Habitat Protection

Habitat protection

Legal Actions

Bickford Ranch litigation settlement

December 28, 2005

Bickford Ranch, a master-planned housing project in Placer County, won approval from county supervisors Tuesday — for the third time.

A cornucopia of lawsuits, bankruptcies and bad markets plagued previous iterations of the 1,928-acre project. WestPark Communities is the current developer and Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. is the owner.

After approval by the county Board of Supervisors in December 2001, plaintiffs sued, claiming Bickford Ranch violated the county's General Plan on the grounds that failed to protect oak woodlands. In 2004, a Superior Court ruling ruled the specific plan was invalid, and another lawsuit was filed against it after project backers submitted an revised version for approval in Oct. 2004,

After a four-year legal battle, litigants in the Bickford Ranch case announced a settlement Thursday that will allow the development to move forward in exchange for $6.05 million for the preservation of oak woodland in Placer County on 700 acres of open space. Settlement terms were released in a statement issued by environmental groups, which included the Sierra Club, Sierra Foothills Audubon Society and the California Oak Foundation, announcing an end to a contentious litigation with Bickford Holdings, LLC and SunCal LLC, the project's developers.

Terry Davis, Sierra Club spokesperson, said in a statement the settlement will preserve an equivalent amount to the 10,000 oak trees cut down during the litigation process. "We estimate that $6 million will be sufficient to preserve 700 acres, about the number of acres that were leveled prior to construction. Of course the outcome is still tragic," Davis said in the statement. "Nothing can replace the wonderful scenic and cultural value of that ridgetop oak forest." Located near Penryn, the 1,942-acre project will add 1,890 homes on a former ranch, in addition to a golf course, school and commercial center.

Supervisors voted 4-1 on Tuesday in favor of revisions to plans most recently approved in 2004. Those revisions shift 64 acres from residential development to open space. Density goes up from 2.47 to 2.69 units per acre, allowing the same number of residential units overall, just under 1,900.

Other revisions made more housing medium-density, rather than high or low, eliminated a planned golf course and 9.7-acre commercial site and increased overall open space by nearly 110 acres. The changes also created a 164-acre “transition area” between homes and open space preserves.

The property, named for a ranch that operated on part of the property until the early 1980s, is north of Interstate 80 and south of Highway 193, between Lincoln and Newcastle. County supervisors approved the original entitlements for the project in 2001, then rescinded them three years later after a judge agreed with a Sierra Club lawsuit. County supervisors approved revised entitlements in 2004, and some early infrastructure work started, then stopped in 2005.

