The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My Public Portal About20040121 - Agendas Packet - Board of Directors (BOD) - 04-02 Regional Open Sp fe MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT CEZ.EBR.A"PING 30 YEARS 01 OPEN SPACE FRESIiRVA'fl(.)N Meeting 04-02 SPECIAL MEETING BOARD OF DIRECTORS MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT 7:00 P.M. Wednesday,January 21, 2004 LOCATION: Los Altos Youth Center 1 N. San Antonio Road Los Altos,CA 94022 AGENDA* PLEASE NOTE DIFFERENT LOCATION THAN USUAL. 7:00* ROLL CALL ADOPTION OF AGENDA—President BOARD BUSINESS 7:05* 1 Approval of the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Plan for the El Corte de Madera Creek Open Space Preserve Watershed Program; Approval of the El Corte de Madera Creek Open Space Preserve Watershed Protection Program; Final Amendment to the Use and Management Plan for El Corte de Madera Creek Open Space Preserve to Reconstruct and/or Realign Portions of the Leaf, Fir, Giant Salamander, Crossover, and Blue Blossom Trails; Amendment of the Contract with Timothy C. Best to Provide Additional Engineering Geology Services; and Authorization of Staff to Seek Bids for Road and Trail Improvement Contracting Services at El Corte de Madera Creek Open Space Preserve 10:00* ADJOURNMENT * Times are estimated and items may appear earlier or later than listed. Agenda is subject to change of order. IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT,IF YOU NEED ASSISTANCE TO PARTICIPATE IN THIS MEETING,PLEASE CONTACT THE DISTRICT CLERK AT(650)691-1200. NOTIFICATION 48 HOURS PRIOR TO THE MEETING WILL ENABLE THE DISTRICT TO MAKE REASONABLE ARRANGEMENTS TO ENSURE ACCESSIBILITY TO THIS MEETING. i 330{Dlstel Circle 650-691-1200 info@openspace.org BOARD OF DIRECTORS:Fete Siemens,Mary Davey Jett Cyr, GENERAL MANAGER: Los Altos CA 94022-1404 650-6g1-0485 fax www.openspace.org Deane Little,Nonette Hanko,Larry Hassett,Kenneth C.Nitz L.Craig Britton FROM N.HAWO PHONE NO. : 650 494 0796 Dec. 09 2003 12:21PM P1 I t NUMM IUNNO Presideixt,Board ofDirectors Nf>dpmnwla Regional 4pft Space District 330 DisW Circle,Loa Altos,CA 94022 1-1200 Dacen gw 9,2003 I t L. I M�statls WmalBriftok Open Spom District 330 Dual Circle i,os Altos,CA 94022 RE; Call fix a SpeCW Meoting EE Dear Oil& I I mid io to an h SpecW Meeting of the Boad of Diredm of Midi I asi Open i 2003 for##� of condder+ amendnMtt to for'4V J Z � . ,District ��` ,ec&�daq the saU "d MMnaganug plan for EI Carte de Madera C,redc Open Space P am. Plem sand a public notification fDr this meeting at your earliest COUVenieares, Thu&ML SiDwely, I Nonette Hanko Prwidar4 Dowd 4fDirectors . pailmulst Rnonal Open Spue Distfict, CC., Sally'ih eVoldt,District CM& ASUM Board ofD reattus t i I ' I f Regional Open Sp__..-.e R-04-10 MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT Meeting 04-12 CELEBRATING 30 YEARS OF OPEN SPACE PRESERVATION January 21, 2004 AGENDA ITEM 1 AGENDA ITEM Approval of the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Plan for the El Corte de Madera Creek Open Space Preserve Watershed Program; Approval of the El Corte de Madera Creek Open Space Preserve Watershed Protection Program; Final Amendment to the Use and Management Plan for El Corte De Madera Creek Open Space Preserve to Reconstruct and/or Realign Portions of the Leaf, Fir, Giant Salamander, Crossover, and Blue Blossom Trails; Amendment of the Contract with Timothy C. Best to Provide Additional Engineering Geology Services; and Authorization for Staff to Seek Bids for Road an Trail Improvement Contracting Services at El Corte De Madera Creek Open Space Preserve GENERAL MANAGER'S RECOMMENDATIONS 1 1. Approve the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and adopt the CEQA and De Minimus Findings as set out in this report. 2. Approve the El Corte de Madera Creek Open Space Preserve Watershed Protection Program to protect and restore watershed integrity while maintaining opportunities for year-round multiple-use recreation and environmental education. 3. Amend the Use and Management Plan for El Corte de Madera Creek Open Space Preserve to reconstruct and/or realign portions of the Leaf, Fir, Giant Salamander, Crossover, and Blue Blossom Trails to reduce erosion potential. 4. Waive the requirement for a second and final reading of the adoption of the Use and Management Plan amendment because of the need to secure permits in order to begin construction during the dry season of 2004. i 5. Amend the contract with Timothy C. Best to provide for additional engineering geology services necessary to develop construction standards and details, to assist in the preparation of bid documents, the selection of professional road and trail repair contractors, the securing of required environmental permits, and to document the quality of the project repairs for the California Resource Agencies. 6. Authorize staff to seek bids for road and trail improvement contracting services. 33o Distel Circle 650-691-1200 info@openspace.org BOARD OF DIRECTORS:Pete Siemens,Mary Davey,led Cyr, GENERAL MANAGER: Los Altos CA 94022-1404 650-691-0485 fax www.openspace.org Deane Little,Nonette Hanko,Larry Hossett,Kenneth C.Nitz L.Craig Britton R-04-10 Page 2 BACKGROUND El Corte de Madera Creek Open Space Preserve is located in unincorporated San Mateo County on Skyline Boulevard about 3.9 miles north of Highway 84. The Preserve encompasses 2,821 acres in the upper headwaters of the San Gregorio Creek watershed. This watershed provides critical habitat for steelhead trout and coho salmon, both federally threatened species on California's Central Coast. Both of these species have experienced dramatic population declines due to water diversion projects and from sedimentation associated with road construction, mining, grazing, and timber harvesting. San Gregorio Creek has been listed as "sediment- siltation impaired" under the Clean Water Act, and is under the regulatory authority of the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board to protect water quality. Similarly, the California Department of Fish and Game and the National Marine Fisheries Service are responsible for ensuring protection of these species on California's Central Coast under the umbrella of the Endangered Species Act. Given El Corte de Madera Creek Open Space Preserve's location within the sensitive San Gregorio Creek watershed (please refer to Exhibit A), the extensive network of former logging roads that comprise many of its trails, and the incredible popularity of the Preserve among hikers and mountain bikers, these agencies are concerned about erosion and potential impacts of sedimentation to the watershed and downstream populations of steelhead. District staff has been working in partnership with these resource agencies to protect and restore the ecological integrity of the watershed in balance with the low-intensity recreational uses of the Preserve. At your February 13, 2002 meeting(see R-02-26) you authorized staff to contract with Timothy C. Best, Certified Engineering Geologist, to conduct a comprehensive assessment of the Preserve's trail system. The purpose of the assessment was to identify sources of erosion and to develop recommendations to reduce erosion and sediment delivery to the watershed. Best identified a number of erosion issues, primarily due to the fact that the former logging roads and skid trails that the District inherited at the time of acquisition were poorly designed and never intended for year-round recreational use. Problems have occurred on steep slopes, particularly where waterbars have been broken down from heavy Preserve use; in locations where roads and trails are located too close to streams; and where culverts or fords are too small to accommodate high storm flows. Best identified a number of priority locations for erosion control, and prepared detailed recommendations to upgrade the trail system to eliminate erosion. These are shown on the map in Exhibit B and detailed in the Road and Trail Erosion Inventory for El Corte de Madera Creek Open Space Preserve (Best, 2000). While design upgrades and physical repairs will eliminate erosion in the short-term, effective erosion control over the long term will require significant changes in the way the Preserve is managed. To this end, staff has prepared a comprehensive Watershed Protection Program outlining a wide range of actions to protect and restore the watershed both now and in the future. R-04-10 Page 3 DISCUSSION The purpose of the Watershed Protection Program is to protect and restore watershed integrity while maintaining opportunities for year-round multiple use recreation and environmental education. The Watershed Protection Program includes four interrelated elements: l) substantial physical improvements to the Preserve's trail system for long-term erosion control, 2) changes to the Trails Plan(part of the Preserve's Use and Management Plan), 3) long-term maintenance and monitoring activities, and 4) environmental education and outreach. These elements are described in detail in the Watershed Protection Program, which is attached as Exhibit C. Public and Agency Review Staff has been working closely with the representatives from the resource agencies over the past two years and their ideas and suggestions have been incorporated into the Watershed Protection Program. Given the Preserve's popularity among mountain bicyclists, staff met on a number of occasions with the President and various members of the Responsible Organized Mountain Pedalers (ROMP) to share information about the Program and to discuss high priority trail repair locations. Based on input from ROMP, staff has made every effort to minimize adverse impacts to the recreational experience for the cycling community while ensuring significant environmental protection. The Board's Use and Management Committee convened on November 19, 2003 to review the Watershed Protection Program and to focus in particular on the recommended changes to the Use and Management Plan for El Corte de Madera Creek Open Space Preserve. Sections of five trails are recommended for realignment to avoid creeks and excessively steep terrain: South Leaf, lower Fir, Giant Salamander, Crossover, and Blue Blossom. A summary of the proposed changes to the Use and Management Plan is provided in Exhibit D. The Use and Management Committee meeting was extensively noticed. Approximately 60 members of the public were present, and 16 addressed the Committee. Virtually every speaker expressed strong support for the environmental goals of the Watershed Protection Program. The District was lauded for its willingness to embark on a planning process that seeks to protect and restore environmental values while maintaining extensive opportunities for multiple use recreation. A number of speakers expressed interest in being involved in the layout and construction of the trail realignments. Other keyissues and suggestions raised at themeeting: t gg • Trail realignments represent an excellent opportunity to build long-lasting and interesting trails—the District should incorporate International Mountain Biking Association (IMBA) design standards • Keep existing trails open until realignments are complete to allow for use of existing loop rides &hikes and to avoid user impacts • Funding—what happens if the District's budget is cut by the State • Reconsider realignment of Crossover trail—its current location provides a critical connection and short-distance loop R-04-10 Page 4 • Utilize choke points, natural obstacles, and other techniques, such as outsloping, to reduce bicycle speeds and keep erosion to a minimum 0 The District should utilize additional signage for education, compliance, and to avoid conflicts during construction; consider"peer-to-peer" signage • Reconsider restricting visitors to the designated trail system—provide permits to allow volunteers to assist with trail layout • Use volunteers to help maintain trails and to avoid need for future closures The Watershed Protection Program incorporates most of these ideas and suggestions. Staff will involve local user groups to provide assistance in the layout and construction of trail realignments. New trails will incorporate built-in erosion control features that will result in far less sediment transport in the watershed, while controlling speeds and providing for a more interesting trail experience. The Watershed Protection Program also calls for the conversion of approximately 9.7 miles of unpaved patrol roads to trails. These would be reduced to approximately four feet in width to accommodate All Terrain Vehicles (ATVs) for patrol and maintenance purposes. The resulting trails would be built to a very high standard, providing for year-round emergency access throughout the Preserve. Narrow trails offer significant environmental and economic advantages over unpaved roads. Substantial erosion control features can be easily built into the trails, which will reduce long-term maintenance costs associated with erosion control. Because trails have less unvegetated surface area than roads, they result in less erosion. It is estimated that converting the 9.7 miles of unpaved patrol roads to trails will allow for the restoration and revegetation of approximately 15 acres within the Preserve. Operations staff has met with a representative from the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CDF) who is responsible for coordinating response to fire and other emergencies within the Preserve. It was determined that the remaining 11.1 mile network of unpaved patrol roads will provide easy driving access for a CDF Type 3 wildland fire engine. The substantial improvements proposed for both the roads and the trails within the Preserve will greatly facilitate emergency access within the Preserve. Following an in-depth discussion of these issues, the Use and Management Committee unanimously recommended approval of the Watershed Protection program and associated amendments to the Use and Management Plan for El Corte de Madera Creek Open Space Pre serve. Following the meeting, Operations staff identified the need to revisit the proposal for the Crossover Trail. Based on initial field reconnaissance, staff could not identify a feasible realignment in the immediate vicinity of the existing trail due to the steep terrain. Any new trails in the vicinity would likely exceed the District's preferred standard of 10 percent grade. The Watershed Protection Program therefore called for the closure of the existing alignment, and construction of a replacement trail that would provide an alternate connection between the Gordon Mill and the Timberview Trails. Operations staff have recently come to feel that such a new trail would not be a good substitute for the existing Crossover alignment, which provides an excellent mid-range loop for cyclists and hikers alike. Staff would like to explore some alternate R-04-10 Page 5 design solutions that would allow for the existing trail to be realigned in the immediate vicinity. One potential solution would be use of landscape timbers to allow the trail to "stairstep"its way down a short distance to the intersection with the Gordon Mill Trail. Cyclists would be required to walk their bikes in this area. (Because of the steep terrain, the Crossover Trail is already widely known as "Hike-a-Bike.") This technique is widely used in the National and State Parks systems, and could be implemented by District staff and volunteers. Staff recommends that the Board amend the Use and Management Plan for El Corte de Madera Creek Open Space Preserve to realign the Crossover Trail either in the immediate vicinity using a new design solution; or to close and restore the existing trail and to construct a new replacement trail. This recommendation differs slightly from the recommendation made to the Use and Management Committee. Staff will return to the Board with an update pending additional field studies. IMPLEMENTATION While Operations staff will be responsible for upgrading the Preserve's narrow, single-track trails, staff proposes to contract with a professional firm to upgrade the unpaved patrol roads and associated drainage facilities. Staff recommends that the Board of Directors amend the existing contract with Timothy C. Best to provide additional engineering geology services. Best's responsibility would include developing final design specifications and typical construction drawings; assisting staff in the preparation of a bid package and selection of a qualified contractor; attending a variety of field meetings with resource agency personnel during the permitting process; and inspecting and documenting the success of the repair work in eliminating erosion. For Fiscal Year 2004-05, these costs are estimated at $52,000 including contingency. Staff is also asking for authorization to seek bids from professional contractors to implement road and trail repairs. Based on an aggressive three-year timeframe, the cost to implement high- priority repairs during FY2004-05 is projected at $200,000. Typical repair projects will include grading roads to ensure positive drainage, applying baserock to sections of roads that are located in immediate proximity to streams, installing rock fords at minor stream crossings, and replacing undersized culverts with larger culverts sized to accommodate 100-Year storm events. Based on Tim Best's suggested schedule, year one contracting projects will likely include significant repairs to the Timberview, Methuselah, Blue Blossom, and Gordon Mill Trails, installation of five creek fords, and replacement of approximately ten culverts. A number of environmental permits will be required prior to construction. These include Clean Water Act Section 404 permits from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Clean Water Act Section 401 permits from the Regional Water Quality Control Board, and Section 1601 permits from the California Department of Fish and Game. Staff has received three bids from environmental firms capable of providing the services necessary to meet the various permit requirements. To minimize the permitting costs, District staff will conduct the bulk of the environmental analysis to secure the necessary permits. It is anticipated y y p c pated that the remaining environmental permitting services will fall within the General Manager's spending authority of $25,000. R-04-10 Page 6 A total of$300,000 will be proposed in the Fiscal Year 2004-2005 Planning Department budget to cover these and other incidental costs associated with implementation of the Watershed Protection Program. The Watershed Protection Program provides a unique opportunity to comprehensively address the Preserve's trail system to ensure that it provides recreation opportunities that are compatible with lasting environmental protection. A number of trails are included in the current Use and Management Plan for the Preserve that have not yet been built, including a 2.2 mile section of trail that would become the designated Bay Area Ridge Trail connection through the Preserve. This trail was approved by the Board on March 24, 1999 (see Report R-99-45) to broaden access opportunities for hikers and less-skilled cyclists, reduce the potential for user conflicts, and to provide a more efficient use of the existing trail network. This trail would tie in to a proposed staging (parking) area located just south of the Gordon Mill trailhead. A well designed parking facility would relieve some of the pressure on the nearby CalTrans parking area at Skeggs Point, would provide a central area to disseminate information about the Preserve, and would provide welcome restroom facilities. The Watershed Protection Program identifies the need to conduct the necessary planning and feasibility studies for these facilities so that they can be carefully incorporated into the existing trail network. District staff will seek grant funding from the Bay Area Ridge Trail Council to identify the most appropriate staging area location and to explore design issues such as capacity and access from Skyline Boulevard. CEQA COMPLIANCE District staff conducted a thorough environmental review of the Watershed Protection Program to identify potential environmental impacts. Because of the Preserve's incredible natural diversity and potential to provide habitat for a number of threatened or endangered species, staff contracted with Albion Environmental to conduct a comprehensive biological assessment of the proposed project repair sites. While the project is intended to protect and restore the integrity of the El Corte de Madera and San Gregorio Creek watersheds, there is minor potential for temporary construction-related impacts to occur. District staff prepared an Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration for the proposed Watershed Protection Program (for CEQA purposes, "the project"), which is provided under separate cover as Exhibit E. The Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration found that a number of CEQA impact criteria simply do not apply to the project due to the Preserve's remote location and the small-scale nature of the proposed repairs. The document also found that the project avoids many other impacts or minimizes them to a less-than-significant level because of project specific factors including trail alignment and design, identification and protection or avoidance of sensitive resources in proposed trail corridors, tree protection, and restoration of disturbed areas as necessary. Most notably, the Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration found that the project would not adversely affect biologic, geologic, or cultural resources because the incorporation of mitigation measures into the project has reduced the impacts to a less-than-significant level. R-04-10 P 7 Page Public/Agency Notification A notice summarizing the Watershed Protection Program project, the District's intent to adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration, and this public meeting was mailed on December 18, 2003 to over 400 persons. Those notified include owners and occupants of property within 300 feet of El Corte de Madera Creek Open Space Preserve, relevant agency personnel, stakeholder groups, participants of past Trail Policy meetings, and persons who had previously expressed an interest in the Preserve. This notice was also posted at the Preserve in several locations, on the District website, and submitted to the Clerk of San Mateo County to post for 30 days. The Mitigated Negative Declaration and Initial Study were made available for public review at the District Administrative Office, on the District website, and at the Cities of Los Altos and Woodside Libraries. Therefore, all public notice requirements of CEQA have been met. The Mitigated Negative Declaration and Initial Study were also submitted to San Mateo County and the State Clearinghouse of the Governor's Office of Planning and Research. Comments Received As of January 9, 2004, no comments were received from the public, or from trustees, or responsible agencies. Mitigation Monitoring Program In accordance with CEQA, the District has prepared a Mitigation Monitoring Program, which describes the mitigation measures and monitoring process for the project (see Exhibit F). The Mitigation Monitoring Program ensures that all adopted measures intended to mitigate potentially significant environmental impacts will be implemented. Prepared by: Matt Freeman, Open Space Planner II Contact Person: Same as above List of Exhibits: A. Map of Watershed B. Project Location Map C. Watershed Protection Program D. Trail Planning Issues Matrix E. Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration F. Mitigation Monitoring Program G. sE A and De Minimus Findings CEQA g Y r El Corte de Madera Creek Open Space Preserve VIP c, e 1 V �► r San Gregorin • Creek • J f � N � - Exhibit A. Location of El Corte de Madera Creek Open Space Preserve within the San Gregorio Creek Watershed. The current distribution of steelhead trout within the watershed is highlighted in orange. 1 El Corte de Madera Creek Open Space Preserve Watershed Protection Program: Erosion Control, Sediment Reduction, Kati P 111 R®d 2 3 11 and Trail Restoration Project Locations --..., 0. 1-1 14.5 22.5 SDr.0 348 336 FI Corte de Madera Creek maa Roads and Trails f.� CM01 goad but— ....^ t•I—sa-lad 2.6 Paved Road TOTS 34s 362 Multiple Use Unpaved Patrol Road Multiple Use Trail i l Skaggs Point 4"�.«�++ r � •— HikingonlyTrail CMOs• t �r JA p'� �� Proposed Trails/Realignments(Board-Adopted in 199698) Star FiiA `. 1111 ty F. CM02 Watershed Protection Recommendations Ir y'�Resokmon it h� Upgrade for Long-Term Erosion Control Close and Restore Reconstruct and Realign Trail(Further Study Required) Proposed Realignment C M08 t^...�n .Methuselah r Gordon (71\i�^jJ."�rnA s' ."� CM03 Reduce from Road-width to Trail-width & -'V i i Je \" Marvanila f 6 \ y CM04 r .. Donke�salah i\� r Steamy Other Watershed Protection Sites for Erosion Control I i Minor Landslide Leaf J over C Bridge Priority Grant Salamander ' ❑ Rock Ford High of �`�'4."" 1 aFJpry+motes r>�11 Gordon +�,�, O Culvert Moderate Witg! Low Star Hill K "w ) 11 Bear ••ff salon C Ditch Relief Culvert ff J r Spnng xnberview �-� J ♦4 Board T J I 0 500 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 Feet CM10 f, •CM05 N r � 3 ue Bbssom�� Virglna MITI \_..�-�� - + 1 Lawrenw(;reek - N z x _.1 . ._._ __,...----�_'_ --1�.-^��1'C�..1—•_may -• T.Sw crw«I 1IUPtNINSULA KLGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT .