Sacramento City Council
November 18, 2025

EIR/EIS
Second, portions of Sacramento County and Sutter County (outside of the proposed HCP permit areas for the City and Sutter County) would not be affected by planned urban development. These areas are assumed to provide habitat for snakes in existing rice fields or in the habitat reserve system (i.e., rice or managed marsh) that would be created under the Proposed Action. In addition, where urban development does occur, the activities would be limited to the north and south portions of the basin (i.e., City of Sacramento and the Industrial-Commercial Reserve). As a result, extensive areas in the middle and northwestern portions of the basin would remain as habitat (predominantly as rice or managed marsh).

About 16,055 acres of potential habitat for giant garter snake would remain in the Natomas Basin, which is a reduction of 8,512 acres from the existing level of 24,567 acres. Most of the reduction in potential habitat would be rice (8,087 acres) with only small amounts consisting of canals (404 acres) or ponds and seasonally wet areas (21 acres) that resemble the snake’s natural habitat of marsh to a greater degree than rice.

Habitat Loss Mitigation Measures Included in the HCP. Under the Proposed Action, permanent habitat reserves would be created, consisting of 4,375 acres of rice and 2,187.5 acres of managed marsh. The rice within the reserves would most likely be derived from existing rice fields. Thus, 4,375 of the 14,606 acres of rice projected in the basin under the future condition would be incorporated into the reserve system. The 2,187.5 acres of managed marsh could be created from existing rice fields or lands that do not currently provide habitat for giant garter snake. If all of the managed marsh were derived from rice, the net reduction in the acreage of habitat for giant garter snake would be the 8,512 acres attributable to urban development. If all of the managed marsh component of the habitat reserves were created from nonhabitat, then the net reduction habitat for giant garter snake would be about 6,324.5 acres.

The conceptual designs for 1,296 acres of existing reserve lands include creating marsh habitat with a high degree of edge habitat (Natomas Basin Conservancy, 2001). Because of the large amount of edge in the managed marsh, the managed marsh would provide a greater amount of usable habitat than an equivalent acreage of rice.

Although rice provides important habitat for giant garter snakes, the managed-marsh habitat reserves created under the Proposed Action are expected to provide greater quality habitat (on an acre-for-acre basis) than acreage cultivated for rice. Some of the limitations of rice in providing habitat for giant garter snake are described below. /g183 Rice fields do not provide habitat for giant garter snakes until late spring when the rice plants have grown enough to provide cover and prey levels have developed. Use of rice fields by giant garter snakes is relatively low until summer when the rice plants are established (Wylie and Casazza, 2000).
/g183 Rice fields typically are drained in September, and habitat for snakes can become limited to canals and drains during the last weeks of their active period (Wylie and Casazza, 2000). 2 2
There is some uncertainty over whether the timing of draining rice fields is beneficial or detrimental. It has been suggested that the timing of rice field dewatering benefits snakes by concentrating prey in the ditches so that snakes can feed heavily prior to entering hibernation (City of Sacramento et al., 2002).

CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
4-52 REVISED NATOMAS BASIN HCP E042002017SAC/161795(004.DOC)

EIR/EIS
/g183 Agricultural practices (tilling, grading, and harvesting) and canal maintenance practices in support of agriculture can directly kill or injure snakes (Leidy, 1992). /g183 Rice fields are periodically rotated to other crops or fallowed and, therefore, do not provide stable, reliable habitat over time. Furthermore, fluctuations in the amount and distribution of rice could affect the distribution, survival, and reproductive success of the giant garter snake.

The 2,187.5 acres of managed marsh on the reserves would provide permanent year-round habitat, currently only provided by the canals and ponds and seasonally wet areas. Urban development is projected to impact 425 acres of canals and ponds and seasonally wet areas.

The managed marsh on the habitat reserves would replace this loss of permanent, year-round habitat at greater than a 0.5:1 ratio. The managed marsh also would provide higher-quality habitat for giant garter snakes than canals, further increasing the value of the managed marsh relative to the most similar habitat available that would be affected (i.e., canals and ponds and seasonally wet areas).

The managed marsh would be designed and managed specifically to provide optimal habitat conditions for giant garter snakes and avoid these limitations. Design features and management practices of managed marsh habitat that would benefit giant garter snakes include:
/g183 A high amount of wetland and upland edge habitat to maximize the amount of useable habitat, included in the conceptual designs for 1,296 acres of reserve lands already acquired (Natomas Basin Conservancy, 2001). Because of the large amount of edge in the managed marsh, the managed marsh would provide a greater amount of useable habitat than an equivalent acreage of rice.
/g183 Potholes (i.e., areas of deeper water) to provide habitat in late summer and fall after the rice fields have been drained.
/g183 A water-management regime that provides habitat throughout the snakes’ active period. /g183 Year-round wetland habitat to maintain prey populations and avoid a delay in development of prey populations in the spring when snakes emerge from hibernation. /g183 Integration of upland habitat with marsh habitat so that snakes are not exposed to hazards such as crossing roads when they move into hibernation habitats. /g183 Absence of mortality sources associated with rice production (e.g., canal maintenance activities, pesticide use).

Finally, the creation of marsh and upland habitat in the reserves would emphasize restoration to a natural marsh ecosystem. The habitat reserves would replace rice, an artificial, intensively managed monoculture, with a native ecosystem characterized by a complex structure and high habitat diversity. With the re-creation of the native ecosystem, the habitat reserves would provide the natural habitat conditions under which the giant garter snake evolved. Natural marsh habitat is nearly absent from the Natomas Basin, consisting of only about 97 acres. Under the Proposed Action, marsh habitat acreage would be increased to more than 20 times the existing acreage. Wylie and Casazza (2000) found that giant garter snakes at Fisherman’s Lake seldom ventured into surrounding rice fields.

CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
E042002017SAC/161795(004.DOC) REVISED NATOMAS BASIN HCP 4-53

EIR/EIS
These observations indicate that snakes were able to find adequate resources (e.g., prey, basking sites, cover, hibernation habitat) in Fisherman’s Lake to support themselves. Wylie and Casazza (2000) suggested that created marsh, such as would occur under the Proposed Action, could similarly fulfill these habitat requirements for snakes.

Management of the marsh reserves could be modified based on monitoring data, new species information, or other factors, as described in the adaptive management provisions of the HCP (see Section 2.4.7 of this EIR/EIS). Such modifications, which are an important component of the habitat conservation strategy for giant garter snakes, would help ensure that the needs of giant garter snakes are considered in perpetuity.

About 8,087 acres of rice would be affected by urban development. Although the habitat reserves would contain about one-half this amount of rice (4,375 acres), the rice fields in the reserve system also could provide higher habitat quality than the rice fields that would be converted by the covered activity of planned development. Rice in the reserve system would be managed using snake-friendly techniques, including:
/g183 Maintenance of rice checks, berms, and other water-control structures in as natural a state as practicable by limiting mowing or herbicide treatment /g183 Maintenance of prey species (e.g., mosquito fish) in or near the rice fields through appropriate management
/g183 Other measures, as appropriate
Specific measures for managing rice fields in the reserve system would be determined by the HCP Technical Advisory Committee. In addition to the direct removal of habitat, urban development can indirectly affect snakes through increased predation and vehicle strikes as follows:
/g183 Free-ranging domestic cats often are introduced by the establishment of residential areas. Residential development close to areas inhabited by snakes can lead to increased predation by cats. While predation by cats on giant garter snakes is believed to occur, its impact on snake populations has not been determined.
/g183 Mortality to snakes from vehicle strikes also has been reported (Leidy, 1992). Snakes could experience increased mortality from increased motor vehicle activity associated with urbanization.

Under the Proposed Action, habitat reserves would be located at least 800 feet from urban areas and areas designated for urban development (unless a smaller distance is approved by CDFG and USFWS on a case-by-case basis) and a buffer at least 30 feet wide established within the reserve between marsh habitat and roadways (see Section IV.C [Conservation Strategies to Mitigate For Urban Development] in the HCP). By locating habitat for snakes away from urban areas and creating a buffer between snake habitat and roads, death or injury to snakes from vehicle strikes and predation by cats could be reduced, although not eliminated.

Summary of Effect to Habitat. In summary, implementation of the Proposed Action is expected to result in a net loss of habitat for the giant garter snake in the Natomas Basin. The reduction in habitat value, however, is expected to be less than indicated by the acreage reduction because:

CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
4-54 REVISED NATOMAS BASIN HCP E042002017SAC/161795(004.DOC)

EIR/EIS
/g183 Snakes primarily use the edges of rice fields, not the entire rice field. Because snakes would not use all the acreage identified as rice habitat, the actual amount of giant garter snake habitat in the Natomas Basin is not directly correlated to the changes in land use acreage that resulted from the land use analysis.
/g183 Managed-marsh land would provide more habitat for snakes than rice fields on an acre- for-acre basis because of the larger amount of edge habitat. /g183 Managed-marsh habitat would be designed to accommodate year-round habitat requirements, as previously described.
/g183 Rice in the reserve system would be managed to provide better habitat quality than existing rice fields.

Based on the provisions of the HCP, implementation of the Proposed Action would offset impacts to the giant garter snake habitat. Thus, implementation of the Proposed Action would have a less-than-significant effect on giant garter snake habitat and no additional mitigation measures (other than the conservation strategy of the HCP) are required.

Effects of Construction Activities. Urban development and the construction of habitat reserves are anticipated to affect habitat for the giant garter snake as described above. Giant garter snakes also could be killed or injured during construction by vehicle strikes on roads, crushing beneath heavy construction equipment, or entombment in their winter retreats.

Death or injury to snakes has been reported because of vehicle strikes on roads (Leidy, 1992) and excavation from winter retreats (Wylie and Casazza, 2000).

Avoidance and Mitigation Measures Included in the HCP Related to Construction Activities. The Proposed Action includes measures to avoid and minimize direct loss of giant garter snakes from construction (see Section V.A [Land Use Agencies’ Conservation Measures] in the HCP). Both the Conservancy and individual developers would implement the following measures to avoid and minimize the potential to take snakes during construction activities.
/g183 Timing restrictions: No grading, excavating or filling activities will take place within 30 feet of existing giant garter snake habitat between October 1 and May 1, unless approved by CDFG. By conducting earth-moving activities during the summer months when snakes are active, it is expected that snakes in the construction area will be able to avoid construction equipment such that direct injury or mortality would be avoided.

Further, snakes will not be in their winter retreats where they are vulnerable to injury during earth-moving activities.
/g183 Dewatering requirements: Dewatering of existing habitat will begin after November 1, but no later than April 1 of the following year. All water must be removed from existing habitat by April 15, or as soon thereafter as weather permits, and the habitat will be kept dry without any standing water for 15 consecutive days after April 15 and prior to excavating or filling the dewatered habitat. By dewatering habitat between November 1 and April 1, snakes would not be attracted to construction zones when they emerge from their winter retreats. If habitat must be dewatered after April 15, it must remain dry for 15 consecutive days prior to excavating or filling the habitat. Snakes have been found to leave habitat within a few days of dewatering (USFWS, 1999b). By waiting for 15 days CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
E042002017SAC/161795(004.DOC) REVISED NATOMAS BASIN HCP 4-55

EIR/EIS
after dewatering, it reasonable to expect that any snakes would have left the construction zone prior to the start of construction activities and injury to snakes would be avoided.

Summary of Effects from Construction Activities. In combination, these measures would minimize direct injury and mortality to giant garter snakes. Therefore, implementation of the Proposed Action would reduce construction impacts to a less-than-significant level and no further mitigation measures are required.

Effects of Water Agency and Conservancy Management. Canals and ditches provide important habitat for giant garter snakes in the Natomas Basin. In Wylie and Casazza’s (2000) radio-telemetry study, about half of the snake locations during the summer were in rice and half were in ditches. In the spring (before the rice fields had developed), however, the majority of snake locations were in ditches. During the spring and fall, ditches can be the only habitat available to snakes in rice-producing areas (Wylie and Casazza 2000). In addition to providing habitat, ditches could be important in maintaining population connectivity.

RD 1000 and Natomas Mutual are responsible for maintaining and operating the ditches and canals in the Natomas Basin. The quality of ditches as habitat for snakes can be influenced by operation and maintenance practices that affect the amount of vegetation, the presence of water in the ditches, and the availability of burrows in canal banks that snakes can use for escape or as winter retreats. Further, giant garter snakes can be killed or injured by maintenance equipment, such as mowers and construction equipment used for sediment removal and bank resloping (Leidy, 1992).

Avoidance and Mitigation Measures Included in the HCP Related to Water Agency and Conservancy Management. Under the Proposed Action, RD 1000 and Natomas Mutual would implement practices to avoid and minimize adverse effects to giant garter snakes from their operation and maintenance activities (see Section V.C [Water Agencies’ Conservation Measures] in the HCP). These measures include:
/g183 Restrictions on timing of management activities. Where giant garter snakes are known to exist, maintenance activities (excluding vegetation control, road maintenance, and rodent control) will be restricted to after May 1 and before October 1 in any calendar year. By conducting in-channel maintenance activities during the summer when the snakes are active, it is expected that snakes will be able to avoid equipment and thereby avoid injury. Further, the potential for snakes to be killed or injured in their winter retreats by ditch cleaning (e.g., sediment removal) would be avoided. /g183 Dewatering of ditches and canals identified for maintenance. Dewatering two weeks prior to construction removes an essential element (aquatic features) of giant garter snake habitat. Snakes have been found to leave dewatered habitat within a few days of dewatering such that it is reasonable to expect that snakes would leave the construction area in search of more suitable habitat and would not reenter the construction area. /g183 Restrictions on management intensity. RD 1000 and Natomas Mutual will limit canal and ditch maintenance activities (excluding vegetation control, road maintenance, and rodent control) during any calendar year to not more than 10 percent of the total miles of canals and ditches within each agency’s respective service area. Vegetation control would be limited to one side of the ditch per year. Fitch (1940, cited in Leidy, 1992) noted that the CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
4-56 REVISED NATOMAS BASIN HCP E042002017SAC/161795(004.DOC)

EIR/EIS
banks of ditches where he was searching for snakes were usually overgrown with tules, willows, and weeds, making it difficult to see snakes. Later, Hansen (1980, cited in Leidy, 1992) reported that canals cleared of vegetation were rarely used by snakes, while ditches supporting tules and willows appeared to be good habitat. Thus, vegetation that potentially provides habitat for snakes would be retained on one side of the ditch and the ditch could continue to provide cover for snakes following maintenance activities. /g183 Management of vegetation-control measures in giant garter snake habitat. Burning would be restricted to October 1 through April 30 when snakes are inactive. When mowing for weed control, mower blades would be kept at least 6 inches high, so that the blades would not contact snakes on the banks.

Some of the activities conducted by the Conservancy to manage the habitat reserves have the potential to kill or injure giant garter snakes. For example, the Conservancy conducts ditch and canal maintenance activities similar to those conducted by RD 1000 and Natomas Mutual to maintain appropriate water delivery and drainage from rice and managed marsh units. Under the Proposed Action, the Conservancy would implement take-avoidance measures to minimize potential take that may occur on reserve lands (e.g., road kills, take during construction of managed marsh wetlands, etc.). To accomplish this, the Conservancy would, where applicable, ensure that all take-avoidance measures described in Section V (Take Avoidance, Minimization and Mitigation) in the HCP (e.g., dewatering of irrigation ditches owned by the Conservancy) are implemented during management of reserve lands.

The Conservancy also would implement take-avoidance measures included in habitat creation and management plans.

In managing rice fields on the habitat reserves, the Conservancy would implement conservation measures to enhance habitat values and minimize the potential for injury to snakes. The measures include guidelines related to vegetation management (including weed management, treatment of crop stubble through burning and disking, and use of herbicides), and maintenance of those ditches that are owned by the Conservancy (time of maintenance, alternating bank maintenance on an annual basis). Section IV.D (Reserve Management/Site Specific Management Plans) of the HCP provides additional information on the conservation measures that the Conservancy would implement.

Summary of Effects from Water Agency and Conservancy Management. Implementation of the above measures by RD 1000, Natomas Mutual, and the Conservancy would minimize impacts to giant garter snakes to a less-than-significant level.

Overall Effects on Giant Garter Snake. The current distribution and abundance of the giant garter snake is considerably reduced from former times (FR 58:54053). The population reduction and range restriction has been largely attributed to conversion and loss of wetland habitat in the Central Valley. Loss of habitat is considered the primary threat to the persistence of the giant garter snake and the primary factor limiting the abundance and distribution of the population (USFWS, 1999b).

Within suitable wetland habitat, the factors determining the population size and distribution of giant garter snake are poorly understood. Prey availability can influence the total population size and reproductive success. Whether prey availability drops to levels that limit the population, however, has not been determined. Hypothesized or documented sources of mortality include predation, dormant season flooding, road kill, mechanical CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
E042002017SAC/161795(004.DOC) REVISED NATOMAS BASIN HCP 4-57

EIR/EIS
injury, pest control, collection and vandalism, disease and parasites, and toxic substances (Leidy, 1992). The relative importance of these sources of mortality in determining the size, distribution, and trend of the population remains uncertain.

The Natomas Basin is located within the American Basin population area of the giant garter snake which, when combined with the Colusa Basin and Sutter Basin, represents the largest extant population of giant garter snakes. Giant garter snakes have been reported in the American Basin since the 1970s (Leidy, 1992). Recent investigations of giant garter snakes in the Natomas Basin found a wide range of size classes (Wylie and Cassaza 2000). The range of size classes suggests that the population is reproducing, juveniles are being recruited into the population, and adults are surviving to older age classes.

Implementation of the Proposed Action is expected to result in a net loss of habitat for giant garter snake. Despite a net loss of habitat, implementation of the Proposed Action would encourage the persistence of giant garter snakes in the Natomas Basin for several reasons.

First, the loss of habitat is expected to be less than projected based solely on the acreage conversion resulting from the planned development because: (1) the acreage of rice that is used by snakes is likely overestimated because the snakes tend not to use the open water areas of the field, and (2) the managed marsh habitat would be designed to provide a large amount of edge habitat. Second, both the managed marsh and rice created in the habitat reserve system would have a greater value as giant garter snake habitat than would the habitat affected by urban development. This higher-quality habitat could support a larger population of snakes as a result of improved habitat conditions (e.g., more prey) or reduced mortality (e.g., fewer road kills). Third, the habitat reserves would provide habitat that is stable in location, amount, availability, and quality for years over the long term, thereby providing conditions conducive to supporting a stable population of giant garter snakes.

Fourth, management actions undertaken by RD 1000 and Natomas Mutual would minimize the potential for death or injury of snakes and, more importantly, would improve the availability and stability of habitat for snakes in the canal and drain system over the long term by allowing suitable habitat conditions to persist in the canals and ditches. This habitat would have the dual benefit of providing additional habitat for snakes and travel corridors to maintain population connectivity.

Finally, portions of lands adjacent to the east and west sides of Fisherman’s Lake, a well- documented area for giant garter snakes, will be preserved. Wylie and Casazza (2000) found that snakes using Fisherman’s Lake remained within the lake, and did not exploit surrounding ricelands. They suggest that Fisherman’s Lake provided a stable habitat so that snakes rarely needed to leave to fulfill their life requisites. With the persistence of buffer lands along both the east and west sides of Fisherman’s Lake and management to maintain its habitat value, this known population of snakes would be protected. Creation of managed-marsh habitat under the Proposed Action would result in additional “stable” habitats, and in combination with Fisherman’s Lake and remaining rice fields, encourage the persistence of giant garter snakes in the Natomas Basin.

A primary goal of the HCP is to ensure connectivity among individual reserves, and among the reserves and surrounding agricultural lands. The primary opportunity for connectivity among reserves is the system of channels maintained and operated by RD 1000 and Natomas Mutual. These agencies have noted that the elimination of existing channels would generally occur only in response to urban development. RD 1000 and Natomas Mutual CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
4-58 REVISED NATOMAS BASIN HCP E042002017SAC/161795(004.DOC)

EIR/EIS
would manage ditches and canals in a manner that would allow and encourage continued use by snakes. With regard to basin-wide connectivity, RD 1000 identified key drainage channels within the Natomas Basin that would be retained regardless of urban development (see Figure 17 in the HCP). With the exception of one property in the northeastern portion of the basin, all of the Conservancy lands acquired to date are interconnected by drainage channels that will remain despite urban development. In addition to these drainage channels, canals and ditches would remain in areas continuing to be in agricultural production. Because snakes readily and routinely use canals and drains in the Natomas Basin (Wylie and Cassaza, 2000), the canal and drainage systems would provide for movement of snakes among the habitat reserves, thereby minimizing the potential occurrence of adverse effects resulting from small and isolated populations.

Urban development would substantially reduce the amount of habitat (i.e., rice and ponds and seasonally wet areas) for giant garter snakes in the Natomas Basin and, therefore, could result in significant impacts to this species. Under the Proposed Action, however, it is anticipated that the preservation of wetland habitat and the creation and management of reserves that support 6,562 acres of habitat for giant garters snake would provide similar or better overall habitat value to that of the 8,512 acres of potential habitat consisting predominantly of rice that would be lost to urban development. The 2,187.5 acres of managed marsh on the reserves would provide permanent year-round habitat similar to that which is provided under existing conditions by the canals and ponds and seasonally wet areas. Urban development is projected to affect only 425 acres of canals and ponds and seasonally wet areas. The managed marsh on the habitat reserves would replace this loss of year-round, permanent habitat at a ratio greater than 0.5:1. The managed marsh also would provide higher-quality habitat for giant garter snakes than is currently provided by canals.

This would further increase the value of the managed marsh relative to the most similar habitat available that would be affected (i.e., canals and ponds and seasonally wet areas).

About 8,087 acres of rice would be affected by urban development. Although the habitat reserves would contain about one-half this amount of rice (4,375 acres), rice on the reserves would provide better habitat conditions for snakes because it would be stable in space and time and would be managed in accordance with techniques that benefit wildlife. Thus, impacts to giant garter snakes attributable to the 17,500 acres of urban development covered by the Proposed Action are expected to be mitigated to a less-than-significant level. The conservation strategy of the HCP mitigates the impacts of the covered activities on giant garter snakes to a less-than-significant level and is an important component in maintaining giant garters snakes in the Natomas Basin.

4.4.5.2.8 Northwestern Pond Turtle
Effects of Changes in Habitat. Northwestern pond turtles are highly aquatic and are closely associated with wetland and aquatic habitats. In the Natomas Basin, potential habitat consists of canals, rice, ponds and seasonally wet areas, and riparian. Turtles use upland areas for hibernation and for nesting. Upland areas used by turtles typically are close to aquatic habitats but can be as far as 1,300 feet from water.

The amount of rice fields, irrigation canals and drains, ponds and seasonally wet areas, and rice is used to represent total habitat for the northwestern pond turtles (both marsh and upland habitat) in the Natomas Basin. For rice and ponds and seasonally wet areas, the habitat and land use database does not distinguish small-scale features such as rice checks, berms, and road embankments that could provide upland habitat. Rather, these features are CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
E042002017SAC/161795(004.DOC) REVISED NATOMAS BASIN HCP 4-59

EIR/EIS
incorporated into the overall habitat designation so that the acreage estimates for rice and ponds and seasonally wet areas include both marsh and upland areas. The acreage estimates for canals and drains also include both the wetted portion of the canal and the adjacent embankments that could provide upland habitat for turtles. The habitat classes (from Tables 4-2 and 4-4) that provide potential habitat for northwestern pond turtles and the changes in acreage from implementing the Proposed Action are presented in Table 4-9.

Based on the GIS database, the Natomas Basin supports about 24,691 acres of habitat (marsh and upland combined) for pond turtles.

TABLE 4-9
Change in Potential Habitat for Northwestern Pond Turtle (acres) Habitat Class Baseline
City of
Sacramento
Metro Air
Park
Sutter
County Total Change
Future
Condition
Ponds and
seasonally
wet areas
96 (7) (4) (10) (21) 75
Rice 22,693 (970) (1,541) (5,577) (8,087) 14,606
Riparian 124 (24) 0 0 (24) 100
Canals (all) 1,778 (117) (72) (215) (404) 1,374
TOTAL 24,691 (1,118) (1,617) (5,802) (8,536) 16,155
(#) decrease in acreage
Source: Habitat and Land Use Assessment Database (CH2M HILL, 2002).

Under the Proposed Action, potential habitat for northwestern pond turtles would decline by about 8,536 acres as a result of the covered activity of urban development. This reduction in habitat would predominantly consist of rice fields, although about 404 acres would be canals. No substantial change in riparian habitat would occur because most of the 24 acres of riparian habitat in the City of Sacramento occurs along Fisherman’s Lake. Under the Settlement Agreement and as part of the Proposed Action, the riparian habitat adjacent to Fisherman’s Lake thus would be retained. About 16,155 acres of potential habitat for northwestern pond turtles would remain in the Natomas Basin (assuming no change in land use in Sacramento County other than at Metro Air Park and inconsequential loss of riparian habitat in the City of Sacramento as described above), a reduction of 8,436 acres from the existing level of 24,691 acres. Under the Proposed Action, permanent habitat reserves would be created consisting of 4,375 acres of rice and 2,187.5 acres of managed marsh. The rice within the reserves would most likely consist of existing rice fields. Thus, 4,375 of the 14,606 acres of rice projected in the basin under the future condition would be incorporated into the reserve system. The 2,187.5 acres of managed marsh could be created from existing rice fields or lands that do not currently provide habitat for northwestern pond turtles. If all of the managed marsh was derived from rice, the net reduction in the acreage of habitat for northwestern pond turtles would be the 8,536 acres attributable to urban development. If all of the managed marsh component of the habitat reserves was created from nonhabitat, then the net reduction habitat for northwestern pond turtles would be about 6,324.5 acres.

The 2,187.5 acres of upland habitat in the habitat reserves could be equally important to the managed marsh in supporting pond turtles. Pond turtles require upland sites for over-wintering and nesting. The availability and suitability of nesting habitat could be CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
4-60 REVISED NATOMAS BASIN HCP E042002017SAC/161795(004.DOC)

EIR/EIS
contributing to poor recruitment in northwestern pond turtle populations (Jennings and Hayes, 1994). The habitat reserves would provide this critical element in the maintenance of pond turtle populations.

In addition to reducing habitat availability, urban development in areas adjacent to those inhabited by pond turtles could indirectly impact this species. Free-ranging domestic cats are often introduced to an area by the establishment of residences. Residential development close to areas inhabited by turtles can lead to increased predation by cats. Although predation by cats on northwestern pond turtles has not been specifically identified as a concern, predation by other terrestrial predators (e.g., nonnative red fox, raccoons) has been noted (Jennings and Hayes, 1994). Mortality to turtles from vehicles also is possible and turtles could experience increased mortality from increased motor vehicle activity associated with urbanization. Under the Proposed Action, habitat reserves would be located at least 800 feet from urban areas and areas designated for urban development (unless a smaller distance is approved by CDFG and USFWS on a case-by-case basis) and a buffer at least 30 feet wide established within the reserve between marsh habitat and roadways. By locating habitat reserves away from urban areas, the potential for death or injury to turtles from vehicle strikes and predation by cats could be reduced, although not eliminated.

Despite the net reduction in the total amount of potential habitat, the Proposed Action likely would improve habitat conditions for northwestern pond turtles through the creation and protection of marsh complexes on the habitat reserves. Rice fields provide poor habitat quality for northwestern pond turtles as they are intensively managed monocultures with little structural or biological diversity. In particular, an abundance of basking sites (a key element of pond turtle aquatic habitat) is lacking in rice fields. Beneficial components of the habitat reserves include:
/g183 Long-term certainty of habitat availability. Created marsh habitat would be protected in perpetuity.
/g183 Higher-quality habitat than rice. Created marsh habitat would provide all essential habitat elements for northwestern pond turtles, e.g., basking sites, cover, and prey availability.
/g183 Nearby suitable and undisturbed nesting and wintering habitat. /g183 Provision of large areas of contiguous, suitable habitat. /g183 Reduced exposure to agricultural practices. Current agricultural practices involve the routine use of pesticides and fertilizers as well as exposure to heavy farm machinery (e.g., disking or harvesting). The created marsh would not be subject to this type of maintenance and rice would be managed using wildlife-friendly techniques. /g183 The Conservancy would consult with pond turtle experts during implementation of the Proposed Action to identify management actions to further improve habitat quality for pond turtles.

Lastly, under the Settlement Agreement and Proposed Action, lands immediately adjacent to the west side of Fisherman’s Lake have been acquired, and an agricultural buffer would be preserved on the City side of Fisherman’s Lake. Fisherman’s Lake is known to be CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
E042002017SAC/161795(004.DOC) REVISED NATOMAS BASIN HCP 4-61

EIR/EIS
inhabited by pond turtles. With acquisition of the buffer lands adjacent to the lake, the probability of this population persisting would be improved.

Effects of Construction Activities. The covered activity of urban development and the Proposed Action’s construction of habitat reserves are anticipated to reduce the amount of habitat for northwestern pond turtles in the Natomas Basin, as described above. Pond turtles could be killed or injured during construction by vehicle strikes on roads, crushing beneath heavy construction equipment, or entombment in their winter retreats. Measures in the Proposed Action to avoid and minimize these types of direct impacts to giant garter snakes also would benefit pond turtles because of their similar habitat requirements and life history traits. The avoidance measures for giant garter snakes would have similar beneficial effects to pond turtles, and implementation of the measures in the HCP would result in less- than-significant impacts.

Effects of Water Agency and Conservancy Management. Operation and maintenance activities by RD 1000 and Natomas Mutual could affect northwestern pond turtles because these activities typically focus on canals and drains that provide suitable habitat for this species. Pond turtles could be killed or injured by construction equipment used for sediment removal. Carrying out the covered activities also could result in the removal of bank and emergent vegetation, important components of cover for the northwestern pond turtle.

Under the Proposed Action, RD 1000 and Natomas Mutual would implement measures to avoid and minimize potential impacts on the giant garter snake. Pond turtles have similar seasonal activity patterns and habitat requirements as giant garter snakes. The effects of the water agencies’ covered activities (including implementation of the avoidance and minimization measures of Proposed Action) on pond turtles would be the same as described for giant garter snakes.

Some of the activities conducted by the Conservancy to manage the habitat reserves have the potential to kill or injure pond turtles. For example, the Conservancy conducts ditch and canal maintenance activities similar to those conducted by RD 1000 and Natomas Mutual to maintain appropriate water delivery and drainage from rice and managed-marsh units.

The Conservancy would implement take-avoidance measures to minimize potential take that may occur on reserve lands (e.g., road kills, take during construction of managed marsh wetlands, etc.). To accomplish this, the Conservancy would, where applicable, ensure that all take-avoidance measures described in Section V (Take Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation) of the HCP (e.g., dewatering of irrigation ditches owned by the Conservancy) are implemented during management of reserve lands. The Conservancy also would implement take-avoidance measures included in habitat creation and management plans.

These measures would typically include actions that would protect affected species during construction of habitat reserves. An example of such measures for giant garter snake include: (1) implementing habitat construction during the giant garter snakes’ active period (May 1 - October 1), (2) implementing a worker awareness program, (3) conducting a survey 24 hours prior to construction, (4) having a biological monitor onsite during the initial week of construction, and (5) dewatering wetted areas, if necessary, to achieve the complete removal of ponded water two weeks prior to construction (Natomas Basin Conservancy, 2001).

CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
4-62 REVISED NATOMAS BASIN HCP E042002017SAC/161795(004.DOC)

EIR/EIS
In managing rice fields on the habitat reserves the Conservancy would implement conservation measures to enhance habitat values and minimize the potential for injury to pond turtles. These measures include guidelines related to vegetation management (including weed management, treatment of crop stubble through burning and disking, and use of herbicides), and maintenance of those ditches that are owned by the Conservancy (time of maintenance, alternating bank maintenance on an annual basis). Section IV.D (Reserve Management/Site Specific Management Plans) of the HCP provides additional information on the conservation measures that the Conservancy would implement. These practices would have similar effects for pond turtles as described for the water agencies.

Overall Effects on the Northwestern Pond Turtle. Jennings and Hayes (1994) characterized western pond turtles as endangered from the Salinas River south along the California coast, and from the Mokelumne River south in inland portions of the state. In the remainder of the state, Jennings and Hayes (1994) considered the species to be threatened. Although loss of habitat has probably been the primary cause of population reductions of this species, other factors threaten the persistence of pond turtles in remaining habitat. Pond turtles in many locales do not appear to be reproducing well, as evidenced by populations increasingly dominated by adults (Jennings and Hayes 1994). Potential contributors to their poor numbers include predation on hatchlings and juveniles by bullfrogs and introduced fishes, competition with introduced fish, lack of suitable nesting habitat, and impacts to nesting habitat during egg incubation (e.g., agricultural practices, grazing) (Jennings and Hayes, 1994).

The current status of the northwestern pond turtle in the Natomas Basin and factors limiting the population are uncertain. Nevertheless, the Proposed Action is expected to improve the likelihood that pond turtles would persist in the Natomas Basin. The majority of the potential habitat that would be converted by planned development would be rice. Rice provides poor-quality aquatic habitat for northwestern pond turtles and suitable nesting and wintering habitats might not be available near many rice fields. The habitat reserves created under the Proposed Action would provide high-quality aquatic habitat interspersed with and in close proximity to upland habitat suitable for nesting and wintering. As part of the Proposed Action, the Conservancy would work with experts to improve and maintain habitat for pond turtles. Through these consultations, the Conservancy would be able to avoid or minimize factors that are believed to reduce reproduction. Pond turtles are known to occur on some of the Conservancy’s lands. If successfully reproducing populations of pond turtles can be established and/or maintained on the habitat reserves, it would substantially benefit this species given its poor reproductive success elsewhere in its range and potentially in the Natomas Basin.

The habitat reserves would improve the likelihood that successfully reproducing populations of turtles would be supported in the basin. In addition, areas currently known to be inhabited by pond turtles (East Drain and Fisherman’s Lake) would remain under the Proposed Action. Under the Proposed Action, the City would establish an agricultural buffer along the east side of Fisherman’s Lake. The East Drain would not be affected by urban development. If turtles are currently reproducing in these areas, they could persist under the Proposed Action. The creation and long-term management and protection of managed marsh and upland habitat on the reserves under the Proposed Action would reduce potential impacts to northwestern pond turtles to a less-than-significant level.

CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
E042002017SAC/161795(004.DOC) REVISED NATOMAS BASIN HCP 4-63

EIR/EIS

4.4.5.2.9 White-faced Ibis
Effects of Changes in Habitat. White-faced ibis winter in the Natomas Basin. Potential foraging habitat includes alfalfa, rice, canals, and ponds and seasonally wet areas. The habitat classes (from Tables 4-2 and 4-4) that provide potential habitat for white-faced ibis and the changes in acreage from implementing the Proposed Action are presented in Table 4-10. The Natomas Basin supports about 25,000 acres of these habitats.

Under the Proposed Action, urban development would convert about 8,512 acres of potential habitat for white-faced ibis to nonhabitat. Most of the reduction in potential habitat would be rice. As explained for giant garter snakes, the characteristics and management of rice can limit its value to wildlife. For white-faced ibis (which currently occur in the Natomas Basin during winter), only flooded rice fields in the winter provide habitat; fields that are not flooded provide little or no value. White-faced ibis are associated with emergent wetland habitats, particularly for nesting. Native marsh habitat has been largely eliminated from the Natomas Basin. Although this species is able to exploit flooded rice fields and other agricultural field types (e.g., alfalfa) as wintering habitat, these habitats are not suitable for nesting.

TABLE 4-10
Change in Potential Habitat for White-faced Ibis (acres) Habitat Class Baseline
City of
Sacramento
Metro Air
Park
Sutter
County Total Change
Future
Condition
Alfalfa 371 0 0 0 0 371
Ponds and
seasonally
wet areas
96 (7) (4) (10) (21) 75
Rice 22,693 (970) (1,541) (5,577) (8,087) 14,606
Canals (all) 1,778 (117) (72) (215) (404) 1,374
TOTAL 24,938 (1,094) (1,617) (5,802) (8,512) 16,426
(#) decrease in acreage
Source: Habitat and Land Use Assessment Database (CH2M HILL, 2002).

The reduction in potential foraging habitat would be partially offset by creation and long- term protection of marsh and upland habitat in the reserves. Under the Proposed Action, 8,750 acres of permanent habitat reserves would be created, consisting of 4,375 acres of rice, 2,187.5 acres of managed marsh, and 2,187.5 acres of upland habitat. All this habitat could be used by white-faced ibis. There would still be a net loss of habitat for white-faced ibis in the Natomas Basin, but it is expected that the habitat in the reserves would be of higher quality than the rice fields and canals converted to urban development. Marsh and upland habitat in the habitat reserves would be managed to restore native marsh and upland habitat and to promote wildlife habitat values.

White-faced ibis are more flexible in their use of foraging habitat than nesting habitat and probably are not limited by foraging habitat availability in winter. Under the Proposed Action, foraging habitat would remain abundant in the Natomas Basin (about 16,500 acres plus up to an additional 8,570 acres in the habitat reserves) and in agricultural areas CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
4-64 REVISED NATOMAS BASIN HCP E042002017SAC/161795(004.DOC)

EIR/EIS
adjacent to the basin. As a result, the decline in foraging habitat would not be expected to adversely affect ibis using the Natomas Basin. Further, with their long-term protection and management for habitat that is stable in quality and location, the reserves would support continued foraging by white-faced ibis in the Natomas Basin.

White-faced ibis are known to nest in the Central Valley but have not been reported to nest in the Natomas Basin. Managed-marsh habitat on the habitat reserves could attract white- faced ibis to nest. White-faced ibis typically nest in large emergent wetlands with minimal disturbance. These types of conditions would be created in the habitat reserves and could result in the establishment of additional nesting colonies.

Effects of Construction Activities. Construction activities would be required for urban development and for habitat creation and restoration actions for the habitat reserves. These activities have little potential to result in adverse effects to white-faced ibis. This species is not known to nest in the Natomas Basin, but rather uses the basin for foraging during the winter. Potential effects would be limited to displacement of birds foraging or roosting on a field during the initial phases of construction when fields are graded. Because grading typically is done in the spring and summer and ibis occur in the basin in winter, no adverse effects to foraging or roosting birds are expected during construction activities.

White-faced ibis could nest in the Natomas Basin in the future, and construction for urban development on nearby properties or for habitat creation could disturb or displace nesting birds. Because habitat reserves are to be located at least 800 feet away from urban development or areas designated for urban development unless an exception is granted, the potential for this type of impact would be minimized. Finally, under the Proposed Action, surveys would be conducted prior to construction activities. If white-faced ibis occur, disturbance would be avoided during the nesting season to the maximum extent possible.

Similarly, the Conservancy would avoid disturbance to white-faced ibis nest sites during reserve management and enhancement activities to the maximum extent practicable.

Effects of Water Agency and Conservancy Management. White-faced ibis could forage in canals and ditches, and management activities by RD 1000 and Natomas Mutual could displace ibis foraging in the drains. The Proposed Action’s avoidance and minimization measures for the giant garter snake would reduce the potential for water agencies’ covered activities to affect ibis. These measures include:
/g183 Implementation of timing restrictions. Canal and ditch maintenance primarily would be conducted during the summer. White-faced ibis currently are winter residents in the Natomas Basin. By conducting management activities during the summer, potential impacts to ibis would be avoided.
/g183 Dewatering of ditches and canals identified for maintenance. By dewatering canals and ditches two weeks prior to construction, white-faced ibis would seek foraging opportunities in other locations and therefore would not be in the vicinity when maintenance and construction activities are conducted.
/g183 Restrictions on management intensity. RD 1000 and Natomas Mutual will limit canal and ditch maintenance activities (excluding vegetation control, road maintenance, and rodent control) during any calendar year to not more than 10 percent of the total miles of canals and ditches within each water agency’s respective service area. Vegetation control CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
E042002017SAC/161795(004.DOC) REVISED NATOMAS BASIN HCP 4-65

EIR/EIS
would be limited to one side of the ditch per year. Thus, vegetation that potentially provides habitat for white-faced ibis would be retained on one side of the ditch.

With implementation of these Proposed Action measures, there would be minimal potential for white-faced ibis to be adversely affected by RD 1000 and Natomas Mutual activities and, therefore, any impacts that would occur would be less than significant.

White-faced ibis currently use the Natomas Basin for wintering and migrating. At least over the short-term, white-faced ibis would be expected to use the habitat reserves only for foraging and potentially roosting during the winter or migration. Management actions could temporarily displace foraging birds, but this minor displacement would not have adverse effects on white-faced ibis, as these birds are typically very mobile in their use of foraging habitat during winter and migration.

In the event that white-faced ibis nest on Conservancy lands in the future, management activities could disturb and displace nesting birds. If ibis are found to nest on the habitat reserves, the Conservancy would avoid disturbing nesting birds during management activities.

Overall Effects on White-faced Ibis. Breeding white-faced ibis populations declined in distribution and abundance during the 1960s and 1970s, especially in the western United States (Ryder and Manry, 1994; Shuford et al., 1996). The primary reason for the decline of the white-faced ibis as a nesting species in California was the loss of extensive marsh habitats (Remsen, 1978; Shuford et al., 1996). Pesticides also are believed to have contributed to population declines in the 1960s and 1970s. Since the 1980s, however, there has been an increase in western white-faced ibis populations as a result of improved nesting habitat management, increased planting of alfalfa, and a ban on DDT and other pesticide use in the early 1970s. In California, the winter population appears to have increased especially since the 1970s (Shuford et al., 1996). This increase could be a result of changes in agricultural practices that provide more ibis winter habitat or because the species was overlooked and not surveyed adequately in the early part of the century.

The Proposed Action is not expected to result in adverse effects to white-faced ibis, and could have beneficial effects. Although the Proposed Action would result in a net loss of potential foraging habitat (predominantly rice) for white-faced ibis, potential foraging habitat would remain abundant in the Natomas Basin (about 16,500 acres). Potential foraging habitat also would persist in agricultural areas surrounding the Natomas Basin.

Given the abundance of foraging habitat in and around the basin, the reduction in potential foraging habitat under the Proposed Action would not be expected to limit the white-faced ibis population. Therefore, impacts to white-faced ibis from reduction in foraging habitat because of planned urban development would be less than significant.

Of greater concern for white-faced ibis is the availability of large marshes free from disturbance where ibis could nest. Marshes suitable for nesting by white-faced ibis are currently absent from the Natomas Basin. The habitat reserves created under the Proposed Action, however, would create large areas of emergent vegetation that could support nesting by white-faced ibis in the future. Given the small number of nesting colonies known in California, the establishment of a colony at the habitat reserves would benefit this species.

CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
4-66 REVISED NATOMAS BASIN HCP E042002017SAC/161795(004.DOC)

EIR/EIS

4.4.5.2.10 Tricolored Blackbird
Effects of Changes in Habitat. Tricolored blackbirds are associated with marsh habitat with tall dense stands of cattails or tules. Thickets of willow, blackberry, and wild rose also are used. They forage in these habitats and open habitats such as croplands and annual grasslands. In the Natomas Basin, large canals, ponds and seasonally wet areas, and riparian habitat have the potential to support nesting colonies. For foraging, pasture, annual grassland, alfalfa, rice, and nonrice crops could be used in addition to the nesting habitats.

The habitat classes (from Tables 4-2 and 4-4) that provide potential habitat for tricolored blackbirds and the changes in acreage from implementing the Proposed Action are presented in Table 4-11. Based on these definitions, the Natomas Basin currently supports about 1,998 acres of potential nesting habitat and 41,310 acres of potential foraging habitat.

TABLE 4-11
Change in Potential Habitat for Tricolored Blackbird (acres) Habitat Class Baseline
City of
Sacramento
Metro Air
Park
Sutter
County Total Change
Future
Condition
Nesting Habitat
Ponds and
seasonally
wet areas
96 (7) (4) (10) (21) 75
Riparian 124 (24) 0 0 (24) 100
Canals (all) 1,778 (117) (72) (215) (404) 1,374
Total Nesting 1,998 (148) (76) (225) (449) 1,549
Foraging Habitat Only
Alfalfa 371 0 0 0 0 371
Nonrice crops 16,686 (4,663) (325) (1,529) (6,517) 10,169 Grassland 886 (427) 0 (134) (560) 325
Pasture 674 (23) (22) (101) (147) 527
Rice 22,693 (970) (1,541) (5,577) (8,087) 14,606
Total Foraging 41,310 (6,083) (1,888) (7,341) (15,311) 25,998 (#) decrease in acreage
Source: Habitat and Land Use Assessment Database (CH2M HILL, 2002).

A total of 449 acres of potential nesting habitat (consisting of 404 acres of canals, 21 acres of ponds and seasonally wet areas, and 24 acres of riparian) would be converted to urban development as a result of implementing the Proposed Action. For several reasons, however, the loss of suitable nesting habitat is expected to be less than projected based solely on the acreage conversion resulting from the planned development. First, most of the 24 acres of riparian habitat would not be affected by development because it is in the buffer lands adjacent to Fisherman’s Lake. Second, much of the acreage of the canals consists of open water with vegetation that could serve as nesting substrates limited to the margins.

CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
E042002017SAC/161795(004.DOC) REVISED NATOMAS BASIN HCP 4-67

EIR/EIS
The projected loss of potential nesting habitat would be offset by creation of 2,187.5 acres of managed marsh in the habitat reserves created under the Proposed Action. The habitat on the reserves would be designed and managed to promote marsh habitat values. The managed marsh would support emergent marsh vegetation, including cattails and tules, that provide optimal nesting habitat for the tricolored blackbird. The habitat reserves also consist of large blocks that would allow development of large areas of marsh vegetation that are preferred by tricolored blackbirds. Tricolored blackbirds would benefit from the substantial increase in high-quality nesting habitat under the Proposed Action and, therefore, impacts would be less than significant.

In addition to reducing habitat availability, urban development in areas adjacent to areas inhabited by tricolored blackbirds can indirectly affect this species. Free-ranging domestic cats are often introduced to an area by the establishment of residential areas. Tricolored blackbirds are believed to be vulnerable to nest destruction by mammalian predators (Bent, 1958), and residential development close to areas inhabited by tricolored blackbirds could lead to increased predation by cats. Under the Proposed Action, habitat reserves would be located at least 800 feet from urban areas and areas designated for urban development in the applicable plan (unless a smaller distance is approved by CDFG and USFWS on a case-by-case basis) and a buffer at least 30 feet wide established within the reserve between marsh habitat and roadways. By locating habitat reserves away from urban areas, the potential for predation by cats could be reduced although not eliminated.

The total amount of potential foraging habitat would decline in the Natomas Basin by about 15,311 acres. This reduction in potential foraging habitat reflects the diverse foraging habits of tricolored blackbirds. In the Natomas Basin and elsewhere the occurrence and distribution of tricolored blackbird are likely determined by the availability of suitable nesting habitat rather than foraging habitat. Given the current abundance of foraging habitat but scarcity of nesting habitat in the Natomas Basin, the population size and distribution of tricolored blackbird are likely to be limited by the availability and distribution of nesting habitat rather than foraging habitat. With about 25,998 acres of foraging habitat remaining in the basin and their ability to use a wide diversity of foraging, the reduction in foraging habitat is not expected to adversely affect tricolored blackbirds.

Effects of Construction Activities. Construction activities for urban development or associated with habitat creation on the habitat reserves has the potential to disturb nesting birds or directly destroy nests if birds were nesting in vegetation removed during construction. For construction associated with urban development, preconstruction surveys would be conducted. If tricolored blackbirds are found, disturbance to nesting colonies would be avoided during the nesting season to the maximum extent possible. Similarly, the Conservancy would avoid disturbance to tricolored blackbirds’ nest sites during reserve management and enhancement activities to the maximum extent practicable.

Effects of Water Agency and Conservancy Management. The water agencies would implement measures to avoid and minimize the effects of their maintenance activities on giant garter snakes. These measures could have some minor benefits to tricolored blackbird.

Specifically, the water agencies would limit some of their maintenance activities to 10 percent of the canal and ditch systems annually and only one side of the canal would be treated annually where vegetation control is conducted. These measures would contribute CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
4-68 REVISED NATOMAS BASIN HCP E042002017SAC/161795(004.DOC)

EIR/EIS
to maintaining vegetation along the canals and ditches that could provide some nesting opportunities for tricolored blackbirds.

Effects on tricolored blackbirds associated with the water agencies’ covered activities are expected to be rare. Canals and drains that would be affected support only limited habitat potentially suitable for tricolored blackbirds, and this species is rare in the Natomas Basin.

As such, they are unlikely to occur in areas where management activities are conducted.

A colony of tricolored blackbirds currently occurs on the Betts-Kismat-Silva property that is part of the Conservancy’s habitat reserve system. It is likely that tricolored blackbird colonies will become established on other Conservancy lands as managed marshes develop.

Management activities on the habitat reserves supporting tricolored blackbirds have the potential to disturb nesting birds or directly destroy nests if vegetation supporting nesting birds is removed during the nesting season. Under the Proposed Action, the Conservancy would avoid conducting management activities that would disturb nesting tricolored blackbirds between April and July or while birds are present.

Overall Effects on Tricolored Blackbirds. The Proposed Action is expected to benefit the tricolored blackbird. Loss of marsh habitat has been the primary factor in the decline of tricolored blackbirds (Kaufman, 1996; DeHaven et al. 1975) and a major component of the Proposed Action is the creation and protection of marsh habitat. With the limited amount of marsh habitat currently in the basin, the habitat reserves would substantially increase the amount of nesting habitat available to tricolored blackbirds. One colony of tricolored blackbirds is already protected on Conservancy lands. With the creation of marsh habitat, additional colonies likely would establish on the habitat reserves and contribute to increasing the size and distribution of tricolored blackbirds in California. Thus, the impacts of the Proposed Action would be less than significant.

4.4.5.2.11 Swainson’s Hawk
Effects of Changes in Habitat. The Natomas Basin supports both nesting and foraging habitat for Swainson’s hawks. For nesting, Swainson’s hawks typically use riparian forest habitats where large trees are available, but can use isolated trees or groves of trees outside of riparian zones (SHTAC, 2000). Of the existing land-use types in the Natomas Basin (see Section 4.4.4), riparian, oak groves, and tree groves are considered potential nesting habitat for Swainson’s hawk. Based on these land-use types, the area covered by the Proposed Action supports about 328 acres of nesting habitat for Swainson’s hawk (Table 4-12). This acreage does not include riparian habitat along the Sacramento River on the west side of the levees, which is outside of the study area.

Foraging habitat for Swainson’s hawk consists of alfalfa, grasslands, pasture and certain row crops such as tomatoes and sugar beets. Lands designated as idle and ruderal also provide foraging opportunities for Swainson’s hawk. Although Swainson’s hawks have been observed to forage along the margins of rice fields when the fields are flooded, rice provides relatively little habitat for Swainson’s hawk; therefore, this habitat type is not considered as foraging habitat in this analysis. Based on this characterization, the Natomas Basin supports about 22,051 acres of foraging habitat for Swainson’s hawk. The habitat classes (from Tables 4-2 and 4-4) that provide potential nesting and foraging habitat for Swainson’s hawk and the changes in acreage from implementing the Proposed Action are presented in Table 4-12.

CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
E042002017SAC/161795(004.DOC) REVISED NATOMAS BASIN HCP 4-69

EIR/EIS
TABLE 4-12
Change in Potential Habitat for Swainson’s Hawk (acres) Habitat Class Baseline
City of
Sacramento
Metro Air
Park
Sutter
County Total Change
Future
Condition
Nesting Habitat
Riparian 124 (24) 0 0 (24) 100
Oak groves 98 (6) (2) 0 (8) 89
Tree groves 106 (10) (23) 0 (33) 73
Total Nesting 328 (40) (25) 0 (65) 263
Foraging Habitat
Alfalfa 371 0 0 0 0 371
Idle 1,464 (675) (50) (8) (733) 731
Nonrice crops 16,686 (4,663) (325) (1,529) (6,517) 10,169 Grassland 886 (427) 0 (134) (560) 325
Pasture 674 (23) (22) (101) (147) 527
Ruderal 1,970 (1,137) (6) (88) (1,231) 739
Total Foraging 22,051 (6,925) (403) (1,860) (9,188) 12,862 (#) decrease in acreage
Source: Habitat and Land Use Assessment Database (CH2M HILL, 2002).

Effects to Swainson’s Hawk Nesting Habitat. The land-use analysis indicates that the covered activity of planned urban development could reduce potential nesting habitat by 65 acres. The change in the amount of nesting habitat, however, would be substantially less than this amount for several reasons. Loss of 8 acres of oak groves is attributable to three isolated groves in the Willow Creek area of the City and one 2-acre oak grove on the Metro Air Park property; these mature oak groves are likely to remain after development in accordance with the tree protection requirements of the City of Sacramento and Sacramento County. The 24 acres of riparian lands are primarily located along the east (i.e., City) side of Fisherman’s Lake. This area is not designated as exempt from paying mitigation fees, and therefore is included in the calculation of areas to be developed; however, this riparian habitat would not be developed because of the agricultural buffer to be created in this area under the Proposed Action. A small, isolated area of riparian habitat is also located near the northbound I-5 offramp to Del Paso Road. Loss of 33 acres of tree groves is primarily associated with a 21-acre grove in the Metro Air Park property; this grove is not slated for preservation in the Metro Air Park master plan. A 6-acre tree grove has been incorporated into the landscape features of the River View Oaks office complex in the City, and a 1.5-acre tree grove will be preserved as part of the Witter Ranch Historic Farm (a county park), pursuant to the North Natomas Community Plan. Four remaining groves totaling approximately 4.5 acres are located as follows: (1) one near the recently annexed City area near where I-80 crosses the Sacramento River, (2) one west of I-5 near the proposed Natomas Crossing Drive overpass (formerly known as South Loop Road), (3) one in the City’s proposed “panhandle” annexation area immediately south of Elkhorn Boulevard, and (4) one in the Sutter County Industrial-Commercial Reserve north of Sankey Road.

CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
4-70 REVISED NATOMAS BASIN HCP E042002017SAC/161795(004.DOC)

EIR/EIS
These four parcels were assumed to be converted to urban development, although preservation could be required during review of site-specific development proposals.

None of the riparian habitat, oak groves, or tree groves that could be lost because of urban development contains Swainson’s hawk nest sites. Thus, the projected habitat change would not directly affect the existing Swainson’s hawk population in the Natomas Basin.

Nesting Habitat Loss Mitigation Measures Included in the HCP. In addition to the above, the Proposed Action includes measures to protect existing habitat areas that could be used by Swainson’s hawks for nesting in the future (see Section 2.4.6.1). The Proposed Action requires:
/g183 Avoiding removal of known nest trees
/g183 Preserving valley oaks, tree groves, riparian habitat, and other large trees wherever possible
/g183 Preserving and restoring riparian habitat, particularly at Fisherman’s Lake (see Section V.A Land Use Agencies’ Conservation Measures of the HCP) These measures would contribute to maintaining existing nesting opportunities for Swainson’s hawks.

The Proposed Action also includes measures to increase nesting opportunities for Swainson’s hawks over the 50 year permit term. Specifically:
/g183 Riparian trees would be planted on Conservancy lands /g183 Fifteen saplings would be planted on the habitat reserves for every Swainson’s hawk nest tree affected by development
/g183 The City would plant 60 sapling trees within 14 months of approval of the HCP /g183 A tree-planting program would be implemented to plant trees throughout the basin (see Section V.A Land Use Agencies’ Conservation Measures of the HCP) It is estimated that four territories could be affected by development within the City. To reduce the temporal effects associated with the potential loss of these territories, the City would advance funding to plant 60 sapling trees within 14 months of approval of its ITP, thus accelerating development of alternate nest sites to those expected to be affected by development. The tree-planting program and incorporation of riparian trees into the Conservancy’s habitat reserves would be particularly beneficial because these measures could facilitate an increase in the number of nesting territories. Portions of the Natomas Basin, particularly the east, support foraging habitat but provide few nesting opportunities.

As a result, the available foraging habitat could be underused. The tree-planting program and incorporation of riparian trees on the habitat reserves could create nesting opportunities in areas with limited nesting habitat but that have adequate foraging habitat, and result in an overall increase in the nesting population of hawks in the basin.

In addition to these measures, the Proposed Action recognizes the importance of nesting habitat along the Sacramento River and at Fisherman’s Lake. Under the Proposed Action, a CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
E042002017SAC/161795(004.DOC) REVISED NATOMAS BASIN HCP 4-71

EIR/EIS
goal of “no net loss” of nesting habitat would be established for the Swainson’s Hawk Zone3 and no development in the Swainson’s Hawk Zone would be permitted under the Proposed Action, other than the existing City lands that are currently located in the Swainson’s Hawk Zone. Buffer lands would be preserved adjacent to Fisherman’s Lake as described previously. This area supports four Swainson’s hawk nest sites (SHTAC, 2000). With these measures, the known nesting sites associated with Fisherman’s Lake would be protected and additional ones could be created with restoration of riparian habitat on habitat reserves in the Fisherman’s Lake area.

Summary of Effects to Swainson’s Hawk Nesting Habitat. In combination, all of the above measures would avoid or minimize the loss of occupied and potential nesting habitat while creating additional nesting opportunities. The measures in the Proposed Action would reduce the potential for significant impacts to a level that is less than significant.

Effects to Swainson’s Hawk Foraging Habitat. Potential foraging habitat for Swainson’s hawks could be reduced by about 9,188 acres (a 42 percent reduction) in the Natomas Basin as a result of urban development. About 12,862 acres of potential foraging habitat would remain in the Natomas Basin. Loss of foraging habitat has the potential to result in indirect impacts to Swainson’s hawks.

Foraging Habitat Loss Mitigation Measures Included in the HCP. Under the Proposed Action, 2,187.5 acres would be dedicated to upland habitat in permanent habitat reserves.

This upland habitat could consist of existing foraging habitat for Swainson’s hawks or could be created from lands that do not currently provide foraging opportunities for Swainson’s hawks. If the entire upland habitat component of the habitat reserves consisted of protection of existing habitat, the net reduction in foraging habitat would be the 9,188 acres attributable to urban development. If the entire upland habitat component of the habitat reserves was created from nonhabitat, then the net reduction in foraging habitat for Swainson’s hawks would be about 7,000.5 acres (a 32 percent reduction).

The importance of suitable foraging habitat to Swainson’s hawks is influenced by its proximity to nest sites. Swainson’s hawks have been found to forage up to 18 miles from nest sites, but most foraging occurs much closer to nest sites. Foraging habitat located closer to nest sites is considered to be more important than foraging habitat at greater distances.

The CDFG considers habitat within 1 mile of the nest site as more valuable foraging habitat than habitat at greater distances. The acreage of foraging habitat for Swainson’s hawk within 1 mile of nest sites is presented in Table 4-13. Of the 22,051 acres that provide potential foraging habitat for Swainson’s hawks in the Natomas Basin, about 12,446 acres are within 1 mile of a known nest site.

3 The “Swainson’s Hawk Zone” is defined as a corridor beginning at the Sacramento River levee, extending eastward for 1 mile, and running from the intersection of the Sacramento River and Natomas Cross Canal in the north of the Natomas Basin to where Interstate 80 crosses the Sacramento River. For purposes of this assessment, the Swainson’s Hawk Zone is considered to include those Swainson’s hawk nest trees that are outside of but immediately adjacent to the Natomas Basin along the Sacramento River.

CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
4-72 REVISED NATOMAS BASIN HCP E042002017SAC/161795(004.DOC)

EIR/EIS
TABLE 4-13
Change in Foraging Habitat Within 1 Mile of Swainson’s Hawk Nest Sites (acres) Habitat Class Baseline
City of
Sacramento
Metro Air
Park
Sutter
County Total Change
Future
Condition
Alfalfa 280 0 0 0 0 280
Grassland 51 (21) 0 0 (21) 30
Idle 619 (264) (47) 0 (311) 308
Nonrice crops 9,698 (2,523) (232) (159) (2,915) 6,784
Pasture 353 (3) (20) 0 (23) 330
Ruderal 1,444 (868) (6) (5) (879) 565
Total 12,446 (3,679) (305) (165) (4,149) 8,297
(#) decrease in acreage
Source: Habitat and Land Use Assessment Database (CH2M HILL, 2002).

