Attachment B

Final South Mather Wetlands Management Plan

Photo credit: Carol Witham

Prepared by:

Sacramento County Office of Economic Development and Marketing

Photo credit: Carol Witham With Assistance from:

H. T. Harvey & Associates AECOM Sacramento Valley Conservancy Carol Witham

Photo credit: Larry Serpa

July 2014 Attachment B

Attachment B

FINAL SOUTH MATHER WETLANDS MANAGEMENT PLAN

Prepared by:

Sacramento County Office of Economic Development and Marketing

With Assistance from:

H.T. Harvey & Associates AECOM Sacramento Valley Conservancy Carol Witham

Report Date: July 2014

Attachment B

Attachment B TABLE OF CONTENTS

1 Introduction ...... 1-1 1.1 Purpose, Organization, and Development of the South Mather Wetlands Management Plan ...... 1-1 1.1.1 Document Approach and Scope ...... 1-1 1.1.2 Relationship to Other Documents...... 1-2 1.2 Location and Project History ...... 1-3 1.3 Management Areas and Land Uses ...... 1-7 1.4 Management Goals and Objectives ...... 1-9 1.4.1 Natural Resource Management Goals and Objectives ...... 1-9 1.5 Plan Requirements and Planning Influences ...... 1-11 1.5.1 Plan Requirements ...... 1-11 1.5.2 Planning Influences ...... 1-11 1.6 Ecosystem Management and Adaptive Management ...... 1-12 1.6.1 Ecosystem Management ...... 1-12 1.6.2 Adaptive Management ...... 1-13 2 Physical Environment ...... 2-1 2.1 Climate ...... 2-1 2.2 Topography ...... 2-1 2.2.1 Drainage and Hydrology ...... 2-1 2.2.2 Historic Impacts ...... 2-2 2.3 Geology and Soils ...... 2-5 2.3.1 Soil Types ...... 2-5 3 Biological Environment ...... 3-1 3.1 Vegetation Communities ...... 3-1 3.1.1 Community Descriptions ...... 3-1 3.2 Wildlife ...... 3-6 3.3 Special-Status Species...... 3-7 3.3.1 Species Frequently Encountered ...... 3-11 3.3.2 Species Occasionally or Infrequently Encountered ...... 3-15 3.3.3 Species with the Potential to Be Found within Management Areas ...... 3-18 3.3.4 Species Unlikely to Be Found within Management Areas...... 3-19 3.4 Invasive Species ...... 3-20 3.4.1 Definition and Overview of Invasive Plant Species ...... 3-20 3.4.2 Population Profiles ...... 3-20 3.4.3 Species Descriptions ...... 3-21 4 Management, Maintenance, Restoration, and Public Use Roles and Responsibilities ...... 4-1 4.1 Wetlands Preserve Owner ...... 4-1 4.2 Wetlands Preserve Manager ...... 4-2 4.3 Easement Holder ...... 4-3 4.4 Qualified Personnel ...... 4-3 4.5 Airport Manager ...... 4-3 4.5.1 Conservation Area Management Coordination with Airport ...... 4-4 4.6 Public Interest Groups ...... 4-4 4.7 Changes in Personnel ...... 4-4 5 Habitat Management Activities ...... 5-1 5.1 Management Framework...... 5-1 5.2 Conservation Area Management Guidelines ...... 5-1 5.2.1 Thatch Management ...... 5-1

Sacramento County Office of Economic Development and Marketing South Mather Wetlands Management Plan i Table of Contents Attachment B 5.2.2 Invasive Plant Management ...... 5-11 6 Preserve Maintenance Activities ...... 6-1 6.1 Fencing ...... 6-1 6.2 Signage ...... 6-1 6.3 Infrastructure ...... 6-1 6.4 U.S. Air Force Remediation Facilities ...... 6-1 6.5 Fire Breaks ...... 6-2 6.6 Right-of-Way Maintenance ...... 6-2 6.7 Grazing Improvements ...... 6-2 6.8 Trash and Refuse ...... 6-3 6.9 Trespass Patrol ...... 6-3 6.10 Problem and Pest Wildlife Management ...... 6-4 6.10.1 Hazardous Wildlife Management ...... 6-4 6.10.2 Domestic and Feral Animal Control ...... 6-4 6.10.3 Mosquito Abatement ...... 6-5 6.10.4 Coyote Control ...... 6-5 6.10.5 Invasive Animal Control ...... 6-5 6.11 Postdisturbance Remediation/Restoration ...... 6-5 6.11.1 Disturbance Remediation/Restoration ...... 6-5 6.11.2 Timing ...... 6-6 7 Habitat Enhancement Activities ...... 7-1 7.1 Restoration Opportunities ...... 7-1 7.1.1 Douglas Road/Zinfandel Drive Vernal Pool Restoration ...... 7-1 7.1.2 Rubble Pile and Building Foundation Removal/Vernal Pool Restoration ...... 7-2 7.1.3 Wastewater Pond Vernal Pool Restoration ...... 7-2 7.1.4 Removal of Zinfandel Drive Abandoned Roadbed ...... 7-2 7.1.5 Removal of Sewage Line Berm ...... 7-2 7.1.6 Woodring Road Vernal Pool Restoration ...... 7-5 7.1.7 Removal of Paratrooper Pads and Access Roads ...... 7-5 7.1.8 Airport Tower Vernal Pool Restoration ...... 7-5 7.1.9 Native Grassland Restoration ...... 7-5 7.1.10 Blue Gum Removal ...... 7-5 7.2 Functional Lift ...... 7-6 8 Public Access Activities ...... 8-1 8.1 Developed Recreation ...... 8-1 8.2 Passive Recreation ...... 8-1 8.3 Education and Outreach ...... 8-2 8.3.1 Instructor-Led Activities ...... 8-2 8.3.2 Docent-Led Activities ...... 8-2 8.3.3 Public Outreach ...... 8-2 8.4 Scientific Use...... 8-2 9 Prohibited Activities ...... 9-1 9.1 Public Access...... 9-1 9.2 Vegetation Removal...... 9-1 9.3 Burning and Dumping ...... 9-1 9.4 Disking ...... 9-1 9.5 Additional Roads and Utility Lines ...... 9-1 9.6 Equipment and Fuel Storage ...... 9-1 9.7 Topography ...... 9-2 9.8 Pesticides and Chemical Agents ...... 9-2

Sacramento County Office of Economic Development and Marketing Table of Contents ii South Mather Wetlands Management Plan Attachment B 9.9 Motor Vehicle Use ...... 9-2 9.10 Construction ...... 9-2 9.11 Nonnative Plants ...... 9-2 10 Monitoring, Inspection, and Reporting ...... 10-1 10.1 Monitoring ...... 10-1 10.1.1 General Inspections ...... 10-1 10.1.2 Biological Monitoring...... 10-2 10.2 Agency Inspection ...... 10-7 10.3 Annual Reporting Requirements ...... 10-7 11 Agency Notification ...... 11-1 11.1 Notification Methods ...... 11-1 11.2 Emergency Situations ...... 11-1 11.2.1 11.2.1 Wetlands and Other Waters of the United States ...... 11-1 11.2.2 11.2.2 Threatened and Endangered Species ...... 11-2 11.2.3 11.2.3 Waters of the State ...... 11-2 11.2.4 11.2.4 Streambed Alteration...... 11-2 12 Funding ...... 12-1 13 List of Preparers ...... 13-1 13.1 Consultant Team ...... 13-1 13.1.1 H. T. Harvey & Associates ...... 13-1 13.1.2 AECOM ...... 13-1 13.1.3 Witham Biological Consulting ...... 13-1 13.1.4 Sacramento Valley Conservancy ...... 13-1 14 References ...... 14-1

EXHIBITS

Exhibit 1-1 Vicinity Map ...... 1-Error! Bookmark not defined. Exhibit 1-2 Project Location ...... 1-Error! Bookmark not defined. Exhibit 2-1 Wetlands and Other Waters ...... Error! Bookmark not defined. Exhibit 2-2 Geomorphology...... Error! Bookmark not defined. Exhibit 2-3 Soils ...... Error! Bookmark not defined. Exhibit 3-1 Habitat Types ...... Error! Bookmark not defined. Exhibit 3-2 Special-status Species ...... Error! Bookmark not defined. Exhibit 5-1 Ecological (Range) Sites...... Error! Bookmark not defined. Exhibit 7-1 South Mather 1972 Aerial...... Error! Bookmark not defined. Exhibit 7-2 Restoration Opportunities ...... Error! Bookmark not defined.

TABLES

Table 1-1 Land Use Description for Mather Field Specific Plan Area ...... 1-7 Table 3-1 Special-Status Species Frequently Encountered within Management Areas ...... 3-7 Table 3-2 Special-Status Species Occasionally or Infrequently Encountered within Management Areas ...... 3-8 Table 3-3 Special-Status Species with the Potential to Occur within Management Areas ...... 3-10 Table 3-4 Species Unlikely to Occur within the Wetlands Preserv ...... 3-10 Table 3-5 South Mather Invasive Plant Summary ...... 3-21 Table 5-1 Ecological Site-Soil Series Relationships ...... 5-3 Table 5-2 Preliminary Grazing Guidelines ...... 5-7 Table 5-3 Preliminary Invasive Plant Priority Ranking ...... 5-13

Sacramento County Office of Economic Development and Marketing South Mather Wetlands Management Plan iii Table of Contents Attachment B Table 5-4 Comparison of Invasive Plant Treatment Methods ...... 5-20 Table 6-1 Sample Disturbances and Remedial Measures ...... 6-6 Table 10-1 Biological Inspection Schedule ...... 10-3 Table 11-1. Notification Requirements ...... 11-4

APPENDICES

Appendix A. Initial Management Plan

Appendix B. South Mather Management Plan Expert Reviewers

Appendix C. Management Resources and References

Appendix D. Stakeholder Endorsement

Appendix E. Vernal Pool Plants of Mather Field

Appendix F. List of Wildlife Species Observed within South Mather

Appendix G. Hazardous Wildlife Assessment

Appendix H. Property Analysis Record Analysis

Appendix I. Sample Grazing Lease

Appendix J. Easement Field Inspection Form

Appendix K. California Guidelines for Residual Dry Matter Management on Coastal and Foothill Annual Rangelands

Appendix L. Residual Dry Matter Estimation – Comparative Yield Method

Sacramento County Office of Economic Development and Marketing Table of Contents iv South Mather Wetlands Management Plan Attachment B 1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 PURPOSE, ORGANIZATION, AND DEVELOPMENT OF THE SOUTH MATHER WETLANDS MANAGEMENT PLAN

Sacramento County (County) Office of Economic Development and Marketing is developing a Wetlands Management Plan (Management Plan) for South Mather in collaboration with several other Sacramento County departments, including: Planning, Airports, Regional Parks, Transportation, and Environmental Review and Assessment. South Mather is the southern portion of the former Mather Air Force Base that includes a proposed1,272-acre wetlands preserve (Wetlands Preserve) along with areas of existing development and planned future development that would be constructed within the Mather Field Special Planning Area. Preparation of the Management Plan and the permanent protection of wetlands and species listed as threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, (16 U.S. Code 1531 et seq.) (Act) were required as a condition of the Supplemental Record of Decision (SROD) issued on November 21, 1994 for the disposal and reuse of Mather Air Force Base. The Wetlands Preserve includes an extensive acreage of vernal pools and similar seasonal wetlands subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). The Wetlands Preserve also provides habitat for the federally listed as threatened vernal pool fairy shrimp (Branchinecta lynchi) and the federally listed as endangered vernal pool tadpole shrimp (Lepidurus packardi) as well as federally designated critical habitat for these species (Unit 13 for vernal pool fairy shrimp and Unit 8 for vernal pool tadpole shrimp [71 Federal Register (FR) 7117]). Other federally listed species that have potential to occur on site, but have not previously been documented, include the federally listed as endangered Sacramento Orcutt grass (Orcuttia viscida) and the federally listed as threatened slender Orcutt grass (Orcuttia tenuis) in addition to their designed critical habitat (Unit 2 for Sacramento Orcutt grass and Unit 6 for slender Orcutt grass [71 FR 7117]). Management of the Wetlands Preserve will focus on wetland habitat and on vernal pool fairy shrimp and vernal pool tadpole shrimp; other species, including both species of Orcutt grasses and other species associated with vernal pool grasslands, will be considered during management actions, but not necessarily the focus of management actions for the Wetlands Preserve.

Aside from the Wetlands Preserve, which is the focus of this Management Plan, other areas within South Mather that are discussed in this document include Future County Use areas, Corridor Preserves, and Airport Management Areas. Future County Use areas are locations that will accommodate future development at South Mather, to include an extension of Zinfandel Drive to Douglas Road, a new western extension of Douglas Road, and a new alignment and widening of Zinfandel Drive from Douglas Road to Jackson Highway. The Corridor Preserve refers to a linear preserve along an unnamed waterway east of Zinfandel Drive and north of Kiefer Boulevard within an area designated as Future County Use that will be protected as a result of Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 404 permit requirements associated with implementation of the Mather Field Specific Plan. Airport Management Areas are those areas located within the operational boundary of Mather Airport, adjacent to the Wetlands Preserve, that are subject to a unique set of management requirements to minimize wildlife attractiveness and wildlife hazards but that also contain vernal pools and other resources. The relationship among these areas is described in more detail below.

1.1.1 DOCUMENT APPROACH AND SCOPE

The Management Plan is intended to provide the overarching framework for the management of the Wetlands Preserve. Other areas within South Mather (i.e., Future County Use areas, Corridor Preserve, and Airport Management Areas) are discussed to provide the regional context for management of the Wetlands Preserve, but the management guidelines described in this document shall apply only to the Wetlands Preserve. Other areas at South Mather will continue to be managed according to all applicable local, California, and federal regulations but are not subject to the Management Plan.

Sacramento County Office of Economic Development and Marketing South Mather Wetlands Management Plan 1-1 Introduction Attachment B Furthermore, the Management Plan primarily focuses on describing standards or guidelines that will apply for all management, maintenance, and monitoring activities within the Wetlands Preserve. For most habitat management activities, such as the development of livestock grazing guidelines or invasive plant treatment approaches, sufficient baseline information does not currently exist to developed detailed management approaches. The initial 5–10 years of Wetlands Preserve management will therefore focus on implementing and testing various trial management approaches and collecting baseline data (as described in Appendix A), subject to the guidelines described in the Management Plan, with the intent of developing concrete management approaches that will be the focus of subsequent Wetlands Preserve management. South Mather is also currently used for educational activities and for public outreach, educational, and other public use. Similar to habitat management actions, the initial period of Wetlands Preserve management will include development of a detailed public access master plan, which will guide all future public use of the Wetlands Preserve. Until this master plan is finalized, existing education and public outreach activities within the Wetlands Preserve will continue as described in Chapter 8.

A group of technical advisors (listed in Appendix B) has reviewed the Management Plan to ensure that the document reflects the best available information regarding vernal pool grassland ecology and management and that the described management approaches are appropriate for South Mather. Various research papers and other technical resources related to vernal pool ecology and management that were consulted during the development of the Management Plan are listed in Chapter 14, “References,” and Appendix C.

This management plan has been developed in close coordination with representatives from USACE, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). These regulatory agencies (Agency or Agencies) have reviewed and provided extensive comments on the management plan; however, Agency approval of this management plan does not substitute for any appropriate Agency review, approval or permit that may be required for activities described in this plan. Applicable Agency notification and coordination requirements are described throughout this management plan, where appropriate.

1.1.2 RELATIONSHIP TO OTHER DOCUMENTS

Due to the complexities surrounding the initial creation of the Wetlands Preserve, eventual development of South Mather and associated regulatory agency permitting requirements, and the phased approach planned for implementation of habitat management and public access activities, several documents have been or are expected to be developed for the Wetlands Preserve and other areas of South Mather. These documents, and their relationship to the Management Plan, are summarized below.

► Initial Management Plan: a plan to guide habitat management activities during the initial 5–10 years of Wetlands Preserve operation. A copy of the Initial Management Plan is attached to the Management Plan as Appendix A.

► Invasive Plan Management Plan: a detailed baseline assessment, prioritization, and treatment plan for invasive plants within the Wetlands Preserve. An invasive plan management plan for the Wetlands Preserve is expected to be developed within 1 year of preserve establishment.

► Public Access Management Plan: a detailed plan for managing existing public use of the Wetlands Preserve and within the Wetlands Preserve where compatible with resource protection. A public access master plan for South Mather, including the Wetlands Preserve, is expected to be developed within 3 years of preserve establishment.

► Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan: a plan describing habitat restoration, activities that are proposed to occur within South Mather to compensate for impacts to sensitive species and habitats associated with implementation of the Mather Field Specific Plan. A Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan may be prepared by Sacramento County in the future if required by the Agencies.

Sacramento County Office of Economic Development and Marketing Introduction 1-2 South Mather Wetlands Management Plan Attachment B

► Corridor Preserve Long-Term Management Plan: a plan describing long-term management and maintenance activities for the Corridor Preserve. This is expected to be required as part of the permitting process associated with implementation of the Mather Field Specific Plan.

► Updated Management Plan: an updated Wetlands Preserve management plan to be completed at the end of the initial 5- to 10-year trial management period for the Wetlands Preserve and updated as needed thereafter.

These documents shall be consistent with the standards and guidelines described in the Management Plan and subject to Agency review and approval.

1.2 LOCATION AND PROJECT HISTORY

South Mather, located in the unincorporated area of Sacramento County, 12 miles east of downtown Sacramento (Exhibit 1-1), is a portion of a larger area that was formerly occupied by Mather Air Force Base (Exhibit 1-2). It was used as an airfield, pilot training school, and military air base from 1918 until September 1993 when it was closed by the U.S. Air Force (USAF) and portions were transferred to the County. Developed areas within the installation occupied less than 10 percent of the 5,718-acre area, and, as a result, an undeveloped landscape remained, characterized in part by vernal pools, seasonal wetlands, grasslands and other natural communities. In its current condition, South Mather provides opportunities for both economic development and natural resources preservation and management.

As part of its plan to convert South Mather from military to civilian use, the County initiated an extensive redevelopment program and developed the Mather Field Specific Plan (Specific Plan) (Sacramento County 1997) to guide redevelopment of the southern portion of the air base. The Specific Plan established (1) the location, intensity, and character of land uses; (2) circulation patterns and necessary infrastructure improvements to support development; (3) the location and general configuration of parks and open space; (4) community facilities necessary to support new development and contribute to the quality and livability of the region as a whole; and (5) implementing actions required to realize the Plan’s objectives (Sacramento County 2006a).

In April 2004, the Board of Supervisors conceptually endorsed creation of a wetlands preserve at South Mather for the preservation of wetlands and federally listed species. The Board directed staff to work with stakeholders to develop a plan for creating the Wetlands Preserve and for addressing other uses, including roadways, economic development, parks, and easement restrictions for conservation and resource protection (Sacramento County 2006a). After working with the stakeholders, the Wetlands Preserve plan was reviewed by the County Board of Supervisors and conceptually approved on February 22, 2006 (Sacramento County 2006a).

In June 2005 staff brought together representatives of key stakeholders interested in the future of South Mather. A full list of stakeholders is included as Appendix D. Stakeholders included environmental activists, park supporters, community residents, the City of Rancho Cordova, the USAF, the Agencies, County departments, and others. Using an interest-based approach, the stakeholders group developed alternatives for the boundaries of the Wetlands Preserve, identified other vernal pools to be protected, and discussed the alignments of Zinfandel Drive and Douglas Road. After several meetings, the group unanimously voted to support staff presenting the 2006 plan to the Board to initiate the General Plan and Mather Field Specific Plan Amendment process and the federal permitting process. The Board approved the initiation of these processes on February 22, 2006 (Sacramento County 2006a).

Development of the Management Plan began in 2006 and continued into 2007. An administrative draft of the Management Plan was provided to Sacramento County and the Agencies in July 2007 for initial review and comment. Following submission of the administrative draft Management Plan, the County and the Agencies began further discussions to finalize the boundaries of the Wetlands Preserve. As a result of these discussions, approximately 200 acres of South Mather was incorporated into the Wetlands Preserve. The Management Plan

Sacramento County Office of Economic Development and Marketing South Mather Wetlands Management Plan 1-3 Introduction Attachment B

Attachment B

Attachment B

Attachment B

Attachment B

Attachment B was subsequently revised to incorporate these changes to the Wetlands Preserve boundary and to address additional comments raised by the County and the Agencies during review of the administrative draft.

1.3 MANAGEMENT AREAS AND LAND USES

The Specific Plan designated parts of South Mather as Future County Use, the Wetlands Preserve, or Airport Management Areas. Aside from areas described in the Specific Plan, a portion of South Mather is expected to be preserved as a permit condition under Section 404 of the federal CWA for activities associated with the implementation of the Mather Field Specific Plan. These areas, collectively called Corridor Preserves, will be established along linear drainage channels within Future County Use areas to preserve waters of the United States subject to the jurisdiction of USACE.

Table 1-1 summarizes the purpose, activities, and permitted facilities anticipated for each of these areas. This list is preliminary and subject to future Agency authorizations and permit requirements. Each area is described in more detail by the following paragraphs.

Table 1-1 Land Use Description for Mather Field Specific Plan Area Land Use Purpose Activities Permitted Facilities Location and Notes Designation

WETLANDS ► Preservation and ► Habitat and ► Existing Will be preserved in PRESERVE enhancement of endangered species infrastructure perpetuity and

existing natural monitoring, ► Other facilities with managed for resource values maintenance, and appropriate resource protection management approvals and with provisions, as ► Maintenance of permits as consistent acceptable, for existing infrastructure with Public Access compatible passive consistent with Master Plan and public use, nature applicable federal, conservation study, and scientific State, and local easement research regulations

► Recreational and educational activities consistent with Public Access Master Plan

► Habitat restoration

AIRPORT ► Maintenance of ► Management ► None, except as Areas of vernal pool MANAGEMENT existing natural activities necessary to required for public habitat within AREAS resource values comply with Federal health, safety, and Mather Airport

► No public access Aviation Regulation welfare or airport operational area to (FAR) Part 139 and operations be maintained as ► May be developed in FAA Advisory needed for airport the future in ► Existing Circular 150/5200- safety accordance with infrastructure 33A “Hazardous applicable federal, Wildlife Attractants State, and local On Or Near Airports” regulations ► Maintenance of existing infrastructure consistent with applicable federal, State, and local regulations

Sacramento County Office of Economic Development and Marketing South Mather Wetlands Management Plan 1-7 Introduction Attachment B

Table 1-1 Land Use Description for Mather Field Specific Plan Area Land Use Purpose Activities Permitted Facilities Location and Notes Designation

CORRIDOR ► Preservation of ► Maintenance of ► Existing Waters of the United PRESERVE existing natural existing infrastructure infrastructure States within Future

resource values and any future ► Future infrastructure County Use area infrastructure consistent with preserved and constructed pursuant applicable federal, protected pursuant to to applicable federal, State, and local compensatory State, and local regulations mitigation regulations requirements ► Other facilities ► Habitat monitoring, consistent with maintenance, and Public Access management Master Plan ► Other activities consistent with Public Access Master Plan

FUTURE ► Property for ► Uses consistent with ► Facilities consistent Areas intended for COUNTY USE commercial, the Mather Specific with the Mather development recreation, Plan Specific Plan residential and other urban uses with infrastructure improvements

Source: Sacramento County 2006a

► Wetlands Preserve: the Wetlands Preserve is an approximately 1,272-acre portion of South Mather that will permanently protect approximately 78 percent of all wetland acreage found in the Specific Plan area as well as occupied habitat for vernal pool fairy shrimp and vernal pool tadpole shrimp, potential habitat for Sacramento Orcutt grass and slender Orcutt grass, and federally designated critical habitat for all four species. This area will be preserved in perpetuity through a conservation easement granted to a registered 501(c)(3) conservation organization or applicable public agency. The Wetlands Preserve will be managed for resource protection with provisions for compatible public use, nature study, and scientific research. A preserve manager will be responsible for planning and implementing management and maintenance activities in accordance with all applicable regulatory requirements to maintain the habitat values of preserved wetland features. To satisfy Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) mandates, the Sacramento County Airport System (SCAS) will engage in management activities to reduce wildlife hazards at Mather Airport to protect human life and aircraft. These activities will be conducted in coordination with the Wetlands Preserve Manager to ensure consistency with applicable environmental regulations.

► Airport Management Areas: These include approximately 90 acres of vernal pool grasslands within the operational boundary of Mather Airport that are managed primarily to decrease wildlife attractiveness rather than to maintain or improve natural resources. These areas will be managed in compliance with existing federal, State, and local regulations. However, they are not in a formal preserve and may be developed at some point in the future to support airport expansion or other operational needs of Mather Airport. No public access will be allowed in Airport Management Areas.

► Corridor Preserve: The Corridor Preserve consists of an area along an unnamed drainage east of Zinfandel Drive and north of Kiefer Boulevard, comprising roughly 13 acres within Future County Use areas. They will be established pursuant to USACE permitting requirements, and will be largely isolated within areas of

Sacramento County Office of Economic Development and Marketing Introduction 1-8 South Mather Wetlands Management Plan Attachment B potential future development. The Corridor Preserve will receive a level of legal protection similar to the Wetlands Preserve

► Future County Use: The remaining approximately 2,242-acre undeveloped portion of the Specific Plan area is where future development is expected to occur. Some or all of the vernal pools and other wetlands located in this area will be filled during the construction of parks, residential, commercial, educational, and similar facilities. Until this point, habitats within Future County Use areas will be maintained in their current state and pursuant to all applicable local, State, and federal environmental regulations.

As described above, the management, maintenance, and monitoring guidelines described in this Management Plan are intended to apply only to the Wetlands Preserve. Other areas at South Mather are discussed within the Management Plan to provide the regional context for management of the Wetlands Preserve, but the standards and guidelines described in the Management Plan do not apply to these areas.

1.4 MANAGEMENT GOALS AND OBJECTIVES

Management goals and objectives for Future County Use areas, the Corridor Preserve, and Airport Management Areas have not been incorporated into this Management Plan. Upon transfer from the USAF, Sacramento County will maintain these areas in their current condition and in compliance with all applicable regulations governing the management of potential habitat for State-listed and federally listed species and special-status habitats, including wetlands and designated critical habitat, until such a time as they are developed pursuant to the Specific Plan or until future area-specific management plans are developed. In the interim period, uses that are consistent with applicable laws and regulations are permissible at the discretion of the County.

For the purpose of this document, management goals are defined as intended outcomes, the attainment of which is achieved through specific management objectives. Management objectives are measurable steps or actions focused on achieving the management goals. Management goals and objectives for the Wetlands Preserve are described below. Although not all objectives described below are explicitly measureable, measurable objectives will be developed upon completion of the initial 5- to 10-year Wetlands Preserve management and baseline evaluation period. These measureable objectives will be incorporated into the revised, final Wetlands Management Plan.

1.4.1 NATURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT GOALS AND OBJECTIVES

Planning for and implementation of actions to achieve natural resource management goals and objectives for the Wetlands Preserve is the responsibility of the Preserve Manager.

Goal NR1 –Increase biodiversity by managing habitat for the benefit of plants and animals native to California

► Objective NR1-1 – Reduce residual grassland biomass to encourage grassland species diversity, vernal pool species diversity, and vernal pool hydrology supportive of vernal pool-obligate species.

► Objective NR1-2 – Reduce the current extent of invasive plants and prevent the establishment of new populations.

Goal NR2 – Protect, maintain, and increase population occurrences of target vernal pool dependent species and upland species, including vernal pool fairy shrimp and vernal pool tadpole shrimp.

► Objective NR2-1 – Where appropriate, implement habitat restoration and management activities consistent with this Management Plan, FAA requirements, applicable regulations, and permit requirements to benefit state- and federally-listed species, including species listed for protection in the South Sacramento HCP, and

Sacramento County Office of Economic Development and Marketing South Mather Wetlands Management Plan 1-9 Introduction Attachment B sensitive habitats, including wetlands along with their associated upland habitats required by vernal pool associated upland species (e.g., native specialist bees).

► Objective NR2-2 – Regularly gather monitoring data to track the response of special-status species and habitats to habitat restoration and management activities.

► Objective NR2-3 – Protect vernal pool grasslands from habitat fragmentation, habitat disturbance, and similar adverse ecological effects resulting from incompatible and/or unmanaged public use.

Goal NR3 – Protect and, where possible, enhance hydrologic functions and processes.

► Objective NR3-1 – Periodically monitor hydrologic functions and processes.

► Objective NR3-2 – Where appropriate, implement ecosystem restoration and management activities consistent with this Management Plan, all applicable Agency authorization or permit requirements, and applicable regulations governing the management of potential habitat for state- and federally-listed species and special-status habitats, including wetlands and critical habitat.

Goal NR4 – Limit the potential for unintended adverse effects on native habitats and species, including special- status species and habitats, from restoration and management actions.

► Objective NR4-1 – Adopt an adaptive management framework to test potential management actions, document the effects of these actions, and revise management approaches as applicable to better meet resource management goals.

► Objective NR4-2 – Monitor the effects of habitat restoration and management actions on a small scale (i.e., through trial studies) prior to implementation across the entirety of the Wetlands Preserve.

► Objective NR4-3 – Monitor and analyze experimental and pilot project restoration, enhancement, and other management actions, as well as broadly implemented management actions.

► Objective NR4-4 – Modify management actions and re-test or, when proven successful, implement actions on a broader scale, as appropriate to achieve management goals.

PUBLIC USE GOALS AND OBJECTIVES

Planning for and implementation of actions to achieve public use management goals and objectives for the Wetlands Preserve is the responsibility of the Preserve Owner in conjunction with the Preserve Manager.

Goal PU1 – Provide for public safety.

► Objective PU1-1 – Facilitate access to the Wetlands Preserve for emergency personnel (e.g., police and fire) and for necessary infrastructure maintenance.

► Objective PU1-2 – Minimize wildfire risk through biomass reduction, firebreaks, and other fuel management strategies.

Goal PU2 – Increase public awareness of the importance of vernal pool resources in the Sacramento region consistent with the Agency-approved public access plan to be developed during the initial management period.

► Objective PU2-1 – Develop and implement environmental educational programs and passive recreation facilities that are consistent with other goals of this Management Plan and all applicable Agency authorizations or permit requirements.

Sacramento County Office of Economic Development and Marketing Introduction 1-10 South Mather Wetlands Management Plan Attachment B

► Objective PU2-2 – Provide for appropriate access by groups and individuals to enhance awareness and appreciation of vernal pool grasslands.

Goal PU3 – Increase scientific understanding of vernal pool dependent species, vernal pool ecosystems, and associated upland species.

► Objective PU3-1 – Encourage the use of the Wetlands Preserve for scientific research purposes consistent with other goals of this Management Plan and all applicable Agency authorizations or permit requirements.

1.5 PLAN REQUIREMENTS AND PLANNING INFLUENCES

Numerous factors have influenced the development of the Management Plan. The role of each of these influences on the natural resource management planning process for South Mather is discussed below.

1.5.1 PLAN REQUIREMENTS

The preparation of the Management Plan has been required or is expected to be required by the following regulatory agency permits or agreements:

► Supplemental ROD on Mather Air Force Base issued by the Department of the Air Force on November 21, 1994. A requirement for an agreement on protection of vernal pool grasslands and endangered species via preparation of an associated management plan was stipulated in the SROD. The transfer of remaining lands at South Mather from USAF to County control is contingent upon the satisfaction of these conditions.

► Anticipated Section 404 Permits and Biological Opinions Associated with South Mather. Although these permits or authorizations have not been issued, this requirement is included with the expectation that the County will fulfill at least a portion of its regulatory agency permit or authorization requirements within the Wetlands Preserve.

1.5.2 PLANNING INFLUENCES

The following planning influences were considered in the development of the Management Plan. Although these factors are not legal requirements governing the development of the Management Plan, they have contributed to the overall plan approach and to the types of management and maintenance activities discussed in the plan.

STAKEHOLDER INPUT

As discussed above, an interest-based stakeholders group was convened to address habitat preservation within South Mather. The group focused primarily on identifying a defensible Wetlands Preserve boundary and alternative road realignments to accomplish that goal.

CURRENT AND FUTURE SURROUNDING LAND USES

The Wetlands Preserve will be, in most cases, surrounded by a variety of land uses. These land uses currently include or are likely to include an airport, residential and commercial development, parks and recreation areas, and major roads and other infrastructure. The proximity of these land uses to the Wetlands Preserve constrains habitat management because management activities that might otherwise be appropriate or even necessary to enhance vernal pool grasslands (e.g., prescribed burning) may be limited by concerns for public safety, airport operations, or otherwise constrained by surrounding development.

Similarly, potential demands on preserved or protected lands, such as the desire to accommodate recreational and educational uses within the Wetlands Preserve and the potential for edge effects, also may require certain

Sacramento County Office of Economic Development and Marketing South Mather Wetlands Management Plan 1-11 Introduction Attachment B management approaches, monitoring techniques, or additional oversight above levels typically required for other habitat preserves.

Finally, the proximity of the Wetlands Preserve to Mather Airport, along with the FAA requirement that wildlife attractants be minimized on lands within 10,000 feet of the centerline of airport runways, will require additional monitoring, and may require periodic management activities by the SCAS specifically to reduce wildlife attractiveness. These activities may conflict with the general goal of maintaining or enhancing vernal pool grassland habitat on protected and preserved lands. The need to account for surrounding land uses, to the extent possible while still adhering to all applicable environmental regulations, regulatory agency permits, and similar requirements, has been incorporated into the Management Plan where appropriate.

1.6 ECOSYSTEM MANAGEMENT AND ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT

This section describes the role of ecosystem management and adaptive management in the development and implementation of the Management Plan.

1.6.1 ECOSYSTEM MANAGEMENT

An ecosystem approach to management uses natural processes to create a sustainable system over the long term, often obtaining the greatest environmental benefits at the least cost. Management decisions should be based on the whole picture: the physical environment, the biological environment, and the human environment (Yaffee et al. 1996). It takes into account the interaction between organisms, their habitat, and physical processes. Ecosystem management differs markedly from current regulatory or species-centered approaches, where problems are prioritized often without reference to their context.

An ecosystem approach to management of the Wetlands Preserve recognizes that:

► Nonnative annual grasses and forbs have become widely naturalized within the Central Valley, eliminating much of the historic flora and fauna and dramatically altering the structure and composition of Central Valley grassland communities (e.g., Heady et al. 1991).

► Nonnative plants have modified vernal pool grasslands to the extent that vegetation management, in the form of prescribed fire, grazing, and similar disturbances, often at greater intensities and/or frequencies than historic analogues, may be required to maintain or enhance the ecological functions of vernal pool grasslands (Marty 2005, Barry 1998, Pollak and Kan 1998).

► South Mather has been largely unmanaged for at least 80 years. Due to this prolonged lack of disturbance, soils, plant communities, and animal communities have become accustomed to the absence of disturbance. Therefore, the drastic reintroduction of widespread disturbance, without appropriate preimplementation trials and monitoring, might have unintended, adverse consequences such as increased erosion, reduction in native plant and animal populations, and similar effects.

► The ecological functions provided by individual vernal pools or geographically proximate complexes of vernal pools may vary based on local soil conditions, topography, hydrology, land use histories, and other factors that can vary at a small scale (Platenkamp 1998, Holland and Dains 1990, Holland and Jain 1981). Therefore, management approaches that are appropriate for one group of vernal pools may not be optimal to maintain the ecological functions of another group of pools within the same general location.

► Climatic patterns (e.g., the amount and timing of rainfall and average air temperatures) are the governing factors for a host of annual plant community parameters such as: total biomass production, species composition, species cover, and species dominance at small scales where other factors (e.g., regional climate, soils, land use histories) are constant (George et al. 2001, Evans and Young 1989, Bartolome 1989, Pitt and

Sacramento County Office of Economic Development and Marketing Introduction 1-12 South Mather Wetlands Management Plan Attachment B Heady 1979, Biswell 1956, Heady 1956). In California, annual climate patterns are unpredictable and frequently vary between years and within years. Therefore, management approaches must also be flexible between years and within years to effectively manage vegetation and prevent unintended adverse impacts to sensitive resources.

The management approaches described in the Management Plan attempt to account for these ecosystem processes and to recognize the inherit uncertainty involved in managing complex ecosystems.

1.6.2 ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT

Adaptive management is, simply put, the process of learning by doing (Holling 1978, Walters 1986). It is a management approach that allows management actions to proceed in the face of uncertainty and that describes monitoring and feedback mechanisms to permit the modification of current management practices when/if ongoing monitoring and evaluation indicates that a new approach is required to better meet resource management goals. Due to the high degree of variability and uncertainty surrounding resource management actions within the Wetlands Preserve, the adoption of an adaptive management approach will be essential to the maintenance and enhancement of vegetation communities and the wildlife that depend upon those communities.

KEY ELEMENTS

Adaptive management is generally viewed as a six-step iterative process. The names of the individual steps vary between management plans, but generally consist of the following actions:

► assessing goals and problems and acknowledging uncertainty about what is “best” for any particular management issue;

► designing an experimental plan of action through thoughtful selection of practices or procedures to be applied to the problem(s);

► carefully implementing the plan of action designed to reveal the critical knowledge that is currently lacking;

► monitoring key response indicators;

► analyzing the management outcomes in consideration of the original objectives; and

► incorporating the results by adapting, as appropriate, management approaches to better meet resource management goals and objectives.

There is little site-specific information upon which to base an adaptive management program for the Wetlands Preserve. More generally, there is an extensive amount of information in the form of management plans and published papers and reports, as well as the experiences of land managers and others involved in the day-to-day management of vernal pool grasslands similar to those found at the Wetlands Preserve. While this information can serve as a suitable starting point for South Mather, the development of specific management activities should be refined through site-specific information collected as part of an adaptive management process. Initial steps in this process are described in more detail within Chapter 5 and, more specifically, in Appendix A, and monitoring requirements in support of the adaptive management process are described in Chapter 10.

Sacramento County Office of Economic Development and Marketing South Mather Wetlands Management Plan 1-13 Introduction Attachment B

Attachment B 2 PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT

This section summarizes information contained in numerous documents previously prepared for the Wetlands Preserve and surrounding areas of South Mather. These documents include wetland delineation reports and biological resources assessments (JSA 1997, Wetlands Research Associates 2004a and 2004b), hydrologic investigations (Hydro Science and Stromberg 1992, Hydro Science 2003, Williamson et al. 2005, and Rains et al. 2006), and the draft vernal pool conservation strategy for the South Sacramento HCP (Dittes and Guardino 2006). Interested readers may refer to these documents as well as the references listed in Appendix C for more information. This section focuses on features of the physical environment most relevant in the development of management approaches for the Wetlands Preserve.

2.1 CLIMATE

Climate of the Wetlands Preserve is typical of the Central Valley of California, characterized by hot, dry summers and temperate, wet winters. Summer temperatures frequently exceed 90 degrees Fahrenheit (°F), while temperatures rarely drop below freezing for any significant duration during winter months. The 30-year averages (based on National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration [NOAA] data from 1961 through 1990) for Sacramento, California indicate that the maximum average monthly temperature is 93.2°F (July), the minimum average monthly temperature is 37.7°F (January), and the average annual precipitation is 17.2 inches. In a normal year, nearly 95 percent of the annual precipitation occurs from October through April, indicating that less than 1 inch of annual precipitation falls from May through September.

2.2 TOPOGRAPHY

2.2.1 DRAINAGE AND HYDROLOGY

The Wetlands Preserve is primarily flat with a perceptible slope towards the southwest. Similar to many vernal pool landscapes, the majority of the site exhibits a slightly undulating topography characterized by mima mounds and intervening vernal swales and pools intersected by small drainages and creeks. Overall, the site elevation ranges between 65 feet above mean sea level in the southwestern corner to 150 feet above mean sea level along the eastern border (USGS 1980, 1992).

The principal water sources for the Wetlands Preserve are direct precipitation, sheet flow from adjacent uplands and developed areas, and runoff from adjacent wetlands. Irrigation water runoff from the golf course, the Independence at Mather housing development, and other developed areas provide additional hydrologic inputs. The Wetlands Preserve is drained primarily by Morrison Creek and its tributaries. Morrison Creek enters the northeast portion of the Mather Air Force Base, draining immediately into Mather Lake, north of the existing golf course. The stream flows roughly southwest across the Wetlands Preserve after being released from the lake (Exhibit 2-1).

Other streams within the Wetlands Preserve are primarily intermittent, except those that have artificial input sources including irrigation runoff and channelized municipal water.

Aside from Morrison Creek and a network of intermittent drainages, vernal pools and similar depressional wetlands are common throughout the Wetlands Preserve. The hydrology of vernal pools can be complex and influenced by a variety of factors, including:

► direct precipitation;

► overland inflows from surrounding uplands;

Sacramento County Office of Economic Development and Marketing South Mather Wetlands Management Plan 2-1 Physical Environment Attachment B

► subsurface inflows in the form of a seasonally perched water table;

► channel inflows and outflows, for pools that are part of an interconnected drainage system (via vernal swales, intermittent drainages, and similar features);

► overland outflows;

► subsurface outflows, including “leakage” through claypan and hardpan layers; and

► evaporation and/or transpiration (Hanes et al. 1990).

The relative influence of these factors is a function of watershed topography, soil characteristics (e.g., bulk density, chemical composition, soil texture, and depth to hardpan or claypan), and plant growth within and surrounding the pool. Additionally, the relative importance of these factors varies throughout the pool inundation phase such that some factors are more important for pool hydrology at certain times of the year and less important at other times (Hanes et al. 1990).

At the Wetlands Preserve, the relative importance of these factors has been the subject of several past investigations (Rains et al. 2006, Williamson et al. 2005, Hanes and Stromberg 1998, Hydro Science and Stromberg 1992). Based on a water balance analysis, these investigations concluded that direct precipitation is the dominant factor influencing the hydrology and hydroperiod of vernal pools and similar wetlands at the Wetlands Preserve. Lateral flow of subsurface water, in the form of a seasonally perched water table caused by regular precipitation and the presence of impervious subsurface soil layers, was also found to play a significant hydrologic role by lengthening vernal pool hydroperiod and maintaining inundation levels during dry periods between storm events (Williamson et al. 2005, Rains et al. 2006) when evaporation and transpiration are the strongest causes of vernal pool water loss (Hanes and Stromberg 1998, Hanes et al. 1990). Other factors, including overland sheet flow, were found to have a relatively minor influence on vernal pool hydrology because they generally add or remove incrementally small amounts of water relative to larger sources of water input or loss or because they are operative only during periods where their effects are generally unimportant for overall pool hydrologic function.

It should be noted that these investigations were conducted within the Wetlands Preserve on pools to the east of Excelsior Road and that the soils on which these pools formed are not necessarily representative of all vernal pool soils within the Wetlands Preserve. For example, many of the soils to the west of Excelsior Road have a weak duripan that is further below the soil surface and have finer textured surface soils, relative to the soils to the east of Excelsior Road. The eastern portion also has more topographic relief, relative to the western portion, and therefore, greater potential for the development of hydraulic head. Although not specifically studied, it is possible that many of the vernal pools to the west of Excelsior Road are hydrologically similar to vernal pools found on the Valensin Ranch site described by Williamson et al. (2005). Both areas of pools are found on similar geomorphic surfaces (upper and lower Riverbank units, respectively [Helley and Harwood 1985]) with reasonably similar soils. Williamson et al. (2005) found that the hydrology of the Valensin Ranch site was more strongly influenced by direct precipitation and overland flow with subsurface perched groundwater playing less of a role in overall pool hydrology, relative to the pools they studied at the Wetlands Preserve.

2.2.2 HISTORIC IMPACTS

The topography and hydrology has been altered in many parts of the Wetlands Preserve through a long history of military use, infrastructure development, and other uses. These alterations have disrupted and diverted water flows among vernal pools and pool complexes, altered the quantity of water and flow direction of creeks and drainages, and leveled numerous small topographic depressions that would otherwise contribute to the hydrology of vernal pools, vernal swales, and other seasonal wetlands. Many of these historic disturbances provide

Sacramento County Office of Economic Development and Marketing Physical Environment 2-2 South Mather Wetlands Management Plan

Attachment B

Attachment B

Attachment B opportunities to restore functioning habitat or improve the ecological functions of existing habitats and are described in more detail in Chapter 7.

2.3 GEOLOGY AND SOILS

Differences in geologic formations (e.g., formation age and chemical composition of parent materials) influence vernal pool development and a variety of vernal pool physical characteristics such as pool size, shape, and depth (Holland 1978, Platenkamp 1998). Different geologic formations may also support the development of different soil types that may have a claypan, hardpan, or both, as well as different soil textures, soil permeabilities, soil chemistries, and other factors. These factors determine pool hydroperiod, the specific species of plants and animals found within the pool, and the overall ecological function of the pool.