«C 4 4 m Exhibit B. Project Location Map E1 Corte de Madera Creek Open Space Preserve Draft Watershed Protection Program Gtu IT a ROLLING DIPS/KNICK.S CPypical) `\�h.noulA Arui 4nu v.Reiawa cwa TrvWrmvimm nu-la ,. on nigh mev e n.ei d.M W�a pume I ` ,ram-r. December 2003 EXHIBIT C � ---- ---- --- l Background � B Corte de Madera [reek Open Space Preserve is located in unincorporated Son Mateo � County on Skyline Boulevard about3.9 miles north of Highway 84. The Preserve � encwmmpasseo2,821 acres in the upper headwaters of the San Gregoho Creek watershed. � This watershed provides critical habitat for stee|head trout and cohu salmon, both hydem||y � � threatened species Vn California's Central Coast. Both of these species have experienced � dramatic population declines due 10 water diversion projects and from sedimentation � associated with road construction, mining, grazing, and timber harvesting. San Gregoriw Creek has been listed as "sediment-siltation impaired" under the Clean Water Act, and is � under the regulatory authority of the Sun Francisco Bay Regional VVuAer Quality Control Board to protect water quality. Similarly,the California Department of Fish and Game and the National Marine Fisheries Service are responsible for ensuring protection of these species on California's Central Coast under the umbrella of the Endangered Species Act. Given E| Corte deMadera Creek Open Space Preserve's location within the sensitive San Gregorio Creek watershed, the extensive network of former logging roads that comprise many of its trails, and the incredible popularity of the Preserve among hikers and mountain bikers, these agencies one concerned about erosion and potential impacts of sedimentation to the watershed and downstream populations ofo8ee|head. TheMidpeninsu|a Regional ()pen Space District (the District) is committed to working in partnership with these resource agencies to protect and restore the ecological integrity of the watershed in balance with the low-intensity recreational use ofthe Preserve. The District hired Timothy C. Best, Certified Engineering Geologist, to conduct comprehensive assessment of the Preserve's trail system to identify sources of erosion and to develop � recommendations to reduce erosion and sediment delivery to the watershed. Best � � identified a number of erosion issues, primarily due to the fact that the former logging roads � and skid trails the District inherited at the time of acquisition were poorly designed and never intended for year-round recreational use. Problems occurred on steep slopes, � particularly where vvaterbars have broken down from heavy Preserve use; in locations � where roads and trails one |w�ute� 1uo�|oseCu streams; and where culverts or fords are too � � small 0m accommodate high storm flows. � Best identified a number ofpriority locations for erosion control, and prepared detailed � recommendations k/ upgrade the trail system 0m eliminate erosion. These recommendations are outlined in the Road and Tn3// Erosion Inventory for f/ Corte de Madera Creek Open �n�C� P/��rvC [8es� �0O0). While upgrades and physical repairs eliminate � -''_ � erosion in the short-term, the District recognizes that long-term erosion control will require � significant changes in the way the Preserve ismanaged. Tw this end, the District has � prepared a comprehensive Watershed Protection Program outlining awide range mfactions � to protect and restore the watershed over the long-term. El Corte de Madera Creek Open Space Preserve Watershed Protection Program The purpose of the Watershed Protection Program is to protect and restore watershed integrity while maintaining opportunities for year-round nnu|bp|e use recreation and envinonmoentu| education. The Draft Watershed Protection Program includes four elements: | substantial physical improvements to the preserve's trail system for long-term erosion | l | control changes to the Trails Plan art of the reserve's Use and Management Plan long- term �p p g }, g term maintenance and monitoring activities, and environmental education and outreach. These elements are summarized on page 4. FI Corte de Madera Creek Open Space Preserve • y . � �Y � A,4 A •F # a a•e■ i aq+* f} Figure 1. El Corte de Madera Creek Open Space Preserve location within the San Gregorio Creek watershed. Present habitat for Steelhead trout is outlined in orange. f it 2 El Corte de Madera Creek Open Space Preserve Watershed Protection Program: — Erosion Control, Sediment Reduction, Tral R14ea)e C . �111 Road 20 and Trail Restoration Project Locations .3 tl1 Trai 145 22.5 Subtotal 34.8 336 ♦"v..r++Yw1"� .y � •.-'' rr.��ot.nu°a�d Roads and Trails B Corte de Matleta Creek CM01 ✓3na°m.s�it tw 2a Paved Road Taloni rornL 34e 362 Multiple Use Unpaved Patrol Road i Multiple Use Trail 1 Skaggs Point ��,. •— Hiking-only Trail CMw• �.-+ .a'p ,+ Proposed Trails/Realignments(Board-Adopted in 1996-98) Star Hill �I, CM02 Watershed Protection Recommendations w• Resolwon lr �� h r+ +-•�`�..-�`^`�. `!. w°y,?s Upgrade for Long-Term Erosion Control t ` `"; *""t •` Tinberview 1 ~i is�y�� (� Close and Restore �� •t+ f �� L' �`�� i l° Reconstruct and Realign Trail(Further Study Required) CM08 ,;..�„ � ra ' Mett,useah i ) Gotdon Proposed Realignment 1, �Mill Iww. CM03 _a- Reduce from Road-width to Trail-width w M I . anzanita + �. � ��1, � �i rt � CM04 Donkey Other Watershed Protection Sites for Erosion Control �aoss- �"+i �-'� "'` �- Minor Landslide over + Priority � .� It . �` Bridge ` � �s ca»Salamander ."''�� High r-------I © Rock Ford Moderate r Mal 'www © Culvert Qt 4 Gordon LOW star Fill w ' r"i + Guim b Ditch Relief Culvert ,>1 1 �' 1 Smug 7mberview �'J "+♦ Y � Board + `� •...)J lam+ ,+ i p+ 0 5. 1,000 2,000 3,000 4.000 5,000 Feet CM1oi ' �CM05 /jQ` � J#ttie Blossom—^� Virginia Mal 74 -, .. �yr^ t CM06 N fr r n V�1 _.•+ Lawrence Creek Geek.41 -^^ �tiIIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE D151RIC7 Figure 2. Project Location Map W � ' ✓� f ,sal�' 3��ss�f?�9 Mf � i Y9 � £ " t ! 3 4 � D .y P c�;T.1/�', s.�a:, ,��.. �s.. .,.. ....,x. .. . .... .� .... ✓.t.,t.,.., :,. K.,,..,.,?'?p@, i ;1,. ,. .!- .3. � „}�f,S,,, efil�`^,..o� fi 1. Implement physical improvements and repairs as outlined in the Road and Trail Erosion inventory for Work will take El Corte de Madera Creek open Space Preserve (Best, 2002). Project locations are shown on Figure 2. place June 15 — Corrective measures to reduce erosion include: October 15, • Use of Best Management Practices to control erosion by directing storm water runoff off the trail 2004 through network quickly and without creating large concentrations of water. 2006 • Reducing sediment reaching the aquatic environment as a result of trails located adjacent or close to streams by hardening the trail surface. • Preventing episodic erosion of stream crossings by installing larger culverts, rocking stream fords, or constructing footbridges. • Modifying the design of steep trails (over 15%) to help reduce the speed of mountain bicyclists, which will prevent or reduce erosion created when brakes are locked up. 2. Narrow road widths to the minimum necessary for patrol, emergency response, and maintenance June 15 — activities, thus reducing the overall surface area exposed to the weathering and erosive effects of rainfall. October 15, Trails proposed for narrowing are portions of El Corte de Madera Creek, Fir, Tafoni, Lawrence Creek, 2004 through Virginia Mill and Spring Board Trails. These will typically be reduced to 4-foot width to accommodate All 2006 Terrain Vehicles (ATVs) for patrol, maintenance, and emergency access. Within the existing road prism, a 4 foot wide trail tread will be established and the rest will be actively restored and revegetated. Obstacles will be placed to direct visitor traffic onto the formal trail surface and abandoned sections will be disked and seeded. Over the long-term these sections will continue to restore themselves. As trees fall across the trail, they will be cleared back only so far, and shrubs and brush will be allowed to encroach onto the former road bed. Where trails are located on steep roadcuts, small sections of the bank will be pulled down to narrow the road prism corridor, and material excavated from the fill slope will be deposited onto the trail surface and used to create rolling drain dips. 3. Inspect repair sites to ensure they are implemented to a high standard, report progress on project logs, June 15 — and document long-term success through photo-inspection monitoring of the repair sites. October 15, 2004 through 2006 4. Seek grant funding to offset costs of erosion control projects. Potential grant sources include the Fall 2004 California Department of Fish and Game, State Water Resources Control Board, and the National Marine Fisheries Service. 4 4 .�, ar „J r �. f {i yJ x 1 a l�Y v ,✓,; �t1d !. 8 i 3f,. � tk Jv`ir: .: z✓�,«f l ;�xr) ..... 2¢¢d;:'�`:% sX �rr;r��' ^, a.<Z'J € � F r �a� 2« "' :.i`as >r r�,v tiJr�� ;. / �' «k Y �✓,r, Ft;,a', h„ d��<.' « sxt, ..a �7'r r y��s i r ✓+ « ^, �,y.s . -J.� r i x ; sP. f3 x,.� A number of locations present particularly difficult design challenges that require more than simple upgrades or Best Management Practices to reduce erosion to low levels. These locations are typically the steepest trails, the closest to streams, or the most difficult or costly to maintain. These trail segments will require extensive repairs or realignment. Where trail segments cannot be reconstructed in place, they will be closed and restored. New trail segments will be built that provide an equivalent or better trail experience in a less erosion prone location. 1. Realign Blue Blossom Trail by constructing bypass located upslope. Trail will be constructed by hand Spring 2004 to approximately 2-foot width to minimize the environmental footprint, will generally be less than 10- 12% grade, and will incorporate extensive design techniques for long-term erosion control. Once a large culvert is removed, the former trail will be eliminated and restored. 2. Realign Virginia Mill Trail. This project was approved by the Board in 2000 and is related to the Spring and FEMA-funded repairs of the El Nino storm damage. The realignment uses 0.7 miles of an existing Summer 2004 roadcut. The trail currently in use would be closed and restored. The project also includes construction of a new fiberglass bridge over El Corte de Madera Creek. 3. Close and restore Crossover Trail. Based on extensive interest in maintaining this key connection Evaluate Winter between Gordon Mill and Timberview Trails, the current alignment will be evaluated in more detail to 2004, Construct identify any design solutions that would allow it to be kept. If no practical solutions can be identified Summer 2004 that eliminate the trail's erosion problems, the trail will be closed and restored, and an alternate connection will be constructed. Already an adopted alignment on the Trails Plan, this new trail follows an existing overgrown roadcut. 4. Reconstruct Giant Salamander Trail and realign the steepest sections. This project will require Spring and reducing the trail tread, installing numerous rolling dips and waterbars, applying baserock to sections of Summer 2005 trail, and realigning the steepest sections in more suitable terrain, using grade reversals or switchbacks. 5. Realign portions of the Leaf Trail. Close and restore the steep section of trail known as "Disneyland" Spring 2006 and construct an alternate trail u slo e. 6. Close and restore lower Fir Trail and construct an alternate trail that would extend from a vista point Fall 2006 to the Methuselah Trail. 7. Conduct design and feasibility studies of a potential staging area associated located between Gates Summer 2004 CM03 and CM04 to alleviate parking problems along Highway 35. Pursue funding from the Bay Area through 2005 Ridge Trail Council. Conduct biological and geological assessment of the proposed Bay Area Ridge Trail corridor connection. 5 I p�\'".,''r3�+.. `�,,;.a .o.Y,F<�?�s.. '^ ,.s'Zgy�t 1N,,.r,a,;,,,,„ ",!�,,,.;y!, l �' �hrZyi£s exXSr. ,.: •. ..*z»i Ak ,r .,;,,z;.'i:s /k - h«Y3 .,;" s �sr) >: �\ P. Fd�• ` .5.. .,.h 4 ,.: 3 e b ,: Str ,,,(f.. A. .-... .. ,.,.... , R \ \� a3 i,c? <„ _� �� € f .-. ,.<,->.,, a "!✓ >s s� � ,,. F,..;�, s: ,... )i.:.,.'r) .. ,.,,, / ,./✓ ✓ 5.., >'.0 fly ,,...rM Y. ,,..'� 1.�. ;rc ,✓ s .f f' ; c J ; r .s 5 } r,,,.\ s 1 1.'s �,.. � z ..... \ r, �. S3F ,..<,..s r si ',..,. �.. ✓ ,.§ t �£, r-,f � „-....1 r s :. ..,s c. s � f..a s ,�.... 5,t. a r `t•., i v..t�.;. .z� ?w / v s Y.:t� t /.,ri r,.,.. K�K.�� .�FM�a.:, rs,,,`.Ar._ .,-�... aA„r..A�,.., ,as.,, ,,r,fvssr%,�,�. �`'+„f!„ .._,.:,...:...,,�. 1....f�' z.;;v. ,-.T ,,....r�-. �.Yc..:r o.., ✓f, a.....y, ,,,, .S ry .s,. .zw.�, <.<„ 5 s.N,w„<r.at3„^'.�,,1!,a✓,..„�mz�f r;/,e x„ m...,,,r; 1. Adopt a formal maintenance plan for the Preserve to ensure that any erosion problems or other On-going priority maintenance needs are quickly addressed. Components of the plan are described below. 2. Conduct routine inspections of the road and trail system to ensure that the facilities are holding up On-going over time in response to heavy visitor use and storm events. Inspections will take place prior to the winter season (October 15) and following significant storm events. Maintenance needs will be documented on inspection forms and prioritized for repair. 3. Restrict vehicle access during the winter except in the case of emergencies. Once 4 inches of On-going rainfall has been recorded at the Skylonda Fire Station, District staff will normally not drive patrol and maintenance vehicles in the Preserve but will instead use All Terrain Vehicles (ATVs), mini-bikes, or other balloon-tires vehicles to reduce impacts to the road surface and drainage structures. Trails most prone to surface erosion or where waterbars are easily bvroken down with winter use will be closed seasonally to bicycles and equestrians as per the current practices. 4. Implement a pilot in-stream monitoring project to establish baseline conditions prior to erosion Develop control repairs. With input from San Jose State University and Resource Agency personnel, develop program Spring practical monitoring techniques to measure sediment transport through El Corte de Madera Creek. 2004, implement Establish three monitoring stations within the Preserve. Train District staff and volunteers from the Coastal post-storm Watershed Council or the San Gregorio Environmental Resource in monitoring techniques. Evaluate monitoring usefulness of program after 1 year. through 2005 5. Schedule frequent volunteer trail maintenance projects. While typical projects will include trail On-going brushing and construction of waterbars, there will be opportunities to implement special projects designed to slow speeds of mountain bicycles through installation of natural obstacles. i 6 's,,,; � >u s sir Ayy sz iutj fy ' ♦Y .-a ',�;, ,2s,..�i .,. :, .,i,. 2s,;' x ,� ;:, +,:,..;...., : ,:v zF.,^?"` C ¢ir:: ( ti 9�, ;,xz r>�,%£v%;.,,n .£1�nC`,✓,,�, ,, �r,/dn, �„ � ✓ �,;,.,;,� ,z�,ar... ..... ... ..r. l.S„Z >�a.,y. ,.. a faM .;; ,r /r t t ,}Jp� y,....1 ,s,zs-„ Y=•�„ y,. Go-S Y,s / �<.. Y t ; ! ' s... `i ., t e ..,<.. x, Y.. k rfy., s„ .,�y 1,- <.� .%..`3s'nv/.; Ys tz.. /�a,��• Y \ F, fi.,F?..� s k a ' ,,� Z= 2 +. } � ,'�4'�i,`'I z✓r �� y a;s"� y�~7 �t IU /" 1 2' 3 € �£ t � u.«x „,�, ,jss, ,.a.,�, '%�s;,<,�'z`(�S'�;/��'�,<;,,. s z . ? t�z;;,t :.H<•:. ,,,,,��- �'. _<° ..,a " a.L., ,:,£x.� Fi4�`, ,,�,,,z t.. .,�; -xr.,'£i, 1. Install interpretive signage near Preserve entrances to enhance visitor understanding of the Summer 2005 relationship of El Corte de Madera Creek Open Space Preserve to the larger watershed and the health of downstream steelhead trout and coho salmon. Other trailside interpretive signage could address site- specific erosion control and environmental restoration techniques. 2. Explore other forms of signage such as "peer-to-peer" signage to increase trail etiquette, ensure Summer 2005 compliance with District rules and regulations, and to warn cyclists of upcoming steep or erosive areas where slowspeeds are required. 2. Produce a brochure and handouts with information about the San Gregorio Creek Watershed and the Spring 2004 District's efforts to protect the environment while accommodating multiple-use recreation. 3. Produce a detailed trails map of the Preserve. Utilize GIS to better depict the rugged topography Summer 2006 and steep terrain of the Preserve. On the back of the map, recommend loops for different user groups or experience levels to help avoid trail conflicts. 4. Create a dedicated page on the District's website with up-to-date information about the Watershed Spring 2004 Protection Program, and temporary trail closures associated with construction activities. 5. Collaborate with ROMP and other user groups to enhance visitor understanding of the Watershed On-going Protection Program and the need to cycle responsibly to reduce erosion. 6. Coordinate with other agencies and organizations to stay abreast of regional planning efforts in the On-going San Gregorio Creek Watershed. Actively participate in watershed planning and restoration efforts. I Examples include development of Coordinated Resource Management Plans, watershed-wide road assessments, or fish reintroduction projects. Facilitate access to the Preserve by Resource Agency personnel for field study and research efforts. ! � � � Implementation � The District's intention is to complete these high priority erosion control projects within a � three-yeardrnefrome. The cost is anticipated to range between $750\000 and $1,800,000. � � District staff will pursue grant funding from the resource agencies to offset these costs, and � will work with volunteers 0o assist in trail construction projects. These projects vvill impact � visitors' use of the Preserve and temporary trail closures will be necessary; the District will � make every effort to phase the projects in such a way that portions of the Preserve will � remain open at any given time. Share Your Ideas! For more information or to share your ideas, please contact Matt Freeman, {)pen Space Planner ||, at (650) 691-1200 or b e-mail at watershedi fo . Send your � .« nn � written comments to: � k4idpeninsu|a Regional Open Space District � Attn: El Corte cleMadera Creek Watershed Protection Program � 330 Dixte| Circle Los /\|0oo, CA 94022 � � � � 8 ` Exhibit D El Corte de Madera Creek Open Space Preserve Watershed Protection Program Summary of Proposed Changes to the Preserve Trail System January 2004 Trail Plannine Assumptions 0 The project goal is to reduce erosion and sedimentation to the maximum extent,while providing for visitor safety,emergency vehicle access,and multiple-use recreation opportunities • All roads, trails,stream crossings,and other drainage facilities will be upgraded according to the standards outlined in the report prepared by Tim Best(2002) 0 All new trails will be constructed to a very high standard,per Best(2002)recommendations and the IMBA guidelines,to ensure long-term erosion control 0 Trail realignments will be constructed to approximately 2-foot width to minimize environmental impact,generally at 10%max grade,using techniques to reduce speed 0 The District will continue to employ seasonal closures at sensitive locations to prevent erosion during wet conditions and to reduce maintenance needs • Roads proposed for conversion to trail-width will be reduced to approximately 4-foot width to accommodate ATV travel • Patrol roads will be upgraded to facilitate year-round emergency access,although they will normally not be driven once 4"rainfall has been recorded at Skylonda Fire Station Trail Name Type Physical Condition Other Issues Safe /Recreation Value Recommendation Leaf Trail single Very steep,erosive,lower portion Close and restore steep section of South Leaf, track resulting in sedimentation construct bypass trail u slo e Fir Trail patrol Very steep,highly erosive,difficult to Fall-line location would require extensive re- Close and restore below intersection with Resolution road drive,site of numerous accidents route to maintain as high quality trail;grade Trail. Construct trail from vista point to Methuselah exceeds 30%in sections trail to maintain loop. Reduce section between Resolution and Tafoni to trail-width to minimize erosion. Giant single Highly erosive steep sections and Provides key connection between two halves of Realign steep portions of trail; reconstruct segment Salamander track close proximity to creek results in Preserve creating mid-range loop for visitors; near creek;reducing to 2-4 foot width;install sedimentation one of the four most popular trails in Preserve numerous waterbars;harden with rock;replace culvert crossing with bridge Crossover single Steep,highly eroded,resulting in Provides key connection between Timberview Realign trail.Based on further assessment,if Trail track sedimentation and Gordon Mill,and provides short loop realignment proves infeasible in immediate vicinity, opportunities for hikers and cyclists; location close and restore existing trail and construct new trail does not provide for construction of reasonable between Timberview and Gordon Mill(two possible bypass trail. alignments were approved by the Board in 1998 Blue Blossom single Steep,badly eroding Close and restore steep section; construct bypass trail Trail track u slo e Virginia Mill single Some erosion and sedimentation,very Close and restore; construct bypass using former skid Trail(single track poor stream crossing trail;install 6'wide fiberglass footbridge track section) El Corte de patrol Location adjacent to Creek resulting One of the four most popular trails in Preserve Reduce from road-width(12') to trail width(24') Madera Creek road in high sedimentation and conduct extensive streambank restoration; Trail maintain section west of Creek as patrol road to ensure easement access to Creek. Exhibit D Road and Trail Planning Matrix for El Corte de Madera Creek Open Space Preserve Page 1 i Trail Name Type Physical Condition Other Issues Safe /Recreation Value Recommendation Tafoni Trail patrol Generally good condition Unnecessary as patrol road as it duplicates Fir Reduce to trail width to minimize erosion and to road Trail create a short-range,easy sin I-track loop Methuselah patrol Generally good condition,with Section west of Fir Trail has limited value as Reduce to trail-width at one of two landings near Fir Trail road exception of steep pitches and poor patrol road as it dead ends at single-track Trail stream crossings approach to Creek Spring Board patrol Lower portion in poor condition, Provides key access from Bear Gulch Road to Maintain as patrol road from Bear Gulch to Blue Trail road resulting in high sedimentation Gordon Mill Blossom intersection; reduce remainder to trail width to prevent sedimentation and reduce long-term maintenance costs; in conjunction with proposed ridge trail,creates single-track loop opportunity Virginia Mill patrol Generally good condition,with Provides for vehicle access towards Creek,but Reduce to trail width. In conjunction with proposed Trail(patrol road exception of steep sections limited value as patrol road due to dead-end at changes in Lawrence Creek Trail and proposed Ridge road section) single-track section of trail Trail section,provides for Preserve-wide perimeter trail. Lawrence patrol Fair condition with many year-round Limited value as patrol road as it is open to Reduce to trail width to reduce sedimentation and Creek Trail road wet spots and poor stream crossings vehicular traffic only a few months per year. overall maintenance costs. Alleviates need for resulting in moderate sedimentation Spring Board provides alternative access from vehicle bridge Bear Gulch. Exhibit D Road and Trail Planning Matrix for El Corte de Madera Creek Open Space Preserve Page 2 s MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Watershed Protection Program El Corte de Madera Creek Open Space Preserve San Mateo County, CA December 19, 2003 Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 330 Distel Circle Los Altos, CA 94022 650-691-1200 ATTACHMENT E � � | / ��U �� .��.� ~,. Contents � NEGATIVE DECLARATION................................................................................................................................8 | PROJECTDESCRIPTION....... —........................................................................................................................\ FINDINGS AND BASIS FOR NEGATIVE DECLARATION......................................... ....... -- ................. MITIGATION MEASURES INCORPORATED INTO THE PROJECT......................................................................... � RESPONSIBLE AGENCY C()NS[D.TATlON--................................... ...................................... ...................5 � � INITIAL STUDY.............................................. ....................................................................................................6 REVIEWPERIOD� 6��''�'��'��'��—��----'—��----'��--�'''��'��'��—''��'��'��''��'—� CONTACTPERSON.................................................................. ................................................................ .........6 | � INITIALSTUDY......................................................................................................................................................7 PROJECT DESCRIPTION--------------------------------------------8 SURROUNDINGLAND USES........................ .................................................................................................lO EXISTINGSETTING.........—................................................................................... .................................. .......lU SUBSEQUENTACTIONS.................. ...............................................--................ ................................... ..... l ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLYAFFECTED:........ ........................--............................... 4 DETERMINATION:... ............................................................................. ........................................... ..............|4 � INSTRUCTIONS FOR EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:.............. ..................—.........\5 ENVIRONMENTALIMPACTS................................................................................................................. ....... 6 L AESTHETICS --------------------------------------------')6 D. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES.................. ...................... .......................... ..................................l7 011. AIR --------------------------------------------�l7 � . � [V. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES..................................................... ........................................................l9 L Special Status Plant -----------------------------------'2O | Z Special Status Animal Species.............................................. ............... ........................................21 i � V. CULTURAL RESOURCES................................................. — .............................. ...........................27 \q. GEOLOGY AND SOILS ................. .................................................................................................29 � \/I[ HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS.................................................................................3l � \/D1. