Cosumnes River Preserve (ID: 539)

Project last modified by rneugarten on December 20, 2007.

Download Data
See Associated Info (1)

Basic
Viability
Threats
Viability Assessment
Action Plan
Strategy Effectiveness
Indicators
Resources

Project Info

Contact Name:
Jaymee Marty

Contact the project owner using:
Contact project owner.

ConPro's Form Emailer

Contact Organization:
TNC

Project Start Date:
January 01, 1984

Data Effective Date:
February 08, 2002

Sharing Status:
This project may be shared
outside of TNC.

Go To ·Objectives
·Targets
·Threats
·Strategies

Operational Unit(s):

California

Country(ies):

United States of America

Project Description:
The Cosumnes River Project spans the full watershed of the Cosumnes River, from the headwaters in the Sierra Nevada to the confluence with the Mokelumne River in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. The approximately half-million-acre Project encompasses nine Central Valley portfolio sites, three of which – Lower Floodplain, Cosumnes River [Upper Floodplain], and Vernal Pools Complex – have been the focus of conservation to date. This area embraces a unique and vast remnant of California’s Central Valley lowlands, including the largest undammed Sierran river flowing into the Central Valley, extensive valley oak riparian forests, and unique terrace and mudflow vernal pools. The area provides a critical stopover for thousands of migratory waterfowl along the Pacific Flyway and spawning grounds for declining anadromous and resident fish. Six adjacent portfolio sites capture the rare Ione chaparral, and the diversity of riparian, aquatic, foothill oak woodlands, and coniferous forest systems characteristic of the foothills and upper watershed. As a whole, the Cosumnes River watershed is a critical corridor between the high Sierras and the Bay-Delta regions.

Objectives

No objectives found for this project.

Targets

Focal Conservation Target	Target Type	Habitat Type
Vernal pool grasslands	Ecological System	Wetlands :: Seasonal/Intermittent Freshwater Marshes/Pools
Lower Floodplain	Ecological System	Riparian Areas
Upper Floodplain: Chinook Salmon	Single Species: Fish	Riparian Areas
Upper Watershed	Ecological System	-
Ione Chaparral	Species Assemblage: Plants	Shrubland :: Mediterranean-type Shrubby Vegetation
Blue Oak Woodland	Species Assemblage: Plants	Forest :: Temperate

Threats

Threat (Common Taxonomy) ^*	Targets Threatened
Primary home development (Residential & Commercial Development :: Housing & Urban Areas )	Vernal pool grasslands Lower Floodplain Upper Watershed Ione Chaparral Blue Oak Woodland
Conversion to agriculture or silviculture (Agriculture & Aquaculture :: Annual & Perennial Non-Timber Crops )	Vernal pool grasslands Lower Floodplain Upper Floodplain: Chinook Salmon Upper Watershed Blue Oak Woodland
Operation of drainage or diversion systems (Natural System Modifications :: Dams & Water Management/Use )	Lower Floodplain Upper Floodplain: Chinook Salmon Upper Watershed
Construction of ditches, dikes, drainage or diversion systems (Natural System Modifications :: Dams & Water Management/Use )	Lower Floodplain Upper Floodplain: Chinook Salmon
Excessive groundwater withdrawal (Natural System Modifications :: Dams & Water Management/Use )	Lower Floodplain Upper Floodplain: Chinook Salmon
Fire suppression (Natural System Modifications :: Fire & Fire Suppression )	Vernal pool grasslands Upper Watershed Ione Chaparral Blue Oak Woodland
Mining practices (Energy Production & Mining :: Mining & Quarrying )	Upper Floodplain: Chinook Salmon Ione Chaparral
Invasive/alien species: Animals (Invasive & Other Problematic Species & Genes :: Invasive Non-Native/Alien Species )	Lower Floodplain Upper Floodplain: Chinook Salmon Upper Watershed
Channelization of rivers or streams (Natural System Modifications :: Dams & Water Management/Use )	Lower Floodplain Upper Floodplain: Chinook Salmon
Invasive/alien species: Plants (Invasive & Other Problematic Species & Genes :: Invasive Non-Native/Alien Species )	Vernal pool grasslands Lower Floodplain Blue Oak Woodland
Forestry practices (Biological Resource Use :: Logging & Wood Harvesting )	Upper Watershed
Parasites/pathogens (Undefined :: Undefined )	Ione Chaparral
Development of roads or utilities (Transportation & Service Corridors :: Roads & Railroads )	Lower Floodplain Upper Floodplain: Chinook Salmon Upper Watershed
Grazing practices (Agriculture & Aquaculture :: Livestock Farming & Ranching )	Vernal pool grasslands Lower Floodplain Blue Oak Woodland
Recreational vehicles (Human Intrusions & Disturbance :: Recreational Activities )	Upper Watershed Ione Chaparral
Crop production practices (Agriculture & Aquaculture :: Annual & Perennial Non-Timber Crops )	Lower Floodplain
Overfishing or overhunting (Biological Resource Use :: Fishing & Harvesting Aquatic Resources )	Upper Floodplain: Chinook Salmon
Shoreline stabilization (Natural System Modifications :: Other Ecosystem Modifications )	-

^* For information on the common taxonomy of threats, see http://conservationmeasures.org/CMP/IUCN/.

Strategies

Strategy (Common Taxonomy)	Threats Addressed
Challenge questionable surface water rights ( Law & Policy :: Policies & Regulations )	Operation of drainage or diversion systems Construction of ditches, dikes, drainage or diversion systems
Control alien species (fish and amphibians) ( Land/Water Management :: Invasive/Problematic Species Control )	Invasive/alien species: Animals
Control exotic animals (terrestrial) ( Land/Water Management :: Invasive/Problematic Species Control )	Invasive/alien species: Animals
Easement Acquisitions ( Land/Water Protection :: Resource & Habitat Protection )	Primary home development Conversion to agriculture or silviculture Mining practices Crop production practices
Exotic weed control ( Land/Water Management :: Invasive/Problematic Species Control )	Invasive/alien species: Plants
Form coalitions with local stakeholders and agencies to promote healthy flood management practices (Army Corps of Engineers flood feasibility study, CALFED-DWR) ( External Capacity Building :: Alliance & Partnership Development )	Channelization of rivers or streams
Groundwater planning and pumping regulations (e.g. Water Forum II) ( Law & Policy :: Policies & Regulations )	Excessive groundwater withdrawal
Influence land use planning to protect habitat and open space values (e.g. County general plan, S. Sac County HCP) ( Law & Policy :: Policies & Regulations )	Primary home development Conversion to agriculture or silviculture Mining practices
Land acquisition (fee title) ( Land/Water Protection :: Site/Area Protection )	Primary home development Conversion to agriculture or silviculture Mining practices Grazing practices Crop production practices
Levee breaches and setback levees to restore flooding ( Land/Water Management :: Habitat & Natural Process Restoration )	Channelization of rivers or streams
Maintain proper fire regime through Rx fire ( Land/Water Management :: Habitat & Natural Process Restoration )	Fire suppression
Maintain proper grazing regime ( Law & Policy :: Private Sector Standards & Codes )	Grazing practices
Promote healthy logging practices within the National Forest lands and private properties ( Law & Policy :: Policies & Regulations )	Forestry practices
Promote realistic water diversion yields ( Land/Water Protection :: Resource & Habitat Protection )	Operation of drainage or diversion systems Construction of ditches, dikes, drainage or diversion systems
Promote restricted O.R.V. practices on public lands ( Law & Policy :: Policies & Regulations )	Recreational vehicles
Remove or modify fish passage barriers ( Land/Water Management :: Habitat & Natural Process Restoration )	Construction of ditches, dikes, drainage or diversion systems Development of roads or utilities
Restore habitats that promote native species ( Land/Water Management :: Habitat & Natural Process Restoration )	Conversion to agriculture or silviculture Construction of ditches, dikes, drainage or diversion systems
Track sources of sediment in order to reduce sedimentation of spawning gravels ( Land/Water Management :: Habitat & Natural Process Restoration )	Mining practices
Transition Cosumnes Preserve holdings to other institutions for long-term management ( Land/Water Management :: Site/Area Management )	Fire suppression Invasive/alien species: Animals Invasive/alien species: Plants
Water acquisition to supplement fall streamflows ( Land/Water Protection :: Resource & Habitat Protection )	Operation of drainage or diversion systems Excessive groundwater withdrawal Construction of ditches, dikes, drainage or diversion systems