The course of rivers flowing from the Sierra Nevada to the Central Valley has changed numerous times over geologic history because the Sierra Nevada has uplifted and shifted several times during its evolution. This shifting of river courses has constantly eroded and deposited rocks of different ages and chemical composition, leading to a mosaic of different geologic formations, often in close proximity to one another. The rocks associated with these geologic formations weather to form distinct associations of different soil types. Combinations of geomorphology and soils, along with regional climatic variability, are generally thought to be the strongest determinants of vernal pool ecological function and species composition (Holland and Jain 1980).

The primary geologic formations of the Wetlands Preserve, which lies in the historic floodplain of the American River, include the Pleistocene-age Middle Unit Riverbank Formation, Modesto Formation, South Fork Gravels Formation, and Laguna Formation as well as more recent Holocene-age alluvial deposits along Morrison Creek (Exhibit 2-2). The Soil Survey of Sacramento County, California (USDA 1993) identifies 10 soil types that have developed on these geologic formations within South Mather. The dominant soil types are Red Bluff and Redding with Hedge, Natomas, Creviscreek, and San Joaquin soils found as relatively minor components. Most of these soils are capable of supporting vernal pools and are underlain by clay pans and/or hard pans. The official Soil Survey descriptions of these soil units are presented below, and the distribution of each soil type is shown in Exhibit 2-3.

2.3.1 SOIL TYPES

132 – Creviscreek sandy loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes is a deep and very deep, moderately well-drained soil found on stream terraces and along drainageways. The surface layer is a light yellowish brown and reddish yellow sandy loam about 21 inches thick. Subsurface soils are sandy clay loams and gravelly clay loams with weakly consolidated clay sediments at a depth of about 57 inches. Permeability is moderate, and runoff is slow. A perched water table at approximately 3–6 feet below the soil surface may be found in winter and early spring.

157 – Hedge loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes is a moderately deep, moderately well-drained soil in low areas. The surface layer is light yellowish brown loam 11 inches thick. The subsurface layer is very pale brown loam 9 inches thick with black iron cemented concretions. This soil type contains a hydric soil inclusion of the Columbia series on low floodplains; however, the hydrology of this soil type has been altered at many locations throughout the County and some areas do not pond frequently or for long periods. Within California, Hedge loam occurs only in the County and, occupying only about 4,000 acres, is considered an uncommon soil type (USDA 1993).

181 – Natomas loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes is a very deep, well-drained soil on high areas on low terraces. Typically, the surface layer is brown loam 17 inches thick. The upper part of the subsoil is yellowish red and reddish brown loam 16 inches thick. The lower part is red clay loam 45 inches thick.

191 – Red Bluff loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes is a very deep, well-drained soil on intermediate terraces. Typically, the surface layer is brown loam 8 inches thick. The upper part of the subsoil is reddish brown and yellowish red

Sacramento County Office of Economic Development and Marketing South Mather Wetlands Management Plan 2-5 Physical Environment Attachment B clay loam 17 inches thick. The lower part to 68 inches is yellowish red and red clay and clay loam. Red Bluff loam, 2 to 5 percent slopes (192) is a similar soil but occurs on higher terraces. These soil types contain an unnamed hydric soil inclusion in depressions.

193 – Red Bluff-Redding complex, 0 to 5 percent slopes is composed of 45 percent Red Bluff soil and 40 percent Redding soil. The Red Bluff soil is very deep and well drained, and the Redding soil moderately deep and moderately well drained. The upper 8 inches of the Red Bluff soil are brown loam, underlain by 17 inches of reddish brown and yellowish red clay loam. The upper 7 inches of the Redding soil are strong brown gravelly loam underlain by yellowish red loam and gravelly loam. This soil type contains an unnamed hydric soil inclusion in depressions.

194 – Red Bluff-Urban land complex, 0 to 5 percent slopes, is a combination of the Red Bluff soil described above and Urban land.

195 – Red Bluff-Xerarents complex, 0 to 2 percent slopes is a combination of Red Bluff soil described above and Xerarents, a very deep, well drained, altered soil formed in fill material mixed by leveling. These soil types contain an unnamed hydric soil inclusion in depressions.

198 – Redding gravelly loam, 0 to 8 percent slopes is a moderately deep, moderately well drained soil on high terraces and terrace remnants. Typically, the surface layer is a strong brown gravelly loam 7 inches thick, underlain by 13 inches of yellowish red loam and gravelly loam. A very gravelly hard pan cemented with silica occurs at 28 inches depth. This soil type contains an unnamed hydric soil inclusion in depressions.

213 – San Joaquin silt loam, leveled, 0 to 1 percent slopes is a moderately deep, moderately well drained soil on low terraces that have been leveled. Typically, the surface layer is a strong brown silt loam about 23 inches thick. The subsoil is a claypan of yellowish red clay loam 5 inches thick. The next layer is an indurated hard pan 26 inches thick.

211 – San Joaquin silt loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes is similar in texture, color, and structure, but has not been leveled; this soil type contains a hydric soil inclusion of the Galt series in depressions.

227 – Urban land consists of large areas covered by impervious surfaces or structures, such as roads, driveways, buildings, and parking lots. Urban land-Natomas complex, 0 to 2 percent slopes (228) is on slopes shaped for urban use. Natomas soil is very deep and well drained. Typically, the surface layer is brown loam 17 inches thick. The upper part of the subsoil is yellowish red and reddish brown loam 16 inches thick.

240 – Xerarents-Urban land-San Joaquin complex, 0 to 5 percent slopes occurs on filled areas on low terraces. Xerarents and Urban land are described above. San Joaquin soil is moderately deep and moderately well drained. Typically, the surface layer is yellowish brown and brown fine sandy loam 13 inches thick. The upper subsoil is brown and strong brown sandy loam 17 inches thick, and the lower subsoil is a claypan of yellowish brown and brown clay 5 inches thick. This soil type contains a hydric soil inclusion of the Clearlake series on basin floors; however, the hydrology of the soil within the complex has been altered due to development and some areas do not pond frequently or for long periods.

Sacramento County Office of Economic Development and Marketing Physical Environment 2-6 South Mather Wetlands Management Plan Attachment B

Attachment B

Attachment B

Attachment B

Attachment B 3 BIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENT

The Wetlands Preserve is characterized by eight different vegetation communities, dominated by annual grasslands interspersed with vernal pools, that support most of the 15 species of special-status wildlife (i.e., species considered to be threatened or endangered under the California or federal Endangered Species Act, California species of special concern or California fully protected species) and six species of special-status plants (i.e., species considered to be threatened or endangered under the California or federal Endangered Species Act or California Rare Plant Rank 1B, 2A, and 2B species) found at the site. A wide variety of common plants and wildlife are found in the Wetlands Preserve in addition to several species of invasive plants. This chapter describes the vegetation communities and animal species with an emphasis on those traits or characteristics that are relevant to development of the Management Plan. In addition to the biological resources assessment prepared for South Mather (WRA 2004b) and previous studies (JSA 1997), a number of standard references were consulted in the preparation of this chapter (Holland 1986, Sawyer and Keeler-Wolfe 1995, Hickman 1993, California Natural Diversity Database [CNDDB] 2012, California Native Plant Society 2001). This chapter is also based on a flora of Mather Air Force Base (Witham 2006), and the extensive professional experience of the document authors from work at South Mather and other Central Valley vernal pool landscapes.

3.1 VEGETATION COMMUNITIES

Eight distinctive vegetation communities, including more than 200 species of plants (Appendix E), have been documented within South Mather (Table 3-1, Exhibit 3-1). Descriptions for each community type follow below.

3.1.1 COMMUNITY DESCRIPTIONS

VERNAL POOL

Vernal pools are ephemeral wetlands that form in shallow depressions underlain by a restrictive soil layer such as a claypan, cement-like hardpan, or bedrock, often occurring within hummocky, mima mound topography. The vernal pools within the Wetlands Preserve have been classified as Northern Hardpan Vernal Pools (Holland 1986), which are formed on old, very acidic, iron-silica cemented hardpan soils that prevent downward percolation of rainwater. Vernal pools are renowned for their showy, multi-colored rings of native flowers. Many of the showiest vernal pool flowers—such as yellow carpet (Blennosperma spp.), meadowfoam (Limnanthes spp.), goldfields (Lasthenia spp.), and calicoflower (Downingia spp.)—are pollinated by native specialist bees in the family Andrenidae. These solitary bees form nests in the uplands surrounding vernal pools and use the pollen of specific flowers to feed their young. While generalist and nonnative bees and other insects also visit most vernal pool flowers, some may require associated ground-nesting bees for successful reproduction and seed set (Witham 2006). Vernal pools are present across the Wetlands Preserve (Exhibit 3-1), and these habitats may be classified into two different groups that are distinguished by elevation and soils.

Vernal pools within the eastern part of the Wetlands Preserve occur on thin, rocky soils mainly classified as Redding Gravelly Loam (Exhibit 2-2). These pools tend to be shallow and pond for a shorter period of time, relative to pools in other parts of the Wetlands Preserve. These pools are typically blanketed by white navarretia (Navarretia leucocephala) and populated by other vernal pool plant species that are short in stature, as an adaptation to the shallow soils. Other plant species observed in these pools include Fremont’s goldfields (Lasthenia. fremontii), slender popcorn-flower (Plagiobothrys stipitatus), and dwarf woolly-heads (Psilocarphus brevissimus). There are also substantial blooms of Douglas’ mesamint (Pogogyne douglasii) among these pools. There are also two special-status plant species, described in further detail in Section 3.3, “Special-Status Species,” that occur among these pools. These species are Ahart’s dwarf rush (Juncus leiospermus var. ahartii) and Boggs Lake hedge-hyssop (Gratiola heterosepala).

Sacramento County Office of Economic Development and Marketing South Mather Wetlands Management Plan 3-1 Biological Environment Attachment B Pools found in the western part or the Wetlands Preserve differ in that they occur at a lower elevation and are concentrated on younger and deeper soils, mainly mapped as Hedge Loam soils (Exhibit 2-2). These pools are also affected by hydrologic modifications created by a berm running through the vernal pools in an east/west direction along the route of an existing sewer pipeline. As a result of the deeper soils and modified hydrology, these pools are saturated longer and support a different suite of species than other pools within the Wetlands Preserve. The plant species observed within these pools typically average 6 inches in height and are dominated by vernal pool buttercup (Ranunculus bonariensis var. trisepalus). There is also a large component of iris-leaf rush (Juncus xiphioides) due to the deeper soils and longer ponding duration. The vast majority of the legenere (Legenere limosa) populations, a special-status species, occur among these pools. Other plant species observed include creeping spikerush (Eleocharis macrostachya), coyote thistle (Eryngium castrense), and smooth goldfields (Lasthenia glaberrima).

Additionally, the Wetlands Preserve contains a number of features that have been previously mapped as “vernal marsh” (WRA 2004b). Generally, vernal marsh is described as a native vegetation community dominated by low- growing aquatic annual herbs that often occur in shallow depressions at the upland end of tidal slough systems (Holland 1986). Apart from their typical location on the fringe of tidal slough systems, vernal marshes are similar to vernal pools in that they support many of the same species; however, the growing season for vernal marsh vegetation is typically later than in vernal pools, with peak blooms occurring into the late spring and early summer, 1–2 months after the peak vernal pool flowering period.

Habitats mapped as vernal marsh by WRA were classified as such based on the presence of larger ephemeral wetlands “dominated by perennial plant species, such as creeping spikerush and iris-leaved rush” (WRA 2004b). As described above, Holland (1986) defines vernal marsh as being dominated by aquatic annual herbs and commonly associated with tidal slough systems, neither of which is applicable to these habitats at the Wetlands Preserve. Additionally, the surveys upon which this determination was made were conducted from July through September, 2002, outside the flowering phase for most vernal pool plants. At this time of year, most of the vegetation in vernal pools would have dried and shattered with the exception of deeper areas within large vernal pools that would tend to support perennials such as creeping spikerush, and iris-leaved rush. Furthermore, a number of ephemeral wetlands within the Wetlands Preserve previously described as vernal marsh support special-status species that are usually found only in vernal pools. Therefore, for the purpose of this report all “vernal marsh wetlands” have been renamed “vernal pools” and have been mapped as such in Exhibit 3-1. This change has been made only to ensure consistency within the context of the Management Plan and management protocols. It is not intended to affect the regulatory status of these wetlands features or to contradict previously verified wetland delineations for the Wetlands Preserve or other surrounding areas of South Mather.

Some vernal pools within the Wetlands Preserve are infested by waxy mannagrass (Glyceria declinata). Waxy mannagrass is an invasive species that can outcompete native vernal pool vegetation. A discussion of invasive plant species is provided in Section 3.4, below.

VERNAL SWALE

Vernal swales are similar to vernal pools; however they generally exhibit a more linear form, frequently taking the shape of long, meandering, shallow depressions that often connect a vernal pools, seasonal wetlands, or water courses. Vernal swales are found throughout the Wetlands Preserve and generally support many of the same plants as vernal pools. Rare plants are less common in vernal swales. Although Ahart’s dwarf rush can be associated with these habitats (WRA 2004b, C. Witham pers. obs.).

Sacramento County Office of Economic Development and Marketing Biological Environment 3-2 South Mather Wetlands Management Plan Attachment B

Attachment B

Attachment B CALIFORNIA ANNUAL GRASSLAND

California annual grassland is the dominant vegetation community within the Wetlands Preserve and characterizes the matrix within which vernal pools and other vegetation communities occur. California annual grassland consists of a dense to sparse cover of nonnative annual grasses, often associated with numerous native and nonnative broad-leaved plants and native geophytes.

Germination of annual grassland plant species occurs with the onset of late fall rains. Growth, flowering, and seed-set occur from winter through spring, and the plants are generally dead through the summer-fall dry season. Common grass species observed in this community include silver hairgrass (Aira caryophyllea), slender wild oat (Avena barbata), ripgut brome (Bromus diandrus), soft chess (Bromus hordeaceus), Italian ryegrass (Festuca perenne), and medusahead (Elymus caput-medusae).

There is some distinction in the species composition of annual grassland within the Wetlands Preserve. As discussed above, the Wetlands Preserve is characterized by a matrix of different soil types that can result in a different mix of characteristic grassland species. For example, filaree (Erodium botrys), is more prominent on the thinner soils in the eastern parts of the Wetlands Preserve whereas wild oat and rip-gut brome are more prominent in the deeper soils in the western parts of the Wetlands Preserve.

Though California annual grasslands are typically dominated by nonnative annual grasses, this vegetation community can include many native wildflowers. Native wildflowers observed in annual grasslands of South Mather include frying pan poppies (Eschscholzia lobbii), spokepod (Thysanocarpus radians), elegant brodiaea (Brodiaea elegans), Fremont’s tidy-tips (Layia fremontii), miniature lupine (Lupinus bicolor), white hyacinth (Triteleia hyacinthina), and butter and eggs (Triphysaria eriantha).

Annual grassland often includes populations of invasive plants such as yellow starthistle (Centaurea solstitialis), milk thistle (Silybum marianum), Italian thistle (Carduus pycnocephalus), medusahead, yellow glandweed (Parentucellia viscosa), barbed goatgrass (Aegilops triuncialis), and stinkwort (Dittrichia graveolens). Invasive plant populations can dominate grassland and spread to neighboring areas if unmanaged. A discussion of invasive plant species is provided in Section 3.4, below.

SEASONAL WETLAND

Seasonal wetlands are often similar to vernal pools in that they may pond seasonally in shallow depressions and may be characterized by some of the same plant species. However, seasonal wetlands differ from vernal pools in the hydroperiod, typically ponding for shorter periods of time. They also typically differ in their vegetation composition, with nonnative plants or seasonal wetland generalist plants often dominating rather than vernal pool specialist plants.

Seasonal wetlands may support some common annual plant species associated with nearby vernal pool vegetation communities, such as coyote thistle, common spikeweed, and creeping spikerush. However seasonal wetlands are often dominated by nonnative plant species, such as Mediterranean barley (Hordeum marinum ssp. gussoneanum), Italian ryegrass, and hawkbit (Leontodon saxalis). Seasonal wetland is, therefore, generally considered to be a nonnative vegetation community. In some instances, seasonal wetlands also contain populations of the invasive waxy mannagrass.

Seasonal wetlands are found throughout the Wetlands Preserve in natural depressions as well as in man-made features that become inundated in the winter and spring, such as drainage ditches or borrow pits (Exhibit 3-1). The Fremont cottonwood vegetation community occurs as an overstory for some of the seasonal wetlands found at the site.

Sacramento County Office of Economic Development and Marketing South Mather Wetlands Management Plan 3-5 Biological Environment Attachment B FREMONT COTTONWOOD

Fremont cottonwood (Populus fremontii) is the single important tree in the canopy of this native vegetation community. The canopy is continuous or open and the ground layer is variable. This community typically occurs where soils are intermittently or seasonally flooded or saturated. Other native species that may be present in this community include narrowleaf willow (Salix exigua), arroyo willow (S. lasiolepis), and California sycamore (Platanus racemosa).

This vegetation community most commonly occurs around shallowly ponded depressions as an overstory component and dispersed in patches within the California annual grassland vegetation community (Exhibit 3-1).

GREAT VALLEY WILLOW SCRUB

This native vegetation community consists of an open-to-dense, broadleafed, winter-deciduous shrubby streamside thicket dominated by any of several native willow species. Dense stands usually have little understory or herbaceous component but may support young trees. More open stands have grassy understories usually vegetated by nonnative species. This community occurs along all of the major rivers and most of the smaller streams throughout the Central Valley watershed, usually below elevations of 1,000 feet.

Great Valley willow scrub communities most commonly occur as scattered patches along intermittent creeks or associated drainage ditches within the Wetlands Preserve (Exhibit 3-1), dominated by arroyo willow and narrowleaf willow. Other species observed include Fremont cottonwood and California sycamore.

COYOTE BRUSH

Coyote brush (Baccharis pilularis) is the dominant plant species of this vegetation community. This is considered to be a native vegetation community type even though nonnative grasses and herbaceous species such as mustard (Brassica nigra) and fennel (Foeniculum vulgare) are often present in the understory. Coyote brush is found in scattered locations (Exhibit 3-1).

EUCALYPTUS

Eucalyptus is the sole or dominant tree in the canopy of this nonnative vegetation community, with few other species present. The canopy is continuous with infrequent shrubs and a sparse ground layer. This community occurs on upland slopes throughout coastal and southern California and in the Central Valley up to approximately 900 feet in elevation.

Within the Wetlands Preserve, blue gum eucalyptus (Eucalyptus globulus) is the dominant species occasionally co-occurring with other tree species such as oak, pine (Pinus sp.), and Douglas fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii ssp. menziesii). The presence of this community within the site can likely be attributed to historic planting of these species adjacent to developed areas. Eucalyptus is considered an invasive species by California Invasive Plant Council (Cal-IPC) (2006). The eucalyptus vegetation community occurs within the Wetlands Preserve west of Zinfandel Drive and adjacent to the western edge of Independence at Mather, as well as in other scattered locations (Exhibit 3-1).

3.2 WILDLIFE

Approximately 62 different wildlife species have been observed in the California annual grassland, woodland, scrub, and vernal pool habitats within the Wetlands Preserve and adjacent areas of South Mather (WRA 2004b). A list of these species is included in Appendix F.

Sacramento County Office of Economic Development and Marketing Biological Resources 3-6 South Mather Wetlands Management Plan Attachment B Vernal pool grasslands at the site provide habitat for a number of common bird species. Nonnative resident species include ring-necked pheasant (Phasianus colchicus) and wild turkey (Meleagris gallopavo). Native resident birds at South Mather include California quail (Callipepla californica), western meadowlark (Sturnella neglecta), black phoebe (Sayornis nigricans), white-tailed kite (Elanus leucurus), and red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis). Some bird species within the Wetlands Preserve occur only seasonally or during migration. For example, Say’s phoebe (Sayornis saya), American pipit (Anthus rubescens), and savannah sparrow (Passerculus sandwichensis) are expected to be rare or absent during summer but may be common during winter.

Common mammal species observed year-round include coyote (Canis latrans), black-tailed jackrabbit (Lepus californicus), California vole (Microtus californica), raccoon (Procyon lotor), and Botta’s pocket gopher (Thomomys bottae). The reptiles and amphibians that have been observed at South Mather include king snake (Lampropeltis getulus californiae), common garter snake (Thamnophis sirtalis sirtalis), gopher snake (Pituophis melanoleucus), bullfrog (Rana catesbeiana), and Pacific chorus frog (Pseudacris regilla). A number of invertebrates have been observed, particularly in the vernal pools and seasonal wetlands, and include the special- status species listed below as well as aquatic beetles (Dytiscidae and Hydrophilidae), snails (Gastropoda), clam shrimp (Cyzicus californicus), seed shrimp (Ostracoda), dragon flies (Anisoptera), and solitary bees (Andrenidae) (see also the discussion of specialist bees in the “Vernal Pool” section in Section 3.1.1, “Community Descriptions”).

3.3 SPECIAL-STATUS SPECIES

There are six special-status plant species and 15 special-status wildlife species that have either been documented as occurring within the Wetlands Preserve and adjacent areas of South Mather or have the potential to occur. Almost all of the plant and invertebrate species listed below as well as western spadefoot (Spea hammondii) are associated with vernal pools and similar wetland habitats. The remaining species may use vernal pools as a water source in the spring and for foraging year-round, but are mainly associated with the California annual grassland and/or scrub and woodland vegetation communities present at South Mather. Of the 24 special-status species listed below, two plant species—slender Orcutt grass and Sacramento Orcutt grass—and two wildlife species— valley elderberry longhorn beetle (VELB) (Desmocerus californicus dimorphus) and giant garter snake (Thamnophis gigas)—have not been documented as occurring within the Wetlands Preserve or adjacent areas of South Mather but are included in this section because at least marginally suitable habitat with the potential to support these species does occur within the Wetlands Preserve. This does not imply that these species are currently found within the Wetlands Preserve or other potions of South Mather or that these species will be found in these areas in the future. It merely indicates that habitats potentially capable of supporting these species are found within the area and that the known distribution of these species is such that they could potentially be found in the Wetlands Preserve. An assessment of the actual potential for these species to be found within the Wetlands Preserve and other parts of South Mather is summarized in Tables 3-1 through 3-4, below. Documented locations of these species within the Wetlands Preserve and immediately surrounding areas are shown in Exhibit 3-2.

A summary of distribution, life history, and habitat requirements is provided for each species listed below, focusing on information that is relevant to the management of these species and their habitat. A more in-depth description of many of these species can be found in the Final Recovery Plan for Vernal Pool Ecosystems of California and Southern Oregon (USFWS 2005).

Table 3-1 Special-Status Species Frequently Encountered within Management Areas1, 2 Potential to Occur within Species Status Habitat Management Areas Legenere CRPR: 1B Vernal pools in valley and Three CNDDB records reported (Legenere limosa) foothill grasslands; blooms within the Wetlands Preserve from April–June. (CNDDB 2012). Additional records found within surrounding areas.

Sacramento County Office of Economic Development and Marketing South Mather Wetlands Management Plan 3-7 Biological Environment Attachment B Table 3-1 Special-Status Species Frequently Encountered within Management Areas1, 2 Potential to Occur within Species Status Habitat Management Areas Burrowing owl CA: Species of Concern Forages and nests in Four CNDDB records within the (Athene cunicularia) grasslands, agricultural Wetlands Preserve (CNDDB 2012). land, and open woodlands. Also observed in other parts of South Mather (WRA 2004b, D. Rosen pers. comm. 2007). Northern harrier CA: Species of Concern Forages in grasslands, Observed throughout the Wetlands (Circus cyaneus) freshwater marsh; nests in Preserve (WRA 2004b). Two agricultural fields and other CNDDB records reported from the open habitat. Wetlands Preserve and three additional records from surrounding areas (CNDDB 2012) White-tailed kite CA: Fully Protected Forages in grasslands and Three CNDDB records reported (Elanus leucurus) agricultural fields; nest in from the Wetlands Preserve and isolated trees or small seven additional records reported woodland patches. from surrounding areas (CNDDB 2012). Vernal pool tadpole shrimp Fed: Endangered Vernal pools in valley and Known from 44 CNDDB records (Lepidurus packardi) foothill grasslands. within the Wetlands Preserve (CNDDB 2012). The Wetlands Preserve is designated as Critical Habitat for this species (70 FR 11140). California fairy shrimp None Vernal pools in valley and Commonly occurs within suitable (Linderiella occidentalis) foothill grasslands. vernal pool habitat throughout South Mather. Notes: 1Species with at least 3 reported CNDDB records or reports from previous studies. 2 Although the Wetlands Management Plan focuses on the Wetlands Preserve, the occurrence of special-status species throughout South Mather is discussed within the context of Table 3-1 because species occurring within the immediately surrounding region may also occur within the Wetlands Preserve.

Sources: CNDDB 2012, WRA 2004, JSA 1997

Table 3-2 Special-Status Species Occasionally or Infrequently Encountered within Management Areas1, 2 Potential to Occur within Species Status Habitat Management Areas Ahart’s dwarf rush CRPR: 1B Vernal swales and vernal Two CNDDB records reported (Juncus leiospermus var. pool margins; blooms from within the Wetlands Preserve ahartii) March through May. (CNDDB 2012). WRA reports presence southeast of Wetlands Preserve adjacent to Kiefer Road (WRA 2004), but this population has not been relocated, despite extensive surveys (C. Witham pers. comm. 2007). Boggs Lake hedge-hyssop CA: Endangered Marshes and swamps, One CNDDB observation within (Gratiola heterosepala) CRPR: 1B vernal pools; blooms from the Wetlands Preserve (CNDDB April through August. 2012). Sanford’s arrowhead CRPR: 1B Marshes and swamps; Observed by WRA (2004b) in (Sagittaria sanfordii) blooms from May through drainage ditch at far northwestern October. Wetlands Preserve corner.

Sacramento County Office of Economic Development and Marketing Biological Resources 3-8 South Mather Wetlands Management Plan Attachment B Table 3-2 Special-Status Species Occasionally or Infrequently Encountered within Management Areas1, 2 Potential to Occur within Species Status Habitat Management Areas American badger CA: Species of Concern Dry, open grasslands, One record within the Wetlands (Taxidea taxus) savannas, fields, and Preserve reported in the CNDDB pastures with friable soils. (2012). Two additional observations from surrounding areas (CNDDB 2012). Swainson’s hawk CA: Threatened Forages in grasslands, and Observed foraging along Zinfandel (Buteo swainsoni) agricultural fields; nests in Drive (D. Rosen pers. comm., open woodland or scattered 2007). Suitable nesting habitat trees. present as well. Golden eagle CA: Fully Protected Forages in open terrain; One CNDDB record from the (Aquila chrysaetos) nests on cliffs and in large Wetlands Preserve (2012). Several trees in open areas. observations, including one observation of foraging eagle reported (JSA 1997) and several sightings by other biologists (C. Witham pers. comm. 2007). Suitable nesting habitat not present. Midvalley fairy shrimp None Vernal pools in valley and One CNDDB record from (Branchinecta mesovallensis) foothill grasslands Wetlands Preserve (2012). Five observations reported from the surrounding area. Short-eared owl CA: Species of Concern Forages in grassland, One observation reported near (Asio flammeus) freshwater marsh, coastal Mather Lake (CNDDB 2012). saltmarsh, and agricultural Although not reported from the fields; nest in tall, dense Wetlands Preserve, this species stands of herbaceous likely uses the Wetlands Preserve, vegetation. at least occasionally. Loggerhead shrike CA: Species of Concern Forages in grasslands; One CNDDB record reported from (Lanius ludovicianus) nests in scattered shrubs the Wetlands Preserve (CNDDB and trees. 2012). Western spadefoot CA: Species of Concern Shallow seasonal wetlands Three CNDDB records reported (Spea hammondii) in grassland and oak from the Wetlands Preserve woodland. (CNDDB 2012). Vernal pool fairy shrimp Fed: Threatened Vernal pools in valley and Three observations reported from (Branchinecta lynchi) foothill grasslands. areas surrounding Mather Lake (CNDDB 2012). One reported observation within the Wetlands Preserve (WRA 2004) and the Wetlands Preserve is designated as Critical Habitat for this species (70 FR 11140). Notes:1Species with 2 or fewer CNDDB records or reports from previous studies 2 Although the Wetlands Management Plan focuses on the Wetlands Preserve, the occurrence of special-status species throughout South Mather is discussed within the context of Table 3-2 because species occurring within the immediately surrounding region may also occur within the Wetlands Preserve.

Sources: CNDDB 2012, WRA 2004, JSA 1997

Sacramento County Office of Economic Development and Marketing South Mather Wetlands Management Plan 3-9 Biological Environment Attachment B Table 3-3 Special-Status Species with the Potential to Occur within Management Areas1, 2 Potential to Occur within Species Status Habitat Management Areas Slender Orcutt grass Fed: Threatened Vernal pools; blooms from May occur. Species is not known (Orcuttia tenuis) CA: Endangered May to September. from South Mather but suitable CRPR: 1B habitat exists and known populations are found within 1 mile. The eastern portion of the Wetlands Preserve is designated as Critical Habitat for this species (70 FR 11140). Sacramento Orcutt grass Fed: Endangered Vernal pools in the County; May occur. Species is not known (Orcuttia viscida) CA: Endangered blooms from May to June. from South Mather but suitable CRPR: 1B habitat exists and known populations are found within 1 mile. The eastern portion of the Wetlands Preserve is designated as Critical Habitat for this species (70 FR 11140). Tricolored blackbird CA: Species of Concern Forages in grasslands and One CNDDB record from (Agelaius tricolor) agricultural fields; nests in surrounding area (CNDDB 2012), freshwater marsh with but suitable nesting habitat limited dense cattails and tules, within the Wetlands Preserve. May riparian scrub, and other occasionally forage within these dense shrubs and herbs. areas. Western pond turtle CA: Species of Concern Occurs in ponds, marshes, Two CNDDB records reported (Clemmys marmorata) rivers, streams, and from Mather Lake (CNDDB 2012). irrigation ditches with Suitable habitat limited, but aquatic vegetation. present, within Management Areas. Notes: 1Species known from other South Mather locations or within 1 mile of South Mather but not previously observed within the Wetlands Preserve 2 Although the Wetlands Management Plan focuses on the Wetlands Preserve, the occurrence of special-status species throughout South Mather is discussed within the context of Table 3-3 because species occurring within the immediately surrounding region may also occur within the Wetlands Preserve.

Sources: CNDDB 2012, WRA 2004, JSA 1997

Table 3-4 Species Unlikely to Occur within the Wetlands Preserve1 Giant garter snake Fed: Threatened Marshes, sloughs, slow- Marginally suitable habitat present (Thamnophis giga) CA: Threatened moving creeks, agricultural in drainage ditches. Presence drainage channels, reported as unlikely by local irrigation ditches. experts (E. Hansen pers. comm. 2007). Closest CNDDB record found approximately 10 miles from South Mather (CNDDB 2012).

Sacramento County Office of Economic Development and Marketing Biological Resources 3-10 South Mather Wetlands Management Plan Attachment B Valley elderberry longhorn Fed: Threatened Elderberry shrubs Marginally suitable habitat present beetle (Sambucus spp.) mostly (nonriparian elderberry shrubs). (Desmocerus californicus within riparian habitat. Closest CNDDB record dimorphus) approximately 3.5 miles away (CNDDB 2012). 1Species that are not likely to be found because habitat conditions at South Mather are unsuitable for the species or known populations are too distant from South Mather

Sources: CNDDB 2012, WRA 2004, JSA 1997

3.3.1 SPECIES FREQUENTLY ENCOUNTERED

PLANTS

3.3.1.1.1 Legenere (Legenere limosa)

Legenere is a CRPR 1B species. It occurs in Alameda, Lake, Napa, Placer, Sacramento, San Joaquin, Shasta, San Mateo, Santa Clara, Sonoma, Solano, Tehama, and Yuba counties (believed to be extirpated in Sonoma and Stanislaus counties). It is an annual herb in the Campanulaceae family and blooms from April to June. This species occurs in vernal pools between 3 and 2,900 feet in elevation. The small, inconspicuous flowers or, occasionally, the presence of apetalous plants suggest that that this species may be self-pollinated and seed dispersal agents may include gravity, water, and waterfowl. Since populations of legenere can disappear for years and then reappear, it is likely that a persistent seed bank exists for this species. Key associates for this species include creeping spikerush, smooth goldfields, Plagiobothrys spp., and, to a lesser extent, Boggs Lake hedge- hyssop.

There are three CNDDB records for this species within the Wetlands Preserve (CNDDB 2012) and WRA (2004b) reported legenere from three pools within the Wetlands Preserve. Most observations have been recorded in deeper vernal pools in association with plants such as smooth goldfields and vernal pool buttercup.

VERTEBRATE WILDLIFE

Burrowing Owl (Athene cunicularia)

The burrowing owl is a State Species of Special Concern. Burrowing owls frequent open, dry grassland and desert habitats that contain suitable burrows or other refugia for roosting and nesting as well as cover and perches for hunting and predator watch. Burrowing owls breed in March through August, peaking in April and May. This species eats mostly insects, as well as small mammals, reptiles, birds, and carrion.

Burrowing owls have been observed in the Wetlands Preserve (WRA 2004b). Suitable foraging and nesting habitat is present throughout other parts of South Mather.

Northern Harrier (Circus cyaneus)

The northern harrier is a State Species of Special Concern. The northern harrier population has decreased in recent decades, but this species remains locally common in portions of the Central Valley. Northern harriers frequent meadows, grasslands, open rangelands, desert sinks, and fresh and saltwater emergent wetlands. Open areas of tall, dense grasses, moist or dry shrubs, and edges are used for nesting, cover, and feeding. This species mostly nests on the ground in shrubby vegetation, usually at marsh edge but may nest in grasslands or grain fields. Northern harriers breed from April to September. They feed mainly on voles and other small mammals, as well as birds, frogs, small reptiles, crustaceans, and insects.

Sacramento County Office of Economic Development and Marketing South Mather Wetlands Management Plan 3-11 Biological Environment Attachment B Northern harriers have been observed foraging and perching throughout much of South Mather (Exhibit 3-2), and annual grassland habitat provides potential nesting and foraging habitat for this species.

White-Tailed Kite (Elanus caeruleus)

White-tailed kite is a California fully protected species and a State Species of Concern. This species has extended its range and increased in numbers in recent decades after a sharp decline during the 1930s and 1940s. White- tailed kites forage in undisturbed open grasslands, meadows, farmlands and emergent wetlands and roosts in trees with dense canopies. This species breeds from February to October. This species preys mostly on voles and other small mammals, occasionally on birds, insects, reptiles, and amphibians.

White-tailed kites were observed foraging throughout much of South Mather (Exhibit 3-2). Suitable nesting habitat is available in scattered locations with larger trees in the Wetlands Preserve, in areas surrounding Mather Lake, and other parts of South Mather.

INVERTEBRATE WILDLIFE

California Fairy Shrimp (Linderiella occidentalis)

The California fairy shrimp is the most common fairy shrimp (Order Anostraca) in the Central Valley and is not listed as threatened or endangered. Endemic to California, it inhabits vernal pools and swales in the Central Valley, Coast and Transverse Ranges, and parts of southern California (57 FR 19856, May 8, 1992). It is most commonly found in ephemeral pools containing clear to tea-colored water, in grass-bottomed swales of unplowed grasslands in old alluvial soils underlain by hardpan, or in clear-water pools formed in sandstone depressions although it has also been found in mud-bottomed habitats with lightly turbid water (57 FR 19856, May 8, 1992). California fairy shrimp is typically encountered from late December through early May in pools that range in size from 10.8 square feet to 99 acres. It tolerates a wide range of water temperatures, from 41°F to 85°F (Eriksen and Belk 1999). California fairy shrimp cysts hatch at most water temperatures below 68°F, reach maturity after 31 days (45 days on average), and persist for approximately 139 days. They have been found swimming with vernal pool fairy shrimp, vernal pool tadpole shrimp, and, less frequently, conservancy fairy shrimp (Branchinecta conservatio) and other species of Anostracans.

California fairy shrimp occur throughout South Mather, often in association with vernal pool tadpole shrimp (Exhibit 3-2).

Vernal Pool Tadpole Shrimp (Lepidurus packardi)

The vernal pool tadpole shrimp is federally listed as endangered. This species has patchy distributed across the Central Valley of California and in the San Francisco Bay Area and is uncommon where vernal pool habitat occurs. The largest concentration of vernal pool tadpole shrimp occurrences is found on a number of public and private lands in Sacramento County. Vernal pool tadpole shrimp inhabit vernal pools and other ephemeral water bodies such as stock ponds and man-made depressions that contain clear to highly turbid water. This species has been collected in vernal pools ranging from 6.5 square feet to 88 acres in surface area and has been observed in pools with water temperatures ranging from 50 to 84°F (Syrdahl 1993, King et al. 1996).

Vernal pool tadpole shrimp have been reported in approximately 60 locations within South Mather, most of which are within the Wetlands Preserve, often co-occurring with California fairy shrimp, described above, in a wide variety of seasonal wetlands, vernal pools, and similar wetlands (WRA 2004b).

Sacramento County Office of Economic Development and Marketing Biological Resources 3-12 South Mather Wetlands Management Plan Attachment B

Attachment B

Attachment B 3.3.2 SPECIES OCCASIONALLY OR INFREQUENTLY ENCOUNTERED

PLANTS

Ahart’s Dwarf Rush (Juncus leiospermus var. ahartii)

Ahart’s dwarf rush is a CRPR 1B species. It occurs in Butte, Calaveras, Placer, Sacramento, Yuba, and Tehama counties, but is known from only nine (Sacramento County 2006b) restricted occurrences. It is a small annual herb in the Juncaceae family and blooms from March to May. This species occurs in mesic valley and foothill grasslands and along vernal pool margins between 100 and 330 feet in elevation. Larger populations of Ahart’s dwarf rush have been observed in wetter years than in drier years. Additionally, in dry years, each plant typically has only one stem. The most frequent associate is capped rush (Juncus capitatus) although species such as toad rush (Juncus bufonius), inch-high rush (Juncus uncialis), tri-color monkey flower (Mimulus tricolor), and dwarf brodiaea (Brodiaea minor) may also be found with this species.

Two CNDDB observations have been reported for this plant within the Wetlands Preserve (CNDDB 2012). WRA (2004b) observed additional populations of this plant outside of the Wetlands Preserve along Kiefer Road; however, these populations have not been relocated during focused surveys (C. Witham pers. comm. 2007).

Boggs Lake Hedge-Hyssop (Gratiola heterosepala)

Boggs Lake hedge-hyssop is listed as endangered by the State of California, and is a CRPR 1B species (rare, threatened or endangered in California and elsewhere). It occurs in Fresno, Lake, Lassen, Madera, Merced, Modoc, Placer, Sacramento, Shasta, Siskiyou, San Joaquin, Solano, and Tehama counties, as well as Oregon. It is a diminutive annual herb in the Scrophulariaceae family and can bloom from April to August. This species occurs in shallow water in marshes and swamps (lake margins) and in vernal pools on clay soil between 33 and 7,800 feet in elevation. Studies of this species conducted in Oregon determined that Boggs Lake hedge-hyssop was self- compatible and did not require insects for pollination. Species that commonly occur with Boggs Lake hedge- hyssop include Orcutt’s quillwort (Isoetes orcuttii) as well as bractless hedge-hyssop (Gratiola ebracteata), small popcorn flower, double-horn downingia (Downingia bicornuta), and creeping spikerush.

One CNDDB observation has been reported for this plant within the Wetlands Preserve (CNDDB 2012). Subsequent surveys (WRA 2004b) have failed to relocate this population; however detection of this plant can be difficult if surveys are not appropriately timed (i.e., when pool bottoms are still moist).

Sanford’s Arrowhead (Sagittaria sanfordii)

Sanford’s arrowhead is a CRPR 1B species. It occurs in Butte, Del Norte, Fresno, Kern, Mariposa, Merced, Placer, Sacramento, Shasta, San Joaquin, and Tehama counties; it has been extirpated in southern California (Orange and Ventura counties) and most of the Central Valley. It is a perennial, rhizomatous, emergent herb in the Alismataceae family and blooms from May to October. This species occurs in marshes and swamps and assorted shallow freshwater habitats between 0 and 2,000 feet in elevation.

Sanford’s arrowhead was observed by WRA (2004b) along a perennially wet drainage that runs along the northern edge of the Wetlands Preserve.

VERTEBRATE WILDLIFE

American Badger (Taxidea taxus)

American badgers are a State Species of Special Concern. They are an uncommon, permanent resident found throughout most of the state. They are most abundant in the drier open stages of most shrub, forest, and

Sacramento County Office of Economic Development and Marketing South Mather Wetlands Management Plan 3-15 Biological Environment Attachment B herbaceous habitats, with friable soils. Badgers dig burrows in friable soil for cover and breeding. The American badger mates in summer and early fall. They mainly eat fossorial rodents such as rats, mice, chipmunks, and especially ground squirrels and pocket gophers.

There is one reported badger occurrence within the Wetlands Preserve and two additional observations within surrounding areas (CNDDB 2012).

Swainson’s Hawk (Buteo swainsoni)

Swainson’s hawk is State listed as threatened. This hawk has been documented throughout the County, including sightings along White Rock Road east of South Mather. Typical habitat for this species is open desert, grassland, or cropland containing scattered, large trees small groves. Swainson’s hawks roost in large trees, but will roost on the ground if necessary. Breeding for this species occurs in late March to late August. It eats mice, gophers, ground squirrels, rabbits, large arthropods, amphibians, and birds.

This species has been observed foraging within the Wetlands Preserve, particularly areas close to Zinfandel Drive (D. Rosen pers. comm. 2007). In addition, suitable nesting habitat occurs among the cottonwood, oak, and eucalyptus trees, and suitable foraging habitat is present throughout all parts of South Mather.

Golden Eagle (Aquila chrysaetos)

The golden eagle is a California fully protected species, a State Species of Special Concern, and also receives protection under the federal Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act. The golden eagle is an uncommon, permanent resident and migrant throughout California (except in the center of the Central Valley where it is a winter visitor). This species forages in open terrain such as grasslands, deserts, savannahs, and early successional stages of forest and shrub habitats. They breed from February through July and prey on small mammals.

South Mather provides suitable grassland winter foraging habitat; however, suitable nesting habitat is absent. A wintering golden eagle was observed foraging at South Mather within the Wetlands Preserve along Zinfandel Drive (JSA 1997), and additional eagle sightings have been reported by other biologists (C. Witham pers. comm. 2007).

Short-Eared Owl (Asio flammeus)

The short-eared owl is a State Species of Special Concern. Formerly a resident throughout the length of the state, numbers have declined over most of its range in recent decades because of destruction and fragmentation of grassland and wetland habitats and grazing. Migrants usually arrive in California in September or October, and leave in April. Short-eared owls frequent open areas with few trees, such as annual and perennial grasslands, prairies, dunes, meadows, irrigated lands, and saline and fresh emergent wetlands. This species generally nests on the ground and require dense vegetation for nesting and roosting cover, including tall grasses, brush, ditches, and wetlands. This species breeds from early March through July. They feed primarily on voles and other small mammals, such as ground squirrels, as well as reptiles, amphibians and arthropods.

A short-eared owl was observed northeast of the Wetlands Preserve (JSA 1997). Aside from historic accounts, this is the only known observation for this species in the County; however, based on the professional opinion of AECOM ornithologists, this species is likely to use Management Areas at least occasionally.

Western Spadefoot (Spea hammondii)

Western spadefoot is a State Species of Concern. It ranges throughout the Central Valley and adjacent foothills; however, it has suffered a severe decline in the Sacramento and San Joaquin Valley. Western spadefoot occur mostly below 3,000 feet in elevation and can be found primarily in grassland habitats in the Central Valley, but occasional populations also occur in valley-foothill hardwood woodlands. Western spadefoot require shallow,

Sacramento County Department of Economic Development Biological Resources 3-16 South Mather Wetlands Management Plan Attachment B temporary pools with sandy or gravelly soils for breeding and egg laying, and spend most of the year in underground burrows during their long dry-season dormancy. Current research suggests that the average utilization of upland habitat falls within 1,207 feet of aquatic habitat (Semlitsch and Brodie 2003). Adult western spadefoot will forage on a variety of insects, worms, and other invertebrates including fairy shrimp.

There are three reported CNDDB records of western spadefoot within the Wetlands Preserve (CNDDB 2012). Despite these observations, the most stable breeding population is found in a single vernal pool immediately to the east of Zinfandel Drive, and this is the only location where breeding spadefoot can be found on a consistent basis (C. Witham pers. comm. 2007).