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY------------------------------3] � � IX. L}\Y�OlJ8EAIND PLANNING35 � ------------------------------------ � X. MINERAL RESOURCES.................. .................................................................................................]6 � }O. NOISE................ ................................ ...... .......................................... ........................................... —37 X%L POPULATION AND HOUSING......................................................... .............................-- ..........30 � }{Ol. PUBLIC SERVICES ................................................— ........................ ............................ .................38 X] � \/ RECREATION --------------------------39 }tV, TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC.............................................. ................................. ......... ............30 ]{\/ . UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS ...................... —........... -- ..............................................4] � X\/D. MANDATORY FINDINGS[F SIGNIFICANCE..............................................................................42 SOURCES REFERENCED------------------------------------------../0 i ' � Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District NEGATIVE DECLARATION A notice,pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970,as amended(Public Resources Code 21,000,et seq.)that the following project: El Corte de Madera Creek Open Space Preserve Watershed Protection Program, when implemented,will not have a significant impact on the environment. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The purpose of the project is to protect and restore the long-term integrity of the El Corte de Madera Creek watershed by reducing erosion and potential sedimentation associated with the design and use of the 35 mile network of unpaved roads and recreational trails within El Corte de Madera Creek Open Space Preserve. The project includes four elements: design upgrades and physical improvements to the roads and trails for long-term erosion control; changes to the Preserve Trails Plan to close,restore, and realign problem trail segments; implementation of long-term maintenance and monitoring activities; and environmental education and outreach efforts. Recommendations for design upgrades and physical improvements were developed during a comprehensive assessment of the Preserve's roads and trails conducted by Timothy C. Best, Certified Engineering Geologist, in the Fall of 2002. These recommendations are described in the road and Trail Erosion Inventory far El Corte de Madera Creek Open Space Preserve(Best,2002). Key elements of the Watershed Protection Program are summarized below: Design Upgrades and Physical Improvements to the Preserve's Roads and Trails Implement corrective measures at potential sources of road and trail surface erosion, including: • Grading approximately 9.5 miles of unpaved roads and trails to ensure proper road surface drainage • Installation of approximately 190 rolling dips or waterbars • Application of/4+"drainrock capped with baserock to roads and trails located within 75' of watercourses • Protecting stream crossings by upgrading or repairing 6 culverts,replacing 10 culverts, and installing 5 new culverts designed to accommodate 100-year storm events • Improving road surface drainage through installation of 6 ditch relief culverts • Reducing erosion where roads cross wet spots associated with springs or ephemeral drainages by armoring 4 fords and installing 12 new rock fords • Repairs,replacement,or installation of 5 footbridges to protect stream banks from trail erosion • Modifying the design of steep trails(over 15%)to help reduce the speed of mountain bicyclists,which will prevent or reduce erosion created when brakes are locked up • Narrowing road widths to the minimum necessary for patrol,emergency response,and maintenance activities,thus reducing the overall surface area by approximately 15 acres exposed to the weathering and erosive effects of rainfall. 11.4 miles of trails are proposed for narrowing, including portions of El Corte de Madera Creek,Fir,Tafoni,Lawrence Creek,Virginia Mill and Spring Board Trails. Changes to the Trails Plan to Reduce Erosion A number of locations present particularly difficult design challenges that require more than simple upgrades or Physical improvements to reduce erosion to a low level. These locations are generally the steepest trails,those closest to streams,or are the most difficult or costly to maintain. Where trail segments cannot be reconstructed in place,they will be closed and restored. New trail segments will be built by hand to provide an equivalent or better trail experience in a less erosion prone location. Trails proposed for reconstruction and/or realignment are: • Crossover and Giant Salamander Trails. • Lower Fir Trail,with a new alternate trail between the vista point and the Methuselah Trail. • Short segments of Blue Blossom,Virginia Mill,and Leaf Trails. 1 Maintenance and Monitoring • Adoption of a formal maintenance plan that includes techniques to reduce sediment delivery to aquatic systems, such as restricting vehicular traffic to drier periods. • Routine inspections of the trails and drainage facilities prior to the winter season,during or immediately following storm events,and at the end of the winter season. • Development of a pilot in-stream sediment monitoring program. Environmental Education and Outreach • Installing interpretive signage to enhance visitor understand mg of watershed protection needs. • Producing a brochure and handouts with information about the Preserve's natural resources and the District's watershed protection efforts. • Producing a detailed Preserve trails map. • Collaborating with mountain bicycling clubs to provide assistance in ensuring trail etiquette. • Training District staff and volunteers in watershed protection methods. Physical improvements and upgrades will occur during the dry season over a three year period with the goal of addressing all high priority sources of erosion before October 15,2006. FINDINGS AND BASIS FOR NEGATIVE DECLARATION The Manager of the Planning Department of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District,based upon substantial evidence in the record,finds that: 1. The mitigation measures,as listed below and incorporated into the project,are adequate to mitigate the environmental effects to a less than significant level. 2. The project will not adversely affect agricultural resources,mineral resources,population and housing, utilities and service systems,or transportation/traffic because such impacts simply do not arise from the proposed project,given its minor nature,the rural,forested setting and the low-intensity recreational uses that are associated with the project. 3. The project will not adversely affect land use or public services,based on project-specific mitigations that allow the project to avoid potentially significant impacts. 4. The project will not adversely affect aesthetics,air quality,geology& soils,hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality,noise,or recreation,based on project-specific mitigations that reduce impacts to a less than significant level. 5. The project will not adversely affect biological resources or cultural resources,because the incorporation of mitigation measures into the project reduces the impacts to a less than significant level. 6. The project will not: • Create impacts that degrade the quality of the environment,substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels,threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community,reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory,due to the project's y small scale and localized nature. 2 • Create impacts that are individually limited,but cumulatively considerable,based on project-specific mitigations that reduce these impacts to a less than significant level. • Create environmental effects that would cause substantial adverse effects on human beings,either directly or indirectly,based on project-specific mitigations that reduce these impacts to a less than significant level. Therefore,the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District has determined that the project will have no significant effect on the environment. MITIGATION MEASURES INCORPORATED INTO THE PROJECT Mitigation BI0-1. A qualified biologist shall conduct special-status plant surveys along work areas 80-1, in Section 100-7, and 150-1 prior to the commencement of ground disturbance. Kings Mountain manzanita IV(a): individuals (or Santa Cruz manzanita individuals,if observed)within 30 feet of the road/trail will � be flagged. Individuals located in the immediate area where ground disturbance will occur will be demarcated with protective fencing to prevent disturbance. BI0-2. A qualified biologist shall conduct special-status plant surveys on all proposed trail realignments during the appropriate blooming period(in April for trail realignments occurring through chaparral habitat, and in May for trail realignments occurring in redwood or mixed evergreen forest habitat). If any special-status plant species are found during these surveys, avoidance and mitigation measures outlined in BIO-1 shall be implemented to reduce any potential impacts to less than significant levels. BI0-3. A qualified biologist shall conduct pre-construction California red-legged frog(CRLF) surveys two to four weeks prior to ground disturbance at repair sites 20-1,90-7,90-8,90-10, 130-9, and 160-5. The surveys should be repeated if repairs are delayed beyond two to four weeks following the initial surveys. If CRLF are observed during the pre-construction surveys, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service(USFWS)will be consulted and a monitoring program and/or other mitigation measures acceptable to the USFWS will be implemented. At minimum,repair sites shall be demarcated with construction fencing or other protective barriers,and confined to the smallest possible area. BI0-4. A worker education program shall be implemented to educate all construction personnel on CRLF identification and procedures should CRLF be observed in the project area. BIO-S. No structurally complex platform trees or trees greater than 32 inches dbh suitable for murrelet nesting shall be removed from the project area. BIO-6. If noise generating construction activity takes place during the breeding season(May 1 to September 15)within Redwood and Redwood/Douglas-fir forests, construction activity shall be restricted between 1.5 hours before sunset to 1.5 hours after sunset to minimize disturbance of potential nesting murrelets using forest habitat as a travel corridor between inland nesting and coastal habitat. I BIO-7. If feasible,schedule noise-generating construction activities between August 1 and February 1,outside the breeding season of raptors. If construction occurs during raptor breeding season (February through July),pre-construction surveys shall be conducted by a qualified biologist no more than 30 days prior to construction to determine if raptors are nesting in the 3 project area. The biologist shall determine a suitable no-disturbance buffer zone around the identified nesting tree and construction within the buffer zone shall be postponed until all young are fledged. BI0-8. If feasible,schedule removal of trees, snags,or woody shrubs suitable for avian nesting (trees and snags greater than 6 inches DBH or woody shrubs greater than 8 feet tall)for removal outside the breeding season(February 1 to August 1). If suitable avian nesting trees are proposed for removal during the breeding season, a qualified biologist should conduct pre- construction nesting birds surveys within 30 days of the onset of any construction activity.The pre-construction survey should search all trees and snags greater than 6 inches DBH and all shrubs taller than 8 feet proposed for removal. If bird nests are observed,an appropriate buffer zone should be established around all active nests to protect nesting adults and their young from construction disturbance. BIO-9. A qualified biologist shall conduct San Francisco dusky-footed woodrat nest surveys along proposed trail alignments prior to initial ground breaking to determine the presence or absence of nests in areas that would be disturbed by construction and earth movement activities. Avoid disturbing woodrat nests by routing of the trail and by staging construction-related activities,equipment,and materials away from known nest sites. If avoidance of San Francisco dusky-footed woodrat nests is not feasible,consult with CDFG regarding the possibility of relocating the nests outside of the work area. BI0-10. For work conducted in or adjacent to streams or wetlands,the following guidelines shall be incorporated to reduce potential construction-related erosion that could affect downstream steelhead: 1. Schedule ground disturbing activities adjacent to wetlands and other waters during the dry season (generally April 15 to October 15). 2. Minimize vegetation removal between the work area and wetlands and other waters to filter construction related sediment before it enters wetlands and other waters. 3. Prohibit maintenance of construction equipment within 100 feet of wetlands or other waters. 4. Install silt fencing,fiber rolls,or other protective structures between the work area and wetlands and other waters to intercept sediment where intervening vegetation is insufficient. 5. Reseed,plant,or otherwise stabilize areas of bare soil as soon as possible after work has ceased and prior to the onset of the rainy season(October 15). 6. Prohibit storage of any hazardous materials within 100 feet of wetlands or other waters. B/a 11. Any impacted native trees or shrubs rooted below the ordinary high water mark will be replaced by replanting the same species at a 3:1,planting:impact,ratio. A monitoring program to determine success of replacement trees shall be created as part of a Streambed Alteration Agreement approved by CDFG. BI0-12. Any potential impacts to wetlands and other waters will be reduced to less than significant levels by conditions required by the permit process. A jurisdictional wetland and waters delineation shall be conducted in the project area by a qualified biologist in accordance with the Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual(Environmental Laboratory 1987). 4 The District shall obtain the necessary Section 404 permits from the Corps for any work within jurisdictional wetlands or below the ordinary high water mark. If a Corps permit is necessary,or if isolated wetlands not subject Corps jurisdiction are impacted,a certification or waiver under Section 401 of the Clean Water Act shall be secured from the RWQCB. The District shall notify and,if necessary,obtain a Streambed Alteration Agreement for work within CDFG jurisdiction (below top of bank of streams,or the dripline extent of riparian vegetation that is rooted below top of bank). Mitigation CULT-1. If archaeological resources arc encountered during construction,every reasonable in Section effort shall be made to avoid the resources. If artifacts are found,the work shall stop in the area V(b): and within 30 feet of the find until a qualified archaeologist can assess the significance of the find. A reasonable effort will be made by the District and archaeologist to avoid or minimize harm to the discovery until significance is determined and an appropriate treatment can be identified and implemented. Methods to protect finds include fencing,covering remains with protective material and culturally sterile soil or plywood. If vandalism is a threat,24-hour security shall be provided. During this evaluation period,construction operations outside of the find location can continue,preferably with an archaeologist monitoring any subsurface excavations. If the resource cannot be avoided,the archaeologist will develop an appropriate Action Plan for treatment within 48 hours to minimize or mitigate the adverse effects. The District will not proceed with construction activities that could affect the discovery until the Action Plan has been reviewed and approved. The treatment effort required to mitigate the inadvertent exposure of significant cultural resources will be guided by a research design appropriate to the discovery and potential research data inherent in the resource in association with suitable archaeological field techniques and analytical strategies. The recovery effort will be detailed in a professional report in accordance with current archaeological standards. Any non-grave associated artifacts will be curated with an appropriate repository. Project construction documents shall include a requirement that project personnel shall not collect archeological resources encountered during construction. This measure is consistent with federal guideline 36 CFR 800.13(a)for invoking unanticipated discoveries. Mitigation CULT--2. The project shall incorporate the State CEQA guidelines under§15064.5(e)into the in Section project construction requirements. §15064.5(e)requires the following steps be taken should V(d): human remains be encountered: "No further disturbance shall occur until the County Coroner has made a determination of origin and disposition,pursuant to State Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 and Public Resources Code Section 5097.98. The County Coroner must be notified of the find immediately. If the remains are determined to be Native American,the Coroner will notify the Native American Heritage Commission(NAHC)within 24 hours,which will determine and notify the Most Likely Descendant(MLD). The MLD may recommend within 24 hours the means of treating or disposing of,with appropriate dignity,the human remains and grave goods. In the event of difficulty locating a MLD or failure of the MLD to make a timely recommend- ation,the human remains and grave goods shall be reburied with appropriate dignity on the property in a location not subject to further subsurface disturbance." RESPONSIBLE AGENCY CONSULTATION California State Historic Preservation Officer 5 INITIAL STUDY A copy of the initial study is attached. REVIEW PERIOD The Review Period is December 22,2003 through January 20,2004. If you have any comments about the Negative Declaration or Initial Study,have information that should be included, and/or disagree with the findings of our study as set forth in the proposed Negative Declaration,please submit your comments in writing no later than 5 p.m. on January 20,2004 to Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District,330 Distel Circle,Los Altos,CA 94022, CONTACT PERSON Matt Freeman, Open Space Planner 11,650-691-1200 Cathy W, ury,Plannin#K�a�ager Ra Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 6 Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District INITIAL STUDY Project title: El Corte de Madera Creek Open Space Preserve Watershed Protection Program Lead agency name and address: Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District(District) 330 Distel Circle,Los Altos, CA 94022 Contact person and phone number: Mau Freeman,(650)691-1200 Project location: The project area encompasses the 35 mile network of unpaved roads and recreational trails within El Corte de Madera Creek Open Space Preserve,a 2,877-acre public preserve located within unincorporated San Mateo County,just northwest of the Skyline Boulevard and Bear Gulch Road intersection. Project APN: 067-390-170,075-350-010, 067-410-260,072-350-080, 072-350-090,07 2-350-020,067- 340-100,072-320-020, 072-360-030,072-350-070,081-110-030,072-320-320,067-410- 200,067-400-150,072-350-030 Project sponsor's name and address: Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 330 Distel Circle, Los Altos, CA 94022 General plan designation: General Open Space Zoning: RM,Resource Management;TPZ, Timber Preserve; TPZ-CZ,Timber Preserve Coastal Zone District Description of project: (Describe the whole action involved, including but not limited to later phases of the project, and any secondary, support, or off-site features necessary for its implementation. Attach -additional sheets if necessary.) See attached Project Description Surrounding land uses and setting: Briefly describe the project's surroundings: See attached Project Description Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation agreement.) * California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG)Notification of Lake or Streambed Alteration and,if required,Lake or Streambed Alteration Agreement * San Mateo County Grading Permit Exemption,Timber Preserve Zone Coastal Zone Minor Development Permit, Building Permit * Clean Water Act Section 404 Nationwide permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers(USAGE) * Clean Water Act Section 401 certification and Waste Discharge Requirements under the Porter-Cologne Act (or waiver of both)from the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board(RWQCB) Document availability: All documents referenced in the Initial Study are available for review from 8:30 a.m.to 5:00 p.m.Monday through Friday at the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District administrative office at the address listed above,on the District's website at www.openspace.org,and at the Woodside Library(3140 Woodside Rd.)and the Los Altos Library(13 S. San Antonio Rd.). 7 i I PROJECT DESCRIPTION El Corte de Madera Creek Open Space Preserve encompasses 2,821 acres in the upper headwaters of the San Gregorio Creek watershed. This watershed provides critical habitat for steeihead trout and coho salmon,both federally threatened species on California's Central Coast. These species have experienced dramatic population declines due to water diversion projects and from sedimentation associated with road construction,mining, grazing,and timber harvesting. San Gregorio Creek has been listed as"sediment-siltation impaired"under the Clean Water Act,and is under the regulatory authority of the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board to protect water quality. Similarly,the California Department of Fish and Game and the National Marine Fisheries Service are responsible for ensuring protection of these species on California's Central Coast under the umbrella of the Endangered Species Act. The Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District(District)is committed to working in partnership with these resource agencies to protect and restore the ecological integrity of the watershed in balance with the low- intensity recreational use of the Preserve. Given El Corte de Madera Creek Open Space Preserve's location in the upper headwaters of this sensitive watershed,the network of poorly designed logging roads,and the popularity of its trails,the District initiated a comprehensive assessment of the Preserve's roads and trails to identify sources of erosion. Based on recommendations outlined in this assessment(prepared by Tim Best, Certified Engineering Geologist)and subsequent input from the resource agencies,District staff have prepared a Draft Watershed Protection Program for El Corte de Madera Creek Open Space Preserve. The purpose of the project is to protect and restore the long-terns integrity of the El Corte de Madera Creek watershed by reducing erosion and potential sedimentation associated with the design and use of the 35 mile network of unpaved roads and recreational trails within El Corte de Madera Creek Open Space Preserve. The project includes four elements: design upgrades and physical improvements to the roads and trails for long-term erosion control; changes to the Preserve Trails Plan to close,restore,and realign problem trail segments; implementation of long-teen maintenance and monitoring activities; and environmental education and outreach efforts. Recommendations for design upgrades and physical improvements were developed during a comprehensive assessment of the Preserve's roads and trails conducted by Timothy C. Best,Certified Engineering Geologist, in the Fall of 2002. Detailed recommendations and site treatments are described in the Road and Trail Erosion Inventory for El Corte de Madera Creek Open Space Preserve(Best,2002). Elements of the Watershed Protection Program are summarized below: Design Upgrades and Physical Improvements to the Roads and Trails Implement corrective measures at potential sources of road and trail surface erosion,including: • Grading approximately 9.5 miles of unpaved roads and trails to ensure proper road surface drainage • Installation of approximately 190 rolling dips or waterbars • Application of/4-E-"drainrock capped with baserock to roads and trails located in close proximity to watercourses • Protecting stream crossings by upgrading or repairing 6 culverts,replacing 10 culverts, and installing 5 new culverts designed to accommodate 100-year storm events • Improving road surface drainage through installation of 6 ditch relief culverts • Reduce erosion where roads cross wet spots associated with springs or ephemeral drainages by armoring 4 fords and installing 12 new rock fords • Repairs, replacement,or installation of 5 footbridges to protect stream banks from trail erosion • Modifying the design of steep trails (over 15%)to help reduce the speed of mountain bicyclists,which will prevent or reduce erosion created when brakes are locked up I 8 • Narrowing road widths to the minimum necessary for patrol,emergency response,and maintenance activities,thus reducing the overall surface area by approximately 15 acres exposed to the weathering and erosive effects of rainfall. 