FINAL LOWER YOLO RANCH RESTORATION LONG TERM MANAGEMENT PLAN YOLO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA

FINAL LOWER YOLO RANCH RESTORATION LONG TERM MANAGEMENT PLAN YOLO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA P REPARED BY: Byron M. Buck State and Federal Contractors Water Agency 1121 L Street, Suite 806 Sacramento, CA 95814 916.476.5052 W ITH THE ASSISTANCE OF Ramona Swenson PhD, Cardno ENTRIX Carl Jensen, ICF International Curtis Schmutte, PE

. 2013. Final Lower Yolo Restoration Long Term Management Plan. Sacramento, CA.

Contents Contents List of Tables... iv List of Figures... v List of Acronyms and Abbreviations... vi Chapter 1 Introduction... 1 1 1.1 Purpose of Establishment... 1 1 1.2 Purpose of Long Term Management... 1 1 1.3 Management Objectives... 1 2 1.4 Management Plan Implementation Strategy... 1 2 1.4.1 Implementation Mechanisms... 1 3 1.5 Land Manager and Responsibilities... 1 3 1.6 Transfer of Conservation Easement... 1 4 1.7 Land Owner... 1 4 1.8 Qualified Personnel/Monitoring Biologist... 1 5 1.9 Changes in Personnel... 1 5 Chapter 2 Property and Restoration Project Description... 2 1 2.1 Setting and Location... 2 1 2.2 Cultural History and Land Use... 2 1 2.3 Ecological History and Restoration Potential... 2 8 2.4 Restoration Project Description... 2 11 2.5 Cultural Resources... 2 12 2.6 Topography... 2 12 2.7 Hydrology... 2 13 2.8 Soils... 2 13 2.9 Existing Easements... 2 14 2.10 Adjacent Land Uses... 2 14 2.11 Consistency with Local Planning Efforts... 2 14 2.11.1 Bay Delta Conservation Plan... 2 16 2.11.2 Yolo County National Heritage Plan... 2 16 2.11.3 Yolo County Relevant Plans... 2 16 Chapter 3 Habitats... 3 1 3.1 Restored Habitats... 3 1 3.2 Wetland Delineation... 3 1 3.3 Special Status Plant Species... 3 2 3.4 Special Status Wildlife Species... 3 3 i

Contents 3.5 Special Status Invertebrates... 3 6 3.6 Summary of Development Plan... 3 7 Chapter 4 Monitoring... 4 1 4.1 Introduction... 4 1 4.2 Monitoring and Adaptive Management Approach... 4 2 4.2.1 Conceptual Models... 4 3 4.2.2 Baseline, Pre Construction, and Reference Data... 4 4 4.3 Compliance Monitoring... 4 5 4.3.1 Constructed Outputs... 4 5 4.3.2 Permit Compliance... 4 5 4.4 Effectiveness Monitoring... 4 6 4.4.1 Periodic Surveys... 4 6 4.4.2 Continuous Hydrodynamic Monitoring... 4 9 4.4.3 Discrete Seasonal Sampling... 4 9 4.5 Monitoring Elements... 4 11 4.5.1 Elevation and Topography... 4 15 4.5.2 Aerial Photos... 4 15 4.5.3 Photo Points... 4 15 4.5.4 Hydrologic Regime... 4 16 4.5.5 Water Quality... 4 16 4.5.6 Wetland Habitat Assessment... 4 17 4.5.7 Vegetation Surveys... 4 17 4.5.8 Foodweb: Phytoplankton, Zooplankton, Benthic Invertebrates... 4 17 4.5.9 Fish... 4 19 4.6 Applied Studies... 4 19 4.7 Long Term Management and Maintenance... 4 21 4.8 Data Management, Analysis and Assessment... 4 21 4.9 Reporting... 4 22 Chapter 5 Site Specific Management... 5 1 5.1 Non native Invasive Plant Species... 5 1 5.2 Woody Vegetation Management... 5 2 5.3 Long Term Site Management... 5 4 5.4 Security, Safety and Public Access... 5 4 5.5 Annual Land Management Report... 5 4 5.6 Special or Emergency Notifications... 5 5 Chapter 6 Transfer, Replacement, Amendments and Notices... 6 1 6.1 Transfer... 6 1 ii

Contents 6.2 Replacement... 6 1 6.3 Amendments... 6 1 6.4 Notices... 6 2 Chapter 7 References... 7 1 Appendices Appendix A Invasive Weeds iii

Contents List of Tables Tables Page 2 1 Combined Soil Types of Yolo Ranch and Yolo Flyway Farms... 2 14 2 2 Delta Protection Commission Land Use and Management Plan: Policies of Interest... 2 17 2 3 Yolo County 2030 General Plan: Agricultural Policies of Interest... 2 18 3 1 Summary Jurisdictional Wetlands and Waters of the US on the Project Site... 3 2 3 2 Special status Species Wildlife... 3 3 4 1 Objective Based Effectiveness Monitoring Parameters... 4 7 4 2 Monitoring Sampling Methods, Metrics, Frequency, Duration, and Scale... 4 12 4 3 Hypotheses for the Subsidy Marsh Restoration Concept... 4 20 4 4 Matrix for Field Assessment Program Hypothesis 2... 4 20 iv

