balcones canyonlands preserve land management...

BALCONES CANYONLANDS PRESERVE

LAND MANAGEMENT PLAN

TIER III

TRAVIS AUDUBON SOCIETY

BAKER SANCTUARY

CYPRESS CREEK MACROSITE

August 2013

BCP Land Management Plan Tier III Baker Sanctuary

Cypress Creek Macrosite

TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 PERMIT REQUIREMENTS ........................................................................................................................ 1 2.0 BACKGROUND INFORMATION .............................................................................................................. 1

2.1 Description of Tract ........................................................................................................ 2

2.1.1 Location of Tract...................................................................................................... 2

2.1.1.1 Inventory of Tract Features ............................................................................... 3

2.1.2 Ownership Status ..................................................................................................... 6

2.1.2.1 Easements, Restrictions, Special Agreements and In-holdings ........................ 6

2.1.2.2 Boundary Disputes ............................................................................................ 9

2.1.2.3 Regulatory Requirements.................................................................................. 9

2.1.2.4 Mineral Rights .................................................................................................. 9

2.1.2.5 Legal Issues ..................................................................................................... 10

2.1.2.6 Financial Issues ............................................................................................... 10

2.2 Land Uses...................................................................................................................... 10

2.2.1 Prehistoric Land Use .............................................................................................. 10

2.2.2 Historic Land Use .................................................................................................. 10

2.2.3 Recent Land Use .................................................................................................... 12

2.2.4 Adjacent Land Use ................................................................................................. 13

2.3 Physical Characteristics ................................................................................................ 13

2.3.1 Geology .................................................................................................................. 13

2.3.2 Hydrology .............................................................................................................. 14

2.3.2.1 Surface water .................................................................................................. 14

2.3.2.2 Groundwater ................................................................................................... 15

2.3.3 Soils........................................................................................................................ 16

2.3.4 Caves and Subsurface Features .............................................................................. 16

2.4 Biological Characteristics ............................................................................................. 17

2.4.1 Vegetation .............................................................................................................. 17

2.4.2 Animal Species ...................................................................................................... 18

2.4.3 Endangered Species and Species of Concern ........................................................ 19

2.4.3.1 Plants ............................................................................................................... 19

i


Cypress Creek Macrosite 2.4.3.2 Karst Species ................................................................................................... 20

2.4.3.3 Amphibians ..................................................................................................... 20

2.4.3.4 Birds ................................................................................................................ 21 3.0 MANAGEMENT PROGRAM .................................................................................................................... 22

3.1 Plan Administration ...................................................................................................... 22

3.1.1 Description of Managing Entity with Authority and Mission ............................... 22

3.1.2 Staffing ................................................................................................................... 23

3.1.3 Inventory of Equipment ......................................................................................... 23

3.1.4 Funding .................................................................................................................. 23

3.1.4.1 Current funding ............................................................................................... 23

3.1.4.2 Resources Needed in the Future ..................................................................... 23

3.1.5 Interagency Cooperation, Management Contracts, and Other Agreements .......... 23

3.1.6 Annual Reports ...................................................................................................... 24

3.2 Management Plan.......................................................................................................... 24

3.2.1 Species Management ............................................................................................. 28

3.2.1.3 Black-capped vireo. ........................................................................................ 33

3.2.1.4 Karst invertebrates .......................................................................................... 33

3.2.1.5 Species of concern .......................................................................................... 33

3.2.2 Tract Management ................................................................................................. 34

3.2.2.1 Vegetation Management ................................................................................. 34

3.2.2.2 Headquarters Tract .......................................................................................... 39

3.2.2.3 Physical and Cultural Management Procedures ............................................. 43

3.2.2.4 Outreach, Education and Public Access Management ................................... 43 4.0 LITERATURE CITED ................................................................................................................................ 47

4.1 Literature ....................................................................................................................... 47

4.2 Personal Communications ............................................................................................ 48

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. Travis Audubon Society Sanctuaries………………………………………………2

Figure 2. Baker Sanctuary Site Map………………………………………………………….4

Figure 3. Jackie Arnold Education Center Site Map………………………………………....5

Figure 4. Steward’s Residence Site Map………………….………………………………….6

ii


Cypress Creek Macrosite Figure 5. Surface Water Map………………………..………………………………………15

Figure 6. Extent of Karst Surveys on Baker Sanctuary…………………………………..…17

Figure 7. Jollyville Plateau Salamander USFWS Designated Critical Habitat…………..…21

Figure 8. KEAs and Indicators by Targets…………………………………………………..26

Figure 9. June 2013 Viability Assessment…………………………………………………..27

Figure 10. Steward’s Residence Site MAST Eradication Zones……………………………40

Figure 11. JAEC Site MAST Control and Containment Zones……………………………..41

Figure 12. Point Count and Vegetation Monitoring Stations………………….…………….46

LIST OF APPENDICES

APPENDIX A: Sarah Penn Harris Account

APPENDIX B: Senate Bill 626

APPENDIX C: Baker Sanctuary Access Regulations

APPENDIX D: 2012 BCP Map

APPENDIX E: Baker Sanctuary Vegetation Map

APPENDIX F: Baker Sanctuary Geology Map

APPENDIX G: Baker Sanctuary Topography Map

APPENDIX H: Baker Sanctuary Soils Map

APPENDIX I: USFWS Karst Survey Protocol

APPENDIX J: Vertebrate Species of the BCP and Baker Sanctuary

APPENDIX K: 2012 Baker Sanctuary 100-acre Survey Results

APPENDIX L: Baker Steward Job Description

APPENDIX M: Baker Sanctuary Headquarters Envelope

APPENDIX N: Brown-headed Cowbird Trapping Protocol

APPENDIX O: Baker Sanctuary Wildfire Management Plan

APPENDIX P: JAEC Limited Commercial Use Policy

APPENDIX Q: Youth Education Strategy and Youth Education Programs

APPENDIX R: Research Permit Application

APPENDIX S: 100-acre Survey Protocol

APPENDIX T: Breeding Bird Survey Protocol

APPENDIX U: Long-term Vegetation Monitoring Protocol

iii


Cypress Creek Macrosite 1.0 PERMIT REQUIREMENTS

In May 1996, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) issued the City of Austin and

Travis County (Permit Holders) a 30-year 10(a)(1)(B) permit (Permit) to authorize

“incidental take” of eight endangered species (golden-cheeked warbler, black-capped vireo,

and six karst invertebrates) and 27 species of concern (2 plants and 25 karst invertebrates)

associated with development activities in western Travis County (together, all previously

described species are referred to as “Permitted Species”). This Permit requires the perpetual

preservation and management of the Balcones Canyonlands Preserve (BCP) for the primary

benefit of these species. The supporting document for this Permit, the Balcones Canyonlands

Conservation Plan (BCCP), became the first regional multi-species, multiple-partner habitat

conservation plan in the country.

The BCCP set a target preserve size of 30,428 acres and 62 karst features (including three

cave clusters) as the minimum necessary for Permit issuance. The BCCP states that the BCP

is to be managed to permanently conserve and facilitate the recovery of populations of the

Permitted Species. Within the 30,428 acres, this includes enhanced management and

protection of a minimum of 28,428 acres for the golden-cheeked warbler (Setophaga

chrysoparia), and a minimum of 2,000 acres managed for the black-capped vireo (Vireo

atricapillus). Karst preserves should contain a large enough expanse of continuous karst and

surface area to maintain the integrity of the karst ecosystem on which each endangered

species depends. See Tier II documents for guidance on management activities to improve

Permitted Species habitat, while protecting the BCP against degradation caused by

urbanization of surrounding lands and increased public demand for recreational usage within

the BCP. Management activities that effectively reduce the protection of Permitted Species

and their habitat on BCP lands may not be carried out without prior approval from USFWS.

2.0 BACKGROUND INFORMATION

Travis Audubon Society, Inc. (Travis Audubon Society, or TAS), is a local chapter of the

National Audubon Society (NAS), a nonprofit organization dedicated to wildlife

conservation. Like many NAS chapters, TAS owns property purchased for and managed as a

wildlife preserve. TAS owns three such preserves in Travis County: Baker Sanctuary, Blair

1


Cypress Creek Macrosite Woods and Chaetura Canyon (Figure 1). Baker Sanctuary (or ‘the Sanctuary’) participates in

the BCP system. This participation is completely consistent with Travis Audubon Society’s

intended purpose for these approximately 692.30 acres (280.05 ha) within the BCP Cypress

Creek Macro site.

Figure 1. Travis Audubon Society Sanctuaries.

2.1 Description of Tract

2.1.1 Location of Tract

Travis Audubon Society owns 692.30 acres (280.05 ha) as per Travis County Appraisal

District (TCAD) maps 18347 and 18337 (a four acre discrepancy exists between the total

acreage described in the Joe and Evelyn Jester Warranty Deed, dated 1986 and the TCAD

Map 18347). This property is located in Travis County approximately five miles north of

Lake Travis, east of the Sandy Creek arm. It is accessible by means of Lime Creek Road,

which bisects the center of the property from a western property line east, then northeast to

an eastern property line. The approximately 692.30-acre tract has been assembled from the

following parcels:

• 93.98 acres conveyed in 1966


2


Cypress Creek Macrosite • 20.77 acres conveyed by Joe Jester in 1986

• 50 acres conveyed in 1986


Boundary markers, metes and bounds, survey data, and legal descriptions are described in the

five deeds held in TAS files.

2.1.1.1 Inventory of Tract Features

With the exception of the nine acre Ruth Fredericksen tract (RFT), the perimeter of Baker

Sanctuary, as well as both sides of the Lime Creek Road corridor, are fenced with a

combination of approximately 27,340 linear feet of five-stranded barbed wire fence and

15,630 linear feet of eight-foot deer fence. To facilitate management activities and public

education and outreach, the Sanctuary possesses approximately 14,810 feet of unimproved

management roads and trails and 38,640 feet of public hiking trails. An approximately 0.25

acre abandoned limestone quarry and a portable ambient air monitoring station belonging to

the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) are also found on site (Figure 2).

3


Cypress Creek Macrosite Figure 2. Baker Sanctuary Site Map.

Multiple structures exist at Baker Sanctuary, ranging from crumbling building remnants from

when Chell Baker owned and worked a portion of the land to more modern structures which

support the mission of TAS and the BCP. The Jackie Arnold Education (JAEC) site, located

in the open savannah north of Lime Creek Road, contains Baker Cabin, an Aermotor

windmill (model 702), defunct well, historic cemetery, the JAEC with attached 2500 gallon

water catchment tank, and is bisected by a Pedernales Electric Cooperative (PEC) power line

which runs roughly parallel to Lime Creek Road for a total of 5660 feet (Figure 3).

4


Cypress Creek Macrosite Figure 3. Jackie Arnold Education Center Site Map.

The Steward’s Residence site, located in the open savannah south of Lime Creek Road

contains the on-site Steward’s residence (a single-wide mobile home), four storage sheds

scattered around the site, a pump house and well, and an old stone barn thought to have been

used during the 1950s when limestone was being removed at the quarry site (Figure 4).

5


Cypress Creek Macrosite Figure 4. Steward’s Residence Site Map.

2.1.2 Ownership Status

Travis Audubon Society completely owns all land at Baker Sanctuary in fee simple.

2.1.2.1 Easements, Restrictions, Special Agreements and In-holdings

2.1.2.1.1 Easements: The 1966 deed to the original 94 acres located in the northern section of the Sanctuary

describes two easements and the right to use a park area:

• A five foot easement “along all common boundary lines of Lot No. 13 of Red Wagon Ranchettes Subdivision with other lots in said Subdivision for drainage and public utilities, as reserved on the plat of said Subdivision.” Lot 13 is a 3.53-acre parcel on the north boundary of TAS property.

• An access easement across properties not owned by TAS “lying principally along the boundary between Lots 9B and 1OA, and crossing the Northeast corner of Lot 14” in Red Wagon Ranchettes Subdivision. This easement provides access to TAS properties from Red Wagon Lane to the north.

6


Cypress Creek Macrosite • Confers the right to use Red Wagon Ranchettes’ “Park Area.”

The 1972 deed to the 517.86 acres describes the following easements:

• Granted “free and uninterrupted easement and right to pass over” the 160 acres on which Joe Jester had a life estate.

• The 160-acre and 155.06-acre tracts “are conveyed subject to Lime Creek Road.”

• An existing PEC power line north of Lime Creek Road infers the presence of a power line easement, though the deed contains no direct reference to such an easement.

• An existing power line easement for power to TCEQ ambient air monitoring station is provided through an agreement between TCEQ and TAS.

The 2007 deed to 9.68 acres of the RFT describes the following easement:

• An easement for access 25 feet wide, as shown on the map of plat for Red Wagon Ranchettes, a subdivision in Travis County, according to the map or plat of record in Volume 13, Page 35 of the Plat Records of Travis County, Texas.

2.1.2.1.2 Restrictions

The Travis Audubon Society properties consist of 11 individual tracts conveyed to TAS by

means of five separate deeds. Below are the restrictions listed in the deeds of record. A

further deed search may reveal additional restrictions in additional documents. The following

restrictions do not apply uniformly to all tracts but apply to the individual tracts as noted.

Restrictions contained in the 1966 deed to 94 acres expired in 1991.

The 1972 deed to 517.86 acres (Baker tract) contains the following deed restrictions

• The property hereby conveyed shall be used only as a game preserve and wildlife sanctuary.

• The lands hereby conveyed shall not be subdivided or in any manner blocked up and sold in smaller tracts but shall be maintained intact.

• No residence, trailer, mobile home, building, or other structure shall be constructed or maintained on the lands hereby conveyed except those which are necessary or appropriate to the use and enjoyment of the property as a game preserve and wildlife sanctuary.

7


Cypress Creek Macrosite The 1986 deed to 50 acres in the southeast portion of the Sanctuary (Hatfield tract) contains

the following in Exhibit “B.” (The first paragraph describes the sale by grantees Gholson and

Chamberlain of development rights previously associated with this property. The transfer of

development rights to another property allows denser development of the recipient property

and no development on the tract from which the rights have been transferred. The loss, or

sale, of the Hatfield Tract’s development rights means that no structures may be constructed

on this tract).

• Development rights to the property have been transferred to Bill Milburn, Inc. Grantee covenants and agrees to fulfill any and all terms of any agreements which run with the land between Grantors and Bill Milburn, Inc.

• Grantee covenants and agrees that it will not allow or permit hunting or trapping on the property and will take all reasonable precautions to assure that hunting and trapping never occur on the property. Grantee further specifically covenants that it will never lease any portion of the property for hunting or trapping uses.

• Grantee covenants and agrees to maintain the property as a sanctuary for the preservation and observation of wildlife. This property is not to be sold or subdivided, or developed for any purpose inconsistent with the aforementioned use of the property.

2.1.2.1.3 Special Agreements

Travis Audubon Society entered into an agreement with TCEQ (formerly TNRCC) in 1996

that allowed placement of an ambient air monitoring station (site # 38) on the Sanctuary.

The agreement expired in 2001 but the monitoring station remains.

2.1.2.1.4 In-Holdings

The only “in holding” on the Sanctuary is an approximately 1200 square foot cemetery. The

cemetery, located east of Baker cabin (Figure 3), contains the graves of Chell Baker,

Elizabeth “Lena” Baker, Margaret A. Grigsby, M. J. Draper and “Terry,” the dog. There

may also be several unmarked graves. The Texas Historical Commission granted Historic

Texas Cemetery Designation to the Baker Family Cemetery (TV-C19) on April 9, 2001.

8


Cypress Creek Macrosite 2.1.2.2 Boundary Disputes

To the best of Travis Audubon Society’s knowledge there may exist an approximately 1-2

foot wide and 476 foot long boundary discrepancy along the southeast fence line adjacent to

the Deer Creek Ranch development.

2.1.2.3 Regulatory Requirements

The Sanctuary contains a substantial population of golden-cheeked warblers, a federally

listed endangered species. In addition, there are unconfirmed reports of the black-capped

vireo and speculation that endangered karst invertebrates may be present but undiscovered.

There are also two confirmed populations of the Jollyville Plateau salamander (Eurycea

tonkawae) which was listed as ‘threatened’ by the USFWS in August 2013. Inclusion of this

property in the BCP system mandates compliance with the following:

• The federal Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA) and subsequent amendments to the ESA.

• The terms and conditions of the 10(a) permit for the BCCP issued by the USFWS to the Permit Holders.

For specific requirements, see the Final BCCP Environmental Impact Statement, the

Endangered Species Act, and the BCCP permit. Participation in the BCCP mandates land

management for all endangered species and species of concern specified in the Final

Environmental Impact Statement (Regional Environmental Consultants and U.S. Department

of the Interior 1996). TAS considers these conditions to be appropriate and consistent with

Travis Audubon Society’s original purpose for the Sanctuary.

Compliance with federal endangered species regulations brings about compliance with all

relevant sections of the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department Code and amendments and the

Rules adopted by the Parks and Wildlife Commission in the Texas Administrative Code.

2.1.2.4 Mineral Rights

The 1966 deed to the 94 acres contains the following:

One-half mineral reservation in Lot No. 13 of Red Wagon Ranchettes as contained in

warranty deed of record in Volume 254, Page 154, of the Travis County Deed Records.

9


Cypress Creek Macrosite 2.1.2.5 Legal Issues

All legal issues are covered elsewhere in the document.

2.1.2.6 Financial Issues

No mortgages or other institutional financial encumbrances remain on TAS properties.

Because Travis Audubon Society is a nonprofit tax-exempt corporation, under Section 501

(c)(3) of the IRS Code, it pays no ad valorem property taxes on the Sanctuary (Alan Jaeger,

TAS Treasurer, pers. com., September 17, 1996).

2.2 Land Uses

2.2.1 Prehistoric Land Use

Several archeological sites have been documented and investigated on the Sanctuary. These

sites are not a matter of public record. Records and artifacts are retained in the TAS office.

The Sanctuary Steward will take measures to conserve these cultural resources.

The usual Cretaceous fossils are found on site, including marine gastropods, pelecypods,

cephalopods, and echinoderms in the Glen Rose and Walnut formations, as well as

gastropods and rudists in the Edwards formation. No unusual or unexpected fossils have been

reported.

2.2.2 Historic Land Use

In 1966, Travis Audubon Society purchased the initial 94-acre sanctuary, described as

“secluded & thickly wooded” in the classified ads (Austin American-Statesman, April 24,

1966). The three tract property was purchased for $16,450, or $175 per acre, from John

Barton, its owner and realtor. One of the three tracts had belonged to TAS member Charles

Trenckman prior to its sale to John Barton. A 1966 fund-raising letter from TAS president

Emma Leta Bickler describes the property as:

“a 94-acre ideal sanctuary, a typical example of all varieties of Edwards Plateau country, magnificent native trees, shrubs, flowers, grasses, birds including the Golden-cheeked Warbler, and other native wildlife, a spring, a creek of running water, all within 20 miles of Austin, northwest, near Lake Travis with access to the lake.”

The TAS President’s message in the September 1966 TAS newsletter, Signal Smoke,

describes the property as follows: 10


Cypress Creek Macrosite “Part of the tract is heavily wooded with many species of trees, including old cedars and Spanish oaks - both necessary in Golden-cheeked habitat. A portion of the tract is open country covered with grass and a great variety of wildflowers. Golden-cheeked Warblers and Black-capped Vireos were seen on the property in the spring and early summer. Many other birds were also observed.”

The presence of thick woods and “old cedars” suggests that the land had not been cleared for

ranching or farming purposes for several decades, if ever.

TAS member Charles Trenckman, former owner of one of the tracts in the original 94 acres,

suggested that TAS members befriend Chell and Lena Baker, a brother and half-sister who

were the original sanctuary’s nearest neighbors. The Bakers and their mother before them

“had protected the property as a private wildlife preserve since the original grant from the

State of Texas” as per Sara Penn Harris’ account (Appendix A). Past TAS President and

Treasurer Ed Kutac noted that Chell Baker was an avid hunter and had maintained the

wooded property as a game preserve.

By the late 1960s and early 1970s, the Bakers were elderly and concerned about disposing of

their property. They lived simply with minimal electricity, wood heat, and windmill-driven

well water. They “loved the land and the wildlife and, wanted their land protected from

developers and sub-dividers and preserved.” Ed Kutac initiated a relationship with Chell

Baker after TAS purchased the original 94 acres. During his many visits, Ed and Chell

would typically sit on the Baker Cabin front porch, drinking coffee from tin cups and

discussing the benefits of donating his land to TAS. Chell would usually wear his six-

shooter on his hip. Eventually, Chell’s lawyer advised him to convey his property to a tax-

exempt organization, reserving a life estate for himself and his sister, in order to avoid

inheritance taxes upon his death. The Bakers were concerned that inheritance tax obligations

would force the subdivision and sale of their property. Prompted by his attorney, Chell

contacted TAS member Stuart Harris and negotiations began. (Ethel Kutac, pers. com.,

2007).

On April 25, 1972, TAS President Richard Tims and other TAS officials signed the deed

adding the 500+ acre Baker properties to the original 94-acre sanctuary, subject to a life

estate to Chell Baker, followed by a life estate to his sister, Lena Baker, and a smaller life

11


Cypress Creek Macrosite estate to their lifelong friend and helper, Joe Jester. These tracts still comprise the majority of

Baker Sanctuary holdings (Harris 1979; Ed Kutac, pers. com., September 19, 1996).

In 1986, Joe Jester sold four parcels of property totaling 24.77 acres, according to the deeds

(20.77 acres, according to the Travis County Appraisal District), as well as his life estate on

the 160 acres, to Travis Audubon Society. This property’s land use history is similar to that

of the Baker property.

The 50-acre tract donated by Gholson and Chamberlain in 1986 was part of a working cattle

ranch owned by Nelma Gholson and her first husband, Grover Hatfield. This property had

been actively ranched by the Hatfields from its purchase in 1951 until its donation to TAS in

1986. Although this property was part of a working cattle ranch, it was either not cleared or

has not been cleared in recent years. The Hatfields had purchased the property from the

Marvin and Myrtice Turner family, who also operated a cattle ranch (Sally Strong, past TAS

President, pers. com., September 24, 1996; Nelma Gholson, property donor, pers. com.,

October 2 and 8, 1996).

While Chell and Lena were still alive it is believed that they were able to claim an

agricultural exemption “because they had a few cows” and this kept their property taxes

down. The deed conveying the property to Travis Audubon Society made TAS responsible

for any other property taxes. For many years the taxes were low enough to be of little

concern. After the death of the Bakers, the taxes became more problematic so TAS members

went to the state legislature and were instrumental in passing Senate Bill 626 allowing

nonprofits to own 1000 acres in a county tax free (Appendix B).

2.2.3 Recent Land Use

Travis Audubon Society members and their guests are allowed daytime access to the

Sanctuary except during whitetail deer (Odocoileus virginianus) hunting season.

Nonmembers are allowed when accompanied by a member or when permission has been

granted by the Steward, Executive Director, or a Board member. All visitors must obtain the

gate combination, which is changed monthly, from the Steward or Executive Director to gain

access. The Steward’s presence promotes compliance with access regulations (Appendix C).

12



2.2.4 Adjacent Land Use

Baker Sanctuary properties are bound as follows (Appendix D):

• The northernmost tracts are bound on the east by two BCP properties, the 100-acre Austin Simon tract which is owned by the Parks and Wildlife Foundation of Texas and managed by the City of Austin and the 494-acre Lime Creek tract which is owned and managed by the City of Austin

• South of Lime Creek Road the eastern boundary of TAS Baker Sanctuary is adjacent to Deer Creek Ranch, a dense residential development.

• The southern boundary is adjacent to the Lower Colorado River Authority’s (LCRA) 2,176-acre Wheless tract and undeveloped property held as 10(a) mitigation property by the City of Cedar Park

• Lands north of the Sanctuary are subdivided into lots ranging in size from 5 to 20 acres, including the Red Wagon Ranchettes subdivision.

• The majority of lands to the west of the Sanctuary are privately owned with the exception of three small BCP tracts to the northwest and southwest which are owned and managed by Travis County as part of their Lime Creek Unit.

2.3 Physical Characteristics

Baker Sanctuary consists primarily of wooded uplands (Appendix E) with four small canyons

containing intermittent streams. Thin, calcareous soils support a small open savannah

immediately north and south of Lime Creek Road which is dominated by Ashe juniper

(Juniperus ashei), plateau live oak (Quercus fusiformis), Post Oak (Quercus stellata) and

King Ranch bluestem (Bothriochloa ischaemum). There are mixed woodlands with a canopy

consisting primarily of Ashe juniper and plateau live oak interspersed mainly with Spanish

Oak (Quercus buckleyi), Shin Oak (Quercus sinuata), and Cedar Elm (Ulmus crassifolia). A

limited variety of deciduous and evergreen understory species are distributed between upland

areas, slopes, and canyon bottoms where plant species diversity increases.

2.3.1 Geology

Baker Sanctuary is primarily on the first member of the Edwards Limestone, a lower

Cretaceous formation described as follows (Rodda 1970):

This unit has an estimated thickness of 200 feet and consists of thin- to thick-bedded, gray-brown porous dolomite and dolomitic limestone, and hard, gray to

13


Cypress Creek Macrosite tan, fine- to medium-grained limestone commonly containing rudists; Gray to black nodular chert is common and is especially abundant in the dolomite beds.

The uplands of the Sanctuary show the essentially flat topography characterizing the

Edwards. Though rock outcrops are rare, a smaller quantity of the Walnut (Bee Cave Marl)

and Upper Glen Rose formations are found exposed in the canyons. Pelecypods characteristic

of the Walnut can be found along the trails (Appendix F). Within the central and southern

portions of the property are two broadly rounded hills that reach elevations of approximately

1,080 feet (Appendix G).

2.3.2 Hydrology

2.3.2.1 Surface water

Located entirely within the Lake Travis watershed, surface hydrology consists of four

intermittent creeks within small valleys or canyons and five known intermittent springs and

seeps, two of which, Baker and Audubon springs, have been documented to support

populations of the threatened Jollyville Plateau salamander. When flowing, Harris Creek,

located in the northern portion of the Sanctuary, flows north into Lime Creek along the

northern boundary of the Sanctuary. Lime Creek, when flowing, drains into the Sandy Creek

arm of Lake Travis. Baker, Kutac, and Hatfield creeks, three small, ephemeral headwater

tributaries of Cypress Creek, are found in the southern portion of the Sanctuary. When

flowing, they flow to the southeast and ultimately into the Cypress Creek arm of Lake Travis

(Figure 5).

14


Cypress Creek Macrosite Figure 5. Surface Water Map.

2.3.2.2 Groundwater

Limited information concerning the subsurface hydrology of the Sanctuary exists. In 2007,

Baker Sanctuary participated in a City of Austin sponsored project to delineate the

groundwater flow paths and recharge area of LCRA’s Wheless Spring, adjacent to the

Sanctuary. Baker and Audubon Springs were chosen to monitor likely flow paths from three

injection sites. Rhodamine WT dye was flushed into a karst feature on the Wheless Tract and

was detected in Audubon Spring in the first set of samples collected on August 28, 2007, five

days after injection. However no dye was detected in the water samples or charcoal packs

placed at Baker Spring. The distance from the injection site to Audubon Spring is over 400

meters, giving a minimum groundwater velocity of over three meters/hour. The flow at

Audubon Spring was about 1 liter/minute when the project began but by mid-September flow 15


Cypress Creek Macrosite was almost imperceptible. However, the Rhodamine WT peak at Audubon Spring registered

over 500 intensity units, a very strong reading. The implication of this reading, measured so

soon after injection, is that the dye was carried to the water table by the 6,000 gallons of flush

water, and the flush water created enough gradient to push the dye to Audubon Spring (Shade

et al, 2007). These interim findings confirm that Audubon Spring is connected to adjacent

karst features found on the LCRA Wheless tract. In addition, the short time it took for the

dye to travel from the injection site to Audubon Spring indicates that the karst structure is

probably porous limestone.

2.3.3 Soils

Baker Sanctuary soils consist largely of the Tarrant Association described as “very shallow,

stony, calcareous, clayey soils intermingled with shallow soils overlying limestone” (USDA

1974).

Travis County soil maps indicate small inclusions of Denton silty clay, Speck clay loam, and

Purves silty clay, as well as the Tarrant Association. The small areas of creek side

floodplains contain richer alluvial soils. All soils found there are mixed with fragments of

limestone (Appendix H).

2.3.4 Caves and Subsurface Features

There is an on-going systematic survey (Appendix I) led by Zara Environmental LLC to

document all karst features occurring on the Sanctuary. When the survey is complete, karst

features that have the potential to harbor endangered karst invertebrates will be surveyed by a

qualified entomologist. To date many small karst features have been documented but few, if

any, show much promise to be inhabited by endangered karst invertebrates (Figure 6).