11.4 miles of trails are proposed for narrowing,including portions of El Corte de Madera Creek,Fir,Tafoni,Lawrence Creek,Virginia Mill and Spring Board Trails. Changes to the Trails Plan to Reduce Erosion A number of locations present particularly difficult design challenges that require more than simple upgrades or physical improvements to reduce erosion to a low level. These locations are generally the steepest trails,those closest to streams,or the most difficult or costly to maintain. The Draft Watershed Protection Program proposes to close and restore these trails(totaling approximately 2.0 miles in length),constructing new trail segments by hand that provide an equivalent or better trail experience in a less erosion prone location. Trails proposed for closure and restoration are: • Crossover Trail,with a new alternate trail between Timberview and Methuselah Trails. • Lower Fir Trail,with a new alternate trail between the vista point and the Methuselah Trail. • Short segments of Blue Blossom,Virginia Mill,and Leaf Trails. • Giant Salamander Trail. Preserve Maintenance and Monitoring • Adoption of a formal maintenance plan that includes techniques to reduce sediment delivery to aquatic systems,such as reducing vehicular traffic to drier periods. • Routine inspections of the trails and drainage facilities prior to the winter season,during or immediately following storni events, and at the end of the winter season. • Development of a pilot in-stream sediment monitoring program. Environmental Education and Outreach • installing interpretive signage to enhance visitor understanding of watershed protection needs. • Producing a brochure and handouts with information about the preserve's natural resources and the District's watershed protection efforts. • Producing a detailed preserve trails map. • Collaborating with mountain bicycling clubs to provide assistance in ensuring trail etiquette. • Training District staff and volunteers in watershed protection methods. Physical improvements and upgrades will occur during the dry season over a three year period with the goal of addressing all priority sources of erosion before October 15,2006. Potential impacts could result from physical improvements to the existing roads,trails, and associated drainage facilities, and from construction of new trail alignments. Erosion control projects and proposed trail locations are shown on Figures 2 and 3 respectively. The project also incorporates the following guidelines: • Schedule the project to occur during the daylight hours of the d season June 1 -October 15 to avoid P J g erosion due to surface runoff during the construction phase. Should work be required outside of this period, winter rules will be in effect prior to June 1 and following October 15. During this period,heavy equipment can be used until 4"of cumulative rainfall is recorded at the Skylonda Fire Station(beginning October 15). Operations in this time period shall not commence until at least 24 hours have passed since the most recent 1"or greater precipitation event. No heavy equipment shall be used from November 15 to April 15. • Minimize removal of woody vegetation within 50 feet of active stream channels and preserve existing vegetation outside of the trail corridor and construction disturbance zone to act as a filter for runoff. Minimize the disturbed area by clearly designating vegetated areas to be protected;install protective fencing 9 around trees prior to initiating construction activities. • Properly compact all fill slopes,as specified by the project engineering geologist. • Where roads are decommissioned to trail-width,rip or disc abandoned road prism and plant appropriate native vegetation. • Maintain trail grades of 10%or less along any portion to be constructed. Outslope the trail tread at 3%to divert surface water from trails,where feasible without the removal of large trees. • Install appropriately sized energy dissipaters at culvert outfalls. • Minimize fugitive dust where necessary during grading activities by watering down the disturbed soils or by applying an appropriate dust suppressant. • Secure or remove all trash at the end of each working day to maintain a clean worksite. • Appropriately maintain all construction equipment throughout the project: fueling,cleaning or equipment maintenance shall be prohibited except in designated areas located as far from watercourses as possible. Maintain adequate containment and cleanup materials onsite in the event of spills. • Store,cover,and contain all construction materials and fill using a tarp or erosion control blanket and silt fences in a designated area that is located away from stream channel areas to prevent the inadvertent transport of materials into stream channels. • Use temporary barrier measures such as silt fences or straw rolls to contain sediment originating from graded areas due to spillage or the occurrence of small rainstorm events prior to site restoration. These temporary measures should typically be placed at the toe of cut and fill slopes to slow sheet flows,and be removed after the completion of construction if not biodegradable. • Install temporary stormwater management measures before the start of construction and maintain them throughout the duration of construction activities. • Cover,restore,and stabilize disturbed soil areas as soon as practical after construction,but prior to October 15, including seeding of graded areas using locally native seed,and placing of mulch and erosion control reinforcement matting on slopes over 30%and in flow channels. Re-seeding and/or planting should be implemented during the early fall to ensure successful growth. • As the project location fails within the San Mateo County Sudden Oak Death Syndrome(SODS)zone of infestation,no branches or limbs that are pruned in conjunction with potential trail construction will be removed from the site. Trail construction crews shall clean tools and equipment to prevent spread of SODS into new areas. SURROUNDING LAND USES The project area encompasses El Corte de Madera Creek Open Space Preserve. The Preserve is bounded to the north by Swett Road and four private parcels managed as tree farms; to the northeast by Skyline Boulevard and a 1280 acre California Water Service Company parcel managed for watershed protection; to the east by Wunderlich County Park;to the southeast by eight large,rural residences fronting Bear Gulch Road; to the south and southwest by large,private ranches adjacent to the Preserve;and to the west by a 215 acre tree farm located across Star Hill Road. EXISTING SETTING The project area is located within El Corte de Madera Creek Open Space Preserve a 2 877-acre reserve owned P J p p A p and managed by the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District,containing more than 35 miles of multiple-use trails. The property is located on the western slopes of the Santa Cruz Mountains in the unincorporated area of San Mateo County,west of the town of Woodside along Skyline Boulevard between Highway 84 and Kings Mountain Road. El Corte de Madera Creek Open Space Preserve typifies the Santa Cruz Mountain range,reflecting the influence 10 of varied topography and numerous microclimates. Elevation ranges from 2400 feet near Sierra Morena to 720 feet in the canyon of El Corte de Madera Creek where it leaves the Preserve. Average annual rainfall ranges from 45 inches along the Preserve's upper ridgetops to approximately 27.5 'inches at lower elevations within the Preserve. The slopes and deep canyons are thickly wooded with second and third growth Redwood and Douglas fir forests. Ridgetops support an evergreen forest of Douglas Fir,Tanoak,and Madrone,interspersed with grasslands and chaparral. El Corte de Madera Creek and its principal tributary,Lawrence Creek,typically run year-round. A number of intermittent and ephemeral streams feed into these creeks. This preserve has a history of logging and remnants of logging activities are still visible. El Corte de Madera Creek Open Space Preserve is popular with hikers and particularly mountain bicyclists. SUBSEQUENT ACTIONS Upon District Board certification of this negative declaration,the following actions will occur: • Application for California Department of Fish and Game(CDFG) Streambed Alteration Permit • Application for San Mateo County Grading Permit Exemption,Timberland Preserve Zone Coastal Zone District Minor Development Permit, and Building Permits • Application for Clean Water Act Section 404 Nationwide permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers(USACE)if required • Application for Clean Water Act Section 401 certification and Waste Discharge Requirements under the Porter-Cologne Act(or waiver of both)from the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board(RWQCB) • Preconstruction surveys for the special-status species described in Section III below. • Feasibility studies for development of a parking facility to improve visitor access,safety,and resource protection • Bidding,District Board award of construction contract,and construction of the project repairs,which will occur over a three year period i EL CORTE DE MADERA CREEK OPEN SPACE PRESERVE Watershed Protection Program ,. San an,M o Francisco Bay a' F nt sx �• r Belmo ` r \ .� San Carlog Rf. ad t Re bod �.�as �Pa 680 �" 84 M. , rlc {{{ - Si yaws Creak { v W. 'd de Alt o \ 1<•xuc Pik 101 Mountain i237}—� _View 290 Croak Tha,--.d Portola -_,�� >�, _ -�•� � Valley �•. Santa 82 clams re�-�� Rar S LDS Aitos l Nrll C FuotNifla A\Hilis Sqn- `) Rarrh.S n ° to Stan Grego rioc i L Anro vo - e 84 S K Ira nos �7 i`o C pbeli 1 /Wadan �a Hpnda Aidpe �,yhrwlsexa z �4Cupertinog" �A ocati � Paafetf rF�e f 87 ode. e� Saratoga r g i J(! ate > FJ Los Gatos � Sereno. ft- 'Hill I Ir 5 C lgria Aar! rr� A u a 'U e.c,znro L rr�lr M+f$rMra.4ierl Aadal4o a r —ra „�,y iy I � lsierra"l-i '- ( Pacific Ocean 17 FIGURE 1: Regional Project Location Map a n 8 16 Miles 12 El Corte de Madera Creek Open Space Preserve Watershed Protection Program: Erosion Control, Sediment Reduction, 3mi k7ilea�e Cl. b Rop—d and Trail Restoration Project Locations It a 20.3 11.1 Tral 145 225 Sub(.0 348 336 ♦ �' Prevbrsty Baerd Roads and Trails f3 Code de Madera Creek t CM01 a°m°ved Irut ro, ,mrsOrcMd ze Paved Road 3 T �� on �,'► TOTAL Sae 362 Multiple Use Unpaved Patrol Road t Multiple Use Trail Sk•gga Point <�,.�� •— Hiking-only Trail CM07•t '0" .11 It Proposed Trails/Realignments(Board-Adopted in 1996-98) Star Hill J :Y, aesolrrion lr �... CM02y'e Watershed Protection Recommendations g +•� rw-�""'�. 4• Y3 Upgrade for Long-Term Erosion Control % t_t ) ' �.�'- ) Ttrnberview S. ` �c• Close and Restore -., 1 ♦; �+ f ♦ ; 1 ��,-� `♦� Q�a� Reconstruct and Realign Trail(Further Study Required) i C M08 T� - Methuselah ! � Gordon ..r Proposed Realignment h, xM41 5 CM03 Reduce from Road-width to Trail-width Ali, CM04 Mhuselah �(•!��h♦ • Steam Donkey —�""� t �Sh ` t ♦ �\` `*♦ Other Watershed Protection Sites for Erosion Control PA L,al IxPriorit♦�' Minor Landslide !over .� Y � ElBridge E ` ♦ -i"`, ant Salamander %: �— ,.✓ `� �`J '�•-.« *"" t�aa "c,o:awn High Gant Rock Ford Moderate L Gordnn/ � O Culvert r Mal � Low star Hale �♦ Dear r' 0 Ditch Relief Culvert Gulch TlmheNlelY �� •/ & S3oafd R `I e� 0 500 1,000 2.000 3.000 4,000 5,000 Feet CM10 {f�CM05 vrgnia Mal .� �r I i ♦; ° CMO6 Val ��r�g i; tom! Lawrence Creek f _ TO�O4j0n� �—r' 1AIDPENINSULa REGIONAL OPEN SPACE C31S1KIL'1 Fig ure 2. Project Location Mai I � ENVIRONMENTAL � � � The environmental factors checked below would 6e potentially affected 6«t�is project, invo|vinQat|eas � � � uneirnpac�th�kisa "PVt�ntiuUySi�n�cant |mnouct as indicated 6v the checklist on the following pages. � 1:1 Aesthetics El Agriculture Resources El Air Quality | � No|ogka| Resources El Cultural Resources Geology/Soils � Hazards & Hazardous Materials 0 Hydro|oQy/VVok.r(}ua|ity Land Use/Planning El Mineral Resources El Noise Population/Housing 13 Public Services Recreation Tmnsportahom7mffic r� �� U�i|ihee9en/ioe5y$ems �� Mandatory Findings ofSignificance (To be completed 6w the Lead Agency) � {)n the basis of this initial evaluation: [] | find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effec on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. � � | find that although the proposed project could have a i Kicontehecion \heenvironment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by tile project proponent. /\ MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. | | find that the proposed project kxAYhoveaxignihcanteffectontheenvivonnoent, andan � ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT isrequired. [� | find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated" im pact oil the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed � in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only tile effects that remain to be addressed. [� | find that although the proposed p 'ec�cmu|dhav� aai�nificanteh��ton �heenvivonnnen� bec�uoe � �_' � all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier E|R or NEGATIVE DECL/\B/\T|{)N pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier E|K or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are � imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. 12/19/03 S/Una�� ^� � Date// � Cathy Woodbury,Planning MartaAcr Mdoeninsula,Regional Open Space District ! Printed Name For 14 INSTRUCTIONS FOR EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: l) A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact"answers that are adequately supported bythe information sources lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A"No Impact"answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g.,the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). /\ "No Impact"answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards(e.g.,the project will not � expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis). � � 2) /\|| answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site,cumulative as � well as project-level, indirect aswell as direct,and construction as well as operational impacts. � 3) Once the lead agency has determined that particular physical impact may occur,then the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant. "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact"entries when the determination is made,an � E|R is required. � 4) "Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated"applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact"toa "Less Than Significant � |mpac1.''The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures,and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from Section XVIII "Earlier Analyses,"as described in (5) below, may becmss-mfemnced). 5) Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR,or other CEQA process,an effect has � been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 1 5063(c)(3)(D). In this case,a brief discussion should idenh(y�hefo||owing�� a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review. � W Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope cfand adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards,and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. d Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures |ncorpomted,"describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which � they address site-specific conditions for the project. � Q Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g.,general plans,zoning ordinances). Reference toa previously prepared ur outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. � 7) Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached,and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. 8) This is only a suggested form,and lead agencies are free to use different formats; however, lead agencies should � � normally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant toapnoject's environmental effects in � | whatever format is selected. � | � 9) The explanation of each issue should identify: a) the significance chV*ha or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question;and b) the mitigation measure identified, if any,to reduce the impact to less than significance 15 � ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS For Sources, refer to page 43 Issues: Less Than Potentially Significant with Less Than I. AESTHETICS Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporation Impact Impact Would the project: 1(a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? Explanation: (Source: 1,2). El Corte de Madera Creek Open Space Preserve has 35-mile network of unpaved roads and trails open for public recreational use. The trails offer intermittent views of deeply incised forested canyons,rare and fragile sandstone formations,and creek headwaters. The characteristic steep topography and dense surrounding vegetation restrict views into the different project sites within the preserve and from surrounding sites outside the Preserve. As a result,the project would not have a substantial effect on a scenic vista. Potentially Less Than Less Than Significant Significant with Significant No Impact Mitigation Impact Impact Incur ration I(b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but El 19 0 not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? Explanation: (Source: 1,3, 4, 5). The presence of the Highway 35 Scenic Corridor can be attributed in part to the presence of El Corte de Madera Creek Open Space Preserve and other protected lands in the vicinity. About 4%(approximately 120 acres)of the 2,821-acres preserve falls within the Highway 35 State Scenic Corridor. However,the surrounding topography and heavy vegetation cover conceal this area and other parts of the Preserve and make them invisible from the Highway 35 Scenic Corridor. Moreover,the erosion control measures that will be applied in this area will cause no damage to the scenic resources. Less Than Potentially Significant with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No IME20 Incur ration IM IML'2Lt I(c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? Explanation: (Sources: 1,2). The purpose of the project is to protect and restore the long-term integrity of the El Corte de Madera Creek watershed by reducing erosion and potential sedimentation associated with the 35 mile network of unpaved roads and recreational trails within El Corte de Madera Creek Open Space Preserve. Trail signs are the only man-made structures evident within the project area. Due to the extensive forest canopy that is dominated by coast redwood, Douglas fir, and tan oak,views in most parts of the preserve are limited to the immediate surroundings and short segments of trails. Repairs would result in only localized temporary changes that are not expected to significantly alter the natural qualities of the sites and their surroundings. The proposed repair work will not necessitate the removal of trees,and will not significantly impact the visual quality of the area. Visual character will be restored along 11.4 miles of unpaved roads that will be reduced to trail-width and extensively replanted with native vegetation. As a result,the project would have a less than significant effect on visual quality or character of the site. 16 Less Than Potentially Significant with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporation Impact Im pact I(d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare, which Ll Li L1 x would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? Explanation: (Source: 6). The proposed project will not include new buildings or lighting facilities. District Ordinance 93-1, Section 805.2,prohibits use of the Preserve by the public during the nighttime. 11. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Less Than Potentially Significant with Less Than Would the project: Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporation Impact Im paid 11(a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland Li Ll Ll Im of Statewide Importance(Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? 11(b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 Williamson Act contract? 11(c) Involve other changes in the existing environment, ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use? Explanations for a, b, and c: (Source: 7, 8,9, 10, 11). The property,which was previously known as Kingswood Ranch,was acquired by the District in 1986 and dedicated for public open space use in 1989. It is currently managed as an open space preserve and is open for public recreational use. No change in land use is proposed as part of the repair project. The property was not under a Williamson Act contract when the District acquired it. Moreover,the California Department of Conservation Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program maps for the project vicinity indicate that no prime farmland,unique farmland,or farmland of statewide importance would be disturbed by the project. The project area is zoned Timberland Preserve(TPZ)and Timberland Preserve-Coastal Zone(TPZ-CZ). San Mateo County includes outdoor public recreation use as an allowed use for TPZ and TPZ-CZ districts. III. AIR QUALITY Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Potentially Less Than Less Than Would the project: Significant Significant with Significant No Impact Mitigation Impact Impact Incor ration 111(a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the x applicable air quality plan? Explanation: (Source: 6). The project involves a minor expansion of the Preserve's non-motorized recreational trail uses,which themselves do not generate odors,dust,or other air pollutant emissions that conflict with the applicable air quality plan.Under District Ordinance 96-1,operation of motor vehicles by the public within the Preserve is prohibited,thus limiting motor vehicle emissions to ranger patrol and maintenance vehicles. 17 Moreover,the project includes the conversion of 11.4 miles of unpaved roads to trails(reducing width from P ( g approximately 15 feet to 4 feet),thus reducing the number of roads open to patrol and maintenance vehicles. 2.6 miles of proposed trails will be built to 2-foot width,precluding use of motorized vehicles. Potentially Less Than Less Than Significant Significant nt with Significant nificant No Impact Mitigation Im pact gad Impact incorporation t p 111(b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute x substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? Explanation: (Sources: 6, 12, 13, 14, 15). The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the California Air Resources Board (CARB)have each developed ozone and respiratory particulate matter(PM10)standards to identify acceptable levels of short-term and long-term air pollution. The project does not involve an increase in motor vehicle operation,often a significant contributor to ozone pollution level violations. Furthennore,the project includes the conversion of 11.4 miles of unpaved roads to trails(reducing width from 15 feet to 4 feet), resulting in a reduction in the number of roads open to patrol and maintenance vehicles. The project would therefore not contribute substantially to projected ozone violations due to vehicle emissions. However,other major sources for PM10 pollution include dust from construction. The project is located within San Mateo County, which is part of the larger San Francisco Bay Area Basin, a region that has met national short-and long-term PM10 Standards since 1992. According to available 1988-1997 data from the CARB, San Mateo County has also consistently met the more stringent state standards for long- tern (annual mean)PM10 exposure levels, and has experienced a marked decline in short-terni(24-hour)PM10 concentrations between 1990 and 1996. The Bay Area Air Quality Management District(BAAQMD)has further noted that the highest PM10 concentrations in the Bay Area are generally recorded in the winter,especially during the evening and night hours due to high use levels of wood burning stoves and fireplaces. The timing of the proposed project would avoid these periods of high PM10 emissions,since the construction-related earthmoving activities would occur during the daylight hours of summer and fall. The project includes physical improvements and design upgrades to the roads and trails for long-term erosion control as well as closure and restoration of problem trail segments. The project is divided into small project sites and work will take place consecutively one site at a time. Since each site project is small-scale in nature, any potential dust emissions resulting from the individual site project would be localized and limited to the short-term construction period. Given the shady conditions in the preserve the soil typically has high moisture content throughout the construction season,which results in lower dust emission. Construction period dust suppression measures that are described in the project description (refer to page 9), such as watering down and revegetating exposed areas,would further minimize dust emissions from the project and result in only a temporary and negligible increase in local PM10 concentrations. Therefore,the project would not violate air quality standards or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation in the Bay Area. Potential) Less than Less Than y Significant with Significant g Significant No Impact Mitigation Impact Impact Incorporation 111(c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any 0 0 19 El criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions, which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? Explanation: (Sources: 12, 14, 15). As discussed in 1I1(b),the project may generate short-tern,localized dust emissions. These emissions may result in only a temporary and negligible increase in local PM10 concentrations during the construction period and are not expected to create a cumulatively considerable net increase of PM 10 18 i pollution as regulated under federal or state ambient air quality standards. ✓ Less Than Potentially Significant with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporation Impact Impact III(d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant 0 Li x Li concentrations? Explanation: (Sources: 12, 14). According to the BAAQMD,"sensitive receptors"include children,the elderly, exercising adults, and those suffering from asthma or bronchitis. The project sites are located within an open space preserve that offers thirty-five(35)miles of public trails for hiking,bicycling,and equestrian use. Individuals who are visiting the preserve for recreation and exercise may be considered at a higher risk of suffering adverse health effects from the inhalation of minute dust particles classified as PM10,which are small enough to be inhaled into the deepest part of the lungs. However,since each of the project site would be closed to all public use during construction activities,persons exercising in the preserve would be restricted from accessing the project site,and therefore would not be exposed to any potentially localized elevations of PM10 levels. Less-Than Potentially Significant with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Im pact Incorporation Impact Im pact 111(e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial Li Li Li 181 number of people? Explanation: (Source: 1). Given that the intent of the project is to maintain low-intensity,non-motorized recreational use of the area,which does not emit objectionable odors,the project would not create any offensive or objectionable odors. The temporary construction repair activities are also not expected to create any objectionable odors. IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Less ThanPotentially Significant with Less Than Would the project: Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporation Impact Im act IV(a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or Li IM Li 1i through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG)or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)? Explanation: (Sources: 2, 16, 1.7, 18, 19,20, 21). A number of special-status species surveys and resource inventory projects have been completed within the Preserve. Most recently,Albion Environmental,Inc. conducted a thorough biological assessment of the Preserve in order to identify special status species and other sensitive biological resources such as riparian resources and wetlands,and to identify mitigation measures to avoid potential impacts,if warranted. The Watershed Protection Program project area consists of four general habitat types typical of the western slope of the Santa Cruz Mountains: coastal redwood forest,mixed evergreen forest,chaparral, and riparian/freshwater wetlands. The project would not have a significant impact on special status species in terms of significant habitat removal,landscape alteration,or food chain modification upon which they depend. Potential adverse impacts to sensitive species or other biological resources would be generally limited to temporary construction impacts. All potential adverse impacts can either be avoided or reduced to insignificant levels through incorporation of mitigation measures listed in this section. Albion Environmental Inc. concluded that the Watershed Protection Program will result in a significant improvement to g� g P the environment through erosion control, site restoration, and sediment reduction into the El Corte de Madera Creek Watershed. 