UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, MERCED LAZY K RANCH PERMITTEE-RESPONSIBLE OFF-SITE MITIGATION PRESERVE PROJECT

Initial Study and Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration

The following Initial Study has been prepared in compliance with CEQA.

Prepared By:

University of California Merced 5200 North Lake Road Merced, California 95343

April 2015

Contact: Phillip Woods, Director of Physical & Environmental Planning 5200 North Lake Road Merced, California 95343 (209) 349-2561 [email protected]

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Section Page INTRODUCTION ...... 1 Initial Study ...... 1 Public and Agency Review ...... 1 Organization of the Initial Study ...... 2 1. PROJECT INFORMATION ...... 3 2. PROJECT DESCRIPTION ...... 4 2.1 Introduction ...... 4 2.2 Project Need and Objectives ...... 4 2.3 Project Location ...... 4 2.4 Project Site Characteristics ...... 6 2.5 Project Components ...... 10 2.6 Project Construction Activities and Schedule ...... 15 2.7 Construction Control Measures ...... 15 3. SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS ...... 18 4. DETERMINATION ...... 19 5. EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS ...... 20 5.1 Aesthetics ...... 21 5.2 Agricultural and Forestry Resources ...... 23 5.3 Air Quality ...... 25 5.4 Biological Resources ...... 31 5.5 Cultural Resources ...... 43 5.6 Geology and Soils ...... 46 5.7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions ...... 48 5.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials ...... 52 5.9 Hydrology and Water Quality ...... 55 5.10 Land Use and Planning ...... 58 5.11 Mineral Resources ...... 60 5.12 Noise ...... 61 5.13 Population and Housing ...... 65 5.14 Public Services ...... 66 5.15 Recreation ...... 67 5.16 Transportation and Traffic ...... 68 5.17 Utilities and Service Systems ...... 70 5.18 Mandatory Findings of Significance ...... 72 6. REFERENCES ...... 74 7. REPORT PREPARERS ...... 75

Appendices A. Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration B. Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Calculations C. Biological Resources Survey Report

UC Merced i Lazy K Preserve Initial Study/MND 0974.004 April 2015 LIST OF FIGURES

Figure Page 1 Regional Location ...... 5 2 Project Vicinity ...... 8 3 Topographic Map ...... 9 4 Preliminary Proposed Pools...... 12 5 Vernal Pool Restoration Design...... 13 6 Documented Vernal Pool Shrimp Occurrences ...... 32 7 Documented Special-Status Amphibians, Plants, and Nesting Raptors ...... 33

LIST OF TABLES

Table Page 1 SJVAB Air Quality Attainment Status ...... 25 2 SJVAPCD Air Quality Significance Thresholds ...... 26 3 Estimated Construction Emissions (tons per year) ...... 28 4 Special-Status Species with Potential to Occur in Project Vicinity ...... 34 5 Construction Equipment 50-Foot Noise Emission Limits ...... 62

UC Merced ii Lazy K Preserve Initial Study/MND 0974.004 April 2015 INTRODUCTION

Initial Study

The proposed project is the construction and operation of a Permittee-Responsible Off-site Mitigation Preserve by UC Merced on a 65.5-acre site on the Lazy K Ranch in Madera County. The University is proposing to enter into an agreement with the property owner for the establishment of this preserve which would provide compensatory mitigation for wetland impacts from the development of the UC Merced Campus. The proposed agreement with the property owner and the establishment of the preserve is a discretionary action of the University, and is therefore subject to compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

Pursuant to Section 15063 of the State CEQA Guidelines (Title 14, California Code of Regulations, Sections 15000 et seq.), an Initial Study is a preliminary environmental analysis that is used by the lead agency (the public agency principally responsible for approving or carrying out the proposed project) as a basis for determining whether an Environmental Impact Report, a Mitigated Negative Declaration, or a Negative Declaration is required for a project. The State CEQA Guidelines require that an Initial Study contain a project description, description of environmental setting, identification of environmental effects by checklist or other similar form, explanation of environmental effects, discussion of mitigation for significant environmental effects, evaluation of the project’s consistency with existing, applicable land use controls, and the name of persons who prepared the study.

The purpose of this Initial Study is to evaluate the potential environmental impacts from the construction and operation of the proposed Lazy K Ranch Permittee-Responsible Off-site Mitigation Preserve to determine what level of environmental review is appropriate. As shown in the Determination in Section IV of this document, and based on the analysis contained in this Initial Study, it has been determined that the proposed project would not result in any significant impacts that cannot be mitigated to less than significant levels. The analysis contained in this Initial Study concludes that the proposed project would result in the following categories of impacts, depending on the environmental resource involved: no impact; less than significant impact; or less than significant impact with the implementation of project- specific mitigation measures. Therefore, preparation of a Mitigated Negative Declaration is appropriate (the Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration is presented in Appendix A).

Public and Agency Review

This Initial Study/Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration will be circulated for public and agency review from April 3, 2015 to May 4, 2015. Copies of this document are available for review at the University of Merced, Physical and Environmental Planning office at the address below and the UC Merced Kolligian Library located at 5200 North Lake Road, Merced.

UC Merced 1 Lazy K Preserve Initial Study/MND 0974.004 April 2015 Comments on this Initial Study/Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration must be received by 5:00 PM on May 4, 2015 and can be sent by regular mail or emailed to:

Phillip Woods Director of Physical & Environmental Planning Physical and Environmental Planning University of California, Merced 5200 North Lake Road Merced, California 95343 (209) 349-2561 [email protected]

Organization of the Initial Study

This Initial Study is organized into the following sections.

Section 1 – Project Information: provides summary background information about the proposed project, including project location, lead agency, and contact information.

Section 2 – Project Description: includes a description of the proposed project, including the need for the project, the project’s objectives, and the elements included in the project.

Section 3 – Environmental Factors Potentially Affected: identifies what environmental resources, if any, would involve at least one significant or potentially significant impact that cannot be reduced to a less than significant level.

Section 4 – Determination: indicates whether impacts associated with the proposed project would be significant, and what, if any, additional environmental documentation is required.

Section 5 – Evaluation of Environmental Impacts: contains the Environmental Checklist form for each resource and presents an explanation of all checklist answers. The checklist is used to assist in evaluating the potential environmental impacts of the proposed project and determining which impacts, if any, need to be further evaluated in an EIR.

Section 6 – References: lists references used in the preparation of this document.

Section 7 – Initial Study Preparers: lists the names of individuals involved in the preparation of this document.

Appendices – present the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration and the technical studies used in the preparation of this Initial Study.

UC Merced 2 Lazy K Preserve Initial Study/MND 0974.004 April 2015 1. PROJECT INFORMATION

Project title:

UC Merced Lazy K Ranch Permittee-Responsible Off-Site Mitigation Preserve

Lead agency name and address:

University of California, Merced 5200 North Lake Road Merced, California 95343 Contact person and phone number:

Phillip Woods, Director of Physical & Environmental Planning (209) 349-2561 Project location:

Project Site: Southwest corner of Santa Fe Avenue and Avenue 28 in Madera County. Assessor’s Parcel Number 030-021-006, 030-022-005

Inoculum Collection Parcels: South of Marguerite Road and north of Chowchilla River in Merced County. Assessor’s Parcel Numbers 068-210-006, 068-210-010

Staging Area: South of Avenue 28 in Madera County. Assessor’s Parcel Number 030-062-003

Project sponsor’s name and address:

University of California, Merced Phillip Woods, Director of Physical & Environmental Planning Physical and Environmental Planning 5200 North Lake Road Merced, California 95343

UC Merced 3 Lazy K Preserve Initial Study/MND 0974.004 April 2015 2. PROJECT DESCRIPTION

2.1 Introduction

This section describes the need and objectives for the proposed UC Merced Lazy K Ranch Permittee-Responsible Off-site Mitigation Preserve project (hereinafter referred to as the Mitigation Preserve project or proposed project), as well as the manner in which the proposed wetlands mitigation would be constructed, the proposed construction schedule, and post construction monitoring.

The University of California (University), as the lead agency pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), prepared the Final Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report (Final EIS/EIR) for the UC Merced and University Community Project (State Clearinghouse No. 2008041009). The UC Merced campus and University Community North contained 77.79 acres of jurisdictional wetlands (40.41 acres of vernal pools, swales, and clay slope wetlands and 37.38 acres of canal and irrigation wetlands). Following the certification of 2009 UC Merced and University Community Project EIR by the University and approval of the Record of Decision by the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), UC Merced was issued a Section 404 permit by the USACE that authorized the filling of these jurisdictional wetlands. The UC Merced Section 404 permit requires that the filling of these jurisdictional wetlands be compensated by the creation or restoration of similar wetlands, i.e., that the filling of vernal pools, swales and clay slope wetlands be compensated by the creation or restoration of vernal pools. The Mitigation Preserve project is proposed to compensate for the filling of vernal pool wetlands on the Campus and Community North by restoring up to 10.58 acres of vernal pools on a 65.5-acre property in Madera County.

2.2 Project Need and Objectives

UC Merced will establish the Mitigation Preserve to provide restored vernal pool habitat as mitigation for the filling of wetlands in conjunction with the development of the Campus and Community North. The key objective of the proposed project is to provide compensatory mitigation for vernal pool impacts of the UC Merced project.

2.3 Project Location

The 1,556-acre Lazy K Ranch, located in Madera County, is owned by the Knapp Family. As shown in Figure 1, Regional Location, the ranch is bordered on the west by Santa Fe Avenue, on the north by Marguerite Road, on the east by neighboring private land, and on the south by neighboring private land and Ash Slough. Elevation on the ranch ranges from approximately 325 feet above sea level along the bluffs just south of the Chowchilla River to approximately 300 feet along the Chowchilla River floodplain. The northern portion of the ranch drains into the Chowchilla River. The central and southern portions generally slope west to southwest eventually draining into either the Chowchilla River or Ash Slough.

UC Merced 4 Lazy K Preserve Initial Study/MND 0974.004 April 2015 Legend Property Under Conservation Easement

Lazy K Ranch Boundary

Project Site and Inoculum Collection Sites

HSR Vernal Pool Restoration Area

Staging Area

Inoculum Collection Sites

Project Site

SOURCE: Vollmar Natural Lands Consulting, 2014

FIGURE 1 Regional Location

0974.004•02/15 The 65.5-acre project site is located in the southwest corner of the ranch, south of the Chowchilla River, bordered on the west by Santa Fe Avenue and by Avenue 28 to the south as shown in Figure 2, Project Vicinity. The project site is currently and has historically been used for livestock grazing and is zoned as agriculture. The project site historically supported mound-basin topography with natural vernal pool wetlands but was leveled for flood irrigation prior to the 1950s. It has been used as dry pasture for livestock for the past several decades. There are no existing buildings on the project site. There are two livestock watering troughs and associated wells and pipelines for filling the troughs on the project site. There is a well located in the northwest corner of the project site adjacent to Santa Fe Avenue. Electrical lines run parallel along the western and southern border of the project site. There are residences located to the south of the project site. The nearest residence, which is bounded by the project site on three sides, is the home of the Ranch Manager. Another residence, owned by a private landowner, is on the south side of Avenue 28.

A 1.2-acre area to the south of Avenue 28, shown in Figure 2, would be used as a staging area for storage of construction equipment and vehicles. The site is currently used to stage ranch activities. The site has a metal barn and is graded. The limited vegetation that occurs in this area is generally composed of nonnative, seasonal species. Because this area is already used for ranch operations, it makes an ideal area for staging (Vollmar 2015a).

Two parcels located to the north of the Chowchilla River and south of Marguerite Road, shown in Figure 2 would be used to collect inoculum1 for use on the project site. The inoculum collection parcels comprise a total of 218.7 acres, which includes the 153.3-acre western parcel and 65.4-acre eastern parcel. There is a residence located adjacent to the western inoculum collection parcel which is the Lazy K Ranch headquarters.

2.4 Project Site Characteristics

Topography and Hydrology The project site is situated on alluvial terraces adjacent to the historic floodplain of the Chowchilla River. Elevation of the project site ranges from approximately 300 to 305 feet above mean sea level (msl). The project site is south of the Chowchilla River and north of Ash Slough. The project site historically consists of undulating mound-basin topography that supported vernal pool wetlands. The site was leveled prior to the 1950s for agricultural purposes. However, the site was not deep-ripped, leaving intact the subsurface hardpan that supports vernal pool hydrology. The inoculum collection parcels are located to the north of the Chowchilla River and consist of intact, native mound-basin topography with vernal pools. Figure 3, Topographic Map, shows the topography of the project site to be generally flat. The inoculum collection parcels range in elevation from a high of 325 feet above sea level on the eastern inoculum collection parcel to a low of 290 feet on the western inoculum collection parcel. Lower elevations are found closer to the Chowchilla River.

The project site, staging area, and inoculum collection parcels are within the Chowchilla River Watershed of the Middle San Joaquin-Lower Chowchilla River hydrologic unit within the San

1 Inoculum consists of soil and seed material collected from donor vernal pools by scraping the surface. Inoculum is used to vegetate the restored pools.

UC Merced 6 Lazy K Preserve Initial Study/MND 0974.004 April 2015 Joaquin River Basin hydrologic unit (HUC: 18040001, USGS). The Chowchilla River is a minor tributary of the San Joaquin River that originates in the lower foothills of the Sierra (~ 5,000 feet elevation). Currently, the main flow of the Chowchilla River emanates from Eastman Lake through Buchanan Dam. The main flow of the Chowchilla River is diverted into Ash Slough which is further diverted at a diversion dam into Ash Slough and Berenda Slough. Ash Slough flows to Berenda Reservoir for irrigation water. As a result, Chowchilla River flows are erratic (depending on water releases) and, except for isolated pools in the river bottom, the riverbed is often dry during the spring and fall. Water is released into the channel during some of the summer months for irrigation, and is intermittently wet in the winter during the rainy season. Ash Slough has flows for more of the year than the Chowchilla River since it serves as a distributary channel for Berenda Reservoir; however, it still experiences ephemeral flows.

There are four hydrologic test basins excavated on the project site in 2009 to evaluate the feasibility of establishing vernal pools on the Mitigation Preserve site. There is also a groundwater well on the site adjacent to Santa Fe Avenue. There are no vernal pools, or drainages or other water features on the project site due to the past leveling. However, there are vernal pools on adjacent land throughout the ranch and on the inoculum collection parcels. Smaller pools on the inoculum collection parcels are more ephemeral, remaining ponded for some weeks in winter or early spring. Larger vernal pools can remain inundated continuously from late fall into early summer. There are no well-developed creeks on the inoculum collection parcels although there are numerous ephemeral drainages and vernal swales. These drainages flow for only short periods (typically one to two weeks) following heavy rains. Most of the drainages have only intermittently developed beds and banks. The vernal pools and grasslands on the Lazy K Ranch are above the 100-year flood zone of the Chowchilla River and are not subject to flooding from the river due to elevation and upstream water control structures (Vollmar 2015a).

Habitat and Species Present Vegetation on the project site is primarily annual grasslands. The surrounding ranch land, including the inoculum collection parcels support grasslands as well as interspersed vernal pools and swales. The natural vernal pool-grassland habitat supports introduced annual grasslands with a 10 to 15 percent cover of interspersed vernal pools and swales. The grasslands on the Mitigation Preserve site, surrounding ranch land and the inoculum collection parcels provide occupied habitat for sheltering California tiger salamander (Ambystoma californiense), foraging Swainson’s hawk (Buteo swainsoni), and suitable habitat for San Joaquin kit fox (Vulpes macrotis mutica). There is documented Swainson’s hawk nesting along the Chowchilla River riparian corridor on the ranch. There is also an active bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) nest along this corridor which is rare for the region. The vernal pools on portions of the ranch and the inoculum collection parcels support a number of listed and other rare species, including breeding California tiger salamander and western spadefoot toad (Spea hammondii), vernal pool fairy shrimp (Branchinecta lynchi), vernal pool tadpole shrimp (Lepidurus packardi), mid-valley fairy shrimp (Branchinecta mesovallensis), Colusa grass (Neostapfia colusana), Greene’s tuctoria (Tuctoria greenei), hairy Orcutt grass (Orcuttia pilosa), San Joaquin Valley Orcutt grass (Orcuttia inaequalis), succulent owl’s-clover (Castilleja campestris ssp. succulenta), and spiny-sepaled button-celery (Eryngium spinospepalum). Documented occurrences of these species on the ranch, the project site and inoculum collection parcels are further described in Section 3.4, Biological Resources. There are currently no documented occurrences of special-status species on the project site (Vollmar 2015a).

UC Merced 7 Lazy K Preserve Initial Study/MND 0974.004 April 2015 SOURCE: Salix Consulting, Inc., 2015

FIGURE 2 Project Vicinity

0974.004•02/15 Study Area

Sources: Esri, HERE, DeLorme, USGS, Intermap, increment P Corp., NRCAN,

Inoculum Collection Areas

Project Site

Source Maps: USGS Topographic Map, Le Grand, CA (1981)

Legend Project Site (±65 acres) Inoculum Collection Area 2,408 1,204 0 2,408 Staging Area n APPROXIMATE SCALE IN FEET Copyright:© 2013 National Geographic Society, i-cubed SOURCE: Salix Consulting, Inc., 2015

FIGURE 3 Topographic Map

0974.004•02/15 Geology and Soils The project site is primarily located on Riverbank Formation with a small portion in the northwestern corner located on Dune Sand Formation. The inoculum collection parcels are located on primarily Riverbank and Turlock Lake Formations. The southwestern corners of both inoculum collection parcels are located on Modesto Formation. Riverbank Formation generally supports smaller, denser mima mound topography and smaller, more densely clustered vernal pools. The soils tend to be moderately acidic clay loams and pools found on this formation often have accumulated clay in their basins.

Differences in vernal pool size, density, and substrate translate into differences in associated special-status species. Succulent owl’s-clover only occurs in pools on Riverbank Formation since the species prefers acidic soils. Also, all of the documented mid-valley fairy shrimp occurrences are on this type of formation. Most of the documented California tiger salamander breeding ponds are on Turlock Lake Formation since the species typically breeds in larger pools that provide sufficient ponding duration to support larval growth and metamorphosis. Vernal pool tadpole shrimp and western spadefoot tend to prefer medium to deep pools and so are common in many of the pools on Turlock Lake Formation but also occur in larger pools on Riverbank Formation. Vernal pool fairy shrimp is the most generalist species and occurs widely throughout pools on both formations (Vollmar 2015a).

2.5 PROJECT COMPONENTS

The sections below describe the sequential steps that would be involved in developing and restoring the compensatory wetlands on the Mitigation Preserve site.

A. Conservation Easement for the Mitigation Preserve

As a first step, a Conservation Easement (CE) for the Mitigation Preserve would be recorded with Madera County and would stipulate the ongoing permitted and prohibited land uses on the Mitigation Preserve site.

B. Vernal Pool Restoration Plan Implementation

A draft vernal pool restoration plan has been developed for the Mitigation Preserve site. Development of the Mitigation Preserve would include restoration of vernal pools and associated upland habitat. Historically, the Preserve site supported vernal pools; however, prior to the 1940s the site was leveled and disked for agricultural production. The restoration approach includes restoring the historic mound basin topography to the extent practicable. An approximate layout of the proposed restoration is shown in Figure 4, Preliminary Proposed Pools. The size ranges and pattern of restored vernal pools would match the range of sizes and patterns observed in the existing pools on the other undisturbed portions of the Lazy K Ranch, as shown in Figure 5, Vernal Pool Restoration Design. The restored pools’ layouts would generally fit within the ranges of the existing pools on the ranch, but would be more centered on the mean, with a few vernal pools in the smaller size ranges, and several within the larger size ranges. Depending on agency approval, up to 10.58 acres of vernal pools of vernal pools would be restored within the 65.5-acre Mitigation Preserve site, representing a wetland cover ranging between 15.0 and

UC Merced 10 Lazy K Preserve Initial Study/MND 0974.004 April 2015 16.0 percent. This density is similar to the density within the adjacent design reference site in the natural grassland habitat as shown in Figures 2 and 5.

Once the CE is established, the implementation of the vernal pool restoration plan will commence. This will involve several steps including completing the final restoration plan and construction specifications, completing agency-required pre-construction surveys and documents, clearing mammal burrows within the construction area of sheltering California tiger salamanders, implementing and monitoring construction, inoculating constructed pools, seeding disturbed upland areas, installing any needed silt fencing, reconstructing pasture cross-fencing, arranging a temporary pasture lease for a year following the restoration, and preparing a vernal pool construction report, including as-builts of the constructed pools. These activities are described in more detail below.

Pre-Construction Surveys Pre-construction biological surveys would be conducted prior to the start of pool construction, as required by the project environmental permits. The surveys would cover nesting Swainson’s hawks and other raptors, roosting bats, San Joaquin kit fox, American badgers, nesting burrowing owls, noxious weeds, and other species, as required by the agencies. Surveys for special-status plants and invasive weeds within pools targeted for inoculum collection will also be conducted.

Mammal Burrow Clearing Prior to any grading on the Mitigation Preserve site, mammal burrows that may be disturbed on the project site would be surveyed and excavated to remove any sheltering California tiger salamanders. This includes all areas that may be directly disturbed by pool and mound construction, all equipment haul routes and staging areas, and a 50-foot buffer around these areas. There are an estimated 450 mammal burrow complexes with an average of five to six burrow entrances per complex (roughly 2,500 total burrows) within the Mitigation Preserve site.

The burrow excavation would be done using a combination of fiber optic cable (boroscope) survey followed by manual or small tractor excavation as needed. Any California tiger salamander found during burrow excavation or any other work during the project would be handled by a qualified biologist with the appropriate handling license and relocated to the adjacent natural area with existing vernal pools following protocols approved by the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW).

Construction of Vernal Pools, Swales, and Mounds Following the clearing of the site for any special-status species, construction of pool, swale and mound topography similar to the undisturbed landscape to the north of the Mitigation Preserve site would commence. Pools would be excavated and the excavated soil would be mounded around the restored pools to restore mima mound topography and establish hydrological interconnectivity between individual pools consistent with the Design Reference Site. Approximately 101 vernal pools are proposed for construction (1.8 pools per acre), compared to the 119 vernal pools that are present within the Design Reference Site (1.9 pools per acre). The restored vernal pools are expected to have maximum ponding depths ranging from 4 to 15 inches. Excavated depths would be varied to create a diversity of microhabitats. Pool sizes would also be varied and are expected to range from 0.004 to 1.59 acres. Vernal pool edges would be sinuous and between 2 percent and 6 percent slope to mimic natural edge.

UC Merced 11 Lazy K Preserve Initial Study/MND 0974.004 April 2015 Legend

Santa Fe Dr Project Site (±65 acres) Preliminary Proposed Pools (±10.5 acres) Data Provided by: Vollmar Natural Lands Consulting

Avenue 28

BNSF RR

376 188 0 376

n APPROXIMATE SCALE IN FEET Service Layer Credits: ESRI 2015 SOURCE: Salix Consulting, Inc., 2015

FIGURE 4 Preliminary Proposed Pools

0974.004•02/15 Project Site ( )

Staging Area

SOURCE: Vollmar Natural Lands Consulting, 2014

FIGURE 5 Vernal Pool Restoration Design

0974.004•02/15 Inoculation of Constructed Vernal Pools All of the constructed vernal pools would be inoculated using soil and seed material collected from nearby existing vernal pools. The inoculum would be collected from two parcels located to the north of the project site, north of Chowchilla River and to the south of Marguerite Road. The proposed project would require approximately 170 cubic yards of material which would be collected from approximately 1.25 acres throughout the two parcels. Inoculum would be scraped from a maximum of 10 percent of the surface area of selected natural pools using a small rubber- tired tractor with a bucket and a gannon box scraper or other equipment, transported to the Mitigation Preserve site, and then deposited and spread on the surface of restored pools. Vernal pool fairy shrimp occur within pools on the inoculum collection parcels. Therefore, inoculum applications within the restored pools are likely to also introduce eggs and cysts of these shrimp species into the restored pools, thereby accelerating the natural dispersal process that is expected to occur via birds and other vertebrates.

Restoration of Disturbed Upland Area All upland areas on the project site that were disturbed during pool-mound construction would be seeded using practices and the seed mix stipulated in the vernal pool restoration plan.

Installation of Silt Fencing Silt fencing would be installed as needed across swales and other water conveyances exiting the Mitigation Preserve site to minimize siltation of downstream wetlands and creeks. This specifically excludes installing wildlife exclusion fencing around the site.

Reconstruction of Pasture Cross Fences There is approximately 800 feet of existing cross fencing within the project site. This fencing would be removed at the start of the construction process. The cross fencing would be reconstructed at the discretion of the landowner after completion of the vernal pool construction activities.

C. Post Construction Activities

Temporary Pasture Lease Livestock grazing would be excluded from the project site for a year following construction to allow the upland and wetland plants to become established. The livestock would be moved to an alternate pasture. Grazing may be restricted for another year or two following construction, at the discretion of the vernal pool design contractor, to allow further establishment of upland and wetland plants.

Vernal Pool Monitoring The restored vernal pools on the project site, as well as approximately 18 natural reference pools within the Design Reference Site, would be monitored for a minimum of five years following pool construction or until final performance standards are met up to a maximum of 10 years. The vernal pool hydrology would be monitored during the months of January through March. Monitoring of the vernal pool structural stability and vegetation would occur during spring.

Grazing Grazing of cattle, horses, or other livestock would return to the site a year after construction. The number of animals allowed to graze on the site would continue to be limited for a two to

UC Merced 14 Lazy K Preserve Initial Study/MND 0974.004 April 2015 three year period as needed to protect newly establishing vegetation. Full grazing would return once the vegetation is fully established and final performance standards are met. The number of animals grazed would be dependent upon average rainfall per year to maintain the appropriate amount of residual dry matter (RDM) and accumulated thatch. As part of the Long Term Management Plan for the Mitigation Preserve, a grazing plan has been prepared and would be implemented. The goals of the grazing plan are to use grazing for thatch management; invasive plant management; reducing overall fuel loads within the Preserve to levels that reduce the likelihood of a wildfire and are compatible with habitat management goals; maintaining the desired upland and wetland species composition within the annual grassland and vernal pools by reducing the accumulation of thatch within the wetland and upland areas; and managing the annual grassland for the benefit of federally listed vernal pool plant and wildlife species.

2.6 Project Construction Activities and Schedule

Vernal pools and associated mounds would be constructed according to design specifications and project environmental permits. Habitat construction, project site preparation, grading, and inoculation of the new pools are expected to occur in summer and fall of 2015, lasting approximately four to five months. Small mammal burrow clearing to remove California tiger salamander would begin in May or June and occur for approximately a month, followed by site preparation and construction of the pools ending in early October. All burrows would be surveyed for presence of San Joaquin kit fox, burrowing owl, and American badger. Pool construction would occur from roughly mid-June to mid-October. There could be up to 18 people on the project site during construction, including equipment operators and biological monitors. The staging area would be used for construction equipment storage and vehicle parking for the duration of construction. Inoculation of the constructed pools would occur in November or December. Alternatively, the inoculation may be delayed one year due to the current drought conditions. During inoculum collection there would be tractor and scraper equipment operators and a qualified biological monitor present.

2.7 Construction Control Measures

The following control measures are included in the proposed project for the avoidance and minimization of impacts to plant and wildlife species known to occur on the project site or on the inoculum collection areas.

General Conservation Measures

 Pre-construction biological surveys for sensitive and special-status plants and wildlife will be completed prior to the start of pool construction as required by the project environmental permits. Surveys for noxious weeds and succulent owl’s-clover within pools targeted for inoculum collection will be conducted in the spring prior to inoculum collection. Pools supporting either of these species will be excluded from inoculum collection.

