Montaramanzanita List1B.2
Arctostaphylosregismontana KingsMountainmanzanita List1B.2
Astragalusnuttalliivar.nuttallii Nuttall'smilkvetch List4.2
Astragaluspycnostachyusvar.pycnostachyus coastalmarshmilkvetch List1B.2
Astragalustenervar.tener alkalimilkvetch List1B.2
Calandriniabreweri Brewer'sredmaids List4.2
Californiamacrophylla roundleavedfilaree List1B.1
Calochortusumbellatus Oaklandmariposalily List4.2
Calochortusuniflorus largefloweredstartulip List4.2
Calyptridiumparryivar.hesseae SantaCruzMountainspussypaws List1B.1
Castillejalatifolia MontereyIndianpaintbrush List4.3
Centromadiaparryissp.congdonii Congdon'starplant List1B.1
Chloropyronmaritimumssp.palustre PointReyesbird'sbeak List1B.2
Chorizanthecuspidatavar.cuspidata SanFranciscospineflower List1B.2
Chorizantherobustavar.robusta robustspineflower FE,List1B.1
Cirsiumandrewsii Franciscanthistle List1B.2
Cirsiumfontinalevar.campylon Mt.Hamiltonfountainthistle List1B.2
Cirsiumfontinalevar.fontinale fountainthistle FE,SE,List1B.1
Cirsiumpraeteriens lostthistle List1A
Clarkiaconcinnassp.automixa SantaClararedribbons List4.3
Collinsiamulticolor SanFranciscocollinsia List1B.2
Chloropyronmaritimumssp.palustre PointReyesbird'sbeak List1B.2


Cypripediumfasciculatum clusteredlady'sslipper List4.2
Cypripediummontanum mountainlady'sslipper List4.2
Dircaoccidentalis westernleatherwood List1B.2
Dudleyaabramsiissp.setchellii SantaClaraValleydudleya FE,List1B.1
Elymuscalifornicus Californiabottlebrushgrass List4.3
Eriogonumluteolumvar.caninum Tiburonbuckwheat List1B.2
Eriophyllumlatilobum SanMateowoollysunflower FE,SE,List1B.1
Eryngiumaristulatumvar.hooveri Hoover'sbuttoncelery List1B.1
Erysimumammophilum sandlovingwallflower List1B.2
Erysimumfranciscanum SanFranciscowallflower List4.2
Fritillariaagrestis stinkbells List4.2
Fritillarialiliacea fragrantfritillary List1B.2
Galiumandrewsiissp.gatense serpentinebedstraw List4.2
Grindeliahirsutulavar.maritima SanFranciscogumplant List3.2
Hesperocyparisabramsianavar.butanoensis SantaCruzCypress(ButanoRidge) FE,SE,List1B.2
Hesperolinoncongestum Marinwesternflax FT,ST,List1B.1
Heterothecasessiliflorassp.sessiliflora sessileflowerfalsegoldenaster List1B.1
Hoitastrobilina LomaPrietahoita List1B.1
Horkeliacuneatavar.sericea Kellogg'shorkelia List1B.1
Irislongipetala CentralCoastiris List4.2
Juglanscalifornicavar.hindsii NorthernCaliforniablackwalnut List1B.1
Lastheniacalifornicassp.macrantha perennialgoldfields List1B.2
Lathyrusjepsoniivar.jepsonii Deltatulepea List1B.2
Legenerelimosa legenere List1B.1
Leptosiphoncroceus coastyellowleptosiphon List1B.1
Leptosiphonrosaceus roseleptosiphon List1B.1
Lessingiaarachnoidea CrystalSpringslessingia List1B.2
Lessingiahololeuca woollyheadedlessingia List3
Lessingiamicradeniavar.glabrata smoothlessingia List1B.2
Limnanthesdouglasiissp.sulphurea PointReyesmeadowfoam SE,List1B.2
Leptosiphonambiguus serpentineleptosiphon List4.2
Lomatiumparvifolium smallleavedlomatium List4.2
Hosackiagracilis harlequinlotus List4.2
Lupinusarboreusvar.eximius SanMateotreelupine List3.2
Malacothamnusaboriginum IndianValleybushmallow List1B.2
Malacothamnusarcuatus arcuatebushmallow List1B.2
Malacothamnusdavidsonii Davidson'sbushmallow List1B.2
Micropusamphibolus MountDiablocottonseed List3.2
Microserispaludosa marshmicroseris List1B.2
Monardellaantoninassp.antonina SanAntonioHillsmonardella List3
Monardellaundulata curlyleavedmonardella List4.2
Monolopiagracilens woodlandwoollythreads List1B.2
Orthotrichumkellmanii Kellman'sbristlemoss List1B.2
Pedicularisdudleyi Dudley'slousewort List1B.2
Penstemonrattaniivar.kleei SantaCruzMountainsbeardtongue List1B.2
Pentachaetabellidiflora whiterayedpentachaeta FE,SE,List1B.1
Perideridiagairdnerissp.gairdneri Gairdner'syampah List4.2


Pinusradiata Montereypine List1B.1
Piperiacandida whitefloweredreinorchid List1B.2
Plagiobothryschorisianus Artist'spopcornflower List1B.2
Plagiobothryschorisianusvar.chorisianus Choris'spopcornflower List1B.2
Plagiobothryschorisianusvar.hickmanii Hickman'spopcornflower List1B.2
Plagiobothrysdiffusus SanFranciscopopcornflower SE,List1B.1
Plagiobothrysglaber hairlesspopcornflower List1A
Potentillahickmanii Hickman'scinquefoil FE,SE,List1B.1
Quercusdumosa Nuttall'sscruboak List1B.1
Ranunculuslobbii Lobb'saquaticbuttercup List4.2
Ribesvictoris Victor'sgooseberry List4.3
Saniculahoffmannii Hoffmann'ssanicle List4.3
Sidalceamalviflorassp.purpurea purplestemmedcheckerbloom List1B.2
Sileneverecundassp.verecunda SanFranciscocampion List1B.2
Streptanthusalbidusssp.peramoenus mostbeautifuljewelflower List1B.2
Suaedacalifornica Californiaseablite FE,List1B.1
Thermopsismacrophyllavar.macrophylla Californiafalselupine List1B.3
Trifoliumamoenum showyrancheriaclover FE,List1B.1
Trifoliumhydrophilum salineclover List1B.2
Usnealongissima longbeardlichen
FederalStatusDesignations:
FE=FederallyEndangered.Speciesindangerofextinctionthroughoutallorsignificantportionsofitsrange.
FT=FederallyThreatened.Specieslikelytobecomeendangeredwithintheforeseeablefuturethroughoutall
orasignificantportionofitsrange.
StateStatusDesignations:
SE=StateEndangered.SpecieswhosecontinuedexistenceinCaliforniaisjeopardized.
ST=StateThreatened.Species,althoughnotpresentlythreatenedwithextinction,maybecomeendangered
intheforeseeablefuture.
CaliforniaRarePlantRankDesignations:
List1A=PlantspresumedextinctinCalifornia
List1B=MostplantsinthiscategoryareendemictoCaliforniaandhaveexperiencedsignificantdeclines
overseveraldecades;theseplantsarerare,threatened,orendangered
throughoutCaliforniaandelsewhere.
List2=SpeciesthatarecommonoutsideofCalifornia,butrare,threatened,orendangeredwithinCalifornia
List3=Areviewlistofspeciesforwhichnecessaryinformationisnotavailabletoeithercategorizeinone
oftheotherrankingsortorejectoutright.
List4="WatchList"plantswithlimiteddistributionorinfrequentpresencethroughoutCalifornia.
Populationsofthesespeciesmayexistalongtheperimeterofthespecies'range,mayhavedeclined
significantlyinspecificlocationswithinitsrange,mayexhibituniquemorphology,oroccur
onuncommonsubstrates.
Decimalsafteranyofthe"Status"categoriesrepresenta"ThreatRank"(e.g.,"List1B.1"):
0.1=SeriouslythreatenedpopulationsinCalifornia,whereover80%ofoccurrencesarethreatened
0.2=MarginallythreatenedpopulationsinCalifornia,wherebetween20%and80%of
occurrencesarethreatened
0.3=Populationswithlimitedthreats,wherefewerthan20%ofoccurrencesarethreatenedorwith
noknowncurrentthreats

Table 7: Rare and locally unique animals

CommonName ScientificName Status
Invertebrates
Afreshwaterisopod Calaselluscalifornicus
Edgewoodblindharvestman Calicinaminor
EdgewoodParkmicroblindharvestman Microcinaedgewoodensis
Californiabrackishwatersnail(mimictryonia) Tryoniaimitator
Baycheckerspotbutterfly Euphydryasedithabayensis FT
monarchbutterfly Danausplexippus
Mormonmetalmark Apodemiamormo
SanBrunoelfinbutterfly Callophrysmossiibayensis FE
unsilveredfritillary Speyeriaadiasteadiaste
Fish
steelheadtrout Oncorhynchusmykissirideus FT
tidewatergoby Eucyclogobiusnewberryi FE
Amphibians
Californiaredleggedfrog Ranadraytonii FT
foothillyellowleggedfrog Ranaboylii CSSC
Californiatigersalamander Ambystomacaliforniense FT,ST
Reptiles
Californiamountainkingsnake Lampropeltiszonata CSSC
SanFranciscogartersnake Thamnophissirtalistetrataenia FE,SE
coasthornedlizard Phrynosomablainvillii CSSC
westernpondturtle Actinemysmarmorata CSSC
Birds
Alamedasongsparrow Melospizamelodiapusillula CSSC
Americanperegrinefalcon Falcoperegrinusanatum FE(Delisted),SE,FP
AmericanWhitePelican Pelecanuserythrorhychos CSSC
bankswallow Ripariariparia ST
blackskimmer Rhyncopsniger CSSC
blackswift Cypseloidesniger CSSC
burrowingowl Athenecunicularia CSSC
Californiablackrail Laterallusjamaicensiscoturniculus ST,FP
Californiaclapperrail Ralluslongirostrisobsoletus FE,SE
Californiagull Laruscalifornicus CSSC,WL
Californiahornedlark Eremophilaalpestrisactia CSSC,WL
Californialeasttern Sternulaantillarumbrowni FE,SE
Cooper'shawk Accipitercooperii WL
doublecrestedcormorant Phalacrocoraxauritus CSSC,WL
goldeneagle Aquilachrysaetos CSSC,FP,WL
grasshoppersparrow Ammodramussavannarum CSSC
greatblueheron Ardeaherodias
loggerheadshrike Laniusludovicianus CSSC
longearedowl Asiootus CSSC
marbledmurrelet Brachyramphusmarmoratus FT,SE
northerngoshawk Accipitergentilis CSSC
northernharrier Circuscyaneus CSSC
olivesidedflycatcher Contopuscooperi CSSC
osprey Pandionhaliaetus WL

Table 7: Rare and locally unique animals

CommonName ScientificName Status
peregrinefalcon Falcoperegrinusanatum FP
pileatedwoodpecker Dryocopuspileatus
purplemartin Prognesubis CSSC
saltmarshcommonyellowthroat Geothlypistrichassinuosa CSSC
sharpshinnedhawk Accipiterstriatus WL
shortearedowl Asioflammeus CSSC
snowyegret Egrettathula
Swainson'shawk Buteoswainsoni ST
tricoloredblackbird Agelaiustricolor CSSC
Vaux'sswift Chaeturavauxi CSSC
westernsnowyplover Charadriusalexandrinusnivosus FT,CSSC
whitetailedkite Elanusleucurus FP
Mammals
Americanbadger Taxideataxus CSSC
hoarybat Lasiuruscinereus
pallidbat Antrozouspallidus CSSC
ringtailedcat Bassariscusastutus FP
saltmarshharvestmouse Reithrodontomysraviventris FE,SE,FP
saltmarshwanderingshrew Sorexvagranshalicoetes CSSC
SanFranciscoduskyfootedwoodrat Neotomafuscipesannectens CSSC
Stellersealion(northernsealion) Eumetopiasjubatus FT
Townsend'sbigearedbat Corynorhinustownsendii CSSC
westernredbat Lasiurusblossevillii CSSC
Yumamyotis Myotisyumanensis
FederalStatusDesignations:
FE=FederallyEndangered.Speciesindangerofextinctionthroughoutallorsignificantportionsofitsrange.
FT=FederallyThreatened.Specieslikelytobecomeendangeredwithintheforeseeablefuturethroughoutall
orasignificantportionofitsrange.
StateStatusDesignations:
SE=StateEndangered.SpecieswhosecontinuedexistenceinCaliforniaisjeopardized.
ST=StateThreatened.Species,althoughnotpresentlythreatenedwithextinction,maybecomeendangered
intheforeseeablefuture.
CSSC=Californiaspeciesofspecialconcern.AnimalspecieswithCaliforniabreedingpopulationsthatmayface
extinctioninthenearfuture.
FP=FullyprotectedbytheStateofCaliforniaunderSections3511and4700oftheFishandGameCode.
WL=DepartmentofFishandGameWatchList

Table 8: Rare species hot spots within the Vision Plan Area
DistrictOpenSpacePreserves
Hotspot Description SpeciesFoundinHotspot FeaturingtheHotspot
Aquatic
Coastal Perennialstreamsthat Coho,steelhead,tidewatergoby, ManyOSPsincludingPurisima
streamsand flowtothePacific Californiaredleggedfrog,foothill Creek,TunitasCreek,ElCorte
lagoons OceanortheSan yellowleggedfrog,Pacificgiant deMadera,LaHondaCreek,
FranciscoBay salamander,androughskinned RussianRidge,LosTrancos,
newt MonteBellow,andSierraAzul
OSPs
Pondsand Naturalandhuman SanFranciscogartersnake, ManyOSPsincludingTunitas
freshwater createdpondsand Californiaredleggedfrog, Creek,LaHondaCreek,
wetlands wetlands Californiatigersalamander, RussianRidge,SkylineRidge
westernpondturtle,and OSPs,andothers
tricoloredblackbird
Baywetlands Wetlandsfringingthe Californiaseablite,northern RavenswoodOSPandStevens
SanFranciscoBay harrier,Californiablackrail, CreekNaturalStudyArea
Californiaclapperrail,saltmarsh
harvestmouse,saltmarsh
wanderingshrew
Terrestrial
CoastalBluffs Coastalstrand WesternSnowyPlover,globose
andDunes communities dunebeetle,sandybeachtiger
beetle,andcoastalmarshmilk
vetch
Grasslands Grasslandsthroughout Grasshoppersparrow,burrowing ManyOSPsincludingLa
District owl,whitetailedkite,golden HondaCreek,WindyHill,
eagle,Swainsonshawk,northern RussianRidge,SkylineRidge,
harrier,andAmericanbadger MonteBello,LongRidgeOSPs
Serpentine Grasslands, Baycheckerspotbutterfly,most St.JosephsHillandSierra
Communities shrublands,savannas, beautifuljewelflower,Mount AzulOSPs
andwoodlandson Hamiltonthistle,fragrantfritillary,
serpentinesoil SanMateoThornmint,Marin
westernflax,CrystalSprings
lessingia,SantaClaravalley
dudleya,andothers
Maritime Endemiccommunities Montaramanzanita,Kings ElCortedeMaderaand
chaparral onnutrientpoorsoils Mountainmanzanita,andSanta TeagueHillOSPs
inreachofsummer Cruzmanzanita
fog
Riparian Deciduouswoodlands SanFranciscocommon ManyOSPsincluding
woodlands alongstreams yellowthroat,yellowwarbler, MiramontesRidge,Purisima
Coopershawk,sharpshinned CreekRedwoods,Tunitas
hawk,longearedowl Creek,LaHondaCreek,
SaratogaGap,andSierraAzul
OSPs

Table 8: Rare species hot spots within the Vision Plan Area
DistrictOpenSpacePreserves
Hotspot Description SpeciesFoundinHotspot FeaturingtheHotspot
Sandstone Sandstone SantaCruzcypress,andmosses
Outcroppings outcroppingsthat includingOrthotrichumkellmanii
createuniquesoil
conditionsandprovide
substratefor
bryophytes
Coast Forestsdominatedby SanFranciscoduskyfooted ManyOSPsPurisimaCreek
Redwood coastredwoodand woodrat,marbledmurrelet, Redwoods,TeagueHill,El
Forest Douglasfir,including Vauxsswift,sharpshinnedhawk, CortedeMadera,LaHonda
oldgrowthforests Coopershawk,pileated Creek,WindyHill,Russian
woodpecker,andolivesided Ridge,andBearCreek
flycatcher
ScientificnamesandspeciesstatusareprovidedinTables6and7.

Figure 8: Known rare species occurrences

LANDSCAPE CONNECTIVITY
Longtermpersistenceofplantsandanimalswithinthe LandscapeConnectivityValues
VisionPlanArea,andthemaintenanceofbiodiversityin
theSantaCruzMountainsBioregionasawhole,willrely Large,interconnectedpatchesofhabitatcan:
onmaintainingconnectivitybetweenhabitatpatches supportspecieswithlargehomeranges
withintheDistrictaswellasbetweentheSantaCruz suchasmountainlions,forwhich
MountainsandtheadjacentDiabloandGabilanranges. individualhabitatpatchesareinsufficient
Overavarietyofspatialandtemporalscales,landscape tosupportpersistingpopulations;
connectivitypromotesthemaintenanceofpopulations facilitatespeciesmovementinresponse
andgeneticdiversity,andenablesindividualsandspecies tochangesinhabitatsuitability,to
toadapttochangingconditions,includingchangesin dispersetoestablishanewterritory,and
aspartofseasonalorothermigration;
climate(insetbox).
facilitaterecolonizationofhabitat
patchesafteradisturbance(e.g.fire);
TheVisionPlanAreacontainslargecontiguousblocksof
habitatwithintheSantaCruzMountainsBioregion.Within promoteexchangeofgeneticmaterialto
theDistrict,therearealsonumerousterrestrialand facilitatepopulationviability;and
aquaticlinkagesthatcanhelpconnecthabitat,thus enablespeciesrangeshiftsinresponse
promotinglongtermpersistenceofthespecies(Figure9). toclimatechange.
Habitat Patches
TheDistrictcontainslargepatchesofrelativelyintactterrestrialandaquatichabitatwithintheSanta
CruzMountainsBioregion(BAOSC2013,Mackenzieetal.2011;Figure9).Thisincludesapproximately
halfofthelargestcontiguoushabitatpatchamorethan61,000acreareacenteredonBigBasinState
Park,inthesouthwesternportionoftheDistrict.Otherlargepatchesofterrestrialhabitatwithinthe
DistrictareconcentratedonthewesternslopeoftheSantaCruzMountains,wherehabitatis
fragmentedprimarilybyrelativelysparse,residentialdevelopmentandrelativelylowtraffic,twolane
roads.WetlandsalongtheSanFranciscoBayconstitutetheregionsaquatichabitatpatches(BAOSC
2013;Figure9).Suchlargehabitatareasareessential,astheysupportadisproportionaterichnessof
species,aremoreresistanttohabitatdegradationcausedbyedgeeffects,andareimportantforwide
rangingspecies
Linkages
ThelongtermpersistenceofpopulationsandthemaintenanceofbiodiversitywithintheSantaCruz
Mountainswillrequiremaintaininglinkagesbetweenremainingpatchesofterrestrialandaquatic
habitat.
Terrestrial Linkages
TheDistrictfeaturesnumerousimportantlandscapelinkages,whichcanfacilitatemovementofboth
terrestrialandaquaticspecies(BAOSC2013;Figure9).Theterrestriallinkageconnectingtheintact
habitatinthenorthernportionoftheSantaCruzMountainstotheDiabloandGabilanrangestothe
southtraversestheeasternslopeoftheSantaCruzMountains23milesthroughtheDistrict.Thislinkage
wasdevelopedbycombiningtheleastcostcorridors(i.e.mostdirectroutethroughthemostsuitable
habitat)ofasuiteoffocalspecies,chosentoberepresentativeofterrestrialspeciesintheregion(Inset
box).
ThisimportantterrestriallinkagecrossesHighway17afourlane,dividedhighwaywhichfeatureshigh
trafficvolumeandaconcretemedian,andislinedwithattendantresidentialdevelopment.Thenorth
southtrendinghighwayconstrainsanimalmovement,renderingthisareaachokepoint,ortenuous