Contents List of Figures Figures Page 2 1 Regional Delta Setting... 2 2 2 2 Northwest Delta Setting... 2 3 2 3 Cache Slough Complex Restoration Projects... 2 4 2 4 Surrounding Land Uses... 2 5 2 5 Site Geographic Reference Features... 2 6 2 6 Tidal Marsh Complex Alternative Proposed Project... 2 7 2 7 Yolo Ranch Property and Current Land Use Aerial Photo... 2 8 2 8 Historical Ecotones... 2 9 2 9 Yolo Ranch Property... 2 9 2 10 Conceptual Gradient of Habitats... 2 10 2 11 Habitat Potential at Yolo Ranch Property and Surrounding Landscape... 2 11 2 12 NRCS Soils and Project Extent... 2 15 4 1 Conceptual Model of Lower Yolo Restoration Approach... 4 3 4 2 Discrete Sampling Program Linked to Seasonal and Tidal Cycles... 4 10 4 3 Proposed Locations for Discrete Sampling Program at Breach Connection Points... 4 11 5 1 Restoration Concept Plan... 5 3 v

Contents List of Acronyms and Abbreviations A 1 Agriculture ac acre AG Agriculture A P Agricultural Preserve BDCP Bay Delta Conservation Plan BO Biological Opinion CRHR CVFPB CVP Delta DPO DPR DWR FAST FAST MOA FRPA Longfin ITP California Register of Historical Resources Central Valley Flood Protection Board Central Valley Project s Sacramento San Joaquin River Delta Delta Protection Overlay California Department of Parks and Recreation California Department of Water Resources Fish Agency Strategy Team Memorandum of Agreement Regarding the Early Implementation of Habitat Projects for the Central Valley Project and State Water Project Coordinated Operations and Bay Delta Conservation Plan Fish Restoration Project Agreement Incidental Take Permit of February 23, 2009 for the SWP for longfin smelt NAVD88 North American Vertical Datum of 1988 NRCS Natural Resources Conservation Service NWIC Northwest Information Center OCAP Operational Criteria and Plan OHP California Office of Historic Preservation Plan 2030 Countywide General Plan Salmon biop National Marine Fisheries Service biological opinion of June 4, 2009 SFCWA State and Federal Contractors Water Agency SRDWSC Sacramento River Deep Water Ship Channel SWP State Water Project s USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service USFWS Smelt biop United States Fish and Wildlife Service, December 15th, 2008 USGS U.S. Geological Survey Williamson Act California Land Conservation Act of 1965 YBWA Yolo Bypass Wildlife Area Yolo RCD Yolo County Resource Conservation District vi

Chapter 1 Introduction 1.1 Purpose of Establishment The Lower Yolo Ranch Restoration project is being established by the State and Federal Contractors Water Agency (SFCWA) to be credited toward the obligations set forth in the State Water Project s (SWP) and Central Valley Project s (CVP) Operational Criteria and Plan (OCAP) Biological Opinion (BO) issued by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) on December 15 th, 2008 (Smelt BiOp), and the National Marine Fisheries Service biological opinion of June 4, 2009 (Salmon BiOp), the Incidental Take Permit of February 23, 2009 for the SWP for longfin smelt (Longfin ITP) as well as ultimately being creditable toward the proposed Bay Delta Conservation Plan (BDCP). Assessment of credits will be performed under the Memorandum of Agreement Regarding the Early Implementation of Habitat Projects for the Central Valley Project and State Water Project Coordinated Operations and Bay Delta Conservation Plan (FAST MOA). 1.2 Purpose of Long Term Management The purpose of this management plan is to ensure the Restoration Project s habitats are protected, managed, monitored and maintained in perpetuity as discussed in Chapters 1 through 6 of this plan. This management plan outlines the activities to support this purpose. It is a binding and enforceable instrument upon recordation of a conservation easement for the restoration area. The management plan is intended to be consistent with federal and state permits and to the extent any discrepancies arise between this plan and the permits, the permits shall govern absent written approval from the agency of jurisdiction allowing a permit deviation. The project is designed such that initial excavation and channel development will set the landscape on an natural trajectory requiring little maintenance or modification to achieve ecological restoration goals. No planting within wetland areas is contemplated. Periodic grazing or mechanical suppression of weed species on upland areas not otherwise subject to commercial grazing will be utilized to suppress non native species, or species otherwise impeding flood control objectives. Control of woody plants through mechanical means will be applied as needed to maintain flood control values and capacity in the Yolo Bypass, as discussed further herein. The project has been developed in partial fulfillment of permit requirements for the operation of the Central Valley Water Project and State Water Project. The restoration is anticipated to generate habitat credits to apply against restoration obligations of the water Projects. SFCWA, under its MOA with the Department of Water Resources will sell or transfer credits granted SFCWA for the restoration in exchange for DWR reimbursing SFCWA for development costs for the restoration and a commitment to provide management funds for the project in perpetuity. Funding will come from State Water Project operational funds, and will be part of the Statement of Charges from DWR to the various State Water Contractors. Funding arrangements will be detailed in a Credit Purchase Agreement with DWR. Execution of a Credit Purchase Agreement is contingent upon SFCWA delivering a fully executed project with attendant credits, which also includes all necessary permit authorizations, such as the Central Valley Flood Protection Board (CVFPB) permit. Until such time as 1 1