INVERTEBRATE WILDLIFE

Midvalley Fairy Shrimp (Branchinecta mesovallensis)

Midvalley fairy shrimp is a freshwater crustacean (Order Anostraca) that is currently not listed as threatened or endangered. It is endemic to the California Central Valley and has been found in Sacramento, Solano, Contra Costa, San Joaquin, Madera, Merced, Fresno, and Yolo counties (69 FR 3592, January 26, 2004). Midvalley fairy shrimp most commonly occur on low terrace, basin rim, and volcanic mudflow geologic landforms (69 FR 3592). Its habitat is typically small, unpredictable, grass-bottomed vernal pools and puddles although, it has been found in roadside drainages (Eriksen and Belk 1999, 69 FR 3592). Cysts hatch in the first week of ponding when water temperatures are approximately 50°F. Adults can reach maturity in as few as 8 days, but the average time to maturity is 26.3 days (69 FR 3592). Adults can persist for a maximum of 143 days after hatching (Eriksen and Belk 1999). Midvalley fairy shrimp have been found swimming with vernal pool fairy shrimp and California fairy shrimp.

The midvalley fairy shrimp is known to occur in a single complex of vernal pools in the western portion of the Wetlands Preserve, and it may occur in other parts of the Wetlands Preserve in shallow or flashy vernal pools or other suitable habitats.

Vernal Pool Fairy Shrimp (Branchinecta lynchi)

The vernal pool fairy shrimp is federally listed as threatened. It is widespread but not abundant; populations are known from Shasta County through most of the length of the Central Valley to Tulare County (additional disjunct populations exist at various locations throughout the state). This species can occupy a variety of different vernal pool habitats, from small, clear sandstone rock pools to large, turbid, alkaline, grassland valley floor pools. Vernal pool fairy shrimp have also been found in ditches and man-made depressions such as ponded borrow pits, in the vicinity of vernal pool complexes that are known to support this species. Vernal pool fairy shrimp are most frequently found in pools measuring less than 0.05 acre in area and feed on algae, bacteria, protozoa, rotifers and bits of detritus (Helm 1998). They also provide an important food source for other species that use vernal pools such as the western spadefoot and waterfowl.

Vernal pool fairy shrimp have been reported from several pools adjacent to Mather Lake (JSA 1997, CNDDB 2012) and have been reported from one location within the Wetlands Preserve. Based on the presence of geographically proximate populations and suitable habitat, it is probable that this species is found within other vernal pools in the Wetlands Preserve.

Sacramento County Office of Economic Development and Marketing South Mather Wetlands Management Plan 3-17 Biological Environment Attachment B 3.3.3 SPECIES WITH THE POTENTIAL TO BE FOUND WITHIN MANAGEMENT AREAS

PLANTS

Slender Orcutt Grass (Orcuttia tenuis)

Slender Orcutt grass is federally listed as threatened and State listed as endangered and is a CRPR 1B species. It occurs in Butte, Lake, Lassen, Modoc, Plumas, Sacramento, Shasta, Siskiyou, and Tehama counties. The Sacramento County populations of Slender Orcutt grass are disjunct from and peripheral to the more common and abundant populations in the northern part of the Sacramento Valley. As such, the Sacramento County populations may represent a unique genotype for the species (USFWS 2005). Slender Orcutt grass is a member of the Orcuttieae tribe in the Poaceae family. It is a small annual grass that grows as single stems or in small tufts and blooms from May to September, however, peak flowering typically occurs in May in the Central Valley. Slender Orcutt grass occurs in vernal pools between 115 and 5,800 feet in elevation. As with all members of the tribe Orcuttieae, slender Orcutt grass seeds can remain dormant for an undetermined period of time (at least 3–4 years) and germinate underwater after they have been immersed for prolonged periods. In general, years of above- average rainfall promote larger populations of Orcuttieae but population sizes vary by species and by pool. Large pools that retain water until May or June create optimal conditions for Orcutt grasses, and within such pools Orcutt grass species tend to occur in patches that are devoid of other plant species.

While slender Orcutt grass has not been observed within South Mather, it has been documented less than 1 mile east of South Mather. Additionally, suitable vernal pool habitat occurs among the larger pools within the Wetlands Preserve. Given the proximity of known populations and the presence of suitable habitat, this species could potentially be observed in the future.

Sacramento Orcutt Grass (Orcuttia viscida)

Sacramento Orcutt grass is federally and State listed as endangered as well as a CRPR 1B species. It occurs only in the County and five of the nine occurrences, comprising more than 70 percent of the occupied habitat, are concentrated into a single area of about 2.3 square miles in the Rancho Cordova area east of Mather Air Force Base. Like slender Orcutt grass, it is a small annual grass that grows as single stems or in small tufts. Sacramento Orcutt grass blooms in May and June. This species is endemic to vernal pools between 100 and 330 feet in elevation. The life history of this species is nearly identical to that of other species in the tribe Orcuttieae and is summarized under the description of slender Orcutt grass, above. The most significant difference is that this species is less likely to germinate in years of below-normal precipitation than other members of its tribe.

Like slender Orcutt grass, Sacramento Orcutt grass has not been observed within South Mather; however, it has also been documented less than one-half mile east of South Mather. Suitable vernal pool habitat occurs among the larger pools within the Wetlands Preserve. Given the proximity of known populations and the presence of suitable habitat, this species could potentially be observed in the future.

VERTEBRATE WILDLIFE

Tricolored Blackbird (Agelaius tricolor)

Tricolored blackbird is a State Species of Special Concern. It is common locally throughout the Central Valley and in coastal regions from Sonoma County south. Tricolored blackbirds seek refuge and also nest in emergent wetland vegetation, especially cattails and tules. Other nesting sites include thickets of willow, blackberry, and wild rose or tall herbs. These birds are highly colonial; nesting areas must be large enough to support a minimum colony of about 50 pairs. Breeding season is usually mid-April into late July. Tricolored blackbirds forage on ground in croplands, grassy fields, flooded land, and along edges of ponds.

Sacramento County Department of Economic Development Biological Resources 3-18 South Mather Wetlands Management Plan Attachment B Tricolored blackbirds have been observed foraging over grasslands near Mather Lake (CNDDB 2012); however, freshwater emergent wetland habitat capable of supporting nesting blackbird colonies is limited within South Mather. Therefore, while this species may occasionally forage over South Mather, it is unlikely to nest on the site.

Western Pond Turtle (Clemmys marmorata)

Western pond turtle is a State Species of Concern. It is found throughout much of California, west of the Sierra- Cascade crest. Western pond turtle is the only turtle native to central and northern California. They are associated with permanent or nearly permanent water in a variety of habitats, including lakes, ponds, rivers, streams, and irrigation ditches that provide submerged cover and basking structures such as logs, rocks, and/or aquatic vegetation. Individuals are active all year where climates are warm and hibernate underwater in bottom mud in colder climates. This species is omnivorous and is known to feed on aquatic plant material, invertebrates, fishes, frogs, and even carrion. During spring or early summer, females move overland for up to 325 feet to find suitable sites for egg-laying.

There are documented observations of western pond turtle at Mather Lake (CNDDB 2012), and this species may occur in perennial drainage channels hydrologically connected to Mather Lake and similar aquatic habitats within the Wetlands Preserve.

3.3.4 SPECIES UNLIKELY TO BE FOUND WITHIN MANAGEMENT AREAS

VERTEBRATE WILDLIFE

Giant Garter Snake (Thamnophis gigas)

Giant garter snake is federally and State listed as threatened. This snake is endemic to the Central Valley where its historic range has been greatly reduced. The giant garter snake is generally aquatic, but also uses adjacent terrestrial habitats. This snake is primarily associated with marshes and sloughs, and is sometimes found in slow moving creeks; however, it is absent from large rivers. In addition, the giant garter snake has adapted to agricultural drainage channels and irrigation ditches.

There are no records of giant garter snake occurring at South Mather. The closest documented CNDDB record is found approximately 10 miles from South Mather (CNDDB 2012), and suitable habitat for the species is limited to drainage ditches within the northern and western portion of the Wetlands Preserve and similar habitats. Based on these factors and conversations with local experts (E. Hansen pers. comm. 2007), this species is unlikely to be found within South Mather.

INVERTEBRATE WILDLIFE

Valley Elderberry Longhorn Beetle (Desmocerus californicus dimorphus)

The valley elderberry longhorn beetle (VELB) is federally listed as threatened (although a proposal to delist this species is currently being considered by USFWS). This species is distributed throughout much of the Central Valley from Redding to the Bakersfield area and is nearly always found on or close to its host plant, elderberry (Sambucus mexicana and Sambucus racemosa var. microbotrys). Elderberry shrub/trees (of a variety of sizes, ages and growth forms) with VELB populations occur in a number of habitats and plant communities, but most often in riparian or savanna areas. Adults are active from March to June, feeding and mating. It is rare to see an adult VELB and frequently the only exterior evidence of the shrub’s use by the beetle are exit holes created by the larva just before the pupal stage. The exit holes are about the size of an eraser on the end of a #2 pencil.

Sacramento County Office of Economic Development and Marketing South Mather Wetlands Management Plan 3-19 Biological Environment Attachment B Potentially suitable VELB habitat is limited within the Wetlands Preserve, and the closest known VELB occurrence is approximately 3.5 miles away from South Mather (CNDDB 2012). Therefore, this species is unlikely to be found within the area.

3.4 INVASIVE SPECIES

3.4.1 DEFINITION AND OVERVIEW OF INVASIVE PLANT SPECIES

An invasive plant is a species that has been introduced into a region where it is not native and has the potential to cause environmental or economic harm. Terms such as nonnative, nonindigenous, exotics, weeds, pest plants, and alien species are commonly used as synonyms for invasive plant species. These species often have no natural enemies or competitors in their new environment, and they frequently have characteristics that allow them to out- compete other species and grow and spread rapidly. Accordingly, invasive plant populations can quickly proliferate and displace native plant populations and contribute to a loss of plant diversity and habitat to native wildlife dependent on those plants. Invasive plant species can also affect the balance of natural processes such as the frequency and extent of fires, flooding, sediment transport and deposition, erosion and channel formation, and nutrient cycling. Such alterations can contribute to further habitat loss and result in damage to human infrastructure and land uses, causing economic hardship and safety concerns.

Disturbance is often a main trigger for the introduction and spread of invasive plant species. Undisturbed landscapes with established native vegetation are generally considered more resistant to weed invasion than disturbed landscapes. Invasive plant species are often able to colonize and establish after some type of natural or anthropogenic disturbance (e.g., fire, flood, gravel mining, vegetation clearing). Human activities, including road building and maintenance, construction projects, timber harvesting, heavy grazing, and the planting of exotic ornamental plants around buildings and parks have all contributed to the widespread introduction and establishment of invasive plant species. Once established, invasive plant species can spread into relatively pristine or undisturbed natural communities.

Many plants have been introduced to California and to the Central Valley region and have, to a large degree, become naturalized throughout the region. Most are not considered invasive. Plants within the Wetlands Preserve are considered invasive if they currently threaten or have the potential to threaten native species biodiversity and/or sensitive species and habitats, via reproductive characteristics, growth habits, niche exploitation, or similar characteristics.

3.4.2 POPULATION PROFILES

For planning purposes, all invasive plant populations may be characterized into one of three profile types based on the plant’s distribution: incipient populations (I), widespread populations (WS), and ubiquitous populations (U). Incipient populations are those presumed to have been recent introductions or those that have been relatively contained thus far. They are characterized by relatively few (fewer than 100 stems) or small (averaging less than 0.1 acre) infestations that cover only a small portion of the Wetlands Preserve. Widespread populations are those that have spread throughout South Mather, though each infestation is still relatively small. They are characterized by many (more than 100 stems) small (averaging less than 0.1 acre) infestations that cover a larger portion of the region, relative to incipient populations. Ubiquitous populations are those that have already spread and grown considerably in infestation size within South Mather. They are characterized by few to many large (averaging greater than 0.1 acre) or continuous infestations that cover a sizeable portion of the Wetlands Preserve. The significance of each profile type to invasive plant abatement efforts is discussed more in the following sections.

Sacramento County Department of Economic Development Biological Resources 3-20 South Mather Wetlands Management Plan Attachment B 3.4.3 SPECIES DESCRIPTIONS

The invasive plant species descriptions below describe the ecology of each species, its distribution, the nature of its threat, and recommendations for control and management. Table 3-5 is also included in this section to provide a summary description for each species, including its Cal-IPC and State invasive plant status, habitat, plant establishment mechanism, and preliminary population profile. Population profiles have been preliminarily developed for each species based on existing knowledge; these population profiles may be revised following completion of a focused, invasive plant management plan for the Wetlands Preserve.

The detail of information presented for each species varies depending on the degree of known and available research and analyses. One or more of the following resources were used to compile information on the species listed below:

► California Invasive Plant Inventory (Cal-IPC 2006), ► Encycloweedia (California Department of Food and Agriculture [CDFA] 2007), ► CDFA Noxious Weed Pest Ratings (CDFA 2007), ► Weeds of California and Western States (Volumes 1 and 2) (DiTomaso and Healy 2007), ► The Global Invasive Species Initiative (The Nature Conservancy [TNC] 2005), and ► Invasive Plants of California’s Wildlands (Bossard et al. 2000).

In some cases, selected information from these documents has been incorporated with only minor edits. The inclusion of this information with only minor modifications is not intended to attribute primary authorship of this information to the authors of this Management Plan, and the authorship credits noted above are hereby acknowledged.

Table 3-5 South Mather Invasive Plant Summary CDFA/ Population Species Habitat Reproduction/Dispersal Cal-IPC Rating1 Profile Barbed goatgrass B/High Dry disturbed sites, fields, Seeds germinate in joints; WS (Aegilops triuncialis) pastures, and roadsides spikes and joints fall near parent plant or disperse by wind/water, human activity and animals (especially sheep) Italian thistle C/Moderate Meadows, pastures, ranges, Wind/water dispersed seed; WS (Carduus roadsides, disturbed areas also dispersed by human pycnocephalus) activities and animals Yellow starthistle C/High Open, disturbed sites, Wind/water dispersed seed; WS (Centaurea solstitialis) grasslands, rangeland, open also dispersed by human woodlands, fields, pastures, activities and animals roadsides, waste places Stinkwort -/Moderate Disturbed places, roadsides, Wind/water dispersed seed; I (Dittrichia graveolens) pastures, fields, riparian also dispersed by human woodlands, levees, washes, activities and animals and margins of tidal marshes Waxy mannagrass -/Moderate Deep vernal pools, swales, Seed dispersed by waterfowl I (Glyceria declinata) ditches, rice fields, and stock as well as human activity and ponds in California animals

Sacramento County Office of Economic Development and Marketing South Mather Wetlands Management Plan 3-21 Biological Environment Attachment B

Table 3-5 South Mather Invasive Plant Summary CDFA/ Population Species Habitat Reproduction/Dispersal Cal-IPC Rating1 Profile Klamathweed C/Moderate Open, disturbed sites within Reproduces by seeds and I (Hypericum perforatum) rangeland, fields and vegetatively from rhizomes; pastures, roadsides; does not seed dispersed by water, tolerate saturated soils human activity and animals Yellow glandweed -/Limited Moist grassland, roadsides Reproduces by seed I (Parentucellia viscosa) and other disturbed, open areas Milk thistle -/Limited Roadsides, pastures, waste Wind/water dispersed seed, I (Silybum marinum) places, river flats, areas with also dispersed by vehicles and high soil nitrogen levels, wildlife ditches, other high disturbance areas Medusahead C/High Disturbed sites, grassland, Wind/water dispersed seed; U (Taeniatherum caput- rangeland, openings in also with mud, soil movement, medusae) chaparral, oak woodlands, human activities, wildlife and rarely, agronomic fields

Notes: 1 CDFA Rankings: “A” = An organism of known economic importance subject to State (or commissioner when acting as a State agent) enforced action involving: eradication, quarantine, containment, rejection, or other holding action; “B” = An organism of known economic importance subject to: eradication, containment, control or other holding action at the discretion of the individual county agricultural commissioner; “C” = An organism subject to no State-enforced action except to provide for pest cleanliness in nurseries; “-” = Plant not provided a ranking by CDFA. Sources: Cal-IPC 2006, CDFA 2007

Barbed Goatgrass (Aegilops triuncialis)

► Status – CDFA: B, Cal-IPC: High

► Ecology – Barbed goatgrass is a member of the Poaceae family and resembles winter wheat (Tritium aestivum), a close relative. It is 8–16 inches tall with few to many culms. Flowers on this grass are spiked and grow to about 3 inches in length, including awns. The glumes are very tough, each ending in three stiff, stout and spreading awns that can be injurious to livestock and wildlife. Barbed goatgrass flowers later than most other nonnative grasses, generally from May through August, and reproduces entirely by seed. Spikes and joints fall near the parent plant or disperse to greater distances with human activities, vehicle tires, water (joints float), wind, and ingestion by or clinging to livestock, especially sheep. Barbed goatgrass primarily infests rangelands and pastures, including grasslands and oak woodlands. It can tolerate serpentine and hard, shallow, dry, gravelly soils as well as heavy clay soils where few other grasses are able to grow.

► Distribution – Barbed goatgrass is distributed throughout grassland and oak savanna/oak woodland habitats in the Coast Ranges, Bay Area, northern Sierra Nevada and Cascade foothills, Sacramento Valley, and northern San Joaquin Valley generally below 3,000 feet in elevation. Evidence suggests that this species is actively expending its range throughout the state. Barbed goatgrass is found primarily within the Wetlands Preserve near Zinfandel Drive, occasionally within dense infestations. This species appears to be spreading further into the center of the Wetlands Preserve (C. Witham, pers. comm. 2007).

► Threats – Barbed goatgrass successfully competes with native forbs and desirable annuals. Its seed is very adept at germinating and can send roots down through thatch or bunch grasses. Additionally, barbed goatgrass

Sacramento County Department of Economic Development Biological Resources 3-22 South Mather Wetlands Management Plan Attachment B may cause severe injury to livestock. The disarticulated joints are sharp and can pierce stomach lining of livestock when ingested.

Italian Thistle (Carduus pycnocephalus)

► Status – CDFA: C, Cal-IPC: Moderate

► Ecology – Italian thistle is a winter annual (sometimes biennial) in the Asteraceae family. It can grow up to 7 feet tall and is distinguished from other thistle species by its relatively small and few terminal purple flowerheads and narrow phyllaries with copious tiny, firm, forward-pointing hairs, especially on the midrib. Plants exist as basal rosettes until flowering shoots develop at maturity. Italian thistle flowers from May through July. Drought favors an increase in Italian thistle and any disturbance of vegetative cover encourages establishment of this thistle. Italian thistle is most abundant in coastal areas and occurs as a weed of pastures, ranges, roadsides, rural areas, fallow cropland, railroad rights-of-way, field margins, and ditch banks.

► Distribution – Italian thistle occurs in the Southern North Coast, southern North Coast Ranges, Sierra Nevada foothills, Central Coast, San Francisco Bay region, and South Coast Ranges up to an elevation of 3,300 feet. Populations of Italian thistle are widespread within South Mather Management Areas; however, most populations occupy less than 0.1 acre. The largest known population (greater than 0.25 acre) occurs south of the ponded area on the Morrison Creek tributary that flows westerly from Mather Lake. There is a substantial infestation along the south end of the Wetlands Preserve between Excelsior and Zinfandel roads.

► Threats – Italian thistle arrived in California during the 1930s and has since become a serious weed problem due to its blanketing effect of overwintering rosettes, high rate and timing of germination, and broad range of germination conditions. Italian thistle can severely reduce the establishment of annual grasses and other native forbs and displace more desirable forage or cover plants. Most animals avoid grazing it because of its spines.

Yellow Starthistle (Centaurea solstitialis)

► Status – CDFA: B, Cal-IPC: High

► Ecology – Yellow starthistle is an erect winter annual (sometimes biennial) in the Asteraceae family with spiny yellow-flowered heads that can grow up to 3 feet tall. Taproots grow vigorously early in the season to soil depths of 3 feet or more, giving plants access to deep soil moisture during the dry summer and early fall months. Flower heads consist of numerous, yellow disk flowers that produce abundant quantities of viable seed. Seed germination is closely correlated with rainfall events. Large flushes of seed germinate after the first fall rains, but smaller germination flushes can occur nearly year-round. Yellow starthistle grows in open, disturbed sites, grasslands, rangeland, open woodlands, fields, pastures, roadsides, waste places.

► Distribution – Yellow starthistle occurs throughout most of California. It is common in the Sacramento and northern San Joaquin Valleys, northern Sierra Nevada foothills, Cascade Range, Klamath Ranges, eastern North Coast Ranges, and central-western region of the state. It typically occurs up to 6,000 feet in elevation but has been found up to 8,600 feet. Yellow starthistle is expanding its range in mountainous areas and in the central-western region. Populations of starthistle are widespread within areas of previous disturbance, such as the sewer pipeline berm running through the western portion of the Wetlands Preserve and along fire breaks adjacent to fencing.

► Threats – This species is highly competitive and can develop dense stands that displace native plants. It produces a long tap root that effectively competes with native plants, particularly native perennials, for deep soil moisture during the dry summer months. Infestations reduce wildlife habitat quality and livestock forage value, displace native plants, and decrease native plant and animal diversity. It is considered one of the most serious rangeland weeds in the western United States and has spread rapidly since its introduction into California around 1850.

Sacramento County Office of Economic Development and Marketing South Mather Wetlands Management Plan 3-23 Biological Environment Attachment B Stinkwort (Dittrichia graveolens)

► Status – Cal-IPC: Moderate

► Ecology – Stinkwort is an erect, fall-flowering, aromatic annual that grows to about 2 feet tall, with sticky glandular-hairy foliage and flower heads that consist of short yellow ray flowers and reddish disk flowers. It is a member of the Inulea tribe in the Asteraceae family and is related to the cudweeds (Gnaphalium spp.) but more closely resembles plants in the tarweed group (Holocarpha, Hemizonia). Stinkwort is not included in most California floras and information of its propagation and phenology are not well-documented. It inhabits disturbed places, roadsides, pastures, fields, riparian woodlands, levees, washes and margins of tidal marsh.

► Distribution – Stinkwort primarily occurs in the San Francisco Bay region, especial the southern portion. Populations have also been located in San Diego and Sacramento. Stinkwort is establishing in ephemeral streambeds and streambanks at Mather and nearby Laguna Creek. Other infestations have been observed nearby in Rancho Cordova and along the Jackson Highway..

► Threats – Limited information about stinkwort is available, however it appears to be expanding rapidly and is likely habitat transforming and a threat to native species diversity and abundance. In disturbed areas within the County, the plant forms dense colonies effectively excluding most other plants.

Waxy Mannagrass (Glyceria declinata)

► Status – Cal-IPC: Moderate

► Ecology – Waxy mannagrass is a member of the Poaceae family. Although usually described as a perennial species in many floras, it is usually found as an annual in California. Mannagrass flowers mature from late April through May and shatter at maturity, coating the ground below the plant with vast quantities of seed. These seeds are a strong waterfowl attractant, and waterfowl may be one of the primary dispersal vectors for this species. Waxy mannagrass invades deep vernal pools, swales, ditches, stock ponds, and rice fields. It is adapted to long periods of inundation and typically grows in the wettest portion of vernal pools. Waxy mannagrass is not included in the Jepson Manual. Using the Glyceria key in the manual mistakenly leads to the identification of Glyceria declinata as Glyceria occidentalis, a native species. For this reason, little was done to manage waxy mannagrass and, thus, it spread unchecked (DiTomaso pers. comm., 2007).

► Distribution – Waxy mannagrass is found in several counties throughout the Central Valley of California, from Tehama County to Fresno County. It also occurs as far north as Shasta County and as far south as Riverside County. Waxy mannagrass infestations are incipient within the Wetlands Preserve, occurring primarily where vernal pools and wetlands are impacted by unseasonable or nutrient-rich runoff. There is a minor infestation of waxy mannagrass in the pools/wetlands between the southern end of Independence at Mather and the isolated development area along Westerly Drive, just east of Excelsior Road; however, it is also establishing in additional vernal pools in the Wetlands Preserve. Waxy mannagrass infestations also occur in wetlands and vernal pools adjacent to landscaping.

► Threats – Waxy mannagrass often establishes dense stands of large plants that both shade-out endemic species and eliminate habitat that endemic species require for germination and establishment. It produces an enormous amount of fine root mass on or just under the surface of the soil and a large leaf mass. These biomass changes probably effect nutrient cycling in the vernal pools and negatively impact vernal pool hydrology through increased transpiration.

Sacramento County Department of Economic Development Biological Resources 3-24 South Mather Wetlands Management Plan Attachment B Klamathweed (=Common St. Johnswort) (Hypericum perforatum)

► Status – CDFA: C, Cal-IPC: Moderate

► Ecology – Klamathweed is an erect perennial in the Hypericaceae family that grows up to 4 feet tall, with bright yellow flowers that have numerous stamens. Foliage is dotted with tiny translucent and black oil glands that contain hypericin, a fluorescent red pigment that is toxic to livestock when consumed in quantity. Taproots on this species are stout, with many branched lateral roots up to 5 feet deep. Rhizomes develop just below the soil surface from the crown and can extend outwards to approximately 1.5 feet. This plant has several reproductive mechanisms, including vegetative reproduction from fragmented rhizomes and asexual and sexual seed production. Seeds are hard-coated, and those consumed by animals remain intact and viable. Germination occurs fall through spring. Brief exposure to fire (212–284°F) often increases germination. Seed can remain viable for up to 10 years or more in the soil and for at least 5 years submerged in fresh water (CDFA 2007). Klamathweed occurs in rangeland areas and pastures (especially when poorly managed), fields, and roadsides. It grows best in open, disturbed sites and on slightly acidic to neutral soils. It does not tolerate saturated soils.

► Distribution – Klamathweed is most commonly found in northwestern California and is found occasionally in other portions of California, typically as small, scattered infestations, from valley grasslands to mixed conifer forests. A few incipient populations of this plant are found within the Wetlands Preserve, mostly along roadsides and scattered within grasslands.

► Threats – The variety of Klamathweed in the Pacific Northwest is aggressively competitive and can spread rapidly by seed and rhizomes outcompeting and displacing native forbs and desirable annual grasses. Dense stands of Klamathweed will decrease the biodiversity of the plant community and reduce wildlife foraging habitat. Typically, although not always, Klamathweed is less problematic in Central Valley rangelands, often found as scattered clumps of plants rather than large infestations.

Yellow Glandweed (Parentucellia viscosa)

► Status – Cal-IPC: Limited

► Ecology – Yellow glandweed is an erect hemi-parasitic annual in the Scrophulariaceae family that grows up to 1.5 feet tall, with glandular hairy foliage that is sticky to touch. The spike-like racemes are yellow with two-lipped flowers. The stems are usually simple and the leaves are mostly opposite, sometimes alternate on the lower stems. Yellow glandweed blooms from April through July and reproduces by seed. Thriving populations produce abundant viable seed and develop a large, persistent soil seedbank. Yellow glandweed typically invades open, disturbed areas, but populations generally diminish as woody plants establish.

► Distribution – Yellow glandweed primarily occurs in the North, Central, and South Coast, and western North Coast Ranges, generally below 330 feet. It has recently been discovered in pastures in the central Sierra Nevada foothills and appears to be spreading throughout parts of the Central Valley. Scattered incipient populations of several to a few dozen plants are found throughout South Mather.

► Threats – This species can develop a large, persistent seedbank and also parasitizes the roots of many plant species and is a threat to grassland habitats as it competes with native forbs and desirable annual grasses. Preliminary observations within the Central Valley indicate that this species can effectively out-compete native plants at vernal pool margins and may be displacing native vernal pool plants in these micro-habitats.

Sacramento County Office of Economic Development and Marketing South Mather Wetlands Management Plan 3-25 Biological Environment Attachment B Milk Thistle (Silybum marianum)

► Status – Cal-IPC: Limited

► Ecology – Milk thistle is an erect winter or summer annual or biennial in the Asteraceae family that generally grows up to 7 feet tall. Milk thistle blooms from April through July and reproduces by seed. Seeds disperse by wind, water, soil movement, and animals as well as in crop seed. Most seeds germinate after the first fall rain but ungerminated seed can remain viable for several years. Disturbances that expose bare soil (e.g., heavy grazing and fire) generally improve milk thistle germination. Where it occurs, milk thistle is often in dense, competitive stands, mainly on disturbed sites within pastures and fields, as well as along roadsides and waste places. It is uncommon in undisturbed habitats.

► Distribution – This species is native to the Mediterranean region and has been used medicinally for at least 2,000 years. In California, milk thistle occurs in the North Coast, North Coast Ranges, Central Valley, San Francisco Bay region, South Coat Ranges, South Coast, and Channel Islands, to an elevation of 1,600 feet. A few small populations of milk thistle are found within South Mather, most of which have resulted from past disturbances.

► Threats – Milk thistle often establishes in dense stands and typically out-competes more desirable plants where it occurs. However it does not tend to become a landscape dominant.

Medusahead (Elymus caput-medusae)

► Status – CDFA: C, Cal-IPC: High

► Ecology – Medusahead is a slender annual grass in the Poaceae family that grows up to 2 feet tall. The awns are 1–3 inches long and are straight when green, but twist and spread erratically when dry. The wavy awns spread out from the spikelet head in a manner resembling the snake-covered head of Medusa from Greek mythology. Medusahead can also be recognized by its color, which stands out against surrounding grasses. It matures from 2 to 4 weeks later than most other annual grasses, displaying distinctive patches of green in an otherwise brown grassland. Fibrous roots grow rapidly throughout the cool season, depleting upper soil moisture early in the growing season and accessing deep soil moisture late in the season. Medusahead is predominantly self-pollinating and reproduces by seed. Seed production is prolific. Seeds disperse locally with wind and water and to greater distances with soil movement, human activities, and by clinging to the feet and fur of animals. Most seeds germinate in fall after the first rain, but some seeds remain dormant or germinate in winter or spring. Seeds can germinate in dense litter under low moisture conditions and without directly contacting a moist substrate. Medusahead invades grasslands, oak savannah, oak woodland, and chaparral communities and grows best on clay soils or where deep soil moisture is available late in the growing season.

► Distribution – In 1950, medusahead was reported from only six counties in northwestern California. It now occurs in the North Coast Ranges, Cascade Range, Klamath Ranges, Sierra Nevada, Central Valley, South Coast Ranges, northern South Coast (Santa Barbara Co.), and Channel Islands up to 7,000 feet and is expanding in range. Populations of medusahead are widespread within the Wetlands Preserve and are actively encroaching upon vernal pools throughout the site.

► Threats – Medusahead frequently outcompetes desirable nonnative annual grasses, native grasses and forbs. Once established, it can reach densities of 1,000–2,000 plants per square yard. After seed set, the silica-rich dead plants persist as dense litter layer for three or more growing seasons that encourages further medusahead dominance by preventing germination and survival of native species. This invasive grass is also unpalatable to livestock and wildlife, except early in the growing season, because of its high silica content. Dense infestations tend to be completely avoided by livestock, even during the early spring when the young plants are otherwise palatable, because of these dense litter layers. The presence of medusahead infestations reduces

Sacramento County Department of Economic Development Biological Resources 3-26 South Mather Wetlands Management Plan Attachment B rangeland carrying capacity and may result in uneven livestock distribution. Infested areas with favorable growing conditions (i.e., soils with high clay content) where medusahead is left unmanaged can approach 100 percent medusahead cover and are frequently devoid of almost all other plants.

Sacramento County Office of Economic Development and Marketing South Mather Wetlands Management Plan 3-27 Biological Environment Attachment B

Attachment B 4 MANAGEMENT, MAINTENANCE, RESTORATION, AND PUBLIC USE ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES

Due to the complexities surrounding the management of the Wetlands Preserve, as well as public interest in the area, it is likely that a number of entities will have an interest and/or role in the management and maintenance of the Wetlands Preserve. A potential list of roles and responsibilities for the Wetlands Preserve is provided below. The roles and responsibilities are described in detail within the section that follows.

► Wetlands Preserve Owner: The fee-simple owner of Wetlands Preserve at South Mather.

► Wetlands Preserve Manager: An entity retained by the Wetlands Preserve Owner to execute the various management activities described in this document. Assuming the Wetlands Preserve Owner has sufficient technical capacity, it could serve as the Wetlands Preserve Manager subject to the approval of the Agencies.

► Easement Holder: A qualified 501(c)(3) organization or public entity that holds the conservation easement recorded over the Wetlands Preserve and that monitors and enforces the terms and conditions described within the easement. The Wetlands Preserve Manager may also be the Easement Holder.

► Mitigation Biologist: A qualified firm or individual retained by the Wetlands Preserve Owner or Wetlands Preserve Manager to restore and/or monitor special-status habitat. Typically, such habitats are restored to fulfill regulatory agency compensatory mitigation requirements.

► Monitoring Biologist: A qualified firm or individual retained by the Wetlands Preserve Manager to assist with biological resource monitoring and resource management activities. Generally, the Wetlands Preserve Manager and Monitoring Biologist are the same entity; although, depending on the in-house capabilities of the Wetlands Preserve Manager, a separate Monitoring Biologist may be retained to assist with management activities.

► Qualified Personnel: Persons that through education, experience, or other qualifications possess the necessary expertise to perform specialized technical tasks (e.g., biological monitoring, natural resource planning, fence construction, and invasive plant treatment). The Mitigation Biologist and Monitoring Biologist, along with other technical professionals, are considered Qualified Personnel for the purposes of this Management Plan.

► Airport Manager: Mather Airport Manager or SCAS-designated entity responsible for ensuring aircraft safety and operations.

► Public Interest Groups: Groups with an interest in the Wetlands Preserve. In consultation and coordination with the Wetlands Preserve Owner, Wetlands Preserve Manager, and Easement Holder, these groups may pursue grants, conduct restoration activities, and utilize the Wetlands Preserve for environmental education and outreach activities.

4.1 WETLANDS PRESERVE OWNER

The County is the Wetlands Preserve Owner.

The duties of the Wetlands Preserve Owner may include but are not limited to:

► establishing and funding a nonwasting endowment to pay for easement compliance monitoring, Wetlands Preserve management and monitoring, and Wetlands Preserve maintenance;

Sacramento County Office of Economic Development and Marketing South Mather Wetlands Management Plan 4-1 Management, Maintenance, Restoration, and Public Use Roles and Responsibilities Attachment B

► performing management and maintenance activities described in the Management Plan unless these responsibilities have been assigned to another entity;

► maintaining County-owned infrastructure within Wetlands Preserve boundaries;

► retaining a qualified Wetlands Preserve Manager and Easement Holder to execute the Management Plan and hold and enforce conservation easement(s);

► complying with the terms and conditions of any necessary regulatory permits covering activities conducted in the Wetland Preserve; and

► meeting established success criteria (specified in a future Mitigation and Monitoring Plan [MMP]) for habitats restored within the Wetlands Preserve as compensatory mitigation.

4.2 WETLANDS PRESERVE MANAGER

The County anticipates having a single Wetlands Preserve Manager. The Wetlands Preserve Manager will be a 501(c)(3) organization or public entity acceptable to the County, USACE, and USFWS.

The Wetland Preserve Manager’s responsibilities and duties may include but are not limited to:

► coordinating management activities with the Airport Manager;

► coordinating maintenance of fencing and signage;

► coordinating trash removal;

► conducting thatch/invasive nonnative plant management, in conjunction with Qualified Personnel (if needed) to meet Management Goals;

► reviewing monitoring data and recommending remedial actions where necessary;

► maintaining records of all activities, inspections, correspondence and determinations regarding the Wetlands Preserve;

► performing general inspections of the Wetlands Preserve required by the Management Plan;

► conducting all necessary biological inspections with Qualified Personnel (if needed);

► arranging for any corrective action necessary to ensure the biological integrity of the Wetlands Preserve, as required by the Management Plan and all applicable regulations;

► ensuring the integrity of cultural resources within the Wetlands Preserve;

► performing ongoing budgeting and financial management to ensure that adequate funding is available for recurring management and monitoring activities, that the cost of management activities is generally consistent with annual interest earnings (less inflation) realized from the endowment fund, and that the expense of management activities, including occasional extraordinary expenses, does not erode the principal in or threaten the long-term viability and integrity of the endowment fund;

► reviewing the Annual Reports and annual work plans prepared by Qualified Personnel (if needed); and

Sacramento County Office of Economic Development and Marketing Management, Maintenance, Restoration, and 4-2 South Mather Wetlands Management Plan Public Use Roles and Responsibilities Attachment B

► determining and managing allowable recreational, scientific, and educational uses of the Wetlands Preserve, consistent with this Management Plan, the Public Access Master Plan, and applicable regulatory agency requirements.

4.3 EASEMENT HOLDER

The Easement Holder’s duties shall include but are not limited to:

► documenting baseline conditions within the Wetlands Preserve;

► monitoring the activities of the Wetlands Preserve Owner, Wetlands Preserve Manager, Qualified Personnel, Public Interest Groups, and other entities with a legal right (e.g., easement) or other right to enter the Wetlands Preserve to ensure that the terms and conditions of the conservation easement are not violated;

► regularly (e.g., annually) documenting the status of the Wetlands Preserve;

► documenting violations of the Wetlands Preserve conservation easement(s);

► working cooperatively with the Wetlands Preserve Owner and Wetlands Preserve Manager to resolve violations of conservation easement terms and conditions;

► pursuing legal action and appropriate remedies, where required, to resolve violations of conservation easement terms and conditions; and

► providing copies of all documents and reports to the Wetlands Preserve Owner, Wetlands Preserve Manager, and applicable regulatory agencies upon request.

An entity to hold the Wetlands Preserve conservation easement has not been identified; however, the Wetlands Preserve Manager and Easement Holder may be the same entity, if appropriate.

4.4 QUALIFIED PERSONNEL

As discussed above, the Mitigation Biologist and Monitoring Biologist, along with similar technical professionals, are collectively referred to as Qualified Personnel. During the course of ongoing Wetlands Preserve management, the Wetlands Preserve Manager or Wetlands Preserve Owner may retain the services of Qualified Personnel, herein defined as professional biologists, botanists, California Certified Rangeland Managers, restoration ecologists, landscape architects, archeologists, general and specialized contractors licensed by the State of California, California licensed Pest Control Advisors (PCA) and Qualified Applicators, volunteers appropriately trained by Qualified Personnel, or other types of specialists, to conduct specialized tasks within the Wetlands Preserve.

The responsibilities of Qualified Personnel shall be defined by the Wetlands Preserve Owner and Wetlands Preserve Manager and guided by this Wetlands Management Plan.

4.5 AIRPORT MANAGER

The Mather Airport Manager is responsible for ensuring the safe operation of the airport. As such, the Airport Manager shall be promptly informed and consulted regarding any proposed activity that could interfere with the safe operation of the Airport. This requirement shall include, but not be limited to, providing notification of the intent to conduct a prescribed burn or to mow vegetation. A wildlife hazard management specialist, as a representative of the Airport Manager, shall cooperatively work with Wetlands Preserve Owner and Manager to

Sacramento County Office of Economic Development and Marketing South Mather Wetlands Management Plan 4-3 Management, Maintenance, Restoration, and Public Use Roles and Responsibilities Attachment B identify wildlife attractants and, where required, reduce the presence of hazardous wildlife in areas adjacent to Mather Airport in consultation with the Agencies consistent with applicable laws and regulations and after coordination with the Agencies.

4.5.1 CONSERVATION AREA MANAGEMENT COORDINATION WITH AIRPORT

The Wetlands Preserve is within the 10,000-foot critical zone established by the FAA surrounding Mather Airport (Appendix G). The FAA has developed several guidance documents and advisories relevant to the management of hazardous wildlife and habitat restoration activities within this critical zone (see Chapter 1). For aircraft safety, guidelines for management activities in this zone are constrained to those unlikely to increase the presence of wildlife hazardous to aircraft operations. The probability that Wetlands Preserve management actions will increase the presence of hazardous wildlife is analyzed in Appendix G. This analysis has concluded that the presence of hazardous wildlife is not likely to increase as a result of vegetation management activities described in Chapter 5.

The Wetlands Preserve Manager shall remain in close contact with the Airport Manager to ensure that management activities do not affect aircraft safety and airport operations. The Airport Manager will assess the potential effect of management activities and may provide additional staff assistance to the Wetlands Preserve Manager in an effort to minimize the potential for wildlife attractants or hazards near the airport. The Airport Manager may monitor wildlife response as part of their ongoing requirements.

4.6 PUBLIC INTEREST GROUPS

The involvement of public interest groups shall be encouraged by the Wetlands Preserve Manager and Wetlands Preserve Owner, consistent with this Management Plan, the Public Access Master Plan, and applicable regulatory agency requirements. Some activities that may involve Public Interest Groups include:

► developing public outreach programs and conducting educational tours of the Wetlands Preserve;

► preparing grant applications to fund restoration and education activities within the Wetlands Preserve; and

► performing small-scale restoration activities, trash collection, weed management, and similar maintenance actions.

4.7 CHANGES IN PERSONNEL

In the event that the individuals or firms acting in the roles described in this chapter are changed, outgoing and incoming personnel shall tour the Wetlands Preserve together, and the former shall advise the latter of trends, problem areas and any administrative difficulties. All records, reports, files, photographs, electronic data, and similar documentation shall be provided by the outgoing personnel to the incoming personnel.

Sacramento County Office of Economic Development and Marketing Management, Maintenance, Restoration, and 4-4 South Mather Wetlands Management Plan Public Use Roles and Responsibilities Attachment B 5 HABITAT MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES

This chapter describes guidelines for habitat management activities within the Wetlands Preserve. As summarized in Chapter 1 and described in detail below, the intent of this chapter is to provide the framework within which more detailed management plans will be developed or to describe the standards and guidelines that will govern development of these documents. These documents may include an Initial Management Plan (Appendix A), prescribed grazing plans, invasive plant treatment plans, and prescribed burning plans, among other documents.

All habitat management activities must be conducted in compliance with applicable Agency notification, authorization, and permit requirements and, when necessary, in coordination with the Airport Manager.

5.1 MANAGEMENT FRAMEWORK

As described in Chapter 1, South Mather has been largely unmanaged for more than 80 years. Due to this lack of active management, there is an insufficient past history upon which to base detailed, site-specific management actions for the Wetlands Preserve, particularly management actions related to livestock grazing. To address this lack of site-specific knowledge and experience, an Initial Management Plan for the Wetlands Preserve has been developed (Appendix A). The Initial Management Plan describes detailed management actions, for the management of livestock grazing, which will be implemented on a trial basis within defined areas of the Wetlands Preserve during the initial 5–10 years of Wetlands Preserve establishment. An invasive plant management plan, focusing on the Wetlands Preserve, will also be developed during this period.

The management emphasis during this initial 5- to 10-year period will be on collecting baseline data, implementing trial grazing management strategies within defined portions of the Wetlands Preserve (pursuant to the Initial Management Plan), and implementing the invasive plant treatment plan across the Wetlands Preserve. Routine preserve maintenance activities such as trespass patrol, public outreach, monitoring and reporting, and similar activities will also occur during this period, subject to the requirements described in this Management Plan. A Property Analysis Record (PAR) analysis to determine annual funding requirements for management, maintenance, and monitoring activities during the initial 5- to 10-year trial management period has been completed and is included as Appendix H.

Once the initial 5- to 10-year trial management period has been completed, a preferred livestock grazing approach for the Wetlands Preserve will be identified. The preferred grazing approach(es) identified at the conclusion of the trial grazing period will be incorporated into a revised, final Management Plan and implemented, as appropriate, within the Wetlands Preserve. Prior to implementation across the Wetlands Preserve, the Wetlands Preserve Owner will install all infrastructure needed to facilitate the preferred grazing program (e.g., troughs, fences, gates, corrals). Additionally, the PAR analysis included as Appendix H of this Management Plan will be refined to incorporate the costs required for implementation of the preferred grazing program and any other modifications to Wetlands Preserve management actions identified during the trial management period.

All future modifications to the Management Plan, development of focused management plans (e.g., invasive plants, grazing, prescribed burning), PAR revisions, and similar activities will be closely coordinated with the Agencies and subject to Agency approval. Guidelines that will govern the development of these documents and implementation of habitat management activities within the Wetlands Preserve are described below.

5.2 CONSERVATION AREA MANAGEMENT GUIDELINES

5.2.1 THATCH MANAGEMENT

The reduction of residual grassland biomass, or what is commonly called thatch or residual dry matter (RDM), is one habitat management objective for the Wetlands Preserve. Under certain conditions, accumulated thatch has

Sacramento County Office of Economic Development and Marketing South Mather Wetlands Management Plan 5-1 Vegetation Management Activities Attachment B been shown to have numerous, interrelated, adverse effects to vernal pool grasslands including: reduced vernal pool hydroperiod; reduced cover of native forbs, particularly at vernal pool edges and within shallow vernal pools; and increased cover of nonnative grasses, particularly species such as medusahead that benefit from high thatch accumulations (Barry 1998, Marty 2005). High levels of thatch from plants such as Italian ryegrass and waxy mannagrass within vernal pools can also result in degraded water quality and reduced habitat quality for vernal pool branchiopods (Robbins and Vollmar 2002, Rogers 1998). Over extensive areas, prescribed livestock grazing and prescribed fire are the two most cost-effective and widely used methods of vernal pool grassland thatch management. Over smaller areas, mechanical methods of thatch management, such as mowing, and manual methods, such as raking, may also be practical and effective. Guidelines for these activities are described below.