portionofthelinkage(Figure9).Thoughnotabarrierto FocalSpeciesfortheLinkageDesigns
theeastwestlinkage,otherhighwayswithintheDistrict (BAOSC2013)
createbarriersforthemovementofanimalsand
TerrestrialLinkages
ecologicalprocesses(e.g.firesandgeneflow).Notably,
Highway101andInterstate280areparallel,multiline Americanbadger
highwaysthattraversetheSantaClaraValleyand Blacktaileddeer
adjacentfoothills,andcreatebarrierstoconnectivity Bobcat
CaliforniaQuail
betweentheuplandhabitatandthebaylands.Other
Mountainlion
smallerhighwaysandmajorroadswithintheDistrict,
Ringtail
includingHighways1,35,84,and92mayalsoinhibit
Westerngreysquirrel
movementofanimalsandprocesses(Figure9).Though Wrentit
theirwidthandtrafficvolumeismuchlowerthanthat
ofHighways17and101andInterstate280,theseroads, AquaticLinkages
maycontainthemovementoflessvagilespecies.
Cohosalmon
Steelheadtrout
Crossingstructures,suchasundergroundculvertsor
overpasseswithdirectionalfencesthatguideanimalsto
saferoutesacrosstheseandotherhighwayscanpromoteconnectivity,aswellasenhancepublicsafety
byreducingvehicleanimalcollisions.TheDistrictresourcemanagementpoliciesincludenumerous
implementationmeasuresdesignedtoachievethegoalofprotectingecosystemintegritybymaximizing
habitatconnectivity(MROSD2011).Importantly,theDistrictfeaturesopenspacepreservesoneither
sideofHighway17,andthuswillbeanimportantpartnerineffortstopromoteconnectivitythroughthe
region(Figure9).
Aquatic Linkages
TheVisionPlanAreaalsofeaturesnumeroussteamsthatsupportcohosalmonandsteelheadtrout:
anadromousfishthatmustmigratefromspawning(breeding)areasoftenhighwithinthewatersheds,
totheoceanorSanFranciscoBay,inthecaseofsomesteelheadruns(Figure9;Section2.1).Accessto
upstreamhabitatintheseimportantaquaticlinkagesisconstrainedbynumerousartificialbarriersto
fishpassage,includingdamsandimpassibleroadcrossings(i.e.bridgesandroads).Removingor
retrofittingthesefeaturescanfacilitateaccessbyanadromousfishtospawninghabitatupstream,thus
potentiallyincreasingthesizeandviabilityoftheraresalmonidpopulations.
Importantly,theseandotherstreamcorridorscanalsofacilitatemovementofterrestrialspecies,
particularlyinurbanorintensivelycultivatedareaswheredenseriparianvegetationcreatesimportant
coverforanimals(Naimanetal.1993,HiltyandMerenlender2004).Suchstreamcorridorsmayfacilitate
movementofspeciesacrossthedenselydevelopedSantaClaraValleyandHighway101andInterstate
280,thusconnectingthebaylandsinthenortheasternportionoftheDistrict,tothefoothillsonthe
easternslopeoftheSantaCruzMountains(Figure9).Importantly,thoughitmaynotbefeasibleto
createtherecommended2kmriparianbufferintheseurbanizedareas(BAOSC2013),increasingthe
widthcanpromoteuseofripariancorridorsbyabroadersuiteofanimals.
TheDistrictresourcemanagementpolicyforhabitatconnectivity,aswellasthewildlifemanagement
policies,includesavarietyofimplementationmeasurestoincreasetheconnectivitywithinriparianand
riverinesystems(MROSD2011).Theseincludeaddressinganthropogenicfishpassagebarriers,and
protectingandrestoringriparianareastopromotetheirusebyanimals,aswellastheirotherimportant
values.Districtopenspacepreservesfeatureportionsofmanyoftheimportantaquaticlinkages,
includingtributariestoSanGregorioCreekandStevensCreek(Section2.1;Figure9),providing

opportunitiesfortheDistricttoworkdirectlytopromotelandscapeconnectivitythrough
implementationofthesepolicies.
Figure 9: Habitat patch and landscape linkages

THREATS TO BIODIVERSITY
ThebiologicalconservationvaluesoftheVisionPlanAreaarethreatenedbyavarietyoffactorsthatcan
convert,fragment,and/ordegradehabitat(Table9).Manyofthesethreatscanalsonegativelyimpact
theregionsculturalresources,recreationopportunities,watersupplies,andscenicbeauty.
Thenatureandextentofthethreatsvaryacrossthelandscape,duetoavarietyoffactorsincluding
topography(e.g.slopes),vegetation(e.g.forestsvs.grasslands),existinglanduse,populationgrowth
pressure(e.g.proximitytoexistingdevelopmentandroads),andlocallandusepolicies.Threatsalso
differdependingontheconservationvalueinquestion;activitiesthatarenegativeforsomebiological
systemsandspeciesmightnotaffect,ormightevenimprove,others.
ThissectionfurtherevaluatesthreethreatsthatdegradebiologicalresourceswithintheVisionPlan
area,includingtheDistrictopenspacepreserves:erosionandsedimentation,nonnativeplants,and
grasslandsuccession.FactorsdegradingforestsarediscussedinSection6,whileSection7discussesfire
exclusionandSection8outlinespotentialimpactsofglobalchange.
Table 9: Threats to ecological viability of the species and communities within the Vision Plan
Area
Type Threat Impacts

Habitatloss Development Urban,suburban,andexurbandevelopmentdisplacenativeplants
and andanimals,andrenderthelandscapelesspermeabletospeciesand
fragmentation ecologicalprocesses(e.g.fire).
Agricultural Conversionofnaturalvegetationincludinggrazinglandtoagricultural
conversion crops(e.g.rowcrops,vineyards,orchards,andtreefarms),displaces
nativeplantsandanimals.Foodsafetypracticesassociatedwithsome
agricultureincludingfencing,depredation,poisonbaitstations,
drainingwaterfeatures,andclearingvegetationcanfurtherimpact
animals.Agriculturalactivitiescancausemortalitytoslowmovingor
nestingspecies.
Transportation Constructionofnewroads,highways,andraillines,andexpansionof
Projects existingtransitcorridors,canfragmenthabitat,isolateplantand
animalpopulations,andcausedirectmortalityduetovehicle
collisions.
Mining Miningdisplacesnativeplantsandanimals,canpolluteairandwater,
andcanpromotenonnativespecies.
Incompatible Incompatible Inappropriateintensityorseasonalityofgrazing,andcattleactivityin
humanuses grazing grazingsensitivecommunities(e.g.wetlandsandriparianareas)can
displacenativeplantsanddegradehabitatfornativeanimalsinsome
cases.Conversely,cessationofgrazingingrasslandscancause
successiontoothercommunitytypes(e.g.coastalscrub)inthe
absenceofotherdisturbances(e.g.fire),thusextirpatingpopulations
ofspeciesthatrequiregrasslands.

Area
Type Threat Impacts

Incompatible Harvestactivitiesandroadscandisplacesomespeciesofnativeplants
forest andanimalsincludingthosethatrequirelateseralforestconditionsor
management arewaryofhumanactivity,cancauseerosionandstream
sedimentation,limitrecruitmentoflargewoodydebrisintostreams,
promotetheinvasionandspreadofnonnativespecies,andresultin
directmortalitytoslowmovingornestingspecies.
Stream Streamdiversionscandirectlyimpactnativeanimalsanddegrade
Wateruse habitatbyreducingflowsandincreasingstreamtemperature,which
canimpactcoho,steelhead,andotherfish.Damsdisplaceupland
habitatandcreatebarrierstoaquaticspeciesmigration,thus
eliminatingupstreamhabitatforanadromousfish.Constructionof
diversionchannelscancausedirectmortality.
Recreation Incompatibleuseofnaturallandsbyoffhighwayvehicles,bicycles,
equestrians,hikers,campers,hunters,andfisherman,candisplace
nativeplantsandanimals,causeerosion,andpromotetheinvasion
andspreadofnonnativeplantsaswellaspopulationsofhuman
commensals,includingcorvidsthatnegativelyimpactotherspecies
includingmarbledmurrelet.
Otherstream Streambedalterations,channelization,dredging,floodcontrol
habitat structures,waterdiversionstructures,culverts,dams,fords,bridges,
modifications andothermodificationscandegradestreamhabitat,impede
migration,andcausedirectmortalitytoriverinespecies.
Biological Invasiveplants Invasiveplantsoutcompetenativeplants,degradehabitatfornative
invasions animals,alterdisturbanceregimes(e.g.firefrequency),andalter
nutrientcycling(e.g.nitrogenavailability).
Nonnative Nonnativeanimalsoutcompete,predateupon,andhybridizewith
animals nativeanimals,negativelyimpactnativeplantsthroughherbivory,and
promotenonnativeplantinvasionsthroughdisturbance(e.g.feralpig
diggings).
Emergent Newdiseasesimpactnativeplants(e.g.suddenoakdeath),
diseases amphibians(ChytridfungusorBd,Ranaviruses,etc.)andbirds(West
NilevirusandAvianflu).
Alteredfire Fire Firesuppressioneliminatesfireadaptedandearlysuccessional
regimes suppression species,includingspeciessuchasKingsmountainmanzanita
(Arctostaphylosohloneana)andcanultimatelyresultintype
conversionofvegetation(e.g.chaparraltransitionstoforest).
Inappropriate Increasedfirefrequencyandinappropriatefireseasonalitycan
firefrequency eliminateevenfireadaptedspeciesandcommunities.
orseasonality

Area
Type Threat Impacts

Altered Streamflow Floodmanagementcaneliminateearlysuccessionalriverineand
hydrologic (includingflood riparianspecies,preventtransportofsedimentandpollution,and
regimes control) alterhabitatconditionsanddisplacesomenativespecies(e.g.reduced
flowincreaseswatertemperatureanddecreasesoxygen).
Pond Reducingtheperiodofseasonalpondinundationcaneliminate
hydroperiod aquaticspeciesthatrequiresufficienttimetocompletetheirlifecycle.
Pollution Nitrogen Depositionofnitrogenfrompollutionintheatmospherefertilizes
deposition vegetation,canpromotetheinvasionandspreadofnonnativeplants,
andaltersthecompetitivebalancebetweennativeplantspecies,thus
displacingpoorcompetitorsincludingmanyendemicspeciesin
serpentinecommunities.
Sedimentation Sedimentdegradesspawninghabitatforsalmonidsandotherfish,and
reducesthesizeofpondsandtheirperiodofinundation.
Pathogens Pathogensfromcultivatedland,livestockoperations,septictanks,and
othersourcespollutestreams,sloughs,andotheraquaticsystems.
Fertilizers Agriculturalrunoffincreasesproductivityinaquaticsystems,
degradingstream,pond,slough,wetland,andotherhabitat.
Biocides Herbicideandpesticidescanimpactnativeplantsandinsects,and
biomagnifywithinfoodwebstoacutelyimpacttoppredators.

Other Otherchemicalsincludingthoseusedtomanufactureillicitdrugs,
Chemicals includingmethamphetamine,canpoisonterrestrialandaquatic
species.
Geneticerosion Nonlocalgeneticmaterialintroducedintonaturalsystemsfrom
hatcheries,nurseries,andothersourcescandisruptlocallyadaptive
geneticcomplexesandevolutionaryprocesses(e.g.speciation).
Globalchange Hotter,drier Climatechangecandisplacespeciesdirectly,andaltercompetition,
climate predation,disease,andotherspeciesinteractionsandecological
processes,includingdisturbancessuchasfire,thusaffectingnative
species.
Increasein Increasedatmosphericcarbondioxidecanfertilizeplants,promotethe
atmospheric invasionandspreadofnonnativespecies,andaltercompetitive
CO2 balancesbetweennativeplants,thusdisplacingpoorcompetitors
includingmanynativeplants.
SeaLevelRise Highersealevelswillinundateandremoveordegradecoastalandbay
communitiesincludingrockoutcroppings,dunes,cliffs,andwetlands
thatcannotmigratetoadjacentlandifitisbuilduporarmored.


Erosion and Sedimentation

Thesteep,mountainousterrainoftheVisionPlanAreareceivesabundantprecipitation,whichcanoccur
aspartofhighintensityrainfalleventsthatcancausesoilerosioninareasfeaturingsparservegetation
and/ormoreerosivesoils.Moreover,deepgulliescanforminareasunderlainbylessstablegeologic
formations,includingsedimentaryrockssuchassandstonesandshalesofthePurisimaformation,and
themetamorphicformationsincludingtheSanFranciscan,whichisamelangethatincludesserpentine.
Whileerosionisanaturalpartofthegeologyandthus
GaugesofSoilErosionPotential
broaderecologyPeninsula,avarietyoflanduseactivities
canpromoteerosion,including: UniversalSoilLossEquation(Figure10):
Measuressoillosspotentialbasedon:
development,whichincreasesrunoffbycreating
impervioussurfaces; Precipitation
Vegetationcover
agriculture,whichgenerallyreducesplantcover; Soilerositivity
Slopedistance
roadsandtrails,whichremovevegetation,andcan
Slopesteepness
channelrunoffwhennotproperlyconstructedor
maintained;and LandslideFrequency(Figure11):Occurrence
ofpreviousslidesandearthflows,where
fires,whichremovesvegetationcanopythat futurelandslidesaremorelikelytooccur
interceptsraindropsandrootsthatbindsoil. (USGS1997).
Theseandotherfactorsthatexacerbateerosioncan
degradehabitatthroughavarietyofmechanisms,including:
removingvegetation,includingsensitiveplantcommunitiesandhabitatforrareandendangered
plantsandanimalspecies;
promotingtheinvasionandspreadofnonnativeplants,includingmanyinvasiveplantsthatare
adaptedtocolonizingbareareassuchasjubatagrass(Cortaderiajubata;DAntonioetal.1999);
and
causingsedimentationofaquaticsystems,includingponds,streams,theSanFranciscoBay,and
thenearshoreenvironmentofthePacificOcean.
WithintheVisionPlanArea,areasfeaturinghigherpotentialforsoilerosionbasedonmultiplegauges
(insetbox)occurintwobroadareas(Figures10and11):
1. Thesteepterrainonthehigherelevation,westernslopesoftheSantaCruzMountains,
particularlyinareasunderlainbyPurisimaFormation,whichfeatureshighlyerosivesandstones
andsiltstone.Thisformationunderliesnearly40,000acres,whichareconcentratedinthe
PescaderoandSanGregoriowatershedsthetwohighestprioritywatershedsforconservation
ofraresalmonidsandotherriverinespecies(Section2.1).Streamsedimentationdegrades
spawninghabitatforfishhasbeenidentifiedasamajorthreattotherecoveryofcohoand
steelheadintheseandothercoastalwatersheds(NMFS2010).
2. ThesteepterrainontheeasternslopeoftheSantaCruzMountains,withintheLosGatosCreek
andUpperGuadalupeCreekwatersheds.TheUpperLosGatosCreekWatershedincludingthe
BearCreekOpenSpacePreserve,featuresextensiveareasofpriorlandslides,wherefuture
slidesandearthflowsaremostlikelytooccur(USGS1997).Theeasternportionofthis
watershed,aswellastheupperGuadalupeCreekWatershed,featureextremelysteepslopes
thatsupportfirepronechaparral,whichleavesslopesopentoextensiveerosiononceburned.

PortionsoftheseareasareunderlainbytheFranciscanComplex,amelangeofmetamorphic
rocksincludingserpentine,whicharepronetoslides.

TheDistricttakesavarietyofmeasurestolimitsoilerosionandsedimentationbyimplementing
measuresaspartoftworesourceprimarymanagementpolicies:
Geologyandsoils,thegoalofwhichistoavoidorminimizesoillossandpreventorremediate
contaminationrelatedtohumanlanduse,andprotectuniqueorexceptionalgeologicfeatures;
and
Waterresources,thegoalofwhichistoprotectandrestorenaturalwatercourses,wetlands
andhydrologicprocesses.
Notably,protectionoflandinopenspacepreservesiskeytoreducingsoilerosionthatcouldresultfrom
development,intensiveagriculture,andotherlanduses.

Figure 10: Soil erosion potential based upon the Universal Soil Loss Equation

Figure 11: Landslides and geologic formations prone to gullying

Non-native Plants
NaturallandswithintheVisionPlanAreasupportpopulationsofmanyplantspeciesthatarenotnative
toCalifornia.Thesenonnativespeciesdominate9,557acres,860acres(9%)1ofwhicharewithin
Districtopenspacepreserves(Table10,Figure12).Additionalunmappedareasalsolikelysupporthigh
concentrationsofnonnativeplantspecies,whichalsooccuratlowerabundancewithintheregions
nativeplantcommunities(Figure1).
Table 10: Non-native plants within the Vision Plan Area and District Open Space
Preserves
Percentin
NonNativePlantCover Acres DistrictPreserves
NonNativeHerbs
Hardinggrass 155 50.3%
Ruderal 927 31.1%
PoisonHemlock 6 71.1%
YellowStarthistleSeries 224 73.3%
PampasGrass 4 0.0%
NonNativeGrass 1,987 0.0%
NonNativeHerbsSubtotal 3,303 16.2%
NonNativeShrubs 113 43.4%
NonNativeTrees
Acacia 12 77.8%
Eucalyptus 3,341 5.4%
MontereyCypress 6 0.0%
PlantedPines 776 11.3%
NonNativeTrees 2,008 <0.1%
NonNativeTreesSubtotal 6,143 4.5%
TotalNonNativePlantCover 9,559 9.0%
NonnativeplantsofalllifeformsoccurwithintheDistrict,includinggrasses,forbs,shrubs,andtrees.
Speciesthatarerelativelywidespreadwithinnaturalcommunities,oftenasaresultoftheirlongtenure
inCalifornia,areoftenregardedasnaturalized;theseincludemanyannualgrassessuchasoats(Avena
spp.),bromes(Bromusspp.),andbarleys(Hordeumspp.),whicharrivedwithSpanishmissionariesand
nowpredominatewithinmuchoftheregionsgrasslands.Speciesthathavelargeimpactsonnatural
systems,andcanoftenspreadrapidlyfollowinginvasion,arereferredtoasinvasive;examplesofsuch
specieswithintheDistrictincludecordgrass(Spartinaspp.),jubatagrass(Cortaderiajubata),yellowstar
thistle(Centaureamelitensis),andFrenchbroom(Genistamonspessulana).
Themagnitudeoftheimpactsofnonnativeplantsdependsontheirecologyandabundance,aswellas
theecologyofthesystemthattheyinvade(Levineetal.2003).Table11liststhevariousmechanismsby
1
TherelativelyhighpercentageofnonnativeplantcommunitieslocatedwithinintheDistrictOSPsreflectsthe
finerscalemappingconductedintheDistrictlands,wherenonnativevegetationtypesweremorelikelytobe
differentiatedfromnativetypesthanelsewhereintheVisionPlanArea,whichwasmorecoarselymapped.

whichnonnativeplantscanimpactnativespecies,naturalcommunities,ecosystemfunctions,and
processeswithintheVisionPlanArea,andprovidesexamplesofeachforDistrictopenspacepreserves.
TheDistrictmanagesinvasiveplantsonDistrictlands,followingtheInvasiveSpeciesManagement
Policy,thegoalofwhichistocontrolinvasivespeciesthathaveasubstantialimpactonpreserve
resourcesinordertofostertherestorationofnativevegetationandhabitat(MROSD2011).Recent
initiativeshaveincludedattemptstoeradicateslenderfalsebrome(Brachypodiumsylvaticum),a
perennialbunchgrassthatrecentlyestablishednearWoodsideandisnototherwiseknownfrom
California.TheDistrictsprogramincludedcontrollingthespecieswithintheThornewoodOSP,aswellas
andeducationandcostsharingprogramwithprivatelandownerstoensureeffectiveeradication.

