2025-01126 SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL - Airport South Industrial Annexation (P21-017) (Noticed on 11072025; Published 11072025; Passed for Publication 10212025; Published 10242025) [Updated 11/18/2025 @4:41 PM] - Part 6 — Sacramento City Council, November 18, 2025 (part 4 of 5)

FINAL EIR/EIS
SECTION 1
Introduction to the Final EIR/EIS
This Final Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement (Final EIR/EIS) addresses the potential environmental effects that could result from implementing the proposed Natomas Basin Habitat Conservation Plan (NBHCP). The Final EIR/EIS has been prepared in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The City of Sacramento, California, (City) and County of Sutter, California (Sutter County) are the co-lead agencies for the CEQA process. The United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) is the lead federal agency for the NEPA process. These agencies have independently evaluated, directed, and supervised the preparation of this document. The Natomas Basin Conservancy (TNBC), Reclamation District No. 1000 (RD 1000) and the Natomas Mutual Water Company (Natomas Mutual) have also participated in the NBHCP development process.

1.1 Format of the Final EIR/EIS
The Final EIR/EIS for the NBHCP has been prepared pursuant to the requirements of CEQA, which apply to the state and local actions, and to the requirements of NEPA, which apply to the federal actions. The abbreviated format used for this Final EIR/EIS complies with Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) NEPA regulations (40 CFR 1503.4 (c)) and State CEQA guidelines, Section 15132.

This Final EIR/EIS comprises two volumes and contains an introduction, the identification of the NEPA Preferred Alternative, modifications and updates to t he EIR/EIS and the
NBHCP since the publication of the Draft EIR/EIS, a summary of consultation and coordination, major comment areas, copies of all public comments and letters received by the lead agencies (Attachment 1) and the responses to the comments (Attachment 2), and appendices containing additional information.

Each public comment or letter in Attachment 1 has numbered comments, with a corresponding response in Attachment 2 that answers the specific comments and issues raised in the letter. The comment letters and responses are preceded by an index (Section 3.2) that includes the document identification number for each letter and the name of the agency (federal, state, or local), organization, or individual that produced the letter of comment. To assist the reader in finding individual letters, the comments and responses are divided into three categories:
• Government—G (federal agencies, state agencies, local agencies) • Organizations—O
• Individuals—I
Numerous references are made throughout the Final EIR/EIS to the Draft EIR/EIS and to the Draft EIR/EIS Appendices. These documents were previously circulated and are not being
reproduced. Copies, however, are available for inspection at the public agency locations SECTION 1: INTRODUCTION TO THE FINAL EIR/EIS
1-2 NATOMAS BASIN HCP SAC/161795/031060001(001.DOC)

FINAL EIR/EIS
noted on the cover sheet. The Draft EIR/EIS and supporting appendices, together with the Final EIR/EIS, constitute the full CEPA/NEPA documentation of the Proposed Action.

1.2 Summary of Public Review Process

1.2.1 Issuance of NOAs
Notices of Availability (NOAs) were published by both the USFWS and (jointly) by the City of Sacramento and Sutter County on August 16, 2002. The public review period was originally scheduled for 60 days from August 16, 2002 to October 16, 2002. An extension to the public review period was published by amended NOAs. The public review period was extended by 50 days, to December 5, 2002. The NOA for the Final EIS was published in the Federal Register. Additional notices on the Final EIR/EIS and Final NBHCP were published in The Sacramento Bee and the Appeal-Democrat newspapers.

1.2.2 Dates and Times of Public Meetings on the Draft EIR/EIS The City, County, and USFWS conducted four public meetings to obtain input into the EIR/EIS on the following dates and at the following locations:
• September 23, 2002, First Session: 4:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m.; Second Session: 7:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m., Sacramento, California at 1231 I Street, First Floor. • September 25, 2002, First Session: 4:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m.; Second Session: 7:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m., Yuba City, California at Whitaker Hall, 44 Second Street.

The meetings were conducted by the USFWS, City of Sacramento, and Sutter County in a workshop and meeting format.

Additional opportunities exist for public input on the Final EIR/EIS. For the City of Sacramento’s and Sutter County’s EIR, the public wi
ll have the opportunity to comment at
the public hearings associated with the City of Sacramento City Council’s and the Sutter County Board of Supervisors’ consideration of the Final EIR. The public will have a 30-day cooling-off period to comment following the Federal Register publication noticing the USFWS’s Final EIS. Following this period, the USFWS will issue its Record of Decision (ROD) for the Final EIR/EIS.

1.2.3 Number of Comments Received
Twenty-five comment letters were received during the 95-day public review period, comprising 450 separate comments addressed in this Final EIR/EIS. A summary table in Section 3.2 lists all of the individuals, agencies, and organizations that submitted comments on the NBHCP and Draft EIR/EIS.