PRESCRIBED GRAZING GUIDELINES

Livestock grazing is the most frequently used method of vernal pool grassland management and is increasingly recognized as an important, if not critical, component of responsible vernal pool management (Robbins and Vollmar 2002). However, with a lack of management and oversight and/or an irresponsible or unresponsive grazing lessee, livestock grazing can produce uneven results as a management technique. The following section describes a general prescribed grazing program for the Wetlands Preserve. The guidelines described below are intended to be a starting point for the development of more detailed, site-specific grazing prescriptions, as initially described in the Initial Management Plan (Appendix A).

Grazing Timing

The appropriate timing for livestock grazing can vary on an annual basis. In general, most livestock grazing within the Central Valley occurs from the late fall into the late spring; year-round grazing is also common in the Central Valley where water and supplemental feed (i.e., protein that is lacking once annual plants have set seed and dried out) are available during the summer and fall. The particular pattern that is followed depends, in large part, on the resource management goals that are to be addressed by prescribed grazing and the overall grazing operation of the grazing lessee. For example, many grazing operators in the Central Valley have summer grazing leases in the Sierra Nevada and/or Southern Cascades or Modoc Plateau and rely on ranches within the Central Valley during periods when these areas are unavailable for grazing (i.e., late fall through midspring to late spring).

Additionally, annual climatic patterns play a primary role in determining proper grazing timing. Climate affects grazing management on vernal pool grasslands in three important ways (George et al. 2001). First, climate, in the form of the first germinating rains, determines the beginning of the growing season. Typically a “germinating rain” is any single rain event or series of rain events that delivers at least 0.5 inch of rain within a 7-day period. Based on several decades of data collected across California, this germinating rain event may happen in a typical year any time from mid-September into January.

Once the annual grasses and forbs have germinated, another climatic factor, fall and winter temperatures, becomes of primary importance in determining grazing timing. During this time there is usually, although not always, sufficient precipitation to drive continued plant growth; however, temperatures are often too cool. In exceptionally cool winters, there is little to no additional grass growth, above and beyond the small amount of growth driven by rains in the fall. This new growth is often not sufficient to sustain livestock and supplemental feed must be provided until temperatures warm enough to permit grass growth capable of sustaining livestock without supplementation. Alternatively, livestock may have to be removed during this period if supplemental feed is not available and/or is undesirable from a resource management standpoint. This length of time (between the first germinating rains and the time when new growth is capable of sustaining livestock) is known as the period of “inadequate green feed.” Historical monitoring data at the San Joaquin Experimental Range Station (an area with climate reasonably similar to South Mather) indicates that this period may last anywhere from 3–4 months (George et al. 2001).

Sacramento County Office of Economic Development and Marketing Vegetation Management Activities 5-2 South Mather Wetlands Management Plan Attachment B The final climatic factor affecting proper grazing timing is the amount and timing of spring rains. During the late winter and early spring, from February into early March, temperatures warm to the point that soil moisture is now the primary factor limiting plant growth. With sufficient rainfall, total per acre productivity, or what is known as “standing crop”, of vernal pool grasslands typically increases by a factor of three or four after mid-February reaching its peak in mid-May; however, in drought years standing crop may only double and reach its peak in mid-April rather than mid-May. Some prescribed grazing programs, particularly those relying on steers, or “stockers,” often delay grazing until the point that sufficient green feed is available (i.e., the grazing season for these programs extends from February through April or May) in an effort to fine-tune the annual stocking rate to climatic patterns and the expected peak standing crop thereby achieving a desired RDM level on a more consistent basis.

Climate determines the length of the growing season, the availability of adequate green forage to sustain livestock, and total forage productivity; therefore, it is critically important to adapt the timing of livestock grazing on an ongoing basis to better achieve resource management goals.

Grazing Capability

The development of a prescribed grazing program typically begins with the delineation of capable grazing areas. Capable rangelands are those areas that, based on a set of characteristics, could potentially support livestock grazing. The concept of rangeland ecological sites is frequently used as the base planning units for determining rangeland capability. Ecological sites are defined as soils with like properties that produce and support a characteristic plant community and respond similarly to management (Natural Resources Conservation Service [NRCS] 2006a). Typically, several related soil types are grouped into the same ecological site. Ecological sites may be differentiated one from another based on several factors, including:

► significant differences in species or species groups,

► differences in biomass productivity, and

► soil factors that influence species composition or productivity (NRCS 2006a).

The development of ecological sites has been led by the NRCS. Unfortunately ecological sites have not been described for the vast majority of California. However, most mapped soils in California have been assigned a “range site” by the NRCS (range sites are very similar in concept to ecological sites), and, for resource planning purposes, range site boundaries are sufficient approximations of ecological site boundaries. The relationship between soil series and ecological site is shown in Table 5-1. The location of ecological sites within the Wetlands Preserve and adjacent portions of South Mather is shown in Exhibit 5-1. These ecological site classifications should be revised when official ecological site descriptions are published by the NRCS and/or ongoing experience managing the Wetlands Preserve indicates that a different classification is more appropriate. However, based on currently available data, all portions of the Wetlands Preserve are considered to be capable of supporting livestock grazing.

Table 5-1 Ecological Site-Soil Series Relationships Ecological Site Constituent Soil Series Loam Stream Terrace Hedge, San Joaquin, Creviscreek Gravelly Loam Redding, Red Bluff

Suitable rangelands are that subset of capable rangelands where livestock grazing is compatible with sensitive resource protection or where sensitive resources are not present. Typically, unsuitable rangelands are those areas that could potentially support livestock grazing but which are excluded from grazing due to likely impacts to

Sacramento County Office of Economic Development and Marketing South Mather Wetlands Management Plan 5-3 Vegetation Management Activities Attachment B special-status species and habitats, conflicts with recreational uses, or other potential conflicts. Since the response of sensitive resources to livestock grazing is highly site-specific and much of South Mather has been ungrazed for at least 80 years, there is insufficient past experience that can be used as a guide in determining rangeland suitability at South Mather.

For this reason, the Initial Management Plan (Appendix A) has been developed to describe an initial grazing approach that will be implemented on a trial basis in an effort to determine grazing suitability for specific parts of the Wetlands Preserve. The purpose of these trials is to determine how the vernal pool grasslands within the Wetlands Preserve respond to the reintroduction of grazing animals, how various populations of special-status species respond to grazing, and whether or not potential adverse impacts to sensitive resources can be reduced or eliminated with grazing improvements or carefully designed grazing systems (such as strategically timed grazing, different grazing intensities, or different kinds of grazing animals).

Grazing Systems

In designing a prescribed grazing system there are four general factors that may be varied in an effort to achieve a particular management goal: the kind (e.g., cattle) and class (e.g., steer, heifer, cow) of grazing animal, grazing animal distribution, the season of use, and grazing intensity (i.e., stocking rate or animal units) (Holechek et al. 2001). In contrast to many other grassland environments where perennial plants are the dominant vegetation type, grazing systems within California’s vernal pool grasslands tend to be fairly simplistic and typically focus on season-long or winter-spring grazing with stocking rates set to achieve a particular amount of RDM (Heady 1961). The grazing system(s) developed for the Wetlands Preserve will initially follow those described in the Initial Management Plan, subject to the guidelines described below. These guidelines may be revised at the conclusion of the initial 5- to 10-year trial management period.

In an effort to accommodate various grazing strategies, the basic guidelines for a prescribed grazing program are described below (Table 5-2). Forage production estimates under different climatic scenarios (below-average rainfall year, average rainfall year, and above-average rainfall year) were calculated for each ecological site using estimates published by the NRCS (NRCS 1993) and field experience at South Mather. Total available forage was reduced by the amount of desired RDM, established preliminarily at 800 pounds per acre based on past experience managing grazing programs on Central Valley vernal pool grasslands, to derive the net available forage, on a per-acre basis, under these three climatic scenarios. Preliminary per-acre stocking rates are expressed in animal unit months, defined as the amount of forage consumed by a cow and her dependent calf in 1 month. Based on these stocking rates and the acreage of each ecological site within the Wetlands Preserve, the approximate number of total AUMs available in the Wetlands Preserve was calculated.

These data are preliminary and may be revised at the conclusion of the initial 5- to 10-year management period. At the end of this period, allowable use (expressed as an RDM standard), stocking rates, kind and class of livestock, season of use, pasture rotations, areas open and closed to grazing, and other parameters governing the use of livestock grazing as a management tool should be specified in a revised grazing plan and included as an appendix to future revisions of this Management Plan. Additionally, livestock grazing within the Wetlands Preserve should be formalized in a grazing lease to be signed by grazing lessees. A sample grazing lease has been included as Appendix I.

Special Considerations for Goat Grazing

Goats are increasingly used to manage invasive plants and control biomass. In contrast to sheep and cattle, which are often grazed over extensive areas at fairly low intensities for extended durations, goats are often concentrated into smaller areas at high numbers for a short period of time using portable electrical fencing or other means of confinement. Within the Wetlands Preserve, goat grazing would be particularly appropriate in areas to be maintained as fuel breaks (e.g., areas between the Wetlands Preserve and surrounding development). Goats may also be useful in controlling specific populations of invasive plants (e.g., thistles) within the Wetlands Preserve.

Sacramento County Office of Economic Development and Marketing Vegetation Management Activities 5-4 South Mather Wetlands Management Plan Attachment B

Attachment B

Attachment B Numerous private contractors throughout northern California will rent goats for these purposes (see Appendix C for a list of contractors). The use of goats as a vegetation management tool should be designed and coordinated in cooperation with Qualified Personnel and approved by the Agencies.

Table 5-2 Preliminary Grazing Guidelines Kind of Livestock Cattle, sheep, or goats Class Cow/calf pairs, bulls, steers, heifers, ewes, lambs, rams, all classes of goats Season of Use 1/1 to 12/31 Gross Forage Production (lbs/ac) Dry Year Average Year Wet Year Loam Stream Terrace Ecological Site 1,500 3,200 4,500 Gravelly Loam Ecological Site 1,000 2,400 3,000 RDM Standard 800 Net Available Forage Dry Year Average Year Wet Year Loam Stream Terrace Ecological Site 700 2,400 3,700 Gravelly Loam Ecological Site 200 1,600 2,200 Stocking Rate (AUM/ac) Dry Year Average Year Wet Year Loam Stream Terrace Ecological Site 0.7 2.4 3.7 Gravelly Loam Ecological Site 0.2 1.6 2.2 Available AUMs Dry Year Average Year Wet Year Wetlands Preserve 395 2,234 3,188 AU Equivalencies 1 Cow/Calf Pair 1.00 AU 1 Dry Cow 0.70 AU 1 Weaned Steer/Heifer 0.60 AU 1 Bull 1.30 AU 1 Ewe 0.20 AU 1 Weaned Lamb 0.12 AU 1 Ram 0.25 AU 1 Adult Goat 0.15 AU 1 Kid 0.10 AU Notes: These guidelines may be modified at the conclusion of the initial management period AU = animal unit AUM = animal unit month Sources: Holechek et al. 2001, NRCS 1993

PRESCRIBED FIRE GUIDELINES

Despite its increasing use as a natural resource management tool, prescribed fire can frequently be costly to conduct, difficult to coordinate, and potentially dangerous, particularly in wildland-urban interface zones. In considering the use of prescribed fire as a thatch management strategy, the Wetlands Preserve Manager should focus on burns that are designed to meet specific resource goals and objectives and that are implemented only when resource objectives cannot be addressed through other vegetation management techniques. For example, prescribed burns are often the only method available to treat large infestations of medusahead and barbed goatgrass. These species are unpalatable to livestock and tend to form persistent litter layers that encourage continued dominance by these species and are otherwise difficult, if not impossible, to remove through other vegetation management techniques.

While the discussion below provides guidelines for the development of a prescribed burning program, the Wetlands Preserve Manager should revise prescribed burning strategies as part of the Management Plan update process, and implementation of all burns will require a detailed prescribed burn plan.

Sacramento County Office of Economic Development and Marketing South Mather Wetlands Management Plan 5-7 Vegetation Management Activities Attachment B Timing, Prioritization, and Scheduling of Prescribed Burning

The Wetlands Preserve Manager shall develop a procedure to map and prioritize prescribed burns with a goal of removing accumulated thatch from all areas of the preserve within 3–5 years, where that thatch is significantly limiting recruitment of native plant species. Ideally, burns of less than 100 acres should be conducted on a regular basis and planned in coordination with surrounding residences and businesses to avoid adverse effects. The size of individual burns should be based on resource conditions, prevailing weather, air quality permitting considerations, public safety, and operational needs of Mather Airport.

Initial areas to target would include those areas with high levels of medusahead thatch, dense starthistle infestations, or areas that otherwise exhibited resource deficiencies that would be difficult to remedy through other treatment techniques. These areas should be prioritized based on the presence of special-status species and density of vernal pool resources as well as, secondarily, on the potential for public use, improvement of aesthetic values, and similar criteria. Additional areas could be added into the burn program as time and funding allowed. Initially, priority areas may need to be treated for 2–3 consecutive years to fully exhaust the seed bank of undesirable plants. Once initial conditions have improved, a regular burn schedule should be implemented so that areas are reburned at regular intervals of every 5–7 years, or more frequently if deemed necessary by the Wetlands Preserve Manager and Qualified Personnel. Prescribed burns should be timed to maximize effectiveness and to reduce threats to public health and safety. In general, late spring (May or June) is the preferred time for burning in vernal pool grasslands, particularly to control medusahead and barbed goatgrass because these species remain green longer than other annual grassland plants and are more vulnerable to burning during this period of time (Pollak and Kan 1998, Young et al. 1972, Hopkinson et al. 1999). However, fall burns can also be effective at removing accumulated thatch and may help encourage regrowth of native plants once infestations of medusahead and goatgrass have been controlled. Only prescribed burns that have no potential for significant adverse effects to Mather Airport and that do not endanger public health and safety shall be allowed.

Prescribed Burning Implementation

Burn Planning

After prescribed burn treatments have been prioritized, a project-level prescribed burn plan should be prepared by Qualified Personnel for each individual burn. At a minimum, the burn plan should describe the following:

► the location of the burn and the number of acres to be treated;

► fuels, fire environment, and both best-case and worst-case scenarios for anticipated fire behavior at the treatment site;

► justification for burning (i.e., why burning is necessary and preferred relative to other vegetation treatment methods);

► proposed burn prescription detailing the timing of the burn, burning methods (heading or backing burn), control structures, and so on;

► staffing and logistical issues;

► potential effects to neighbors from smoke and the potential for fire escape;

► requirements to avoid potential effects to Airport;

► potential effects to common plant and wildlife species, particularly ground-nesting birds;

Sacramento County Office of Economic Development and Marketing Vegetation Management Activities 5-8 South Mather Wetlands Management Plan Attachment B

► potential effects to special-status plants and wildlife; and

► potential effects to water quality.

See Appendix C for additional resources related to the planning of prescribed burns.

Burn Execution

Sacramento Metropolitan Fire District (Sac Metro) has expressed its willingness to assist the Wetlands Preserve Manager with the implementation of prescribed burns to serve as training exercises for Sac Metro crews in addition to furthering natural resource management goals for the Wetlands Preserve. Prior prescribed burns, implemented in 2013, in cooperation with Sac Metro have proven effective in managing invasive plants and thatch accumulation within the Wetlands Preserve. When training exercises can be conducted under conditions favorable to natural resource management goals, the cost of burning is dramatically reduced. Before any prescribed burns are implemented, the Wetlands Preserve Manager should verify that sufficient liability insurance exists to indemnify both parties should a prescribed fire damage or injure third parties. The Wetlands Preserve Manager shall also obtain all necessary permits from applicable local, federal, and State regulatory agencies. If, at some point in the future, Sac Metro is no longer able to assist with prescribed burn implementation, numerous private contracting firms that provide prescribed burn planning and implementation services are located in northern California. Such firms typically charge several tens of thousand dollars for their services.

Fire breaks are often a necessary component of a prescribed burn. Alternatives to new fire break construction, such as planning burns to use existing fire breaks or features such as roads and trails that can serve as fire breaks, should be explored whenever possible. Wet lines and other nonmechanical and environmentally sensitive methods of line control should be used as alternatives to mechanical lines wherever possible. If new fire breaks are essential, they should be constructed in ways that minimize physical disturbance of the soil to reduce long-term environmental impacts and lessen the spread of invasive plants. For example, disking and other forms of soil disturbance can exacerbate erosion problems, unnecessarily disturb populations of native plants, and provide a mechanism for the dispersal and germination of weed seeds. Fire breaks should be sited to avoid impacts to special-status species, wetlands, and riparian areas, and result in minimal amount of ground disturbance. When working in and around populations of invasive plants likely to be spread by seed, bulldozers, tractors, and other equipment used to construct fire breaks should be washed down before being used in another location. Alternatives to new fire break construction, such as planning burns to utilize existing fire breaks or features such as roads and trails that can serve as fire breaks, should be explored whenever possible. Wet lines and other, nonmechanical and environmentally sensitive, methods of line control should be used as alternatives to mechanical lines wherever possible. All fire break construction shall be coordinated with Sacramento County Department of Regional Parks because it is responsible for maintaining fire breaks around the Independence at Mather community.

All prescribed burns shall be implemented under the supervision of Qualified Personnel to ensure that adequate resource protection measures are in place. Burn execution shall be coordinated with the Airport Manager, Wetlands Preserve Manager, and Wetlands Preserve Owner prior to and during implementation.

Postfire Rehabilitation

Loss of vegetation and soil disturbance caused by wildfire and prescribed fire can, under certain conditions, increase the risk of soil erosion, flooding, and sedimentation that may threaten private property, water quality, and special-status plants and animals. The relatively flat terrain characteristic of South Mather limits the risks. Generally, burned areas should be investigated immediately postfire to determine those areas in need of immediate attention. Although extensive rehabilitation is not anticipated to be required for most burn areas, the Wetlands Preserve Manager should investigate areas of ground disturbance from heavy equipment, areas where water naturally channels, known locations of special-status plants, animals, and cultural resource sites, and similar areas of resource sensitivity or erosion susceptibility.

Sacramento County Office of Economic Development and Marketing South Mather Wetlands Management Plan 5-9 Vegetation Management Activities Attachment B Typical rehabilitation measures include the seeding of quick growing native species, the application of various mulching materials, and the placement of rice straw wattles or logs perpendicular to slope lines to catch and retain sediments. It may also be necessary to modify culverts along roads to allow for increased water and sediment flow or otherwise modifying roadways or trails to account for increased water and sediment flows and prevent further damage to preserved area infrastructure.

MECHANICAL THATCH REMOVAL GUIDELINES

Weed eating and mowing can be effective tools to prevent species, such as nonnative annual grasses, from flowering and thus producing seeds. Weed eating is appropriate in both vernal pools and surrounding uplands, while mowing is generally appropriate only for uplands areas. Both methods can be efficient and cost-effective when implemented by properly trained crews. Care should be taken to ensure a “high” mow (i.e., no weed-eating or mowing shorter than 6–8 inches). A lower mow height may be allowed when the surrounding native vegetation has already produced seeds and the target weed is still actively growing. This would be necessary for Italian ryegrass along vernal pool edges or stinkwort control, for example. This is important so that desirable native species, especially sensitive vernal pool plant species, are not accidentally killed or damaged by weed-eating or mowing. When coupled with dethatching and herbicide use (see below) under the direction of Qualified Personnel, weed-eating and mowing can help to successfully control weeds, allowing native plants to persist or to establish.

Timing of Mechanical Thatch Removal

The appropriate timing for weed-eating and mowing will vary each year based on annual rainfall. As a general guide, weed-eating or mowing treatments should begin in early spring, when nonnative species have grown tall enough for these methods to be effective and individual plants are just beginning to flower. In a typical year, nonnative grasses will be ready for weed-eating or mowing in March and early April, by the end of April and May seed have developed and weed-eating and mowing are less effective. The appropriate time for weed-eating or mowing and the need for repeat treatments shall be determined by the Wetlands Preserve Manager in consultation with Qualified Personnel depending on the species being controlled and annual climate patterns.

Mechanical Thatch Removal Implementation

Equipment for mechanical thatch removal should be selected that is capable of mow heights of approximately 6–8 inches and is maneuverable over uneven and rocky terrain. Additionally, all equipment shall be equipped with a spark arrestor and shall not be operated during conditions conducive to wildfires. All cut material containing reproductive plant parts (e.g., viable seeds) shall be collected and removed from the site. A combination of weed- eating and mowing can be effective and efficient if done correctly, especially when special-status plants are surrounded by larger areas of thatch buildup and/or invasive plants. In these cases, weed-eaters can be used within the patches of special-status plants to establish a buffer around the patch. Mowing can then be used to more rapidly address thatch accumulation and/or weed growth around these populations.

To minimize risks to wildlife, mowers and other equipment shall mow no closer than 6 inches to the ground and wildlife dens and nests shall be avoided. Lower mower heights may be considered when necessary to ensure that target weeds are adequately treated, provided adverse effects on special-status resources are avoided. If necessary, Qualified Personnel shall survey areas planned for mowing or other mechanical methods of thatch removal to ensure that sensitive resources are avoided.

MANUAL THATCH REMOVAL GUIDELINES

Manual dethatching focuses on removing the dead biomass from previous years’ growth. Similar to mechanical methods, the intent is to improve germination conditions for native vernal pool and upland plant species by reducing competition for light, water, and other nutrient resources. Aside from opening up available habitat for

Sacramento County Office of Economic Development and Marketing Vegetation Management Activities 5-10 South Mather Wetlands Management Plan Attachment B native species, manual dethatching makes weed control measures more effective and efficient. For example, thatch can complicate herbicide applications for yellow starthistle control by covering the young starthistle rosettes (the stage at which starthistle is most susceptible to herbicides). Once an area has been dethatched, the habitat is more open, which allows better exposure of the germinating weed species for herbicide application or hand weeding.

Dethatching also does not carry many of the risks associated with other methods of thatch removal and invasive plant control. For example, manual dethatching is usually most effective when it follows the spring flowering and seed set, so the risk of damaging developing native plant species is substantially reduced. Due to this reduced risk to native species, manual dethatching is an excellent method when using work crews that are not experienced with weed management of sensitive species. Crews that are inexperienced, such as a volunteer work force, can still achieve management success with little or no risk to native plants or animals, and there is no need for special training or certifications.

However, manual dethatching is more costly (assuming labor is not provided by volunteer crews) and time- consuming on a per-acre basis relative to the other methods discussed above. For this reason, it is recommended only as a management technique for small areas, or specific vernal pools or groups of vernal pools with sensitive resources that are otherwise incompatible with the other thatch management approaches discussed above.

Manual Thatch Removal Timing

Manual dethatching should take place during the early summer to early fall following flowering and seed set by target native plants, but before the germination of new plants during the rainy season, which might occur as early as October or be delayed into February or later.

Manual Thatch Removal Implementation

Prior to manual dethatching any target native plant seed, particularly seeds from special-status species, shall be collected to the extent possible. When native plants are distributed within nonnative vegetation, the collection of native seed will help to ensure that the manual dethatching efforts do not deplete the native seed bank. Native seed shall be stored until the next growing season in dry, air-tight containers or can be applied back to the treatment area following dethatching. Seed collection should be performed by Qualified Personnel or trained assistants, including volunteers.

To increase effectiveness, manual dethatching can be combined with weed-eating the most recent years’ dead thatch to allow more complete removal of thatch cover. This is particularly helpful if the weed thatch has not completely dried. As an additional benefit, if manual dethatching occurs prior to nonnative plants releasing their seeds, the nonnative seed bank can be reduced to some extent, or alternatively, a vacuum may be used to collect the nonnative seed.

All thatch removed from vernal pool or upland habitats shall be transported offsite and disposed of at an appropriate disposal facility. Qualified Personnel shall supervise all manual dethatching efforts.

5.2.2 INVASIVE PLANT MANAGEMENT

Invasive plant control will be the second focus of vegetation management activities in the Wetlands Preserve. The ecology, distribution, and ecological effects of invasive plants at the Wetlands Preserve are described in detail within Chapter 3. An invasive plant management plan will be developed within 1 year following establishment of the Wetlands Preserve. This plan will guide treatment of specific populations (i.e., prioritization of populations for treatment and selection of treatment method(s) for each population) within the Wetlands Preserve. The invasive plant management plan will follow the guidelines described below.

Sacramento County Office of Economic Development and Marketing South Mather Wetlands Management Plan 5-11 Vegetation Management Activities Attachment B INFESTATION PREVENTION

The best way to reduce invasive plant infestations is to prevent them from occurring in the first place. USFWS, in cooperation with other organizations, has adopted a management framework known as Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Points (HACCP) planning to help stop the unintended spread of invasive species (USFWS 2004). Originally used to address contamination issues within the foodservice industry, this framework focuses attention on critical control points where invasive species can be “removed” (i.e., by washing down heavy equipment used within weed infestations before moving the equipment from the site) from a particular management activity. Documenting critical points where the risks of invasive species transport are high, as well as the methods used to remove invasive species and prevent the transport of “hitch-hiker” species, gives managers a strategic method to make consistent decisions based on identified risks from known invasive species populations. This framework should form the basis for management decisions and activities potentially involving invasive plants within the Wetlands Preserve.

PRIORITIZATION AND TREATMENT IDENTIFICATION

Invasive plant populations should be prioritized for treatment based on various factors. Some factors to consider include protection of special-status plants and animals; enhancement of vernal pool habitat quality; proximity to potential dispersal vectors, such as roads; and the availability, feasibility, and likelihood of success of various treatment methods. Population profiles should also be considered when prioritizing weed populations for treatment.

As discussed in Chapter 3, there are three main types of population profiles: incipient populations (I), widespread populations (WS), and ubiquitous populations (U). Incipient populations are frequently easiest to control because it is much easier and cheaper to eradicate a species that has not yet spread and established in great numbers (i.e., a “nip it in the bud” approach). Widespread populations are more problematic because they have already spread and without quick abatement action are likely to quickly expand and cause extensive ecological harm. Small infestations of widespread plants should be removed first before they expand and substantially spread propagules. Additionally, infestations that are likely to spread into uninfested areas of high sensitivity (e.g., vernal pool or other habitats for rare species) should also be removed at the earliest opportunity.

Ubiquitous populations are the most difficult to control. In many cases these species may have already caused substantial habitat degradation or other damage and, though they may still be expanding, control may be difficult or impossible and, accordingly, very costly. To be effective, a long-term (e.g., 10-year) plan for containment will often be needed to control ubiquitous weed populations. Populations of ubiquitous weeds should generally be treated only when they pose significant threats to natural resources, and long-term control of that weed population is feasible.

To aid in prioritizing weed populations for treatment, an evaluation matrix should be prepared as part of the invasive plant management plan. Such a matrix should list target weed species, the potential impacts of each species on ecosystem functions, the potential for invasiveness, the relative cost to control each species, and the population profile type. The matrix ultimately used by the Wetlands Preserve Manager should build off the preliminary matrix presented in Table 5-3, which was tentatively developed based on the known or suspected distribution of invasive plants within the Wetlands Preserve. These rankings should be verified and revised, if needed, as part of the invasive plant management plan. Control techniques for all invasive plants known or suspected to occur within the Wetlands Preserve are described below and summarized in Table 5-3.

Sacramento County Office of Economic Development and Marketing Vegetation Management Activities 5-12 South Mather Wetlands Management Plan Attachment B

Table 5-3 Preliminary Invasive Plant Priority Ranking Ecosystem Species Invasiveness1 Cost to Control2 Population Profile3 Rank4 Effects1 Medusahead A A Moderate to High U High (Taeniatherum caput-medusae) Barbed goatgrass A A Moderate to High WS High (Aegilops triuncialis) Yellow starthistle A B Moderate to High WS High (Centaurea solstitialis) Stinkwort B A Moderate to High I High (Dittrichia graveolens) Italian thistle B B Moderate to High WS Moderate (Carduus pycnocephalus) Waxy mannagrass B B Moderate to High I Moderate (Glyceria declinata) Yellow glandweed B* B Low to Moderate I Moderate (Parentucellia viscosa) Klamathweed B C* Low to Moderate I Low (Hypericum perforatum) Milk thistle C C Moderate to High I Low (Silybum marinum) Notes: 1 Ecosystem Effects/Invasiveness Determined from CalIPC Plant Assessment Forms (PAF): [from California Invasive Plant Council’s (Cal-IPC) California Invasive Plant Inventory (Cal-IPC 2006), species with an asterisk were modified by AECOM to reflect conditions at South Mather] A = Severe B = Moderate C = Limited 2 Cost to Control based on professional judgment of AECOM biologists: Moderate to High = Species with persistent seed banks, high seed output, and/or species that require costly methods (e.g., prescribed burning, specialized herbicides) of treatment or are difficult to treat because they grow in close proximity to native plants Low to Moderate = Species that can be controlled through hand removal or general herbicides and that are best treated during times when unintended adverse impacts to native species are easily avoided. 3 Profile Type I = Incipient (i.e., just beginning) – few small infestations; less than 0.1 acre average infestation size, fewer than 100 infestations, and less than 1 acre in total extent. These are presumed to be very recent introductions or those relatively contained thus far. WS = Widespread – many small infestations; less than 0.1 acre average infestation size, more than 100 infestations, and more than 1 acre in total extent. These are weeds which had spread rapidly and are now beginning to grow in infestation size. U = Ubiquitous – few to many large or continuous infestations; greater than 0.1 acre average infestation size, and more than 5 acres total extent. These are weeds which have already spread and grown considerably in infestation size. 4 Rank High = Species ranked as Severe for Ecological Effects or Incipient Species ranked as Severe for Invasiveness Moderate = Species ranked as Moderate for both Invasiveness and Ecological Effects Low = Incipient Species ranked as Limited for Invasiveness, all species ranked as Limited for Ecological Effects Source: Cal-IPC 2006

Similar to the discussion of invasive plant ecology presented in Chapter 3, one or more of the following resources were used to compile treatment information for the species listed below:

Sacramento County Office of Economic Development and Marketing South Mather Wetlands Management Plan 5-13 Vegetation Management Activities Attachment B

► California Invasive Plant Inventory (Cal-IPC 2006),

► Encycloweedia (CDFA 2007),

► CDFA Noxious Weed Pest Ratings (CDFA 2007),

► Weeds of California and Western States (Volumes 1 and 2) (DiTomaso and Healy 2007),

► The Global Invasive Species Initiative (TNC 2007), and

► Invasive Plants of California Wildlands (Bossard et al. 2000).

In some cases, selected information from these treatments has been incorporated with only minor edits to the source text. The inclusion of this information with only minor modifications is not intended to attribute primary authorship of this information to the authors of this Management Plan, and the authorship credits noted above are hereby acknowledged.

Medusahead

Mowing/Grazing

Mowing and grazing are generally not effective methods of medusahead control. Both methods fail to remove the active areas of plant growth, thus plants will regrow following mowing or grazing and still produce viable seed.

Furthermore, grazing is often not effective because dense layers of accumulated medusahead thatch reduce palatability of young plants, and mature medusahead contains high amounts of silica, which reduces palatability. Mowing and grazing at inappropriate times can also increase the potential for medusahead seed dispersal. Properly timed grazing may reduce but not eliminate medusahead infestations. Heavy grazing by sheep in early spring (when medusahead is still palatable) can assist in controlling this species, but animals should be removed before seed heads form to limit seed dispersal. Early spring grazing is especially effective in areas where dried medusahead litter has been previously burned or grazed. Fertilizing with nitrogen has been found to improve the palatability of medusahead. Carefully designed livestock grazing is recommended as a secondary method of medusahead control in the event that prescribed burning is not feasible.

Burning

Several studies have shown that burning stands of medusahead prior to seed dispersal is an effective control measure (Pollak and Kan 1998, McKell et al. 1962, Young et al. 1972). Burns should be scheduled for late spring, after seed set but before seed heads have shattered. Seeds still remaining on plants are destroyed by the burn, while dispersed seeds lying or buried below the soil surface are protected from the intense heat of the burn (McKell et al. 1962, Bentley and Fenner 1958). With few seed reserves in the soil, medusahead abundance can be dramatically reduced if the seed input for even 1 year is eliminated; however, multiple years of successive burns may be required to completely eliminate the medusahead seed bank. Burning takes advantage of the fact that medusahead matures later than most of the surrounding vegetation, so most other species have already dispersed their seeds and are dry enough to carry a burn. At the Jepson Prairie Preserve in Solano County, CA, effective prescribed burns were conducted in late May and early June. Late spring burns have resulted in temporary reductions in medusahead within many other parts of California as well. Prescribed burning is recommended as the primary method of medusahead control. However, it is important to note that successful burns are correlated to high dry fuel biomass. Low ground or standing litter will result is fast moving cooler burns that will not kill the exposed seeds.

Sacramento County Office of Economic Development and Marketing Vegetation Management Activities 5-14 South Mather Wetlands Management Plan Attachment B Biological Control

Very little work has focused on utilizing classical biological control for medusahead. Five soil fungi endemic to the western United States have been examined. However, study results have demonstrated a general lack of host specificity for medusahead by these fungi.

Herbicides

Chemical control options for medusahead are currently very limited. Glyphosate and paraquat are nonselective herbicides but will provide only variable control of medusahead. Their use is extremely limited where other sensitive species occur.

Barbed Goatgrass

Mowing/Grazing

Prevention is the key in dealing with this species because once it becomes established, controlling it becomes very difficult. The seeds are easily transported on hair, fur, wool, shoes, and clothes because of the long barbed awns. Grazing is generally ineffective because mature plants have high amounts of silica that render mature grasses unpalatable and long, barbed awns that are potentially injurious to animals. As with medusahead, intensive early season grazing may be effective; however, some evidence indicates that grazing of goatgrass stimulates additional tiller formation and therefore, increases seed production. Goatgrass seeds can be readily transported by grazing; therefore, grazing animals should be removed from infested areas before plants mature and animal trails in the area should be monitored for goatgrass spread.

Mowing can be an effective method of reducing seed production. However, the timing is critical. Mowing should occur after flowering, but before goatgrass seeds reach the “soft boot” stage (i.e., prior to full inflorescence emergence). Early mowing will result in new tiller growth and late mowing will only spread viable seed. Hand mowing of small infestations (where hand mowing is financially feasible) is recommended as a secondary treatment method for goatgrass in the event that prescribed burning is not feasible.

Burning

Prescribed burning is generally the most effective method of goatgrass control. Similar to medusahead, optimal results are achieved by a late-spring burn after most other grassland plants have dried. It is important to burn before the joints disarticulate to ensure seed kill. Burning will not effectively control seed on the soil surface because the outer portions of the joints protect the seeds. Goatgrass germination may also increase the year after burning due to increased fertility and light penetration. Therefore, a second burn is typically recommended to ensure a complete reduction of the available seed bank (DiTomaso et al. 2001, Hopkinson et al. 1999). Optimal results are obtained when the entire infested area is completely burned in successive years. Failure to burn the entire infested area can result in little to no control of this species. Similar to medusahead, prescribed burning is recommended as the primary control method for barbed goatgrass.

Biological Control

There are naturally occurring bacterial strains that infect a closely related species, jointed goatgrass (Aegilops cylindrica). These bacterial strains have been isolated in Kansas and Washington and may soon be utilized in a bio-herbicidal approach for jointed goatgrass control in agronomic situations. However, their utility in rangelands has not been explored.

Sacramento County Office of Economic Development and Marketing South Mather Wetlands Management Plan 5-15 Vegetation Management Activities Attachment B Herbicides

There are currently no selective herbicides for goatgrass control in agronomic or rangeland areas. Nonselective herbicides such as glyphosate (0.38- to 0.75-pound acid equivalent per acre [ae/A]) may be applied to control small infestations where unintended drift onto nontarget species can be avoided. Applications should be made to nonstressed plants in the spring after goatgrass has tillered but before flowering occurs.

Yellow Starthistle

Mowing/Grazing

High-intensity short-duration grazing by sheep, goats, or cattle should be implemented during the period when plants have developed flowering stems, but not spiny heads. This species is generally considered moderately to highly palatable to livestock during this period and will be readily consumed by both cattle and sheep. The trampling action of concentrated livestock will also reduce plant vigor and seed output. Goats may effectively graze starthistle at any time prior to seed set.

Mowing is most effective when plants are cut below the height of the lowest branches and 2–5 percent of the total population of seed heads is in bloom. Mowing or grazing too early can result in high seed production. Based on limited observations, mowing followed by application of glyphosate later in the spring, while starthistle is still green but native vegetation has gone to seed, can be effective (M. Wacker, pers. obs.). Similar to other methods, starthistle plants should be mowed, or small infestations may be cut back with a weed-eater, just as plants are starting to bloom. Plants should be cut to within 6 inches or less of the soil surface and immediately treated with a nonselective herbicide such as a 2-percent glyphosate solution or treated after there is enough regrowth to uptake the herbicide but before the plants begin to flower. Since yellow starthistle is frequently the only plant growing during the dry summer months, unintended herbicide drift onto native plants is more easily avoided. Carefully timed mowing and/or grazing, potentially coupled with broad spectrum herbicide application where drift onto nontarget species can be avoided, is recommended as the primary control technique for starthistle control.

Burning

Prescribed burns can provide control if implemented after annual plants have dried, but before yellow starthistle seed is produced. Burning at other times may enhance yellow starthistle survival. Some research has shown almost complete control with 3 years of successive summer burning (DiTomaso et al. 1999); however, more prolonged burning may be necessary in some situations to completely exhaust the seed bank. Since this species can have a persistent seed bank and because it tends to recolonize previously infested areas, vigilant monitoring and spot eradication may be required indefinitely. Prescribed burning is recommended as a secondary control strategy for yellow starthistle, particularly in conjunction with prescribed burns for medusahead and goatgrass control and for large infestations of starthistle where hand mowing is not practical. Prescribed burns should be closely monitored to treat starthistle seedlings and prevent rapid reinfestation.

Biological Control

Numerous weevils and other insects as well as the starthistle-specific rust (Puccinea jacaea) have been tested for starthistle control. In general, these agents have shown some success at reducing starthistle seed output and reproductive vigor but only limited success at controlling starthistle infestations. Many of these agents, particularly the rust, require specific growing conditions (such as proximity to perennial water sources) that limit their usefulness to control starthistle in rangeland environments.

Herbicides

All thistles are highly susceptible to the herbicides clopyralid and aminopyralid. Other broadleaf herbicides such as 2,4-D, dicamba, and triclopyr are also effectively used to treat yellow starthistle. Similar to clopyralid and

Sacramento County Office of Economic Development and Marketing Vegetation Management Activities 5-16 South Mather Wetlands Management Plan Attachment B aminopyralid, these products are most effectively applied in the early spring when starthistle is still in the rosette stage, before plants bolt and begin flowering. However, these products will also damage other species in the Asteraceae family as well as species in other families, many of which are California natives. Most of these products are also poorly bound to soil particles, and, therefore, susceptible to transport through the soil into vernal pools and other wetlands. For this reason, the use of these products to treat starthistle is not recommended at the Wetlands Preserve unless their use is shown to produce acceptably low risks through trial studies. As described above, glyphosate can be used to effectively treat yellow starthistle, in combination with mowing, during the summer months when damage to native species is avoided.

Stinkwort

This species is fairly new to California, and there is very little information on successful control methods. It is assumed that methods generally applicable to other summer annuals (i.e., properly timed burning, mowing and/or application of nonselective herbicides) would also be applicable to the treatment of stinkwort. Stinkwort is not palatable to grazing animals and there are no known biological control agents for this species. Development of treatment methods for stinkwort should be investigated as part of an invasive plant management plan.

Italian Thistle

Mowing/Grazing

Mowing or slashing produces uneven results because this species can regrow from the base and produce seeds very quickly. Similarly, plants that are cut close to flowering time can produce seed on the cut portion. A significant amount of seed can be produced even if thistles are constantly mowed at 3 inches. Slashing is more effective than mowing as it destroys the aerial part of the plant more thoroughly.

Pulsed grazing by sheep, goats, and horses can be more effective in controlling thistles than cattle. In Australia, thistle-infested areas are closed to grazing when seedlings appear. They are left ungrazed until the pasture has reached a height of 4–6 inches. The areas are then heavily grazed with sheep, which selectively graze the tender thistles and kill 90–95 percent of the weeds. For this method to be successful, a period of grazing rest during the spring is necessary so that vigorous growth of other plants is allowed to occur, forcing the thistles to grow tall and tender. Continuous grazing significantly reduces thistle numbers but is not as effective as the pulsed grazing approach described above. Hand mowing, potentially coupled with herbicide application, is recommended as the primary control method for Italian thistle.

Burning

Prescribed burning will remove dense stands of mature thistles; however, burning may not completely control plants still in the basal rosette stage and can also result in disturbed areas that become prime sites for thistle colonization. Similar to yellow starthistle, areas of burned Italian thistle should be monitored for several years and treated as necessary to prevent reinfestation. Prescribed burning is recommended as a secondary control technique, particularly for large infestations.

Biological Control

Three insects (Psylloides chalcomera, Rhinocyllus conicus, and Ceutorhynchuys trimaculatus) established for the control of musk thistle (Carduus nutans) also impact other closely related species, including Italian thistle. Similar to weevils used for yellow starthistle control, these insects lay their eggs and/or feed on the developing thistle flower buds and can significantly affect reproductive output. These organisms rarely result in total thistle control.

Sacramento County Office of Economic Development and Marketing South Mather Wetlands Management Plan 5-17 Vegetation Management Activities Attachment B Herbicides

A variety of broadleaf herbicides may be used on treat Italian thistle. The use and limitations of broadleaved herbicides is discussed under yellow starthistle, above.

Additionally, there are several petroleum oils that may be used for weed control. The herbicidal use of oils depends on their chemical and physical properties. Most contact oils evaporate slowly and owe their plant toxicity to their high content of aromatic compounds. Spraying oil on thistle will be effective only if entire plants are coated. The direct and secondary ecosystem effects of herbidical use of oils for weed control should be investigated through trial studies prior to widespread use.

Yellow Glandweed

Similar to stinkwort, yellow glandweed is a relatively new weed, and only limited information is available on control options. Management options described above for stinkwort (i.e., mowing and herbicides) are also likely to be at least somewhat effective for yellow glandweed control. However, because yellow glandweed flowers during the spring and frequently grows adjacent to vernal pools and other wetlands special care is needed to limit damage to native plants. If herbicides are used, they should be applicable for aquatic application. Targeted methods of application, such as herbicide wicks or herbicide gloves, should also be used to limit drift onto nontarget plants. Hand-pulling is also a possible treatment method for small infestations of this plant. This species is not palatable to grazing animals.

Waxy Mannagrass

Few proven control methods exist for waxy mannagrass. Mowing and grazing may limit seed production; however, since this species produces vast quantities of seed, the entire seed crop would have to be eliminated to be effective. In practice, infestations of waxy mannagrass that are grazed by livestock have shown little to no reduction in waxy mannagrass cover; in fact, livestock and wildlife such as geese are thought to be the primary vectors for waxy mannagrass colonization of uninfested sites. Prescribed fire is generally not a viable control option because surrounding grasslands have not dried sufficiently to carry a fire during those times that are optimal for waxy mannagrass treatment. The use of Rodeo applied with herbicide gloves or herbicide wicks to treat waxy mannagrass may be an effective control strategy; however, this technique has not been widely tested and could potentially damage native plants if not applied carefully.

Milk Thistle

Few successful treatment methods exist for milk thistle. Similar to other thistles, young milk thistle plants may be grazed by sheep and goats to reduce reproductive vigor and seed output. Mowing combined with herbicide application may also be effective. Prescribed fire is generally ineffective for milk thistle control. In fact, fire, particularly when applied after seed set, can create optimal conditions for seedling germination and increase the presence of milk thistle in subsequent years. The most effective herbicides used on milk thistle are 2,4-D, clopyralid, and aminopyralid. The plant is most susceptible to the chemical from the seedling to the rosette stages of growth. Other broadleaf herbicides may produce a degree of control and should be applied in a similar fashion (i.e., during early growth stages). However, for reasons discussed previously, application of general broadleaf herbicides during the winter and spring is generally discouraged within vernal pool grasslands. Limited biological control agents are also available; however they have produced mixed results.