Most of the nest sites in and immediately adjacent to the Natomas Basin are within the Swainson’s Hawk Zone along the Sacramento River. In addition to these nest sites, the Cross Canal supports several nest sites. Based on the location of planned urban development, conversion of potential foraging habitat to urban uses would generally occur at distances of greater than 1 mile from nest sites. Of the 12,446 acres of foraging habitat within 1 mile of a nest site, urban development is predicted to convert 4,149 acres of foraging habitat (a reduction of about one-third). More than half this acreage would consist of nonrice crops. With implementation of the Proposed Action, 2,187.5 acres would be acquired and protected and upland habitat created or enhanced as foraging habitat for Swainson’s hawk. If upland habitat for the reserves is created from areas that currently do not provide foraging habitat, up to 2,187.5 acres of additional foraging habitat could be created in the basin under the Proposed Action. The Conservancy would prioritize the acquisition of upland reserve sites in the Swainson’s Hawk Zone. Following approval of the HCP, Sutter County would initiate a general plan amendment process to redesignate the portion of Sutter County’s Industrial-Commercial Reserve in the Swainson’s Hawk Zone as agriculture (see Section IV.C Conservation Strategies to Mitigate for Urban Development
in the HCP). This redesignation would provide additional assurance that foraging habitat would be maintained for Swainson’s hawks.

The net reduction would be at least partially, if not entirely, offset by the greater quality of upland habitat in the habitat reserves. The predominant habitat that would be lost would be nonrice crops. Nonrice crops (e.g., row crops) are used less (Estep, 1989; Babcock, 1995) and considered poorer quality foraging habitat for Swainson’s hawk than native grasslands, alfalfa, and pasture. Upland habitat in the reserves would be alfalfa or native grassland and would be managed specifically to provide foraging habitat for Swainson’s hawk. Further, the upland habitat in the reserves would be available throughout the entire period of time that the hawks are in the basin and would be stable in amount and location over the long term. In agricultural fields, Swainson’s hawks often concentrate foraging in agricultural fields during or immediately following harvest (Estep, 1989). When the fields are not being harvested, prey in agricultural habitats might not be accessible to Swainson’s hawks so that the effective amount of habitat is less than indicated by the total acreage. Crop types also CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
E042002017SAC/161795(004.DOC) REVISED NATOMAS BASIN HCP 4-73

EIR/EIS
fluctuate in the Natomas Basin and could shift over time to crops that are less favorable to Swainson’s hawks for foraging.

The habitat reserves would provide certainty of the amount, quality and location of foraging habitat, resulting in a beneficial effect. Within the habitat reserves, upland habitat would be managed specifically to produce prey for Swainson’s hawks. In addition to the upland habitat in the reserves, Swainson’s hawks could use portions of the managed marsh, and at times, the rice fields. To provide over-wintering habitat for giant garter snakes, managed marshes would include upland areas. These areas also would provide foraging opportunities for Swainson’s hawks. Some of the managed marshes would be seasonal and would not be inundated during the late spring and summer. When not flooded, seasonal marshes could be used by Swainson’s hawks if the marshes are colonized by small mammals.

Similarly, rice fields could provide foraging opportunities for hawks for several months each year when they are dry. Under the Proposed Action, 10 percent of the rice on the habitat reserves would be fallowed each year. This would further provide potential foraging opportunities. Collectively, the habitat reserves effectively would provide greater foraging opportunities than indicated by the upland component alone, although the specific amount of foraging habitat available in any given year cannot be quantified.

Importantly, the Conservancy would monitor future proposed development in the Swainson’s Hawk Zone, where the majority of known Swainson’s hawk nest sites are located (see Section V.B.3.b [The Natomas Basin Conservancy’s Conservation Measures] in the HCP).

Based on existing general plans, development in this zone is expected to be limited over the permit term. If urban development does occur, however, reserve lands established as mitigation for that development would likewise be located within the Swainson’s Hawk Zone. In addition, the Conservancy would set as a top priority the acquisition of upland reserve sites in the Swainson’s Hawk Zone (via easement or land purchase), irrespective of any specific development proposals in this area (see Section V.B.4.b [The Natomas Basin Conservancy’s Conservation Measures] in the HCP).

Summary of Effects to Swainson’s Hawk Foraging Habitat. The above actions would help maintain foraging habitat in proximity to a majority of the nesting sites and mitigate losses in the amount of potential foraging habitat in the basin. The measures in the Proposed Action would reduce the potential for significant impacts to a level that is less than significant.

Effects of Construction Activities. Urban development and the construction of habitat reserves have the potential to displace or disturb nesting Swainson’s hawks. Nest disturbance from the operation of heavy construction equipment and continued presence of activity near nest sites could cause Swainson’s hawks to abandon a nesting attempt or interfere with incubation and feeding of young in a way that reduces nesting success.

Avoidance and Mitigation Measures Included in the HCP Related to Construction Activities.

The Proposed Action includes measures to avoid and minimize the potential for impacts to Swainson’s hawks from construction associated with urban development and for the habitat reserves (see Sections V.A [Land Use Agencies’ Conservation Measures] and V.B [The Natomas Basin Conservancy’s Conservation Measures] in the HCP). These measures include:

CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
4-74 REVISED NATOMAS BASIN HCP E042002017SAC/161795(004.DOC)

EIR/EIS
/g183 Pre-construction surveys to determine whether any Swainson’s hawk nest sites occur on or within 1/2 mile of the lands designated for development /g183 Timing restrictions for construction activity if an occupied Swainson’s hawk nest is identified (i.e., defer construction activities until after the nesting season) and then, if unavoidable, the nest tree may be destroyed during the non-nesting season /g183 An onsite biological monitor (CDFG-approved raptor biologist funded by the developer) would be assigned to the project if construction or other project-related activities that could cause nest abandonment or forced fledging are proposed within the 1/4 mile buffer zone
Summary of Effects from Construction Activities. In combination, the above measures in the Proposed Action would help ensure that nest sites are identified prior to the start of construction and that actions are taken to minimize or avoid adverse effects to the birds during the nesting season. Implementation of these measures would reduce the potential for significant impacts to a level that is less than significant.

Effects of Water Agency and Conservancy Management. Activities conducted by RD 1000 and Natomas Mutual could affect Swainson’s hawks during their breeding season. Isolated trees along the canal and ditch system support nesting by Swainson’s hawks. Nesting birds could be affected by noise from maintenance equipment, such as mowers and construction equipment used for sediment removal, as well as human activity in the vicinity of an occupied nest. Swainson’s hawks that nest in trees along irrigation canals and ditches have selected and used these trees coincident with the ongoing activities. Swainson’s hawks that nest in trees on irrigation canals and ditches have successfully fledged young (SHTAC 2001). Thus, no adverse effects to Swainson’s hawks are anticipated as a result of ongoing management activities.

Activities by RD 1000 and Natomas Mutual also have the potential to affect Swainson’s hawks indirectly through vegetation control and rodent control practices along the ditches and canals. Canal banks can provide foraging opportunities for Swainson’s hawks.

Management practices can influence the quality of canal banks as foraging opportunities for Swainson’s hawk through effects on vegetation and directly through rodent control. Under the Proposed Action, the water agencies would implement conservation measures to maintain vegetative cover on the ditches and canals, providing food and protection for prey species (see Section V.C [Water Agencies’ Conservation Measures] in the HCP). The water
agencies also would limit rodent-control measures to those necessary to maintain structurally sound flood control levees.

The Conservancy would manage the habitat reserves to provide nesting and foraging habitat for Swainson’s hawks. Thus, Conservancy operations and maintenance activities overall would have beneficial effects on Swainson’s hawks. For example, under the Proposed Action, the Conservancy would manage upland habitats on the reserves to support mice and insects, promoting a prey base for the hawks. If Swainson’s hawks nest on the habitat reserves, operations and maintenance activities would have the potential to disturb nesting birds. Under the Proposed Action, the Conservancy would implement take-avoidance measures to minimize potential take that could occur during CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
E042002017SAC/161795(004.DOC) REVISED NATOMAS BASIN HCP 4-75

EIR/EIS
habitat-enhancement and management activities on reserve lands. The Conservancy would implement take-avoidance measures included in habitat-creation and management plans.

Overall Effects on Swainson’s Hawk. Swainson’s hawks once were one of the most common raptors in California. The breeding population in California has been estimated at about 10 percent of its historic level (Bloom, 1980). The substantial reduction in riparian forest and oak woodland habitat that Swainson’s hawks use for nesting has been considered the primary cause of this species’ decline in California. Conversion of grassland to agricultural and urban uses also could have contributed to declines, although the hawks have adapted to using some types of agricultural fields for foraging. It is uncertain if the availability and quality of foraging habitat is currently a limiting factor for Swainson’s hawks in the Natomas Basin.

Currently, there are 892 known Swainson’s hawk nesting site occurrences in California.

Three of these occurrences have been extirpated, and seven reported nest sites have not been relocated. Of the remaining 882 known occurrences presumed extant, 141 are reported in Sacramento County, and 53 are reported in Sutter County (CDFG, 2001). The most recent survey of the Natomas Basin (SHTAC, 2001) shows 35 nest sites along the Sacramento River (22 on the east side and 13 on the west side) and 27 nest sites located in the basin, for a total of 62 nest sites in or immediately adjacent to the Natomas Basin. Two of the sites in the basin are considered abandoned, and five of the known nest trees have been removed.

Not including the two abandoned territories, seven of the known nest sites are within the approved development areas of the Proposed Action. As presented on Figure 3-5 of this EIR/EIS, five of these sites are located within the City and two are within Metro Air Park (both of the Metro Air Park nest trees were removed in 2002). Except for one of the sites, all were used in 2001. These seven nest sites have the greatest potential to be affected by the covered activities (i.e., urban development) of the HCP. The planned development could result in the direct loss of nesting habitat at these sites if removal of nest trees is not avoided or if territories are abandoned because of the indirect effects of reduced foraging habitat around the nest site. This potential loss of nesting habitat would adversely affect Swainson’s hawks and thereby potentially result in significant impacts to this species.

If the nest trees are retained, three of the territories in the City (NB-1, NB-2, and NB-25) would likely remain viable because of the large amount of foraging habitat available within about one-quarter mile between the City’s western edge and the Sacramento River. The remaining two territories in the City (NB-3 and NB-6) would be surrounded by urban development and would be between one-half mile and 1 mile from alternate foraging habitat.

These territories have the potential to be abandoned by Swainson’s hawk. There are, however, territories in the Natomas Basin that are surrounded by urban development and more than 1 mile from suitable foraging habitat that have successfully fledged young. Thus, these territories could remain occupied if the nest tree is retained. One of the territories in the Metro Air Park area (NB-7) is within about one-quarter mile of foraging habitat that would not be developed and, therefore, is not expected to be lost because of reduced foraging habitat at Metro Air Park. The second nest site at Metro Air Park (NB-26) was a new site in 2001. Fallowing of rice fields in the Metro Air Park property in the last few years could have facilitated establishment of this territory. Little alternate foraging habitat is available near this nest site, and the potential exists for it to be abandoned with development of Metro Air Park.

CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
4-76 REVISED NATOMAS BASIN HCP E042002017SAC/161795(004.DOC)

EIR/EIS
The potential for urban development to result in abandonment of these nest sites would be a potentially significant impact. Both of the Metro Air Park nest trees were removed in 2002 Overall, two territories with remaining nest trees are considered at risk to be abandoned (NB-3 and NB-6). Although these sites have the greatest potential of those in the basin to be affected by urban development, it is uncertain if they would be abandoned. Nevertheless, the HCP includes restoration actions on the habitat reserves to offset a potential loss of territories, specifically the creation of additional nest sites, implementation of the tree planting program, and restoration of riparian habitat. A short-term reduction in the number of territories could occur prior to the development of alternate nest sites, but over the long term the Proposed Action would encourage the establishment of new territories as long as nesting habitat and not foraging habitat is the primary limiting factor. The short-term reduction in nest trees is mitigated by the requirement under the Proposed Action to plant saplings of suitable nest tree species within 14 months after issuance of ITPs. The preservation of upland habitat, retention of existing nesting habitat, and the creation of suitable nesting habitat in the future under the Proposed Action would reduce potential impacts to territories within the authorized development area to a less-than-significant level.

Urban development could reduce the amount of foraging habitat available within the Natomas Basin as a whole and result in potentially significant impacts to Swainson’s hawks.

Few territories, however, are likely to be abandoned as a result of the projected reduction in foraging habitat acreage for the following reasons:
/g183 Loss of potential foraging habitat would primarily occur away from nest sites where it is less valuable to nesting Swainson’s hawks
/g183 Maintenance of foraging habitat in the Swainson’s Hawk Zone would be a focus of the Proposed Action, and most of the nest sites are located in this zone /g183 Upland reserves would be managed to provide better quality foraging habitat for Swainson’s hawk than is provided in agricultural fields /g183 Foraging habitat is probably not currently limiting because of the large amount of agricultural fields available in the Natomas Basin and surrounding areas and the ability for Swainson’s hawks to forage over large distances
Lastly, upland reserve sites in the Swainson’s Hawk Zone would be acquired with habitat contiguity as a primary consideration. The acquisitions by the Conservancy would ensure that substantial amounts of Swainson’s hawk habitat would be maintained in close proximity to occupied nesting habitat. In addition, acquisition would ensure that upland habitats would be selected using a strategy that maximizes the Conservancy’s ability to maintain Swainson’s hawks in the basin (i.e., upland habitats would not be randomly selected for the reserve system, either inside or outside the zone). For these reasons, the reduction in foraging habitat associated with the covered activity of urban development is not expected to result in the loss of territories associated with nest trees located outside of the development areas.

Therefore, the Proposed Action’s conservation program for Swainson’s hawks would reduce potential impacts to Swainson’s hawks to a less-than-significant level.

CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
E042002017SAC/161795(004.DOC) REVISED NATOMAS BASIN HCP 4-77

EIR/EIS

4.4.5.2.12 Aleutian Canada Goose
Effects of Changes in Habitat. Aleutian Canada geese do not breed or winter in the Natomas Basin, but could use habitats in the Natomas Basin as a stopover while migrating between breeding grounds in Alaska and wintering grounds in the San Joaquin Valley. Pasture, rice fields, and other croplands in the Natomas Basin could be used by migrating geese for foraging or roosting. Currently, much of the Natomas Basin (40,053 acres) could be used by Aleutian Canada geese. The habitat classes (from Tables 4-2 and 4-4) that provide potential habitat for the Aleutian Canada goose and the changes in acreage from implementing the Proposed Action are presented in Table 4-14. It is important to note that only a portion of the areas designated as nonrice crops constitute potential habitat for the Aleutian Canada geese. Only grain crops such as corn and wheat would likely be used by Aleutian Canada geese; nongrain crops such as tomatoes do not provide habitat. As such, the amount of habitat for Aleutian Canada geese is overestimated in Table 4-14.

TABLE 4-14
Change in Potential Habitat for Aleutian Canada Goose (acres) Habitat Class Baseline
City of
Sacramento
Metro Air
Park
Sutter
County
Total
Change
Future
Condition
Nonrice crops 16,686 (4,663) (325) (1,529) (6,517) 10,169 Pasture 674 (23) (22) (101) (147) 527
Rice (roosting
and foraging)
22,693 (970) (1,541) (5,577) (8,087) 14,606
TOTAL 40,053 (5,656) (1,888) (7,207) (14,751) 25,302
(#) decrease in acreage
Source: Habitat and Land Use Assessment Database (CH2M HILL, 2002).

Under the Proposed Action, the total amount of potential habitat for the Aleutian Canada goose would be reduced by about 14,750 acres because of urban development. With urban development of 17,500 acres, an estimated 25,302 acres of potential habitat for Aleutian Canada geese would remain in the basin. The basin would continue to provide for use by migrating geese, given this abundance of potential habitat.

This net reduction in potential habitat for the Aleutian Canada goose is unlikely to result in take of individual geese or affect the viability of the species. Potential habitat would remain abundant in the basin, and agricultural areas are present and abundant both north and south of the basin. State and federal refuges also are distributed along the Central Valley and are managed to provide wintering and stopover habitat for ducks and geese. Further, the Aleutian Canada goose was listed as threatened because of threats on the species’ breeding grounds in Alaska; the availability of migratory habitat has not been identified as a limiting factor for this species. Thus, projected changes in the amount of habitat in the Natomas Basin potentially used by Aleutian Canada geese would not be expected to affect the species’ population. In the event that use of the Natomas Basin by Aleutian Canada geese increases in the future, the Conservancy would use applicable USFWS-approved recovery or management plans, to implement any additional conservation measures deemed appropriate.

The net loss of potential habitat would be at least partially offset by creation and protection of the Proposed Action’s habitat reserves. All of the habitats on the 8,750 acres in the reserve CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
4-78 REVISED NATOMAS BASIN HCP E042002017SAC/161795(004.DOC)

EIR/EIS
system would provide potential habitat for Aleutian Canada geese in perpetuity. The system of reserves would provide a mosaic of wetland, upland, and agricultural habitats, all of which could be used by Aleutian Canada geese. The reserves would be protected in perpetuity, thereby providing certainty of the availability of stopover habitat for Aleutian Canada geese over the long term. The stability and quality of habitat provided by the proposed system of permanent reserves would help ensure that Aleutian Canada geese could continue to use the Natomas Basin as a stopover area on their migration.

Effects of Construction Activities. Construction activities associated with urban development or creation of habitat would not be expected to adversely affect Aleutian Canada geese. Potential effects would be limited to displacement of birds foraging or roosting on a field during the initial phases of construction when fields are graded. Aleutian Canada geese only occur in the basin for brief periods during migration and in small numbers during migration such that the potential for construction activities to coincide with the presence of Aleutian Canada geese is minimal.

Effects of Water Agency and Conservancy Management. Operations and maintenance activities by RD 1000 and Natomas Mutual are unlikely to affect the Aleutian Canada goose.

These activities would be focused on canals and drains, which do not provide suitable habitat for this species. Further, the Natomas Basin is of limited importance to the Aleutian Canada goose, and the species is highly mobile during potential stopover periods in the Natomas Basin.

Ongoing maintenance of the habitat reserves by the Conservancy would be unlikely to affect the Aleutian Canada goose. Potential effects would be limited to displacement of birds foraging or roosting on a field. Potential disturbance would be of limited scope and short duration. Also, Aleutian Canada geese only occur in the basin for brief periods and in small numbers during migration, so that the Conservancy could schedule maintenance activities to avoid disturbance. If hunting is allowed on the reserves, CDFG requirements would be followed. Hunting would not be allowed if it conflicted with the species’ ongoing recovery.

Overall Effects on Aleutian Canada Goose. Aleutian Canada geese use the Natomas Basin to a limited degree during their seasonal migrations. Potential habitat is expected to remain abundant under the Proposed Action. This species is not believed to be limited by wintering habitat so that the reduction in potential habitat in the Natomas Basin should not have any effects on the population. The habitat reserves under the Proposed Action would provide high-quality habitat that is stable in amount and location in perpetuity. The long-term availability of this habitat could be beneficial to the Aleutian Canada goose if future development in the Central Valley substantially reduces other wintering and migratory habitat. Therefore, impacts to this species would be less than significant with implementation of the habitat reserve system under the Proposed Action.

4.4.5.2.13 Burrowing Owl
Effects of Changes in Habitat. Burrowing owls are associated with open grassland habitats.

They are dependent on burrowing mammals, particularly ground squirrels, to excavate burrows, and thus their occurrence and distribution is linked to these mammals. In the Natomas Basin, grasslands and pastures provide nesting and foraging habitat for burrowing owls. Burrowing owls also could forage in alfalfa, but nesting would not be expected because of routine disturbance caused by harvesting. Burrowing mammals often create CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
E042002017SAC/161795(004.DOC) REVISED NATOMAS BASIN HCP 4-79

EIR/EIS
burrows in road and canal embankments and burrowing owls can be found nesting in these areas. For this analysis, grassland, pasture, and alfalfa are considered habitat for burrowing owl. Based on this definition, the Natomas Basin supports about 1,931 acres of potential habitat for burrowing owls. The habitat classes (from Tables 4-2 and 4-4) that provide potential habitat for burrowing owls and the changes in acreage from implementing the Proposed Action are presented in Table 4-15.

TABLE 4-15
Change in Potential Habitat for Burrowing Owl (acres)
Habitat Class Baseline
City of
Sacramento
Metro Air
Park
Sutter
County
Total
Change
Future
Condition
Alfalfa 371 0 0 0 0 371
Grassland 886 (427) 0 (134) (560) 325
Pasture 674 (23) (22) (101) (147) 527
TOTAL 1,931 (450) (22) (235) (707) 1,223
(#) decrease in acreage
Source: Habitat and Land Use Assessment Database (CH2M HILL, 2002).

Under the Proposed Action, urban development would affect about 700 acres of potential habitat for burrowing owls. Most of the habitat that would be converted would be grassland and pasture in the northern portion of the City’s “panhandle” annexation area and the northeastern portion of Sutter County’s Industrial-Commercial Reserve. This habitat loss, however, would be offset by the upland mitigation strategy of the Proposed Action.

The upland mitigation strategy of the Proposed Action is to create and maintain optimum nesting and foraging habitat for Swainson=s hawk. Upland foraging habitat for Swainson=s hawk includes open grassland and pasture areas and field crops (e.g., alfalfa) that are also suitable habitat for burrowing owl. Thus, the 2,187.5 acres of upland habitat in the reserves would be suitable for both burrowing owls and Swainson=s hawks. Uplands associated with the wetland reserves could provide additional habitat.

In addition to increasing the total amount of habitat for burrowing owls, habitat in the reserve system would provide better habitat conditions for burrowing owl than the habitat that would be converted to urban use. The Proposed Action requires specific management requirements for burrowing owls on the proposed system of upland reserves. Key requirements include creating mounded areas suitable for burrowing owl nesting, enhancing prey populations, and avoiding disturbance during management activities.

In addition to reducing habitat availability, urban development in areas adjacent to burrowing owl colonies can indirectly impact this species. Free-ranging domestic cats are often introduced to an area by the establishment of residential areas. Residential development close to burrowing owl colonies could increase predation by cats. Nearby residential areas could also lead to harassment of owls by humans. In a Florida study area, harassment of owls by children was a leading cause of nest failures by burrowing owls (Millsap and Bear, 2000). Under the Proposed Action, habitat reserves would be located at least 800 feet from urban areas and areas designated for urban development in applicable plan (unless a smaller distance is approved by CDFG and USFWS on a case-by-case basis), CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
4-80 REVISED NATOMAS BASIN HCP E042002017SAC/161795(004.DOC)

EIR/EIS
and human access would be controlled. With these provisions, predation by cats and harassment by humans would be reduced, although not necessarily eliminated.

Effects of Construction Activities. Burrowing owls could be directly affected by construction activities associated with urban development and habitat creation on the habitat reserves.

Earth-moving activities can trap or injure owls in their burrows. The Proposed Action requires the following measures to avoid impacts to burrowing owls:
/g183 Preconstruction surveys would be conducted prior to the initiation of grading or earth-disturbing activities to determine if any burrowing owls are using the site for foraging or nesting.
/g183 Occupied burrows would not be disturbed during the nesting season (February 1 - August 31) unless a qualified biologist approved by the CDFG verifies that either: (1) the birds have not begun egg-laying and incubation; or (2) that juveniles from the occupied burrows are foraging independently and are capable of independent survival.
/g183 If nest sites are found, the USFWS and the CDFG shall be contacted regarding suitable mitigation measures, which may include a 300-foot buffer from the nest site during the breeding season (February 1 - August 31), or a relocation effort for the burrowing owls if the birds have not begun egg-laying and incubation or the juveniles from the occupied burrows are foraging independently and are capable of independent survival. /g183 If relocation of the owls is approved for the site by the USFWS and the CDFG, the developer shall hire a qualified biologist to prepare a plan for relocating the owls to a suitable site.
/g183 Where onsite avoidance is not possible, disturbance and/or destruction of burrows shall be offset through development of suitable habitation on Conservancy upland reserves.

By following these measures, the potential for injury or trapping of owls in their burrows would be reduced. These measures also require relocation of owls and habitat protection if a colony is displaced by construction. With this requirement, there would be no net change in the number of colonies as a result of urban development.

On the habitat reserves, habitat creation would be designed and conducted so as to avoid impacts to burrowing owl colonies. For example, the habitat creation plan for the Betts- Kismat-Silva property maintains the existing burrowing owl colonies intact. If future land acquisitions support burrowing owl colonies, they would be similarly protected.

Effects of Water Agency and Conservancy Management. Operations and maintenance activities conducted by RD 1000 and Natomas Mutual have the potential to directly and indirectly affect burrowing owls. Activities such as sediment removal have the potential to trap owls in their burrows. Because burrowing owls do not inhabit canal and ditch embankments to a large degree, however, impacts to the burrowing owl population are expected to be infrequent and to affect a small number of owls. Rodent-control activities have the potential to indirectly affect burrowing owls. Burrowing owls are dependent on burrowing rodents to create burrows. Under the Proposed Action, the water agencies would conduct rodent-control activities only as necessary to maintain structurally sound flood CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
E042002017SAC/161795(004.DOC) REVISED NATOMAS BASIN HCP 4-81

EIR/EIS
control levees. While not avoiding this potential impact entirely, this measure would reduce the potential impacts of these activities on populations of burrowing mammals on which the burrowing owl depends.

The Conservancy would avoid impacts to burrowing owls during management activities of the habitat reserves by following CDFG’s Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation.

Overall Effects on Burrowing Owl. With the increased amount and quality of habitat for burrowing owls and long-term protection of habitat in the reserve system, the Proposed Action would improve habitat conditions for burrowing owls in the Natomas Basin. Reserve acquisitions to date have included known burrowing owl populations (i.e., Betts-Kismat- Silva), and it is likely that burrowing owls would occur on future reserve lands so that the number of colonies in areas permanently protected would increase. The overall combination of the measures (i.e., preconstruction surveys for covered species and their habitat); species- specific measures (e.g., avoidance of burrow sites during the breeding season both within development lands and reserve lands, species relocation); additional mitigation according to CDFG guidelines; and long-term protection, creation, and enhancement of upland habitat in the reserve system would be expected to at least maintain the existing population level of burrowing owls in the Natomas Basin and potentially increase it over time. Therefore, impacts to burrowing owls under the Proposed Action would be less than significant.

4.4.5.2.14 Bank Swallow
Effects of Changes in Habitat. Bank swallows nest in vertical riverbanks with friable soils.

Waterways within the Natomas Basin are largely channelized canals and ditches that are designed to resist erosion and therefore do not support suitable nesting substrates for bank swallows. Bank swallows do not nest in the Natomas Basin and the expected changes in land use do not include the removal or creation of bank swallow nesting habitat.

Bank swallows prey on insects and can forage in a variety of open habitats. However, typically they concentrate foraging in riparian areas, wetlands, and open water habitats (e.g., canals, ponds and seasonally wet areas) where insects tend to be abundant. Grasslands and other croplands also could be foraged. There are no bank swallow nesting colonies in the Natomas Basin, but bank swallows from colonies outside of the Natomas Basin or migrating birds could forage in the basin.

Bank swallows could forage in almost any open habitat in the Natomas Basin. The habitat classes (from Tables 4-2 and 4-4) that provide potential habitat for bank swallows and the changes in acreage from implementing the Proposed Action are presented in Table 4-16. As summarized in Table 4-16, open habitats where bank swallows could forage would decline by about 15,760 acres under the Proposed Action. This reduction in potential foraging habitat would not be expected to adversely affect bank swallows for several reasons. First, the abundance and distribution of bank swallows are determined by the availability and location of suitable nesting substrates rather than the availability of foraging habitat. Second, potential foraging habitat would remain abundant (about 27,500 acres) and, given the low level of use of the Natomas Basin by bank swallows, the habitat remaining in the basin with full implementation of the Proposed Action would be sufficient to support the existing level of use. Also, bank swallows foraging in the Natomas Basin most likely come from nesting colonies on the Sacramento River and probably forage close to the river. The urban CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
4-82 REVISED NATOMAS BASIN HCP E042002017SAC/161795(004.DOC)

EIR/EIS
development contemplated under the Proposed Action would occur away from Sacramento River and would not affect the areas likely receiving greatest use by bank swallows.

TABLE 4-16
Change in Potential Habitat for Bank Swallow (acres)
Habitat Class Baseline
City of
Sacramento
Metro Air
Park
Sutter
County
Total
Change
Future
Condition
Alfalfa 371 0 0 0 0 371
Grassland 886 (427) 0 (134) (560) 325
Nonrice crops 16,686 (4,663) (325) (1,529) (6,517) 10,169 Pasture 674 (23) (22) (101) (147) 527
Ponds and
seasonally
wet areas
96 (7) (4) (10) (21) 75
Rice 22,693 (970) (1,541) (5,577) (8,087) 14,606
Riparian 124 (24) 0 0 (24) 100
Canals (all) 1,778 (117) (72) (215) (404) 1,374
TOTAL 43,308 (6,231) (1,964) (7,566) (15,760) 27,547
(#) decrease in acreage
Source: Habitat and Land Use Assessment Database (CH2M HILL, 2002).

To the extent that bank swallows use the basin, the system of habitat reserves would be managed to provide a marsh ecosystem which would support a greater abundance and diversity of insects than agricultural fields. The creation of reserves could improve foraging opportunities for bank swallows. The habitat reserves also would be protected in perpetuity and provide habitat that is stable in quality and location. The Conservancy would manage the habitat reserves in accordance with applicable USFWS- or CDFG-approved bank swallow recovery or management plans. The Proposed Action also contains management provisions to implement any additional conservation measures deemed appropriate if use of the Natomas Basin by this species increase in the future.

Effects of Construction Activities. No bank swallow nesting colonies are currently recorded in the Natomas Basin, and such colonies are unlikely to occur because suitable nesting habitat (i.e., vertical banks with fine-textured soils) is absent. Accordingly, construction-related impacts are unlikely to occur. The Proposed Action requires that surveys be conducted prior to the approval of the urban development permit. In the event that a bank swallow nestingcolony is found in a development area, impacts would be avoided during the nesting season. Similarly, in creating habitat on the habitat reserves, the Conservancy would avoid impacts during the nesting season if a nesting colony occurs on the habitat reserves.

Effects of Water Agency and Conservancy Management. Operations and maintenance activities by RD 1000 and Natomas Mutual are unlikely to affect the bank swallow. These activities would be focused on canals and drains, which do not provide suitable nesting habitat for this species. Operations and maintenance activities would not preclude or interfere with foraging by bank swallows.

CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
E042002017SAC/161795(004.DOC) REVISED NATOMAS BASIN HCP 4-83

EIR/EIS
Ongoing management of the habitat reserves by the Conservancy is unlikely to affect the bank swallows because suitable nesting habitat is not expected to occur on reserve lands. In the event that a bank swallow colony does occur on the habitat reserves, the Conservancy would avoid disturbance of colonies during the nesting season. Operation and maintenance activities would not preclude or interfere with foraging by bank swallows. If use of the Natomas Basin by bank swallows appreciably increased in the future, the Conservancy would implement additional conservation measures deemed appropriate, based on applicable USFWS- or CDFG-approved bank swallow recovery or management plans, or the Adaptive Management provisions of the Proposed Action.

Overall Effects on Bank Swallow. The loss of foraging habitat for bank swallows in the Natomas Basin has the potential to result in significant impacts to species habitat conditions.

The creation of managed marsh reserves under the Proposed Action, however, would ensure that available habitat remains in the Natomas Basin in perpetuity. Therefore, the overall impact would be less than significant with implementation of the HCP conservation measures in the Proposed Action, and the potential loss of active nest areas would be mitigated to a less- than-significant level with implementation of the avoidance measures under the Proposed Action.

4.4.5.2.15 Loggerhead Shrike
Effects of Changes in Habitat. In the Natomas Basin, potential foraging habitat for the loggerhead shrike primarily consists of pasture, grasslands, ponds and seasonally wet areas, croplands, orchards, and ruderal habitats. Shrikes also could nest in trees or shrubs occurring in or along the margins of these habitats. Canals, riparian areas, and oak and tree groves also provide nesting opportunities for this species. The habitat classes (from Tables 4-2 and 4-4) that would provide potential habitat for loggerhead shrike and the changes in acreage from implementing the Proposed Action are presented in Table 4-17.

Based on the GIS, the Natomas Basin supports about 23,300 acres of potential habitat for loggerhead shrike.

Only a portion of the potential habitat would be used by loggerhead shrikes. This species occurs in close association with small trees and shrubs that it uses as perch sites from which foraging bouts are launched and as nest sites. Small trees and shrubs are not found in the middle of the field; rather, they occur sporadically along the margins of the fields.

Telephone lines along the roads also are used as perch sites. Because loggerhead shrikes forage by making short forays from perch sites, they would not use the inner portions of fields that occur at some distance from perch sites. Thus, loggerhead shrikes predominantly would use only the margins of fields and areas where there are perch sites. Considering the entire acreage of agricultural fields as potential habitat for loggerhead shrike overestimates the amount of habitat available to this species in the Natomas Basin.

Based on the habitat and land use analysis, potential habitat for loggerhead shrike would decline by about 9,000 acres as a result of urban development (Table 4-17). Most of the potential habitat that would be lost would be nonrice crops. Nonrice crops provide relatively poor habitat for loggerhead shrike because this species feeds predominantly on insects and intensive management of agricultural lands strives to reduce insect pests.

Further, insecticides are used to control insect pests and insecticide use is believed to be contributing to declines in loggerhead shrike populations (Kaufman, 1996).

CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
4-84 REVISED NATOMAS BASIN HCP E042002017SAC/161795(004.DOC)

EIR/EIS
TABLE 4-17
Change in Potential Habitat for Loggerhead Shrike (acres) Habitat Class Baseline
City of
Sacramento
Metro Air
Park
Sutter
County
Total
Change
Future
Condition
Alfalfa 371 0 0 0 0 371
Grassland 886 (427) 0 (134) (560) 325
Nonrice crops 16,686 (4,663) (325) (1,529) (6,517) 10,169 Oak groves 98 (6) (2) 0 (8) 89
Orchard 182 (13) 0 0 (13) 169
Pasture 674 (23) (22) (101) (147) 527
Ponds and
seasonally
wet areas
96 (7) (4) (10) (21) 75
Riparian 124 (24) 0 0 (24) 100
Ruderal 1,970 (1,137) (6) (88) (1,231) 739
Rural
residential
377 (46) (10) 0 (56) 321
Tree groves 106 (10) (23) 0 (33) 73
Canals (all) 1,778 (117) (72) (215) (404) 1,374
TOTAL 23,348 (6,473) (464) (2,077) (9,014) 14,332
(#) decrease in acreage
Source: Habitat and Land Use Assessment Database (CH2M HILL, 2002).

The habitat reserves would provide 2,187.5 acres of high-quality habitat for loggerhead shrike in perpetuity. This habitat would be stable in quality and location and encourage the establishment and long-term persistence of a breeding population in the Natomas Basin.

Specifically to attract and maintain loggerhead shrikes, the Conservancy would encourage development and maintenance of perching and nesting sites on habitat reserves. Riparian habitat and some of the managed marsh on the reserves could provide additional nesting opportunities and foraging perch sites. The mosaic of upland, riparian, and marsh habitats on the reserves would provide nesting opportunities in close proximity to foraging habitat and provide all essential habitat features for loggerhead shrikes.

In addition to reducing habitat availability, urban development near areas inhabited by shrikes can have indirect effects. Free-ranging domestic cats are often introduced to an area by the establishment of residential areas. Residential development close to areas inhabited by shrikes could lead to increased predation by cats. Under the Proposed Action, habitat reserves would be located at least 800 feet from urban areas and areas designated for urban development in applicable plan (unless a smaller distance is approved by CDFG and USFWS on a case-by-case basis). By locating habitat reserves away from urban areas, predation by cats could be reduced although not eliminated.

Effects of Construction Activities. Construction activities associated with development or for habitat creation on the habitat reserves could disturb or displace loggerhead shrikes.

CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
E042002017SAC/161795(004.DOC) REVISED NATOMAS BASIN HCP 4-85

EIR/EIS
Under the Proposed Action, preconstruction surveys would be conducted for loggerhead shrikes prior to urban development. If loggerhead shrikes are found, disturbance would be avoided during the nesting season to the maximum extent possible. Construction activities adjacent to the habitat reserves could disturb shrikes nesting on the reserves. The potential for this impact is low because the habitat reserves would be located 800 feet from urban development or lands designated for urban development (unless a smaller distance is approved by CDFG and USFWS on a case-by-case basis). On the habitat reserves, the Conservancy similarly would avoid disturbance to loggerhead shrike nest sites during construction activities for habitat creation.

Effects of Water Agency and Conservancy Management. Operations and maintenance effects on loggerhead shrike are expected to be rare or infrequent. Canals and drains that would be affected by these activities generally do not support suitable habitat for loggerhead shrike.

On the habitat reserves, management activities by the Conservancy could disturb or displace loggerhead shrikes nesting on the reserve. Under the Proposed Action, the Conservancy would avoid disturbance of loggerhead shrikes during the nesting season while conducting management activities to the maximum extent practicable.

Overall Effects on Loggerhead Shrike. The net reduction in agricultural fields under the Proposed Action likely would reduce the total population of loggerhead shrikes in the Natomas Basin. Although there would be a net reduction in potential habitat for loggerhead shrike, with creation and protection of high-quality habitat on the habitat reserves under the Proposed Action and the persistence of habitat outside of the reserve system, loggerhead shrikes would continue to be supported in the Natomas Basin. The changes in habitat from planned urban development, therefore, would be mitigated by implementing the Proposed Action’s conservation strategy. As a result, the population of loggerhead shrike in the Natomas Basin would not be adversely affected. Therefore, impacts to this species would be reduced to a level that is not significant.

4.4.5.3 Impacts to Other Special-status Species
This section presents the impacts to other special-status species not covered by the ITPs.

These are:
/g183 Suisun Marsh Aster (Section 4.4.5.3.1)
/g183 Dwarf Downingia (Section 4.4.5.3.2)
/g183 Rose Mallow (Section 4.4.5.3.3)
/g183 Cooper’s Hawk (Section 4.4.5.3.4)
/g183 Short-eared Owl (Section 4.4.5.3.5)
/g183 American Bittern (Section 4.4.5.3.6)
/g183 Ferruginous Hawk (Section 4.4.5.3.7)
/g183 Mountain Plover (Section 4.4.5.3.8)
/g183 Black Tern (Section 4.4.5.3.9)
/g183 Lark Sparrow (Section 4.4.5.3.10)
/g183 White-tailed Kite (Section 4.4.5.3.11)
/g183 Pacific Slope Flycatcher (Section 4.4.5.3.12)
/g183 Little Willow Flycatcher (Section 4.4.5.3.13)
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
4-86 REVISED NATOMAS BASIN HCP E042002017SAC/161795(004.DOC)

EIR/EIS
/g183 American Peregrine Falcon (Section 4.4.5.3.14)
/g183 Greater Sandhill Crane (Section 4.4.5.3.15)
/g183 Bald Eagle (Section 4.4.5.3.16)
/g183 Long-billed Curlew (Section 4.4.5.3.17)
/g183 Bewick’s Wren (Section 4.4.5.3.18)
/g183 Fish Species of Special Concern (Section 4.4.5.3.19) /g183 Waterfowl (Section 4.4.5.3.20)
The species considered in this section are those special-status species that have a reasonable expectation of occurring in the Natomas Basin but are not covered species under the Proposed Action. Section 3.4.2 presents the process for identifying special-status species in the Natomas Basin, and Table 3-8 lists 101 species that were identified. In combination, Sections 4.4.5.2 and 4.4.5.3 address potential impacts to species that could reasonably occur in the Natomas Basin (the 22 covered species and 29 other species). For the reasons presented in Table 3-8, the 50 other identified special-status species are not likely to occur in the Natomas Basin. Generally, these species are not likely to occur either because suitable habitat is not present or because the Natomas Basin is outside of the species’ known range.

Therefore, impacts would be less-than-significant and the species are not addressed further in this document. If any of these species are encountered on a development site (e.g., during the required preconstruction surveys), then any applicable USFWS and/or CDFG species protection guidelines would be followed.

4.4.5.3.1 Suisun Marsh Aster
Suisun marsh aster has not been specifically addressed in prior environmental documents relating to land development in the Natomas Basin. As described in Section 3.4 of this EIR/EIS, Suisun Marsh aster is not known to occur in the Natomas Basin. The small loss of potential habitat (i.e., ponds and seasonally wet areas) from the covered activity of urban development would not substantially adversely affect this species’ distribution or abundance. Thus, no impacts would occur. The species would benefit if it colonized the managed-marsh habitat created and maintained on the habitat reserves.

4.4.5.3.2 Dwarf Downingia
Dwarf downingia was addressed in the EIR for the North Natomas Community Plan, which required site-specific surveys prior to development, but was not specifically addressed in other environmental documents for land development in the Natomas Basin. In the Natomas Basin, dwarf downingia could occur in vernal pools and seasonal wetlands. Urban development could result in the loss of up to 21 acres of ponds and seasonally wet areas, and also in the loss of currently unknown vernal pool resources. The loss of this habitat could result in the loss of individual dwarf downingia plants, which is a potentially significant impact.

4.4.5.3.3 Rose Mallow
Rose mallow was addressed in the EIR for the North Natomas Community Plan, which required site-specific surveys prior to development. In addition, the EIR for the City of Sacramento General Plan Update evaluated effects to special-status plant species, including rose mallow, and concluded that impacts would not be possible to mitigate to a less-than- significant level. Specific impacts to rose mallow were not addressed in the EIR for the Sutter County General Plan.

CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
E042002017SAC/161795(004.DOC) REVISED NATOMAS BASIN HCP 4-87

EIR/EIS
Rose mallow could occur in the ditches and canals and in vernal pools. Urban development could result in the loss of up to 21 acres of ponds and seasonally wet areas, currently unknown vernal pool resources, and 404 acres of canals and ditches. The loss of this habitat could result in the loss of individual rose mallow plants, which is a potentially significant impact.

4.4.5.3.4 Cooper’s Hawk
Cooper’s hawks were addressed in the EIR for the North Natomas Community Plan, which required site-specific surveys prior to development, but were not specifically addressed in other environmental documents for land development in the Natomas Basin. Cooper’s hawks typically are found in areas with trees but do not requires densely wooded areas.

Foraging Cooper’s hawks exploit a relatively wide variety of habitats, including residential areas. Because of their broad use of habitat for foraging, no impacts would be expected from reductions in habitat that might support foraging.

For nesting, Cooper’s hawks often use small groves of trees. Up to 42 acres of oak groves, riparian lands, and tree groves could be converted as a result of implementing the covered activity of urban development. These groves constitute potential nesting habitats for Cooper’s hawks. This loss of habitat, however, is not expected to have a substantial adverse effect on Cooper’s hawks because of the small acreage involved and this hawk’s ability and willingness to nest in residential areas. A nest tree, however, could be removed during construction, which could cause mortality of eggs or chicks. Removal of a nest tree would violate the California Fish and Game Code and mortality of chicks or destruction of eggs would violate the Fish and Game Code and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. The potential for these effects is considered a significant impact related to urban development.

Cooper’s hawks would benefit from measures to protect nesting sites for Swainson’s hawks and from creation of upland and marsh habitat in the habitat reserves. Under the Proposed Action, valley oaks and other large trees and stands of riparian trees would be maintained where possible. Trees also would be integrated into the habitat reserves. The mosaic of habitats in the reserves would provide additional habitat for Cooper’s hawks. Although potential benefits attributable to the Proposed Action are expected to occur, these benefits would not reduce the potential direct impact (i.e., loss of an active nest tree) to a less-than- significant level. Additional mitigation measures are proposed in Section 4.4.5.4.

4.4.5.3.5 Short-eared Owl
Short-eared owls were addressed in the EIR for the North Natomas Community Plan, which required site-specific surveys prior to development, but were not specifically addressed in other environmental documents for land development in the Natomas Basin. Short-eared owls are associated with grassland and wetland habitats. Under the Proposed Action, the total amount of open habitats in the Natomas Basin would decline. However, this species is not known to occur in the Natomas Basin in large numbers and is not likely to be limited by foraging habitat during its winter residency in the basin. Therefore, habitat loss is not expected to result in a substantial adverse effect on short-eared owls. Because short-eared owls are not known to nest in the Natomas Basin, there is no potential for the covered activities to cause direct mortality.

The habitat reserves would at least partially offset the net reduction in habitat by providing higher-quality habitat. The habitat reserves would consist of a mosaic of wetland and CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
4-88 REVISED NATOMAS BASIN HCP E042002017SAC/161795(004.DOC)

EIR/EIS
upland habitats managed for wildlife habitat value. Uplands in particular would be managed to provide small mammal prey for Swainson’s hawks. Short-eared owls also prey on small mammals and would benefit from the availability of foraging habitat. Furthermore, the reserves would provide high-quality foraging habitat consistently over years and in known locations.

Overall, impacts to short-eared owls would be less than significant because adverse effects would not be substantial and potential long-term benefits are anticipated to occur with implementation of the Proposed Action’s habitat reserve system development.

4.4.5.3.6 American Bittern
American bitterns have not been specifically addressed in prior environmental documents relating to land development in the Natomas Basin. American bitterns are associated with wetland habitat. In the Natomas Basin they use canals and ditches; rice fields also could provide habitat. Under the Proposed Action, some canals and ditches would be converted to urban development and the total amount of rice in the basin would decline. These habitats provide relatively low-quality habitat for bitterns. Rice fields are intensively managed with low structural and biological diversity. Ditches and canals generally support only small and fragmented patches of emergent vegetation. Individual bittern nests, however, could be destroyed as a result of urban development or the management of canals and drains.

Destruction of an active nest would be a violation of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, and is a potentially significant impact.

The managed-marsh habitat created and maintained on the habitat reserves would provide high-quality habitat for American bittern. Further, large canals where the largest, most contiguous patches of wetland habitat occur would remain. Although potential benefits are expected from implementing the Proposed Action, these benefits would not reduce the potential direct impact (i.e., loss of an active nest) to a less-than-significant level. Additional mitigation measures are proposed in Section 4.4.5.4.

4.4.5.3.7 Ferruginous Hawk
Ferruginous hawks have not been specifically addressed in prior environmental documents relating to land development in the Natomas Basin. Ferruginous hawks are rare winter visitors to the Natomas Basin. For foraging, they use open grassland habitats; they do not forage in agricultural fields to a large degree. Although open grassland areas are projected to decline under the Proposed Action, this habitat loss is not expected to result in a substantial adverse effect on ferruginous hawks because of their low numbers. Because ferruginous hawks are not known to nest in the Natomas Basin, there is no potential for the covered activities to cause direct mortality.

Given their association with grasslands rather than agricultural fields, the Proposed Action would likely increase habitat availability for ferruginous hawks because some of the upland habitat in the habitat reserves would be managed as grassland habitat that could provide suitable foraging conditions for ferruginous hawks. Overall, the Proposed Action would not result in substantial adverse changes to ferruginous hawk foraging habitat, would not affect nesting habitat, and could benefit the species through improved habitat availability and quality. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant with no additional mitigation (other than the Proposed Action measures) needed.

CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
E042002017SAC/161795(004.DOC) REVISED NATOMAS BASIN HCP 4-89

EIR/EIS

4.4.5.3.8 Mountain Plover
Mountain plovers have not been specifically addressed in prior environmental documents relating to land development in the Natomas Basin. The Proposed Action would result in a net loss of mountain plover foraging habitat (i.e., agricultural fields) in the Natomas Basin.

Mountain plovers do not occur in the Natomas Basin in large numbers; primary wintering grounds are in the San Joaquin and Imperial valleys. Given the small numbers that use the basin, it is unlikely that foraging habitat is limited for them in the area. Suitable habitat is also available and used by mountain plovers in other nearby areas (e.g., Yolo County).

Therefore, no substantial adverse effects would occur to mountain plover foraging habitat.

Because the species does not nest in the Natomas Basin, no direct mortality would occur.

Benefits to mountain plovers are unlikely because the species probably would not use the habitat reserves, given their preference for sparsely vegetated habitats. Overall, the Proposed Action would not result in substantial adverse changes to mountain plover foraging habitat and would not affect nesting habitat. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant with no additional mitigation (other than the Proposed Action).

4.4.5.3.9 Black Tern
Black terns have not been specifically addressed in prior environmental documents relating to land development in the Natomas Basin. The Proposed Action would not adversely affect black terns and could have beneficial effects. Black terns are generally uncommon in the Natomas Basin but are known to forage in rice fields. Potential foraging habitat for black terns in the Natomas Basin would decrease under the Proposed Action. The Natomas Basin, however, is not known as an important foraging area for this species, and other foraging areas are available nearby (e.g., the Yolo and Sutter basins). Therefore, the projected land use changes would not result in a substantial adverse affect to black tern foraging habitat.

Potentially, black terns could nest in seasonally wet areas that support marsh vegetation or in marsh vegetation supported in the canals and ditches. Urban development, management of canals and drains, or other covered activities could destroy an active nest. Destruction of an active nest would be a violation of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, and is a potentially significant impact.

Under the Proposed Action, a native marsh ecosystem would be created on the habitat reserves. The high quality and natural marsh conditions on the habitat reserves could encourage nesting by black terns with beneficial effects to the species. Although potential benefits are expected as a result of creating reserves, the benefits would not reduce the potential direct impact (i.e., loss of an active nest) to a less-than-significant level. Additional mitigation measures are proposed in Section 4.4.5.4.

4.4.5.3.10 Lark Sparrow
Lark sparrows have not been specifically addressed in prior environmental documents relating to land development in the Natomas Basin. Lark sparrows typically inhabit brushy habitats and grasslands with scattered trees. In the Natomas Basin, they are most likely to occur in association with ditches and canals where shrubby vegetation develops. Under the Proposed Action, open space areas would be created on both the east and west sides of Fisherman’s Lake. Lark sparrows are known to occur at Fisherman’s Lake, preservation measures along Fisherman’s Lake would contribute to maintaining this habitat for this species. Canals and ditches also would continue to support habitat for lark sparrows CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
4-90 REVISED NATOMAS BASIN HCP E042002017SAC/161795(004.DOC)

EIR/EIS
because maintenance would become less intensive under the Proposed Action. Because habitat would continue to be available in the Natomas Basin, no substantial adverse effects are expected from the implementation of the Proposed Action. Individual lark sparrow nests, however, could be disrupted during their active season. This could occur as a result of urban development, management of canals and drains, or other covered activities.

Destruction of an active nest would be a violation of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, and is a potentially significant impact.

The habitat reserves also likely would provide suitable habitat for lark sparrows as trees and shrubs would be incorporated into the marsh/upland habitat mosaic. Although potential benefits are expected as a result of creating the reserves, these benefits would not reduce the potential direct impact (i.e., loss of an active nest) to a less-than-significant level. Additional mitigation measures are proposed in Section 4.4.5.4.

4.4.5.3.11 White-tailed Kite
White-tailed kites were addressed in the EIR for the North Natomas Community Plan, which required site-specific surveys prior to development. In addition, the EIR for the City of Sacramento General Plan Update evaluated effects to white-tailed kites and concluded that impacts would not be possible to mitigate to a less-than-significant level. White-tailed kites were not specifically addressed in the EIR for the Sutter County General Plan.

White-tailed kites are a common resident in the Natomas Basin. White-tailed kites have similar habitat requirements to Swainson’s hawks, nesting in trees and foraging in agricultural fields. Because of the similarity in habitat requirements, effects of the Proposed Action on white-tailed kites would be similar to that described for Swainson’s hawks.

Projected changes in foraging habitat for white-tailed kites would occur under the Proposed Action, generally corresponding to changes to uplands (e.g., nonrice crops, grasslands) throughout the basin. Because of the extent of changes to upland land uses throughout the basin as a result of the covered activities, the loss of habitat for white-tailed kites is a potentially significant impact. Removal of an active roosting or nesting tree could cause direct mortality to this special-status (and fully protected) species. The potential for direct mortality would be a violation of the Fish and Game Code and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, and is a potentially significant impact related to urban development.

As described above for Swainson’s hawk, the net reduction in habitat for white-tailed kites would be at least partially, if not entirely, offset by the greater quality of upland habitat in the habitat reserves created under the Proposed Action. The benefits of the permanent system of upland reserves include an emphasis on native grasslands and crops that provide higher-quality foraging opportunities (e.g., alfalfa) and long-term habitat stability in terms of amount and location of habitat. Additional benefits from implementing the Proposed Action are expected in the upland areas of managed marsh and rice reserves, as described above for Swainson’s hawks. For these reasons, the expected loss in foraging habitat from urban development would be offset by the creation of habitat reserves under the Proposed Action, and potential impacts would be reduced to a less-than-significant level. Impacts associated with the loss of active roosting or nesting trees, however, would remain potentially significant. Additional mitigation measures are proposed in Section 4.4.5.4.

CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
E042002017SAC/161795(004.DOC) REVISED NATOMAS BASIN HCP 4-91

EIR/EIS

4.4.5.3.12 Pacific-slope Flycatcher
Pacific-slope flycatchers have not been specifically addressed in prior environmental documents relating to land development in the Natomas Basin. As described in Section 3.4, Pacific-slope flycatchers are a widespread and fairly common summer resident in warm moist woodlands, including valley foothill and montane riparian, coastal and blue oak woodlands, and montane hardwood-conifer habitats. In the Natomas Basin, these habitat conditions occur at Fisherman’s Lake and in isolated tree and oak groves. Under the Proposed Action, areas would be protected on both the east and west sides of Fisherman’s Lake, which would contribute to maintaining this habitat for this species. Tree groves and oak groves would be protected under the Proposed Action where possible. Therefore, no substantial adverse changes in habitat for Pacific-slope flycatchers would occur. An active nest, however, could be removed during construction for urban development, management of canals and ditches, or other covered activities. Removal of an active nest could destroy eggs or kill chicks. Destruction of an active nest would be a violation of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, and is a potentially significant impact.

The habitat reserves under the Proposed Action would support suitable habitat conditions for Pacific-slope flycatchers because trees and shrubs would be incorporated into the marsh/upland habitat mosaic. Although potential benefits are expected, these benefits would not reduce the potential direct impact (i.e., loss of an active nest tree) to a less-than- significant level. Additional mitigation measures are proposed in Section 4.4.5.4.

4.4.5.3.13 Little Willow Flycatcher
Little willow flycatchers have not been specifically addressed in prior environmental documents relating to land development in the Natomas Basin. Little willow flycatchers are rare visitors to the Natomas Basin, occasionally occurring during migration. Because of their infrequent and transient occurrence in the basin, they are unlikely to be affected by the Proposed Action. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.

4.4.5.3.14 American Peregrine Falcon
Impacts to peregrine falcons were determined to be less than significant in the EIR for the City of Sacramento General Plan, but were not specifically addressed in other environmental documents addressing land development in the Natomas Basin. Peregrine falcons are rare winter visitors to the Natomas Basin. Peregrine falcons forage in open habitats and, therefore, could forage in most of the Natomas Basin. They are most likely, however, to focus foraging activities in rice fields and grain fields where ducks and geese congregate in the winter. Although foraging habitat is projected to decrease as a result of urban development, this habitat loss is not expected to result in a substantial adverse effect on peregrine falcons because of their low numbers. Because peregrine falcons are not known to nest in the Natomas Basin, there is no potential for the covered activities to cause direct mortality.

As described below in Section 4.4.5.3.20, waterfowl are expected to benefit because rice and marsh habitat would persist in the Natomas Basin, thereby maintaining this area as a migratory stopover and wintering area for waterfowl. Peregrine falcons are also expected to benefit. Overall, the Proposed Action would not result in substantial adverse changes to peregrine falcon foraging habitat, would not effect nesting habitat, and could benefit the species by ensuring the persistence of waterfowl habitat. Therefore, with implementation of the mitigation measures in the HCP’s conservation strategy, impacts would be less than significant with no additional mitigation needed.

CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
4-92 REVISED NATOMAS BASIN HCP E042002017SAC/161795(004.DOC)

EIR/EIS

4.4.5.3.15 Greater Sandhill Crane
Greater sandhill cranes have not been specifically addressed in prior environmental documents relating to land development in the Natomas Basin. Urban development would result in a net loss of foraging habitat (i.e., grasslands and upland crop areas) in the Natomas Basin. Sandhill cranes are not known to winter in the Natomas Basin, with nearby historic wintering grounds including the Sacramento–San Joaquin Delta and the Cosumnes River area to the south and the Butte Sink to the north. Because the Natomas Basin is not a historic wintering ground for sandhill cranes, the loss of grasslands and upland foraging areas is not a substantial adverse effect on sandhill crane foraging habitat. Because the species does not nest in the Natomas Basin, no direct mortality would occur.

The system of permanent habitat reserves established under the Proposed Action would ensure the availability of suitable habitat for sandhill cranes in the future. The availability of this habitat could become important in the future if currently-used wintering areas elsewhere are lost. Overall, the Proposed Action would not result in substantial adverse changes to sandhill crane foraging areas, would not affect nesting habitat, and could benefit the species by ensuring future habitat availability. Therefore, with implementation of the mitigation measures in the HCP’s conservation strategy, impacts would be less than significant with no additional mitigation needed.

4.4.5.3.16 Bald Eagle
The EIR for the City of Sacramento General Plan Update evaluated effects to special-status species, including bald eagles, and concluded that impacts would be less than significant.

Bald eagles were not specifically addressed in other environmental documents relating to land development in the Natomas Basin. Bald eagles are rare winter visitors to the Natomas Basin, where they principally prey on waterfowl. Waterfowl would continue to be supported in the basin on flooded rice fields and in the managed marsh of the habitat reserves (see analysis below). With the continued presence of waterfowl, the low level of use of the Natomas Basin by bald eagles would be expected to continue. Therefore, with implementation of the mitigation measures in the HCP’s conservation strategy, the impact would be less than significant.

4.4.5.3.17 Long-billed Curlew
Long-billed curlews were addressed in the EIR for the North Natomas Community Plan, which required site-specific surveys prior to development. In addition, the EIR for the City of Sacramento General Plan Update evaluated effects to special-status species, including long-billed curlews, and concluded that impacts would be less than significant. Long-billed curlews were not specifically addressed in the EIR for the Sutter County General Plan.

Long-billed curlews are common winter residents in the Natomas Basin where they forage in a variety of agricultural field types. The overall amount of foraging habitat for long-billed curlews in the Natomas Basin would decline under the Proposed Action. Given the availability of agricultural lands in many areas surrounding the Natomas Basin, however, and that reduction in nesting habitat is believed to be the primary cause for declines in this species, the reduction in foraging habitat in the basin is not expected to result in a substantial adverse effect to the species. Because the species does not nest in the Natomas Basin, no direct mortality would occur.

CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
E042002017SAC/161795(004.DOC) REVISED NATOMAS BASIN HCP 4-93

EIR/EIS
Marsh and upland habitat on the reserves would partially offset the reduction in wintering habitat and continue to support use of the basin by long-billed curlews. Overall, the Proposed Action would not result in substantial adverse changes to long-billed curlew foraging habitat, would not affect nesting habitat, and could benefit the species through improved habitat availability and quality. Therefore, with implementation of the mitigation measures in the HCP’s conservation strategy, impacts would be less than significant with no additional mitigation needed.

4.4.5.3.18 Bewick’s Wren
Bewick’s wrens have not been specifically addressed in prior environmental documents relating to land development in the Natomas Basin. Bewick’s wrens are associated with the shrubby understory of riparian habitats. In the Natomas Basin, these habitat conditions occur at Fisherman’s Lake and in some of the ditches and canals. Under the Proposed Action, areas would be protected on the east and west sides of Fisherman’s Lake, thereby contributing to maintaining this habitat for this species. Canals and ditches also would continue to support habitat for Bewick’s wren because maintenance activities would become somewhat less intensive. Because habitat would continue to be available in the Natomas Basin, no substantial adverse effects are expected from the implementation of the Proposed Action. Individual Bewick’s wren nests, however, could be destroyed. This could occur as a result of urban development, management of canals and drains, or other covered activities. Destruction of an active nest would be a violation of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, and is a potentially significant impact. Additional mitigation measures are proposed in Section 4.4.5.4.