16


Cypress Creek Macrosite Figure 6. Extent of Karst Surveys at Baker Sanctuary.

2.4 Biological Characteristics

2.4.1 Vegetation

More than 80% of the Sanctuary is covered, in varying densities, with mature, mixed

woodlands of Ashe juniper, plateau live oak and assorted evergreen and deciduous canopy

and understory species. While Ashe juniper is a component in virtually all of the property’s

woodlands, deciduous and evergreen species’ abundance and distribution varies by site and

elevation.

Woody species in uplands are primarily Ashe juniper, plateau live oak, cedar elm, Spanish

oak, shin oak, Texas persimmon (Diospyros texana) and agarita (Berberis trifoliata). Trees 17


Cypress Creek Macrosite and shrubs typical of uplands are found in small upland forest openings composed mainly of

native and non-native midgrasses, prickly pear cactus (Opuntia sp.), and twist-leaf yucca

(Yucca rupicola). Communities found on canyon slopes contain the aforementioned species

with additional small trees and shrubs, including redbud (Cercis canadensis), wafer ash

(Ptelea trifoliata), Texas ash (Fraxinus texensis), Lindheimer’s silktassel (Garrya

lindheimeri) and escarpment black cherry (Prunus serotina).

Approximately 10% to 15% of the Sanctuary lies in creek side riparian areas that are

particularly species-rich. In addition to Ashe juniper and oaks, these areas demonstrate the

widest diversity of plant species, such as sycamore (Platanus occidentalis), American

beautyberry (Callicarpa americana), rusty blackhaw (Viburnum rufidulum) and walnut

(Juglans sp.). Numerous other trees, shrubs, vines, forbs, and grass-like species are to be

found on the creek sides.

Approximately 5% to 10% of the Sanctuary is open savannah. Located primarily to the north

and south of Lime Creek Road in the center of the Sanctuary, this area hosts the JAEC site

and the on-site Steward’s residence. Grasses found here include native midgrasses and short

grasses such as little bluestem (Schizachyrium scoparium), Texas grama (Bouteloua

rigidiseta), and Buffalograss (Buchloe dactyloides) as well as invasive species characterized

by King Ranch bluestem and Bermudagrass (Cynodon dactylon). Ashe juniper, plateau live

oak, post oak (Quercus stellata), prickly pear, a variety of wildflower species, and common

non-native weeds such as Malta star-thistle (Centaurea melitensis), pin clover (Erodium

cicutarium) and common mullein (Verbascum thapsus) are typical for this area. Several very

limited areas of mixed deciduous shrub lands with no trees occur on less than 10% of the

property.

A Checklist of Vascular Plants of Baker Sanctuary was completed in 1996 and is available

upon request.

2.4.2 Animal Species

A compilation of a complete account of the vertebrate species found at the Sanctuary has not

yet been undertaken but it is assumed any such list would be consistent with what has been

recorded in Travis County and on other BCP tracts, if suitable habitat exists for the species

under consideration. Appendix J lists vertebrate species recorded on BCP tracts and indicates

18


Cypress Creek Macrosite if the species has been observed at Baker Sanctuary. With the exception of the red imported

fire ant (Solenopsis invicta), invertebrate populations at Baker Sanctuary have not yet been

assessed or cataloged in any manner but are assumed to be consistent with what is found in

similar habitat throughout Travis County and the BCP tracts.

2.4.3 Endangered Species and Species of Concern

2.4.3.1 Plants

The Checklist of Vascular Plants of Baker Sanctuary compiled in 1986 -1996 by David

Lyter, Melody Lytle, and W. R. Carr, indicates Baker Sanctuary is not known to harbor a

population of Texabama croton (Croton alabamensis) or canyon mock-orange (Philadelphus

ernestii), the two species of concern named in the BCCP. Bracted twistflower (Streptanthus

bracteatus), while not listed as a species of concern in the BCCP but considered a

conservation priority by the USFWS, is likewise not known to occur at the Sanctuary. Of the

three uncommon plant species identified by BCP partners as conservation targets, Baker

Sanctuary has a small population of coral-root (Hexalectris nitida), a thriving population of

Heller’s marble-seed (Onosmodium helleri) and no known record of Buckley tridens (Tridens

buckleyanus).

A member of the Orchid family, coral-root is an uncommon perennial saprophyte occurring

only in New Mexico and Texas in the United States. Typically found growing in decaying

juniper needle litter, the small (10 – 32 cm) reddish-purple stems will produce flowers from

June – August although central Texas populations are known to be cleistogamous, self-

fertilizing within a permanently closed flower. The only record of coral-root at Baker

Sanctuary comes from the aforementioned Checklist which notes four individuals ‘…on

lower slope on east side of canyon on north side of Lime Creek Road…’ No surveys for

coral-root have been performed since nor have the previously located individuals been re-

visited.

Endemic to Texas, Heller’s marble-seed is an erect to partially reclining perennial whose

greenish-white flowers bloom from March – May. Preferring part-shade and moist

woodlands or stream valleys, an abundance of marble-seed can be found in the North Loop

Trail canyon as well as smaller populations in the canyons south of Lime Creek Road.

19


Cypress Creek Macrosite Similar to the closely related, and more common, false gromwell (Onosmodium bejariense),

Heller’s marble-seed typically has hairy leaves that are glossy, bright green compared to the

dull green of false gromwell. In addition to the difference in leaf color, false gromwell

typically grows in sites receiving more sun than those that support populations of marble-

seed. No formal surveys have been conducted for Heller’s marble-seed but, when discovered,

population locations have been documented.

2.4.3.2 Karst Species

Baker Sanctuary is not known to harbor any of the six endangered or 25 species of concern

karst invertebrates named in the BCCP permit. However, a complete survey for karst features

or survey of known features has not been completed to date.

2.4.3.3 Amphibians

While not listed as conservation target in the BCCP permit, the Jollyville Plateau salamander

(JPS) has since been listed as a threatened species by the USFWS and become a conservation

priority for BCP partners. The JPS is a neotenic species, endemic to springs, headwater

streams, and caves in Travis and Williamson counties. During drought conditions refuge is

taken within the aquifer but subsurface resources appear to be limited. The absence of eggs

discovered in surface habitats suggests egg deposition and development occurs in subsurface

habitats. Little is known regarding its life history. Baker Sanctuary harbors a population at

Baker Spring and Audubon Spring (Figure 7), both located south of Lime Creek Road near

the Baker Springs Trail. As more springs are discovered and surveyed, additional populations

may be documented.

20


Cypress Creek Macrosite Figure 7. Jollyville Plateau Salamander USFWS Designated Critical Habitat.

2.4.3.4 Birds

Two endangered species are listed in the BCCP permit, the black-capped vireo and the

golden-cheeked warbler. While occasional, unconfirmed reports of black-capped vireos have

surfaced at the Sanctuary over the years, they have never been known to breed at the

Sanctuary. While it is possible small areas of suitable habitat may exist near the northwest

and northeast borders of the Sanctuary, no systematic survey has been undertaken to identify

and survey the indicated areas.

Baker Sanctuary supports a large breeding population of golden-cheeked warblers (GCWA).

The GCWA is a medium-sized wood warbler whose winter range encompasses southern

Mexico through Central America. During the breeding season, this neo-tropical migrant nests

21


Cypress Creek Macrosite exclusively in central Texas, giving it the distinction of being the only endemic nesting bird

known for the state. Preferred habitat for GCWA is old-growth or mature regrowth juniper-

oak woodlands associated with the canyons and hills typical of the Hill Country. Shredded

bark from mature Ashe juniper is bound together with cobwebs and used as a scaffold to

support the construction of the remainder of the nest. The breeding season typically lasts

from March through early July with the occasional second brood. Foraging primarily in the

upper canopy of the dominant tree species, GCWA capture a variety of arthropod prey,

including soft-bodied caterpillars, insects, and spiders. Departing early for their wintering

grounds compared with many neo-tropical migrants, most GCWAs begin their journey south

by mid-July. Results from the 2012 100-acre survey (Appendix K) suggest the Sanctuary

may have a total of 65 - 70 breeding pairs but, due to the nature of the survey, the number is,

at best, a fairly loose approximation.

3.0 MANAGEMENT PROGRAM

The TAS Management Program is designed to achieve suitable protective measures while

encouraging compatible educational use. The Management Program will discuss current and

proposed future activities for the Sanctuary and provide an analysis of the impact of these

activities on the Sanctuary and on the endangered species and species of concern located

therein. This Management Program will also identify the resources which will be needed for

these activities.

3.1 Plan Administration

The TAS Board of Directors, the Executive Director and the Sanctuary Steward will

administrate participation in the Balcones Canyonlands Preserve and the management of the

Sanctuary. Since the Sanctuary has always been managed as a wildlife preserve, compliance

with the rules and the spirit of the BCCP has always been, and will continue to be, a part of

this Sanctuary’s administration and management.

3.1.1 Description of Managing Entity with Authority and Mission

Travis Audubon Society is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization whose mission is to promote

the enjoyment, understanding and conservation of native birds and their habitats. Travis

Audubon Society’s managing authority derives from free and clear ownership of the

22


Cypress Creek Macrosite approximately 692.30-acre Sanctuary. The Sanctuary is managed as a wildlife preserve with

emphasis on conservation of the endangered golden-cheeked warbler. The Sanctuary Steward

makes management decisions with oversight by the TAS Executive Director and Board of

Directors.

3.1.2 Staffing

The only staff member associated with the management of Baker Sanctuary is the on-site

Steward, whose responsibilities are detailed in the Baker Sanctuary Steward Job Description

(Appendix L).

3.1.3 Inventory of Equipment

An inventory list is updated as new purchases are made. The inventory list is maintained by

the Sanctuary Steward and a copy is kept in the TAS office.

3.1.4 Funding

3.1.4.1 Current funding

Funding for managing the Sanctuary is derived from the TAS general operations fund.

Additional funding for youth education programming that occurs at the Sanctuary is obtained

from a variety of grants and fund drives.

3.1.4.2 Resources Needed in the Future

• Salary and Benefits: It is anticipated that the Steward, currently paid a stipend, will be placed on salary and provided benefits.

• Infrastructure: It is anticipated that a new Steward’s residence, office space, storage space, classroom and public restrooms will be constructed in the JAEC site to facilitate management and educational activities.

• Surveys: A complete, 692-acre survey to determine the distribution, abundance and productivity of golden-cheeked warblers at the Sanctuary has never been undertaken but is necessary to guide future management decisions.

• Youth Education Programming: It is anticipated that the current youth education programming will be expanded with a corresponding need for an increase in funding.

3.1.5 Interagency Cooperation, Management Contracts, and Other Agreements

Travis Audubon Society has been a voluntary Managing Partner with the Balcones

Canyonlands Coordinating Committee, by which the Sanctuary participates in the Balcones

23


Cypress Creek Macrosite Canyonlands Conservation Plan. A Managing Partner Agreement is currently being

negotiated with Travis County to formalize Travis Audubon Society’s role and partnership

responsibilities in the Balcones Canyonlands Preserve.

An agreement between TCEQ and TAS concerns the placement of an ambient air monitoring

station on the Sanctuary. The agreement expired in 2001 but the station remains.

3.1.6 Annual Reports

An annual report detailing management activities is written by the Steward and submitted to

the Coordinating Committee through Travis County BCP staff. The TAS Executive Director

receives an annual report directly from the Steward.

3.2 Management Plan

The Open Standards for the Practice of Conservation (Open Standards) were developed by

the Conservation Measures Partnership and were utilized to draft this Management Plan.

Some partners of The Conservation Measures Partnership include the following:

• National Audubon Society • The Nature Conservancy • World Wildlife Fund • Foundations of Success • Conservation International • Wildlife Conservation Society • Global Institute of Sustainability / ASU • National Fish and Wildlife Foundation • Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies • African Wildlife Foundation • University of Maryland • Virginia Technical University • Monterey Institute of International Studies • Organization for Tropical Studies

The Open Standards, which fully support the guidelines of the BCCP, are an adaptive

management approach for the design, management and monitoring of conservation projects

in an effort to improve the practice of conservation. Adaptive management provides a

method for making more informed decisions about strategies, testing the effectiveness of

strategies used, and learning and adapting to improve strategies.

24


Cypress Creek Macrosite The steps followed and described below are taken from the Training Manual developed by

Foundations of Success, http://www.fosonline.org/ and from

https://miradi.org/openstandards.

Step One: Create a Core Team. The Core Team is a group of people responsible

for designing and managing the conservation project. The Baker Core Team, created in 2010,

consists of the following:

1. Christopher Murray, Baker Sanctuary Steward 2. Nancy Manning, Travis Audubon Society Executive Director 3. Clif Ladd, Wildlife Biologist for Bowman Consulting, Travis Audubon Board

of Directors 4. Bill Reiner, Wildlife Biologist, City of Austin 5. Cindy Sperry, Wildlife Biologist, City of Austin 6. Laura Zebehazy, Wildlife Biologist for Bowman Consulting 7. Aime Treuer-Kuehn, Botanist, Texas Parks and Wildlife Department

Step Two: Define the Scope of the Conservation Project, either geographic or

thematic. The team chose a geographic scope, which encompasses efforts to conserve or

manage ecoregions, priority areas, or protected areas. The geographic scope of this

conservation project is Baker Sanctuary.

Step Three: Define the Vision. The vision is the ultimate condition the project is

working to achieve.

Vision statement: To protect and enhance habitat to facilitate recovery of populations of target endangered and threatened species while expanding opportunities for public education and community engagement.

Step Four: Define the Conservation Targets. When planning and monitoring

conservation projects, conservation targets can represent the overall biodiversity at a site.

This helps the team to focus efforts and resources and more easily assess whether their

conservation efforts are effective over the long term. Targets can be ecosystems or species.

Targets chosen:

Golden-cheeked Warbler Jollyville Plateau Salamander Karst Invertebrates Juniper / Oak Woodland Headquarters Envelope of 40 acres (Appendix M)

25

http://www.fosonline.org/

https://miradi.org/openstandards


Cypress Creek Macrosite Step Five: Identify Key Ecological Attributes (KEA) for each target. KEAs “are

aspects of a target’s biology or ecology that if present, define a healthy target and if missing

or altered, would lead to the outright loss or extreme degradation of that target over time.”

KEAs are measures. KEAs chosen by the team are “condition” and/or “size.” “Condition is

a measure of the biological composition, structure and biotic interactions that characterize the

space in which the target occurs. Size is a measure of the area of the conservation target’s

occurrence or abundance of the target’s occurrence.” Indicators of the KEAs can also be

chosen for easier measurement (Figure 8).

Figure 8. KEAs and Indicators by Targets.

Golden-cheeked Warbler

Jollyville Plateau Salamander

Karst Invertebrates

Juniper/Oak Woodland

Headquarters Envelope

KEA Size Condition & Size

Size Condition Condition

Indicator Population Size

Water Quality & Water Quantity

Oak to Juniper ratio & Closed Canopy to Open Canopy

Native v. non native

Step Six: Conduct a Viability Assessment. A viability assessment determines the

current health of your target. This status is what allows the team to set goals for the health of

the target and to measure the health of the target over time. The viability assessment (Figure

9) includes a rating scale of acceptable ranges of variation:

Very good – Ecologically desirable status; requires little intervention for

maintenance.

Good – Indicator within acceptable range of variation; some intervention

required for maintenance.

Fair – Outside acceptable range of variation; requires human intervention.

Poor- Restoration increasingly difficult; may result in extirpation of target.

26


Cypress Creek Macrosite Figure 9. June 2013 Viability Assessment.

Indicator Ratings Target KEAs Indicator Poor Fair Good Very

Good Current Status

Current Rating

Desired Rating

Golden-cheeked Warbler

Size Population Size

<40 Individuals

40 - 65 Individuals

66 - 90 Individuals

>90 Individuals

75 Estimated Individuals

Good Very Good

Jollyville Plateau Salamander

Size Surface Population Size

? < 2 Individuals

2-5 Individuals

? 2-4 Estimated Individuals

Good Very Good

Karst Invertebrates

Size Population Size

? ? ? ? Unknown


Condition Ratio of Oak to Juniper

100% Juniper

10% Oak to 90% Juniper




Fair Good


Condition Ratio of Closed to Open Canopy

<70% Closed to <30% Open

70% Closed to 30% Open




Good Very Good


Condition Ratio of Native to Non-native Grasses

<20% Native

20- 60% Native

61-90% Native

> 90% Native

80% Non-native; 20% Native.

Fair Good


Condition Ratio of Native to Non-native Woody Species

<20% Native

20-60% Native

60-90% Native

>90% Native

100% Native

Very Good

Very Good

Step Seven: Identify Direct and Indirect threats to the Conservation Targets.

Direct threats are primarily human activities that immediately affect a conservation target,

but they can be natural phenomena altered by human activities or natural phenomena whose

impact is increased by other human activities. Threats were chosen by the team using the

IUCN-CMP Unified Classifications of Direct Threats (available through:

http://conservationmeasures.org/CMP/IUCN/Site_Page.cfm). An indirect threat leads to the

direct threat and can be an economic, political, institutional, social or cultural influence.

** See threats described for individual targets, below.

Step Eight. Develop Goals for each Conservation Target. The desired future state of

the species, ecosystem, or habitat target you wish to conserve.

** See goals described for individual targets, below.

27

http://conservationmeasures.org/CMP/IUCN/Site_Page.cfm


Cypress Creek Macrosite Step Nine: Develop strategies. Actions with a common focus that work together to

reduce threats, capitalize on opportunities, or restore natural systems. Strategies are designed

to achieve specific objectives and goals.

**See strategies described for individual targets, below.

Step Ten. Develop Objectives. : An objective describes the desired future state of a

threat, which aids the team to reach its target goals.

**See objectives described for individual targets, below.

Step Eleven. Develop Monitoring Plan. Monitoring is the periodic process of

gathering data related to the project goals and objectives.

**See Monitoring Plans described for individual targets, below.

3.2.1 Species Management

3.2.1.1 Golden-cheeked warbler. Goal: To maintain the GCWA population at an estimated

75 individuals throughout the term of this five year management plan.

3.2.1.1.1 Direct Threats: Invasive (native and non-native) & Other Problematic Species.

To control undesirable animal species that may interfere with the successful nesting and

breeding of the GCWA, the following strategies will be utilized:

3.2.1.1.1.1 Brown-headed cowbirds (BHCO) are a nest parasite. Instead of building nests

and raising their own brood, the BHCO lay their eggs in the nests of other species to be

raised, usually to the detriment, by the host species. GCWA are a documented host species

for BHCO.

• Indirect threat: BHCO populations have significantly increased due to clearing of juniper / oak woodlands for grazing and development.

Strategy 1.1: The Steward, under a permit granted by TPWD, traps and removes

BHCOs during GCWA breeding season. See Appendix N for the BHCO trapping protocol.

Objective 1.1: Capture and euthanize all cowbirds present at the Sanctuary during

each GCWA breeding season. 28


Cypress Creek Macrosite Monitoring Plan 1.1: The Steward will keep a count of all captured of BHCO and

provide a report to the TAS Executive Director and the TPWD at the end each BHCO

trapping season.

3.2.1.1.1.2 Red imported fire ants (RIFA), an aggressive invasive species from South

America, are an infrequent yet documented GCWA nest predator.

• Indirect threat: Disturbed soils caused by development and/or trails are ideal habitat for the RIFA. The spread of RIFA can be accelerated at the Wildland/Urban Interface (WUI) due to the presence of maintained lawns and the illegal disposal of yard waste on Sanctuary property.

Strategy 1.1: Boil RIFA mounds, as practical.

Objective 1.1: To remove or depress RIFA mounds and activity in sensitive areas.

Monitoring Plan 1.1: The Steward will document all removals of RIFA mounds to

be compiled and submitted in the annual TAS report.

3.2.1.1.1.3 Native predators, such as the Western scrub jay (Aphelocoma californica), blue

jay ( Cyanocitta cristata) and Texas rat snake (Elaphe obsolete) are known nest predators.

The extent of GCWA predation at the Sanctuary by native predators is currently unknown.

• Indirect Threat: Habitat modification can create a more hospitable environment for native predators.

Strategy 1.1: Encourage research on native predators to determine if reduction of

selected predator populations is necessary, possible and practical.

Objective 1.1: By 2018, to create and distribute a request for native predator research

to local universities.

Monitoring Plan 1.1: To be determined upon completion of native predator research.

3.2.1.1.1.4 Feral and domestic cats are known nest predators and dogs can cause

disturbance during the GCWA breeding season. The extent of predation at the Sanctuary on

GCWA by cats and disturbance by dogs are both unknown.

• Indirect Threat: 1. Illegal disposal of unwanted pets on the Sanctuary. 2. At the WUI, cats are not confined indoors and can roam through the

29


Cypress Creek Macrosite Sanctuary. 3. Feral cat colonies may be maintained in the Deer Creek Ranch neighborhood adjacent to the Sanctuary.

Strategy 1.1: Remove feral and domesticated cats and dogs when, and if, feasible.

When cats or dogs are captured on the Sanctuary an effort will be made to return them to

their owner, if possible. For animals identified as feral or for whom an owner cannot be

located, the Steward will turn the animal over to Travis County’s Animal Control.

Objective 1.1: To reduce the number of feral and domesticated cats and dogs

occurring on the Sanctuary.

Monitoring Plan 1.1: The on-site steward will document all sightings and removals.

3.2.1.1.2 Direct Threats: Wildfire.

To address wildfire risk and response the Steward submitted a Wildfire Management Plan

(Appendix O) to the BCP Coordinating Committee in 2002. Early detection of ignitions is

the key to effective control of wildfire. Controlled burns have been utilized in the past to

reduce hazardous fuels; however there are no plans to conduct controlled burns at the

Sanctuary in the near future. Upon approval of the City / County Best Management Practices

for Fuel Mitigation in BCP Land, the Baker Core Team will decide how to best implement

the recommended strategies.

• Indirect threats: 1. Urban interface, including traffic on Lime Creek Road. 2. History of fire suppression and trail maintenance causing a build-up of flammable slash. 3. Increase in snags and grasses due to recent drought.

Strategy 1.1: Urban interface. The Steward will walk the southern fence line every

other month and the northern fence line every quarter, looking for WUI-generated hazardous

fuels. If an adjacent homeowner appears to be responsible for the fuel build-up, the fuels in

question will be “returned” to the homeowner’s yard, if possible. The Steward will send a

certified letter, with a digital copy also sent to the homeowner’s association, requesting that

the homeowner cease illegally dumping yard waste or trash on the Sanctuary. In the event

that the homeowner will not cooperate, the Steward will notify the Executive Director who

will decide on an appropriate action to pursue.

30


Cypress Creek Macrosite Objective 1.1: To decrease the quantity of hazardous fuels, in the form of trash and

yard waste, dumped onto the Sanctuary.

Monitoring Plan 1.1: The Steward will document hazardous fuel locations, if not

removed, and any communications with neighbors with regard to illegal dumping. This

information will be provided to the TAS Executive Director monthly.

Strategy 1.2: Lime Creek Road corridor. The Steward will walk the Lime Creek

Road fence line to remove trash once per quarter. Dead trees in the Lime Creek Road

corridor will be removed each year during the GCWA non-breeding season, September –

February. If a small roadside fire occurs in the Lime Creek Road corridor, the Steward will

call 911 and then attempt to suppress the fire with the Sanctuary fire-fighting equipment, if

safe to do so.

Objective 1.2: To decrease the quantity of flammable fuels in the Lime Creek Road

corridor.

Monitoring Plan 1.2: Steward will maintain records of trash and dead trees removed,

which will be reported monthly (tree removal) and quarterly (trash removal) to the TAS

Executive Director.

Strategy 1.3: Flammable slash. Slash will be chipped and mulched as practical.

Objective 1.3: To decrease the quantity of flammable fuels in the Sanctuary.

Monitoring Plan 1.3: Steward will maintain records of quantities of flammable

materials removed and report to the TAS Executive Director monthly.

Strategy 1.4: Snags. Upon approval of the City / County Best Management Practices

for Fuel Mitigation in BCP Land, and when practical, snags will be selectively removed from

fire prone areas. Allow natural re-vegetation in grassy areas.

Objective 1.4: To decrease the quantity of flammable fuels in the Sanctuary.

Monitoring Plan 1.4: To be determined.

3.2.1.1.3 Direct Threats: Human Intrusions & Disturbance – Recreational Activities

While TAS does not allow harassment of the golden-cheeked warbler, or other wildlife, at

any time, it is possible the recreational and educational value of viewing the warbler may

31


Cypress Creek Macrosite conflict with the needs of the golden-cheeked warbler during its breeding season, March –

August. Of particular concern is unintentional disturbance, i.e. flushing a bird from a perch,

which may result from use of the public hiking trails.

• Indirect threat: Visitor Access during golden-cheeked warbler breeding season.

Strategy 1.1: Access to the Sanctuary is available, from sunrise to sunset, to

members and their guests only for bird watching, nature viewing and special events subject

to the Baker Sanctuary Regulations (Appendix C).

Objective 1.1: To limit access to TAS members and approved guests only.

Monitoring Plan 1.1: Sign-in sheets are used to provide monthly visitor details to the

TAS Executive Director on a monthly basis.

Strategy 1.2: The Sanctuary is available to the public for nature study, guided

educational hikes and classes, all of which are supervised by TAS members or staff.

Objective 1.2: To increase public awareness, education and appreciation of central

Texas flora and fauna while ensuring the welfare of the golden-cheeked warbler by providing

a minimum of two guided hikes, two school programs and two outreach events per annum.

Monitoring Plan 1.2: Annually, the Steward will provide to the TAS Executive

Director a report detailing curriculum and attendance for all educational events.

3.2.1.2 Jollyville Plateau salamander. Goal: To maintain current surface populations in

Baker Spring and confirm the presence of JPS in Audubon Spring.

3.2.1.2.1 Direct Threats: Reduction of water quantity (drought and urban housing and

development) and quality (pollution and sedimentation).

• Indirect threats: 1. It is assumed that development activities near the Sanctuary have the potential to draw water out of the aquifer used by the JPS. 2. Climate change caused by human activity can lead to drought and limited surface flow in the springs. 3. Urban housing and development in close proximity to the Sanctuary has the potential to pollute the aquifer. 4. Wildfire induced erosion has the potential to increase sediment loads in the springs.

32


Cypress Creek Macrosite Strategy 1.1: Design outreach strategy to educate neighbors on the impact of

pollution, particularly the use of herbicides and pesticides, on the JPS.

Objective 1.1: To maintain water quality and quantity at Baker and Audubon Springs

conducive to supporting thriving populations of JPS.

Monitoring Plan 1.1: In partnership with the City of Austin and when surface flow

allows, the Steward will continue to monitor the water quality and JPS surface population in

Baker Spring.

Strategy 1.2: The Steward will contact City of Austin herpetologists to assist in an

Audubon Spring JPS census.

Objective 1.2: To determine JPS surface population size in Audubon Spring by 2018.

Monitoring Plan 1.2: In conjunction with the City of Austin, the Steward will survey

Audubon Spring at least twice per year, surface flow permitting, for the presence of JPS.

Strategy 1.3: See Wildfire Strategies in section 3.2.1.1.2.

Objective 1.3: See Wildfire Objectives in section 3.2.1.1.2.

Monitoring Plan 1.3: See Wildfire Monitoring Plans in section 3.2.1.1.2.

3.2.1.3 Black-capped vireo.

TAS will continue to record and investigate sightings of the black-capped vireo (BCVI) at

the Sanctuary. However, since potential BCVI habitat on the Sanctuary is limited, no

management of BCVI habitat is being considered at the present time.

3.2.1.4 Karst invertebrates

A karst features survey is on-going, led by Zara Environmental LLC (see section 2.3.4). TAS

will record the location of all karst features discovered on the Sanctuary but will keep the

locations out of the public record. If any endangered karst invertebrates are found, TAS will

adopt strategies, objectives and monitoring plans in line with BCCP guidelines to protect and

limit activities near those locations.

3.2.1.5 Species of concern

The only species of concern known to occur at the Sanctuary are Heller’s marbleseed and

coral-root (see section 2.4.3). TAS will continue to monitor for the presence of additional

33


Cypress Creek Macrosite species of concern (SOC) indicated in the BCCP and record the location of any SOC found

on the Sanctuary. If SOC are discovered, TAS will protect and limit activities near those

locations in line with BCCP guidelines.

3.2.1.5.1 Heller’s marbleseed. Goal: To protect Heller’s marbleseed populations that occur

near trails.

