16B. SCC Initial Study Technical Appendices
Stevens Creek Corridor Park
Master Plan and Restoration Plan
Initial Study
Technical Appendices
. ~.
--
-
April 2006
City of Cupertino
Stevens Creek Corridor Park
Master Plan and Restoration Plan
Initial Study
Technical Appendices
April 2006
Prepared for:
City of Cupertino
Prepared by:
Thomas Reid Associates
545 Middlefield Road, Suite 200
Menlo Park, CA 94025
(650) 327-0429
(650) 327-4024 fax
www.traenviro.com
Table of Contents
Page i
STEVENS CREEK CORRIDOR PARK MASTER PLAN AND
RESTORATION PLAN INITIAL STUDY
TECHNICAL APPENDICES (bound separately)
A. Santa Clara Valley Water District Best Management Practices
B. Biotic Reports for the Stevens Creek Corridor Master Plan, Thomas Reid Assoc.
C. Cultural Resource Assessment, Stevens Creek Corridor Master Plan, Basin Research Assoc.
D. Traffic Impact Analysis, Stevens Creek Corridor Park, Hexagon Transportation Consultants
E. Preliminary Parking Analysis, Stevens Creek Corridor Park, Hexagon Transportation
Consultants
F. Applicable Regulations for Stevens Creek Corridor Project, Thomas Reid Assoc.
G. Hydrologic Tables and Figures, Balance Hydrologics
H. Trees to be Removed Table, Jana Sokale
I. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan
Stevens Creek Corridor Park Master Plan and Restoration Plan Initial Study
City of Cupertino - April 2006
~~ ....
Stevens Creek Corridor Park Master Plan and Restoration Plan IS
'. ~
APPENDIX A
SANTA CLARA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT BEST
MANAGEMENT PRACTICES
'. -
.-
Appendix A. Best Management Practices implemented by the project
Santa Clara Valley Water District Best Management Practices Handbook (Nov. 2005)
Bl~2 Salvage Native Aquatic Vertebrates from Dewatered Channels
If fisheries or native aquatic vertebrate are present when cofferdams, water bypass structures,
and silt barriers are to be installed, a fish and native aquatic vertebrate relocation plan shall be
implemented to ensure that fish and native aquatic vertebrates are not stranded:
1. In non-tidal channels, where water is to be diverted, prior to the start of work or during
the installation of water diversion structures, native aquatic vertebrates shall be captured
in the work area and transferred to another reach as determined by a qualified biologist
(refer to Fish Relocation Guidelines)
2. Aquatic invertebrates will not be transferred (other than incidental catches) because of
their anticipated abundance and colonization after completion of the repair work.
Bl~3 Conduct In-Channel Work During the Dry Season
A void and minimize impacts to salmonids by timing stream maintenance projects in streams
where there are or could be salmonids so that the use of heavy equipment in the channel is
conducted outside of the migration and spawning season.
1. Minor maintenance activities that occur above ordinary high water and do not impact
the riparian corridor may be done at any time of the year. These activities include fence
repair, graffiti removal, revegetation maintenance, rodent control, etc.
2. Minor activities will be done in channel if the activity is necessary to provide
immediate flood protection. These activities include removal of trash or debris that will
impede flows, trash rack cleaning, and pier nose cleaning. These activities will be done in
a manner that is sensitive to protection of aquatic resources.
B 1-7 Minimize Stream Access Impacts
District personnel shall use existing access ramps and roads where possible. If temporary access
points are necessary, they shall be constructed in a manner that minimizes impacts to streams:
1. Temporary project access points shall be created as close to the work area as possible
to minimize running equipment down stream channels and shall be constructed so as to
minimize adverse impacts, such as tree removaL
2. When temporary access is removed, remaining disturbed soil shall be stabilized and
seeded immediately after construction.
3. Any temporary fill used for access shall be removed upon completion of the project.
Channel topography and geometry shall be restored to pre-project conditions to the extent
possible.
BI-8 Remove Temporary Fills as Appropriate
Temporary fills, such as for access ramps, diversion structures, or cofferdams, shall be
completely removed upon finishing the work.
Page 1
Appendix A - Best Management Practices implemented into the project
81-9 Minimize Adverse Effects of Herbicides on Non-target Species
Herbicides shall be used in a manner that minimizes negative environmental effects by avoiding
impacts to non-target species.
Herbicide use shall be guided by label restrictions and any advisories published by the California
Department of Pesticide Regulation (CDPR), the Santa Clara County Division of Agriculture,
and the U.S. EP A bulletin Protecting Endangered Species, Interim Measures for Use of
Pesticides in Santa Clara County (USEPA 2000), including the following:
1. Herbicide use shall be reviewed prior to application using information from CDPR and
U.S. EPA maintained in the District GIS database to determine the potential presence of
special-status species that could be adversely affected, and the target areas and chemicals
used will be modified as necessary.
2. To avoid toxic effects to all life stages of California red-legged frogs (RLF), whenever
herbicides are to be used in within 1.25 miles of known RLF locations, refer to both the
product label for the material being used and the Endangered Species Database
maintained by the CDPR and use the lower of the two recommended rates if there is a
difference.
81-10 Minimize Rodenticide Impacts on Non-target Species
Burrowing rodents are controlled to minimize damage to levees on streams and canals. Rodent
control areas shall be reviewed for the potential presence of special-status species and the rodent
control methods tailored to minimize non-target species impacts. When chemical control is
necessary, the use shall be guided by label restrictions and any advisories published by the
California Department of Pesticide Regulation (CDPR), the Santa Clara County Division of
Agriculture, and the U.S. EPA bulletin Protecting Endangered Species, Interim Measuresfor
Use of Pesticides in Santa Clara County (USEP A 2000). Guidelines for rodenticide use include:
1. Within the potential range of salt marsh harvest mouse (SMHM) (as designated on the
District's GIS), lethal rodent control methods shall not be used. The District defines
potential SMHM habitat as all areas north of Highway 237, and will refine this definition
as surveys are conducted to eliminate areas that are separated by barren ground at least
30 yards from any halophytic vegetation.
2. Prior to rodent control measures being employed, a qualified biologist shall conduct
protocol surveys to determine the presence of burrowing owls.
a. The location of burrowing owls shall be identified on the District's GIS system.
b. A ~ mile buffer zone around burrowing owl locations shall be established.
c. If necessary alternative methods of rodent control shall be determined by a
qualified biologist.
3. The rodenticide applicator shall remove carcasses of poisoned animals, when they are
found, to minimize secondary toxic effects on raptors or other wildlife. Carcass survey
and disposal shall be performed in the treated area beginning on the sixth day following
the initial exposure of toxic baits. Any exposed carcasses shall be disposed of in a
manner inaccessible to wildlife.
Carcass surveys shall continue for at least a period of 5 days after the start of the surveys
and thereafter, at least once a week, until no more carcasses are found. Any dead rap tors
Page 2
" '
Appendix A - Best Management Practices implemented into the project
or other non-target wildlife found in the treated area during the carcass surveys shall be
turned over to California Department ofFish and Game's pesticide lab for analysis.
B 1-11 Migratory Bird Surveys
Migratory bird surveys will be performed prior to any project-related activity that could pose the
potential to affect migratory birds. Affected areas will be inspected/monitored prior to
commencement of the nesting season, and as frequently as necessary thereafter, to provide
deterrence measures and prevent nesting by birds. Inactive bird nests may be removed, with the
exception of raptor nests.
During the nesting season, all project areas that may be impacted by construction, including all
vegetation, grounds, and bridge(s), will be inspected with sufficient frequency as needed, to
identifY any new and partially-built nests.
No birds, nests with eggs, or nests with hatchlings shall be disturbed.
BI-12 Migratory Bird Nesting Prevention - Vegetation Clearing
Vegetation can be cleared and maintained to prevent migratory bird nesting. All necessary
vegetation clearing will be performed prior to the nesting season, if at all possible. No
vegetation will be trimmed back unnecessarily, including trees and/or shrubs growing near the
right of way, which overhang onto the work site.
11M-I Herbicide Use Requirements
All herbicide use shall be consistent with approved product specifications. Applications shall be
made by, or under the direct supervision of, State Certified applicators under the direction of a
licensed Pest Control Advisor.
HM-2 Types of Pest Control
Pesticide products are to be used only after an assessment has been made regarding
environmental, economical, and public health aspects of each of the alternatives. The following
pesticides are used by the District:
Pesticide
Use
. To control algae, weeds and undesirable vegetation
. To minimize fire hazards
. To maintain flood conveyance of waterways
. To maintain compliance with State and Federal requirements
. Used only in and around District buildings, or in the case of a
serious pest outbreak, on landscape and re-vegetation facilities
. Used only after all other methods, such as prevention or
natural nontoxic control methods, have proven ineffective
. Where required, the lowest toxicity shall be used in accordance
with the label and the details of this policy
Herbicides
Insecticides
Page 3
Appendix A - Best Management Practices implemented into the project
Pesticide
Use
· To control burrowing rodents, including ground squirrels,
moles and gophers, in District flood control levees
· Alternatives such as trapping and smoke bombs are used
wherever practical prior to rodenticide use
Rodenticides
IIM-7 Herbicide Use in Upland Areas
Application of pre emergence (residual) herbicides to upland areas shall not be made within
72 hours of predicted significant rainfall. Predicted significant rainfall for the purposes of this
BMP shall be described as local rainfall greater than 0.5 inch in a 24-hour period with greater
than a 50% probability of precipitation.
IIMw8 Herbicide Use in Aquatic Areas
Only herbicides and surfactants registered for aquatic use shall be applied within the banks of
channels within 20 feet of any water present.
Aquatic herbicide use shall be limited to July 1 st through October 15th, except on Guadalupe
River, where applications within 20 feet of the low flow channel are limited to July I st to
August 15th. If rain is forecast then application of aquatic herbicide shall be rescheduled.
11M -9 Vehicle and Equipment Cleaning
District vehicles shall be washed only at the approved area in the corporation yard. No washing
of District or contractor vehicles shall occur at job sites.
11M-to Vehicle and Equipment Fueling
No fueling shall be done in the stream channel or immediate flood plain, unless equipment
stationed in these locations is not readily relocated i.e., pumps, generators. For stationary
equipment that must be fueled on site, containment shall be provided in such a manner that any
accidental spill of fuel shall not be able to enter the water or contaminate sediments that may
come in contact with water. Any equipment that is readily moved out of the channel shall not be
fueled in the channel or immediate flood plain. All fueling done at the job site shall provide
containment to the degree that any spill shall be unable to enter the channel or damage stream
vegetation.
IIM-tt Vehicle and Equipment Maintenance
No equipment servicing shall be done in the stream channel or immediate flood plain, unless
equipment stationed in these locations cannot be readily relocated (i.e., pumps, generators).
I. Any equipment that can be readily moved out of the channel shall not be serviced in
the channel or immediate flood plain.
2. All servicing of equipment done at the job site shall provide containment to the degree
that any spill shall be unable to enter the channel or damage stream vegetation.
3. If emergency repairs are required in the field, only those repairs necessary to move
equipment to a more secure location shall be done in the channel or flood plain.
Page 4
-- ,
Appendix A - Best Management Practices implemented into the project
4. If emergency repairs are required, containment shall be provided equivalent to that
done for fueling or servicing.
HM-12 Hazardous Materials Management
Measures shall be implemented to ensure that hazardous materials are properly handled and the
quality of water resources is protected by all reasonable means.
1. Prior to entering the work site, all field personnel shall know how to respond when
toxic materials are discovered.
2. The discharge of any hazardous or non-hazardous waste as defined in Division 2,
Subdivision I, Chapter 2 of the California Code of Regulations shall be conducted in
accordance with applicable State and federal regulations.
HM-13 Spill Prevention
Prevent the accidental release of chemicals, fuels, lubricants, and non-storm drainage water.
1. Field personnel shall be appropriately trained in spill prevention, hazardous material
control, and clean-up of accidental spills.
2. No fueling, repair, cleaning, maintenance, or vehicle washing shall be performed in a
creek channel or in areas at the top of a channel bank that may flow into a creek channel.
HM-14 Spill Kit Location
Spill prevention kits shall always be in close proximity when using hazardous materials (e.g.,
crew trucks and other logical locations).
1. Prior to entering the work site, all field personnel shall know the location of spill kits
on crew trucks and at other locations within District facilities.
2. All field personnel shall be advised of these locations and trained in their appropriate
use.
WQ-l Conduct Work from Top of Bank
For minor work activities that will occur in the channel, work shall be conducted from the top of
the bank if access is available and there are flows in the channel.
,"
WQ-2 Use of Wheel and Track Mounted Vehicles in Stream Bottoms
Field personnel shall use the appropriate equipment for the job that minimizes disturbance to the
stream bottom. Appropriately-tired vehicles, either tracked or wheeled, shall be used depending
on the situation. Tracked vehicles (bulldozers, loaders) may cause scarification. Wheeled
vehicles may cause compaction. Heavy equipment shall not operate in the live stream.
WQ-3 Pump/Generator Set Operations and Maintenance
Pumps and generators shall be maintained and operated in a manner that minimizes impacts to
water quality and aquatic species.
1. Pumps and generators shall be maintained according to manufacturers' specifications
to regulate flows to prevent dryback or washout conditions.
2. Pumps shall be operated and monitored to prevent low water conditions, which could
pump muddy bottom water, or high water conditions, which creates ponding.
3. Pump intakes shall be screened to prevent uptake offish and other vertebrates.
Page 5
Appendix A - Best Management Practices implemented into the project
WQ-4 Handle Sediments so as to Minimize Water Quality Impacts
Sediments shall be stored and transported in a manner that minimizes water quality impacts.
I. Wet sediments may be stockpiled outside of a live stream or may be stockpiled within
a dewatered stream so water can drain or evaporate before removal.
2. This measure applies to saturated, not damp, sediments and depends upon the
availability of a stockpile site.
3. For those stockpiles located outside the channel, water draining from them will not be
allowed to flow back into the creek or into local storm drains that enter the creek, unless
water quality protection measures recommended by the RWQCB are implemented.
4. Trucks may be lined with an impervious material (e.g. plastic), or the tail gate blocked
with dry dirt or hay bales, for example, or trucks may drain excess water by slightly
tilting their loads and allowing the water to drain out.
5. Water shall not drain directly into channels (outside of the work area) or onto public
streets without providing water quality control measures.
6. Streets shall be cleared of mud and/or dirt by street sweeping (with a water sweeper),
as necessary, and not by hosing down the street.
WQ-5 Soil Stockpiles
If soil is to be stockpiled, no run-off shall be allowed to flow back to creek.
WQ-6 Stabilized Construction Entrance
The District shall implement measures to minimize soil from being tracked onto streets near
work sites:
I. Methods used to prevent mud from being tracked out of work sites onto roadways
include installing a layer of geotextile mat, followed by a 4-inch thick layer of 1-3- inch
diameter gravel on unsurfaced access roads.
2. Access shall be provided as close to the work area as possible, using existing ramps
where available and planning work site access so as to minimize disturbance to the creek
bed, creek banks, and the surrounding land uses.
WQ-7 Prevent Erosion Downstream of Bank Protection Sites
Increased water velocity at work sites may increase erosion downstream. Project design shall
assess hydraulic effects immediately upstream and downstream of the work area.
If the hardscape revetment would cause significant increase in erosion potential, downstream
energy dissipation features such as pools or grade control structures shall be considered in the
design.
If the evaluation identifies possible downstream impacts, proactive protection of these areas shall
be provided. Such measures include, but are not limited to, appropriately keyed-in coir logs,
riparian enhancement planting, strategic placement of rock, and flow deflectors.
WQ-IO Concrete Use Near Waterways
Concrete that has not been cured is alkaline and can increase the pH of the water; fresh concrete
shall be isolated until it no longer poses a threat to water quality using the following appropriate
measures:
1. Wet sacked concrete shall be excluded from the wetted channel for a period of two
weeks after installation. During that time, the wet sacked concrete shall be kept moist
Page 6
" .-
Appendix A - Best Management Practices implemented into the project
, ,.
(such as covering with wet carpet) and fUnofffrom the wet sacked concrete shall not be
allowed to enter a live stream.
2. Poured concrete shall be excluded from the wetted channel for a period of two weeks
after it is poured. During that time, the poured concrete shall be kept moist, and runoff
from the wet concrete shall not be allowed to enter a live stream. Commercial sealants
(e.g., Deep Seal, Elasto-Deck Reservoir Grade) may be applied to the poured concrete
surface where difficulty in excluding water flow for a long period may occur. If a sealant
is used, water shall be excluded from the site until the sealant is dry.
3. Dry sacked concrete shall not be used in any channel.
4. An area outside of the channel and floodplain shall be designated to clean out concrete
transit vehicles.
WQ-12 Dewater/ Bypass Water at Non-tidal Sites
When work in a flowing stream in unavoidable, the entire stream flow shall be diverted around
the work area by a barrier. Construction of the barrier shall normally begin in the upstream area
and continue in a downstream direction, and the flow shall be diverted only when construction of
the diversion is completed. The water diversion plan shall allow stream flows to gravity flow
around or through the work site using temporary culverts or stream flow is pumped around the
work site using pumps and screened intake hoses. Coffer dam construction shall be adequate to
prevent seepage into or from the work area. Coffer dams shall be constructed of river run gravel
with a fines content that is less than 15%. Fines are defined as material that is able to pass
through a #20 sieve. Coffer dams may also be constructed of sheet piles, inflatable dams, and
sand bags. Coffer dams shall be installed both upstream and downstream not more than 100 feet
from the extent of the work areas. In-channel berms that only deflect water to one side ofthe
channel during sediment removal, may be constructed of channel material. The enclosure and the
supportive material shall be removed when the work is completed and the removal shall
normally proceed from downstream in an upstream direction. Normal flows shall be restored to
the affected stream immediately upon completion of work at that location.
1. All water shall be discharged in a non-erosive manner (e.g., gravel or vegetated bars,
on hay bales, on plastic, on concrete, or in storm drains when equipped with filtering
devices, etc.).
2. Sumps or basins may also be used to collect water, where appropriate (e.g., in channels
with low flows).
3. Where feasible and appropriate, diversion structures shall be installed on concrete
sections of the channels or constructed of materials specified above. Earth fill shall not be
used for cofferdams in non-tidal areas.
4. In conjunction with diversion structures, pumps or gravity-fed pipe systems are used to
de-water sites.
5. Depending on the channel configurations, sediment removal may occur where the
flows are not bypassed around the work site; as long as during excavation activities, a
berm of sediment is left between the work area and stream flows to minimize water
quality impacts.
6. Diversions shall maintain ambient stream flows below the diversion, and waters
discharged below the project site shall not be diminished or degraded by the diversion.
Page 7
Appendix A - Best Management Practices implemented into the project
WQ~13 Minimize Hardscape in Bank Protection Design
Bank repair techniques appropriate to a given site based on hydraulic and other site conditions
shall be selected. Refer to SMP Appendix E, Programmatic Impact Assessment and Mitigation
for Routine Bank Protection Activities.
I. Biotechnical repair methods include live construction, willow wattling, erosion control
blankets, brush matting, and installation of root wads and boulders in banks.
2. The repair shall be designed and installed so that it will be self-sustaining and use
vegetation that adds structural integrity to the stream bank.
WQ-14 Seeding
For banks that are scraped, an erosion control seed mix shall be used. Temporary earthen access
roads will be seeded when site and horticultural conditions are suitable.
WQ~t5 Groundwater Management
If high levels of groundwater in a work area are encountered, the water is pumped out of the
work site. If necessary to protect water quality, the water shall be directed into specifically
constructed infiltration basins, into holding ponds, or onto areas with vegetation to remove
sediment prior to the water re-entering a creek. Water pumped into vegetated areas shall be
pumped in a manner that will not create erosion around vegetation.
WQ-16 Avoid Erosion When Restoring Flows
All temporary diversion structures and the supportive material shall be removed when the work
is completed, but no more than 48 hours after work is completed. The removal shall normally
proceed from downstream in an upstream direction. Normal flows shall be restored to the
affected stream immediately upon completion of work at that location. Flows shall be restored in
a manner that minimizes erosion.
1. When diversion structures are removed, to the extent practicable, the ponded flows
shall be directed into the low-flow channel within the work site to minimize downstream
water quality impacts.
2. Flows shall gradually be restored to the channel to avoid a surge of water that would
. .
cause erosIOn or scounng.
3. Bypassed flows may be slowly reintroduced into the dewatered area by leaving a silt
barrier in place to allow water to slow and drop sediment to the extent possible.
WQ~ 17 Prevent Scour Downstream of Sediment Removal
Sites in the transport zone on alluvial fans may cause increased scour downstream if they
experience rapid sediment accumulation after sediment removal.
Channel reaches up to 500 feet downstream from such sediment removal sites shall be monitored
to determine whether accelerated erosion is occurring. If downstream monitoring indicates that
erosion is occurring, then remedial action such as rock vortex weirs or similar protection shall be
carried out.
WQ-18 Erosion and Sediment Control Measures
Erosion control methods shall be used as appropriate during all phases of routine maintenance
projects to control sediment and minimize water quality impacts. The District shall prevent
erosion on steep slopes by using erosion control material according to Manufacturer's
Page 8
"r
Appendix A - Best Management Practices implemented into the project
specifications. All construction related erosion control methods shall be removed at the
completion of the project. Appropriate measures include, but are not limited to, the following:
1. Silt Fences
2. Straw Bale Barriers
3. Brush or Rock Filters
4. Storm Drain Inlet Protection
5. Sediment Traps
6. Sediment Basins
7. Erosion Control Blankets and Mats
8. Soil Stabilization i.e. Tackified straw with seed, jute or geotextile blankets, etc. The
following Bay Area Stormwater Management Agency Association BMPs provide
guidance and specifications as to implementation of the erosion control measures
described:
SC-3. Sediment Basins
SC-4. Straw or Sand Bag Barriers
SC-5. Sediment Traps
SC-6. Silt Fences
SS-I. Erosion Control Blankets, Mats, and Geotextiles
VR-I. Brush or Rock Filters
VR-2. Check Dams
VR-4b. Temporary Outlet Protection
VR-4b. Storm Drain Inlet Protection
WD-l. Earth Dike
WD-1. Slope Drain
WD-3. Temporary Drains and Swales
WQ.21 Sediment! Turbidity Control for Discharges Less than 50 NTU
To control sediment and turbidity in discharges from project activities where the source is treated
water, recycled water, raw water, or groundwater with a turbidity ofless than 50 NTU:
I. Characterize the discharge appropriately (follow the Planned Discharge Activities
Checklist to ensure the correct BMPs are used):
a. IdentifY the source of water.
b. Determine the volume of the water to be discharged.
c. Determine if operations may cause the turbidity to be greater than 50 NTU, refer
to the BMP Sediment! Turbidity Control for Discharges Greater than 50 NTU.
2. Choose the option for discharging the water (in order of preference):
a. Reuse water, either for dust suppression, irrigation, or construction compaction.
b. Discharge to sanitary sewer system (requires approval from local sanitary
district).
c. Discharge to storm drain system or water body.
3. Use appropriate control measures when discharging water:
a. Use sanitary sewer BMPs if discharging to the sanitary sewer.
b. Visually monitor the turbidity ifit is suspected to be above 50 NTU.
c. Terminate the discharge or implement appropriate control measures if the
turbidity exceeds 50 NTU (refer to Sediment/ Turbidity Control for Discharges
Greater than 50 NTU).
Page 9
Appendix A - Best Management Practices implemented into the project
d. There are no additional control measures required if the source water is hydrant
flushing, fire flow testing, a main line break or blow off, and the discharge
volume is not greater than 50,000 gallons.
4. Inspection and Maintenance:
a. Before discharging any water, inspect the discharge flow path for debris and
erosion, and cleanup the flow path as needed.
b. Monitor the discharge to make sure it is not interfering with the normal operation
of the sanitary sewer, or flooding the storm drain system.
c. When the discharge is complete, inspect the flow path and receiving water (if
discharging directly to a water body, if practicable) for evidence of erosion or
deposited sediment.
d. Sweep up sediment deposited in the flow path and dispose of appropriately.
e. Complete the Planned Discharge Activities Checklist and submit it to District
staff responsible for Water Utility Discharge Pollution Prevention Plan reporting.
WQ-22 Sediment! Turbidity Control for Discharge Greater than 50 NTU
To control sediment and turbidity in discharges from project activities where the source is treated
water, recycled water, raw water, or groundwater with a turbidity of greater than 50 NTU:
1. Characterize the discharge appropriately (follow the Planned Discharge Activities
Checklist to ensure the correct BMPs are used):
a. Identify the source of water.
b. Determine the volume of water to be discharged.
c. Determine the turbidity of the discharge.
2. Choose the option for discharging the water (in order of preference):
a. Reuse water, either for dust suppression, irrigation, or construction compaction.
b. Discharge to sanitary sewer system (requires approval from local sanitary
district).
c. Discharge to storm drain system or water body (requires use of sediment!
turbidity control measures).
3. Select control measures appropriately.
Consider the following criteria when selecting the appropriate control measure:
a. Suitability of area for discharge (vegetated surface, chlorine neutralization
requirements) .
b. Proximity to storm drains or receiving waters.
c. Length oftime BMP is to be in place.
d. Ease of installation, operation and removal.
Choose from the following control measures and refer to the individual fact sheets for
guidance on implementation:
a. Discharges to Sanitary Sewer Systems (CM-A).
b. Flow Path - Vegetation Filtration (CM-B).
c. Flow Path - Check Filters (CM-C).
d. On-Line Filter System (CM-D).
e. Storm Drain Inlet Protection (CM-E).
f. Silt Fence Culvert Entrance Protection (CM-F).
g. Surface Protection - Armoring (CM-G).
h. Surface Protection - Flow Diversion (CM-H).
Page 10
, -
Appendix A - Best Management Practices implemented into the project
4. Inspection and Maintenance:
a. Before discharging any water, inspect the discharge flow path for debris and
erosion, and cleanup the flow path as needed.
b. Monitor the discharge to make sure it is not interfering with the normal operation
ofthe sanitary sewer, or flooding the storm drain system.
c. Monitor the discharge turbidity to evaluate the effectiveness of the control
measure.
d. When the discharge is complete, inspect the flow path and receiving water (if
discharging directly to a water body, if practicable) for evidence of erosion or
deposited sediment.
e. Sweep up sediment deposited in the flow path and dispose of appropriately.
f. Complete the Planned Discharge Activities Checklist and submit it to District
staff responsible for Water Utility Discharge Pollution Prevention Plan reporting.
WQ-23 Discharge Flow Path - Vegetation Filtration
To remove sediments and prevent sediments from entering local creeks and the bay:
1. Confirm applicability:
a. Use this control measure where an existing vegetated area can be used to ftlter the
sediments from the discharged water.
b. Make sure the vegetated area is of sufficient density to filter the sediments and of
such strength that it will not be uprooted by the discharged water.
2. Design Considerations:
a. Ensure that the area to receive the discharge has tight, dense, well-established
vegetation similar to a grassy area.
b. Control the energy ofthe discharge or dissipate to prevent erosion of the soil
within the vegetated area, and to prevent the destruction and uprooting of the
vegetation.
c. Adjust the discharge to avoid flooding and excessive runoff.
d. Remove debris from the flow path.
3.Construction specifications:
a. Ensure that at least 50 feet of grassy ground is available between the point of
discharge and the location where the water drains into the receiving storm drain
system or the creek.
4. Inspection and Maintenance:
a. Ensure that there is no breakthrough of sediments.
b. Ensure that there is no erosion of grassy areas.
WQ-24 Discharge Flow Path - Check Filters
To remove sediment from discharges with a turbidity more than 50 NTU, place check filters at
single or multiple location along the flow path accordingly:
1. Design Check Filters Properly:
a. Consider the slope, erosion potential, and flow rate of the discharge when
choosing filter materials and locating filters.
b. Avoid creating large pools and/or obstructive flow paths.
2. Construct Check Filters Correctly:
Page 11
Appendix A - Best Management Practices implemented into the project
a. Place sandbags, socks filled with sand or gravel, and/or dikes made of filter fabric
and gravel perpendicular to the flow path.
b. Line the sandbags, socks, and dikes tight to divert the flow at least 2 feet outside
its normal path.
c. Construct an overflow (low spot) in the check filter. If the flow rate of the
discharge is high and considerable amounts of sediment appear to be passing by
the filter, construct a series of two or more filters until effective removal of
sediment is achieved.
3. Inspection and Maintenance:
a. Monitor the discharge for breakthrough of sediments and potential traffic hazards
caused by ponded water.
b. Add more check dams and implement traffic control as necessary.
c. After the discharge is finished, sweep up sediment deposited behind check filters
and dispose of properly.
d. Complete the Planned Discharge Activities Checklist and submit it to District
staff responsible for Water Utility Discharge Pollution Prevention Plan reporting.
WQ-25 Discharge On-Line Filter Systems
To remove sediments and impurities from discharges with a turbidity that exceeds approximately
50 NTU:
I. Select and Use On-Line Filter Systems Appropriately:
a. Use when the discharge is planned and filter assembly can be fitted to the
discharge point either permanently or prior to each discharge.
b. Choose an on-line filter system capable of removing fine and medium size
particulate matter and sediments at the desired discharge flow rate and duration.
c. Follow the instructions for use provided by the designer or manufacturer.
2. Inspection and Maintenance:
a. Inspect the filter during the discharge for clogging and deterioration, and
breakthrough of sediment. Replace the filter as necessary.
b. After the discharge is finished, sweep up sediment deposited in the flow path and
dispose of the sediment properly.
c. Dispose of the filter and sediment captured by the filter properly.
d. Complete the Planned Discharge Activities Checklist and submit it to District
staff responsible for Water Utility Discharge Pollution Prevention Plan reporting.
WQ-26 Silt Fence Culvert Entrance Protection
To reduce flow velocity of runoff, allowing sediment to settle out before discharge enters a
culvert and its drainage system:
I. Install silt fence culvert protection in appropriate locations:
a. Where sheet and rill erosion would occur.
b. Where protection of adjacent property or areas is needed.
c. Where the maximum slope length behind the silt fence is 100 feet (30 meters) and
the maximum slope gradient is 50% (2:1).
d. Where the flow volume does not exceed I cfs.
e. Where ponded water will not damage adjacent areas or structures, or create a
traffic hazard or other nuisance.
Page 12
Appendix A - Best Management Practices implemented into the project
2. Select the correct construction materials:
a. Select a woven or non-woven filter fabric made of at least 85% by weight,
ethylene, propylene, amide, ester, or vinylidene yarn.
b. The Equivalent Opening size of the filter fabric (U.S. Standard Sieve) shall be 70-
100, and the tensile strength shall be at least 120 lbs (54 kg) if a wire support
fence is used and 200 lbs (90 kg) if a wire support fence is not used.
c. Posts should be either 4-inch diameter wood or 1.33 pounds per linear foot steel.
Posts should be at least 5 feet long. Steel posts should have projections for
fastening wire.
d. Wire fence reinforcement shall be a minimum of 42 in (1.1 m) tall and a
minimum width of 14-gauge. The maximum mesh spacing should be 6 in
(15 em).
3. Construct the silt fence properly:
a. The height of the silt fence should be between 16 in (40 em) and 36 in (90 em).
The most effective height range is 24 to 36 in (60 to 90 em). Shorter fences may
be breached during small discharges and require more maintenance.
b. Ifpossible, cut the filter fabric from a continuous roll to avoid the use of joints. If
joints are necessary, splice the filter fabric only at a support post. Overlap the
fabric pieces a minimum of6 in (15 cm) and secure both ends to the post.
c. If a wire mesh support fence is used, install posts at least 3 feet (I meter) apart.
Install posts closer together if a support fence is not used. Drive posts into the
ground to a depth of at least 1 foot (30 cm).
d. Excavate a 4-in (10 em) deep trench that is at least 4 in (10 cm) wide upslope of
the silt fence along the line of posts.
WQ-27 Discharge Surface Protection - Armoring
To protect exposed soil and vegetated surfaces from erosion during discharges by placing
protective armor (e.g. plastic sheeting, cloth fabric, gravel bedding) over the erodible surface:
1. Select and install armoring materials properly:
a. Choose a material whose strength is proportionate to the velocities and materials
in the discharged water (e.g. sediment).
b. Clear the area to be protected of rocks and debris which may puncture the armor.
c. Anchor the armor using sandbags, gravel, or stakes along the perimeter.
d. Anchor the armor so it can withstand movement of the discharge.
e. Account for potential changes in the flow direction of the discharge when laying
the armor.
f. If there is to be a direct stream of high velocity flow, an energy dissipating device
may be necessary to prevent failure of the armor.
2. Inspection and Maintenance:
a. During the discharge, monitor the armor for failure (tearing) and erosion at the
edges of the armor.
b. If erosion does occur, implement sediment/turbidity control measures.
c. Remove armor when the discharge is complete.
d. Sweep up any sediment deposited in the flow path and dispose of appropriately.
e. Complete the Planned Discharge Activities Checklist and submit it to District
staff responsible for Water Utility Discharge Pollution Prevention Plan reporting.
Page 13
Appendix A - Best Management Practices implemented into the project
WQ-28 Discharge Surface Protection - Flow Diversion
To protect bare soil and vegetated surfaces from erosion by diverting, channeling, or temporarily
piping flows over erodible areas to protected areas not subject to erosion:
1. When considering the use of flow diversion, take into account the following:
a. There must be a storm drain or paved surface nearby to which the discharge can
be diverted.
b. The flow channel must be aligned to avoid disruption of traffic, or traffic control
measures must be used.
c. The flow channel must have sufficient slope to allow the discharge to flow to the
storm drain or paved surface.
d. The flow channel must be designed to handle the anticipated flow rate.
e. Protective armor or temporary piping can be used for high velocity discharges or
large flow volume discharges over bare soils or vegetated surfaces. The armor
material selected must be able to withstand the flow velocity and movement of the
discharge.
2. Divert flows correctly:
a. Divert water to a channel using fixed or flexible piping, or another system to
capture this flow (e.g. sand bags).
b. If armor is used to create a flow channel over the erodible surface clear the area to
be protected of rocks and debris which may puncture the armor.
c. Anchor the armor using sandbags, gravel, or stakes along the perimeter.
d. If there is to be a direct stream of high velocity flow, an energy dissipating device
may be necessary to prevent failure of the armor.
3. Inspection and Maintenance:
a. Inspect the area for flooding resulting from failure of the channel diversion
structure or the flow rate exceeding the diversion channel capacity.
b. Inspect the channel for erosion along the edges due to overtopping of the channel.
c. Monitor the armor for failure (tearing) and erosion at the edges ofthe armor.
d. If erosion does occur along the edges of the channel or armor, implement
sediment/turbidity control measures.
e. Remove armor when the discharge is complete.
f. Sweep up any sediment deposited in the flow path and dispose of appropriately.
g. Complete the Planned Discharge Activities Checklist and submit it to District
staff responsible for Water Utility Discharge Pollution Prevention Plan reporting.
WQ-29 Discharge Storm Drain Curb & Drop Inlet Protection
To install temporary devices around drain inlets using gravel, wire mesh, and lor concrete blocks
that may prevent sediment-laden runoff from entering the storm drain system or watercourses
(These devices reduce the velocity of runoff, allowing sediments to settle. The gravel can also
filter out coarse sediment from runoff.):
1. Use drain inlet protection in appropriate locations:
a. Use in drainage areas less than one acre.
b. Place anywhere sediment-laden runoff could discharge into a storm drain inlet.
c. If the inlet protection device could pond water, install only where ponded water
will not contact materials, flood structures, or cause a nuisance.
Page 14
Appendix A - Best Management Practices implemented into the project
d. Completely cover inlet where work activities could result in vegetation, raw
materials or sediment being deposited into the inlet, or when a small spill occurs
near the inlet. Cover inlets with rubber or polyurethane mats, or plastic sheeting
anchored with gravel bags.
2. Install inlet protection properly:
a. To prevent seepage of sediment-laden runoff into he drain inlet, install drain inlet
protection so there are no gaps around the drain inlet.
b. Do not place filter fabric over the inlet grate as it can become clogged with sediment
and contribute to flooding.
3. Gravel and Wire Mesh Drop Inlet Protection:
a. Place wire mesh over the inlet so the wire extends a minimum of 12 inches
beyond each side of the inlet structure. Use hardware cloth or comparable wire
mesh with 'l'2-inch openings. Ifmore than one mesh strip is required, overlap the
strips.
b. Pile % to 3-inch washed gravel on top ofthe mesh surrounding the inlet to a
minimum depth of 12 inches. Extend the gravel at least 18 inches beyond the
inlet on all sides.
4. Gravel and Wire Mesh Curb Inlet Protection;
a. Place wire mesh over the inlet so the wire extends a minimum of 12 inches
beyond each side of the inlet structure. Use hardware cloth or comparable wire
mesh with 'l'2-inch openings.
b. Pile % to 3-inch washed gravel against the mesh to anchor it against the gutter and
inlet cover and to surround the inlet completely.
5. Block and Gravel Curb Inlet Protection:
a. Place two concrete blocks on their sides abutting the curb at either side of the inlet
opening. These are the space blocks.
b. Place a 2-inch by 4-inch stud through the outer holes of each spacer block to align
the front blocks.
c. Place more concrete blocks on their sides across the front of the inlet and abutting
the spacer blocks. Do not use mortar.
d. Place wire mesh with 'l'2-inch openings over the outside vertical face of the blocks
to keep gravel out of the inlet.
e. Place % to 3-inch washed gravel against the wire mesh to the top of the blocks, on
slopes of 2: I or flatter.
6. Block and Gravel Drop Inlet Protection:
a. Place wire mesh over the inlet so the wire extends a minimum of 12 inches
beyond each side of the inlet structure. Use hardware cloth or comparable wire
mesh with 'l'2-inch openings. If more than one mesh strip is required, overlap the
strips.
b. Place concrete blocks lengthwise on their sides in a single row around the
perimeter of the inlet, so the open end face outward not upward. Abut the ends of
the adjacent blocks.
c. Stack blocks to at least 12 inches but not more than 24 inches above the inlet,
depending on design requirements.
do Place wire mesh with 'l'2-inch openings over the outside vertical face of the blocks
to keep gravel out of the inlet.
Page 15
Appendix A - Best Management Practices implemented into the project
e. Place % to 3-inch washed gravel against the wire mesh to the top of the blocks, on
slopes of 2: 1 or flatter.
7. Gravel Bag Barriers:
a. Use bags made of geotextile fabric, not burlap. Fill bags with washed %-inch
rock or v"-inch pea gravel.
b. Place gravel bags around the perimeter of the drop inlet, packing bags together
tightly. For a cub inlet, abut the curb at either side of the inlet opening.
c. If additional flow retention is required, construct a barrier upgradient of the inlet
by placing gravel bags perpendicular to the direction of flow. Overlap the bags
and pack them tightly together. Construct each barrier using several layers of
bags. Leave a one bag gap on the top row to act as a spillway to prevent flooding.
If more than one barrier is used, place barriers at 20-foot intervals.
8.Wooden Weir (and Fabric) Curb Inlet Protection:
a. Construct a wooden weir using 2-inch by 4-inch construction grade lumber, with
a total length equal to the throat length plus 2 feet.
b. Attach a continuous piece of wire mesh of at least 30 inches in width and a length
equal to the inlet's throat length plus 4 feet.
c. Place a piece of approved "extra strength" filter cloth, equal to the dimensions of
the wire mesh, over the mesh and secure it to the weir.
d. Nail the weir to the 9-inch long vertical spacers, which shall be located between
the weir and the inlet face at no more than 6-foot intervals.
e. Place the assembly against the inlet throat and nail 2-inch by 4-inch boards, in
minimum lengths of 2 feet, to the top of the weir at the spacers. Extend these
anchors across the inlet tops and hold them in place by sandbags or alternate
weight.
f. Place the assembly such that the end spacers are at lest 1 foot beyond both ends of
the throat opening.
g. Form the mesh and cloth to the concrete gutter and against the face of the curb on
both sides of the inlet. Place coarse aggregate over the mesh and cloth so that
water is prevented from entering the inlet either under or around the filter fabric.
9.Inspection and Maintenance:
a. Let ponded water evaporate provided it does not cause a nuisance.
b. Inspect before anticipated storms and after storms for gaps, clogging of gravel,
ruptured gravel bags, and sediment accumulated behind inlet protection. During
extended rainfall events, inspect at least once every 24 hours.
c. Carefully remove accumulated sediment when the depth reaches halfthe height of
the inlet protection device. Dispose of sediment properly.
d. Clean or replace gravel that is clogged with sediment. Do not clean gravel near
the inlet.
WQ-30 Discharging to Sanitary Sewer System
To prevent sediments from entering local creeks and the bay by removing pollutants in the
wastewater treatment processes:
1. Obtain necessary approval from wastewater treatment plant or sanitary sewer agency:
Page 16
Appendix A - Best Management Practices implemented into the project
a. Obtain approval or permit for a one-time discharge, or
b. Obtain approval or permit for annual or ongoing discharge.
2. Design Considerations:
a. Determine the feasibility of implementing this control measure by identifying
access to a sanitary manhole near the discharge location.
b. Construct discharge system with an air gap between the outlet pipe ofthe
discharge line and the sewerage. If an adequate air gap cannot be maintained at
all times to prevent cross contamination, select another control measure.
c. Develop adequate traffic control plan and implement it prior to the discharge
operation. Typically, sanitary sewer manholes are located in traffic lanes.
Discharging to these manholes will cause a disruption of the vehicular traffic
flow.
d. Obtain a confined-space entry permit if it is necessary to enter a manhole.
3. Construction Specifications:
a. Maintain flow within the limits that are acceptable to the local sanitary sewer
agencIes.
b. Direct the discharge water to the sanitary sewer system by fixed piping, flexible
piping, or a system to capture surface flow discharging (e.g. sand bags).
c. Install the piping outlet above the manhole at height of at least twice the diameter
of the outlet pipe.
d. Anchor the piping such that the energy from the discharge water will not cause
the piping to thrust out of position.
4. Inspection and Maintenance:
a. Check for leaks from the piping system.
b. Observe the system in operation and make repairs as required to keep the
discharge flowing into the sanitary sewer system.
c. Ensure that the air gap is maintained at all times.
d. Observe the water quality and record on a discharge activity checklist.
e. Monitor the flow of the discharge and record on a discharge activity checklist.
f. If the wastewater treatment plant or sanitary sewer agency has dictated water
quality requirements, monitor accordingly.
g. After the discharge has ended, remove pipe from sanitary manhole.
h. Complete a discharge activity checklist and send to your unit supervisor. Include
any water quality monitoring results and control measure evaluations on the
checklist.
1. Unit supervisors will prepare a monthly inventory of discharges and send it (along
with discharge activity checklists) to the Countywide Watershed Programs Unit.
j. Notify wastewater treatment plant or sanitary sewer agency that the discharge has
ceased.
WQ-31 Small Volume Chlorinated Discharge (less than or equal 50,000 gallons)
To control chlorine in discharges that will not exceed 50,000 gallons of potable water, recycled
water, or chlorinated groundwater, where chlorine concentrations do not exceed 1.5 mg/l (ppm).
1. Characterize the discharge appropriately (follow the Planned Discharge Activities
Checklist to ensure the correct BMPs are used);
a. Identify source of water.
Page 17
Appendix A - Best Management Practices implemented into the project
b. Determine the volume of water to be discharged.
c. Determine the chlorine concentration of the water.
2. Choose the option for discharging the water (in preferred order):
a. Reuse water, either for dust suppression, irrigation, or construction compaction.
b. Discharge to sanitary sewer system (requires approval from the local sanitary
district).
c. Discharge to storm drain system or water body.
3. Use appropriate control measures when discharging the water:
a. Use sanitary sewer discharge BMPs if discharging to sanitary sewer.
b. If discharging to a storm drain or creek, the chlorine concentration must not
exceed detectable levels (0.2 mg/l (ppm D. Measure the chlorine concentration
and neutralize the water using correct amounts of chemicals. Measure the
chlorine concentration after neutralization to make sure the treatment was
effective.
c. If discharging to a storm drain or creek, also implement sediment/turbidity control
measures.
d. Monitor the flow rate and discharge duration to ensure the discharge volume does
not exceed 50,000 gallons (limiting volume for this BMP).
4. Inspection and Maintenance:
a. Before discharging any water, inspect the discharge flow path for debris and
erosion, and cleanup the flow path as needed.
b. Monitor the discharge to make sure it is not interfering with the normal operation
of the sanitary sewer, or flooding the storm drain system.
c. When the discharge is complete, inspect the flow path and receiving water (if
discharging directly to a water body) for evidence of erosion or deposited
sediment.
d. Sweep up sediment deposited in the flow path and dispose of appropriately.
e. Complete the Planned Discharge Activities Checklist and submit it to District
staff responsible for Water Utility Discharge Pollution Prevention Plan reporting.