The habitat reserves also likely would create suitable habitat conditions for Bewick’s wrens as trees and shrubs would be incorporated into the marsh/upland habitat mosaic. Although potential benefits are expected, these benefits would not reduce the potential direct impact (i.e., loss of an active nest tree) to a less-than-significant level.

4.4.5.3.19 Fish Species of Special Concern
The USFWS and CDFG have identified 11 fish species of special concern, including anadromous salmonids, as potentially occurring in the Natomas Basin (see Table 3-8 of this EIR/EIS). The Proposed Action includes the potential for the Conservancy to acquire habitat along the east levee of the Sacramento River adjacent to the Natomas Basin (defined for the HCP as the area inside the surrounding levees). The Conservancy is the only permittee with the potential to affect these levee areas (see Sections 2.1 and 2.2 for a discussion of the Proposed Action study area and the permittees’ permit areas). This area is included in the HCP to facilitate the Conservancy’s acquisition and preservation of Swainson’s hawk habitat. The levee areas include riparian forest areas containing mature trees, and supports extensive Swainson’s hawk nesting habitat (see Figure 3-5). Because of the lack of slow-moving backwater areas, fish habitat in this area is generally limited to providing a migration corridor for immigrating adult and emigrating juvenile salmonids. Conservancy actions in this area would focus on acquiring and preserving existing nesting habitat for Swainson’s hawks, and actions would not include tree removal or development actions involving land disturbance that could reduce shaded riverine aquatic cover or result in discharge of sediment or construction waste into the Sacramento River. Therefore, adverse effects to fish habitat would not occur, and there would be no impact. In addition, water quality effects would be less than significant with mitigation (see Section 4.3 of this EIR/EIS), and secondary fisheries effects associated with drainage in the Natomas Basin CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
4-94 REVISED NATOMAS BASIN HCP E042002017SAC/161795(004.DOC)

EIR/EIS
(i.e., through RD 1000 discharges into the Sacramento River, Steelhead Creek, and the Natomas Cross Canal) would also be less than significant.

4.4.5.3.20 Waterfowl
Rice fields currently provide most of the wintering and migratory stopover habitat for waterfowl in the Natomas Basin. Under the Proposed Action, the acreage of rice in the basin would decline by about 5,700 acres. The impact of this change on waterfowl and other water birds was considered a significant and unavoidable consequence of implementing the City of Sacramento General Plan, a conclusion that the City also reached in the EIRs for the North and South Natomas Community Plans. Waterfowl were not specifically addressed in the EIR for the Sutter County General Plan. Wintering habitat is probably not currently limiting populations in the Central Valley because of the abundance of rice fields in the North Sacramento Valley, the increased use of winter flooding in rice fields, and the increased acreage of state and federal refuges and private conservation areas for waterfowl habitat throughout the Central Valley.

Under the Proposed Action, the reduction in potential habitat would be partially offset by creation and preservation of 2,187 acres of managed marsh on the habitat reserves so that the net reduction in habitat for waterfowl would be about 3,500 acres. In addition, 4,375 acres of rice would be incorporated into the reserve system and managed using wildlife-friendly techniques, including winter flooding in most cases. Accordingly, the Proposed Action would provide long-term benefits to waterfowl by ensuring that rice and marsh habitat would persist in the Natomas Basin, thereby maintaining this area as a migratory stopover and wintering area for waterfowl. Because of the persistence of waterfowl habitat in the Natomas Basin and the availability of habitat in surrounding areas and throughout the Central Valley, the change in waterfowl habitat attributable to the Proposed Action does not represent a substantial adverse change, and the impact would be less than significant with implementation of the mitigation measures in the HCP’s conservation strategy.

4.4.5.4 Mitigation Measures
Overall, no mitigation is required for potential impacts to habitat and covered species because the overall impact of the Proposed Action, including implementation of the planned conservation measures, would be less than significant.

The Proposed Action’s conservation strategy for vernal pools adequately mitigates potential impacts to a less-than-significant level. Impacts to other jurisdictional wetlands, however, are not addressed by the vernal pool conservation strategy. To supplement the 404 permit process for other wetlands subject to ACOE jurisdiction, the following mitigation measure is proposed:
/g183 As part of the process for development review, the City and Sutter County will include a provision that public or private development projects that could support jurisdictional wetlands will result in no net loss of wetlands and will ensure that the wetlands functions and values will be maintained.

With this measure, both direct (e.g., filling) and indirect (e.g., changes in hydrology) impacts to jurisdictional wetlands would be avoided or compensated and, therefore, reduced to a less-than-significant level.

CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
E042002017SAC/161795(004.DOC) REVISED NATOMAS BASIN HCP 4-95

EIR/EIS
The potential exists for significant impacts to occur to some of the special-status species potentially occurring in the Natomas Basin that are not addressed in the HCP. In some cases, such potential impacts could be mitigated by measures proposed in the EIRs prepared for development in the various permit areas. For example, preconstruction surveys are required pursuant to the EIR for the North Natomas Community Plan for all special-status species, but similar mitigation is not prescribed in the EIRs for the Sutter County General Plan and the South Natomas Community Plan. To consolidate these measures and help facilitate species conservation, the following mitigation measures are recommended. /g183 Preconstruction surveys required pursuant to Section V.A.1 of the HCP shall encompass the habitat areas that could support dwarf downingia or rose mallow. If dwarf downingia or rose mallow are found during the habitat surveys, mitigation shall conform to the mitigation requirements for Delta tule pea and Sanford’s arrowhead as described in the HCP and in accordance with the California Native Plant Protection Act. /g183 Preconstruction surveys required pursuant to Section V.A.1 of the HCP shall encompass the habitat areas where nesting birds could occur. In accordance with the requirements of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, vegetation containing an occupied nest and an appropriate-sized buffer around the nests of Cooper’s hawks, American bitterns, black terns, lark sparrows, white-tailed kites, Pacific-slope flycatchers, and Bewick’s wrens shall not be removed until the nest has been abandoned by the nesting pair or the young have fledged.

4.4.5.5 Significance After Mitigation
With the implementation of mitigation measures described in Section 4.4.1.2, all impacts to biological resources would be less than significant.

4.4.6 Alternative 1 – Increased Mitigation
Under Alternative 1, the mitigation ratio for developed land would be increased from

0.5:1 to 1:1. The development limit for the City, Sutter County, and Metro Air Park would remain at 17,500 acres, but this amount of development would result in the acquisition of 17,500 acres of mitigation land. The requirement for one contiguous block of 2,500 acres would not change, and other reserve lands would be acquired to ensure that they form 400-acre contiguous blocks. Avoidance and minimization measures for construction and management activities would be the same as under the Proposed Action.

4.4.6.1 Impacts

4.4.6.1.1 Land Use and Habitats
Under this alternative, conversion of habitat to urban uses would be the same as under the Proposed Action. Thus, the potentially significant impacts associated with changes in the amount of marsh habitat, vernal pools, and upland habitat attributed to urban development under the Proposed Action also would occur under Alternative 1. Twice as much mitigation land, however, would be incorporated into the habitat reserves under Alternative 1. A total of 17,500 acres would be acquired and protected in habitat reserves. The percent composition of the habitat reserves would be the same as under the Proposed Action (i.e., 25 percent marsh habitat, 25 percent upland habitat, and 50 percent rice). Thus, the reserves would support 4,375 acres each of marsh and upland habitat and 8,750 acres of rice. Because CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
4-96 REVISED NATOMAS BASIN HCP E042002017SAC/161795(004.DOC)

EIR/EIS
the impacts attributable to the covered activities would be the same as described for the Proposed Action, the following evaluation focuses on differences in habitat and impacts to special-status species attributable to differences in the habitat reserves.

Marsh Habitat
This alternative would substantially increase the amount of marsh habitat in the Natomas Basin. Very little native marsh (less than 100 acres) currently exists in the basin. Under Alternative 1, 4,375 acres of managed marsh would be created and protected in perpetuity.

As described for the Proposed Action, managed marsh provides better habitat quality than rice for wetland-dependent species. In addition, 8,750 acres of rice would be protected in perpetuity on the habitat reserves and managed for wildlife habitat values. This alternative would substantially improve habitat conditions (both amount and quality) for marsh- associated species in the Natomas Basin and would reduce impacts associated with urban development to a less-than-significant level.

Upland Habitat
Under this alternative, 4,375 acres of the reserve system would be upland habitat managed predominantly to provide foraging habitat for Swainson’s hawks. As described under the Proposed Action, upland habitat on the habitat reserves would provide higher-quality habitat than the agricultural fields that would be lost to urban development. While the total amount of upland habitat in the Natomas Basin might not change substantially, this alternative would improve the quality of the available upland habitat for upland-associated species. Given the improvement in habitat quality, and long-term protection of habitat, this alternative would reduce impacts associated with urban development to a less-than- significant level.

Riparian Habitat
For the same reasons as described for the Proposed Action, no substantial change in the amount of riparian habitat would occur under Alternative 1. Therefore, impacts to riparian habitat would be less than significant.

Oak Grass
For the same reasons as described for the Proposed Action, no substantial changes to oak groves are expected under Alternative 1. Therefore, impacts to oak groves would be less than significant.

Vernal Pool Habitat
The same measures for vernal pools would be implemented under Alternative 1 as under the Proposed Action. Therefore, impacts to vernal pools under this alternative would be the same as described for the Proposed Action.

4.4.6.1.2 Species Covered Under the ITPs
Avoidance and minimization measures for construction and management activities would be the same as under the Proposed Action. Therefore, construction and management effects to covered species would be the same as described for the Proposed Action. The following analysis focuses on habitat effects to species covered under the ITPs potentially resulting from Alternative 1.

CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
E042002017SAC/161795(004.DOC) REVISED NATOMAS BASIN HCP 4-97

EIR/EIS
Delta Tule Pea
With creation of 4,375 acres of marsh habitat, this alternative would substantially increase the amount of habitat for Delta tule pea. If Delta tule pea colonized marsh on the habitat reserves or if the Conservancy introduced individuals to the habitat reserves, this species would benefit from an increased population size and distribution. Effects of Alternative 1 would be qualitatively the same as the Proposed Action, but with the greater amount of marsh habitat created and protected on the reserves, this alternative could provide greater benefits to the species. As under the Proposed Action, no substantial adverse effects to Delta tule pea would occur, and the impact would be less than significant.

Sanford’s Arrowhead
Effects of Alternative 1 on Sanford’s arrowhead would be the same as described for the Delta tule pea.

Vernal Pool Species
The same measures for vernal pools would be implemented under Alternative 1 as under the Proposed Action. Therefore, impacts to vernal pool species under this alternative would be the same as described for the Proposed Action.

California Tiger Salamander
The same measures to identify, avoid, and mitigate impacts to vernal pools and other wetland habitats would be implemented under Alternative 1 as under the Proposed Action. Therefore, impacts to California tiger salamander under this alternative generally would be the same as described for the Proposed Action (less than significant). This alternative would differ from the Proposed Action, however, in that twice as much managed marsh would be provided in the habitat reserves. California tiger salamander could benefit if the Conservancy was successful in attracting individuals to the habitat reserves or if it re-introduced the species to the habitat reserves. Impacts to this species under Alternative 1 would be less than significant.

Western Spadefoot Toad
Under Alternative 1, the same measures to identify, avoid, and mitigate impacts to vernal pools and other wetland habitats would be implemented as under the Proposed Action.

Therefore, impacts to western spadefoot toad generally would be the same under this alternative as described for the Proposed Action (less than significant). Alternative 1 would differ from the Proposed Action, however, in that twice as much managed marsh would be provided in the habitat reserves. This increased amount of habitat could provide additional benefits to western spadefoot toads if individuals were attracted to the habitat reserves or if the Conservancy successfully re-introduced the species to the habitat reserves. No significant impacts to western spadefoot toad would occur under Alternative 1.

Valley Elderberry Longhorn Beetle
The same measures for valley elderberry longhorn beetles (VELB) would be implemented under Alternative 1 as under the Proposed Action. Therefore, impacts to VELB under this alternative would be generally the same as described for the Proposed Action (less than significant). Because plantings of elderberry shrubs would be included in the habitat reserves, this alternative would provide greater opportunities for increasing the amount of land for VELB, given the greater acreage in the habitat reserves relative to the Proposed Action. Actual increases in the availability of elderberry shrubs would depend on specific designs for the habitat reserves.

CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
4-98 REVISED NATOMAS BASIN HCP E042002017SAC/161795(004.DOC)

EIR/EIS
Giant Garter Snakes
Like the Proposed Action, urban development under this alternative would convert about 8,500 acres of habitat for giant garter snakes to urban uses. Most of the reduction in habitat would be rice, which does not provide optimal habitat for giant garters snakes. A total of 17,500 acres would be incorporated into the habitat reserve system, of which 13,125 acres would be habitat (rice or managed marsh) for giant garter snakes. The quality of habitat for giant garter snakes under Alternative 1 would increase substantially as 4,375 acres of managed marsh would be created and managed for snakes. As described for the Proposed Action, managed marsh provides higher-quality habitat than rice and is preferred by giant garter snakes. Currently, less than 100 acres of native marsh exists in the Basin. With the creation of over 4,000 acres of managed marsh, this alternative would substantially increase the amount of marsh habitat. Further, rice on the reserves would be managed to provide habitat for giant garter snakes and minimize adverse effects of rice management on snakes.

The substantially greater quality of habitat that would be provided in the habitat reserves, and its long-term protection of habitat under Alternative 1, would substantially benefit giant garter snakes. Therefore, impacts to giant garter snakes under Alternative 1 would be less than significant.

Northwestern Pond Turtle
Changes in habitat for northwestern pond turtles under this alternative and the effects of those changes on this species would be qualitatively the same as described for Proposed Action (less than significant). Most of the reduction in potential habitat would consist of rice, which does not provide optimal habitat for pond turtles. The quality of habitat under Alternative 1 would increase substantially as 4,375 acres of managed marsh which provide natural habitat conditions for pond turtles would be created. Currently, less than 100 acres of native marsh exists in the Natomas Basin. Further, rice on the reserves would be managed so as to improve habitat value and minimize adverse effects of rice management on wildlife. Rice and marsh habitat on the reserves also would be protected in perpetuity.

Thus, this alternative would substantially increase the availability of high-quality habitat for northwestern pond turtles and benefit this species over all. Therefore, impacts to this species under Alternative 1 would be less than significant.

White-faced Ibis
The quality of habitat for white-faced ibis under Alternative 1 would increase substantially from the creation of 4,375 acres of managed marsh. As described for the Proposed Action, marsh constitutes the natural habitat for white-faced ibis and is required for nesting.

Currently, fewer than 100 acres of native marsh exists in the basin and marshes suitable for nesting are absent. With the substantial increase in marsh habitat and its long-term protection, this alternative could attract nesting birds in the future. Further, rice on the reserves would be managed so as to improve habitat value. The substantially greater quality of habitat that would be provided in the habitat reserves would benefit white-faced ibis, and impacts would be less than significant.

Tricolored Blackbird
Under Alternative 1, the amount of foraging habitat would decrease to levels similar to that expected under the Proposed Action. Effects to tricolored blackbirds from declines in potential foraging habitat would be generally the same as described for the Proposed Action (less than significant). Relative to the Proposed Action, however, under Alternative 1, a CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
E042002017SAC/161795(004.DOC) REVISED NATOMAS BASIN HCP 4-99

EIR/EIS
greater amount of foraging habitat would be maintained on the habitat reserves. Therefore, declines in potential foraging habitat would be offset to a greater degree by the habitat reserves under Alternative 1 relative to the Proposed Action. As under the Proposed Action, impacts to tricolored blackbird resulting from changes in the amount of foraging habitat would be less than significant.

Alternative 1 would substantially increase the amount of nesting habitat for tricolored blackbirds from about 713 acres to nearly 5,000 acres, substantially benefiting tricolored blackbirds. Loss of marsh habitat has been the primary factor in the decline in tricolored blackbirds. Under this alternative, 4,375 acres of marsh would be created and protected in the habitat reserves. With the limited amount of marsh habitat currently in the basin, the habitat reserves would substantially increase the amount of nesting habitat available to tricolored blackbirds. One colony of tricolored blackbirds is already protected on the Conservancy’s Betts-Kismat-Silva reserve. With the creation of marsh habitat, additional colonies likely would establish on the habitat reserves and contribute to increasing the size and distribution of tricolored blackbirds in California. With the benefits of managed-marsh habitat afforded to tricolored blackbirds under this alternative, impacts to this species under Alternative 1 would be less than significant.

Swainson’s Hawk
Alternative 1 would have generally the same effects on nesting habitat for Swainson’s hawk as the Proposed Action. With the greater acreage incorporated into the habitat reserves under this alternative, more of the oak groves, tree groves, and riparian habitat existing in the basin could be incorporated into the reserve system and more trees could be planted in the reserves to develop into nesting habitat than under the Proposed Action. Increases in the amount of nesting habitat on the reserves would depend on the degree to which trees were incorporated into the habitat design.

Foraging habitat would decline under Alternative 1 to about the same level as expected under the Proposed Action. Thus, this alternative would have similar effects on Swainson’s hawks as the Proposed Action. Under this alternative, however, a greater amount of upland habitat would be incorporated into the reserves where it would be protected in perpetuity and managed to provide optimal foraging habitat condition for Swainson’s hawks. Given the long-term protection and greater quality of the habitat, this alternative would further benefit Swainson’s hawks relative to the Proposed Action. As described for the Proposed Action, impacts to Swainson’s hawk under Alternative 1 would be less than significant.

Aleutian Canada Goose
The amount of potential habitat for Aleutian Canada geese under Alternative 1 would be similar to the Proposed Action. Therefore, effects of Alternative 1 on Aleutian Canada geese, relative to the No Action Alternative, would be qualitatively similar to that described for the Proposed Action (less than significant). Because a greater amount of habitat would be protected in the habitat reserves than under the Proposed Action, this alternative could improve habitat quality for Aleutian Canada geese and would provide greater certainty that habitat would be available in the Natomas Basin over the long term. For the same reasons as described for the Proposed Action, impacts to Aleutian Canada geese under Alternative 1 would be less than significant.

CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
4-100 REVISED NATOMAS BASIN HCP E042002017SAC/161795(004.DOC)

EIR/EIS
Burrowing Owl
Protection and management of upland habitat in the habitat reserves under Alternative 1 would substantially increase the amount and quality of potential habitat for burrowing owls. Under this alternative 4,375 acres of the habitat reserves would be managed for upland habitat values. Effects of Alternative 1, relative to the No Action Alternative, would be similar to that described for the Proposed Action. As for the Proposed Action, impacts to burrowing owls would be less than significant.

Bank Swallow
Under Alternative 1, potential foraging habitat for bank swallows would decrease to levels similar to that expected under the Proposed Action. Therefore, effects of Alternative 1 on bank swallows, relative to the No Action Alternative, would be generally similar to that described for the Proposed Action (less than significant). However, because a greater amount of habitat would be incorporated in the habitat reserves (including a greater amount of managed marsh) than under the Proposed Action, this alternative would provide improved habitat conditions for bank swallows and would provide greater certainty that habitat would be available in the Natomas Basin over the long term. For the same reasons as described for the Proposed Action, impacts to bank swallows under Alternative 1 would be less than significant.

Loggerhead Shrike
Habitat for loggerhead shrikes would decline to about 10,400 acres under Alternative 1. This amount of habitat would be similar to that expected under the Proposed Action and effects on loggerhead shrike would be similar (less than significant). However, twice as much upland habitat would be incorporated into the reserves. As under the Proposed Action, management of upland habitat on the reserves would include incorporating features to improve habitat quality for loggerhead shrikes. Thus, while Alternative 1 would result in a similar total acreage of habitat for loggerhead shrikes as the Proposed Action, more high-quality habitat would be created. Further, Alternative 1 would provide greater long-term certainty of the availability of habitat in the Natomas Basin compared to the No Action and the Proposed Action. Therefore, impacts to loggerhead shrikes would be less than significant.

4.4.6.1.3 Other Special-status Species
Effects of Alternative 1 on special-status species not covered by the ITPs would be qualitatively similar to that described for the Proposed Action. Because a greater amount of habitat would be incorporated into the habitat reserves (where it would be managed for wildlife habitat values) than under the Proposed Action, however, this alternative would improve habitat conditions for special-status species not covered by the ITPs and would provide greater certainty that habitat would be available in the Natomas Basin over the long term. Avoidance and minimization measures for construction and management activities would be the same as under the Proposed Action. Therefore, construction and management effects to other special-status species would be the same as described for the Proposed Action (potentially significant in some cases).

4.4.6.1.4 Waterfowl
Waterfowl would benefit from the substantial increase in marsh habitat under Alternative 1.

With the long-term protection and management of marsh habitat and rice in the habitat reserves, the Natomas Basin would continue to serve as an important wintering area for waterfowl. Therefore, impacts to waterfowl under Alternative 1 would be less than significant.

CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
E042002017SAC/161795(004.DOC) REVISED NATOMAS BASIN HCP 4-101

EIR/EIS

4.4.6.2 Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is required for potential impacts to habitat and covered species because the overall impact of Alternative 1, including implementation of the planned conservation measures, would be less than significant. Potential impacts could occur to vernal pools and some of the special-status species potentially occurring in the Natomas Basin that are not addressed in the HCP. Mitigation is required as described in Section 4.4.5.4.

4.4.6.3 Significance After Mitigation
With the implementation of mitigation measures described in Section 4.4.5.4, all impacts to biological resources would be less than significant.

4.4.7 Alternative 2 – Habitat-based Mitigation
Under Alternative 2, the mitigation ratio to compensate for urban development impacts would be based on the habitat value of the lands to be developed. Site-specific management plans would be developed as the reserve lands are acquired, and these reserve lands would be subject to the same requirements as under the Proposed Action. For this alternative, mitigation requirements would be based on the habitat needs of the two key species, giant garter snakes and Swainson's hawks. For giant garter snakes, managed marsh and rice would be incorporated into reserves according to the ratios shown in Table 4-18. These mitigation ratios are substantially consistent with the USFWS’s Programmatic Formal Consultation for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 404 Permitted Actions, which is widely used for developing giant garter snake mitigation requirements. Swainson's hawk mitigation ratios are based on CDFG's Staff Report Regarding Mitigation for Impacts to Swainson's Hawks in the Central Valley of California. The Staff Report recommends that Habitat Management lands be acquired, either through fee acquisition or conservation easements on farmlands, to replace foraging habitat lost to development. The mitigation ratios to determine the amount of land to be acquired varies, based on the distance from the habitat that would be lost to a Swainson’s hawk nest. Avoidance and minimization measures for construction and management activities would be the same as under the Proposed Action.

TABLE 4-18
Mitigation Ratios Under Alternative 2
Species/Habitat Ratio
Giant garter snake
Rice 1:1
Canals and ditches 3:1
Swainson’s Hawk
Within 1 mile of nest 1:1
Within 1 to 5 miles of nest 0.75:1
Within 5 to 10 miles of nest 0.5:1
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
4-102 REVISED NATOMAS BASIN HCP E042002017SAC/161795(004.DOC)

EIR/EIS

4.4.7.1 Impacts

4.4.7.1.1 Land Use and Habitats
Under this alternative, conversion of habitat to urban uses would be the same as under the Proposed Action. Thus, the potentially significant impacts associated with changes in the amount of marsh habitat, vernal pools, and upland habitat attributed to urban development under the Proposed Action also would be applicable to Alternative 2. Because the impacts attributable to urban development would be the same as described for the Proposed Action, the following evaluation focuses on difference in habitat and impacts to special-status species attributable to differences in the habitat reserves.

About twice as much land would be incorporated into the habitat reserves under this alternative compared with the Proposed Action. The area that would be developed contains about 8,475 acres of rice, 404 acres of secondary canal, and 4,746 acres within one mile of a Swainson’s hawk nest, excluding rice fields that would be subject to the giant garter snake mitigation requirements. The remainder of the development area is within 5 miles of a Swainson’s hawk nest and totals 4,438 acres, not including rice fields subject to the giant garter snake mitigation requirements. Based on the mitigation ratios shown in Table 4-18, a total of 17,763 acres would be acquired and protected in habitat reserves. Of this acreage, 9,687 acres would be managed marsh and rice and 8,074 acres would be upland habitat that provides foraging habitat for Swainson’s hawks.

The total amount of land incorporated into the reserves (17,763 acres) under this alternative would be nearly the same as Alternative 1, under which 17,500 acres would be incorporated into the reserve system. Much of the basin would either be developed or incorporated into the habitat reserves under Alternative 1. This situation also would occur under Alternative 2.

Marsh Habitat
This alternative would substantially increase the amount of marsh habitat in the Natomas Basin. Very little native marsh (less than 100 acres) currently exists in the Natomas Basin.

Under Alternative 2, over 9,000 acres of managed marsh and rice would be created and protected in perpetuity. As described for the Proposed Action, managed marsh provides better habitat quality than rice for wetland-dependent species. This alternative would substantially improve habitat conditions (both amount and quality) for marsh-associated species in the Natomas Basin. Impacts resulting from changes in marsh habitat would be less than significant.

Upland Habitat
Under this alternative, 8,074 acres of the reserve system would be upland habitat managed predominantly to provide foraging habitat for Swainson’s hawks. As described under the Proposed Action, upland habitat on the habitat reserves would provide higher-quality habitat than the agricultural fields that would be lost to urban development. While the total amount of upland habitat in the Natomas Basin might not change substantially, this alternative would substantially improve the quality of the available upland habitat for upland-associated species. Given the improvement in habitat quality, impacts from changes in upland habitat would be less than significant.

CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
E042002017SAC/161795(004.DOC) REVISED NATOMAS BASIN HCP 4-103

EIR/EIS
Riparian Habitat
For the same reasons as described for the Proposed Action, no substantial change in the amount of riparian habitat would occur under Alternative 2. Therefore, impacts to riparian habitat would be less than significant.

Oak Groves
For the same reasons as described for the Proposed Action, no substantial changes to oak groves are expected under Alternative 2. Therefore, impacts to oak groves would be less than significant.

Vernal Pool Habitat
The same measures for vernal pools would be implemented under Alternative 2 as under the Proposed Action. Therefore, impacts to vernal pools under this alternative would be the same as described for the Proposed Action.

4.4.7.1.2 Species Covered Under the ITPs
Avoidance and minimization measures for construction and management activities would be the same as under the Proposed Action. Therefore, construction and management effects to covered species would be the same as described for the Proposed Action. Changes in the total amount of habitat in the Natomas Basin for covered species would be generally similar to Alternative 1. As such, effects to covered species under this alternative would be the same as described for Alternative 1. The primary differences between this alternative and Alternative 1 is that a greater amount of upland habitat would be incorporated into the reserve system under Alternative 2, thereby providing improved habitat quality and long- term certainty of the availability of upland habitat relative to Alternative 1. For the same reasons described for Alternative 1, this alternative would reduce impacts attributable to urban development to a less-than-significant level.

4.4.7.1.3 Other Special-status Species
Special-status species not covered by the ITPs would benefit from the creation and protection of a substantial amount of marsh habitat and management and protection of upland habitat for wildlife values. Avoidance and minimization measures for construction and management activities would be the same as under the Proposed Action. Therefore, construction and management effects to other special-status species would be the same as described for the Proposed Action (potentially significant in some cases).

4.4.7.1.4 Waterfowl
Waterfowl would benefit from the substantial increase in marsh habitat under this Alternative 2. With the long-term protection and management of marsh habitat in the habitat reserves, the Natomas Basin would continue to serve as an important wintering and migratory stopover area for waterfowl.

4.4.7.2 Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is required for potential impacts to habitat and covered species because the overall impact of Alternative 2, including implementation of the planned conservation measures, would be less than significant. Potential impacts could occur to vernal pools and some of the special-status species potentially occurring in the Natomas Basin that are not addressed in the HCP. Mitigation is required as described in Section 4.4.5.4.

CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
4-104 REVISED NATOMAS BASIN HCP E042002017SAC/161795(004.DOC)

EIR/EIS

4.4.7.3 Significance After Mitigation
With the implementation of mitigation measures described in Section 4.4.5.4, all impacts to biological resources would be less than significant.

4.4.8 Alternative 3. Reserve Zone Alternative
Alternative 3 identifies specific reserve zones that would be emphasized in reserve acquisition efforts. These reserve zones would be outside the North and South Natomas Community Plan areas, and outside of Sutter County's Industrial-Commercial Reserve.

Land acquisition would occur based on a 0.5:1 mitigation ratio as under the Proposed Action. Alternative 3 differs from the Proposed Action, however, in that reserve acquisition would focus on five overlapping zones that are distributed throughout the Natomas Basin based on the habitat needs of giant garter snakes and Swainson's hawks, rather than on the Proposed Action’s broad requirement to mitigate generally within the basin.

The Proposed Action requires that the individual reserves be at least 400 acres in size, and that one reserve block be at least 2,500 acres in size. The five zones would allow for the minimum reserve sizes to be met as follows.
/g183 Swainson's Hawk Zone: two 400-acre blocks
/g183 Eastern Portion of the Natomas Basin: one 400-acre block /g183 Fisherman's Lake Area: two 400-acre blocks
/g183 “Snake Alley”: four 400-acre blocks
/g183 Northwestern Portion of the Natomas Basin: one 2,500-acre block and one 400-acre block Any remaining mitigation acreage could be located within these five zones or elsewhere in the Natomas Basin.

4.4.8.1 Impacts

4.4.8.1.1 Land Use and Habitats
Considering the basin as a whole, this alternative would have the same effects on land use and habitats as the Proposed Action. Under this alternative, land acquisition would occur based on a 0.5:1 mitigation ratio as under the Proposed Action. However, acquisition of lands to incorporate into the reserve system would be focused in five areas selected on the basis of the habitat needs and current distribution of giant garter snakes and Swainson's hawks. The total amount of marsh habitat, upland habitat, and rice in the reserves would be the same as under the Proposed Action. Effects of this alternative on marsh habitat and upland habitat would be the same as described for the Proposed Action (less than significant). The amount of riparian habitat and oak groves would not change substantially under Alternative 3 for the same reasons as described for the Proposed Action. The same measures for vernal pools would be implemented under Alternative 3 as under the Proposed Action. Therefore, impacts to vernal pools under this alternative would be the same as described for the Proposed Action (potentially significant in some cases).

4.4.8.1.2 Species Covered Under the ITPs
Future habitat conditions in the Natomas Basin under Alternative 3 would be the same as under the Proposed Action. Therefore, effects to covered species from changes in habitat would be the same as described for the Proposed Action (less than significant). Avoidance and minimization measures for construction and management activities would be the same CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
E042002017SAC/161795(004.DOC) REVISED NATOMAS BASIN HCP 4-105

EIR/EIS
as under the Proposed Action. Therefore, construction and management effects to covered species would be the same as described for the Proposed Action. (less than significant)

4.4.8.1.3 Other Special-status Species
Future habitat conditions in the Natomas Basin under Alternative 3 would be the same as under the Proposed Action. Therefore, effects to other special-status species from changes in habitat would be the same as described for the Proposed Action (less than significant).

Avoidance and minimization measures for construction and management activities would be the same as under the Proposed Action. Therefore, construction and management effects to other special-status species would be the same as described for the Proposed Action (potentially significant in some cases).

4.4.8.1.4 Waterfowl
Future habitat conditions in the Natomas Basin under Alternative 3 would be the same as under the Proposed Action. Therefore, effects to waterfowl would be the same as described for the Proposed Action (less than significant).

4.4.8.2 Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is required for potential impacts to habitat and covered species because the overall impact of Alternative 3, including implementation of the planned conservation measures, would be less than significant. Potential impacts could occur to vernal pools and some of the special-status species potentially occurring in the Natomas Basin that are not addressed in the HCP. Mitigation is required as described in Section 4.4.5.4.

4.4.8.3 Significance After Mitigation
With the implementation of mitigation measures described in Section 4.4.5.4, all impacts to biological resources would be less than significant.

4.4.9 Alternative 4. Reduced Development
For Alternative 4, developable lands have been reduced by 5,500 acres. Development of 12,000 acres under Alternative 4 (5,197 acres in the City of Sacramento, 4,820 acres in Sutter County, and 1,983 acres for Metro Air Park) would result in the acquisition of 6,000 acres of habitat reserves, at 0.5:1 mitigation ratio. Acquisition criteria, management, oversight, and other aspects of the planned habitat reserve system would remain the same as described in the HCP.

4.4.9.1 Impacts

4.4.9.1.1 Land Use and Habitats
Under this alternative, 12,000 acres would be converted to urban uses. Although urban development under this alternative would result in less habitat loss than the Proposed Action, potentially significant impacts from changes in the amount of marsh habitat, vernal pools, and upland habitat caused by urban development under the Proposed Action also would be applicable to Alternative 4. With 12,000 acres of urban development, 6,000 acres would be incorporated into the habitat reserves. The percent composition of habitat reserves would be the same as under the Proposed Action (i.e., 25 percent marsh habitat, 25 percent upland habitat, and 50 percent rice). Thus, the reserves would support 1,500 acres each of managed marsh and upland habitat and 3,000 acres of rice. Lands not converted to urban uses or incorporated into the habitat reserves would remain predominantly in agriculture.

CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
4-106 REVISED NATOMAS BASIN HCP E042002017SAC/161795(004.DOC)

EIR/EIS
Baseline and future land uses are shown in Table 4-19. The primary differences between this alternative and the Proposed Action would be that a greater amount of habitat (principally rice and nonrice crops) would not be subject to authorized development, and a smaller amount of land would be incorporated into the habitat reserve system. Considering the Natomas Basin as a whole and assuming that no development occurs other than the 12,000 acres of authorized development under this alternative, Alternative 4 would provide about 5,000 acres more habitat consisting of rice and row crops than the Proposed Action (see Tables 4-2 and 4-19). The amount of habitat protected in perpetuity in the reserves, however, would be about 2,750 acres less than under the Proposed Action.

TABLE 4-19
Land Use Acreage in the Natomas Basin under Baseline and Future Conditions Under Alternative 4 (acres) Habitat Class
HCP
Baseline
City of
Sacramento
Metro Air
Park
Sutter
County
Total
Change
Future
Conditiona
Airport 1,561 (11) 0 (13) (25) 1,536
Alfalfa 372 0 0 0 0 372
Canals 493 0 0 0 0 493
Grassland 868 (288) 0 (86) (374) 494
Highways 1,206 0 0 0 0 1,206
Idle 1,440 (437) (50) (5) (489) 952
Nonrice crops 16,571 (2,997) (325) (982) (4,304) 12,267 Oak groves 98 (4) (2) 0 (6) 92
Orchard 181 (8) 0 0 (8) 173
Other 476 (20) 0 0 (20) 456
Pasture 682 (16) (22) (65) (103) 579
Ponds and
seasonally
wet areas
97 (5) (4) (6) (15) 82
Rice 22,979 (628) (1,541) (3,583) (5,752) 17,227
Riparian 123 (16) 0 0 (16) 108
Ruderal 1,940 (730) (6) (57) (793) 1,147
Rural
residential
319 (33) (10) (22) (66) 253
Tree groves 107 (7) (23) 0 (30) 78
Urban 4,024 5,197 1,983 4,820 12,000 16,025
TOTAL 53,537 0 0 0 0 53,537
a Does not include the effects associated with the creation of habitat reserves.

Source: Habitat and Land Use Assessment Database (CH2M HILL, 2002) Marsh Habitat
Under this alternative, 1,500 acres of managed marsh would be created and protected on the habitat reserves. As explained for the Proposed Action, the managed marsh on the habitat reserves would provide higher habitat quality than the rice that would be lost to urban development. Rice in the habitat reserves and remaining in the Natomas Basin outside of development areas and habitat reserves also would provide habitat for marsh-associated CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
E042002017SAC/161795(004.DOC) REVISED NATOMAS BASIN HCP 4-107

EIR/EIS
wildlife, and impacts resulting from changes in marsh habitat would be less than significant.

Upland Habitat
The habitat reserves would contain 1,500 acres of upland habitat managed predominantly to support foraging by Swainson’s hawks. As explained for the Proposed Action, upland habitat on the reserves would provide higher-quality habitat than that lost to urban development. Agricultural fields, pastures, and grasslands outside of development areas and the habitat reserves would continue to provide habitat for upland-associated wildlife.

Creation and management of upland habitat on the reserves would reduce the impact resulting from reduced upland habitat (i.e., alfalfa, grassland, idle, nonrice crops, pasture, and ruderal) to a less-than-significant level.

Riparian Habitat
For the same reasons as described for the Proposed Action, no substantial change in the amount of riparian habitat would occur under Alternative 4. Therefore, impacts to riparian habitat would be less than significant.

Oak Groves
For the same reasons as described above for the Proposal Action, no substantial change in oak groves is expected under Alternative 4. Therefore, impacts to oak groves would be less than significant.

Vernal Pool Habitat
The same measures for vernal pools would be implemented under Alternative 4 as under the Proposed Action. Therefore, impacts to vernal pools under this alternative would be the same as described for the Proposed Action.

4.4.9.1.2 Species Covered Under the ITPs
Future habitat conditions in the Natomas Basin under Alternative 4 would be generally similar to those projected under the Proposed Action and, therefore, effects to covered species from changes in habitat would be the same as described for the Proposed Action.

Avoidance and minimization measures for construction and management activities would be the same as under the Proposed Action. Therefore, construction and management effects to covered species would be the same as described for the Proposed Action (less than significant).

4.4.9.1.3 Other Special-status Species
Future habitat conditions in the Natomas Basin under Alternative 4 would be similar to the Proposed Action and, therefore, effects to other special-status species from changes in habitat would be the same as described for the Proposed Action. Avoidance and minimization measures for construction and management activities would be the same as under the Proposed Action. Therefore, construction and management effects to other special-status species would be the same as described for the Proposed Action (potentially significant in some cases).

4.4.9.1.4 Waterfowl
Future habitat conditions in the Natomas Basin under Alternative 4 would be similar to the Proposed Action. Therefore, effects to waterfowl would be the same as described for the Proposed Action (less than significant).

CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
4-108 REVISED NATOMAS BASIN HCP E042002017SAC/161795(004.DOC)

EIR/EIS

4.4.9.2 Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is required for potential impacts to habitat and covered species because the overall impact of Alternative 4, including implementation of the planned conservation measures, would be less than significant. Potential impacts could occur to vernal pools and some of the special-status species potentially occurring in the Natomas Basin that are not addressed in the HCP. Mitigation is required as described in Section 4.4.5.4.

4.4.9.3 Significance After Mitigation
With the implementation of mitigation measures described in Section 4.4.5.4, all impacts to biological resources would be less than significant.

4.4.10 Alternative 5. No Action Alternative

4.4.10.1 Impacts
Under the No Action Alternative, no incidental take authorization would be issued to the City, Sutter County, the Conservancy, RD 1000, or Natomas Mutual by the USFWS and CDFG, and no comprehensive HCP would be implemented. In the absence of a comprehensive habitat conservation planning program, the needs of listed species would be addressed on a project-by-project basis.

4.4.10.1.1 Land Use and Habitats
Urban development would still be expected to occur in the City, Sutter County, and at Metro Air Park under the No Action Alternative. If a federal action is not triggered, individual developers could seek Section 10 ITPs on a project-by-project basis, and habitat mitigation would be identified and implemented on a project-specific basis. Mitigation ratios similar to those under Alternative 2 probably would be used to identify appropriate mitigation. Thus, the composition and amount of habitat created and protected under the No Action Alternative would be expected to be similar to Alternative 2 for the same level of development. However, whereas most of the habitat created and protected under Alternative 2 would be in the Natomas Basin, the location of habitat mitigation under the No Action Alternative would not be similarly constrained. As such, there would be no guarantee regarding the amount of habitat that would remain in the Natomas Basin, and the coordinated conservation strategy of the Proposed Action would not be realized.

Furthermore, because mitigation would be conducted on a project-by-project basis, mitigation sites could be small and fragmented and therefore the benefits of the large, contiguous blocks that would be created under the Proposed Action would not be realized.

The implementation of habitat mitigation under the No Action Alternative also would potentially occur at unknown future dates, thus delaying creation of habitat reserves and implementation of other HCP measures (or not occurring at all). In Sutter County, the General Plan would not be amended to retain lands within the Swainson’s Hawk Zone in agriculture and these lands could be developed.

4.4.10.1.2 Species Covered Under the ITPs
Under the No Action Alternative, avoidance and mitigation measures for specific species would be implemented on project–specific basis. Take of state- or federally-listed species would need to be authorized by the CDFG and/or USFWS if a proposed development would result in the take of listed species. As described above under Land Use and Habitats, CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
E042002017SAC/161795(004.DOC) REVISED NATOMAS BASIN HCP 4-109

EIR/EIS
habitats for listed species would be mitigated on a project-specific basis. Avoidance measures and habitat enhancements included in the Proposed Action for unlisted species would not be implemented.

4.4.10.1.3 Other Special-status Species
Some species that are state-listed or federally-listed, but not proposed for coverage in the ITPs, could be adversely affected by urban development. Mitigation measures would be implemented for these species on a case-by-case basis. Special-status species not proposed for coverage would respond to habitat changes resulting from urban development and associated habitat mitigation.

4.4.10.1.4 Waterfowl
Rice fields should continue to be abundant in the Natomas Basin and would continue to support wintering waterfowl. If marsh habitat is created as mitigation for giant garter snakes, waterfowl would also use this habitat.

4.4.11 Independent Implementation
In implementing the HCP, the City of Sacramento, Sutter County, and the Conservancy each would receive an ITP from the USFWS and CDFG (see Chapter 1: Purpose and Need/Objectives, and Chapter 2: Proposed Action and Alternatives). Although RD 1000 and Natomas Mutual are not filing applications or seeking ITPs at this time, their participation/non participation is evaluated in this section because they may seek permits at a future date.

The preceding analysis of the Proposed Action considered the effects with participation in the HCP and receipt of ITPs by all these permit applicants. Each of these applicants, however, could independently implement the HCP. This section discloses the effects on biological resources if these entities independently implemented the HCP or if some but not all of the permittees participated.

Overall, the HCP contains mechanisms to assess incrementally the effects of implementing the HCP conservation measures. The two mechanisms are: (1) an overall program review that would be conducted when urban development of 9,000 acres has been reached, and (2) an independent midpoint review that applies only to the land-use agencies. The intent of these reviews is to recognize that uncertainties exist in the HCP plan implementation, including levels of development, program adaptations related to the future giant garter snake recovery plan, possible development of a Swainson’s hawk recovery plan, and the ultimate location of the habitat reserves. Although the adaptive management program of the CP is designed to address many of these uncertainties, the overall and midpoint review programs are intended to supplement these other HCP provisions. These review mechanisms are described briefly below and in detail in Sections VI.I and VI.J of the HCP. /g183 Overall program review: This would be conducted after 9,000 acres of urban development have occurred. During that review, an additional 3,000 acres (but not more than 12,000 acres) could be developed. Issues that would be evaluated include: (1) the status and population trends of the giant garter snake, Swainson’s hawk, and other covered species; (2) status and effectiveness of the habitat reserve system, including its buffer and setback requirements; (3) the success of the HCP in meeting the 2,500- and 400-acre minimum habitat block size requirements; (4) the status and effectiveness of the CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
4-110 REVISED NATOMAS BASIN HCP E042002017SAC/161795(004.DOC)

EIR/EIS
HCP funding mechanisms; (5) the relative status and distribution of developed lands and reserve lands within each of the land-use agencies’ jurisdictions; (6) the success of the 25 percent managed marsh/50 percent rice ratio for supporting giant garter snakes; and (7) compliance of the water agencies with approved canal and ditch maintenance practices. /g183 Independent midpoint review for land use agencies: In addition to the overall review, both the City and Sutter County would conduct a midpoint review to provide additional assurances that the HCP’s objectives are being achieved, in the event that development occurs more rapidly than projected or if one of the land-use agencies discontinues participation in the HCP.

Overall, these two review mechanisms address the contingency of independent implementation of the HCP by individual permittees. The remainder of this analysis provides specific detail on the impacts to biological resources if the permittees independently implement the HCP (and in the absence of the midpoint reviews).

4.4.11.1 Land Use and Habitats
The primary conservation strategy of the Proposed Action is creating and protecting habitat reserves at a 0.5:1 ratio of acres protected in the habitat reserves for every acre developed (see Section 2.3 for a discussion of the covered activities). Creation and management of habitat reserves would remain the primary conservation strategy if either the City of Sacramento or Sutter County independently implemented the Proposed Action. The total acreage acquired, however, would be reduced to reflect the level of urban development within the participating agency’s jurisdiction. Under the Proposed Action, the habitat reserves are to consist of 25 percent managed marsh, 50 percent rice and 25 percent upland habitat. If only the City of Sacramento or Sutter County implemented the Proposed Action, it would be considered a changed circumstance under the HCP. For this changed circumstance, the HCP allows for an assessment of the percent habitat composition and an adjustment in consideration of the habitats affected by urban development in the participating jurisdiction. If only the water agencies implemented the Proposed Action, no habitat reserves would be created.

As an entity responsible for implementing the HCP, the Conservancy also would hold an ITP. The ITP would authorize any take of covered species that occurs as a result of management activities by the Conservancy on the habitat reserves. The Conservancy exists because of and is financially supported by actions taken by the City of Sacramento and Sutter County. In the event that these agencies did not participate in implementation of the HCP, the Conservancy would continue to manage the habitat reserves that have been acquired to date for the benefit of species covered by the ITPs. No additional reserve lands would be acquired. The successful implementation of the HCP depends on participation of a plan operator. If the Conservancy did not participate, the permittees would select a new plan operator to continue to acquire and manage habitat reserve lands.

4.4.11.1.1 Marsh Habitat
City of Sacramento. If only the City of Sacramento implemented the Proposed Action, 8,050 acres in the Natomas Basin would be converted from existing uses to urban development. This development would affect 1,097 acres of rice, ponds and seasonally wet areas, and canals. As described under the Proposed Action, 50 percent of the reserve lands would be managed as rice and 25 percent would be managed as marsh. This would result in CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
E042002017SAC/161795(004.DOC) REVISED NATOMAS BASIN HCP 4-111

EIR/EIS
3,019 acres of the habitat reserves providing habitat for marsh-associated species. This is approximately three times the acreage that would be converted to urban uses. Managed marsh would be created on about 1,000 acres. Managed marsh would provide higher-quality habitat than the approximately 1,000 acres of rice that would be lost to urban development.

Independent implementation by the City of Sacramento, however, would constitute a changed circumstance under the HCP. In this case, the HCP allows for the percent habitat composition of the reserves to be adjusted to reflect more accurately the habitat that would be affected (see the introduction to Section 4.4.11 for a discussion of the overall and midpoint review programs and the ability of the City to use these two review mechanisms to address the contingency of independent implementation of the HCP). Because a relatively greater amount of upland habitat would be affected by urban development in the City of Sacramento, the habitat reserves could contain a higher percentage of upland habitat. Given the relatively small amount of marsh habitat (about 1,000 acres) that would be affected, the City could increase the amount of upland habitat in the reserves and still mitigate impacts associated with reduced marsh habitat to a level that is less than significant.

Sutter County. If only Sutter County implemented the Proposed Action, 7,467 acres would be developed, which would affect 5,802 acres of marsh habitat (i.e., rice, ponds and seasonally wet areas, and canals). As described under the Proposed Action, 50 percent of the reserve lands would be managed as rice and 25 percent would be managed as marsh. This would result in 2,800 acres of the habitat reserves providing habitat for marsh-associated species, which is about one-half the amount that would be converted to urban uses. The managed marsh and rice on the habitat reserves would provide higher-quality habitat than the rice that would be lost to urban development.

Comparable to the City, independent implementation by Sutter County would constitute a changed circumstance under the HCP, and the Proposed Action allows for the percent habitat composition of the reserves to be adjusted to reflect more accurately the habitat that would be affected (see the introduction to Section 4.4.11 for a discussion of the overall and midpoint review programs and the ability of Sutter County to use these two review mechanisms to address the contingency of independent implementation of the HCP).

Water Agencies. If only the water agencies implemented the HCP, no habitat reserves would be acquired and protected in perpetuity. Changes in marsh habitat from urban development would be same as under the No Action Alternative. The water agencies would implement measures to avoid and minimize the effects of their maintenance activities on giant garter snakes (e.g., reduced management intensity) which could increase the value of canals and ditches to marsh-associated wildlife.

Natomas Basin Conservancy. As described above, if only the Conservancy implemented the Proposed Action, its actions would focus on maintaining and managing the existing acquired habitat reserves for the benefit of covered species. Effects to marsh habitat from actions taken by the City of Sacramento, Sutter County, and the water agencies would be the same as described for the No Action Alternative.

4.4.11.1.2 Upland Habitat
City of Sacramento. Under the Proposed Action, 8,050 acres would be developed in the City of Sacramento. This development would affect 6,917 acres of upland habitat. The habitat CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
4-112 REVISED NATOMAS BASIN HCP E042002017SAC/161795(004.DOC)

EIR/EIS
reserve system would consist of 4,025 acres. Under the Proposed Action, the habitat reserves are to consist of 25 percent managed marsh, 25 percent upland habitat, and 50 percent rice.

With 25 percent of the habitat reserves, 1,006 acres in the habitat reserves specifically would be upland habitat. If only the City of Sacramento implemented the Proposed Action, however, this would be considered a changed circumstance and the percentage composition of the habitat reserves could be adjusted in response to the specific habitats affected by the participating jurisdiction. Thus, the amount of upland habitat could be increased to match more closely the anticipated reduction in upland habitat (see the introduction to Section

4.4.11 for a discussion of the overall and midpoint review programs and the ability of the City to use these two review mechanisms to address the contingency of independent implementation of the HCP).

Sutter County. If only Sutter County implemented the Proposed Action, 7,467 acres would be developed, which would affect 1,860 acres of upland habitat. With 25 percent of the habitat reserves as upland habitat, 933 acres in the reserves would be upland habitat. This acreage is about one-half the total amount of upland habitat that would be converted to urban uses. This acreage would be provided within the reserve lands. Because of the small net loss of upland habitat, no substantial adverse effects to species associated with upland habitat would be expected.

Comparable to the City, independent implementation by Sutter County would constitute a changed circumstance under the HCP, and the Proposed Action allows for the percent habitat composition of the reserves to be adjusted to reflect more accurately the habitat that would be affected (see the introduction to Section 4.4.11 for a discussion of the overall and midpoint review programs and the ability of Sutter County to use these two review mechanisms to address the contingency of independent implementation of the HCP).

Water Agencies. If only the water agencies implemented the Proposed Action, no habitat reserves would be acquired and protected in perpetuity. Changes in upland habitat from urban development would be same as under the No Action Alternative. Management activities by the water agencies would not affect upland habitat.

Natomas Basin Conservancy. As described above, if only the Conservancy implemented the Proposed Action, its actions would focus on maintaining and managing the existing acquired habitat reserves for the benefit of covered species. Effects to upland habitat from actions taken by the City of Sacramento, Sutter County, and the water agencies would be as described for the No Action Alternative.

4.4.11.1.3 Riparian Habitat
City of Sacramento. No adverse effects to riparian habitat would occur if only the City implemented the Proposed Action, because riparian habitat that would be affected by urban development occurs only in a small area of land adjacent to the I-5 off ramp to Del Paso Road. Other riparian habitat near Fisherman’s Lake would be protected because an agricultural buffer is planned along the eastern boundary of Fisherman’s Lake.

Sutter County. If only Sutter County implemented the Proposed Action, no adverse effects to riparian habitat would occur. As described for the Proposed Action, urban development within the City of Sacramento would have a minimal effect on riparian habitat. Continued management activities by the water agencies would not affect riparian habitat. The amount CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
E042002017SAC/161795(004.DOC) REVISED NATOMAS BASIN HCP 4-113

EIR/EIS
of riparian habitat in the Natomas Basin could be increased through management of the habitat reserves.

Water Agencies. If only the water agencies implemented the Proposed Action, no substantial change in riparian habitat would occur. As described for the Proposed Action, no substantial change in riparian habitat in the Natomas Basin would occur from urban development in the City of Sacramento or Sutter County or continued activities by the water agencies. If only the water agencies participated (i.e., the land use agencies did not participate), the expected benefits to riparian habitat would not occur relative to the Proposed Action increase because habitat reserves would not be established nor would a tree-planting program be implemented.

Natomas Basin Conservancy. As described above, if only the Conservancy implemented the Proposed Action, its actions would focus on maintaining and managing the existing acquired habitat reserves for the benefit of covered species. Riparian habitat would be expected to increase as management of the habitat reserves includes planting of riparian trees.

4.4.11.1.4 Oak Groves
City of Sacramento. Impacts to oak groves could occur if only the City implemented the Proposed Action, but it is expected that removal of oak groves would be prohibited as a condition of site-specific development review in accordance with City and Sacramento County Tree Ordinance requirements.

Sutter County. If only Sutter County implemented the Proposed Action, impacts would be the same as described above for the City because of City and Sacramento County Tree Ordinance requirements, and because no oak groves are located in Sutter County’s permit area.

Water Agencies. If only the water agencies implemented the Proposed Action, impacts would be the same as described above for the City because of the City and Sacramento County Tree Ordinance requirements, and because no oak groves are located in Sutter County’s permit area.

Natomas Basin Conservancy. If only the Conservancy implemented the Proposed Action, its actions would focus on maintaining and managing the existing acquired habitat reserves for the benefit of covered species. Oak tree planting is expected to occur on the habitat reserves, and therefore oak groves would be expected to increase.

4.4.11.1.5 Vernal Pool Habitat
City of Sacramento. Effects to vernal pools with implementation of the Proposed Action by the City of Sacramento would be the same as with participation by all permittees. Prior to issuance of development permits, areas proposed for development would be surveyed. If vernal pools or covered vernal pool species were identified, avoidance and mitigation measures would be implemented in the same manner as with participation by all applicants (i.e., Sutter County, Conservancy, water agencies).

Implementation by the City of Sacramento only would not result in protection to vernal pools in Sutter County. If urban development by Sutter County would affect vernal pools that are jurisdictional wetlands, developers would need to obtain a permit from the ACOE.

Through this process, avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures could be required.

CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
4-114 REVISED NATOMAS BASIN HCP E042002017SAC/161795(004.DOC)

EIR/EIS
Sutter County. Effects to vernal pools with implementation of the Proposed Action by Sutter County would be the same as with participation by all permittees. Prior to issuance of development permits, areas proposed for development would be surveyed. If vernal pools or covered vernal pool species were identified, avoidance and mitigation measures would be implemented in the same manner as with participation by all applicants.

Implementation by Sutter County only would not provide any protection to vernal pools in the City of Sacramento, which could be affected by urban development. If urban development by the City of Sacramento would affect vernal pools that are jurisdictional wetlands, developers would need to obtain a permit from the ACOE. Through this process, avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures could be required.

Water Agencies. If only the water agencies implemented the Proposed Action, the requirements for vernal pools related to urban development would not be implemented under the Proposed Action. Current regulatory requirements consist of conducting preconstruction surveys, obtaining ACOE permits if jurisdictional wetlands are involved, conducting Section 7 consultation with the USFWS if ACOE permitting is required, and implementing avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures. This permitting process would continue even if only the water agencies implemented the Proposed Action. If a vernal pool that was not jurisdictional would be affected by urban development, no protections for these resources would be afforded if only the water agencies implemented the Proposed Action.

Natomas Basin Conservancy. As described above, if only the Conservancy implemented the Proposed Action, its actions would focus on maintaining and managing the existing acquired habitat reserves for the benefit of covered species. If vernal pools occurred on the habitat reserves, the Conservancy would maintain and protect these resources. If urban development in the City of Sacramento or Sutter County would affect vernal pools that are jurisdictional wetlands, developers would need to obtain a permit from the ACOE. Through this process, avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures could be required.

4.4.11.2 Species Covered Under the ITPs
The following discussion evaluates the effects on each of the covered species with independent implementation by the City of Sacramento, Sutter County, RD 1000 and Natomas Mutual, and the Conservancy. Unless otherwise stated, the habitat composition of the reserves is assumed to be 25 percent managed marsh, 50 percent rice, and 25 percent upland habitat.

4.4.11.2.1 Delta Tule Pea
City of Sacramento. If only the City of Sacramento implemented the Proposed Action, 8,050 acres would be developed. This development would affect 7 acres of ponds and seasonally wet areas, and 117 acres of canals and ditches for a total of 124 acres of affected potential habitat for Delta tule pea. On the habitat reserves, 1,006 acres of managed marsh would be created, which would provide potential habitat for Delta tule pea. This acreage would more than offset the 124 acres of potential habitat predicted to be affected by urban development in the City of Sacramento.

Sutter County. Development in Sutter County would affect 10 acres of ponds and seasonally wet areas and 215 acres of canals and ditches for a total impact to potential Delta tule pea of 225 acres. With total urban development of 7,467 acres, 3,733 acres would be incorporated CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
E042002017SAC/161795(004.DOC) REVISED NATOMAS BASIN HCP 4-115

EIR/EIS
into a habitat reserve system. The reserve system would support about 933 acres of managed marsh, which would provide potential habitat for Delta tule pea. This acreage would more than offset the 225 acres of potential habitat predicted to be affected by urban development in Sutter County.

Water Agencies. Independent implementation of the Proposed Action by RD 1000 and Natomas Mutual would not be expected to affect Delta tule pea because this species’ known distribution does not include the Natomas Basin and it is not known to inhabit the basin. If the species colonized canals or ditches in the future, management activities conducted by RD 1000 and Natomas Mutual could affect individuals. No additional permanent habitat reserves with restored marsh habitat would be created that would provide potential habitat for Delta tule pea. In addition, no attempts to introduce Delta tule pea would be made.

Natomas Basin Conservancy. As described above, if only the Conservancy implemented the Proposed Action, its actions would focus on maintaining and managing the existing acquired habitat reserves for the benefit of covered species. Effects to covered species from actions taken by the City of Sacramento, Sutter County, and the water agencies would be as described for the No Action Alternative.

4.4.11.2.2 Sanford’s Arrowhead
City of Sacramento. If only the City of Sacramento implemented the Proposed Action, 8,050 acres would be developed. This development would affect 7 acres of ponds and seasonally wet areas, and 117 acres of canals and ditches for a total of 124 acres of potential affected habitat for Sanford’s arrowhead. On the habitat reserves, 1,006 acres of managed marsh would be created, which would provide potential habitat for Sanford’s arrowhead.

This acreage would more than offset the 124 acres of potential habitat predicted to be affected by urban development in the City of Sacramento; therefore, impacts would be less than significant.

Sutter County. Development in Sutter County would affect 10 acres of ponds and seasonally wet areas, and 215 acres of canals and ditches for a total impact to potential Sanford’s arrowhead of 225 acres. With total urban development of 7,467 acres, 3,733 acres would be incorporated into a habitat reserve system. The reserve system would support about 933 acres of managed marsh, which would provide potential habitat for Sanford’s arrowhead. This acreage would more than offset the 225 acres of potential habitat predicted to be affected by urban development in Sutter County; therefore, impacts would be less than significant.

Water Agencies. Independent implementation of the Proposed Action by RD 1000 and Natomas Mutual would not be expected to affect Sanford’s arrowhead because this species is not known to inhabit the basin. If the species colonized canals or ditches in the future, management activities conducted by RD 1000 and Natomas Mutual could affect individual animals. No additional permanent habitat reserves with restored marsh habitat would be created to provide potential habitat for Sanford’s arrowhead. Further, no attempts to introduce Sanford’s arrowhead would be made.