3.2.1.5.1.1 Direct Threats: Human Intrusions & Disturbance.

Populations occurring near trails are at risk for being accidently trampled by visitors.

• Indirect threat: Visitor Access.

Strategy 1.1: Fence at-risk plants and install signage to educate and caution visitors.

Objective 1.1: To prevent trailside Heller’s marbleseed from being accidentally

trodden upon.

Monitoring Plan 1.1: The Steward will continue to document at-risk plant locations,

fencing and signage and provide an annual report to the TAS Executive Director.

3.2.2 Tract Management

3.2.2.1 Vegetation Management

Maintaining a flourishing environment of native central Texas flora is essential to providing

a range of high quality habitats that will support a diversity of native fauna, particularly the

golden-cheeked warbler. To provide a high quality breeding habitat for the golden-cheeked

warbler, the juniper/oak woodlands will be managed and maintained in a state indicated by

current research to best meet their needs.

Goal: The ratio of oak to juniper will be approximately 30% oak to 70% juniper by 2065 and

the ratio of closed canopy to open will be maintained at current levels of 80% closed to 20%

open.


• Indirect threat: Transference of invasive seeds and/or plants by wildlife, water, wind and human activity.

34


Cypress Creek Macrosite 3.2.2.1.1.1 Invasive woody plants are found scattered throughout the Sanctuary, most likely

spread primarily by wildlife. The non-native invasives heavenly bamboo (Nandina

domestica), privet (Ligustrum sp.) and chinaberry (Melia azedarach) typically occur singly

on the Sanctuary while tree-of-heaven (Ailanthus altissima), jujube (Ziziphus zizyphus) and

common fig (Ficus carica) occur in denser patches.

Strategy 1.1: For Nandina and privet, hand and mechanical methods will be utilized

to manage these non-native invasive woody plants. If mechanical means are necessary to

remove the plant, no action will be undertaken until the GCWA non-breeding season,

September – February.

Objective 1.1: To remove 100% of all existing and newly detected species on a

yearly basis.

Monitoring 1.1: The Steward will document the location, amount and the species of

invasive plants removed at time of removal and monitor removal sites for re-growth. The

Steward will submit an annual report to the TAS Executive Director.

Strategy 1.2: For chinaberry, tree-of-heaven, jujube and common fig, hand and

mechanical methods will be utilized to manage these non-native invasive woody plants. If

mechanical means are necessary to remove the plant, no action will be undertaken until the

GCWA non-breeding season, September – February. Due to the well-established nature of

the patches and the plants’ propensity to re-sprout, additional chemical methods may be

applied in compliance with BCCP guidelines.

Objective 1.2: Remove 100% of all existing and newly detected species by 2018.

Monitoring Plan 1.2: The Steward will document the location, amount and the

species of invasive plants removed at time of removal and monitor removal sites for re-

growth. The Steward will submit an annual report to the TAS Executive Director.

Strategy 1.3: Design an education and outreach strategy regarding non-native

invasive plants, including impact assessments, targeting adjacent homeowners.

Objective 1.3: To design and deliver the education and outreach strategy by 2018.

Monitoring Plan 1.3: The Steward will document outreach and education events and

measure impact.

35


Cypress Creek Macrosite 3.2.2.1.1.2 Whitetail deer are native browsers which forage on understory plant growth

(deciduous and evergreen seedlings and shrubs) in addition to acorns, fungi, grass, and herbs,

in season. Over-browsing may suppress the abundance and distribution of tree and shrub

species in plant communities preferred by GCWA, particularly by suppressing the

regeneration of various oak species. The feral hog (Sus scrofa) is a non-native invasive

species introduced from Europe which occurs in low numbers at the Sanctuary. An

opportunistic omnivore, hogs prefer to root in moist bottomlands, causing significant soil

disturbance, destruction of native plant species and possibly the spread of invasive non-

native seeds.

• Indirect threat: 1. Natural predators and parasites of whitetail deer have been reduced by human activity while more browse has been made available through gardens and development. 2. A deed restriction that prohibits hunting of whitetail deer on the Hatfield tract may affect control measures. 3. Purposeful damage to high deer fencing and fencing gaps allow whitetail deer and hogs to enter the Sanctuary.

Strategy 1.1: Reduce on-site whitetail deer browse pressure on woodland species by

granting seven annual rifle hunting leases.

Objective 1.1: Hunters will invest a minimum total of 120 hunt hours per whitetail

deer season.

Monitoring Plan 1.1: The Steward will collect hunter-generated harvest data

indicating general health, gender, and approximate age of the harvested animals and submit

an annual report to the TAS Executive Director. An annual deer census will be conducted, if

and when feasible.

Strategy 1.2: When hog rooting is detected, live cage traps will be set and any feral

hogs captured will be euthanized. Hunters are instructed to harvest all hogs encountered on

their lease.

Objective 1.2: When detected, eliminate all feral hogs from the Sanctuary.

Monitoring Plan 1.2: Hunter generated data will include any feral hogs harvested

and trapped hogs will be documented by the Steward. The Steward will submit an annual

report to the TAS Executive Director.

36


Cypress Creek Macrosite Strategy 1.3: When practical and possible, cage volunteer oak seedlings to protect

from browsing. Selectively thin, if necessary, vegetation within the immediate vicinity of the

caged seedlings to allow an optimum amount of sunlight to enter. Trimmed vegetation will

be selected based on density of species, proximity to the caged seedling and will not reduce

canopy cover.

Objective 1.3: To protect and encourage growth of oak trees, especially Spanish and

shin oak, 30 oaks will be caged per year through 2018. Former oak caging efforts have

focused on trailside individuals so the new initiative will concentrate on oaks found in the

Sanctuary interior.

Monitoring Plan 1.3: The Steward will document locations of all caged seedlings

and measure the height and diameter of the caged seedlings on a yearly basis. The Steward

will submit an annual report to the TAS Executive Director.

Strategy 1.4: The high deer fencing around the perimeter of the Sanctuary will be

kept in good repair to keep whitetail deer and hogs out. The occasional escaped domestic

browser such as cattle and goats are excluded by the fencing as well.

Objective 1.4: To maintain fence integrity.

Monitoring Plan 1.4: The Steward will walk the south fence perimeter every other

month and the north high deer fence every two months. Any damage or repairs will be

documented.

Strategy 1.5: Complete high deer fencing along the perimeter of the Sanctuary’s

Ruth Fredericksen tract.

Objective 1.5: To complete the Ruth Fredericksen tract’s high deer fencing by 2018.

Monitoring Plan 1.5: A Monitoring Plan is not applicable for this Strategy.

Strategy 1.6: Letters informing neighbors of the purpose of the Sanctuary and its

fencing will be mailed one time every two years to adjacent homeowners in the Deer Creek

Ranch subdivision.

Objective 1.6: To raise awareness of the need for fencing and reduce disregard for

private property.

37


Cypress Creek Macrosite Monitoring Plan 1.6: To help determine the effectiveness of the communication, an

online survey link will be added to the letters, coupled with an incentive to participate in the

survey.

3.2.2.1.1.3 Oak Wilt, which is caused by the fungus Ceratocystis fagacearum, is a fungal

infection that can rapidly spread between and kill plateau live oaks, an important foraging

substrate for the GCWA. To infect a plateau live oak, a fresh, open wound must be present in

which the fungal spores can enter the host oak. Open wounds occur naturally when a branch

breaks or can be human-induced during the process of limb trimming.

• Indirect threat: 1. Oak wilt spores can spread over long distances through sap-feeding nitidulid beetles, an insect vector. 2. Fungal mats in infected cut firewood may also spread the disease to new areas. 3. Locally, the disease may be transmitted from infected oaks to adjacent healthy oaks through root grafts or common root systems.

Strategy 1.1: The Steward will be vigilant for any occurrence of oak wilt and consult

with the BCP Coordinating Committee and USFWS with regard to appropriate treatment if

oak wilt is discovered.

Objective 1.1: If oak wilt is discovered, to stop and contain the threat immediately.

Monitoring Plan 1.1: To be determined.

Strategy 1.2: The Steward will restrict the trimming of oaks to the periods of July -

September and November – January, when fungal spore transmission rates are at their

lowest. Whenever an oak is trimmed, the Steward will immediately apply pruning sealant to

the tree wound and treat the saw blade with Lysol or a bleach solution.

Objective 1.2: To prevent the transmission of oak wilt.

Monitoring Plan 1.2: The Steward will submit an annual report to the TAS Executive

Director summarizing when, where and why vegetation was trimmed.

Strategy 1.3: Information on oak wilt and how to reduce its spread will be included in

the letter sent to adjacent Deer Creek Ranch home owners every two years.

Objective 1.4: To raise awareness of how and when oak wilt is spread and to decrease

the possibility of oak wilt spreading from the WUI into the Sanctuary. 38


Cypress Creek Macrosite Monitoring Plan 1.4: To help determine the effectiveness of the communication, an

online survey link will be added to the letters, coupled with an incentive to participate in the

survey.

3.2.2.2 Headquarters Tract

Approximately forty acres containing the JAEC, old Baker cabin, windmill, historical

cemetery, steward’s residence, outbuildings and sheds, and proposed location of a new

steward’s residence, classroom and other infrastructure necessary for the effective

management of the Sanctuary (Figures 2 and 3). The Headquarters area (HQ) is open

savannah and not suitable habitat for the golden-cheeked warbler for nesting. This area

contains a number of valued native plant species, particular prairie species.

Goal: To preserve native woody vegetation in the HQ to at least 95% native species and to

restore selected areas of native prairie in the HQ to at least 60% native species by 2025.


• Indirect Threat: Transference of invasive seeds and/or plants by wildlife, water, wind and human activity.

3.2.2.2.1.1 Invasive non-woody plants are prevalent in the HQ due to a long history of

human habitation and modification of the area. Over the last three years, work has been

initiated to remove some of the more noxious invasive species in an effort to increase the

native diversity of the HQ site and to prevent the invasives from spreading to other areas of

the Sanctuary.

Strategy 1.1: For Malta star-thistle in the steward’s residence site, parking lot, and

nearby field, hand methods will primarily be utilized to manage this non-native invasive

plant. The Steward will use chemical methods only as a last resort and in compliance with

BCCP guidelines. All plants will be disposed of off-site.

Objective 1.1: To eradicate MAST populations at the current steward’s residence

site, parking lot, and nearby field by 2018 (Figure 10).

39


Cypress Creek Macrosite Figure 10. Steward’s Residence Site MAST Eradication Zones.

Monitoring Plan 1.1: The Steward will quantify and document the amount of MAST

removed, in cubic yards, and conduct weekly visual surveys throughout the early spring and

summer to detect and remove additional MAST. An annual report will be submitted to the

TAS Executive Director.

Strategy 1.2: For Malta star-thistle in the JAEC site, hand methods will primarily be

utilized to manage this non-native invasive plant. The Steward will use chemical methods

only as a last resort and in compliance with BCCP guidelines. MAST that is not removed via

hand methods will be mowed before the plant goes to seed with a mower designated for such

activity only. All clippings and plants will be disposed of off-site.

Objective 1.2: To decrease and contain the population of malt star-thistle at the JAEC

site (Figure 11) by 25% by 2018.

40


Cypress Creek Macrosite Figure 11. JAEC Site MAST Control and Containment Zones.

Monitoring Plan 1.1: The Steward will quantify and document the amount of MAST

removed, in cubic yards, and conduct weekly visual surveys throughout the early spring and

summer to detect and remove additional MAST. An annual report will be submitted to the

TAS Executive Director.

Strategy 1.3: Common horehound (Marrubium vulgare), a non-native invasive, is

currently thought to be extirpated from the JAEC site. If resurgence is noted, hand methods

will be utilized to manage this species. All plants will be disposed of off-site.

Objective 1.3: To maintain current control of common horehound.

Monitoring Plan 1.3: Beginning in the early spring and throughout the early summer,

the Steward will perform weekly visual surveys in formerly documented areas of infestation

and remove all plants detected. The Steward will quantify and document the amount of

common horehound removed. An annual report will be submitted to the TAS Executive

Director.

41


Cypress Creek Macrosite Strategy 1.4: Common mullein, a non-native invasive, is found primarily in the JAEC

site but also scattered lightly throughout the Steward’s residence site. Hand methods will be

utilized to manage this species. All plants will be disposed of off-site.

Objective 1.4: To eradicate the common mullein population at the Sanctuary by 2028.

Monitoring Plan 1.4: Beginning in the early spring and throughout the early summer,

the Steward will perform weekly visual surveys in the areas of infestation and remove all

plants detected. The Steward will quantify and document the amount of common mullein

removed. An annual report will be submitted to the TAS Executive Director.

Strategy 1.5: Prickly pear, a native invasive species, flourishes in the open, disturbed

soils of the JAEC site. To avoid potential conflict between educational activities and the

cactus, hand methods will be utilized to restrict the population of prickly pear to areas a safe

distance from the JAEC site. All plants will be disposed of off-site.

Objective 1.5: To decrease the population of prickly pear at the JAEC site by 25% by

2018.

Monitoring Plan 1.5: The Steward will quantify and document the amount of prickly

pear removed, in cubic yards. An annual report will be submitted to the TAS Executive

Director.

3.2.2.2.1.2 Invasive woody plants are not currently known to exist in the HQ area. A small

jujube grove and a chaste tree (Vitex agnus-castus) were removed from behind Baker Cabin

several years ago and have not re-sprouted.

Strategy 1.1: Remove any invasive woody seedlings with hand methods when

detected.

Objective 1.1: To maintain the current 100% native status in the HQ area.

Monitoring 1.1: The Steward will visually inspect the HQ area in the early spring for

invasive woody seedlings.

42



3.2.2.3 Physical and Cultural Management Procedures

3.2.2.3.1 Hydrology and Water Quality

There does not appear to be any water quality concerns within the Sanctuary. However,

several springs and seeps are monitored for signs of degradation in water quality (see section

3.2.1.2). Water quality problems will be addressed as needed. As the possibility for non-point

source pollution increases, Travis Audubon Society will work to minimize potential sources

that could negatively impact the Sanctuary.

3.2.2.3.2 Cultural Resource Protection

Several minor archeological sites have been discovered and formerly excavated on the

Sanctuary, all of which have been recorded in internal TAS records. The sites are protected

due to their remote locations and distance from public hiking trails.

3.2.2.4 Outreach, Education and Public Access Management

3.2.2.4.1 Visitor Management Procedures

Travis Audubon Society will continue to follow the access regulations (Appendix C)

developed by the Steward and approved by the Sanctuary Committee and Executive Director.

Travis Audubon Society members and guests are allowed daytime access to the Sanctuary

except during whitetail deer hunting season when it is closed to the public from November –

mid-January. Nonmembers are allowed access when accompanied by members or when

permission has been granted by the Steward, Executive Director, or a Board Member. All

visitors must obtain the gate combination, which is changed monthly, from the Steward or

Executive Director to gain access. The Steward’s presence promotes compliance with access

guidelines.

3.2.2.4.1.1 Limited Commercial Use

Currently there is no commercial use of the Sanctuary. However, a policy was adopted by

the TAS Board of Directors to permit limited commercial use of the Jackie Arnold Education

Center (Appendix P).

43


Cypress Creek Macrosite 3.2.2.4.2 Access Control

Access will continue to be controlled by using appropriate fencing, gates, rules, signs and

TAS communications. Trespass, vandalism, unauthorized juniper harvesting, dumping and

poaching can be significant threats but the presence of the on-site Steward will help control

and manage these issues at the Sanctuary. Additional measures may be developed and

implemented by the Steward or Executive Director if the need arises.

3.2.2.4.3. Outreach

To increase awareness of the public about the natural resources and conservation mission of

the Sanctuary, an annual Open House will be held. Guided hikes, TAS, employee and family

oriented events will be held at the Sanctuary on occasion. All public events will be

conducted and scheduled to not negatively impact the golden-cheeked warbler.

3.2.2.4.4. Education

Travis Audubon Society has a long history of providing outdoor learning experiences for

children (see the TAS Youth Education Strategy and the Youth Education Program in

Appendix Q). Educational use of the Sanctuary is defined as those activities whose primary

intent is to present or interpret information about the ecology of the preserve or target

species. Current youth education programming, including Youth Nature Camps and Hiking

Club, as described in Appendix Q will be continued. Expansion of these programs is being

considered.

3.2.2.4.5. Research

To aid in effective Sanctuary management, research is encouraged to gather and interpret

site-specific data in a way that improves the understanding of the ecology of the Sanctuary

and the natural history of native species and their habitats. With the exception of projects

initiated by the Steward under the guidance of the BCT, researchers must submit a research

proposal (Appendix R) and be approved by the Steward, Executive Director, and Sanctuary

Committee before beginning a project. The Steward is responsible for monitoring the project

and ensuring compliance with the approved proposal. While no projects are currently

underway, the criteria to approve projects are as follows:

• Projects benefiting the golden-cheeked warbler will be given highest priority.

44


Cypress Creek Macrosite • Projects which could be conducted elsewhere will be given lower priority.

• Permission to conduct research will, under normal circumstances, be granted on an annual basis and persons wishing to conduct long-term projects must reapply each year.

• The number of projects conducted at the Sanctuary at any given time will be determined by the Steward.

• Permission to conduct research will not be granted to any individual, group, or organization (other than TAS) that will benefit financially from the project.

3.2.2.4.5.1 On-going TAS Research

3.2.2.4.5.1.1 100-acre golden-cheeked warbler survey

Since 1999, TAS has performed an annual 100-acre survey located in some of the

Sanctuary’s prime breeding habitat for the golden-cheeked warbler. While the survey’s

protocols and goals have been modified over the years (see Appendix S for the current

survey protocol), the survey is primarily used to sample the golden-cheeked warblers’

abundance, distribution and breeding success on the 100-acres and to extrapolate golden-

cheeked warbler abundance throughout the Sanctuary. Currently, TAS has completed the

third year of a five year partnership with the City of Austin which utilizes the 100-acre

survey data to better understand the population viability and habitat suitability for the golden-

cheeked warbler (see Appendix K for the 2012 report). In the past, TAS hired seasonal

biologists to conduct the 100-acre survey but as of the 2010 season it has been conducted by

the Steward and City of Austin biologists.

3.2.2.4.5.1.2 Annual breeding bird survey

Beginning in the spring of 2011, an annual breeding bird survey has been conducted to

gather baseline data on the distribution and abundance of breeding birds present at the

Sanctuary. Utilizing a fixed-radius point count method described in Hutto et al, 1986, 37

stations are visited over the course of one morning; weather permitting, to record and

enumerate the presence of bird species (see Appendix T for protocol). The point count

stations, most of which are also employed by the vegetation monitoring survey discussed

in section 3.2.2.4.5.1.3, are scattered over the Sanctuary and were selected to randomly

sample the variety of habitats found on the Sanctuary (Figure 12). The Steward is

45


Cypress Creek Macrosite responsible for organizing and conducting the breeding bird survey as well as compiling

data.

Figure 12. Point Count and Vegetation Monitoring Stations.

3.2.2.4.5.1.3 Vegetation monitoring survey

Initially conducted in 2011, the long-term vegetation monitoring survey will be conducted

once every five years to collect baseline information on the presence of plant species and

their abundance, the ages of certain woody vegetation, and the physical environment. Since a

number of management activities are being proposed at the Sanctuary it was essential to

develop a long-term monitoring protocol (Appendix U) to evaluate the effects of restoration

and land management activities. Information from these surveys will be used to determine

the success of exotic species removal, provide information regarding GCWA habitat, and

46


Cypress Creek Macrosite locate both endangered and non-native invasive species. The Steward is responsible for

organizing and conducting the vegetation monitoring survey as well as compiling data.

3.2.2.4.5.2 Proposed TAS Research

To gain a more thorough understanding of the distribution, abundance, and reproductive

success of the GCWA on the Sanctuary, a 692-acre survey has been proposed to be

undertaken within the next five years, pending funding. While the traditional 100-acre survey

has been performed for the past 14 years, a full 692-acre has never been undertaken. As a

result, the population estimate of GCWA on the Sanctuary is derived solely from an

extrapolation of the 100-acre data. The 692-acre survey would provide a more precise

snapshot of GCWA distribution, abundance, and reproductive success to aid and assess

future management decisions and activities.

4.0 LITERATURE CITED

4.1 Literature

Harris, Sara Penn. 1979. The Story of Our Travis Audubon Society Wildlife Sanctuary,

Signal Smoke.

Hutto, R.L., Pletschet, S.M., and Hendricks, P. 1986. A fixed-radius point count method for

nonbreeding and breeding season use. Auk 103: 593 – 602.

Kutac, Ed., et al, 1983. Sanctuary Trail Guide, Travis Audubon Society.

Rodda, Peter U. 1970. Geology of the Austin West Quadrangle, Travis County, Texas.

University of Texas at Austin, Bureau of Economic Geology.

Shade, O’Donnell, Veni and Johns. 2007. Pilot Project: Hydrologic Delineation of Habitat

and Management Zones for the Jollyville Plateau Salamander in the Austin, Texas Area;

Interim Report for August-September, 2007

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. 1974. Soil Survey of Travis

County, Texas. U.S. Government Printing, Office, Washington D.C.

47


Cypress Creek Macrosite 4.2 Personal Communications

Arnold, Jackie (Jessamine), past president of TAS; personal communication to Melody Lytle,

September 10, 1996. TAS president involved in the purchase of the initial 94 acres, the

acquisition of 500 acres donated, and the purchase of 23 acres in center of property in the

mid-1980s. The property had been ranched and hunted, though cattle had not been on site

for some time. Cedar choppers cleared a large area within the 500 acres sometime after

acquisition, prompting TAS to fence.

Barrerra. Alma, past president of TAS; personal communication to Melody Lytle, September

16, 1994. President of TAS when Chell and Lena Bakers (siblings) 500+ acres were left

to TAS. Chell died during Alma’s tenure. Joe Jester inherited a 20-acre life estate (not

ownership) from Chell Baker, later sold to TAS. An additional 50 acres was acquired

from someone else (Alma cannot remember who). According to Alma, Chuck Sexton,

Carol Beardmore, and possibly Rex Wahl did surveys on site.

Carr, Bill, botanist; personal communication to Melody Lytle, September 24, 1996. 95% of

plant list for Travis County is complete, though some annotations remain. Found a

saprophitic orchid (coral root, or Hexalectris nitida) under mature Ashe junipers in dense

cedar needle. It is parasitic on root phloem, growing under cedars mature enough to

create a mat of needles, which excludes other plants. It blooms in the heat of the summer.

Its complete distribution on the TAS properties is unknown but it is “not abundant.” This

plant was previously a federal Category 2 candidate species.

Gholson, Nelma, land donor; personal communication to Melody Lytle, October 2 and 8,

1996. The 50 acres donated to TAS was part of a working ranch purchased by Mrs.

Gholson and her first husband (Grover Hatfield) in 1951 from Marvin and Myrtice

Turner, who ranched the property. It was also ranched from the time of purchase by Mr.

and Mrs. Hatfield (now Gholson) until its donation to TAS in 1986. Mrs. Gholson says

that a spring, a sizable cave, and a large tank exist on the original ranch, possibly on the

TAS 50 acres, though she is not sure. The title company was Travis Title. Milburn’s

attorneys were Armbrust and Brown.

Kutac, Ed, past president; personal communication to Melody Lytle, September 9, 1996.

Gholson and Chamberlain (mother and daughter) donated 50 acres came from her

48


Cypress Creek Macrosite husband’s ranch, much of which was being sold to Milburn at the time. Ed does not

remember the significance of the “development rights” clause. According to Ed, Chell

and Lena Baker lived with minimum electricity, a windmill, and wood heat. The Baker

property had been inherited from their mother, the only family member ever mentioned in

conversation. Chell had been in law enforcement all of his life and was an avid deer

hunter. The property had been maintained as a game preserve for deer hunting purposes,

not a wildlife preserve as per Sara Penn Harris. Jack Albright and Austin O’Daniel were

also managers at some point.

Lyter, Dave, past Sanctuary caretaker; personal communication to Melody Lytle, September

16, 1996. Dave was Sanctuary caretaker from 1982 to 1989, but does not remember who

was the second manager. Daniel Boone was Sanctuary caretaker briefly at some period

after Dave.

McNeal, Patrick, botanist; personal communication to Melody Lytle, September 24, 1996.

Did BCCP surveys 1989 but little on Audubon properties. Thinks bracted twistflower,

canyon mock-orange are unlikely and Amorpha is likely (no notes available).

Strong, Sally; past president; personal communication to Melody Lytle, September 22, 1996.

The 50-acre gift from Gholson and Chamberlain conveyed “development rights” to

Milburn. This allows Milburn to use the potential development density on TAS’s 50 acres

on another piece of Milburn property and is never to be used on TAS property. At some

unknown time, quarrying operations took place on the Baker property. A concrete trough

near the trailer was once the site of stone cutting. The stone was quarried elsewhere and

moved to the saw.

Thompson, Luke, past Sanctuary caretaker; personal communication to Melody Lytle,

September 16, 1996. Luke Thompson (currently a Texas Parks and Wildlife Department

employee) was an early sanctuary committee chair and the first on-site manager of the

Audubon properties in the early 1970s through 1981, during which the initial 94 acres

had been acquired and the 500+- acre Baker property was being acquired. According to

Luke, baseline plant and bird checklists were completed as well as an ongoing list of

other animals passed on to the next land manager. Luke and Marshall Johnston created an

herbarium collection held as a discrete collection in the University of Texas Herbarium.

49


Cypress Creek Macrosite Apparently this collection has now been dispersed. Luke and Marshall initiated a study

with high school students to document vegetation changes. Luke projected topos onto the

plat maps and the aerial photos to make biological survey maps and property line survey

maps. These projections indicated the survey property lines to be accurate.

50

APPENDIX A

SARAH PENN HARRIS ACCOUNT

APPENDIX B

SENATE BILL 626

APPENDIX C

BAKER SANCTUARY ACCESS REGULATIONS

BAKER SANCTUARY REGULATIONS The primary mission of the Travis Audubon Society Baker Sanctuary, a private, member owned Sanctuary and part of the Balcones Canyonlands Preserve (BCP) system, is to provide nesting habitat for the federally endangered golden-cheeked warbler (GCWA) and to support sustainable populations of naturally diverse Hill Country plant and animal species. In order to ensure that the Sanctuary will serve these purposes in perpetuity and that its wildlife and habitat will be safeguarded from injury and disturbance, TAS maintains the following rules for visitors: * All visitors must have permission to enter the Sanctuary. 1. The TAS Baker Sanctuary is open to all members and up to four guests. Nonmembers must have permission issued by the Sanctuary Steward, Executive Director, or a TAS Board member. An organized group larger than five persons (including TAS members) must obtain permission from the Sanctuary Steward and must be accompanied by a TAS member. No more than one group will be allowed on a given day. * The Sanctuary will be closed during the deer-hunting season. Contact the Sanctuary Steward or see the newsletter or the website for exact dates. * The Sanctuary is open for day use only during daylight hours. * The Sanctuary has restricted access during the GCWA nesting season (March 1 – August 31). Contact the Sanctuary Steward or the office (512.300.BIRD) for info. * Visitors are expected to observe the following regulations: Visitors must register at the SIGN-IN REGISTRATION BOX and state the purpose of each visit. Keep gates CLOSED and LATCHED. Stay on the trails at all times. Trails are marked with colored markers. Care should be taken to avoid disturbing wildlife and habitat. Playing bird songs or calls, making owl sounds, or otherwise causing disturbance in GCWA habitat during the nesting season is a violation of the Endangered Species Act and is not allowed. Collecting of any kind is prohibited. Dogs and other pets must be kept out of the Sanctuary. Smoking and fire building are prohibited. Picnicking is restricted to the headquarters area and all trash must be removed. Releasing of wildlife or domestic animals is prohibited. Consumption of alcoholic beverages is prohibited. No hunting equipment is allowed in the Sanctuary. No wheeled vehicles allowed on the trails (with the exception of wheel chairs and strollers). Bicycles are not allowed on the Sanctuary.