Note: In the past couple of years, Placer Land Trust, Placer County, United Auburn Indian Community, California Oaks, Wildlife Conservation Board, Sierra Club and Sierra Foothills Audubon Society worked together to acquire nearly 3,000 acres of oak woodlands using Bickford legal settlement funds held by California Wildlife Foundation as a major source. West Roseville Lawsuit Environmentalists and the town of Loomis have settled a lawsuit that alleged the city of Roseville's approval of a proposed 8,390-home development west of the city violated California environmental law. A settlement with the environmental groups requires fees on homebuilding and home sales in the West Roseville Specific Plan area to generate revenue for open space land purchases, according to a city of Roseville press release. The fees could raise up to $85 million over the next 20 years. "The agreement will benefit all present and future Roseville residents as well as the greater Placer County region," said Roseville mayor F.C. "Rocky" Rockholm. "The environmental legacy of West Roseville will be felt for generations to come as more open space is purchased and set aside for all to enjoy." A separate settlement with Loomis requires a $75-per-home fee to pay for Sierra College Boulevard "improvements," the press release said. The city expects that fee will raise $600,000. Roseville's City Council approved the 3,162-acre West Roseville Specific Plan on Feb. 4. Westpark Associates and Signature Properties Inc., which own the property, plan to develop housing for 20,810 people and commercial projects that could support 3,726 jobs. They have dedicated nearly 950 acres for open space and parks. The Sierra Club, the Sierra Foothills Audubon Society and Loomis sued the city in Placer County Superior Court to challenge that approval. The settlements concluded five months of negotiations. The agreement with environmental groups calls for: *A fee of 0.5 percent of the gross sales price on every resale of a single-family home in West Roseville for 20 years following the initial sale. New home sales are not subject to the fee. The nonprofit Placer Land Trust will collect the money and use it to buy and preserve open space, with a priority on vernal pool and grassland habitats in western Placer County. *One 15-passenger bus to carry West Roseville residents to and from the Watt/I-80 light-rail station during peak commute times. The city will provide the bus after 3,000 building permits have been issued in the West Roseville development. *About $1 million in per-home fees for the Placer County Air Pollution Control District, on top of the $785,700 already required of landowners by development agreements with the city. The air district will use the fees "for mitigation of air quality impacts," according to the press release. "Western Placer County is one of the finest examples of harmony between wildlife and working farms," Ed Pandolfino, conservation chair for Sierra Foothills Audubon Society, said in the press release. "In winter grasslands attract hundreds of hawks and the flooded rice fields support thousands of ducks and geese. With this agreement as a model we can have growth in west Placer and still preserve our important wildlife legacy." "I commend the city for its willingness to address the impacts of growth," Terry Davis, a representative for the Sierra Club's Mother Lode Chapter, said in the press release. "In many ways the agreement is a model for the region." Signature Properties and Westpark Associates have also approved the agreements, according to the press release. The West Roseville Specific Plan area is west of Fiddyment Road and north of Pleasant Grove Boulevard. The Placer County Local Agency Formation Commission recently approved Roseville's request to annex the land. Placer Vineyards Settlement

The modifications to the mitigation measures increase the overall mitigation for Open Space, Agricultural Land and Biological Resources by 35% (increasing mitigation from 1.00 to 1.35 acres of mitigation for each acre of development) while shifting the focus to conservation of ecosystems that provide habitat for multiple species. For example, the proposed measures focus on maintaining the ecological value of vemal pool grasslands as habitat, not just on preserving individual vernal pools.

PROPOSAL The Placer Vineyards Specific Plan (PVSP) proponents seek modifications to the 2007 PVSP Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) to incorporate revisions to approved mitigation obligations with respect to disturbance of the natural resources within the Specific Plan area and corresponding text revisions in the EIR. The intent of the proposed revised mitigation strategy is to make the mitigation for impacts of the PVSP project to open space, agricultural land and biological resources compatible with the proposed Placer County Conservation Plan (PCCP). The mitigation strategy proposes a regional approach to conservation of agricultural land, wetlands and habitat that will complement efforts to avoid and/or minimize impacts on the project Site for key components of the aquatic system, rare habitat and individual species. By tying the mitigation to those proposed within the PCCP, the goal is to contribute towards a regionally important expanse of contiguous private and public land that will continue to support agricultural use, meet species needs in the long term, and aid recovery objectives outlined in the proposed PCCP. BACKGROUND The Placer Vineyards Specific Plan and twenty-one separate, but identical, Development Agreements (DAs) (one for each of the Participating Developers) were approved on July 16, 2007. As approved, the PVSP provides direction for the development of 5,230 acres in western Placer County with a mix of residential, commercial, retail, office, mixed-use and public facilities. Build-out is assumed to occur over a 20 to 30-year period. 1 Following approval of the PVSP project, lawsuits were filed by the County of Sutter, the Sierra Club and several individuals (Petitioners) challenging the adequacy of the environmental document and the approvals.

On June 30, 2009, the County settled with Sutter County, and Sutter County dismissed its case. On October 23, 2009, the Court issued a decision upholding the County's EIR and entitlements in full. The remaining petitioners appealed. On August 7, 2012 the Board of Supervisors authorized the execution of a settlement agreement with the remaining Petitioners.