Viability Summary

Conservation Targets		Landscape Context		Condition		Size		Viability Rank
Conservation Targets		Grade	Weight	Grade	Weight	Grade	Weight	Viability Rank
1	Vernal pool grasslands	Poor	1.0	Good	1.0	Good	1.0	Fair
2	Lower Floodplain	Fair	1.0	Fair	1.0	Fair	1.0	Fair
3	Upper Floodplain: Chinook Salmon	Fair	1.0	Fair	1.0	Fair	1.0	Fair
4	Upper Watershed	Poor	1.0	Fair	1.0	Good	1.0	Fair
5	Ione Chaparral	Poor	1.0	Fair	1.0	Poor	1.0	Poor
6	Blue Oak Woodland	Poor	1.0	Fair	1.0	Good	1.0	Fair
Project Biodiversity Health Rank								Fair

Threat Summary

Project-specific Threats (Common Taxonomy *)	Blue Oak Woodland	Ione Chaparral	Lower Floodplain	Upper Floodplain: Chinook Salmon	Upper Watershed	Vernal pool grasslands	Overall Threat Rank
Primary home development (Housing & Urban Areas)	Very High	Very High	High	-	High	High	Very High
Conversion to agriculture or silviculture (Annual & Perennial Non-Timber Crops)	Very High	-	High	High	High	High	Very High
Operation of drainage or diversion systems (Dams & Water Management/Use)	-	-	High	Very High	High	-	High
Construction of ditches, dikes, drainage or diversion systems (Dams & Water Management/Use)	-	-	High	Very High	-	-	High
Excessive groundwater withdrawal (Dams & Water Management/Use)	-	-	High	Very High	-	-	High
Fire suppression (Fire & Fire Suppression)	High	High	-	-	High	Medium	High
Mining practices (Mining & Quarrying)	-	Very High	-	Medium	-	-	High
Invasive/alien species: Animals (Invasive Non-Native/Alien Species)	-	-	High	High	High	-	High
Channelization of rivers or streams (Dams & Water Management/Use)	-	-	High	High	-	-	High
Invasive/alien species: Plants (Invasive Non-Native/Alien Species)	Medium	-	Medium	-	-	High	Medium
Forestry practices (Logging & Wood Harvesting)	-	-	-	-	High	-	Medium
Parasites/pathogens (Undefined)	-	High	-	-	-	-	Medium
Development of roads or utilities (Roads & Railroads)	-	-	Medium	Medium	Low	-	Medium
Grazing practices (Livestock Farming & Ranching)	Medium	-	Low	-	-	Medium	Medium
Recreational vehicles (Recreational Activities)	-	Medium	-	-	Low	-	Low
Crop production practices (Annual & Perennial Non-Timber Crops)	-	-	Medium	-	-	-	Low
Overfishing or overhunting (Fishing & Harvesting Aquatic Resources)	-	-	-	Low	-	-	Low
Shoreline stabilization (Other Ecosystem Modifications)	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Threat Status for Targets and Project	Very High	Very High	Very High	Very High	Very High	High	Very High

Project Resources

Categories & Measures		Score

People
	Staff Leadership	Low
	Multidisciplinary Team	Low
People Average		Low
Internal Resources
	Institutional Learning	Very High
	Funding	Low
Internal Resources Average		Medium
External Resources
	Social/Legal Framework for Conservation	Low
	Community and Constituency Support	Low
External Resources Average		Low