APPENDIX D

BALACONES CANYONLANDS PRESERVE MAP

APPENDIX E

BAKER SANCTUARY VEGETATION MAP

APPENDIX F

BAKER SANCTUARY GEOLOGY MAP

APPENDIX G

BAKER SANCTUARY TOPOGRAPHY MAP

APPENDIX H

BAKER SANCTUARY SOILS MAP

APPENDIX I

USFWS KARST SURVEY PROTOCOL

United States Fish and Wildlife Service, Section 10(a)(1)(A) Scientific Permit Requirements for Conducting Presence/Absence Surveys for Endangered Karst Invertebrates in Central Texas U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Austin Ecological Services Field Office, 10711 Burnet Road, Suite 200, Austin, Texas (512) 490-0057 This document provides guidance on when you might be at risk of “taking” a species while conducting karst invertebrate surveys and when it is advisable to have a Section 10(a)(1)(A) permit issued by the Service under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act) to be covered for “take.” The ultimate decision to apply for a permit is yours. Individuals engaged in activities that have the potential to “take” listed species are responsible for determining whether the likelihood of “take” is great enough to need a section 10(a)(1)(A) permit (see “When a Section 10(a)(1)(A) Scientific Permit is needed” below for the definition of “take”). If you choose to apply for a permit, this document outlines the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s (Service) process and requirements for conducting presence/absence surveys for federally-listed endangered, terrestrial karst invertebrate species (herein referred to as “karst invertebrates”) in Travis, Williamson, and Bexar counties, Texas, as conditions of holding a section 10(a)(1)(A) permit. See Table 1 for a list of endangered karst invertebrates (53 FR 36029-36033; 65 FR 81419-81433) in these three counties. Section 10(a)(1)(A) permits, also referred to as recovery, enhancement of survival, or scientific permits, allow for “take” of listed species that may or will occur while conducting research to further the recovery of a listed species (see When a Section 10(a)(1)(A) Scientific Permit is Needed below). This document outlines methods to be used, information to be included in final reports, and minimum qualifications for personnel conducting presence/absence surveys for endangered karst invertebrates under a section 10(a)(1)(A) permit. The objective of this document is to identify survey methods that will produce sound scientific information upon which to base decisions and actions for the conservation of these endangered species. Using consistent survey methodology will also allow for greater comparison and analysis of results, and thereby increase our understanding of these species and their habitat requirements. Please note, this document supersedes any previous guidance from the Austin Ecological Services Office on conducting presence/absence surveys for federally endangered karst invertebrates. Information that relates to the effectiveness of these survey guidelines in conserving endangered karst species is welcome. We will consider modifications of, or alternatives to, these methods and qualifications on a case-by-case basis. Since one of the first steps in determining presence/absence of endangered karst invertebrates is to survey for karst features that may have suitable habitat, this document also outlines the Service’s recommendations for conducting surveys for karst features that may contain suitable habitat for endangered karst invertebrates. Since no “take” of listed species is anticipated while conducting initial surface walking karst feature surveys, this activity does not necessitate a section 10(a)(1)(A) permit.

However, the potential for “take” exists with entry into a void or cave where endangered karst invertebrates may occur. Therefore, the Service recommends that all personnel excavating, entering, and/or collecting in a void or cave that may contain suitable habitat for endangered karst invertebrates to conduct conservation work hold a valid 10(a)(1)(A) permit for the endangered karst invertebrates in the county being surveyed. When a Section 10(a)(1)(A) Scientific Permit is Needed Collecting endangered species is a form of “take” and therefore, is prohibited under section 9 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, unless the “take” is covered under a Section 10(a)(1)(A) scientific permit. “Take” is defined as “to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct.” In addition to collecting, forms of “take” that could occur in the process of conducting karst invertebrate surveys and related tasks, such as mapping or excavating a cave, include crushing individuals; compaction of habitat and oviposition sites; destruction of webs; disturbance of cover objects; harm or harassment that may occur with the introduction into the environment of noise, light, chemicals, and biological substances, such as microbes normally found on the surface or in other caves, and possibly other actions that would cause individuals to flee, seek shelter, or alter or cease normal foraging, anti-predation, or reproductive behavior. For information on how to apply for a 10(a)(1)(A) permit contact Stephanie Weagley and Melissa Castiano at [email protected] and [email protected]. .

mailto:[email protected]


Table 1. Federally endangered terrestrial karst invertebrates from Central Texas (Final Rule for Travis and Williamson Counties - 53 FR 36029-36033; Bexar County - 65 FR 81419-81433; technical corrections – 58 FR 43818-43820).

Common Name Species County of Occurrence Madla Cave meshweaver

Cicurina madla

Bexar

Robber Baron Cave meshweaver

Cicurina baronia

Bexar

Braken Bat Cave meshweaver

Cicurina venii

Bexar

Government Canyon Bat Cave meshweaver

Cicurina vespera

Bexar

Government Canyon Bat Cave spider

Neoleptoneta microps

Bexar

Cokendolpher cave harvestmen

Texella cokendolpheri

Bexar

Ground Beetle (no common name)

Rhadine exilis

Bexar

Ground Beetle (no common name)

Rhadine infernalis

Bexar

Helotes mold beetle Batrisodes venyivi Bexar Bee Creek Cave harvestmen

Texella reddelli

Travis

Kretschmarr Cave mold beetle

Texamaurops reddelli

Travis

Tooth Cave pseudoscorpion

Tartarocreagris texana

Travis

Tooth Cave spider Leptoneta myopica Travis Tooth Cave ground beetle

Rhadine persephone

Travis and Williamson

Bone Cave harvestmen Texella reyesi Travis and Williamson Coffin Cave mold beetle Batrisodes texanus Williamson

How to Determine if Karst Invertebrates May be Present Figure 1 outlines a five-step approach for determining presence/absence of endangered karst invertebrates and karst features that may contain suitable habitat for endangered karst invertebrates in central Texas. See text following the figure for a more complete description of each step. Figure 1: Five-step approach for determining presence/absence of endangered karst invertebrates and karst features that may contain suitable habitat for endangered karst invertebrates in central Texas.

Step 11. Identify areas that may contain suitable habitat for endangered karst invertebrates in Travis, Williamson, and Bexar counties. Four karst zones have been delineated in the Austin area (Travis and Williamson counties) (Veni 1992) and five karst zones have been delineated in the San Antonio area (Bexar County) in Texas (Veni 1994). The karst zones in the San Antonio area were updated and revised in Veni (2002). These karst zones are a useful first step in determining if karst features containing endangered invertebrates are likely to occur on a particular property. The karst zone maps are available online at www.fws.gov/ifw2es/AustinTexas/ or upon request from the Austin Ecological Service Field Office. Table 2. Definitions of Karst Zones (modified from Veni 1992; 1994; 2002)

In both the San Antonio and Austin areas:

Zone 1 is defined as areas known to contain endangered karst invertebrate species. Zone 2 is defined as areas having a high probability of containing suitable habitat for endangered karst invertebrate species.

Zone 3 is defined as areas that probably do not contain endangered karst invertebrate species.

In the San Antonio area: Zone 4 is defined as areas that require further research but are generally equivalent to Zone 3, although they may include sections that could be classified as Zone 2 or Zone 5 as more information becomes available.

Zone 5 is defined as areas, both cavernous and non-cavernous, that do not contain endangered karst invertebrate species.

In the Austin area: Zone 4 is defined as areas, both cavernous and non-cavernous, that do not contain endangered karst invertebrate species.

Step 1a. If the subject property is in Zone 4 (Austin area) or Zone 5 (San Antonio area), then it lies within an area, either cavernous or non-cavernous, that does not contain the endangered karst invertebrates and no surveys are needed. Step 1b. When conducting a karst invertebrate survey under a Section 10(a)(1)(A) permit, the surface survey for karst features is not expected to result in “take.” However, while not required, certain procedures for surface surveys are recommended as part of the scientifically sound process for assessing the presence/absence of karst invertebrates. In karst zones 1, 2, 3 (Austin and San Antonio areas) and 4 (San Antonio area), we recommend an initial karst feature survey be conducted on the entire property within these zones; proceed to Step 2 for more on conducting these surveys. 1 Since “take” is unlikely to occur during activities conducted under Steps 1 and 2, a section 10(a)(1)(A) permit is not needed.

http://www.fws.gov/ifw2es/AustinTexas/

Step 21. Conduct an initial karst feature2 survey. If you are in zones 1 or 2, we recommend that a survey be conducted by a qualified individual, as defined by Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ),3 with demonstrated experience in karst geology. In zone 3 (in Austin and San Antonio areas) where the presence of endangered karst invertebrates is possible but unlikely, we recommend that, at a minimum, the landowner or their designated representative visually inspect their property for karst features. In zone 4 (in San Antonio area) where sections of Zone 2 may occur, we recommend a survey be conducted by a qualified individual, as defined by TCEQ,3 with demonstrated experience in karst geology. To conduct karst feature surveys, follow methods outlined in section II-A of Procedure For Conducting a Geologic Assessment in TCEQ’s Instructions to Geologists for Geologic Assessments (GA) as revised October 1, 2004. Applicable portions of those procedures are included here in Appendix III. Note, we intend for you to use the GA to locate features only and not to assess whether a feature has the potential to lead to karst invertebrate habitat. Guidance on assessing a features potential to contain suitable karst invertebrate habitat is discussed in Step 3 below. If you have questions regarding the GA you may contact the TCEQ Austin Regional Office (512-339-2929), the San Antonio Regional Office (210-490-3096) or on the internet at http://www.tceq.state.tx.us • If a GA has previously been conducted on the subject site following TCEQ’s October 1, 2004, guidelines, then it may serve as an initial karst feature survey. • If a GA is not required on the subject site by TCEQ (for example, the site is not located on the Edwards Aquifer recharge or transition zones) then we recommend that the initial karst feature survey be conducted following the methods outlined in those portions of section II-A of Procedure For Conducting a Geologic Assessment in TCEQ’s GA (October 1, 2004) that are contained in Appendix III herein. • All surveys should be conducted such that the likelihood of overlooking any karst feature is very low. Step 2a. If no karst features are found during the initial karst feature survey, no additional survey work is needed. While no permit report is required on this part of the survey, we do encourage surveyors to report these results (including negative results) to the Service to increase understanding about these species and to increase the database upon which to make conservation and management decisions. Step 2b. If karst features are found during the initial survey, proceed to Step 3. 2 Karst Feature – geomorphic, topographic, and hydrological feature formed by solution of limestone by water. Caves, solution cavities, sinkholes, swallow holes, solution enlarged fractures are common types of karst features; many more can be found in a textbook or glossary of karst terms. (Texas Commission for Environmental Quality (TCEQ), Instructions to Geologists for Geologic Assessments (GA) as revised May 1, 2002, Section IV). 3 Geologist - a person who has received a baccalaureate or graduate degree in the natural science of geology from an accredited university and has training and experience in groundwater hydrology and related fields, or has demonstrated such qualifications by registration or licensing by a state, professional certification, or completion of accredited university programs that enable that individual to make sound professional judgments regarding the identification of sensitive features located in the recharge zone or transition zone. Since September 1, 2003 geologists conducting assessments are expected to be licensed according to the Texas Geoscience Practice Act (TCEQ, GA as revised Ocotber 1, 2004, Section IV).

http://www.tceq.state.tx.us/

of 21

Step 34. Assess karst features for suitable endangered karst invertebrate habitat. The potential for each identified karst feature to provide or lead to suitable habitat for endangered karst invertebrates should be assessed by a qualified individual, as defined by TCEQ,3 with demonstrated experience in karst geology and the ability to identify certain cave - adapted species. To accomplish this assessment, some features may require a reconnaissance excavation.5 If reconnaissance excavations are conducted as described below they are not expected to result in take. See Step 4 for more on excavating features. Once a feature is located using the TCEQ’s GA, the following factors outlined in Veni and Reddell (2002) should be considered when determining if a feature has potential to lead to a void or cave6 with suitable karst invertebrate habitat: • If a feature is filled, or partly filled, by leaf litter, loose, modern soils, and a few rocks, it should be subjected to a reconnaissance excavation, prior to its evaluation for its potential to lead to a cave. A rod at least 30 centimeters (1 foot) long should be used to probe into the soils of a feature in search of shallow voids and to quickly and further estimate the feature’s origin and permeability. If a site seems likely to contain culturally or paleontologically significant materials, action related to the feature should first be coordinated with the Texas Historical Commission (THC), before determining if excavation is appropriate (http://www.thc.state.tx.us). • If a feature exhibits airflow, channelized recharge of water, development by soil or bedrock collapse, loose soil or rock fill to a depth of at least 30 centimeters (1 foot), or clean-washed rocks at its base, then it may lead to a void. The presence of Ceuthophilus cunicularis cave crickets, Cicurina varians spiders, or cave-adapted species found during the reconnaissance excavation also indicates the presence of a void. Therefore, we recommend that the surveyor conducting the karst feature assessment be able to recognize such cave-adapted species. If none of the above factors are present, then any combination of at least two of the following factors should be considered justification for further excavation or examination of a feature (Veni and Reddell 2002, Jean Krejca, ZARA Environmental, pers. comm. 2011, ZARA 2006): • There is development along a fracture related to the karst feature. • The feature is 1 meter (3.28 feet) or more in length or diameter. • The feature is at least 1 meter (3.3 feet) deep. • Morphology of the feature is similar to the pre-excavation appearance of a nearby known cave in the same geologic setting. • A humanly or potentially humanly enterable void is visible. 4 Since the potential for “take” exists for activities outlined in Steps 4 and 5, we recommend that all personnel entering, excavating, and/or collecting in features with potential to contain endangered karst invertebrates to conduct conservation activities for the species hold a valid section 10(a)(1)(A) permit for the listed karst invertebrates in the county being surveyed (see Appendix II for surveyor qualifications.) For information on how to apply for a 10(a)(1)(A) permit contact and Melissa Castiano at [email protected]. 5 Reconnaissance Excavation – hand removal of loose soil, rocks, and leaf litter not exceeding 1 foot in depth and 1 foot in diameter and is for the purpose of distinguishing actual karst features from non-karst depressions such as old weathered stump holes, animal burrows, and latrine pits (Veni and Reddell 2002). 6 Cave - a naturally occurring, humanly enterable cavity in the earth, at least 5 m in length and/or depth, and where no dimension of the entrance exceeds the length or depth of the cavity (www.texasspeleologicalsurvey.org)

http://www.thc.state.tx.us/


of 21

Other factors that should be considered justification for further excavation or examination of a feature (Veni and Reddell 2002): • The feature is close to caves known to contain endangered species. • The feature is in karst zone 1 or 2. • The physical characteristics, for example, size, appearance, catchment basin, conduits, air flow, and mammal etchings suggest the presence of a cave. • The appearance of fill does not match surrounding area, which may indicate the presence of artificial material in a feature. • There are roots and/or black soil in the feature. • The feature is located near structural features that may promote cave and karst features to develop, such as a fault, photolineament (possible bedrock feature indicated by aerial photographs), or an area of relatively high fracture density. • Vegetation in the area includes certain plants, especially trees, that may preferentially grow in cave entrances and other karst features. • Past land use activities (for example, agricultural) may indicate the presence of false features. Characteristics of karst features not likely to contain suitable habitat for endangered karst invertebrates: The following guidance is based on Veni and Reddell (2002) and is provided as guidance for determining when karst features are not likely to contain habitat for endangered karst invertebrates. Each of the factors listed below indicates conditions unfavorable to the listed species, but individually, none of these factors rule out their occurrence. A “no further action” determination requires that all of these factors occur together, making habitat for the listed species unlikely. • Features that have all, or nearly all, floors, walls, and ceilings covered with calcite speleothems and lacking black sediment, are highly unlikely to provide habitat for listed species. The calcite speleothems may block the species and nutrients for the species from entering the feature. • Features with floors that occur less than 1.5 meter (4.9 feet) below the surface are unlikely to contain suitable habitat for the listed invertebrate species (Veni and Reddell 2002). Such features occur in a zone where they will become significantly warmer and drier during the summer, and cooler and drier during the winter than features at greater depths. The listed species usually live in deeper voids where temperatures and humidity are more stable. Also, these shallow depths are more prone to invasion by non-native species, particularly red-imported fire ants that may compete with or prey upon the listed species. • The absence of non-listed troglobites7 or troglophiles8 suggests conditions are unsuitable for the listed troglobites. To determine if this criterion is met, the evaluation must be conducted or directly supervised by someone with experience recognizing these species. 7 Troglobites - a species of animal that is restricted to the subterranean environment and typically exhibits morphological adaptations to that environment, such as elongated appendages and loss or reduction of eyes and pigment (Veni 2002). 8 Troglophiles - a species of animal that may complete its life cycle in the subterranean environment but may also be found on the surface (Veni 2002).

of 21

• Features must be "dry," meaning that the apparently normal condition of the feature has no pools, water flow, notable moisture or discernible dampness on the walls, floors, ceilings, or sediments. Since it may not be possible to observe the feature after periods of rainfall, it should be examined for water-formed features that would indicate at least episodic occurrence of significant moisture. Such features include, but are not limited to: recently formed scallops and pitting of sediments and bedrock, sediment depositional patterns exhibiting flow and/or ponding, and recent speleothem resolution and growth. • Fewer than 10 cave crickets have been found in the feature. These animals are often important components of ecosystems containing the listed species, and their absence or minimal presence suggest conditions unsuitable for the listed species. • Absence of discernible airflow suggests that the feature does not connect to a cave or significant voids that might contain the listed species. The presence of airflow usually indicates the existence of such voids, but its absence does not indicate the opposite. Several factors may prevent airflow when significant voids are present. • The feature is not collapse-formed or related to a collapse. If a feature is part of a collapsed area of bedrock, it is part of a deeper, more extensive cave or series of voids that produced the collapse and are more likely to contain suitable habitat for the listed species. Step 3a. If, after a thorough assessment, you determine there is no potential for the feature to open to a void or cave or the void or cave does not contain suitable habitat, then no additional surveys are needed. Step 3b. If the karst feature is a cave or has habitat that may be suitable for endangered karst invertebrates, then proceed to Step 5. Step 3c. If the karst feature has potential to open to a void or cave that may contain suitable habitat for endangered karst invertebrates and requires excavation to assess habitat quality, then proceed to Step 4. Step 4.4 Excavating features: Considering that excavation of features could result in “take,“ we recommend surveyors conducting excavations beyond the scope of a reconnaissance excavation should hold a 10(a)(1)(A) permit. Excavation may be performed by a technician under the supervision of a qualified geologist who takes responsibility for work and receives daily reports (geologist does not have to be present at time of excavation). The geologist should determine if the feature leads to a cave or other void and will require removal of fine sediments, collapsed rocks, calcite deposits, and/or bedrock. Excavation with hand tools should be used whenever possible to minimize disturbance of a feature’s environment. Explosives may be needed to excavate collapsed rocks, calcite deposits, and/or bedrock but should be used strategically under the supervision of experienced personnel and in small amounts to selectively remove obstructions. Backhoes or related heavy machinery may be needed where large rocks or volumes of sediments are impractical and/or unsafe for removal by hand.9 The 9 [NOTE: Excavation or any other activity that alters or disturbs the topographic, geologic, or existing recharge characteristics of a site, is regulated under the TCEQ’s Edwards Aquifer Program and may require a Water Pollution Abatement Plan (WPAP). TCEQ’s regional office should be consulted prior to either blasting or using a backhoe to excavate any feature occurring in the Edwards Aquifer recharge and transition zones. For more information, contact TCEQ at 512-239-1000 or access the Internet at http://www.tceq.state.tx.us/EAPP]

http://www.tceq.state.tx.us/EAPP

of 21

size of excavations should be kept as small as possible while allowing space for efficient excavation efforts and creating an area safe for entry. Multiple entrances dry out caves and unneeded excavated entrances should be sealed with natural fill equivalent in permeability to what was excavated. (Also see Restoring Excavated Features below). To minimize promotion of fire ant activity and siltation of streams, excavated material from all features should be evenly distributed downslope of, and at least 5 meters (16 feet) from, the features. Sediments should be distributed in thicknesses of no more than 1-2 centimeters (0.39-0.78 inches) to allow rapid integration into the existing soils and stabilization by vegetation. Excavation should cease upon encountering (1) a cave (caves may require further excavation during biological surveys, see Step 5), (2) solid bedrock with no conduits, (3) packed clay with no airflow present (the passage should be checked several times under different surface temperature conditions (for example, cool mornings, warm evenings) before determining there is no airflow), (4) potential archaeological or paleontological materials, or (5) where continued excavation would be dangerous (for example, due to a large, overhanging rock or high levels of CO2). If the CO2 level is high, consider having fresh air blown in or re-surveying during more favorable weather conditions (such as during the winter months, especially after strong cold fronts, which pushes O2 deeper into the cave displacing CO2). If a significant void or cave that may contain suitable habitat for endangered karst invertebrates is encountered during excavation, excavation should stop and a qualified individual (see Appendix II) holding a valid section 10(a)(1)(A) scientific permit issued by the Service should survey for endangered karst invertebrates and conduct further excavations within the cave, if needed. However, we recommend immediate collection, by an individual holding a section 10(a)(1)(A) permit, of any karst invertebrates observed within the entrance area during the initial excavation (see Appendix II). Other techniques to assess the presence of karst features and endangered species: Remote sensing techniques, such as video cameras or geophysical techniques such as electrical resistivity, microgravity, ground penetrating radar, or natural potential, may be helpful in assessing the presence of a void or the extent of a known feature that may contain suitable habitat. It should be noted that use of such techniques cannot determine the presence of endangered invertebrates. If using these techniques detects inaccessible voids that have potential to lead to a cave, coreholes or boreholes should be drilled in and near the voids to allow for baiting (see Baiting under Step 5 below). Please note that some karst invertebrate species, such as spiders and harvestmen, are less likely to be captured by baiting (George Veni, George Veni & Associates, in litt. 2003). Therefore, coreholes should be large enough to allow for human-access to conduct surveys. The results of such samples will assist in determining whether endangered karst invertebrates are likely to be present. However, finding only non-endangered invertebrates in borehole samples does not necessarily imply there are no listed species present. After all necessary biological surveys have been conducted, coreholes should be returned to a state most beneficial for the cave ecosystem (see Restoring excavated features below). Restoring excavated features: Features that are excavated into caves should be left open enough that human access for biological surveys is possible. However, openings larger than 1 meter (3.28 feet) to relatively small caves may be detrimental to the karst ecosystem by increasing drying and temperature fluctuation. Excavation sites that may contain suitable habitat should be covered with material to

of 21

prevent drying of the habitat in between times when the feature is being actively evaluated. A plastic tarp covered with a light colored blanket would likely meet this need. After all necessary biological surveys have been conducted, features, caves, or boreholes should not necessarily be refilled but should remain in, or be returned to, a state most beneficial for the karst ecosystem, which may include but is not limited to (1) returning the entrance to its pre-excavated condition (for example to reduce air flow if the original entrance was small) or (2) installing a cave gate to prevent large mammal access (for example, feral hogs). Step 4a. If no suitable habitat for endangered karst invertebrates exists, then no further excavation is necessary. A final karst feature survey report should be provided to the Service if excavation is conducted under a 10(a)(1)(A) permit (see Appendix I for reporting requirements). The requirement to report both positive and negative findings is a condition of obtaining a section 10(a)(1)(A) permit for these species. These data are important, even if findings are negative, for the conservation and recovery of the species. We would also appreciate receiving copies of karst feature survey reports, even if not conducted under a 10(a)(1)(A) scientific permit, to further our understanding of these species and their habitat requirements. Step 4b. If suitable habitat for endangered karst invertebrates exists, then stop excavation and proceed to Step 5. Step 54. Conduct a Karst Invertebrate Survey. Since collection of federally-listed endangered species constitutes “take” and is a violation of section 9 of the Act without a permit, species surveys should be conducted by persons holding a valid 10(a)(1)(A) permit. The following section outlines the required survey methodology for conducting presence/absence surveys for endangered karst invertebrates in central Texas under a section 10(a)(1)(A) permit. Once the survey(s) are complete, a comprehensive report should be submitted whether endangered karst invertebrates were encountered or not (See Appendix I for reporting requirements). The requirement to report both positive and negative findings is a condition of obtaining a section 10(a)(1)(A) permit for these species. These data are important, even if findings are negative, for the conservation and recovery of the species. NOTE: Any work in a cave is inherently dangerous. The presence of pits and ledges; large, unstable, overhanging rocks; and high levels of CO2 present danger to researchers. Surveyors should use their best judgment to determine when conditions are safe to proceed. If invertebrate surveys are limited or discontinued due to safety concerns, this should be made clear in the report. Baiting (see Baiting below) may be recommended as an alternative under these conditions, if it can be done safely by the biologist. Number of sampling occasions: To determine the presence/absence of listed karst invertebrates, survey all caves and significant features at least three times. Each survey should occur no sooner than one week apart during suitable sampling conditions (see Suitable sampling conditions below). Sampling events should be separated by sufficient time to account for changes in life cycles, trends in seasonal nutrient input, and/or changes in weather conditions that may cause the species to be more or less available to collectors. However, notable differences in species abundance have been observed within as little as a week within caves that cannot be accounted for by rainfall or other surface

of 21

condition (George Veni, George Veni & Associates, in litt. 2003). Veni suggests that observed differences in species abundance may be due to life cycle changes or some other factors that we don’t yet understand. Suitable sampling conditions: The entire cave should be searched when conditions in the cave are appropriate for finding the listed karst invertebrates, generally avoiding temperature extremes and low humidity. • The recommended time of year is spring (March through June) or fall (September through January). Ideally at least one sample should be conducted in each of the two seasons to observe species that may be more active or visible in one season or the other. Rhadine beetles appear to be more abundant in the spring, indicating that fall surveys may not be as useful for these species (James Reddell, Texas Memorial Museum, pers. comm. 2002). • Recommended weather conditions include: • Average weather (temperature and rainfall) for time of year. • Surface air temperatures during the previous week should not have been greater than 37.8ΕC (100ΕF) or less than 4.4ΕC (40ΕF). • Lack of drought conditions. • Recent rainfall. • Absence of recent, extensive, local flooding. Surveys conducted outside of times defined as suitable sampling conditions during which no listed species are found may not count as one of the three recommended surveys. Please contact the Service if surveys cannot be conducted during the appropriate time of year or during appropriate weather conditions. Sampling diligence and thoroughness: $ The void/cave should be searched thoroughly. • Search times should be proportional to the size of the void/cave. $ For caves that have large volume rooms, it may be necessary to search using a system of transects or other method to ensure the entire cave is thoroughly searched. Thoroughness: Because karst invertebrates are small, have low population sizes, and may have behaviors that make them difficult to find, such as retreating under rocks or into passages too small for humans, it is necessary to ensure that sufficient time and effort have been spent surveying before any listed species are judged as being absent. Where applicable, the following should be done: $ Check under all loose and easily moveable rocks; rocks should be moved with care to ensure species are not injured. All rocks should be returned to their original position immediately after examination. $ Check under clumps of dried, cracked sediment; these should also be moved with care and returned to their original position after examination. $ Look in crevices, on ceilings, and walls as much as logistically possible. $ Hand-sift samples of loose sediment and look on, and in, scat and dead animals. $ To the extent practicable, search all habitat types, not only those that are believed to be the

of 21

preferred habitat of the listed species, because habitat profiles are incomplete, and this will also provide information on habitat selection by the listed species. Specimen collection and preservation: Because the endangered karst invertebrates may not be possible to distinguish in the field from closely related species, specimens should be collected for identification by a qualified taxonomist. $ No more than ten specimens of any one species should be collected in any one cave. We also encourage the collection of up to ten specimens of any non-listed invertebrate species that cannot be identified to species in the cave. NOTE: Entry and collection in caves known to contain endangered karst invertebrates is not authorized, even under a section 10(a)(1)(A) permit, unless a monitoring or research plan has been approved by Austin Ecological Services Field Office. $ These collections should be identified as specifically as possible and sent to the Texas Memorial Museum, in Austin, Texas (or other appropriate museum or university) for taxonomic determination and curation (see Appendix I, Specimen Deposition for address). $ Adult specimens should be preserved in 70-80 percent ethanol to allow for taxonomic study. Because blind Cicurina and Texella species require adult specimens of a specific gender for positive identification (using morphological techniques), immature specimens of these species, along with any other specimens being collected solely for molecular study, should be preserved in 100 percent non-denatured ethanol. • Specimens collected should be immediately placed in a cooler and kept there until transferred to a freezer. Before transfer to a freezer, the preservative should be discarded and replaced with new ethanol. All preserved specimens should be stored in, at a minimum, a standard freezer (-11ºC (12ºF) to -22ºC (-8ºF)) until shipped for taxonomic or molecular analysis. • All specimens should be stored in separate vials to prevent misidentification in the event that appendages become separated from the body. • Immature specimens collected alive with the intent of rearing them to adulthood for positive identification (for example, blind Cicurina and Texella species) should be sent to a taxonomist immediately. To promote specimen viability, surveyors should coordinate shipments with taxonomists so they will know when to expect them and can prepare accordingly. Baiting: Baits may attract fire ants into the cave and, therefore, should be used with caution when using as an invertebrate survey technique. If baiting is used: • Baits should be used in leads that are inaccessible for visual examination and more than 2 meters (6.5 feet) deep. Baits should be set for three to seven days and only checked at the end of that period. However, the area around the baited void should be checked daily. Any fire ant mounds found prior to, or during, baiting should be treated immediately with boiling water. $ Baits may also be used when suitable habitat is present yet multiple active searches (at least three) have not resulted in species occurrence. $ Please note that some karst invertebrate species, such as spiders and harvestmen, are less likely to be captured by baiting (George Veni, George Veni & Associates, in litt. 2003). Reporting: Reports documenting activities under a section 10(a)(1)(A) scientific permit are to be provided to the Service annually. Reporting requirements are outlined in Appendix I.

