APPENDIX a South Mather Management Plan Expert Reviewers

APPENDIX A South Mather Management Plan Expert Reviewers

APPENDIX A SOUTH MATHER MANAGEMENT PLAN EXPERT REVIEWERS

Dr. Michael Barbour Dr. Robin Thorpe Department of Plant Sciences Professor Emeritus, Department of Entomology University of California, Davis University of California, Davis 2230 PES One Shields Ave. Davis, CA 95616 Davis, CA 95616 (530) 752-2956 (530) 752-0482 [email protected] [email protected] Specialty: Vernal Pool Floristics, Plant Ecology Specialty: Vernal Pool Pollinator Biology and Ecology

Dr. James Bartolome Division of Ecosystem Sciences Department of Environmental Science, Policy, and Management University of California, Berkeley 321 Hilgard Hall Berkeley California 94720-3114 (510) 642-7945 [email protected] Specialty: Grassland Ecology and Management

Dr. Joseph DiTomaso University of California Cooperative Extension Specialist, Non-Crop Weeds and Director of the Weed Research and Information Center Department of Plant Sciences University of California, Davis 160 Robbins Hall Davis, CA 95616 (530) 754-8715 [email protected] Specialty: Invasive Plant Ecology and Management

Mr. Richard Hill, SEP Biological Studies Unit PO Box 942874 MS27 Sacramento CA USA 94274-0001 (916) 653-8417 [email protected] Specialty: Vernal Pool Invertebrate Taxonomy and Ecology

Dr. H. Bradley Shaffer Department of Evolution and Ecology (College of Biological Sciences) Director, Center for Population Biology University of California, Davis 3208 Storer Hall Davis, CA 95616 (530) 752-2939 [email protected] Specialty: Amphibian Taxonomy and Ecology

Sacramento County Economic Development Department South Mather Wetlands Management Plan A-1 South Mather Management Plan Expert Reviewers

APPENDIX B Management Resources and References

APPENDIX B MANAGEMENT RESOURCES AND REFERENCES

CHAPTER ONE

General Vernal Pool References

California Native Plant Society.1996. Wetland and Vernal Pool Issues, CNPS Internet Links. California Native Plant Society. .

Fiedler, P. L. 2001. Bibliography: Vernal Pools and Related Wetland Ecosystems of California, Southwestern Oregon, and Northern Baja California, Mexico. Department of Biology, San Francisco State University.

Ikeda, D. H, and R. A. Schlising. 1990. Vernal Pool Plants: Their Habitat and Biology. Studies from the Herbarium California State University Chico, CA. No. 8.

Jain, S., and P. Moyle. 1981. Vernal Pools and Intermittent Streams. A Symposium sponsored by the Institute of Ecology, University of California, Davis. Institute of Ecology Publication. No. 28.

Jones and Stokes Associates, Inc. 1990. Sacramento County Vernal Pools: Their Distribution, Classification, Ecology, and Management. Prepared for the County of Sacramento, Planning and Community Department, Sacramento, California.

Holland, R. F., and S. Jain. 1977. Vernal pools. Pages 515–533 in M. Barbour and J. Major (eds.), Terrestrial Vegetation of California. University of California Press. Berkeley, CA.

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

Keeley, J. E., and P. H. Zelder. 1998. Characterization and Global Distribution of Vernal Pools. Pages 1–14 in C. W. Wintham, E. T. Bauder, D. Belk, W. R. Ferren Jr., and R. Ornduff (eds.), Ecology, Conservation, and Management of Vernal Pool Ecosystems-Preceedings from a 1996 Conference. California Native Plant Society, Sacramento, CA.

Schlising, R.A. and D.G. Alexander. 2007. Vernal Pool Landscapes. CSU Chico Studies from the Herbarium #14. Chico, CA.

VernalPools.org. 2007. California Vernal Pools: a collection of information and resources. .

Witham, C. W., E. T. Bauder, D. Delk, W. R. Ferren Jr., and R. Ornduff (eds.). 1998. Ecology, Conservation, and Management of Vernal Pool Ecosystem. Preceedings from a 1996 Conference. California Native Plant Society, Sacramento, CA.

Zedler, P. H. 1987. The Ecology of California Vernal Pools: A Community Profile. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Report 85 (7.11), U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C.

Local Government Agencies

County of Sacramento Airport System. Sacramento International Airport 6900 Airport Boulevard, Sacramento, CA 95837. (916) 929-5411. < http://www.sacairports.org/int/about/contact.html >.

Sacramento County Economic Development Department South Mather Wetlands Management Plan B-1 Management Resources and References County of Sacramento, Department of Economic Development. 700 H Street, Room 7650, Sacramento, CA 95814-1280. (916) 874-5220. .

County of Sacramento, Department of Regional Parks. 3711 Branch Center Road, Sacramento, CA 95827. (916) 875-6961. < http://www.sacparks.net/>.

CHAPTER 2

Hydrology

Fogg, G. E., T. Harter, R. A. Dahlgren, and R. J. Williamson. 2005. The Role of Perched Aquifers in Hydrological Connectivity and Biogeochemical Processes in Vernal Pool Landscapes, Central Valley, California. Hydrological Processes 20(5): 1157–1175.

Hanes, T., and L. P. Stromberg. 1998. Hydrology of vernal pools on non-volcanic soils in the Sacramento Valley. Pages 38–49 in C. Witham, E. T. Bauder, D. Belk, W. R. Ferren Jr., and R. Ornduff (eds.), Ecology, Conservation, and Management of Vernal Pool Ecosystems. Proceedings from a 1996 Conference. California Native Plant Society, Sacramento, CA.

Haines, W. T., B. Hecht, and L. P Stromberg. 1990. Water relationships of vernal pools in the Sacramento region, California. Pages 49–60 in D. H. Ikeda and R. A. Schlising (eds.), Vernal Pool Plants-Their Habitat and Biology. Studies from the Herbarium, California State University, Chico, CA. Number 8.

Williamson, R. J., G. E. Fogg, M. C. Rains, and T. H. Harter. 2005. Hydrology of Vernal Pools at Three Sites, Southern Sacramento Valley. Department of Land, Air, and Water Resources, Hydrologic Sciences Graduate Group. University of California, Davis, CA.

Soils and Geomorphology

Helley, E. J. and D. S. Harwood. 1985. Geologic Map of the Late Cenozoic Deposits of the Sacramento Valley and Northeastern Sierran Foothills, California. Miscellaneous Field Studies Map MF-1790. U. U. Geological Survey.

Hobson W. A. and R. A. Dahlgren. 1998. Soil forming processes in vernal pools of northern California, Chico area. Pages 224–235 in C. W. Witham, E. T. Bauder, D. Belk, W. R. Ferren Jr., and R. Ornduff (eds.). Ecology, conservation and management of vernal pool ecosystems – Proceedings from a 1996 Conference. California Native Plant Society. Sacramento, CA.

Holland, R. F. 1978. The Geographic and Edaphic Distribution of Vernal Pools in the Great Central Valley, California. California Native Plant Society, Fair Oaks, CA.

Holland, R. F., and V. I. Dains. 1990. The Edaphic Factor in Vernal Pool Vegetation. Pages 31–48 in D. H. Ikeda and R. A. Schlising (eds.), Vernal pool plants-their habitat and biology.

Platenkamp, G. A. 1998. Patterns of Vernal Pool Biodiversity at Beale Air Force Base. Pages 151–160 in C. W. Witham, E. T. Bauder, D. Delk, W. R. Ferren Jr., and R. Ornduff (eds.). 1998. Ecology, Conservation, and Management of Vernal Pool Ecosystem - Preceedings from a 1996 Conference. California Native Plant Society, Sacramento, CA.

Smith, D. W., and W. L. Verrill. 1998. Vernal pool-soil-landform relationships in the Central Valley, California. Pages 15–23 in C. W. Witham, E. T. Bauder, D. Belk, W. R. Ferren Jr. and R. Ornduff (eds.). Ecology, conservation and management of vernal pool ecosystems – Proceedings from a 1996 conference. California Native Plant Society. Sacramento, CA.

Sacramento County Economic Development Department Management Resources and References B-2 South Mather Wetlands Management Plan CHAPTER 3

Barbour, M., A. Solomeshch, C. Withham, R. Holland, R. Macdonald, S. Cilliers, J. A. Molina, J. Buck, and J. Hillman. 2003. Vernal pool vegetation in California: variation within pools. Madrono 50(3).

Barr, C. B. 1991. The Distribution, Habitat, and Status of the Valley Elderberry Longhorn Beetle Desmocerus californicus dimorphus Fisher (Insecta: Coleoptera: Cerambycidae). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Sacramento, CA.

Bliss, S. A., and P. H. Zedler. 1998. The germination process in vernal pools: sensitivity to environmental conditions and effects on community structure. Oecolgia 113:67–73.

CPIF (California Partners in Flight). 2000. Version 1.0. The draft grassland bird conservation plan: a strategy for protecting and managing grassland habitats and associated birds in California (B. Allen, lead author). Point Reyes Bird Observatory, Stinson Beach, CA. < http://www.prbo.org/calpif/plans.html>

Crampton, B. 1959. The grass genera Orcuttia and Neostapfia: A study in habitat and morphological specialization. Madrono 15:97–110.

Crampton, B. 1976. Rare grasses in a vanishing habitat. Fremontia 4:22–23.

Eriksen, C. H., and D. Belk, 1999. Fairy Shrimps of California’s Puddles, Pools, and Playas. Mad River Press, Inc. Eureka, CA.

Fisher, R., and H. Shaffer. 1996. The decline of amphibians in California’s Great Central Valley. Conservation Biology 10(5):1387–1397.

Griggs, F. T. 1981. Life histories of vernal pool annual grasses, Fremontia 9(1):14–17.

Griggs, F. T. 1984. A strategy for the conservation of the genus Orcuttia. Pages 255–262 in S. Jain and P. Moyle (eds.), Vernal Pools and Intermittent Streams. Institute of Ecology No. 28, University of California, Davis, CA.

Helm, B. P. 1998. Biogeography of eight large branchiopods endemic to California. Pages 124–139 in C. W. Witham, E. T. Bauder, D. Belk, W. R. Ferren Jr., and R. Ornduff (eds.), Ecology, Conservation and Management of Vernal Pool Ecosystems – Proceedings from a 1996 Conference. California Native Plant Society. Sacramento, CA.

Holland, R. F.1978. The geographic and edaphic distribution of vernal pools in the Great Central Valley, California. (Special Publication No. 3) California Native Plant Society. Berkeley, CA.

Holland, R. F., and V. I. Dains. 1990. The Edaphic Factor in Vernal Pool Vegetation. Pages 31–48 in D. H. Ikeda and R. A. Schlising (eds.), Vernal pool plants-their habitat and biology. Studies from the Herbarium, California State University, Chico, CA. Number 8.

Holland, R. F., and S. K. Jain. 1981. Insular Biogeography of Vernal Pools in the Central Valley of California. American Naturalist 117:24–37.

Morey, S, and D. Reznick. 2001. Effects of larval density on postmetamorphic spadefoot toads (Spea

Sacramento County Economic Development Department South Mather Wetlands Management Plan B-3 Management Resources and References Morey, S. R. 1998. Pool duration influences age and body mass at metamorphosis in the Western Spadefoot Toad: implications for vernal pool conservation. Pages 86–91 in C. W. Witham, E. T. Bauder, D. Belk, W. R. Ferren Jr., and R. Ornduff (eds.), Ecology, Conservation and Management of Vernal Pool Ecosystems – Proceedings from a 1996 Conference. California Native Plant Society. Sacramento, CA.

Reeder, J. R. 1982. Systematics of the tribe Orcuttieae (Gramineae) and the description of a new segregate genus, Tuctoria. American Journal of Botany 69:1082–1095.

Stebbins, R. C. 1972. California amphibians and reptiles. University of California Press, Berkeley.

Stone, D. R. 1990. California’s endemic vernal pool plants: some factors influencing their rarity and endangerment. Pages 89–107 in D. H. Ikeda and R. A. Schlising (eds.), Vernal pool plants-their habitat and biology. Studies from the Herbarium, California State University, Chico, CA. Number 8.

Zeiner, D. C., W. F. Laudenslayer, K. E. Mayer, and M. White (eds). 1988–1990. California’s Wildlife Volumes I, II, and III. California Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento, CA.

CHAPTER 5

Heady, H. F., J. W. Bartolome, M. D. Pitt, G. D. Savelle, and M. C. Stroud. 1991. California prairie. Pages 313– 335 in R. T. Coupland (ed.). Ecosystems of the World 8A: Natural Grasslands Introduction and Western Hemisphere. Elsevier Press. Amsterdam.

Holling, C. S, (ed.). (1978). Adaptive Environmental Assessment and Management. John Wiley & Sons. London.

Huenneke, L. F., and H. A. Mooney. 1989. Grassland Structure and Function. Kluwer Academic Publishers. Boston, MA.

Jackson, R. D., and J. W. Bartolome. 2002. A state-transition approach to understanding nonequilibrium plant community dynamics in California grasslands. Plant Ecology 162:49–65.

Jenny, H. 1941. The Factors of Soil Formation. McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.

Major, J. 1951. A functional, factorial approach to plant ecology. Ecology 32:392–412.

Pitt, M. D., and H. F. Heady. 1978. Responses of annual vegetation to temperature and rainfall patterns in Northern California. Ecology 59(2):336–350.

Stromberg, M.R., J.D. Corbin, and C.M. D’Antonio. 2007. California Grasslands: Ecology and Management. University of California Press. Berkeley, CA.

Walters, C. 1986. Adaptive Management of Renewable Resources. MacMillan Press. New York, NY.

Yaffee, S. L., A. Phillips, I. C. Frentz, P. W. Hardy, S. Maleki, and B. Thorpe. 1996. Ecosystem Management in the United States: An Assessment of Current Experience. Island Press. Washington, DC.

Westoby, M., B. Walker, and I. Noy-Meir. 1989. Opportunistic management for rangelands not at equilibrium. Journal of Range Management 42(4):266–274.

Sacramento County Economic Development Department Management Resources and References B-4 South Mather Wetlands Management Plan Grazing

Barry, S. F. 1998. Managing the Sacramento vernal pool landscape to sustain native flora. Pages 236–240 in C. Witham, E. T. Bauder, D. Belk, W. R. Ferren Jr., and R. Ornduff (eds.). Ecology, conservation, and management of vernal pool ecosystems. Proceedings from a 1996 Conference. California Native Plant Society, Sacramento, CA.

Bartolome, J. W., W. E. Frost, N. K. McDougald, and M. Conner. 2001. California guidelines for residual dry matter (RDM) management on coastal and foothill annual rangelands. Rangeland Monitoring Series, 8092. University of California Davis, California Rangelands Research and Information Center.

Bartolome, J. W., M. C. Stroud, and H. F. Heady. 1980. Influence of natural mulch on forage production on differing California annual range sites. Journal of Range Management 33(1).

Bentley, J. R., and M. W. Talbot. 1951. Efficient use of annual plants on cattle ranges in California foothills. US Dep. Agr., Circ. No. 870.

D’Antonio, C., S. Bainbridge, C. Kennedy, J. Bartolome, and S. Reynolds. Undated. Ecology and restoration of California grasslands with special emphasis on the influence of fire and grazing on native grassland species. Department of Integrative Biology and Department of Environmental Science, Policy, and Management, University of California Berkeley.

Heady, H. F. 1956. Changes in a California annual plant community induced by manipulation of natural mulch. Ecology 37(4):798–812.

Holechek, J. L., R. D. Pieper, and C. H. Herbel. 2001. Range Management: Principles and Practices. Prentice Hall, NJ.

Marty, J. T. 2004. Vernal pools are at home on the range. National Wetlands Newsletter 26(4):12–14.

Marty, J. T. 2005. Effects of cattle grazing on diversity in ephemeral wetlands. Conservation Biology 19(5):1626– 1632.

Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2006. National Range and Pasture Handbook. .

Pyke, C. R., and J. T. Marty. 2005. Cattle grazing mediates climate change impacts on ephemeral wetlands. Conservation Biology 19(5):1619–1625.

Goat Contractors

Terry & Vera Adams, T & V Livestock. Corning, CA. [email protected], (530) 824-3402 (office), (530) 567-5006 (cell).

Charles Richardson. Stewarts Point, CA. [email protected], (707)785-9104 (office).

Roy & Julie Austin, Goat Central. El Dorado, CA. (530) 621-2920 (office), .

Alisa Carlson and Gary Gregory, Cow Mountain Kiko Goats. Lakeport, CA. [email protected], (707) 262- 1577 (office).

Robert and Dee McGrew, Eco Systems Concepts, Inc. Dixon, CA. (707) 693-1989 (office).

Sacramento County Economic Development Department South Mather Wetlands Management Plan B-5 Management Resources and References Terri Holleman, Goats R Us. Orinda, CA. (510) 526-3337 (office), .

Lynn Covington and Bert Vezien, GoatWeedEaters.com. Isleton, CA. [email protected], (916) 777- 4591 (office), .

Brad & Alana Fowler, The Goat Works. Penn Valley, CA. [email protected], (530) 906-0338 (office), .

Living Systems Land Management, LLC. San Francisco, CA. (415) 845-6747 (office), .

Fire

DiTomaso, J. M., M. L. Brooks, E. B. Allen, R. Minnich, P. M. Rice, and G. B. Kyser. 2006. Control of invasive weeds with prescribed burning. Weed Technology 20(2):535–548.

DiTomaso, J. M., K. L. Heise, G. B. Kyser, A. M. Merenlender, and R. J. Keiffer. 2001. Carefully timed burning can control barb goatgrass. California Agriculture, November–December 2001. .

DiTomaso, J. M., G. B. Kyser, and M. S. Hastings. 1999. Prescribed burning for control of yellow starthistle (Centaurea solstitialis) and enhanced native plant diversity. Weed Science 47(2):233–42.

Hervey, D. F. 1949. Reaction of a California annual-plant community to fire. Journal of Range Management 2:116–121.

Hopkinson, P., J. S. Fehmi, and J. W. Bartolome, et al. 1999. Adaptive management and fire control of barb goatgrass. Resource Management Notes 17(3):168–169.

McKell, C. C., B. I. Wilson, and B. L. Kay. 1962. Effective burning of rangelands infested with medusahead. Weeds 10:125–131.

The Nature Conservancy. 2007. Global Fire Initiative. The Nature Conservancy. .

Pollak, O., and T. Kan. 1998. The Use of prescribed fire to control invasive exotic weeds at Jepson Prairie Preserve. Pages 241–249 in C.W. Witham, E. T. Bauder, D. Delk, W. R. Ferren Jr., and R. Ornduff (eds). 1998. Ecology, Conservation, and Management of Vernal Pool Ecosystem-Preceedings from a 1996 Conference. California Native Plant Society, Sacramento, CA.

U.S. Forest Service. 2007. Fire Effects Information System. U.S. Department of Agriculture. .

Young, J. A., R. A. Evans, and J. Robinson. 1972. Influence of repeated annual burning on a medusahead community. Journal of Range Management 25:372–375.

Sacramento County Economic Development Department Management Resources and References B-6 South Mather Wetlands Management Plan Prescribed Fire Implementation Contractors

National Wildland Fire Suppression Association List of Member Firms. .

Mountaineers Fire Crews. Redding, CA. [email protected], (530) 365-9128.

Ore-Cal Fire. Redding, CA. [email protected], (530) 221-5528.

FireStorm Wildland Fire Suppression. Chico, CA. (530) 898-8153, .

Abel Fire Equipment. Diamond Springs, CA. [email protected], (800)798-1923.

Fire Stop. Walnut Grove, CA. (916) 776-4667.

Invasive Plants

California Invasive Plants Council (Cal-IPC). 1442-A Walnut St., #462 Berkeley, CA 94709. (510) 217-3500. < http://www.cal-ipc.org/>.

DiTomaso, J.M. and E.A. Healy. 2006. Weeds of California and Other Western States. Univ. California, DANR. Publ. #3488. Oakland, CA.

The Nature Conservancy. 2005. The Global Invasive Species Initiative Weed Information Management System (WIMS). .

North American Weed Management Association. P.O. Box 1910, 461 E. Agate, Granb, CO 80446-1910. (907) 887–1228. < http://www.nawma.org/>.

Whitson, T. D., L. C. Burrill, S. A. Dewey, D. W. Cudney, B. E. Nelson, R. D. Lee, and R. Parker. 2001. Weeds of the West. Western Society of Weed Science, Newark, CA.

California Department of Food and Agriculture. Encycloweedia: Notes on Identification, Biology, and Management of Plants Defined as Noxious Weeds by California Law. .

California Department of Food and Agriculture. Integrated Pest Control. < http://www.cdfa.ca.gov/phpps/ipc/>.

University of California Cooperative Extension. Weed Research and Information Center. .

California Weed Mapping Handbook. .

Bio-Integral Resource Center (BIRC). Noxious Weed Integrated Vegetation Management Guide. .

Riley, Becky. 1995. “Hot water: a “cool” new weed control method.” Journal of Pesticide Reform 15(1) 9. .

Hewitt, M, K. Bullen, and D. George. 1998. “Comparison of three weed control methods: chemical, flame and hot water.” The Australian Society of Agronomy. .

Sacramento County Economic Development Department South Mather Wetlands Management Plan B-7 Management Resources and References Herbicide Information

Oregon State University, Cornell University, UC Davis, University of Idaho, and Michigan State University Toxicology Information for Selected Herbicides. .

The Nature Conservancy Wildland Weed Handbook Herbicide Profiles. .

Pesticide Action Network Herbicide Information. .

Label Instruction Searches from CDMS (Search by Brand Name). .

Telar Herbicide Info from Dupont. .

Aquamaster Herbicide Information from Monsanto. . .

Transline Herbicide Info from Dow AgroSciences .

Dicamba (aka Banvel) Info from Spectrum Laboratories. .

Rodeo Herbicide Information from Dow AgroSciences. .

Garlon Herbicide Information from Dow AgroSciences. .

Licensed Pest Control Advisors/Qualified Applicators

California Department of Pesticide Regulation Official List of Licensed Applicators. .

Local Government Agencies

Sacramento Metropolitan Fire District. 2101 Hurley Way, Sacramento, CA 95825-4000. (800) 660-0290. .

Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District. 777 12th Street 3rd Floor, Sacramento, CA 95814- 1908. (916) 874-4800 or (800) 880-9025. .

CHAPTER 6

Brown, D., and R. J. Karsky. 1988. Facilities for Watering Livestock and Wildlife. U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service Technology and Development Program and Society for Range Management. Missoula Technology Development Center. Missoula, MT.

Karsky, R. 1988. Fences. U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service Technology and Development Program and Society for Range Management. Missoula Technology Development Center. Missoula, MT.

Sacramento County Economic Development Department Management Resources and References B-8 South Mather Wetlands Management Plan Leyse, K. F., S. P. Lawler, and T. Strange. 2004. Effects of an alien fish, Gambusia affinis, on an endemic California fairy shrimp, Linderiella occidentalis: implications for conservation of diversity in fishless waters. Biological Conservation 118(1):57–65.

McBratney, B., and R. Karsky. 1987. Facilities for Sheltering and Handling Livestock. U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service Technology and Development Program and Society for Range Management. Missoula Technology Development Center. Missoula, MT.

Local Government Agencies

Frank Carl, Agricultural Commissioner and Director of Weights and Measures. 4137 Branch Center Road. Sacramento, CA 95827. (916) 875-6603. .

Municipal Services Agency, Animal Care and Regulation. 4290 Bradshaw Road. Sacramento, CA 95827. (916) 368-7387. .

Sacramento-Yolo Mosquito and Vector Control District. 8631 Bond Road. Elk Grove, CA 95624. (916) 685-1022. .

Wildlife Services, Agricultural Commissioner and Director of Weights and Measures. 4137 Branch Center Road. Sacramento, CA 95827. (916) 875-6603. .

Native Plant Nurseries/Seed Sources

CNPS Internet Links: Native Plant Nurseries. .

Hedgerow Farms. 21740 County Road 88. Winters, CA 95694. (530) 662-6847. .

Cornflower Farms. P.O. Box 896. Elk Grove, CA 95759. (916) 689-1015. .

Bitterroot Restoration Inc. 55 Sierra College Blvd. Lincoln, CA 95648. (530) 745-9814. .

Conservaseed. P.O. Box 455. Rio Vista, CA 94571. (916) 775-1676.

S & S Seeds. P.O. Box 1275. Carpinteria, CA 93014. (805) 684-0436. .

The Theodore Payne Foundation for Wildflowers and Native Plants, Inc. 10459 Tuxford Street. Sun Valley, CA 91352. (818) 768-1802. .

California Native Plant Link Exchange .

Chapter 7

Restoration Funding Sources

North American Wetlands Conservation Act Grants. .

Sacramento County Economic Development Department South Mather Wetlands Management Plan B-9 Management Resources and References United States Fish and Wildlife Service Grants. .

California Wildlife Conservation Board Grants.

Natural Resources Conservation Service Conservation Innovation Grants. .

Links to Funding Opportunities from the California Waterfowl Association. < http://www.calwaterfowl.org/web2/leftcolumnmenu/habitatservices/fundingopps.htm >.

National Park Service Funding Sources for Restoration Projects. < http://www.nps.gov/plants/restore/funding.htm >.

CHAPTER 8

Sacramento SPLASH. .

CHAPTER 10

Monitoring Technical References

Anderson, E. W., and W. F. Currier. 1973. Evaluating zones of utilization. Journal of Range Management 26(2)87–91.

Bentley, J. R., and M. W. Talbot. 1951. Efficient use of annual plants on cattle ranges in the California foothills. USDA Circ. 870.

California Weed Mapping Handbook. .

Clawson, W. J. (ed.). 1991. Monitoring California’s annual rangeland vegetation. University of California Cooperative Extension Leaflet 21486. Oakland, CA.

[CNPS] California Native Plant Society Vegetation Committee. 2000. California Native Plant Society Releve Protocol. Sacramento, CA. .

Elzinga, C. L., D. W. Salzer, and J. W. Willoughby. 1998. Measuring and Monitoring Plant Populations. U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management Technical Reference 1730-1. Denver, CO.

Elzinga, C. L., D. W. Salzer, J. W. Willoughby, and J. P. Gibbs. 2001. Monitoring Plant and Animal Populations. Blackwell Science, Inc. Malden, MA.

Friedel, M. H., V. H. Chewings, and G. N. Bastin. 1988. The use of comparative yield and dry-weight-rank techniques for monitoring arid rangeland. Journal of Range Management 41(5):430–435.

Hall, F. C. 2002. Photo point monitoring handbook: Part A-field procedures. U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service Pacific Northwest Research Station General Technical Report 526. Portland, OR.

Hall, F. C. 2002. Photo point monitoring handbook: Part B-concepts and analysis. U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service Pacific Northwest Research Station General Technical Report 526. Portland, OR.

Heady, H. F. 1949. Methods of determining utilization of range forage. Journal of Range Management 2:53–63.

Sacramento County Economic Development Department Management Resources and References B-10 South Mather Wetlands Management Plan Interagency Technical Team. 1996. Sampling vegetation attributes. U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management. Denver, CO.

Interagency Technical Team. 1996. Utilization studies and residual measurements. U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management. Denver, CO.

Point Reyes Bird Observatory Monitoring Field Methods for Song Birds. .

Ralph, C. J., G. R. Geupel, P. Pyle, T. E. Martin, and D. F. DeSante. 1993. Handbook of field methods for monitoring landbirds. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR-144. Albany, CA: Pacific Southwest Research Station, Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture.

Ratliff, R. D., and W. E. Frost. 1990. Estimating botanical composition by the dry-weight-rank method in California’s annual grasslands. U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service Pacific Southwest Research Station Research Note PSW-410. Berkeley, CA.