PROJECT ANALYSIS The proposed amendments to the Placer Vineyards Specific Plan Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) and corresponding text of the EIR are the result of discussions between the remaining Petitioners (the Sierra Club, Sierra Foothills Audubon Society, Rob Collins, and Michael Williams) and the PVSP project proponents to address the concerns brought forth by those Petitioners relating to impacts from development on natural and biological resources in the Plan area.

The proposed MMRP amendments are intended to be compatible with the proposed PCCP with the potential to contribute towards a regionally important expanse of contiguous private and public land that will continue to support agricultural use, meet species needs in the long term and aid recovery objectives outlined in the proposed PCCP.

The proposed Mitigation Strategy reflects the approach to mitigate for open space, agricultural land and biological resources contained in the Draft PCCP submitted to the Placer County Board of Supervisors on January 25, 2011 and released on February 1, 2011. This mitigation approach was developed by the County with the participation and support of the Sierra Club, the Sierra Foothills Audubon Society and the Placer Vineyards Development Group, among other members of the PCCP Biological Working Group. A provision in the proposed revised mitigation measures authorizes the Placer Vineyards Development Group to participate in the PCCP to mitigate affected resources, thus allowing the Development Group to implement any changes to the mitigation strategies post February 2011.

Overview of the Proposed Open Space, Agricultural Land and Biological Resource Mitigation Strategy

The proposed modifications increase the overall mitigation for Open Space, Agricultural Land and Biological Resources by 35% (increasing mitigation from 1.00 to 1.35 acres of mitigation for each acre of development) while shifting the focus to conservation of ecosystems that provide habitat for multiple species. For example, the proposed measures focus on maintaining the ecological value of vernal pool grasslands as habitat, not just on preserving individual vernal pools. No net loss of wetlands is assured through application of the mitigation ratios proposed for the PCCP. The grassland vernal pool land type is mitigated by any grassland without regard to wetted area density. Actual wetted area is accounted for by the separate requirement for wetland mitigation. The required wetland mitigation can only be carried out if in fact much of the grassland acquired to mitigate land conversion does in fact have a high density of preserved and restored vernal pool resources. Application of the two measures - land area and wetland area - will jointly provide for conservation of wetland dependent natural communities.

Mitigation to minimize impacts to natural and semi-natural communities falls into three categories. 1. Mitigation Ratios for Land Cover. Off-site mitigation is accomplished mainly by requiring conservation or restoration of 1.35 acres of land in the Reserve Acquisition Area of the draft PCCP for each acre of development. Impacts to annual grassland, vernal pool grassland and pasture land cover shall be mitigated on existing or restorable grassland. All other land cover impacts may be met on natural or semi-natural land within the Reserve Acquisition Area of the draft pecp, specifically including agricultural land. Vernal pool grassland may be mitigated on any grassland without regard for wetland density. Actual wetland density is accounted for by the wetland mitigation requirement discussed below. In practice, the wetland requirement below can only be met if the mitigation land has substantially higher wetland density than the area impacted. 2. Mitigation Ratios for Wetland Area. Because of their particular regulatory status and their biological importance, wetlands are accounted for separately through mitigation ratios requiring preservation and restoration or creation of a set amount of wetland area calculated as a proportion of wetland "take." These ratios are consistent with the February 2011 draft pecp and are reflected in Table 2 of Attachment 1. Generally speaking, they require preservation of 1.0 acre of wetland and restoration of an additional 1.25 acres of wetland for every acre of wetland take. It is intended that all of the wetland area mitigation, along with all associated upland, will be counted towards mitigation required for land cover "take." Likewise, all wetland acres contained within land cover mitigation shall be counted towards wetland area mitigation In other words, it is fully intended that the land cover and wetland area mitigation will overlap. Both mitigation ratios must be met, but they can be met with the same land. 3. Site Specific Avoidance and Minimization. Protection of existing resources on site is accomplished through specific avoidance, restoration, and enhancement measures incorporated into the Specific Plan. The Specific Plan design incorporates measures for preserving and enhancing critical aquatic resources on site. The Specific Plan Area incorporates a 709-acre open space area which restores historic habitat linkages and habitat quality through the Plan Area. Specific areas that exhibit habitat degradation through historic land use were identified and will be enhanced under the Specific Plan. Large contiguous areas that exhibited habitat integrity have been preserved with adequate buffers to protect aquatic function. The Specific Plan incorporates minimization and low impact development strategies to minimize long-term habitat degradation within avoided open space areas. In addition, implementation of mitigation measures 4.1-3, 4.1-14, 4.4-1 through 4.4-30 and 4.4-59 as modified will avoid and minimize on- and off-site impacts to individual species.

