The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About01. Stevens Creek Corridor "",I ~\~T . . CU PEIQ1NO Parks and Recreation Department CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT STUDY SESSION Agenda Item Number l Agenda Date: January 17,2006 ISSUE Stevens Creek Corridor Park Study Session BACKGROUND Two years ago, we created kits to assist community visionaries in communicating ideas for the Stevens Creek Corridor Park Project. The visioning exercise was concluded in September 2004 with consensus that the new park should have, at its core, a restored creek. The January 17 study session will focus on progress made toward implementing the community vision. Our presentation will take approximately 40 minutes with 20 minutes for questions and answers. The enclosed background information includes: · Preview of the PowerPoint presentation for the meeting · A color-coded project description by project phase · A plan for Blackberry Farm improvements · Creek restoration schematics · A grant tracking summary sheet · The technical studies prepared in support of the environmental document The Parks and Recreation Commission received this briefing on January 5, and Santa Clara Valley Water District staffreceived the same on January 9. We are scheduled to give this presentation to the Fisheries and Aquatics Habitat Collaborative Effort (FAHCE) group on January 24. We are preparing for the release of the environmental document in February, at which point, the Environmental Review Committee and Planning Commission will take up the public process. Our schedule calls for 2007 construction of those items in the color-coded project description printed in green. Improvements shown in blue may be funded in 2007; we are awaiting word on a $784,000 grant application that would pay for them. The Reach Three improvements shown in the project description in red have no funding associated Printed on Recycled Paper (~I January 17, 2006 Page 2 of2 Stevens Creek Corridor Park Study Session with them at this time and we have not yet begun grant writing for this portion of the work. It is likely that Reach Three will not be constructed until 2009. RECOMMENDATION No action will be required for the City Council following the study session; the next Council action required would be the approval of the environmental document following Environmental Review Committee and Planning Commission review. Respectfully submitted: Approved for submission to City Council: ~tm- Therese Ambrosi Smith, Director Parks and Recreation Department ~ David W. Knapp, City Manager g:\parks and recreation admin\1 stevens creek coITidor\staff reports\cc study session 011706 staff rpt.doc I-"t #1 · Early in the visioning process the City Council directed that creek restoration drive the park improvement project · The environmental document we will release in February includes a description of a park where habitat restoration, community use and revenue generation coexist with a multiuse trail · The most significant aspect of the restoration effort is the removal of barriers to fish passage and the realignment of Stevens Creek 1 · The Santa Clara Valley Water District staff and our consulting biologists, hydrologists, and geomorphologists have been working for eight months to identify the alignment that best achieves the project objectives · The process included a physical survey ofthe creek, analysis of flow data, review of historical information, and preparation and review of a number of biological reports · The landscape architect tasked with designing the park then met with Blackberry Farm staff to work out the details of the park plan. Factors considered by the landscape architect included: - Blackberry Farm Picnic Grounds operations: creating a community park around an existing business - Locating permanent structures out of the flood plain - Retaining as many trees as possible, and - Addressing resident concerns 2 City Council actions to date that have been incorporated into the current plan: · Reduce the capacity of the picnic area to 800 persons rrom the current 4,000 person capacity - reduce the parkland given over to parking · Extend the trail rrom Stevens Creek Blvd. through McClellan Ranch to McClellan Road · Close access rrom Scenic Circle · The most significant change to the park plan involves the creek realignment · We have worked in partnership with the Water District so that flood control and habitat goals are addressed · The stream shifts in two areas to reclaim a more natural alignment horizontally and achieve a desirable gradient after the vertical barriers to fish passage are removed 3 '~:~~·;:;~~i~itS~J;_!~ ';',~ !.~ ":¡' .. : " . -.IV _, ~.~ - >~. ," 4- " :> : ~';'i ;:,r :,:.. ;;; ~ :" .;.:..... '.;:.:.." t; -~, .......-~.;~....., .- - .--. ,~ . '~~" , "':-'~ ;.,' .:/:, '." , _~J~ ,'I." ,,-. '.'. . .~): L .d' '. :~~~: ... " _:/P...I .... :~. ,. i, ,'~ , I " I .. " ~.~~... " ',' I' "--i ;'~ ,.~ >:, :~~ ,-;..:~': ~::~ ::.~ ",'" 'þ'., ,? - 'í .......-.~j -..... i..~·:·'.A,····,,···~·' '-' ,"'j;~j J; .......'( - :,_ -, . -', . .:J ~~ ,._,;oj 1:,.;-"';; ... ~. -~--,_.. . . '-'-.', '- ,. ~ :~i " c. . , j', 'oi:~ 'Di~' .~.' . ,j ~.,~ ~;. ~.;,: .,~ .~~, . -. . .~. ..:-.... .. . . i:~ ~:~ ,,1, 11'1' \.' <.,d .' ",'}.. ~ . ,i~-~; ...;,~.;; ~ /~~,~~~'; ~"h.C;:"'.,~_,.' ,.:~.~,'~~",'.:' ." .¡-~ ..J; ,I' - .;.. . .(......: ;.._~.<~.'i.~r·'J ~t' .. It. "~ .."..,., . ..>,.:' ;' ... ;¡,. ;¡þ' . _ I i ~ . ,,' ,}¡'; -;' ~,~ t '~.-:(~":;;;J~~-:'~,::;~r?:f:\~" *' ,,'" "," "..~,~'," :~",~'fJ; 00'-..: .~ ,.>I.:t, .,-" ......"'- ".." ,~ .... fl ,,~ ,. '" ,.(> " . _,"", -~..::;.) 'I ,<c .:J-~'-"""'~.i!,., ',"U~·" "1, ~.~':m,~:~I~;;I':',,~~~ ~Ot .~..J ,_J ". ~ ,", ,;;;", "./' '<. f' ~ J "~'" . ...... '" ."'''''.....~... ~~- "'. . ' - . ." r,-.f _ ~ ..... _ r .~~.. ,'1.. . .... t; "..... _ _ ~ :.It...... . ..- ~,-,"- '" _..: .."... "fI"'I' " '" ~v I ~ '.; , ',;:¡~ . ~ l~ ,- ... ~.__ ~.. ~'. i..-I""'1·:¡.. '" I,,',f'__'""I ,.,..~~"......~ " _._ ".... .j:l.;....'!,. t. ' ... [~\ . " J.. .' . . .'" ~r . '. "'.,_. >', ;i,·...'\I j', ~,~~..,-.-~}2~.,:~~;'?~. -'~,." I:~¡'~'- ·V.. -.'.?,,,.'~.'."::"""',' ,}.~ .....:_nJ -,.-' .Ii:- ...' ~,' ;': ..... ~:~ , :,' .. ~'~ ":._"; ;,. 1 . ,::!,.}:(~' .;:,:. .';' ... _,<,_ '-':~::f.~ ~. '. . , Channel Realignment - Reaches A & B 4 -'''''', , .... ~""~, -àb¡(~~ . ~ ~£W~COAAIOOR,\ Restored area Which is currently parking area ] D Ô0 Proposed creek aligrunent will allow removal of barriers to fish passage ~ Restoration planting Current creek _" _ ' ' . , , aligrunent Creating Fish and Riparian Habitat Pool and Riffle Creek Diagram Stream Flow . Riffles Stream Flow .- '---~~-"pó~1 ---"<;:"'";,,,<,:,,:,._ )I Riffles ·~:"~:~b:~~~~~~/:~¿.:~"'~ '--"~--"--~-po~l: - ~~"~:'~~., .___ _ . _,' _. «':,('<,-\-~.~ ,?~. Permeable O.Wi¡~~~oQ~~:7;"~~~. '1-(;' ,.~ Sedí~nIS, "~("1-(¡'~;':- :r'''''~«;'-' " . -------. " ,/.', BEDROCK BEDROCK Ox¡"',., River & SlrcaR1 ReslOla!lon,mc. 5 }~- ,-,'._,)--. l: i!XI'LANo\1ION J~_","-", "._ ----.)_ ;-:-J ......,:{ J _ j~~;~1!;t~~:~f" ill:~' />';';~"v, ¿:';;'i' , ;;y~,> ".' , ! ~"é';-/:~c='<j ! </tp.~f~¡'J::-~~;t ~ - ~ ~ - r:~-:'T~_~~)_~j~:~-,j:~~ , , i ':.. ~,,,,,,¥, n ',' c,'>"",,;',,:,) "~,'~,; -_e::- j~~ ~ ~ "~J:: _'. , < (> , :~--_:(~;__'c~~). /7;;:)'<-/'>-;:?---/":. '2£1 ~ \~, iJ i,~,t~l+:- \' ~'í' ,-' /:- -,-;':, ~o \,/ - ~;-:i.:~~;:!(~:i:~-:-": 'T--~7:-.,-;~-v',:~"8.:".i,,~~ /-.,.' :_1 ~.~' _k ¿- f~~~J~~~~ _.,;L>:~:~~'}{-r~b~.~~ ~'-~:-:;~:~~</t' (\il n O!'-.-~·~~~: l¡,_(.., " /" ".J;. ~~_~,-'-::--:-; ~.~ '- I j ",,--II/ ,. (I --:>..~,-- l?í>;~\~ __~. ~ / ;.: ~~.. - ~~~:" 'J 1 ~ ) " ;;¿{;;-:'~~'¡(-C~;'~'\ - , i (c'(" ;--¿;U~;C ;::'~},) 'e,.>,',.,~""~,'_,:.~,i,,,'"~,,~,',',,',,t,';'~';('~~,:,>- ~;1:r;~;t»$ / < !~i7'~;t~'L,.L,~,_:;~~ (pi 'i;' ~l" ¡\, ,,, ,/ :.efT é' / ~_A",'='. 9) -'~:~,,"""~",,?, - ,," \. \,,~ > ' ,,$ (2 -1/ ,', ,-=--<, :"-'. ,-=-~--:;.;::;< ~rlr~~ ~f{Ç\,'~:,i\:'~\'~+~\S§}~,;~t~('l. "'t?~:- f ' 1-,' ) l.-: " ¡ V:Y-';-' :t_,,'\~-------)- ..-:s::.'\ [, _,--' ._./-"::?-",-,o- ..,l "\;1 ;: '--::-:~~>':,;;j/,:--c.::::---- \->",---~:''"¿C- t:~%~j;-:) o:ò~jc/>:=~ J i" II1II """CAlI""" -'CIIØI<""",,",,", ~:,::¡....... ",.c~~ 0- -~~ '!Jr ........"'(..m...cfUAf ,E. .___A.I.."'____ -_._--_. _.,.'.... __....-...._"""_1'0I<I20U) 6 '" Riffle Deslnn Goals: Riffle Length-40ft. (+/-20 ft.) Riffle Slope· 2.3% (+/-1.0%) RIIYIeSpedng· 130ft. (+/-75 ft.) Pool Length· 80 ft. (+/. 40 ft.) . "" '" '" 31< __longProfe . Riffles '" 308 308 364 302 RiHlespaçlog:1lJ2feet (R3\0 R4) ~fI: (R4toR41) 300 , 100 200 300 "'" 300 RilllÐspacing:116leet (R4~toR5) RifIIe_"9=;1 feel: (\'{5tòR8)~_':~r;:i 600 700 600 900 100' Restoration of Powderlick Run OxboIVRivcr&StrcamRCSloration,lnc 7 In-stream Design Elements . Representative cross sections - Riffle - Poollbend . Large woody debris structures - Digger logs - Spider logs Typical: . Cross Section - Reaches A & B ""'''' Low..-boMfUlb""'" 303.00 --------- - ------ ----------- TyplclJl Riffle erool! See/Ion· RfllCh.. A I. B ~,oo 301.00 ~oo '00 ~,oo UW"'"bonklUlb"""" ~oo moo ~oo 2~0(I ~oo m,oo moo IBankfullbencMsarfl-4-5fee1wide 2111.00 ~,oo M M _ ~ ~ ZO 30~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 8 Typical PoollBend Cross Section- Reaches A & B DRN'r =00 ~,oo 3(11.00 ~,oo w. m,oo moo 291.00 moo m,oo m,oo moo m,oo 291.00 moo 0,00 ',00 Typlc"PooVhndCros,SuUon-R"""IHnA&B -2.5:1toenUI",... ,.. ~u_ ---- --". Wl«B.....-<3ra""B.. 10.00 \5.00 20.00 25.00 XI.OO 35.00 40.00 45.00 rooo 55.00 00.00 Large Woody Debris Structures Spider Log fillll",VII·IK [);n""'~ Digger Log (Source: California Salmonid Stream Habitat Restoration Manual) 9 I" ::.:....J I__~>- "\ -=- _~r- ,....<::---2::-">,~,:~.,,J'"¡r .. ,', - EXPI.ANo\TlON > ....--:--~- ~,,<,,' ¡l l' œ....ÇIIIOWIU (, ,< ».,,;" ~<"_.",--" ""'~II "\' __ \//1/ / ,',< ',,- ,;1.\ '''0::.. _'_'~_ I 'J r\ ... I ",,,:; ~:,:,::,-<,_,-- -"'~,~ / '/' ,...........!: ' ",.\\~~:::::<,.............. I 'I([f,~,',,;,,~,'::~"'~ '~,:~J;:~:~fi~,r,~=-~- '. '~~:=,1 ~~,l; ¡-.' , - ,I ,~L~ j. ~,-> (1: ~d! If-,1.'l\::' f I..'~ ... I 1"-":... ,~'" /' ,...- ...",', /' L~ ¡.'.,c¡¡¡: /~ ;.-- .. II .( ... ~ ...... '^...¡;: , i ¡' ,,"<r"Ir""!\"".......,.,.. '.J- \ 1<"''' ".....: ~..,,"'" --' "'. r: '-,' 'Vil ,.... 'j .. ' \' \.. l' "'ft"'~ '. ö~ I' \k, . ':k<:9.r~:'.f'.. ", (': '" /,.. [-' ,." 0 ~~-:'<~ ..~~\ ~". -:~~.~~~L~::.~::..;;; \, ~f~,~~;~;:S~~~~ , , -f ! _OooII___At.____ -_._---_. -...,.. -_...-.......-_1·-) Proposed Channel Re-alignmenl f'or Rcach A ----'--.,--,~~~_\\\~\\-\~~_\_- '<:-'''~:~~è!'!'.. . : ' ~ ~~\:\~fgi~'~iõ\ ," '\",,'~::=¡;:¡;;.;!!-! jf' I.·>~~' I" ". ~ N .\C"'é _'L /---"-~ , , ..J """"""" m...........WN.J. [:;'CROD<OOIVIIOOA. iî:':~ <~,," _m4'COo. 0- / " ~. n ;;-j.... ..,~ ":>- N",-: ~....'.\.... ...'(.,o- r:, ',' ~ ",...DIOOIiRLOO.TIIIICfUIIO ~,þ _LOOafAUCI\III¡ j ...i ) " Ii :.;.¡ '" Z' ~ , .. , .. , " ;/': ".¿: , ~'< .. '.-r-.'~ ..--.!'~ -... '~:::"J:--=.:::::>t_ '''' ,.."¡...."'"",,.,;,.;;;:~, .. ""'.,,, ¡" ......, , \ ~ ~ \ ~~~ ... . ¥,.., '-_.:o;:'...~,_ ""5'É~~~ti "::,:.": ' X:'.,\ "'~",~ "'.·\\.;tEþ...",b,.",,"'~;,.._ ~"(,""" . , r'·'· "'",'-" " "'~"" (""...\\ =..".... { .:-")-, '\ \ /:--~\'-~ \ \, ..../ ", \ i '!!\ '" \ iï S;:-" ........CIwoIIWO.._..........4.....·~""""""..___...._ --.---......... -.,.,... -_.-"'--_11- Proposed Channel Re-a1igllllltllt for Reach B 10 Soil Bio-engineering -Reinforces the soil mantel ·Provides high root density ·Fast growing -Least cost per plant ·Overhanging vegetation ·Shade, leaf detritus OxfH>wRi_&SlreamRcsIOUlloo,blC II 3 years post Phasing . The Stevens Creek Corridor Park project will likely be constructed in three phases, with the first phase to be constructed in 2007 . The first phase will include: - Park upgrades - Trail - Creek restoration and barrier removal - Improvements to the 4-H area - Phase one environmental classroom 12 Park/picnic upgrades Relocation ofthe maintenance facilities ,......----,~'-;i' "" \) (/<....~ \ '.:!,. 1. ,~f::r..,.Jç r~ r'" ~ ~¡l " \':~~ , "', \ð Q>ô,,, ......" 'Z" 13 Trailhead rest rooms to be renovated (total 200 sq. ft.), 2 benches and directional signs in this area ~ ~~STEVENSCREEKCORRIDOR NOTTOSCALE ~~STEVENSCREEK11WlVKTKJ'S"æVENSCREEKCORlOOOflPARK . Phase Two will likely include: - More creek restoration in the Horseshoe Bend area with additional plantings 14 . Phase Three (final phase) - Extend park and trail through Stocklmeir property: . Meeting with Cupertino Historical Society to view the status of their plans for the site . They will be invited to P&R Comm, February meeting if they are ready to go public with their plans 15 !{<.;dch l ! Xl~1lI1g ( Ol1dlllOl1S t Looking upstream Looking downstream ...... 16 ~j ,~,/.;.~ ': ;... " :·.~~;ftÆif~~'> ',<,-, j -_/",/ // ,~/----- .. I 'I " ,_J 0\;\ .....''''''n'''_·r.~:;;.:;;.;.:;-'- ----~---~--' -- Œ,':J-.o. ,e....IW'-I'CIOI. o~ --~ j/7-'''''"''''"'''"''' L_ -~--q,---- -_._--_. _-1',... --",-"--_1- Proposed Channel Re-a lígn111ent for Reach C 17 Weirs & Vanes . Deflect flows away ftom eroding banks or inftastructure 'Can be constructed to allow fish passage -Are "stepped" to accommodate the changes in stream gradient . W eir structures are concreted into place and usually reqnire management over time . W eir structures do not provide the spawning gravel for quality ofhabitat that the 18 Phase One Elements (2007 construction) · Parking reduced in proportion to resized picnic facility to 372: - 350 - picnic area - 5 - Retreat Center - l7 - trailhead · Creek realignment: - More natural alignment - Maintains the greatest number of trees - Greater space for west bank picnicking and vegetation buffer · Entry kiosk for fee collection: - sited so that traffic can flow into the park - fee-for-use access is separated from the trail access · Pool/snack area reconfigured so that staff can monitor fee-paying picnickers separately rrom the park users, while keeping the trail and snack bar open to the community · Trail · Environmental classroom 19 Funding Funding is at hand to: · Relocate the maintenance facility (Per Capita and Roberti-Z'Berg-Harris) · Redo the picnic area (Urban Park Act) - Remove the barriers to fish passage (Depart, Water Res, & SCVWD) · Construct the first phase of the environmental classroom (Roberti-Z 'Berg-Harris) · Enhance native plantings (Depart, Water Res, & Clean Safe Creeks) - Reconfigure 4-H Club area and community garden (Clean Safe Creek) · Construct the tr~il from McClellan Ranch to Blackberry Farm (Clean Safe Creek) None of these project elements are fUnded at the "Cadillac" level, but we have great faith in the project team to deliver a quality project for the money we have available, Process From This Point . The City Council will review this information in a study session on January l7 rrom 5:30 - 6:30 p.rn. No action will be taken: - The F AHCE Committee will receive a briefing on January 24 - The environmental document will be released to the public in February - all of our "interested parties" will be notified 20 · All regulatory agencies will have an opportunity to have input, and input will be utilized in the drafting of construction mitigations · These agencies are the agencies that issue permits to enable project construction · Once environmental review has been completed and the permits are in hand, we will have authorization to call for bids for construction 21 City of Cupertino Stevens Creek Corridor Habitat Restoration and Park Master Plan Stevens Creek Corridor Restoration and Park Master Plan Summary of Project Components The City of Cupertino and its partner the Santa Clara Valley Water District propose to convert a commercial picnic facility into a neighborhood park, restore in-stream and riparian habitat along sections of Stevens Creek within the 100- year floodplain, enhance adjacent upland oak woodland habitat, construct a 5,900 foot all weather trail and develop a new environmental education center. The these activities will occur on approximately 60 acres of City of Cupertino and Santa Clara Valley Water District properties bordered by Stevens Creek Boulevard to the north, McClellan Road to the south and residential neighborhoods to the east and west. The project will include (see attached maps): Construction phasing is indicated by colors: Phase 1 -2007, Phase 2, Phase 3. In-Stream Restoration · Demolition and removal of three low-flow automobile crossings and a diversion dam all of which pose significant barriers to steelhead passage. · Demolition and removal of three pedestrian bridges spanning the creek. · Reach Al - Expansion of 600 feet of pool and riffle habitat and revegetation of the creek banks to create a more stabile channel with quality habitat from the demolished diversion dam to downstream of the first low flow crossing. · Reach A2 - Removal of 500 feet of large boulders installed as emergency flood protection. Laying back and revegetation of this section of the east bank of the creek to create a more stabile channel with higher quality habitat. · Reach A2 - Realignment of 450 feet of the stream channel along Horseshoe Bend to reduce erosion and undercutting of the bank. Development of pool and riffle habitat, revegetation of the creek banks throughout this new channel. · Reach B - Realignment of 850 feet of the stream channel through the current parking area to lengthen and stabilize the channel. Development of pool and riffle habitat, revegetation of the creek banks throughout this new channel. This area includes the section of the creek from the second low flow crossing through the third low flow crossing. · Reach B - Conversion of a portion of the former creek channel to include filling 650 feet and creating 200 feet backwater wetland habitat where the new channel meets the original streambed. · Reach C - Construction of new 600 foot stream channel through Stocklmeir orange orchard to reduce erosion and undercutting of the bank along the golf course. Developrnent of four step pools and seven pool and riffle sequences, planting the west bank this new channel. This channel uses the existing west bat1k as the east bank of the new chmmel. · l~each C - Conversion of 600 feet of the former creek channel through removal of riprap and shotcrete and creation of willow swale in old channel. · Riparian habitat planting along the new channel and segments of the existing 1.15 miles of the creek. JS: Cupertino / SCC Park - Project Components Ifn,iAtprl 1/ hi or, Page 1 of3 City of Cupertino Stevens Creek Corridor Habitat Restoration and Park Master Plan Picnic Area and Pool Complex Improvements · Gosure and conversion of a 100 day/year, 4,000-person, 1,100 festival-style parking commercial picrúc facility situated on both the east and west banks of the creek. Reopening of this facility as a 100day/year, 8oo-person picrúc facility consolidated to the west bank with a 350-vehicle festival-style, penneable parking area with native riparian shade trees. · Opening of Blackberry Farm 365 days a year as a neighborhood park. · Elimination of a day use fee for casual visitors. Retention of the day use fee for picrúc reservation and use of the swimming pool complex, · Upgrades to this picrúc area including new underground utilities, central catering building, barbecues, removable picrúc tables, horseshoe pits, two half courts for basketball and a sand volleyball court. · Upgrades to existing pool restroorns to serve both pool and picrúc needs - new stalls, entries and walkways. · New pool entrance kiosk with walkway to bridge to picrúc area. New pool fencing and paving stones. · Construction of a 14-foot wide pedestrian/bicycle/light duty vehicle bridge spanmng the creek between the pool and picrúc facility. Park Entrance Improvements · Demolition of existing park office/ entry building. · New park entry kiosk. · Conference center landscaping and 5 vehicle parking area. · New buffer landscaping around adjacent private residence. Stevens Creek Trail · Construction of an 8-foot wide pedestrian and bicycle trail extending 5,900 feet from Stevens Creek Boulevard to McClellan Road. · Trail will be constructed of "Natural Pave," a plant lignan based material mixed with gravels to create an all weather surface for bikes, strollers and walkers. · Construction of an 8-foot wide pedestrian/bicycle bridge spanmng the creek near the 8th hole on the golf course. A recurved fence will be installed in this short segment of the trail to protect users frorn errant golf balls. · Demolition and expansion of sidewalk along Stevens Creek Blvd. to serve as Gass I trail into Stocklrneir property. On-street improvements begin at crosswalk at Phar Lap Drive and end at existing pedestrian bridge that parallels Stevens Creek Blvd. · Relocation and enhancement of some community garden plots and 4-H facilities to make way for the trail at McOellan Ranch. · Creation of a 17-car trailhead staging area with a remodeled restroom in the location of the existing parking lot upstream of the pool that currently accomrnodates 200 plus vehicles. Dernolition of approximately 32,000 square feet of excess parking paving, · Creation of a 5-foot wide pedestrian and bicycle access trail extending 400 feet from San Fernando A venue along the golf course into the park. IS: Cupertino / SCC Park - Project Components TTnrl~lprll/h/Oh Page 2 of 3 City of Cupertino Stevens Creek Corridor Habitat Restoration and Park Master Plan · Restripping of the Blue Pheasant parking area to increase parking capacity from 91 spaces to 123 spaces. Environmental Education Center/Pole Barn · Construction of a 2,000 square foot environmental education center with 2 classrooms, an office and restrooms to be built on an existing building pad formerly occupied by a doublewide trailer in McOellan Ranch. Upland Habitat Restoration · Restoration of the upland oak woodland habitat in closed picnic areas and in and around updated picnic areas and the trail. Maintenance Facilities · Demolition of a golf course maintenance facility perched on the east bank of the creek. · Construction of a new 3,000 square foot golf course maintenance facility with a 2,000 square feet fenced yard below the Conference Center along the existing golf course fence line. · Demolition of park maintenance facility and yard located behind the adjacent private residence. · Construction of a new 1,200 square foot park maintenance facility with a 1,200 square feet fenced yard behind the adjacent private residence. Irrigation System · Demolition of water storage tank that retains well water used to irrigate the golf course and reconditioning of a 35,000 gallon cistern to serve golf course and park irrigation needs. IS: Cupertino/SCC Park - Project Components Tfn,htpt! 1 I hi or; Page 3 of 3 ~ ,,". "" WOO ï-f ):> m ~''', 0< ,::;:m ..,..'"~' WZ,' moo ...............>.:......., ::Co 'J ~~ I' ""11m ):>,..; ::Co Š::O ::c ::c - c o ::c ~'\ ,J - , , , ._~'. " :hb~¡¡I ~....~..~.~.. ~6*;j· ",<>.<»0 O·;:¡-l:¡o:', :;¡:i!!~'\1 ž<f!:;:I>. ~.o"" Uf·.·..··..z¡¡!·. ¡Z':>.Q m Z (Ii. Z.. '" m. n( ,.,... o rn w u . :g' iiI ~ m < m ~ £ m m ^ ~ ? ¡ I n n g!Z ~§ <m >9. ~ o .... o o ", o Q o :>.1:<>. 2Jg '-."" 5g < :<::8 ~~ ~. , $ .,' ;, r m ø m z c r', ~'\, , '~ _"_', . J ~~.. }', , J -~'.. """-<.( 1= =-. '_ c.- '~~" "~,~, '7",,>,,.. '.. '-' +. ~. . , , ~"" C-..... I" \, - / .... f,,!, ~'"'-~, ,..J ¡~ I 'J '~! .},,>, ,U,¡' , ' .. '-, " .' "''''.. , ",~ " . ,.,. "CX..,. , /7 'jd=:", ~~.:.¡¿,'1'-.._\_ r ',' ,.1.".. ", 'c, , ",I j ',', .'---___~.. ~ \ '~. u" ., ' ." ' "_', , . ., '. "" ~ -"'---", .. '-' ',-"'-'';/;.., -,\ !, "',I "I >.__ \ ¡ ~ . . "<.-, '" " '... ,...~,. --..:.,<>c--..-"'..h,_""__,=~-, "~ ,I "1,.::.;:;..-',' )'\ / /('--.. _J ',______ """"~""" . b""" , '. , , '" " ,;, ".(,~ "', -- r" ", '----(, -'" ~ I '~\ .r ;- \ ". - -'--- ~ \?" ~---"'T ~> ,. '<, , '" "'"'' "~I ,. ¡-__, ( ~';'7--'7\ . \.--..... _, :, ' , , '. /. .", , , , ., j"" , , ì.:,--,.........,_, -._~.7'-_.___:,.../~_......~~""'::-~. ,_ ".J ".8."0,.,.,. ,'~ -. '" '. , . . " .... "'. "" ,. -. j, --. """., ... ,. .' c,e.."",. . " '" ',_, I" ~~_')"~,'I' """ , " " , . "'",....". "" ,. "", *. "~.", ""i,","~,,~; -'~y J.C"J < .,,~ . '{ :/ ~i. .,< , 1..L~ -Y', ''''' Jc'i', "" I " . <', 0'1"'.,>" " -"', '" '~r., .'. < ?/~ J, "/ ',' ~__ , ""'" ~\'\' - c 1; .,. ",", D'~«'c, ce,.."C, ". ", """" ~'" " " "" " """" . '---, -, ~,~ ~" '''''VX,__", ",~ . '" ' ' '. "- ,,"; "'''''C", 'C. ><",. ,-" ., '\ !.,;, _" . '<c, ,__ <"~I ¡II, ',=:¡,..., "~'"'-':8~-",~,,~__~ A<Õ"'''''''''''''I' / ,') ':"/ '-L-'="~I/~>j' : I, ,1 "-" ""-'", " , ',~. I <'.'."., ,,' V""" ,', __ ,. , , ". '," r':1 ... 1>; '\ JI ,"'" ,,,.." .....>....~()\\\,\\"-:......, j _ I'~' ,..,¡ n ~_J) U, "<'~:'" . '. , . . - -. ". , \ J I, . ·1 .t;,;~(' / "c 0",. "" '/ "'J,. ',,-., ~ '.,~, - "" .' . ". , ,,, '''. ~ '. ". J, I/,,-- " / J'.'.... 'n "',' " . " ,. ""'., "'-.. j' __... : /; "~';:"'_~ ,'- ,""< 'F>' ...~~ .....,. '\ "\ . ", ", <,' ,'. ~"', "_" .. " ,"', " ',' ~ I' , '" ", , .' """ ',. "'... I " ">., ~ ;", ' ", "--«,... . " - «', "~\. .~ "\é<\ ·:<"!-','sec-;.;,:.~,...,~\ 'OJ u ~~, .""...-----.......,''''.~-\"x';,.;, '/,: I "", ''', ", ~"~ . '~." , ., ------"1.., ! /L i / " ( ,. -. " " '" 'c_'" " , " ,.':- '. ,\, A",.,. j' ¡-'<'. "'. ,_~,," 'V'. . j ,!, " i' ,,' - ¡'" ',. -./ "<'-~""" ',." \ , )07'~" " ~ ' " '. / '" ,v. , .'- -- éiJ!!:.:.-.. / ,y_ ^ ) J -.t ',. ".~~, r:: " , " " .. . . _,I I' _ '" '~'_" _" . ". ~ - " ,~ ~'- "', .<, , . W ' ,'~' , "'~-~~--.~. , f "'l~.",,,, ...' '" P" . ~" '" " \ "',«~, . ~__/' '-"'_ j I f/_>,";'¡' '/'\'"",..' f """ ~_ ',' , ' " " . '" , '". --. . "'.~,~ '" ~'- «// " . '-I" , / ", , . ~J'." _ ., ',.'., '\ "" ß' j.. .,~, , " , , ',~ "'.\ ", , "" ,"" " , , ~', "'c,_', 'I ., /' , '" ", '" '~, , " '~N_'H .", . . """;< . _"",_, " "AY__""" " ,/., 0.,,-.. ~ "ß" . ::ít{Pè~',\\ ::\":' " '" \ ,,/ ..-?;''t .. --.' '{B! L" .; 'NO", ", '..c, y C 'e , , , , "'{", "c '" '\" '.- . ('.., . ", =j '''', I' , ií7 '-./",' F ",", , '; ", c:í JeL ,,_ ;:"., C', 'T""iii~'Ä.2 § , "',~ ',' r~;. ') ,-..1_ ~~ l..) ---7 ¿ --::="'1';,J I ~-'c:"c='c'::c:";,¿,,.õ'\?-¡:~-:'~, .... 'r '\ <'~\,,: (' '1,,,,- / I :-...--~- ¿ '''''j, "-.j ';;;"CC--:::C:''i 0-, " -' -'>;'\ "" --~~ -'-. :Œ".. 'Þu"c~, , ~ -{ ", \ - /I~' __ , '_.,///'/___. '., '.' '. ',. ¿;""n. r'm._ j . -,.. , ''i', (\lcc_'), ' . -""'<~~. ~ "cc<, ' :::: ;....._~ " "'" '.. '/..- \ - I I '-....... 'ì' ". , ~_\ \\ :'''\",.Ji-->,~_/ "- I , , '. ~' ~\ \", ._, -y . -~-""" '.', '( '- '~, c '_'" 'hI', ! ,', J ,,'. ,', , --~ ,é~-~"":).....,~, c::: EXPLANATION ""'=_;-... DIGGER LOG STRUCTURE ~ SPIDER LOG STRUCTURE Z'- _ LIVE !/ / i CREEK CORRIDOR L~~9 ~ CRIB WALL RIFFLE STEP-POOL o POOlS \ \,----- '-_'r" '-}-..-' I L. ,,',=, "',--.., '-' '/ " o Stevens Creek Reaches A. B & C: Channel alignment restoration altemaUve shown with a 50-foot wide restored corridor. \". ,', ~,-",,=;. \ \- EXPLANATION _.--) r~'" BUVECRIBWAlL (/ --T/1 , i«'" ~J CREEK CORRIDOR \ / ~,.==J ~., ,,:9 :;POOL / ::---~=~____~~-- ~":c:::c.::~ 0 POOlS ___ .___ ,.~,,:~-... DIGGER LOG STRUCTURE .N' """ _~_.... --: _: _~-::: ~ ~r SPIDER lOG STRUCTURE ~= L .. f==f{- "-~~~ ,j'/ , -" ',. ---.-.----.----- -'---~-.........:::: ..,._~.,# -' ---... ~-~--::.~.. r- , __v.___ - ---.. ..::---:: ___, /,' ,i l, X --;;.::(.",--:.-.- ,', ", ,- .....,. ---------~ ," ' 7',',_" _"- . . -...... , .~, .'1. ,,__, \ ,'. iO' ~ ' / "- ",,"'if,.. ! ~~':\:;,~.; -",~:("".: ,'_ ~ ,'_ It¡.. ...... ,I" / ¡ , "', , . "~' >--'. ., " .. .,.... .' ii... ..-:'--'" -', ./.... ' ._' '.¡ I' ¥ "",' I.... R C~ S~AR.¡.jNG ELEVATION \ N i i <P'''''' ~ '*'.¥ -~ lIP ¥ <: fo,:. .oJ, I :' ,/" ,,s,:. "'"'... '*'.Þ ItI' '" Jt'I..,.. ~< 'è........ ýf r !If' .,.\t... ~ \ --...-...- ... ~... H' ;f#"- vr \ \ ... ..' ... \ 0\' ¿" \... '" '" í " t", \ /' ....,þ' c¡. e*' <.. ~ ~N Ñ' It? ,. ,,~ ¥" ' ttI,þ' . I ~ \ ~" ." N \ , - [- I ,,' "" ' ~, I:' . ....' >, Y'" ~---- : ! /Þ' (> - ",./" I Jil' (,~ ~~" .. /,r--,þ< "'-~~~~-Z'. ~=-~m--'---",-'--'-"""--' , "" I ,', ,'(' ..-,,C../ / ~- 'no(, . :'. ,.' ~J":Q,-~""'-~---'" E..XIS~nNG_ftiAl_WEGA.lIGNMEm--·- ..;z>F'" '1'''! / "'ii ,:b ' . --- ' '-Ai- " --- / _ "',' ~ '.'; . c:'-,., :) ~_~~---------:-.--- .. ~- ~. .- ~..---L--, / ...~. _ _:g:" -' .v:4' "~" ,~- -~. ,¡I.... ~.{ ¡' -:10; /--- // . . . '. .J,¡>.' '">'~ ~ // ,ç,.. \ "'"..... ", , 'IS , ,/ ¡QFIRShC¡v.: w .~" _.-.._,-,;;', '" , .," c"g¡¡s, RO ;(~ REMOVAL ',... .. , / ;or' <.. " ij..",/' /1,':. :~;':!EW}',~ffLE'" .' ,,\ / þ'¿"'.ç"., \ " I ¡, "''0':'~' 'r "'. ' '" I ,'2')".-" . ~.. ¡",," .P' . I .' "0 .. 1,I,~":;¿r//''-:>:'" " , .......;;-=..::/~ ~\\ " ./ /0-.\ . (!" /\,..'" ~ ~ '\:\ - "- / , '" i~? /' ~ '..... \', /"/ v "- I .101 ./ // " \ ~ ___ " Stevens Creek Horseshoe Bend (Reach A): Channel alignment restoration alternatIve shown with a SO-foot wfde restored corridor. ~ -,../ = ;, b~) ! .. I REACH B LENGTH 828' Scale = 1": 60' Sase Mapping Provided by KIer and Wrlghl (10/4/2005) c ,/ "\\y -' I" (. rl I¡ \ J' ..J !~ .1.-\ ' -<---- . '=~ ,,-='" \ J '_.........,~~,_~~ .~_ ~' '-- "-" -" .- '~'\ ~'\' , \ , . / . ~"-"" ' '. ,,-,--, - ",-,-- '" \ \. ~, '~-'-::"\ ~ ~-'"--,- - , " \ ~ .- . " . ~ , , -'- " "". ~~: ~~,~-- --=-"~::::C:::::-:",___- -', '-~, \ - " ! ~""_<__ RLOGSTRUCTURE " ~ ~ ~ "'" ~ . 'r" -,' __ _ '. '. \ ~'-'-' Un 'u,_~~ '__'_'",__,- /.. _ ,~\ "~ c\' ~~, ' . u_, c..:.. . ", ::',~". \f~_d':=/' i!T .o~~ ~( \\ "\"'~ '--~- - -~-=-,'~~", -'\ ,'--.~,~ -- /' ' " , . . ,- ""-"', / ' '\, '. '~~\'" -\'''ecC-''C-C' . '. " . ~ . -~:c¿> ''';'" /, I. '" , (\':, '''';' \~~ ;,<~---------:._--,~,::. 'n- -'" -~~:--<:::-:...