DOCSLIB.ORG

Coyote Valley Agriculture Feasibility Study Phase 1 Report

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Coyote Valley Agriculture Feasibility Study Phase 1 Report CONSERVING COYOTE VALLEY AGRICULTURE FEASIBILITY STUDY PHASE ONE REPORT Sustainable Agriculture Education (SAGE) March 2012 Page 2 Contents Acknowledgements............................................................................................................................3 Executive Summary ............................................................................................................................5 Introduction ......................................................................................................................................7 Background........................................................................................................................................... 7 Project Inspiration, Purpose and Phasing ............................................................................................ 7 Components of Phase One Feasibility Study ........................................................................................ 8 Overview of Existing Conditions .........................................................................................................9 Current Land Uses ..................................................................................................................................... 9 Location and Regional Context ............................................................................................................ 9 Acreage, Parcelization and Major Land Uses ....................................................................................... 9 Ownership and Tenant Patterns ........................................................................................................ 12 Circulation and Power Infrastructure ................................................................................................. 12 Cultural Resources.............................................................................................................................. 13 Regulatory Context .................................................................................................................................. 15 North Valley ........................................................................................................................................ 15 Mid-Valley .......................................................................................................................................... 16 South Valley ........................................................................................................................................ 16 Santa Clara Valley Habitat Plan .......................................................................................................... 17 Farmland and Agriculture Production ..................................................................................................... 19 Santa Clara County Agriculture .......................................................................................................... 19 Coyote Valley Agriculture ................................................................................................................... 19 Protected Open Space ............................................................................................................................. 22 Santa Clara County Open Space Authority (SCCOSA) ........................................................................ 22 Santa Clara County Parks and Recreation Department (SCCPRD) ..................................................... 22 Santa Clara County Water District...................................................................................................... 23 Silicon Valley Land Conservancy ........................................................................................................ 23 Natural Resources and Resource Management ...................................................................................... 25 Topography ........................................................................................................................................ 25 Soils .................................................................................................................................................... 25 Climate and Rainfall ........................................................................................................................... 25 Hydrology and Water Quality ............................................................................................................. 25 Hydrologic Setting .............................................................................................................................. 25 Wildlife Habitat .................................................................................................................................. 31 Land Values in Coyote Valley ............................................................................................................ 36 Recent Sales ....................................................................................................................................... 36 Assessed Values.................................................................................................................................. 37 Agricultural Land Values in Adjoining Counties ................................................................................. 38 Demand for New Commercial and Industrial Space .......................................................................... 39 Economic and Population Growth ..................................................................................................... 40 Social and Lifestyle Factors ................................................................................................................ 40 Resources Available for Ag Land Preservation ................................................................................... 41 Federal Programs ............................................................................................................................... 41 State Programs ................................................................................................................................... 44 County and City Programs .................................................................................................................. 45 Land Trusts ......................................................................................................................................... 46 Foundations ........................................................................................................................................ 46 Financing Agriculture through Private Equity Investment ................................................................. 47 Payment for Eco-system Services (PES) ............................................................................................. 48 Agricultural Land Mitigation ............................................................................................................... 50 Natural Resources Mitigation ............................................................................................................ 50 Challenges and Constraints .............................................................................................................. 