1.2.4 NEPA Preferred Alternative
The USFWS did not identify a preferred alternative in the Draft EIR/EIS, in conformance with the CEQ regulations, and indicated that a preferred alternative would be identified after the public comments on the Draft EIR/EIS were available. After consideration of all comments received and the comments of cooperating agencies, the USFWS has determined SECTION 1: INTRODUCTION TO THE FINAL EIR/EIS
SAC/161795/031060001(001.DOC) NATOMAS BASIN HCP 1-3

FINAL EIR/EIS
that the preferred alternative for the NBHCP is the Proposed Action The Proposed Action includes all mitigation measures contained in the monitoring program in Appendix D and summarized in Table 1-1 at the end of this section.

1.3 Recirculation Analysis

1.3.1 NEPA and CEQA Consideration of Recirculation Issues An important step in the preparation of this Final EIR/EIS is to review all comments, changes, and additions relative to the criteria under NEPA and CEQA regarding recirculation or supplementation of the EIR/EIS. Although NEPA and CEQA differ in their provisions regarding recirculation, the standards triggering recirculation under both statutes are similar. Thus, both CEQA and NEPA require republication or recirculation for public comment in instances when the EIR or EIS has been changed in a way that prevents review of and comment on “significant” new environmental information.

Under NEPA, the standards for a supplement to an EIS are covered in the Section 40 CFR 1502
9 (c ) (1) and (2). Under these standards, changes to the project, new circumstances, or new information may require recirculation. NEPA is clear that the mere passage of time does not trigger the recirculation or supplementation of an EIS.

Under CEQA, recirculation of an EIR may be required in instances w here significant new information is introduced, or there are basic or fundamental flaws in the analysis.

Section 15088.5 of the CEQA Guidelines provides guidance on significant new information and includes the following:

1. A new significant environmental impact would result from the project or from a new mitigation measure proposed to be implemented.

2. A substantial increase in the severity of an environmental impact would result, unless mitigation measures were adopted to reduce the impact to a level of insignificance.

3. A feasible project alternative or mitigation measure considerably different from others previously analyzed would clearly lessen the environmental impacts of the project, but the project’s proponents decline to adopt it.

4. The draft EIR was so fundamentally inadequate and conclusory that it precluded meaningful public review and comment.

The CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5 (b) further state t hat “Recirculation is not required where the new information added to the EIR merely clarifies or amplifies or makes insignificant modifications in an adequate EIR.”

1.3.2 Significance of Changes to the Proposed Action
Text changes to the proposed NBHCP and Implementing Agreements (IA) included as part of the Proposed Action, have been made to: (1) correct typographical or editorial errors; (2) clarify the text in response to public and agency comments received; or (3) strengthen the language of the text to represent or implement more fully the proposed mitigation measures.

A summary of key changes to the NBHCP is provided on Section 2-2 of this Final EIR/EIS.

SECTION 1: INTRODUCTION TO THE FINAL EIR/EIS
1-4 NATOMAS BASIN HCP SAC/161795/031060001(001.DOC)

FINAL EIR/EIS
The basic framework, policies, conservation measures, and implementation elements of the NBHCP remain the same, including the Covered Species, the Covered Activities, the nature and extent of Planned Development, the mitigation measures, and the mitigation ratio.

Some of the conservation measures described in the NBHCP that also will be included in the incidental take permits have been modified or further clarified in the Final NBHCP. These measures do not result in any new impacts. While minor modifications have been proposed to the NBHCP, each of these changes will either not change the impacts or will further reduce impacts anticipated from the original Proposed Action. None of these changes will create any new or more severe impacts. Since changes to the NBHCP (Proposed Action) are editorial or clarifying, recirculation is not required.

For example, the conservation strategy for vernal pool species has been refined a nd clarified
to more clearly state the survey requirements to be employed to determine the presence of Covered Species. This section clarifies the use of the most recent and comprehensive USFWS survey guidelines, but it does not change the Proposed Action in such way that the new environmental impacts, significant changes, and new information presented would require recirculation.

Similarly, additional language regarding adaptive management, including connectivity of the Mitigation Land
s, has been added to clarify the approach to connectivity in response to comments. These changes again clarify the approach, but do not significantly modify the approach such that additional environmental analysis or recirculation would be required.

1.3.3 New Information
New information has been added to the Biological Resources Technical Memorandum (Appendix H of the NBHCP) to explain and clarify in greater detail the basis of the impact analysis related to the Swainson’s hawk foraging habitat. This information was prepared in the form of an Addendum to the Biological Resources Technical Memo, which is attached as Appendix K of the NBNCP. This additional information does not change the previous analysis or conclusions, but provides further clarification of the methods, assumptions, and background information used in developing the Biological Resources Technical Memorandum. This discussion of giant garter snake and Swainson’s hawk is considered in the context of updated monitoring reports for the giant garter snake (Appendix E of this Final EIR/EIS) and the Swainson’s hawk (Appendix F of this Final EIR/EIS).