Overall Project Resource Rank		Low

Assessment of Target Viability

Conservation Target	Key Attribute (Category)	Indicator	Current Indicator Measurement	Rating Comments: (Poor, Fair Good Very Good)	Current Rating and Date	Desired Rating and Date
Vernal pool grasslands	Native species diversity (Condition)	native species cover ¹	-	Poor: Relative native species cover (RNSC) in vernal pools <80% Fair: Relative native species cover (RNSC) in vernal pools 80-84% Good: Relative native species cover (RNSC) in vernal pools 85-90% Very Good: Relative native species cover (RNSC) in vernal pools >90%	Good ²	Very Good
Vernal pool grasslands	Native species diversity (Condition)	native species richness ³	-	Poor: Native species richness on pool edge < 5 species per quadrat Fair: Native species richness in on pool edge 6-8 species per quadrat Good: Native species richness on pool edge 9-10 species per quadrat Very Good: Native species richness on pool edge >10 species per quadrat	Good ⁴	Very Good
Vernal pool grasslands	Pollination (Condition)	Pollinator diversity ⁵	-	Poor: - Fair: - Good: - Very Good: -	- ⁶	-
Vernal pool grasslands	Surface water storage (Condition)	Pool inundation period ⁷	-	Poor: - Fair: - Good: - Very Good: -	- ⁸	-
Vernal pool grasslands	Fire Area-Intensity Regime (Landscape Context)	Fire return interval and area burned ⁹	-	Poor: Fire return interval less than 1 year or more than 10 years for more than 10% of the vernal pool grassland. Fair: Fire return interval between 7-10 years for more than 10% of the vernal pool grassland Good: Fire return interval between 5-7 years for more than 50% of the vernal pool grassland Very Good: Fire return interval between 3-5 years for more than 80% of the vernal pool grassland.	Poor ¹⁰	Very Good
Vernal pool grasslands	Fragmentation (Landscape Context)	Buffer around vernal pool complex ¹¹	-	Poor: less than 0.25 mile buffer Fair: 0.25 - 0.49 mile buffer Good: 0.5 - 0.99 mile buffer Very Good: > 1 mile buffer over >80% of the perimeter of vernal pool properties	Very Good ¹²	Very Good
Vernal pool grasslands	Size and connectivity of vernal pool complexes (Size)	Acres and connectivity of vernal pool complexes (via land permanently protected from development by conservation easement or other means). ¹³	-	Poor: less than 10,000 acres protected. Less than 10% connectivity. Fair: 10,000 to 15,000 acres protected with 10-49% connectivity. Good: 15,000 to 25,000 acres protected with 50-74% connectivity Very Good: 30,000 acres protected with >75% connectivity.	Good ¹⁴	Very Good
Lower Floodplain	Perennial Wetland composition (Condition)	Giant garter snake presence ¹⁵	-	Poor: No GGS present in Badger Creek Fair: GGS present in Badger Creek only west of Hwy 99 in wet years Good: GGS present in Badger Creek only west of Hwy 99 in wet and dry years Very Good: GGS present in Badger Creek east and west of Hwy 99 in all years	Good ¹⁶	Very Good
Lower Floodplain	Riparian Bird Community (Condition)	Successful breeding by resident and neotropical migratory birds (songbirds, Swainson's hawk) ¹⁷	-	Poor: <4 of 14 priority riparian spp breeding ??? Fair: 4-7 of 14 priority riparian spp breeding ??? Good: 7-10 of 14 priority riparian spp breeding ??? Very Good: 10 of 14 priority riparian spp breeding (not incl yellow-billed cuckoo) ???	Fair ¹⁸	Good
Lower Floodplain	Riparian Vegetation: Community Composition (lagging indicator) (Condition)	Composition and structure of riparian forest communities ¹⁹	-	Poor: Only willow scrub present Fair: Mostly willow scrub and willow /cottonwood, with some valley oak. Few of the Good: Willow scrub, willow-cotton-wood, mixed riparian, and mature valley oak present Very Good: Mature valley oak & mixed riparian dominate, with willow scrub and willow/cotton-wood also present	Good ²⁰	Very Good
Lower Floodplain	Riparian Vegetation: Recruitment (leading indicator) (Condition)	Seedlings and saplings of willow and cottonwood (on fresh sediment deposits), oak and Oregon ash (in existing forests and uplands) in the entire lower floodplain region ²¹	-	Poor: No recruitment of willow, cottonwood or oak Fair: Limited recruitment of willow and cottonwood, no oak recruitment Good: Good recruitment of willow & cottonwood, limited recruitment of oak Very Good: Good recruitment of willow, cottonwood and oak species.	Very Good ²²	Good
Lower Floodplain	River channel morphology (ability of river to adjust geo-morphology freely) (Condition)	Number of channels, entrenchment, and contiguous levees (14 river miles total) ²³	-	Poor: Single channel that is straight and significantly downcut (>6 ft). Contiguous levees along >50% of river Fair: Single channel, moderately downcut (3-6 ft), with contiguous levees along 25-50% of river Good: More than one channel in some locations, limited downcutting (2-3 feet), contiguous levees along 10-25% of river Very Good: More than one channel in many places, little downcutting (<1 ft), contiguous levees along <10% of river.	Fair ²⁴	Very Good
Lower Floodplain	Seasonal Wetland composition (sandhill crane habitat) (Condition)	Greater sandhill crane roosts in lower floodplain and Staten Island ²⁵	-	Poor: No roost sites protected Fair: 1 roost site protected Good: 2-3 roost sites protected Very Good: 4 roost sites protected	Very Good ²⁶	Very Good
Lower Floodplain	Water Quality (Condition)	Nutrients (nitrogen, phosphorus, carbon) ²⁷	-	Poor: does not meet standards > 60 days per year Fair: does not meet standards 30-60 days per year Good: Meets water quality standards except during storm events Very Good: Meets water quality standards year round	Good ²⁸	Good
Lower Floodplain	Connectivity: Riparian Corridor (longitudinal) (Landscape Context)	Riparian corridor width and extent ²⁹	-	Poor: Riparian forest at least 100 ft wide on both sides of river, along <7 miles of lower river Fair: Riparian forest at least 100 ft wide on both sides of river, along 7 miles of lower river Good: Riparian forest at least 100 ft wide on both sides of river, along 7-11 miles of lower river Very Good: Riparian forest >100 ft wide on both sides of river, along 12 or more miles of lower river	Good ³⁰	Very Good
Lower Floodplain	Connectivity: River-Floodplain (lateral) (Landscape Context)	Average number of days and timing of floodplain inundation ³¹	-	Poor: less than 25 or more that 150 days average over 5 yrs. with fewer than 3 winter and spring pulses Fair: less that 50 or more that 120 days average over 5 years with fewer than 3 winter and spring pulses Good: 50-120 days of inundation average over 5 years with at least 3 winter and 3 spring pulses Very Good: 60-70 days of inundation with average over 5 years with at least 3 winter pulses and 3 spring pulses	Good ³²	Good
Lower Floodplain	Forest fragmentation (Landscape Context)	Patch size of riparian forest ³³	-	Poor: Forest patches less than 50 acres Fair: At least 3 forest patches 50-100 acres each Good: At least 3 forest patches over 100 acres each Very Good: At least 3 forest patches over 200 acres each	Good ³⁴	Very Good
Lower Floodplain	Groundwater availability (shallow) (Landscape Context)	Amount of riparian floodplain habitat with ground water levels within 10 feet of surface. ³⁵	-	Poor: 4,575 acres of riparian floodplain lands (25% of core area) with groundwater within 10 ft of surface Fair: 9,150 acres of riparian floodplain lands (50% of core area) with groundwater within 10 ft of surface Good: 13,725 acres of riparian floodplain lands (75% of core area) with groundwater within 10 ft of surface Very Good: 16,740 acres of riparian floodplain lands (90% of core area) with groundwater within 10 ft of surface	Fair ³⁶	Very Good
Lower Floodplain	Hydrologic Regime: Flooding (Landscape Context)	Timing, magnitude, and duration of flood flows ³⁷	-	Poor: Flow patterns strongly altered, flood peaks impaired by dams or flood control Fair: Flow patterns moderately altered with moderate impaiment of flood flows Good: Flow patterns slightly altered with some impaiment of flood flows Very Good: Flood flows are within natural range of variability	Very Good ³⁸	Very Good
Lower Floodplain	Area of managed seasonal wetlands (cranes and waterfowl) (Size)	Acres of managed wetlands ³⁹	-	Poor: less than 500 acres Fair: 500-1,000 acres Good: 1,000-1,500 acres Very Good: More than 1,500 acres	Very Good ⁴⁰	Very Good