Introduction a Credit Purchase Agreement is executed, SFCWA will be responsible for funding and executing project management and maintenance. Substantive changes in the will be subject to review by the FAST agencies and the CVFPB. 1.3 Management Objectives The general objectives of this Lower Yolo Restoration Project Management Plan are to: 1. Manage the modified landscape towards promoting the adopted goals and objectives of restoration. 2. Assure preservation of restoration benefits in perpetuity, consistent with and evolving landscape. 3. Adapt to climate change and sea level rise. 4. Retain flood control capacity in the Yolo Bypass. The restoration goal of the Lower Yolo Restoration Project is to benefit native species by reestablishing natural ecological processes and habitats. The restoration objectives to achieve this goal include: 1. Reestablish the hydrologic, geomorphic, and ecological processes necessary for the long term sustainability of native habitats and the plant and animal communities that depend upon them; 2. Restore a mosaic of wetland and upland habitats; 3. Enhance delta smelt recovery; 4. Provide rearing habitats for out migrating salmonids; 5. Support a broad range of other aquatic and wetland dependent species, including Sacramento splittail; 6. Minimize mercury methylation and export; 7. Maximize regional carrying capacity of the landscape to support native species; 8. Increase heterotrophic and autotrophic (producer/consumer) exchanges and food web productivity. 1.4 Management Plan Implementation Strategy SFCWA will select a competent, permanent conservation easement holder to take title to the conservation easement and all of the management, maintenance, and monitoring responsibilities. Such conservation easement holder shall be accredited by the Land Trust Accreditation Commission. SFCWA will also provide long term funding either through a funding agreement with California Department of Water Resources (DWR) as a part of SFCWA s credit purchase agreement, or by a cash endowment to the long term management entity sufficient to perform ongoing maintenance in perpetuity. 1 2

Introduction SFCWA will employ the following tactics in implementing management of the site: 1. Utilize natural processes for establishment of habitat; 2. Practice adaptive management utilizing input from monitoring data in conjunction with adaptive review of biological goals and objectives. 3. Review monitoring reports annually with permitting agencies and interested parties and identify needed management actions that will promote achievement of adopted biological goals and objectives in addition to ensuring that the project will not impede flood flows in the Yolo Bypass. Monitoring reports will begin one year following construction completion and be completed annually in perpetuity. 4. Use limited grazing in buffer areas to control undesirable plants. Please see Appendix A for a list of these plants. 5. Maintain a strict exclusion area for cattle. 1.4.1 Implementation Mechanisms SFCWA will provide physical management actions under contract with appropriate, competent entities. For example, site security and electrified cattle exclusion fencing will be managed under a contract with existing or future land tenants that operate adjacent grazing lands for cattle feeding. This entity could also provide limited and directed cattle grazing on buffer areas of high marsh/upland where vegetation management is required. Similarly, SFCWA will contract with appropriate entities to conduct biological monitoring of the site to produce data consistent with the monitoring plan that will be used annually in review of site management needs. 1.5 Land Manager and Responsibilities The State and Federal Contractors Water Agency will be the party responsible for ensuring execution of and compliance with this management plan. SFCWA may contract with private or nonprofit entities to perform all or some of the tasks required in this management plan. The Land Manager s responsibilities shall include but not be limited the following: Executing the land manager s responsibilities outlined in SFCWA s conservation easement. Implementing or causing to be implemented all habitat creation and management activities. Performing general inspections to ensure habitat values created are maintained. Performing or causing to be performed biological surveys as adopted in the Monitoring Plan by a qualified biologist. Analyzing monitoring data resulting from the monitoring plan and effecting any remedial actions necessary. Filing an annual report with the Fish Agency Strategy Team (FAST) MOA agencies and the CVFPB describing the evolution and status of the restored habitats, general plant and tidal area health, presence and abundance of invasive flora and fauna, hydrologic conditions experienced, known wildlife utilization, vandalism and refuse problems, financial expenditures for maintenance and monitoring and summarizing monitoring data. 1 3

Introduction Maintaining a file on the Restoration Project, detailing management and maintenance activities, correspondence and determinations. This file will be available to FAST MOA agencies and the CVFPB for inspection at any time. Reviewing and commenting upon through public processes potential land use activities adjacent to the site. Assessing and correcting impacts upon the project from harmful uses or activities that may impair the habitat restoration values. Acquiring appropriate regulatory permits 1.6 Transfer of Conservation Easement SFCWA will select a competent, permanent conservation easement holder to take title to the conservation easement. This action will be taken, in accordance with federal requirements, to ensure that there is third party oversight by a qualified non profit or government agency. SFCWA also wishes this entity to have the ability to assume all of the management, maintenance, and monitoring responsibilities. Although SFCWA does reserve the right to contract with private entities to perform all or some of the tasks required by this management plan, SFCWA recognizes that it would promote a more consolidated effort if the non profit or government entity could also manage the lands within the easement. Additionally, the desired conservation easement holder shall be accredited by the Land Trust Accreditation Commission. Besides ability and cost to execute SFCWA's Long term Management Plan, several other criteria play a role in the evaluation of potential conservation easement holders: Location of entity Consistency between SFCWA goals and entity purpose Years of experience holding title to conservation easements Number of acres the entity has under management Current managed lands in proximity to Lower Yolo Restoration Project parcel Experience with managing conservation, specifically, habitat focused easements. The transfer of the conservation easement is scheduled to occur in Spring of 2014. Additionally, this transfer of the conservation easement will be subject to the approval by the FAST MOA agencies. 1.7 Land Owner The land owner for the Restoration Project area is currently Westlands Water District, a public agency. SFCWA expects to execute a purchase and sales agreement prior to construction of the restoration project and will become the grantor of the conservation easement. 1 4

