Rancho Cordova City Council
April 4, 2022

• substantially divert or obstruct the natural flow of any river, stream or lake; • substantially change or use any material from the bed, channel, or bank of any river, stream, or lake; or
• deposit or dispose of debris, waste, or other material containing crumbled, flaked, or ground pavement where it may pass into any river, stream, or lake.

For the purposes of Section 1602, rivers, streams and lakes must flow at least intermittently through a bed or channel. If notification is required and CDFW believes the proposed activity is likely to result in adverse harm to the natural environment, the CDFW will require that the parties enter into a Lake or Streambed Alteration Agreement.

CDFW Species of Special Concern
In addition to formal listings under FESA and CESA, plant and wildlife species receive additional consideration during the CEQA process. Species that may by considered for review are included on a list of “Species of Special Concern” developed by CDFW. Species whose numbers, reproductive success, or habitat may be threatened are tracked by CDFW in California.

Native Plant Protection Act
The Native Plant Protection Act (NPPA) was enacted in 1977 and allows the Fish and Game Commission to designate plants as rare or endangered. Currently 64 species, subspecies, and varieties of plants that are protected as rare under the NPPA. The NPPA prohibits take of endangered or rare native plants, but includes some exceptions for agricultural and nursery operations, emergencies, and after properly notifying CDFW for vegetation removal from canals, roads, and other sites, changes in land use, and in certain other situations.

Regional Water Quality Control Board
Any action requiring a CWA Section 404 permit, or a Rivers and Harbors Act Section 10 permit, must also obtain a CWA Section 401 Water Quality Certification. The State of California Water Quality Certification (WQC) Program was formally initiated by the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) in 1990 under the requirements stipulated by Section 401 of the federal CWA.

Although the CWA is a federal law, Section 401 of the CWA recognizes that states have the primary authority and responsibility for setting water quality standards. In California, under Section 401, the State and Regional Water Quality Control Boards (RWQCBs) are the authorities that certify that issuance of a federal license or permit does not violate California’s water quality standards (i.e., that they do not violate Porter-Cologne and the Water Code). The WQC Program currently issues the WQC for discharges requiring USACE permits for fill and dredge discharges within waters of the U.S., and also implements the State's wetland protection and hydromodification regulation program under the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act.

On April 2, 2019, the SWRCB adopted a State Wetland Definition and Procedures for Discharges of Dredged or Fill Material to Waters of the State (Procedures), for inclusion in the forthcoming Water Quality Control Plan for Inland Surface Waters, Enclosed Bays, and Estuaries of California Plan. The Procedures consist of four major elements: (1) a wetland definition; (2) a framework for determining if a feature that meets the wetland definition is a water of the State; (3) wetland delineation procedures; and (4) procedures for the submittal, review, and approval of applications for WQCs and Waste Discharge Requirements (WDRs) for dredge or fill activities. The State Office of Administrative Law approved the Procedures on August 28, 2019, and the Procedures became effective May 28, 2020.

ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

Under the Procedures and the State Water Code (Water Code Section 13050[e]), “waters of the State” are defined as “any surface water or groundwater, including saline waters, within the boundaries of the state.” Unless excluded by the Procedures, any activity that could result in discharge of dredged or fill material to waters of the State, which includes waters of the U.S. and non-federal waters of the State, requires filing of an application under the Procedures.

The Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act (Porter-Cologne Act, Water Code Section 13000 et seq.) is California’s statutory authority for the protection of water quality in conjunction with the federal CWA. The Porter-Cologne Act requires the SWRCB and RWQCBs under the CWA to adopt and periodically update water quality control plans, or basin plans. Basin plans are plans in which beneficial uses, water quality objectives, and implementation programs are established for each of the nine regions in California. The Porter-Cologne Act also requires dischargers of pollutants or dredged or fill material to notify the RWQCBs of such activities by filing Reports of Waste Discharge and authorizes the SWRCB and RWQCBs to issue and enforce WDRs, National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits, Section 401 WQC, or other approvals.

Local Regulations
The following are the local environmental laws and policies relevant to biological resources.

City of Rancho Cordova General Plan
Goals and policies from the City’s General Plan related to biological resources that are applicable to the proposed project are presented below:

Goal NR1: Protect and preserve diverse wildlife and plant habitats, including habitat for special status species.

Policy NR.1.1 Protect rare, threatened, and endangered species and their habitats in accordance with State and federal law.

Policy NR.1.4 Discourage the planting of invasive species.

Policy NR.1.7 Prior to project approval, the City shall require a biological resources evaluation for private and public development projects in areas identified to contain or possibly contain listed plant and/or wildlife species based upon the City’s biological resource mapping provided in the General Plan EIR or other technical materials.

Policy NR.1.8 The City shall encourage creation of habitat preserves that are immediately adjacent to each other in order to provide
interconnected open space areas for animal movement.

Policy NR.1.9 The City shall require that impacts to riparian habitats be mitigated at a no net loss of existing function and value based on field survey and analysis of the riparian habitat to be impacted.

No net loss may be accomplished by avoidance of the habitat, restoration of existing habitat, or creation of new habitat, or through some combination of the above.

ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

Policy NR.1.10 The placement of new roadways within habitat preserves shall be discouraged, but is not prohibited. This Policy shall not apply to roadways shown in the Circulation Element or needed to meet goals or policies of the Circulation Element.

Policy NR.1.11 In such cases where a new roadway crosses a habitat preserve or separates two adjacent preserves, the roadway shall include design features, where feasible and appropriate, to allow for the movement of wildlife across or beneath the road without causing a hazard for vehicles, bicycles and pedestrians on the roadway.

Goal NR.2: Preserve the City’s rich and diverse natural wetlands.

Policy NR.2.1 Require mitigation that provides for “no net loss” of wetlands consistent with current State and federal policies.

Policy NR.2.2 Ensure that direct and indirect effects to wetland habitats are mitigated to the extent feasible by environmentally sensitive project siting and design or other measures.

Policy NR.2.5 The City shall require that drainage improvements that discharge into areas of wetlands to be preserved are, to the maximum extent feasible, designed to mimic the undeveloped surface water flow conditions of the area in terms of seasonality, volume, and flow velocity.

Goal NR.3: Preserve and maintain creek corridors and wetland preserves with useable buffer zones throughout the new development areas as feasible.

Policy NR.3.2 In general, the City will encourage the preservation of existing location, topography, and meandering alignment of natural creeks. The modification, re-creation and realignment of creek corridors shall recreate the character of the natural creek corridor to the extent feasible, appropriate and consistent with other City policies. Channelization and the use of concrete within creek corridors shall be discouraged, but is not prohibited.

Policy NR.3.3 Encourage the creation of secondary flood control channels where the existing channel supports extensive riparian
vegetation.

Policy NR.3.4 Encourage projects that contain wetland preserves or creeks, or are located adjacent to wetland preserves or creeks, to be designed for visibility and, as appropriate, access.

Goal NR.4: Encourage the planting and preservation of high-quality trees throughout the City.

Policy NR.4.1 Conserve native oak and landmark tree resources for their historic, economic, aesthetic, educational, and environmental value.

ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

Policy NR.4.2 Improve overall landscaping quality and sustainability in all areas visible to the public.

Policy NR.4.4 Prior to the approval of any public or private development project in areas identified or assumed to contain trees, the City shall require that a determinate survey of trees species and size be performed. If any native oaks or other native trees six inches or more in diameter at breast height (dbh), multitrunk native oaks or native trees of 10 inches or greater dbh, or non-native trees of 18 inches or greater dbh that have been determined by a certified arborist to be in good health are found to occur, such trees shall be avoided if feasible. If such trees cannot be avoided, the project applicant shall do one of the following:
• All such trees shall be replaced at an inch-for-inch ratio.

A replacement tree planting plan shall be prepared by a certified arborist or licensed landscape architect and shall be submitted to the City of Rancho Cordova for approval prior to removal of trees; or,
• The project applicant shall submit a mitigation plan that provides for complete mitigation of the removal of such trees in coordination with the City of Rancho Cordova.

The mitigation plan shall be subject to the approval of the City.
• If the City of Ranch Cordova adopts a tree preservation ordinance at any time in the future, any future
development activities shall be subject to that ordinance instead.

City of Rancho Cordova Tree Protection Ordinance
Chapter 19.12, Preservation and Protection of Private Trees, of the City’s Municipal Code establishes regulations for the protection, removal, and preservation of landmark trees and protected trees within the City. “Landmark trees” are defined as any trees designated by council through resolution as a vital and historical part of the City’s landscape, such that the trees need to be designated as landmarks for protection and preservation. “Protected tree” is defined to include the following:

1. Native oak – Quercus lobata, valley oak; Quercus wislizenii, interior live oak; Quercus douglasii, blue oak; or Quercus morehus, oracle oak – having a trunk diameter of at least six inches or greater; or

2. Any tree species other than a native oak having a trunk diameter of at least 12 inches or greater on nonresidential property; or

3. Any tree species other than a native oak having a trunk diameter of at least 24 inches or greater on residential property; or

4. Any tree planted as a requirement tree for site development, tree permit condition, landscape plan removal replacement, or other designated condition by the Public Works Director or Planning Director.

5. “Protected tree” does not include any trees for sale within the City sold by a nursery.

ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

Per Section 19.12.090, no person shall, without an approved permit from the Public Works Director, do, or cause to be done by others, any of the following acts:

A. Secure, fasten, or run any rope, wire, sign, unprotected electrical installation or other device or material to, around, or through a protected tree; B. Break, injure, deface, kill, or destroy a protected tree or allow any fire to burn where it will injure any protected tree;
C. Allow any chemical, gas, smoke, salt brine, oil, pesticide, or other injurious substance to seep, drain, or be emptied upon, above, or below any protected tree; D. Excavate any ditch, tunnel, or trench, or fill within the dripline of any protected tree; E. Erect, alter, repair or raze any building or structure without placing suitable guards around all nearby protected trees which may be injured by such operations; F. Remove any guard or other device or materials intended for the protection of a protected tree or take away or obstruct any open space around the base of a protected tree designed to prevent soil compaction or physical damage; or
G. Allow the topping of any protected tree. [Ord. 12-2017 Section 2].

South Sacramento Habitat Conservation Plan
The SSHCP is intended to streamline federal and State permitting processes for SSHCP-covered development and infrastructure projects while protecting habitat, open space and agricultural lands.8
The SSHCP plan area encompasses 317,656 acres that are bordered by U.S. Route 50 (US 50) on the north, San Joaquin County on the south, El Dorado County and Amador County to the east, and the Sacramento River to the west, including Galt and most of Rancho Cordova.

Within the SSHCP plan area, 36,282 acres are to become part of an interconnected preserve system, including approximately 1,000 acres of vernal pool habitat. A total of 28 plant and wildlife species, and their natural habitats, are conserved under the plan.

The SSHCP is led by a multi-jurisdiction collaborative that includes Sacramento County; the cities of Rancho Cordova and Galt; the Sacramento County Water Agency; the Sacramento Regional County Sanitation District; and the Capital SouthEast Connector Joint Powers Authority. The Rancho Cordova City Council adopted the SSHCP on October 15, 2018.

4.2.4 IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
The following section describes the standards of significance and methodology used to analyze and determine the proposed project’s potential impacts related to biological resources. In addition, a discussion of the project’s impacts, as well as mitigation measures where necessary, is also presented.

Standards of Significance
Consistent with Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, the County’s General Plan, and professional judgment, a significant impact would occur if the proposed project would result in the following:
• Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special-status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the CDFW or USFWS; 8 South Sacramento Habitat Conservation Plan. What is the South Sacramento HCP? Available at:
https://www.southsachcp.com/. Accessed July 2019.

ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

• Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the CDFW or USFWS;
• Have a substantial adverse effect on State or Federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means.
• Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites;
• Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance; or
• Conflict with the provisions of an adopted HCP, Natural Community Conservation Plan (NCCP), or other approved local, regional, or State habitat conservation plan.

Method of Analysis
The analysis presented herein is based primarily on the Biological Resources Assessment prepared for the proposed project by ECORP. The Biological Resources Assessment includes, as attachments, an Aquatic Resources Delineation and Arborist Survey Report prepared for the project.

Special-Status Species
As part of the Biological Resources Assessment, a list of special-status species with potential to occur within the study area was developed by conducting a query of the following resources:
• CNDDB record search for the “Buffalo Creek, California” 7.5-minute quadrangle and the eight surrounding USGS quadrangles;
• USFWS Information, Planning, and Consultation System Resource Report List for the study area;
• CNPS’ electronic Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants of California was queried for the “Buffalo Creek, California” 7.5-minute quadrangle and the eight surrounding USGS quadrangles; and
• SSHCP Modeled Species Habitat data for the study area.

Field Assessment for Covered Species and Pallid Bat
Surveys for potential habitat for tricolored blackbird, burrowing owl, Swainson’s hawk, other raptors, and western red bat were conducted per requirements of SSHCP Avoidance and Minimization Measures (AMMs) TCB-1, WBO-1, SWHA-1, RAPTOR-1, and BAT-1. The methods used and results of the surveys are described in Attachment C to the Biological Resources Assessment (see Appendix D). Inaccessible off-site areas and surrounding buffers were visually assessed from within the study area or from publicly accessible roads.

It should be noted that pallid bat is not an SSHCP covered species, but is considered a species of special concern by CDFW. A CNDDB search revealed a nearby occurrence of pallid bat.

Therefore, although not an SSHCP-covered species, ECORP Consulting Inc. assessed potential pallid bat habitat within the study area using AMM BAT-1.

Information from the surveys was used to determine whether specific potential habitat features (e.g., nesting trees, burrows) for the covered species were present within the study area. In ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

addition, surveys for special-status plant species were conducted per AMMs PLANT-1 and ORCUTT-1, as well as guidelines promulgated by USFWS, CDFW, and CNPS. The special-status plant surveys were conducted on April 29, 2019 and June 13, 2019 by ECORP Consulting, Inc.

The results of the surveys are described in the Special-Status Plant Survey Report, included as Attachment D to the Biological Resources Assessment (see Appendix D).

Field Assessment for Other Species
Several surveys were conducted by ECORP Consulting, Inc. during fall 2018 and spring 2019.

During the surveys, the study area was walked on foot, and topographic maps and aerial imagery were referenced. Biological communities occurring within the study area were characterized and the following biological resource information was collected:
• Potential aquatic features (described in detail under the Aquatic Resources Delineation section below);
• Protected trees occurring on-site;
• Animal and plant species directly observed;
• Habitat and vegetation communities; and
• Representative photographs of the study area.

Aquatic Resources Delineation
The Aquatic Resources Delineation was conducted in accordance with the 1987 Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual and the 2008 Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Arid West Region (Arid West Region Supplement). The boundaries of aquatic resources were delineated through standard field methods (e.g., paired sample set analyses) and aerial photograph interpretation. Field data were recorded on Wetland Determination Data Forms - Arid West Region. A color aerial photograph was used to assist with mapping and ground-truthing. Munsell Soil Color Charts and the Natural Resources Conservation Services (NRCS) Web Soil Survey were used to aid in identifying hydric soils in the field. The 2012 Jepson Manual, 2nd Edition was used for plant nomenclature and identification.

Field surveys were conducted on October 12, 2018 by ECORP Consulting, Inc. The entire 41.2- acre unverified portion of the delineation area was walked to determine the location and extent of aquatic resources. Paired locations were sampled to evaluate whether or not the vegetation, hydrology, and soils data supported an aquatic resource determination. At each paired location, one point was located such that it was within the estimated aquatic resource area, and the other point was situated outside the limits of the estimated aquatic resource area. Aquatic resources within the unverified portion of the delineation area were recorded in the field using a postprocessing capable global positioning system unit with sub-meter accuracy (Trimble GeoXT). The previously verified portion of the delineation area was reviewed through aerial photograph interpretation and limited field reconnaissance.

As part of the Addendum to the Aquatic Resources Delineation, an assessment of potential waters of the U.S. within the Raymer Way Offsite was conducted on June 13, 2019 by ECORP Consulting, Inc. biologist Matt Spaulding. Access to the property was not authorized; therefore, Mr. Spaulding walked along Raymer Way and assessed potential aquatic features from the publicly accessible roadway. In addition, historic aerial photos were reviewed. Several roadside ditches were mapped and classified as swales according to land cover definitions within the SSHCP.

ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

Arborist Survey Report
ECORP Consulting, Inc. arborist Ben Waitman (ISA Certification #WE-12108), assisted by ECORP biologist Daniel Wong, conducted a field survey of the study area on October 9, 2018 and June 13, 2019. During the field surveys, the entire study area was walked or viewed across level ground, and data were recorded using an iPad paired with a GPS unit accurate to less than one meter. The survey data included species, dsh, dripline radius, tree structure, and tree condition. Each surveyed tree was tagged with a permanent numbered aluminum tag at breast height (approximately 4.5 feet).

Project-Specific Impacts and Mitigation Measures
The following discussion of impacts related to biological resources is based on implementation of the proposed project in comparison to existing conditions and the standards of significance presented above.

4.2-1 Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on special-status plant species. Based on the analysis below and with implementation of mitigation, the impact is less than significant.

As shown in Table 4.2-2, the study area contains potentially suitable habitat for special-status plant species. Special-status plant species were not detected within the project site during the special-status plant surveys conducted in spring and summer 2019. However, per the Biological Resources Assessment, the unsurveyed Raymer Way Offsite provides suitable habitat for stinkbells and Ahart’s dwarf rush.

The proposed project would include ground disturbance and removal of vegetation associated with removal of the existing gravel roadway within the Raymer Way Offsite.

The Raymer Way Offsite was not included in the special-status plant surveys prepared for the study area. Thus, in the event that stinkbells and Ahart’s dwarf rush occur within the Raymer Way Offsite, the proposed project could result in a significant impact related to the disturbance of special-status plant species.

Mitigation Measure(s)
Implementation of the following mitigation measures would reduce the above potential impact to a less-than-significant level.

4.2-1(a) Prior to initiation of ground-disturbing activities within the Raymer Way Offsite, the project applicant shall comply with SSHCP AMM Plant-1 (Rare Plant Surveys). Though stinkbells is not considered an SSHCP Covered Species, the special-status plant surveys conducted per PLANT-1 shall identify whether the species is present in the survey area. If any special-status plant species are found to be present during the focused survey(s), Mitigation Measure 4.2-1(b) shall be implemented. If special-status plant species are not found to be present during the focused survey(s), then no further action is required. A written summary of the survey results shall be submitted to the City of Rancho Cordova Community Development Department.

ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

• PLANT-1 (Rare Plant Surveys): If a Covered Activity project site contains modeled habitat for Ahart’s dwarf rush (Juncus leiospermus var. ahartii), Bogg’s Lake hedge-hyssop (Gratiola heterosepala), dwarf downingia (Downingia pusilla), Legenere (Legenere limosa), pincushion navarretia (Navarretia myersii), or Sanford’s arrowhead (Sagittaria sanfordii), the Covered Activity project site will be surveyed for the rare plant by an approved biologist and following the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) rare plant survey protocols (CDFG 2009) or the most recent CDFW rare plant survey protocols. An approved biologist will conduct the field surveys and will identify and map plant species occurrences according to the protocols.

See Chapter 10 (of the SSHCP) for the process to submit survey information to the Plan Permittee and the Permitting Agencies.

4.2-1(b) If any SSHCP-covered plants are determined to be present within the Raymer Way Offsite, SSHCP PLANT-2 (Rare Plant Protection) shall be implemented. If any special-status plant species are determined to be present, a mitigation plan shall be prepared for review and approval by the City of Rancho Cordova; mitigation may include harvesting and transplanting of impacted bulbs into a preserved area with suitable habitat. Avoided areas containing species shall be fenced with orange construction fencing.
• PLANT-2 (Rare Plant Protection): If a rare plant listed in AMM PLANT-1 is detected within an area proposed to be disturbed by a Covered Activity or is detected within 250 feet of the area proposed to be disturbed by a Covered Activity, the
Implementing Entity will assure one unprotected occurrence of the species is protected within a SSHCP Preserve before any ground disturbance occurs at the project site.

4.2-2 Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on special-status invertebrates. Based on the analysis below and with implementation of mitigation, the impact is less than significant.

Per the Biological Resources Assessment, the existing vernal pools located within the study area were determined to contain vernal pool fairy shrimp. In addition, the vernal pools provide suitable habitat for other special-status vernal pool branchiopods, including conservancy fairy shrimp, midvalley fairy shrimp, Ricksecker’s water scavenger beetle, and vernal pool fairy shrimp. The proposed development footprint would include all 2.613 acres of vernal pool habitat identified within the study area per the Biological Resources Assessment. Therefore, in the event that such pools are occupied by special-status vernal pool branchiopods prior to the start of grounddisturbing activities associated with the proposed project, development of the proposed project could cause a substantial adverse effect to vernal pool branchiopods, and a significant impact could result.

ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

Mitigation Measure(s)
Implementation of the following mitigation measures would reduce the above potential impact to a less-than-significant level.

4.2-2(a) Prior to initiation of ground-disturbing activities, the project applicant shall submit a South Sacramento Habitat Conservation Plan (SSHCP) permit application package to the City of Rancho Cordova to request that the incidental take coverage provided by City’s SSHCP Incidental Take Permit (ITP) be extended to the proposed activities. The City of Rancho Cordova shall review the SSHCP permit application for consistency with all of the SSHCP requirements and provide the South Sacramento Conservation Agency with a copy of the SSHCP requirements for tracking purposes. The project applicant shall be responsible for paying all SSHCP development fees associated with obtaining coverage from the City of Rancho Cordova. Any proposal to provide land in fee title, or provide a conservation easement in lieu of paying all or part of the required SSHCP development fees, shall include a consistency analysis in the application that sufficiently shows that the proposal is consistent with the SSHCP Conservation Strategy.

4.2-2(b) The project applicant shall comply with SSHCP requirements and all relevant AMMs set forth in the SSHCP Permit obtained for the proposed project.

4.2-2(c) Prior to approval of grading and improvement plans and prior to initiation of any groundbreaking activity associated with the proposed project, or timed as required by the applicable permits if the proposed project is constructed in phases, the project applicant shall ensure that mitigation for impacts to aquatic features and other habitat for specialstatus species has been implemented through the SSHCP In-Lieu Fee Program or by other methods agreeable to the USACE, RWQCB, USFWS, CDFW, City, and South Sacramento Conservation Agency as appropriate, depending on agency jurisdiction.

4.2-3 Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on special-status amphibian species.

Based on the analysis below and with implementation of
mitigation, the impact is less than significant.

As noted in the Biological Resources Assessment, according to SSHCP Modeled Species Habitat, the grassland and aquatic areas within the study area provide suitable foraging habitat for western spadefoot. In addition, while SSHCP Modeled Species Habitat for western pond turtle is not present within the study area, the ponded areas along the Morrison Creek Offsite may provide suitable aquatic habitat and the adjacent grasslands provide suitable upland habitat for the species. Thus, both western spadefoot and western pond turtle have the potential to occur within the study area.

ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

Construction of the proposed project would include disturbance of existing grassland habitat within the study area. Thus, the project could cause a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on western spadefoot and western pond turtle. A significant impact could occur.

Mitigation Measure(s)
Implementation of the following mitigation measures would reduce the above potential impact to a less-than-significant level.

Western Spadefoot

4.2-3(a) The project applicant shall comply with SSHCP AMMs WS-1 through WS-6.
• WS-1 (Western Spadefoot Work Window): Ground-disturbing Covered Activities within western spadefoot modeled habitat (Figure 3-17 [of the SSHCP]) will occur outside the breeding and dispersal season (after May 15 and before October 15), to the maximum extent practicable.
• WS-2 (Western Spadefoot Exclusion Fencing): If Covered Activities must be implemented in modeled habitat (Figure 3- 17) after October 15 and before May 15, exclusion fencing will be installed around the project footprint before October 15, and the project site must be monitored by an approved
biologist following rain events. Temporary high- visibility construction fencing will be installed along the edge of work areas, and silt fencing will be installed immediately behind the temporary high-visibility construction fencing to exclude western spadefoot from entering the construction area.

Fencing will remain in place until all construction activities within the construction area are completed. No project
activities will occur outside the delineated project footprint. If a western spadefoot is encountered, refer to WS-6, below. • WS-3 (Western Spadefoot Monitoring): If Covered Activities must be implemented in modeled habitat (Figure 3-17 [of the SSHCP]) in the breeding and dispersal season (after October 15 and before May 15), an approved biologist experienced with western spadefoot identification and behavior will monitor the project site, including the integrity of any exclusion fencing.

The approved biologist will be on site daily while constructionrelated activities are taking place, and will inspect the project site daily for western spadefoot prior to construction activities.

The approved biologist will also train construction personnel on the required avoidance procedures, exclusion fencing, and protocols in the event that a western spadefoot enters an active construction zone (i.e., outside the buffer zone). If a western spadefoot is encountered, refer to WS-6, below.

ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

• WS-4 (Avoid Western Spadefoot Entrapment): If a Covered Activity occurs in western spadefoot modeled habitat (Figure 3-17 [of the SSHCP]), all excavated steep-walled holes and trenches more than 6 inches deep will be covered with
plywood (or similar material) or provided with one or more escape ramps constructed of earth fill or wooden planks at the end of each work day or 30 minutes prior to sunset, whichever occurs first. All steep-walled holes and trenches will be inspected by the approved biologist each morning to ensure that no wildlife has become entrapped. All construction pipes, culverts, similar structures, construction equipment, and construction debris left overnight within western spadefoot modeled habitat will be inspected for western spadefoot by the approved biologist prior to being moved. If a western
spadefoot is encountered, refer to WS-6 below.
• WS-5 (Erosion Control Materials in Western Spadefoot
Habitat): If erosion control (BMP-2) is implemented within western spadefoot modeled habitat (Figure 3-17 [of the
SSHCP]), non-entangling erosion control material will be used to reduce the potential for entrapment. Tightly woven fiber netting (mesh size less than 0.25 inch) or similar material will be used to ensure that western spadefoots are not trapped (no
monofilament). Coconut coir matting and fiber rolls containing burlap are examples of acceptable erosion control materials.