19 1. SPECIAL STATUS PLANT SPECIES Albion Environmental, Inc. conducted a thorough biological assessment of the project area in the Fall of 2003. Through an extensive literature search (including USFWS,CDFG,and California Native Plant Society (CNPS) special status plant species lists),interviews with area experts,and three days of focused field surveys,only one special-status plant species was documented to occur in the project area,Kings Mountain Manzanita (Arctostaphylos regismontana). Small populations of this species are present in the upland chaparral zones of the Preserve. While no other special-status species were observed during the field surveys,seven other special- status plant species may potentially be present in or near the project area based on the presence of suitable habitat conditions(see table IV(1)below). Table IV(1): Special Status Plant Species Potentially Present in the Project Area Plant Species Blooming Plant Community Habitat Common Name Period Santa Cruz Maa to Open,exposed areas,usually November-April (Arctostctostaphylos Broadleaf upland forest,chaparral 60-730 meters elevation andersonii) CNPS list(1B) Arcuate bush mallow (Malocotharnrnu's Chaparral Chaparral, 15-335 m. Apnl arcuatus) September CNPS list 1 B) Dudley's lousewort Maritime chaparral,cismontane (Pedicularis dudleyi) woodland,North Coast coniferous forest Open areas,60-900 in. April-June CNPS list(IB) Clustered Lady's Wooded communities with slipper(Cypripediunr Broadleaf upland forest,mixed evergreen 60-80 percent canopy March-July sp.)CNPS list(4) forest closure,near streambanks, 100-2435 in. Mountain Lady's Broadleaf upland forest,mixed evergreen Wooded communities with March-August slipper(Cypripediunr forest 60-80 percent canopy sp.)CNPS list(4) closure, 185-2225 in. Califomia bottle- North Coast Coniferous brush grass Broadleaf upland forest,cismontane forest,Riparian habitats, 15- May-November (Elyrnus californicus) woodland,riparian woodland 470 in. CNPS list 4) Impacts to special-status plant species: Albion Environmental,Inc. noted that repairs to the exiting roads,trails,and associated drainage structures are unlikely to result in significant impacts to these species,even if they were present within the project area, because: (1)work will take place along existing roads and trails that are disturbed and generally devoid of vegetation;(2)there will be very minimal,if any,vegetation removal associated with the proposed repair projects, and any incidental vegetation removal is likely to impact ruderal,road/trailside species adapted to frequent disturbance,and not undisturbed natural habitat,and(3)the proposed project will result in long term improvements of the functions and values of habitat within the Preserve by reducing erosion,landsliding,and other disturbances. Therefore, significant impacts to special-status plant species resulting from erosion control projects on existing roads and trails are unlikely. However,there are three small roadside populations of Kings p J g Y p p g Mountain manzanita in the northern portion of the Preserve. Individuals from these populations could be impacted by construction-related ground disturbance or from inadvertent damage caused by passing construction vehicles. 20 Mitigation incorporated into project for Kings Mountain Manzanita: BI0-1. A qualified biologist shall conduct special-status plant surveys along work areas 80-1, 100-7,and 1.50-1 prior to the commencement of ground disturbance. Kings Mountain manzanita individuals(or Santa Cruz manzanita individuals,if observed)within 30 feet of the road/trail will be flagged. Individuals located in the immediate area where ground disturbance will occur will be demarcated with protective fencing to prevent disturbance. The project includes the construction of approximately 3.6 miles of new trails-1.0 mile which is intended to replace trails that will be closed and restored due to their poor design,and 2.6 miles of trail that are part of the adopted Trails Plan for the Preserve that have not yet been built. These trails will be constructed by hand to approximately a 2-foot width. They will follow the contour of the land and generally will not exceed a 10% grade. if present,potential impacts could occur to the special-status plant species listed in Table IV(1)if they are removed from the trail tread or if they are excessively pruned or brushed back from the trail corridor. Mitigation incorporated into proiect for impacts to other special-status plants species: BIO-2. A qualified biologist shall conduct special-status plant surveys on all proposed trail realignments during the appropriate blooming period(in April for trail realignments occurring through chaparral habitat,and in May for trail realignments occurring in redwood or mixed evergreen forest habitat). If any special-status plant species are found during these surveys,avoidance and mitigation measures outlined in BIO-1 shall be implemented to reduce any potential impacts to less than significant levels. 2. SPECIAL STATUS ANIMAL SPECIES Special status animal species that have the potential to occur within the project area include the California red- legged frog,the marbled murrelet, Cooper's hawk, Sharp-shinned hawk, and the San Francisco dusky-footed woodrat. Other sensitive animal species that could occur within the project area include a variety of cavity- nesting migratory bird species protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. The California Central Coast steelhead trout is not present within the project area,but could be indirectly impacted through sediment- generating construction activities. The project description incorporates a number of construction guidelines(see page 9)that allow the project to avoid or minimize many potentially adverse impacts to special status wildlife species. These include scheduling construction activities during the normal dry season,implementing erosion control measures to contain downstream sedimentation and prevent turbidity,and revegetating and restoring disturbed areas. California red-legged frog The California red-legged frog(CRLF)is a federally listed threatened species and a California species of special concern that is known to occur in western San Mateo County. CRLFs are generally found along marshes, streams,ponds, and other permanent sources of water where dense scrubby vegetation,such as willows,cattails, and bulrushes dominate,and water quality is good. Breeding sites occur along watercourses with pools that remain long enough for breeding (usually between late November and April depending on winter rains)and the development of larvae. Appropriate refu is for red-legged frogs include small manimal burrows downed logs or vegetation,and dense forest litter. Red-legged frog surveys conducted in 1999 and 2000(Seymore and Westphal)failed to locate any CRLF or breeding sites in the 2,877-acre preserve. According to the California Natural Database(CNDDB)they are not present in the vicinity of the project area,nor were they observed during the 2003 biological assessment 21 conducted by Albion Environmental,Inc. Due to high levels of past disturbance,deep shade,and/or other factors,the Preserve lacks significant development of hardwood species normally associated with mature, structurally complex riparian vegetation in the Santa Cruz Mountains,such as red alder,big-leaf maple,box elder,western creek dogwood, and other species. While presence of CRLF is highly unlikely,Albion Environmental,Inc. identified six culvert repair/replacement locations within the project area that could provide marginal habitat based on the presence of standing water and suitable adjacent vegetation. Given that the repair projects are scheduled to occur over a three year period,there is potential for juveniles to migrate into the project area. Impacts to California red-legged frogs: If CRLF were present in these areas,individuals or larvae could be impacted by construction-related activity. Potential indirect impacts to CRLF in these areas could include temporary increase in turbidity and downstream sedimentation during construction activities;however,the project includes water quality protection measures that fully reduce the potential for such impacts to a less than significant level. (Erosion control and water quality considerations are discussed further in Sections VIII(a),(c), and(f)). Mitigation incorporated into project for potential impacts to California red-legged frog_ BIO-3. A qualified biologist shall conduct pre-construction California red-legged frog surveys two to four weeks prior to ground disturbance at repair sites 20-1,90-7,90-8,90-10, 130-9, and 160-5. The surveys should be repeated if repairs are delayed beyond two to four weeks following the initial surveys. If CRLF are observed during the pre-construction surveys,the USFWS will be consulted and a monitoring program and/or other mitigation measures acceptable to the USFWS will be implemented. At minimum,repair sites shall be demarcated with construction fencing or other protective barriers,and confined to the smallest possible area. BIO-4. A worker education program shall be implemented to educate all construction personnel on CRLF identification and procedures should CRLF be observed in the project area. Marbled Murrelet The marbled murrelet, also a federally listed threatened species,is dependent on old growth coniferous forests for nesting and near-shore marine waters for foraging.No observations of marbled murrelet have been recorded in El Corte de Madera Creek Open Space Preserve. In the Santa Cruz Mountains, and redwood forests in general,most murrelet nests occur in large branches,or structures associated with large branches of old-growth trees. USFWS describes individual marbled murrelet nest trees as large trees,generally more than 32 inches dbh with the presence of potential nest platforms or deformities sufficient in size to support adult murrelets. In California, murrelets begin nesting from early April to early July. Adults usually fly from ocean feeding areas to nest sites at dusk and dawn to feed their young. Due toextensivelogging before the District acquired theproperty,onl three old growth trees arekno n to remain in the Preserve. The project avoids tree removal to the extent practicable by winding the proposed new trail segments around trees where possible. Nonetheless,the project may require the removal of several small trees. Impact to marbled murrelets: If trees suitable for nesting murrelet(greater then 32 inches dbh with deformities or platforms)were to be removed as part of the proposed project,there could be direct impacts to murrelet nests or nesting sites. Indirect 22 impacts to nesting murrelets could result from construction-related noise occurring during the breeding season (May 1 to September 15). Mitigation incorporated into project for impact to marbled murrelets: BIO-5. No structurally complex platform trees or trees greater than 32 inches dbh suitable for murrelet nesting shall be removed from the project area. BIO-6. If noise generating construction activity takes place during the breeding season (May 1 to September 15)within Redwood and Redwood/Douglas-fir forests,construction activity shall be restricted between 1.5 hours before sunset to 1.5 hours after sunset to minimize disturbance of potential nesting murrelets using forest habitat as a travel corridor between inland nesting and coastal habitat. Cooper's and sharp-shinned hawks The Cooper's hawk and sharp-shinned hawk are both State species of special concern that are considered rare breeders in the Santa Cruz Mountains. Cooper's hawks prefer forested habitats in mountainous regions,but also use lowland riparian woodlands and forage in both dense cover and open habitats;in California,nests are usually constructed in oak trees. The local breeding season spans from February through July. Sharp-shinned hawks prey mostly on small songbirds and breed from April through July. Potentially suitable breeding habitat for sharp-shinned hawks occurs over much of the forested mountainous terrain of the Santa Cruz Mountains. Nesting sharp-shinned hawks typically inhabit dense coniferous forests adjacent to foraging habit;densely foliaged conifers that are surrounded by dense canopy cover are considered prime nesting trees. The species is considered uncommon in the project area from September to early May. Hawk surveys were not performed, however even if they had been,they would need to be repeated immediately prior to construction to ensure validity after the passage of time. Impacts to Cooper's and sharp-shined hawks: The project area may offer potential nesting and migrating habitat for Cooper's and sharp-shinned hawks. Temporary construction noise may create a disturbance to nesting hawks and potentially result in nest abandon- ment and mortality of young. Removal of trees containing hawk nests may potentially result in the loss of an active nest and mortality of young. Mitigation incorporated into project for impacts to Cooper's and sharp-shined hawks: BIO-7. If feasible,schedule noise-generating construction activities between August 1 and February 1, outside the breeding season of raptors. If construction occurs during raptor breeding season(February through July),pre-construction surveys shall be conducted by a qualified biologist no more than 30 days prior to construction to determine if raptors are nesting in the project area. The biologist shall determine a suitable no-disturbance buffer zone around the identified nesting tree and construction within the buffer zone shall be postponed until all young are fledged. Migratory Bird Species The Migratory Bird Treaty Act MBTA amended in 1992 includes all migratory bird species. MBTA g ry h' ( ), � g ry generally prohibits the taking,killing,possession of,or harm to migratory birds species listed in Title 50 code of federal regulation(cfr) Section 10.13. Section 3513 of the California Fish and Game Code supports the MTBA. Nesting habitat for different nesting species may occur in the project area. Cavity nesters such as acorn woodpeckers(Melanerpes formicivorus),pygmy nuthatches(Sitta pygmaea) and chestnut-backed chickadees (Parus rufescens)may occur in snags and debris left from past logging operations. Impacts to migratory bird species: Removal of trees, shrubs or snags suitable for avian nesting(trees and snags greater than 6 inches dbh or woody shrubs greater than 8 feet tall)within the project area during the breeding season(February 1 to August 1)could 23 destroyactive nesti r nesting 1 sites o stress cst adults and result in nest abandonment or failure. g Mitigation incorporated into project for migratory bird species: BIO-8. If feasible, schedule removal of trees, snags,or woody shrubs suitable for avian nesting(trees and snags greater than 6 inches DBH or woody shrubs greater than 8 feet tail)for removal outside the breeding season (February 1 to August 1). If suitable avian nesting trees are proposed for removal during the breeding season,a qualified biologist should conduct pre-construction nesting birds surveys within 30 days of the onset of any construction activity. The pre-construction survey should search all trees and snags greater than 6 inches DBH and all shrubs taller than 8,feet proposed for removal. If bird nests are observed, an appropriate buffer zone should be established around all active nests to protect nesting adults and their young from construction disturbance. San Francisco dusky-footed woodrat The San Francisco dusky-footed woodrat is a State species of concern. Woodrats are small mammals that build nests made of sticks,typically at the base of trees and shrubs. The species prefers forested habitat with a moderate canopy and brushy understory,particularly on the upper banks of riparian forests or within poison-oak dominated shrublands. The dusky-footed woodrat is known to feed on a variety of woody plants,fungi,flowers and seeds. There is potential for woodrat nests to be present in the undisturbed areas where new trails are proposed. Woodrat nest surveys were not performed,however even if they had been,they would need to be repeated immediately prior to construction to ensure validity after the passage of time. Impacts to San Francisco dusky-footed woodrat: Ground disturbance could potentially result in the removal of woodrat nests or temporary nest abandonment. Mitigation incorporated into project for impacts to San Francisco duskv-footed woodrat: BIO-9. A qualified biologist shall conduct San Francisco dusky-footed woodrat nest surveys along proposed trail alignments prior to initial ground breaking to determine the presence or absence of nests in areas that would be disturbed by construction and earth movement activities. Avoid disturbing woodrat nests by routing the trail and by staging construction-related equipment and materials away from known nest sites. If avoidance of San Francisco dusky-footcd woodrat nests is not feasible, consult with CDFG regarding the possibility of relocating the nests outside of the work area. Central California Coast Steelhead Trout Steelhead trout, a federally listed threatened species,is known to spawn in the lower reaches of El Corte de Madera Creek,but not in the project area due to natural passage barriers downstream. Consequently,the project would not directly effect steelhead. Optimal steelhead spawning and rearing habitat consists of clear,cold,well-oxygenated fresh water with a silt- free gravel substrate. Desirable spawning streams typically offer ample cover in the form of substrate,woody debris,overhanging vegetation and/or overhanging banks. The purpose of the Watershed Protection Program is to protect and restore the integrity of the watershed primarily to benefit downstream populations of steelhead trout. Through extensive improvements to the 35 mile network of roads and trails,erosion and potential sedimentation will be greatly reduced. Impacts to Central Coast California Steelhead Trout: Road repair projects located in close proximity to watercourses,and installation or repair of drainage structures such as culverts and fords could result in temporary delivery of sediment entering El Corte de Madera Creek. Increased levels of fine-grain sediment could be transported downstream and deposited on spawning beds. The project includes extensive measures to avoid construction-generated erosion,described on page 9. Additional measures to protect water quality are described in Section VIII. 24 i Mitigation incorporated into project for Central Coast California Steelhead: B10-10. For work conducted in or adjacent to streams or wetlands,the following guidelines shall be incorporated to reduce potential constriction-related erosion that could affect downstream steelhead: 1. Schedule ground disturbing activities adjacent to wetlands and other waters during the dry season (generally April 15 to October 15). 2. Minimize vegetation removal between the work area and wetlands and other waters to filter out construction related sediment before it enters wetlands and other waters. 3. Prohibit maintenance of construction equipment within 100 feet of wetlands or other waters. 4. Install silt fencing,fiber rolls,or other protective structures between the work area and wetlands and other waters to intercept sediment where intervening vegetation is insufficient. 5. Reseed,plant,or otherwise stabilize areas of bare soil as soon as possible after work has ceased and prior to the onset of the rainy season(October 15). 6. Prohibit storage of any hazardous materials within 100 feet of wetlands or other waters. Less Than Potentially Significant with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Irn pact Incorp2ration Im e2c.1 Im act IV(b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat 0x or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service? Explanation: (Source: 2, 8, 16, 17,26,40,41,48). Special-status natural communities are those that are considered rare in the region, support special-status plant or wildlife species,or receive regulatory protection (i.e. critical habitat designated by the USFWS under the Endangered Species Act, §404 of the Clean Water Act, and/or the CDFG §1600 et seq. of the California Fish and Game Code). The California Natural Diversity Database has also designated a number of natural communities as rare. Riparian habitats are considered to be sensitive and declining resources by CDFG and the USFWS. The San Mateo County Local Coastal Plan also discusses sensitive habitat. The project guideline to minimize removal of woody vegetation within 50 feet of active stream channels and install protective fencing around trees will minimize potential adverse impacts to riparian areas resulting from erosion control projects. Impacts to ri arian resources: P n Though the project area lacks significant development of mature,structurally complex riparian vegetation,any native tree or shrub rooted below the ordinary high water mark is considered riparian vegetation for the purposes of this project. Direct impacts to riparian resources could result from incidental damage associated with in- stream projects such as culvert repairs. Mitigation incorporated in project for impacts to riparian resources: Bla11. Any impacted native trees or shrubs rooted below the ordinary high water mark will be replaced by replanting the same species at a 3:1,planting:impact,ratio.A monitoring program to determine success of replacement trees shall be created as part of a Streambed Alteration Agreement approved by CDFG. 25 i Less Than Potentially Significant with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporation Impact Im act IV(c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected L1 x wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? Explanation: (Sources: 16,41). The Clean Water Act is a broad statute with the goal of maintaining and restoring waters of the United States. Among many provisions for the control of water pollution, Section 404 of the Act requires permits for filling of,or discharge of dredged materials into,wetlands and waters of the United States. �I Impacts to wetlands: Over the long term,functions and values of wetlands and other waters are expected to vastly improve due to the reduction in sediment entering aquatic ecosystems both within the project area and throughout the El Corte de Madera Creek watershed. Replacement of culverts of other drainage structures may result in minimal fill entering jurisdictional wetlands. Mitigation incorporated in project for impacts to wetlands: B10-12. Any potential impacts to wetlands and other waters will be reduced to less than significant i levels by conditions required by the permit process. A jurisdictional wetland and waters delineation shall be conducted in the project area by a qualified biologist in accordance with the Corps of Engineers Wetlandy Delineation Manual(Environmental Laboratory 1987). The District shall obtain the necessary Section 404 pcnnits from the Corps for any work within jurisdictional wetlands or below the Ordinary High Water mark. If a Corps permit is necessary,or if isolated wetlands not subject to Corps jurisdiction are impacted,a certification or waiver under Section 401 of the Clean Water Act shall be secured from the RWQCB. The District shall notify and,if necessary,obtain a Streambed Alteration Agreement for work within CDFG jurisdiction(below top of bank of streams,or the dripline extent of riparian vegetation that is rooted below top of bank). Less Than Potentially Significant with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Im pact Incorporation Impact Im pact IVA Interfere substantially with the movement of any native L1 Llx resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? Explanation: (Source: 16,22, 23). The project would not interfere with wildlife movement corridors or impede wildlife movement or wildlife nursery sites including movements of any fish. Damaged and undersized culverts will be replaced with larger-diameter culverts designed to accommodate high flows,or will be replaced entirely with footbridges. 