of 21

Literature Cited Krejca, J. 2011. Email to Cyndee Watson regarding excavation dated August 1, 2011. Texas Speleological Survey. 2006. Definition of a cave. http://www.txspeleologicalsurvey.org Veni, G. 1992. Geological controls on cave development and the distribution of cave fauna in the Austin, Texas, region. Report prepared for U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Austin, Texas. George Veni and Associates, San Antonio, Texas. 77 pp. Veni, G. 1994. Geological controls on cave development and the distribution of endemic cave fauna in the San Antonio, Texas, region. Report prepared for Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, Austin, Texas, and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Austin, Texas. George Veni and Associates, San Antonio, Texas. 99 pp. Veni, G. 2002. Delineation of hydrogeologic areas and zones for the management and recovery of endangered karst invertebrate species in Bexar County, Texas. Report prepared for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Austin, Texas. George Veni and Associates, San Antonio Texas.75 pp. Veni, G. 2003. Comments on the 12-16-03 draft Karst Survey Guidelines. December 28, email to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Austin, Texas. Veni, G. and J.R. Reddell. 2002. Protocols for Assessing Karst Features for Endangered Invertebrate Species. Report by George Veni and Associates, San Antonio, Texas. 7 pp. ZARA Environmental. 2006. Excavation and biology of caves and karst features on the Cortana tract, Travis County, Texas. 55 pp

http://www.txspeleologicalsurvey.org/

APPENDIX J

VERTEBRATE SPECIES OF THE BCP AND BAKER SANCTUARY * = observed at Baker Sanctuary Species Scientific Name Class AMPHIBIA: Amphibians Family Sirenidae: Sirens Western Lesser Siren Siren intermedia nettingi Family Ambystomatidae: Mole Salamanders Smallmouth Salamander Ambystoma texanum Eastern Tiger Salamander Ambystoma tigrinum tigrinum Family Plethodontidae: Lungless Salamanders Texas Salamander Eurycea neotenes Dwarf Salamander Eurycea quadridgidata *Jollyville Plateau Salamander Eurecea tonkawae Western Slimy Salamander Plethodon albagula Family Pelobatidae: Spadefoot Toads Couch's Spadefoot Scaphiopus couchii Family Leptodactylidae: Tropical Frogs Eastern Barking Frog Eleutherodactylus augusti latrans Cliff Chirping Frog Syrrhopus marnockii Family Hylidae: Treefrogs and Allies Blanchard's Cricket Frog Acris crepitans blanchardi Cope's Gray Treefrog Hyla chrysocelis Green Treefrog Hyla cineria Gray Treefrog Hyla versicolor Spotted Chorus Frog Pseudacris clarkii *Stecker's Chorus Frog Pseudacris streckeri streckeri Upland Chorus Frog Pseudacris feriarum feriarum Family Bufonidae: Toads Eastern Green Toad Bufo debilis debilis Red-spotted Toad Bufo punctatus Texas Toad Bufo speciosus *Gulf Coast Toad Bufo valliceps velliceps Family Ranidae: True Frogs Rio Grande Frog Rana berlandieri Bullfrog Rana catesbeiana Southern Leopard Frog Rana utricularia utricularia Family Microhylidae: Narrowmouth Toads

Eastern Narrowmouth Toad Gastrophyrne carolinensis Great Plains Narrowmouth Toad Gastrophyrne olivacea

Class REPTILIA: Reptiles Family Chelydridae: Snapping Turtles Common Snapping Turtle Chelydra serpintina serpintina Family Kinosternidae: Musk and Mud Turtles Yellow Mud Turtle Kinosternon flavescens flavescens Common Musk Turtle Sternotherus odoratus Family Emydidae: Box and Water Turtles Texas MapTurtle Graptemys caglei Texas River Cooter Pseudoemys texana *Three-toed Box Turtle Terrapene carolina triunguis Ornate Box Turtle Terrapene ornata ornata Red-eared slider Trachemys scripta elegans Family Trionychaidae: Softshell Turtles Guadalupe Spiny Softshell Apalone spinifera guadalupensis Family Gekkonidae: Geckos *Mediterranean Gecko Hemidactylus turcicus Family Polychridae: Anoles Green Anole Anolis carolinensis Family Crotaphytidae: Collared Lizards Eastern Collared Lizard Crotaphyyus collaris collaris Family Phrynosomatidae: Earless, Spiny, Tree, Side-blotched and Horned Lizards Texas Earless Lizard Cophosaurus texanus texanus Plateau Earless Lizard Holbrookia lacerata lacerata Texas Horned Lizard Phyrnosoma conrutum *Texas Spiny Lizard Sceloporus olivaceous Southern Prairie Lizard Sceloporus undulatus consobrinus Eastern Tree Lizard Urosaurus ornatus ornatus Family Scinidae: Skinks Great Plains Skink Eumeces obsoletus Short-lined Skink Eumeces tetragrammus Ground Skink Scinella lateralis Family Teiidae: Whiptails Texas Spotted Whiptail Cnemidophorus gularis gularis *Six-lined Racerunner Cnemidophorus sexlineatus sexlineatus Family Anguidae: Glass and Alligator Lizards *Texas Alligator Lizard Gerrhonotus liocephalus infernales Western Slender Glass Lizard Ophisaurus attenuatus attenuatus Family Leptotyphlopidae: Blind Snakes

Plains Blind Snake Leptotyphlops dulcis dulcis Family Colubridae: Colubrids Texas Glossy Snake Arizona elegans arenicola *Eastern Yellowbelly Racer Coluber constrictor flaviventris Prairie Ringneck Snake Diadophus punctatus arnyi Great Plains Rat Snake Elaphe guttata emoryi Texas Rat Snake Elaphe obsoleta lindheimerii Eastern Hognose Snake Heterodon platirhinos Prairie Kingsnake Lampropeltis calligaster calligaster Speckled Kingsnake Lampropeltis getula holbrooki Louisiana Milk Snake Lampropeltis triangulum amaura Western Coachwhip Masticophus flagellum testaceus Central Texas Whipsnake Masticophus taeniatus girardi Schott's Whipsnake Masticophus taeniatus schotti Blotched Water Snake Nerodia erythrogaster transversa Broad-banded Water Snake Nerodia fasciata confluens Diamondback Water Snake Nerodia rhombifiera rhombifera *Rough Green Snake Opheodrys aestivus Bullsnake Pituophus catenifer sayi *Texas Patchnose Snake Salvadora grahamiae lineata Ground Snake Sonora semiannulata Taylor's Ground Snake Sonora semiannulata taylori Texas Brown Snake Storeria dekayi texana Flathead Snake Tantilla gracilis Plains Blackhead Snake Tantilla nigriceps *Eastern Blackneck Garter Snake Thamnophis cyrtopsis ocellatus Checkered Garter Snake Thamnophis marcianus marcianus Redstripe Ribbon Snake Thamnopis proximus rubrilinaetus Texas Garter Snake Thamnopis sirtalis annectens Rough Earth Snake Virginia striatula Western Earth Snake Virginia valeriae elegans Family Elaphidae: Coral Snakes *Texas Coral Snake Micrurus fulvius tener Family Viperidae: Vipers *Broad-banded Copperhead Agkistrodon contortrix laticinctus Western Cottonmouth Agkistrodon piscivorus leucostoma *Western Diamondback Rattlesnake Crotalus atrox Blacktail Rattlesnake Crotalus molossus molossus

Class AVES: Birds Family Gaviidae: Loons Common Loon Gavia immer

Family Podicipedidae: Grebes Pied-billed Grebe Podilymbud podiceps Horned Grebe Podiceps auritus Eared Grebe Podiceps nigricollis Family Pelecanidae: Pelicans *American White Pelican Pelecanus erythrorhynchos Family Phalacrocoracidae: True Cormorants Neotropic Cormorant Phalacrocorax brasilianus *Double-crested Cormorant Phalacrocorax auritus Family Anhingidae: Anhingas Anhinga Anhinga anhinga Family Ardeidae: Bitterns, Herons and Egrets American Bittern Botaurus lentiginosus Least Bittern Ixobrychus exilis *Great Blue Heron Ardea herodias Great Egret Casmerodius albus Snowy Egret Egretta thula Little Blue Heron Egretta caerulea Tricolored Heron Egretta tricolor Cattle Egret Bubulcus ibis *Green Heron Butorides striatus Black-crowned Night-Heron Nycticorax nycticorax *Yellow-crowned Night-Heron Nyctanassa violacea Family Cathartidae: New World Vultures *Black Vulture Coragyps atratus *Turkey Vulture Cathartes aura Family Anatidae: Swans, Geese, and Ducks Black-bellied Whistling-Duck Dendrocygna autumnalis Snow Goose Chen caerulescens Wood Duck Aix sponsa Gadwall Anas strepera *American Wigeon Anas americana *Mallard Anas platyrhychos Blue-winged Teal Anas discors Northern Shoveler Anas clypeta Northern Pintail Anas acuta Green-winged Teal Anas crecca Redhead Aythya valisneria Ring-necked Duck Aythya collaris Lesser Scaup Aythya affinis Bufflehead Bucephala albeola Ruddy Duck Oxyura jamaicenssis

Family Accipitridae: Diurnal Raptors *Osprey Pandion haliaetus *Mississippi Kite Ictinia mississippiensis Northern Harrier Circus cyaneus *Bald Eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus *Sharp-shinned Hawk Accipter striatus *Cooper's Hawk Accipiter cooperii *Red-shouldered Hawk Buteo lineatus *Broad-winged Hawk Buteo platypterus *Swainson's Hawk Buteo swainsoni Zone-tailed Hawk Buteo albonotatus *Red-tailed Hawk Buteo jamaicensis Ferruginous Hawk Buteo regalis Family Falconidae: True Falcons and Caracara *Crested Caracara Polyborus plancus *American Kestrel Falco sparverius Merlin Falco columbarius Peregrine Falcon Falco peregrinus Family Phasianidae: Upland Game Birds *Wild Turkey Meleagris gallopavo Family Odontophoridae: Quail *Northern Bobwhite Colinus virginianus Family Rallidae: Rails Sora Porzana carolina Purple Gallinule Porphyrula martinica American Coot Fulica americana Family Gruidae: Cranes *Sandhill Crane Grus canadensis Family Charadriidae: Plovers *Killdeer Charadrius vociferus Family Scolopacidae: Shorebirds Greater Yellowlegs Tringa melanoleuca Lesser Yellowlegs Tringa flavipes Solitary Sandpiper Tringa solitaria Spotted Sandpiper Actitus macularia *Upland Sandpiper Bartramia longicauda Long-billed Curlew Numenius americanus Western Sandpiper Calidris mauri Least Sandpiper Calidris fuscicollis White-rumped Sandpiper Calidris fusciollis Baird's Sandpiper Calidris bairdii Pectoral Sandpiper Calidris melanotos

Stilt Sandpiper Calidris himantopus Common Snipe Gallinago gallinago American Woodcock Scolopax minor Family Laridae: Gulls, Terns, and Skimmers Franklin's Gull Larus pipixcan *Ring-billed Gull Larus delawarensis Herring Gull Larus argentatus Forster's Tern Sterna forsteri Family Columbidae: Pigeons and Doves *Rock Dove Columba livia *White-winged Dove Zenaida asiatica *Mourning Dove Zenaida macroura *Eurasian Collared-dove Zenaida chinensis *Inca Dove Columbina inca Common Ground-Dove Columbina passerina Family Psittacidae: Parrots and Their Allies Monk Parakeet Myiopsitta monachus Family Cuculidae: Cuckoos and Their Allies Black-billed Cuckoo Coccyzus erythropthalmus *Yellow-billed Cuckoo Coccyzus americanus *Greater Roadrunner Geococcyx californianus Family Tytonidae: Barn Owls *Barn Owl Tyto alba Family Strigidae: Owls *Eastern Screech-Owl Otus asio *Great Horned Owl Bubo virginianus Barred Owl Strix varia Long-eared Owl Asio otus Short-eared Owl Asio flammeus Family Caprimulgidae: Goatsuckers *Common Nighthawk Chordeiles minor *Common Poorwill Phalaenoptilus nuttallii *Chuck-will's-widow Caprimulgus carolinensis Whip-poor-will Caprimulgus vociferus Family Apodidae: Swifts *Chimney Swift Chaetura pelagica Family Trochilidae: Hummingbirds Green Violet-ear Colibri thalassinus *Ruby-throated Hummingbird Archilochus colubris *Black-chinned Hummingbird Archilochus alexandri *Rufous Hummingbird Selasphorus rufus

Family Alcedinidae: Kingfishers *Belted Kingfisher Ceryle alcyon Green Kingfisher Chloroceryle americana Family Picidae: Woopeckers *Golden-fronted Woodpecker Melanerpes aurifrons *Red-bellied Woodpecker Melanerpes carolinus Yellow-bellied Sapsucker Sphyrapicus varius *Ladder-backed Woodpecker Picoides nuttalii *Downy Woodpecker Picoides pubescens *Northern Flicker Colaptes auratus Family Tyrannidae: Tyrant flycatchers Olive-sided Flycatcher Contopus borealis *Eastern Wood-Pewee Contopus virens Yellow-bellied Flycatcher Empidonax flaviventris Acadian Flycatcher Empidonax virescens *Least Flycatcher Empidonax minimus Black Phoebe Sayornis nigricans *Eastern Phoebe Sayornis phoebe Say's Phoebe Sayornis saya Vermilion Flycatcher Pyrocephalus rubinus *Ash-throated Flycatcher Myiarchus cinerascens Brown-crested Flycatcher Myiarchus tyrannulus *Great Crested Flycatcher Myarchus crinitus *Western Kingbird Tyrannus vertcalis Eastern Kingbird Tyrannus tyrannus *Scissor-tailed Flycatcher Tyrannus forficatus Family Laniidae: Shrikes *Loggerhead Shrike Lanius ludovicianus Family Vireonidae: Vireos *White-eyed Vireo Vireo griseus Bell's Vireo Vireo bellii Black-capped Vireo Vireo atricapillus Yellow-throated Vireo Vireo flavifrons *Blue-headed Vireo Vireo solitarius *Hutton's Vireo Vireo huttoni Warbling Vireo Vireo gilvus Philadelphia Vireo Vireo philadelphicus *Red-eyed Vireo Vireo olivaceus Family Corvidae: Jays, Crows, and Their Allies *Blue Jay Cyanocitta cristata *Western Scrub Jay Aphelocoma californica *American Crow Corvus brachyrhynchos

*Common Raven Corvus corax Family Alaudidae: Larks Horned Lark Eremophila alpestris Family Hirundinidae: Swallows *Purple Martin Progne subis Northern Rough-winged Swallow Stelgidopteryx serripennis Bank Swallow Riparia riparia *Cliff Swallow Hirundo fulva Cave Swallow Hirundo fulva *Barn Swallow Hirundo rustica Family Paridae: Titmice and Chickadees *Carolina Chickadee Poecile carolinensis *Tufted Titmouse Baeolophus bicolor *Black-crested Titmouse Baeolophus atricristatus Family Remizidae: Verdin Verdin Auriparus flaviceps Family Aegithalidae: Bushtit *Bushtit Psaltriparus minimus Family Sittidae: Nuthatches *Red-breasted Nuthatch Sitta canadensis *White-breasted Nuthatch Sitta carolinensis Family Certhiidae: Creepers *Brown Creeper Certhia americana Family Troglodytidae: Wrens Cactus Wren Campylorhynchus brunneicapillus Rock Wren Salpinctes obsoletus *Canyon Wren Catherpes mexicanus *Carolina Wren Thryothorus ludovicianus *Bewick's Wren Thryomanes bewickii *House Wren Troglodytes aedon Winter Wren Troglodytes troglodytes Sedge Wren Cistothorus platensis Marsh Wren Cistothorus palustris Family Regulidae: Kinglets *Golden-crowned Kinglet Regulus satrapa *Ruby-crowned Kinglet Regulus calendula Family Sylviidae: Old World Warblers and Gnatcatchers *Blue-gray Gnatcatcher Polioptila caerulea Family Turtidae: Thrushes *Eastern Bluebird Sialia sialis Western Bluebird Sialia mexicana

Townsend's Solitare Myadestes townsendii Swainson's Thrush Catharus ustulatus *Hermit Thrush Catharus guttatus *American Robin Turdus migratorius Family Mimidae: Mimids *Gray Catbird Dumetella carolinensis *Northern Mockingbird Mimus polyglottos Sage Thrasher Oreoscoptes montanus Brown Thrasher Toxostoma rufum Long-billed Thrasher Toxostoma longirostre Curve-billed Thrasher Toxostoma curviostre Family Sturnidae: Starlings *European Starling Sturnus vulgaris Family Motacillidae: Wagtails and Pipits American Pipit Anthus rubescens Sprague's Pipit Anthus spragueii Family Bombycillidae: Waxwings *Cedar Waxwing Bombycilla cedrorum Family Parulidae: Wood-warblers Blue-winged Warbler Vermivora pinus Golden-winged Warbler Vermivora chrysoptera *Tennessee Warbler Vermivora peregrina *Orange-crowned Warbler Vermivora celata *Nashville Warbler Vermivora ruficapilla Northern Parula Parula americana *Yellow Warbler Dendroica petechia *Chestnut-sided Warbler Dendroica pensylvanica *Magnolia Warbler Dendroica magnolia *Yellow-rumped Warbler Dendroica coronata *Golden-cheeked Warbler Setophaga chrysoparia *Black-throated Green Warbler Dendroica virens *Pine Warbler Dendroica pinus Bay-breasted Warbler Dendroica castanea *Black-and-white Warbler Mniotitla varia *Blackburnian Warbler Dendroica fusca *American Redstart Setophaga ruticilla Prothonotary Warbler Protonotaria citrea Northern Waterthrush Seiurus noveboracensis Louisiana Waterthrush Seiurus motacilla Mourning Warbler Oporornis philidelphia MacGillivray's Warbler Oporornis tolmiei Common Yellowthroat Geothlypis trichas

*Wilson's Warbler Wilsonia pusilla *Canada Warbler Wilsonia canadensis *Yellow breasted Chat Icteria virens Family Thraupidae: Tanagers *Summer Tanager Piranga rubra Western Tanager Piranga lludoviciana Family Emberizidae: Emberizine Sparrows and Their Allies *Green-tailed Towhee Pipilio chlorurus *Spotted Towhee Pipilo maculatus Eastern Towhee Pipilo erythrophthalmus Canyon Towhee Pipilo fuscus Cassin's Sparrow Aimophila cassinii *Rufous-crowned Sparrow Aimophila ruficeps *Chipping Sparrow Spizella passerina Clay-colored Sparrow Spizella pallida *Field Sparrow Spizella pusilla Vesper Sparrow Pooecetes gramineus *Lark Sparrow Chondestes grammacus Black-throated Sparrow Amphispiza bilineata Lark Bunting Calamospiza melanocorys *Savannah Sparrow Passerculus sandwichensis Grasshopper Sparrow Ammodramus savannarum LeConte's Sparrow Ammodrammus leconteii *Fox Sparrow Passerella iliaca Song Sparrow Melospiza melodia *Lincoln's Sparrow Melospiza lincolnii Swamp Sparrow Melospiza georgiana *White-throated Sparrow Zonotrichia albicollis Harris' Sparrow Zonotrichia querula *White-crowned Sparrow Zonotrichia leucophrys *Dark-eyed Junco Junco hyemalis Family Cardinalidae: Cardinals and Their Allies *Northern Cardinal Cardinalis cardinalis *Pyrrhuloxia Cardinalis sinuatus Rose-breasted Grosbeak Pheuticus ludovicianus Black-headed Grosbeak Pheucticus melanocephalus *Blue Grosbeak Guiraca caerulea *Lazuli Bunting Passerina amoena *Indigo Bunting Passerina cyanea *Painted Bunting Passerina cirus *Dickicissel Spiza americana Family Icteridae: Icterids

*Red-winged Blackbird Aeglaius phoeniceus *Eastern Meadowlark Sturnella magna Western Meadowlark Sturnella neglecta Yellow-headed Blackbird Xanthocephalus xanthocephalus Brewer's Blackbird Euphagus cyanocephalus *Common Grackle Quiscalus quiscula *Great-tailed Grackle Quiscalus mexicanus *Bronzed Cowbird Molothrus aenus *Brown-headed Cowbird Molothrus ater *Orchard Oriole Icterus spurius *Baltimore Oriole Icterus galbula Family Fringillidae: Finches Purple Finch Carpodactus purpureus *House Finch Carpodacus mexicanus *Pine Siskin Carduelis pinus *Lesser Goldfinch Carduelis psaltria *American Goldfinch Carduelis tristis Family Passeridae: Old World Sparrows *House Sparrow Passer domesticus

Class MAMMALIA: Mammals Family Didelphidae: Opossums *Virginia Opossum Didelphis virginiana Family Soricidae: Shrews Least Shrew Cryptotis parva Family: Vespertilionidae: Vesperilionid Bats Cave Myotis Myotis velifer incautus Big Brown Bat Eptesicus fuscus Eastern Red Bat Lasiurus boralis Hoary Bat Lasiurus cinereus Evening Bat Nycticeius humeralis Northern Yellow Bat Lasiurus intermedius floridanuus Eastern Pipistrelle Pipistrellus subflavus Family Molossidae: Free-tailed Bats Brazillian Free-tailed Bat Tadarida brasiliensis Family Dasypodidae: Armadillos *Nine-banded Armadillo Dasypus novemcnctus Family Leporidae: Hares and Rabbits Swamp Rabbit Sylvilagus aquaticus *Eastern Cottontail Sylvilagus floridanus *Black-tailed Jackrabbit Lepus califoricus

Family Geomyidae: Pocket Gophers Attwater's Pocket Gopher Geomys attwateri Family Sciuridae: Squirrels Mexican Ground Squirrel Spermophilus mexicanus *Rock Squirrel Spermophilus variegatus Eastern Gray Squirrel Sciurus carolinensis *Eastern Fox Squirrel Sciurus niger Family Heteromydiae: Heteromyids Merriam's Pocket Mouse Perognathus merriami Hispid Pocket Mouse Chaetodipus hispidus Family Muridae: Mice, Rats and Voles Fulvous Harvest Mouse Reithrodontomys fulvescens Plains Harvest Mouse Reithrodontomys montanus Texas Mouse Peromyscus attwateri White-footed Mouse Peromyscus leocopus Deer Mouse Peromyscus maniculatus White-ankled Mouse Peromyscus pectoralis Northern Pygmy Mouse Baiomys taylori *Hispid Cotton Rat Sigmodon hispidus Eastern Woodrat Neotoma floridana Norway Rat Rattus norvegicuus Black Rat Rattus rattus House Mouse Mus musculus Family Erethizontidae: New World Porcupines Porcupine Erethizon dorsatum Family Myocastoridae: Myocastorids Nutria Myocastor coypus Family Canidae: Canids *Feral Dog Canis familaris *Coyote Canis latrans Red Fox Vulpes vulpes *Common Gray Fox Urocyon cinereoargenteus Family Procyonidae: Procyonids *Ringtail Bassariscus astutus *Common Raccoon Procyon lotor Family Mustelidae: Mustelids American Badger Taxidea taxus Striped Skunk Mephitis mephitis Common Hog-nosed Skunk Conepatus mesoleucus Family Felidae:Cats Mountain Lion Felis concolor

*Feral Cat Felis catus *Bobcat Felis rufus Family Suidae: Pigs *Feral pig Sus scrofa Family Dicotylidae: Peccaries Collared Peccary Tayassu tajacu Family Cervidae: Cervids Axis Deer Cervus axis *White-tailed Deer Odocoileus virgineanus

APPENDIX K

2012 BAKER SANCTUARY 100-ACRE SURVEY RESULTS

RESULTS OF THE GOLDEN-CHEEKED WARBLER SURVEY FOR THE BAKER SANCTUARY 100-ACRE PLOT

SPRING 2012 TRAVIS COUNTY, TEXAS

Prepared for:

Travis Audubon Society 3710 Cedar St., Box 5 Austin, Texas 78705

Prepared by:

Christopher Murray Baker Steward

12219 Lime Creek Road Leander, TX 78641

September 2012

TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Results of the Golden-cheeked Warbler Survey for the Baker Sanctuary 100-acre Plot……………………………………... 1-3 Maps Baker Sanctuary Golden-cheeked Warbler 100-acre Plot…………………………. 4 Tables 1. Golden-cheeked Warbler individuals banded during the 2011 - 2012 Baker Sanctuary 100-acre surveys…………………………………………………………………… 5 2. Designation of Golden-cheeked Warbler territory status and number of females and fledglings detected per territory for the 2012 Baker Sanctuary 100-acre survey...... 6 3. Nest tree data for Golden-cheeked Warbler nests discovered during the Baker Sanctuary 100-acre survey, 2012 ………………………………………………….. 6 4. Adjusted total of Golden-cheeked Warbler territories, females and fledglings detected during Baker Sanctuary 100-acre plot surveys, 2006 - 2012. ……. 7 5. Bird species detected in the Baker Sanctuary 100-acre plot during the 2012 Golden-cheeked Warbler surveys......................................................................................... 7-9 6. Acknowledgements……………………………………………………………... 9

Results of the Golden-cheeked Warbler Survey for the Baker Sanctuary 100-acre Plot