Western Pond Turtle

4.2-3(b) Prior to initiation of ground-disturbing activities, pre-construction surveys shall be conducted per SSHCP AMM WPT-1. If western pond turtles are detected, WPT-2 through WPT-9 shall be implemented. • WPT-1 (Western Pond Turtle Surveys): If the SSHCP
western pond turtle modeled habitat maps (Figure 3-19 [of the SSHCP]) show that modeled habitat for western pond turtle is present within a Covered Activity’s project footprint or within 300 feet of a project footprint, then an approved biologist will conduct a field investigation to delineate western pond turtle aquatic habitat within the project footprint and within 300 feet of the project footprint. In addition to the SSHCP land cover types shown in Figure 3-19 (of the SSHCP), western pond turtle aquatic habitat includes, but is not limited to, lowgradient streams and creeks, open water, freshwater marsh, and rice fields. Adjacent parcels under different land
ownership will be surveyed only if access is granted or if the parcels are visible from authorized areas. The Third-Party Project Proponent will map all existing or potential sites and provide those maps to the Local Land Use Permittees and the Implementing Entity. Locations of delineated western pond turtle habitat must also be noted on plans that are submitted ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

to a Local Land Use Permittee. The applicant will use this information to finalize project design. Covered Activities may occur throughout the year as long as western pond turtle habitat is identified and fully avoided. Otherwise, Covered Activities must comply with WPT-2 through WPT-9. See
Chapter 10 (of the SSHCP) for the process to conduct and submit survey information.
• WPT-2 (Western Pond Turtle Work Window): Maintenance
and improvements to existing structures may occur
throughout the year as long as western pond turtle habitat is identified and avoided, and movement of equipment is
confined to existing roads. Otherwise, construction and ground-disturbing Covered Activities must be conducted
outside of western pond turtle’s active season. Construction and ground-disturbing activities will be initiated after May 1 and will commence prior to September 15. If it appears that construction activities may go beyond September 15, the appropriate Plan Permittee will contact the Local Land Use Permittee and the Implementing Entity as soon as possible, but not later than September 1, to determine if additional measures are necessary to minimize take.
• WPT-3 (Western Pond Turtle Monitoring): If a Covered
Activity is occurring in western pond turtle modeled habitat (Figure 3-19 [of the SSHCP]), an approved biologist
experienced with western pond turtle identification and behavior will monitor the project site, including the integrity of any exclusion fencing. The approved biologist will be on site daily while construction-related activities are taking place in aquatic habitat or within 300 feet of aquatic habitat, and will inspect the project site daily for western pond turtle prior to construction activities. The approved biologist will also training construction personnel on the required avoidance procedures, exclusion fencing, and protocols in the event that a western pond turtle enters an active construction zone (i.e., outside the buffer zone).
• WPT-4 (Western Pond Turtle Habitat Dewatering and
Exclusion): If construction activities will occur in western pond turtle aquatic habitat, aquatic habitat for the turtle will be dewatered and then remain dry and absent of aquatic prey (e.g., crustaceans and other aquatic invertebrates) for 15 days prior to the initiation of construction activities. If complete dewatering is not possible, the Implementing Entity will be contacted to determine what additional measures may be
necessary to minimize effects to western pond turtle. After aquatic habitat has been dewatered 15 days prior to
construction activities, exclusion fencing will be installed ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

extending a minimum of 300 feet into adjacent uplands to isolate both the aquatic and adjacent upland habitat.

Exclusionary fencing will be erected 36 inches above ground and buried at least 6 inches below the ground to prevent turtles from attempting to burrow or move under the fence into the construction area. In addition, high-visibility fencing will be erected to identify construction limits and to protect adjacent habitat from encroachment of personnel and equipment.

Western pond turtle habitat outside construction fencing will be avoided by all construction personnel. The fencing and work area will be inspected by the approved biologist to ensure that the fencing is intact and that no turtles have entered the work area before the start of each work day.

Fencing will be maintained by the contractor until completion of the project. If, after exclusion fencing and dewatering, western pond turtles are found within the project footprint or within 300 feet of the project footprint, the Third-Party Project Proponent will discuss the next best steps with the
Implementing Entity and Wildlife Agencies.
• WPT-5 (Avoid Western Pond Turtle Entrapment): If a
Covered Activity occurs within western pond turtle modeled habitat (Figure 3-19 [of the SSHCP]), all excavated steepwalled holes and trenches more than 6 inches deep will be covered with plywood (or similar material) or provided with one or more escape ramps constructed of earth fill or wooden planks at the end of each work day or 30 minutes prior to sunset, whichever occurs first. All steep-walled holes and trenches will be inspected by the approved biologist each morning to ensure that no wildlife has become entrapped. All construction pipes, culverts, similar structures, construction equipment, and construction debris left overnight within western pond turtle modeled habitat will be inspected for western pond turtle by the approved biologist prior to being moved.
• WPT-6 (Erosion Control Materials in Western Pond Turtle Habitat): If erosion control (BMP-2) is implemented within western pond turtle modeled habitat (Figure 3-19 [of the SSHCP]), non-entangling erosion control material will be used to reduce the potential for entrapment. Tightly woven fiber netting (mesh size less than 0.25 inch) or similar material will be used to ensure that turtles are not trapped (no
monofilament). Coconut coir matting and fiber rolls containing burlap are examples of acceptable erosion control materials. • WPT-7 (Western Pond Turtle Modeled Habitat Speed
Limit): Covered Activity construction and maintenance
vehicles will observe a 20-mile-per-hour speed limit within ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

western pond turtle modeled upland habitat (Figure 3-19 [of the SSHCP]).
• WPT-8 (Western Pond Turtle Encounter Protocol): If a
western pond turtle is encountered during construction
activities, the approved biologist will notify the Wildlife Agencies immediately. Construction activities will be
suspended in a 100-foot radius of the animal until the animal leaves the project site on its own volition. If necessary, the approved biologist will notify the Wildlife Agencies to determine the appropriate procedures related to relocation. If the animal is handled, a report will be submitted, including date(s), location(s), habitat description, and any corrective measures taken to protect the turtle, within 1 business day to the Wildlife Agencies. The biologist will report any take of listed species to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
immediately. Any worker who inadvertently injures or kills a western pond turtle or who finds one dead, injured, or
entrapped must immediately report the incident to the
approved biologist.
• WPT-9 (Western Pond Turtle Post-Construction
Restoration): After completion of ground- disturbing Covered Activities, the applicant will remove any temporary fill and construction debris and will restore temporarily disturbed areas to pre-project conditions. Restoration work includes such activities as re-vegetating the banks and active channels with a seed mix similar to pre-project conditions. Appropriate methods and plant species used to re-vegetate such areas will be determined on a site-specific basis in consultation with the Implementing Entity. Restoration work may include replanting emergent aquatic vegetation and placing appropriate artificial or natural basking areas in waterways and wetlands. A photo documentation report showing pre- and post-project
conditions will be submitted to the Implementing Entity 1 month after implementation of the restoration.

4.2-4 Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on burrowing owl. Based on the
analysis below and with implementation of mitigation, the impact is less than significant.

As noted previously, the grassland within the study area provides suitable nesting and foraging habitat for burrowing owl and the aquatic features provide suitable foraging habitat for the species, according to SSHCP Modeled Species Habitat. In addition, burrowing owls and occupied burrows were observed along the southeastern boundary of the project site during a preliminary survey of potential habitat. Therefore, burrowing owl is considered present within the study area.

ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

Construction activities associated with implementation of the proposed project would include disturbance of on-site grassland habitat, and would have the potential to disturb existing burrowing owl burrows on the project site. Should individual burrowing owls be present within burrows during ground disturbance within the study area, project construction could result in loss of individual owls. As such, the proposed project could have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on burrowing owl. A significant impact could occur.

Mitigation Measure(s)
Implementation of the following mitigation measure would reduce the above potential impact to a less-than-significant level.

4.2-4 Prior to initiation of ground-disturbing activities, the project applicant shall comply with SSHCP AMMs WBO-2 through WBO-7. If western burrowing owl is found within the survey area, WBO-3 through 7 shall be implemented as required based on the results of surveys conducted per WBO-2.
• WBO-1 (Western Burrowing Owl Surveys): Surveys within modeled habitat are required for both the breeding and nonbreeding season. If the project site falls within modeled habitat, an approved biologist will survey the project site and map all burrows, noting any burrows that may be occupied. Occupied burrows are often (but not always) indicated by tracks, feathers, egg shell fragments, pellets, prey remains, and/or excrement.

Surveying and mapping will be conducted by the approved biologist while walking transects throughout the entire project site plus all accessible areas within a 250-foot radius from the project site. The centerline of these transects will be no more than 50 feet apart and will vary in width to account for changes in terrain and vegetation that can preclude complete visual coverage of the area. For example, in hilly terrain with patches of tall grass, transects will be closer together, and in open areas with little vegetation, they can be 50 feet apart. This methodology is consistent with current survey protocols for this species (California Burrowing Owl Consortium 1993). Adjacent parcels under different land ownership will be surveyed only if access is granted or if the parcels are visible from authorized areas. If suitable habitat is identified during the initial survey, and if the project does not fully avoid the habitat, preconstruction surveys will be required. Burrowing owl habitat is fully avoided if project-related activities do not impinge on a 250- foot buffer established by the approved biologist around suitable burrows. See Chapter 10 (of the SSHCP) for the process to conduct and submit survey information.
• WBO-2 (Western Burrowing Owl Pre-Construction
Surveys): Prior to any Covered Activity ground disturbance, an approved biologist will conduct pre-construction surveys in all ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

areas that were identified as suitable habitat during the initial surveys. The purpose of the pre-construction surveys is to document the presence or absence of burrowing owls on the project site, particularly in areas within 250 feet of construction activities. To maximize the likelihood of detecting owls, the preconstruction survey will last a minimum of 3 hours. The survey will begin 1 hour before sunrise and continue until 2 hours after sunrise (3 hours total), or begin 2 hours before sunset and continue until 1 hour after sunset. Additional time may be required for large project sites. A minimum of two preconstruction surveys will be conducted (if owls are detected on the first survey, a second survey is not needed). All owls observed will be counted and their location will be mapped.

Surveys will conclude no more than 2 calendar days prior to construction. Therefore, the Third-Party Project Proponent must begin surveys no more than 4 days prior to construction (2 days of surveying plus up to 2 days between surveys and
construction). To avoid last-minute changes in schedule or contracting that may occur if burrowing owls are found, the Third-Party Project Proponent may also conduct a preliminary survey up to 15 days before construction. This preliminary survey may count as the first of the two required surveys as long as the second survey concludes no more than 2 calendar days in advance of construction.
• WBO-3 (Burrowing Owl Avoidance): If western burrowing owl or evidence of western burrowing owl is observed on the project site or within 250 feet of the project site during pre-construction surveys, then the following will occur:

During Breeding Season: If the approved biologist finds evidence of western burrowing owls within a project site during the breeding season (February 1 through August 31), all project-related activities will avoid nest sites during the remainder of the breeding season or while the nest remains occupied by adults or young (nest occupation includes
individuals or family groups foraging on or near the site following fledging). Avoidance is establishment of a minimum 250-foot buffer zone around nests. Construction and other projectrelated activities may occur outside of the 250-foot buffer zone.

Construction and other project-related activities may be allowed inside of the 250-foot non-disturbance buffer during the breeding season if the nest is not disturbed, and the Third-Party Project Proponent develops an avoidance, minimization, and monitoring plan that is approved by the Implementing Entity and Wildlife Agencies prior to project construction based on the following criteria:

ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

o The Implementing Entity and Wildlife Agencies approve of the avoidance and minimization plan provided by the
project applicant.
o An approved biologist monitors the owls for at least 3 days prior to construction to determine baseline nesting and foraging behavior (i.e., behavior without
construction).
o The same approved biologist monitors the owls during
construction and finds no change in owl nesting and
foraging behavior in response to construction activities.

If there is any change in owl nesting and foraging behavior as a result of construction activities, the approved biologist will have authority to shut down activities within the 250-foot buffer.

Construction cannot resume within the 250-foot buffer until any owls present are no longer affected by nearby construction activities, and with written concurrence from the Wildlife Agencies.

If monitoring by the approved biologist indicates that the nest is abandoned prior to the end of nesting season and the burrow is no longer in use, the non-disturbance buffer zone may be removed if approved by the Wildlife Agencies. The approved biologist will excavate the burrow in accordance with the latest California Department of Fish and Wildlife guidelines for burrowing owl to prevent reoccupation after receiving approval from the Wildlife Agencies.

The Implementing Entity and Wildlife Agencies will respond to a request from the Third-Party Project Proponent to review the proposed construction monitoring plan within 21 days.

During Non-Breeding Season: During the non-breeding
season (September 1 through January 31), the approved
biologist will establish a minimum 250-foot non-disturbance buffer around occupied burrows. Construction activities outside of this 250-foot buffer will be allowed. Construction activities within the non-disturbance buffer will be allowed if the following criteria are met to prevent owls from abandoning over- wintering sites:
o An approved biologist monitors the owls for at least 3 days prior to construction to determine baseline foraging behavior (i.e., behavior without construction).
o The same approved biologist monitors the owls during
construction and finds no change in owl foraging
behavior in response to construction activities.
o If there is any change in owl foraging behavior as a result of construction activities, the approved biologist will ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

have authority to shut down activities within the 250-foot buffer.
o If the owls are gone for at least 1 week, the Third-Party Project Proponent may request approval from the
Implementing Entity and Wildlife Agencies that an
approved biologist excavate usable burrows and install
one-way exclusionary devices to prevent owls from reoccupying the site. After all usable burrows are excavated, the buffer zone will be removed and
construction may continue.

Monitoring must continue as described above for the nonbreeding season as long as the burrow remains active. • WBO-4 (Burrowing Owl Construction Monitoring): During construction of Covered Activities, 250-foot construction buffer zones will be established and maintained around any occupied burrow. An approved biologist will monitor the site to ensure that buffers are enforced and owls are not disturbed. The approved biologist will also train construction personnel on avoidance procedures, buffer zones, and protocols in the event that a burrowing owl flies into an active construction zone.
• WBO-5 (Burrowing Owl Passive Relocation): Passive
relocation is not allowed without the express written approval of the Wildlife Agencies. Passive owl relocation may be allowed on a case-by-case basis on project sites during the nonbreeding season (September 1 through January 31) with the written approval of the Wildlife Agencies if the other measures described in this condition preclude work from continuing.

Passive relocation must be done in accordance with the latest California Department of Fish and Wildlife guidelines for burrowing owl. Passive relocation will only be proposed if the burrow needing to be removed or with the potential to collapse from construction activities is the result of a Covered Activity. If passive relocation is approved by the Wildlife Agencies, an approved biologist can passively exclude birds from their burrows during the non-breeding season by installing one-way doors in burrow entrances. These doors will be in place for 48 hours to ensure that owls have left the burrow, and then the biologist will excavate the burrow to prevent reoccupation.

Burrows will be excavated using hand tools only. During excavation, an escape route will be maintained at all times. This may include inserting an artificial structure into the burrow to avoid having materials collapse into the burrow and trap owls inside. Other methods of passive relocation, based on best available science, may be approved by the Wildlife Agencies over the 50-year Permit Term.

ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

• WBO-6 (Burrowing Owl Timing of Maintenance Activities):

All activities adjacent to existing or planned Preserves, Preserve Setbacks, or Stream Setback areas will be seasonally timed, when safety permits, to avoid or minimize adverse effects on occupied burrows.
• WBO-7 (Rodent Control): Rodent control will be allowed only in developed portions of a Covered Activity project site within western burrowing owl modeled habitat. Where rodent control is allowed, the method of rodent control will comply with the methods of rodent control discussed in the 4(d) Rule published in the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s (2004) final listing rule for tiger salamander.

4.2-5 Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on raptors and nesting birds. Based on the analysis below and with implementation of mitigation, the impact is less than significant.

The study area contains potential habitat for raptors and nesting birds that are protected by the MBTA. The following sections summarize available habitat within the study area for specific SSHCP Covered species and other non-covered species.

Potential impacts to Swainson’s hawk and tricolored blackbird are discussed separately under Impacts 4.2-6 and 4.2-7.

SSHCP Covered Species
According to SSHCP Modeled Species Habitat, the study area contains suitable habitat for raptors and nesting birds, as follows:
• The grassland and aquatic areas within the study area provide suitable foraging habitat for ferruginous hawk. Suitable nesting habitat is not present. • The grassland within the study area provides suitable nesting and foraging habitat for loggerhead shrike and northern harrier and the aquatic features provide suitable foraging habitat for both species.
• The grassland and aquatic areas within the study area provide suitable foraging habitat for white-tailed kite. Suitable nesting habitat is not present. • The grassland and trees within the study area provide suitable nesting habitat for yellow-billed magpie.

Thus, ferruginous hawk, loggerhead shrike, northern harrier, and yellow-billed magpie have potential to occur within the study area.

Other Special-Status Species
The project site provides winter foraging habitat for golden eagle, which is a CDFW fully protected species. The grassland within the study area provides suitable nesting habitat for grasshopper sparrow and suitable wintering habitat for merlin. Grasshopper sparrow is designated as a species of special concern per CDFW. Thus, golden eagle, grasshopper sparrow, and merlin have potential to occur within the study area.

ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

Conclusion
Based on the above, the proposed project could have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on raptors and nesting birds protected by the MBTA, including, but not limited to, ferruginous hawk, loggerhead shrike, northern harrier, white-tailed kite, yellow-billed magpie, golden eagle, grasshopper sparrow, and merlin. Thus, a significant impact could occur.

Mitigation Measure(s)
Implementation of the following mitigation measure would reduce the above potential impact to a less-than-significant level.

4.2-5(a) Prior to initiation of ground-disturbing activities, the project applicant shall comply with SSHCP AMMs RAPTOR-2 through RAPTOR-4.

Raptor surveys conducted per RAPTOR-2 shall include surveying for golden eagle although it is not a SSHCP Covered Species. If raptor species (including golden eagles) are found nesting within the survey area, RAPTOR-3 and RAPTOR-4 shall be implemented as required based on the results of surveys conducted per RAPTOR-2. The following AMMs do not apply to Swainson’s hawk or burrowing owl, as specific AMMs have been developed for such covered raptor species and are included in separate mitigation measures.
• RAPTOR-2 (Raptor Pre-Construction Surveys): Preconstruction surveys will be required to determine if active nests are present with a project footprint or within 0.25 mile of a project footprint if existing or potential nest sites are found during initial surveys and construction activities will occur during the raptor breeding season. An approved biologist will conduct pre-construction surveys within 30 days and 3 days of grounddisturbing activities within the proposed project footprint and within 0.25 mile of the proposed project footprint to determine presence of nesting covered raptor species. Pre- construction surveys will be conducted during the raptor breeding season. If a nest is present, then RAPTOR-3 and RAPTOR-4 will be
implemented. The approved biologist will inform the Land Use Authority Permittee and Implementing Entity of species
locations, and they in turn will notify the Wildlife Agencies. • RAPTOR-3 (Raptor Nest/Roost Buffer): If active nests are found within the project footprint or within 0.25 mile of any project-related Covered Activity, the Third-Party Project Proponent will establish a 0.25 mile temporary nest disturbance buffer around the active nest until the young have fledged. • RAPTOR-4 (Raptor Nest/Roost Buffer Monitoring): If
project-related Covered Activities within the temporary nest disturbance buffer are determined to be necessary during the nesting season, then an approved biologist experienced with raptor behavior will be retained by the Third-Party Project ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

Proponent to monitor the nest throughout the nesting season and to determine when the young have fledged. The approved biologist will be on site daily while construction-related activities are taking place within the disturbance buffer. Work within the temporary nest disturbance buffer can occur with the written permission of the Implementing Entity and Wildlife Agencies. If nesting raptors begin to exhibit agitated behavior, such as defensive flights at intruders, getting up from a brooding position, or flying off the nest, the approved biologist/monitor will have the authority to shut down construction activities. If agitated behavior is exhibited, the biologist, Third-Party Project Proponent, Implementing Entity, and Wildlife Agencies will meet to determine the best course of action to avoid nest
abandonment or take of individuals. The approved biologist will also train construction personnel on the required avoidance procedures, buffer zones, and protocols in the event that a covered raptor species flies into an active construction zone (i.e., outside the buffer zone).

4.2-5(b) A qualified biologist shall conduct a preconstruction nesting bird survey of all areas associated with construction activities, and a 100-foot buffer around such areas, within 14 days prior to commencement of construction if construction occurs during the nesting season (February 1 through August 31). If active nests are found for any SSHCP Covered Species, the applicable SSHCP AMM(s) TCB-3 through -5, SWHA-3 through -4, WBO-3 through-6, and RAPTOR-3 through-4 shall be implemented. If active nests are found for any other species, a nodisturbance buffer around the nest shall be established. The buffer distance shall be established by a qualified biologist in consultation with the CDFW. The buffer shall be maintained until the fledglings are capable of flight and become independent of the nest, to be determined by a qualified biologist. Once the young are independent of the nest, further measures are not necessary.

4.2-6 Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on Swainson’s hawk. Based on the analysis below and with implementation of mitigation, the impact is less than significant.

The grassland and aquatic areas within the study area provide suitable foraging habitat for Swainson’s hawk according to SSHCP Modeled Species Habitat. In addition, a preliminary survey of potential habitat found several trees within the Survey Area and survey buffers that represent potential nesting habitat for the species. Thus, Swainson’s hawk has potential to occur within the study area. The proposed project would include removal of a portion of the existing trees within the study area. In the event that Swainson’s hawk is present within such trees during ground-disturbance or tree removal activities associated with the proposed project, the project could have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on the species. Thus, a significant impact could occur.

ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

Mitigation Measure(s)
Implementation of the following mitigation measure would reduce the above potential impact to a less-than-significant level.

4.2-6 Prior to initiation of ground-disturbing activities, the project applicant shall comply with SSHCP AMMs SWHA-2 through SWHA-4. If
Swainson’s hawk nesting is found within the survey area during the preconstruction survey conducted per SWHA-2, then SWHA-3 and SWHA4 shall be implemented as required based on the results of surveys conducted per SWHA-2.

SWHA-2 (Swainson’s Hawk Pre-Construction Surveys): Preconstruction surveys will be required to determine if active nests are present within a project footprint or within 0.25 mile of a project footprint if existing or potential nest sites were found during initial surveys and construction activities will occur during the breeding season (March 1 through September 15). An approved biologist will conduct preconstruction surveys within 30 days and 3 days of ground-disturbing activities to determine presence of nesting Swainson’s hawk. Preconstruction surveys will be conducted during the breeding season (March 1 through September 15). If a nest is present, then SWHA-3 and SWHA-4 will be implemented. The approved biologist will inform the Land Use Authority Permittee and Implementing Entity of species locations, and they in turn will notify the Wildlife Agencies.

SWHA-3 (Swainson’s Hawk Nest Buffer): If active nests are found within the project footprint or within 0.25 mile of any project-related Covered Activity, the Third-Party Project Proponent will establish a

0.25-mile disturbance buffer around the active nest until the young have fledged, with concurrence from the Wildlife Agencies.

SWHA-4 (Swainson’s Hawk Nest Buffer Monitoring): If nesting Swainson’s hawks are present within the project footprint or within 0.25 mile of any project-related Covered Activity, then an approved biologist experienced with Swainson’s hawk behavior will be retained by the Third-Party Project Proponent to monitor the nest throughout the nesting season and to determine when the young have fledged. The approved biologist will be on site daily while construction-related activities are taking place within the buffer. Work within the temporary nest disturbance buffer can occur with the written permission of the Implementing Entity and Wildlife Agencies. If nesting Swainson’s hawks begin to exhibit agitated behavior, such as defensive flights at intruders, getting up from a brooding position, or flying off the nest, the approved biologist will have the authority to shut down construction activities. If agitated behavior is exhibited, the biologist, Third-Party Project Proponent, Implementing Entity, and Wildlife Agencies will meet to determine the best course of action to avoid nest abandonment or take of individuals. The approved biologist will also train construction personnel on the required avoidance procedures, buffer zones, and ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

protocols in the event that a Swainson’s hawk flies into an active construction zone (i.e., outside the buffer zone).

4.2-7 Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on tricolored blackbird. Based on the analysis below and with implementation of mitigation, the impact is less than significant.

According to SSHCP Modeled Species Habitat, the grassland within the study area provides suitable nesting and foraging habitat for tricolored blackbird, and the aquatic features provide suitable foraging habitat. In addition, a preliminary survey of potential habitat documented evidence of previous tricolored blackbird nesting within patches of bull thistle (Cirsium vulgare) in the central portion of the project site, and a small area of riparian habitat along Morrison Creek was determined to represent potential nesting habitat. Tricolored blackbirds were not observed nesting during a site visit on June 13, 2019. However, the species is nomadic and may return to the study area prior to initiation of project construction activities. Thus, tricolored blackbirds are considered to be present within the study area.

In the event that tricolored blackbird is present within the study area during grounddisturbance associated with project construction, the proposed project could have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on the species. Thus, a significant impact could occur.

Mitigation Measure(s)
Implementation of the following mitigation measure would reduce the above potential impact to a less-than-significant level.

4.2-7 Prior to initiation of ground-disturbing activities, the project applicant shall comply with SSHCP AMMs TCB-2 through TCB-5. If tricolored blackbirds are found within the survey area during the pre-construction survey conducted per TCB-2, then TCB-3 through TCB-5 shall be implemented as required based on the results of surveys conducted per TCB-2.
• TCB-2 (Tricolored Blackbird Pre-Construction Surveys):

Pre-construction surveys will be required to determine if active nests are present within a project footprint or within 500 feet of a project footprint if existing or potential nest sites were found during design surveys and construction activities will occur during the breeding season (March 1 through September 15).

An approved biologist will conduct pre-construction surveys within 30 days and within 3 days of ground-disturbing activities, and within the proposed project footprint and 500 feet of the proposed project footprint to determine the presence of nesting tricolored blackbird. Pre-construction surveys will be conducted during the breeding season (March 1 through August 31).

Surveys conducted in February (to meet pre-construction survey requirements for work starting in March) must be ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

conducted within 14 days and 3 days in advance of grounddisturbing activities. If a nest is present, then TCB-3 and TCB-4 will be implemented. The approved biologist will inform the Land Use Authority Permittee and the Implementing Entity of species locations, and they in turn will notify the Wildlife Agencies. • TCB-3 (Tricolored Blackbird Nest Buffer): If active nests are found within the project footprint or within 500 feet of any project-related Covered Activity, the Third-Party Project Proponent will establish a 500-foot temporary buffer around the active nest until the young have fledged.
• TCB-4 (Tricolored Blackbird Nest Buffer Monitoring): If nesting tricolored blackbirds are present within the project footprint or within 500 feet of any project-related Covered Activity, then an approved biologist experienced with tricolored blackbird behavior will be retained by the Third-Party Project Proponent to monitor the nest throughout the nesting season and to determine when the young have fledged. The approved biologist will be on site daily while construction-related activities are taking place near the disturbance buffer. Work within the nest disturbance buffer will not be permitted. If the approved biologist determines that tricolored blackbirds are exhibiting agitated behavior, construction will cease until the buffer size is increased to a distance necessary to result in no harm or harassment to the nesting tricolored blackbirds. If the biologist determines that the colonies are at risk, a meeting with the Third-Party Project Proponent, Implementing Entity, and Wildlife Agencies will be held to determine the best course of action to avoid nest abandonment or take of individuals. The approved biologist will also train construction personnel on the required avoidance procedures, buffer zones, and protocols in the event that a tricolored blackbird flies into an active construction zone (i.e., outside the buffer zone).
• TCB-5 (Timing of Pesticide Use and Harvest Timing on
Agricultural Preserves): On SSHCP Agricultural Preserves, pesticides (including herbicides) will not be applied from January 1 through July 15.