WQ-32 Medium Volume Chlorinated Discharge (50,000 to 100,000 gallons)
To control chlorine in discharges between 50,000 and 100,000 gallons of potable water, recycled
water, or chlorinated groundwater, where chlorine concentrations do not exceed 1.5 mg/l (ppm).
1. Characterize the discharge appropriately (follow the Planned Discharge Activities
Checklist to ensure the correct BMPs are used):
a. Identify source of water.
b. Determine the volume of water to be discharged.
c. Determine the chlorine concentration of the water.
2. Choose the option for discharging the water (in preferred order):
a. Reuse water, either for dust suppression, irrigation, or construction compaction.
b. Discharge to sanitary sewer system (requires approval from the local sanitary
district).
c. Discharge to storm drain system or water body.
3. Use appropriate control measures when discharging the water:ia. Use sanitary sewer discharge BMPs if discharging to sanitary sewer.
Page 18
Appendix A - Best Management Practices implemented into the project
, ,
b. If discharging to a storm drain or creek, the chlorine concentration must not
exceed detectable levels (0.2 mg/l [ppm D. Treat the water using one of the
following methods:
i. Measure the chlorine concentration and neutralize the water using the correct
amounts of chemicals. Measure the chlorine concentration after neutralization
to make sure no residual chlorine remains.
11. Store the chlorinated water until chlorine levels are non-detectable (less than
0.2 mg/l). Periodically measure chlorine levels during discharge to ensure that
no residual chlorine remains.
c. If discharging to a storm drain or water body, also implement sediment/turbidity
control measures.
d. Monitor the flow rate and discharge duration to ensure the discharge volume does
not exceed 100,000 gallons (limiting volume for this BMP).
4. Inspection and Maintenance:
a. Before discharging any water, inspect the discharge flow path for debris and
erosion, and cleanup the flow path as needed.
b. Monitor the discharge to make sure it is not interfering with the normal operation
of the sanitary sewer, or flooding the storm drain system.
c. When the discharge is complete, inspect the flow path and receiving water (if
discharging directly to a water body) for evidence of erosion or deposited
sediment.
d. Sweep up sediment deposited in the flow path and dispose of appropriately.
e. Complete the Planned Discharge Activities Checklist and submit it to District
staffresponsible for Water Utility Discharge Pollution Prevention Plan reporting.
WQ-33 Large Volume Chlorinated Discharge (greater than 100,000 gallons)
To control chlorine in discharges greater than 100,000 gallons of potable water, recycled water,
or chlorinated groundwater, where chlorine concentrations do not exceed 1.5 mg/l (ppm).
1. Characterize the discharge appropriately (follow the Planned Discharge Activities
Checklist to ensure the correct BMPs are used):
a. Identify source of water.
b. Determine the volume of water to be discharged.
c. Determine the chlorine concentration of the water.
2. Choose the option for discharging the water (in preferred order):
a. Reuse water, either for dust suppression, irrigation, or construction compaction.
b. Discharge to sanitary sewer system (requires approval from the local sanitary
district).
c. Discharge to storm drain system or water body.
3. Use appropriate control measures when discharging the water:
a. Use sanitary sewer discharge BMPs if discharging to sanitary sewer.
b. If discharging to a storm drain or water body, the chlorine concentration must not
exceed detectable levels (0.2 mgll [ppm D. Treat the water using one of the
following methods:
i. Measure the chlorine concentration and neutralize the water using the correct
amounts of chemicals. Measure the chlorine concentration after neutralization
to make sure no residual chlorine remains.
Page 19
Appendix A - Best Management Practices implemented into the project
11. Store the chlorinated water until chlorine levels are non-detectable (less than
0.2 mg/l). Periodically measure chlorine levels during discharge to ensure that
no residual chlorine remains.
c. If discharging to a storm drain or water body, also implement sediment/turbidity
control measures.
4. Inspection and Maintenance:
a. Before discharging any water, inspect the discharge flow path for debris and
erosion, and cleanup the flow path as needed.
b. Monitor the discharge to make sure it is not interfering with the normal operation
of the sanitary sewer, or flooding the storm drain system.
c. When the discharge is complete, inspect the flow path and receiving water (if
discharging directly to a water body) for evidence of erosion or deposited
sediment.
d. Sweep up sediment deposited in the flow path and dispose of appropriately.
e. Complete the Planned Discharge Activities Checklist and submit it to District
staff responsible for Water Utility Discharge Pollution Prevention Plan reporting.
Page 20
Appendix A - Best Management Practices implemented into the project
Santa Clara Valley Water District Stream Maintenance Program BMPs.
2.6 Mulching
Bark and other wood products shall be used as needed to prevent erosion of bare soil after
construction is completed.
1. All newly planted and/or bare soil (excluding bare channel bottoms) in maintenance
areas shall have a minimum 3" thick layer of bark or mulch installed except when the
area is seeded. In that case, the thickness of the mulch layer shall not exceed Y:z inch.
2. This bark or mulch can be ground-up woody products and/or leaves from either native
material or from soil suppliers.
3. Eucalyptus trees removed due to project construction shall be chipped and used as
mulch for the project.
4. Any material imported from outside the District that is to be used as mulch shall be
certified as weed-free.
2.8 Replace Trees
The District shall replace trees as follows:
1. Native trees that are lost to bank protection impacts shall be replaced at a 3:1 ratio and
non-native trees that are lost shall be replaced at a 2: I ratio.
2. Trees removed for installation of bank protection measures shall be replaced at the site,
iffeasible, or at the mitigation site created for that bank protection activity.
3. The Plant Selection Criteria, Planting Techniques, Maintenance, and
Monitoring/Reporting protocols prescribed by the "Protocol for Revegetation Associated
with Bank Protection" (Appendix E ofSMP) shall be implemented. as applicable to tree
replacement.
4. Replacement of heritage-sized trees (greater than 18 inches dbh) will be consistent
with local ordinances.
5. All trees will be replaced with local native tree species; oak trees shall be replaced by
direct-seeding with acorns locally collected from the Stevens Creek watershed.
3.1 Minimize Impacts to Special status Plants and Animals Via Site Assessments and
Avoidance Measures
To avoid and minimize impacts to special-status plant and wildlife species, the work program
shall be reviewed by biological staff, and each site where special status species have been found,
have been known to exist in the recent past, or are likely to occur because suitable habitat exists,
be visited by a biologist or qualified personnel under the direction of a biologist. For animal
species the site surveys shall be no more than 30 days prior to the start of construction, to
determine presence of special-status species. For mobile species (e.g. red-legged frog, western
pond turtle, least Bell's vireo, steelhead), which may occur on-site during the work period, -
surveys be conducted as close to the start of work as is practical (no more than 7 days prior to
start of work). For plant species, the surveys shall be conducted during the appropriate time of
the year to determine presence. Information regarding the presence of special status species on a
particular worksite shall be based on the District's GIS database and professional experience of
qualified staff.
Page 21
Appendix A - Best Management Practices implemented into the project
I. The District shall use its GIS database to identify potential special-status plant and
animal habitats. All projects falling within sensitive habitats shall be discussed with
biological staff to identify avoidance and minimization measures.
2. All populations detected during the surveys shall be assessed and mapped. This
information shall be entered into the District's GIS system for future management
purpose.
3. Avoidance of impacts to serpentine areas or other sensitive plant habitats may include
storing removed sediment off site, limiting the method of vegetation removal to manual
methods, and limiting the operation of maintenance equipment to established roads
whenever possible.
4. Vegetation management in sensitive plant areas shall use only hand control or
backpack herbicide application by operators trained to identify and avoid the species to
be protected.
5. If sensitive animals such as western pond turtles or California red-legged frogs are
found, a qualified biologist will remove them to suitable habitat outside of the project
limits. Moving animals will be consistent with applicable fish and Wildlife Service and
fish and Game permits.
6. If maintenance activities are scheduled in the vicinity of extant populations, qualified
biological personnel shall clearly identify the populations on site and stake or flag a
buffer zone around the population in which activities are to be avoided.
7. The results of all sensitive species surveys shall be reported to the fish and Wildlife
Service, National Marine Fisheries Service and the California Department offish and
Game in an annual report. All surveys will be reported to the California Natural Diversity
Database.
8. The District shall develop and distribute informational pamphlets entitled "Sensitive
Plants, Wildlife, and fish at your Worksite." These pamphlets are designed to inform
staff about sensitive species and environmental protocols and procedures.
3.8 Minimize Effects of Bypass Structures on Steelhead
1. To prevent increases in temperature and decreases in dissolved oxygen (DO), ifbypass
pipes are used, they shall be properly sized (i.e., larger diameter pipes to better pass the
flows). Bypass pipes may also be avoided by creating a low-flow channel or using other
methods to isolate the work area.
2. In Non-tidal Areas, diversions on the Guadalupe River, Calero, Los Gatos, Guadalupe,
Alamitos, Coyote, Upper Penitencia, Stevens, San Francisquito, Bodfish, Little Arthur,
Uvas and Uagas Creeks shall maintain conditions required for fish passage. Diversions
shall maintain fish passage when the project meets the following conditions: 1) the length
of the area dewatered exceeds 500 feet, and/or 2) the length of time the stream is
dewatered exceeds two weeks in length. Conditions for fish passage shall be met as long
as the diversion 1) maintains contiguous flows through a low flow channel in the channel
bed or an artificial open channel, 2) presents no vertical drops exceeding six (6) inches
and follows the natural grade of the site, 3) maintains water velocities that shall not
exceed eight feet per second (8 ft/sec), and 4) maintains adequate water depths consistent
with normal conditions in the project reach. An artificial channel used for fish passage
shall be lined with cobble/gravel. A closed conduit pipe shall not be used for fish
Page 22
Appendix A - Best Management Practices implemented into the project
passage. The inlets of diversions shall be checked daily to prevent accumulation of
debris.
3.12 Maintain Lowflow Fish Passage
If a nontidal stream channel has been altered during the operations, its low flow channel shall be
returned as nearly as possible to its approximate prior location with appropriate depth for fish
passage without creating a possible future bank erosion problem.
3.15 Restore Pool Configuration of Channel Bottom
The District shall re-grade the channel bottom at the end of the work project to as close to
original conditions as possible.
1. In areas used for migration by salmonids as designated on the District GIS Fisheries
coverage, the depth and size of the low flow channel and pools shall emulate the
preconstruction conditions as closely as possible, within the finished channel topography.
2. All material used to construct temporary fills shall be removed upon completion of the
project.
3.16 Restore Spawning Gravels in Work Site Areas
The District shall replace gravels at the end of construction in potential salmonid spawning
reaches.
1. Spawning gravels removed as a result of stream maintenance activities shall be
replaced using a gravel/cobble mixture representing the size and relative abundance of
gravel/cobbles present pre-project impact.
2. Spawning gravel replacement will be configured to maximize functional benefits
including salmonid spawning, aquatic invertebrate production, and juvenile escape cover.
3.17 Reuse Sediments and Gravels As Appropriate
Where practical, the District will reuse removed sediments and gravels. Sediments that are
considered for re-use will be tested for hazardous materials and graded for structure as necessary
in order to determine their appropriateness for re-use and consistency with BMPs 1.3 and 3.16.
When sediments or gravels are reused, the District will ensure that the reuse does not cause any
additional erosion, siltation, or other negative environmental consequences. Reuse will be
considered within the context of environmental, regulatory, and fiscal consequences.
6.1 Spill Prevention
The District shall prevent the accidental release of chemicals, fuels, lubricants, and non-storm
drainage water into channels.
1. District field personnel shall be appropriately trained in spill prevention, hazardous
material control, and clean-up of accidental spills
2. No fueling, repair, cleaning, maintenance, or vehicle washing shall be performed in the
creek channel or in areas at the top of the channel bank that my flow into the creek
channel.
Page 23
Appendix A - Best Management Practices implemented into the project
6.2 Spill Kit Location
Spill prevention kits shall always be in close proximity when using hazardous materials (e.g. in
crew trucks, and other logical locations).
1. Prior to entering the work site, all field personnel shall know the location of spill kits
on crew trucks and at other locations within District facilities.
2. All field personnel shall be advised of these locations and trained in their appropriate
use.
6.3 Hazardous Materials Management
The District shall implement measures to ensure that hazardous materials are properly handled
and the quality of water resources is protected by all reasonable means when removing sediments
from the streams.
I. Prior to entering the work site, all field personnel shall know how to respond when
toxic materials are discovered.
2. The discharge of a hazardous or non-hazardous waste as defined in Division 2,
Subdivision 1, Chapter 2 of the California Code of Regulations shall be conducted in
accordance with applicable State and federal regulations.
3. All handling and disposal of sediments shall be performed in accordance with the
WDR issued by the RWQCB. The sediment shall be disposed of at a permitted landfilL
Any alternative use or disposal shall require R WQCB approvaL
Page 24
Stevens Creek Corridor Park Master Plan and Restoration Plan IS
APPENDIX B
BIOTIC REPORTS FOR THE STEVENS CREEK CORRIDOR
MASTER PLAN, THOMAS REID ASSOCIATES
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
L Introduction and Summary of Results ........................... .................. ..............................................1-1
A. Purpose....................................................................................................................................1 -1
B. Summary of Results and Recommendations ............... ................................ ............. ...... .........1-2
1. 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................................................................................................................I-4
5. Rare Plant and Botanical Inventory Surveys..............................................................I~5
6. Preliminary WetIand Delineation ............... .................. ........... .......................... .........1-5
C. Background....... .... .............. ................................................. ...................................................1-6
D. Setting.................................................................................................................................... ..1-6
1. Introduction................................................................................................................I-6
2. Study Area..................................................................................................................I-6
3. Habitats and Vegetation............................................................................................ .1-6
4. Hydrology...................................................................................................................I-7
II. California Tiger Salamander Site AssessmenL........................................................................... II-I
A. Summary............................................................................................................................... II-I
B. Regulatory Background......................................................................................................... 11-2
C. Natural History...................................................................................................................... 11-2
D. Site Assessment Methods......................... ............................................................................. 11-2
E. Results.................................................................................................................................. . 11-3
1. Known Localities of CTS Within the Project Region ..............................................11-3
2. Habitat Assessment.................................................................................................. 11-3
3. Surrounding Habitats................................................................................................ 11-4
F. Discussion............................................................................................................................. 11-4
III. Focused Surveys for Special Status Amphibians and Reptiles ................................................... III-I
A. Summary.............................................................................................................................. 111-1
B. Methods................................................................................................................................ III - 2
C. Regulatory Background........................................................................................................ 111-2
1. California Red-Legged Frog ..... .................. .................. .................. .................. ...... 111-2
2. Foothill Yellow-Legged Frog and Western Pond Turtle.........................................1II-3
D. Natural History ......................................... ............................................................................ 111-3
1. California Red-Legged Frog ...................................................................................111-3
2. Foothill Yellow-Legged Frog................. ................................................................. III-3
3. Western Pond Turtle................................................................................................ III-4
E. Results ........................ .............................................. ............................. .......... ......... ...... ...... 111-4
1. California Red-Legged Frog ........................................ ........................................... 111-4
a) Recorded Occurrences.................... .................. ...... ........... ......................... III-4
b) Other Sources............................................................................................. 1II-4
2. Foothill Yellow-Legged Frog and Western Pond Turtle.........................................1II-5
a) Recorded Occurrences.. .................. .................. ................... ....................... 111-5
b) Other Sources............................................................................................. 111.5
3. Survey Results......................................................................................................... 111-6
F. Discussion and Recommendations ..................................................... .................................. 111-7
1. California Red-Legged Frog ...... ............. ................................................................ 111-7
2. Foothill Yellow-Legged Frog..................... ...................................... ....................... III-7
3 . Western Pond Turtle................................................................................................ III - 7
4. Invasive Species Reduction..................................................................................... 111-8
Biotic Reports for the Stevens Creek Corridor Master Plan
Thomas Reid Associates
January 2006
Table of Content
Page ii
5. Other Measures to Reduce Invasive Species........................................................... III-8
IV . Nesting Raptor Surveys..............................................................................................................IV-l
A. Summary.............................................................................................................................. IV-l
B. Regulatory Background........... .................. .............. .................... .................................. .......IV-l
C. Natural History..................................................................................................................... IV -1
1. Long-eared OwL......................................................................................................IV-l
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 Homed Ow I ...................................................................................................IV - 3
D. Methods................................................................................................................................ IV-3
E. Results.................................................................................................................................. IV -6
1. 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
1. Potential Bat Habitat................................................................................. ............. .. V-I
2. Night Survey.......................................................................................................... .. V-I
C. Potential Impacts................................................................................................................... V - 3
1. Mexican Free-tailed Bat........................................................................................... V-3
2. Yuma Myotis............................................................................................................ V - 3
3. Big Brown Bat.......................................................................................................... V -3
D. Mitigation Measures.............................................................................................................. V - 3
VI. Biological Assessment of Rare Plants .................................. ....................... ............................... VI-I
A. Introduction.......................................................................................................................... VI - ]
B. Methods........................................................................................................................... ..... VI-1
C. Results............................................................................................................................... ... VI-l
] . Dudley's Lousewort ................................................................................................ VI - 2
2. Western Leatherwood.................. ................... ........... ......................... ..................... VI-2
VII. Preliminary Wetland Delineation ..................... .................. ..................................... ............ ..... VII-I
A. Regulatory Requirements. ..................... .................. ........................................................... VII-l
I. Federal................................................................................................................... VII-l
a) Clean Water Act....................................................................................... VII-2
2. State..................................................................................................................... VII - 2
a) California Department of Fish 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 Reports for the Stevens Creek Corridor Master Plan
Thomas Reid Associates
January 2006
Table of Content
Page iii
FIGURES AND TABLES
Figure 1. 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 -II
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 of the Project Site...............................................III-5
Table 2. FYLF and WPT Observations Within a 5-Mile Radius of The Project Site. ............................ III-6
Table 3. Suggested Recommendations for the Stevens Creek Corridor Master Plan .............................. III-9
Table 4. CNDDB records and other Unrecorded Occurrences of Raptors within a Ten-mile Radius of the
Study Area....................................................................................................................................... ........ IV -6
Table 5. Nesting Raptor Survey Results . .................................................................................. ...............IV-8
Table 6. Special Status Plant Species with Potential for Occurrence on Site .......................................... VI-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 for the Stevens Creek Corridor Master Plan
Thomas Reid Associates
January 2006
Introduction
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 RT. Harvey & Associates, conducted the following biotic surveys and
assessments:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
A site assessment for the federally Threatened California tiger salamander
(CTS hereafter).
US Fish and Wildlife Service protocol surveys for California red-legged frog
(CRLF hereafter)
A nesting raptor survey
Bat surveys (completed by H.T. Harvey & Associates)
Rare plant and botanical inventory surveys
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) determine 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 lO(a)(l)(B) permit, 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) determine 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
lO(a)(I)(B) permit, 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 from 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 (Asio 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 for the Stevens Creek Corridor Master Plan
Thomas Reid Associates
January 2006
Introduction
1-2
Bat Surveys: Bat surveys were conducted to determine 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: 1) 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 determine its' rarity and listing status; and 3) determine the potential for special status plant
species occurrence on site.
Preliminary Wetland Delineation: The purpose of the delineation was to determine the extent of existing
wetland values in the creek. This information will help guide the preparation of a proposed Master Plan
and will be used to determine 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 ofCTS 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 ifCTS 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 ifWPT are
nesting within the study area, the two locations determined to be potential nesting habitat are the open
field at McClellan Ranch and the orchard at the Stocklrneir property.
Recommendations:
I) Prior to any construction-related activities, one daytime pre-construction survey for CRLF and WPT
Biotic Reports for the Stevens Creek Corridor Master Plan January 2006
Thomas Reid Associates
Introduction
1-3
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 ofthe project, a qualified biologist shall check the site in the morning
and in the evening 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. IfWPT 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 terms and conditions set by USFWS and
CDFG on the project.
3) Construction workers shall be informed of the 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 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 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 barn owl. Nests were located for whiteMtailed kite at Blackberry
Farm Golf Course and red-shouldered hawk at Blackberry Farm. A roosting site was located for barn owl
at Blackberry Farm. 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 ifan
adequate buffer, as determined through consultation with the California Department 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 from 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 summer surveys
(June? and August 16,2005), three species (big brown bats [Eptesicusfuscus], Mexican free-tailed bats
[Tadarida brasiliensis], 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 of Mitigation 1,2 and 3 is
warranted, would reduce these potential impacts to bats.
Mitigation 1. Protect the roost tree ifpossible. 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 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 (i.e., 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 constrnction disturbance of. or loss of. roosts. Ifthe 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 1 or after July 31 when young are vol ant 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 ofrare plant species were identified as having potential to occur within the
study area based on habitat type, namely, Dudley's lousewort (Pedicularis dudle.vi) 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 of the 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 of the RWQCB and
CDFG.
Recommendations:
1) The project will likely be subject to permits from the USACE, the RWQCB and CDFG. Existing
conditions will need to be clearly documented for these permits.
2) It is recommended that the plan address the removal of exotic species, such as Arnndo 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.,
bullfrog), 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
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 of trail uses, and encourage educational uses of the 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 creek, 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 2001) and Results ofa 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. SETTING
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 1). 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 ofthe 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 1). 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 Stockhneir 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 Farm 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 Farm is located adjacent to, and directly south ofthe 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 moUe), 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 property 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 Farm 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 Permanente 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 ofthe 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 former 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 of the creek is completely surrounded by urban development. After passing under Highway 10 I,
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 of the banks (Photo 4) and three low flow crossings have been established. Upstream of
uppermost 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 for the Stevens Creek Corridor Master Plan
Thomas Reid Associates
January 2006
Introduction
1-9
~>;;' ~'. ~\ ~~"" ~ "!~.. .
11 It'' g 11: '" nt. Ii I \ \ ''''''. ! ~ ~~ ~ ,,:
~ fa.. ~ l!l [;; .. i"~:;:"J i 'tSl<;;"~ , .<1': ~...m~ ~ f " i
. i ti If J ~,~ t' -H} .'. r~.. vt ~. ':w,m".,.,.3i ' ~. -..:~ ~ : ~
- ... '" QfL l%' 21 ii . 1;;;','1' -~"""'" ,\ ......
liU If... ...' i~"'1 J"''' f,T .J. - 'i -:;:; ~ ~..
~ ~ ", .~ 101 ;j:'~lCj ~ S l " II l;
/r4" ~". I~' i . il m~' .. i . ff5~..,.~ I~. !! ~
~ t 1t fi I l~ "r~ w "" !~ PQ,;'rf' ... ": I~""
"!ll<<:~.' ,..' ~. <tr . 'rff ~~ ~.~ ' <WM<'
~. .. ."" '" . ,., l' "'" . _. .
t ~ Coo l. lfV WE" >>AiHt .... 1~ rltf DAtu:s ;",
;1>: ~",L / 1;;r:tL 'l'\--.~h~ ;f' f~"~:;; b;f = 't....
~. m ~~!I~.? ~.:~ri[.ai~:II(!";~.<:, :.~W',rl...~n.1]h ,,' ~,
~ "'~,~ ~ .~: \ u<> ~t<_~.. .ict!~lW; H1i!..~. '.
,~~ ~ ~~ !>. .?'T' ~ m~ % J~ ,?;~- ~ <l .<<'
· ~" "1!! , _~ Ii; ~ l' ~ i .;l ..'" m:.,..... .. .'Ii)' .~
.,. ~'". ., jig; 'l~~ co *'l- ..e; ~ ~",~d~'!2" <II.iI if 'N . '
w :~.;r ~ ~ ;:,~-~ ~ ::1: ---I~., 'i ,~; ;~ ~t ".'T ..
''1> '" '. . 1t '""Jnl~......",,, I(f, ~ .~ 11 ~ l.. ii ~ A ..k
~ ~~ "j~ ,,', "'~'; I~......l<"<,/, ,- . /
::flf'k ~^ ~ ~ ''''I;~';l ,-' .",,;;;'~ if' ~.; I ~ f/-~
[<V ,/In ~~J ~ jl~i' ~ '.P:!' fl! ~I~r. J!' 1j ij('!f.T' ~ ~ Miles J.-.."
/$; ~~ t'! ., ~~.') q: ~~~ I ~~ ~ :;? .;L ! l BooMm!lP Dol."""", __$ {);mJ J:M..=~: I ~ I
,'B?~ k-~) " .~ ~ : ml"* ~ ~'" 'l' i .~
"f >pO' ( .. ". .. .-1.. J\ ""0" ~ :;Jld', ,}~~ """'" ~,,;-;;;
--'....., '7r-..J- tn.f:s~iiN'f~ ~ ~l%i J.,-.<<c ..........:I'OC~lS;H;;; ~ ,'r'Mf.6'-" ... ~~. ?-
~"~"'~fi~~~ ,.k( . -~ ~, 5.. ., ~I ~!, .....lU.. -
-', ~c_ ~ I! HI ~ "'"'.~~ ''', ........../. ~,~II~' t:~ i~ ~ {.~ i ~.. mf}/l i
....' " i'i ;: 'if" 5, " ~ 'h." . . \ /I 1 ! -~;., ~ 5,~ ~ /'" Tl "
...}l1I" ~ Ifi: wL t~~.... U1i ~ ~'t ~ \.~~ ' ~~~;,; '-~
'-~tDJj q~~ ~ >,; -("\.:. "o!i~ ~,..~V{~{;~ ::::",. ~'""'.w M ~ ~
..' YJ~ '""'- ~.1~" ~.,.~ ......:<.t ~ ti~ ~r # ....... LX: 'i' ~~:'J>re!'.>X \:.- ~ i::I l'C' >'.o-.....c.o ~-
. ~\jJ. ,~ ~yJt ~.." ,~-'.;, ~ ~ '"'l 4' -:.-- i:;l -"'.........
(i '-~ ~*~yH' , ,-<-, ~. ~ \ i~'~ i .<- "" ~- ~
;~. _ N~~"'^ K~~'j')'<.\' P"'oJect ~ i "."... ~ .....,.....:,.r '1io _ _00ll ~ l!i: ~
,/ 'I:."~ 'i ," ~ .. J ~]; f&~ ..,"n. ~ '"'. ::. !
I ~ t ~ l' ~ L t" r'" ~"';"O">>l ,..." ^ - _$ llAl. ll1l i ' ",!
/~. ~ ""~ ""- \I "^~ oca Ion '_. l. ( \$'..,....j'C III l'i . .~ "'Mf'" ~
.. .~ i ~x,. M . l.....l 'It;!... ~.ll... J! OOD"~.... o:r~.... ~ i(~ ~ ~ l~
/ p,~..J!.'(" 11 !II ",,' it '1~~: c' it' '.'!.... \~~'" '""'~ ~ I>>.....:. '''P::.: ~..f Z i i ~
,/ :11:((:'1 >'" $;.. i'^ ~~ i" ~~ I ~ \ -" :i~ ~.. '" . fJ:ft... ~
t ~{''0 :\~: t~1i*~\~ 1 ~;";;::%1 ~ ~"'&; tl \.", ~ : !.li~"tj~ CU!OIEL t'I.IliQ' ,'"
/Ms.dt\"-lmr~ : ~_ ..(:~ ~". ""v~. -.,-""l""t .~';. '""~ il~!f J:I i~
4M/$- i~ g$;6l,,~ 1J:~ ~-:':;:'IM#': "= . '. "'" i' j1.~1~ "'f ~ ~
i~!'!. ~ ~. tlM",'~ ~& ~aiifi" """ o,J '- .,'. ~ ; '. c_ F "'\~..:~L:'. &,...,"" ",. .;; '^" avo
, il ,_ " [""'" lI.m. '''-''1 "f' \~~l. 0 . , ''''''~= '. .... ... .
i~' ~~! . ~ '"r~ n: It':< ~'\ ~~' 'j.":~"" J~"~ \ \ r ,i:i, H ,>>= ~l~ W.,.. I ~
j:i. ~ il~ f~t~ m, ~b ~~ ..Z~ h I~;:-_ .;. ,,;;; 'I 'il', & \, · miANlA .. ~ :f'~~'~ :>Ii
iI' 'i! = l!: ~c ~ '...., ~~;;;:'1\- """ "\ ,-, ". ~t-J:! <i
!!,~ "";< ~. I"' 4, '1"....- ,""'''~~ m,', 0 m" 11 -...... :!: .
M.........,.' j~....,\. ~ <<> :;;,.. ",,,," ~l~ "1 '. ttI......:L ':!'.1!.'!'.!!! .. ""....~n <ll M
~~.I:,~~ ... "".:i '<:I: ,', -h 1 }.tI9I~t~ ~~;, ~A
-r,; /"',:if.. ~ -.. +, ~ f}.J ""'""", ","'"... llM~" ''''''''''"F ~~. ",0 COUEGE r;.....", ..Il< ,.,.. "~1<'
i~Jlh~:!!:(~ :.t: ~ ~~~:( ')~'Cifr. '*,:t~;;;.;~ t~~l! ~~'v ~l~:~o{. . 2 ~i i'i ~ " d
i,<~~x1.~ """"J;J.-- ~l fi \/~'\ '1 ~ ",' , . ~.;: ... ~I\ .;Qm~ rr' I . ~1 ill ", '~ '1<(:l!""'-/
~A; ~tt I\l{ t+~ I- l:Q U~t:ttUJllM:;~ !l: fie)' . ~1.fHAH. tl)~ .1 Q:4ftt:. ~ _= W!_
:~;<<:~ ~:,~dl~ J~ ....-.1Vr~c-i;:-.........i" ,:-:::, \"~~''''\"~'~1' It",..~". ~~~p":r~~-~~~f
~H.~ ~ w;;; ~rJ("" _:u""" j: I. '" ~~,....,,~ "r;-t:'.,.. 1M' i I,,' ~ ~
':'l; ~i -;-:t.""~"""~' ili' !:!; !!.'.,,'" .. ... '" ''''''\''~~ ~ m:,,<if--f'~_ .' ~ ~! i co :!I ....~
t. " ...~, I!J .8: Y ~~ ~4.." -~ -. ~!Fr~~ ~~j0 W!$' We.",*, j,......, _ulI: I ~ ~
=.' """ """k'J:::::ftt ~ . i~~ '\~<>_<i'",~~" ~~8"~~J ~mt'-\~::;"~r'..~jf'~L~''''J. ""'-~I- . ~.-...:::
~ ~.\ $) ~'1f ,t~<I ,:'~~ I~ ~l~"" ! ~\...:")ti. ~,\' fi ~.~I~riI!:f~:'T",.'HN.......,..~ .Ft4 1m io< ,Iaoa:
1. V ~~ ~_-.~,,~>>>>--.;.s::.t: Uf%~.:'\t ; ~f'W;;dl &' I)'" \~~ ~~ (tI ~ V~~~ <-1-; , ~
"" ~~- PO" ..~ i . < ',,,'1'~ J"'!,""~ ~ .". ,~'""..\ ~ " f!l." "'."", . l!:...Y.!J., i i:' t
;j?~ ~"-= +. ~..';tj/l:"'". ~, ;- (;~R_ ,~,~ c ""ll~ lI' J~. ';, .,. '.< wo.. e ~ _I~~~w.w.. <1:'- ".-:>' ~
~~ ~~ ~ 1?<:<< ~ > :: 2: ''''r~ ~ J:.....-~ m;: ~ . -:-. .. ...,.,.,. N' " ~
~~'" ~,%.Ii '" ,..t_j,,",;""': .:.,,,d. ~ to ~ if. "'...., '" l}~ <k ;"\ ~,~" . '.;~....h",!!f..-~, ::$;
./_~ " . . . . ;."1~ "'""";rjl1lr .i} 11- ,_~ '" J. . ,J' . . "1i:.."'~~~"~lil" .. t 1 ...l! 1
" '" '1iJ .. .. . . .. ." .. J! ''''''''"''tf'' ila li "'~, '\ ~ ~j "% l:;~ ,~ '-<Ml",*"
I~' ," 1:~' .. ,,'.......""',.:~ "I ~b, ~> ""'-, ., , ~.,,, ..~.,."" ,. ;
I r .~ J ~ ,..', ~ .. ~'" a ~:-.\ l ~f-~SO$l""" $2 ~ ,,, ... \. ~f' . ~ @""\'i ;.~ <?-7'~""',;i! ~ ~
C'''.~..- ..' ~... ';, ~"",!!il il" i'~ II ~ ~.- ,,~ ~~,,:JJ1 ~
.,.V<"'..... 1M "", fi~! ..""'" \~,~.: '''''.'' .,+' ....\' lfiO.... <1'<0 h.
N 0 2OOO:i" ':r"':~~ Ci ~ .. \;\,:' l'> t ri':" . &J11 kI
A . rr~l!J~J:J~j;' ; 1'>\ '" ~ ~ I !~'.'''''''''. J~ l!l illlA""i~!"1
Feet f ~,.. !" . ~ ~ ~ f ff;;;,;"......~ . ~.' ~~I
"'~I>Z'" :i.~ : ~ -gc 3;'"; :flZt.:.ll;l$Ot~ ...w ...;
iBH.fri E~.\.1 -...c ,;I-~~;'" . ;;'.~~. n. ~'., /1:1.. ~ to,;l
Basemap: CA State Automo bile Association, P 2003 ~;( W: _.u ~.? "'" "'." \>"h' ~ \ . 'i 1f.1~" . i;~
r't.- ,~\~ll:1~ ~ ~. M~~ ~ ,~~~ftrfl<.~ a~.~-lflo' ~~{ ~,_, ~~
Source. TRA Janua ry 2005 ,>" ""~"""'\, ~ '. ~l:&_~,",,\.""'k:r~ J~. ',I "'^,;''' j"E"'"",",
Figure 1: Regional Location of the Stevens Creek Corridor Master Plan Project.
(Property Boundary Approximate)
...... ~..~f:;~
..- "~
""""'9
~
(f!
.1
...
_0.
.. ''l
))
'~'
"""
IW
~
VI
Biotic Reports for the Stevens Creek Corridor Master Plan
Thomas Reid Associates
January 2006
introduction
} J
\~
'-
J
-
o
Legend
.._--
.... ...,
.-.,.,.~
, ",.----
""'~
\
"~I"'m Roedl
\
\
.~.......... \
\ >
"\
1) ,1"
. ~JJ ':.':-
. ~/"-< -"~
Ftgure 2. Stevens Creek Conidor Master Plan Study Area 1 .....":"ioo tL
i-1O
Biotic Reports for the Stevens Creek Corridor Master Plan
Thomas Reid Associates
January 2006
1ntroduction
1-11
Figure 3. existing Habitat and Surrounding land Uses of the Stevens 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.
~.'.-.'
. of" -
~ .
~
-
~
a.n ~............
QIQpeIf. ~
lI(Jng. ~nmlllurlhl
t.o!N Pvllite noIIa
~_."'"
~' ,'- 1-, '"
,_~~?-,._d~~~.. ~
.c~ .~: .n
E3
b~"~
~
-"l~_Ang (11III
:'ll1ilmdu'~
~ MbmJli_
~lf"'CIIl'pum
-.....-
~ ..-o4lA.-.J9r
Biotic Reports for the Stevens Creek Corridor Master Plan
Thomas Reid Associates
January 2006
California Tiger Salamander Site Assessment
11-1
II. CALIFORNIA TIGER SALAMANDER SITE ASSESSMENT
A. SUMMARY
As part of the environmental review for the proposed Stevens Creek Corridor Master Plan Proj ect,
Thomas Reid Associates conducted a Site Assessment for the federally Threatened California tiger
salamander (Ambystoma caltforniense).
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 will
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 of the creek, support a variety of trail 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 11, ]893. It was also discovered that there are three more recent
un-documented, incidental observations ofCTS 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 frequently absent from 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 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
determine 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
J/-2
B.REGULATORYBACKGROUND
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 ofthe Santa Barbara and Sonoma populations from
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 summer (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 from 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 10-week-Iong 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 for Determining Presence or a Negative Finding of Calffornia 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
of CTS in the region. Finally, aerial photographs were viewed to assess on-site and surrounding habitat
types and land uses within 1.24 miles (2 km) 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 2006
California Tiger Salamander Site Assessment
ll-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
1. Known Localities of CTS Within the Project Region and Within 3.1 miles (5 kIn) ofthe Project
Boundaries
There are two documented occurrences of CTS 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 from a museum collection dated November 11, 1893, and since
this time considerable development, predominantly residential, has occurred in the surrounding vicinity.
The second documented occurrence is located approximately 10 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 1) Rogue Valley in Rancho San Antonio County Park
(approximately 2 miles northwest of the subject reach), 2) along Permanente Creek between the Hanson
Permanente 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 1 mile northwest of the subject reach) (E. Remington Pers. Corum.). These observations
took place in the 1970s, 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 1).
California Sycamore (Platanus racemosa) and coast live oaks (Quercus agrifolia) dominate the riparian
canopy, with a mixture of dogwood (Camus 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 elderberry (Sambucus sp.), among others.
The Stocklrneir 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 Farm 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 submergent aquatic vegetation. At the time of the
field visit, Pond A supported abundant introduced non-native species including carp and bullfrogs.
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 obselVed using the ponds.
Blackberry Fanns 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 reselVoir 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 from this portion of the San Francisco Bay Area, the
undocumented, incidental obselVations 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 sUlVeyed by Seymour and Westphal (2000) are located within the
foothills surrounding the study area, including the undeveloped lands south of the Deep Cliffs Golf
Course, 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 ofCTS 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 (bullfrog, carp, and crayfish). Research has shown that CTS are frequently absent
from 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 obselVed, dense residential development and associated roads
Biotic Reports for the Stevens Creek Corridor Master Plan January 2006
Thomas Reid Associates
California Tiger Salamander Site Assessment
II-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
determine 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
11/-1
III. FOCUSED SURVEYS FOR SPECIAL STATUS AMPHIBIANS 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 draytonii), (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 marmarata), (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) determine 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
lO(a)(1)(B) permit, 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 ofCRLF 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 unconfirmed", sighting of a CRLF at a former 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 ofWPT 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 (Gasterosteus aculeatus),
California roach (Lavinia symmetricus), Sacramento sucker (Catostomus occidentalis), and
stee1headlrainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss). 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
Farms 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 ifWPT are nesting within the study area,
the two locations determined to be potential nesting habitat are the open field at McClellan Ranch and the
orchard at the Stocklmeir property.
Biotic Reports for the Stevens Creek Corridor Master Plan
Thomas Reid Associates
January 2006
Focused Surveys for Special Status Amphibians and Reptiles
111-2
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 Jae Abel (SCVWD) and Mark
Allaback (Biosearch Associates) were contacted about their knowledge of these species in the region.
c. REGULATORY BACKGROUND
1. California Red-legged Frog
On May 23, 1996, the USFWS published a final determination of Threatened Status for the California
red-legged frog (USFWS, I 996a ), 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 13, 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 for the Stevens Creek Corridor Master Plan
Thomas Reid Associates
January 2006
Focused Surveysfor Special Status Amphibians and Reptiles
111-3
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
1. California Red.legged Frog
The California red-legged frog (Rana aurora draytonii) 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 11 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 tol3
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. FoothUl 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
IlI-4
areas have not been reported, however they have been documented underground and beneath surface
objects more than 155 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 underwater retreats to hide from predators and humans.
Females deposit their eggs in nests in sandy banks or in the case offoothill 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 1). 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 1997) 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 1.3 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'Avenida Avenue 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 1992, 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
I11-5
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 from just 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 I 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 & 1.2 miles 5 adults & 2 CNDDB
3 just north of June 1997 West juveniles in 1994;
Permanente Road ladult & I tadpole
Bridge in 1997
4 Stevens Creek March 1939 Unknown 1 adult CAS
5 Stevens Creek February 1939 Unknown 3 adults CAS
6 Stevens Creek Dam February 1939 1.2 miles I adult CAS
south
7 Sleeper Park - 1977 3.5 miles Unknown Jones &
L' A vinida Corridor north Stokes
8 Quarry below Stevens 2000 1.2 miles Unknown Abel
Creek Dam south
9 Downstream of 1980's 1.2 miles Unknown Abel
Stevens Creek Dam south
10 Downstream of 1990's 1.2 miles Unknown Abel
Stevens Creek Dam south
CNDDB - California Natural Diversity Database
CAS - California Academy of Sciences
Abel - Jae Abel (Santa Clara Valley Water District)
Jones & Stokes - Environmental Consulting Firm
2. FoothiU 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 from 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 for
the Stevens Creek Trail and Wildlife Corridor Project completed by Jones and Stokes in November 1992.
Biotic Reports for the Stevens Creek Corridor Master Plan
Thomas Reid Associates
January 2006
Focused Surveys for Special Status Amphibians and Reptiles
lII-6
Wildlife surveys from 1977 and 1992 were documented in this report, which covers Stevens Creek from
Sleeper Park downstream to L'Avenida 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 of 2004 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 Saratoga South
2 Stevens Creek February 1939 Unknown 1 Juvenile / ] Adult CAS
WPT 1 Stevens Creek Spring 2004 In studv area 2 individuals Banfield
2 Stevens Creek Spring 2004 0.25 miles ] individual Banfield
MVZ- Museum of Vertebrate Zoology Banfield - Barbara Banfield (City of Cupertino)
CAS - California Academy 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
burrows such as ground squirrel 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 800 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.
Correspondence 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 loror), mule deer
(Odocoileus hemionus), striped skunk (Mephitis mephitis), broad-footed mole (Scapanus latimanus),
Biotic Reports for the Stevens Creek Corridor Master Plan
Thomas Reid Associates
January 2006
Focused Surveysfor Special Status Amphibians and Reptiles
111-7
bobcat (Lynx rufus), feral cat (Felis catus), and a variety of songbirds. More information 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 RECOMMENA TIONS
1. 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 of Bullfrogs 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 from occuning 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 YeHow-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 of FYLF, 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 permanent water source with suitable basking sites as described above; and the presence
of upland habitat adj acent 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
frequently 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
111-8
Based on The Western Pond Turtle: Protocol and Monitoring Plan - Final Draft (Interagency Western
Pond Turtle Working Group 2001), ifWPT 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 determine 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 information 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 transform 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 bullfrog 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
transformation 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 conun.).
For bullfrog 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 bullfrog 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 ofCRLF 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.
(Allaback, pers comm.).
Biotic Reports for the Stevens Creek Corridor Master Plan January 2006
Thomas Reid Associates
Focused Surveys for Special Status Amphibians and Reptiles
I11-9
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
2) Prior to any construction-related activities, one daytime pre-
construction survey for CRLF and WPT 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. IfCRLF 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 terms and conditions set by USFWS and CDFG
on the project.
3) Construction workers shall be informed of the 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
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
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.
Effect
California red-legged frogs and western pond
turtle are protected from harm during
construction.
CRLF and WPT are protected from harm
during construction.
CRLF and WPT are protected from harm
during construction.
Protecting CRLF and WPT from harm during
construction.
Stevens Creek is protected from siltation
which could affect water quality and habitat
for sensitive species such as steelhead. .
Improve habitat for native species.
Biotic Reports for the Stevens Creek Corridor Master Plan
Thomas Reid Associates
January 2006
Nesting Raptor Surveys
IV-l
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 ow I (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 of the 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
(Elanus leucunJs) 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
Falconifonnes or Strigifonnes (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 V.S.c., scc. 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 rap tors 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 infonnation 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
IV-2
owl is a skilled acti ve-search hunter locating most of its prey (small rodents) by ear. In much of their
range, voles (Microtus 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 averag~ 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 of2
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 (formerly 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 from 10 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).
S. 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 of small mammals, birds, amphibians, reptiles, fish,
Biotic Reports for the Stevens Creek Corridor Master Plan January 2006
Thomas Reid Associates
r,~,
Nesting Raptor Surveys
IV-3
insects, snails and worms. There 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 ofthe food for the
female and young, while the female incubates the eggs and broods the young (Cannings, 200 I ).
6. Barn Owl
Barn owls are distinguished from 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 from 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, haystacks, and nest boxes. Where climate permits, barn owls will breed year round, raising two
or more broods per year (Marti, 2005).
7. Great Horned Owl
Great homed 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 ofmamrnals, 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 Methods for 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 Kobemus and Terese Kastner. Each survey began approximately 90 minutes before
sunset and ended approximately 2 1,/2 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 Farm just 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
lV-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 for 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
lV-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 homed owl and one for
burrowing owl.
The long.eared owl record was 6.5-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 ofthe 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 confirmed to have offspring. The great homed owl record was from January of
1955 southwest of Saratoga, approximately 5 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 information on nesting raptors within the study area. Much ofthe
information 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 barn owl, western screech.owl, great homed 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: 15 in the morning on May 8, 2005, during the Santa
Clara Valley Audubon Society Spring Birdathon, tapes were played for both barn owl and great homed
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 of the study area.