Table 11: Examples of impacts of non-native plant species within the Vision Plan Area and District Open Space Preserves
Exampleswithinthe
Impact Description ExamplesandOccurrenceswithintheVisionPlanArea DistrictOpenSpacePreserves
Outcompete Nonnativeplantscan NonnativeMediterraneanannualandperennialgrasses Grasslandsandoaksavannas
NativePlants depletesoilmoisture completewithnativeforbs(i.e.wildflowers)andgrasses, throughouttheDistrict,includingLa
and/ornutrients, reducingtheirdistributionandabundance.Impactsare Honda,RussianRidge,andLong
shadeoutnative acuteinserpentinegrasslands,whichsupporthigh RidgeOSPs,andserpentine
species,competefor concentrationsofrarenativeplantsthatarenegatively grasslandsinSierraAzulandSt.
limitedspace,and/or impactedbythatchthatbuildsupintheabsenceofgrazing, JosephsHillOSPs.
createconditionsthat andcanbeexacerbatedbyatmosphericnitrogendeposition.
deternativeplant
establishment,suchas
densethatch
Alter Nonnativeplants NonnativetreesincludingMontereycypress(Cupressus Nonnativetreesoccurinthe
Community alterthestructureof macrocarpa),eucalyptus(Eucalyptusspp.),andacacia MadonnaCreek,TunitasCreek,
Structure nativecommunities, (Acaciaspp.),establishingrasslandsandshrublands,and Thornewood,FremontOlder,St.
oftentimesdegrading cancreateperchesforbirdsthatpredateonsmall JosephsHill,andSierraAzul
habitatfornative mammalsandbirds.Establishedaswindbreaksand OSPs,andatlowerdensitiesin
animals. oftenplantedinearlyhomesteads,theseandothertrees otherpreserves.
occurpatchilythroughtheVisionPlanArea,andare
prevalentinnorthwesternSanMateoCounty.
Nonnativecordgrass(Spartinaspp.)invadesSan Nonnativecordgrasshas
Franciscobaymudflatsusedbyforagingendangered establishedwithinthe
clapperrail,anddisplacesnativepickleweedmarshused RavenswoodOSP,StevensCreek
bythesaltmarshharvestmouse. NaturalStudyArea

Modify Nonnativeplantscan Nonnativecordgrasstrapssediment,chokeschannels, RavenswoodOSP,StevensCreek
Hydrology alterhydrological andelevatesmudlfats,convertingthemtocordgrass NaturalStudyArea
conditions,whichcan meadow.
inturnalter
communitystructure Giantreed(Arundodonax),alargeperennialgrass,colonizes
riparianareas,narrowschannelsandreducessurfaceand

Table 11: Examples of impacts of non-native plant species within the Vision Plan Area and District Open Space Preserves
Exampleswithinthe
Impact Description ExamplesandOccurrenceswithintheVisionPlanArea DistrictOpenSpacePreserves
andspecies groundwaterthroughextensiveevapotranspiration,thus
composition. degradinghabitatforsteelhead,Californiaredleggedfrog,
andwesternpondturtle,andotheraquaticspeciesinSan
FrancisquitoCreek.

PromoteFire Nonnativeplantscan Nonnativegrassescancreatefinefuelsthatpromote Nonnativegrassescreate
inNonFire createfuelconditions fireinshrublandswherewidelyspacednativeshrubs finefuelsadjacentto
Adapted thatpromotefire, andsparseherbstypicallywillnotsustainfire.Agrass shrublandsinthroughout
Systems whichcankillnative firecyclecanconvertshrublandsandwoodlandsto muchofthenonforested
speciesthatarenot grasslands. areasintheDistrict.
adaptedtofire.
EucalyptusandMontereycypressarefirepromoted, Nonnativetreesoccur
andproducefuelsthatcanpromotefireinadjacent withinMadonnaCreek,
nativecommunities TunitasCreek,Thornewood,
FremontOlder,St.Josephs
Hill,andSierraAzulOSPs,
andatlowerdensitiesin
otherpreserves.

Figure 12: Communities dominated by non-native plants

Grassland Habitat Succession

TheVisionPlanAreacontainsover36,000acresofgrasslandsplantcommunitiesthatfeature
moderatetodensecoverofherbaceous(nonwoody)plants,includingprimarilygrassesbutalsoforbs
(broadleafedherbs,orwildflowers).Theseincludeserpentinegrasslands,whichoccuronoutcropsof
serpentinesoilatthebaseoftheeasternslopeoftheSantaCruzMountains,nativeperennialgrasses
featuringpurpleneedgrass,whichoftenoccursindriermicrosites(e.g.southfacingslopesorsandier
soils),andcoastalprairiesmoistgrasslandsonthewesternslopeoftheSantaCruzMountains,within
reachofthecoastalfog(Table2,Figure2).Therichnativegrasslandssupportadiverseassemblages
nativeplantsandanimals,manyofwhichareeithernotfound,oroccuratlowerabundance,inthe
Californiaannualgrasslands,whichoccuroninlandareasonnonserpentinesoils.
Thoughoncewidespread,Californiagrasslandshavebeen RareGrasslandSpecies
greatlydiminishedbyconversiontoagricultureandurban Plants
landuse.Asaresultofwidespreadhabitatlossand
SanMateothornmint*
fragmentation,grasslandswithintheVisionPlanArea
Marinwesternflax
supportmanyspeciesthatarerareorendangered(inset
box). roundleavedfilaree
PointReyesmeadowfoam
Thoughthe6,087acresofgrasslands(16.6%oftotal) purplestemmedcheckerbloom
withintheDistrictopenspacepreservesareprotected mostbeautifuljewelflower
fromdevelopment,thepersistenceofrarespeciesthat
theysupportisthreatenedbyfireexclusionandexotic Animals
plants.Intheabsenceofrecurringfire,woodyplant Americanbadger
speciesincludingcoyotebrush(Baccharispilularis)and
Baycheckerspotbutterfly
Douglasfir(Pseudotsugamenziesii)invadefromadjacent
burrowingowl
shrublandsandforestsandoutcompetenative
herbaceousplants;overtime,theseandotherwoody goldeneagle
speciescanconvertgrasslandstoshrublandorwoodland grasshoppersparrow
(McBrideandHeady1968,McBride1974,Headyetal. northernharrier
1988). whitetailedkite
*Serpentinegrasslandspecieslistedinitalics.
Thepersistenceofnativegrasslandspeciesisalso
threatenedbyexoticplants,whichhaveinvadedandin
manyplacesbecomedominatedbyexoticgrassesandforbs(Strombergetal.2002).Theseexoticplants
competewithnativegrasslandherbsforscarcesoilresourcesandlight,reducingtheirabundanceand
diversity(CorbinandDAntonio2004).Inhighlyproductivecoastalprairiegrasslands,andserpentine
grasslandsfertilizedbyatmosphericnitrogendeposition,exoticplantsalsocontributetothe
accumulationofdenselitter(thatch)onthesoilsurface(Weiss1999).Suchlitterinhibitsestablishment
ofmanynativegrasslandherbs(FacelliandPickett1991,HayesandHoll2003),andcancreateafire
hazard.
Recognizingthesethreats,theDistrictresourcemanagementpoliciesincludetheuseofwellmanaged
livestockgrazingtomaintainandenhancethediversityofnativeplantandanimalcommunities,aswell
asmanagevegetationtoreducetheriskofwildfires,amongotherbenefits.Currently,theDistrictuses
conservationgrazingtomanagegrasslandswithinLaHonda,PurisimaCreekRedwoods,RussianRidge,
SkylineRidge,TunitasCreek,andLaHondaCreekOSPs;thesepreserveshavethelargestareaof
grasslands.

InotherOSPswheregrazingisnotbeingused,grasslandsmaybecomedegradedintheabsenceofother
managementtocounteracttheeffectsoffireexclusion,includedprescribedfire,mowing,orother
woodyvegetationremoval.Forexample,atWindyHillOSP,therelativelylargecontiguousgrassland
observedinthe1991aerialimagehascontractedandbecomefragmentedcoyotebrushencroachment
(Figure13aandb).BrushencroachmenthasbeenmuchreducedatMonteBelloandLongRidgeOSPs,
whereonlymarginalincreasesinshrubcoverappeartohaveoccurredattheecotone(transitionarea)
betweencoastalscrubandgrasslandsintheupperdrainages(Figure13cf).Examinationofthatchand
speciescompositionwouldberequiredtocharacterizethefullimpactsofthelackofdisturbancein
thesegrasslands.

a) b)
c) d)
e) f)
Figure 13: Grasslands within three ungrazed District Open Space Preserves in 1991 (left) and near present (right), showing:
Windy Hill OSP in a) 1991 and b) 2012; Monte Bello OSP in c) 1991 and d) 2010; and Long Ridge OSP in e) 1991 and f) 2010.

FOREST MANAGEMENT AND RESTORATION
Nearly140,000acres(38%)oftheVisionPlanAreasupportsforests,whicharecharacterizedby
relativelydensecanopycoveroftrees,withanunderstoryofprimarilyshadetolerantherbsandshrubs
(Table12,Figure14).GiventheirextensivecoverwithintheVisionPlanArea,forestsplayacriticalrole
inconservationofbiodiversity,aswellasprovideahostofimportantecosystemservices,including
protectingwaterqualityandsequesteringcarbon.Thissectionoutlineskeymanagementconsiderations
forthetwomainforesttypes.
Table 12: Forests of the Vision Plan Area

Percentin
VegetationandOtherLandCover Acres DistrictPreserves
Forests
RedwoodDouglasFirForest 78,271 16.5%
HardwoodForest 47,902 37.8%
ClosedConeConiferForest 961 59.5%
RiparianForest 5,947 21.9%
NonNativeForest 6,155 4.9%
ForestCommunitiesSubtotal 139,235 23.9%
OtherVegetation
Native 108,586 20.3%
NonNative 3,412 17.1%
OtherVegetationSubtotal 111,998 20.0%
OtherLandCover
Converted 82,932 0.4%
Water 27,116 0.7%
OtherLandCover 9,669 5.0%
OtherLandCoverSubtotal 119,717 0.8%
Total 370,951 15.3%
Conifer Forest Management
TheVisionPlanAreacontains78,271acresofcoastredwoodDouglasfirforests(Table12;Figure14),of
which12,915acres(16.5%)arewithinDistrictopenspacepreserves.Locatedprimarilyonthewestern
slopeoftheSantaCruzMountains,wherecoastalfogsupplementsthemoreplentifulrainfall,standsof
thisforestalsooccurstraddletheridgelineandinnervatecanyonsontheeasternslope,whichalso
featureacooler,moistermicroclimate.Theseforestsaredominatedbycoastredwoodand/orDouglas
fir,thoughfeaturealsosomehardwoodsincludingpredominantlytanoakandShreveoak(Quercus
parvulavar.shrevei).
TheSantaCruzMountainsfeaturethesouthernmostexpansiveareaofcoastredwoodDouglasfir
forestsacommunitytyperestrictedtoa450milelongstripofthePacificcoastbetweensouthern
MontereyCountyandsouthernOregon,whereitisconfinedtoareaswithinreachofthesummerfog.
Oftheapproximatelytwomillionacresofforest,lessthan5%hasnotbeenharvested,andremainsinits
oldgrowthcondition(EvartsandPopper2011).AsimilarpercentageoftheseforestsintheSantaCruz
Mountainsconsistofoldgrowth,thelargestpatchofwhichisnearly3,400acresandislocatedwithin
BigBasinStatePark(SRL2008).Justtothenorth,withintheVisionPlanarea,theButanoandPescadero

watershedscontainadditionaloldgrowthforests,withotherolderforestsmappedintheadjacentSan
GregorioCreekwatershed.
Duetotheirstandstructure,canopyarchitectureoftheirtrees,andotheruniquehabitatconditions,
oldgrowthforestsprovideimportanthabitatformanyspecies(Table13).Notably,Vauxsswift
(Chaeturavauxi)nestsinhollowsnagswhicharemoreprevalentinolderforests,whilethefederally
endangeredseabirdmarbled(Brachyramphusmarmoratus)nestsonlargebranchesorplatformsthat
occurprimarilyinoldcoastredwoodandDouglasfir.
Table 13: Biologically-important characteristics of old-growth forests

Characteristic BiologicalSignificance
Large,livingtrees Featuredecadentwood,brokentops,reiteratedcrowns,platforms,deadtops,
(200+yearsold) andbasalhollows,whichprovideimportanthabitatforavarietyofspecies
includingmarbledmurrelet,Vauxsswift,andpileatedwoodpecker;also
containahighdiversityofbryophytes,fungi,andinvertebrateswithintheir
canopies.
Largestandingdead Standingdeadormostlydeadtreesprovidenesting,foraging,androosting
trees(snags) habitatforavarietyofbirdsandmammals
Downedtrees(logs) Providehumidandthermallystablemicrohabitatsforamphibians,reptiles,
smallmammals,andinvertebratesonland.Instreams,createpoolsand
scoursforfish,andstabilizestreambanks.
Multipleplantlayers Treesofvaryingages,andunderstorytreesaswellasshrubsandherbs,create
adiversityofhabitatconditionsandfoodsourcesforanimals,andpromote
fogdripcollection.
Carbon Oldgrowthforestsremoveandsequestercarbondioxidefromthe
Sequestration atmosphere
OthercoastredwoodandDouglasfirforestswithintheDistricthaveexperiencedtimberharvestof
varyingtype,intensity,andfrequency.Mostforestswereclearcutinthemid1800s,andthenwere
subjecttosubsequentharvestinthe1950sand1960s;forestsintheElCortedeMaderaandPurisima
Creekwatershedsweresubjecttothirdandfourthharvestsinthe1970sand1980s(MROSD2011).
Despitetheharvesthistory,Districtpreservesfeatureresidualsingleoldgrowthtreesandsmallstands
ofoldgrowth.DistrictopenspacepreservesalsofeatureolderDouglasfir,whichdevelopslateseral
conditionsearlierthancoastredwood(MROSD2011).
Whencomparedtooldgrowthforests,thesepreviouslyharvestedforestsgenerallyfeaturehigher
densitiesofsmallerdiametertrees,whichestablishprimarilythroughresprouting.Thisdensestand
structure,coupledwithmorethanacenturyoffiresuppression,createsdensefuelsthatpresentafire
hazard.Coastredwoodsinoldgrowthforeststypicallysurvivefires,whichtypicallyburnthesurfaceand
donotpenetratethefireresistantbark.However,unmanagedsecondgrowthforestsoftenfeature
substantial,andmorecontiguousbiomassthatcanpromoteacrownfire.Suchfirescankillevenlarge
trees,thusdecreasingrootsthatholdsoilinplace,andpromotingsoilerosionandstream
sedimentation.

ForestswithintheVisionPlanAreacanbemanaged
ConservationForestryPractices
followingthepracticesofconservationforestry,which
(AdaptedfromLindenmayeretal.2006)
aredesignedtopromotebiodiversityandecosystem

functionswithinalandscapethatfeaturesprotected Protectandbufferlateseralstage
forestreserves,aswellasprivatetimberlandsmanaged forests
forsustainableproduction(insetbox).Aspartofthe
Createarangeofhabitatconditions.
forestsreserves,Districtopenspacepreservecanbe
managedtoacceleratelateseralforestconditions, Retainelementsofstandstructural
complexity
bufferaquaticecosystem,andenhancethecomplexityof
theforeststandstructureinwaysthatcanpromote o Treesfrommultipleagecohorts
biodiversitybycreatingabroaderrangeof o Largelivingtreesandsnags
microhabitats. o Largediameterlogsontheforest
floor
o Verticalheterogeneitycreatedby
Selectiveharvestoftreescanprovideamechanismto
multiplecanopylayers
acceleratelateseralstandconditions.Removingtreesto
o Horizontalheterogeneity,including
createthelowerdensityconditionscharacteristicofold canopygaps
growthforestspromotesthegrowthofremainingtrees, Bufferaquaticecosystems
byreducingtheircompetitionforlightandsoilresources
Managetheforesttomaintainhabitat
whichcanlimitgrowth.Suchthinningtreatmentsare
connectivity
beingusedbyavarietyofconservationorganizationsin
centralandnorthernCalifornia(Table14) Carefullydesignandmanageroad
networks
Thelocationsandotheraspectsofsuchthinning Conductappropriatefiremanagement
treatmentsmustbecarefullyplannedinconsiderationof
landscapelevelandsitelevelconditions,aswellas
desiredfutureconditions(i.e.goals).Avarietyoflogisticalconsiderationscanalsopresentopportunities
orconstrainselectiveharvest:
o Occurrenceofroads,whichareneededforaccessbyequipment;
o Topography,whichcaninfluencetheyarding(methodofmovinglogstoalandingsite),which
canbedonebygroundbasedtractor/skidder,cable,orhelicopter;and
o Effectsontheenvironment,includinggeology,soils,biologicalresources,culturalresources,
waterquality,andnoise,amongothers.
Permittingcosts,whichareanexpensivecomponentofforestrestorationprojects,canbeoffsetby
commercializingthewoodthatisremovedtoachievetheecologicalobjectives.Thoughsomewoody
debrisshouldbeleftontheforestfloortocreateimportanthabitat(Table13),excesslogsthatwould
degradehabitatandcreateafiredangercanbesoldtooffsetcosts.Forestthinningprojectscanbeused
topermitotherrestorationwork,includingstreamrestorationprojects(e.g.culvertorbridgeupgrades)
thatrequirelakeandstreambedalterationagreements.
TheDistrictsresourcemanagementpoliciesaddressagoalforforestmanagement,whichistoManage
Districtlandtoretainandpromotebiologicallydiverse,dynamicforestconditions;maintainand
enhancehighqualityforestandaquatichabitat;encourageandenhancethedevelopmentoflateseral
coniferforest;provideforvisitorexperienceswithindiverseforesthabitat;andpromoteDistrictand
regionalfiremanagementobjectives.Implementationmeasuresforthispolicyaredesignedtoensure
thatforestmanagementactivitiesarecompatiblewiththeprotectionspecialstatusplantsandanimals,
riparianandriverineecosystems,andwaterquality,amongothernaturalresources,andinclude
managementtopromotelateseralhabitatconditions.Moredetailedanalysiswouldbeneededto

evaluatelandwheresuchmanagementwouldbeappropriateandfeasible;however,basedon
landscapelevelanalysisofavailabledata,ElCortedeMadera,PurisimaCreek,andTunitasCreek,and
LongRidgeOSPs,areimportantcandidates,astheycanbufferorexpandOldGrowthand/ormarbled
murrelethabitat.
Hardwood Forest Management

Locatedprimarilyontheupperelevationslopes,ridgeline,andeasternslopeoftheSantaCruz
Mountains,47,092acresofforestwithintheVisionPlanAreaaredominatedbyhardwoods,includinga
oaks,tanoak,Californiabay(Umbellulariacalifornica),andCaliforniabuckeye(Aesculuscalifornicus)
(Table12,Figure14).Thisincludes18,107acresofhardwoodforestlocatedwithinDistrictopenspace
preserves.
Hardwoodforestsarefacingtwomainthreatsthatnecessitateactivemanagement:widespreadtree
mortalityduetosuddenoakdeath,andDouglasfirencroachmentintheabsenceofnaturalfire.
Suddenoakdeath(SOD)isanemergingdiseasecausedbypathogen,Phytophthoraramorum,thathas
resultedinextensivemortalityoftanoak(Nothiocarpusdensiflorus)andoaks(Quercusspp.),including
coastliveoak(Q.agrifolia),blackoak(Q.kelloggii),Shrevesoak(Q.parvula,var.shrevei),andcanyon
liveoak(Q.chrysolepis)withinapproximately175milesoftheCaliforniacoast.Firstreportintheearly
1990s,SODspreadrapidlycoastalhardwoodandconiferforestsfromcentralCaliforniatoCentral
Oregon,includingthroughoutmuchoftheSantaCruzMountains(RizzoandGarbelotto2003).
Suddenoakdeatheffectslikelydependupontheextentofmortalitycaused,butcaninclude:
shiftsinplantcommunitycomposition(e.g.oaksreplacedbylesssusceptibletreespecies);
declinesinanimalpopulationsthatrelyontanoakandoak,suchasblacktaileddeer(Odocoileus
hemionus),acornwoodpecker(Melanerpesformicivorus),andbandtailedpigeon(Patagioenas
fasciata);
ElementsoftheDistricts
increasedfuelsandthusfirebehavior(e.g.
10YearSuddenOakDeathProgram
greaterfirefrequencyand/orseverityof
impacts). Annualmonitoringtodetect
symptomaticplantsinnewareas
Overtime,directandindirecteffectsofthediseasecan
cascadethroughtheaffectedsystemsandalter Mappingofpotentiallyresistanttrees
ecosystemstructureandfunctions. Treatingselectedheritagetreeswitha
fungicide
TheVisionPlanAreacontainsthehighestconcentration Establishingacollaborativefundfor
ofrecordedSODdetectionsintheSantaCruzMountains researchtoguidemanagement
(Figure15);importantly,thehighfrequencyof RemovalofselectedCaliforniabay,a
observationslikelyreflectsthemoreintensive carrierfortheSODpathogen,toprevent
monitoringofDistrictpreservesconductedaspartofthe spread
Districtsannualmonitoring(insetbox).Detections Stafftrainingregardingdiseasedetection
straddletheridgelineandextendfromPurisimaCreek andbestmanagementpracticesto
RedwoodsOSPinthenorthwest,toElSerenoandBear preventspread
CreekRedwoodsOSPsinthesoutheast;importantly Outreachtotheincreasepublic
observationseastofHighway17aresparse,andmost awarenessofhowtopreventSODspread
observationsarewestofHighway9(Figure15).