~~~~~, /' -"-,,,- ~-l i//' ", " , " " '-'" "". -- '. "-- '., ""/ '~""'~' ~ -"-"'. '''G --'\".. " é ' , '"~^ . ~, . -. . . , ''., " '. " , , .. ¿, " ~H es "" ,--"':-_,~- ~-=,- ~ ,,,, ' /~ I \, 0,; ~~'\\\ \: ~' ,-.y ,i //' ' " ' , > < . '~ "''-'' \'",,' ~"/ " . " '. , , " , - " " . '. . , . \~\,\\ \ "', , / ", .. '. "" . X,', '"I " ;I"~)... .. . ''>?, "''o'0/\\~ \\\-"<'J . ! , "'" y ,- '-" " , , \',,,, , ..- / " ..".."",;* '... /' ,>' ... "".,.... -~...' '.. \ ~\"-.:,-- "'--, '-. , /'.. I ' "" " '. "'\\\:' .----. " ' . ", " ~ ,,"'" "- "', \~~--""-..--..,,,-,,, I "l' , · _ . " '''\ '" _,__,.. "- , ' " · r, ~', , ,._~-......." __ '_. -- '/ . " -, , '. - . "'~ '---- - "'---" I. ' -. '" . '. . ^ - .. \ 'Î ff' '" "----...., _', _______ ' ",. '. '. ", -.. ',- ' ~"'" '\ ", ~ -' 'c . '.. "" "_--., " ' , '. v-, ,,,, -""'---. ""'-. ''''''c~,;,,~, ", '_,~ '\ " '\, Q , ".- .~~"' ''''" ~"'-" . . "" . ..,,, h,.,., '<, ", " "" ", ~, -'" ~ """-,. ",.. -. """ "'*" -" ~ ...:..:;, " ,~, '.,. \ -'"'-"--"" '"Ç,\ .. ~~ '~ND 'NG~ "'>" "\""{g'I;~i) . ....'., t~ - Í:.~ ':.... ' "->, ',,, '" ,~ ",,~, ~ " "'" '. , ~ ~,' , ., ~ "', .... ""',,,,,'7c?' ", . ,,' . " ) .." ( \, / 7' ¡ ;.,\ ' I . L _\ , \ ~-'~, //'/ ./ ¡'J /' 1,/ \ ./ ~ ~-f"'- / ' -_.__.._._,----------~.- EXPLANATION IIIIDllli LNE CRIB WALL ç~2J CREEK CORRIDOR RIFFLE ~ STEP-POOL o POOLS ",,/ /~ ! }/V ~ \ , / .-' iJI'#" -'" ,.. " .... ,.. " ,- (101412005) Scale = ,..: 60' Base Mapping Provided by Kler and Wright alignment restoration Iltematlve Channel . _.... r ~ Stevens Creek West Bank Picnic Area (Reach B) shown with a 50..foot wtde restored conidor. . ( \' /";" .... \ /_-......~~ ftlfJ.!t....~JIôr,o', --""' ~ ~~. fi>. ~ "~? ~ ,~.. ' _.-/ "A'~';~'7"""'\ \ ... ..?~.... ',' , .....¡o ,¡jo.o .;,... ,...... ~. , ... ~... .. "'", V...., /''''.:Zk 'it. N , ~4. 4....,.,~ '-.... V". It'" ~'//f--"", ' . ,þ>~"'" /' ~_/ -"~, / .'. ~ ./ ,'.' .- , / / I / /,-/" /,¡'llf' , " I , I 1 \ 'f \ // i / i\ 7 // / /1 V ( l /1 \_..J I ~~ f "', I ""'-'--.--r-? \(~J ~} /.,-~..--- r'-'~', I ",-;,....,.,-,- . I' ... / ... ~r /.... ........ ..,r " , , ,..",,- \ 1 ' i, - \." -", , , \, .. c' ,.r;i ~. I J-'~.....--,,~--"" - -'-- '''-.... ~ ./----- " ...--: -- -i«'~/ ,/-'"""--_ -.._-..,._~___~._____.~~: (it';' ".... //~--_._.---- .~ _/.--- "-,' t ( _L: ,.....--..-. ) .'~-""" -~---_¥- ( l' , , i ..J ./ ,_.... i :~-- ( \ h Y "--------~-~"-,.__._---- EXPLANATION i, r : _ UVE CRIB WAlL "'I CREEK CORRIDOR RIFFLE ,,~ STEP-POOL 0 POOLS L '..:.0.,........ DIGGER LOG STRUCTURE ;fÞ! ',' SPIDER LOG STRUCTURE ~, ~ ~ .- I, ' \ ",.-,-- ---; ç',,:->,~ (""'" <,', ,¡:;,;,,\ ;'d"~ ~f'~1:,cA'I;'~ !; . \:.:'f;;"""' ~., ;:.~ :.:.-o:~;.l / / J .- " i ./ / <-- /,.-2\ ----j ,r->~~~j' f ,/ \-, \ -, \ l - 1- r-' ,,/ ~ -'" \ \ 1 f '---. Seal. =,": 60' Base Mapping Provided by KIer and Wright (101412005) (' restoration alœmatiVÐ \ \ / -.::. ~ Stevens Creek Stockelmeir (Reach C): Channel alignment shown with a 50-foot wide restored corridor. Creek Corridor Grant Tracking Stevens Secured Funding - Awards Grant Contact Name/AJ.ency Next Expend money by Dee 02, then request reimbursement Stel'.s Reimbursement Deadline Receive Final Reimbursement by June 30, 2010 Expenditure Deadline Grant Status Contract Executed Funding Request $833,600 Project Title Grant Program State Parks Office of Grants and Local Services Receive Final Reimbursement 1/23/04 Stevens Creek Corridor Park, Urban Park Act UP,43·002 1 Phase State Parks Office of Grants and Local Services Complete Construction Conduct User Counts TBA by April 30,2010101 adequate time to submi ncurred within 5-Year period to be indicated in contract (pg. 27 of manual' appropriation Sent Sec. 106 Memo to Albert on 6/28/05 Awaiting Acceptance of Section 106 and Contract Documents Match - $150,000 Const. $80,000 Same match as above Match I secp, Phase Land and Water Conservation Fund 06-01540 State Parks Office of Grants and Local Services Reimbursemen E-mail Follow-up Sent on 71 Contract Executed on 2/23/04 $32,291 Design $98,874 Construction Stevens Creek Corridor Park Harris Guarantee Program C0209764 Per Capita Block State Parks Office of Grants and 8105 Reimbursement E-mail Follow-up Sent on 71 1, 2003 - June 30, 201 10 of manual - appropriation July (P9, Contract Executed on 2/23/04 $55,000 Design $165,000 Construction Stevens Creek Corridor Park Local Services SCVWD Department of Water Resources 8105 Complete Planning and Environmental Compliance Documents Contract Meeting Scheduled fOI August 1, 2005 - Contract to be executed by September 5, 2005 July 1, 2003 - June 30, 201 (pg. 5 of manual 7,2004 3 years from Sept to Sept. 6, 2007 (pg. 5 of contract) May 30, 2007 Contract Executed on 71171/04 $139,447 $19,967 Add'l Service $401,000 Planning, Design and Construction of Stream and Riparian Restoration Grant Program 02-43-009 SCVWD Collaborative Action Plan Funds DWR Urban Streams ¡Stevens Creek Corridor Restoration Program Stream Restoration SCVWD Match $401,000 CEQA needed within one year of the I SCVWD grant award announcement Within 5 years of contract execution date (pg. 3 of manual Awarded June 2005 $400,000 Stevens Creek Corridor Trail SCVWD Clean Safe Creeks Awarded November 2005 $250,000 Environmental Classroo; RZH Urbanized XU-43·003 Pending Applications Grant - Contact Name/AJ.enc}l Next Steps Reimbursement Deadline Expenditure Deadline Status Submitted Funding Request Project Title Grant Program 1015/05 0/18/05 Submitted Stevens Creek Trail 1$195,000 w/in Stevens Creek Park Stevens Creek Corridor 1$798,500 and Restoration Project Recreational Trails Program CA River Parkways Grant Program 10/2006 Updated on CupertinoGrantTrack12_ 6_ 05.xls Biotic Reports for the Stevens Creek Corridor Master Plan Cupertino, California Prepared for: Therese Ambrosi Smith, Director Parks & Recreation Administration City of Cupertino - City Hall 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014-3255 Prepared by: Thomas Reid Associates 545 Middlefield Road Suite 200 Menlo Park, CA 94025 (650) 327-0429 Table of Content Pagei BIOTIC REPORTS FOR THE STEVENS CREEK CORRIDOR MASTER PLAN TABLE OF CONTENTS I. Introduction and Summary of Results ...................................,.....,..................,.....................,....,...1-I A, Purpose ..,..,...,.."... ...., ........... ......., ..,..... ........., ,......,..,....,......,........,.. ....,........ ....,...... ....,.."...., .I-I B. Summary of Results and Recommendations................,....,..,....,..,.......,....,....,....,.......,..,....",.1-2 I, California Tiger Salamander Site Assessment .......................,....,..,....,...................,..1-2 2, Focused Surveys for Special Status Amphibians and Reptiles ,..,.,............................1-2 3, Nesting Raptor Surveys ....,.., ...., ........,....,..,.., ....,......, ........,........,..".. ....,..., ............, ...1-3 4, Bat Surveys .................,................................,....,...............,..,....................,.....,.".......1-4 5, Rare Plant and Botanical Inventory Surveys....,......,........,...............,....,.....,......,.......1-5 6, Preliminary Wetland Delineation,.,.........,.....,....,..,............,...........,..,....,.................,.1-5 C, Background ...,.... .............................., ....,..,..,.... ........... ,..,.... ,.. ..,... ,..... ............,........ ........, ...." .1-6 D. Setting....,.............. ........ ...... ........ ....,.... .......... ...., ......., ,............. ........ ..........., ...................... .....1-6 I, Introduction ...........,.... ........,.., ..... ............., ....... ......,....,..,........ ....,.., ...., ....,..,.., ...., ...., .1-6 2. Study Area..................... ....., .........., ....... ,..,.. ...., ....,.., ....,....,. .......,.,... ...., .......,..,....,.. ..,1-6 3, Habitats and Vegetation ....,..................,..,..,...........,...........,...............,....,..,....,..,....,..1-6 4, Hydrology,.... .....' ,...., .......,......, ....,..,.., .......,.., ...., ......, ........... ........,........ ....,.., ....,...., ...1·7 II, California Tiger Salamander Site Assessment..........,..........,....,..".......,..,.......,............,.......,....,,11-1 A, Summary ........'...,........,............................................,.........,..,....,..,........................,........,.....11-1 B. Regulatory Background........, ............................................... ..........".. ............. ..... ,.. ,...,........, 11-2 C, Natural History ,............................,..,...........,.........,.,.,....,...............,........,..............,..........,..,11-2 D. Site Assessment Methods .........,........,....,..,.............,............,....,.........,....,..,....,..................., 11·2 E. Results, ..., ,." ......, ...., .......... ....,........,............., .......,..,.... ...... ....., ....,... .......,....,................ ....,.., 11-3 1. Known Localities ofCTS Within the Project Region .....................................,........11-3 2, Habitat Assessment ..,..,.........,....,.............,..,..,....,..,.........................,..,....,..,....,....... 11-3 3, SUITounding Habitats,.... ....,..., ....,..,.., .......,......, ,.... ,.. ....".... ..,..,..,.. ......., ....'........,..,.. 11-4 F, Discussion ..,.., ...., ....,..,.. ...... ..., '........ ..........,.., ...., ......,.... ....,.., ....,... ........" .....,....,....,.., ....,..,.. 11.4 III. Focused Surveys for Special Status Amphibians and Reptiles.................................,......,........., Ill-I A. Summary, ....... ...., ...., ,.., ........,... ...., ............ ......, ......., ...........,..... ...., ....., ..... ........ ........ ........." Ill-I B. Methods,.... ......, ...., ,..............,.., ............".... ...... ,..,......, ....,......." .......,.., ....,..,..... ........, .......,.. IIl-2 C. Regulatory Background.... ....,... ....... ........ ...... ........... ...., ....,.., ,..,..... ....... ............ ....,.., ...., ....., III - 2 I, California Red-Legged Frog ...............,....,..,.........,..,.......,........"..,................,........111-2 2, Foothill Yellow-Legged Frog and Western Pond Turtle...,..................,........,........,1II-3 D, Natural History .., ....,.... ...........,.., ........., ....,..,............ .......,........ ....,.., ..,....."..,..,....,............... III - 3 I, California Red-Legged Frog ,..........,.,.................,......"....,...........,.."...........,....,.....111-3 2, Foothill Yellow-Legged Frog........,..............,..,........,........,................,..".......,......,,1II-3 3, Western Pond Turtle.....,.....,..........,....,..................,..,....",..,......,........,..,....,..,....,.." 111-4 E, Results,..",.., ........ ..... ....,..............,.... ,.., ....,....., ....,..,........ ....,.., ........,.." ....,..,......., .....,...,..".. 111-4 I, California Red-Legged Frog ..."..,.............................."....,......,........,........,..,....,..,..IIl-4 , a) Recorded OccUlTences,....,..,...,.......................,..,....,.........,..,....,....,..,....,...,111-4 b) Other Sources ............,.,....,..,........,.....,...................................."...,............, 111-4 2. Foothill Yellow-Legged Frog and Western Pond Turtle,....................................,..,1II-5 a) Recorded Occurrences,............... ........ ............ ........, ...............,......... ....,...., I11-5 b) Other Sources ,............,....,..,....,................,..,...."...,.....,..,......,..,....,.......,.... I11-5 3. Survey Results .............. ......,..,.. ..,....... ,......., ............ ,.. ............, ........ ..... ....,..".... ....,,111-6 F, Discussion and Recommendations ..,..'..,.,....................................,..,...............,....,..,..,........, 111-7 I, California Red-Legged Frog .............................,...............,............'....................,.., IIl-7 2, Foothill Y ellow-Legged Frog..,....,..,..,....,..,..,.......,....,......,........,......,..,....,..,..,.......111-7 3, Western Pond Turtle,........"..,.......,.."....,.........,......""....,.....,......,..,..,...."...,'....,...., 111-7 4, Invasive Species Reduction..........,..,..,....,............,..,..,......,..,......",...........,....,..",..,111-8 Biotic Reportsfor the Stevens Creek Corridor Master Plan Thomas Reid Associates January 2006 Table of Content Page ii 5, Other Measures to Reduce Invasive Species.................,.............................,..,...,....III-B IV. Nesting Raptor Surveys ..,............"............................,....,.......,..,..............,...."....,..,......,........,..,IV -] A, Summary .............,.......................,..,.......,........,....,....,........................,...."....,..,.......,...........IV-I B. Regulatory Background..... ..,....,... ,............................................................ ......... ....,....,.., .....IV-I C. Natural History ...............,.......,......,........................,...........,....................,.................,.......,.,IV -] I. Long.eared Owl.....,..,..........,.......,.,..,..............,..........,.............,.........,.................,..IV -] 2. Cooper's Hawk.....,....,..,..,....,.....,....................,....,;...,...............,..................,....,..,.. IV-2 3. White-tailed Kite ..,...,.........,.......,...",......................"...................'....,..........,..,.......IV-2 4, Red-shouldered Hawk, ............ ...,.... ....,.... ...., ...." ...., .......,......, ,...., ....,..,.. ...."..,.... ..,IV-2 5 , Western Screech-owl..,.., ......., ..,...., ...., ....,... ......,...... .....,....,.., ....", ....,.." ...., ......., ....IV-2 6, Barn Owl,............,..,....,..,......,....,..,....................,....,..........,.."....,........,......,.."..",..IV-3 7, Great Horned Owl..,......,....................,....,........,....,......"....,..,....,.......,.,.........,....,..,IV-3 D, Methods ..................'........,..........,..,....,..,..,....,....,.............,..........,..........."....,..,........,....,...., IV-3 E. Results ...... ...., ...., ...., ....,.., ...., .......,.., ............ ......... ...., ....... ..........,....,.., ....... .......,...."......, ....,( V-6 I. Recorded Data.., ,.................. ...., ........ .............. ..... ............ ........ ..............., ....,.., ,.... ..IV-6 2. Unrecorded Data .........................................,...........".....,......,...........,...,........,........IV-6 3, Raptor Surveys ........,.......,...............................,................................................,..,...IV-7 F, Discussion...... .............,....,... ........ .........., ....' .................., ...... ......, ,....... ...... ,.... ,......... ......... IV -10 G, Recommendations and Considerations for the Master Plan............,.........................,..,....,IV-11 V. Bat Surveys ........,...................,....,.....,.............,............,..,......,....,..........,..,.......,..,....'......,..,......., V-I A, Methods ........,....,.....................,...,....................,.....,.................,.......,..,................................. V-I B, Results ..........,.........,...........,.....................,......................................,...........,.............,.......,... V-I I, Potential Bat Habitat ..............,....,.........,................................................................., V-I 2, Night Survey ............,........,....,.."......................,......,..................................,....,..".., V-I C, Potential Impacts ..,.......,....,....,..,..,.......,....,..................,..........,.........,....,................,....,......., V-3 I. Mexican Free-tailed Bat..........,..................................,..,......,..........,..................,..... V·3 2, Yuma MyotÎs.....,...............,......,........................,....................,.......................,....,.... V-3 3. Big Brown Bat..,....,.......,..,..,....".............................,........................,................."..., V-3 D. Mitigation Measures,.........,....,..,..,..,.......................,..............................,.......................,....., V-3 VI, Biological Assessment of Rare Plants ,...............',........,..................,.......,....,....,....,.............,..,'. VI-I A, Introduction ....., ..,....... ,.... ........... ...., .........., ,.... ....,.... ......, .........., ...., ......... ......,.., ...,.........,.." VI-I B. Methods... ...., ........, ...., ..... .........., .......,... ...., ...., ...., ..,.. ...., ...... .............. ....... ,.... ,.........,..,..,...., VI-I C, Results ....,...,....,..,..,........,.......,.."...'..',......,.....,....,..,....,......,..........,..,..,..,....,..............,..,...., VI-I I, Dudley's Lousewort "..,.."....................,..",....,........'........,......."....,.......,..........,..,.. VI-2 2, Western Leatherwood,..,..,............,..,....,....,......,....,...................,....,....,....,............., VI-2 VII. Preliminary Wetland Delineation ..,..,.."......,.........,....,....,...."...",.........,..,..,........,........"........, VII-I A, Regulatory Requirements .....,..,.......,.................'....' ,....,....,............... ,..,......,....,........,.... ,.., VII-I I, Federal................................,............,....,........,.,....,.......,....,..,....,....,....,........,....,.., VII-I a) Clean Water ,Act..,....,..,.........,..........,.................,..,..............,....,....,..,...., VII-2 2, State ........,.........,....,.., ,.........................................,..... ,....,.........,..,.. ,............,....,.. VII-2 a) California Department ofFish and Game ..,....,..........................,..........,., VII-2 b) Regional Water Quality Control Board.............,..............,......................, VII-3 B. Methods ......... ...., ........, ...., ...., .........., ....,..,..,.. ,........ ..,.......... ...." ...., .........,....,.... ....', ..... ...... VII-3 C. Results....., ...., ...., ...., ........, ...." ........., ....,..,....,..... ...., ...... ......, ...... ....,.., ...... ...................'...... VII-4 D, Recommendations ,.. ...., ..,............,.."......",.., ........, , ...... ...... ....", ....,.... ....,....,...., ....,.... ..,., ,.. VII-9 VIII, References ...... .........".... ...."..,...., ....,..,.."......",..,.. ..,...." ....,.. ....,...... ...., ....,........,...., ....,.. ......... VIII-I A, Literature Cited..,....,....,..........,...,.......,.................,......,.............,.......,.........................,...., VIII-l B. Personal Communications,.......,.... ..,..... ....,..", ...., .........., ...... .......... ...., ....... ..., ..., ...,...... ,.., VIII-4 Biotic Reportsfor the Stevens Creek Corridor Master Plan Thomas Reid Associates January 2006 Table of Content Pageiii FIGURES AND TABLES Figure I, Regional Location of the Stevens Creek Corridor Master Plan Project. ,..........................,....,..,.1-9 Figure 2, Stevens Creek Corridor Master Plan Study Area ................,..............................,.,.....,...........,..1-1 0 Figure 3. Existing Habitat and Surrounding Land Uses of the Stevens Creek Corridor Master Plan Project ,....,....,....,........,.....,....,..,..,.....,.."..,..,.........,..,....,....,.."...............,..,....,..,..,..,.................................,....,....,1-11 Figure 4. CNDDB Map for Project Site,.,........,..,.......,.....................,...............,..,.......,....·..,....,....,....,.....1-12 Figure 5, Owl Tape Playback Stations at the Stevens Creek Corridor Master Plan Project..............,..,..IV-5 Figure 6, Nesting Raptor Survey Results............,..,....,..,.....,............,.........,...............,.."..,......,..........,..,IV-9 Figure 7, Wetland Data Points Map.....,....,.......,.......................................,....,......,................................ VII-7 Figure 8, Delineated Wetlands and OHW Map .......,..........,.......................................,........,................. VII-8 Table 1. CRLF Observations Within a 5-Mile Radius c¡fthe Project Site.......................................,.......lI!-5 Table 2, FYLF and WPT Observations Within a 5-Mile Radius of The Project Site, ...........................,lI!-6 Table 3, Suggested Recommendations for the Stevens Creek Corridor Master Plan .........,....................lI!-9 Table 4, CNDDB records and other Unrecorded Occurrences of Rap tors within a Ten·mile Radius of the Study Area ..........' ...............' ............, ,....... ...., ....,... ........ ........., ...... ........, ...., ..,......... ....,.........,.... ........".., IV-6 Table 5, Nesting Raptor Survey Results ....,.....,..........,.....................,......,....,..........,..........,................,..,lV-8 Table 6, Special Status Plant Species with Potential for Occurrence on Site ..,.......................................Vl-3 Table 7, Plant Communities and Plant Species Observed in the Stevens Creek Corridor Master Plan Area. ...................................,......,.......,.........,..................................,..........,............,............................,...........,VI-3 Table 8. Wetland Characterization at Sample Points..............,..,...........................................,..,......,..... VII-4 Table 9, Plant Species found in Wetland Areas................,.................................................·.................. VII-9 APPENDICES Appendix A. Photos ,......., ....,....,... ...., ............ ...., ...., ...... .....,...., ......,............ ........... ....,... .......,..... ,........,.. A-I Appendix B. List of all bird species observed ..,............................,....,..,......,.................,..,..............,..,.... B-1 Appendix C, Wetland Data Sheets,......"..,............,....,.....,......,..........,..".......,.....................,..,........,....,.., C-I Biotic Reports/or the Stevens Creek Corridor Master Plan Thomas Reid Associates January 2006 Introduction 1-1 I. INTRODUCTION A. PURPOSE As part of the environmental review for the proposed Stevens Creek Corridor Master Plan Project (Master Plan) for the City of Cupertino (City), Thomas Reid Associates, with the exception of the bat surveys which were completed by H.T. Harvey & Associates, conducted the following biotic surveys and assessments: I, A site assessment for the federally Threatened California tiger salamander (CTS hereafter), 2, US Fish and Wildlife Service protocol surveys for California red-legged frog (CRLF hereafter) 3, A nesting raptor survey 4, Bat surveys (completed by H,T. Harvey & Associates) 5, Rare plant and botanical inventory surveys 6. A preliminary wetland delineation The general purpose for each of the above studies was to assess potential impacts that may occur to resources within the Stevens Creek Corridor due to the implementation of the City's Master Plan and recommend avoidance and minimization protocols. The City of Cupertino and its partner the Santa Clara Valley Water District propose to convert a commercial picnic facility into a neighborhood park, restore approximately 1,15 miles of in-stream and riparian habitat along Stevens Creek within the 100-year floodplain, enhance adjacent upland oak woodland habitat, construct a 5,900 foot all weather trail and develop a new environmental education center, These activities will occur on approximately 60 acres if City of Cupertino and Santa Clara Valley Water District Properties bordered by Stevens Creek Boulevard to the north, McClellan Road to the south and residential neighborhoods to the east and west. More specific purposes of each biotic study are discussed below, California Tiger Salamander Site Assessment: Because the study area is located within the known range of CTS, this Site Assessment is a preliminary evaluation of the potential for the project site to support CTS, Results of the Site Assessment will help the U .S, Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) detennine if and/or how these species should be addressed for the proposed project, including if focused field surveys are necessary, and/or if an incidental take authorization is needed, either through a Section 7 Consultation or Section 10(a)(I)(B) pennit, under the federal Endangered Species Act. California Red-legged Frog Protocol Surveys: The USFWS protocol surveys for CRLF function both as an evaluation of potential habitat within the project boundaries and as an indication of species presence, Like the CTS Site Assessment, results of the CRLF surveys will help the U,S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) detennine if and/or how these species should be addressed for the proposed project, including if an incidental take authorization is needed, either through a Section 7 Consultation or Section I O(a)(I)(B) pennit, under the federal Endangered Species Act. Survey results will also provide guidance on avoidance protocol measures to be applied during the restoration and park implementation phases of the project. Nesting Raptor Surveys: Results ftom the raptor study will be used as a preliminary identification of any trees with raptor nests, These results will be used along with pre-construction survey results to avoid impacts to any trees with raptor nests during the restoration and park implementation phases of the project. For the nesting raptor surveys an emphasis was placed on the long-eared owl (Asia otus), This was mainly due to: I) its status as a California Species of Special Concern; 2) the presence of potential nesting habitat within the corridor; and 3) a documented occurrence of long-eared owl within the upper watershed. Biotic Reports/or the Stevens Creek Corridor Master Plan Thomas Reid Associates January 2006 Introduction 1-2 Bat Surveys: Bat surveys were conducted to detennine potential habitat and roosting sites within the study area, These results will provide guidance on avoiding impacts to any tree or structure used for roosting during the restoration and park implementation phases of the project. Rare Plant and Botanical Inventory Surveys: The objectives of the rare plant surveys were to: I) research the special status plants with potential to occur within the project region as well as the habitat requirement of each of these species; 2) survey the site and identify and record each observed plant to the extent necessary to detennine its' rarity and listing status; and 3) detennine the potential for special status plant species occurrence on site. Preliminary Wetland Delineation: The purpose of the delineation was to detennine the extent of existing wetland values in the creek. This infonnation will help guide the preparation of a proposed Master Plan and will be used to detennine the potential impacts of that plan on wetlands, B. SUMMARY OF RESULTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 1. California Tiger Salamander Site Assessment While CTS are widely considered to be extirpated from this portion of the San Francisco Bay Area, the undocumented, incidental observations of CTS suggests that CTS may still be present in the region, However, an amphibian inventory of all Mid Peninsula Regional Open Space District (MROSD) lands in 1999 and 2000 (Seymour and Westphal 2000) did not detect any CTS in the region. Regardless of the absence or presence of CTS in the region, very little suitable upland habitat exists within the study area, and no suitable breeding habitat is present. Only two areas on site support potential upland aestivation habitat (i.e, have ground squirrel burrows), and these areas are small and isolated (only a few acres in total). One area is adjacent to the community garden and the other is on the Stocklmeir property, As a whole, the study area is extremely isolated by surrounding residential development and associated roads, Even if CTS were still present where they had been incidentally observed, dense residential development and associated roads would preclude any potential for migration to the study area, Therefore, based on the existing habitats and surrounding land uses, CTS are not considered to have any potential to occur within the Stevens Creek Corridor Master Plan study area. 2. Focused Surveys for Special Status Amphibians and Reptiles Results: Background research revealed a total often California red-legged frog (CRLF), two foothill yellow-legged frog (FYLF), and three western pond turtle (WPT) occurrences in the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB), Museum of Vertebrate Zoology (MVZ), California Academy of Sciences (CAS), unpublished literature, and/or unrecorded observations within 5 miles of the project site, No CRLF, FYLF, or WPT were detected during the five focused surveys on the project site conducted by TRA, ' Because CRLF have been documented less than 1.2 miles upstream, there is the potential for them to be present within the study area, However, the potential is low due to the negative survey results, the lack of optimal breeding habitat, and the dominance of Bullfrogs within the study area, It is highly unlikely FYLF are present within the study area because they were not detected during surveys nor have they been detected within a 5-mile radius of the study area in the last 50 years, WPT are likely present in very low numbers within the study area because of recent observations. Although it is unknown if WPT are nesting within the study area, the two locations detennined to be potential nesting habitat are the open field at McClellan Ranch and the orchard at the Stocklmeir property. Recommendations: I) Prior to any construction-related activities, one daytime pre-construction survey for CRLF and WPT Biotic ReportsIor the Stevens Creek Corridor Master Plan January 2006 Thomas Reid Associates Introduction /-3 should be conducted by a qualified biologist within 48 hours of construction. During this time, all woodpiles within the property should be dismantled and rodent burrows inspected to ensure that CRLF is not aestivating in these structures, If CRLF are detected, the USFWS should be contacted on how to proceed, If WPT are detected, the CDFG should be contacted on how to proceed, If no CRLF are detected, woodpiles should either be moved off site or covered to prevent CRLF from becoming trapped on the construction site, 2) During the construction phase of the project, a qualified biologist shall check the site in the morning and in the evening for the presence ofCRLF or WPT, This includes checking holes and under boards left on the ground within the work area. If any CRLF or WPT are found, construction shall be halted, If CRLF are found the biologist shall immediately notify the US Fish and Wildlife Service. If WPT are found, the biologist shall immediately notify CDFG. Subsequent recommendations made by the USFWS or CDFG shall be followed, The biologist shall be aware of all tenns and conditions set by USFWS and CDFG on the project. 