 All mammal burrows that may be disturbed within the Mitigation Preserve will be surveyed and excavated to remove any sheltering CTS prior to the start of construction. This includes all areas that may be directly disturbed by pool and mound construction,

UC Merced 15 Lazy K Preserve Initial Study/MND 0974.004 April 2015 all equipment haul routes and staging areas, and a 50-foot buffer around these areas. These burrows will also be assessed as potential San Joaquin kit fox dens and will be surveys to determine presence or absence prior to the start of construction. In the unlikely event that San Joaquin kit fox are detected on site, the USFWS and CDFW will be contacted to discuss how to proceed. All burrows will also be surveyed for the presence of burrowing owl and American badger.

 Silt fencing will be installed as needed across swales and other water conveyances exiting the Mitigation Preserve to minimize siltation of downstream wetlands and creeks.

 All vernal pool restoration construction will take place during the dry season.

 Inoculum will be harvested only from vernal pools in which listed plant have been documented not to occur, based on extensive past field studies as well as additional plant surveys conducted in the spring prior to inoculum collection. It is assumed that cysts of listed shrimp species will be present in some of the pools from which inoculum is collected and that these cysts will be transferred to the constructed pools to facilitate occupancy by these species. Inoculum will not be collected from any pool that supports the invasive waxy mannagrass (Glyceria declinata) based on the results of the field surveys. In accordance with the approved vernal pool restoration plan, no more than 10 percent of existing inoculum from any pool will be removed. A qualified, USFWS- and CDFW-approved Monitoring Biologist will be present at all times to guide the inoculation activities.

 A Construction Mitigation Plan shall be prepared and implemented that incorporates Best Management Practices (BMPs) including dust-control measures, erosion reduction and sediment control, and restricted equipment refueling and maintenance practices.

 The Construction Contractor will maintain a clean, safe site during and upon completion of construction, including the final site clean-up and removing all equipment and debris at the completion of the construction.

San Joaquin Kit Fox Conservation Measures

In addition to the conservation measures specified above, the Standardized Recommendations for Protection of the Endangered San Joaquin Kit Fox Prior to or During Ground Disturbance will be implemented to avoid and minimize direct effects on this species. These measures for avoiding and minimizing disturbance of San Joaquin kit fox (SJKF) are summarized below.

 Preconstruction/pre-activity surveys will be conducted no less than 14 days and no more than 30 days prior to the beginning of ground disturbance and/or construction activities or any activity likely to impact the SJKF. The status of all dens will be determined and mapped. Burrows that provide suitable SJKF denning habitat but that are determined to be not active will be excavated and collapsed as part of the CTS burrowing clearing activities.

 Impacts to all active dens must be avoided during construction activities. Exclusion zones will be established around all identified active SJKF dens. Minimum distances include 50 feet

UC Merced 16 Lazy K Preserve Initial Study/MND 0974.004 April 2015 for potential dens, 50 feet for atypical dens, and 100 feet for known dens. Exclusion zones around natal/pupping dense will be determined by the USFWS.

 Limited destruction of active dens may be allowed, if avoidance is not a reasonable alternative, and will be accomplished through careful excavation by a qualified biologist.

 Natal/pupping dens which are occupied will not be destroyed until the pups and adults have vacated and then only after consultation with the USFWS.

 Known active dens within construction areas will be monitored by a qualified biologist and then excavated in accordance with the Standardized Recommendations for Protection of the Endangered San Joaquin Kit Fox Prior to or During Ground Disturbance (USFWS 2011).

 Project-related vehicles will observe a daytime speed limited of 20 mph throughout project areas, particularly at night. Night-time construction will be minimized to the extent feasible, but if it does occur, speed will be reduced to 10 mph.

 To prevent inadvertent entrapment of SJKF during construction, all excavated, steep-walled holes or trenches more than 2 feet deep will be covered at the close of each working day or escape ramps will be installed. In the event that a SJKF is trapped in a hole or trench, the USFWS will be contacted immediately.

 All construction pipes, culverts, or similar structures with a diameter of 4-inches or greater that are stored at the construction site will be thoroughly inspected for SJKF. If a SJKF is discovered inside of a pipe, the USFWS will be immediately consulted.

 All food-related trash will be disposed in appropriate containers and removed at least once per week.

 No firearms or pets will be allowed on site.

 Use of rodenticides and herbicides in project area will be restricted.

UC Merced 17 Lazy K Preserve Initial Study/MND 0974.004 April 2015 3. SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS

The proposed project could potentially affect the environmental factor(s) checked below. The following pages present a more detailed checklist and discussion of each environmental factor.

Aesthetics Agriculture and Forestry Air Quality Resources

Biological Resources Cultural Resources Geology / Soils

Greenhouse Gas Emissions Hazards & Hazardous Hydrology / Water Quality Materials

Land Use / Planning Mineral Resources Noise

Population / Housing Public Services Recreation

Transportation / Traffic Utilities / Service Systems Mandatory Findings of Significance

UC Merced 18 Lazy K Preserve Initial Study/MND 0974.004 April 2015

5. EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS

All items on the Initial Study Checklist that have been checked “Less Than Significant Impact” or “No Impact” indicate that, upon evaluation, UC Merced has determined that the proposed project could not have a significant adverse environmental effect relating to that issue. For items that have been checked “Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated,” UC Merced has determined that the proposed project would not have a significant adverse environmental effect provided that the mitigation measures presented in Appendix A of this document are implemented. For each checklist item, the evaluation has considered the impacts of the project both individually and cumulatively.

UC Merced 20 Lazy K Preserve Initial Study/MND 0974.004 April 2015 5.1 Aesthetics

5.1.1 Background

The project site and staging area are composed of leveled land that supports annual grasslands. To the north of the project site is the Chowchilla River and to the south is Ash Slough. Santa Fe Avenue borders the project site to the west and Avenue 28 to the south. The inoculum collection parcels are located between the Chowchilla River and Marguerite Road. The Sierra Nevada Mountains are located in the far distance to the east. Due to the flat to rolling topography of the project vicinity, views of the mountains are available from all roads adjacent to or near the site.

5.1.2 Environmental Checklist and Discussion

ESTHETICS Less than A Potentially Significant Less than Significant with Project- Significant No Impact Would the project… Impact level Impact Mitigation

a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway?

c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings?

d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?

DISCUSSION: a. The restoration of the vernal pools and construction of the mounds will result in a minor alteration of the existing topography and vegetation on the project site. However, the changes in elevation on the Mitigation Preserve site from the creation of the mounds would be on the order of less than 10 feet and would not constitute a substantial alteration of the scenic qualities in the area and views of the Sierra Nevada Mountains from nearby publicly accessible vantage points (i.e., Santa Fe Avenue) would remain the same after construction. The proposed project would have a less than significant impact on scenic vistas. b. The project site, staging area, and inoculum collection parcels are not located near any state- designated scenic highways and there are no resources present on the site that would qualify as scenic resources. Therefore, the proposed project would have no impact on scenic resources within a scenic highway. c. The project site currently consists of grasslands used for grazing. The surrounding area also consists of grasslands used for grazing. Wetlands are interspersed in some of the areas surrounding the project site. To the north of the Chowchilla River are natural grasslands with vernal pools present. The restoration of vernal pools on the project site would alter the site but once the vernal pools and the mounded uplands are seeded, the restored project site would be

UC Merced 21 Lazy K Preserve Initial Study/MND 0974.004 April 2015 visually consistent with existing nearby areas. The impact of the proposed project on the visual character of the project site and its surroundings would be less than significant.

The collection of inoculum on the inoculum collection parcels would result in a temporary disturbance. However, these vernal pools would generally recover by the next season (ECORP 2014). The impact from scraping and collecting inoculum on the visual character of the inoculum collection parcels and their surroundings would be minimal due to the small amount of vernal pool areas proposed for scraping, approximately 1.25 acres of the 218.7 acre inoculum collection areas and the limited amount of inoculum that would be collected. Therefore, the impact of the project on the visual character of the inoculum collection parcels would be less than significant. d. No permanent lighting is proposed as part of the project. Therefore in the long term, the proposed project will not create a new source of substantial light or glare that would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area. There would be no impact. During construction, there may be security lighting at night around the construction equipment and potentially glare during the day from construction vehicles. The additional light and glare would be visible from adjacent residences and roadways. However, the light and glare would be minimal and temporary, lasting approximately four to five months, and the impact would be less than significant.

5.1.3 Cumulative Impacts

Restoration of vernal pools to provide compensatory mitigation for the California High Speed Rail (CHSR) project is proposed on an approximately 115.2-acre area adjacent to the project site to the southeast. At this time it is possible for either the CHSR mitigation preserve or the proposed project to begin construction first. However, this document conservatively assumes that construction on the CHSR mitigation preserve would occur at the same time as construction on the project site. Implementation of adjacent CHSR mitigation preserve project would result in similar aesthetic impacts as the proposed project. Similar to the proposed project, alteration of the existing topography and vegetation on the CHSR mitigation preserve site would not substantially alter the scenic quality of the area or affect views of the Sierra Nevada Mountains from nearby publicly accessible vantage points. In addition, for the same reasons as presented for the proposed project, restoration of vernal pools on this site would be visually consistent with existing nearby areas. Finally, the CHSR mitigation preserve project will not create a new source of substantial light or glare as no lighting is proposed. As a result, the effects of the proposed project would not combine with those resulting from the CHSR mitigation preserve project to result in an adverse cumulative effect with regard to aesthetics. No other project is proposed in the project vicinity. The cumulative impact to aesthetics would be less than significant.

UC Merced 22 Lazy K Preserve Initial Study/MND 0974.004 April 2015 5.2 Agricultural and Forestry Resources

5.2.1 Background

The project site is currently used for livestock grazing. Consistent with this use, the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (FMMP) identifies the entire site as grazing land (California Department of Conservation 2014). The west portion of the project site is under Williamson Act- Prime Agricultural Land contract and the east portion of the project site is under Williamson Act- Non-Prime Agricultural Land contract (California Department of Conservation 2013). The project site has been registered under the Williamson Act since 1970 (contract renewed most recently in 2000) (Vollmar 2015a). Lands adjacent to the project site include almond orchards to the west and southwest and open rangelands to the north, east, and southeast. The land to the north, east, and southeast of the project site is part of the ranch, and consists of the Chowchilla River, agricultural pastures, and annual grasslands with interspersed vernal pools that are currently used for grazing. Lazy K Ranch headquarters are located to the north of the Mitigation Preserve site.

5.2.2 Environmental Checklist and Discussion

GRICULTURAL AND ORESTRY ESOURCES Less than A F R Potentially Significant Less than Significant with Project- Significant No Impact Would the project… Impact level Impact Mitigation a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code Section 12220(g)) or timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code Section 4526)? d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? e) Involve other changes in the existing environment, which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?

DISCUSSION: a. The project site is designated as grazing land by the FMMP. As a result, the project would not result in the conversion of land designated either as Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance to non-agricultural use. The impact would be less than significant.

UC Merced 23 Lazy K Preserve Initial Study/MND 0974.004 April 2015 b. The project site is under a Williamson Act contract. Grazing is the only ongoing agricultural practice on the project site. The proposed project would result in the restoration of vernal pools on the project site and livestock grazing would return to the site after a year. As a result, the project site would remain in agricultural use after completion of the proposed project. The placement of a conservation easement on the project site is compatible and would not conflict with the site’s Williamson Act contract. Cancellation of the contract would not be required. There would be no impact from the proposed project on land under a Williamson Act contract. c., d. The project site does not have any forestland and is not zoned for forest or timberland. There would be no impact. e. The proposed project would restore vernal pools on the Mitigation Preserve site. Livestock grazing would return to the site a year after construction. The number of animals allowed to graze on the site would continue to be limited for another two to three years as needed to protect newly establishing vegetation. Full grazing would return once the vegetation is fully established and final performance standards are met. Nearby lands are primarily used for grazing or are under orchards. Land to the southeast that is currently used for grazing, is proposed to be placed under a conservation easement as part the CHSR mitigation preserve project. The restoration of vernal pools and grazing practices proposed for the project site would be consistent with nearby land uses. There would be no potential to convert nearby agricultural uses to non-agricultural uses due to implementation of the proposed project. There would be no impact.

5.2.3 Cumulative Impacts

Implementation of adjacent CHSR mitigation preserve project would result in similar impacts to agricultural resources as the proposed project. Similar to the proposed project, the CHSR mitigation preserve site is also designated as grazing land by the FMMP and is currently used for grazing. Implementation of the CHSR mitigation preserve project would not result in the conversion of land designated either as Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance to non-agricultural use. The CHSR mitigation preserve project would restore vernal pools on the nearby site and would not conflict with adjacent agricultural practices. Like the proposed project, grazing operations would be allowed to continue on the CHSR mitigation preserve site within one or two years of vernal pool construction. Therefore, the CHSR mitigation preserve project would not substantially change the existing agricultural use of the site and impacts to agricultural resources would be minimal. As a result, the proposed project would not combine with the CHSR mitigation preserve project to result in an adverse cumulative effect on agricultural resources. The cumulative impact on agricultural resources would be less than significant.

UC Merced 24 Lazy K Preserve Initial Study/MND 0974.004 April 2015 5.3 Air Quality

5.3.1 Background

General

The proposed project is located in the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin (SJVAB) and is under the jurisdiction of the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD). The SJVAPCD is the lead air quality regulator for the SJVAB, and has jurisdiction over all point and area emission sources. As with the rest of the state, ambient air quality standards for ozone, carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), sulfur dioxide (SO2), particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5), and lead (Pb) within the SJVAB have been established by both the State of California (State) and the federal government. The State has also set standards for sulfate and visibility-reducing particles. The status of the SJVAB with respect to state and federal standards is summarized below in Table 1, SJVAB Air Quality Attainment Status.

Table 1 SJVAB Air Quality Attainment Status

Pollutant California Attainment Status Federal Attainment Status Ozone (1-hour) Nonattainment No federal standard Ozone 8-hour Nonattainment Nonattainment (extreme) PM10 Nonattainment Attainment PM2.5 Nonattainment Nonattainment (moderate) Carbon Monoxide Unclassified/attainment Unclassified/attainment Nitrogen Dioxide Attainment Unclassified/attainment Lead Attainment No designation/classification Sulfur Dioxide Attainment Unclassified/attainment Sulfates Attainment No federal standard Hydrogen Sulfide Unclassified No federal standard Visibility-Reducing Particles Unclassified No federal standard

Source: SJVAPCD 2015.

As shown above in Table 1, the air basin is in nonattainment for the State 1-hour ozone standard, extreme nonattainment for the Federal 8-hour ozone standard, nonattainment for State PM10, and nonattainment for Federal and State PM2.5 standards. It is attainment or unclassified for all other pollutants.

The SJVAPCD has established air quality significance thresholds to determine whether air quality impacts from implementing proposed projects will be significant. These thresholds are contained in the SJVAPCD’s Guide for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts. If project-specific emissions would exceed any of the emission thresholds listed in Table 2, SJVAPCD Air Quality Significance Thresholds, the impact from the emissions of the specific pollutant will be considered a significant impact.

UC Merced 25 Lazy K Preserve Initial Study/MND 0974.004 April 2015

Table 2 SJVAPCD Air Quality Significance Thresholds

Pollutant/Precursor Construction Emissions (tpy) Operation Emissions (tpy)1 CO 100 100 NOx 10 10 ROG 10 10 SOx 27 27 PM10 15 15 PM2.5 15 15

Source: SJVAPCD 2015 tpy = tons per year 1 Permitted and Non-Permitted Equipment and Activities

Project Site and Sensitive Receptors

The project site is currently graded flat land covered with annual grasslands and other than cattle grazing, no activities are undertaken on the site that generate substantial pollutant emissions. There are two residences located adjacent to the southern boundary of the project site. The closest residence is located within 50 feet of the project site and is occupied by the Lazy K Ranch Manager. The other residence is located over 100 feet to the southeast of the project site and is occupied by a private landowner. Both of these residences are considered sensitive receptors.

There is one residence located adjacent to the southwestern portion of the western inoculum site. This residence is located a little over 200 feet from the inoculum collection parcel and is the ranch headquarters for Lazy K Ranch. This residence is also considered a sensitive receptor.

5.3.2 Environmental Checklist and Discussion

AIR QUALITY Less than Potentially Significant Less than Significant with Project- Significant No Impact Would the project… Impact level Impact Mitigation a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is in non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)?

UC Merced 26 Lazy K Preserve Initial Study/MND 0974.004 April 2015 d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?

e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people?

DISCUSSION:

a. A project would be considered to conflict with or obstruct implementation of the regional air quality plans if it would be inconsistent with the emissions inventories contained in the regional air quality plans. Emission inventories are developed based on projected increases in population growth and vehicle miles traveled (VMT) within the region. Project-generated increases in population or VMT could, therefore, potentially conflict with regional air quality attainment plans.

Implementation of the proposed project would not result in increased population or related increases in vehicle miles traveled within the region. As a result, implementation of the proposed project would not be anticipated to conflict with existing or future air quality planning efforts. The proposed project would have a less than significant impact. b. Implementation of the proposed project could result in short-term emissions during pool and mound construction and collection of inoculum. Minimal emissions are anticipated once the project is constructed as described below.

Construction

Construction-generated emissions are short term and of temporary duration, lasting only as long as construction activities occur, but have the potential to result a significant air quality impact. The construction of the proposed project would result in temporary emissions associated with site grading and motor-vehicle exhaust from construction equipment and worker trips, as well as the movement of construction equipment and inoculum from the inoculum collection parcels to the Mitigation Preserve site, especially on unpaved surfaces. Emissions of airborne particulate matter are largely dependent on the amount of ground disturbance associated with site preparation activities.

Emissions from the grading of the 65.5-acre project site to construct pools and mounds were estimated using the CalEEMod model. Construction on the project site was conservatively assumed to take place over a four month period in mid to late 2015. Based on information for the proposed project, the estimated construction emissions are provided below in Table 3, Estimated Construction Emissions.

UC Merced 27 Lazy K Preserve Initial Study/MND 0974.004 April 2015

Table 3 Estimated Construction Emissions (tons per year)

CO NOx ROG SOx PM10 PM2.5 Project 2.3 3.5 0.3 0.0 0.4 0.3 Significance Thresholds 100 10 10 27 15 15 Exceedance? No No No No No No

Modeling output included in Appendix B.

As shown in Table 2, construction of the proposed project would not result in emissions that would exceed the applicable SJVAPCD thresholds of significance for construction emissions. The impact from air pollutant emissions during construction would be less than significant. Furthermore, as discussed under Subsection 5.3.d, below, the project is required by law to comply with the SJVAPCD Rules and Regulations including requirements for a fugitive PM10 management plan for unpaved roads (Rule 8011, policy 7.0), the need for speed limitations and postings in unpaved areas used by construction equipment (Rule 8021, policy 5.3), and development of a dust control plan (Rule 8021, policy 6.3). To further ensure that construction- phase emissions are controlled and minimized, a mitigation measure is included that would require the construction contractor to comply with the SJVAPCD rules and regulations.

Operation

Operational air emission impacts are associated with any change in permanent use of the project site as a land use change can add new on-site stationary or area sources to the project site or increase the number of vehicles trips to and from the project site. No change in land use is proposed. Limited to full livestock grazing, which currently occurs on the project site, would be resumed within one to three of years of vernal pool construction. No increase in vehicle trips associated with grazing activities would result due to the proposed project. The small number of new vehicle trips associated with the annual biological monitoring would not significantly increase VMT. Therefore, operational emissions associated with the proposed project would not change substantially from existing conditions, and would not exceed the applicable SJVAPCD thresholds of significance for operational emissions. The impact from air pollutant emissions during project operation would be less than significant. c. As described above in Subsection 5.3.b, the proposed project would result in temporary increases in air pollutant emissions due to construction activities. However, the proposed project would not result in emissions that would exceed the applicable SJVAPCD thresholds of significance for construction emissions. The proposed project would not result in a substantial amount of air pollutant emissions during its operation. As a result, increases of temporary and long-term air pollutant emissions would not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any of the pollutants for which the project region is in nonattainment status for federal or state ambient air quality standards. This impact would be less than significant. d. Sensitive receptors are facilities or land uses that include members of the population that are particularly sensitive to the effects of air pollutants, such as young children, the elderly, and

UC Merced 28 Lazy K Preserve Initial Study/MND 0974.004 April 2015 people with illnesses. There are two sensitive receptors within close proximity to the project site. One is a residence within 50 feet of the project site boundary and is occupied by the Ranch Manager and the other is a residence located, a little over 100 feet from the project site boundary and is occupied by a private land owner. There is one sensitive receptor within close proximity to the western inoculum collection parcel. This residence is located a little over 200 feet to the southwest of the western inoculum collection parcel and serves as the ranch headquarters for Lazy K Ranch.

Construction activities occurring on the project site may expose these residents to airborne particulates and fugitive dust, as well as a small quantity of pollutants associated with the use of construction equipment (e.g., diesel-fueled vehicles and equipment) on a short-term basis. The sensitive receptors located in the residence adjacent to the project site occupied by the Ranch Manager and the residence located to the southwest of the western inoculum parcel that serves as the ranch headquarters are aware of construction plans and would take necessary precautions against an increase in fugitive dust emissions. Furthermore, the project is required by law to comply with the SJVAPCD Rules and Regulations including requirements for a fugitive PM10 management plan for unpaved roads (Rule 8011, policy 7.0), the need for speed limitations and postings in unpaved areas used by construction equipment (Rule 8021, policy 5.3), and development of a dust control plan (Rule 8021, policy 6.3). Nonetheless, this impact is conservatively considered to be potentially significant. To ensure that construction-phase emissions are controlled and minimized, Mitigation Measure AIR-1 is included. The impact would be less than significant with mitigation.

Mitigation Measure AIR-1: The construction contract shall include a requirement that SJVAPCD’s rules and regulations for controlling fugitive dust and combustion emissions must be complied with during project construction. e. The project site is currently used for cattle grazing, which produces agricultural odors. Under the proposed project, livestock grazing would continue on the Mitigation Preserve site. There would be no new odors as a result of the proposed project. There would be no impact.

5.3.3 Cumulative Impacts

The SJVAB is currently designated as a nonattainment area for state and national ozone standards and particulate matter standards. Past, present and future development projects contribute to the region’s adverse air quality impacts on a cumulative basis. No single project by itself would be sufficient in size to result in regional nonattainment of ambient air quality standards. Instead, a project’s individual emissions contribute to existing cumulative adverse air quality impacts. The project-level thresholds for criteria air pollutants are based on levels by which new sources are not anticipated to contribute to an air quality violation or result in a considerable net increase in criteria air pollutants. Therefore, because the proposed project’s construction and operational emissions analyzed above would not exceed the project-level thresholds for criteria air pollutants, the proposed project would not be considered to result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to regional air quality impacts. The cumulative impact with regard to criteria air pollutants would be less than significant.

UC Merced 29 Lazy K Preserve Initial Study/MND 0974.004 April 2015 Implementation of the adjacent CHSR mitigation preserve project would result in similar localized air quality impacts during construction, as described above for the proposed project. If construction of the proposed project and the CHSR project were to occur simultaneously, it is possible that airborne particulates and fugitive dust, as well as a small quantity of pollutants associated with the use of construction equipment (e.g., diesel-fueled vehicles and equipment) generated by both projects could combine and negatively affect nearby sensitive receptors on a short-term basis, especially the two sensitive receptors located adjacent to the southern boundary of the project site. However, both projects would be required to prepare and implement a Dust Control Plan in compliance with SJVAPCD rules and regulations to reduce impacts from airborne particulates and fugitive dust. As a result, the localized air emissions from the proposed project would not combine with those associated with the CHSR mitigation preserve project to result in an adverse cumulative effect on nearby sensitive receptors. The cumulative impact with regard to local air quality emissions would be less than significant.

UC Merced 30 Lazy K Preserve Initial Study/MND 0974.004 April 2015 5.4 Biological Resources

5.4.1 Background

The project site historically supported grasslands with interspersed vernal pools and swales but was leveled and graded many decades ago for flood-irrigation. The flood-irrigation was discontinued in the 1960s and the site has since been operated as a dry pasture for livestock. Under existing conditions, the project site is covered with annual grasslands and is grazed by cattle and horses. Four hydrologic test basins are present on the Mitigation Preserve site, which were excavated in the uplands in 2009 in order to determine the viability of restoring vernal pools on the Mitigation Preserve site. A small depressional ponded area exists around a well located on the Mitigation Preserve site adjacent to Santa Fe Road. The ponding is associated with leaking from the well. The inoculum collection parcels have existing vernal pools and other seasonal wetlands.

Extensive surveys have been conducted on the project site and the surrounding Lazy K Ranch for special-status plant and wildlife species. There are no known occurrences of special-status plant or wildlife species on the project site or the staging area. However, special-status species have been found adjacent to the project site and on the inoculum collection parcels as shown in Figures 6 and 7. Additionally, potential habitat for a variety of species is found in the project area. A biological resources survey report was prepared for the project and is attached as Appendix C. Table 4 presents all the special-status plant and wildlife species known to occur on or in the vicinity of the Mitigation Preserve site, staging area, and the two inoculum collection parcels.

Special-status Plants

Succulent owl’s clover (Castilleja campestris ssp. succulenta) is found in vernal pools and other wetlands as well as occasionally in grasslands. Numerous occurrences of succulent owl’s clover have been found directly east of the project site. One occurrence was found on the western inoculum collection parcel. Based on the January 2015 site visit, suitable habitat for succulent owl’s clover potentially exists on the Mitigation Preserve site. Greene’s tuctoria (Tuctoria greenei), San Joaquin Valley Orcutt grass (Orcuttia inaequalis), hairy Orcutt grass (Orcuttia pilosa), spiny- sepaled button-celery (Eryngium spinosepalum), and Colusa grass (Neostapfia colusana) are other special-status plant species found in vernal pools. There are no documented occurrences of these species on the project site, staging area, or the inoculum collection parcels. There is no suitable habitat on the project site or the staging area for these species, but habitat exists on the inoculum collection parcels. Of these species, only spiny-sepaled button-celery has been documented on the Lay K Ranch where it has been recorded in numerous natural vernal pools.