Introduction 1.8 Qualified Personnel/Monitoring Biologist SFCWA shall retain professional botanists, biologists and other specialists ( qualified personnel ) including the Monitoring Biologist to conduct specialized tasks. The Monitoring Biologist shall be familiar with Delta wetland biology and have knowledge relative to monitoring protocols, management techniques, endangered species needs, and fisheries ecology. Duties of the Qualified Personnel may include but are not limited to: Monitoring and maintaining habitat function Monitoring and maintain erosion control Identifying and evaluating the presence of newly introduced invasive species and developing any management recommendations thereto Conducting biological surveys as required in the monitoring plan Evaluating site conditions and recommending remedial action to the Land Manager Assisting in the review or planning of any additional restoration actions following initial construction Overseeing construction and other habitat creation actions. 1.9 Changes in Personnel Significant personnel changes will be reported in annual reports to the FAST MOA agencies. If applicable, any related transfer of management responsibilities will be done in the presence of FAST MOA members. 1 5

Chapter 2 Property and Restoration Project Description 2.1 Setting and Location The Project site is located in the northwestern portion of the Sacramento San Joaquin River Delta (Delta) in southern Yolo County (Figure 2 1). It is situated at the southern end of the Yolo Bypass floodway and near the north end of the Cache Slough Complex (Figure 2 2). The Yolo Bypass is a levee protected, 59,000 acre (ac) floodplain west of the lower Sacramento River. Sacramento River floodwaters are directed away from the heavily developed urban and suburban areas, via the 41 mile long Yolo Bypass, and onto minimally developed farmland. Land use within the Yolo Bypass is managed to facilitate flood flow conveyance. The Yolo Bypass land uses consist of the state owned 16,700 ac Yolo Bypass Wildlife Area (YBWA) and mainly privately owned farmlands, all of which are subject to flood flow conveyance easements that restrict development in the Bypass. The Yolo Bypass is predominantly used for annual agricultural crops and some grazing, with the YBWA managed for emergent wetland vegetation. Bounding the Yolo Bypass on the east is the Sacramento River Deep Water Ship Channel (SRDWSC). The Project site occurs on the northwestern edge of the Delta at the extreme southern end of the Yolo Bypass near the Cache Slough Complex (see Figures 2 1, 2 2, and 2 3). The 3,795 ac site encompasses two contiguous properties: Yolo Ranch and Yolo Flyway Farms located along the historic wetland upland edge of the Yolo Basin (Figures 2 4 and 2 5). The Yolo Flyway Farms parcels are not part of the current restoration project design. 2.2 Cultural History and Land Use Current land uses at the site are as follows. The Project site includes a ranch compound (including small seasonal residences, barns, other outbuildings, and corrals) in the northwest corner of the property and agricultural lands, including farmed wetlands, on the remainder of the property (See Figure 2 8). The entire site is designated in the Yolo County General Plan as Agricultural Preserve (County of Yolo 2009). The Project site serves as a flood bypass, with winter and spring floods occurring on average in two of every three years (California Department of Fish and Game 2008). The ranch compound and about 240 ac of adjacent irrigated pasture are protected from flooding by a restricted height levee and flood only during major flood events on the Yolo Bypass. Most of the buildings in the ranch compound are built on raised foundations to avoid damage from flood inundation. During the summer period, most of the site supports cattle grazing along with some hay production. Most of the pasture on the site is irrigated during the summer to support forage production. Cattle are removed each fall before the Yolo Bypass floods begin and are returned in the spring or summer following the end of the flood season. During the winter time, portions of the eastern half of the site (about one fifth of the total Project site) are managed as ponds and wetlands for duck hunting. 2 1

Property and Restoration Project Description 2 2

Property and Restoration Project Description 2 3

Property and Restoration Project Description 2 4

Property and Restoration Project Description 2 5

Property and Restoration Project Description 2 6

Property and Restoration Project Description Figure 2 6 Tidal Marsh Complex Alternative Proposed Project 2 7

Property and Restoration Project Description 2.3 Ecological History and Restoration Potential The periphery of the Delta has the best opportunities for restoration due to its remaining variable topography and complex transition zones (Grossinger 2013). In the North Delta, the Yolo Ranch (Figure 2 8) occupies a unique transition in the historic landscape between the Yolo flood basin, the Putah Creek alluvial fan, and the North Delta tidal marshes (Figure 2 7). Fluvial forces from Putah Creek carved gently undulating topography in the alluvial silt. Large seasonal ponds formed in natural depressions at the transitional edge to seasonal marshes (Figure 2 8). East toward the Yolo Basin, the floodplain had frequent sustained overflow. The site is also at a key interface between the North Delta/Central Delta landscapes and the flood basin. Tidal marshes here were often a sea of tules with few channels, inundated largely on spring tides and located far from tidal channel networks. Today, Yolo Ranch is nearer to subtidal waters, as the coastal Delta has effectively moved closer. The topographic gradient of this region is well suited to accommodate habitat shifts with sea level rise (Figure 2 9). In conclusion, the site has a high potential for restoration of complex habitats, as part of a larger functional landscape (Figure 2 10). Figure 2 7 Yolo Ranch Property and Current Land Use Aerial Photo 2 8

Property and Restoration Project Description Figure 2 8 Historical Ecotones Figure 2 9 Yolo Ranch Property Yolo Ranch Property (red outline) located at the transition between flood basin and tidal influence (darker blue) and the higher elevation alluvial fan of Putah Creek (light green). 2 9