Inrecognitionofitspotentialimpacts,theDistrictadoptedatenyearplanin2005toslowthespreadof
SOD,collaborativelystudyimpactsonwildlandecologyandrecreation,anddeveloparestoration
strategyforheavilyinfestedforests.
ForestmanagementtechniquestoaddressSODarelargelyexperimentalbutcaninclude(Table14):
Treatheritageoakslarge,mature,andiconictreeswithafungicide(e.g.AgriFos)toprevent
SODinfection;
TreatCaliforniabay(Umbellulariacalifornica),acarrierofSOD,withfungicide;and
RemoveinfectedCaliforniabayandothercarrierstopreventspreadofSOD.
Infectedbiomassshouldbeproperlydisposedtopreventdiseasetransmission,andreducefirehazard.
TheVisionPlanAreashardwoodforestsarealsosusceptibletodegradationduetounnatural
succession.ExclusionoffirefromtheseforestsfacilitatesestablishmentofDouglasfiralateseralstage
speciesthatissusceptibletofirewhenyoung,butisinvadingoakwoodlandsthroughoutCaliforniaas
partoffireexclusion(Barnartetal.1996,HunterandBarbour2001).Douglasfirismappedasemergent
orcodominantwithin17,848acresofhardwoodforestintheVisionPlanArea.Prescribedfireorforest
managementtreatmentsthatsimulatetheireffectsbykillingDouglasfircanbeusedtomaintain
hardwoodforestsandhabitatoakdependentanimals(Table14).

Table 14: Forest management treatments

Appropriate ForestsBeingManaged PotentiallySuitable
Treatment Objectives Description Conditions UsingTreatment DistrictPreserves
Thinning Promotelateseralforest Identifyrecruitment Densesecond Byrne/MillironForest ElCortedeMadera,
Dense, conditions,which treesbasedonsize growthforestswhere (LandTrustofSanta PurisimaCreek,and
Stagnated include: anddeveloped intraspecific CruzCounty) TunitasCreek,and
Redwood Large,wellspaced structureandremove competitionlimits GarciaForest(The LongRidgeOSPs,
Stands trees selectedtreesthat individualtree ConservationFund) whichcanbufferor
Snags competewiththem, growth Sempervirens236 expandOldGrowth
thusacceleratingtheir (SempervirensFund) and/ormarbled
Largewoodydebris
growthandcreating SwantonPacific murrelethabitat;
spacingcharacteristic Ranch(CalPoly otherareasofdense,
ofoldgrowthforests Foundation) stagnatedredwood.
Maintain Maintainforestgaps Clearvegetationto Pocketmeadowsand Privateforestlandsin
OpenAreas thatsupportshade createearly shrublandsimpacted theSantaCruz
intolerantplants(e.g. successional byencroachingtrees. Mountains.
SantaCruzmountains conditions;broadcast Alsohomogeneous,
pussypaws,Dudley's burnorpileburnto lowdiversityforests
lousewort,andSanta exposebaremineral
CruzMountains soilandscarifyseeds
beardtongue
Encourageamosaicof
vegetationconditions,
topromotesdiversity
Remove Preventencroachment Cutandlop/scatteror Grasslands, Privateforestlandsin SaratogaGap,Long
Encroaching ofDouglasfirinto pileburnmature shrublands,and theSantaCruz Ridge,SkylineRidge,
DouglasFir grasslands,shrublands, Douglasfir.Grazeor hardwoodforests Mountains. MonteBellow,
andhardwoodforests, mowforestedgesto includingoak RussianRidge,Windy
whichoccursinthe removejuveniles. woodlands,which Hill,andElCortede
absenceofnaturalfire Implementprescribed featuringemerging MaderaOSPsall
broadcastburns. Douglasfir featureDouglas
fir/Mixedhardwood

Table 14: Forest management treatments

Appropriate ForestsBeingManaged PotentiallySuitable
Treatment Objectives Description Conditions UsingTreatment DistrictPreserves
orDouglasfir/Coast
LiveOakforests
Remove Reducethreatto Cutandtreatnon Wherenonnative Manyprivatelandsin MiramonteRidge,
NonNative biodiversity nativetrees, treesarepresentand theSantaCruz TunitasCreek,
Trees Reducepotentialfire particularlyinvasive canormayspread Mountains. Thornwood,and
hazard. treesincluding intosensitive Wicklow FremontOlderOSPs
eucalyptusandacacia, habitats BigSurLandTrust
butalsoplanted
conifers(Pinusspp.
andCupressusspp.)
Treat Limitthespreadof Treatheritageoaks Preservesfeaturing Preliminarytreatment PreserveswithSOD
SuddenOak SOD withfungicideto heritageoaks currentlyoccurson Detections:
Death Mitigatedetrimental protectthemfrom Otherareaswith variousprivate MiramonteRidge,
foresteffectsofSOD thepathogen confirmedSOD properties. PurisimaCreek,El
dieoff TreatCaliforniabay infestationnearbyor Fuelstreatmentof CortedeMadera
(Umbellularia inspecifictreeson massivetanoakdieoff Creek,TeagueHill,
californica)with Preserves currentlybeing Thornewood,La
fungicide;remove Heritagetrees consideredatMitteldorf HondaCreek,Windy
infectedtreesto Preserve(BigSurLand Hill,Foothills,Russian
preventspread Trust) Ridge,SkylineRidge,
Clearinfectedor LongRidge,Monte
deadtreesto Bello,RanchoSan
reducefirehazard Antonio,Picchetti
Ranch,and
FremontOlderOSPs

Figure 14: Forests and timber harvest

Figure 15: Sudden Oak Death observations

FIRE MANAGEMENT
ThehottemperaturesandseasonaldroughtthatcharacterizetheMediterraneanclimateintheVision
Planareaareconducivetofire.Humaninhabitantsoftheregionhistoricallyusedfiretomodifythe
landscape;specifically,thenativeOhloneusedfiretopromotenativeplantsandanimalsusedforfood,
ranchersburnedgrasslandstoremovewoodyvegetationandthusincreaseforageincluding,loggers
usedfiretoburnslash,andfarmersusedfiretoremovecropstubbleandpreparesoilsforplanting
(StephensandFry2005).
ManyofthevegetationcommunitiesonDistrictlandsevolvedwiththeoccurrenceofperiodicfireand
haveacquireduniqueadaptationstowithstandandregenerateafterafire(KeeleyandKeeley1987).
Withoutperiodicfire,theseplantcommunitiesbuildabnormallyhighanddangerousfuellevelsandare
susceptibletolargescaledestructivefireevents.
Inordertoprotectlives,property,andvaluabletimber,however,wildfiresareactivelysuppressed
withinthePeninsula.Thisfireexclusioncanalterecosystemstructureandfunctions,aswellasleadto
theaccumulationofhighfuelloadswhichexacerbatefiredanger.TheDistrictsresourcemanagement
policiesaddresstheseandotheraspectsoffiremanagement.
Ecosystem Needs
FireplaysanimportantroleinthestructureandfunctionoftheplantcommunitieswithintheVision
PlanArea,includingbypromotingestablishmentoffireadaptednativeplants,creatingandmaintaining
earlysuccessionalhabitatconditionsrequiredbysomeanimals,andcyclingnutrients.Bydisrupting
theseprocesses,fireexclusioncanhaveahostofcascadingnegativeeffectsonbiodiversityincluding
causingdeclinesinpopulationsoffiredependentplantsandanimalsandimpactingriverinespeciesby
reducingstreamflows.Importantly,fireexclusionpromotesbuildupoffuel,whichresultsinunnaturally
intenseandseverefires,whichcannegativelyimpactspecieseveninfireadaptedsystems.
Likeotherformsofdisturbance,firecanpromotetheinvasionandspreadofnonnativeplants,manyof
whichoriginatefromotherregionswithaMediterraneanclimatewherefireisalsoanimportantpartof
thenaturaldisturbanceregime(HobbsandHuenneke1992,DAntonioetal.1999).Atthesametime,
someinvasiveplantsaresensitivetofire,whichcanbeusedasatechniquetocontroltheirpopulations.
ThenativeplantcommunitieswithintheDistrictwere
KingsMountainManzanita
generallycharacterizedbasedontheirresponseoftheir
(Arctostaphylosregismontana)
dominantspeciestofire(Table15,Figure16):
Thisshrub,whichisendemictothenorthern
Firedependent:Thesenaturalcommunitiesare SantaCruzMountains,likelyrequiresfireto
dominatedbyplantspeciesthatcannotpersist persist.Aswithotherobligateseeding
withoutrecurringfire.Theprimaryfire manzanitasinmaritimechaparral
dependentcommunitiesare: communitiesintheregion,fireskillthe
adults,whichlackaburlfromwhichto
o closedconeconiferwoodlandsand resprout.Firesalsocreatebaremineralsoil
forests,includingSantaCruzcypress, andmayscarifyseeds,thuspromoting
foothillpine,knobconepine;and germination.Importantly,fireremovestrees
o chaparral,includingthatdominatedby includingDouglasfirandoaks,whichcolonize
chaparralintheabsenceoffireandshadeout
chamise,manzanita,andceanothus
theshrubs.
(KeeleyandKeeley1987).

Firesensitive:Thesenaturalcommunitiesaredominatedbyplantspeciesthatarekilledby,and
donotregeneratewellfollowing,fire,whichisnotanimportantcomponentofthenatural
disturbanceregime.Firesensitivecommunitiesprimarilyinclude:
o ripariancommunities,whichfeaturedominantspeciesadaptedtorecurringflood,but
notfirewhichcausesmortalityanddoesnottypicallypromoteregeneration,including
arroyowillow(Salixlasiolepis),boxelder(Acernegundo),andCaliforniasycamore
(Platanusracemosa)
o wetlandcommunities,includingfreshwaterandsaltwater/brackishwatermarshesand
wetmeadows;and
o dunesandothercoastalstrandcommunities.
Fireadapted:Thesenaturalcommunitiesfeaturespeciesadaptedtofirewithinthenatural
rangeofvariationofthedisturbanceregime(i.e.type,seasonality,intensity,andfrequency).
Thiscategoryincludesallterrestrialcommunitiesnotcharacterizedasfiredependentorfire
sensitive.
Table 15: Vegetation according to its origin and fire relationship

Percentin
LandCoverTypeandFireRelationship Acres DistrictPreserves
NativePlantCommunities
FireDependent 21,048 40.2%
FireAdapted 211,970 21.7%
FireSensitive 8,503 6.5%
NativePlantCommunitiesSubtotal 241,521 22.8%
NonNativePlantCommunities
FirePromoted 4,137 6.7%
FireTolerant 5,189 8.0%
FireSusceptible 6 71.1%
NonNativePlantCommunitiesSubtotal 9,332 1.3%
OtherLandCover 120,098 1.0%
Total 370,951 15.3%
Likewise,thenonnativevegetationwasgenerallyclassifiedintothreecategories(Table15,Figure16):
Firepromoted:plantspeciesfeaturingadaptationsthatfacilitateitsestablishmentand
potentiallyspreadfollowingfire.Firepromotednonnativecommunitiesincludeacacia,
eucalyptus,pampasgrass,Montereycypress,andplantedstandsofpine;and
Firesusceptible:nonnativecommunitydominatedbyplantspeciesthatarekilledby,anddo
notregeneratewellfollowing,fire,whichisnotanimportantcomponentofthenatural
disturbanceregime.Poisonhemlock(Coniummaculatum)wasclassifiedasfiresensitive.
Firetolerant:speciesadaptedtofire,whichisunlikelytopromotespread,orpresentan
effectivecontroltechnique.ThiscategoryincludesHardinggrass(Phalarisaquatic)aswellasall
vegetationforwhichdominantspecieswerenotavailable(i.e.thosemappedgenerallyasnon
native/ornamental).
Sitespecificexaminationofvegetationconditionsandotherfactorswouldberequiredtoinformspecific
managementstrategiesforopenspacewithintheDistrict.

Fire Threat
ThoughanaturalpartoftheuplandecosystemswithintheVisionPlanArea,fireposesathreattolives
andproperty.Thisthreatismostacuteatthewildlandurbaninterface,wheredevelopmentisadjacent
torelativelyundevelopedareasorwildlands,includingopenspace(Figure17).Astatewideanalysis
identifiedextensiveareasoflandwithintheVisionPlanAreaaspartofthewildlandurbaninterface;this
includesareasofrelativelydensedevelopment,includingsubdivisions,aswellassparseresidential
developmentthatabutwildlandsofalltypes,includingprotectedareassuchasparksandopenspace
preserves,aswellasprivateareasincludingtimberlands(Figure17;CalFire2003).Areasdesignatedas
communitiesatriskfeatureatleastonehouseper20acresandlocatedwithin1.5milesofareas
characterizedashavinghigh,veryhighorextremefirethreat,basedonfuelrankandfirerotation
(Figure17).Aspartamorefinescalemappingproject,theDistrictidentified8,749acresofurbanlands
attheinterfaceofDistrictOpenSpacePreserves(Figure17;MROSD2013).
Toaddressthethreatposedbywildfireintheregion,thestateandlocalfireagencies,inpartnership
withotheragenciesandorganizations,aswellasprivatelandownersandthebroaderpublic,have
recentlydevelopedtwoCommunityWildfireProtectionPlans(CWPPs)withintheVisionPlanArea:
1. LexingtonHillsCWPP(2009),whichcoversjustover25,000acreareaintheeasternslopeofthe
SantaCruzMountainsinwesternSantaClaraCounty;and
2. SanMateoandSantaCruzCountyCWPP(2010),whichcoversallofSanMateoandSantaCruz
counties.
Theseplansidentifypriorityareasforfuelreductionandotherfiresafetymeasures,designedprimarily
toprotectlivesandproperty(Figure17).Mostaretargetedinhighdensityruralcommunities,though
theyalsoincludeareasofspecialinterestfeaturinglowerdensitydevelopment.Thepriorityareaswere
identifiedthroughpublicparticipationincommunitymeetings,andbyintegratingavarietyof
informationandconsiderations,includingfuelconditions,firebehavior,developmentpatterns,and
infrastructure.CommunitieswithCWPPsreceivepriorityforgrantsforhazardousfuelreductionprojects
throughtheCaliforniaFireSafeCouncil.
TheDistrictparticipatedindevelopmentoftheCWPPs, ManagementofDistrictOpenSpace
whichincludepriorityareaslocatedinDistrictopen PreservestoReduceFireThreat
spacepreserves,includingPulgasRidge,BearCreek
Redwoods,andSierraAzul,andalongHighway35within FuelManagement
SaratogaGap,LongRidge,SkylineRidge,MonteBello, Disking,mowing,andbrushingalong
RussianRidge,CoalCreek,andWindyHillOSPs(Figure roadsandtrails,andaroundparking
17). areasandstructures
Invasiveplantremoval
Conservationgrazing
Prescribedburning
OtherRiskReductionMeasures
Preserveclosuresduringperiodsofhigh
firerisk
stafftrainingandequipmenttocombat
fire

Figure 16: Vegetation adaptations and recorded fire history

Figure 17: Wildland-Urban Interface and Community Wildfire Protection Plan Priority Areas

GLOBAL CHANGE
Species,communities,andentireecosystemshavethepotentialtobegreatlyalteredbyglobalchange,
includingclimatechangeandsealevelrise.
Climate Change
Potential Impacts
Bytheendofthecentury,theaverageannualtemperatureinCaliforniaispredictedtoincreasebyupto
8.1F(Cayanetal.2008).ThoughthechangeinCaliforniasprecipitationisexpectedtobelessthan10%
(Cayanetal.2008),theincreaseintemperaturewillpromotewaterlossduetoevaporationand
transpiration,creatingaclimaticwaterdeficitforplants(FlintandFlint,unpublisheddata).Moreover,a
continuationofthetrendof33%reductioninthefrequencyofCaliforniasummerfog(Johnstoneand
Dawson2010)couldexacerbatethedroughtstresscausedbythepredictedhotterandlikelydrier
conditions.
Thevulnerabilityofspeciesandcommunitiestoclimatechangedependsontheirexposure,sensitivity,
andcapacitytoadjusttochange(HansonandHoffman2011).Table16identifiestypesandexamplesof
speciesandsystemsthatcouldbemostvulnerablebasedonfiveconsiderations(HansonandHoffman
2011).Notably,coastredwoodandspeciesthatinhabitcoastredwoodDouglasfirforestmaybe
vulnerabletodeclinesandultimatelyextirpationsinafuturehotterandlikelydrierclimate,particularly
iftheincidenceofsummerfogisreducedashasbeenobservedoverthepast50years(Johnstoneand
Dawson2010).
Morefrequentfirepredictedtoaccompanythehotter,drierclimatewilllikelyalterdramaticallythe
structureandspeciescompositionofthenaturalcommunitieswithintheSantaCruzMountains(Friedet
al.2004).AcrosstheCentralCoastEcoregion,theextentofshrublandsandconiferforestsarepredicted
todeclinewhiletheareaofgrasslandincreases(Lenihanet.al.2008).Thesepredictionssuggestthat
coastalscrub,maritimechaparral,andcoastredwoodDouglasfirforestscoulddeclinewhilegrasslands
willexpand.
Potential for Area to Mitigate Climate Change Impacts

TheVisionPlanAreafeatureshabitatthatcanpromoteresiliencyofthespeciesandcommunitieswithin
theSantaCruzMountainsandbroaderCentralCoastEcoregiontoclimatechangethroughavarietyof
mechanisms(Table17,Figure18).Wetareas,suchasseeps,springs,streams,ponds,marshes,lakesand
reservoirs,featurecoolermicroclimates,providesourcesoffreewater,andmayindicateareasof
greatergroundwaterthatmayberesilientinthefaceofclimatechange(HowardandMerrifield2010).
Asaresultofitsmountainousterrain,theVisionPlanAreafeaturestopographicvariabilitythatcreatesa
varietyofmicroclimates.Importantly,narrow,deepcanyonsandnorthfacingslopesreceiveless
insolation(solarradiation)andthushavecoolermicroclimates(Figure18).
Sea Level Rise

Inthepastcentury,sealevelhasrisenbyeightinches,andisanticipatedtorisebymorethan4.5feet
(55inches)bytheendofthiscentury(Hebergeretal.2009).Theresultinginundationandattendant
erosionandfloodingcouldeliminatecoastalandbayhabitats,including:
rockoutcroppingsandusedforroostingandnestingbycoastalseabirds,suchasdouble
crestedcormorants,brownpelicans,andpigeonguillemots,andashauloutsitesformarine
mammalsincludingharborseals;

bluffsutilizedbynestingbirdsincludingBlackSwifts,uniqueplantassemblagesfeaturing
succulents(Dudleyaspp.);and
dunesutilizedbymanyplantandanimalspeciesincludingnestingWesternSnowyPlovers,and
globosedunebeetles;and
wetlandsincludingsaltmarshandbrackishmarsh,whichsupportadiverseassemblageof
shorebirdsincludingCaliforniaclapperrail,Californiablackrail,saltmarshharvestmouse,and
saltmarshwanderingshrew(Section3).
Whilenewhabitatscouldbecreatedadjacenttotheareasthatwillbeinundated,thiswillnotbe
possiblewheretheadjacentlandisalreadydevelopedorisarmored(e.g.byseawallsorlevees).
Astatewideanalysisfoundthattheanticipatedsealevelrisewouldresultintheerosionof525acresof
dunes,and1,536acresofcliffsincoastalSanMateoCounty(Hebergeretal.2009).Inaddition,ofthe
estimated9,600acresofwetlands,only1,856acres(20%)wouldbeabletomigrateintoadjacent
naturalland.Anadditional4%(345acres)couldmoveintoadjacentnonnaturalland(e.g.agricultural
areas,parksetc.),whiletheremaining76%ofthecountyswetlands,7,040acres,wouldbelost.
Protectinglandwherewetlandmigrationisfeasiblewillbeessentialtoconservingthesesensitive
communitiesandspeciesassealevelrises.