52 Opportunities .................................................................................................................................. 53 Feasibility Determination and Preliminary Vision .............................................................................. 56 Phase Two Work Plan ...................................................................................................................... 58 Appendices ...................................................................................................................................... 61 Technical Background Reports ................................................................................................................ 61 Maps ........................................................................................................................................................ 77 Page 2 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Funding The project was funded by a generous grant from the San Francisco Bay Program of the State Coastal Conservancy. Partners The following partners provided project direction and advice: Amy Hutzel, Program Manager, San Francisco Bay Area Program of the State Coastal Conservancy Coastal Conservancy; Andrea Mackenzie, General Manager, Santa Clara County Open Space Authority; Rachel Poplack, Director, Healthy Living and Community Partnerships, The Health Trust. Key Informants The following people were interviewed and provided their expertise to the Phase One Feasibility Study: Sheila Barry, UC Cooperative Extension (UCCE); Amy Chestnut, Sonoma County Agricultural Preservation and Open Space District; Robert Colley, Information Services Department, County of Santa Clara; Ann Draper, Santa Clara Valley Water District and former Director, Santa Clara County Planning; Alan Forkey, NRCS, California Programs; Greg House, House Agricultural Consultants; Marc Landgraf, Peninsula Open Space Trust; Andrea McKenzie, Santa Clara Open Space Authority; Kellyx Nelson, San Mateo County Resource Conservation District; Julie Phillips, DeAnza College Kirst Center for Environmental Studies; Athena Pratt, USDA, Natural Resources Conservation Service; Laurel Prevetti, Deputy Director of
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Senate Bill No. 739 Passed the Senate July 22, 2001 Secretary Of
    Senate Bill No. 739 Passed the Senate July 22, 2001 Secretary of the Senate Passed the Assembly July 16, 2001 Chief Clerk of the Assembly This bill was received by the Governor this day of , 2001, at o’clock M. Private Secretary of the Governor SB 739 — 2 — CHAPTER An act making appropriations for the support of the government of the State of California and for several public purposes in accordance with the provisions of Section 12 of Article IV of the Constitution of the State of California, and declaring the urgency thereof, to take effect immediately. LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL’S DIGEST SB 739, Peace. 2001–02 Budget. This bill would make appropriations for support of state government for the 2001–02 fiscal year. This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as an ur- gency statute. Appropriation: yes. The people of the State of California do enact as follows: SECTION 1.00. This act shall be known and may be cited as the ‘‘Budget Act of 2001.’’ SEC. 1.50. (a) In accordance with Section 13338 of the Govern- ment Code, as added by Chapter 1284, Statutes of 1978, and as amended by Chapter 1286, Statutes of 1984, it is the intent of the Leg- islature that this act utilize a coding scheme compatible with the Gov- ernor’s Budget and the records of the State Controller, and provide for the appropriation of federal funds received by the state and deposited in the State Treasury. (b) Essentially, the format and style are as follows: (1) Appropriation item numbers have a code which is common to all the state’s fiscal systems.
    [Show full text]
  • Online Feedback Form Results
    San José Diridon Station Area Online Feedback Form Summary Total Responses: 693 Raimi + Associates October 2, 2018 Table of Contents Housing/Displacement ....................................................................................................................................................................... 3 Q1 General Principles .................................................................................................................................................................... 3 Q2 Development of the Diridon Station Area: .............................................................................................................................. 4 Q3 Citywide Impacts and Benefits New resources generated by Google and other companies/developers go to: ....................... 5 Jobs/Education .................................................................................................................................................................................. 6 Q5 General Principles .................................................................................................................................................................... 6 Q6 Development of the Diridon Station Area: .............................................................................................................................. 7 Q7 Citywide Impacts and Benefits ................................................................................................................................................ 8 Land
    [Show full text]
  • Panoche Valley
    THE Santa Clara Valley Audubon Society Established 1926 AVOCET The Newsletter of the Santa Clara Valley Audubon Society September-October 2017 Panoche Valley: Saving an Important Bird Area (IBA) by Shani Kleinhaus, Environmental Advocate oncluding almost eight years of advocacy and litiga- tion, SCVAS, Sierra Club Loma Prieta Chapter, and Defenders of Wildlife have signed a settlement agree- Cment that allows a photovoltaic solar farm to be built on about 1,000 acres of Panoche Valley floor, while at the same time preserving 26,000 acres, including 4,000 acres of valley floor grasslands, as habitat for endangered species. Califor- nia Department of Fish and Wildlife and Con Edison have also signed the agreement. We are proud of this achievement! Monterey Audubon Society first alerted SCVAS to the plans to construct a solar farm in Panoche Valley. In 2009, plans for solar arrays and supportive infrastructure encompassed most of the valley floor, as well as Little Panoche Valley. No mitigation was offered for the inevitable loss of habitat for the many endangered species that call the valley home, so we started mobilizing. In early 2010 we organized a work- shop that formed an alliance of farmers and environmental organizations in opposition to the project. This alliance has never faltered. In the years that followed, our advocacy and permit require- ments by state and federal wildlife agencies resulted in changing project ownership as investors came and went. The project footprint shrunk and mitigation lands were added. San Benito County produced additional environmental re- view documents, asserting repeatedly that the construction of a solar project on thousands of acres of valley floor could Ferruginous Hawk by Debra Shearwater cont’d on page 4 Wednesday, September 20, 2017 Cuba - The Isle of Endemics: Birds and Bats! with Dave Johnston Wednesday, October 18, 2017 Understanding California's Whales with Ted Cheeseman The Avocet 1 Please carpool if possible; bring binoculars, field guides, layered September-October Field Trips clothing.