26 Potentially Less Than Less Than Significant Significant with Significant No Impact Mitigation Impact Impact Incorporation Me) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting 0 19 11 biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? Explanation: (Source: 24,25,26)The project is located in a densely forested setting. Project guidelines include the installation of protective fencing around trees that are slated to remain prior to initiating construction activities. The project avoids tree removal to the extent practicable by winding the proposed new trail segments around trees. Nonetheless,the project may require the removal of several trees,none of which meet San Mateo County's definition of a heritage tree. A portion of the project area is located within the Timberland Preserve- Coastal Zone(TPZ-CZ),which is exempt from permitting requirements for tree removal under the Significant Tree Ordinance. Therefore, any potential tree removal would remain consistent with local tree ordinances. Since the project includes tree protection and revegetation of disturbed areas,the project would remain consistent with local ordinances protecting other biological resources. Potentially Less Than Less Than Significant Significant with Significant No Impact Mitigation Impact Impact Inco IV(f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat rationLi x Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? Explanation: (Source: 27,28). No Habitat Conservation Plan or Natural Community Conservation Plan is known to apply to the area. V. CULTURAL RESOURCES Less Than Potentially Significant with Less Than Would the project: Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporation Im pact impact V(a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of Ll L3 x a historical resource as defined in § 15064.5? Explanation: (Source: 46). No above-grade structures are present in areas proposed for erosion control activities. In an effort to identify cultural and historical resources in the Preserve, a records search at the Northwest Information Center(KWIC)of the California Historical Resources Information System at Sonoma State University was conducted. The records and archive search indicated that the Preserve contains no recorded Native American or historic cultural resources with the Historical Resources Information System. Less Than Potentially Significant with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporation Impact Impact V(b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of El x El Ll an archaeological resource pursuant to § 15064.5? Explanation: (Source: 46). No archaeological or cultural resources have been identified in the sites proposed for erosion control or new trail development. However,Native Americans of the Ohlone group may have utilized portions of the Preserve for hunting,foraging,or travel between the Coast and the Bayside. Impacts to cultural resources: Improvements to the existing roads and trails will not result in impacts to archaeological resources. New trail construction could result m ground disturbance at locations where cultural resources are present. Archeological 27 and cultural resources include buried features such as stone or adobe foundations or walls,wooden remains with square nails,chert or obsidian flakes,projectile points,mortars and pestles,dark friable soil containing shell and bone dietary debris, and heat-affected rock. Mitigation incorporated into project for cultural resources: CULT-L If archaeological resources are encountered during construction,every reasonable effort shall be made to avoid altering the materials and their context. If artifacts are found,the work shall stop in the area and within 30 feet of the find until a qualified archaeologist can assess the significance of the find. Project construction documents shall include a requirement that project personnel shall not collect archeological resources encountered during construction. This measure is consistent with federal guideline 36 CFR 800.13(a)for invoking unanticipated discoveries. Potentially Less Than Less Than Significant Significant with Significant No Impact Mitigation Impact Impact Incorporation V(c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological 19 resource or site or unique geologic feature? Explanation: (Source: 46).No unique paleontological resources are known to exist within the project area. The mitigation under section V(b)calls for stopping work and evaluating significance if an artifact find is made, which will also reduce the potential for destroying previously unknown paleontological resources to a less than significant level. The proposed project will not substantially change the overall landform and therefore the uniqueness of any geologic feature will not be significantly impacted by the project. Less Than Potentially Significant with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No linLect Incor ration Im act Im Lila V(d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred x outside of formal cemeteries? Explanation: (Source: 46).No human remains are known to exist within the Preserve. However,given the possibility of prehistoric resources,as discussed under V(b) above,unknown human remains may be present in the Preserve. Impacts to archaeological resources: Since the project involves ground disturbance in different sites within the preserve with a possibility of archaeological resources,the project may accidentally disturb unknown human remains. Mitigation incorporated into project for archaeological resources: The mitigation under section V(b)calls for stopping work and evaluating significance if an artifact find is made, which will also reduce the potential for disturbance to human remains. CULT-2. The project shall incorporate the State CEQA guidelines under §15064.5(e) into the project construction requirements. §15064.5(e)requires the following steps be taken should human remains be encountered: `No further disturbance shall occur until the County Coroner has made a determination of origin and disposition,pursuant to State Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 and Public Resources Code Section 5097,98. The County Coroner must be notified of the find immediately. If the remains are determined to be Native American,the Coroner will notify the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC)within 24 hours,which will determine and notify the Most Likely Descendant(MLD). The MLD may recommend within 24 hours the means of treating or disposing of,with appropriate dignity, 28 the human remains and grave goods. In the event of difficulty locating a MLD or failure of the MLD to make a timely recommendation,the human remains and grave goods shall be reburied with appropriate dignity on the property in a location not subject to further subsurface disturbance." VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS Less Than Potentially Significant with Less Than Would the project: Significant Mitigation Significant No Im ct Incor ration Impact Im pact VI(a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial 0 0 x El adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on ❑ ❑ 19 ❑ the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ iii)Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? ❑ ❑ Z ❑ iv)Landslides? ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ VI(c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on-or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? Explanation: (Source: 29,30, 42,47). The proposed project is located within a near-wilderness,unpopulated setting.No structures for human occupancy are proposed. The Earthquake Fault Zoning Map depicts the San Andreas Fault Zone as lying within approximately 5 miles of the project site. Other known faults in the area include the Pilarcitos Fault(2.5 miles away),La Honda Fault(2 miles away), and the San Gregorio Fault(5.5 miles away). Due to distance,the likelihood for adverse effects to people or structures from surface fault rupture are less than significant. The project area is not located within an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone. Based upon engineering calculations,peak horizontal ground accelerations of approximately 0.72g can be expected from a major earthquake on either the San Andreas or San Gregorio Faults. If the project area were to experience this level of ground shaking,people traveling on the Preserve's trails could experience a loss of balance or stability and the trail itself could experience some settlement of compacted fill,cut bank slumping, and minor trail surface slumping. These effects have a low likelihood of causing injury or death in this rural setting. Unconsolidated granular deposits can be susceptible to ground failure,however based on regional geologic mapping,these unconsolidated deposits are confined to major drainages,resulting in minimal exposure. The District routinely monitors project area trails and provides regular maintenance to avoid and minimize public exposure to hazardous geologic conditions. Therefore the likelihood for adverse effects to people or structures from seismic ground shaking or surface failure is less than significant. Geologic maps and field work conducted by the project geologist reveal both shallow and deep-seated landslides in the area. Shallow debris slides,debris flows and channel bank failures are relatively common on the steep slopes within the Santa Cruz Mountains. These rainfall-activated landslides are typically restricted to near surface soils and weathered bedrock. Such slides most commonly occur on steep inner gorge slopes 29 oversteepened by stream bank erosion or in shallow and steep ravines and swales where surface and ground waters are concentrated. Shallow landslides have occurred from recent high intensity and long duration rainstorms (e.g. 1982 and 1998 storms). Shallow cut bank failures are found adjacent to several trails and several shallow small channel bank failures are located along the reaches of El Corte de Madera Creek and its tributaries. The project includes measures to reduce erosion associated with these bank failures through site- specific maintenance projects. The project includes construction of approximately 1.0 mile of trail to replace trail segments that are closed and restored for erosion control purposes. An additional 2.6 miles of trail are included in the Preserve Trails Plan i that have not yet been constructed. These proposed trail alignments will be located to avoid steep slopes to the extent feasible,although there is always potential for small-scale shallow slope failures during adverse climatic or seismic events. Large-scale slope failures are not expected with construction or use of these trails. Future slide movement associated with these trails is unlikely to result in harm to users of the trail nor result in substantial sediment delivery to streams. Given the low intensity recreational nature of the trail,the remote setting,the low potential for landslide movement, and the incorporation of trail alignment guidelines provided by the project engineering geologist,the project is not expected to pose a substantial risk of exposing people or structures to hazards resulting from landslides,or increase landslide instability. Less Than Potentially Significant with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporation I pacl Impact VI(b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? X Explanation: (Source: 29,33,42,43,44,49) Based on site-specific mapping and observations,the project area soils are naturally well drained and very highly susceptible to erosion. Average annual rainfall ranges between 27.5 and 45 inches per year within the project area. Intense storms in combination with steep slopes and deeply incised canyons can result in natural landslides and erosion. Past logging operations have resulted in erosion and sedimentation as well.The purpose of the project is to greatly reduce erosion and potential sedimentation associated with the network of roads and trails within the Preserve. The project Engineering Geologist provided erosion control recommendations at approximately 150 sites. Best Management Practices(BMPs)for erosion control will be applied at these areas,greatly reducing the potential for soil erosion associated with the Preserve's built infrastructure. Additionally,the project is scheduled for construction during the typical dry season(June 1-October 15)and the site will be fully restored prior to the onset of rains to avoid erosion due to surface flows. Moreover,the project includes a number of erosion control,site restoration,and dust suppression guidelines (see page 9);these measures are sufficient to reduce the potential for substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil to less than significant levels. Potentially Less Than Less Than Significant Significant with Significant No Mitigation Impact g Impact Impact incorporation VI(d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B ❑ x of the Uniform Building Code(1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? Explanation: (Source: 29,43,44,49)Based on site observations and field study,the project area soils have low plasticity, and have a low potential for expansion. No signs of highly expansive soils(e.g. shrinkage cracks) were observed. The project does not include construction of structures that could be significantly affected by expansive soils and given the open space setting of the project area and the lack of buildings or other habitable structures,no substantial risk to preserve users or property is expected due to expansive soils. 30 Less Than Potentially Significant with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporation Impact I M Pact VI(e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of L3 0 El 19 septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? Explanation: (Source: 1)The project area is located in a heavily forested unimproved area,no septic tanks or disposal systems are proposed as part of the project. Moreover,no septic tanks or disposal systems are known to exist in the project area. VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Less Than Potentially Significant with Less Than Would the project: Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporation Impact I M Pact VII(a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the L1 0 Li IM environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? Explanation: (Source: 6)The District does not routinely transport or use hazardous materials in the Preserve. District Ordinance 93-1, Section 409.2 prohibits persons from possessing or using harmful substances on District lands. Less Than Potentially Significant with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Im ct Incor VII(b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the Laporation IM IrYI E22 E2Lt 1:1 El environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? Explanation: (Source: 6)Under District Ordinance 93-1,operation of unauthorized motor vehicles within the Preserve is prohibited,restricting general public use of the Preserve to low-intensity,non-motorized,and non- emitting uses including hiking,bicycling,and equestrian use. Incidental motor vehicle oil and gas leaks is very rare and limited to the infrequent use of District ranger and maintenance vehicles and occasional emergency responders such as the California Department of Forestry. The project would not result in any expansion to r0i levels of maintenance,patrol or emergency response. Furthermore,the project includes the conversion of 11.4 miles of unpaved roads to trails(reducing width from 10 feet to 4 feet),resulting in a reduction in the number of roads open to patrol and maintenance vehicles. The construction phase of the project includes Best Management Practices to ensure that care is taken to avoid spills and properly manage hazardous materials to prevent a release of hazardous materials into the environment. The risk of accidental release of hazardous materials into the environment is therefore considered less than significant. Less Than Potentially Significant with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporation Impact Impact VII(c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or L1 L3 1:1 191 acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one- quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? Explanation: (Source: 34) The Preserve is not located within '/4 mile of an existing or proposed school. Kings Mountain School is located approximately 0.64 miles from the closest erosion control repair site. 31 Less Than Potentially Significant with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporation I rn pact I in pact V11(d) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or 0 L1 0 N acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one- quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? Explanation: (Source: 35) The Preserve is not located on the list of hazardous materials sites. No EPA regulated facilities are found in the preserve. Less Than Potentially Significant with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporation I in Pact I rn pact VII(e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, 0 0 0 19 where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? VII(f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? Explanation for e and f: (Source: 34) The project is neither within an airport land use plan,within two miles of an airport,nor within the vicinity of a private airship. Less Than Potentially Significant with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporation Impact I in Pact VII(g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an 0 0 0 9 adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? Explanation: (Source: 1)The project will not interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or evacuation plan. Potent Less Than Potentially Less Than Significant Significant with Significant No Impact Mitigation Impact Impact incorporation VI I(h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? Explanation: (Sources: 6,36,45) The Preserve is in the minimally developed western portion of San Mateo County in the Santa Cruz Mountains. The California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection designates the project areas as lying within a zone of moderate fire hazard seventy,based on local vegetation type(fuel loading),slope and weather. This designation notwithstanding,the project would not change the degree of as it involves physical improvements and design upgrades to existing roads and trails for exposure to wildfires, long-term erosion control and the closure and restoration of problem trail segments. The Preserve has 35 mile network of unpaved roads and recreational trails open to the public. The level of exposure of people and trail- related structures to wildland fires remains the same with or without the project. In addition,District Ordinance 93-1, Section 404,prohibits fires and smoking on District lands. District Rangers trained in fire-fighting techniques and carrying fire suppression equipment regularly patrol the Preserve. District 32 staff generally serve as first responders to fire emergencies,with the primary fire protection falling to the California Department of Forestry,County Fire Departments, and municipal fire protection agencies. The District's radio and repeater system together with ranger patrols and staff on call 24 hours per day provides for effective communication for prompt notification to emergency service providers in the event of a wildland fire or emergency response call. Vill.HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY Less Than Potentially Significant with Less Than Would the project: Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact incorporation I M Pact Impact V111(a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge Ll L1 9 L1 requirements? V111(c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner, which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on-or off-site? V111(f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? ❑ El 19 11 Explanation: (Sources: 26,29,33,34)These three checklist items are interrelated, and therefore are being discussed together to avoid repetition. The project involves erosion control repairs to the existing trail network, upgrades drainage facilities,construction of short segments of new trail,and permanent closure and restoration of problematic trail segments.No effluent waste would be discharged. The majority of the work will occur on an existing compacted trail bed. The project includes a number of trail drainage improvements and erosion prevention guidelines as outlined in the project description(see page 9). Projects that disturb less than five acres must conform to National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)permit regulations. These regulations require using BMPs to reduce storm water pollution,including sediment pollution. The project area is within the boundaries of San Mateo County,which is covered under the waste discharge requirements of a NPDES Permit. This NPDES pennit includes a Storinwater Pollution Prevention Program and required the development of performance standards for road construction in rural areas to prevent and control road-related erosion. San Mateo County prepared Maintenance Standards in 2001 to satisfy this permit requirement. The erosion control and prevention guidelines included in the project are consistent with the County Maintenance Standards and allow the project to avoid violating water quality standards and waste discharge requirements,thus reducing the potential impact under item VIII(a)to a less than significant level. Alteration of drainage patterns can be of concern where the project would disturb or grade steep lands adjacent to the trail,where the trail crosses existing water concentrations (i.e. ephemeral creeks or less-distinct swales),or where trails have the potential to collect and concentrate stormwater,such as steep trails or inside ditches. The drainage improvement and erosion prevention features included in the project are deigned specifically to avoid and eliminate the potential for concentration of surface runoff that could result in erosion or siltation on-or off- site,thus reducing the potential impact under item VIII(c)to a less than significant level. Other water quality concerns include the potential for sediment release during the construction phase of the projector for the release of other pollutants including hazardous materials. In certain situations,in-stream projects such as repair or replacement of culverts,fords, and bridge footings can dislodge accumulated sediment, reduce available sediment storage sites,and decrease streambed roughness leading to higher rates of sediment transport. Construction-related erosion control and water quality protection guidelines are incorporated into the project as described on page 9. Additional measures to protect water quality will be developed through the environmental permitting process as described in Section IV(c). 33 Sediment in runoff can also be the result of wind and water erosion. As discussed in Section 111(b),the project's dust suppression actions would minimize the possible water quality effects of wind erosion. As discussed in Section Vl(b),the project would be constructed in the dry season and restored prior to the onset of rains to avoid erosion due to surface runoff. Potential water quality impacts from construction accidents involving the release of hazardous materials are discussed in Section V11(b). The project also includes a number of additional erosion control guidelines(see page 9)to reduce the potential for water quality degradation. Therefore,potential for the project to otherwise substantially degrade water quality is reduced to a less than significant level. Potentially Less Than Less Than Significant Significant with Significant No Impact Mitigation Impact Impact Incorporation V1 I l(b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere El 191 substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? Explanation: (Source: 1)Water is not provided on District trails. The project will not pump groundwater and does not interfere with groundwater recharge. Less Than Potentially Significant with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Im pact Incorporation Impact Impact V1 I l(d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the Li Li 9 11 site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner, which would result in flooding on- or off-site? V1 I I(e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? V1 I 1(h) Place within a 1 00-year flood hazard area structures, 9 El which would impede or redirect flood flows? V1 116) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? Explanation: (Source: 29,34). These four checklist items are interrelated, and therefore are being discussed together to avoid repetition. As discussed under V111(c)above,annual rainfall can be heavy within much of the project area. A notable climactic feature of the Santa Cruz Mountains is the occurrence of storms of extreme intensity and duration that can be responsible for periodic flooding in the area. The extensive open space lands surrounding the project area provide a vegetated buffer for the project and allow rain to percolate into the ground rather than running off rapidly. The project adds no additional impervious surfaces and would not increase the amount of runoff.No polluted runoff sources will be introduced by the project. The project would restore natural drainage patterns by restoring areas where plugged culverts or damaged drainage facilities diverted streams or otherwise caused unnatural diversions. The project would upgrade 34 watercourse crossings with culverts sized to accommodate 100-year storm flows,or with footbridges. No structures will be placed within the 100-year floodplain that might impede flood flows. Per standard District practices,District personnel regularly check culverts and drainage structures during and after storms,provide signage and barricades if needed, and perform maintenance as needed to ensure proper functioning and reduce the possibility that the project would expose people to significant flood risks. The project includes development of a formal maintenance and monitoring program to ensure that locations requiring maintenance are documented and quickly addressed. Therefore,potential for the project to result in flooding, expose people to flooding risks,exceed the capacity of drainage systems,or impede flood flows is reduced to a less than significant level. Less Than Potentially Significant with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporation Im pact Impact '.. VI I(g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as x mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? Explanation: (Source: 1)The project does not involve housing. Less Than Potentially Significant with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incor ration Im pact Impact VIII(j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? L3 L1 19 Explanation: (Source: 29,34). The project is situated between the elevations of 720 and nearly 2400 feet above mean sea level. Seiche or tsunamis would have no impact on the site. Mudflows are a form of landsliding known as debris flows. These instabilities generally form in thick surficial deposits on steep to very steep hillsides as a result of a loss of soil tension due to the over-saturation of the soil profile from extended or intense storm events, and travel down slope in existing drainages. Mudflows could be possible within project area due to intense precipitation of significant duration typical of the Santa Cruz Mountains. While no evidence of previous debris flows were observed within the project area,the potential for debris flows to occur is considered low to moderate. Debris or mudflows could expose District personnel and the public to a life-threatening event if a flow occurred while people were present. The proposed erosion control projects will not increase or decrease the hazard level from such an event. However,the low probability of such an event and the limited likelihood of District personnel or the public to be in hann's way during an intense storm necessary to precipitate such an event reduce this potential impact to a less than significant level. IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING Less Than Potentially Significant with Less Than Would the project: Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporation Impact Impact IX(a) Physically divide an established community? 