Table 16:
Biological systems in the Vision Plan Area that could be most vulnerable to climate change
Criteria Terrestrial Aquatic

Specialized Serpentinespecies Endangeredsalmonidsincluding
habitator coastalprairiegrasslandspecies cohosalmonandsteelheadtrout
microhabitat Pondbreedingspecies,including
Californiatigersalamander,
Californiaredleggedfrog,San
Franciscogartersnake,and
westernpondturtle
Narrow Coastredwood,whichrequirescool, Cohosalmonandsteelheadtrout,
environmental foggyareas,andisnearthesouthern whicharesensitivetochangesin
tolerancesthat endofitsrange watertemperature
arelikelytobe Maritimechaparralendemicspecies Speciesatthesouthernendoftheir
exceeded (e.g.Arctostaphylosregismontana), rangeincludingPacificgiant
whichrequirefog salamanderandroughskinned
Speciesatthesouthernendoftheir newt
range,includingwhiteflowerrein
orchid(Piperiacandida)andGeocalyx
graveolens,aliverwort
Blackoakandotherspeciesatthe
edgeoftheirelevationalrangeatop
Skyline
Dependenceon Breedingbirds Breedingamphibians,which
specific Migratoryspecies(butterflies,birds, requirespecifichydroperiods
environmental andbats)
triggersorcues
thatarelikelyto
bedisrupted
Dependenceon Insectpollinatedplants,especially Increasedstreambiological
interspecific thosewithspecialistpollinators productivityduetohigher
interactionsthat Insectivorousbats,especially temperaturescouldalter
arelikelytobe specialist(e.g.pallidbatsfeedlargely competitiverelationshipsinstream
disrupted onJerusalemcrickets) assemblages
Poorabilityto manyplants Pondinvertebrates,amphibians,
colonizenew, limitedmobilityanimals,including andreptilesthatcannotdisperse
moresuitable flightlessinsects throughuplandhabitats,
locations particularlydevelopedareas

Table 17:
Refugia and aspects of climate change resiliency conferred by the Vision Plan Area
Refugia ContributiontoClimateResiliency OccurrenceinVisionPlanArea

Areasof Areasorreducedsolarradiation Variable,mountainoustopographyresultsin
Reduced featurecoolermicroclimateand northfacingslopesbeingwelldistributed
Solar typicallygreatervegetationcover throughouttheVisionPlanArea
Insolation andthusevapotranspiration
Streamsand Sourceofperennialwaterfor 1,100milesofstreamsthatprovidewater
riparianareas animals andcoolermicroclimates
Featurecoolermicroclimates Streamsthroughdevelopedareas(e.g.
duetoevaporationand SantaClaraValley)providecorridorsthat
transpiration promotemigrationinresponsetoa
Ripariancorridorscanfacilitate changingclimate
animalmovementinresponseto
climatechange
Ponds,lakes, Sourceofwaterforanimals Numerousponds,lakes,reservoirs,marshes,
sloughs,and Featurecoolermicroclimates andotherwetlands
reservoirs duetoevaporationand
transpiration
Seepsand Sourceofperennialwaterand Numerousmappedseepsandsprings
springs indicatorsofwheregroundwater (additionalunmappedspringslikelyoccur
maybemoreplentifulandthus inthelandscape)
persistinafuturehotter,drier
climate(HowardandMerrifield
2010)
Steep Interconnectedhabitatreduces Elevationrangesfromsealeveltoover
elevational thedistancespeciesneedto 3,000feetinlessthan10milesfromboth
gradients movealonganelevation east(bay)andwest(PacificOcean).
gradient Steepterrainoccurswithincontiguous
Precipitationandwinter habitatpatchesincludingthepatch
minimumtemperatureincrease connectingSkylinetotheSeanearBig
withelevation BasinStateParkfacilitatingmigration
inlandandalonganelevationalgradient
Connectivity Interconnectedhabitatenables TheVisionPlanAreaiscontiguouswith
alonga movementalongalatitudinal habitatfurthernorthintheSantaCruz
latitudinal gradient,alongwhichprecipitation Mountains,anorthwesttosoutheast
gradient increasesandmeanannual trendingmountainrangethatspansnearly80
temperaturedecreases miles.

Figure 18: Areas of potential climate resiliency

GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEMS DATA
ThefollowingtableliststheGISdatasetsusedtopreparethisreport.Informationaboutthedatasetsis
providedintheReferencessection.
Dataset Sources
Biodiversity
CohoRecoveryPlanPriorityWatershedsandDistribution NMFS2010
PondsandOtherWaterbodies MROSD2013andUSFWS2011
RareSpeciesOccurrences CCH2013,DFG2008,DFW2013,
MROSD2013
VegetationandSensitiveHabitat BAOSC2012andMROSD2013
WatershedIntegrity BAOSC2012
WinterSteelheadDistributionandRange DFG2012
Connectivity
AquaticandTerrestrialLinkages BAOSC2013
HabitatPatches BAOSC2013andMackenzieetal.
2011
Erosion
LandslidePotential USGS1997
UniversalSoilLossEquationandGullyErosivityPotential Hiatt2013
Fire
CommunitiesatRiskandWildlandUrbanInterface CalFire2003
CommunityWildfireProtectionPlansPriorityAreas APG2009andCalFire2010
FireHistory CalFire2012
WildlandUrbanInterfaceDistrictOpenSpacePreserves MROSD2013
Forests
OldGrowth SRL2008andSinger2003
OlderSecondGrowth Singer2012
SuddenOakDeathOccurrences KellyandTuxen2003andUCB2013
TimberHarvestPlansandNonIndustrialTimber CalFire2013
ManagementPlans
TimberProductionZones ABAG2006
Land Use
ProtectedLands(FeeTitleandEasement) MROSD2013
Physical
Coastline MROSD2013
Hillshade MROSD2013
MajorRoads MROSD2013

REFERENCES
AnchorPointGroup(APG).2009.LexingtonHills,CaliforniaCommunityWildfireProtectionPlan[Plan
andGISdata].June19,2009.
AssociationofBayAreaGovernments(ABAG).2006.Generalplanandlandusedesignationswithinthe
SanFranciscoBayArea.IncludestimberproductionzoneswithinSanMateoCounty[GISdata].
Oakland,CA.
Barnhart,S.J.,McBride,J.R.,Warner,P.,1996.InvasionofNorthernOakwoodlandsbyPseudotsuga
menziesii(Mirb.)FrancointheSonomaMountainsofCalifornia.Madroo.43,2845.
BayAreaOpenSpaceCouncil(BAOSC).2012.Watershedintegrityanalysisandvegetationinthe10
countyBayArea[ReportandGISdata].ConservationLandsNetwork.Accessedat:
http://www.bayarealands.org/.Berkeley,CA.
BayAreaOpenSpaceCouncil(BAOSC).2013.Habitatpatches,andterrestrialandaquaticlinkages
[ReportandGISdata].BayAreaCriticalLinkagesProjectreportandGISdata.Accessedat:
http://www.bayarealands.org/.Berkeley,CA.
Beier,Paul.1993.Determiningminimumhabitatareasandhabitatcorridorsforcougars.Conservation
Biology7(1):94108.
CaliforniaConsortiumofHerbaria(CCH).2013.DatabaseofHerbariumSpecimensinCaliforniaHerbaria
[GISdata].AccessedMarch2013.Accessedat:http://ucjeps.berkeley.edu/consortium/.
Berkeley,CA.
CaliforniaDepartmentofFishandGame(DFG).2008.Marbledmurreletdetections[GISData].Habitat
ConservationProgram.PreparedfortheCaliforniaDepartmentofFishandGameBayDelta
Region.ReleasedSeptember2008.Sacramento,CA.
CaliforniaDepartmentofFishandGame(DFG).2012.GeographicrangeofWinterRunSteelhead
(Oncorhynchusmykiss)inCalifornia[GISdata].NorthernRegion,EnvironmentalResource
InformationService.Sacramento,CA.
CaliforniaDepartmentofFishandWildlife(DFW).2013.Rareplantspeciesandrareanimalspecies
occurrences[GISdata].CaliforniaNaturalDiversityDatabase.Sacramento,CA.
CaliforniaDepartmentofForestryandFireProtection(CalFire).2003.WildlandUrbanInterfaceand
CommunitiesatRisk[GISdata].FireandResourceAssessmentProgram.Accessedat:
http://frap.cdf.ca.gov/data/frapgisdata/select.asp.Sacramento,CA.
CaliforniaDepartmentofForestryandFireProtection(CalFire).2010.SantaCruzandSanMateo
countiesCommunityWildfireProtectionPlan[PlanandGISdata].FireandResourceAssessment
Program.Sacramento,CA.
CaliforniaDepartmentofForestryandFireProtection(CalFire).2012.Recordedfirehistory[GISdata].
FireandResourceAssessmentProgram.Accessedat:
http://frap.cdf.ca.gov/data/frapgisdata/select.asp.Sacramento,CA.

CaliforniaDepartmentofForestryandFireProtection(CalFire).2013.HarvestboundariesforTimber
HarvestPlans(THPs)andNonIndustrialTimberManagementPlans(NTMPs)between1997and
2012andbetween1991and2012,respectively[GISdata].Accessedat:
ftp://ftp.fire.ca.gov/forest/.SantaRosa,CA.
Cayan,D.R.,A.L.Luers,G.Franco,M.Hanemann,B.Croes,andE.Vine.2008.OverviewoftheCalifornia
climatechangescenariosproject.ClimaticChange87(S1)(January):16.doi:10.1007/s10584
00793522.
Corbin,J.C.,andC.M.D'Antonio.2004.Competitionbetweennativeperennialandexoticannual
grasses:implicationsforhistoricalinvasion.Ecology85:12731283.
D'Antonio,C.M.,T.L.Dudley,andM.Mack.1999.Disturbanceandbiologicalinvasions:correlations,
causation,andfeedback.Pages413451inL.Walker,editor.EcosystemsofDisturbedGround.
ElsevierPress.
Evarts,J.andM.Popper.2011.CoastRedwood:ANaturalandCulturalHistory.SecondEdition.
CachumaPress.LosOlivos,CA.
Facelli,J.M.andS.T.A.Pickett.1991.Thedynamicsoflitter.BotanicalReview57:132.
Fried,J.S.,M.S.Torn,andE.Mills.2004.Theimpactofclimatechangeonwildfireseverity:Aregional
forecastfornorthernCalifornia.ClimaticChange64:169191.
Hayes,G.F.,andK.D.Holl.2003.Cattlegrazingimpactsonannualforbsandvegetationcompositionof
mesicgrasslandsinCalifornia.ConservationBiology17:16941702.
Heady,H.F.,T.C.Foin,M.Hektner,D.W.Taylor,M.G.Barbour,andW.J.Barry.1988.Coastalprairie
andnortherncoastalscrub.Pages733762inM.G.BarbourandJ.Major,editors.Terrestrial
vegetationofCalifornia.CaliforniaNativePlantSociety,Sacramento.
Heberger,M.,H.Cooley,P.Herrera,P.Gleick,andE.Moore.2009.Theimpactsofsealevelriseonthe
Californiacoast.PacificInstitute.May2009.
Hiatt,S.2013.Soilerosionpotentialbasedupontheuniversalsoillossequationandgullyerosivity
potential[GISdata].ErosionPotentialDataset.InstituteforGeographicInformationScienceat
SanFranciscoStateUniversity.SanFrancisco,CA.
Hilty,J.A.andA.M.Merenlender.2004.Useofripariancorridorsandvineyardsbymammalian
predatorsinnorthernCalifornia.ConservationBiology18(1):126135.
Hobbs,R.J.,andL.F.Huenneke.1992.Disturbance,diversity,andinvasion:implicationsfor
conservation.ConservationBiology6:324337.
Howard,J.,andM.Merrifield.2010.MappingGroundwaterDependentEcosystemsinCalifornia.Ed.
AdinaMayaMerenlender.PLoSONE5(6)(June):e11249.doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0011249.
Hunter,J.C.,andM.G.Barbour.2001.ThroughgrowthbyPseudotsugamenziesii:Amechanismfor
changeinforestcompositionwithoutcanopygaps.J.Veg.Sci.12,445452.

Johnstone,J.A.andT.E.Dawson.2010.Climaticcontextandecologicalimplicationsofsummerfog
declineinthecoastredwoodregion.ProceedingsoftheNationalAcademyofSciences.107:
45334538.
Keeley,J.,andS.Keeley.1987.Roleoffireinthegerminationofchaparralherbsandsuffrutescents.
Madrono34:240249.
Kelly,N.andK.Tuxen.2003.WebGISforsuddenoakdeathincoastalCalifornia.Computers,
EnvironmentandUrbanSystems27(5):527547[JournalarticleandGISdata].Berkeley,CA.
Lenihan,J.M.,D.Bachelet,R.P.Neilson,andR.Drapek.2008.Responseofvegetationdistribution,
ecosystemproductivity,andfiretoclimatechangescenariosforCalifornia.ClimaticChange87:
S215S230.
Levine,J.M.,V.Montserrrat,C.M.D'Antonio,J.S.Dukes,K.Grigulis,andS.Lavorel.2003.Mechanisms
underlyingtheimpactsofexoticplantinvasions.ProceedingsoftheRoyalSocietyofLondon
240:775781.
Lewis,H.T.1973.PatternsofIndianBurninginCalifornia:EcologyandEthnohistory.BallenaPress
AnthropologicalPaperNo.1,Ramona,California.
Lindenmayer,D.B.,J.F.Franklin,andJ.Fischer.2006.GeneralManagementPrinciplesandaChecklistof
StrategiestoGuideForestBiodiversityConservation.BiologicalConservation131:433445.
Mackenzie,A.,McGraw,J.andM.Freeman.2011.AConservationBlueprint:AnAssessmentand
RecommendationsfromtheLandTrustofSantaCruzCounty[ReportandGISdata].LandTrust
ofSantaCruzCounty,ReportandGISdataforhabitatpatches.May2011.223pages.
McBride,J.R.1974.PlantsuccessionintheBerkeleyHills,California.Madrono22:317329.
McBride,J.R.,andH.F.Heady.1968.InvasionofgrasslandbyBaccharispiluaris.JournalofRange
Management21:106108.
MidpeninsulaRegionalOpenSpaceDistrict(MROSD).2011.ResourceManagementPolicies.October
2011.LosAltos,CA.114pages.
MidpeninsulaRegionalOpenSpaceDistrict(MROSD).2013.GeographicInformationSystemdata
providedtodeveloptheVisionPlan:DistrictWildlandUrbanInterface,compositerarespecies
occurrences,Districtwidevegetation,waterbodies,pondsandwetlands,MROSDOpenSpace
DistrictPreserves,otheropenspacelands,DistrictVisionPlanAreaboundary,majorroads,
hillshade,andcoastline[GISdata].LosAltos,CA.
MuseumofVertebrateZoology(MVZ).2013.MuseumCollectionsofCaliforniaVertebrates[GISData].
AccessedMay2013.Accessedat:http://mvz.berkeley.edu/Collections.html.Berkeley,CA.
MyersN,MittermeierR.A.,MittermeierC.G.,daFonseca,G.A.B.,andJ.Kent.2000.Biodiversityhotspots
forconservationpriorities.Nature403:85385

Naiman,R.,H.DeCamps,andM.Pollock.1993.Theroleofripariancorridorsinmaintainingregional
biodiversity.EcologicalApplications3:209212.
NationalMarineFisheriesService(NMFS).2010.PublicDraftRecoveryPlanforCentralCaliforniaCoast
cohosalmon(Oncorhynchuskisutch)EvolutionarilySignificantUnit[ReportandGISdata].
NationalMarineFisheriesService,SouthwestRegion.SantaRosa,CA.
Rizzo,D.M.andM.Garbelotto.2003.Suddenoakdeath:endangeringCaliforniaandOregonforest
ecosystems.FrontiersinEcologyandtheEnvironment1(5):197204.
SavetheRedwoodsLeague(SRL).2008.OldgrowthandOlderRedwoodForest[Unpublishedreportand
GISdata].SanFrancisco,CA.
Singer,S.W.2003.OldGrowthForestStandsintheSantaCruzMountains.Mapspreparedforand
digitizedbySavetheRedwoodsLeague[ReportandGISdata].StevenSingerEnvironmentaland
EcologicalServices.SantaCruz,CA.
Singer,S.W.2012.OldersecondgrowthforeststandsintheSantaCruzMountains[MemoandGIS
data].MemoandmapspreparedbyStevenSingerEnvironmentalandEcologicalServices.Santa
Cruz,CA.January2012.
StephensandFry.2005.FirehistoryincoastredwoodstandsinthenortheasternSantaCruzMountains,
California.FireEcology.1:119
Stromberg,M.R.,P.Kephart,andV.Yadon.2002.Composition,invasibility,anddiversityincoastal
Californiagrasslands.Madrono48:236252.
TheNatureConservancy.2006.CaliforniaCentralCoastEcoregionalPlanUpdate.October2006.
Thomas,J.H.1961.FloraoftheSantaCruzMountains:AmanualofVascularPlants.StanfordUniversity
Press.Stanford,CA.
UnitedStatesFishandWildlifeService(USFWS).2003.CaliforniaRedLeggedFrogRecoveryPlan.
VenturaFishandWildlifeOffice,Ventura,CA.
UnitedStatesFishandWildlifeService(USFWS).2011.Californiawetlands[GISdata].VenturaFishand
WildlifeOffice,Ventura,CA.
UnitedStatesGeologicalSurvey(USGS).1997.LandslidepotentialinCalifornia[GISdata].Sacramento,
CA.
UnitedStatesGeologicalSurvey(USGS).2012.NationalHydrographyDatabase:streams,waterbodies,
andseepsandspringsinCalifornia[GISData].Sacramento,CA.
UniversityofCaliforniaatBerkeley(UCB).2013.SuddenOakDeathoccurrencesinNorthAmerica[GIS
data].AccessedApril2,2013at:http://nature.berkeley.edu/garbelotto/english/sodmap.php.
Weiss,StuartB.1999.Cars,cows,andcheckerspotbutterflies:Nitrogendepositionandmanagementof
nutrientpoorgrasslandsforathreatenedspecies.ConservationBiology13:14761486.