    [Show full text]
  • Coyote Valley
    PROJECT: COYOTE VALLEY CONSERVATION AREAS MASTER REQUEST PLAN The Authority is issuing this Request for Proposals for Ecological Restoration & FOR Landscape-Scale Master Planning Consulting Services. PROPOSALS DUE: JUNE 16, 2021 by 5 PROPOSALS P.M. PACIFIC DAYLIGHT TIME #RFP-2021-10 Request for Proposals Coyote Valley Conservation Areas Master Plan Background Purpose of Request for Proposals (RFPs) The Santa Clara Valley Open Space Authority (“Authority”) is soliciting proposals for professional services for the Coyote Valley Conservation Areas Master Plan (“Master Plan”). The Authority is seeking a consultant team to provide a comprehensive spectrum of skills and expertise needed to create an innovative, integrated, science- based, community-informed plan for the recently conserved lands in Coyote Valley; a unique natural and rural landscape, within an urban setting, located between the cities of San Jose and Morgan Hill, in Santa Clara County, California. The Authority is seeking proposals from an experienced prime firm and their subconsultants that would be responsible for conducting the work outlined in this RFP, culminating in a final Master Plan document and construction documents for the first round of implementation projects identified through the planning process. Consultant work will be authorized and funded on as “as needed” basis over the course of a six-year term through a series of Authority-authorized task orders. The selected firms will be asked to respond to any number of task orders, issued as the planning process progresses and funding is available. The selected professionals will have proven experience working on habitat/ecological and hydrological restoration, green infrastructure solutions for water management, wildlife connectivity, public use and access, and many related and associated skills for public agencies and be fully qualified to perform services requested by the Authority in this RFP.
    [Show full text]
  • Gazetteer of Surface Waters of California
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR UNITED STATES GEOLOGICAL SURVEY GEORGE OTI8 SMITH, DIEECTOE WATER-SUPPLY PAPER 296 GAZETTEER OF SURFACE WATERS OF CALIFORNIA PART II. SAN JOAQUIN RIVER BASIN PREPARED UNDER THE DIRECTION OP JOHN C. HOYT BY B. D. WOOD In cooperation with the State Water Commission and the Conservation Commission of the State of California WASHINGTON GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 1912 NOTE. A complete list of the gaging stations maintained in the San Joaquin River basin from 1888 to July 1, 1912, is presented on pages 100-102. 2 GAZETTEER OF SURFACE WATERS IN SAN JOAQUIN RIYER BASIN, CALIFORNIA. By B. D. WOOD. INTRODUCTION. This gazetteer is the second of a series of reports on the* surf ace waters of California prepared by the United States Geological Survey under cooperative agreement with the State of California as repre­ sented by the State Conservation Commission, George C. Pardee, chairman; Francis Cuttle; and J. P. Baumgartner, and by the State Water Commission, Hiram W. Johnson, governor; Charles D. Marx, chairman; S. C. Graham; Harold T. Powers; and W. F. McClure. Louis R. Glavis is secretary of both commissions. The reports are to be published as Water-Supply Papers 295 to 300 and will bear the fol­ lowing titles: 295. Gazetteer of surface waters of California, Part I, Sacramento River basin. 296. Gazetteer of surface waters of California, Part II, San Joaquin River basin. 297. Gazetteer of surface waters of California, Part III, Great Basin and Pacific coast streams. 298. Water resources of California, Part I, Stream measurements in the Sacramento River basin.