The Economic and Planning Systems (EPS) updated Fee Study dated October 11, 2002 also has been added as Appendix B of the NBHCP. This updated fee study, containing updated estimates for the monitoring and adaptive management costs, previously was circulated for public review and comment. This information amplifies and clarifies the prior fee estimates in a manner consistent with the NBHCP. None of these changes to the fee estimates will create any new or more severe significant environmental impacts. Since the updated fee study previously was circulated for public review and the addition of this Appendix does not constitute new information nor does it result in any new or more severe environmental effects, recirculation is not required.

SECTION 1: INTRODUCTION TO THE FINAL EIR/EIS
SAC/161795/031060001(001.DOC) NATOMAS BASIN HCP 1-5

FINAL EIR/EIS

1.3.4 Significant New Impacts or Increase in Severity of Impact None of the comments or the responses to comments demonstrate the existence of any new or more significant impacts than those discussed in the Draft EIR/EIS. No new significant or more severe impacts were identified that were not fully evaluated in the Draft EIR/EIS.

Comments on the Draft EIR/EIS requested that the EIR/EIS be re-circulated for the following impacts:
• Some commentors requested additional information regarding “bird strikes” and the impact of such on operations of the Sacramento International Airport. This issue was covered in the Draft EIR/EIS, and the Final EIR/EIS contains further clarifying information. This new text does not identify a new impact or change in the severity of the impact, therefore, re-circulation is not required.
• Several persons commented that they do not agree with the findings in the EIR/EIS of a less-than-significant impact to Swainson’s hawk foraging habitat. These comments were reviewed in light of existing scientific information, and the EIR/EIS preparers determined that the analyses continue to support the determination that the Proposed Action would result in a less-than-significant effect under NEPA and CEQA. To further support the analysis and finding, an Addendum to the Biological Technical Memorandum clarifying the analysis of impacts has been added (Appendix K of the NBHCP).
• Several commentors indicated that they do not agree with the findings in the EIR/EIS of a less-than-significant impact to giant garter snake habitat. These comments were reviewed in light of existing scientific information, and the EIR/EIS preparers determined that the analyses continue to support the determination that the Proposed Action would result in a less-than-significant effect under NEPA and CEQA. • Several commentors were also concerned that the execution of the Memorandum of Understanding regarding the City of SacramentoSacramento County Joint Vision planning effort, and information about other potential development activities constitutes new information regarding the potential for future development in the Basin.

Commentors indicated that much of this information became available after the Draft EIR/EIS was released for public review, and that it represents new information regarding reasonably foreseeable development in the Basin that could result in new significant or more severe cumulative impacts not considered in the EIR/EIS. These comments were also reviewed extensively.

Master Responses 3 (Joint Vision) and 4 (Cumulative Impacts) provide a thorough evaluation of the validity of the cumulative assumptions used in the Draft EIR/EIS.

Based on
the findings and analysis included in the Draft EIR/EIS and further clarified in Master Responses 3 and 4, no new significant or substantially more severe cumulative impacts were identified. Thus, re-circulation is not required.

1.3.5 New Alternatives or Mitigation Measures
Both CEQA and NEPA require that an EIR/EIS study a range of alternatives. The EIR/EIS evaluates five alternatives, including the Proposed Action. Under CEQA, re-circulation may be required if a new alternative, which is substantially different from an alternative analyzed SECTION 1: INTRODUCTION TO THE FINAL EIR/EIS
1-6 NATOMAS BASIN HCP SAC/161795/031060001(001.DOC)

FINAL EIR/EIS
in the environmental document, becomes available and reasonably meets the goals and objectives of the proposed project. Several commentors suggested a preference for one or another of the alternatives studied in the EIR/EIS. For example, several commentors prefer an NBHCP program that includes a mitigation ratio of 1:1. This alternative (Alternative 1, Increased Mitigation) was included in the Draft EIR/EIS analysis, and therefore, it is not a new alternative not previously analyzed. Other commentors expressed a preference for either reduced development (therefore, reduced impact) or an alternative that designates specific reserve zones. Both of these alternatives also were fully analyzed in the Draft EIR/EIS and, therefore, no new alternative analysis is required.

Regarding reduced development, the Draft EIR/EIS studied an alternative that reduced
Planned Development from 17,500 to 12,000 acres. Further reductions of Planned Development were not considered to be within the reasonable realm of the purpose and need of the project, which is to extend incidental take coverage to allow the City of Sacramento and Sutter County to implement their adopted general plans.