3) Construction workers shall be infonned ofthe potential presence ofCRLF and WPT, that these species are to be avoided, and that the foreman must be notified if they are seen, Harassment of these species is a violation of federal and/or state law, 4) It is recommended that this report be submitted to the U,S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the California Deparbnent ofFish and Game (CDFG) to detennine what avoidance and minimization measures will be required during project construction and habitat restoration. 5) Best management practices and appropriate erosion control methods shall be used during construction to keep exposed soils from being washed offsite and into the drainage ditch, This may include using silt fencing, hay bales, or other appropriate methods, 6) The drainage pipe connecting Stevens Creek and the ponds should be screened to minimize the potential for aquatic exotic species in the pond to enter the creek, 3. Nesting Raptor Surveys Results: No long-eared owls or other special status owls were detected during these surveys, Based on observations and communications with local birders, the study area provides breeding habitat for white tailed kite, red-shouldered hawk, and bam owl. Nests were located for white-tailed kite at Blackberry Fann Golf Course and red-shouldered hawk at Blackberry Fann, A roosting site was located for barn owl at Blackberry Fann, The study area also provides potential breeding habitat for western screech owl. Other raptors, such as great-horned owl (Bubo virginianus), American kestrel (Falco sparverius), and coopers hawk (Accipiter cooperii), may also utilize the site for roosting and foraging and possibly breeding, but are less likely, Recommendations: Pre-construction Survey: Because survey results could only approximate nesting and roosting areas (see Figure 6), and new nests may be constructed each breeding season, pre-construction surveys should be conducted in order to ensure that nesting raptors or other nesting birds are not impacted by the project. A qualified biologist should conduct a pre-construction survey of nesting trees prior to starting work if the work has the potential to impact nesting birds, If nesting raptors are found, a 300-foot buffer shall be established around the nest and maintained until the young have fledged, If other nesting birds are found, implementation of the project may be delayed until after nesting is completed, Work may occur if an adequate buffer, as detennined through consultation with the California Deparbnent ofFish and Game, can be established between the construction activity and the nest (SCVWD, 2002), Biotic Reports for the Stevens Creek Corridor Master Plan Thomas Reid Associates January 2006 Introduction 1-4 Avoid impacts to known raptor nests: Because most raptor species, including white-tailed kites, barn owls, and western-screech owls, reuse nests year after year, extra precautions should be taken to avoid' any impacts to known nesting locations and their surrounding areas when completing the Master Plan, 4. Bat Surveys The following results and mitigation measures have been taken &om the report completed by Dave Johnston, Senior Wildlife Ecologist, with H.T. Harvey & Associates, Results: Numerous buildings and other structures along the project alignment appeared to provide an abundance of potential day-roosting and night-roosting habitat. Additionally, many trees, including old and diseased trees, along the riparian habitat had crevices and cavities large enough to provide day- roosting habitat for several species of bats, Although the riparian habitat on the project site appears intact, relatively high levels of human activity occurred during most fall and summer days, and the potential habitat is somewhat fragmented and unconnected to large areas of undisturbed habitat. During fall surveys, (October 8 and 14,2004) no bats were captured but low densities (less than 6/hr) of Yuma myotis (Myotis yumanensis) were detected during acoustic surveying. During sununer surveys (June7 and August 16, 2005), three species (big brown bats [EptesicusJuscus], Mexican tree-tailed bats [Tadarida brasiliensisl, and Yuma myotis) were detected acoustically and/or captured by mist nets placed under the Stevens Creek Boulevard overpass. As a result of these findings, the project reach was searched in August 2005 for roost trees, and one maternity roost tree for big brown bats was identified, No additional maternity roost trees were found, however the project reach provides a variety of potentially suitable roosting habitat for bats. Mitigation measures: Protect the roost tree if possible. Implementation oj Mitigation /,2 and 3 is warranted, would reduce these potential impacts to bats. Mitigation /, Protect the roost tree ifpossible, If the trail development plan requires the removal ofthe tree or disturbance (e,g" grading) adjacent to the tree that could jeopardize the tree, the trail should be moved or rerouted. Construction fencing should be placed to prevent the loss of roots and branches (but see also construction buffer zones), Mitigation 2, Temporal avoidance,' To avoid disturbance to an active maternity colony, construction on the trail should commence after young are volant (flying) (Le" after July 31) and end before maternity colonies form (Le" prior to March I), Thus the project construction can be scheduled from September I through March I to avoid potential construction disturbance to the maternity roost. Mitigation 3, Construction buffer zones, Depending upon the type of potential disturbance to the big brown bat maternity colony roost, a qualified bat biologist should determine the extent of construction- free zones around the sycamore tree #278 identified as the active maternity colony/day roost. Although impacts to the roost are greater during the maternity season, a buffer zone for the non-breeding season day roost should also be established by a bat biologist. California Department ofFish and Game will need to be notified of any active nurseries within the construction zone. Mitigation 4, Preconstruction surveys, Because the big brown bats could move their primary day roost to an on·site building or tree (and other species of bats occurring on the project site could form a new roost), a predemolition survey for roosting bats should also be conducted prior to any building or large tree removal scheduled to occur after six months of this letter. The survey should be conducted by a qualified bat biologist (Le., a biologist holding a CDFG collection permit and a Memorandum of Understanding with CDFG allowing the biologist to handle and collect bats), Biotic Reports for the Stevens Creek Corridor Master Plan Thomas Reid Associates January 2006 Introduction 1-5 Mitigation 5, Exclude bats prior to construction disturbance of, or loss of, roosts, If the sycamore tree with the nursery roost is planned (and required) to be removed, a qualified bat biologist should exclude bats outside of the maternity season (i.e" prior to March I or after July 31 when young are volant or flying) with the use of one-way doors. Tree cutting or construction should then follow no less than tree days after because all bats may not exit each night. If a non-breeding bat hibernaculum is found in a building or tree that needs removal, the individual bats should be safely evicted also through the use of one-way doors as above, 5. Rare Plant and Botanical Inventory Surveys Results: No rare plants were found during field surveys conducted within the project reach. A total of seven rare plants were identified within 5 miles of the project reach using the CNDDB (Updated: June 2005) and the California Native Plant Society (CNPS) Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants of California (2001), Only two of rare plant species were identified as having potential to occur within the study area based on habitat type, namely, Dudley's lousewort (Pedicularis dudleyi) and western leatherwood (Dirca occidentalis). The potential habitat on site for Dudley's lousewort and western leatherwood were surveyed during their flowering period in the winter/spring 2005, and neither species was detected, In addition, Jeffrey Caldwell, a local botanist with extensive knowledge ofthe project reach, has not observed any rare plant species within the study area. Recommendations: There are no recommendations to avoid or minimize impacts to rare plant species, 6. Preliminary Wetland Delineation Results: This reach of Stevens Creek contains jurisdictional in-stream seasonal wetland dominated by bulrush and willow-leaved dock, and riparian bank vegetation. Based on field measurement, the creek contains 0.2 acre of jurisdictional wetland. This stretch of the creek also contains 0,2 acre of riparian bank vegetation dominated by blackberry, and a canopy of riparian trees. The two constructed ponds on the golf course support wetland vegetation dominated by cattail (Typha sp.). Because they are human-made and maintained, these ponds do not fall under USACE jurisdiction, however, any proposed modification of these ponds will come under the review ofthe RWQCB and CDFG, Recommendations: I) The project will likely be subject to pennits ITom the USACE, the R WQCB and CDFG. Existing conditions will need to be clearly documented for these pennits, 2) It is recommended that the plan address the removal of exotic species, such as Arundo donax and Vinca major, and replanting of bank vegetation to improve wetland and wildlife values but retain bank stabilization, 3) Similarly, any native bank vegetation that is removed should be replaced to provide the same functions and values, but also foster diversity, 4) In consideration of channel modifications, the Master Plan should provide for the development ofbars or other substrate that supports in-stream seasonal wetland vegetation, 5) Modification or annual draining ofthe golf course ponds to control for invasive exotic species (ie" bullITog), should take into account potential impacts to nesting birds and native amphibians. Biotic Reports/or the Stevens Creek Corridor Master Plan Thomas Reid Associates January 2006 Introduction 1-6 C. BACKGROUND Over the past 25 years the City has acquired property in this stream reach and has developed several public use facilities, Among other goals, the City hopes to preserve and restore the natural environment of the creek, support a variety oftrail uses, and encourage educational uses ofthe creek corridor, The study area is located within the Fisheries Management Zone identified in the Fisheries and Aquatic Habitat Collaborative Effort (FAHCE) settlement. This settlement commits the Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD) to conduct in-stream and stream-side habitat restoration in three watersheds, including the Stevens Creek watershed, The Master Plan stream reach is located within the area identified in the FAHCE settlement for the majority of habitat restoration and water supply management. Both the City and the SCVWD are working in partnership to address the goals of the Stevens Creek Corridor Master Plan at the subject stream reach, Primary elements of the Master Plan will include restoration of portions of the creek, expansion of the riparian corridor, barrier removal within the creèk, and creek-side trail construction. Previous biological reports prepared for the study area and reviewed for these reports include Assessment of Biological Opportunities and Constraints: Report for the City of Cupertino, Stevens Creek Trail Feasibility Study (Trulio 200 I) and Results of a One-Year Survey for Amphibians on Lands Managed by the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District in the Santa Cruz Mountains of California (Seymour and Westphal 2000), D. SETIING 1. Introduction The Stevens Creek Corridor Master Plan area encompasses the Stevens Creek corridor between Stevens Creek Boulevard and McClellan Road in the City of Cupertino (City), Santa Clara County, California (Figure I), The approximately 60-acre Master Plan project area is located in Township 7S, Range 2W within Section 15 of the Cupertino 7,5 minute USGS topographic quadrangle, 2, Study Area The Master Plan study area encompasses approximately one-mile of the Stevens Creek corridor, Associated lands owned by the City and included in the Master Plan area include the Stocklmeir property and the Blackberry Farm Golf Course (a nine-hole course), situated on the northwest and northeast border of Stevens Creek; Blackberry Farm, along the central eastern border of the creek; the Simms property and McClellan Ranch Park, situated on the southwestern and southeastern border of the creek; and a 2,25-acre parcel adjacent to Blackberry Farm, owned by the Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD) (Fig, 2), Residential development surrounds the study area in all directions for most of its length within the City, with exception of the Deep Cliff Golf Course immediately south of McClellan Road. Topography on the site is relatively flat, with elevations ranging from approximately 280 to 335 feet above sea level. For purposes of this report, the riparian corridor and the associated lands that are the subject of this assessment are referred to hereafter in this report as the study area. 3, Habitats and Vegetation Several habitat types exist within the study area including in-stream aquatic habitat and Sycamore-oak riparian woodland habitat. Upland portions of the study area consist of orchard, residential development, golf course parklands, annual grassland, and community gardens, Deep Cliff Golf Course supports several ponds and other landscaped features similar to the Blackberry Farm, Further south of the Deep Cliffs Golf Course, undeveloped open space, leading to Stevens Creek reservoir and the upper Stevens Creek watershed are present. Biotic Reports for the Stevens Creek Corridor Master Plan Thomas Reid Associates January 2006 Introduction 1-7 The predominant habitat type associated with the creek is moderately dense Sycamore-oak riparian woodland, characterized as the California Sycamore Series in Sawyer and Keeler-Wolf (1995) (Appendix A, Photo I), California Sycamore (Platanus racemosa) and coast live oaks (Quercus agrifolia) dominate the riparian canopy, with a mixture of dogwood (Cornus sp.), valley oak (Quercus lobata), California bay (Umbellularia californica), black cottonwood (Populus balsamifera ssp. trichocarpa), and pines (Pinus sp,), among others, Understory vegetation includes Himalayan blackberry (Rubus discolor), arroyo willow (Salix lasiolepis), box elder (Acer negundo), and blue elderberry (Sambucus mexicana), among others, The Stocklmeir property comprises the northwest boundary of the study area (Photo 5), This portion of the study area supports an orange tree orchard, one vacant residence, and associated out buildings, The Blackberry Fann Golf Course, situated on the northeastern portion of the study area, is heavily landscaped and is dominated by lawn grass and sparse mature pine trees (Pinus sp), There are two ponds on the golf course, A paved parking lot, restaurant, and golf shop are located at the northernmost portion of the golf course. Blackberry Fann is located adjacent to, and directly south of the golf course, The park is situated within the central portion of the study area, on the east and west banks of the creek corridor, This portion of the study area supports parking lots, picnic grounds, grass playing fields, swimming pools, and a variety of park buildings and structures, The majority of this area is paved, Annual grassland habitat, characterized as California annual grassland series in Sawyer and Keeler-Wolf (1995), is present in the southern portion of the study area within the Simms property, SCVWD lands, and McClellan Ranch Park (Photo 6), The McClellan Ranch and SCVWD lands include a large parcel with a variety of short non-native grasses. Associated vegetation includes yellow star thistle (Centaurea solstitialis), bull thistle (Cirsium vulgare), dandelion (Taraxacum officinale), coyote brush (Baccharis pilularis), Peruvian pepper tree (Schinus molle), and coast live oak. The McClellan Ranch House, museum, blacksmith shop, community gardens, and other associated out buildings are also present within this portion of the study area. The Simms propérty also supports annual grasslands, and one occupied residence, 4, Hydrology Aquatic habitats existing within the study area include Stevens Creek and two human-made ponds on Blackberry Fann Golf Course. Both aquatic habitats hold water year round, Stevens Creek is bordered for much of its length by mature riparian forest including willows, cottonwoods and sycamore trees with a lush understory of native and non-native brush, herbs, and grasses, The golf course ponds have a dense cover of cattails covering large sections of each pond (Photo 2), Aquatic habitats within a five-mile radius of the study area include Pennanente Creek, approximately 1,2 miles west; Swiss Creek, approximately 1,8 miles southwest; Regnart Creek, approximately 1,0 mile southeast; Prospect Creek, approximately 2,0 miles southeast; Calabazas Creek, approximately 3,5 miles southeast; and Saratoga Creek, approximately 4.5 miles south. Stevens Creek originates in the Santa Cruz Mountains in the general vicinity of Skyline Drive and Page Mill Road, It flows approximately 8 miles through the mountains until it is contained behind a dam in the Stevens Creek Reservoir, The study area is approximately 1.2 miles downstream of the Stevens Creek dam, Swiss Creek, located to the southwest, drains into a reservoir 0,2 miles west of Stevens Creek Reservoir, A total of four ponds drain into and are located south of Stevens Creek Reservoir. Between Stevens Creek Reservoir and the study area is a fonner rock quarry site and the Deep Cliff Golf Course. Downstream of the study area, Stevens Creek continues to flow through the City of Cupertino and then flows adjacent to Highway 85 through the cities of Los Altos, Sunnyvale and Mountain View, This portion ofthe creek is completely surrounded by urban development. After passing under Highway 101, Stevens Creek flows into Whisman Slough and then empties into the San Francisco Bay. Biotic Reports for the Stevens Creek Corridor Master Plan Thomas Reid Associates January 2006 Introduction 1-8 Water flow through Stevens Creek within the study area is regulated at the Stevens Creek dam and therefore varies throughout the year. Bank full width is 22 to 23 feet. The elevation of the channel ranges from 335 feet mean sea level (msl) at McClellan Road to 280 feet at Stevens Creek Boulevard (Kier and Wright, 7/29/05), The majority of the banks are moderately steep, dropping between 5 and 10 feet in elevation from the top of bank to the creek channel. Portions of the east bank of the creek at Blackberry Farm Golf Course have been channelized (Photo 3) and rip-rapped which increases flow velocity and provides almost no substrate for vegetation. Within Blackberry Farm, riprap has been used to stabilize portions ofthe banks (Photo 4) and three low flow crossings have been established, Upstream of uppennost low flow crossing is a diversion dam and intake structure (Photo 4) that diverts Stevens Creek to the golf course ponds, The two constructed ponds within the Blackberry Farm Golf Course are approximately 0.2 acre and 0,05 acre in size. These ponds are supplied with water from Stevens Creek through a diversion dam in Blackberry Farm.' Both ponds predominantly contain emergent cattails with some dense floating and submergent aquatic vegetation. The depth of the ponds was not measured, however they are estimated to be between 1 and 3 feet deep. The two ponds are connected by a small ditch (approximately 50 feet long and 5 feet wide) that contains sparse, low growing mostly non-native aquatic vegetation and grasses. An underground drainage pipe, approximately five inches in diameter, conveys pond overflow to Stevens Creek. Biotic Reports/or the Stevens Creek Co"idor Master Plan Thomas Reid Associates January 2006 Introduction 1-9 200II Feet Bnet)Iop: CA S1II1oAutomo1í1o _lion, C ~œ _, TRA JollUllry2005 Fioute1:Règklnal LocæIon of the $tèven$ CI1Mtlt Corrl4oi' M.'" Plàl'l Project. (Property Boundary ApproJdmate) Biotic Reports for the Stevens Creek Corridor Master Plan Thomas Reid Associates January 2006 Introduction L.J \\ "'-I r':::;-l':'- ì ¡/ ¡ I ) ! , ,( U¡ 1-10 ) Q Legend --....~ ......, E**'8T_~ " .".~c..-~Plln ~ ..- l L """""".... /'\ \ \ ~ \ Menta Vista \ ~hTI ¿ ) NORTH -- ...... ... 1"'-:"\01"- Biotic Reportsfor the Stevens Creek Corridor Master Plan Thomas Reid Associates January 2006 Introduction f-11 Figure 3, Existing Habitat and Surrounding Land Uses 01 the Slevens Creek Corridor Master Plan Project. Biotic Reports for the Stevens Creek Corridor Master Plan Thomas Reid Associates January 2006 Introduction 1-12 Figure 4. CNDDB Map for Project Site. All special status species recorded within a 5-mile radius are shown. ~ ...,.,.lNIIentIIood ~$:'I CcIopñ hIMt< m ...... .... _ -5(' ~ _ Lamond bu<IoIohIII IE KlI1I_n-*'> 0 .~~aptd~Q.rpum - [ill I..ome PdoIt hoIII t;S3 .,......, .... CoIIDmIa red-Iopd frog : i; 5S:3 CoIIDmIaIlot_ IZZ] --- ø 1IIIIuIt......-.- __TOPOIO__? ......... _""1RO,__ Biotic Reportsfor the Stevens Creek Corridor Master Plan Thomas Reid Associates January 2006 California Tiger Salamander Site Assessment II-I n. CALIFORNIA TIGER SALAMANDER SITE ASSESSMENT A. SUMMARY As part of the environmental review for the proposed Stevens Creek Corridor Master Plan Project, Thomas Reid Associates conducted a Site Assessment for the federally Threatened California tiger salamander (Ambystoma californiense), The Stevens Creek Corridor Master Plan area encompasses the Stevens Creek corridor between Stevens Creek Boulevard and McClellan Road in the City of Cupertino (City), Santa Clara County, California, The City is working in partnership with the Santa Clara Valley Water District to address the goals of the Stevens Creek Corridor Master Plan at the subject stream reach, Primary elements of the Master Plan wilI include restoration of portions of the creek, expansion of the riparian corridor, barrier removal within the creek, and creek-side trail construction, Among other goals, the City hopes to preserve and restore the natural environment ofthe creek, support a variety oftrail uSes, and encourage educational uses of the creek corridor. Several habitat types exist within the study area including in-stream aquatic habitat and Sycamore-oak riparian woodland habitat. Upland portions of the study area consist of orchard, residential development, golf course park lands, annual grassland, and community gardens. Dense residential development surrounds the study area in all directions, with exception of the Deep Cliffs Golf Course, just south of the McClellan Road boundary. The golf course supports several ponds and other landscaped features similar to the Blackberry Farm Golf Course. Further south of the Deep Cliffs Golf Course, undeveloped open space, leading to Stevens Creek reservoir and the upper Stevens Creek watershed are present. Based on the background research there is one documented occurrence of CTS within proximity to the study area, approximately 1.5 miles west of the study area (CNDDB 2004), This is a historical museum record and was collected on November II, 1893. It was also discovered that there are three more recent un-documented, incidental observations of CTS within proximity to the study area. These observations took place in the 1970s, 1980s and early 1990s by a local wildlife biologist. There is no other known CTS documentation in the area. Based on this site assessment, very little suitable upland habitat exists within the study area, and no suitable breeding habitat is present. Only two areas on site, adjacent to the community garden and at the Stocklmeir property, support potential upland aestivation habitat (ground squirrel burrows), Scattered ground squirrel burrows are also present along portions of the creek banks, The only potentially suitable breeding habitat (ponds on Blackberry Farm Golf Course) is inhabited by non-native predators (bullfrog, carp, and crayfish), CTS are known to be ftequently absent ftom ponds that support these predatory species (Jennings and Hayes 1994). As a whole, the study area is extremely isolated by surrounding residential development and associated roads. Even if CTS were stilI present where they had been incidentally observed, dense residential development and associated roads would preclude any potential for migration to the study area. Therefore, based on the existing habitats and surrounding land uses, CTS are not considered to have any potential to occur within the Stevens Creek Corridor Master Plan study area, Based on this Site Assessment, further surveys are not considered warranted, However, it is recommended that this report be submitted to the USFWS to seek concurrence with these findings, or detennine if additional surveys will be required. Biotic Reports for the Stevens Creek Corridor Master Plan Thomas Reid Associates January 2006 California Tiger Salamander Site Assessment /I-2 B. REGULATORY BACKGROUND On August 4,2004, the USFWS published a final determination of Threatened Status for the California tiger salamander (USFWS 2004a), effective September 3, 2004, under the federal Endangered Species Act (ESA). This ruling includes a reclassification of the Santa Barbara and Sonoma populations ITom Endangered to Threatened. Pursuant to the ESA, the USFWS also proposed to designate 47 Critical Habitat Units in 20 counties in California, Based on a review of proposed Critical Habitat for Santa Clara County (USFWS 2004b), the study area is not located within a proposed Critical Habitat Unit. However, species presence outside of its Critical Habitat would still warrant protection under the ESA. C. NATURAL HISTORY California tiger salamanders inhabit valley and foothill grasslands and the grassy understory of open woodlands, usually within one mile of water (Jennings and Hayes 1994). CTS will also less commonly inhabit oak woodland habitat (USFWS 2003). Two major components necessary within these habitats include terrestrial aestivation or refuge sites, and aquatic breeding sites, The California tiger salamander is terrestrial as an adult and spends most of its time underground in subterranean refugia, especially ground squirrel burrows and occasionally human-made structures (e,g. lumber piles), emerging only for brief periods to breed, If present in oak woodland habitat, they may occasionally aestivate under leaf litter and logs, They can overwinter in burrows as far as I mile from their breeding site (Jennings and Hayes 1994), Tiger salamanders breed and lay their eggs primarily in vernal pools and other ephemeral ponds that fill in the winter and often dry by sununer (Loredo et al. 1996), They sometimes use permanent human-made ponds (e,g" stockponds), reservoirs, and small lakes, although they are subject to failure in water bodies that support introduced predatory fish species (Stebbins 1972; Zeiner et al. 1988), Streams are rarely used for reproduction. Adult salamanders migrate ITom upland habitats to aquatic breeding sites during the first major rainfall events of fall and early winter and return to upland habitats after breeding. This species is particularly sensitive to the duration of standing water at aquatic breeding sites. Because tiger salamanders have an approximately lO-week-long developmental period, the longest lasting seasonal ponds or vernal pools are the most suitable type of breeding habitat; such pools are also typically the largest (Jennings and Hayes 1994). Moreover, large vernal pool complexes, rather than isolated pools, probably offer the best quality habitat; these areas can support a mixture of core breeding sites and nearby refuge habitat (Shaffer et al. 1993; Jennings and Hayes 1994), D. SITE ASSESSMENT METHODS Thomas Reid Associates conducted this assessment following Interim Guidance on Site Assessment