Raptor General Area Date of Distance Number/Age of Record
Status Description Occurrence from study Individuals Source
Species area Observed
Long-eared CSSC Monte Bello Open ]987 6.5 miles Nesting Pair, CNDDB
Owl Snace Preserve west fledged 3
Calabazas Creek, 2003 2.4 miles Nesting Pair CNDDB
south of Bollinger east with 1 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 A]viso ]971 10 miles Nesting Pair CNDDB
tailed Kite northeast
Biotic Reports for the 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 Descriotion Occurrence from study Individuals Source
Species area Observed
City of Alviso 2004 10 miles Nesting Pair CNDDB
northeast
Great None Southwest of 1955 5 miles 1 individual MVZ
homed owl Saratoga south
Burrowing essc 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 Special Concern CNDDB - California Natural Diversity Database
SP: California Fully Protected MVZ - Museum of Vertebrate Zoology
Banfield Barbara Banfield (City of Cupertino)
Meyers ~ Lisa Meyers (Santa Clara Valley 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 Farm 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 frog 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 Farm growing on the creek bank just west of the
swinuning pools (see Figure 6). Because the nest was over 50-feet from 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 1,2005, another nest in the same general area was found in a large California bay tree
(Unbellularia californica) (tagged #294). This nest could also potentially be a red-shouldered hawk nest
because two were flushed from the general area around this bay tree and began to alarm 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 corridor 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 Farm Station (#2) before the survey began. The palm
tree within Blackberry Farm 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 formal raptor surveys, but pellets
and white wash were observed by TRA biologists during California red-legged frog surveys conducted in
June 2005. The palm tree just east of the playground and south of the 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
/V-8
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
Golf Course Pine
Kite
#544
McClellan Ranch I individual Unknown N/A
Barn Owl Blackberry Farm I individual Roosting Palm (no
tag)
Red- Blackberry Farm I individual Possibly Sycamore
shouldered nesting #246S or
Hawk Bay #293
Unknown McClellan Ranch I individual Fly Over N/A
Acciviter
Biotic Reports for the Stevens Creek Corridor Master Plan
Thomas Reid Associates
January 2006
Nesting Raptor Surveys
IV-9
Potential Roostil'lgtNestil'lg Habitat
r-:J Foraging Area
. Nest Location
* Roosting Location
Figure 6. Nesting Raptor Survey Results.
January 2006
Biotic Reports for the Stevens Creek Corridor Master Plan
Thomas Reid Associates
Nesting Raptor Surveys
IV-I 0
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 contents 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 from 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. Furthermore, the home range of a great
homed owl is approximately 160-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. comm.). 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 from
early March to early June and young to typically be at the nest from 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 from 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 bam 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 determined by a qualified biologist, can be established between the
construction activity and the nest. (SCVWD,2002)
Furthermore, 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 determine 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 determine the species of bats using the project area. On
August 16,2005,1 attached a Holohil B2D transmitter to each of five female big brown bats to help
determine if a maternity colony roosted within the project area, and if so, to determine its location. Bats
captured were weighed and processed to determine reproductive status, age, relative size (by forearm
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 agrifolia), 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 rhombifolia)) 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 fragmented 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 [Eptesicus iuscus), Mexican free-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 that still provides enough habitat that bats have roosting sites and foraging areas. Other
species of bats, such as long-eared bat (Myotis evotis), California bat (Myotis califomicus) 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
from the project area many years ago from 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 Reports for the Stevens Creek Corridor Master Plan January 2006
Thomas Reid Associates
~
Bat Surveys
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 warm months of the 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 (Myotis yumanesis) 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 permanent 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 11: 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 ofrange of the 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 warm 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 Reportsfor 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 free-tailed bat is only
infrequently 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 of individuals 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 butTer 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 31) and end before maternity
colonies form (i.e., prior to March 1). Thus the project construction can be scheduled from September 1
through March 1 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 butTer zone for the non-breeding season day
Biotic Reports for the Stevens Creek Corridor Master Plan January 2006
Thomas Reid Associates
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 (i.e., 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 (i.e., prior to March 1 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 Reports for 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 1 and 2). The surveys were conducted in
the fall of 2004 and the spring of 2005 by Thomas Reid Associates biologists, with assistance from local
botanist Jeffrey Caldwell.
The objectives of the rare plant surveys were to:
1) 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 determine 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 Kobernus, and the survey on February 23,2005
was conducted by Patrick Kobemus and local botanist Jeffrey Caldwell. Additional plants were recorded
on site while conducting a wetland delineation on May 11,2005.
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 occidentalis), 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 (Hoifa strobilina). 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 from 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 Reports for the Stevens Creek Corridor Master Plan
Thomas Reid Associates
January 2006
Biological Assessment of Rare Plants
VI-2
1. Dudley's Lousewort (Pedicularis dudleyl) CNPS List IB
Dudley's lousewort is a perennial herb that is found within coniferous forest and maritime chaparral
habitats. It is known from 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. Furthermore, 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 (Dirca occidentalis), CNPS List 18
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 from 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 from the project site. This species flowers from
January to April, typically in FebruarylMarch. Western leatherwood can be identified outside of its'
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. Furthermore, Jeffrey 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 Farm, and along
McClellan Road east of McClellan Ranch.
Riparian vegetation is dense along the banks of Stevens Creek through much of its length from 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 from 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 Reports for the Stevens Creek Corridor Master Plan
Thomas Reid Associates
January 2006
Biological Assessment of Rare Plants
VI-3
Table 6. Special Status Plant Species with Potential for Occurrence on Site.
Species Status Flowering Habitat Potential on
Period Proiect Site
Western CNPS List January - Broadleaved upland forest, closed cone Low. Surveyed
leatherwood IB April coniferous forest, chaparral, cismontane during bloom
(Dirca woodland, North Coast coniferous period and not
occidentalis) 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)l sandy; elevation 50-800 present.
nudum var. meters.
decurrens)
Caper-fruited CNPS List March - Valley and foothill grassland (alkaline No potential.
tropidocarpum IA April hills), elevation 1-455 meters. Habitat not
( Tropidocarpum present. Last
capparideum) 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
(Arctostaphylos or sandstone, elevation 305-730 meters. present.
reJ!ismontana)
Arcuate bush CNPS List April - Chaparral; elevation 15-355 meters. No potential.
mallow IB September Habitat not
( Malacothamnus present.
arcuatus)
Lorna Prieta hoita CNPS List May- Chaparral, cismontane woodland, No potential.
(Hoita strobilina) IB October riparian woodland! usually serpentinitic, Habitat not
mesic; elevation 30-600 meters. present.
Dudley's CNPS List April - June Chaparral (maritime), cismontane Very low
lousewort lB woodland, North Coast coniferous potential.
(Pedicularis forest, valley and foothill grassland, Habitat not
dudlevi State:Rare elevation 60-900 meters. present.
Table 7. Plant Communities and Plant Species Observed in the Stevens Creek Corridor Master
Plan Area.
Habitat Type I Common Name Scientific Name Nativel Exotic
Stevens Creek Riparian Forest (California Sycamore Series)
Western sycamore Platanus racemosa N
Arroyo willow Salix lasioleois N
Black cottonwood Pooulus trichocaroa N
White alder Alnus rhombifo/ia N
Boxelder Acer neJ!Undo var. californicum N
Red willow SaJix laevifwta N
Black walnut JUJ!lans californica N
Buckeye Aesculus californica N
Blackwood acacia Acacia melanoxvlon E
Valley oak Ouercus lobata N
Monterey pine Pinus radiata E
Blue gum Eucalyptus Eucalvvtus fllobulus E
English walnut JUfllans reJ!ia E
Biotic Reports for the Stevens Creek Corridor Master Plan
Thomas Reid Associates
January 2006
Biological Assessment of Rare Plants
VI-4
Habitat Type Common Name Scientific Name Native/ Exotic
Riparian understorv vel!etation
Snowberrv Svmvhoricarpos albus var. laevigatus N
Periwinkle Vinca Major E
Wild grape Vitis californica N
Himalayan blackberry Rubus discolor E
English ivv Hedera helix E
Dogwood Cornus sp. N
Arundo Anmdo donax E
Toyon Heteromeles arbutifolia N
Blue elderberry Sambucus mexicana N
California bay Umbellularia californica N
California rose Rosa califomica N
Mugwort Artemisia doufdasiana N
California bee plant Schrophularia californica N
Poison oak Toxicodendron diversi/oba N
Smilo grass PiPtatherum miliaceum E
Low flow in-stream channel vel!etation
Watercress Rorippa nasturtium-aquaticum N
Water smartweed Polv~onum Sf}. N
Umbrella sedge Carex sp. N
Mint Mentha sp. E
Rabbit's foot grass Polvpogon Sf}. E
Non-Native Annual Grassland (includes scattered planted trees)
(California annual rassland series)
Wild oat A vena barbata E
Poison hemlock Conium maculatum E
Milk thistle Silvbum marianum E
Field mustard Hirschfeldia incana E
Coyote brush Baccharis pilularis N
Horehound Marntbium vU/flare E
Western redbud Cercis occidentaUs E
Cudweed Gnavhalium sp. E
Tree of heaven Ailanthus a/tissima E
Bull thistle Cirsium vulf!are E
Wild radish Raphanus sativa E
Yellow star thistle Centaurea so/stitialis E
Mallow/ cheeseweed Malva parv(flora E
Curly dock Rumex crispus E
Brazilian pepper tree Schinus molle E
F enne t Foeniculum vu/!Zare E
Plum tree Prunus sp. E
Weepinl.!: willow Salix babvlonica E
Coast redwood Sequoia sempervirens N
Big leaf maple Acer macrophyllum N
Almond tree Prunus sp. E
Italian thistle Carduus pvcnocephalus E
Wild mock orange Philadelphus lewisii N
Coast Live Oak Woodland (Coast live oak series)
Common bedstraw Gallium sp. E
Hollyleaf cherry Prunus ilicifoUa N
Speedwell Veronica sp. E
Hillside gooseberry Ribes californicum N
Miner's Lettuce Claytonia parviflora N
Biotic Reports for the Stevens Creek Corridor Master Plan
Thomas Reid Associates
January 2006
Biological Assessment of Rare Plants
Vl-S
Habitat Tvoe Common Name Scientific Name N ativel Exotic
California melic Mellica imperfecta N
Salt marsh baccharis Baccharis douf!lasii N
Fiesta flower Pho/istoma auritum N
Pumle star thistle Centaurea calcitrapa E
Calla-liIlv Zantedeschia aethiopica E
Cotoneaster Cotoneaster sp. E
Wild cucumber Marah fabaceus N
Pittosporum Pittosporum sp. E
Morning glory Calystef{ia sp. N
Clarkia Clarkia unflUiculata N
Bur-chervil Anthriscus caucalis E
Western vinzin's-bower Clematis lif{Ustcifolia N
Chaparral clematis Clematis lasiantha N
Osoberrv Oemlaria cerasiformis N
Orchid Orobanche sp. N
Privet Lif!Ustrum sp. E
Golf course (oonds , (cattail series)
Bulrush Scirvus sp. N
Salt grass Distichlis spicata N
Broad-leaf cattail Tvpha latifo/ia N
Note: Some species (especially trees) are found in more than one plant community, but are only listed once in this
table.
Biotic Reports for the Stevens Creek Corridor Master Plan
Thomas Reid Associates
January 2006
Preliminary Wetland Delineation
VII-l
VII. PRELIMINARY WETLAND DELINEATION
, <
A. REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS
1. 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 of the 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 prewconstruction notification is required, must also provide to the US Army
Corps of Engineers a certification from 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 until 401 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 branch.
The Nationwide Permit program 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 Permits. The
intent is to allow certain common activities to occur with little delay or paperwork. Nationwide permits
are valid only if the conditions applicable to the particular Nationwide Permit are met; otherwise an
individual permit 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 Permit that is likely to jeopardize a federally listed
threatened or endangered species or the critical habitat of such a species. Non-federal permittees 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 federal Endangered Species Act have been satisfied and that the activity is authqrized.
Authorization of an activity by a Nationwide Permit does not authorize the take of a federally listed
threatened or endangered species. Ifthis project were found to have impacts on a federally listed species,
the US Fish and Wildlife Service and the US Army Corps of Engineers would coordinate permit efforts,
and the wetland impacts would be subject to an individual permit rather than a Nationwide Permit.
Nationwide Permit 27 (NWP 27) addresses "Stream and Wetland Restoration Activities", which is
defmed as follows,
"Activities in waters of the US associated with the restoration of former waters, the enhancement of
degraded tidal and nonwtidal 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 Wet/and Delineation
VII-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:
1. 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
(a)(I) 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 ofriffle 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 from 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 ofthe 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 of Fish and Game
The California Department of Fish 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
VIl-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 RWQCB 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: 1) having 50 percent or greater of
dominant plant species that are hydrophytic, that is, obligate (OBL), facultative wet (FACW), or
facultative (FAC); 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 of hydrophytic 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
ordinary 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 a1. a1. (1993), and determined to be
hydrophytic using the USDl List of Plant Species that Occur in Wetlands (May 1988). Scientific names
generally follow Hickman et a1.
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 from the centerline of the
Biotic Reports for the Stevens Creek Corridor Master Plan January 2006
Thomas Reid Associates
Preliminary Wetland 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 information 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 USACE jurisdiction, however, any proposed modification ofthese 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 bullfrog 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 from both creek flows and storm 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 form of
blackberry-picking.
Table 8. Wetland Characterization at Sample Points.
Sample GPS Points Characterization Jurisdictional
point Wetland sf
A IA - IB Scirpus microcarpus (DBL) along stabilized bank near gin tee; 150
approx 3 ft wide and 50 ft long. Also creek dogwood, Rumex
salicifolius (GBL), nettle, mint. Arundo upstream on opposite
bank. Sycamore, buckeye overstory, vinca on natural bank
side, arroyo willow (F ACW) on stabilized bank
B 2A - 2B (2B Bank vegetation on stabilized side consists of scirous, 150
Biotic Reports for the Stevens Creek Corridor Master Plan
Thomas Reid Associates
January 2006
Preliminary Wetland Delineation
VlI-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 of the bank adjacent to the stream has a 75 percent cover
of mint, grasses with a subdominant cover of rumex,
blackberry. Bench is 15 x 100 ft long. Privet invading.
D 4A - 4B at 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,
grasses, cottonwood. 12 ft x 70 ft
E 5A - 58 Across from and upstream of D. Bank cover is 100% vinca 225
major (NOL). Instream: cress, rumex, mint, grass 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 of scirpus 5 ft by IS ft. Grove of cottonwood saplings on 75
downstream bank. Monterey pines begin.
bridge to
picnic 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
crossmg on
east side
I Downstream Small patch of Scirpus robustus, rumex, one rabbitsfoot grass. 48
of2fidped 12 ft x 4ft on west bank and about 50 ft upstream of H
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 10ft. then upstream about 30 ft from
end of west bank veg there is another patch of wetland on the
west bank dom by rumex, scirpus, blackberry in a 10 by ] 0 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 (instream 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 from 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 Reportsfor the Stevens Creek Corridor Master Plan
Thomas Reid Associates
January 2006
Preliminary Wetland Delineation
VIl-6
Sample GPS Points Characterization Jurisdictional
Doint 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 1 00 % cover 40ft by 40 ft at base of wall there is scirpus,
cattails, cress, mint 6 ft by 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
part
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
and llA- bank: scirpus, mint, rumex 6 by 35 ft. West bank scirpus,
11B 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 by scirous and rumex 6 ft by 50 ft
P Scirpus, rumex, cress wetland on east bank @ "walnut court" 600
picninc area 15 bv 40 ft
Q Across from rip rap @Pinegrove Picnic silo. West bank scirpus 108
6 ft by ] 8 ft
R West bank scirpuslblackberry wetland 100% cover. 10 ft by ]5 150
ft
S 12 ] 00% cover blackberry on east banle Alder and willow 0
overstory. Rinarian veil, basically; 90 bv 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, svcamore, 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 10 ft wide by 0
100 ft lonp;
W 13A - 13B Wetland values extend onto the east bank top in a large stand of 0
Baccharis douglasii COBL) 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 elderberry
X 14A - 14B, Scirpus/rumex/mint/grass wetland on patches at base of bank: 3 238
15A - 15B ft by 40 ft; I ft by 10 ft; also a bar midstream grasses, willow,
mint 4 ft by 27 ft. West bank immediately downstream of
bridge patch of blackberries and scirous 20 ft by 25 ft
Total 10,792 (0.2
ac)
Biotic Reports for the Stevens Creek Corridor Master Plan
Thomas Reid Associates
January 2006
Preliminary Wetland Delineation
Vll-7
Figure 7. Wetland Data Points Map
!
/'
(
"
. ,
,
'..~
~.,)IL<.//
. StewInI
'i-"~./:i
.~.
,
"
/
,~c
.~__"",w.,
~......--.Y
^ ,
',..........'.p
""
.i
t~
r"
Legend
....'....~"
_~ ,l>/~
,/
")
~o.kClwlNl
(lCM --I
...~... ,.;0'
;
f I
. j
; I
, ~
I > 1 \.
l .~ ~ , '~\,.
, i "
&iIlfIlG T* ClItlllcII'
!
.'....~.
.
i
r
;
f
\ t
. ,1"';. ,
\\\\\
~ ~ ., . ';;
1; ~ t. \ :-.
\ \ \. \ ~.""-
. < .
t 1 ~ "->;
: ~,' ,
~ \
.
-.;.......,~,
, ... __ er.t~fIIen
" ~
1
l
.
_ OdaPolnt
!
\
N
A
o
.
200 feel
,....................._..~
,
,
,
"
~\.
";...
!
,
"\
j \
)
t
;
- , d
. ~ .0"" -~~
\d>~ !
; A.l (.
; y'" :;.>'
~ J /) I
~ i, .~;/ /j/"
;&d..
~ !'.-: /,,:."y
; .;........}<~,f/
, '1 "",'<../.
I ' , ,fflr/
lC</j/
"tiJ::\ .
""""'j< 1
)\'ii;; I
., ,:' f}~ 1L:
i ,..."; i ~ ;
,,,:.;;w' ,...~;
; ,T 'c
.~c
,.
'.
t
.0"'"
-, .,.......~.......,'~.....,'c
Btackbeny
Farms
'"
"...
? f
'.,
"
,
i/
f
....\
, .
j ,. -' ! }
j i
] ~ \
r q
} f
j/ f !
c:
.~
\,
''...
.,
;
McClellan Reed"
,"
.'
"
,"
"
.'.....
'",
\
Monts Vista
\High School
\
{
,
/
.~
",.
'.
,
f'~'\
"\
",
",....~"",...
,,,,,""~'
Biotic Reports for the Stevens Creek Corridor Master Plan
Thomas Reid Associates
January 2006
Preliminary Wetland Delineation
Vll-8
Figure 8. Wetland Data Points and OHWM Map.
I C'
I r
r"
I
I
I
I I
I
!!l'
i
po
I
I
J
.
A."
/-"."
,
~
--.o.i-.:,-~-:.c1-'"
Biotic Reports for the Stevens Creek Corridor Master Plan
Thomas Reid Associates
January 2006
Preliminary Wetland Delineation
VII-9
Table 9. Plant Species found in Wetland Areas.
Common Name
Common lantain
Pe ermint
S earmint
Bulrush
Bulrush
Watercress
Willow-leaved dock
California blackbe
Himala an blackbe
Arro 0 willow
Red willow
Nettle
Rabbitsfoot rass
Dou las' false-willow
Scientific Name
Planta 0 ma'or
Mentha x i erita
Mentha s icala var. s icata
Scir us microca us
Sdr us robuslus
Rori a nasturtium a uatica
Rumex salid olius
Rubus ursinus
Rubus discolor
Salix lasiole is
Salfx laevi ala
Urtica dioica
Pol 0 on mons eliensis
Baccharis dou lasii
Wetland Indicator Status
FACW
OBL
OBL
OBL
OBL
OBL
OBL
FACW
FACW
FACW
NOL
FACW
FACW
OBL
D. RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONSIDERATIONS FOR THE MASTER PLAN
The following recommendations are made for consideration in preparing and implementing the Master
Plan:
L The project will likely be subject to permits from the USACE, the RWQCB and CDFG. Existing
conditions will need to be clearly documented for these permits.
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.,
bullfrog), 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
VllI-l
VIII. REFERENCES
A. LITERATURE CITED
Almaden Valley Bird News. October 11,2005 {http://home.att.net/-redknot/archive2004.htm1}
Amphibian and Reptile Species of Special Concern in California, Foothill YeHow-1egged Frog. California
Department of Fish and Game, 1994.
Bettelheim, Matthew Poo 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 of Fish 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. 1., 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 Iineatus). The Birds of North America Online (A.
Poole, Ed.). Ithaca: Cornell Laboratory of Ornithology; Retrieved from The Birds of North
American Online database: http://bna.birds.comel1.edu/BNA/account/Red-shou1dered Hawk!
Department of Defense, Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers F inal Notice of Issuance and
Modification of Nationwide Permits. Federal Register. March 9,2000 (Volume 65, Number 47)
pages 12817 to 12899.
Dunk, J. R. 1995. White-tailed Kite (Etanus 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
VIlI-2
Ehrlich, P.R., D.S. Dobkin, and D. Wheye. 1988. The Birders Handbook: afield guide to the natural
history a/North American birds. Simon & Schuster Inc., New York, New York
GlobeXplorer. 2002. http://www.globexplorer.com/. Image Date. October 1,2002.
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 Homed 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-I 900 Overharvest of California red-legged frogs (Rana aurora
draytonii): The inducement for bullfrog (Rana catesbeiana) introduction. Herpetologica 41(1):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 StudylEnvironmental Assessment for the Stevens Creek
Trail and Wildlife Corridor 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 of the 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:/fbna.birds.comell.eduIBNA/account/Barn Owl/
Ministry of Sustainable Resource Management. 200 I. 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 II, 2005
{http://www .stanford.edu/~kendricfbirds/SCLists/SCdiscu04.html}
Biotic Reports for the Stevens Creek Corridor Master Plan
Thomas Reid Associates
January 2006
References
VI/l-3
Santa Clara Valley Water District. May 17,2002. Best Management Practices Under the Stream
Maintenance Program. October 7, 2005. {http://www.valleywater.org/WaterlTechnical_
Information/T echnical_ Reports/Reports/SMP _ BMP _051702. 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, O. and Todd Keeler-Wolf. 1995. A Manual of California Vegetation. California Native
Plant Society, Sacramento, CA.
Sawyer, John O. 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 ofa 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.B., R.N. Fisher, and S.E. Stanley. 1993. Status report: the California tiger salamander
(Ambystoma 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 to 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 Cupertino, California. TRA, Menlo Park, California;
traenviro.com.
Trulio, L.A., 2001. Assessment of Biological 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 Cali fomi a,
Berkeley. July 5, 2004 {http://mvz.berkeley.edu/index.html}.
U.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 Reports for the Stevens Creek Corridor Master Plan January 2006
Thomas Reid Associates
~.-
References
V11l-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
U.S. 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 L
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 1: 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 Reports for the Stevens Creek Corridor Master Plan
Thomas Reid Associates
January 2006
Appendix A-I
A-l-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 Reports for 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 structure as discussed in Hydrology Section (page 5). Also note
rip-rap present in background that is used to stabilize banks. (October 2004).
Biotic Reports for the Stevens Creek Corridor Master Plan
Thomas Reid Associates
January 2006
Appendix A-I
A-I-3
Photo 5. Stocklemeir property. (December 2004)
Photo 6. Open field at McClellan Ranch. (December 2004)
Biotic Reportsfor the Stevens Creek Corridor Master Plan
Thomas Reid Associates
January 2006
Appendix B
Appendix B.
1. 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 homed 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 Reports for the Stevens Creek Corridor Master Plan
Thomas Reid Associates
January 2006
Appendix C
C-l
Appendix C. Data Sheets.
Biotic Reports for the Stevens Creek Corridor Master Plan
Thomas Reid Associates
January 2006
Stevens Creek Corridor Park Master Plan and Restoration Plan IS
APPENDIX C
CULTURAL RESOURCE ASSESSMENT, STEVENS CREEK
CORRIDOR MASTER PLAN, BASIN RESEARCH ASSOCIATES
~ASIN
RESEARCH
ASSOCIATES
February 27,2006
'933 DAVIS STREET
SUITE. 210
SAN LEANDRO, CA 94Sn
VOICE (510) 430-""
FAJt(SJO) 430-8443
Ms. Christine Schneider
Thomas Reid Associates
545 Middlefield Road, Suite 200
Menlo Park, CA 94025-3472
RE: Cultural Resources Assessment Including Results of Presence/Absence
Archaeological Testing - Revised
Stevens Creek Corridor Master Plan, City of Cupertino, Santa Clara County
Dear Ms. Schneider,
Please let this letter stand as Basin Research Associates' Cultural Resources Assessment Report
for the above project located along a portion of Stevens Creek in the City of Cupertino, Santa
Clara County. This report seeks to fulfill the various mandates of the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA)1 and other cultural resources and planning directives of the Cities of
Cupertino. The report provides the results of an archival records search, reviews pertinent
literature discusses the results of a field inventory of the project area and focused
presence/absence archaeological testing at one prehistoric archaeological site, and presents
management recommendations.
PROJECT LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION
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 (T 7S, R 2W,
Unsectioned [part Sections 15 and 22], United States Geological Survey [hereafter USGS],
1. CEQA requires a Lead Agency to determine if a project will have a significant effect on the environment and to
assess possible impacts. In terms of cultural resources, a project is considered to have a significant effect if it
would disrupt or adversely affect one or more properties of historic or cultural significance to the community
(CEQA Section 21084.1 and CEQA Guidelines).
BASIN RESEARCH ASSOCIATES
2
Cupertino, Calif. 7.5' quadrangle topographic map, 1991; T. Reid 2005) [Figs. 1~2]. The project
will include: [see Fig. 3A-D]]:
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 A I - 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
cross mg.
. 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.
Development of four step pools and seven pool and riffle sequences, planting the west
bank this new channel. This channel uses the existing west bank as the east bank of the
new channel.
. Reach 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.
Picnic Area and Pool Complex Improvements
. Closure and conversion of a 100 day/year, 4,000-person, 1,100 festival-style parking
commercial picnic facility situated on both the east and west banks of the creek.
Reopening of this facility as a 100day/year, 800-person picnic facility consolidated to the
west bank with a 350-vehicle festival-style, permeable 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 picnic
reservation and use of the swimming pool complex.
BASIN RESEARCH ASSOClA TES
3
. Upgrades to this picnic area including new underground utilities, central catering
building, barbecues, removable picnic tables, horseshoe pits, two half courts for
basketball and a sand volleyball court.
. Upgrades to existing pool restrooms to serve both pool and picnic needs - new stalls,
entries and walkways.
. New pool entrance kiosk with walkway to bridge to picnic area. New pool fencing and
paving stones.
. Construction of a 14-foot wide pedestrianlbicycle/light duty vehicle bridge spanning the
creek between the pool and picnic 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 with an all-weather surface for bikes, strollers and walkers.
. Construction of an 8-foot wide pedestrianlbicycle bridge spanning 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 from errant golf balls.
. Demolition and expansion of sidewalk along Stevens Creek Blvd. to serve as Class I trail
into Stocklmeir 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 McClellan 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 accommodates 200 plus
vehicles. Demolition 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
F emando Avenue along the go If course into the park.
. Restriping 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 McClellan Ranch.
BASIN RESEARCH ASSOCIATES
4
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,OOO-gallon cistern to serve golf course and park irrigation
needs.
REGULATORY BACKGROUND
The regulatory framework that mandates consideration of cultural resources in project planning
includes federal, state, and local governments. Cultural resources include prehistoric and historic
archaeological sites, districts, and objects; standing historic structures, buildings, districts, and
objects; and locations of important historic events or sites of traditional and/or cultural
importance to various groups. Cultural resources may be determined significant or potentially
significant in terms of national, state, or local criteria either individually or in combination.
Resource evaluation criteria are determined by the compliance requirements of a specific project.
California Environmental Ouality Act
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires a review to determine if the project
will have a significant effect on archaeological sites or properties of historic or cultural
significance to a community or ethnic group eligible for inclusion in the California Register of
Historic Resources (CRHR). The CRHR (Section 5024.1) is a listing of those properties that are
to be protected from substantial adverse change, and it includes properties that are listed, or have
been formally determined to be eligible for listing in, the NRHP, State Historical Landmarks,
and eligible Points of Historical Interest. A historical resource may be listed in the CRHR if it
meets one or more of the following criteria:
· it is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns
oflocal or regional history, or the cultural heritage of Cali fomi a or the United States;
· it is associated with the lives of persons important to local, California, or national history;
BASIN RESEARCH ASSOCIATES
5
· it embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of
construction, or represents the work of a master or possesses high artistic values; or
· it has yielded or has the potential to yield information important in the prehistory or
history of the local area, California, or the nation.
Historical Resources
Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 21084.1 stipulates that any resource listed in, or eligible
for listing in, the CRHR is presumed to be historically or culturally significant. Resources listed
in a local historic register or deemed significant in a historical resource survey (as provided
under PRC Section 5024.1g) are presumed historically or culturally significant unless the
preponderance of evidence demonstrates they are not. A resource that is not listed in or
determined to be eligible for listing in the CRHR, not included in a local register or historic
resources, or not deemed significant in a historical resource survey may nonetheless be
historically significant (PRC Section 21084.1). This provision is intended to give the Lead
Agency discretion to determine that a resource of historic significance exists where none had
been identified before and to apply the requirements of PRC Section 21084.1 to properties that
have not previously been formally recognized as historic.
CEQA equates a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource with a
significant effect on the environment (PRe Section 21084.1) and defines substantial adverse
change as demolition, destruction, relocation, or alteration that would impair historical
significance (PRC Section 5020.1).
Archaeological Resources
Where a project may adversely affect a unique archaeological resource, PRC Section 21083.2
requires the Lead Agency to treat that effect as a significant environmental effect. When an
archaeological resource is listed in or is eligible to be listed in the CRHR, PRC Section 21084.1
requires that any substantial adverse effect to that resource be considered a significant
environmental effect. PRC Sections 21083.2 and 21084.1 operate independently to ensure that
potential effects on archaeological resources are considered as part of a project's environmental
analysis. Either of these benchmarks may indicate that a project may have a potential adverse
effect on archaeological resources.
Other California Laws and Regulations
Other state-level requirements for cultural resources management appear in the California PRC
Chapter 1.7, Section 5097.5 "Archaeological, Paleontological, and Historical Sites," and Chapter
1.75 beginning at Section 5097.9 "Native American Historical, Cultural, and Sacred Sites" for
lands owned by the state or a state agency.
The disposition of Native American burials is governed by Section 7050.5 of the California
Health and Safety Code and sections 5097.94 and 5097.98 of the PRC, and falls within the
jurisdiction of the NAHC.
BASIN RESEARCH ASSOCIATES
6
City of Cupertino
The Genera) Plan Draft of the City of Cupertino in the Land Use Element has several policies to
protect historically and archaeologically significant structures, sites and artifacts (also see Figure
2-G, Historic Resources in the General Plan). These area:
Policy 2-59: Landmark Rehabilitation. Undertake an active partnership with private
owners of landmark structures to rehabilitate the buildings for public or semi-private
occupancy in order to retain their historic character.
· Strategy: Flexible Standards. Allow flexible interpretation of zoning ordinance
and building code standards not essential to public health and safety. These
could include reduced on-site parking provisions or lesser setback distances.
Policy 2-60 Archaeologically Sensitive Areas. Protect archaeologically sensitive areas.
· Strategy: Development Investigation. Require an investigation for development
proposed in areas likely to be archaeologically sensitive, such as along stream
courses and in oak groves, to determine if significant archaeological resources
may be affected by the project. Also require appropriate mitigation measures in
project design.
Policy 2-61: Native American Burials. Protect Native American burial sites.
· Strategy: Upon discovery of such burials during construction, take action
prescribed by State law, including stoppage of work in surrounding area,
notification of appropriate authorities and reburial of remains in an appropriate
manner.
RESEARCH SOURCES CONSULTED
SOURCES CONSULTED
A prehistoric and historic site record and literature search was conducted by the California
Historical Resources Information System, Northwest Information Center, California State
University Sonoma, Rohnert Park (CHRISINWIC File No. 04-996).2 Reference material from
the Bancroft Library, University of California, Berkeley and Basin Research Associates, San
Leandro was also consulted. 3
2. Dated May 23, 2005.
3. Specialized listings consulted included the Historic Properties Directory for Santa Clara County (CAL/OHP
2005a) with the most recent updates of the National Register of Historic Places; California Historical Landmarks
(CAL/OHP 1990); and, California Points of Historical Interest (CALlOHP 1992); as well as other evaluations of
properties reviewed by the State of California Office of Historic Preservation. Additional sources consulted
include: the California History Plan (CALlOHP 1973); California Inventory of Historic Resources (CAL/OHP
1976); Five Views: An Ethnic Sites Survey for California (CAL/OHP 1988); Archeological Determinations of
Eligibility (CAI/OHP 2005b) and, Historic Civil Engineering Landmarks of San Francisco and Northern
BASIN RESEARCH ASSOCIATES
7
AGENCIES, GROUPS AND INDIVIDUALS CONSUL TED
The Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) was contacted in regard to resources listed
on the Sacred Lands Inventory (Busby 2005). The review was negative (Pilas- Treadway 2005).
Ms. Vera Gill, Community Development Department, Planning Division, (408) 777-3308,
personal communication 5/25/05) was contacted regarding City of Cupertino historic
properties/cultural ordinances and lists of landmarks, potential cultural resources, historic
properties, etc. The City has no preservation ordinance. Figure 2G in the 2005 City of
Cupertino Draft General Plan provides a listing of Historic Sites and their approximate locations.
Mrs. Barbara Banfield, Staff Naturalist, Santa Clara Valley Audubon Society (SCV AS)4 at
McClellan Ranch (22221 McClellan Road) provided Mr. Christopher Canzonieri, Basin
Research Associates' archaeologist with a brief tour of Blackberry Farm (21975 San Fernando
Avenue) to show him several prehistoric stone bowl-like objects embedded within walls at the
farm. She also noted that the original creek may have meandered through the Blackberry Farm
parking lot on San Fernando Avenue.
No local historical societies were contacted regarding a review of local landmarks, potential
historic sites or structures.
SUMMARY CONTEXT
NATIVE AMERICAN
Prehistoric
The project area is within the watershed of Stevens Creek (also known as Cupertino Creek) with
Calabazas, Stevens, and Permenente creeks the principal drainage channels in the study area.
Permanente Creek is located about 1.25 miles west of the project, Regnart Creek is about 1.25
miles east of the project, and Calabazas Creek is located approximately 2.25 miles east of the
project. The area would have provided a favorable environment during the prehistoric period
with riparian, bay and inland resources available to the aboriginal population either in the area or
within a short distance.
Native American occupation and use of the general area appears to extend over 5000-7000 years
and may be longer. Sites appear to have been selected for accessibility, protection from seasonal
flooding, and the availability of resources. Watercourses and associated small basins and other
slight topographic depressions were foci of prehistoric occupation. Native American groups
exploited a variety of ecological niches on the low grasslands of the alluvial plain dotted with
spring-fed marshes and basins and the adjacent foothills. Archaeological information suggests
an increase in the prehistoric population over time with an increasing focus on permanent
California (American Society of Civil Engineers 1977) and other local and regional surveys/inventories, lists,
and ephemera (see REFERENCES CITED AND CONSUL TED).
4. McClellan Ranch, Santa Clara Audubon Society, 22221 McClellan Road, Cupertino, CA 95014; (408) 252-
3747; scvas@scvas.org
BASIN RESEARCH ASSOCIATES
8
settlements with large populations in later periods. This change from hunter-collectors to an
increased sedentary lifestyle is due to more efficient resource procurement but with a focus on
staple food exploitation, the increased ability to store food at village locations, and the
development of increasing complex social and political systems including long-distance trade
networks. General overviews and perspectives on the regional prehistory including
chronological sequences can be found in C. King (1978a), Moratto (1984), Elsasser (1978, 1986)
and, Allen et al. (1999).
ETHNOGRAPHIC
The aboriginal inhabitants of the Santa Clara Valley belonged to a group known as the
"Costanoanl1, derived from the Spanish word Costanos (l1coast people" or "coastal dwellers")
who occupied the central California coast as far east as the Diablo Range. The descendants of
these Native Americans now prefer to be called Ohlone (Galvan 1967/1968; Margolin 1978). In
1770 the Costanoan lived in approximately 50 separate and politically autonomous tribe lets with
each group having one or more permanent villages surrounded by a number of temporary camps.
Physiographic features usually defined the territory of each group which generally supported a
population of approximately 200 persons with a range of between 50-500 individuals (Kroeber
1925:462; Levy 1978:485,487; Hart 1987:112-113).
Tribelet boundaries and village locations are inexact due to incomplete historic records; and they
remain a subject of anthropological contention and debate. The project area is within the
territory of the Tamyen (Tamien) tribelet of the Costanoan Indians (alternatively the Ohlone).
The closest Tamien village and/or village/region have been identified as San Jose Cupertino
(Kroeber 1925:465, Fig. 42; Levy 1978:485, Fig. 1, #11; Milliken 1995:229, Map 5; 2565 King
1994:205, Fig. 7).6 Milliken (1995 :250) places the village of Partacsi, tribe unknown, in the
Saratoga gap area in the mountains and valleys of upper Pescadero Creek; Stevens Creek, and
Saratoga Creek watersheds.
No major prehistoric/protohistoric trails have been identified in or near the project. However, it
is likely that a trail ran along Stevens Creek; an inferred trail has been mapped along Los Gatos
Creek about 4.5 miles east of the project (Elsasser 1986:48, Table 4, #1; Figure 10).
Historic accounts of the distribution of these Costanoan tribe lets and villages in the 1770s-1790s
and the results of archaeological efforts in the area suggest that a number of tribelets may have
had temporary camps within the vicinity of the project area throughout the prehistoric period and
into the Hispanic period. The Costanoan aboriginal ]jfeway apparently disappeared by 1810 due
5. Milliken places the Tamien along the Guadalupe River from Agnews to the Downtown San Jose and the flat
lands westward from the Guadalupe to present-day Cupertino on upper Stevens Creek and does not refer to San
Jose Cupertino.
6. King (l978b:437-438, Fig. 54) refers to the San Jose Cupertino tribelet and the village of Ritocsi in the general
area. In contrast, Milliken (l995:252) places the Ritocsi in the upper drainage of the Guadalupe River and
central part of Coyote Creek from downtown San Jose south to New Almaden. Hylkema (1995:35-36, Map 6)
refers to the district of San Jose Cupertino in the Saratoga and Cupertino and the "people of Werwersen"
including the village of Ritocsi.
BASIN RESEARCH ASSOCIATES
9
the introduction of European diseases, a declining birth rate, and the impact of the mission
system. The Costanoan were transformed from hunters and gatherers into agricultural laborers
(and in some cases, craft artisans) who lived at the missions and worked with former neighboring
groups such as the Esselen, Yokuts, and Miwok (Levy 1978:486).
For a more extensive review of Santa Clara Valley Native Americans see Kroeber (1925:462-
473), Harrington (1942), Galvan (1967/1968), King and Hickman (1973), C. King (1974,
1978b), Levy (1978), Bean (1994), and Milliken (1995).
HISTORIC ERA RESOURCES
HISPANIC PERIOD
The Spanish philosophy of government in northwestern New Spain was directed at the founding
of presidios, missions, and secular towns with the land held by the Crown (1769-1821) while the
later Mexican policy stressed individual ownership of the land (Findlay 1980). During the
Mexican Period (1822-1846/1848) vast tracts of land were granted to individuals (Hart 1987).
Between 1769 and 1776 a number of Spanish expeditions passed through Costanoan territory,
including those led by Portola, Fages, Fages and Crespi, Anza, Rivera, and Moraga (Beck and
Haase 1974:# 17, 20-21; Levy 1978:486). In particular, Portola-Crespi in 1769; Fernando Javier
y Moncada Rivera and Father Francisco Palou in 1774, Bruno de Hezeta-Palou in 1775, and
Anza and Font in 1776 passed through the general project area (James and McMurry 1933:btwn
12-13; Rambo and Stocklmeir ca. 1971-1972:60; Beck and Haase 1974:#17).
The favorable reports of Anza and Font led to the establishment of both Mission Santa Clara and
the Pueblo de San Jose in 1777. Mission Santa Clara de Asis founded on January 12, 1777, the
eighth of the 21 missions in California would have been the mission with the greatest impact on
the aboriginal population living in the project vicinity (Hart 1987:324; Spearman 1963:15).
Locations were selected with the purpose of conducting expeditions against hostile Indians as
well as a place to convert them (James and McMurry 1933:8; Beck and Haase 1974:#16-17, 19;
Levy 1978:486; Hart 1987:322-324,489-490).
During the Mexican Period (1822 to 1846/1848) and into the American Period, the area within
the project on the west side of Stevens Creek was within the Rancho San Antonio, granted by
Governor Juan B. Alvarado to Prado Mesa on March 24, 1839 and patented to William A. Dana,
Hendry F. Dana and James W. Weeks on December 18, 1857 for 3,541.90 acres. The closest
rancho features such as dwellings, corrals, roads etc. were located in the northern part of the
rancho which was patented to Encarnacio Mesa et al. on August 6, 1866 for 898.41 acres. None
of the features were within the projece (Tracy 1857a-b; Hendry and Bowman 1940:895-897;
Hoover et al. 1966:437; USGS Cupertino, Calif. 1980).
7. Note: The ]857 Tracy rancho plats show American Period features: "Capt Steven's House" or "Stevens," two
fields, and a road on the west side of Cupertino Creek (Stevens Creek; Tracy ]857a-b). He was captain of
wagon train 1844 Townsend-Stephens-Murphy Party (Loomis ]985:87). The Murphy-Shallenberger-
Greenwood-Townsend party in Rambo and Stocklmeir (ca. ]97]-]972:64).
BASIN RESEARCH ASSOCIATES
10
AMERICAN PERIOD
In the mid-19th century, the majority of the rancho and pueblo lands and some of the ungranted
land in California were subdivided as the result of population growth, the American takeover,
and the confirmation of property titles. Growth can be attributed to the Gold Rush (1848),
followed by the completion of the transcontinental railroad (1869) and local railroads. Sti1l1ater,
the development of the refrigerator railroad car (ca. 1880s) used for the transport of agricultural
produce to distant markets, had a major impact on the Santa Clara Valley. During the later
American Period and into the Contemporary Period (ca. 1876-1940s), fruit production became a
major industry. This predominance of fruit production/processing held steady until after World
War II.
Within the Santa Clara Valley, the City of San Jose served as a County seat, a primary service as
well as financial and social center. Most of the institutions for higher education and the citizen
elite resided in San Jose or its twin, the city of Santa Clara. This agrarian land-use pattern with
the former "chief city" of the City of San Jose and isolated "settlement clusters" located at
crossroads with services (e.g., Cupertino, Evergreen, Gubserville, Coyote, and Milpitas) has been
gradually displaced by residential housing, commercial centers, and the development of research
and development and manufacturing associated with the electronics industry leading to the
designation ofthe general region as the "Silicon Valley" (Broek 1932:76-83; Hart 1987).
Project Area
Reportedly Elisha Stephens (Stevens) arrived in the project study area in the 1840s; documents
indicate his presence in 1852. He settled on what was known as Cupertino Creek and later as
Stevens Creek. Between 1850-1880, Stevens Creek Road was the principal road from Stevens
Creek and the west side of the Santa Clara Valley to the City of San Jose.
Although viticulture was introduced early in the area by Elisha Stevens, the project area was
generally characterized by mostly huge ranches in the 1870s. In the early 1880s, the area was
almost entirely planted with grain, vineyards, and some prunes. As a result of the vines planted
between 1880-1885, the area became dependent on viticulture between 1880-1890 and even after
the infestation and destruction of vines by the phylloxera parasite between 1895-1900.
Viticulture along with mixed agriculture and horticulture was important until the introduction of
prohibition (1920-1933).
The name "Cupertino" was used by 10hn T. Doyle, owner of 321 acres in 18808 for the
Cupertino Wine Company located near present-day McClellan Road and Foothill Boulevard in
the vicinity Stevens Creek.9 A post office was established in May 1882 at "Cupertino" on
McClellan Road, discontinued in June 1894, and re-established in July 1900. Meanwhile a store
8. 1882 (Rambo and Stocklmeir ca. 1971-1972:64).
9. By 1888 he built a second winery near the first, "Las Palmas Winery." He was noted for his modem, automated
facility and prize winning vintages until the 1906 earthquake. He died later in 1906; his family sold the
vineyards to developers in 1912 (Sullivan 1982:50-51).