Development of the Specific Plan is a covered activity of the proposed PCCP. Upon adoption of the PCCP, development projects within the Specific Plan may fulfill mitigation requirements by compliance with the terms of the adopted PCCP in lieu of this mitigation strategy. In order to preserve land for agriculture, compatible agricultural use that supports and enhances wildlife value is encouraged on lands conserved under this measure. Many ongoing agricultural activities are consistent with, and essential to, the protection and enhancement of the natural communities that are supported by this land. Accordingly, ongoing agricultural use will be an integral component of the long term management of preserved lands. The goal of conservation easements on farm lands will be to maintain viable agricultural operations while also meeting the biological objectives of this mitigation measure. This mitigation strategy shall serve as mitigation for all land conversion impacts, specifically including impacts to vernal pools and other wetlands, vernal pool grasslands, grasslands, foraging habitat for various species, agricultural land, and open space. No additional mitigation shall be required for these impacts. This strategy shall not apply to the Special Planning Area (SPA) where no urban development is proposed.

Yuba Highlands Vote and referendum

Developers don’t normally like it when disgruntled mobs vote their projects out of existence, but in the case of 5,100-unit Yuba Highlands, the developer was part of the mob. In 2008 developer Gary Gallelli decided to scale down his project and therefore joined a large majority of Marysville-area voters who shot the project down. This month Gallelli reached an agreement with the Trust for Public Land to create a conservation easement on 700 acres thus putting a sprawling, would-be mistake out of its misery, writes Senior Editor Paul Shigley.

The voters killed the 5,100-unit Yuba Highlands project in early 2008, just as the housing market decline was picking up steam. Developer Gary Gallelli actually ended up campaigning against his own project, saying he wanted to pursue a scaled-down project. But the overwhelming, nearly 4-to-1 vote against Yuba Highlands, combined with the real estate crash, effectively ended any chance of developing the 2,900-acre site in the Yuba County foothills east of Marysville for the foreseeable future.

Essentially, the voters ended for good what could have been a long, painful and expensive growth fight. Earlier this month, the developer made the best of the situation by selling a 700-acre conservation easement on a portion of the land to the Trust for Public Land (TPL). They also signed an agreement in which Gallelli agreed to place the rest of the property under a conservation easement as the TPL lines up more funding. This is the best possible outcome. Yuba Highlands was just the sort of project that received approval during the previous decade’s roaring period, when housing development was king and real estate was going to make local governments rich. Cities and counties all over the Central Valley and on the fringes of L.A. approved similar exurban housing tracts. As they deal with the fallout of half-built infrastructure and abandoned developments, many of those cities and counties are now regretting their decisions.

The location of the proposed Yuba Highlands project was a disaster: an infrastructure free wedge of land between Spenceville State Wildlife Area and Beale Air Force Base, and a nearly 20 minute drive from any urban services and employment sites. The Yuba County Board of Supervisors approved the project in July 2007 on a 3-2 vote, with even two of the supporters demonstrating reluctance.

That vote was followed by a lawsuit over the environmental impact report, referendum petitions, and, soon enough, the death of the project at voters’ hands. There was little evidence that Gallelli ever worked seriously on a smaller development plan. Trust for Public Land used $400,000 from the Department of Defense to create buffers around military bases and $350,000 in environmental mitigation money from Caltrans to purchase the 700-acre conservation easement. It permits continued grazing and other agricultural uses, and prohibits urban development.