One letter of comment presented a scenario that the commentor referred to as an “Acceptable HCP.” This alternative covered land uses and mitigation throughout the entire
Natomas Basin, including lands in the unincorporated portion of Sacramento County and privately owned agricultural lands. This scenario proposes that a detailed management prescriptions for all non-urban land in the Natomas Basin should be developed, including specifications regarding the type and proportion of private agricultural crops.

While this scenario provided a vision for the entire Natoma s Basin, it also included elements that are outside the purpose and need or scope of the NBHCP and EIR/EIS. For example, the County of Sacramento would not be a permittee under the NBHCP, and none of the Applicants (City of Sacramento, Sutter County, or TNBC) or wildlife agencies (USFWS and CDFG) have land use control over the unincorporated areas of the County of Sacramento.

Therefore, for purposes of the cumulative analysis and baseline conditions, the EIR/EIS must assume that development in the unincorporated area of the County of Sacramento would occur consistent with the existing land uses, General Plan designations, and zoning that govern the lands within the Basin.

The suggested “Acceptable HCP” would include 17,500 acres of acquired habitat based on a 1:1 mitigation ratio and retain 11,000 acres of agriculture or open space (Sacramento County Airport buffer lands and other lands outside of the Permit Areas). Regarding assumptions of the analysis for the type of land uses in the unincorporated portion of Sacramento County, Table 3-4, page 3-20 of the Draft EIR/EIS provides this information. Based on the adopted General Plan, non-urban uses in excess of 11,000 acres were assumed in the EIR/EIS analysis. The “Acceptable HCP” proposes a 1:1 mitigation ratio with acquisition of lands based on habitat value. This mitigation approach falls within the range of alternatives analyzed by the EIR/EIS, which includes an alternative at a 1:1 mitigation ratio, an alternative with identified reserve zones, and a habitat-based mitigation program. The “Acceptable HCP” therefore does not propose either a new alternative or an alternative that is significantly different from those analyzed in the EIR/EIS. Also, in its evaluation, the EIR/EIS concluded that each of these alternatives would be infeasible.

SECTION 1: INTRODUCTION TO THE FINAL EIR/EIS
SAC/161795/031060001(001.DOC) NATOMAS BASIN HCP 1-7

FINAL EIR/EIS
No new mitigation measures have been suggested or included in the EIR/EIS. Some text changes and additions to the mitigation policies of the NBHCP have been included for clarification (see Section 1.3.2 above).

1.3.6 Adequacy of the EIR/EIS
Based on the standards included in CEQA and NEPA for adequacy of analysis, the Lead Agencies have determined that with the clarifications, corrections, and supportive information included in this Final EIR/EIS and the proposed Final NBHCP, the Final EIR/EIS complies with CEQA and NEPA. For purposes of NEPA, the federal lead agency (i.e., USFWS) is responsible for the final determination of adequacy.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) is authorized under Section 309 of th e
Clean Air Act to review and comment on any matter subject to NEPA and to determine or rate the adequacy of an EIS. The USEPA rated the Draft EIR/EIS as Environmental Concerns (EC), which indicates that the USEPA has identified environmental impacts that should be avoided to fully protect the environment, and Category 2, which indicates that additional information, data, analysis, or discussion should be included in the Final EIS. The report preparers have given considerable attention in responding to the comments of the USEPA and providing, where necessary, clarifying information to respond to any concerns raised by the USEPA. Each of the USEPA’s comments has been addressed in this Final EIR/EIS.

1.4 Summary of Potential Environmental Impacts of Proposed Action and Alternatives
Table 1-1 is reproduced from the Draft EIR/EIS that summarizes the potential impacts associated with the Proposed Action and alternatives.

SECTION 1: INTRODUCTION TO THE FINAL EIR/EIS
1-8 NATOMAS BASIN HCP SAC /161795/031060001(001.DOC)

FINAL EIR/EIS
TABLE 1-1
Summary of Potential Environmental Impacts Associated with Proposed Action and Alternatives Proposed Action
Alternative 1:

Increas
ed
Mitigation
Alternative 2:

Habitat-Based
Mi
tigation
Alternative 3:

Reser
ve Zones
Alternative 4:

Reduced Potential
fo
r Incidental Take
Alternative 5:

No A
ction

4.2 Geology and Soils
Impact: Less-than-significant increases in erosion
resulting from development of habitat reserves.

Impact: Greater
impacts than the
Proposed Action, but
less than significant.

Impact: Same as
Proposed Action.

Impact: Similar effects are
expected with case-by-case
mitigation.

4.3 Water Resources
Impact: Less-than-significant increases in flood
potential resulting from management of habitat
reserves.

Impact: Same as
Proposed Action.

Impact: Similar effects are
expected with case-by-case
mitigation.

Impact: Potentially significant decreases in stormwater quality resulting from development of habitat reserves.

Can be mitigated to a less-than-significant level.