Spring 2012 This season, the annual 100-acre survey saw its second year of participation with the City of Austin as a partner in a five year study to determine Golden-cheeked Warbler (Setophaga chrysoparia) population viability and habitat suitability in the Balcones Canyonlands Preserve (BCP). In accordance with the protocol adopted by BCP partners at the beginning of the viability and habitat suitability study last season, small crews continued to mist net and band males in addition to spot-mapping territories and searching for and monitoring nests. Captured birds were again aged into one of two categories based on plumage characteristics, second year (SY) or after second year (ASY). Second year birds fledged the previous breeding season whereas ASY birds are on their third season, at the least. While not specifically targeted, if females or juvenile Golden-cheeked Warblers (GCWA) were netted they were also banded. During the 2012 season, 9 males and 1 female were captured and banded for a two season total of 23 banded individuals (Table 1). For the 2012 survey, US Forest Service (USFS) seasonal employee Caitlin Winters and I split survey duties during the season, allowing for an increase in overall survey time to more accurately document territories and locate nests as well as to determine breeding productivity. To accommodate two observers, each week the plot was split in half with each observer responsible for their assigned section. The assigned section was rotated every week, effectively allowing each observer to survey the entire plot throughout the course of a month. For example, if the first week I surveyed the northern section, Caitlin would cover the southern section. The following week I would survey the eastern section and Caitlin the western, and so on, rotating through the plot in a clockwise fashion. When splitting the plot in half, no hard line was set as a boundary, rather each observer estimated where the halfway mark was located and used discretion if a GCWA needed to be pursued over the imaginary dividing line. By splitting coverage in this fashion, observer bias should be lessened and a more accurate picture of territory distribution realized. In addition to covering the traditional 100-acres, the 100 meter buffer zone surrounding the plot was again routinely searched in an effort to detect additional banded males. Beginning on March 12th and continuing through June 7th, one half of the study plot was formally surveyed by Murray and the other half by Winters each week with an additional two visits per week by Winters to specifically search for and monitor nests. In total, 326.5 hours were invested in monitoring the Baker 100-acre plot for the 2012 season, a 42% increase over last year and the most intensive survey to date. All surveys were conducted following the protocol outlined in the BCP Land Manager’s Handbook. Locations of individual Golden-cheeked Warblers were mapped by hand in the field and GPS coordinates obtained for all detections. Due to the presence of color banded individuals, visual confirmation of GCWAs was attempted whenever possible. Movements, counter-singing by males, and color bands were documented and used to distinguish individuals and identify territory boundaries. Observations of females, nests, and fledglings were also documented. All survey

observations were compiled and analyzed to obtain an estimate of established male territories within the plot as well as the buffer zone. In an effort to consistently analyze the number of territories present in the 100-acre plot regardless of season or observer, a method to enumerate territories was adopted. To be classified as an ‘edge’ territory a GCWA must have a minimum of three observations points inside and outside the plot during at least two survey sessions. Otherwise, the GCWA will be designated as ‘full’ or ‘out’ depending on where the majority of the observations occur. Full territories will be enumerated as 1.0, edge territories 0.5, and out territories as zero. Based on compiled observations, including patterns of movement, re-sighting of color banded individuals, counter-singing, and the presence of females and fledglings, it is estimated that eight Golden-cheeked Warbler males established territories substantially within plot boundaries (full), four males occupied territories partially within the plot (edge), and four males held territories directly adjacent to the plot (out) yielding an adjusted total of 10 territories for the 100-acre plot (Table 2) area. While the presence of color banded GCWAs has eliminated some of the guesswork involved with attributing territories to males, some individuals remain unbanded. In the instances where males were not banded, territories were assigned in a conservative fashion to avoid overstating the number of territories associated with the plot. For the first time since the 100-acre survey was initiated in 1999, females were detected with all the singing males and almost all nests were discovered and monitored. Prior to 2011 and the launch of the viability and habitat suitability project, nest searching and monitoring were conducted but the focus was on determining the density and distribution of territories, a time-consuming task when birds are not color banded. With the addition of personnel (and a great deal of skill by Caitlin Winters) and a substantial increase in the time spent in the field, a more accurate picture of fecundity has begun to emerge along with valuable data illuminating nest site preferences. For the 17 nests discovered during the 2012 survey, average nest tree height was 9.47 meters, average nest tree diameter at breast height was 24.35 cm, and average nest height was 7.28 meters. Nine nests were placed in Ashe Juniper (Juniperus ashei), three in Cedar Elm (Ulmus crassifolia), three in Plateau Live Oak (Quercus fusiformis), and one each in Shin Oak (Quercus sinuata), and a walnut (Juglans sp) (Table 3). The 2012 season yielded an adjusted total of ten territories present in and around the 100-acre plot, marginally lower than the 10.5 adjusted total for the 2011 season, and much lower when compared to territory density reported in the past (Table 4). One way to interpret the data is that territory density has greatly decreased from a high of 24 territories in 2006 to the current level of approximately 10 territories which has been documented over the last three seasons. In that time central Texas has experienced two significant drought events, so it is a reasonable assumption that the resultant lack of available water and prey items would have a negative impact on the GCWA population. However, as mentioned in the 2011 100-acre report, it is difficult to compare survey data prior to the 2011 survey due to significant changes in protocol, namely the addition of color-banded individuals, the practice of splitting the plot between two observers, and an increase in time spent in the field. From 2006-2010 approximately 60 hours were spent in the field per survey, a number that leaped to 150 hours

in 2011, and more than doubled to 327 hours invested in 2012. Therefore, another way to interpret the data is that prior surveys, without the benefits previously mentioned, were estimating GCWA territory density at an artificially high level. The fact that only 17 fledglings were detected in the 2006 and 2007 surveys seems to support that argument; however the 2010 survey, also without the benefit of color-banded individuals, estimated only ten territories, the same amount as determined in the augmented 2011 and 2012 surveys. A conservative analysis of the data would suggest reality lies somewhere in between, that territory density in some of the older surveys may have been artificially high but the population was negatively affected by drought and territory density has since declined to its present level. The next three years of surveys should shed more light on the issue, assuming color-banding and survey efforts remain comparable to the prior two seasons. The map on page 4 displays locations of all Golden-cheeked Warbler observations and estimated territory boundaries for 2012. Polygons surrounding the observations represent approximate boundaries of male territories, with each territory identified by color band combinations or an unbanded designation. Presence of a female Golden-cheeked Warbler, number of fledglings (f), and nest location (red asterisk) are indicated within each territory. Due to Caitlin Winters’ diligence in finding and monitoring nests, not only are nest locations displayed on the map but six incidences of GCWAs raising two broods were observed, indicated by the f symbol displayed in stacked rows in the appropriate polygon; for instance, BK/DB:DB/SI fledged a brood of four as well as a brood of three fledglings. In addition to clarifying territory and fecundity data, the presence of color-banded individuals also allows recognition of males returning to the plot from previous seasons. The 2012 survey saw three banded individuals (DB/BK:MV/SI, NB/SI:PI/MV, RD/SI:DB/YE) return to the 100-acre plot area from the 2011 season. Table 5 lists the 51 bird species detected in or near the 100-acre plot during the 2012 surveys. In addition to Golden-cheeked Warblers, species detected on most surveys included Turkey Vulture, Mourning Dove, Greater Roadrunner, Ladder-backed Woodpecker, Western Scrub-jay, Carolina Chickadee, Black-crested Titmouse, Bewick’s Wren, Blue-gray Gnatcatcher, Black-and-white Warbler, Northern Cardinal, and Common Grackle. Passing migrants included Nashville Warbler, Magnolia Warbler, Black-throated Green Warbler, and American Redstart. Commonly seen birds presumed to be nesting in or near the plot included Painted Bunting, Yellow-billed Cuckoo, Summer Tanager, Great Horned Owl, Northern Mockingbird, White-eyed Vireo, and White-winged Dove. Brown-headed Cowbirds were detected only once during the surveys. Other animals detected during the survey include Eastern Fox Squirrel (Sciurus niger), Rock Squirrel (Citellus variegatus), and Gray Fox (Urocyon cinereoargenteus).

Table 1. GCWA individuals banded during the 2011- 2012 Baker Sanctuary 100-acre surveys.

Date Banded Combo UTM-easting

UTM-northing Sex Age

3/21/2011 MV/SI:NB/YE 608592 3372177 M SY 3/21/2011 MV/BL:PI/SI 608562 3372050 M ASY 3/21/2011 OR/OR:DG/SI 608782 3372118 M SY 3/21/2011 BK/YE:DG/SI 608662 3371918 M SY 3/21/2011 YE/DG:DB/SI 609077 3372089 M ASY 3/21/2011 DB/BK:MV/SI 608949 3372688 M ASY 3/21/2011 RD/SI:BK/DG 608949 3372688 F ASY 3/30/2011 NB/SI:PI/MV 609134 3372328 M ASY 4/27/2011 WH/SI:OR/BL 608699 3372373 M SY 5/9/2011 NB/MV:GR/SI 608606 3372329 M SY 5/9/2011 WH/BK:WH/SI 608582 3372040 M SY 5/9/2011 OR/SI:MV/DG 608582 3372040 F ASY 5/9/2011 RD/SI:DB/YE 608842 3371939 M ASY 3/14/2012 BL/DB:RD/SI 608600 3372362 M ASY 3/14/2012 BK/SI:OR/PI 608549 3372107 M ASY 3/14/2012 BL/WH:RD/SI 609212 3372594 M SY 3/23/2012 BK/DG:DB/SI 609128 3372113 M SY 3/23/2012 WH/SI:DG/YE 609044 3372468 M SY 3/23/2012 RD/SI:BL/PI 608907 3372627 F ASY 3/30/2012 WH/DG:BK/SI 608541 3372481 M SY 4/7/2012 OR/SI:WH/RD 608907 337056 M SY 4/7/2012 PI/SI:GR/YE 608535 3372162 M SY 4/11/2012 PI/SI:NB/DG 608774 3372341 M ASY

Table 2. Designation of Golden-cheeked Warbler territory status and number of females and fledglings detected per territory for the 2012 Baker Sanctuary 100-acre survey. GCWA Designation

Territory Status Female Detected Number of Fledglings Detected

UBBK4 Full Yes 2* WH/DG:BK/SI Full Yes 2 PI/SI:NB/DG Full Yes 4 BL/DB:RD/SI Full Yes 6* BK/SI:OR/PI Full Yes 3 OR/SI:WH/RD Full Yes 0 WH/SI:DG/YE Full Yes 0 BK/DG:DB/SI Full Yes 7* UBBK2 Edge Yes 5* PI/SI:GR/YE Edge Yes 2 DB/BK:MV/SI Edge Yes 2 NB/SI:PI/MV Edge Yes 5* UBBK3 Out Yes 2 UBBK5 Out Yes 5* BL/WH:RD/SI Out Yes 0 RD/SI:DB/YE Out Yes 0 * Total fledglings produced in two broods. Table 3. Nest tree data for Golden-cheeked Warbler nests discovered during the Baker Sanctuary 100-acre survey, 2012.

Nest ID Nest Tree Height (m) Nest Height (m)

Nest Tree DBH (cm)

Nest Tree Species

04CP12 4.9 3.3 20.5 Ashe Juniper

05CP12 11.2 8.6 32 Plateau Live Oak

06CP12 11.5 9.9 21 Cedar Elm 08CP12 11.3 9.1 29 Cedar Elm


10CP12 16.6 8.3 41 Shin Oak 11CP12 9.8 7.8 29 Walnut 12CP12 11.0 9.0 29 Ashe Juniper 13CP12 7.6 7.0 17 Ashe Juniper


15CP12 8.9 6.5 21 Ashe Juniper 16CP12 9.5 7.6 22.5 Ashe Juniper 17CP12 5.7 5.5 19 Ashe Juniper 18CP12 5.8 4.5 10.5 Ashe Juniper 20CP12 8.5 6.5 28.5 Ashe Juniper 21CP12 7.4 5.4 17 Ashe Juniper 22CP12 9.6 7.4 29 Cedar Elm

Table 4. Adjusted total of Golden-cheeked Warbler territories, females and fledglings detected during Baker Sanctuary 100-acre plot surveys, 2006 - 2012. Survey Date

Territories (full/edge)

Females

Fledglings

2006

24 (22/4)

18

17

2007

23.5 (20/7)

8

17

2008

17.5 (14/7)

10

16

2009

16 (14/4)

6

7

2010

10 (9/2)

6

11

2011

10.5 (6/9)

9

21

2012

10 (8/4)

12

38

Table 5. Bird species detected in the Baker Sanctuary 100-acre plot during the 2012 Golden-cheeked Warbler surveys. SPECIES Week of: WEEKS

DETECTED 3/19 3/26 4/2 4/9 4/16 4/23 4/30 5/7 5/14 5/21 Northern Bobwhite X X X X X 5

Turkey Vulture X X X X X X X 7

Red-shouldered Hawk X X X 3

Red-tailed Hawk X 1

Wild Turkey X X X 3

White-winged Dove X X X X 4

Mourning Dove X X X X X X X X X 9

Yellow-billed Cuckoo X X X X 4

Greater Roadrunner X X X X X X X X 8

Great Horned Owl X X 2

Chuck-will's-widow X X 2

SPECIES Week of: WEEKS DETECTED 3/19 3/26 4/2 4/9 4/16 4/23 4/30 5/7 5/14 5/21

Chimney Swift X X X X X 5

Golden-fronted Woodpecker X 1

Ladder-backed Woodpecker X X X X X X X 7

Empidonax sp. X X 2

Eastern Phoebe X 1

Great Crested Flycatcher X 1

Ash-throated Flycatcher X X X X X 5

White-eyed Vireo X X X X X 5

Red-eyed Vireo X X X 3

Blue Jay X X 2

Western Scrub-Jay X X X X X X X X X X 10

American Crow X X 2

Carolina Chickadee X X X X X X X X X 9

Black-crested Titmouse X X X X X X X X X X 10

Carolina Wren X X 2

Bewick's Wren X X X X X X X 7

Blue-gray Gnatcatcher X X X X X X X X X 9

Ruby-crowned Kinglet X X 2

Cedar Waxwing X 1

Eastern Bluebird X 1

Hermit Thrush X X X 3

American Robin X X X X X 5

Northern Mockingbird X X X X X 5

Nashville Warbler X X X X X 5

Magnolia Warbler X 1

Yellow-rumped Warbler X X 2

SPECIES Week of: WEEKS DETECTED 3/19 3/26 4/2 4/9 4/16 4/23 4/30 5/7 5/14 5/21

Golden-cheeked Warbler X X X X X X X X X X 10

Black-throated Green Warbler X X 2

Black-and-white Warbler X X X X X X X X X 9

American Redstart X 1

Summer Tanager X X X X 4

Northern Cardinal X X X X X X X X X X 10

Dickcissel X 1

Blue Grosbeak X 1

Painted Bunting X X 2

Indigo Bunting X 1

Common Grackle X X X X X X X 7

Brown-headed Cowbird X 1

House Finch X 1

Lesser Goldfinch X 1

TOTAL SPECIES

20 21 18 19 21 24 24 14 27 17 51

Acknowledgements: Special thanks to Cynthia Sperry for helping to verify data and assisting in creating the final 2012 GCWA survey map. Cynthia was always available to answer questions and her expertise and professionalism was a great help in the completion of this report.

APPENDIX L BAKER STEWARD JOB DESCRIPTION

2013 Baker Steward Job Description

Education and Outreach: Hold volunteer work days 2-6 times each year. Participate in the annual Open House and other events at Baker Sanctuary, when possible. Work with TAS newsletter editor to prepare short pieces on natural happenings at Baker Sanctuary. Respond in a timely manner to inquiries about the Baker Sanctuary from the TAS membership and the general public. Maintain the visitor register and make TAS newsletters and brochures available to all visitors. Be an ambassador to the local community (individual persons and groups) on behalf of TAS. Land Management: Manage the sanctuary in compliance with federal and local endangered species regulations relating to the Golden-cheeked Warbler. Use best management practices to protect against oak wilt, enhance red oak regeneration, and control non-native species within the sanctuary. Trap Brown-head Cowbirds and control feral hogs as needed. Actively participate in the BCP land managers group. Manage the annual White-tailed Deer hunting program. Coordinate Golden-cheeked Warbler surveys and oversee research projects as needed. Buildings, Grounds, and Trail maintenance: Maintain a presence on the Sanctuary, as required by TAS, to deter trespass and damage to Sanctuary property. Carry out routine maintenance and minor repairs as needed at the residence and all other structures and facilities within Baker Sanctuary. Maintain TAS equipment in good working condition. Maintain the grounds at all the public access points (e.g. JAEC, Baker Cabin, parking areas, steward trailheads), and maintain hiking trails, hunter access roads/shooting alleys, landscaping, and the steward’s residence. Maintain sanctuary fences, gates, and signs. Administrative: Keep the Sanctuary open on dates and hours as directed by the Sanctuary Committee. Bring any emergency to the attention of the Executive Director immediately. Submit a written activities report to the Executive Director each month. Submit an annual written BCP report to the Executive Director before submittal to Travis County for compilation with other BCP reports.

Adhere to the Board approved budget and help develop the Baker budget. Submit receipts for monthly expenses and keep petty cash register. Develop a written Operations Manual for the Baker Sanctuary and update on an annual basis. Keep the Baker Sanctuary property register (inventory) of all TAS tools, equipment, materials, supplies, and other items up to date.

APPENDIX M

BAKER SANCTUARY HEADQUARTERS ENVELOPE

APPENDIX N

BROWN-HEADED COWBID TRAPPING PROTOCOL

Cowbird Trapping Procedures The following procedures were adopted from the BCP Land Management Plan and the Fort Hood cowbird trapping protocol. Operating Season Travis County Natural Resources staff will have traps in operation as close to the ideal start date (March 1) as possible. All traps should be in operation no later than mid-March; however this is based on the availability of bait birds. Trapping should continue through May 31st. If insignificant numbers of female or juvenile cowbirds are being captured and/or immature non-target captures become unacceptably high, trapping should discontinue and the trap should be closed for the season. Checking Trap The visitation rate to the trap will vary with time of year. During warm weather (i.e., in excess of 85oF), approximately late May through July, it should be checked each day. During the rest of the trapping season (March to mid-May) the trap will be visited at least three days per week (Monday, Wednesday and Friday, or a similar schedule). In the event of inclement weather (e.g., ice storms, severe thunderstorms), trap visitation rate may increase. The amount of food and water may be adjusted for inclement weather. Because the number and types of non-target captures varies seasonally, trap visitation rates and timing will be adjusted to avoid or minimize trap mortality. During each visit, the number of cowbirds within the trap will be assessed and adjusted as needed. (see f, below) During each visit the need to remove non-target birds will be assessed. Non-target species should be released as early in the day as possible. Cowbirds will be euthanized on the first trap visit following capture of the maximum allowable number of birds. Because cowbirds within traps are an attractant to other cowbirds, minimum population levels must be maintained within traps. The Metal Hybrid Trap should not exceed 35 birds or drop below 5 birds if possible. To ease in counting, 15-20 birds should be kept alive. Any more is very difficult to count. It is important to make accurate counts on each visit, but if numbers reach over 30, at least one accurate count per week should be made. This might take up to three staff (and a lot of patience). Although we allow a few females to remain alive in the trap, generally their numbers should remain low in the event of escape (one female per five males is acceptable). Euthanized cowbirds will be buried as far away from the trap as to not attract scavengers. If greater than 10 birds are found dead in a single inspection, the potentially infected trap will need to be closed. Natural Resources staff should be contacted immediately to determine course of action. (The trap might be closed and the remaining birds observed for at least 20 days, or until the cause of death is determined. If after the observation period no birds exhibit pathogenic symptoms, the trap will be re-opened. If a possible pathogen is present,

the trap will be thoroughly cleaned and disinfected. Otherwise, all birds in the infected trap will be euthanized and disposed of by Natural Resources staff in accordance to set safety protocols. If the cause of death is determined to be non-pathogen related, the trap will be placed back into service immediately). Birds (both cowbirds to be euthanized and non-target species to be released) in the trap will be captured using a fine mesh net. It helps to remove obstacles (waterers, perches) when netting birds. Food and Water Cowbirds will be fed milo. The amount of milo used is approximately the contents of a 1-lb coffee can of milo per 15 birds, per day. Milo is to be stored in a re-sealable container, with a weighted lid. After adding or removing milo from this container, the lid is to be inspected to ensure that it is tightly closed. This is to prevent contamination by vermin. A poultry waterer is to be used as the water receptacle within the trap; this ensures that potable water is available at all times. During each trap visit, waterers are to be visually inspected for cleanliness, cleaned as necessary, and refilled as needed. Waterers are to be thoroughly cleaned with Lysol and a scrub brush and thoroughly rinsed with water at least once per month. More frequent cleaning may be required, depending on condition. Baths should be weighted down with a stone and also be cleaned periodically. Trap Maintenance Minor trap repairs (e.g., repairing small holes, re-attaching shade cloth) will be made on an ongoing basis. The trap’s physical condition and integrity should be checked on each visit. Traps should be kept free of tall grass or other debris. This enables staff to keep a closer eye on dead cowbirds, snakes, or other hazards. The height of grass within the trap will be kept below 2 inches to aid in sanitation. A string trimmer will be used within the trap to maintain grass height. Trap walls and floors will be regularly examined for accumulation of excreta. As necessary, but no less than once per year, trap floors will be cleaned using a rake and shovel, and trap walls and perches will be cleaned with a brush and/or a high pressure water hose. During this cleaning, PPE, which at a minimum must include a particulate filter and eye protection, must be worn. Rubber boots, aprons, or rainwear may be worn during the cleaning. To prevent escape of birds or entry by predators, gaps between the trap bottom and the ground will be filled with soil or blocked with chicken wire. Create shade (usually with shade cloth) without obscuring the birds in the trap. Special attention should be made on the “hotter” sides (i.e. those receiving afternoon sun). Record Keeping Data from each visit to an active trap will be recorded on a Cowbird Trapping Form. Specific data recorded will be determined by the format of the current form, and at a minimum will include date; number of cowbirds alive in trap; number of cowbirds found dead, killed, or added; number and species of non-target birds released; and predators or potential predators in or around trap.

Other Items Dry ice for the Death Bucket can be purchased at the Lakeline & 1431 HEBs- will only need about 1 lb to serve both traps. Send data to TPWD @ TPWD, Dept. Private Lands and Habitat, 4200 Smith Road, Austin, TX 78744

APPENDIX O

BAKER SANCTUARY WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT PLAN

TASBS WILDFIRE MANAGEMENT PLAN CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION....................................................................................................... 2 2.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE SANCTUARY ................................................................. 2 2.1 LOCATION OF SANCTUARY························································································ 2 2.2 GEOGRAPHY, GEOLOGY AND SOILS ........................................................................... 2 2.3 CLIMATE AND WATER······························································································· 3 2.4 VEGETATION .............................................................................................................. 3 2.5 WILDLIFE ................................................................................................................... 4 2.6 SPECIES OF CONCERN .....................··········································································· 4 3.0 CULTURAL RESOURCES....................................................................................... 5

3.1 PREHISTORIC.............................................................................................................. 5 3.2 HISTORIC ··················································································································· 5 3.3 CURRENT··················································································································· 5 4.0 ADJACENT LAND USAGE...................................................................................... 6 5.0 WILDFIRE MANAGEMENT................................................................................... 6

5.1 FIRE SEASON.............................................................................................................. 6 5.2 FIRE PREVENTION ······································································································ 6 5.3 PRESUPPRESSION ....................................................................................................... 6 5.4 DETECTION AND NOTIFICATION ................................................................................. 7 5.5 SUPPRESSION OF WILDFIRES ...................................................................................... 8 5.6 NATURAL RESOURCE PROTECTION············································································ 9 5.7 CULTURAL RESOURCE PROTECTION .......................................................................... 9 5.8 MUTUAL AID AND INTERAGENCY AGREEMENTS ..................................................... 10

6.0 REFERENCES.......................................................................................................... 11

2

1.0 INTRODUCTION The Travis Audubon Society Baker Sanctuary (TASBS) is a participating partner in the Balcones Canyonlands Preserve (BCP) System. The BCP currently consists of close to 30,000 acres of wild lands, the majority of which are immediately adjacent to a developing urban interface. Managing this urban/wild land interface with the potential for ftres moving from wild land vegetation into developed areas or visa versa will require special strategies and tactics. Compounding this challenging situation is the fact that these wild lands provide endangered species habitat. Preservation and restoration of the wild land areas to enhance the quality of the endangered species habitat is an essential requirement of the preserve system and the Balcones Canyonlands Conservation Plan (BCCP) Regional lO(a) permit issued by the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

2.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE SANCTUARY 2.1 Location of Sanctuary The TASBS consists of 682.611 acres in northwest Travis County, four miles west of Cedar Park, Texas in the BCP Cypress Creek Macrosite. It is accessible by means of Lime Creek Road, which bisects the property from a western property line east, then northeast to an eastern property line.

2.2 Geography, Geology and Soils The Travis Audubon Society Baker Sanctuary (TASBS) consists largely of wooded uplands with four small canyons containing some hillside seeps and intermittent streams. The Sanctuary property located north of Lime Creek Road includes Stuart Harris Creek, which is a tributary of Lime Creek. The Sanctuary property south of Lime Creek Road contains three valleys or canyons that make up the upper reaches of Cypress Creek. Thin, calcareous soils support a small grassland area immediately north and south of Lime Creek Road and mixed woodlands consisting of Ashe juniper plus deciduous species. These woodlands are distributed between upland areas, slopes and canyon bottoms where plant species diversity mcreases.

The geology of the TASBS is primarily on the first member of the Edwards Limestone, a lower Cretaceous formation. The uplands of the Sanctuary show the essentially flat topography. The geology of the TASBS is primarily on the ftrst member of the Edwards Limestone, a characterizing the Edwards. Though rock outcrops are rare, a smaller quantity of the Walnut formation is found exposed in the canyons. Within the central and southern portions of the property are two broadly rounded hills that reach elevations of approximately

3

1,080 feet. Though no systematic search for subsurface features has been undertaken, such features are likely to exist. The soils of the TASBS consist largely of the Tarrant Association. Travis County soil maps indicate small inclusions of Denton silty clay, Speck clay loam, and Purves silty clay as well. The small areas of creek side floodplains contain richer alluvial soils. All soils found there are mixed with fragments of limestone. 2.3 Climate and Water The climate in the Austin area is humid subtropical, with hot summers. Winters are mild with below-freezing temperatures occurring an average of less than 25 days per year. In general, January is the coldest month with July being the warmest. Precipitation is bimodal with rainfall maxima occurring in late spring (May) and early fall (September) and minima occurring in midwinter (January) and early summer (June) (Woodruff 1975). Prevailing winds are southerly throughout the year. Northerly winds that accompany the colder air masses in winter soon shift to southerly winds as these air masses move out over the Gulf of Mexico. The average annual precipitation is 31.9 inches. Precipitation from April through September is usually from thundershowers, while most winter precipitation occurs as light rain (NOAA 1993).

Surface hydrology consists of four intermittent creeks within small valleys or canyons and four intermittent springs or hillside seeps. Lime Creek flows along a portion of the northern boundary of the Sanctuary. When flowing, Harris Springs feeds Stuart Harris Creek in the northern portion of the property flows north into Lime Creek, which, in tum, flows into the Sandy Creek arm of Lake Travis. On the Sanctuary property located south of Lime Creek Road, two small, ephemeral headwater streams fed by the Baker Springs and the Audubon Springs and one intermittent branch stream fed by the Hatfield Spring merge off the Sanctuary property to feed Cypress Creek. No specific information concerning the subsurface hydrology of the Sanctuary exists. Given the generally karstic geology of the area and the existence of springs, it can be assumed that substantial subsurface water movement takes place.

2.4 Vegetation More than 85% of the Sanctuary's acreage is covered in varying densities with mature, mixed woodlands of Ashe juniper and assorted deciduous species. Though Ashe juniper is found in all parts of the property's woodlands, the deciduous component varies with elevation. Deciduous species in upland woods are largely plateau live oak (Quercus fusiformis), cedar elm (Ulmus crassifolia), and Texas persimmon (Diospyros texana). The upland trees are found among small areas of Hill Country savannah composed of native and

4

non-native grasses, prickly pear cactus (Opuntia sp.), and twist-leaf yucca (Yucca rupicola). Hillside woods contain the aforementioned species with additional small trees, including redbud (Cercis canadensis), and shrubs including wafer ash (Ptelea trifoliate) and agarito (Berberis trifoliolata).

Approximately 10% to 15% of this property lies in creek side riparian areas that are particularly species-rich. In these areas are found the widest diversity of plant species, including mixed woodlands of ash juniper and numerous other woody species, especially sycamore (Plantanus occidentalis) and american beautyberry (Callicarpa americana). Numerous other trees, shrubs, vines, forbs and grasslike species are to be found in the creek . sides. Approximately 5% to 10% of the Sanctuary is grassland. This area is north and south of Lime Creek Road in the center of the Sanctuary. Grasses found here include native midgrasses and shortgrasses and King Ranch bluestem mixed with small woody species and wildflowers. Several very limited areas of mixed deciduous shrublands with no trees exist on less than 10% of the property. 2.5 Wildlife A complete list of animal species found on the Sanctuary has never been compiled. However vertebrates seen on the Sanctuary include White-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus), Striped skunk (Mephistus mephistus), Raccoon (Procyon lotor), Armadillo (Dasypus novencinctus), Opossum (Didelphis virginiana), Eastern cottontail (Sylvagus jloridanus), Black-tailed jackrabbit (Lepus californicus), Rock squirrel (Spermophilus variegates), Eastern fox squirrel (Sciurus niger), Common gray fox (Urocyon cinereoargenteus), Coyote (Canis latrans), and Ring-tailed cat (Bassariscus astutus) along with several bat and rodent species.

2.6 Species of Concern The Travis Audubon Society's (TAS) long-term concern for the Golden-cheeked Warbler (GCWA) prompted acquisition ofthe Baker Sanctuary. During breeding season, this species is abundant. Because the GCWA requires mature closed canopy habitat, prevention of catastrophic wildfire will be paramount for the management of this species. Since there is insufficient information at this time regarding the applicability of prescribed fire for GCWA habitat, the TAS is not planning to use prescribed fire to manage GCW A habitat. Occasional but unconfirmed Black-capped Vireo (BCVI) sightings are still reported on or near the Sanctuary but the property lacks the mid -successional stage of growth required by the BCVI.

5

The Baker and Audubon Springs have been surveyed and have been found to contain Jolleyville Plateau Salamanders (Chippendale, 1992). Some plant surveys have been conducted on the Sanctuary (Lyter 1986). Botanists interviewed felt that few plant species of concern were likely to be found on the Sanctuary with the possible exception of Texabama croton, though none has been found. Glass Mountains coral-root (Hexalectris nitida) has been found on the Sanctuary as has one species of concern, Heller's marbleseed (Onosmodium helleri).

The Sanctuary may harbor other species of concern including several karst invertebrates, Texas map turtle, Texas horned lizard, milk snake, Texas garter snake, bracted twistflower, Texabama croton, Texas amorpha, Correll's false dragon-head, Buckley tridens and canyon mock-orange.