Robel, R. J., J. N. Briggs, A. D. Dayton, and L. C. Hubert. 1970. Relationship between visual obstruction measurements and weight of grassland vegetation. Journal of Range Management. 23:295–297.

Sacramento County Economic Development Department South Mather Wetlands Management Plan B-11 Management Resources and References This page intentionally left blank.

Sacramento County Economic Development Department Management Resources and References B-12 South Mather Wetlands Management Plan APPENDIX C Initial Management Plan

APPENDIX C INITIAL MANAGEMENT PLAN

INTRODUCTION

The following describes an initial management plan for the 5 to 10-year preserve management period following creation of the South Mather Wetlands Preserve (Wetlands Preserve). A Draft Wetlands Management Plan (Draft Management Plan) (AECOM 2010) has been developed for the Wetlands Preserve that describes management goals and objectives, guidelines for ongoing management activities (grazing, weed control, etc.), maintenance needs, and monitoring methods. The Draft Management Plan was developed, in consultation with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (Agencies) to provide maximum flexibility for the Preserve Manager in implementing specific management actions, subject to the guidelines defined in the Draft Management Plan, in response to changing resource conditions and evolving management needs.

Management approaches were intentionally not described in detail within the Draft Management Plan. Relative to many other wetland preserves in the Central Valley, the Wetlands Preserve is unique because it has been largely unmanaged over an approximately 80-year period; thus, there is not an existing management regime that can be adapted in developing a perpetual stewardship approach. Furthermore, the Wetlands Preserve has a long history of public use, both for recreational and educational purposes, and existing users of the Wetlands Preserve have a vested interest in the perpetual stewardship of the Wetlands Preserve. Therefore, initial management of the Wetlands Preserve should focus on a phased approach to management action implementation, coupled with strategic data collection and analysis within an adaptive management framework. This initial management plan has been developed to guide management actions during this initial management period. Data collected during this period will be used to both develop an adequate, site-specific basis for perpetual stewardship approaches and to demonstrate to existing stakeholder groups and the Sacramento community those management actions that will maintain and enhance the Wetlands Preserve’s existing ecological resources and explore potential public uses.

WORK PLAN OVERVIEW AND FUNDING

The initial management plan is divided into two main sections: initial study descriptions, and descriptions of routine maintenance and monitoring activities. Studies to be completed during the initial management period include 1) a grazing management study to determine the most effective grazing strategy that will achieve the goals of the Draft Management Plan; 2) an invasive plant baseline assessment leading to development of an invasive plant treatment plan to achieve the goals of the Draft Management Plan; and, 3) exploration of potential public uses that do not conflict with ecological values of the Wetlands Preserve leading to development of a public access master plan. Initial studies are designed to provide background information and data that are currently lacking and that are required to develop a perpetual stewardship approach. Specific management questions to be addressed by these three initial studies, and Wetlands Preserve management goals related to these questions (see Chapter 1 of the Draft Management Plan), are summarized in Table 1.

Aside from completion of these three focused studies, management activities completed during the initial 5 to 10 year management period include various routine Wetlands Preserve maintenance activities such as public access and coordination (e.g., control of unauthorized public use such as ATV use), trash collection and disposal, general inspections and biological monitoring of the Wetlands Preserve (including conservation easement compliance monitoring), and regulatory agency reporting. All maintenance and management activities discussed in this interim work plan will follow the general management practice guidelines described in the Draft Management Plan. Sacramento County will revise the Draft Management Plan at the end of the initial management period to incorporate the results of the grazing, invasive plant, and public access studies, in addition to other information or

Sacramento County Economic Development Department South Mather Wetlands Management Plan C-1 Preliminary Work Plan data developed during this 5 to 10 year period as needed to reflect the best available scientific information on the proper management of the Wetlands Preserve.

Table 1 Initial Work Plan Management Questions

Initial Study Primary Management Question(s) Related Wetlands Preserve Management Goal(s)

Grazing Study Does livestock grazing increase the distribution, dominance, or NR-1, NR-2, NR-4, diversity of native plants compared to non-native plant within vernal NR-5 pool grasslands? Do these potential effects of grazing very between major ecological sites (i.e., loam stream terrace ecological sites and gravelly loam ecological site, see discussion below)?

Does livestock grazing increase the duration of inundation during the pool wet phase (generally November though May) within vernal pool wetlands? Does this potential effect of grazing vary between major ecological sites?

Does livestock grazing increase the diversity of invertebrate taxa within vernal pool wetlands? Does this potential effect of grazing vary between major ecological sites?

Invasive Plant What is the current distribution of invasive plants across the Wetlands NR-1, NR-2 Baseline Preserve? Assessment and Management Which populations of invasive plants should be prioritized for Plan treatment?

Which accepted methods of invasive plant control will be used to treat specific populations?

Public Access What public uses of the Wetlands Preserve will be allowed and where PU-1, PU-2, PU-3 Master Plan will these uses be permitted?

What standards and guidelines will be adopted to ensure that public use of the Wetlands Preserve does not adversely affect the Wetlands Preserve’s biological resources?

With the exception of the public access master plan, all Wetlands Preserve management and maintenance activities completed during the initial 5 to 10 year management period, including the initial grazing study and invasive plant management plan, will be completed by the Preserve Manager and funded by Sacramento County on an annual basis based on the results of a PAR analysis. The public access master plan will be funded separately by the County independent of the of the grazing study and invasive plant treatment plan and completed by a third party on behalf of the County. The dedication and timing of an endowment (or endowments) for the perpetual stewardship of the Wetlands Preserve will be addressed in the Understanding on Property Use and Restrictions for Mather Air Force Base adopted by Sacramento County and the Agencies as well as the final Biological Opinion issued for the transfer of Mather Air Force Base from the U.S. Air Force to Sacramento County.

Sacramento County Economic Development Department Preliminary Work Plan C-2 South Mather Wetlands Management Plan INITIAL STUDIES

During the initial 5 to 10-year period of Wetlands Preserve management, three key studies will be completed to develop an adequate information baseline and scientific basis for development of perpetual Wetlands Preserve management approaches. These studies, and the tasks associated with each study, are described in more detail below.

GRAZING MANAGEMENT

BACKGROUND

Chapter 5 of the Draft Management Plan describes a set of guidelines that will be used in the development of grazing management strategies for the Wetlands Preserve. The guidelines were developed to maximize flexibility for the Preserve Manager, through an adaptive management framework, in selecting specific combinations of grazing season, grazing animal, grazing intensity, etc. to achieve the Wetlands Preserve management goals outlined in Chapter 1 of the Draft Management Plan.

However, in many cases the selection of specific grazing strategies is constrained by the local or regional availability of grazing lessees and by the need of these lessees for specific types of forage during specific times of the year. Thus, while different combinations of animal kind and class may be potential Wetlands Preserve management approaches for addressing specific types of management problems (e.g., maintenance of firebreaks or treatment of specific invasive plant populations), the specific grazing strategies that are realistic are limited by the supply of grazing animals potentially provided by the local ranching economy and forage needs of these operations. In the Sacramento region, cow-calf pairs are the most common type of ranching operation, and these operations typically derive most, if not all, of their forage from Central Valley grasslands from the late fall through the spring. Therefore, a grazing season of approximately November 1 through June 15 (adjusted annually based on forage availability) using cow-calf pairs is the most realistic and feasible grazing management scenario for the Wetlands Preserve. Additionally, there is a scientific basis (e.g., Marty 2005) to consider winter-spring grazing with cow-calf pairs an ecologically optimal grazing strategy for most Central Valley vernal pool grasslands, in the absence of evidence indicating that an alternative strategy produces an ecologically-superior result. The conclusions from this research are supported by significant anecdotal evidence from observations of grazing management on vernal pool landscapes throughout the Central Valley.

The goal of the grazing management study, therefore, will be to test the efficacy of winter-spring grazing with cow-calf pairs, a grazing strategy that appears to be the most ecologically beneficial, given past scientific studies and on-the-ground management experience. Specific grazing management goals and focused management questions to be addressed during the initial management period are described above in Table 1.

Livestock grazing will be implemented on a trial basis within defined subareas of the Wetlands Preserve that have been determined to be different ecological sites. Ecological sites are landscape units defined by unique combinations of soil types, vegetation types, and management potentials (NRCS 2003). Ecological sites are frequently the basis for defining grazing management units (NRCS 2003) since the soils and vegetation of different ecological sites may respond differently to grazing or may require different grazing approaches to be effectively managed.

The Soil Survey of Sacramento County (NRCS 1993) has mapped two major ecological sites within the Wetlands Preserve, loam stream terrace to the west of Excelsior Road and gravelly loam to the east of Excelsior Road. These ecological site boundaries roughly correspond to the boundaries of grazing management units within the Wetlands Preserve. One grazing unit, the West Unit, encompasses the area to the west of Excelsior Road; the West Unit is characterized primarily by the loam stream terrace ecological site with a smaller area of the gravelly loam ecological site. The second grazing unit, the East Unit, encompasses the area to the east of Excelsior Road; the East Unit is characterized by the gravelly loam ecological site.

Sacramento County Economic Development Department South Mather Wetlands Management Plan C-3 Preliminary Work Plan

To implement the initial management plan, two grazing enclosures, each approximately 200 acres in size, will be established within the Wetlands Preserve. One enclosure will be established within a loam stream terrace ecological site in the West Unit, and one enclosure will be established within a gravelly loam ecological site in the East Unit. This will allow the Preserve Manager to compare and contrast the responses (vegetation, vernal pool hydrology, invertebrates) of different ecological sites to livestock grazing. The Preserve Manager will locate and fence enclosures using permanent livestock fencing to ensure livestock containment and public safety. Enclosures will be placed in locations that are generally representative of the larger grazing unit.

The use of fenced enclosures will permit livestock grazing to be initially confined to specific areas of the Wetlands Preserve. This will facilitate data collection and analysis as well as limit the potential for adverse effects on native species (should livestock grazing not have its intended beneficial effects). Limiting the area of livestock grazing will also potentially serve as a useful public outreach tool to demonstrate the difference between grazed and un-grazed vernal pools within close proximity to one another. Finally, limiting the area of the Wetlands Preserve that is initially grazed will allow for a phased approach to grazing implementation, supported with appropriate monitoring data, to build public support for grazing at South Mather prior to initiating livestock grazing across the entire Wetlands Preserve.

Typical annual forage production estimates for each enclosure were obtained from the NRCS soil survey (NRCS 1993). Based on preliminary forage production estimates during a year of average rainfall for each ecological site found within the Wetlands Preserve and a moderate amount of RDM (approximately 800 pounds per acre), one acre of land in the East Unit would be capable of supporting 1.6 animal unit months and one acre of land in the West Unit would be capable of supporting 2.4 animal unit months (AUM)i. Assuming 200-acre enclosures, one enclosure in the West Unit could therefore support approximately 480 AUMs, and one enclosure in the East Unit could support 320 AUMs. The actual size of each enclosure will be determined by the Preserve Manager and will consider, among other factors, the number of animals to be grazed and the need to encompass a sufficient number of vernal pools and adjacent upland acreage for monitoring and data analysis. Enclosures will be constructed to encompass entire pool subwatersheds, with the perimeter of each enclosure sited at least 250 feet from any vernal pool wherever possible. The Agencies will be consulted to approve the location and size of the grazing enclosures prior to construction. The grazing system described above is summarized in Table 2.

The effects of livestock grazing will be annually monitored through paired grazed and un-grazed vernal pools and upland transects. Twenty grazed vernal pools and 20 accompanying grazed 100-meter upland transects will be established within each grazing enclosure (for a total of 40 grazed pools and 40 grazed upland transects). Similarly, 20 un-grazed vernal pools and 20 un-grazed 100-meter upland transects will be established directly adjacent to grazed enclosures (for a total of 40 un-grazed pools and 40 un-grazed upland transects). Data to be collected will include those data that are required to answer the primary management questions described in Table 1 and include:

· number of native plant species and non-native plant species (vernal pools and uplands); · percent cover of native plants and non-native plants (vernal pools and uplands); · duration of vernal pool inundation (measured as total days of inundation); · number of vernal pool invertebrate taxa (as readily identified to the lowest taxonomic level), including listed species; and, · annual productivity outside enclosures and RDM within enclosures.

Sacramento County Economic Development Department Preliminary Work Plan C-4 South Mather Wetlands Management Plan Table 2 Initial Mather Grazing System Kind of Livestock Cattle Class Cow/calf pairs Season of Use November 1 to June 151 Gross Forage Production (lbs/ac)2 Loam Stream Terrace Ecological Site 3,200 Gravelly Loam Ecological Site 2,400 RDM Standard 800 Net Available Forage (lbs/ac)3 Loam Stream Terrace Ecological Site 2,400 Gravelly Loam Ecological Site 1,600 Stocking Rate (AUM/ac)4 Loam Stream Terrace Ecological Site 2.4 Gravelly Loam Ecological Site 1.6 1 Adjusted annually by the Preserve Manager based on climate and forage availability 2 Gross Forage = total forage production estimate from NRCS (per acre based on air dried weight) 3 Net Available Forage = Gross Forage minus RDM( per acre based on air dried weight) 4 Stocking Rate = Net Available Forage / Forage required to sustain 1 animal unit for 1 month (1000 pounds, see endnote i) Source: AECOM, NRCS 1993

Data collection protocols will follow those described in the Draft Management Plan, Chapter 10, which are generally consistent with similar vernal pool data collection efforts (e.g., Marty 2005). These data will be compared and contrasted between grazed and un-grazed pools and transects and between loam stream terrace and gravelly loam ecological sites. The interaction among pool/transect ecological site (i.e., loam stream terrace or gravely loam) and grazing intensity (i.e., grazed or un-grazed) will also be examined. Two-way analysis of variance, paired comparisons of means, and similar parametric, inferential statistical methods will be used as needed and appropriate to analyze and describe the data that are collected from the Wetlands Preserve. Data will be evaluated on an annual basis and the grazing system will be adjusted by the Preserve Manager when needed to better achieve the management goals described in Chapter 1 of the Draft Management Plan. Annual monitoring data will be summarized and adjustments planned for the coming year will be described in the annual report and workplan submitted by the Preserve Manager to the Agencies. The Agencies will have the opportunity to review, comment, and approve planned modifications to management activities within the Wetlands Preserve prior to implementation by the Preserve Manager.

IMPLEMENTATION

Implementation of the grazing management study will require that the Preserve Manager or Sacramento County complete the following actions.

· Constructing appropriate livestock fencing to delineate two grazing enclosures; one on gravelly loam ecological sites to the east of Excelsior Road and one on loam stream terrace ecological sites to the west of Excelsior Road. · Locating a grazing lessee, and coordinating with the lessee on a regular basis to adhere to lease terms and to address resource management issues. · Coordinating the grazing study and providing general administrative support. · Installing one trough per grazing enclosure, along with connections to water supply lines running through South Mather, and one livestock handling facility. If water line connections are not available, Sacramento County will work with the Preserve Manager and grazing lessee to implement alternative water supplies. · Selecting 80 vernal pools and 80 upland transects for monitoring.

Sacramento County Economic Development Department South Mather Wetlands Management Plan C-5 Preliminary Work Plan · Constructing and maintaining two grazing enclosures, with a minimum size of 200 acres each, to graze 40 of the 80 selected vernal pools and 40 of the 80 upland transects. · Annually collecting data on vernal pool hydrology within 80 vernal pools. · Annually surveying 80 vernal pools for vernal pool invertebrate diversity. · Annually collecting plant community composition data for 80 vernal pools. · Annually collecting plant community composition data for 80 upland transects. · Annually collection RDM data along 40 upland transects inside grazing enclosures and biomass production data along 40 upland transects outside grazing enclosures · Data management, statistical analysis, and annual reporting to document and track the progress of the grazing study and share results with the Agencies and interested public parties.

All data collected as part of the initial grazing study will be summarized and included, along with a thorough interpretation of the data and recommended changes to the initial grazing approach, as part of an annual report submitted to the Agencies.

At the conclusion of the 5 to 10-year initial management period, results from the initial grazing study will be incorporated into Chapter 5 of the Draft Management Plan, and livestock grazing will be implemented across the entire Wetlands Preserve, as appropriate based on the results of the initial study. Funding for the Preserve Manager to continue implementation of a prescribed grazing program and updating of Wetlands Preserve’s grazing management approach in perpetuity will be included in the final endowment created at the conclusion of the initial management period.

INVASIVE PLANT MANAGEMENT

BACKGROUND

Chapters 3 and 5 of the Draft Management Plan describe the species of invasive plants known from the Wetlands Preserve or with the potential to occur in the Wetlands Preserve and outline treatment strategies for these species. Species are ranked and prioritized for treatment based on their potential to be invasive; their potential to cause ecological harm; their cost to treat and eradicate; and, their suspected distribution throughout the Wetlands Preserve. Similar to other vegetation and resource management topics discussed in the Draft Management Plan, the plan does not define a specific invasive plant management approach; rather, it describes the guidelines that will be followed by the Preserve Manager in developing and implementing an invasive plant management approach. Because the distribution of specific invasive plant species is currently unknown and, therefore, the magnitude of threat posed by specific populations of each species is also unknown, it is currently not possible to accurately prioritize specific populations for treatment and to describe appropriate management approaches for each population.

Preparation of an invasive plant management plan is needed to understand the distribution of invasive plant populations at the Wetlands Preserve, the threats posed by each population and the relative difficulty to treat each population, the priority for treating each population, and the methods of treatment that would be most appropriate for each population. Furthermore, recognizing that new populations of invasive plant species may colonize the Wetlands Preserve in the future, the invasive plant management plan should describe a framework for identifying, prioritizing, and treating future infestations.

IMPLEMENTATION

Sacramento County will fund a Wetlands Preserve invasive plant management plan to be completed within one (1) year of the implementation of this initial management plan. The invasive plant management plan will address the primary management questions described in Table 1. The invasive plant management plan will document species of invasive plants occurring within the Wetlands Preserve, with an emphasis on those species described in

Sacramento County Economic Development Department Preliminary Work Plan C-6 South Mather Wetlands Management Plan the Draft Management Plan; it will map the locations of invasive species populations; it will describe potential threats posed by each population and qualitatively assess the relative ease or difficulty with which each population could be treated; it will prioritize each population for treatment; and, it will describe specific techniques that would be appropriate for treating each population, in consideration of and consistent with those techniques described in Chapter 5 of the Draft Management Plan. Additionally, the invasive plant management plan will describe a framework, consistent with Chapter 5 of the Draft Management Plan, for identifying, prioritizing, and treating future infestations.

The invasive plant management plan will be reviewed and approved by the Agencies, and all authorizations and approvals required to implement the invasive plant management plan will be obtained by Sacramento County or the Preserve Manager prior to plan implementation. In particular, if pesticides are to be used, the invasive plant management plan will require additional review and approval by the Service. The invasive plant management plan will define focus species and their distributions, the parameters under which pesticides will be used, the specific control methods, the rational for control methods, the timing for control methods, and the proper combination of control methods. Planned pesticide applications should be presented in the context of the pest’s life cycle and potential for the pesticide to interact with the environment.

Once the plan is developed and approved by the Agencies, implementation of the plan will begin immediately and continue throughout the initial management period. Sufficient funding will be included in the initial PAR (i.e., the PAR created to fund the initial 5 to 10 years of Wetlands Preserve management) to allow treatment of high- priority invasive plant populations using Agency-approved methods. Livestock grazing, prescribed burning, and similar large-scale efforts to control invasive plants are not anticipated to be used to manage invasive plants during the initial Wetlands Preserve management period; although, data collected during the initial grazing study may be used to determine the effectiveness of grazing at controlling invasive plants such as medusa-head and barbed goat grass (i.e., ubiquitous species of invasive plants with the greatest potential to be cost-effectively controlled trough livestock grazing). Treatment areas will be visually monitored on an annual basis, using photo points or similar methods, to determine the effectiveness of various treatment methods, and subsequent invasive plant treatments during the initial management period will be adjusted as needed to achieve effective control or eradication of target populations. Results of all invasive plant treatments and recommended modifications to the invasive plant treatment plan will be summarized in the annual report provided to the Agencies.

The invasive plant management plan will be incorporated into the revised Management Plan as an appendix, and Chapter 5 of the Draft Management Plan will be revised as appropriate to reflect the invasive plant management plan as well as the results of treatments completed during the initial Wetlands Preserve management period. Funding for the Preserve Manager to continue implementation and updating of the invasive plant management plan in perpetuity will be included in the final endowment to be dedicated at the conclusion of the initial 5 to 10 year management period.

PUBLIC ACCESS MASTER PLANNING

BACKGROUND

As discussed above, numerous groups have a long history of using the Wetlands Preserve for recreational and educational purposes. Continued and, possibly, expanded recreational and educational uses that do not conflict with the maintenance of the Wetlands Preserve’s ecological values was identified as a goal for the Wetlands Preserve during initial stakeholder meetings. Sacramento County has also expressed an interest in public use of the Wetlands Preserve for educational and passive recreational purposes. However, the Agencies have been hesitant to approve additional recreational and educational use of the Wetlands Preserve in the absence of a public access master plan. Completion of a public access master plan for the Wetlands Preserve is necessary to describe allowable public uses and to guide future public use of the Wetlands Preserve.

Sacramento County Economic Development Department South Mather Wetlands Management Plan C-7 Preliminary Work Plan IMPLEMENTATION

Sacramento County will fund a Wetlands Preserve public access master plan to be completed within three (3) years of the implementation of the initial management plan. The public access master plan will describe allowable public uses of the Wetlands Preserve and measures that will be implemented to avoid or minimize adverse effects of public uses on wetlands and listed species; it will map the location of existing and proposed facilities and describe construction and long-term maintenance and operations responsibilities; and, it will incorporate stakeholder feedback and regulatory agency requirements. Approval of the public access master plan by Sacramento County will include appropriate environmental compliance (e.g., CEQA compliance), and appropriate regulatory agency approvals, including compliance with the federal Endangered Species Act and Clean Water Act. The public access master plan will be incorporated into the revised Draft Management Plan as an appendix, and Chapter 8 of the Draft Management Plan will be revised as appropriate to reflect the public access master plan.

Upon completion of the public access master plan, Sacramento County, the Preserve Manager, and other interested parties will attempt to secure funding for implementation of master plan components from grants and similar funding sources. Aspects of the public access master plan that do not require additional funding, planning, or regulatory agency approval to implement may begin immediately following master plan adoption, subject to annual funding limitations and the need to prioritize available funding for the management and maintenance of the Wetlands Preserve and implementation of the initial management plan. At the end of the initial 5 to 10 year management period, additional funding required for the Preserve Manager to manage those components of the public access master plan constructed or adopted during the initial management period or likely to be constructed or adopted in the future, will be included in the final endowment.

ROUTINE MAINTENANCE AND MONITORING

Routine maintenance and monitoring activities described below largely follow those in Chapter 6 of the Draft Management Plan. They are the day-to-day management and maintenance activities expected to be required of the Preserve Manager during the initial management period to maintain the Wetlands Preserve’s resource values in their current condition, or an improved condition, until more detailed perpetual stewardship approaches have been developed through the studies described above. Regular maintenance and monitoring of the Wetlands Preserve by the Preserve Manager will also be required to enforce the terms and conditions of the Wetlands Preserve conservation easement.

All activities conducted that may adversely affect federally listed species or their habitat (infrastructure, right-of- way maintenance, Air Force remediation facilities, etc.) or critical habitat require consultation with the Service under the federal Endangered Species Act. All activities that may result in fill to wetlands must be permitted by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineer’s under the federal Clean Water Act.

FENCING

Sacramento County will pay all costs associated with the construction of fencing (e.g., 5-strand barbed-wire) along Eagles Nest Road within 6 months of recordation of the Wetlands Preserve conservation easement. Fencing will be constructed to reduce trespass and to maintain the function and integrity of the habitat. However, the decision to construct fencing along Eagles Nest Road will consider the status of the Eagles Nest Road improvement project. If it appears that fencing constructed by Sacramento County along Eagles Nest Road would need to be re-constructed in the near future, following completion of road improvements, Sacramento County will review fencing plans with the Agencies prior to implementation. Sacramento County is committed to reducing trespass and associated damage to vernal pools within the Wetlands Preserve, and will work collaboratively with the Agencies and the Preserve Manager to fence this portion of the Wetlands Preserve in a manner that discourages trespass, facilitates ongoing Wetlands Preserve management, and minimizes the need for unnecessary fencing costs. Aside from fencing along Eagles Nest Road, Sacramento County will pay for any additional

Sacramento County Economic Development Department Preliminary Work Plan C-8 South Mather Wetlands Management Plan fencing identified by the Preserve Manager or the Agencies as necessary to protect the Wetlands Preserve during the initial 5 to 10 year preserve management period.

It is anticipated that additional fencing needs will be identified in the grazing and public access studies completed during the initial 5 to 10 year management period. The costs to construct this fencing will be included in the final endowment as in Initial and Capital Cost to be paid by Sacramento County. The location and type of additional fencing will be described in the revised Draft Management Plan completed at the end of the initial 5 to 10 year management period.

SIGNAGE

The Preserve Manager will maintain Wetlands Preserve boundary signs indicating the presence of federally- protected species and preserved habitats at approximately 400 to 600 foot intervals. Signs will be small (e.g., 18- inch) square metal signs or similar. Rusted or missing signs will be replaced by the Preserve Manager during the initial management period.

INFRASTRUCTURE

Existing infrastructure, including but not limited to natural gas lines, water lines, storm drains, sewer lines, drainage channels, power lines, and communication lines, are currently found within the Wetlands Preserve. Maintenance of these facilities by third parties (i.e., the owners of these facilities) shall be coordinated with the Preserve Manager to minimize negative impacts on Wetlands Preserve management activities. Entities responsible for infrastructure maintenance (e.g., Integra, West Coast Gas, CSD1, and AT&T) are responsible for regulatory agency review and approval requirements related to their maintenance activities. Preserve Manager review of these maintenance activities does not substitute for required regulatory agency approvals. Any regulatory agency authorizations or approvals for the maintenance of existing infrastructure within the Wetlands Preserve will be coordinated with the Preserve Manager.

UNITED STATES AIR FORCE REMEDIATION FACILITIES

Numerous remediation facilities installed and operated by the United States Air Force exist with the Wetlands Preserve. Maintenance and continued operation of these facilities shall be permitted as needed in accordance with all applicable laws and regulations. Maintenance of these facilities by the U.S. Air Force shall be coordinated with the Preserve Manager to the extent possible to minimize negative impacts on Wetlands Preserve management activities. The U.S. Air Force is responsible for regulatory agency review and approval requirements for its maintenance activities. Preserve Manager review of these maintenance activities does not substitute for required regulatory agency approvals.

FIRE BREAKS

Sacramento County, the Preserve Manager, and Sacramento Metropolitan Fire District will coordinate for the upkeep and maintenance of all required firebreaks within the Wetlands Preserve. Unless otherwise specified, fire breaks will be maintained at all times between the Wetlands Preserve and adjacent commercial, residential, and recreational development, consistent with County policy (Sacramento Metropolitan Fire District, undated). Fire breaks will consist of mowed strips with a minimum width of 30’ and a maximum residual height of 6 inches. This maximum height will not be exceeded during the fire season (generally May or June to November, depending on weather conditions).

Sacramento County Economic Development Department South Mather Wetlands Management Plan C-9 Preliminary Work Plan RIGHT-OF-WAY MAINTENANCE

From time to time, the Preserve Manager may need to coordinate with the County Department of Transportation regarding vegetation control activities along Excelsior Road, Douglas Road, Excelsior Road, Kiefer Boulevard, or other roads running along the perimeter of the Wetlands Preserve. The Preserve Manager will consult with the County to ensure that the Preserve Manager may carry out any vegetation management activities within the Wetlands Preserve without the need for an encroachment permit from the County. Likewise, County right-of-way maintenance should be carefully coordinated between the County and Preserve Manager to ensure that these activities do not negatively affect the Wetlands Preserve.