Lower Floodplain	Area of perennial wetlands (GGS habitat) (Size)	Miles of perennial creek and wetland habitat suitable for giant garter snake ⁴¹	-	Poor: <1 mile???? Fair: 1-3 miles??? Good: 3-10 miles??? Very Good: >10 miles???	Fair ⁴²	Very Good
Lower Floodplain	Area of riparian floodplain habitat (Size)	Acres of existing and potential riparian floodplain habitat protected ⁴³	-	Poor: 4,575 acres (25% of total core area) Fair: 9,150 acres (50% of total core area) Good: 13,725 acres (75% of total core area) Very Good: 18,300 acres (entire Core area)	Good ⁴⁴	Very Good
Lower Floodplain	Buffer area of surrounding upland habitat (also provides foraging habitat for cranes and Swainson's hawk) (Size)	Acres of buffer around core riparian area that are permanently protected (conservantion easement or other means) in compatible agriculture (e.g. grazing, annual crops, dairy) or grassland ⁴⁵	-	Poor: No buffer area protected Fair: 100-8,000 acres buffer (up to 25% of total buffer area) Good: 8,000-16,000 acres buffer (50% of total buffer area) Very Good: 16,000-24,000 acres buffer (75% of total buffer area)	Fair ⁴⁶	Very Good
Upper Floodplain: Chinook Salmon	Habitat structure (spawning) (Condition)	Substrate Composition of Riffles ⁴⁷	-	Poor: fines > 50 % Fair: fines 10-50%; gravel and cobble 50-90% Good: Approx. 80% gravel and 20% cobble, some fine sediment Very Good: 80% gravel, 20% cobble, no fines	Fair ⁴⁸	Good
Upper Floodplain: Chinook Salmon	Recruitment: juvenile abundance (Condition)	Abundance of Juveniles ⁴⁹	-	Poor: 0-0.1 catch/hr in a rotary screw trap Fair: 0.11-0.25 catch/hr Good: 0.26-1 catch/hr Very Good: >1 catch/hr	Fair ⁵⁰	Very Good
Upper Floodplain: Chinook Salmon	Recruitment: redds (Condition)	Number of redds ⁵¹	-	Poor: < 4 redds/mile annually Fair: 4-30 redds/mile annually Good: 30-84 redds/mile annually Very Good: > 84 redds/mile annually	Fair ⁵²	Very Good
Upper Floodplain: Chinook Salmon	Habitat size: rearing (Landscape Context)	Acres of floodplain rearing habitat ⁵³	-	Poor: 0 acres of floodplain habitat Fair: 0-100 acres of habitat Good: 101-1000 acres of habitat Very Good: > 1000 acres of habitat	Good ⁵⁴	Good
Upper Floodplain: Chinook Salmon	Habitat size: spawning (Landscape Context)	River miles of spawning habitat with at least one functional (w/ YOY production) spawning riffle ⁵⁵	-	Poor: Latrobe Falls to Granlees Dam (5.5 miles) Fair: Latrobe Falls to Highway 16 (7 miles) Good: Latrobe Falls to Schneider property (8 miles) Very Good: Latrobe Falls to Meiss Rd. (14 miles)	Fair ⁵⁶	Good
Upper Floodplain: Chinook Salmon	Migration: passage flows (Landscape Context)	Magnitude and Timing of Fall Flows ⁵⁷	-	Poor: No connectivity between the Delta and spawning habitat Fair: Periods of flow of 60cfs at Michigan Bar during migration season and at least 10 days of duration Good: Periods of flow between 60-200 cfs during migration season and at least 25 days of duration Very Good: Periods of flow > 200 cfs during migration season and >25 days of duration	Fair ⁵⁸	Good
Upper Floodplain: Chinook Salmon	Population Size (Size)	Population of chinook escapement ⁵⁹	-	Poor: 0-25 adults returning to spawn Fair: 26-750 adults returning to spawn Good: 751-2000 adults returning to spawning habitat Very Good: > 2000 adults returning to spawning habitat	Fair ⁶⁰	Very Good
Upper Watershed	Fish community composition (Condition)	Percentage of native species and individuals ⁶¹	-	Poor: 0-20 % native individuals and 0-1 native species Fair: 21-49% native individuals and 2-4 native species Good: 50-79 % native individuals and 2-4 native species Very Good: 80-100 % native individuals and > 4 native species	Fair ⁶²	Good
Upper Watershed	Frog community composition (Condition)	Percentage of native individuals ⁶³	-	Poor: No native frogs Fair: 1-50 % native frogs Good: 51-99 % native frogs Very Good: 100 % native frogs	Fair ⁶⁴	Good
Upper Watershed	Oak regeneration (Condition)	Recruitment of oak species ⁶⁵	-	Poor: no oak saplings Fair: <10 saplings per acre Good: 10-50 saplings per acre Very Good: >50 saplings per acre	Good ⁶⁶	Good
Upper Watershed	Water Quality (Condition)	Nitrates, Phosphorus, DOC, TDS, turbidity, EC, pathogens ⁶⁷	-	Poor: does not meet standards > 60 days per year Fair: does not meet standards 30-60 days per year Good: Meets water quality standards except during storm events Very Good: Meets water quality standards year round	Good ⁶⁸	Good
Upper Watershed	Fire Frequency (Landscape Context)	% of target area w/ fire frequency of 8 to 26 years. ⁶⁹	-	Poor: 0-25 % Fair: 26-50 % Good: 51-75 % Very Good: 76-100 %	Poor ⁷⁰	Very Good
Upper Watershed	Fragmentation (Oak woodlands) (Landscape Context)	Size of parcels ⁷¹	-	Poor: Majority of the buildable parcels 10 acres or less Fair: Majority of the buildable parcels ranging from 11-25 acres Good: Majority of the buildable parcels ranging from 26-79 acres Very Good: Majority of buildable parcels 80 acres or greater	Very Good ⁷²	Very Good
Upper Watershed	Hydrologic Regime: Baseflows (Landscape Context)	Number of days with flows <5cfs in forks of Cosumnes River ⁷³	-	Poor: - Fair: - Good: - Very Good: -	- ⁷⁴	-
Upper Watershed	Riparian buffer (Landscape Context)	Size and configuration of riparian buffer ⁷⁵	-	Poor: No riparian buffers Fair: < 100 ft of riparian buffer on each stream bank Good: > 100 ft of riparian buffer on each stream bank Very Good: riparian buffer to rim of canyon	Good ⁷⁶	Good
Upper Watershed	Riverine Habitat (Size)	Miles of riverine habitat (i.e. river channels that have not been impounded, channelized, dewatered, etc.) ⁷⁷	-	Poor: <102 miles (<75% of historic river miles) Fair: 102- (75-84% of historic river miles) Good: (85-94% of historic river miles) Very Good: (95-100% of historic river miles)	Good ⁷⁸	Good
Ione Chaparral	Physical structure (Condition)	Cover of Ione manzanita	-	Poor: <10% cover Ione manzanita on appropriate soils Fair: 11-40% cover Ione manzanita on appropriate soils Good: 40-60% cover Ione manzanita on appropriate soils Very Good: >60% cover Ione manzanita on appropriate soils	Fair	-
Ione Chaparral	Connectivity (Landscape Context)	Size and distribution of chaparral patches	-	Poor: - Fair: - Good: - Very Good: -	Fair	-
Ione Chaparral	Fire regime (Landscape Context)	Fire return interval and area burned ⁷⁹	-	Poor: Fire RI>50 years Fair: Fire RI 40-50 years Good: Fire RI 30-40 years Very Good: Fire RI 20-30 years	Poor ⁸⁰	-
Ione Chaparral	Extent of protected Ione chaparral (Size)	Acres of Protected Ione chaparral	-	Poor: <20% of remaining habitat protected Fair: 20-50% of remaining habitat protected Good: 50-75% of remaining habitat protected Very Good: >75% of remaining habitat protected	Poor ⁸¹	-
Blue Oak Woodland	Age class structure (Condition)	Blue oak sapling distribution ⁸²	-	Poor: No saplings Fair: <10 saplings per acre Good: 10 - 50 saplings per acre Very Good: >50 saplings per acre	Fair ⁸³	Good
Blue Oak Woodland	Fire regime (Landscape Context)	Fire return interval ⁸⁴	-	Poor: Fire return interval less than 3 years or more than 25 years for 100% of habitat Fair: Fire return interval between 7-10 years for 1-25% of habitat Good: Fire return interval between 7-10 years for 25-50% of habitat Very Good: Fire return interval between 7-10 years for >75% of habitat	Poor ⁸⁵	-
Blue Oak Woodland	Fragmentation (Landscape Context)	Buffer around oak woodland habitat ⁸⁶	-	Poor: less than 0.25 mile buffer Fair: 0.25 - 0.49 mile buffer Good: 0.5 - 0.99 mile buffer Very Good: > 1 mile buffer	Good ⁸⁷	Good
Blue Oak Woodland	Grazing regime (Landscape Context)	Grazing season ⁸⁸	-	Poor: Grazing year round or no grazing Fair: - Good: - Very Good: Grazing from Nov - June with stocking rate of ?	Very Good ⁸⁹	-
Blue Oak Woodland	Habitat geologic context (Size)	Number of geologic formations protected oaks occur on ⁹⁰	-	Poor: I formation Fair: - Good: 2 formations Very Good: 3 formations	Very Good ⁹¹	Very Good
Blue Oak Woodland	Size and connectivity of oak woodland (Size)	Acres and connectivity of oak woodland (*connectivity must be with land that is protected from development by either a conservation easement or some other permanent means). ⁹²	-	Poor: 2500 acres protected. Less than 10% connectivity. Fair: 2500 acres protected with 10-49% connectivity. Good: 2500 acres protected with 50-74% connectivity Very Good: 2500 acres protected with >75% connectivity.	Good ⁹³	Very Good