UC Merced 31 Lazy K Preserve Initial Study/MND 0974.004 April 2015 Staging Area

SOURCE: Vollmar Natural Lands Consulting, Dacember 2012

FIGURE 6 Documented Vernal Pool Shrimp Occurrences

0974.004•03/15 Staging Area

SOURCE: Vollmar Natural Lands Consulting, 2012

FIGURE 7 Documented Special-Status Amphibians, Plants, and Nesting Raptors

0974.004•03/15

Table 4 Special-Status Species with Potential to Occur in Project Vicinity

Common/ Known Regional Scientific Name Status Preferred Habitat Occurrences Plants Greene’s tuctoria FE, SR, 1B.1 Dry bottoms of vernal pools 12 recorded locations in Tuctoria greenei in open grasslands Merced and Madera Counties, including two in close proximity Succulent owl’s clover FT, SE, 1B.2 Vernal pools or other Occurs on site, also occurs Castilleja campestris ssp. Succulenta wetlands, occasionally in preferred habitat in occurs in grasslands, often Merced and Madera in acidic soils Counties San Joaquin Valley Orcutt grass FT, SE, 1B.1 Large vernal pools with Numerous occurrences in Orcuttia inaequalis prolonged inundation Merced and Madera Counties Spiny-sepaled button-celery 1B.2 Vernal pools in foothill or Occurs in vicinity, also Eryngium spinosepalum valley grasslands numerous known occurrences in Merced and Madera Counties Boggs Lake hedge-hyssop Gratiola SE, 1B.2 Vernal pools, sometimes on Three known occurrences in heterosepala lake margins Merced and Madera Counties Colusa grass FT, SE, 1B.1 Large, deep vernal pool Numerous known Neostapfia colusana bottoms occurrences in Merced County Hairy Orcutt grass FE, SE, IB.1 Large vernal pools with Numerous known Orcuttia pilosa prolonged inundation occurrences in Merced and Madera Counties Invertebrates Vernal pool fairy shrimp FT Small to large vernal pools Occurs in vicinity; Branchinecta lynchi numerous occurrences in Merced and Madera Counties Vernal pool tadpole shrimp FE Medium to large vernal Occurs in vicinity; Lepidurus packardi pools, usually with turbid numerous occurrences in waters Merced and Madera Counties Valley elderberry longhorn beetle FT Elderberry shrub stems at Occurs in vicinity; Desmocerus californicus dimorphus least 1 inch in diameter at numerous occurrences in ground Merced and Madera level, in riparian areas along Counties rivers and streams Amphibians California tiger salamander FT* Breeds within larger vernal Occurs in vicinity; Ambystoma californiense pools and seasonal stock numerous occurrences in ponds. Shelters within Merced and Madera abandoned small mammal Counties burrows in upland areas surrounding breeding ponds

UC Merced 34 Lazy K Preserve Initial Study/MND 0974.004 April 2015 Common/ Known Regional Scientific Name Status Preferred Habitat Occurrences Western spadefoot toad SSC Breeds in vernal pools and Occurs in vicinity; Spea hammondii seasonal stock ponds, numerous occurrences in shelters in grasslands and Merced and Madera burrows Counties Birds Western burrowing owl SSC Open grassland, scrub, or Numerous occurrences in Athene cunicularia hypugaea fallow agricultural fields; Merced and Madera utilizes burrows and other Counties; habitat exists on subterranean sites for site nesting Swainson’s hawk ST Open grassland, prairie, Occurs in vicinity Buteo swainsoni farmland or desert, nests in (confirmed nesting); trees numerous occurrences in Merced and Madera Counties; foraging habitat exists on site Bald eagle FE delisted, SE Nests in old growth or Occurs in vicinity; one Haliaeetus leucocephalus dominant live tree large known occurrence in open branches Madera County Mammals American badger SSC Open uncultivated habitats Occurs in vicinity Taxidea taxus with dry friable soils and sufficient prey San Joaquin kit fox FE, ST San Joaquin Valley Numerous occurrences in Vulpes macrotis mutica grasslands with loose Merced and Madera textured sandy soils Counties; habitat exists in vicinity

Source: Salix 2015

Status explanations: Federal State FE = listed as Endangered under the federal Endangered SE = listed as Endangered under the California Endangered Species Act. Species Act. FT = listed as Threatened under the federal Endangered Species ST = listed as Threatened under the California Endangered Act. Species Act. FPD = Federal Proposed for Delisting SR = listed as Rare under the California Endangered Species Act. – = no listing. FP = fully protected under the California Fish and Game Code SSC = species of special concern in California. California Native Plant Society (CNPS) Ranks – = no listing. 1A = species presumed extinct 1B.1 = species rare, threatened, or endangered in California and * California tiger salamander Central Valley Distinct Population elsewhere; .1: Seriously endangered in California Segment (DPS) is Federal Threatened; California tiger 1.B.2 = Rare, threatened, or endangered in California and salamander Santa Barbara County DPS is Federal Endangered; elsewhere; .2: Fairly endangered in California and California tiger salamander Sonoma County DPS is Federal 2 = species rare or threatened in California but more common Endangered. elsewhere 3 = more information is needed regarding species rarity + Status recently dropped from July 2009 CDFW updated listing 4 = watch list, species uncommon but not currently status. threatened or endangered

Reference: California Department of Fish and Wildlife, California Natural Diversity Database Special Animals List January 2015, California Native Plant Society Rare and Endangered Plant Inventory, US Fish and Wildlife Service Environmental Conservation Online System Threatened and Endangered Species Reports

UC Merced 35 Lazy K Preserve Initial Study/MND 0974.004 April 2015 Special-status Invertebrates

Vernal pool tadpole shrimp (Lepidurus packardi) are found in medium to large vernal pools, often with turbid waters. Vernal pool fairy shrimp (Branchinecta lynchi) are found in small to large vernal pools. Occurrences of vernal pool tadpole shrimp, vernal pool fairy shrimp, and Branchinecta cysts have been found in pools along the northern and eastern borders of the project site. Vernal pool tadpole shrimp and vernal pool fairy shrimp have been found on both inoculum collection parcels. Valley elderberry longhorn beetle (Desmocerus californicus dimorphus) habitat consists of live elderberry shrub stems at least 1 inch in diameter at ground level. There are some elderberry shrubs along in riparian areas but none on the project site, staging area, or the inoculum collection parcels.

Special-status Amphibians

Western spadefoot toad (Spea hammondi) breeds in vernal pools and seasonal stock ponds and take shelter in grasslands and burrows. California tiger salamander (Ambystoma californiense) breeds in larger vernal pools and seasonal stock ponds and take shelter within abandoned small mammal burrows in upland areas surrounding breeding ponds. California tiger salamander larvae have been found in scattered large pools directly along the northern and eastern border of the project site and on the inoculum collection parcels. There is no aquatic breeding habitat for the California tiger salamander or western spadefoot toad on the project site. However both species have the potential to occur in the grasslands and burrows on the project site.

Special-status Mammals

Two special-status mammals, San Joaquin kit fox (Vulpes macrotis mutica) and American badger (Taxidea taxus) have been observed in the area but not on the project site. These species could den or forage on the project site and the inoculum collection parcels as suitable habitat is present in the area.

Special-status Birds

Swainson’s hawks (Buteo swainsoni) forage in open grassland, prairie, farmland, or desert and nest in trees. Bald eagles (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) nest in old growth or dominant live trees among large open branches. Swainson’s hawk and bald eagles were sighted and have been observed nesting along the section of the Chowchilla River on the Lazy K Ranch but have not been sighted on the project site or inoculum collection parcels. There is foraging habitat on the project site for Swainson’s hawk and bald eagle. Although western burrowing owls (Athene cunicularia hypugaea) have not been observed on the project site, they have been documented to occur to the north of Lazy K Ranch and suitable habitat for the species is present on the Mitigation Preserve site.

UC Merced 36 Lazy K Preserve Initial Study/MND 0974.004 April 2015 5.4.2 Environmental Checklist and Discussion

IOLOGICAL ESOURCES Less than B R Potentially Significant Less than Significant with Project- Significant No Impact Impact level Impact Would the project… Mitigation a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special-status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or US Fish and Wildlife Service? c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?

DISCUSSION: a. As noted above, the project site has historically supported grasslands with interspersed vernal pools and swales but was leveled and graded many decades ago for flood-irrigation. The flood- irrigation was stopped in the 1960s and the project site has since been managed as dry pasture for livestock. Under existing conditions, the project site is covered with annual grasslands and grazed by cattle. Four hydrologic test basins are the only water features present on the site. Special-status species are considered unlikely to occur in these basins since they are highly disturbed and were not inoculated nor provided with topsoil. The staging area is graded and disturbed and does not contain any natural habitat to support special-status species. The inoculum collection parcels are generally undisturbed land that has the potential to contain populations of special-status plants and be occupied or used by a variety of special-status wildlife species. The potential for the proposed project to affect special-status species is evaluated below.

UC Merced 37 Lazy K Preserve Initial Study/MND 0974.004 April 2015 Special-status Plants

Based on surveys of the Mitigation Preserve site, the site does not contain any special-status plant species. However, the hydrologic test basins excavated on the site in 2009 contain potential habitat for succulent owl’s clover. The staging area is highly disturbed and unlikely to support any special-status plant species. The inoculum collection parcels contain at least one occurrence of succulent owl’s clover, numerous occurrences of spiny-sepaled button-celery (a CNPS Rank 1B.2 species), and other vernal pool plants could also occur on the parcels. The proposed ground- disturbing activities on the Mitigation Preserve site and the inoculum collection parcels would have the potential to affect special-status plants. However, pre-construction surveys would be conducted as part of the proposed project and in the event that any of the listed plants are observed, those areas would be avoided. As a practical matter, it is not possible to avoid spiny- sepaled button-celery species during inoculum collection. Potential impacts to this species and all other vernal pool plant species will be minimized by conducting the inoculum collection during the dry season, and by removing no more than 10 percent of existing inoculum from each selected vernal pool, thereby reducing the potential to adversely affect the existing populations of vernal pool plant species on the inoculum collection parcels. Furthermore, collection of inoculum and construction of the vernal pools and associated mounds would be overseen and monitored by a USFWS and CDFW approved Monitoring Biologist. Because of the conservation measures included in the proposed project, the impacts of the proposed project on special-status plant species would be less than significant.

Special-status Invertebrates

The inoculum collection parcels contain vernal pools that provide suitable habitat for special- status vernal pool invertebrates. The hydrologic test basins on the Mitigation Preserve site also provide suitable habitat for these species. Branchinecta cysts could be present in the soils on the Mitigation Preserve site and would likely be present in the inoculum collected from the northern pools. The proposed ground-disturbing activities on the Mitigation Preserve site and the inoculum collection parcels would have the potential to affect special-status vernal pool invertebrates. However, to avoid impacts, inoculum collection and vernal pool construction on the project site would occur during the dry season and would be completed well before the onset of the wet season. Therefore the proposed project would not result in the mortality of any of the vernal pool invertebrates. Branchinecta cysts could be present in the soils and would likely be present in the inoculum collected from the northern pools. Once the vernal pools on the Mitigation Preserve site are restored, the cysts would be in an environment suitable for hatching into viable, breeding adults. In the long run, the species would benefit from the restoration of about 10 acres of suitable habitat on the Mitigation Preserve. Therefore the impact on all vernal pool invertebrates would be less than significant.

There are some elderberry shrubs along in riparian areas near the Chowchilla River but none on the project site or inoculum collection parcels, and therefore there would be no impact on valley elderberry longhorn beetle.

Special-status Amphibians

As noted above, there is no suitable aquatic breeding habitat for the California tiger salamander (CTS) or western spadefoot toad on the project site. However the Mitigation Preserve site is

UC Merced 38 Lazy K Preserve Initial Study/MND 0974.004 April 2015 located within dispersal distance of known CTS breeding ponds and also, as described above, contains numerous small mammal burrows that could be occupied by CTS. Western spadefoot also has the potential to occur in the upland areas in the eastern portion of the project site due to the presence of large vernal pools to the east of the Preserve site, and both species have been found on the inoculum collection parcels. Both species could be affected by the ground- disturbing activities associated with the proposed project. However, as noted in the Project Description, pre-construction surveys for special-status species protected under the federal and state endangered species acts would be conducted as part of the proposed project. Additionally, small mammal burrows that have the potential to shelter CTS would be surveyed and excavated to remove any CTS present before construction. Inoculum would be harvested only from vernal pools during the dry season when these species are not present but have dispersed to surrounding upland areas. For the duration of project construction and for one to two years following the completion of construction, the Mitigation Preserve site would not contain ground squirrel burrows that are used by CTS as refugia during the dry season. However, this loss of refugia would be a temporary, short term effect and the entire preserve site would provide improved habitat for the species in the long run as some of the larger pools established on the preserve would provide potential breeding habitat for CTS and the entire 65-acre preserve would be placed under a Conservation Easement and protected in perpetuity. Therefore the impact on CTS would be less than significant.

Similarly, western spadefoot toad would also benefit in the long run. However, the species, which is a state species of special concern, would not be covered by the planned surveys and conservation measures, and potentially significant impacts to the species could result during project construction. Mitigation Measure BIO-1a would reduce the impact to this species. The impact would be less than significant with mitigation.

Mitigation Measure BIO-1a: The pre-construction surveys, salvage activities, and other conservation measures for California tiger salamander shall be extended to include western spadefoot toad.

Special-status Mammals

Two special-status mammals, San Joaquin kit fox (SJFK) and American badger, have been observed in the area and could be adversely affected if the species were present on the project site during project construction. However, adverse effects on SJKF would be avoided by the implementation of the conservation measures included in the proposed project and required by the state and federal endangered species acts. However, American badger, which is a state species of special concern, would not be covered by the planned surveys and conservation measures, and potential significant impacts to this species could result from project construction activities. Mitigation Measure BIO-1b would reduce the impact to this species. The impact would be less than significant with mitigation.

Mitigation Measure BIO-1b: The pre-construction surveys and other conservation measures for San Joaquin kit fox shall be extended to include American badger.

UC Merced 39 Lazy K Preserve Initial Study/MND 0974.004 April 2015 Special-status Birds

As noted above, Swainson’s hawk forages in open grassland, prairie, farmland, or desert and nest in trees. Bald eagle nests in old growth or dominant live trees among large open branches. Swainson’s hawk and bald eagle were sighted along the Chowchilla River but have not been sighted on the project site or inoculum collection parcels. While there is no nesting habitat on the project site, there is foraging habitat for Swainson’s hawk and bald eagle on the project site. Although this habitat would be disturbed on the Mitigation Preserve site for the duration of vernal pool restoration, a period of four to five months, once construction is completed, the site would become available to these species for foraging. Therefore the impact on special-status bird species would be less than significant. For impacts on nesting birds, see response Subsection 5.4.d below.

Once the restoration of the vernal pools and construction of the associated mounds is complete, the Mitigation Preserve site would provide improved habitat for several special-status species that occur in the project area. The proposed project would have a beneficial long-term impact on special-status plant and wildlife species. b. There is no riparian or other sensitive community present on the Mitigation Preserve site. The annual grasslands on the project site are not considered a sensitive community. However, they do provide aestivation habitat for CTS, foraging habitat for Swainson’s hawk, and dispersal and foraging habitat for SJKF. Project construction has the potential to temporarily disturb these grasslands. However, once the construction is completed, uplands would be restored and reseeded as necessary to improve the quality of the grasslands. Grazing would resume after a year which would promote high quality grasslands by reducing the encroachment of annual, non-native plant species and invasive species (Vollmar 2015b). Furthermore, the entire Mitigation Preserve site would be protected and preserved in perpetuity under the Conservation Easement. The proposed project would have a less than significant impact on sensitive habitat. c. There are no existing jurisdictional wetlands on the project site. The four hydrologic test basins were excavated in uplands and are isolated waters. They do not qualify as jurisdictional wetlands. The ponded area around the well also does not qualify as jurisdictional waters. Therefore, the construction activities on the project site would not impact any jurisdictional wetlands. Collection of the inoculum on the inoculum collection parcels would occur within vernal pools. However, the collection would be done during the dry season and would involve use a Gannon box scraper or harrow. The Gannon box scraper or harrow would scrap off a small amount of topsoil and collect the soil for removal. The collection of inoculum is not considered to be filling of wetlands. There would be no impact to federally protected wetlands. d. There are no trees on the project site that would provide nesting habitat for special-status and non-special-status migratory bird nests. There are some trees located adjacent to the project site near the two residences. The nearest known Swainson’s hawk occurrence is over a half mile away along the Chowchilla River (Vollmar 2012). Should project construction occur during nesting season, noise generated by construction on the project site could disturb special-status and non- special-status migratory bird nests adjacent to the project site, including Swainson’s hawk. Although there are no known occurrences of burrowing owls on the project site, suitable burrowing owl habitat is present. Grading activities on the project site could affect burrowing owls if they are present at the time that grading is commenced. The impact on nesting birds would be potentially significant. Mitigation Measure BIO-2 would reduce the impact to special-

UC Merced 40 Lazy K Preserve Initial Study/MND 0974.004 April 2015 status and non-special-status migratory birds. The impact would be less than significant with mitigation. Mitigation Measure BIO-2: Avoid and minimize impacts on special-status and non-special-status migratory birds, and raptors. (a) Limit construction to the non-breeding season or, if breeding season work is required, conduct pre-construction (tree, shrub, and ground) nest surveys to identify and avoid active nests or as an option, remove potential breeding habitat during the non-breeding season.  If feasible, a construction contractor shall conduct all construction-related activities including (but not limited to) tree and shrub removal, other vegetation clearing, grading, or other ground-disturbing activities during the non-breeding season (between August 16 and February 14) for special-status and non-special-status migratory birds and raptors. If construction activities are scheduled to occur during the breeding season, a qualified avian biologist, with knowledge of the species to be surveyed, shall be retained to conduct focused nesting surveys within 15 days of the start of ground- disturbing or construction activities and within the appropriate habitat.

 Specifically, tree, shrub, and ground nesting surveys for special-status birds (including Swainson’s hawk and burrowing owl), and other migratory birds and raptors shall be conducted before any construction disturbances occur in or near suitable nesting habitat within 500 feet (0.25 mile for Swainson’s hawk) of the construction work area between February 15 and August 15.

 If an active nest is located on or within 500 feet (0.25 mile for Swainson’s hawk) of the project area, the CDFW shall be consulted to determine an appropriate no-disturbance buffer around the nest until the nest is no longer active and the young have fledged. No construction shall be allowed within this exclusion area without consulting with the CDFW. A wildlife biologist shall monitor the nest site during construction at least once a week, or at a frequency determined by the CDFW, to ensure that the nest site is not disturbed and the buffer is maintained.

(b) Avoid and minimize impacts to burrowing owl.

The CDFW (1995) recommends that preconstruction surveys be conducted to locate active burrowing owl burrows in the construction work area and within a 500-foot-wide buffer zone around the construction area. The project proponent or its contractor shall retain a qualified biologist to conduct preconstruction surveys for active burrows according to the CDFW’s Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation (California Department of Fish and Game 1995). The preconstruction surveys shall include a breeding season survey and a wintering season survey. If no burrowing owls are detected, no further mitigation is required.

UC Merced 41 Lazy K Preserve Initial Study/MND 0974.004 April 2015 If active burrowing owls are detected, the following measures are required:

 Occupied burrows shall not be disturbed during the breeding season (February 1 to August 31), which requires a 250-foot no-disturbance buffer.

 If owls must be moved away from the project site during the nonbreeding season, passive relocation techniques (e.g., installing one-way doors at burrow entrances) shall be used instead of trapping, as described in CDFW guidelines. At least one week will be necessary to complete passive relocation and allow owls to acclimate to alternate burrows.

 When destruction of occupied burrows is unavoidable during the nonbreeding season (September 1 to January 31), unsuitable burrows shall be enhanced (enlarged or cleared of debris) or new burrows created (by installing artificial burrows) at a ratio of 2:1 on protected lands approved by the CDFW. Newly created burrows shall follow guidelines established by the CDFW (1995). e. No local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance, apply to the project site. There would be no impact. f. The project site is not located within the area covered by an adopted habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan. There would be no impact.

5.4.3 Cumulative Impacts

Construction of the adjacent CHSR mitigation preserve project would result in similar impacts to biological resources as the proposed project. The CHSR mitigation preserve project would be checked and cleared of CTS present in mammal burrows and exclusion fencing would be set up. The CHSR mitigation preserve site also does not have any trees, but construction noise could impact nesting birds adjacent to the site. The project would also have a qualified biologist on site to monitor construction work. As a result, the proposed project would not combine with the CHSR mitigation preserve project to result in a significant adverse cumulative effect on biological resources. The cumulative impact to biological resources would be less than significant.

UC Merced 42 Lazy K Preserve Initial Study/MND 0974.004 April 2015 5.5 Cultural Resources

5.5.1 Background

The 65.5-acre project site is flat and consists of grasslands with no structures present. A cultural resources survey of the Lazy K Ranch was conducted on March 25th to 26th and June 10th to 11th, 2009. The study area was inspected using 20-meter spaced transects. Other than the farm-related agricultural structures and facilities (which are less than 50 years of age), no structures or features were noted within or immediately adjacent to the study area. Therefore, there are no historic properties on the ranch. A single isolated granite handstone was identified during the surface inspection on the ranch. Isolated artifacts are not considered eligible for inclusion on either the National Register of Historical Resources or the California Register and as such are not considered significant finds (SVCP 2009).

The project site is primarily located on the Riverbank Formation with a small portion in the northwestern corner located on Dune Sand Formation (Vollmar 2012). Riverbank Formation has a high potential to contain paleontological resources (UC Merced 2008).

5.5.2 Environmental Checklist and Discussion

ULTURAL ESOURCES Less than C R Potentially Significant Less than Significant with Project- Significant No Impact Would the project… Impact level Impact Mitigation a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in Section 15064.5? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5? c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries?

DISCUSSION: a. There are no structures or historic resources on the project site. There would be no impact. b. Only a single isolated granite handstone was found during the surface inspection of the ranch. This find is not considered significant as isolated artifacts are not considered eligible for inclusion on either the National Register of Historical Resources or the California Register. However, given the presence of the isolated granite handstone and the presence of the Chowchilla River and Ash Slough near the project site, the possibility exists for other unrecorded archaeological resources to be located on the project site or the inoculum collection parcels. Without proper care during the grading on the project site, unknown and potentially significant historic and prehistoric

UC Merced 43 Lazy K Preserve Initial Study/MND 0974.004 April 2015 archaeological resources could be damaged or destroyed. The collection of inoculum on the inoculum collection parcels would not involve grading or ground-disturbing work beyond removal of a small layer of topsoil. However, there could be artifacts located on the surface of the soil. Therefore, project impacts to unknown historic and prehistoric archaeological resources would be potentially significant. Mitigation Measure CUL-1 would reduce the impacts to unknown historic and prehistoric archaeological resources to a less than significant level.

Mitigation Measure CUL-1:

If buried cultural resources, such as chipped or ground stone, historic debris, building foundations, or non-human bone are inadvertently discovered during ground-disturbing activities on the project site, work will stop in that area and within 100 feet of the find until a qualified archaeologist can assess the significance of the find.

The resource will be evaluated by a qualified archaeologist. UC Merced as lead agency will consider this evaluation in determining whether the resource qualifies as a historical resource or a unique archaeological resource under the criteria of State CEQA Guidelines section 15064.5. If the resource does not qualify, no further mitigation is required.

If a resource within the project area of potential effect is determined to qualify as an historical resource or a unique archaeological resource in accordance with CEQA, UC Merced shall consult with the qualified archaeologist to mitigate the effect through data recovery if appropriate to the resource, or consider means of avoiding or reducing ground disturbance within the site boundaries. c. A majority of the project site is underlain by the Riverbank Formation, which has a high potential to contain significant paleontological resources. As defined in CEQA, when a paleontological resource meets eligibility criteria of a “unique paleontological resource,” any disturbance to or removal of the resource would constitute a significant impact. Grading on the project site could potentially inadvertently unearth and damage paleontological resources. Without proper care during the grading on the project site and inoculum collection on the inoculum collection parcels, paleontological resources could be unearthed, damaged, or destroyed. Therefore, project impacts to paleontological resources would be potentially significant. Mitigation Measure CUL-2 would reduce the impacts to paleontological resources to less than significant.

Mitigation Measure CUL-2:

Prior to project construction, construction personnel will be informed of the potential for encountering significant paleontological resources. All construction personnel will be informed of the need to stop work in the vicinity of a potential discovery until a qualified paleontologist has been provided the opportunity to assess the significance of the find and implement appropriate measures to protect or scientifically remove the find. Construction personnel will also be informed of the requirements that unauthorized collection resources are prohibited.

A qualified paleontologist will be intermittently present to inspect exposures of Riverbank Formation during construction operations to ensure that paleontological resources are not destroyed by project construction.

UC Merced 44 Lazy K Preserve Initial Study/MND 0974.004 April 2015 d. Grading to restore the vernal pools and construct mounds on the project site could potentially unearth and damage unknown buried human remains that were not identified during pedestrian field surveys. Without proper care during the grading on the project site, human remains could be unearthed, damaged, or destroyed. Excavation would not occur on the inoculum collection parcels. Inadvertent project impacts to human remains encountered during grading would be potentially significant. Mitigation Measure CUL-3 would reduce the impacts to human remains to a less than significant level.

Mitigation Measure CUL-3:

If human remains of Native American origin are discovered during ground-disturbing activities, the construction contractor will comply with state laws relating to the disposition of Native American burials, which falls within the jurisdiction of the California Native American Heritage Commission (Public Resources Code Section 5097). If human remains are discovered, there shall be no further excavation or disturbance of the site or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent human remains until:

 the coroner of Madera County has been informed and has determined that no investigation of the cause of death is required;

 and if the remains are of Native American origin;

 the descendants from the deceased Native Americans have made a recommendation to the land owner or the person responsible for the excavation work, for means of treating or disposing of, with appropriate dignity, the human remains and any associated grave goods as provided in Public Resources Code Section 5097.98; or

 the California Native American Heritage Commission was unable to identify a descendant or the descendant failed to make a recommendation within 24 hours after being notified by the Commission.

5.5.3 Cumulative Impacts

Implementation of the adjacent CHSR mitigation preserve project would result in similar impacts to cultural resources as the proposed project. Restoration of the vernal pools on the CHSR mitigation preserve site could result in unearthing and damage to cultural resources including unknown historic and prehistoric archaeological resources, paleontological resources, and human remains. However, in the event that unknown cultural resources were discovered on the CHSR mitigation preserve site, work would stop work on the site and proper response measures would be implemented. As a result, the proposed project would not combine with the CHSR mitigation preserve project to result in an adverse cumulative effect with regard to cultural resources. The cumulative impact to cultural resources would be less than significant.

UC Merced 45 Lazy K Preserve Initial Study/MND 0974.004 April 2015 5.6 Geology and Soils

5.6.1 Background

The project site is primarily located on the Riverbank Formation with a small portion in the northwestern corner located on Dune Sand Formation (Vollmar 2012). Soils on the project site are primarily Madera fine sandy loam with 0 to 3 percent slopes (NRCS 2014). The parent material is sandy alluvium derived from weathering of granodiorite. These soils are well or moderately well drained with medium to very slow runoff, and very slow permeability due to well-developed cemented hardpan (NRCS 2014). Mima mound topography with mounds and intervening vernal pool basins is characteristic of these soils. The hazard of erosion is slight (Vollmar 2015a).

5.6.2 Environmental Checklist and Discussion

Less than GEOLOGY and SOILS Potentially Significant Less than Would the project… Significant with Project- Significant No Impact Impact level Impact Mitigation a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:

i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.

ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction?

iv) Landslides? b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18- 1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater?

UC Merced 46 Lazy K Preserve Initial Study/MND 0974.004 April 2015 DISCUSSION: a. i-iv. The project site is not located on or adjacent to any known earthquake fault. However, the project could be subject to considerable ground-shaking and seismic related ground failure due to seismic activity on a nearby fault. The project site is flat and not adjacent to any hills with known landslide activity. Additionally, the proposed project would not construct any buildings or result in the addition of people to the project site that could be affected by seismic hazards or ground failure. Therefore, there would be no impact. b. Except for a small area around the on-site well, practically the entire 65.5 acre Mitigation Preserve site would be disturbed to construct vernal pools and mounds. Projects disturbing areas of 1 acre or more during construction are required to comply with the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination Service (NPDES) General Permit for Construction Activities. The project construction contractor would be required to file a notice of intent for coverage under the state’s NPDES General Construction Permit. This permit requires that a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Program (SWPPP) be prepared that would include Best Management Practices BMPs to reduce erosion of disturbed soils. BMPs that would be implemented during site grading and construction would include hydroseeding and the use of straw hay bales and silt fences to control release of sediment. In addition, the SWPPP would limit construction to the non-rainy season. The SWPPP would be submitted to the Madera County Building Division for approval prior to issuance of a grading permit. Additionally, the soil type on the project site is well drained with slow runoff which minimizes runoff and consequently erosion and soil loss. For these reasons, the impact with regard to erosion would be less than significant. c., d. As mentioned above, the project site is mostly flat with no known landslides or potential for landslides. The soil on the project site is a sandy loam which is not known for expansion. Furthermore, no structures would be constructed on site. There would be no impact. e. No septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems are included in the proposed project, and there would be no impact.