0 0 L1 LE Explanation: (Source: 34). The project is located entirely within the confines of a dedicated Open Space Preserve located in a rural portion of unincorporated San Mateo County,surrounded by very low-density development such as ranches and orchards,and other protected open space areas. As such,the project will not divide an established community. 35 Less Than Potentially Significant with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporation Impact Impact IX(b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or 0 El 19 regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance)adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? Explanation: (Sources: 4, 8,37,38). The project is consistent with the San Mateo County General Plan in that the Preserve is located within unincorporated San Mateo County on land zoned Resource Management, Timberland Preserve Zone and Timberland Preserve-Coastal Zone. Resource protection activities including erosion control and watershed protection are consistent with this zoning designation. The General Plan Land Use designation is General Open Space,which describes outdoor recreation as a compatible use. The outdoor recreation land designation includes recreational uses such as public-owned park and recreation facilities and natural preserves. Therefore,use of the land and trail facilities for outdoor public recreation is consistent with San Mateo County's General Plan and zoning ordinance. The San Mateo County Trails Plan highlights the general Preserve area as an alternate route for the historic Central County Tunitas Creek Trail that would connect the Bay Area Ridge Trail with the Coast Trail north of San Gregorio Beach. Therefore,physical improvements and design upgrades to the roads and trails for long-term erosion control is consistent with the policies and goals identified in the San Mateo County Trails Plan. The project is also consistent with the San Mateo County Local Coastal Program in that sensitive species and habitats are protected,vegetation removal and erosion are minimized,and the visual and open space qualities of the site are preserved. Potentially Less Than Less Than Significant Significant with Significant No Impact Mitigation Impact Impact Incorporation IX(c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or x natural community conservation plan? Explanation: (Source: 1,28) The project area is not located within the jurisdiction of a known Habitat Conservation Plan or Natural Community Conservation Plan. X. MINERAL RESOURCES Less Than Potentially Significant with Less Than Would the project: Significant Mitigation Significant No p Impact IncoMoration Impact I pact X(a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral L3 L3 L3 x resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? X(b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use Ian? p p p p Explanation for questions a and b: (Source: 4,39). The project would not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource since the repairs in the project sites would not change the current use of the land. The Preserve has not been classified as Mineral Resource Zone,nor is it included in a Resource Sector in the update ofMineral Land Classification. The mineral water spring identified on the Mineral Resources Map in the San Mateo County General Plan is outside of the roads and trails network where repairs will take place,and will not be affected by the project. 36 X1. NOISE Less Than Potentially Significant with Less Than Would the project result in: Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporation I n I Pact Impact XI(a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in Ll L1 Ll 191 excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? Explanation: (Source: 1, 4). According to the San Mateo County General Plan Noise Element, significant noise impacts occur when the noise levels are equal or above 60 Community Noise Equivalent Level(CNEL). Exterior noise exposure levels of 70 CNEL or greater are considered significant for residential developments according to the State of California. Within the Preserve,current ambient noise levels are under 60 CNEL. Noise-generating construction activities would occur during the hours of 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. within the remote setting of El Corte de Madera Creek Open Space Preserve,well removed from nearby residences. The project will not change the non- motorized, low-intensity recreational uses to the preserve,which would not generate noise in excess of local agency standards . Less Than Potentially Significant with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporation Impact Impact XI(b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive LI 0 1:1 191 groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? Explanation: (Source: 1, 6). The project does not involve uses that would generate ground borne noise or vibration. Less Than Potentially Significant with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporation I ni pad Impact XRO A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels 1:1 F-I LI 9 in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? Explanation: (Source: 1,6). The project involves short-term construction activities for erosion control and trail restoration. The project would not generate substantial noise. Moreover,District Ordinance 93-1 prohibits after- hours use of the Preserve. Less Than Potentially Significant with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Irn)act IncorMration ImEact Imeact XI(d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient xEl noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? Explanation: (Source: 1). The project will not change the non-motorized,low-intensity recreational uses to the preserve. These uses will not generate substantial or periodic noise. During construction, trail-repair machinery may generate temporary increases in noise levels. However,given that the repair work would occur in an open space preserve and in areas that would be closed to public use during construction,the temporary increase in noise is not expected to be substantial or of concern. 37 X1. NOISE Less Than Potentially Significant with Less Than Would the project result in: Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporation Impact Impact Less Than Potentially Significant with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Ime2ct Incorp2ration IMact Impact XI(e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? XI(f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, 13 El El rXI would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? Explanation for question e and f: (Source: 34). The Preserve is neither located within an airport land use plan, within two miles of an airport,nor within the vicinity of a private airport. XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING Less Than Potentially Significant with Less Than Would the project: Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact IncoMration l"loct Impact XII(a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either IJ N directly(for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? XII(b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, 1:1 13 E] 9 necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? XII(c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating ❑ 1:1 0 Z the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? Explanation for questions a, b and c: (Source: 1). The project neither induces population growth nor displaces housing or people. XIII.PUBLIC SERVICES Less Than Potentially Significant with Loss Than Significant Mitigation Significant No ""Lacl IncorWration Impact IML2L! XIII(a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical El 0 z 13 impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: Fire protection? Police protection? Schools? Parks? Other public facilities? Explanation: (Source: 1).No substantial physical impacts will result from the project's erosion control projects and trail design upgrades. The District's Operations Department already provides ranger patrol in the Preserve for visitor safety and enforcement of the District's regulations; and maintenance staff to care for trails. The District collaborates with other local agencies in providing public services, including police and fire protection. District staff is responsible for enforcing District regulations and certain selected sections of California code 38 XIII.PUBLIC SERVICES Less Than Potentially Significant with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporation Impact Impact pertaining to vandalism,bicycle helmets, and parking. The San Mateo County Sheriff's Office is involved in enforcement of all other code sections. District staff serves as a possible first responder for fire emergencies, with the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection acting as the responsible agency for fire fighting in the El Corte de Madera Creek Open Space Preserve. No new or altered governmental facilities will be needed to provide public services to the preserve as a result of the project. The project includes the conversion of up to 11.4 miles of former logging roads to trail width. Emergency services will not be impacted in these locations as the trails will be accessible to All Terrain Vehicles(ATVs)and to emergency response personnel. Moreover, the Preserve's remaining fire roads will be upgraded to improve emergency vehicle access during wet conditions. XIV.RECREATION Less Than Potentially Significant with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Im pact Incorporation Impact Im pact XIV(a) Would the project increase the use of existing 11 0 N 0 neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? XIVU Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? Explanation for questions a and b: (Source: 1). The Watershed Protection Program is intended to significantly reduce environmental impacts associated with the exiting system of roads and trails. The project includes conversion of 11.4 miles of former logging roads to approximately 4-foot width; closure and restoration of approximately 2,0 miles of former logging roads,and construction of replacement 2-foot wide trails built to a much higher environmental design standard and located in more suitable terrain. In the long-term,the project would result in a net Increase in trail mileage by up to 1.4 miles. The additional trail mileage will provide new opportunities for existing trail users,but is not anticipated to attract significant numbers of new trail users to the Preserve. The project also includes development of a formal maintenance and monitoring program to ensure that the trail improvements hold up over time in response to storm events and recreational use of the Preserve. XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC Less Than Potentially Significant with Less Than Would the project: Significant Mitigation Significant No Im pact Incorporation Impact Im pact Wit) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in F L1 N L1 relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system(i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? XV(b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? 39 Explanation for questions a and b: (Sources: 1,45). The project involves repairs to trail network and construction of 1.4 miles of new trails. These trail improvements will provide new opportunities for existing trail users but are not anticipated to draw additional visitors to the Preserve. No substantial increases in traffic volumes are expected. Parking is currently available at the Caltrans Vista Point parking lot and at various roadside pullouts along Skyline Boulevard. Less Than Potentially Significant with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporation Impact I pact XV(c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either L1 0 L1 IN an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? Explanation: (Source: 1). The project has no effect on air traffic patterns. Less Than Potentially Significant with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporation Impact Impact XV(d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature L1 L1 0 Im (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections)or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? Explanation: (Source: 6). Per District ordinance,motorized vehicles are not allowed within the project area, with the exception of infrequent District ranger patrol trucks and maintenance vehicles,which are both designed for off-road driving. Less Than Potentially Significant with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No IM22CI Incorporation I eact Im act XV(e) Result in inadequate emergency access? x El Explanation: (Source: 1). Since the project is located m an open space preserve,emergency access needs are typically limited to first aid,evacuation in the event of serious injury,and fire suppression activities. Design upgrades and erosion control improvements to the Preserve's unpaved roads will facilitate emergency access by eliminating wet spots and problem areas that prevent vehicles from accessing remote portions of the Preserve. Less Than Potentially Significant with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incor ration Im act Im act XV(f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? ❑ El x IJ Explanation: (Source: 1).The project involves repairs to the trail system and construction of up to 1.4 miles of addition trails. These trails will provide new opportunities for Preserve visitors but are not anticipated to attract significant numbers of new visitors to the Preserve. Parking is currently available at the Caltrans Vista Point parking lot and at various roadside pullouts along Skyline Boulevard. In the future,the District may explore the p feasibility of constructing a small parking facility at the Preserve to provide additional parking. Development of a parking facility would likely draw Preserve visitors away from the Point Vista Parking area. Existing peak hour traffic volumes along Highway 35 range from 6-15% of the maximum standard total capacity. Therefore, a potential parking facility located at the Preserve is not anticipated to result in an impact to local traffic load capacity. A parking feasibility study will address this issue in more detail and development of a new facility will be addressed through a separate environmental review. 40 Less Than Potentially Significant with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Im pact Incorporation Impact Impact XV(g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs 1:1 Ll 0 z supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? Explanation: (Source: 1). The project involves repairs to the low-intensity recreational trail network. The project does not involve changes to the allowed trail uses and will not conflict with adopted policies,plans,or programs supporting alternative transportation. XV1.UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS Less Than Potentially Significant with Less Than Would the project: Significant Mitigation Significant No Irnpact Incorporation Impact I in pact XVI(a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the Li Li Li 19 applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? XVI(b) Require or result in the construction of new water or ❑ 0 1:1 19 wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? Explanation for questions a and b: (Source: 1). Trail improvements for long-term erosion control will not require new or increased needs for wastewater treatment or wastewater treatment facilities. Potentially Less Than Less Than Significant Significant with Significant No Impact Mitigation Impact Impact Incorporation XVI(c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water 13 1:1 9 0 drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? Explanation: (Source: 29). The project would not require the construction of significant new storm water drainage facilities,but does include repairs and installation or minor road drainage facilities including 16 armored fords, 5 new culverts, and 6 new ditch relief culverts. Through incorporation of the construction guidelines described on page 9 and mitigation measures described in Sections IV and V111,these minor drainage improvement projects are not expected to cause significant environmental effects. Potentially Less Than Less Than Significant Significant with Significant No Impact mitigation Impact Impact Incorporation XVIA Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the 1:1 Li project from existing entitlements and resources,or are new or expanded entitlements needed? XVI(e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment 1:1 171 El 9 provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? Explanation for questions d and e: (Sources: 1,6). The project does not provide water services,would not consume water, and would not generate wastewater, 41 Less Than Potentially Significant with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporation Impact Impact XVI(f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity Ll Ll 0 9 to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? XVI(g) Comply with federal, state,and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? Explanation for questions f and g: (Sources: 1,6). The amount of solid waste generated by the project would be insignificant. Any litter or construction related debris would be removed from the project site and properly disposed. The District does not provide regular trash collection services, and District ordinances prohibit public littering or dumping of any material onto the Preserve. Illegal trash is removed from the Preserve by District maintenance crews and properly disposed. Since no increase in visitation is anticipated as a result of project implementation,no increase in solid waste disposed is expected. Less Than XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE Potentially Significant with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporation impact impact XVI l(a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the 1:1 F-I 19 0 quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? Explanation: The purpose of the project is to protect and restore the long-term integrity of the El Corte de Madera Creek watershed. The project as mitigated would not degrade the environment,substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species,cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community,reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory. Less Than Potentially Significant with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporation I in pad Impact XVII(b)Does the project have impacts that are individually Li 0 z 0 limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? Explanation: Analysis of cumulative impacts identifies possible future projects that may produce related and d then examines how the proposed project and these possible future open space management actions may combine to act cumulatively. The purpose of the Watershed Protection Program is to protect and restore the long-term integrity of the El Corte de Madera Creek watershed by reducing erosion and potential sedimentation associated with the 35 mile network of unpaved roads and recreational trails within El Corte de Madera Creek Open Space Preserve. The project includes physical improvements and design upgrades to the roads and trails for long-term erosion control,closure and restoration of poorly designed former logging roads, 42 implementation of long-term maintenance and monitoring activities, and environmental education and outreach activities. Since the common purpose of these project elements is to eliminate erosion and achieve environmental restoration,they tend to offset rather than exacerbate any cumulative effects. The District may explore development of a small parking facility along Highway 35 in connection with the Bay Area Ridge Trail project. This facility would likely be less than 1 acre in size and would be located in a portion of the Preserve that was previously developed. The site is currently degraded by the presence of non-native, invasive plant species. The project would likely include extensive restoration of the area surrounding a parking facility. Potential environmental impacts of this potential project would be thoroughly explored and mitigated through certification of the appropriate environmental document. Taken together,potential environmental impacts of these projects are site-specific and are not expected to have appreciable potential for cumulative impacts. The possibility of cumulatively considerable impacts is minimized by the overall lack of disturbance to the watershed. As the projects are intended to protect and restore the environment and provide safe access to the Preserve,the projects tend to support regional resource protection and have a beneficial combined cumulative impact. Potentially Less Than Less Than Significant Significant with significant No Impact Mitigation Impact Impact Incor ration XVII(c) Does the project have environmental effects, which will x cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Explanation: Erosion control projects associated with the Watershed Protection Program will minimize direct and indirect substantial adverse impacts to human beings. SOURCES REFERENCED 1. MROSD staff professional opinions and conclusions. 2. Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District.GIS Vegetation Map. September 2001. 3. California Department of Transportation.California Scenic Highway Program.http; iwww.dot.ca. og v,It LandArch.February 6, 2002. 4. San Mateo County. General Plan. 1986. 5. San Mateo County.Map of Highway 35 Scenic Corridor along El Corte de Afadera Creek Open Space Preserve.October 2003. 6. Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District.Regulations for Use ofMidpeninsula Regional Open Space District Lands. Ordinance 93-1,Adopted July 28, 1996.Amended by Ordinance 96-1 adopted February 28, 1996. 7, California Department of Conservation.Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program maps for San Mateo County.2000. http:�/www.consrv.ca.vov/dl rp/fmmp 8. San Mateo County.Zoning Regulations. March 1992. 9. First American Title Company.Former Lands of Alan Hosking Ranch,Inc.,Policy of Title Insurance. 1985. 10. First American Title Company.Former Lands of Alan Hosking Ranch,Inc.,Policy of Title Insurance. 1986. 11. First American Title Company.Former Lands of Theresa Hosking,Policy of Title Insurance. 1993. 12. Bay Area Air Quality Management District.Bay Area 2000 Clean AirPlan and Triennial Assessment.December 20,2000. 13. Bay Area Air Quality Management District.Particulate Matter Air Pollution(information brochure). httP::' aac tniwww.bd.yoviH P ie/ m.l0bacm.htm.June 11 1997. L is� 14. Bay Area Air Quality Management District.Ambient Air Quality Standards and Bay Area Attainment Status. http:ihvww.baaymd.gov,iplanningiresmodlbaas.htm.January 2002. 43 15. California Air Resources Board.PMIO Air Quality Data Summaries(1988-1997)for San Mateo County. http:.�/wik�,w.arb.ca.�7,ov,,'aqd/piii 10/a2c41.htm 16. Albion Environmental,Inc.,Biological Assessment of El Corte de Madera Creek Open Space Preserve.December 2003. 17. Correli Toni. Vegetative Resources of El Corte de Madera Open Space Preserve. September 1994. 18, Seymour,R.and M.Westphal.Results of a one-year survey for amphibians on lands managed by the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District in the Santa Cruz Mountain,California.Report submitted to Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District. 2000. M Calflora website.htti):/,,wAv%v.caltloi-a.org/.November 2003. 20. California Native Plant Society.Inventory of Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants of California.Special Publications Number 1,Fifth Edition. February 1994. 21. Sander,S.California Department of Fish and Game and California Interagency Wildlife Task Group.California Wildlife Habitat Relationship System.littp://nNvA,.dfg.ca,�ov/whdab/B240.litini.November 26,2002. 22, California Department of Fish and Game,Stream Survey of El Corte de Madera Creek. October 21, 1985. 23. California Department of Fish and Game.Stream Survey of El Corte de Madera Creek-,San Mateo County. 1996 24. San Mateo County Ordinance Code.Section 12000:Regulation of Removal of Significant Trees.June 11, 1990. 25. San Mateo County Ordinance Code.Section 11000:Regulation of Removal of Heritage Trees.April 5, 1977. 26. San Mateo County Department of Public Works.Endangered Species and Watershed Protection Program, Volume 1: Maintenance Standards.February 20,2001 27. California Department of Fish and Game,Habitat Conservation Planning Branch. hltl2:,,,Nk,xN,w.dt'v.ca.p,ov/licl2biconi)roi/conl2roi.shtml.November 2003. 