Klamathweed

Klamathweed is difficult to control through any method other than herbicides. A variety of broadleaf and nonselective herbicides, alone or in combination, may result in control of this weed. Glyphosate, triclopyr, and picloram have all proven effective; however, only glyphosate should be considered safe for use within vernal pool grasslands for the reasons discussed above unless other chemicals are shown to result in acceptable levels of risk

Sacramento County Office of Economic Development and Marketing Vegetation Management Activities 5-18 South Mather Wetlands Management Plan Attachment B through trial applications. Picloram is not registered for use in California. Additionally, one species of beetle (Chrysolina quadrigemina) has been released as a bio-control agent for Klamathweed. This species can effectively limit Klamathweed seed output; however, the species is spottily distributed within the state and tends to be most common in areas with higher concentrations of this plant (e.g., Humboldt County and the Modoc Plateau) and is less common in the Central Valley.

INVASIVE PLANT TREATMENT TECHNIQUES

Several treatment methods generally applicable to the treatment of invasive plants within the Wetlands Preserve are described below (see also Table 5-4). It should be noted that successful control of invasive plants frequently requires a combination of methods and that no one method is generally sufficient, by itself, to completely eradicate established populations of invasive plants. The selection of appropriate methods, or combination of methods, for treating individual populations as well as the timing and frequency for these methods will be initially described in an invasive plant management plan prepared during the initial management period. This plan should be continually refined by the Wetlands Preserve Manager as part of the ongoing adaptive management of the Wetlands Preserve. The selection of weed abatement methods should be based on their determination to be among the most practical, and least environmentally damaging treatment methods (e.g., through site-specific studies or other methods of documentation) relative to other potentially effective treatment methodologies.

HERBICIDE GUIDELINES

Although herbicides can be the single most effective method available for weed control in many situations, the use of herbicides carries significant risks in wildland environments, particularly in close proximity to sensitive resources. Most commonly available herbicides were originally developed for agricultural applications and are not registered for wildland use. Those that are registered for rangeland or wildland use are typically not specifically tested for toxicity on sensitive resources (e.g., listed branchiopods), although surrogate species may be tested. The degree to which many herbicides are bound by soil particles and broken down by soil microbes varies by chemical and by application. Therefore, the distance that these chemicals may be transported through the soil and the lifespan of these chemicals in the environment can be highly variable. Finally, “selective herbicides” are generally selective only for either grasses or broadleaf plants and can result in unintended damage to native plants when inappropriately applied.

For these reasons, the use of herbicides in the Wetlands Preserve should be carefully planned and carried out only under the supervision of Qualified Personnel. Additionally, the use of herbicides within the Wetlands Preserve shall require prior review and approval of USFWS and the Agencies, as appropriate. Whenever possible, practical and effective nonchemical methods of invasive plant control should be considered as alternatives to herbicides. As with other weed abatement methods, herbicides may be used when shown to be the most practical, and least environmentally damaging treatment methods (e.g., through site-specific studies or other methods of documentation) relative to other potentially effective treatment methodologies.

BRIEF OVERVIEW OF HERBICIDES USED IN WILDLANDS

This section briefly describes a number of the herbicides commonly used in wildland weed management. Only those shown to be potentially effective against the priority weeds discussed above are covered. For additional information on these herbicides and their potential benefits and drawbacks, refer to weed management guides by Tu, Hurd and Randall (2001) and Bossard, Randall and Hoshovsky (2000) and the other literature cited in Appendix C.

Herbicide information presented below and elsewhere in the Management Plan is provided for planning purposes only. All herbicides must be applied by licensed applicators in accordance with label directions and all applicable laws. Written herbicide prescriptions must be provided by licensed PCAs or other authorized personnel as required. USFWS approval must be obtained prior to any application.

Sacramento County Office of Economic Development and Marketing South Mather Wetlands Management Plan 5-19 Vegetation Management Activities Attachment B

Attachment B

Table 5-4 Comparison of Invasive Plant Treatment Methods Method Usefulness Cost (per acre) Key Considerations Prescribed burning Effective at removing thatch Variable. Requires Fire is not selective except by timing (affects both target and accumulation and treating preparation of a prescribed nontarget species, but can be timed to kill target annuals populations of common grassland burn plan, permits from local before they set seed, yet spare seeds of nontarget plants that weeds. Benefits are short-lived fire department and air shed seeds prior to burn). However, it can be difficult to unless repeated on a regular interval quality management district. control burns and may be dangerous if not planned properly. or combined with other methods. May require substantial site May sterilize seedbed if too hot. Some weeds may benefit preparation and staffing from fire and become more common following burning if costs. not planned appropriately. Livestock grazing Most useful in treating herbaceous Low. Assuming area supports Generally selective to specific species or groups of species (cattle and sheep) vegetation. Cattle best suited to grass a viable grazing economy, but has to be carefully managed. When used for weed control while sheep are more grazing animals can be control, treatments need to be timed so that target species are appropriate for broadleaf weeds. obtained for no cost or can most palatable to animals which may not coincide with the Both can effectively control even provide a revenue time when vegetation is most effectively controlled with starthistle if plants are grazed at source for other management grazing. High-intensity disturbance (i.e., trampling) may appropriate times. Results tend to be activities. Can require effectively control some species not otherwise palatable to spotty unless intensively managed. significant infrastructure grazing animals if applied at appropriate times (i.e., when investment. plants begin flowering but before viable seeds have formed). Livestock grazing Most useful in treating shrubby Moderate to high. Goat Generally selective but must be carefully managed to avoid (goats) vegetation. Can also be used to treat contractors typically charge browsing of nontarget species. Treatments need to be timed starthistle and other thistles, from $5,000 to $20,000 or so that target vegetation is most palatable to goats, which blackberries, and similar vegetation. more to treat specific areas. may or may not coincide with the time when vegetation is Most useful in treating small areas. Fencing and other necessary most effectively controlled with grazing. materials are supplied by contractor. Mechanical thatch Most useful in treating herbaceous Variable depending on Generally not selective. Can be difficult to impossible over removal vegetation over small areas. Often availability of suitable rough terrain, rocky soils, and steep slopes. combined with herbicide treatments. equipment and staff costs. Herbicides Applicable to any vegetation type. Moderate to High, depending Selective to target plants if applied properly. Drift onto Useful as a follow-up to other on herbicide used. Also nontarget plants possible. Some products (e.g., surfactant in treatments. requires trained and licensed commercial formulations of glyphosate) harmful to aquatic applicators. Must be organisms. Therefore, wetland-certified formulations should coordinated with local county be used on or near water. May pose public health concerns. Agricultural Commissioner. Must be applied according to label directions and applicable laws under the direction of licensed applicators and/or PCAs.

Sacramento County Office of Economic Development and Marketing Vegetation Management Activities 5-20 South Mather Wetlands Management Plan Attachment B Table 5-4 Comparison of Invasive Plant Treatment Methods Method Usefulness Cost (per acre) Key Considerations Hand Effective at removing small, Low (assuming volunteer Only appropriate for small areas. All plant parts must be localized populations. staff); otherwise moderate to easily removed by hand. Adverse effects (trampling of native high. vegetation or soil disturbance) possible if not carefully managed. Hot Water/ May effectively treat small Moderate (depending on fuel, Sites should be monitored for resprouting and retreated as Hot Steam infestations or scattered individuals equipment and staff costs). necessary. Requires specialized equipment that can be of herbaceous species. Control of cumbersome. Potential for harm to nontarget invertebrates or thistles also possible during rosette operator. Potential as an alternative to herbicides. stage before bolt. Propane Torch May effectively treat small Moderate to High. Sites should be monitored for resprouting and retreated as infestations or scattered individuals necessary. Requires specialized equipment that can be of herbaceous species. Control of cumbersome. Also requires burn permits, fire suppression thistles also possible during rosette equipment, and specialized field clothing and equipment. stage before bolt. Can also be used to Potential as an alternative to herbicides. remove localized thatch accumulations. Mechanical Most useful for small infestations. Low to High depending on Target plants should be readily removed by hand tools, weed staff costs and availability of wrenches, etc. Woody vegetation should not be capable of volunteers to staff projects. root crown sprouting. Mulching Useful as a follow up to other Low to High depending on Mulch materials should be certified weed-free to avoid methods. Generally of limited availability of mulching spread of invasive plants. usefulness by itself. materials. Biological control Useful as a temporary control or in Low. Many agents already Only a small minority of invasive plants have biological combination with other methods. released (e.g., Klamathweed control agents. Potential new agents must undergo extensive Rarely achieves complete beetle, rusts for starthistle). testing and be approved by State agencies. eradication.

Sacramento County Office of Economic Development and Marketing South Mather Wetlands Management Plan 5-21 Vegetation Management Activities Attachment B 2,4-D

(2,4-dichlorophenoxy) acetic acid: 2,4-D is one of the oldest herbicides used in the United States and is sold under many trademarks. It is a selective herbicide that kills broadleaf plants but not grasses by mimicking the growth hormone auxin. In the environment, most formulations degrade to the anionic form which is water-soluble and has the potential to be mobile; however the half-life of 2,4-D is relatively short (Extoxnet 1996a). Ester formulations are toxic to aquatic organisms, but some salt formulations are registered for use against aquatic weeds.

This herbicide is both less expensive and less effective than many of the more modern herbicides. Much of the literature recommends mixing 2,4-D with the newer herbicides to make it more effective and less costly than straight application of clopyralid, dicamba or triclopyr. However, given that some of the salt formulations are registered for aquatic use, further adaptive management research may be warranted to determine if this is a viable herbicide to treat broadleaf aquatic weeds or broadleaf weeds growing near aquatic habitats.

Aminopyralid

2-pyridine carboxylic acid, 4-amino-3,6-dichloro-: Aminopyralid is a new herbicide manufactured by DowAgroSciences and sold under the trade name Milestone ®. Aminopyralid is an auxin-mimic and is selective in killing broadleaf plants and is particularly effective on thistles, but may also harm native species in the sunflower, pea and nightshade families. Aminopyralid binds moderately with the soil and has a relatively short half-life. It is registered for use in rangelands and wildlife habitat areas, and is registered for use up to the water’s edge. It has some residual affect which may reduce the need for reapplication (EPA 2005, DiTomaso pers. comm., 2007).

Use of aminopyralid should generally be limited until site-specific trails are conducted to document conditions under which aminopyralid may be safely applied.

Chlorsulfuron

2-chloro-N-[[(4-methoxy-6-methyl-1,3,5-triazin-2-yl)amino] carbonyl] benzenesulfonamide: Chlorsulfuron is manufactured by DuPont and sold under the trade name of Telar®. Telar® is a selective herbicide that kills undesirable broadleaf weeds without harming most desirable grass species and has proven particularly effective against perennial pepperweed (Lepidium latifolium) in California. Like many other herbicides discussed in this section, chlorsulfuron has a relatively long soil half-life (approximately 1 month) (Kegley et al. 2007) and, thus, has the potential for mobility through groundwater, particularly if not applied correctly. For this reason, alternatives to this herbicide are recommended unless conditions under which this herbicide may be safely applied are first documented through appropriate trial applications.

Clopyralid

3,6-dichloro-pyridinecarboxylic acid: Clopyralid is manufactured by DowAgroSciences and sold under the trade name Transline®. Clopyralid is an auxin-mimic and as such is selective in killing broadleaf plants but generally not grasses. Clopyralid controls many annual and perennial broadleaf plants, particularly in the sunflower, pea, nightshade, and violet families. The inability of clopyralid to bind with soils and its long half-life implies that it may be highly mobile and a contamination threat to water resources and nontarget plant species (Tu et al. 2001).

Due to its persistence and mobility, it is possible that collateral damage to native plants and animals, including threatened and endangered species, may occur at unacceptable levels. Use of clopyralid should generally be limited until site-specific trials are conducted to document conditions under which clopyralid may be safely applied.

Sacramento County Office of Economic Development and Marketing Vegetation Management Activities 5-22 South Mather Wetlands Management Plan Attachment B Dicamba

(3,6-dichloro-2-methoxy) benzoic acid: Dicamba is marketed under the trade name Banvel®. It is a selective herbicide that kills annual and perennial broadleaf plants, but does not harm grasses. Dicamba is mobile in, and poorly adsorbed by, most soil types. Dicamba is also water soluble and, therefore, may be quite mobile in both surface and subsurface runoff; additionally, it is moderately persistent and, therefore, may be readily taken up by nontarget plants (USDA 1999). For these reasons, alternatives to this herbicide are recommended unless conditions under which this herbicide may be safely applied are first documented through appropriate trial applications.

Glyphosate

N-(phosphonomethyl) glycine: Glyphosate is a nonselective, systemic herbicide that can control most annual and perennial plants. It is sold in many formulations under a variety of trade names. Glyphosate is strongly adsorbed to soil particles, which prevents it from excessive leaching or being taken-up from the soil by nontarget plants (Extoxnet 1996b). In sensitive habitats such as vernal pools, glyphosate can be applied by painting or wicking to prevent collateral damage to nearby resources. A form of wicking using waterproof fabric gloves may be useful on nonabrasive plants (to avoid puncturing gloves) such as mannagrass.

Glyphosate formulated under the trade names of Rodeo® or Aquamaster® are registered for aquatic use. In this formulation, it is quickly rendered inert by adsorption to soil or suspended clay particles in water. These qualities can help to control the overall reach of potential collateral damage to native plants and animals. Glyphosate is nonselective and can kill most actively growing plants. Therefore, careful timing to target summer weeds after nontarget spring grasses and forbs have set seed could be an effective tool for weed management.

Imazapyr

(+)-2-[4,5-dihydro-4-methyl-4-(1-methylethyl)-5-oxo-1H-imidazol-2-yl]-3-pryidinecarboxylic acid: Imazapyr is manufactured by BASF and marketed under the trade names Habitat®, Arsenal®, Chopper® and Stalker®. It is a nonselective herbicide used to control annual and perennial grasses and broadleaved herbs and woody species. Above pH 5 imazapyr becomes negatively charged, fails to bind tightly with soils, and remains mobile in the environment (Tu et al. 2001). Due to its nonselectivity and potential for mobility, use of imazapyr may result in unacceptable levels of collateral damage to native plants and may potentially harm listed aquatic invertebrates. For these reasons, alternatives to this herbicide are recommended unless conditions under which this herbicide may be safely applied are first documented through appropriate trial applications.

MCPA

(4-chloro-2-methylphenoxy) acetic acid: MCPA is a longstanding herbicide sold under a variety of trade names. Some of the compound formulations can be esters or salts in addition to the acid form. It is used to control annual and perennial dicots in row crops and used in some forestry applications. It is chemically similar to 2,4-D and degrades to the anionic form which is water-soluble. Although it is not bound tightly to soils, and therefore has the potential for drift, it has a relatively short half-life under normal field conditions (Extoxnet 1996c). This herbicide is generally less expensive than many of the more modern herbicides and many times it is mixed with the newer herbicides to make it more effective and less costly than straight applications of clopyralid, dicamba or triclopyr. Since it has the potential to be mobile in soils, alternatives to this herbicide are recommended unless conditions under which this herbicide may be safely applied are first documented through appropriate trial applications.

Triclopyr

[(3,5,6-trichloro-2-pyridinyl)oxy] acetic acid: Triclopyr is manufactured by DowAgroSciences and sold under the trade name of Garlon®. It is a selective systemic herbicide that kills broadleaf plants with little or no impact on

Sacramento County Office of Economic Development and Marketing South Mather Wetlands Management Plan 5-23 Vegetation Management Activities Attachment B grasses. Offsite movement through surface or subsurface runoff is a possibility with triclopyr acid as it is relatively persistent and has only moderate rates of adsorption to soil particles (Extoxnet 1996d). Use of triclopyr may be appropriate when damage to native forbs can be avoided or mitigated; however, its use should be minimized where the potential for transport to vernal pools exists. There are two formulations registered for use around water, Garlon 3A® for use on emergent aquatics and Renovate® for use on submerged aquatics. Similar to clopyralid, prior to widespread usage site-specific trials should be conducted to determine the potential for triclopyr to damage native species.

Adjuvants or Surfactants

An adjuvant or surfactant is any compound that is added to an herbicide formulation or tank mix to facilitate the mixing, application, or effectiveness of that herbicide. Adjuvants are chemically and biologically active compounds. Adjuvants can make relatively safe, and registered for aquatic use, herbicides lethal to the aquatic environment. They can also render broadleaf specific herbicides lethal to grasses. Adjuvants and their properties must be researched as carefully as the herbicide they will be mixed with before application.

HERBICIDE TIMING

Proper timing of herbicide applications is critical. Herbicide use is most effective in the earlier stages of plant germination and establishment when young weeds are actively transpiring and growing. In addition, it is easier for herbicide applicators to avoid spraying most grassland native species early in the season, as the native and nonnative species have more spatial separation early in the growth cycles. Once development of native and nonnative plant populations reaches a stage where it becomes too difficult to avoid native species, it will be necessary to use specialized herbicide application methods (e.g., spot treatments) or other, nonchemical methods of invasive plant control.

HERBICIDE IMPLEMENTATION

Once an appropriate herbicide(s) has been selected to control target invasive plants, three key questions to ask are (1) is the herbicide being applied at the time when it will be most effective at controlling target weeds, (2) is the herbicide being applied consistent with label directions in such a way as to prevent unintended resource damage, and (3) are all applicable regulations being followed. Herbicides applied at the wrong time will result in very little control of target species, potentially at great cost and effort. Furthermore, herbicides applied in ways not consistent with label directions or applied by unlicensed applicators are a violation of California law and are likely to result in unintended damage to nontarget plants and resources.

Prior to any herbicide application, the Wetlands Preserve Manager shall consult with Qualified Personnel to ensure that the herbicide chosen and the timing and methods of application are optimal for the control of target weeds. Furthermore, the Wetlands Preserve Manager shall retain only California Licensed PCAs or Licensed Qualified Applicators knowledgeable on the types of sensitive resources present within the Wetlands Preserve to perform herbicide applications. Herbicides applied in and around vernal pools and other aquatic habitats shall be specifically designed for aquatic application to minimize adverse impacts to aquatic invertebrates and other aquatic species. Herbicides not specifically designated for aquatic habitats and/or any nonselective herbicides with the potential to damage native species shall not be applied adjacent to vernal pools or aquatic habitats. Formulations of commercially available herbicides shall not be used until appropriate buffer distance around vernal pools and other sensitive habitats is demonstrated through trial applications. Broadcast spraying of herbicides shall be limited to those situations with no potential for damage to native species. Alternative methods of herbicide application that limit the potential for herbicide drift, such as herbicide wicks and hand application using herbicide gloves, shall be considered for treatments where damage to native species is possible. Qualified Personnel shall assess the potential for unintended damage to sensitive resources prior to all herbicide applications and oversee the application of all herbicides. Additional herbicide resources are given in Appendix C.

Sacramento County Office of Economic Development and Marketing Vegetation Management Activities 5-24 South Mather Wetlands Management Plan Attachment B HAND REMOVAL GUIDELINES

Hand weeding is generally the most difficult and expensive method of weed removal unless volunteers are used. Hand weeding has different risks (e.g., back strain) than other methods, such as using herbicides or mowing. It is also frequently slow and time consuming (and, therefore, expensive); can lead to unintended trampling of native plants; can result in soil disturbance which sometimes provides an ideal microclimate for subsequent weed germination; and can be ineffective if the entire plant, including the root system, is not removed. For these reasons, hand weeding should be used only when and where it is more feasible than other methods, where the treatment area is small, or where all parts of the target species are easily removed by hand.

HOT WATER/STEAM TREATMENT GUIDELINES

These methods use propane-heated hot water or steam to destroy plant tissues and impede plant transpiration. As a result, the plant dehydrates, wilts, and dies within a period of hours to days. Originally developed for organic growers of winegrapes and tree crops, these methods are increasingly used by municipal parks and small-scale farmers as the equipment has become smaller and less costly and, therefore, more practical for a wider variety of applications. Although these methods have not been tested widely here in the United States, preliminary results indicate that they can be effective in controlling small annual herbaceous weeds. The chief disadvantage of these methods, relative to other methods, is their high costs, fuel usage, risk of injury, and their inability to control perennial herbaceous and woody species. The method is most effective when applied to actively growing, young annual, or newly establishing perennial, weeds.

PROPANE TORCH GUIDELINES

The propane torch method combines many of the same techniques described above for hot water and steam treatment methods with the effects of a small-scale prescribed fire. Although it has promise as an alternative to herbicide applications, this method requires specialized equipment and much of the firefighting and fire suppression infrastructure (e.g., burn permits, specialized clothing and equipment, backpack pumps) required for prescribed burns and carries many of the same risks. For these reasons, it can be more costly and time consuming than other methods. It is recommended for treating small populations of invasive plants in situations where other techniques are not possible or may result in adverse effects on sensitive resources. Careful preplanning is required, similar to that described above for prescribed fires, to ensure that this method is safely implemented. The method is most effective when applied to actively growing, young weeds.

MECHANICAL REMOVAL GUIDELINES

Mechanical removal of invasive plants includes all physical removal actions that are done by hand or machine. Some examples of mechanical removal are cutting, girdling, chaining, and pulling. Cutting, or removing the portion of the plant above the root crown, is effective only at controlling species that do not resprout from the root crown. Girdling involves removing the bark and underlying vascular tissues in a circle around the base of a tree destroying the tissue that is used to transport nutrients back and forth between the roots and above ground portion of the plant. This method can be beneficial when the objective is to leave dead snags in the area, such as for nesting birds and bats. Another example of mechanical removal is pulling. Pulling weeds with hand tools, such as a Weed Wrench, can be very time consuming and costly and, similar to hand removal, is effective only in cases where the entire plant, including the roots, can be removed. It is most effective for small infestations and for follow up treatments following the removal of the initial population.

MULCHING GUIDELINES

Mulching involves placement of a weed barrier, such as landscape fabric, nylon, or plastic, and then placement of 3–6 inches of rice straw or wood chips. This method is effective for smothering small infestations of herbaceous weeds that are hard to control with other methods. Mulching can also help prevent the germination of new weeds

Sacramento County Office of Economic Development and Marketing South Mather Wetlands Management Plan 5-25 Vegetation Management Activities Attachment B because it buries weed seeds and creates germination conditions unsuitable for many weed species. However, mulches may provide nutrients and aid in soil moisture retention so surviving weeds may grow more vigorously and have higher reproductive output than under unmulched conditions. As with all methods, ongoing monitoring of success is required.

BIOLOGICAL CONTROL GUIDELINES

Biological control of invasive plants involves the use of native or introduced pathogens and insects to reduce an invasive plant’s ability to reproduce and spread (e.g., Klamathweed beetle). Before biological control agents are approved for release, they are tested extensively on related nontarget plants to ensure that the agent will cause no harm to them. Although biological controls can reduce reproduction and dispersal of targeted weed species, they usually are not considered effective for complete eradication. Rather, they are intended to control the population levels to a point where the targeted weed species can be cost-effectively managed.

POSTTREATMENT RESTORATION

Invasive plant abatement efforts are usually more successful when coupled with follow-up plantings of native vegetation. Although not all treated areas require posttreatment active planting, without supplemental seeding and planting of natives, treatment areas often revert to dominance by the same invasive plant or a different invasive plant that then requires additional treatment and management. Plantings can be done immediately after invasive removal or may be delayed in instances where additional invasive plant control measures will be necessary (such as herbicide treatments following a prescribed burn), or where additional site preparation is needed (e.g., to overcome changes in soil chemistry due to the invasive plant). Posttreatment monitoring (e.g., during the first one to five growing seasons following treatments) can help to determine whether or not a treated site will require active planting. Over time, monitoring will help guide future decisions on which types of areas, infestations, and treatments to follow with active planting. Qualified Personnel should be consulted to determine species that can be appropriately used in posttreatment revegetation efforts. Additional guidance for remediation/restoration efforts is presented in Chapter 6.

TREATMENT AND LONG-TERM MONITORING AND ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT

For all infestations, efficient pretreatment and posttreatment monitoring should be conducted. Treatment monitoring results should be evaluated as part of an adaptive management process, to provide information on treatment efficacy and to help determine whether and how to modify treatments. Monitoring may include before and after photographs (ideally from established photo points) and mapped extent of infestations. It can also include, resources allowing, additional data collection on the type (e.g., stump/stem sprout, seedling, root sprout) and quantity of any regrowth. The regrowth can be quantified by methods such as estimating the percent of green canopy (i.e., green leaves and stems) out of the whole canopy (i.e., total leaf and stem layer); or estimating the approximate average number of live seedlings, stem sprouts or root sprouts per unit area (e.g., per square yard). Any native plants providing cover on the site should also be noted by species and quantity (e.g., percent cover in the entire treatment area or per square yard). Posttreatment monitoring is most efficient when combined with retreatment of the weed infestation. The number of years required for retreatment of infested areas varies by species, infestation size and other factors. Some infestations may take only 1 year to remove, while others may take 3–5 years or more. Monitoring should generally continue for a few years after the infestation was removed to ensure that regrowth or other unwanted species do not become established.

Over the longer term, the Wetlands Preserve Manager should continue periodic surveys to collect information on existing, treated, and new infestations of invasive plants. Long-term monitoring results should be evaluated as part of an adaptive management process to provide information on weed abatement program effectiveness and to help determine whether and how to modify priorities and abatement strategies. During surveys, new weed infestations can be mapped and assessed and previously mapped weed infestations can be reassessed. The invasive plant surveys should also allow for a proactive approach so that new satellite populations of invasive

Sacramento County Office of Economic Development and Marketing Vegetation Management Activities 5-26 South Mather Wetlands Management Plan Attachment B plants are identified and removed while they are still small and easy to cost-effectively control. Monitoring for invasive plants is described in more detail in Chapter 10.

Sacramento County Office of Economic Development and Marketing South Mather Wetlands Management Plan 5-27 Vegetation Management Activities Attachment B 6 PRESERVE MAINTENANCE ACTIVITIES

This chapter includes requirements, standards and guidelines for maintenance actions in the Wetlands Preserve, including the maintenance of: fencing, signage, and gates; fire breaks; rights-of-way; grazing improvements; trash removal; trespass patrol; and existing infrastructure, such as water lines, natural gas lines, power lines, sewer lines, phone lines, and potentially other infrastructure. Maintenance activities are also expected to potentially include management of pest and problem animals and various remediation activities that may be needed following ground-disturbing activities.

All maintenance activities must be conducted in compliance with applicable Agency notification, authorization, and permit requirements and in coordination with the Airport Manager.

6.1 FENCING

The type of fencing to be used around the Wetlands Preserve shall be determined by the Wetlands Preserve Owner, in consultation with all applicable regulatory agencies and consistent with regulatory permits or similar requirements. All fencing shall be designed and installed by a licensed contractor with experience installing rangeland fencing and maintained by the Wetlands Preserve Manager such that fencing materials (e.g., barbed wire strands, chain link) are taut and properly secured to fence posts at all times and all fence posts are firmly driven into the ground, set in concrete, or otherwise secured and property braced (where required) at all times. Sagging posts, loose wire, and broken posts shall be promptly repaired or replaced. If electrical fencing is used, it shall be properly grounded at all times and designated with appropriate signage.

6.2 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.

6.3 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 Agency review and approval requirements related to their maintenance activities. Preserve Manager review of these maintenance activities does not substitute for required Agency approvals. Any Agency authorizations or approvals for the maintenance of existing infrastructure within the Wetlands Preserve will be coordinated with the Preserve Manager.

6.4 U.S. AIR FORCE REMEDIATION FACILITIES

Numerous remediation facilities installed and operated by the U.S. 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 Agency review and approval requirements for its maintenance activities. Preserve Manager review of these maintenance activities does not substitute for required Agency approvals.

Sacramento County Office of Economic Development and Marketing South Mather Wetlands Management Plan 6-1 Restoration Opportunities Attachment B 6.5 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 feet 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). Fire breaks surrounding the Independence at Mather community are currently maintained by the Sacramento County Department of Regional Parks.

6.6 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.

6.7 GRAZING IMPROVEMENTS

If grazing is employed as a vegetation management strategy, certain grazing improvements within the Wetlands Preserve will be required. These may include improvements such as water developments, connections to municipal water lines or wells, interior fencing, supplemental feeding structures, corrals and other livestock handling facilities, and loading chutes. These improvements may be either temporary, such that they are installed and removed at the beginning and end of each grazing season, or permanent. It is anticipated that the need for specific grazing improvements will be determined during the initial 5- to 10-year management period during which time the Initial Management Plan (Appendix A) will be implemented and that these improvements will be installed by the Wetlands Preserve Owner prior to the widespread use of livestock grazing as a management tool.

The Wetlands Preserve Manager shall consult Qualified Personnel to determine appropriate locations for such improvements. At a minimum, these improvements, with the exception of fencing, shall be located at least 250 feet away from any vernal pool or other aquatic feature. It may not be possible to avoid existing vernal pools and similar aquatic habitats when constructing fencing; however, fence posts shall not be placed directly into these habitats unless absolutely necessary, and fence alignments shall be designed to avoid intercepting these habitats to the maximum extent possible. Additionally, grazing improvements that are likely to attract livestock (i.e., water developments and supplemental feeding structures) should be separated by a sufficient distance (i.e., at opposite sides of the grazing unit) to facilitate even livestock utilization of the grazing unit. The location for grazing improvements shall be determined in consultation with Qualified Personnel. The Wetlands Preserve Manager will ensure that the grazing lessee properly maintains any such structures.

At a minimum, the following maintenance standards shall be adopted:

► Holding Pastures: Holding pastures will be constructed at key access points to grazing units. Holding pastures will be constructed to the same specifications as those described above for other fencing, with the exception that wire gates are permissible between the holding pasture and grazing unit. All livestock handling facilities (e.g., chutes, ramps) shall be located within holding pastures. No holding pasture will be constructed within 250 feet of and vernal pool or other aquatic feature. Holding pastures will be located in areas generally not characterized by soils that remain saturated for long periods or that are otherwise susceptible to disturbance.

Sacramento County Office of Economic Development and Marketing Restoration Opportunities 6-2 South Mather Wetlands Management Plan Attachment B

► Interior Fencing: The type of fencing to be used (multi-strand wire and/or mesh panels) and the type of wire to be used (smooth, barbed, high-tensile) shall be based on the type of livestock to be grazed within the Wetlands Preserve and designed in consultation with the grazing lessee and/or other Qualified Personnel. Unless otherwise specified, posts shall be 6-foot metal t-posts (or similar) and shall be driven at least 16 inches into the ground, where possible. Corner posts shall be 4-inch galvanized steel or similar metal post set into concrete. All corner posts shall be braced from at least two directions and shall be maintained to be straight at all times. All fencing shall be installed by a licensed contractor with experience in installing ranch fencing. Sagging posts, loose wire, and broken posts shall be repaired or replaced. Wire interior gates are allowed provided they are maintained in good condition at all times and secured to posts with bailing wire, poly rope, or similar material.

► Water Developments: Water developments (i.e., troughs) shall include a wildlife escape ramp and shall be installed and maintained to prevent overflow and leaks. Water developments connected to municipal water supply lines shall be equipped with a backflow prevention device to prevent municipal water contamination. Water connections shall be shut off when not in use and all overflow from troughs shall be collected and conveyed away from the trough. At no time shall overflow from watering facilities be conveyed directly into vernal pools, vernal swales, or similar wetland features.

► Supplemental Feeding: Plastic drum bulk feeders shall be maintained to prevent leaks. Molasses blocks, cottonseed meal blocks, salt blocks, and similar protein or mineral supplements shall be provided in a plastic container and not placed directly on the ground. Supplemental feeding of hay is allowed provided that said feed has been certified as weed free by the County’s Agricultural Commissioner. A certificate attesting to this fact shall be provided to the Wetlands Preserve Manager prior to bringing supplemental feed onto the Wetlands Preserve. All supplemental feeding locations shall be subject to prior approval by the Wetlands Preserve Manager.

► Handling Facilities: Permanent or temporary facilities may be used. If temporary, handling facilities (e.g., chutes, loading ramps) shall be provided by livestock operators and removed at the end of the each grazing season. If permanent livestock handling facilities are installed, such facilities shall be properly maintained by livestock operators. Defects such as rusted or inoperative equipment shall be replaced; sagging or downed panels shall be corrected; and the general area maintained to be free of trash, debris, and other items that would detract from the visual qualities of the Wetlands Preserve. Handling facilities shall be permitted only within holding pastures, as described above.

Additionally, areas that receive habitual, concentrated livestock use (e.g., handling facilities, water, and supplemental feeding locations) shall be inspected by the Wetlands Preserve Manager on an annual basis for new or expanding infestations of invasive plants. Any infestations shall be promptly treated to prevent further expansion.

6.8 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 by the Wetlands Preserve Manager.

6.9 TRESPASS PATROL

The Wetlands Preserve will be patrolled on a regular basis to discourage unauthorized public uses. Observed incidences of unauthorized vehicle use, pedestrian trespass, and similar violations will be mapped and photo- documented by the Wetlands Preserve Manager and, where appropriate, referred to the Wetlands Preserve Owner and County Sheriff’s office for investigation.

Sacramento County Office of Economic Development and Marketing South Mather Wetlands Management Plan 6-3 Restoration Opportunities Attachment B 6.10 PROBLEM AND PEST WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT

As described in Chapter 1, FAA regulations require that habitat management and restoration activities in close proximity to commercial airports address the possibility of increased birdstrikes (see Appendix G). Additionally, as the Mather Field Specific Plan area becomes more developed, it is anticipated that wildland-urban interface issues such as domestic and feral animal control, mosquito abatement, and invasive animal control may be needed to protect the Wetlands Preserve and maintain public health and safety. Guidelines to govern these activities are described below.

6.10.1 HAZARDOUS WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT

It is possible that vegetation management and habitat restoration activities within the Wetlands Preserve could result in increased wildlife hazards at Mather Airport. As described in Chapter 1, the FAA has published numerous regulations and guidance documents relating to the management of wildlife hazards within the vicinity of commercial airports. In general, these documents discourage any activities within or adjacent to airport operational boundaries, particularly restoration or habitat management activities, that could result in increased wildlife hazards. As part of the Management Plan, the probability that the management actions described in this document would increase wildlife hazards relative to current conditions was thoroughly analyzed. In summary, this analysis found that the activities described in the Management Plan would not significantly increase wildlife hazards at Mather Airport. The complete analysis is presented in Appendix G.

If habitat management or restoration activities not described in the Management Plan are planned for the Wetlands Preserve, those activities shall be analyzed for the potential to increase wildlife hazards and coordinated with the Airport Manager as appropriate. In consultation with the Airport Manager, management activities may be modified if ongoing monitoring (as part of the overall adaptive management program) indicates an increase in wildlife attractiveness within the Wetlands Preserve and if this increase can be attributed to activities within the Wetlands Preserve. Additional remedial actions may be adopted by the Airport Manager and Wetlands Preserve Owner to discourage hazardous wildlife use of the Wetlands Preserve. These actions shall be coordinated with the Wetlands Preserve Manager and the Agencies.

In recognition of the legal status of the Wetlands Preserve and the requirement for the County to maintain these areas for the benefit of threatened and endangered species, wetlands, and other natural resource, hazardous wildlife management activities must be coordinated with appropriate regulatory agencies. Whenever possible, the need to manage potentially hazardous wildlife should be balanced with requirements to sustain native species within the Wetlands Preserve

6.10.2 DOMESTIC AND FERAL ANIMAL CONTROL

With the exception of dogs used for livestock guarding, domestic dogs shall be prohibited within the Wetlands Preserve.

Given the proximity of preserved areas to existing and planned residential development, domestic and feral cat management may become necessary within the Wetlands Preserve as South Mather becomes more developed. Any domestic or feral cats found roaming within the Wetlands Preserve shall, if possible, be captured and turned over to County Municipal Services Agency Animal Care and Regulation.

Additionally, domestic or feral animals that pose a potential threat to humans or livestock, and/or apparently abandoned animals, shall be immediately reported to Animal Care and Regulation.

Sacramento County Office of Economic Development and Marketing Restoration Opportunities 6-4 South Mather Wetlands Management Plan Attachment B 6.10.3 MOSQUITO ABATEMENT

In general, vernal pools are not significant sources of adult mosquitoes because they support a diversity of aquatic predators that feed on mosquito larvae (Rogers 1998) and most vernal pools generally dry up before larvae can hatch. Standard mosquito mitigation measures (i.e., stocking of mosquito fish [Gambusia affinis] and the application of larvicides) are controversial when applied to vernal pools (Leyse et al. 1999). Although not anticipated to be required, if a formal mosquito control program is planned for the Wetlands Preserve at some point in the future, the Wetlands Preserve Manager shall work cooperatively with the Sacramento-Yolo Vector Control District, to the extent possible, and consult with Qualified Personnel when needed to determine the most effective and least environmentally harmful method of mosquito control. Additionally, the Wetlands Preserve Manager should coordinate with the Vector Control District to request advance notification of any plans to conduct mosquito abatement. The Vector Control District is responsible for obtaining the required permits, authorizations, and approvals for all mosquito control programs within the Wetlands Preserve.

6.10.4 COYOTE CONTROL

Coyote (Canis latrans) are widely distributed throughout grasslands within the Central Valley. In general, coyote are not a significant risk to public health or safety; however, they can be problematic for livestock operations, particularly sheep operations, and may pose hazards for airport operations. While coyote are potentially problematic, they should be viewed as a necessary component of a functioning grassland ecosystem. The general guidelines described above for hazardous wildlife management (Section 6.10.1) shall apply to coyote control as well. Hazing and other nonlethal methods of harassment are encouraged as alternatives to lethal control or relocation of coyote, which has been shown to be largely ineffective in producing long-term coyote control (e.g., Jaeger et al. 2001).

6.10.5 INVASIVE ANIMAL CONTROL

While there are numerous nonnative animals known to occur within the Wetlands Preserve, no species is currently considered invasive to the point of requiring focused control measures. The Wetlands Preserve Manager should periodically check with the County’s Agricultural Commissioner to determine if animals commonly found or potentially found within the Wetlands Preserve could pose significant public health or ecological risks. Should such species be identified, the Wetlands Preserve Manager should consult with the County’s Agricultural Commissioner and Qualified Personnel, in coordination with CDFW, to determine management techniques most effective at controlling the species in question. Similar to other management approaches discussed in the Management Plan, these techniques should be implemented on a trial basis before they are implemented over substantial areas.

6.11 POSTDISTURBANCE REMEDIATION/RESTORATION

The construction and maintenance of structures, infrastructure, and recreational and educational facilities may result in temporary ground disturbance that requires restoration or remediation to return the disturbed area to predisturbance conditions. Standards and guidelines for these activities are described below. These guidelines are not intended to substitute for applicable Agency permit or other approval requirements.

6.11.1 DISTURBANCE REMEDIATION/RESTORATION

The installation or maintenance of structures, infrastructure, trails, recreational and educational facilities, fencing, livestock handling facilities and other similar improvements may require remediation or restoration. Postdisturbance remediation/restoration may include seeding areas that were disturbed by heavy equipment, restoring the original grade where the intent was not to alter it, cleaning up construction debris, and generally

Sacramento County Office of Economic Development and Marketing South Mather Wetlands Management Plan 6-5 Restoration Opportunities Attachment B restoring the area back to preconstruction conditions. When required, Qualified Personnel should be consulted to determine actions necessary to return disturbed areas to predisturbance conditions.

Table 6-1 outlines some potential disturbances and appropriate remediation guidelines. If a particular situation is not listed here, that does not mean that restoration is not required. Subject to any Agency requirements, the Wetlands Preserve Manager shall have the final authority in determining appropriate remediation measures, in consultation with Qualified Personnel. Agency notification and permitting requirements for the activities listed in Table 6-1 are provided in Table 11-1.

6.11.2 TIMING

Minor corrective measures not requiring Agency notification or a permit or other approval will be implemented by the Wetlands Preserve Manager within 10 days, unless site conditions warrant delay (e.g., if soil is saturated and equipment would damage the upland habitat in the Wetlands Preserve, it may be necessary to delay work until conditions improve). All other corrective actions shall take place when conditions are best suited for restoration to occur or as specified by appropriate Agencies.

Table 6-1 Sample Disturbances and Remedial Measures Type of Disturbance Mitigation Guideline Disturbance of Grassy Restoration of grassy upland areas due to disturbance resulting in bare ground should include Upland Areas seeding the area with native grass seed or locally collected grass straw and implementing proper erosion control measures until bare ground becomes revegetated. Removal of Native Tree Restoration for the removal native trees or shrubs may result in the replacement of the habitat. or Shrub Habitat This may be in the form of planting tree/shrub seeds or seedlings in an amount sufficient to ultimately result in the survival to maturity of the same number of trees or shrubs that were removed. Monitoring of the replacement plants should be conducted for at least three seasons. Wetlands/Waters of the Impacts to wetlands and other waters of the United States should be reported to USACE and United States restored or mitigated according to Agency requirements. Fencing Fencing and gates shall be repaired or replaced to meet original specifications. All unauthorized fencing shall be removed. Disturbance of Cultural Any unauthorized disturbance to cultural sites, including loss of artifacts, shall be reported to Resource Sites appropriate authorities. Additional protection of the sites shall be implemented as appropriate. Structures, Landscaping, Any unauthorized structure, landscaping or other improvement should be removed from the Other Improvements, Wetlands Preserve. If removal results in the disturbance of habitat, this disturbance shall be etc. mitigated pursuant to Agency permits and approvals (see Table11-1).

Sacramento County Office of Economic Development and Marketing Restoration Opportunities 6-6 South Mather Wetlands Management Plan Attachment B 7 HABITAT ENHANCEMENT ACTIVITIES

The entire Mather area was once part of an extensive vernal pool complex. This complex contained a remarkable density and diversity of pool types, sizes, and depths. Since the 1910s, much of this habitat has been lost to the expansion and operation of Mather Air Force Base or degraded by air force training and operational facilities. Potential opportunities to restore some of this lost or degraded habitat are identified in this section along with an overview of regulatory requirements for wetland restoration activities. Each restoration opportunity is briefly described in terms of the necessary restoration actions and the anticipated ecological and/or educational benefits. Potential funding sources for habitat restoration actions are described in Appendix C.

Habitat enhancement activities must be conducted in compliance with applicable Agency notification, authorization, and permit requirements and in coordination with the Airport Manager.

7.1 RESTORATION OPPORTUNITIES

The Wetlands Preserve has a long history of disturbance, particularly by the U.S. military during its use of Mather as a flight training facility and active military base beginning in 1918. Evidence of extensive prior disturbance is clearly visible on aerial photographs dating from the 1970s (Exhibit 7-1). Because there is a long history of disturbance at Mather, future habitat restoration or enhancement actions may be considered within the Wetlands Preserve to increase ecosystem functions and values. Typical restoration and enhancement actions may include, but are not limited to removal of invasive nonnative plant species, planting native plants, modifying and/or recontouring wetland basins to encourage wetland hydrology supportive of wetland and vernal pool-obligate plants and animals, recontouring uplands to enhance remnant wetlands degraded by past land uses, or similar actions. Creation of new vernal pools within the Wetlands Preserve is not permitted.

In an effort to identify potential restoration opportunities, the Wetlands Preserve was surveyed and a preliminary list of restoration opportunities was developed. In all cases, these restoration actions would enhance existing wetlands by restoring predisturbance topography and hydrology to increase connectivity among complexes of adjacent wetlands and to improve habitat conditions for native and wetland-obligate species of plants and animals. This should be viewed as a preliminary list of opportunities to aid the Wetlands Preserve Owner and Wetlands Preserve Manager in identifying initial options for ecological restoration. Additional opportunities may be identified at a later date.

Each restoration opportunity is briefly described below in terms of the expected level of effort required to restore the site and the expected ecological benefits from restoring each site to some level of predisturbance ecological functions and values. Most restoration opportunities have been mapped (Exhibit 7-2) as an additional aid in restoration planning. Potential funding sources for habitat restoration activities are listed in Appendix C.

7.1.1 DOUGLAS ROAD/ZINFANDEL DRIVE VERNAL POOL RESTORATION

Currently, a large, degraded vernal pool is located near the intersection of Zinfandel Drive and Douglas Road. Although this pool still appears to function as a wetland, its ecological value has been greatly reduced by the construction of a drainage ditch along the pool’s western and southwestern edges. This ditch is causing the pool to drain before filling completely, reducing the pool hydroperiod and inundation depth. Restoration of this pool would involve the removal of the ditch and restoration of pool topography to create a defined pool basin. Restoration of this pool would have important public education and environmental interpretation benefits, in addition to ecological benefits such as improved habitat for vernal-pool obligate species of plants and animals, because it is located within the most accessible portion of the Wetlands Preserve.

Sacramento County Office of Economic Development and Marketing South Mather Wetlands Management Plan 7-1 Restoration Opportunities Attachment B 7.1.2 RUBBLE PILE AND BUILDING FOUNDATION REMOVAL/VERNAL POOL RESTORATION

Removal of the large rubble pile in the southwestern portion of the Wetlands Preserve has been identified as a very important restoration opportunity. This pile is situated in the middle of what is considered the largest and most ecologically significant vernal pool complex remaining at South Mather. Removal of the pile would allow historic vernal pools to be restored within the rubble pile footprint while restoring natural hydrologic connections among all existing pools within the complex. Restoration of this site may require an existing burrowing owl colony to be relocated, pursuant to applicable regulations.