and Field Surveys far Determining Presence ar a Negative Finding ofCalifarnia Tiger Salamander (USFWS and CDFG 2003), Prior to conducting the field surveys, the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB), the Museum of Vertebrate Zoology (MVZ) database, University of California, Berkeley, and the Herpetology Collection database of the California Academy of Sciences (CAS) were searched for locality records of CTS within Santa Clara County. Local experts were contacted to discuss knowledge ofCTS in the region, Finally, aerial photographs were viewed to assess on-site and surrounding habitat types and land uses within 1.24 miles (2 Ian) of the study area, based on the observed mobility of the species. The study area was surveyed on October 12 and December I, 2004 by Thomas Reid Associates biologists Patrick Kobernus and Kim Briones, The entire creek and associated lands, with exception of the Blackberry Farm Golf Course fairways, were walked and inspected, However, ponds within the golf Biotic Reports for the Stevens Creek Corridor Master Plan Thomas Reid Associates January 1006 California Tiger Salamander Site Assessment II-3 course were inspected. All burrows and/or burrow complexes within the upland portion of the study areas were recorded on a field map. All wildlife detected by sight or sign were recorded, E. RESULTS I. Known Localities of CTS Within the Project Region and Within 3.1 miles (5 km) ofthe Project Boundaries There are two documented occurrences ofCTS on the Peninsula of the San Francisco Bay Area, One of these occurrences is within proximity to the study area, approximately 1,5 miles west of the study area (CNDDB 2004), This occurrence was ftom a museum collection dated November II, 1893, and since this time considerable development, predominantly residential, has occurred in the surrounding vicinity. The second documented occurrence is located approximately] 0 miles from the study area (Lake Lagunita at Stanford), and substantial urban and suburban development lies in between this location and the study area, Therefore, this occurrence is not considered further in this report, As part of the background research, it was discovered that there have been three more recent un- documented occurrences of CTS within proximity to the study area, These occurrences were made incidentally by wildlife biologist Eric Remington. However, they have not been documented in any database, These occurrences are located in I) Rogue Valley in Rancho San Antonio County Park (approximately 2 miles northwest of the subject reach), 2) along Pennanente Creek between the Hanson Pennanente Quarry and Rancho San Antonio County Park (approximately one-half mile west of the subject reach), and 3) on the south side of Cristo Rey Drive, east of the Gate of Heaven Cemetery (approximately I mile northwest of the subject reach) (E, Remington Pers, Comm,), These observations took place in the] 970s, 1980s and early 1990s. There is no other known CTS documentation in the area, 2. Habitat Assessment Several habitat types exist within the study area including in-stream aquatic habitat and Sycamore-oak riparian woodland habitat. Upland portions of the study area consist of orchard, residential development, golf course park lands, annual grassland, and community gardens. Stevens Creek represents the in-stream habitat, which flows through the entire length of the study area. The predominant habitat type associated with the creek is a moderately dense Sycamore-oak riparian woodland, characterized as the California Sycamore Series in Sawyer and Keeler-Wolf (1995) (Photo I), California Sycamore (Platanus racemosa) and coast live oaks (Quercus agrifo/ia) dominate the riparian canopy, with a mixture of dogwood (Cornus sp.), valley oak (Quercus lobata), California bay (Umbe//ularia calif arnica), black cottonwood (Populus balsamifera ssp, trichocarpa), and pines (Pinus sp,), among others, Understory vegetation includes Himalayan blackberry (Rubus discolor), arroyo willow (Salix lasiolepis), box elder (Acer negundo), and elderberry (Sambucus sp.), among others, The Stocklmeir property comprises the northwest boundary of the study area (Photo 5). This portion of the study area supports an orange tree orchard, two vacant residences, and associated out buildings, It supports the highest concentration of ground squirrel burrows within the study area, approximately 80, which are mostly associated with the orchard trees, The Blackberry Fann Golf Course, situated on the northeastern portion of the study area, is heavily landscaped and is dominated by lawn grass and sparse mature pine trees (Pinus sp), A paved parking lot, restaurant, and golf shop are located at the northernmost portion of the golf course. Two human-made ponds, approximately 0.2 acre and 0,05 acre, are present within this portion of the study area (Photo 2). Both ponds consist predominantly of cattails and dense subrnergent aquatic vegetation, At the time of the field visit, Pond A supported abundant introduced non-native species including carp and bullftogs, Correspondence with golfers also revealed that crayfish also exist in the ponds. Numerous red-winged Biotic Reports for the Stevens Creek Corridor Master Plan January 2006 Thomas Reid Associates California Tiger Salamander Site Assessment 1I-4 blackbirds and waterfowl including mallard, pied-billed grebe, hooded merganser, and American coot were also observed using the ponds. Blackberry Farms Park lands are located adjacent to, and directly south of the golf course, The park is situated within the central portion of the study area, on the east side of the creek corridor. This portion of the study area supports, parking lots, picnic grounds, grass playing fields, swimming pools, and a variety of park buildings and structures, The majority of this area is paved, Annual grassland habitat, characterized as California annual grassland series in Sawyer and Keeler-Wolf (1995), is present in the southern portion of the study area, within the Simms property, SCVWD lands, and McClellan Ranch Park (Photo 6), The McClellan Ranch and SCVWD lands include a large parcel with a variety of short non-native grasses, Associated vegetation included yellow star thistle (Centaurea solstitialis), bull thistle (Cirsium vulgare), dandilion (Taraxacum officinale), coyote brush (Baccharis pilularis), Brazilian pepper tree (Schinus terebinthifolius), and coast live oak. Numerous gopher mounds were observed. However, no ground squirrel activity or burrows were detected within this portion of the study area. The McClellan Ranch House, museum, blacksmith shop, caretaker residence, community gardens, and other associated out buildings are also present within this portion of the study area. The southern perimeter of the community garden was walked and numerous ground squirrels and burrows were seen scattered along a gentle slope. The Simms property also supports annual grasslands, and one occupied residence. No ground squirrel activity or burrows were observed here, 3. Surrounding Habitats Within 1.24 Miles (2 km) of the Project Boundaries Dense residential development surrounds the study area in all directions, with exception of the Deep Cliffs Golf Course, just south of the McClellan Road boundary (Figure 3). The golf course supports several ponds and other landscaped features similar to the Blackberry Farm Golf Course. Further south of the Deep Cliffs Golf Course, undeveloped open space, leading to Stevens Creek reservoir and the upper Stevens Creek watershed are present. Based on review of recent aerial photos (GlobeXplorer 2002), these undeveloped lands predominantly support annual grassland, chaparral, and oak woodland, Very sparse residential development is present throughout this area, F. DISCUSSION While CTS are widely considered to be extirpated ftom this portion of the San Francisco Bay Area, the undocumented, incidental observations of CTS previously mentioned suggests that CTS may still be present in the region. However, an amphibian inventory of all Mid Peninsula Regional Open Space District (MROSD) lands in 1999 and 2000 (Seymour and Westphal 2000) did not detect any CTS in the region, Much of the MROSD lands surveyed by Seymour and Westphal (2000) are located within the foothills surrounding the study area, including the undeveloped lands south of the Deep Cliffs Golf èourse, and south of the study area, Similarly, the MROSD inventory was also conducted in the locality of the previously mentioned undocumented CTS observations, Twelve of the fifteen potentially occurring amphibian species were detected during this inventory. However, CTS was among the three species that were not detected, Regardless of the absence or presence of CTS in the region, very little suitable upland habitat exists within the study area, and no suitable breeding habitat is present. Only two areas on site, adjacent to the community garden and at the Stocklmeir property, support potential upland aestivation habitat (ground squirrel burrows), Scattered ground squirrel burrows are also present along portions of the creek banks, The only potentially suitable breeding habitat (ponds on Blackberry Farm Golf Course) is inhabited by non-native predators (bullftog, carp, and crayfish), Research has shown that CTS are frequently absent ftom ponds that support these predatory species (Jennings and Hayes 1994), As a whole, the study area is extremely isolated by surrounding residential development and associated roads. Even if CTS were still present where they had been incidentally observed, dense residential development and associated roads Biotic Reportslor the Stevens Creek Corridor Master Plan January 2006 Thomas Reid Associates California Tiger Salamander Site Assessment 1I-5 would preclude any potential for migration to the study area. Therefore, based on the existing habitats and surrounding land uses, CTS are not considered to have any potential to occur within the Stevens Creek Corridor Master Plan study area, Based on this Site Assessment, further surveys are not considered warranted. However, it is recommended that this report be submitted to the USFWS to seek concurrence with these findings, or detennine if additional surveys will be required, Biotic Reports for the Stevens Creek Corridor Master Plan Thomas Reid Associates January 2006 Focused Surveys for Special Status Amphibians and Reptiles III-I m. FOCUSED SURVEYS FOR SPECIAL STATUS AMPHffiIANS AND REPTILES A. SUMMARY As part of the environmental review for the proposed Stevens Creek Corridor Master Plan Project (Master Plan), Thomas Reid Associates (TRA) conducted USFWS protocol surveys for the federally Threatened California red-legged frog (Rana aurora dray/onii), (CRLF). The surveys were also conducted to assess the site for the presence of two California Species of Special Concern, the foothill yellow-legged frog (Rana boylii), (FYLF) and western pond turtle (Emys marmorata), (WPT), All three of these species utilize aquatic habitats similar to those found within the project reach, The focused surveys function both as an evaluation of potential habitat within the project boundaries and as an indication of species presence, Results of the California red-legged frog (CRLF) surveys will help the U,S, Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) detennine if and/or how these species should be addressed for the proposed project, including if an incidental take authorization is needed, either through a Section 7 Consultation or Section 10(a)(I )(B) pennit, under the federal Endangered Species Act. Survey results will also provide guidance on avoidance protocol measures to be included in the final plans for the proposed project. Background research revealed a total of six CRLF, two FYLF, and no WPT occurrences recorded in the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB), Museum of Vertebrate Zoology (MVZ), and California Academy of Sciences (CAS). In addition, there were three additional occurrences of CRLF identified in unpublished literature, H,T. Harvey and Associates completed a report for SCVWD on CRLF occurrences within Santa Clara County in the late 1990's, This report documents two CRLF occurrences (1980's and 1990's) within Stevens Creek, Both records are from just downstream of Stevens Creek Dam (Abel, pers comm,), There is also one, "reliable, yet unconfinned", sighting of a CRLF at a fonner rock quarry) that is located between the study area and Stevens Creek Dam, This sighting is located on private property and is from approximately 4 to 5 years ago (Abel, pers comm,), In the spring of2004, there were three separate unrecorded observations of WPT within McClellan Ranch (Banfield, pers comm,), No CRLF, FYLF, or WPT were detected during the five focused surveys, Surveys of the Creek detected the following native aquatic species (all fishes): threespine stickleback (Gasteros/eus aculeatus), California roach (Lavinia symmetricus), Sacramento sucker (Catostomus occidentalis), and steelhead/rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus myldss), Non-native aquatic species detected included Louisiana red crayfish (Procambarus clarkii,), bullfrog (Rana catesbeiana) (one observed in Stevens Creek) and koi (Cyprinus carpio) (one observed in Stevens Creek), Bullfrogs, crayfish, koi and mosquito fish (Gambusia affinis) were observed to be common to abundant within ponds located on the Blackberry Fanus Golf Course, Because CRLF have been documented less than 1.2 miles upstream, there is the potential for them to be present within the study area, However, the potential is low due to I) the lack of any CRLF observations during the surveys; 2) lotic (stream) systems such as Stevens Creek do not provide optimal breeding habitat for CRLF, and 3) the dominance of Bullfrogs and Koi within the more optimum breeding areas for CRLF within the study area, i.e. the Golf Course ponds. Because FYLF was not detected during these surveys, and no FYLF have recently been detected within a 5-mile radius of the study area, it is highly unlikely this species is present within the study area, WPT was not detected during the surveys, however it is likely they are present in very low numbers because of other recent observations, Although it is unknown if WPT are nesting within the study area, the two locations detennined to be potential nesting habitat are the open field at McClellan Ranch and the orchard at the Stocklmeir property, Biotic Reportsfor the Stevens Creek Corridor Master Plan Thomas Reid Associates January 2006 Focused Surveys for Special Status Amphibians and Reptiles 1/I-2 Recommendations include a pre-construction survey for CRLF and WPT; screening or otherwise filtering water to prevent non-native aquatic species from traveling through the drainpipe in the ponds and into the creek. If creating habitat for CRLF and/or WPT is a goal for the Stevens Creek Restoration project, the following additional recommendations are made: I) Dewater the ponds on the Blackberry Fann golf course during the summer/fall and conduct bullfrog depredation control. This would prevent further Bullfrog colonization of the creek and any wetland habitats created within the floodplains as part of the Restoration project; 2) Educate golf course employees and patrons about avoiding the introduction of exotic species into the golf course ponds, B. METHODS TRA biologists Patrick Kobernus and Terese Kastner conducted five US Fish and Wildlife CRLF protocol surveys within the project reach of Stevens Creek Corridor, One survey was completed in October 2004 and the other four were completed in May and June 2005, Surveys were conducted according to Guidance on Site Assessment and Field Surveys for California Red,legged Frogs (USFWS, 1997), In August 2005, after surveys were completed, the USFWS released a revised guidance, which recommends a total of up to 8 surveys to determine the presence of CRLF, The revised guidance states that the Service will consider the results of site assessments and surveys valid for a period of two years. The 2005 spring surveys consisted of two daytime and two nighttime surveys. All aquatic habitats within the study area were walked and inspected including the entire creek and the golf course ponds, Because both adult FYLF and WPT adults are active in aquatic systems in this region from early spring to late summer, it is likely they would be detected during the focused CRLF surveys. Extra care was taken to scan potential WPT basking sites and creek banks from as far away as possible to increase the probability of detection. All wildlife detected by sight or sign were recorded. Additionally, the creek was walked on four different occasions for raptor surveys and a wetland delineation. Although these species were not the focus of those surveys, basking sites and creek banks were still searched, Prior to conducting the field surveys, the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB), the Museum of Vertebrate Zoology (MVZ) database, University of California, Berkeley, and the Herpetology Collection database of the California Academy of Sciences (CAS) were searched for locality records of CRLF, FYLF, and WPT within Santa Clara County, Local experts Jac Abel (SCVWD) and Mark Allaback (Biosearch Associates) were contacted about their knowledge of these species in the region, C. REGULATORY BACKGROUND I. California Red-legged Frog On May 23,1996, the USFWS published a final determination of Threatened Status for the California red-legged frog (USFWS, 1996a), effective June 24, 1996, under the federal Endangered Species Act (ESA), Pursuant to the ESA, the USFWS issued a Recovery Plan on September 12, 2002 in which eight recovery units were identified, Within these recovery units, core areas have been designated, This project is not within a core area, however it does fall within the South and East San Francisco Bay Recovery Unit. Additionally, a Proposed Designation of Critical Habitat was issued by USFWS on April] 3, 2004, The USFWS proposes to designate 31 Critical Habitat Units in 28 counties in California, Based on a review of proposed Critical Habitat for Santa Clara County (USFWS, 2004), the study area is not located within a proposed Critical Habitat Unit. However species presence outside of its Critical Habitat would still warrant protection under the ESA. Biotic Reports/or the Stevens Creek Corridor Master Plan Thomas Reid Associates January 2006 Focused Surveys for Special Status Amphibians and Reptiles IlI-3 2. Foothill Yellow-legged Frog and Western Pond Turtle The foothill yellow-legged frog and western pond turtle have been designated California Species of Special Concern (CSC) by the California Department ofFish and Game (CDFG), CSC are species that are declining at a rate that could result in listing under the federal Endangered Species Act or the California Endangered Species Act, and/or have historically occurred in low numbers and known threats to their persistence currently exist. This designation is intended to result in special consideration for these animals and is intended to focus attention on the species to help avert the need for costly listing under Federal and State endangered species laws, This designation also is intended to stimulate collection of additional information on the biology, distribution, and status of poorly known at-risk species, and focus research and management attention on them (CDFG, 2003), D. NATURAL HISTORY I. California Red-legged Frog The California red-legged frog (Rana aurora draytonU) is known to occur in grassland, riparian woodland, oak woodland, and coniferous forest but prefer quiet pools, slow-flowing streams, and marshes with heavily vegetated shores for breeding. These frogs stay near the shore hidden in vegetation rather than in open water, Seasonal bodies of water are frequently occupied by red-legged frogs, and in some areas these may be critical for persistence, It is speculated that California red-legged frogs may lie dormant during dry periods of the year or during drought. California red-legged frogs are thought to disperse widely during autumn, winter, and spring rains. Juveniles use the wet periods to expand outward from their pond of origin and adults may move between aquatic areas. Frogs disperse through many types of upland vegetation and use a broader range of habitats outside of breeding season. The breeding season generally begins in January and lasts through March, Minimum breeding age appears to be two years in males and three years in females (Jennings and Hayes, 1985), Females lay 750- 4000 eggs in clusters attached to aquatic vegetation, two to six inches below the water surface, Eggs hatch in two to three weeks, Once hatched, the tadpoles generally take between II and 20 weeks to metamorphose, doing so between May and August. Although most tadpoles are expected to transform in the summer, they can also over-winter, and therefore transformation can take anywhere from about 4 to 13 months. CRLF typically require a permanent water source with a minimum depth of 0,7 meters (2.5 feet) (USFWS,2004), Successful breeding has been observed in sub-optimal habitats with little or no emergent vegetation present (USFWS, 2004), In the absence of vegetation CRLF will attach their eggs to rocks, wood, or other debris, 2. Foothill Yellow-legged Frog Foothill yellow-legged (Rana boylii) frogs are found near rocky streams in a variety of habitats, including valley-foothill riparian, mixed conifer, coastal scrub, chaparral, and wet meadow types (CDFG, 1988). Within these habitats, the FYLF requires shallow, flowing water in small to moderate-sized streams containing some cobble-sized or larger substrate, The microhabitat provided by the cobble substrate is utilized for ovipositing eggs and as a significant refuge for larvae and post metamorphosis frogs. Because FYLF are vulnerable to predators during their aquatic development, they are usually absent from suitable habitat that contains introduced aquatic predators such as bullfrogs and various fish, (CDFG, 1994) Between late March and early June, FYLF oviposit masses of 300-1200 eggs on the downstream side of cobbles and boulders in slow moving water, The cryptically colored tadpoles hatch in approximately five days and feed on algae and diatoms for three to five months before undergoing metamorphosis, It is speculated that FYLF take two years from egg laying to reach adult size (CDFG, 1994), Adults diet consists of aquatic and terrestrial insects, Significant seasonal movements or migrations from breeding Biotic Reports for the Stevens Creek Corridor Master Plan Thomas Reid Associates January 2006 Focused Surveys for Special Status Amphibians and Reptiles l/J,4 areas have not been reported, however they have been documented underground and beneath surface objects more than \55 feet from water (CDFG, 1988). 3. Western Pond Turtle Western Pond Turtle (Clemmys marmorata) ranges in size from 3.5 to 7 inches and is the only freshwater turtle native to the San Francisco Bay Area. It occurs in ponds and small lakes with abundant vegetation, It is also found in marshes, slow-moving streams, reservoirs, and occasionally brackish water, The Western pond turtle feeds on aquatic plants, such as pond lilies, beetles, aquatic invertebrates, fishes, frogs, and carrion. It requires basking sites such as partially submerged logs, rocks, mats of floating vegetation, or open mud banks, as well as undetwater retreats to hide from predators and humans, Females deposit their eggs in nests in sandy banks or in the case of foothill streams, in upland areas away from the stream, Nests have been observed in many soil types, from sandy to very hard, and have been found up to 400 meters (1300 feet) from the water. Certain fish species, bullfrogs, garter snakes, wading birds and some mammals prey on hatchlings and juveniles, E. RESULTS 1. California Red-legged Frog a) Recorded Occurrences Within a 5-mile radius of the study area there were a total of six CRLF occurrences recorded in the CNDDB, MVZ, and CAS (see Table \), Figure 4 illustrates these records on a USGS topographic map, Of the six records, three are from 1939 and are considered historic. The other three records are more recent (1994 and \997) but are from outside the Stevens Creek watershed, The three records are from Saratoga Creek, approximately 4.3 miles south; Gate of Heaven Cemetery Pond, approximately \,3 miles west; and Permanente Creek, approximately 1,2 miles west of the project area. There is significant urban development between these locations and the study area, b) Other Sources Background research located records of CRLF surveys and/or occurrences in two separate reports, An Initial Study/Environmental Assessment for the Stevens Creek Trail and Wildlife Corridor Project completed by Jones and Stokes in November 1992 references wildlife surveys completed in 1977 and 1992, The report covers Stevens Creek from Sleeper Park downstream to L' A venida A venue in the City of Mountain View, which starts approximately 3,5 miles downstream of the study area for this report, In the earlier 1977 surveys, CRLF were documented to occur throughout the Sleeper Park - L' A vinida Corridor, However, in \992, suitable habitat was found but no CRLF were observed. The Santa Clara Valley Water District 2001 Stream Maintenance Project: Final Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration also documents CRLF survey results. For this project, CRLF protocol surveys were conducted along Stevens Creek between Homestead Road and McClellan Road and at Calabazas Creek at Quarry Road. The only amphibian observed during the Stevens Creek surveys was the bullfrog, No CRLF were observed in either of the above locations, Jae Abel of the Santa Clara Valley Water District provided the following information on CRLF records within the Stevens Creek watershed, Approximately 4 to 5 years ago there was a reliable, yet unconfirmed sighting of a CRLF in a quarry on private property between the study area and Stevens Creek Dam, The CRLF was reported as being detected in a pond that had formed as a result of previous quarry operations, When SCVWD employees surveyed the site the following year there were no CRLF Biotic Reports for the Stevens Creek Corridor Master Plan Thomas Reid Associates January 2006 Focused Surveys for Special Status Amphibians and Reptiles 1ll-5 detections. However, the night of the survey was cold, windy and rainy and not favorable for CRLF detections, H,T. Harvey and Associates completed a report for SCVWD on CRLF occurrences within Santa Clara County in the late 1990's, This report documents two CRLF occurrences within Stevens Creek. Both records are ITomjust downstream of Stevens Creek Dam. They were recorded in the mid-1990's and the mid-1980's (Abel, pers comm,), Table 1. CRLF Observations Within A 5-Mile Radius Of The Project Site. General Area Date of Distance Number/Age of Record # Description Occurrence from study Individuals Source area Observed Saratoga Creek, just April 1997 4.3 miles 1 juvenile CNDDB 1 east of Toll House South Road Bridge Gate of Heaven June 1997 1.3 miles 30+ adults and 30+ CNDDB 2 Cemetery Pond, West West tadpoles of Cupertino Permanente Creek, October 1994 & I.Zmiles 5 adults & Z CNDDB 3 just north of June 1997 West juveniles in 1994; Pennanente Road 1 adult & 1 tadpole Bridge in 1997 4 Stevens Creek March 1939 Unknown 1 adult CAS 5 Stevens Creek Febnl"'" \939 Unknown 3 adults CAS 6 Stevens Creek Dam February 1939 I.Zmiles 1 adult CAS south 7 Sleeper Park - \977 3.5 miles Unknown Jones & L' A vinida Corridor north Stokes 8 Quarry below Stevens ZOOO \,Zmiles Unknown Abel Creek Dam south 9 Downstream of 1980's \,Zmiles Unknown Abel Stevens Creek Dam south 10 Downstream of 1990's l.Zmiles Unknown Abel Stevens Creek Dam south CNDDB - California Natural Diversity Database CAS - California Academy of Sciences Abel - lae Abel (Santa Ciano Valley Water District) Jones & Stokes - Environmental Consultina Finn 2. Foothill Yellow-Legged Frog and Western Pond Turtle a) Recorded Occurrences There were a total of two FYLF occurrences recorded in the CNDDB, MVZ, and CAS within a 5-mile radius of the study area (see Table 2), The two records for the FYLF are from 1953 and 1939 and are both historic. No WPT occurrences were recorded within a 5-mile radius of the study area. However, there are two records in the CNDDB for occurrences approximately 7,0 miles from the study area. One is from October 2003 at Lake Ranch Reservoir and the other is ITom 2001 at Vasona Reservoir, There is significant urban development between these locations and the study area, b) Other Sources Background research located records of WPT surveys in an Initial Study/Environmental Assessment Jar the Stevens Creek Trail and Wildlife Corridor Project completed by Jones and Stokes in November 1992, Biotic Reportsfor the Stevens Creek Corridor Master Plan Thomas Reid Associates , January 2006 Focused Surveysfor Special StalUS Amphibians and Reptiles IlI-6 Wildlife surveys from 1977 and 1992 were documented in this report, which covers Stevens Creek from Sleeper Park downstream to L' A venida Avenue in the City of Mountain View, which starts approximately 3.5 miles downstream of the study area for this report. The 1977 surveys document WPT as "believed to be present" in the lower reaches of the creek from Landels School downstream to L'Avenida Avenue, The 1992 surveys document no observations ofWPT. In the spring of2004 on separate occasions, Barbara