4.2-8 Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on special-status bats. Based on the analysis below and with implementation of mitigation, the impact is less than significant.

Per the Biological Resources Assessment, some of the structures within the study area represent potential hibernacula for pallid bat. In addition, according to SSHCP Modeled Species Habitat, the grassland and wetland areas within the study area provide suitable foraging habitat for western red bat, and the Raymer Way Offsite ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

contains roosting-foraging habitat for the species. A preliminary survey of potential habitat identified some of the trees with cavities along Morrison Creek as potential hibernacula.

Implementation of the proposed project would require removal of existing structures and trees within the proposed development area. Should special-status bat species be present in structures or trees prior to removal, implementation of the proposed project could result in a loss of individual bats. Therefore, the proposed project could have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on pallid bat and western red bat. Thus, a significant impact could occur.

Mitigation Measure(s)
Implementation of the following mitigation measure would reduce the above potential impact to a less-than-significant level.

4.2-8 Prior to initiation of ground-disturbing activities, the project applicant shall comply with SSHCP AMMs BAT-2 through BAT-4. Winter hibernaculum surveys conducted per BAT-2 shall also include surveying for pallid bat although it is not an SSHCP Covered Species.

If winter hibernacula of western red bat or pallid bat are found within the survey area, then BAT-3 through BAT-4 shall be implemented as required based on the results of surveys conducted per BAT-2. • BAT-2 (Winter Hibernaculum Pre-Construction Surveys):

If the Third-Party Project Proponent elects not to avoid potential winter hibernaculum sites within the project footprint plus a 300-foot buffer, additional surveys are required. Prior to any ground disturbance related to Covered Activities, an approved biologist will conduct a pre- construction survey within 3 days of ground-disturbing activities within the project footprint and 300 feet of the project footprint to determine the presence of winter hibernaculum sites. Pre-construction surveys will be conducted during the winter hibernaculum season (November 1 through March 31). If a winter
hibernaculum is present, then BAT-3 and BAT-4 will be
implemented. The approved biologist will inform the Land Use Authority Permittee and Implementing Entity of species
locations, and they in turn will notify the Wildlife Agencies. • BAT-3 (Winter Hibernaculum Buffer): If active winter
hibernaculum sites are found within the project footprint or within 300 feet of the project footprint, the Third-Party Project Proponent will establish a 300-foot temporary disturbance buffer around the active winter hibernaculum site until bats have vacated the hibernaculum and the Implementing Entity and Wildlife Agencies concur.
• BAT-4 (Bat Eviction Methods): An approved biologist will determine if non-maternity and non-hibernaculum day and ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

night roosts are present on the project site. If necessary, an approved biologist will use safe eviction methods to remove bats if direct impacts to non-maternity and non-hibernaculum day and night roosts cannot be avoided. If a winter
hibernaculum site is present, Covered Activities will not occur until the hibernaculum is vacated, or, if necessary, safely evicted using methods acceptable to the Wildlife Agencies.

4.2-9 Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on American badger. Based on the analysis below and with implementation of mitigation, the impact is less than significant.

The grassland and wetland areas within the study area provide suitable foraging habitat for American badger according to SSHCP Modeled Species Habitat. Thus, American badger has potential to occur within the study area. Implementation of the proposed project would require disturbance of existing grassland and wetland habitat within the study area. In the event that American badger occupies the project site prior to ground-disturbing activities associated with the proposed project, the proposed project could have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on the species. Thus, a significant impact could occur.

Mitigation Measure(s)
Implementation of the following mitigation measure would reduce the above potential impact to a less-than-significant level.

4.2-9 A qualified biologist shall conduct a preconstruction survey for American badger within 14 days prior to commencement of construction, and results of the survey shall be provided to the City’s Community Development Department. If badgers or dens with signs of recent badger use are detected (i.e., fresh scat, claw marks), CDFW shall be consulted and a non-disturbance buffer shall be established around any active dens. The den(s) shall be monitored daily by the qualified biologist during construction. Work shall not occur within the non-disturbance buffer until the qualified biologist determines that the badger(s) have left the work area, or as determined in consultation with CDFW.

4.2-10 Have a substantial adverse effect on riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community, or State or Federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means. Based on the analysis below and with implementation of mitigation, the impact is less than significant.

As noted previously, per the Aquatic Resources Delineation and associated addendum, a total of 4.687 acres of aquatic resources have been mapped on the study ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

area, including 0.215-acre within the Raymer Way Offsite, which has not been verified (see Table 4.2-1 and Figure 4.2-4). The Rio Del Oro Offsite and North Douglas Offsites do not contain any mapped aquatic resources. The identified features include vernal pool, swale, and stream/creek land cover types. Vernal pool communities are the only sensitive natural community known to occur within the study area. With the exception of the Raymer Way Offsite, the aquatic resources identified within the study area have been verified by the USACE.

Per the Biological Resources Assessment, the vernal pools, swales, and stream/creek features within the study area flow directly or indirectly into Morrison Creek, or impoundments of Morrison Creek, along the northern boundary of the study area.

Morrison Creek is a tributary to the Sacramento River. The USACE Sacramento District has identified the Sacramento River as Traditional Navigable Water (TNW).

Therefore, the aquatic resources within the study area likely have a significant nexus with a downstream TNW, and are likely subject to regulation under Section 404 of the CWA.

The proposed project would include grading and development activities associated with the construction and operation of a residential subdivision, including necessary off-site improvements. The proposed development footprint would include all 4.687 acres of aquatic resources identified within the study area per the Biological Resources Assessment. Thus, the project would have the potential to involve the disturbance, removal, fill or hydrologic interruption of wetlands or other waters of the U.S or state regulated by the USACE, RWQCB and/or the CDFW.

Based on the above, implementation of the proposed project could have a substantial adverse effect on riparian habitat and/or other sensitive natural communities and/or have a substantial adverse effect on State or Federally protected aquatic resources (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.), through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means. Thus, a significant impact could occur.

Mitigation Measure(s)
Implementation of the following mitigation measures would reduce the above impact to a less-than-significant level.

4.2-10(a) Prior to approval of grading and improvement plans and prior to initiation of any groundbreaking activity associated with the proposed project, the project applicant shall ensure that authorization pursuant to Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 404 from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and CWA Section 401 from the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) is obtained. CWA Section 404 authorization is anticipated to be obtained through a Letter of Permission issued by USACE under the SSHCP ARP, and CWA Section 401 authorization is anticipated to be obtained through an individual Water Quality Certification issued by the RWQCB under the SSHCP ARP.

The construction contractor shall adhere to all conditions outlined in the permits. The project applicant shall ensure that the proposed project replaces, restores, or enhances on a “no net loss” basis (in accordance ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

with the USACE and the Central Valley RWQCB) the acreage of all wetlands and other waters of the U.S. that would be removed, lost, and/or degraded due to project implementation, either through the SSHCP In-Lieu Fee Program or by other methods agreeable to the USACE, the Central Valley RWQCB, and the City, as appropriate, depending on agency jurisdiction, and as determined during the Section 401 and Section 404 permitting processes.

4.2-10(b) Prior to approval of grading and improvement plans and prior to initiation of any groundbreaking activity associated with the proposed project, the project applicant shall ensure that a CDFW 1602 Streambed Alteration Agreement has been obtained. The construction contractor shall adhere to all conditions outlined in the Streambed Alteration Agreement.

4.2-10(c) The project applicant shall comply with SSHCP AMM STREAM-2 and a 100-foot setback from Morrison Creek shall be established. Only allowed compatible uses described in the SSHCP shall be sited within the setback.
• STREAM-2 (UDA Stream Setbacks): A 100-foot setback
measured from the top of the bank on both sides of the stream channel will be applied to all streams listed in Table 5-1 (see Table 4.2-3 below) (see also Figure 2-4 [of the SSHCP]). If a stream reach supports woody riparian vegetation, the setback will be equal to the riparian edge plus 25 feet or will be the setback defined above, whichever is greater. If trails are located within the Stream Setback, the nearest edge of the trail will be located at least 50 feet from the top of the bank.

Table 4.2-3
Stream Setback Minimum Requirements in
the Urban Development Area
Stream
Minimum Setback (from the Top of
Bank Measured in Aerial Perspective)
on Both Sides of the Stream
Elder Creek 100 feet
Frye Creek
100 feet or as depicted as part of the NewBridge
development project hardline Preserve (see
SSHCP Appendix K)
Gerber Creek 100 feet
Morrison Creek 100 feet
Central Paseo
100 feet or as depicted as part of the Cordova
Hills development project hardline Preserve
(see SSHCP Appendix K)
Sun Creek
100 feet or as depicted as part of the Sun Creek
development project hardline Preserve (see
SSHCP Appendix K)

4.2-10(d) Implement Mitigation Measure 4.2-2(c).

ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

4.2-11 Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with
established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites. Based on the analysis below, the impact is less than significant.

As noted previously, the study area does not fall within an Essential Habitat Connectivity area mapped by the CDFW. In addition, the study area is bordered to the east by Grant Line Road, and the area to the south of the study area is built out with residential uses. Such features limit the ability of wildlife to move through project vicinity. Per the Biological Resources Report, the permanently ponded open waters and the small patches of riparian habitat along the upper reach of Morrison Creek within the Morrison Creek Offsite may represent a marginal wildlife movement corridor.

However, consistent with SSHCP AMM STREAM-2, the proposed project would maintain a 100-foot setback from Morrison Creek. Maintenance of the 100-foot setback would be verified through implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.2-9(c).

Furthermore, the 185.3 acres of open space area within the northern portion of the site which would not be developed as part of the proposed project. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not have the potential to impede the use of a native wildlife nursery site.

Based on the above, the proposed project would not interfere substantially with the movement of any wildlife and a less-than-significant impact would result.

Mitigation Measure(s)
None required.

4.2-12 Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance. Based on the analysis below and with
implementation of mitigation, the impact is less than
significant.

Per Chapter 19.12, Preservation and Protection of Private Trees, of the City of Rancho Cordova Municipal Code, a tree removal permit is required prior to removal of any tree meeting the City’s definition of a “protected tree”. Protected tree is defined to include native oaks having a truck diameter of six inches or greater, any tree species other than a native oak with a diameter of 12 inches or greater on a nonresidential property, or any tree species other than a native oak with a diameter of 24 inches or greater on a residential property. The study area contains a total of 149 trees that have a dsh equal to or greater than 12 inches and therefore meet the definition of a Protected Tree as defined in the City’s Tree Preservation Ordinance.

The proposed project would include the removal of 140 of the existing protected trees within the study area. The nine protected trees within the Morrison Creek Offsite would be preserved as part of the project. Considering that the proposed project would involve removal of 140 individual protected trees, the proposed project could conflict ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

with local policies and/or ordinances that protect biological resources, including tree resources. Therefore, a significant impact could occur.

Mitigation Measure(s)
Implementation of the following mitigation measure would reduce the above impact to a less-than-significant level.

4.2-12 Prior to removal of any protected trees (as defined by Chapter 19.12 of the City’s Municipal Code) within the project site and off-site improvement areas, a tree removal permit shall be procured from the City. In addition, tree species that are native to the Central Valley and Sierra Nevada foothills such as interior live oak (Quercus wislizeni), valley oak (Quercus lobata), blue oak (Quercus douglasii), Fremont cottonwood (Populus fremontii), black walnut (Juglans hindsii), and western redbud (Cercis occidentalis) shall be incorporated into the planned landscaping design in public spaces such as open space, parks, and parkways. Enough plantings of such native trees shall be incorporated into the landscaping such that the number of surviving native trees after five years is equal to or greater than the number of non-native trees removed. Landscaping plans detailing the tree species to be planted shall be provided to the City for approval prior to tree removal.

4.2-13 Conflict with the provisions of an adopted HCP, NCCP, or other approved local, regional, or State habitat conservation plan.

Based on the analysis below, the impact is less than
significant.

The study area is covered by the SSHCP. As described above, the following SSHCP Covered Species have the potential to occur within the proposed development area:

Ahart’s dwarf rush, midvalley fairy shrimp, Ricksecker’s water scavenger beetle, vernal pool fairy shrimp, western spadefoot, western pond turtle, burrowing owl, Swainson’s hawk, tricolored blackbird, ferruginous hawk, loggerhead shrike, northern harrier, yellow-billed magpie, American badger, and western red bat. However, implementation of Mitigation Measures 4.2-1, 4.2-2, 4.2-3, 4.2-4, 4.2-5, 4.2-6, 4.2-7,

4.2-8, 4.2-9, which have been designed to incorporate applicable SSHCP AMMs, would reduce potential impacts to such species to less-than-significant levels. In addition, per Mitigation Measure 4.2-2, the project applicant would be required to submit a SSHCP permit application package to the City of Rancho Cordova to request that the incidental take coverage provided by City’s SSHCP ITP be extended to the proposed activities. Mitigation Measure 4.2-10 would ensure compliance with applicable SSHCP AMMs related to protection of wetlands.

Based on the above, the proposed project would not conflict with any applicable provisions of the adopted SSHCP, and a less-than-significant impact would occur.

Mitigation Measure(s)
None required.

ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

Cumulative Impacts and Mitigation Measures
As defined in Section 15355 of the CEQA Guidelines, “cumulative impacts” refers to two or more individual effects which, when considered together, are considerable, compound, or increase other environmental impacts. The individual effects may be changes resulting from a single project or a number of separate projects. The cumulative impact from several projects is the change in the environment that results from the incremental impact of the project when added to other closely related past, present, and reasonably foreseeable probable future projects.

For further detail related to the cumulative setting of the proposed project, refer to Chapter 5, Statutorily Required Sections of this EIR.

4.2-14 Cumulative loss of habitat for special-status species. Based on the analysis below and with implementation of mitigation, the impact is less than cumulatively considerable.

Implementation of the proposed project, in combination with other development within the City of Rancho Cordova, would result in a significant cumulative impact related to the loss of special-status species habitat, as well as take of special-status individuals.

The General Plan EIR concluded that buildout of the City’s Planning Area, including the study area, would result in the loss of biological resources in the region, and a significant and unavoidable impact would occur.

As discussed above, development of the proposed project could result in potential impacts to biological resources, including special-status plants, special-status wildlife species, riparian habitat and wetlands, and protected trees. However, all such impacts would be reduced to less-than-significant levels with implementation of the mitigation measures provided herein. Such mitigation measures include compliance with SSHCP requirements and all relevant AMMs set forth in the SSHCP Permit to be obtained for the proposed project. Per Mitigation Measure 4.2-2(a), the project applicant would be responsible for paying all SSHCP development fees associated with obtaining permit coverage from the City of Rancho Cordova. Payment of such fees, along with implementation of the SSHCP AMMs, would ensure that the project applicant provides a fair share contribution towards ongoing implementation of the SSHCP, including land and easement acquisition, monitoring, habitat management, habitat establishment, and funding for an agricultural enhancement program.

Nonetheless, without payment of applicable SSHCP fees and implementation of appropriate measures to avoid impacts to biological resources, the proposed project’s incremental contribution to the significant cumulative impact to biological resources could be cumulatively considerable and significant.

Mitigation Measure(s)
This Chapter contains mitigation measure sufficient to reduce all project-specific impacts to less-than-significant levels. With implementation of such measures, the project’s incremental contribution toward the significant cumulative impact would be less than cumulatively considerable.

4.2-14 Implement Mitigation Measures 4.2-1 through 4.2-11.

ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

4.3 Cultural and Tribal Resources
ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

4.3.1 INTRODUCTION
The Cultural and Tribal Resources chapter of the EIR addresses known historic and prehistoric cultural resources, including tribal cultural resources, in the vicinity of the project area. Cultural resources can be categorized into prehistoric or historic resources. Prehistoric resources are those sites and artifacts associated with indigenous, non-Euroamerican populations, generally prior to contact with people of European descent. Historic resources include structures, features, artifacts, and sites that date from Euroamerican settlement of the region. The chapter summarizes the existing setting with respect to cultural and tribal cultural resources, identifies thresholds of significance, evaluates project impacts to such resources, and sets forth mitigation measures as necessary. Information presented in the chapter is primarily drawn from the Cultural Resources Inventory Report prepared by ECORP Consulting, Inc. (see Appendix E), 1 as well as the City of
Rancho Cordova General Plan2 and the General Plan EIR.
3 4.3.2 EXISTING ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
The Central Valley of California contains a rich cultural resource heritage that includes archeological and historical sites and resources. According to the Rancho Cordova General Plan EIR, as of March 2006, a total of 23 historic resources, eight prehistoric sites, and one prehistoric/historic site were recorded in the City of Rancho Cordova. Given the rich heritage of the area, many archeological and historical sites and resources remain undiscovered.

The 279.3-acre project site contains two single-family residences and associated outbuildings on the southern portion of the site, within parcels 072-0300-002 and -005. An orchard is located within the northeastern portion of the site within and parcel 073-0010-011, and a third singlefamily residence and associated outbuildings are located on APN 072-0300-008. The remainder of the site consists primarily of non-native grasses, with scattered trees located in the vicinity of the existing residences and associated access roads. The site is characterized by moderate rolling hills and flatlands interspersed with seasonal drainage corridors and wetlands. Additionally, Morrison Creek runs northeast to southwest through the project site. The project site is located near the North Douglas Residential development to the south, as well as agricultural land and rural residential areas to the north, west, and east.

The following sections provide further details regarding the prehistoric overview, ethnographic overview, and historic overview of the project area, as well as a description of any identified cultural resources associated with the project site and a discussion of tribal cultural resources.

Prehistoric Overview
A recent summary by Rosenthal et al. of the prehistory of California’s Sacramento Valley, Sacramento–San Joaquin Delta, and San Joaquin Valley is based on a compilation of previous 1 ECORP Consulting, Inc. Cultural Resources Inventory Report. February 5, 2019. 2 City of Rancho Cordova. Rancho Cordova General Plan. June 26, 2006. 3 City of Rancho Cordova. Rancho Cordova General Plan EIR. March 13, 2006.

4.3. CULTURAL AND TRIBAL

RESOURCES
ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

research. As devised by Rosenthal and others, and with the timeframes adjusted for modern calibration curves for radiocarbon dates, the chronological sequence for the Central Valley is:

Paleo-Indian (11500 to 8550 cal [calibrated] B.C.), Lower Archaic (8550 to 5550 cal B.C.), Middle Archaic (5550 to 550 cal B.C.), Upper Archaic (550 cal B.C. to cal A.D. 1100), and Emergent or Late Prehistoric Period (cal A.D. 1100 to Historic Contact).

Paleo-Indian Period
The Paleo-Indian Period began when the first people started to inhabit what is now known as the California culture area. During the Paleo-Indian Period, the first people commonly survived on big game and minimally processed foods, (i.e., hunters and gatherers), presumably without trade networks. More recent research indicates these people may have been more sedentary, relying on processed foods and trade. Populations likely consisted of small groups traveling frequently to access plant and animal resources.

Archaic Period
The Archaic Period was characterized by an increase in plant exploitation for subsistence, more elaborate burial accoutrements, and an increase in trade network complexity. The period includes the three divisions outlined below.

Lower Archaic Period
In the Central Valley, the Lower Archaic Period is mainly represented by isolated finds, as the early landscape was buried by natural alluvial fan and floodplain deposition. Artifacts from this period include chipped stone crescents, early wide-stemmed points, marine shell beads, eastern Nevada obsidian, and obsidian from north Coast Ranges. The artifacts found on sites dating to the Lower Archaic Period indicate that trade was occurring in multiple directions. Communities relied on a variety of plant and animal species, including acorns, wild cucumber, and manzanita berries.

Middle Archaic Period
The Middle Archaic Period is characterized by a drier climate period. Past studies of the Middle Archaic Period have identified two distinct settlement/subsistence patterns: The Foothill Tradition and the Valley Tradition. Functional artifact assemblages consisting primarily of locally sourced flaked stone and groundstone cobbles characterize the Foothill Tradition, while the Valley Tradition was generally characterized by diverse subsistence practices and extended periods of sedentism.

Upper Archaic Period
The Upper Archaic Period is characterized by abrupt change to wetter and cooler environmental climate conditions. Much greater cultural diversity is evident from this period. More specialized artifacts, such as bone tools, ceremonial blades, polished and groundstone plummets, saucers, saddle Olivella shell beads, Haliotis shell ornaments, and a variety of groundstone implements are characteristic of this period.

Emergent Period
The Emergent Period is most notably marked by the introduction of the bow and arrow, the emergence of social stratification linked to wealth, and expansive trade networks. The Augustine pattern (the distinct cultural pattern of the Emergent Period) is characterized by the appearance of small projectile points (largely obsidian), rimmed display mortars, flanged steatite pipes, flanged ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

pestles, and chevron-designed bird-bone tubes. Large mammals and small seeded resources appear to have made up a larger part of the diet during this period.

The Windmiller Pattern of the Early Horizon, dates to the Middle Archaic and may be the most extensively studied of all the cultural patterns defined for the Central Valley. In fact, the similarity noted between elements of Windmiller and materials from other sites may have been the catalyst for early archaeologists identifying the material cultural “blending” of groups in the Central Valley during this period.

Further classification of the Middle Archaic into the Foothill Tradition and Valley Tradition helped to clarify the different types of cultural sequences which occurred during the time periods.

Functional artifact assemblages consisting primarily of locally sourced flaked-stone and groundstone cobbles characterize the Foothills Tradition, with very few trade goods. Sites that represent the Valley Tradition are much fewer in number, and are generally characterized by much more diverse subsistence practices and extended periods of sedentism. Specialized tools, trade goods, and faunal refuse that indicate year-round occupation are evident on sites of the Valley Tradition. Distinct artifacts attributed to this tradition include one of the oldest dated shell bead lots in central California (4160 BP) and a particular type of pestle used with a wooden mortar.

Paleobotanical analysis from sites of the Foothill Tradition confirm that acorns and pine nuts were preferred for subsistence. Sites in the project area associated with the Valley Tradition are rare in the early Middle Archaic but include the Reservation Road site, and two buried sites in the northern Diablo range. Sites associated with later portions of the Middle Archaic (post-2050 cal.

BC) in the project area include elaborate material culture and diverse dietary and technological assemblages.

The next era in the region is identified as the Late Horizon, the Hotchkiss Culture, and the Augustine Pattern. The culture was formed by populations during the later Upper Archaic and Emergent periods, and ranges in age from around 550 cal. BC to contact (dates vary between the different models of prehistory developed for the region). The Upper Archaic, as discussed above, corresponds with the late Holocene change in environmental conditions to a wetter and cooler climate. The Emergent Period and Late Horizon are markedly represented by the introduction of bow-and-arrow technology, as well as more pronounced cultural diversity reflected in burial posturing, artifact styles, and material culture. Cultural patterns for this era are represented in the northern Sacramento Valley, namely within the Whiskeytown Pattern.

Despite the varying designations, this Emergent era is distinguished in the archaeological record by intensive fishing, extensive use of acorns, elaborate ceremonialism, social stratification, and cremation of the dead. Artifacts associated with the defined patterns (Augustine, Emergent, Hotchkiss) include bow-and-arrow technology (evidenced by small projectile points), mortars and pestles, and fish harpoons with unilaterally or bilaterally placed barbs in opposed or staggered positions. Mortuary patterns include flexed burials and cremations, with elaborate material goods found in association with prestigious individuals. A local form of pottery, Cosumnes brown ware, emerged in the lower Sacramento Valley. Sites contain this ceramic type in their artifact assemblage, as well as human animal effigies which are also a marker of this Emergent era around the project area.

Ethnographic Overview
Ethnographically, the project area is in the southwestern portion of the territory occupied by the Penutian-speaking Nisenan. Nisenan inhabited the drainages of the Yuba, Bear, and American ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

rivers, and also the lower reaches of the Feather River, extending from the east banks of the Sacramento River on the west to the mid to high elevations of the western flank of the Sierra Nevada to the east. The territory extended from the area surrounding the current City of Oroville on the north to a few miles south of the American River in the south. The Sacramento River bounded the territory on the west, and in the east, the territory extended to a general area located within a few miles of Lake Tahoe.

Nisenan practiced seasonal migration, a subsistence strategy involving moving from one area or elevation to another to harvest plants, fish, and hunt game across contrasting ecosystems that were in relatively close proximity to each other. Valley Nisenan generally did not range beyond the valley and lower foothills, while foothill and mountain groups ranged across a more extensive area. The area included jointly shared territory whose entry was subject to traditional understandings of priority of ownership and current relations between the groups.

Communally organized Nisenan task groups exploited a wide variety of resources. Communal hunting drives were undertaken to obtain deer, quail, rabbits, and grasshoppers. Bears were hunted in the winter when their hides were at their best condition. Runs of salmon in the spring and fall provided a regular supply of fish, while other fish such as suckers, pike, whitefish, and trout were obtained with snares, fish traps, or with various fish poisons such as soaproot. In addition, birds were caught with nooses or large nets, and were also occasionally shot with bow and arrow.

Like the majority of Native Californians, the Nisenan relied on acorns as a staple food, which were gathered in the fall and stored in granaries for use during the rest of the year. Although acorns were the staple of the Nisenan diet, the Nisenan also harvested roots like wild onion and “Indian potato,” which were eaten raw, steamed, baked, or dried and processed into flour cakes to be stored for winter use. Buckeye, pine nuts, hazelnuts, and other edible nuts further supplemented the diet. Key resources such as acorns, salmon, and deer were ritually managed through ceremonies to facilitate successful exploitation and equitable distribution of resources.

Nisenan groups managed many wild plants, primarily by controlled burning, which removed underbrush and encouraged growth of edible grasses, seed producing plants, and other useful plant resources (e.g., basketry materials). The use of fire for environmental modification and as an aid in hunting is frequently mentioned in the ethnographic literature relating to the Nisenan. In addition to removing underbrush, improving travel conditions, and facilitating plant growth, burning may also have improved areas of deer forage, potentially altering migratory patterns of deer populations by lessening their need to seek fresh forage on a seasonal basis.

The Nisenan experienced early contact with Spanish explorers arriving on the Central Coast of California in 1769. Much of the early contact with the Spanish explorer was limited to the peripheries of Nisenan territory, occurring mainly to the south on the lands of the Miwok, which had been explored by Jose Canizares in 1776, with only ephemeral explorations into Nisenan lands. Nisenan groups are not known to have been removed to missions; however, the Nisenan did receive escapees from the missions as well as pressure of displaced Miwok populations on their southern borders.