7.1.3 WASTEWATER POND VERNAL POOL RESTORATION

West and outside of the Wetlands Preserve four large wastewater settling ponds were constructed at the in the late 1950s to early 1960s. This site formerly supported a dense complex of vernal pools that was hydrologically connected to the large remnant complex to the north. Restoration of vernal pools in this location would result in a larger area of connected vernal pool habitat within the most ecologically significant portion of the Wetlands Preserve, thereby increasing available habitat for vernal pool plants and animals and improving the ecological function of existing pools. As noted in the February 22, 2006, Sacramento County Board of Supervisors Resolution, the County will potentially consider wetlands restoration or appropriate economic development for this site.

7.1.4 REMOVAL OF ZINFANDEL DRIVE ABANDONED ROADBED

As part of the infrastructure improvements planned for South Mather, the southern portion of Zinfandel Drive will be rerouted approximately at the point where the current road bed changes from pavement to gravel and widened to accommodate increased traffic volume. This would allow the existing gravel portions of Zinfandel Drive within the Wetlands Preserve to be removed. Removal of the existing road bed would facilitate the restoration of hydrologic connectivity and predisturbance topography to the existing network of vernal pools and swales. Several vernal swales that currently flow through culverts under Zinfandel Drive could be restored to remove areas of down-cutting caused by modified hydraulics resulting from the presence of the road. Cumulatively, these efforts would restore overall watershed function, including hydrologic and habitat connectivity, to the vernal pool complexes adjacent to Zinfandel Drive. Given that this has historically been a popular location for public access and already contains some interpretive infrastructure, this restoration project would have high aesthetic and educational value in addition to improving ecosystem functions.

7.1.5 REMOVAL OF SEWAGE LINE BERM

A large sewage line berm traverses the western part of the Wetlands Preserve. Construction of this berm has resulted in the fragmentation and hydrologic modification of the largest and densest vernal pool complex at South Mather. It is currently unknown if the sewage line is buried within the berm (in which case removal of the berm is unlikely) or if the line is buried beneath the berm, and, therefore, the berm could be removed to restore predisturbance topography and hydrology without affecting the sewage line. If the berm is removed, new provisions would have to be made for periodic sewer line access by service vehicles. Removal of the berm would result in extensive ecological benefits through the restoration of habitat connectivity, topography, and hydrology to the most ecologically important vernal pool complex at South Mather.

Sacramento County Office of Economic Development and Marketing Restoration Opportunities 7-2 South Mather Wetlands Management Plan Attachment B

Attachment B

Attachment B

Attachment B

Attachment B

7.1.6 OODRING ROAD VERNAL POOL RESTORATION

Approximately 300 yards west of Zinfandel Drive and immediately north of Woodring Road within the Wetlands Preserve, a small complex of vernal pools has been affected by construction of a drainage ditch. This ditch causes the pools to drain prematurely and has decreased the inundation depth and duration of the pools, reducing habitat quality for vernal pool-obligate plants and animals. Aside from the ecological benefits, restoration of these pools could benefit local environmental education programs. Restoration of this site would involve the removal of the ditch and restoration of predisturbance topography.

7.1.7 REMOVAL OF PARATROOPER PADS AND ACCESS ROADS

Small paved access roads, paratrooper training pads, and runways traverse numerous areas within the Wetlands Preserve. Removal of these paved areas would help restore natural topography and hydrologic connectivity in those areas where it has been interrupted or fragmented.

7.1.8 AIRPORT TOWER VERNAL POOL RESTORATION

A small area of ground disturbance, roughly 30–40 acres in size, is found within the northwest corner of the Wetlands Preserve near the Mather Airport tower. Although there are currently some degraded vernal pools found in this area, historic aerial photographs from the 1930s indicate that this area was part of a larger and very dense vernal pool complex that included areas to the south and west (now occupied by the Mather Airport runway). This area was characterized by numerous vernal pools, including several large pools. This area could be regraded to create natural vernal pool topography and connect to the larger vernal pool complex to the south in an effort to restore a portion of this historic complex.

Any proposed restoration of these pools shall be closely coordinated with the Airport Manager. The Airport Manager should be consulted during the early planning stages to discuss potential issues with the restoration of vernal pools in this area.

7.1.9 NATIVE GRASSLAND RESTORATION

Grasslands throughout the Wetlands Preserve could be restored in an attempt to increase native species diversity. Restoration activities could include the seeding of locally adapted genotypes of native grasses, rushes, and forbs collected from relict plants growing on the site. Relict plant populations should be located through site monitoring and surveys along with a determination of the substrate and other environmental factors associated with those populations. Seeding may be combined with specific prescribed burning, grazing, mowing, or other vegetation management activities described in Chapter 5 to provide a window during which competition from nonnative plants is less and native seedlings have a higher probability of germination and establishment. Any efforts to restore native grasslands should be implemented on a trial basis with appropriate monitoring to document success and cost effectiveness.

7.1.10 BLUE GUM REMOVAL

Blue gum trees are found in scattered locations within the Wetlands Preserve (see Exhibit 3-1). Blue gum is considered to be an invasive species (although it does not appear to be actively spreading within the Wetlands Preserve), and it potentially produces an allelopathic effect that excludes most understory vegetation. Existing blue gum could be cut down, their stumps removed, and all trimmings and wood chips collected and disposed of offsite. Following blue gum removal, these areas could be restored to native grassland as described above.

Sacramento County Office of Economic Development and Marketing South Mather Wetlands Management Plan 7-5 Restoration Opportunities Attachment B 7.2 FUNCTIONAL LIFT

Aside from the habitat restoration activities described above, it is possible that vernal pool and grassland ecosystems within Wetlands Preserve could be enhanced through active management (e.g., the reintroduction of managed livestock grazing). This potential for habitat enhancement is a primary management goal for the Wetlands Preserve (Chapter 1), and the potential to enhance baseline ecosystem functions and services within the Wetlands Preserve is an integral part of the proposed mitigation associated with the Mather Specific Plan USACE permit process.

An analysis of the ecological functions and services currently provided by wetlands within the Wetlands Preserve was conducted in the spring of 2012. This analysis utilized the California Rapid Assessment Methodology (CRAM) (CWMW 2013), which is a technique that may be utilized for evaluating hydrology, vegetation, and soils as specified in USACE’s compensatory mitigation standards (USACE 2012). Assessment participants included USFWS, EPA, USACE, California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Gibson & Skordal, LLC, and Carol Witham. One of the purposes of the CRAM evaluation was to set baseline conditions within the Wetlands Preserve to identify the degree of functional lift resulting from future management practices. A comparison of current CRAM scores with future CRAM scores (at the overall [index] level, by attribute [buffer and landscape, hydrology, physical, and biotic], and by the metrics and submetrics used to obtain attribute scores) could be used to measure the amount of functional lift.

Current CRAM scores for the Wetlands Preserve are summarized below for each CRAM attribute:

► The Biotic Structure metric scored the lowest of all metrics in the CRAM analysis (57.47) and has the most potential for functional lift. The biotic structure of vernal pools is also the most recognized method for evaluating vernal pools.

► The Physical Structure metric scored 65.10, primarily due to the low-scoring Pool and Swale Density submetric. Functional lift for this metric would be extremely difficult without significant landscape modification such as vernal pool/swale construction or vernal pool topography modification. These modifications are not anticipated; therefore, this metric should be a minor contribution to determination of functional lift.

► The Hydrology Metric scored the highest of all metrics (87.85). Based on this score, only minor functional lift could be accomplished through minor land modification such as removal of berms and other artificial land modifications within the Wetlands Preserve. Therefore, this metric should be a minor contribution to determination of functional lift.

► The Buffer and Landscape Context Metric scored 70.96 with only the Buffer Condition submetric scoring low (5.25). The other three submetrics scored relatively high (Aquatic Area Abundance – 9.38, Percent of AA with Buffer – 11.75, and Average Buffer Width – 11.38). Only the Buffer Condition submetric has potential for functional lift though controlled grazing, controlled burns, and other management efforts.

Because any future comparison of CRAM attribute scores to baseline conditions must consider the effects of climate variability (e.g., the amount and timing of rainfall) on observed conditions (see discussion in Section 1.6.1), one way to measure functional lift would be to compare Mather’s baseline CRAM score with a nearby area with a high CRAM score, like the Kiefer Landfill Wetlands Preserve. Functional lift could be determined by the percent increase of the Mather CRAM score over time in comparison with the Kiefer Landfill Wetlands Preserve. This methodology would automatically incorporate the influence of weather and climate factors. Any future CRAM assessments completed for the Wetlands Preserve would be funded by Sacramento County separately from funding set aside to implement this Wetlands Management Plan or any of its associated management efforts (e.g., the Initial Management Plan, Appendix A).

Sacramento County Office of Economic Development and Marketing Restoration Opportunities 7-6 South Mather Wetlands Management Plan Attachment B Chapter 10 of this Wetlands Management Plan describes monitoring activities that may be completed within the Wetlands Preserve at regular intervals and in perpetuity. These activities generally correspond with “Level 3” monitoring as described by the EPA (Kentula 2007), and they include an assessment of vernal pool plant communities and invertebrate communities. Data obtained through regular monitoring will be assessed to determine if target habitat functions and services are being maintained or enhanced within the Wetlands Preserve. If desired to assess functional lift, additional “Level 2” monitoring (i.e., CRAM) may be integrated into the Wetland Preserve’s overall monitoring program to periodically quantify the amount of functional lift relative to baseline conditions. As described above, these CRAM assessments, if completed, would be funded separately and are not included in the long-term funding for Wetlands Preserve management.

Sacramento County Office of Economic Development and Marketing South Mather Wetlands Management Plan 7-7 Restoration Opportunities Attachment B

Attachment B 8 PUBLIC ACCESS ACTIVITIES

The Wetlands Preserve has the potential to provide a variety of public outreach, recreation, and educational opportunities. The provision of public outreach, education, and access opportunities requires planning for appropriate use, prior authorization procedures, access control, enforcement, and additional trash removal activities. Areas designated for public use generally also require access points, appropriate signage, trails, and, whenever possible, interpretative information. Finally, public access, education, and outreach activities will require coordination among the Wetlands Preserve Owner, Wetlands Preserve Manager, and Sacramento County Department of Regional Parks. In particular, the Wetlands Preserve Owner intends to work cooperatively with Sacramento County Parks to manage public use, access control, and enforcement at the Wetlands Preserve.

It is recognized that, due to the location of the Wetlands Preserve in close proximity to existing and planned urban development, there are public education and outreach programs that currently utilize significant portions of South Mather, including areas that will eventually be included within the Wetlands Preserve. It is also recognized that there will be a high public demand for additional recreational and public use within the Wetlands Preserve in the future. The following describes guidelines that will be followed in managing existing public use within the Wetlands Preserve. In general, the intent is to permit the continuation of existing public use within the Wetlands Preserve, consistent with all applicable laws and regulations, so long as those public uses do not conflict with management of the Wetlands Preserve. Close coordination between the Preserve Manager and existing public uses will be required to avoid conflicts. As described previously in Chapter 1, a detailed public access master plan will be developed by the County by the third year of Wetlands Preserve management, which will be approved by the Agencies prior to implementation. This plan will describe allowable future public use of the Wetlands Preserve as well as guidelines for the management of existing public use.

8.1 DEVELOPED RECREATION

The Wetlands Preserve currently contains two interpretive signs and various boardwalks and wooden observation platforms that extend into vernal pools. Continued operation and maintenance of these facilities will be allowed, consistent with existing agreements and approvals as well as all applicable rules and regulations.

If additional facilities are planned for installation installed within the Wetlands Preserve prior to approval of the public access master plan, they should be developed with a consistent image and style. Architecture, site features, materials and signage should share common design features and materials presenting a communal and recognizable aesthetic quality to the visitor. Furthermore, all recreational facilities within the Wetlands Preserve should be designed and located to avoid or minimize adverse effects to sensitive resources. In general, no facility (e.g., trail, table, bench) should be constructed within 250 feet of any vernal pool or similar wetland. Exceptions to this rule will be required for some trails intended to facilitate access to selected vernal pools for educational purposes or for trails intended to increase public awareness, appreciation, and stewardship of vernal pools. Boardwalks, observation platforms, and similar structures may also be required in some instances to facilitate public appreciation for vernal pool plants and animals and to minimize trampling and other adverse effects from repeated public use. The Wetlands Preserve Owner, Wetlands Preserve Manager, and Agencies shall be consulted during the design and appropriate permits and approvals obtained prior to installation of developed recreation facilities to minimize or avoid any unintended adverse effects associated with the construction and ongoing operation of these facilities.

8.2 PASSIVE RECREATION

Passive recreation includes activities such as bird watching, photography, wildflower appreciation and identification, and hiking. The vernal pool grasslands at South Mather are well known throughout the Sacramento Region and are regularly used by area residents for these activities. These activities will continue to be accommodated to the extent reasonably possible and so long as these activities do not negatively affect the

Sacramento County Office of Economic Development and Marketing South Mather Wetlands Management Plan 8-1 Prohibited Activities Attachment B Wetlands Preserve or unduly constrain management activities. The Wetlands Preserve Manager, in consultation with Qualified Personnel, should monitor these activities to assess the level of habitat degradation and recommend remedial measures.

8.3 EDUCATION AND OUTREACH

Anyone wishing to collect federally listed species or conduct research or teaching activities that could harm or harass federally listed species shall possess the required 10(a)(1)(A) permit and shall obtain prior approval from the Recovery Branch of USFWS. Persons wishing to collect common species and/or State of California–listed species shall have the appropriate scientific collection permit or memorandum of understanding issued by CDFW. Anyone wishing to collect any species, regardless of listing status, shall also obtain prior written authorization from the Wetlands Preserve Owner and coordinate activities with the Wetlands Preserve Manager.

8.3.1 INSTRUCTOR-LED ACTIVITIES

Faculty from local colleges and other educational institutions occasionally incorporate visits to the Wetlands Preserve into their course curricula. The Wetlands Preserve Manager will work with these groups to accommodate educational use of the Wetlands Preserve so long as these uses do not constrain current or planned habitat management activities or negatively affect the Wetlands Preserve or its resources. If necessary, the Wetlands Preserve Manager will coordinate with local universities to develop a process that facilitates review and approval of educational uses by the Wetlands Preserve Manager. The collection of native plants and animals by students shall be prohibited unless such activities take place pursuant to research or teaching activities previously analyzed and approved by the Wetlands Preserve Manager and, if applicable, appropriate Agencies.

8.3.2 DOCENT-LED ACTIVITIES

Docents from local environmental groups may occasionally lead vernal pool tours at South Mather. Until such time as the public access master plan is completed, existing docent-led activities will be allowed within the Wetlands Preserve. The Wetlands Preserve Manager will work with these groups to review current educational activities, and, if applicable, develop modifications to these activities that will not impede current or planned resource management activities. All docent-led activities shall be subject to prior approval by the Wetlands Preserve Manager. The collection of plants and animals by the public shall be prohibited except under the auspices of applicable scientific collection permits.

8.3.3 PUBLIC OUTREACH

The use of the Wetlands Preserve for public outreach will be supported by the Wetlands Preserve Manager. Opportunities for expanded public outreach will be coordinated between public outreach groups and the Wetlands Preserve Manager to ensure that the proposed public outreach programs are compatible with current and planned resource management activities. Where required, the Wetlands Preserve Manager will work with public outreach groups to identify and implement any remedial measures to avoid any negative effects (in terms of potentially adverse impacts to vernal pools or vernal-pool dependent species) resulting from outreach programs.

8.4 SCIENTIFIC USE

Scientific studies, conducted in a manner that does not diminish or impair the Wetlands Preserve, are encouraged if they further scientific knowledge of the vernal pool grassland ecosystem. Interested researchers shall contact the Wetlands Preserve Manager to discuss research opportunities. At a minimum, research proposals shall describe the location of the proposed research project, the methods to be used to carry out the research, the duration of the research project, and the expected results of the research. The Wetlands Preserve Manager will evaluate the research proposal, in consultation with Qualified Personnel and the Agencies, to determine the compatibility of

Sacramento County Office of Economic Development and Marketing Prohibited Activities 8-2 South Mather Wetlands Management Plan Attachment B the proposed research with ongoing management activities and the scientific merit of the proposed research. Research proposals shall be approved only if the proposed research will not unnecessarily burden or constrain ongoing Wetlands Preserve management and if the proposal is consistent with appropriate Agency regulations and approvals. Exceptions may be made for proposals with exceptional scientific or practical value, subject to Agency approval. Anyone wishing to collect federally listed species or conduct research or teaching activities that could harm or harass federally listed species shall possess the required 10(a)(1)(A) permit and shall obtain prior approval from the Recovery Branch of USFWS. Persons wishing to collect common species and/or State of California–listed species shall have the appropriate scientific collection permit issued by CDFW.

Sacramento County Office of Economic Development and Marketing South Mather Wetlands Management Plan 8-3 Prohibited Activities Attachment B

Attachment B 9 PROHIBITED ACTIVITIES

This section outlines restrictions on activities that can take place within the Wetlands Preserve. The prohibitions described in this chapter should be considered preliminary based on typical prohibitions applicable to other, similar the Wetlands Preserve. The actual prohibitions applicable to the Wetlands Preserve will be determined by a recorded conservation easement or terms and conditions of regulatory agency permits.

9.1 PUBLIC ACCESS

The intent of the Wetlands Preserve is, primarily, to maintain vernal pool grasslands and associated creeks and streams for the benefit of native plants and wildlife. Well-managed access to the Wetlands Preserve increases public awareness and appreciation of these natural resources and should not interfere with this goal. Therefore, unless explicitly prohibited by regulatory agency permits or other authority, managed public access may be permitted in the Wetlands Preserve, subject to a public access master plan. This does not mean that public use will be allowed in all parts of the Wetlands Preserve or at all times of the year. Public use of the Wetlands Preserve is discussed in more detail within Chapter 8.

9.2 VEGETATION REMOVAL

No killing, removal, or alteration of any existing native vegetation shall be allowed within the Wetlands Preserve except as described in the Management Plan.

9.3 BURNING AND DUMPING

No burning or dumping of rubbish, garbage or any other wastes or fill materials shall be allowed in the Wetlands Preserve. The foregoing prohibition shall not be interpreted to prohibit prescribed burning as a method of thatch management nor shall it prohibit the pile burning of vegetation collected during habitat maintenance activities (e.g., thatch collection and removal).

9.4 DISKING

In general, no disking shall occur in the Wetlands Preserve except in the event of an emergency such as a wildfire, plane crash, or similar event that poses a threat to public safety, human life, or adjacent structures. This should not be interpreted to prohibit disking as a form of fire break construction and/or habitat management provided such activities are developed and overseen by Qualified Personnel and are conducted in compliance with all applicable laws and regulations.

9.5 ADDITIONAL ROADS AND UTILITY LINES

Unless explicitly approved by applicable regulatory agencies, new roads and utility lines will not be allowed within the Wetlands Preserve.

9.6 EQUIPMENT AND FUEL STORAGE

There shall be no equipment or fuel storage within the Wetlands Preserve except for required habitat management equipment or equipment required for recreational, educational, or other activities described within the Management Plan, public access master plan, or similar documents.

Sacramento County Office of Economic Development and Marketing South Mather Wetlands Management Plan 9-1 Prohibited Activities Attachment B 9.7 TOPOGRAPHY

Except for those activities occurring during approved habitat restoration projects or during the development of recreational and educational facilities, no alteration may be made to the existing topography of the Wetlands Preserve. This includes leveling or grading. Furthermore, no exploration, development, or extraction of oil, gas, aggregate, or minerals may be made from the Wetlands Preserve.

9.8 PESTICIDES AND CHEMICAL AGENTS

Except as needed for habitat management activities described in this Management Plan and approved by the Agencies or as required by the Agencies, there shall be no use of any biosolids, pesticides, fungicides, insecticides or any other chemical agents used to kill or suppress plants, animals or fungi within the Wetlands Preserve.

9.9 MOTOR VEHICLE USE

No motorized vehicles shall be permitted on any portion of the Wetlands Preserve. Exceptions are allowed for motorized vehicular use associated with required maintenance purposes such as biological inspections, mowing, trash collection, livestock handling, educational activities, and for emergency or law enforcement access. Whenever possible, motor vehicle use shall be restricted during times when soils are saturated and motor vehicles shall be prohibited from driving through vernal pools at all times.

9.10 CONSTRUCTION

No construction shall be allowed in the Wetlands Preserve with the exception of construction activities mentioned in the Management Plan, future documents such as the public access master plan or habitat mitigation and monitoring plan, or other future documents approved by applicable regulatory agencies.

9.11 NONNATIVE PLANTS

No nonnative plants shall be planted in the Wetlands Preserve. This prohibition includes the use of straw for erosion control purposes (i.e., said straw shall be certified weed and seed free or comprised of California-native grass straw).

Sacramento County Office of Economic Development and Marketing Prohibited Activities 9-2 South Mather Wetlands Management Plan Attachment B 10 MONITORING, INSPECTION, AND REPORTING

Monitoring, inspection, and reporting requirements for the Wetlands Preserve are described in this chapter. Monitoring consists of annual and periodic assessments of biological resources and general Wetlands Preserve conditions (e.g., trash accumulation, signs of trespass, condition of fencing). The Wetlands Preserve Manager and/or Qualified Personnel will be primarily responsible for planning and implementing these activities. Agency inspection and annual reporting requirements for the Wetlands Preserve are also described.

10.1 MONITORING

10.1.1 GENERAL INSPECTIONS

To maintain the integrity of the Wetlands Preserve, the Wetlands Preserve Manager shall arrange for General Monitoring inspections to be made at least quarterly, beginning with the first year of Wetlands Preserve management. Inspections shall evaluate the following factors: erosion, fire hazard reduction, fencing integrity, condition of signage, trash accumulation, and evidence of unauthorized motor vehicles or pedestrian use. The entire perimeter of the Wetlands Preserve shall be covered, as well as meandering transects through its interior. Additionally, “windshield” surveys should be made periodically of surrounding areas to identify new and potentially expanding, species of invasive plants with the potential to adversely affect the Wetlands Preserve. An inspection sheet (Appendix J) shall 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) shall be noted on the inspection sheet and photographs of the problem area(s) shall 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. Evaluation procedures and corrective actions for each inspection factor are described below in the following sections.

EROSION

If erosion or similar adverse effects are observed during any inspection within the Wetlands Preserve, immediate erosion control measures shall be implemented. If any significant erosion problems persist, a qualified erosion control specialist shall be consulted and appropriate action taken.

FIRE HAZARD REDUCTION

If at any time vegetation conditions within the Wetlands Preserve poses a fire hazard, the Wetlands Preserve Manager shall work with local fire authorities to decide on the best method to reduce the fire risk consistent with maintaining the natural resource values of the Wetlands Preserve.

FENCING AND SIGNAGE

The condition of the fencing and signage within and surrounding the Wetlands Preserve shall be checked during the General Inspection. The Wetlands Preserve Manager shall be responsible for maintaining all fencing and signage; however, these responsibilities may be assigned to the grazing lessee, at the discretion of the Preserve Manager, when or if the Wetlands Preserve is managed with livestock grazing. Corner posts shall be straight and well-braced at all times, posts shall be firmly driven into the ground or set into concrete, and wire should be taut and secured to all posts. Any fencing gaps or downed stretches of fencing shall be repaired or replaced a timely manner. Signs identifying protected habitats shall be posted at least every 400–600 feet.

Sacramento County Office of Economic Development and Marketing South Mather Wetlands Management Plan 10-1 Monitoring, Inspection, and Reporting Attachment B TRASH ACCUMULATION

The Wetlands Preserve Manager shall inspect the Wetlands Preserve for trash accumulation and, when necessary, arrange for the removal of trash.

UNAUTHORIZED MOTOR VEHICLE USE

The perimeter of the Wetlands Preserve shall be inspected for evidence of unauthorized motor vehicle use/access. If necessary, the Wetlands Preserve Manager shall take corrective actions such as repairing locks and gates within a timely manner.

10.1.2 BIOLOGICAL MONITORING

The following section describes general biological monitoring guidelines for the Wetlands Preserve. During the initial 5- to 10-year period of Wetlands Preserve management, biological monitoring will occur as described in Appendix A. Thereafter, it is anticipated that the Management Plan will be revised to reflect and incorporate baseline data gathered during the initial management period, and more specific monitoring methods, adaptive management triggers, and similar details will be incorporated into the Management Plan at that time.

Two levels of biological monitoring are recommended. Reconnaissance-level qualitative biological surveys shall be conducted on an annual basis with at least one visit occurring in the spring and a second visit during the summer. To efficiently utilize the available budget, it is anticipated that reconnaissance biological surveys will be combined with General Inspections described above to the extent feasible. Additionally, in years where more detailed biological surveys occur, as described below, these detailed surveys will substitute for reconnaissance- level surveys (i.e., reconnaissance-level and detailed biological surveys are not required in the same years).

Following the initial management period, during which quantitative baseline data will be collected on an annual basis as described in Appendix A, focused quantitative biological surveys are recommended to be conducted on a less frequent basis. Results of these surveys shall be used to assess the condition and trend of plant and wildlife communities and to adjust management actions to better meet Wetlands Preserve goals.

The monitoring guidelines described below are intended to be the starting point for an overall biological resources monitoring program for the Wetlands Preserve, which will be developed in greater detail at the conclusion of the initial management period. They follow similar protocols used on other vernal pool preserves in an effort to facilitate analysis and comparison of results among multiple, geographically proximate vernal pool preserves. These methods may be changed at some point in the future as needed to reflect new direction from the Agencies, to incorporate standardized monitoring protocols (e.g., California Rapid Assessment Method), or to ensure that monitoring data remains analogous among vernal pool preserves. Any changes in monitoring methods or frequencies will be described in the Annual Report provided to the Agencies, and will be subject to prior Agency review and approval prior to implementation.

SCHEDULE

A suggested schedule for the biological inspections, following the initial management period, is provided in Table 10-1. Related management objectives (from Section 1.4) are specified for each monitoring target.

Sacramento County Office of Economic Development and Marketing Monitoring, Inspection, and Reporting 10-2 South Mather Wetlands Management Plan Attachment B

Table 10-1 Biological Inspection Schedule Related Management Monitoring Target Purpose Frequency Objectives Wetlands Preserve General Document new/expanding populations of invasive Twice per year NR1-1, NR1-2, Survey plants, wildlife usage, thatch accumulation, new NR2-3, NR3-1 occurrences of rare plants, appropriate wetland hydrology, and general biological conditions. Livestock Utilization and Determine spatial pattern of livestock distribution; Annually (when NR1-1, NR2-1, Distribution identify areas of habitual underutilization or grazing occurs) NR3-2, NR4-2 overutilization to inform ongoing grazing management. Vernal Pool and Upland Plant Determine grassland and seasonal wetland/vernal Annually during NR1-1, NR2-2, Community pool species composition and document trends in initial NR4-1 species composition as a function of climate and management management; relate to wetland hydrology and period then every biomass production/thatch accumulation. fifth year Vernal Pool Aquatic Document status and trends of aquatic invertebrate Annually during NR1-1, NR2-2, Community communities as well as distribution of special- initial NR4-1 status species; relate to wetland hydrology. management period then every fifth year Rare Plant Populations Track population changes over time as a function Annually during NR1-1, NR2-2, of climate and management. initial NR4-1 management period then every fifth year

MONITORING GUIDELINES

General Surveys

During general biological surveys, the Wetlands Preserve Manager will walk the entire perimeter of the Wetlands Preserve as well as meandering transects through the interior. The goal of these surveys is to detect previously undocumented occurrences of plant and wildlife species, to assess levels of thatch accumulation, to document new or expanding infestations of invasive plants, to document inappropriate vernal pool hydrology (e.g., pools remaining ponded outside typical inundation periods) and potentially adverse effects from surrounding residential development (e.g., irrigation runoff), and to recommend changes in management approaches. Photographs shall be taken during these visits to document newly located populations of sensitive plants or animals, new or expanding invasive plant populations, and other resource issues.

During general biological surveys, invasive plant distributions should be mapped periodically using standard mapping protocols (CDFA 2002) with a focus on identifying the location and size of individual infestations as well as the approximate ground cover of invasive species within each infestation. At a minimum, data should be collected describing the geographic location of invasive plant populations, the approximate density or cover of invasive plants at each infestation; and general observations for each infestation (e.g., signs of reproduction and/or colonization into uninfested areas, the general health and vigor of plants found at each infestation, and similar variables). Data should be collected at a detail sufficient to permit the tracking of changes in numbers of infestations and location of infestations between years so that invasive plant treatment efforts can prioritized appropriately.

Sacramento County Office of Economic Development and Marketing South Mather Wetlands Management Plan 10-3 Monitoring, Inspection, and Reporting Attachment B All data shall be recorded and archived to permit comparisons among sample units within a sample years and among sample units between sample years and included in all annual operations and maintenance reports required by regulatory agencies.

Livestock Utilization and Distribution

Background

When employed as a management tool, livestock grazing tends to produce patchy results unless grazing animals are intensively managed to produce even utilization of available biomass. Various factors influence the distribution of grazing animals, including: the availability of preferred forage plants; the presence of undesirable forage plants; the location of water, mineral supplements, and supplemental forage; topography; and the presence or absence of shade (Holchek et al. 2001). Grazing animals, particularly cattle, often develop preferences for certain grazing areas. These preferences tend to perpetuate themselves through successive generations of cattle within the same herd through a process whereby younger cattle “inherit” grazing preferences by observing and repeating the foraging behaviors of older animals. It is therefore important for managers to identify areas that preferentially receive heavy or light utilization and to understand the factors leading to these patterns in an effort to eliminate or reduce the influence of the underlying causative factors.

Implementation

Livestock utilization should be mapped across all grazing areas annually. Utilization levels can be mapped as “light,” “moderate,” or “heavy” using standard visual guides (see Appendix K). The location of supplements, water, and related factors that influence livestock distribution should also be mapped in an effort to identify the causative factors behind areas of light and heavy use. This information should be used in subsequent years to modify grazing practices as necessary to reduce areas of light and heavy use. This information can also be used to assess grazing lessee compliance with established RDM standards and assist lessees with modifying their management practices as needed to meet established RDM levels. All data shall be recorded and archived to permit comparisons among sample units within a sample years and among sample units between sample years and included in all annual operations and maintenance reports required by regulatory agencies.

Vernal Pool and Upland Plant Community Surveys

Background

Monitoring of plant community composition within vernal pools and adjacent uplands, including measurements of thatch or RDM accumulation, can be a valuable aid in assessing the efficacy of management actions and the need for changes in management direction. Additionally, these surveys are valuable because they help to determine the typical composition of plant communities under different climatic scenarios (annual climatic patterns are generally thought to be the strongest determinants of plant community composition in vernal pool grasslands). Through several successive years of data collection, managers can develop a better understanding of plant community response to climatic patterns (e.g., drought years, years with average rainfall, and years with above-average rainfall). By understanding the “typical” expression of the plant community across a range of climatic patterns through time, managers are better able to determine when a particular observed community state is likely related to management and can, therefore, be encouraged through continuation of current management approaches or be discouraged through changes in management. Without this knowledge, it is difficult, if not impossible, for managers to determine whether observed changes in community composition are the result of climatic patterns or the result of management actions.

In particular, the accumulation of thatch or RDM is one of the strongest determinants of annual grassland community composition and biomass production (Heady 1956, Bartolome et al. 1980) that can be directly manipulated through livestock management. Although the exact relationship between thatch accumulation, community composition, and production can be site specific and influenced by factors other than management

Sacramento County Office of Economic Development and Marketing Monitoring, Inspection, and Reporting 10-4 South Mather Wetlands Management Plan Attachment B (Jackson and Bartolome 2002), research examining this subject has tended to show that more thatch favors community dominance by grasses rather than forbs and that increased thatch generally leads to higher biomass production the following growing season (Bartolome et al. 1980). Higher thatch can also contribute to reduced vernal pool hydroperiods and increases in undesirable plants such as medusahead. From an ecological standpoint, high thatch levels are generally viewed as undesirable within vernal pool grasslands, and management approaches focus on maintaining a desired residual thatch level. The amount of residual thatch, or RDM is, therefore, the most common management metric in vernal pool grasslands. RDM is typically expressed on a pounds per acre basis as measured in the fall before the onset of the growing season. Although RDM targets vary widely based on management objectives, rainfall, slope, and other factors, a RDM target of somewhere between 400 pounds per acre and 1,000 pounds per acre is common for vernal pool grasslands in the southern Sacramento Valley.

Implementation

Vernal pool and upland sample units should be randomly located throughout the Wetlands Preserve, including within areas that could be affected by surrounding residential and other development or disturbance. Within each sample unit, the Wetlands Preserve Manager should record all plant species present and the percent absolute foliar cover for each species using standard methods. The percent cover of thatch and percentage of bare ground within each sample unit should be recorded as well. At upland sampling units, the Wetlands Preserve Manager should also assess the amount of RDM prior to fall germination, using standard methods (Appendix K, Appendix L). All data shall be recorded and archived to permit comparisons among sample units within a sample years and among sample units between sample years and included in all annual operations and maintenance reports required by regulatory agencies.

Vernal Pool Aquatic Community Surveys

Background

Periodic surveys of vernal pool aquatic community composition provide information on the presence or absence of special-status species, the relative number of individuals of each species, and overall community composition (e.g., number of taxa). These data can be related to vernal pool plant community data and hydrology data to obtain a complete picture of vernal pool response to different climatic conditions and management actions.

Implementation

The date(s) chosen for field sampling should be selected so that species are readily identifiable in the field. Sacrificing of individuals for laboratory identification is not recommended. During a normal rainfall year, late- January to mid-February is an ideal time to identify and record special-status crustacean species at South Mather. At least one sample event should be conducted prior to any warming trends, generally late-January, assuming sufficient winter precipitation, because vernal pool fairy shrimp are generally intolerant of warmer water temperatures (Ericksen and Belk 1999).

The Wetlands Preserve Manager shall retain Qualified Personnel, in needed, for all sampling, and proper authorization shall be obtained from USFWS prior to conducting all surveys. USFWS protocol-level surveys will not be required for long-term monitoring. Instead, nonprotocol monitoring is recommended to obtain data on special-status species presence and abundance. Pools will be visited at least once during the rainy season at a time optimal for observing and identifying target species.

Additional information on pool conditions, particularly those that might be detrimental to invertebrate populations (e.g., trash, algae, abundance of predators), should also be recorded. A standard monitoring form should be developed to provide consistency of data collection and reporting among sampled pools and sample years. The form should include all required information as per USFWS guidelines (air temperature, water temperature, water depth, estimated maximum depth, pool surface area, estimated maximum surface area, disturbance, grazing regime, species observations) plus additional information pertinent to management or maintenance

Sacramento County Office of Economic Development and Marketing South Mather Wetlands Management Plan 10-5 Monitoring, Inspection, and Reporting Attachment B recommendations. All collected data shall be tabulated and organized by Qualified Personnel, archived by the Wetlands Preserve Manager, and included in all annual operations and maintenance reports required by regulatory agencies.

Rare Plant Populations

Background

Numerous populations of rare plants, including plants listed as threatened or endangered by the State of California or federal government, are found throughout the Wetlands Preserve. Various vegetation monitoring targets have been described above (e.g., plant community composition, RDM) to assess the response of plant communities to climate and Wetlands Preserve management; however, these targets may fail to adequately capture the response of rare plants that are geographically isolated, narrowly distributed, and exhibit a different response to climatic patterns and management approaches than the plant community as a whole.

Implementation

Known populations of plants listed as threatened or endangered by the State of California or federal government should be monitored within the Wetlands Preserve on a regular basis to document, at a minimum, the approximate number of individuals or density of individuals within the population, reproductive output of the population (in terms of the number of flowers per plant), signs of disturbance, and other factors that could have a negative (or positive) influence on the stability of the population. Resources discussed in Appendix C may be consulted for more information on plant population monitoring techniques.

Terrestrial Wildlife

Background

Terrestrial wildlife species are an important component of overall preserve ecological function, and the presence of specific species can be an indicator of overall vernal pool grassland habitat quality. Additionally, as South Mather becomes more developed, wildlife usage of preserved areas may shift away from native species commonly associated with grasslands to exotic species that are habitat generalists. The presence of particular species, such as waterfowl, or increases in the numbers of hazardous wildlife using preserved areas is of particular concern to the Airport Manager. Documenting the relationship between wildlife and habitat restoration or management activities is essential to addressing Airport management concerns and building Airport Manager support for continued management and restoration activities in the Wetlands Preserve.

Implementation

During general biological surveys and other Wetlands Preserve management and monitoring activities, any wildlife species that are observed shall be recorded. To the extent feasible, surveys should be spaced throughout the year and scheduled at times when birds are most likely to be active and vocalizing.

Data Collection and Analysis

All monitoring data should be collected on paper field forms or, ideally, within a GPS-linked field computer. These data should be stored in Microsoft Excel, Microsoft Access, or similar spreadsheet or database software and analyzed by the Wetlands Preserve Manager to document trends or patterns of baseline ecological processes as well as the relationship between ecological processes and management techniques. ArcGIS shapefiles shall be created and maintained to analyze spatial data patterns, where appropriate. Such information is the cornerstone of an adaptive management process and shall be used by the Wetlands Preserve Manager to adjust current management practices or institute new practices when monitoring data indicate that current approaches are not meeting resource goals.

Sacramento County Office of Economic Development and Marketing Monitoring, Inspection, and Reporting 10-6 South Mather Wetlands Management Plan Attachment B 10.2 AGENCY INSPECTION

The Agencies many inspect and monitor the condition of the Wetlands Preserve provided that 72 hours’ notice to the Wetlands Preserve Owner and Wetlands Preserve Manager is provided.

10.3 ANNUAL REPORTING REQUIREMENTS

Consistent with the Conservation Easement, the Wetlands Preserve Manager shall prepare an Annual Report to be submitted to the Preserve Owner and Agencies by January 31 of each year describing activities within the preceding year. That report shall include at a minimum, a map of the Wetlands Preserve, photos documenting the status of the Wetlands Preserve, a description of proposed activities and maintenance or management actions as required by the Management Plan, a description of actions carried out during the past year, observations from the Biological Inspections, anticipated management activities and a tentative budget for the coming year (i.e., an Annual Workplan), and recommendations for altered management practices as appropriate.

Sacramento County Office of Economic Development and Marketing South Mather Wetlands Management Plan 10-7 Monitoring, Inspection, and Reporting Attachment B

Attachment B 11 AGENCY NOTIFICATION

In general, the intent of this Management Plan is to describe maintenance and management tasks in sufficient detail, particularly tasks that occur on a monthly or annual basis, so that Agency approval of this Management Plan constitutes authorization for these tasks. However, it is recognized that prior Agency notification or a formal permit, approval, or authorization from the Agencies will be required for many tasks. Prior Agency notification will also be required for the Wetlands Preserve Manager to implement management, maintenance, or monitoring tasks not described in this Management Plan. Additionally, detailed resource-specific management plans (e.g., invasive plant treatment plan, public access master plan) will be provided to the Agencies by the Wetlands Preserve Owner or Manager to permit detailed review and permitting of specific activities.

11.1 NOTIFICATION METHODS

The Wetlands Preserve Manager will be responsible for providing appropriate Agency notification. Ideally, the Wetlands Preserve Manager will attempt to describe all management tasks for the coming 12 months in the annual report (see Section 10.3). If this is not possible, the Wetlands Preserve Manager will submit a separate letter to the Agencies with a written description of the activity, including when the activity will take place and the methodology that will be used, as well as a map showing the areas that will be targeted. The Wetlands Preserve Manager will also submit a separate letter to the Agencies in the event that a new management, maintenance, or monitoring task, not described in this Management Plan, is planned for implementation. The Agencies will have 30 days to contact the Wetlands Preserve Manager to discuss the activity. If the Wetlands Preserve Manager is not contacted within 30 days, the activity will be considered approved. Notification will be made by fax, email, registered mail, or overnight transmittal. The foregoing is not intended to imply that activities normally requiring a permit, approval, or other authorization from the Agencies would be automatically approved within the specified 30-day period; such activities will be subject to applicable permitting or approval requirements and timelines prior to implementation by the Wetlands Preserve Manager.

Notification and permitting requirements for all management, maintenance, and monitoring tasks described in this Management Plan, as well as activities not described in this Management Plan, are summarized in Table 11-1.

11.2 EMERGENCY SITUATIONS

Although the Wetlands Preserve Manager will provide prior Agency notification for certain tasks, and some tasks will require a permit or other authorization from the Agencies, emergency situations may require immediate action where prior Agency notification or a formal permit or other Agency approval would be impractical or impossible. Should an emergency situation arise that requires immediate action, but would potentially require a formal permit, approval, or authorization from the Agencies, the Wetlands Preserve Manager will notify the appropriate agency within 24 hours regarding the situation and the actions taken. Follow-up notification will occur, in writing, within 5 business days to describe the actions taken and need for further actions (if any). Applicable emergency notification stipulations are described below.

11.2.1 11.2.1 WETLANDS AND OTHER WATERS OF THE UNITED STATES

Should an emergency situation arise that requires an immediate action which could potentially result in direct or indirect impacts to USACE jurisdictional waters, the following exceptions apply (CFR Title 33, Chapter II, Part 325, Section 325.2 - Processing of Applications):

“Emergency procedures - Division engineers are authorized to approve special processing procedures in emergency situations. An ‘emergency’ is a situation which would result in an unacceptable hazard to life, a significant loss of property, or an immediate, unforeseen, and significant economic hardship

Sacramento County Office of Economic Development and Marketing South Mather Wetlands Management Plan 11-1 Agency Notification Attachment B if corrective action requiring a permit is not undertaken within a time period less than the normal time needed to process the application under standard procedures.”

11.2.2 11.2.2 THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES

Section 7 of the federal ESA regulations recognizes that an emergency (natural disaster or other calamity) may require expedited consultation (50 CFR §402.05). Expedited consultation procedures are described in Chapter 8 of the federal ESA Consultation Handbook (USFWS 1998). Specifically, Section 8.1 stipulates, in part:

“Where emergency actions are required that may affect listed species and/or critical habitats, a Federal agency may not have the time for the administrative work required by the consultation regulations under non-emergency conditions. Emergency consultations should be handled with as much understanding of the action agency’s critical mission as possible while ensuring that anticipated actions will not violate sections 7(a)(2) or 7(d). Emergency consultation procedures allow action agencies to incorporate endangered species concerns into their actions during the response to an emergency. An emergency is a situation involving an act of God, disasters, casualties, national defense or security emergencies, etc., and includes response activities that must be taken to prevent imminent loss of human life or property. Under no circumstances should a Services representative obstruct an emergency response decision made by the action agency where human life is at stake.”

11.2.3 11.2.3 WATERS OF THE STATE

Should an emergency situation arise that requires immediate action in waters of the state and that, under ordinary circumstances, would require a regulatory agency permit, specific exceptions may apply. Activities that potentially affect waters of the state will be consistent with guidance received in consultation with the Regional Water Quality Control Board.

11.2.4 11.2.4 STREAMBED ALTERATION

Should an emergency situation arise that requires immediate action in waterbody potentially subject to CDFW jurisdiction under Section 1602 of the California Fish and Game Code, the following exceptions may apply, as stated in California fish and Game Code, Section 1610:

“(a) Except as provided in subdivision (b), this chapter does not apply to any of the following: (1) Immediate emergency work necessary to protect life or property. (2) Immediate emergency repairs to public service facilities necessary to maintain service as a result of a disaster in an area in which a state of emergency has been proclaimed by the Governor pursuant to Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 8550) of Division 1 of Title 2 of the Government Code. (3) Emergency projects undertaken, carried out, or approved by a state or local governmental agency to maintain, repair, or restore an existing highway, as defined in Section 360 of the Vehicle Code, within the existing right-of-way of the highway, that has been damaged as a result of fire, flood, storm, earthquake, land subsidence, gradual earth movement, or landslide, within 1 year of the damage. Work needed in the vicinity above and below a highway may be conducted outside of the existing right-of-way if it is needed to stop ongoing or recurring mudslides, landslides, or erosion that pose an immediate threat to the highway, or to restore those roadways damaged by mudslides, landslides, or erosion to their predamage condition and functionality. This paragraph does not exempt from this chapter any project undertaken, carried out, or approved by a state or local governmental agency to expand or widen a highway damaged by fire, flood, storm, earthquake, land subsidence, gradual earth movement, or landslide. The exception provided in this paragraph does not apply to a highway designated as an official state scenic highway pursuant to Section 262 of the Streets and Highways Code.

Sacramento County Office of Economic Development and Marketing Agency Notification 11-2 South Mather Wetlands Management Plan Attachment B (b) The entity performing the emergency work described in subdivision (a) shall notify the department of the work, in writing, within 14 days of beginning the work. Any work described in the emergency notification that does not meet the criteria for the emergency work described in subdivision (a) is a violation of this chapter if the entity did not first notify the department in accordance with Section 1602.”