Banfield with the City of Cupertino and a member of the Audubon Society observed a western pond turtle within the McClellan Ranch portion of the study area. Additionally, in the same year a WPT. was found wandering in a residential neighborhood approximately 0,25 miles from McClellan Ranch. This turtle was brought to Stevens Creek and released within the study area. (Banfield, pers, comm.) Table 2. FYLF and WPT Observations Within A 5-Mile Radius Of The Project Site. Spp General Area Date of Distance Number! Age of Record # Description Occurrence from study Individuals Source area Observed 1 2,6 miles WSW of April 1953 4.5 miles Unknown MVZ FYLF Saratoea South 2 Stevens Creek Februarv 1939 Unknown 1 Juvenile !1 Adult CAS WPT 1 Stevens Creek Sorine 2004 In studv area 2 individuals Banfield 2 Stevens Creek Sorinp 2004 0,25 miles I individual Banfield MVZ Museum of Vertebrate Zoology Banfield - Barbara Banfield (City of Cupertino) CAS - California Academv of Sciences 3. Survey Results Amphibians such as CRLF and FYLF will utilize upland areas adjacent to aquatic habitats for temporary shelter and/or aestivation. CRLF and FYLF, if present within the study area, could potentially use rodent bUITows such as ground squiITel burrows, The California Tiger Salamander Site Assessment (CTS Site Assessment) (found in previous section) completed in February 2005 specifically examined the study area for rodent burrows. The CTS Site Assessment identified several areas within the study area that contain rodent burrows, These included the orchard on the Stocklmeir property, the golf course, Blackberry Farm, and the southern perimeter of the community garden (near McClellan Ranch), No CRLF, FYLF, or WPT were detected during the five focused surveys. Daytime surveys were completed on October 12, 2004, May 25, 2005 and June 28, 2005 between 2:00 and 6:00 pm. Temperatures were around 80° Fahrenheit and wind ranged from 0 to 3 mph, Species observed included steelhead, California roach, and Sacramento sucker, Nighttime surveys were completed on June 14 and June 30, 2005 between 9:30 pm and midnight. Nights were calm with temperatures ranging from 63 to 800 Fahrenheit. Surveys of the Creek detected the following native aquatic species: threespined stickleback, California roach, Sacramento sucker, and steelhead/rainbow trout. Non-native aquatic species detected included crayfish, bullfrog (one observed), and koi (one observed), The two ponds located on Blackberry Farm golf course were found to support abundant introduced non- native species including carp (Cyprinus carpio), mosquito fish (Gambusia affinis), crayfish and bullfrogs, COITespondence with golfers also revealed that one painted turtle (Chrysemys picta) had recently been released into the ponds, Numerous red-winged blackbirds (Agelaius phoeniceus) and waterfowl including mallard (Anas platyrhynchos), pied-billed grebe (Podilymbus podiceps), hooded merganser (Lophodytes cucullatus), and American coot (Fulica americana) --all native species-- were also observed at the ponds, Terrestrial animals observed within the study area included raccoons (Procyon lotor), mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus), striped skunk (Mephitis mephitis), broad-footed mole (Scapanus latimanus), Bioric Reports for the Stevens Creek Corridor Master Plan Thomas Reid Associates January 2006 Focused Surveys for Special Status Amphibians and Reptiles IIl-7 bobcat (Lynx rufus), feral cat (Felis catus), and a variety of songbirds, More infonnation on avian species documented within the study area can be found in the Nesting Raptor Survey (Section IV) and at the Santa Clara Valley Audubon House on McClellan Ranch, F. DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENATlONS I. California Red-legged Frog Because CRLF have been unofficially documented less than 1,2 miles upstream of the study area there is , a low potential for them to be present within the study area, Table 3 includes specific recommendations to avoid impacts to CRLF. Even though potential breeding habitat is present within the study area, there is very low potential for CRLF to be successfully breeding within the study area, This is due to I) the lack of any CRLF observations during the surveys; 2) the dominance ofBullrrogs within the ponds, and 3) the fact that lotic (stream) systems such as Stevens Creek do not provide optimal breeding habitat for CRLF. Lotic systems such as Stevens Creek where flows are relatively consistent and strong are not typically utilized as breeding habitat by CRLF because there is a lack of instream aquatic vegetation for CRLF to deposit egg masses, and high stream flows can easily washout egg masses, Stream systems that do support CRLF breeding habitat are typically low-elevation, slow moving streams that support dense aquatic vegetation. CRLF cannot be ruled out rrom occurring within Stevens Creek, and may still be detected within the creek due to the high mobility of this species. CRLF can move readily within streams as well as across upland terrain during the rainy season in search of refugia and/or breeding habitat. 2. Foothill Yellow-legged Frog Based on surveys and research, it is highly unlikely FYLF are present in the study area. None were observed during onsite surveys and none have been reported within 5 miles of the study area since 1953, despite past surveys done along the creek. The habitat in this reach of Stevens Creek has moderate potential to support FYLF, however, exotic species, such as bullfrogs, urbanization of the watershed, and changes to the flow regime of Stevens Creek may be the major contributing factors to their absence. Even though there is a lack of observations ofFYLF, restoration plans will consider the habitat needs for this species, as it is plausible that they could occur in the corridor in the future, 3. Western Pond Turtle Even though survey results'failed to detect WPT within the study area it is likely they are present in very low numbers because of other recent observations, The reason western pond turtles were not detected during the surveys may be connected to their behavior, WPT use basking sites that provide good sun, wind protection and underwater refugia (Bettelheim, 2004). Once a WPT becomes aware of any disturbance, such as a human or potential predator approaching, they will slip into the pool of water where they are able to hide without coming up for air for up to an hour. Table 3 includes specific recommendations to avoid impacts to WPT during the restoration and park implementation phases of the project, Because WPT is likely present within the study area, the final Master Plan may wish to include specific plans to enhance habitat for this species. Therefore, the following recommendations are provided as guidelines for WPT habitat enhancement. Habitat requirements to consider when managing for WPT are the presence of a pennanent water source with suitable basking sites as described above; and the presence of upland habitat adjacent to water source for nesting. There are a number of suitable pools along the study area where basking sites could be improved for WPT, This can be accomplished by placing submerged logs, other woody debris or rocks in pools along the creek where gaps in the canopy exist allowing sunlight to reach the water. Vegetation could also be planted that would create mats on top of the water or root wads to be used for basking. However, WPT were found to use woody perches more rrequently than rocky or vegetated perches (Bettleheim, 2004), Biotic Reports for the Stevens Creek Corridor Master Plan January 2006 Thomas Reid Associates Focused Surveys for Special Status Amphibians and Reptiles m-8 Based on The Western Pond Turtle: Protocol and Monitoring Plan - Final Draft (Interagency Western Pond Turtle Working Group 200 I), if WPT presence is determined at a site, then potential nesting habitat would then need to be identified and surveyed. This requires extensive monitoring of adult turtles, and possibly radio-tracking to detennine nest sites, The two locations within the study area that WPT could potentially nest are the open field at McClellan Ranch and the orchard at the Stocklmeir property. Preferred nest sites are characteristically excavated in areas with sparse vegetation of short grasses or forbs, in hard-packed clay or silt soils (Holland, 1994), Therefore, in order to enhance habitat for WPT nesting tall growing weed species present in the McClellan Ranch field and Stocklmeir orchard need to be reduced through annual mowing and thatch removal. Any scrub encroaching from the surrounding riparian habitat should be kept to a minimum, Measures should also be taken to either maintain or create compact soils. Additionally, WPT are extremely vulnerable to predation at the hatchling and juvenile stages. Predation by bullfrog and exotic fish playa large role in decreasing WPT recruitment. Because WPT do not begin reproducing until 8 - 10 years of age, it is crucial for WPT to survive the hatchling and juvenile stages. Therefore, bullfrog and other exotic species reduction, as described below, should also be taken into consideration. 4. Invasive Species Reduction The following infonnation has been provided if one of the final goals of the Master Plan is to create more suitable habitat for WPT by reducing the invasive species population, The most significant invasive species problem in the study area is the bullfrog. Native east of the Rocky Mountains, bullfrogs currently exist throughout much of the world, This is due mainly to their ability to eat just about anything that fits into their mouths, including other bullfrogs; their immunity to the chytrid fungus that is affecting many amphibian populations; juveniles ability to travel up to six miles from the aquatic habitat in which they lived as tadpoles; and the absence of predators outside of their native lands. A female bullfrog can lay up to 20,000 eggs in a single clutch, Tadpoles overwinter in the body of water in which they hatched taking approximately one year to transfonn into adults (Roach, 2004), To reduce the number of bullfrogs and nonnative fishes from entering the creek a screening or water filtering mechanism should be installed on the outflow drainage pipe that connects the ponds to the creek (Table 3, Item 6), 5. Other Measures to Reduce Invasive Species One management technique that is widely used for bull&og eradication would be to dewater the two ponds at Blackberry Farm Golf Course. By removing water from the ponds for several days the bullfrog tadpoles will be unable to survive, The best time of year to dewater the ponds is between September and October after any potential native amphibian species within the ponds have already completed transfonnation to adults, A biological monitor should be present for dewatering activities to ensure all bullfrog tadpoles hiding within algae, thick silt, or cracks holding water have been removed, If it is desired to not completely drain ponds, water can be quickly drawn down using pumps and then biologists can remove bullfrogs using seines (nets) (Allaback, pers comm,), For bull&og removal to be effective, the activities described above would need to be completed once per year indefinitely. This may quickly become cost prohibitive. Additionally, because Stevens Creek provides breeding habitat for bullfrogs, even if bullfrog reproduction is reduced within the golf course ponds, overall bull&og numbers may not drop, CRLF tend to be missing in areas lacking upland habitat, while bullfrogs tend to persist. Therefore, lowering bullfrog populations may not assist in the increase or recolonization of CRLF within this portion of the creek, Although it may not help CRLF, if bullfrogs and other exotic animal species are decreased within the ponds, there is a greater potential for western pond turtles and other native species such as Pacific tree frogs (Psuedacris regilla) to move into the area, (AlIaback, pers comm,), Biotic Reports for the Stevens Creek Corridor Master Plan January 2006 Thomas Reid Associates Focused Surveys for Special Status Amphibians and Reptiles 1I1-9 Another measure to help reduce the number of exotic species within the golf course ponds would be to educate golf course employees about the importance of not allowing golfers and neighbors to release their exotic pets, such as painted turtles into the wild. Educational signs could be designed and posted in the golf course shop, Educational pamphlets providing infonnation on the ecology and common species found within the surrounding watershed and the values associated with reducing non-native species could be made available to golfers and golf course employees, Table 3. Suggested Recommendations For The Stevens Creek Corridor Master Plan. Recommendation Effect 2) Prior to any construction-related activities, one daytime pre- California red-legged fÌ'ogs and western pond construction survey for CRLF and WPT should be conducted by turtle are protected fÌ'om harm during a qualified biologist within 48 hours of construction, During construction. this time, all woodpiles within the property should be dismantled and rodent burrows inspected to ensure that CRLF is not aestivating in these structures, If CRLF are detected, the USFWS should be contacted on how to proceed, lfWPT are detected, the CDFG should be contacted on how to proceed, If no CRLF are detected, woodpiles should either be moved off site or covered to prevent CRLF fÌ'om becoming trapped on the construction site. 2) During the construction phase ofthe project, a qualified CRLF and WPT are protected fÌ'om harm biologist shall check the site in the morning and in the evening during construction. for the presence of CRLF or WPT, This includes checking holes and under boards left on the ground within the work area, If any CRLF or WPT are found, construction shall be halted, If CRLF are found the biologist shall immediately notifY the US Fish and Wildlife Service, If WPT are found, the biologist shall immediately notifY CDFG, Subsequent recommendations made by the USFWS or CDFG shall be followed, The biologist shall be aware ofall terms and conditions set by USFWS and CDFG on the project. 3) Construction workers shall be informed of the potential CRLF and WPT are protected fÌ'om harm presence of CRLF and WPT, that these species are to be during construction, avoided, and that the foreman must be notified if they are seen, Harassment of these species is a violation offederal and/or state law, 4) It is recommended that this report be submitted to the U,S, Protecting CRLF and WPT fÌ'om harm during Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the California construction. Department ofFish and Game (CDFG) to determine what avoidance and minimization measures will be required during project construction and habitat restoration, 5) Best management practices and appropriate erosion control Stevens Creek is protected fÌ'om siltation methods shall be used during construction to keep exposed soils which could affect water quality and habitat fÌ'om being washed offsite and into the drainage ditch, This may for sensitive species such as steelhead. . include using silt fencing, hay bales, or other appropriate methods, 6) The drainage pipe connecting Stevens Creek and the ponds Improve habitat for native species, should be screened to minimize the potential for aquatic exotic species in the pond to enter the creek, Biotic Reportsfor the Stevens Creek Corridor Master Plan Thomas Reid Associates January 2006 IV-I Nesting Raptor Surveys IV. NESTING RAPTOR SURVEYS A. SUMMARY As part of the environmental review for the proposed Stevens Creek Corridor Master Plan Project, Thomas Reid Associates conducted three day and three nighttime surveys for potentially nesting raptors. The focus of the night surveys was the long-eared owl (Asio otus), a California Species of Special Concern. Day surveys were utilized to visually search for any raptor nests and other sign, such as white wash and pellets. For the night portion ofthe survey, four different owl species calls were broadcast over a loud speaker to elicit responses from owls residing in the area, There were no responses to the owl calls, However, one barn owl (Tyto alba) was observed foraging at dusk over the field adjacent to McClellan Ranch, A nest was located on Blackberry Farm Golf Course for a pair of white-tailed kites (Elan us leucurus) and a red-shouldered hawk (Buteo lineatus) was seen in another nest near the swimming pools at Blackberry Farm, No long-eared owls or other special status owls were detected during these surveys. Based on observations and communications with local birders, the study area provides breeding habitat for white tailed kite, red-shouldered hawk, and barn owl. The site also provides potential breeding habitat for western screech owl. Other raptors, such as great-homed owl (Bubo virginianus), American kestrel (Falco sparverius), and coopers hawk (Accipiter cooperii), may also utilize the site for roosting and foraging and possibly breeding, but are less likely based on the results of these surveys. B. REGULATORY BACKGROUND Birds of prey are protected in California under provisions of the State Fish and Game Code, Section 3503.5, (1992), which states that it is "unlawful to take, possess, or destroy any birds in the order Falconiformes or Strigiformes (birds of prey) or to take, possess, or destroy the nest or eggs of any such bird except as otherwise provided by this code or any regulation adopted pursuant thereto." Construction disturbance during the breeding season could result in the incidental loss of fertile eggs or nestlings, or otherwise lead to nest abandonment. Disturbance that causes nest abandonment and/or loss of reproductive effort is considered "take" by the California Department ofFish and Game. Additionally, State and federal law also protect any migratory bird species, The Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA: 16 U,S,C" see, 703, Supp, I, 1989) prohibits killing, possessing, or trading in migratory birds, except in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Secretary of the Interior. This act encompasses whole birds, parts of birds, and bird nests and eggs, C. NATURAL HISTORY There are a number of raptors that could potentially nest along Stevens Creek. Species with the highest potential to be found include red-shouldered hawk, red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis), Cooper's hawk, white-tailed kite, American kestrel, western screech-owl (Otus kennicottii), barn owl, great-homed owl and long-eared owl. The following natural history information is provided for species documented as nesting within a ten mile radius of the study area (see Table 4), 1. Long-eared Owl Long-eared owls can be identified by their rust-colored facial disc with dark vertical stripes through the eyes, long dark brown ear tufts, and dark streaking and barring on the body. They inhabit areas with dense vegetation adjacent to more open areas such as grassland. They have been documented to occur anywhere from sea level up to approximately 6000 feet in elevation, The dense vegetated areas, typically riparian habitat, are used for nesting while the adjacent open areas are ideal for hunting. The long-eared Biotic Reports for the Stevens Creek Corridor Master Plan Thomas Reid Associates January 2006 Nesting Raptor Surveys 1V-2 owl is a skilled active-search hunter locating most of its prey (small rodents) by ear, In much of their range, voles (Microrus spp,) make up the majority of their diet. Instead of constructing their own nests, long-eared owls will reuse abandoned stick nests of other species. They lay an average of 4-5 eggs per clutch from mid-March to mid-May. Young fledge from the nest approximately 21 days after hatching and before they are able to fly, The flightless fledglings reside on the surrounding vegetation until they reach 35 days old when they begin to fly, Within two to six weeks of fledging they begin to hunt for themselves, Long-eared owls winter throughout most of its range, however some individuals breeding in the mountains or the northern portion of its range have been documented to migrate long distances, Outside of the breeding season, these owls roost in colonies of 2 to 20 individuals (Marks, 1994), 2. Cooper's Hawk The Cooper's hawk along with the sharp-shinned hawk and Northern goshawk are all members of the genus Accipiter. These hawks have relatively short wings and long tails and are often difficult to distinguish from one another (Sibley, 2000). Cooper's hawks inhabit dense stands of riparian habitat or live oak and deciduous forests near water. They can be found up to 9000 feet in elevation, For the most part, this species is non-migratory, however, some individuals particularly at higher elevations and in the northern parts of its range will move down slope or south in the winter months" Their diet consists mainly of small birds captured during aerial pursuit, but they may also feed on small mammals, reptiles and amphibians, Both parents help raise 4 to 5 young with the male providing most of the food during the incubation and early nestling stages (Ehrlich, 1988), 3. White-tailed Kite The white-tailed kite (fonnerly called black-shouldered kite) is a year-round resident and breeder throughout much of California. They are typically found in low elevation agricultural, grassland, oak- woodland, wetland, or savannah habitats along with riparian habitats adjacent to open fields. Vegetation structure and prey abundance play an important role in habitat suitability (Dunk, 1995), White-tailed kites hunt rodents in open fields by hovering and then dropping straight to the ground (Sibley, 2000), Both sexes contribute to nest building in the upper third of trees ranging ftom to feet to 150 feet tall. Nest trees, typically found on habitat edges, may be isolated or parts of contiguous forested areas, Average clutch size is four eggs, Chicks fledge approximately four to five weeks after hatching (Dunk, 1995), 4. Red-shouldered Hawk As indicated by its name, the red-shouldered hawk can be identified by the red patches on its shoulders, Another identifying characteristic are the translucent, crescent-shaped wing panels in the outer portions of the wings as seen from below during flight. Red-shouldered hawks can be found in many different forested habitats. In the western part of their range, including California, they prefer riparian and oak woodlands, but can also be found in eucalyptus groves and even suburban areas adjacent to wooded areas, Their diet mainly consists of small mammals, frogs, and snakes, but they will also eat birds, crayfish and insects, A nest is usually built more than halfway up a tree in a crotch of the main trunk. Females do the majority of egg incubation and brooding of the young while males supply the female and nestlings with food (Crocoll, 1994), 5. Western Screech-owl Common throughout their range, western screech-owls inhabit low elevation woodland and forest habitats especially riparian corridors and deserts in the western United States. They are tolerant to human activities and therefore can often be found foraging and nesting (if suitable tree cavities exist for roosting and nesting) in suburban parks, Their diet consists ofsmall mammals, birds, amphibians, reptiles, fish, Biotic Reports/or the Stevens Creek Corridor Master Plan January 2006 Thomas Reid Associates Nesting Raptor Surveys IV-3 insects, snails and wonns. Thete is no evidence of any migration in this species; pairs are generally resident on territories year-round, Because they are cavity nesters, western screech-owls will readily use nest boxes, Nesting duties are strictly divided, with the male providing almost all of the food for the female and young, while the female incubates the eggs and broods the young (Cannings, 2001), 6. Barn Owl Barn owls are distinguished ftom other owls by their pale tawny and white plumage and heart-shaped face (Sibley, 2000), They hunt mainly on the wing at night, patrolling open areas in search of rodents, especially voles (Microtus spp,), Having adapted to human disturbances, barn owls can be found in a broad range of open habitats ftom urban to rural areas at lower elevations, Barn Owls nest in a wide variety of cavities, natural and those made by humans: trees, cliffs, caves, riverbanks, church steeples, barn lofts, baystacks, and nest boxes, Where climate pennits, barn owls will breed year round, raising two or more broods per year (Marti, 2005), 7. Great Horned Owl Great horned owls are one of the most widespread and common owls throughout the United States, They can be found in a variety of habitats including riparian, conifer, chaparral, and desert, A perch-and- pounce predator, great homed owls are often observed on prominent perches awaiting their next meal. Because of their extremely soft feathers, they have exceptionally good insulation during the cold season and are able to fly without making a sound, Their diet consists mainly of mammals, up to the size of a rabbit, but is supplemented with birds, reptiles and fish, Like several other owl species, the great homed owl does not construct a nest, but uses abandoned hawk, crow, raven and even squirrel nests, The nest location is typically between 40 feet and 70 feet from the ground in a tree, snag, crevice, or cliffledge (Houston, 1998). D. METHODS Prior to conducting any field surveys the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB), the Museum of Vertebrate Zoology (MVZ) database, University of California, Berkeley and the Internet were searched for locality records of rap tors within Santa Clara County. The local Chapter of the Audubon Society, as well as other local experts were contacted to discuss knowledge of nesting raptors within the study area, The nocturnal owl portion of the survey was conducted following The Inventory Methodsfor Raptors written by the Ministry of Sustainable Resource Management and published in 2001, The study area was surveyed on April 5, April 19, and May 10,2005 by Thomas Reid Associates biologists Patrick Kobernus and Terese Kastner, Each survey began approximately 90 minutes before sunset and ended approximately 2 Y, hours after sunset. For the first portion of the survey, the creek was walked at a slow easy pace so as to cover the entire one-mile riparian corridor and associated upland habitats in 90 minutes. The entire creek and associated lands were searched for active raptor nests, other raptor sign (white wash, pellets, feathers) or any actual visual or auditory detection of rap tors, All wildlife detected by sight or sign were recorded. Owl surveys commenced 30 minutes after sunset. Three survey stations were established approximately equidistant apart at the following locations: the McClellan Ranch parking lot, Blackberry Fannjust southwest of the swimming pools, and the Stocklmeir property in the orange tree grove. These stations are shown in Figure 5 on an aerial photo, When arriving at each station, observers waited two minutes before starting the tape playbacks to allow their ears to adjust to the new environment and to listen for spontaneously calling raptors, Following the adjustment period, the calls of four different owl species were broadcasted, Calls always began with the smallest owl, in this case the western screech-owl, and worked their way up to the largest owl (great homed owl), Each recording was approximately thirty seconds long and was played in each of the four cardinal directions, There was a thirty second pause between directions and a five-minute break between species. The order in which the calls were broadcasted was western screech-owl, long-eared owl, barn owl, and great-homed Biotic Reports for the Stevens Creek Corridor Master Plan January 2006 Thomas Reid Associates Nesting Raptor Surveys IV-4 owl. If a response to the tape playback had been evoked careful notes would have been taken on the estimated direction and distance from the station, Biotic Reports/or the Stevens Creek Corridor Master Plan Thomas Reid Associates January 2006 Nesting Raptor Surveys IV-5 Figure 5, Owl Tape Playback Stations at the Stevens Creek Corridor Master Plan Project. Biotic Reports for the Stevens Creek Corridor Master Plan Thomas Reid Associates January 2006 Nesting Raptor Surveys IV-6 E. RESULTS 1. Recorded Data A search of the California Diversity Database and the Museum of Vertebrate Zoology (MVZ) database, University of California, Berkeley revealed several records of rap tors within ten miles of the study area (Table 4). The CNDDB results consisted of one long-eared owl, two Cooper's hawk, and two white- tailed kite occurrences, A search of the MVZ resulted in one record for great horned owl and one for burrowing owl. The long-eared owl record was 6.S-miles west of McClellan Ranch in the Monte Bello Open Space Preserve at the headwaters of Stevens Creek. This record was from 1987, In 2003, a nesting pair of Cooper's hawks was documented approximately 2.4 miles east along Calabazas Creek, just south of Bollinger Road in San Jose, The other nesting pair of Cooper's hawks was documented in the San Jose West quad northeast of the intersection of Bascom Avenue and Hamilton Avenue, approximately 7.5 miles southeast. Two pairs of white-tailed kites were documented in the Milpitas quad in 1971 and 2004, Both of these records were in the vicinity of the City of Alviso. Although both pairs were observed using a nest, neither pair