Natomas Basin Conservancy. As described above, if only the Conservancy implemented the Proposed Action, its actions would focus on maintaining and managing the existing acquired habitat reserves for the benefit of covered species. Effects to covered species from CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
4-116 REVISED NATOMAS BASIN HCP E042002017SAC/161795(004.DOC)

EIR/EIS
actions taken by the City of Sacramento, Sutter County, and the water agencies would be as described for the No Action Alternative.

4.4.11.2.3 Vernal Pool Species
City of Sacramento. Effects to vernal pools with implementation of the Proposed Action by the City of Sacramento would be the same as with participation by all applicants. Prior to issuance of development permits, areas proposed for development would be surveyed. If vernal pools or covered vernal pool species were identified, avoidance and mitigation measures would be implemented in the same manner as with participation by all applicants.

Sutter County. Effects to vernal pools under implementation of the Proposed Action by Sutter County would be the same as with participation by all applicants. Prior to issuance of development permits, areas proposed for development would be surveyed. If vernal pools or covered vernal pool species were identified, avoidance and mitigation measures would be implemented in the same manner as with participation by all applicants.

Water Agencies. If only the water agencies implemented the Proposed Action, the requirements for vernal pool species related to urban development would not be implemented under the Proposed Action because the water agencies’ covered activities do not directly affect vernal pool species. Current regulatory requirements consist of conducting preconstruction surveys, obtaining ACOE permits if jurisdictional wetlands are involved, conducting Section 7 consultation with the USFWS if ACOE permitting is required, and implementing avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures. If ACOE permitting and Section 7 consultations are not necessary, the land-use agencies would work with the USFWS and CDFG to identify specific measures to avoid, minimize, and mitigate impacts to vernal pool species pursuant to the Proposed Action if the development action would affect vernal pools or vernal pool species. This latter protective measure would not be implemented if only the water agencies implemented the Proposed Action.

Natomas Basin Conservancy. As described above, if only the Conservancy implemented the Proposed Action, its actions would focus on maintaining and managing the habitat reserves for the benefit of covered species. Effects to covered species from actions taken by the City of Sacramento, Sutter County, and the water agencies would be as described for the No Action Alternative.

4.4.11.2.4 California Tiger Salamander
City of Sacramento. Effects to California tiger salamander with implementation of the Proposed Action by the City of Sacramento would be the same as with participation by all applicants. Prior to issuance of development permits, areas proposed for development would be surveyed. If vernal pools or other wetland habitat or tiger salamanders were identified, avoidance and mitigation measures would be implemented in the same manner as with participation by all applicants.

Sutter County. Effects to California tiger salamander with implementation of the Proposed Action by Sutter County would be the same as with participation by all applicants. Prior to issuance of development permits, areas proposed for development would be surveyed. If vernal pools or other wetland habitat or tiger salamanders were identified, avoidance and mitigation measures would be implemented in the same manner as with participation by all applicants.

CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
E042002017SAC/161795(004.DOC) REVISED NATOMAS BASIN HCP 4-117

EIR/EIS
Water Agencies. If only the water agencies implemented the Proposed Action, the requirements of the HCP related to urban development for vernal pools and specifically for tiger salamanders would not be implemented. The requirements of the Proposed Action consist of conducting preconstruction surveys, obtaining ACOE permits if jurisdictional wetlands are involved, conducting Section 7 consultation with the USFWS if ACOE permitting is required, and implementing avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures.

If ACOE permitting and Section 7 consultations are not necessary, the City and Sutter County would work with the USFWS and CDFG to identify specific measures to avoid, minimize, and mitigate impacts to vernal pool species (including tiger salamanders) if the development action would affect vernal pools or vernal pool species. This latter protective measure would not be implemented if only the water agencies implemented the Proposed Action.

Natomas Basin Conservancy. As described above, if only the Conservancy implemented the Proposed Action, its actions would focus on maintaining and managing the habitat reserves for the benefit of covered species. Effects to covered species from actions taken by the City of Sacramento, Sutter County, and the water agencies would be as described for the No Action Alternative.

4.4.11.2.5 Western Spadefoot Toad
City of Sacramento. Effects to western spadefoot toads with implementation of the Proposed Action by the City of Sacramento would be the same as with participation by all applicants.

Prior to issuance of development permits, areas proposed for development would be surveyed. If vernal pools or other wetland habitat or spadefoot toads were identified, avoidance and mitigation measures would be implemented in the same manner as with participation by all applicants.

Sutter County. Effects to spadefoot toads with implementation of the Proposed Action by Sutter County would be the same as with participation by all applicants. Prior to issuance of development permits, areas proposed for development would be surveyed. If vernal pools or other wetland habitat or spadefoot toads were identified, avoidance and mitigation measures would be implemented in the same manner as with participation by all applicants.

Water Agencies. If only the water agencies implemented the Proposed Action, the requirements of the HCP related to urban development for vernal pools and specifically for spadefoot toads would not be implemented. The requirements of the Proposed Action consist of conducting preconstruction surveys, obtaining ACOE permits if jurisdictional wetlands are involved, conducting Section 7 consultation with the USFWS if ACOE permitting is required, and implementing avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures. If ACOE permitting and Section 7 consultations are not necessary, the City and Sutter County would work with the USFWS and CDFG to identify specific measures to avoid, minimize, and mitigate impacts to vernal pool species (including western spadefoot toad) if the development action would affect vernal pools or vernal pool species. This latter protective measure would not be implemented if only the water agencies implemented the Proposed Action.

Natomas Basin Conservancy. As described above, if only the Conservancy implemented the Proposed Action, its actions would focus on maintaining and managing the habitat reserves for the benefit of covered species. Effects to covered species from actions taken by the City of Sacramento, Sutter County, and the water agencies would be as described for the No Action Alternative.

CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
4-118 REVISED NATOMAS BASIN HCP E042002017SAC/161795(004.DOC)

EIR/EIS

4.4.11.2.6 Valley Elderberry Longhorn Beetle
City of Sacramento. No riparian habitat would be affected if only the City of Sacramento implemented the Proposed Action. An unknown number of elderberry shrubs potentially inhabited by VELB could be affected by urban development in the City of Sacramento. The Service’s Conservation Guidelines would be followed to avoid, minimize, and mitigate the impacts of urban development on VELB. The amount of potential habitat for VELB would probably increase over time as seedlings planted to compensate for removal of mature shrubs became large enough for VELB. Following the Service’s Conservation Guidelines would mitigate for development-related impacts in the City of Sacramento.

Sutter County. If Sutter County independently implemented the Proposed Action, mitigation for removal of elderberry shrubs during urban development would follow the USFWS’s Conservation Guidelines. Following these guidelines would mitigate for development-related impacts in Sutter County and, therefore, impacts would be less than significant.

Water Agencies. Although urban development would not be covered by the Proposed Action if only the water agencies implemented the Proposed Action, developers would need incidental take authorization to remove elderberry shrubs inhabited by VELB. Any removal of elderberry shrubs because of development therefore would be mitigated in accordance with the Conservation Guidelines, with similar effects to participation by all applicants anticipated.

Natomas Basin Conservancy. As described above, if only the Conservancy implemented the Proposed Action, its actions would focus on maintaining and managing the existing acquired habitat reserves for the benefit of covered species. Effects to covered species from actions taken by the City of Sacramento, Sutter County, and the water agencies would be as described for the No Action Alternative.

4.4.11.2.7 Giant Garter Snake
City of Sacramento. If only the City of Sacramento implemented the Proposed Action, 8,050 acres would be developed. This would affect 1,094 acres of giant garter snake habitat (i.e., rice, ponds and seasonally wet areas, and canals). As described under the Proposed Action, 50 percent of the reserve lands would be managed as rice and 25 percent would be managed as marsh. On this basis, 3,019 acres in the habitat reserves would provide habitat for giant garter snake. The managed marsh and rice on the habitat reserves would provide higher-quality habitat than the rice acreage that would be converted to urban development.

If the City of Sacramento implemented the HCP independently, the conservation strategy would mitigate the impacts to giant garter snakes associated with urban development within the City limits to a level that is less than significant.

If only the City participates (i.e., if the water agencies did not participate), no impacts would occur to the giant garter snake as a result of nonparticipation by the water agencies, because the canals and ditches would be maintained by the water agencies, regardless of whether RD 1000 or Natomas Mutual participated in implementing the HCP. As discussed in Section IV.C.1.d and shown in Figure 17 of the HCP, the water agencies have identified key canals that would be maintained for the duration of the 50-year permit term. These canals would be maintained as part of the water agencies’ ongoing operations and would not be affected by their participation (or lack of participation) in the HCP.

CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
E042002017SAC/161795(004.DOC) REVISED NATOMAS BASIN HCP 4-119

EIR/EIS
Sutter County. If only Sutter County implemented the Proposed Action, 7,467 acres would be developed, which would affect 5,802 acres of giant garter snake habitat (i.e., rice, ponds and seasonally wet areas, and canals). Most of the reduction in potential habitat (i.e., existing acreage) would be rice (5,577 acres). Smaller amounts of canals (215 acres) and ponds and seasonally wet areas (10 acres) would also be converted by urban development.

With 75 percent of the habitat reserves managed as rice and managed marsh, 2,800 acres in the habitat reserves would provide habitat for the giant garter snake. Of this amount, 1,866 acres would be rice and 934 acres would be managed marsh. The managed marsh would provide permanent, year-round habitat currently available only in canals and ponds and seasonally wet areas. The managed marsh would mitigate the impact to this important habitat at a ratio of about 4:1. The managed marsh and rice on the habitat reserves would provide higher-quality habitat than the rice that would be converted to urban development, resulting in impacts that are less than significant. It is anticipated that only about one third of the rice acreage that would be affected by urban development would be incorporated into the reserve system. As discussed above, the rice on the reserve system would provide higher-quality habitat than the rice acreage that would be affected by development. What is uncertain, however, is whether the 2,800 acres of higher-quality habitat on the reserves (both the rice and managed marsh) would provide the equivalent habitat value of the existing acreage (i.e., rice, canals, and ponds and seasonally wet areas).

If only Sutter County participates, (i.e., if the water agencies did not participate), no impacts would occur to the giant garter snake as a result of nonparticipation by the water agencies because the canals and ditches would be maintained by the water agencies, regardless of whether RD 1000 or Natomas Mutual participated in implementing the HCP. As discussed in Section IV.C.1.d and shown in Figure 17 of the HCP, the water agencies have identified key canals that would be maintained for the duration of the 50-year permit term. These canals would be maintained as part of the water agencies’ ongoing operations and would not be affected by their participation (or lack of participation) in the HCP. In addition, if Sutter County did not participate, any development that occurred would be subject to Section 7 consultation under the ESA. This process would lead to site-specific mitigation measures being developed for the giant garter snake.

Water Agencies. If only the water agencies implemented the Proposed Action, no habitat reserves would be acquired and protected in perpetuity. The water agencies would implement measures to avoid and minimize the effects of their maintenance activities on giant garter snakes. These measures could have beneficial effects on the giant garter snake population in the Natomas Basin by reducing injury and mortality of snakes as well as improving the quality of the canals and ditches as habitat for giant garter snakes.

Natomas Basin Conservancy. As described above, if only the Conservancy implemented the Proposed Action, its actions would focus on maintaining and managing the habitat reserves for the benefit of covered species. Effects to covered species from actions taken by the City of Sacramento, Sutter County, and the water agencies would be as described for the No Action Alternative.

4.4.11.2.8 Northwestern Pond Turtle
City of Sacramento. If only the City of Sacramento implemented the Proposed Action, 8,050 acres would be developed which would affect 1,118 acres of potential habitat for northwestern pond turtles (i.e., rice, ponds and seasonally wet areas, and canals). With CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
4-120 REVISED NATOMAS BASIN HCP E042002017SAC/161795(004.DOC)

EIR/EIS
75 percent of the habitat reserves as rice or managed marsh, 3,019 acres in the habitat reserves would be habitat for northwestern pond turtles, about three times more than would be converted to urban uses. Managed marsh would be created on about 1,000 acres. Managed marsh would provide higher-quality habitat than the approximately 1,000 acres of rice that would be lost to urban development. In addition, upland habitat on the reserves would provide requisite nesting and wintering habitat. With the City of Sacramento’s independent implementation of the Proposed Action, the conservation strategy would mitigate the impacts to northwestern pond turtles associated with urban development within the City limits.

Sutter County. If only Sutter County implemented the Proposed Action, 7,467 acres would be developed which would affect 5,802 acres of pond turtle habitat (i.e., rice, ponds and seasonally wet areas, and canals). The habitat reserves would contain 933 acres of managed marsh, 933 acres of upland habitat and 1,867 acres of rice, unless these acreages were adjusted in consideration of the adaptive management and midpoint review mechanisms if all the applicants do not participate. Based on Jennings and Hayes (1994), the availability of nesting habitat and rearing habitat free from predators and competitors appears to be the primary limiting factors to pond turtle populations in California. If these factors are similarly critical for pond turtles in the Natomas Basin, the habitat reserves would be expected to benefit northwestern pond turtles by providing areas where they can successfully reproduce.

Water Agencies. If only the water agencies implemented the Proposed Action, no habitat reserves would be acquired and protected in perpetuity. The water agencies would implement measures to avoid and minimize the effects of their maintenance activities on giant garter snakes. These measures could have beneficial effects to the northwestern pond turtle population in the Natomas Basin by reducing injury and mortality of turtles as well as improving the quality of the canals and ditches as habitat for pond turtles.

Natomas Basin Conservancy. As described above, if only the Conservancy implemented the Proposed Action, its actions would focus on maintaining and managing the habitat reserves for the benefit of covered species. Effects to covered species from actions taken by the City of Sacramento, Sutter County, and the water agencies would be as described for the No Action Alternative.

4.4.11.2.9 White-faced Ibis
City of Sacramento. If only the City of Sacramento implemented the Proposed Action, 8,050 acres would be developed. This development would affect 1,094 acres of potential habitat for white-faced ibis (i.e., rice, ponds and seasonally wet areas, canals). A 4,025-acre habitat reserve system would be created, consisting of 25 percent managed marsh, 25 percent upland habitat and 50 percent rice. All of these habitats are potential habitat for white-faced ibis. Thus, about four times more habitat would be protected in the reserves than would be converted to urban uses. The habitat reserves would also provide higher-quality habitat. With this higher quality of habitat expected on the reserves, and considering that foraging habitat on wintering grounds and migratory routes probably is not limiting to ibis, protection and enhancement of four times the acreage affected by urban development would mitigate the impacts to white-faced ibis associated with urban development within the City limits. The creation of marsh habitat could support nesting and benefit the species, considering that nesting is the primary concern for this species.

CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
E042002017SAC/161795(004.DOC) REVISED NATOMAS BASIN HCP 4-121

EIR/EIS
Sutter County. If only Sutter County implemented the Proposed Action, 7,467 acres would be developed, which would affect 5,802 acres of habitat potentially used by white-faced ibis (i.e., rice, ponds and seasonally wet areas, and canals). The habitat reserves would consist of about 933 acres of managed marsh, 933 acres of upland habitat, and 1,867 acres of rice, for a total of 3,733 acres. For the same reasons as explained above for the City of Sacramento, the creation of managed marsh could benefit ibis by creating nesting opportunities.

Water Agencies. If only the water agencies implemented the Proposed Action, no habitat reserves would be acquired and protected in perpetuity. The water agencies would implement measures to avoid and minimize the effects of their maintenance activities on giant garter snakes. These measures could have minor beneficial effects to white-faced ibis by reducing the disturbance of ibis that might be foraging in the canals or ditches.

Natomas Basin Conservancy. As described above, if only the Conservancy implemented the Proposed Action, its actions would focus on maintaining and managing the habitat reserves for the benefit of covered species. Effects to covered species from actions taken by the City of Sacramento, Sutter County, and the water agencies would be as described for the No Action Alternative.

4.4.11.2.10 Tricolored Blackbird
City of Sacramento. If only the City of Sacramento implemented the Proposed Action, 8,050 acres would be developed, affecting 148 acres of potential nesting habitat for tricolored blackbird (i.e., riparian, ponds and seasonally wet areas, and canals). With 25 percent of the habitat reserves as managed marsh, 1,006 acres in the habitat reserves would be habitat for high-quality nesting habitat for tricolored blackbird, about 10 times more than would be converted to urban uses. With the City of Sacramento’s independent implementation of the Proposed Action, the conservation strategy would more than offset the impacts to tricolored blackbirds potentially resulting from urban development within the City limits. The substantial increase in suitable nesting habitat and its long-term protection would benefit tricolored blackbird.

Sutter County. Urban development proposed in Sutter County would result in the loss of about 225 acres of potential nesting habitat for tricolored blackbird. With 25 percent of the habitat reserves as managed marsh, 933 acres in the habitat reserves would be high-quality nesting habitat for tricolored blackbird, about four times the acreage that would be converted to urban uses. This level of habitat creation and protection would more than offset the impacts to tricolored blackbirds resulting from urban development in Sutter County. The substantial increase in suitable nesting habitat and its long-term protection would benefit tricolored blackbird.

Water Agencies. If only the water agencies implemented the Proposed Action, no habitat reserves would be acquired and protected in perpetuity. As explained above, management activities conducted by the water agencies are not anticipated to adversely affect tricolored blackbirds.

Natomas Basin Conservancy. As described above, if only the Conservancy implemented the Proposed Action, its actions would focus on maintaining and managing the habitat reserves for the benefit of covered species. Effects to covered species from actions taken by the City CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
4-122 REVISED NATOMAS BASIN HCP E042002017SAC/161795(004.DOC)

EIR/EIS
of Sacramento, Sutter County, and the water agencies would be as described for the No Action Alternative.

4.4.11.2.11 Swainson’s Hawk
City of Sacramento. Under the Proposed Action, 8,050 acres would be developed in the City of Sacramento. This development would affect 6,925 acres of potential foraging habitat for Swainson’s hawk, of which 3,679 acres would be within 1 mile of known nest sites. As explained above, urban development in the City of Sacramento has the potential to lead to the abandonment of two existing territories.

The primary conservation strategy of the Proposed Action for mitigating the impacts of urban development is creating and protecting habitat reserves at a 0.5:1 ratio of acres protected in the habitat reserves for every acre developed. The habitat reserve system would consist of 4,025 acres. Under the Proposed Action, the habitat reserves are to consist of 25 percent managed marsh, 25 percent upland habitat, and 50 percent rice. Specifically, 1,006 acres in the habitat reserves would be upland habitat managed for Swainson’s hawk foraging.

If only the City of Sacramento implemented the Proposed Action, this would be considered a changed circumstance and the percentage composition of the habitat reserves could be adjusted as part of the adaptive management and midpoint review programs in response to the specific habitats affected by the participating jurisdiction. Thus, the amount of upland habitat could be increased to match more closely the anticipated reduction in upland habitat if only the City were to participate. Foraging opportunities for hawks also would be available in portions of the rice and managed marsh on the reserves, which would be considered in adjusting the habitat proportions of the reserves. In addition to creation and protection of the habitat reserves, the City of Sacramento would implement other measures for Swainson’s hawk. These measures include protecting valley oaks and other trees that could provide nesting opportunities and implementing a tree-planting program to create new territories.

With adjustments in the composition of the habitat reserves to provide more upland habitat in combination with other measures of the Proposed Action (e.g., tree-planting program), impacts to Swainson’s hawk from urban development would be mitigated.

Sutter County. If only Sutter County implemented the Proposed Action, 7,467 acres would be developed, which would affect 1,860 acres of potential foraging habitat for Swainson’s hawk, of which 165 acres would be within 1 mile of an existing nest site. No impacts to nesting habitat are predicted. With 25 percent of the habitat reserves as upland habitat, 933 acres in the reserves would be upland habitat specifically managed for Swainson’s hawk. This acreage is about one-half the total amount of potential foraging habitat that would be converted to urban uses, but more than five times the amount of potential foraging habitat within 1 mile of an existing nest site. Because upland habitat for Swainson’s hawk would be located to the extent possible in the Swainson’s Hawk Zone along the Sacramento River, where it would be within 1 mile of existing nest sites, this level of habitat preservation would offset the impacts of urban development in Sutter County. In addition to the upland habitat component of the habitat reserves, portions of the rice and managed marsh on the reserves would provide additional foraging opportunities. Native trees would be incorporated into the habitat reserves, which would provide for the establishment of additional territories as the trees developed. Sutter County would initiate a general plan amendment process to redesignate the portion of the Industrial-Commercial Reserve in the CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
E042002017SAC/161795(004.DOC) REVISED NATOMAS BASIN HCP 4-123

EIR/EIS
Swainson’s Hawk Zone as agriculture. In combination, these measures would offset impacts to Swainson’s hawk from urban development in Sutter County.

Water Agencies. If only the water agencies implemented the Proposed Action, no habitat reserves would be acquired and protected in perpetuity. The covered activities probably have minimal potential to affect Swainson’s hawks. The water agencies would implement best management practices to maintain vegetative cover on the ditches and canals, providing food and protection for prey species. The water agencies also will limit rodent control measures to those necessary to maintain structurally sound flood-control levees.

These measures would moderate the minor potential for the water agencies’ covered activities to affect Swainson’s hawks.

Natomas Basin Conservancy. As described above, if only the Conservancy implemented the Proposed Action, its actions would focus on maintaining and managing the habitat reserves for the benefit of covered species. Effects to covered species from actions taken by the City of Sacramento, Sutter County, and the water agencies would be as described for the No Action Alternative.

4.4.11.2.12 Aleutian Canada Goose
City of Sacramento. If only the City of Sacramento implemented the Proposed Action, about 5,656 acres of potential Aleutian Canada goose habitat would be affected by urban development. All of the habitat in the 4,025-acre reserve system would provide potential habitat for the Aleutian Canada goose. Because Aleutian Canada geese currently use the Natomas Basin to a limited extent, urban development in the City of Sacramento is not expected to affect the species, at least in the short term. To the extent that Aleutian Canada geese use the basin in the future, the habitat reserves would be beneficial in providing high-quality habitat that is stable in amount and location in perpetuity.

Sutter County. If only Sutter County implemented the Proposed Action, 7,467 acres would be developed, almost all of which would be potential habitat for the Aleutian Canada goose (7,207 acres). All of the habitat in the 3,733-acre reserve system would provide potential habitat for the Aleutian Canada goose. Because this species uses the Natomas Basin to a limited degree, urban development in Sutter County is not expected to affect the species adversely. To the extent that Aleutian Canada geese use the basin in the future, the habitat reserves would be beneficial in providing high-quality habitat that is stable in amount and location in perpetuity. Therefore, no adverse impacts are anticipated.

Water Agencies. As with full participation, management activities conducted by the water agencies would not be expected to affect Aleutian Canada geese. If only the water agencies implemented the Proposed Action, no permanent habitat reserves would be established. As such there would be no certainty that habitat would be available that could be used by Aleutian Canada geese in the future.

Natomas Basin Conservancy. As described above, if only the Conservancy implemented the Proposed Action, its actions would focus on maintaining and managing the habitat reserves for the benefit of covered species. Effects to covered species from actions taken by the City of Sacramento, Sutter County, and the water agencies would be as described for the No Action Alternative.

CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
4-124 REVISED NATOMAS BASIN HCP E042002017SAC/161795(004.DOC)

EIR/EIS

4.4.11.2.13 Burrowing Owl
City of Sacramento. If only the City of Sacramento implemented the Proposed Action, 8,050 acres would be developed, which would affect 450 acres of potential burrowing owl habitat. With 25 percent of the habitat reserves as upland habitat, 1,006 acres in the habitat reserves would be habitat for burrowing owl, more than twice than would be converted to urban uses. With the City of Sacramento’s independent implementation of the Proposed Action, this level of habitat protection would mitigate the impacts to burrowing owl associated with urban development within the City limits.

Sutter County. If only Sutter County implemented the Proposed Action, 7,467 acres would be developed, affecting 235 acres of potential habitat for burrowing owl. With 25 percent of the habitat reserves as upland habitat, 933 acres in the reserves would be upland habitat.

This acreage is about four times the total amount of habitat that would be converted to urban uses. With Sutter County’s independent implementation of the Proposed Action, this level of habitat protection would mitigate the impacts to burrowing owl associated with urban development within the county limits.

Water Agencies. The water agencies would not implement any measures specifically to avoid and minimize the effects of their maintenance activities on burrowing owls. The impact of their activities on burrowing owl, however, is anticipated to be minor. If only the water agencies implemented the Proposed Action, no permanent habitat reserves would be established. As such there would be no certainty that habitat for burrowing owl would be available and colonies protected over the long term.

Natomas Basin Conservancy. As described above, if only the Conservancy implemented the Proposed Action, its actions would focus on maintaining and managing the habitat reserves for the benefit of covered species. Effects to covered species from actions taken by the City of Sacramento, Sutter County, and the water agencies would be as described for the No Action Alternative.

4.4.11.2.14 Bank Swallow
City of Sacramento. Independent implementation of the Proposed Action by the City of Sacramento would not be expected to positively or negatively affect bank swallows. As explained above, the availability of suitable nesting substrates is the primary limiting factor for bank swallows. No suitable nesting sites exist or are expected to occur in the City of Sacramento. To the extent that bank swallows forage in areas that would be developed, creation of habitat reserves would provide higher-quality (more insects) foraging habitat that would be stable in amount and location in perpetuity, to compensate for any development effects.

Sutter County. For the same reasons as described for the City of Sacramento, independent implementation of the Proposed Action by Sutter County would not affect the bank swallows (either positively or negatively).

Water Agencies. Independent implementation of the Proposed Action by RD 1000 and Natomas Mutual would not be expected to positively or negatively affect the bank swallow.

These agencies’ operation and maintenance activities would not affect bank swallows.

Although no permanent habitat reserves would be created, nesting habitat rather than CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
E042002017SAC/161795(004.DOC) REVISED NATOMAS BASIN HCP 4-125

EIR/EIS
foraging habitat limits the bank swallow population. Foraging habitat in the Natomas Basin probably plays a minor role in maintaining the nearest colonies to the basin.

Natomas Basin Conservancy. As described above, if only the Conservancy implemented the Proposed Action, its actions would focus on maintaining and managing the habitat reserves for the benefit of covered species. Effects to covered species from actions taken by the City of Sacramento, Sutter County, and the water agencies would be as described for the No Action Alternative.

4.4.11.2.15 Loggerhead Shrike
City of Sacramento. Under the Proposed Action, 8,050 acres would be developed which would affect 6,473 acres of potential habitat for loggerhead shrike. The primary conservation strategy of the Proposed Action for mitigating the impacts of urban development is creating and protecting habitat reserves at a 0.5:1 ratio of acres protected in the habitat reserves for every acre developed. The habitat reserve system would consist of 4,025 acres. Under the Proposed Action, the habitat reserves are to consist of 25 percent managed marsh, 25 percent upland habitat, and 50 percent rice. With 25 percent of the habitat reserves, 1,006 acres in the habitat reserves would be upland habitat suitable for loggerhead shrike. Implementation of the Proposed Action solely by the City of Sacramento would be considered a changed circumstance, and the percentage composition of the habitat reserves could be adjusted in response to the specific habitats affected by the participating jurisdiction. With this provision, the amount of upland habitat could be increased to more closely match the anticipated reduction in upland habitat.

Sutter County. If only Sutter County implemented the Proposed Action, 7,467 acres would be developed, which would affect 2,077 acres of potential habitat for loggerhead shrikes.

With 25 percent of the habitat reserves as upland habitat, 933 acres in the reserves would be potential habitat for loggerhead shrike. This acreage is about one-half the potential habitat that would be converted to urban uses. The Conservancy also would provide trees and shrubs suitable for perching and nesting by loggerhead shrikes, ensuring that suitable conditions for shrikes are provided on the habitat by reserves, resulting in a less-than-significant impact.

Water Agencies. The water agencies would not implement any measures specifically to avoid and minimize the effects of their maintenance activities on loggerhead shrikes. The affect of their activities on loggerhead shrikes, however, is anticipated to be minor. If only the water agencies implemented the Proposed Action, no permanent habitat reserves would be established. Thus, there would be no certainty that habitat for loggerhead shrikes would be available over the long term.

Natomas Basin Conservancy. As described above, if only the Conservancy implemented the Proposed Action, its actions would focus on maintaining and managing the habitat reserves for the benefit of covered species. Effects to covered species from actions taken by the City of Sacramento, Sutter County, and the water agencies would be as described for the No Action Alternative.

CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
4-126 REVISED NATOMAS BASIN HCP E042002017SAC/161795(004.DOC)

EIR/EIS

4.4.11.3 Other Special-status Species
City of Sacramento. Habitat reserves created in response to urban development in the City of Sacramento would benefit special-status species not covered by the ITPs by providing high-quality habitat in perpetuity. Effects to special-status species from urban development in Sutter County would be as described for the No Action Alternative.

Sutter County. If only Sutter County implemented the Proposed Action, habitat reserves would be created in response to urban development. The habitat reserves would benefit special-status species not covered by the ITPs by providing high-quality habitat in perpetuity. Effects to special-status species from urban development in the City of Sacramento would be as described for the No Action Alternative.

Water Agencies. Minor beneficial effects to special-status species not covered by the ITPs could result from the water agencies’ implementing avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures for giant garter snakes. If only the water agencies implemented the Proposed Action, no habitat reserves would be created. Effects to special-status species not covered by the ITPs from urban development in the City of Sacramento and Sutter County would be as described for the No Action Alternative.

Natomas Basin Conservancy. As described above, if only the Conservancy implemented the Proposed Action, its actions would focus on maintaining and managing the habitat reserves for the benefit of covered species. Other special-status species likely would benefit from management of the habitat reserves. Effects to other special-status species from actions taken by the City of Sacramento, Sutter County, and the water agencies would be as described for the No Action Alternative.

4.4.11.4 Waterfowl
City of Sacramento. Habitat reserves created in response to urban development in the City of Sacramento would benefit waterfowl by providing marsh and upland habitat in perpetuity that waterfowl could use as wintering or migratory stopover habitat. Effects to waterfowl from urban development in Sutter County would be as described for the No Action Alternative.

Sutter County. If only Sutter County implemented the Proposed Action, habitat reserves would be created in response to urban development. The habitat reserves would benefit waterfowl species by providing marsh and upland habitat that could be used as wintering and migratory stopover habitat over the long term. Effects to waterfowl from urban development in the City of Sacramento would be as described for the No Action Alternative.

Water Agencies. Because of the low level of use of ditches and canals by waterfowl, independent implementation of the Proposed Action by the water agencies would not affect waterfowl. Effects to waterfowl from urban development in Sutter County or City of Sacramento would be as described for the No Action Alternative.

Natomas Basin Conservancy. As described above, if only the Conservancy implemented the Proposed Action, its actions would focus on maintaining and managing the habitat reserves for the benefit of covered species. Waterfowl would benefit from the provision of habitat on the reserves. Effects to waterfowl from actions taken by the City of Sacramento, Sutter County, and the water agencies would be as described for the No Action Alternative.

CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
E042002017SAC/161795(004.DOC) REVISED NATOMAS BASIN HCP 4-127

EIR/EIS

4.4.12 Cumulative Impacts
As described in Section 4.1.2.2, the cumulative impact analysis considers other local and regional projects that address wildlife conservation, including special-status species. These other projects predominantly include protection and management of marsh habitat (i.e., state and federal refuges). The Proposed Action would contribute to the existing network of marsh areas under long-term conservation in the Central Valley. As such, in combination with other projects, the Proposed Action would have a cumulatively beneficial effect on wildlife habitat, particularly marsh habitat. The CALFED Bay-Delta Program and the San Joaquin County Habitat Conservation Plan specifically address listed species, with the goals of maintaining or recovering listed species and special-status species. The Proposed Action would further benefit listed species and special-status species by maintaining them in the Natomas Basin. In combination with other projects, the Proposed Action would cumulatively contribute to the maintenance and recovery of listed species in the Central Valley.

4.5 Cultural Resources
Potential archaeological and historical resource impacts that could occur in the study area are summarized in this section. For purposes of this analysis, potential impacts to cultural and historical resources would primarily occur during habitat development activities on the reserve system. Reserve development generally includes earth-moving activities associated with the conversion of upland or other land uses to managed marsh or rice fields. Impacts to cultural and historical resources would be considered a significant impact if the activities would:
/g183 Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource /g183 Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource /g183 Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries The potential for significant effects on cultural resources exists wherever grading and other land-disturbing activities occur. Potential impacts could be mitigated to a less-than- significant level by implementing avoidance measures described in this section. These avoidance measures are standard practice for large-scale developments, and are recommended for the implementation of the Proposed Action and other alternatives.

As discussed in Section 4.1.3, the covered activities associated with the Proposed Action have been analyzed in previous environmental documents, and the collective findings of the previous analysis for cultural resources are briefly summarized here and in Appendix C to provide context for the action being evaluated in this EIR/EIS (See Chapter 2: Proposed Action and Alternatives). (Also see Section 4.1.3 for a list of environmental review documents applicable to the permittees’ covered activities and the location at which they are available for review.)
Both the City Council of the City of Sacramento and the Sutter County Board of Supervisors determined that potential impacts to cultural resources associated with urban development could be reduced to a less-than-significant level with the implementation of mitigation measures. In its EIRs for the North and South Natomas Community Plans, the City identified two areas of high sensitivity – the Witter Ranch Historic Farm and the area in the southwest corner of South Natomas near where I-80 crosses the Sacramento River and CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
4-128 REVISED NATOMAS BASIN HCP E042002017SAC/161795(004.DOC)

EIR/EIS
Garden Highway. As part of the North Natomas Community Plan, the City required the preservation of Witter Ranch, which is now under the ownership of Sacramento County as part of the regional park system. The City’s mitigation requirements for the area in the southwest corner of South Natomas, and for Sutter County in general, include archaeological reconnaissance surveys prior to development, with implementation of additional measures as recommended by a qualified archaeologist on a site-specific basis.

Areas of high archaeological sensitivity were not specifically identified in the Sutter County General Plan EIR.

4.5.1 Proposed Action

4.5.1.1 Impacts With Participation by All Permittees
Implementation of the Proposed Action would result in the creation of 8,750 acres of habitat reserves, based on 17,500 acres of urban development and a 0.5:1 mitigation ratio. Habitat reserves would be established subject to the provisions of the HCP, including the requirements for one 2,500-acre contiguous reserve, 400-acre minimum reserve sizes, and not more than 20 percent of reserves allowed outside of the Natomas Basin. Potential impacts to cultural resources would primarily occur during habitat restoration activities.

Earthmoving would be limited to parcels acquired for habitat preserves requiring restoration to managed marsh or other high-quality habitat, and such improvements would likely be required on at least 25 percent of the reserve lands (2,187.5 acres). Earthmoving activities would typically include grading, excavating, and other activities involving the use of heavy equipment. These activities could result in exposure, damage, or crushing of surface and buried artifacts. Because the study area has been determined to be a medium to high area of potential chance for encountering artifacts (see Section 3.5), this would be a potentially significant impact.

The entire Natomas Basin is considered part of the RD 1000 Rural Historic Landscape District, which recognizes the substantial public works achievement of reclaiming the Natomas Basin through a comprehensive system of levees and drainage canals. Implementation of the Proposed Action would result in some land use changes as described above, including converting some agricultural areas to managed marsh and uplands, but these activities do not conflict with the character of the Rural Historic Landscape District because the overall agricultural/open space character of the Natomas Basin will be maintained.

Potential impacts to cultural resources on an ongoing basis could result from the operation and maintenance of canals and ditches by RD 1000 and Natomas Mutual, and habitat preserves managed as ricefields by the Conservancy through seasonal disking of rice fields.

The potential for long-term impacts, however, is limited because such work would generally be limited to surface activities (e.g., mowing, disking) in areas that have been subject to ongoing management and disturbance.

4.5.1.2 Mitigation
Standard cultural resources mitigation procedures of the City and Sutter County (City of Sacramento, 1987; Sutter County, 1996c) include site-specific record searches, field review where appropriate, and construction monitoring (by an archaeologist where recommended or by construction personnel). These mitigation requirements generally apply to new development. Because the potential cultural resource impacts associated with habitat CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
E042002017SAC/161795(004.DOC) REVISED NATOMAS BASIN HCP 4-129

EIR/EIS
reserve development are similar to the impacts of land development (e.g., grading and excavation), similar mitigation is warranted. Accordingly, the following mitigation measures are recommended for potential cultural-resource impacts.

Parcels being considered for habitat reserves shall undergo preconstruction literature review and/or field surveys, based on the discretion of a qualified archaeologist. Based on the findings of the cultural resource review and the potential for land disturbance to occur on the reserve, the Natomas Basin Conservancy could be required to complete an archaeological report and implement site-specific mitigation measures as a condition for restoration.
and
In the event that any historic or archaeological features (surface or subsurface) or deposits, including locally darkened soil (“midden”) that could conceal cultural deposits, animal bone, shell, obsidian, mortars, or human remains, are uncovered during construction, work within 100 feet of the find shall cease and a qualified archaeologist and a representative of the Native American Heritage Commission shall be consulted to develop, if necessary, further mitigation measures to reduce any archaeological impacts to a less-than-significant level before construction continues. and
When Native American archaeological, ethnographic, or spiritual resources are involved, all identification and treatment shall be conducted by qualified archaeologists who are either certified by the Society of Professional Archaeologists (SOPA) or who meet the federal standards as stated in the Code of Federal Regulations (36 CFR 61), and Native American Representatives who are approved by the local Native American community as scholars of their cultural traditions. In the event that no such Native American is available, persons who represent tribal governments and/or organizations in the locale in which resources could be affected shall be consulted. When historic archaeological sites or historic architectural features are involved, all identification and treatment is to be carried out by historical archaeologists or architectural historians.

These individuals shall meet either SOPA or 36 CFR 61 requirements. and
If human bone of unknown origin is found during construction, all work shall stop in the vicinity of the find and the County Coroner shall be contacted immediately. If the remains are determined to be Native American, the Coroner shall notify the Native American Heritage Commission who shall notify the person it believes to be the most likely descendant. The most likely descendant shall work with the contractor to develop a program for reinternment of the human remains and any associated artifacts. No additional work is to take place within the immediate vicinity of the find until the identified appropriate actions have been carried out.

4.5.1.3 Level of Significance After Mitigation
Implementation of these mitigation measures is expected to reduce potential cultural resources impacts to a less-than-significant level. Site-specific cultural resource review could show a greater potential for significant impacts; however, specific information is not known at this time.

CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
4-130 REVISED NATOMAS BASIN HCP E042002017SAC/161795(004.DOC)

EIR/EIS

4.5.2 Alternative 1. Increased Mitigation Ratio

4.5.2.1 Impacts With Participation by All Permittees
Implementation of Alternative 1 would require mitigation of 17,500 acres of land, pursuant to a 1:1 mitigation ratio for new development. The types of potential cultural resource impacts would be similar to the Proposed Action (potentially significant), but the potential for impacts would be greater as a result of implementing a 1:1 mitigation ratio. The specific level of impact, however, is not possible to estimate because impacts would occur only as a result of disturbing sensitive resources during grading and other land-development activities. As described above for the Proposed Action, site-specific cultural resources evaluation should be required.

Potential impacts to cultural resources on an ongoing basis could result from the operation and maintenance of canals and ditches by RD 1000 and Natomas Mutual, and habitat preserves managed as ricefields by the Conservancy through seasonal disking of rice fields.

The potential for long-term impacts, however, is limited because such work would generally be limited to surface activities (e.g., mowing, discing) in areas that have been subject to ongoing management and disturbance.

4.5.2.2 Mitigation
Implement the mitigation measures described for the Proposed Action (Section 4.5.2.1).

4.5.2.3 Level of Significance After Mitigation
Implementation of the mitigation measures described for the Proposed Action is expected to reduce potential cultural resources impacts to a less-than-significant level. Site-specific cultural resource review could show a greater potential for significant impacts; however, specific information is not known at this time.

4.5.3 Alternative 2. Habitat-based Mitigation
Implementation of Alternative 2 would require the acquisition of 17,763 acres of land for mitigation pursuant to the habitat-based mitigation ratios described in Section 2.6.2. Because the mitigation acreage under Alternative 2 would be approximately the same as under Alternative 1, potential impacts to cultural resources as a result of habitat reserve development would be approximately the same as described above for Alternative 1.

Accordingly, implementing the mitigation measure described under the Proposed Action (Section 4.5.1.2) is also recommended for Alternative 2. As described for the Proposed Action, no impacts would occur as a result of RD 1000’s or Natomas Mutual’s activities, or as a result of ongoing Conservancy management of the habitat reserves.

4.5.4 Alternative 3. Reserve Zones
Alternative 3 focuses the acquisition of habitat reserves of specific zones within the Natomas Basin based on giant garter snake and Swainson’s hawk habitat availability. The acreage to be acquired and all other implementation requirements would be the same as the Proposed Action. Therefore, the potential impact to cultural resources as a result of habitat reserve development would be the same as under the Proposed Action. Implementing the mitigation measure described under the Proposed Action (Section 4.5.1.2) is also CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
E042002017SAC/161795(004.DOC) REVISED NATOMAS BASIN HCP 4-131

EIR/EIS
recommended for Alternative 3. As described for the Proposed Action, no impacts would occur as a result of RD 1000’s or Natomas Mutual’s activities, or as a result of ongoing Conservancy management of the habitat reserves.

4.5.5 Alternative 4. Reduced Potential for Incidental Take Development of 12,000 acres under Alternative 4 would result in the acquisition of 6,000 acres of habitat reserves, based on a 0.5:1 mitigation ratio. Compared with the Proposed Action , implementing Alternative 4 would result in less land being conserved as habitat reserves (6,000 acres under Alternative 4 versus 8,750 acres under the Proposed Action). Because less land would be developed as habitat reserves under Alternative 4, the potential for impacts to cultural resources relative to the Proposed Action would decrease.

Regardless, the potential for impacts to cultural resources to occur during grading to create managed marsh and other habitat areas, although reduced under Alternative 4, warrants the adoption of the mitigation measures described under the Proposed Action (Section

4.5.1.2) because of the extent of the reserve development activities. As described for the Proposed Action, no impacts would occur as a result of RD 1000’s or Natomas Mutual’s activities, or as a result of ongoing Conservancy management of the habitat reserves.

4.5.6 Alternative 5. No Action Alternative
Establishment of the habitat reserve system and the conservation measures in the HCP under the Proposed Action and the other alternatives would not occur under the No Action Alternative. As discussed in Section 2.6.5, planned land development and the associated mitigation for biological resources impacts would still occur, however, and it is expected that such mitigation would require active habitat restoration efforts resulting in similar effects as described above for the Proposed Action and the other alternatives. These activities would be similar to current land management practices in the Natomas Basin and similar habitat areas, and are not expected to result in substantially different impacts relative to current conditions.

The mitigation measures described in Section 4.5.1.2 would likely be required as a result of CEQA review during these individual habitat conservation activities.

Under the No Action Alternative, RD 1000 and Natomas Mutual would continue their activities consistent with current practices, with no substantial change relative to the Proposed Action or the other alternatives. Management of habitat reserves by the Conservancy would still be required, resulting in similar impacts as under the Proposed Action and other alternatives.

The Proposed Action and alternatives are expected to have similar effects as the No Action Alternative, and impacts would therefore be less than significant relative to the No Action Alternative baseline.

4.5.7 Effects Under Independent Implementation
Regardless of whether all the permittees participate or individual permittees participate, the potential exists for cultural resources to occur on lands acquired as habitat reserves.

Although the potential for impacts diminishes with less land disturbance, independent implementation of the Proposed Action by individual permittees would not reduce the level of potential significance because land disturbance (and the potential for disrupting unknown, subsurface cultural resources) would still occur. With implementation of the CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
4-132 REVISED NATOMAS BASIN HCP E042002017SAC/161795(004.DOC)

EIR/EIS
mitigation measures described in Section 4.5.1.2 above, however, impacts would remain less than significant. Because implementation by RD 1000 and Natomas Mutual would have no effect on cultural resources, there would be no change in the level of significance of impacts if the water agencies did not participate in implementing the HCP.

4.5.8 Cumulative Impacts
Cumulative impacts would include the additional effects associated with the implementation of other regional conservation activities (see Section 4.1.2). Potential effects on cultural resources associated with management activities in these areas would likely be similar to the effects described above in Section 4.5.1.1 (e.g., exposure, damage, or crushing of surface and buried artifacts). Although impacts associated with other habitat conservation activities could affect site-specific cultural resources, these impacts would not affect cultural resources in the study area because these activities would not occur in the Natomas Basin or Area B. Therefore, no cumulative impacts would occur.

4.6 Land Use
This section describes the compatibility of the Proposed Action with surrounding land uses, and the Proposed Action’s consistency with local land use plans and policies. The loss of agricultural lands as a result of converting rice crops to habitat reserves is also addressed in this section. Other environmental factors that serve as indicators of land use compatibility, such as diminished air quality, unacceptable noise levels, and substantial traffic congestion, are discussed in other sections. For purposes of this analysis, the Proposed Action would have a significant impact if it were to:
/g183 Physically divide an established community
/g183 Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the Proposed Action (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect
/g183 Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract /g183 Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to nonagricultural use /g183 Involve other changes in the existing environment which, because of their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to nonagricultural use Implementation of the Proposed Action would have less-than-significant land use impacts, but would have significant, and likely unavoidable, impacts on agricultural lands because of the amount of land that would be converted to managed marsh and other natural habitat areas. No land use impacts would occur as a result of activities undertaken by RD 1000 and Natomas Mutual. From a land-use compatibility perspective, RD 1000’s and Natomas Mutual’s activities under the Proposed Action would be similar to and consistent with current approved practices. Accordingly, implementation of the Proposed Action by RD 1000 and Natomas Mutual is not discussed further in this section.

CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
E042002017SAC/161795(004.DOC) REVISED NATOMAS BASIN HCP 4-133

EIR/EIS
As discussed in Section 4.1.3, the covered activities associated with the Proposed Action have been analyzed in previous environmental documents, and the collective findings of the previous analysis for land use are briefly summarized here and in Appendix C to provide context for the action being evaluated in this EIR/EIS (See Chapter 2: Proposed Action and Alternatives). (Also see Section 4.1.3 for a list of environmental review documents applicable to the permittees’ covered activities and the location at which they are available for review.)
Both the City Council of the City of Sacramento and the Sutter County Board of Supervisors determined that impacts to agricultural land would be a significant and unavoidable consequence of urban development in the Natomas Basin. Both jurisdictions adopted partial mitigation to reduce the extent of the impact (generally consisting of buffers in the City and compact development in Sutter County), but these mitigation measures would not reduce impacts to a less-than-significant level. The City also determined that new development potentially could be incompatible with existing development, but that such potential impacts could be mitigated to a less-than-significant level through buffering and the site- specific development review process. Sutter County did not identify other potentially significant land use impacts.

4.6.1 Proposed Action

4.6.1.1 Impacts With Participation by All Permittees
Land Use Compatibility
Implementation of the Proposed Action would result in 8,750 acres of habitat reserves, based on urban development of 17,500 acres and a 0.5:1 mitigation ratio. Habitat reserves would be established subject to the provisions of the HCP, including the requirements for one 2,500-acre contiguous reserve, 400-acre minimum reserve sizes, and not more than 20 percent of reserves allowed outside of the Natomas Basin. The conservation measures outlined in the HCP would be implemented. Subsequent to the approval of the 1997 HCP (see Section 1.2) and prior to the release of this Draft EIR/EIS, 12 parcels have been acquired for conversion to habitat reserves, totaling over 2,000 acres. In addition, as a result of the Court Opinion (see Section 1.2.2), the City entered into a Settlement Agreement on May 10, 2001, which provided for an additional 1,668 acres of development and included specific reserve acquisition goals.

A management plan has been prepared for nine of the 12 acquired parcels. This management plan, together with the general policies of the Natomas Basin HCP, provide a framework for understanding the potential land use consequences of the Proposed Action.

Creation of habitat reserves within a predominately agricultural area could result in land use compatibility conflicts. Habitat reserves would be managed primarily to meet the life needs of giant garter snakes, Swainson’s hawks, and other covered species, whereas adjacent farmlands would generally be managed for crop production. Rice farming is recognized, however, in the HCP as an important contributor to maintaining giant garter snake populations, and therefore up to 50 percent of the habitat reserves would remain in rice production as part of the overall wetland conservation strategy. This promotes land use compatibility between the habitat reserves and adjacent farmlands. In addition, various components of the overall reserve acquisition strategy and management criteria would CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
4-134 REVISED NATOMAS BASIN HCP E042002017SAC/161795(004.DOC)

EIR/EIS
provide additional protection against potential conflicts between habitat reserves and adjacent lands, as follows.
/g183 Buffers are intended to help ensure that habitat requirements are met onsite and are not diminished by adjacent land use activities. This also protects adjacent landowners from any responsibility or liability related to species’ needs on the habitat reserves. /g183 Setbacks are an acquisition criteria for reserve lands, intended to prevent the acquisition of reserves that abut potentially incompatible land uses, including single-family residential uses as these uses expand into the Natomas Basin. /g183 Mosquito and rodent control measures would be implemented on the reserve lands. /g183 Patrolling of the reserves would occur periodically to monitor for prohibited activities such as vandalism, shooting, and off-road vehicle activity.

These requirements are considered to be an effective means of limiting potential land use incompatibility. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant, and no additional mitigation would be necessary beyond the proposed requirements of the HCP.

Consistency With Land Use Plans and Policies
The assessment of consistency of the habitat reserves with land use plans and policies focuses on Sutter County and unincorporated Sacramento County. Lands acquired for habitat reserves in Sacramento County are most likely to be located outside of the County’s urban services boundary. These lands are designated primarily as agricultural cropland in the Sacramento County General Plan. Habitat reserves in Sutter County are most likely to be located outside of the Industrial-Commercial Reserve. These lands are designated primarily as agriculture in the Sutter County General Plan.

Both the Sacramento County and Sutter County General Plans recognize the potential for conflicts between habitat reserves and adjacent farmlands. The Sacramento County General Plan recognizes that agricultural lands could be converted to nonfarm uses other than urban development, and includes a series of policies (Policies AG-9 through AG-15) that address “encroachment by natural resource preserves.” These policies focus on the need to preserve farmers’ rights to carry out routine agricultural activities, and not to have those rights hindered by a noncompatible adjacent use. Similarly, the Sutter County General Plan states that lands set aside as mitigation for development in the Natomas Basin shall not result in impacts to existing and future agricultural or urban development (Policies 1.F-2 and 6.A-5).

In addition to these policies, both counties have right-to-farm ordinances.

As described in the above sections, the Proposed Action includes measures such as buffers and setbacks to avoid conflicts with surrounding land uses. It is the responsibility of the implementing agencies to ensure that land use conflicts do not occur as a result of acquisition and ongoing management of the habitat reserves. For these reasons, implementing the Proposed Action is expected to be consistent with the Sacramento County and Sutter County General Plans.

Wildlife preserves are a permitted use in the zoning ordinance for Sacramento County, but are not mentioned in the Sutter County zoning ordinance.

CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
E042002017SAC/161795(004.DOC) REVISED NATOMAS BASIN HCP 4-135

EIR/EIS
Conversion of Agricultural Land
Implementation of the Proposed Action would result in the creation of 8,750 acres of habitat reserve lands. These reserves would be located in the Natomas Basin and (potentially) other nearby areas that are productive farmlands. Accordingly, up to 8,750 acres of farmlands in the Natomas Basin would become habitat reserves. As described in Section 3.6, most of the undeveloped lands in the Natomas Basin are considered “important farmlands” by the California Department of Conservation. A portion of the habitat reserves would remain in agricultural production (e.g., 50 percent in rice production, some Swainson’s hawk foraging areas) and be preserved in perpetuity, but a substantial amount of reserve lands would be converted to managed marsh or upland habitat areas. Because of the managed marsh objectives of the HCP, it is expected that 25 percent of the reserves (2,187.5 acres) would be converted from current uses (primarily agriculture) to managed marsh. In addition, a portion of the upland reserves might also be converted to non-farm use (e.g., tree groves). This loss of at least 2,187.5 acres of important farmlands would be a significant impact. Preservation in perpetuity of the habitat reserves managed for agriculture would be a beneficial impact.

4.6.1.2 Mitigation
A significant impact has been identified for the loss of farmland. Mitigation for this impact should focus on integrating farmland preservation, where practicable, into site-specific management plans. The following mitigation measure is recommended:

To the extent practicable (and to the extent that biological goals are not compromised), development of site-specific management plans will incorporate provisions that consider farmlands and agricultural use.

4.6.1.3 Level of Significance After Mitigation
The ability to implement this mitigation measure could be limited by the priority of other criteria for acquisition of reserve lands (e.g., the habitat suitability of lands to be acquired), and by the availability of nonagricultural land in the study area. Accordingly, impacts to agricultural land are likely to remain significant.

4.6.2 Alternative 1. Increased Mitigation Ratio

4.6.2.1 Impacts With Participation by All Permittees
Land Use Compatibility
Implementation of Alternative 1 would require mitigation of 17,500 acres of land, pursuant to a 1:1 mitigation ratio for the planned development (see Chapter 2 for a discussion of the land use agencies’ covered activities under the Proposed Action). The potential for land use incompatibility impacts as a result of implementing Alternative 1 would increase with the additional mitigation acreage required, but impacts are expected to remain less than significant because of the implementation of the reserve acquisition and management requirements described in Section 4.6.1.1. For the same reasons as described above for the Proposed Action, impacts associated with RD 1000 or Natomas Mutual activities, or as a result of ongoing Conservancy management of the habitat reserves, would remain less than significant under Alternative 1.

CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
4-136 REVISED NATOMAS BASIN HCP E042002017SAC/161795(004.DOC)

EIR/EIS
Consistency With Land Use Plans and Policies
Consistency with land use plans and policies would be the same as described in Section 4.6.1.1 if 17,500 acres of habitat reserves are acquired.

Conversion of Agricultural Land
Compared with the Proposed Action, the requirement to acquire 17,500 acres of habitat reserve lands under Alternative 1 would double the amount of land taken out of agricultural production and converted to habitat use. Based on a 1:1 mitigation ratio with 25 percent of the acquired reserve lands converted to managed marsh, at least 4,375 acres of agricultural lands could be taken out of production. As described in Section 4.6.1.1 under the discussion of the Proposed Action, the loss of a substantial amount of agricultural lands would be a significant impact. Preservation in perpetuity of the habitat reserves managed for agriculture would be a beneficial impact.

4.6.2.2 Mitigation
The mitigation is to implement the mitigation measure stated in Section 4.6.1.2 for the loss of farmland.

4.6.2.3 Level of Significance After Mitigation
The ability to implement this mitigation measure fully could be limited by the priority of other criteria for acquisition of reserve lands (e.g., the habitat suitability of lands to be acquired) and by the availability of nonagricultural land in the study area. Accordingly, impacts to agricultural land are likely to remain significant.

4.6.3 Alternative 2. Habitat-based Mitigation
Implementation of Alternative 2 would require the acquisition of 17,763 acres of land for mitigation pursuant to the habitat-based mitigation ratios described in Section 2.6.2. Because the mitigation acreage under Alternative 2 would be approximately the same as under Alternative 1, potential land use impacts as a result of implementing a habitat-based mitigation alternative would be approximately the same as described above for Alternative 1. Accordingly, implementing the mitigation measure described under the Proposed Action (Section 4.6.1.2) is also recommended for Alternative 2. For the same reasons as described above for the Proposed Action, impacts associated with RD 1000 or Natomas Mutual activities, or as a result of ongoing Conservancy management of the habitat reserves, would remain less than significant under Alternative 2.

4.6.4 Alternative 3. Reserve Zones
Alternative 3 focuses on the acquisition of habitat reserves of specific zones within the Natomas Basin, based on giant garter snake and Swainson’s hawk habitat availability. The acreage to be acquired and all other implementation requirements would be the same as the Proposed Action. Therefore, the potential land use impacts as a result of implementing the Reserve Zone Alternative would be the same as under the Proposed Action. Implementing the mitigation measure described under the Proposed Action (Section 4.6.1.2) is also recommended for Alternative 3. For the same reasons as described above for the Proposed Action, impacts associated with RD 1000 or Natomas Mutual activities, or as a result of CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
E042002017SAC/161795(004.DOC) REVISED NATOMAS BASIN HCP 4-137

EIR/EIS
ongoing Conservancy management of the habitat reserves, would remain less than significant under Alternative 3.

4.6.5 Alternative 4. Reduced Potential for Incidental Take Development of 12,000 acres under Alternative 4 would result in the acquisition of 6,000 acres of habitat reserves, based on a 0.5:1 mitigation ratio. Compared with the Proposed Action, implementing Alternative 4 would result in less land being conserved as habitat reserves (6,000 acres under Alternative 4 versus 8,750 acres under the Proposed Action). For the reasons described above in Section 4.6.1.1, impacts associated with land use compatibility and consistency with land use plans and policies would be less than significant. Under Alternative 4, less agricultural land would be converted to managed marsh and other habitat areas. Conversion of farmland to managed marsh would occur on 25 percent of the acquired reserve lands (i.e., 1,500 acres); this represents a substantial loss of farmland acreage, and would be a significant impact. The mitigation measure described in Section 4.6.1.2 is recommended, but mitigation to a less-than-significant level could be limited by the priority of other criteria for acquisition of reserve lands (e.g., the habitat suitability of lands to be acquired), and by the availability of nonagricultural land in the study area (see Section 4.6.1.3). Preservation in perpetuity of the habitat reserves managed for agriculture would be a beneficial impact. For the same reasons as described above for the Proposed Action, impacts from RD 1000 or Natomas Mutual activities, or as a result of ongoing Conservancy management of the habitat reserves, would remain less than significant under Alternative 4.

4.6.6 Alternative 5. No Action Alternative
Establishment of the habitat reserve system or implementation of the conservation strategy under the Proposed Action and the other alternatives would not occur under the No Action Alternative. As discussed in Section 2.6.5, planned land development and the associated mitigation for biological resources impacts would still occur, and it is expected that such mitigation would require active habitat restoration efforts resulting in similar effects as described above for the Proposed Action and the other alternatives. These activities would be similar to current land-management practices in the Natomas Basin and similar habitat areas, and are not expected to result in substantially different impacts relative to current conditions.

Under the No Action Alternative, RD 1000 and Natomas Mutual would continue their activities consistent with current practices, with no substantial change relative to the Proposed Action or the other alternatives, and therefore, impacts would not differ from existing conditions. Management of existing habitat reserves by the Conservancy would still be required, resulting in similar impacts as described for the Proposed Action and other alternatives.

The Proposed Action and alternatives are expected to have similar effects as the No Action Alternative. Relative to the No Action Alternative, land use consistency impacts would continue to be less than significant, and activities would remain consistent with adopted land use plans and policies.

CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
4-138 REVISED NATOMAS BASIN HCP E042002017SAC/161795(004.DOC)

EIR/EIS

4.6.7 Effects Under Independent Implementation

4.6.7.1 Land Use Compatibility
Under the Proposed Action, land use incompatibility is not likely to occur on lands developed as habitat reserves because of the measures described in Section 4.6.1.1, above, (e.g., buffers, setbacks). If only the City and Sutter County participate in implementing the Proposed Action, this conclusion would not change because the same measures would be implemented by either the City or Sutter County. If only one land use jurisdiction participated in the HCP, however, fewer acres would initially be affected because the acreage of reserve development would decrease commensurate with reduced land development. Although the land use impacts under independent implementation would be comparable to the Proposed Action, they would initially apply to fewer areas. It is anticipated, however, that land development would still occur in either the City or Sutter County (even if one jurisdiction did not participate) because development would occur on a project-by-project basis (see Section 2.6.5).

If only the water agencies participated, no land use incompatibility would result because the water agencies’ covered activities would not change from existing conditions, and these exisiting management activities are conducted in accordance with applicable land use plans.

The Conservancy’s mandate is to acquire and manage habitat reserve lands, and their participation is aligned with continued management of existing reserves and acquisition and management of future reserves consistent with existing land uses.