    [Show full text]
  • (Oncorhynchus Mykiss) in Streams of the San Francisco Estuary, California
    Historical Distribution and Current Status of Steelhead/Rainbow Trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) in Streams of the San Francisco Estuary, California Robert A. Leidy, Environmental Protection Agency, San Francisco, CA Gordon S. Becker, Center for Ecosystem Management and Restoration, Oakland, CA Brett N. Harvey, John Muir Institute of the Environment, University of California, Davis, CA This report should be cited as: Leidy, R.A., G.S. Becker, B.N. Harvey. 2005. Historical distribution and current status of steelhead/rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) in streams of the San Francisco Estuary, California. Center for Ecosystem Management and Restoration, Oakland, CA. Center for Ecosystem Management and Restoration TABLE OF CONTENTS Forward p. 3 Introduction p. 5 Methods p. 7 Determining Historical Distribution and Current Status; Information Presented in the Report; Table Headings and Terms Defined; Mapping Methods Contra Costa County p. 13 Marsh Creek Watershed; Mt. Diablo Creek Watershed; Walnut Creek Watershed; Rodeo Creek Watershed; Refugio Creek Watershed; Pinole Creek Watershed; Garrity Creek Watershed; San Pablo Creek Watershed; Wildcat Creek Watershed; Cerrito Creek Watershed Contra Costa County Maps: Historical Status, Current Status p. 39 Alameda County p. 45 Codornices Creek Watershed; Strawberry Creek Watershed; Temescal Creek Watershed; Glen Echo Creek Watershed; Sausal Creek Watershed; Peralta Creek Watershed; Lion Creek Watershed; Arroyo Viejo Watershed; San Leandro Creek Watershed; San Lorenzo Creek Watershed; Alameda Creek Watershed; Laguna Creek (Arroyo de la Laguna) Watershed Alameda County Maps: Historical Status, Current Status p. 91 Santa Clara County p. 97 Coyote Creek Watershed; Guadalupe River Watershed; San Tomas Aquino Creek/Saratoga Creek Watershed; Calabazas Creek Watershed; Stevens Creek Watershed; Permanente Creek Watershed; Adobe Creek Watershed; Matadero Creek/Barron Creek Watershed Santa Clara County Maps: Historical Status, Current Status p.
    [Show full text]
  • 1982 Flood Report
    GB 1399.4 S383 R4 1982 I ; CLARA VAltEY WATER DISlRIDl LIBRARY 5750 ALMADEN EXPRESSYIAY SAN JOSE. CAUFORN!A 9Sll8 REPORT ON FLOODING AND FLOOD RELATED DAMAGES IN SANTA CLARA COUNTY January 1 to April 30, 1982 Prepared by John H. Sutcliffe Acting Division Engineer Operations Division With Contributions From Michael McNeely Division Engineer Design Division and Jeanette Scanlon Assistant Civil Engineer Design Division Under the Direction of Leo F. Cournoyer Assistant Operations and Maintenance Manager and Daniel F. Kriege Operations and Maintenance Manager August 24, 1982 DISTRICT BOARD OF DIRECTORS Arthur T. Pfeiffer, Chairman District 1 James J. Lenihan District 5 Patrick T. Ferraro District 2 Sio Sanchez. Vice Chairman At Large Robert W. Gross District 3 Audrey H. Fisher At large Maurice E. Dullea District 4 TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE INTRODUCrfION .......................... a ••••••••••••••••••• 4 •• Ill • 1 STORM OF JANUARY 3-5, 1982 .•.•.•.•.•••••••.••••••••.••.••.••.••••. 3 STORMS OF MARCH 31 THROUGH APRIL 13, 1982 ••.....••••••.•••••••••••• 7 SUMMARY e • • • • • • • • • : • 111 • • • • • • • • • • • • • 1111 o e • e • • o • e • e o e • e 1111 • • • • • e • e 12 TABLES I Storm Rainfall Summary •••••••••.••••.•••••••.••••••••••••• 14 II Historical Rainfall Data •••••••••.•••••••••••••••••••••••••• 15 III Channel Flood Flow Summary •••••.•••••.•••••••••••••••••••• 16 IV Historical Stream flow Data •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 17 V January 3-5, 1982 Damage Assessment Summary •••••••••••••••••• 18 VI March 31 - April 13, 1982 Damage