GRAZING IMPROVEMENTS

With the Agencies’ approval, all grazing improvements will be installed by Sacramento County. These improvements will be maintained by the grazing lessee in coordination with the Preserve Manager. The Preserve Manager will regularly survey areas receiving concentrated livestock use (e.g., handling facilities, water, and supplemental feeding locations) for new or expanding infestations of invasive plants. Any infestations will be promptly treated, as deemed appropriate by the Preserve Manager, to prevent further expansion within the Wetlands Preserve.

TRASH AND REFUSE

Trash and refuse will not be allowed to accumulate within the Wetlands Preserve and will be collected and disposed of on a regular basis, but at least quarterly, by the Preserve Manager.

TRESPASS PATROL

The Preserve Manager will patrol the Wetlands Preserve on a regular basis, but at least monthly, to discourage unauthorized public uses. Observed incidences of unauthorized vehicle use, pedestrian trespass, and similar violations will be mapped and photographed by the Preserve Manager and, where appropriate, referred to Sacramento County and County Sheriff’s office for investigation.

PUBLIC ACCESS AND COORDINATION

As described above, existing public uses of the Wetlands Preserve, including guided tours by environmental organizations and passive recreation use by the general public, will continue during the initial 5 to 10 year management period. The Preserve Manager will coordinate with members of the public using the Wetlands Preserve as needed to ensure that their activities are compatible with the grazing study and other activities planned during the initial management period. The Preserve Manager will also monitor public use of the Wetlands Preserve as needed to ensure that existing public use is consistent with the preservation of vernal pool grassland habitat and that unauthorized public use (such as ATV use) does not adversely affect the Wetlands Preserve or its resources. Enhanced or expanded public use of the Wetlands Preserve during the initial 5 to 10 year management period will only be allowed as described above.

GENERAL INSPECTIONS

To maintain the integrity of the Wetlands Preserve, the Preserve Manager will arrange for General Monitoring inspections to be made at least quarterly. Inspections shall evaluate the following factors: erosion, fire hazard reduction, fencing integrity, condition of signage, trash accumulation, compliance with terms and conditions of the Wetlands Preserve conservation easement, and evidence of unauthorized use by motor vehicles. The entire perimeter of the Wetlands Preserve will be covered, as well as meandering transects through its interior. Additionally, “windshield” surveys should be made periodically of surrounding areas to identify new and

Sacramento County Economic Development Department Preliminary Work Plan C-10 South Mather Wetlands Management Plan potentially expanding, species of invasive plants with the potential to adversely affect the Wetlands Preserve. An inspection sheet will be utilized in order to evaluate the above factors during each field visit. Previous inspection sheets should be reviewed before each visit to ensure that a possible or recurring problem area is not missed. If any problems are identified, the problem area(s) will be noted on the inspection sheet and photographs of the problem area(s) will be taken to document the issue. More frequent inspections may be necessary for a limited time to closely track any problems as well as to ensure that remedial actions are effective.

GENERAL BIOLOGICAL MONITORING

In addition to the surveys described above under the grazing and invasive plant studies, general botanical and wildlife surveys will be conducted annually within the Wetlands Preserve. These surveys will document new infestations of invasive plants, wildlife use of the Wetlands Preserve, potential hazardous wildlife issues, the presence of previously undocumented rare plants, and the overall status of the biological resources within the Wetlands Preserve.

REPORTING

During the initial management period, the Preserve Manager will prepare an annual report for review and approval by Sacramento County, the Agencies, and other applicable regulatory agencies by January 31 of each year. Additionally, the report will be provided to selected Wetlands Preserve stakeholder groups, and additional copies of the annual report will be furnished by the Preserve Manager upon request. The report will include, at a minimum, a map of the Wetlands Preserve, photos documenting the status of the Wetlands Preserve, a description of management and maintenance actions carried out during the preceding year (including all invasive plant treatments), observations from general inspections and general biological monitoring (including all field data forms and representative photographs), a description of anticipated management activities for the coming year (i.e., an Annual Workplan), and recommendations for altered management practices, including a summary of data collected as part of the initial grazing study and invasive plant study described above along with a rationale for recommended modifications to the invasive plant treatment plan or grazing study.

Sacramento County Economic Development Department South Mather Wetlands Management Plan C-11 Preliminary Work Plan REFERENCES

AECOM. 2010. Draft South Mather Wetlands Management Plan. Prepared for Sacramento County Department of Economic Development. Sacramento, CA.

Holecheck, J., R.D. Piper, and C.Herbel. 2000. Range Management: Principles and Practices. Prentice Hall. Upper Saddle River, NJ. 587 p.

Marty, J. T. 2005. Effects of cattle grazing on diversity in ephemeral wetlands. Conservation Biology 19(5):1626– 1632.

NRCS. 2003. National Range and Pasture Handbook. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Grazing Lands Technology Institute. Forth Worth, TX.

NRCS. 1993. Soil Survey of Sacramento County. U.S. Department of Agriculture. Davis, CA.

Sacramento Metropolitan Fire District. Undated. Department memorandum describing fire break maintenance policies provided from Sacramento Metropolitan Fire District staff to AECOM. Copy in AECOM project files.

i An animal unit month (AUM) is the amount of forage (based on air-dried weight) needed to sustain one animal unit for one month. An animal unit (AU) is defined relative to one cow-calf pair (i.e., one cow-calf pair = 1 AU). In California annual grasslands, 1 AUM is defined as 1,000 pounds of forage. AU equivalents for other kinds of classes of grazing animals are readily available in standard grazing management references (e.g., Holecheck 2000).

Sacramento County Economic Development Department Preliminary Work Plan C-12 South Mather Wetlands Management Plan APPENDIX D Stakeholder Endorsement

APPENDIX D STAKEHOLDER ENDORSEMENT

California Native Plant Society Institute for Ecological Health Independence at Mather Homeowners Association Sacramento Rugby Association Rotary Friends of Mather California Department of Fish and Game U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service U.S. Environmental Protection Agency U.S. Air Force Sacramento Housing and Redevelopment Agency Rancho Cordova Planning Department Sacramento Metropolitan Fire District County Planning Department County Department of Economic Development County Department of Water Resources County Department of Water Quality County Department of Transportation County Airport Systems County Parks Department

Sacramento County Economic Development Department South Mather Wetlands Management Plan D-1 Stakeholder Endorsement

APPENDIX E Hazardous Wildlife Assessment

APPENDIX E HAZARDOUS WILDLIFE ASSESSMENT

This hazardous wildlife assessment examines the likely effects of proposed South Mather Wetlands Management Plan actions on the distribution and abundance of hazardous wildlife species that occur within and surrounding the South Mather Wetlands Preserve (Wetlands Preserve) compared to existing conditions. This analysis is not intended to serve as a wildlife hazard management plan (WHMP), as defined by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). Depending upon the future use of Mather Airport, FAA could require a revised Wildlife Hazard Assessment (WHA) and/or WHMP in the future, pursuant to applicable FAA regulations, including 14 CFR 139.337 requirements for wildlife hazard management.

1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 PROJECT HISTORY

Preparation of a South Mather Wetlands Management Plan (Management Plan) has been requested by Sacramento County (County). The Management Plan is primarily intended to provide guidance for the management, maintenance, recreational, and educational uses of approximately 1,272-acre Wetlands Preserve located within an area of existing urban development and planned development in the County’s South Mather Specific Plan area (Exhibits 1-2 and 1-3, Management Plan). A management plan and the protection of vernal pool habitat at South Mather were required as a condition of the Supplemental Record of Decision issued by the U.S. Air Force (USAF) that formally transferred Mather Air Force Base (AFB) to Sacramento County on November 21, 1994. It is also expected that wetlands fill permits and the associated biological opinion issued for the implementation of the South Mather Specific Plan (Specific Plan) will require the preparation of a management plan, conservation easements, and similar protective measures for the Wetlands Preserve.

This hazardous wildlife assessment focuses on the Wetlands Preserve because management actions to benefit special-status habitats and species would be focused within the Wetlands Preserve while other areas of South Mather would continue to be managed similar to past and current management. More detailed descriptions of the location and characteristics of the Wetlands Preserve and surrounding areas of South Mather are provided in the Management Plan.

1.2 PURPOSE OF THE HAZARDOUS WILDLIFE ASSESSMENT

The pre-existing natural communities and land uses located within and surrounding the Wetlands Preserve include wildlife attractants, including water, foraging habitat, nesting habitat, and other wildlife habitat elements. These wildlife attractants are considered to be problematic to airport operations and aircraft safety, because the Wetlands Preserve is within close proximity to Mather Airport. Although reported bird strikes at Mather Airport are not numerous (less than 250 strikes were reported since 1985 [U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) 2003, BASH 2007] most bird strikes are unreported (Wright and Dolbeer 2005); therefore, it is reasonable to assume that the actual number of strikes at Mather Airport is higher. Additionally, wildlife strikes may have increased in recent years based on the observations of the Mather Airport manager (J. Scruggs, pers. comm., 2007). Potentially hazardous wildlife species include flocking birds, like blackbirds and starlings, as well as rock doves and mourning doves, meadowlarks, horned larks, raptors, and waterfowl.

The purpose of this assessment is to examine the likely effects of proposed management actions on the distribution and abundance of hazardous wildlife species that occur within and surrounding the Wetlands Preserve, compared to existing conditions. This analysis is not intended to serve as a WHMP as defined by the FAA. Depending upon the future use of Mather Airport, FAA could require a WHA and/or WHMP in the future, pursuant to applicable FAA regulations, including 14 CFR 139.337 requirements for wildlife hazard management.

Sacramento County Economic Development Department South Mather Wetlands Management Plan E-1 Hazardous Wildlife Assessment 1.3 ORGANIZATION OF HAZARDOUS WILDLIFE ASSESSMENT

The hazardous wildlife assessment is organized into five sections as described below.

► Section 2 – FAA Regulatory Background. This section describes FAA regulations and guidance relevant for the development of a wildlife attractiveness analysis for the Wetlands Preserve.

► Section 3 – Existing Hazardous Wildlife Assessment. This section describes existing wildlife occurring at South Mather with potential to result in strike hazards at Mather Airport as documented by the Wildlife Hazard Assessment prepared for Mather Airport (USDA 2003). This section also includes a ranking system for wildlife hazards, organized by key wildlife guilds, based on FAA guidance (see Special Report for the FAA, ‘Ranking the Hazard Level of Wildlife Species to Civil Aviation in the USA: Update #1, July 2003’ and Dolbeer et al 2000). The ranking system has been modified to reflect local conditions at South Mather.

► Section 4 – Management Actions Attractiveness Analysis. This section summarizes management actions described in the Management Plan and assess the potential of each action to affect wildlife attractiveness, relative to current conditions.

► Section 5 – Hazard Assessment. This section synthesizes information presented in Section 3 and Section 4 to document whether proposed management actions may increase, decrease, or have no effect on the distribution and abundance of hazardous wildlife within and surrounding the management areas.

► Section 6 – Monitoring and Reporting. This section includes a brief discussion of Wetlands Preserve monitoring and reporting procedures related to hazardous wildlife.

2 FAA REGULATORY BACKGROUND

The regulatory background governing the management of wildlife strike hazards is outlined in Chapter 1 of the Management Plan. The relevant guidance documents include:

► Federal Aviation Regulation (FAR), CFR Part 139 (as amended February 2004); in particular Part 139.337 Wildlife Hazard Management.

► Advisory Circular 150/5200-33A, Hazardous Wildlife Attractants on or Near Airports, August 28, 2007.

► FAA Certification Alert 06-07, Requests by State Wildlife Agencies to Facilitate and Encourage Habitat for State-Listed Threatened and Endangered Species and Species of Special Concern on Airports, November 21, 2006.

► FAA Advisory Circular 150/5200-32A, Reporting Wildlife Aircraft Strikes, December 22, 2004.

► FAA Advisory Circular 150/5200-36, Qualifications for Wildlife Biologist Conducting Wildlife Hazard Assessments and Training Curriculum for Airport Personnel in Controlling Wildlife Hazards at Airports. June 28, 2006.

► Wildlife Hazard Management at Airports – A Handbook for Airport Personnel. FAA Office of Airport Safety and Standards and United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), Animal and Plant Health Inspection Services (APHIS) - Wildlife Services, 2nd Edition July 2005.

► FAA Advisory Circular 150/5200-34A Construction or Establishment of Landfills Near Public Airports, January 26, 2006.

Sacramento County Economic Development Department Hazardous Wildlife Assessment E-2 South Mather Wetlands Management Plan ► FAA Advisory Circular 150/5300-13 Airport Design, Appendix 17, “Minimum Distances Between Certain Airport Features and Any On-Airport Agriculture Crops”. Amended March 28, 2007.

► FAA Order 5050.4B, National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Implementing Instructions for Airport Actions, April 28, 2006. Section 209.a – Wildlife Hazard Management Plans (WHMP) specifies that when the FAA Administrator determines that an airport must prepare a WHMP to address wildlife hazards, the airport must submit the WHMP to the FAA for approval prior to implementation. Order 5050.4B further specifies that FAA approval of a WHMP is a “federal action” that requires a NEPA analysis.

► Memorandum of Agreement Between the FAA, U.S. Air Force, U.S. Army, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, USFWS, and USDA to Address Aircraft-Wildlife Strikes. Signed by the six agencies between December 2002 and July 2003.

► Animal Damage Control Act, 7 United States Code (USC), Section 426-426c, enacted in 1931 and amended in 1937 and most recently in 2000; grants the Secretary of Agriculture broad authority to investigate and control certain predatory and wild animals and nuisance mammals and birds.

► FAA Office of Airport Safety and Standards – Program Policies and Guidance, Airport Certification – 11 CFR 130; Policies 77, 78, 79, and 82 specify procedures with regard to wildlife hazard management, waste disposal, and coordination with regard to the federal ESA. These policies make up Appendix D of the 2005 FAA-USDA Hazard Wildlife Management handbook referenced above.

These documents direct airport operators to discourage wildlife use of lands within and surrounding airports. Advisory Circular (AC) 150/5200-33A, Hazardous Wildlife Attractants on or Near Airports, is particularly relevant to this analysis. In AC 150/5200-33A, FAA recommends that at least a 10,000-foot separation be maintained between the centerline of an airport’s runways and certain known wildlife attractants (this 10,000 foot area is referred to as the ‘Critical Zone’). In those cases where known wildlife attractants could cause wildlife movement into or across approach and departure airspace, a separation of 5 miles is recommended.

Of the wildlife attractants mentioned in AC 150/5200-33A, wetlands are the only defined attractant present within the Wetlands Preserve, which is within the Critical Zone (Exhibit D-1)1. It should be noted that other attractants specifically mentioned in the AC, including waste disposal operations, water management facilities, lakes and wetlands, dredge spoil containment areas, and golf courses are also located within the more restrictive 5-mile zone, and some are located within the Critical Zone. With the exception of Mather Lake and additional wetlands (including those wetlands located within the Critical Zone), these attractants are all located outside the Specific Plan area, generally in areas to the east of Mather Airport.

AC 150/5200-33A specifically addresses wetland mitigation proposed within the Critical Zone. Under Section 2- 4(C)(1), the AC stipulates that onsite wetland mitigation may be possible within the Critical Zone when the affected wetlands ‘provide unique ecological functions, such as critical habitat for threatened or endangered species.’ As summarized above and discussed in depth within the Management Plan, vernal pool and associated grassland habitat within the Wetlands Preserve provide habitat for several species listed as threatened or endangered by the USFWS or species considered sensitive by California or Sacramento County. Additionally, these areas lie within the boundaries of USFWS designated critical habitat for several federally-listed species (50 CFR 17); the Wetlands Preserve is designated by the USFWS as a Priority One Core Area in the vernal pool recovery plan (70 FR 11141, March 7, 2006); and, the Wetlands Preserve is one of the cornerstone preserves outlined by draft South Sacramento Habitat Conservation Plan (SSHCP), and the only preserve designated for SSCHP Conservation Zone 2 (Sacramento County 2006). Therefore, it is assumed that the establishment and

1 Agriculture is mentioned as a possible attractant; however the types of agricultural activities described in AC 150 are different than those potentially employed within the Wetlands Preserve. Thus, this provision in AC 150 was assumed to not be applicable.

Sacramento County Economic Development Department South Mather Wetlands Management Plan E-3 Hazardous Wildlife Assessment management of wetland features within the Wetlands Preserve pursuant to USACE and USFWS compensatory mitigation requirements is compliant with AC 150 Section 2-4(C)(1).

As further discussed under AC 150 Section 2-4(C)(1), these mitigation activities ‘must not inhibit the airport operator’s ability to effectively control hazardous wildlife’ and ‘enhancing mitigation areas to attract hazardous wildlife must be avoided.’ Guidance to ensure compliance with these objectives has been incorporated into appropriate sections of the Management Plan and expanded upon below.

Sacramento County Economic Development Department Hazardous Wildlife Assessment E-4 South Mather Wetlands Management Plan

Source: Data adapted by AECOM 2010

South Mather Master Plan Land Use Designations and Approximate Critical Zone Exhibit D-1

Sacramento County Economic Development Department South Mather Wetlands Management Plan E-5 Hazardous Wildlife Assessment 3 EXISTING HAZARDOUS WILDLIFE ASSESSMENT

This section identifies and assesses the existing strike hazard potential at Mather Airport for hazardous species and guilds known to occur at South Mather.

3.1 EXISTING RELEVANT SOUTH MATHER WILDLIFE

A Mather Airport WHA was conducted between August 2002 and August 2003 consisting of 62 point count surveys (USDA 2003). Based on the WHA, the most commonly encountered species at South Mather, grouped by guild, are indicated in Table D-1. Species that were not observed in the WHA surveys, but were the subject of some recorded strikes with aircraft are also included in this table (USDA 2003, BASH 2007). Important species (i.e., species accounting for at least 60% of all observations for a given guild) are noted with an asterisk. Species with less than 10 observations during the WHA study period were excluded from Table D-1 because they are considered unlikely to pose significant wildlife strike hazards.

Table D-1 Wildlife Guilds and Species Encountered at South Mather Waterfowl (485) Shorebirds (176) Insectivorous Perching Birds (201) Mallard (98)* Killdeer (141)* Western kingbird (154)* American coot (181)* Water pipet (33) Loggerhead shrike (20) Domestic goose (73)*3 Sparrows, Larks, Finches (1,252) Warblers (4) 3 Pied-billed grebe (40) Western meadowlark (815)* Northern mockingbird (12) Canada goose (31) Unknown sparrow (106)*5 Raptors (266) Blackbirds and Starlings (2,257) House finch (272)* Red-tailed hawk (79)* European starling (1,510)* House sparrow (22) Northern harrier (36)* Brewer’s blackbird (483)* Horned lark (5) 1 American kestrel (32)* Red-winged blackbird (258)* Vesper sparrow (20) White-tailed kite (34)* Columbids (1,310) American robin (11) Burrowing owl (34)* Rock dove (896)* Swallows (1,655) Turkey vulture (24) Mourning dove (414) Cliff swallow (1,602)* Unknown hawk (12)3 Gulls (65) Barn swallow (49) Swainson’s hawk (12) Unknown gull (65)4 Wading birds (50) Corvids (181) Mammals (101) Great egret (36)* American crow (152)* Black-tailed jackrabbit (88)* Great blue heron (14) Yellow-billed magpie (27) Coyote (3) 2 Other Avian Species (17) Turkey (4) 2 Notes: Number of observations shown in parentheses * Important species. 1 Horned lark was not observed during WHA surveys but was included based on reported aircraft strikes. 2 Turkey and coyote included at the request of SCAS. 3 Species or taxa not included due to lack of information in the California Wildlife Habitat Relationship system or missing species names. 4 Unknown gull assumed to be a mix of California gull and ring-billed gull based on professional opinion of AECOM ornithologists. 5 Unknown sparrow assumed to be a mix of savanna sparrow, white-crowned sparrow, and golden-crowned sparrow based on professional opinion of AECOM ornithologists. Source: USDA (2003)

Sacramento County Economic Development Department Hazardous Wildlife Assessment E-6 South Mather Wetlands Management Plan 3.2 EXISTING HAZARD ASSESSMENT

A multi-step process was used to assign each of these guilds a strike hazard ranking. As a starting point, many of these species or guilds have previously been assigned hazard rankings by the FAA (Special Report for the FAA, ‘Ranking the Hazard Level of Wildlife Species to Civil Aviation in the USA: Update #1, July 2003’). However, this report did not assign a strike hazard ranking for all the guilds shown above and, in some cases, the hazard rankings were presented at a guild level or at some other grouping level that did not correspond with the guilds provided in Table D-1. Additionally, wildlife strike hazards were scored by the FAA for all species/guilds analyzed on a relative scale from 1 to 100, which was thought to be too specific for the purposes of this assessment. Therefore, it was necessary to modify these hazard rankings for the purpose of this assessment as follows:

1. Each strike hazard ranking assigned by the FAA (Table D-2) was generalized into one of three ranks based on the ordinal ranking of each species/guild (i.e., rank 1 – 8 = ‘High,’ rank 9 – 17 = ‘Medium,’ rank 18 – 25 = ‘Low’).

Table D-2 FAA Nationwide Hazard Rankings Species/Guild FAA Ranking (Order) Deer 100 (1) Vultures 64 (2) Geese 55 (3) Cormorants/pelicans 54 (4) Cranes 47 (5) Eagles 41 (6) Ducks 39 (7) Osprey 39 (8) Turkeys/pheasants 33 (9) Herons 27 (10) Hawks (buteos) 25 (11) Gulls 24 (12) Rock pigeon 23 (13) Owls 23 (14) Horned lark/Buntings 17 (15) Corvids 16 (16) Coyote 14 (17) Mourning dove 14 (18) Shorebirds 10 (19) Blackbirds/starlings 10 (20) American kestrel 9 (21) Meadowlarks 7 (22) Swallows 4 (23) Sparrows 4 (24) Nighthawks 1 (25) Source: Special Report for the FAA, ‘Ranking the Hazard Level of Wildlife Species to Civil Aviation in the USA: Update #1, July 2003’ as cited in FAA Advisory Circular 150/5200-33A, Hazardous Wildlife Attractants on or Near Airports (July 27, 2004). See also Dolbeer et al 2000.

Sacramento County Economic Development Department South Mather Wetlands Management Plan E-7 Hazardous Wildlife Assessment 2. The generalized hazard ranking was used for guilds shown above that were represented by a single FAA ranking.

3. A composite hazard ranking was used in those instances where the FAA had assigned hazard rankings for two or more guilds and/or species represented by a single guild in Table D-1. The composite ranking was based on the relative importance of each species or guild to the guilds indicated in Table D-1. For example, raptors are represented in Table D-1 as a single guild. However, the FAA ranking system has separate hazard rankings for hawk (buteo species), vulture, American kestrel, owl, and eagle. Because hawks make up the majority of raptor observations at South Mather, the generalized ranking for hawks was assigned to the raptor group for this analysis.

4. In those instances where the FAA has not assigned a hazard ranking for a guild, a ranking was assigned by AECOM biologists based on past experience analyzing hazardous wildlife at commercial airports.

The results of this process are shown in Table D-3.

Table D-3 Generalized Nationwide Wildlife Hazard Ranking Guild Generalized Ranking Waterfowl High Blackbirds/starlings Low Columbids Medium Gulls Medium Mammals Medium Shorebirds Low Sparrows/larks/finches Low Swallows Low Wading birds Medium Other avian species Medium Insectivorous perching birds Low Raptors Medium Corvids Medium

Source: AECOM, based on Dolbeer (2000). Ranking for insectivorous perching birds assigned by AECOM ornithologists.

Finally, because the FAA ranking system and resultant AECOM generalized ranks were based on a national database of wildlife strikes that may not necessarily be reflective of local conditions at South Mather, the rankings shown in Table D-3 were adjusted using the following criteria:

1. Ranks assigned in Table D-3 were adjusted based on the number of observations (Table D-1) for each species/guild recorded at South Mather, as follows: Guilds with more than 1,000 observations were increased in hazard rank by one level, guilds with between 100 and 1,000 observations retained their initial ranking, and guilds with fewer than 100 observations were reduced in rank by one level. Although it is acknowledged that one strike with a large bird can have similar effects to one strike with a flock of small birds, the above ranking system was developed to simplify analysis and to place more emphasis on birds that are more commonly encountered at South Mather, which would presumably increase the probability that these species would be

Sacramento County Economic Development Department Hazardous Wildlife Assessment E-8 South Mather Wetlands Management Plan involved in an aircraft strike. This assumption was supported by the available data on reported bird strikes (USDA 2003, BASH 2007).

2. Ranks were also adjusted based on reported bird strikes at Mather Airport (USDA 2003, BASH 2007) to further reflect local conditions.

The adjusted wildlife hazard rating is presented in Table D-4.

Table D-4 Adjusted South Mather Wildlife Hazard Ranking Adjustment for Local Adjustment for Guild Initial Ranking Adjusted Ranking Frequency Reported Strikes Waterfowl High None Increase High Blackbirds/starlings Low Increase Increase High Columbids Medium Increase Increase High Gulls Medium Reduce None Low Mammals Medium None None Medium Shorebirds Low None None Low Sparrows/larks/finches Low Increase Increase High Swallows Low Increase None Medium Wading birds Medium Reduce None Low Other avian species Medium Reduce None Low Insectivorous perching birds Low None Increase Medium Raptors Medium None None Medium Corvids Medium None None Medium Source: AECOM

4 MANAGEMENT ACTIONS ATTRACTIVENESS ASSESSMENT

This section summarizes the management activities proposed within the Management Plan and assesses their anticipated change to hazardous wildlife attractiveness at South Mather.

4.1 MANAGEMENT PLAN ACTIVITIES

As described in the Management Plan, a variety of habitat restoration and vegetation management activities may be implemented within the Wetlands Preserve to maintain and enhance natural resources, including vernal pools and vernal pool dependent species. These activities include wetland restoration to fulfill regulatory agency compensatory mitigation requirements as well as activities focused on vegetation management, specifically the management of grassland biomass and populations of invasive plants, using livestock grazing, mowing, and prescribed burning. The expected timing, intensity, and frequency of these activities are summarized in Table D- 5.

Sacramento County Economic Development Department South Mather Wetlands Management Plan E-9 Hazardous Wildlife Assessment Table D-5 Management Action Summary Management Timing Intensity Frequency Notes Activities Wetland May occur during initial Acreage required to replace Once Restoration as part of Restoration 5 to 10 years of Wetlands wetlands lost during USACE/USFWS Preserve establishment to implementation of South Mather compensatory mitigation fulfill compensatory Master Plan at a 1:1 ratio. requirements. mitigation requirements Livestock November to May Target residual biomass of Annually Cattle, sheep, or goats may Grazing approximately 800 pounds per acre. be used for grazing. Annual stocking rate ranging from 0.2 AU to 3.7 AU per acre. Prescribed May to June Generally small-scale burns of less Every 1 to Burns conducted primarily Burning than 100 acres. 3 years as to reduce populations of funding invasive plants. All burns allows coordinated with Mather Airport and Sacramento Air Quality Management District. Mowing May to July 30’ wide firebreak required Annually between the Wetlands Preserve and developed areas pursuant to Sacramento Metropolitan Fire District. Firebreaks kept no more than 6 inches high. Small-scale mowing possible in other areas, mostly for invasive plant management.