was confinned to have offspring. The great horned owl record was from January of 1955 southwest of Saratoga, approximately S miles south of the study area, The burrowing owl record from March 1903 was within the upper Stevens Creek watershed, approximately 3.3 miles southwest of the study area. 2. Unrecorded Data Local birders were contacted regarding infonnation on nesting raptors within the study area. Much of the infonnation gathered from these inquiries was strictly anecdotal, however it was still taken into consideration when completing the surveys, Species observed within the study area by local birders included bam owl, western screech-owl, great horned owl, red-shouldered hawk, white-tailed kite and merlin (Falco columbarius) (Table 4), In years past, a pair of barn owls nested at Snell Barn on McClellan Ranch and roosted within a palm tree at Blackberry Farm (Banfield, pers comm,). Prior to the 2005 breeding season, red-shoulder hawks were also observed to be paired and nesting somewhere within Blackberry Farm (Banfield, pers comm.). In February 2005 a western screech-owl tape was played from the McClellan Ranch parking lot for an Audubon Society class, The tape elicited responses from three western screech-owls, (Meyers, pers, comm,) At 5:IS in the morning on May 8, 200S, during the Santa Clara Valley Audubon Society Spring Birdathon, tapes were played for both barn owl and great horned owls at McClellan Ranch, There were no responses to the tapes, Table 4. California Natural Diversity Database records and other unrecorded occurrences of raptors within a ten mile radius ofthe study area. Raptor General Area Date of Distance NumberlAge of Record Species ~ Descriotion Occurrence from study Individuals Source area Observed Long-eared CSSC Monte Bello Open 1987 6.5 miles Nesting Pair, CNDDB Owl Snace Preserve west fledced 3 Calabazas Creek, 2003 2.4 miles Nesting Pair CNDDB soutb of Bollinger east with I juvenile Cooper's CSSC Road in San Jose Hawk Bascom Ave and 2003 7.5 miles Nesting Pair CNDDB Hamilton Ave southeast with juveniles in nest White- SP City of Alviso 1971 10 miles Nesting Pair CNDDB tailed Kite northeast Biotic Reports for t/æ Stevens Creek Corridor Master Plan Thomas Reid Associates January 2006 Nesting Raptor Surveys IV,7 Raptor General Area Date of Distance Number/Age of Record Status DescriDtion Occurrence from study Individuals Source Species area Observed City of Alviso 2004 10 miles Nesting Pair CNDDB northeast Great None Southwest of ' 1955 Smiles I individual MVZ horned owl Sarato2a south Burrowing CSSC Upper Stevens 1903 3.3 miles I female MVZ Owl Creek southwest McClellan Ranch Sometime Within Nesting Pair Banfield Barn Owl None and Blackberry prior to Study area Farm 2005 Western McClellan Ranch February Within study 3 individuals Meyers screech- None 2005 area owl Red- Blackberry Farm Prior to Within study Nesting Pair Banfield shouldered None 2005 area Hawk CSSC: California Species of SpeciaJ Concern CNDDB - CaJifornia Natural Diversity Database SP: CaJîfomia Fully Protected MVZ - Museum of Vertebrate Zoology Banfield - Barbara Banfield (City of Cupertino) Mevers Lisa Mevers (Santa Clara Vallev Audubon Society) 3. Raptor Surveys The diurnal portion of the surveys revealed two nests that appeared to be active (see Table 5 below), Figure 6 illustrates approximate nest tree locations, potential nesting/roosting and foraging habitat within the study area. The white-tailed kite nest was in a Monterey pine tree (Pinus radiata) (tagged #544) located within the Blackberry Fann golf course east of the ponds. Two kites were observed mating, exchanging food and occupying the nest. A red-shouldered hawk was observed on the third site visit (May 10) near Blackberry Fann. While conducting California red-legged ITog surveys in the study area on May II, a red-shouldered hawk was observed sitting on a nest in a sycamore tree (Platanus racemosa) (#264S), This sycamore tree is located in Blackberry Fann growing on the creek bank just west of the swimming pools (see Figure 6), Because the nest was over 50-feet ITom the ground its contents could not be seen, A visit conducted two weeks later on May 25 revealed the nest to be collapsed and vacated, On November I, 2005, another nest in the same general area was found in a large California bay tree (Unbellularia cali/arnica) (tagged #294), This nest could also potentially be a red-shouldered hawk nest because two were flushed ITom the general area around this bay tree and began to alann call, Other raptor species observed during the diurnal portion of the survey include a barn owl and an Accipiter species, potentially a sharp-shinned hawk, The barn owl was observed foraging over the open field adjacent to McClellan Ranch just as the sun was setting on the first site visit. Subsequent visits failed to relocate the barn owl. The Accipiter species was observed on the April 19 survey flying south just outside the riparian coITidor and was not seen long enough or close enough to make a positive identification. There were no responses to the owl tape playback portion of the survey, However, on May 10, a bird best identified as a barn owl flew over the Blackberry Fann Station (#2) before the survey began. The palm tree within Blackberry Fann that is a known roost for barn owls was examined for white wash and pellets, No sign of barn owls using the palm tree were discovered during the fonnal raptor surveys, but pellets and white wash were observed by TRA biologists during California red-legged ITog surveys conducted in June 2005. The palm tree just east of the playground and south ofthe swimming pools at Blackberry Fann did not have a tree survey tag, During the course of the surveys, all bird species observed were recorded. A list of bird species observed within the study area during the surveys can be found in Appendix A. Biotic Reports for the Stevens Creek Corridor Master Plan Thomas Reid Associates January 2006 Nesting Raptor Surveys Table 5. Nesting raptor survey results. General Area Number/Age of Nesting Tree Raptor Description Individuals or Species Species Observed Roosting and Number White-tailed Blackberry Farm Nesting Pair Nesting Monterey Kite Golf Course Pine #544 McClellan Ranch I individual Unknown N/A Barn Owl Blackberry Farm I individual Roosting Palm (no ta!Z) Red- Blackberry Farm I individual Possibly Sycamore shouldered nesting #246S or Hawk Bav #293 Unknown McClellan Ranch I individual Fly Over N/A AcciDi/er IV-8 Biotic Reports for the Stevens Creek Corridor Master Plan Thomas Reid Associates January 2006 Nesting Raptor Surveys IV-9 Potential Roosting/Nesting Habitat r-, L___I Foraging Area . Nest Location * Roosting Location Figure 6, Nesting Raptor Survey Results, Biotic Reports/or the Stevens Creek Corridor Master Plan Thomas Reid Associates January 2006 /V-IO Nesting Raptor Surveys F, DISCUSSION Diurnal surveys resulted in observing three different raptor species: white-tailed kites, red-shouldered hawk, and an Accipiter species, The pair of white-tailed kites was observed on every survey. During two of the surveys there was a food exchange between the male and female. On the first survey, the two white-tailed kites were seen mating followed by the male carrying a stick to the nest. Because the nest was situated in the top of a pine tree, approximately 70 feet high, seeing the çontents was not feasible. However, the observed behaviors indicate that the pair had a nest and were attempting to breed, There were no follow-up visits to document whether the nest was successful. The red-shouldered hawk was only observed on two occasions for very short periods of time. It is still unknown whether it was paired and attempting to nest. Even though it was observed on the nest, subsequent visits failed to indicate if this nest was active or only being used as a roosting spot. On May 25, the nest was collapsed and the surrounding area was searched for signs of breeding activity (egg shells, feathers, white-wash). Nothing was found. Therefore, if the nest was active it can be concluded with some degree of certainty that it was not successful. Additionally, because the Accipiter species was only observed moving through the area, it is unlikely that it was nesting within the study area. Records of both burrowing owl from 1903 and great homed owl ITom 1955 are considered historic. Burrowing owls are not expected to be present in the study area due to the lack of open grassland habitat with suitable rodent burrows. Additionally, it is unlikely for great homed owls to be present in the study area because the riparian corridor is relatively narrow and lacks a contiguous stand of mature trees that would provide the cover they require for nest concealment. Furthennore, the home range of a great homed owl is approximately l60-acres. Since the study area is only 60-acres, if great homed owls are present within the watershed and a portion of their home range is within the study area, it is likely they would only be using the study area for foraging and would likely be nesting upstream of the study area where more suitable nesting habitat exists, One owl was detected visually, and no owls were aurally detected during the three surveys. The one barn owl that was detected was observed foraging over the field adjacent to McClellan Ranch, and it is not known if this bird was breeding. However, barn owls have been known to breed within the large barn at McClellan Ranch (Banfield, pers. corom,), Although the tape playback survey results were negative for all species, based on observations of owls and habitat types present there is still potential for a variety of owl species to be breeding within the study area, The project area has several large trees with cavities, and good rodent-foraging areas on the adjacent Blackberry Farm golf course and McClellan Ranch ruderal grasslands, Factors possibly contributing to the tape playbacks receiving no responses include timing of the surveys, low numbers of prey, and the limited number of surveys (Ministry of Sustainable Resource Management, 2001), Raptors can be very sensitive to human activity, especially during the egg laying and incubation stages of breeding. If the call playbacks were not conducted before or after these activities there is a much lower potential for a response. Research on the long-eared owl revealed egg laying to occur ITom early March to early June and young to typically be at the nest ITom early April to early August. Therefore, surveys were completed after early April when there was a greater potential for young to be present at the nest. Unfortunately, it is impossible to know if the timing was too soon, thus contributing to the negative survey results. Besides timing of surveys within a breeding season, the weather over an entire year can also be taken into account to explain a low detection rate. Birds respond to tape playback to defend their territory and let the other "bird" know of its presence. This territorial defense can consume a large amount of energy and also pull a bird away ITom incubating eggs or nestlings. Therefore, in order to conserve energy during this year's cold, wet spring, owls may not have responded to the tape playback. Additionally, if owls, other than the barn owl, were present within the study area, the probability of detection would increase with each additional survey, However, additional surveys Biotic Reportsfor the Stevens Creek Corridor Master Plan Thomas Reid Associates January 2006 Nesting Raptor Surveys IV-II would have become cost prohibitive in regards to the potential data that would have been collected. In contrast to the negative results of the aural surveys other evidence suggests that barn owls and western screech-owls are present and may be breeding in the study area. G. RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONSIDERATIONS FOR THE MASTER PLAN Because survey results could only approximate nesting and roosting areas (see Figure 6), and new nests may be constructed each breeding season, pre-construction surveys should be conducted in order to ensure that nesting raptors or other nesting birds are not impacted by the project. The following action is recommended: A qualified biologist should conduct a pre-construction survey of nesting trees prior to starting work if the work has the potential to impact nesting birds, Ifnesting raptors are found, a 300-foot buffer shall be established around the nest and maintained until the young have fledged, If other nesting birds are found, implementation of the project may be delayed until after nesting is completed, Work may occur if an adequate buffer, as detennined by a qualified biologist, can be established between the construction activity and the nest. (SCVWD, 2002) Furthennore, results from these surveys will be taken into consideration when completing the restoration plan, Because most raptor species, including white-tailed kites, barn owls, and western-screech owls, reuse nests year after year, extra precautions will be taken to avoid any impacts to known nesting locations and their surrounding areas Biotic Reports for the Stevens Creek Corridor Master Plan Thomas Reid Associates January 2006 Bat Surveys V-I V. BAT SURVEYS The bat surveys and following report were completed by Dave Johnston, Senior Wildlife Ecologist, with H,T, Harvey & Associates, A. METHODS On October 8, 2004, I walked the entire project alignment to detennine the potential for day and night roost habitat for bats, and in particular, for special status species of bats, With the help of staff and volunteers, I also conducted two night surveys in fall (October 8 and 14,2004) and two night surveys in the summer (June 7 and August 16,2004) by mist netting along the project alignment and by using an ANAbat 6 acoustic monitoring system to help detennine the species of bats using the project area. On August 16, 2005, I attached a Holohil B2D transmitter to each of five female big brown bats to help detennine if a maternity colony roosted within the project area, and if so, to detennine its location, Bats captured were weighed and processed to detennine reproductive status, age, relative size (by foreann length), and released, Bats detected acoustically were identified to species on the site and so noted. Bats fitted with radio transmitters were followed for three days. Attempts were made to recover radio transmitters on the 19th and 20th of August, but none were recovered, B. RESULTS 1. Potential bat habitat Numerous buildings and other structures along the project alignment appeared to provide an abundance of potential day-roosting and night-roosting habitat. Additionally, many western sycamore (Plantanus racemosa), coast live oak (Quercus agrifoUa), and valley oak (Quercus lobata) trees along the riparian habitat had crevices and cavities large enough to provide day-roosting habitat for several species of bats. Other species of old or diseased trees (e,g., white alder [Alnus rhombifoUa D provided potential day roosting habitat under exfoliating bark for crevice roosting bats. Although the riparian habitat on the project site appears intact, relatively high levels of human activity occurred during most fall and summer days, and the potential habitat is somewhat rragmented and unconnected to large areas of undisturbed habitat. 2. Night surveys During fall surveys, (October 8 and 14, 2004) no bats were captured but low densities (less than 6/hr) of Yuma myotis (Myotis yumanensis) were detected during acoustic surveying. During summer surveys (June7 and August 16,2005), three species (big brown bats [Eptesicusfuscus], Mexican rree-tailed bats [Tadarida brasiliensis], and Yuma myotis) were observed acoustically and/or captured by mist nets placed above the low flow channel of Stevens Creek. These three species are fairly typical of somewhat disturbed habitat Íhat still provides enough habitat that bats have roosting sites and foraging areas. Other species of bats, such as long-eared bat (Myotis evolis), California bat (Myolis californicus) or migratory species such as hoary bat (Lasiurus cinereous) and western red bat (Lasiurus blossevillii) may occur occasionally to rarely along the project alignment, but these species were not detected during surveys and are not expected to occur regularly in the project area. Additionally, the pallid bat (Antrozous pal/idus) occurs about 3.5 miles to the south of the project site near the southern end of Stevens Creek Park, but little foraging habitat for this species occurs on or near the project site, This species was likely extirpated rrom the project area many years ago rrom housing and golf course development. The bat species observed at the project site are described in more detail in the following paragraphs, The Mexican free-tailed bat (Tadarida brasiliensis) is probably the most common and widespread bat in California and occurs throughout southern United States and into Mexico. The Mexican free tailed bat exhibits flexible roosting behavior and is often found roosting in bridges and buildings. This species was Biotic Reportsfor the Stevens Creek Corridor Master Plan January 2006 Thomas Reid Associates Bat SW'Veys V-2 observed during the summer surveys and not during the fall surveys, Although this species was caught only once in mist nets, this species was observed at the Stevens Creek Bridge in small numbers and likely occurs during wann months ofthe year. This species changes roosts and foraging areas frequently throughout parts of the Santa Clara County, and colonies greater than 100 individuals day roost in the north and south of the project site within a five-mile radius. No Mexican free-tailed bats were observed day roosting on the project site. The Yuma myotis (Myotisyumanesis) often occurs along waterways of California and western United States, In the San Francisco Bay Area, this species is fairly common in riparian habitat except for areas of intense urbanization where water quality is poor, The Yuma bat forages over pennanent streams such as Stevens Creek, rivers and other aquatic habitats with emerging insects. In upper watersheds of Santa Clara Valley, Yuma bats feed primarily on water boatmen (Hemiptera), and small flies (Diptera). This species was observed in small numbers during each survey. The big-brown bat (Eptesicusfuscus) is one of the most widespread and abundant bat species in North America, However, in the south Bay Area, this species is mostly extirpated from the floor of Santa Clara Valley. In more undisturbed situations in the Santa Cruz Mountains and Diablo Range, this species is locally common in a scattered distribution. Big brown bats are generalists feeding on many different types of insects, but beetles make up their most frequently consumed prey, On the project site, big brown bats often foraged within the riparian corridor and above the orchard but not over the golf course, Big brown bats were not observed roosting under the Stevens Creek Boulevard Bridge over Stevens Creek in the fall surveys, but about twenty were roosting at the same bridge during summer months, Therefore this species likely migrates out of the area, migrates locally, or goes into torpor and hibernates for long periods during fall and winter months. During the first summer survey (June 7, 2005), 16 big brown bats were caught. Nearly all of these were pregnant females and released immediately, These captures indicated that a maternity colony was likely in the near area and could potentially be impacted as a result of the Stevens Creek Trail Development. Therefore, on 16 August 2005 fourteen post lactating female big brown bats were captured between 10:00 and 1 I : 15 pm and five were fitted with transmitters. These bats were assigned numbers based on the frequency of the transmitters. Bats 800 and 663 were found day roosting off the project site and likely in solitary situations, Bat 800 was found day roosting within a neighborhood immediately west of the city- owned property, and bat 663 was found under a deck adjacent to the Saratoga Country club golf course south of the project site, No signals were recovered from bat 684. Bats 982 and 743 were found roosting in a western sycamore (numbered as # 278) along the project alignment. On August 18 from a cavity about 40 feet high from this same tree, 8 big brown bats exited, Based on this activity of the bats and the reproductive status of the bats fitted with transmitters, this tree is expected to be the location of the big brown bat maternity colony, Signals from 982 and 743 remained at the roost until after midnight and the following night and day suggesting these bats rubbed their transmitters off in the roost cavity. Attempts were made to recover the other radio transmitters on 19 and 20 August, but we found no bats with transmitters at the primary night roost located on the Stevens Creek Boulevard Bridge, Signals from bats 800 and 663 were also gone suggesting these bats were roosting, or had rubbed their transmitters off while out of range ofthe receiver (and farther than a few miles from the project site). I have regularly observed about 20 female big brown bats night roosting under the Stevens Creek Boulevard Bridge during the wann months of the year. Because it is unlikely that all of the females would roost at a specific night roost at the same time, there are more likely 30 to 40 females in the population. With males, I estimate this population of big brown bats to be between 60 and 80 individuals, The population on the project site is the largest colony of big brown bats I know of occurring on the Santa Clara Valley floor, Biotic Reports for the Stevens Creek Corridor Master Plan Thomas Reid Associates January 2006 Bat Surveys V,3 C. POTENTIAL IMPACTS 1. Mexican free-tailed bats Of the three commonly occurring bats within the project alignment, the Mexican tree-tailed bat is only intrequently foraging over the project site or found night roosting on the Steven's Creek Boulevard Bridge near the project site. No impacts are expected to individuals of this species on the project site at this time, (But see mitigation measures below,) 2. Yuma myotis Low densities of Yuma bats were observed during each survey at the project site and likely occurred throughout the winter. Reproductive females were not observed during mist net surveys. Yuma bats are expected to roost as solitary individuals or in very small groups (5 individuals) within the immediate riparian corridor along the project alignment, but no maternity colony is expected to occur along the proposed Stevens Creek Trail development. Although there is a small potential for the disturbance or loss of solitary bats day roosting in trees or buildings along the project alignment, no impacts to the Yuma bat population are expected. (But see mitigation measures below,) 3. Big-brown bats: Additional disturbance and loss of maternity colony roost habitat to big brown bats Although big brown bats are fairly tolerant to constant levels of disturbance (e,g., constant vehicle noise), additional disturbance above the ambient noise and disturbance could result in the abandonment of the maternity colony roost site, Bat colonies often have alternative roosts, but maternity colonies mayor may not have alternative roosts that are adequate for raising young. Therefore, construction activities such as grading or the noise generated from a chainsaw or other loud noises could potentially result in the abandonment of the maternity colony roost and impacting the on-site big brown bat population. Additionally, the loss of the tree providing the maternity colony roosting site would likely impact the on- site population of big brown bats, Similarly, the direct loss ofindividuals in hibernacula could eliminate an entire colony due to the loss of the pregnant females. The following mitigation measures should reduce impacts to bats, and in particular, the big brown bat colony occurring on the project site. D. MITIGATION MEASURES Mitigation measures: Implementation of Mitigation 1,2 and 3 is warranted, would reduce these potential impacts to bats. Mitigation 1. Protect the roost tree if possible. If the trail development plan requires the removal of the tree or disturbance (e,g" grading) adjacent to the tree that could jeopardize the tree, the trail should be moved or rerouted. Construction fencing should be placed to prevent the loss of roots and branches (but see also construction buffer zones), Mitigation 2, Temporal avoidance. To avoid disturbance to an active maternity colony, construction on the trail should commence after young are volant (flying) (i.e" after July 3]) and end before maternity colonies form (i.e., prior to March I), Thus the project construction can be scheduled trom September I through March I to avoid potential construction disturbance to the maternity roost. Mitigation 3. Construction buffer zones. Depending upon the type of potential disturbance to the big brown bat maternity colony roost, a qualified bat biologist should determine the extent of construction- tree zones around the sycamore tree #278 identified as the active maternity colony/day roost. Although impacts to the roost are greater during the maternity season, a buffer zone for the non-breeding season day Biotic Reports for the Stevens Creek Corridor Master Plan January 2006 Thomas Reid AssociaJes Bat Surveys V-4 roost should also be established by a bat biologist. California Department ofFish and Game will need to be notified of any active nurseries within the construction zone. Mitigation 4. Preconstruction surveys. Because the big brown bats could move their primary day roost to an on-site building or tree (and other species of bats occurring on the project site could form a new roost), a predemolition survey for roosting bats should also be conducted prior to any building or large tree removal scheduled to occur after six months of this letter. The survey should be conducted by a qualified bat biologist (Le" a biologist holding a CDFG collection permit and a Memorandum of Understanding with CDFG allowing the biologist to handle and collect bats), Mitigation 5. Exclude bats prior to construction disturbance of, or loss of, roosts. If the sycamore tree with the nursery roost is planned (and required) to be removed, a qualified bat biologist should exclude bats outside of the maternity season (Le., prior to March I or after July 31 when young are volant or flying) with the use of one-way doors. Tree cutting or construction should then follow no less than tree days after because all bats may not exit each night. If a non breeding bat hibernaculum is found in a building or tree that needs removal, the individual bats should be safely evicted also through the use of one-way doors as above, Biotic Reportsfor the Stevens Creek Corridor Master Plan Thomas Reid Associates January 2006 Biological Assessment of Rare Plants VI-I VI. BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT OF RARE PLANTS A. INTRODUCTION This report documents the results of rare plant and botanical inventory surveys in the Stevens Creek Corridor Master Plan Area in Cupertino, California (see Figures I and 2). The surveys were conducted in the fall of2004 and the spring of 2005 by Thomas Reid Associates biologists, with assistance trom local botanist Jeffrey Caldwell, The objectives of the rare plant surveys were to: I) Research the special status plants with potential to occur within the project region as well as the habitat requirement of each of these species; 2) Survey the site and identifÿ and record each observed plant to the extent necessary to detennine its' rarity and listing status; and 3) Determine the potential for special status plant species occurrence on site, B. METHODS Background review and research was conducted by consulting the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB, Updated: June 2005) and the California Native Plant Society (CNPS) Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants of California (2001), All special status plants occurring within a 5-mile radius of the project site were evaluated for their potential to occur on site, Additional species within greater Santa Clara County were evaluated and were included in this evaluation if their habitat requirements were similar to the project site, The following ten 7.5-minute USGS quadrangles were searched for potential special status plant species: Cupertino, Palo Alto, Big Basin, Mindego Hill, Mountain View, Los Gatos, Woodside, Milpitas, San Jose West, and Castle Rock Ridge. Three field assessments were conducted to record plants on site (October 12,2004; November 10,2004; and February 23, 2005), The surveys on October 12 and November 10, 2004 were conducted by Thomas Reid Associates staff biologists' Kim Briones and Patrick Kobemus, and the survey on February 23, 2005 was conducted by Patrick Kobernus and local botanist Jeffrey Caldwell, Additional plants were recorded on site while conducting a wetland delineation on May II, 2005. It should be noted that the CNDDB is the most comprehensive source of information on sensitive species available, however not all species occurrences are reported. It is therefore necessary to consult other sources of information such as local botanists, and to conduct field surveys during the appropriate season to determine whether sensitive species are present. C. RESULTS Results of the CNDDB search revealed six special status plant occurrences within a 5-mile radius of the project site (Figure 4). These