BASIN RESEARCH ASSOCIATES
11
at "Westside", about 1.75 mile east of the project at the "Crossroads" or "Comers", the
intersection at present-day Stevens Creek and DeAnza Boulevards (former Saratoga Sunnyvale
Road), provided postal services from July 1892 until July 1900. In 1896, "West Side" was the
service center of what was to become Cupertino. West Side had a general merchandise store,
town hall, church, blacksmith shop, a post office, a cooper and a telephone office. In July 1900,
the post office moved to and its name was changed to "Cupertino." By 1904, the name
"Cupertino" was applied to The CrossroadsrWest Side" as well as the post office.
In early 1907, the interurban Peninsular Railroad opened its Cupertino branch between the City
of San Jose and Monta Vista [sic] which ran along San Carlos Street and Stevens Creek Road.
Later in March 1910, a high-speed double-track line ran along from Stevens Creek Road from
Monta Vista Junction to Meridian Comers (Stevens Creek Road and Saratoga Avenue).
Between 1912-1914, a local real estate boom centered at Monta Vista, an unincorporated
development bounded on the east side by Bryne Avenue west of the project on the Southern
Pacific rail line constructed in 1906. At the time, Monte Vista was a mile west of Cupertino and
considered to be ". . . little more than a station on the Peninsular Railway." Cupertino was
incorporated in October 1955; at the time the city consisted of 3.76 square miles (San Jose
Mercury 1896:133; USGS 1899 [surveyed 1895]; Hoover et al. 1966:459; Sawyer 1922:305
[quote]; Baltzer 1969 [1887 map]; McCaleb 1969:55, 58, 71; Rambo and Stocklmeir ca. 1971-
1972:66-69; McArthur and Fuller 1975:3,56,135; Stocklmeir 1975:120-127; Sullivan 1982:47,
50-53; Rambo 1984:101, 190; Patera 1991:51,230; Walker 1994:Map CA-13; Laffey 1996:1/S-
18893).
Project Specific Historic Map Review
Captain Elisha Stephens reportedly settled on Cupertino Creek in 1849 or 1850. He did not own
the property initially as indicated by his 1852-1852 assessment for improvements only (Laffey
1996: 1/S-18893 [specific location of improvements not stated]).
Tracy's 1857 Plat of San Antonio Rancho showing [sic] the part finally confirmed to Wm A.
Dana et at. shows a number of features adjacent to the west bank of Cupertino Creek: a "Field" in
the vicinity of present-day Stocklmeir Court; and, a "Road" on the north side of a "Field" in the
present-day Scenic Circle area with "Capt Steven's Housell [a square] just southwest of Scenic
Circle, opposite present-day McClellan Ranch Park. The road noted on the plat would have
crossed the creek (Tracy 1857b). 10
No documents discussing Stephens in regard to the east side of Stevens Creek are known.
However, Stephens was assessed for improvements in 1862 on a 160-acre parcel bounded on the
south by McClellan. This property may possibly refer to a quarter section on the east bank of the
creek without clear title. Alternatively, this assessment could also refer to his house (property)
on the opposite, west bank of the creek (e.g., Tracy 1875a-b plats; Laffey 1996:1-4, Fig. 3/S-
18893).
10. The Plat of Sail Antonio Rancho finally confirmed to the Heirs of Prado Mesa showing the part not confirmed to
Wm A. Dana et al. is similar and shows and labels "Cupertino Creek" and "Steven's" and shows, but does not
label, the fields and road (Tracy 1857a).
BASIN RESEARCH ASSOCIATES
12
Property ownership, circa 1857-1881 within the project alignment as mapped by Laffey (1996: 1-
4, 8, Figs. 3, 5/S-18893) includes: west side [small part east side within former rancho] 155.57
acres from J. Clark to E. Stephen's and then E. Stephens to W.T. McClellan on the west side of
Stevens Creek Road (Boulevard) to just south of present-day Scenic Circle in about 1864? (date
approximate); 580.65 acres from Dana to J. Clarke; east side: 160 acres U.S. (United States) to
G. McCauley from Stevens Creek Road to? (unnamed road; includes parts of Sections 14-15 and
22-23 of T 7S R 2W; 160 acres U.S. to Wallace McClellan; and 15 acres including the present-
day McClellan Ranchll from William T. and Eveline E. McClellan to Joseph McClellan).
Healey's 1866 Official Map of the County of Santa Clara is more schematic and shows a
structure labeled llStephens" (e.g., Stevens) on the west bank of Cupertino Creek (Stevens Creek)
opposite Stevens Creek Road (unlabeled) opposite the creek.
The 1866 Government Land Office survey plat for Township 7 South Range 2 West (T 7S R 2W
MDM&B) includes a "House", presumably the former Stephens house,12 with a "Field" adjacent
on the west side of "Cupertino Creek" in the NE 1/4 of Section 22 (within former Rancho San
Antonio). A "Road from [incompleteJ" is shown crossing the creek to the house and away from
the field. In addition, a much larger "Field" is shown mostly north of the project on the east side
of Stevens Creek from about present-day Stevens Creek Boulevard north to about the north end
of Florence Drive (along N 1/2 of 14-15 Section line). A very small portion ofthe field is shown
south of present-day Stevens Creek Boulevard adjacent to the east side of the creek in the
project. In addition, other roads are shown on the plat and include a "Road from Blackberry to
Saratoga" and "Saratoga to Santa Clara" east of the project.
Thompson and West's 1876 Historical Atlas of Santa Clara Countyl3 shows "Stevens Creek
Road" (present-day Stevens Creek Boulevard). The project area on the west side of "Stevens
Creek or Cupertino Creekl" from north-to-south was within a 90-acre parcel with a building near
the creek owned by L. Moore, a 60-acre parcel owned by W.T. McClelan [sic]; and part ofa 35-
acre parcel owned by L. Seelinger whose building(s) was located south of the project boundary.
The east side of the creek in the project had a 70-acre "N. Hayes Blackberry Farm" parcel with
three building about midway near the creek and a small parcel with a building owned by
"F.W.W." (Thompson and West 1876:33).
By 1885, as shown on Barinard's 1885 Map of Cupertino, "Cupertino" included both sides of
Cupertino Creek (Stevens Creek) slightly north McClellan Road which had been extended and
11. And also the adjacent 26 acres on south side of McClellan Road.
12. Capt. Elisha Stephens [sic) homesteaded 160-acres which he called "Blackberry Farm" in 1848 near/along
present-day Stevens Creek. "His first cabin was too close to the creek and was swept owtO' in a winter flood.
The second cabin on higher ground." He moved to what is now Bakersfield in 1864 (Pace 1975:19, #2; Loomis
1985:87).
13. This map is very problematic. The creek configuration differs substantially and section lines used as points of
reference result in Stevens Creek being located mostly west of the present-day alignment of the creek.
BASIN RESEARCH ASSOCIATES
13
now crossed the creek.14 This map shows "IT. Doyle 150 A [acresJ [LasJ Palmas" near and
adjacent to the west side of Cupertino Creek (Stevens Creek) from Stevens Creek Road
(Boulevard) and McClellan road with the northernmost bend in the creek occupied by a small 3-
acre parcel owned by "J.D.W.". The east side included a 55-acre parcel owned by G.J. Byrne'5
[Blackberry farm in 1876J which terminated at the point where McClellan Road proceeds
south/southeasterly. J.T. Doyle owned the parcel between the creek and McClellan Road and
McClellan owned a 13-acre parcel [now part of McClellan Ranch Park]. Three buildings are
shown on both sides of the creek: one is in the project on the west side of the creek in the vicinity
of Scenic Circle16 and two within a J.T. Doyle parcel on the east side of the creek are
approximately opposite Monta Vista High School [Note: both are outside of the project, west of
present-day Linda Vista Drive if it was extended north across McClellan Road].
The 1899 USGS topographic map shows only the isolated "West Side", at The Crossroads (or
The Corners"), about 1.75 miles east of the project at the intersection at present-day Stevens
Creek and DeAnza boulevards (former Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road). In contrast, the 1943 US
War Department topographic map shows "Cupertino" in this location and "Monta Vista" just east
of the project on either side of the Southern Pacific Railroad tracks and Stevens Road (present-
day Stevens Creek Boulevard). Both "Cupertino" and !1Monta Vista" appear on revised USGS
topographic maps (USGS 1973, 1980,1991; US War Dept 1943 [photography 1937, 1940]). By
1973, the study area was subject to subdivision and development as part of the general pattern of
growth throughout the Santa Clara Valley. Between 1973 and 1980, streets east of Scenic
Boulevard were constructed including Stocklmeir Court, Dean Court, Adelheid Court, and
Scenic Circle.
ARCHAEOLOGICAL FIELD INVENTORIES
PRIOR FIELD RESEARCH
Previous archaeological fieldwork included a survey of portions of the project as part of the
Kaiser Cement Property (Holman 1988/S-10471) and the Summer Dams Project (Cartier et al.
1994a1S-16730). Both surveys were negative.
CURRENT FIELD INVENTORY
An archaeological field inventory of selected areas within the project area was completed by
Basin Research Associates' archaeologist Mr. Christopher Cauzonieri (M.A.) on May 4, 2005.
The inventory focused on the proposed route of the bicycle and pedestrian trail [see Fig. 3J and
did not cover the developed areas of the project - these areas included the existing golf course,
picnic and maintenance areas, the developed area on the north fronting on Stevens Creek
14. This map shows considerable change in the alignment of the creek from Stevens Creek Boulevard to about
Alcazar Avenue.
15. Present-day Byrne Avenue runs along the east parcel boundary.
16. In the generallocation of the "eapt Steven's House" as shown on the 1857 Tracy rancho plats.
BASIN RESEARCH ASSOCIATES
14
Boulevard, the developed areas of the McClellan Ranch at the south end and areas covered with
introduced landscaping (e.g., lawn areas). The pedestrian survey relied on random transects
spaced at intervals of 3-5 meters within an alignment along both banks Stevens Creek. Surface
visibility along the Stevens Creek alignment varied from zero to 100 percent due to the concrete
lined creek in the area parallel to the Blackberry Farm Golf course holes 8-9; the presence of
steep slopes, dense vegetation, areas of poison oak or berry bushes (thorns) including McClellan
Ranch north to the property line for Blackberry Farms (Pine Grove Picnic Site) and the Hillside
Picnic Area north to the orange grove located on the west side of the creek. Very little
vegetation was present within the Blackberry farms picnic sites.
Mr. Canzonieri also attempted to relocate previously recorded prehistoric site CA-SCI-715. The
recorded location and immediate vicinity were carefully walked using 3-5 meter transects from
north to south. Surface visibility was approximately 90 percent. No midden (culturally affected
soil) or other definitive indicators (e.g., artifacts, bone, etc.) of prehistoric activity were
observed. Numerous fragments of granite, chert, sandstone, and serpentine were noted
throughout the orchard, but none appeared to be culturally modified. Several small fresh water
clamshells and one small metacarpal fragment from a deer (Odocoileus Sp.)17 were also
observed.
Mrs. Barbara Banfield, Staff Naturalist of the Santa Clara Valley Audubon Society (SCV AS)18 at
McClellan Ranch (22221 McClellan Road) brought Mr. Canzonieri's attention to several stone
"bowl-like" objects within a wall at Blackberry Farm (21975 San Fernando Avenue). She also
noted that the original creek alignment may have meandered through the Blackberry Farm
parking lotl9 on San Fernando Avenue. Mr. CallZonieri observed and photographed two
indurated sandstone bowl mortars and two cupules embedded in two walls at Blackberry Farm: a
mortar and cupule within the low wall/border in front of the Retreat Center building and another
mortar and cupule within the low wall around the building. According to Mrs. Banfield, the
walls were constructed in the 1950's with stone gathered from nearby Stevens Creek.
No other prehistoric or significant historic era archaeological materials were observed during the
field inventory completed by Mr. Canzonieri.
PRESENCE/ABSENCE TESTING - CA-SCI-715
Mechanically assisted presence/absence testing was undertaken within the mapped site boundary
of CA-SCI-715 [see Figs. 4-6]. The testing program was undertaken to determine if significant
subsurface archaeological resources were present or absent within or adjacent to the recorded site
boundaries. The Basin Research Associates' field team consisted of Christopher Canzonieri,
M.A. (Archaeologist & Physical Anthropologist) and Stuart Guedon, M.A. {Historical
17. A number of the rocks as well as the deer bone exhibited postmortem damage, likely the result of disking.
18. McClellan Ranch, Santa Clara Audubon Society, 22221 McClellan Road, Cupertino, CA 95014; (408) 252-
3747; scvas@scvas.org
19. presumably the "Horseshoe Bend" lot west of the Office and Retreat Center on San Fernando Avenue
BASIN RESEARCH ASSOCIATES
15
Geographer & Archaeologist).
Prior to testing, Mr. Canzonieri and Mr. Guedon field located 12 Backhoe Test Units (BTUs) in
consultation with and the approval of Dr. Colin I. Busby, Basin Research Associates' Principal
Archaeologist. The units were generally located between the future trail and proposed stream
channel. Units were sited to minimize damage. Excavation used a rubber-tired backhoe fitted
with a 24-inch wide-toothed bucket.
The mean length of the BTUs was 2.87 meters (9.42 feet); the mean width was 0.74 meters (2.42
feet); and mean depth was 2.37 meters (7.78 feet) below current ground surface. BTU depths
ranged from 1.83-3.60 meters (6.0-11.80 feet) below present ground surface. The spoil and
trench profiles were visually inspected by the archaeological team to check for the
presence/absence of cultural resources. Ten shovel samples recovered from each observed
stratum in each BTU were screened through 1I4th inch mesh to determine the presence/absence
of cultural constituents. Standard archaeological recordation, including a written description,
sediment profile, and photographs, were completed for each unit; soil/charcoal samples were also
collected from selected units. All BTUs were backfilled and wheel-rolled.
FINDINGS
The intent of this assessment is to identify historic properties which may be listed, determined or
potentially eligible for inclusion on the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHRt
within the project that may be affected by the proposed construction.
RECORDS SEARCH RESULTS
One prehistoric site, CA-SCI-715 (P-43-000633)21 has been recorded adjacent to the west bank
of Stevens Creek within an area proposed for improvement. This site has been described as a
1000 x 300 meter "low-visibility earth midden with few surface materials" - one Franciscan chert
flake, a sandstone hammers tone, a few shell fragments, fire-cracked rock and a piece of burned
bone (Bocek 19911form).
20. A historical resource may be listed in the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR) if it meets one or
more of the following criteria: "(1) it is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the
broad patterns of local or regional history, or the cultural heritage of California or the United States; (2) it is
associated with the lives of persons important to local, California or national history; (3) it embodies the
distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represents the work of a master
or possesses high artistic values; or (4) it has yielded or has the potential to yield information important in the
prehistory or history of the local area, California or the nation." Automatic listings include properties listed in
the National Register of Historic Places, determined eligible for the National Register either by the Keeper of the
National Register or through a consensus determination on a project review, or State Historical Landmarks from
number 770 onward. In addition Points of Interest nominated from January 1998 onward will be jointly listed as
Points and in the California Register. Landmarks prior to 770 and Points of Historical Interest may be listed
through an action of the State Historical Resources Commission (CAL/OHP ca. 1999, 2001a-c).
21. Trinomial (Primary Number) assigned by the CHRISINWIC.
BASIN RESEARCH ASSOCIATES
16
Cartier et al. (1994a) placed six auger bores ranging between 20 cm to 130 cm deep at CA-SCl-
715. "No intact subsurface deposits" were encountered - a single fragment of charcoal was
found in two auger units (Units 2 and 6) and "traces of historic subsurface cultural material
including one small window glass shard" were found in another (Unit 6). No additional
information is available. The site has not been evaluation for inclusion on the California
Register of Historical Resources.
No historic era sites have been recorded or reported in or adjacent to the project. One Historic
Era site, "Blackberry Farm Site" has been informally noted on the CHRIS/NWIC USGS
Cupertino, Calif. topographic map.
Four cultural resources compliance reports on file with the CHRIS/NWIC (File No. 04-996)
include the project and/or area a~acent to the project. Cupertino: Potential Cultural Resources,
Ordinance. and Sensitivity Map 2 {Cartier et al. 1980/S-8403)23 includes the entire city. An
Archaeological Inspection of the Kaiser Cement Property, Cupertino, Santa Clara County,
California (Holman 1988/S-10471) appears to include portions of the project and was negative
for cultural resources in the project. The Cultural Resources Evaluation for the Summer Dams
Project (Cartier et al. 1994aJS-16730)24 includes part of the current project area within "Stevens
Creek Location #1." The archaeological survey of this area was negative. The McClellan Ranch
Park Needs Assessment Project: McClellan Ranch Park Site Specific Survey (Laffey 1996/S-
18893) includes historic background for Elisha Stephens, William T. McClellan, Joseph
McClellan, 20th Century Ownership; building chronologies for the McClellan Ranch House,
McClellan Milk House, Parrish Tank House and McClellan Barn; and, various Historic
Resources Inventory Forms.
NATIVE AMERICAN RESOURCES
No known ethnographic or contemporary Native American resources, including villages, known
trails, sacred places, traditional or contemporary use areas, have been identified in or adjacent to
the project.
HISTORIC PERIOD RESOURCES (not including Listed Historic Properties)
Hispanic Era
No Hispanic Era sites including the Anza Juan Bautista de Anza National Historic Trail [1776J
or rancho dwellings and/or features have been identified in or adjacent to the project as a result
of research conducted for this report.
22. Map not attached to report.
23. S-# assigned by the CHRIS/NWIC.
24. Note the Addendum for the Summer Dams Project (Cartier et al. 1 994b/S-l 673 1 ) includes a map of Stevens
Creek Location # I in the project, but only information about the project locations deleted from the earlier report
(Cartier et al. 1994aJS-16 73 0).
BASIN RESEARCH ASSOCIATES
17
American Period
No Historic Era archaeological resources have been formally recorded or reported in or adjacent
to the project. One historic era site, "Blackberry Farm Site" has been informally recorded in
the project by the CHRIS/NWIC.
LISTED HISTORIC PROPERTIES
No California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR) or National Register of Historic Places
(NRHP) listed historic properties have been identified in or immediately adjacent to the proposed
project area. One California Point of interest is present and five properties within or adjacent to
the project are listed either on various Santa Clara County Heritage Resource lnventory(ies}
and/or are identified as City of Cupertino Historic Sites.
One California Point of Interest, Blackberry Farm, is within the project area. Blackberry
Farm, Elisha Stephen's Homestead, Louis Stocklmeir Home, "Doyle Winery Site
(foundation only)" and McClellan Ranch Park (including Baer's Blacksmith Shop replica and
the Parrish tank house) have been listed on various Santa Clara County Inventories (1975 and
1979) and/or identified as potential City of Historic Sites in 1980 (Cartier et al. 1980/S-8403)
and in the 2005 City of Cupertino Draft General Plan (see Fig. 2G in Draft General Plan).
Blackberry Farm,25 Stevens Creek Road (located between Stevens Creek Road and
McClelland Boulevard with access to the former resort via San Fernando Avenue) has
been a California Point of Interest since 1975 (CALlOHP 1992:66, #SCL-037) and is on
the California Inventory of Historic Resources under the Theme Exploration/Settlement.
The latter states: The area is the site of the former homestead and farm of Captain Elisha
Stephens, a noted wagon train guide who settled in this area in 1848 (CALlOHP
1976: 126, 265). The Historic Properties Directory lists Blackberry Farm as code 7L, that
is "State Historical Landmarks 1-769 and Points of Historical Interest designated prior to
January 1998 - Needs to be reevaluated using current standards" (CALlOHP 2003, 2005a).
Site of Elisha Stephen's Homestead, 2621975 San Fernando Street, Monta Vista (sic; east
side of Stevens CreekJ and Blackberry Farm, 22100 Stevens Creek Boulevard, are listed
25. In 1953, Blackberry Farm was purchased by N.S. Nelson and Albert Nelson, two brothers from Sweden who
expanded the resort including replacing the orchard between Stevens Creek and the resort proper with a 9-hole
golf course. The family sold the facility to the City of Cupertino in 1991. The resort, located south of the golf
course on the east bank of the creek, includes picnic sites with barbecues, two swimming pools, softball,
basketball, volleyball, horseshoe pit, playground, snack bar/concession house, office, and retreat center
(Blackberry Farm 2005).
26. This was the homestead of Captain Elisha Stephens, who guided the Martin Murphy-Townsend party from
Council Bluffs to Sutter's Fort in 1844. It was the first covered wagon train to cross the Sierras. Near the
present Steven's Creek he homesteaded 160 acres in 1848. He called his homestead Blackberry farm. He left
the area in 1864 and moved to the area that is now Bakersfield. A resort hotel was built on the property and it
stood until the 1906 earthquake." (Pace 1975;19, #2). The latter entry for Blackberry Farm states: This picnic
ground and golf course (Blackberry Recreation Center, Inc.) was developed in 1953 on the site of Captain
Elisha Stephens (Stevens) homestead." (Pace 1975:19, #11).
BASIN RESEARCH ASSOCIATES
18
in the 1975 Santa Clara County Heritage Resource Inventory (Pace 1975:19, #2 and #11).
The Site of Elisha P. Stephens home, 1850, now part of Blackberry Farm has been
identified as City of Cupertino Historic Site #10 in the 2005 City of Cupertino Draft
General Plan (Cupertino 2005:Fig. 2G). The Elisha Stephens Homesite - Blackberry Farm
Golf Course on Stevens Creek Blvd. was identified as a potential City of Cupertino cultural
resource (Cartier et aI. 1980:40, #30/S-8403).
Louis Stocklmeir Home at 22120 Stevens Creek Boulevard is at the northern boundary of
the project. The farm complex was settled in 1900. The house, dating to 1903, has been
extensively remodeled and has been identified as City of Cupertino Historic Site #9 in the
2005 City of Cupertino Draft General Plan (Cupertino 2005:Fig. 2G). The Stocklmeir
Ranch Complex - 22120 Stevens Creek Blvd was identified as potential City of Cupertino
cultural resource in 1980 (Cartier et aI. 1980:40, #31/S-8403).
"Doyle Winery Site (foundation only)" has been identified as City of Cupertino Historic
Site #8 in the 2005 in the City of Cupertino Draft General Plan (Cupertino 2005:Fif 2G)
(bounded by McClellan A venue on south and is on east side of Stevens Creek)? The
Doyle Ranch and Winery - McClellan A venue was identified as potential City of Cupertino
cultural resource in 1980 (Cartier et aI. 1980:40, #35/S-8403).
McClellan Ranch Park at 22221 McClellan Road (south terminus of project area on east
side) is listed on the 1979 Santa Clara County Heritage Resource Inventory (including
Charles M. Baer's replica of his father's 1888 Blacksmith Shop and the Enoch Parrish
tank house (SCCloHHC 1979: 19, #6)) and is notable for A portion of one of the oldest
ranches along Stevens Creek, W. T. McClellan's ranch is now a city park (SCCloHHC
1979:19, #6). This property was originally purchased by W.T. McClellan and George
McCauley from Captain Elisha Stephens. The McClellan and McCauley families operated
a successful dairy farm on the property which by the 1960s had been converted to a horse
ranch. The 23.5-acre park was purchased in the mid-1970s by the City of Cupertino
(SCV AS 1998:2).28
27. "John T. Doyle, a well-known attorney in the 1860s purchased [Samuel] Williams' half[of"what is said to have
been the first large planting of grapevines in the county"], lying along Stevens Creek, and built a winery on one
side of the stream [west side] and a dwelling house on the other, later called the Monte Vista Winery. ... The
Doyle family, whose main residence was near Menlo Park, built the house on their Stevens Creek property in
1873. In 1882, it became the location of the first Cupertino post office. The Doyle house and cement winery, or
storage house stand at 22044 McClellan Road, at the first bend of the road. Doyle is referred to as the "most
important single individual in the history of the West Side wine industry", notable for the his modem facilities
and success (see Hoover et at. 1966:459 and Sullivan 1982:50-51, 53 for additional information).
28. The present McClellan Ranch House is estimated to date to the 1930s with remodeling in the 1950s or 1960s; a
west wing to ca. 1974; handicap access and bathroom remodeling/ramping in 1984. The McClellan Milk House
appears to have been constructed in the "early decades of the 20111 Century"; a restroom was added in 1974.
The Enoch Parrish Tank House was acquired along with the Enoch J. Parrish House [ca. 1895], across form
DeAnza College on Stevens Creek Boulevard by the City of Cupertino in 1966 for Memorial Park. The house
burned in June 1975 (Pace 1975:19, #5; Laffey 1996:13). The tank house was "reassembled"
adjacent/contiguous to the Milk House at McClellan Ranch Park ca. 1977.
BASIN RESEARCH ASSOCIATES
19
'.
The City of Cupertino Draft General Plan includes City of Cupertino Historic Site #7
(Replica Saer Blacksmith Shop) and #6 (Enoch J. Parrish Tank House), but does not
designate the ranch proper as a Historic Site (Cupertino 2005:Fig. 2G). Rather, the
McClellan Ranch Park is a designated nature and rural preserve as designed by Ordinance
710 adopted by the Cupertino City Council on January 6,1976 (Laffey 1996:111S-18893).
The McClellan Ranch Park (including Charles M. Baer's replica of his father's 1888
Blacksmith Shop, the tankhouse from the Enoch Parrish property and several other
McClellan ranch structures) was identified as a potential City of Cupertino cultural
resource in 1980 (Cartier et aL 1980:34, #12, 35).
The map in the current Trail Guide for the McClellan Ranch Park shows seven structures
within the property: the blacksmith shop29 and Parrish tankhouse,30 the McClellan Ranch
House,31 a Milk Barn (restrooms) located adjacent to the tankhouse, a Junior Nature
Museum building, a Garden Storage building, a Historic Barn,32 and rt4-H" building with
fencing. In addition, remnants of the former orchard are also noted33 (SCV AS 1998:2, 6
[mapJ,9-1O).
Simms House, address not provided, is located at the south end of the project on the west
side of Stevens Creek opposite the McClellan Ranch. This house is currently under review
by the Cupertino Historical Society.
ARCHAEOLOGICAL FIELD INVENTORY RESULTS
The archaeological field inventory for the project did not relocate prehistoric site CA-SCI-715.
A small quantity of prehistoric ground stone artifacts was observed being used a wall decoration
at several stone borders/walls at Blackberry Farm (22100 Stevens Creek Boulevard). No other
The McClellan Barn was built between 1901-1909 (Walter Wilson owner) or 1910-1930 (Fred Connor owner)
and improved including adding horse stalls after 1955 (Hirosuke Inouye owner). The City painted and added a
new roof after 1975. In addition, the rolling doors rebuilt.
29. Pace (1975: 19, #3) includes the Charley Baer House, Stevens Creek and Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road, Cupertino --
The house was built by WT. Baer in 1903. Baer opened Cupertino'sjirst blacksmith shop in 1887..."
30. The EJ. Parrish house, now site, was located on the northeast comer of Mary Avenue and Stevens Creek
Boulevard across from De Anza College. The house was damaged by fire and demolished in 1975. It was listed
as California Point of Historical Interest in 1972 (CAL/OHP 1992:65, SCL-016 [BJ. Parrish House]), on the
California InventOlY of Historic Resources under the theme of architecture (CAL/OHP 1976:37, 266 EJ.
Parrish), and on 1979 Santa Clara County Heritage Resource 1nventory (SCICoHHC 1979:20, #14).
31. Described as The oldest house in the vicinity of Stevens Creek ... remodeled beyond recognition at 22221
McClellan Road. 1t was built by WT. McClellan, who owned a few hundred acres acijoining Blackberry Farm
(Hoover et al. 1966:459).
32. As dating to 1890; Laffey (1996/S-18893) as built between built between 1901-1909 or 1910-1930.
33. "Captain Stephens enjoyed orchards and planted much of the land with fruit trees."
BASIN RESEARCH ASSOCIATES
20
evidence of prehistoric or historically significant prehistoric or historic era archaeological
resources was observed during the field inventory conducted for this report.
ARCHAEOLOGICAL PRESENCE/ABSENCE TESTING (see Table 1)
No significant prehistoric or historical cultural material was noted either on the surface or
observed in the 12 BTUs suggesting that CA-SCI-715 is not present where improvements are
proposed to occur.
BTU 4 contained a very thin charcoal lens and shell fragment (oyster) at 0.38 meters below the
surface [see Fig. 7J; BTU 8 and BTU 9 [see Fig. 8J had small charcoal flecks present at 0.25
meters and 0.10 meters respectively. In addition, a clamshell was collected from the surface near
a ground squirrel burrow. All of these materials are within the plow zone and highly disturbed.
The surface shell was identified as California Lucine (Epilucina californica), a salt-water species
that is present in moderately shallow waters. The second shell (fragment) recovered from BTU 4
appears to be oyster (Ostrea lurida). A sufficient sample of charcoal for radiocarbon dating
could not be obtained.
TABLE 1
Unit Observations and Comments
UNIT # DESCRIPTION/OBSERVA TIONS COMMENTS
All units were excavated on February 13,2006; the units Stratum depths presented in
ranged in length from 2.50 m to 3.10 m; 0.70 m to 0.80 m centimeters. Elevation is presented
wide, and ranged in depth from 1.83 m to 3.60 m; specific in feet. Roots and Rootlets were
dimensions given under 'Comments' section; BTUs 1,2,3, observed in all strata/depths
4,6,8, 9, 10, 11, and 12 were oriented east west; BTUs 5
and 7 were oriented north south. Ten shovel samples
recovered from each stratum were screened through 1/4th
inch mesh.
Unit 1 0-35 cm:t Stratum A: moist loose very dark grayish brown 3.00 m L x 0.80 m W x 2.00 m D
clayey silt, with angular to subrounded coarse sand (1/2-1.0 Elevation ::I: 292.7 feet
mrn) IOYR 3/2. No cultural material. Rodent burrow
35-150cm + Stratum B: moist firm very dark brown at base of unit (SE comer)
medium grained (1/4-1/2 mm) silty clay lOYR 2/2.
150-200 cm:t Stratum C: moist firm brown silt with Sandstone cobbles at bottom of units
sandstone angular to rounded cobbles at base of unit, 10YR likely the old creek bed.
5/4.
BASIN RESEARCH ASSOCIATES
21
TABLE 1, con't
Unit Observations and Comments
UNIT # DESCRIPTION/OBSERVATIONS --C-OMMENTS
Unit 2 0-20 cm:!: Stratum A: moist loose very dark grayish brown 3.00 m L x 0.75 m W x 2.50 m D
clayey silt with coarse-grained (1/2-1.0 mm) sand, lOYR Elevation::l: 293.7 feet
3/2. Small angular pebbles were observed
20-40 cm:!: Stratum B: moist firm brown clayey silt with in all levels.
coarse-grained (112-1.0 mm) sand lOYR 4/3 No cultural material.
40-220 cm:!: Stratum C: moist firm very dark grayish
brown clayey silt lOYR 3/2.
220-250 cm:!: Stratum D: moist firm very dark grayish
brown clayey sand with pebbles and subrounded to rounded
cobbles 10YR 3/2.
Unit 3 0-30 cm + Stratum A: moist loose very dark grayish brown 3.00 m L x 0.74 m W x 2.05 m D
clayey silt with coarse-grained (1/2-1.0 mm) sand, ] OYR Elevation ::I: 293.7 feet
3/2. No cultural material.
30-55 cm + Stratum B: gravely sandy lens with coarse-
grained (1/2-1.0 mm) sand.
55-200 cm + Stratum C: moist firm tan-brown sand with
medium coarse (1/4-1/2 mm) sand and subrounded pebbles.
200-205 cm + Stratum D: moist firm very dark grayish
brown clayey silt with angular to subrounded cobbles and
pebbles lOYR 3/2.
Unit 4 0-175 cm:!: Stratum A: moist loose very dark grayish 3.00 m Lx 0.70 m W x 1.83 m D
brown silt (very little clay) with coarse (1/2-t.0 mm) sand Elevation::l: 293.7 feet
10YR 3/2. Thin lens of orange brown soil with
35-40 cm:!: thin lens within Stratum A: firm orange brown charcoal and ash. A shell fragment
silty clay with charcoal and some ash. was recovered within the lens. The
175-]83 cm:!: Stratum B firm very dark grayish brown fine shell appears to be oyster Ostrea
silt (mm), 10YR 3/2. lurida.
183 cm:!: Stratum C: firm very dark grayish brown silty
clay with angular to subrounded cobbles IOYR 3/2.
Unit 5 0-20 cm:!: Stratum A: moist loose very dark grayish brown 3.00 m L x 0.76 m W x 2.10 m D
clayey silt 10YR 3/2, with coarse-grained (1/2-1.0 mm) Elevation ::I: 295.] feet
sand. No cultural material.
20-35 cm:!: Stratum B: moist firm brown silty clay IOYR
4/4, with some rootlets.
35-210 cm:!: Stratum C: moist firm very dark grayish brown
silty clay with subrounded pebbles and cobbles lOYR 3/2.
Unit 6 0-20 cm:!: Stratum A: moist loose very dark grayish brown 2.55 m L x 0.77 m W x 1.90 m D
clayey silt with coarse-grained (1/2-1.0 mm) sand, lOYR Elevation ::I: 295.1 feet
3/2. No cultural material.
20-30 cm:!: Stratum B: moist firm dark yellowish brown
clay sand with pebbles IOYR 3/4.
30-50 cm:!: Stratum C: moist firm very dark grayish brown
silty clay IOYR 3/2 with angular and subrounded pebbles.
50-] 10 cm:!: Stratum D: moist firm very dark grayish brown
silt with subrounded pebbles] OYR 3/2.
110-190 cm:!: Stratum E: moist firm brown silty sand with
subrounded pebbles lOYR 4/3.
BASIN RESEARCH ASSOCIATES
22
TABLE 1, con't
Unit Observations and Comments
UNIT # DE "'RIPTION/OBSERVATIONS
Unit 7 0-13 cm + Stratum A: moist loose very dark grayish brown
clayey sand with coarse-grained (I/2-t.0 nun) sand, lOYR
3/2.
13-2030 cm:!:: Stratum B: moist firm dark yellowish brown
clay with pebbles IOYR 3/4.
20-200 cm:!:: Stratum C: moist firm very dark grayish brown
silty clay 10YR 3/2 with angular and subrounded pebbles.
200-205 cm:!: Stratum D: moist firm brown silty sand with
sub rounded pebbles 1 OYR 4/3.
Unit 8 0-20 cm:!:: Stratum A: moist loose very dark grayish brown
clayey sand with coarse-grained (1/2-1.0 nun) sand, lOYR
3/2.
20-180 cm:!: Stratum B: moist firm dark grayish brown silty
clay with pebbles 10YR 3/2.
180-254 cm + Stratum C: moist firm brown silty sand 10YR
4/3 with subrounded pebbles.
Unit 9 0-10 cm:!: Stratum A: moist loose very dark grayish brown
clayey silt with coarse-grained (1/2-1.0 nun) sand, lOYR
3/2.
10-170 cm:!: Stratum B: moist firm dark grayish brown silty
clay with pebbles lOYR 3/2.
170-280 cm + Stratum C: moist firm brown silty with
sandstone cobbles (observed in the back dirt) IOYR 4/3.
280-340 cm:!: Stratum 0: moist firm brown gravely sand
with small and medium sized boulders (granite, sandstone,
shale, and other unidentified rocks observed in the back dirt)
IOYR 4/3.
Unit 10 0-10 em + Stratum A: moist loose very dark grayish brown
clayey silt with coarse-grained (I/2-t.O nun) sand, lOYR
3/2.
10-340 cm:!:: Stratum B: moist firm very dark grayish brown
silty clay lOYR 3/2.
340-360 cm:!: Stratum C: moist firm very dark grayish
brown silt with sandstone cobbles IOYR 3/2.
Unit II 0-10 cm + Stratum A: moist loose very dark grayish brown
clayey silt with coarse-grained (1/2-1.0 mm) sand, 10YR 3/2.
10-205 cm:!: Stratum B: moist firm very dark grayish brown
silty clay 10YR 3/2.
205-220 cm:!:: Stratum C: moist firm brown gravelly sand
with cobbles and pebbles IOYR 4/3.
Unit 12 0-20 cm + Stratum A: moist loose very dark grayish brown
clayey silt with coarse-grained (1/2-1.0 mm) sand, lOYR 3/2.
20-200cm:!: Stratum B: moist firm very dark grayish brown
silty clay 10YR 3/2.
200-230 cm:!: Stratum C: moist firm brown silty clay with
sandstone cobbles IOYR 4/3.
BASIN RESEARCH ASSOCIATES
COMMENTS
3.00 m L x 0.70 m W x 2.05 m 0
Elevation:f: 295.6 feet
No cultural material.
3.00 m L x 0.80 m W x 2.54 m D
Elevation :f: 295.4 feet
Charcoal fleck in north wall;
approximately 25 cm below surface
3.10 m Lx 0.70 m W x 3.40 m 0
Elevation:f: 295.4 feet
Charcoal fleck; approximately 10
cm below surface
2.80 m L x 0.70 m W x 3.60 m 0
Elevation.:f: 295.4 feet
No cultural material.
2.50 m L x 0.70 m W x 2.20 m D
Elevation:f: 295.2 feet
No cultural material.
2.50 m L x 0.70 m W x 2.30 m 0
Elevation.:f: 296.5 feet
No cultural material.
23
UNKNOWN CULTURAL RESOURCES IN THE PROJECT AREAS
The research suggests a low potential for archaeological resources at each of the project locations
based on past earth disturbance at each location and the low to moderate regional archaeological
sensitivity suggested by the few locations of recorded prehistoric and historic archaeological
sites within a quarter mile of each project area.
There appears to be a locally moderate to high potential for inadvertent discoveries of buried
archaeological deposits during subsurface construction at each project location. However, any
archaeological deposits exposed during subsurface construction could contain potentially
significant buried prehistoric and/or historic cultural materials, including Native American
human remains. Disturbance could result in the loss of integrity of the cultural deposit and
subsequent loss of scientific information, which would be a potentially significant impact.
IMPACTS
SIGNIFICANCE Criteria
The CEQA Guidelines indicate that a project will have a significant impact on cultural resources
if it:
· causes a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in
Section 15064.5 of the CEQA guidelines;
· causes a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant
to Section 15064.5 of the CEQA guidelines; and/or
· disturbs any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries.
'c,
Construction impacts to one recorded prehistoric site are possible and there is a potential for
impacts to as-yet-unknown cultural resources during construction. Significant and potentially
significant impacts to cultural resources will be reduced to a less-than-significant level with the
adoption of the mitigation measures.
CONSTRUCTION IMP ACTS
Ground-disturbing construction activities associated with the picnic area, stream channel. trail
and bridge construction and restoration activities have the potential to directly affect potential
archaeological resources in the project area by disturbing both surface and subsurface soils.
Stream Channel
. Demolition and removal of three low-flow automobile crossings. a diversion dam and
three wooden pedestrian bridges.
. Expansion of 600 feet of pool and riffle habitat to recreate a stable channel bottom.
. Realignment of 1,300 feet of the stream channel to its historic channel to lengthen and
stabile the channel. Development of pool and riffle habitat in this section.
. 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.
BASIN RESEARCH ASSOCIATES
24
. Construction of new 600-foot stream channel through Stocklmeir orange orchard to
reduce erosion and undercutting of the bank along the golf course. Development of four
step pools and seven pool and riffle sequences, planting the west bank this new channel.
. 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.
Potential Impacts: Subsurface excavation impacts to an area north, south and
west of recorded location for CA-SCI-715 could expose as yet unknown
archaeological resources. Project components that involve subsurface excavation
could expose as yet unknown archaeological resources.
Picnic Area and Pool Complex Improvements
. Consolidation of the picnic facilities to one location on the west bank of the creek and
improvements including new utilities, restrooms, barbecues, tables, horseshoe pits and
volleyball courts as well as a 14-foot wide light duty bridge over the creek.
Potential Impacts: Subsurface excavation impacts to an area to the south of the
recorded location for CA-SCI-715 could expose as yet unknown archaeological
resources.
Trail
. Construction of an 8-foot wide pedestrian and bicycle trail extending 5,900 feet from
Stevens Creek Boulevard to McClellan Road.
. Construction of an 8-foot wide pedestrianlbicycle bridge spanning the creek near the 8th
hole on the golf course.
. 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 accommodates 200 plus
vehicles. Demolition of approximately 32,000 square feet of excess parking paving.
Potential Impacts: Subsurface excavation impacts to an area north and south of
recorded location for CA-SCI-715 could expose as yet unknown archaeological
resources.
Environmental Education Center
. 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 McClellan Ranch.
Potential Impacts: Subsurface excavation impacts could expose as yet unknown
archaeological resources associated with the historic McClellan Ranch.
BASIN RESEARCH ASSOCIATES
25
-
Upland Habitat Restoration
. Restoration of the upland oak woodland habitat in closed picnic areas and in and around
updated picnic areas and the trail.
Potential Impacts: Subsurface excavation impacts to an area north and south of
recorded location for CA-SCI-715 could expose as yet unknown archaeological
resources. Other project components that involve subsurface excavation could
expose as yet unknown archaeological resources
Impacts could result from grading and trenching for both surface preparation and underground
utility connections and any other activities associated with constructing the proposed
improvements that involve ground disturbance. These impacts will be reduced to less than
significant with implementation of the recommended mitigation measures.
Subsurface and surface disturbance could result in the loss of integrity of cultural deposits, loss
of information, and the alteration of a site setting. There is also the potential for inadvertent
discoveries of buried archaeological materials during construction. Prehistoric archaeological
sites in this area of Santa Clara County are often associated with water sources. The presence of
one prehistoric site within the project area and the ground stone artifacts incorporated into wall
construction at the Blackberry Farm suggests a moderate to high potential for subsurface
resources. These impacts will be reduced to less than significant with implementation of the
recommended mitigation measures.
MITIGA TION MEASURES
Mitigation measures are provided to guide subsurface construction and in the event that
significant or potentially significant unknown cultural resources are discovered during
construction. Significant and potentially significant impacts to cultural resources will be reduced
to a less-than-significant level with the adoption of the following mitigation measures.
· Prior to the initiation of construction or ground-disturbing activities, the City of Cupertino
Project Manager shall inform all construction personnel of the potential for exposing
subsurface cultural resources and to recognize possible buried cultural resources. Personnel
shall be informed of the procedures that will be followed upon the discovery or suspected
discovery of archaeological materials, including Native American remains and their
treatment.
BASIN RESEARCH ASSOCIATES
26
TABLE 2
Significance Criteria and Summary of Potential Impacts for Cultural Resources
Significance Criteria
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less- Than-
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less- Than-
Significant
Impact
No Impact Impact Identified
for:
Threshold of Significance:
The Project would result in
damage to, the disruption
of, or adversely affect a
property that is listed in the
California Register of
Historical Resources
(CRHR) or a local register
of historic resources as per
Section 5020.1 of the
Public Resources Code.
D
[Z]
D
D Construction [Z]
Threshold of Significance:
The Project would cause
damage to, disrupt, or
adversely affect an
important prehistoric or
historic archaeological
resource such that its
integrity could be
compromised or eligibility
for future listing on the
CRHR diminished.
D
[Z]
D
D Construction ~
Threshold of Significance:
The Project would cause
damage to or diminish the
significance of an important
historic resource such that
its integrity could be
compromised or eligibility
for future listing on the
CRHR diminished.
D
[8J
D
D Construction [8J
· All excavation contracts for the project shall contain provisions for stop-work in the vicinity
of a find in the event of the exposure of significant archaeological resources during
subsurface construction. In addition, the contract documents shall recognize the need to
implement any mitigation conditions required by the permitting agency. In general, the
appropriate construction conditions should be included within the General Conditions section
of any contract that has the potential for ground disturbing operations.
BASIN RESEARCH ASSOCIATES
27
. ..
· Archaeological monitoring on a full-time basis by a Professional Archaeologist retained by
the project proponent shall be undertaken during subsurface construction within and within a
100 feet buffer zone of the recorded boundary of CA-SCI-715 that was not subject to
presence/absence testing. Actions that could potentially require monitoring include habitat
restoration, trail construction and pedestrianlbicycle bridge construction.
· Archaeological monitoring on an intermittent basis to allow for spot-checking of subsurface
construction shall be undertaken for areas outside of the recorded boundary of CA-SCI-715
and the 100-foot buffer zone. Monitoring in these areas shall be at the discretion of the
Professional Archaeologist retained to provide archaeological monitoring services.