EIR/EIS Mitigation Measure: Construction of habitat
reserves shall adhere to the requirements of the State
Water Resources Control Board’s General Permit for
Stormwater Discharges Associated with Construction
Activity, as amended from time to time, by filing an
Notice of Intent (NOI) with the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board. For development activities on each reserve site, the Conservancy shall prepare a
Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan that includes best management practices consistent with the City’s
Administrative and Technical Procedures for Grading
and Erosion and Sediment Control and Sacramento
County’s Erosion and Sediment Control Standards and
Specifications, regardless of whether the reserves are
located in Sacramento or Sutter County. Best
management practices shall focus on the control of
sediment discharge into local drains (e.g., through
installation of barriers such as silt fences and through tracking controls) and the release of hazardous
materials from construction operations (e.g., through the use of designated staging areas with onsite controls).

Impact: Greater
impacts than the
Proposed Action.

Can be mitigated to a
less-than-significant
level with mitigation.

EIR/EIS Mitigation
Measure: Same as
Proposed Action.

Impact: Greater
impacts than the
Proposed Action. Can
be mitigated to a
less-than-significant
level with mitigation.

EIR/EIS Mitigation
Measure: Same as
Proposed Action.

Impact: Same as
Proposed Action.

EIR/EIS
Mitigation
Measure: Same
as Proposed
Action.

Impact: Similar to
Proposed Action.

EIR/EIS Mitigation
Measure: Same as
Proposed Action.

Impact: Similar effects are
expected with case-by-case
mitigation.

Impact: Less-than-significant impacts associated with
future water availability in the Natomas Basin.

Impact: Same as
Proposed Action.

Impact: Similar effects are
expected with case-by-case
mitigation.

SECTION 1: INTRODUCTION TO THE FINAL EIR/EIS
SAC/161795/031060001(001.DOC) NATOMAS BASIN HCP 1-9

FINAL EIR/EIS
TABLE 1-1
Summary of Potential Environmental Impacts Associated with Proposed Action and Alternatives Proposed Action
Alternative 1:

Increas
ed
Mitigation
Alternative 2:

Habitat-Based
Mi
tigation
Alternative 3:

Reser
ve Zones
Alternative 4:

Reduced Potential
fo
r Incidental Take
Alternative 5:

No A
ction

4.4 Biological Resources
Impact: Marsh habitat as measured by rice fields,
canals and drains, and ponds and seasonally wet
areas would decline in the Natomas Basin by 8,087
acres (35 percent), 404 acres (23 percent), and 21
acres (22 percent), respectively, because of authorized development. Permanent reserves would be
established, including 2,187.5 acres of managed
marsh and 4,350 acres of rice.

EIR/EIS Mitigation Measure: 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
that wetlands functions and values will be maintained.

Impact: Impacts to
marsh habitat
associated with
authorized
development would
be the same as
under the Proposed
Action. Permanent
reserves would be
established, including
4,350 acres of
managed marsh and
8,750 acres of rice.

EIR/EIS Mitigation
Measure: Same as
Proposed Action.

Impact: Impacts to
marsh habitat
associated with
authorized
development would be
the same as under the
Proposed Action.

Permanent reserves
would be established,
including a combined
rice/managed marsh
reserve acreage of
9,687 acres.

EIR/EIS Mitigation
Measure: Same as
Proposed Action
Impact: Same as
Proposed Action.

EIR/EIS
Mitigation
Measure: Same
as Proposed
Action.

Impact: Marsh
habitat as
measured by rice
fields, canals and
drains, and ponds
and seasonally wet
areas would decline
in the Natomas
Basin by 5,752
acres (25 percent),
277 acres (16
percent), and
15 acres (15
percent),
respectively
because of
authorized
development.

Permanent
reserves would be
established,
including 1,500
acres of managed
marsh and 3,000
acres of rice.

EIR/EIS Mitigation
Measure: Same as
Proposed Action.

Impact: Marsh habitat is
expected to decrease by
approximately the same
acreage as under the
Proposed Action because
of urban development.

Unknown benefits
associated with habitat
creation.

SECTION 1: INTRODUCTION TO THE FINAL EIR/EIS
1-10 NATOMAS BASIN HCP SAC /161795/031060001(001.DOC)

FINAL EIR/EIS
TABLE 1-1
Summary of Potential Environmental Impacts Associated with Proposed Action and Alternatives Proposed Action
Alternative 1:

Increas
ed
Mitigation
Alternative 2:

Habitat-Based
Mi
tigation
Alternative 3:

Reser
ve Zones
Alternative 4:

Reduced Potential
fo
r Incidental Take
Alternative 5:

No A
ction
Impact: Upland habitat in the Natomas Basin would
decrease by 9,188 acres (42 percent) because of
authorized development. Permanent reserves would
be established, including 2,187.5 acres of uplands.