3.0 CULTURAL RESOURCES 3.1 Prehistoric The locations of any archeological sites found on the Sanctuary are not a mater of public record. However, if any are found, the Sanctuary Steward will take measures to conserve these resources. The usual cretaceous fossils are found on the Sanctuary including marine gastropods, pelecypods, cephalopods and echinoderms in the Glen Rose and Walnut formations as well as gastropods and rudists in the Edwards formation. 3.2 Historic Historical uses of the property prior to becoming a Sanctuary include ranching, juniper cutting, agriculture, stock raising and rock quarrying. The Sanctuary has a cemetery designated as a historic cemetery by the Texas Historical Commission. 3.3 Current TAS members and their guests are allowed daytime access to the Sanctuary property except during hunting season. Nonmembers are allowed when accompanied by members or when permission to enter the Sanctuary has been granted. An on-site Steward lives on the property, just south ofLime Creek Road midway through the Sanctuary.

6

4.0 ADJACENT LAND USAGE The TAS Baker Sanctuary property is bound as follows: • The northmost part of the Sanctuary is bounded on the east by the 594-acre Lime Creek tract owned by the City of Austin. • The southern part of the Sanctuary is bound on the east by the Ranch at Cypress Creek and the Ranch at Deer Creek developments.

• The southernmost boundary is adjacent to the City of Cedar Park Water Pipeline right-of-way and to undeveloped property held as a 10(a) mitigation property by the City of Cedar Park. • The Sanctuary is bound on the southwest by two undeveloped properties, both participants in the Balcones Canyonlands Conservation Plan: 1. The Texas Nature Conservancy Ruth Lehman tract of 160 acres 2. The Lower Colorado River Authority 2,176 acre Wheless tract. • Lands to the west and north of the Sanctuary are subdivided into lots ranging in size from 5 to 20 acres, including the Red Wagon Ranchettes subdivision. The one exception to this is an 11-acre tract on the Sanctuary's western boundary owned by the City of Austin, which is the location oftheir 911-transmitter tower. 5.0 WILDFIRE MANAGEMENT 5.1 Fire Season The typical fire season in Travis County runs from July through October, then again during January and February. 5.2 Fire Prevention All BCP partner agencies/organizations, personnel and visitors share the responsibility of wildfire prevention. Public education, safety inspections, enforcement of regulations, hazard fuels management and related activities are all components of prevention. Because wildfires readily cross-political boundaries, close cooperation with adjacent private and public landowners is essential.

5.3 Presuppression Presuppression planning and activities ensure the ability of each partner agency to perform effectively when wildfire occurs. These activities include training, planning, organizing, maintaining equipment and procuring supplies and equipment. The TAS Baker Sanctuary has on hand 2 Fedco backpack sprayers, 2 Pulaski axes, 2 fire rakes, 2 fire swatters and a 25- gallon portable spray unit.

7

5.4 Detection and Notification Early detection of ignitions is the key to effective control of wildfire. All BCP personnel and visitors are encouraged to observe and report any smoke noted in the BCP and surrounding area. Increased fire detection patrols may be necessary during periods of very high to extreme fire danger. When wildfires occur, the following agencies, organizations and individuals are to be notified PROPERTY....................RESPONDING FIRE DEPARTMENTS TAS-Baker Sanctuary .........Volente VFD south of Lime Creek Road, North Shore Fire and Rescue Service north of Lime Creek Road, Hudson Bend FD, Sandy Creek FD, Jonestown FD, Travis County Fire Control. Cypress Creek Macrosite......North Shore Fire and Rescue Service, Hudson Bend FD, Valente VFD, Sandy Creek FD, Jonestown FD, Travis County Fire Control. PROPERTY....................Contact Audubon tract...................Sanctuary Steward (219-8425) City of Austin tracts.........City of Austin Park Police (office 426-2256), COA Balcones Canyonlands Preserve Manager (office 402-0237). TNC tracts. ........ ..............Assistant Land Steward (236-8878) LCRA tracts.. . ..................LCRA Rangers, Systems Operations Control Center (482-6200). It will be extremely important for each partner organization to develop a working relationship with the fire departments whose jurisdiction includes their respective preserve

8

units. Copies of fire management plans should be provided to the departments and meetings held to orient the responding departments to any critical protection areas, hazards or other significant features the firefighters should be aware of. If feasible, site visits should be scheduled to familiarize firefighters with the preserves access points, hazards and sensitive habitat zones. By working with firefighters prior to a fire, common concerns and potential conflicts can be addressed.

5.5 Suppression of Wildfires Suppression includes all actions taken to limit the growth of wildfires and extinguish them. All natural-caused fires not classified and prescribed natural fires and all human-caused fires, excluding management ignited prescribed fires, are wildfires. Suppression forces must use a combination of strategies, tactics and equipment that least alters the landscape and causes minimal damage to preserve resources. The following general minimum impact practices will be utilized on BCP property: • Cultural and natural resource advisors will be used to assist in locating and constructing fire lines and other surface disturbances. • Minimum impact suppression tactics will be discussed with overhead and crew superintendents; these tactics will be developed and used in all fire management efforts. • Instructions for minimum impact suppression tactics will be discussed in each Incident Action Plan. • Fire behavior should be anticipated; line officers will ensure that selected tactics can be implemented safely.

• Water drops will be used whenever practical, rather than fire retardant chemicals; however, use of retardant is authorized when justified by the Incident Commander and approved by the appropriate BCP managing partner representative. • When retardant is approved, fugitive retardant will be the retardant of choice. The need for fugitive retardant should be anticipated and ordered early so that it will be available on a timely basis.

9

• The fire edge will be cold trailed whenever practical; unnecessary fire lines should not be constructed. • If adequate water and pumps are available, wetlines will be used in preference to constructed handlines. • Fire lines will be kept to the minimum width necessary. • Natural barriers will be utilized wherever possible to supplement constructed hand lines. • Falling oftrees will be minimized. If falling becomes necessary, stumps will be flush cut and covered during the rehabilitation phase. • All fire lines, camps and other disturbances will be rehabilitated. • Incident Commanders will ensure that activities performed in locations other than at Incident Base (dump sites, spike camps, staging areas, helispots, etc.) result in minimum impact upon the environment. All such areas will be rehabilitated prior to demobilization.

5.6 Natural Resource Protection The most effective rehabilitation measure is careful planning and skilled use of minimum impact suppression techniques. All fires must be surveyed to determine the severity of impact and potential problem areas requiring rehabilitation identified. Appropriate BCP partner biologists will prepare a Fire Rehabilitation Plan. Implementation of the plan should begin during the mop-up phase, or immediately after a fire is declared our. Fire lines will be returned to as near original condition as possible using existing materials. Water bars will be used in steep locations to prevent erosion of disturbed soils. Organic material will be placed to assist in natural regeneration. Personal safety is a concern while fighting fires in karst areas due to the possibility of karst feature collapse. Care must be taken when using foaming agents because it is toxic to aquatic species if allowed to runoff directly into a water source and may impact karst species if foam seeps into karst features.

5.7 Cultural Resource Protection Fire control strategies and techniques with the potential to alter archaeological sites should be employed only when there is a direct threat to life. All fire control measures, which will

10

disturb the surface near any archaeological sites, must be reviewed by a qualified archaeologist before implementation.

5.8 Mutual Aid and Interagency Agreements Travis County Emergency Management Services has mutual aid agreements in place with Williamson, Hays and Burnet Counties, all cities within Travis County and all fire departments within the County. All original mutual aid documents are on file in the County Attorney's office. Interlocal agreements are in place for the BCP between Travis County, City of Austin and LCRA for management of BCP tracts.

6.0 REFERENCES Chippindale, Paul T; David M. Hillis and

Andrew H. Price. 1992. Central Texas neotenic salamanders (Eurycea and Typhlomolge): Taxonomic status, relationships, distribution, and genetic differentiation. Interim Section 6 Report, Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, Austin, Texas.

Davis, W.B. and D.J. Schmidl y. 1994. The

Mammals of Texas. Texas Parks and Wildlife Department Non-

game and Urban Department. Enquist, M. 1987. Wildflowers of the Texas

Hill Country. Lone Star Botanical, Austin. Kutac, Ed, Et al. 1983. Sanctuary Trail Guide, Travis Audubon Society.

Lynch, D.L. 1981. Native and Naturalized Woody Plants of Austin and the Hill Country. Acorn Press, Austin. Lyter, D. 1986. Travis Audubon Society Wildlife Sanctuary plant list. Unpublished checklist.

Lytle, Melody. 1999. Land Management Plan- Tier Ill. Travis Audubon Society, Inc. Wildlife Sanctuary.

Regional Environmental Consultants

(RECON) and U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service.

1996. Final Environmental Impact Statement/Habitat Conservation Plan for Proposed Issuance of a Permit to Allow Incidental Take of the Golden-cheeked Warbler, Black-capped Vireo, and Six Karst Invertebrates in Travis County, Texas.

Rodda, Peter U. 1970. Geology of the

Austin West Quadrangle, Travis County, Texas. Bureau of Economic

Geology, The University of Texas at Austin.

Terpening, K. and Mike von Wupperfeld.

1999. Land Management Plan, Tier II-A Management Handbook, VI

Fire Management. Travis County Transportation and Natural Resources Department.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil

Conservation Service. 1974. Soil Survey ofTravis County, Texas. U.S.

Government Printing Office, Washington D.C. Woodruff, C.M., Jr. 1975. Land capability in

the Lake Travis Vicinity, Texas: a practical guide for the use of geologic and engineering data. Bureau of Economic Geology, The University of Texas at Austin. Report of Investigations No. 84.

Last Revised 04.30.12 page 11 of 147

APPENDIX P JAEC LIMITED COMMERCIAL USE POLICY

Baker Sanctuary Use Policy

Travis Audubon Society’s Baker Sanctuary is open for visitation from sunup to sundown all days of the year except when closed for hunting season (usually mid-October through mid-January) or when management activities or sanctuary conditions are unsafe for visitors. When the sanctuary is closed for visitation, the access gates are locked and signs are posted indicating closure. On occasion, visitor access may be limited to portions of the sanctuary per posted signs and notes at the visitor registry.

In addition to the following, visitors must comply with the Baker Sanctuary Regulations (separate document). Contact the TAS office if you need a copy: 512.300.BIRD.

Baker Sanctuary is open for the following pedestrian-only visitation: TAS authorized guided tours, not to exceed 15 per tour Unguided groups of no more than 5; must include at least one TAS member TAS authorized researchers, accessing per the conditions of the research permit Volunteers working individually or in crews on stewardship projects led by the Sanctuary Steward and/or the Sanctuary Committee. Jackie Arnold Education Center approved user groups (see below) Lease hunters, per the terms of the lease Balcones Canyonlands Preserve partners on official business and with permission by TAS staff Contractors with access guidance from and oversight by Sanctuary Steward Non TAS members who are not accompanied by a TAS member shall purchase a $10 day pass. The day pass will be required of anyone 11 years of age or older.

Jackie Arnold Education Center rental is available without a fee for the following: TAS Board approved and/or sponsored events (including Board or committee meetings) TAS fund-raising events managed by the Executive Director and/or the Board TAS field trip, class or workshop events Other TAS meetings or gatherings as directed by the Executive Director or Board Teacher in-service training

Jackie Arnold Education Center (JAEC) rental is available for a fee per the following: Groups must have a conservation, environmental education, or native plant gardening or other “green” theme to their activity (including wedding receptions, company retreats, etc.) Groups must comply with the TAS authorization letter and JAEC General Rules and Green Regulations (below) TAS staff or authorized TAS volunteer must oversee the JAEC use, including set-up and clean-up Groups must have TAS staff interaction in the form of either: An agenda item for a TAS representative to share with the group the mission of TAS, birds, habitat, going green, etc. A TAS-led tour at Baker Sanctuary Mention of TAS (approved by TAS staff) in printed materials available at the event The Center must be left in excellent condition, with all trash and recyclables removed from site. Non-profit organizations and HOAs: suggested minimum donation is $10/hour For-profit organizations: deposit and fees are due at time of reservation: Facility deposit: $150 Minimum 4 hours rental; time based on first arrivals and last departures for event. $50/hour for up to 30 people; $75/hour for 31-60 people. Maximum 60 people.

JAEC General Rules and Green Regulations Limit two rental events per month (no rentals during hunting season) All trash and recycling must be taken off site at the end of the event Must get TAS office approval for caterer before making arrangements Must use compostable cups, plates, and tableware; no glass bottles or Styrofoam allowed No balloons or party decorations that cannot be recycled Must give 14 day’s notice of cancellation for full refund; 7 day’s notice for half refund TAS staff will instruct JAEC visitors about where to park; no parking on Lime Creek Road


APPENDIX Q

YOUTH EDUCATION STRATEGY AND YOUTH EDUCATION PROGRAMS

YOUTH EDUCATION STRATEGY (YES) Youth education is one of the most important efforts that Travis Audubon is engaged in. Indeed, it is not only important, it is critical. Without reaching out to the next generation, all our work protecting habitat and promoting conservation through birding will be for naught. Protecting endangered species through careful sanctuary management will only be viable tomorrow if today's youth are brought into the circle of awareness early on. Times have changed since the early Travis Audubon members took delight in the wonders of birding and fought battles to protect the environment. Today's world of technology, with toddlers in strollers staring intently at their screens, instead of looking at the world around them with wonder, tells a cautionary tale. Many of them see their parents likewise devoted to screens of one kind or another, throughout the day. We have to work harder than ever to get kids to look up, look around, listen and learn, and most of all: care. That is why our youth education programs mean more in today's world than they ever have before, and why we have to work even harder to get them out there. It will be Travis Audubon's most important legacy to be handed down to future generations. The Youth Education Committee adopts the following criteria for the Travis Audubon youth education programs, adapted from the Texas Children in Nature Strategic Plan. HEALTH: “Children are spending less time outdoors in nature, which could be detrimental to their health. There is a growing body of research that clearly supports a positive relationship between contact with nature and physical health, emotional well-being and child development.” The Texas Children in Nature Strategic Plan. (hereinafter, “Texas Strategic Plan”) The Youth Education Committee recognizes that the stated goals in the Texas Strategic Plan are beyond the scope of Travis Audubon because they are directed to health care professionals, professional researchers and urban and community level planners. In general, Travis Audubon youth education programming promotes the health of children by increasing their time spent outdoors in nature. EDUCATION: “Our vision is that every child in Texas will be engaged in meaningful outdoor learning experiences and achieve natural resource literacy.” Texas Strategic Plan. This vision supports Travis Audubon’s long-standing commitment to fostering the next generation of environmental stewards.


GOAL 1: Increase the understanding, appreciation and use of experiential learning outdoors within the formal education system. Travis Audubon Objective: Provide professional development training for teachers that encourage continuing education emphasizing Central Texas ecosystems. Action 1: Develop methods that encourage experienced teachers to engage student learning outdoors. Action 2: Provide professional development to in-service teachers highlighting Central Texas ecosystems. Action 3: Identify and encourage existing professional development opportunities for outdoor skills education. Action 4: Provide instruction in current technologies such as GPS and GIS. Travis Audubon Objective: Provide professional development training opportunities to pre-service teachers, as practical. Action 1: Incorporate environmental education within existing teacher preparation programs. Action 2: Provide outdoor learning immersion experiences for teachers to help them become comfortable teaching in the outdoors. Action 3: Identify local colleges or universities that will embed natural resource literacy and outdoor skills education into existing pre-service teacher preparation program course offerings. Travis Audubon Objective: Provide students outdoor learning opportunities aligned with TEKS standards for natural resource literacy. Action 1: Identify, solicit and/or develop curricula for assessment. Action 2: Develop outdoor field and service-learning experiences that can be integrated into the regular school curriculum. Action 3: Develop and distribute qualifying curricula to formal education outlets and into the hands of teachers trained in outdoor learning, and encourage its use. Action 4: Share with students information about nature-based careers. Travis Audubon Objective: Engage families in the understanding and appreciation for outdoor learning experiences. Action 1: Provide opportunities at least two times per year to families where they can learn about Central Texas ecosystems and wildlife. GOAL 2: Modified: Develop collaborative partnerships with informal education providers. Travis Audubon Objective: Assess informal education providers for relevant programming to meet the needs of Travis Audubon youth education programming. Action 1: Identify and establish communication with informal education providers. Action 2: Engage existing informal education providers of nature-based programming to create and /or implement meaningful nature education curricula.


Travis Audubon Objective: Identify strategies to increase natural resource literacy in stand-alone programs. Action 1: Explore the creation of Web-based resources as a common point of communication. Add toolkits and activities designed for families which can be downloaded from our website or that link to other websites offering these outdoor activity resources. Action 2: Create video programming to educate students, teachers and others about nature and natural resources. Action 3: Identify venues for Children in Nature exhibits. Action 4: Diversify and enhance Youth Nature Camps. Travis Audubon Objective: Identify partners to provide professional development opportunities for informal educators. Action 1: Implement outdoor, nature-based education via well-trained volunteers and parents. Travis Audubon Objective: Encourage non-public education such as private schools, home schools and after-school programs to address natural resource literacy. Action 1: Share opportunities for experiential learning and educator training. ACCESS: “We envision a Texas where children and their families have safe, convenient, sustainable and desirable access to the outdoors, where they can develop respect and appreciation for the natural environment.” Texas Strategic Plan. GOAL 1: Optimize access to natural areas to make them safe and convenient. Travis Audubon Objective: Facilitate safe and convenient public access Action 1: Improve signage at Baker Sanctuary and Blair Woods to highlight the hours, (fees) and days when access is allowed. Action 2. Work with local law enforcement to enforce the speed limit on Lime Creek Road. Action 3: Encourage the County / City to extend the sidewalk just west of Canyon Springs Drive to continue to the gate at Baker Sanctuary main entrance. This would offer increased access for people from the adjacent neighborhood. Travis Audubon Objective: Inventory, identify and provide areas that provide experiences in nature. Action 1: Reach out to volunteers to assist in maintaining hiking, walking and bird watching trails. Action 2: Provide additional, detailed signage at trail heads and along trails to inform and guide hikers. Ensure that signage indicates the length of each trail. Action 3: In addition to access information that is already available online, add one or more Geocaching locations (www.geochaching.com) on the preserve property. The two-


http://www.geochaching.com/

fold benefit would be creating an additional activity for visitors to participate in, which would be of particular interest to children, and increasing awareness among outdoors enthusiasts who may not otherwise be members. GOAL 2: Partner with government agencies, nonprofits and the private sector, to provide increased access to Texas lands and waters. Travis Audubon Objective: Encourage the creation and awareness of natural areas in schools, neighborhoods, communities, park systems and Travis Audubon sanctuaries. Action 1: Encourage the establishment of “outdoor classrooms” to serve as learning laboratories for children. Action 2: Continue to promote the formation of “nature clubs” (hiking clubs) at local schools and encourage the involvement of local natural resource professionals. Action 3: Participate in Science Nights at local schools with a booth, demonstration and/or craft/activity. Action 4: Develop and consult with a youth advisory board to better understand what would draw them and their peers out to enjoy natural areas. Travis Audubon Objective: Provide additional recreational access to Baker Sanctuary and Blair Woods. Action 1: Organize recreational activities and events for Baker Sanctuary such as hikes, Geocaching treasure hunts, picnics, movie nights, and stargazing nights. Action 2: Organize activities and events for Blair Woods such as quarterly nature walks, family picnics, geocaching treasure hunts and open houses. Action 3: Install picnic tables at strategic locations at Baker Sanctuary. Construction of these tables could be a community service project completed by a scouting or similar group. Travis Audubon Objective: Address liability concerns that limit access to nature for school children. Action 1: Seek clarity of liability laws and share findings. Action 2: Determine recommendations based on findings. Action 3: Update liability releases. COMMUNITY: “Connecting with nature must be relevant and welcoming to all, including unifying messages, partnerships and efforts that are respectful to Texas’s diverse peoples, cultures and economic needs.” Texas Strategic Plan. GOAL 1: Raise awareness and action among children and families through consistent and unified communication. Travis Audubon Objective: Promote a “children in nature” message in all Travis Audubon youth education programming. Action 1: Board Marketing committee will aid youth education committee in developing messages that incorporate the “children in nature” message. GOAL 2: Promote nature-based opportunities for a diverse audience. Travis Audubon Objective: Raise awareness and concept of “nature is everywhere for everyone,” in your backyard, or in your local park.


Action 1: Suggest easy-to-use resources or local programs to connect families to the outdoors. Encourage multi-generational participation and culturally relevant activities Travis Audubon Objective: Promote and encourage youth and families to participate in environmental stewardship opportunities. Action 1: Provide volunteer opportunities at our sanctuaries to conserve and restore habitat.

YOUTH EDUCATION PROGRAM Travis Audubon has a long history of providing outdoor learning experiences for children. However, there have been no formal guidelines or criteria established for Travis Audubon youth education programming. STRATEGIC PLAN: The Travis Audubon Youth Education Committee met in February of 2013 to develop criteria for current and future youth education programming. The committee reviewed the Texas Children in Nature Strategic Plan, which was drafted by the Texas Partnership for Children in Nature. The recommendations of the partnership focus on the roles of health, education, access, and community in furthering children’s engagement with nature and increasing their understanding of Texas’ natural resources. The committee decided to adopt the Texas Children in Nature Strategic Plan, where relevant, as the guiding criteria for Travis Audubon’s youth programming. The attached document outlines Travis Audubon’s adaptation of this plan. The committee adopted its Youth Education Strategy (YES) in the context of its long history of providing outdoor youth education programs. HISTORICAL HIGHLIGHTS: Travis Audubon was created by those who championed youth education as a means of ensuring future stewardship of our natural resources. The first meeting of what would become Travis Audubon Society (TAS) was convened to discuss an Audubon Camp for teachers that was sponsored by National Audubon in Kerrville, Texas in 1950. The purpose of this camp was to educate teachers so that they would spread “Audubonism!” Bradley Davis, a science teacher at University Junior High School, attended this meeting. Bradley was named the first board president of Travis Audubon Society in 1952. In the late 1950s, Travis Audubon members participated in the creation and development of the City of Austin’s Natural Science Center (now called the Nature and Science Center). The focus of this center was to introduce children to the natural heritage of the central Texas area and to encourage them to consider a career in science. The Austin Nature Science Center offered classes to children the first time in 1960. Travis Audubon provided volunteers for the Natural Science Center Safari, a fundraiser for the Center that occurred every spring from the early 1970s through 1999. The Safari was a family


event exploring wildlife, habitats, history and geology on Travis Audubon’s Bee Creek Nature Trail. In the December 1979 edition of Signal Smoke, funds were being solicited from members to continue sponsoring children’s matinees of Audubon Wildlife Films, providing “Austin school children with a chance to see top-quality conservation films presented by professional speakers. All reports indicate that the children enjoy these films and they spread the Audubon way to future decision makers.” Adult and youth education were combined into one education committee in the early years. Jackie Arnold chaired the education committee in the 1970s. She developed a wildlife color-slide program for the schools, newspaper and TV features and brought a youth education booth to community events. In 1974, members of the education committee, under Jackie’s leadership, developed a TAS Audubon Camp Scholarship fund, stating that: “An interest in ecology and nature in general is best developed at a younger age.” The summer of 1974 saw the launch of the children’s bird walks. These took place every week at various locations through a cooperative effort between Travis Audubon and the Nature Science Center. In 1974, Luke Thompson, Sanctuary Committee Chair, led a workshop for a group of San Antonio high school students who were taking a summer course in environmental science. He taught them how to do transects across Baker Sanctuary to determine the distribution of a specific plant species, which contributed to some valuable data. In 1980 Rhea Copening developed workshops for area elementary school teachers “to help children better understand their natural environment.” TAS provided scholarships from 1993 through 2011 for local 3rd through 5th grade teachers to receive Audubon Adventure Kits. These kits contained curriculum supplements developed by National Audubon Society. The goal was to encourage children’s interest in and understanding of birds and other wildlife and their habitats. Each year a minimum of 40 to 50 classrooms in Austin received this educational resource, and many years up to 75 kits were supplied by Travis Audubon. Travis Audubon purchased these kits through donations of our members. In 1998, TAS urged members to promote “Classroom Birdwatch” in local middle schools. This was a technology-based curriculum designed to engage students in science by making them active partners in a real, ongoing scientific study.” In 1999, TAS donated $9,000 to Austin’s Wild Basin Wilderness Preserve as part of a partnership to develop a youth education program with a focus on birds and birding. Also in 1999, TAS member Stennie Meadours launched an East Austin partnership adopting the fourth and 5th grade classes (and a total of 10 teachers) of Hornsby-Dunlap Elementary School. The program, called “Living Lab,” was supported by the University of Texas, the Capital Area Master Naturalist, Austin’s Water and Wastewater Utility, and the Colorado River Watch. Stennie guided the program through its first school year, conducting three field days (comprised of four mornings each) that featured hands-on exploration of the diversity of habitat, plant and animal life present at the Hornsby Bend Biosolids Management Facility. These field days


required a total of 400 on-site volunteer participation hours (including many TAS volunteers who brought their own scopes), and a mentor was provided for every three children. At the beginning of the program, only two of the 10 elementary school teachers were supportive of the Living Lab field days; by the end of the first school year, all of the teachers were actively incorporating science and ecology into their teaching, using what they had learned from the Living Lab Program to incorporate scientific observation techniques and ecological connections as the basis for their lesson plans. During the second year, a team of students from UT helped develop materials for the program and worked on in-class activities with the Hornsby teachers; one doctoral student worked on the Living Lab Program as part of her dissertation. In 2000, Shelia Hargis became the chair of the education committee. The committee developed a strategic plan. One of the goals targeted youth education and stated that the committee would provide: Walks/talks at elementary schools, brochures, Audubon Adventures, family nature walks and an outdoor camp. Nature/Bird Walks for Beginning Birders of all ages were launched at this time and offered every month. In February of 2001, the Education Committee launched the Youth Birding Camp. This Camp was offered once per year in the fall at Hornsby Bend through 2010. The Camp evolved into Youth Nature Camp, which is now held in the spring and fall at Travis Audubon’s Baker Sanctuary in Leander (described further in “Current Programming” section). TAS Youth Camps have relied on the expertise of volunteers, who have consistently enriched these important youth education programs. Some of the camps led to follow-up birding walks at Hornsby Bend for campers and their parents. Although now the camp is funded by grants and offered at no charge, originally each camper had a sponsor who donated the tuition and then presented the child with the gifts of binoculars, field guide and filed notebook used during the camp. In April 2002, TAS volunteers participated in the first of four Outdoor kids Adventure Days sponsored by Texas Parks and Wildlife. Along with other community organizations, the TAS volunteers helped children draw pictures of birds and identify birds in nearby trees. In the early 2000s, TAS members Barbara Anderson and Anne Donovan visited local schools and made presentations about birds, including observation walks. In 2004, TAS sponsored concerts by “Mr. Habitat”(Bill Oliver), a local “environmental troubadour” who teaches youth about conservation and habitat protection through his songs. Travis Audubon’s newsletter, Signal Smoke, had a “Kids’ Section” during the years 2003-2004, which was written by Amy Sugeno and contained articles, puzzles, and notices about local birding and wildlife events geared toward young people, including articles written by kids. Baker Open House has consistently offered fun and informative activities for children, which has been a great way to introduce them and their families to the sanctuary. CURRENT PROGRAMMING: Travis Audubon continues to strive to connect youth with the natural world through focused study in an outdoor setting. By giving young people the tools to interpret and enjoy native landscapes and its inhabitants, there is an increased likelihood that they will become engaged stewards of the environment in the future.


Spring Youth Nature Camp (Baker Sanctuary): Through fun, hands-on activities, campers learn about birds, migration, and specifically, the endangered Golden-cheeked Warbler. This one-day camp (offered in the spring) is organized into four sections, or lessons: bird and species identification; use of binoculars; bird migration; and habitat and behavior of the Golden-cheeked Warbler. Following the interactive instruction, campers break for lunch, and then go on a hike to identify plants, birds and habitats, documenting their observations and then sharing them. Fall Youth Nature Camp (Baker Sanctuary): The Fall Camp focuses on cavity nesting birds. First, small groups of campers learn how to use a compass and a map, and research one of five native cavity nesting birds. The groups build nest boxes to accommodate their species’ specific needs, then use their mapping skills to identify an appropriate habitat for their nest box. They use their orienteering skills to navigate to the site and also have the opportunity to improve the habitat to increase nesting success. By delivering the material in this format, the children not only learn about native wildlife and habitats, but also become empowered as environmental stewards. Explore and Restore (Blair Woods Sanctuary): Travis Audubon’s Explore and Restore is an outdoor youth education program that is having a profound impact on underserved children in east Austin. Now in its fourth year, the after-school program serves children at two Title 1 schools: Norman Elementary and Pecan Springs Elementary. Fifth grade children are teamed with ecology and wildlife experts to learn to perform as scientists in the natural setting of Blair Woods. Explore and Restore empowers students by engaging them as scientists participating in real scientific study of the site, including botany, zoology, and hydrology. These skills are combined with participation in the habitat restoration efforts being carried out by adult ecologists and volunteers at Blair Woods Sanctuary.