4.6.7.2 Consistency With Land Use Plans and Policies
Consistency with land use plans and policies would not change if the City or Sutter County did not participate in implementing the HCP. If only one of these entities participated, it would still comply with its applicable land use plans and policies. As noted above, the water agencies’ and the conservancy’s covered activities would remain the same as existing conditions (water agencies) or would be focused on managing existing reserves (conservancy). These actions would be consistent with land use plans and policies.

4.6.7.3 Conversion of Agricultural Land
As with land use compatibility (Section 4.6.7.1), less land would initially be converted from prime agricultural land if only the City or Sutter County participated. Based on the proposed 0.5:1 mitigation ratio with 25 percent of the habitat reserves removed from agricultural production, nonparticipation by the City or Sutter County would result in 1,006 and 933 fewer acres, respectively, removed from production. Although limited participation could reduce the amount of agricultural land conversion, impacts would remain significant based on the amount of land (likely in excess of 1,000 acres) that would be converted to nonagricultural use. In addition, development in either the City or Sutter County could occur outside of the Proposed Action process evaluated in this EIR/EIS.

If only the water agencies participated, no significant impacts to agricultural land would occur because the water agencies’ covered activities would not result in development that would convert agricultural land to urban use. In addition, the water agencies’ activities would not result in the creation of habitat reserves that would convert existing agricultural lands to non-agricultural uses. Similarly, the Conservancy’s covered activities would CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
E042002017SAC/161795(004.DOC) REVISED NATOMAS BASIN HCP 4-139

EIR/EIS
generally be limited to management of existing reserves and, therefore, would not result in conversion of agricultural land. The potential does exist, however, for the Conservancy to acquire additional lands, and this could result in some conversion of agricultural lands and is a potentially significant impact. These lands, however, would be converted to habitat reserves with the objective of species preservation, and such a conversion would not represent an irretrievable loss of the lands to urban development.

4.6.8 Cumulative Impacts
Cumulative impacts would include the additional effects associated with the implementation of other regional conservation activities (see Section 4.1.2). The potential for land use incompatibility or plan consistency effects associated with management activities in the areas covered by other regional conservation or management plans would be similar to the effects described above in Section 4.6.1.1. Potential land use incompatibility and plan consistency impacts caused by other habitat conservation activities could have effects in the study area, but would not result in cumulative impacts because these activities would not occur in the Natomas Basin or Area B. Therefore, cumulative impacts would not occur.

Implementation of other habitat-conservation planning activities could result in local conversions of agricultural lands to nonagricultural uses. Because loss of prime farmland is a statewide issue of concern, these management actions could contribute to the significant effect of approximately 2,187.5 acres of farmland converted to managed marsh with implementation of the Proposed Action. This could result in a cumulatively considerable incremental contribution to the statewide loss of agricultural lands. Mitigation for this impact is described in Section 4.6.1.2. Additional mitigation could include the purchase of conservation easements on other agricultural lands to ensure the preservation of farming, but mitigation to less-than-significant levels may not be possible.

4.7 Socioeconomics
This section describes the potential impacts of the Proposed Action on social and economic conditions. The section focuses primarily on how changing land use from private farmlands to habitat reserves operated by the Conservancy would affect employment and tax revenues. For purposes of this analysis, the Proposed Action would have a significant impact if it were to result in a substantial loss of:
/g183 Employment opportunities
/g183 Income-producing activities
/g183 Property tax revenues
The analysis in this section concludes that adverse social and economic impacts would occur as a result of implementing the Proposed Action. To some extent, these effects would be offset by the management actions by the Conservancy. These impacts, however, would be less than significant in relation to the overall economies of Sacramento and Sutter Counties.

The social and economic effects associated with ongoing activities by RD 1000 and Natomas Mutual would not change relative to current conditions. Therefore, the potential social and economic impacts associated with these activities are not discussed further in this section.

CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
4-140 REVISED NATOMAS BASIN HCP E042002017SAC/161795(004.DOC)

EIR/EIS
This section also addresses the issue of environmental justice. Pursuant to Executive Order 12898 (February 11, 1994), the environmental and human-health effects of a project on minority and low-income communities must be considered in federal decisionmaking. In accordance with the requirements of Executive Order 12898, an environmental-justice impact would occur if minority or low-income communities were subjected to disproportionately high and adverse environmental effects, or if minority and low-income populations were not granted an opportunity to participate in the public review process.

As discussed in Section 4.1.3, the covered activities associated with the Proposed Action have been analyzed in previous environmental documents, and the collective findings of the previous analysis for socioeconomics are briefly summarized here and in Appendix C to provide context for the action being evaluated in this EIR/EIS (See Chapter 2: Proposed Action and Alternatives). (Also see Section 4.1.3 for a list of environmental review documents applicable to the permittees’ covered activities and the location at which they are available for review.)
The City Council of the City of Sacramento determined that no potentially significant impacts to population, employment, and housing would occur as a result of implementing the North and South Natomas Community Plans.

4.7.1 Proposed Action

4.7.1.1 Impacts With Participation by All Permittees
Implementation of the Proposed Action would result in the creation of 8,750 acres of habitat reserves, based on 17,500 acres of development and a 0.5:1 mitigation ratio. Habitat reserves would be located in the Natomas Basin and other nearby areas that are productive farmlands. As discussed in Section 4.6, a portion of the habitat reserves would remain in agricultural production (e.g., lands remaining in rice production, Swainson’s hawk foraging areas), but a substantial amount of reserve lands would be converted to managed marsh or upland habitat areas. For this analysis, it is assumed that at least 2,187.5 acres would converted to nonagricultural use (representing acreage converted to managed marsh reserves).

Social Conditions
In 1999, there were 3,500 and 4,800 agricultural workers in Sacramento County and Sutter County, respectively (California Employment Development Department, 2001). The loss of up to 2,187.5 acres of farmlands in the two counties under the Proposed Action is expected to result in the direct loss of about 35 agricultural jobs. The 35 jobs were derived by multiplying employment per acre by the number of acres that are expected to go out of production as a result of the creation of habitat reserves. Assuming that there are three nonagricultural jobs for every agricultural job, the indirect labor loss would be 105 jobs. The combined direct and indirect labor loss in the two counties is 140, or about 1.7 percent of the total 1999 agricultural labor workforce of 8,300. Assuming that one-half of the reserves are located in each county, the total direct and indirect labor loss per county equates to 70 jobs in Sacramento County (2 percent of the Sacramento County agricultural workforce) and 70 jobs in Sutter County (about 1.5 percent of the Sutter County agricultural workforce).

This reduction in agricultural employment is not significant because it: (1) does not result in a significant decrease in the agricultural employment sector in the two counties, and CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
E042002017SAC/161795(004.DOC) REVISED NATOMAS BASIN HCP 4-141

EIR/EIS
(2) would be offset by the projected continued improvement in the overall labor market conditions in both counties resulting from the planned urban development (i.e., the land use agencies’ covered activities).

Potential employment benefits associated with the Proposed Action are expected to be minor. Because a substantial amount of the reserve lands would be converted to managed marsh and upland habitat areas, and because the labor demands on such areas are typically low, the creation of the habitat reserves is not expected to result in more than several minimum-wage to low-wage jobs.

The projected loss of jobs would occur throughout the agricultural sector, including farm workers and businesses dependent on agricultural production. There would not be a disproportionate effect on any one component of the agricultural sector and, therefore, the Proposed Action would not disproportionately affect minority or low-income workers.

Additionally, new employment would be generated in the Natomas Basin because of new commercial and industrial development that would occur as covered activities under the HCP. Accordingly, environmental justice impacts would be less than significant.

Economic Conditions
Of the 8,750 acres needed for habitat creation in the two counties, it is assumed that 2,187.5 acres would be converted from agricultural use to habitat reserves. The current agricultural production activities on the 2,187.5 acres are primarily related to rice (both for consumption and seed) and several other crops. Assuming that all agricultural production is lost on the 2,187.5 acres, Sacramento and Sutter Counties together are likely to lose between $900,000 and $1 million in gross production value. The estimated loss is based on the gross production value of rice for consumption and seed (Sacramento County Agricultural Commissioner, 2001) as well as the 5-year average price for the various other crops grown in the basin. The loss in gross agricultural output is about 0.2 percent of the total 1999 agricultural output from the two counties, a figure well within the typical swings in agricultural output and value.

The Conservancy is considering providing hunting opportunities on its reserve lands, which would generate additional revenues (estimated to be approximately $31/acre). This potential economic benefit would partially offset the loss of farm revenues.

Agricultural land is assessed property taxes at one percent of its assessed value in both Sacramento and Sutter Counties. Both counties are expected to lose property-tax revenues as a result of converting agricultural lands currently in production to habitat. Assuming that one-half of the reserve lands are acquired in each county, Sacramento County’s share of the estimated 2,187.5 acres that go out of agricultural production under the Proposed Action is 1,094 acres. Assuming that agricultural land sold for the same price in Sacramento County as it did in Sutter County in 2000 (especially land in the same basin), i.e., $2,500 to $2,700 per acre (Korhummel, 2001), Sacramento County is expected to lose about $28,000 in property- tax revenues per year. The loss in property taxes is about 0.04 percent of the 2000 to 2001 secured property tax revenues for the county. Thus, the loss in property tax revenues for Sacramento County is not a significant impact.

Under the Proposed Action, Sutter County’s contribution to the 2,187.5 acres that go out of agricultural production would also be 1,094 acres, assuming one-half of the reserve lands CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
4-142 REVISED NATOMAS BASIN HCP E042002017SAC/161795(004.DOC)

EIR/EIS
are acquired in Sutter County. Based on the price paid for agricultural land that remained in agricultural production in 2000 (i.e., $2,500 to $2,700 per acre), Sutter County is also expected to lose about $28,000 in property tax revenues per year. The loss in property tax revenues is about 0.6 percent of the 2000-2001 secured property-tax revenues for the county.

This loss in property-tax revenues is less than significant because it is likely to be offset by property-tax revenues from the planned development in the basin.

4.7.1.2 Mitigation
No significant impacts were identified; therefore, no mitigation is necessary.

4.7.1.3 Level of Significance After Mitigation
The impact would be less than significant without mitigation.

4.7.2 Alternative 1. Increased Mitigation
Under Alternative 1, the mitigation ratio for developed land would be increased from

0.5:1 to 1:1. The development limit would remain at 17,500 acres, but this amount of development would result in the need to acquire 17,500 acres of mitigation land. As discussed previously for the Proposed Action, the mitigation requirement would not be based on the habitat value of the land developed, and the land would be acquired within the Natomas Basin from willing sellers or outside of the basin subject to the 20 percent limitation prescribed in the HCP. All other components of the Proposed Action (e.g., land acquisition and management, canal and ditch maintenance) would not change under Alternative 1. The requirement for one contiguous block of 2,500 acres would not change, and other reserve lands would be acquired to ensure that they form 400-acre contiguous blocks. For this analysis, it is assumed that at least 4,375 acres would be converted to nonagricultural use (representing acreage converted to managed marsh reserves).

4.7.2.1 Impacts With Participation by All Permittees
Social Conditions
The types of social impacts of implementing Alternative 1 would be similar to the Proposed Action, but at approximately double the level. Assuming that 4,375 acres are converted from agriculture to habitat reserves, total direct and indirect employment impacts in Sacramento and Sutter Counties would be about 275 jobs. This represents about 3.3 percent of the total agricultural workforce in the two counties. Assuming that one-half of the reserves are located in each county, the total direct and indirect labor loss per county equates to 138 jobs in Sacramento County (about 3.9 percent of the Sacramento County agricultural workforce) and 138 jobs in Sutter County (about 2.9 percent of the Sutter County agricultural workforce). This reduction in agricultural employment is not significant since (1) it does not result in a significant decrease in the agricultural employment sector in the two counties, and (2) it would be offset by the projected continued improvement in the overall labor-market conditions in both counties associated with the projected development.

Potential employment benefits resulting from implementation of the Proposed Action are expected to be minor. Because a substantial amount of the reserve lands would be converted to managed marsh and upland habitat areas and the labor demands on such areas are typically low, the creation of the habitat reserves is not expected to result in more than a couple of minimum- to low-wage jobs.

CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
E042002017SAC/161795(004.DOC) REVISED NATOMAS BASIN HCP 4-143

EIR/EIS
Similar to the Proposed Action, environmental justice impacts would be less than significant for the reasons described in Section 4.7.1.1.

Economic Conditions
The types of economic impacts of implementing Alternative 1 would be similar to the Proposed Action, but at approximately double the level. Assuming that all agricultural production is lost on the 4,375 acres converted to habitat reserves, Sacramento and Sutter Counties together are likely to lose between $1.8 million and $2 million in gross production value. The loss in gross agricultural output is about 0.3 percent of the total 1999 agricultural output from the two counties, a figure well within the typical swings in agricultural output and value.

The Conservancy is considering providing hunting opportunities on its reserve lands, which would generate additional revenues (estimated to be approximately $31/acre). This potential economic benefit would partially offset the loss of farm revenues.

Loss of property tax revenues under Alternative 1 are expected to be roughly double the losses under the Proposed Action. Assuming that one-half of the reserve lands are acquired in each county, Sacramento County’s share of the estimated 4,375 acres that go out of agricultural production under the Proposed Action is 2,187.5 acres. Assuming that agricultural land sold for the same price in Sacramento County as it did in Sutter County in 2000 (i.e., $2,500 to $2,700 per acre; Korhummel, 2001), Sacramento County is expected to lose about $56,000 per year in property-tax revenues. The loss in property taxes is about

0.08 percent of the 2000-2001 secured property-tax revenues for the county. Thus, the loss in property-tax revenues for Sacramento County is not a significant impact.

Under the Proposed Action, Sutter County’s contribution to the 4,375 acres that go out of agricultural production would also be 2,187.5 acres, assuming one-half of the reserve lands are acquired in Sutter County. Based on the price paid for agricultural land that remained in agricultural production in 2000 (i.e., $2,500 to $2,700 per acre), Sutter County is also expected to lose about $56,000 in property tax revenues. The loss in property-tax revenues is about 1.1 percent of the 2000-2001 secured property-tax revenues for the county. This loss in property tax revenues is less than significant because it is likely to be offset by property-tax revenues from new developments in the basin.

4.7.2.2 Mitigation
No significant impacts have been identified; therefore, no mitigation is necessary.

4.7.2.3 Level of Significance After Mitigation
The impact would be less than significant without mitigation.

4.7.3 Alternative 2. Habitat-based Mitigation
Implementation of Alternative 2 would require the acquisition of 17,763 acres of land for mitigation pursuant to the habitat-based mitigation ratios described in Section 2.6.2. Because the mitigation acreage under Alternative 2 would be approximately the same as under Alternative 1, potential social and economic impacts as a result of implementing a habitat-based mitigation alternative would be approximately the same as described above for Alternative 1.

CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
4-144 REVISED NATOMAS BASIN HCP E042002017SAC/161795(004.DOC)

EIR/EIS

4.7.4 Alternative 3. Reserve Zones
Alternative 3 focuses the acquisition of habitat reserves of specific zones within the Natomas Basin based on giant garter snake and Swainson’s hawk habitat availability. The acreage to be acquired and all other implementation requirements would be the same as the Proposed Action. Therefore, potential social and economic impacts as a result of implementing the Reserve Zone Alternative would be the same as under the Proposed Action.

4.7.5 Alternative 4. Reduced Potential for Incidental Take Development of 12,000 acres under Alternative 4 would result in the acquisition of 6,000 acres of habitat reserves, based on a 0.5:1 mitigation ratio. Compared with the Proposed Action , implementing Alternative 4 would result in less land being conserved as habitat reserves (6,000 acres under Alternative 4 versus 8,750 acres under the Proposed Action). Potential impacts to socioeconomic conditions would remain similar (less than significant) to the Proposed Action.

4.7.6 Alternative 5. No Action Alternative
Establishment of the habitat reserve system envisioned under the Proposed Action and the other alternatives would not occur under the No Action Alternative. As discussed in Section 2.6.5, planned land development and the associated mitigation for biological resources impacts would still occur, however, and it is expected that such mitigation would require active habitat restoration efforts resulting in similar effects as described above for the Proposed Action and the other alternatives.

Under the No Action Alternative, RD 1000 and Natomas Mutual would continue their activities consistent with current practices, with no substantial change relative to the Proposed Action or the other alternatives. Management of habitat reserves by the Conservancy would still be required, resulting in similar impacts as under the Proposed Action and other alternatives.

The Proposed Action and alternatives are expected to have similar effects as the No Action Alternative, and impacts would be less than significant relative to the No Action Alternative baseline.

4.7.7 Effects Under Independent Implementation
As discussed above, significant adverse social and economic effects are not anticipated to occur with implementation by all permittees because the benefits attributable to urban development would be greater than the impacts from loss of agricultural employment.

Under independent implementation by either the City or Sutter County, the social and economic effects described above (i.e., loss of jobs, farm revenues, and property taxes) would be proportionally reduced if the City or Sutter County did not participate in implementing the HCP, but the impact would remain less than significant. If the water agencies were the sole participants, there would be no adverse socioeconomic impact because the water agencies’ covered activities would not differ from existing operations for canals and drainage areas. If the Conservancy were to implement the HCP independently, no adverse socioeconomic impacts would occur because the conservancy would continue to manage existing reserves.

CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
E042002017SAC/161795(004.DOC) REVISED NATOMAS BASIN HCP 4-145

EIR/EIS

4.7.8 Cumulative Impacts
Cumulative impacts would include the additional effects associated with the implementation of other regional conservation activities (see Section 4.1.2). Conversion of other lands for habitat management purposes would remove lands from agricultural production, resulting in similar types of social and economic effects as anticipated to occur with implementation of the Proposed Action (e.g., loss of farm production and jobs). The additional impacts associated with other habitat conservation activities would affect site- specific social and economic conditions, but would not further affect socioeconomic conditions in the study area because these activities would not occur in the Natomas Basin or Area B. Therefore, cumulative impacts would not occur.

4.8 Traffic
This section evaluates the impacts of the Proposed Action and the alternatives on traffic conditions. The Proposed Action would have a significant impact on traffic levels if it were to:
/g183 Cause an increase in traffic that is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system
/g183 Substantially increase hazards because of a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment) The analysis in this section concludes that, depending on the location of the habitat reserves, minor traffic safety impacts could occur resulting from the movement of construction equipment during reserve-development activities. These impacts would be similar to other types of development activities, and therefore standard traffic safety mitigation requirements should be implemented, if warranted on a case-by-case basis, to reduce potential impacts to a less-than-significant level.

On an ongoing basis, the public could encounter maintenance equipment conducting activities on the canals and drains (RD 1000 and Natomas Mutual), or on the habitat reserves (Conservancy). In addition, the public could encounter farm vehicle equipment on public roads for those sites being managed as rice fields. Potential impacts could include increased delays or risk of accidents resulting from slow-moving farm equipment on the roadways.

These activities, however, would be about the same as current conditions. Therefore, the potential traffic impacts associated with RD 1000’s and Natomas Mutual’s activities, and associated with Conservancy operations, are not discussed further in this section.

As discussed in Section 4.1.3, the covered activities associated with the Proposed Action have been analyzed in previous environmental documents, and the collective findings of the previous analysis for traffic are briefly summarized here and in Appendix C to provide context for the action being evaluated in this EIR/EIS (See Chapter 2: Proposed Action and Alternatives). (Also see Section 4.1.3 for a list of environmental review documents applicable to the permittees’ covered activities and the location at which they are available for review.)
The City has identified that increased congestion would occur in North and South Natomas as a result of implementing the planned development, as discussed in the North and South Natomas Community Plans. As described in the Draft EIR for the South Natomas CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
4-146 REVISED NATOMAS BASIN HCP E042002017SAC/161795(004.DOC)

EIR/EIS
Community Plan and the Draft Supplemental EIR for the North Natomas Community Plan, some traffic impacts attributable to covered activities can be mitigated to less-than- significant levels through road widening (e.g., East Commerce Boulevard and Truxel Road, and portions of I-5 and I-80), mass transit, and the unique land-use plan proposed for North Natomas. Some roadways in Natomas cannot have traffic impacts reduced to less-than- significant levels because of engineering constraints or the need to displace existing development, including portions of I-5 and I-80, Truxel Road south of Gateway Park Boulevard, West El Camino Avenue, Garden Highway, Northgate Boulevard, and the Arden-Garden Connector.

Sutter County has concluded, in its General Plan EIR, that several of the major roadways within the Sutter County portion of the study area are projected to be congested by 2015 unless improvements are made (Sutter County, 1996c). Accordingly, Riego Road, Sankey Road, Natomas Road, Howsley Road, and Pleasant Grove Road are to be expanded to four- lane thoroughfares, and Garden Highway will be upgraded to a two-lane urban roadway.

Sutter County expects that improvements to these roadways would result in an acceptable level of service. An interchange is planned at Riego Road and S.R. 99/70, and S.R. 99/70 may be widened to six lanes south of Riego Road. In addition, a new east-west expressway (Placer Parkway) is currently under consideration that would link S.R. 99/70 to S.R. 65 in Placer County. This expressway would cross the Industrial/Commercial Reserve, ending at a new intersection with S.R. 99/70 in Sutter County.

In addition to an increased demand on roadways, Sutter County will likely experience an increased demand for public transit, rail, and bikeway transportation. Future development is expected to be required to consider providing these services at the discretion of the transit authority (i.e., Yuba-Sutter Transit) in accordance with the implementation of transportation-related policies for the General Plan.

4.8.1 Proposed Action

4.8.1.1 Impacts With Participation by All Permittees
Implementation of the Proposed Action would result in 8,750 acres of habitat reserves, based on development of 17,500 acres and a 0.5:1 mitigation ratio. Habitat reserves would be established subject to the provisions of the HCP, including the requirements for one 2,500-acre contiguous reserve, 400-acre minimum reserve sizes, and not more than 20 percent of reserves allowed outside of the Natomas Basin. Impacts to traffic and circulation (e.g., public-safety hazards and other construction-related nuisances) could occur during reserve development. This would include the increased potential for vehicles traveling on local roadways to encounter construction equipment, temporary open trenches during grading and backfilling, and other construction site hazards. Nuisances that the public could encounter include localized congestion, delays, lane closures, and detours in the immediate vicinity of parcels undergoing site restoration. The extent of the construction activities (estimated to be about 25 percent of the total mitigation requirement, or 2,187.5 acres, based on the amount of managed marsh to be created) would be dispersed over a period of many years and over several construction sites, depending on the rate at which urban land is developed, reserve land is acquired, and habitat reserves are created.

CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
E042002017SAC/161795(004.DOC) REVISED NATOMAS BASIN HCP 4-147

EIR/EIS
For many local roadways (e.g., Powerline Road, east-west roads west of S.R. 99/70, Area B), it is not expected that public safety or nuisance impacts would occur given the low levels of traffic. Some local roadways (such as Elverta Road and Riego Road east of S.R. 99/70), however, currently experience high levels of traffic because they link the S.R. 99/70 corridor with Rio Linda, Roseville, and other areas in northeastern Sacramento. Heavy construction activity associated with reserve development along these roadways could result in traffic impacts as described above.

4.8.1.2 Mitigation
Traffic levels on local roadways could change over the permit term and, therefore, it is difficult to predict the specific areas where reserve development might contribute to traffic safety impacts. The following mitigation measure, however, is recommended to address the potential for traffic safety impacts and minimize the potential for impacts. /g183 Prior to commencing substantial habitat reserve development activities, the Conservancy shall evaluate traffic levels on any adjacent rural roadways that would provide construction access. Where potential traffic-safety impacts are identified, the Conservancy and/or its contractor shall prepare a Traffic Control Plan that addresses potential impacts to public safety and other construction-related nuisances. The Traffic Control Plan shall be reviewed and approved by the City of Sacramento and/or Sutter County, and should be submitted for review by Sacramento County for projects located within the unincorporated portion of Sacramento County. Traffic management measures to be included in the Traffic Control Plan include, but are not limited to, the following:
/g45 Provide adequate warning to users of the roadway in the vicinity of the construction, through signs or other means visible from the roadway
/g45 Provide adequate assistance to the public in navigating the construction site through the use of flagmen
/g45 Install adequate signage for construction zones and detours /g45 If traffic and circulation would be interrupted for an extended period of time, provide for the opportunity for public input from affected residents

4.8.1.3 Level of Significance After Mitigation
With the implementation of this mitigation measure, potential traffic-related impacts would be less than significant.

4.8.2 Alternative 1. Increased Mitigation
Under Alternative 1, the mitigation ratio for developed land would be increased from

0.5:1 to 1:1. The development limit for the City, Metro Air Park, and Sutter County would remain at 17,500 acres, but this amount of development would result in the need to acquire 17,500 acres of mitigation land. As discussed previously for the Proposed Action, the mitigation requirement would not be based on the habitat value of the land developed, and the land would be acquired within the Natomas Basin from willing sellers or outside of the basin subject to the 20 percent limitation prescribed in the HCP. All other components of the Proposed Action (e.g., land acquisition and management, canal and ditch maintenance) CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
4-148 REVISED NATOMAS BASIN HCP E042002017SAC/161795(004.DOC)

EIR/EIS
would not change under Alternative 1. The requirement for one contiguous block of 2,500 acres would not change, and other reserve lands would be acquired to ensure that they form 400-acre contiguous blocks.

4.8.2.1 Impacts With Participation by All Permittees
Potential impacts to traffic and circulation are similar to those discussed above for the Proposed Action. Although increasing the amount of habitat reserves created could increase the potential for traffic-safety hazards, substantial hazards are not expected given the low levels of traffic on local roadways. In addition, the extent of the construction activities (estimated to be about 25 percent of the total mitigation requirement, or 4,375 acres, based on the amount of managed marsh to be created) would be dispersed over a period of many years and over several construction sites. Similar to the Proposed Action, however, the potential exists for the impact to be significant.

4.8.2.2 Mitigation
Implement the mitigation measure stated in Section 4.8.1.2.

4.8.2.3 Level of Significance After Mitigation
With the implementation of this mitigation measure, potential traffic-related impacts would be less than significant.

4.8.3 Alternative 2. Habitat-based Mitigation
Implementation of Alternative 2 would require the acquisition of 17,763 acres of land for mitigation pursuant to the habitat-based mitigation ratios described in Section 2.6.2. Because the mitigation acreage under Alternative 2 would be approximately the same as under Alternative 1, potential traffic-safety impacts as a result of implementing a habitat-based mitigation alternative would be approximately the same as described above for Alternative 1.

Accordingly, implementing the mitigation measure described under the Proposed Action (Section 4.8.1.2) is recommended for Alternative 2 as well.

4.8.4 Alternative 3. Reserve Zones
Alternative 3 focuses the acquisition of habitat reserves of specific zones within the Natomas Basin based on giant garter snake and Swainson’s hawk habitat availability. The acreage to be acquired and all other implementation requirements would be the same as the Proposed Action. Therefore, potential traffic-safety impacts as a result of implementing the Reserve Zone Alternative would be the same as under the Proposed Action. Implementing the mitigation measure described under the Proposed Action (Section 4.8.1.2) is recommended for Alternative 3 as well.

4.8.5 Alternative 4. Reduced Potential for Incidental Take Development of 12,000 acres under Alternative 4 would result in the acquisition of 6,000 acres of habitat reserves, based on a 0.5:1 mitigation ratio. Compared with the Proposed Action , implementing Alternative 4 would result in less land being conserved as habitat reserves (6,000 acres under Alternative 4 versus 8,750 acres under the Proposed Action). Potential traffic-safety impacts would remain similar to, but slightly less than, the CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
E042002017SAC/161795(004.DOC) REVISED NATOMAS BASIN HCP 4-149

EIR/EIS
Proposed Action. The potential for impacts to traffic safety, although reduced relative to the Proposed Action, warrants mitigation (see Section 4.8.1.2) because of the extent of reserve development activities.

4.8.6 Alternative 5. No Action Alternative
Establishment of the habitat reserve system envisioned under the Proposed Action and the other alternatives would not occur under the No Action Alternative. As discussed in Section 2.6.5, land development and the associated mitigation for biological resources impacts would still occur, however, and it is expected that such mitigation would require active habitat restoration efforts resulting in similar effects as described above for the Proposed Action and the other alternatives. These activities would be similar to current land-management practices in the Natomas Basin and similar habitat areas, and are not expected to result in substantially different impacts relative to current conditions. The mitigation measures described in Section 4.8.1.2 would likely be required as a result of CEQA review during these individual habitat-conservation activities.

Under the No Action Alternative, RD 1000 and Natomas Mutual would continue their activities consistent with current practices, with no substantial change relative to the Proposed Action or the other alternatives. Management of habitat reserves by the Conservancy would still be required, resulting in similar impacts as under the Proposed Action and other alternatives.

The Proposed Action and alternatives are expected to have similar effects as the No Action Alternative, and impacts would therefore be less than significant relative to the No Action Alternative baseline.

4.8.7 Effects Under Independent Implementation
Under independent implementation, potential impacts to traffic and circulation would be similar to those discussed above for the overall impact of participation by all applicants because the traffic impacts that would occur would be those related to creation of habitat reserves. If only the City or Sutter County participated, the Conservancy would still construct reserves (although the acreage of the reserve area would be less than the acreage that would be realized under full participation of both the City and Sutter County). In addition, with implementation of the proposed mitigation measures (see Section 4.8.1.2), impacts would be less than significant if only the City or Sutter County participated. If any one of the individual permittees were to participate independent of all other permittees, the impacts would remain less than significant because the mitigation would be conducted by the Conservancy and the appropriate land use agency would approve the mitigation plan.

4.8.8 Cumulative Impacts
Cumulative impacts would include the additional effects associated with the implementation of other regional conservation activities (see Section 4.1.2). Potential traffic impacts associated with development in these local project areas would be similar to the effects described above in Section 4.8.1.1 (e.g., public-safety hazards and other construction- related nuisances). Impacts associated with other habitat-conservation activities could affect traffic conditions in the local project area, but would not further impact traffic conditions in CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
4-150 REVISED NATOMAS BASIN HCP E042002017SAC/161795(004.DOC)

EIR/EIS
the study area because these activities would not occur in the Natomas Basin or Area B.

Therefore, cumulative impacts would not occur.

4.9 Noise
This section evaluates the impacts of the Proposed Action and alternatives on noise levels in the study area. For purposes of this analysis, noise-generating activities associated with the Proposed Action and alternatives consist primarily of operating construction equipment during reserve development.

The Proposed Action would have a significant impact on noise levels if it were to result in:
/g183 A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the study area vicinity above levels existing without implementation of the Proposed Action The analysis in this section concludes that minor noise impacts could occur resulting from the activities of heavy construction equipment during the creation of managed marshes and other restored natural areas on the habitat reserves. These impacts would be similar to other types of development activities, and therefore standard noise control requirements are recommended to reduce potential impacts to a less-than-significant level.

On an ongoing basis, the public could experience noise impacts resulting from activities on the canals and drains (RD 1000 and Natomas Mutual), or on the habitat reserves (Conservancy). In addition, the public could experience noise from farm equipment on those reserve areas being managed as rice fields. Noise levels occurring as a result of these activities, however, would be about the same as current conditions. Therefore, the potential noise impacts associated with RD 1000 and Natomas Mutual activities, and associated with Conservancy operations, are not discussed further in this section.

As discussed in Section 4.1.3, the covered activities associated with the Proposed Action have been analyzed in previous environmental documents, and the collective findings of the previous analysis for noise are briefly summarized here and in Appendix C to provide context for the action being evaluated in this EIR/EIS (See Chapter 2: Proposed Action and Alternatives). (Also see Section 4.1.3 for a list of environmental review documents applicable to the permittees’ covered activities and the location at which they are available for review.) As described in the EIRs for the North and South Natomas Community Plans, future noise levels from implementation of the Proposed Action’s covered activities (urban development) within the City would increase to significantly adverse levels along roadways. Exterior noise levels are likely to remain at significantly adverse levels unless mitigation is approved.

Under these conditions, new residential projects would be required to prepare acoustical reports to determine appropriate site-specific development, proper site planning and architectural layout, noise barriers, and construction modifications.

As described in the Sutter County General Plan EIR, Sutter County expects that noise levels along some major roadways in the Sutter County portion of the study area would increase to levels that will have a significant impact on the ambient noise environment and would require mitigation. Mitigation for traffic-related noise impacts includes not allowing noise- sensitive development near major roadways, project-specific mitigation for new transportation sources, and preparation of acoustical reports for new non residential development to determine the appropriateness of project-specific mitigation.

CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
E042002017SAC/161795(004.DOC) REVISED NATOMAS BASIN HCP 4-151

EIR/EIS
The industrial activities to be developed within the Industrial-Commercial Reserve area could generate significant noise levels. Specific mitigation for the development of this area is not provided in the EIR for the Sutter County General Plan because of the inability to meaningfully quantify development possibilities and site design. New development in this area will undergo project-specific review processes to mitigate noise levels in excess of acceptable County noise standards.

4.9.1 Proposed Action

4.9.1.1 Impacts With Participation by All Permittees
Implementation of the Proposed Action by the City, Metro Air Park, and Sutter County would result in the need to establish 8,750 acres of habitat reserves, based on a 0.5:1 mitigation ratio. Habitat reserves would be established subject to the provisions of the HCP, including the requirements for one 2,500-acre contiguous reserve, 400-acre minimum reserve sizes, and not more than 20 percent of reserves allowed outside of the Natomas Basin. Construction activities (estimated to be about 25 percent of the total mitigation requirement, or 2,187.5 acres, based on the amount of managed marsh to be created) would be dispersed over a period of many years and over several construction sites. The substantial construction activities associated with development of habitat reserves would increase ambient noise conditions within the study area. Because of the generally rural character of much of the Natomas Basin and Area B, it is not expected that sensitive receptors (e.g., residences) would be located near the construction areas. Accordingly, noise impacts are not likely to occur in these areas. Although much of the study area is rural in character, sensitive receptors are located in several areas (e.g., Rio Ramaza, Nicolaus, Trowbridge) and farmhouses are distributed throughout the study area. Heavy construction activity associated with reserve development in these areas could result in noise impacts to sensitive receptors.

4.9.1.2 Mitigation
Because specific habitat reserve lands are not identified, it is difficult to predict the specific areas where reserve development might contribute to high noise levels. The following mitigation measure, however, is recommended to address the potential for noise impacts and reduce the potential for impacts.

Prior to commencing substantial habitat reserve development activities, the Conservancy shall determine if residences or other sensitive receptors are located within 1000 feet of the construction site. If sensitive receptors are located within 1000 feet of the construction site, operation of construction equipment and vehicles would occur between the hours of 7:00 am and 6:00 pm, Monday through Saturday, and between 9:00 am and 6:00 pm on Sunday.

4.9.1.3 Level of Significance After Mitigation
With the implementation of this mitigation measure, potential noise impacts would be less than significant.

CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
4-152 REVISED NATOMAS BASIN HCP E042002017SAC/161795(004.DOC)

EIR/EIS

4.9.2 Alternative 1. Increased Mitigation
Under Alternative 1, the mitigation ratio for developed land would be increased from

0.5:1 to 1:1. The development limit for the City, Metro Air Park, and Sutter County would remain at 17,500 acres, but this amount of development would result in the need to acquire 17,500 acres of mitigation land. As discussed previously for the Proposed Action, the mitigation requirement would not be based on the habitat value of the land developed, and the land would be acquired within the Natomas Basin from willing sellers or outside of the basin subject to the 20 percent limitation prescribed in the HCP. All other components of the Proposed Action (e.g., land acquisition and management, canal and ditch maintenance) would not change under Alternative 1. The requirement for one contiguous block of 2,500 acres would not change, and other reserve lands would be acquired to ensure that they form 400-acre contiguous blocks.

4.9.2.1 Impacts With Participation by All Permittees
Temporary increases in noise levels in association with an increased mitigation ratio of 1:1 for Alternative 1 would occur in a manner similar to the Proposed Action. Impacts include temporary increases in noise because of the operation of construction equipment for site preparation. Although increasing the amount of habitat reserves created could increase the potential for noise impacts, substantial impacts are not expected given the generally low ambient noise conditions in the undeveloped study area. In addition, the extent of the construction activities (estimated to be about 25 percent of the total mitigation requirement, or 4,375 acres, based on the amount of managed marsh to be created) would be dispersed over a period of many years and over several construction sites. Similar to the Proposed Action, however, the potential exists for the impact to be significant.

4.9.2.2 Mitigation
Implement the mitigation measure stated in Section 4.9.1.2.

4.9.2.3 Level of Significance After Mitigation
With the implementation of this mitigation measure, potential noise impacts would be less than significant.

4.9.3 Alternative 2. Habitat-based Mitigation
Implementation of Alternative 2 would require the acquisition of 17,763 acres of land for mitigation pursuant to the habitat-based mitigation ratios described in Section 2.6.2. Because the mitigation acreage under Alternative 2 would be approximately the same as under Alternative 1, potential noise impacts as a result of implementing a habitat-based mitigation alternative would be approximately the same as described above for Alternative 1.

Accordingly, implementing the mitigation measure described under the Proposed Action (Section 4.9.1.2) is recommended for Alternative 2 as well.

4.9.4 Alternative 3. Reserve Zones
Alternative 3 focuses on the acquisition of habitat reserves of specific zones within the Natomas Basin, based on giant garter snake and Swainson’s hawk habitat availability. The acreage to be acquired and all other implementation requirements would be the same as the CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
E042002017SAC/161795(004.DOC) REVISED NATOMAS BASIN HCP 4-153

EIR/EIS
Proposed Action. Therefore, potential noise impacts as a result of implementing the Reserve Zone Alternative would be the same as under the Proposed Action. Implementing the mitigation measure described under the Proposed Action (Section 4.9.1.2) is recommended for Alternative 2 as well.

4.9.5 Alternative 4. Reduced Potential for Incidental Take Development of 12,000 acres under Alternative 4 would result in the acquisition of 6,000 acres of habitat reserves, based on a 0.5:1 mitigation ratio. Compared with the Proposed Action , implementing Alternative 4 would result in less land being conserved as habitat reserves (6,000 acres under Alternative 4 versus 8,750 acres under the Proposed Action). Potential noise impacts would remain similar to, but slightly less than, the Proposed Action. Potential noise impacts, although reduced relative to the Proposed Action, warrant the adoption of a mitigation measure (see Section 4.9.1.2) because of the extent of reserve-development activities.

4.9.6 Alternative 5. No Action Alternative
Establishment of the habitat reserve system envisioned under the Proposed Action and the other alternatives would not occur under the No Action Alternative. As discussed in Section 2.6.5, planned land development and the associated mitigation for biological- resources impacts would still occur, however, and it is expected that such mitigation would require active habitat restoration efforts resulting in similar effects as described above for the Proposed Action and the other alternatives. These activities would be similar to current land-management practices in the Natomas Basin and similar habitat areas, and are not expected to result in substantially different impacts relative to current conditions. The mitigation measures described in Section 4.9.1.2 would likely be required as a result of CEQA review during these individual habitat-conservation activities.

Under the No Action Alternative, RD 1000 and Natomas Mutual would continue their activities consistent with current practices, with no substantial change relative to the Proposed Action or the other alternatives. Management of habitat reserves by the Conservancy would still be required, resulting in similar impacts as under the Proposed Action and other alternatives.

The Proposed Action and alternatives are expected to have similar effects as the No Action Alternative, and impacts would therefore be less than significant relative to the No Action Alternative baseline.

4.9.7 Effects Under Independent Implementation
Potential noise impacts with limited participation would be similar to the overall impacts discussed above for implementation by all permittees. The portion of potential impacts that the City or Sutter County would contribute would be less than, but similar to, the overall impact. The portion of potential impacts that the City or Sutter County would contribute would be less than significant if the mitigation measure described in Section 4.9.1.2 was implemented.

CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
4-154 REVISED NATOMAS BASIN HCP E042002017SAC/161795(004.DOC)

EIR/EIS

4.9.8 Cumulative Impacts
Cumulative impacts would include the additional effects associated with the implementation of other regional conservation activities (see Section 4.1.2). Potential noise impacts in this area would be similar to the effects described above in Section 4.9.1.1 (e.g., construction-related nuisances). Cumulative impacts resulting from the implementation of the Proposed Action, in combination with other cumulative actions, would not occur because noise impacts are localized. Therefore, noise impacts attributable to the Proposed Action would be isolated to the Proposed Action’s defined area of study.

4.10 Air Quality
This section presents a summary of potential air-quality impacts associated with implementation of the Proposed Action or the other alternatives. For this Proposed Action, air-quality impacts would be limited to potential construction-equipment emissions and dust generation that would occur on a temporary basis during grading and earth-moving activities on the habitat reserves. The Proposed Action would have a significant impact if it would:
/g183 Conflict with or obstruct implementation of applicable air quality plans /g183 Violate any air-quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air-quality violation
The analysis in this section concludes that minor air-quality impacts could occur, resulting from the activities of heavy construction equipment during the creation of managed marshes on the habitat reserve areas. These impacts would be similar to other types of development activities, and therefore standard emissions- and dust-control requirements are recommended to reduce potential impacts to a less-than-significant level.

On an ongoing basis, activities that affect air quality would continue to occur, resulting from activities on the canals and drains (RD 1000 and Natomas Mutual) and on the habitat reserves (Conservancy), including the ongoing management of rice fields. Air-quality impacts occurring as a result of these activities, however, would be about the same as current conditions. Therefore, the potential air-quality impacts associated with RD 1000’s and Natomas Mutual’s activities, and associated with Conservancy operations, are not discussed further in this section.

As discussed in Section 4.1.3, the covered activities associated with the Proposed Action have been analyzed in previous environmental documents, and the collective findings of the previous analysis for air quality are briefly summarized here and in Appendix C to provide context for the action being evaluated in this EIR/EIS (See Chapter 2: Proposed Action and Alternatives). (Also see Section 4.1.3 for a list of environmental review documents applicable to the permittees’ covered activities and the location at which they are available for review.)
Both the City Council of the City of Sacramento and the Sutter County Board of Supervisors determined that the regional air-quality impacts of urbanization would be significant and unavoidable, and each adopted Statements of Overriding Considerations pursuant to CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
E042002017SAC/161795(004.DOC) REVISED NATOMAS BASIN HCP 4-155

EIR/EIS
CEQA. Mitigation measures were adopted to minimize the extent of air-quality impacts, but the impacts could not be mitigated to a less-than-significant level.

4.10.1 Proposed Action

4.10.1.1 Impacts With Participation by All Permittees
Implementation of the Proposed Action would result in the need to establish 8,750 acres of habitat reserves, based on a 0.5:1 mitigation ratio. Habitat reserves would be established subject to the provisions of the HCP, including the requirements for one 2,500-acre contiguous reserve, 400-acre minimum reserve sizes, and not more than 20 percent of reserves allowed outside of the Natomas Basin. Potential impacts to air quality would be limited to construction activities during site preparation of the habitat reserves. These effects would include an increase in vehicle emissions (e.g., ozone precursors, CO, PM 10) and
fugitive dust on a temporary basis during earth-moving activities. CO is generally considered to be of primary concern in areas exposed to high concentrations of vehicle exhaust, such as urban intersections. Because these conditions are not present in the areas where habitat reserves would be created, issues associated with pollution concentration (i.e., CO levels) are not considered to be of concern for the Proposed Action.

For construction of the habitat reserves, ozone precursors (NOx and ROG) would be generated primarily by the operation of vehicles including construction vehicles, generators, and the personal vehicles of construction workers. Approximately 50 percent of reserve lands would remain in rice production, and is not anticipated to be affected by designation as a habitat reserve. Heavy construction activity is expected to occur on a portion of the remaining lands, primarily during conversion of a rice field to a managed marsh system, but also during grading to restore an upland areas to native vegetation. For five of the existing reserve lands, estimates of vehicle use are provided in the Habitat Management Plan (Natomas Basin Conservancy, 2001). This report indicates use of heavy construction equipment in areas that are being converted to managed marsh and uplands. For example, restoration of the Betts-Kismat-Silva parcel would require up to 190,000 cubic yards of material to be moved (5,000 cubic yards a day over about two months). This level of activity would occur as lands are acquired by the Conservancy and converted to habitat, and would likely occur over several years and in several different locations in the Natomas Basin and (potentially) Area B.

Implementation of the Proposed Action would not conflict with the implementation of the Sacramento Area Regional Ozone Attainment Plan, which is a part of the 1994 State Implementation Plan for Ozone under the federal Clean Air Act. This plan describes the control measures that would be implemented regionally to lower ozone precursor levels, and bases its conclusions on baseline information, including assumptions about existing and future land uses. The activities proposed on the habitat reserves are similar to the contouring work undertaken by rice farmers, and an therefore not substantially different than could be expected to occur within the study area without implementation of the Proposed Action. Accordingly, the potential for conflicts with regional air quality attainment plans would be a less-than-significant impact. Because the Sacramento region is a non-attainment area for ozone and PM
10, however, additional contributions of these
pollutants is a potentially significant effect.

CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
4-156 REVISED NATOMAS BASIN HCP E042002017SAC/161795(004.DOC)

EIR/EIS
Sensitive receptors, such as schools, hospitals, and retirement and nursing homes would not be subject to substantial pollutant concentrations as a result of implementing the Proposed Action because these uses are not currently located, or planned to be located, in the areas where habitat reserves could be created. Objectionable odors would not be generated as a result of the Proposed Action.

4.10.1.2 Mitigation
Because the Sacramento region is a nonattainment area for ozone and PM10, additional contributions of these pollutants is a potentially significant effect. Accordingly, measures have been identified to reduce or otherwise minimize air-pollution emissions that could occur during creation of the habitat reserves.

The following measures shall be implemented to reduce emissions of ozone precursors during construction activities on the habitat reserves. /g183 To the extent feasible, the Natomas Basin Conservancy shall work with contractors who include low-NOx, heavy-duty construction vehicles.
/g183 Construction activities shall be phased to reduce the simultaneous operation of construction equipment.
/g183 The contractor shall perform routine tuning and maintenance of construction equipment.
/g183 The contractor shall use existing on-site electric power sources in place of diesel generators to the extent that these sources are available. and
The following measures shall be implemented to reduce construction-related emissions of fugitive dust (PM10).
/g183 The contractor shall reduce or suspend grading and excavation activity during windy periods (i.e., winds in excess of 15 miles per hour).
/g183 The contractor shall post and enforce speed limits on unpaved driving areas. /g183 The contractor shall apply water twice daily to disturbed areas and active construction sites.
/g183 The contractor shall treat completed sites with soil binders or vegetation. /g183 Dirt shall be washed off trucks and other equipment before leaving the construction site.

4.10.1.3 Level of Significance After Mitigation
Implementation of these mitigation measures would reduce air-quality impacts to a less- than-significant level.

4.10.2 Alternative 1. Increased Mitigation
Under Alternative 1, the mitigation ratio for developed land would be increased from

0.5:1 to 1:1. The development limit for the City, Metro Air Park, and Sutter County would CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
E042002017SAC/161795(004.DOC) REVISED NATOMAS BASIN HCP 4-157

EIR/EIS
remain at 17,500 acres, but this amount of development would result in the need to acquire 17,500 acres of mitigation land. As discussed previously for the Proposed Action, the mitigation requirement would not be based on the habitat value of the land developed, and the land would be acquired within the Natomas Basin from willing sellers or outside of the basin subject to the 20 percent limitation prescribed in the HCP. All other components of the Proposed Action (e.g., land acquisition and management, canal and ditch maintenance) would not change under Alternative 1. The requirement for one contiguous block of 2,500 acres would not change, and other reserve lands would be acquired to ensure that they form 400-acre contiguous blocks.

4.10.2.1 Impacts With Participation by All Permittees
Potential impacts to air quality associated with constructing habitat reserves based on a 1:1 mitigation ratio would be similar to the overall impacts (potentially significant) for the Proposed Action, as discussed above. Implementation of Alternative 1 could increase the use of construction equipment as a result of a greater amount of reserves that would be development; however, the implementation of Alternative 1 would not conflict with air quality attainment plans.

4.10.2.2 Mitigation
Implement the mitigation measures stated in Section 4.10.1.2.

4.10.2.3 Level of Significance After Mitigation
Implementation of these mitigation measures would reduce air-quality impacts to a less-than-significant level.

4.10.3 Alternative 2. Habitat-based Mitigation
Implementation of Alternative 2 would require the acquisition of 17,763 acres of land for mitigation pursuant to the habitat-based mitigation ratios described in Section 2.6.2. Because the mitigation acreage under Alternative 2 would be approximately the same as under Alternative 1, potential air-quality impacts as a result of implementing a habitat-based mitigation alternative would be approximately the same as described above for Alternative 1. Accordingly, implementing the mitigation measure described under the Proposed Action (Section 4.10.1.2) is recommended for Alternative 2 as well.

4.10.4 Alternative 3. Reserve Zones
Alternative 3 includes a more strict acquisition criteria than the Proposed Action, but the acreage to be acquired and most other requirements would be the same as the Proposed Action. Therefore, potential air-quality impacts as a result of implementing the Reserve Zone Alternative would be the same as under the Proposed Action. Implementing the mitigation measure described under the Proposed Action (Section 4.10.1.2) is recommended for Alternative 3 as well.

4.10.5 Alternative 4. Reduced Potential for Incidental Take Development of 12,000 acres under Alternative 4 would result in the acquisition of 6,000 acres of habitat reserves, based on a 0.5:1 mitigation ratio. Compared with the CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
4-158 REVISED NATOMAS BASIN HCP E042002017SAC/161795(004.DOC)

EIR/EIS
Proposed Action , implementing Alternative 4 would result in less land being conserved as habitat reserves (6,000 acres under Alternative 4 versus 8,750 acres under the Proposed Action). Air-quality impacts would remain similar to, but slightly less than, the Proposed Action. Potential air-quality impacts, although reduced relative to the Proposed Action, warrant the adoption of the mitigation measures stated in Section 4.10.1.2 because of the extent of reserve-development activities.

4.10.6 Alternative 5. No Action Alternative
Establishment of the habitat reserve system envisioned under the Proposed Action and the other alternatives would not occur under the No Action Alternative. As discussed in Section 2.6.5, planned land development and the associated mitigation for biological- resources impacts would still occur, however, and it is expected that such mitigation would require active habitat restoration efforts resulting in similar effects as described above for the Proposed Action and the other alternatives. These activities would be similar to current land-management practices in the Natomas Basin and similar habitat areas, and are not expected to result in substantially different impacts relative to current conditions. The mitigation measures described in Section 4.5.1.2 would likely be required as a result of CEQA review during these individual habitat conservation activities.

Under the No Action Alternative, RD 1000 and Natomas Mutual would continue their activities consistent with current practices, with no substantial change relative to the Proposed Action or the other alternatives. Management of habitat reserves by the Conservancy would still be required, resulting in similar impacts as under the Proposed Action and other alternatives.

The Proposed Action and alternatives are expected to have similar effects as the No Action Alternative, and impacts would therefore be less than significant relative to the No Action Alternative baseline.

4.10.7 Effects Under Independent Implementation
Potential air-quality impacts with limited participation would be similar to the overall impacts discussed above for implementation by all permittees. The portion of potential impacts that the City or Sutter County would contribute would be less than, but similar to, the overall impact. The portion of potential impacts that the City or Sutter County would contribute would be less than significant if the mitigation measures described in Section 4.10.1.2 above were implemented.

4.10.8 Cumulative Impacts
Cumulative impacts would include the additional effects associated with the implementation of other regional conservation activities (see Section 4.1.2). Potential air-quality impacts in this area would be similar to the effects described above in Section 4.10.1.1 (e.g., dust and ozone-precursor generation). Cumulative impacts resulting from the implementation of the Proposed Action, in combination with other cumulative actions, would not occur because the cumulative actions are characterized by habitat conservation and species preservation. Although localized impacts could occur, they are expected to be short-term and temporary.

CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
E042002017SAC/161795(004.DOC) REVISED NATOMAS BASIN HCP 4-159

EIR/EIS

4.11 Public Health and Safety
This section describes potential increases in public health-and-safety risks associated with bird strikes at Sacramento International Airport as a result of implementing the Proposed Action or alternatives. Public health- and safety-issues other than bird strikes have not been identified. For potential public health and safety impacts, the Proposed Action would have a significant impact if it would:
/g183 Cause changes in land use patterns such that waterfowl occurrence would be concentrated within a 5-mile radius of Sacramento International Airport runway centerlines (i.e., the FAA General Zone), 2-mile radius of runway centerlines (i.e., the FAA Critical Zone), or 1-mile radius of runway centerlines /g183 Impair the ability of Sacramento International Airport to implement control techniques identified in its Wildlife Hazard Management Plan
The analysis concludes that potential health-and-safety impacts associated with bird strikes would be less-than-significant because of the similarity of habitat-reserve management with existing land uses. Additionally, the analysis discusses potential waterfowl habitat changes in the Natomas Basin and concludes that the concentration of waterfowl would not substantially change within the safety zones of Sacramento International Airport.

Concerns over wildlife hazards relate to the establishment and management of habitat reserves, and therefore the canal activities of RD 1000 and Natomas Mutual are not considered further in this section.

As discussed in Section 4.1.3, the covered activities associated with the Proposed Action have been analyzed in previous environmental documents and the collective findings of the previous analysis for public health and safety are summarized in Appendix C to provide context for the impacts attributable to covered activities. The specific effect of bird strikes was not evaluated in these prior environmental documents.

4.11.1 Proposed Action

4.11.1.1 Impacts With Participation by All Permittees
Implementation of the Proposed Action would result in the need to establish 8,750 acres of habitat reserves, based on 17,500 acres of development and a 0.5:1 mitigation ratio. Habitat reserves would be established subject to the provisions of the HCP, including the requirements for one 2,500-acre contiguous reserve, 400-acre minimum reserve sizes, and not more than 20 percent of reserves allowed outside of the Natomas Basin. As described in the HCP, the types of habitats created would be 50 percent rice fields, 25 percent managed marsh, and 25 percent uplands.

The types of wildlife with the greatest potential for risk to aircraft operations at Sacramento International Airport are waterfowl, particularly ducks and geese. Flocking by ducks and geese while in flight is considered to have a greater potential for risk to aircraft operations compared to solitary flying behavior. In the Sacramento area, winter is the period of the year with the greatest potential for risk associated with flocking. The 5-mile and 2-mile zones around the airport runways are important zones for safe operation of aircraft based CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
4-160 REVISED NATOMAS BASIN HCP E042002017SAC/161795(004.DOC)

EIR/EIS
on FAA requirements. Additionally, the 1-mile north of the runways is also considered a particularly important safety area because the majority of flights into the airport approach from the north (Febbo, pers. comm.). At a 1-mile distance from the airport, aircraft begin to descend at an altitude where the majority of waterfowl fly (2,000 feet or less above ground level). Most of the undeveloped Natomas Basin is within the 5-mile zone, and much of the northwest quadrant of the Natomas Basin (where substantial reserve acquisition is expected) is within the 2- and 1-mile zones (Figure 4-2).

Flooded rice fields and other wetlands in the Natomas Basin provide winter resting, foraging, and loafing habitat for waterfowl, both as winter residents and during migration.

In the winter, managed marsh may not be as attractive to waterfowl compared with rice fields, because rice fields could have more food sources than managed marsh. Upland habitat is not as attractive to waterfowl compared with rice fields or managed marsh, because it does not support the most preferable type of environment and food sources used by waterfowl. Based on these generalizations, issues regarding the potential for reserve lands to conflict with Sacramento International Airport can be summarized as follows:
/g183 The location of upland reserves (25 percent, or 2,187.5 acres, under the Proposed Action) is not relevant to public health and safety with regard to Sacramento International Airport because waterfowl use of uplands during the winter is limited. /g183 The location of managed marsh reserves (25 percent, or 2,187.5 acres, under the Proposed Action) is potentially relevant to the bird strike issue. The requirements for managed marsh reserves necessitate the conversion of nonrice areas to attractive open- water habitat within the areas of primary concern for Sacramento International Airport.

The substantial acreage of rice lands north of Sacramento International Airport and in the general vicinity of the airport is a concern because of the heavy use of flooded rice fields by ducks and geese during the winter.

Because of the soil types in the Natomas Basin, agricultural land use patterns are not expected to substantially change. For example, existing upland areas along the western edge of the Natomas Basin would not be converted to rice fields because of soil composition. The soils in this area would not support rice farming. Likewise, upland reserves would likely not be created in the north-central portion of the Natomas Basin that currently supports heavy rice production. Managed marsh areas could be created in most areas in the basin, but would primarily be created in areas that would support standing water. Based on information available for future habitat-reserve acquisitions within the critical 5-, 2- and 1-mile zones of the airport, implementation of the Proposed Action would not result in land uses that are more attractive to waterfowl compared to current conditions. Under the Proposed Action, many existing rice fields within these zones (including directly north of the airport) would be purchased for future habitat management; however, land uses would not be changed. Accordingly, 50 percent of the required reserve lands (4,375 acres in rice production) would be established with no change in land use relative to current conditions.

Habitat reserves could be acquired in the areas north of the airport and could be converted to managed marsh. Because managed marsh is not likely to attract winter waterfowl more than rice fields, the creation of managed marsh reserves is not expected to alter waterfowl use in /83/97/99/114/97/109/101/110/116/111/32/82/105/118/101/114 /83/97/99/114/97/109/101/110/116/111/32/82/105/118/101/114 /46/45/44
/56/48
/46
/45/44
/56/48
/46
/45/44
/53
/46
/45/44
/53
/34/33/57/57
/83/97/110/107/101/121/32/82/111/97/100
/82/105/101/103/111/32/82/111/97/100
/69/108/118/101/114/116/97/32/82/111/97/100
/69/108/107/104/111/114/110/32/66/108/118/100/46
/68/101/108/32/80/97/115/111/32/82/111/97/100
/83/97/110/32/74/117/97/110/32/82/111/97/100
/69/108/32/67/97/109/105/110/111/32/65/118/101/110/117/101 /80/111/119/101/114/108/105/110/101/32/82/111/97/100
/69/108/32/67/101/110/116/114/111/32/82/111/97/100
/83/97/99/114/97/109/101/110/116/111
/73/110/116/101/114/110/97/116/105/111/110/97/108
/65/105/114/112/111/114/116
/83/65/67/82/65/77/69/78/84/79/32/67/79/85/78/84/89
/80/76/65/67/69/82/32/67/79/85/78/84/89
/83/85/84/84/69/82/32/67/79/85/78/84/89
/80/76/65/67/69/82/32/67/79/85/78/84/89
/89/79/76/79/32/67/79/85/78/84/89
/83/85/84/84/69/82/32/67/79/85/78/84/89
/83/65/67/82/65/77/69/78/84/79/32/67/79/85/78/84/89
/89/79/76/79/32/67/79/85/78/84/89
/83/85/84/84/69/82/32/67/79/85/78/84/89
/65/110/110/101/120/97/116/105/111/110
/65/114/101/97
/67/105/116/121/32/111/102
/83/97/99/114/97/109/101/110/116/111
/73/110/100/117/115/116/114/105/97/108
/67/111/109/109/101/114/99/105/97/108
/82/101/115/101/114/118/101
/77/101/116/114/111
/65/105/114
/80/97/114/107
/80/97/99/105/102/105/99/32/65/118/101/110/117/101
/67/72/50/77/32/72/105/108/108/32/82/68/68/32/65/114/99/86/105/101/119/32/80/114/111/106/101/99/116/32/70/105/108/101/32/32/92/92/84/104/111/114/92/67/97/114/116/49/92/114/100/100/103/105/115/92/110/97/116/111/109/97/115/104/99/112/92/110/97/116/95/104/99/112/46/97/112/114/32/32/102/105/103/52/45/50/98/105/114/100/115/122/46/112/100/102/32/32/49/48/58/50/50/32/97/46/109/46/32/32/48/50/45/50/50/45/50/48/48/50 /70/73/71/85/82/69/32/52/45/50
/66/73/82/68/32/83/84/82/73/75/69/32/90/79/78/69/83
/82/69/86/73/83/69/68/32/78/65/84/79/77/65/83/32/66/65/83/73/78/32/72/67/80 /69/73/82/47/69/73/83
/48 /49 /50 /77/105/108/101/115
/82/105/99/101
/78/97/116/111/109/97/115/32/66/97/115/105/110
/73/32/77/105/108/101/32/66/105/114/100/32/83/116/114/105/107/101/32/90/111/110/101 /50/32/77/105/108/101/32/66/105/114/100/32/83/116/114/105/107/101/32/90/111/110/101 /53/32/77/105/108/101/32/66/105/114/100/32/83/116/114/105/107/101/32/90/111/110/101 /74/117/114/105/115/100/105/99/116/105/111/110/32/66/111/117/110/100/97/114/105/101/115 CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
E042002017SAC/161795(004.DOC) REVISED NATOMAS BASIN HCP 4-163

EIR/EIS
the area. In addition, management of the rice reserves would remain similar to current management practices, especially with the increase in winter flooding that has occurred in the basin since the early 1990s with the increased restrictions on straw burning. relative to existing conditions and regardless of where the reserves are established, the establishment of rice and managed marsh reserves is not expected to change the potential for bird strikes at Sacramento International Airport.