5.6.3 Cumulative Impacts

Implementation of the adjacent CHSR mitigation preserve project would result in similar impacts to geology and soils as the proposed project. There are no nearby faults limiting the seismic hazard from ground shaking, ground failure, and landslides. The CHSR site is relatively flat and there are no known landslide areas on or adjacent to the site. Restoration of the nearby vernal pools on the CHSR mitigation preserve site could result in erosion and topsoil loss. BMPs such as hydroseeding and silt fencing would reduce soil erosion. In addition, construction on the CHSR mitigation preserve site would also occur during the summer months minimizing the risk of soil erosion and topsoil loss. As a result, the proposed project would not combine with the CHSR mitigation preserve project to result in an adverse cumulative effect related to geology and soils. The cumulative impact related to geology and soils would be less than significant.

UC Merced 47 Lazy K Preserve Initial Study/MND 0974.004 April 2015 5.7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions

5.7.1 Background

General

Global climate change refers to any significant change in climate measurements, such as temperature, precipitation, or wind, lasting for an extended period (i.e., decades or longer) (US EPA 2014). Climate change may result from:

 natural factors, such as changes in the sun’s intensity or slow changes in the Earth’s orbit around the sun;

 natural processes within the climate system (e.g., changes in ocean circulation, reduction in sunlight from the addition of greenhouse gas (GHG) and other gases to the atmosphere from volcanic eruptions); and

 human activities that change the atmosphere’s composition (e.g., through burning fossil fuels) and the land surface (e.g., deforestation, reforestation, urbanization, desertification).

The primary change in global climate has been a rise in the average global tropospheric temperature of 0.2 degree Celsius per decade, determined from meteorological measurements worldwide between 1990 and 2005. Climate change modeling using 2000 emission rates shows that further warming is likely to occur, which would induce further changes in the global climate system during the current century (IPCC 2007). Changes to the global climate system and ecosystems, and to California, could include declining sea ice and mountain snowpack levels, rising average global sea levels, and many other potentially severe problems (IPCC 2007).

The natural process through which heat is retained in the troposphere2 is called the “greenhouse effect.” The greenhouse effect traps heat in the troposphere through a threefold process as follows: (1) short-wave radiation in the form of visible light emitted by the Sun is absorbed by the Earth as heat; (2) long-wave radiation is re-emitted by the Earth; and (3) GHGs in the upper atmosphere absorb or trap the long-wave radiation and re-emit it back towards the Earth and into space. This third process is the focus of current climate change actions.

While water vapor and carbon dioxide (CO2) are the most abundant GHGs, other trace GHGs have a greater ability to absorb and re-radiate long-wave radiation. To gauge the potency of GHGs, scientists have established a Global Warming Potential (GWP) for each GHG based on its ability to absorb and re-emit long-wave radiation over a specific period. The GWP of a gas is

determined using CO2 as the reference gas, which has a GWP of 1 over 100 years (IPCC 1996).3 For example, a gas with a GWP of 10 is 10 times more potent than CO2 over 100 years. The use of GWP allows GHG emissions to be reported using CO2 as a baseline. The sum of each GHG

2 The troposphere is the bottom layer of the atmosphere, which varies in height from the Earth’s surface to 10 to 12 kilometers). 3 All Global Warming Potentials are given as 100-year values.

UC Merced 48 Lazy K Preserve Initial Study/MND 0974.004 April 2015 multiplied by its associated GWP is referred to as “carbon dioxide equivalents” (CO2e). This essentially means that 1 metric ton of a GHG with a GWP of 10 has the same climate change impacts as 10 metric tons of CO2.

Regulatory Setting

In 2005, in recognition of California’s vulnerability to the effects of climate change, then- Governor Schwarzenegger established Executive Order S-3-05, which sets forth a series of target dates by which statewide emissions of GHGs would be progressively reduced, as follows: by 2010, reduce GHG emissions to 2000 levels (approximately 457 MMTCO2e); by 2020, reduce emissions to 1990 levels (estimated at 427 MMTCO2e); and by 2050 reduce statewide GHG emissions to 80 percent below 1990 levels (approximately 85 MMTCO2e).

In response, the California legislature passed Assembly Bill No. 32 in 2006 (California Health and Safety Code Division 25.5, Sections 38500, et seq., or AB 32), also known as the Global Warming Solutions Act. AB 32 requires ARB to design and implement emission limits, regulations, and other measures, such that feasible and cost-effective statewide GHG emissions are reduced to 1990 levels by 2020 (representing a 25 percent reduction from forecast emission levels) (OPR 2008).

Pursuant to AB 32, ARB adopted a Scoping Plan in December 2008, outlining measures to meet the 2020 GHG reduction limits. The Assembly Bill 32 (AB 32) Climate Change Scoping Plan to indicate how reductions in significant GHG sources will be achieved through regulations, market mechanisms, and other actions. The AB 32 Scoping Plan recommendations are intended to curb projected business-as-usual growth in GHG emissions and reduce those emissions to 1990 levels.

Project Specific

The project site, staging area, and inoculum collection parcels are located within the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD). SJVAPCD is tasked by AB 32 to regulate GHG emissions related to discretionary project approvals under CEQA. The SJVAPCD does not currently have thresholds or guidance regarding the significance of construction related emissions.

The project site consists of grasslands currently used for cattle grazing. There are no structures on the project site. There are no sources of GHG emissions present on the Mitigation Preserve site.

UC Merced 49 Lazy K Preserve Initial Study/MND 0974.004 April 2015 5.7.2 Environmental Checklist and Discussion

GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS Less than Potentially Significant Less than Significant with Project- Significant No Impact Would the project… Impact level Impact Mitigation a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose or reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?

DISCUSSION: a. Implementation of the proposed project would result in small increases of GHG emissions that are associated with global climate change. Estimated greenhouse gas emissions attributable to the proposed project would be primarily associated with increases of CO2 from mobile sources during the short-term construction and long-term operation of the proposed project. Short-term construction and long-term operational emissions are discussed in more detail below.

Construction

During construction of the proposed project, GHGs would be emitted from the operation of construction equipment and from worker and material transport vehicles, including inoculum transport from the two inoculum collection parcels to the Mitigation Preserve site. GHG emissions during construction were estimated using the CalEEMod model. Based on CalEEMod, construction activities on the project site and the inoculum collection parcels would generate approximately 265 MTCO2ein 2015 (Calculations are presented in Appendix B). There are no quantitative thresholds put forth by the SJVAPCD for the evaluation of the significance of a project’s construction emissions. However, these one-time emissions are too small to result in a significant change in global climate change. The impact from the project’s construction phase GHG emissions would be less than significant.

Operation

Grazing currently occurs on the project site and a small number of periodic vehicle trips are made by the rancher to and from as well as on the site for maintenance and transportation of livestock. Operation of the project site would allow limited grazing to occur a year after construction of the vernal pools and mounds. The limited grazing would occur for a two- to three-year period followed by full resumption of grazing. Therefore, the grazing, including vehicle trips for maintenance and transportation of livestock would not increase compared to existing conditions, and therefore the operational GHG emissions associated with grazing activities would remain largely unchanged. There would be a small number of additional vehicle trips to and from the site a year for biological monitoring of the newly established vernal pools and mounds. This increase in vehicle trips would be minimal and would not substantially increase GHG emissions. The impact from operational emissions would be less than significant.

UC Merced 50 Lazy K Preserve Initial Study/MND 0974.004 April 2015 b. The SJVAPCD developed a Climate Chance Action Plan (CCAP) in 2009. The proposed project would result in a minimal increase in GHG emissions, as described above. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with the CCAP and the impact would be less than significant.

5.7.3 Cumulative Impacts

As the impact from a project’s GHG emissions is essentially a cumulative impact, the analysis presented above provides an adequate analysis of the proposed project’s cumulative impact related to GHG emissions. No further analysis is required.

UC Merced 51 Lazy K Preserve Initial Study/MND 0974.004 April 2015 5.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials

5.8.1 Background

A Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) was prepared for the Lazy K Ranch including the project site and inoculum collection parcels. The land uses on the ranch have consisted of pasture (native and mixed) and native vegetation dating back to at least the late 1950s. The maps and aerial photographs reviewed provide no indication of areas of irrigated agriculture, commercial or industrial activities, or of waste disposal facilities on the project site (CSS 2009). There are no buildings located on the project site or inoculum collection parcels. The project site has been used for cattle grazing historically and is currently also grazed.

5.8.2 Environmental Checklist and Discussion

AZARDS & AZARDOUS ATERIALS Less than H H M Potentially Significant Less than Significant with Project- Significant No Impact Would the project… Impact level Impact Mitigation a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands?

UC Merced 52 Lazy K Preserve Initial Study/MND 0974.004 April 2015 DISCUSSION: a., b. There are no known environmental hazards on the project site or the inoculum collection parcels (CSS 2009). The proposed project would use construction equipment during grading and restoration of the vernal pools and associated mounds. The construction equipment and vehicles have the potential to leak petroleum products during use on the project site. BMPs including proper maintenance and inspection of vehicles included in the SWPPP pursuant to NPDES regulations would limit the potential for leaks, as further discussed in Sections 5.6 and 5.8. There would be no transportation of hazardous materials on or off the project site. Operation of the proposed project would not require any use of hazardous materials. The impact associated with the potential for petroleum products to create a hazard to the public or environment would be less than significant. c. The project site and inoculum collection parcels are not located within 0.25 mile of an existing school. The nearest school is located in Chowchilla 5.5 miles to the west of the project site and 4.8 miles to the west of the inoculum collection parcels. The proposed project would not involve handling of hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within 0.25 mile of an existing or proposed school. There would be no impact. d. The project site and inoculum collection parcels are not located on a property associated with a hazardous site listed under Government Code Section 65962.5, also known as the Cortese List. As a result, the proposed project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment associated with a hazardous site listed under Government Code Section 65962.5. There would be no impact. e., f. The proposed project and inoculum collection parcels are not located within 2 miles of a public or private airport. The closest airport is located in Chowchilla 5.5 miles to the west of the project site and 5.7 miles from the inoculum collection parcels. As a result, implementation of the proposed project would not result in a safety hazard for people who would work in the area because of the location of the airport. There would be no impact. g. Implementation of the proposed project would have no effect on emergency evacuation plans for the surrounding area. The surrounding area is primarily agricultural and the project site, staging area, and inoculum collection parcels are not critical to local emergency response evacuations. Traffic associated with construction and operation of the proposed project would not significantly affect emergency access to or from the site. There would be no impact. h. The proposed project would not add any structures or people to the project site. Consequently the risk to the public from wildfires would not increase. There would be no impact.

5.8.3 Cumulative Impacts

Implementation of the adjacent CHSR mitigation preserve project would result in similar impacts related to hazards and hazard materials as the proposed project. Construction of vernal pools on the CHSR mitigation preserve site would use equipment and vehicles that could release petroleum products. BMPs including maintenance and inspection of construction vehicles would reduce the potential for release of petroleum products. There are no schools or airports in the vicinity of the CHSR mitigation preserve site. The site is not located on a property associated with

UC Merced 53 Lazy K Preserve Initial Study/MND 0974.004 April 2015 a hazardous site. Additionally, construction and operation on the CHSR mitigation preserve site would not affect emergency evacuation plans. As a result, the proposed project would not combine with the CHSR mitigation preserve project to result in an adverse cumulative effect with regard to hazards and hazardous materials. The cumulative impact to hazards and hazardous materials would be less than significant.

UC Merced 54 Lazy K Preserve Initial Study/MND 0974.004 April 2015 5.9 Hydrology and Water Quality

5.9.1 Background

The project site is located between the Chowchilla River and Ash Slough. The Chowchilla River is located at the closest point approximately 760 feet to the north of the project site. Ash Slough is located at the closest point approximately 2,700 feet to the south and southeast of the project site. The project site is not within a flood zone and there are no drainages or tributaries on the site. The project site drains from northeast to southwest. The inoculum collection parcels are located to the north of the Chowchilla River. There are numerous wetlands and vernal pools on the inoculum collection parcels.

5.9.2 Environmental Checklist and Discussion

YDROLOGY & ATER UALITY Less than H W Q Potentially Significant Less than Significant with Project- Significant No Impact Would the project… Impact level Impact Mitigation a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off- site? e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows?

UC Merced 55 Lazy K Preserve Initial Study/MND 0974.004 April 2015 i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam?

j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?

DISCUSSION:

a., c., f. As discussed in Subsection 5.6.b, NPDES regulations require that a SWPPP be developed and implemented on the project site, including control measures (or Best Management Practices) to control erosion from the site. Given the nature of the proposed construction project, absence of any water bodies in the immediate vicinity of the project and the implementation of a SWPPP, the impact on water quality during construction would be less than significant.

The proposed project includes the construction of vernal pools that would intercept direct rainfall and would also slow the flow of water across the project site. Although these changes in the drainage pattern of the site are minor, the proposed project could result in ground disturbance that would expose soil and could result in accelerated erosion. However, all disturbed areas would be covered or seeded before the onset of the wet season. Therefore, the proposed project would not cause substantial erosion or siltation on or off site. The impact would be less than significant.

b. The water required for the livestock grazing operation under the proposed project would be obtained from groundwater via the on-site well and associated piping and troughs. However, under existing conditions, cattle graze on the land and use water. Therefore, there would not be an increase in groundwater extraction as a result of the project. Additionally, the proposed project would not increase impervious surfaces on the project site, and therefore would not affect the recharge of the underlying aquifers. There would be no impact.

d. The proposed project includes the construction of vernal pools that would intercept direct rainfall and would also slow the flow of water across the project site. These changes in the drainage pattern of the site are minor and would not increase the rate or amount of surface run-off in a manner that would result in or flooding on- or off-site. There would be no impact. e. Restoration of the vernal pools and associated mounds would not increase existing runoff and would not create or contribute water that would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm drainage systems. In addition, the proposed project would not provide substantial sources of polluted runoff as the project site would not be developed with any land uses that produce polluted runoff. There would be no impact. g., h. The project site is not located within a federally designated 100-year flood hazard area. The construction of housing is not a part of the proposed Project. As a result, the proposed project would not place housing or structures within a federally designated 100-year flood hazard area. There would be no impact.

UC Merced 56 Lazy K Preserve Initial Study/MND 0974.004 April 2015 i., j. The project site is not located within an area that could be inundated by a seiche, tsunami, or mudflow. The Buchanan Dam is located upstream from the Chowchilla River and Ash Slough. The project site is located within an area that could be inundated by the failure of Buchanan dam. However, the proposed project would not construct any structures and there would be no people living on the project site. Therefore, the impact would be less than significant.

5.9.3 Cumulative Impacts

Implementation of the adjacent CHSR mitigation preserve project would result in similar impacts to hydrology and water quality as the proposed project. Construction of the vernal pools on the CHSR mitigation preserve site could increase silt in nearby waterways from runoff. BMPs including silt fences and straw hay bales would reduce erosion. Drainage patterns would be altered on the CHSR mitigation preserve site, but run-off from the site would not increase. Consequently the CHSR mitigation preserve project would not increase flooding on or off the site. The CHSR mitigation preserve site is not within a flood hazard zone but is within the inundation area of Buchanan Dam. However, the CHSR mitigation preserve project would construct any structures on the site, so there would be no potential danger to structures or people. As a result, the proposed project would not combine with the CHSR mitigation preserve project to result in an adverse cumulative effect with regard to hydrology and water quality. The cumulative impact to hydrology and water quality would be less than significant.

UC Merced 57 Lazy K Preserve Initial Study/MND 0974.004 April 2015 5.10 Land Use and Planning

5.10.1 Background

The project site was historically and is currently being used for grazing. Nearby uses are primarily agriculture and grazing with some farmsteads and single-family homes adjacent to the project site to the south and northwest. The project site is located in Madera County and is zoned “Agricultural, Rural, Exclusive, Forty Acre District” (ARE-40) and designated as “Agricultural Exclusive” (AE) by the General Plan (Madera County 2015a).

The inoculum collection parcels are located in Merced County and are zoned agriculture (Merced County 2010). The ranch headquarters are located to the southwest of the western inoculum collection parcel.

5.10.2 Environmental Checklist and Discussion

AND SE LANNING Less than L U & P Potentially Significant Less than Significant with Project- Significant No Impact Would the project… Impact level Impact Mitigation a) Physically divide an established community? b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan?

DISCUSSION: a. The proposed project would restore vernal pools and allow the continuation of grazing on the project site. This would be consistent with the grazing activities to the north, east, and south of the project site. The project would not physically divide an existing community. There would be no impact. b. As discussed above, the project site is designated as Grazing by the FMMP and designated for agriculture by Madera County. Grazing would continue as an allowed use on the project site under the Conservation Easement. The placement of a Conservation Easement on the project site would not conflict with the existing land use designation. There would be no impact. c. The project site is not located within the area covered by an adopted habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan. There would be no impact.

UC Merced 58 Lazy K Preserve Initial Study/MND 0974.004 April 2015 5.10.3 Cumulative Impacts

Implementation of the adjacent CHSR mitigation preserve project would result in similar land use and planning impacts as the proposed project. The CHSR mitigation preserve project would continue to allow grazing on the CHSR mitigation preserve site, similar to the proposed project. As a result, the proposed project would not combine with the CHSR mitigation preserve project to result in an adverse cumulative effect with regard to land use and planning. There would be no cumulative impact to land use and planning.

UC Merced 59 Lazy K Preserve Initial Study/MND 0974.004 April 2015 5.11 Mineral Resources

5.11.1 Background

Madera County has a wide variety of mineral resources including gold, silver, copper, and aggregate (Madera County 2015b). The project site was historically and is currently being used for grazing. There are no known mineral resource zones on the project site.

5.11.2 Environmental Checklist and Discussion

INERAL ESOURCES Less than M R Potentially Significant Less than Significant with Project- Significant No Impact Would the project… Impact level Impact Mitigation a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally- important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan?

DISCUSSION: a. - b. The project site is currently used for grazing. There are no mineral resources on the project site and no mineral extraction occurs or is known to have occurred on the project site. There would be no impact.

5.11.3 Cumulative Impacts

Implementation of the adjacent CHSR mitigation preserve project would result in similar impacts to mineral resources as the proposed project. There are no mineral resources located on the CHSR mitigation preserve site and no mineral extraction occurs or is known to have occurred on the CHSR mitigation preserve site. As a result, the proposed project would not combine with the CHSR mitigation preserve project to result in an adverse cumulative effect with regard to mineral resources. There would be no cumulative impact.

UC Merced 60 Lazy K Preserve Initial Study/MND 0974.004 April 2015 5.12 Noise

5.12.1 Background

Noise-sensitive land uses generally include those uses where exposure to noise would result in adverse effects, as well as uses where quiet surroundings are an essential element of their intended purpose. Residential dwellings are of primary concern because of the potential for increased and prolonged exposure of individuals to both interior and exterior noise levels. Other noise-sensitive land uses include hospitals, convalescent facilities, parks, hotels, churches, libraries, and other uses where low interior noise levels are essential.

There are two residences located adjacent to the southern boundary of the project site. The closest residence is located to the south within 50 feet of the project site and is occupied by the Lazy K Ranch Manager. The other residence is located over 100 to the southeast of the project site and is occupied by a private landowner. Both of these residences are considered sensitive receptors.

There is a residence located to the southwest of the western inoculum collection parcel. This residence is located a little over 200 feet of the inoculum collection parcel and serves as the ranch headquarters for Lazy K Ranch. This residence is also considered a sensitive receptor.

The project site is located in a rural, largely undeveloped area. No major stationary or transportation noise sources are located in the immediate vicinity of the project site. Existing noise levels at the site are influenced by vehicle traffic on area roadways and nearby agricultural activities.

5.12.2 Environmental Checklist and Discussion

OISE Less than N Potentially Significant Less than Significant with Project- Significant No Impact Would the project… Impact level Impact Mitigation a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?

UC Merced 61 Lazy K Preserve Initial Study/MND 0974.004 April 2015 f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?

DISCUSSION: a. Implementation of the proposed project would result in primarily short-term (i.e., construction) increases in ambient noise levels. Short-term and long-term noise impacts are discussed in more detail below.

Construction

Construction of the proposed project would mainly consist of ground clearing and earthmoving operations on the project site. Construction equipment and vehicles would be stored on the staging area. Noise impacts resulting from construction depend on the noise generated by various pieces of construction equipment, the timing and duration of noise generating activities, and the distance and shielding between construction noise sources and noise sensitive areas. The proposed project would utilize a dump truck (1), dozers (2 to 3), excavators (2 to 3), scrapers (2), and water trucks (1 to 2). Table 5, Construction Equipment 50-Foot Noise Emission Limits, summarizes the noise levels produced by these pieces of construction equipment. The types of construction equipment that are expected to be used for project construction would generate noise levels ranging from 84 to 85 dB(A) at a distance of 50 feet.

Table 5 Construction Equipment 50-Foot Noise Emission Limits

Equipment Category 1 Lmax Level (dB(A)) 2,3 Dozer 85 Excavator 85 Scraper 85 Truck (dump, delivery) 84

Source: Federal Highway Administration 2011 Notes: 1 All equipment results in continuous noise levels. 2 Measured at 50 feet from the construction equipment, with a “slow” (1 sec.) time constant. 3 Noise limits apply to total noise emitted from equipment and associated components operating at full power while engaged in its intended operation.

There are two sensitive receptors in close proximity of the project site. The first one is a residence within 50 feet of the project site boundary, occupied by the Lazy K Ranch Manager and the other is a residence located a little over 100 feet from the project site boundary and is occupied by a private landowner. There is one sensitive receptor in close proximity of the western inoculum collection parcel. This residence is located a little over 200 feet to the southwest of the western

UC Merced 62 Lazy K Preserve Initial Study/MND 0974.004 April 2015 inoculum collection parcel and serves as the ranch headquarters for Lazy K Ranch. The nearest sensitive receptor is over 1,000 feet away from the staging area.

Madera County General Plan does not include any specific policies related to the control or regulation of construction noise. The County's Municipal Code includes Chapter 9.58 Noise Regulations, which limits construction activities between the hours of 7:00 AM and 7:00 PM Monday through Friday, and between the hours of 9:00 AM and 5:00 PM on Saturdays. No construction is permitted on Sundays. Compliance with the County's Municipal Code would not permit noisy activities to occur during the nighttime or early morning hours when most people are at home and could be disturbed. As the proposed project would comply with the Municipal Code, the impact related to construction noise would be less than significant.

Operation

Long-term operation of the proposed project would consist of biological monitoring and livestock grazing activities. As noted earlier, there would be a minor increase in vehicle trips to the Mitigation Preserve due to biological monitoring, and grazing related vehicle trips would remain unchanged. Typically, a doubling of vehicle traffic is required before a noticeable increase (i.e., 3 dB(A) or greater) would occur. As the traffic associated with project operation would not increase substantially from current conditions, implementation of the proposed project would not result a measurable change in ambient noise levels. The noise impact during project operation would be less than significant. b. The proposed project would not involve the types of construction activities that would produce vibration levels that could damage adjacent structures. However, due to the proximity of residential land uses, some construction activities may generate groundborne vibration that may be perceptible to the nearest residential receptor. However, as discussed above in Subsection 5.12.a, compliance with the County's Noise Ordinance would not permit noisy activities to occur during the nighttime or early morning hours when most people are at home and could be disturbed. In addition, vibration-producing activities such as pile driving are not proposed as part of the project. The impact from groundborne vibrations would be less than significant. c. As discussed above in Subsection 5.12.a, implementation of the proposed project would not result in a substantial permanent increase in stationary or transportation-source noise levels associated with long-term operation. The impact would be less than significant. d. As discussed above in Subsection 5.12.a, construction of the proposed project would comply with the County’s Municipal Code provision related to construction noise, and the construction noise impact would be less than significant. e., f. The proposed project is not located within 2 miles of a public or private airport. The closest airport to the project site is located in Chowchilla 5.5 miles to the west of the project site. As a result, implementation of the proposed project would not expose construction workers working on the project site to excessive noise levels. There would be no impact.

UC Merced 63 Lazy K Preserve Initial Study/MND 0974.004 April 2015 5.12.3 Cumulative Impacts

Implementation of the adjacent CHSR mitigation preserve project would result in similar short- term (i.e., construction) and long-term (operational) noise impacts as the proposed project. If construction of the proposed project and the CHSR mitigation preserve project were to occur simultaneously, it is possible that construction noise generated by both projects could combine and negatively affect nearby sensitive receptors, especially the sensitive receptors located adjacent to the southern boundary of the project site. However, both projects would be required to comply with the County’s Noise Ordinance limiting construction to the daytime hours. Concerning operational noise, the long-term operation of both projects would consist of biological monitoring and grazing activities. Vehicle trips generated by these activities on both sites would not combine to result in a doubling of vehicle traffic on area roadways that could result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels. As a result, the proposed project would not combine with the CHSR mitigation preserve project to result in an adverse cumulative effect related to noise. The cumulative impact with regard to construction and operational noise would be less than significant.

UC Merced 64 Lazy K Preserve Initial Study/MND 0974.004 April 2015 5.13 Population and Housing

5.13.1 Background

There are no residences or people living on the project site. There are residences located to the south of the project site. There is a residence to the southwest of the western inoculum collection parcel.

5.13.2 Environmental Checklist and Discussion

OPULATION & OUSING Less than P H Potentially Significant Less than Significant with Project- Significant No Impact Would the project… Impact level Impact Mitigation a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?

DISCUSSION: a. The proposed project would restore vernal pools and construct mounds on the project site. No homes and businesses are proposed. In addition, the proposed project would not construct any new roads or infrastructure that could support future development. As a result the proposed project would not induce substantial population growth in the area, either directly or indirectly. There would be no impact. b.- c. There are no residences on the project site or people currently living on the site. As a result, the proposed project would not displace any housing or people. There would be no impact.

5.13.4 Cumulative Impacts

Implementation of the adjacent CHSR mitigation preserve project would result in similar impacts to population and housing as the proposed project. The CHSR mitigation preserve site does not have any existing buildings and the mitigation project would not construct any buildings that would induce population growth. In addition, the CHSR mitigation preserve project would not construct any roads or infrastructure that could support future development. As a result, the proposed project would not combine with the CHSR mitigation preserve project to result in an adverse cumulative effect with regard to population and housing. There would be no cumulative impact.

UC Merced 65 Lazy K Preserve Initial Study/MND 0974.004 April 2015 5.14 Public Services

5.14.1 Background

The project site is located in Madera County. Fire services would be provided by the Madera County Fire Department. Police services would be provided by the Madera County Sheriff’s Department. The project site is currently used for cattle grazing. There are no structures on the project site.

5.14.2 Environmental Checklist and Discussion

UBLIC ERVICES Less than P S Potentially Significant Less than Significant with Project- Significant No Impact Would the project… Impact level Impact Mitigation a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services:

i) Fire protection?

ii) Police protection?

iii) Schools?

iv) Parks?

v) Other public facilities?