28. California Department of Fish and Game,Natural Community Conservation Planning Program.httl2:i/w\,,,Av,dfp-,ca.vov/nccL). March 2003. 29. Best,Tim,CEG.Roads and Trails Erosion Inventory:El Corte de Madera Creek Open Space Preserve. November 27,2002. 30, California Division of Mines and Geology CD-ROM 2000-004(2000).Official Map ofAlquist-PHolo Earthquake Fault Zones, Woodside Quadrangle. 1974. 31. Weaver,William,and Hagans,Danny.Pacific Watershed Associates.Handbookfor Forest and Ranch Roads.June 1994. 32. Fifield,Jerald S.Field Manual on Sediment and Erosion Control Best Management Practices for Contractors and Inspectors. Forester Press.2002. 33. Association of Bay Area Governments.Manual of Standards for Erosion and Sediment Control.May 1995. 34. United States Geological Survey. Woodside 7.5-minute series quadrangle map. 1991. 35. United States Environmental Protection Agency,Regulated Sites Map for 94062.w)&,xv,epa.gov/envirti,,wine.1 November 2003, lit(12:,,'/134,67.99,109/wme/iiiyWitidow.asL)'?xl--122.319305&yb--37.391434&xr--122.270995&vt-37,427666 36. California Depart me I I Ont of Fire and Forestry.Fire Hazard Severity Zones. litlp:/;,'N,,,Avw.t'i-aL).cdl*.ca.go%'i'data/frapgisdata/'select".June 2003. 37. San Mateo County Parks and Recreation Commission.MHA Environmental Consulting,Inc.San Mateo County 2001 Trails Plan.2001. 38. San Mateo County Environmental Services Agency. Local Coastal Program:Policies.June 1998. 39. California Department of Mines and Geology. Update of Mineral Land Classification:Aggregate Materials in the South San Francisco Bay Prodtiction-Consumption Region. 1996. 40. California Department of Fish,California Natural Diversity Database,January,2003. 41. US Fish and Wildlife Service.National Wetlands Inventory GIS Database.January,2002. 42. Best,Tim(personal communication) 43. Legler,June. Geologic Resources Evaluation of El Corte de Madera Creek Open Space Preserve. 1994. 44. San Francisco State University Department of Geography. El Corte de Madera Creek Open Space Preserve Land Use Management Plan. 1993. 45. Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District. San Mateo Coastal Annexation Draft Environmental Impact Report.June 2002. 46. California Historical Resources Information System,Northwest Information Center,Sonoma State University. Record Search Results for El Corte de Madera Creek Open Space Preserve. November,2003. 47. Brabb,Graymer,and Jones. Geologic map and map database of the Palo Alto 30'X 60'quadrangle,California. U.S. Department of the Interior USGS,2000. 44 48. Coyote Creek Riparian Station. El Corte de Madera Creek Open Space Preserve Stream Habitat Observation at Stream Crossings. August, 1998. 49. U.S.Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2001 California State Soil Survev,Geographic Database. 45 MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM WATERSHED PROTECTION PROGRAM, EL CORTE DE MADERA CREEK OPEN SPACE PRESERVE State Clearinghouse Number 2003122091 San Mateo County, CA January, 2004 Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 330 Distel Circle Los Altos, CA 94022-1404 (650) 691-1200 EXHIBIT F MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM CONTENTS This mitigation monitoring program (MMP) includes a brief discussion of the legal basis and purpose of the program, a key to understanding the monitoring matrix, discussion and direction regarding noncompliance complaints, and the mitigation monitoring matrix itself. LEGAL BASIS AND PURPOSE OF THE MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM Public Resources Code(PRC) 21081.6 requires public agencies to adopt mitigation monitoring or reporting programs whenever certifying an environmental impact report or mitigated negative declaration. This requirement facilitates implementation of all mitigation measures adopted through the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)process. MONITORING MATRIX The following pages provide a series of tables identifying the mitigations incorporated into the Watershed Protection Program at El Corte de Madera Creek Open Space Preserve (the project). These mitigations are reproduced from the Negative Declaration for the project. The columns within the tables have the following meanings: Number: The number in this column refers to the Initial Study section where the mitigation is discussed. Mitigation: This column lists the specific mitigation identified within the Negative Declaration. Timing: This column identifies at what point in time, review process, or phase the mitigation will be completed. The mitigations are organized by order in which they appear in the Mitigated Negative Declaration. Who will This column references the District department that will ensure implementation of verify? the mitigation. Agency This column references any public agency or District department with which Department coordination is required to ensure implementation of the mitigation. California Consultation: Department of Fish and Game is listed as CDFG. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is listed as USFWS. Verification: This column will be initialed and dated by the individual designated to confirm implementation. NONCOMPLIANCE COMPLAINTS Any person or agency may file a complaint asserting noncompliance with the mitigation measures associated with the project. The complaint shall be directed to the District's General Manager in written form, providing specific information on the asserted violation. The General Manager shall cause an investigation and determine the validity of the complaint; if noncompliance with a mitigation has occurred, the General Manager shall cause appropriate actions to remedy any violation. The complainant shall receive written confirmation indicating the results of the investigation or the final action corresponding to the particular noncompliance issue. Who will Department Verification Number Mitigation Timing verify? or Agency Consultation (Date& Initials) Mitigations Mitigation incorporated into project for Kings Mountain Manzanita: Verify completion of Planning Operations(Resource in section BIO-1.A qualified biologist shall conduct special-status plant surveys along surveys prior to start of Mgmt Specialist) IV(a): work areas 80-1, 100-7,and 150-1 prior to the commencement of ground construction. If Kings disturbance. Kings Mountain manzanita individuals(or Santa Cruz Mountain Manzanita If special-status plant manzanita individuals, if observed)within 30 feet of the road/trail will be individuals are present and species are present and flagged. Individuals located in the immediate area where ground cannot be avoided,verify cannot be avoided, disturbance will occur will be demarcated with protective fencing to prevent that the work does not start consult with CDFG. disturbance. within 30 feet of the specimen,and that an on- site mitigation plan is prepared and implemented prior to start of construction within 30 feet. Mitigation incorporated into project for impacts to other special-status Verify completion of Planning Operations(Resource i plants species: focused plant surveys prior Mgmt Specialist)and/or BIO-1 A qualified biologist shall conduct special-status plant surveys on all to start of construction.If Project Biologist proposed trail realignments during the appropriate blooming period(in April perennial and shrub for trail realignments occurring through chaparral habitat, and in May for special-status plant species If special-status plant trail realignments occurring in redwood or mixed evergreen forest habitat). are present and cannot be species are present and If any special-status plant species are found during these surveys,avoidance avoided,verify that the cannot be avoided, and mitigation measures outlined in BIO-1 shall be implemented to reduce work does not start within consult with CDFG. any potential impacts to less than significant levels. 30 feet of the specimen, and that an on-site mitigation plan is prepared and implemented prior to start of construction within 30 feet. Mitigation incorporated into project for potential impacts to California Verify completion of Planning Operations(Resource red-legged frog: CRLF surveys two to four Mgmt Specialist)and/or BIO-3. A qualified biologist shall conduct pre-construction California red- weeks prior to ground Project Biologist legged frog surveys two to four weeks prior to ground disturbance at repair disturbance. sites 20-1,90-7,90-8,90-10, 130-9,and 160-5. The surveys should be If CRLF are identified, 2 Verification Mitigation Timing Who will Department (Date& verify? or Agency Consultation Initials) repeated if repairs are delayed beyond two to four weeks following the consult with USFWS initial surveys. If CRLF are observed during the pre-construction surveys, the USFWS will be consulted and a monitoring program and/or other mitigation measures acceptable to the USFWS will be implemented. At minimum,repair sites shall be demarcated with construction fencing or other protective barriers,and confined to the smallest possible area. BIO-4. A worker education program shall be implemented to educate all Prior to commencement of Planning construction personnel on CRLF identification and procedures should CRLF construction. be observed in the project area. Mitigation incorporated into proiect for impact to marbled murrelets: Verify that trees greater Planning Operations BIO-S. No structurally complex platform trees or trees greater than 32 than 32 inches dbh are inches dbh suitable for murrelet nesting shall be removed from the project clearly demarcated and area. protected between May 1 through September 15,and BI0-6. If noise generating construction activity takes place during the that work is restricted to breeding season(May 1 to September 15)within Redwood and appropriate hours during Redwood/Douglas-fir forests,construction activity shall be restricted this period between 1.5 hours before sunset to 1.5 hours after sunset to minimize disturbance of potential nesting murrelets using forest habitat as a travel corridor between inland nesting and coastal habitat. Mitigation incorporated into project for impacts to Cooper's and sharp- Verify project schedule to Planning Operations(Resource shined hawks: determine need for onsite Mgmt Specialist)and/or BIO-7.If feasible,schedule noise-generating construction activities between surveys and buffer zones Project Biologist August 1 and February 1,outside the breeding season of raptors. If prior to start of construction occurs during raptor breeding season(February through July), construction. Verify pre-construction surveys shall be conducted by a qualified biologist no more contractor is adhering to than 30 days prior to construction to determine if raptors are nesting in the any identified buffer zones. project area. The biologist shall determine a suitable no-disturbance buffer zone around the identified nesting tree and construction within the buffer zone shall be postponed until all young are fledged. 3 Who will Department Verification Number Mitigation Timing (Date& verify? or Agency Consultation Initials) Mitigation incorporated into project for migratory bird species: Verify project schedule to Planning Operations(Resource BIO-8. If feasible,schedule removal of trees,snags,or woody shrubs determine need for onsite Mgmt Specialist)and/or suitable for avian nesting(trees and snags greater than 6 inches DBH or surveys and buffer zones Project Biologist woody shrubs greater than 8 feet tall)for removal outside the breeding prior to start of season(February 1 to August 1). If suitable avian nesting trees are proposed construction. Verify for removal during the breeding season,a qualified biologist should conduct contractor is adhering to pre-construction nesting birds surveys within 30 days of the onset of any any identified buffer zones. construction activity.The pre-construction survey should search all trees and snags greater than 6 inches DBH and all shrubs taller than 8 feet proposed for removal. If bird nests are observed, an appropriate buffer zone should be established around all active nests to protect nesting adults and their young from construction disturbance. Mitigation incorporated into project for impacts to San Francisco Conduct woodrat nest Planning Operations(Resource dusky-footed woodrat: surveys prior to start of Mgmt Specialist)and/or BIO-9. A qualified biologist shall conduct San Francisco dusky-footed construction. If nests are Project Biologist woodrat nest surveys along proposed trail alignments prior to initial ground present and cannot be breaking to determine the presence or absence of nests in areas that would be avoided,consult with Consult with CDFG if disturbed by construction and earth movement activities. Avoid disturbing CDFG regarding relocation nests re present and woodrat nests by routing the trail and by staging construction-related of nests. cannot be avoided, equipment and materials away from known nest sites. If avoidance of San regarding relocation of Francisco dusky-footed woodrat nests is not feasible,consult with CDFG nests. regarding the possibility of relocating the nests outside of the work area. Mitigation incorporated into project for Central Coast California To be required by Planning Operations(Resource Steelhead: Construction Docs. Verify Mgmt Specialist)and/or BI0-10. For work conducted in or adjacent to streams or wetlands,the that Contractor is adhering Project Biologist following guidelines shall be incorporated to reduce potential constriction- to these Best Management related erosion that could affect downstream steelhead: Practices 1. Schedule round disturbing activities adjacent to wetlands and g g J other waters duringthe d season(generally Aril 15 to dry g Y P October 15). 2. Minimize vegetation removal between the work area and 4 Who will Department Verification Number Mitigation Timing (Date& verify? or Agency Consultation Initials) wetlands and other waters to filter out construction related sediment before it enters wetlands and other waters. 3. Prohibit maintenance of construction equipment within 100 feet of wetlands or other waters. 4. Install silt fencing,fiber rolls,or other protective structures between the work area and wetlands and other waters to intercept sediment where intervening vegetation is insufficient. 5. Reseed,plant,or otherwise stabilize areas of bare soil as soon as possible after work has ceased and prior to the onset of the rainy season(October 15). 6. Prohibit storage of any hazardous materials within 100 feet of wetlands or other waters. Mitigation incorporated in project for impacts to riparian resources: Identify trees to protect Planning Operations(Resource B10-11. Any impacted native trees or shrubs rooted below the ordinary high prior to start of Mgmt Specialist)and/or water mark will be replaced by replanting the same species at a 3:1, construction and monitor Project Biologist planting:impact,ratio.A monitoring program to determine success of according to schedule replacement trees shall be created as part of a Streambed Alteration developed in CDFG Agreement approved by CDFG. Streambed Alteration Agreement Mitigation incorporated in project for impacts to wetlands: Verify that USACE 404 Planning Operations(Resource BIO-12. Any potential impacts to wetlands and other waters will be reduced permits and RWQCB 401 Mgmt Specialist)and/or to less than significant levels by conditions required by the permit process. permits are secured prior to Project Biologist A jurisdictional wetland and waters delineation shall be conducted in the construction in wetlands project area by a qualified biologist in accordance with the Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual(Environmental Laboratory 1987). The District shall obtain the necessary Section 404 permits from the Corps for any work within jurisdictional wetlands or below the Ordinary High Water mark. If a Corps perni t is necessary,or if isolated wetlands not subject to Corps jurisdiction are impacted,a certification or waiver under i Section 401 of the Clean Water Act shall be secured from the RWQCB. The District shall notify and,if necessary,obtain a Streambed Alteration 5 Who will Department verification Number Mitigation Timing (Date& verify? or Agency Consultation Initials) Agreement for work within CDFG jurisdiction(below top of bank of streams,or the dripline extent of riparian vegetation that is rooted below top of bank). Mitigation Mitigation incorporated into project for cultural resources: To be required by Planning in section CULT-1. If archaeological resources are encountered during construction, Construction Docs. Verify V(a) every reasonable effort shall be made to avoid altering the materials and that Contractor is their context. If artifacts are found,the work shall stop in the area and within monitoring during 30 feet of the find until a qualified archaeologist can assess the significance construction. of the find.Project construction documents shall include a requirement that project personnel shall not collect archeological resources encountered during construction.This measure is consistent with federal guideline 36 CFR 800.13(a)for invoking unanticipated discoveries. CULT-2. The project shall incorporate the State CEQA guidelines under To be required by Planning §I5064.5(e)into the project construction requirements. §15064.5(e)requires Construction Docs. Verify the following steps be taken should human remains be encountered: "No that Contractor is further disturbance shall occur until the County Coroner has made a monitoring during determination of origin and disposition,pursuant to State Health and Safety construction Code Section 7050.5 and Public Resources Code Section 5097.98.The County Coroner must be notified of the find immediately. If the remains are determined to be Native American,the Coroner will notify the Native American Heritage Commission(NAHC)within 24 hours,which will determine and notify the Most Likely Descendant(MLD).The MLD may recommend within 24 hours the means of treating or disposing of,with appropriate dignity,the human remains and grave goods. In the event of difficulty locating a MLD or failure of the MLD to make a timely recommendation,the human remains and grave goods shall be reburied with appropriate dignity on the property in a location not subject to further subsurface disturbance." 6 Attachment G CEQA and De Minimus Findings CEQA FINDINGS Based upon the Initial Study, Mitigated Negative Declaration, Mitigation Monitoring Program, all comments received, and all substantial evidence in light of the whole record presented: 1. Prior to approving the project that is the subject of the Mitigated Negative Declaration, the Board has considered the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Initial Study, along with all comments received during the public review process. 2. The Board determines that the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Initial Study reflect the District's independent judgment and analysis. 3. The Board determines that the mitigations incorporated into the El Corte de Madera Creek Watershed Protection Program, avoid the effects or mitigate the effects to a point that clearly no significant effect on the environment would occur under CEQA. 4. The Board finds that there is no substantial evidence in light of the whole record before the Board that the proposed project, may have a significant effect on the environment. 5. The Board adopts the attached Mitigation Monitoring Program, which it requires to be implemented as an element of the El Corte de Madera Creek Watershed Protection Program. DE MINIMUS FINDINGS State law requires that the California Department of Fish and Game collect filing fees to defray the cost of consulting with other public agencies, reviewing environmental documents, recommending mitigation measures, and carrying out other activities to protect public trust resources under CEQA (Fish and Game Code 711.4). A project is exempt from this fee requirement if the CEQA lead agency finds that the project is de minimis in its effect on fish and wildlife, with no potential for adverse impacts, including adverse cumulative impacts on wildlife resources or wildlife habitat (14 Cal Code Regs §753.5). Since in this case all project impacts can be mitigated to a less than significant level, thus avoiding adverse impacts to fish or wildlife, staff recommends that you make the following de minimis findings: The Board of Directors for the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District, based upon the Initial Study, Mitigated Negative Declaration, all comments received, and all substantial evidence in light of the whole record presented, adopts the following findings of fact: 1 1. Project Title: El Corte de Madera Creek Watershed Protection Program 2. Location: The project area encompasses the 35 mile network of unpaved roads and recreational trails within El Corte de Madera Creek Open Space Preserve, a 2,877-acre public preserve located within unincorporated San Mateo County,just northwest of the Skyline Boulevard and Bear Gulch Road intersection. 3. Name and Address Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District of Project 330 Distel Circle Proponent: Los Altos, CA 94022 4. County: San Mateo County S. Project Description: The purpose of the project is to protect and restore the long-term integrity of the El Corte de Madera Creek watershed by reducing erosion and potential sedimentation associated with the design and use of the 35 mile network of unpaved roads and recreational trails within El Corte de Madera Creek Open Space Preserve. The project includes four elements: design upgrades and physical improvements to the roads and trails for long-term erosion control; changes to the Preserve Trails Plan to close, restore, and realign problem trail segments; implementation of long-term maintenance and monitoring activities; and environmental education and outreach efforts. Recommendations for design upgrades and physical improvements were developed during a comprehensive assessment of the Preserve's roads and trails conducted by Timothy C. Best, Certified Engineering Geologist, in the Fall of 2002. Detailed recommendations and site treatments are described in the Road and Trail Erosion Inventory for El Corte de Madera Creek Open Space Preserve (Best, 2002). Elements of the Watershed Protection Program are summarized below: Design Upgrades and Physical Improvements to the Roads and Trails Implement corrective measures at potential sources of road and trail surface erosion, including: • Grading approximately 9.5 miles of unpaved roads and trails to ensure proper road surface drainage • Installation of approximately 190 rolling dips or waterbars • Application of 3/4+" drainrock capped with baserock to roads and trails located in close proximity to watercourses • Protecting stream crossings by upgrading or repairing 6 culverts, replacing 10 culverts, and installing 5 new culverts designed to accommodate 100- year storm events • Improving road surface drainage through installation of 6 ditch relief culverts 2 Reduce erosion where roads cross wet spots associated with springs or • ephemeral drainages by armoring 4 fords and installing 12 new rock fords • Repairs, replacement, or installation of 5 footbridges to protect stream banks from trail erosion • Modifying the design of steep trails (over 15%) to help reduce the speed of mountain bicyclists, which will prevent or reduce erosion created when brakes are locked up • Narrowing road widths to the minimum necessary for patrol, emergency response, and maintenance activities, thus reducing the overall surface area by approximately 15 acres exposed to the weathering and erosive effects of rainfall. 11.4 miles of trails are proposed for narrowing, including portions of El Corte de Madera Creek, Fir, Tafoni, Lawrence Creek, Virginia Mill and Spring Board Trails. Changes to the Trails Plan to Reduce Erosion A number of locations present particularly difficult design challenges that require more than simple upgrades or physical improvements to reduce erosion to a low level. These locations are generally the steepest trails, those closest to streams, or the most difficult or costly to maintain. The Draft Watershed Protection Program proposes to close and restore these trails (totaling approximately 2.0 miles in length), constructing new trail segments by hand that provide an equivalent or better trail experience in a less erosion prone location. Trails proposed for closure and restoration are: • Crossover Trail, with a new alternate trail between Timberview and Methuselah Trails. • Lower Fir Trail, with a new alternate trail between the vista point and the Methuselah Trail. • Short segments of Blue Blossom, Virginia Mill, and Leaf Trails. • Giant Salamander Trail. Preserve Maintenance and Monitoring • Adoption of a formal maintenance plan that includes techniques to reduce sediment delivery to aquatic systems, such as reducing vehicular traffic to drier periods. • Routine inspections of the trails and drainage facilities prior to the winter season, during or immediately following storm events, and at the end of the winter season. Development of a pilot in-stream sediment monitoring program. Environmental Education and Outreach • Installing interpretive signage to enhance visitor understanding of watershed protection needs. • Producing a brochure and handouts with information about the preserve's natural resources and the District's watershed protection efforts. • Producing a detailed preserve trails map. 3 Collaborating with mountain bicycling clubs to provide assistance in ensuring trail etiquette. • Training District staff and volunteers in watershed protection methods. Physical improvements and upgrades will occur during the dry season over a three year period with the goal of addressing all priority sources of erosion before October 15, 2006. 6. An initial study was conducted to evaluate the potential for adverse environmental impacts; 7. Considering the record as a whole, there is no evidence before the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District that the proposed project will have the potential for an adverse effect on wildlife resources or the habitat on which the wildlife depends; 8. The Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District does hereby, on the basis of substantial evidence in the record, rebut the presumption of adverse effect set forth in 14 Cal Code Regs §753.5(d). 4