Appendix C-2:
History of Timber Harvests

Within the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
Prepared for:
December 2014 Prepared by:

Nadia Hamey (Hamey Woods), Matt Baldzikowski (Midpeninsula
Regional Open Space District) and Jodi McGraw (Jodi McGraw
Consulting)
CONTENTS
Introduction ................................................................................................... 1
Timber Harvest Regulations ............................................................................... 1
San Mateo County: ............................................................................................................... 1
Santa Clara County: ............................................................................................................. 3
Santa Cruz County: .............................................................................................................. 3
Timber Harvest History ..................................................................................... 4
History of Timber Harvest Regulations ....................................................................................... 5
Implications of Timber Management ..................................................................... 7
Forest Practice Rules and Their Benefits for Forest Ecosystems .................................. 8
Changes within Local Forests .............................................................................. 9
References .................................................................................................. 11
Appendix C-2: History of Timber Harvests

INTRODUCTION Harvests under THPs or NTMPs can occur at

most, every 10 years; however, a longer rotation is
Timber harvesting within the Midpeninsula
common. Of the acres approved for harvest under
Regional Open Space Districts jurisdiction
THPs in the past 16 years, 1, 346 acres (15%) have
(Figure 1) is primarily restricted to redwood and
been harvested twice over that time period. The
Douglas-fir dominated coniferous forest, with
average annual harvest rate within the District has
associated hardwood, primarily tanoak, madrone,
been approximately 618 acres over the past 15
California bay, black oak, and various live oaks.
years, with only approximately 5% coming from
These conifer-dominated areas are located in the
NTMPs, which are designed to provide for more
central and southern portions of the Districts
sustainable management.
boundary, with the greatest acreage occurring on
the western slope of the Santa Cruz Mountains
TIMBER HARVEST
just north of Big Basin State Park (Figure 1). Of
REGULATIONS
the 370,000 acres within the District boundary,
only 1,698 acres (0.4%) is within Santa Cruz Timber harvesting in the District jurisdiction is
County. Santa Cruz County, outside of the conducted pursuant to the California Forest
District boundary, is the County area with the Practice Rules (FPRs) and may be further
largest acreage of Timber Production Zone (TPZ) regulated by other state and federal statutes
parcels, and includes the largest acreage harvested [Endangered Species Act (ESA), Clean Water Act
within the Santa Cruz Mountains. (CWA), etc.]. Santa Cruz, San Mateo and Santa
Clara counties all have additional Special County
FPRs.
Timber Harvest Planning Documents
San Mateo County:
Timber Harvest Plan (THP): Plan for each timber
harvest or entry; THPs expire after 5-7 years Timber harvesting under a THP or NTMP is
Non-Industrial Timber Management Plan (NTMP): conducted pursuant to the FPRs. Due to
Long-term plan that allows periodic harvests on public concerns regarding timber harvests
ownerships of up to 2,500 acres of timberland, with occurring in rural-residential areas, the County
updates on sustainability analysis and biological Board of Supervisors in 1992 Implemented an
assessment prior to each harvest, when a notice of ordinance, restricting timber harvesting on
timber operations (NTO) is filed.
non-Timberland Preserve Zone (TPZ) zoned
parcels from occurring within 1,000 feet of any
legal residence on an adjacent parcel unless that
In the past 16 years, 9,425 acres have been adjacent landowner owner grants written
approved for operational harvest within the permission. Conversions are permitted for less
District (Figure 2). Timber Harvest Plans (THPs) than 3 acres, no more than once every 5 years
accounted for 8,781 acres and Non-Industrial per parcel. Exemptions are permitted for fire
Timber Management Plans (NTMPs) accounted hazard reduction, removal of dead, dying or
for 644 acres. An additional 995 acres have been diseased trees, and fire salvage. Approximately
approved for harvest in the six NTMPs within the three acres have been approved for conversion
District boundary, though have not yet been and approximately 229 acres have been
harvested. approved under exemptions (principally fire
hazard reduction) in the past two years.
Appendix C-2: History of Timber Harvests 1

Figure 1: Timber harvests and timber production zoning within the Districts boundary

Figure 2: Timber harvests within the Districts boundary (1997-2012)
Santa Clara County: concerns for the environment and harvesting

in rural-residential areas, the Board of
Timber harvesting under a THP or NTMP is
Supervisors in 1999 ruled that timber
conducted pursuant to the FPRs and is not
harvesting on all other zoning designations was
restricted by zoning. Santa Clara County did
not allowed, except for three acre or less
not designate and zone qualifying timberlands
conversion or exemption permits (primarily for
to TPZ as allowed by the California
fire reduction) .
Timberland Productivity Act (1982). Santa
Clara County has only one parcel zoned TPZ. Within the District boundary, most timberland is
Recent harvests have also occurred on land eligible for timber harvesting per zoning, given
zoned Ranchland And Hillsides as well as applicable County, State, and Federal regulatory
Other Public Open Lands. The latter constraints. The TPZ zoning in San Mateo
corresponds to a harvest in what is now Bear County (which is eligible for timber harvest
Creek Redwoods Open Space Preserve (OSP), without neighbor consent) covers approximately
which was approved prior to District 2% of the county area, though roughly 43% of the
acquisition. Approximately 17 acres were county contains forests that include some
approved within the county for fire hazard redwood trees. Of the 28,201 acres zoned for
removal exemptions, with no conversions, in timber production within the Districts boundary,
the last past two years. 4,583 acres (16%) are within District open space
preserves.
Santa Cruz County:
Timber harvesting is conducted pursuant to
the FPRs on parcels zoned Timber Production
(TP), Commercial Agriculture (CA - outside
the Coastal Zone), Parks Recreation and Open
Space (PROS) and Mining (M3). Given

TIMBER HARVEST HISTORY A proportionally small, yet biologically significant,

portion of the total old-growth forest within the
The extraction of forest products in the Santa
Santa Cruz Mountains was preserved and
Cruz Mountains began around 1777, with arrival
transferred to park land. In the mid-1880s,
of European settlers. Mechanical sawmilling began
individuals, agencies, and organizations initiated
around 1841. The first mechanical mills used
efforts to safeguard old-growth redwood forests.
water power to drive the saws. During this time,
In 1901, California Redwood Parkthe first
draft animals (oxen and horses) were primarily
redwood forest park and second California State
used to transport logs to the mills from the forest
Parkwas established in Big Basin, which is
and lumber to the end user. By the 1850s, steam
located in the southwestern portion of the District
began to replace water flow as the power source in
(Evarts and Popper 2011). Early California
many sawmills. Steam-driven log yarders (steam
redwood conservation efforts within the Santa
donkeys) were used in woods operations starting
Cruz Mountains are recognized as pioneering and
in the latter 1880s. With the development of new
exemplary, and helped grow the greater
technologies, the rate of harvest increased. Two
conservation movement in California. Some
seminal events contributed to increased forest
instrumental conservation organizations such as
resource extraction in the Santa Cruz Mountains:
the Save-the- Redwoods-League, and the
1. California gold rush, which began in 1849, Sempervirens Fund continue to conserve
and resulted in high demand for wood in San redwood, including old growth, within the Santa
Francisco, which had become the primary hub Cruz Mountains.
for materials and manpower destined for the
By 1940, forestland within the Districts boundary
gold fields; and
was comprised of predominantly robust stands of
2. The 1906 San Francisco earthquake and fire, small second-growth redwood and Douglas-fir
which destroyed many of the existing wood- ranging from ten to eighty years old, with remnant
frame structures (Standiford et al. 2012). stands of old growth located primarily in
protected lands or inaccessible areas on private
By the mid-1850s, many small sawmills were in
land. The next wave of harvesting focused on
existence throughout the portions of the District
cutting scattered residual old-growth and was
populated by redwood forest. These mills cut
conducted on a smaller scale than the turn of the
most of the accessible old-growth redwood trees
century operations. State regulations at the time
of good form, leaving scattered residual old
required that four seed trees per acre, eighteen
growth behind. There is no official definition of
inches in diameter or larger, be retained. All other
old growth; however, for the purposes of this
trees could legally be cut.
discussion, old growth refers typically to large
trees, with platy bark and deep fissures, large In July 1956, local timber operators voluntarily
limbs, reiterated tops, basal hollows, and cavities formed the Central Coast Timber Operators
(characteristics which also greatly enhance habitat Association (Original Documents of the Central
complexity), that also generally had been growing Coast Timber Operators Association). The
before European settlement. purpose of this organization was to create a
mutually agreeable set of logging standards
Clear-cutting of the old-growth
beyond what State and County regulation
redwood/Douglas-fir conifer forests of the Santa
required. The impetus for these self-imposed
Cruz Mountains continued more or less unabated
voluntary standards was the increasing public
until the mid-1920s. By 1930, most of the
concern over logging operations and their
contiguous stands of old-growth timber had been
potential effects on streams, roads, and
cut.
particularly drinking water. Some careless logging

operators whose lack of consideration for these Benefits of selective harvesting (the 60-40 Rule)
legitimate public concerns resulted in increasing can include: release of residual trees to improve
conflict between neighbors and timber harvesting. growth rates and add volume to specific retained
On August 14, 1956, the Central Coast Timber trees, management of specific tree species to shift
Operators Association adopted self-imposed rules species composition toward a desired composition
which included an assessment of surface water on and structure, and increase in separation of the
every proposed timber harvest site to determine horizontal and vertical continuity of fuels to
whether the water was being used for domestic reduce fire hazard.
purposes, rigorous confirmation of property lines
Interestingly, it was lopping requirement that had
and rights-of-way, strict attention to logging slash
the most immediate impact on timber operations
treatment and a prohibition of log hauling on
in the Santa Cruz Mountains. Timber fallers and
weekends and legal holidays. Discussions also
equipment operators could no longer knock down
began regarding developing practices for
or damage smaller conifers and hardwoods, at
improving stream crossings and road and landing
least not without incurring prohibitive cleanup
construction as well as establishing buffer zones
costs. As a result, the quality of timber operations
adjacent to creeks.
improved significantly (Dale Holderman and Bud
McCrary, pers. comm.).
History of Timber Harvest
Regulations
Timber Harvest Regulations
In 1967 the California Board of Forestry formed a in the District
sub-committee to discuss county-specific forest
1956 Central Coast Timber Operators
practice rules. It was during these discussions that
Association
the basic principles of selection silviculture began
to take shape. Three operational standards were 1960s: Santa Cruz County Rules
adopted at this time and formed the basis for 1973: Professional Foresters Law
single-tree selection silviculture in San Mateo, 1973: California Forest Practice Act
Santa Cruz and Santa Clara counties:
1982: Timberland Productivity Act/SB856
1. The 60-40 Rule: No more than 60 percent of
1976 and 1999 Special County Rules
trees 18 inches in diameter or larger could be
cut during any harvest entry and no more than
40 percent of the trees 8 to 18 inches could be
cut per entry; In 1973, the California State Legislature passed the
Zberg-Nejedly California Forest Practice Act,
2. 10-year Minimum Reentry Period: A enabling legislation that charged the California
minimum harvest entry interval of 10 years Board of Forestry and Fire Protection with
was established, based upon the practice of establishing the California Forest Practice Rules.
several local foresters at that time; and The 60-40 cutting rule became the operational
3. Lopping Requirement: All logging slash standard for the Southern Subdistrict of the Coast
must be cut to within 30 inches of the ground. District, which includes the Santa Cruz
This operation was first tested for economic Mountains. Many progressive landowners have
effectiveness by Big Creek Lumber Company historically harvested below this level.
on a harvest site in San Mateo County in the The Zberg-Nejedly California Forest Practice Act
1960s (Dale Holderman and Bud McCrary, permitted individual counties to create their own
pers. comm.). separate logging regulations as long as those
regulations were more protective than state

regulations. January 1, 1983 saw the passage of County Rules and rejected others. Interestingly,
California Senate Bill 856, which removed county the enacted rules that were allowed were
authority to regulate the conduct of timber remarkably similar to the operational standards
operations, including Santa Cruz, San Mateo, and adopted by the Central Coast Timber Operators
Santa Clara counties, which were actively Association during the 1950s.
regulating timber harvests at the time. This bill
Under California Forest Practice rules specific to
was enacted in response to timber industry outcry
the Southern Subdistrict of the Coast District
to a decision by the Santa Clara County Board of
(located primarily within the Santa Cruz
Supervisors in 1980 to not process County timber
Mountains), clearcutting has been outlawed since
harvest permits, which was viewed as effectively
1970. Since that time, single tree selection has
creating a de-facto prohibition (Martin 1989).
been the only silvicultural practice allowed in the
Local counties were also beginning to require
Southern Subdistrict. While clearly
Environmental Impact Reports (EIRs) under the
environmentally superior to the clearcutting that
Environmental Quality Act, and imposing
the Board of Forestry allows throughout the rest
environmental and operational requirements and
of the State, substantial road and log-landing
mitigations for timber harvests within the Santa
construction, and near-stream operations were
Cruz Mountains, to which the timber industry
often widely noted as substantial sources of
objected. Senate Bill 856 would have significantly
sediment pollution within the Santa Cruz
diminished county roles in overseeing harvesting
Mountains by the California Department of Fish
within their jurisdictions: counties would no
and Wildlife in stream surveys between the 1960s
longer had the ability to approve or deny timber
and 1980s. During the mid to late 1990s,
harvests within their jurisdictions; instead, those
additional stream habitat and water quality
decisions would be made by the State of
regulations were incorporated into the Forest
California.
Practice Rules to better protect forested
Recognizing the fact that counties might have watersheds with anadromous fish runs, and/ or
specific needs, and that some had actively been watersheds that had been designated as impaired
regulating timber operations, SB 856 enabled (polluted) by sediment by the Regional Water
individual counties to petition the Board of Quality Control Board, during timber operations.
Forestry for Special County Rules. The Board of
Increasing population and rural mountain
Forestry only allowed the six counties that
residential development have created pressures on
previously had regulated timber harvests, and were
redwood forestlands in California, and particularly
politically most boisterous and impacted by SB
on the Central Coast. Tensions resulting from
856, to propose such rules. These include San
population increases and ongoing residential
Mateo, Santa Clara and Santa Cruz counties, as
encroachment into forestlands in the District have
well as Monterey, San Francisco, and Marin
increased over time. Environmental deficiencies
counties. These six counties were allowed to
of timber harvests were often encountered by the
participate in the THP review process as
growing population of mountain residents, and
members of the Review Team for THPs within
conflicts between rural-residential uses and
their jurisdiction, and were given the ability to
expectations, and timber uses and expectations,
comment on and appeal THPs, though all final
have ensued. Significant new conflicts were
approval authority would remain with the State.
introduced with the addition of helicopter logging
The vast majority of counties with the vast
within rural residential areas, beginning in the mid-
majority of timber resources within the State were
1990s. Additionally, demographics of Santa Cruz
thus excluded from similar oversight. The Board
Mountain Counties have changed since the 1980s,
of Forestry passed some of the requested Special
with the influence of economic growth and

development in Silicon Valley. Residences within on forest structure and species composition, such
the forested mountains have become desirable as as increasing density of trees leading to a stagnated
retreats from the urban areas within easy condition when tree growth slows dramatically
commute distance. These circumstances have and stem exclusion or die off begins to take place.
created significant logistical and socio-political Shade-tolerant tree species that would otherwise
challenges that timber harvesting must now take be kept in check by forest management or historic
into account. fire intervals, such as Douglas-fir, can fill in the
understory thereby increasing competition.
In recent years, a couple of potential harvests, of
the many submitted to Cal Fire, have sparked Lack of forest management can also have other
public controversy and were eventually either environmental effects, including neglect of road
withdrawn or denied. These were Non-Industrial maintenance, which may cause failed drainage
Timber Management Plans and included: San Jose structures and damage to road infrastructure, as
Water Company and the San Francisco YMCA. well as increases in erosion and sediment delivery.
Significant issues raised by those opposing the Funds to maintain infrastructure (roads, erosion
harvests included: the indefinite, forever approval control, etc.) must be procured elsewhere; if
of NTMPs, which once approved cannot be funding is not available, adequate maintenance
amended; protection of old-growth and late-seral may not get done. The District has, and will
forests, watersheds, streams, and municipal and continue to direct substantial funds, and staff
domestic water supplies; impacts of helicopter resources to abandon/restore pre-existing
logging; effects on residential and recreational uses problematic timber road infrastructure, and to
on adjacent lands; loss of terrestrial habitat upgrade and maintain existing timber
important for preservation; increased fire risk; and infrastructure to maintain emergency and patrol
acreage limitations for NTMPs. access, access for restoration and environmental
stewardship, and access for recreational activities.
IMPLICATIONS OF TIMBER
When forest management is removed from the
MANAGEMENT
land, the presumed fire-surrogate effects of
Ecologically sustainable forestry can have harvesting are also absent. These effects include
numerous benefits. These benefits include: lopping of slash to reduce the fire hazard, as well
providing local, sustainable products for as reducing the horizontal and vertical continuity
consumers; supporting working forestlands that of fuels to alter fire behavior. The fire-surrogate
provide a buffer against the pressures of land effects of harvesting remain a topic of debate.
conversion and rural residential development; and, Logging can generate substantial slash, creating
in some cases, maintaining and promoting the need for lopping, and increasing forest floor
biological diversity in redwood forest ecosystems. fuel loads. The typical harvest rotation grows trees
Restoration forestry, which focuses on utilizing to a harvestable size (often within the 18 to 30
timber harvest to restore forests degraded by inches in diameter), then removes them, creating a
previous logging, may utilize limited harvest perpetually young, smaller diameter stand (within
entries to restore and promote increased the context of the overall age/ size range possible
biodiversity, including by accelerating growth and for these forests). Younger forests are typically
characteristics of older (late-seral) forests, and less resilient to fire than a larger older stand. Stand
adding complexity to younger stands that have replacement fires in old-growth forests, for
been biologically simplified by past harvest example, have been reported to have had
practices. recurrence intervals in the multiple hundreds of
The cessation of harvesting may have year time frame, a testament to the fire resiliency
environmental consequences which include effects of such older, larger, less dense stands. (Agee