Source: AECOM

4.2 RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN WILDLIFE, MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES, AND HABITAT ELEMENTS

Each of these management actions may potentially affect any one of several possible wildlife habitat elements that could, in turn, increase or decrease the attractiveness of the Wetlands Preserve for wildlife. A list of habitat elements potentially capable of attracting the key wildlife guilds described above was gathered from the California Wildlife Habitat Relationship (CWHR) software and summarized in Table D-6.

Sacramento County Economic Development Department Hazardous Wildlife Assessment E-10 South Mather Wetlands Management Plan Table D-6 CWHR Habitat Elements that Attract Hazardous Wildlife1, 2 Habitat Elements

Guild Water Friable, Soil Aerated HerbLayer & Height Cover WoodyVegetation Structures Seeds Insects,Invertebrates Amphibians Birds Small Mammals Small Carrion Waterfowl X X X Gulls X X X X Sparrows, Larks, Finches X X X X Raptors X X X X Swallows X X X X Blackbirds and Starlings X X X X X Corvids X X X Columbids X X X X X Wading Birds X X X X X Shorebirds X X X Other Avian Species4 X X X Mammals – Small Mammals5 X X Mammals – Carnivores5 X X Notes: 1 Based on essential and secondary habitat elements in CWHR (Interagency Wildlife Task Group 2002). 2 Table lists primary attributes affecting habitat suitability for species representative of guild. 3 Includes buildings, power lines, bridges, and other structures. 4 Includes turkey. 5 Mammal guild was split based into small mammals and carnivores because of substantial differences in attributes affecting habitat suitability for these groups within the guild. Source: Interagency Wildlife Task Group (2002)

Some of these key habitat elements may be affected by implementation of the Management Plan while others would not be affected. The potential affect of habitat restoration and vegetation management actions on key wildlife habitat elements, including potential relationships between habitat restoration and management actions and habitat characteristics (e.g., seed output, vegetation structure and density) are summarized in Table D-7. For comparative purposes, the status of these key habitat elements under current conditions within the Wetlands Preserve is summarized within Table D-7 as well.

Sacramento County Economic Development Department South Mather Wetlands Management Plan E-11 Hazardous Wildlife Assessment Table D-7 Habitat Elements (Attractants) Associated with Management Options Habitat Elements

3 t

5,6

5 5,6

Management Option Water Friable, Soil Aerated & Heigh HerbaceousCover Vegetation Woody Structures Seeds Insects,Invertebrates Birds Small Mammals Small Amphibians Carrion Vernal Pool and Seasonal Wetland Yes Yes SS No No M H M L H L SM– Annual grassland – Grazed No1 Yes2 No No M M–H M–H H VL L TD SM– Annual grassland – Mown No1 Yes No No M M–H M–H M-H VL M SD Annual grassland – Burned No1 Yes SS No No VL VL L–M L VL L Annual grassland – Unmanaged TD– No Yes No No H M L–M H VL L (Existing Conditions) VTD Notes: 1 All grassland management activities may increase vernal pool inundation periods and thus increase the availability of aquatic habitat. 2 All management options assumed to present friable, aerated soil subject to local site conditions. However, it is recognized that grazing may reduce this habitat element through hoof compaction and similar activities. Despite the potential for grazing to increase bulk density, it was assumed that this habitat element would not be completely eliminated across the landscape. 3 Codes: VTD = Very Tall Dense, exceeding 3 ft in height and > 60% cover; TD = Tall Dense, 1–3 ft high and > 60% cover; SD = Short Dense, < 1 ft high and > 60% cover; SM = Short Moderate, < 1 ft high, and 40–60% cover; and SS = Short Sparse, < 1 ft high and < 40% cover. Although this is based on typical or mature structure, annual grassland communities have an annual cycle of change in vegetation structure. 4 Includes buildings, power lines, bridges and other structures; fences, however, are associated with all land use options. 5 Codes for levels: H = High, M = Moderate, L = Low, and VL = Very Low 6 Levels based on presence of water, plant species richness, abundance of flowering plants, and structural heterogeneity of vegetation. Source: AECOM, based on review of available literature and professional experience

4.3 EXISTING HABITAT AND WILDLIFE ATTRACTIVENESS

As previously stated, the purpose of the hazardous wildlife assessment is to determine how implementation of the Management Plan may affect wildlife attractiveness compared to existing conditions. The current status of habitat elements within the Wetlands Preserve is described in this section to provide a baseline against which proposed management activities can be evaluated. This is followed, in the subsequent section, by an assessment of the potential for management activities to affect these habitat elements relative to current conditions. Where possible, this discussion draws from relevant published literature, as well as the past experiences of AECOM biologists managing and monitoring vernal pool grasslands.

The Wetlands Preserve is characterized primarily by California annual grassland and vernal pools or other seasonal wetland habitat that have been largely unmanaged for at least 80 years. California annual grassland is a common naturalized vegetation community distributed throughout California consisting mostly of nonnative grasses and forbs. Depending on local site conditions, management practices, and other factors, a variety of native forbs and grasses may also be present (Heady 1977, Heady et al 1991). These species differ substantially in the

Sacramento County Economic Development Department Hazardous Wildlife Assessment E-12 South Mather Wetlands Management Plan timing and duration of germination, growth, and reproduction (Bartolome 1989). As a consequence, grassland biomass production (which is a reasonable surrogate for grassland physical habitat structure) and species composition (and associated functions) vary substantially both within a given year and between years.

Despite the potential for inter-annual variation in habitat structure and species composition, the Wetlands Preserve is generally characterized by two distinctive annual grassland communities. One community, typically found on deeper and more productive soils west of Excelsior Road and south of Mather Airport, is dominated by nonnative grasses such as medusahead (Taeniatherum caput-medusae), Annual ryegrass (Lolium multiflorum), Slender wild oats (Avena barbata), and ripgut brome (Bromus diandrus). In general, these grasses tend to be larger and more robust, relative to other grasses commonly encountered within California annual grassland, with an average height ranging between one to three feet depending on local growing conditions and annual climate. Total annual biomass production in these areas may range from 2,000 pounds to 4,000 pounds (on a dry-weight basis) of biomass per acre (Natural Resources Conservation Service [NRCS] 1993).

The remainder of the Wetlands Preserve, which includes areas generally to the east of Excelsior Road, is characterized by a lower-growing annual grass community primarily dominated by species such as medusahead, soft chess (Bromus hordeaceus), longbeak filaree (Erodium botrys), lesser hawkbit (Leontodon taraxacoides), and smooth cat’s-ear (Hypochaeris glabra). These plants are generally less than 18 inches in height and frequently less than 1 foot. Total annual biomass production in these areas usually does not exceed 2,000 pounds per acre except in very favorable growing years (NRCS 1993). Based on the experiences of AECOM biologists monitoring grazed annual grasslands, ground cover generally exceeds 80% in most all grazed annual grasslands and can approach 90% or higher under favorable growing conditions, even with moderate livestock grazing. Cover values less than 60% are uncommon and typically only found under very unfavorable growing conditions or in areas that preferentially receive habitual heavy livestock usage.

Within each distinct sub-community, in the absence of management, habitat structure tends to be determined by local edaphic factors (such as soil depth and soil productivity) and annual climatic patterns (Jackson and Bartolome 2001, Evans and Young 1989) resulting in habitat with fairly uniform structural characteristics occasionally characterized by areas of less structure (e.g., areas of shallow, rocky soils) and areas of higher structure (e.g., areas of deeper soils such as mima mounds that are frequently encountered in annual grassland/vernal pool landscapes). Rodents and grasshoppers may also alter grassland structure through burrowing and/or foraging activities. Although the affects of these activities tend to be localized, they can be significant in some instances (Joern 1989, Lidicker 1989, Burcham 1957, Fitch and Bently 1949).

Similarly, vernal pools occurring within these grassland communities have different structural and functional characteristics. Pools south of the Airport, due to deeper and more productive soils as well as topographic modifications that have artificially increased inundation periods in may pools, tend to support plants that are taller and more robust such as iris-leaf rush (Juncus xiphioides) while pools to the south and east of the flightline support smaller-stature plants like white-headed navarretia (Navarretia leucocephala), stipitate popcorn flower (Plagiobothrys stipitatus), and Fremont’s goldfields (Lasthenia fremontii). Pools directly south of the flightline also tend to remain inundated longer than pools to the south and east.

Under existing conditions, the presence and wildlife attractiveness characteristics of key wildlife habitat elements within the Wetlands Preserve can be summarized as follows:

WATER

Availability of water within inundated vernal pools and seasonal drainages is expected to be primarily governed by annual climatic patterns and soil characteristics. An extensive acreage of this habitat element is currently available within the Wetlands Preserve.

Sacramento County Economic Development Department South Mather Wetlands Management Plan E-13 Hazardous Wildlife Assessment HERB LAYER HEIGHT AND COVER

Herb layer height is expected to range from a minimum of one foot to a maximum of four feet, based largely on annual climatic patterns and local soil conditions. Within areas of similar soils, vegetation height is expected to be more or less uniform. Herb layer cover is expected to exceed 60% in almost all instances and, more commonly, exceed 80% total ground cover.

AVAILABILITY OF SEEDS

Seed availability is assumed to be more than sufficient for wildlife needs most annual grassland plant produce abundant seeds. Total seed production in annual grassland has been estimated to range between 10,000 and 200,000 seeds per square meter (Young and Evans 1989b).

AVAILABILITY OF INSECTS AND INVERTEBRATES

Insects and other invertebrates that serve as prey for many hazardous wildlife species are expected to be abundant in the plan area. As with most other habitat elements discussed, weather is likely to play a major role in the availability of insects and other invertebrates. For example, while the factors contributing to observed population cycles of many important terrestrial invertebrates, such as the devastating grasshopper (Melanoplus devastator), are poorly understood (Pfadt 1994, Joern 1989), it is likely that weather plays a primary role and other factors, such as vegetation cover and structure are less important. Those studies that have examined the relationship between insects and grassland habitat structure have tended to focus on economically-important species like grasshoppers and have defined habitat structural characteristics differently across studies. Despite these limitations, heavier levels of biomass removal, which would tend to increase the presence of broadleaf plants in most grassland communities, including California annual grassland (Pitt and Heady 1979, Heady 1958, Heady 1956, Biswell 1956), are generally thought to benefit most species of grasshoppers (Smith 1940, Nerney 1958, Holmes et al. 1979). Therefore, at least for grasshoppers, it can be assumed that existing conditions are less than optimal for these species.

The relationship between vegetation structure and other terrestrial invertebrates is not as well documented. However, for taxa like soil invertebrates, it is reasonable to assume that existing conditions are also sub-optimal from the standpoint of making these resources more readily available to a great diversity of wildlife. To the extent that a reduction in grassland biomass increases the diversity of flowering plants, many species of pollinators would also likely benefit from lower levels of annual grass cover, relative to existing conditions.

Vernal pool inundation periods are generally correlated with more diverse aquatic invertebrate communities (Rogers 1998); therefore, weather patterns are similarly expected to be the primary regulator of this habitat element. However, accumulations of upland biomass have been shown, in some instances, to reduce vernal pool inundation periods (Marty 2005). Therefore, under existing conditions, in which uplands are generally characterized by dense annual grasslands with substantial accumulations of grassland biomass, it is likely that the aquatic function of vernal pools (and, by implication, the diversity of aquatic invertebrate communities) are lower than they might otherwise be if lower amounts of grassland biomass were present within surrounding uplands.

AVAILABILITY OF SMALL BIRDS

Small birds, such as sparrows and finches, serve as prey for a number of raptors that are common within the Wetlands Preserve and, while small birds are a potential attractant for some potentially hazardous wildlife guilds, they are also, in and of themselves, potentially hazardous wildlife. Similar to the availability of insects, due to lack of data and the wide variety of habitat preferences for different species, it is difficult to draw general conclusions regarding the availability of small birds under existing conditions. The only survey of bird communities at South Mather conducted to date (USDA 2003) documented a wide variety of small birds, many of which have different habitat preferences. In general, it is thought the relatively tall vegetation is a deterrent to

Sacramento County Economic Development Department Hazardous Wildlife Assessment E-14 South Mather Wetlands Management Plan many bird species (Blockpoel 1976) and the maintenance of ‘tall’ vegetation (generally described as vegetation heights greater than 10 inches in much of the literature related to wildlife hazard management) is often recommended as a hazardous wildlife minimization strategy at many civil and military airports (Barras and Seamans 2002).

However, because the response of individual species to grassland structural characteristics is often species and site specific (California Partners in Flight [CPIF] 2000), factors such as structural heterogeneity (Fuhlendorf et al 2006) and grassland patch size (CPIF 2000) may be stronger determinants of grassland bird numbers than vegetation height alone. And, many studies that have manipulated grass heights in an effort to reduce bird numbers have shown either inconsistent effects or little to no reduction in total bird numbers (Barras and Seamans 2002, Seamans et al 2007). Given the uncertainty and complexities surrounding the relationship between birds and grassland structural attributes, the status of this habitat element under current conditions is difficult to assess. As described above, in the absence of management, grasslands within the Wetlands Preserve tend to be structurally similar within similar growing conditions. Therefore, it could be assumed that this relative lack of structural heterogeneity may result in less than optimal habitat conditions for the widest possible spectrum of bird species. While there is weak research support for this hypothesis, for the purposes of this assessment, it is assumed that existing conditions are sub-optimal for the largest potential numbers of small birds.

AVAILABILITY OF SMALL MAMMALS

As with small birds, small mammals serve as prey for a variety of raptors and other potentially hazardous wildlife species. Small mammal abundance is generally positively correlated with vegetation height and/or density (Barras et al. 2000, Blockpoel 1976, Wilkins and Schmidly 1979). However, for common California species such as the California ground squirrel (Spermophilus beecheyi) and pocket gopher (Thomomys bottae), the relationships between grassland structure and population numbers are variable (Fehmi et al 2005, Lidicker 1989). Furthermore, other common species like black-tailed jackrabbits (Lepus californicus) tend to increase with reductions in grassland biomass (Taylor et al. 1935, Phillips 1936, Brown 1947), at least in grassland ecosystems outside of California. Despite some inconsistencies or the potential for species-specific and site-specific responses, for the purposes of this assessment it is assumed that existing conditions of largely unmanaged (i.e., tall and dense) grassland provide suitable habitat for a wide diversity of small mammals but that reduced grass height and/or cover may improve habitat conditions for some species.

4.4 ASSESSMENT OF MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES ON HAZARDOUS WILDLIFE ATTRACTIVENESS

This section includes an assessment of how proposed management activities would alter habitat elements such that they may be more or less attractive to hazardous wildlife. The magnitude and extent to which these activities affect the overall landscape habitat condition depends on how often and how extensively these activities would be applied in the management areas. Table D-4 provides an overview of the anticipated extent and frequency of the proposed activities.

WETLAND RESTORATION

Wetlands restoration within the Wetlands Preserve may be required as compensatory mitigation for impacts associated with implementation of the South Mather Master Plan. The creation or restoration of wetlands would likely be required at a 1:1 acreage ratio relative to the total acreage of wetlands lost due to Master Plan implementation; thus, there will be no increase in total wetland acreage within South Mather. Wetlands will be restored to have the same functions and values as those wetlands affected during the implementation of the Master Plan. Therefore, this action is anticipated to have no effect on key wildlife habitat elements, relative to existing conditions.

Sacramento County Economic Development Department South Mather Wetlands Management Plan E-15 Hazardous Wildlife Assessment LIVESTOCK GRAZING

The introduction of livestock grazing to the Wetlands Preserve is expected to have two interrelated effects on wildlife habitat elements. First, livestock grazing is expected to reduce the total amount of standing biomass at the end of the grazing season, compared to existing conditions. Ignoring other factors, such as annual climatic patterns, that may have a stronger influence on total biomass production (Pitt and Heady 1979, Bartolome et al 1980), this may have several effects on grassland and vernal pool habitats, including:

► reduced total biomass production in the following growing season (Heady 1956, Bartolome et al 1980);

► increased presence of broadleaf plants relative to grasses within the plant community in the following growing season (Pitt and Heady 1979, Heady 1958, Heady 1956, Biswell 1956);

► increased vernal pool inundation periods in the current growing season (Marty 2005); and,

► reduced ground cover (Pitt and Heady 1979).

Livestock grazing, which tends to be patchy in nature unless intensively managed to produce even utilization of vegetative cover (Heitschmidt and Stuth 1991), can also increase the structural heterogeneity of grassland communities.

Livestock grazing may be expected to have the following effects related to attractiveness to hazardous wildlife:

► Water: Livestock grazing may be expected to increase the duration of ponding for some vernal pools. This effect may not be seen in all years or across all vernal pools.

► Herb Layer Height and Cover: Livestock grazing may be expected to reduce herb layer height and, potentially, reduce herb layer cover. With grazing planned for an average residual dry matter (RDM) standard of 800 pounds per acre, average grassland height would be between 8 inches to 12 inches. However, based on site conditions, animal management, forage quality, and animal preferences, a diversity of grass heights would likely result such that there will still be many areas with grass heights higher than 12 inches and, potentially, several areas with grass heights lower than 8 inches. Vegetation height within vernal pools is expected to be slightly reduced by grazing, particularly within areas receiving preferential use of pools by livestock, or in pools with high amounts of preferred livestock forage plants. Except for areas receiving habitual heavy use by livestock, total plant cover within grasslands is expected to exceed 60% in almost all cases and approach 80% or higher cover, even with moderate livestock grazing to an 800 pounds-per-acre RDM standard. Similarly, vegetation cover within grazed vernal pools, while potentially reduced compared to ungrazed conditions, would still frequently exceed 60% based on the experience of AECOM biologists monitoring grazed vernal pools.

► Availability of Seeds: Seed availability is expected to be reduced by grazing. However, the proportion of the reduction may be small relative to the total seed output by a typical annual grassland community.

► Availability of Insects and Invertebrates: To the extent that the numbers of these species are largely dependent upon weather, grazing may have little effect. However, the presence of animal wastes may increase the presence of some insects and reductions in grassland biomass may favor some taxa such as grasshoppers and/or make a wider variety of invertebrate prey available to wildlife. Similarly, changes in vernal pool inundation periods resulting from upland biomass removal may result in a greater diversity or greater numbers of aquatic invertebrates. Whether or not the net change in total invertebrate numbers is positive or negative based on the combined effects of these various factors is unknown.

Sacramento County Economic Development Department Hazardous Wildlife Assessment E-16 South Mather Wetlands Management Plan ► Availability of Small Birds: The response of small birds to grazing is likely species-specific and variable across different grassland structural characteristics. By introducing greater grassland structural diversity, habitat may be provided for a greater variety of small birds.

► Availability of Small Mammals: Similar to birds, the response of small mammals is likely to be variable. Many common species of small mammals are either unaffected by grazing or seem to benefit from some level of grazing (Fehmi et al 2005, Lidicker 1989, Taylor et al. 1935, Phillips 1936, Brown 1947). Regardless of whether or not grazing increases the total number of small mammals, it may make this prey base more readily available to some wildlife guilds by increasing visibility through the grassland canopy.

PRESCRIBED BURNING

The introduction of some prescribed burning in the Wetlands Preserve area is expected to affect key habitat elements similarly to livestock grazing, in comparison to the existing unmanaged condition. Differences would result in the scale at which habitat elements are modified (i.e., the size of individual burns versus the size of individual livestock feeding patches) and the intensity with which habitat was modified (i.e., complete biomass removal for burns versus selective biomass removal for grazing). These differences are expected to affect the magnitude of change for some habitat elements, such that seed production and herbaceous vegetation height and cover would be diminished from existing conditions more by burning than by grazing. However, the temporal duration of these changes would typically be limited and the magnitude of change would be reduced in years following the burn until pre-burn conditions resumed. Studies have estimated that roughly three years is required for this cycle to be complete in annual grasslands (Zavon 1982, Heady 1973) at which point the burned grassland largely resembles adjacent unburned grassland in terms of species composition, biomass production, and cover.

MOWING

The introduction of some mowing in the Wetlands Preserve would have effects on key habitat elements similar to those from grazing and prescribed burning, compared to the existing unmanaged condition. Differences in effects between mowing and grazing or burning would be in the scale of habitat modification and intensity of modification. Relative to grazing, mowing would result in less habitat heterogeneity and, potentially, greater reduction in grassland height and cover. Relative to burning, mowing would typically result in less reduction in grass height and cover (i.e., taller grass than from burning). Although not identified as a key habitat element, mowing may also result in a small temporary increase in carrion via rodents and other small mammals killed by the mechanical action of mowing equipment. The carrion could serve as a temporarily increased wildlife attractant.

5 HAZARD ASSESSMENT

5.1 ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY

As described previously, habitat restoration and management activities potentially implemented within the Wetlands have the potential to affect the attractiveness of vernal pool and grassland habitats for hazardous wildlife. In large part, the attractiveness of these habitats is a function of specific habitat elements afforded by each habitat type. As indicated in Table D-7, the characteristics of these elements are anticipated to be somewhat similar in response to all potential management activities, with the exception of herbaceous vegetation height and cover and associated elements. Associated elements such as seed production, invertebrate abundance, small bird abundance, and small mammal abundance are expected to vary more by management activities, depending on how those activities affect vegetation height and cover. Because management actions will be primarily designed to target invasive and/or herbaceous plant removal and because herbaceous vegetation height and cover are likely to have the strongest effects on hazardous wildlife attractiveness, this habitat element was selected and evaluated

Sacramento County Economic Development Department South Mather Wetlands Management Plan E-17 Hazardous Wildlife Assessment across all combinations of management activities (Table D-5) and hazardous wildlife guilds (Table D-4) to assess the potential for management activities to affect wildlife strike hazards relative to existing conditions.

CWHR models were used as the basis for this evaluation. While the potential limitations of CWHR as a modeling tool are acknowledged, CWHR has several advantages over other potential methods of wildlife-habitat relationships.

1. It is objective. The CWHR model is parameterized with data from scientific studies that have documented the relationship between specific species of wildlife and specific habitat types and habitat attributes.

2. It produces, as model output, a habitat suitability score ranging between 0.00 (unsuitable) and 1.00 (highly suitable) for each species/habitat combination. This allows species to be compared across different habitat types and permits a quantification of the magnitude of the difference.

3. CWHR contains standard habitat classifications that are roughly equivalent to the various habitat conditions expected to result from the management activities described by the Management Plan. While it is acknowledged that most all management activities may result in a variety of habitat types, it is also recognized that each management activity will more often than not result in a characteristic habitat type. The use of a characteristic habitat type simplifies the modeling process without unduly biasing the model results or reducing the practical applicability of the model results. The following characteristic habitat types were selected:

► Vernal Pool and Seasonal Wetlands = CWHR Fresh Emergent Wetland Short Moderate ► Grazed Annual Grassland = CWHR Annual Grassland Short Dense ► Burned Annual Grassland = CWHR Annual Grassland Short Sparse ► Mowed Annual Grassland = CWHR Annual Grassland Short Moderate ► Unmanaged Annual Grassland (Existing Conditions) = CWHR Annual Grassland Tall Dense

These characteristic habitats are described in Table D-7. CWHR model outputs for the habitat types identified above are provided in Table D-8.

The mean score for each guild in Table D-8 was then compared relative to existing conditions (i.e., annual grassland-tall dense) to assess the predicted change in habitat suitability resulting from various management activities for each key wildlife guild (Table D-9). Values were not compared for ‘fresh emergent wetland short moderate’ habitat (i.e., vernal pool and seasonal wetlands) because, as discussed above, management activities proposed in the Management Plan would not substantially affect the habitat elements provided by this habitat type.

Table D-8 CWHR Model Outputs for South Mather Wildlife Guilds1 Fresh Emergent Annual Annual Annual Annual Wetland - Short Grassland – Grassland - Grassland - Grassland – Guild Species Moderate Short Sparse Short Moderate Short, Dense Tall Dense Mean of Important Species 0.98 0.61 0.50 0.50 0.50 Mallard 1.00 0.77 1.00 1.00 1.00 Waterfowl American coot 0.95 0.44 0.00 0.00 0.00 Canada goose 1.00 0.78 0.78 0.78 0.78 Pied-billed grebe 0.89 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Sacramento County Economic Development Department Hazardous Wildlife Assessment E-18 South Mather Wetlands Management Plan Table D-8 CWHR Model Outputs for South Mather Wildlife Guilds1 Fresh Emergent Annual Annual Annual Annual Wetland - Short Grassland – Grassland - Grassland - Grassland – Guild Species Moderate Short Sparse Short Moderate Short, Dense Tall Dense Mean of Important Species 0.56 0.47 0.39 0.39 0.11 Gulls Ring-billed gull 0.67 0.44 0.44 0.44 0.22 California Gull 0.44 0.44 0.33 0.33 0.00 Mean of Important Species 0.00 0.28 0.59 0.69 0.59 Western meadowlark 0.00 0.33 0.77 1.00 1.00 Savanna sparrow2 0.00 0.55 1.00 1.00 0.55 White-crowned sparrow2 0.00 0.11 0.11 0.00 0.00 Sparrows, Golden-crowned sparrow2 0.00 0.00 0.11 0.11 0.00 Larks, and Finches House finch 0.00 0.33 0.33 0.00 0.00 House sparrow 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Vesper sparrow 0.00 0.66 0.44 0.22 0.00 American robin 0.00 0.33 0.22 0.11 0.11 Horned lark 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.66 Mean of Important Species 0.39 0.67 0.69 0.49 0.49 Red-tailed hawk 0.44 0.55 0.55 0.55 0.55 Northern harrier 0.95 0.89 1.00 1.00 1.00 American kestrel 0.22 0.55 0.55 0.55 0.55 Raptors Burrowing owl 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 White-tailed kite 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33 Swainson’s hawk 0.00 0.77 0.77 0.77 0.77 Turkey vulture 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Mean of Important Species 0.77 0.77 0.77 0.77 0.77

Swallows Cliff swallow 0.77 0.77 0.77 0.77 0.77 Barn swallow 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Mean of Important Species 0.17 0.22 0.33 0.28 0.17

Blackbirds European starling 0.00 0.33 0.33 0.22 0.00 and Starlings Brewer’s blackbird 0.33 0.11 0.33 0.33 0.33 Red-winged blackbird 0.33 0.33 0.00 0.00 0.00 Mean of Important Species 0.00 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33 Corvids American crow 0.00 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33 Yellow-billed magpie 0.00 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.00

Sacramento County Economic Development Department South Mather Wetlands Management Plan E-19 Hazardous Wildlife Assessment Table D-8 CWHR Model Outputs for South Mather Wildlife Guilds1 Fresh Emergent Annual Annual Annual Annual Wetland - Short Grassland – Grassland - Grassland - Grassland – Guild Species Moderate Short Sparse Short Moderate Short, Dense Tall Dense Mean of Important Species 0.00 0.44 0.39 0.28 0.44 Columbids Rock pigeon 0.00 0.33 0.22 0.00 0.33 Mourning dove 0.00 0.55 0.55 0.55 0.55 Mean of Important Species 0.67 0.67 0.67 0.67 0.67 Wading Birds Great egret 0.67 0.67 0.67 0.67 0.67 Great blue heron 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33 Mean of Important Species 0.50 1.00 0.44 0.00 0.00 Shorebirds Killdeer 0.50 1.00 0.44 0.00 0.00 Water pipet 0.00 0.66 0.44 0.33 0.00

Other Avian Mean of Important Species 0.00 0.55 1.00 1.00 1.00 Species Wild turkey 0.00 0.55 1.00 1.00 1.00 Mean of Important Species 0.00 0.33 0.44 0.44 0.55 Mammals Black-tailed jackrabbit 0.00 0.33 0.44 0.44 0.55 Coyote 0.22 0.55 0.55 0.55 0.55 Mean of Important Species 0.11 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33 Insectivorous Western kingbird 0.11 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33 Perching Birds Loggerhead shrike 0.00 0.66 0.55 0.66 0.00 Northern mockingbird 0.00 0.22 0.22 0.22 0.22

Note: 1 – Important species are shown in bold. 2 – Average of three sparrow species computed and added to model value for meadowlark to calculate average for guild.