Property and Restoration Project Description Tidal Marsh w/o Channel Networks (likely small ponds) Seasonal Wetland Transition Zone Tidal Marsh w/ Channel Networks (Tidal Islands) High Marsh Depression Floodplain Historic Yolo Ranch Levees prevent tidal exchange, ditches increase drainage Current Yolo Ranch Levees cut off floodplain to west, flood Basin to east Grossinger SFEI 2013 (adapted by Swenson) Restored Future with Climate Change? Sea level rise could increase tidal inundation of site in future Figure 2 10 Conceptual Gradient of Habitats Restoration Concept 2 10

State and Federal Contractors Water Agency Property and Restoration Project Description Figure 2 11 Habitat Potential at Yolo Ranch Property and Surrounding Landscape (Drawn on historical map circa 1910). 2.4 Restoration Project Description The proposed project includes modifications to approximately 1,787 acres of the 3,427 acre site. Actions within the proposed project footprint would include: (1) restoring and enhancing approximately 1,749 acres of tidal marsh, including 4 acres of tidal channels and swales, seasonal floodplain wetlands, and riparian habitat ( restoration footprint ), (2) constructing a 50 acre soil stockpile behind restricted height levees in the northwest corner of the property, (3) removing agricultural irrigation from approximately 385 acres surrounding the restored wetlands ( fringe tidal wetlands ), and (4) relocating several water control structures and some irrigation and drainage ditches. Notches would be excavated in strategic spots in existing roads and berms to allow for water and biota to flow into and out of surrounding tidal channels. Removal of irrigation control structures will greatly reduce the potential for fish stranding. Water will discharge from the site though the existing irrigated pasture ditch network, via overland flow, and through swales that will be cut within the proposed Project footprint. Depth of the swales will vary in order to vary the hydroperiod within the associated network and test different residency time hypotheses. Approximately 40,000 cubic yards of soil will need to be excavated in order to construct the proposed project. Excavated soil will be placed behind the existing restricted height levees in the 2 11

Property and Restoration Project Description northwest corner of the project site and graded so as to not affect flood conveyance through the Yolo Bypass. The project features will be constructed to accommodate future adjustment and modification depending on monitoring results and new scientific research results. 2.5 Cultural Resources A number of cultural resource assessments have been conducted at the Project site, including a literature review, Native American consultation, a general reconnaissance (Holman & Associates 2010), and a historic resources evaluation (Bradley and Hill 2011). These relevant studies, findings, and methodologies are summarized below. A records search was conducted at the Northwest Information Center (NWIC) of the California Historical Resources Information System. The geographic scope of this literature review encompassed the Project site, along with an approximate one mile radius beyond the site identified as the study area. Additionally, other resources were reviewed: Historic Properties Directory (California Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) 2011) California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR) (California Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) 1998 and updates) California Points of Historical Interest (DPR 1998 and updates) California Historical Landmarks (DPR 1998 and updates) Directory of Properties in the Historical Resources Inventory (OHP 2011) NWIC Historic Resources Map (U.S. Geological Survey [USGS] 1979, Liberty Island Quad) 1859 1885 General Land Office Plat Maps Based on this review, no prehistoric or historic archaeological resources are known to occur inside the study area. Two historic features, a collection of abandoned farm equipment (P 57 000587) and portions of a levee surrounding Liberty Island (P 57 000588) were previously recorded adjacent to the study area. One previous linear survey included a small portion of the northwestern most corner of the Project area, and five other cultural resources studies (most also linear surveys) reconnoitered property immediately adjacent to the study area, most in support of improvements to flood control systems (Werner 1985; Weaver 1986; Hale, Kelly, and Nilsson 1995; Shapiro and Syda 1997; Jones & Stokes 1999; Kovak 2007). Although the 1995 Hale et al. study cited a letter indicating that a prehistoric site may have been located at the Yolo Ranch compound complex site, none of these studies identified any important prehistoric or historic archaeological sites within the study area. Paleontological resources are not expected to be encountered during Project related activities due to the types of site soils onsite, periodic flooding and water inundation, and the shallow depths of proposed excavation. 2.6 Topography The topography of the Project site is primarily flat, with an almost imperceptible slope descending from the northwest to the southeast (Figure 2 6). Much of the site is at elevations above modern mean higher high tide (+6.5 ft North American Vertical Datum of 1988 [NAVD88]), with elevations ranging between +6.5 to +15 ft NAVD88. Approximately one quarter of the site is within intertidal 2 12