Impact: Impacts to
upland habitat
associated with
authorized
development would
be the same as
under the Proposed
Action. Permanent
reserves would be
established, including
4,350 acres of
uplands.

Impact: Impacts to
upland habitat
associated with
authorized
development would be
the same as under the
Proposed Action.

Permanent reserves
would be established,
including 8,074 acres
of uplands.

Impact: Same as
Proposed Action.

Impact: Upland
habitat in the
Natomas Basin
would decrease by
6,063 acres (28
percent) because of
authorized
development.

Permanent
reserves would be
established,
including 1,500
acres of uplands.

Impact: Upland habitat is
expected to decrease by
approximately the same
acreage as under the
Proposed Action because
of urban development.

Unknown benefits
associated with habitat
creation.

Impact: Loss of riparian habitat in the Natomas Basin
generally would not occur.

Impact: Same as
Proposed Action.

Impact: Up to 8 acres (8 percent) of oak groves in the
Natomas Basin would potentially be removed because
of urban development.

Impact: Same as
Proposed Action.

Impact: Expected to
be approximately
the same as
Proposed Action.

Impact: Expected to be
approximately the same
as Proposed Action.

Impact: Vernal pools could be affected in North
Natomas and potentially in other areas of the Natomas
Basin.

Impact: Same as
Proposed Action.

Impact: Expected to
be approximately
the same as
Proposed Action.

Impact: Expected to be
approximately the same
as Proposed Action.

Impact: Approximately 8,512 acres of potential habitat
for the giant garter snake would be affected by
authorized development in the Natomas Basin.

Preservation of wetland habitat and creation and
management of reserves that support 6,562 acres of
giant garter snake habitat mitigates the impacts of the covered activities on giant garter snakes to a less-than- significant level.

Impact: Impacts to
giant garter snake
habitat would be the
same as under the
Proposed Action.

Approximately
13,125 acres of giant
garter snake habitat
would be supported
by the system of
habitat reserves.

Impact: Impacts to
giant garter snake
habitat would be the
same as under the
Proposed Action.

Approximately 9,687
acres of giant garter
snake habitat would
be supported by the
system of habitat
reserves.

Impact: Same as
Proposed Action.

Impact:

Approximately
6,044 acres of
potential habitat for
the giant garter
snake would be
affected by
authorized
development in the
Natomas Basin.

Approximately
4,500 acres of giant
garter snake habitat
would be supported
by the system of
habitat reserves.

Impact: Giant garter
snake habitat is expected
to decrease by
approximately the same
acreage as under the
Proposed Action because
of urban development.

Unknown benefits
associated with habitat
creation.

SECTION 1: INTRODUCTION TO THE FINAL EIR/EIS
SAC/161795/031060001(001.DOC) NATOMAS BASIN HCP 1-11

FINAL EIR/EIS
TABLE 1-1
Summary of Potential Environmental Impacts Associated with Proposed Action and Alternatives Proposed Action
Alternative 1:

Increas
ed
Mitigation
Alternative 2:

Habitat-Based
Mi
tigation
Alternative 3:

Reser
ve Zones
Alternative 4:

Reduced Potential
fo
r Incidental Take
Alternative 5:

No A
ction
Impact: Two Swainson’s hawk nesting territories with
remaining nest trees (NB-3 and NB-6) have the
potential to be abandoned because of authorized
development.

Impact: Same as
the Proposed
Action.

Impact: Same as the
Proposed Action.

Impact: Same as
the Proposed
Action.

Impact: Expected to
be approximately
the same as the
Proposed Action.

Impact: Expected to be
approximately the same
as the Proposed Action.

Impact: Swainson’s hawk foraging habitat in the
Natomas Basin would decrease by 9,188 acres (42
percent) because of authorized development.

Permanent reserves would be established, including
2,187.5 acres of uplands that would be managed for
Swainson’s hawk foraging habitat value.

Impact: Impacts to
Swainson’s hawk
foraging habitat
associated with
authorized
development would
be the same as
under the Proposed
Action. Permanent
reserves would be
established, including
4,350 acres of
uplands.

Impact: Impacts to
Swainson’s hawk
foraging habitat
associated with
authorized
development would be
the same as under the
Proposed Action.

Permanent reserves
would be established,
including 8,074 acres
of uplands.

Impact: Same as
Proposed Action.

Impact: Swainson’s
hawk foraging
habitat in the
Natomas Basin
would decrease by
6,063 acres (28
percent) because of
authorized
development.

Permanent
reserves would be
established
including 1,500
acres of uplands.

Impact: Swainson’s hawk
foraging habitat is
expected to decrease by
approximately the same
acreage as under the
Proposed Action because
of urban development.

Unknown benefits
associated with habitat
creation.