Table D-9 Comparison of Suitability Rankings Relative to Existing Conditions Change from Existing Conditions1 Current Burned Annual Mowed Annual Grazed Annual Conditions Grassland (Annual Grassland (Annual Grassland (Annual (Annual Grassland Grassland – Short Grassland – Short Grassland – Short Hazardous Wildlife Guild – Tall Dense) Sparse) Moderate) Dense) Waterfowl 0.50 0.11 0.00 0.00 Gulls 0.11 0.36 0.28 0.28 Sparrows, larks, finches 0.59 -0.31 0.00 0.10 Raptors 0.49 0.18 0.20 0.00 Swallows 0.77 0.00 0.00 0.00

Sacramento County Economic Development Department Hazardous Wildlife Assessment E-20 South Mather Wetlands Management Plan Table D-9 Comparison of Suitability Rankings Relative to Existing Conditions Change from Existing Conditions1 Current Burned Annual Mowed Annual Grazed Annual Conditions Grassland (Annual Grassland (Annual Grassland (Annual (Annual Grassland Grassland – Short Grassland – Short Grassland – Short Hazardous Wildlife Guild – Tall Dense) Sparse) Moderate) Dense) Blackbirds and starlings 0.17 0.05 0.16 0.11 Corvids 0.33 0.00 0.00 0.00 Columbids 0.44 0.00 -0.05 -0.16 Wading birds 0.67 0.00 0.00 0.00 Shorebirds 0.00 1.00 0.44 0.00 Other avian species 1.00 -0.45 0.00 0.00 Mammals 0.55 -0.22 -0.11 -0.11 Perching birds 0.33 0.00 0.00 0.00

Notes: 1 0.00 = No change from current conditions, > 0.00 = Habitat quality improved for this species relative to current conditions, < 0.00 = Habitat quality reduced for this species relative to current conditions.

To simplify analysis of these changes and to account for some of the inherit limitations in CWHR, the above scores were generalized to an ordinal scale ranging from 0 (no change) to +2 (significant improvement in habitat conditions), and from 0 to –2 (significant reduction in habitat conditions), as follows:

► 0.15 to–0.15 = No change ► 0.40 to 0.16 = Improvement in habitat conditions ► 1.00 to 0.41 = Significant improvement in habitat conditions ► -0.40 to–0.16 = Reduction in habitat conditions ► -1.00 to–0.41 = Significant reduction in habitat conditions

The scaled differences are shown in Table D-10.

Table D-10 Scaled Changes in Habitat Suitability Burned Annual Grassland Mowed Annual Grassland Grazed Annual Grassland (Annual Grassland – (Annual Grassland – (Annual Grassland – Hazardous Wildlife Guild Short Sparse) Short Moderate) Short Dense) Waterfowl 0 0 0 Gulls +1 +1 +1 Sparrows, larks, finches -1 0 0 Raptors +1 +1 0 Swallows 0 0 0 Blackbirds and starlings 0 +1 0 Corvids 0 0 0 Columbids 0 0 -1

Sacramento County Economic Development Department South Mather Wetlands Management Plan E-21 Hazardous Wildlife Assessment Table D-10 Scaled Changes in Habitat Suitability Burned Annual Grassland Mowed Annual Grassland Grazed Annual Grassland (Annual Grassland – (Annual Grassland – (Annual Grassland – Hazardous Wildlife Guild Short Sparse) Short Moderate) Short Dense) Wading birds 0 0 0 Shorebirds +2 +2 0 Other avian species -2 0 0 Mammals -1 0 0 Perching birds 0 0 0 Notes: 1 0.00 = No change from current conditions, > 0.00 = Habitat quality improved for this species relative to current conditions, < 0.00 = Habitat quality reduced for this species relative to current conditions.

5.2 ANALYSIS SUMMARY

This section includes an assessment of anticipated effects on key guilds of potentially hazardous wildlife, relative to current conditions, from proposed Management Plan activities. The assessment is based on evaluations of wildlife presence and hazard provided in Tables D-1 through D-4 of existing wildlife hazard ranks and CWHR model outputs summarized in Tables D-8 to D-10, comparing management options summarized in Section 4 (Table D-7).

WETLAND RESTORATION

Approximately 30 acres of vernal pools and other seasonal wetlands are found within planned development areas at South Mather. It is anticipated that some of this habitat will be removed during the implementation of the Specific Plan. Wetland restoration actions would replace this removed habitat at a 1:1 acreage ratio (i.e., one acre of restored wetland for each acre of existing wetland removed) within the Wetlands Preserve. USACE regulations require that wetlands restored as compensatory mitigation have the same functions and values as the wetlands for which mitigation was required. Therefore, this activity would not modify specific wildlife habitat element characteristics (as described above in Section 4) relative to existing conditions and would, therefore, not result in a change in hazardous wildlife occurrence at South Mather. No change is expected in wildlife strike hazards at Mather Airport relative to existing conditions as a result of wetland restoration actions in the Plan.

LIVESTOCK GRAZING

As discussed in Section 4, livestock grazing is expected to primarily change grassland vegetation height and structure, relative to current conditions. These changes are expected to be manifested primarily by a greater degree of grassland habitat structural heterogeneity. According to the CWHR models, these changes may be expected to result in no significant change in overall habitat suitability. However, this result is mainly due to a slight reduction in habitat quality expected for columbids (CWHR habitat suitability difference of –0.16 relative to current conditions) under livestock grazing. Considering all other guilds as a group, almost no change in habitat suitability is predicted as a result of livestock grazing, despite the potential for increased habitat heterogeneity. Predicted deviations in habitat suitability from current conditions (Table D-9) only exceeded 0.20 for one guild, gulls. Although gulls are a potentially problematic hazardous wildlife guild nationwide (Table D-2), this guild is observed infrequently at South Mather (Table D-1) and is, therefore, less likely to pose a significant strike hazard. Changes from existing conditions for other guilds were so slight that significant improvements in habitat quality are unlikely. Therefore, livestock grazing is not expected to result in a significant increase in wildlife strike hazards at Mather Airport, relative to existing conditions.

Sacramento County Economic Development Department Hazardous Wildlife Assessment E-22 South Mather Wetlands Management Plan PRESCRIBED BURNING

Prescribed burning would result in relatively small (i.e., less than 100 acres in size) patches of little to no grassland habitat structure. These patches would be short-lived and would return to pre-burn habitat conditions within 3 years or less. Based on these habitat changes, CWHR model outputs predicted a large degree of variability in terms of hazardous wildlife guild responses to prescribed burning. Some guilds, such as gulls, raptors, and shorebirds, would experience slight to significant improvements in habitat suitability from prescribed burning. Other guilds, including important guilds such as sparrows, larks and finches (which is currently rated as a high wildlife hazard at South Mather, Table D-4), other avian species, and small mammals (which form the prey base for other guilds) would have habitat suitability values reduced by prescribed burning. The net result is expected to be no change in wildlife hazards, relative to current conditions. Therefore, prescribed burning is not expected to result in a significant increase in wildlife strike hazards at Mather Airport, relative to existing conditions.

MOWING

As described above in Section 4, mowing would modify grassland habitat structure by reducing grassland height and cover. These changes would be largely confined to strips along the borders of the Wetlands Preserve where firebreak maintenance is required adjacent to developed areas. Based on the CWHR models, mowing would result in slight to moderate improvements in habitat suitability for several guilds, including one important guild (blackbirds and starlings). Other guilds that are predicted to be benefited by mowing include gulls, raptors, and shorebirds; columbids and mammals would experience slight to negligible reductions in habitat suitability. Therefore, this activity is expected to result in an increase in overall wildlife hazards. However, given the limited planned extent of this activity (currently designated for 30-foot-wide buffer areas adjacent to the Independence at Mather residential development for purposes of fire safety), the magnitude of this increase is anticipated to be limited. Some uncertainty would remain. Mowing will be closely monitored, as will all management activities at South Mather (see Section 6 below), and coordinated with the Mather Airport Manager to minimize the potential for adverse impacts to aircraft operations and public safety.

6 MONITORING AND ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT

6.1 MONITORING

The Management Plan calls for a comprehensive adaptive management and monitoring program (see Chapter 10), which includes regular wildlife surveys (via point counts or similar techniques) within 13 monitoring plots randomly scattered throughout the planned Wetlands Preserve. Although the limitations of this technique are recognized, in terms of its inability to completely characterize wildlife community composition and abundance, the results of these monitoring events can be compared and contrasted over time (years) to assess relative changes in wildlife abundance. Additionally, because vegetation monitoring will take place within the same plots, wildlife data can be related to habitat structure parameters (i.e., residual dry matter, which can serve as a surrogate for grassland height, and cover) to relate particular management outcomes to observed wildlife species abundance.

Furthermore, it is anticipated that the Mather Airport Manager will continue to monitor wildlife strikes at Mather Airport. The Wetlands Preserve Manager, in consultation with the Mather Airport Manager, can compare the wildlife strike data with wildlife and avian species data, vegetation structural characteristics, and management practices to better understand the effects of management practices and resultant habitat structural parameters on wildlife strike hazards at Mather Airport.

Sacramento County Economic Development Department South Mather Wetlands Management Plan E-23 Hazardous Wildlife Assessment 6.2 ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT

As part of the above monitoring program, if changes in wildlife strike hazards are detected and if these changes can be reasonably attributed to the activities conducted by the Wetlands Preserve Manager, appropriate actions can be implemented to decrease wildlife attractiveness in an effort to mitigate these hazards. The appropriate course of action should be developed through consultation and collaboration between the Wetlands Preserve Manager and the Airport Manager. These actions should strive to balance the need to maintain safe operation of Mather Airport with the need to protect special-status species and habitats within the Wetlands Preserve. Appropriate adaptive management actions may include:

► changes in the timing, intensity, location or frequency of management actions; ► active harassment (by the Airport Manager) of potentially hazardous wildlife within the Wetlands Preserve; or, ► lethal control (by the Airport Manager) of hazardous wildlife within the Wetlands Preserve.

Active harassment and lethal control shall only be allowed within the Wetlands Preserve upon the approval of the USFWS, USACE, and DFG. All adaptive management actions shall be accompanied by follow-up monitoring to determine the effectiveness of each action at reducing wildlife strike hazards at Mather Airport.

REFERENCES

Barras, S. C., M. S. Carrara, R. A. Dolbeer, R. D. Chipman, and G. E. Bernhardt. 2000. Bird and small mammal use of mowed and unmowed vegetation at John F. Kennedy International Airport, 1988–1999. Proceedings of the Vertebrate Pest Conference 19:31-36.

Barras, S. C., and T. W. Seamans. 2002. Habitat management approaches for reducing wildlife use of airfields. Proceedings of the Vertebrate Pest Conference 20:309–315.

Bartolome, J. W. 1989. Local temporal and spatial structure. Pages 73–80 in L. F. Huenneke and H. Mooney eds. Grassland Structure and Function: California Annual Grassland. Kluwer Academic Publishers. Boston, MA.

Bartolome, J. W., M. C. Stroud, and H. F. Heady. 1980. Influence of natural mulch on forage production in differing California annual range sites. Journal of Range Management 33(1):4–8.

Bird Aircraft Strike Hazard (BASH) Database. 2007. Results of electronic search for bird strike records at Mather Airport. United States Air Force, Bird Aircraft Strike Hazard Team. Kirtland AFB, NM.

Biswell, H. H. 1956. Ecology of California grasslands. Journal of Range Management 9(1):19–24.

Blockpoel, H. 1976. Bird hazards to aircraft. Clarke, Irwin, and Company and Canadian Wildlife Service. Ottowa, CAN.

Brown, H. L. 1947. Coaction of jackrabbit, cottontails, and vegetation in a mixed prairie. Kansas Academy of Sciences Transactions 50:28–44.

Burcham, L. T. (1957) California Rangeland. California Division of Forestry. Sacramento, CA.

California Partners in Flight (CPIF). 2000. Version 1.0. The draft grassland bird conservation plan: a strategy for protecting and managing grassland habitats and associated birds in California. Point Reyes Bird Observatory, Stinson Beach, CA.

Sacramento County Economic Development Department Hazardous Wildlife Assessment E-24 South Mather Wetlands Management Plan Dolbeer, R. A., S. E. Wright, and E. C. Cleary. 2000. Ranking the hazard level of wildlife species to aviation using the National Wildlife Strike Database. Wildlife Society Bulletin 28:372–378.

Evans, R. A. and J. A. Young. 1989. Characterization and analysis of abiotic factors and their influences in vegetation. Pages 13–28 in L.F. Huenneke and H. Mooney eds. Grassland Structure and Function: California Annual Grassland. Kluwer Academic Publishers. Boston, MA.

Fehmi, J. S., S. E. Russo, and J. W. Bartolome. 2005. The effects of livestock grazing on California ground squirrels (Spermophilus beecheyi). Rangeland Ecology and Management 58(4):352–359.

Fitch, H. S. and J. R. Bentley. 1949. Use of California annual-plant forage by range rodents. Ecology 30(3):306– 321.

Fuhlendorf, S. D., W. C. Harrell, D. M. Engle, R. G. Hamilton, C. A. Davis, and D. M. Leslie, Jr. 2006. Should heterogeneity be the basis for conservation? Grassland bird response to fire and grazing. Ecological Applications 16(5):1706–1716.

Heady, H. F. 1956. Changes in a California annual plant community induced by manipulation of natural mulch. Ecology 37(4):798–812.

Heady, H. F. 1958. Vegetational changes in the California annual type. Ecology 39(3)402–416.

Heady, H. F. 1973. Burning and the grasslands in California. Proceedings Tall Timbers Fire Ecology Conference 12:97–107.

Heady, H. F. 1977. Valley grassland. Pages 491–514 in M. G. Barbour and J. Major, eds. Terrestrial Vegetation of California. J. Wiley and Sons. New York, NY.

Heady, H. F., J. W. Bartolome, M. D. Pitt, G. D. Savelle, and M. C. Stroud. 1991. California prairie. Pages 313– 335 in R. T. Coupland, ed. Ecosystems of the World 8A, Natural Grasslands: Introduction and Western Hemisphere. Elsevier. New York, NY.

Holmes, N. D., D. S. Smith and A. Johnston. 1979. Effect of grazing by cattle on the abundance of grasshoppers on fescue grassland. Journal of Range Management 32:310–312.

Heirschmidt, R. K. and J. W. Stuth, eds. 1991. Grazing Management: An Ecological Perspective. Timberline Press, Portland, OR.

Interagency Wildlife Task Group. 2002. California Wildlife Habitat Relationship System. Sacramento, CA.

Jackson, R. D. and J. W. Bartolome. 2002. A state-transition approach to understanding nonequilibrium plant community dynamics in California grasslands. Plant Ecology 162:49–65.

Joern, A. 1989. Insect herbivory in the transition to California annual grasslands: did grasshoppers deliver the coup de grass? Pages 117 to 134 in L. F. Huenneke and H. Mooney eds. Grassland Structure and Function: California Annual Grassland. Kluwer Academic Publishers. Boston, MA.

Lidicker, W. Z. 1989. Impacts of non-domesticated vertebrates on California grasslands. Pages 135 to 150 in L. F. Huenneke and H. Mooney eds. Grassland Structure and Function: California Annual Grassland. Kluwer Academic Publishers. Boston, MA.

Marty, J. T. 2005. Effects of cattle grazing on diversity in ephemeral wetlands. Conservation Biology 19(5):1626– 1632.

Sacramento County Economic Development Department South Mather Wetlands Management Plan E-25 Hazardous Wildlife Assessment Nerney, N. J. 1958. Grasshopper infestations in relation to range condition. Journal of Range Management 11:247.

Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS0. 1993. Soil survey of Sacramento County, California. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Davis, CA.

Pfadt, R. E. 1994. Devastating Grasshopper (Melanoplus devastator). Wyoming Agricultural Experiment Station Bulletin 912 Species Fact Sheet. Laramie, WY.

Phillips, P. 1936. The distribution of rodents in overgrazed and normal grasslands in central Oklahoma. Ecology 17:673–679.

Pitt, M. D. and H. F. Heady. 1979. The effects of grazing intensity on annual vegetation. Journal of Range Management 32(2):109–114.

Rogers, D. C. 1998. Aquatic macroinvertebrate occurrences and population trends in constructed and natural vernal pools in Folsom, California. Pages 224–235 in C. W. Witham, E. T. Bauder, D. Belk, W. R. Ferren, and R. Ornduff, eds. Ecology, Conservation and Management of Vernal Pool Ecosystems: Proceedings from a 1996 Conference. California Native Plant Society, Sacramento, CA.

Seamans, T. W., S. C. Barras, G. E. Bernhardt, B. F. Blackwell, and J. D. Cepek. 2007. Comparison of 2 vegetation-height management practices for wildlife control at airports. Human-Wildlife Conflicts 1:97– 105.

Smith, C. C. 1940. The effect of overgrazing and erosion upon the biota of the mixed grass prairie of Oklahoma. Ecology 21:381–397.

Taylor, W. D. C. T. Vorhies, and P. B. Lister. 1935. The relation of jackrabbits to grazing in Southern Arizona. Journal of Forestry 33:490–498.

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). 2003. Mather Airport Wildlife Hazard Assessment. U.S. Department of Agriculture Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service Wildlife Service. Sacramento, CA.

Wilkins, K. T. and D. J. Schmidly. 1979. The effects of mowing highway rights-of-way on small mammals. Pages 55-1 to 55-13 in D. Arner and R. Tillman, eds. Proceedings of the Second Symposium, Environmental Concerns in Rights-of-Way Management. Ann Arbor, MI.

Wright, S. and R. Dolbeer. 2005. Percentage of wildlife strikes reported and species identified under a voluntary reporting system. Paper presented at the 7th Combined Meeting of Bird Strike Committee USA and Bird Strike Committee Canada. Vancouver, CAN. Available online at: Accessed April 29, 2010.

Young, J. A. and R. A. Evans. 1989. Seed production and germination dynamics in California annual grasslands. Pages 39 to 46 in L. F. Huenneke and H. Mooney eds. Grassland Structure and Function: California Annual Grassland. Kluwer Academic Publishers. Boston, MA.

Zavon, J. A. 1982. Grazing and fire effects on annual grassland composition and sheep diet selectivity. Unpublished master’s thesis. University of California Davis. Davis, CA.

Sacramento County Economic Development Department Hazardous Wildlife Assessment E-26 South Mather Wetlands Management Plan APPENDIX F Vernal Pools of Mather Field

Vernal Pools of Mather Field

FERNS & FERN ALLIES Isoeteaceae - Quillwort Family Isoetes howellii Howell’s quillwort vernal pools, marshes Isoetes orcuttii Orcutt’s quillwort vernal pools

Marsileaceae - Marsilea Family Marsilea vestita ssp. v. Hairy pepperwort vernal pools, streams Pilularia americana American pillwort vernal pools

DICOTS Apiaceae - Carrot Family Conium maculatum* Poison hemlock marshes Eryngium castrense Coyote thistle vernal pools Lomatium caruifolium var. c. Caraway-leaved lomatium grassland Sanicula bipinnatifida Purple sanicle grassland

Asclepiadaceae - Milkweed Family Asclepias fascicularis Narrow-leaf milkweed grassland

Asteraceae - Sunflower Family Achyrachaena mollis Blow wives grassland Baccharis pilularis Coyote bush grassland Blennosperma nanum var. n. Yellow carpet vernal pool margins Carduus pycnocephalus* Italian thistle grassland, disturbed Centaurea solstitialis* Yellow starthistle grassland, disturbed Chamomilla suaveolens* Pineapple weed disturbed areas Filago gallica* Filago disturbed areas Grindelia camporum var. c. Gum plant grassland Hemizonia fitchii Fitch’s tarweed vernal pools, grassland Heterotheca grandiflora Telegraph weed disturbed areas Holocarpha virgata Twiggy tarweed grassland Hypochaeris glabra* Smooth cat’s-ear vernal pool margins Hypochaeris radicata* Rough cat’s-ear grassland Lactuca serriola* Prickly lettuce grassland Lasthenia californica California goldfields grassland Lasthenia fremontii Vernal pool goldfields vernal pools Lasthenia glaberrima Rayless goldfields vernal pools Layia fremontii Fremont’s tidy-tips grassland Leontodon taraxacoides* Hawkbit vernal pools Madia elegans ssp. vernalis Spring madia grassland Micropus californicus var. c. Q Tips grassland Microseris douglasii ssp. tenella Douglas’ microseris grassland Psilocarphus brevissimus var. b. Woolly marbles vernal pools Psilocarphus oregonus Oregon woolly marbles pools, grassland Psilocarphus tenellus var. globiferus Slender woolly marbles vernal pools Silybum marianum* Milk thistle grassland, disturbed Soliva sessilis* Soliva grassland, disturbed Sonchus asper ssp. a.* Sow thistle grassland, disturbed

40 * non-native California Native Plant Society

Asteraceae (continued) Tragopogon sp.* Salsify grassland Wyethia angustifolia Mule’s-ear grassland Xanthium strumarium Cocklebur disturbed

Boraginaceae - Borage Family Amsinckia menziesii var. intermedia Fiddleneck grassland, disturbed Plagiobothrys bracteatus Smooth popcorn flower vernal pools Plagiobothrys fulvus Field popcorn flower grassland Plagiobothrys greenei Greene’s popcorn flower pool margins Plagiobothrys leptocladus Prostrate popcorn flower vernal pools Plagiobothrys stipitatus var. micranthus Slender popcorn flower vernal pools

Brassicaceae - Mustard Family Brassica nigra* Black mustard grassland, disturbed Cardamine oligosperma Western bittercress vernal pools Hirschfeldia incana* Field mustard grassland Lepidium latipes var. l. Dwarf peppergrass grassland Lepidium nitidum var. n. Shining peppergrass vernal pool margins Raphanus raphanistrum* Jointed wild radish grassland, disturbed Raphanus sativus* Common wild radish grassland, disturbed Rorippa nasturtium-aquaticum Water-cress marshes Thysanocarpus radians Spokepod grassland

Callitrichaceae - Water Starwort Family Callitriche marginata Winged water starwort vernal pools

Campanulaceae - Bellflower Family Downingia bicornuta var. picta Horned downingia vernal pools Downingia cuspidata Toothed downingia vernal pools Downingia ornatissima var. o. Folded downingia vernal pools Legenere limosa Legenere vernal pools

Caryophyllaceae - Pink Family Cerastium glomeratum* Mouse-ear chickweed grassland Sagina decumbens ssp. occidentalis Western pearlwort vernal pool margins Spergularia bocconei* Boccon’s sand-spurrey disturbed areas

Convolvulaceae - Morning-Glory Family Convolvulus arvensis* Bindweed grassland Cuscuta howelliana Vernal pool dodder vernal pools

Crassulaceae - Stonecrop Family Crassula aquatica Water pygmy-weed vernal pools Crassula tillaea* Moss pygmy-weed disturbed areas

Elatinaceae - Waterwort Family Elatine californica California waterwort vernal pools Elatine rubella Red waterwort vernal pools

* non-native 41 Vernal Pools of Mather Field

Euphorbiaceae - Spurge Family Eremocarpus setigerus Turkey mullein, dove weed grassland

Fabaceae - Pea Family Lathyrus hirsutus* Hairy pea grassland Lotus micranthus Smallflower lotus grassland, disturbed Lotus purshianus var. p. Spanish lotus grassland Lupinus bicolor Miniature lupine grassland Medicago polymorpha* Bur clover grassland, vernal pools Trifolium depauperatum var. d. Dwarf sack clover vernal pools, grassland Trifolium depauperatum var. truncatum Pale sack clover vernal pools, grassland Trifolium dubium* Hop clover grassland Trifolium hirtum* Rose clover grassland, disturbed Trifolium repens* White lawn clover vernal pool margins Trifolium variegatum White-tipped clover vernal pools Vicia sativa ssp. nigra* Common vetch grassland, disturbed Vicia villosa ssp. v.* Winter vetch grassland, disturbed

Fagaceae - Oak Family Quercus douglasii Blue oak grassland Quercus lobata Valley oak grassland Quercus wislizeni Interior live oak grassland

Gentianaceae - Gentian Family Centaurium muehlenbergii June centaury vernal pool margins Cicendia quadrangularis Cicendia vernal pool margins

Geraniaceae - Geranium Family Erodium botrys* Filaree grassland Erodium cicutarium* Cut-leaf filaree grassland Geranium carolinianum Carolina geranium grassland Geranium dissectum* Cut-leaf geranium mesic areas

Hypericaceae - St. John’s Wort Family Hypericum perforatum* Klamath weed grassland, disturbed

Lamiaceae - Mint Family Mentha pulegium* Pennyroyal marshes Pogogyne douglasii Douglas’ beard-style vernal pools Pogogyne zizyphoroides Sacramento beard-style vernal pools Trichostema lanceolatum Vinegar weed grassland, vernal pools

Limnanthaceae - Meadowfoam Family Limnanthes alba ssp. a. White meadowfoam vernal pool margins

Lythraceae - Loosestrife Family Lythrum hyssopifolia* Hyssop loosestrife vernal pools

42 * non-native California Native Plant Society

Malvaceae - Mallow Family Sidalcea calycosa ssp. c. Vernal pool checkerbloom vernal pools Sidalcea hirsuta Alkali checkerbloom grassland

Molluginaceae - Carpet-Weed Family Mollugo verticillata* Carpet-weed disturbed areas

Myrtaceae - Myrtle Family Eucalyptus globulus* Blue gum planted

Onagraceae - Evening-Primrose Family Epilobium brachycarpum Willow-herb disturbed areas Epilobium pygmaeum Smooth boisduvalia vernal pool margins Epilobium torreyi Soft boisduvalia vernal pool margins Ludwigia peploides ssp. p. Yellow waterweed lake, marshes

Papaveraceae - Poppy Family Eschscholzia californica California poppy grassland Eschscholzia lobbii Frying pan poppy grassland

Plantaginaceae - Plantain Family Plantago coronopus* Fern-leaf plantain disturbed areas Plantago erecta Dwarf plantain grassland Plantago lanceolata* English plantain disturbed areas

Polemoniaceae - Phlox Family Navarretia intertexta ssp. i. Spiny navarretia vernal pool margins Navarretia leucocephala ssp. l. White navarretia vernal pools

Polygonaceae - Buckwheat Family Eriogonum nudum var. n. Nude buckwheat grassland Polygonum arenastrum* Common knotweed disturbed areas Polygonum persicaria* Lady’s thumb bistort marshes Polygonum punctatum Dotted Smartweed marshes Rumex acetosella* Sheep sorrel grassland Rumex conglomeratus* Clustered dock vernal pools, marshes Rumex crispus* Curly dock vernal pools, marshes Rumex pulcher* Fiddle dock vernal pools, marshes

Portulacaceae - Purslane Family Calandrinia ciliata Red maids grassland, disturbed Montia fontana Water chickweed, blinks vernal pools

Primulaceae - Primrose Family Anagallis arvensis* Scarlet pimpernel grassland, disturbed Centunculus minimus Chaffweed vernal pools

Ranunculaceae - Buttercup Family Ranunculus aquatilis var. capillaceus Water buttercup vernal pools, marshes

* non-native 43 Vernal Pools of Mather Field

Ranunculaceae (continued) Ranunculus bonariensis var. trisepalus Vernal pool buttercup vernal pools Ranunculus muricatus* Spiny fruit buttercup wet areas

Rubiaceae - Madder Family Galium aparine Common bedstraw grassland, disturbed Galium parisiense* Wall bedstraw grassland