In 1833, a deadly epidemic (probably malaria) swept through the Sacramento Valley and had a devastating effect on Nisenan populations. Entire villages were lost, and surviving Nisenan retreated into the hills. An estimated 75 percent of the Nisenan population was wiped out, and only a handful were left to face the gold miners and settlers who were soon to follow. Captain ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

John Sutter settled in Nisenan territory in 1839, and through force and persuasion he coerced most of the remaining Valley Nisenan to be on peaceful terms.

The mountain Nisenan groups encountered Europeans in their territory, but were not adversely affected by the epidemics and early settlers. The discovery of gold, however, led to the Nisenan territory being overrun within a matter of a few years. The 1848 gold discovery was in the middle of Nisenan territory, and thousands of miners were soon living in the area. This dynamic led to widespread killing, destruction, and persecution of the Nisenan and their culture. The few survivors were relegated to working in agriculture, logging, ranching, or domestic pursuits. A native culture resurgence occurred around 1870 with influence from the Ghost Dance revival, but by 1890s the movement had all but ended in dissolution.

A few people still practiced Nisenan customs through the turn of the twenty-first century, but the old ways have been largely lost. Despite the hardships on their people through the past few centuries, many modern Native American populations participate in pan-Indian activities and celebrations. Nisenan descendants continue to be active in social movements and organizations that seek to improve the Native American situation in the dominant America culture.

Historic Overview
The following sections provide an overview of the Spanish, Mexican, and American Periods, as well as local history associated with the project area.

Spanish, Mexican, and American Periods
Post-contact history for the State of California is generally divided into the following three periods:
the Spanish Period from 1769 to1822; the Mexican Period from 1822 to1848; and the American Period from 1848 to present. Although brief visits by Spanish, Russian, and British explorers occurred from 1529 to 1769, the beginning of Spanish settlement in California occurred in 1769 at San Diego. The Spanish and Franciscan Order established 21 missions between 1769 and 1823 along the coast between San Diego and San Francisco. The Spanish expeditions into the Central Valley in 1806 and 1808, led by Lieutenant Gabriel Moraga, explored along the main rivers, including the American, Calaveras, Cosumnes, Feather, Merced, Mokelumne, Sacramento, San Joaquin, and Stanislaus. Moraga is credited with naming the lower Sacramento River and valley region, “Sacramento” (“the Holy Sacrament”). In 1813, Moraga led another expedition in the lower portion of the Central Valley and named the San Joaquin River. The abundance of wildlife, such as waterfowl, fish, and fur-bearing animals, within or along the banks of the rivers attracted immigrants to the Central Valley region. The last Spanish expedition into California’s interior was led by Luis Arguello in 1817 and traveled up the Sacramento River, past the future site of the City of Sacramento to the mouth of the Feather River, before returning to the coast.

After the end of the Mexican Revolution (1810 to 1821), the Mexican Period is marked by extensive land grants, most of which were in the interior of the State, as well as by exploration by American fur trappers west of the Sierra Nevada Mountains. Most of the land grants to Mexican citizens in California (Californios) were in the interior because the Mexican Republic sought to increase the population away from the more settled coastal areas where the Spanish settlements had been concentrated. The largest land grants in the Sacramento Valley were awarded to John Sutter, who had become a Mexican citizen. In 1839, he founded a trading and agricultural empire called New Helvetia that was headquartered at Sutter’s Fort near the divergence of the Sacramento and American rivers in today’s City of Sacramento. Only a small portion of the ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

48,839-acre New Helvetia land grant was located in Sacramento County; the majority was located in today’s Sutter and Yuba counties on the east and west sides of the Feather River.

The first American trapper to enter California, Jedediah Smith, explored along the Sierra Nevada in 1826 and in 1827, entered the Sacramento Valley, traveling along the American and Cosumnes rivers. In 1827, Smith also traveled through the San Joaquin Valley. Other trappers soon followed, including employees of the Hudson’s Bay Company in 1832. Between 1830 and 1833, and again in 1837, diseases introduced by the non-indigenous explorers, trappers, and settlers, as well as relocation to the missions, military raids, and settlement by non-native groups, decimated native Californian populations, communities, and tribes in the Sacramento and San Joaquin valleys.

The end of the Mexican-American war, marked by the signing of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo in 1848, initiated the beginning of the American Period. In the same year, gold was discovered at Sutter’s Mill on the American River in Coloma, and by 1849, nearly 90,000 people had journeyed to the gold fields. California became the 31st state in 1850, largely as a result of the Gold Rush, and in 1854, Sacramento became the State capital. In contrast to the economic prosperity and population growth associated with statehood, the loss of land and territory, including traditional hunting and gathering locales, as well as malnutrition, starvation, and violence, further contributed to the decline of indigenous Californians in the Central Valley and along the Sierra Nevada foothills.

Local History
The City of Rancho Cordova was incorporated in July 2003 with the desire for local government control over land uses and services. The City is centrally located in the Sacramento region with a strong workforce and growing population. The project area is located in the southeastern part of the 35,500-acre Rancho Rio de los Americanos land grant, issued by Manuel Micheltorena, the Mexican Governor of Alta California, to William Alexander Leidesdorff in October 1844.

Leidesdorff acquired land for herding cattle on the bank of the American River. Following the death of Leidesdorff in 1848, his land was bought by Joseph Libby Folsom for $75,000. Folsom founded the town of Granite City on the land grant before the town was eventually renamed to Folsom after his death in 1855.

Later, the Natoma Water and Mining Company purchased more than 9,000 acres of the Rancho Rio de los Americanos land grant in 1857. At this point, with Mr. Folsom being deceased, the property was handled by Mr. Folsom’s executors, a Mr. Halleck, and others. In 1857 the Surveyor General of the United States, John Coffee “Jack” Hays, ordered that the grant be surveyed, and the boundaries established. This survey, known as the Hays survey, was submitted to the Land Office in Washington for a patent. Disagreements within the Land Office over the survey results led to a second survey, known as the Mandeville survey, in 1858. In 1860, a legal battle ensued over which survey boundary was correct with the court upholding the boundaries of the Hays survey. Three years later an appeal was approved challenging the earlier ruling and upholding the Mandeville survey. The area owned by the Natomas Company (north of the project area) was later used for dredge mining and this area is now covered by dredge mining tailings.

Grant Line Road is a secondary road which, for much of its length, follows the boundaries of the Rancho Omochumnes and Rancho Rio de los Americanos Mexican land grants. The Rancho Omochumnes land grant is located south of the project area, containing more than 18,000 acres.

The land was centered around the modern town of Wilton and along the south bank of the Cosumnes River. The portion of Grant Line Road that stretches from Jackson Road to Kiefer ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

Boulevard follows the northwestern boundary of the Rancho Omochumnes land grant. Grant Line Road follows this eastern boundary of the land grant for a short distance diagonally to the northeast until the road merges with the meandering White Rock Road. The precise date of construction of Grant Line Road is unclear, but unlabeled roads that appear to follow a similar alignment are partially present on the 1891 USGS Sacramento 1:125,000 scale topographical map.

Known Historic Resources
Archival research was carried out as part of the Cultural Resources Inventory Report prepared for the proposed project by ECORP Consulting, Inc., including review of available historic documents and a records search. On October 11, 2018, ECORP conducted a records search of the North Central Information Center (NCIC) of the California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS) at California State University, Sacramento. In addition, ECORP conducted a field survey of the project area on October 15 and 16, 2018. As shown in Figure 4.3-1, the field survey covered an approximately 99.37-acre Area of Potential Effects (APE). The APE does not include the northern portion of the project site, which would not be developed as part of the proposed project. In addition, the APE for the field survey does not include the off-site improvements areas associated with the project. However, the off-site improvement areas were included in the records search conducted by ECORP.

The records search determined that 13 cultural resource investigations have been conducted within 0.5-mile of the APE between 1982 and 2016, covering approximately 50 percent of the total area surrounding the APE within the record search radius. A total of three previously recorded historic-period cultural resources are located within 0.5-mile of the APE, consisting of the American River Mining District (P-34-335, CA-SAC-308), the Douglas Missile Test Facility (P-34- 4137), and a historic dredge tailing landscape (P-34-4143). The American River Placer Mining District encompasses the APE; however, features associated with the district have not been identified within the APE. The remaining two resources (P-34-4137 and P-34-4143) are not located within the APE and, thus, are not discussed further. According to the Cultural Resources Inventory Report, the field survey did not find any previously recorded or new cultural resources within the APE.

American River Placer Mining District
The American River Placer Mining District (P-34-335) is considered a “Super District” that includes districts such as the Alder Creek Corridor Mining District, Prairie Diggings Mining District, and others which were originally grouped together arbitrarily to ensure proper consideration during a pulse of development in the region. The American River Placer Mining District includes thousands of acres of land that were subject to mining by hand and mechanical methods. The District also includes mining camps, established towns, cemeteries, tunnels, adits, water diversion systems, pump plant remains, and other features associated with dredging.

The American River Placer Mining District is referred to informally as a “paper district,” meaning that the designation as a “district” does not necessarily meet the technical or regulatory definition of the term. In addition, the American River Placer Mining District boundaries are arbitrarily set, encompassing an area approximately 15 miles long and 11 miles wide.

ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

Figure 4.3-1
Survey Coverage and Area of Potential Effect
Source: ECORP Consulting, Inc., 2019
ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

Tribal Cultural Resources
Based on a search of the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) Sacred Lands File (SLF), as described in further detail in the Method of Analysis section below, recorded Native American sacred sites or traditional cultural properties are not known to exist within the project site.

4.3.3 REGULATORY CONTEXT
Federal, State, and local governments have developed laws and regulations designed to protect significant cultural resources that may be affected by actions that they undertake or regulate. The following section contains a summary of basic federal, State, and local regulations governing preservation of historic and archaeological resources of national, regional, State, and local significance.

Federal Regulations
The following are the federal environmental laws and policies relevant to cultural resources.

National Historical Preservation Act of 1966
Federal regulations for cultural resources are governed primarily by Section 106 of the National Historical Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966. Section 106 of the NHPA requires Federal agencies to take into account the effects of their undertakings on historic properties and affords the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation a reasonable opportunity to comment on such undertakings. The Council’s implementing regulations, “Protection of Historic Properties,” are found in 36 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 800. The goal of the Section 106 review process is to offer a measure of protection to sites, which are determined eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). The criteria for determining NRHP eligibility are found in 36 CFR Part

60. Amendments to the Act (1986 and 1992) and subsequent revisions to the implementing regulations have, among other things, strengthened the provisions for Native American consultation and participation in the Section 106 review process. While federal agencies must follow federal regulations, most projects by private developers and landowners do not require this level of compliance. Federal regulations only come into play in the private sector if a project requires a federal permit or uses federal funding.

National Register of Historic Places
NRHP is the nation’s master inventory of known historic resources. The NRHP includes listings of resources, including: buildings, structures, sites, objects, and districts that possess historic, architectural, engineering, archaeological, or cultural significance at the national, State, or local level. Resources over 50 years of age may be listed on the NRHP. However, properties under 50 years of age that are of exceptional significance or are contributors to a district may also be included on the NRHP. Four criteria are used to determine if a potential resource may be considered significant and eligible for listing on the NRHP. Potentially eligible resources include resources that:

A. Are associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of history; or
B. Are associated with the lives of persons significant in our past; or C. Embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or that represent the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or that represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction; or ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

D. Have yielded or may likely yield information important in prehistory or history.

A resource can be individually eligible for listing on the NRHP under any of the above four criteria, or can be listed as contributing to a group of resources that are listed on the NRHP.

A resource can be considered significant in American history, architecture, archaeology, engineering, or culture. Once a resource has been identified as significant and potentially eligible for the NRHP, the resource’s historic integrity must be evaluated. Integrity is a function of seven factors: location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association. The factors closely relate to the resource’s significance and must be intact for NRHP eligibility.

Historical buildings, structures, and objects are usually eligible under Criteria A, B, and C based on historical research and architectural or engineering characteristics. Archaeological sites are usually eligible under Criterion D, the potential to yield information important in prehistory or history. An archaeological test program may be necessary to determine whether the site has the potential to yield important data. The lead federal agency makes the determination of eligibility based on the results of the test program and seeks concurrence from the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO).

Effects to NRHP-eligible resources (historic properties) are adverse if the project may alter, directly or indirectly, any of the characteristics of an historic property that qualify the property for inclusion in the National Register in a manner that would diminish the integrity of the property’s location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, or association.

State Regulations
The following are the State environmental laws and policies relevant to cultural resources.

California Environmental Quality Act and California Register of Historic Places
State historic preservation regulations affecting this project include the statutes and guidelines contained in CEQA (Public Resources Code [PRC] Sections 21083.2 and 21084.1 and sections 15064.5 and 15126.4 (b) of the CEQA Guidelines). CEQA requires lead agencies to consider the potential effects of a project on historic resources and unique archaeological resources. A “historic resource” includes, but is not limited to, any object, building, structure, site, area, place, record or manuscript that is historically or archaeologically significant (PRC Section 5020.1). Under Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines, a resource is considered “historically significant” if one or more of the following California Register of Historic Resources (CRHR) criteria have been met:

1. The resource is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California history;

2. The resource is associated with the lives of important persons from our past;

3. The resource embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region or method of construction, or represents the work of an important creative individual or possesses high artistic values; or

4. The resource has yielded, or may be likely to yield, important information in prehistory or history.

In addition, the resource must retain integrity. Cultural resources determined eligible for the NRHP by a federal agency are automatically eligible for the CRHR.

ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

CEQA requires preparation of an EIR if a proposed project would cause a “substantial adverse change” in the significance of a historical resource. A “substantial adverse change” would occur if a proposed project would result in physical demolition, destruction, relocation, or alteration of the resource or its immediate surroundings such that the significance of a historical resource would be materially impaired (CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5[b][1]).

In addition to historically significant resources, which can include archeological resources that meet the criteria listed above, CEQA also requires consideration of “unique archaeological resources.” If a site meets the definition of a unique archaeological resource, the site must be treated in accordance with the provisions of PRC Section 21083.2. Under PRC Section 20183.2(g), an archaeological resource is considered “unique” if it:
1) Is associated with an event or person of recognized significance in California or American history or recognized scientific importance in prehistory; 2) Can provide information that is of demonstrable public interest and is useful in addressing scientifically consequential and reasonable research questions; 3) Has a special kind or particular quality such as oldest, best example, largest, or last surviving example of its kind;
4) Is at least 100 years old and possesses substantial stratigraphic integrity; or 5) Involves important research questions that can be answered only with archaeological methods.

CEQA also includes specific guidance regarding the accidental discovery of human remains.

Specifically, CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(e) requires that if human remains are uncovered, excavation activities must be stopped and that the county coroner be contacted. If the county coroner determines that the remains are Native American, the coroner must contact the NAHC within 24 hours. The NAHC identifies the most likely descendant, and that individual or individuals can make recommendations for treatment of the human remains under the procedures set forth in Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines.

The SHPO maintains the CRHR. Properties that are listed on the NRHP are automatically listed on the CRHR, along with State Landmarks and Points of Interest. The CRHR can also include properties designated under local ordinances or identified through local historical resource surveys.

Assembly Bill 52
Assembly Bill (AB) 52 adds tribal cultural resources to the categories of cultural resources in CEQA, which had formerly been limited to historic, archaeological, and paleontological resources. “Tribal cultural resources” are defined as either:
(1) Sites, features, places, cultural landscapes, sacred places, and objects with cultural value to a California Native American tribe that are either of the following:
(A) Included or determined to be eligible for inclusion in the California Register of Historical Resources.
(B) Included in a local register of historical resources as defined in subdivision (k) of Section 5020.1.
(2) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Section 5024.1 for the ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

purposes of this paragraph, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe.

Under AB 52, a project that may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a Tribal Cultural Resource is defined as a project that may have a significant effect on the environment.

Where a project may have a significant impact on a tribal cultural resource, the lead agency’s environmental document must discuss the impact and whether feasible alternatives or mitigation measures could avoid or substantially lessen the impact. AB 52 (PRC 21080.3.1) requires lead agencies to provide notice to tribes that are traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographic area of a proposed project if they have requested notice of projects proposed within that area. If the tribe(s) requests consultation within 30 days upon receipt of the notice, the lead agency must consult with the tribe(s). Consultation may include discussing the type of environmental review necessary, the significance of tribal cultural resources, the significance of the project’s impacts on the tribal cultural resources, and alternatives and mitigation measures recommended by the tribe(s).

Senate Bill 18
SB 18, authored by Senator John Burton and signed into law by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger in September 2004, requires local (city and county) governments to consult with California Native American tribes, when amending or adopting a general plan or specific plan, or designating land as open space, in order to aid in the protection of traditional tribal cultural places (“cultural places”). The intent of SB 18 is to provide California Native American tribes an opportunity to participate in local land use decisions at an early planning stage, for the purpose of protecting, or mitigating impacts to, cultural places. The consultation and notice requirements apply to adoption and amendment of both general plans (defined in Government Code Section 65300 et seq.) and specific plans (defined in Government Code Section 65450 et seq.). The proposed project includes a General Plan Amendment, and, thus, is subject to SB 18 consultation requirements.

Local Regulations
The following are the local environmental laws and policies relevant to cultural resources.

City of Rancho Cordova General Plan
Goals and policies from the City’s General Plan related to cultural resources are presented below.

Goal CHR.1: Identify and preserve the history of Rancho Cordova for future generations.

Policy CHR.1.3 Establish review procedures for development projects that recognize the history of the area in conjunction with State and federal laws.

South Sacramento Habitat Conservation Plan
The South Sacramento Habitat Conservation Plan (SSHCP) is intended to streamline federal and State permitting processes for SSHCP-covered development and infrastructure projects while protecting habitat, open space and agricultural lands.4 The SSHCP plan area encompasses 317,656 acres that are bordered by US. Route 50 (US 50) on the north, San Joaquin County on 4 South Sacramento Habitat Conservation Plan. What is the South Sacramento HCP? Available at:
https://www.southsachcp.com/. Accessed July 2019.

ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

the south, El Dorado County and Amador County to the east, and the Sacramento River to the west, including Galt and most of Rancho Cordova. The Rancho Cordova City Council adopted the SSHCP on October 15, 2018.

The SSHCP includes a specific process for permit applications which outlines requirements that must be satisfied by a project proponent prior to receiving permit coverage. A project proponent of a ground-disturbing activity, including habitat re-establishment or establishment in the Preserve System, must ensure that cultural resources potentially occurring in these areas are properly evaluated and protected. Per Section 10.4.2.7 of the SSHCP, permit applications are required to include a description of how the project complies with requirements for protection of cultural resources and tribal consultation.

4.3.4 IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
The following section describes the standards of significance and methodology used to analyze and determine the proposed project’s potential impacts related to cultural and tribal cultural resources. In addition, a discussion of the project’s impacts, as well as mitigation measures where necessary, is also presented.

Standards of Significance
Consistent with Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, an impact related to cultural or tribal cultural resources is considered significant if the proposed project would:
• Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to CEQA Guidelines, Section 15064.5;
• Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a unique archaeological resource pursuant to CEQA Guidelines, Section 15064.5;
• Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of dedicated cemeteries; and/or
• Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource as defined in PRC, Section 21074.

Method of Analysis
The analysis presented within this chapter is based primarily on the Cultural Resources Inventory Report prepared for the proposed project. The Cultural Resources Inventory Report included a cultural resources literature search, archival research, consultation with the NAHC, and a field survey. The methods of analysis are described in further detail below, along with a discussion of the tribal consultation efforts conducted by the City pursuant to AB 52 and SB 18.

Records Search Methods
A cultural resources records search for the project area was completed at the NCIC of the CHRIS at California State University, Sacramento, on October 11, 2018. The records search was conducted to determine the extent of previous surveys within 0.5-mile radius of the proposed project location, and whether previously documented pre-contact or historic archaeological sites, architectural resources, or traditional cultural properties exist within the area. The archival searches of the archaeological and historical records, national and State databases, and historic maps included the following:

ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

• California Register of Historical Resources;
• National Register Information System website;
• Historic Property Data File (HPDF) for Sacramento County (OHP 2012); • California Inventory of Historical Resources (National Park Service 2018); • Office of Historic Preservation, California Historical Landmarks website (OHP 2018); • California Historical Landmarks (OHP 1996 and updates); • California Points of Historical Interest (OHP 1992 and updates); • Directory of Properties in the Historical Resources Inventory (1999); • Caltrans Local and State Bridge Surveys (Caltrans 2018a and 2018b); and • Historic Spots in California (Kyle 2002).

Other Cultural Archival Sources
ECORP searched the land patent records maintained by the Bureau of Land Management and reviewed historical maps and aerial photographs that were not available at the NCIC. The results of the reviews of historic maps and aerial photographs have been incorporated into the Local History section above. The following historic maps and aerial photographs were reviewed:
• 1856 GLO Plat for Township 8 North, Range 7 East;
• 1885 Official Map of Sacramento County;
• 1892 and 1929 USGS California, Sacramento Sheet (1:125,000); • 1908 and 1916 USGS Buffalo Creek, California (scale 1:31,680); • 1954 and 1967 USGS Buffalo Creek, California (7.5-minute); and • 1967 photo revised 1980 USGS Buffalo Creek, California (7.5-minute).

In addition, ECORP contacted the NAHC on October 16, 2018 to request a search of the SLF to determine whether known tribal cultural resources are located within or near the project area. The SLF is populated by members of the Native American community who have knowledge about the locations of tribal resources. In requesting a search of the SLF, ECORP solicited information from the Native American community regarding tribal cultural resources; however, the responsibility to formally consult with the Native American community lies exclusively with the federal and local agencies under applicable State and federal law. A discussion of formal tribal outreach efforts conducted by the City pursuant to AB 52 and SB 18 is provided below.

Field Survey Methods
On October 15 and 16, 2018, ECORP subjected the project APE to an intensive-level pedestrian survey using transects spaced at 15 meters. The entirety of the visible ground surface within the project area was examined for indications of surface or subsurface cultural resources, such as circular depressions or ditches. Whenever possible, the locations of subsurface exposures caused by such factors as rodent activity, water or soil erosion, or vegetation disturbances were examined for artifacts or for indications of buried deposits. Subsurface investigations or artifact collections were not undertaken during the pedestrian survey.

Native American Tribal Consultation
In compliance with AB 52 (PRC Section 21080.3.1) and SB 18, project notification letters were distributed to the appropriate tribes in the project area. On October 29, 2019, the City sent AB 52 letters with offers to consult to the following tribes: Buena Vista Rancheria of Me-Wuk Indians, Colfax-Todds Valley Consolidated Tribe, Ione Band of Miwok Indians, Nashville Enterprise Miwok-Maidu-Nishinam Tribe, Shingle Springs Band of Miwok Indians, Tsi Akim Maidu, United ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

Auburn Indian Community of the Auburn Rancheria, and the Wilton Rancheria. The City received a response from the Wilton Rancheria on November 19, 2019, requesting formal consultation under AB 52 and to observe and participate in all cultural resource surveys, including initial pedestrian surveys for the project. Wilton Rancheria also requested copies of all environmental documentation for the proposed project related to cultural resources.

Project-Specific Impacts and Mitigation Measures
The following discussion of impacts is based on implementation of the proposed project in comparison with the standards of significance identified above.

4.3-1 Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to CEQA Guidelines, Section 15064.5. Based on the analysis below, the impact is less than significant.

The proposed project would include subdivision of the project site to develop a total of 440 single-family lots and various associated improvements including, but not limited to, parks, open space areas, landscaping, circulation improvements, and utility installation. The proposed project would also include the demolition of existing on-site residences and associated outbuildings. However, in order to determine whether the residences and associated outbuildings are considered historically significant, the structures were evaluated using the NRHP and the CRHR eligibility criteria. In order to be listed on the NRHP or CRHR, the resource must be at least 50 years old, except in exceptional circumstances. The existing buildings to be demolished are less than 50 years old. Given that the existing structures are less than 50 years old, the existing structures within the site would not be considered eligible for listing under the NRHP or CRHR. In addition, according to the Cultural Resources Inventory Report, previously recorded or new cultural resources were not identified within the project site. Thus, the proposed project would not result in a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource.

As part of the Cultural Resources Report, ECORP requested a records search of the CHRIS. The CHRIS search results indicate that boundaries of the American River Placer Mining District encompass the project’s APE. Past studies have recommended that the American River Placer Mining District be considered eligible for the NRHP or the CRHR. An inquiry was made as to whether the California SHPO concurs with this eligibility finding; however, evidence of concurrence has not been found to date.

Nevertheless, for the purposes of this analysis, the American River Placer Mining District is considered eligible for the NRHP and CRHR. However, physical features of the American River Placer Mining District do not exist within the project APE.

Therefore, the proposed project would not alter, directly or indirectly, the integrity of any characteristics of the American River Placer Mining District that make the resource significant. As such, the proposed project would not result in a substantial adverse change in the significance of the American River Placer Mining District.

Based on the above, the existing structures on the project site would not be considered eligible for listing under the NRHP or CRHR. In addition, the proposed project would not adversely affect the historical significance of the American River Placer Mining District, which encompasses the project APE. Therefore, the proposed project would ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

not result in a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to CEQA Guidelines, Section 15064.5, and a less-than-significant impact would occur.

Mitigation Measure(s)
None required.

4.3-2 Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a unique archeological resource pursuant to CEQA Guidelines, Section 15064.5 or disturb human remains, including those interred outside of dedicated cemeteries. Based on the
analysis below and with implementation of mitigation, the impact is less than significant.

As part of the cultural resource investigation of the project site, ECORP conducted a pedestrian field survey, which did not reveal any evidence of archaeological resources.

Given the project site’s history of disturbance through agricultural use, as well as the grading and construction of roadways and residences in the area, the potential for buried archeological deposits to occur in the sediments underlying the project site is low. However, due to the presence of alluvium along Morrison Creek, and the likelihood of pre-contact archaeological sites to be located along waterways, the potential exists for previously unknown archaeological resources to exist in the project area.

In addition, the project area is in the southwestern portion of the territory once occupied by the Penutian-speaking Nisenan. While field surveys conducted by ECORP did not detect human remains, cultural sites, or artifacts of ceremonial significance within the project site, the potential for human remains to be discovered during construction cannot be eliminated due to the known prehistoric occupation of the project area by Native American tribes.

Although archeological resources have not been identified on the project site and, due to past ground disturbance, are not anticipated to occur, the possibility exists that previously unknown resources could be discovered within the project site or off-site improvement areas during construction activities. Therefore, construction activities associated with buildout of the proposed project, including off-site improvements, could uncover undocumented archaeological resources and/or human remains. As such, the proposed project could cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a unique archeological resource pursuant to CEQA Guidelines, Section 15064.5 or disturb human remains, including those interred outside of dedicated cemeteries, and a significant impact could occur.