COMMENTS:

¹ Basis for Rating Determinations: Monitoring data for Howard Ranch and Valensin Ranch (Marty 2001)

² Current Status [Date]: Rating is average of mean RNSC in vernal pools on Howard (Mean=90%, SE = 1.7%) and on Valensin (Mean=84%, SE=3%) (2001). Basis for Current Status Rating: Vernal pool Monitoring on Howard Ranch and Valensin Ranch (Marty data 2001)

³ Basis for Rating Determinations: Monitoring data for Howard Ranch and Valensin Ranch (Marty 2001)

⁴ Current Status [Date]: Rating is average of mean species richness on the vernal pool edge on Howard (Mean=10.4, SE=0.32) and on Valensin (Mean=9.4, SE=0.34) (2001) Basis for Current Status Rating: Vernal pool Monitoring on Howard Ranch and Valensin Ranch (Marty data 2001)

⁵ Basis for Rating Determinations: Need baseline data to determine quantitative measures for this indicator

⁶ Basis for Rating Determinations: Need baseline data to determine quantitative measures for this indicator

⁷ Basis for Rating Determinations: Data first collected in 2001. Need at least one more year of data to determine parameters for indicator categories

⁸ Basis for Rating Determinations: Data first collected in 2001. Need at least one more year of data to determine parameters for indicator categories Basis for Current Status Rating: Vernal pool Monitoring on Howard Ranch

⁹ Basis for Rating Determinations: Marty, In prep. 2001; Robin Wills, Pers. Comm. 2000; Pollak and Kan 1998; Menke 1992

¹⁰ Current Status [Date]: Greater than 10 year FRI for more than 10% of the Preserve's vernal pool grasslands Basis for Current Status Rating: Historical fire data

¹¹ Basis for Rating Determinations: Marty (TNC) 2001

¹² Current Status [Date]: Minimum 1 mile buffer in tact around Howard Ranch and Schneider Ranch vernal pools-Dec 2001 Basis for Current Status Rating: Analysis of remote sensing data

¹³ Basis for Rating Determinations: CRP Planning Team 2000

¹⁴ Current Status [Date]: 17,000 acres protected with greater than 50% connectivity Dec 2001 Basis for Current Status Rating: Actual land or easement purchases

¹⁵ Basis for Rating Determinations: Surveys in 1997 (Wiley 1997?) and 2001 (Hansen 2001)

¹⁶ Current Status [Date]: GGS present in Badger Creek only West of Hwy 99 in 2001, habitat drying east of Hwy 99 (2001) Basis for Current Status Rating: Hansen 2001 survey

¹⁷ Basis for Rating Determinations: Calif. Partners in Flight priority spp., PRBO songbird monitoring 1995-2000 (Haff et al. 2000 & 2001, RHJV 2000) need input on ratings

¹⁸ Current Status [Date]: 10 priority spp. present, 7 spp breeding (but not all successful fledging?) [2000] Basis for Current Status Rating: PRBO 2000 monitoring (Haff et al. 2001)

¹⁹ Basis for Rating Determinations: Tu 2000, May Consulting 2000

²⁰ Current Status [Date]: Willow scrub, willow-cotton-wood, mixed riparian, and mature valley oak present Basis for Current Status Rating: Tu 2000, May Consulting 2000

²¹ Basis for Rating Determinations: Tu 2000 (need to incoporate input from W. Trowbridge UCD)

²² Current Status [Date]: Recruitment observed in most forest patches and areas of suitable soil [1999-2000] Basis for Current Status Rating: Tu 2000, May Consulting 2000

²³ Basis for Rating Determinations: J. Mount UCD (pers. comm. 2001), C. Constantine (2001), Philip Williams & Assocs (1997)

²⁴ Current Status [Date]: Single channel, some downcutting (0-4 feet), 14 miles of levees along 28 miles of streambank [1997] Basis for Current Status Rating: Philip Williams & Assocs. (1997)

²⁵ Basis for Rating Determinations: Littlefield and Ivey 2000

²⁶ Current Status [Date]: 4 roost sites protected, from Staten Island upstream to Valensin Ranch above Hwy 99 [2000] Basis for Current Status Rating: Littlefield and Ivey [2000]

²⁷ Basis for Rating Determinations: state and federal water quality standards

²⁸ Current Status [Date]: meets standards except during high flow events (10/01) Basis for Current Status Rating: UCD (Mount pers. comm., Dahlgren lab pers. comm.)

²⁹ Basis for Rating Determinations: Need input on appropriate width and configuration of corridors for wildlife movement. Swenson & Waegell (TNC) guesstimate

³⁰ Current Status [Date]: Riparian forest at least 100 ft wide on both sides of river, along 7-11 miles of lower river Basis for Current Status Rating: B. Waegell pers. obs.

³¹ Basis for Rating Determinations: J. Mount UCD (pers. comm. 2001). Applies to floodplain downstream of Twin Cities Road.

³² Current Status [Date]: Approximately 100 days average inundation Basis for Current Status Rating: UCD (Mount pers comm 2001)

³³ Basis for Rating Determinations: Yellow-billed cuckoo requires 100 ac minimum, >200 ac optimal (RHJV 2000)

³⁴ Current Status [Date]: At least 3 forest patches over 100 acres each (Tall, Valensin, and Cos-Mok confluence) Basis for Current Status Rating: GIS mapping of Cosumnes Preserve

³⁵ Basis for Rating Determinations: Current groundwater levels below Twin Cities Rd (river mile 5) are about 10-15' (max) which supports good regeneration of plant species. (B Waegell, pers obs). Total Core Area = 18,300 acres (TNC 2000)

³⁶ Current Status [Date]: Approximately 50% (Up to Twin Cities, ground-water <10 ft (river miles 0-5), but above Hwy 99 (river mile 12) water is 31 ft deep) [Sep 2001] Basis for Current Status Rating: UCD (J. Fleckenstein field survey)

³⁷ Basis for Rating Determinations: Cosumnes has no major dams that would impair flood flows. UCD MIKE 11 model on surface flows (UCD Mount pers comm, Kavvas and Hammersmith studies)

³⁸ Current Status [Date]: Runoff and flows are within natural range of variability [2001?] Basis for Current Status Rating: J. Mount (UCD) hydrology modeling and monitoring

³⁹ Basis for Rating Determinations: H. Brink (BLM), TNC 1992, TNC 2000

⁴⁰ Current Status [Date]: 2,200 acres (1,200 ac managed wetlands and 1,000 ac rice) Basis for Current Status Rating: H. Brink (BLM) 2001 pers. comm.

⁴¹ Basis for Rating Determinations: Information gap. This is an estimate by R Swenson, based on discussions w/ E. Hansen (2001)

⁴² Current Status [Date]: 2 miles (R Swenson estimate, based on results of 2001 survey by Hansen). Dry year resulted in less habitat Basis for Current Status Rating: R. Swenson estimate (Badger Creek, avail wetlands in lower preserve)

⁴³ Basis for Rating Determinations: Based on appropriate soils on lower 14 miles of river (TNC 1992). Core area of Preserve is 18,300 acres (includes existing & potential riparian habitat, seasonal wetlands, maybe some uplands) (TNC 2000) need to resolve acres

⁴⁴ Current Status [Date]: 13,600 acres protected in core area Basis for Current Status Rating: TNC 2000

⁴⁵ Basis for Rating Determinations: Buffer area of Preserve is 32,700 acres (TNC Plans 1992 and 2000). Swainson's hawks need all agric lands remaining in region for foraging (CDFG pers comm to Calegari).

⁴⁶ Current Status [Date]: 1,500 acres Basis for Current Status Rating: TNC 2000

⁴⁷ Basis for Rating Determinations: Fine sediment deposition causes damage to incubating eggs and disrupts the food web;Reiser and Bjorn, 1979;Species Profiles,USFW, 1986.

⁴⁸ Current Status [Date]: fines dominant; waiting on DFG data report (2000) Basis for Current Status Rating: TNC, DFG

⁴⁹ Basis for Rating Determinations: took limited DFG data for the Cosumnes and calculated numbers based upon target numbers for adults.

⁵⁰ Current Status [Date]: 0.12 catch/per (1998);waiting for recent data. Basis for Current Status Rating: DFG

⁵¹ Basis for Rating Determinations: based upon 1.7 fish per redd and the historical 14 miles of habitat range.