Salicaceae - Willow Family Populus fremontii ssp. f. Fremont’s cottonwood lakeside Salix exigua Sandbar willow lakeside Salix lasiolepis Arroyo willow lakeside

Scrophulariaceae - Figwort Family Castilleja attenuata Valley tassels grassland Castilleja campestris ssp. c. Field owl’s clover vernal pools Gratiola ebracteata Bractless hedge-hyssop vernal pools Gratiola heterosepala Boggs Lake hedge-hyssop vernal pools Mimulus guttatus Seep spring monkeyflower marshes Mimulus tricolor Vernal pool monkeyflower vernal pools Triphysaria eriantha ssp. e. Johnny-tuck, butter&eggs grassland Triphysaria pusilla Little owl’s clover grassland Veronica peregrina ssp. xalapensis Purslane speedwell vernal pools

MONOCOTS Alismataceae - Water-Plantain Family Alisma plantago-aquatica Water-plantain marshes Damasonium californicum Fringed water-plantain vernal pools

Cyperaceae - Sedge Family Cyperus difformis* Variable flatsedge marshes Cyperus eragrostis Tall flatsedge marshes Eleocharis acicularis var. a. Dwarf spikerush vernal pools Eleocharis macrostachya Pale spikerush marshes, vernal pools Scirpus acutus var. occidentalis Tule marshes

Juncaceae - Rush Family Juncus acuminatus Tapertip rush marshes Juncus balticus Baltic rush marshes Juncus bufonius var. occidentalis Toad rush vernal pool margins Juncus capitatus* Capped dwarf rush vernal pool margins Juncus effusus var. pacificus Pacific rush marshes Juncus leiospermus var. ahartii Ahart’s dwarf rush vernal pools Juncus oxymeris Pointed rush marshes Juncus tenuis Soft rush grassland Juncus uncialis Inch-high dwarf rush vernal pools Juncus xiphioides Iris-leaved rush marshes, vernal pools

44 * non-native California Native Plant Society

Juncaginceae - Arrow-Grass Family Lilaea scilloides Flowering quillwort vernal pools

Lemnaceae - Duckweed Family Lemna minor Small duckweed summer water

Liliaceae - Lily Family Allium amplectens Wild onion grassland Brodiaea coronaria ssp. c. Crown brodiaea grassland Brodiaea elegans ssp. e. Elegant brodiaea grassland Brodiaea minor Vernal pool brodiaea vernal pools Calochortus luteus Gold nuggets grassland Chlorogalum pomeridianum var. p. Soap root grassland Dichelostemma capitatum ssp. c. Blue dicks grassland Dichelostemma multiflorum Wild hyacinth grassland Triteleia hyacinthina White hyacinth grassland Triteleia laxa Wally baskets grassland

Poaceae - Grass Family Aegilops triuncialis* Barbed goatgrass grassland Agrostis avenacea* Bent grass marshes Aira caryophyllea* Silver hairgrass grassland Alopecurus saccatus Meadow foxtail vernal pools Andropogon virginicus var. v.* Broomsedge bluestem marshes Avena barbata* Slender wild oats grassland Avena fatua* Wild oats grassland Briza minor* Little quaking grass grassland Bromus diandrus* Ripgut brome grassland Bromus hordeaceus* Soft chess brome grassland Deschampsia danthonioides Vernal pool hairgrass vernal pools Echinochloa crus-galli* Barnyard Grass marshes Elymus elymoides Squirreltail grass grassland Glyceria declinata* Manna grass vernal pools, marshes Hordeum marinum ssp. gussoneanum* Mediterranean barley grassland, pools Hordeum murinum ssp. leporinum* Foxtail barley grassland Leptochloa mucronata Sprangletop grass marshes Lolium multiflorum* Italian ryegrass grassland, vernal pools Lolium perenne* Perennial ryegrass grassland Nassella pulchra Purple needlegrass grassland Poa annua* Annual bluegrass grassland, vernal pools Polypogon monspeliensis* Rabbit’s foot grass vernal pools, marshes Scribneria bolanderi Scribneria vernal pool margins Taeniatherum caput-medusae* Medusahead grassland Vulpia bromoides* Annual fescue grassland Vulpia microstachys var. m. Desert fescue grassland

Typhaceae - Cattail Family Typha angustifolia Narrow-leaved cattail marshes Typha latifolia Broad-leaved cattail marshes

* non-native 45 APPENDIX G List of Wildlife Species Observed within South Mather

APPENDIX G LIST OF WILDLIFE SPECIES OBSERVED WITHIN SOUTH MATHER

List of Wildlife Species Observed within the Mather Field Study Area (WRA 2002) Common Name Species Seasonal Status Habitat Association Mammals coyote Canis latrans resident grassland black-tailed jackrabbit Lepus californicus resident grassland, shrub California vole Microtus californica resident grassland, shrub raccoon Procyon lotor resident drainage Botta’s pocket gopher Thomomys bottae resident grassland Birds red-winged blackbird Agelaius phoeniceus resident aquatic/riparian American pipit Anthus rubescens migrant grassland western scrub-jay Aphelocoma coerulescens resident oak woodland burrowing owl Athene cunicularia resident rubble pile, grassland great horned owl Bubo virginianus resident woodland, grassland red-shouldered hawk Buteo lineatus resident woodland red-tailed hawk Buteo jamaicensis resident grasslands California quail Callipepla californica resident grassland, shrub Anna’s hummingbird Calypte anna resident scrub, residential house finch Carpodacus mexicanus resident shrub turkey vulture Cathartes aura resident grassland, shrub, woodland killdeer Charadrius vociferus resident grassland northern harrier Circus cyaneus resident grassland northern flicker Colaptes auratus resident woodland, shrub common raven Corvus corax resident woodland, grassland American crow Corvus brachyrhynchos resident shrub yellow-rumped warbler Dendroica coronata winter shrub, woodland white-tailed kite Elanus caeruleus resident grassland Brewer’s blackbird Euphagus cyanocephalus resident grassland American kestrel Falco sparverius resident grassland wild turkey Meleagris gallopavo resident woodland savannah sparrow Passerculus sandwichensis migrant grassland, ruderal, shrub ring-necked pheasant Phasianus colchicus resident grasslands, shrub Nuttall’s woodpecker Picoides nuttallii resident woodland bushtit Psaltriparus minimus resident shrub, woodland black phoebe Sayornis nigricans resident fence lines Say’s phoebe Sayornis saya migrant grassland western meadowlark Sturnella neglecta resident grassland mourning dove Zenaida macroura resident grassland, shrub, woodland white-crowned sparrow Zonotrichia leucophrys migrant grassland, ruderal, shrub Reptiles & Amphibians bullfrog Rana catesbeiana resident drainage Source: WRA 2002

Sacramento County Economic Development Department South Mather Wetlands Management Plan G-1 List of Wildlife Species Observed within South Mather

APPENDIX H Sample Grazing Lease

APPENDIX H SAMPLE GRAZING LEASE

WHEREAS, livestock grazing within preserved and protected areas at South Mather (Wetlands Preserve) is recognized to be an experimental management tool for the maintenance and enhancement of natural resource values; and

WHEREAS, [insert Wetlands Preserve Manager name here] (Wetlands Preserve Manager) and Sacramento County (Wetlands Preserve Owner) are willing to permit such grazing in a matter compatible with the long term maintenance and enhancement of approximately X acres of restored wetlands, X acres of preserved wetlands, and X acres of upland habitat (Conservation Values);

Purpose: The Wetlands Preserve shall be used by the lessee solely for the grazing of permitted livestock. In no event shall the lessee use Wetlands Preserve in a matter that would, in the opinion of the Wetlands Preserve Manager or Wetlands Preserve Owner, have an adverse effect on the Wetlands Preserve or Conservation Values. The lessee shall not sub-lease his/her grazing privileges without the written permission of the Wetlands Preserve Owner and Wetlands Preserve Manager. Prohibited uses of the Wetlands Preserve shall include, but not be limited to: establishing any road, introduction of vegetation, dumping of objects or materials, use of pesticides or herbicides without prior authorization, cutting of any trees or other vegetation, placing any structures temporary or permanent, and mineral exploration or extraction.

Sensitive Resources: Grazing within the Wetlands Preserve shall be subject to all applicable environmental regulations which may include the California Endangered Species Act, the Federal Endangered Species Act, and the Federal Clean Water Act.

Season of Use: Initial season of use shall be XXXXXX to XXXXXX. These dates may be modified as necessary in response to forage and weather conditions. The lessee shall notify the Wetlands Preserve Manager 72 hours prior to moving livestock on or off the Wetlands Preserve.

Maximum Livestock Use: The base, minimum and maximum permitted Animal-Unit months (AUMs) for the Wetlands Preserve subject to the terms of this lease shall be XXXX AUMs, XXXX AUMs and XXXX AUMs, respectively. Specific allowable AUMs shall be determined on an annual basis. Stocking rates shall be adjusted to maintain an average of XXX to XXX pounds per acre of residual dry matter (RDM) as measured following the removal of livestock at the end of the permitted grazing period. Both the lessee and Wetlands Preserve Manager shall be responsible for monitoring livestock use to ensure that RDM levels do not fall below this standard. If this standard is reached before the end of the grazing season, the lessee shall be required to remove all livestock from those areas exceeding the RDM standard within 72 hours. The Wetlands Preserve Manager may modify this standard if monitoring indicates that a different standard is required to maintain or enhance Conservation Values.

Kind and Class: This lease permits all classes of cattle. Sheep and goats are also permissible at the discretion of the Wetlands Preserve Manager. The lessee shall present truck tickets and/or permit the Wetlands Preserve Manager to count livestock onto the lease to verify the kind and class of grazing animals brought onto Wetlands Preserves. The lessee shall notify the Wetlands Preserve Manager within 72 hours of bringing livestock onto the Wetlands Preserve. The lessee may also keep up to three (3) horses within Wetlands Preserves to facilitate the gathering and handling of livestock.

Ownership: All adult cattle shall be branded and a certificate from the State of California Department of Agriculture attesting to lessee’s ownership of said brand(s) shall be presented to the Wetlands Preserve Manager before livestock are brought onto the Wetlands Preserve.

Sacramento County Economic Development Department South Mather Wetlands Management Plan H-1 Sample Grazing Lease Supplemental Feeding: All mineral supplements shall be provided in enclosed containers and kept off the ground at all times. All supplements shall be placed at least 250 feet from any vernal pool or seasonal wetland. Salting locations shall be approved by the Wetlands Preserve Manager. Supplemental feeding of hay or the use of bulk protein feeders shall not be allowed without the permission of the Wetlands Preserve Manager. Any supplemental feed brought onto the Wetlands Preserve shall be certified weed free by the Sacramento County Agricultural Commissioner. A certificate attesting to this fact shall be presented to the Wetlands Preserve Manager prior to bringing any supplemental forage onto the Wetlands Preserve.

Handling and Watering Facilities: No additional livestock handling and watering facilities shall be located on the Wetlands Preserve without the prior approval of the Wetlands Preserve Manager. All troughs shall be maintained to be clean and free-flowing at all times. Each trough shall be equipped with a shut-off valve and any overflow shall be collected and piped away from the trough. All troughs shall be equipped with a wildlife escape ramp. Any broken or malfunctioning trough shall be reported to the Wetlands Preserve Manager immediately. Temporary troughs, corals and loading chutes shall be permitted with the approval of the Wetlands Preserve Manager. The lessee is responsible for the maintenance of all temporary range improvements. All temporary chutes, corrals, and troughs shall be removed from the Wetlands Preserve within one week as directed by the Wetlands Preserve Manager.

Post-Restoration Grazing: Post-restoration grazing shall be handled on a case-by-case basis. In general, for grassland restoration projects, grazing capacity shall be reduced by 50% the first season and by 33% the second season. Grazing capacities for the third and successive seasons shall be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.

Post-Fire Grazing: Post-fire grazing shall be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. In general, livestock shall be completely excluded from burn areas until sufficient vegetative cover is present to protect the soil from erosion and there is no potential, in the opinion of the Wetlands Preserve Manager, that grazing would hinder regeneration of native vegetation. Grazing may be used on a limited basis as a mechanism to control populations of invasive plants at the discretion of the Wetlands Preserve Manager.

Predator Control: Non-lethal predatory animal control shall be permitted. Lethal methods must be approved by the Wetlands Preserve Manager and will only be approved in extraordinary circumstances.

Dead and Dying Livestock: Dead and dying livestock shall be removed from Wetlands Preserves within 24 hours of detection.

Reporting: The lessee shall provide the Wetlands Preserve Manager with a monthly report showing the kind, class, and number of animals grazing within Wetlands Preserves. Failure to provide these reports in a timely fashion may be cause for lease termination.

Maintenance: The lessee shall be responsible for the maintenance of all livestock handling, fencing, and other range improvements within the Wetlands Preserve. All old materials, trash, and supplies (rope, wire, staples, clips, concrete, etc.) shall be immediately removed. The Wetlands Preserve Manager and Wetlands Preserve Owner shall work with the lessee to coordinate larger range improvement maintenance and replacement projects on a case-by-case basis.

Cooperation: The Wetlands Preserve Owner and Preserve Manger expect the full cooperation of the lessee in managing the biological resources within the Wetlands Preserve. The lessee shall be obligated to report any trespass or other unauthorized uses of Wetlands Preserves to the Wetlands Preserve Manager immediately. Likewise, the Wetlands Preserve Manager and Wetlands Preserve Owner shall inform the lessee in a timely fashion of any changes in the management of the Wetlands Preserve likely to affect the lessee’s livestock operation.

Sacramento County Economic Development Department Sample Grazing Lease H-2 South Mather Wetlands Management Plan APPENDIX I Easement Field Inspection Form

APPENDIX I EASEMENT FIELD INSPECTION FORM

EASEMENT FIELD INSPECTION

Name(s) of Inspector(s): ______

______

General condition of site:

Observations (please attach photos):

Erosion:

Fire Hazards:

Gates/Signs/Site Security:

Trash Accumulation:

Unauthorized Uses:

Action(s) Taken:

Date(s) action(s) Taken:

Signature: ______Date______

Printed Name, Title: ______

Sacramento County Economic Development Department South Mather Wetlands Management Plan I-1 Easement Field Inspection Form

APPENDIX J Property Analysis Record

APPENDIX J PAR ANALYSIS

Basic Assumptions

 Contingency cost = 10%

 Preserve manager administration overhead = 24%; no administration overhead is added to Monitoring Biologist labor and travel, as well as site construction (excluding signage and fencing maintenance).

 Mileage

o (round trip) for the Preserve Manager is 25 miles

o (round trip) for the Monitoring Biologist is 25 miles

o Rate is current IRS rate $0.55 per mile

 Hourly rates

o Preserve Manager = $50/hour

o Monitoring Biologist = $120/hour

 Assumes that Preserve Manager currently owns all field and office equipment required to oversee management of the Wetlands Preserve (e.g., GPS unit, computer hardware and software, office space, field vehicles). Use charges for this equipment or annual allowances are included in Section15 where appropriate.

 Includes all upfront, one-time costs in Section 14 (e.g., fencing).

 Includes annual costs for each year of the 5 to 10 year initial management period in Section 15. There is no capitalization rate applied to this amount because Sacramento County will fund this amount on an annual basis during the initial management period.

Biotic Surveys

 Project Management. Preserve Manager supervision and staff coordination, Monitoring Biologist coordination and contracts, and agency coordination

o 20 hours per year for Preserve Manager in Section 15

 Grazing Management. Collection of quantitative monitoring data within 2 grazing enclosures established to examine the effectiveness of livestock grazing as a management tool for the Wetlands Preserve.

o Selection of Monitoring Locations: Selection and field location of vernal pools and transects for annual monitoring. Installation of monitoring location markers.

. 30 hours for Preserve Manager in Section 14

Sacramento County Economic Development Department South Mather Wetlands Management Plan J-1 Initial Management Plan PAR Analysis Assumptions o Plant Community Monitoring: Collect monitoring data at 80 vernal pools and 80 upland transects. Conduct photo-documentation and collect data for non-native plants, percent cover of native and non-native plants, assess vernal pool habitat, assess upland habitat, and locate problem areas.

. 100 hours per year for Monitoring Biologist in Section 15

o Hydrology Monitoring: Collect hydrology data (inundation depth, hydroperiod) at 80 vernal pools.

. 20 hours per year for Monitoring Biologist in Section 15

o Invertebrate Monitoring: Conduct one wet-season vernal pool invertebrate survey within 80 vernal pools during time that federally-listed vernal pool crustaceans are most likely to be encountered.

. 30 hours per year for Monitoring Biologist in Section 15

 Grazing Monitoring: Collect RDM data along 80 upland transects

o 40 hours per year for Monitoring Biologist in Section 15

 Invasive Plants. Collection of data documenting occurrence of weed species across the Wetlands Preserve relative to baseline conditions. Assumes that Sacramento County will fund a detailed weed management plan immediately following establishment of the Wetlands Preserve. The weed management plan will document baseline conditions for invasive plant species across the Wetlands Preserve and detail appropriate treatment methods. The cost to prepare the weed management plan is not included in Section14 or Section 15.

o Included in General Biological Monitoring

 General Biological Monitoring. Semi-annual surveys across entire Wetlands Preserve to document overall status of biological resources (e.g., invasive plant populations, effectiveness of invasive plant treatments, special-status plant occurrences, wildlife use, etc.). One survey to occur in the spring and a second survey to occur in the fall.

o 24 hours per year for Preserve Manager in Section 15

Field Equipment

 Assume an annual stipend amount of $500 for field equipment included in Section 15

General Maintenance

 Project Management. General coordination of maintenance activities, coordination with other entities regarding right-of-way maintenance (Sacramento County), vector control (Sacramento-Yolo Vector Control District), fire break maintenance (Sac Metro Fire), remediation facilities (U.S. Air Force), and similar activities. Maintenance of correspondence logs and documentation.

o 40 hours annually for Preserve Manager in Section 15

 Trash removal. Periodic removal of trash and other unwanted debris from the Wetlands Preserve.

Sacramento County Economic Development Department Initial Management Plan PAR Analysis Assumptions J-2 South Mather Wetlands Management Plan o 20 hours annually for Preserve Manager in Section 15

o $500 allowance for dump fees in Section 15

 Patrolling. Regular (monthly) inspections of the Wetland Preserve for visual signs of potential damage, condition of fencing, and signs of trespass.

o 12 half days annually (48 hours per year) for Preserve Manager in Section 15

 General Maintenance Inspections. Quarterly inspections of Wetlands Preserve condition and integrity to document harm to the property, condition of signage and fencing, trash accumulation, and maintenance of a log to record all activities.

o 4 half days annually (16 hours per year) for Preserve Manager in Section 15

 General Maintenance Adaptive Management Fund. Annual fund to cover unexpected costs related to general Wetlands Preserve Maintenance.

o $1,000 annual allowance in Section 15

Habitat Maintenance

 Preparation of Invasive Plant Management Plan.

o $25,000 for Monitoring Biologist to prepare the Invasive Plant Management Plan in Section 14

 Exotic Pest Control. Manage non-native plant species, mechanically or chemically (assume no biological control or burning), per the invasive plant management plan to be prepared following establishment of the Wetlands Preserve. Budget assumes that invasive plant management during the initial management period will primarily focus on control of isolated populations and newly introduced species as opposed to ubiquitous species such as medusa-head (Elymus caput-medusae).

o 40 hours per year for Preserve Manager using methods such as hand removal, use of weed eaters, and herbicides in Section 15.

o 5 gallons of broad-spectrum herbicide (e.g., glyphosate) per year in Section 15

o 2 gallons of selective herbicide (e.g., aminopyralid) per year in Section 15

 Firebreak Maintenance. Maintenance of a mowed firebreak between the Wetlands Preserve and Independence at Mather community. Assumes that a Monitoring Biologist would be required to conduct a pre-activity survey for nesting birds prior to mowing and that the firebreak would be mowed once, prior to the start of the fire season (e.g., approximately May to June).

o 10 hours annually for Monitoring Biologist in Section 15

o $2,500 annually for hiring contractor to mow fire break in Section 15

 Grazing Management. Coordination with a grazing lessee for implementation of the grazing management plan.

o 20 hours per year for Preserve Manager in Section 15.

Sacramento County Economic Development Department South Mather Wetlands Management Plan J-3 Initial Management Plan PAR Analysis Assumptions  Habitat Maintenance Adaptive Management Fund. Annual fund to cover unexpected costs related to Wetlands Preserve habitat maintenance.

o $2,000 annual allowance included in Section 15

Office Maintenance

 Assume an allowance of $500 for office supplies included in Section 15

Operations

 Insurance cost is calculated per acre ($0.50 per acre) and included in Section 15

 Mileage

o Monitoring Biologist: Assume 5 trips on average per year or 125 mi total included in Section 15

o Preserve Manager: Assume 50 trips on average per year or 1,250 mi total included in Section 15

Public Service

 Community Outreach Coordination. Coordination regarding public use of and access to the Wetlands Preserve.

o 20 hours per year for Preserve Manager in Section 15

Reporting

 Annual Agency Report. Compile and analyze all field data collected for grazing management plan, general biological inspections, maintenance inspections, and all other management activities during the year; organize, manage, and prepare digital photos and GIS maps, submit report to Sacramento County and agencies for review, prepare final report

o 80 hours annually for Preserve Manager to prepare report in Section 15

o 70 hours annually in Section 15 for Monitoring Biologist to contribute data for report and to review data analysis and provide peer review

 Annual Workplan and Budget

o 30 hours for Preserve Manager in Section 15 to prepare workplan and budget for following calendar year to be included in Annual Agency Report

Site Construction and Maintenance

 Grazing Enclosure Fencing. Assumes fencing would only be required for grazing enclosures and along Eagles Nest Road (see below) during Initial Management Period. Any other fencing required to facilitate management of the Wetlands Preserve, reduce trespass, or to meet other management goals would be funded separately by Sacramento County. All fencing costs would be phased over a 3-year period.

o For calculation purposes, assuming that each of the 2 enclosures is a stand-alone square shape, the total of new 5-strand barbed wire fencing required is 23,613 linear feet (lf) (11,806 lf for each enclosure)

Sacramento County Economic Development Department Initial Management Plan PAR Analysis Assumptions J-4 South Mather Wetlands Management Plan o Assume $7 per lf for fence construction labor and materials, inclusive, included in Section 14

 Gates. Assume 1 metal Powder River or similar livestock gate for each grazing enclosure included in Section 14.

 Livestock Handling Facilities. Assume temporary facilities provided by the grazing lessee at no cost to the Preserve Manager

 Livestock Water. Assume one trough-tank combination would be constructed for each enclosure.

o For calculation purposes, assume a 500-gallon metal livestock water trough coupled with a 2,500- gallon or similar polyethylene water tank. Water would be provided by the grazing lessee from a water truck or similar source as needed. Costs to purchase and install the trough/tank combinations are included in Section 14.

 Signage. Assumes one metal boundary sign installed every 500 ft along entire Wetlands Preserve Boundary, and special study area signs installed every 1,000 ft along grazing enclosures.

o Signage along Eagles Nest Road and grazing exclusions to be installed by contractor during fence installation

. 11,028 lf of fencing along Eagles Nest Road = 22 signs included in Section 14

. 23,613 lf of grazing enclosure fencing = 24 signs included in Section 14

o All other signs to be installed by Preserve Manager on 7-ft metal t-posts.

. 73,500 lf of Wetlands Preserve perimeter (not including Eagles Nest Road frontage) = 147 signs and 147 t-posts included in Section 14

. 40 hrs in Section 14 for Preserve Manager to install signs and t-posts

 Eagles Nest Road Fencing. Assume 11,028 lf of 5-strand barbed wire fencing constructed along Eagles Nest Road to discourage trespass included in Section 14. A variable number of wire gates or gaps would be constructed along this fenceline as needed to facilitate public access (on foot) at no additional cost. There would be no metal gates along this fenceline.

 Annual maintenance allowance. Annual maintenance for fencing and water troughs as needed.

o $500 annual allowance included in Section 15

Sacramento County Economic Development Department South Mather Wetlands Management Plan J-5 Initial Management Plan PAR Analysis Assumptions Mather Wetlands Management Plan, Initial Management Plan Budget, Year 1 through 5 to 10 H. T. Harvey & Associates 3/26/2012, Revised February 2013

Times years Divide years (# of times the (frequency of task occurs) occurrence)

Section 14 Section 15 Number of Initial Financial Annual Ongoing Section 14 Section 15 Frequency in Task Unit Quantity Occurences in Requirements Financial Requirements Cost Cost Ongoing Years Initial Year (Section 14) (Section 15) (Yrs >1) (Yr 1)

Biotic Surveys Project Management Supervise/coordinate L hours 20 N/A 50 N/A 1 N/A $ 1,000.00 Grazing Management Select Monitoring Locations C hours 30 120 N/A 1 N/A $ 3,600.00 N/A Grazing Management Plant Community Monitoring C hours 100 N/A 120 N/A 1 N/A $ 12,000.00 Grazing Management Hydrology Monitoring C hours 20 N/A 120 N/A 1 N/A $ 2,400.00 Grazing Management Invertebrate Monitoring C hours 30 N/A 120 N/A 1 N/A $ 3,600.00 Grazing Monitoring Collect RDM Data C hours 40 N/A 120 N/A 1 N/A $ 4,800.00 General Biologic Monitoring General Surveys L hours 24 N/A 50 N/A 1 N/A $ 1,200.00

Field Equipment Stipend Allowance for Field Equipment Item 1 N/A 500 N/A 1 N/A $ 500.00

General Maintenance Project Management General Coordination of Maintenance Activities L hours 40 N/A 50 N/A 1 N/A $ 2,000.00 Trash Removal Collection and Disposal L hours 20 N/A 50 N/A 1 N/A $ 1,000.00 Trash Removal Dump Fees Item 1 N/A 500 N/A 1 N/A $ 500.00 Patrolling Trespass & Damage Inspections L hours 48 N/A 50 N/A 1 N/A $ 2,400.00 General Maintenance Inspections Quarterly Inspections L hours 16 N/A 50 N/A 1 N/A $ 800.00 General Maintenance Adaptive Management Fund Item 1 N/A 1000 N/A 1 N/A $ 1,000.00 Habitat Maintenance Invasive Plant Management Prepare Invasive Plant Management Plan Contract 1 25000 N/A 1 N/A $ 25,000.00 N/A

Exotic Plant Control Labor L hours 40 N/A 50 N/A 1 N/A $ 2,000.00 Exotic Plant Control Herbicide (glyphosate) Gal. 5 N/A 65 N/A 1 N/A $ 325.00 Exotic Plant Control Herbicide (aminopyralid) Gal. 2 N/A 480 N/A 1 N/A $ 960.00 Fire Break Maintenance Pre-activity Bird Survey C hours 10 N/A 120 N/A 1 N/A $ 1,200.00 Fire Break Maintenance Contract for Mowing Item 1 N/A 2500 N/A 1 N/A $ 2,500.00 Grazing Management Coordination with Grazing lessee L hours 40 N/A 50 N/A 1 N/A $ 2,000.00 Habitat Maintenance Adaptive Management Fund Item 1 N/A 2000 N/A 1 N/A $ 2,000.00

Office Maintenance Annual Allowance Office Supplies Item 1 N/A 500 N/A 1 N/A $ 500.00

Operations Insurance Liability/fee Acre 1272 N/A 0.55 N/A 1 N/A $ 699.60 Mileage Preserve Manager Miles 1000 N/A 0.55 N/A 1 N/A $ 550.00 Times years Divide years (# of times the (frequency of task occurs) occurrence)

Mileage Monitoring Biologist C Miles 500 N/A 0.55 N/A 1 N/A $ 275.00

Public Services Community Outreach Community Coordination L hours 20 N/A 50 N/A 1 N/A $ 1,000.00

Reporting Agency Report Annual Report - Preserve Manager L hours 80 N/A 50 N/A 1 N/A $ 4,000.00 Agency Report Annual Report - Monitoring Biologist C hours 70 N/A 120 N/A 1 N/A $ 8,400.00 Annual Workplan Workplan and Budget L hours 30 N/A 50 N/A 1 N/A $ 1,500.00

Site Construction/Maintenance1 Grazing Enclosure Fencing Fencing materials and labor Linear Foot 23613 7 N/A 1 N/A $ 165,291.00 N/A Gate Powder River, Classic Item 2 500 N/A 1 N/A $ 1,000.00 N/A Livestock Water 500 Gal. trough and 2500 Gal tank Item 2 4000 N/A 1 N/A $ 8,000.00 N/A Signage Signs Item 193 25 N/A 1 N/A $ 4,825.00 N/A Signage T-posts Item 147 8 N/A 1 N/A $ 1,176.00 N/A Labor (for areas excluding Eagles Nest Road and grazing Signage enclosures) L hours 40 50 N/A 1 N/A $ 2,000.00 N/A Eagles Nest Road Fencing Fencing materials and labor Linear Foot 11028 7 N/A 1 N/A $ 77,196.00 N/A Fencing Maintenance Annual maintenance Item 1 N/A 500 N/A 1 N/A $ 500.00 Sub-total Cost for monitoring and maintenance tasks $ 288,088 $ 61,610 Contingency (10% of tasks) $ 28,808.80 $ 6,160.96 Administration (24% of tasks, including contingency, EXCLUDING C hours tasks, C Miles, and Site Construction*) $ 8,712.26 $ 7,638.73 Total Cost $ 325,609 $ 75,409

*excludes signage and fencing maintenance 1 Fencing costs to be phased during initial 3 years of preserve management APPENDIX K California Native Plant Society Relevé Protocol

CALIFORNIA NATIVE PLANT SOCIETY RELEVÉ PROTOCOL CNPS VEGETATION COMMITTEE October 20, 2000 (Revised 8/23/2007)

Introduction

In A Manual of California Vegetation (Sawyer and Keeler-Wolf 1995), CNPS published a Vegetation Sampling Protocol that was developed as a simple quantitative sampling technique applicable to many vegetation types in California. Investigators use an ocular estimation technique called a relevé to classify and map large areas in a limited amount of time.