One notable aspect of the Conservancy’s proposed management is the possibility that a waterfowl-hunting program could be established on the reserves. Waterfowl hunting in rice fields and managed marsh could be beneficial to prevent flocking behavior. Periodic hunting acts disturb flocking behavior such that large flocks of waterfowl are not likely to congregate in a relatively small area. Such a program implemented in the primary areas of concern for Sacramento International Airport could result in beneficial effects relative to existing conditions.

Because of the overall changes in waterfowl habitat that would occur in the Natomas Basin, an analysis was conducted to determine if waterfowl could become more concentrated near the airport. This analysis projected existing and future rice acreage within the critical airport safety zones and the potential for waterfowl to become concentrated within these zones. As shown in Table 4-20, the proportion of rice fields occurring in the future within the airport safety zones, compared to the total rice fields in the Natomas Basin, is approximately the same as under existing conditions. Within the 1-mile zone, the concentration of rice acreage within the safety zones is expected to decrease by 3.48 percent compared to existing conditions. Within the 2- and 5-mile zones, the concentration of rice fields within the safety zones is expected to increase by 2.25 percent and 4.44 percent, respectively, compared to existing conditions.

TABLE 4-20
Existing and Future Rice Field Distribution
Existing (Acres) Future (Acres)
1-mile Zone 2-mile Zone 5-mile Zone 1-mile Zone 2-mile Zone 5-mile Zone Rice Fields in Airport Zones 1,628 4,661 16,550 514 3,212 10,901 Total Rice Fields in Basin 22,979 22,979 22,979 14,258 14,258 14,258 Percent of Rice Fields in
Airport Zones (Compared
With Total Rice Fields in
Basin)

7.08% 20.28% 72.02% 3.60% 22.53% 76.46%
For purposes of this analysis, it is assumed that the current population of waterfowl within the Natomas Basin would not change. It is also assumed that waterfowl are equally distributed throughout the basin, so that no one area tends to concentrate waterfowl disproportionately to other areas. (For further details on waterfowl habits, refer to Section 4.4.) Based on future land use changes in the Natomas Basin, the population of waterfowl within the airport safety zones is expected to remain similar to existing conditions. Within the 1-mile zone of the airport, a slight reduction in waterfowl population is expected to occur. Although waterfowl concentrations would be higher on the remaining rice lands, fewer rice lands would be available within this area and the net result is expected CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
4-164 REVISED NATOMAS BASIN HCP E042002017SAC/161795(004.DOC)

EIR/EIS
to be a slight decrease in waterfowl numbers. Within the 2- and 5-mile zone, a slight increase in waterfowl population is projected. Waterfowl concentrations would be higher on the remaining rice lands, but fewer rice lands would be available within this area. Because the concentration of rice lands within the safety zones would increase (Table 4-20) the net result is expected to be a slight increase in waterfowl numbers. The expected changes in waterfowl populations within these zones could change the potential for bird strikes. These future changes in the concentration of rice acreage are, however, relatively small and are not expected to have a significant adverse impact on the potential for bird strikes to occur.

The implementation of the Sacramento International Airport Wildlife Management Plan requires direct wildlife-management techniques on airport property and also states the need to discourage land uses within the vicinity of the airport that are attractive to wildlife.

Control techniques to be implemented by the Wildlife Management Plan on airport property include removal of wildlife habitat by removing sources of food, cover, and water, and direct population control. The Wildlife Management Plan also states the need for the airport to discourage surrounding land uses from attracting wildlife.

As discussed above, the Proposed Action would not directly interfere with the implementation of these measures on airport property. Although the Proposed Action does not specifically require avoiding reserve acquisition in the vicinity of the airport, implementation of the Proposed Action would not conflict with implementation of the airport’s Wildlife Management Plan. In addition, representatives from the airport and the Conservancy have been engaged in discussion regarding efforts to minimize the potential for management of the habitat reserves to affect airport operations. Any potential conflict of undesirable land uses according to the Wildlife Management Plan as a result of the Proposed Action could be reduced with ongoing consultation between the Conservancy and Sacramento International Airport. Specific land use and habitat-management measures that could reduce potential flocking behavior of waterfowl within 1 mile north of the airport during winter and also meet the biological goals and objectives of the HCP would be the goal of these discussions.

4.11.1.2 Mitigation
No significant impacts were identified, therefore no mitigation is necessary.

4.11.1.3 Level of Significance After Mitigation
The impact would be less than significant without mitigation.

4.11.2 Alternative 1. Increased Mitigation Ratio
Under Alternative 1, the mitigation ratio for developed land would be increased from

0.5:1 to 1:1. The development limit for the City, Metro Air Park, and Sutter County would remain at 17,500 acres, but this amount of development would result in the need to acquire 17,500 acres of habitat reserves. As discussed previously for the Proposed Action, the mitigation requirement would not be based on the habitat value of the land developed, and the land would be acquired within the Natomas Basin from willing sellers or outside of the basin subject to the 20 percent limitation prescribed in the HCP. All other components of the Proposed Action (e.g., land acquisition and management, canal and ditch maintenance) would not change under Alternative 1. The requirement for one contiguous block of CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
E042002017SAC/161795(004.DOC) REVISED NATOMAS BASIN HCP 4-165

EIR/EIS
2,500 acres would not change, and other reserve lands would be acquired to ensure that they form 400-acre contiguous blocks.

4.11.2.1 Impacts With Participation by All Permittees
Potential impacts to air quality associated with the City, Metro Air Park, and Sutter County jointly constructing habitat reserves based on a 1:1 mitigation ratio would be similar to the overall impacts for the Proposed Action. As discussed above, the conversion of agricultural lands to habitat reserves is not expected to result in waterfowl use that is substantially different than existing conditions. In addition, development-related changes in waterfowl concentration would not change under this alternative. This would remain true with 17,500 acres of habitat reserves under Alternative 1. Effects associated with the concentration of waterfowl, however, would remain the same as under the Proposed Action because land development would remain at 17,500 acres.

4.11.2.2 Mitigation
No significant impacts were identified, therefore no mitigation is necessary.

4.11.2.3 Level of Significance After Mitigation
The impact would be less than significant without mitigation.

4.11.3 Alternative 2. Habitat-based Mitigation
Implementation of Alternative 2 would require the acquisition of 17,763 acres of land for mitigation pursuant to the habitat-based mitigation ratios described in Section 2.6.2. Because the mitigation acreage under Alternative 2 would be approximately the same as under Alternative 1, potential public health-and-safety impacts as a result of implementing a habitat-based mitigation alternative would be approximately the same as described above for Alternative 1.

4.11.4 Alternative 3. Reserve Zones
Alternative 3 focuses on the acquisition of habitat reserves of specific zones within the Natomas Basin based on giant garter snake and Swainson’s hawk habitat availability, including firm reserve areas north of Sacramento International Airport. The acreage to be acquired and all other HCP implementation requirements would be the same as the Proposed Action. Because of the availability of land in this area for large habitat blocks, implementation of the Proposed Action could result in similar land use patterns as the Reserve Zone Alternative. Therefore, potential health-and-safety impacts as a result of implementing the Reserve Zone Alternative could be similar to the Proposed Action. Specific future habitat-reserve acquisition under the Proposed Action, however, remains speculative.

4.11.5 Alternative 4. Reduced Potential for Incidental Take Development of 12,000 acres under Alternative 4 would result in the acquisition of 6,000 acres of habitat reserves, based on a 0.5:1 mitigation ratio. Compared with the Proposed Action , implementing Alternative 4 would result in less land being conserved as habitat reserves (6,000 acres under Alternative 4 versus 8,750 acres under the Proposed Action). As described under the Proposed Action, waterfowl use of habitat reserves would be similar to existing conditions. Fewer habitat reserves under Alternative 4 would also not change CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
4-166 REVISED NATOMAS BASIN HCP E042002017SAC/161795(004.DOC)

EIR/EIS
waterfowl use relative to existing conditions. The potential for bird-strike impacts associated with the increased concentration of waterfowl in remaining rice fields would remain similar to, but slightly less than, the Proposed Action because of the reduction development.

4.11.6 Alternative 5. No Action Alternative
Establishment of the habitat reserve system envisioned under the Proposed Action and the other alternatives would not occur under the No Action Alternative. As discussed in Section 2.6.5, planned land development and the associated mitigation for biological- resources impacts would still occur, however, and it is expected that such mitigation would require active habitat-restoration efforts resulting in similar effects as described above for the Proposed Action and the other alternatives. These activities would be similar to current land management practices in the Natomas Basin and similar habitat areas, and are not expected to result in substantially different impacts relative to current conditions.

Under the No Action Alternative, RD 1000 and Natomas Mutual would continue their activities consistent with current practices, with no substantial change relative to the Proposed Action or the other alternatives. Management of habitat reserves by the Conservancy would still be required, resulting in similar impacts as under the Proposed Action and other alternatives.

The Proposed Action and alternatives are expected to have similar effects as the No Action Alternative, and would therefore be less-than-significant relative to the No Action Alternative baseline.

4.11.7 Effects Under Independent Implementation
The adverse public health-and-safety effects described above would be proportionally reduced if the City or Sutter County did not participate in implementing the HCP.

Significant impacts, however, were not identified for implementation by all permittees.

Although adverse effects would be lessened with limited participation, conclusions about the significance of impacts would not change.

4.11.8 Cumulative Impacts
Cumulative impacts would include the additional effects associated with the implementation of other regional conservation activities (see Section 4.1.2). These actions could have the potential for increasing public health-and-safety risks for Sacramento International Airport. Refuge management activities and some private lands include the expansion of seasonal wetlands and other actions to implement the North American Waterfowl Management Plan and further the goals of the Central Valley Habitat Joint Venture. The North American Waterfowl Management Plan, implemented jointly by the governments of the United States, Canada, and Mexico, seeks to restore waterfowl populations through habitat protection, restoration, and enhancement activities throughout North America. The goals of the North American Waterfowl Management Plan are implemented locally by the Central Valley Habitat Joint Venture. The goals of the Joint Venture include: (1) enhancing the natural resource values on remaining wetland areas in the Central Valley (approximately 300,000 acres), (2) enhancing 443,000 acres of private agricultural lands for feeding and nesting waterfowl, (3) protecting 80,000 acres of existing CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
E042002017SAC/161795(004.DOC) REVISED NATOMAS BASIN HCP 4-167

EIR/EIS
wetlands through perpetual easements or fee title purchase, and (4) restoring and protecting 120,000 acres of former wetlands.

Substantial progress has been made statewide to further the goals of the Joint Venture.

Locally, this has included contributions to the establishment of the Vic Fazio/Yolo Basin Wildlife Area and acquisition of conservation easements over farmland in the northern Yolo Basin. Because the 5-mile “general zone” around the Sacramento International Airport’s runways extends into the Yolo Basin, potential cumulative public health-and-safety impacts could occur as a result of habitat-conservation efforts within the Yolo Basin. Yolo Basin lands are undeveloped and currently provide habitat for migrating winter waterfowl, and therefore establishing new conservation easements is not expected to result in substantial changes in migratory-waterfowl populations within the 5-mile zone. Accordingly, cumulative impacts would be less than significant. No other habitat areas or conservation easements for waterfowl management exist within a 1- or 2- mile radius of Sacramento International Airport.

4.12 Other Impact Categories

4.12.1 Irreversible Environmental Changes
For some projects, the environmental impacts caused by implementing the project would generally be irreversible (e.g., land development). The Proposed Action would result in substantial land use changes where lands are converted to managed marsh and other natural habitats. These changes would occur through the acquisition of habitat reserve lands and are intended to be maintained as habitat reserves in perpetuity. The intent to acquire and manage the reserve lands to the benefit of the HCP’s covered species would not, however, physically change the landscape so that the acquired reserve lands could not be converted to agricultural or other use.

4.12.2 Relationship Between Short-term Uses of the Environment and the Maintenance and Enhancement of Long-term Productivity
For this Proposed Action, long-term productivity is defined by the continuing ability of the Natomas Basin to provide for the needs of the various wildlife and plant species that are considered in this analysis. As described in Section 4.4, the Proposed Action is expected to provide for the continuing viability of species in the Natomas Basin, including the giant garter snake and Swainson’s hawk. No irreversible changes would occur that would preclude the ability for adaptive management to help ensure that species viability is preserved. Accordingly, long-term productivity is expected to be sustained with implementation of the Proposed Action.

4.12.3 Unavoidable Environmental Effects
The conversion of agricultural lands to managed marsh and other natural habitats, a significant impact, would be an unavoidable and unmitigatable consequence of this Proposed Action. Other significant and unavoidable impacts associated with authorized development were identified in prior environmental analyses as summarized in Sections 4.2 through 4.11 and in Appendix C.

CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
4-168 REVISED NATOMAS BASIN HCP E042002017SAC/161795(004.DOC)

EIR/EIS

4.12.4 Growth-inducing Impacts
Projects that foster economic or population growth, or remove obstacles to population growth, are considered to have a growth-inducing effect. The Proposed Action is prepared to address the biological impacts of growth in a comprehensive, planned program, and is not in itself growth-inducing. The consequences of acquiring 8,750 acres of habitat reserves include substantial land use changes where the reserves convert existing farmlands to managed marsh and other natural habitats. As described in Sections 4.6 and 4.7, this would result in a substantial loss of productive farmland, but the social and economic consequences of these changes would be less than significant. These land use changes could result in changes to the workforce composition and adjustments in the relative role of the agricultural sector in the overall economy, but this is expected to result in a shift to other sectors that reflect the urbanizing character of the Natomas Basin. These changes are not expected to induce substantial growth.

E042002017SAC/161795(005.DOC) REVI SED NATOMAS BASIN HCP 5-1

EIR/EIS
CHAPTER 5
List of Preparers
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Lori Rinek, Wildlife Biologist – HCP Consistency
Kelly Hornaday, Wildlife Biologist – Biological Resources California Department of Fish and Game
Jenny Marr, Wildlife Biologist – Biological Resources
City of Sacramento
Carol Shearly, Natomas Manager – HCP Consistency, City of Sacramento Coordination Grace Hovey, Planner – CEQA Compliance
Sutter County
Paul Junker, Planner – HCP Consistency, Sutter County Coordination CH2M HILL
Christine Roberts, Project Manager – CEQA/NEPA Compliance Sandra Taylor, Wildlife Biologist – Biological Resources Marjorie Eisert, Wildlife Biologist – Biological Resources Matt Franck, Planner – CEQA/NEPA Compliance, Water, Cultural Resources, Land Use Katy Carrasco, Planner – Geology and Soils, Traffic, Noise, Air Quality, Public Health and Safety
Neil Nikirk, Biologist – Biological Resources
Fatuma Yusuf, Economist – Socioeconomic Impacts
Kathy Freas, Biologist – Senior Review
Tim Hill, GIS Specialist – Habitat and Land Use Assessment Michael White, GIS Specialist – Habitat and Land Use Assessment Austen Sandifer, Editor – Document Production
CHAPTER 5: LIST OF PREPARERS
5-2 REVISED NATOMAS BASIN HCP E042002017SAC/161795(005.DOC)

IEIR/EIS
Holly Glasen, Editor – Document Production
Heather Pritchard – Document Design
Joseph Katowitz – Document Design
Planning Dynamics Group
Trish Davey, Planner – HCP Consistency
E042002017SAC/161795(006.DOC) REVI SED NATOMAS BASIN HCP 6-1

EIR/EIS
CHAPTER 6
References
Ahl, J. S. B. 1991. “Factors Affecting Contributions of the Tadpole Shrimp, Lepiduris packardi, to its Over-summering Egg Reserves.” Hydrobiologia 212: 137-143.

American Ornithologist Union. 1957. Check-List of North American Birds. 5th ed. Washington D.C.: American Ornithologists’ Union.

Babcock, K. W. 1995. “Home Range and Habitat Use of Breeding Swainson’s Hawks in the Sacramento Valley of California.” J. Raptor Res. 29: 193-197.

Barr, C. B. 1991. The Distribution, Habitat, and Status of the Valley Elderberry Longhorn Beetle Desmocerus californicus dimorphus. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Sacramento, California.

Bat Conservation International. 2001. Bat Species: U.S. Bats [Online]. Available:
http://www.batcon.org/ [August 2001].

Bechard, M. J. and J. K. Schmutz. 1995. “Ferruginous Hawk (Buteo regalis).” In The Birds of North America, No. 172 (A. Poole and F. Gill, eds.). Philadelphia: The Academy of Natural Sciences; Washington, D.C.: The American Ornithologists’ Union.

Beedy, E. C., and A. Hayworth. 1991. Breeding Status, Distribution, and Habitat Association of the Tricolored Blackbird (Agelaius tricolor), 1850-1989. (JSA 88-187). Prepared by Jones and Stokes Associates, Inc., Sacramento, California for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

Sacramento, California.

Bent, A. C. 1950 “Life Histories of North American Wagtails, Shrikes, Vireos and Their Allies.” U.S. National Museum Bulletin 197.

Bent, A. C. 1948. “Life Histories of North American Nuthatches, Wrens, Thrashers, and Their Allies.” U.S. Natl. Mus. Bull. 195. 475 pages.

Bent, A. C. 1942. “Life Histories of North American Flycatchers, Larks, Swallows, and Their Allies.” U.S. Natl. Mus. Bull. 179. 555 pages.

Bent, A. C. 1938. “Life Histories of North American Birds of Prey.” Part 2. U.S. National Museum. Bulletin 170.

Bent, A. C. 1929. “Life Histories of North American Shorebirds.” Part 2. U.S. National Museum Bulletin 146.

Bloom, P. H. 1980. The Status of the Swainson’s Hawk in California, 1979. Wildlife Mgmt.

Branch, Nongame Wildl. Invest., Job II-8.0. California Dept. Fish and Game. Sacramento, California.

Brent, Dave. 2002. Telephone conversation with Matt Franck. June 7.

Brode, John M., and George E. Hansen. 1992. “Status and Future Management of the Giant Garter Snake (Thamnophis gigas) Within the Southern American Basin, Sacramento and CHAPTER 6: REFERENCES
6-2 REVISED NATOMAS BASIN HCP E042002017SAC/161795(006.DOC)

EIR/EIS
Sutter Counties, California.” California Department of Fish and Game Inland Fisheries Division Endangered Species Project. January.

Calder, W. A. 1993. “Rufous Hummingbird (Selasphorus rufus).” In The Birds of North America, No. 53 (A. Poole and F. Gill, eds.). Philadelphia: The Academy of Natural Sciences; Washington, D.C.: The American Ornithologists’ Union.

CalFlora Database. [Online]. [Accessed 2001, August 10 and 29].

California Air Resources Board. 2001a. Ambient Air Quality Standards 1/25/99. [Online].

Available: http://www.arb.ca.gov/aqs/aqs.htm [2001, September 20].

California Air Resources Board. 2001b. Area Designations, Maps / State and National [Online]. Available: http://www.arb.ca.gov/desig/desig.htm [2001, September 20].

California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG). 2002. California Natural Diversity Database.

California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG). 2001. California Natural Diversity Database.

CDFG. 1995. Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation.

CDFG. 1994a. Staff Report Regarding Mitigation for Impacts to Swainson's Hawks (Buteo swainsoni) in the Central Valley of California. Sacramento, California.

CDFG. 1994b. 1992 Annual Report on the Status of California State-listed Threatened and Endangered Animals and Plants. Sacramento, California.

CDFG. 1992. 1991 Annual Report on the Status of California State-listed Threatened and Endangered Animals and Plants. Sacramento, California.

California Employment Development Department. 2001. Annual Average Labor Force Data for Counties [Online]. Available: http://www.calmis.ca.gov/htmlfile/subject/lftable.htm.

Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board (CVRWQCB). 1998. The Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region. 4th ed. The Sacramento River Basin and the San Joaquin River Basin.

City-County Office of Metropolitan Water Planning, 1999. Water Forum Action Plan. January.

City of Sacramento. 2001. Urban Water Management Plan.

City of Sacramento. 2000. City of Sacramento Water Facilities Expansion Project – Final Environmental Impact Report. Prepared by CH2M HILL and Surface Water Resources, Inc.

November.

City of Sacramento. 1997a. Natomas Basin Habitat Conservation Plan, Sacramento and Sutter Counties, California. Published by City of Sacramento. November.

City of Sacramento. 1994b. Administrative and Technical Procedures Manual for Grading and Erosion and Sediment Control. Department of Utilities. Sacramento, California.

City of Sacramento. 1988a. General Plan Update.

CHAPTER 6: REFERENCES
E042002017SAC/161795(006.DOC) REVI SED NATOMAS BASIN HCP 6-3

EIR/EIS
City of Sacramento. 1988c. Draft EIR for the South Natomas Community Plan.

City of Sacramento, Department of Planning and Development, Environmental Services Section. 1996a. Negative Declaration for the Natomas Basin Habitat Conservation Plan (NBHCP).

June.

City of Sacramento, Department of Planning and Development. 1988b. South Natomas Community Plan. Sacramento, California. November.

City of Sacramento, Department of Planning and Development. 1987. Draft EIR for the City of Sacramento General Plan Update. State Clearinghouse No. 86101310. Sacramento, California.

March.

City of Sacramento, Planning and Development Department, Environmental Services Division. 1993. Draft Supplement to the 1996 North Natomas Community Plan EIR. State Clearinghouse No. 93012011. Sacramento, California. March.

City of Sacramento, Department of Utilities. 1996b. Draft EIR for the North Natomas Comprehensive Drainage Plan, Levee Improvements, Canal Widening and Additional Pumping Capacity. State Clearinghouse No. 96042030. Prepared by Jones & Stokes Associates, Inc., Sacramento, California. December.

City of Sacramento, Department of Planning and Development. 1994a. North Natomas Community Plan. Sacramento, California. Adopted by City Council Resolution No. 94-259, May 3.

City of Sacramento, Sutter County, Natomas Basin Conservancy, Reclamation District No. 1000, and Natomas Central Mutual Water Company. 2002. Draft Natomas Basin Habitat Conservation Plan, Sacramento and Sutter Counties. May.

City of Sacramento and U.S. Bureau of Reclamation. 2000. City of Sacramento Fish Screen Replacement Project – Environmental Assessment/Initial Study, Final Report. September.

Cleary, E. C., S. E. Wright, and R. A. Dolbeer. 1999. Wildlife Strikes to Civil Aircraft in the United States, 1990-1998. Federal Aviation Administration Wildlife Aircraft Strike Database Serial Report Number 5. November.

Cody, M. L. 1974. Competition and the Structure of Bird Communities. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Cogswell, H. L. 1977. Water Birds of California. Univ. California Press, Berkeley. 399 pages.

County of Sacramento. 1997. Erosion and Sediment Control Standards and Specifications.

Department of Water Resources. Sacramento, California.

County of Sacramento. 1993. Sacramento County General Plan.

DeHaven, R. W., F. T. Crase, and P. P. Woronecki. 1975. “Breeding Status of the Tricolored Blackbird, 1969-1972.” Calif. Fish and Game. 61: 166-180.

Dunn, E. H. and D. J. Agro. 1995. “Black Tern (Chlidonias niger).” In The Birds of North America, No. 147 (A. Poole and F. Gill, eds.). Philadelphia: The Academy of Natural Sciences; Washington, D.C.: The American Ornithologists’ Union.

CHAPTER 6: REFERENCES
6-4 REVISED NATOMAS BASIN HCP E042002017SAC/161795(006.DOC)

EIR/EIS
Earhart, C. M., and N.K. Johnson. 1970. “Size Dimorphism and Food Habits of North American Owls.” Condor 72:251-264.

Eckert, A. W. 1981. The Wading Birds of North America (North of Mexico). Garden City, New York: Doubleday and Company, Inc.

Eddleman, W. R., R. E. Flores, and M. L. Legare. 1994. “Black Rail (Laterallus jamaicensis).” In The Birds of North America, No. 123 (A. Poole and F. Gill, eds.). Philadelphia: The Academy of Natural Sciences; Washington, D.C.: The American Ornithologists’ Union.

Eng, L. L., D. Belk, and C. H. Eriksen. 1990. “California Anostraca: Distribution, Habitat and Status.” Journal of Crustacean Biology 10 (2): 247-277.

Estep, J. A. 1989. Biology, Movements, and Habitat Relationships of the Swainson's Hawk in the Central Valley of California, 1986-87. California Department of Fish and Game, Nongame Bird and Mammal Section Report.

Estep, J. A. 1984. Diurnal Raptor Eyrie Monitoring Program. (Project W-65-R-1, Job No. 11-2.0). California Department of Fish and Game, Nongame Wildlife Investigations.

Sacramento, California.

Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program. 2001. Digital spatial data (GIS) [Online].

Available: http://www.consrv.ca.gov/dlrp/FMMP/map_products/index.htm.

Febbo, John. Senior Airport Planner, SCAS. Personal communication. May 1, 2001.

Fitch, H. S. 1940. “A Biogeographical Study of the Ordinoides Artenkreis of Garter Snakes (genus Thamnophis).” University of California Publications in Zoology, 44 (1): 1-50 + plates.

Gaines, D. 1977a. Current Status and Habitat Requirements of the Yellow-billed Cuckoo in California. California Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento.

Gaines, D. 1977b. “Birds of the Yosemite Sierra.” California Syllabus. Oakland.

Gaines, D. 1974. “The Birds of Yolo.” California Syllabus. Oakland.

Garrett, K., and J. Dunn. 1981. “Birds of Southern California.” Los Angeles Audubon Society.

Gibbs, J. P., F. A. Reid, and S. M. Melvin. 1992. “Least Bittern (Ixobrychus exilis).” In The Birds of North America, No. 17 (A. Poole and F. Gill, eds.). Philadelphia: The Academy of Natural Sciences; Washington, D.C.: The American Ornithologists’ Union.

Grinnell, J., and Miller, A. H. 1944. “The Distribution of the Birds of California.“ Pacific Coast Avifauna No. 27.

Hansen, G. E. 1993. Survey and Analysis of the Giant Garter Snake (Thamnophis couchii gigas), the Western Pond Turtle (Clemmys marmorata), the California Red-legged Frog (Rana aurora draytoni), and the Foothill Yellow-legged frog (Rana boylei) in the Bear Creek Unit of the Merced County Streams Project, California. (Contract Purchase Order No. DACW05-92-P1766). Prepared for the U.S.

Army Corps of Engineers. Sacramento, California.

Hansen, G. E., and J. M. Brode. 1992. An Evaluation of the Time and Conditions Required for Newly Constructed Waterways to Become Suitable Habitat for the Giant Garter Snake (Thamnophis gigas). Unpublished report. May.

CHAPTER 6: REFERENCES
E042002017SAC/161795(006.DOC) REVI SED NATOMAS BASIN HCP 6-5

EIR/EIS
Hansen, G. E. 1988. Review of the status of giant garter snake and its supporting habitat during 1986-1987.

Hansen, G. E., and J. M. Brode. 1980. “The Status of the Giant Garter Snake (Thamnophis couchii gigas) (Fitch).” Inland Fisheries Endangered Species Program Special Publication 80-5. California Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento, California.

Hansen, R. W. 1980. Western Aquatic Garter Snakes in Central California: An Ecological and Evolutionary Perspective. MA Thesis. California State University, Fresno, California. 78 pages.

Haug, E. A., B. A. Millsap, and M. S. Martell. 1993. “Burrowing Owl (Speotyto cunicularia).” In The Birds of North America, No. 61. Eds. A. Poole and F. Gill. Philadelphia: The Academy of Natural Sciences; Washington, D.C.: The American Ornithologists’ Union.

Helm, B. P. 1998. “Biogeography of Eight Large Brachiopods Endemic to California.” In Ecology, Conservation, and Management of Vernal Pool Ecosystems, eds. C. W. Witham, E. T.

Bauder, D. Balk, W. R. Ferren Jr., and R. Ornduff, Pp 124-139. Sacramento: California Native Plant Society.

Hickman, James. 1993. The Jepson Manual Higher Plants of California. University of California Press.

Holland, D. C., and R. B. Bury. Status of the Western Pond Turtle (Clemmys marmorata) in 1991. Prepared for presentation at the Western Section, Wildlife Society 1992 annual meeting in San Diego, California. February 5-8, 1992.

Holt, D. W. and S. M. Leasure. 1993. “Short-Eared Owl (Asio flammeus).” In The Birds of North America, No. 62 (A. Poole and F. Gill, eds.). Philadelphia: The Academy of Natural Sciences; Washington, D.C.: The American Ornithologists’ Union.

James, A. H. 1977. “Sandhill Cranes Breeding in Sierra Valley, California.” Western Birds 8: 159-160.

Jennings, M. R., and M. P. Hayes. 1994. Amphibian and Reptile Species of Special Concern in California. California Department of Fish and Game, Inland Fisheries Division. Rancho Cordova, CA.

Kaufman, K. 1996. Lives of North American Birds. Haughton Mifflin Company, Boston, MA. 675 pages.

Kennedy, E. D. and D. W. White. 1997. “Bewick’s Wren (Thryomanes bewickii).” In The Birds of North America, No. 315 (A. Poole and F. Gill, eds.). Philadelphia: The Academy of Natural Sciences; Washington, D.C.: The American Ornithologists’ Union.

Korhummel, Amy. Appraiser, Sutter County Assessor’s Office. Personal Communication.

June 28, 2001.

Leidy, G. R. 1992. Ecology, Status and Management of the Giant Garter Snake, Thamnophis gigas. Prepared by Pacific Environmental Consultants. Sacramento, California.

October, 1992.

CHAPTER 6: REFERENCES
6-6 REVISED NATOMAS BASIN HCP E042002017SAC/161795(006.DOC)

EIR/EIS
May and Associates. 2001. Biological Resource Mapping of the Natomas Basin. Prepared for City of Sacramento, NPDS Department. Sacramento, California. August.

McCaskie, G., P. De Benedictis, R. Erickson, and J. Morlan. 1979. Birds of Northern California, an Annotated Field List. 2nd ed. Golden Gate Audubon Society, Berkeley.

Metro Air Park Property Owners Association. 2000. Draft Habitat Conservation Plan for the Metro Air Park Project in the Natomas Basin, Sacramento County, California. Prepared by Metro Air Park Property Owners’ Association. Palo Alto, California. November.

Monk, G. 1981. California Peregrine Falcon Reproductive Outcome and Management Efforts in 1981. U.S. Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Sacramento, California.

Endangered Species Report.

Musallam, George. 2002. Telephone conversation with Matt Franck. May 31.

Natomas Basin Conservancy. 2000. Site-specific Management Plans for the Natomas Basin Conservancy’s Mitigation Lands, Sacramento and Sutter Counties, California. Prepared by Wildlands, Inc., Citrus Heights, California for The Natomas Basin Conservancy, Sacramento, California. July.

Nussbaum, R. A., E. D. Brodie, Jr., and R. M. Storm. 1983. Amphibians and Reptiles of the Pacific Northwest. Moscow, ID: University of Idaho Press.

Pearson, S. F. 1997. “Hermit Warbler (Dendroica occidentalis).” In The Birds of North America, No. 303 (A. Poole and F. Gill, eds.). Philadelphia: The Academy of Natural Sciences; Washington, D.C.: The American Ornithologists’ Union.

Remson, Jr., J. V. 1978. Bird Species of Special Concern in California. California Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento. Wildlife Management Administration. Report No. 78-1.

Roberts, John. Director of Natomas Basin Conservancy. Personal communication.

August 17, 2001.

Rosenfield, R. N. and J. Bielefeldt. 1993. “Cooper’s Hawk (Accipiter cooperii).” In The Birds of North America, No. 75 (A. Poole and F. Gill, eds.). Philadelphia: The Academy of Natural Sciences; Washington, D.C.: The American Ornithologists’ Union.

Ryder, R. R. and D. E. Manry. 1994. “White-faced Ibis (Plegadis chihi).” In The Birds of North America, No. 130 (A. Poole and F. Gill, eds.). Philadelphia: The Academy of Natural Sciences; Washington, D.C.: The American Ornithologists’ Union.

Sacramento Area Council of Governments (SACOG). 2001. Population estimates and housing unit inventory. [Online]. Available:
http://www.sacog.org/demographics/pophsg/coci.htm [2001, September 20].

Sacramento County. 2000. Draft EIR for the General Plan Amendment for Long-term Planning in North Natomas or Other Appropriate Areas. State Clearinghouse No. 1999022071. Prepared by County of Sacramento, Department of Environmental Review and Assessment. Sacramento, California. November.

Sacramento County Airport System (SCAS). 2001. Response to Notice of Preparation of Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report (EIR/EIS) for the Natomas CHAPTER 6: REFERENCES
E042002017SAC/161795(006.DOC) REVI SED NATOMAS BASIN HCP 6-7

EIR/EIS
Basin Habitat Conservation Plan. Letter to Vicki Cambell, Chief, Division of Conservation Planning, Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office, Sacramento, California from G. Hardy Acree, Director of Airports, Sacramento County Airport System.

Schlorff, R. W., and P. H. Bloom. 1984. “Importance of Riparian Systems to Nesting Swainson’s Hawks in the Central Valley of California.” In California Riparian Systems - Ecology, Conservation, and Productive Management. (R. E. Warner and K. M. Hendrix, eds.) Berkeley: University of California Press. 612-618.

Shuford, W. D., C. M. Hickey, R. J. Safran, and G. W. Page. 1996. “A Review of the Status of White-Faced Ibis in Winter in California.” Western Birds. 27: 169-196.

Skinner, Mark W., and Bruce M. Pavlic. 1994. Inventory of Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants of California. 5th ed. California Native Plant Society. [6th ed., electronic update.] Smith, E. L., and K. C. Kruse. 1992. “The Relationship Between Land-use and the Distribution and Abundance of Loggerhead Shrikes in South-central Illinois.” Journal of Field Ornithology 63:420-427.

State Water Resources Control Board. 1998. 1998 303(d) List and TMDL Priority Schedule, Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board.

Stebbins, R. C. 1985. Western Reptiles and Amphibians. 2nd ed. Peterson Field Guides No. 16.

Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Company.

Stebbins, R. C. 1972. California Amphibians and Reptiles. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

Stone, R. D., W. B. Davilla, D. W. Taylor, G. L. Clifton, and J. C. Stebbins. 1988. Status Survey of the Grass Tribe Orcuttieae and Chamaesyce hooverii (Euphorbiacea) in the Central Valley of California. Biosystems Analysis, Inc. Tiburon, California. Prepared for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Endangered Species Office. Sacramento, California.

Sutter County. 2001. South Sutter County Specific Plan.

Sutter County 1997 Archaeological sensitivity Sutter County has a “low” to “moderate” archaeological sensitivity, likely due to the periodic flooding of the region (Sutter County, 1997).

Sutter County. 1996a. Sutter County General Plan 2015. Prepared by County of Sutter, Community Services Department. Yuba City, California. May.

Sutter County. 1996b. Sutter County General Plan Update.

Sutter County. 1996c. Draft EIR for the Sutter County Comprehensive General Plan Revision.

State Clearinghouse No. 96012026. Prepared by Pacific Municipal Consultants, Sacramento California for County of Sutter, Community Services Department. Yuba City, California.

May.

Swainson’s Hawk Technical Advisory Committee (SHTAC). 2001. Nesting Swainson’s Hawks (Buteo swainsoni) in the Natomas Basin Habitat Conservation Plan Area. 2001 Annual Survey Results. Prepared for the Natomas Basin Conservancy. Sacramento, California.

CHAPTER 6: REFERENCES
6-8 REVISED NATOMAS BASIN HCP E042002017SAC/161795(006.DOC)

EIR/EIS
SHTAC. 2000. Nesting Swainson’s Hawks (Buteo swainsoni) in the Natomas Basin Habitat Conservation Plan Area. 2000 Annual Survey Results. Prepared for the Natomas Basin Conservancy. Sacramento, California.

Tobalske, B. W. 1997. “Lewis’ Woodpecker (Melanerpes lewis).” In The Birds of North America, No. 284 (A. Poole and F. Gill, eds.). Philadelphia: The Academy of Natural Sciences; Washington, D.C.: The American Ornithologists’ Union.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. 1993. Soil Survey of Sacramento County, California. April.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2001. Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Metro Air Park Habitat Conservation Plan. Sacramento, California. July.

USFWS. 1999. Conservation Guidelines for the Valley Elderberry Longhorn Beetle. Updated July 9.

USFWS. 1999. Draft Recovery Plan for the Giant Garter Snake (Thamnopsis gigas). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, Oregon. ix+ 192 pages.

USFWS. 1997a. Environmental Assessment for the Issuance of an Incidental Take Permit Under Section 10(a)(1)(B) of the Endangered Species Act for the Natomas Basin Habitat Conservation Plan.

Sacramento, California. June.

USFWS. 1997b. Programmatic Formal Consultation for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 404 Permitted Projects with Relative Small Effects on the Giant Garter Snake within Butte, Colusa, Glenn, Fresno, Merced, Sacramento, San Joaquin, Solano, Stanislaus, Sutter and Yolo Counties, California. Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office. November.

USFWS. 1996a. Programmatic Formal Consultation Permitting Projects with Relatively Small Effects on the Valley Elderberry Longhorn Beetle Within the Jurisdiction of the Sacramento Field Office, California.

USFWS. 1996b. Programmatic Formal Endangered Species Act Consultation on Issuance of 404 Permits for Projects with Relatively Small Effects on Listed Vernal Pool Crustaceans Within the Jurisdiction of the Sacramento Field Office, California. Sacramento, California. February 28, 1996.

USFWS. 1991b. Aleutian Canada Goose Recovery Plan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Anchorage, Alaska.

USFWS. 1984. Recovery Plan for the Valley Elderberry Longhorn Beetle. Endangered Species Program. Portland, Oregon.

USFWS. 1980. Listing the valley elderberry longhorn beetle as a threatened species with critical habitat. Federal Register 45: 52803-52807.

USFWS and National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 1996. Habitat Conservation Planning Handbook. November.

Washburn, Tim. Sacramento Area Flood Control Agency. Personal Communication.

January 15, 2002.

CHAPTER 6: REFERENCES
E042002017SAC/161795(006.DOC) REVI SED NATOMAS BASIN HCP 6-9

EIR/EIS
Wylie, G. D. and M. L. Casazza. 2000. Investigations of Giant Garter Snakes in the Natomas Basin: 1998-1999. USGS, Western Ecological Research Center, Dixon Field Station. Dixon, California.

Wylie, G. D., M. Cassaza, and J. K. Daugherty. 1997. 1996 Progress Report for the Giant Garter Snake Study. Preliminary report, U.S. Geological Survey, Biological Resources Division.

Zeiner, D. C., W. F. Laudenslayer, and K. E. Mayer, eds. 1988. California’s Wildlife. Vol. I.

Amphibians and Reptiles. California Statewide Wildlife Habitat Relationships System, California Department of Fish and Game. Sacramento, CA.

Zeiner, D. C., W. F. Laudenslayer, K. E. Mayer, and M. White, eds. 1990a. California’s Wildlife. Volume III. Mammals. California Statewide Wildlife Habitat Relationships System, California Department of Fish and Game. Sacramento, CA.

Zeiner, D. C., W. F. Laudenslayer, K. E. Mayer, and M. White, eds. 1990b. California’s Wildlife. Vol. II. Birds. California Statewide Wildlife Habitat Relationships System, California Department of Fish and Game. Sacramento, CA.

E042002017SAC/161795(007.DOC) REVI SED NATOMAS BASIN HCP 7-1

EIR/EIS
CHAPTER 7
Glossary
2081 Permit: A permit issued by CDFG to authorize the incidental take of listed species pursuant to Section 2081 of the California Fish and Game Code. Generally similar to the USFWS’s Incidental Take Permit.

Adaptive Management: The process that allows the HCP’s conservation program and reserve acquisition and management decisions to be adjusted during the life of the permit to ensure that the most up-to-date information available on the covered species is being utilized and that the conservation program is as effective as possible.

Annexation Area: The “panhandle” of unincorporated Sacramento County lands in the northeastern portion of North Natomas that is proposed to be annexed into the City of Sacramento.

Covered Activities: Urban development (both public and private), operations and maintenance of canals and drains, habitat reserve construction and management.

Covered Species: Those species that are proposed to be included in the Incidental Take Permit and 2081 Permit issued in conjunction with approval of the HCP. Incidental take of these species would be authorized under the permits associated with this project.

Endemic: Native or confined (restricted) to a particular geographic region.

Fully Mitigate: A component of CDFG’s approval criteria for a 2081 Permit. Any authorized take must be fully mitigated.

Habitat Conservation Plan: The plan that is prepared as a requirement for obtaining an Incidental Take Permit. The HCP includes the management measures that state how incidental take is intended to be minimized and mitigated to the maximum extent practicable.

Implementing Agreement: The agreement entered into by the parties to the Incidental Take Permit documenting the obligations of each party in implementing the HCP.

Incidental Take Permit: The permit granted by the USFWS under Section 10(a)(1)(b) of the federal Endangered Species Act authorizing take of a listed species that is incidental to an otherwise lawful activity.

Industrial Commercial Reserve: That portion of the Natomas Basin in Sutter County designated in the Sutter County General Plan that would be allowed to be developed by the year 2015 under the General Plan.

Listed Species: A species that is officially listed as either Endangered or Threatened under either the federal Endangered Species Act or the California Endangered Species Act. Also includes plant species listed as Rare under the California Endangered Species Act.

CHAPTER 7: GLOSSARY
7-2 REVISED NATOMAS BASIN HCP E042002017SAC/161795(007.DOC)

EIR/EIS
Maximum Extent Practicable: A component of the USFWS’s approval criteria for an Incidental Take Permit. Any authorized take must be minimized and mitigated to the maximum extent practicable.

Mitigation Ratio: The ratio of acres to be set aside in habitat reserves to the acres of development to mitigate for the effects of development on the covered species.

Natomas Basin: The land area in Sutter and Sacramento counties bordered by the Natomas Cross Canal to the north, Garden Highway to the south, the Natomas East Main Drainage Canal (Steelhead Creek) to the east, and the Sacramento River to the west. For this project, the Natomas Basin is defined as the area in the interior of the surrounding levees.

Neotropical Migrant: a species (primarily birds) that migrates between northern areas and the neotropics, that region of the New World that stretches southward from the Tropic of Cancer and includes southern Mexico, Central and South America, and the West Indies.

O & M: Operations and management activities carried out by RD 1000 and Natomas Mutual to operate and maintain the drainage infrastructure in the Natomas Basin.

Ruderal: A land-use classification that includes former agricultural lands that are no longer in production, primarily due to proximity to urbanized areas. Ruderal lands typically consist of non-native grasses, and most are occasionally tilled for fire control.

Special-status Species: Special-status species are those that are listed as Threatened or Endangered, are proposed or a candidate for listing, are federal Species of Concern (formerly Category 2), are state Species of Special Concern, or are fully protected (state) in accordance with applicable federal or state laws.

Swainson’s Hawk Zone: The area between the Interstate 80 crossing of the Sacramento River and the Natomas Cross Canal. Generally one-mile in width from the toe of the Sacramento River east levee, but not including incorporated areas of the City of Sacramento.

Take: Broadly defined to include the direct or indirect mortality of a listed species. The USFWS’s definition of Take has been interpreted to specifically include habitat loss.

Vernal Pool: Wetlands (generally seasonal or ephemeral) away from stream or river influence. Vernal pools are seasonally to semi-permanently flooded depressions typically occurring on sites with poor drainage.

E042002017SAC/161795(008.DOC) REVISED NATOMAS BASIN HCP 8-1

EIR/EIS
CHAPTER 8
Index
Adaptive Management, 2-14, 2-44, 4-32,
4-83
Area B, 1-14, 2-3, 2-6, 2-19, 2-54, 3-1, 3-3,
3-6, 3-7, 3-55, 3-58, 3-65, 4-18, 4-26, 4-32,
4-132, 4-139, 4-145, 4-147, 4-150, 4-151,
4-155
Army Corps of Engineers, 1-4, 2-13, 2-51,
4-101
California Endangered Species Act, 1-11,
1-18, 3-32, 3-38, 3-47, 3-50
California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA), 1-1, 1-3, 1-4, 1-5, 1-11, 1-12,
1-13, 1-18, 1-20, 1-21, 1-22, 2-1, 2-8, 2-48,
2-50, 2-53, 2-55, 2-58, 3-2, 3-37, 3-65, 4-3,
4-7, 4-8, 4-37, 4-43, 4-131, 4-149, 4-153,
4-155, 4-158
Endangered Species Act, 1-9, 1-10, 1-16,
3-32, 3-33, 3-34, 3-38, 3-44, 4-43
Giant garter snake, 2-16, 3-27, 3-39, 4-54,
4-57, 4-101
Implementing Agreement (IA), 1-1, 1-3,
1-11, 1-12, 1-15, 2-1, 2-2, 2-15, 2-44, 4-1
Incidental Take Permit(s)(ITP), 1-1, 1-5,
1-10, 1-11, 1-12, 1-13, 1-14, 1-17, 1-19,
2-2, 2-3, 2-8, 2-11, 2-12, 2-13, 2-55, 2-56,
3-56, 3-58, 4-7, 4-70, 4-109, 4-110
Metro Air Park, 1-5, 1-13, 2-11, 2-50, 2-51,
2-53, 2-55, 2-56, 3-19, 3-20, 3-42, 3-48,
3-51, 3-58, 3-61, 4-4, 4-7, 4-9, 4-10, 4-27,
4-29, 4-30, 4-31, 4-33, 4-35, 4-36, 4-39,
4-41, 4-44, 4-46, 4-50, 4-59, 4-63, 4-66,
4-69, 4-72, 4-75, 4-77, 4-79, 4-82, 4-84,
4-95, 4-105, 4-106, 4-108, 4-147, 4-151,
4-152, 4-156, 4-163, 4-164
Migratory Bird Treaty Act, 1-19, 2-39,
4-87, 4-88, 4-89, 4-90, 4-91, 4-93, 4-95
monitoring, 1-19, 2-6, 2-12, 2-14, 2-17, 2-25,
2-27, 2-30, 2-31, 2-32, 2-44, 2-45, 2-46,
2-47, 2-54, 3-46, 3-61, 3-62, 4-32, 4-33,
4-53, 4-128, 4-132
Native Plant Protection Act, 1-19, 4-40,
4-42, 4-95
Natomas Basin, 1-1, 1-3, 1-4, 1-5, 1-11,
1-12, 1-13, 1-14, 1-15, 1-17, 1-20, 2-1, 2-2,
2-3, 2-6, 2-8, 2-11, 2-12, 2-13, 2-14, 2-16,
2-17, 2-18, 2-19, 2-20, 2-21, 2-22, 2-26,
2-28, 2-30, 2-35, 2-37, 2-40, 2-41, 2-42,
2-43, 2-45, 2-46, 2-49, 2-50, 2-51, 2-52,
2-53, 2-54, 2-55, 2-56, 2-57, 3-1, 3-2, 3-3,
3-4, 3-5, 3-6, 3-7, 3-8, 3-9, 3-10, 3-11, 3-12,
3-17, 3-19, 3-21, 3-22, 3-23, 3-24, 3-25,
3-26, 3-27, 3-28, 3-29, 3-30, 3-31, 3-32,
3-33, 3-34, 3-35, 3-36, 3-37, 3-38, 3-39,
3-40, 3-42, 3-44, 3-46, 3-47, 3-48, 3-49,
3-50, 3-51, 3-52, 3-53, 3-54, 3-55, 3-56,
3-57, 3-58, 3-59, 3-60, 3-61, 3-62, 3-63,
3-64, 3-65, 3-66, 3-69, 3-72, 4-1, 4-2, 4-4,
4-7, 4-8, 4-9, 4-10, 4-12, 4-14, 4-17, 4-18,
4-19, 4-20, 4-21, 4-22, 4-23, 4-24, 4-26,
4-27, 4-29, 4-30, 4-31, 4-32, 4-33, 4-34,
4-35, 4-36, 4-38, 4-39, 4-40, 4-41, 4-42,
4-43, 4-44, 4-45, 4-46, 4-47, 4-48, 4-49,
4-50, 4-51, 4-52, 4-53, 4-54, 4-55, 4-57,
4-58, 4-59, 4-61, 4-62, 4-63, 4-64, 4-65,
4-66, 4-67, 4-68, 4-70, 4-71, 4-72, 4-73,
4-75, 4-76, 4-77, 4-78, 4-81, 4-82, 4-83,
4-84, 4-85, 4-86, 4-87, 4-88, 4-89, 4-90,
4-91, 4-92, 4-93, 4-94, 4-95, 4-96, 4-98,
4-99, 4-100, 4-101, 4-102, 4-103, 4-104,
4-105, 4-106, 4-107, 4-108, 4-109, 4-110,
4-111, 4-112, 4-113, 4-114, 4-115, 4-116,
4-117, 4-118, 4-119, 4-120, 4-121, 4-123,
4-124, 4-125, 4-126, 4-127, 4-128, 4-129,
4-130, 4-131, 4-132, 4-133, 4-134, 4-135,
4-136, 4-137, 4-139, 4-140, 4-141, 4-142,
4-144, 4-145, 4-146, 4-147, 4-148, 4-149,
4-150, 4-151, 4-152, 4-153, 4-155, 4-156,
4-157, 4-158, 4-159, 4-160, 4-161, 4-163,
4-164, 4-165, 4-166, 4-167
Natomas Basin Conservancy, 1-1, 2-1, 2-6,
2-8, 2-12, 2-14, 2-35, 3-72, 4-2, 4-12, 4-15,
INDEX
8-2 REVISED NATOMAS BASIN HCP E042002017SAC/161795(008.DOC)

EIR/EIS
4-19, 4-20, 4-21, 4-22, 4-51, 4-52, 4-61,
4-73, 4-111, 4-112, 4-113, 4-114, 4-115,
4-116, 4-117, 4-118, 4-119, 4-120, 4-121,
4-123, 4-124, 4-125, 4-126, 4-129, 4-155,
4-156
Natomas Central Mutual Water
Company, 1-1, 2-1, 2-12, 4-2
Natomas Mutual, 1-1, 1-4, 1-5, 1-9, 1-10,
1-11, 1-14, 1-15, 1-16, 1-18, 1-20, 1-21,
1-23, 2-2, 2-8, 2-12, 2-13, 2-14, 2-19, 2-43,
2-44, 2-50, 2-53, 3-8, 3-9, 3-10, 3-11, 3-12,
3-19, 3-39, 3-50, 3-52, 3-56, 3-65, 4-9,
4-12, 4-15, 4-16, 4-17, 4-19, 4-21, 4-22,
4-23, 4-24, 4-25, 4-27, 4-31, 4-40, 4-42,
4-43, 4-45, 4-47, 4-49, 4-55, 4-56, 4-57,
4-61, 4-64, 4-65, 4-74, 4-78, 4-80, 4-82,
4-108, 4-109, 4-114, 4-115, 4-118, 4-119,
4-124, 4-128, 4-130, 4-131, 4-132, 4-135,
4-136, 4-137, 4-139, 4-144, 4-145, 4-149,
4-150, 4-153, 4-154, 4-158, 4-159, 4-165
National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA), 1-1, 1-3, 1-5, 1-10, 1-11, 1-12,
1-18, 1-20, 1-22, 2-1, 2-48, 2-49, 2-50,
2-58, 3-58, 4-3, 4-7, 4-10
RD 1000, 1-1, 1-4, 1-5, 1-9, 1-10, 1-11, 1-14,
1-15, 1-16, 1-18, 1-20, 1-23, 2-2, 2-8, 2-12,
2-13, 2-14, 2-19, 2-43, 2-44, 2-50, 2-53,
2-57, 3-5, 3-6, 3-7, 3-8, 3-9, 3-11, 3-12,
3-19, 3-21, 3-22, 3-39, 3-50, 3-52, 3-53,
3-54, 3-56, 3-65, 4-12, 4-15, 4-16, 4-17,
4-19, 4-21, 4-23, 4-24, 4-25, 4-27, 4-40,
4-42, 4-43, 4-45, 4-47, 4-49, 4-55, 4-56,
4-57, 4-61, 4-64, 4-65, 4-74, 4-78, 4-80,
4-82, 4-94, 4-108, 4-109, 4-114, 4-115,
4-118, 4-119, 4-124, 4-128, 4-130, 4-131,
4-132, 4-135, 4-136, 4-137, 4-139, 4-144,
4-145, 4-149, 4-150, 4-153, 4-154, 4-158,
4-159, 4-165
Reclamation District No. 1000, 1-1, 2-1,
2-8, 2-12, 4-2
Responsible Agency, 1-11, 2-1
Sacramento Area Flood Control Agency,
1-4, 3-5, 3-6
Sacramento County, 1-4, 1-5, 1-11, 1-13,
2-3, 2-11, 2-14, 2-49, 2-54, 2-55, 2-56, 3-1,
3-4, 3-5, 3-7, 3-8, 3-9, 3-10, 3-17, 3-19,
3-20, 3-29, 3-30, 3-31, 3-32, 3-33, 3-34,
3-36, 3-37, 3-38, 3-40, 3-47, 3-54, 3-55,
3-56, 3-57, 3-58, 3-60, 3-61, 3-62, 3-63,
3-65, 3-66, 3-68, 3-69, 4-7, 4-8, 4-9, 4-10,
4-20, 4-22, 4-27, 4-35, 4-36, 4-51, 4-59,
4-69, 4-75, 4-113, 4-128, 4-134, 4-140,
4-141, 4-142, 4-143, 4-147
Sacramento International Airport, 1-5,
2-55, 3-2, 3-6, 3-8, 3-17, 3-19, 3-56, 3-57,
3-65, 3-66, 3-69, 3-71, 3-72, 4-3, 4-8, 4-9,
4-10, 4-159, 4-160, 4-161, 4-163, 4-164,
4-165, 4-166
Settlement Agreement, 1-10, 1-11, 2-3,
2-18, 2-46, 2-57, 4-36, 4-59, 4-60, 4-133
Unforeseen Circumstances, 1-17, 2-14,
2-47

APPENDIX A
Public Notices

APPENDIX B
Fish and Wildlife Service Species List
and CNDDB Summary Lists

APPENDIX C
Summary of Previous Environmental Review of
Planned Urban Development
APPENDIX C: SUMMARY OF PREVIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW OF PLANNNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT E042002017SAC/161795(TABLE C-1.DOC) REVISED NATOMAS BASIN HCP

EIR/EIS
TABLE C-1
Prior Analysis of Geology and Soils Impacts from Planned Urban Development in the Natomas Basin a Impact
Level of
Significance Mitigation
Level of Significance
with Mitigation Action
City of Sacramento General Plan EIR
Potential for exposure to
earthquake groundshaking
at a maximum intensity of
VIII (on the Modified Mercalli
Scale).

Significant. Implement Goal A and Policies 1, 3, and 7 of the Health and Safety Element (Seismic Safety section) of the General Plan.

Engineer structures for earthquake resistance.

Less than significant. No further action necessary.

Potential for liquefaction,
triggered by groundshaking.

Significant. Implement Policies 2, 4, and 7 of the Health and Safety Element (Seismic Safety section) of the General Plan.

Require the evaluation of liquefaction potential of proposed development sites and implement appropriate specially
engineered earthwork and structural design.

Less than significant. No further action necessary.

Incremental contribution to
the loss of aggregate
resources if all mineral
resources sectors within the
SGPU area (except the
American River Parkway)
were rendered unavailable
for aggregate production due
to urbanization.

Significant. Implement Goal B and Policies 1, 2, 3, and 4 of the Open Space Element (Managed Production of Resources section) of the General Plan.

Zone mineral resources sectors and adjacent lands to permit aggregate mining.

Require reclamation of mined lands for urban uses.

Less than significant. No further action necessary.
9,700 acres meeting the soil
criteria of the prime land
component of the Important
Farmland Inventory of
California, 7,500 acres of
which are currently irrigated
and considered prime
farmland, would be removed
from agricultural production.

Significant. Full mitigation would require the adoption of the No Project Alternative. The City Council determined that this was
infeasible.

Significant. The City Council determined that
economic, social, and other
considerations make it infeasible
to mitigate the impacts to below
significant levels.

APPENDIX C: SUMMARY OF PREVIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW OF PLANNNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT REVISED NATOMAS BASIN HCP E042002017SAC/161795(TABLE C-1.DOC)

EIR/EIS
TABLE C-1
Prior Analysis of Geology and Soils Impacts from Planned Urban Development in the Natomas Basin a Impact
Level of
Significance Mitigation
Level of Significance
with Mitigation Action
North Natomas Community Plan EIR
No significant impacts
identified.

N/A N/A N/A No further action necessary.

South Natomas Community Plan EIR
No significant impacts
identified.

N/A N/A N/A No further action necessary.

Sutter County General Plan EIR
Impact 4.3.1. Future
development in accordance
with the proposed General
Plan may expose structures
and people to moderate
ground shaking.

Potentially
Significant
Implement General Plan Goal 7.B, Policy 7.B.2, and
Implementation Program 7.1.

Mitigation Measure 4.3.1. Prior to permitting development in areas of geologic or soils hazards, the County shall require the preparation of a soils engineering and/or geotechnical analysis by a licensed civil or geotechnical engineer. The County shall review and enforce the recommendations of
said analysis by adopting them as conditions of specific project-level approvals.

Less than significant. No further action necessary.

Impact 4.3.2. Future
development in accordance
with the proposed General
Plan may expose structures
to liquefaction and/or seismic
compaction.

Potentially
significant.

Same as Mitigation Measure 4.3.1. Less than significant. No further action necessary.

Impact 4.3.3. Future
development in accordance
with the proposed General
Plan may expose structures
to subsidence.

Potentially
significant.

Same as Mitigation Measure 4.3.1. Less than significant. No further action necessary.

APPENDIX C: SUMMARY OF PREVIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW OF PLANNNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT E042002017SAC/161795(TABLE C-1.DOC) REVISED NATOMAS BASIN HCP

EIR/EIS
TABLE C-1
Prior Analysis of Geology and Soils Impacts from Planned Urban Development in the Natomas Basin a Impact
Level of
Significance Mitigation
Level of Significance
with Mitigation Action
Impact 4.3.4. Future
development within the
County in accordance with
the General Plan may
subject new development to
geologic hazards associated
with expansive soils.

Potentially
significant.

Same as Mitigation Measure 4.3.1. Less than significant. No further action necessary.

Impact 4.3.5. Future
development in accordance
with the proposed General
Plan will require grading
activities, resulting in
exposed earth and the
potential for soil erosion.

Potentially
significant.

Mitigation Measure 4.3.2. Prior to or concurrent with a specific development proposal, the County shall adopt and implement a grading ordinance or other appropriate measures. The grading ordinance shall limit the effects of soil erosion and shall include, but is not limited to, the following specific areas: (1) timing of grading operations (targeted for April 15 – November 15); (2) erosion control methods which utilize sediment traps, barriers, covers, or other methods approved by the County; (3)
recommendations for cut and fill angles of slopes; (4)
recommendations for mulching, seeding, revegetation, and othe r
stabilization measures as approved by the County; and (5) plans for deposition and storage of excavated materials.

Less than significant. No further action necessary.