· Construction methods and procedures to minimize subsurface disturbance shall be
implemented where feasible and practical. These may include: (1) planting by seed, and
hand excavation for planting in the habitat restoration areas within and within 100 foot of the
recorded boundary of CA-SCI-7l5 not subject to presence/absence testing; (2) raising the
grade of the proposed trail (capping) by engineered fill within 100 feet of the recorded
boundary of CA-SCI-715 not subject to presence/absence testing. Fill shall be no less than
l2-inches deep. Fill placement shall be done without surface grubbing (i.e., removal of any
organics). Rubber tired equipment shall be used to minimize surface disturbance.
· Upon discovery of possible buried prehistoric and historic cultural materials (including
potential Native American skeletal remains),34 construction within 25 feet of the find shall be
halted to avoid altering the cultural materials and their context and the City of Cupertino's
Project Manager shall be notified.
34. Significant prehistoric cultural resources may include:
a. Human bone - either isolated or intact burials.
b. Habitation (occupation or ceremonial structures as interpreted from rock rings/features, distinct ground
depressions, differences in compaction (e.g., house floors).
c. Artifacts including chipped stone objects such as projectile points and bifaces; groundstone artifacts such as
manos, metates, mortars, pestles, grinding stones, pitted hammerstones; and, shell and bone artifacts
including ornaments and beads.
d. Various features and samples including hearths (fire-cracked rock; baked and vitrified clay), artifact caches,
faunal and shellfish remains (which permit dietary reconstruction), distinctive changes in soil stratigraphy
indicative of prehistoric activities.
e. Isolated artifacts
Historic cultural materials may include finds from the late 19th through early 20th centuries. Objects and
features associated with the Historic Period can include.
a. Structural remains or portions offoundations (bricks, cobbleslboulders, stacked fieldstone, postholes, etc.).
b. Trash pits, privies, wells and associated artifacts.
c. Isolated artifacts or isolated clusters of manufactured artifacts (e.g., glass bottles, metal cans, manufactured
wood items, etc.).
d. Human remains.
In addition, cultural materials including both artifacts and structures that can be attributed to Hispanic, Asian and
other ethnic or racial groups are potentially significant. Such features or clusters of artifacts and samples include
remains of structures, trash pits, and privies.
BASIN RESEARCH ASSOCIATES
28
· The Project Manager shall retain a qualified professional archaeologist to review and
evaluate the find. Construction work shall not begin again until the archaeological or cultural
resources consultant has been allowed to examine the cultural materials, assess their
significance, and offer proposals for any additional exploratory measures deemed necessary
for the further evaluation of, and/or mitigation of adverse impacts to, any potential historical
resources or unique archaeological resources that have been exposed
· If the discovery is determined to be a unique archaeological or historical resource, and if
avoidance of the resource is not possible, the archaeologist shall inform the Project Manager
of the necessary plans for treatment of the find(s) and mitigation of impacts. The treatment
plan shall be designed to result in the extraction of sufficient non-redundant archaeological
data to address important regional research considerations. The Project Manager shall make
every effort to insure that the treatment program is completed. The work shall be performed
by the archaeologist, and shall result in a detailed technical report that shall be filed with the
California Historical Resources Information System, Northwest Information Center.
Construction in the immediate vicinity of the find shall not recommence until treatment has
been completed.
· If human remains are discovered, they shall be handled in accordance with State law
including immediate notification of the County Medical Examiner/Coroner.
CLOSING REMARKS
If I can provide any additional information or be of further service please don't hesitate to contact
me. Thank you for retaining our firm for the project.
Sincerely yours,
BASIN RESEARCH ASSOCIATES, INC.,
I
Colin I. Busby, Ph.D., RPA
Principal
CIB/dg
Enclosures
BASIN RESEARCH ASSOCIATES
29
REFERENCES CITED AND CONSUL TED
Allen, Rebecca (editor)
1999 Upgrade of the Guadalupe Parkway, San Jose. Historic Properties Treatment
Plan. For California Department of Transportation, District 4, Oakland. Copy
on file, Basin Research Associates, San Leandro.
American Society of Civil Engineers, San Francisco (ASCE)
1977 Historic Civil Engineering Landmarks of San Francisco and Northern
California. The History and Heritage Committee, San Francisco Section,
American Society of Civil Engineers. Pacific Gas and Electric Company.
Balance Hydrologics
2005 E-mail to Colin Busby, Basin Research Associates from Scott Brown,
Geomorphologist/Hydrologist, Balance Hydrologies. Regarding: C 14 date
from Stevens Creek Trail, Cupertino. Dated May 9, 2005.
Baltzer, Dave
1969
Map of Cupertino 1887 [showing landholdings within the community in 1887J.
In Cupertino Chronicle. California History Center Local History Studies Vol.
19, p. 56, edited by Seonaid L. McArthur and David W. Fuller. De Anza
College, Cupertino, California (appears to be copy of Henry A. Barinard 1885
Cupertino Santa Clara Valley Map No.6, part detail in Sullivan 1982).
Bean, Lowell John (compiler and editor)
1994 The Ohlone Past and Present: Native Americans of the San Francisco Bay
Region. BaHena Press Anthropological Papers 42, Menlo Park.
Beck, W.A. and Y.D. Haase
1974 Historical Atlas of California (Third printing, 1977). University of Oklahoma
Press, Norman.
Beta Analytic Radiocarbon Dating Laboratory (Darden Hood)
2005 Letter to Mr. Scott Brown, Balance Hydrologics, Inc., Berkeley, CA.
Regarding: Radiocarbon Dating Result for Sample 041124:3.5 [soils testing
sample from orchard/vicinity of CA-SCI-715J. Dated April 21, 2005.
Enclosing Data Sheet: Calibration of Radiocarbon Age to Calendar years.
Laboratory Number: Beta-203301. Conventional radiocarbon age: 470+40 BP.
2 Sigma calibrated result (95% probability): Cal AD 1410 to 1470 (Cal BP 540
to 480). 1 Sigma calibrated result (68% probability): Cal AD 1420 to 1450
(Cal BP 530 to 500). Intercept of radiocarbon age with calibration curve: Cal
AD 1430 (Cal BP 520).
Blackberry Farm
2005 Brochure (including Blackberry Farm site map, frequently asked questions,
and short history).
BASIN RESEARCH ASSOCIATES
30
Bocek, Barbara (Stanford University Archaeologist)
1991 Archaeological Site Record form, CA-SCI-715 (Primary Number P-43-
000633; Monta Vista Orange Orchard). On file, CHRISINWIC, CSU Sonoma,
Rohnert Park.
Bolton, Herbert E. (editor)
1930 Anza's California Expeditions. Vols. III-IV. Font's Complete Diary of the
Second Anza Expedition. University of California Press, Berkeley.
Barinard, Henry A.
1885 Cupertino Santa Clara Valley Map No.6. Part detail Like Modem Edens:
Winegrowing in Santa Clara Valley and Santa Cruz Mountains 1879-1981 by
C.L.Sullivan. 1982. California History Center Local History Studies Vol. 28.
Broek, J.O.M.
1932
The Santa Clara Valley, California: A Study in Landscape Changes. N.V.A.
Oosthoek's Utig. Maatij. Utrecht.
Busby, Colin I. (Basin Research Associates)
2002 Letter Report to Ms. Christine Schneider, ASLA, Thomas Reid Associates,
Palo Alto, CA. Regarding: Cultural Resources Records Search and Focused
Literature Review [In J Support of an Initial Study Checklist and Responses,
Stevens Creek Trail Study Area A, City of Cupertino, Santa Clara County.
Dated June 26, 2002. MS on file, S-27998, CHRIS/NWIC, CSU Sonoma,
Rohnert Park.
2005 Letter to Mr. Larry Meyers, Executive Secretary, Native American Heritage
Commission (NAHC), Sacramento, CA 95814. Regarding: Request for
Review of Sacred Lands Inventory Stevens Creek Corridor Master Plan,
Cupertino, Santa Clara County. Dated April 28, 2005.
Busby, Colin I. and Donna M. Garaventa
1984 A Cultural Resources Assessment of Two Proposed Storm Drain Reaches
located between Bollinger Road and Blue Hill Drive in the City of San Jose,
California. MS on file, S-6615, CHRlS/NWIC, CSU Sonoma, Rohnert Park.
California State Automobile Association (CA-AAA)
2003 Sunnyvale - Santa Clara - Western San Jose. City Series. Map #2119.
California (State of), Department of Parks and Recreation, Office of Historic PresefVation
(CAL/OHP)
1973 The California History Plan. V olume One - Comprehensive Preservation
Program. Volume Two - Inventory of Historic Features.
1976 California Inventory of Historic Resources.
1988 Five Views: An Ethnic Sites Survey for California.
BASIN RESEARCH ASSOCIATES
31
1990
California Historical Landmarks.
1992
California Points of Historical Interest. May 1, 1992.
ca. 1999
Various Regarding the California Register of Historical Resources: (a) The
Listing Process, (b) Questions and Answers, (c) Q & A for Local
Governments, (d) Instructions and (d) Supplement to Instructions for
Nominating Historical Resources to the California Register of Historical
Resources. State of California, The Resources Agency, Department of Parks
and Recreation, Sacramento. [Copies received 1/1999.J
2001a
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and Historical Resources.
Technical Assistance Series 1.
2001b
Historical Resource Registration Programs in California. Technical Assistance
Series 2.
2001c
California State Law and Historic Preservation: Statutes, Regulations and
Administrative Policies Regarding Historic Preservation and Protection of
Cultural and Historical Resources. Technical Assistance Series 10.
2002
California Register and National Register: A Comparison (for purposes of
determining eligibility for the California Register. Technical Assistance Series
6.
2003 California Historical Resources Status Codes. [National Register and
California Register].
2005a
[Historic Properties Directory] Directory of Properties in the Historic Property
Data file for Santa Clara County (includes National Register of Historic Places
status codes, California Historical Landmarks and California Points of
Historical Interest listings, etc.).
2005b
Archeological Determinations of Eligibility for Santa Clara County.
Cartier, Robert, Charlene Detlefs and Glory Anne Laffey
1980 Cupertino: Potential Cultural Resources, Ordinance, and Sensitivity Map. MS
on file, S-8403, CHRISINWIC, CSU Sonoma Rohnert Park.
Cartier, Robert, Elena Reese and Julie C. Wizorek (Archaeological Resource Management)
1 994a Cultural Resources Evaluation for the Summer Dams Project [Santa Clara
County]. MS on file, S-16730, CHRISINWIC, CSU Sonoma, Rohnert Park.
Cartier, Robert, Elena Reese and Julie C. Wizorek (Archaeological Resource Management)
1994b
Cultural Resources Evaluation Addendum for the Summer Dams Project
[Santa Clara County]. MS on file, S-16731, CHRISINWIC, CSU Sonoma,
Rohnert Park.
BASIN RESEARCH ASSOCIATES
32
Cupertino (City of), Community Development Department, Planning Division (C/CDD/PD)
2005 City of Cupertino Draft General Plan. May 1, 2005. with Task Force Draft
Corrections and Technical Changes [Fig. 2-G Historic Resources map, add
Nathan Hall Tank House, adjacent to Blackberry Farm (at 22021 Stevens
Creek Boulevard across the boulevard from Blackberry Farm in Hoover et al.
1966:459) J. http://www .cupertino.org/city ~overnment/departments_and
offices/planninKand_building... [printed 5/3/2005 and 5/25/2005].
Elsasser, A.B.
1978
1986
Galvan, P.M.
1967/1968
Hagel, Lisa
2005
Harrington, J.P.
1942
Hart, J.D.
1987
Healey, C.T.
1866
Development of Regional Prehistoric Cultures. In California, edited by R.F.
Heizer, Volume 8. Handbook of North American Indians, W.G. Sturtevant,
general editor, pp. 37-57. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.
Review of the Prehistory of the Santa Clara Valley Region, California. Coyote
Press Archives of California Prehistory 7, Part I. Coyote Press, Salinas.
People of the West: The Ohlone Story. Indian Historian 1(2):9-13.
Records Search for T. REID - Stevens Creek Corridor Master Plan, Cupertino
[Santa Clara County]. CHRISINWIC File. No. 04-996. Dated May 23, 2005.
Copy on file, Basin Research Associates, San Leandro.
Culture Element Distributions: XIX Central California Coast. University of
California Anthropological Records 7{ 1).
A Companion to California (revised and expanded). Oxford University Press,
New York.
Official Map of the County of Santa Clara. Surveyed and Compiled by
Charles T. Healey. Ex-County Surveyor. A. Gensoul, San Francisco, and
printed by Britton and Co., San Francisco.
Hendry, G.W. and J.N. Bowman
1940 The Spanish and Mexican Adobe and Other Buildings in the Nine San
Francisco Bay Counties, 1776 to about 1850. MS on file, Bancroft Library,
University of California, Berkeley.
Holman, Miley Paul
1988 An Archaeological Inspection of the Kaiser Cement Property, Cupertino, Santa
Clara County, California. MS on file, S-10471, CHRISINWIC, CSU Sonoma
Rohnert Park.
BASIN RESEARCH ASSOCIATES
33
-
Hoover, M.B., H.E. Rensch, E.G. Rensch and W.N. Abeloe
1966 Historic Spots in California (Third edition). Revised by William N. Abeloe.
Stanford University Press, Palo Alto.
Hylkema, Mark G.
1995 Archaeological Investigations at the Third Location of The Murguia Mission,
1781-1818 (CA-SCL-30/H). Caltrans District 4, Environmental Planning,
south, Oakland. MS on file, S-17891, CHRISINWIC, CSU Sonoma, Rohnert
Park.
James, W.F. and G.H. McMurry
1933 History of San Jose, California, Narrative and Biographical. A.H. Cawston,
San Jose.
King, Chester D.
1974 Modem Santa Clara Ethno-Geography. In Archaeological Element
Environmental Impact Report on the San Felipe Water Distribution System,
edited by T.F. King and G. Berg, Appendix I. MS on file, E-108/S-4248,
CHRISINWIc, CSU Sonoma, Rohnert Park.
1978a
Protohistoric and Historic Archaeology. In California, edited by R. F. Heizer,
Volume 8. Handbook of North American Indians, W.G. Sturtevant, general
editor, pp. 58-68. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.
1978b
Historical Indian Settlements in the Vicinity of the Holiday Inn Site. In
Archaeological Investigations at CA-SCI-128, the Holiday Inn Site, edited by
J.e. Winter. MS on file, E-756/S-5281, CHRISINWIC, CSU Sonoma,
Rohnert Park.
1994
Central Ohlone Ethnohistory. In The Ohlone Past and Present: Native
Americans of the San Francisco Bay Region, pp. 203-228, compiled and edited
by Lowell John Bean. BaHena Press Anthropological Papers 42, Menlo Park.
King, T.F. and P.P. Hickman
1973 Archaeological Impact Evaluation: San Felipe Division, Central VaHey
Project. Part I The Southern Santa Clara Valley, California: A General Plan
for Archaeology. MS on file, S-5222, CHRISINWIC, CSU Sonoma, Rohnert
Park.
Kroeber, A.L.
1925
Handbook of the Indians of California. Bureau of American Ethnology
BuHetin 78. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.
Laffey, Glory Anne (Archives and Architecture)
1996 McClellan Ranch Park Needs Assessment Project: McCleHan Ranch Park Site
Specific Survey. MS on file, S-18893, CHRISINWIC, CSU Sonoma, Rohnert
Park.
BASIN RESEARCH ASSOCIATES
34
Levy, Richard
1978
Costanoan. In California, edited by R.F. Heizer, Volume 8. Handbook of
North American Indians, W.G. Sturtevant, general editor, pp. 485-497.
Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.
Loomis, Patricia
1982
Signposts. San Jose Historical Museum Association, San Jose.
1985
Signposts II. San Jose Historical Museum Association, San Jose.
Lyman, C.S.
1847
Plan of the Town of St. Joseph. Map on file, Bancroft Library, University of
California, Berkeley.
Margolin, Malcom
1978 The Ohlone Way: Indian Life In the San Francisco - Monterey Bay Area.
Heyday Books, Berkeley.
McArthur, Seonaid L. and David W. Fuller (editors)
1975 Cupertino Chronicle. California History Center Local History Studies Vol. 19.
De Anza College, Cupertino, California.
McCaleb, Charles S.
1969 The San Jose Railroads: Centennial 1868-1968. California History Center,
Local History Studies 2( 1): 1-88, De Auza College, Cupertino.
Milliken, R. T.
1995
A Time of Little Choice: The Disintegration of Tribal Culture in the San
Francisco Bay Area 1769-1810. BaHena Press Anthropological Papers No. 43.
Moratto, M.J.
1984
California Archaeology. Academic Press, New York.
Pace, P. (compiler and editor)
1975 Santa Clara County Heritage Resource Inventory. Santa Clara County
Historical Heritage Commission, San Jose.
Patera, E.L. (editor)
1991 H.E. SaHey History of California Post Offices 1849-1990 (Second edition).
The Depot, n.p. (Salley, RE. and E.L. Patera, researchers).
Pilas- Treadway, Debbie (Native American Heritage Commission) (NAHe)
2005 Letter to Colin I. Busby, Basin Research Associates, San Leandro. Regarding:
[Request for Review of Sacred Lands Inventory J Proposed Stevens Creek
Corridor Master Plan, Cupertino, Santa Clara County. Dated May 12,2005.
BASIN RESEARCH ASSOCIATES
35
Quackenbush, Margery (editor)
ca. 1971-1972 County Chronicles. California History Center Local History Studies Vol.
9. De Anza College, Cupertino, California.
Rambo, Ralph
1984
Pen and Inklings. The San Jose Historical Museum Association. Printed by
the Rosicrucian Press, San Jose.
Rambo, Ralph and Louis Stocklmeir
ca.1971-1972 VII. Cupertino. West Side Story. pp. 60-73 In County Chronicles.
California History Center Local History Studies Vol. 9. De Auza College,
Cupertino, California, edited by Margery Quackenbush.
San Jose Mercury
1896 Santa Clara County and its Resources: A Souvenir of the San Jose Mercury.
[Sunshine, Fruit, and Flowers J. San Jose Mercury Publishing and Printing Co.,
San Jose.
Santa Clara County Historical Heritage Commission (SCICoHHC)
1979 Santa Clara County Heritage Resource Inventory. Santa Clara County
Historical Heritage Commission, San Jose.
1999 Santa Clara County Heritage Resource Inventory. Santa Clara County
Historical Heritage Commission, San Jose.
Santa Clara Valley Audubon Society (various authors) (SCV AS)
1998 McClellan Ranch Park Trail Guide [including short history]. (fifth revised
edition [previous editions by Cupertino Parks and Recreation DepartmentJ
Sawyer, E.T.
1922
A History of Santa Clara County, California. Historic Record Company, Los
Angeles.
Sokale, Jana
2002
Draft Stevens Creek Trail Feasibility Report. May 21, 2002. For the City of
Cupertino Parks and Recreation Department in conjunction with the Stevens
Creek Trail Task Force.
Spearman, Arthur Dunning, S.J.
1963 The Five Franciscan Churches of Mission Santa Clara, 1777-1825. The
National Press, Palo Alto.
Stocklmeir, Louis
1975 VII. Cupertino. Monta Vista: A Small Piece of Paradise. pp. 120-130. In
County Chronicles. California History Center Local History Studies Vol. 9.
De Anza College, Cupertino, California, edited by Margery Quackenbush.
BASIN RESEARCH ASSOCIATES
36
Sullivan, Charles L.
1982 Like Modern Edens: Winegrowing in Santa Clara Valley and Santa Cruz
Mountains 1879-1981. California History Center Local History Studies Vol.
28. De Anza College, Cupertino, California.
Thomas Reid Associates (T. Reid)
2005 Background Information for Stevens Creek Corridor Master Plan, City of
Cupertino" Santa Clara County, California. On file, Basin Research
Associates, San Leandro.
Thompson and West
1876 Historical Atlas of Santa Clara County, California. Thompson and West, San
Francisco (reprinted Smith and McKay, San Jose, 1973).
Tracy, C.c.
1857a
Plat of the final survey of San Antonio Rancho finally confirmed to the Heirs
of Prado Mesa showing the part not confirmed to Wm A. Dana et al. Surveyed
under instructions from the U.S. Surveyor General by C.c. Tracy, Dep[uptyJ
Sur[veyoJr. June 1857. Map on file, #176, Bureau of Land Management,
Sacramento.
1857b
Plat of the final survey of San Antonio Rancho showing [sicJ the part finally
confirmed to Wm A. Dana et al. Surveyed under instructions from the U.S.
Surveyor General by c.c. Tracy, Dep[uptyJ Sur[veyoJr. June 1857. Map on
file, #176A, Bureau of Land Management, Sacramento.
United States Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service with the California
Agricultural Experiment Station (USDAlSCS)
1958 Santa Clara Area, California Soil Survey. Series 1941, No. 17.
United States Department of Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs (USDI)
2000 Indian Entities Recognized and Eligible to Receive Services from the United
States Bureau of Indian Affairs. Federal Register: March 13,2000 (Volume
65, Number 49) Notices [Page 13298-13303].
http://www.artnatam.com/tribes.html
United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management (US/BLM) [GLO or
General Land Office J
1866 Survey Plat. Township No.7 South, Range No.2 West, Mount Diablo
Baseline & Meridian. Detail provided by CHRISINWIC, File No. 04-996.
United States Department of Interior, Geological Survey (USGS)
1899 Palo Alto [Calif]. Quadrangle. Topographic map, 15-minute series (surveyed
1895).
1973 Cupertino, Calif. (Quadrangle). Topographic map, 7.5 (1961, photorevised
1968 and 1973).
BASIN RESEARCH ASSOCIATES
37
1980 Cupertino, Calif. [Quadrangle]. Topographic map, 7.5-minute series (1961
photorevised).
1991 Cupertino, CA. [Quadrangle]. Topographic map, 7.5-minute senes.
United States Geological Survey, Menlo Park.
United States Department of the Interior, National Register of Historic Places, National Park
Service (USNPS)
1995 Map Supplement for the Comprehensive Management and Use Plan Juan
Bautista de Anza National Historic Trail Arizona-California. Pacific Great
Basin Support Office, National Park Service. [San FranciscoJ.
1996 Comprehensive Management and Use Plan. Final Environmental Impact
Statement. Juan Bautista de Anza National Historic Trail Arizona-California.
Pacific Great Basin Support Office, National Park Service [San FranciscoJ.
2005 Juan Bautista de Auza National Historic Trail Arizona-California, Santa Clara
County, California. Historic and Interpretative Sites
http://www.nps.gov/jub/santacla.htm [printed 5/25/2005].
United States War Department, Corps of Engineers (US War Dept)
1943 Palo Alto, Calif. [Quadrangle]. Topographic map, 15-minute series. United
States Geological Survey, Menlo Park (photography 1937, 1940).
Walker, Mike
1994
Steam Powered Video's Comprehensive Railroad Atlas of North America.
California and Nevada. Steam Powered Publishing, Faversham, Kent
[EnglandJ.
Abbreviations
n.d. no date
v.d. various dates
N.P. no publisher noted
n.p. no place of publisher noted
The abbreviated phrase "CHRISINWIC, CSU Sonoma, Rohnert Park" is used for material on file
at the California Historical Resources Information System, Northwest Information Center,
California State University Sonoma, Rohnert Park. Note the primary numbers are not included
in the citations above.
BASIN RESEARCH ASSOCIATES
ATTACHMENTS
FIGURES
FIGURE 1 GENERAL PROJECT LOCATION
FIGURE 2 PROJECT LOCATION (USGS Cupertino, Calif., 1991)
FIGURE 3A PROJECT ALIGNMENT (STEVENS CREEK CORRIDOR
PARK)
FIGURE 3B PROJECT ALIGNMENT (North)
FIGURE 3C PROJECT ALIGNMENT (Central)
FIGURE 3D PROJECT ALIGNMENT (South)
FIGURE 4 CA-SCI-715 SITE BOUNDARIES WITH BACKHOE TEST
UNIT LOCATIONS (In order to preserve site integrity, this
figure is not included for public disclosure)
FIGURE 5 VIEW SOUTH ALONG CREEK AT NORTH END OF SITE
(In order to preserve site integrity, this figure is not included for
public disclosure)
FIGURE 6 VIEW NORTH FROM CREEK BANK AT SOUTH END OF
SITE (In order to preserve site integrity, this figure is not
included for public disclosure)
FIGURE 7 BTU 4 - NORTH WALL
FIGURE 8 BTU 9 - NORTH WALL
BASIN RESEARCH ASSOCIATES
~
,
"-
,
"-
-"
-.....
-"-- -..
)
"
I
......
,
\
SONOMA \
I
\
,
\
,
\
NAPA
,
\
\
\
I
\
r------>
I
\
...-
:::-
,
\
I
I
1
YOLO
SOLANO
,
)
!
r
MARIN
CONTRA
COSTA
/
./
/
./
/
./
/
'- ./
,r-~--------------(
\
SANTA (
\
CLARA v",
"
ALAMEDA
'-
\
6)
_1
1
1
,
I
I
,
1
1
1
1
I
,
I
,
I
\
"
-~
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
\
,
'\
(
\
\
I
/
/-
\
I
\
"
,
\
1
1 /'
\..1
1
1
1----1
_-H"'O-__l
,
.....
,
SANTA
CRUZ
,
'-
"
......
......
,
,
"
,
.,
\
,
-
,
,
,
'-
,
\^
./'./-"
t '-___
I
'\.
---'-....- f' ,
/ ') -.......
/
./
Figure 1: General Project Location
~.:,:~.,f.'~.:'.".:.""""":"""" ~'~.'.'."..~..:.'.'. ~""':"..'.' '" :<......"":.~....c:.........'L......:.:..~....:5E.:....:. .,~~.:...D...... . -. ...."'il';7... ...~. ":"~;,>[..;'.t::,:.,,: ,'i."'- ':,:,'.m
,~.~~ ., . . ~ .' --. " ,,~~~. '.' . 'S"0';.::~h'i:)";I:,f'"' ~'.~~(' ~'riI
.:~~;~;S)f:~: ,<. ....~.,'-~~;.; [1:r:':>:'~ ;~y. .:.'. ' J'~ ~:~.:~ ;;1 :'l:<~:j~::,: g~ }~ :'(!1 ~;] ij :.:W:
It: u ;.;~,
~ ~. ~
I~<\r;: /' ' <is\~ Y'I, ~, . ~<: L~ j, ~<t ",-.<:.:~~~: .:.Ir:...... '>l'~;" ,,)'"':, .
V "'. ''':.., :'~' \:~y~!;~[: ....~. \.'!-. !~:!=' H~h:.~ ,f:>:;.< .....;y:..
~r;.':.. .. ' .._ ,~V'~t'~ts ....:, .,'.,;5
- ,...:..... I Ii" %...>'-'..'... i/:.. , ~~....'''r'~ ~ ....o!:..l \ A
' \" -, , :;. 't<:.1f. ,/;; . . '.~' . '- ",.
"- /' Tar - :~~:, :. '(:, ~. " 'X:\. :-;-~:y,s.[. I', <.;;{ :'ff;,_;~.~:;~~ .... '~9 ;;.;;~
"'- -". ') ,,~, .' ""'0' ,.t.~k i " .. '. ~1d.:" ~., ...:""".
L- -:J /' "'~' . >'--,. .'". :~ . 'r~';: ..lv. .. , ,.~: ':""'~ _, . \~~~'.:!" ."; :.::>,". .<.;: ,.~.
[/ ;l~ ~'V'. ' . ",~ l,.' .. ':~:'::"", ;'f' :";:R".}!:] ::;~q~~ i';*;) r:j
>~, .~~. li\~' .' . ~ni"~7':'l;H.~~. ~. ~ .. ". r :':;'."':';.,/.' '::, ;.>..... ..,.....:..".....
/ . ,~,.j/i.-r,..~ ~~-:~ '. ' .-,,:' ~g'. ':-,: . l :"....., i. " ";;'" \.;\;;~..;,,<..,<; !~.;.'~~/."".
f ":"./ }-~t>~. ~~, ',> ~.;'> ~\; ~ ~r c;- ~~ ~..<- "-.. -,..'c :.c> ~ :;~j&</~:i~~(.<;c~ :"."'>-.:--':;-;-.-:J~: _::~:)-.~
. , .' :~"~ '...,,~ Y. }, 'f" ";" ""'-c..t,,,..).,,';4.;::;,:',i',/':f.i .. ....",,,
,......... _ '~""'j'/ ~: ?1' . -'.,~ .\~ l ..~.... <' <." C r" ~ "'.0.. 'S - -- -. '-~.~~- ~~);,~\<
., .-"Q : Subs!<1- tc,li~ \fi!"~' ".\' i~ .J'/;'l :'1[;:;::.;;:." \:l,V~\'/ ':~~;i"\ .. " .~... I.t '.' .
...... ~~' X' "\ ... . ".,. I ,,". K..' l"..,.' .'1.>" ott..
. " . . "IT , '." ':,' c.:;...:., :', " "':~.,;";';';;I "-... ,B~ "~" iT.': :; "). . .' .,.c . ..
. .:'. 'f~'. ."c ';~}" ... ,"'. ...s,,'-....,'.... '.' .,'"
_.~?..:,?~m'~
P',~ ~-~, ~~^':';1~f<7rP i::~::;.U},\.~.J,2~f;<.<'".~;':.,~. .'.'-"~.~~;<~1 .... '_~.;? .
~~ "1~Ti" fl' ~,; ,~.,.',-~. .:tr;:~~' ',l.!: (~: ":~~;.'.,; 1i ~ :. :;~\~~,4 "~ \..-.~;~.~F= tJ
'.r.~.F' ~"<'-""';'. ".' i.> ,;,' .... " ., I' . ~;,.!\\. I;". .._... .,.".
~~;~'~\'.~.' ~ "7: ....:. ~)~,:]:, ~,iJA' lJ~i'.,';' } "~I';; . .: '. !i.",.!-;",. 'fi.;, ',}:!
.,-., "- /~--' 1J.I,;iII'! ;'\',,",,' I, ' .... >~ Y"
:;"~ .. . ";, .-c.. ' . ..' .' .: i, ',/ ....... '.... "f;" ~ . "" . ", ;;:. ',. -:~:'-:
'''^:-'~' , , :!>.,.-;J.:' " . \: " r~f' . "'~."..l '''..' ','
, .-..-/, ... ;' 1 :.:.2)l;"<' '.'. ' , " .~<~ '., . ';C' ." .~' '\ . .~;' . ; , ": ".;
/' . >:..:::".~1'-~'"'" ........'.,. . .' . --. .'.~' "', ..' ~1.'. " '. ., 1\, ." .,' ': . :?\
./""'"/ ,..- :0.,:..,,,,,",'-., ......'\." :f""" ..,., *'. ,.;
... ". j 1 "T-:,.,'~t" . " ':-"';" _ :.,.,. ~,. ;" ",:" . ~ ...........
.. . 5~"--!' --( i i \ . '. ' ,:, (,-.. '.'. .,,, ., -..1:....- ' ~.,:". .;).~ ."\ ..' '~.. ,
/v'''- '1\ ~~. l ~.} .. >, ' \'"c ~ ..._.", Uac.c ,'. , '\ ~ ~,' ~~E,' ,~, ' ;'-,. :} '~,::~, >' i
~>. lJ' 1" '5ij..,' '\:. :{., ~~ .. . I. u".,..; ,. , '.'" ?" ,. ,.' ; .,... . ~
~ .'" f /""' ~ . I""'" . \~ ,'~ ,'t....,'. t ,....Q ,,_ ~ S4:b _.: \0":. .,' <'r">~ l;':! ! of ~~~.. ~
/ y/ /f / ' -~ ~ -=., > .. ~N. >.. .-1-- ~ .../' ., . < .,-.~;- . ......_~v ~ ~-:.!'S. ~/' . ..' >~~" ~:~.
,~ I. ,/...c___._.- \''. \' ~ - -)0., .. 'vi' ,.' .', .,/,) "y " >'#/'10..' ,.c. '1 ....~.",..,.
/5' " -:-~'. :.-' >1-<\ .; ~L ,--.~,.::~;,~ "J:.l :.r' 'el .... ,'.;:c,. ;.;~' % 'I.:- {,:~>?fl
f.._~.._.~~'-.~N/'.: . .>.-"':\;>'.::~., .':~': ~~' ,:,. "'~'~ .:' ~~ . '.. ~. ::. ~)~. ;':. :"~ft:~:~ :;,'!1 ;'.:;\l: :'~
.....'v .... > ~ ~ -"'""'~, \< -.. ~ , ""~' _-..0. o......~ ,:)- . ~ ..' .. , , ; ~:-:, ',;-: c, 2 ,~.. 1.."-: ~>:< _~. \ '~', '
. \' ,. ,. , " . . .... "'. ' <' ,'oi is .. '".'" .~. . ;'.: "'. ."
~., '. t .. ,.i'r-.. ~......~ ..... ~,\ .. i.._,-., r, ("!: , ...., ' ,fl...TR-adI, ~ ~,~}}\~-'; c '<2 <~, ......<-? . > ....-.tio'-........,~
J'/\ '>i'.'''-...,,~:-\ 'C'-".~,,7"- ...", '0.:.<ft.- !-,r. ','1.: 1"bScb ;<~~",.:; ~~'~<<':'~~Jollv-
. "c "<~,." ',,<_. ,<5" .)" '<u., ' '.'"-1 t.'" : '. '. ......{. " , . ~ '::,: "~.;,.u..;:..:...s;?:"-t.~
~ J .J:.~ ..., Vl"'-2~F" . ''i"c -.... -.. ~....~ ;> }~~ \:' >1&> c' Cc "'1 ':f!.
I' .;'"'J ~ .. r--...... /"" ---.- ' ... :""",,:-tL.:. n-....". 1: '{ ~ ~ cQ ,,;:'. Q ,'to....' ..,.~
," 'cc.. ...'....... '. ...... :E'~ . " . '1'..1' .". ". . ;cA.';" .' _ >.... '". '.." .
:;~'--!l\l': _..:.':::,. "A' - ;" ~.' ; ", ;:c:: ~' 'v '" >- ~:~} '.' " . :',,~-;,. ;~~', ",.,,;;.,, . .,~, ,<> 'r,~
v~ / -~-"t! "":2;'" . " Q / ~;.- ,~. ~.. '. ":" ,....~..~.' ,',. . 'j: ::,~:, '''''''',
~ ......~ ':-.' .J........... ......... J v' t ..~J ' ,_ ~__' ,.~: :-.,~_..~" :~:;-,'.: c ~. c < ~~ :;".
..' , <, '.' ,'.-. !'~.1R' It-V' '1lI~.., < ,,' i ,^~~' "'.,.,;,,,,", .b......>:';;>' ~ .,~,.\:..", ',,~,
. -~". "/ /) I',. r...~~', ,;..,! r:{ . ~ -',. ,_J . '< k ..::; . '. . ,..; '.',f<< .,"' .~, , .' '.. ~ . , . " '.i ;'C;:!0
-.', 1./' }'~ -Y. . I,yLl! j. 1,\, / · Wa~1. ',;.'.,. No". 0;';'0::." .,"" : \,:; ~ .... .' ~~, >~>': ~.J );.' .;,;/
'----,' , 'li~i1 . \-7" '\..-,~~ i '" "t'4f>lq " 1~ ''C '--...,;' .'" ~!;f ,t.;>:<<il ~v ., ~
L,...."" . < ! ,-..::. L.)~~~., .~'. . t.:", j ":' .:;:;!: " '. .;/...:t:'-:~.. T T" "T"~ :' .,,' .~\;;; :~,~;~ '" ~:, ; f'~:"
~. -.,.,.... ...........-,--~ ..... .t!. ;:.~... ~...-'" ~v" .'" f " ~:,. ". .,,'., ~>~ ,.",
. ,.... .... ... "...... L ~--,.. ..' ... ,(. ~ .... ,..-.- -... _" J-~C~ "'='- ~~\: -0., u"',.
.., .~ '., .', ~" ".' I 'jt--;/' .' .' .~" 'Yf;..; '. ,~,' '";t '" ~:" ;; . " '. ~:' N:--i;.iO
, 9 (<: ..... 1 ( c (::/""... .:.; "',............ :.-..;~...t~ ~...~/. ..~ ;~ ~..;,q~,""c ,"--" ~ -:.; "- /c' t:
\" ~..q~.c -:. f' ........., .....'-} .. l. "ii ~ < ~ 'if"--.. ..., .. ~--~ ;.c...~;AIlf.iA.;,..'-:.-'c ,.......' , '~
.:... ~, ~ :: .. ~ "~ ~ "Y .. 'I- /.. ':t > ~ ,>..' , ~ , ~ ~~ ~"' '''", ~
."~V$f. ~,~ ... ~ ~'... <.._____ c. .~ />,~iII..~ " '.. ....':;t.~,~L~'...:~;~>,!',""~c,'::;, ~ I.'
. . "--112" ,-<;vo~::t...:-.:...; _""r-;:::f~ -,.J "~::~,, ,: ...~.y"..-~ ';'X "", ..... .<' :', .,,--~ ,"- IIj
. ."- ,::0" 4! '.' .',', 1.,;'" ~ "~~ ' . "',; . ,~:-, , ,,,.;; .. J".'X:' .j.'i;1
. '-....:--'....... ~ ~ '... - 1 \ .. .,. t{ .~ \ p r--~, ..~fII'!;..,'-; '" ~ . '.110.... .. .... '~;j ,~,: c ' --;, ~ ~ ~
I.... " ," i< "..,.. <.. .' I' ,'" ,. ."-..i.... . ~ r" . . ,.0>.".... . '.'.' t \:.; ~
~' :\'. <~ ~',- \;..,1 r.\; l~, ,: :'.~, (; :--~~llM;"'"'\ ,j<::') '. ~.,' ,(,;. );';';- 'xX~":': ;':';f~ ~c'f\l ',:";
-~--_.-' j1~' s=1'~Co"........~ (c, /~~ Lt ~ r-" I \'-~ .~~ i. . 'v.......'\.f --;. -: --, '-Il It "'t~-:yc' ~ .~ "'-..' -=-. ~ ~, ~
'-. ..'V:; 't :~ ^ y '~l., ( ,.. \ Y \ -- "1'.'. ,. ", ,:;.r'"N~ '~.~ ~':t:\; ,; "":"'~:rJ 1:;. ,1\ '. ".':
It \ , y. :J /Ufi ','",>\:",\,\\ I .. .Yi) ~:x '. '-" ~. .' 4' /',.~- '.........'-..._:..;L~ I. l. ., -i;'.' \ ~~;:~j.':-{'n."
,..... . ''t. '.~'~' '-;\..~I ~. '( ~~ "I"' ~ .~..... .~, \ .I"",~. =.: .~,~/
:- ......._,':. .v, ",~ ~ ~..,,\\. '.'~ ., . u ...) t ~ -",--.r . ':><. \ . . .. 1'1~.. ",', "'l". ;.f-
__/.-d. ,_/... ~ -...."" 'Il' ... "' _ ,~~, "" ''': _ , <-'> ,
_~~~ _ ~>~: ---1~~/ 4,iu.-.'Ion ... r\" ."" ~ J' - -...t! t! .....:. '.......... \. '^-_I... > c -IQ' ;;;";- ~ ,;
~<:~--:::\,., ~;., ,. ..... ;..~\\.\ 'I; '. (-.., ~ ,/// 0 MILES 1 l'
. .. "\ J c - - - ( c/ ~<. .~-""'li '..f ~(~.. I ,
~ ~,_:;,; '~;- . \ > '- l.---: ~~ (' ,:," :w .c. _
..\/I/.~~ A~r';\ . /..;;:;J (' ; t:::~J}~' . . -' . tr/. f" 0 KILOMETERS 1 .;~
-<.'. ~jr' J' /< . '-'. ( 271t> < '. .' J . " '"
:;j. \:" /.fII ':. ;>~ .>>.... J '!I ',. . \i Vl~h. '-i.' /! .":.',' /' . '.' ..../x.~.'.....' (.i~~~\;i
..... ;;': -- ~. ~~" .~ _h '.r __ ~ ..~..,." . -, ...."'" '!', ~. ~N~,
Figure2:
ProjectLocation(USGSCupertino,Calif.1991 )
. ~.....'_ j' 'I ,,--,. ....J""-"".~ . y~
'-...u,'- ',...~. N..::J:....." ~.} ~'-' ~ ~
J>,...___A
"jr~""""""~" ~~. Ji.bt.!rIflllr;\::.,,:,~
_~. ., IU,U.lIf i .":"'~ ; ..
2::\.,...., . _ {... " q :Jo
J)W- ~ ... ~~iC.".y.,7!; ~/'.~; 'z
. t7I. L='i~,,\,., -:;c'~ ~,-~~~)i ~C':i ..~~. ,[
..., 'IE'I.",,~,. t:~>:) ; )~.'" II \'i~}:[ '.~~. ..;'~ J
-~_:" ;}.f.'" '" ...." ;' ~ -.; ............. . .-
1"; . .,,~.., ", '><~:~\ : H } ~o;"::r--r {J'rI
. ~ r"'-';" "'W;.' ~ :...... :~:~~." ~ ~ . : ~ .~.'";; Jr.~
-, .L.,"1/", "'l \' :.;;; :::.':' \. t'i ; ~.~~.'.~&
I S"'~' j 1."; ;':.: ':'. 1 (f-f
:j; . > '. f ~~~~y ';'.;.:~' ,;S-..= ~ ' -:,;/" ,." ;:;..,{
J' D'~ J "'::~ <;\ ..: @ 1 \ .'," ;) ~
<1 ;...:";- ,;:~~~IF' ," ,\\'fJ i .... I;' D~ij Il
W rrf ;:. ::~ :' r,.,1 : <e:~'qt;;L'jj . ~
,I~~': '1~ .. [ i~ ~;::.,~;{!.y)t:J{\ ~.. vl', ~ .
.....:- - ',~ . 1/ ..........',.: ~;" '.....:.~,~ :, f "'",~..........,"f'.',. {J ~
, ,.[("1 ~;o J' I r ! ,,, I ;, ".. fl1.''/ '/ '.< t..", q C. \ 'il,~. .' ,'.;;.fr:
:01~r-J~/;CJ;~" " Wt\Jlfl1 ~ '1 /.."0~',\(t.).:. (1 l~:lC:i~~l;;
13:1'l. ,O'W:" ~.J;1>"'.! >\ \...\\ :; 1.s..-,lJLJi'lt .
. "<. . ~! t..1':>~ . T ~, r~: :: ~'" -1 ~h {~ ~i I ~1111 0 -
..,. ~ ~ (( '......3' ~ ~ .......-; : - '.~, \ : <.. 1';! . ~
1 ... ... ~ ' . ,'f;~~~.~<........:: ~: \ \ ~c.' 1~ ~
. , ," , . xA1' i '" \ """., ...., ,
~1 ~ ~ ., ~, ~ ~J.: < ':".U.~ .,.:p ~ \\ \~ \~~"c l ;~-~~, \ \ \ \1 \ . : -~ :i 1:;
.'0' ~tp;1'ICh.... . ,," ," l< " .\"'. .-
-'.... ~~, " ~ '-,.y'c'. ~ . ... ' .. a ~ "'" ~., f' '
J....../ f~'''-,>,--''''...~' / ~. ... ~ "'- 1 ;\ ::;: ~; :\,.
',j" . . f '''H.."..~. '- , . '-;" "..! ,~. f \. .1)(
:'1'"' ..~. :. - ! v~--':; ~: '" '......l; 'IfIi&
~!(> ;;~.. ..._~.~' .. : ! \. \ 01,. {J tJ !' . \. 0 q
a.. ~ ..' , ,,'~,.,,'j i., \ , ' '" ~""
......tl: ... -t ~ , ' ~ ... ',' ~ Y; V'"., , ~ : ..;
,'. "TTOO"'''' ' ! \.,",\ 'J.... 'k; i 'r\ .'
~~. '" [leu;;- ""." ~.~ ". "f"~,'-,.....c~ ~;' i . :< ..~" ~~I f\
...f ~ ":.<.. r~ ."~) '...: , '__J ~ r
"'.... I' ' c !. ~'t;:, i i ~,) ~, ,~ . \ \ r. . "?:
", IJ . H, \I,.1J.' . , I'~ 1 if\\tC)r '.("~ i [
II ~~ ' . , ,,1 A! .JJRJ.......
. ~ """; &:J h . ~-.. ',. N {t:\2i:::tJ )~/'~ ,-...: Ii'
~ . "L.~W'~~~ . -::/- ..-.:::;:j . . Il5
, .... . i ~ Ifr .- -~..-' . r !~;"....