Sierra Foothills Audubon Society comments on the FEIR

I am speaking on behalf of members of Sierra Foothills Audubon Society. Part of our membership lives in Yuba County and many others use the Spenceville Wildlife Area.

The Yuba Highlands Area Plan and its FEIR should be flat-out rejected. It is tiered to the River Highlands Community Plan that is woefully out of date, was ill-conceived originally, and if ever implemented will result in impacts to wildlife, threatened habitat, further reduce air quality, and will introduce urban problems to a rural area. It should have been obvious in 1992 that this level of development was not environmentally or economically feasible for this area on the very edge of the county. And since River Highlands was approved, much new information has become available:  SACOG Blueprint has recommended guidelines to reduce transportation impacts that are not mitigated here,  Based on new scientific data on greenhouse gas emissions the State is implementing new laws to reduce their impact  There is a renewed and expanded mission at Beale,  New studies show alarming growth of asthma among children caused by poor air quality, and  Smart Growth principles have been clearly defined that would not support this plan. This information shows there can be no justification for plunking down 15,000 people 20 miles from any existing infrastructure for mass transit, water supply, and public safety support. The Alternative section of the FEIR briefly considers alternative sites. It states that the “River Highlands Community Plan EIR determined that developing a similar project on an alternative site would result in similar project impacts and would simply transfer the impacts to areas surrounding the alternative site locations. Development of an alternative project site for this project could reduce or eliminate land use compatibility issues with the Beale Air Force Base (Beale), but could have more adverse compatibility issues with other land uses and with other natural resources, depending on the location of the alternative site. For these reasons, this alternative was rejected."

To simply equate Beale with other land use issues is amazing. Much testimony here has shown how important Beale is to the county and how this is an unprecedented encroachment, It also completely ignores the importance of the Spenceville Wildlife Area, which gives one the impression that there are other locations in the County that are equal to this important open space and economic public resource. But in any case, the FEIR does not even explore other places and evaluate them.

In responses to our submitted comment that a full range of alternatives was not considered, our "scenarios" (possible alternatives) were not considered because they already analyzed other alternatives such as alternative 2, It was rejected stating that "The reduction of units from 5,000 to 4,000 is essentially a loss of 20% of the total project units and represents a development of reduced scale". This reduced scale is actually what the current River Highlands Community Plan allows unless it is amended to accommodate the increased density of 5,000. It sounds as if the EIR consultants feel that whatever a developer proposes is to be considered an entitlement and anything less than that is a taking.

We must say that even our proposed alternatives of 580 or 1000 houses would need to be analyzed to determine if they are environmentally or economically feasible for this area. The most cost-effective decision for the County would be to reject the project outright.

The Planning Commission might better recommend to the Board of Supervisors to:  Revise the zoning for the River Highlands Community Plan to retain this area to its historic use as rural ranchlands  consider ways to improve poor air quality in the county that does not meet standards, causing global warming, and is exporting pollution to neighboring Nevada County  analyze recent county growth from 58,000 to 69,000 citizens to see whether this growth solved county problems or contributed to them  review the recently approved Plumas Lakes sub-division in the floodplain to see if it is meeting its obligations to the county  review alternative sites that are within existing spheres of influence for Marysville and Wheatland or nearby that are not within the floodplain but have reasonable infrastructure to support smart growth. Project Appeal

A coalition of area groups led by Friends of Spenceville, Sierra Foothills Audubon Society, Sierra Nevada Group of the Sierra Club, the South Yuba Citizens League, the Rural Quality Coalition, and the Nevada County General Plan Defense Fund has filed an Appeal to the Yuba County Planning Commission approval of the Yuba Highlands Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR).

The comments call for denial of the project and note that the FEIR does not adequately address the potential impacts of the project particularly related to Spenceville Wildlife area traffic, public facilities, water supply, and encroachment on Beale Air Force Base.

The Yuba Highlands project would result in the construction of a 14,000 person New Town with 5000 homes and 1 million square feet of commercial and business park buildings. The site is 2900 acres located between Beale Air Force Base, Highway 20, and the Spenceville Wildlife and Recreation Area near the community of Smartville.