DISCUSSION: a.i. - v. The proposed project would not construct any facilities that would increase the need for public services such as fire or police protection. In addition, the proposed project would not increase public use within or adjacent to the project site that would increase demand of public services. There would be no impact.

5.14.3 Cumulative Impacts

Implementation of the adjacent CHSR mitigation preserve project would result in similar impacts to public services as the proposed project. The CHSR mitigation preserve would not construct any facilities nor increase public use within or adjacent to the project site. As a result, the proposed project would not combine with the CHSR mitigation preserve project to result in an adverse cumulative effect on public services. There would be no cumulative impact.

UC Merced 66 Lazy K Preserve Initial Study/MND 0974.004 April 2015 5.15 Recreation

5.15.1 Background

The project site is used for cattle grazing and there are no existing structures or recreational facilities on or adjacent to the site.

5.15.2 Environmental Checklist and Discussion

ECREATION Less than R Potentially Significant Less than Significant with Project- Significant No Impact Would the project… Impact level Impact Mitigation a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment?

DISCUSSION: a., b. The proposed project would not induce population growth that would increase demand for recreational facilities. There would be no deterioration of recreational facilities due to implementation of the proposed project. There would be no impact.

5.15.3 Cumulative Impacts

Implementation of the adjacent CHSR mitigation preserve project would result in similar impacts to recreational facilities as the proposed project. The CHSR mitigation preserve project would not construct any recreational facilities within or adjacent to the project site or result in increased demand for recreational facilities. As a result, the proposed project would not combine with the CHSR mitigation preserve project to result in an adverse cumulative effect with regard to recreational facilities. There would be no cumulative impact to recreational facilities.

UC Merced 67 Lazy K Preserve Initial Study/MND 0974.004 April 2015 5.16 Transportation and Traffic

5.16.1 Background

Santa Fe Avenue borders the project site to the west and Avenue 28 borders the project site to the south. A railroad track runs parallel to Santa Fe Avenue to the west. Santa Fe Avenue is to the west of the inoculum collection parcels. Marguerite Avenue is located along the northern edge of the two inoculum collection parcels.

5.16.3 Environmental Checklist and Discussion

RANSPORTATION & TRAFFIC Less than T Potentially Significant Less than Significant with Project- Significant No Impact Would the project… Impact level Impact Mitigation a) Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance, or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and non-motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit? b) Conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but not limited to level of service standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads and highways? c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? e) Result in inadequate emergency access? f) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities?

DISCUSSION: a., b. The proposed project would increase truck traffic temporarily along Santa Fe Avenue and Avenue 28 during restoration of the vernal pools, swales, and associated mounds. The project site and staging area are located in a rural part of Madera County outside of the City of Chowchilla. The inoculum collection parcels are in a rural part of Merced County adjacent to the Merced/Madera County line. There would be a maximum of 11 trucks and several construction worker vehicles at any one time on the project site which would result in minimal vehicular traffic. Additionally, the increase in trips would be temporary for the duration of project

UC Merced 68 Lazy K Preserve Initial Study/MND 0974.004 April 2015 construction. The increase would not result in substantial congestion on Santa Fe Avenue or Avenue 28. Once the vernal pools are restored and preserved, grazing would be resumed on the Mitigation Preserve site at levels similar to existing conditions, and would continue to generate the same small number of vehicle trips that are generated at the present time. A small number of periodic vehicle trips would be generated associated with post-construction biological monitoring for several years. The impact to Santa Fe Avenue from temporary construction vehicle trips and periodic post-construction vehicle trips would be less than significant. c. The proposed project would not result in the construction of permanent structures and would have no effect on air traffic patterns and existing air traffic safety. There would be no impact. d., e. The proposed project would not change the conditions of any nearby roadways. All construction would take place on the project site. Emergency access to nearby residences would not be impeded by construction or operation of the proposed project. There would be no impact. f. The proposed project would not change the conditions of any nearby roadways and consequently would not impact any public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities. There would be no impact.

5.16.3 Cumulative Impacts

Implementation of the adjacent CHSR mitigation preserve project would result in similar impacts to traffic as the proposed project. The CHSR mitigation preserve project would also increase truck trips along Santa Fe Avenue and Avenue 28 temporarily during construction as these roadways provide access to the CHSR mitigation site as well. Although construction would occur during the same timeframe as the proposed project, due to the nature of these two projects, the increase in vehicle traffic would be small and would not result in substantial congestion along Santa Fe Avenue or Avenue 28. The CHSR mitigation preserve project would not impact air traffic patterns. Additionally, emergency access to nearby residences would not be obstructed and public transit would not be impacted. As a result, the proposed project would not combine with the CHSR mitigation preserve project to result in an adverse cumulative effect on traffic and transportation. The cumulative traffic impact would be less than significant.

UC Merced 69 Lazy K Preserve Initial Study/MND 0974.004 April 2015 5.17 Utilities and Service Systems

5.17.1 Background

The project site is currently used for cattle grazing. There are no existing buildings on the project site or inoculum collection parcels. There are two livestock watering troughs and associated pipelines for filling the troughs on the project site. There is a well located in the northwest corner of the project site. Electrical lines run parallel along the western and southern border of the project site.

5.17.2 Environmental Checklist and Discussion

TILITIES & ERVICE YSTEMS Less than U S S Potentially Significant Less than Significant with Project- Significant No Impact Would the project… Impact level Impact Mitigation a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the providers existing commitments? f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste?

DISCUSSION: a., e. The proposed project would not generate any wastewater. Therefore, the project would not result in any exceedances at a wastewater facility or exceed applicable regional water quality control board (RWQCB) wastewater requirements. There would be no impact. b. The proposed project would not increase demand for water or generate wastewater. Water for the project site is obtained from local groundwater wells. Therefore, the project would not require the expansion or construction of a new water or wastewater facility. There would be no impact.

UC Merced 70 Lazy K Preserve Initial Study/MND 0974.004 April 2015 c. The proposed project would not increase impervious surfaces on the project site. Stormwater runoff would not enter any stormwater facilities and would either percolate into the ground or evaporate. Therefore, there would be no impact to stormwater facilities. d. During construction, there would be one to two water trucks on the project site. Water would be used on the construction area to limit dust. The amount of water required for construction would be minimal. The livestock grazing operation proposed as part of the project would require water for the cattle. However, under existing conditions cattle graze on the land and use water. Therefore, there would not be an increase in water demand during operation. The impact related to water supply would be less than significant. f., g. The proposed project would not generate any waste during construction or operation. Cut and fill would be balanced on the project site and excess soil would not need to be disposed of at a landfill. Therefore, there would be no impact to landfills or landfill regulations.

5.17.3 Cumulative Impacts

Implementation of the adjacent CHSR mitigation preserve project would result in similar impacts to utilities and service systems as the proposed project. The CHSR mitigation preserve project would not generate any wastewater or landfill waste. The CHSR mitigation preserve project would facilitate stormwater percolation limiting runoff. Stormwater facilities would not be affected by the CHSR mitigation preserve project. Livestock grazing would require water. However, since cattle grazing occurs on the site under existing conditions, there would be no increase in water use. As a result, the proposed project would not combine with the CHSR mitigation preserve project to result in an adverse cumulative effect on utilities. There would be no cumulative impact to utilities or service systems.

UC Merced 71 Lazy K Preserve Initial Study/MND 0974.004 April 2015 5.18 Mandatory Findings of Significance

ANDATORY INDINGS OF IGNIFICANCE Less than M F S Potentially Significant Less than Significant with Project- Significant No Impact Would the project… Impact level Impact Mitigation a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (“Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? c) Does the project have environmental effects that will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?

DISCUSSION: a. Construction activities associated with the proposed project have the potential to result in significant impacts to special-status species not covered by the federal or state endangered species acts as well as special-status and non-special-status migratory birds. Potential impacts to species not covered by the federal or state endangered species acts would be reduced to less than significant by implementation of the proposed mitigation measures, which require pre- construction surveys to include these species. Any potential adverse effect to special-status and non-special-status migratory bird nests from construction activities would be reduced to less than significant by implementation of the proposed mitigation measures, which limits construction activities to the non-breeding season and addresses the discovery of nests. Therefore, the proposed project would not substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal. The impact would be less than significant with mitigation.

As with any project that involves ground disturbance, construction activities associated with the proposed project have the potential to result in significant impacts to any unknown archaeological resources, paleontological resources, or human remains. Any potential adverse effect to unknown archaeological resources, paleontological resources, or human remains resulting from soils disturbance would be reduced to a less than significant level by implementation of the proposed mitigation measures, which address the accidental discovery of unknown archaeological resources, paleontological resources, or human remains. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in the elimination of important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory. The impact would be less than significant with mitigation.

UC Merced 72 Lazy K Preserve Initial Study/MND 0974.004 April 2015 b. Each environmental topic area includes an analysis of cumulative impacts based on currently proposed projects in the project vicinity. No significant cumulative impacts from the proposed project have been identified. c. The proposed project would not directly or indirectly cause substantial adverse effects on human beings. Air quality and noise would be the only resources through which the proposed project could have an effect on human beings; however, all construction-related impacts with regard to air quality would be mitigated to less than significant levels and would therefore avoid causing substantial adverse effects on human beings and noise impacts would be less than significant. For all other resource areas, the proposed project would either have no significant impacts, or, impacts that would not affect human beings.

UC Merced 73 Lazy K Preserve Initial Study/MND 0974.004 April 2015 6. REFERENCES

California Department of Conservation. 2013. The Land Conservation Act Maps. http://www.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/lca/Pages/Index.aspx California Department of Conservation. 2014. Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program. http://www.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/FMMP/Pages/Index.aspx CSS Environmental Engineering Services. 2009. Report of Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Knapp Ranch Merced and Madera Counties, California. February 10. ECORP Consulting, Inc. 2014. Merced to Fresno Section - Lazy K Inoculum Collection. March 6. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 2007. Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis, Summary for Policymakers. https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1- spm.pdf. Accessed January 30, 2015. Madera County. 2015a. Madera County GIS. http://madera-county.com/index.php/programs/602-madera- county-maps-online-website-terms-of-use. Accessed January 30, 2015. Madera County. 2015a. The History of Madera County. http://www.madera- county.com/index.php/madera-info/111-the-history-of-madera-county. Accessed January 30, 2015. Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). 2014. Web Soil Survey. http://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/HomePage.htm. Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). 2014. Official Soil Series Descriptions: Madera Series. https://soilseries.sc.egov.usda.gov/OSD_Docs/M/MADERA.html. Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR). Technical Advisory- CEQA and Climate Change: Addressing Climate Change through California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Review, June 19, 2008. Available online at: http://opr.ca.gov/docs/june08-ceqa.pdf. Accessed February 17, 2015. San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD). 2015. Guidance for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts. March 19. Sierra Valley Cultural Planning (SVCP). 2009. A Cultural Resources Survey of the Knapp Family Conservation Easement, Madera and Merced Counties, California. July 13. UC Merced. 2008. UC Merced and University Community Project Draft EIS/EIR. November. USEPA. 2014. Causes of Climate Change. http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/causes.html. March 18. Accessed January 30, 2015. Vollmar Natural Lands Consulting. 2012. Lazy K Ranch Merced/Madera Counties, California. Biological Resources Survey Report. December. Vollmar Natural Lands Consulting. 2015a. Lazy K Ranch UC Merced Permittee-Responsible Off-site Mitigation Preserve: Permittee-Responsible Mitigation Plan. February. Vollmar Natural Lands Consulting. 2015b. Lazy K Ranch UC Merced Permittee-Responsible Off-site Mitigation Preserve: Grazing Plan. February.

UC Merced 74 Lazy K Preserve Initial Study/MND 0974.004 April 2015 7. REPORT PREPARERS

UC Merced Phillip Woods, Director of Physical & Environmental Planning Elisabeth Gunther, Senior Counsel, UC Merced

UC Office of the President Brad Werdick, Senior Planner, Physical & Environmental Planning

Impact Sciences, Inc. Shabnam Barati, Managing Principal Paul Stephenson, Senior Project Manager Caitlin Gilleran, Project Planner Ian Hillway, Publications Manager

Vollmar Natural Lands Consulting John Vollmar, President and Senior Ecologist Caitlin Papathakis, Ecologist

Salix Consulting Inc. Jeff Glazner, Principal

UC Merced 75 Lazy K Preserve Initial Study/MND 0974.004 April 2015

APPENDIX A PROPOSED MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION

PROPOSED MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION

Lead Agency: University of California

Project Proponent: University of California, Merced

Project Location: The 65.5-acre project site is located in Madera County, south of the Chowchilla River and bordered on the west by Santa Fe Avenue.

Project Description: The proposed project would establish a Wetlands Preserve on the project site to provide compensatory mitigation for wetlands filled by UC Merced. A vernal pool restoration plan would be implemented to restore up to 10.58 acres of vernal pools within the project site. All of the constructed vernal pools would be inoculated using soil and seed material excavated from existing pools in the adjacent natural areas. Once constructed, the vernal pools would be monitored until it is confirmed that they are functioning as planned. A long term management plan, including a grazing plan, would be implemented to ensure the longevity and continued performance of the restored vernal pools.

Mitigation Measures: Mitigation Measure AIR-1: The construction contract shall include a requirement that SJVAPCD’s rules and regulations for controlling fugitive dust and combustion emissions must be complied with during project construction. Mitigation Measure BIO-1a: The pre-construction surveys, salvage activities, and other conservation measures for CTS shall be extended to include western spadefoot toad. Mitigation Measure BIO-1b: The pre-construction surveys and other conservation measures for SJKF shall be extended to include American badger. Mitigation Measure BIO-2: Avoid and minimize impacts on special-status and non-special-status migratory birds, and raptors. (a) Limit construction to the non-breeding season or, if breeding season work is required, conduct pre-construction (tree, shrub, and ground) nest surveys to identify and avoid active nests or as an option, remove potential breeding habitat during the non- breeding season.  If feasible, a construction contractor shall conduct all construction-related activities including (but not limited to) tree and shrub removal, other vegetation clearing, grading, or other ground-disturbing activities during the non-

UC Merced 1 Appendix A 0974.004 March 2015 breeding season (between August 16 and February 14) for special-status and non-special-status migratory birds and raptors. If construction activities are scheduled to occur during the breeding season, a qualified avian biologist, with knowledge of the species to be surveyed, shall be retained to conduct focused nesting surveys within 15 days of the start of ground-disturbing or construction activities and within the appropriate habitat.

 Specifically, tree, shrub, and ground nesting surveys for special-status birds (including Swainson’s hawk and burrowing owl), and other migratory birds and raptors shall be conducted before any construction disturbances occur in or near suitable nesting habitat within 500 feet (0.25 mile for Swainson’s hawk) of the construction work area between February 15 and August 15.

 If an active nest is located on or within 500 feet (0.25 mile for Swainson’s hawk) of the project area, the CDFW shall be consulted to determine an appropriate no-disturbance buffer around the nest until the nest is no longer active and the young have fledged. No construction shall be allowed within this exclusion area without consulting with the CDFW. A wildlife biologist shall monitor the nest site during construction at least once a week, or at a frequency determined by the CDFW, to ensure that the nest site is not disturbed and the buffer is maintained.

(b) Avoid and minimize impacts to burrowing owl.

The CDFW (1995) recommends that preconstruction surveys be conducted to locate active burrowing owl burrows in the construction work area and within a 500-foot-wide buffer zone around the construction area. The project proponent or its contractor shall retain a qualified biologist to conduct preconstruction surveys for active burrows according to the CDFW’s Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation (California Department of Fish and Game 1995). The preconstruction surveys shall include a breeding season survey and a wintering season survey. If no burrowing owls are detected, no further mitigation is required.

If active burrowing owls are detected, the following measures are required:

 Occupied burrows shall not be disturbed during the breeding season (February 1 to August 31), which requires a 250 foot no disturbance buffer.

UC Merced 2 Appendix A 0974.004 March 2015  If owls must be moved away from the project site during the nonbreeding season, passive relocation techniques (e.g., installing one-way doors at burrow entrances) shall be used instead of trapping, as described in CDFW guidelines. At least 1 week will be necessary to complete passive relocation and allow owls to acclimate to alternate burrows.

 When destruction of occupied burrows is unavoidable during the nonbreeding season (September 1 to January 31), unsuitable burrows shall be enhanced (enlarged or cleared of debris) or new burrows created (by installing artificial burrows) at a ratio of 2:1 on protected lands approved by the CDFW. Newly created burrows shall follow guidelines established by the CDFW (1995).

Mitigation Measure CUL-1: If buried cultural resources, such as chipped or ground stone, historic debris, building foundations, or non-human bone are inadvertently discovered during ground-disturbing activities on the project site, work will stop in that area and within 100 feet of the find until a qualified archaeologist can assess the significance of the find.

The resource will be evaluated by a qualified archaeologist. UC Merced as lead agency will consider this evaluation in determining whether the resource qualifies as a historical resource or a unique archaeological resource under the criteria of State CEQA Guidelines section 15064.5. If the resource does not qualify, no further mitigation is required.

If a resource within the project area of potential effect is determined to qualify as an historical resource or a unique archaeological resource in accordance with CEQA, UC Merced shall consult with the qualified archaeologist to mitigate the effect through data recovery if appropriate to the resource, or consider means of avoiding or reducing ground disturbance within the site boundaries.

Mitigation Measure CUL-2: Prior to project construction, construction personnel will be informed of the potential for encountering significant paleontological resources. All construction personnel will be informed of the need to stop work in the vicinity of a potential discovery until a qualified paleontologist has been provided the opportunity to assess the significance of the find and implement appropriate measures to protect or scientifically remove the find. Construction personnel will also be informed of the requirements that unauthorized collection resources are prohibited.

A qualified paleontologist will be intermittently present to inspect exposures of Riverbank Formation during construction operations to

UC Merced 3 Appendix A 0974.004 March 2015 ensure that paleontological resources are not destroyed by project construction.

Mitigation Measure CUL-3: If human remains of Native American origin are discovered during ground-disturbing activities, the construction contractor will comply with state laws relating to the disposition of Native American burials, which falls within the jurisdiction of the California Native American Heritage Commission (Public Resources Code Section 5097). If human remains are discovered or recognized in any location other than a dedicated cemetery, there shall be no further excavation or disturbance of the site or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent human remains until:

 the coroner of Madera County has been informed and has determined that no investigation of the cause of death is required;

 and if the remains are of Native American origin;

 the descendants from the deceased Native Americans have made a recommendation to the land owner or the person responsible for the excavation work, for means of treating or disposing of, with appropriate dignity, the human remains and any associated grave goods as provided in Public Resources Code Section 5097.98; or

 the California Native American Heritage Commission was unable to identify a descendant or the descendant failed to make a recommendation within 24 hours after being notified by the Commission.

Determination: In accordance with CEQA, a Draft Initial Study has been prepared by UC Merced that evaluates the environmental effects of the proposed project. On the basis of the project's Draft Initial Study, the Campus found that the proposed project could not have a significant effect on the environment.

Public Review: In accordance with Section 15073 of the State CEQA Guidelines, the Draft Initial Study for the project will be circulated for public and agency review from April 3, 2015 to May 4, 2015. Comments received during the review period and responses to these comments will be presented in the final Initial Study.

UC Merced 4 Appendix A 0974.004 March 2015

APPENDIX B AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS

CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 1 of 17 Date: 12/16/2014 4:13 PM

Lazy K Preserve Madera County, Annual

1.0 Project Characteristics

1.1 Land Usage

Land Uses Size Metric Lot Acreage Floor Surface Area Population

User Defined Recreational 1.00 User Defined Unit 12.50 0.00 0

1.2 Other Project Characteristics

Urbanization Urban Wind Speed (m/s) 2.9 Precipitation Freq (Days) 51

Climate Zone 3 Operational Year 2016

Utility Company Pacific Gas & Electric Company

CO2 Intensity 641.35 CH4 Intensity 0.029 N2O Intensity 0.006 (lb/MWhr) (lb/MWhr) (lb/MWhr)

1.3 User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data

Project Characteristics - Land Use - 10.5 acres project site, 2 acres conservatively inoculum site, user defined recreational Construction Phase - grading 6/1/15 to 10/1/15 Trips and VMT - trip length 0.5 hauling trip length Grading - 270 cubic yards inoculum, 10.5 acres on project site, conservatively 2 acres inoculum collection Construction Off-road Equipment Mitigation - watered 2X a day CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 2 of 17 Date: 12/16/2014 4:13 PM

Table Name Column Name Default Value New Value

tblConstructionPhase NumDays 30.00 89.00

tblGrading AcresOfGrading 222.50 12.50

tblGrading MaterialImported 0.00 270.00

tblLandUse LotAcreage 0.00 12.50

tblProjectCharacteristics OperationalYear 2014 2016

tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripLength 10.80 0.50

2.0 Emissions Summary CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 3 of 17 Date: 12/16/2014 4:13 PM

2.1 Overall Construction Unmitigated Construction

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total

Year tons/yr MT/yr

2015 0.3046 3.5239 2.2829 2.7700e- 0.2753 0.1693 0.4446 0.1482 0.1558 0.3039 0.0000 263.5080 263.5080 0.0782 0.0000 265.1511 003

Total 0.3046 3.5239 2.2829 2.7700e- 0.2753 0.1693 0.4446 0.1482 0.1558 0.3039 0.0000 263.5080 263.5080 0.0782 0.0000 265.1511 003

Mitigated Construction

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total

Year tons/yr MT/yr

2015 0.3046 3.5239 2.2829 2.7700e- 0.2753 0.1693 0.4446 0.1482 0.1558 0.3039 0.0000 263.5077 263.5077 0.0782 0.0000 265.1508 003

Total 0.3046 3.5239 2.2829 2.7700e- 0.2753 0.1693 0.4446 0.1482 0.1558 0.3039 0.0000 263.5077 263.5077 0.0782 0.0000 265.1508 003

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total

Percent 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Reduction CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 4 of 17 Date: 12/16/2014 4:13 PM

2.2 Overall Operational Unmitigated Operational

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total

Category tons/yr MT/yr

Area 0.0000 0.0000 1.0000e- 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 2.0000e- 2.0000e- 0.0000 0.0000 2.0000e- 005 005 005 005

Energy 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Mobile 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Waste 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Water 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Total 0.0000 0.0000 1.0000e- 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 2.0000e- 2.0000e- 0.0000 0.0000 2.0000e- 005 005 005 005 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 5 of 17 Date: 12/16/2014 4:13 PM

2.2 Overall Operational Mitigated Operational

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total

Category tons/yr MT/yr

Area 0.0000 0.0000 1.0000e- 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 2.0000e- 2.0000e- 0.0000 0.0000 2.0000e- 005 005 005 005

Energy 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Mobile 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Waste 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Water 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Total 0.0000 0.0000 1.0000e- 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 2.0000e- 2.0000e- 0.0000 0.0000 2.0000e- 005 005 005 005

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total

Percent 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Reduction

3.0 Construction Detail

Construction Phase

Phase Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Num Days Num Days Phase Description Number Week

1 Grading Grading 6/1/2015 10/1/2015 5 89

Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 0 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 6 of 17 Date: 12/16/2014 4:13 PM

Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 12.5

Acres of Paving: 0

Residential Indoor: 0; Residential Outdoor: 0; Non-Residential Indoor: 0; Non-Residential Outdoor: 0 (Architectural Coating – sqft)

OffRoad Equipment

Phase Name Offroad Equipment Type Amount Usage Hours Horse Power Load Factor

Grading Excavators 2 8.00 162 0.38

Grading Graders 1 8.00 174 0.41

Grading Rubber Tired Dozers 1 8.00 255 0.40

Grading Scrapers 2 8.00 361 0.48

Grading Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2 8.00 97 0.37

Trips and VMT

Phase Name Offroad Equipment Worker Trip Vendor Trip Hauling Trip Worker Trip Vendor Trip Hauling Trip Worker Vehicle Vendor Hauling Count Number Number Number Length Length Length Class Vehicle Class Vehicle Class

Grading 8 20.00 0.00 34.00 0.50 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT

3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction

Clean Paved Roads CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 7 of 17 Date: 12/16/2014 4:13 PM

3.2 Grading - 2015 Unmitigated Construction On-Site

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total

Category tons/yr MT/yr

Fugitive Dust 0.2746 0.0000 0.2746 0.1480 0.0000 0.1480 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Off-Road 0.3015 3.5176 2.2624 2.7500e- 0.1692 0.1692 0.1557 0.1557 0.0000 261.8478 261.8478 0.0782 0.0000 263.4895 003

Total 0.3015 3.5176 2.2624 2.7500e- 0.2746 0.1692 0.4438 0.1480 0.1557 0.3037 0.0000 261.8478 261.8478 0.0782 0.0000 263.4895 003

Unmitigated Construction Off-Site

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total

Category tons/yr MT/yr

Hauling 6.3000e- 5.3900e- 8.2300e- 1.0000e- 2.9000e- 8.0000e- 3.7000e- 8.0000e- 8.0000e- 1.6000e- 0.0000 1.1661 1.1661 1.0000e- 0.0000 1.1663 004 003 003 005 004 005 004 005 005 004 005

Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Worker 2.5100e- 9.1000e- 0.0123 1.0000e- 3.4000e- 1.0000e- 3.5000e- 9.0000e- 1.0000e- 1.0000e- 0.0000 0.4941 0.4941 6.0000e- 0.0000 0.4953 003 004 005 004 005 004 005 005 004 005

Total 3.1400e- 6.3000e- 0.0205 2.0000e- 6.3000e- 9.0000e- 7.2000e- 1.7000e- 9.0000e- 2.6000e- 0.0000 1.6602 1.6602 7.0000e- 0.0000 1.6616 003 003 005 004 005 004 004 005 004 005 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 8 of 17 Date: 12/16/2014 4:13 PM

3.2 Grading - 2015 Mitigated Construction On-Site

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total

Category tons/yr MT/yr

Fugitive Dust 0.2746 0.0000 0.2746 0.1480 0.0000 0.1480 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Off-Road 0.3015 3.5176 2.2624 2.7500e- 0.1692 0.1692 0.1557 0.1557 0.0000 261.8475 261.8475 0.0782 0.0000 263.4891 003

Total 0.3015 3.5176 2.2624 2.7500e- 0.2746 0.1692 0.4438 0.1480 0.1557 0.3037 0.0000 261.8475 261.8475 0.0782 0.0000 263.4891 003

Mitigated Construction Off-Site

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total

Category tons/yr MT/yr

Hauling 6.3000e- 5.3900e- 8.2300e- 1.0000e- 2.9000e- 8.0000e- 3.7000e- 8.0000e- 8.0000e- 1.6000e- 0.0000 1.1661 1.1661 1.0000e- 0.0000 1.1663 004 003 003 005 004 005 004 005 005 004 005

Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Worker 2.5100e- 9.1000e- 0.0123 1.0000e- 3.4000e- 1.0000e- 3.5000e- 9.0000e- 1.0000e- 1.0000e- 0.0000 0.4941 0.4941 6.0000e- 0.0000 0.4953 003 004 005 004 005 004 005 005 004 005

Total 3.1400e- 6.3000e- 0.0205 2.0000e- 6.3000e- 9.0000e- 7.2000e- 1.7000e- 9.0000e- 2.6000e- 0.0000 1.6602 1.6602 7.0000e- 0.0000 1.6616 003 003 005 004 005 004 004 005 004 005

4.0 Operational Detail - Mobile CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 9 of 17 Date: 12/16/2014 4:13 PM

4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total

Category tons/yr MT/yr

Mitigated 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Unmitigated 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

4.2 Trip Summary Information

Average Daily Trip Rate Unmitigated Mitigated Land Use Weekday Saturday Sunday Annual VMT Annual VMT