The Explore and Restore program is delivered in three parts: Part 1: Students receive pre-trip instruction by the teaching team about ornithology, botany, geology and zoology in a small group setting at school. Part 2: Students go to Blair Woods Sanctuary to put their learning into practice by taking on assigned roles. The botanists collect and press plants in a handmade press and record the plants on their data sheets. The cartographers note the location of soil and plant samples collected on the topographic map and learn to use GPS to document special project locations. The zoologists catalogue all bird and insect species they can find and the geologists collect soil samples from different parts of the tract and/or learn about the effects of erosion. The children then participate in restoration work activities at the sanctuary, which might include re-seeding, planting and care of trails. Part 3: The teaching team returns to school a few weeks later to finalize the project by having students construct a display board and share their findings with their peers. The display features objects and data the children collected, thus reinforcing their learning as they teach their fellow students about their experiences The Hiking Club (Baker Sanctuary): This after-school program takes place one day a week for 6 weeks each semester. The name “Hiking Club” was coined by Christopher Murray, youth educator and Baker Sanctuary steward, with the intent of capturing the enthusiasm of young people for hiking in the great outdoors, while simultaneously “sneaking in science education.” Currently, Fifth grade students from Whitestone Elementary in the Leander ISD explore habitats, adaptations, ecosystems, and the natural world. Knowledge, skills, and understandings from


these experiences support the Leander ISD curriculum and the 5th grade TEKS (Texas Education Knowledge and Skills) curriculum guidelines. While the emphasis is on natural science, the curriculum also integrates English language skills, Mathematics, Social Studies and Physical Education. Each student will have their own field book to record basic observations regarding weather, distances hiked, organisms encountered, personal reflections, notes, etc. FUTURE PROGRAMMING: Explore, Restore and More: The expanded version of Explore and Restore will have a broader scope and impact, and, of key importance, it will be integrated into the school day. We have worked very closely with the principal, science coordinator and teachers of Norman Elementary for four years -- including recent preliminary planning for the expanded program. They are unanimously enthusiastic about the potential for integrating experiential science learning into the classroom curriculum, and connecting children to nature by engaging them in real scientific study in the outdoors. They recognize that hands-on learning is more meaningful to kids, and empowers them to envision themselves as scientists. Key components of the program correlate with the TEKS (Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills) requirements for the fifth grade science curricula. This will entail working closely with the teachers to design the lessons during the summer, and establish the timeline for the semester to coordinate presenting the class lessons with the learning experiences at Blair Woods. The goals of this program are to: Educate children about land stewardship, conservation and the environment Improve knowledge of earth and life sciences (local schools report some of the lowest standardized test scores in these disciplines) Increase awareness of the environment through habitat preservation and restoration; Expand communication skills by reporting on data collected Ensure long-term sustainability Teachers will be trained in program implementation to ensure continuity, and Travis Audubon is committed to continuing to offer the use of our sanctuaries and expertise to foster sustainability of the program. Expanded Leander ISD Initiative: Similar to the expanded version of Explore and Restore, this educational program will be integrated into the school day. Objectives are for students to achieve better understanding of earth and life sciences, and of conservation and habitat protection. Connecting what is learned in school to actual study in nature is the key element of this program design, which features a project-based learning model. Engaging them in physical activity while learning to apply newly acquired science skills addresses the need in a way that naturally appeals to young children. The curriculum design will be modeled after the successful Explore and Restore program, where students learn about botany, zoology, soil science, and hydrology, then are be teamed with ecology and wildlife biologists to perform scientific studies in the field. The restoration project will entail helping to restore a section of native prairie at Baker Sanctuary. Goals: Educate children about land stewardship, conservation and the environment; improve knowledge of earth and life sciences; increase awareness of the environment through habitat preservation and restoration; expand communication skills by reporting on data collected; ensure long-term sustainability. Travis Audubon is committed to continuing to offer the use of our


sanctuaries and expertise to foster sustainability of the program. Key components of the program correlate with the TEKS (Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills) requirements for the fourth and fifth grade science curricula. The program will integrate social studies, language arts, math, art, physical education and technology. Measuring Impact: For current and future school-partnership programs, objectives are/will be measured in several ways. Students complete questionnaires before and after participating in the program to assess their baseline understanding vs. knowledge gained. They also record their observations during their visits to the field and these are reviewed for content and understanding, following up with reinforcing instruction as necessary. Students’ communications skills will be evaluated by teachers when the students present their findings to their peers.


APPENDIX R

RESEARCH PERMIT APPLICATION

Research Permit - APPLICATION

Permit Period: Permit Number:

Principal Researcher Name: Title: Affiliation: Department Street Address: City: State: Zip: Work Ph: Home Ph: Cell Phone: Fax: Email: Vehicle Description: License #: State: Emergency contact: Relationship: Work Ph: Home Ph: Cell Phone: Project Title: Brief Project Description/Scope (Attach copy of research proposal, including methodology, and any required USFWS and/or TPWD research or collection permits): If you are a student, give the name, address, telephone number, and email address of the professor(s) who is (are) your advisor(s): Project Start Date: Project End Date: Sanctuary Access Request (include days of the week, times, and areas of the sanctuary):

Research Assistants and Collaborators (Attach additional sheet as needed) Name Affiliation Day/Eve Ph Vehicle Descrip Veh. Lic. state, #

NOTE: This application will be reviewed by the Sanctuary Steward and Sanctuary Committee; an Advisory Committee may also be consulted as needed. Allow 2-4 weeks for review unless notified otherwise. The applicant/permittee agrees to comply with the following general conditions: The required/attached research proposal shall include: research rationale and objectives, detailed methodology and materials to be used, site map of areas to be used, qualifications of all participants, anticipated project schedule with site visits specified, evidence of appropriate state and federal permits, and letter from major advisor (if applicable). Permittee and all assistants/collaborators must each submit a signed Travis Audubon Society (TAS) liability waiver before entering any TAS sanctuary. Only those people listed on this permit are allowed to gain access to TAS property for the purpose of assisting with this research project. Permittee will keep the Sanctuary Steward apprised of research schedule in a timely manner.


Changes in the project scope, focus, or research methodology must be discussed with and approved in writing by the Sanctuary Steward (who will consult with the Sanctuary Committee) before such work may proceed. This permit (once signed below) may be revoked by TAS at any time if these conditions are violated. All access within TAS property must conform to directions given by the Sanctuary Steward. All gates are to be left as found. The use of plot/site markers and/or apparatus must be approved in advance. TAS assumes no responsibility for damaged markers or equipment. Collecting of plants or animals without written authorization is prohibited. Unauthorized site disturbance of any kind (e.g. littering, fossil or artifact removal) is prohibited. The Permittee agrees to furnish the Sanctuary Steward with annual summaries, interim reports, and final report as specified in the attached Travis Audubon Society Research Permit Regulations. The Permittee agrees to acknowledge Travis Audubon Society in any published article or other publicly available document regarding this research and will furnish TAS with any such published or printed account(s) resulting from investigations authorized by this permit. Applicant’s Signature

Date

Reviewed by Sanctuary Committee

Date

Approved by Sanctuary Steward

Date

Special conditions for this permit (may include specimen collecting and locality restrictions, etc.): Travis Audubon Society Contacts: Chris Murray, Baker Sanctuary Steward Laura Zebehazy, Baker Core Team 12219 Lime Creek Road (512) 484-8288 Leander, TX 78641 Nancy Manning, Executive Director (512) 219-8425 (512) 300-2473 [email protected]

Research Permit - REGULATIONS Authority-The permittee shall comply with all applicable laws, Travis Audubon Society (TAS) rules, and federal, state and county laws. The permittee is responsible for obtaining all other required permits to conduct the specific project. Responsibility- The permittee is responsible for ensuring that all persons working on the project adhere to permit regulations. Assignment– The permit may not be transferred or assigned. Additional investigators and field assistants are to be coordinated by the principal researcher named in the permit. The permittee shall notify the Sanctuary Steward when there are desired changes in the approved study protocols or methods, changes in the affiliation or status of the principal researcher, or modification of the name of any project member. Permit confirmation- The permittee and any other persons associated with the project are required to possess all collection permits at all times when in the field. If necessary, the permittee should provide a photocopy of the permit to additional field assistants. Travis Audubon Society representatives reserve the right to request to view permits in the field. Permit holders should be prepared to explain what they plan to study, and how and why they are performing research. Permit Expiration- Permits expire on the date listed on the permit. The permittee is required to submit a new permit application form to renew a permit for a previously approved investigation. The permittee is


required to contact TAS for renewal of the permit. Renewal of permits will be contingent on receipt of annual progress reports. New projects by the same investigator must be submitted separately. Assistance from TAS- Unless specific arrangements have been made, the permittee is required to provide all necessary field equipment and labor for completion of field work. Notification of Field Visits- The permittee is required to inform the Sanctuary Steward prior to any fieldwork authorized by this permit at least two weekdays prior to any visit. Failure to coordinate field work schedules with the Sanctuary Steward may jeopardize renewal of permits and approval of future permits. Access to Sanctuaries- All researchers must abide by TAS sanctuary regulations unless specific written waivers are granted. The permittee is required to comply with approved access routes while on TAS property and will be provided a map for approved access routes. The permittee will coordinate with the Sanctuary Steward on access issues, road conditions and ongoing management activities that may impact field work. The permittee will conduct research and collect in a discreet manner, away from roads, trails, and public use areas unless specified. The permittee will act prudently to avoid damaging the physical site or associated aesthetic values. Knowledge of Regional Flora and Fauna- The permittee is encouraged to be familiar with regional rare and protected taxa. The permittee will not collect any plant or animal taxa without explicit authorization as indicated on the permit. TAS reserves the option to designate the type, number, sizes, and locations of specimens to be collected as necessary for the preservation of the area. Non-Native Species- Introduction of non-native species to the sanctuary(s) is prohibited. New Species- The permittee is required to inform TAS of any species that is identified on TAS property for which no present records are known. Federally Listed Species- The permittee is required to have proper, valid collection permits from the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service for the collection of any Federally-listed threatened or endangered species. Collections of Populations < 100 individuals- For a population with less than 100 individuals, collection of an individual specimen for identification or voucher purposes is allowed only if absolutely necessary, and only if permission is granted in writing by TAS. Photographs should be used for identification/voucher as much as possible. Collections of Populations < 25 individuals- For populations of less than 25 individuals, no specimen collection will be allowed under any circumstances. Photographs of the material are the only acceptable form of voucher. Collections of identifying parts for identification are permitted with prior approval. General Collection Policies- The permittee will not collect indiscriminately. Only the amount necessary to complete the project will be collected. Researchers will consider cumulative effects of research and teaching efforts on the population/occurrence. Collection of multiple specimens for exchange or population studies is allowed only when clearly justified and explicitly authorized in writing by TAS. Multiple collections from a single population/occurrence are allowed only if that population can support losses of such numbers. Preferred methods are to collect according to a sampling plan scientifically designed to minimize population impacts. A maximum limit of 5% of a visible population may be allowed if the population exceeds 100 individuals. Care of Collected Specimens- The permittee will use standard collection techniques to ensure usability, preservability, or survivability if researchers plan to maintain live plants or animals. Standard preserving and labeling methods will be followed. Collected specimens will be deposited in a permanent public museum or in the exhibit, study, or type collections of scientific or educational institutions. TAS will be informed of that location. TAS reserves the right, in the interest of science, to designate the depository of


all specimens. Additionally, TAS reserves the right to request copies of collection labels (e.g. herbarium labels). Collection of Live Plants for Propagation- The permittee may be allowed to collect live plants using techniques that are least likely to damage the population/occurrence. The order of collecting preference is first for seed (if abundant), followed by cuttings or plant parts, then whole plants. The permittee agrees to always leave reproductive or regenerative parts: roots, fruits, or rhizomes. Markers and Field Equipment- The permittee is required to remove all markers or equipment from the field upon completion of the investigation. Accurate locations of survey plots, transect routes, and the like will be provided to TAS in the form of GPS coordinates. Reporting Requirements- The Permittee agrees to furnish the Sanctuary Steward with an annual summary (in MS Word format) of studies conducted under this permit no later than December 1st of the same year the permit was issued, as well as a final report and any data collected to be submitted no later than 60 days after the study is completed. A list of all collections made during the study (with locations of institutions or collections in which specimens are deposited) shall be included in the summary reports and final report. Additionally, interim reports may be required to provide research status to the TAS Board of Directors and/or TAS partners and collaborators. Acknowledgement of Travis Audubon Society- The permittee agrees to publicly acknowledge the Travis Audubon Society in all publications and presentations resulting from data gathered during the course of studies.


APPENDIX S

100-ACRE SURVEY PROTOCOL

2013 City of Austin

STANDARDS FOR CONDUCTING AND DOCUMENTING GOLDEN-CHEEKED WARBLER SURVEYS

The following standards have been developed to ensure that all individuals conducting Golden-cheeked Warbler (GCWA) spot-mapping surveys for the City of Austin collect appropriate information during their surveys, and that the information is documented in a clear and consistent manner. These standards are organized in 3 main sections: GETTING STARTED WHAT INFORMATION TO DOCUMENT AND HOW POST-SURVEY PROCESSING Additional standards may apply to different types of surveys (e.g. 100-acre plot, enumeration) but the following is applicable to all surveys involving documentation of GCWA presence, territory boundaries, and/or breeding success. GETTING STARTED Materials to Take With You on Avian Surveys Field maps (black-and-white topographic maps for mapping observations, plus optional aerial maps) Notebook (an acceptable alternative is to take notes on the back of your maps) Pens/pencils Binoculars GPS Compass Thermometer Flagging (pink) Permanent marker (Sharpie) Cell phone Extra batteries for electronics You may want to attach flagging to your GPS unit and other field equipment to make them easier to find if dropped. General Standards for Conducting Surveys Do not survey in a steady rain or thunderstorm (light drizzle is OK.) Do not survey if sustained winds interfere with your ability to hear singing birds (approximately 12 miles/hour or greater.) Do not use playback of songs or calls to elicit a response. For each site visit, record on the field map: observer name, date, and starting and stopping times. At the end of the visit, record the total survey time for that visit. Record beginning and ending weather conditions – temperature, wind speed, cloud cover (%), and precipitation – on the map or in your notebook. Record observations of Brown-headed Cowbirds and any sightings of GCWAs feeding fledgling cowbirds. You may also want to note presence of potential predators such as jays, hawks, owls, grackles,


snakes, Eastern Fox Squirrels, crows, ravens, and fire ants. In particular, note the presence of predators near GCWAs; that data can then be entered as notes into the database with the GCWA observation. WHAT INFORMATION TO DOCUMENT AND HOW Minimum documentation will include both a field map showing locations of all GCWA observations, using appropriate symbology; GPS coordinates for each observation (whenever possible); and notes containing additional information on each observation. Notes and GPS coordinates may be recorded on the back of the field map or in a notebook. After each survey is completed, both the field map and associated notes will be filed in a central repository that can be accessed by COA staff for analysis and data entry. Documenting GCWA Observations Observations include all GCWAs seen and heard, as well as any nests that are found. Record the location of each observation on a black-and-white topographic field map. Use symbols described in ATTACHMENT 1. However, instead of using letter symbols to identify species, use numbers to identify each individual GCWA (i.e., use “1”, “2”, etc. for each bird in place of the “W” that is used for all birds of the same species in ATTACHMENT 1) . Use a different number if you are not sure a bird is the same as one observed earlier. Circle a number only if the bird is a singing male. It is important to distinguish between the area a male defends as his territory (by singing), and his home range. Use the female symbol “ ♀” to denote a female GCWA. If a female GCWA is clearly mated with a numbered male (e.g. both are tending a nest or fledglings), there is no need to give her a separate identification number. If she is alone or it is unclear if she is with a mate, assign her a separate identification number. Use a lowercase “ f ” to identify each fledgling GCWA observed (e.g. write “ fff ” on the map for 3 fledglings found together). Again, no need to give fledglings separate identification numbers if found with a parent. One or more fledglings found on their own or not clearly associated with a nearby adult GCWA should be given a separate identification number (one per group if the fledglings appear to be siblings.) When possible, mark a GPS waypoint for the actual location of each GCWA observation shown on your map. Record the waypoint number(s) along with the GCWA identification number in your notebook or the back of the field map. If a GCWA observation is distant from your location, note the estimated location on your map with a dashed line circle around the identification number. The size of the circle can represent the level of confidence in the estimated location. (If you are unsure of the bird’s location, it may be helpful to record a waypoint for your location along with the compass heading and estimated distance of the GCWA from that location. Be sure your notes make it clear that the waypoint is for your location, not the GCWA’s.) For all adult GCWAs, observe and record whether banded, and if so, record the band combinations (see Observing and Documenting Band Combinations below.) Use a solid line with arrow to indicate direction of movement of observed GCWAs. Use a dotted line between 2 (or more) males to indicate counter-singing or other contemporary contact between males. This information is very important in helping to distinguish separate males and their territory boundaries. Document aggressive encounters between 2 (or more) GCWAs using radiating lines surrounding the numbers identifying both birds (see ATTACHMENT 1 for example.) Record any details of the observation (e.g. plumage characteristics, song type, behavior, etc.) on the back of the field map (or notebook). Describe nestlings and fledglings as thoroughly as possible. It is especially important to document males or females carrying food or nesting materials and the direction they move with these materials. If possible, follow such birds as unobtrusively as possible. If you find a nest, follow instructions in Marking and Documenting GCWA Nests below. Estimate and record ages of nestlings and fledglings based on nest observations and/or ATTACHMENT 3, NEST, NESTLING, AND FLEDGLING AGEING. Last Revised 04.30.12 page 28 of 147

Observing and Documenting Band Combinations Observers must attempt to see all detected GCWAs and confirm whether the bird is banded. Record the following for each detected bird (male and female): If you are unable to see the bird well enough to determine if it is banded, record as “ UK ”. If you definitely see that there are no bands, record as “ UB ”. If you determine the bird is banded but are unable to discern any of the colors, record as “ ?/?:?/? B ”. Record the color of observed bands in the following order: upper left leg/lower left leg: upper right leg/lower right leg. (Remember when a bird is facing you, the ‘left’ leg is to your right!) Use the 2-letter codes for the bands as given below. Aluminum (SI) bands are always on the lower leg; “No band” (NB) is always recorded as being on the upper leg (e.g. RD/SI:NB/BL). Always put a “?” after the whole or any part of the combo of which you are uncertain. For example, if you know the left leg is red and aluminum but you are unsure of the blue and dark blue on the right, this would be recorded as “ RD/SI:BL?/DB? ” If you believe the blue in the example above was blue or dark blue, record it as “ RD/SI:BL or DB?/DB? ”. Color band abbreviations: Red RD Orange OR Yellow YE Green GR (lighter shade) Dark Green DG (darker shade) Blue BL (lighter shade) Dark Blue DB (darker shade) Mauve MV Pink PI Black BK White WH Silver SI (aluminum band) No Band NB

Samples of color bands: YE-OR-OR-RD-PI-MV-BL-BL-WH-GR-GR-DG-DB-BK Marking and Documenting GCWA Nests Locations of GCWA nests are important information, but do not warrant disturbance of the nesting pair. If the parents appear agitated, move away to watch from a respectful distance. If you locate a GCWA nest: Mark the nest location as a waypoint in your GPS (and record the coordinates on the back of your map or notebook in case something should happen to the waypoint). Last Revised 04.30.12 page 29 of 147

Determine and record the nest ID as follows: 2 digit number of GCWA nests you have located this year, plus your first and last initial, plus the 2 digit year. For example, the ID for your first nest in 2013 will be: 01[your initials]13. Use an asterisk “ /” to indicate the nest location on your field map. Use pink flagging to mark the nest site. Place 1 short and 1 long pink flag ≥ 3 meters from the nest, preferably at a location from which the nest is visible. On the long flag write with a Sharpie the nest ID, date, distance and bearing from the flag to the nest, and nest height as: nest ID date # meters → degrees ° # meters ↑. For example, on March 31 you find a nest 5 meters above ground and 3 meters from the flag at a bearing of 240 degrees, you would write on the flag: 01XX13 3/31 3m → 240° 5m ↑. It is also helpful to state the nest tree species. You may also draw a diagram of the nest location in your notebook and/or on the flag as necessary. Record the GPS location of the flag and directions to the nest from the flag on your map or notebook so it can be found in case the flag is destroyed. (Rule of thumb: You should only have to find the nest ONCE!). From as far away as possible, monitor the nest long enough (up to 30 minutes) to determine status (inactive, active) and stage (building, incubating, hatching, nestlings, or fledging). Record the status, stage, and any other observations (e.g. parental visits, number of nestlings, etc.) on the back of the map or in your notebook. Ideally, nests should be monitored every 2-4 days after activity is confirmed (more often close to fledging). At a minimum, monitor after each survey and stay up to 30 minutes to confirm status (active nests will almost always be visited within this time frame). ATTACHMENT 2 is a sample field map showing appropriate use of symbology for typical observations during a GCWA field survey. POST-SURVEY PROCESSING Following each completed survey, the surveyor is expected to place the following documentation in the designated central location: Original field survey map showing location and movement of all detected GCWAs and nests. The observer’s name, date of survey, and start, stop, and total survey times should also be noted on the front of the map. Field notes containing starting and stopping weather conditions (if not noted on the front of the field map) and complete notes on each GCWA detection as described above. Field notes may be on the back of the field survey map or in a notebook. If in a notebook, make copies of the relevant pages for filing with the field map. Periodically, download your GPS survey points to your designated GPS file on the City’s server (BCP\GPS files\Your name ; see ATTACHMENT 4, DOWNLOADING COORDINATES.). This will ensure that the data is secure in the event of loss or malfunction of your GPS unit. New and revisited nests: Complete a GCWA Nest Monitoring Form (ATTACHMENT 5) for each nest found and file it in the central file. Also enter the nest ID, territory ID (if known), location and status of the nest into the nest summary spreadsheet. Surveyors will update the nest monitoring form after each monitoring visit until the nest’s fate is finalized.


From Bibby, et al. 1992

SAMPLE SURVEY MAP

NEST, NESTLING, AND FLEDGLING AGE INFORMATION FOR GCWA NEST BUILDING REST PERIOD LAYING: 3 – 5 eggs, one per day on consecutive days INCUBATION: Begins day before last egg laid Performed by female only HATCHING: Asynchronous, usually over two days Young naked; mouse gray down on coronal and dorsal pterylae Bill pale whitish-yellow, red mouth lining Feather tracts evident over eyes, occiput, flanks, and margin & bases of wings Primaries visible; rectrices faintly visible Eyes barely open; gape deep yellow; quills of wing feathers evident Active and strong Crouching behavior Primaries unsheath Young feathered; tail approx. 4 mm White wing bars become apparent FLEDGING: Rectrices unsheath; tail approx. 9 mm Throat pale gray, breast whitish with black streaks, lower belly white Superciliary & auricular regions distinct from blackish-gray head Broad pink bill From Pulich (1976) FLEDGLING: Dark grey feathers above; light breast and belly with grey streaks at edges Downy body; tail very short (almost non-existent); broad pink beak Downy body; tail – 1.5. cm; tan beak Tail ~2 cm; light brown beak Adult length tail; adult width beak Yellow appears on face and under wings Front ½ of face yellow; breast beginning to look mottled Yellow extends to behind eye From Gass (1996)

2 -3 days 1 – 4 days 1 – 5 days 11 -12 days DAY 1 DAY 2 DAY 3 DAY 4 DAY 5 DAY 6 DAY 7 DAY 8 DAY 9 DAY 2* DAY 5 DAY 8 DAY 12 DAY 19 DAY 24 DAY 28 * days since fledging

ATTACHMENT 3: NEST, NESTLING, AND FLEDGLING AGEING

APPENDIX T

BREEDING BIRD SURVEY PROTOCOL

Baker Sanctuary Point Counts Protocol

Counts will begin one half hour after sunrise and continue until 1100 AM. At each station: When detected (by sight or sound), birds will be placed into one of two distance designations: Occurring within a 25 meter radius of the station center (count all individuals) Occurring outside a 25 meter radius of the station center (do not count all individuals, put a ‘+’ to represent its presence) Counts will begin at each station immediately upon arrival at the station’s center and continue for 10 minutes. Flushed birds will be recorded as within the 25 meter radius or outside the 25 meter radius depending on the where the bird flushed in relation to the center of the station. Birds originally detected at greater than 25 meters but then move within 25 meters are recorded as occurring within the 25 meter radius. Each bird species will get its own line on the data sheet (see codes for naming bird species- if species is not on list, write out entire name in comments section). If possible, unidentified, detected birds will be pursued when the 10 minute count is over, any new birds discovered in this time will not count. If possible, large flocks should also be pursued when the 10 minute count is over to identify and count all members of the flock. Care should be taken not to count a bird more than once. If there is some doubt whether a bird is being double-counted, a note should be made on the data sheet. All notes should be taken on the back of the point count sheet. Observers will record local weather conditions (precipitation, wind speed, and % cloud cover) at each station at the end of the 10 minute survey. Temperature will be recorded by the steward at the beginning and end of the field session. Data Collection Guidelines Point counts will not be conducted in sustained winds greater than 12 mph: 0-3 mph = virtually still; 4-7 mph = leaves rustle, felt on skin; 8-12 mph = leaves and small twigs in constant motion; 13-17 mph = small branches in constant motion (stop survey). Point counts will not be conducted in precipitation stronger than a light drizzle. Fly-overs will be counted but should be noted as such on the data sheet.

APPENDIX U

LONG-TERM VEGETATION MONITORING PROTOCOL

Terrestrial Vegetation Monitoring Permanent Long-Term Monitoring Plots

Goals and Objectives: For the Baker Management Team to be able to make sensible management decisions, they will need to know how plant communities change over time, as well as information on the presence of plant species and their abundance, the ages of certain woody vegetation, and the physical environment. These monitoring efforts should also help discover natural indicators which will assist with providing warning signs of declines in ecosystem quality. Indicators may include the detection of new invasive species or the decline of certain native species. Early detection from long term monitoring will allow mangers to respond with timely and appropriate action before resolutions are economically or ecologically arduous. Questions: • How is plant community diversity changing over time? • How are plant communities responding to anthropogenic (land management) and natural disturbances (invasive species)? Variables to be monitored: Species distribution, abundance, and size structure of certain plant species as well as disturbance (presence or absence) and cover. Site Selection: Monitoring sites will be stratified based on land cover (i.e., grassland, evergreen shrubland, cold deciduous forest, broadleaf evergreen forest, coniferous).Method: Similar in design to the FIA data collection method. 5 m2 quadrats with one 1m2 quadrat nested within. Shrub and tree species dbh only is collected within the entire 5 meter plot. Species and abundance data for all species is collected within the smaller 1 m2 quadrats. A B C D

5 meters

Randomly located 1 m2 quadrat

A. Data Collection Protocol- 5 m2 Quadrats Record the date, study area, plot number, and GPS coordinates of the monument(s) Identify each woody species above knee height located in the canopy (data on seedlings and subshrubs will be collected in the subplots) list these species in the species column on the data sheet. Collect DBH data on all woody species over 5 cm DBH and record the data. On the spread sheet. Note living or dead in the notes column for each individual. Count the number of stems for each species under 5cm DBH. Only count those above 10cm in height. Record observations of disturbance or herbivory within plot. B. Data Collection Protocol -1 m2

Subplot locations should be indicated with pin flags at all 4 corners. Place pvc quadrate over subplot. Record the date, study area, and subplot # on the subplot data sheet. Identify all species located within the plot. List any unknown species and describe them in the notes field. Visually estimate abundance/cover for each plant species to the nearest 1%. Species with foliar cover <1% were recorded by first dividing each 10 cm x 10 cm square in which they occurred in quarters, and then counting the number of quarters occupied. Species with cover <0.25% were arbitrarily recorded as 0.1%. Visually estimate the amount of litter and bare ground located within each plot and list on data sheet. Record observations of disturbance or herbivory within subplot in the notes row.

Site/Species 001_1N 001_2E Species A 12% Species B 27% Species C 7% Litter 0% Bare ground 60% Notes No disturbance

1 m2 Quadrat Divided into 10cm increments

Species A

Species C

Species B

balcones canyonlands preserve land management...

Documents