⁵² Current Status [Date]: 22 redds per mile (1998);waiting for DFG to release most recent data. Basis for Current Status Rating: UCD,TNC,FF,DFG carcass counts

⁵³ Basis for Rating Determinations: TNC knowledge of floodplain connectivity. Acres based upon run size and Per Comm w/ Moyle.

⁵⁴ Current Status [Date]: Approx. 750 acres; 11/01 Basis for Current Status Rating: TNC

⁵⁵ Basis for Rating Determinations: TNC compared historical spawning range to current spawning range (Whitener).

⁵⁶ Current Status [Date]: 7 miles of good spawning habitat (2000) Basis for Current Status Rating: TNC

⁵⁷ Basis for Rating Determinations: TNC ground truthing of passage conditions on an annual basis (Whitener). (Mount: is 200 cfs too high?)

⁵⁸ Current Status [Date]: 1999- good, 2000-fair; Variable conditions year to year Basis for Current Status Rating: TNC

⁵⁹ Basis for Rating Determinations: Based upon historical records from 1953-2000 (DFG).

⁶⁰ Current Status [Date]: 580 (2000), 350 (1998,1999) Basis for Current Status Rating: UCD,TNC,FF,DFG carcass counts

⁶¹ Basis for Rating Determinations: Moyle and Marchetti, 1999

⁶² Current Status [Date]: Approx. 35 % native w/ 4 species; 10/01 Basis for Current Status Rating: UCD watershed-wide sampling

⁶³ Basis for Rating Determinations: Moyle and Marchetti, 1999

⁶⁴ Current Status [Date]: Approx. 10 % native frogs; 10/01 Basis for Current Status Rating: UCD watershed-wide sampling

⁶⁵ Basis for Rating Determinations: Swiecki and Bernhardt 1998; H.A.R.T. 1999

⁶⁶ Current Status [Date]: Oak regeneration at near normal levels; 6/01 Basis for Current Status Rating: guestimation based upon ARC's opinion that oak regeneration is occuring at healthy levels

⁶⁷ Basis for Rating Determinations: state and federal water quality standards

⁶⁸ Current Status [Date]: meets standards except during high flow events (nutrients,contaminants); 10/01 Basis for Current Status Rating: UCD (Dahlgren, 2001)

⁶⁹ Basis for Rating Determinations: catrosphrophic fire can cause serious harm to many of the critical processes in the upper watershed

⁷⁰ Current Status [Date]: 12 % of watershed burned in the 20th century;FRI's range from 8 to 26 years Basis for Current Status Rating: Forest Service;ARC

⁷¹ Basis for Rating Determinations: Zoning laws allowing the parcelization down to 10 acres put extreme development pressures on habitats.

⁷² Current Status [Date]: today most parcels are 80 acres and above but proposed zoning laws could change any day;10/01 Basis for Current Status Rating: ARC

⁷³ Basis for Rating Determinations: Information gap (Mount UCD had some ideas)

⁷⁴ Basis for Rating Determinations: Information gap (Mount UCD had some ideas) Basis for Current Status Rating: Mount (UCD pers. comm.)

⁷⁵ Basis for Rating Determinations: Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project Volume 3

⁷⁶ Current Status [Date]: generally buffers > 100 ft. ; 10/01 Basis for Current Status Rating: USFS

⁷⁷ Basis for Rating Determinations: 136 miles of mainstem. Moyle pers. comm. 2001

⁷⁸ Current Status [Date]: Approx. 89% of river channel is in a good state for aquatic compatibility. Basis for Current Status Rating: UCD watershed-wide sampling

⁷⁹ Basis for Rating Determinations: G. Hartwell pers. comm. 2001. Inference from other chaparral communities by Marty.

⁸⁰ Basis for Rating Determinations: G. Hartwell pers. comm. 2001. Inference from other chaparral communities by Marty. Basis for Current Status Rating: Information gap, but made some inferences from other chaparral systems (Marty, other experts)

⁸¹ Current Status [Date]: Small reserves held by CDFG (37 acres) and BLM (86 acres) Basis for Current Status Rating: T. Meyer mapping (2001)

⁸² Basis for Rating Determinations: Swiecki and Bernhardt 1998; H.A.R.T. 1999

⁸³ Current Status [Date]: Age class study completed in 1999 for blue oaks on and around the Howard Ranch (Hart 1999). On 2 of 3 geologic formations surveyed, age class distribution was heavily skewed toward older individuals. On the Ione formation, age classes were more evenly distributed. Basis for Current Status Rating: H.A.R.T. 1999 study

⁸⁴ Basis for Rating Determinations: Marty, In prep. 2001; Haggerty 1991; H.A.R.T. 1998?; Swiecki and Bernhardt 1998

⁸⁵ Current Status [Date]: Fire return interval greater than 25 years-2001 Basis for Current Status Rating: Historical fire data

⁸⁶ Basis for Rating Determinations: Marty (TNC) 2001

⁸⁷ Current Status [Date]: Minimum 1 mile buffer in tact around Howard Ranch oak woodland-2001 Basis for Current Status Rating: Analysis of remote sensing data

⁸⁸ Basis for Rating Determinations: Swiecki and Bernhardt 1998; WCB easement language 1999-2000

⁸⁹ Current Status [Date]: The Howard Ranch is grazed between Nov and June every year Basis for Current Status Rating: Grazing use reports

⁹⁰ Basis for Rating Determinations: CRP Planning Team 2000

⁹¹ Current Status [Date]: Protected pools on 3 geologic formations-2001 Basis for Current Status Rating: Analysis of soil maps and remote sensing data

⁹² Basis for Rating Determinations: Valerie Calegari 2001

⁹³ Current Status [Date]: 2500 acres protected with greater than 50% connectivity Basis for Current Status Rating: Actual land or easement purchases

Objectives, Strategic Actions and Action Steps

There is not enough information to produce this report.

Strategy Effectiveness

There is not enough information to produce this report.