Property and Restoration Project Description ranges of +2 to +6.5 ft NAVD88. Many pastures onsite have been graded to drain to agricultural ditches. 2.7 Hydrology The Project site is located roughly at existing tidal elevations with some areas below mean sea level and much of the area above but within the range of higher and extreme high tides. Upon reintroduction of tidal flux through breeches in surrounding external and subdividing internal levees, the project site will be subject to tidal wetting and inundation as shown in Figure 2 6. Areas of the Project site that are subject to daily inundation should colonize to tule marsh habitat, with successively higher ground subject only to higher tidal excursions evolving to high marsh habitat. As the Project Site is located in the Yolo bypass, a floodway, it is subject to overland flooding, usually in the wintertime but potentially anytime between October and May. In wet years the land may be underwater for some months. Project design will allow for the site to gradually drain to the south as flood waters recede, with individual sections of the property having different drainage and retention times, providing habitat diversity over time. 2.8 Soils Onsite agricultural soils vary in their ability to contribute to agricultural productivity. The Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS 1972) soils survey identifies eight soil types on the Project site (Figure 2 12 and Table 2 1). The Storie index is a soil/irrigation rating system. It expresses numerically the relative degree of suitability or value of a soil for intensive agricultural uses (University of California Division of Agricultural Sciences 1978). Four factors that represent the inherent characteristics and qualities of the soil are considered in the Storie index rating 1 : soil profile indicating the suitability for the growth of roots; texture of the surface layer; the slope of the soil and ease of irrigation; and other conditions limiting the use of the soil such as drainage, high water table, salt, alkali and acidity. Table 2 1 indicates that more than 90 percent of the soils in the Project site is rated as belowaverage productivity (Grades 4 and 5). Grade 4 soils rate between 20 and 39 percent suitability and thus have a narrow range of agricultural possibilities and require special management. Grade 5 represents soils that rate between 10 and 19 percent suitability and are, of very limited agricultural use except for pasture and range. Most of the lands proposed for conversion to wetlands are Sacramento soils (flooded), or Pescadero soils (flooded), which have Storie grades of 4 and 5, respectively. Small areas of Clear Lake and Capay soils also lie within the Project construction footprint (Figure 2 12). A majority of the Project site is irrigated during the summer months to support forage production for cattle grazing. Field irrigation is facilitated by an extensive system of irrigation and drainage ditches, which connect to the major interior irrigation and drainage ditches within the Project site boundary and to the tidal waterways bordering the site (see Figure 3 4 in Chapter 3.0, Project 1 The Storie Index rating of a soil is obtained by multiplying each percentage score of the four factors together. Each factor has a highest possible percentage of 100, indicating the most favorable or ideal conditions. For simplification, six soils grades have been designated in California based on the index ratings. 2 13

Property and Restoration Project Description Description). Many fields have been graded to promote efficient flood irrigation within and between fields. The current hydrologic regime is discussed in further detailed in Section 4.1. Table 2 1. Combined Soil Types of Yolo Ranch and Yolo Flyway Farms Soil Types Acres Percentage of Site Storie Index Storie Grade 1 Capay soils, flooded 1,506 40 34 4 Sacramento soils, flooded 914 24 30 4 Pescadero soils, flooded 844 22 15 5 Clear Lake soils, flooded 312 8 61 2 Riz loam, flooded 119 3 24 4 Made land 4 <1 NA NA Sycamore complex, flooded 0.02 <1 26 4 Sacramento clay, drained 0.1 <1 34 2 Water 94 2 NA NA Total Acreage 3,793 1 Storie Grade 1 represents the most productive soils and Grade 6 the least productive. Numerically, the range can be categorized as follows: Grade 1: 80 to 100, Grade 2: 60 to 79, Grade 3: 40 to 59, Grade 4; 20 to 39, Grade 5: 10 to 19, and Grade 6: 0 to 9. NA = Not Applicable Source: NRCS Soils Types Map and Storie Index Soil Classifications 2.9 Existing Easements Easements on the property are limited to flood bypass and three gas well sites. The flood easement is common to all areas within the Yolo Bypass. This prohibits any urban or residential development and prohibits any activities that impede the function of the Bypass to convey flood flows. It also restricts activity on the property to the non flood potential period, October May. The project has been designed to have no net effect on flood conveyance capacity and detailed modeling has been used in the design process to assure this parameter is achieved (Lower Yolo Restoration Project Preliminary Flood Conveyance Assessment, CBEC, 2013). 2.10 Adjacent Land Uses Adjacent Land Uses are either agricultural or existing managed wetland habitat, as shown Figure 2 4 Surrounding Land Uses. 2.11 Consistency with Local Planning Efforts Within the Lower Yolo Ranch Restoration Project Draft Environmental Impact Report, forty nine plans projects or programs are analyzed for consistency (See Lower Yolo Ranch Restoration Project Draft EIR, April 2013). The following summarizes the most relevant plans requiring consistency. 2 14

Property and Restoration Project Description Figure 2 12 2 15

Property and Restoration Project Description 2.11.1 Bay Delta Conservation Plan The Bay Delta Conservation Plan is a Habitat Conservation Plan designed to restore water supply reliability to the State Water Project and Central Valley Project export supplies as well as provide recovery for a wide variety of threatened, endangered and other species of concern. The Plan also provides for restoration of 145,000 acres of habitat including 65,000 acres of intertidal habitat, similar as to proposed in this Lower Yolo Ranch Restoration Project. Tidal wetland acreage developed in this project will count toward these BDCP goals, as well as current Biological Opinion mandates. 2.11.2 Yolo County National Heritage Plan The Yolo County National Heritage Plan aims to develop a comprehensive, county wide plan for 653,820 acres designed to provide long term conservation and management of natural communities, sensitive species, and the habitats upon which those species depend, while accommodating other important uses of the land. The Plan will set out a conservation strategy that includes measures to ensure that impacts on the 35 covered species and habitats related to covered activities are avoided, minimized, or mitigated, as appropriate. The Plan also proposes to provide conservation for 31 additional species of local concern. As of this writing, the Plan remains under development. This project s biological objectives are compatible with the developing plan. Plan administrators will also review this Lower Yolo Restoration Project via the CEQA environmental impact review process and provide comment to SFCWA to allow for any design adjustments to assure final compatibility. 2.11.3 Yolo County Relevant Plans On November 10, 2009, the Yolo County Board of Supervisors adopted the 2030 Countywide General Plan (Plan). The Plan designates the entire Project site as Agriculture (AG) with a Delta Protection Overlay (DPO). Agriculture (AG) includes the full range of cultivated agriculture, such as row crops, orchards, vineyards, dryland farming, livestock grazing, forest products, horticulture, floriculture, apiaries, confined animal facilities, and equestrian facilities. It also includes agricultural industrial uses as well as agricultural commercial uses. Agriculture also includes farmworker housing, surface mining, and incidental habitat. (Yolo County General Plan 2009a, p. LU 13) In general, the County considers wetland habitat restoration projects to be consistent with the 2030 General Plan, including agricultural policies (Nos. 2.9, 2.10, and 2.12) 2. The DPO is applied to County lands within the Delta Primary Zone, to ensure the compatibility of land uses and decision making with applicable policies of the LURMP of the DPC, which are described above under the Delta Protection Commission discussion. The County General Plan GOAL LU 4 Delta Land Use and Resource Management, Policy LU 4.1 promotes recognizing the unique land use constraints and interests of the Delta area. The Yolo County General Plan includes a number of policies that are designed to protect and encourage agricultural production (Yolo County 2009a). Those policies are summarized in Table 2 2. 2 County of Yolo. Office of Legal Counsel. October 28, 2008. Board Report: County Regulations of Habitat Projects (No general fund impact), page 6 of 11. 2 16