are western leatherwood (Dirca occidentaUs), Ben Lomond buckwheat (Eriogonum nudum var, decurrens), caper-fruited tropidocarpum (Tropidocarpum capparideum), King's Mountain Manzanita (Arctostaphylos regismontana), Arcuate bush mallow (Malacothamnus arcuatus), and Lorna Prieta hoita (Hoita s/robilina). A seventh plant, Dudley's lousewort (Pedicularis dudleyi), was also identified as having potential based on habitat type, With the exception of western leatherwood, all species observations recorded in the CNDDB are at least 2 miles trom the project site, Only two of the seven species listed above were identified as having potential to occur on site based on habitat type (Table 6). These are Dudley's lousewort and western leatherwood. All other species were determined to have no potential for being present within the project reach due to a lack of appropriate habitat (i.e, serpentine grassland, coniferous forest, and/or dunes/sandy). Biotic Reportsfor the Stevens Creek Corridor Master Plan Thomas Reid Associates January 2006 Biological Assessment of Rare Plants VI-2 I. Dudley's Lousewort (Pedieularis dudleyt) CNPS List lB Dudley's lousewort is a perennial herb that is found within coniferous forest and maritime chaparral habitats, It is known ITom fewer than 15 occurrences and its' closest occurrence is at Portola State Park which is over 5 miles west of the project site. Habitat types present on site are unlikely to support this species, and the plant was not detected during surveys. Furthennore, Jeffrey Caldwell, a local botanist who has hiked and documented plant species within the Creek corridor for over twenty years has not encountered the species on site, 2. Western Leatherwood (Direa oeeidentalis), CNPS List lB Western leatherwood is a deciduous shrub that is found on moist slopes in foothill woodland and riparian forests (Corelli and Chandik, 1995). This plant is known ITom fewer than 25 occurrences, and has been recorded approximately 2 miles northwest of the project site in Rancho San Antonio County Park, and in the upper watershed of Stevens Creek less than 2 miles ITom the project site, This species flowers ITom January to April, typically in February/March, Western leatherwood can be identified outside ofits' flowering period due to its' smooth, leather-like bark and bright green leaves, This species was not detected during surveys, The only habitat type that could support this species near the project reach is the coast live oak woodland east of McClellan Ranch, bordering McClellan Road, This area was searched and the species was not detected, Furthennore, Jefftey Caldwell, a local botanist with extensive knowledge of the project reach, has not observed this species on site, No rare plants were found during any of the field surveys conducted on the site. All plant species and plant communities identified on site are shown in Table 7, Vegetation types are classified according to A Manual of California Vegetation (Sawyer and Keeler-Wolf, 1995), The dominant vegetation types within the project reach are riparian woodland (California Sycamore series), and non-native annual grassland (California annual grassland series), There is also coast live oak woodland (Coast live oak series) on the west side of Stevens Creek opposite Blackberry Fann, and along McClellan Road east of McClellan Ranch, Riparian vegetation is dense along the banks of Stevens Creek through much of its length ITom McClellan Road on the south to Stevens Creek Boulevard on the north, An exception to this is a barren stretch within Blackberry Farm where picnicking activities, parking areas, and Monterey pine trees are suppressing understory riparian species ITom taking hold along the banks of the creek and within the riparian floodplain, On the northern one-third of the project reach, riparian vegetation is limited primarily to the channel itself because the Blackberry Farm Golf Course extends to the top of the creek bank on the east, and the Stocklemeir orchard extends to the top of the creek bank on the west. Prior to development of the area, the project reach was likely composed of mature riparian woodland along the banks of Stevens Creek, wet meadows with riparian scrub and seasonal wetlands along the floodplain, coast live oak woodland on moist north facing slopes, and dry grasslands and chaparral on southern exposures, Grading, development, and farming within the floodplain of the creek, introduced non-native plant species, and dam construction upstream of the project reach has resulted in changes to the vegetation composition within the creek and adjacent habitats, Table 6 shows special status plant species identified in the CNDDB within 5-miles of the project site, Additional species with potential for occurring on the project site are included. Table 7 lists the plant communities and plant species observed in the Stevens Creek Corridor Master Plan Area, Fall 2004, Winter 2005, and Spring 2005, Biotic Reportsfor the Stevens Creek Corridor Master Plan Thomas Reid Associates January 2006 Biological Assessment of Rare Plants fl-3 Table 6. Special Status Plant Species with Potential for Occurrence on Site. Species Status Flowering Habitat Potential OD Period Pro;ect Site Western CNPS List January - Broadleaved upland forest, closed cone Low, Surveyed leatherwood ]B April coniferous forest, chaparral, cismontane during bloom (Dirca woodland, North Coast coniferous period and not occitkntalis) forest, riparian scrub, riparian detected, woodland/mesic: elevation 50-395 meters. Ben Lomond CNPS List June - Chaparral, cismontane woodland, lower No potential. buckwheat IB October montane coniferous forest (ponderosa Habitat not (Eriogonum pine sandhills)/ sandy; elevation 50-800 present. nudum var. meters. tkcurrens) Caper-ftuited CNPS List March - Valley and foothill grassland (alkaline No potential, tropidocarpum ]A April hills), elevation ]-455 meters, Habitat not (Tropidocarpum present. Last capparitkum) seen in Santa Clara County in 1957, King's Mountain CNPS List January - Broadleaved upland forest, chaparral, No potential, Manzanita IB April North Coast coniferous forest! granitic Habitat not (Arctostaphy~~s or sandstone, elevation 305-730 meters, present. reo;smonlana Arcuate bush CNPS List April- Chaparral; elevation 15-355 meters, No potential, mallow 18 September Habitat not (Malacothamnus present. arcuatus) Lorna Prieta hoita CNPS List May- Chaparral, cismontane woodland, No potential, (Hoita strobilina) ]B October riparian woodland! usually serpentinitic, Habitat not mesic; elevation 30-600 meters, oresent, Dudley's CNPS List April- June Chaparral (maritime), cismontane V cry low lousewort IB woodland, North Coast coniferous potential, {Pedicularis forest, valley and foothill grassland, Habitat not dud/evi State:Rare elevation 60-900 meters. Dresent. Table 7. Plant Communities and Plant Species Observed in the Stevens Creek Corridor Master Plan Area. Habitui'TWO Common Name I Scientific Name I Native! Exotic Stevens Creek RJ,;'arian Forest (California S, camore Series' Western svcamore Platanus racemosa N ArrOYo willow Sallx lasiolenis N Black cottonwood Ponulus trichocarnn N White alder Alnus rhombi{olia N Boxelder Acer necmndo var. ca/ifornicum N Red willow Sallx laevipata N Black walnut Juplans ca/ifornica N BuckeVe Aesculus californica . N Blackwood acacia Acacia melannrvlon E ValleV oak nuercus lobata N Monterev oine Pinus radiato E Blue !!Urn Eucalvntus Eucalvntus ulobulus E EiWiish walnut Juplans re<lia E Biotic Reports for the Stevens Creek Corridor Master Plan Thomas Reid Associates January 2006 Biological Assessment of Rare Plants VI-4 Habitat Tvne I Common Name I Scientific Name I Nativel Exotic Rinarian understor ve!!etation Snowberrv Svmnhoricarnos albus var, laeviflatus N Periwinkle Vinca Major E Wild !!raDe Vilis californica N Himalavan blackberrv Rubus discolor E EneJish ivy Hedera helix E Dogwood Cornus sn, N Arundo Arundo donæc E Toyon Heteromeles arbutifolia N Blue elderberrv Sambucus mexicana N California bav Umbe/lularia californica N California rose Rosa californica N Mugwort Artemisia douvlasiana N California bee olant Schronhularia ca/ifornica N Poison oak Toxicodendron diversi/oba N Smilo !!rass Pintatherum mi/iaceum E Low flow in-stream channel vee:etation Watercress Rorinna nasturtium-aauaticum N Waler smartweed Polvuonum sn, N Umbrella sed!!e Carex sn, N Mint Mentha sn, E Rabbit's foot I!l"8SS Polvno"on sn, E Non-Native Annual Grassland (includes scattered planted trees) ¡California annual ..rassland series) , Wild oat Avena barbata E Poison hemlock Conium maculatum E Milk thistle Silvbum marianum E Field mustard Hirschfeldia incana E Covote brush Baccharis nilu/oris N Horehound Marrubium vul"are E Western redbud Cercis occidentalis E Cudweed Gnanha/ium sn, E Tree of heaven Ailanthus a/tissima E Bull thistle Cirsium vulaare E Wild radish RaDhanus sativa E Yellow star thistle Centaurea sols/itia/is E Mallow/ cheeseweed Malva aarviflora E Curlv dock Rumex cr;snus E Brazilian oeooer tree Schinus molle E Fennel Foeniculum vuir!are E Plum tree Prunus SD. E Weeoin!! willow Salix babVionica E Coast redwood Seauoia semœrvirens N Bi!! leafmanle Acer macroDhvl/um N Almond tree Prunus so, E Italian thistle Carduus n"cnocenhalus E Wild mock oran!!e Philadelnhus lewisii N Coast Live Oak Woodland (Coast live oak series) Common bedstraw Gallium sn, E Hollvleaf cherrv Prunus ilicifo/ia N Soeedwell Veronica S". E Hillside !!ooseberrv Ribes californicum N Miner's Lettuce ClavtoniaDœ"iflora N Biotic Reports for the Stevens Creek Corridor Master Plan Thomas Reid Associates January 2006 Biological Assessment of Rare Plants VI,S Habitat Tvoe Common Name Scientific Name Native! Exotic California meHc Melliea imnerfeeta N Salt marsh baccharis Baccharis douulasU N Fiesta flower Pholistoma auritum N Purnle star thistle Centaurea calcitrnna E Calla-lillv Zantedesehia aethiooiea E Cotoneaster Cotoneaster sn. E Wild cucumber Marah (aboeeus N Pittosoorum Pittosoorum so, E Mornin2 210rv CalvsteIlia so, N Clarkia Clarkia uní!Uieulata N Bur-chervil Anthriscus cauca/is E Western vir2:in'swbower Clematis lif!USteifolia N ChaDarral clematis Clematis lasiantha N Osoberrv Oemlaria cerasiformis N Orchid Orobanche so, N Privet Lií!Ustrum so, E Golf course (DODds . (cattail series) Bulrush Scirous so, N Salt I!I'8SS Distich/is sDicata N Broad-leaf cattail TVÐha latifolia N Note: Some species (especially 1rees) are found in more than one plant community, but are only listed once in this table, Biotic Reportsfor the Stevens Creek Corridor Master Plan Thomas Reid Associates January 2006 Preliminary Wetland Delineation V/l-I VII. PRELIMINARY WETLAND DELINEATION A. REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS I. Federal a) Clean Water Act The implementation of the Clean Water Act is the responsibility of the US Environmental Protection Agency, That agency depends on other agencies, such as the individual states and the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), to assist in implementing the Act. The objective of the Clean Water Act is to "restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation's waters", Sections 401 and 404 apply to activities in the proposed Master Plan that would impact waters ofthe US and associated wetlands. In this reach of the creek the jurisdictional wetlands all lie within the ordinary high water mark, which is the limit of waters of the US. Clean Water Act, Section 401. Any applicant for a Federal permit to impact wetlands, including Nationwide permits where pre-construction notification is required, must also provide to the US Army Corps of Engineers a certification !Tom the State of California, This "40 I Certification" is provided by the State Water Resources Control Board through the local Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), The USACE Permit is not valid unti140J certification has been obtained, Please see the discussion under "State", below. Clean Water Act, Section 404. As part of its mandate under the Clean Water Act, the EPA regulates the discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the US under Section 404 of the Act. This can also include excavation and changes in drainage. The discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the US is prohibited under the Clean Water Act except when it is in compliance with Section 404 of the Act. Enforcement authority for Section 404 was given to the US Army Corps of Engineers, which it accomplishes under its regulatory bmnch. The Nationwide Permit progmm is described under Part 330 of the Corps of Engineers Regulatory Program Regulations, A nationwide permit is a form of general permit that authorizes certain activities that commonly occur throughout the nation. At present there are 44 types of Nationwide Pennits, The intent is to allow certain common activities to occur with little delay or paperwork. Nationwide pennits are valid only if the conditions applicable to the particular Nationwide Permit are met; otherwise an individual pennit or authorization under a regional permit is required before work can commence in areas regulated under the Clean Water Act. No activity is authorized under any Nationwide Pennit that is likely to jeopardize a fedemlly listed threatened or endangered species or the critical habitat of such a species, Non-federal pennittees must notify the District Engineer if any listed species or critical habitat might be affected or is in the vicinity of the project, and shall not begin work on the activity until notified by the District Engineer that the requirements of the fedeml Endangered Species Act have been satisfied and that the activity is authorized, Authorization of an activity by a Nationwide Pennit does not authorize the take of a fedemlly listed threatened or endangered species, If this project were found to have impacts on a federally listed species, the US Fish and Wildlife Service and the US Anny Corps of Engineers would coordinate pennit efforts, and the wetland impacts would be subject to an individual pennit mther than a Nationwide Pennit. Nationwide Pennit 27 (NWP 27) addresses "Stream and Wetland Restomtion Activities", which is defined as follows, "Activities in waters of the US associated with the restomtion offormer waters, the enhancement of degmded tidal and non-tidal wetlands and riparian areas, the creation of tidal and non-tidal wetlands and Biotic Reports for the Stevens Creek Corridor Master Plan January 2006 Thomas Reid Associates Preliminary Wetland Delineation VIl-2 riparian areas, and the restoration and enhancement of non-tidal streams and non-tidal open water areas as follows: a) The activity is conducted on: I, Non-Federal public lands and private lands, in accordance with the terms and conditions of a binding wetland enhancement, restoration, or creation agreement between the landowner and the US Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) or the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), the national Marine Fisheries Service, the National Oceanic Service, or voluntary wetland restoration enhancement, and creation actions documented by the NRCS pursuant to NRCS regulations; or 2, Reclaimed surface coal mine lands... or 3. Any other public, private or tribal lands; b) Notification: For activities on any public or private land that are not described by paragraphs (aXl) or (a)(2) above, the permittee must notify the District Engineer in accordance with General Condition 13; and c) Planting of only native species should occur on the site," NWP 27 authorizes the removal of accumulated sediments; the installation, removal and maintenance of small water control structures, dikes, and berms; the installation of current deflectors; the enhancement, restoration, or creation of rime and pool stream structure; the placement of in-stream habitat structures; modifications of the stream bed and/or banks to restore or create stream meanders; the backfilling of artificial channels and drainage ditches; the removal of existing drainage structures; the construction of small nesting islands; the construction of open water areas; activities needed to reestablish vegetation, including plowing or discing for seed bed preparation and the planting of appropriate wetland species; mechanized land clearing to remove non-native invasive exotic or nuisance vegetation; and other related activities, It does not authorize the conversion of a stream or wetland to another aquatic use, or stream channelization, but it does authorize the relocation of non-tidal waters provided there are "net gains in aquatic resource functions and values", Compensatory mitigation is not required for activities authorized by NWP 27, provided the authorized work results in a net increase in aquatic resource functions and values in the project area. Under General Condition 13, the permittee must provide a pre-construction notification (PCN) to the District Engineer. The PCN must be provided to the District Engineer (DE) as early as possible and before any construction activity begins, Construction cannot begin until the applicant is notified by the District Engineer that the activity may proceed under the NWP with any special conditions imposed by the DE, or until 45 days have passed trom the DE's receipt of the PCN and the applicant has not received notice from the DE, The PCN must be provided in writing and include name, address and telephone number of the permittee; location of the proposed project; a brief description of the proposed project; the project's purpose; direct and indirect adverse environmental effects the project would cause; any other NWPs, regional general permits or individual permits used or intended to be used to authorize any part of the proposed project or any related activity; and documentation of the prior condition of the site that will be reverted by the permittee (for NWP 27), 2. State a) California Department ofFish and Game The California Department ofFish and Game (CDFG) has jurisdiction over this project in two ways, For any project that will "divert, obstruct, or change the natural flow or the bed, channel, or bank of any river, stream or lake... in which there is at any time an existing fish or wildlife resource", CDFG requires Biotic Reports for the Stevens Creek Corridor Master Plan January 2006 Thomas Reid Associates Preliminary Wetland Delineation VII-3 notification and a Streambed Alteration Agreement under Section 1600 of the CDFG code. In this case it would be Section 1601, which applies when public agencies are the Applicant. Construction cannot begin until the Agreement is completed. The Department is also a trustee agency in the CEQA process, and will review the CEQA document prepared on the Master Plan. The Department will review the impacts and recommend measures to protect wildlife resources and to mitigate for any loss of functions and values caused by the project. b) Regional Water Quality Control Board The Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) recommends the application be made at the same time that any applications are provided to other agencies (such as the US Army Corps of Engineers and the California Department ofFish and Game). In the San Francisco Bay Area it is possible to submit a single application, called a Joint Aquatic Resources Permit Application (JARPA) to all three agencies (USACE, RWQCB and CDFG). Application is not made until completion of environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA certification), The application to the RWQCB is similar to the pre-construction notification that is required by the US Army Corps of Engineers (see discussion of Section 404, above), It must include a description of the type of wetland habitat that is being impacted, a description of how the impact is proposed to be minimized, and proposed mitigation measures with goals, schedules, and performance standards, Mitigation must include a replacement ratio of2:1, or twice as many acres of wetlands provided as are removed, The R WQCB looks for mitigation that is on site and in-kind, with functions and values as good as or better than the wetland that is being removed. If the mitigation does not meet these goals, the ratios can be higher, The RWQCB has sixty days to take action on the certification once a complete package is submitted, B. METHODS The project reach was surveyed by biologists Taylor Peterson and Terese Kastner on May 5, 2005, The size and composition of all in-stream and bank wetland was recorded, The Federal Routine Method was used to delineate the jurisdictional wetlands, however it was not necessary to dig pits because the hydrology of the flowing stream indicated saturated soils, The survey also included a search for adjacent wetlands, Habitat was determined to be wetland if three criteria were met: I) having 50 percent or greater of dominant plant species that are hydrophytic, that is, obligate (OBL), facultative wet (F ACW), or facultative (F AC); 2) having soils that display evidence of being inundated long enough to result in oxygen depleting conditions; and 3) evidence of hydrology which allows inundation for a long enough period during the year to result in a prevalence,ofhydrophytic vegetation. Because the hydrology is a flowing stream, and obligate wetland vegetation is present, the in-stream soils were assumed to be saturated long enough to be hydric, Bank vegetation is in drier soils above the ordinal)' high water mark, and although the dominant bank vegetation (blackberry) is facultative-wet, the determination relies more heavily on hydrology, The vegetation was identified using Thomas (1961) and Hickman et al. al. (1993), and determined to be hydrophytic using the USDI List of Plant Species that Occur in Wetlands (May 1988), Scientific names generally follow Hickman et al, Data were collected on an aerial photo base, and each sample site was recorded by GPS (Figure 7), The Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM) was mapped for the reach after a topographic survey was completed in October, The entire reach was walked, and measurements made &om the centerline of the Biotic Reports for the Stevens Creek Corridor Master Plan January 2006 Thomas Reid Associates Preliminary Wet/and Delineation Vll-4 creek to the top of the OHWM. The OHWM was apparent as a topographic change in the bank and a change in vegetation cover. C. RESULTS This reach of Stevens Creek contains jurisdictional in-stream seasonal wetland dominated by bulrush and willow-leaved dock, and riparian bank vegetation. Based on field measurement, the creek contains 0,2 acre of jurisdictional wetland, The location of the wetland is shown on Figure 7, which is keyed to Table 8, A list of plant species found and their wetland status is provided in Table 9, Data sheets were recorded for the first five sites (see Appendix A). The remainder of the sample points were delineated based on infonnation recorded for the first five samples (species composition, hydrology and assumed soil conditions), because of the similarity to the first five sample points. This stretch of the creek also contains 0.2 acre of riparian bank vegetation dominated by blackberry, and a canopy of riparian trees. There are also two constructed ponds on the golf course, connected to each other with a human-made channel. The ponds are approximately 0.2 acre and 0,05 acre in size. The smaller pond drains to the larger pond, which then drains to Stevens Creek through a pipe. These ponds support wetland vegetation dominated by cattail (Typha sp.). Because they are human-made and maintained, these ponds do not fall under USACEjurisdiction, however, any proposed modification of these ponds will come under the review of the RWQCB and CDFG, Except for a narrow portion near the upstream end of the reach, the OHWM is fairly consistently two feet above the center line of the creek. This was measured in the field and mapped on the topographic survey, The combination of wetland sample points and the OWHM are provided in Figure 8. Functions and Values, The in-stream seasonal wetland vegetation provides cover for amphibians, a food source and limited nesting habitat for birds, provides shade for fish and other aquatic species, and may contribute to improved water quality by filtering pollutants, The wetland in the ponds on the golf course provides habitat for nesting birds, cover for fishes, and substrate for amphibians to attach eggs, At present the ponds contain bullftog and other non-native species that are potentially damaging to native wildlife, The bank vegetation provides cover for wildlife species seeking access to the creek, particularly small mammals, birds and amphibians, It also provides nesting habitat and a food source for birds and small mammals. It may provide cover for aestivating amphibians, and provides shade and cover for aquatic species where it extends over the water. The bank vegetation also helps stabilize soils and reduce bank erosion ITom both creek flows and stonn water that flows into the creek, In the context of the adjacent park at Blackberry Farm, this vegetation may also provide a recreational resource in the fonn of blackberry-picking. Table 8. Wetland Characterization at Sample Points. Sample GPS Points Characterization Jurisdictional point Wetland sf A IA-1B Scirpus microcarpus (OBL) along stabilized bank near 9th tee; 150 approx 3 it wide and 50 it long. Also creek dogwood, Rumex salicifolius (OBL), nettle, mint. Arundo upstream on opposite bank, Sycamore, buckeye overstory, vinca on natural bank side, arrovo willow IF ACW) on stabilized bank B 2A-2B(2B Bank veªetation on stabilized side consists of scirous 150 Biotic Reports for the Stevens Creek Corridor Master Plan Thomas Reid Associates January 2006 Preliminary Wet/and Delineation VII-5 Sample GPS Points Characterization Jurisdictional point Wetland sf on bank elderberry, red twig willow, yellow twig willow, Vegetation on across from natural bank is dense blackberry (10 ft by 100 ft), Trees on the end of scirpus natural bank (banktop) are black walnut, sycamore and willow, in A) The natural bank is heavily vegetated, The stabilized bank is heavily vegetated on the lower portion for about 50 feet x 3 ft, From pt. 2B upstream the natural bank is covered in blackberry and vinca with an overstory of sycamore, buckeye, black walnut and willow C 3A -3B Both sides in natural banks. The non-golf side is 100 percent 1500 cover blackberry and vinca with an overstory of coast live oak, buckeye, willow and sycamore. The golf course side of the bank is covered with English ivy and vinca, A flat area at the base ofthe bank adjacent to the stream has a 75 percent cover of mint, grasses with a subdominant cover of rumex, blackberry, Bench is 15 x 100ft long, Privet invading, D 4A-4Bat Natural banks on both sides, Bank cover predominantly vinca. 840 shed Overstory of sycamore, buckeye, coast live oak, black walnut. Wetland in creek bed dominated by rumex, also scirpus, I!J1ISses, cottonwood. 12 ft x 70 ft E 5A - 5B Across ftom and upstream ofD, Bank cover is 100% vinca 225 maior mOLt Instream: cress rumex mint, I!J1ISS 3 ft x 75 ft F No gps; Bank next to shed, Wetland at D ends at a weeping willow, 310 opposite of E then starts again upstream of the willow dripline, Bank vegetation is willow, alder, black walnut, sycamore, blackberry (5 ft x 40 ft), Instream wetland 100% cover ofscirpus 5 ft by 30 ft, then combination of rumex, blackberry, mint, cress 8 ft x 20 ft G At Patch ofscirpus 5 ft by 15 ft. Grove of cottonwood saplings on 75 downstream bank, Monterey pines begin, bridge to Dicnic area H Upstream of Instream bar. 100% cover grasses; a few mint, cress, rumex 160 paved starting, Semi-circular shape 20 ft long, 8 ft at widest point crossing on east side I Downstream Small patch of Scirpus robustus, rumex, one rabbitsfoot grass, 48 of2"" ped 12 ft x 4ft on west bank and about 50 ft upstream ofH bridge J No gps Wetland values on both banks, On west bank, small strip of 1310 rumex, sedge 2 ft by 20 ft; on east bank, starting @ sycamore, rumex instream 2 ft by 10 ft, then upstream about 30 ft ftom end of west bank veg there is another patch of wetland on the west bank dom by rumex, scirpus, blackberry in a 10 by 10 ft pocket in the bank, Box elder, Upstream of J the west bank is 100% cover of blackberry (15 x 50), then a small patch of rumex and cress 50 ft by 25 ft, Then there is riprap and a waterfall linstream car crossing) K 6A-6B Instream bar of mint, rumex, scirpus, grasses 8 ft by 30 ft 288 immediately upstream of crossing @ "Horseshoe Bend" picnic area on east bank at this point there is a patch of scirpus 2 ft by 12 ft, then a short way upstream (about 10 ft ftom the upstream end of the 30 ft patch) there is a midstream bar with grasses and rumex that is 3 ft by 8 ft, Bank on east side upstream of crossing is heavily vegetated with blackberry, also willow, alder; extends around bend 20 by 75 ft; 3 redwoods on top of Biotic Reports for the Stevens Creek Corridor Master Plan Thomas Reid Associates January 2006 Preliminary Wetland Delineation VIl-6 Sample GPS Points Characterization Jurisdictional I point Wetland sf bank L 7 (one pt in Middle of horseshoe bend concrete sack wall. Downstream 210 middle) wetland values include blackberry on bank downstream of sack wall 100 % cover 40ft by 40 ft at base of wall there is scirpus, cattails cress mint 6 ft bv 35 ft M 8A - 8B Horseshoe bend upstream part of bend, east bank: blackberry 200 herbaceous patch 100% of bank 60 ft by 25 ft, Herbaceous patch: grasses, part, not mint, scirpus, willow saplings 50 ft by 4 ft, West bank vinca blackberry dominant nart N 9A-9B Wetland values on both sides of creek just downstream of 560 bridge #3, west bank: scirpus, cress, rumex avg 4 ft by 70 ft, East bank mint, alder, scirpus, grape, box elder, nettles about same size 0 lOA lOB Wetland values on both banks just upstream of crossing, East 1110 andllA- bank: scirpus, mint, rumex 6 by 35 ft. West bank scirpus, lIB cottonwood saplings 6 ft by 100 ft, English ivy invading, Also, a patch on the east bank, near the upstream end of the patch on the wets bank dominated bv scirous and rumex 6 ft by 50 ft P Scirpus, rumex, cress wetland on east bank @ "walnut court" 600 oicninc area 15 bv 40 ft Q Across from rip rap @Pinegrove Picnic silo, West bank scirpus 108 6ftby 18ft R West bank scirpus/blackberry wetland 100% cover. 