User Defined Recreational 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 0.00 0.00 0.00

4.3 Trip Type Information

Miles Trip % Trip Purpose %

Land Use H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW Primary Diverted Pass-by User Defined Recreational 9.50 7.30 7.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 0

LDA LDT1 LDT2 MDV LHD1 LHD2 MHD HHD OBUS UBUS MCY SBUS MH 0.363278 0.068626 0.188451 0.184424 0.064139 0.009522 0.015955 0.088690 0.002874 0.000813 0.008511 0.001185 0.003534

5.0 Energy Detail 4.4 Fleet Mix Historical Energy Use: N CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 10 of 17 Date: 12/16/2014 4:13 PM Historical Energy Use: N

5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total

Category tons/yr MT/yr

Electricity 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Mitigated

Electricity 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Unmitigated

NaturalGas 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Mitigated

NaturalGas 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Unmitigated

5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas Unmitigated

NaturalGa ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e s Use PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total

Land Use kBTU/yr tons/yr MT/yr

User Defined 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Recreational

Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 11 of 17 Date: 12/16/2014 4:13 PM

5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas Mitigated

NaturalGa ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e s Use PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total

Land Use kBTU/yr tons/yr MT/yr

User Defined 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Recreational

Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

5.3 Energy by Land Use - Electricity Unmitigated

Electricity Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Use

Land Use kWh/yr MT/yr

User Defined 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Recreational

Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 12 of 17 Date: 12/16/2014 4:13 PM

5.3 Energy by Land Use - Electricity Mitigated

Electricity Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Use

Land Use kWh/yr MT/yr

User Defined 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Recreational

Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

6.0 Area Detail

6.1 Mitigation Measures Area

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total

Category tons/yr MT/yr

Mitigated 0.0000 0.0000 1.0000e- 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 2.0000e- 2.0000e- 0.0000 0.0000 2.0000e- 005 005 005 005

Unmitigated 0.0000 0.0000 1.0000e- 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 2.0000e- 2.0000e- 0.0000 0.0000 2.0000e- 005 005 005 005 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 13 of 17 Date: 12/16/2014 4:13 PM

6.2 Area by SubCategory Unmitigated

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total

SubCategory tons/yr MT/yr

Architectural 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Coating

Consumer 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Products

Landscaping 0.0000 0.0000 1.0000e- 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 2.0000e- 2.0000e- 0.0000 0.0000 2.0000e- 005 005 005 005

Total 0.0000 0.0000 1.0000e- 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 2.0000e- 2.0000e- 0.0000 0.0000 2.0000e- 005 005 005 005

Mitigated

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total

SubCategory tons/yr MT/yr

Architectural 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Coating

Consumer 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Products

Landscaping 0.0000 0.0000 1.0000e- 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 2.0000e- 2.0000e- 0.0000 0.0000 2.0000e- 005 005 005 005

Total 0.0000 0.0000 1.0000e- 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 2.0000e- 2.0000e- 0.0000 0.0000 2.0000e- 005 005 005 005

7.0 Water Detail CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 14 of 17 Date: 12/16/2014 4:13 PM

7.1 Mitigation Measures Water

Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e

Category MT/yr

Mitigated 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Unmitigated 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

7.2 Water by Land Use Unmitigated

Indoor/Out Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e door Use

Land Use Mgal MT/yr

User Defined 0 / 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Recreational

Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 15 of 17 Date: 12/16/2014 4:13 PM

7.2 Water by Land Use Mitigated

Indoor/Out Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e door Use

Land Use Mgal MT/yr

User Defined 0 / 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Recreational

Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

8.0 Waste Detail

8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste

Category/Year

Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e

MT/yr

Mitigated 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Unmitigated 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 16 of 17 Date: 12/16/2014 4:13 PM

8.2 Waste by Land Use Unmitigated

Waste Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Disposed

Land Use tons MT/yr

User Defined 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Recreational

Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Mitigated

Waste Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Disposed

Land Use tons MT/yr

User Defined 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Recreational

Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

9.0 Operational Offroad

Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Days/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 17 of 17 Date: 12/16/2014 4:13 PM

10.0 Vegetation CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 1 of 12 Date: 12/16/2014 4:27 PM

Lazy K Preserve Madera County, Summer

1.0 Project Characteristics

1.1 Land Usage

Land Uses Size Metric Lot Acreage Floor Surface Area Population

User Defined Recreational 1.00 User Defined Unit 12.50 0.00 0

1.2 Other Project Characteristics

Urbanization Urban Wind Speed (m/s) 2.9 Precipitation Freq (Days) 51

Climate Zone 3 Operational Year 2016

Utility Company Pacific Gas & Electric Company

CO2 Intensity 641.35 CH4 Intensity 0.029 N2O Intensity 0.006 (lb/MWhr) (lb/MWhr) (lb/MWhr)

1.3 User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data

Project Characteristics - Land Use - 10.5 acres project site, 2 acres conservatively inoculum site, user defined recreational Construction Phase - grading 6/1/15 to 10/1/15 Trips and VMT - trip length 0.5 hauling trip length Grading - 270 cubic yards inoculum, 10.5 acres on project site, conservatively 2 acres inoculum collection Construction Off-road Equipment Mitigation - watered 2X a day CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 2 of 12 Date: 12/16/2014 4:27 PM

Table Name Column Name Default Value New Value

tblConstructionPhase NumDays 30.00 89.00

tblGrading AcresOfGrading 222.50 12.50

tblGrading MaterialImported 0.00 270.00

tblLandUse LotAcreage 0.00 12.50

tblProjectCharacteristics OperationalYear 2014 2016

tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripLength 10.80 0.50

2.0 Emissions Summary CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 3 of 12 Date: 12/16/2014 4:27 PM

2.1 Overall Construction (Maximum Daily Emission) Unmitigated Construction

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total

Year lb/day lb/day

2015 6.8534 79.1810 51.2253 0.0622 6.1860 3.8043 9.9903 3.3303 3.5000 6.8303 0.0000 6,528.251 6,528.251 1.9381 0.0000 6,568.952 4 4 4

Total 6.8534 79.1810 51.2253 0.0622 6.1860 3.8043 9.9903 3.3303 3.5000 6.8303 0.0000 6,528.251 6,528.251 1.9381 0.0000 6,568.952 4 4 4

Mitigated Construction

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total

Year lb/day lb/day

2015 6.8534 79.1810 51.2253 0.0622 6.1860 3.8043 9.9903 3.3303 3.5000 6.8303 0.0000 6,528.251 6,528.251 1.9381 0.0000 6,568.952 4 4 4

Total 6.8534 79.1810 51.2253 0.0622 6.1860 3.8043 9.9903 3.3303 3.5000 6.8303 0.0000 6,528.251 6,528.251 1.9381 0.0000 6,568.952 4 4 4

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total

Percent 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Reduction CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 4 of 12 Date: 12/16/2014 4:27 PM

2.2 Overall Operational Unmitigated Operational

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total

Category lb/day lb/day

Area 1.0000e- 0.0000 1.0000e- 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 2.2000e- 2.2000e- 0.0000 2.3000e- 005 004 004 004 004

Energy 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Mobile 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Total 1.0000e- 0.0000 1.0000e- 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 2.2000e- 2.2000e- 0.0000 0.0000 2.3000e- 005 004 004 004 004

Mitigated Operational

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total

Category lb/day lb/day

Area 1.0000e- 0.0000 1.0000e- 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 2.2000e- 2.2000e- 0.0000 2.3000e- 005 004 004 004 004

Energy 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Mobile 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Total 1.0000e- 0.0000 1.0000e- 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 2.2000e- 2.2000e- 0.0000 0.0000 2.3000e- 005 004 004 004 004 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 5 of 12 Date: 12/16/2014 4:27 PM

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total

Percent 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Reduction

3.0 Construction Detail

Construction Phase

Phase Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Num Days Num Days Phase Description Number Week

1 Grading Grading 6/1/2015 10/1/2015 5 89

Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 0

Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 12.5

Acres of Paving: 0

Residential Indoor: 0; Residential Outdoor: 0; Non-Residential Indoor: 0; Non-Residential Outdoor: 0 (Architectural Coating – sqft)

OffRoad Equipment

Phase Name Offroad Equipment Type Amount Usage Hours Horse Power Load Factor

Grading Excavators 2 8.00 162 0.38

Grading Graders 1 8.00 174 0.41

Grading Rubber Tired Dozers 1 8.00 255 0.40

Grading Scrapers 2 8.00 361 0.48

Grading Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2 8.00 97 0.37

Trips and VMT

Phase Name Offroad Equipment Worker Trip Vendor Trip Hauling Trip Worker Trip Vendor Trip Hauling Trip Worker Vehicle Vendor Hauling Count Number Number Number Length Length Length Class Vehicle Class Vehicle Class

Grading 8 20.00 0.00 34.00 0.50 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 6 of 12 Date: 12/16/2014 4:27 PM

3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction

Clean Paved Roads

3.2 Grading - 2015 Unmitigated Construction On-Site

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total

Category lb/day lb/day

Fugitive Dust 6.1715 0.0000 6.1715 3.3264 0.0000 3.3264 0.0000 0.0000

Off-Road 6.7751 79.0467 50.8400 0.0618 3.8022 3.8022 3.4980 3.4980 6,486.243 6,486.243 1.9364 6,526.908 3 3 0

Total 6.7751 79.0467 50.8400 0.0618 6.1715 3.8022 9.9737 3.3264 3.4980 6.8244 6,486.243 6,486.243 1.9364 6,526.908 3 3 0 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 7 of 12 Date: 12/16/2014 4:27 PM

3.2 Grading - 2015 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total

Category lb/day lb/day

Hauling 0.0126 0.1157 0.1531 2.9000e- 6.6800e- 1.9000e- 8.5800e- 1.8300e- 1.7500e- 3.5800e- 28.9144 28.9144 2.3000e- 28.9194 004 003 003 003 003 003 003 004

Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Worker 0.0657 0.0186 0.2323 1.6000e- 7.7900e- 2.5000e- 8.0400e- 2.0900e- 2.2000e- 2.3200e- 13.0936 13.0936 1.4900e- 13.1250 004 003 004 003 003 004 003 003

Total 0.0782 0.1343 0.3854 4.5000e- 0.0145 2.1500e- 0.0166 3.9200e- 1.9700e- 5.9000e- 42.0081 42.0081 1.7200e- 42.0444 004 003 003 003 003 003

Mitigated Construction On-Site

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total

Category lb/day lb/day

Fugitive Dust 6.1715 0.0000 6.1715 3.3264 0.0000 3.3264 0.0000 0.0000

Off-Road 6.7751 79.0467 50.8400 0.0618 3.8022 3.8022 3.4980 3.4980 0.0000 6,486.243 6,486.243 1.9364 6,526.908 3 3 0

Total 6.7751 79.0467 50.8400 0.0618 6.1715 3.8022 9.9737 3.3264 3.4980 6.8244 0.0000 6,486.243 6,486.243 1.9364 6,526.908 3 3 0 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 8 of 12 Date: 12/16/2014 4:27 PM

3.2 Grading - 2015 Mitigated Construction Off-Site

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total

Category lb/day lb/day

Hauling 0.0126 0.1157 0.1531 2.9000e- 6.6800e- 1.9000e- 8.5800e- 1.8300e- 1.7500e- 3.5800e- 28.9144 28.9144 2.3000e- 28.9194 004 003 003 003 003 003 003 004

Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Worker 0.0657 0.0186 0.2323 1.6000e- 7.7900e- 2.5000e- 8.0400e- 2.0900e- 2.2000e- 2.3200e- 13.0936 13.0936 1.4900e- 13.1250 004 003 004 003 003 004 003 003

Total 0.0782 0.1343 0.3854 4.5000e- 0.0145 2.1500e- 0.0166 3.9200e- 1.9700e- 5.9000e- 42.0081 42.0081 1.7200e- 42.0444 004 003 003 003 003 003

4.0 Operational Detail - Mobile

4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total

Category lb/day lb/day

Mitigated 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Unmitigated 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 9 of 12 Date: 12/16/2014 4:27 PM

4.2 Trip Summary Information

Average Daily Trip Rate Unmitigated Mitigated Land Use Weekday Saturday Sunday Annual VMT Annual VMT

User Defined Recreational 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 0.00 0.00 0.00

4.3 Trip Type Information

Miles Trip % Trip Purpose %

Land Use H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW Primary Diverted Pass-by User Defined Recreational 9.50 7.30 7.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 0

LDA LDT1 LDT2 MDV LHD1 LHD2 MHD HHD OBUS UBUS MCY SBUS MH 0.363278 0.068626 0.188451 0.184424 0.064139 0.009522 0.015955 0.088690 0.002874 0.000813 0.008511 0.001185 0.003534

5.0 Energy Detail 4.4 Fleet Mix Historical Energy Use: N

5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total

Category lb/day lb/day

NaturalGas 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Mitigated

NaturalGas 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Unmitigated CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 10 of 12 Date: 12/16/2014 4:27 PM

5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas Unmitigated

NaturalGa ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e s Use PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total

Land Use kBTU/yr lb/day lb/day

User Defined 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Recreational

Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Mitigated

NaturalGa ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e s Use PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total

Land Use kBTU/yr lb/day lb/day

User Defined 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Recreational

Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

6.0 Area Detail

6.1 Mitigation Measures Area CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 11 of 12 Date: 12/16/2014 4:27 PM

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total

Category lb/day lb/day

Mitigated 1.0000e- 0.0000 1.0000e- 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 2.2000e- 2.2000e- 0.0000 2.3000e- 005 004 004 004 004

Unmitigated 1.0000e- 0.0000 1.0000e- 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 2.2000e- 2.2000e- 0.0000 2.3000e- 005 004 004 004 004

6.2 Area by SubCategory Unmitigated

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total

SubCategory lb/day lb/day

Architectural 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Coating

Consumer 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Products

Landscaping 1.0000e- 0.0000 1.0000e- 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 2.2000e- 2.2000e- 0.0000 2.3000e- 005 004 004 004 004

Total 1.0000e- 0.0000 1.0000e- 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 2.2000e- 2.2000e- 0.0000 2.3000e- 005 004 004 004 004 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 12 of 12 Date: 12/16/2014 4:27 PM

6.2 Area by SubCategory Mitigated

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total

SubCategory lb/day lb/day

Architectural 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Coating

Consumer 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Products

Landscaping 1.0000e- 0.0000 1.0000e- 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 2.2000e- 2.2000e- 0.0000 2.3000e- 005 004 004 004 004

Total 1.0000e- 0.0000 1.0000e- 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 2.2000e- 2.2000e- 0.0000 2.3000e- 005 004 004 004 004

7.0 Water Detail

7.1 Mitigation Measures Water

8.0 Waste Detail

8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste

9.0 Operational Offroad

Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Days/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type

10.0 Vegetation

APPENDIX C BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES SURVEY REPORT

EXHIBIT H.

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES SURVEY

BAY AREA OFFICE 1720 Solano Ave Berkeley, CA 94707 Phone: 510/559-9603 Fax: 510/559-9605

www.vollmarconsulting.com

LAZY K RANCH MERCED/MADERA COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES SURVEY REPORT

Prepared for:

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 1325 J Street, Room 1480 Sacramento, CA 95814-3922 Contact: Kate Dadey 916/557-7253

Prepared by:

Vollmar Natural Lands Consulting 1720 Solano Avenue Berkeley, CA 94707 Contact: John Vollmar 510/559-9603

December 2012

J-147 TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 INTRODUCTION ...... 1 2.0 BACKGROUND INFORMATION ...... 1 2.1 Site Location ...... 1 2.2 Site Description and History ...... 1 2.3 Site Topography and Hydrology ...... 4 2.4 Site Geology ...... 6 2.5 Site Soils ...... 8 2.6 Project Team ...... 12 3.0 POTENTIAL SENSITIVE BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ...... 13 3.1 Sensitive Habitats ...... 13 3.2 Special-Status Species ...... 13 4.0 SURVEY METHODS ...... 16 4.1 Habitat Assessment and Mapping ...... 16 4.2 Special-Status Species Surveys ...... 16 4.2.1 Plant Species ...... 16 4.2.2 Invertebrates ...... 18 4.2.3 Amphibians ...... 18 4.2.4 Birds ...... 18 4.2.5 Mammals ...... 18 4.2.6 Fish ...... 19 5.0 RESULTS ...... 18 5.1 Vegetation Communities and Sensitive Habitats Identified on the Site ...... 18 5.1.1 Annual Grasslands ...... 18 5.1.2 Vernal Pools ...... 19 5.1.3 Created Vernal Pools ...... 21 5.1.4 Ephemeral Drainages/Vernal Swales ...... 22 5.1.5 Riparian Woodlands and Seasonal Wetlands ...... 22 5.1.6 Valley Oak Woodlands ...... 22 5.2 Special-Status Species Identified on the Site ...... 23 5.2.1 Plants ...... 23 5.2.2 Invertebrates ...... 23 5.2.3 Amphibians ...... 24 5.2.4 Birds ...... 24 5.2.5 Mammals ...... 25 5.3 Special-Status Species Not Observed on the Site ...... 25 5.3.1 Plants ...... 25 5.3.2 Animals ...... 26 6.0 CONCLUSIONS ...... 28 7.0 REFERENCES ...... 28

Exhibit-H. Biological Resources Survey Report Vollmar Natural Lands Consulting Lazy K Ranch Mitigation Bank BEI i December 2012 FIGURES, TABLES AND APPENDICES

Figure 1. Local Vicinity Map ...... 2 Figure 2A. Property Map and Documented Vernal Pool Shrimp Occurrences ...... 3 Figure 2B. Property Map and Amphibians, Plants, and Nesting Raptors...... 4 Figure 3. Historical Site Map...... 5 Figure 4. Topography and Hydrology Map ...... 7 Figure 5. Geology and Soils Map ...... 9

Table 1. Soils Present on Project Site ...... 10 Table 2. Special-status Species with the Potential to Occur on Project Site ...... 14 Table 3. Survey Dates and Biologists ...... 17

Appendix A. Plant Species Observed on the Project Site Appendix B. Representative Project Site Photographs

Exhibit-H. Biological Resources Survey Report Vollmar Natural Lands Consulting Lazy K Ranch Mitigation Bank BEI ii December 2012 1.0 INTRODUCTION

This report summarizes the methods and results of biological surveys conducted on the 1,556-acre Lazy K Ranch Project Site (Project Site or Site). The surveys were conducted to provide information on the sensitive biological resources known or with potential to occur on the Site as baseline information for proposed conservation and mitigation transactions. The Site is located in southeastern Merced County and northwestern Madera County, California (Figure 1). The Knapp family, the Site owner, is interested in placing two conservation easements on a portion of the Site and using these areas for development as a mitigation bank.

2.0 BACKGROUND INFORMATION

2.1 Site Location

The Project Site is located just northeast of the town of Chowchilla, on the border of southeastern Merced and northwestern Madera Counties, California (Figure 1). It is on the east side of South Santa Fe Avenue, south of the intersection with Marguerite Road. Specifically, the Site is located in Section 1, Township 9 South, and Range 16 E, and Sections 7-9 and 18, Township 9 South, Range 17 East of the Le Grand and Raynor Creek, California 7.5 minute quadrangles.

2.2 Site Description and History

The 1,556-acre ranch is primarily an undeveloped, open rangeland parcel with annual grassland, vernal pool and vernal swale habitats, intersected by the floodplain corridors and riparian habitats of the Chowchilla River and Ash Slough. The Site maps (Figure 2A and 2B) show existing conditions and important features on the Site. The ranch headquarters with the main residences and cluster of barns and corrals is located in the central western portion of the Site, and will be excluded from the proposed mitigation bank boundaries as will all the other residences on the Site. There are two other residences in the southern portion of the Site. There is an existing equipment yard that is part of ranch operations just east of the ranch headquarters which will also be excluded from the proposed mitigation bank boundaries.

The majority of the Site has been historically grazed, and the vernal pool landscape has remained intact and well managed. Grazing has inhibited the upland annual grasses from encroaching into the pools, resulting in a preserved diversity of vernal pool indicator and wetland plants. Approximately 185 acres in the southern portion of the Site were historically leveled but not deep-ripped, which eliminated the vernal pools but left the hardpan intact. Approximately 61 acres in the northern portion of the Site is irrigated as pasture for grazing; historically this area had no vernal pools as it is part of the Chowchilla River floodplain. The remaining acreage has intact hydrology and extensive vernal pool and swale complexes. Figure 3 shows the historic aerial photography from 1946.

This region surrounding the Project Site consists primarily of large, privately owned ranches that historically supported vernal pool habitats. Row crops, orchards and vineyards have been rapidly expanding east across Merced County onto formerly grazed ranches. This expansion has had a regional impact on the remaining vernal pool landscapes, reducing habitat for vernal pool species. The lands directly to the north and east of the Site are open vernal pool grasslands used as livestock range. The lands to the south and west are developed as almond orchards.

Exhibit-H. Biological Resources Survey Report Vollmar Natural Lands Consulting Lazy K Ranch Mitigation Bank BEI 1 December 2012

Additional industries in this region include dairy and poultry operations which often utilize pastures and fields to spread animal waste. Gravel mining also occurs in the region, especially in floodplain areas with dredge tailings from historic gold mining. Merced has also seen a recent expansion in residential, commercial and industrial development, including the creation of UC Merced. UC Merced is located approximately 20 miles from the Project Site.

2.3 Site Topography and Hydrology

The Site is situated on alluvial terraces adjacent to the historic floodplain of the Chowchilla River. Elevation on the Site ranges from 270 to 343 feet above mean sea level (msl) (Figure 4). The northern portion of the Site is fairly level with well-developed mima mound topography and a high-density of vernal pools. Continuing south, the elevation drops across rolling topography to the terrace bordering the Chowchilla River floodplain on the northeastern part of the Site. This area has more weakly developed mima mound topography and more widespread, larger vernal pools typically situated within low areas along swales. Along the northwestern part of the Site, there is yet another elevation drop to the terrace that is immediately bordering the Chowchilla River floodplain. On this lower elevation terrace, there is a portion of ground that is irrigated as pasture for grazing. The Chowchilla River floodplain is the lowest terrace in elevation at 270 feet above msl. Immediately adjacent to the Chowchilla River on the southern side, the same topographic series of terraces repeats: a terrace with rolling topography closest to the river and then the elevation increases to a terrace with well-developed mima mounds and high-density of vernal pools. On this higher elevation terrace, there is a portion of ground that was previously leveled for agriculture (but not deep-ripped). Ash Slough, at the southern tip of the Site is also lower in elevation (300 feet above msl) than the surrounding terraces.

The Site is within the Chowchilla River Watershed of the Middle San Joaquin-Lower Chowchilla River hydrologic unit within the San Joaquin River Basin hydrologic unit (HUC: 18040001, USGS) (Figure 4). The Chowchilla River is a minor tributary of the San Joaquin river that originates in the lower foothills of the Sierras (~5,000 feet elevation) and flows southwest through the foothills and Valley floor, where it forms the border of Merced and Madera counties, until it reaches the Site. Currently, the main flow of the Chowchilla River is diverted through two adjacent sloughs (Ash Slough and Berenda Sloughs) by an upstream diversion dam to Berenda Reservoir for irrigation water. As a result, flows are erratic (depending on water releases) and, except for isolated pools in the river bottom, the riverbed is often dry during the spring and fall. Ash Slough is within the Chowchilla River Watershed and it flows southwest from its confluence where it splits from the Chowchilla River just east of the project Site at the diversion dam. Ash Slough has flows for more of the year than the Chowchilla River since it serves as a distributary channel for Berenda Reservoir, however, it still experiences the same ephemeral flows with spring and fall dry periods.

Overall, surface water on the Site drains towards the Chowchilla River, which flows from east to west towards its confluence with the San Joaquin River and ends abruptly approximately three miles east of this confluence. The Chowchilla River enters the Site in the middle of the

Exhibit-H. Biological Resources Survey Report Vollmar Natural Lands Consulting Lazy K Ranch Mitigation Bank BEI 6 December 2012 southwest portion and the channel meanders east to west through the Site to the western edge. This intermittent stream was historically primarily precipitation driven, and typically became dry during the summer months. However, now more of its flows are due to upstream water releases in the summer months, and then diverted to the two sloughs for irrigation.

The only other sources of surface hydrology on the Site are natural rainfall and overland surface flow during and following periods of heavy rain. The vernal pools on the Site pond continuously or intermittently from late fall through spring or early summer. Duration and timing of ponding varies according to seasonal rainfall patterns. Smaller pools are more ephemeral, remaining ponded for a few to several weeks in winter or early spring. Larger vernal pools can remain inundated continuously from late fall into early summer. Aside from the Chowchilla River and Ash Slough, there are no well-developed creeks on the Site; although there are numerous ephemeral drainages and vernal swales. These drainages flow for only short periods (typically one to two weeks) following heavy rains. Most of the drainages have only intermittently developed beds and banks. The vernal pools and grasslands on the Site are above the 100-year flood zone of the Chowchilla River and are not subject to flooding from the river due to elevation and upstream water control structures.

2.4 Site Geology

The geologic formations on the Site are predominantly Turlock Lake, Riverbank, Modesto and channel fill (Figure 5). Approximately one million years ago the granitic outwash of the Chowchilla River covered the Site in coarse, sandy material. This Turlock Lake formation covered large portions of the eastern San Joaquin Valley. Approximately 100,000 years ago a second granitic outwash covered large portions of the Turlock Lake formation (mid Pleistocene). This newer formation is known as the Riverbank formation. Since then, approximately 50,000 years ago, a third outwash covered the immediate floodplain area in the Modesto formation.

Over time, weathering and erosion have re-exposed sections of Turlock Lake. This process has left hilly mounds of Turlock Lake interspersed between patches of Riverbank. Additionally, the Chowchilla River and Ash Slough eventually cut swaths through the Modesto formation areas, depositing channel fill and covering areas of the floodplain in sandy silt.

These processes have resulted in a site-wide mosaic of channel fill in the immediate Chowchilla River and Ash Slough channels. The immediate floodplain area is covered in the Modesto formation. Upslope, the outer floodplain is exposed bluffs and hills of the Turlock Lake formation (cut out from under the Riverbank formation). The upper portions of the Site remain Riverbank formation, still covering the ancient deposits of Turlock Lake.

Turlock Lake consists of hilly, sloping terrain with coarse sandy loam soils (Whitney/Rocklin and Cometa series) and typically larger vernal pools scattered within swale bottoms near the edge of the Chowchilla floodplain. The Riverbank formation consists of fairly level terrain with gravelly clay loam soils (Madera and San Joaquin series), well-developed mima mound topography and a high-density of small to medium size vernal pools. The Modesto formation consists of fairly level terrain with fine sandy loam soils deposited as alluvium along channels and terraces, and fewer vernal pools.

Exhibit-H. Biological Resources Survey Report Vollmar Natural Lands Consulting Lazy K Ranch Mitigation Bank BEI 8 December 2012

2.5 Site Soils

A mosaic of soils associated with the geologic formations described above can be found across the Site (Figure 5). These soils and their general characteristics are described in Table 1. More detailed descriptions of the most common soils on the Site are included following Table 1.

Table 1. Soils Present on Lazy K Ranch, Merced and Madera Counties, CA. Data Compiled by Vollmar Natural Lands Consulting, 2009.