. rt ..' ;..c .~>q /'.?':F'.r
. t...1f. OJ. j' ',"~ ',.c::;. ; rt:', ~ i
.... iP~'~ ~. J;f'\ .. : ~.' :. .'::"'. 'X ~w~; f';O;' :' J:! ~~ t
, . -... ~ ".:r\,Lt-' <i ~. .-
,', :f, .....~.. . i w~ '\,', . f
h ;~b4 " ~ ~~ ," >-;..\([J:r:;r::' : ~ N :
..; "".' I.'t~. . !~ ).'" '~~ ' ~..::..>:._ ' ",_ .(
~ -...: ... ,'" jir '. " 'C- .......... 1 . ,"
:_'~ ".. \...' ~ n. ,
. ,'. a -""'- . ""-:~'/.! '.' ". [~....' ~ .' , ,..,~ ). ''1
~ 1~" ;w.. 7"" i' ...... ;u~ ~
J::. ) Lu) ", " ", ,\..,.! . f,'.' . .': ~1 '\ oao"" ..,' ^
J~. ; '. l' \]"'.''1. ~? .. /~~ .'.';/ . . . I .,' ( ), \-.~ . ....,,:, ~'b,.~ -L. .
. '.'OJ........"J ~\...k., ~,,<< ,'7':W" ,\.. 1).':- ,Il., ',\...,. ::lR.."' ~f
)... .,. , ''''' ,...,.... , ~ /~ nc:-
. I; ,JJ~'+i; ~ . "?L " ': ~, . 'J ~\. ~J 11 [
~r>'rjf {V1, \..\. ." ~ ~ '", . ", n ,. - .
~.,...;.~. ;;"""'"\.; ,,' ""!' " "'fm':' l.. ;{~
~i/ '--Y)f ,-, ' .. ...... 1'1 \"':1 ~u......
'} ''''Q'~:;' .ff/./ /^,.,<,', 'J . _It: 1\ " '(
f:.. ,f,' J>~' Ir.." ,~.,: . >..., ~ frf' ' ,
r" - -?t ~ :'.. f~ ~"r" ~ ~>. ...~~ .~~. " > ~ ~ . ..,
:~'/)~: ;')'. 'j, .,! t
_ ~ ~-..:~, ....~" '. !l;O.' " : ....., .-.... ~".
~, .. ~ i " .; " \ . 7'" s: o.
, ., r. ,r? ' " , ' , ' , , -~ . ! . '
'-: n . 'vrIC. ,,'.' .,,: . . Li""'''''';'.;;'('. ,'.' .;:l~": .,. , ..
~:; F"~/' \\!d.v ~'\") .~...' ....;:J!,~;:.; ,v ~)'J
;;N r.5 j- , <~~~"j"";"'~ ! \ ",' ~i:. . ..~."..< ~~," '" f
~ 'I jI ("". '-. ' i/ "/"'.~ LI.lrr 11"" .. ,iif ; . ,V; .' , ,.
. !.. If / ~,,', . ; '.:::> ~"U-t}O['U...,. , '\) " , ~", .
"I " M 1 ,., . . n, Pn~~""', ",.. . ;b .
(' l; ~\1 ;: U i".., f (j rt..JJ'?" .,: -".: ~[)~ gr
, L Ji] \ ' ,'or .......~,f(3"~
,..'~ ... _-::..~~~.. ..,
~...;;.) ~ ..'~ {'" . '
", - .. Ie.' ./' . ~
(F<<~:~ . "'. . ,-~,!,o~~~ ' ~b
,.~" .' .,~~'
~.~~ .'~JC'..'"'-'W"I' ........
Lt~~ STEVENS CREEK CORRIDOR PARK MASTER PLAN ~oo It. T
,
LEGEND
-~
.....-.
. · · ... ;::wmUWRll..
.
:]. ,,1II'I:It'~atnMTRM.
Figure3A:Project Alignment
T
NORTH
......
,
/'
I l _.~
LL.r,., I L...J~'~,,,," /
'. -.-.,,""-"-.-.--,-:<~..-._~.
....~'d
.. ..c'.'OO ....,~,..~y .'""""'"
\
,
: \
. ,
, ,
.... -~/,
-"
.:.-'J'-.~,
:i.;;~'
.,.",.,.
'.'
'.
"
~.".
E], \~: ~':~~
.. '
"
,-"':,
\'~
,.
J
,
"
:'\
,,~,.
""'..
,
.,
-'-..'~
ocy",
;
n '. /
U ~-
o
~, ~
,,'.>
";,
6\
c~ \
.,/'
.',
;!
G ".;,,';
":~
,<
,
~\
<.:\
,:;'
(;,
~.
"
"." --.~
\.~.
-::J ..;)
,
,..,
(';.
~.,:
.
,
......~c;;,i
<~
-c:>
;:::;
o
(,
.,
\
~)
(;
J
()
')
.-
v
~~ :
9
:,
(:~
(
~:~
~~-~ :~.';
I',
~':'>;
::j
(;
~,
(:,
.,.
~.. "0'
-.........
,
<"
,
:;....'
C ;'i
;:')
. ': ~
.~
~:'-.:
~
"
~.:::
<>
-":::-
'.-,"
~.:
c~
..~
..
l
,~:
;
~~~/
<~ -~~ <>
,
{:~!
"
:~~;-:;: "
G
,"
.<
~.,~
O.......Q..........
; /
. .
: =.J '. -,
'~." -0. '
;::~
~....:
i
-:"'1
~.
'" N'.....
/
. .~
t~
........~
=..r-
"
j
".
."
~
-""
(
.'
"
.,
,..........~.
..E'-".-,
".
i
.,
~.~"
. \.~
;'
~'~
~)-,.,
;-.
w,',..~._',...
[!J~
J"~ '
\
~
;
u
~
'~.,../
".,.p.'.
LEGEND
......
-.......
--..
...........,
.......-
'"
d ..W'D!:tITt'BMiCRE8l:1'1Wl
I'.::
.,.,.~C
V L..-!' L-J
--"';'.w>,~ 1; ".......".-... ,.
\
.,
..,
".
:..:::
~ ~~~5>>}>>>>>>>>f'
~~~T~~
~~1}, \}. \
..,~.fffJ_tl~
-::. ,- ~
'~.''''''''''''
"-
'- V.
~ t;
.......
'.
"
j ,
,
..~. -'-"';'.'
,
_'i.
;,,"'"
~ j ~
-c,...,. ,c '..
,.
'.
.
.
.
io
..
'.'
,,->
,.
~r~'~
,
.'
r'
'1
.
~
~
~ [
'..j
,
i
.
_TA
~
,
~
<0
,
~
.
.
~ -t:
~rw"",,~
'.,
\
5;
ti
~
\
\
f/
,
>",
, ,~.
~.
':-
"./
r
'~
,)oJ
,J.."
";:.-
'.........>.
V.., ;
t
,
,~, ."....
"
/
'I'
/
,.
"
,
..,
",
..-''''"'.'\.
<:-
{U,.
,
\..'
<:"
<>
~.:-.
STEVENS CREEK CORRIDOR PARK
STOCKLMEIR SITE
Figure3B:Project
Alignment(North)
f
,
,
c
; ",..........,.'u
" -
.~ '-':
'L. .
~
-
,
......~..,.
;.:l
';<
t 1:
i.:
"
t ~
"
!.'
1:[
=[1
f"
'-
,
.w
!,,:
,.
~ ~
,
/
t,.>
",'\: . 0[:':]'
. ~" .r x; ~ ~
. \ <;,:: C';"':'l"/
,;ti"..,",",~~
{\.~::~,:.y,....~...,.- .....v.~~"" ~
?..----..~
"
(
"
;,-:'f
~/' '
:-...e
/
.{ .
":-,~
<<
..... ,.0
'<1
.l:,
(,;
c"' ~
<
.::;
~ \ > ~
\;.;,\\
u:
"'
~;
{'c
..."\';
!?
'~(
"
\\
/'
~ ~
, .
T
'NORTH: "
--
.--
,
~0
,
,
\....~,
.
,
\. : j
.........,..1.>,
~
,
, .,
; ,
i
'_.-'
/..
'-'
"
f
..'~,"=,"-
.-/
.::::;.-'--
.'
j .' f7'
. ,
'1
.r'.
q
,
_~7M',,,,,C
\
"
., " "
"
,.
..
'.\
~~ .
,
'; ;, ~
't
,
,
~_J""".'~~''''--''''''''
(
,/'f'~',...:>
,.
"-..'UM,m:"..".-"
~-
"
.i
"c'
-'
;
...,..-A...
>.....---.,,"N~
!
;;
,
\;'
"'"
.,~
~...;
/~,..:,:-:-.,..
.~.c, .....H........,~~~..
: ~.,.".
, >f.1'~.M
"
,
l'
,
..
, '
...V".....,~;
,
.,f'-:{>-
'\........,
/~)
':'
....0,
w,
....;
'~'<:....,'~
o 0
L-......J~
, ".......
,~
,..
/.
\
......."A.....
'<
/.
.f-....\
. .
\.<~~~,~.,:'H'~....~_c
(~ -,;.;
'=:-~."'~'''''. ,;
---"-""
. ,
~, ',rl,,_..'
,tj
;~<",-,\ '
l \y,.
\
~.""="--:...,..,..,...,.....,
,
-".""'-
j""..
/~
--........
~-' ./'
<://
'''''''~~..
~~"'L".~
LEGEND
-......
--..
[tJ
00
......
-.
......~
~
~..~a:ctbJML
.S'
c::::J
. ::<.~ ;::"l..-,.-.o;;Fro
.~-\.
<:>
~M~~
',0
A-...
. """""'. '.
'",->,~~,.;:::.'
"..>,-...."'1:"...."-~~ ~........~
"-<'Co r. --;;'r ';~.Ii"..,~
n!>"";i..""'"'
C":;.":o:;o_:O-
;:'?~'Y.
j..;;~",,~ ~.
~-=e~~-"
........"'t"...'..::!:
.~.
l'f,~"',,:-..........~
"'.... \
",
11 C-:7
[] Qr~-J
~LJ
C!J[fi
"
'-
7?~
STEVENS CREEK CORRIDOR PARK
BLACKBERRY FARM SITE
GRAPHIC SCALE
HOT TO SC.u.:E
"----
./'
Figure3C:Project
Alignment(Central)
: . ~. 0
;'a 0
, .
.:: """:;:!:
"''1'" ~
T
NORTH
fIIOT TO SCALE
.'
~
/
Figure3D:Project Alignment(South)
Figure7:BTU4-NorthW all
Figure8:BTU9-NorthW all
Stevens Creek Corridor Park Master Plan and Restoration Plan IS
APPENDIX D
TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS, STEVENS CREEK CORRIDOR
PARK, HEXAGON TRANSPORT A TION CONSULTANTS
-
.."...........
~w UA~DH T ~ANSPORT A TID" (OHSUl T ANTS. I Ne.
MEMORANDUM
To:
Jana Sokale
From:
Mike Waller
Subject:
Stevens Creek Corridor Park - Traffic Impact Analyses
Date:
September 16, 2005
Introduction and Summary
The City of Cupertino is in the process of developing a Master Plan for the parklands that comprise the Stevens
Creek Corridor. One of the project goals is to ensure that park operations, including visitor traffic, do not
significantly affect surrounding residents. This memorandum presents the results of a traffic impact analysis for
the existing and planned activities associated with the proposed Stevens Creek Corridor Master Plan. These
activities occur at several parkland sites, including Blackberry Farm Picnic Grounds and Golf Course, McClellan
Ranch Park, and the Stocklmeir and Simms properties.
The projected traffic impacts, both good and bad, were assessed based on comparisons of the expected change in
average daily traffic volumes. Existing traffic volumes were counted, the amount of traffic attributable to
existing and planned park activities was determined, and the net change was calculated for weekday and
weekend day conditions.
The results indicate that on weekdays the planned change in park activities and the expected change in the
number of participants will cause a slight increase in traffic volumes on the roadways in the vicinity. The
greatest increase is expected for the segment of McClellan Road east of Byrne, At this location, average daily
weekday traffic may increase by a little less than five percent (less than 250 vehicles). All other study locations
were projected to experience lesser levels of increased traffic.
The results for weekend days showed that there would be less traffic on most of the nearby roadway segments.
The expected decline in area traffic on weekend days is attributable to a significant reduction in picnicking at
Blackberry Farm. The most notable traffic reduction will occur on Byrne A venue. Reductions of more than 300
vehicles (15 to 20 percent) per weekend day are projected for the segments of Byrne Avenue north and south of
San Fernando Avenue. The expected change in traffic on Stevens Creek Boulevard and McClellan Road is
projected to be less due to slight increases in activity at McClellan Ranch, the golf course and the Blue Pheasant
Restaurant. Only the segment of McClellan Road east of Byrne Avenue is projected to experience an increase in
weekend traffic. Weekend day traffic on this segment is projected to increase from about 4,705 to 4,766 daily
vehicle trips. This represents a 1.3 percent increase in daily traffic on McClellan Road east of Byrne Avenue.
7888 Wren Avenue, Svite B~ 121 · Gilroy. Colifornio 95020
phone 408.846.7410 · fox 408.846.7418 · www.hextrons.com
Ms. lana Sokale
September 16, 2005
Page 2
Existing Traffic Volumes
Six roadway segments were selected to provide a representative sample of locations where traffic attributable to
park activities would likely affect the magnitude of traffic. The traffic study locations included:
· San Fernando Avenue, west of Byrne Avenue,
· Byrne Avenue, south of San Fernando Avenue,
· Stevens Creek Boulevard, west ofPhar Lap Drive,
· Stevens Creek Boulevard, east ofImperial Avenue,
· McClellan Road, east of Byrne Avenue, and
· McClellan Road, west of Clubhouse Lane.
Traffic was counted hourly at five of the locations from June 1 through June 7, 2005. The San Fernando Avenue
count was conducted on Monday, June 13 when Blackberry Farm was closed. All other activities within the
Stevens Creek Corridor (Golf course, Blue Pheasant Restaurant, and at McClellan Ranch) were operating
normally on Monday, June 13.
Counting the traffic on a day when Blackberry Farm was closed provided an opportunity to measure the Non-
Blackberry Farm related traffic volumes just outside the main entrance to Blackberry Farm Park and on the other
roadway segments being studied. Therefore, the traffic counted on Monday, June 13,2005 is referred to on the
following Figures and Tables as the Background (No Blackberry Farm) Traffic. Figure I displays the estimated
background traffic volumes at each of the studied roadway segments.
Planned Changes in Park Operations
Michael O'Dowd, the Special Projects Manager for Blackberry Farm, derived estimates of existing and projected
annual, monthly and daily participants attributable to activities happening within the Stevens Creek Corridor.
Hexagon evaluated the estimates and worked Mr. O'Dowd to estimate the associated number of daily vehicle
trips for weekdays and weekends. Table 1 shows the estimated number of existing and projected vehicle trips for
weekdays and weekend days for each access point, and program.
The information in Table 1 shows that based on the planned changes in park operations, overall weekday traffic
will increase from about 576 auto trips per day to about 769 auto trips per day. And, on weekend days the total
amount of auto traffic will decrease from about 1,152 to 873 trips per day. These changes represent an increase
of 33.5 percent for weekday traffic and a traffic decrease of 24.2 percent for weekend days.
It is important to note that there are three main entrances to the Stevens Creek Corridor and the projected change
in traffic is not the same at each of these locations. Relatively little change will occur at the Stevens Creek
Boulevard entrance, a relatively large percentage increase will occur at the McClellan Road entrance, and at the
San F ernando Avenue entrance weekday traffic will increase a little and weekend traffic will decrease a lot.
New programs will account for 137 (71%) of the 193 total new weekday auto trips. Increased participation in
existing program activities make up the other 56 new weekday auto trips. New programs will add about 170
Ms. lana Sokale
September 16, 2005
Page 3
li
1
5
.J:
.i <S
/ ~
/~
~
.1'.
.~ .
. ~
SlIYer
OalcWy
\
=:e
ClC> co ~ AY
Cuperlino Rd
m On::hai'll , Cedar-
~ Rd' wood
li 6505 \ Cl
5535'" .
~'
Av
Stevens CIl!<It Blvd
Byrne
Granada II
WoodrXlQe CI
~
~ Ju/i i
j Rarlt:#lo Ven~
~ir 8t
"
&!
.. l
ItJ ~
I
Palm Av
Alcazar A..
-~.
Hermosa AV
::1:
"'" t'A lOll'llla Av
,f
~
LomiII A..
Ct
,
"
"
-,,>
BI8d<be1ry
Faml
Golf CourlMI
i
I
i
AlmmIen A1I
Il.
SI
~
~
San Fomenda f-
A... d
.5
Alcalde Rct Santa
Av
Noonan Ct
.'_.'.........
~Rct
2181
2209
"
. ~:
">".
""-.Cu
Plltk
VIlla
Cir
c
II
\
....,..
Or
,
}
c
SIlaltuok Or l!l ~
,
~
,
/
,
i
"
,~-"."~ ""-.-"
\
f
J
\ ;'
:"......'
!
~
..
.
-r
'"
,.
-+
,~ .
.\.
\-
"
':,.-
:0;<
"
"
,
.:,'
G
~F.
.,;c
A
".:,~.
.or'
..~~..
,"
.';-,
'\~c
.::
E1mCt\~
'_.,
,.,_c
.-if..
Shannon CI
'~.'
,.
Iiolly 0aIt
Dr
. ~~:.
..1-"
,
i
it
'"
CIl
~
"
-'~'
c ~"
Figure 1
...... Ilt'(agon
~ Tlwlspomtillll Consultantll, 1m:.
JHO~_e_Il4fdW11IBl1cklllUlJ"ld (tlG Pl$Ct)Da1y TrafIIc ~,l!wg
BACKGROUND (NO BLACKBERRY FARM)
DAILY TRAFFIC VOLUMES
Stevens Creek. Corridor
Ms. lana Sokale
September 16, 2005
Page 4
weekend day auto trips, but a very significant decrease in weekend picnicking will result in an overall decrease
of about 279 daily auto trips on weekend days.
Table 1
Existing and Projected Trip Generation Estimates
ExistinJ;!; Vehic1e Trios Projected Vehic1e Trios
Access Point/Program Weekday Weekend Day Weekday Weekend Day
Stevens Creek Boulevard
Golf Course 152 174 152 174
Restaurant 167 175 167 175
Trail 0 0 13 34
Livin2 Historv Center 0 0 13 18
Other 1 5 1 5
Subtotal 320 354 346 (+8%) 406 (+15%)
San Fernando A venue
Picnickin2 157 750 157 267
Recreational Swim 0 0 25 50
Trail 0 0 13 34
Other 1 3 1 3
Subtotal 158 753 196 (+24%) 354 (-47%)
McClellan Road
Nature Educational Prol!ram 13 6 25 40
Trail 0 0 13 34
Santa Clara County Audubon 1 1 7 1 1 7
Community Gardens 19 19 19 19
Rolling Hills 4-H 6 6 6 6
Nature After School Classes 6 0 10 0
Camo Pro~ams 40 0 80 0
Other 3 7 3 7
Nature Education Pre-School 0 0 60 0
Subtotal 98 45 227 (232%) 113 (251 %)
Grand Total 576 1152 769 (+33.5) 873 (-24.2%)
Trip Distribution
The distribution of traffic in and out of the Stevens Creek Corridor activity centers was determined based on the
proportion of traffic attributable to Blackberry Farm related activities. These proportions were calculated based
on the difference in traffic volumes for a day with a high level of Blackberry Farm activity compared to the
traffic counts collected on the Monday when Blackberry Farm was closed. Figure 2 shows the trip distribution
Ms. Jana Sokale
September 16, 2005
Page 5
Silver
Oak Wy
C\ICltlIlJoo ~
~
J .~
o,lf
W-oodl~ Ct
IU
ill
ii
l Ranci!o v~
Iii: St
~
ifJ i
I
Palm Av
Alcalde Rd
Satlla ~ Av
/
..... He~agun
...... TfllllSportlltitm Cmllo'\lItan'lS, Int.
Jl'i tl:~ISle>eMCrHkQolMW\~\T~~~,<f>,g
.'
/
~
l
l!!
:f
6% \ I-
~l:
;' J
" I
/
/ I
.'
/' Blael<l)Ony J
~/\ '.1'1I'I I ~
( \ GIll! Course I ~
\ \ I !-
J! l \ I
~~\ :\~I
t. c: .,
J10' Ci
,Y '~......~
: "......>.
"
"
\
......
./
c
!
,
i
)
i
~....J >""~~...._
.'
f
J
!
,
~"'""'/
~ Cfeelo; Blvd
ayme
~A
.
10
I-lo:Irmou Av
CD
f') LomIla Av
AIn1aden Av
~
Sanf_ f
Av 8
AA:azar A"
aAy
l
L9mila Av
j
l.
NQooan Ct
MoCIeIIan Rr.1 ..32%
45%'"
Hi'll;
S~Ot
Or
l!
J
i
, ~.
.'
.~.
~ ~,-
.~.
~
s
PM<
\RJIa
Cif'
30%
t.
':.~,
.~ ~
~\~
,
,;~ >
-'"
A'
_.k
.,
.'t'
,..
.1
,_.r
.c'
,
"
,.
-:1'
.".
.l."
Elm Ct
SIllIMon Ct ,"
HoItyOak
Or
!
~
III
1
,
..
~
I
.~ '
, -~
~ -
..,.
"
-.~.
'\.
<:.,
I.i'
Figure 2
TRIP DISTRIBUTION
StaV1lfl3 Creek Corridor
Ms. Jana Sokale
September 16, 2005
Page 6
percentages by direction for each of the study segments located on Stevens Creek Boulevard and McClellan
Road.
It is interesting to note that a slight majority (-56%) of the inbound traffic to Blackberry Farm uses Stevens
Creek Boulevard to reach the site, while nearly two-thirds (62%) uses McClellan Road when departing. The
reason is probably because most visitors find it easier to turn right (south) onto Byrne Avenue and then use
McClellan Road to travel back to the freeway or other major arterial street versus finding their way back through
the neighborhood in order to use Stevens Creek Boulevard.
Existing Blackberry Farm Traffic Volumes
The existing traffic volumes for the study roadway segments were estimated by adding the vehicle trips
attributable to Blackberry Farm activities on weekday and weekend days (as reported in Table 1) to the
background traffic volumes shown on Figure 1. Figure 3 shows the amount of Blackberry Farm traffic using
each roadway segment and Table 2 summarizes the estimates of existing (2005) two-way total daily traffic
levels.
The resulting traffic volumes provide a good indication of existing weekday and weekend day (see Figure 4)
traffic volumes on all six roadway segments. Note that traffic from the golf course, the restaurant, and the
McClellan Ranch activities were not added to the background traffic because traffic from these uses was already
included within the background traffic counts.
Table 2
Existing (2005) Weekday and Weekend Daily Traffic Volume Estimates (both directions)
Traffic Volume Estimates
W eekda Weekend Da
1,555 2,115
1,927 2,557
12,100 12,331
21JOO 21~29
4,153 4,319
4,514 4,705
Projected Traffic Volumes
The projected traffic volumes for the study roadway segments were estimated using a three-step process for both
weekday and weekend days. The process involved:
1. Adding the projected vehicle trips attributable to Blackberry Farm activities on weekday and weekend
days (as reported in Table 1) to the background traffic volumes shown on Figure 1.
2. Subtracting the number of existing daily vehicle trips associated with the golf course, the restaurant, and
various McClellan Ranch activites from the Background traffic volumes shown on Figure 1.
Cedar-
, wood
\ Ct r.54
Sre.ens C,. 81>':1
~,tA1 ",-:46~."l'"
tfoo \ ~:$ 61fM
~ B~ue ~ ~ ) Granaoa A
Dean " H$mosa A...
Ct' HJ
/" ;;
/ i' lOmola All
C). / a_wry
/ l'amJ
! GoII Course
Ms. Jana Sokale
September 16, 2005
Page 7
SlMlr
Oak Wy
Cupeooo RlI
WoolItldge CI
"
iu j
cz:
J~v~
jti: S,
Ir
'" iF.
jiJ S
~ :f
1;
:.
Palm Av
,
..~~~
"
...
Q:;
"
,
,
/
Alcalde Rd &Irrta POlUlllIW
,r> '......--......,
''''"
"
,
\.
'.
,
/
/
1
i
LEGEND
XlCX(XXX)" WeQday(W~
- Rexagon
...... T1'llnsportndoo t'.ol\llultllnl!l, Inc.
JH . j
"""'
. !t"'II
J
/~,..
,
i
,.
"
,
/~
...
..
.
Av
.:~
.e.
....~.
'\Y
'(.
~.
Av
. ~ \;
s.
.t
1 Almllden Av
'> 0IivC!
< ~
Sam l'emando f
Av d
\~
,
,.~..
~~-
-",-
d
. ~,
,~,.
,~~..
._-c
~':'
Noonan Cl
.J t. 'LJ3
J
.21
51 I McCfeAan Rd
73(3.t8}
,~-
-~.
~.
~
PlItfc
V..
OIT
.'~ .
..~.,
.
~
d
Ii;
~
..
III
.x'
'i~,
Elm Ct }.
c ~.-
,.
Shannon Ct',:
a
I
~
.,
.-/:'
"!:c
,~
.r
Holly Oak
Or
Ci
i
1 j
~
Sllatruck Or
~
J
BLACKBERRY FARM TRAFFIC
EXISTING PROJECT TRIPS
.'
>:,
,~ .
Figure 3
,: ~.
Sleven$ Cnlek Corridor
Ms. lana Sokale
September 16, 2005
Page 8
'"
J;
Silver
Oek W)l
c
110 Rd
leMar-
. IItl:llId
\ Cl
/
C) /' lllad<beny
j Farm
^ Golf Cour&e
~
~.,.:---- '-::-:---"'.c
b ~/
ill t
-,.
'~.
i MeCIeIIao
/
LEGEND
XXX(XXXJ .. WttIlclay(Weeknl DayI)
!
f
::J
.
St&oons er.. 8I!.d
Sym&
0r.l1lAda A
s~ Or d
J
Dr
,'c.
"
;,.
11221(114Oa.l y
9I12I10f21)
Av
J:
lomlla Av
.
<.
85
-x
,
.
.>
..'
1
~
~
I
Figure 4
EXISTING OPERATIONS + BACKGROUND TRAFFIC VOLUMES
- Hexagon
....... TmuJlQrtalion C"lIS\llllllll5, Inc.
J+lO:~_C__11\E>loMO~~a..,
>~:
,
,.
,.
.<
,
~~c
~,.
.0'
\:
~
VlIIa
Cir
.
\"
'1.,
.,
,.
>
.-,."
."
.~.-
EllnCl
Shannon Q "
Holly 08k
Or
..
C(
~
III
Stewns Creek Conidot
-
Ms. lana Sokale
September 16, 2005
Page 9
3. Adding the project number of daily vehicle trips associated with the golf course, the restaurant, and
various McClellan Ranch activites from the Background traffic volumes shown on Figure I.
Figures 5 and 6 display the intermediate results of the calculation process. Figure 5 shows the amount of
Blackberry Farm traffic allocated to each roadway segment from Step L Figure 6 shows the number of net new
vehicle trips from Steps 2 and 3 that would be using the driveways to Stevens Creek Boulevard and McClellan
Road.
Table 3 summarizes the projected two-way daily traffic volumes for the six roadway segments being studied.
Figure 7 graphically displays projected daily traffic volumes for each roadway segment.
Table 3
Projected Weekday and Weekend Daily Traffic Volumes (both directions)
Roadwa Se ment
orth of San F emando Ave.
2. B me Ave. South of San Fernando Ave.
3. Stevens Creek Blvd. West ofPhar La Dr.
4. Stevens Creek Blvd. East of Or an eAve.
5. McClellan Road West ofB rne Ave,
6. McClellan Road East of B me Ave,
Pro' ected Traffic Volumes
Weekda Weekend Da
1,591 1,740
1,967 2,134
12,137 12,246
21,251 21,370
4,211 4,244
4,732 4,766
Traffic Impacts
The projected traffic impacts were determined based on comparisons of the expected change in average daily
traffic volumes. As explained above, existing traffic volumes were counted, the amount of traffic attributable to
existing and planned park activities was determined. Then the net change was calculated for weekday and
weekend day conditions. The results are shown on Figure 8 and summarized in Table 4. Positive percentages
represent the percent increase in daily traffic over current levels and negative percentages represent the percent
decrease in daily traffic in comparison to current levels.
The results indicate that on weekdays the planned change in park activities and the expected change in the
number of participants will cause a slight increase in traffic volumes on the roadways in the vicinity. The
greatest increase is expected for the segment of McClellan Road east of Byrne. At this location, average daily
weekday traffic may increase by a little less than five percent (less than 250 vehicles). All other study locations
were projected to experience lesser levels of increased traffic.
The results for weekend days showed that there would generally be less traffic on most of the nearby roadway
segments. The expected decline in area traffic on weekend days is attributable to a significant reduction in
picnicking at Blackberry Farm. The most notable traffic reduction will occur on Byrne A venue. Reductions of
more than 300 vehicles (15 to 20 percent) per weekend day are projected for the segments of Byrne Avenue
north and south of San Fernando Avenue. The expected change in traffic on Stevens Creek Boulevard and
McClellan Road is projected to be less due to slight increases in activity at McClellan Ranch, the golf course and
the Blue Pheasant Restaurant. Only the segment of McClellan Road east of Byrne Avenue is projected to
Ms. lana Sokale
September 16, 2005
Page 10
S"-
Oak Wy
CUJlerIino Rd
Wooaridge Ct
,.
~ joi l
J~v~
glt St
!
iF
lie:!: f
~ s
I
Palm Av
AIClIkItl ReI
SMIa Peulll Av
LEGEND
XXX{XXX).~
....... HCKlIgoll
...... TrallSpOlUlDoU Consulliint~, Jm;.
, Cedar.
. YjQQ(j
CI
--
HIlmlosa Av
I::
t!ir-
:: if lomifa Av
~
i
(). / Blaek!leny
/ Farm
! Golf Coul1l&
,
;p i
~ ~/
~,
Jr/iJ '
"'-. .
",;,
".
.'
,
.f
i
!
,
i
/"
~Av
d!
a
~Or
Q ,.
I
~
~
!
...
....
I
II
.
.,
,:~ .
- ~,
..1
<:'
:>,
Av
Lomfta Av
"
.,
Elm Ct .' .
x-,
...._~ Cl ~.
II,;JHCllb......,.r ':l"
d"
, ~..
'"\'
.,~
.~~
<<"
'\
\'
,_'to'
,;.
Figure 5
BLACKBERRY FARM TRAFFIC
PROJECTED VEHICLE TRIPS
i
~ ~
.
l
Noonan Cl
13(11") McCIell.n Rd
1O(1fZ)
PIff(
1111/8
Cir
Holly Oa/(
Or
!
J
SteveM Cteek CotricIof
Ms. Jana Sokale
September 16, 2005
Page II
W~C1
SiiYllr
oel< W1
'Rd
L5~
~
J~v.
~
I a: SI
IS
IX
iF
fa ~
I
Palm Av
AIcaIcla Rd SatIla i!I Av
LEGEND
XXX(XXX).WeIk~
~ Ileug<m
...... Transpoltlllion COllwltllnls, [ne.
y
Ca
Rd
~
iI1
'!
'\
/
1
j
;
i
{
"
r.~ s~ CmeIc BIIId
,
\
,
\
l
1
it
!
i~
"-I
III
,;,,"
-'-
14(2Ij
17134}
"
c.
':...
" ~
..:--
"
,<
.<
-)-
;,....
.,:.'
,-~~
.,
:"';::
-\:
,.~ "
.,=:-
,.,..
\.
:\:.
,:,.
"
.,~
i
.....
....
.
Figure 6
NET NEW VEHICLE TRIPS AT DRIVEWAYS
is
:;;
i
....
ErmCl
Shar.noo Cl
Holly O$k
~
g
j
51&_ Creek Coffldor
Ms. lana Sokale
September 16, 2005
Page 12
SiIYvr
OakWy
Rd
a:
~}
WOOd~ Ct
a
'"
~ ~\-~
j II: Sf
l
-~ i
~ 0 S'I
I
PlIIm Av
"
Ct ,^
.;-"/
...
Jl:
,c
/ Bladlber/y
9-/ Farm
Golf COutM
Ak:<oId& Rd
~ PliuI& Av
b ,
It" .:
fi (,
j~\
i
"
i
I
". j
^c
\
,
/
1I
;
LEGEND
XXlWCXX) · Wt.kcJa~(\"; IllWIId)
...... Hexagon
...... TnmllpO!tllliOl'l COI'I$\Iltantll, 1 rIC.
H ~""';.!..lt.~ .",1 1 nJ1f;;:
.1lwv
.
Sl$rena Cl-eek 8Ivd
Byme
~ ^v
f""
i , LomIIa Av
,.
<l:
I
Almaden Av
SaIl Femlllldo
Av
jj j AIcaur Av
~-
i f 00I0nts Av
~Rd
~Or
L '"
0.. Q
1.
,c
.(
l.omIIa Av
It
.i: owe ~
1 '
Noonan Ct
23M{2G1)
PM
IIlb
Cir
, ~ "
'.~
,
.
ElmO
~{"
Sl\annan Ct
HtlIiy 0tIl
Or
i
il
"
III
~
'.~-
!
-
..
~
.'.
..,
,
.
,
:\-
',.
Figure 7
PRO.JECTED TRAFFIC VOLUMES
~ Cfeek CortiOot
Ms. Jana Sokale
September 16, 2005
Page 13
S<Iw
Oak Wy
CUPerj'l"l(l Rd
'"
<
i I u ~ 0:
!
UJ ..:
~
;s
Woodridge, CI l Randlo v""hna
~a: St
l !
l
It> I
I
P.1m Av
AlGakle ReI Sen.... Paula Av
LEGEND
XXX%lXl!X"41.Wttk~
......HfI"lIg<:m
....... Trlln~li(ll'l COl\$uhalll", Inc.
.~_c-k_U_kll""_"!<ljQ<ll
.
,.
i
\
)
f
i
,
~
Fwm
GQIf eou,..
"
\~
,
,
.",
"-
'.
"'~.)
,
,
,i'
l!
&8_ er..k 8Ivd
! Hennoea Av
it
'" "" LormlII Av
~
I AlIl1aden IIv
Mcaollan ReI
H Ilnispon Or
::;;;
~
SIlalluek Or d
I
{!
{"
.
,
aAv
.,
~
"\:
!
....
...
I
\
-J\:.
.,c'
.'\-
'\
.';'
Figure 8
PERCENT CHANGE PROJECTED
lomila Av
.:~.,
~; :
,.:'
~;.-'
--~
~ ~
I
.'
~\.
.;..
.,'
.,~.
'\..
Noonan ct
"-1'1(-3.2%1
"'8%(.7.1'"
..
c ~-
ParI!;
YlIla
....
. ~,
"
~-.
,,~ '
.v
.\
.~..
~Cl:
u.'
III
~\-~
~~- .
Sf18MCll1 Cl
\.
--)."
E1mct
,~ '
!iolIy 0Ik
i
i
Stevens Cnlelt Corridor
Ms. lana Sokale
September 16, 2005
Page 14
experience an increase in weekend traffic, Weekend day traffic on this segment is projected to increase from
about 4,705 to 4,766 daily vehicle trips. This represents a 1.3 percent increase in daily traffic.
Table 4
Percent Change in Projected Weekday and Weekend Daily Traffic Volumes (both directions)
Roadwa Se ment
1. B rne Ave. orth of San Fernando Ave.
2. B me Ave. South of San Fernando Ave.
3. Stevens Creek Blvd. West ofPhar La Dr.
4. Stevens Creek Blvd. East of Oran eAve.
5. McClellan Road West ofB rne Ave,
6. McClellan Road East of B me Ave,
Pro'ected Traffic Volumes
W eekda Weekend Da
2.3% -17.7%
2.1 % -16.5%
0.3% -0.7%
0.2% -0.7%
1.4% -1.7%
4.8% 1.3%
Stevens Creek Corridor Park Master Plan and Restoration Plan IS
APPENDIX E
PRELIMINARY PARKING ANALYSIS, STEVENS CREEK
CORRIDOR PARK, HEXAGON TRANSPORT A TION
CONSULTANTS
.....--...
......... ~ [lAGON T RANi~On A TlON (ONSUl T ANTS. I He
, -
MEMORANDUM
To:
Jana Sokale
, '
From:
Mike Waller
Subject:
Preliminary Parking Analysis - Stevens Creek Corridor Master Plan
Date:
January 2 I, 2005
Introduction
This memorandum present the results of a parking demand analysis for the existing and planned activities
associated with the Stevens Creek Corridor Master Plan. These activities occur at several sites, including
Blackberry Farm Picnic Grounds and Golf Course, McClellan Ranch Park, and the Stocklmeir and Simms
properties.
There are three major parking areas that serve the various activity sites within the Stevens Creek Corridor. These
parking areas provide a total of -1 ,222 parking spaces, and include:
. Northern Parking Area (91 parking spaces primarily serving the Blackberry Farm Golf Course and Blue
Pheasant Restaurant)
. Central Parking Area (1100 parking spaces primarily serving the Blackberry Farm picnic and activity sites)
. Southern Parking Area (31 parking spaces primarily serving activities at McClellan Ranch)
Hexagon derived parking demand estimates for weekday and Saturday peak hour time periods based on participant
estimates provided by the Special Projects Manager for Blackberry Farm (Michael Dowd). The derived estimates
of existing parking demand were calibrated through the use of auto occupancy and time of day factors to closely
match observed parking levels at the three parking areas. These factors provided a basis for deriving similar
projections of future parking requirements based on the planned activities at the various activity sites within the
Corridor.
Analysis of Existing Parking Demand
Hexagon's analysis of the parking demand for the northern parking area shows that on an average weekday during
the peak month (August) the peak hour parking demand is for approximately 95 spaces and that on an average
Saturday the parking demand would be for approximately 88 parking spaces. These results suggest that the
existing parking area is not quite large enough to adequately serve the parking needs of the existing uses. Hexagon
also researched the typical trip rates and parking needs for similar sized restaurants and determined that there was
a potential for a restaurant the size of the Blue Pheasant to require an even larger amount of parking. Therefore,
Hexagon concludes that based on the analysis of existing parking demand, it would be desirable to plan for a larger
northern parking area.
40 South Market Street, Suite 600 . San Jose, California 95113
phone 408.971.6100 . fax 408.971.6102 . www.hextrans.com
Ms. Jana Sokale
January 21, 2005
Page 2
The analysis of the existing parking demand for the central parking area showed a demand for approximately 1,000
parking spaces during a peak event involving 4,000 participants being held on a Saturday. Since the parking area
only contains -1, I 00 parking spaces, events of this magnitude would likely cause some participants to seriously
consider parking outside the Blackberry Farm central parking area (within the San Fernando neighborhood)
because of the difficulty of fmding an unoccupied space. This problem would most likely affect the latter groups of
arriving participants. Parking demand on an average weekday during the peak month of operation (August) is
considerably less. Approximately 80 parking spaces would typically be required to serve the weekday parking
demand in the central parking area.
The southern parking area at McClellan Ranch is most active on weekdays and Hexagon's analysis suggest that the
number of existing parking spaces adequately serves typical uses. The parking supply is also adequate to serve the
demand associated with Saturday usage.
Table 1 summarizes the comparison ofthe existing parking demand versus the existing parking supply at each of
the three major parking areas serving the Stevens Creek Corridor activity sites.
Table 1
Summary of Existing Parking Demand and Supply
Existing Weekday Supply Saturday Supply
Parking Areas Parking Parking Minus Parking Minus
Spaces Demand Demand Demand Demand
Northern Parking Area 91 95 -4 88 3
Central Parking Area 1,100 79 1,021 1,002 (a) 98
Southern Parking Area 31 11 20 3 28
Totals 1,222 185 1,037 1,093 129
Notes:
(a) Saturday peak event involving -4,000 participants.
Projected Parking Demand
Additional activities are being plalllled that would use the northern parking area. The additional uses include trail
access and a Living History Center. Consequently, parking demand for the northern parking area is projected to
increase by 13 to 26 percent. A peak demand for approximately 111 parking spaces is projected for the northern
parking area. This would represent a 20-space deficit at this location.
The parking demand for the central parking area will also be significantly affected by the planned change in park
operations. There will be some additional activities, including recreational swimming, trail access, community
events, swimming lessons and day camping, that would generate parking demands that do not currently exist.
However, the most significant operational change will be a reduction in the number of participants involved with
the largest permitted peak Saturday event. The number of peak participants will be reduced to about 500. This will
Ms. Jana Sokale
January 21,2005
Page 3
J: .,
be much lower than the -4,000 participants who have attended peak events in past years. Therefore, Hexagon
projects that the parking demand associated with a peak Saturday event will decline to about 105 parking spaces.
The additional activities proposed for summer weekdays are expected to generate a demand for about 115 parking
spaces during the peak hour.
The projected parking demand for the southern parking area will be mainly affected by a new trail access point and
an anticipated increase in the number participants in the nature educational programs offered at McClellan Ranch.
The peak hour parking demand for summer weekdays will be about 18 parking spaces. On Saturdays the parking
demand will be approximately 5 parking spaces.
Table 2 summarizes the comparison of the projected parking demand versus the existing parking supply at each of
the three major parking areas serving the Stevens Creek Corridor activity sites.
Table 2
Summary of Projected Parking Demand and Supply
Existing Weekday Supply Saturday Supply
Parking Areas Parking Parking Minus Parking Minus
Spaces Demand Demand Demand Demand
Northern Parking Area 91 107 .16 111 .20
Central Parking Area 1,100 115 985 105 (a) 995
Southern Parking Area 31 18 13 5 26
Totals 1,222 240 982 221 1,001
'" . Notes:
(a) Saturday peak event involving -500 participants.
"-
Other Planning Considerations
It is advisable to provide at least 10 percent more parking spaces than suggested by the demand estimate to avoid
the problems associated with drivers circulating while trying to find a vacant parking space.
Hexagon's analysis indicates a rather large surplus of parking spaces within the Central parking area. The land
associated with this surplus can be used for other purposes, including creating more room for enlarging the
northern parking area or creating a driveway between Stevens Creek Boulevard and the central parking area.
.~
Stevens Creek Corridor Park Master Plan and Restoration Plan IS
APPENDIX F
APPLICABLE REGULATIONS FOR STEVENS CREEK
CORRIDOR PROJECT, THOMAS REID ASSOCIATES
.
'-
.....,
,- ~
Appendix F Conformance with Applicable Federal, State and Regional Regulations
10--_'"
Federal
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
Since work is proposed to occur in Stevens Creek within the jurisdictional
Ordinary High Water line, a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) permit is required.
Ordinary High Water (OHW) is the area that the water in streams and waterways would
rise to in a typical or "ordinary" storm event. An "ordinary" storm event is categorized
as a storm that would occur every 2.3 years. The USACE has jurisdiction and permitting
authority under Section 10 ofthe Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 over the nation's
waterways and their associated wetlands, including OHW. The USACE regulates
potential impacts on wetlands, threatened, or endangered species, other valuable fish and
wildlife resources, and cultural resources found in wetland areas ("Waters of the U.S.")
under the following two Sections of the Clean Water Act:
Federal Clean Water Act, Section 404-Programmatic General Permit for Wetland
Fill
,-
The Clean Water Act (CW A) is the primary federal law that protects the quality
of the nation's waters, including lakes, rivers, and coastal areas. Section 404 of the CW A
regulates the discharge of dredged or fill material into the waters ofthe United States,
including wetlands. The CWA holds that all discharges into the nation's waters are
unlawful unless specifically authorized by a permit; issuance of such permits constitutes
the Act's principal regulatory tool.
The USACE is the primary federal agency charged with enforcing the CW A. The
USACE is authorized to issue Section 404 permits, which allow the placement of dredged
or fill materials into jurisdictional waters of the United States under certain
circumstances. The USACE issues two types of permits under Section 404: general
permits (either Nationwide permits or Regional permits) and Standard permits (either
letters of permission or individual permits). General permits are issued by the USACE to
streamline the Section 404 permitting process for nationwide, statewide, or regional
activities that have minimal direct or cumulative environmental impacts on the aquatic
environment. Standard permits are issued for activities that do not qualifY for a general
permit (i.e., that may have more than a minimal adverse environmental impact).
The Nationwide permit program 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 permits. The intent is to allow certain common
activities to occur with little delay or paperwork. Nationwide permits are valid only ifthe
conditions applicable to the particular Nationwide permit are met; otherwise an
individual permit or authorization under a regional permit is required before work can
commence in areas regulated under the Clean Water Act.
Appendix F- Applicable Federal, State and Regional Regulations
One Nationwide permit is applicable to the Stevens Creek Restoration Project:
NW 27. NW 27 covers stream and wetland restoration activities including "activities in
Waters of the U.S. associated with the restoration of former waters; the enhancement of
degraded tidal and non-tidal wetlands and riparian areas; the creation of tidal and non-
tidal wetlands and riparian areas, and the restoration and enhancement of non-tidal
streams and non-tidal open water areas." Therefore, the City will work with the USACE
to obtain this permit.