The coalition charges the FEIR with an unrealistic discussion of traffic impacts by avoiding obvious circulation alternatives. The main access proposed by the Yuba Highlands developer would be from the south, taking almost all of the project traffic through the Spenceville Wildlife and Recreation Area through undeveloped area to Highway 65 in Wheatland. The new major arterial roadway required would increase traffic from as little as 200 cars per day to 14,160 vehicles per day.

The coalition is calling for the EIR to evaluate the impacts of a much smaller project, suggesting two possible alternatives:

1. 1000 units, clustered on approximately 300 acres in the center of the 2900 acre site, with no access to Smartville Rd.

2. 580 units, clustered on approximately 1750 acres in the center of the 2900 acre site, with no access to Smartville Rd.

Conservation Projects

The Traylor Ranch Bird Sanctuary and Nature Reserve Conservation Plan:

A general guide for conservation and restoration management on the Traylor Ranch Bird Sanctuary and Nature Reserve

Note: This conservation plan and the implementation thereof shall be in accordance with the Traylor Ranch Bird Sanctuary and Nature Reserve management goals and polices set forth by the County of Placer. Management actions will be coordinated by the Loomis Basin Horsemen’s Association (reserve manager), the Sierra Foothills Audubon Society, and the Traylor Ranch Planning Committee. The primary management objective is to develop a natural area in Penryn to serve as a nature reserve and bird sanctuary with equestrian and pedestrian trail use. The trails and unique features of the reserve will be marked for identification. In addition, the reserve may serve as an educational resource for local schools. Conservation projects: 1) Inventory of Plants – Sierra College students, members of the Redbud Chapter of NPS, and other volunteers 2) Inventory of Birds – Sierra Foothills Audubon Society and other volunteers 3) Nest Box Monitoring – Sierra Foothills Audubon Society and California Bluebird Recovery Program

Restoring Riparian Habitat for Birds - Placer Nature Center

SFAS applied for and won a $5,000 grant and matched the funds with funds generated from SFAS year-end fund-raising. The team-building collaborative of Sierra Foothills Audubon Society (SFAS), Placer Nature Center (PNC) and Traylor Ranch Committee (TRC) took the concept of a PNC project, "Restoring Riparian Habitat for Birds" into a reality with complete success over the past year. The combined effort has been rewarding in several ways but especially because so many youth were part of the project and were exposed to the concepts of restoration and stewardship and actively participated in them.

All of the objectives of the project were met successfully in a timely manner. Following is a description of the objectives and the strategies implemented to achieve them.

The first objective was: Create a coordinated restoration plan for the Yellow-breasted Chat and Yellow Warbler to enhance Traylor Ranch Bird Sanctuary and Nature Reserve. The Yellow-breasted Chat and Yellow Warbler are mainly threatened by the loss of habitat due to urbanization or agriculture that clears riparian areas. Since the gifting of Traylor Ranch to the County, oak woodland and wetlands previously grazed and riparian habitat that was buried have been returning to a more natural state because of the plantings and no grazing.

By the collaboration of SFAS, TRC and PNC a coordinated plan was devised coupled with plant selection to benefit the targeted bird species. Deren Ross of SFAS provided the plant selection list that was composed of native plants that would benefit nesting as well as perching in the riparian area. Dave Faoro of TRC selected and provided access to two large planting sites adjacent to Antelope Creek at Traylor Ranch. They also assisted in finding plant protectors to use on the young plants to increase their success rate after planting. The Placer Nature Center bought and stored the plants at their greenhouse until they were planted by the students.