10 ft by 15 150 ft S 12 100% cover blackberry on east bank. Alder and willow 0 overstory, Rioarian veg. basically; 90 by 25 T West bank scirpus, rumex, grass 6 ft by 40 ft, blackberry on 240 west bank (5 by 40), vinca on east; overstory of cottonwood, black walnut, box elder sycamore, coast live oak U Mint, nettle, blackberry on bar at base of west bank 4 ft by 30 ft 120 V Bank on west side has 100% cover of blackberry lOft wide by 0 100 ft long W 13A - 13B Wetland values extend onto the east bank top in a large stand of 0 Baccharis douglasii (OBL) and sycamore 110 ft long by 20 ft wide, On the stream bank, both sides, there is baccharis, blackberry, mock orange, willow, California bee plant, poison oak, blue elderberrv X 14A 14B, Scirpuslrumex/mint/grass wetland on patches at base of bank: 3 238 15A -15B ft by 40 ft; I ft by 10 It; also a bar midstream grasses, willow, mint 4 ft by 27 ft, West bank immediately downstream of bridge catch of blackberries and scirpus 20 ft bv 25 ft Total 10,792 (0,2 ac) Biotic Reports for tire Stevens Creek Corridor Master Plan Thomas Reid Associates January 2006 Preliminary Wetland Delineation VII-7 Figure 7, Wetland Data Points Map J "L ' ''', ~ / - ,: . - Q; S1evenI CÍ1tek Blvd', - - Legend -~...... .--. ExIatrtg ft_ canopy , .".S1IWeftICIMk.......,PIan ....- . Wetland Data Point N A 0 200.... r Blackberry Farms ¡ l L McCIelan Road -. Monta Vista , High School - Biotic II£portsfor the Stevens Creek Corridor Master Plan Thomas Reid Associates January 2006 Preliminary Wetland Delineation VII-S Figure 8. Wetland Data Points and OHWM Map. I b ï II I [ I ¡ I I K .. j ,. I I ;' /' I - f January 2006 Biotic Reportsfor the Stevens Creek Corridor Master Plan Thomas Reid Associates Preliminary Wetland Delineation VII-9 Table 9. Plant Species found in Wetland Areas. Common Name Scientific Name Wetland Indicator Statns Common plantain Plantarw maior FACW Peooennint Mentha x oioerita OBL Speannint Mentha snicata var, soicata OBL Bulrush Scirous microcarous OBL Bulrush Scirous robustus OBL Watercress Roriooa nasturtium aauatica OBL Willow-leaved dock Rumex salicifolius OBL California blackberrv Rubus ursinus FACW Himalavan blackberrv Rubus discolor FACW Arroyo willow Salix lasioleois FACW Red willow Salix laevif!Ota NOL Nettle Urtica dioica FACW Rabbitsfoot !!rass Polvvo<wn monsoeliensis FACW Dou!!las' false-willow Baccharis douf!lasii OBL D. RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONSIDERATIONS FOR THE MASTER PLAN The following recommendations are made for consideration in preparing and implementing the Master Plan: 1. The project will likely be subject to pennits ftom the USACE, the RWQCB and CDFG, Existing conditions will need to be clearly documented for these pennits. 2, It is recommended that the plan address the removal of exotic species, such as Arundo donax and Vinca major, and replanting of bank vegetation to improve wetland and wildlife values but retain bank stabilization. 3, Similarly, any native bank vegetation that is removed should be replaced to provide the same functions and values, but also foster diversity, 4, In consideration of channel modifications, the Master Plan should provide for the development of bars or other substrate that supports in-stream seasonal wetland vegetation, 5, Modification or annual draining of the golf course ponds to control for invasive exotic species (ie" bullftog), should take into account potential impacts to nesting birds and native amphibians, Biotic Reports for the Stevens Creek Corridor Master Plan Thomas Reid Associates January 2006 References VIII-! VIll. REFERENCES A. LITERATURE CITED Almaden Valley Bird News, October I I, 2005 {http://home.att,netl-redknotlarchive2004.html} Amphibian and Reptile Species of Special Concern in California, Foothill Yellow-legged Frog. California Department of Fish and Game, 1994, Bettelheim, Matthew P.. The Western Pond Turtle, A Natural History of the Species, Walnut Creek, California. 2004, California Department ofFish and Game, California's Plants and Animals: Species of Special Concern, August 5, 2003, California Department ofFish and Game Habitat Conservation Planning Branch, July 21, 2005 {http://www.dfg.ca.govlhcpb/species/ssc/ssc.shtml}. California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB), Wildlife & Habitat Data Analysis Branch, Department ofFish and Game. February 6, 2005. Commercial Version, California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB). 2004, Version 3,0.3. California Department ofFish and Game. November. California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB), Updated June 2005. California Natural Diversity Database. California Department ofFish and Game. Sacramento, California. California's Wildlife, Amphibians and Reptiles, Foothill Yellow-legged Frog. California Wildlife Habitat Relationships System, California Department ofFish and Game, 1988, Cannings, R, J" and T, Angell. 2001, Western Screech-Owl (Otus kennicottii). In The Birds of North America, No. 597 (A. Poole and F. Gill, eds,), The Birds of North America, Inc" Philadelphia, PA. CNPS,2001. California Native Plant Society's Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants of California 6th Edition. Published: August 2001, California Native Plant Society. Sacramento, California, Corelli and Chandik, 1995. The Rare and Endangered Plants of San Mateo and Santa Clara County, Published by Monocot Press, Half Moon Bay, California. Crocoll, S, T, (1994). Red-shouldered Hawk (Buteo lineatus). The Birds of North America Online (A, Poole, Ed,), Ithaca: Cornell Laboratory of Ornithology; Retrieved tTom The Birds of North American Online database: htto:/lbna,birds.comell.edulBNNaccount/Red-shouldered Hawk! Department of Defense, Department of the Anny, Corps of Engineers Final Notice oflssuance and Modification of Nationwide Pennits. Federal Register, March 9,2000 (Volume 65, Number 47) pages 12817to 12899. Dunk, J. R, 1995. White-tailed Kite (Elanus leucurus). In The Birds of North America, No, 178 (A, Poole and F, Gill, eds,). The Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, and The American Ornithologists' Union, Washington, D,C. Biotic Reports for the Stevens Creek Corridor Master Plan Thomas Reid Associates January 2006 References VlIl-2 Ehrlich, P,R" D.S, Dobkin, and D. Wheye. 1988. The Birders Handbook: afield guide to the natural history of North American birds, Simon & Schuster Inc., New York, New York GlobeXplorer. 2002. htto://www.globexolorer.coml. Image Date. October I, 2002, Hickman, James C" editor, 1993. The Jepson Manual: Higher Plants of California. University of California Press. Berkeley and Los Angeles, California, Holland, D,C., M,P, Hayes and E, McMillan, 1990. Late summer movement and mass mortality in the California tiger salamander (Ambystoma californiense). The Southwestern Naturalist 35(2): 217- 220, Houston, C, S" D, G, Smith, and C, Rohner. 1998. Great Horned Owl (Bubo virginianus), In The Birds of North America, No. 372 (A. Poole and F. Gill, eds,). The Birds of North America, Inc" Philadelphia, PA, ' Jennings, M,R. and M,P, Hayes, 1985, Pre-1900 Overharvest of California red-legged frogs (Rana aurora draytonii): The inducement for bullfrog (Rana catesbeiana) introduction. Herpetologica 41 (I ):94- 103, Jennings, M,R. and M,P. Hayes. 1994, Amphibian and Reptile Species of Special Concern in California, Final Report to the California Department ofFish and Game. Jones and Stokes Associates, Inc, 1992. Initial StudyÆnvironmental Assessment for the Stevens Creek Trail and Wildlife COlTidor Project. August 19,1992, (JSA 92-049), Sacramento, CA. Prepared for the City of Mountain View Community Services Department, Parks Division, Mountain View, CA, Loredo, I., D, Van Vuren, and M,L. Morrison. 1996. Habitat use and migration behavior ofthe California tiger salamander, Journal of Herpetology. 30:282-285, Marks, J. S., D. L. Evans, and D, W, Holt. 1994, Long-eared Owl (Asio otus), In The Birds of North America, No, 133 (A. Poole and F. Gill, Eds,). Philadelphia: The Academy of Natural Sciences; Washington, D,C,: The American Ornithologists' Union, Marti, C, D" A, F, Poole and L. R, Bevier (2005). Barn Owl (Tyto alba). The Birds of North America Online (A. Poole, Ed,), Ithaca: Cornell Laboratory of Ornithology; Retrieved from The Birds of North American Online database: htto://bna,birds.comeILedu/BNAlaccount/Barn OwV Ministry of Sustainable Resource Management. 2001. Inventory Methods for Raptors: Standards for Components of British Columbia's Biodiversity No, II. Resources Inventory Committee, The Province of British Columbia. Reed, P,B., Jr, 1988, National List of Plant Species that Occur in Wetlands: California (Region 0), U.s. Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Report 88(26,10). 135 pp, Roach, Jon, Invading Bullfrogs Appear Nearly Unstoppable. September 28, 2004, National Geographic Society, Santa Clara County Bird Discussions 2004, October 11,2005 {http://www.stanford.edu/-kendric/birdslSCListslSCdiscu04.htrnl } Biotic Reports for the Stevens Creek Corridor Master Plan Thomas Reid Associates January 2006 References VlIl-3 Santa Clara Valley Water District. May 17,2002. Best Management Practices Under the Stream Maintenance Program, October 7,2005. {http://www,valleywater.orglWaterffechnical_ Informationlfechnical_Reports/Reports/SMP _ BMP _ 05 I 702.pdf} Santa Clara Valley Water District. July 2001. 2001 Stream Maintenance Project: Final Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration. Sawyer and Keeler-Wolf, 1995, A Manual of California Vegetation. California Native Plant Society: Published in Sacramento, California, Sawyer. John, 0, and Todd Keeler-Wolf. 1995. A Manual of California Vegetation. California Native Plant Society, Sacramento, CA. Sawyer, John 0, and Todd Keeler-Wolf. 1995. A Manual of California Vegetation. California Native Plant Society 1722 J Street, Suite 17, Sacramento, CA 95814. Seymour, R, and M, Westphal. 2000. Results of a One-year Survey for Amphibians on Lands Managed by the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District in the Santa Cruz Mountains of California. June 1. Shaffer, H,ß" R,N. Fisher, and S.E, Stanley, 1993, Status report: the California tiger salamander (Ambysloma californiense). Final report to the California Department ofFish and Game, Inland Fisheries Division, Rancho Cordova, California, under Contracts (FG 9422 and FG 1383). Sibley, David Alan. 2000. The Sibley Guide 10 Birds. New York: Chanticleer Press, Inc, Stebbins, R,C. 1972. California amphibians and reptiles. University of California Press, Berkeley, 152 pp, Team Cupertino Creek Cruisers. May 8, 2005. Santa Clara Valley Audubon Society Spring Birdathon. Thomas, John H, 1961. Flora of the Santa Cruz Mountains of California. Stanford University Press, Stanford, California, Thomas Reid Associates. August 2005, Focused Surveys for Special Status Amphibians and Reptiles for the Stevens Creek Corridor Master Plan Cupertinò, California. TRA, Menlo Park, California; traenviro.com. Trulio, L.A., 2001. Assessment ofBiologicl!l Opportunities and Constraints: Report for the City of Cupertino, Stevens Creek Trail Feasibility Study. May 10. University of California, Berkeley, Museum of Vertebrate Zoology. 2004, University of California, Berkeley, July 5, 2004 {http://mvz,berkeley,edulindex,html}, V,S, Fish and Wildlife Service and California Department ofFish and Game, 2003. Interim Guidance on Site Assessment and Field Surveys for Determining Presence or a Negative Finding of the California Tiger Salamander. October, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service [USFWS] 2003. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Listing of the Central California Coast Distinct Population Segment of the California Tiger Salamander; Proposed Rule, 50 CFR Part 17. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2004a, Federal Register: Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Determination of Threatened Status for the California Tiger Salamander; and Special Biotic Reportsfor the Stevens Creek Corridor Master Plan January 2006 Thomas Reid Associates References VIII-4 Rule Exemption for Existing Routine Ranching Activities; Final Rule. 50 CFR. Part 17. Vol. 69, No, 149: pp. 47212 - 47248, U,S, Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), 2004b. Federal Register: Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation of Critical Habitat for the California Tiger Salamander, Central Population; Proposed Rule. 50 CFR. Part 17. Vol. 69, No. 153: pp. 48570 - 48649, August 10, U.S, Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2004. Federal Register: Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Proposed Designation of Critical Habitat for the California Red-legged Frog (Rana aurora draytonii); Proposed Rule. 50 CFR. Part 17. Vol. 69, No, 71: pp. 19620 - 19642 US, Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2002. Recovery Plan for the California Red-Legged Frog (Rana aurora draytonii). U,S, Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, Oregon, viii + 173 pp. Wetland Training Institute. 2000. Corps of Engineers Nationwide Permits Complete Volume 1. Wetland Training Institute, Glenwood, New Mexico, Zeiner, D.C" W. Laudenslayer, and K, Mayer, 1988, Tiger salamander (Ambystoma californiense. Pages 2-3, in: California's Wildlife, Volume I: Amphibians and Reptiles. The Resources Agency, California Department ofFish and Game. B. PERSONAL COMMUNICATIONS Jae Abel, Santa Clara Valley Water District, July 28, 2005. Mark Allaback, Biosearch Associates, July 29, 2005, Barbara Bansfield, City of Cupertino. Field meeting and telephone correspondence with Terese Kastner of Thomas Reid Associates in April and May of2005, Lisa Meyers. Telephone and email correspondence with Terese Kastner of Thomas Reid Associates in April 2005, Eric Remington, Yale University Department of Entomology. New Haven, CT, Telephone correspondence with Kim Briones of Thomas Reid Associates. June 9, 2004. Biotic Reportsfor the Stevens Creek Corridor Master Plan Thomas Reid Associates January 2006 Appendix A-I A-I-l Appendix A-I. Photos 1-6 Photo 1. Stevens Creek habitat. (June 2005) Photo 2. One of the two ponds at Blackberry Farm Golf Course. (October 2004) Biotic Reportsfor the Stevens Creek Corridor Master Plan Thomas Reid Associates January 2006 Appendix A-I A-I-2 Photo 3. Channelized portion of Stevens Creek. (October 2004) Photo 4. Diversion dam and intake strnctnre as discnssed in Hydrology Section (page 5). Also note rip-rap present in backgronnd that is nsed to stabilize banks. (October 2004). Biotic Reportsfor the Stevens Creek Corridor Master Plan Thomas Reid Associates Jarruary 2006 Appendix A-J Photo S. Stocklemeir property. (December 2004) F,..'~'· ". ",,-,,:'. '~~~- <:,' .~:-:" ~,' Photo 6. Open field at McClellan Ranch. (December 2004) A-J-3 Biotic Reportsfor the Stevens Creek Corridor Master Plan Thomas Reid Associates January 2006 Appendix B Appendix B, I. List of all bird species observed during raptor surveys. Great blue heron Black-crowned night heron Canada goose Mallard White-tailed kite Red-shouldered hawk California quail Rock dove Mourning dove Barn owl White-throated swift Anna's hummingbird Acorn woodpecker Nuttall's woodpecker Downy woodpecker Western wood pewee Black phoebe Pacific slope flycatcher Western scrub jay Stellar's jay American crow Common raven Violet-green swallow Northern rough-winged swallow Cliff swallow Chestnut-backed chickadee 2, Species observed in addition to those listed above by Team Cupertino Creek Cruisers on May 8, 2004 and 2005 for the Santa Clara Valley Audubon Society Spring Birdathon Double-crested cormorant Wood duck Cooper's hawk Band-tailed pigeon Great horned owl Olive-sided flycatcher Warbling vireo Wilson's warbler Western tanager Black-headed grosbeak B-1 Oak titmouse Bushtit White-breasted nuthatch Brown creeper Bewick's wren Wrentit Western bluebird American robin Northern mockingbird European starling Cedar waxwing Spotted towhee California towhee Song sparrow Golden-crowned sparrow Dark-eyed junco Red-winged blackbird Brewer's blackbird Brown-headed cowbird Hooded Oriole Bullock's oriole Purple finch House finch Lesser goldfinch American goldfinch House sparrow Biotic Reportsfor the Stevens Creek Corridor Master Plan Thomas Reid Associates January 2006 Appendix C C-l Appendix C. Data Sheets, Biotic Reports/or the Stevens Creek Corridor Master Plan Thomas Reid Associates January 2006 ",,,,.,,,runm ROUTINE WETlAND DETERMINATION (1987 COE Wettands Delineation Manuall Pro¡ectl5ite: ,ç.".""'M'; C~ 'BtJoOoCloC5£.1ZI",{, F................ Date: 5/11/"6' I Applicant/Owner: CitY'" C......R">4C> I s c,,'" 0 County: SA~pa..C.'-Ao~ Investigator: ?~-.. IIc;.....,.Tt4eJ1'.. State: "" 00 Normal Circumstances exist on the site 1 '~No Community 10: R I P"RlAoN Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation\?' YIiS No' Transect 10: Is the area a pcrt8lldaI Problem Area? Yes No Plot ID: A (If needed, axplain on reverse.\ ~ETATlON 1M' ~"Ttz.e..¡ltt..M we:.~L,oa...I-4of) DerNnMl Plant SD". Straturn IftlticMor Dam...", Plant SD.Die. Stratum Iftdicatar t. ~~it-o""30·""\C"DC.ø\~S ~ o'BL. S. Z. MPk-\-\'a. ~I r~ ri "ftl 10. I. Ru~ ø.u1ø2l\.... ~ F"'- 11. 4. -Co>,"",~ ,\..\o""'b- S"'·JP t=.A.r\ÞJ" 12. I. 13. L 14- 7. 11., .. 0 Ie. _ of Do..oI._"'" _ _ OIL. FN:W . FA/; 7S7~ r..-..FACoI. - C),\so O'\e.¡+1e Ceon.o:t d8"",'''"'__IoI\.04-) (u;fi'&Þ- ) . . ,to. ~ . ',._'0· '.. HYDROLOGY ' _........... _ ~ In "-bI: W_ 11>,......." 1ndI_ _ '-LIke.. TIIIe_p I'IfIMry In. a .. _AellllPIII11_4M - .......... -- .-- .""-In Upper 12 Inah.. _"'" __A_ :;:.W_..... ' .ItC. ÞdI't Ü*, _ .ocImOl!iC DepooIta ..... Db... ~.dlnn. _DniMgo _In W._ -.v _ CZ....... nquIrecIl: IIepdo of __ WoW: (In.) _ ~ _a..nn".ln Uppor121nchoo _W__"-- Dopth fa ..... W_1n PIt: ....1 _ LoooI SellIIuowy Date _FACoN'- TNt IIepdo to S_ &aI. IIn.I _ 0lIl.. (IqdoIn"_1 II- A4J.""'¡- (0 ~ c.,..wc ...¡,.. t:.....ks W11,1_ ·188 . C,, ~.~:: f":, .. r' -" (> ¡¡;,' ( , \. A ~'Z- SOILS " .. " Map Unit NMa. ' .. " ....'. , , (s.ri.. and Ph...): .' . -Or_Mg. CIa..:', . ·A.hi Ob..rvationl Tu:cnòmy (Sub9roupl: .. Confirm ~.d TVIIOI V.. No Profile C..criðtfon: ' , Coø.h Matrix Color Mo.ns. Calara Mona. Tlxture, Concretion.. JIœ!wL Haritan {Munsell Moi.t} lMun"n Moiad AbundancIJCantr..t Structure. 8ta. '.. , .. ; .... : " . " " ; " " . ." " , " ' " ," H,drlo Sol IneII_n: _1htoooI _~onI __ fpIpodon _ HitIh OJVIIIÏO CoIu8M 1ft $~_ I.Iyor 1ft Sondy Sol. _ SuIIIdIo Od.. .. _ OIpIio .1noIdnt In Sondy Sale _"quIo_lIogimo , ' _ UoÞd on LoRI H,drlo SolI. \Jet _RoducIna ~.. _ UoÞd 011...- HydrIo"" \Jet _ GIr¡od or Low-Chram. CGIore _ -1&IIIIIo"- ,.. .. " , ' .. ')1.' ;.,. .1·'-"""· - tlU/utl,UI "'W,'C ..", WETlAND DETERMINATION H,doophydo V...._n ~ ¡ No ,CÇIICI" CCInûI W.....HydI~ ~ No ~ HydrIo." -.wI No 1..............1'01111_. w_ No ': , R_. .. .' . . " ,e,:, '. " , '-' .. . "J~'" . Y , .... -197· wn. 1.. DATA FORM, ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION (1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manuall ProjectlSite: ~~ Oo-.eð<. ßIQ.c.i<:.berrr FA"'''''' Date: :)' 11·0",- ApplicantlOwner: c.-h.¡ d- Cu~t+.""" / oS ",t/t.VÞ CountY: SANb'o c:""~ Investigator: ~ I/'" m..... , State: Go"< Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? ~ No CommunitY ID:";<,1\6A.\AN Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)7 es No Transect ID: Is the area a potential Problem Area 7 Yes No Plot ID: (' (If needed. explain on reverse.) VeGETATION Domin_"' PI.nt Soeciu Str.tum Indicator Dominant PI'nt SD.des Stratum Indicator ,.~~~~/c- ¡.¡ ofIL 9, H ot 10. .2. l)d ç¿~ 3. 11. 4. 11. 5. 13. e. 14. 7. 15. 8, 1St 'eroem of DomiMnt Speoi.. thIIt ., OIL. FACW or FAC /cD INCluding FAC-I. R........rk.: V- ~ S~c..µ.¿,~ ;1Ae.~ fi.u,./, ,,-, 3 ICS'O , ". , , , ," , , . .. .. HYDROLOGY _ Recorded De'l (DMCribl In Rem"): Wed_ Hydrology Indicet:Ota: _ St,....... LU... or Tide Gauge Primory lnelleoto..: _ Ae.oI Phetogr8phe _Inund.ted _ Other ~otur_1n Upper I1lncheo _ No R_ed Dolo AvoIIeblo ~..... MmI:. I ~rlftU_ _ ........edlment D-'to Fiold ObHrvedone, _ D",;_ pommeln Wedondo Secondary IneII_toN (2 or more required': Depth of Surface Wettlr: , Gn.1 _ OxkfIzed Root Channel. in Upper 12 Inches _ Wot....Stolned ....... Depth to Fr.. WIÞr in Pit: Gn.1 _ Locol Soil Surwy Do.o _ FAC·Nout'oI Toot Dep.h to S....rated Soil: (In.1 _ Othot (Ex>Ia1n In RomerU) , . Remark.: bw-. "",11.,,, S~_ WTI, 1995 -201· C f' 2.. " SOILS , MIIØ Unit"Nama . (Series .nd Pha.e): . Drain-ge Class: ,'.. Field Oba.rvations Taxonomy (Subgroupl: Confirm Mapped Typel- Y.. N. Profit,. l?escriDtion: Depth. Matrix Color Mottle Color. Monle Texture, Concretion., (inenest HGrizan tv\unsell Moist) (Munsell Moi,d AbundancelConfrest Stroctur.. lite. " ,,' , ..... , , - " Hydño SOIllndicaton: - Hist.... _ Co.._ _ K"l81ic Epipedon _ High OIlllioCO...... In SUrf..,1 ~. in Sondy S.ill _ Sulfidic OdOl _ 0f90nic Strooking In Slndy SoiIl _ Aquio _ Regime , _ Uotod on 1.0001 ~o Soil. Uot _ Reducing Condl1lo.. _ UdId on _no! Hydric Soh Uot .-::.GSeyed or Low--Chr~.-C~ _ Othor I£xiIaIn In Rom...... " Rem.rb: 11,,,,,',- ~,,;¡~ Aø.,,.,,d k('~ c.Þa f 5.Ju1rl~~ (~....'-!J f WETLAND DETERMINATION Hydrophydc V_œdon "'_nt1 ~= IClrel11 (ClrcI.1 W.d.nd ItÍdrology Prooont1 Hydric Soil. Prooontl .. He> 10 thie SompIing Paint Within . Wotlond1 0'~) No R_, " ......... .. y -207· WTI, 1185 DATA FORM ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION (1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual! prOjeCtlSite:~~ C~~rn.~~ c..~ Date: S' - II-oS'" County: ~..~ a-..... Applicant/Owner: (!\ of Co O~ Stvwþ Investigator: ~...., \ , Slale: eA Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? ~ No CommunitY ID: ;) . Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situationl? Yes No TransecI ID: Is the area a potential Problem Area? Yes No Plot 10: ,)) (If needed, explain on reverse.! VEGETATION Domlne"t "'ant SOlei.. Strøtum Indi~tor Dominent Plant Soecies Stratum Indie.tor I. 'R.......... s.,1.(~I, út H- OIIL 9. 2.u..IJ1ci ~ -+-\ ~ 10, Wc.w...;:..a" 3~ L.I "ðfu c.-~ "' ~"l.. 11. 4. rvI.u.. ;.l,.... "' o. L 12. 5. 13. e. 14. 7. 15. .. 18. Po...nt of Domlnont 'p.ol..thol ." OIL. FACW or FAC 10C:> I~ )( 10 '.....udlng FAC-I. ' '........ R_rko: 1>-..1(,'. e.lk.-~ , b",\(. k.~""1 ~ . 1-' ~\v<:""-'. c.....LI-.,~ s""i' ~ " " HYDROLOGY _ R.oonled Doto 100_. In R.....rk." Wodoncf I+¡dralogy Indiooto.., _ Sue.,.. ....... or TIde Gaua_ Primery IndlCllto...: _ A.riol Phologropho ~ndotod 01h0r ..::::s..'otodln Uww 121noh.. _ No lleÕÕnlod Dm A........ _-Wit. Mert_ , -"""'rifJMo _-SHim,nt DilPo. Field Dbaervations: _ Drainage Patterns In Wed.nde Secondary IndJc8tora (2 or more r.quired): Depth of Surflce W..r: On.1 _ O>ddized 11001 ChoM.I. In Upper 12 Inoh.. _ WOI.r-Stoinod Looves Depth to Free Wat.r In Pit: On.) _ Loool Soi Survey D.t. _ FAC·Nowol T... Deplh 10 S_.lod ScHl: On.1 _ 0Ih0r '!xlllaln In R....rkol R.......rkt: ,...s1r~' lEi ~"b Þ.......~ WTI, 19911 -201 - 'D p '2.. SOilS Map Unit Name , (Seri.. and Ph..,): , .OraiCtaoe et...;- '.. Field Ob..rvlltiona TaxqnbmV (S~bgroupJ: Confirm Mapped Tvpel V.. No 'Profile Descriotion: Depth , Matrix Color Mottla Color. Mottle Texture. Concretions. Unche$1 Horizon (Munsell Moi.t' IMunsel1 Maisd Abundance/Cantres! Structure. etc. , , .. , " , ' , . Hydric SoIllndlclltore: _ _.... Concmo,. ...:.. Hio1I. Epipodon = Hi.. Orpnia Content In SurftÌo. Layer In Sandy Soil. _ Sul~o Odor·,. _ 01Vll""' S...oIdlllJ in S.ndy Soil. _Aqu!o:_A~ _ Uotod on LocoII+¡d~o Soli. Uot _ Reduan,-CcinCrltioftl Uotod on H........ HydrIo Soh Uot _ Gloyod,.' lo....Chrom. C..... -oth.. (ExplaIn In ~) " , .. , , Remark.: " bu-.. ~a.;â.rd , ~;..J c<c... &.. 4.44... ,.,..¿.,(. '"' .... WETlAND DETERMINATION Hydrophydc Vag_on "",..Rt1 i No IClrd.1 IClrd.1 W........ Hydralogy P....nt1 No @)NO I+¡d~o Soil. ......ntl ~ .. thIo S_1Ing Point WltHn . W...and1 A_, ..; ,', Appro_ oy -207- W11,11911 DATA FORM ROUTINE WETlAND DETERMINATION 11987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual} Project/Site: Applicant/Ow Investigator: Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation!? Is the area a potential Problem Area? (If needed, explain on reverse.) es No es No Yes No Date:~~L. 0 S County: ~"'-c.\.......... State: CA Community ro: 'Gt'~ Transect 10: Plot 10: -E.. V¡:GETATION Dominant Peant SDecies StraNm Indicator Do~n."t Plent Saecies Stratum Indicator 1. ~ CJ\.oA.ð ,.¡ OBL 9. 2. MQ..I\.'µ'¡A '" 0'.... 10. ::t~1&h ~GWCA\"paI ~ 11. rio or.L. 11. 5. '2 . --+ ç.J.."l- I. ~ rl teL 13. 8. 14. 7. 15. 8. 18. P....nt of Domlnon. Sp..i.. _ ... OIL, FACW '" FAC PÐ 100 2 loxoIudtng FAC·. - Flemerk.: 1;tÎS- " .. HYDROLOGY _ Recorded Da (OaRrib. In Rwn8rkl:J: Wodond Hydrology Indiaolo,,: _ Stre~ Lake, or TNle Geuge Primory Indl..to..: _ AorIell'hota_h. ~- _ ,Olhor _S....-In U_12Inah.. _ No R_rdocl Dol. AvoIobI. _ w_ ....... _DritlU... _5_ D'IOIIhl R.1d Obearv.lions: _ Drllin8ge Peftemlln Wetlend. Secondary Incßc.tol'll (2 or more nquiredJ: Depth of Surface Weter: On.' _ OJdclized Root Ch8nn". in Upper 12 Inch.. _ W._bln.d Lo_ eepth to Free Water I" Pit: On.1 _ Lac.- Soil Surwy Oet. _ FAC,N.utrel Toot Depth to S.......ocI Soli: Iin.J _ OIhOf ¡Explain In Rom.""1 Rtmlrks: 1M. 5~e-. ~ Úc... øJ.- btw< 1:............11.. 1> 'b WTI.1995 ·208· FP"Z.. SOilS Map Unit M.me , -, . (Series .nd Ptla~e): . Or~~.çlt Clase: Field Ob..rvetlon. Taxonomy CSubgroupl: Confirm Mapped Typel Yes No Profil. Dncriotion: Depth Matrix Color Monle Color. Monle Texture, Caner.dons, {Inches' Horizon MunseU Mo¡SI~ (Munsell Moistt Abundance¡Contr8,t StNctur.. etC. , , , ; .. - .. .. , Hydolo SoIllndlc.to..: _ Hilto"" _ conct1ltiOM , _ Hilde Epipodon _ HIgh Organic Contont In Surfooo Loyer In Sondy SoUo _ Sul\i!fie OdOl _ Orvono Strooldn; in Sondy Soil. I _ Aquic Mol...... Roc;mo '_ Uotod on locoI Hydrio SOU. Uot _ Roducin; Co_ono _ Uotod on _noI Hydrio Soil. U.I _ Gleyed Of Law-ChrOlM Colore _ Other texpllin In Romorko) , R....rk.. ~p(.. bfu.c.p<. ~~~ ~11o(-,,1' U, 1U1.d4. ~ / 7'f WlmAND DETERMINATION Hydrophydc V_don ","ont1 iE (Clrclo' (ClrcI.) WoUond Hydrololff ......nll QNO Hydrio Soil. ","ont1 I. thIo SompIIng Point WIthin. WoIIondl R_: ;\ App'- Þy ,~I~Z -207- W11, 11811 DATA FORM ROUTINE WETlAND DETERMINATION (1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual) Project/Site:.... '- ' r.._ Þ II _ ~lAC.k..1$1:1I!S!.Y , - , Date: '>_¡/_o~ APPlic.ant/ow7!r¡"" -- - Co N2'> / ScvwÞ County: ~ CI.A_ Investigator: ,...,' . State: ~ Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? Ves No Community ID:~~ Is the site significamly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Yes No Transect ID: Is the area a potential Problem Area? Yes No Plot ID: F (If needed, explain on reverse.) . VEGETATION Dominant Plant SDecl.e Str,hlm Indicator Dominant Plant Soecies Stratum Indicator I::J.Jrp.ð1"J ,".0 r tM:p tJ $ J-I ;-,RL 9. :1:~::~J,1o ¡.f P.4cW"" 10. H ~L. , 11. ::~. II- cJ1L. 12. ''''''A FIle""" 13. 6. 14. 7. 15. S, 16. Peroe", of DamlMm Speoi.. that ar, OIL. FAC:W or FAC /00 (excluding FAC:-'. ' ' , Rem.rke: S- )f ~O a:- Y 20 , ," , HYDROLOGY' _ Reconled D_ 1DeaoriII.ln R....""'." WoII_ Hydrologv I_on, _ Sha'll, L,.te. or TId. a-..g, Primary Indlcetorw: _ A.ñ.. PIIo_h, ..2\:lnv_ _ O1her _ a_lid In Upp.r 12 Inch.. _ No l'I..anled D... A...obl. _ Wet", Mortes _ Drift Uno, _ a_ Dopasi.. R.ld OboOfVoIIo..., _ Dr.....oo P_ln W.d_. 4Sb'¡"'«InJ Secondary IncØcltOl1l (2 or more required): Depth of Surflce Watw: _ OxIdIzed Roo. Chonnolo In Upp.r '2 Inch.. _ W_Stoinod I.e.... Depth to Fre. Wits, In Pit: an.1 _ Lo'" Soil Surwv Dote _ FAC·N...u" Toot Dopth '0 SllUro.ed SaR: an,) _ 0thIr C&pIlin In R.mortesl Remerke: ci.uÆ A~ ' WT~ 1995 ·208· " F f'L f SOILS Map Unit 'Name .. . (Series and Phase): . Drai~ae Clan: Field Obs.rvotions Taxonomy.{Subgroup): Confirm Mapped Type? Ye. No ProRle DescriDtion: Depth Matrix Color Mottle Color. Monle Texture. Concretions. linches) 1-40rizon (.Munsell MoísU {Munsell Moistl AbundancI (Connest Srructu,e. etc. , . . '~1 " , Hydñc Soil Indicators: - Hi.-:oaol _ Concre1lona _ Hisde Eplpodon _ High Orgonio Co..en' In Surf_ UoV4" in Sandy 5011. _ Sulfidic Odo, _ Orvono Stnoklng In Sondy Soil. _ Aqulo MoIoN" Regim. _ LIo1od on I.ocaI Hydrio 5011. U., _ Reducing COndld.... _ Uttod Oft NltIori" Hydllo 5011. Uot _ Gloyod OIlo_ Colore _ ~ IE>pIoIn in Remarks) Remerk.: ~ WETlAND DETERMINATION Hydrophvtlo Vt_on ....._1 ~ No ICItoIa) ICltcla' W....nd Hyd,oIogy P'.....l No ~)NO Hydllo Soil. ....._1 ~ 1.1hIo S....,t1ng Point Within a W....nd1 Rem.....: , ApproYiil by -207· wn. 1t115