Under Nationwide permits, no activity is authorized that is likely to jeopardize a
federally listed threatened or endangered species or the critical habitat of such a species.
Non-federal permittees must notify the USACE 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
federal Endangered Species Act (ESA) have been satisfied and that the activity is
authorized.
Authorization of an activity by a Nationwide permit does not authorize the take of
a federally listed threatened or endangered species. If this project were found to have
impacts on a federally listed species, the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the
USACE would coordinate permit efforts, and the wetland impacts would be subject to an
Individual Permit rather than a Nationwide permit.
The determination of the type of permit required for the project will be made once
the USACE receives and verifies the wetland delineation and has reviewed the City's
application for a permit. Regardless of whether a Nationwide permit or an Individual
permit is processed, due to the presence of steelhead in the creek, the USACE will have
to consult with the NOAA Fisheries Service under Section 7 of the Endangered Species
Act (refer to discussion below under NOAA FS and USFWS).
Federal Clean Water Act, Section 401-Programmatic Water Quality Certification
Under CW A Section 401, applicants for a federal license or permit to conduct
activities that may result in the discharge of a pollutant into waters of the United States
must obtain certification from the state in which the discharge would originate.
Therefore, all projects that have a federal component and may affect state water quality
(including projects that require federal agency approval, such as issuance of a Section
404 permit) must also comply with CW A Section 401. In California, Section 401
certification is handled by the Regional Water Quality Control Boards. The project falls
under the jurisdiction ofthe San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board
(RWQCB). The RWQCB must certify that the discharge will comply with state water
quality standards and other requirements of the CW A. Any Section 404 permit issued by
the USACE must be certified under Section 401 by the RWQCB (see under State below).
The City will work with the RWQCB to obtain this permit.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Fisheries Service (NOAA FS)
and U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)
\ ".
Appendix F- Applicable Federal, State and Regional Regulations
"-
The NOAA FS is charged with protecting federally listed marine wildlife
including anadromous fish in accordance with the ESA. The USFWS is charged with
protecting federally listed non-marine wildlife in accordance with the ESA. The ESA,
enacted in 1973, establishes a broad public and federal interest in identifYing, protecting,
and providing for the recovery of threatened or endangered species.
The ESA protects threatened and endangered species by prohibiting federal
actions that would jeopardize the continued existence of such species or that would result
in the destruction or adverse modification of any critical habitat or such species. Under
Section 7 of the ESA, any activities that are funded or permitted by a federal agency must
ensure that any actions funded or permitted are not likely to jeopardize the survival of
federally listed species or result in adverse modification of designated critical habitat for
a listed species. Section 7 of the ESA requires that a federal funding or permitting
agency consult with either NOAA Fisheries Service and/or the USFWS regarding
protection of listed species prior to project implementation.
Biological studies conducted in 2005 for the Steven's Creek Corridor Project
identified one federally listed species: the steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss). This portion
of Stevens Creek has been designated critical habitat for the steelhead by the NOAA fS.
As a result, upon receipt of an application for a permit under Section 404 of the CW A,
the USACE must initiate formal consultation with the NOAA FS prior to issuing a
permit. As part of the consultation, and to be in conformance with the ESA, the City of
Cupertino (as Lead Agency) will provide information to the USACE which would be
forwarded to the NOAA fisheries Service for use in the Section 7 consultation. The
information will include the following required elements:
1. A description of the action to be considered.
2. A description of the specific area that may be affected by the action.
3. A description of any listed species or critical habitat that may be affected by the
action.
4. A description of the manner in which the action may affect any listed species or
critical habitat and an analysis of any cumulative impacts.
5. Relevant reports including any environmental impact statement, environmental
assessment, or biological assessment prepared.
6. Any other relevant available information on the action, the listed species, or
critical habitat.
-.
NOAA Fisheries Service will evaluate impacts of all aspects of the proposed
action on the steelhead and provide a biological opinion (BO) as to whether or not the
proposed action will jeopardize the continued existence of the listed species (steelhead)
or modifY its critical habitat. If it does not and a non-jeopardy opinion is issued, the
USACE can issue their permit subject to any conservation measures included in the BO.
If a jeopardy opinion is prepared, the project would have to be modified to the
satisfaction of NOAA Fisheries Service. Due to the positive aspects of this project on
steelhead, there is low probability of a jeopardy opinion being issued.
Appendix F- Applicable Federal, State and Regional Regulations
State
California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG)
The California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) has potential jurisdiction
over this project in three ways: 1) CDFG administers the California Endangered Species
Act (CESA), 2) Section 1600 of the CDFG code requires a Streambed Alteration
Agreement in situations where a 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", and 3) the Department is also a trustee agency
in the CEQA process, and will review this CEQA document. More discussion of the
jurisdictional oversight of CDFG follows:
1. The California Endangered Species Act (CESA)
The CESA prohibits the take of listed species and also species formally under
consideration for listing ("candidate" species). Under CESA, take means "hunt, pursue,
catch, capture, or kill, or attempt to hunt, pursue, catch, capture, or kill." (Fish and Game
Code S 86.) Under this definition, and in contrast to the ESA, CESA does not prohibit
"harm" to a listed species. However, the killing of a state listed species that is incidental
to an otherwise lawful activity and not the primary purpose of the activity constitutes a
take under CESA. CESA does not protect insects, but with certain exceptions prohibits
the take of plants on private land. Biological studies conducted in 2005 for the Steven's
Creek Corridor Project found there to be no state listed species within the project area,
therefore no permits or authorizations for take of state listed species are required for the
Project.
2. Streambed Alteration Agreement
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 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. Where CDFG concludes that the
activity will "substantially adversely affect an existing fish or wildlife resource," the
entity proposing the activity must negotiate an agreement with CDFG that specifies terms
under which the activity may be carried out in a way that protects the affected wildlife
resource. Construction cannot begin until the Agreement is completed.
The Steven's Creek Corridor Project will require a Streambed Alteration
Agreement with CDFG as it involves changing the sinuosity of the creek and conducting
other work within a creek area that contains fish and wildlife resources (as described in
the Project Description of the CEQA document).
3. Review of the CEQA document prepared on the Steven's Creek Corridor Master Plan
As part of the CDFG's Trustee duties, the CDFG will review this CEQA
document for adequacy. This CEQA document includes a discussion of the impacts on
the environment of the proposed activities and measures to protect wildlife resources
which will mitigate any loss of functions and values caused by the project.
1;-........
Appendix F- Applicable Federal, State and Regional Regulations
~~.
California Regional Water Quality Control Boards and State Water Resources
Control Board
The Regional Water Quality Control Boards (RWQCB) implement policies
developed by the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). The mission of the
RWQCBs is to protect the beneficial uses of surface waters and groundwaters of their
region. Each RWQCB develops a Basin Plan (also known as a Water Quality Control
Plan) which identifies the beneficial uses of water bodies within their region, and
establishes water quality objectives and implementation programs to protect those areas.
Much of the actual review and requirements for permits are developed by the RWQCBs,
therefore this discussion focuses on them rather than the SWRCB.
The RWQCBs, through the SWRCB, have jurisdiction over any water, surface or
underground, including saline waters, within California (California Water Code section
13050[e]). This jurisdiction extends to all waters of the State and to all waters of the
United States (under the Porter-Cologne Act and CW As, respectively). The San
Francisco RWQCB specifically states that wetlands, marshes, and mudflats are within the
definition of State waters.
The San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board has jurisdiction
throughout the San Francisco Bay including all those watersheds that drain to San
Francisco Bay, in Santa Clara County, primarily the Guadalupe and Coyote Rivers, but
also many other smaller streams and tributaries, including Stevens Creek.
Under the Porter-Cologne Act, anyone proposing to discharge materials that could
affect water quality (including discharges offill or other materials to wetlands) may need
to meet project specific IIwaste discharge requirements" from the RWQCBs. In addition,
any applicant for a Section 404 permit under the federal CW A from the U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers for an activity which may affect water quality also must apply to the
appropriate RWQCB for Water Quality Certification under Section 401 of the CWA.
The RWQCBs can waive Water Quality Certification or discharges that will not violate
water quality standards.
Generally, projects can be regulated by both the Porter-Cologne Act and the
CWA. In the past, RWQCBs have often issued a Water Quality Certification and waived
the need for a waste discharge requirement. Recently, the San Francisco RWQCB has
required waste discharge requirements for projects that do not fall within the jurisdiction
of the USACE under the CWA. The RWQCBs water quality certification must occur
prior to the issuance of a Section 404 permit by the Corps.
The Regional Water Quality Control Board recommends the application be made
at the same time that any applications are provided to other agencies (such as the USAC.E
and the CDFG). In the San Francisco Bay Area it is possible to submit a single
application, called a Joint Aquatic Resources Permit Application (JARP A) to all three
agencies (USACE, RWQCB and CDFG).
Appendix F- Applicable Federal, State and Regional Regulations
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 USACE
(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. Since this project is to enhance wetland habitat, no mitigation other than
standard Best Management Practices, such as Limited Operating Periods (LOPs), will be
required to ensure that existing wetland habitats are not impacted during the construction
process. The City of Cupertino will prepare the JARP A upon completion of CEQA
completion (filing of the Notice of Determination (NOD)).
National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
The NPDES program is a federal permit program under the CW A that is
administered in the Bay Area by the Regional Board. The program requires that any
discharge of wastewaters to surface water needs a permit. The permits set limits on the
quality of the wastewater and require monitoring. All permits are adopted in public
hearings and are designed to protect the beneficial uses of the receiving waters. All
sewage treatment plants and large industries have permits. Smaller industries that
discharge to sewer systems are regulated by the local systems. The discharge of
contaminated groundwater is also regulated by NPDES permits. Stormwater is also
covered by NPDES permits, but that is discussed separately below.
Mandated by Congress under the CW A, the NPDES Storm Water Program
addresses non-agricultural sources of storm water discharges that adversely affect the
quality of our nation's waters. The Program relies upon discharging entities
implementing various control measures to prevent harmful pollutants in their storm water
runoff from reaching water bodies, as prescribed in storm water permits.
The regulated entities (City of Cupertino) must obtain coverage under an NPDES
storm water permit and implement storm water pollution prevention plans (SWPPPs) or
storm water management programs (both using best management practices (BMPs)) that
effectively reduce or prevent the discharge of pollutants into receiving waters.
The NPDES storm water permit regulations, promulgated by EP A, cover the
following classes of stonn water dischargers on a nationwide basis:
· operators of Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems (MS4s) located in
"urbanized areas" as delineated by the Bureau of the Census,
· industrial facilities in any of the 11 categories that discharge to an MS4 or
to waters of the United States; all categories of industrial activity (except
construction) may certify to a condition of "no exposure" if their industrial
materials and operations are not exposed to storm water, thus eliminating
the need to obtain storm water permit coverage,
· operators of construction activity that disturbs one or more acres of land;
construction sites less than one acre are covered if part of a larger plan of
development.
,-
Appendix F- Applicable Federal, State and Regional Regulations
. -'
The Steven's Creek Corridor Master Plan falls into the last category as it will
result in construction that exceeds one acre. In order to effectively manage the permit
process, the EP A has produced a General Permit for construction activities, which defines
specific conditions and requirements to be met as part of the General Permit. The
General Permit establishes the procedures required for proper coverage, the requirement
for a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), and requirements for termination
of permit coverage. The City of Cupertino will have to apply for coverage under the
General Permit and prepare a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan before construction
begins. The SWPPP would specify BMPs for managing stormwater runoff, erosion,
siltation, and chemical contamination (from equipment fluids such as oil and gas) during
construction in order to protect water quality.
According to the State Water Resources Control Board, "the SWPPP should
contain a site map(s) which shows the construction site perimeter, existing and proposed
buildings, lots, roadways, storm water collection and discharge points, general
topography both before and after construction, and drainage patterns across the project.
The SWPPP must list Best Management Practices (BMPs) the discharger will use to
protect storm water runoff and the placement of those BMPs. Additionally, the SWPPP
must contain a visual monitoring program; a chemical monitoring program for "non-
visible" pollutants to be implemented if there is a failure of BMPs; and a sediment
monitoring plan if the site discharges directly to a water body listed on the 303(d) list for
sediment. Section A of the Construction General Permit describes the elements that must
be contained in a SWPPP" (hn.P://www.waterboards.ca.gov/stonnwtr/construction.html)
accessed 3/22/06. Section A is included in this Appendix beginning on Page 10 and at
http://www.waterboards.ca.gov /stormwtr! docs/finalconstpermit. pdf
A Stormwater Management Plan that meets the design requirements of the City of
Cupertino Watershed Protection Ordinance will also be required. The plan shall include
sufficient information to evaluate the environmental characteristics of affected areas, the
potential impacts of the proposed development on water resources, and the effectiveness
and acceptability of measures proposed for managing stormwater runoff. The plan will
be developed according to requirements as specified in the Cupertino Stormwater Quality
Guidelines for Development Projects
Ch!!p:/ /www.cupertino.org/downloads/Pdf/es Cupertino Storm water Guidelines. J2f!f
The minimum information submitted for support of a Stormwater Management
Plan shall be as follows:
A. Common address, parcel number and legal description of the site;
B. Contact information for all persons having a legal interest in the
property;
C. Vicinity map;
D. A brief narrative description of the project;
E. Geotechnicial investigations including soil maps, borings, site-specific
recommendations, and any additional information necessary for the
proposed storrnwater management design;
F. Written or graphic inventory of natural resources existing at the site and
in the surrounding area, including, but not limited to, watercourses,
wetlands, and native vegetative areas;
-
Appendix F- Applicable Federal, State and Regional Regulations
G. Data for total site area, disturbed area, new and/or replaced impervious
surface area, and total impervious surface area;
H. Topographic survey information showing existing and proposed
contours, including all areas necessary for the post-development hydraulic
analyses of proposed stormwater management facilities;
I. Erosion and sediment control plan, as required by City Code Section
16.08, Excavation, Grading and Retaining Walls;
1. A list of any other applicable environmental permits that will be
required for the project and the responsible agencies (examples: Santa
Clara Valley Water District, State Department ofFish and Game, Regional
Water Quality Control Board);
K. Hydrologic computations, including drainage area maps depicting
existing and post-development runoff flow paths and land use;
L. Hydraulic computations for existing and post-development conditions;
M. A list of all stormwater management facilities and practices to be
employed at the site;
N. A list of any regular on-site cleaning activities to be used as stormwater
pollutant source controls (example: pavement sweeping) and the schedules
for these cleaning activities;
O. Numeric BMP sizing criteria computations according to the
SCVURPPP "Guidance for Implementing Stormwater Regulations for
New and Redevelopment Projects;"
P. Structural and construction details for all components of the proposed
drainage system or systems and stormwater management facilities;
Q. Landscaping plan showing disposition of existing vegetation and any
vegetative site stabilization and/or landscape-based storm water
management measures;
R. Cost estimates for all proposed on-site stormwater treatment facilities
for the purpose of calculating the amount of any required performance
bonds;
S. BMP operation and maintenance procedures, including maintenance
tasks, inspection and maintenance schedule, the parties responsible for
BMP operation and maintenance, funding mechanisms for on-going
operation and maintenance and access and safety issues;
T. Certification by the owner/developer that all stormwater management
construction will be done according to this Stormwater Management Plan;
U. An as-built certification signature block to be executed by the
responsible registered civil engineer after project completion; and
V. Any other information as may be required by the Director of Public
Works.
!k2ional Ree.ulations
Association of Bay Area Governments, Joint Aquatic Resources Permit Application
(JARP A)
Appendix F- Applicable Federal, State and Regional Regulations
The Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) developed the Joint Aquatic
Resources Permit Application (JARP A) form to consolidate federal, state, and local
permits and to simplify the permit process for applicants proposing construction, fill
placement, public access impingement, and other development activities in or near
aquatic environments and wetlands, and to do so without requiring regulatory or statutory
changes. The objectives of the JARPA are to:
· Develop a single form to be submitted by applicants to the necessary permitting
agencIes.
· Reduce paperwork and processing time for applicants
· Reduce violations by improving applicant knowledge of permit requirements
· Improve coordination between agencies
· Reduce the number of permit revisions and delays due to permit sequencing
The City of Cupertino, (as Lead Agency), will prepare a JARPA for this project
upon completion of the CEQA documentation. This JARPA will streamline permitting
efforts, and will improve the efficiency of the permitting process.
-.,.
SECTION A: STORM WATER POLLUTION PREVENTION PLAN
1. QQjectives
A Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) shall be developed and implemented
to address the specific circumstances for each construction site covered by this General
Permit. The SWPPP shall be certified in accordance with the signatory requirements of
section C, Standard Provision for Construction Activities (9). The SWPPP shall be
developed and amended or revised, when necessary, to meet the following objectives:
a. Identify all pollutant sources including sources of sediment that may affect the
quality of storm water discharges associated with construction activity (storm
water discharges) from the construction site, and
b. Identify non-storm water discharges, and
c. Identify, construct, implement in accordance with a time schedule, and maintain
Best Management Practices (BMPs) to reduce or eliminate pollutants in storm
water discharges and authorized nonstorm water discharges from the construction
site during construction, and
d. Develop a maintenance schedule for BMPs installed during construction designed
to reduce or eliminate pollutants after construction is completed (post-
construction BMPs).
e. Identify a sampling and analysis strategy and sampling schedule for discharges
from construction activity which discharge directly into water bodies listed on
Attachment 3. (Clean Water Act Section 303(d) [303(d)J Water Bodies listed for
Sedimentation).
f. For all construction activity, identify a sampling and analysis strategy and
sampling schedule for discharges that have been discovered through visual
monitoring to be potentially contaminated by pollutants not visually detectable in
the runoff.
2. ImPlementation Schedule
a. For construction activity commencing on or after adoption of this General Permit,
the SWPPP shall be developed prior to the start of soil-disturbing activity in
accordance with this Section and shall be implemented concurrently with
commencement of soil-disturbing activities.
b. Existing permittees engaging in construction activities covered under the terms of
the previous General Construction Permit SWPPP (WQ Order No.92-08-DWQ)
shall continue to implement their existing SWPPP and shall implement any
Page 9
00_
"'"
necessary revisions to their SWPPP in accordance with this Section of the
General Permit in a timely manner, but in no case more than 90-calender days
from the date of adoption of this General Permit.
c.
For ongoing construction activity involving a change of ownership of property,
the new owner shall review the existing SWPPP and amend if necessary, or
develop a new SWPPP within 45-calender days.
d.
Existing permittees shall revise their SWPPP in accordance with the sampling and
analysis modifications prior to August 1, 2001. For ongoing construction activity
involving a change of ownership the new owner shall review the existing SWPPP
and amend the sampling and analysis strategy, if required, within 45 days. For
construction activity commencing after the date of adoption, the SWPPP shall be
developed in accordance with the modification language adopted.
3. A vailabilitv
The SWPPP shall remain on the construction site while the site is under construction
during working hours, commencing with the initial construction activity and ending with
termination of coverage under the General Permit.
4. lkguired Chanf:!es
a. The discharger shall amend the SWPPP whenever there is a change in
construction or operations which may affect the discharge of pollutants to surface
waters, ground waters, or a municipal separate storm sewer system (MS4). The
sWPPP shall also be amended if the discharger violates any condition of this
General Permit or has not achieved the general objective of reducing or
eliminating pollutants in storm water discharges. If the RWQCB determines that
the discharger is in violation of this General Permit, the SWPPP shall be amended
and implemented in a timely manner, but in no case more than 14-calendar days
after notification by the RWQCB. All amendments should be dated and directly
attached to the SWPPP.
b. The R WQCB or local agency with the concurrence of the R WQCB may require
the discharger to amend the SWPPP.
5. Source Identification
The SWPPP shall include: (a) project information and (b) pollutant source identification
combined with an itemization of those BMPs specifically chosen to control the pollutants
listed.
a. Project Information
Page 10
(1) The SWPPP shall include a vicinity map locating the project site with
respect to easily identifiable major roadways, geographic features, or
landmarks. At a minimum, the map must show the construction site
perimeter, the geographic features surrounding the site, and the general
topography.
(2) The SWPPP shall include a site map(s) which shows the construction
project in detail, including the existing and planned paved areas and
buildings.
( a) At a minimum, the map must show the construction site perimeter;
existing and proposed buildings, lots, roadways, storm water
collection and discharge points; general topography both before
and after construction; and the anticipated discharge location(s)
where the storm water from the construction site discharges to a
municipal storm sewer system or other water body.
(b) The drainage patterns across the project area must clearly be
shown on the map, and the map must extend as far outside the site
perimeter as necessary to illustrate the relevant drainage areas.
Where relevant drainage areas are too large to depict on the map,
map notes or inserts illustrating the upstream drainage areas are
sufficient.
(c) Temporary on-site drainages to carry concentrated flow shall be
selected to comply with local ordinances, to control erosion, to
return flows to their natural drainage courses, and to prevent
damage to downstream properties.
3. Information presented in the SWPPP may be represented either by
narrative or by graphics. Where possible, narrative descriptions should be
plan notes. Narrative descriptions which do not lend themselves to plan
notes can be contained in a separate document which must be referenced
on the plan.
b. Pollutant Source and BMP Identification
The SWPPP shall include a description of potential sources which are likely to
add pollutants to storm water discharges or which may result in nonstorm water
discharges from the construction site. Discharges originating from off-site which
flow across or through areas disturbed by construction that may contain pollutants
should be reported to the RWQCB.
The SWPPP shall:
Page 11
(1) Show drainage patterns and slopes anticipated after major grading
activities are completed. Runoff from off-site areas should be prevented
from flowing through areas that have been disturbed by construction
unless appropriate conveyance systems are in place. The amount of
anticipated storm water run-on must be considered to determine the
appropriateness of the BMPs chosen. Show all calculations for
anticipated storm water run-on, and describe all BMPs implemented to
divert off-site drainage described in section A. 5 a. (2) (c) around or
through the construction project.
(2) Show the drainage patterns into each on-site storm water inlet point or
receiving water. Show or describe the BMPs that will protect operational
storm water inlets or receiving waters from contaminated discharges other
than sediment discharges, such as, but not limited to: storm water with
elevated pH levels from contact with soil amendments such as lime or
gypsum; slurry from sawcutting of concrete or asphalt ;washing of
exposed aggregate concrete; concrete rinse water; building washing
operations; equipment washing operations; minor street washing
associated with street delineation; and/or sealing and paving activities
occurring during rains.
, "
(3) Show existing site features that, as a result of known past usage, may
contribute pollutants to storm water, (e.g., toxic materials that are known
to have been treated, stored, disposed, spilled, or leaked onto the
construction site). Show or describe the BMPs implemented to minimize
the exposure of storm water to contaminated soil or toxic materials.
"
(4) Show areas designated for the (a) storage of soil or waste, (b) vehicle
storage and service areas, (c) construction material loading, unloading,
and access areas, (d) equipment storage, cleaning, and maintenance areas.
(5) Describe the BMPs for control of discharges from waste handling and
disposal areas and methods of on-site storage and disposal of construction
materials and construction waste. Describe the BMPs designed to
minimize or eliminate the exposure of storm water to construction
materials, equipment, vehicles, waste storage areas, or service areas. The
BMPs described shall be in compliance with Federal, State, and local
laws, regulations, and ordinances.
(6) Describe all post-construction BMPs for the project, and show the location
of each BMP on the map. (Post-construction BMPs consist of permanent
features designed to minimize pollutant discharges, including sediment,
from the site after construction has been completed.) Also, describe the
agency or parties to be the responsible party for long-term maintenance of
these BMPs.
Page 12
(7) Show the locations of direct discharge from the construction site into a
Section 303( d) list water body. Show the designated sampling locations in
the receiving waters, which represent the prevailing conditions of the
water bodies upstream of the construction site discharge and immediately
downstream from the last point of discharge.
(8) Show the locations designated for sampling the discharge from areas
identified in Section A. 5. b. (2); (3), and (4) and Section A. 5. c. (1) and
(2). Samples shall be taken should visual monitoring indicate that there
has been a breach, malfunction, leakage, or spill from a BMP which could
result in the discharge in storm water of pollutants that would not be
visually detectable, or if storm water comes into contact with soil
amendments or other exposed materials or contamination and is allowed
to be discharged. Describe the sampling procedure, location, and rationale
for obtaining the uncontaminated sample of storm water.
c. Additional Information
(1) The SWPPP shall include a narrative description of pollutant sources and
BMPs that cannot be adequately communicated or identified on the site
map. In addition, a narrative description of preconstruct ion control
practices (if any) to reduce sediment and other pollutants in storm water
discharges shall be included.
(2) The SWPPP shall include an inventory of all materials used and activities
performed during construction that have the potential to contribute to the
discharge of pollutants other than sediment in storm water. Describe the
BMPs selected and the basis for their selection to eliminate or reduce
these pollutants in the storm water discharges.
(3) The SWPPP shall include the following information regarding the
construction site surface area: the size (in acres or square feet), the runoff
coefficient before and after construction, and the percentage that is
impervious (e.g.; paved, roofed, etc.) before and after construction.
(4) The SWPPP shall include a copy of the NOI, and the Waste Discharge
Identification (WDID) number. Should a WDID number not be received
from the SWRCB at the time construction commences, the discharger
shall include proof of mailing of the NOI, e.g., certified mail receipt, copy
of check, express mail receipt, etc.
(5) The SWPPP shall include a construction activity schedule which describes
all major activities such as mass grading, paving, lot or parcel
Page 13
improvements at the site and the proposed time frame to conduct those
activities.
(6) The SWPPP shall list the name and telephone number ofthe qualified
person(s) who have been assigned responsibility for prestorm, poststorm,
and storm event BMP inspections; and the qualified person(s) assigned
responsibility to ensure full compliance with the permit and
implementation of all elements of the SWPPP, including the preparation
of the annual compliance evaluation and the elimination of all
unauthorized discharges.
6. Erosion Control
,~
Erosion control, also referred to as "soil stabilization" is the most effective way to retain
soil and sediment on the construction site. The most efficient way to address erosion
control is to preserve existing vegetation where feasible, to limit disturbance, and to
stabilize and revegetate disturbed areas as soon as possible after grading or construction.
Particular attention must be paid to large mass-graded sites where the potential for soil
exposure to the erosive effects of rainfall and wind is great. Mass graded construction
sites may be exposed for several years while the project is being built out. Thus, there is
potential for significant sediment discharge from the site to surface waters.
At a minimum, the discharger/operator must implement an effective combination of
erosion and sediment control on all disturbed areas during the rainy season. These
disturbed areas include rough graded roadways, slopes, and building pads. Until
permanent vegetation is established, soil cover is the most cost-effective and expeditious
method to protect soil particles from detachment and transport by rainfall. Temporary
soil stabilization can be the single-most important factor in reducing erosion at
construction sites. The discharger shall consider measures such as: covering with mulch,
temporary seeding, soil stabilizers, binders, fiber rolls or blankets, temporary vegetation,
permanent seeding, and a variety of other measures.
The SWPPP shall include a description of the erosion control practices, including a time
schedule, to be implemented during construction to minimize erosion on disturbed areas
of a construction site. The discharger must consider the full range of erosion control
BMPs. The discharger must consider any additional site-specific and seasonal conditions
when selecting and implementing appropriate BMPs. The above listed erosion control
measures are examples of what should be considered and are not exclusive of new or
innovative approaches currently available or being developed.
a. The SWPPP shall include:
Page 14
(I) An outline of the areas of vegetative soil cover or native vegetation onsite
which will remain undisturbed during the construction project.
(2) An outline of all areas of soil disturbance including cut or fill areas which
will be stabilized during the rainy season by temporary or permanent
erosion control measures, such as seeding, mulch, or blankets, etc.
(3) An outline of the areas of soil disturbance, cut, or fill which will be left
exposed during any part of the rainy season, representing areas of
potential soil erosion where sediment control BMPs are required to be
used during construction.
(4) A proposed schedule for the implementation of erosion control measures.
b. The SWPPP shall include a description of the BMPs and control practices to be
used for both temporary and permanent erosion control measures.
c. The SWPPP shall include a description of the BMPs to reduce wind erosion at all
times, with particular attention paid to stock-piled materials.
7. Stabilization
(1) All disturbed areas of the construction site must be stabilized. Final
stabilization for the purposes of submitting a NOT is satisfied when:
-All soil disturbing activities are completed AND EITHER OF THE
TWO FOLLOWING CRITERIA ARE MET:
-A uniform vegetative cover with 70 percent coverage has been
established OR:
-equivalent stabilization measures have been employed. These
measures include the use of such BMPs as blankets, reinforced
channel liners, soil cement, fiber matrices, geotextiles, or other
erosion resistant soil coverings or treatments.
(2) Where background native vegetation covers less than 100 percent ofthe
surface, such as in arid areas, the 70 percent coverage criteria is adjusted
as follows: If the native vegetation covers 50 percent of the ground
surface, 70 percent of 50 percent (.70 X .50=.35) would require 35 percent
total uniform surface coverage.
8. Sediment Control
Page 15
".
The SWppp shall include a description or illustration of BMPs which will be
implemented to prevent a net increase of sediment load in storm water discharge relative
to preconstruction levels. Sediment control BMPs are required at appropriate locations
along the site perimeter and at all operational internal inlets to the storm drain system at
all times during the rainy season. Sediment control practices may include filtration
devices and barriers (such as fiber rolls, silt fence, straw bale barriers, and gravel inlet
filters) and/or settling devices (such as sediment traps or basins). Effective filtration
devices, barriers, and settling devices shall be selected, installed and maintained properly.
A proposed schedule for deployment of sediment control BMPs shall be included in the
SWPPP. These are the most basic measures to prevent sediment from leaving the project
site and moving into receiving waters. Limited exemptions may be authorized by the
RWQCB when work on active areas precludes the use of sediment control BMPs
temporarily. Under these conditions, the SWPPP must describe a plan to establish
perimeter controls prior to the onset of rain.
During the nonrainy season, the discharger is responsible for ensuring that adequate
sediment control materials are available to control sediment discharges at the downgrade
perimeter and operational inlets in the event of a predicted storm. The discharger shall
consider a full range of sediment controls, in addition to the controls listed above, such as
straw bale dikes, earth dikes, brush barriers, drainage swales, check dams, subsurface
drain, sandbag dikes, fiber rolls, or other controls. At a minimum, the
discharger/operator must implement an effective combination of erosion and sediment
control on all disturbed areas during the rainy season.
If the discharger chooses to rely on sediment basins for treatment purposes, sediment
basins shall, at a minimum, be designed and maintained as follows:
Option 1: Pursuant to local ordinance for sediment basin design and maintenance,
provided that the design efficiency is as protective or more protective of
water quality than Option 3.
OR
Option 2: Sediment basin(s), as measured from the bottom of the basin to the
principal outlet, shall have at least a capacity equivalent to 3,600 cubic
feet of storage per acre draining into the sediment basin. The length of the
basin shall be more than twice the width of the basin. The length is _
determined by measuring the distance between the inlet and the outlet; and
the depth must not be less than three feet nor greater than five feet for
safety reasons and for maximum efficiency.
OR
Option 3: Sediment basin(s) shall be designed using the standard equation:
Page 16
As=1.2Q/Vs
Where: As is the minimum surface area for trapping soil particles of a
certain size; Vs is the settling velocity of the design particle size chosen;
and Q=C x I x A where Q is the discharge rate measured in cubic feet per
second; C is the runoff coefficient; I is the precipitation intensity for the
10-year, 6-hour rain event and A is the area draining into the sediment
basin in acres. The design particle size shall be the smallest soil grain size
determined by wet sieve analysis, or the fine silt sized (O.Olmm) particle,
and the V s used shall be 100 percent of the calculated settling velocity.
The length is determined by measuring the distance between the inlet and
the outlet; the length shall be more than twice the dimension as the width;
the depth shall not be less than three feet nor greater than five feet for
safety reasons and for maximum efficiency (two feet of storage, two feet
of capacity). The basin( s) shall be located on the site where it can be
maintained on a year-round basis and shall be maintained on a schedule to
retain the two feet of capacity;
OR
Option 4: The use of an equivalent surface area design or equation, provided that the
design efficiency is as protective or more protective of water quality than
Option 3.
A sediment basin shall have a means for dewatering within 7 -calendar days following a
storm event. Sediment basins may be fenced if safety (worker or public) is a concern.
The outflow from a sediment basin that discharges into a natural drainage shall be
provided with outlet protection to prevent erosion and scour of the embankment and
channel.
The discharger must consider any additional site-specific and seasonal conditions when
selecting and designing sediment control BMPs. The above listed sediment control
measures are examples of what should be considered and are not exclusive of new or
innovative approaches currently available or being developed.
The swppp shall include a description of the BMPs to reduce the tracking of sediment
onto public or private roads at all times. These public and private roads shall be
inspected and cleaned as necessary. Road cleaning BMPs shall be discussed in the
SWppp and will not rely on the washing of accumulated sediment or silt into the storm
drain system.
9. Non-Storm Water Management
Page 17
,,~
Describe all non-storm water discharges to receiving waters that are proposed for the
construction project. N on-storm water discharges should be eliminated Of reduced to the
extent feasible. Include the locations of such discharges and descriptions of all BMPs
designed for the control of pollutants in such discharges. Onetime discharges shall be
monitored during the time that such discharges are occurring. A qualified person should
be assigned the responsibility for ensuring that no materials other than storm water are
discharged in quantities which will have an adverse effect on receiving waters or storm
drain systems (consistent with BAT/BCT), and the name and contact number of that
person should be included in the SWPPP document.
Discharging sediment-laden water which will cause or contribute to an exceedance of the
applicable RWQCB's Basin Plan from a dewatering site or sediment basin into any
receiving water or storm drain without filtration or equivalent treatment is prohibited.
10. Post-Construction Storm Water Management
The SWPPP shall include descriptions of the BMPs to reduce pollutants in storm water
discharges after all construction phases have been completed at the site (Post-
Construction BMPs). Post-Construction BMPs include the minimization ofland
disturbance, the minimization of impervious surfaces, treatment of storm water runoff
using infiltration, detention/retention, biofilter BMPs, use of efficient irrigation systems,
ensuring that interior drains are not connected to a storm sewer system, and appropriately
designed and constructed energy dissipation devices. These must be consistent with all
local post-construction storm water management requirements, policies, and guidelines.
The discharger must consider site-specific and seasonal conditions when designing the
control practices. Operation and maintenance of control practices after construction is
completed shall be addressed, including short-and long-term funding sources and the
responsible party.
11. Maintenance. Inspection. and Rel2illr
The SWPPP shall include a discussion of the program to inspect and maintain all BMPs
as identified in the site plan or other narrative documents throughout the entire duration
of the project. A qualified person will be assigned the responsibility to conduct
inspections. The name and telephone number of that person shall be listed in the SWPPP
document. Inspections will be performed before and after storm events and once each
24-hour period during extended storm events to identify BMP effectiveness and
implement repairs or design changes as soon as feasible depending upon field conditions.
Equipment, materials, and workers must be available for rapid response to failures and
emergencies. All corrective maintenance to BMPs shall be performed as soon as possible
after the conclusion of each storm depending upon worker safety.
For each inspection required above, the discharger shall complete an inspection checklist.
At a minimum, an inspection checklist shall include:
a. Inspection date.
Page 18
b. Weather information: best estimate of beginning of storm event, duration of
event, time elapsed since last storm, and approximate amount of rainfall (inches).
c. A description of any inadequate BMPs.
d. If it is possible to safely access during inclement weather, list observations of all
BMPs: erosion controls, sediment controls, chemical and waste controls, and
non-storm water controls. Otherwise, list result of visual inspection at relevant
outfall, discharge point, or downstream location and projected required
maintenance activities.
e. Corrective actions required, including any changes to SWPPP necessary and
implementation dates.
f. Inspectors name, title, and signature.
The dischargers shall prepare their inspection checklists using the inspection checklist
form provided by the SWRCB or RWQCB or on forms that contain the equivalent
information.
12. Training
Individuals responsible for SWPPP preparation, implementation, and permit compliance
shall be appropriately trained, and the SWPPP shall document all training. This includes
those personnel responsible for installation, inspection, maintenance, and repair of BMPs.
Those responsible for overseeing, revising, and amending the SWPPP shall also
document their training. Training should be both formal and informal, occur on an
ongoing basis when it is appropriate and convenient, and should include
training/workshops offered by the SWRCB, RWQCB, or other locally recognized
agencies or professional organizations.
13. List of Contractors/Subcontractors
The SWPPP shall include a list of names of all contractors, (or subcontractors) and
individuals responsible for implementation of the SWPPP. This list should include
telephone numbers and addresses. Specific areas of responsibility of each subcontractor
and emergency contact numbers should also be included.
14. Other Plans
This SWPPP may incorporate by reference the appropriate elements of other plans
required by local, State, or Federal agencies. A copy of any requirements incorporated
by reference shall be kept at the construction site.
Page 19
15. Public Access
The SWPPP shall be provided, upon request, to the RWQCB. The SWPPP is considered
a report that shall be available to the public by the RWQCB under section 308(b) of the
Clean Water Act.
16. ~arer Certification
The SWPPP and each amendment shall be signed by the landowner (discharger) or his
representative and include the date of initial preparation and the date of each amendment.
SECTION B: MONITORING PROGRAM AND REPORTING REQUIREMENTS
1. ~uired Changes
The RWQCB may require the discharger to conduct additional site inspections, to submit
reports and certifications, or perform sampling and analysis.
2. !mPlementation
a. The requirements of this Section shall be implemented at the time of
commencement of construction activity (see also Section A. 2. Implementation
Schedule). The discharger is responsible for implementing these requirements
until construction activity is complete and the site is stabilized.
b. For ongoing construction activity involving a change in ownership of property
covered by this General Permit, the new owner must complete a NOI and
implement the requirements of this Section concurrent with the change of
ownership. For changes of information, the owner must follow instructions in
C. 7. Special Provisions for Construction Activity of the General Permit.
3. Site Inspections
Qualified personnel shall conduct inspections of the construction site prior to anticipated
storm events, during extended storm events, and after actual storm events to identity
areas contributing to a discharge of storm water associated with construction activity.
The name(s) and contact number(s) of the assigned inspection personnel shall be listed in
the SWPPP. Pre-storm inspections are to ensure that BMPs are properly installed and
maintained; post-storm inspections are to assure that the BMPs have functioned
adequately. During extended storm events, inspections shall be required each 24-hour
period. Best Management Practices (BMPs) shall be evaluated for adequacy and proper
implementation and whether additional BMPs are required in accordance with the terms
ofthe General Permit (see language in Section A. 11. Maintenance, Inspection, and
Repair). Implementation of nonstorm water discharge BMPs shall be verified and their
Page 20
Stevens Creek Corridor Park Master Plan and Restoration Plan IS
APPENDIX G
HYDROLOGIC TABLES AND FIGURES, BALANCE
IIYDROLOGICS
,
Table 3.8-1. Comparison of the hydraulic conditions estimated using HEC-RAS for the existing channel and the design channel at the 1 DO-year discharge (5500 cfs). This discharge
represents the estimated i-percent chance (iDa-year) flow in the creek proposed by Santa Clara Valley Water District Hydrology Group.
Existing Channel Design Channel
Existing Desig n
River Top of Channel Existing Top of Channel Design Structure
Station Desription XS Bank Invert WSE EG Overbank XS Bank Invert WSE EG Overbank Elevations
(ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) EorW (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) EorW
2605 US of San Fernando Ct. 680 317.8 310.4 320.0 321.0 E 680 317.8 310.4 319.9 320.9 E
2260 Constriction at San Fernando Cl. 650 314 305.4 317.0 319.0 E 650 314 305.4 317.0 319.0 E
2110 Immediately US of Reach A 615 310.1 304.1 314.1 315.7 E W 615 310.1 304.1 313.3 315.7 E W
2063 DS Riffle Ai 610 309.1 302.8 313.3 315.3 E 610 309.1 303.2 312.9 314.9 E
2038 US Riffle A2 600 308.9 302.9 311.9 313.8 E 600 308.9 302.9 311.6 313.4 E W
1911 US RffleA3 580 307 300.7 310.8 312.5 E 575 307.8 301.8 310.7 312.0 E W
1702 US Riffle B2 (Swimming Pools) 550 305 295.4 307.2 308.2 E W 552 305.3 298.9 307.2 308.1 E W 306.6
1574 US Riffle B4 (W Bank Picnic Area) 540 302.7 295.8 304.4 305.2 E W 544 302.5 297.1 304.2 305.0 E W 301.8
1315 US Riffle B6 (Golf Course US) 520 299.6 293.1 301.8 302.5 E W 532 299.5 294.8 301.5 301.8 E W 300
1166 US Riffle B8 (Golf Course) 515 299.5 292.2 300.9 301.3 E 520 299.6 293.4 300.9 301.3 E 299
1076 BIw Reaches Band C (Golf Course 510 299 291.1 300.2 301.0 E 510 299 291.1 300.2 301.0 E 299.4
910 Upsream Reach C (Golf Course) 500 297 290.6 298.9 299.6 E 500 297 290.5 298.7 299.4 E 297.2
722 BIw Pool C1 and Riffle C2 490 295 288.9 298.3 298.6 E W 493 295 287.8 298.4 298.6 E W 295
502 DS Pool C3 (Golf Course Fairway) 480 293.7 282.4 298.3 298.4 E W 480.66' 293.7 285.5 298.4 298.5 E W 294
253 US Riffle C7 (Restaurant) 470 291 279.8 298.3 298.4 E W 468 291 283.3 298.4 298.4 E W 292.1
100 US Stevens Creek Blvd Bridge 460 293 281.0 298.3 298.3 E 460 293 281.0 298.3 298.4 E
1. River station distance as measured up the vaHey from the Steven's Creek Blvd (not channel distance because existing and design channels are slightly different lengths).
2. An asterisk (0) indicates an a cross section is interpolated.
Table 3.8-2. Comparison of the hydraulic conditions estimated using HEC-RAS for the existing channel and the design channel at 1500 cfs. This discharge falls within the range of
estimates for the H)..percent chance (10-year) flow, exceeds the peak discharge on record (1390 cfs in 1998), and generally represents the channel capadty of the creek.
Existing Channel Design Channel
Existing Design
River Top of Channel Existing Top of Channel Design Structure
Station Desription XS Bank Invert WSE EG Overbank XS Bank Invert WSE EG Overbank Elevations
(fl) (fl) (fl) (fl) (fl) EorW (fl) (fl) (fl) (fl) EorW
2605 US of San Fernando Ct. 680 317.8 310.4 316.5 318.7 680 317.8 310.4 316.0 318.0
2260 Constriction at San Fernando Ct. 650 314 305.4 312.8 313.7 650 314 305.4 312.9 313.8
2110 Immediately US of Reach A 615 310.1 304.1 310.2 311.4 W 615 310.1 304.1 310.3 311.5 W
2063 OS Riffle Ai 610 309.1 302.8 308.6 310.8 610 309.1 303.2 308.7 310.3
2038 US Riffle A2 600 308.9 302.9 307.9 309.4 600 308.9 302.9 307.8 309.5
1911 US Rffle A3 580 307 300.7 306.4 308.3 575 307.8 301.8 307.3 308.1
1702 US Riffle 82 (Swimming Pools) 550 305 295.4 301.5 303.7 552 305.3 298.9 304.4 305.7 306.6
1574 US Riffle B4 (W Bank Picnic Area) 540 302.7 295.8 301.3 302.1 544 302.5 297.1 303.8 303.9 301.8
1315 US Riffle B6 (Golf Course US) 520 299.6 293.1 299.1 301.1 532 299.5 294.8 300.3 300.6 EW 300
1166 US Riffle B8 (Golf Course) 515 299.5 292.2 299.5 300.0 E 520 299.6 293.4 299.7 300.0 E 299
1076 Btw Reaches Band C (Golf Cours€ 510 299 291.1 298.4 299.2 510 299 291.1 297.6 298.7 299.4
910 Upsream Reach C (Golf Course) 500 297 290.6 297.1 298.3 500 297 290.5 296.2 297.3 297.2
722 Btw Pool C1 and Riffle C2 490 295 288.9 294.7 297.1 493 295 287.8 294.1 295.7 295
502 OS Pool C3 (Golf Course Fairway) 480 293.7 282.4 292.0 293.2 480.66. 293.7 285.5 292.2 293.0 294
253 US Riffle C7 (Restaurant) 470 291 279.8 291.6 292.4 W 468 291 283.3 292,0 292.1 EW 292.1
100 US Stevens Creek Blvd Bridge 460 293 281.0 291.5 292.0 460 293 281.0 291.5 292.0
1. River station distance as measured up the valley from the Sleven's Creek Blvd (not channel distance because existing and design channels are slightly differenllengths).