1993, Arno and Fiedler 2005, Noss 2000, Kohm Another potential environmental consequence of
and Franklin 1997, FEMAT, 1993). exporting the procurement of forest products is
the fact that few (if any) locations elsewhere have
Absent forest management, other aspects of
forest practice regulations that provide the
stewardship may also be less likely to take place,
environmental protections currently in place on
including monitoring and controlling invasive
the Central Coast, which may result in increased
species, and potentially enhancing stream health
harvesting in a less protective manner somewhere
through restoration actions. Restoration forestry
else.
remains a tool to potentially balance revenue
needs for forest-related stewardship, enhance the Curtailing the supply of locally-available timber
resiliency to fire, and to promote/ accelerate also has a direct effect on forest products
forest ecological recovery to restore forests to a manufacturers. When the available supply of raw
more similar condition to the forests that material (logs) drops too low, the manufacturing
preceded European settlement. The THP process, facilities are at risk. This not only affects local
in addition to providing potential revenue for economies, it also may also place pressure on
restoration/ management, also potentially landowners to pursue other economic uses of
provides an expedited, less-costly process to their forestlands. This can include conversion of
undertake forest restoration and stewardship forests to other land uses, such as residential use.
activities, than other options, such as county Well-managed forests can foster ecosystem
development permit processes. integrity, while continuing to provide wood and
non-wood values.
There are potential environmental consequences
associated with limiting/reducing the amount of
land available for forest management on the Agencies Involved in Timber Harvest
Central Coast. Conversely, there are Review in the District
environmental benefits to sourcing raw materials
California Department of Forestry and Fire
locally, which subsequently become finished Protection (CAL FIRE)
products sold to local markets. Prior to the 2009 California Department of Fish & Wildlife
economic recession, the annual per capita
California Geological Survey
consumption of forest products used by individual
Californians was a little over 700 board feet. That San Francisco/Central Coast Regional Water
Quality Control Boards
is the equivalent of a tree 24 inches in diameter at
Counties of Santa Cruz, San Mateo, and Santa
the base and 100 feet tall. In order to supply Clara
California with its annual wood fiber needs, thirty-
six million times that volume had to be harvested.
Curtailing the supply of locally available timber FOREST PRACTICE RULES AND
has no effect on the overall production of forest THEIR BENEFITS FOR FOREST
products, as demand for these products doesnt ECOSYSTEMS
change. Eliminating the local supply simply
exports the procurement process to other The California Forest Practice Rules (FPR)
locations. The importation of forest products include provisions to protect the public trust
from outside of the region results in an increase in resources and mitigate negative cumulative
fossil fuel consumption. Sourcing, manufacturing, environmental effects. The rules have evolved
and selling products locally reduces this fuel since 1973 to incorporate specific rule sections
consumption. addressing watercourse protection, erosion
control, preservation of habitat values, sensitive
species protection, long-term sustained yield, and

fire hazard reduction, among other things. Many

of these revisions were made in response to public Timber Harvest within Conservation
and reviewing agency concerns that public trust Lands: Case Studies
resources were not being adequately protected, Byrne Forest: Since 1984, the Land Trust of Santa
and that significant cumulative environmental Cruz County has owned the 322 acre Byrne Forest,
effects were occurring, despite the FPRs. The the purchase of which was conditioned on ongoing
management for educational and recreational uses,
THP and NTMP have been determined through
and as a sustainable working forest. Seven
the courts to be functionally equivalent to an sustainable harvests over the last 25 years have
Environmental Impact Report. This includes the generated $3.9 million (in 2014 dollars) for ongoing
need to evaluate cumulative impacts, and also stewardship of the forest and other conservation
includes a public process as required by CEQA. lands in Santa Cruz County.
As regulatory documents, THPs and NTMPs are San Vicente Redwoods: Non-profit conservation
organizations in the Santa Cruz Mountains
reviewed in the office and in the field by a suite of
partnered to protect the 8,532-acre property, which
agencies (inset box). In addition, depending on features Conservation Areas, which will be
location and circumstances, THP and NTMPs are preserved without timber harvest, Restoration
reviewed by California State Parks, the National Areas, where timber harvest can occur to promote
Marine Fisheries Service, the U.S. Fish and the restoration objectives, and Working Forests
Wildlife Service, water districts, private road which will be managed using sustainable timber
harvest.
associations, or other resource professionals,
archaeologists, geologists, wildlife biologists, and
scientists, as well as the public.
Individual THPs and NTMPs require road and CHANGES WITHIN LOCAL
habitat assessments and provide the opportunity FORESTS
for proactive maintenance and restoration work to The Santa Cruz Mountains have been subjected to
address problems often resulting from past rural-residential development pressure, including
harvesting, and to improve property conditions. encroachment into forestlands for more than a
Forest Practice Rules addressing watercourse and century. This has often been preceded by timber
lake protection provide for equipment exclusion harvesting and related road (including railroad)
buffer zones, legacy tree retention and infrastructure. More recently, the transition of the
recruitment, and canopy preservation. Many of Santa Clara Valley into a regional economic
these rules have been strengthened since the mid- powerhouse has predictably placed extreme land-
1990s, in response to concerns statewide that the use pressures on adjacent rural lands including
FPRs were not adequately protecting associated local forestlands. It also created some speculation
resources. The recent adoption of Anadromous on forested properties, using timber harvesting as
Salmonid Protection Rules into the FPRs is a a way to pay for and construct residential
recent example of such revisions, aimed at infrastructure (access roads and building sites) for
preserving and enhancing watercourse health and future sale with the new amenities. These
riparian zone function to protect anadromous fish operations occurred on non-TPZ parcels, which
(salmonids) and their habitat from timber-harvest- had not recently been logged, and were often in
related impacts. proximity to other rural residences, perpetuating
conflict, and leading counties to resolve conflicts
through zoning restrictions.
Properties that historically were owned and
maintained with periodic selective harvesting as an

objective have now become desirable as upscale with a clear message and open communication,
rural-residential areas for Silicon Valley. and wildland-urban interface projects continue to
Continued harvesting may not meet the residential be successfully implemented within the Districts
objectives of all of these new landowners, and boundary.
these owners may have the financial resources to
Forest preservation efforts in the Santa Cruz
adequately manage and maintain their properties
Mountains have removed viable timberlands from
without the need for harvest income. This
harvest going back to at least the preservation of
continues the trend of economic pressure on local
Big Basin in the early 1900s, and has continued
forestlands, and has also resulted in a population
since. In the last thirty years, tens of thousands of
of new residents who may not have substantial
acres of potentially harvestable forestland have
knowledge of local logging practices or the areas
been acquired for parks and open space. While
longtime history of sustainable forest
many of these lands had been previously
management. Nonetheless, even well-informed
harvested, or could legally be harvested under
new property owners may still choose not to
current land use regulations, timber harvesting has
harvest their property. Demographic and
generally not been undertaken by the entities now
economic changes continue to further public
administering these lands. Two notable exceptions
discussion with elected representatives, various
to this trend are the Byrne Forest and the San
government regulatory agencies and the local
Vicente Redwoods property (inset box). Ongoing
forestry community.
and future conservation efforts will continue to
One such area of discussion is the wildland-urban purchase forest land in the area. Several open
interface areas which can be a threat to timber, space organizations, including the District, are
habitat and residential values as well. This now considering limited forest management,
interface may pose logistical problems for carrying where appropriate, as a mechanism to achieve
out beneficial management practices, as well as their conservation goals, which include forest
social hurdles to implement successful forestry restoration.
projects. These challenges can often be overcome

REFERENCES
Agee, James K. 1993. Fire Ecology of Pacific Northwest Forests. Island Press, Washington, DC.
Arno, Stephen F and Carl E. Fieldler. 2005. Minicking Natures Fire: restoring fire-prone forests in the west.
Island Press, Washington, DC.
Evarts, J. and M. Popper. 2011. Coast Redwood: A Natural and Cultural History. Second Edition. Cachuma
Press. Los Olivos, CA.
FEMAT. 1993. Forest ecosystem management: An ecological, economic, and social assessment. Report of the
Forest Ecosystem Management Assessment Team (FEMAT). 1996-793-071. Washington, DC: GPO.
Holderman, D. pers. comm. 2013. Correspondence between RPF # 69 and Previous Chief Forester at Big
Creek Lumber Company, Dale Holderman, and Nadia Hamey.
Kohm, Katheryn A. and Jerry F. Franklin editors. 1997. Creating a Forestry for the 21st Century, The science
of Ecosystem Management. Island Press, Washington DC.Land Trust of Santa Cruz County. 2014.
Information about the harvest history in the Byrne-Milliron Forest. Provided by Bryan Largay,
Director of Science. December 2014.
Martin, E. 1989. A Tale of Two Certificates: The California Forest Practice Program 1976 Through 1988.
State of California, The Resources Agency, Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, Sacramento,
California.
McCrary, B. pers. comm. 2013. Correspondence between Co-Owner of Big Creek Lumber Company, Bud
McCrary, and Nadia Hamey.
Noss, Reed F. editor. 2000. The Redwood Forest, History, Ecology and Conservation of the Coast
Redwoods. Island Press, Washington, DC.
Standiford, Richard B.; Weller, Theodore J.; Piirto, Douglas D.; Stuart, John D, technical coordinators. 2012.
Proceedings of coast redwood forests in a changing California: A symposium for scientists and
managers. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR-238. Albany, CA: Pacific Southwest Research Station, Forest
Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture.

Appendix C-3:
Conservation Value Analysis

for the Healthy Nature Theme of the Vision Plan
Prepared for:
October 2014 Prepared by:

Jodi McGraw, Ph.D.
Jodi McGraw Consulting
PO Box 221 Freedom, CA 95019
(831) 768-6988
www.jodimcgrawconsulting.com
CONTENTS
Introduction .................................................................................................... 1
Purpose ............................................................................................................................ 1
Overview .......................................................................................................................... 1
Methods ......................................................................................................... 1
Data Inputs ........................................................................................................................ 1
Model Weights and Scores ...................................................................................................... 1
Results .......................................................................................................... 2
Ecological Systems ............................................................................................................... 2
Watersheds........................................................................................................................ 2
Lands under District Stewardship.............................................................................................. 3
Summary........................................................................................................ 3
References ..................................................................................................... 2
Tables ........................................................................................................... 3
Figures ......................................................................................................... 15
List of Tables
Table 1: Weights applied to the scores of the main data layers incorporated in the conservation value analysis
model .............................................................................................................. 3
Table 2: Weights and scores for revised model to calculate conservation value ..................................... 4
Table 3: Data layers and scores for weighted overlay analysis for biodiversity........................................ 6
Table 4: Conservation value of land by protection status ................................................................. 9
Table 5: Subwatersheds ranked according to their average conservation value ...................................... 10
Table 6: Lands under District stewardship, ranked according to their average conservation value. ............. 14
List of Figures
Figure 1: Conservation Value ................................................................................................. 15
Figure 2: Average conservation value of land within each subwatershed ............................................. 16
Figure 3: Average conservation value of lands for which the District conducts stewardship ....................... 17
Appendix C-3: Conservation Value Analysis i

INTRODUCTION METHODS
Purpose Data Inputs
This report describes spatial analyses that were Table 1 lists data layers synthesized as part of the
conducted to characterize the relative biodiversity Healthy Nature component of the Vision Plan
conservation value of land within the Vision Plan which were integrated in the conservation value
Areaan approximately 370,000-acre area which analysis (Table 1). More detailed information
includes the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space about the data used in each theme is provided in
District jurisdiction, sphere of influence, and land the existing conditions report (JMc 2013).
holdings (Figure 1). The purpose of the analysis
Additional data used in the existing conditions
was to integrate multiple sources of spatial data,
report (JMc 2013), such as erosion and gullying
which were used to characterize existing
potential layers, fire ecology and fire hazard, and
conditions for biodiversity in the plan area (JMc
insolation (solar radiation), were evaluated for
2013a), to create a single data layer that can be
inclusion in the analysis; however, these and other
used to identify areas where land protection,
layers were excluded from the model because they
restoration, and stewardship projects can best
were determined to be insufficiently accurate,
advance the goals of the Vision Plans Healthy
precise, or complete, and/or they were deemed
Nature theme.
less relevant to locating land protection,
restoration, and stewardship projects.
Overview
Spatial data developed by the District and its Model Weights and Scores
conservation partners, as well as other publicly
To depict the relative importance of the various
available information depicting terrestrial and
data layers for determining conservation value,
aquatic ecosystems, rare species habitat and
each layer was assigned a weight; the weights of all
occurrences, and areas important for landscape
layers sum to 100, such that they represent the
connectivity, were synthesized in a geographic
percent of the total conservation value comprised
information system (GIS). This GIS was used to
by each layer (Table 1).
assess the individual conservation values
presented by these and other features, as outlined The layer weights were multiplied by the
in detail in the report, Biodiversity of the Midpeninsula normalized score assigned to each feature within
Regional Open Space District (JMc 2013). each layer (Table 2). Like the weights, the feature
scores were designed to reflect their relative value
The GIS was then used to conduct an overlay
for conservation (Table 3).
analysis in order to identify areas of co-occurring
features where conservation actions could achieve Scores for features were normalized within each
multiple benefits for biodiversity conservation. layer (divided by the maximum score) so that each
Weights were applied to the features to indicate had a maximum value of 1; as a result, the
their accuracy and relevance for directing maximum feature score, when multiplied by the
conservation work to achieve the Healthy Nature weight for the layer, equals the weight. The
theme goals. The resulting layer depicting the products of the weights and the normalized scores
relative value of land for conserving biological were summed as part of a simple, additive model
resources on District open space preserves, as well to characterize conservation value:
as adjacent lands, was used to inform priority Relative Conservation Value =
actions designed to promote goals of the Healthy 30 (vegetation) + 20 (streams) + 15 (watershed
Nature theme of the Vision Plan. value) + 10 (rare species) + 10 (patches) + 7.5
(terrestrial linkages) + 7.5 (aquatic linkages)
Appendix C-3: Conservation Value Analysis 1

RESULTS watersheds supporting salmonids including

the San Gregorio Watershed.
Within the Vision Plan Area, total conservation
value scores ranged between 3.75 and 83.96 and 4. Serpentine communities: Found primarily
averaged 36.0 (Table 4). District lands averaged on the interior foothills, these communities
6% higher conservation value than unprotected feature high concentrations of endemic plants
lands, and were similar in conservation value to and insects, including Bay checkerspot
other conservation lands, such as state parks. butterfly, most-beautiful jewelflower, fragrant
Average conservation value scores for fritillary, and San Mateo Thorn-mint; they also
unprotected lands may reflect, in part, lack of occur in watersheds that support steelhead
available data for rare species occurrences on including the San Francisquito Creek
these lands. Watershed.
5. Bay wetlands: Wetlands ringing the San
Ecological Systems
Francisco Bay support saltwater and brackish
Throughout the Vision Plan Area, areas of highest water marshesbiologically highly-significant
biodiversity conservation value are associated with communities that provide habitat for
the following systems and geographic areas numerous rare species including California
(Figure 1). seablite, northern harrier, California black rail,
1. Salmonid Streams: Coastal streams and California clapper rail, salt-marsh harvest
watersheds that support endangered coho mouse, and salt-marsh wandering shrew.
salmon and threatened steelhead, as well as 6. Ponds and Freshwater Wetlands: Scattered
streams and watersheds that drain to the San throughout the intact habitat, these aquatic
Francisco Bay and feature steelhead runs, are systems provide breeding habitat for many
important not only for rare salmonids, but rare species including San Francisco garter
also because they provide important landscape snake, California red-legged frog, California
linkages and are often lined with sensitive tiger salamander, and western pond turtle, and
riparian communities. tricolored blackbird, and provide a source of
2. Old-growth redwood forests: Located free water for terrestrial species.
primarily in the southwestern portion of the Land conservation and stewardship projects in
Vision Plan area, these previously uncut these and other high-value systems can maximize
stands of coast redwood and Douglas-fir the biodiversity conservation benefits.
forest support rare species including marbled
murrelet,Vauxs swift, sharp-shinned hawk, Watersheds
Coopers hawk, pileated woodpecker, and Land within the subwatersheds of the San
olive-sided flycatcher; they also often occur in Gregorio and Pescadero creek watersheds
watersheds supporting rare salmonids averaged the highest conservation value, along
including the Pescadero Creek Watershed. with land within the Gazos, Waterman Gap, and
3. Coastal terrace prairie grasslands: Located Soquel creek subwatersheds (Table 5, Figure 2).
on the rounded ridgetops on the coast side of These watersheds feature coast redwood forest,
the Santa Cruz Mountains, these grasslands coastal grasslands, and other intact terrestrial
support rare plants and animals, including communities as well as rare species occurrences;
diverse assemblages of rare birds including they are also important for endangered salmonids.
grasshopper sparrow, burrowing owl, white- Moreover, land within the southwestern
tailed kite, golden eagle, Swainsons hawk, and watersheds is part of the largest contiguous habitat
northern harrier; they also often occur in patch in the Santa Cruz Mountains, which covers

more than 60,000 acres and extends from Big SUMMARY

Basin to Highway 84. Maintaining habitat within
Within District-managed lands, as well as the
large contiguous habitat patches can promote
Vision Plan Area more broadly, priority aquatic
diversity in part by maintaining populations of
and terrestrial ecosystems, rare species
species that have large home ranges, such as
populations, and habitat patches and landscape
mountain lion (JMc 2013).
linkages, co-occur within the landscape, creating
Generally speaking, land protection as well as opportunities to achieve multiple benefits with
stewardship projects in these watersheds have the conservation actions in high conservation value
potential to result in greater benefits for both areas. Watersheds of high conservation value
terrestrial and aquatic species and communities. include the Gazos, Waterman Gap, and Soquel
However, site-specific conditions should be creek, as well as many subwatersheds within the
evaluated in prioritizing conservation actions. San Gregorio and Pescadero creek watersheds
(Table 5, Figure 2).
Lands under District Stewardship
Stewardship of District- managed lands has the
Comparison of mean conservation value of land potential to most greatly promote biodiversity
within 29 land holdings totaling more than 55,000 conservation goals within the Ravenswood, La
acres, for which the District is responsible for land Honda Creek, Russian Ridge, and Long Ridge
stewardship, revealed that the Ravenswood, La open space preserves, and Stevens Creek
Honda Creek, Russian Ridge, and Long Ridge Shoreline Nature Study Area; Skyline Ridge, El
open space preserves, and Stevens Creek Corte Madera Creek, St. Josephs Hill, Sierra Azul,
Shoreline Nature Study Area, averaged the highest Tunitas Creek, and Monte Bello open space
conservation value (Table 6, Figure 3). Other preserves also contain land featuring multiple co-
District-managed lands with above-average occurring biodiversity conservation values (Table
conservation value include: Skyline Ridge, El 6, Figure 3).
Corte de Madera Creek, St. Josephs Hill, Sierra
Protecting, buffering, connecting, restoring, and
Azul, Tunitas Creek, and Monte Bello open space
stewarding lands within these high priority
preserves (Table 6).
watersheds and land holdings, as well as other
All else being equal, habitat restoration and areas of high conservation value, can safeguard
management projects in these open space riparian and riverine habitat, old-growth redwood
preserves and other lands can have a greater forests, coastal terrace prairie grasslands,
benefit for biodiversity than elsewhere. However, serpentine communities, and ponds and wetlands.
conditions of the site and aspects of the habitat In so doing, such actions can promote
management project will ultimately determine the populations of the diverse suites of rare species
benefits of stewardship, and should be used to that they support, as well as help keep common
prioritize projects. species common. Prioritizing work in areas of
high relative conservation value can help advance
the goals of the Healthy Nature theme of the Vision
Plan. Conservation in these areas can also protect
working lands as well as scenic and cultural
resources, and provide opportunities for
compatible access and recreation.

REFERENCES
Jodi McGraw Consulting. 2015. Biodiversity of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District. A report to
aid development of the Healthy Plants, Animals, and Water Theme of the Vision Plan. Prepared by
Dr. Jodi McGraw with input on Forest Management from Nadia Hamey (Hamey Woods).
Submitted to the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District, Los Altos, CA. March 2015. 81
pages.

TABLES
Table 1:
Weights applied to the scores of the main data
layers incorporated in the conservation value
analysis model
Model Component Weight
Vegetation2 30
Streams 20
Watersheds 15
Rare Species 10
Habitat Patches 10
Terrestrial Linkage 7.5
Aquatic Linkage 7.5
Total 100
Individual data sources are listed in JMc 2015.
2
Also includes water bodies such as ponds.