    [Show full text]
  • NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS
    NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS OCTOBER 2005 HISTORICAL OCCURRENCE OF COHO SALMON IN STREAMS OF THE CENTRAL CALIFORNIA COAST COHO SALMON EVOLUTIONARILY SIGNIFICANT UNIT Brian C. Spence Scott L. Harris Weldon E. Jones Matthew N. Goslin Aditya Agrawal Ethan Mora NOAA-TM-NMFS-SWFSC-383 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration National Marine Fisheries Service Southwest Fisheries Science Center NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), organized in 1970, has evolved into an agency which establishes national policies and manages and conserves our oceanic, coastal, and atmospheric resources. An organizational element within NOAA, the Office of Fisheries is responsible for fisheries policy and the direction of the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). In addition to its formal publications, the NMFS uses the NOAA Technical Memorandum series to issue informal scientific and technical publications when complete formal review and editorial processing are not appropriate or feasible. Documents within this series, however, reflect sound professional work and may be referenced in the formal scientific and technical literature. Disclaimer of endorsement: Reference to any specific commercial products, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States Government. The views and opinions of authors expressed in this document do not necessarily state or reflect those of NOAA or the United States Government, and shall not be used for advertising or product endorsement purposes. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS This TM series is used for documentation and timely communication of preliminary results, interim reports, or special purpose information.
    [Show full text]
  • CREEK & WATERSHED MAP Morgan Hill & Gilroy
    POINTS OF INTEREST 1. Coyote Creek Parkway Trailhead. Coyote Creek Parkway is a remaining sycamores dot the landscape, creating a beautiful setting to Springs Trail to follow Center Creek into its headwater canyons. The trail paved trail following Coyote Creek for 15 miles from southern San Jose savor the streamside serenity. will eventually cross over into the headwaters of New Creek as it rises to Morgan Hill. Popular with walkers, bikers, equestrians, and skaters, toward the summit of Coyote Ridge, 1.5 miles from the trailhead. much of this trail passes through rural scenery. View riparian woodland 4. Anderson Dam and Reservoir. Anderson dam, built in 1950, species such as big-leaf maple, cottonwood, sycamore, willow, and impounds Coyote Creek, the largest stream in the Santa Clara Valley. The 12. Coyote Lake. Streams carry water and sediment from the hills to the coast live oak along the trail. The oaks produce acorns, which were an dam backs up a deep reservoir, which can store 90,000 acre-feet of water, ocean; damming a stream blocks the flow of both. Sediment typically important source of food to the Native Americans, and still serve many the largest reservoir in Santa Clara Valley. Like SCVWD’s nine other deposits where the stream first enters the lake, forming a broad plain Coyote animal species today. reservoirs built between 1935 and 1957, Anderson Reservoir’s major called a delta. From the county park campground, enjoy a beautiful view purpose is to store wintertime runoff for groundwater recharge during the of the delta of Coyote Creek, Coyote Lake, and the valley below.