Impact: Overall effects to other covered species
associated with habitat loss and creation would be less than significant.

Impact: Similar to
Proposed Action.

Impact: Same as
Proposed Action.

Impact: Expected to
be approximately
the same as
Proposed Action.

Impact: Expected to be
approximately the same
as Proposed Action.

SECTION 1: INTRODUCTION TO THE FINAL EIR/EIS
1-12 NATOMAS BASIN HCP SAC /161795/031060001(001.DOC)

FINAL EIR/EIS
TABLE 1-1
Summary of Potential Environmental Impacts Associated with Proposed Action and Alternatives Proposed Action
Alternative 1:

Increas
ed
Mitigation
Alternative 2:

Habitat-Based
Mi
tigation
Alternative 3:

Reser
ve Zones
Alternative 4:

Reduced Potential
fo
r Incidental Take
Alternative 5:

No A
ction
Impact: Potentially significant effects to some other
special-status species (e.g., dwarf downingia, rose
mallow, Cooper’s hawk, American bittern, black tern,
lark sparrow, white-tailed kite, Pacific-slope flycatcher, Bewick’s wren) can be mitigated to a less-than-
significant level.

EIR/EIS Mitigation Measure: 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.

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.

Impact: Same as
Proposed Action.

EIR/EIS Mitigation
Measure: Same as
Proposed Action.

Impact: Same as
Proposed Action.

EIR/EIS Mitigation
Measure: Same as
Proposed Action.

Impact: Same as
Proposed Action.

EIR/EIS
Mitigation
Measure: Same
as Proposed
Action.

Impact: Expected to
be approximately
the same as
Proposed Action.

EIR/EIS Mitigation
Measure: Same as
Proposed Action.

Impact: Expected to be
approximately the same
as Proposed Action.

Impact: No impact to fish species of concern would
occur.

Impact: Same as
Proposed Action.

Impact: Net reduction in waterfowl habitat would be
less than significant.

Impact: Similar to
the Proposed
Action.

Impact: Similar to the
Proposed Action.

Impact: Similar to
the Proposed
Action.

Impact: Similar to the
Proposed Action.

SECTION 1: INTRODUCTION TO THE FINAL EIR/EIS
SAC/161795/031060001(001.DOC) NATOMAS BASIN HCP 1-13

FINAL EIR/EIS
TABLE 1-1
Summary of Potential Environmental Impacts Associated with Proposed Action and Alternatives Proposed Action
Alternative 1:

Increas
ed
Mitigation
Alternative 2:

Habitat-Based
Mi
tigation
Alternative 3:

Reser
ve Zones
Alternative 4:

Reduced Potential
fo
r Incidental Take
Alternative 5:

No A
ction

4.5 Cultural Resources
Impact: Potentially significant increase
in the potential to disturb unknown, subsurface cultural resources resulting
from development of habitat reserves.

Can be mitigated to a less-than-significant level.

EIR/EIS Mitigation Measure: 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, wor
k
within 100 feet of the find shall cease. 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
Impact: Greater
impacts than the
Proposed Action.

Can be mitigated to
a less-than-
significant level.

EIR/EIS Mitigation
Measure: Same as
Proposed Action.

Impact: Greater
impacts than the
Proposed Action. Can
be mitigated to a
less-than-significant
level.

EIR/EIS Mitigation
Measure: Same as
Proposed Action.

Impact: Same as
Proposed Action.

EIR/EIS
Mitigation
Measure: Same
as Proposed
Action.

Impact: Similar to
Proposed Action.

EIR/EIS Mitigation
Measure: Same as
Proposed Action.

Impact: Similar effects are
expected with case-by-case
mitigation.

SECTION 1: INTRODUCTION TO THE FINAL EIR/EIS
1-14 NATOMAS BASIN HCP SAC /161795/031060001(001.DOC)

FINAL EIR/EIS
TABLE 1-1
Summary of Potential Environmental Impacts Associated with Proposed Action and Alternatives Proposed Action
Alternative 1:

Increas
ed
Mitigation
Alternative 2:

Habitat-Based
Mi
tigation
Alternative 3:

Reser
ve Zones
Alternative 4:

Reduced Potential
fo
r Incidental Take
Alternative 5:

No A
ction
as scholars of their cultural traditions. If 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 are 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
construc
tion, 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 re-internment 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.

SECTION 1: INTRODUCTION TO THE FINAL EIR/EIS
SAC/161795/031060001(001.DOC) NATOMAS BASIN HCP 1-15

FINAL EIR/EIS
TABLE 1-1
Summary of Potential Environmental Impacts Associated with Proposed Action and Alternatives Proposed Action
Alternative 1:

Increas
ed
Mitigation
Alternative 2:

Habitat-Based
Mi
tigation
Alternative 3:

Reser
ve Zones
Alternative 4:

Reduced Potential
fo
r Incidental Take
Alternative 5:

No A
ction

4.6 Land Use/Consistency With Adopted Plans and Policies Impact: Less-than-significant land use
compatibility/plan inconsistency impacts.