The relevé method of sampling vegetation was developed in Europe and was largely standardized by the Swiss ecologist Josias Braun-Blanquet. He helped classify much of Europe’s vegetation, founded and directed a synecology center in France, and was editor of Vegetatio for many years. The relevé was, and is, a method used by many European ecologists, and others around the world. These ecologists refer to themselves as phytosociologists. The use of relevé in the United States has not been extensive with the exception of the US Forest Service.

The relevé is particularly useful when observers are trying to quickly classify the range of diversity of plant cover over large units of land. In general, it is faster than the point intercept technique. One would use this method when developing a classification that could be used to map of a large area of vegetation, for example. This method may also be more useful than the line intercept method when one is trying to validate the accuracy of mapping efforts.

The relevé is generally considered a “semiquantitative” method. It relies on ocular estimates of plant cover rather than on counts of the “hits” of a particular species along a transect line or on precise measurements of cover/biomass by planimetric or weighing techniques.

Selecting a stand to sample:

A stand is the basic physical unit of vegetation in a landscape. It has no set size. Some vegetation stands are very small, such as alpine meadow or tundra types, and some may be several square kilometers in size, such as desert or forest types. A stand is defined by two main unifying characteristics:

1) It has compositional integrity. Throughout the site the combination of species is similar. The stand is differentiated from adjacent stands by a discernable boundary that may be abrupt or indistinct, and 2) It has structural integrity. It has a similar history or environmental setting that affords relatively similar horizontal and vertical spacing of plant species throughout. For example, a hillside forest originally dominated by the same species that burned on the upper part of the slopes, but not the lower, would be divided into two stands. Likewise, a sparse woodland occupying a slope with very shallow rocky soils would be considered a different stand from an adjacent slope with deeper, moister soil and a denser woodland or forest of the same species.

The structural and compositional features of a stand are often combined into a term called homogeneity. For an area of vegetated ground to meet the requirements of a stand it must be homogeneous.

Stands to be sampled may be selected by assessment prior to a site visit (e.g. delineated from aerial photos or satellite images), or may be selected on site (during reconnaissance to determine extent and boundaries, location of other similar stands, etc.). Depending on the project goals, you may want to select just one or a few representative stands for sampling (e.g., for developing a classification for a vegetation mapping project), or you may want to sample all of them (e.g., to define a rare vegetation type and/or compare site quality between the few remaining stands).

Selecting a plot to sample within in a stand:

Because most stands are large, it is difficult to summarize the species composition, cover, and structure of an entire stand. We are also usually trying to capture the most information with the least amount of effort. Thus, we are typically forced to select a representative portion to sample.

When sampling a vegetation stand, the main point to remember is to select a sample that, in as many ways possible, is representative of that stand. This means that you are not randomly selecting a plot; on the contrary, you are actively using your own best judgement to find a representative example of the stand.

Selecting a plot requires that you see enough of the stand you are sampling to feel comfortable in choosing a representative plot location. Take a brief walk through the stand and look for variations in species composition and in stand structure. In many cases in hilly or mountainous terrain look for a vantage point from which you can get a representative view of the whole stand. Variations in vegetation that are repeated throughout the stand should be included in your plot. Once you assess the variation within the stand, attempt to find an area that captures the stand’s common species composition and structural condition to sample.

Plot Size

All releves of the same type of vegetation to be analyzed in a study need to be the same size. It wouldn’t be fair, for example, to compare a 100 m2 plot with a 1000 m2 plot as the difference in number of species may be due to the size of the plot, not a difference in the stands.

A minimal area to sample is defined by species/area relationships; as the sampler identifies species present in an area of homogeneous vegetation, the number will increase quickly as more area is surveyed. Plot shape and size are somewhat dependent on the type of vegetation under study. Therefore general guidelines for plot sizes of tree-, shrub-, and herb-dominated upland, and fine-scale herbaceous communities have been established. Sufficient work has been done in temperate vegetation to be confident the following conventions will capture species richness:

Alpine meadow and montane wet meadow: 100 sq. m Herbaceous communities: 10 sq. m plot, 100 sq. m plot or 400 sq. m plot (Consult with CNPS, and use one consistent size) Shrublands: 400 sq. m plot Forest and woodland communities: 1000 sq. m plot Open desert vegetation: 1000 sq. m plot 3

Plot Shape

A relevé has no fixed shape, plot shape should reflect the character of the stand. If the stand is about the same size as a relevé, you need to sample the entire stand. If we are sampling a desert wash, streamside riparian, or other linear community our plot dimensions should not go beyond the community’s natural ecological boundaries. Thus, a relatively long, narrow plot capturing the vegetation within the stand, but not outside it would be appropriate. Species present along the edges of the plot that are clearly part of the adjacent stand should be excluded.

If we are sampling broad homogeneous stands, we would most likely choose a shape such as a circle (which has the advantage of the edges being equidistant to the center point) or a square (which can be quickly laid out using perpendicular tapes). If we are trying to capture a minor bit of variety in the understory of a forest, for example a bracken fern patch within a ponderosa pine stand, we would want both bracken and non-bracken understory. Thus, a rectangular shape would be appropriate.

GENERAL PLOT INFORMATION

The following items appear on each data sheet and are to be collected for all plots. Where indicated, refer to attached code sheet.

Polygon or Relevé number: Assigned either in the field or in the office prior to sampling.

Date: Date of sampling.

County: County in which located.

USGS Quad: The name of the USGS map the relevé is located on; note series (15’ or 7.5’).

CNPS Chapter: CNPS chapter, or other organization or agency if source is other than CNPS chapter.

Landowner: Name of landowner or agency acronym if known. Otherwise, list as private.

Contact Person: Name, address, and phone number of individual responsible for data collection.

Observers: Names of individuals assisting. Circle name of recorder.

Plot shape: indicate the sample shape as: square, rectangle, circle, or the entire stand.

Plot size: length of rectangle edges, circle radius, or size of entire stand. NOTE: See page 2 for standard plot sizes.

Study Plot Revisit: If the relevé plot is being revisited for repeated sampling, please circle “Yes”.

Photo interpreter community code: If the sample is in area for which delineation and photo interpretation has already been done, the code which the photointerpreters applied to the polygon. If the sample site has not been photointerpreted, leave blank.

Other polygons of same type (yes or no, if applicable), if yes, mark on map: Other areas within view that appear to have similar vegetation composition. Again, this is most relevant to areas that have been delineated as polygons on aerial photographs as part of a vegetation- mapping project. If one is not working from aerial photographs, draw the areas as on a topographic map.

Is plot representative of whole polygon? (yes or no, if applicable), if no explain: Detail what other vegetation types occur in the polygon, and what the dominant vegetation type is if there is more than one type.

Global Positioning System Readings: Due to the recent availability of very accurate and relatively low cost GPS units, we highly recommend obtaining and using these as a standard piece of sampling equipment. Now that the military intentional imprecision (known as “selective availability”) has been “turned off” (as of July 2000), it is typical for all commercial GPS units these units to be accurate to within 5 m of the actual location. Also note that the GPS units can be set to read in UTM or Latitude and Longitude coordinates and can be easily translated. Thus, the following fields for Latitude, Longitude, and legal description are now optional. In order for all positional data to be comparable within the CNPS vegetation dataset, we request using UTM coordinates set for the NAD 83 projection (see your GPS users manual for instructions for setting coordinates and projections).

Caveat: Although GPS units are valuable tools, they may not function properly due to the occasionally poor alignment of satellites or due to the complexity of certain types of terrain, or vegetation. We thus also recommend that you carry topographic maps and are aware of how to note your position on them in the event of a non-responsive or inaccurate GPS.

UTMN and UTME: Northing and easting coordinates using the Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM) grid as delineated on the USGS topographic map, or using a Global Positioning System.

UTM zone: Universal Transverse Mercator zone. Zone 10S for California west of the 120th longitude; zone 11S for California east of 120th longitude.

Legal Description: Township/Range/Section/Quarter Section/Quarter-Quarter section/Meridian: Legal map location of the site; this is useful for determining ownership of the property. California Meridians are Humboldt, Mt. Diablo, or San Bernardino. (This is optional, see above discussion of GPS units)

Latitude and Longitude: Degrees north latitude and east longitude. This is optional (see above)

Elevation: Recorded in feet or meters. Please indicate units.

Slope: Degrees, read from clinometer or compass, or estimated; averaged over relevé

Aspect: Degrees from true north (adjust declination), read from a compass or estimated; averaged over relevé.

Macrotopography: Characterize the large-scale topographic position of the relevé. This is the general position of the sample along major topographic features of the area. See attached code list.

Microtopography: Characterize the local relief of the relevé. Choose the shape that mimics the lay of the ground along minor topographic features of the area actually within the sample. See attached code list.

VEGETATION DESCRIPTION

Dominant layer: Indicate whether the community is dominated by the Low layer (L), Mid-layer (M), or Tall (T) layer.

Preliminary Alliance name: Name of series, stand, or habitat according to CNPS classification (per Sawyer and Keeler-Wolf 1995); if the type is not defined by the CNPS classification, note this in the space.

Dominant Vegetation Group: Use code list to choose group

Phenology: Based on the vegetative condition of he principal species, characterize the phenology of each layer as early (E), peak (P), or late (L).

WETLAND COMMUNITY TYPES

Community type: Indicate if the sample is in a wetland or an upland; note that a site need not be officially delineated as a wetland to qualify as such in this context.

Dominant vegetation form: This is a four letter code which relates the vegetation of the plot to the higher levels of the NBS/NPS National Vegetation Classification System hierarchy. See attached code list.

Cowardin class: See “Artificial Keys to Cowardin Systems and Names” (attached). If the plot is located in a wetland, record the proper Cowardin system name. Systems are described in detail in Cowardin et al. 1979. Classification of wetlands and deepwater habitats of the United States. US Dept. of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Office of Biological Services, Washington, D.C.

Marine: habitats exposed to the waves and currents of the open ocean (subtidal and intertidal habitats).

Estuarine: includes deepwater tidal habitats and adjacent tidal wetlands that are usually semi-enclosed by land but have open, partly obstructed, or sporadic access to the open ocean, and in which ocean water is at least occasionally diluted by freshwater runoff from the land (i.e. estuaries and lagoons).

Riverine: includes all wetlands and deepwater habitats contained within a channel, excluding any wetland dominated by trees, shrubs, persistent emergent plants, emergent mosses, or lichens. Channels that contain oceanic-derived salts greater than 0.5% are also excluded.

Lacustrine: Includes wetlands and deepwater habitats with all of the following characteristics: 1) situated in a topographic depression or a dammed river channel; 2) lacking trees or shrubs, persistent emergents, emergent mosses or lichens with greater than 30% aerial coverage; and total area exceeds 8 ha (20 acres). Similar areas less than 8 ha are included in the lacustrine system if an active wave-formed or bedrock shoreline feature makes up all or part of the low tide boundary, of if the water in the deepest part of the basin exceeds 2 m (6.6 feet) at low tide. Oceanic derived salinity is always less than 0.5%.

Palustrine: Includes all nontidal wetlands dominated by trees, shrubs, persistent emergents, emergent mosses or lichens, and all such wetlands that occur in tidal areas where salinity derived from oceanic salts is less than 0.5%. Also included are areas lacking vegetation, but with all of the following four characteristics: 1) areas less than 8 ha (20 acres); active wave- formed or bedrock shoreline features lacking; 3) water depth in the deepest part of the basin less than 2 m (6.6 feet) at low water; and 4) salinity due to ocean-derived salts less than 0.5%.

Vertical distance from high water mark of active stream channel: If the plot is in or near a wetland community, record to the nearest meter or foot the estimated vertical distance from the middle of the plot to the average water line of the channel, basin, or other body of water.

Horizontal distance from high water mark of active stream channel: If the plot is in or near a wetland community, record to the nearest meter or foot the estimated horizontal distance from the middle of the plot to the average water line of the channel, basin, or other body of water.

Stream channel form: If the plot is located in or near a community along a stream, river, or dry wash, record the channel form of the waterway. The channel form is considered S (single channeled) if it consists of predominately a single primary channel, M (meandering) if it is a meandering channel, and B (braided) if it consists of multiple channels interwoven or braided.

Adjacent alliance: Adjacent vegetation series, stands or habitats according to CNPS classification; list in order of most extensive to least extensive. Give the name of the alliance, the direction in relation to stand and list up to four species under Description.

Photographs: Write the name or initials of the camera owner and the JPEG numbers for photos taken. Write the camera’s view direction from compass bearings. Take four or eight photos (depending on the project) from the same point as the GPS reading (center of a circle or NW corner of rectangle). Using a compass, take the first photo from the north, and rotate clockwise, taking the photos in sequence, N, NE, E etc, or N, E, S, W. Keep camera at same orientation, zoom level, and distance from ground for all four (or eight) photos., You may take photos close to the ground, if for instance, you are photographing a low herbaceous stand. Additional photos of the stand may also be helpful. If using a digital camera or scanning in the image into a computer, relevé numbers and compass directions can be recorded digitally. If using a 35mm camera, please note the roll number, frame number, compass direction, and the initials of the person whose camera is being used. (e.g. Roll 5, #1, to the NW, SE) 7

STAND AND ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION

Vegetation trend: Based on the regenerating species and relationship to surrounding vegetation, characterize the stand as either increasing (expanding), stable, decreasing, fluctuating, or unknown.

Impacts: Enter codes for potential or existing impacts on the stability of the plant community. Characterize each as either 1. Light, 2. Moderate, of 3. Heavy. See attached code list.

Site location and plot description: A concise, but careful description that makes locating and/or revisiting the vegetation stand and plots possible; give landmarks and directions. Used in conjunction with the GPS position recorded earlier, this should enable precise re-location of the plot. Indicate where the GPS reading was taken within the plot. In general, the location of the GPS reading should be on the Northwestern corner of the plot, if the plot is rectangular (or square), or in the center if the plot is circular. It is also helpful to briefly describe the topography, aspect, and vegetation structure of the site. If you can’t take the GPS reading at the Northwest corner (an obstacle in the way) then note where the GPS point was taken. If you can’t get a GPS reading, then spend extra time marking the plot location as precise as possible on a topo map.

Site history: Briefly describe the history of the stand, including type and year of disturbance (e.g. fire, landslides or avalanching, drought, flood, or pest outbreak). Also note the nature and extent of land use such as grazing, timber harvest, or mining.

Unknown plant specimens: List the numbers of any unknown plant specimens, noting any information such as family or genus (if known), important characters, and whether or not there is adequate material for identification. Do not take samples of plants of which there are only a few individuals or which you think may be rare. Document these plants with photographs.

Additional comments: Feel free to note any additional observations of the site, or deviations from the standard sampling protocol. If additional data were recorded, e.g. if tree diameters were measured, please indicate so here.

SURFACE COVER AND SOIL INFORMATION

Surface cover: Estimate the cover class of each size at or near the ground surface averaged over the plot. Always remember to estimate what you actually see on the surface as opposed to what you think is hiding under, organic litter, big rocks, etc. However, rocks, organic litter, or fine material visible under the canopy of shrubs or trees should be included in the cover estimate.

One way to consider this is to assume that all of the components of surface cover plus the basal cross-section of living plant stems and trunks (at ground level) will add up to 100%. Thus, estimate the cover value of each of the items in the box on the form for surface cover (including the basal area of plant stems) so that they will add up to 100%. Remember that the basal area of plant stems is usually minimal (e.g., if there were 10 trees, each 1 m in diameter at ground level on a 1000 square meter plot, they would cover less than 1% {0.79%} of the plot).

These data are asked for because certain categories of surface cover of rock and other materials have been shown to correlate with certain vegetation types and are thus likely influencing the type of vegetation that is growing in a given area. These estimates should be made quickly with the main point to keep in mind being a rough estimate of the relative proportions of different coarse fragments on the plot.

Fines: Fine mineral fragments including sand, silt, soil, “dirt” < 2 mm in diameter

Gravel: rounded and angular fragments 0.2-7.5 cm (0.08 -3 in.) diameter

Cobble: rounded and angular fragments >7.5-25 cm (3 -10 in.) in diameter

Stone: rounded and angular coarse fragments >25 cm-60 cm (10 -24 in.) in diameter

Boulder: rounded and angular coarse fragments >60 cm (>24 in.) in diameter

Bedrock: continuous, exposed, non-transported rock

Litter: extent of undecomposed litter on surface of plot (this includes all organic matter, e.g. fallen logs, branches, and twigs down to needles and leaves).

Living stems of vascular plants: basal area of living stems of the plants at ground surface

% Bioturbation: Estimate percent cover of ground disturbance by animals (e.g., small mammal burrowing trails, cow hoof marks) across the entire plot surface.

Soil texture: Record the texture of the upper soil horizon, below the organic layer if one is present. See attached key and code list.

Parent Material: Geological parent material of site. See attached code list.

VEGETATION DATA

Assessment of Layers Data are recorded for five layers (tree overstory, tree understory, shrub, herb, and non-vascular). The layer a species occupies is determined by life-form. The estimates need not be overly precise and will vary among vegetation types. A young tree, if shrub sized, is considered an understory tree. A caveat: if several relevés are being sampled within the same vegetation type, it is important to be consistent when assigning layers. Some types will have more than five layers (e.g. two tree layers of different maximum height); this should be indicated in the relevé description.

Species List

The collection of vegetation data continues with making a comprehensive species list of all vascular plants within the relevé. This list is achieved by meandering through the plot to see all 9

microhabitats. During list development, observers document each taxon present in each layer in which it occurs separately, recording it on a different line of the data form and noting which layer is represented. This is important for data entry because each layer of each represented taxon will be entered separately. Each individual plant is recorded in only one layer, the layer in which the tallest portion of the individual is found. One should reach a point at which new taxa are added to the list only very slowly, or sporadically. When one has reached that point, the list is probably done.

The following sections explain how to perform the actual relevé, the Estimation of Cover Values. The sections prefaced by bold-faced titles explain the technique, and the sections with regular font titles refer to the steps needed to complete the accompanying Field Form.

DBH – see separate field form (optional)

DBH if >10 cm:

The diameter at breast height (dbh) is important in certain studies. It may be recorded next to each tree species name. First indicate the species name by code and then record the number of sprouts/trunks in clonal trees. You should measure the tree dbh of every tree trunk/sprout that has diameter > or = 10 cm at breast height in the plot, and each measurement should be in centimeters (cm) using a dbh tape measure. For trunks that may be fused below breast height and branched at breast height, each trunk at breast height gets a separate measurement.

Also indicate if each tree/clone is in the overstory or understory. Trees in the overstory are generally at canopy level. Trees in the understory are entirely below the general level of the canopy.

If snags are encountered in plot, record the dbh and denote it as dead by circling its dbh measurement. If you are unable to identify the snag to species, put the four letter code “SNAG” in the species column.

Depending on the density of trees in each plot, you can record dbh of trees for every tree trunk in the plot, or you can sub-sample the trunks to estimate dbh for every tree species in relatively dense plots. For woodland/forest plots, sub-sampling is appropriate for half the plot if there are at least 50 trees/resprouts present (e.g., 200 m2 sub-sample in riparian and 500 m2 sub-sample in upland).

When sub-sampling, make sure to denote this as a sub-sample (note on the data form) and record the sub-sample of dbh’s for each tree species in the appropriate row on the Field Form. Once the data are post-processed and entered into a database, then you will need to record each sub- sampled dbh reading three additional times to come up with a full sample of dbh readings. For example, with a sub-sampled tree dbh of 15 cm, this value of 15 should be entered four times (not just once) when it is entered in the database.

Lifeform and size class: If dbh <15.2 cm, counts should be made for conifers and hardwoods in two different size classes. Count seedlings (≤ 2.54 cm) and saplings (> 2.54 but < 15.2 cm). First estimate if there are more than 50 seedlings in one half (50% subsample) of the plot. If so, then do counts of seedlings and saplings in five sub-plots of 2x2 m squares. If the plot shape is a 10

circle, place one square in the center of the plot, and four other squares 10 m to the N, S, E, and W of the plot center. If there are less than 50 seedlings in the 50% subsample plot, then record counts for that subsample instead.

Estimating Cover:

There are many ways to estimate cover. Many people who have been in the cover estimation “business” for a long time can do so quickly and confidently without any props and devices. However, to a novice, it may seem incomprehensible and foolhardy to stand in a meadow of 50 different species of plants and systematically be able to list by cover value each one without actually “measuring” them in some way.

Of course, our minds make thousands of estimates of various types every week. We trust that estimating plant cover can be done by anyone with an open mind and an “eye for nature.” It’s just another technique to learn.

It is very helpful to work initially with other people who know and are learning the technique. In such a group setting, typically a set of justifications for each person’s estimate is made and a “meeting of the minds” is reached. This consensus approach and the concomitant calibration of each person’s internal scales is a very important part of the training for any cover estimate project.

An underlying point to remember is that estimates must provide some level of reliable values that are within acceptable bounds of accuracy. If we require an accuracy level that is beyond the realm of possibility, we will soon reject the method for one more quantitative and repeatable. As with any scientific measurement, the requirement for accuracy in the vegetation data is closely related to the accuracy of the information needed to provide a useful summary of it. Put into more immediate perspective - to allow useful and repeatable analysis of vegetation data, one does not need to estimate down to the exact percent value the cover of a given plant species in a given stand.

This point relates to two facts: there is inherent variability of species cover in any environment. For example, you would not expect to always have 23% Pinus ponderosa, 14% Calocedrus decurrens, and 11% Pinus lambertiana over an understory of 40% Chamaebatia foliosa, 3% Clarkia unguiculata, and 5% Galium bolanderi to define the Ponderosa pine-Incense cedar/mountain misery/bolander bedstraw plant community. Anyone who has looked at plant composition with a discerning eye can see that plants don’t space themselves in an environment by such precise rules. Thus, we can safely estimate the representation of species in a stand by relatively broad cover classes (such as <1%, 1-5 %, 5-25%, etc.) rather than precise percentages.

The data analysis we commonly use to classify vegetation into different associations and series (TWINSPAN and various cluster analysis programs, for example) is likewise forgiving. When analyzed by quantitative mutivariate statistics information on species cover responds to coarse differences in cover and presence and absence of species, but not to subtle percentage point differences. This has been proven time and again through quantitative analysis of vegetation classification. Many of the world’s plant ecologists estimate cover rather than measure it precisely. Some of the seminal works in vegetation ecology have been based on cover estimates taken by discerning eyes. 11

With this as a preamble, below we offer some suggestions on estimating cover that have proven helpful. These are simply “tricks” to facilitate estimation, some work better for different situations. You may come up with other methods of estimation that may seem more intuitive, and are equally reliable in certain settings. All values on the relevé protocol that require a cover class estimate, including coarse fragment and vegetation layer information, may rely on these techniques. Just make the appropriate substitutions (using the coarse fragment example substitute, bedrock, stone, cobbles, gravel, and litter for vegetation).

Method 1: The invisible point-intercept transect:

This method works well in relatively low, open vegetation types such as grasslands and scrubs where you can see over the major stand components. For those who have worked with the original CNPS line intercept methodology it’s like counting hits along an imaginary line at regular intervals of the 50 m tape. Here’s how it goes:

Envision an imaginary transect line starting from your vantage point and running for 50 m (or however many meters you wish, as long as you are still ending up within the same stand of vegetation you’re sampling - never keep counting outside of your homogeneous stand). Now “walk” your eye along this tape for 50 m and visually “take a point” every 0.5 m. Don’t worry about precision, just try to “walk” your eye along the line and stop every 0.5 m or at any other regular interval until you reach its end and mentally tally what species you hit. Once you come up with a number of hits for each major species in one imaginary transect, take another transect in another direction and estimate the number of hits on that one. Do this several times (usually 3-4 is enough if you are in a homogeneous stand), then average your results.

This can go quickly in simple environments and in environments where the major species are easily discernable (chaparral, bunch-grassland, coastal scrub, desert scrub). Your average number of hits need not be a total of 100 as in the original transect method, but could be 50 along a 25 m imaginary line (in which case you would multiply by two to get your estimated cover), or 25 along a 12.5 m line (multiply average by 4), etc.

Method 2: Subdivision of sample plot into quadrants:

Many plots, whether they are square, circular, or rectangular, may be “quartered” and have each quadrant’s plant cover estimated separately. If the plot is a given even number of square meters (such as 100, 400, or 1000 m2) then you know that a quarter of that amount is also an easily measurable number. If you can estimate the average size of the plants in each of the quarters (e.g, small pinyon pines may be 5 m2 (2.2m x 2.2m), creosote bush may be 2m2 (or 1.41 m x 1.41 m), burrobush may be 0.5m2) then you simply count the number of plants in each size class and multiply by their estimated size for the cover in a given quadrant. Then you average the 4 quadrants together for your average cover value.

This method works well in vegetation with open-to-dense cover of low species such as grasses or low shrubs, in open woodlands, and desert scrubs.

Method 3; “Squash” all plants into a continuous cover in one corner of the plot : 12

Another way to estimate how much of the plot is covered by a particular species is to mentally group (or “march”, or “squash”) all members of that species into a corner of the plot and estimate the area they cover. Then calculate that area as a percentage of the total plot area. This technique works well in herb and shrub dominated plots but is not very useful in areas with trees.

Method 4: How to estimate tree cover:

Cover estimates of tall trees is one of the most difficult tasks for a beginning relevé sampler. However it is possible to do this with consistency and reliability using the following guidelines.