Mitigation Measure(s)
Implementation of the following mitigation measure would reduce the above impact to a less-than-significant level.

4.3-2 The following requirements shall be included through a notation on all project improvement plans prior to the issuance of grading permits, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.

ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

In the event subsurface deposits believed to be cultural or human in origin are discovered during construction, all work shall halt within a 50-foot radius of the discovery. A qualified professional archaeologist, meeting the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards for precontact and historic archaeologist, shall be retained to evaluate the significance of the find, and shall have the authority to modify the no-work radius as appropriate, using professional judgment. The following notifications shall apply, depending on the nature of the find:
• If the professional archaeologist determines that the find does not represent a cultural resource, work may resume immediately, and agency notifications are not required.
• If the professional archaeologist determines that the find does represent a cultural resource from any time period or cultural affiliation, he or she shall immediately notify the City of Rancho Cordova and applicable landowner. The project applicant shall consult on a finding of eligibility and implement appropriate treatment measures, if the find is determined to be a Historical Resource under CEQA, as defined in Section 15064.5(a) of the CEQA Guidelines. Appropriate treatment measures that preserve or restore the character and integrity of a find may be, but are not limited to, processing materials for reburial, minimizing handling of historical objects, leaving objects in place within the landscape, construction monitoring of further construction activities, and/or returning objects to a location within the project area where they will not be subject to future impacts. Work shall not resume within the no-work radius until the applicant, through consultation, as appropriate, determines that the site either: 1) is not a historical resource under CEQA, as defined in Section 15064.5(a) of the CEQA Guidelines; or 2) that the treatment measures have been completed to the City’s satisfaction.
• If the find includes human remains, or remains that are potentially human, he or she shall ensure reasonable protection measures are taken to protect the discovery from disturbance (Assembly Bill [AB] 2641). The archaeologist shall notify the City of Rancho Cordova and the Sacramento County Coroner (per Section 7050.5 of the Health and Safety Code). The provisions of Section 7050.5 of the California Health and Safety Code, Section 5097.98 of the California PRC, and AB 2641 shall be implemented. If the Coroner determines the remains are Native American and not the result of a crime scene, the Coroner shall notify the NAHC, which then shall designate a Native American Most Likely Descendant (MLD) for the proposed project (Section 5097.98 of the PRC). The designated MLD shall have 48 hours from the time access to the property is granted to make recommendations concerning treatment of the remains. If the landowner does not agree with the
recommendations of the MLD, the NAHC shall mediate (Section 5097.94 of the PRC). If an agreement is not reached, the landowner shall rebury the remains where they shall not be further disturbed ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

(Section 5097.98 of the PRC). The burial shall also include either recording the site with the NAHC or the appropriate information center, using an open space or conservation zoning designation or easement, or recording a reinternment document with Sacramento County (AB 2641). Work shall not resume within the no-work radius until the City, through consultation as appropriate, determines that the treatment measures have been completed to their satisfaction.

4.3-3 Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource as defined in PRC Section 21074.

Based on the analysis below and with implementation of
mitigation, the impact is less than significant.

As part of AB 52 and SB 18 requirements, the City sent project notification letters with offers to consult to the necessary tribes in the project area on October 29, 2019. The City received a response from the Wilton Rancheria requesting formal consultation to observe and participate in all cultural resource surveys, including initial pedestrian surveys for the project. Wilton Rancheria also requested copies of all environmental documentation for the proposed project related to cultural resources.

As noted previously, records searches of the NAHC SLF did not indicate the presence of tribal cultural resources within the project site or the off-site improvement areas.

Considering the results of the literature search and the prehistory and history of the area, the project site was determined by ECORP to have a low probability for prehistoric or historic cultural resources, which would include tribal cultural resources.

Nonetheless, even though the likelihood is low, the possibility still exists that buried tribal cultural resources associated with local tribes could occur in the project site and the off-site improvement areas. Thus, ground-disturbing activities associated with the proposed project could cause a substantial change in the significance of a Tribal Cultural Resource as defined in PRC Section 21074, and a significant impact could occur.

Mitigation Measure(s)
Implementation of the following mitigation measures would reduce the above impact to a less-than-significant level.

4.3-3(a) Implement Mitigation Measures 4.3-2.

4.3-3(b) Prior to initiation of ground-disturbing activities associated with the proposed project, a consultant and construction worker tribal cultural resources awareness brochure and training program for all personnel involved in project implementation shall be developed in coordination with interested Native American Tribes. The brochure shall be distributed and the training shall be conducted in coordination with qualified cultural resources specialists and Native American Representatives and Monitors from culturally affiliated Native American Tribes before any stages of project implementation and construction activities begin on the project site.

The program shall include relevant information regarding sensitive tribal cultural resources, including applicable regulations, protocols for ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

avoidance, and consequences of violating State laws and regulations. The worker cultural resources awareness program shall also describe appropriate avoidance and minimization measures for resources that have the potential to be located on the project site and shall outline what to do and whom to contact if any potential tribal cultural resources are encountered. The program shall also underscore the requirement for confidentiality and culturally-appropriate treatment of any find of significance to Native Americans and behaviors, consistent with Native American Tribal values. Documentation of the brochure and training program (i.e., a sign-in sheet) shall be submitted along with all applicable reports to the City’s Community Development Department.

4.3-3(c) Prior to the start of ground-disturbing activities associated with the proposed project, the project applicant and construction contractor(s) shall implement the following measures to minimize the potential for destruction of or damage to existing or previously undiscovered burials, archaeological, and tribal cultural resources and to identify any such resources at the earliest possible time during project-related earthmoving activities:
• Native American monitors from culturally affiliated Native American Tribes shall be invited to monitor the vegetation grubbing, stripping, grading or other ground-disturbing activities in the project area to determine the presence or absence of any cultural resources.

Native American representatives from cultural affiliated Native American Tribes act as a representative of their Tribal government and shall be consulted before any ground-disturbing activities begin.
• Native American representatives and Native American monitors have the authority to identify sites or objects of significance to Native Americans and to request that work be stopped, diverted or slowed if such sites or objects are identified within the direct impact area. Only a Native American representative shall recommend appropriate treatment of such sites or objects.

Compliance with the aforementioned measures shall be documented and submitted with applicable reports to the City’s Community Development Department.

4.3-3(d) Develop a standard operating procedure, points of contact, timeline and schedule for the project so all possible damages can be avoided or alternatives and cumulative impacts properly accessed.

If potential tribal cultural resources, archaeological resources, other cultural resources, articulated, or disarticulated human remains are discovered by Native American Representatives or Monitors from interested Native American Tribes, qualified cultural resources specialists or other project personnel during construction activities, work shall cease in the immediate vicinity of the find (based on the apparent distribution of cultural resources), whether or not a Native American Monitor from an interested Native American Tribe is present. A qualified cultural resources specialist and ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

Native American Representatives and Monitors from culturally affiliated Native American Tribes shall assess the significance of the find and make recommendations for further evaluation and treatment as necessary.

These recommendations shall be documented in the project record.

If adverse impacts to tribal cultural resources, unique archeology, or other cultural resources occurs, then consultation with Wilton Rancheria regarding mitigation contained in the Public Resources Code Sections 21084.3(a) and (b) and CEQA Guidelines Section 15370 shall occur, in order to coordinate for compensation for the impact by replacing or providing substitute resources or environments.

Cumulative Impacts and Mitigation Measures
As defined in Section 15355 of the CEQA Guidelines, “cumulative impacts” refers to two or more individual effects which, when considered together, are considerable, compound, or increase other environmental impacts. The individual effects may be changes resulting from a single project or a number of separate projects. The cumulative impact from several projects is the change in the environment that results from the incremental impact of the project when added to other closely related past, present, and reasonably foreseeable probable future projects.

4.3-4 Cause a cumulative loss of cultural resources. Based on the analysis below, the cumulative impact is less than significant.

Generally, while some cultural resources may have regional significance, the resources themselves are site-specific, and impacts to them are project-specific. For example, impacts to a subsurface archeological find at one project site would not generally be made worse by impacts to a cultural resource at another site due to development of another project. Rather, the resources and the effects upon them are generally independent. A possible exception to the aforementioned general conditions would be where a cultural resource represents the last known example of its kind or is part of larger cultural resources such as a single building along an intact historic Main Street. For such a resource, cumulative impacts, and the contribution of a project to them, may be considered cumulatively significant.

As described throughout this Chapter, the project site is included within the American River Placer Mining District, which is considered eligible for listing in the NRHP and CRHR; however, because physical features of the American River Placer Mining District are not present within the project site, the proposed development would not result in adverse effects to the historical significance of the District. Furthermore, implementation of the project-specific mitigation measures set forth in this chapter (Mitigation Measures 4.3-2 and 4.3-3[a] through 4.3-3[c]) would ensure that potential impacts related to disturbance of unknown cultural or tribal cultural resources within the site are reduced to less-than-significant levels.

Similar to the proposed project, future development projects within the City would be required to implement project-specific mitigation to ensure any potential impacts to identified cultural resources are reduced to a less-than-significant levels. For example, General Plan Action CHR.1.3.1 requires historic resources and paleontological studies for all applicable discretionary projects, in accordance with CEQA. In addition, General ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

Plan Action CHR.1.3.2 requires that the Community Development Department be notified immediately if any cultural resources or human remains are uncovered during construction, with all construction in the vicinity of the find ceasing immediately and appropriate steps taken subsequent to the find to determine next steps. Given that cultural resource impacts are generally site-specific and each future project within the City would be required to adhere to City policies, any potential impacts associated with cumulative buildout of the planning area would not combine to result in a significant cumulative impact.

Based on the above information, implementation of the aforementioned mitigation measures would reduce all project-specific impacts to less-than-significant levels, and the potential for impacts related to a cumulative loss of cultural resources, to which implementation of the proposed project might contribute, would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measure(s)
None required.

ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

4.4 Geology and Soils/Mineral
Resources
ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

4.4.1 INTRODUCTION
The Geology and Soils/Mineral Resources chapter of this EIR describes the geologic and soil characteristics of the project site and evaluates the extent to which implementation of the proposed project could be affected by unstable earth conditions and various geologic and geomorphic hazards. In addition, the chapter evaluates known mineral resources on the project site, any potential adverse effects of the proposed project on the availability of such resources, and any adverse impacts on paleontological resources.

Information presented within this chapter is primarily drawn from a Geology and Soils Report prepared by Youngdahl Consulting Group, Inc. and peer reviewed by Geocon Consultants, Inc. (see Appendix F),1 the City of Rancho Cordova General Plan,2 and the associated EIR. 3 4.4.2 EXISTING ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
Background setting information regarding the geology and soils, seismicity, mineral resources, and paleontological resources associated with the project site and the surrounding region is provided below.

Regional Setting
The project site is located within the Sacramento Valley, which, together with the San Joaquin Valley, comprises the Great Valley geomorphic province. The Great Valley is a forearc basin composed of thousands of feet of sedimentary deposits that has undergone periods of subsidence and uplift over millions of years. The Great Valley basin began to form during the Jurassic period as the Pacific oceanic plate was subducted underneath the adjacent North American continental plate. The subduction zone and associated trench shifted 80 miles seaward to the present location of the Coast Ranges, and a new trench formed offshore; buckling at the edge of the new continent creating a forearc basin. In the western portion of the Great Valley, Upper Jurassic to Upper Cretaceous rock sequences rest on Upper Jurassic oceanic crust sequences. In contrast, the eastern portion of the Great Valley is composed of shallow Pleistocene nonmarine deposits over a layer of Cretaceous marine/deltaic deposits, which rests on the metamorphic and igneous rocks of the Sierra Nevada, which is the western edge of the continental margin.

During the Jurassic and Cretaceous periods of the Mesozoic era, the Great Valley existed as a marine depositional environment. By the end of the Mesozoic, the northern portion of the Great Valley began to fill with considerable gigantic debris as tectonic forces caused uplift of the basin.

Several formations were deposited during the Cenozoic Era, including but not limited to, the Ione Formation at the edge of inland sea, the Mehrten Formation and the Laguna Formation in the Sacramento Valley, and the Modesto Formation near stream channels. In the Holocene era, after 1 Youngdahl Consulting Group, Inc. Geology and Soils for The Preserve. June 2019.

Geocon Consultants, Inc. Subject: The Preserve, Grant Line Road and Raymer Way, Rancho Cordova, California.

Geotechnical Peer Review. March 24, 2020. 2 City of Rancho Cordova. Rancho Cordova General Plan. Adopted June 26, 2006. 3 City of Rancho Cordova. Ranch Cordova General Plan Environmental Impact Report. June 2006.

4.4 GEOLOGY AND SOILS/

MINERAL RESOURCES
ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

the last glaciation, stream flows dropped and streams became undersized compared to the valleys, with alluvium consisting of unconsolidated gravel, sand, silt, and clay, deposited along stream channels.

Most of the surface of the Great Valley is covered with Holocene and Pleistocene-age alluvium.

The alluvium is composed of sediments from the Sierra Nevada to the east and the Coast Range to the west, which were carried by water and deposited on the valley floor. Siltstone, claystone, and sandstone are the primary types of sedimentary deposits.

Regional Seismicity
A fault is defined as a fracture or zone of closely associated fractures along which rocks on one side have been displaced with respect to those on the other side. A fault zone is a zone of related faults that is commonly braided and subparallel, but may be branching or divergent. Movement within a fault causes an earthquake. When movement occurs along a fault, the energy generated is released as waves that cause ground shaking. Ground shaking intensity varies with the magnitude of the earthquake, the distance from the epicenter, and the type of rock or sediment through which the seismic waves move.

The potential risk of fault rupture is based on the concept of recency and recurrence. The more recently a particular fault has ruptured, the more likely the fault would rupture again. The California Geological Survey defines an “active fault” as one that has had surface displacement within the past 11,000 years (Holocene). Potentially active faults are defined as those that have ruptured between 11,000 and 1.6 million years before the present (Quaternary). Faults are generally considered inactive if evidence of displacement is not present during the Quaternary. The Midland Fault and the Bear Mountain Fault Zones, considered the faults of greatest concern in Sacramento County due to their location and size, are older than 1.6 million years old.

The Foothills fault system is anticipated to have the greatest potential impact. The California Geologic Survey (CGS) identifies low, medium, and high severity earthquake zones within California. The General Plan places the City in Seismic Zone 3, which is an area that can expect to experience ground motion of low severity.4 Based upon seismologic and geologic conditions, the maximum level of ground motion potentially experienced in the City would occur as a result of a 6.5 magnitude earthquake on the Foothills Fault zone or the Great Valley fault. Minor ground shaking can result in partial collapse of buildings, and extensive damage in poorly built or substandard structures.

Project Site Characteristics
The project site consists of approximately 279.3 acres located northwest of Raymer Way and Grant Line Road, within the Grant Line West Planning Area of the City. The project site is located on the southern edge of the Sacramento Valley, adjacent to the Sierra Nevada foothills. The topography of the area is generally flat with elevations ranging from approximately 220 feet above mean sea level to 225 feet above sea level. The CGS lists the project site and surrounding area as being underlain by the Pliocene Age Laguna Formation and some Quaternary Age Alluvium.

Currently, the 279.3-acre project site contains two single-family residences and associated outbuildings on the southern portion of the site, within parcels 072-0300-002 and -005. An orchard is located within the northeastern portion of the site within and parcel 073-0010-011, and a third 4 City of Rancho Cordova. Rancho Cordova General Plan Environmental Impact Report. June 2006.

ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

single-family residence and associated outbuildings are located on APN 072-0300-008. The remainder of the site consists primarily of non-native grasses, with scattered trees located in the vicinity of the existing residences and associated access roads. The site is interspersed with seasonal drainage corridors and wetlands, and Morrison Creek runs northeast to southwest through the site.

The geologic conditions on the project site are discussed below in further detail, including descriptions of existing site geology, soil conditions, seismicity and ground shaking, potential for earthquake-induced liquefaction, and expansive soils. In addition, this section includes a description of known mineral and paleontological resources within the project area.

Site Geology and Subsurface Conditions
Based on the Geology and Soils Report, subsurface soil conditions on the project site consist of a heterogeneous mixture of materials. Soils were observed to consist of clayey silty sands, clayey sands, clayey sandy silts, and silty sandy clays containing varying amounts of gravel from the surface to a depth of about two to four feet below the existing ground surface. In some areas, the soils extend to a depth of as much as 10 feet. Underlying the relatively fine-grained soils are clayey and silty, gravel and cobbles. According to the Department of Water Resources Water Data Library Web Site, the ground elevation of the water table on the project site is approximately 76 feet above sea level.

The soils in the area have been mapped by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) (see Figure 4.4-1). The results of the Custom Soil Survey completed for the project site are summarized in Table 4.4-1 below.

Seismicity and Ground Shaking
Fault rupture hazards occur near active faults and tend to reoccur along the surface traces of previous fault movements. A total of eight faults and/or fault zones have been identified as potential seismic sources within a 100-kilometer (62.14-mile) radius of the project site. The fault zones expected to have the greatest impact to are the faults associated with the Foothills fault system. The Foothills fault system is located along the western flank of the Sierra Nevada Mountain range. The site does not include any active faults and is not located within an AlquistPriolo Special Studies Zone. 5 The intensity of ground shaking resulting from an earthquake is a function of the size of the earthquake, the duration of the energy release, the distance from the subject location, and the ability of the geologic materials to transmit the energy. In general, the greater the energy release and the closer the center of release to the site, the greater the intensity of the ground shaking.

Per the Geology and Soils Report, the project site is in a region of California characterized by low historical seismic activity and a low ground-shaking hazard. According to the City’s General Plan EIR, the City’s Planning Area is considered to be in a relatively moderate ground shaking zone due to the distance to active faults
5 California Department of Conservation. EQ Zapp: California Earthquake Hazards Zone Application. Available at:
https://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/geohazards/eq-zapp. Accessed September 2020.

ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

Figure 4.4-1
Soil Resource Report Map
Note: See corresponding map unit numbers in Table 4.4-1.

Project Site
Boundary
ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

Table 4.4-1
Soil Characteristics On-Site
Soil Map Unit
Map Unit
Symbol
Percent
of Site
ShrinkSwell
Potential Permeability
Water
Erosion
Hazard
Runoff
Rating
Hicksville gravely
loam, 0 to 2
percent slopes
159 21.4 0.31 Moderately
High 7 C/D
Red Bluff loam,
2 to 5 percent
slopes
192 7.2 0.50 Moderately
High 6 C
Red Bluff-Redding
complex, 0 to 5
percent slopes
193 38.3 0.50 Moderately
High 6 C
Redding gravelly
loam, 0 to 8
percent slopes
198 33.1 0.99 Moderately
High 6 D
1 The NRCS online soil database uses 0-1 values to describe factors such as shrink-swell potential with 0 being very low and 1.0 being very high. 2 NRCS Saturated hydraulic connectivity (Ksat) refers to the ease with which pores in a saturated soil transmit water based on NRCS class limits. 3 Hydrologic soil groups are based on estimates of runoff potential. Soils are assigned to one of four groups according to the rate of water infiltration when the soils are not protected by vegetation, are thoroughly wet, and receive precipitation from long-duration storms. The soils in the United States are assigned to four groups (A, B, C, and D) and three dual classes (A/B, B/D, and C/D). The groups are defined as follows: Group A soils have a high infiltration rate (low runoff potential) when thoroughly wet. These consist mainly of deep, well drained to excessively drained sands or gravelly sands. These soils have a high rate of water transmission. Group B soils have a moderate infiltration rate when thoroughly wet. These consist chiefly of moderately deep or deep, moderately well drained or well drained soils that have moderately fine texture to moderately coarse texture.

These soils have a moderate rate of water transmission. Group C soils have a slow infiltration rate when thoroughly wet. These consist chiefly of soils having a layer that impedes the downward movement of water or soils of moderately fine texture or fine texture. These soils have a slow rate of water transmission. Group D soils have a very slow infiltration rate (high runoff potential) when thoroughly wet. These consist chiefly of clays that have a high shrink-swell potential, soils that have a high-water table, soils that have a claypan or clay layer at or near the surface, and soils that are shallow over nearly impervious material. These soils have a very slow rate of water transmission. If a soil is assigned to a dual hydrologic group (A/D, B/D, or C/D), the first letter is for drained areas and the second is for undrained areas. Only the soils that in their natural condition are in group D are assigned to dual classes.

Source: Youngdahl Consulting Group, Inc.

Liquefaction and Subsidence
Liquefaction is the sudden loss of soil shear strength and sudden increase in porewater pressure caused by shear strains, as could result from an earthquake. Research has shown that saturated, loose to medium-dense sands with a silt content less than about 25 percent and located within the top 40 feet are most susceptible to liquefaction and surface rupture/lateral spreading. The CGS has designated certain areas within California as potential liquefaction hazard zones, which are areas considered at risk of liquefaction-related ground failure during a seismic event based upon mapped surficial deposits and the depth to the areal groundwater table.

Per the General Plan, subsidence is the gradual settling or sinking of surface soil deposits with little horizontal motion. Sacramento County is affected by five causes of land subsidence: 1) compaction of unconsolidated soils from earthquakes; 2) compaction by heavy structures; 3) erosion of peat soils; 4) peat oxidation; and 5) groundwater withdrawal.

ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

The project site is not in a mapped liquefaction hazard zone. In addition, the depth to the groundwater table and aquifer system is generally greater than 50 feet. The potential for other secondary hazards (i.e., ground lurching, differential settlement, or lateral spreading) occurring during or after seismic events in the City of Rancho Cordova Planning Area is also considered to be low due to the distance of active faults. Therefore, the potential for liquefaction is considered low.

Expansive Soils
Expansive soils are characterized by their ability to undergo significant volume change due to variation in moisture content. Compressible materials consisting of surficial organic material, loose soils, undocumented fills, debris, rubble, rubbish, etc., are considered unsuitable materials for support of proposed structures as such materials can differentially settle. Changes in soil moisture content can result from rainfall, landscape irrigation, utility leakage, roof drainage, perched groundwater, drought, or other factors and may cause unacceptable settlement of structures. The NRCS reports that shrink-swell potentials for on-site soils range from 0.31 to 0.99, using a scale of 0 to 1.0 where 1.0 represents a high potential (see Table 4.4-1). As shown in Table 4.4-1, the on-site soils with the highest expansive potential are located in the northern portion of the project site.

Groundwater
The project site is located within the Central Sacramento County Groundwater Basin (Central Basin). The Central Basin is roughly bordered to the north by the American River and the Cosumnes River to the south. Zone 40 is located within the Central Basin and includes the project site. Groundwater in the Central Basin is stored within a shallow aquifer in the Laguna or Modesto Formations, and in a deeper underlying aquifer zone in the Mehrten Formation. Overall, groundwater within the City of Rancho Cordova is anticipated to be found at depths greater than 50 feet.
6 The project site is primarily underlain by Mehrten features and, thus, groundwater is anticipated to be deeper than other regions of the City.

Mineral Resources
Department of Conservation maps were reviewed to examine the potential of a mine or prospect being located on the project site.7 Maps contained in the Mineral Land Classification of the Folsom 15-Minute Quadrangle do not identify any documented mines or prospects on the project site or in the project vicinity. While the General Plan identifies mining operations to the north and east of the project site, the site does not contain any such operations. Furthermore, the California Division of Mines and Geology indicates that the project site is classified as either MRZ-3 or MRZ-4 for Placer gold, copper, zinc, and industrial minerals. MRZ-3 and MRZ-4 are considered areas where the significance of mineral deposits either cannot be evaluated from existing data or the data is inadequate for placement in any other mineral resource zone. According to the City’s General Plan, the site is not listed as a locally important mineral resource recovery site.

Paleontological Resources
Paleontological resources include fossil remains, as well as fossil localities and formations, which have produced fossil material in other nearby areas. A search of the paleontological records on the University of California Museum of Paleontology (UCMP) database was performed by the City of Rancho Cordova in the General Plan EIR. According to the results of the records search, the 6 City of Rancho Cordova. Rancho Cordova General Plan Environmental Impact Report. June 2006. 7 Department of Conservation. Mineral Land Classification Map Folsom 15-Minute Quadrangle. May 30, 2018.

ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

City does not appear sensitive for the presence of paleontological resources, and paleontological resources have not been identified in the City’s Planning Area. However, fossils have been discovered from the Riverbank Formation. The finds have been dated to the late Pleistocene period and include fish, frogs, snakes, turtles, and plant species.

4.4.3 REGULATORY CONTEXT
The following section is a brief summary of the regulatory context under which geology and soils, mineral resources, and paleontological resources are managed at the federal, State, and local levels.

Federal Regulations
The following are the federal environmental laws and policies relevant to geology and soils, mineral resources, and paleontological resources.

Federal Earthquake Hazards Reduction Act
Passed by Congress in 1977, the Federal Earthquake Hazards Reduction Act is intended to reduce the risks to life and property from future earthquakes. The Act established the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program (NEHRP). The goals of NEHRP are to educate and improve the knowledge base for predicting seismic hazards, improve land use practices and building codes, and to reduce earthquake hazards through improved design and construction techniques.

International Building Code
The Uniform Building Code (UBC) was first published in 1927 by the International Council of Building Officials and is intended to promote public safety and provide standardized requirements for safe construction. The UBC was replaced in 2000 by the new International Building Code (IBC), published by the International Code Council (ICC), which is a merger of the International Council of Building Officials’ UBC, Building Officials and Code Administrators International’s National Building Code, and the Southern Building Code Congress International’s Standard Building Code. The intention of the IBC is to provide more consistent standards for safe construction and eliminate any differences between the three preceding codes. All State building standard codes are based on the federal building codes.

Federal Clean Water Act
The Clean Water Act (CWA) establishes the basic structure for regulating discharges of pollutants into the waters of the United States and regulating quality standards for surface waters. The basis of the CWA was enacted in 1948 and was called the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, but the Act was significantly reorganized and expanded in 1972. The CWA made it unlawful to discharge any pollutant from a point source into navigable waters, unless a permit was obtained through the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit program or point sources are discrete conveyances such as pipes or man-made ditches.

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
The NPDES permit program addresses water pollution by regulating point sources that discharge pollutants to waters of the United States. Created in 1972 by the Clean Water Act, the NPDES permit program is authorized to California’s Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to perform many permitting, administrative, and enforcement aspects of the program. The terms of the NPDES permits implement pertinent ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

provisions of the Federal Clean Water Act to protect surface waters, including lakes, rivers, streams, bays, dry steam beds, wetlands, and storm sewers.

State Regulations
The following are the State environmental laws and policies relevant to geology and soils, mineral resources, and paleontological resources.

Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act
The 1972 Alquist-Priolo (AP) Earthquake Fault Zone Act was passed to prevent the new development of buildings and structures for human occupancy on the surface of active faults. The Act is directed at the hazards of surface fault rupture and does not address other forms of earthquake hazards. The locations of active faults are established into fault zones by the AP Fault Zone Act. Local agencies regulate any new developments within the appropriate zones in their jurisdiction.

The AP Fault Zone Act regulates development near active faults so as to mitigate the hazard of surface fault rupture. The AP Fault Zone Act requires that the State Geologist (Chief of the California Department of Mines and Geology [CDMG]) delineate “special study zones” along known active faults in California. Cities and counties affected by the special study zones must regulate certain development projects within the special study zones. The AP Fault Zone Act prohibits the development of structures for human occupancy across the traces of active faults.

According to the AP Fault Zone Act, active faults have experienced surface displacement during the last 11,000 years. Potentially active faults are those that show evidence of surface displacement during the last 1.6 million years. A fault may be presumed to be inactive based on satisfactory geologic evidence; however, the evidence necessary to prove inactivity sometimes is difficult to obtain and may not exist.

Seismic Hazards Mapping Act
The California Seismic Hazards Mapping Act of 1990 (California Public Resources Code Section 1690-2699.6) addresses non-surface rupture earthquake hazards, including liquefaction, induced landslides, and subsidence. A mapping program is also established by this Act, which identifies areas within California that have the potential to be affected by such non-surface rupture hazards.

The Seismic Hazards Mapping Act specifies that the lead agency for a project may withhold development permits until geologic or soils investigations are conducted for specific sites and mitigation measures are incorporated into plans to reduce hazards associated with seismicity and unstable soils.

California Building Standards Code
The State of California regulates development within the State through a variety of tools that reduce or mitigate potential hazards from earthquakes or other geologic hazards. The 2019 California Building Standards Code (CBSC) (California Code of Regulations, Title 24) governs the design and construction of all building occupancies and associated facilities and equipment throughout California. In addition, the CBSC governs development in potentially seismically active areas and contains provisions to safeguard against major structural failures or loss of life caused by earthquakes or other geologic hazards. The California building standards include building standards in the national building code, building standards adapted from national codes to meet California conditions, and building standards adopted to address particular California concerns. It should be noted that the CBSC is updated on a triennial cycle. The 2019 CBSC, which contains new code changes, became effective on January 1, 2020.

ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

Local Regulations
The following are the local environmental laws and policies relevant to geology and soils, mineral resources, and paleontological resources.

City of Rancho Cordova General Plan
Goals and policies from the City’s General Plan related to geology and soils, mineral resources, and paleontological resources that are applicable to the proposed project are presented below:

Goal S.3 Reduce the risk of adverse effects to residents or businesses as a result of geologic or seismic instability.

Policy S.3.1 Support efforts by federal, State, and local jurisdictions to investigate local seismic and geologic hazards and support those programs that effectively mitigate these hazards.

Policy S.3.2 Ensure that new structures are protected from damage caused by geologic and/or soil conditions to the greatest extent feasible.

Goal NR.5 Protect the quantity and quality of the City’s water resources.

Policy NR.5.5 Minimize erosion to stream channels resulting from new development in urban areas consistent with State law.

City of Rancho Cordova Municipal Code
Sections of the Municipal Code related to geology and soils, mineral resources, and paleontological resources that are applicable to the proposed project are presented below.

Chapter 16.04, Building Code
Chapter 16.04, Building Codes, of the Rancho Cordova Municipal Code is meant to provide minimum standards to safeguard life or limb, health, property, and public welfare by regulating and controlling the design, construction, and installation of all buildings within the City. Section

16.04.030 adopts Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations, and any rules and regulations incorporated within Title 24.

Chapter 16.44, Land Grading and Erosion Control
Chapter 16.44, Land Grading and Erosion Control, of the Rancho Cordova Municipal Code, includes definitions, conditions, and permit requirements for new development to minimize damage to surrounding properties and public rights-of-way, degradation of water quality, disruption of natural or City-authorized drainage flows caused by clearing, grading, filling, and excavating, and sediment and pollutant runoff.

4.4.4 IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
This section describes the standards of significance and methodology used to analyze and determine the proposed project’s potential impacts related to geology and soils, mineral resources, and paleontological resources. In addition, a discussion of the project’s impacts, as well as mitigation measures where necessary, is also presented.

ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

Standards of Significance
Consistent with Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, a significant impact would occur if the proposed project would result in any of the following:
• Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
o Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent AlquistPriolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area based on other substantial evidence of a known fault;
o Strong seismic ground shaking;
o Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction; o Landslides;
• Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil; • Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse;
• Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property; • Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state;
• Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan; and/or • Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature.

Issues Dismissed in the Initial Study
The Initial Study prepared for the proposed project (see Appendix A) determined that development of the proposed project would result in a less-than-significant impact related to the following:
• Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater.

For the reasons cited in the Initial Study, the potential impacts associated with the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems are not analyzed further in this EIR.

Method of Analysis
The analysis of the proposed project’s potential impacts related to geology, soils, and mineral resources is based primarily on the Geology and Soils Report prepared for the proposed project by Youngdahl Consulting Group, Inc. Information related to paleontological resources is sourced primarily from the City of Rancho Cordova General Plan.

Geology and Soils Report
The Geology and Soils Report prepared for the proposed project by Youngdahl Consulting Group, Inc. drew on information from previous studies, including a 2004 Geotechnical Engineering Report performed by Wallace-Kuhl & Associates, Inc., regional geologic maps and fault maps prepared by the California Department of Conservation’s CGS, and soil maps and information provided by the USDA NRCS. Impacts related to geology, soils, and seismicity were evaluated based on ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

available data (maps, soil surveys, reports), and professional judgement. The analysis focuses on the proposed project’s potential to result in the risk of personal injury, loss of life, and damage to property as a result of existing geologic and geotechnical conditions within the project area.

The analysis of impacts assumes that the project applicant would conform to the latest stormwater pollution prevention requirements and all applicable policies, standards, and ordinances set forth by the County, City, and other agencies.

Mineral Resources
As part of the Geology and Soils Report, the proposed project’s potential to affect mineral resources was evaluated by examining the project footprint in comparison to resource locations mapped by the CGS.

Paleontological Resources Analysis
The assessment of paleontological resources and the potential for discovery on the project site was based primarily on the General Plan EIR. The General Plan EIR included a search of the University of California, Berkeley, Museum of Paleontology collections database, as well as historical maps and aerial photographs.

Project-Specific Impacts and Mitigation Measures
The following discussion of impacts is based on implementation of the proposed project in comparison with the standards of significance identified above.

4.4-1 Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving rupture of a known earthquake fault, strong seismic ground shaking, seismic-related ground failure, including
liquefaction, or landslides. Based on the analysis below, the impact is less than significant.

As discussed above, the project site is not located within an AP Fault Zone. Evidence of recent faulting within the project site area has not been detected, nor have any active faults been mapped at or near the project site.

The project site is located in an area of relatively low ground shaking hazard. However, a large earthquake on a nearby fault could cause minor ground shaking in the vicinity of the project, potentially resulting in an increased risk of structural loss, injury, or death. Liquefaction and related seismic hazards such as lateral spreading and differential settlement have the potential to compromise the structural integrity of the proposed residences. Despite the potential for seismic events to cause damage to the structures on the project site, all residences would be designed in accordance with the CBSC, and would be able to: 1) resist minor earthquakes without damage; 2) resist moderate earthquakes without structural damage, but with some non-structural damage; and 3) resist major earthquakes without collapse, but with some structural, as well as non-structural, damage.

As noted in the Geology and Soils Report, due to the absence of a permanently elevated groundwater table and the relatively low seismicity of the project area, the potential for seismically induced damage to the proposed structures due to ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

liquefaction, surface rupture, and settlement is minimal. Furthermore, because the project site does not contain any steep slopes, the risk of landslide the site would not be substantial.

Overall, the proposed residential development would not be subject to substantial risks related to fault rupture hazards. Due to the relatively low seismicity of the area, compliance with CBSC requirements related to seismic design, and the lack of substantial natural slopes on-site, the potential for the project to expose people or structures to the risk of loss, injury, or death involving rupture of an earthquake fault, strong ground shaking, ground failure, liquefaction, or landslides would be less-thansignificant.

Mitigation Measure(s)
None required.

4.4-2 Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil. Based on the analysis below, the impact is less than significant.

Erosion refers to the removal of soil from exposed bedrock surfaces by wind or water.

Although naturally occurring, erosion is often accelerated by human activities that disturb soil and vegetation. Grading, excavation, removal of vegetation cover, and loading activities associated with construction could temporarily increase erosion, runoff, and sedimentation. Ground-disturbing activities associated with the proposed project could also result in soil compaction and wind erosion effects that could adversely affect soils and reduce the revegetation potential within the construction and staging areas. Ground-disturbing activities that would occur as part of the proposed project would occur within the portion of the site to the south of Morrison Creek. The 185.3 acres of open space area within the northern portion of the site would not be included in development of the proposed project.

NPDES permits are required for discharges of pollutants to waters of the United States, which includes any discharge to surface waters, including lakes, rivers, streams, bays, dry stream beds, wetlands, and storm sewers. The RWQCB issues permits in lieu of direct issuance by the Environmental Protection Agency. The terms of the NPDES permits implement pertinent provisions of the Federal Clean Water Act.

In accordance with the NPDES General Construction Permit, a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) is required for any project that disturbs at least one acre of soil. Given that the proposed project would disturb approximately 98.9 acres within the site, the project would be required to prepare a SWPPP and submit a Notice of Intent (NOI) to the RWQCB.

The SWPPP would be kept on site during construction activity and made available upon request to representative of the City of Rancho Cordova, the County of Sacramento, or the Central Valley RWQCB. The SWPPP would identify pollutant sources that may affect the quality of stormwater associated with construction activity, and identify stormwater pollution prevention measures to be implemented to reduce pollutants in stormwater discharges during and after construction. Therefore, the SWPPP would also include a description of potential pollutants and hazardous materials present on site during construction. The SWPPP would include details of ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

how the sediment and erosion control practices, also known as best management practices (BMPs) would be implemented. Implementation of the SWPPP would comply with County, State, and federal water quality requirements. Development of the SWPPP would include plans to treat stormwater runoff in accordance with the standards of the California Stormwater Management Practice New Development and Redevelopment Handbook and the Sacramento Stormwater Quality Partnership Municipal Stormwater Permit (MS4). The plan would include drainage design from all paved surfaces, including streets, parking lots, driveways, and roofs, as well as landscaping.

Furthermore, Chapter 16.44 of the City’s Municipal Code regulates grading and erosion by requiring all projects that grade more than one acre of land submit an application for review by the City prior to approval of a grading permit. The application must include a grading and erosion plan which would be reviewed for safety of grading and potential for erosion. The project would be subject to compliance with Chapter

16.44 of the City’s Municipal Code and the project applicant would be required to prepare a grading and erosion plan. The grading and erosion plan would include erosion control measures and sediment control measures to ensure the stability of the ground surface and soil within the project site during construction activities.

Based on the above, development of the proposed project would not result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil with the preparation of an SWPPP in accordance with the NPDES General Construction Permit and preparation of a grading and erosion plan in accordance with the City’s Municipal Code. Therefore, a lessthan-significant impact would occur.

Mitigation Measure(s)
None required.

4.4-3 Be located on a geological unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and
potentially result in on or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse, or be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1B of the Uniform Building Code. Based on the analysis below and with
implementation of mitigation, the impact is less than
significant.

Issues associated with unstable geologic units and/or soils, including expansive soils, landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, and collapse are discussed below.

Landslide
Per the CGS the project site is not currently within a State of California Seismic Hazard Zone for seismically induced land sliding.8 In addition, the project site is relatively 8 Department of Conservation. CGS Information Warehouse: Landslides. Available at:
http://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/informationwarehouse/. Accessed April 2, 2020.

ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

gently rolling to flat and does not have any steep slopes. Given that the project site is not mapped in a landslide zone and the site does not contain any slopes that could be subject to landslide risks, development of the southern portion of the project site with 440 single-family units and associated improvements would not result in on- or off-site landslide hazards.

Lateral Spreading
Lateral spreading is associated with terrain near free faces such as excavations, channels, or open bodies of water. The project site is relatively level with gentle undulation throughout the property. The Geology and Soils Report concluded that the soil materials at the site would not create any excavation difficulties, nor would the relatively shallow slopes present within the project site create any slope instability.

Additionally, the proposed residences would be setback at least 100 feet from Morrison Creek within the project site. The setbacks would ensure that project development would not destabilize the channel or otherwise result in lateral spreading issues.

Because the proposed project would establish appropriate setbacks from the Morrison Creek channel, and because the proposed development area does not contain any steep slopes or free faces, the proposed project would not be subject to substantial risks related to lateral spreading.

Liquefaction
Liquefaction occurs when saturated fine-grained sand and/or silts lose their physical strength temporarily during earthquake-induced shaking and behave as a liquid. The CGS has designated certain areas within California as potential liquefaction hazard zones; however, the project site is not currently mapped for potential liquefaction hazard by the CGS. Additionally, the Geology and Soils Report indicates that a low probability of liquefaction exists at the project site. Therefore, the proposed structures and associated improvements would not be subject to substantial risks associated with liquefaction.

Collapse
As discussed above, all structures constructed as part of the proposed project would be required to adhere to the provisions of the most recent version of the CBSC in effect at the time of building permit issuance. Structures built according to the seismic design provisions of current building codes would be able to resist major earthquakes without collapse, but with some structural, as well as non-structural damage. Given the project’s adherence to the CBSC requirements, the proposed project would not be subject to substantial risks associated with building collapse.

Expansive Soils
According to the preliminary geotechnical evaluation performed by Wallace-Kuhl & Associates, the site contains soils made of clay with a moderately high expansion potential. As shown in Table 4.4-1 above, the shrink-swell potential of soils on the project site ranges from 0.31 to 0.99, on a scale of 0 to 1.0, where 1.0 represents a high potential. Expansive soils have the potential to compromise the structural integrity of project features, which could be a significant impact. However, in order to meet the CBSC Chapter 18 requirements, the project applicant’s geotechnical engineer would be responsible for conducting final geotechnical evaluations of the on-site soils to further determine the extent of soils with adverse shrink-swell properties prior to ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

grading and construction activities. Based on subsurface conditions, the project applicant’s geotechnical engineers would make recommendations for project element designs to accommodate for the effects of expansive soils. Corrective actions may include excavation of potentially problematic soils during construction and replacement with engineered backfill, ground treatment processes, and direction of surface water away from foundation soils. The applicants would select one or more of the measures in consultation with qualified engineers before grading activities begin.

Therefore, with implementation of the aforementioned corrective actions, the proposed project would not be exposed to substantial risks related to expansive soils.

Conclusion
From a geotechnical standpoint, the project site is preliminarily considered suitable for the proposed construction. Thus, the proposed project would not likely be subject to issues associated with lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, collapse, or expansive soils. However, implementation of recommendations included in a final geotechnical engineering report would be required in order to ensure adequate support of the proposed improvements. Because a final geotechnical engineering report has not yet been prepared, a potentially significant impact could occur.

Mitigation Measure(s)
Implementation of the following mitigation measure would reduce the above impact to a less-than-significant level.

4.4-3 The Improvement Plan submittal shall include a final geotechnical engineering report produced by a California Registered Civil Engineer or Geotechnical Engineer for review and approval by the Rancho Cordova Community Development Department. The report shall address and make recommendations on the following:

A. Road, pavement, and parking area design;
B. Structural foundations, including retaining wall design (if applicable);
C. Grading practices;
D. Erosion/winterization;
E. Special problems discovered on-site, (i.e., open bodies of water, expansive/unstable soils, etc.); and
F. Slope stability.

Once approved by the Rancho Cordova Community Development Department, two copies of the final report shall be provided to the Rancho Cordova Community Development Department and one copy to the Rancho Cordova Building and Safety Division for its use. It is the responsibility of the developer to provide for engineering inspection and certification that earthwork has been performed in conformity with recommendations contained in the report.

ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

4.4-4 Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the State or of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan. Based on the analysis below, the impact is less than significant.

According to the Geology and Soils Report performed by Youngdahl Consulting, the project site does not contain any known mineral resources that would be of value to the region or the residents of the State. Furthermore, the City of Rancho Cordova General Plan does not list the project site as a locally-important mineral resource recovery site. The site has been previously designated for residential uses, and mineral resource extraction on the site would be incompatible with the existing residential development to the south of the site. Therefore, development of the proposed project would not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the State, or of a locallyimportant mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan. Thus, a less-than-significant impact would occur.

Mitigation Measure(s)
None required.

4.4-5 Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature. Based on the analysis below and with implementation of mitigation, the impact is less than significant.

According to the City’s General Plan EIR, paleontological resources have not been identified in the Planning Area. However, fossils have been recovered from the Riverbank Formation. The General Plan EIR concluded that build out of the City’s General Plan could result in a significant impact to unknown cultural resources. With implementation of Policy CHR.3.3 and Action CHR.3.3.4 which require all new development projects to comply with established procedures upon discovery of unique paleontological resources, impacts related to disturbance of paleontological resources were determined to be less than significant.

Although the proposed project would not have the potential to result in the destruction of unique geological features, previously unknown paleontological resources could exist within the project site and off-site improvement areas. Therefore, grounddisturbing activity, such as grading, trenching, or excavating associated with implementation of the proposed project, could have the potential to disturb or destroy unknown paleontological resources. Thus, the proposed project could result in the direct or indirect destruction of a unique paleontological resources, and a significant impact could occur.

Mitigation Measure(s)
Implementation of the following mitigation measure would reduce the above impact to a less-than-significant level
ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

4.4-5 Should construction or grading activities result in the discovery of unique paleontological resources, all work within the vicinity of the discovery shall cease. The City of Rancho Cordova Community Development Department shall be notified, and the resources shall be examined by a qualified paleontologist at the developer’s expense, for the purpose of recording, protecting, or curating the discovery as appropriate. The paleontologist shall submit to the Community Development Department for review and approval a report of the findings and method of curation or protection of the resources. Work may only resume in the area of discovery when the preceding work has occurred.

Cumulative Impacts and Mitigation Measures
As defined in Section 15355 of the CEQA Guidelines, “cumulative impacts” refers to two or more individual effects which, when considered together, are considerable, compound, or increase other environmental impacts. The individual effects may be changes resulting from a single project or a number of separate projects. The cumulative impact from several projects is the change in the environment that results from the incremental impact of the project when added to other closely related past, present, and reasonably foreseeable probable future projects.

For further detail related to the cumulative setting of the proposed project, refer to Chapter 5, Statutorily Required Sections, of this EIR.

4.4-6 Cumulative impacts to geology and soils, mineral resources, and paleontological resources. Based on the analysis below, the cumulative impact is less than significant.

Impacts to geology and soils, mineral resources, and paleontological resources related to implementation of the proposed project are analyzed throughout this chapter. As discussed above, existing geological and soil conditions on the site would be adequate to support development of the proposed project. Mitigation Measure 4.4-3, which requires preparation and submittal of a final geotechnical report, would ensure that project-specific impacts related to soil stability would be reduced to less-thansignificant levels.

While some geologic characteristics may affect regional construction practices, impacts and mitigation measures are primarily site-specific and project-specific. For example, impacts resulting from development on expansive soils at one project site are not worsened by impacts from development on expansive soils or undocumented fill at another project site. Rather, the soil conditions, and the implications of such conditions for each project, are independent.

As such, the potential for cumulative impacts related to geology, soils, seismicity, paleontological resources, and mineral resources, to which implementation of the proposed project might contribute, is less than significant.

Mitigation Measure(s)
None required.

ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

4.5 Hazards and Hazardous
Materials
ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

4.5.1 INTRODUCTION
The Hazards and Hazardous Materials chapter of the EIR describes existing and potentially occurring hazards and hazardous materials within the project area. The chapter includes a discussion of potential impacts posed by such hazards to the environment. In addition, surrounding land uses are discussed in order to provide an assessment of whether the project could impact surrounding land uses. The question of whether surrounding land uses could impact the project’s future residents is not a question requiring analysis under CEQA.1

The Hazards and Hazardous Materials chapter is primarily based on information drawn from a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) (see Appendix G) prepared for the project site by Youngdahl Consulting Group, Inc.,2 as well as the City of Rancho Cordova General Plan3 and associated EIR.
4 4.5.2 EXISTING ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
The following section includes a definition of hazardous materials and descriptions of the existing conditions associated with the project site related to hazards and hazardous materials.

Hazardous Materials
The term hazardous substance refers to both hazardous materials and hazardous wastes. A material is defined as hazardous if the material appears on a list of hazardous materials prepared by a federal, State, or local regulatory agency or if the material has characteristics defined as hazardous by such an agency. The California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA), California Department of Toxic Substance Control (DTSC) defines hazardous waste, as found in the California Health and Safety Code Section 25141(b), as follows:
[…] its quantity, concentration, or physical, chemical, or infectious characteristics: (1) cause, or significantly contribute to an increase in mortality or an increase in serious irreversible, or incapacitating reversible illness; (2) pose a substantial present or potential hazard to human health or the environment, due to factors including, but not limited to, carcinogenicity, acute toxicity, chronic toxicity, bioaccumulative properties, or persistence in the environment, when improperly treated, stored, transported, or disposed of, or otherwise managed.
1 Per the California Building Industry Association v. Bay Area Air Quality Management District (2015) 62 Cal.4th 369 (CBIA), the California Supreme Court held that “agencies subject to CEQA generally are not required to analyze the impact of existing environmental conditions on a project's future users or residents. But when a proposed project risks exacerbating those environmental hazards or conditions that already exist, an agency must analyze the potential impact of such hazards on future residents or users. In those specific instances, it is the project's impact on the environment – and not the environment's impact on the project – that compels an evaluation of how future residents or users could be affected by exacerbated conditions.” (Id. at pp. 377-378.). 2 Youngdahl Consulting Group, Inc. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, The Preserve, Sacramento County APNs 072-0300-001, 002, -005, 008, -010, and 073-0010-011, Rancho Cordova, California. June 2019. 3 City of Rancho Cordova. General Plan. Adopted June 26, 2006. 4 City of Rancho Cordova. General Plan Environmental Impact Report. 2006.

4.5. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

The following discussion focuses on the potential Recognized Environmental Conditions (RECs) associated with the project site. A REC indicates the presence or likely presence of any hazardous substances in, on, or at a property due to any release into the environment, under conditions indicative of a release to the environment, or under conditions that pose a material threat of a future release to the environment.5

Additionally, the following includes a discussion of historical RECs associated with the project site. A historical REC indicates a past release of hazardous substances or petroleum products that has occurred in connection with a property and has been addressed to the satisfaction of the applicable regulatory authority. A historical REC does not have any property use restrictions, and, thus, does not have any use limitations in respect to future activities on the property.

Project Area Conditions
The project site is comprised of multiple parcels identified by Assessor’s Parcel Numbers (APNs) 072-0300-001, -002, -005, -008, and 073-0010-010, and -011. Morrison Creek runs northeast to southwest through the project site. Currently, the 279.3-acre project site contains two single-family residences and associated outbuildings on the portion of the site to the south of Morrison Creek, within parcels 072-0300-002 and -005. An orchard is located within the northeastern portion of the site within and parcel 073-0010-011, and a third single-family residence and associated outbuildings are located on APN 072-0300-008, north of Morrison Creek. The remainder of the site consists primarily of ruderal grasses. Currently, the undeveloped portions of the site are used for livestock grazing.

Surrounding land uses include the Camden at Somerset Ranch residential subdivision directly to the south, vacant agricultural lands and a Teichert Aggregates Aggregate/Asphaltic Concrete site across Grant Line Road to the east, two single-family residences and industrial/open space to the north, and vacant land approved for the development of the Rio Del Oro residential community immediately adjacent to the west. The area further to the north of the site contains known contamination areas associated with the Aerojet General Corporation National Priorities List Superfund Site. A monitoring well associated with the Superfund site is located within the project site.

The site is located within California’s Great Valley Geomorphic Province, a geologically young, large, flat-lying alluvial plain in the central portion of California. The project site and the surrounding area is underlain by the Laguna Formation and a thin strip of Quaternary Alluvium along the central drainage feature within the site. The Laguna Formation consists of Tertiary age fluvial granitic sands and silts. According to Spring 2017 Department of Water Resources (DWR) well records, one irrigation well is located approximately 0.5-mile to the southeast of the site. The most recent data obtained from the well in October of 2018 shows a groundwater depth of 183 feet below the ground surface (bgs). Groundwater elevation contour maps produced in 2018 by Geosyntec Consultants show each groundwater layer flowing towards the southwest in the vicinity of the project site.

The potential hazards associated with the project area identified in the Phase I ESA prepared for the project site are described in further detail below. It should be noted that the 2019 Phase I ESA incorporates the findings of multiple prior Phase I ESAs that were completed for various portions of the project site between 2015 and 2018.
5 ASTM International. ASTM E1527, Standard Practice for Environmental Site Assessments: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Process. 2013.

ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

On-Site Recognized Environmental Conditions
Based on the Phase I ESA prepared for the project site, the site does not contain any polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB) containing equipment, substantial soil staining, or stressed vegetation. However, potential RECs were identified associated with groundwater contamination, soil vapor intrusion, an on-site underground storage tank (UST) and fuel storage vessels, asbestos, lead-based paint, and termiticides. In addition, the Phase I ESA noted the presence of domestic wells and septic systems within the site. Figure 4.5-1 provides an overview of the site features described in the Phase I ESA.

Groundwater Contamination
As noted above, the project site is located within the vicinity of known contamination areas associated with the Aerojet General Corporation National Priorities List Superfund Site. Past environmental sampling has identified a contaminant plume of trichloroethylene (TCE) associated with the Aerojet area. As part of the Phase I ESA prepared for the project site, the Fall 2018 isoconcentration maps prepared by Geosyntec Consultants depicting the extent of contamination of the Aerojet area for TCE, perchlorate, and N-Nitrosodimethylamine (NDMA) were reviewed.

Per the maps, the NDMA contours do not intersect the project site. However, the maps show that the five parts per billion (ppb) contour for TCE in groundwater Layers C and D reach monitoring wells OS-10C1/OS-10C2 located in the southwest of parcel 072-0300-001 (12555 Grant Line Road), partially encroaches into parcel 072-0010-011, and continues west through parcel 072- 0300-008 to the west adjacent parcel where an extraction well (#4757) is located. The 50 ppb contour for Layer C encroaches near the northern part of parcel 072-0300-001, near a monitoring well just outside the north property boundary (well OS-5C). The four ppb contour for perchlorate in Layer C intersects the subject property at the northeast corner of the site within parcels 072- 0010-010 and -011.