Soil Code Slope Texture Alamo AaA/AsA 0-1% Clay Atwater AtB 3-8% Loamy sand Borden BeA/BfA 0-2% Fine sandy loam Cometa CuB 3-8% Sandy loam CuC 8-15% Sandy loam Grangeville GaA 0-1% Fine sandy loam GmA 0-1% Sandy loam Greenfield GuA 0-3% Sandy loam GuB 3-8% Sandy loam Hanford HeA 0-1% Sandy loam Madera MaA 0-3% Fine sandy loam MdA 0-3% Sandy loam MdB 3-8% Sandy loam Pachappa PdA 0-1% Sandy loam Riverwash Rf/Rh - - San Joaquin SaA 0-3% Sandy loam SbA 0-3% Loam SbB 3-8% Loam ScA 0-3% Sandy loam ScB 3-8% Sandy loam San Joaquin- SdA 0-3% - Alamo Complex Tujunga TuA 0-3% Sand TwA 0-3% Loamy sand Tujunga and Hanford TzB 0-3% - Whitney WhC2 8-15% Fine sandy loam Whitney and Rocklin WmC2 8-15% Fine sandy loam WrC 8-15% Sandy loam

Exhibit-H. Biological Resources Survey Report Vollmar Natural Lands Consulting Lazy K Ranch Mitigation Bank BEI 10 December 2012 Madera The Madera soils are part of the Riverbank Formation. Madera sandy loam soils occur on gently undulating old alluvial fans and terraces. The parent material is sandy alluvium derived from weathering of granodiorite. These soils are strongly weathered and well-drained at the surface but subsurface drainage is restricted by a well-developed cemented hardpan typically found at 12 to 28 inches below the surface. Mima mound topography with mounds and intervening vernal pool basins is characteristic of these soils. The hazard of erosion is slight. The Madera soils are very similar to the San Joaquin soils, except in color and reaction.

San Joaquin-Alamo The San Joaquin soils are part of the Riverbank Formation. San Joaquin loam soils occur on old fans and terraces of granitic alluvium laid down by the Merced and Chowchilla Rivers. These soils are old and strongly weathered and well-drained at the surface but subsurface drainage is restricted by a well- developed cemented hardpan typically found at 10 to 20 inches below the surface. Mima mound topography is characteristic of these soils. The hazard of erosion is slight. Alamo soils often occur as inclusions within these soils within the basins of vernal pools.

Whitney-Rocklin The Whitney and Rocklin soils are part of the Turlock Lake Formation. These soils occur on undulating topography north and south of the Merced River. They developed on weakly consolidated granitic alluvial sediments. This material has been eroded into rounded, rolling to hilly topography. The Whitney and Rocklin soils are undifferentiated in this type. When formed separately, the Rocklin soils develop in areas subject to slower weathering and surface erosion while Whitney soils develop in areas with more rapid surface erosion that retards soil development. These soils are well-drained and lack an underlying cemented hardpan. The hazard of erosion is slight.

Cometa The Cometa soils are part of the Turlock Lake Formation, and are found just south of and immediately adjacent to the Chowchilla River floodplain on the Property. Similar to the Whitney and Rocklin soils, they occur on undulating topography that formed in alluvium from granitic rock sources. These soils are moderately well or well drained and lack an underlying cemented hardpan. The hazard of erosion is slight.

Borden The Borden soils are part of the Modesto Formation. These soils occur under elevations of 1,000 feet on gently sloping alluvial fans and basin rim positions that may be hummocky under natural conditions. They are formed from granitic alluvium. The soils are moderately well and well drained. Surface runoff is slow. Permeability is moderately slow to slow, although they also lack an underlying cemented hardpan. The hazard of erosion is slight.

Exhibit-H. Biological Resources Survey Report Vollmar Natural Lands Consulting Lazy K Ranch Mitigation Bank BEI 11 December 2012 2.6 Project Team

Vollmar Natural Lands Consulting oversaw all field work for the biological surveys during 2001, and conducted all surveys from 2006 through 2009, excepting the riparian surveys conducted by Dr. Matt Kondolf and Dr. Alison Purcell of UC Berkeley. In addition to the biological surveys, Vollmar Natural Lands Consulting completed a formal wetland delineation to be reviewed and verified by the Sacramento District Corps of Engineers (COE) (submitted July 2009). The gap in time from the 2001 surveys to the latter surveys (2006-2009) is due to the earlier surveys being part of a study of the ecology of eastern Merced County (Vollmar 2002). Mr. John Vollmar, a senior biologist and an expert on vernal pool and wetland ecology, oversaw all of the field surveys (including 2001 surveys), and edited the survey report. Ms. Wendy Renz and Ms. Cassie Pinnell, staff ecologists, assisted with the field surveys and prepared the survey report. Mr. Jake Schweitzer, a GIS specialist, assisted Ms. Renz with map preparation. Additional Vollmar Natural Lands Consulting staff assisting in field surveys and report preparation included Ms. Rebecca Wayman and Mr. Koa Lavery. Mr. Todd Sloat of Sloat Biological Consulting conducted the Swainson’s hawk nesting surveys. Dr. Brent Helm of Helm Biological Consulting conducted the soil analysis for vernal pool shrimp. Additional biologists (not Vollmar Natural Lands Consulting) involved in the 2001 studies are included in Table 3.

(This Space Left Intentionally Blank)

Exhibit-H. Biological Resources Survey Report Vollmar Natural Lands Consulting Lazy K Ranch Mitigation Bank BEI 12 December 2012 3.0 POTENTIAL SENSITIVE BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES

Prior to conducting field surveys, staff from Vollmar Natural Lands Consulting conducted a background review to identify the sensitive biological resources with potential to occur on the Site. As described above, most of the Site supports upland grasslands and vernal pools with some seasonal wetland and riparian habitats in the Chowchilla River floodplain and Ash Slough. As such, the Site has potential to support sensitive biological resources within its vernal pool and seasonal wetland habitats, within its upland annual grassland habitats, and within its riparian habitats as discussed below.

3.1 Sensitive Habitats

For this report, ‘sensitive habitats’ include habitats protected under Federal, State or local environmental laws and regulations that would require mitigation for impacts. Sensitive habitats on the project Site include jurisdictional seasonal wetlands (vernal pools, swales, and other wetlands), jurisdictional waters of Chowchilla River and its associated riparian woodland habitat, jurisdictional waters of Ash Slough and its associated riparian woodland habitat, and valley oak woodland habitat.

Though upland annual grasslands are very common and do not often qualify as sensitive habitats, they can provide habitat for listed species including the California tiger salamander (Ambystoma californiense). Due to this habitat potential, we are including upland annual grasslands as a potentially sensitive habitat.

3.2 Special-Status Species

Table 2 is a list of the special-status species identified as having potential to occur on the Site. The species included in the table are associated with seasonal wetlands, vernal pools, riparian habitat, and upland annual grassland. For the purposes of this report, ‘special-status species’ include: x Species listed as Endangered, Threatened, or Rare under the provisions of either the Federal or State Endangered Species Acts (50 CFR 17.12 and 14 CCR 670.5, respectively); x Species recognized as Species of Concern by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) or Species of Special Concern by the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG); x Species listed as Rare, Endangered, or a Species of Concern by the California Native Plant Society (CNPS) (Lists 1-4); and x Species that are defined as Rare, Threatened, or Endangered under California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines (State CEQA Guidelines, Section 15380)

Sources used to develop this list included CDFG’s California Natural Diversity Data Base (CNDDB 2009); CNPS’s Electronic Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants of California (CNPS 2009); CalFish Data and Maps (CalFish 2009) and Mr. Vollmar’s expert regional knowledge.

Exhibit-H. Biological Resources Survey Report Vollmar Natural Lands Consulting Lazy K Ranch Mitigation Bank BEI 13 December 2012 Table 2. Special-status Species with Potential to Occur on the Lazy K Ranch Site, Merced/Madera Counties, California. Table Compiled by Vollmar Natural Lands Consulting, 2012.

2 COMMON/SCIENTIFIC STATUS PREFERRED HABITAT KNOWN REGIONAL 1 NAME OCCURRENCES PLANTS Greene’s tuctoria FE, 1B Dry bottoms of vernal pools in 12 recorded locations in Tuctoria greenei open grasslands Merced and Madera Counties, including two in close proximity to Site Merced phacelia 1B Heavy clay soil grasslands Known from fewer than 10 Phacelia ciliata var. opaca extant occurrences, all in SE Merced County Succulent owl’s clover FT, SE, 1B Vernal pools or other wetlands, Occurs on Site, also occurs in Castilleja campestris ssp. occasionally occurs in preferred habitat in Merced succulenta grasslands, often in acidic soils and Madera Counties San Joaquin Valley Orcutt grass FT, SE, 1B Large vernal pools with Numerous occurrences in

Orcuttia inaequalis prolonged inundation Merced and Madera Counties Hoover’s spurge FT, 1B Vernal pools on volcanic One known occurrence in Chamaesyce hooveri mudflow or clay substrate Merced County Spiny-sepaled button-celery 1B Vernal pools in foothill or valley Occurs on Site, also numerous Eryngium spinosepalum grasslands known occurrences in Merced and Madera Counties Boggs Lake hedge-hyssop SE, 1B Vernal pools, sometimes on lake Three known occurrences in Gratiola heterosepala margins Merced and Madera Counties Colusa grass FT, SE, 1B Large, deep vernal pool bottoms Numerous known occurrences Neostapfia colusana in Merced County Hairy Orcutt grass FE, SE, IB Large vernal pools with Numerous known occurrences Orcuttia pilosa prolonged inundation in Merced and Madera Counties Hartweg’s golden sunburst FE, SE, 1B Clay soils on northern knoll Eight known occurrences in Pseudobahia bahiifolia slopes, also along shady creeks Merced and Madera Counties or near vernal pools INVERTEBRATES + Midvalley fairy shrimp CSSC Small to medium vernal pools, Occurs on Site; numerous Branchinecta mesovallensis often with flashy hydrology occurrences in Merced and Madera Counties Vernal pool fairy shrimp FT Small to large vernal pools Occurs on Site; numerous Branchinecta lynchi occurrences in Merced and Madera Counties Vernal pool tadpole shrimp FE Medium to large vernal pools, Occurs on Site; numerous Lepidurus packardi usually with turbid waters occurrences in Merced and Madera Counties California fairy shrimp CSSC+ Small to large vernal pools Occurs on Site; numerous Linderiella occidentalis IUCN-NT occurrences in Merced and Madera Counties Valley elderberry longhorn FT Elderberry shrub stems at least Occurs in close proximity to beetle one inch in diameter at ground site; numerous occurrences in Desmocerus californicus level, in riparian areas along Merced and Madera Counties dimorphus rivers and streams

Exhibit-H. Biological Resources Survey Report Vollmar Natural Lands Consulting Lazy K Ranch Mitigation Bank BEI 14 December 2012 2 COMMON/SCIENTIFIC STATUS PREFERRED HABITAT KNOWN REGIONAL 1 NAME OCCURRENCES AMPHIBIANS California tiger salamander FT* Breeds within larger vernal Occurs on Site; numerous Ambystoma californiense pools and seasonal stock ponds. occurrences in Merced and Shelters within abandoned small Madera Counties mammal burrows in upland areas surrounding breeding ponds Western spadefoot toad CSSC Breeds in vernal pools and Occurs on Site; numerous Spea hammondi seasonal stock ponds, shelters in occurrences in Merced and grasslands and burrows Madera Counties BIRDS Western burrowing owl CSSC Open grassland, scrub, or fallow Numerous occurrences in Athene cunicularia hypugaea agricultural fields; utilizes Merced and Madera Counties; burrows and other subterranean habitat exists on site sites for nesting Swainson’s hawk ST Open grassland, prairie, Occurs on Site (confirmed Buteo swainsoni farmland or desert, nests in trees nesting); numerous occurrences in Merced and Madera Counties; foraging habitat exists on site Bald eagle FE delisted/ Nests in old growth or dominant Occurs on Site; one known Haliaeetus leucocephalus SE(rev) live tree large open branches occurrence in Madera County MAMMALS + Merced kangaroo rat CSSC Fine, deep, well-drained soils in Occurs on Site, also numerous Dipodomys heermanii dixonii grassland and savanna occurrences in Merced communities in Eastern Merced County and Stanislaus San Joaquin pocket mouse CSSC+ Friable soils in grasslands and Numerous occurrences in Perognathus inornatus BLM-S blue oak savannas Merced County inornatus American badger CSSC Open uncultivated habitats with Occurs on Site and on Taxidea taxus IUCN:LC dry friable soils and sufficient adjacent property prey San Joaquin kit fox FE,ST San Joaquin Valley grasslands Numerous occurrences in Vulpes macrotis mutica with loose textured sandy soils Merced and Madera Counties; habitat exists on site 1. Scientific names from CNDDB (2009); 2. FE = Federal Endangered; FT = Federal Threatened; FPD = Federal Proposed for Delisting; FSC = Federal Species of Concern; FMNB-MC = Federal Non-game Bird of Migratory Concern; CE = State Endangered; CT = State Threatened; CSSC = State Species of Special Concern; CSSA = California State DFG Special Animal; CFP = State Fully Protected; California Native Plant Society (CNPS) Lists: 1A = species presumed extinct; 1B = species rare, threatened, or endangered in California and elsewhere; 2: species rare or threatened in California but more common elsewhere; 3: more information is needed regarding species rarity; 4 = watch list, species uncommon but not currently threatened or endangered; BLM-S = Bureau of Land Management Sensitive Species; IUCN:LC = International Union for Conservation of Nature- Near Threatened

* California tiger salamander Central Valley Distinct Population Segment (DPS) is Federal Threatened; California tiger salamander Santa Barbara County DPS is Federal Endangered; and California tiger salamander Sonoma County DPS is Federal Endangered.

+ Status recently dropped from July 2009 DFG updated listing status.

Exhibit-H. Biological Resources Survey Report Vollmar Natural Lands Consulting Lazy K Ranch Mitigation Bank BEI 15 December 2012 4.0 SURVEY METHODS

A literature review was conducted to determine known distribution and occurrences of special-status species with potential to occur on the project Site. The Project Site was extensively surveyed for special- status species in the 2001 Eastern Merced county study (Vollmar 2002). Additional surveys to determine accurate distribution and occurrence were conducted from 2006-2009, especially for the Madera County portion of the Site that had not been previously surveyed. The specific survey methods for sensitive habitats and individual special-status species are detailed below. The dates of each survey and surveyors are presented in Table 3. Each survey was conducted by each surveyor in the adjacent ‘surveyor’ column during at least one of the listed survey dates (all listed surveyors were not present during every survey visit). Each survey requiring an ESA permit was conducted by at least one permitted biologist, often with assistance from an additional biologist.

4.1 Habitat Assessment and Mapping

During the course of field surveys, the different habitat types on the Site were mapped and characterized including plant species cover and composition, habitat quality and the potential to support special-status species. All potential jurisdictional wetlands on the Site were formally delineated following current ACOE protocols. The Site was also surveyed for the presence of vernal pools, seasonal wetlands and riparian areas as sensitive habitats with potential to support target special-status wildlife and plant species.

4.2 Special-Status Species Surveys

The special-status species surveys conducted to date have focused on assessing the Site for potential habitat for the target species in Table 2 as discussed below.

4.2.1 Plant Species

Surveys for special-status plants typically involve ground surveys conducted during peak spring and summer bloom. An initial Site assessment can also be conducted to determine if suitable habitat exists for the special-status plant species with potential to occur in the project region. Mr. Vollmar, Mr. Dittes and Ms. Guardino conducted a Site assessment for special-status plants during the 2001 surveys. Vollmar Natural Lands Consulting biologists conducted additional surveys and mapped all observed occurrences of special-status plant species during the 2006-2009 field survey visits. As part of the assessment, Vollmar Natural Lands Consulting biologists walked the entire Site and recorded all plant species that were identifiable at the time of year and noted potential habitat for the target special-status plants.

Exhibit-H. Biological Resources Survey Report Vollmar Natural Lands Consulting Lazy K Ranch Mitigation Bank BEI 16 December 2012 Table 3. List of Dates and Surveying Biologists for Special-status Species and Sensitive Habitats on Lazy K Ranch from 2001 to 2009.

SURVEYORS SURVEY DATES PLANTS John Dittes (2001), Josephine Guardino (2001) April 9, 2001 John Vollmar, Rebecca Wayman, Cassie Pinnell May 18, 2001 Jake Schweitzer June 27, 2001 March 27-29, 2007 February 19-21,2008 April 29-30, 2009

INVERTEBRATES John Vollmar, Brent Helm (2001), Cassie Pinnell February 15 thru April 23, 2001 Rebecca Wayman, Jake Schweitzer, Wendy Renz September 5-8, 2006 March 7, 2007 March 28-29, 2007 February 19-21, 2008 February 27-28, 2008 February 13, 2009 March 4-5, 2009 March 20, 2009 AMPHIBIANS Dave Laabs (2001), Mark Allaback (2001), Susan Orloff March thru May 2001 (2001), John Vollmar, Jake Schweitzer April 25, 2006 Rebecca Wayman, Cassie Pinnell, Wendy Renz March 28-29, 2007 February 19-21, 2008 March 7, 2008 April 9, 2009 April 23-24, 2009 April 30, 2009 May 7, 2009 May 18, 2009 BIRDS Todd Sloat (2001), Edward Whisler (2001), John Vollmar February 15 thru June 6, 2001 March 18, 2009 March-April 2011 March April 2012 SMALL MAMMALS Dave Laabs (2001), Mark Allaback (2001) June 11-15, 2001 LARGE MAMMALS Susan Orloff (2001) July 3-6, 2001 July 24-27, 2001 August 2, 2001 August 7-8, 2001

Exhibit-H. Biological Resources Survey Report Vollmar Natural Lands Consulting Lazy K Ranch Mitigation Bank BEI 17 December 2012 4.2.2 Invertebrates

During the 2001 and 2006-2009 surveys, all seasonal wetlands on the Project Site were assessed for their potential to support fairy and tadpole shrimp. Specific attention was given to searching for vernal pools on or within 250 feet of the Site providing potential habitat for Federally-listed fairy and tadpole shrimp. Because the majority of seasonal wetlands on the Site are vernal pools that ponded more than two inches deep, it was concluded that these wetlands have the potential to support vernal pool fairy and tadpole shrimp. Therefore, wet-season dip-net surveys for the fairy and tadpole shrimp were conducted in 2001 and 2006-2009. Surveys in 2001 were conducted by Mr. Brent Helm and Mr. John Vollmar. The 2006- 2009 surveys were conducted by Mr. Vollmar with assistance from Vollmar Natural Lands Consulting biologists (Table 2) under ESA Recovery Permit TE-035336-2. Surveys for terrestrial invertebrates, such as the Valley elderberry longhorn beetle (VELB) (Desmocerus californicus dimorphus) were not conducted. However, potential habitat for VELB was mapped throughout the Project Site.

4.2.3 Amphibians

Vollmar Natural Lands Consulting conducted a California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) search to determine the closest known occurrences of special-status amphibians to the Project Site (Figure 2B). The search found numerous occurrences of California tiger salamander (CTS) within 3.1 miles of the Site and determined that the Site is within the local range of the species. As such, wet-season seine surveys were conducted for CTS and Western spadefoot toad (Spea hammondi) in 2001, and again in 2006-2009. All wetlands on the Site were checked during the 2006 Site visits for depth and potential duration of ponding and it was determined that many of the wetlands on Site could provide suitable CTS breeding habitat. Tadpoles and larval CTS were identified and abundance ratings were recorded. Additionally, night surveys were conducted at dusk to detect the call of adult Western spadefoot toads.

4.2.4 Birds

In 2001, bird surveys were conducted on the Project Site as part of the larger eastern Merced surveys (Vollmar 2002). Surveys included point count surveys, area surveys and species specific studies. In addition to the 2001 surveys, Vollmar Natural Lands Consulting biologists conducted visual surveys for bald eagles (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) and nesting raptors, including Swainson’s hawk (Buteo swainsoni). Species such as the western burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia hypugaea) have recommended guidelines for survey protocol. These guidelines include four phases, and were followed by surveying biologists.

Phase I and Phase II surveys for burrowing owls were conducted during the 2001 Site visits. Mr. Vollmar walked the entire survey area to assess habitat suitability for the owls and to check for the presence of potential owl burrows. Numerous potential owl burrows were encountered though the species was not observed on site; therefore, and Phase III surveys were performed during the 2006-2009 survey visits. This report is considered the write-up of survey results required for Phase IV. Todd Sloat conducted nesting surveys for Swainson’s hawks in March-April 2011 and 2012. His surveys focused along the riparian habitat of the Chowchilla River on and adjacent to the Site.

4.2.5 Mammals

Small Mammals Live traps for small mammals were placed along three transects in 2001 across various soil types and geologic formations on the Site. Each transect consisted of 40 traps spaced at 15m intervals. Large Sherman live-traps were baited at night and checked in the morning. These traps were selected to reduce

Exhibit-H. Biological Resources Survey Report Vollmar Natural Lands Consulting Lazy K Ranch Mitigation Bank BEI 18 December 2012 the risk of tail damage for species such as the Merced kangaroo rat (Dipodomys heermanii dixonii). Surveys were conducted by Mr. David Laabs and Mr. Mark Allaback in 2001.

Large Mammals During the 2001 surveys, a literature review was conducted including unpublished literature, historical records and interviews with local residents for known occurrences of special-status large mammals such as the San Joaquin kit fox (Vulpes macrotis mutica) and the American badger (Taxidea taxus). State and Federal resource agencies, as well as CNDDB, were also consulted. Systematic field surveys were led by Ms. Sue Orloff, a recognized mammal expert. Several biologists assisted Ms. Orloff. Several survey techniques were used for the field surveys, including track stations, camera stations, night spotlighting, ground searches and 28.1km of dog transects (Vollmar 2002). These same methods were used for multiple large mammals, including the kit fox and the American badger.

4.2.6 Fish

Formal, protocol-level surveys for listed fish, such as Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha), were not conducted for several reasons: 1) the Chowchilla River is not considered within the range of the species; 2) the riparian corridor of the Chowchilla River will be protected under conservation easement; and 3) species credits for Chinook salmon will not be sought by the mitigation bank.

Exhibit-H. Biological Resources Survey Report Vollmar Natural Lands Consulting Lazy K Ranch Mitigation Bank BEI 19 December 2012 5.0 RESULTS

Multiple sensitive habitats and special-status species were observed during Site surveys (Table 3). Sensitive habitats include upland, riparian and wetland habitats. These habitats support multiple special- status species. Observed special-status taxa included two bird species, two plant species, four species of large branchiopods, two mammal and two amphibian species. Additionally, the upland habitat on-site provides potential corridor habitat for an additional large mammal species. These habitats and species are described in greater detail below.

Figures 1 is a regional vicinity maps showing the ranch boundaries, mitigation area boundaries, and conservation easement boundaries. Figure 2A and 2B are aerial photo maps of the Site showing project boundaries and the location of documented special-status species occurrences in the project vicinity. Appendix A is a list of all plant species observed on the Site. Appendix B provides representative Site photographs.

5.1 Vegetation Communities and Sensitive Habitats Identified on the Site

The habitats and plant communities on the Site include upland annual grasslands, vernal pools, created vernal pools, ephemeral drainages/vernal swales, riparian woodlands and seasonal wetlands, and oak woodlands.

5.1.1 Annual Grasslands

The dominant vegetation community on the Site is upland annual grasslands. This community is not considered a sensitive habitat, except when it provides habitat for sensitive species. Portions of these grasslands provide habitat for California tiger salamander (CTS) and other sensitive species. Grasslands occur across the upper topography of the mima-mound and hilly portions of the Turlock Lake and Riverbank formations, as well as across most of the Modesto formation. The lower swales and depressions of the mima-mound topography are generally dominated by wetland species, but have interspersed grassland species that increase cover in drier years.

The upland annual grasslands, are dominated by non-native annual grasses with a low cover of non-native and native herbs. The dominant grass species include soft chess (Bromus hordeaceus), slender oats (Avena barbata), and rip-gut brome (Bromus diandrus). Other common grass species present include foxtail barley (Hordeum leporinum), red brome (Bromus madritensis), and rattail sixweeks grass (Festuca myuros). Low-lying seasonally moist areas are dominated by Italian ryegrass (Lolium multiflorum) and Mediterranean barley (Hordeum marinum var. gussoneanum). Common native herbs include blow wives (Achyrachaena mollis), miniature lupine (Lupinus bicolor), slender tarweed (Holocarpha virgata), smooth cat’s-tongue (Hypochaeris glabra), dove weed (Croton setigerus), and filaree (Erodium botrys). No significant stands of native perennial bunchgrasses occur on the Site.

No special-status upland plant species have been found within the grasslands. However, these uplands provide habitat and forage area for special-status species identified on the Site including CTS, Western spadefoot toad, Swainson’s hawk, Merced kangaroo rat and the American badger. Dense and extensive complexes of ground squirrel burrows occur throughout the Turlock Lake formation, which provide important habitat for CTS, burrowing owls and spadefoot toad. Additionally, kit fox and other large mammals such as the American badger can enlarge small mammal burrows to create dens.

Additional non special-status animals observed in the upland annual grasslands on the Project Site or the adjacent parcels include coyotes, jack rabbits, kangaroo rats, mice, feral pigs and opossums.

Exhibit-H. Biological Resources Survey Report Vollmar Natural Lands Consulting Lazy K Ranch Mitigation Bank BEI 20 December 2012 5.1.2 Vernal Pools

Vernal pools occur throughout the terrace areas of the Site. These terrace sections occupy a cumulative area of approximately 1,000 acres. Approximately 67.1 acres of vernal pools were identified on Site. The highest density pools occur farthest away from the stream channels, on the Madera and San Joaquin soils that are part of the Riverbank geologic formation. The pools in these upper areas are small to medium in size and often hydrologically interconnected. These smaller, densely clustered pools host high populations of listed fairy and tadpole shrimp. Pool density on the Riverbank formation is around 15%.

The portions of the Site on Whitney and Cometa soils that are part of the Turlock Lake geologic formation, support fewer, larger vernal pools. These pools provide excellent habitat for CTS and occur on the lower, sloping bluffs adjacent to the floodplains. The pools generally occur within low lying areas within swales and are not as hydrologically interconnected as those on the Madera soils. Pool density in this area is around 10%. The Modesto formation and channel fill areas do not generally support vernal pools.

The vernal pools are considered ‘hardpan’ vernal pools based on the type of soil and presence of an underlying cemented hardpan. Soil pits established on the Site found the hardpan at varying depths typically ranging from 10-45 inches, with a mean depth of 33 inches.

The plant species within the vernal pools are typical for hardpan vernal pools in the region. Dominant species include coyote-thistle (Eryngium castrense), spiny-sepaled button celery (E. spinosepalum), stipitate popcornflower (Plagiobothrys stipitatus var. micranthus), Fremont’s goldfields (Lasthenia fremontii), slender hairgrass (Deschampsia danthonioides), downingia (Downingia bicornuta var. bicornuta), and woolly marbles (Psilocarphus brevissimus var. brevissimus). Dominant species within deeper pools also include pale spikerush (Eleocharis marcrostachya) and water starwort (Callitriche marginata).

Two special-status plant species have been found within the vernal pools on the Site grasslands. Spiny- sepaled button-celery, a California Native Plant Society List 1B, is common throughout vernal pools in eastern Merced County (Vollmar 2002), including the pools on the Site. This species is so common on the Site that it was not mapped in Figure 2. Succulent owl’s-clover (Castilleja campestris ssp. succulenta), a Federal and State listed species, has been found in pools scattered throughout the Site (Figure 2B).