1. Have regular sized and shaped plots that you can easily subdivide. 2. Estimate average crown spread of each tree species separately by pacing the crown diameter of representative examples of trees of each species and then roughly calculating the crown area of each representative species. 3. Add together the estimated crown area of each individual of each species of tree on the plot for your total cover.

Method 5: The process of elimination technique:

This method is generally good for estimating cover on sparsely vegetated areas where bare ground, rocks, or cobbles cover more area than vegetation. In such a situation it would be advisable to first estimate how much of the ground is not covered by plants and then subdivide the portion that is covered by plants into rough percentages proportional to the different plant species present. For example, in a desert scrub the total plot not covered by plants may be estimated at 80%. Of the 20% covered by plants, half is desert sunflower (10% cover), a quarter is California buckwheat (5% cover), an eighth brittlebush (2.5% cover), and the rest divided up between 10 species of herbs and small shrubs (all less than 1% cover).

Any of these techniques may be used in combination with one another for a system of checks and balances, or in stands that have characteristics lending themselves for a different technique for each layer of vegetation.

In a relevé, cover estimates, using the techniques described above, are made for each taxon as it is recorded on the species list. Estimates are made for each layer in which the taxon was recorded. For example, if individuals of coast live oak occur in the tree overstory (canopy trees) and tree understory (seedlings and saplings), an estimate is made for both layers should be recorded.

In a traditional relevé, cover is estimated in “cover classes,” not percentages, because of the variability of plant populations over time and from one point to another, even within a small stand. This protocol uses the following 6 cover classes:

Cover Class 1: the taxon in that layer covers < 1 % of the plot area Cover Class 2: the taxon in that layer covers 1 % - 5 % of the plot area Cover Class 3a: the taxon in that layer covers >5 - 15 % of the plot area 13

Cover Class 3b: the taxon in that layer covers >15 - 25 % of the plot area Cover Class 4: the taxon in that layer covers >25 - 50 % of the plot area Cover Class 5: the taxon in that layer covers >50 - 75 % of the plot area Cover Class 6: the taxon in that layer covers > 75% of the plot area

Percentages (optional)

This CNPS protocol also encourages observers to estimate percentages if they feel confident in their estimation abilities. This optional step allows the data to be compared more easily to data collected using different methods, such as a line or point intercept. It also instills confidence in the cover estimate of borderline species that are close calls between two cover classes (e.g., a cover class 2 at 5% as opposed to a cover class 3 at 6%). It is particularly useful for calculating cover by the process of elimination techniques and for estimating total vegetation cover (see below) and coarse fragment cover.

Overall Cover of Vegetation In addition to cover of individual taxa described above, total cover is also estimated for each vegetation layer. This is done using the same cover classes as described above but combines all taxa of a given category. They can be calculated from the species percent cover estimates, but please make sure to disregard overlap of species within each layer. These estimates should be absolute aerial cover, or the “bird’s eye view” of the vegetation cover, in which each category cannot be over 100%.

To come up with a specific number estimate for percent cover, first use to the cover intervals, used in the species cover estimates, as a reference aid to get a generalized cover estimate: While keeping these intervals in mind, you can then refine your estimate to a specific percentage for each category below.

% Overstory Conifer/Hardwood Tree: The total aerial cover (canopy closure) of all live tree species that are specifically in the overstory or are emerging, disregarding overlap of individual trees. Estimate conifer and hardwood covers separately. Please note: These cover values should not include the coverage of suppressed understory trees.

%Low-Medium Tree: The total aerial cover (canopy closure) of all live understory low to medium height tree species, disregarding overlap of individual trees and shrubs. This category contains recruits of overstory tree species (with seedlings and saplings in the understory) and understory tree species that typically do not make up the overstory canopy (e.g. trees that typically do not attain a height >10m).

% Shrub: The total aerial cover (canopy closure) of all live shrub species disregarding overlap of individual shrubs.

% Herb: The total aerial cover (canopy closure) of all herbaceous species, disregarding overlap of individual herbs.

% Total Vascular plants: The total aerial cover of all vegetation. This is an estimate of the absolute vegetation cover, disregarding overlap of the various tree, shrub, and/or herb layers. 14

% Total Non-vascular plants: The total cover of all lichens and bryophytes (mosses, liverworts, hornworts) on substrate surfaces (not standing or inclined trees).

Modal height for conifer/hardwood tree, shrub, and herbaceous categories (optional) If height values are important in your vegetation survey project, provide an ocular estimate of height for each category listed. Record an average height value per each category by estimating the mean height for each group. Please use the following height intervals to record a height class: 01=<1/2m, 02=1/2-1m, 03=1-2m, 04=2-5m, 05=5-10m, 06=10-15m, 07=15-20m, 08=20- 35m, 09=35-50m, 10=>50m.

Caveats Please consult with the members of the vegetation committee for advice and feedback on proposed vegetation surveys prior on initiating projects.

Notes on the Order and Division of Labor for Data Collection: As with every procedure, there are always more and less efficient ways to collect the information requested. Although we respect each field crews’ option to choose in what order they collect the data, we suggest the following general rules:

• Work with teams of two for each plot collected. • Both team members can determine the plot shape and size and lay out the tapes and mark the edges for the plot boundary (see below). • The two person teams can also divide up tasks of data collection with one member collecting location, environmental (slope, aspect, geology, soil texture, etc.) and plot description information while the other begins the species list. Thus, two clipboards are useful and data sheets that are at first separated (not stapled). • Following the making of the initial species list and collection of location and environmental data both team members convene to do the estimation of plant cover by species followed by the estimation of total vegetation cover and cover by layer. • Following that process, the estimation of cover by the up to 10 height strata classes and the listing of the diagnostic species for each is done collaboratively. • This is followed by the estimation of the coarse fragment information, again done collaboratively.

For egalitarian and familiarization purposes we suggest that the roles be switched regularly between the team members and that if multiple teams are being used in a larger project, that each team member switches frequently between teams, building all-important calibration, and camaraderie among the whole group.

Suggestions for Laying out Plots: If you are laying out a circular plot, work with two or more people. One person stands at the center of the plot and holds the tape case while the other walks the end of the tape out to the appointed distance (radium 5.6 for 100 m2 circle, radius 11.3 m for a 400 m2 circle, and radius 17.6 m for a 1000m2 circle). The walker then fixes the tape end with a pin flag and walks back to the center where he/she instructs the center person to walk in the opposite direction of the already laid out tape radius, stretching the rest of the tape to an equal 15

length (another 11.3 or 17.6 m) to the opposite edge of the plot, where he/she affixes it with another pin flag. This process is again repeated with another tape laid out perpendicular to the first so that an “+ “ shape is created . The margins of the circle can be further delineated by measuring to the center of the circle with an optical tape measure (rangefinder) and marking mid points between the four ends of the crossed tapes.

When laying out square or rectangular plots work with two or more people per team. If doing a rectangle, determine the long axis of the plot first and have one person be stationed at the zero m end of the tape while the other person walks the unrolling tape case out to the appropriate length. The stationary end person can guide the walker, keeping them moving in a straight line. Once that tape is laid out and the far end staked, the team lays out another tape perpendicular to the first, either at one end, using the same type of process. This establishes the width of the rectangle (or square). Using an optical rangefinder and pin-flags, or colored flagging the team can further mark additional points along the other parallel long axis and short axis of the plot (every 5 m for shorter plots or every 10 m for longer plots is suggested) so that the entire plot boundary can be easily visualized.

References:

Barbour M.G., J.H. Burk, and W.D. Pitts 1987. Terrestrial Plant Ecology, Second Edition. Benjamin/Cummings Publishing Co. Menlo Park, CA. 634 pages.

Sawyer and Keeler-Wolf. 1995. Manual of California Vegetation. California Native Plant Society, Sacramento, CA. 471 pages

The Nature Conservancy and Environmental Systems Research Institute. 1994. Final Draft, Standardized National Vegetation Classification System. Prepared for United States Department of the Interior, National Biological Survey, and National Park Service. Arlington, VA. Complete document available at the following website: http||:biology.usgs.gov/npsveg/fieldmethods.html

Suggested Equipment: Equipment List: Prices as of May 2000, toll free orders from Forestry Suppliers (1-800-647- 5368) (item numbers in parentheses)

Chaining pins, surveyor steel (#39167) $21.50 Fiberglass tapes 2 - 165’/50 m (#39972) $42.90 Logbook cover 8 ½ “ x 12” (#53200) $23.95 Perforated flagging (#57960) $1.95 UTM Coordinate Grid (#45019) $16.95 Rangefinder, 10-75m (#38973) $51.60 Silva Compass w/ clinometer (#37036) $43.90 Garmin GPS 12XL (#39095, #39111) $244.90

CALIFORNIA NATIVE PLANT SOCIETY RELEVÉ FIELD FORM CODE LIST (revised 3/0107)

MACRO TOPOGRAPHY PARENT MATERIAL SOIL TEXTURE 00 Bench IGTU Igneous (type unknown) COSA Coarse sand 01 Ridge top (interfluve) VOLC General volcanic extrusives MESN Medium sand 02 Upper 1/3 of slope RHYO Rhyolite FISN Fine sand 03 Middle 1/3 of slope ANDE Andesite COLS Coarse, loamy sand 04 Lower 1/3 of slope (lowslope) BASA Basalt MELS Medium to very fine, loamy sand 05 Toeslope (alluvial fan/bajada) ASHT Ash (of any origin) MCSL Moderately coarse, sandy loam 06 Bottom/plain OBSI Obsidian MESA Medium to very fine, sandy loam 07 Basin/wetland PUMI Pumice MELO Medium loam 08 Draw PYFL Pyroclastic flow MESL Medium silt loam 09 Other VOFL Volcanic flow MESI Medium silt 10 Terrace (former shoreline or floodplain) VOMU Volcanic mud MFCL Moderately fine clay loam 11 Entire slope INTR General igneous intrusives MFSA Moderately fine sandy clay loam 12 Wash (channel bed) GRAN Granitic (generic) MFSL Moderately fine silty clay loam 13 Badland (complex of draws & interfluves) MONZ Monzonite FISA Fine sandy clay 14 Mesa/plateau QUDI Quartz diorite FISC Fine silty clay 15 Dune/sandfield DIOR Diorite FICL Fine clay 16 Pediment GABB Gabbro SAND Sand (class unknown) 17 Backslope (cliff) DIAB Diabase LOAM Loam (class unknown) PERI Peridotite CLAY Clay (class unknown) MICRO TOPOGRAPHY METU Metamorphic (type unknown) UNKN Unknown 01 Convex or rounded GNBG Gneiss/biotite gneiss PEAT Peat 02 Linear or even SERP Serpentine MUCK Muck 03 Concave or depression SCHI Schist 04 Undulating pattern SESC Semi-schist DOMINANT VEGETATION GROUP 05 Hummock or Swale pattern PHYL Phyllite Trees: 06 Mounded SLAT Slate TBSE Temperate broad-leaved seasonal 07 Other HORN Hornfels evergreen forest BLUE Blue schist TNLE Temperate or subpolar needle-leafed MARB Marble evergreen forest SETU Sedimentary (type unknown) CDF Cold-deciduous forest SITE IMPACTS BREC Breccia (non-volcanic) MNDF Mixed needle-leafed evergreen-cold 01 Development CONG Conglomerate deciduous. forest 02 ORV activity FANG Fanglomerate TBEW Temperate broad-leaved evergreen 03 Agriculture SAND Sandstone woodland 04 Grazing SHAL Shale TNEW Temperate or subpolar needle-leaved 05 Competition from exotics SILT Siltstone evergreen woodland 06 Logging CACO Calcareous conglomerate EXEW Extremely xeromorphic evergreen 07 Insufficient population/stand size CASA Calcareous sandstone woodland 08 Altered flood/tidal regime CASH Calcareous shale CDW Cold-deciduous woodland 09 Mining CASI Calcareous siltstone EXDW Extremely xeromorphic deciduous 10 Hybridization DOLO Dolomite woodland 11 Groundwater pumping LIME Limestone MBED Mixed broad-leaved evergreen-cold 12 Dam/inundation CALU Calcareous (origin unknown) deciduous woodland 13 Other CHER Chert MNDW Mixed needle-leafed evergreen-cold 14 Surface water diversion FRME Franciscan melange deciduous woodland 15 Road/trail construction/maint. GREE Greenstone Shrubs: 16 Biocides ULTU Ultramafic (type unknown) TBES Temperate broad-leaved evergreen 17 Pollution MIIG Mixed igneous shrubland 18 Unknown MIME Mixed metamorphic NLES Needle-leafed evergreen shrubland 19 Vandalism/dumping/litter MISE Mixed sedimentary MIES Microphyllus evergreen shrubland 20 Foot traffic/trampling MIRT Mix of two or more rock types EXDS Extremely xeromorphic deciduous 21 Improper burning regime GLTI Glacial till, mixed origin, moraine shrubland 22 Over collecting/poaching LALA Large landslide (unconsolidated) CDS Cold-deciduous shrubland 23 Erosion/runoff DUNE Sand dunes MEDS Mixed evergreen-deciduous shrubland 24 Altered thermal regime LOSS Loess XMED Extremely xeromorphic mixed evergreen- 25 Landfill CLAL Clayey alluvium deciduous shrubland 26 Degrading water quality GRAL Gravelly alluvium Dwarf Shrubland: 27 Wood cutting MIAL Mixed alluvium NMED Needle-leafed or microphyllous evergreen 28 Military operations SAAL Sandy alluvium (most alluvial fans dwarf shrubland 29 Recreational use (non ORV) and washes) XEDS Extremely xeromorphic evergreen dwarf 30 Nest parasitism SIAL Silty alluvium shrubland 31 Non-native predators OTHE Other than on list DDDS Drought-deciduous dwarf shrubland 32 Rip-rap, bank protection MEDD Mixed evergreen cold-deciduous dwarf 33 Channelization (human caused) shrubland 34 Feral pigs Herbaceous: 35 Burros TSPG Temperate or subpolar grassland 36 Rills TGST Temperate or subpolar grassland with 37 Phytogenic mounding sparse tree 38 Sudden oak death syndrome (SODS) TGSS Temperate or subpolar grassland with sparse shrublayer TGSD Temperate or subpolar grassland with sparse dwarf shrub layer TFV Temperate or subpolar forb vegetation THRV Temperate or subpolar hydromorphic rooted vegetation TAGF Temperate or subpolar annual grassland or forb vegetation Sparse Vegetation: SVSD Sparsely vegetated sand dunes SVCS Sparsely vegetated consolidated substrates

Simplified Key to Soil Texture (Adapted from Brewer and McCann 1982)

Place about three teaspoons of soil in the palm of your hand. Take out any particles ≥ 3 mm in size.

A. Does soil remain in ball when squeezed in your hand palm?

Yes, soil does remain in a ball when squeezed...... …...... B

No, soil does not remain in a ball when squeezed...... …...... sand SAND Sand (class unknown) Very coarse texture…………………………………….…………COSA Coarse sand Moderately coarse texture……………………….……………… MESN Medium sand Moderately fine texture………………………………………….. FISN Fine sand

B. Add a small amount of water until the soil feels like putty. Squeeze the ball between your thumb and forefinger, attempting to make a ribbon that you push up over your finger. Does soil make a ribbon?

Yes, soil makes a ribbon; though it may be very short...... C

No, soil does not make a ribbon...... loamy sand Very gritty with coarse particles…...... COLS Coarse, loamy sand Moderately to slightly gritty with medium to fine particles...... MELS Medium to very fine, loamy sand

C. Does ribbon extends more than one inch?

Yes, soil extends > 1 inch...... D

No, soil does not extend > 1 inch...... Add excess water

Soil feels gritty…………………………...………………..…...... loam or sandy loam LOAM Loam (class unknown) Very gritty with coarse particles…...... MCSL Moderately coarse, sandy loam Moderately gritty with medium to fine particles...... MESA Medium to very fine, sandy loam Slightly gritty ...... MELO Medium loam

Soil feels smooth...... silt loam MESIL medium silt loam

D. Does soil extend more than 2 inches?

Yes, ribbon extends more than 2 inches, and does not crack if bent into a ring...... E

No, soil breaks when 1–2 inches long; cracks if bent into a ring………………...Add excess water

Soil feels gritty…...... sandy clay loam or clay loam Very gritty………………..………………………………………... MFSA Moderately fine sandy clay loam Slightly gritty………………………………………………………. MFCL Moderately fine clay loam

Soil feels smooth...... …...silty clay loam or silt Moderately fine texture…………………………………………...MFSL Moderately fine silty clay loam Very fine texture………………………………………………….. MESI Medium silt

E. Soil makes a ribbon 2+ inches long; does not crack when bent into a ring...... Add excess water

Soil feels gritty...... sandy clay or clay CLAY Clay (class unknown) Very gritty………………………………………………………… FISA Fine sandy clay Slightly gritty…………………………………………………….. FICL Fine clay

Soil feels smooth...... …..…...... silty clay FISC Fine silty clay ______UNKN = UNKNOWN PEAT = PEAT MUCK = MUCK

Artificial Key to the Systems and Classes Key to the Systems

1. Water regime influenced by oceanic tides, and salinity due to ocean-derived salts 0.5% or greater. 2. Semi-enclosed by land, but with open, partly obstructed or sporadic access to the ocean. Halinity wide-ranging because of evaporation or mixing of seawater with runoff from land ...... ESTUARINE 2’. Little or no obstruction to open ocean present. Halinity usually euhaline; little mixing of water with runoff from land ...... 3 3. Emergents, trees, or shrubs present ...... ESTUARINE 3’. Emergents, trees, or shrubs absent...... …...... MARINE 1’. Water regime not influenced by ocean tides, or if influenced by oceanic tides, salinity less than 0.5% 4. Persistent emergents, trees, shrubs, or emergent mosses cover 30% or more of the area ...... PALUSTRINE 4’. Persistent emergents, trees, shrubs, or emergent mosses cover less than 30% of substrate but nonpersistent emergents may be widespread during some seasons of year ...... 5 5. Situated in a channel; water, when present, usually flowing ...... RIVERINE 5’. Situated in a basin, catchment, or on level or sloping ground; water usually not flowing...... 6 6. Area 8 ha (20 acres) or greater ...... LACUSTRINE 6’. Area less than 8 ha ...... 7 7. Wave-formed or bedrock shoreline feature present or water depth 2 m (6.6 feet) or more ...... LACUSTRINE 7’. No wave-formed or bedrock shoreline feature present and water > 2 m deep ...... PALUSTRINE

Key to the Classes

1. During the growing season of most years, aerial cover by vegetation is less than 30%. 2. Substrate a ridge or mound formed by colonization of sedentary invertebrates (corals, oysters, tube worms) ...... REEF 2’. Substrate of rock or various-sized sediments often occupied by invertebrates but not formed by colonization of sedentary invertebrates ...... 3 3. Water regime subtidal, permanently flooded, intermittently exposed, or semipermanently flooded. Substrate usually not soil ...... 4 4. Substrate of bedrock, boulders, or stones occurring singly or in combination covers 75% or more of the area ...... ROCK BOTTOM 4’. Substrate of organic material, mud, sand, gravel, or cobbles with less than 75% areal cover of stones, boulders, or bedrock...... UNCONSOLIDATED BOTTOM 3’. Water regime irregularly exposed, regularly flooded, irregularly flooded, seasonally flooded, temporarily flooded, intermittently flooded, saturated, or artificially flooded. Substrate often a soil ...... 5 5. Contained within a channel that does not have permanent flowing water (i.e., Intermittent Subsystem of Riverine System or Intertidal Subsystem of Estuarine System) ...... STREAMBED 5’. Contained in a channel with perennial water or not contained in a channel ...... 6 6. Substrate of bedrock, boulders, or stones occurring singly or in combination covers 75% or more of the area ...... ROCKY SHORE 6’. Substrate of organic material, mud, sand, gravel, or cobbles; with less than 75% of the cover consisting of stones, boulders, or bedrock...... UNCONSOLIDATED SHORE 1’. During the growing season of most years, percentage of area covered by vegetation 30% or greater. 7. Vegetation composed of pioneering annuals or seedling perennials, often not hydrophytes, occurring only at time of substrate exposure ...... 8 8. Contained within a channel that does not have permanent flowing water. . . . . STREAMBED (VEGETATED) 8’. Contained within a channel with permanent water, or not contained in a channel ...... UNCONSOLIDATED SHORE (VEGETATED) 7’. Vegetation composed of algae, bryophytes, lichens, or vascular plants that are usually hydrophytic perennials ...... 9 9. Vegetation composed predominantly of nonvascular species ...... 10 10. Vegetation macrophytic algae, mosses, or lichens growing in water or the splash zone of shores ...... AQUATIC BED 10’. Vegetation mosses or lichens usually growing on organic soils and always outside the splash zone of shores ...... MOSS-LICHEN WETLAND 9’. Vegetation composed predominantly of vascular species ...... 11 11. Vegetation herbaceous ...... 12 12. Vegetation emergents...... EMERGENT WETLAND 12’. Vegetation submergent, floating-leaved, or floating...... AQUATIC BED 11’. Vegetation trees or shrubs ...... 13 13. Dominants less than 6 m (20 feet) tall ...... SCRUB-SHRUB WETLAND 13’. Dominants 6 m tall or taller ...... FORESTED WETLAND CALIFORNIA NATIVE PLANT SOCIETY RELEVÉ FIELD FORM (Revised 8/23/07)

Page______of Relevé # ______

FOR OFFICE USE ONLY

Polygon #______or Relevé # ______Permanent Number:

Date Airphoto # Community Name: ______/ ______/ ______MM DD YYYY Community Number: Occurrence Number:

County Source Code:

USGS Quad. 7.5' or 15' Quad Code: Quad Name: (Circle one) Map Index Number:

CNPS Chapter Update: Yes No (Circle one)

Landowner

Contact Person

Address

City Zip Phone number

Observers

Relevé plot shape (square, rectangle, triangle, circle, entire stand) ______NOTE: Forest/woodland plots should be 1000m2 if upland or 400m2 if riparian. All shrub plots should be 400m2. Herb plots should be 100 or 10m2*. Relevé plot size (length and width of rectangle, or circle-diameter) ______(m.) *Please consult with CNPS Vegetation Ecologist on herb plots. For circle radiuses: 5.64m (100m²), 11.28m (400m²), 17.84m (1000m²)

Study Plot Revisit? Yes or No (Circle one) Photo Interpreter Community Code for Polygon ______

Other polygons of same type? Yes or No Is plot representative of whole polygon? Yes or No (Circle one) If not, why not? ______

GPS File # ______GPS name (or points in file) ______Start Time _____:_____(am or pm) GPS Datum (from GPS setup) (e.g. WGS 84, NAD 27) ______

File type: Point or Polygon (circle one) Releve: UTME ______UTMN ______Error ±______ft/m UTM Zone ______

Transect: Start UTME ______UTMN ______End: UTME ______UTMN______

Elevation (ft.)______Slope (°) ______Aspect (°) ______Topography: Macro ______Micro ______

VEGETATION DESCRIPTION See code list for italicized fields

Dominant Layer ___ 0-0.5 m, ___ 0.5-5 m, ___>5 m Preliminary Alliance Name ______

Stand Size <1 acre, 1-5 acres, >5 acres Dominant Vegetation Group ______(use codes from code list)

Phenology: Ground ______Shrub ______Tree ______(Early, Peak, Late)

Wetland Community Type ______(Wetland or Upland)

If Community Type = Wetland (see Artificial Keys to Cowardin Systems and Names)

Cowardin System ______Subsystem ______Class ______

Distance to water (m): Vertical ______Horizontal ______Channel form (if riverine) ______(Straight, Meandering, Braided)

Adjacent Alliance Location (e.g., North, South, East, or West of stand) Description (up to 4 species by layer)

Photographs – Note which camera, photo JPEG/frame numbers, and photo direction relative to plot.

CALIFORNIA NATIVE PLANT SOCIETY RELEVÉ FIELD FORM

Page______of Relevé # ______

STAND AND ENVIRONMENTAL DESCRIPTION

Trend code ______Site Impact codes ______1. Increasing 2. Stable 3. Decreasing (List codes in order, with most significant first) 4. Fluctuating 5. Unknown Site Intensity ______1. Light 2. Moderate 3. Heavy (List beneath each impact code)

Site Location and Plot Description – Describing where the plot is located and what the main vegetation and environmental features are

Site History – Including observations of fire scars, insect/disease damage, grazing/browsing, human disturbance

Sensitive Species – List species observed and GPS UTM’s; Estimate size and extent of local populations

Unknown Specimens – List code, identification notes (e.g. Genus, condition of specimen) of unknowns

Additional Comments – Including animal observations, anthropological observations, abiotic features

Surface Coarse Fragments and Soils Information (see cover class intervals-below ⇓)

Type: Fines Gravel Cobble Stone Boulders Bedrock Litter Water Living stems Organic matter Vascular plants Descriptor: Including sand, 2mm-7.5 cm 7.5-25 cm 25-60cm >60cm diam. Including covering Standing or at ground mud diameter diam diam. outcrops ground running water surface

Cover class (see below):

% Cover*: *note all surface fragments, non-vegetation, living stems, etc., should add up to 100%

Cover Class Intervals: 1 (<1%), 2 (1-5%), 3a (>5-15%), 3b (>15-25%), 4 (>25-50%), 5 (>50-75%), 6 (>75%)

% Bioturbation ______Soil Texture ______(Code) Parent Material ______(Code)

CALIFORNIA PLANT COMMUNITIES RELEVÉ FIELD FORM (PART 2) SPECIES SHEET (Revised 8/23/07)

Page______of Relevé # ______

Layer: T = Canopy tree, U = Low-Medium tree, S = Shrub, H = Herb, and N=Non-vascular

Cover Class Intervals: 1 (<1%), 2 (1-5%), 3a (>5-15%), 3b (>15-25%), 4 (>25-50%), 5 (>50-75%), 6 (>75%)

Layer Vascular plant name or lichen/bryophyte cover Collection Final species determination or Tree dbh Cover Class % Cover

Total % Cover: Overstory Conifer ______Overstory Hardwood ______Low-Medium Tree ______Shrub ______Herb ______Total Vascular % cover ______

Height class: Overstory Conifer ______Overstory Hardwood ______Low-Medium Tree ______Shrub ______Herb ______Total Non-Vasc. % cover ______

Height classes: 01=<1/2m, 02=1/2-1m, 03=1-2m, 04=2-5m, 05=5-10m, 06=10-15m, 07=15-20m, 08=20-35m, 09=35-50m, 10=>50m.

CALIFORNIA PLANT COMMUNITIES RELEVÉ FIELD FORM (PART 2) SPECIES SHEET (Revised 8/23/07)

Page______of Relevé # ______

Layer: T = Canopy tree, U = Low-Medium tree, S = Shrub, H = Herb, and N=Non-vascular

Cover Class Intervals: 1 (<1%), 2 (1-5%), 3a (>5-15%), 3b (>15-25%), 4 (>25-50%), 5 (>50-75%), 6 (>75%)

Layer Vascular plant name or lichen/bryophyte cover Collection Final species determination or Tree dbh Cover Class % Cover

Total % Cover: Overstory Conifer ______Overstory Hardwood ______Low-Medium Tree ______Shrub ______Herb ______Total Vascular % cover ______

Height class: Overstory Conifer ______Overstory Hardwood ______Low-Medium Tree ______Shrub ______Herb ______Total Non-Vasc. % cover ______

Height classes: 01=<1/2m, 02=1/2-1m, 03=1-2m, 04=2-5m, 05=5-10m, 06=10-15m, 07=15-20m, 08=20-35m, 09=35-50m, 10=>50m.

APPENDIX L Residual Dry Matter Estimation – Comparative Yield Method

APPENDIX M California Guidelines for Residual Dry Matter Management on Coastal and Foothill Annual Rangelands