The maximum contaminant level (MCL) for groundwater and drinking water established by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is five ppb for TCE and six ppb for perchlorate.

Perchlorate was found to be below the MCL at the subject property. In addition, perchlorate does not pose a soil vapor intrusion risk. The five ppb TCE contour does not intersect any domestic wells within the project site, but has potential to create a soil vapor intrusion scenario for future development on the site.

Vapor Encroachment
Vapor intrusion is the term used to describe the migration of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) through soil vapor from the sub-surface soil and/or groundwater upward into buildings, potentially causing unacceptable chemical exposure for building occupants. Soil vapor is one of the pathways of contamination to the subject property, along with ground water and soil. ASTM E1527-13 requires that vapor migration be treated no differently than contaminated groundwater.

Thus, the soil vapor contaminant pathway needs to be considered in evaluation of RECs or other environmental concerns. The ASTM Standard Guide for Vapor Encroachment Screening (VES) on Property Involved in Real Estate Transactions (ASTM E2600-10) is the industry-accepted guidance for using Phase I ESA information to determine if a vapor encroachment condition (VEC) exists at a subject property. Per a VES conducted as part of the Phase I ESA, the Aerojet groundwater contamination plume was identified as having a potential to create a soil vapor intrusion scenario at the project site.

ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

Figure 4.5-1
Existing Site Conditions
ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

Underground Storage Tank and Fuel Storage Vessels
As part of a site reconnaissance survey conducted for the Phase I ESA, two steel pipes were observed protruding out of the ground within APN 073-0010-011 (3450 Grant Line Road). Per Youngdahl Consulting Group, Inc., the two protruding pipes have potential to be connected to an UST, which is considered an REC. In addition, the Phase I ESA identified an unknown underground system within APN 072-0300-008 adjacent to the shed located north of the residence. A 55-gallon drum was found northeast of the residence with an unknown liquid inside.

Both the underground storage system and the drum are considered RECs if these vessels were used for fuel storage.

Asbestos-Containing Building Materials
Asbestos is a set of six naturally occurring silicate minerals used commercially for their desirable physical properties. The prolonged inhalation of asbestos fibers can cause serious illnesses including malignant lung cancer, mesothelioma, and asbestosis. In the industrialized world, asbestos was phased out of building products mostly in the 1970s, with most of the remainder phased out by the 1980s. For buildings constructed prior to 1980 (29 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] 1926.11) all thermal system insulation and surface materials must be designated as presumed asbestos-containing building materials (ACBMs) unless proved otherwise through sampling. The residences and associated outbuildings within APN 072-0300-008 (12535 Douglas Road) were built sometime between 1975 and 1980; therefore, ACBM may be present within such structures. All other structures on the project site were found to have been built after 1980 and, thus, are unlikely to be contaminated with ACBMs.

Lead-Based Paint
Lead is considered to be a harmful environmental pollutant. Within the U.S., most homes and other buildings built before 1960 contain heavily leaded paint. Some homes built as recently as 1978 may also contain lead paint. Within the project site, the residence and outbuildings within APN 072-0300-008 (12535 Douglas Road) were built sometime between 1975 and 1980 and, thus, potentially contain lead-based paint. In addition, the Whitlow property (APN 072-0300-005, 12525 Douglas Road) contains a residence and associated outbuildings built sometime between 1980 and 1984; and the Divine property (APN 072-0300-002, 12565 Douglas Road) contains a residence that was built in 1994; while less likely, the potential exists for such structures to also contain lead-based paint.

Termiticides
Organochlorine termiticides (OC termiticides) are a group of persistent pesticides that were formerly used for termite control in and around wooden structures from the mid-1940s to the late 1980s. Such OC termiticides included chlordane, aldrin, dieldrin, heptachlor, and DDT. Chlordane and other organochlorine pesticides (OCPs) were commonly used as termiticides around structures until 1988. Above-ground use of chlordane was phased out between 1978 and 1983 by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA); although chlordane was used as a termiticide for wooden structures until it was prohibited in 1988. Due to the dates of construction, all wooden structures within the project site except for the Divine Property (APN 072-0300-002, 12565 Douglas Road) are at risk of having termiticides present, which is considered an REC.

Pesticides
Between the 1940s and 1970s, OCPs were commonly used in the U.S. for public health vector control, agricultural crop production, and pest control around structures. Although most OCPs were banned or withdrawn from use in the 1970s (including DDT), the compounds remain in the ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

environment where surface soils associated with historical agricultural and termite control pesticides are present. An orchard is visible starting in the 1984 historical aerial photo at the northeast corner of the subject site within APNs 073-0010-011 (3450 Grant Line Road) and 073- 0010-010. The orchard is not shown in the 1980 topographic map. Per the Phase I ESA, due to the date in which the orchard was created, lead arsenate pesticides or OCPs are not likely to be present.

Domestic Wells and Septic Systems
Based on a records review conducted as part of the Phase I ESA, a domestic well was identified within the project site at 3450 Grant Line Road (073-0010-011). The well was permitted to be inactive in February 2015. Past sampling of the well for the Aerojet contamination plume showed that the well had trace levels of NDMA; the well did not contain any VOCs or perchlorate. The well was sealed in October 2014 and was planned for destruction; however, the well has not yet been destroyed at this time. Additional domestic wells were identified within APNs 072-0300-002, 072-0300-005, and 072-0300-008.

A septic system was identified within the lawn to the north of the existing residence at APN 072- 0300-005. In addition, the Phase I ESA noted the possible presence of a septic tank adjacent to the northernmost shed on APN 072-0300-010.

Nearby Recognized Environmental Conditions
In an effort to fulfill due diligence requirements, Youngdahl Consulting Group, Inc. employed the services of Environmental Data Resources, Inc. (EDR) to identify sites listed on regulatory agency databases within approximate minimum search distances from the subject property with potential of existing environmental problems. The following sites were identified in the project vicinity:
• Aerojet General Corporation – U.S. Route 50 and Aerojet Road; • North Douglas – Northeast of Douglas Road;
• American River Asphalt – 3417 Grant Line Road;
• Grantline Plant – 3417 Grant Line Road;
• Inactive Rancho Cordova Test Site (IRCT) – Nimbus Road; • Automotive Importing MFG Inc. – 3920 Security Park Drive; • General Electric Medical Systems – 3920 Security Park Drive.

With the exception of the groundwater plume associated with the Aerojet site, the Phase I ESA did not identify any potential risks to the project site associated with the above listed properties.

4.5.3 REGULATORY CONTEXT
The following discussion contains a summary of regulatory controls pertaining to hazardous substances, including federal, State, and local laws and ordinances.

Federal Regulations
Federal agencies that regulate hazardous materials include the USEPA, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), the Department of Transportation (DOT), and the National Institute of Health (NIH). Prior to August 1992, the principal agency at the federal level regulating the generation, transport, and disposal of hazardous waste was the USEPA under the authority of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). As of August 1, 1992, however, the California DTSC was authorized to implement the State’s hazardous waste management program ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

for the USEPA. The USEPA continues to regulate hazardous substances under the Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA). The following federal laws and related regulations govern hazardous materials.

Occupational Safety and Health Act
Congress passed the Occupational and Safety Health Act (29 U.S.C. Section 651 et seq. [1970]) to ensure worker and workplace safety. Their goal was to make sure employers provide their workers a place of employment free from recognized hazards to safety and health, such as exposure to toxic chemicals, excessive noise levels, mechanical dangers, heat or cold stress, or unsanitary conditions. In order to establish standards for workplace health and safety, the Act also created the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) as the research institution for OSHA. OSHA is a division of the U.S. Department of Labor that oversees the administration of the Act and enforces standards in all 50 states. OSHA requires 40 hours of training for hazardous materials operators, as well as an annual eight-hour refresher course, which includes training regarding personal safety, hazardous materials storage and handling, and emergency response.

Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
The CERCLA (42 U.S.C. Section 9601 et seq. [1980]) provides a federal "Superfund" to clean up uncontrolled or abandoned hazardous-waste sites as well as accidents, spills, and other emergency releases of pollutants and contaminants into the environment. Through CERCLA, the USEPA was given power to seek out those parties responsible for any release and assure their cooperation in the cleanup. The USEPA cleans up orphan sites when potentially responsible parties cannot be identified or located, or when they fail to act. Through various enforcement tools, USEPA obtains private party cleanup through orders, consent decrees, and other small party settlements. The USEPA also recovers costs from financially viable individuals and companies once a response action has been completed. The USEPA is authorized to implement the Act in all 50 states and U.S. territories.

Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986
The Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA) of 1986, (Title III; Section 305(a)) reauthorized CERCLA to continue cleanup activities around the country. Several site-specific amendments, definitions clarifications, and technical requirements were added to the legislation, including additional enforcement authorities. In addition, Title III of SARA authorized the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA). SARA, Title III provides funding for training in emergency planning, preparedness, mitigation, response, and recovery capabilities associated with hazardous chemicals. Title III of SARA addresses concerns about emergency preparedness for hazardous chemicals, and emphasizes helping communities meet their responsibilities in preparing to handle chemical emergencies and increasing public knowledge and access to information on hazardous chemicals present in their communities.

Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
The RCRA (42 U.S.C. Section 6901 et seq. [1976]) gives USEPA the authority to control hazardous waste from the "cradle-to-grave," which includes the generation, transportation, treatment, storage, and disposal of hazardous waste. RCRA also set forth a framework for the management of non-hazardous solid wastes. The 1986 amendments to RCRA enabled USEPA to address environmental problems that could result from underground tanks storing petroleum ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

and other hazardous substances. The federal Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments (HSWA) are the 1984 amendments to RCRA that focused on waste minimization and phasing out land disposal of hazardous waste as well as corrective action for releases. Some of the other mandates of this law include increased enforcement authority for USEPA, more stringent hazardous waste management standards, and a comprehensive underground storage tank program. States have the authority to implement individual hazardous waste programs in lieu of the RCRA as long as the state program is as stringent as federal RCRA requirements and is approved by the USEPA.

Toxic Substances Control Act
The Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) of 1976 (15 U.S.C. Section 2601 et seq. [1976]) provides USEPA with authority to require reporting, record-keeping and testing requirements, and restrictions relating to chemical substances and/or mixtures. Certain substances are generally excluded from TSCA, including, among others, food, drugs, cosmetics and pesticides. TSCA addresses the production, importation, use, and disposal of specific chemicals including PCBs, asbestos, radon, and lead-based paint.

U.S. Department of Transportation
Transportation of hazardous materials is regulated by the DOT’s Office of Hazardous Materials Safety. The office formulates, issues, and revises hazardous materials regulations under the Federal Hazardous Materials Transportation Law. The hazardous materials regulations cover hazardous materials definitions and classifications, hazard communications, shipper and carrier operations, training and security requirements, and packaging and container specifications. The hazardous materials transportation regulations are codified in 49 CFR Parts 100–185.

The hazardous materials transportation regulations require carriers transporting hazardous materials to receive required training in the handling and transportation of hazardous materials.

Training requirements include pre-trip safety inspections, use of vehicle controls and equipment including emergency equipment, procedures for safe operation of the transport vehicle, training on the properties of the hazardous material being transported, and loading and unloading procedures. All drivers must possess a commercial driver’s license as required by 49 CFR Part 383. Vehicles transporting hazardous materials must be properly placarded. In addition, the carrier is responsible for the safe unloading of hazardous materials at the site, and operators must follow specific procedures during unloading to minimize the potential for an accidental release of hazardous materials.

Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response Act
The 1986 Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response Act (AHERA) was signed into law as Title II of the TSCA, requiring the Asbestos Model Accreditation Plan (MAP) for accrediting individuals conducting asbestos inspection and corrective-action activities in schools and public and commercial buildings. The MAP provides guidance on the minimum training requirements for accrediting asbestos professionals such as, procedural entry, exit, sampling, and monitoring, safety hazards, and relevant federal, state, and local regulatory standards.

Lead-based Paint Regulations
Lead pollutants are regulated by several laws administered by the USEPA, including the Toxic TSCA, the Residential Lead-Based Paint Hazard Reduction Act of 1992, the California Apartment Association (CAA), the California Waterfowl Association (CWA), the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA), the RCRA, and CERCLA. The aforementioned regulations address lead in paint, dust and soil, lead in air and water, and the disposal of lead wastes. Regulations specific to lead-based ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

paint include, but are not limited to, the Lead Renovation Repair and Painting Program Rule, the Lead Abatement Program, the residential Lead-based Paint Disclosure Program, and Residential Hazards of Lead in Paint, Dust and Soil. Such regulations require risk assessments, inspections, and work practices that work to minimize exposure to lead hazards.

State Regulations
The CalEPA and the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) establish rules governing the use of hazardous materials and the management of hazardous waste. Within CalEPA, DTSC has primary regulatory responsibility, with delegation of enforcement to local jurisdictions that enter into agreements with the State agency, for the management of hazardous materials and the generation, transport, and disposal of hazardous waste under the authority of the Hazardous Waste Control Law (HWCL). The following discussion contains the applicable State laws.

Regional Water Quality Control Board
The CalEPA and the Office of Emergency Services (OES) establish regulations governing the use of hazardous materials in California. Within CalEPA, DTSC has primary regulatory responsibility for hazardous waste management. Enforcement of regulations can be delegated to local jurisdictions that enter into agreements with DTSC for the generation, transport, and disposal of hazardous materials under the authority of the HWCL. Along with the DTSC, the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) is responsible for implementing regulations pertaining to management of soil and groundwater investigation and cleanup. The RWQCB’s regulations are contained in Title 27 of the California Code of Regulations (CCR). The DTSC, RWQCB, and/or a local agency typically oversees investigation and cleanup of contaminated sites.

Department of Toxic Substances Control
The DTSC was established to protect California against threats to public health and degradation to the environment and to restore properties degraded by past environmental contamination.

Through statutory mandates, DTSC cleans up existing contamination, regulates management of hazardous wastes, and prevents pollution by working with businesses to reduce hazardous waste and use of toxic materials in California. DTSC regulates the generation, transportation, treatment, storage, and disposal of hazardous waste in California. In addition, DTSC’s Site Mitigation and Brownfields Reuse Program oversees the cleanup of State Superfund Sites. State Superfund sites are additionally known as Annual Workplan sites, listed sites, or Cortese List sites.

Superfund sites demonstrate evidence of a hazardous substance release or releases that could pose a significant threat to public health and/or the environment. DTSC requires responsible parties to cleanup such sites. When responsible parties cannot be found or where they do not take proper and timely action, DTSC may use State funds to undertake the cleanup.

California Code of Regulations
Hazardous waste is characterized and defined in CCR, Title 22, Sections 66261.20-24. Soils that meet the descriptions of the characteristics of hazardous waste defined in Sections 66261.20-24 and contain contaminants above regulatory screening levels are considered hazardous waste and must be handled and disposed of as such. The CCR includes the California Health and Safety Code.

California Health and Safety Code
The handling and storage of hazardous materials is regulated on the federal level by the USEPA under CERCLA as amended by the SARA. Under SARA Title III, a nationwide emergency ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

planning and response program was established that imposed reporting requirements for businesses which store, handle, or produce significant quantities of hazardous or acutely toxic substances as defined under federal laws. SARA Title III required each state to implement a comprehensive system to inform federal authorities, local agencies, and the public when a significant quantity of hazardous, acutely toxic substances are stored or handled at a facility.

Ammonia is an example of an acutely hazardous material (AHM) that is regulated by the California Office of Emergency Services under the California Accidental Release Program (CalARP), the USEPA under the Risk Management Program (40 CFR 68), and the OSHA under the Process Safety Management Program (OSHA 1910.119). The CalARP and Risk Management Program require that all facilities that store, handle, or use AHMs above a minimum quantity, known as the threshold planning quantity, are required to develop a plan and prepare supporting documentation that summarizes the facility’s potential risk to the local community and identifies safety measures to reduce potential risks to the public.

The HWCL, Chapter 6.5 of the California Health and Safety Code, is administered by the CalEPA to regulate hazardous wastes. While the HWCL is generally more stringent than RCRA, until the USEPA approves the California program, both the State and federal laws apply in California.

The HWCL lists 791 chemicals and about 300 common materials that may be hazardous; establishes criteria for identifying, packaging, and labeling hazardous wastes; prescribes management controls; establishes permit requirements for treatment, storage, disposal and transportation; and identifies some wastes that cannot be disposed of in landfills.

In California, the underground storage of hazardous materials is regulated by Chapter 6.7 of the California Health and Safety Code per the Underground Storage of Hazardous Substances Act.

Under section 25280, the USTs used for the storage of substances hazardous to the public health and safety and to the environment are stored prior to use or disposal in thousands of underground locations in the State. The USTs are potential sources of contamination of the ground and underlying aquifers, and may pose other dangers to public health and the environment. Chapter

6.7 establishes orderly procedures that will ensure that newly constructed USTs meet appropriate standards and that existing tanks be properly maintained, inspected, tested, and upgraded so that the health, property, and resources of the people of the state will be protected.

California Vehicle Code Section 31303
The California Highway Patrol (CHP) and California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) are the enforcement agencies for hazardous materials transportation regulations. Hazardous materials and waste transporters are responsible for complying with all applicable packaging, labeling, and shipping regulations. California Vehicle Code Section 31303 regulates the transport of hazardous materials.

Emergency Response to Hazardous Materials Incidents
California has developed an emergency response plan to coordinate emergency services provided by federal, state, and local governments and private agencies. Response to hazardous material incidents is one part of this plan. The plan is managed by the Governor’s OES, which coordinates the responses of other agencies, including CalEPA, CHP, California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), and the Central Valley RWQCB.

ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

Unified Hazardous Materials Management Regulatory Program On January 1, 1996, CalEPA adopted implementing regulations and implemented a unified hazardous waste and hazardous materials management regulatory program (Unified Program), to consolidate the administration of specified statutory requirements for the regulation of hazardous wastes and materials. The Unified Program is implemented at the local level by government agencies certified by the Secretary of CalEPA. The Certified Unified Program Agency (CUPA) is responsible for implementation of the Unified Program. CUPA is certified and responsible for oversight of the following consolidated programs: Hazardous Materials Release Response Plans and Inventories (Business Plans); California Accidental Release Program; Underground Storage Tank Program; Aboveground Petroleum Storage Act; Hazardous Waste Generator and Onsite Hazardous Waste Treatment (tiered permitting) Programs; and California Uniform Fire Code: Hazardous Materials Management Plans and Hazardous Material Inventory Statements.

Local Regulations
Relevant goals and policies from the County of Sacramento and the City of Rancho Cordova General Plan related to hazards and hazardous materials are discussed below.

Sacramento County
The County of Sacramento OES implements the State’s Right-to-Know Ordinance that gives the OES the authority to inventory hazardous materials used by businesses. The County is also in the process of collecting information regarding existing and proposed locations of hazardous material disposal, storage, handling, and transportation facilities.

Additionally, the Sacramento County Environmental Management Department (EMD) is responsible for enforcing the State regulations on both the city and county level, governing hazardous waste generators, hazardous waste storage, underground storage tanks (including inspections, enforcement, and removals), and environmental health (including inspections and enforcement). Sacramento County's Environmental Management Department has been designated as the Sacramento region's CUPA by CalEPA. The Program is housed within Department's Environmental Compliance Division. CUPA Programs are administered throughout the County of Sacramento and its incorporated cities, including the City of Rancho Cordova.

EMD also regulates the use, storage, and disposal of hazardous materials in the County and abandonment of wells and septic systems in the County by issuing permits, monitoring regulatory compliance, investigating complaints, and other activities. EMD reviews technical aspects of hazardous waste site cleanups, and oversees remediation of certain contaminated sites resulting from leaking underground storage tanks. EMD is also responsible for providing technical assistance to public and private entities that seek to minimize the generation of hazardous waste.

Sacramento County Area Plan
The Sacramento County EMD established the Sacramento County Area Plan (SCAP) as a guideline for hazardous material related accidents or occurrences. The purpose of the SCAP is “to delineate responsibilities and actions by various agencies in Sacramento County required to meet the obligation to protect the health and welfare of the populace, natural resources (environment), and the public and private properties involving hazardous materials.” The SCAP is used for making initial decisions at a hazardous materials incident. The SCAP uses Level I, Level II and Level III classifications for hazardous material incidents, which are determined by the following planning basis:

ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

• Level of technical expertise required to abate the incident; • Extent of Municipal, County, and State Government involved; • Extent of evacuation of civilians; and
• Extent of injuries and/or deaths.

Sacramento County Multi-Hazard Disaster Plan
The Sacramento County Multi-Hazard Disaster Plan (SCMDP) was established to address a planned response to extraordinary emergency situations associated with natural disasters and technological incidents. The SCMDP focuses on operational concepts related to large-scale disasters, which can pose major threats to life and property requiring unusual emergency responses. The SCMDP was designed to include Sacramento County as part of the California Standardized Emergency Management System (SEMS), which assigns responsibilities to support implementation of the SCMDP and to ensure successful response during a major disaster.

City of Rancho Cordova General Plan
The following goals and policies from the City of Rancho Cordova General Plan related to hazards and hazardous materials are applicable to the proposed project:

Goal S.1: Establish Rancho Cordova as a safe community and environment for all persons.

Policy S.1.5 The City shall require written confirmation from applicable local, regional, state, and federal agencies that known contaminated sites have been deemed remediated to a level appropriate for land uses proposed prior to the City approving site development or provide an approved remediation plan that demonstrates how contamination will be remediated prior to site occupancy. This documentation will specify the extent of development allowed on the remediated site as well as any special conditions and/or restrictions on future land uses.

Goal S.5: Reduce the possibility of serious harm to residents, employees, or the environment as the result of an accidental release of toxic or hazardous substances.

Policy S.5.2 Consider the potential impact of hazardous facilities on the public and/or adjacent or nearby properties posed by
reasonably foreseeable events. The City considers an event to be “reasonably foreseeable” when the probability of the event occurring is greater than one in one million per year.

Policy S.5.3 Regulate the storage of hazardous materials and waste consistent with State and Federal law.

Policy S.5.5 Separate hazardous or toxic materials from the public.

ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

4.5.4 IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
The following section describes the standards of significance and methodology used to analyze and determine the proposed project’s potential impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials. A discussion of the project’s impacts, as well as mitigation measures where necessary, is also presented.

Standards of Significance
In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Appendix G, an impact is considered significant if the proposed project would:
• Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine handling, transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials; or
• Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the likely release of hazardous materials into the environment.

Issues Not Discussed Further
The Initial Study prepared for the proposed project (see Appendix A) determined that development of the proposed project would result in no impact or a less-than-significant impact related to the following impacts:
• Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school; • Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment;
• For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area; • Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan;
• Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to the risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires; and/or
• If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project:
o Substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan;
o Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project occupants to, pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire;
o Require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment; or
o Expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes.

ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

Method of Analysis
Site conditions and impacts for this chapter are based primarily on the Phase I ESA prepared for the project site. The goal of a Phase I ESA is to identify whether RECs exist at a property, where RECs are defined by ASTM as “the presence or likely presence of any hazardous substances or petroleum products on a property under conditions that indicate an existing release, a past release, or a material threat of a release of any hazardous substances or petroleum products into structures on the property or into the ground, groundwater, or surface water of the property. […].” The Phase I ESA meets or exceeds the requirements of the ASTM “Standard Practice for Environmental Site Assessments: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Process E 1527-05.” The Phase I ESA included a review of federal, State, and local environmental databases for information regarding documented and suspected releases of regulated materials within the project site vicinity based upon reference to an environmental database search performed by EDR, an environmental database search firm. Additional historical use information regarding the project site and surrounding properties was pulled from the following sources:
• Aerial photographs;
• Fire insurance (Sanborn) maps;
• Building department records;
• Chain-of-title documents;
• City directory abstracts;
• Land use records; and
• U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Topographic Maps.

Historical photographs of the project site dating to 1937 and historic topographic maps dating to 1891 were reviewed to provide a historical context of the project site. In addition, a site reconnaissance of the project site was conducted on May 9, 2019. The site reconnaissance consisted of walking the project site and driving by nearby adjacent properties from public vantages to observe apparent uses. Photographs of the site were taken during the site reconnaissance.

Project-Specific Impacts and Mitigation Measures
The project site conditions have been compared to the standards of significance presented above in order to determine the project’s impact significance. If significant impacts are identified for the construction and operational phases of the proposed project, recommended mitigation measures have been included to reduce the identified impacts to less-than-significant levels.

4.5-1 Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. Based on the analysis below, the impact is less than significant.

A significant hazard to the public or the environment could result from the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. Projects that involve the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials are typically industrial in nature. The proposed project would not be industrial in nature. Operations of the proposed 440- unit single-family residential project would not include any activities that would involve the routine transport, use, disposal, or generation of substantial amounts of hazardous ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

materials. During operations, hazardous material use would be limited to landscaping products such as fertilizer, pesticides, as well as typical commercial and maintenance products (cleaning agents, degreasers, paints, batteries, and motor oil). Proper handling and usage of such materials in accordance with label instructions would ensure that adverse impacts to human health or the environment would not result.

Thus, operations of the proposed project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials.

Construction activities associated with implementation of the proposed project would involve the use of heavy equipment, which would contain fuels and oils, and various other products such as concrete, paints, and adhesives. The project contractor is required to comply with all California Health and Safety Codes and local County ordinances regulating the handling, storage, and transportation of hazardous and toxic materials. Pursuant to California Health and Safety Code Section 25510(a), except as provided in subdivision (b),6 the handler or an employee, authorized representative, agent, or designee of a handler, shall, upon discovery, immediately report any release or threatened release of a hazardous material to the unified program agency (in the case of the proposed project, the Sacramento County EMD) in accordance with the regulations adopted pursuant to Section 25510(a). The handler or an employee, authorized representative, agent, or designee of the handler shall provide all State, city, or county fire or public health or safety personnel and emergency response personnel with access to the handler's facilities. In the case of the proposed project, the contractors are required to notify the Sacramento County EMD in the event of an accidental release of a hazardous material, who would then monitor the conditions and recommend appropriate remediation measures.

Based on the above, the project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine handling, transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. Thus, a less-than-significant impact would occur.

Mitigation Measure(s)
None required.

4.5-2 Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the likely release of hazardous materials into the environment. Based on the analysis below and with
implementation of mitigation, the impact is less than
significant.

As discussed previously, the Phase I ESA identified various potential RECs and other hazards on the project site, including groundwater contamination/soil vapor intrusion, an on-site UST and other potential fuel storage vessels, asbestos, lead-based paint, and termiticides. In addition, the Phase I ESA noted the presence of domestic wells and septic systems within the site. The potential for development of the proposed 6 Subdivision (a) does not apply to a person engaged in the transportation of a hazardous material on a highway that is subject to, and in compliance with, the requirements of Sections 2453 and 23112.5 of the Vehicle Code.

ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

project to result in risks or hazards related to such existing environmental hazards is described below.

Groundwater Contamination
Per the Phase I ESA, a contaminant plume of TCE was discovered to encroach within portions of the northernmost parcels within the project site (APNs 072-0300-001, 072- 0300-008, and 073-001-011. The five ppb contour of TCE (the maximum contaminant level) extends to onsite and adjacent monitoring wells, but does not extend to any domestic wells identified on the project site. Although existing domestic wells aren’t necessarily impacted, the presence of TCE within project site has potential to create a soil vapor intrusion risk.

The proposed project would not include development of residential uses on any of the three potentially impacted parcels. Rather, the 185.3 acres of open space area within the northern portion of the site would not be disturbed, as this portion of the project site would not be included in development of the proposed project. Therefore, the proposed residential uses would not be subject to risks related to groundwater contamination or vapor intrusion. In addition, ground-disturbing activities associated with project construction would not have the potential to result in upset of contaminated soils. Thus, a less-than-significant impact would occur.

Underground Storage Tank and Other Fuel Storage Vessels Within APN 073-0010-011, Youngdahl Consulting Group, Inc. identified two protruding steel pipes that have the potential to be connected to a UST, which is considered an REC. The California Health and Safety Code, the CCR, and the Sacramento County Code of Ordinances require that a UST owner or operator must obtain a permit from the Sacramento County EMD to remove a UST. In addition, the Phase I ESA identified an unknown underground system within APN 072-0300-008 adjacent to the shed located north of the residence, as well as a 55-gallon drum was found northeast of the residence with an unknown liquid inside. Development of the proposed project would require removal of the potential UST, the underground system on APN 072-0300-008, and the 55-gallon drum, all of which are considered potential RECs. Given that such RECs could pose a risk to workers during project construction, a significant impact could occur.

Asbestos and Lead-Based Paint
Per the Phase I ESA, ACBM may be present within the existing residences and associated outbuildings located within APN 072-0300-008. In addition, lead-based paint may be present within all of the on-site structures. The potential presence ACBMs and lead contamination is considered an REC. During demolition and grounddisturbing activities associated with the proposed project, construction workers could come into contact with, and be exposed to, ACBMs or lead-based paint materials present in the existing structures. Additionally, workers could potentially be exposed to elevated concentrations of lead in the soil in the vicinity of the structures. Collection and disposal of ACBMs and lead materials, including lead-based paint, by untrained personnel could cause asbestos and lead dust emissions to be transported off-site, resulting in the release of hazardous material into the environment. Thus, a significant impact could occur.

ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

Termiticides
As discussed above, the soils in the vicinity of the wooden structures located on APN 072-0300-002 (12565 Douglas Road) and APN 072-0300-008 (12535 Douglas Road) are at risk of having termiticides present, which is considered an REC. Additional sampling is necessary to evaluate the potential presence of termiticides in the soils.

Domestic Wells and Septic Systems
The Phase I ESA identified existing wells located on APNs 073-0010-011, 072-0300- 002, 072-0300-005, and 072-0300-008. Proper abandonment of these wells would need to occur in accordance with the standards set forth in Department of Water Resources Bulletin 74-81. As discussed in Part III of Bulletin 74-81, the top of the well or well casing shall be provided with a cover, that is secured by a lock or by other means to prevent its removal without the use of equipment or tools, to prevent unauthorized access, to prevent a safety hazard to humans and animals, and to prevent illegal disposal of wastes in the well. The cover shall be watertight where the top of the well casing or other surface openings to the well are below ground level, such as in a vault or below known levels of flooding.

All abandoned wells shall be destroyed. The objective of destruction is to restore as nearly as possible those subsurface conditions which existed before the well was constructed taking into account changes, if any, which have occurred since the time of construction. Destruction of a well shall consist of the complete filling of the well in accordance with Section 23 of Part III of Bulletin 74-81. As discussed further below, Mitigation Measure 4.5-2(e) is proposed to ensure any existing wells that need to be removed are abandoned in conformance with all applicable laws.

A septic system was identified within the lawn to the north of the existing residence at APN 072-0300-005. In addition, the Phase I ESA noted the possible presence of a septic tank adjacent to the northernmost shed on APN 072-0300-010. The proposed project would be required to properly abandon all existing septic systems prior to connection of the project to the existing County sewer infrastructure.

Conclusion
Based on the above, groundwater contamination would not pose a substantial risk to workers or residents on the project site. However, the potential UST, unknown underground storage system, and other potential fuel storage vessels located within APNs 073-0010-011 and 072-0300-008 could pose a risk to workers during project construction. In addition, the project site contains existing structures that were built prior to 1980 and 1970, and are likely to contain ACBMs and lead-based paints.

Furthermore, the soils in the vicinity of the wooden structures located at APN 072- 0300-002 and APN 072-0300-008 have the potential to be contaminated with termiticides.

Therefore, implementation of the proposed project could create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the likely release of hazardous materials into the environment, and a significant impact could occur.

ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

Mitigation Measure(s)
Implementation of the following mitigation measures would reduce the above impact to a less-than-significant level.

4.5-2(a) Prior initiation of demolition or construction activities associated with the proposed project, the project applicant shall complete and submit, for both the underground storage units identified on APNs 073-0010- 011 and 072-0300-008, a Consolidated Application For Authority to Remove Under Ground Storage Tanks to the Sacramento County Environmental Management Department (EMD) for review. Upon issuance of a permit (Authority Letter to Remove) from the EMD, removal of the UST shall proceed in accordance with all permit conditions, including, but not limited to, inspection, testing, and plan/report submittal requirements.

4.5-2(b) Prior initiation of demolition or construction activities associated with the proposed project, the project applicant shall retain a licensed contractor to remove the existing 55-gallon drum located on APN 072- 0300-008, to the northeast of the existing residence. The drum shall be disposed of in accordance with all applicable federal, State, and local regulations related to the handling, transport, and disposal of hazardous waste. Proof of safe disposal shall be provided to the Community Development Department.

4.5-2(c) Prior to issuance of a demolition permit for any on-site structures, the project applicant shall consult with certified Asbestos and/or Lead Risk Assessors to complete and submit for review to the Community Development Department an asbestos and lead survey. If asbestoscontaining materials or lead-containing materials are not discovered during the survey, further mitigation related to asbestos-containing materials or lead containing materials shall not be required. If asbestoscontaining materials and/or lead-containing materials are discovered by the survey, the project applicant shall prepare a work plan to demonstrate how the on-site asbestos-containing materials and/or lead-containing materials shall be removed in accordance with current California Occupational Health and Safety (Cal-OSHA) Administration regulations and disposed of in accordance with all CalEPA regulations, prior to the demolition and/or removal of the on-site structures. The plan shall include the requirement that work shall be conducted by a CalOSHA registered asbestos and lead abatement contractor in accordance with Title 8 CCR 1529 and Title 8 CCR 1532.1 regarding asbestos and lead training, engineering controls, and certifications. The applicant shall submit the work plan to the Community Development Department for review and approval. Materials containing more than one (1) percent asbestos that is friable are also subject to SMAQMD regulations. Removal of materials containing more than one (1) percent friable asbestos shall be completed in accordance with SMAQMD Rule 902.

ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

4.5-2(d) Prior to issuance of a demolition permit for any on-site structures, the project applicant shall retain the services of a licensed environmental professional to prepared a Phase II Environmental Assessment (ESA) for the project site. The Phase II ESA shall evaluate, at a minimum, potential lead contamination in the soils in the vicinity of the structures located on APN 072-0300-008, as well as potential termiticide contamination in the soils in the vicinity of the wooden structures located on APN 072-0300-002 and APN 072-0300-008. In the event that the lead and/or termiticide contamination is determined to occur, the project applicant shall implement all recommended measures in the Phase II ESA necessary to address such hazards. Such measures may include, but shall not be limited to, capping contaminated soil in place and deed-restricting the subject property, excavation and off-haul of contaminated soils by a licensed contractor, or other appropriate methods deemed acceptable by the Sacramento County
Environmental Management Department (EMD).

4.5-2(e) Prior to Improvement Plan approval, the applicant shall hire a licensed well contractor to obtain a well abandonment permit from the Sacramento County Environmental Management Department (EMD) for all on-site wells, and properly abandon the on-site wells, pursuant to Department of Water Resources Bulletin 74-81 (Water Well Standards, Part III), for review and approval by the EMD. In addition, prior to Improvement Plan approval, the project applicant shall ensure that any on-site septic systems are abandoned in compliance with applicable EMD standards. Verification of abandonment shall be ensured by the City of Rancho Cordova Community Development Department.

4.5-2(f) If unidentified or suspected contaminated soil or groundwater evidenced by stained soil, noxious odors, or other factors, is encountered during site preparation or construction activities at the project site, work shall stop in the area of potential contamination, and the type and extent of contamination shall be identified by a Registered Environmental Assessor (REA) or qualified professional. The REA or qualified professional shall prepare a report that includes, but is not limited to, activities performed for the assessment, summary of anticipated contaminants and contaminant concentrations, relevant environmental screening levels for identified contaminants, whether the contaminants exceed ESLs, thus warranting remediation, and recommendations for appropriate handling and disposal. Site preparation or construction activities shall not recommence within the contaminated areas until any necessary remediation identified in the report is complete. The report and verification of proper remediation and disposal shall be submitted to the City of Rancho Cordova Community Development Department for review and approval.

ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

Cumulative Impacts and Mitigation Measures
As defined in Section 15355 of the CEQA Guidelines, “cumulative impacts” refers to two or more individual effects which, when considered together, are considerable, compound, or increase other environmental impacts. The individual effects may be changes resulting from a single project or a number of separate projects. The cumulative impact from several projects is the change in the environment that results from the incremental impact of the project when added to other closely related past, present, and reasonably foreseeable probable future projects.

For further detail related to the cumulative setting of the proposed project, refer to Chapter 5, Statutorily Required Sections, of this EIR.

4.5-3 Cumulative exposure to potential hazards and increases in the transport, storage, and use of hazardous materials. Based on the analysis below, the cumulative impact is less than
significant.

As discussed, project-specific impacts associated with hazardous materials related to implementation of the proposed project were found to be less than significant with implementation of mitigation. Hazardous materials and other public health and safety issues are generally site-specific and/or project-specific, and would not be significantly affected by other development within the project area. Cumulative development projects would be subject to the same federal, State, and local hazardous materials management requirements as would the proposed project, which would minimize potential risks associated with increased hazardous materials use in the community.

Therefore, cumulative impacts associated with hazardous materials transport, storage, and use associated with implementation of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects, as well as the proposed project, would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measure(s)
None required.

ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

4.6 Hydrology and Water Quality
ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

4.6.1 INTRODUCTION
The Hydrology and Water Quality chapter of the EIR describes existing drainage patterns on the project site, current stormwater flows and stormwater infrastructure. The chapter also evaluates potential impacts of the proposed project with respect to increases in impervious surface area and associated stormwater flows, degradation of water quality, and increases in on- and off-site flooding. Information used for this chapter was primarily drawn from the Drainage Study prepared for the proposed project by Ruggeri-Jensen-Azar (see Appendix H), 1 as well as the City of Rancho
Cordova General Plan2 and associated EIR.3 It should be noted that issues associated with water supply and availability are addressed in Chapter 4.9, Public Services and Utilities, of this EIR.

4.6.2 EXISTING ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
The section below describes regional hydrology, the existing drainage patterns within the project site, including peak flows, existing water quality, and groundwater conditions.

Regional Hydrology
The City of Rancho Cordova is located within the 27,000 square mile Sacramento River watershed, which includes the Sacramento, American, and Cosumnes Rivers. The American River is located along the northern boundary of the City’s Planning Area and the Cosumnes River is located to the south of the Planning Area. More specifically, the project site is located within the Morrison Creek Stream Group watershed, which covers 192 square miles, and includes the waterways of Elder, Rancho Cordova, Florin, Gerber, Laguna (and tributaries), Morrison, Strawberry, Union House, and Whitehouse Creeks, which generally flow in a southwesterly direction (see Figure 4.6-1). The Morrison Creek Stream Group watershed ultimately flows to the Sacramento River. The topography within the Planning Area includes gently rolling terrain, such as that found in the eastern Great Central Valley, interrupted by numerous seasonal creeks and streams. Such creeks and streams are largely ephemeral and intermittent, which is typical of areas that experience dry summers and cool, wet winters, as is the case for the project region.

Project Site and Surrounding Area Drainage
Currently, the 279.3-acre project site contains two single-family residences and associated outbuildings on the southern portion of the site, within parcels 072-0300-002 and -005. An orchard is located within the northeastern portion of the site within parcel 073-0010-011, and a third singlefamily residence and associated outbuildings are located on APN 072-0300-008. The remainder of the site consists primarily of ruderal grasses. Morrison Creek conveys runoff from the east side of Grant Line Road at the project site’s eastern boundary through the project limits to the western edge of the project site. Two man-made ponds are located along the reach of Morrison Creek near the northwestern portion of the project site. The existing on-site drainage conditions are shown in Figure 4.6-2.
1 Ruggeri-Jensen-Azar. Drainage Study for the Preserve. Updated October 2019. 2 City of Rancho Cordova. General Plan. Adopted June 26, 2006. 3 City of Rancho Cordova. General Plan Environmental Impact Report. 2006.

4.6. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

Figure 4.6-1
Regional Surface Water Resources
Source: City of Rancho Cordova, General Plan EIR [Figure 4.9-1], 2006.

ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

Figure 4.6-2
Existing Drainage Conditions
Source: Ruggeri-Jensen-Azar, 2019.

ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

According to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) for the project area, the entirety of the project site is located within Zone X, defined as an area of minimal flood hazard that is located outside of the designated 100-year floodplain.4

According to the Drainage Study prepared for the proposed project, the existing 10-year, 24-hour and 100-year, 24-hour storm flowrates for Morrison Creek are 194 cubic feet per second (cfs) and 361 cfs, respectively. The flowrates were developed for the Master Drainage Study (MDS) for the Rio Del Oro Specific Plan in August 2005 by Wood Rodgers and include a total drainage area of 1,003 acres consisting of the area identified within the MDS as US3 (Figure F from the MDS; included in Appendix H to this EIR), including the project site, which forms the western boundary of the US3 drainage area. It should be noted that the northwestern portion of the project site, which is included in drainage area US2 of the MDS, would not be developed as part of the proposed project and, thus, the drainage conditions in that shed are not discussed further herein.

As calculated at the location of the proposed stormwater outfall location into Morrison Creek, predevelopment runoff rates from the project site are 79 cfs for the 10-year, 24-hour storm event and 134 cfs for the 100-year, 24-hour storm event.

Water Quality
Activities and/or conditions that have the potential to degrade water quality include but are not limited to, construction activities and urban stormwater runoff.

Construction activities have the potential to cause erosion and sedimentation associated with groundbreaking and clearing activities, which could cause unstabilized soil to be washed or windblown into nearby surface water. In addition, the use of heavy equipment during construction activities, especially during rainfall events, have the potential to cause petroleum products and other pollutants to enter nearby drainages.

Water quality degradation from urban stormwater runoff is primarily the result of runoff carrying pollutants from the land surface (i.e., streets, parking lots, etc.) to the receiving waters (i.e., streams and lakes). Pollutants typically found in urban runoff include facility maintenance and lawn-care/landscaping chemicals (insecticides, herbicides, fungicides and rodenticides), heavy metals (such as copper, zinc and cadmium), oils and greases from automobiles and other mechanical equipment, and nutrients (nitrogen and phosphorus).

Groundwater
The proposed project site is located within the South American Subbasin. The South American Subbasin is bounded on the east by the Sierra Nevada Mountains, on the west by the Sacramento River, on the north by the American River, and on the south by the Cosumnes and Mokelumne Rivers. As part of the South American Subbasin, the Rancho Cordova Planning Area covers a shallow unconfined aquifer system, known as the water table aquifer, approximately 200 hundred feet below ground surface, and a deeper confined groundwater aquifer system ranging from a few hundred feet to over 2,000 feet below ground surface. The deeper aquifer system that becomes confined with depth is separated from the shallow aquifer by a discontinuous clay layer, not completely impermeable.
4 Federal Emergency Management Agency. Flood Insurance Rate Map, Map Number 06067C0250H. August 16, 2012.

ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

The groundwater in the Central Basin portion of the South American Subbasin within which the project site is located is managed by the Sacramento Central Groundwater Authority (SCGA).5 The SCGA was formed in 2006 through a joint powers agreement signed by the cities of Elk Grove, Folsom, Rancho Cordova, and Sacramento, and the County of Sacramento. SCGA was formed for several purposes including maintaining the long-term sustainable yield of the Central Basin, managing the use of groundwater in the Central Basin, and facilitating the implementation of a conjunctive use program. The SCGA Groundwater Management Plan, which was adopted in 2006, establishes a framework for maintaining sustainable groundwater resources in the Central Basin. The framework includes specific goals, objectives, and an action plan to manage the basin.

The SCGA Groundwater Management Plan also prescribes a well protection program to protect existing private domestic well and agricultural well owners from declining groundwater levels resulting from increased groundwater pumping due to new development in the basin. The SCGA Groundwater Management Plan includes a detailed groundwater management implementation plan to comply with the requirements of their basin management objectives. Additionally, SCGA prepares a biennial report to evaluate progress on Groundwater Management Plan implementation and to report on basin conditions.

4.6.3 REGULATORY CONTEXT
The following is a description of federal, State, and local environmental laws and policies that are relevant to the review of hydrology and water quality under the CEQA process.

Federal Regulations
The following section includes federal environmental goals and policies relevant to the CEQA review process pertaining to the hydrology and water quality aspects of the proposed project.

Federal Emergency Management Agency
The FEMA is responsible for determining flood elevations and floodplain boundaries based on U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) studies. FEMA is also responsible for distributing the FIRMs, which are used in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). The FIRMs identify the locations of special flood hazard areas, including the 100-year floodplains.

FEMA allows non-residential development in the floodplain; however, construction activities are restricted within flood hazard areas, depending upon the potential for flooding within each area.

Federal regulations governing development in a floodplain are set forth in Title 44, Part 60 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). These standards are implemented at the State level through construction codes and local ordinances; however, these regulations only apply to residential and non-residential structure improvements. Although roadway construction or modification is not explicitly addressed in the FEMA regulations, the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) has also adopted criteria and standards for roadway drainage systems and projects situated within designated floodplains. Standards that apply to floodplain issues are based on federal regulations (Title 23, Part 650 of the CFR). At the State level, roadway design must comply with drainage standards included in Chapters 800-890 of the Caltrans Highway Design Manual.

CFR Section 60.3(c)(10) restricts cumulative development from increasing the water surface elevation of the base flood by more than one foot within the floodplain. 5 Sacramento County Water Agency. 2015 Urban Water Management Plan. May 2016.

ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

Federal Clean Water Act
The National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit system was established in the federal Clean Water Act (CWA) to regulate municipal and industrial discharges to surface waters of the U.S. Each NPDES permit contains limits on allowable concentrations and mass emissions of pollutants contained in the discharge. Sections 401 and 402 of the CWA contain general requirements regarding NPDES permits. Section 307 of the CWA describes the factors that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) must consider in setting effluent limits for priority pollutants.

Nonpoint sources are diffuse and originate over a wide area rather than from a definable point.

Nonpoint pollution often enters receiving water in the form of surface runoff, but is not conveyed by way of pipelines or discrete conveyances. As defined in the federal regulations, such nonpoint sources are generally exempt from federal NPDES permit program requirements. However, two types of nonpoint source discharges are controlled by the NPDES program – nonpoint source discharge caused by general construction activities, and the general quality of stormwater in municipal stormwater systems. The 1987 amendments to the CWA directed the federal EPA to implement the stormwater program in two phases. Phase I addressed discharges from large (population 250,000 or above) and medium (population 100,000 to 250,000) municipalities and certain industrial activities. Phase II addresses all other discharges defined by EPA that are not included in Phase I.

Section 402 of the CWA mandates that certain types of construction activities comply with the requirements of the NPDES stormwater program. The Phase II Rule, issued in 1999, requires that construction activities that disturb land equal to or greater than one acre require permitting under the NPDES program. In California, permitting occurs under the General Permit for Stormwater Discharges Associated with Construction Activity, issued to the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), implemented and enforced by the nine Regional Water Quality Control Boards (RWQCBs).

As of July 1, 2010, all dischargers with projects that include clearing, grading or stockpiling activities expected to disturb one or more acres of soil are required to obtain compliance under the NPDES Construction General Permit Order 2009-0009-DWQ. The General Permit requires all dischargers, where construction activity disturbs one or more acres, to take the following measures:

1. Develop and implement a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) to include a site map(s) of existing and proposed building and roadway footprints, drainage patterns and stormwater collection and discharge points, and pre- and post- project topography;

2. Describe types and placement of Best Management Practices (BMPs) in the SWPPP that will be used to protect stormwater quality;

3. Provide a visual and chemical (if non-visible pollutants are expected) monitoring program for implementation upon BMP failure; and

4. Provide a sediment monitoring plan if the area discharges directly to a water body listed on the 303(d) list for sediment.

To obtain coverage, a SWPPP must be submitted to the RWQCB electronically and a copy of the SWPPP must be submitted to the City of Rancho Cordova. When project construction is completed, the landowner must file a Notice of Termination (NOT).

ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

State Regulations
The following section includes the State regulations relevant to the CEQA review process pertaining to the hydrology and water quality aspects of the proposed project.

State Water Resources Control Board
The SWRCB and the RWQCBs are responsible for ensuring implementation and compliance with the provisions of the federal CWA and California’s Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act. The project site is situated within the jurisdictional boundaries of the Central Valley RWQCB (CVRWQCB) (Region 5). The CVRWQCB has the authority to implement water quality protection standards through the issuance of permits for discharges to waters at locations within their jurisdiction.

Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board
As authorized by the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act, the CVRWQCB primary function is to protect the quality of the waters within its jurisdiction for all beneficial uses. State law defines beneficial uses of California’s waters that may be protected against quality degradation to include, but not be limited to: domestic; municipal; agricultural and industrial supply; power generation; recreation; aesthetic enjoyment; navigation; and preservation and enhancement of fish, wildlife, and other aquatic resources or preserves.

The CVRWQCB implements water quality protection measures by formulating and adopting water quality control plans (referred to as basin plans, as discussed below) for specific groundwater and surface water basins, and by prescribing and enforcing requirements on all agricultural, domestic, and industrial waste discharges. The CVRWQCB oversees many programs to support and provide benefit to water quality, including the following major programs: Agricultural Regulatory; AboveGround Tanks; Basin Planning; CALFED; Confined Animal Facilities; Landfills and Mining; NonPoint Source; Spills, Leaks, Investigations, and Cleanups (SLIC); Stormwater; Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL); Underground Storage Tanks (UST), Wastewater Discharges (including the NPDES); Water Quality Certification; and Watershed Management.

The CVRWQCB is responsible for issuing permits for a number of varying activities. Activities subject to the CVRWQCB permitting requirements include stormwater, wastewater, and industrial water discharge, disturbance of wetlands, and dewatering. Permits issued and/or enforced by the CVRWQCB include, but are not limited to, the NPDES Construction General Permit, NPDES Municipal Stormwater Permits, Industrial Stormwater General Permits, Clean Water Act Section 401 and 404 Permits, and Dewatering Permits.

Basin Plans and Water Quality Objectives
The Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act provides for the development and periodic review of water quality control plans (basin plans) that are prepared by the regional water quality control boards. Basin plans designate beneficial uses of California’s major rivers and groundwater basins, and establish narrative and numerical water quality objectives for those waters. Beneficial uses represent the services and qualities of a water body (i.e., the reasons why the water body is considered valuable), while water quality objectives represent the standards necessary to protect and support those beneficial uses. Basin plans are primarily implemented through the NPDES permitting system and by issuing waste discharge regulations to ensure that water quality objectives are met.

ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

Basin plans provide the technical basis for determining waste discharge requirements and taking regulatory enforcement actions if deemed necessary. The project site is located within the jurisdiction of the CVRWQCB. A basin plan has been adopted for the Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basin (Basin Plan), which covers all of the project area.

The Basin Plan sets water quality objectives for the surface waters in its region for the following substances and parameters: ammonia, bacteria, biostimulatory substances, chemical constituents, color, dissolved oxygen, floating material, oil and grease, pH, radioactivity, salinity, sediment, settleable material, suspended material, taste and odor, temperature, toxicity, turbidity, and pesticides. For groundwater, water quality objectives applicable to all groundwater have been set for bacteria, chemical constituents, radioactivity, taste, odors, and toxicity.

Senate Bill 5
In 2007, the State of California set the 200-year event as the Urban Level of Flood Protection (ULOP) for the State through a series of laws included in Senate Bill (SB) 5. Along with other related legislation, SB 5 established a mandate for local governments to amend their general plans and zoning codes to be consistent with State law on floodplain management. Specifically, SB 5 requires all cities and counties within the Sacramento-San Joaquin Valley, as defined in California Government Code Sections 65007(h) and (j), to make findings related to an ULOP or the national FEMA standard of flood protection before: (1) entering into a development agreement for any property that is located within a flood hazard zone; (2) approving a discretionary permit or other discretionary entitlement, or a ministerial permit that would result in the construction of a new residence, for a project that is located within a flood hazard zone; or (3) approving a tentative map, or a parcel map for which a tentative map was not required, for any subdivision that is located within a flood hazard zone. The primary purpose of the law is to ensure that appropriate flood protection is provided in urban and urbanizing areas.

A project would be subject to the requirements of SB 5 if the project would meet all of the following five criteria:

1. Located within an urban area that is a developed area, as defined by CFR Title 44, Section

59.1, with 10,000 residents or more, or an urbanizing area that is a developed area or an area outside a developed area that is planned or anticipated to have 10,000 residents or more within the next 10 years.

2. Located within a flood hazard zone that is mapped as either a special hazard area or an area of moderate hazard on FEMA’s official (i.e., effective) FIRM for the NFIP.

3. Located within the Sacramento-San Joaquin Valley.

4. Located within an area with a potential flood depth above 3.0 feet, from sources of flooding other than localized conditions that may occur anywhere in a community, such as localized rainfall, water from stormwater and drainage problems, and water from temporary water and wastewater distribution system failure.

5. Located within a watershed with a contributing area of more than 10 square miles.

The proposed project would meet criteria 1, 3, and 5 above. However, per the FEMA FIRM for the project area, the entirety of the project site is located within Zone X, defined as an area of minimal flood hazard that is located outside of the designated 100-year floodplain. The proposed development footprint would not be located within an area with a potential flood depth above three feet. Thus, the project would not meet criteria 2 or 4. Thus, the proposed project would not be subject to the requirements of SB 5.

ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4