Impact 4.3.6. Increased
urbanization proposed by the
General Plan may decrease
accessibility to natural gas
resources or result in
hazards due to new
construction in the vicinity of
abandoned gas well sites.

Potentially
significant.

Implement General Plan Goal 4.H (DESCRIBE); Policies 4.H.1 (DESCRIBE), 4.H.2 (DESCRIBE), 4.H.3 (DESCRIBE), 4.H.4
(DESCRIBE), and 4.H.5 (DESCRIBE); and Implementation
Program 4.5 (DESCRIBE).

Mitigation Measure 4.3.3. For future development proposals located within the vicinity of an abandoned gas well, the applicant shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the County that reabandonment operations have been successfully completed, i f
necessary, in consultation with the Department of Conservation, Division of Oil, Gas, and Geothermal Resources. If any plugged and abandoned or unrecorded wells are damaged or uncovered during excavation or grading, remedial plugging operations may be required. The cost of reabandonment operations is the responsibility of the property owner.

Less than significant. No further action necessary.
a The analysis of environmental impacts presented in these documents was prepared in accordance with the requirements of CEQA. No changes to the types of impacts presented would be anticipated if the documents were prepared for NEPA purposes.

APPENDIX C: SUMMARY OF PREVIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW OF PLANNNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT E042002017SAC/161795(TABLE C-2.DOC) REVISED NATOMAS BASIN HCP

EIR/EIS
TABLE C-2
Prior Analysis of Water Resources Impacts from Planned Urban Development in the Natomas Basina Impact
Level of
Significance Mitigation
Level of Significance
with Mitigation Action
City of Sacramento General Plan EIR
The number of persons and
developments exposed to
potential flood damage from
levee failure would increase by
an unknown amount,
especially in North Natomas.

The amount is unknown since
the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, at the request of
the Federal Emergency
Management Agency, is still in
the process of updating 100-
year floodplain maps for the
American River levees, the
Sacramento River east levee
north of the American River,
and several levees along local
creeks and drainage canals in
the SGPU area.

Significant. Full mitigation would require: (1) assisting in the reconstruction of inadequate levees as development occurs, (2) assisting in the implementation of one or more Corps of Engineers flood control alternatives, and (3) restricting development in areas subject to flooding. The City Council determined that full mitigation under (1) and (2) above was infeasible because implementation of possible flood control alternatives is the responsibility of the federal government.

The City Council adopted (3).

Less than significant. No further action necessary.

Transport of pollutants to
streams would increase from
construction activities and
runoff from industrial,
commercial, and residential
development.

Significant. Implement precautionary measures during construction, such as minimizing surface disturbance, disposing excavated
materials away from water sources, and grading spoil
disposal sites to minimize surface water erosion.

Implement measures to reduce long-term water quality
impacts, such as provision of onsite retention and detention storage; designing storm drainage to slow water flows;
minimizing impervious surfaces; and maximizing percolation, evaporation, and evapotranspiration of stormwater.

The City Council determined that is was infeasible to adopt full mitigation because the analysis of water quality measures are conducted on a project-specific basis, and therefore the feasibility of mitigating citywide water quality impacts could not be determined.

Significant. The City determined that any
remaining unmitigated
environmental impacts
attributable to the project would
be outweighed by specific
economic, fiscal, social,
environmental, land use, and
other overriding considerations.

APPENDIX C: SUMMARY OF PREVIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW OF PLANNNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT REVISED NATOMAS BASIN HCP E042002017SAC/161795(TABLE C-2.DOC)

EIR/EIS
TABLE C-2
Prior Analysis of Water Resources Impacts from Planned Urban Development in the Natomas Basina Impact
Level of
Significance Mitigation
Level of Significance
with Mitigation Action
Continued rice herbicide
application has the potential
to impact surface and
groundwater quality, thereby
exposing an increased
population to hazards.

Significant. Reduce the release of agricultural chemicals by establishing an effective regulatory program.

The City Council determined that this mitigation measure is the responsibility of the County and state regulatory bodies.

Less than significant. No further action necessary.

The maximum average
water demand would
increase 104 percent to
368.2 million gallons per
day, requiring expansion of
existing water treatment
plants, possible a new plant
in North Natomas, additional
storage reservoir capacity,
and new transmission lines.

Significant. Implement the following Goal and Policy from the Public Services and Facilities Element (Water section) of the
General Plan: Goal A, Policy 5
Require water facilities prior to development.

Require water conservation measures.

Less than significant. No further action necessary.

North Natomas Community Plan EIR
Impact 4.7-1. The [North
Natomas Community Plan]
Update will result in drainage
impacts relating to hydrology
and water quality arising
from the conversion of
agricultural lands to urban
uses. That conversion will
change existing drainage
patterns and increase peak
stormwater discharge rates,
increase stormwater flows in
drainage canals resulting in
increased pump station flows
and discharge requirements,
require increased
maintenance of canals to
prevent bank sloughing, and
Potentially
significant.

At the time the EIR was adopted, mitigation requirements were assumed to be met by the City’s Comprehensive
Drainage Plan, which was in draft for at that time.

The Update also included implementing policies for the
drainage system, which were determined to also provide
mitigation measures to reduce drainage impacts.

The City determined
that impacts would be
lessened by the
adoption of the
mitigation
requirements. Because
the draft
Comprehensive
Drainage Plan had not
been adopted and
environmental review
completed on the draft
plan, the City
determined that
impacts could not be
demonstrated to be
less than significant.

The City determined that any
remaining unmitigated
environmental impacts
attributable to the project would
be outweighed by specific
economic, fiscal, social,
environmental, land use, and
other overriding considerations.

APPENDIX C: SUMMARY OF PREVIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW OF PLANNNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT E042002017SAC/161795(TABLE C-2.DOC) REVISED NATOMAS BASIN HCP

EIR/EIS
TABLE C-2
Prior Analysis of Water Resources Impacts from Planned Urban Development in the Natomas Basina Impact
Level of
Significance Mitigation
Level of Significance
with Mitigation Action
could result in mosquito
abatement problems arising
from the ponding of drainage
waters.

Impact 4.7-2. The Update
area is located in a part of
the City that, at the time the
EIR was adopted, had
protection from a 63-year
flood event. Implementation
of the Update would
therefore expose people and
property to the risk of injury
and damage in the event of
a 63-year or greater flood
event.

Significant. Various future scenarios are discussed in which the flood hazard risk would be lessened. These scenarios generally involved the actions of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the Sacramento Area Flood Control Agency to increase flood protection in the Natomas Basin.

In addition, the Update also contains measures designed to reduce flooding by prohibiting new development until flood protection is secured.

Impacts would be
reduced to a less-than-
significant level after
completion of regional
flood control projects.

Residual impacts
would remain “so long
as the City of
Sacramento and the
Update Area are
depending upon
levees for flood
protection from major
storm events, no
matter how high the
levee system.”
The City determined that any
remaining unmitigated
environmental impacts
attributable to the project would
be outweighed by specific
economic, fiscal, social,
environmental, land use, and
other overriding considerations.

The following groundwater
and seepage impacts would
result from development of
the Update area: (1) an
alteration of groundwater
flow patterns in the vicinity of
new canal segments could
result from the interception
of near surface groundwater
with surface drainage; (2) a
reduction in groundwater
recharge due to increased
impervious surfaces in the
area; (3) a reduction in
irrigated agriculture could
lower groundwater levels by
Potentially
significant.

No mitigation proposed. The groundwater
recharge. groundwater
level, and seepage
impacts of
implementing the
update are irreversible,
unavoidable, and
significant adverse
effects.

The City determined that any
remaining unmitigated
environmental impacts
attributable to the project would
be outweighed by specific
economic, fiscal, social,
environmental, land use, and
other overriding considerations.

APPENDIX C: SUMMARY OF PREVIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW OF PLANNNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT REVISED NATOMAS BASIN HCP E042002017SAC/161795(TABLE C-2.DOC)

EIR/EIS
TABLE C-2
Prior Analysis of Water Resources Impacts from Planned Urban Development in the Natomas Basina Impact
Level of
Significance Mitigation
Level of Significance
with Mitigation Action
decreasing groundwater
recharge; and (4) lower
groundwater levels due to
canal excavation would
reduce seepage problems in
low-lying areas near the
Sacramento River.

The following impacts to
water quality would result
from development of the
Update area: (1) urban point
discharges and storm water
would increase; (2)
cumulative pollutant
discharge into the
Sacramento River would
increase; and (3)
groundwater resources could
be infiltrated by leaking
chemicals.

Potentially
significant.

The Update contains the following measures: (1) meet all NPDES and other regulatory permit requirements; (2) all drainage flows from the NNCP will be discharged to the
Sacramento River; (3) utilize Best Management Practices emphasizing upstream and on-site treatment; (4) the
Comprehensive Drainage Plan must meet all EPA and Corps of Engineers 404 permit requirements; (5) ensure that the CDP operational plans are compatible with the other uses of the existing canals such as drainage, water delivery, and preservation of existing Fisherman’s Lake water levels: (6) the CDP must be designed in a manner compatible with and complementary to the Habitat Mitigation Plan under
development by SAFCA for the American River Flood Control Project; (7) incorporate water quality control into the lake, canal, and basin maintenance programs; (8) grease and oil traps should be integrated into the storm drain system
wherever practical; (9) industries that use solvents and/or other toxic or hazardous materials should be sited in
concentrated locations, on sites with low permeability soil, far from drainage canals and basins, and close to the freeway to reduce intrusion of trucks transporting chemicals into
residential neighborhoods; and (10) industries that use solvents and other hazardous materials will be required to prepare a Hazardous Substance Management Plan.

Although impacts
would be lessened by
the mitigation
measures, significant
impacts were
determined to remain.

The City determined that any
remaining unmitigated
environmental impacts
attributable to the project would
be outweighed by specific
economic, fiscal, social,
environmental, land use, and
other overriding considerations.

APPENDIX C: SUMMARY OF PREVIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW OF PLANNNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT E042002017SAC/161795(TABLE C-2.DOC) REVISED NATOMAS BASIN HCP

EIR/EIS
TABLE C-2
Prior Analysis of Water Resources Impacts from Planned Urban Development in the Natomas Basina Impact
Level of
Significance Mitigation
Level of Significance
with Mitigation Action
South Natomas Community Plan EIR
The entire South Natomas
community is located within
an area which may not be
protected by 100 year level
flood protection due to the
potential instability of the
Sacramento River Levee
and the lack of adequate
height of the East Main
Drainage Canal and the
Natomas Main Drainage
Canal Levees.

Potentially
significant.

The City identified full mitigation as increasing the height of the East Main Drain Levee and the Natomas main canal
levee to an adequate level, build additional levees to protect the area, and stabilize the levee along the Sacramento River.

The City determined that full mitigation was infeasible because reconstruction of the levees is the responsibility of the federal government, and recommended partial mitigation to prohibit additional development in South Natomas.

The City did not
identify a level of
significance associated
with the mitigated
project.

The City determined that partial
mitigation was not feasible
because of specific economic,
social, and environmental, and
other considerations.

Increased flows to
Reclamation District 1000
exceed the capacity of the
existing system.

Potentially
significant.

The City determined that RD 1000 is responsible for
mitigating this impact.

New developers may be
required to contribute to
sufficient system
improvements to reduce
this impact to a less-
than-significant level.

None.

Sutter County General Plan EIR
Impact 4.4.1. Future
development under the
provisions of the General
Plan would alter existing
drainage patterns and
increase stormwater runoff.

Significant. Implement General Plan Goals 3.D and 7.C; Policies 3.D.1,

3.D.2, 3.D.3, 3.D.4, 3.D.5, 7.C.1, 7.C.2, and 7.C.3; and Implementation Programs 3.9, 3.10, 3.11, 7.2, 7.3, and 7.4.

Mitigation Measure 4.4.1. Prior to the approval of
subsequent development projects in accordance with the
General Plan, the project applicant must demonstrate the project’s compliance with the County’s Flood Damage
Prevention Regulations, and any approved local drainage master plan. In the absence of such regulations and local master plans, project applicants shall be required, on a project-by-project basis, to demonstrate specific drainage and flooding impacts and mitigation in accordance with CEQA and consistent with County policy.

Less than significant. No further action necessary.

APPENDIX C: SUMMARY OF PREVIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW OF PLANNNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT REVISED NATOMAS BASIN HCP E042002017SAC/161795(TABLE C-2.DOC)

EIR/EIS
TABLE C-2
Prior Analysis of Water Resources Impacts from Planned Urban Development in the Natomas Basina Impact
Level of
Significance Mitigation
Level of Significance
with Mitigation Action
Mitigation Measure 4.4.2. For any development proposed
within the 100-year floodplain, such development will be conditioned upon the applicant’s ability to demonstrate that finished grade elevations are raised above inundation levels, or that other site-specific flood control measures are
implemented to protect new structures from 100-year
inundation.

Impact 4.4.3. Future
development under the
provisions of the General
Plan could result in the
degradation of surface and
groundwater quality due to
urban runoff.

Significant Implement General Plan Goals 3.B and 3.C; Policies 3.B.2,

3.B.3, 3.B.4, 3.B.5, 3.B.6, 3.C.1, 3.C.2, 3.C.3, 3.C.4, 3.C.5,

3.D.6, 4.A.2, 9.A.2 and 9.A.3; and Implementation Programs

3.5, 3.6, and 3.8.

Mitigation Measure 4.4.4. As a condition of future project- level development approvals, project proponents shall
provide and implement a comprehensive plan to prevent
erosion, siltation, contamination of stormwater during
construction, and “first flush” contaminants after construction.

Detail of the plan shall reflect the scale of the project. Such a plan shall be prepared in accordance with permit conditions and requirements of the NPDES general industrial
stormwater permit, when applicable.

Mitigation Measure 4.4.5. As a condition of future project- level development approvals, project proponents shall
provide and implement Best Management Practices to
reduce pollutants from entering the waterways. Best
management practices to reduce pollutants include the use of oil and sand separators, grassy swales, detention ponds, vegetative buffers, and other source control measures.

Less than significant. No further action necessary.

APPENDIX C: SUMMARY OF PREVIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW OF PLANNNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT E042002017SAC/161795(TABLE C-2.DOC) REVISED NATOMAS BASIN HCP

EIR/EIS
TABLE C-2
Prior Analysis of Water Resources Impacts from Planned Urban Development in the Natomas Basina Impact
Level of
Significance Mitigation
Level of Significance
with Mitigation Action
Impact 4.4.4. Future
development under the
provisions of the General
Plan may reduce recharged
groundwater supplies as a
result of converting
agricultural uses to urban
uses, and as a result of a
reduction of permeable
ground surface.

Potentially
significant.

Same as above for Impact 4.4.3. The policies and
implementation actions described above are effective only when implemented in conjunction with Mitigation Measures

4.10.1, 4.10.2, and 4.10.3 for water supply [see below].

Less than significant. No further action necessary.

Impact 4.10.1. Future urban
development in accordance
with the General Plan
Revision would result in
increased demand for water
in the County. The demand
for water would require
either expansion of existing
systems and/or development
of new water systems.

Significant
impact.

Implement General Plan Goals 3.B and 4.A; Policies 3.B-1,

3.B-2, 3.B-3, 3.B-4, 3.B-5, 3.B-6, 3.B-7, 3.B-8, 3.B-9, 3B-10, and 4.A-3; and Implementation Programs 3.5, 3.6, and 3.7.

Mitigation Measure 4.10.1. As a condition of subsequent project-level approvals, project applicants shall submit to the County for verification that the expansion of an existing water supply system or acceptable alternative water system
improvements in accordance with Policy 3.B-1 (deemed to be appropriate by the Community Services Department
Environmental Services Program to meet the water needs of that project) will be completed.

Mitigation Measure 4.10.2. As a condition of subsequent project-level approvals, project applicants shall demonstrate that the water system proposed for the project is designed to meet the projected water capacity and fire flow requirements and specifications.

Mitigation Measures 4.10.3. All buildings constructed as part of subsequent development projects shall be
encouraged to include low-flow plumbing fixtures within project designs in order to conserve water.

Less than significant. No further action necessary.
a The analysis of environmental impacts presented in these documents was prepared in accordance with the requirements of CEQA. No changes to the types of impacts presented would be anticipated if the documents were prepared for NEPA purposes.

APPENDIX C: SUMMARY OF PREVIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW OF PLANNNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT E042002017 SAC/161795(TABLE C-3.DOC ) REVISED NATOMAS BAS IN HCP

EIR/EIS
TABLE C-3
Prior Analysis of Biological Resources Impacts from Planned Urban Development in the Natomas Basin a Impact
Level of
Significance Mitigation
Level of Significance
with Mitigation Action
City of Sacramento General Plan EIR
The elimination or
conversion of five natural
communities would occur.

All occurrences of these
communities are not
known. Of the ones that
are known, the following
would be potentially
affected: (1) blue oak
woodland in North
Sacramento east of the
Union Pacific Railroad; (2)
riparian stands in South
Natomas north of Garden
Highway (on either side of
I-5 north and adjacent to
Garden Highway) and
along the Natomas East
Main Drainage Canal, and
in North Sacramento along
Magpie Creek; (3) habitat
supported by creeks and
canals in North Natomas
and South Sacramento;
(4) northern hardpan
vernal pools in North
Sacramento east of Raley
Boulevard and in South
Sacramento north of
Sheldon Road; and (5)
fence row habitat along
the undeveloped edges of
urban and agricultural
habitats.

Significant. Full mitigation would include preservation of significant habitat areas by allowing only compatible low-intensity uses.

The City Council determined that full mitigation was
infeasible. Adopted partial mitigation included the
implementation of the following Goals and Policies from the General Plan Conservation and Open Space Element
(Preservation of Natural Resources section): Goal B, Policies 1 and 2; Goal C, Policies 1 and 2; Goal D, Policy 1; Goad E, Policies 1 and 2.

Significant. The City Council determined that
economic, social, and other
considerations make it infeasible
to mitigate the impacts to below
significant levels.

APPENDIX C: SUMMARY OF PREVIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW OF PLANNNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT REVISED NATOMAS BAS IN HCP E042002017 SAC/161795(TABLE C-3.DOC )

EIR/EIS
TABLE C-3
Prior Analysis of Biological Resources Impacts from Planned Urban Development in the Natomas Basin a Impact
Level of
Significance Mitigation
Level of Significance
with Mitigation Action
Elimination or conversion
of potential (but previously
unknown or unsearched)
habitat could occur for
federally listed, proposed,
and candidate threatened
or endangered plant
species, and California
Native Plant Society rare
and endangered plant
species (especially in
previously unsearched
northern hardpan vernal
pools and riparian
communities).

Significant. Full mitigation would include site-specific surveys of all sites where special-status plants could potentially occur, and preserving those habitats where special-status plants are found. The City Council determined that full mitigation was infeasible. Adopted partial mitigation included the
implementation of the following Policy from the General Plan Conservation and Open Space Element (Preservation of
Natural Resources section): Policy 1.

Significant. The City Council determined that
economic, social, and other
considerations make it infeasible
to mitigate the impacts to below
significant levels.

Elimination or conversion
for habitat for the state-
listed Swainson’s hawk
and the California fully
protected white-tailed kite.

Significant. Full mitigation would require the avoidance of all nest and roost sites by creating a buffer zone (typically a 400-meter radius) around each nest. The City Council determined that full mitigation was infeasible. Proposed partial mitigation included the implementation of the following Policy from the General Plan Conservation and Open Space Element
(Preservation of Natural Resources section): Policy 1.

Significant. The City Council determined that
economic, social, and other
considerations make it infeasible
to mitigate the impacts to below
significant levels.

Elimination or conversion
of habitat for the federal
candidate (Category 2)
and state-threatened giant
garter snake and the
federally listed threatened
valley elderberry longhorn
beetle.

Significant. Full mitigation would include site-specific surveys of all sites where special-status animals could potentially occur, and preserving those habitats where special-status animals are found. The City Council determined that full mitigation was infeasible. Adopted partial mitigation included the
implementation of the following Policy from the General Plan Conservation and Open Space Element (Preservation of
Natural Resources section): Policy 1.

Significant. The City Council determined that
economic, social, and other
considerations make it infeasible
to mitigate the impacts to below
significant levels.

APPENDIX C: SUMMARY OF PREVIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW OF PLANNNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT E042002017 SAC/161795(TABLE C-3.DOC ) REVISED NATOMAS BAS IN HCP

EIR/EIS
TABLE C-3
Prior Analysis of Biological Resources Impacts from Planned Urban Development in the Natomas Basin a Impact
Level of
Significance Mitigation
Level of Significance
with Mitigation Action
Removal of potential
heritage trees, as defined
in the City’s Heritage Tree
Ordinance, could occur.

Significant. Implement Policy 2 of the Conservation and Open Space Element (Preservation of Natural Resources section) of the General Plan.

Identify and preserve native and nonnative trees of
outstanding value as heritage trees by enforcing the City’s Heritage Tree Ordinance.

Less than significant. No further action necessary.

Canal and river
maintenance activities,
including the removal of
vegetation and soils,
would alter natural
habitats, introduce weedy
species, and introduce
pollutants into water
bodies supporting fish
populations.

Significant. Full mitigation includes developing citywide canal and creek maintenance plans (as a joint effort of the reclamation and flood control districts and the City) to preserve wetland vegetation growing on the edges of canals and creeks and to require revegetation with natural species where vegetation removal could not be avoided. The City Council determined that full mitigation was infeasible. Partial mitigation included the implementation of the following Goals and Policies of the General Plan Conservation and Open Space Element
(Preservation of Natural Resources section): Goal B, Policies 1 and 2; Goal C, Policies 1 and 2; Goal D, Policy 1; and Goal E, Policies 1 and 2.

Significant. The City Council determined that
economic, social, and other
considerations make it infeasible
to mitigate the impacts to below
significant levels.

The elimination of 21,871
acres of agricultural land
would destroy the habitat
for thousands of water
birds.

Significant. The only mitigation available was to implement the No Project Alternative. The City Council did not adopt this mitigation measure.

Significant. The City Council determined that
economic, social, and other
considerations make it infeasible
to mitigate the impacts to below
significant levels.

City parks supporting
important natural
communities such as
riparian and freshwater
marsh habitats would be
subject to vegetation, soil,
and wildlife disturbance by
increased human use of
the parks.

Significant. Implement Policy 5 of the Public Facilities Element (Recreation Services section) of the General Plan.

Design parks to control user densities to be compatible with preservation of natural habitats by directing use away from sensitive areas with natural barriers and judicious use of trails, interpretive paths and displays, and guides.

Less than significant. No further action necessary.

APPENDIX C: SUMMARY OF PREVIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW OF PLANNNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT REVISED NATOMAS BAS IN HCP E042002017 SAC/161795(TABLE C-3.DOC )

EIR/EIS
TABLE C-3
Prior Analysis of Biological Resources Impacts from Planned Urban Development in the Natomas Basin a Impact
Level of
Significance Mitigation
Level of Significance
with Mitigation Action
North Natomas Community Plan EIR
Impact 4.5-1. The Update
has the potential to
generate short-term dust
and erosion impacts
during construction
activities that could impact
water quality via increased
turbidity, and subsequently
could impact biological
resources.

Less than
significant
because of
compliance with
City erosion
control
standards.

All construction sites shall be graded such that the new topography makes a smooth transition to existing adjacent topography. Dust and soil control measures shall be
implemented during the construction phases of all projects.

Additional measures include: (a) watering exposed soils, (b) covering exposed soils with straw or other materials, (c) adopting measures to prevent construction vehicles from tracking mud onto adjacent roadways, (d) covering trucks containing loose and dry soils, and (e) providing interim drainage measures during the construction period. In non- pavement areas, any vegetation covered or removed during grading or construction is to be replaced following the construction activities.

Less than significant. No further action necessary.

Impact 4.5-2. Removal of
any tree with an active
Swainson’s hawk nest or
disturbance of an active
nest.

Significant. No disturbance will be allowed within ½ mile of an active nest between March 1 – August 15 or until fledglings are no longer dependent upon nest tree habitat (which could be as late as September 15). If the nest tree is to be removed and
fledglings are present, the nest tree may not be removed until September 15 or until CDFG has determined that the young have fledged or are no longer dependent upon the nest tree.

If construction or other project-related activities which may cause nest abandonment or forced fledgling are proposed within the ½ mile buffer zone, intensive monitoring (funded by the project sponsor) by a CDFG-approved raptor biologist will be required. Exact implementation of this measure will be based upon specific information at the project site.

Projects should be designed to avoid direct and indirect impacts to nest trees. In addition, the revegetation of historical nesting habitat with suitable native nest tree species (e.g., oaks, cottonwoods, sycamores, etc.) adjacent to
adequate foraging habitat shall be undertaken. Sites at least five acres in size are recommended.

Less than significant. No further action necessary.

APPENDIX C: SUMMARY OF PREVIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW OF PLANNNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT E042002017 SAC/161795(TABLE C-3.DOC ) REVISED NATOMAS BAS IN HCP

EIR/EIS
TABLE C-3
Prior Analysis of Biological Resources Impacts from Planned Urban Development in the Natomas Basin a Impact
Level of
Significance Mitigation
Level of Significance
with Mitigation Action
The Environmental Design Standards contained in the
Update also contain measures to mitigation any impacts to Swainson’s hawk nest trees and nesting activities: (1) Valley oaks and other large trees should be preserved wherever possible. Preserve and restore stands of riparian trees used by Swainson’s hawks and other animals for nesting,
particularly adjacent to Fisherman’s Lake. (2) Improve the wildlife value of landscaped parks, buffers, and developed areas by planting trees and shrubs which are native to the North Natomas areas and therefore used by many native
animals. Simulate natural riparian and valley oak woodlands by planting larger stands. (3) Avoid the raptor nesting season when scheduling construction near nests.

Impact 4.5-3. Loss of
wooded riparian/wetland
habitat.

A significant
impact could
occur, although
the City
determined that
implementation
of the proposed
Comprehensive
Drainage Plan
would likely
result in a less-
than-significant
impact because
of the small
amount of
habitat
expected to be
affected.

No specific mitigation measures were considered necessary.

The Update also contains a number of measures intended to reduce the impacts of the project on wooded riparian/wetland habitat types: (1) Valley oaks and other large trees should be preserved whenever possible. Preserve and restore stands of riparian trees used by Swainson’s hawks and other animals for nesting, particularly adjacent to Fisherman’s Lake. (2) Improve the wildlife value of landscaped parks, buffers, and developed areas by planting trees and shrubs which are
native to the North Natomas area and therefore used by
many native animals. Simulate natural riparian and valley oak woodlands by planting larger stands.

Less than significant. No further action necessary.

APPENDIX C: SUMMARY OF PREVIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW OF PLANNNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT REVISED NATOMAS BAS IN HCP E042002017 SAC/161795(TABLE C-3.DOC )

EIR/EIS
TABLE C-3
Prior Analysis of Biological Resources Impacts from Planned Urban Development in the Natomas Basin a Impact
Level of
Significance Mitigation
Level of Significance
with Mitigation Action
Impact 4.5-4. The Update
would result in the
conversion of agricultural
lands used as rice fields to
urban uses. Those rice
fields provide seasonal
wetlands values to wildlife.

Significant and
unavoidable.

The Environmental Design Standards of the Update propose the creation of a minimum 250-foot wide greenbelt along the northern and western boundaries of the Update area to create a strong edge between the urban area and adjacent areas of permanent agriculture. The landscaping in this greenbelt will be of native trees and shrubs, which are used by many native animals. riparian and wetland areas will have limited human use so as to enhance their value for wildlife. In addition, various landowners in the Update Area have entered into a Memorandum of Understanding with CDFG for the creation of a Habitat Mitigation Plan. The HMP will preserve and create wildlife habitat for a riparian species such as the Giant Garter Snake which is found near rice fields. Thus the HMP will also mitigate for the loss of rice fields which provide wetland habitat values during certain times of the year.

Significant and
unavoidable.

The City determined that any
remaining unmitigated
environmental impacts
attributable to the project would
be outweighed by specific
economic, fiscal, social,
environmental, land use, and
other overriding considerations.

Impact 4.5-5.

Implementation of the
Update would result in the
conversion of agricultural
lands other than rice fields,
to urban uses. These
agricultural lands include
pastures, grain fields, alfalfa,
and fallow fields, which all
provide some value to
wildlife as foraging areas as
well as nest sites. The
Update could also result in
the loss of tree resources,
such as small stands of oaks
or other trees which provide
nesting and roosting sites for
raptors and other birds.

There is also some potential
for the loss of Heritage trees
or City Street trees.

Significant. The City Arborist will review individual project applications and recommend trees for preservation. All trees not
designated for removal and/or replanting shall be protected during construction by the following means: (1) the placement of temporary chain link fencing around individual trees or around protected groves or lines of trees, (2) no trenching or grading below the driplines of trees shall be allowed, (3) cuts or fills near trees to be retained on site shall not cause water to pond continuously around trees, and (4) no parking of vehicles or storage of material shall occur within fenced areas.

Various landowners in the Update Area have agreed with
CDFG to work for the creation of a Habitat Management Plan to preserve and create habitat for certain species, such as the Swainson’s hawk, which use these “other agricultural lands” as foraging habitat. To the extent that a HMP is adopted, it will mitigate for the loss of these types of “other agricultural lands.”
Significant. The City determined that any
remaining unmitigated
environmental impacts
attributable to the project would
be outweighed by specific
economic, fiscal, social,
environmental, land use, and
other overriding considerations.

APPENDIX C: SUMMARY OF PREVIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW OF PLANNNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT E042002017 SAC/161795(TABLE C-3.DOC ) REVISED NATOMAS BAS IN HCP

EIR/EIS
TABLE C-3
Prior Analysis of Biological Resources Impacts from Planned Urban Development in the Natomas Basin a Impact
Level of
Significance Mitigation
Level of Significance
with Mitigation Action
The Update contains measures to reduce the impacts arising from a loss of trees in its Environmental Standards Section:
(1) Valley oaks and other large trees should be preserved wherever possible. Preserve and restore stands of riparian trees used by Swainson’s hawks and other animals for
nesting, particularly adjacent to Fisherman’s Lake. (2) Improve the wildlife value of landscaped parks, buffers, and developed areas by planting trees and shrubs which are
native to the North Natomas area and therefore used by
many native animals. Simulate natural riparian and valley oak woodlands by planting larger stands.

Impact 4.5-6.

Implementation of the
Update could result in the
loss of wetland habitat
values and acreage from
areas other than rice
fields. Drainage ditches
and canals may represent
a source of wetlands
habitat. There is also a
slight potential for the
existence of vernal pools
in some areas of North
Natomas, although none
have yet been identified.

The Army Corps of
Engineers and
Environmental Protection
Agency consider any fill
activity in jurisdictional
wetlands to be a
significant impact.

Significant. Prior to any physical alteration on property which contains jurisdictional wetlands, the applicant shall submit a wetland mitigation and compensation plan for the creation or
preservation of wetlands. That plan shall include detailed plans for the creation of new wetlands (when required), the specific designated area for the wetlands and supporting watershed, a monitoring program and provision for long-term maintenance of the created wetlands, fencing and buffer details, and provisions for future ownership or stewardship acceptable to the City of Sacramento. The plan shall specify vegetative performance criteria and standards to judge the success of the created wetlands, and remedial actions to be taken if the performance standards are not met. If
endangered, threatened, or candidate species are found to inhabit or use the wetlands, mitigation shall occur per the appropriate regulations and guidelines (where promulgated) or through consultation with the appropriate regulatory agency. The applicant shall also obtain the applicable Section 404 permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and enter into any required Streambed Alteration Agreement with
CDFG for any proposed modification to jurisdictional
wetlands or streambeds.

Less than significant. No further action necessary.

APPENDIX C: SUMMARY OF PREVIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW OF PLANNNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT REVISED NATOMAS BAS IN HCP E042002017 SAC/161795(TABLE C-3.DOC )

EIR/EIS
TABLE C-3
Prior Analysis of Biological Resources Impacts from Planned Urban Development in the Natomas Basin a Impact
Level of
Significance Mitigation
Level of Significance
with Mitigation Action
Impact 4.5-7.

Implementation of the
Update may lead to the
enlargement of
abandonment of the
existing system of
drainage canals which
provide important habitat
for the Giant Garter
Snake.

The loss of
modification of
canal habitat
used by Giant
Garter Snake
would be a
significant
impact since the
snake is listed
as Threatened
by the California
Endangered
Species Act and
is a Category 1
candidate for
endangered
status under the
Federal
Endangered
Species Act.

In cases where a drainage canal is being abandoned, the canal should be allowed to dry out slowly while emergent vegetation in newly restored areas is establishing itself. This allows a transition period for the emergent vegetation and provides CDFG with an opportunity to relocate any Giant Garter Snakes to the new areas if desired. Because relocation or replacement of Giant Garter Snake habitat will not meet the habitat quality goal in the short term, replacement of existing habitat will require compensation at a 2:1 ratio in order to overcome possible population declines that may occur during the time between destruction of the original habitat and maturation of the new habitat. Habitat relocation procedures and timing considerations specified in the SEIR were: (1) no grading, excavating, or filling activities may take place within 30 feet of existing Giant Garter Snake habitat between October 1 and May 1, unless authorized by CDFG; (2) the construction of replacement habitat may take place at any time of year, but summer is preferred; water may be diverted from existing habitat as soon as the new habitat is completed, but the placement of dams or other diversion structures in the existing habitat will require on-site CDFG approval; (3) replacement habitat will be revegetated as directed by CDFG; (4) dewatering of existing habitat may begin at any time after November 1, but must begin by April 1 of the following year; (5) any Giant Garter Snake surveys required by the CDFG must be completed to the satisfaction of CDFG prior to
dewatering; (6) all water must be removed from existing habitat by April 15, or as soon thereafter as weather permits, and the habitat must remain dry without any standing water for 15 consecutive days after April 15 and prior to excavating or filling the dewatered habitat; (7) CDFG is to be notified when
dewatering begins and when it is completed.

In addition to the above described mitigation measures, further measures may be required as described in a report published by CDFG in January 1992 entitled Status and Future
Management of the Giant Garter Snake (Thamnophis gigas) within the Southern American Basin, Sacramento and Sutter Counties, California, by John M. Brode and George E. Hansen.

Less than significant. No further action necessary.

APPENDIX C: SUMMARY OF PREVIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW OF PLANNNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT E042002017 SAC/161795(TABLE C-3.DOC ) REVISED NATOMAS BAS IN HCP

EIR/EIS
TABLE C-3
Prior Analysis of Biological Resources Impacts from Planned Urban Development in the Natomas Basin a Impact
Level of
Significance Mitigation
Level of Significance
with Mitigation Action
The Environmental Standards Section of the Update also
contained measures to lessen the impacts of the Project on the Giant Garter Snake: (1) Maintain the natural beauty of wildlife habitat of creeks and drainage canals and basins as part of the necessary improvements, including the planting of native, drought tolerant plants. (2) Protect existing riparian and wetland habitats when building the proposed drainage canals and detention basins. (3) Provide vegetation along the new and existing canals to provide suitable habitat for Giant Garter Snakes and other wetland species.

In addition to the above mitigation measures, various
landowners in the Update Area have agreed to work with
CDFG for the creation of a Habitat Mitigation Plan to preserve and create suitable habitat for the Giant Garter Snake.

Impact 4.5-8. The clearing
and removal of riparian
trees during drainage
canal improvements, and
the removal of other
stands of trees (such as
large cottonwoods and
oaks) for various
developments has the
potential to eliminate
nesting habitat for the
Swainson’s hawk, a
protected species under
the California Endangered
Species Act. The
cottonwood trees
bordering Fisherman’s
Lake are considered the
best nesting habitat in the
area of the Update.

Significant. See above for Impact 4.5-2 and below for Impact 4.5-9. Less than significant. No further action necessary.

APPENDIX C: SUMMARY OF PREVIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW OF PLANNNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT REVISED NATOMAS BAS IN HCP E042002017 SAC/161795(TABLE C-3.DOC )

EIR/EIS
TABLE C-3
Prior Analysis of Biological Resources Impacts from Planned Urban Development in the Natomas Basin a Impact
Level of
Significance Mitigation
Level of Significance
with Mitigation Action
Impact 4.5-9.

Implementation of the
Update would remove
agricultural fields used as
foraging habitat by
Swainson’s hawks which
next along the
Sacramento River and
Fisherman’s Lake, west of
the Update area.

Significant. Prepare a Habitat Mitigation Plan to lessen the impacts of the Update on the Swainson’s hawk and other wildlife species.

Also preserve as open space or agriculture the western part of the Project Area near the Swainson’s hawk nesting sites along the Sacramento River and Fisherman’s Lake, or the
preservation and enhancement of foraging habitats outside the Project Area but near known nesting territories. In order to provide funding for the costs of the Swainson’s hawk mitigation measures, the developer/applicant shall pay such lawful fees, taxes, or assessments as the City may impose through
development fees, impact fees, fee districts, community facilities district, assessment districts, or other similar fair, equitable, and appropriate mechanisms designed to address the cost of Swainson’s hawk foraging habitat mitigation, and that the developer/applicant be required to execute an
agreement satisfactory to the City Attorney and suitable for recordation which obligates the developer/applicant to pay development fees, assessments, or taxes.

Significant. The City determined that any
remaining unmitigated
environmental impacts
attributable to the project would
be outweighed by specific
economic, fiscal, social,
environmental, land use, and
other overriding considerations.

Impact 4.5-10. Earth
moving activities and
construction activities may
cause a direct loss of
burrowing owls or their
habitat.

Potentially
significant.

Prior to initiation of grading or other earth disturbing activities, the applicant/developer shall hire a qualified biologist to perform a pre-construction survey of the site to determine if any burrowing owls are using the site for foraging or nesting.

If any nest sites are found, CDFG shall be contacted
regarding suitable mitigation measures, which may include the provision of a 300-foot buffer from the nest site during the breeding season (March 15 – August 31), or a relocation effort for the burrowing owls. The pre-construction survey shall be submitted to the City for review prior to the
commencement of construction activities. If future surveys reveal the presence of burring owls on the project site, the applicant/ developer shall prepare a plan for relocating the owls to a suitable site. The relocation plan must include:
(1) the location of the nest and owls proposed for relocation; (2) the location of the proposed relocation site; (3) the number of owls involved and the time of year when the
relocation is proposed to take place; (4) the name and
credentials of the biologist who will be retained to supervise Less than significant. No further action necessary.

APPENDIX C: SUMMARY OF PREVIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW OF PLANNNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT E042002017 SAC/161795(TABLE C-3.DOC ) REVISED NATOMAS BAS IN HCP

EIR/EIS
TABLE C-3
Prior Analysis of Biological Resources Impacts from Planned Urban Development in the Natomas Basin a Impact
Level of
Significance Mitigation
Level of Significance
with Mitigation Action
the relocation; (5) the proposed method of capture and
transport for the owls to the new site; (6) a description of the site preparations at the relocation site (e.g., enhancement of existing burrows, creation of artificial burrows, one-time or long-term vegetation control, etc.), and (7) a description of efforts proposed to monitor the relocation.

The Environmental Standards Section of the Update also
contains mitigation measures: (1) Search for special-status plants during flowering season prior to construction and special-status animals during the appropriate season, and (2) avoid the raptor nesting season when scheduling
construction near nests.

Impact 4.5-11. The
implementation of the
Update could result in the
direct destruction of other
special-status species or
the destruction of their
nesting or foraging habitat.

Potentially
significant.

Various landowners and CDFG are taking steps to develop a Habitat Mitigation Plan that may be expanded to protect all known threatened, endangered, and candidate species in the Update Area. Potential impacts could be mitigated by the measures previously discussed for the protection of specific habitats. In addition, specific nesting and roosting areas could be protected from development, along with buffer zones.

Known sites include a communal roost of white-tailed kites at Fisherman’s Lake and several burrowing owl colonies.

Another mitigation measure would be the scheduling of
construction in the vicinity of raptor nests so as to avoid the breeding season. Impacts to special-status plant species could be mitigated by conducting site-specific searches during the flowering season by a qualified botanist before construction begins. Mitigation plans could thereafter be determined if populations of those plants are found. The Update also contains mitigation measures in its
Environmental Standards Section: (1) Valley Oaks and other large trees should be preserved wherever possible. Preserve and restore stands of riparian trees used by Swainson’s hawks and other animals for nesting, particularly adjacent to Fisherman’s Lake. (2) Improve the wildlife value of
landscaped parks, buffers, and developed areas by planting trees and shrubs which are native to the North Natomas area Less than significant. No further action necessary.

APPENDIX C: SUMMARY OF PREVIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW OF PLANNNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT REVISED NATOMAS BAS IN HCP E042002017 SAC/161795(TABLE C-3.DOC )

EIR/EIS
TABLE C-3
Prior Analysis of Biological Resources Impacts from Planned Urban Development in the Natomas Basin a Impact
Level of
Significance Mitigation
Level of Significance
with Mitigation Action
and therefore used by many native animals. (3) Riparian and wetland areas are more valuable as wildlife habitat when they are located where human use is limited, such as along
agricultural and freeway buffers and other large open space areas. (4) Avoid the raptor nesting season when scheduling construction near nests. (5) Search for special-status plants during the flowering season prior to construction and special- status animals during the appropriate season.

Impact 4.7-5. Excavation
and maintenance of
existing RD 1000 canals
could have significant
impacts on existing
riparian and wetland
habitat in Fisherman’s
Lake and the East
Drainage Canal. In
addition, contamination of
surface and groundwater
could potentially result in
adverse impacts on
wetland and riparian
habitats.

Determined to
be significant
and unavoidable
in the prior
(i.e., 1986)
environmental
review.

The draft Comprehensive Drainage Plan avoids the widening and alteration of the existing wetland and riparian areas along existing drainage canals.

Less than significant. No further action necessary.

South Natomas Community Plan EIR
Elimination of agricultural,
waste field, and fence row
habitat for wildlife caused
by urbanization of these
lands.

Significant. No mitigation measures were identified. Significant. Approval was justified by specific economic, social, environmental,
and other considerations.

APPENDIX C: SUMMARY OF PREVIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW OF PLANNNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT E042002017 SAC/161795(TABLE C-3.DOC ) REVISED NATOMAS BAS IN HCP

EIR/EIS
TABLE C-3
Prior Analysis of Biological Resources Impacts from Planned Urban Development in the Natomas Basin a Impact
Level of
Significance Mitigation
Level of Significance
with Mitigation Action
Disturbance to wildlife
habitat along Bannon
Slough and main drainage
canal.

Significant. Preserve riparian habitat and dedicate to the City. Less than significant. No further action necessary.

Sutter County General Plan EIR
Impact 4.8.1. Future
development in
accordance with the
proposed General Plan
will disturb or degrade
jurisdictional and other
wetland habitat resulting
from modifications of the
canal system and loss of
habitats associated with
existing rice fields.

Considered a
significant
impact.

Implement General Plan Goals 4.B, 4.C, and 4.D; Policies

4.B-1, 4.B-2, 4.B-3, 4.B-4, 4.C-1, 4.C-2, 4.C-3, 4,C-4, 4.C-5,

4.C-6, 4.C-7, 4.D-1, 4.D-2, 4.D-3, 4.D-4, 4.D-5; and
Implementation Programs 4.1, 4.2, 4.3, and 4.4.

Mitigation Measure 4.8.1. Prior to modification of canals, biological surveys targeting sensitive species shall be conducted and evaluated. In addition to the implementation of any mitigation measures prescribed as a result of these surveys, the following measures shall be implemented: (a) Prior to destruction or modification of any canals, workers will allow the canals to slowly drain thus providing escape
opportunities for displaced wildlife. (b) Prior to draining, replacement canal areas similarly suitable for habitat shall be constructed and constituent vegetation allowed to become established. (c) Whenever possible, new canals should be established in close proximity to existing canals to provide for easy relocation by displaced wildlife, Sufficient time for translocation of species if so desired by trustee agencies should be allowed. (d) A monitoring program to determine the success of habitat management objectives shall be
developed and implemented by a qualified biologist.

Mitigation Measure 4.8.1A. Subsequent development
projects shall provide species and habitat mitigation in accordance with the provisions of the Natomas Basin Habitat Conservation Plan, should this plan be adopted by Sutter County. In the absence of an adopted HCP, or should an
applicant choose not to participate in the adopted HCP, subsequent development projects for specific sites shall be required to: (a) Submit to Sutter County verification that no Less than significant. No further action necessary.

APPENDIX C: SUMMARY OF PREVIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW OF PLANNNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT REVISED NATOMAS BAS IN HCP E042002017 SAC/161795(TABLE C-3.DOC )

EIR/EIS
TABLE C-3
Prior Analysis of Biological Resources Impacts from Planned Urban Development in the Natomas Basin a Impact
Level of
Significance Mitigation
Level of Significance
with Mitigation Action
special-status species, sensitive resources, or significant habitat exist at that site; or (2) Participate in an alternative comprehensive mitigation plan as developed and implemented by the County. Such a plan would be developed in consultation with CDFG and USFWS, and would plan for the replacement of suitable Swainson’s hawk and giant garter snake habitat. (c) Conduct individual site-specific biological reconnaissance surveys and provide site-specific mitigation for wetlands, special-status species, and significant habitat areas. Individual project mitigation strategies for identified resources will require review and approval of the County, COE, CDFG, and USFWS to obtain individual permits; and (4) Implement the general mitigation strategies of MM 4.8-1 through MM 4.8-6 below.

Mitigation Measure 4.8.2. Prior to any construction activities resulting from development under the proposed General Plan, a temporary 100-foot buffer zone shall be established during project construction near wetlands to avoid possible
inadvertent impacts to wetland habitats. This fenced zone shall be exclusionary and any construction related activities including activities which may cause inadvertent fill or contamination of wetlands shall be avoided within these zones.

Mitigation Measure 4.8.3. Prior to approval of subsequent project-specific development proposals which would modify and/or remove man-made and natural wetlands, a
comprehensive mitigation plan shall be prepared at applicant expense by a qualified habitat restoration specialist. Said plan shall be developed in cooperation with COE and in
accordance with current requirements.

Mitigation Measure 4.8.4. Prior to disturbance of any
identified vernal pools, project applicants will consult with COE and negotiate an acceptable mitigation plan. These
plans may consist of construction of artificial pools or wetlands banking, however, because the COE has
jurisdictions over these wetlands, they retain final approval authority over all mitigation plans.

APPENDIX C: SUMMARY OF PREVIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW OF PLANNNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT E042002017 SAC/161795(TABLE C-3.DOC ) REVISED NATOMAS BAS IN HCP

EIR/EIS
TABLE C-3
Prior Analysis of Biological Resources Impacts from Planned Urban Development in the Natomas Basin a Impact
Level of
Significance Mitigation
Level of Significance
with Mitigation Action
Mitigation Measure 4.8.5. Prior to site specific development within ¼ mile of documented Swainson’s hawk nest trees, measures to ensure no disturbance during the breeding
season of March 1 to September 15 shall be applied to
project-specific development approvals in consultation with CDFG and USFWS. Any activities which may cause the
parents to leave the nest and abandon the young will
constitute a “take.”
Mitigation Measure 4.8.6. Prior to development under the General Plan within the vicinity of existing and new canals, measures to ensure the preservation of a band of giant garter snake habitat shall be required (e.g., 100 feet between a canal and urban development). Although the primary purpose of the bank would be giant garter snake habitat, limited compatible uses such as bike trails may be allowed.

Impact 4.8.2. Future
development in
accordance with the
proposed General Plan
will adversely affect
populations and critical
habitat of special-status
animal species.

Significant. Same as described above for Impact 4.8.1. Less than significant. No further action necessary. a The analysis of environmental impacts presented in these documents was prepared in accordance with the requirements of CEQA. No changes to the types of impacts presented would be anticipated if the documents were prepared for NEPA purposes.

APPENDIX C: SUMMARY OF PREVIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW OF PLANNNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT E042002017 SAC/161795(TABLE C-4.DOC ) REVISED NATOMAS BAS IN HCP

EIR/EIS
TABLE C-4
Prior Analysis of Cultural Resources Impacts from Planned Urban Development in the Natomas Basin a Impact
Level of
Significance Mitigation
Level of Significance
with Mitigation Action
City of Sacramento General Plan EIR
Prehistoric and historic
resources would be
adversely impacted
through ground
disturbance and other
development activities.

The primary prehistoric
impact areas have been
identified as: (1) along the
Sacramento and American
Rivers, (2) North Natomas,
(3) portions of North
Sacramento lying north of
I-80 along drainage
courses and the American
River floodplain, (4)
southwest portion of South
Natomas, and (5) Florin
Road vicinity. The primary
historic impact areas are
the: (1) Central city, (2)

0.5-mile buffer along the
Sacramento River in the
Pocket area and Airport
Meadowview, and (3) 0.5-
mile buffer along Folsom
Boulevard in East
Broadway.

Significant. Require consultation with the North Central Information Center to identify known cultural resources and potential cultural resources that could be found on land proposed for development.

Require an archeological field survey if the development area is sensitive.

Implement specific preservation measures recommended by the survey archeologist.

Cease construction activities and consult qualified
archaeologists upon discovery of potential cultural resources.

Maintain confidentiality of significant resource locations.

Adopt cultural resource policies as part of the SGPU.

Less than significant. No further action necessary.

North Natomas Community Plan EIR
None identified. N/A N/A N/A No further action necessary.

APPENDIX C: SUMMARY OF PREVIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW OF PLANNNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT REVISED NATOMAS BAS IN HCP E042002017 SAC/161795(TABLE C-4.DOC )

EIR/EIS
TABLE C-4
Prior Analysis of Cultural Resources Impacts from Planned Urban Development in the Natomas Basin a Impact
Level of
Significance Mitigation
Level of Significance
with Mitigation Action
South Natomas Community Plan EIR
Potential disturbance of
community cultural
resources in the southwest
corner of the community.

Significant. Cultural resource survey may be required prior to approval for specific developments in the affected area.

Less than significant. No further action necessary.

Sutter County General Plan EIR
Impact 4.9-1. Future
development in
accordance with the
proposed General Plan
will require excavation and
grading activities, resulting
in potential damage to any
unidentified prehistoric or
historic resources.

Potentially
significant.

Implement General Plan Goal 5.B, Policy 5.B-3, and
Implementation Program 5.2.

Mitigation Measure 4.9-1. The County shall require that an archeological reconnaissance be conducted and a report be prepared for development projects located in areas of high archeological sensitivity. Should the report conclude that an archeological site exists onsite, the County shall require the project proponent to implement the report’s mitigation
strategy.

Less than significant. No further action necessary.
a The analysis of environmental impacts presented in these documents was prepared in accordance with the requirements of CEQA. No changes to the types of impacts presented would be anticipated if the documents were prepared for NEPA purposes.

APPENDIX C: SUMMARY OF PREVIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW OF PLANNNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT E042002017 SAC/161795(TABLE C-5.DOC ) REVISED NATOMAS BAS IN HCP

EIR/EIS
TABLE C-5
Prior Analysis of Land Use Impacts from Planned Urban Development in the Natomas Basin a Impact
Level of
Significance Mitigation
Level of Significance
with Mitigation Action
City of Sacramento General Plan EIR
Farming on parcels
adjacent to the SGPU area
would be more difficult due
to increased restrictions on
agricultural activities that
are incompatible with urban
uses.

Significant. Full mitigation would require the adoption of the No Project Alternative. The City Council determined that this was not feasible. No partial mitigation was identified.

Significant. The City Council determined that
economic, social, and other
considerations make it infeasible
to mitigate the impacts to below
significant levels.
21,871 acres of
vacant/agricultural land
would be converted to
urban use, including
approximately 9,700 acres
of prime agricultural lands
(7,500 acres of which are
currently irrigated) and 100
acres of land under
Williamson Act contracts.

Significant. Full mitigation would require the adoption of the No Project Alternative. The City Council determined that this was not feasible. Identified partial mitigation included (1) establishing a development phasing program, (2) redesignating SGPU
land uses to reduce project development by one-half, (3) converting non-farmland to new farmland of equivalent quality and quantity, (4) minimizing agricultural conversion impacts on higher quality soils by directing conversion onto lower quality soils, (6) protecting other existing agricultural land through the use of Williamson Act contracts, and (7)
establishing greenbelt areas. The City Council adopted (1) and (7) above, and determined that measures (2) through (6) were not feasible.

Significant. The City Council determined that
economic, social, and other
considerations make it infeasible
to mitigate the impacts to below
significant levels.

North Natomas Community Plan EIR
Impact 4.2-3. Cumulative
planned development in the
vicinity of the Project has
the potential to result in the
conversion of
approximately 12,670 acres
of farmland to urban uses.

Significant and
unavoidable.

Develop a greenbelt along the northern and western
boundaries of the Project area to create a strong edge
between the community and adjacent areas of permanent
agriculture. This greenbelt should be a minimum of 250-feet wide, not including the Elkhorn Boulevard right-of-way and the irrigation canals and maintenance roads on the north side of Elkhorn. The City Council determined that it was infeasible to fully mitigate this impact, and that significant impacts would remain after the adoption of this mitigation measure.

Significant. The City determined that any
remaining unmitigated
environmental impacts attributable
to the project would be
outweighed by specific economic,
fiscal, social, environmental, land
use, and other overriding
considerations.

APPENDIX C: SUMMARY OF PREVIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW OF PLANNNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT REVISED NATOMAS BAS IN HCP E042002017 SAC/161795(TABLE C-5.DOC )

EIR/EIS
TABLE C-5
Prior Analysis of Land Use Impacts from Planned Urban Development in the Natomas Basin a Impact
Level of
Significance Mitigation
Level of Significance
with Mitigation Action
South Natomas Community Plan EIR
There is the potential that
adjacent land uses would
be incompatible.

Significant. Buffer incompatible features through design review of individual projects.

Less than significant. No further action necessary.

Conversion of agricultural
land to urban use.

Significant. None available. Significant. Approval was justified by specific economic, social, environmental,
and other considerations.

Removal of 2,500 acres of
prime agricultural soil from
production.

Significant. None available. Significant. Approval was justified by specific economic, social, environmental,
and other considerations.

Sutter County General Plan EIR
Impact 4.1.1. The
proposed General Plan
Update will disrupt the
existing physical
arrangement by allowing for
industrial, commercial,
residential, as well as
recreational and natural
resource uses.

Significant. Implement General Plan Goals 1.A, 1.C, 1.D, and 9.C; Policies

1.A-1, 1.A-2, 1.A-3, 1.A-4, 1.A-5, 1.A-6,1.A-7, 1.C-1, 1.C-2,

1.C-3, 1.C-4, 1.D-1, 9.C-1, 9.C-2, 9.C-3, 9.C-4, and 9.C-5; and Implementation Programs 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, and 1.5.

Mitigation Measure 4.1-1. Concurrent with project
application submittals, the County will ensure that such proposals are evaluated for potential project impacts upon surrounding development patterns and land uses. This
evaluation may be accomplished through the Community
Services Department Planning Program in conjunction with an administrative zoning clearance process, or through
subsequent CEQA documentation, depending upon the scale and nature of the project.

Appropriate project-level design standards and mitigation shall either be included within subsequent development
proposals, or be required through the environmental review process to eliminate or reduce any identified land use impact.

Mitigation strategies to be considered should include (but not be limited to): (1) concentration of development within the Industrial-Commercial Reserve, (2) appropriate development phasing and the logical provision of infrastructure,
Less than significant. No further action necessary.

APPENDIX C: SUMMARY OF PREVIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW OF PLANNNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT E042002017 SAC/161795(TABLE C-5.DOC ) REVISED NATOMAS BAS IN HCP

EIR/EIS
TABLE C-5
Prior Analysis of Land Use Impacts from Planned Urban Development in the Natomas Basin a Impact
Level of
Significance Mitigation
Level of Significance
with Mitigation Action
(3) site-sensitive land planning to ensure adequate transitions between type and intensity of land use patterns both internally and between parcels, (4) design guidelines and edge
treatments between land uses, and (5) landscape standards.

Impact 4.1.2. The
proposed General Plan has
the potential to conflict with
adjacent land uses or
cause a substantial adverse
change in the types or
intensity of existing land
use patterns.

Significant. Implement General Plan Goals 1.C, 1.E, 1.F, and 9.C; Policies 1.C-4, 1.E-1, 1.E-2, 1.E-3, 1.F-1, 1.F-2, 1.F-3, 1.F-4,

9.C-1, 9.C-2, 9.C-3, 9.C-4, and 9.C-5; and Implementation Programs 1.4 and 1.7.

Mitigation Measure 4.1-2. In order to ensure that new
development in the South County in the vicinity of the
Sacramento International Airport does not create a conflict in terms of land use compatibility, the County shall review all new development projects within the overflight zones for consistency with the applicable airport comprehensive land use plan.

Less than significant. No further action necessary.

Implementation of the
project will result in a loss
of prime agricultural land as
defined by the SCS Soil
Classification System
and/or other farmlands
designated as Important
Farmlands by the State
Important Farmlands
Inventory.

Significant. Implement General Plan Goal 6.A; Policies 6.A-1, 6.A-2, 6.A- 4, and 6.A-5; and Implementation Programs 6.3, 6.4, and 6.5.

Mitigation Measure 4.2-1. The County shall encourage
future development of the 3,500 acres within the 10,500 acres of the Industrial-Commercial Reserve designation to locate outside the area with soils classified as I and II bordering the Sacramento River.

Significant. The Board of Supervisors
determined that the remaining
unavoidable and irreversible
impacts of the Project are
acceptable in light of the
economic, fiscal, social, planning,
land use, and other considerations
set forth herein because the
benefits of the Project outweigh
any significant and unavoidable or
irreversible adverse environmental
impacts of the Project.
a The analysis of environmental impacts presented in these documents was prepared in accordance with the requirements of CEQA. No changes to the types of impacts presented would be anticipated if the documents were prepared for NEPA purposes.

APPENDIX C: SUMMARY OF PREVIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW OF PLANNNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT E042002017 SAC/161795(TABLE C-6.DOC ) REVISED NATOMAS BAS IN HCP

EIR/EIS
TABLE C-6
Prior Analysis of Socioeconomic Impacts from Planned Urban Development in the Natomas Basin a Impact
Level of
Significance Mitigation
Level of Significance
with Mitigation Action
City of Sacramento General Plan EIR
Secondary impacts related
to increased housing costs,
longer commute trips, and
difficulties in attracting
workers would occur with
the project increase in the
employment-to-housing
ratio.

Significant Full mitigation would require the redesignation of land uses to achieve a one-to-one ratio of employment to housing. The City Council determined that full mitigation was not feasible.

Identified partial mitigation included: (1) encouraging additional medium- to high-density housing in the Central City, (2) rezoning infill areas to residential, (3) using zones of opportunity to encourage residential construction,
(4) rezoning 54 blocks along R Street from C-4 to residential uses, and (5) establishing citywide requirements for the development of housing as a mitigation measure for the
creation of jobs. The City Council adopted measures (1), (3), and (4) above, and determined that (2) and (5) were not feasible.

Significant. The City Council determined
that economic, social, and other
considerations make it
infeasible to mitigate the
impacts to below significant
levels.

An increase in the absolute
number of households
unable to afford market rate
units would occur.

Significant. Full mitigation would require establishing a fee program to provide financial assistance for the construction and/or rehabilitation of affordable housing. The City Council
determined that this was not feasible. Partial mitigation was to adopt a Housing Trust Fund ordinance for nonresidential developers to partially offset the increased demand for low- income housing generated by new employment. The
feasibility of implementing this measure could not be
determined.

Significant. The City Council determined
that economic, social, and other
considerations make it
infeasible to mitigate the
impacts to below significant
levels.

North Natomas Community Plan EIR
None identified. N/A N/A N/A No further action necessary.

APPENDIX C: SUMMARY OF PREVIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW OF PLANNNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT REVISED NATOMAS BAS IN HCP E042002017 SAC/161795(TABLE C-6.DOC )

EIR/EIS
TABLE C-6
Prior Analysis of Socioeconomic Impacts from Planned Urban Development in the Natomas Basin a Impact
Level of
Significance Mitigation
Level of Significance
with Mitigation Action
South Natomas Community Plan EIR
The Community Plan
shows more jobs than
housing units.