Property and Restoration Project Description Table 2 2. Delta Protection Commission Land Use and Management Plan: Policies of Interest Plan Policy Number Plan Policy Statement of Interest Land Use Policies New non agriculturally oriented residential, recreational, commercial, habitat, restoration, or industrial development shall ensure that appropriate buffer areas are provided by those proposing new development to prevent conflicts between any proposed use and existing adjacent agricultural parcels. Buffers shall adequately protect integrity of land for existing and future agricultural uses and P 3 shall not include uses that conflict with agricultural operations on adjacent agricultural lands. Appropriate buffer setbacks shall be determined in consultation with local Agricultural Commissioners, and shall be based on applicable general plan policies and criteria included in Rightto Farm Ordinances adopted by local jurisdictions. Local government policies regarding mitigation of adverse environmental impacts under the California Environmental Quality Act may allow mitigation beyond county boundaries, if acceptable to reviewing fish and wildlife agencies and with approval of the recipient jurisdiction, for example in approved mitigation banks or in the case of agricultural loss to mitigation. California Government P 8 Code Section 51256.3 (Assembly Bill 797) specifically allows an agricultural conservation easement located within the Primary or Secondary Zone of the Delta to be related to Williamson Act contract rescissions in any other portion of the secondary zone without respect to County boundary limitations. Agriculture Policies* Support and encourage agriculture in the Delta as a key element in the State s economy and in P 1 providing the food supply needed to sustain the increasing population of the State, the Nation, and the world Conversion of land to non agriculturally oriented uses should occur first where productivity and P 2 agricultural values are lowest. Encourage acquisition of agricultural conservation easements from willing sellers as mitigation for projects within each county. Promote use of environmental mitigation in agricultural areas only when P 6 it is consistent and compatible with ongoing agricultural operations and when developed in appropriate locations designated on a countywide or Delta wide habitat management plan. Encourage management of agricultural lands which maximize wildlife habitat seasonally and yearround, through techniques such as fall and winter flooding, leaving crop residue, creation of mosaic of P 7 small grains and flooded areas, wildlife friendly farming, controlling predators, controlling poaching, controlling public access, and others. Encourage the protection of agricultural areas, recreational resources and sensitive biological P 8 habitats, and the reclamation of those areas from the destruction caused by inundation. Natural Resources Policies Preserve and protect the viability of agricultural areas by including an adequate financial mechanism in any planned conversion of agricultural lands to wildlife habitat for conservation purposes. The P 5 financial mechanism shall specifically offset the loss of local government and special district revenues necessary to support public services and infrastructure. Support the implementation of appropriate buffers, management plans and/or good neighbor policies (e.g., safe harbor agreements) that among other things, limit liability for incidental take associated P 6 with adjacent agricultural and recreational activities within lands converted to wildlife habitat to ensure the ongoing agricultural and recreational operations adjacent to the converted lands are not negatively affected. * The goal of the agricultural element of the LURMP is to support long term viability of agriculture and to discourage inappropriate development of agricultural lands. The priority land use of areas in the Primary Zone shall be oriented toward agriculture and open space. If agriculture is no longer appropriate, land uses that protect other beneficial uses of Delta resources and that would not adversely affect agriculture on surrounding lands or the viability or cost of levee maintenance, may be permitted. 2 17