Table 2: Weights and scores for revised model to calculate conservation value
Base Normalized Final
Score Score2 Weight Score
Vegetation Sensitive Communities 10 1.00 30 30.0
Biologically Highly Significant 8 0.80 30 24.0
Community
Uncommon Natural Vegetation 6 0.60 30 18.0
Fairly Common Natural Vegetation 5 0.50 30 15.0
Common Natural Vegetation 4 0.40 30 12.0
Non-native vegetation 2 0.20 30 6.0
Cultivated Areas 1 0.10 30 3.0
Urban 0 0.00 30 0.0
Streams Coho Stream 4.5 1.00 20 20.0
Steelhead Stream 4 0.89 20 17.8
Perennial tributary to a salmonid 3.5 0.78 20 15.6
stream
Ephemeral tributary to a salmonid 3 0.67 20 13.3
stream
Other Perennial Stream 2 0.44 20 8.9
Other Intermittent Stream 1 0.22 20 4.4
Watersheds Coho Core 4 1.00 15 15.0
Coho Phase I 3.5 0.88 15 13.1
Coho Phase II 3 0.75 15 11.3
Steelhead Non-Urban 2.5 0.63 15 9.4
Steelhead Urban 2 0.50 15 7.5
Other Non-Urban 1.5 0.38 15 5.6
Other Urban 1 0.25 15 3.8
Rare Species 3-4 mapped species 3 1.00 10 10.0
2 mapped species 2 0.67 10 6.7
1 mapped species 1 0.33 10 3.3
no mapped species 0 0.00 10 0.0
Habitat 76-100 percentile of patch size 4 1.00 10 10.0
Patch 51-75 percentile of patch size 3 0.75 10 7.5
26-50 percentile of patch size 2 0.50 10 5.0
1-25 percentile of patch size 1 0.25 10 2.5

Table 2: Weights and scores for revised model to calculate conservation value
Base Normalized Final
Score Score2 Weight Score
Not in a Habitat Patch 0 0.00 10 0.0
Terrestrial Within Choke Point 2 1.00 7.5 7.5
Linkage Within Remainder of Linkage 1 0.50 7.5 3.8
Not in terrestrial linkage 0 0.00 7.5 0.0
Aquatic Within Stream Corridor 2 1.00 7.5 7.5
Linkage Within Remainder of Stream Buffer 1 0.50 7.5 3.8
Not in aquatic linkage 0 0.00 7.5 0.0
Detailed information about these data layers and the features is provided in JMc 2015.
2
Base score divided by the maximum value for the layer.

Table 3: Data layers and scores for weighted overlay analysis for biodiversity.
Layers Description Scores Explanation
Vegetation2 Land cover types with ratings Sensitive Communities (10) Scores reflect biodiversity value of vegetation
reflecting relative conservation Biologically Important Community (8) and other land cover types for biodiversity.
value Uncommon Natural Vegetation (6) Higher scores are assigned to sensitive
communities (e.g. serpentine grassland), as
Fairly Common Natural Vegetation (5)
well as those that provide important habitat,
Common Natural Vegetation (4)
including those that promote persistence of
Non-native vegetation (2) endangered species (riparian areas). Other
Cultivated Areas (1) native communities are scored based on their
Urban (0) occurrence in the Vision Plan Area. Non-
native vegetation of greater value than
cultivated areas, which in turn are more
valuable for biodiversity conservation than
urban areas as the former can be more
readily restored and is more permeable.
Streams Priority streams for aquatic Tier 1a: Coho Stream (4.5) Scores and buffer widths reflect stream
biodiversity and the adjacent Tier 1b: Steelhead Stream (4) values based on anadromous fish distribution
riparian areas. Streams will be Tier 2a: Perennial tributaries to a and hydrology (perennial streams were
buffered to protect riparian salmonid stream (3.5) assigned higher value than intermittent
corridors, with the width of the streams).
Tier 2b: Ephemeral tributaries to a
buffer greater for high-rated
salmonid stream (3)
streams:
Tier 3: Other Perennial Stream (2)
Tier 1-3: 100 feet
Tier 4: Other Intermittent Stream (1)
Tier 4: 50 feet

Watersheds Relative value of land within each Tier 1a: Coho Core (4) Coho watersheds are the highest priority, and
watershed for protecting stream Tier 1b: Coho Phase I (3.5) scored based on the recovery plan
biodiversity Tier 1c: Coho Phase II (3) designations. Other watersheds are scored
based on whether they support steelhead and
Tier 2a: Steelhead Non-Urban (2.5)
then their extent of development. In already
Tier 2b: Steelhead Urban (2)
urbanized watersheds, protecting land within
Tier 3a: Other Non-Urban (1.5) the watershed is less likely to promote
Tier 3b: Other Urban (1) stream conditions, hence the reduced value.
Rare Species Frequency of overlapping rare Score reflects the frequency of rare Scores based on frequency in categories
species occurrences species occurrence areas: rather than raw numbers, to reduce their
>3-4 species (3) variability and in recognition that the data
2 species (2) are not comprehensive, and certain areas
(e.g. public lands, particularly District lands)
1 species (1)
have more records due to higher frequency of
No mapped rare species (0)
surveys and reports.
Habitat Intact habitat patches (contiguous, Normalized habitat patch sizes classified Larger areas of intact habitat can support
Patches vegetated areas not separated by using natural breaks: more species, including populations of
roads or development, scored 36-100% of max. patch size (4) species with large home ranges, and can be
according to their size) or aquatic 15-35% of max. patch size (3) more effectively managed to maintain
habitat patches. viability.
5-14% of max. patch size (2)
0-4% of max. patch size (1)
Outside of habitat patch (0)
Terrestrial The terrestrial linkage from the Bay Within choke point (2) The choke point across Highway 17 is most
Linkages Area Critical Linkages project, with Within remainder of linkage (1) critical for terrestrial.
the area around Highway 17 being
most critical to maintaining


connectivity within the Santa Cruz
Mountains
Aquatic Aquatic linkages are streams that Stream corridor (stream and 100 foot The Bay Area Critical Linkages project
Linkages support salmonids buffer) (2) identified streams and buffered them by 2 km
Stream buffer (1 km buffer) (1) (1 km on each side of the stream) to
designate a linkage. This scoring system
recognizes that the immediate stream
corridor (stream and 100 feet buffer) is most
crucial, with the other 1 km also important.
Detailed information about these data layers and the features is provided in JMc 2015
2
Also includes water bodies such as ponds

Table 4: Conservation value of land by protection status

Conservation Value
Standard
Land Status Average Minimum Maximum Deviation
District Lands (Fee and Easement) 37.0 3.8 78.6 12.2
Other Protected Lands 37.0 3.8 84.0 15.0
Private, Unprotected Land 34.9 3.8 80.3 14.9
All Land 36.0 3.8 84.0 14.5

Table 5: Subwatersheds ranked according to their average conservation value

Conservation Value
Standard
Rank Subwatershed Major Watershed Acres Average Minimum Maximum Deviation
1 Tarwater Creek Pescadero 1,194 45.9 19.9 78.4 9.8
2 Slate Creek Pescadero 1,929 43.8 22.9 78.4 10.0
3 Langley Creek San Gregorio 273 43.7 21.9 73.4 9.5
4 Gazos Creek 7,174 43.0 18.8 80.3 9.3
5 Little Butano Creek Pescadero 2,607 42.6 27.0 74.3 10.0
6 Upper Pilarcitos Creek 89 42.0 16.9 55.8 8.5
7 Bogess Creek San Gregorio 2,542 41.9 18.8 75.3 8.7
8 Harrington Creek San Gregorio 3,092 41.2 18.3 78.6 7.8
9 Peters Creek Pescadero 6,307 40.6 16.9 84.0 10.5
10 Alpine Creek San Gregorio 3,548 40.6 15.0 75.3 10.1
11 Upper Pescadero Creek Pescadero 3,817 40.3 16.9 84.0 8.5
12 South Fork Butano Creek Pescadero 1,961 39.6 25.0 74.3 8.1
13 Oil Creek Pescadero 2,819 39.6 22.9 78.4 6.3
14 Honsinger Creek Pescadero 1,682 39.4 22.9 76.7 9.0
15 Waterman Creek 1,175 39.3 16.9 68.7 6.7
16 Mindego Creek San Gregorio 2,464 39.3 15.0 75.3 8.0
17 Kingston Creek San Gregorio 787 39.2 18.8 72.5 7.7
18 Upper Butano Creek Pescadero 6,010 39.2 15.0 74.3 8.0
19 Soquel Creek Soquel 710 39.2 15.0 69.0 5.5
20 Pescadero Creek Pescadero 13,633 38.6 19.1 80.6 10.7
21 El Corte de Madera Creek San Gregorio 4,742 38.4 16.9 74.5 9.7
22 San Gregorio Creek San Gregorio 5,371 38.1 18.8 77.5 11.1
23 Woodruff Creek San Gregorio 1,923 37.4 13.1 73.4 8.5
24 Woodhams Creek San Gregorio 545 37.3 16.9 59.2 8.6
25 Waddell Creek 812 37.0 16.9 70.2 10.1
26 Coyote Creek San Gregorio 1,126 36.6 19.1 70.6 8.5
27 Clear Creek San Gregorio 956 36.0 16.9 70.6 10.2
28 Whitehouse Creek 1,836 35.8 13.1 72.0 8.1
29 Dry Creek (Pilarcitos) Tunitas 1,495 35.2 13.1 67.4 9.2
30 Lower Butano Creek Pescadero 3,205 35.1 14.3 72.4 10.8
31 Pomponio Creek 4,548 35.1 19.1 68.0 8.6
32 SF Bay and Estuary 33,374 34.7 7.5 71.9 9.1


Conservation Value
Standard
33 Bradley Creek Pescadero 3,918 34.1 17.3 71.3 9.1
34 East Fork Tunitas Creek Tunitas 1,490 33.9 13.1 69.7 8.5
35 Uvas Creek 154 33.8 19.1 55.1 6.4
36 Mills Creek Pilarcitos 2,419 33.8 13.1 69.7 9.6
37 Weeks Creek San Gregorio 644 33.6 13.1 63.5 9.0
38 Alamitos Creek Watershed Guadalupe 4,983 33.4 7.5 61.4 6.3
39 La Honda Creek San Gregorio 3,940 33.4 16.5 68.4 9.6
40 Upper Guadalupe Creek Guadalupe 3,059 33.4 9.4 64.1 6.8
41 Lawrence Creek San Gregorio 1,557 33.3 16.9 56.5 4.9
42 Guadalupe Creek Guadalupe 4,065 32.4 7.5 67.1 8.4
43 Frenchman's Creek 2,622 32.1 12.4 68.0 7.3
44 Lobitos Creek 2,580 31.9 16.0 67.8 9.7
45 Apanolio Creek Pilarcitos 1,251 31.8 13.1 72.2 7.8
46 Arroyo Leon Pilarcitos 3,020 31.2 13.1 69.7 10.0
47 Tunitas Creek Tunitas 4,472 31.0 13.1 68.0 8.7
48 Bear Creek San Francisquito 1,087 30.6 13.1 64.7 12.0
49 Denniston Creek 2,578 30.5 13.1 72.2 8.0
50 West Union Creek San Francisquito 3,548 29.1 13.1 59.0 5.6
51 Arroyo de los Frijoles 2,251 29.0 5.6 56.6 7.1
52 Los Trancos Creek San Francisquito 4,473 29.0 11.3 62.8 8.5
53 East Waddell Creek 11 28.5 18.3 40.3 7.3
54 Upper Stevens Creek Stevens 10,837 28.2 8.6 60.8 6.9
55 Bear Gulch San Francisquito 1,939 28.1 13.1 58.7 5.0
56 Cold Dip Creek 1,106 28.1 8.6 65.3 10.6
57 Upper Los Gatos Creek Guadalupe 23,688 27.8 5.6 62.8 8.0
58 San Lorenzo River San Lorenzo 213 27.6 13.1 46.9 6.7
59 Cascade Creek 1,334 27.2 5.6 58.3 9.3
60 San Pedro Creek 1,466 27.2 11.3 70.3 6.9
61 Pilarcitos Creek Pilarcitos 3,829 27.0 7.5 66.1 10.0
62 Purisima Creek 5,649 26.7 5.6 57.0 6.7
63 Corte Madera Creek San Francisquito 9,290 26.1 7.5 60.8 7.3
64 Albert Canyon Pilarcitos 735 25.6 7.5 57.9 8.2


Conservation Value
Standard
65 Upper San Mateo Creek 556 25.4 5.6 43.4 10.7
66 W. Branch Permanente Cr. Permanente 2,263 25.1 7.5 54.2 6.6
67 Nuff Creek Pilarcitos 683 25.0 5.6 49.8 5.9
68 Madonna Creek Pilarcitos 1,073 24.9 11.6 57.2 7.9
69 San Vicente Creek (SMCO) 1,057 24.8 3.8 47.9 7.5
70 Pillar Point Marsh 763 24.0 3.8 48.9 10.2
71 Dry Creek San Francisquito 1,012 23.8 9.4 60.9 12.4
72 Martini Creek 822 23.7 5.6 37.1 4.3
73 Unknown Coastal Creek 7,664 23.2 5.6 65.3 9.3
74 Soquel Creek 165 23.0 9.4 49.4 8.6
75 Saratoga Creek San Tomas Aquino 7,763 21.3 3.8 50.7 8.1
76 Montara Creek 1,035 19.8 3.8 50.1 7.7
77 Green Oaks Creek 1,140 19.7 8.6 55.2 10.8
78 Arroyo de en Medio 1,621 19.7 3.8 53.0 9.2
79 Arroyo Canada Verde 2,025 18.2 9.8 41.5 8.2
80 Los Gatos Creek Guadalupe 5,147 18.1 3.8 57.6 10.9
81 Corinda Los Trancos Cr. Pilarcitos 561 18.1 7.5 56.8 8.3
82 San Francisquito Creek San Francisquito 8,960 18.1 7.5 71.9 12.2
83 Kanoff Creek 400 16.3 3.8 38.6 9.7
84 Permanente Creek Permanente 5,492 15.4 7.5 59.2 9.8
85 Adobe Creek 7,679 15.2 3.8 50.7 9.8
86 Deer Creek 961 15.1 3.8 48.5 6.9
87 Stevens Creek Stevens 10,282 14.7 7.5 65.3 9.4
88 Matadero Creek Matadero 5,705 13.6 3.8 38.2 10.9
89 San Tomas Aquino Cr. San Tomas Aquino 6,283 13.2 3.8 48.2 10.9
90 Hale Creek Permanente 2,292 12.8 7.5 50.8 7.8
91 Ross Creek Guadalupe 2,943 12.7 3.8 42.6 8.9
92 Cordilleras Creek 4,169 8.7 3.8 40.4 8.5
93 Guadalupe River 286 8.5 7.5 11.3 1.7
94 Calabazas Creek 10,721 8.5 3.8 59.6 8.6
95 Barron Creek Matadero 2,017 6.8 3.8 37.5 4.5
96 Atherton Channel 8,386 6.3 3.8 41.5 6.2


Conservation Value
Standard
97 Redwood Creek 7,304 5.8 3.8 41.1 6.1
98 Sunnyvale Channel 9,403 5.1 3.8 55.8 5.1
99 Belmont Creek 760 3.9 3.8 19.3 1.4

Table 6:
Lands under District stewardship, ranked according to their average conservation value.
Conservation Value
Standard
Rank Unit Under District Stewardship Acres Average Minimum Maximum Deviation
1 Ravenswood OSP 283.4 40.9 7.5 45.8 4.0
2 La Honda Creek OSP 5,712.5 40.6 16.5 78.6 8.5
3 Stevens Creek Shoreline Nature Study Area 59.8 39.1 11.3 62.4 4.1
4 Russian Ridge OSP 3,123.8 38.2 11.3 75.3 8.5
5 Long Ridge OSP 1,976.8 36.8 21.4 78.4 7.9
6 Skyline Ridge OSP 2,029.0 35.8 15.0 78.4 8.7
7 El Corte de Madera Creek OSP 2,772.7 34.9 13.1 74.5 6.2
8 St. Joseph's Hill OSP 181.4 34.4 11.3 53.9 8.9
9 Sierra Azul OSP 18,317.9 32.7 9.4 69.0 6.1
10 Tunitas Creek OSP 1,630.6 32.4 11.6 69.7 9.1
11 Monte Bello OSP 3,159.5 30.8 11.6 60.8 6.6
12 Purisima Creek Redwoods OSP 4,632.5 29.8 15.4 67.8 7.1
13 Felton Station 44.4 29.4 8.6 36.5 4.4
14 Teague Hill OSP 617.3 29.2 19.1 59.0 4.7
15 Windy Hill OSP 1,375.9 29.1 14.3 60.8 6.6
16 Miramontes Ridge OSP 1,619.1 29.1 11.6 69.7 9.2
17 Picchetti Ranch OSP 293.4 28.6 15.4 48.1 5.3
18 Los Trancos OSP 276.2 28.2 13.5 47.3 5.7
19 Fremont Older OSP 732.6 27.7 3.8 60.8 5.6
20 Rancho San Antonio Co. Pa 286.9 27.7 7.5 50.8 10.4
21 El Sereno OSP 1,417.6 27.2 15.8 49.4 3.6
22 Saratoga Gap OSP 1,578.7 26.6 15.4 55.8 4.8
23 Coal Creek OSP 489.8 25.8 9.4 54.6 5.3
24 Rancho San Antonio OSP 2,147.9 25.8 7.5 54.2 6.1
25 Foothills OSP 239.0 23.8 9.8 50.7 4.7
26 Thornewood OSP 153.7 22.9 13.5 44.8 6.2
27 Pulgas Ridge OSP 364.9 21.6 3.8 38.2 8.0
28 Bear Creek Redwoods OSP 1,377.1 20.1 5.6 51.3 6.1
All Lands under District Stewardship 56,895 30.3

FIGURES
Figure 1: Conservation Value

Figure 2: Average conservation value of land within each subwatershed

Figure 3: Average conservation value of lands for which the District conducts stewardship

2015 Midpen Open Space District

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

2015 Midpen Open Space District

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

TAB1

Biodiversity of the Midpeninsula

March 2015 Prepared by:

Appendix C-1: Biodiversity of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District ii

Appendix C-1: Biodiversity of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District iv

Appendix C-1: Biodiversity of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District v

Appendix C-1: Biodiversity of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District vi

Redwood-Douglas Fir Forests

Appendix C-1: Biodiversity of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District ix

TERRESTRIAL COMMUNITIES VegetationConservationValues

Appendix C-1: Biodiversity of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 1

Sensitive and Biologically-Highly Significant Communities

Appendix C-1: Biodiversity of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 2

Table 1: Vegetation within the District Vision Plan Area

Appendix C-1: Biodiversity of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 3

Table 1: Vegetation within the District Vision Plan Area

Appendix C-1: Biodiversity of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 4

Appendix C-1: Biodiversity of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 5

Appendix C-1: Biodiversity of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 6

Figure 1: Vegetation and other land cover

Appendix C-1: Biodiversity of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 7

Figure 2: Sensitive plant communities

Appendix C-1: Biodiversity of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 8

Appendix C-1: Biodiversity of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 9

AQUATIC COMMUNITIES StreamConservationValues

Appendix C-1: Biodiversity of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 10

Appendix C-1: Biodiversity of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 11

Table 4: Streams reaches supporting rare salmonids (Tier 1)

Appendix C-1: Biodiversity of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 12

Table 4: Streams reaches supporting rare salmonids (Tier 1)

Appendix C-1: Biodiversity of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 13

Appendix C-1: Biodiversity of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 14

Appendix C-1: Biodiversity of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 15

Appendix C-1: Biodiversity of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 16

Figure 4: Stream reaches according to their priority for conservation

Appendix C-1: Biodiversity of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 17

Figure 5: District subwatershed information from prior plans

Appendix C-1: Biodiversity of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 18

Figure 6: District subwatershed rating for conservation

Appendix C-1: Biodiversity of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 19

Ponds and Other Water Bodies

Appendix C-1: Biodiversity of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 20

Figure 7: Ponds and other water bodies

Appendix C-1: Biodiversity of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 21

Table 6: Rare and locally unique plants

Appendix C-1: Biodiversity of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 22

Table 6: Rare and locally unique plants

Appendix C-1: Biodiversity of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 23

Table 6: Rare and locally unique plants

Appendix C-1: Biodiversity of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 24

Table 7: Rare and locally unique animals

Appendix C-1: Biodiversity of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 25

Table 7: Rare and locally unique animals

Appendix C-1: Biodiversity of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 26

Appendix C-1: Biodiversity of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 27

Appendix C-1: Biodiversity of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 28

Figure 8: Known rare species occurrences

Appendix C-1: Biodiversity of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 29

Appendix C-1: Biodiversity of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 30

Appendix C-1: Biodiversity of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 31

Figure 9: Habitat patch and landscape linkages

Appendix C-1: Biodiversity of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 32

Type Threat Impacts

Appendix C-1: Biodiversity of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 33