Sacramento County Office of Economic Development and Marketing South Mather Wetlands Management Plan 11-3 Agency Notification Attachment B

Attachment B

Table 11-1. Notification Requirements USFWS CDFW USACE SCAS1

Permit Permit Permit Notification Notification Notification Notification No Notification No Notification Task No Notification Prescribed Livestock X X X X X X X Grazing2

Prescribed Burning X X X X

Mechanical Thatch Removal X X X X

Manual Thatch Removal X X X

Herbicide Treatment of X X X X X X Invasive Plant Species3 Hot Water/Steam Treatment X X X X X X of Invasive Plant Species3 Propane Torch Treatment of X X X X X X Invasive Plant Species3 Mulching Treatment of X X X X X X Invasive Plant Species3 Biological Control Treatment of Invasive Plant X X X X X X Species3 Fence, Gate, and Sign X X X X X X Installation4 Fence, Gate, and Sign X X X Maintenance4 Maintenance of Existing X X X X X X Utility Infrastructure5

Sacramento County Office of Economic Development and Marketing Agency Notification 11-4 South Mather Wetlands Management Plan Attachment B

Table 11-1. Notification Requirements USFWS CDFW USACE SCAS1

Permit Permit Permit Notification Notification Notification Notification No Notification No Notification Task No Notification Maintenance of USAF X X X X X X Remediation Facilities5

Fire Break Maintenance X X X X

Construction of Grazing X X X X X X Improvements4 Maintenance of Grazing X X X Improvements4

Trash and Refuse Collection X X X

Trespass Patrol X X X

Hazardous Wildlife X X X Management Domestic and Feral Animal X X X Control

Mosquito Abatement5 X X X

Coyote Control X X

Invasive Animal Control X X

Postdisturbance X X X X X X Restoration or Remediation6

Sacramento County Office of Economic Development and Marketing South Mather Wetlands Management Plan 11-5 Agency Notification Attachment B

Table 11-1. Notification Requirements USFWS CDFW USACE SCAS1

Permit Permit Permit Notification Notification Notification Notification No Notification No Notification Task No Notification

Habitat Restoration6 X X X X X X X

Developed Recreation X X X X X X Activities7 Passive Recreation X X X Activities7

Education and Outreach7 X X X

Scientific Use X X X

General Inspections X X X

Biological Monitoring X X X

Annual Reporting X X X

Activities not Described in this Management Plan, X X X X X X X Appendices, or Updates8

Sacramento County Office of Economic Development and Marketing Agency Notification 11-6 South Mather Wetlands Management Plan Attachment B

Table 11-1. Notification Requirements USFWS CDFW USACE SCAS1

Permit Permit Permit Notification Notification Notification Notification No Notification No Notification Task No Notification 1 Activities requiring SCAS prior notification and coordination between the Wetlands Preserve Manager and SCAS indicated as appropriate. Other notification requirements and footnotes below apply only to the Agencies and not SCAS.

2 Livestock grazing as described in the Initial Management Plan during the initial 5- to 10-year preserve management period does not require Agency notification. Other approaches to grazing management, not described in the Initial Management Plan are subject to Agency notification and authorization until the Management Plan is amended at the conclusion of the Initial Management Period.

3 All invasive plant treatments during the initial 5- to 10-year preserve management period, until an invasive plant treatment plan has been prepared and approved by the Agencies, are subject to Agency notification and authorization. Once approved, invasive plant treatment methods consistent with the invasive plant management plan will not require notification; all other methods not described in the invasive plant treatment plan will require agency notification and authorization.

4 Construction of fencing, troughs, water tanks, holding pastures, and similar grazing improvements, including reconstruction of existing improvements, will require Agency notification and may require a permit or other authorization depending on the nature and location of the improvements to be constructed. Ongoing, routine maintenance of these improvements to maintain their functionality and condition will not require Agency notification

5 These activities may require a permit or other Agency notification depending on the nature and location of the proposed activities. Agency notification and permitting or authorization requirements will be the responsibility of other parties, not the Wetlands Preserve Manager or Wetlands Preserve Owner.

6 Habitat restoration and postdisturbance remediation activities will be subject to Agency notification and may require a permit or other Agency authorization depending on the nature and location of the proposed activities.

7 All recreation and public access and outreach activities will be described in the public access master plan prepared during the initial 5- to 10-year preserve management period that will be reviewed and approved by the Agencies. Construction and operation of facilities required to support these activities and ongoing operation of recreation and public access and outreach programs will be subject to Agency notification and, potentially, Agency permits or other Agency authorizations depending on the nature and location of the proposed facilities and activities. The notification and permitting or authorization requirements for these activities will be the responsibility of other parties, not the Wetlands Preserve Manager or Wetlands Preserve Owner, unless either aforementioned party is the proponent for the activity in question.

8 All activities will require Agency notification and may require a permit or other Agency authorization depending on the nature and location of the proposed activity. Activities with the potential to affect operation of Mather Airport may require SCAS notification.

Sacramento County Office of Economic Development and Marketing South Mather Wetlands Management Plan 11-7 Agency Notification Attachment B 12 FUNDING

Funding to implement the Management Plan will be provided by the Wetlands Preserve Owner and will consist, initially, of annual funding to implement the first 5–10 years of Wetlands Preserve management as described in the Initial Management Plan (Appendix A).

Due to the phased nature of management activities planned for the Wetlands Preserve, the calculation and funding of management activities will also occur in phases.

1) Initial Management Plan Cost Estimate: As previously described, the first 5–10 years of Wetlands Preserve management will focus on implementation of the Initial Management Plan, the collection of baseline data, and the development of focused management plans (e.g., grazing management plan, invasive plant management plan, public access management plan) that will be incorporated into an updated Management Plan to guide perpetual management of the Wetlands Preserve. During this period, the Wetlands Preserve Owner will fund management of the Wetlands Preserve on an annual basis, via contract or similar legal agreement with the Wetlands Preserve Manager. The total annual funding requirement during this initial period has been calculated using the PAR software and is included as Appendix H.

2) Final PAR: At the conclusion of the initial 5- to 10-year Wetlands Preserve management period, a final PAR will be prepared to calculate an endowment amount sufficient to fund management of the Wetlands Preserve in perpetuity. This PAR will build from the Initial Management Plan Cost Estimate and incorporate information gleaned from the initial management period, including additional or revised management requirements identified within the grazing management plan, invasive plant management plan, public access master plan, or similar documents that are prepared to guide future management of the Wetlands Preserve. The Wetlands Preserve Owner will fully fund endowment contributions identified by the Final PAR within a timeframe agreed upon by the Wetlands Preserve Owner, Wetlands Preserve Manager, Endowment Manager, Conservation Easement Manager, and the Agencies.

Sacramento County Office of Economic Development and Marketing South Mather Wetlands Management Plan 12-1 Funding Attachment B

Attachment B 13 LIST OF PREPARERS

13.1 CONSULTANT TEAM

13.1.1 H. T. HARVEY & ASSOCIATES

Matt Wacker ...... Project Manager

13.1.2 AECOM

Curtis Alling ...... Principal-in-Charge Ron Unger ...... Project Director Matt Wacker ...... Project Manager Scott McMillan ...... Senior Restoration Ecologist Leo Edson ...... Senior Wildlife Biologist Shannon Hickey ...... Biologist Tracy Walker ...... Biologist Vance Howard ...... Ecologist Stephanie Rasmussen ...... Ecologist Lisa Clement ...... Senior GIS Analyst Eryn Pimentel ...... GIS Analyst Lorrie Jo Williams ...... Graphics Deborah Jew ...... Publishing Associate Gayiety Lane ...... Publishing Associate

13.1.3 WITHAM BIOLOGICAL CONSULTING

Carol W. Witham...... Ecologist

13.1.4 SACRAMENTO VALLEY CONSERVANCY

Aimee Rutledge ...... Executive Director

Sacramento County Office of Economic Development and Marketing South Mather Wetlands Management Plan 13-1 List of Preparers Attachment B

Attachment B 14 REFERENCES

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. 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. 2007. Review of this document. October 3, 2007. Electronic copy of comments on file with AECOM.

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):4–8.

Bentley, J. R., and R. L. Fenner. 1958. Soil temperatures during burning related to postfire seedbeds on woodland range. Journal of Forestry 56(4):737–740.

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

Bossard, C. C., J. M. Randall, and M. C. Hoshovsky. 2000. Invasive Plants of California’s Wildlands. University of California Press. Berkeley, CA.

California Department of Food and Agriculture. 2002. The California Weed Mapping Handbook. Available http://cain.ice.ucdavis.edu/crisis/weedhandbook. Last accessed April 29, 2010.

California Department of Food and Agriculture. 2007. Encycloweedia: Notes on Identification, Biology, and Management of Plants Defined as Noxious Weeds by California Law. Available http://www.cdfa.ca.gov/phpps/ipc/encycloweedia/encycloweedia_hp.htm. Last accessed April 29, 2010.

California Invasive Plant Council. 2006. California Invasive Plant Inventory. Cal-IPC Publication 2006-02. Berkeley, CA.

California Native Plant Society. 2001. Inventory of Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants of California. Special Publication Number 1, Sixth Edition. Sacramento, CA.

California Natural Diversity Database. 2012. RareFind version 3.1.1. Biogeographic Data Branch, California Department of Fish and Game. Sacramento, CA. Updated March 2, 2012.

California Wetlands Monitoring Workgroup. 2013. California Rapid Assessment Method (CRAM) for Wetlands, Version 6.1.

Cal-IPC. See California Invasive Plant Council.

CDFA. See California Department of Food and Agriculture.

CNDDB. See California Natural Diversity Database.

Sacramento County Office of Economic Development and Marketing South Mather Wetlands Management Plan 14-1 References Attachment B CNPS. See California Native Plant Society.

Cox, C. 1998. Clopyralid herbicide fact sheet. Journal of Pesticide Reform 18(4):15–19.

CWMW. See California Wetlands Monitoring Workgroup.

DiTomaso, J. M. 2006. Telephone conversation with Carol Witham regarding the use of prescribed burning to control yellow starthistle.

DiTomaso, J. M. 2007. Review of this document; and information regarding Glyceria; and information provided to Carol Witham regarding aminopyralid.

DiTomaso, J. M., and E. A. Healy 2007. Weeds of California and Western States (Volumes 1 and 2). University of California Division of Agriculture and Natural Resources Publication 3488. Oakland, CA.

DiTomaso, J. M., G. B. Keyser, and M. S. Hastings. 1999. Prescribed burning for control of yellow starthistle (Centaurea solstitialis) and enhanced native plant diversity. Weed Science 47(2):233–242.

DiTomaso, J. M., A. M. Merenlender, K. L. Heise, R. J. Keiffer, and G. B. Kyser. 2001. Carefully timed burning can control barbed goatgrass. California Agriculture 55(6):47–53.

Dittes and Guardino Consulting. 2006 (January). Vernal pool habitat account and conservation goals for the South Sacramento Habitat Conservation Plan. Draft chapter to the South Sacramento Habitat Conservation Plan. County of Sacramento Department of Planning and Community Development. Sacramento, CA.

Environmental Science Associates. 2007. Digital geospatial data depicting creek corridor preserves at South Mather. Copy of data maintained in AECOM project files.

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

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.

Extoxnet. 1996a. Pesticide information profile for 2,4-D. Available http://extoxnet.orst.edu/pips/24-D.htm. Last accessed April 29, 2010.

Extoxnet. 1996b. Pesticide information profile for glyphosate. Available http://extoxnet.orst.edu/pips/glyphosa.htm. Last accessed April 29, 2010.

Extoxnet. 1996c. Pesticide information profile for MCPA. Available http://extoxnet.orst.edu/pips/MCPA.htm. Last accessed April 29, 2010.

Extoxnet. 1996d. Pesticide information profile for triclopyr. Available http://extoxnet.orst.edu/pips/triclopy.htm. Last accessed April 29, 2010.

George, M., J. Bartolome, N. McDougald, M. Connor, C. Vaughn and G. Markegard. 2001. Annual Range Forage Production. University of California Agriculture and Natural Resources Publication 8018. University of California. Oakland, CA.

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,

Sacramento County Office of Economic Development and Marketing References 14-2 South Mather Wetlands Management Plan Attachment B Conservation, and Management of Vernal Pool Ecosystems. Proceedings from a 1996 Conference. California Native Plant Society. Sacramento, CA.

Hanes, 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. Number 8. California State University, Chico, CA.

Hansen, E. 2007. Personal communication with Ron Unger of AECOM regarding the presence of giant garter snake at South Mather.

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. 1961. Continuous vs. specialized grazing systems: review and application to the California annual type. Journal of Range Management 14:182–193.

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.

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.S. Geological Survey.

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

Hickman, J. C. (ed.). 1993. The Jepson Manual Higher Plants of California. University of California Press. Berkeley, CA.

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

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. 1986. Preliminary Descriptions of the Terrestrial Natural Communities of California. California Department of Fish and Game Non-Game Heritage Division. Sacramento, 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. Number 8. California State University, Chico, CA.

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

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

Hopkinson, P., J. S. Fehmi, J. W. Bartolome, J. Dunne, and R. Tripp. 1999. Summer burns reduce cover, but not spread, of barbed goatgrass in California grassland. Ecological Restoration 17:168–169.

Sacramento County Office of Economic Development and Marketing South Mather Wetlands Management Plan 14-3 References Attachment B Hydro Science. 2003. Mather Field Hydrology Guidelines Report. Vacaville, CA. Prepared for Wetland Research Associates, Inc., San Rafael, CA. Originally published October 30, 2002. Revised December 2003.

Hydro Science and L. P. Stromberg. 1992 (January). Hydrologic Monitoring and Investigations: Report of Findings, Sunrise-Douglas Site, Sacramento, California. Prepared for The Sammis Company.

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

Jaeger, M. M., K. M. Blejwas, B. N. Sacks, J. C. C. Neale, and D. R. McCullough. 2001. Targeting alphas can make coyote control more effective and socially acceptable. California Agriculture 55:32–36.

Jones & Stokes Associates, Inc. 1997. Special-status survey report for the proposed Mather Regional Park site. January 22, 1997. (JSA 97-297.) Sacramento, CA. Prepared for the County of Sacramento Department of Regional Parks, Recreation, and Open Space and the Department of Environmental Review and Assessment, Sacramento, CA.

JSA. See Jones & Stokes Associates, Inc.

Kentula, M. E. 2007. Monitoring wetlands at the watershed scale. Wetlands 27:412–415.

King, J. L., M. A. Simovich, and R. C. Brusca. 1996. Species richness, endemism, and ecology of crustacean assemblages in northern California vernal pools. Hydrobiologia 328:85–116.

Leyse, K. E., S. P. Lawler, and T. Strange. 1999. Effects of mosquitofish (Gambusia affinis) on two vernal pool organisms, Ambystoma califoriense larvae and Linderiella occidentalis. Proceedings of the North American Benthological Society Meeting. Duluth. MN.

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

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

Natural Resources Conservation Service. 1993. Soil Survey of Sacramento County. U.S. Department of Agriculture. Davis, CA.

Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2006a. National Range and Pasture Handbook. U.S. Department of Agriculture. National Grazing Lands Technical Institute. Ft. Worth, TX.

Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2006b. Soil survey geographic database for Sacramento County, CA. Available http://soildatamart.nrcs.usda.gov/. Last Accessed April 29, 2010.

NRCS. See Natural Resources Conservation Service.

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

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.), Ecology, Conservation, and Management of Vernal Pool Ecosystem - Preceedings from a 1996 Conference. California Native Plant Society. Sacramento, CA.

Sacramento County Office of Economic Development and Marketing References 14-4 South Mather Wetlands Management Plan Attachment B 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), Ecology, Conservation, and Management of Vernal Pool Ecosystem - Proceedings from a 1996 Conference. California Native Plant Society. Sacramento, CA.

Rains, M. C., G. E. Fogg, T. Hunter, R. A. Dahlgren, and R. J. Williamson. 2006. The role of perched aquifers in hydrological connectivity and biogeochemical processes in vernal pool landscapes, Central Valley, California. Hydrological Processes 20:1157–1175.

Robbins, J. D., and J. E. Vollmar 2002. Livestock grazing and vernal pool management. Pages 401–430 in Vollmar, J. E. (ed.), 2002. Wildlife and Rare Plant Ecology of Eastern Merced County’s Vernal Pool Grasslands. Vollmar Consulting. Berkeley, CA.

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.

Rosen, D. 2007. Personal communication with Carol Witham regarding the presences of special-status bird species at South Mather.

Sacramento County. 1997 (May). South Mather Specific Plan.

Sacramento County. 2006a. Staff report from Paul Lake and David Norris, Department of Economic Development and Intergovernmental Affairs, to the Sacramento County Board of Supervisors dated February 22, 2006, regarding Initiation of Mather-Related General Plan Amendments and Approval to Proceed with Application for Federal Wetland Fill Permits at South Mather. Copy maintained in AECOM project file.

Sacramento County. 2006b. Draft South Sacramento Habitat Conservation Plan. Available http://www.planning.saccounty.net/habitat-conservation/overview.html. Last Accessed April 29, 2010.

Sacramento County. 2006c. Map depicting land use areas within the South Mather Area. Hard copy and digital formats maintained in AECOM project file.

Sacramento Metropolitan Fire District. Undated. Memorandum describing emergency vehicle accessibility standards, firebreak standards, and open space fencing standards. Copy of document in AECOM project file.

Sawyer, J. O., and T. Keeler-Wolf. 1995. A Manual of California Vegetation. California Native Plant Society. Sacramento, CA.

Semlitsch, R. D., and J. R. Brodie. 2003. Biological criteria for buffer zones around wetlands and riparian habitats for amphibians and reptiles. Conservation Biology 17:1219–1228.

Syrdahl, R. L. 1993. Distribution Patterns of Some Key Macro-Invertebrates in a Series of Vernal Pools at Vina Plains Preserve in Tehama County, California. California State University Chico, Department of Biological Sciences. Chico, CA.

The Nature Conservancy. 2005. The Global Invasive Species Initiative Weed Information Management System (WIMS). Available http://tncweeds.ucdavis.edu/wims.html. Last updated October 2006, Accessed April 29, 2010.

TNC. See The Nature Conservancy.

Sacramento County Office of Economic Development and Marketing South Mather Wetlands Management Plan 14-5 References Attachment B Tu, M., C. Hurd, and J. M. Randall. 2001. Weed Control Methods Handbook. The Nature Conservancy Wildland Invasive Species Team, Davis, CA. Available http://tncinvasives.ucdavis.edu/. Version: April 2001, updated June 2003.

USACE. See U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2012. Regulatory Program Uniform Performance Standards for Compensatory Mitigation Requirements. South Pacific Division. San Francisco, CA.

USDA. See U.S. Department of Agriculture.

U.S. Department of Agriculture. 1993. Soil Survey of Sacramento County, California. In cooperation with the University of California Agricultural Experiment Station.

U.S. Department of Agriculture. 1999. Dicamba Herbicide Information Profile. Available http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/nr/fid/pubsweb/dicamba_99.pdf. Accessed April 29, 2010.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2005. Pesticide Fact Sheet: Aminopyralid. August 10, 2005. Available http://www.epa.gov/opprd001/factsheets/aminopyralid.pdf. Accessed April 29, 2010.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2004. Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point Planning for Natural Resource Management. Available http://www.haccp-nrm.org/. Accessed April 29, 2010.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2005. Recovery Plan for Vernal Pool Ecosystems of California and Southern Oregon. Portland, OR.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service. 1998. Endangered Species Consultation Handbook. Available http://www.fws.gov/endangered/consultations/s7hndbk/s7hndbk.htm. Accessed April 29, 2010.

USFWS. See U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

U.S. Geological Survey. 1980 and 1992. Buffalo Creek and Carmichael 7.5 minute quadrangle maps.

USGS. See U.S. Geological Survey.

Vallentine, J. F. 2000. Grazing Management. Academic Press. San Diego, CA.

Wacker, M. Personal observation of yellow-star thistle control following mowing and application of glyphostate, Dove Ridge Conservation Bank. Butter County, CA.

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

Wetlands Research Associates, Inc. 2004a (February 3). Delineation of Potential Jurisdictional Wetlands and Waters of the U.S. under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Mather Field Study Area. San Rafael, CA. Prepared for County of Sacramento.

Wetlands Research Associates, Inc. 2004b (May 25). Mather Field Natural Resource Assessment: Phase I and II. San Rafael, CA. Prepared for County of Sacramento.

Williamson, R. J., G. E. Fogg, M. C. Rains, and T. H. Harter. 2005. Hydrology of Vernal Pools at Three Sites, Southern Sacramento Valley. Final Technical Report. Submitted to California Department of

Sacramento County Office of Economic Development and Marketing References 14-6 South Mather Wetlands Management Plan Attachment B Transportation for the project: F 2001 IR 20 Developing a Floristic Statewide Vernal Pool Classification, and a Functional Model of Pool Hydrology and Water Quality.

Witham, C. 2006. Field Guide to the Vernal Pools of Mather Field, Sacramento County. California Native Plant Society – Sacramento Valley Chapter.

Witham, C. 2007. Telephone conversation with Matt Wacker of AECOM regarding occurrences of special-status species at South Mather.

WRA. See Wetlands Research Associates, Inc.

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.

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 Office of Economic Development and Marketing South Mather Wetlands Management Plan 14-7 References Attachment B

Attachment B

APPENDIX A Initial Management Plan

Attachment B

Attachment B APPENDIX A INITIAL MANAGEMENT PLAN

INTRODUCTION

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

Management approaches were intentionally described in limited detail in the Management Plan. Relative to other wetland preserves in the Central Valley, the South Mather Wetlands Preserve is unique because it has been largely unmanaged over an approximately 90-year period; thus, no existing management regime can be adapted in developing a perpetual stewardship approach. Furthermore, the Wetlands Preserve has a long history of public use, both for recreational and for educational purposes, and existing users of the Wetlands Preserve have a vested interest in the perpetual stewardship of the preserve. Therefore, initial management of the Wetlands Preserve will involve a phased approach to management action implementation, coupled with strategic data collection and analysis in an adaptive management framework.

This management plan has been developed to guide management actions during the Initial Management Period. Data collected during this period will be used to develop an adequate, site-specific basis for perpetual stewardship approaches. It also will be used to demonstrate to stakeholder groups and the Sacramento community those management actions that will maintain and enhance the Wetlands Preserve’s ecological resources and help identify potential public uses.

Information collected during the Initial Management Period will be the basis of subsequent revisions to the Management Plan, which will inform in-perpetuity management of the Wetlands Preserve. Sacramento County is expected to fund future updates to the Management Plan after the Initial Management Period has ended and before a final financial analysis is developed to determine the amount of funding required to implement the revised Management Plan in perpetuity.

This initial management plan is organized into the following set of discrete tasks, which will be completed during the first 5–10 years of Wetlands Preserve management:

• Implement small-scale, trial livestock grazing as a means of managing vegetation in the Wetlands Preserve

• Collect plant community, rare plant population, and invertebrate community baseline data

• Treat high-priority invasive plant populations

• Construct fencing and other improvements needed to discourage trespass and facilitate livestock grazing

• Perform general Wetlands Preserve maintenance and management (e.g., trespass patrol, collection of refuse) and monitor conservation easement compliance

Sacramento County Office of Economic Development and Marketing Final South Mather Wetlands Management Plan A-1 Initial Management Plan Attachment B • Conduct public outreach and coordination (e.g., with the Independence at Mather community, Sacramento County Regional Parks, and other Mather stakeholders)

• Conduct regulatory agency reporting

• Develop an invasive plant management plan

• Develop a public access master plan

All tasks will be completed as described below and consistent with the general guidelines outlined in the Management Plan.

MANAGEMENT ACTIONS

ELEMENT 1: VEGETATION MANAGEMENT

Objective 1: Adaptively manage vegetation and thatch to enhance grassland structural diversity and vernal pool/seasonal wetland ecological values

Task 1: Implement an ecologically appropriate grazing management strategy for the Wetlands Preserve

Livestock grazing will be the primary method of managing annual grassland, pasture, and vernal pool/seasonal wetland habitats in the Wetlands Preserve. Moderate livestock grazing in areas of relatively heavy use and areas of relatively light use will create structural diversity, benefiting a diversity of wildlife species that use grassland habitats for foraging and breeding. In some circumstances, moderate grazing can also increase the diversity of plant species by reducing the accumulation of annual grassland biomass (i.e., thatch or residual dry matter [RDM]) and improving conditions for the germination and growth of species other than nonnative annual grasses (Jackson and Bartolome 2007). In addition, moderate livestock grazing has been shown to increase habitat quality for native species of vernal pool plants and invertebrates relative to ungrazed vernal pools (Marty 2005), and grazing may be helpful in reducing some species of invasive plants (e.g., DiTomaso et al. 2008).

Because the Wetlands Preserve has not been grazed in many years, the response of species and habitats in the preserve to grazing is uncertain. Therefore, as an initial trial, grazing will be implemented in defined subareas of the Wetlands Preserve that are each intended to be approximately 40–60 acres in size (Exhibit 1). The locations of enclosures have been selected to include vernal pools, including vernal pools supporting sensitive species; be located away from areas that receive significant amounts of public use; facilitate access for livestock management; and minimize the area of the Wetlands Preserve that will be initially grazed while still including an area sufficient to permit initial baseline data collection regarding the potential effects of grazing. Limiting the area of livestock grazing will also potentially serve as a useful public outreach tool to demonstrate the difference between grazed and ungrazed vernal pools close 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 before livestock grazing is initiated across the entire Wetlands Preserve.

Initial grazing of these areas will occur as summarized in Table 1 and consistent with the general guidelines in Chapter 5 of the Management Plan. This approach is intended to be a starting point for managing the grazing enclosures. Stocking rates, season of use, and the kind and class of animals permitted to graze may be adaptively adjusted by the preserve manager as appropriate throughout the Initial Management Period.

Sacramento County Office of Economic Development and Marketing Initial Management Plan A-2 Final South Mather Wetlands Management Plan Attachment B

Attachment B

Attachment B Table 1 Initial Mather Grazing Approach Kind of livestock Cattle Class Cow/calf pairs Season of use November 1 through June 151 Stocking rate 1 AUM per acre2 1 Adjusted annually by the preserve manager based on climate and forage availability 2 AUM = Animal Unit Month, a standardized unit of measure for livestock forage requirements approximately equivalent to the amount of forage needed by one cow/calf pair for 1 month. See also Chapter 5 of the Management Plan.

Grazing use (i.e., as expressed by the amount of RDM) will be monitored each year that grazing occurs. The results of RDM and plant community monitoring (Task 7), combined with the results of monitoring of invertebrate communities (Task 12), will be evaluated during Task 24 to determine whether livestock grazing is contributing to the maintenance of habitat values in the grazing enclosures. Results from grazing trials will inform development of a long-term grazing management strategy for the Wetlands Preserve and will be incorporated into Chapter 5 of the Management Plan.

Task 2: Use prescribed fire where appropriate and feasible to manage upland and associated vernal pool and seasonal wetland habitats in the Preserve

Along with livestock grazing (Task 1), prescribed fire will be a primary means of managing upland and associated vernal pool/seasonal wetland habitats in the Wetlands Preserve, particularly as an adaptive management measure when vegetation management goals are not being met with livestock grazing alone. The use of prescribed fire as a management tool will follow the guidelines in Chapter 5 of the Management Plan, and the preserve manager will coordinate with the Sacramento Metropolitan Fire District and Sacramento County Regional Parks, as appropriate, to implement prescribed fire in the Wetlands Preserve.

ELEMENT 2: INVASIVE PLANT MANAGEMENT

Invasive plants are typically associated with disturbance, can be spread by vehicles and other anthropogenic means, and can create monocultural stands that severely reduce habitat function and quality for native plant and wildlife species. Invasive plants do not necessarily include all species of nonnative grasses and forbs, many of which have become widely naturalized in California’s grassland habitats over the last 200–300 years. In most cases, control or eradication of these species is infeasible and may not be desirable where these plants continue to provide habitat functions for native wildlife.

As stated in the Management Plan, a comprehensive invasive plant management plan will be developed for the Wetlands Preserve within 1 year following preserve establishment (i.e., conservation easement recordation). However, it may be possible to strategically treat high-priority infestations before the invasive plant management plan is finalized. Tasks specifically related to invasive plant management are described below.

Objective 2: Reduce high-priority infestations of invasive plants, and develop a plan for long-term invasive plant management

Task 3: The preserve manager will coordinate control of high-priority invasive plant populations that immediately threaten the Wetlands Preserve’s ecosystem functions

During development of the Invasive Plant Management Plan (Task 4), the preserve manager will strategically treat populations of invasive plants that pose significant threats to the Wetlands Preserve (i.e., incipient infestations that could be eradicated through focused control efforts). Methods to prioritize invasive plant populations for treatment and suggested treatment techniques are discussed in Chapter 5 of the Management Plan.

Sacramento County Office of Economic Development and Marketing Final South Mather Wetlands Management Plan A-3 Initial Management Plan Attachment B The preserve manager may also consult with Mather stakeholders to identify high-priority infestations for initial treatment. Invasive plant treatments will follow the guidelines and requirements described in Chapter 5 of the Management Plan.

The preserve manager will be responsible for maintaining an invasive plant control log that will supplement the information collected during Tasks 6 and 7 and describe all specific invasive plant treatments completed for the Wetlands Preserve. The log will be used to record populations targeted for control, methods used for control, when control activities took place, climatic conditions during the treatment, when the population was revisited to assess efficacy, and the results of each of these actions. A copy of this log will be included as an appendix to the annual report (Task 24). In addition, the annual report will include general and, if applicable, specific recommendations for continued invasive plant control strategies for the upcoming year. It also will note infestations that, based on the results obtained during Task 6, appear to have been successfully eradicated from the Wetlands Preserve.

Task 4: Within 12 months following recordation of the Wetlands Preserve conservation easement, Sacramento County will develop an invasive plant management plan for the Wetlands Preserve

The invasive plant management plan will document species of invasive plants occurring in the Wetlands Preserve; 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 Management Plan. In addition, the invasive plant management plan will describe a framework, consistent with Chapter 5 of the Management Plan, for preventing, 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 plan will be obtained by Sacramento County or the preserve manager before the plan is implemented. In particular, if herbicides are to be used, the invasive plant management plan will require additional review and approval by USFWS. The plan will describe focus species and their distributions, the parameters under which herbicides will be used, the specific control methods, the rationale for selecting the control methods, the timing for control methods, and the proper combination of control methods. Planned herbicide applications should be presented in the context of the plant’s life cycle and potential for the herbicide to interact with the environment.

After the plan is developed and approved by the Agencies, implementation of the plan will begin immediately and will continue throughout the Initial Management Period. Treatment areas will be monitored as described below for Task 6 to determine treatment effectiveness, 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 (Task 24).

The invasive plant management plan will be incorporated into the Management Plan as an appendix, and Chapter 5 of the Management Plan will be revised as appropriate to reflect the invasive plant management plan and the results of treatments completed during the Initial Management Period.

Sacramento County Office of Economic Development and Marketing Initial Management Plan A-4 Final South Mather Wetlands Management Plan Attachment B ELEMENT 3: MONITORING

Objective 3: Document baseline habitat conditions, before or during implementation of this initial management plan

Task 5: Collect baseline data to characterize the current occurrence and distribution of special-status species in the Wetlands Preserve, habitat conditions, and other ecological values

The preserve manager will document baseline habitat conditions in the Wetlands Preserve. The following baseline data will be collected:

• Acreage and distribution of plant communities and wetlands in the Wetlands Preserve

• Number of occurrences of special-status species, including measures of abundance

• Characteristics of plant communities found in the Wetlands Preserve (e.g., presence and abundance of invasive species, dominant species, biomass production and accumulation)

It is expected that most of these data were collected previously and have been incorporated into the Management Plan; thus, this task is expected to consist of organizing these data into a common repository (e.g., an ArcGIS geodatabase) and supplementing these data with additional data to be collected during the Initial Management Period following the methods described below for Tasks 6, 7, 10, and 12.

Objective 4: Annually assess the condition of plant communities in the Wetlands Preserve, including the status and trend of invasive plants, RDM accumulation, and the effects of livestock grazing

Task 6: Conduct annual reconnaissance surveys of the Wetlands Preserve

Annual reconnaissance surveys (site walk-throughs) of the Wetlands Preserve will be conducted by the preserve manager during late spring/early summer (late April through June) and fall (October and November) to inspect ecological conditions; identify new invasive plant infestations or changes to baseline plant community or invasive plant conditions as documented during Tasks 4 and 5 or as a result of invasive plant treatments as described for Task 3; and document signs of erosion, runoff, or inappropriate wetland hydrology (e.g., in areas adjacent to residential development). Significant infestations of invasive plants (more than several tens of yards square) will be mapped with a Global Positioning System (GPS) unit, and the mapped extent will be compared with previous years’ mapping to determine whether the size of the population has changed. Representative photographs will be taken as needed to document current conditions.

Task 7: Monitor plant community conditions in the Wetlands Preserve and in grazing enclosures.

Data collected during Task 6 will be supplemented with data collected at selected monitoring plots. To develop a budget estimate for the Initial Management Period, 21 monitoring plots are assumed to be located throughout the Wetlands Preserve: three grazed plots in each of the two grazing enclosures, three ungrazed plots in each of the two grazing enclosures, and nine plots outside grazing enclosures. Each plot will include a single vernal pool (21 total vernal pools). Temporary electrical fencing or other fencing may be used as needed to separate grazed and ungrazed plots in each grazing enclosure. The preserve manager will ensure that the pools in survey plots are representative of other pools in the Wetlands Preserve, and some pools should be located in areas that could be affected by surrounding development (e.g., near roadways or development).

In each plot (i.e., each surveyed vernal pool), three 35- by 70-centimeter quadrats will be located in the pool center, three quadrats will be located at the pool edge, and three quadrats will be located 5 meters beyond the pool

Sacramento County Office of Economic Development and Marketing Final South Mather Wetlands Management Plan A-5 Initial Management Plan Attachment B edge. Sampling methods will generally follow those described by Marty (2005). In each quadrat, all vascular plant species will be recorded, the total absolute foliar cover of each species will be estimated, and the approximate cover of thatch and percent bare ground will be recorded. In upland plots only, the amount of RDM or biomass present in the quadrat also will be estimated, using standard procedures described in Chapter 10 of the Management Plan. Maps of RDM zones in the grazing enclosures only also will be prepared. All data will be collected and organized by the preserve manager, and representative photographs will be taken of each plot. Data will be analyzed as described below for Task 9.

Task 8: Gather annual climatic data in the vicinity of the Wetlands Preserve

As described in the Management Plan, average temperatures and the amount and timing of precipitation affect annual plant–dominated communities in a variety of ways, which in turn affect habitat quality for native plant and wildlife species. The preserve manager will compile an annual climate database from the closest representative weather station. The data will be used to determine how climatic patterns in a given year or season compare to long-term averages and will be consulted in assessing the results of species or plant community focused monitoring.

Task 9: Evaluate and document plant community conditions and trends, including those related to grazing, based on monitoring results

In the annual report (Task 24), the preserve manager will describe, compare, and contrast the results obtained during Tasks 6, 7, and 8. The effects of livestock grazing on plant communities will be described for grazed and ungrazed plots in grazing enclosures, and results from current-year surveys will be compared with results of prior- year surveys to document the condition and trend of plant communities in areas grazed and not grazed by livestock. Interpretation of these data will form the basis for decisions regarding livestock grazing across the Wetlands Preserve at the conclusion of the Initial Management Period. Although the preserve manager may choose a variety of appropriate analyses to compare data collected from grazing enclosures, the following summaries and comparisons are recommended:

• Percent cover of vernal pool obligate species relative to that of other species in grazed and ungrazed vernal pools

• Percent bare ground in grazed and ungrazed vernal pools

• Percent cover of nonnative annual grasses in grazed and ungrazed uplands

• Percent cover of invasive plants in grazed and ungrazed uplands

• Amount of RDM or biomass in grazed and ungrazed uplands

Data collected outside grazing enclosures will be analyzed in a similar fashion. These data will be used to establish baseline conditions for the range of plant community responses typically seen in the Wetlands Preserve as a function of annual climate and will aid in the interpretation of data from grazing enclosures (i.e., to help identify changes in plant communities within grazed areas that cannot be reasonably attributed to changes in climate alone).

Sacramento County Office of Economic Development and Marketing Initial Management Plan A-6 Final South Mather Wetlands Management Plan Attachment B Objective 5: Document the status and trend of special-status plants occurring at the Wetlands Preserve to inform adaptive management actions intended to maintain these species within the normal range of local population fluctuations

Task 10: Conduct annual monitoring of special-status plant populations identified during Task 5

The preserve manager will establish monitoring plots by examining rare plant occurrence data collected during Task 5. Plots will be established in areas supporting the densest, most diverse, and most important areas for special-status plant species on the Wetlands Preserve. Plots will be defined by the area of potential habitat for target species (i.e., the entirety of any vernal pool known to support one or more species of special-status plants), and the approximate center of each plot will be recorded using a GPS receiver to facilitate relocation of the plot in the future. For the purpose of developing a budget estimate, it is assumed that no more than 10 locations of rare plant occurrences will be surveyed. To the extent that special-status plants occur in the grazing enclosures, the preserve manager will locate at least two monitoring plots in areas to be grazed by livestock.

For each plot, the preserve manager will record the approximate number of individual plants and approximate ground cover occupied by each special-status plant species. In addition, the presence of all other vascular plants and their approximate ground cover in the plot will be recorded. This assessment will be completed to document the overall condition of the plant community in which special-status plant species occur and to identify factors (e.g., thatch accumulation, invasive species) that may have the potential to adversely affect special-status plants. Quadrats or other forms of plot subsampling may be used selectively if needed to develop accurate estimates of plant cover. Additional qualitative observational data will be collected on discernible loss of vigor, weed occurrences, approximate amount of bare ground in the plot, approximate cover of thatch, insect herbivory, browsing, desiccation, signs of disease, or uprooting by animals. During this monitoring, if any species or occurrences of special-status plants not already known to occur based on the results of Task 5 are detected, these new occurrences will be mapped. Representative photographs will be taken of each monitored special-status plant occurrence, and all photographs, data forms, and geographic information system data will be archived to facilitate future analysis.

Task 11: Evaluate and document special-status plant conditions and trends based on monitoring results

In the annual report (Task 24), current conditions will be compared with conditions documented during previous years. These data will serve to document the range of plant community responses to changes in annual weather patterns (Task 8) so that, if livestock grazing is implemented across the Wetlands Preserve at the conclusion of the Initial Management Period, the observed status and trend of plant populations that are grazed can be compared and contrasted to observed baseline conditions in the absence of grazing.

If special-status plants occur in grazing enclosures, plant population data will be compared and contrasted between grazed and ungrazed pools in the enclosure, and these data will be compared with data collected from pools not located in grazing enclosures.

Objective 6: Document the status and trends of vernal pool invertebrates occurring at the preserve to inform adaptive management actions intended to maintain these species within the normal range of local population fluctuations

Task 12: Determine vernal pool invertebrate occurrence and approximate density

Vernal pool invertebrates, because they are aquatic species, are susceptible to stressors such as reduced water quality, and they may interact with or be affected by vegetation management actions in ways that are different from terrestrial species. In additional, vernal pool invertebrates can serve as indicator species for other aquatic species with similar habitat requirements, such as western spadefoot toads or vernal pool plants. Thus, data

Sacramento County Office of Economic Development and Marketing Final South Mather Wetlands Management Plan A-7 Initial Management Plan Attachment B showing stable or increasing populations of vernal pool obligate invertebrate taxa (e.g., large branchiopods) are likely to be indicative of habitat conditions capable of supporting stable or increasing populations of ecologically similar species with similar habitat requirements.

Vernal pool invertebrate occurrence and approximate density will be surveyed in the same vernal pools monitored during Task 7. Selected pools will be representative of the range of sizes and depths of vernal pool found throughout the preserve. To the extent feasible, the selection of pools identified for surveys during Task 7 will include pools known to support populations of large branchiopods documented during Task 5.

In accordance with USFWS survey guidelines (USFWS 1996), USFWS approval will be obtained before surveys are conducted, and surveys will be conducted only by individuals permitted under Section 10(a)(1)(A) of the federal Endangered Species Act. USFWS protocol-level surveys will not be performed; instead, nonprotocol-level monitoring will be performed to obtain data on invertebrate presence and large branchiopod abundance. Pools will be visited up to three times during the rainy season at a time optimal for observing and identifying large branchiopods (generally January through March).

At each pool, surveyors will record presence of all invertebrate taxa as well as approximate abundance of vernal pool branchiopods (i.e., vernal pool obligate species) and Chironomid midges and mosquitoes (i.e., opportunistic species indicative of declining water quality) per dip-net pull. A standard dip-net pull is defined as sampling 4 cubic feet of water; thus, a net with a 12-square-inch opening would be pulled through the water for a distance of 4 feet. Dip-net pulls should be made throughout the pool and should include all depths of the water column, with the number of dip-net pulls per pool determined by pool size as shown in Table 2. For each dip-net pull, incremental estimates of the abundance of all aquatic organisms will be recorded according to the following abundance levels:

• Low: average less than 1 individual per dip-net pull

• Medium: average 1–5 individuals per dip-net pull

• High: average 6–25 individuals per dip-net pull

• Very high: average greater than 25 individuals per dip-net pull

Table 2 Dip-Net Pulls per Pool Size Pool Size Number of Required Pulls < 100 ft2 5 100–500 ft2 7 500–1000 ft2 10 1000–2500 ft2 13 2500–5000 ft2 16 > 5000 ft2 20 Notes: ft2 = square feet; < = less than; > = greater than

A standard monitoring form should be developed to ensure consistency of data collection and reporting among sampled pools and sample years. The form should be designed to obtain all information required by USFWS guidelines (air temperature, water temperature, water depth, estimated maximum depth, pool surface area, estimated maximum surface area, disturbance, grazing regime, species observations) plus additional information pertinent to management or maintenance recommendations. All collected data will be tabulated and organized by

Sacramento County Office of Economic Development and Marketing Initial Management Plan A-8 Final South Mather Wetlands Management Plan Attachment B the preserve manager and incorporated into the annual report (Task 24). Observations of livestock trampling (for grazed pools), algae, excessive urine and feces deposition by livestock, inappropriate hydrology (i.e., pools remaining ponded for abnormally long periods), and other potentially adverse effects on vernal pools will be noted during surveys.

Task 13: Evaluate and analyze vernal pool invertebrate status and trends based on monitoring results

In the annual report (Task 24), the preserve manager will describe, compare, and contrast the results of Tasks 8 and 12. The effects of livestock grazing on invertebrates will be described for grazed and ungrazed pools in grazing enclosures, and results from current-year surveys will be compared with those from prior-year surveys to document the condition and trend of plant communities in areas that are grazed and not grazed by livestock. Interpretation of these data will form the basis for decisions regarding livestock grazing across the Wetlands Preserve at the conclusion of the Initial Management Period. Although the preserve manager may choose a variety of appropriate analyses to compare data, the following summaries and comparisons are recommended:

• Presence and abundance of vernal pool branchiopods in grazed and ungrazed pools

• Presence and abundance of mosquitoes and Chironomid midges in grazed and ungrazed pools

Data collected outside grazing enclosures will be analyzed in a similar fashion. These data will establish baseline conditions for the range of invertebrate community responses typically seen in the Wetlands Preserve as a function of annual climate alone and will aid in the interpretation of data from grazing enclosures to help identify changes in invertebrate communities that cannot be reasonably attributed to changes in climate alone.

ELEMENT 4: PRESERVE MAINTENANCE

Preserve maintenance activities largely follow those described in Chapter 6 of the 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 ecological values in their current condition and minimize the potential for adverse effects from trespass, refuse dumping, and similar activities. 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 (e.g., infrastructure, right-of-way maintenance, Air Force remediation facilities) or critical habitat require consultation with USFWS under the federal Endangered Species Act. All activities that may result in fill of wetlands must be permitted by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers under the federal Clean Water Act.

Objective 7: Minimize or eliminate trespass, refuse dumping, and similar activities on the Wetlands Preserve

Task 14: In conjunction with Sacramento County Regional Parks, complete general inspections of the Wetlands Preserve

The preserve manager will inspect the Wetlands Preserve on a regular basis. Inspections will evaluate the following factors: signs of trespass, 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, as well as transects that meander through its interior, will be covered. In addition, “windshield” surveys of surrounding areas should be made periodically to identify new and potentially expanding populations of invasive plants with the potential to adversely affect the Wetlands Preserve. An inspection sheet will be used during each field visit to evaluate signs of trespass and the other factors identified above. Previous inspection sheets should be reviewed

Sacramento County Office of Economic Development and Marketing Final South Mather Wetlands Management Plan A-9 Initial Management Plan Attachment B 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 and to ensure that remedial actions are effective. 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 the Sacramento County Sheriff’s Department for investigation.