All Monitoring Indicators

Methods	Objectives	Key Indicator References by Target (w/Current Indicator Measurement)	Threat References by Target (w/Current Indicator Measurement)
Indicator: % of red-eye bass, brown and brook trout and bullfrogs
Watershed Wide Fisheries Inventory	-	-	Upper Watershed Invasive/alien species: Animals (-)
Indicator: % of target area w/ fire frequency of 8 to 26 years.
GIS Mapping Inventory	-	Upper Watershed Landscape Context: Fire Frequency (-)	Upper Watershed Fire suppression (-)
Indicator: Abundance and distribution of non-native fishes (excluding chinook)
Fisheries surveys throughout lower river	-	-	Upper Floodplain: Chinook Salmon Invasive/alien species: Animals (-)
Indicator: Abundance of Juveniles
Rotary screw trap	-	Upper Floodplain: Chinook Salmon Condition: Recruitment: juvenile abundance (-)	Upper Floodplain: Chinook Salmon Channelization of rivers or streams (-) Construction of ditches, dikes, drainage or diversion systems (-) Invasive/alien species: Animals (-) Operation of drainage or diversion systems (-)
Indicator: *Acres and connectivity of oak woodland (connectivity must be with land that is protected from development by either a conservation easement or some other permanent means).**
meth	-	Blue Oak Woodland Size: Size and connectivity of oak woodland (-)	Blue Oak Woodland Conversion to agriculture or silviculture (-) Primary home development (-)
Indicator: Acres and connectivity of vernal pool complexes (via land permanently protected from development by conservation easement or other means).
GIS mapping of acreage of protected lands	-	Vernal pool grasslands Size: Size and connectivity of vernal pool complexes (-)	Vernal pool grasslands Conversion to agriculture or silviculture (-) Primary home development (-)
Indicator: Acres of Protected Ione chaparral
Map aerial photos and conduct ground-truthing surveys	-	Ione Chaparral Size: Extent of protected Ione chaparral (-)	Ione Chaparral Mining practices (-) Primary home development (-)
Indicator: Acres of buffer around core riparian area that are permanently protected (conservantion easement or other means) in compatible agriculture (e.g. grazing, annual crops, dairy) or grassland
Annual monitoring of easement properties. Remote sensing and GIS mapping of lower watershed and surrounding region.	-	Lower Floodplain Size: Buffer area of surrounding upland habitat (also provides foraging habitat for cranes and Swainson's hawk) (-)	Lower Floodplain Conversion to agriculture or silviculture (-) Crop production practices (-) Primary home development (-)
Indicator: Acres of existing and potential riparian floodplain habitat protected
GIS mapping of Preserve acreage, suitable soils, and existing forest	-	Lower Floodplain Size: Area of riparian floodplain habitat (-)	Lower Floodplain Conversion to agriculture or silviculture (-) Primary home development (-)
Indicator: Acres of floodplain rearing habitat
Ground truthing of habitat as new floodplain habitat is opened up	-	Upper Floodplain: Chinook Salmon Landscape Context: Habitat size: rearing (-)	Upper Floodplain: Chinook Salmon Channelization of rivers or streams (-)
Indicator: Acres of managed wetlands
GIS mapping of Preserve managed wetlands	-	Lower Floodplain Size: Area of managed seasonal wetlands (cranes and waterfowl) (-)	Lower Floodplain Conversion to agriculture or silviculture (-) Crop production practices (-) Operation of drainage or diversion systems (-) Primary home development (-)
Indicator: Amount and distribution of surrounding land uses
Overflight of area and site visits. UCD (Sailer) work-ing on remote sensing and change detection methods	-	-	Vernal pool grasslands Conversion to agriculture or silviculture (-) Primary home development (-)
Indicator: Amount and distribution of surrounding land uses (2)
Remote sensing and change detection (check w/ C.Sailer and Quinn UCD)	-	-	Upper Watershed Conversion to agriculture or silviculture (-) Primary home development (-)
Indicator: Amount of riparian floodplain habitat with ground water levels within 10 feet of surface.
Groundwater well monitoring, especially near Hwy 99	-	Lower Floodplain Landscape Context: Groundwater availability (shallow) (-)	Lower Floodplain Excessive groundwater withdrawal (-)
Indicator: Average number of days and timing of floodplain inundation
Floodplain sensors, modeling, ground truthing	-	Lower Floodplain Landscape Context: Connectivity: River-Floodplain (lateral) (-)	Lower Floodplain Channelization of rivers or streams (-) Excessive groundwater withdrawal (-)
Indicator: Blue oak sapling distribution
-	-	Blue Oak Woodland Condition: Age class structure (-)	Blue Oak Woodland Fire suppression (-) Grazing practices (-) Invasive/alien species: Plants (-)
Indicator: Buffer around oak woodland habitat
-	-	Blue Oak Woodland Landscape Context: Fragmentation (-)	Blue Oak Woodland Conversion to agriculture or silviculture (-) Primary home development (-)
Indicator: Buffer around vernal pool complex
Overflight of area and site visits	-	Vernal pool grasslands Landscape Context: Fragmentation (-)	Vernal pool grasslands Conversion to agriculture or silviculture (-) Primary home development (-)
Indicator: Composition and structure of riparian forest communities
Remote sensing, change detection, and GIS of aerial photos	-	Lower Floodplain Condition: Riparian Vegetation: Community Composition (lagging indicator) (-)	Lower Floodplain Conversion to agriculture or silviculture (-) Invasive/alien species: Plants (-) Primary home development (-)
Indicator: Cover of Ione manzanita
Map aerial photos and conduct ground-truthing surveys	-	Ione Chaparral Condition: Physical structure (-)	Ione Chaparral Mining practices (-) Parasites/pathogens (-) Primary home development (-) Recreational vehicles (-)
Indicator: Exotic Species Cover
Vegetation monitoring on Howard Ranch and Valensin Ranch	-	-	Vernal pool grasslands Invasive/alien species: Plants (-)
Indicator: Exotic species cover (2)
-	-	-	Blue Oak Woodland Invasive/alien species: Plants (-)
Indicator: Fire return interval
-	-	Blue Oak Woodland Landscape Context: Fire regime (-)	Blue Oak Woodland Fire suppression (-)
Indicator: Fire return interval and area burned
Tracking of prescribed burn acreage	-	Ione Chaparral Landscape Context: Fire regime (-) Vernal pool grasslands Landscape Context: Fire Area-Intensity Regime (-)	Ione Chaparral Fire suppression (-) Vernal pool grasslands Fire suppression (-)
Indicator: Giant garter snake presence
Presence-absence survey in perennial wetlands and creeks (visual, trapping, PIT tagging)	-	Lower Floodplain Condition: Perennial Wetland composition (-)	Lower Floodplain Channelization of rivers or streams (-) Conversion to agriculture or silviculture (-) Excessive groundwater withdrawal (-) Operation of drainage or diversion systems (-)
Indicator: Grazing season
-	-	Blue Oak Woodland Landscape Context: Grazing regime (-)	Blue Oak Woodland Grazing practices (-)
Indicator: Greater sandhill crane roosts in lower floodplain and Staten Island
Survey for winter roost use	-	Lower Floodplain Condition: Seasonal Wetland composition (sandhill crane habitat) (-)	Lower Floodplain Conversion to agriculture or silviculture (-) Crop production practices (-) Primary home development (-)
Indicator: Magnitude and Timing of Fall Flows
Ground truthing of key locations during migration periods to determine if connectivity is occuring	-	Upper Floodplain: Chinook Salmon Landscape Context: Migration: passage flows (-)	Upper Floodplain: Chinook Salmon Construction of ditches, dikes, drainage or diversion systems (-) Excessive groundwater withdrawal (-) Operation of drainage or diversion systems (-)
Indicator: Mercury
Hg in benthic invertebrates; methyl mercury in flooded habitats	-	-	-
Indicator: Miles of perennial creek and wetland habitat suitable for giant garter snake
GIS mapping of suitable GGS summer habitat	-	Lower Floodplain Size: Area of perennial wetlands (GGS habitat) (-)	Lower Floodplain Channelization of rivers or streams (-) Construction of ditches, dikes, drainage or diversion systems (-) Conversion to agriculture or silviculture (-) Excessive groundwater withdrawal (-)
Indicator: Miles of riverine habitat (i.e. river channels that have not been impounded, channelized, dewatered, etc.)
Watershed-wide Fisheries Inventory	-	Upper Watershed Size: Riverine Habitat (-)	Upper Watershed Operation of drainage or diversion systems (-)
Indicator: Nitrates, Phosphorus, DOC, TDS, turbidity, EC, pathogens
Water quality Monitoring	-	Upper Watershed Condition: Water Quality (-)	Upper Watershed Conversion to agriculture or silviculture (-) Forestry practices (-) Primary home development (-) Recreational vehicles (-)
Indicator: Noxious weed cover