Vernal pool fairy shrimp (Branchinecta lynchi), Midvalley fairy shrimp (B. mesovallensis), California fairy shrimp (Linderiella occidentalis) and vernal pool tadpole shrimp (Lepidurus packardi) are resident within vernal pools on the Site. All of these species are specially adapted to the temporary nature of their pool habitat. Such adaptations include a short time to reproductive maturity, a diapausing egg phase in the form of desiccation resistant cysts, and a long-lived egg-bank. California tiger salamanders and Western spadefoot toad breed within larger vernal pools on the Site and juveniles mature within the same pools.

5.1.3 Created Vernal Pools

Seven new vernal pools were created (0.612 acres) on the 93-acre Preserve in the northeast corner of the Site in October 2008, as part of the off-site mitigation requirements for the UC Village development project. All of the created pools were placed in low areas on the undulating terrain of the Turlock Lake Formation in areas conducive to pool formation. Detailed as-built topographic surveys were conducted and these pools will receive annual monitoring for the first ten years until they have met their success criteria as outlined in the mitigation and monitoring plan for this Preserve. These created vernal pools are

Exhibit-H. Biological Resources Survey Report Vollmar Natural Lands Consulting Lazy K Ranch Mitigation Bank BEI 21 December 2012 expected to support the same set of sensitive plant and wildlife species within one to five years after their establishment.

5.1.4 Ephemeral Drainages/Vernal Swales

There are numerous small drainages and swales on the Site that flow down the hillslopes and interconnect some of the vernal pools. These seasonal swales comprise approximately 1.7 acres (pending ACOE review) and support a mix of vernal pool plant species and more generalist seasonal wetland species depending on flow intensity and duration. These drainages generally have only intermittent eroded beds and banks due to the low flow velocity on the Site.

5.1.5 Riparian Woodlands and Seasonal Wetlands

The Chowchilla River and Ash Slough have been subject to altered hydrological regimes (as the result of dams higher in the watershed) and human and livestock impacts. This has greatly reduced the number and cover of woody riparian trees (valley oaks, cottonwoods, and willows). Also, there has been little recruitment of new riparian trees, resulting in bare, eroded banks along much of the banks of these rivers.

There are sparse seasonal wetlands on the Site within the floodplains of the Chowchilla River and Ash Slough, approximately 2.2 acres (pending ACOE review). Both of these seasonal wetland areas support low-density riparian woodland vegetation consisting of isolated trees and tree clusters along the immediate banks of the river and slough. The most common trees are Fremont’s cottonwood (Populus fremontii) and various species of willow (Salix sp.). There is little understory vegetation; the wetlands are mostly ringed by Juncus sp.

Riparian corridors are important for the migration and dispersal of several special-status animal species. For example, the riparian woodland vegetation along the Chowchilla River and Ash Slough supports bald eagles and other nesting raptor species, including Swainson’s hawk. Additionally, these riparian corridors support elderberry shrubs which provide potential habitat for the special-status Valley elderberry longhorn beetle (VELB).

5.1.6 Valley Oak Woodlands

The riparian woodlands and seasonal wetlands transition into valley oak woodlands along the upper banks of the Chowchilla River and Ash Slough, on both the north and south sides of the river and the slough. This habitat is characterized by a mixture of predominantly Valley oaks (Quercus lobata) and a lower representation of blue oaks (Q. douglasii), with an understory of grasses, herbs, and shrubs. The oaks in this habitat are large, old trees and fairly sparse because of a lack of recruitment of younger trees, most likely due to changes in Site hydrology. California Oak woodlands, especially valley oak woodlands, are governed under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Professional Foresters Law (PFL) and Public Resources Code §21083.4 (PRC) (California Oak Foundation 2006).

Exhibit-H. Biological Resources Survey Report Vollmar Natural Lands Consulting Lazy K Ranch Mitigation Bank BEI 22 December 2012 5.2 Special-Status Species Identified on the Site

The following special-status species and species of interest have been identified on the Project Site during surveys:

x Succulent owl’s clover x Spiny-sepaled button-celery x Midvalley fairy shrimp x Vernal pool fairy shrimp x Vernal pool tadpole shrimp x California fairy shrimp x California tiger salamander x Western spadefoot toad x Swainson’s hawk x Bald eagle x American badger x Merced kangaroo rat

5.2.1 Plants

Two listed plant species, succulent owl’s clover and spiny-sepaled button-celery, have been observed on the Site.

Succulent owl’s clover Succulent owl’s clover was observed throughout the Site in 21 vernal pools and swales. This species is believed to be associated with acidic soils, and is reported from many geologic surfaces including Riverbank, a predominant geologic substrate on the Site (Vollmar 2002). The occurrences on Site were predominantly observed on the Riverbank formation. This California vernal pool endemic is listed as Federal Threatened, State Endangered and CNPS List 1B.

Spiny-sepaled button-celery Spiny-sepaled button-celery was observed across the Site. Occurrences on Site are so common that specific locations were not identified on Figure 2. This species occurs in vernal pools and vernal swales. This California endemic is not Federal or State listed, but is on the CNPS List 1B. This species is reported to hybridize with E. castrense and E. vaseyi, and is apparently extremely difficult to identify outside of its flowering stage (CNPS 2009). This species occurs in the Eastern San Joaquin Valley, adjacent to the Sierra Nevada Foothills (Jepson Interchange 2009). According to Vollmar et al, this taxon appears to be more abundant in Eastern Merced County than elsewhere throughout its range (Vollmar 2002).

5.2.2 Invertebrates

Four special-status aquatic invertebrates have been documented on the Site. These include three species of fairy shrimp (midvalley, vernal pool and California fairy shrimp) and the vernal pool tadpole shrimp. Each of these species occurs in vernal pools, and is known from other locations within Merced and Madera counties.

Midvalley Fairy Shrimp This species was observed in 17 pools across the project Site, mainly on the Riverbank formations. This species carries no Federal listing, and was recently removed from the DFG California Species of Special

Exhibit-H. Biological Resources Survey Report Vollmar Natural Lands Consulting Lazy K Ranch Mitigation Bank BEI 23 December 2012 Concern list (July 2009). The midvalley fairy shrimp is currently assigned no listing status. According to Helm and Vollmar (2002), midvalley fairy shrimp occur in grassland pools, and inter-mound pools within mound-inter-mound topography. Midvalley fairy shrimp prefer small to medium vernal pools with flashy hydrology. This proved consistent with the occurrences on the Site. Though this species carries no official State or Federal listing, it does have a limited distribution and sparse population size and could become a candidate for listing.

Vernal Pool Fairy Shrimp Vernal pool fairy shrimp were observed in 47 pools across the project Site. This Federal Threatened species is most commonly found in playa pools, large deep vernal pools and occasionally stock ponds, though it does occasionally inhabit smaller vernal pools (Helm and Vollmar 2002). This species occurs largely in vernal pools on both the Riverbank and Turlock Lake formations.

California Fairy Shrimp California fairy shrimp is not Federal listed. This species was also recently removed from the DFG California Species of Special Concern list. However, it is currently included on the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) ‘Near Threatened’ list. California fairy shrimp is found in vernal pools and wetlands of many sizes. This species was found across the Project Site in vernal pools on a variety of formations, and was so common that it was not mapped in Figure 2.

Vernal Pool Tadpole Shrimp Vernal pool tadpole shrimp was found in 36 pools across many geologic formations on the Project Site. This Federal Endangered species is usually found in medium to large vernal pools, often with turbid water. This species often co-occurred in large pools with CTS and western spadefoot toad, but also was identified in smaller pools. The majority of these observations occurred on the Turlock Lake formation.

5.2.3 Amphibians

California tiger salamander The Central Valley population of the California tiger salamander (CTS) is a Federal Threatened species; the Santa Barbara and Sonoma populations are Federal Endangered. Any CTS found on the project site are considered part of the Central Valley population. Larvae were observed in 25 pools across the Site. Larval CTS were observed primarily in the larger pools occurring on the Turlock Lake formation across the Site. A few of the pools on the Riverbank formation also support this species. The extensive ground squirrel complexes, also predominantly on the Turlock Lake formation, likely provide upland habitat for the adult CTS. These complexes are very common throughout grassland portions of the Site, providing easy access to breeding pools.

Western spadefoot toad Western spadefoot toad is a DFG California Species of Special Concern. Tadpoles were observed in 29 pools, predominantly in the same pools that support CTS. A few additional occurrences were identified in pools without CTS. This is likely due to the spadefoot’s ability to use smaller pools and transform more rapidly than CTS larvae (Laabs et al. in Vollmar 2002). Adult spadefoots likely also use the small mammal burrows throughout the Site. In addition to observations of larvae, adult calls were detected on the Project Site.

5.2.4 Birds

Swainson’s hawk The State Threatened Swainson’s hawk has been sighted on the project Site, and one nest has been identified. Two hawks were observed in courtship while carrying nest materials (Vollmar pers obs 2009).

Exhibit-H. Biological Resources Survey Report Vollmar Natural Lands Consulting Lazy K Ranch Mitigation Bank BEI 24 December 2012 This species forages in open grasslands, prairies, farmlands and deserts. Swainson’s hawk preys on large insects and small mammals, including ground squirrels, especially when nesting. It nests in trees within foraging habitat. Numerous occurrences of this species are known from Merced and Madera Counties.

Bald eagle The bald eagle was listed as Federal Endangered, but has recently been delisted (July 2007). This species nests in old growth or large open tree branches. One active nest Site is known on the Project Site. Very few nest Sites are known from Merced and Madera Counties. Bald eagles predominantly eat fish, which do not frequently occur on the Site. However, this species is an opportunistic feeder and likely feeds on small mammals and carrion on or around the Project Site.

5.2.5 Mammals

Merced kangaroo rat The Merced kangaroo rat is known from two trap locations on the Project Site. This species was formerly listed by DFG as a California Species of Special Concern. In July 2009, DFG removed the Merced kangaroo rat from this list. Currently, this species is listed only by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) as a Sensitive species. This species prefers deep, well-drained soils in grasslands. This species was predominantly observed in areas devoid of vegetation, such as along roads or ground squirrel burrow complexes.

American badger The American badger is listed by DFG as a California Species of Special Concern and was observed on the Project Site during the 2001 large mammal surveys (Vollmar 2002). This species requires open, uncultivated habitats with dry friable soils and sufficient prey. Badger burrows are large and could potentially be used by other listed species such as the San Joaquin kit fox.

5.3 Special-Status Species Not Observed on the Site

The remaining plant species listed in Table 2, Greene’s tuctoria (Tuctoria greenei), Merced phacelia (Phacelia ciliate var. opaca), San Joaquin Valley orcutt grass (Orcuttia inaequalis), Hoover’s spurge (Chamaesyce hooveri), Boggs Lake hedge-hyssop (Gratiola heterosepala), Colusa grass (Neostapfia colusana), hairy orcutt grass (Orcuttia pilosa) and Hartweg’s golden sunburst (Pseudobahia bahiifolia), were not observed on the Site. Additionally, the remaining animal species listed in Table 2, western burrowing owl, San Joaquin kit fox and San Joaquin pocket mouse, were not observed on the Site.

5.3.1 Plants

Greene’s tuctoria Greene’s tuctoria has been observed on the parcel adjacent to the Site along the north side of Marguerite Road (CNDDB). Greene’s tuctoria occupies shallower and smaller pools than many other Orcutt grasses (Vollmar 2002). In larger pools this species tends to occur along the margins.

This California vernal pool endemic is listed as Federal Endangered, State Rare and CNPS List 1B. CNDDB maintains records for less than 40 occurrences, with only approximately half presumed extant. According to regional surveys conducted by Vollmar et al 2002, all remaining occurrences in the San Joaquin Valley are in Eastern Merced County. Due to the Site location and numerous smaller and shallower pools, it is likely that this species does occur on the Site.

Exhibit-H. Biological Resources Survey Report Vollmar Natural Lands Consulting Lazy K Ranch Mitigation Bank BEI 25 December 2012 Merced phacelia Merced phacelia is only known from eastern Merced County, with less than ten known occurrences maintained in CNDDB, many of which are suspected to be extirpated. This species appears on heavy adobe clay soils, open slopes and alkaline flats and at elevations between approximately 200 and 500 ft (Vollmar 2002). Additional microhabitat requirements of this species are generally poorly understood. Regional surveys by Vollmar et al in 2002 failed to detect any occurrences (including previously known) of this species. Due to its extreme rarity, it is likely that this species does not occur on the Site.

San Joaquin valley orcutt grass San Joaquin valley orcutt grass is a strict endemic of large vernal pools, ranging from approximately 1500ft2 to 12 acres and requires long periods of inundation to germinate. The majority of pools on the Site are smaller than the typical sized pool required for this species. It is likely that appropriate habitat for this species does not occur on the project Site.

Hoover’s spurge Hoover’s spurge is associated with larger pools along lower alluvial terrace formations. Only one occurrence is documented from Merced County, though three records exist across the county line in Stanislaus. The other occurrences are predominantly in the far northern portion of the Central Valley and two in Tulare County (CNPS 2009). Due to its extreme rarity, it is likely that this species does not occur on the Site.

Boggs Lake hedge-hyssop Boggs Lake hedge-hyssop inhabits vernal pools, seasonal stock ponds and fluctuating lake margins and is known from 13 counties throughout the Central Valley (Vollmar 2002). However, only one occurrence is known from Merced County. Due to its rarity in the County, it is unlikely that this species occurs on the Site.

Colusa grass Colusa grass is an Orcutt grass that requires a long inundation period and is therefore associated with large and/or deep vernal pools. Most of the Merced County occurrences are located in the central portion of the County. It is likely that the majority of the pools on the Site do not maintain the prolonged inundation period required for this species. However, it is possible that some of the larger pools may provide potential habitat for this species.

Hairy orcutt grass Hairy orcutt grass, as with the above listed Orcutt grasses, requires prolonged inundation and prefers larger vernal pools. As with Colusa grass, some of the larger pools on-Site could provide potential habitat for this species.

Hartweg’s golden sunburst Hartweg’s golden sunburst is a very rare species known from only two main areas, including a concentration on the Fresno-Madera County line and some occurrences in northeastern Merced and southeastern Stanislaus Counties. All occurrences are recorded from approximately 500ft elevation. The Site does not occur in either area of known occurrences, and sits roughly 170ft lower than this species’ preferred elevation. It is unlikely that this species occurs on the Site.

5.3.2 Animals

Valley elderberry longhorn beetle Surveys were not conducted for the Valley elderberry longhorn beetle (VELB) on the Site. This species is listed as Federal Threatened. Potential riparian habitat does occur on the Site. This species inhabits

Exhibit-H. Biological Resources Survey Report Vollmar Natural Lands Consulting Lazy K Ranch Mitigation Bank BEI 26 December 2012 elderberry shrub stems at least one inch in diameter at ground level. Elderberry bushes were mapped during vegetation mapping and riparian surveys, but further surveys would be required to determine the presence of VELB.

Western burrowing owl Western burrowing owl is known from other sites in Merced and Madera counties, including the adjacent Flynn Ranch. Though multiple small mammal burrows and potential habitat does occur on Site, burrowing owls were not observed. Further studies would be required to determine the presence of this species.

San Joaquin kit fox San Joaquin kit fox was not observed on the Project Site during extensive surveys in 2001. However, it is still possible that this species could use the upland habitat on the Site as corridor or foraging grounds. San Joaquin kit foxes are capable of long-range dispersal, especially young foxes that are leaving their natal territories (generally from June to November). Dispersal can occur during all times of the year, especially when facing environmental stresses such as human disturbance and a reduction in prey abundance. When adjacent suitable habitat is occupied or unavailable, kit fox dispersal range is generally expected to increase. The Biological Opinion issued for the 93-acre Preserve Site included in the Lazy K Ranch Project Site determined that the uplands are potential kit fox habitat. In addition, the Project Site lies within designated San Joaquin kit fox migration corridor and link habitat, critical for the survival and recovery of the species (USFWS 2006).

San Joaquin pocket mouse San Joaquin pocket mouse (Perognathus inornatus inornatus) was not observed during extensive small mammal live trapping during the 2001 surveys. This species was formerly listed by DFG as a California Species of Special Concern. In July 2009, DFG removed the San Joaquin pocket mouse from this list. Currently, this species is listed only by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) as a Sensitive species. This small mammal inhabits friable soils in grasslands and blue oak savannahs. Potential grassland habitat does occur on the Site.

Exhibit-H. Biological Resources Survey Report Vollmar Natural Lands Consulting Lazy K Ranch Mitigation Bank BEI 27 December 2012 6.0 CONCLUSIONS

The Project Site supports a particularly high density of special-status species and sensitive habitats. Approximately 107.2 acres of potential jurisdictional Waters of the US, including approximately 23.0 acres of other waters, were identified on the Site. A total of 970 potential jurisdictional features were identified. These features provide habitat for multiple special-status species including two plants, four large branchiopods and two amphibians. In addition, these wetland features support a high diversity of non-listed vernal pool indicator plants and aquatic invertebrates. The riparian habitat and oak woodlands bordering the Chowchilla River and Ash Slough provides potential habitat for a variety of birds and other riparian species. The grasslands support a rich assemblage of upland species, and provide forage areas and habitat for at least three listed species, including two birds, one small mammal and one large mammal. This high species richness is likely a result of the mosaic of habitats on multiple geologic formations, and the lack of historical disturbance to this Site. Of the 1,556 acres on the Site, only 185 have been leveled. The remaining acreage has been historically grazed (including the 61-acre irrigated pasture), likely contributing to the largely intact hydrology and species assemblages within the natural wetland complexes.

Exhibit-H. Biological Resources Survey Report Vollmar Natural Lands Consulting Lazy K Ranch Mitigation Bank BEI 28 December 2012 7.0 REFERENCES

CalFish. 2009. CalFish Data and Maps. Online inventory. http://www.calfish.org/FishDataandMaps

California Native Plant Society (CNPS). 2009. Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants (online edition, v7-09b). California Native Plant Society. Sacramento, CA. Accessed on Fri, Jun. 26, 2009 from http://www.cnps.org/inventory

California Natural Diversity Data Base (CNDDB). 2009. Special-status species occurrence records for the northeastern Merced County region. Non-game Heritage Division, California Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento, CA.

California Oak Foundation. 2006. California Oak Woodland Policies and Laws.

Dittes, John C. and Josephine L. Guardino. 2002. Rare Plants In J. Vollmar (Ed.) Wildlife and Rare Plant Ecology of Eastern Merced County’s Vernal Pool Grasslands. Vollmar Consulting. Berkeley, CA.

Helm, Brent P. and John E. Vollmar. 2002. Vernal Pool Large Branchiopods In J. Vollmar (Ed.) Wildlife and Rare Plant Ecology of Eastern Merced County’s Vernal Pool Grasslands. Vollmar Consulting. Berkeley, CA.

Hickman, James. 1993. The Jepson Manual: Higher Plants of California. University of California Press, Berkeley, CA.

Holland, Robert F. 1986. Preliminary Descriptions of the Terrestrial Natural Communities of California, Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento, CA.

Jennings, N.R. and M.P. Hayes. 1994. Amphibians and reptile species of special concern in California. Final report submitted to California Department of Fish and Game, Inland Fisheries Division. Rancho Cordova, CA. 255 p.

Laabs, D.M., Allaback, M.L. 2002. Small mammals. In J. Vollmar (Ed.) Wildlife and Rare Plant Ecology of Eastern Merced County’s Vernal Pool Grasslands. Vollmar Consulting. Berkeley, CA.

Laabs, D.M., Allaback, M.L., and S.G. Orloff. 2002. Pond and stream breeding amphibians. In J. Vollmar (Ed.) Wildlife and Rare Plant Ecology of Eastern Merced County’s Vernal Pool Grasslands. Vollmar Consulting. Berkeley, CA.

Orloff, Susan G. 2002. Medium and large mammals In J. Vollmar (Ed.) Wildlife and Rare Plant Ecology of Eastern Merced County’s Vernal Pool Grasslands. Vollmar Consulting. Berkeley, CA.

Sloat, Todd R. and Edward D. Whisler. 2002. Birds In J. Vollmar (Ed.) Wildlife and Rare Plant Ecology of Eastern Merced County’s Vernal Pool Grasslands. Vollmar Consulting. Berkeley, CA.

United States Fish and Wildlife Service. 2006. Map from Draft Report on San Joaquin Kit Fox.

United States Fish and Wildlife Service. 2003. Interim Guidance on Site Assessment and Field Surveys for Determining Presence or a Negative Finding of the California Tiger Salamander.

Exhibit-H. Biological Resources Survey Report Vollmar Natural Lands Consulting Lazy K Ranch Mitigation Bank BEI 29 December 2012 Vollmar, John E. 2002. Landscape setting. In J. Vollmar (Ed.) Wildlife and Rare Plant Ecology of Eastern Merced County’s Vernal Pool Grasslands. Vollmar Consulting. Berkeley, CA.

Vollmar, John E. (ed). 2002. Wildlife and Rare Plant Ecology of Eastern Merced County’s Vernal Pool Grasslands. Vollmar Consulting. Berkeley, CA.

Vollmar, John E. 2009. Personal communication regarding Swainson’s hawks observed on Project Site. Vollmar Consulting. Berkeley, CA.

Exhibit-H. Biological Resources Survey Report Vollmar Natural Lands Consulting Lazy K Ranch Mitigation Bank BEI 30 December 2012 APPENDIX A

PLANT SPECIES OBSERVED ON THE PROJECT SITE Appendix A. List of Plant Observed During Surveys at the Lazy K Ranch, Merced and Madera Counties, California. List Compiled by Vollmar Consulting 2006-2009. Scientific Name Common Name Achyrachaena mollis Blow wives Alopecurus carolinianus Carolina foxtail Amsinckia menziesii var. intermedia Common fiddleneck Amsinckia menziesii var. menziesii Menzies' fiddleneck Avena barbata Wild oats Brodiaea appendiculata Appendage brodiaea Brodiaea elegans Harvest brodiaea Bromus diandrus Ripgut brome Bromus hordeaceus Soft brome Bromus madritensis Compact brome Bromus rubens Red brome Callitriche marginata Water starwort Capsella bursa-pastoris Shepherd's purse Castilleja attenuata Attenuate Indian paintbrush Castilleja campestris ssp. succulenta Succulent owl's-clover Centromadia pungens Common tarweed Cicendia quadrangularis Oregon timwort Crassula aquatica Water pygmyweed Cynodon dactylon Bermuda grass Deschampsia danthonioides Annual hairgrass Dichelostemma capitatum Blue dicks Downingia bicornuta Doublehorn calicoflower Eleocharis macrostachya Pale spikerush Epilobium brachycarpum Fireweed Eremocarpus setigerus Turkey mullein Erodium botrys Longbeak stork's bill Erodium cicutarium Redstem stork's bill Erodium moschatum White-stem filaree Eryngium castrense Great valley button-celery Eryngium spinosepalum Spinysepal eryngo Filago gallica Narrowleaf cottonrose Glyceria declinata Waxy mannagrass Hirschfeldia incana Shortpod mustard Holocarpha virgata Yellowflower tarweed Hordeum marinum Seaside barley Hordeum marinum ssp. gussonianum Mediterranean barley Hypochaeris glabra Smooth cat's ear Juncus bufonius Toad rush Juncus effusus Soft rush Lactuca serriola Prickly lettuce Lasthenia fremontii Fremont's goldfields Lemna minor Duckweed Leontodon taraxacoides Lesser hawkbit Lepidium nitidum Shining pepperweed Lilaea scilloides Awl-leaf lilaea Scientific Name Common Name Limnanthes alba Meadowfoam Lolium multiflorum Italian rye Lotus humistratus Hill lotus Lotus wrangelianus Calf lotus Lupinus bicolor Miniature lupine Lythrum hyssopifolium Hyssop loosestrife Matricaria discoidea Disc mayweed Medicago polymorpha Burclover Mimulus tricolor Tricolor monkeyflower Myosurus minimus Little mousetails Paspalum dilatatum Dallis grass Paspalum distichum Knotgrass Phalaris lemmonii Lemmon's canarygrass Plagiobothrys acanthocarpus Adobe popcornflower Plagiobothrys fulvus Fulvous popcornflower Plagiobothrys greenei Greene's popcornflower Plagiobothrys nothofulvus Rusty popcornflower Plagiobothrys stipitatus micranthus Stalked popcornflower Plagiobothrys stipitatus var. micranthus Stalked popcornflower Plantago erecta Dotseed plantain Poa annua Annual bluegrass Pogogyne ziziphoroides Sacramento mesamint Polygonum lapathifolium Curly knotweed Polypogon monspeliensis Rabbitsfoot grass Populus fremontii Fremont cottonwood Psilocarphus brevissimus Short woollyheads Psilocarphus brevissimus var. brevissimus Short woollyheads Psilocarphus oregonus Oregon woollyheads Psilocarphus tenellus Slender woollyheads Quercus douglasii Blue oak Quercus lobata Valley oak Rumex crispus Curly dock Salix lasiolepis Arroyo willow Senecio vulgaris Old-man-in-the-Spring Trichostema lanceolatum Vinegarweed Trifolium ciliolatum Foothill clover Trifolium depauperatum Cowbag clover Trifolium gracilentum Pinpoint clover Trifolium hirtum Red clover Trifolium microcephalum Smallhead clover Trifolium variegatum Whitetip clover Triphysaria eriantha Johnnytuck Triteleia hyacinthina White brodiaea Triteleia laxa Ithuriel's spear Tropidocarpum gracile Dobiepod Tuctoria greenei Greene's tuctoria Typha latifolia Broadleaf cattail Scientific Name Common Name Vicia villosa Winter vetch Vulpia bromoides Brome fescue Vulpia myuros Rat-tail fescue Xanthium strumarium Cocklebur APPENDIX B

REPRESENTATIVE PROJECT SITE PHOTOGRAPHS Appendix B. Photographs of Lazy K Ranch Project Site, Merced and Madera Counties. Vollmar Consulting, 2009.

Photo 1: Flashy vernal pool on Riverbank Formation upper terrace

Photo 2: Large, deep pool with low inundation Appendix B. Photographs of Lazy K Ranch Project Site, Merced and Madera Counties. Vollmar Consulting, 2009.

Photo 3: Vernal pool on upper terrace, N side of Site

Photo 4: Created pool on N side of Site Appendix B. Photographs of Lazy K Ranch Project Site, Merced and Madera Counties. Vollmar Consulting, 2009.

Photo 5: Large vernal pool on Turlock Lake Formation

Photo 6: Burrow complex on N side of Site Appendix B. Photographs of Lazy K Ranch Project Site, Merced and Madera Counties. Vollmar Consulting, 2009.

Photo 7: Cracked mud on pool bottom

Photo 8: Vernal pool vegetation on pool bottom Appendix B. Photographs of Lazy K Ranch Project Site, Merced and Madera Counties. Vollmar Consulting, 2009.

Photo 9: Western spadefoot tadpole in vernal pool

Photo 10: Horses grazing on central portion of Site Appendix B. Photographs of Lazy K Ranch Project Site, Merced and Madera Counties. Vollmar Consulting, 2009.

Photo 11: Turlock Lake and Riverbank formations, hillslopes and vernal pools

Photo 12: Hillslope uplands on N portion of Site Appendix B. Photographs of Lazy K Ranch Project Site, Merced and Madera Counties. Vollmar Consulting, 2009.

Photo 13: Upper floodplain of Chowchilla River, stands of Valley oaks

Photo 14: Channel and immediate floodplain of Chowchilla River Appendix B. Photographs of Lazy K Ranch Project Site, Merced and Madera Counties. Vollmar Consulting, 2009.

Photo 15: Pool and debris in Chowchilla River main channel

Photo 16: Seasonal wetland in Chowchilla River main channel