The second objective was: Involve 500 5th -7th grade students in the Restoring Riparian Habitat for Birds program for hands on science and stewardship opportunity at Traylor Ranch resulting in a depth of understanding of the relationship between habitat and bird populations. Linda Desai and volunteers from The Placer Nature Center were responsible for this objective. From the beginning of the school year 5th through 7th grade teachers were sent informational flyers about the opportunity for this day-long program. On each field trip students rotated through three stations (grassland ecology, stream ecology and cultural/recent history), all of which integrated the relationship of habitat to the bird life at Traylor Ranch. After lunch they participated in the restoration project and performed reflective writing and evaluation. The final total of students involved with this program was 631 - well over the 500 projected. Only 500 were charged to this grant. Other grant funds covered the other 131 students.

Here is the list of schools and students that participated: Cresmont Elementary 6th grade, Homeschool mixed grades, Roseville Community School mixed grades, EV Cain 7th grade, Ridgeview 6th grade, Newcastle 6th grade, Ophir Elementary 6th and 7th, Colfax Elem. 7th grade, Antelope Creek 6th grade, Magnolia 6th grade, Sierra Montessori 6, 7, and 8 grades.

Before taking any of the students to this program, a training of PNC personnel was organized and facilitated by SFAS. The docents and staff of PNC were able to get an in depth training on the bird life at Traylor Ranch by Deren Ross of SFAS. With the students, hands-on scientific investigations filled the morning stations. In grassland ecology, insect nets explored the invertebrate life, binoculars the bird life, and trowels and rulers sampled the soil and plant life. In the stream station dip nets looked at the macro-invertebrates, tree keys identified riparian species, and water quality tests were done. The culture/recent history station revealed the impact and relationship of people to the land. Evidences are seen throughout the property: grinding rocks left by the Maidu, the fence posts and non-native grasses introduced by the pioneers, the trail system and multiple bird boxes put in place by SFAS and TRC.

The morning rotations were followed by two more activities before returning to school. First, there was the restoration activity. Here the students learned about the yellow chat and yellow warbler and why they are a species of concern. They learned about the native plants and how their choice is a good match for the birds. Then they planted and made their personal connection to the land. After a morning of interacting with the relationships of animals and plants, seeing their own interrelationship has all the more relevancy and meaning. After all this activity it was time for reflection. Students reflected on the day's activities through written prompts to get them to think about the connections they saw between plants and animals and people and the land.

Restoration Activity. After reflecting, the students evaluated the program, a chance for them to critique the program and for PNC to see it though the participants eyes. Here is a sample of their comments: "It was informative and valuable" - teacher from Magnolia, "I loved it" - student, Sierra Montessori "I learned a lot about nature" - student Magnolia "I had fun and will tell my parents all about it" - student Antelope Creek "I didn't think I would have fun, but I really did. I learned so much in a fun and exciting way." - student, Colfax.

The last objective was: Increasing habitat for the targeted bird species that enhance their populations on site and creates additional habitat for other wildlife. This is the list of the trees, shrubs and other vegetation planted by the students: Buckeye 8, Spicebush 20, Mugwort 7, California grape 6, Interior Live oak 11, Pipevine 3, Red twig dogwood 5, Valley oak 2, Oregon ash 3, Coffeeberry 3, Ca rose 8, Buckbrush 6, Skunkbush 2, Elderberry 5, Sedge 2, Buttonbush 2, Willow 3, Cottonwood 6, White alder 3, and CA laurel 1 Grand total plantings – 106.

Note the variation - trees for perching and understory, including vines for nesting. Naturally, it will take time to develop into the thicket preferred by the yellow chat but the process has begun. The Yellow Chat and Yellow Warbler do visit the site as has been documented by some SFAS members but they have not nested at Traylor Ranch yet. With this restoration effort, there is a viable chance that the nesting opportunity and populations will increase.

Conclusion

Restoring Riparian Habitat for Birds was a successful collaborative effort resulting in increased and renewed habitat for the Yellow Chat and Yellow Warbler. Having our leaders of tomorrow, our youth, be a part of the effort was an important focus to internalize the concept of stewardship to these young people. Now they have a connection to a local site and played an active part in creating a higher quality environment for all.

SFAS sincerely appreciates the efforts of Audubon California to support local chapters in their education and conservation work.