    [Show full text]
  • Coyote Valley Landscape Linkage a Vision for a Resilient, Multi-Benefit Landscape
    Coyote Valley Landscape Linkage A Vision for a Resilient, Multi-benefit Landscape December 2017 Prepared by the with the SANTA CLARA VALLEY OPEN SPACE AUTHORITY CONSERVATION BIOLOGY INSTITUTE The Santa Clara Valley Open Space Authority conserves the natural environment, supports agriculture, and connects people to nature, by protecting open spaces, natural areas, and working farms and ranches for future generations. OpenSpaceAuthority.org The Conservation Biology Instituteprovides scientific expertise to support conservation and recovery of biological diversity in its natural state through applied research, education, planning, and community service. consbio.org Open Space Authority Linkage Planning Team Matt Freeman, M.C.R.P., Assistant General Manager Galli Basson, M.S., Resource Management Specialist Jake Smith, M.S., Conservation GIS Coordinator Suggested Citation Santa Clara Valley Open Space Authority and Conservation Biology Institute. 2017. Coyote Valley Landscape Linkage: A Vision for a Resilient, Multi-benefit Landscape. Santa Clara Valley Open Space Authority, San José, CA. 74p. Photo credits: Patty Eaton, Janell Hillman, Cait Hutnik, Stephen Joseph, Tom Ingram, William K. Matthias, Deborah Mills, Derek Neumann, Pathways for Wildlife, Ryan Phillips, and Stuart Weiss. Coyote Valley Landscape Linkage A Vision for a Resilient, Multi-benefit Landscape December 2017 Foreword In 2014, the Santa Clara Valley Open Space Authority released the Santa Clara Valley Greenprint, its 30-year roadmap which identifies goals, priorities, and
    [Show full text]
  • Flooding... to Report... Creeks That Flood
    Flooding... Creeks that flood To report... can happen during an intense rainfall, but These Santa Clara County creeks are flood prone: street flooding or blocked storm drains, typically occurs after several days of heavy Adobe Creek Los Gatos Creek or to contact your local floodplain rain. After the ground is saturated flooding can Alamias Creek Lower Penitencia Creek manager call: occur very quickly with little or no warning if a Alamitos Creek Lower Silver Creek Loyola Creek Campbell 408.866.2145 particularly powerful storm burst occurs. While Almendra Creek Arroyo Calero Creek McAbee Creek Cupertino 408.777.3269 the water district’s many reservoirs provide some Barron Creek Pajaro River buffer between rainfall and creekflow, most Berryessa Creek Permanente Creek Gilroy 408.846.0444 creeks do not have a reservoir and water levels Bodfish Creek Purissima Creek Los Altos 650.947.2785 rise quickly during intense rainstorms. Calabazas Creek Quimby Creek Calera Creek Randol Creek Los Altos Hills 650.941.7222 Calero Creek Ross Creek Los Gatos 408.399.5770 When creeks overbank, the floodwater typically San Francisquito Creek Canoas Creek Milpitas 408.586.2400 flows swiftly through neighborhoods and Corralitos Creek San Martin Creek away from streams. Dangerously fast-moving Coyote Creek San Tomas Aquino Creek Monte Sereno 408.354.7635 floodwaters can flow thousands of feet away Crosley Creek Santa Teresa Creek Morgan Hill 408.776.7333 Deer Creek Saratoga Creek from the flooded creek within minutes. Dexter Creek Shannon Creek Mountain View
    [Show full text]
  • Conserving Coyote Valley Agriculture Feasibility Study
    CONSERVING COYOTE VALLEY AGRICULTURE FEASIBILITY STUDY PHASE ONE REPORT Sustainable Agriculture Education (SAGE) March 2012 Page 2 Contents Acknowledgements............................................................................................................................3 Executive Summary ............................................................................................................................5 Introduction ......................................................................................................................................7 Background........................................................................................................................................... 7 Project Inspiration, Purpose and Phasing ............................................................................................ 7 Components of Phase One Feasibility Study ........................................................................................ 8 Overview of Existing Conditions .........................................................................................................9 Current Land Uses ..................................................................................................................................... 9 Location and Regional Context ............................................................................................................ 9 Acreage, Parcelization and Major Land Uses ......................................................................................
    [Show full text]