Significant. The square footage of many new non-residential housing units has been reduced under the revised Community Plan, but there is still an excess of jobs over housing units. No further mitigation was available.

Significant. Approval was justified by
specific economic, social,
environmental, and other
considerations.

The Community Plan
changes the mixture of
housing units whereby at
buildout 60 percent of the
housing units are single-
family units.

Significant. In adopting the Community Plan, the square footage of new office space was reduced and additional single-family homes was permitted on some of the vacant land created. In
addition, the maximum density in several residential areas was reduced from 14 units to 10 units per acre.

Less than significant. No further action necessary.

Changes to the Plan which
reduce the number of
housing units provided in
South Natomas have an
adverse effect on the
availability of housing to the
Central City.

Significant. The Council reduced the square footage of new non- residential projects and allowed some of the vacant land made available to be used for residential purposes. Additional mitigation called for the increase in the supply of housing planned in the Central City including the R Street Corridor, 2nd Street to Alhambra Boulevard. The Council determined that this additional mitigation measure was not feasible because of ongoing studies on the R Street Corridor.

Significant. Approval was justified by
specific economic, social,
environmental, and other
considerations.

Sutter County General Plan EIR
No impacts identified. N/A N/A N/A No further action necessary. a The analysis of environmental impacts presented in these documents was prepared in accordance with the requirements of CEQA. No changes to the types of impacts presented would be anticipated if the documents were prep ared for NEPA purposes.

APPENDIX C: SUMMARY OF PREVIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW OF PLANNNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT E042002017 SAC/161795(TABLE C-7.DOC ) REVISED NATOMAS BAS IN HCP

EIR/EIS
TABLE C-7
Prior Analysis of Transportation Impacts from Planned Urban Development in the Natomas Basin a Impact
Level of
Significance Mitigation
Level of Significance
with Mitigation Action
City of Sacramento General Plan EIR
Traffic modeling showed
that approximately 90
roadway segments would
operate at an
unacceptable level of
service with
implementation of the
General Plan Update.

Significant. No mitigation is available to reduce impacts to a less-than-significant level because existing development would have to be displaced.

Significant. The City Council determined that
economic, social, and other
considerations make it infeasible
to mitigate the impacts to below
significant levels.

Traffic modeling showed
that three segments of I-
80 and one segment of I-5
would operate at an
unacceptable level of
service with
implementation of the
General Plan Update.

Significant. Widening these highway segments to 8 lanes would reduce the impact to a less-than-significant level. However, widening of freeways requires State approval, and funding was not programmed in the State Transportation Improvement
Program.

Significant. The City Council determined that
economic, social, and other
considerations make it infeasible
to mitigate the impacts to below
significant levels.

Traffic modeling showed
that about 35 local
roadway segments would
operate at an
unacceptable level of
service with
implementation of the
General Plan Update.

Significant. For each roadway, full mitigation was identified, or it was stated that full mitigation was not possible. The City
determined that the mitigation measures were not feasible to adopt for one of the following reasons: (1) the identified improvement was not contained in the City’s 5-year Capital Improvement Program, and funding would require
displacement of funds for other needed projects;
(2) mitigation is the responsibility of another local agency (e.g., Sacramento County); (3) the measure would have
adverse social and neighborhood impacts; or (4) the measure was being studied.

Significant. The City Council determined that
economic, social, and other
considerations make it infeasible
to mitigate the impacts to below
significant levels.

There would be increased
delays to transit caused by
greater auto traffic.

Significant. Implement all proposed mitigation measures for traffic impacts identified above. The City Council determined that this would be infeasible for the reasons described above.

Significant. The City Council determined that
economic, social, and other
considerations make it infeasible
to mitigate the impacts to below
significant levels.

APPENDIX C: SUMMARY OF PREVIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW OF PLANNNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT REVISED NATOMAS BAS IN HCP E042002017 SAC/161795(TABLE C-7.DOC )

EIR/EIS
TABLE C-7
Prior Analysis of Transportation Impacts from Planned Urban Development in the Natomas Basin a Impact
Level of
Significance Mitigation
Level of Significance
with Mitigation Action
Demand for transit would
increase, thereby requiring
that funding be available
to expand that service.

Significant. Establish funding mechanisms to finance transit expansion.

The City determined that it has no authority to implement this measure.

Also implement Policy 4 of the General Plan Circulation Element (Transit section).

Less than significant. No further action necessary.

Potential for conflicts
between Light Rail and
vehicles would increase,
causing significant delays
to Light Rail.

Significant. Establish and enforce yield requirements for vehicles using shared lanes.

Design access to Light Rail stations to minimize disruption to main line traffic flows and to assure efficient ingress and egress.

Less than significant. No further action needed.

Potential for bike-vehicle
conflicts and other safety
problems for bicyclists
would increase.

Significant. Establish off-street bikeways where feasible. Also implement Goal A, Policies 1 and 3 from the General Plan Circulation Element (Bikeways section).

Less than significant. No further action necessary.

North Natomas Community Plan EIR
Impact 4.3-1(A). Traffic
modeling shows that the
existing plus Project daily
traffic volumes (assuming
all single-occupancy
vehicles) will result in
avoidable impacts to
seven roadway segments.

Significant. Additional turn lanes and/or optimization of traffic control at major intersections, together with stringent access
management policies, will mitigate impacts at three of these roadway segments. Additional travel lanes will be required on the other roadway segments.

The Update also contains Guiding Policies to mitigate for the impacts to the circulation system: (1) link all land uses with all modes of transportation; (2) connect, don’t isolate, neighborhoods or activity centers; (3) rage an orderly development pattern through phasing that provides for
adequate local circulation resulting in completion of the community-wide circulation system; (4) provide multiple routes and connections to adjacent developments; (5) the size and layout of the major street system should be based on traffic projections that assume successful implementation of the trip and emission reduction programs; (6) street system capacity should be based on no greater than the future traffic Less than significant. No further action necessary.

APPENDIX C: SUMMARY OF PREVIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW OF PLANNNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT E042002017 SAC/161795(TABLE C-7.DOC ) REVISED NATOMAS BAS IN HCP

EIR/EIS
TABLE C-7
Prior Analysis of Transportation Impacts from Planned Urban Development in the Natomas Basin a Impact
Level of
Significance Mitigation
Level of Significance
with Mitigation Action
projections; and (7) develop street cross-sections that encourage all street to be as pedestrian friendly as possible to encourage walking instead of vehicle use.

Impact 4.3-2(A). Traffic
modeling shows that the
existing plus Project daily
traffic volumes (assuming
the SACMET mode split
and a 12% reduction in
vehicle trips) will result in
avoidable impacts to six
roadway segments.

Significant. Additional turn lanes and/or optimization of traffic control at major intersections, together with stringent access
management policies, will mitigate impacts at two of these roadway segments. Additional travel lanes will be required on the other roadway segments. The Update also contains
Guiding Policies to mitigate for the impacts to the circulation system as described above.

Less than significant. No further action necessary.

Impact 4.3-2(B). If Light
Rail is not extended to
North Natomas, then
demands for bus service
will increase (12% trip
reduction scenario).

Potentially
significant.

Provide for expanded operation by Regional Transit, including additional buses and personnel, along major roadways in the North Natomas area. The Update also contains Guiding
Policies that will mitigate for the impacts to the transit system:
(1) provide a concentration of density at each phase to support appropriate transit service, (2) design for a phased
implementation of transit corridors to accommodate
intermediate stages of land development, (3) maximize
rider access to transit stops and stations, and (4) each non-residential project shall comply with the Citywide
Transportation Systems Management Ordinance and a
Transportation Management Plan shall be required.

Less than significant. No further action necessary.

Impact 4.3-3(A). Traffic
modeling shows that the
existing plus Project daily
traffic volumes (assuming
the SACMET mode split
and a 35% reduction in
vehicle trips) will result in
avoidable impacts to five
roadway segments.

Significant. Additional turn lanes and/or optimization of traffic control at major intersections, together with stringent access
management policies, will mitigate impacts at two of these roadway segments. Additional travel lanes will be required on the other roadway segments. The Update also contains
Guiding Policies to mitigate for the impacts to the circulation system as described above.

Less than significant. No further action necessary.

APPENDIX C: SUMMARY OF PREVIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW OF PLANNNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT REVISED NATOMAS BAS IN HCP E042002017 SAC/161795(TABLE C-7.DOC )

EIR/EIS
TABLE C-7
Prior Analysis of Transportation Impacts from Planned Urban Development in the Natomas Basin a Impact
Level of
Significance Mitigation
Level of Significance
with Mitigation Action
Impact 4.3-3(B). If Light
Rail is not extended to
North Natomas, then
demands for bus service
will increase (35% trip
reduction scenario).

Significant. Same as described above for the 12% trip reduction scenario.

Less than significant. No further action necessary.

South Natomas Community Plan EIR
Traffic modeling indicated
that unacceptable level of
service would occur at two
intersections.

Significant. Construct recommended intersection improvements. Less than significant. No further action necessary.

Traffic modeling indicated
that unacceptable level of
service would occur at
17 roadway segments and
18 intersections.

Significant. Identified mitigation measures (e.g., road widening) were determined to be infeasible for one or more of the following reasons: (1) the required road widening would exceed the maximum design width of City streets, (2) the required road widening would displace existing development, (3) additional study was warranted, (4) the project was within the jurisdiction of another agency, (5) the project would have significant environmental impacts, or (6) the project was cost-prohibitive.

Significant. Approval was justified by specific
economic, social, environmental,
and other considerations.

Traffic modeling indicated
that unacceptable level of
service would occur at
three additional roadway
segments.

Significant. No mitigation measures are available. Significant. Approval was justified by specific economic, social, environmental,
and other considerations.

Sutter County General Plan EIR
Impact 4.5-1.

Implementation of the
Revised General Plan
Land Use Diagram would
result in numerous State
highway and county
roadway segments to
operate at unacceptable
levels of service in 2015.

Significant. Implement General Plan Goal 2.A; Policies 2.A-1, 2.A-2,

2.A-3, 2.A-4, 2.A-5, 2.A-6, 2.A-7, 2.A-8, 2.A-9, 2.A-10, and

2.A-11; and Implementation Programs 2.1, 2.2, and 2.3.

In addition, specific improvements were recommended to 10 roadway segments throughout the County (5 within the
Natomas Basin).

Less than significant. No additional action necessary.

APPENDIX C: SUMMARY OF PREVIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW OF PLANNNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT E042002017 SAC/161795(TABLE C-7.DOC ) REVISED NATOMAS BAS IN HCP

EIR/EIS
TABLE C-7
Prior Analysis of Transportation Impacts from Planned Urban Development in the Natomas Basin a Impact
Level of
Significance Mitigation
Level of Significance
with Mitigation Action
Implementation of the
proposed land use
diagram may have a long-
term impact on existing or
planned transit facilities
and services. Although
implementation of the
Revised General Plan will
not directly disrupt,
interfere, or conflict with
existing or planned
operations, future
development will introduce
demand to areas not
currently planned for
transit service.

Potentially
significant.

Implement General Plan Goal 2.B; Policies 2.B-1, 2.B-2, 2.B- 3, 2.B-4, and 2.B-5; and Implementation Programs 2.4, 2.5 and 2.6.

Mitigation Measure 4.5-11. Modification of transit service to accommodate new development should be made in
consultation with the County and Yuba-Sutter Transit. to enhance the potential for transit service in the areas with modified land uses, development in these areas should
include land dedication, easement agreements, and funding for the installation of transit and rideshare facilities (e.g., bus turnouts, transit shelters, park and ride lots).

Less than significant. No further action necessary.

Impact 4.5.3. Future
development will create
additional demand to the
bicycle/pedestrian
circulation system in areas
not currently planned to
accommodate such
facilities.

Potentially
significant.

Implement General Plan Goal 2.C; Policies 2.C-1 and 2.C-2; and Implementation Programs 2.6 and 2.7.

Mitigation Measure 4.5-12. Future development under the Revised General Plan should provide adequate right-of-way and funding to construct pedestrian/bikeway system facilities to support increased demand. Such projects should also be incorporated into the Yuba-Sutter Bicycle Master Plan.

Less than significant. No further action necessary.
a The analysis of environmental impacts presented in these documents was prepared in accordance with the requirements of CEQA. No changes to the types of impacts presented would be anticipated if the documents were prepared for NEPA purposes.

APPENDIX C: SUMMARY OF PREVIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW OF PLANNNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT E042002017 SAC/161795(TABLE C-8.DOC ) REVISED NATOMAS BAS IN HCP

EIR/EIS
TABLE C-8
Prior Analysis of Noise Impacts from Planned Urban Development in the Natomas Basin a Impact
Level of
Significance Mitigation
Level of Significance
with Mitigation Action
City of Sacramento General Plan EIR
Interior noise levels along
some roadway segments
in areas proposed for
development would
exceed normally
acceptable levels for
residential land uses and
would create an adverse
community response.

Significant. Reduce noise levels to the normally acceptable levels identified in the Noise Element through proper site planning and architectural layout, noise barriers, and construction modification. Also implement the following Goals and Policies from the General Plan Health and Safety Element (Noise
section): Goal A; Policies 1, 2, and 3.

Less than significant. No further action necessary.

Exterior noise levels along
some roadway segments
in areas proposed for
development would
exceed normally
acceptable levels for
residential land uses and
would create an adverse
community response.

Significant. Same as above for interior noise levels. Less than significant. No further action necessary.

Interior noise levels along
some roadway segments
in currently developed
areas would exceed
normally acceptable levels
for residential land use
and would create an
adverse community
response.

Significant. Reduce noise levels to the normally acceptable levels through proper site planning and architectural layout, noise barriers, and construction modification. The City Council determined that it was infeasible to adopt this measure because it would be impracticable to require owners to retrofit their homes to comply with the Noise Element since no
mechanism exists to enforce such a requirement and no
public funding sources have been identified to retrofit existing uses.

Significant. The City Council determined
that economic, social, and other
considerations make it
infeasible to mitigate the
impacts to below significant
levels.

APPENDIX C: SUMMARY OF PREVIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW OF PLANNNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT REVISED NATOMAS BAS IN HCP E042002017 SAC/161795(TABLE C-8.DOC )

EIR/EIS
TABLE C-8
Prior Analysis of Noise Impacts from Planned Urban Development in the Natomas Basin a Impact
Level of
Significance Mitigation
Level of Significance
with Mitigation Action
Interior noise levels along
some roadway segments
in currently developed
areas would exceed
normally acceptable levels
for residential land use
and would create an
adverse community
response.

Significant. Same as above for interior noise levels. Significant. The City Council determined that economic, social, and other
considerations make it
infeasible to mitigate the
impacts to below significant
levels.

North Natomas residents
in the vicinity of
Sacramento International
Airport would be exposed
to noise levels in excess of
that considered normally
acceptable (the proposed
SGPU Noise Element
identifies 60dB).

Significant. One of the following measures would be required to mitigate this impact: (1) amend the noise standard, (2) amend the land uses in the North Natomas Community Plan, or (3)
request the County Division of Airports to make flight
modifications. The City Council adopted measure (3) above, but determined that full mitigation, including measures (1) and (2), would be infeasible.

Significant. The City Council determined
that economic, social, and other
considerations make it
infeasible to mitigate the
impacts to below significant
levels.

Additional residences
would be exposed to
interior noise levels in
excess of that considered
normally acceptable as a
result of railroad
operations.

Significant. Reduce noise levels to the normally acceptable levels identified in the SGPU Noise Element through proper site planning and architectural layout, noise barriers, and
construction modifications. Also implement the following Goals and Policies from the General Plan Health and Safety Element (Noise section): Goal A; Policies 1, 2, and 3.

Less than significant. No further action necessary.

Additional residences
would be exposed to
exterior noise levels in
excess of that considered
normally acceptable as a
result of railroad
operations.

Significant. Same as above for interior noise levels. Less than significant. No further action necessary.

APPENDIX C: SUMMARY OF PREVIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW OF PLANNNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT E042002017 SAC/161795(TABLE C-8.DOC ) REVISED NATOMAS BAS IN HCP

EIR/EIS
TABLE C-8
Prior Analysis of Noise Impacts from Planned Urban Development in the Natomas Basin a Impact
Level of
Significance Mitigation
Level of Significance
with Mitigation Action
North Natomas Community Plan EIR
Impact 4.6-1(A). Traffic-
related noise would impact
residential land uses
proposed within the 60dB
traffic noise contour line.

Potentially
significant.

Conduct a detailed acoustical analysis for any land use that would be potentially incompatible with outdoor noise limits specified by the City’s Noise Element. Residential land uses should be developed such that there is some usable outdoor space associated with the development which provides an exterior noise level that does not exceed a day/night average sound level of 45dB. Each development proposal should be reviewed to ensure compliance with this goal. In addition, the Environmental Standards Section of the Update also contains mitigation measures for traffic-related noise impacts, as follows: (1) A detailed acoustical study shall be required for any land use which potentially would be incompatible with outdoor noise limits specified by the requirements of the Noise Element of the General Plan, or which is located within the Noise Impacts areas shown in the EIR. (2) Development exposed to surface transportation noise should be designed to be consistent with the goals of the City General Plan.

Residential land uses should be developed such that there is some usable outdoor space associated with the development that provides an exterior noise level that does not exceed an Ldn of 45dB. (3) Indoor noise levels shall not exceed an Ldn of 45dB. (4) Setback and landscaping requirements for major roads identified in the Circulation Element should be provided dependent on the function of the road and adjacent land uses. (5) The I-5 Corridor Overlay Zone, described in Section 27 of the City’s Zoning Ordinance, specifies a 100-foot building setback on both sides of the freeway. The Council determined that these measures, although feasible to
implement, would not reduce noise impacts to a less-than- significant level.

Significant. The City determined that any
remaining unmitigated
environmental impacts
attributable to the project would
be outweighed by specific
economic, fiscal, social,
environmental, land use, and
other overriding considerations.

APPENDIX C: SUMMARY OF PREVIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW OF PLANNNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT REVISED NATOMAS BAS IN HCP E042002017 SAC/161795(TABLE C-8.DOC )

EIR/EIS
TABLE C-8
Prior Analysis of Noise Impacts from Planned Urban Development in the Natomas Basin a Impact
Level of
Significance Mitigation
Level of Significance
with Mitigation Action
Impact 4.6-1(B). Traffic
associated with the
Update may generate
significant traffic noise
impacts in the South
Natomas area.

Potentially
significant.

No specific mitigation measures were identified to reduce the traffic generated noise impacts of the Update on existing sensitive receptors in South Natomas. All new development along Northgate (from I-80 to Rosin Court), Truxel (from I-80 to Rosin Court), and San Juan (from I-80 to Rosin Court) should include a detailed acoustical analysis and the use of design measures on new structures that would reduce
potential noise impacts. The City Council determined that these measures could not assure that noise impacts would be mitigated below the 60dB threshold.

Significant. The City determined that any
remaining unmitigated
environmental impacts
attributable to the project would
be outweighed by specific
economic, fiscal, social,
environmental, land use, and
other overriding considerations.

Impact 4.6-2(A). Aircraft
noise exposures
associated with existing
and future operations at
Sacramento International
Airport will not affect land
use compatibility in the
Update area because the
area will lie outside the
60dB CNEL contour.

Less than
significant.

N/A N/A No further action necessary.

Impact 4.6-2(B). Aircraft
noise exposures
associated with existing
and future operations at
Sacramento International
Airport will not affect land
use compatibility in the
South Natomas because
South Natomas lies
outside the 60dB CNEL
contour.

Less than
significant.

N/A N/A No further action necessary.

APPENDIX C: SUMMARY OF PREVIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW OF PLANNNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT E042002017 SAC/161795(TABLE C-8.DOC ) REVISED NATOMAS BAS IN HCP

EIR/EIS
TABLE C-8
Prior Analysis of Noise Impacts from Planned Urban Development in the Natomas Basin a Impact
Level of
Significance Mitigation
Level of Significance
with Mitigation Action
Impact 4.6-3(A). Based
on the distances to the
predicted light rail
day/night average noise
level contours, it is
anticipated that roadway
traffic on streets adjacent
to the proposed light rail
lines will dominate the
noise environment.

Less than
significant.

N/A N/A No further action necessary.

Impact 4.6-3(B). Based
on the distances to the
predicted light rail
day/night average noise
level contours, it is
anticipated that roadway
traffic on streets adjacent
to the proposed light rail
lines will dominate the
noise environment in
South Natomas.

Less than
significant.

N/A N/A No further actions necessary.

APPENDIX C: SUMMARY OF PREVIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW OF PLANNNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT REVISED NATOMAS BAS IN HCP E042002017 SAC/161795(TABLE C-8.DOC )

EIR/EIS
TABLE C-8
Prior Analysis of Noise Impacts from Planned Urban Development in the Natomas Basin a Impact
Level of
Significance Mitigation
Level of Significance
with Mitigation Action
Impact 4.6-4(A). Noise
from outdoor concerts at
the Sports Complex could
potentially affect land use
compatibility at the
southeast corner of the
Sports Complex, near the
intersection of
Stadium/Market Boulevard
and Truxel Road. In
addition, use of the public
address system could
potentially affect land use
compatibility to the north,
east, and southeast of the
complex.

Potentially
significant.

The stadium operator in the Sports Complex should be
required to carefully orient the speaker arrays to minimize directing sound beyond the seating areas. This can be
accomplished through speaker array design and by the
location of seating areas. The primary mitigation measures for outdoor concerts and the public address system are
careful targeting of the speaker arrays, establishment of design sound levels within the stadium, and requirements for noise level monitoring during concerts and sporting events.

The Update also proposes Guiding Policies and
Environmental Design Standards to mitigate the impacts of the Sports Complex on surrounding land uses, as follows: (1) construct and operate stadium and arena to minimize traffic problems and negative impacts on surrounding residential neighborhoods. (2) Indoor noise levels shall not exceed an Ldn of 45dB. (3) A detailed acoustical study shall be required for any land use which potentially would be incompatible with outdoor noise limits specified by the requirements of the Noise Element of the General Plan, or which is located within the Noise Impacts Areas shown in the EIR. The City Council determined that further mitigation was not feasible.

Significant. The City determined that any
remaining unmitigated
environmental impacts
attributable to the project would
be outweighed by specific
economic, fiscal, social,
environmental, land use, and
other overriding considerations.

Impact 4.6-4(B). The
South Natomas
Community Plan area is
outside of the projected
65dBA noise contour line
for the Sports Complex’s
public address system and
the 55dBA contour line for
concerts.

Less than
significant.

N/A N/A No further action necessary.

APPENDIX C: SUMMARY OF PREVIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW OF PLANNNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT E042002017 SAC/161795(TABLE C-8.DOC ) REVISED NATOMAS BAS IN HCP

EIR/EIS
TABLE C-8
Prior Analysis of Noise Impacts from Planned Urban Development in the Natomas Basin a Impact
Level of
Significance Mitigation
Level of Significance
with Mitigation Action
South Natomas Community Plan EIR
Exterior noise levels along
many roadway segments
in areas proposed for
development will exceed
normally acceptable levels
for residential
development.

Significant. Implement the policies of the Noise element of the General Plan (described above). The City Council determined that it was not feasible to fully implement the Noise Element.

Significant. Approval was justified by
specific economic, social,
environmental, and other
considerations.

Sutter County General Plan EIR
Impact 4.7.1. The
potential exists for noise
levels at existing and
future noise-sensitive land
uses to exceed acceptable
noise exposures as
defined by the General
Plan.

Significant. Implement General Plan Goal 8.A; Policies 8.A-1, 8.A-2, 8.A- 3, 8.A-4, 8.A-5, 8.A-6; and Implementation Programs 8.1, 8.2, and 8.3.

Mitigation Measure 4.7.1. Consistent with the General Plan Policies, noise exposure may be reduced by increasing the distance between the noise source and receiving use.

Setback areas can take the form of open space, frontage roads, recreational areas, storage yards, etc. The available noise attenuation from this technique is limited by the characteristics of the noise source, but is generally 4 to 6dB per doubling of distance from the source. Setbacks, if utilized as mitigation, will be identified by the project applicant within subsequent development proposals.

Mitigation Measure 4.7.2. Consistent with the General Plan policies, noise exposure may be reduced by placing walls, berms, or other structures, such as buildings, as shielding between the noise source and the receiver. The effectiveness of a barrier depends upon blocking line-of-sight between the source and the receiver, and is improved with increasing the distance the sound must travel to pass over the barrier as compared to a straight line from the source to the receiver.

Less than significant. No further action necessary.
a The analysis of environmental impacts presented in these documents was prepared in accordance with the requirements of CEQA. No changes to the types of impacts presented would be anticipated if the documents were prepared for NEPA purposes.

APPENDIX C: SUMMARY OF PREVIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW OF PLANNNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT E042002017 SAC/161795(TABLE C-9.DOC ) REVISED NATOMAS BAS IN HCP

EIR/EIS
TABLE C-9
Prior Analysis of Air Quality Impacts from Planned Urban Development in the Natomas Basin a Impact
Level of
Significance Mitigation
Level of Significance
with Mitigation Action
City of Sacramento General Plan EIR
Reactive organic gas
emissions would increase
by 47 percent over
existing levels, and
nitrogen oxide emissions
would decrease by 1
percent, thereby
exacerbating the region’s
non-attainment status for
the federal ozone
standard.

Significant. The City Council determined that full mitigation was not feasible. Partial mitigation included: (1) implementing Transportation Systems Management measures, such as
ridesharing incentives, parking management measures,
alternative transportation incentives, park-and-ride lots, bicycle facilities, major roadway and intersection
improvements, signal synchronization, signal preemption, alternatives fuels, bus tokens for employee business travel, employee bicycle fleets, flex time, employee-subsidized bus passes, carpool verification programs, and two-way video communication links and other electronic communication
facilities; (2) implement all proposed mitigation for traffic impacts; (3) construct regional facilities; and (4) implement measures to encourage pedestrian travel, such as eliminate rounded curbs, separate sidewalks and roadways whenever possible, and require off-street parking for guests in higher- density neighborhoods. The City Council determined that it was feasible to adopt measures (1) and (4) because of the Goals and Policies contained in the following sections of the General Plan Circulation Element: Transportation Systems Management, Central City Transportation, Transit, Parking, Pedestrianways, Bikeways, and Pedestrians. The City
Council determined that it was infeasible to adopt measures (2) and (3) for the same reasons as described under “Traffic.” Significant. The City Council determined that
economic, social, and other
considerations make it infeasible to
mitigate the impacts to below
significant levels.

Carbon monoxide levels
would increase, thereby
resulting in violations of
state or federal carbon
monoxide standards in all
Community Plan areas
except for North
Sacramento and the
Pocket area.

Significant. Same as above for reactive organic gasses and nitrogen oxides.

Significant. The City Council determined that
economic, social, and other
considerations make it infeasible to
mitigate the impacts to below
significant levels.

APPENDIX C: SUMMARY OF PREVIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW OF PLANNNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT REVISED NATOMAS BAS IN HCP E042002017 SAC/161795(TABLE C-9.DOC )

EIR/EIS
TABLE C-9
Prior Analysis of Air Quality Impacts from Planned Urban Development in the Natomas Basin a Impact
Level of
Significance Mitigation
Level of Significance
with Mitigation Action
North Natomas Community Plan EIR
Impact 4.4-1. Buildout of
the proposed Update will
result in an increase in the
regional air quality
pollutants such as reactive
organic gases, nitrogen
oxides, particulate matter,
and sulfur oxides.

Significant. Mitigation measures would not entirely eliminate an increase in emissions. Partial mitigation could be achieved through implementation of the Air Quality Mitigation Strategy, which established a goal of reducing reactive organic gases by 35 percent over the baseline by achieving a 1.4 person per vehicle average ridership ratio and promoting low-emission vehicle use. Specific measures were of three types: (1) site design measures, such as orienting buildings to promote transit use; (2) target area measures, such as reducing the amount of parking allowed at any site within ¼ mile of a light rail station; and (3) community-wide measures, such as the provision of a community shuttle system. The Update also contains a number of Guiding Policies which also act as mitigation measures to reduce the regional air quality impacts of the update, including the following: (1) development in North Natomas shall comply with the Federal and the
California Clean Air Acts; (2) the Air Quality Mitigation Strategy shall have as a goal a 35 percent community-wide daily reduction in vehicle and other related reactive organic compound emissions at buildout; (3) structure the community and each development to minimize the number and length of vehicle trips; (4) each non-residential project shall comply with the Citywide Transportation Systems Management
Ordinance and a Transportation Management Plan shall be required; (5) minimize air quality impacts through direct street routing, providing a support network for zero-emissions vehicles, bicycles, and pedestrians, and sizing streets suitable to the distance and speed of the traveler. The City Council adopted this partial mitigation.

Significant. The City determined that any
remaining unmitigated
environmental impacts attributable
to the project would be outweighed
by specific economic, fiscal, social,
environmental, land use, and other
overriding considerations.

APPENDIX C: SUMMARY OF PREVIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW OF PLANNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT E042002017 SAC/161795(TABLE C-9.DOC ) REVISED NATOMAS BAS IN HCP

EIR/EIS
TABLE C-9
Prior Analysis of Air Quality Impacts from Planned Urban Development in the Natomas Basin a Impact
Level of
Significance Mitigation
Level of Significance
with Mitigation Action
Impact 4.4-2. Buildout of
the Update will result in
increased levels of carbon
monoxide concentrations,
but these concentrations
will not exceed the
strictest guidelines set for
one-hour and eight-hour
localized emissions.

Less than
significant.

N/A N/A No additional action necessary.

Impact 4.4-3. Buildout of
the Update will result in
increased levels of carbon
monoxide concentrations
in South Natomas, but
these concentrations are
not expected to exceed
state and federal
standards at any
intersections in South
Natomas.

Less than
significant.

N/A N/A No further action necessary.

South Natomas Community Plan EIR
Development in South
Natomas will contribute to
increased ozone
emissions by exacerbating
the region’s non-
attainment status of the
Federal ozone standard.

Significant. Implement the Transportation Systems Management measures prescribed in the General Plan.

Significant. Approval was justified by specific
economic, social, environmental,
and other considerations.

APPENDIX C: SUMMARY OF PREVIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW OF PLANNNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT REVISED NATOMAS BAS IN HCP E042002017 SAC/161795(TABLE C-9.DOC )

EIR/EIS
TABLE C-9
Prior Analysis of Air Quality Impacts from Planned Urban Development in the Natomas Basin a Impact
Level of
Significance Mitigation
Level of Significance
with Mitigation Action
Violation of the carbon
monoxide standards are
expected to occur under
full buildout of South
Natomas with worst-case
traffic conditions resulting
from buildout of
surrounding areas at
various intersections
throughout the Community
Plan.

Significant. Implement the measures described under Traffic that reduce traffic congestion. As described in that section, most
intersection improvements could not be mitigated to a
less-than-significant level.

Significant. Approval was justified by specific
economic, social, environmental,
and other considerations.

Sutter County General Plan EIR
Impact 4.6.1.

Implementation of the
Comprehensive General
Plan Revision will result in
exceedance of ambient air
quality standards and
contribute to an existing or
projected air quality
violation.

Significant. Implement General Plan Goal 4.I; Policies 4.I-1 and 4.I-2; and Implementation Program 4.6.

Implement the following mitigation measures (MM 4.6.1
through 4.6.11. (1) For subsequent development proposals, the County shall encourage (or condition) the use of energy efficient street lighting and parking lot lighting to reduce emissions at the power plant which serves the County. (2) For subsequent development proposals, the County shall
encourage (or condition) the use of low polluting and high efficiency appliances for development plans wherever
possible. (3) For subsequent development proposals, the County shall consider the design of circulation systems, traffic flow and ingress and egress points to minimize idling vehicle emissions. (4) Sutter County shall coordinate with the Feather River Air Quality Management District and other local air districts to implement consistent air quality policies and coordinate efforts to regulate and monitor regional problems, such as pollutant transport. (5) The County shall promote the use of signal synchronization, one-way streets, computerized traffic controls, removal of unnecessary signals, and other engineering techniques to decrease idling time and maximize the speed of traffic on congested surface streets. (6) For Significant. The Board of Supervisors
determined that the remaining
unavoidable and irreversible impacts
of the Project are acceptable in light
of the economic, fiscal, social,
planning, land use, and other
considerations set forth herein
because the benefits of the Project
outweigh any significant and
unavoidable or irreversible adverse
environmental impacts of the
Project.

APPENDIX C: SUMMARY OF PREVIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW OF PLANNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT E042002017 SAC/161795(TABLE C-9.DOC ) REVISED NATOMAS BAS IN HCP

EIR/EIS
TABLE C-9
Prior Analysis of Air Quality Impacts from Planned Urban Development in the Natomas Basin a Impact
Level of
Significance Mitigation
Level of Significance
with Mitigation Action
subsequent development proposals, the County shall require that space and water heaters comply with District Stationary Source Rules and Uniform Mechanical Code requirements.
(7) For subsequent development proposals, the County shall recommend (or condition) the use of HVAC equipment with a SEER of 12 or greater. (8) The County shall explore the feasibility of converting (or participating in a program which converts) a portion of the local public service vehicle fleet from gasoline or diesel to compressed natural gas (CNG), or
electricity. Examples include county owned vehicles, local transit providers, U.S. Postal Service vehicles, and school buses. (9) The County shall encourage the retirement of pre- 1974 vehicles to help offset new emissions generated by the General Plan land uses. (10) The County shall encourage (or condition) the use of Parking Management Programs for land uses which generate peak attraction or event-related traffic volumes. (11) The County shall promote county-wide or
departmental implementation of employee-based trip reduction strategies, such as flexible work week schedules and carpool incentives, as an example for other County residents. The Board of Supervisors determined that these measures were feasible to implement, but would not reduce impacts to a less-than-significant level.

Impact 4.6.2.

Implementation of the
Comprehensive General
Plan Revision will cause
an increase in the
concentration of localized
pollutants resulting from
construction that, as
predicted, would result in
a violation of the most
stringent State or federal
standards.

Significant. Implement General Plan Goal 4.J, Policy 4.J-1, and Implementation Program 4.7.

Implement the following mitigation measures (MM 4.6.12
through 4.6.21. (12) For subsequent development proposals under the General Plan, the County shall require that all active portions of construction sites, earthen access roads, and material excavated or graded by sufficiently watered to prevent excessive amounts of dust. Watering shall occur at least twice a day with complete coverage, preferably in the late morning and after work is done for the day. Where feasible, reclaimed water shall be used. (13) For subsequent development
proposals under the General Plan, the County shall require that all clearing, grading, earth moving, or excavation activities Less than significant. No further action necessary.

APPENDIX C: SUMMARY OF PREVIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW OF PLANNNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT REVISED NATOMAS BAS IN HCP E042002017 SAC/161795(TABLE C-9.DOC )

EIR/EIS
TABLE C-9
Prior Analysis of Air Quality Impacts from Planned Urban Development in the Natomas Basin a Impact
Level of
Significance Mitigation
Level of Significance
with Mitigation Action
shall cease during periods of winds greater than 20 miles per hour averaged over one hour. (14) For subsequent
development proposals under the General Plan, the County shall require that all material transported off site shall be either sufficiently watered or securely covered to prevent excessive amounts of dust. (15) For subsequent development proposals under the General Plan, the County shall require that the area disturbed by clearing, earth moving, or excavation activities shall be minimized at all times. This can be accomplished by mowing instead of discing for weed control and seeding and watering inactive portions of the construction site until grass is evident. (16) Construction site vehicle speeds shall be limited to 15 miles per hour, unless particular vehicles require greater speeds to operate. (17) For subsequent development
proposals under the General Plan, the County shall require the use of petroleum-based dust palliatives, if used, that meet the road oil requirements set forth by the Air District. (18) For subsequent development proposals, the county shall require that streets adjacent to specific project sites shall be swept as needed to remove silt that may have accumulated from
construction activities. (19) For subsequent development proposals under the General Plan, the County shall require that all internal combustion engine driven equipment shall be properly maintained and well tuned according to the
manufacturers specifications. (20) For subsequent
development proposals under the General Plan constructed during the smog season (May through October), the County shall encourage the lengthening of the construction period to minimize the number of vehicles and equipment operating at the same time. (21) For subsequent development proposals under the General Plan, the County shall encourage the use of diesel powered or electric equipment in lieu of gasoline powered engines.
a The analysis of environmental impacts presented in these documents was prepared in accordance with the requirements of CEQA. No changes to the types of impacts presented would be anticipated if the documents were prepared for NEPA purposes.

APPENDIX C: SUMMARY OF PREVIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW OF PLANNNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT E042002017 SAC/161795(TABLE C-10.DOC ) REVISED NATOMAS BAS IN HCP

EIR/EIS
TABLE C-10
Prior Analysis of Aesthetic Impacts from Planned Urban Development in the Natomas Basin a Impact
Level of
Significance Mitigation
Level of Significance
with Mitigation Action
City of Sacramento General Plan EIR
The urbanization of 22,000
acres of currently vacant
land in the City of
Sacramento would change
many viewsheds and
intensify the urban character
of Sacramento.

Significant
and
unavoidable.

Partial mitigation included updating the Community Design Element. Partial mitigation was not adopted because: (1) future urbanization of vacant land will generally occur in areas with existing community plan design elements (e.g., North and South Natomas), and existing design guidelines expressed in the Community Plans partially address the
impact; and (2) City policy requires that large development projects be permitted as Planned Unit Developments, which would include project-specific design guidelines that could not be evaluated at the time the Findings were adopted.

Significant. The City Council determined that
economic, social, and other
considerations make it infeasible
to mitigate the impacts to below
significant levels.

North Natomas Community Plan EIR
No significant impacts
identified.

N/A N/A N/A No further action necessary.

South Natomas Community Plan EIR
No significant impacts
identified.

N/A N/A N/A No further action necessary.

Sutter County General Plan EIR
Impact 4.12.2. Future
development in accordance
with the proposed General
Plan and require
infrastructure improvements
will introduce new sources of
light and glare into the
development areas and
surrounding rural setting.

Significant. Implement General Plan Goal 1.H, Policy 1.H-3, and Implementation Program 1.9.

Mitigation Measure 4.12.1. The County shall review and
approve the type, location, and limits of project lighting for consistency with the adopted design and development
standards. Lighting standards shall be structured and
implemented to minimize project contribution to ambient light production and minimize direct nuisance light sources.

Less-than-significant. No further action necessary.
a The analysis of environmental impacts presented in these documents was prepared in accordance with the requirements of CEQA. No changes to the types of impacts presented would be antic ipated if the documents were prepared for NEPA purposes.

APPENDIX C: SUMMARY OF PREVIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW OF PLANNNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT E042002017 SAC/161795(TABLE C-11.DOC ) REVISED NATOMAS BAS IN HCP

EIR/EIS
TABLE C-11
Prior Analysis of Public Service and Utility Impacts from Planned Urban Development in the Natomas Basin a Impact
Level of
Significance Mitigation
Level of Significance
with Mitigation Action
City of Sacramento General Plan EIR
The average daily dry
weather flows would
increase to 88.5 million
gallons per days, possibly
requiring expansion of the
Regional Plant earlier than
currently planned.

Significant. Reevaluate phasing of the Regional Plant expansion and accelerate construction of the expansion, as needed. Also, adopt Goal A and Policy 1 from the Public Facilities and Services Element (Sanitary Sewers section) of the General Plan Update.

Less-than-significant. No further action necessary.

Sewer collection facilities
would be inadequate to
serve North Natomas and
Airport-Meadowview.

Significant. Require sewerage facilities in advance of development. Also, adopt Goal A and Policies 1 and 3 from the Public Facilities and Services Element (Sanitary Sewers section) of the
General Plan Update.

Less-than-significant. No further action necessary.

Infill would necessitate that
deteriorating sewer lines be
upgraded.

Significant. Provide necessary infrastructure in infill areas. Also, adopt Policy 2 from the Public Facilities and Services Element (Sanitary Sewers section) of the General Plan Update.

Less-than-significant. No further action necessary.

Solid waste generation
would increase by 165
percent to 543,338 tons
annually, necessitating
additional landfill capacity.

Significant. Expand landfill capacity. Also, adopt Goal A and Policy 5 from the Public Facilities and Services Element (Solid Waste section) of the General Plan Update.

Less-than-significant. No further action necessary.
496 additional sworn police
officers (90 percent
increase) and facilities would
be required.

Significant. Provide adequate funding for needed police personnel and facilities. Also, adopt Goal A from the Public Facilities and Services Element (Police Services section) of the General Plan Update.

Less-than-significant. No further action necessary.

APPENDIX C: SUMMARY OF PREVIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW OF PLANNNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT REVISED NATOMAS BASIN HCP E042002017 SAC/161795(TABLE C-11.DOC )

EIR/EIS
TABLE C-11
Prior Analysis of Public Service and Utility Impacts from Planned Urban Development in the Natomas Basin a Impact
Level of
Significance Mitigation
Level of Significance
with Mitigation Action
The potential for criminal
activity would increase
(especially where residential
and commercial uses are
proximate, where high
technology industry is
proposed, in parks, and in
new large-scale
developments).

Significant. Require expanded site design review by the police department. Train officers to combat high technology crime.

Establish crime control programs in recreation areas. Require additional security for special generators. Expand public education and involvement in crime prevention. Also, adopt Goal A and Policies 1 and 2 from the Public Facilities and Services Element (Police Service section) of the General Plan Update.

Less-than-significant. No further action necessary.

Demand for fire services,
facilities, and flows would
increase.

Significant. Require site design review by the fire department. Expand fire protection education programs. Provide adequate funding for needed fire facilities and personnel. Assess the ability of existing fire services and facilities to accommodate infill growth. Also, adopt Goal A and Policies 1-5 from the Public Facilities and Services Element (Fire section) of the General Plan Update.

Less-than-significant. No further action necessary.

Demand for library services
would increase.

Significant. Expand temporary use of portables until permanent facilities can be constructed. Reevaluate and update the libraries master plan. Provide funding mechanisms for library
improvements. Also, adopt Goal A and Policies 1 and 2 from the Public Facilities and Services Element (Library section) of the General Plan Update.

Less-than-significant. No further action necessary.

Demand for heath services
would increase.

Significant. Continue to require special permits for health care facilities.

Coordinate with other health care organizations. Also, adopt Goal A and Policies 1-3 from the Public Facilities and
Services Element (Medical Facilities section) of the General Plan Update.

Less-than-significant. No further action necessary.

APPENDIX C: SUMMARY OF PREVIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW OF PLANNNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT E042002017 SAC/161795(TABLE C-11.DOC ) REVISED NATOMAS BAS IN HCP

EIR/EIS
TABLE C-11
Prior Analysis of Public Service and Utility Impacts from Planned Urban Development in the Natomas Basin a Impact
Level of
Significance Mitigation
Level of Significance
with Mitigation Action
The total student yield would
increase by 57 percent to
106,366, requiring the
designation of additional
school sites or deletion of
surplus sites.

Significant. Six mitigation measures were identified for which the school districts have primary responsibility for implementation (provide adequate school sites, reevaluate school sites where a surplus is projected, institute extended day programs where needed, institute year-round attendance where needed,
evaluate redistribution of students, and establish funding mechanisms for school improvements). A seventh mitigation measure was to increase school involvement in City planning, which would be accomplished by adopting Goal A and
Policies 1, 2, 3, and 5 from the Public Facilities and Services Element (Schools section) of the General Plan Update.

Less-than-significant. No further action necessary.

Peak electricity demand
would increase to
approximately four times the
current annual actual use of
1,381,597 kW, requiring a
significant expansion in
electrical capacity.

Significant. Three mitigation measures were identified for which the Sacramento Municipal Utility District has primary
responsibility for implementation (develop and utilize
alternative energy sources to the extent feasible, incorporate energy management and conservation measures, and
coordinate with energy suppliers to ensure designation of right-of-way for transmission lines and substations). Two other mitigation measures were to adopt energy conservation policies and to require maximum practicable use of solar technologies. These two measures would be implemented by the City through adoption of Goal C, Policy 7 of the
Residential Land Use and Housing Element and Goal A,
Policies 1 and 2 of the Public Facilities and Services Element (Miscellaneous Utilities section) of the General Plan Update.

Less-than-significant. No further action necessary.

North Natomas Community Plan EIR
No significant impacts
identified.

N/A N/A N/A No further action necessary.

South Natomas Community Plan EIR
Increased demand for police
officers.

Significant. Provide additional funding for police personnel and equipment as development occurs and by buffering, lighting, and numbering of buildings.

Less-than-significant. No further action necessary.

APPENDIX C: SUMMARY OF PREVIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW OF PLANNNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT REVISED NATOMAS BASIN HCP E042002017 SAC/161795(TABLE C-11.DOC )

EIR/EIS
TABLE C-11
Prior Analysis of Public Service and Utility Impacts from Planned Urban Development in the Natomas Basin a Impact
Level of
Significance Mitigation
Level of Significance
with Mitigation Action
Increased demand for
additional 500 gallons per
minute of water for fire
protection.

Significant. Include safety measures in final discretionary approvals for all developers.

Less-than-significant. No further action necessary.

New students for Del Paso,
Natomas Union, and Grant
Union School Districts would
exceed capacity.

Significant. The City Council determined that school districts and not the City are responsible for mitigating these impacts. The City Council further determined that state school funding and developer fees should enable the school districts to mitigate the impact to a less-than-significant level.

Less-than-significant. No further action necessary.

Planned development would
increase demand for parks in
excess of the amount of park
space currently available.

Significant. Additional land for parks is to be dedicated by developers of Sutter West, Natomas Corporate Center, River Plaza, and Capital 80 projects. In addition, new parks will be acquired pursuant to the City’s Quimby Act ordinance in the
Metropolitan Center and Willow Creek projects.

Less-than-significant. No further action necessary.

Increase of potentially 83.7
megawatts over existing
electrical demand constitutes
adverse environmental
impact and may require two
to three new substations to
be constructed.

Significant. The City Council determined that another public agency, Sacramento Municipal Utility District, is responsible for mitigating these impacts. The City Council further determined that SMUD construction of substations and its programs for energy conservation and load management measures should mitigate this impact to a less-than-significant level.

Less-than-significant. No further action necessary.

Sutter County General Plan EIR
APPENDIX C: SUMMARY OF PREVIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW OF PLANNNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT E042002017 SAC/161795(TABLE C-11.DOC ) REVISED NATOMAS BAS IN HCP

EIR/EIS
TABLE C-11
Prior Analysis of Public Service and Utility Impacts from Planned Urban Development in the Natomas Basin a Impact
Level of
Significance Mitigation
Level of Significance
with Mitigation Action
Impact 4.10.2. The
proposed General Plan
Revision will allow for urban
uses, which will result in an
increases in wastewater
flows over current treatment
capacity, will require the
extension of sewer trunk
lines, and will require
construction of treatment
facilities.

Significant. Implement General Plan Goal 3.C, Policies 3.C-1 through

3.C-5, and Implementation Program 3.8.

Mitigation Measure 4.10.4. As a condition of subsequent project-level approvals, the applicant shall submit to the County verification that the appropriate service district has adequate capacity to process the estimated wastewater
generated for that phase of the project.

Mitigation Measure 4.10.5. As a condition of subsequent project-level approvals, the proposed use of individual sewage disposal systems, if applicable, must be addressed in an engineer’s report as required by the County to confirm that such systems are acceptable.

Less-than-significant. No further action necessary.

Impact 4.10.3. The
proposed project may
generate the need for
approximately 13 additional
sworn patrol deputies, and
may create additional
demands upon the existing
administrative unit and
capital facilities of the
County Sheriff’s Department.

Significant. Implement General Plan Goal 3.F and Policies 3.F-1 and 3.F-

2. Mitigation Measure 4.10.6. As a condition of subsequent project-level approvals in the areas of proposed land use changes, project applicants shall submit verification that the County Sheriff’s Department can provide adequate police protection, and that the subject project does not significantly degrade the level of service currently being provided in the County. The applicant shall also participate in the County’s existing public facility fee program (which is required of all projects), and/or provide “fair share” funding as required by the County.

Mitigation Measure 4.10.7. In conjunction with the
development review process, plans shall be made available for review by the County Sheriff’s Department for specific service or crime-prevention recommendations.

Less-than-significant. No further action necessary.

APPENDIX C: SUMMARY OF PREVIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW OF PLANNNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT REVISED NATOMAS BASIN HCP E042002017 SAC/161795(TABLE C-11.DOC )

EIR/EIS
TABLE C-11
Prior Analysis of Public Service and Utility Impacts from Planned Urban Development in the Natomas Basin a Impact
Level of
Significance Mitigation
Level of Significance
with Mitigation Action
Impact 4.10.4.

Implementation of the
proposed General Plan
Amendment will result in a
significant increase in the
service demands on the
various fire districts.

Additional fire facilities and
personnel will be required to
serve the project area.

Significant. Implement General Plan Goals 3.G, 7.D, and 7.F; Policies

3.G-1, 3.G-2, 3.G-3, 7.D-1, 7.D-2, 7.F-1, 7.F-2, 7.F-3, 7.F-4, and 7.F-5; and Implementation Programs 7.5, 7.7, 7.8, 7.9,

7.10, and 7.11.

Mitigation Measure 4.10.8. As a condition of subsequent project-level approvals, the applicant shall obtain verification from the appropriate fire protection district that facilities and personnel are available as required to provide adequate fire protection service, and that the subject project does not significantly degrade the level of service currently being provided in the County based upon ISO ratings or other
County standard. The applicant shall also participate in the County’s existing public facility fee program (which is required of all projects), and/or provide “fair share” funding as required by the County.

Less-than-significant. No further action necessary.

Impact 4.11.1. Long-term
implementation of the
General Plan will result in
increased consumption of
energy resources to support
the proposed land uses.

Significant. Mitigation Measure 4.11.1. The Community Services Department Building Inspection Program shall continue to enforce Title 24 of the California Administrative Code as related to energy conservation. The County shall also
encourage the use of alternative energy resources for new development whenever feasible.

Less-than-significant. No further action necessary.
a The analysis of environmental impacts presented in these documents was prepared in accordance with the requirements of CEQA. No changes to the types of impacts presented would be anticipated if the documents were prepared for NEPA purposes.

Natomas Basin E042002017SAC cover_6.indd 04.21.03
Natomas Basin Habitat Conservation Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report/
Environmental Impact Statement
April 2003
State Clearinghouse No. 1997062064
Volume 1
Sutter County
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
City of Sacramento
SAC/161795/031060001(001.DOC) NATOMAS BASIN HCP i

FINAL EIR/EIS
Cover Sheet
Title of Proposed Action: Issuance of Incidental Take Permits and Implementation of the Natomas Basin Habitat Conservation Plan
NEPA Responsible Official: Steve Thompson
Manager, California/Nevada Operations Office
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
2800 Cottage Way
Sacramento, California 95825
Contact Person: Cay Goude
Assistant Field Supervisor, Endangered Species Program
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office
2800 Cottage Way, W-2605
Sacramento, California 95825
(916) 414-6600
Legal Authority: Endangered Species Act of 197 3, as amended, Section 10(a), as implemented by 50 CFR 17.32(b)(1).

Location of Proposed Action: Natomas Basi n
Sacramento and Sutter Counties, California
Applicant Names:

City of Sacramento
1231 I Street, Suite 300
Sacramento, California 95814
(916) 264-7601
Contact: Grace Hovey
Sutter County
c/o Pacific Municipal Consultants
10461 Old Placerville Road, Suite 110
Sacramento, California 95827
(916) 361-8384
Contact: Paul Junker
Natomas Basin Conservancy
1750 Creekside Oaks Drive
Suite 290
Sacramento, California 95833
(916) 649-3331
Contact: John Roberts
EIR/EIS Preparer Name: CH2M HILL
2485 Natomas Park Drive, Suite 600
Sacramento, California 95833
SAC/161795/031060001(001.DOC) NATOMAS BASIN HCP iii

FINAL EIR/EIS
Abstract
This Final Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement (Final EIR/EIS) describes the affected resources and evaluates the potential impacts to those resources in the Natomas Basin and Area B as a result of implementing the Proposed Action. The Proposed Action comprises: (1) applications for Section 10(a) and Section 2081 permits or permit modifications for each of the potential permittees; (2) approval of the revised Natomas Basin Habitat Conservation Plan (NBHCP) and issuance of permits by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service and the California Department of Fish and Game; (3) implementation of the NBHCP; (4) adoption of the Implementing Agreement(s); and (5) the issuance of incidental take permits (ITPs). The permittees are the City of Sacramento, Sutter County, and the Natomas Basin Conservancy. Potential future permittees are Reclamation District No. 1000 (RD 1000) and the Natomas Central Mutual Water Company.

The objective of the Proposed Action is to reconcile the needs of 2 2 special-status species with
planned land development and water facility operations in the Natomas Basin. Issuance of the ITP would authorize the incidental take of several listed wildlife species resulting from urban development and other activities in the Natomas Basin. These species include the federally listed giant garter snake (Thamnophis gigas), valley elderberry longhorn beetle (Desmocerus californicus dimorphus), and several vernal pool fairy shrimp species (Branchinecta spp., Lepidurus packardi). In addition, several federally listed plant species, including Colusa grass (Neostapfia colusana), and Orcutt grasses (Orcuttia spp.) will be listed on the permit, although “take” is not one of the prohibitions applicable to plants under Section 9 of the Federal ESA and, therefore, a Section 10 incidental take permit does not authorize take of plant species. Plants are included on the permit in recognition of the conservation benefits provided for these species under the NBHCP, and they will receive federal “No Surprises” assurances.

Other species covered by the permit include the
California tiger salamander (Ambystoma californiense), a federal and state candidate species, and the state-listed Swainson’s hawk (Buteo swainsoni). The permits also list a suite of other wildlife species and will become effective to authorize the take of such species if they become listed in the future.

The NBHCP would establish a comprehensive program for the preservation and protection of habitat for threate
ned and endangered species potentially found on approximately 55,537 acres of undeveloped and agricultural land in northwestern Sacramento County and southern Sutter County (Natomas Basin and Area B). The acquisition of lands or conservation easements for the purpose of creating and managing permanent habitat reserves would be undertaken by the Natomas Basin Conservancy and would consist of managed marsh habitats, upland habitats, rice fields (which would typically be leased for use to rice farmers), and associated buffers and infrastructure. The NBHCP also includes management measures that are intended to avoid, minimize, and mitigate effects on species during activities by RD 1000 and Natomas Mutual and during urban development activities, if those agencies decide to apply for an ITP under the NBHCP in the future.

SAC/161795/031060001(001.DOC) NATOMAS BASIN HCP v

FINAL EIR/EIS
Contents
Section Page
Acronyms and Abbreviations ....................................................................................................... vii

1.0 Introduction to the Final EIR/EIS.......................................................................................... .1 -1

1.1 Format of the Final EIR/EIS.........................................................................................1-1

1.2 Summary of Public Re view Process............................................................................1-2

1.2.1 Issuance of NOAs.................................................................................................1-2

1.2.2 Dates and Times of Public Meetings on the Draft E IR/EIS ...........................1-2

1.2.3 Number of Comments Received........................................................................1-2

1.2.4 NEPA Preferred Alternative ...............................................................................1-2

1.3 Recirculation Analysis ..................................................................................................1-3

1.3.1 NEPA and CEQA Consideration of Recirculation Issues ..............................1-3

1.3.2 Significance of Changes to the Proposed Action.............................................1-3

1.3.3 New Information..................................................................................................1-4

1.3.4 Significant New Impacts or Increase in Severity of Impact ...........................1-5

1.3.5 New Alternatives or Mitigation Measures
.......................................................1-5

1.3.6 Adequacy of the EIR/EIS....................................................................................1-7

1.4 Summary of Potential Environmental Impacts of Proposed Action and Alternatives
................................................................................................................... .1-7

2.0 Modifications and Updates to the Draft EIR/EIS ................................................................2-1

2.1 Changes to the Draft EIR/EIS......................................................................................2-1

2.2 Changes to the Draft NBHCP ....................................................................................2-13

3.0 Responses to Comments ...................................................................................................... .... 3-1

3.1 Summary of Major Comment Responses...................................................................3-1

3.1.1 Master Response 1: Mitigation Ratio .................................................................3-1

3.1.2 Master Response 2: Connectivity.....................................................................3-13

3.1.3 Master Response 3: Joint Vision.......................................................................3-17

3.1.4 Master Response 4: Cumulative Impacts .......................................................3-22

3.1.5 Master Response 5: Swainson’s Hawk Foraging Habitat .............................3-35

3.2 Individual Responses to Comments .........................................................................3-44

4.0 References................................................................................................................................... 4-1 Attachments
1 Comments
2 Responses to Comments

CONTENTS
vi NATOMAS BASIN HCP SAC/161795/031060001(001.DOC)

FINAL EIR/EIS
Appendices
A Public Notices
B Fish and Wildlife Service Species List and CNDDB Summary Lists C Summary of Previous Environmental Review of Planned Urban Development D Mitigation Monitoring Plan
E 2002 Giant Garter Snake Monitoring Report
F 2002 Swainson’s Hawk Monitoring Report
GJ o i n t V i s i o n M O U
H City of Sacramento Resolution 2001-518
I Letter from USFWS and CDFG to Sacramento County
J Letter from City of Sacramento to California Department of Fish and Game K Letter from City of Sacramento to Sacramento County
L Attachments to Comment Letter O1
Tables
1-1 Summary of Potential Environmental Impacts Associated with Proposed Action and Alternatives ................................................................................... 1-8 3-1 Uplands Available in Mitigation Lands ........................................................................ 3-10 3-2 Baseline Conditions Remaining Under NBHCP .......................................................... 3-41 3-3 Available Foraging Opportunities.................................................................................. 3-42 3-4 Comment Letters Received on the NBHCP Draft EIR/EIS ........................................ 3-45 Figures
2-4 Water Delivery and Drainage System.............................................................................. 2-3 3-5 Active Swainson’s Hawk Nests ........................................................................................ 2-7 SAC/161795/031060001(001.DOC) NATOMAS BASIN HCP vii

FINAL EIR/EIS
Acronyms and Abbreviations
ALUC Airport Land Use Commission
AOC area of concern
BO biological opinion
BRD U.S.G.S. Biological Resources Division
CDFG California Department of Fish and Game
CDP North Natomas Comprehensive Drainage Plan
CEQ Council on Environmental Quality
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
CESA California Endangered Species Act
City City of Sacramento, California
CVP Central Valley Project
DA development agreement
DWR Department of Water Resources, California
EIR/EIS environmental impact report/environmental impact stateme nt ESA Endangered Species Act
FEMA Federal Emergency Management Administration
GIS Geographic Information System
HCP Habitat Conservation Plan
IA Implementation Agreement
IPM integrated pest management
ITP incidental take permit
Joint Vision City/County Natomas Basin Joint Vision
LAFCO Local Agency Formation Commission
MAP Metro Air Park
MEP maximum extent practicable
MOAs Memoranda of Agreement

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
viii NATOMAS BASIN HCP SAC/161795/031060001(001.DOC)

FINAL EIR/EIS
MOU Memorandum of Understanding
MSCP Multi-Species Conservation Program
Natomas Mutual Natomas Mutual Water Company
NBHCP Natomas Basin Habitat Conservation Plan
NEPA National Environmental Policy Act
NOA Notice of Availability
NOI Notice of Intent
O&M operations and maintenance
R&E restoration and enhancement
RD 1000 Reclamation District No. 1000
ROD Record of Decision
ROW right-of-way
Sacramento County County of Sacramento, California
SAFCA Sacramento Area Flood Control Agency
SMUD Sacramento Municipal Utility District
SOI Sphere of Influence
SOPA Society of Professional Archaeologists
Sutter County County of Sutter, California
TAC Technical Advisory Committee
TNBC The Natomas Basin Conservancy
USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
USEPA United States Environmental Protection Agency
USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service
VELB valley elderberry longhorn beetle
SAC/161795/031060001(001.DOC) NATOMAS BASIN HCP 1-1