Property and Restoration Project Description Table 2 3. Yolo County 2030 General Plan: Agricultural Policies of Interest General Plan Policy Number AG 1.3 AG 1.4 AG 1.5 AG 1.6 AG 1.14 AG 1.18 AG 1.22 AG 2.2 AG 2.8 AG 2.9 AG 2.10 General Plan Policy Statements Prohibit the division of agricultural land for non agricultural uses. Prohibit land use activities that are not compatible within agriculturally designated areas. Strongly discourage the conversion of agricultural land for other uses. No lands shall be considered for re designation from Agricultural or Open Space to another land use designation unless all of the following findings can be made: There is a public need or net community benefit derived from the conversion of the land that outweighs the need to protect the land from long term agricultural use. There are no feasible alternative locations for the proposed project that are either designated for non agricultural land uses or are less productive agricultural lands. The use would not have a significant adverse effect on existing or potential agricultural activities on surrounding lands designated Agriculture. Continue to mitigate at a ratio of no less that 1:1 the conversion of farm land and/or the conversion of land designated or zoned for agriculture, to other uses. Preserve agricultural lands using a variety of programs, including the Williamson Act, Farmland Preservation Zones (implemented through the Williamson Act) conservation easements, an Agricultural Conversion Ordinance, and the Right to Farm Ordinance*. When undertaking improvement of public roadways and drainage facilities, consult with adjoining farmland owners and incorporate designs that minimize impacts on agriculture. Protect the integrity of irrigation conveyance systems and related infrastructure from the impacts of adjoining non agricultural development. Preserve water resources for agriculture, both in quality and quantity, from competition with development, mitigation banks, and/or interests from outside of the County. Facilitate partnerships between agricultural operations and habitat conservation efforts to create mutually beneficial outcomes. Support the use of effective mechanisms to protect farmers potentially impacted by adjoining habitat enhancement programs, such as safe harbor programs and providing buffers within the habitat area. Encourage habitat protection and management that does not preclude or unreasonably restrict on site agricultural production. AG 2.12 Encourage farmers to employ agricultural practices that supplement rather than deplete topsoil and conserve or minimize water use. Promote wildlife friendly farm practices, such as tailwater ponds, native species/ grasslands restoration in field margins, hedgerows, ditch management for riparian habitat, AG 2.13 restoration of riparian areas in a manner consistent with ongoing water delivery systems, reduction of pesticides, incorporating winter stubble and summer fallow, etc. Continue to promote agriculture as the primary land use in the portion of Yolo County that AG 6.1 lies within the Primary Zone of the Sacramento San Joaquin Delta. Within the Delta Primary Zone, ensure compatibility of permitted land use activities with AG 6.3 applicable agricultural policies of the Land Use and Resource Management Plan of the Delta Protection Commission. * Yolo County General Plan policy to support the maintenance of a Right to Farm Ordinance does not permit agricultural activity that becomes a nuisance due to any changed condition in or about the locality (County of Yolo 2009c). As the conversion to wetlands of a portion of the Project site would not be a nuisance to agricultural activities in the surrounding locality, no further analysis is required. 2 18

Property and Restoration Project Description Zoning Designations Title 8 (Land Development and Zoning) of the Yolo County Code contains the primary land development regulations of the County, including the Zoning Code (County of Yolo 2009b). These regulations implement the General Plan and must be consistent with the plan. Inconsistencies between the two documents must be resolved in favor of the General Plan (Yolo County General Plan, Community Character Element, 2009a p. LU 10). This interpretation is consistent with California Planning law. The Yolo County Development Code, Title 10 (Zoning) designates nearly all of the site as Agricultural Preserve (A P), which is intended to facilitate establishment of agricultural preserves in accordance with the California Land Conservation Act of 1965 (Williamson Act). A small portion of the site adjacent to the sloughs is zoned Agriculture (A 1). Permitted land uses under the A P and A 1 zoning include a wide range of agricultural uses. Water retention basins with a potential to provide wildlife habitat improvement benefits also are permitted under this designation (Zoning Ordinance, 8 2.03(j)). While the County s primary interest is in retaining agricultural lands for farming purposes, it has considered wetland habitat restoration goals and policies within areas zoned for agricultural uses. For example, in 1996 the Board of Supervisors adopted the Cache Creek Resources Management Plan 3 for Lower Cache Creek in Yolo County (later revised in 2002) to set forth goals and policies for that area s resources, including adjacent agricultural resources. Goal 7.2 2 states: Develop opportunities where restoration efforts and agriculture can provide mutual benefits. Several subsequent objectives and actions note the careful planning of both resources to maximize benefits and reduce costs, including: Objective 7.3 1: Ensure the compatibility of planned habitat and the channel floodplain with adjoining agricultural land, so that productivity is not adversely affected. Objective 7.3 2: Coordinate with local farmers to employ existing agricultural practices in improving the quality of riparian habitat. Objective 7.3 3: Manage Cache Creek to reduce the loss of farmland from erosion and increase the recharge potential of the channel. Action 7.4 1: Work with the Department of Fish and Game to investigate the feasibility of developing a Safe Harbor program for agricultural operations potentially impacted by the development of riparian habitat along Cache Creek. Action 7.4 2: Design and develop habitat restoration projects so that they do not adversely impact the agricultural productivity of nearby farmland. Action 7.7 3: Incorporate agriculturally related features, such as agricultural forage areas and drainage systems, into the design of habitat planning. In addition, the County, among other stakeholders, partners with the Yolo County Resource Conservation District (Yolo RCD). One of Yolo RCD s completed projects, entitled the Yolo Solano Conservation Partnership 4, was to refine innovative programs dealing with wildlife habitat development. The project had several purposes including to: provide programs to reduce conservation barriers for farmers, demonstrate new ecological findings regarding the benefits of 3 http://twiki.sacriver.org/pub/main/lowercachecreekresourcesmanagementplan/ccrmpfnl.pdf 4 http://www.yolorcd.org/nodes/programs/projects/yolo_solano_conservation_partnership.htm 2 19

Property and Restoration Project Description farm ponds for native aquatic and terrestrial species, add to the documentation of on farm habitat improvement benefits for wildlife, and develop a social and economic analysis of farm ecosystem services. Yolo County Agricultural Conservation Easement Program The Yolo County Board of Supervisors established 82.2416 (Agricultural Conservation Easement Program) (County of Yolo 2009c) in order to implement the agricultural land conservation policies contained in the Yolo County General Plan. The program is designed to permanently protect agricultural land located within the unincorporated planning area of Yolo County. Per 3(a) of that ordinance, this program applies only to conversion or change from agricultural use to an urban use and therefore is not applicable to the proposed Project. 2 20