2. An asterisk (*) indicates an a cross section is interpolated.
325.0
320.0
315.0
310.0
-
5. 305.0
c:
0 300.0
.-
....,
co
>
CD 295.0
-
w
290.0
285.0
280.0
275.0
0
,
.'
...
jJ.--- ...-
.... 0 -,""
.... -
... - .
1000
500
--
..-
...-
/'
,-
,/
/
/'
,-'
....
...
....
.-
...-
. Existing WSE
. Design WSE
- - - Top of Bank
~ Existing Channel Invert
H Design Channel Invert
I!J Swimming Pools
):; W Bank Picnic Area
~ Golf Course
0 Restaurant
1500
2000
2500
3000
Up-Valley Distance (ft)
.
.-
-~
~-~
- ~~
~-
-~
~ . Balan
5" -:..-:= ce
- ~--
~~~ Hydrologics,Inc.
Figure 3.8~1.
Profiles of HEC~RAS model results for the 5500~cfs discharge
in Steven's Creek, San Jose, California. This discharge represents
the estimated i-percent chance (i00-year) flow in the creek proposed by
Santa Clara Valley Water District Hydrology Group.
320.0
315.0
310.0
_ 305.0
~
-
I: 300.0
o
.-
....
co
>
Q)
-
w
295.0
290.0
285.0
280.0
275.0
...
....
-
o
500
1000
..
'-
--
:~
.::~ Figure 3.8-2.
t -='!::::. Balance
~ .
~~~ Hydrologics,Inc.
.....
, .....
....
..,."'"
. .....
..,.
/'
".
If.
. Existing WSE
. Design WSE
- - - Top of Bank
~ EXIsting Channel Invert
Jt Design Channel Invert
I!J Swimming Pools
:t W Bank Picnic Area
*' Golf Course
o Restaurant
1500
2000
2500
3000
Up-Valley Distance (ft)
Profiles of HEC-RAS model results for the 1500-cfs discharge
in Steven's Creek, San Jose, California. This discharge falls within
the range of estimates for the 10-percent chance (10.year) flow, exceeds the
peak discharge on record (1390 cfs in 1998), and generally represents the
channel capacity of the creek.
203124 Ste\ens Cr HEC-RAS Plan: Plan 15 4/13/2006
RS = 548
k....,
310:
uu .03 . '--~'075'
~.Q75-""""
.03
----+i
water surface
o
3
5
Legeiiii
. EG PF 3
WS PF 3
308
.
Ground
.
Bank Sta
3061
Near River Station 1711 feet
300 ,
";;1:!~ri!;;r~1~'i?~~~;1\i*1;JfciGltt;~;:till~1~iilii1~C"'(",'w,,...j .^"
'1,!~i~f
~M3Z;iliQili;'
~~l~~ii:..
..~;,.,,"':o.:,,_:
1:r'
0:;&
'~t
west bank
east bank
= 304,
"
.2
~
.S1
w 302'
298 .
296'
o
100
200
300
400
500
Station (II)
203124 Ste\ens Cr HEC-RAS Plan: Plan 15 4113/2006
RS = 545.5 BR
.. ...... .....--..-.--. .03 ......- ..
"".075~ .035"'.075'"
.. .03""""'''
_n _____________________}>;
320.
Legend
Near River Station 1711 feet EG PF 3
+...4
.. WS PF 3
.
Ground
....................
Ineff
.
Bank Sta
315"
water surface
310 ~
=
c:
.Q
~
.m
w
305 ;
,-':c ;~:Q~C ;Q: ;n',:~ ':- :~~~:~:t.:i'::~;:j::~~.:.:;:,;%;0~~WA~o
300,
west bank
east bank
295~
o
100
200
300
400
500
Slation (It I
:;.a;;. Figure 3.8-3 .
ff ~ Balance
~~7J Hydrologies, Ine.
Steven's Creek HEC-RAS cross-sections at the
swimming pool area for a flow of 1500 cfs. View is
looking downstream - left (west) bank on left and
right (east) bank on right.
203124 - Results Table 4-11-06 - Brdgs.xls, Figure (XS 548 545.5 post)
f.,
203124 Ste\ens Cr HEC-RAS Plan: Plan 15 4/13/2006
water surface RS = 544
m___ _03 --.---- m__~ ~-- - - -------- _03-
00 0
7 3 7
555
I Lege"".
c
~
306
EG PF 3
WS PF 3
304-
.
Ground
..
Inall
.
Near River Station 1574 feet BankSta
g:
c:
J.
i
'"
w
.~' ~Wg~Jil~li~~t%tM~f;]~~li.i~@~51i[~~~~'@i1iT[J!~i~~:;~~"~~~ .
i ,'@illj;~;:L:;;:.;.:.~;:.;.~~;w:&[[~Wi%@r'~-:<<~Th~=0.i;1~.;~~!:}'0-?:''''.:"' ...........,i::.;~~~::C-:~-f::$~~
,~; ~iii"il~~lI
Y&~"h~
:Qn~H2f~
~::;:~~~~.;.
300; ~~tt
~o;:;'t~=
t~i
l~~~~.
~t~\
Wt'
298 -
east bank
west bank
296 ----..---
o
;
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
Stabon (11)
water surface 3124 Ste\ens Cr HEC-RAS Plan: Plan 15 4/13/2006
RS = 540
k
306 ,
_03
_075
.... ._"-'~
--- -.. -- __..m__ _03 --...-
-~
~-----------
,
o 0
3 7
5 5
Legend---
EG PF 3
WS PF 3 -
304
.
Ground
---4--.-.-..
Inall
.
i BankSta
Near River Station 1574 feet
e
~:?-~7;~~~: ~s:~~(.;- Qm (Q ~~'::: ~ ~ ~ @ ~~......... ~ '~~ ~ ',.,.~ ~,~~CQ ~~~::,~",QM~:::'::;3~~3W.,.;;~;:Qfu,~,~~~;J., ,t::~~::::::~ ~~ < '""'""~,~~ ,"=::o ~~r"..,f;:;:;:~~:::'~~,::mw~~ >a~~.;.....,~,"'=
~v~ MMQ '" V" ~"" ';:~Q~~~,~v, :3'"",Q f VQ~~~ ~ ,~~~f'>~~ '" ~m """"""WJc,~~~ -:&. ~W;Q ~~~~ {.;";,.;W'.f'e,,~"<;i~Q~Q~~~ ~~''''~V~'''~~~~-.,.;'-';:''~~;;'lQ<.':';:;~l;,'''~ ~ v~_",&~,.
~~~;'l;:~~~'~'0-.~~~'~' ~ ~ '" ,V:v~v,v ~~~Q'" Q Q ~ ",,-,x"i_'=""'Q,.,.~W.~w-.~ :;>>:::0.. ,x~=,,,,,,,,,,,,-,~ d' w~v~~ ~ ~""~'(Q,,"~"Q=;:;r:;.v,,,;:; "-m~ '~&::,'5:iE": ;.~
H~~l-~~;. Q :~o{~: ):~~~)1 :",~ ~ ;~~ /"':~/~:~~<1!:;:~~~#;~"*n<?QQ>~0h,;:s~~~"-l;';~~...,~v:t::~91~~~,d~::w;.~h~ ~;:/~,,;'7j':o '
~"'~"" ~:;3~"-"" _ "'." '" ,x~;Q' ~~ ~",w_~ 'm~c >'" ';Q;fui:""~'-'...~ :;~+;;:x.~~~:-; .;W,.;:rW~"-"Q"Q '" "'~~Q~~ -'j:-;j~"';;'~ :-;~v """~;Q
"" ! ir~~':';:;:';2'2~~1!!."'"~_.
;JQiJ~jKt
;Q~g~~~r:
m=''''''''l:O
~~nnn
'TImr
'~f:~f:::i(:~
c:
~
~
.Sl
w
300'
298 .
1~~;~
:.:'"'
~~~
296 -
,:;.
west bank
east bank
294-
o
100
200
300
400
Stalion (It)
500
600
700
800
-"'~ Figure 3.8-4.
.L.......... Balan
5' -0..._ ce
~:i!:.7 Hydrologies, Ine.
Steven's Creek HEC-RAS cross-sections
downstream of swimming pool area for a flow of
1500 cfs. View is looking downstream - left (west)
bank on left and right (east) bank on right.
203124 - Results Table 4-11-06 - Brdgs.xls, Figure (XS 544 540 post)
~-
203124 Stelens Cr HEC-RAS Plan: Plan 15 4/13/2006
RS ~ 538
.03
~.075~.:. i.,;
'0; 0
3 7
5 5
W ter surface
...-----.. .-----------.- .03 --------.------- -... - .... ~
306'-
';-. '.
. ,. ,.
. -,- "' "
_'c '_
.Co,_,,' '.' .
.-,' , >c-"
?ili~~~i
"""-""''''''':''''
N~~~'~;'
tSt2f
'~i~,~~~~'
:;:,:-'fu~>>i:~:;;':
ilin"
t&3r
. afJ~
~!?~
';~~F
'- '-,',,',,',,'-,' '-
'-'-..:.:-.::- ~'", '.-": : " -,'
-Tegli'nd
EG PF 3
WS PF 3
304
.
Groun d
.........1>.........
Inelf
.
BankSta
302
'=-
"
.2 300;
g>
~
w
Near River Station 1315 feet
298 '
296'
west bank
east bank
294"
o
200
400
Station (f1)
600
800
~
.03
203124 Stel.ens Cr HEC-RAS Plan: Plan 15 4/13/2006
RS ~ 532
-..---..- .03 ---- -- . . .>
304
'00 0
7 3 7
5 5 5
water surface
300
'=-
"
Q
j
~
w
298"
::::.::':_~';;:;;.:-'
"",.~,'"'~...~...~...'".nv~~,...
.":~~.<:m;:Q;:Q;;Q;~,:
.~"",-e~_.
EG PF 3
WS PF 3
302
.
Ground
.--......,!,.........
Inelf
.
BankSta
Near River Station 1315 feet
296
west bank
east bank
294 .
o
200
400
600
800
1000
Station (It)
~?~-
-",5~ Figure 3.8-5.
[ -':..~ ~ Balance
~-- ~.c;: Hydrologies, Ine.
Steven's Creek HEC.RAS cross-sections at the
upper end of the golf course for a flow of 1500 cts.
View is looking downstream - left (west) bank on left
and right (east) bank on right.
203124 - Results Table 4-11-06 - Brdgs_xls. Figure (XS 538 532 post)
. ~
Stevens Creek Corridor Park Master Plan and Restoration Plan IS
APPENDIX H
TREE TO BE REMOVED TABLE, JANA SOKALE
, .
Appendix H - Trees to be Removed by Project Element and Listed from Upstream to Downstream.
Native Specimen Circumference Diameter
Qty. Cornman Name Species Tree Tree In Inches In Inches Notes
McCLELLAN RANCH SITE
McClellan Ranch - Stevens Creek Trail near McClellan Road
1 Tree of Heaven Ailanthus altissima misc. mISC. Multi-trunk shrub
1 ITree of Heaven Ailanthus altissima mISC. misc. Multi-trunk shrub
1 trree of Heaven Ailanthus altissima mISC. mISC. Multi-trunk shrub
1 IAlmond Prunis ducis mISe. misc.
1 \Almond Prunis ducis mISC. misc.
McClellan Ranch - Stevens Creek Trail along White Fence
1 English Walnut ~uglansregia 69 21.96
McClellan Ranch - Stevens Creek Trail behind Rollin~ Hills 4.H
1 Fruit tree n Decline
1 Fruit tree n Decline
1 Fruit tree n Decline
McClellan Ranch - Stevens Creek Trail behind Community Garden
1 IBlue Elderberry Sambucus mexicana X 40 12.73 IBroken and on the ground
1 IBlue Elderberry Sambucus mexicana X 40 12.73 1R0otball only growing
1 English Walnut u'i?lansre~ia 69 21.96
BLACKBERRY FARM SITE
Blackberry Farm. Play~round and Pool Area
3.82, 4.46,
1 !Tree of Heaven lAilanthus altissima 12 5.09, 6.37 I4-Stem Multi-trunk shrub
1 Eucalyptus Eucalvptus ~lobulus 108 34.38
1 !Tree of Heaven lAilanthus altissima 79 25.15
1 !Tree of Heaven lAilanthus altissima miSe. misc. 12-Stem Multi-trunk shrub
1 Irovon lHeteromeles arbutifolia X 18 5.73 ~n Decline
1 ~talian Alder lAlnus cordata 43 13.69
1 Deador Cedar Cedrus deodora X 69 21.96 Iropped
Appendix H - Trees to be Removed by Project Element and Listed from Upstream to Downstream.
Native Specimen Circumference Diameter
Qty. Common Name Species Tree Tree In Inches In Inches Notes
Blackberry Farm - Snack Bar Area
1 London Plane Tree [platanus acerifloia 67 21.33
1 London Plane Tree [Platanus aceri{loia 34 10.82
1 London Plane Tree [Platanus acerifloia 62 19.74
1 London Plane Tree [platanus acerifloia 25 7.96
1 Montery Pine [pinus radiata 108 34.38
1 Montery Pine lPinus radiata 111 35.33
Blackberry Farm - Conference Center
1 English Walnut 11 uglansregia 42 13.37 ~ingle Branch Alive
1 Colorado Blue Spruce [Picea pu~ens "~lauca" 29 9.23
Blackberry Farm - Entrance Road
1 California Live Oak Quercus agrifolia X X 35 11.14
1 Red Pine Pinus rubra 66 21.01
1 K=alifornia Live Oak Quercus a!(rifolia X X 32 10.19
1 talifornia Live Oak Quercus a!(rifolia X X 36 11.46
1 Montery Pine !Pinus radiata 96 30.56
1 Montery Pine Pinus radiata 66 21.01
1 California Live Oak Quercus a~rifolia X 16 5.09
1 Montery Pine Pinus radiata 84 26.74
Blackberry Farm - Reach A Creek Realignment Location
1 Siberian Elm Ulmus vumila 100 31.83 1#279
5.73, 9.55,
1 Siberian Elm Ulmus pumila 18,30,22 7.00 lMulti-trunk
1 Chinese Elm Ulmus parvifolia 60 19.10
18.46,
1 Califoria Buckeye H.esculus california X X 58,34 10.82
1 Siberian Elm Ulmus pumila 37 11.78
Appendix H - Trees to be Removed by Project Element and Listed from Upstream to Downstream.
Native Specimen Circumference Diameter
Qty. Common Name Species Tree Tree In Inches In Inches Notes
1 Chinese Elm Ulmus parvifolia 70 22.28
1 Chinese Elm Ulmus parvifolia 22 7.00
1 Chinese Elm Ulmus parvifolia 30 9.55
1 Montery Pine Pinus radiata 106 33.74
1 Siberian Elm Ulmus pumila 21,19 6.68, 6.05
10.19,
1 Arroyo Willow Salix lasiolepis X 32,42 13.37 #226 A W
1 Red Willow Salix laevi~ata X 46 14.64 #229 RW
1 Red Willow Salix laevi!(ata X 18 5.73
1 Red Willow Salix laevi~ata X 14,22 4.46, 7.00 Multi-trunk
1 Red Willow Salix laevi5!ata X 21 6.68
9.55,6.73,
1 Siberian Elm Ulmus pumila 30,20,20 6.73 ~ulti-trunk
1 Montery Pine Pinus radiata 69 21. 96
1 Siberian Elm Ulmus vumila 30 9.55
1 Black Cottonwood Populus trichocarpa X 61 19.42
1 Black Cottonwood Povulus trichocarva X 35 11.14
1 Sycamore Platanusracemosa X 100 31.83
1 Doug Fir Pseudotsu!(a menziesii X 51 16.23
1 Black Cottonwood Populus trichocarpa X 124 39.47
1 Black Cottonwood Populus trichocarpa X 16 5.09
1 Black Cottonwood Populus trichocarpa X 19 6.05
1 Black Cottonwood Populus trichocarpa X 17 5.41
1 ~ycamore Platan usracemosa X 19 6.05
1 Coastal Red wood Sequoia sempervirens X 114 36.29
1 Coastal Redwood Sequoia semvervirens X 91 28.97
1 Black Cottonwood Populus trichocarpa X 10 3.18
Appendix H - Trees to be Removed by Project Element and Listed from Upstream to Downstream.
Native Specimen Circumference Diameter
Qty. Common Name Species Tree Tree In Inches In Inches Notes
Blackberrv Farm - Reach B Creek Reali",ment Location - West Bank
1 t:alifornia Live Oak Quercus agrifolia X 28 8.91
1 California Live Oak Quercus aQri{olia X X 85 27.06
1 California Live Oak Quercus af?rifolia X X 91 28.97
1 California Live Oak Quercus af?rifolia X X 96 30.56
1 California Live Oak Quercus af?rifolia X X 36 11.46
1 California Live Oak Quercus af?rifolia X X 63 20.05
1 California Live Oak Quercus af?rifolia X X 90 28.65
1 Montery Pine [Pinus radiata 87 27.69
Blackberrv Fann - Reach B Creek Realiltllment Location. East Bank
1 lDeador Cedar Cedrus deodora X 67 21.33
1 London Plane Tree Platanus acerifloia 39 12.41
1 Montery Pine Pinus radiata 103 32.79
1 Montery Pine Pinus radiata 96 30.56
1 Montery Pine Pinus radiQta 108 34.38
1 Montery Pine [Pinus radiata 57 18.14
1 Siberian Elm Ulmus pumila 62 19.74
1 Siberian Elm Ulmus pumila 53 16.87
1 Siberian Elm Ulmus pumila 50 15.92
1 White Alder Alnus rhombifolia X 16 5.09
1 White Alder ~lnus rhombifolia X 16 5.09
1 White Alder Alnus rhombifolia X 16 5.09
STOCKLMEIR SITE
Stocklmeir Site - Reach C Creek Reali",ment Location
1 talifornia Buckeye Aesculus calif arnica X X 36 11.46 This cluster of native trees will
be used to anchor the top of the
new riffle and are located on the
,
i
Appendix H - Trees to be Removed by Proi ect Element and Listed from Upstream to Downstream.
Native Specimen Circumference Diameter
Qty. Common Name Species Tree Tree In Inches In Inches Notes
. . - . top of bank.
'. ~~~11~ 1" .~ "..::.y ;1,;~;1 r~~~.~::r~I=~'I~;:'j
, ".. :
," :';m t '~1:'1 $
,:, "i",'''''' y
1 California Live Oak Quercus a~rifolia X X 45 14.32
87 Orange Orchard Trees Citrus spp. Irhere are total of 144 orange
~rees. The project will remove 87
for the creek and 5 for the trail.
3 English Walnut Orchard Trees IT uR"IanSreRia
Stocklmeir Site - Stevens Creek Trail Approaching Stevens Creek Boulevard
5 Orange Orchard Trees Citrus spp. [There are total of 144 orange
rees. The project will remove 87
for the creek and 5 for the trail.
1 Eucalyptus "Silver Dollar Gum" Eucalyptus polyanthemos 28, 49 8.91, 15.60
1 Olive Olea europa 39 12.41
11.78,
1 Plive Olea europa 19 11.14. 6.05 Multi-trunk
1 Atlas Cedar Cedrus RIauc atlantica 30 9.55
1 Pittosporum "Tarata" Pittosporum eU!lenoides 38 12.10
TOT ALS:
Orchard trees 95
Non-native trees 55
Native trees 37
Total trees to be removed 187
Total trees to be protected 1
Trees by type:
Orchard
Orange orchard
English walnut orchard
92
3
Specimen trees
Non-native
Native
2
12 (11 to be removed, 1 to be protected)
Stevens Creek Corridor Park Master Plan and Restoration Plan IS
APPENDIX I
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PLAN
APPENDIX I.
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PLAN
The following Mitigation, Monitoring and Reporting Plan (MMRP), was prepared for
this project pursuant to CEQA Guidelines. According to the Guidelines:
"In order to ensure that the mitigation measures and project revisions identified in the
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration are implemented, the Lead Agency, the City of
Cupertino (City) shall adopt a program for monitoring or reporting on the revisions which it has
required in the project and the measures it has imposed to mitigate or avoid significant
environmental effects." (s 15097(a))
"The Lead Agency may choose whether its program will monitor mitigation, report on
mitigation, or both. "Reporting" generally consists of a written compliance review that is
presented to the decision making body or authorized staff person. A report may be required at
various stages during project implementation or upon completion ofthe mitigation measure.
"Monitoring" is generally an ongoing or periodic process of project oversight. There is often no
clear distinction between monitoring and reporting and the program best suited to ensuring
compliance in any given instance will usually involve elements of both." (s 15097 (c))
The MMRP lists the Impacts, Mitigation Measures, and Timing of the Mitigation
Measure (when the measure will be implemented) related to the Stevens Creek Corridor project.
The responsibility for ensuring that the mitigation measure has been implemented would be the
responsibility of the City of Cupertino. All of the mitigation measures listed in the MMRP
would be implemented by the City or by its appointees.
According to CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4 (a) (2), "Mitigation measures must be
fully enforceable through permit conditions, agreements, or other legally-binding instruments."
Therefore, all mitigation measures listed in this MMRP would be adopted by the City when the
project is approved.
Stevens Creek Corridor Park Master Plan and Restoration Plan Initial Study
City of Cupertino - April 2006
Appendix I - Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan
Impact
Mitigation Measure
Impact: The removal
of structures and the
removal or trimming
of shrubs or trees
could impact nesting
birds, if present.
Impact: Construction
activities such as, but
not limited to, grading
or the noise
generated from a
Implementation
Responsibility & Timing
Monitoring
Responsibility
Page 2
Verified
Implementation
Mitigation Measure BI0-1: Vegetation, tree, bridge,
and building removal activities within the project area
shall be scheduled to take place outside of the nesting
season (February 1 to August 31) to avoid impacts to
nesting birds. In order to avoid impacts to existing
raptor nests during the non nesting season, a
preconstruction survey of all trees that could support
raptor nests shall be completed. Every attempt shall
be made to protect trees and nests that contain raptor
nests.
However, if construction is unavoidable during the
nesting season, a qualified biologist shall conduct a
survey for nesting raptors and other birds within five
days prior to the start of construction activities. If
active nests are not present, construction activities
can take place as scheduled. If more than 5 days
elapse between the initial nest search and the
beginning of construction activities, another nest
survey shall be conducted. If any active nests are
detected, a qualified biologist shall determine the
appropriate buffer to be established around the nest.
CDFG generally accepts a 50-foot radius buffer
around passerine and non-passerine land bird nests,
and up to a 250-foot radius for raptors, however the
biologist shall have flexibility to reduce or expand the
buffer depending on the specific circumstances.
Mitigation Measure BI0~2: The following avoidance
measures shall be implemented as necessary and as
determined by a qualified bat biologist (defined as a
biologist holding a CDFG collection permit and a
Memorandum of Understanding with CDFG allowing
Implementation: Qualified
biologists
Timing: During the
construction phase of the
project
Implementation: Qualified bat
biologist.
Timing: Prior to construction
Monitoring: Project
manager to schedule
removal and/or trimming
outside of nesting season.
If not feasible, project
manager shall ensure that
removal/trimming is
completed within five days
of the completion of nest
surveys. If nests are
found, project manager
and implementation
biologist would ensure that
buffer is maintained until
chicks have fledged.
Biologist would provide a
memo report on the results
of the nest survey to
project manager.
Monitoring: Project
manager to schedule
construction activities near
maternity roost tree
outside of maternity
Initials
Date
Initials
Date
Stevens Creek Corridor Park Master Plan and Restoration Plan Initial Study
City of Cupertino - April 2006
Appendix I - Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan
Page 3
Impact Mitigation Measure Implementation Monitoring Verified
Responsibility & Timing Responsibility Implementation
chainsaw or other the biologist to handle and collect bats): season. If not feasible,
loud noises could a. Temporal avoidance. To avoid disturbance to an project manager shall
result in the ensure that measures a-d
abandonment of the active maternity colony, construction activities listed in B10-2 are
big brown bat adjacent to the roost tree shall commence after young followed. Bat biologist
are volant (flying) (Le., after July 31) and end before
maternity colony completing work would
maternity colonies form (Le., prior to March 1). CDFG
roost and therefore submit a letter to CDFG
impact the on-site big considers the maternity season to occur from March 1 and project manager of
to August 31. Thus the project construction can be
brown bat population. monitoring activities and
scheduled from September 1 through March 1 to
results.
avoid potential construction disturbance to the
maternity roost.
b. Construction buffer zones. Depending upon the
type of potential disturbance to the big brown bat
maternity colony roost, a qualified bat biologist shall
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 shall also
be established by a bat biologist. This buffer would be
placed to prevent the loss of roots and branches.
California Department of Fish and Game would need
to be notified of any active nurseries within the
construction zone.
c. 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 shall also be
conducted prior to any construction or large tree
removal. The survey shall be conducted by a qualified
bat biologist.
d. Exclude bats prior to construction disturbance of,
or loss of, roosts. If any roosting area with a nursery
as determined bv the preconstruction survey is
Stevens Creek Corridor Park Master Plan and Restoration Plan Initial Study
City of Cupertino - April 2006
Appendix I - Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan
Page 4
Impact Mitigation Measure Implementation Monitoring Verified
Responsibility & Timing Responsibility Implementation
planned (and required) to be removed, a qualified bat
biologist shall exclude bats outside of the maternity
season (Le., prior to March 1 or after July 31 when
young are volant or flying) with the use of one-way
doors. Tree cutting or construction shall then follow no
less than three days after because all bats may not
exit each night. If a nonbreeding bat hibernaculum is
found in a building or tree that needs removal, the
individual bats shall be safely evicted also through the
use of one-way doors as described above.
Impact: If present Mitigation Measure 810-3: The following avoidance Implementation: Qualified Monitoring: (a) Survey Initials
within creek or measures for WPT, CRLF, and Dusky-footed woodrat biologists, project supervisor biologists to submit a letter
adjacent upland shall be implemented: and all crew members. report of survey results to
habitat, CRLF, WPT, a. Preconstruction Survey. In the two days prior to Timing: Prior to construction project manager. (b)
and wood rat nests Project crew to sign a
the start of project activities, a qualified biologist shall and during construction as Date
could be crushed by sheet for receipt of CRLF,
perform one daytime survey for CRLF. The entire specified.
project activities or by WPT, and woodrat
work area, including any burrows, rocks and
vehicle or human training. Sign-in sheet held
woodpiles that may be disturbed by construction
access. by project supervisor. (c)
activities, shall be inspected for CRLF. If CRLF is
Biological monitor to report
detected, work shall be delayed and the USFWS shall
daily to project supervisor.
be contacted on how to proceed (since it is a
(d) Project supervisor to
Federally Threatened species). If during this survey
enforce speed limit and
WPT or wood rats are also detected, the CDFG shall
parked vehicle check.
be contacted on how to proceed (since they are State
Species of Special Concern).
b. Employee Education Program. An employee
education program shall be conducted prior to the
initiation of project activities. The program shall
consist of a brief presentation by persons
knowledgeable in federally listed and state special
status species biology and legislative protection to
explain concerns to contractors and their employees.
The program would include the following: a
description of CRLF ,WPT, and wood rats and their
habitat needs; an explanation of the status of CRLF,
Stevens Creek Corridor Park Master Plan and Restoration Plan Initial Study
City of Cupertino - April 2006
Appendix I - Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan
Page 5
Impact Mitigation Measure Implementation Monitoring Verified
Responsibility & Timing Responsibility Implementation
WPT, and woodrats and their protection under state
and federal laws; and a list of measures being taken
to reduce impacts to CRLF, WPT, and wood rats
during project activities. Crews shall be instructed
that if a CRLF is found, it is to be left alone and the
project foreman and the USFWS must be notified
immediately. Likewise, if a WPT or woodrat nest is
found, it is to be left alone and the project foreman
and CDFG must be notified immediately.
c. Daily Monitoring. During the construction phase of
the project, a qualified biologist or a trained, on-site
monitor shall check the site in the morning every day
before construction activities begin for the presence of
CRLF, WPT, wood rat or other wildlife present within
the work area. If CRLF, WPT, or woodrat is found,
construction would be halted and the monitor would
immediately notify the appropriate regulatory agency.
Subsequent recommendations made by the USFWS
or CDFG shall be followed. The monitor would not
handle or try to relocate any special-status species.
(An alternative strategy for action in the event a
CRLF, WPT, or woodrat nest is found would be to
create a Handling/Salvage Plan to be agreed upon by
USFWS and CDFG. This Plan would potentially avoid
any long delays associated with finding a CRLF, WPT.
or woodrat and would need to include procedures
such as how and where to move individuals.)
d. Speed Limit. Vehicles shall not drive more than 5
miles per hour within the project area. If any WPT,
CRLF, or wood rats are seen in the path of a vehicle,
the vehicle shall stop until the animal is out of the
path. Parked vehicles shall be thoroughly checked
underneath before they are moved to ensure that no
WPT, CRLF or wood rats are on the ground below the
vehicle.
Stevens Creek Corridor Park Master Plan and Restoration Plan Initial Study
City of Cupertino - April 2006
Appendix 1- Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan
Page 6
Impact Mitigation Measure Implementation Monitoring Verified
Responsibility & Timing Responsibility Implementation
Impact: Potential take Mitigation Measure 810-4: The following Best Implementation: Project Monitoring: Qualified Initials
of steelhead due to Management Practices (BMPs) from the Santa Clara manager and qualified fisheries fisheries biologist to submit
realignment, Valley Water District (District) 2005 8MP Handbook biologist a letter report of survey
dewatering and and Stream Maintenance Program would be used Timing: Prior to project results to project manager,
relocation activities. during project implementation to avoid impacts to Corps and U.S. Fish and
approval Date
steelhead due to dewatering or sediment filled runoff Wildlife Service. Any
entering the creek because of trail construction, bank additional monitoring
layback and/or, erosion stabilization structure removal requirements called out in
(see Appendix A for full text of BMPs). These the Corps permit would
measures may be modified depending on the also be followed.
outcome of the NOAA Biological Opinion.
2005 8MP Handbook
WQ-12 Dewater/ Bypass Water at Non-tidal Sites
WQ-16 Avoid Erosion When Restoring Flows
WQ-18 Erosion and Sediment Control Measures
WQ-3 Pump/Generator Set Operations and
Maintenance
WQ-5 Soil Stockpiles
WQ-10 Concrete Use Near Waterways
WQ-15 Groundwater Management
BI-7 Minimize Stream Access Impacts
81-2 Salvage Native Aquatic Vertebrates from
Dewatered Channels
81-3 Conduct In-Channel Work During the Dry Season
81-8 Remove Temporary Fills as Appropriate
WQ-6 Stabilized Construction Entrance
HM-10 Vehicle and Equipment Fueling
Stevens Creek Corridor Park Master Plan and Restoration Plan Initial Study
City of Cupertino - April 2006
Appendix I - Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan
Page 7
Impact Mitigation Measure Implementation Monitoring Verified
Responsibility & Timing Responsibility Implementation
HM-11 Vehicle and Equipment Maintenance
BMPs are also included to minimize impacts from
installing the two new bridges, which would require
the use of concrete. Migrating steelhead would also
be protected through implementing BMPs and Limited
Operating Periods (LOPs). Newly created stream
banks would be planted and mulched according to the
Restoration Plan to minimize the effects of bank
erosion during the first rains after the completion of
con stru ction.
Impact: The Mitigation Measure 810-5: To protect sensitive Implementation: City of Monitoring: The Initials
expanded visitor use wildlife and habitat from impacts due to visitor and dog Cupertino Recreation Supervisor for
and new dog use use throughout the project area, the following Timing: Immediately following Blackberry Farm shall
within the project area minimization and/or avoidance measures would be coordinate the posting of
project construction
has the potential to implemented: signs, ensure patrols
Date
impact sensitive a. Post signs. The City shall post signs intermittently completed by both City
wildlife and habitat Parks Service Officers and
through off-trail use, along the trail to inform the public to stay on the trail, volunteers, provide
clean up dog waste, and leash law requirements.
improper disposal of direction to maintenance
dog waste. and b. Patrols and Citations. The City Parks Service crews for clean up of dog
increased Officers shall complete patrols of the project area to waste, and coordinate with
sedimentation in enforce the leash law provisions, issue citations for SCVWD biologists to
thecreek. Native violations and educate the public on the presence of assess impacts associated
animals could leave special status species within the project area. with visitor and dog use
nests or otherwise c. Volunteer Patrols and Education. Volunteers shall within the project area and
flee from dogs any adaptive management
provide frequent patrols of the project area (as much
intruding into the that needs to be
as once per day) to educate dog owners about the
habitat areas. completed.
leash law provisions, inform visitors that use outside
of Blackberry Farm is confined solely to the trail, and
educate visitors about the presence and natural
history of special status species found within the
project area. The City would be responsible for
volunteer training and coordination.
Stevens Creek Corridor Park Master Plan and Restoration Plan Initial Study
City of Cupertino - April 2006
Appendix 1- Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan
Page 8
Impact Mitigation Measure Implementation Monitoring Verified
Responsibility & Timing Responsibility Implementation
d. Creek Use. Recreational use of the creek, such as
wading, would be confined to one area in Blackberry
Farm outside of the steel head migratory and
spawning season (October 15 to June 15 of any given
year) to minimize creek disturbance. Likewise,
students participating in guided educational programs
through the environmental education center at
McClellan Ranch would be limited to creek access in
only one location.
e. Park Cleanup. Park maintenance crews, or other
City employees as designated by the Recreation
Supervisor for Blackberry Farm, would clean up
accumulated dog waste found within the project area.
City Parks Service Officers and volunteer patrols
would monitor accumulation rates and provide
direction on the frequency and need for cleanup
activities.
1. Screen Trail. In order to provide wildlife refuge and
cover, approximately 1 acre of upland and riparian
understory planting would be provided. This would
compensate for indirect effects associated with
increased human and dog use within the corridor.
g. Adaptive Management. If it is determined at any
time that mitigation measures listed above are not
sufficiently minimizing impacts to the native flora and
fauna and restored habitats, the City shall discontinue
permitting dogs within the project area. Likewise, if
habitat disturbance or decreased steelhead
survivorship is determined to be a direct impact from
visitor misuse, appropriate measures shall be
implemented, such as closing or fencing off portions
of the trail, to avoid further impacts.
Impact: The Mitigation Measure 810-6: Calculations for Implementation: City of Monitoring: City of
proposed trail may Recommended Tree Protection Zones would be Cupertino Cupertino
Stevens Creek Corridor Park Master Plan and Restoration Plan Initial Study
City of Cupertino - April 2006
Appendix I - Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan
Page 9
Impact Mitigation Measure Implementation Monitoring Verified
Responsibility & Timing Responsibility Implementation
affect the root zones prepared by a Arborist certified by the International Timing: During trail design Initials
of native andlor Society of Arboriculture or American Society of
heritage trees if it is Consulting Arborists prior to preparation of
placed within the construction documents. These calculations would be Date \
dripline. made using the Conceptual Trail Plan. Based on
these calculations, the trail would be rerouted and
realigned to be outside of the dripline of any native
trees.
Impact: Tree trimming Mitigation Measure 810-7: The following measures Implementation: Project Monitoring: Project
or removal could would be implemented to ensure that no significant manager would apply for and manager to supervise tree Initials
violate City of impacts would occur as a result of tree removal obtain permits; contractor would removal contractor. Project
Cupertino and CDFG activities: remove trees. manager shall keep
policies regarding a. To satisfy the requirements of CDFG, all coast live Timing: Appropriate permits permits on file for five Date \
protected trees. years, the restoration
oak trees removed from the project area would be would be obtained for tree
monitoring period.
replaced at a 3:1 ratio (3 trees planted for each tree removal prior to project
removed). These trees are to be replaced in oak approval. Trees would be
woodland habitat found throughout the project area. replaced at required ratios post
Oak trees would be replaced using direct-seeded construction activities.
acorns collected from the Stevens Creek Watershed
from as close to the project site as possible.
b. In the event that construction activities require the
removal of specimen or heritage trees not included in
Appendix H, an additional tree removal permit would
have to be obtained from the City of Cupertino. All
requirements for removal as stated in the tree removal
permit would be followed.
c. All planting activities shall be consistent with the
Restoration Plan and with Guidelines and Standards
for Land Use near Streams (SCVWRPC 2005),
including guidelines regarding landscaping near
natural vegetation such as "Use of Locally Native
Species" and "Use of Ornamental or Non-native
Landscaping" .
Stevens Creek Corridor Park Master Plan and Restoration Plan Initial Study
City of Cupertino - April 2006
Appendix I - Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan
Impact
Mitigation Measure
Page 10
Implementation
Responsibility & Timing
Monitoring
Responsibility
Verified
Implementation
Impact: The project
could affect as yet
unknown prehistoric
or historic cultural
materials (including
Native American
skeletal remains).
Impact: The project
could affect as yet
unknown prehistoric
or historic cultural
materials (including
Native American
skeletal remains).
Mitigation Measure CUL-1: Prior to the initiation of
construction or ground-disturbing activities, the City of
Cupertino Project Manager shall conduct a tailgate
meeting to inform all construction personnel of the
potential for exposing subsurface cultural resources
and to recognize pOSSible buried cultural resources.
Personnel shall be informed of the procedures that
would be followed upon the discovery or suspected
discovery of archaeological materials, including Native
American remains and their treatment.
Mitigation Measure CUL-2: Upon discovery of
possible buried prehistoric and historic cultural
materials (including potential Native American skeletal
remains)1, work within 25-feet of the find shall be
halted and the City of Cupertino's Project Manager
shall be notified.
The Project Manager shall retain a qualified
arChaeologist to review and evaluate the find.
Construction work shall not begin again until the
archaeological or cultural resources consultant has
been allowed to examine the cultural materials,
assess their significance, and offer proposals for any
additional exploratory measures deemed necessary
for the further evaluation of, and/or mitigation of
adverse impacts to, any potential historical resources
or unique archaeological resources that have been
exposed.
If the discovery is determined to be a unique
archaeolo lcal or historical resource, and if avoidance
Implementation: City - Public Monitoring: City - Public Initials
Works Dept. Works Dept.
Timing: During a pre-
construction field meeting with
contractors
Date
Implementation: City - Public
Works Dept.
Monitoring: City-
Public Works Dept.
Initials
Timing: During construction
Date
Stevens Creek Corridor Park Master Plan and Restoration Plan Initial Study
City of Cupertino - April 2006
Appendix 1- Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan
Page 11
Impact Mitigation Measu re Implementation Monitoring Verified
Responsibility & Timing Responsibility Implementation
of the resource is not possible, the archaeologist shall
inform the Project Manager of the necessary plans for
treatment of the find(s) and mitigation of impacts. The
treatment plan shall be designed to result in the
extraction of sufficient non-redundant archaeological
data to address important regional research
considerations. The Project Manager shall insure that
the treatment program is completed. The work shall
be performed by the archaeologist, and shall result in
a detailed technical report that shall be filed with the
California Historical Resources Information System,
Northwest Information Center, CSU Rohnert Park.
Construction in the immediate vicinity of the find shall
not recommence until treatment has been completed.
If human remains are discovered, they shall be
handled in accordance with State law including
immediate notification of the County Medical
Examiner/Coroner.
Impact: The project Mitigation Measure CUL-3: All excavation contracts Implementation: City - Public Monitoring: City - Public Initials
could affect as yet for the project shall contain provisions for stop-work in Works Dept. Works Dept.
unknown prehistoric the vicinity of a find in the event of exposure of Timing: Include in Plans and
or historic cultural significant archaeological resources during subsurface
Specifications document
materials (including construction.
Native American Date
skeletal remains). In addition, the contract documents shall recognize
the need to implement any mitigation conditions
required by the permitting agency. In general, the
appropriate construction conditions should be
included within the General Conditions section of any
contract that has the potential for ground disturbing
operations.
Impact: The project Mitigation Measure CUL-4: Archaeological Implementation: City - Public Monitoring: City - Public
could affect cultural monitoring on a full-time basis shall be undertaken Works Dept. Works Dept.
Stevens Creek Corridor Park Master Plan and Restoration Plan Initial Study
City of Cupertino - April 2006
Appendix I - Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan
Page 12
Impact Mitigation Measure Implementation Monitoring Verified
Responsibility & Timing Responsibility Implementation
materials related to during subsurface construction within a 1 DD-foot buffer Timing: During any subsurface Initials
CA-SCI-715. zone of the recorded boundary of CA-SCI-715. construction activities within
Actions that potentially require monitoring include CA-SCI.715
habitat restoration, trail construction. and
pedestrian/bicycle bridge construction. Date
Archaeological monitoring on an intermittent basis to
allow for spot checking of subsurface construction
shall be undertaken for areas outside of the recorded
boundary of CA-SCI-715 and the 100-foot buffer zone.
Monitoring in these areas shall be at the discretion of
the Professional Archaeologist retained to provide
archaeological monitoring services.
Impact: The project Mitigation Measure CUL-5: Archaeological Implementation: City - Public Monitoring: City - Public Initials
could affect cultural monitoring on a part time basis to allow for spot- Works Dept. Works Dept.
materials related to checking of subsurface construction shall be Timing: During development of
CA-SCI-715. undertaken for areas outside of the recorded
boundary of CA-SCI-715 and the 100-foot buffer zone. construction documents
Date
Monitoring in these areas shaH be at the discretion of
the Professional Archaeologist retained to provide
archaeological monitoring services.
Impact: The project Mitigation Measure CUL-6: Construction methods Implementation: City - Public Monitoring: City - Public Initials
could affect cultural and procedures to minimize subsurface disturbance Works Dept. Works Dept.
materials related to shall be implemented where feasible and practical. Timing: During development of
CA-SCI-715.
These may include: (1) planting by seed. and hand construction documents
excavation for planting in the habitat restoration areas Date
within 1 DO-feet of the recorded boundary of CA-SCI-
715; raising the grade of the proposed trail (capping)
by engineered fill within 1 DO-feet of the recorded
boundary of CA-SCI-715. Fill shall be no less than
12-inches deep. Rubber tired or tracked equipment
shaU be used to minimize surface disturbance.
Stevens Creek Corridor Park Master Plan and Restoration Plan Initial Study
City of Cupertino - April 2006
Appendix I - Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan
Impact
Mitigation Measure
Implementation
Responsibility & Timing
Monitoring
Responsibility
Page 13
Verified
Implementation
Impact: Soils with
hazardous levels of
pesticide residue
could be unearthed in
the project vicinity.
Mitigation Measure HAZ-1: Perform soil testing for
pesticide residue where major soil disturbance would
occur (such as the areas of creek realignment). If
pesticides are detected, follow the appropriate
contaminated material and handling protocol prior to
and during any soil disturbance.
Implementation: City of
Cupertino - Public Works
Department
Timing: During construction
design
Monitoring: City of
Cupertino - Public Works
Department
Initials
Date
Impact: Park and
Trail users could be
subjected to health
risks from heavy flow
events.
Mitigation Measure HYD-01: In the event of
significant flood events, the City would close the trail
corridor and would post signage at the Stevens Creek
Boulevard and McClellan Ranch Road entrances
alerting trail users of this closure.
Implementation: City of
Cupertino - Public Works
Department
Timing: As needed, during
significant flood events over
1500 cfs.
Monitoring: City of
Cupertino - Public Works
Department
Initials
Date
Impact: Since it is not
known at this time the
exact design of the
proposed
Environmental
Education Center, any
design submitted to
the City may not be
consistent with the
McClellan Ranch
Master Plan.
Mitigation Measure LU-1: The proposed
Environmental Education Center at McClellan Ranch
Nature Preserve shall be designed to fit in with the
existing buildings and to be consistent with the
McClellan Ranch Master Plan Mission Statement.
Implementation: City of
Cupertino - Public Works
Department
Timing: Prior to construction
Monitoring: City of
Cupertino - Public Works
Department
:;.:;. ';; ~~ :: :.:::"~t;~~(:;l!~:~: i1 ~::~::~~i~~~~:[;~!~~i~rr~~~~ [1r:
Initials
Date
Stevens Creek Corridor Park Master Plan and Restoration Plan Initial Study
City of Cupertino - April 2006
Appendix 1- Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan
Impact
Impact: Lack of
maintenance of the
trails results in the
degradation of the
facilities and could
result in safety.
security, and liability
issues.
Mitigation Measure
Mitigation Measure Pub-01: The City of Cupertino
Parks and Recreation Department shall ensure that
adequate funds exist in the parks maintenance budget
for park and trail maintenance prior to project
completion.
Page 14
Implementation
Responsibility & Timing
Monitoring
Responsibility
Verified
Implementation
Implementation: City of
Cupertino Parks and Recreation
Department
Timing: Prior to trail
implementation
Monitoring: City of
Cupertino
Initials
Date
Stevens Creek Corridor Park Master Plan and Restoration Plan Initial Study
City of Cupertino - April 2006