Task 15: Collect trash and refuse

Trash and refuse will not be allowed to accumulate in the Wetlands Preserve and will be collected and disposed of by the preserve manager.

Task 16: Coordinate right-of-way maintenance

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

Task 17: Coordinate infrastructure maintenance

Existing infrastructure, including natural gas lines, water lines, storm drains, sewer lines, drainage channels, power lines, and communication lines, are found in the Wetlands Preserve. Maintenance of these facilities by third parties (i.e., the owners of these facilities) will 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, AT&T) are responsible for regulatory agency review and approval requirements related to their maintenance activities.

In addition, numerous remediation facilities installed and operated by the U.S. Air Force exist in the Wetlands Preserve. Maintenance and continued operation of these facilities will be permitted as needed in accordance with all applicable laws and regulations. Maintenance of these facilities by the U.S. Air Force will 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 the activities described above does not substitute for required regulatory agency approvals. Any regulatory agency authorizations or approvals for the maintenance of existing infrastructure or remediation facilities in the Wetlands Preserve will be coordinated with the preserve manager.

Objective 8: Maintain fences, gates, and signage to prevent trespass, facilitate necessary access, and manage grazing

Task 18: Install and maintain fencing to discourage trespass and facilitate Wetlands Preserve management

Sacramento County will pay all costs associated with the construction of fencing (e.g., five-strand barbed wire) along Zinfandel Drive from Woodring Road to Kiefer Boulevard within 6 months following recordation of the Wetlands Preserve conservation easement. Fencing will be constructed to reduce trespass and maintain the function and integrity of the Wetlands Preserve. However, the decision to construct fencing along Zinfandel Drive

Sacramento County Office of Economic Development and Marketing Initial Management Plan A-10 Final South Mather Wetlands Management Plan Attachment B will reflect the status of the Zinfandel Drive improvement project. If it appears that fencing constructed by Sacramento County along Zinfandel Drive will need to be reconstructed in the near future, Sacramento County will review fencing plans with the Agencies following completion of road improvements. Sacramento County is committed to reducing trespass and associated damage to vernal pools in 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.

In addition, Sacramento County will construct barbed-wire fencing surrounding the two grazing enclosures to facilitate trial grazing in these areas.

The preserve manager will repair this fencing as needed during the Initial Management Period. Repaired or replaced fencing will be constructed to the same specifications as the original fencing unless otherwise approved by Sacramento County.

It is anticipated that additional fencing needs will be identified during the Initial Management Period. The costs to construct this fencing will be included in the final endowment as an initial and capital cost to be paid by Sacramento County. The location and type of additional fencing will be described in the revised Management Plan completed at the end of the Initial Management Period.

Task 19: Install signage prohibiting trespass and noting the presence of protected species and habitats

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 along Zinfandel Road and the grazing enclosure fences. 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.

Objective 9: Maintain fuel breaks between the preserve and surrounding roads and development to reduce the probability of wildfire spread into and out of the preserve

Task 20: Construct fuel breaks

Sacramento County, the preserve manager, and Sacramento Metropolitan Fire District will coordinate for the upkeep and maintenance of all required fuel breaks in the Wetlands Preserve. Unless otherwise specified, fuel 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 n.d.). Fuel breaks will consist of mowed strips with a minimum width of 30 feet and a maximum residual height of 6 inches. This maximum height will not be exceeded during the fire season (generally May or June through November, depending on weather conditions). Fuel breaks around Independence at Mather are maintained by Sacramento County Regional Parks, and the need for additional fuel breaks is evaluated on a case-by-case basis.

Objective 10: Construct and maintain livestock water sources to avoid adverse effects on wildlife, plant communities, and sensitive habitats (e.g., wetlands)

Task 21: Construct new livestock water sources as needed to facilitate grazing management and minimize potentially adverse effects on aquatic habitats

With the Agencies’ approval, water sources will be constructed by Sacramento County in each grazing enclosure to facilitate livestock grazing. The final location of new water troughs will be determined by the preserve manager consistent with guidelines in the Management Plan and in consultation with Sacramento County and grazing lessee, if applicable. Livestock water troughs will be inspected for maintenance needs by the preserve manager. The grazing lessee will be responsible for routine maintenance of all water sources during grazing operations.

Sacramento County Office of Economic Development and Marketing Final South Mather Wetlands Management Plan A-11 Initial Management Plan Attachment B ELEMENT 5: PUBLIC ACCESS AND COORDINATION

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 were identified as goals 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.

Objective 11: Manage public access consistent with maintenance of the Wetlands Preserve’s ecological values

Task 22: Develop a public access master plan

Completion of a public access master plan for the Wetlands Preserve is necessary to identify allowable public uses and to guide future public use of the Wetlands Preserve. Sacramento County will fund preparation of the Wetlands Preserve public access master plan, and the plan will be completed within 3 years following recordation of the Wetlands Preserve conservation easement. The plan will describe allowable public uses of the Wetlands Preserve, describe measures that will be implemented to avoid or minimize adverse effects of public uses on wetlands and listed species, include maps showing the locations of existing and proposed facilities, describe construction and long-term maintenance and operations responsibilities, and incorporate stakeholder feedback and regulatory agency requirements.

Approval of the public access master plan by Sacramento County will involve appropriate environmental compliance (e.g., California Environmental Quality Act compliance) and appropriate regulatory agency approvals, including compliance with the federal Endangered Species Act and Clean Water Act. The plan will be incorporated into the revised Management Plan as an appendix, and Chapter 8 of the Management Plan will be revised as appropriate to reflect the public access master plan.

Following completion of the public access master plan, Sacramento County, the preserve manager, and other interested parties will attempt to secure grants and similar funding to implement master plan components. Aspects of the public access master plan that do not require additional funding, planning, or regulatory agency approval may be implemented 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 this initial management plan. At the end of the Initial 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.

Objective 12: Support appropriate use of the Wetlands Preserve by research organizations or educational organizations, such as the U.S. Geological Survey, researchers affiliated with the California State University or University of California, and similar research or education organizations

Task 23: Respond to requests for research or educational use of the Wetlands Preserve and permit such uses when they would not conflict with implementation of this management plan or otherwise adversely affect the Wetlands Preserve’s ecological values

In coordination with Sacramento County, the preserve manager will respond to requests from third parties to use the Wetlands Preserve for research or educational purposes and accommodate those uses to the extent reasonably feasible. In particular, research efforts that would increase the scientific basis for the management of the Wetlands Preserve’s ecological values will be accommodated and encouraged. The preserve manager will require detailed study plans or similar detailed descriptions of planned educational or research activities before approval. The

Sacramento County Office of Economic Development and Marketing Initial Management Plan A-12 Final South Mather Wetlands Management Plan Attachment B preserve manager also will consult with Sacramento County when reviewing and approving requests for research and education use of the Wetlands Preserve. The requirement for study plans or similar proposals will not apply to existing educational uses of the Wetlands Preserve, including guided tours by environmental organizations, which will continue during the Initial Management Period.

All research and educational uses will avoid adverse effects on special-status species and other sensitive species and wetlands, and research proposals that involve the capture and handling of sensitive species or that could otherwise result in the take of federally listed or California-listed species will be reviewed and approved by the Agencies before it is approved by the Wetlands preserve manager. In addition, all individuals proposing to handle federally listed or California-listed species or other species of plants or wildlife will have the necessary agency permits or authorizations to conduct such activities (i.e., USFWS Section 10[a][1][A] recovery permit, California Department of Fish and Wildlife [CDFW] memorandum of understanding, or CDFW scientific collection permit) before approval by the preserve manager.

ELEMENT 6: REPORTING

Objective 13: Document results of monitoring and management activities and the condition of the Wetlands Preserve

Task 24: Produce an annual report

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. The report also will be provided to selected Wetlands Preserve stakeholder groups, and additional copies of the report will be furnished by the preserve manager upon request. The report will include, at a minimum, a map of the Wetlands Preserve; photographs 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 work plan); 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 the rationale for making modifications to the invasive plant treatment plan or grazing study.

FUNDING

With the exception of the public access master plan, all Wetlands Preserve management and maintenance activities completed during the Initial Management Period will be completed by the preserve manager and funded by Sacramento County annually based on the results of a Property Analysis Record (PAR) (Appendix J of the Wetlands Management Plan). The public access master plan will be funded separately by Sacramento County and completed by a third party on behalf of Sacramento 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 in the final biological opinion issued for the transfer of Mather Air Force Base from the U.S. Air Force to Sacramento County.

The relationship between the specific tasks described in this management plan and budget line items in the PAR analysis is shown in Table 3.

Sacramento County Office of Economic Development and Marketing Final South Mather Wetlands Management Plan A-13 Initial Management Plan Attachment B

Table 3 Relationship of Tasks to PAR Line Items Initial Management Plan Task Related PAR Line Items1 Notes Grazing management : coordination 1. Implement livestock grazing with grazing lessee Habitat maintenance : adaptive 2. Use prescribed fire management fund Exotic plant control : herbicide 3. Coordinate control of invasive contractor; Exotic plant control : plants manual treatment 4. Prepare invasive plant Invasive plant management : prepare

management plan invasive plant management plan Includes all tasks listed under “Biotic 5. Collect baseline data Biotic surveys : all Surveys” subheading. 6. Conduct annual reconnaissance General biologic monitoring:

surveys reconnaissance surveys Biotic surveys : plant community 7. Monitor plant communities monitoring; Grazing management : RDM monitoring 8. Gather annual climate data Agency report : data management 9. Evaluate and analyze plant Agency report : annual report; Agency

communities report : data management 10. Monitor special-status plants Biotic surveys : rare plants 11. Evaluate and analyze special- Agency report : annual report; Agency

status plants report : data management 12. Monitor vernal pool Biotic surveys : invertebrate

invertebrates monitoring 13. Evaluate and analyze vernal Agency report : annual report; Agency

pool invertebrates report : data management 14. Complete general inspections Patrolling : preserve inspections Trash removal : collection and 15. Collect trash and refuse disposal; Trash removal: dump fees 16. Coordinate right-of-way Community outreach : community

maintenance coordination 17. Coordinate infrastructure Community outreach : community

maintenance coordination Grazing enclosure fencing : materials and labor; Zinfandel fencing : materials 18. Install and maintain fencing and labor; Gate : Powder River classic; Fence maintenance : annual maintenance Signs : signs for enclosures and 19. Install signs Zinfandel fence; Signs : labor for installation

Sacramento County Office of Economic Development and Marketing Initial Management Plan A-14 Final South Mather Wetlands Management Plan Attachment B

Table 3 Relationship of Tasks to PAR Line Items Initial Management Plan Task Related PAR Line Items1 Notes Because Sacramento County Regional Parks maintains fire breaks around Fire break maintenance : preactivity Independence at Mather, this allocation 20. Construct fuel breaks surveys; Fire break maintenance : may not be required and could contract for mowing potentially be used for other tasks or for adaptive management. Sacramento County is investigating 21. Construct and maintain livestock Livestock water : 500-gallon trough + whether water troughs could be water sources 5000-gallon tank connected to water lines. Sacramento County will fund this task separately from the PAR. Funding for 22. Develop public access master Not applicable the preserve manager to participate in plan development of the plan will be included in community outreach. 23. Respond to requests for research Community outreach: community

and educational use coordination Agency report : annual report; Agency 24. Prepare annual report report : data management; Annual work plan : work plan and budget 1 See Appendix J of the Wetlands Management Plan. Note: PAR =Property Analysis Record; RDM = residual dry matter.

REFERENCES

DiTomaso, J. M., G. B. Kyser, M. R. George, M. P. Doran, and E. A. Laca. 2008. Control of medusahead using timely sheep grazing. Invasive Plant Science and Management 1:241–247.

Jackson, R. D., and J. W. Bartolome. 2007. Grazing ecology of California grasslands. In J. Corbin, M. Stromberg, and C. M. D’Antonio (eds.). California Grasslands: Ecology and Management. University of California Press.

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

Sacramento Metropolitan Fire District. n.d. Department memorandum describing fire break maintenance policies, provided by Sacramento Metropolitan Fire District staff to AECOM. Copy in AECOM project files.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1996. Interim Survey Guidelines to Permittees for Recovery Permits under Section 10(a)(1)(A) of the Endangered Species Act for the Listed Vernal Pool Brachiopods. 19 April 1996.

Sacramento County Office of Economic Development and Marketing Final South Mather Wetlands Management Plan A-15 Initial Management Plan Attachment B

Attachment B

APPENDIX B South Mather Management Plan Expert Reviewers

Attachment B

Attachment B APPENDIX B 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 Office of Economic Development and Marketing Final South Mather Wetlands Management Plan B-1 South Mather Management Plan Expert Reviewers Attachment B

Attachment B

APPENDIX C Management Resources and References

Attachment B

Attachment B APPENDIX C 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 Office of Economic Development and Marketing Final South Mather Wetlands Management Plan C-1 Management Resources and References Attachment B 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 Office of Economic Development and Marketing Management Resources and References C-2 Final South Mather Wetlands Management Plan Attachment B 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 Office of Economic Development and Marketing Final South Mather Wetlands Management Plan C-3 Management Resources and References Attachment B 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 Office of Economic Development and Marketing Management Resources and References C-4 Final South Mather Wetlands Management Plan Attachment B 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 Office of Economic Development and Marketing Final South Mather Wetlands Management Plan C-5 Management Resources and References Attachment B 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

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.

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 Office of Economic Development and Marketing Management Resources and References C-6 Final South Mather Wetlands Management Plan Attachment B 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 Office of Economic Development and Marketing Final South Mather Wetlands Management Plan C-7 Management Resources and References Attachment B 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 Office of Economic Development and Marketing Management Resources and References C-8 Final South Mather Wetlands Management Plan Attachment B 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 Office of Economic Development and Marketing Final South Mather Wetlands Management Plan C-9 Management Resources and References Attachment B 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 Office of Economic Development and Marketing Management Resources and References C-10 Final South Mather Wetlands Management Plan Attachment B 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 Office of Economic Development and Marketing Final South Mather Wetlands Management Plan C-11 Management Resources and References Attachment B

Attachment B

APPENDIX D Stakeholder Endorsement

Attachment B

Attachment B 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 Office of Economic Development and Marketing Final South Mather Wetlands Management Plan D-1 Stakeholder Endorsement Attachment B

Attachment B

APPENDIX E Vernal Pool Plants of Mather Field (adapted from http://www.vernalpools.org/Mather/mather.htm)

Attachment B

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 Attachment B

APPENDIX F List of Wildlife Species Observed within South Mather

Attachment B

Attachment B APPENDIX F 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 Office of Economic Development and Marketing Final South Mather Wetlands Management Plan F-1 List of Wildlife Species Observed within South Mather Attachment B

Attachment B

APPENDIX G Hazardous Wildlife Assessment

Attachment B

Attachment B APPENDIX G 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, 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 Office of Economic Development and Marketing Final South Mather Wetlands Management Plan G-1 Hazardous Wildlife Assessment Attachment B 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 Office of Economic Development and Marketing Hazardous Wildlife Assessment G-2 Final South Mather Wetlands Management Plan Attachment B

► 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 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 Office of Economic Development and Marketing Final South Mather Wetlands Management Plan G-3 Hazardous Wildlife Assessment Attachment B

Attachment B

Attachment B

Attachment B 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. 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.

Sacramento County Office of Economic Development and Marketing Final South Mather Wetlands Management Plan G-7 Hazardous Wildlife Assessment Attachment B

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)

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)

Sacramento County Office of Economic Development and Marketing Hazardous Wildlife Assessment G-8 Final South Mather Wetlands Management Plan Attachment B 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.

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:

Sacramento County Office of Economic Development and Marketing Final South Mather Wetlands Management Plan G-9 Hazardous Wildlife Assessment Attachment B 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 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 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 primarily include 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 Office of Economic Development and Marketing Hazardous Wildlife Assessment G-10 Final South Mather Wetlands Management Plan Attachment B

Table D-5 Management Action Summary Management Timing Intensity Frequency Notes Activities 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.

Table D-6 CWHR Habitat Elements that Attract Hazardous Wildlife1, 2 Habitat Elements

3 ds

Guild Water Friable, Soil Aerated & Cover Herb Height Layer Vegetation Woody Structures Seeds Insects, Invertebrates Amphibians Bir Small Mammals Small Carrion Waterfowl X X X Gulls X X X X Sparrows, Larks, Finches X X X X

Sacramento County Office of Economic Development and Marketing Final South Mather Wetlands Management Plan G-11 Hazardous Wildlife Assessment Attachment B 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 effect of 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.

Table D-7 Habitat Elements (Attractants) Associated with Management Options Habitat Elements

3

5,6

5,6

5 5,6

s 4

5 5,6

Management Option Water Friable, Soil Aerated Height & Herbaceous Cover Vegetation Woody Structures Seeds Insects, Invertebrates Birds Small Mammals Small Amphibian 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

Sacramento County Office of Economic Development and Marketing Hazardous Wildlife Assessment G-12 Final South Mather Wetlands Management Plan Attachment B

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 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 (Elymus caput-medusae), Italian ryegrass (Festuca perenne), 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 saxatilis), 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.

Sacramento County Office of Economic Development and Marketing Final South Mather Wetlands Management Plan G-13 Hazardous Wildlife Assessment Attachment B 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.

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

Sacramento County Office of Economic Development and Marketing Hazardous Wildlife Assessment G-14 Final South Mather Wetlands Management Plan Attachment B 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 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

Sacramento County Office of Economic Development and Marketing Final South Mather Wetlands Management Plan G-15 Hazardous Wildlife Assessment Attachment B California ground squirrel (Otospermophilus 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.

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

Sacramento County Office of Economic Development and Marketing Hazardous Wildlife Assessment G-16 Final South Mather Wetlands Management Plan Attachment B 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.

► 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.

Sacramento County Office of Economic Development and Marketing Final South Mather Wetlands Management Plan G-17 Hazardous Wildlife Assessment Attachment B 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 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.

Sacramento County Office of Economic Development and Marketing Hazardous Wildlife Assessment G-18 Final South Mather Wetlands Management Plan Attachment B 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 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

Sacramento County Office of Economic Development and Marketing Final South Mather Wetlands Management Plan G-19 Hazardous Wildlife Assessment Attachment B 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 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 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 Hazardous Wildlife Guild Current Change from Existing Conditions1

Sacramento County Office of Economic Development and Marketing Hazardous Wildlife Assessment G-20 Final South Mather Wetlands Management Plan Attachment B Conditions Burned Annual Mowed Annual Grazed Annual (Annual Grassland Grassland (Annual Grassland (Annual Grassland (Annual – Tall Dense) Grassland – Short Grassland – Short Grassland – Short 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 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

Sacramento County Office of Economic Development and Marketing Final South Mather Wetlands Management Plan G-21 Hazardous Wildlife Assessment Attachment B 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) Blackbirds and starlings 0 +1 0 Corvids 0 0 0 Columbids 0 0 -1 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).

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.

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

Sacramento County Office of Economic Development and Marketing Hazardous Wildlife Assessment G-22 Final South Mather Wetlands Management Plan Attachment B 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, reconnaissance-level wildlife surveys throughout the Wetlands Preserve. Although there are limitations with reconnaissance-level surveys, in terms of their ability 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 Wetlands Preserve, 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.

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;

Sacramento County Office of Economic Development and Marketing Final South Mather Wetlands Management Plan G-23 Hazardous Wildlife Assessment Attachment B

► 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.

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.

Sacramento County Office of Economic Development and Marketing Hazardous Wildlife Assessment G-24 Final South Mather Wetlands Management Plan Attachment B 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.

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.

Sacramento County Office of Economic Development and Marketing Final South Mather Wetlands Management Plan G-25 Hazardous Wildlife Assessment Attachment B 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 Office of Economic Development and Marketing Hazardous Wildlife Assessment G-26 Final South Mather Wetlands Management Plan Attachment B

APPENDIX H Property Analysis Record

Attachment B

Attachment B

Appendix H: PAR Analysis

Mather Wetlands Preserve H-1 H. T. Harvey & Associates PAR Analysis July 2014

Attachment B

Attachment B

Section 1.0 General

1.1 Project Overview

The Mather Wetlands Preserve (Preserve) includes approximately 1,272 acres (ac) of land. The Preserve is being established as a requirement for the transfer of lands comprising the former Mather Air Force Base (AFB) from U.S. Air Force to Sacramento County ownership. The Wetlands Management Plan (WMP) describes the Preserve in detail and develops a set of management, maintenance, and monitoring tasks that will be implemented on the Preserve in perpetuity to maintain and enhance its conservation values, which include vernal pools, annual grasslands, and associated species of plants and animals.

Because these habitats and species within the Preserve have not been actively managed for an extended period of time, the initial five to 10 years of Preserve management is intended to be a period of trial management, baseline information gathering, completion of special studies, and similar activities that will inform future, long-term management of the Preserve. A separate Initial Management Plan (IMP) has been developed for this period. The IMP is an appendix to and builds from the WMP; it provides additional specifics regarding the nature, frequency, and intensity of management activities that will be completed on the Preserve during the first five to 10 years of Preserve management. Regulatory agencies that will oversee implementation of the WMP and IMP include the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, California Department of Fish and Wildlife, United Stated Environmental Protection Agency, and the United States Army Corps of Engineers (collectively, Agencies).

1.2 Report Overview

This report describes assumptions used in developing the Property Analysis Record (PAR) funding calculation for the IMP. At this point, activities within the WMP have not been sufficiently well-defined to permit development of a PAR; therefore, this report focuses on those costs associated with implementation of the IMP only. It is expected that a separate PAR will be prepared for implementation of the WMP in the future, once the IMP implementation period has ended. This PAR consists of two cost components: costs associated with the construction of structures and site improvements (e.g., fencing) required to implement trial management approaches within small portions of the Preserve (Section 14 Costs) and costs associated with yearly implementation of the activities described in the IMP (Section 15 Costs). Specific section headers in this document correspond headers in the reports produced by the PAR software (version 3) (Center for Natural Lands Management 2010), to facilitate comparison between this document and the reports typically output from the PAR software.

The costs provided herein are derived from discussions with land managers and the Agencies, HTH’s experience with similar, prior land management projects, and independent calculations and industry standards

Mather Wetlands Preserve H-2 H. T. Harvey & Associates PAR Analysis July 2014

Attachment B

used in other PARs. The costs provided are intended to estimate the financial requirements for a “typical” organization to manage and monitor the Preserve in perpetuity.

1.3 Responsibilities and Timing

• Sacramento County will be responsible for providing funding sufficient to cover all administrative costs incurred in the creation of the conservation easement (CE), such as appraisal, documentation of baseline conditions, and so forth. These costs are not included in the PAR analysis. Costs associated with holding and enforcing a CE for the Preserve are included in this PAR analysis, as described below.

• Year 1 of the PAR corresponds to the first year of Preserve management, estimated to start on approximately 1 January 2015.

• Section 14 costs are otherwise referred to as Initial & Capital (I&C) costs, which include one-time capital costs like construction of site improvements (e.g., fencing, water troughs).

• Section 15 costs include all costs needed to fund yearly management and monitoring of the Preserve (as described in the IMP). It is expected that Sacramento County will fund Section15 as an annual payment (or payments) to the Preserve Manger, based on actual expenses incurred by the Preserve Manager consistent with the IMP and this PAR.

1.4 Personnel

1.4.1 Preserve Manager

• The Preserve Manager will be a qualified 501(c)(3) organization with experience managing and holding CEs for habitat preserves within northern California.

• The Preserve Manager will employ staff with the following qualifications:

o Experience working with/around livestock who understand ranching and the principles of range management. It is desirable, but not required, that the Preserve Manager employ a California-licensed Certified Rangeland Manager (CRM) or have employees with the skills and experience similar to that of a licensed CRM.

o Plant taxonomy and plant identification skills. o Basic GIS data management and mapping skills. • The labor rate for the Preserve Manager = $50.00/hour. This is assumed to be a “fully burdened” labor rate and account for salary, benefits, and other costs associated with the Preserve Manager’s employees.

• The Preserve Manager is assumed to have an office in Sacramento. Mileage estimates in the PAR are based on this assumption.

Mather Wetlands Preserve H-3 H. T. Harvey & Associates PAR Analysis July 2014

Attachment B

1.4.2 Consultant

• For the purpose of this analysis, it is assumed that Consultants will be hired to prepare specialized reports and to complete other studies that would not be completed by the Preserve Manager (e.g., weed control plan or focused biological surveys requiring particular expertise or survey permits). However, the Preserve Manager may decide to sub-contract other tasks to a consultant at any point in the future subject to the available funding for that task in the Section 14 or Section 15 contribution.

• Consultant costs are estimated by total contract value, which includes consultant labor, mileage, and other direct costs.

1.4.3 Contractor

• For the purposes of this PAR, it is assumed that a Contractor will install the fencing and grazing infrastructure (e.g., water troughs) and apply herbicides when required for invasive plant control. However, the Preserve Manager may decide to sub-contract other tasks to a contractor at any point in the future subject to the available funding for that task in the I&C contribution or endowment.

• Contractor costs are estimated by total contract value, which includes contractor labor, mileage, and other direct costs, or by per unit costs (e.g., per linear foot), which are assumed to be inclusive of mileage and direct costs.

1.5 Contingency and Administration

The PAR software automatically applies contingency and administration percentages to all tasks included in the PAR. The contingency percentage provides a buffer for the PAR allocations in the event that actual costs for particular tasks exceed estimated costs. Administration fees are intended to support other organizational operating costs that are not explicitly included in the PAR.

The methodology and underlying rationale used to calculate administrative fees are based on the organizational operating and financial structure of the Center for Natural Lands Management, the organization that developed the PAR software initially for its own, internal use (prior to making the software widely available to the land trust and land management communities). In many cases, the sum total of the administrative fees added to the PAR exceeds that amount required for additional organizational operating costs explicitly associated with administration of the lands for which the PAR is calculated, above and beyond administrative costs that are already being met through other organizational funding sources (i.e., administrative fees collected through prior PARs and conservation land transactions). This is more likely to be the case if the Preservation Lands Manager is a large, well-funded land trust or other conservation organization with a significant portfolio of conservation land holdings. In this case, administrative fees included in the PAR provide an additional source of contingency funding for unexpected future costs related to HMP implementation.

Mather Wetlands Preserve H-4 H. T. Harvey & Associates PAR Analysis July 2014

Attachment B

• Contingency was set at 10% of all tasks except for “Fence Construction” and “Livestock Water” (15% contingency) in the Site Construction and Maintenance Section.

• Administration was set at 24% of all Section 15 tasks (including the contingency). No administration costs were included for Section 14 tasks.

Specific costs included in the PAR, and a description of the rational for including those costs, are described in detail within the remainder of this document.

Mather Wetlands Preserve H-5 H. T. Harvey & Associates PAR Analysis July 2014

Attachment B

Section 2.0 Biotic Surveys

2.1 Annual Monitoring

2.1.1 Task 1: Residual Dry Matter (RDM) Monitoring

Estimate the amount of RDM remaining following grazing within each grazing enclosure (18 plots per enclosure or 36 plots total) plus estimates of total forage production in surrounding ungrazed portions of the Preserve. o Section 14 # of occurrences: Not applicable

o Section 15 frequency: Yearly

o Hours, Section 15: 20 (100% Preserve Manager) o Mileage, Section 15: 2 trips @ 40 mi per trip, 80 mi

2.1.2 Task 2: Plant Community Monitoring

Estimate cover, by species, of vascular plants within vernal pools and adjacent uplands. Assume 9 quadrats per pool (3 in center of pool, 3 at edge of pool, and 3 in uplands) with 3 grazed pools and 3 ungrazed pools sampled per grazing enclosure (12 total). An additional 9 pools will be sampled outside grazing enclosures. Total of 189 quadrats (9 per pool * 21 pools). Estimate 20 minutes per quadrat.

o Section 14 # of occurrences: Not applicable o Section 15 frequency: Yearly o Hours, Section 15: 80 (100% Preserve Manager) o Mileage, Section 15: 8 trips @ 40 mi per trip, 320 miles

2.1.3 Task 3: Invertebrate Monitoring

Survey 21 vernal pools up to 3 times per year for invertebrates. Assumes Preserve Manager would need to hire a consultant, and consultant would produce a brief summary report at the conclusion of surveys. This was budgeted as a total contract value, to include mileage and other direct costs plus labor, based on the following assumptions.

o Section 14 # of occurrences: Not applicable o Section 15 frequency: Yearly o Hours: 30 for surveys and travel time (21 pools per day * 3 days) plus 35 hours for brief summary report and travel time at $120/hour

o Mileage: 3 trips @ 40 mi per trip, 120 miles at $0.56/mile

Mather Wetlands Preserve H-6 H. T. Harvey & Associates PAR Analysis July 2014

Attachment B

o Other Direct Costs: $300 for miscellaneous direct costs

o Total Contract Value, Section 15: $8,150

2.1.4 Task 4: Rare Plant Monitoring

Survey representative areas of known rare plant populations for approximate density or population size. Assumes surveys could be completed by Preserve Manager in a total of 2 field days.

o Section 14 # of occurrences: Not applicable

o Section 15 frequency: Yearly

o Hours, Section 15: 20 (100% Preserve Manager)

o Mileage, Section 15: 2 trips @ 40 mi per trip, 80 miles

2.1.5 Task 4: Reconnaissance Surveys

Semi-annual reconnaissance surveys of Preserve to note and map populations of invasive plants, erosion, signs of hydrologic alteration, general plant community conditions, document site conditions at photo points, general wildlife use of the Preserve, and similar factors. Assumes 2 surveys per year of 3 days in duration. These inspections would also serve to document compliance with the terms of the Preserve CE.

o Section 14 # of occurrences: Not applicable o Section 15 frequency: Yearly o Hours, Section 15: 60 (100% Preserve Manager) o Mileage, Section 15: 6 trips @ 40 mi per trip, 240 miles

2.2 Field Equipment

Annual allocation for the Preserve Manager to purchase or replace field equipment. The PAR assumes that the Preserve Manager will already own most of the equipment that would be necessary to complete the various monitoring and maintenance tasks described in the IMP (e.g., binoculars, GPS unit, digital camera).

o Allocation for miscellaneous field equipment: $500 annually

Mather Wetlands Preserve H-7 H. T. Harvey & Associates PAR Analysis July 2014

Attachment B

Section 3.0 Habitat Maintenance and Restoration

3.1 Invasive Plant Management

3.1.1 Task 1: Prepare Invasive Plant Management Plan

Allocation for a consultant to prepare an invasive plant management plan within 1 year following establishment of the Preserve.

o Section 14 # of occurrences: 1

o Section 15 frequency: N/A

o Allocation, Section 14: $25,000 (100% Consultant)

3.1.2 Task 2: Herbicide Treatment

Allocation for contractor to apply herbicides in selected areas of the Preserve as directed by the Preserve Manager. Assumes herbicide contractor would be a California Licensed Qualified Applicator and would provide a written herbicide usage recommendation from a California Pest Control Advisor, if required. Estimated as a total contract value, inclusive of mileage, labor, herbicide, and other direct costs.

o Section 14 # of occurrences: Not applicable o Section 15 frequency: Yearly o Allocation, Section 15: $4,000 (100% Contractor)

3.1.3 Task 3: Manual Treatment

Annual treatment of selected populations of invasive plants using weed eaters, hand pulling, soil solarization, or other methods. Completed by Preserve Manager.

o Section 14 # of occurrences: Not applicable o Section 15 frequency: Yearly o Hours, Section 15: 30 (100% Preserve Manager) o Mileage, Section 15: 3 trips @ 40 mi per trip, 120 miles

3.2 Fire Breaks

3.2.1 Task 4: Fire Break Maintenance

Maintenance of fire break, by mowing, in areas of Preserve bordering Independence at Mather. Assumes Preserve Manager would hire a qualified biologist to complete a pre-activity survey for nesting birds within

Mather Wetlands Preserve H-8 H. T. Harvey & Associates PAR Analysis July 2014

Attachment B

areas to be mowed and hire a contractor to mow the fire break. Allocations are inclusive of labor, mileage, and other direct costs.

o Section 14 # of occurrences: Not applicable

o Section 15 frequency: Yearly

o Allocation (Pre-activity Survey), Section 15: $1,500 (100% Consultant)

o Allocation (Mowing), Section 15: $2,500 (100% Contractor)

3.3 Livestock Grazing

3.3.1 Task 5: Grazing Lessee Coordination

Annual allocation for the Preserve Manager to coordinate with lessee, as needed, for grazing of the 2 grazing enclosures.

o Section 14 # of occurrences: Not applicable o Section 15 frequency: Yearly o Hours, Section 15: 40 (100% Preserve Manager) o Mileage, Section 15: 2 trips @ 40 mi per trip, 80 miles

3.4 Adaptive Management

Allocation for unexpected expenses related to any of the above tasks or for expenses related to other approaches to habitat management (e.g., prescribed fire).

o Section 14 # of occurrences: Not applicable o Section 15 frequency: Yearly o Allocation, Section 15: $1,000

Mather Wetlands Preserve H-9 H. T. Harvey & Associates PAR Analysis July 2014

Attachment B

Section 4.0 General Maintenance

4.1 Trash Removal

4.1.1 Task 1: Collect and Dispose

Allocation for Preserve Manager to collect refuse from the Preserve and arrange for disposal. Assumes Preserve Manager would primarily be responsible for collection and disposal of smaller items; disposal of large items would occur in conjunction with Sacramento County and would not be a direct cost to the Preserve Manager, so these costs were not included in the PAR.

o Section 14 # of occurrences: Not applicable

o Section 15 frequency: Yearly o Hours, Section 15: 48 (100% Preserve Manager) o Mileage, Section 15: 4 trips @ 40 mi per trip, 160 miles o Fees, Section 15: $100

4.2 Trespass Prevention and General Inspection

4.2.1 Task 2: Patrolling

Assumes Preserve Manager would patrol Preserve on a regular basis (i.e., approximately every other week) by driving the Preserve perimeter and occasionally walking to observe portions of the Preserve not readily visible from roadways.

o Section 14 # of occurrences: Not applicable o Section 15 frequency: Yearly o Hours, Section 15: 120 (100% Preserve Manager) o Mileage, Section 15: 25 trips @ 40 mi per trip, 1000 miles

4.3 Adaptive Management

Allocation for unexpected expenses related to any of the above tasks or for expenses related to other general Preserve maintenance.

o Section 14 # of occurrences: Not applicable

o Section 15 frequency: Yearly

o Allocation, Section 15: $1,000

Mather Wetlands Preserve H-10 H. T. Harvey & Associates PAR Analysis July 2014

Attachment B

Attachment B

Section 5.0 Office Maintenance

It is assumed that the Preserve Manager would already have established office facilities in the Sacramento region, and specific allocations for office supplies or equipment (e.g., office space, computer, printer) are not required in the PAR. The PAR does include an annual allocation for miscellaneous office supplies to cover periodic expenses.

o Section 14 # of occurrences: Not applicable

o Section 15 frequency: Yearly

o Allocation, Section 15: $500

Mather Wetlands Preserve H-11 H. T. Harvey & Associates PAR Analysis July 2014

Attachment B

Attachment B

Section 6.0 Operations

Operations tasks include those tasks not specifically tied to an HMP task but related to, and necessary for, completion of these tasks. The PAR includes an annual allocation in Section 15 (unless noted otherwise below) for the following tasks:

• Travel mileage allocation at $0.56/mile (current IRS rate). This covers all costs associated with operating a field vehicle, or for the Preserve Manager to use personal vehicles, in completing the tasks required by the IMP. Travel mileage was calculated based on the following assumptions:

o 40 miles round-trip mileage for each trip to the Preserve

o Section 15 Mileage Allocation: 2,320 mi (per year) • CE defense, assuming that the Preserve Manager would be covered through TerraFirma and that 1 legal action would be required during the initial 10-year IMP implementation period.

o CE liability insurance: $60 in Section 15 (assuming insurance through TerraFirma) o CE liability insurance deductible: $5,000 in Section 14

Mather Wetlands Preserve H-12 H. T. Harvey & Associates PAR Analysis July 2014

Attachment B

Attachment B

Section 7.0 Public Services

7.1 Community Outreach and Coordination

7.1.1 Task 1: Community Coordination

Allocation for the Preserve Manager to coordinate with Independence at Mather residents, Sacramento Splash, Sacramento County, and other Mather stakeholders.

o Section 14 # of occurrences: Not applicable

o Section 15 frequency: Yearly

o Hours, Section 15: 120 (100% Preserve Manager)

o Mileage, Section 15: 6 trips @ 40 mi per trip, 240 mi

Mather Wetlands Preserve H-13 H. T. Harvey & Associates PAR Analysis July 2014

Attachment B

Attachment B

Section 8.0 Reporting and Administration

8.1 Annual Report and Workplan

8.1.1 Task 1: Annual Report

• Data Management

This work would be performed by the Preserve Manager and includes tasks such as organizing digital photographs, creating and managing GIS datasets, managing field data, and similar tasks

o Section 14 # of occurrences: Not applicable

o Section 15 frequency: Yearly o Hours, Section 15: 124 (100% Preserve Manager) • Report Preparation

Allocation for production of an annual report. The report would describe all activities completed at the Preserve during the preceding year and would serve to document compliance with the IMP and well as compliance with the terms and conditions of the CE.

o Section 14 # of occurrences: Not applicable o Section 15 frequency: Yearly o Hours, Section 15: 80 (100% Preserve Manager

8.1.2 Task 2: Annual Work Plan

This work would be performed by the Preserve Manager to prepare a workplan for Preserve management and maintenance activities for the upcoming calendar year.

o Section 14 # of occurrences: Not applicable o Section 15 frequency: Yearly o Hours, Section 15: 12 (100% Preserve Manager)

Mather Wetlands Preserve H-14 H. T. Harvey & Associates PAR Analysis July 2014

Attachment B

Attachment B

Section 9.0 Site Construction / Maintenance

9.1 Fences and Gates

9.1.1 Task 1: Grazing Enclosure Fencing

Sacramento County will install fencing and gates to create to two separate grazing enclosures. This work would be performed by a Contractor. Costs are estimated per linear foot and include all labor and materials. Linear footage of fencing was estimated based on currently proposed locations for grazing enclosures. Actual lengths are to be derived following County inspection of proposed locations.

o New fencing to install: Estimated 16,100 ft at $6.50 per ft in Section 14

o New metal gates: Estimated 2 gates at $500 per gate in Section 14

9.1.2 Task 2: Zinfandel Road Fencing

Sacramento County will install fencing to discourage trespass along Zinfandel Road between Woodring Drive and Kiefer Boulevard. Costs are estimated per linear foot and include all labor and materials. Linear footage of fencing was estimated based on currently proposed alignment for Zinfandel Road, south of Woodring Drive. Actual lengths are to be derived following County inspection of proposed locations.

o New fencing to install: Estimated 7,000 ft at $6.50 per ft in Section 14 o New metal gates: Estimated 1 gate at $500 per gate in Section 14

9.1.3 Task 3: Repair Fencing

The Preserve Manager will maintain fences and signs along Zinfandel Drive and surrounding grazing enclosures. An annual allocation includes funding to purchase materials and limited Preserve Manager labor. Preserve Manager labor otherwise assumed to be covered under General Maintenance adaptive management allocation or other Preserve Manager labor categories. Labor for repairs to grazing enclosures assumed to be provided by grazing lessee, with materials provided by Preserve Manager.

• Section 14 # of occurrences: Not applicable

• Section 15 frequency: Yearly

• Allocation, Section 15: $300

Mather Wetlands Preserve H-15 H. T. Harvey & Associates PAR Analysis July 2014

Attachment B

9.2 Livestock Water

9.2.1 Task 4: Construct Livestock Water Sources

Sacramento County will install one water trough per grazing enclosure. While it may be feasible to connect these troughs to existing water lines, the PAR assumes that water sources would consist of freestanding troughs connected to a 5000 gallon tank (or similar) with water supplied by the grazing lessee as a condition of their lease.

o Section 14 # of occurrences: 1

o Allocation, Section 14: $8000 per trough/tank combination (100% Consultant)

9.3 Signage

9.3.1 Task 5: Install Signs

Following construction of grazing enclosure fencing and fencing along Zinfandel Drive, the Preserve Manager will install boundary signs approximately every 1000 ft prohibiting trespassing and noting the presence of sensitive habitats and species.

o Section 14 # of occurrences: 1 o Section 15 frequency: Not applicable o Hours, Section 14: 20 (100% Preserve Manager) o Mileage, Section 14: 2 trips @ 40 mi per trip, 80 mi o Materials, Section 14: $800 (estimated 20 signs at $40 per sign)

Mather Wetlands Preserve H-16 H. T. Harvey & Associates PAR Analysis July 2014

Mather Wetlands Management Plan, Initial Management Plan Budget, Year 1 through 5 to 10 H. T. Harvey & Associates 3/26/2012, Revised February 2013, June 2014

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 Grazing Management RDM Monitoring L hours 20 N/A 50 N/A 1 N/A $ 1,000.00 Biotic Surveys Plant Community Monitoring C hours 80 N/A 50 N/A 1 N/A $ 4,000.00 Biotic Surveys Invertebrate Monitoring Contract 1 N/A 8150 N/A 1 N/A $ 8,150.00 Biotic Surveys Rare Plants L hours 20 N/A 50 N/A 1 N/A $ 1,000.00 General Biologic Monitoring Reconnaissance Surveys L hours 60 N/A 50 N/A 1 N/A $ 3,000.00

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

General Maintenance Trash Removal Collection and Disposal L hours 48 N/A 50 N/A 1 N/A $ 2,400.00 Trash Removal Dump Fees Item 4 N/A 25 N/A 1 N/A $ 100.00 Patrolling Preserve Inspections L hours 120 N/A 50 N/A 1 N/A $ 6,000.00 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 Herbicide Contractor Contract 1 N/A 4000 N/A 1 N/A $ 4,000.00 Exotic Plant Control Manual Treatment L hours 30 N/A 50 N/A 1 N/A $ 1,500.00 Fire Break Maintenance Pre-activity Bird Survey Contract 1 N/A 1500 N/A 1 N/A $ 1,500.00 Fire Break Maintenance Contract for Mowing Contract 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 1000 N/A 1 N/A $ 1,000.00

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

Operations Insurance TerraFirma Annual Premium Item 1 N/A 60 N/A 1 N/A $ 60.00 Insurance TerraFirma Deductible Item 1 5000 N/A 1 N/A $ 5,000.00 N/A Mileage Preserve Manager Miles 2400 N/A 0.56 N/A 1 N/A $ 1,344.00

Public Services Community Outreach Community Coordination L hours 120 N/A 50 N/A 1 N/A $ 6,000.00

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 - Data Management L hours 124 N/A 50 N/A 1 N/A $ 6,200.00 Annual Workplan Workplan and Budget L hours 12 N/A 50 N/A 1 N/A $ 600.00

Site Construction/Maintenance Grazing Enclosure Fencing Fencing Materials and Labor (Contract) Linear Foot 16100 6.5 N/A 1 N/A $ 104,650.00 N/A Zinfandel Fencing Fencing Materials and Labor (Contract) Linear Foot 7000 6.5 N/A 1 N/A $ 45,500.00 N/A Gate Powder River, Classic Item 3 500 N/A 1 N/A $ 1,500.00 N/A Livestock Water 500 Gal. Trough and 5000 Gal Tank + Install Item 2 8000 N/A 1 N/A $ 16,000.00 N/A Signage Signs for Enclosures and Zinfandel Fence Item 20 40 N/A 1 N/A $ 800.00 N/A Signage Labor, Sign Installation L hours 20 50 N/A 1 N/A $ 1,000.00 N/A Fencing Maintenance Annual Maintenance Item 1 N/A 300 N/A 1 N/A $ 300.00 Sub-total Cost for monitoring and maintenance tasks $ 199,450 $ 58,654 Contingency (10% of tasks, except fencing and livestock water at 15%) $ 28,327.50 $ 5,865.40 Administration (24% of tasks, including contingency, for Section 15 costs only) N/A $ 15,484.66 Total Cost $ 227,778 $ 80,004 Attachment B

Attachment B

APPENDIX I Sample Grazing Lease

Attachment B

Attachment B

APPENDIX I 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 Office of Economic Development and Marketing Final South Mather Wetlands Management Plan I-1 Sample Grazing Lease Appendix B

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 Office of Economic Development and Marketing Sample Grazing Lease I-2 Final South Mather Wetlands Management Plan Attachment B

APPENDIX J Easement Field Inspection Form

Attachment B

Attachment B

APPENDIX J 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 Office of Economic Development and Marketing Final South Mather Wetlands Management Plan J-1 Easement Field Inspection Form Attachment B

Attachment B

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

Attachment B

Attachment B

APPENDIX L Residual Dry Matter Estimation – Comparative Yield Method

Attachment B