Vegetation monitoring on Howard Ranch and Valensin Ranch	-	-	Vernal pool grasslands Invasive/alien species: Plants (-)
Indicator: Number of channels, entrenchment, and contiguous levees (14 river miles total)
Thalwag and stream profiles to get baseline (Constantine 2001). Surveys for new levees and road crossings.	-	Lower Floodplain Condition: River channel morphology (ability of river to adjust geo-morphology freely) (-)	Lower Floodplain Channelization of rivers or streams (-) Construction of ditches, dikes, drainage or diversion systems (-) Development of roads or utilities (-)
Indicator: Number of days with flows <5cfs in forks of Cosumnes River
Analyize flow data from new gages to be installed on North, Middle & South forks. Incorporate into UCD hydrologic model.	-	Upper Watershed Landscape Context: Hydrologic Regime: Baseflows (-)	Upper Watershed Conversion to agriculture or silviculture (-) Operation of drainage or diversion systems (-) Primary home development (-)
Indicator: Number of geologic formations protected oaks occur on
-	-	Blue Oak Woodland Size: Habitat geologic context (-)	Blue Oak Woodland Conversion to agriculture or silviculture (-) Primary home development (-)
Indicator: Number of redds
Fish biologists survey entire length of spawning habitat	-	Upper Floodplain: Chinook Salmon Condition: Recruitment: redds (-)	Upper Floodplain: Chinook Salmon Channelization of rivers or streams (-) Construction of ditches, dikes, drainage or diversion systems (-) Conversion to agriculture or silviculture (-) Excessive groundwater withdrawal (-)
Indicator: Number of road crossings, culverts, dams
Surveys for new road crossings and diversions	-	-	Lower Floodplain Channelization of rivers or streams (-) Construction of ditches, dikes, drainage or diversion systems (-) Development of roads or utilities (-)
Indicator: Nutrients (nitrogen, phosphorus, carbon)
Monitor on inundated floodplain and in river for nitrates, total phosphorus, chlorophyll, DOC. (others?)	-	Lower Floodplain Condition: Water Quality (-)	Lower Floodplain Conversion to agriculture or silviculture (-) Crop production practices (-) Grazing practices (-)
Indicator: Occurrence of physical passage barriers
Ground truthing of key barrier locations and annual monitoring of new barriers	-	-	Upper Floodplain: Chinook Salmon Channelization of rivers or streams (-) Construction of ditches, dikes, drainage or diversion systems (-) Development of roads or utilities (-)
Indicator: Patch size of riparian forest
Remote sensing, change detection, and GIS of aerial photos	-	Lower Floodplain Landscape Context: Forest fragmentation (-)	Lower Floodplain Conversion to agriculture or silviculture (-) Primary home development (-)
Indicator: Percent of Ione manzanita infected
-	-	-	Ione Chaparral Parasites/pathogens (-)
Indicator: Percentage of annual run-off diverted
Analyize historical flow data	-	-	Upper Watershed Operation of drainage or diversion systems (-)
Indicator: Percentage of native individuals
Watershed Wide Fisheries Inventory	-	Upper Watershed Condition: Frog community composition (-)	Upper Watershed Invasive/alien species: Animals (-) Operation of drainage or diversion systems (-)
Indicator: Percentage of native species and individuals
Watershed Wide Fisheries Inventory	-	Upper Watershed Condition: Fish community composition (-)	Upper Watershed Invasive/alien species: Animals (-) Operation of drainage or diversion systems (-)
Indicator: Pollinator diversity
-	-	Vernal pool grasslands Condition: Pollination (-)	Vernal pool grasslands Fire suppression (-) Grazing practices (-) Invasive/alien species: Plants (-)
Indicator: Pool inundation period
Water quality monitoring on Howard Ranch	-	Vernal pool grasslands Condition: Surface water storage (-)	Vernal pool grasslands Fire suppression (-) Grazing practices (-)
Indicator: Population of chinook escapement
Fish biologists survey entire length of spawning habitat	-	Upper Floodplain: Chinook Salmon Size: Population Size (-)	Upper Floodplain: Chinook Salmon Construction of ditches, dikes, drainage or diversion systems (-) Conversion to agriculture or silviculture (-) Excessive groundwater withdrawal (-) Overfishing or overhunting (-)
Indicator: Presence of alien invasive weeds in riparian and surrounding areas
Periodic surveys of preserve properties, especially during volunteer workdays	-	-	Lower Floodplain Invasive/alien species: Plants (-)
Indicator: Recruitment of oak species
No monitoring currently; although ARC did a quick look at the issue.	-	Upper Watershed Condition: Oak regeneration (-)	Upper Watershed Conversion to agriculture or silviculture (-) Fire suppression (-) Forestry practices (-)
Indicator: Relative abundance of black rats
Trapping for black rats in and around riparian forest, remote cameras recording predation of test nests	-	-	Lower Floodplain Invasive/alien species: Animals (-)
Indicator: Riparian corridor width and extent
Remote sensing, change detection, and GIS of aerial photos	-	Lower Floodplain Landscape Context: Connectivity: Riparian Corridor (longitudinal) (-)	Lower Floodplain Channelization of rivers or streams (-) Conversion to agriculture or silviculture (-) Development of roads or utilities (-) Primary home development (-)
Indicator: River miles of spawning habitat with at least one functional (w/ YOY production) spawning riffle
Fish biologists survey entire length of spawning habitat	-	Upper Floodplain: Chinook Salmon Landscape Context: Habitat size: spawning (-)	Upper Floodplain: Chinook Salmon Channelization of rivers or streams (-) Mining practices (-)
Indicator: Seedlings and saplings of willow and cottonwood (on fresh sediment deposits), oak and Oregon ash (in existing forests and uplands) in the entire lower floodplain region
Opportunistic surveys on new sediment deposits. Transects or plots in existing forests counting individuals in each age class (check methods w/ Trowbridge and Tu)	-	Lower Floodplain Condition: Riparian Vegetation: Recruitment (leading indicator) (-)	Lower Floodplain Channelization of rivers or streams (-) Conversion to agriculture or silviculture (-) Excessive groundwater withdrawal (-) Operation of drainage or diversion systems (-)
Indicator: Size and configuration of riparian buffer
GIS Mapping Inventory	-	Upper Watershed Landscape Context: Riparian buffer (-)	Upper Watershed Conversion to agriculture or silviculture (-) Fire suppression (-) Forestry practices (-) Primary home development (-)
Indicator: Size and distribution of chaparral patches
Map aerial photos and conduct ground-truthing surveys	-	Ione Chaparral Landscape Context: Connectivity (-)	Ione Chaparral Mining practices (-) Primary home development (-)
Indicator: Size of parcels
GIS Mapping Inventory	-	Upper Watershed Landscape Context: Fragmentation (Oak woodlands) (-)	Upper Watershed Conversion to agriculture or silviculture (-) Forestry practices (-) Operation of drainage or diversion systems (-) Primary home development (-)
Indicator: Substrate Composition of Riffles
Determine substrate composition in spawning areas using sorting methods	-	Upper Floodplain: Chinook Salmon Condition: Habitat structure (spawning) (-)	Upper Floodplain: Chinook Salmon Channelization of rivers or streams (-) Mining practices (-)
Indicator: Successful breeding by resident and neotropical migratory birds (songbirds, Swainson's hawk)
Neotropical songbirds: point counts, nest surveys, mist netting. Swainson's hawks: nest survey?	-	Lower Floodplain Condition: Riparian Bird Community (-)	Lower Floodplain Conversion to agriculture or silviculture (-) Crop production practices (-) Invasive/alien species: Animals (-)
Indicator: Timing, magnitude, and duration of flood flows
Stream gage data, floodplain sensors, UCD's MIKE 11 model, ground truthing	-	Lower Floodplain Landscape Context: Hydrologic Regime: Flooding (-)	Lower Floodplain Channelization of rivers or streams (-) Construction of ditches, dikes, drainage or diversion systems (-)
Indicator: native species cover
Vegetation monitoring on Howard Ranch and Valensin Ranch	-	Vernal pool grasslands Condition: Native species diversity (-)	Vernal pool grasslands Conversion to agriculture or silviculture (-) Fire suppression (-) Grazing practices (-) Primary home development (-)
Indicator: native species richness
Vegetation monitoring on Howard Ranch and Valensin Ranch	-	Vernal pool grasslands Condition: Native species diversity (-)	Vernal pool grasslands Conversion to agriculture or silviculture (-) Fire suppression (-) Grazing practices (-) Primary home development (-)

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 United States License

Cosumnes River Preserve (ID: 539)

Data Downloads

Associated Files

Associated Links