Impact: Same as
Proposed Action.

Impact: Similar effects are
expected with case-by-case
mitigation.

Impact: Significant loss of farmland. Not likely to be
mitigated to a less-than-significant level.

EIR/EIS Mitigation Measure: 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.

Impact: Greater
impacts than the
Proposed Action.

EIR/EIS Mitigation
Measure: Same as
Proposed Action.

Impact: Greater
impacts than the
Proposed Action.

EIR/EIS Mitigation
Measure: Same as
Proposed Action.

Impact: Same as
Proposed Action.

EIR/EIS
Mitigation
Measure: Same
as Proposed
Action.

Impact: Similar to
the Proposed
Action.

EIR/EIS Mitigation
Measure: Same as
Proposed Action.

Impact: Similar effects are
expected with case-by-case
mitigation.

4.7 Social and Economic Conditions
Impact: Less-than-significant changes in local
employment and tax revenues to Sacramento and
Sutter counties.

Impact: Greater
impacts than the
Proposed Action,
but less than
significant.

Impact: Greater
impacts than the
Proposed Action, but
less than significant.

Impact: Same as
Proposed Action.

Impact: Similar effects are
expected with case-by-case
mitigation.

4.8 Traffic
Impact: Potentially significant increase
in the potential for traffic safety conflicts resulting from development of habitat reserves. Can be mitigated to a
less-than-significant level.

EIR/EIS Mitigation Measure: 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:

Impact: Greater
impacts than the
Proposed Action.

Can be mitigated to
a less-than-
significant level.

EIR/EIS Mitigation
Measure: Same as
Proposed Action.

Impact: Greater
impacts than the
Proposed Action. Can
be mitigated to a
less-than-significant
level.

EIR/EIS Mitigation
Measure: Same as
Proposed Action.

Impact: Same as
Proposed Action.

EIR/EIS
Mitigation
Measure: Same
as Proposed
Action.

Impact: Similar to
Proposed Action.

EIR/EIS Mitigation
Measure: Same as
Proposed Action.

Impact: Similar effects are
expected with case-by-case
mitigation.

SECTION 1: INTRODUCTION TO THE FINAL EIR/EIS
1-16 NATOMAS BASIN HCP SAC /161795/031060001(001.DOC)

FINAL EIR/EIS
TABLE 1-1
Summary of Potential Environmental Impacts Associated with Proposed Action and Alternatives Proposed Action
Alternative 1:

Increas
ed
Mitigation
Alternative 2:

Habitat-Based
Mi
tigation
Alternative 3:

Reser
ve Zones
Alternative 4:

Reduced Potential
fo
r Incidental Take
Alternative 5:

No A
ction
• Provide adequate warning to users of the
roadway in the vicinity of the construction, using
signs or other means visible from the roadway
• Provide adequate assistance to the public in
navigating the construction site through the use of
flagmen
• Install adequate signage for construction zones
and detours
• If traffic and circulation would be interrupted for an extended period, provide for the opportunity for
public input from affected residents

4.9 Noise
Impact: Potentially significant increase in noise-related nuisances resulting from development of habitat
reserves. Can be mitigated to a less-than-significant
level.

EIR/EIS Mitigation Measure: Prior to commencing
substantial habitat reserve development activities, the Conservancy shall determine if residences or other
sensitive receptors are located within 1,000 feet of the construction site. If sensitive receptors are located within 1,000 feet of the construction site, operation of
construction equipment and vehicles would occur
between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m., Monday
through Saturday, and between 9:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m.
on Sunday.

Impact: Greater
impacts than the
Proposed Action.

Can be mitigated to
a less-than-
significant level.

EIR/EIS Mitigation
Measure: Same as
Proposed Action.

Impact: Greater
impacts than the
Proposed Action. Can
be mitigated to a
less-than-significant
level.

EIR/EIS Mitigation
Measure: Same as
Proposed Action.

Impact: Same as
Proposed Action.

EIR/EIS
Mitigation
Measure: Same
as Proposed
Action.

Impact: Similar to
Proposed Action.

EIR/EIS Mitigation
Measure: Same as
Proposed Action.

Impact: Similar effects are
expected with case-by-case
mitigation.

SECTION 1: INTRODUCTION TO THE FINAL EIR/EIS
SAC/161795/031060001(001.DOC) NATOMAS BASIN HCP 1-17

FINAL EIR/EIS
TABLE 1-1
Summary of Potential Environmental Impacts Associated with Proposed Action and Alternatives Proposed Action
Alternative 1:

Increas
ed
Mitigation
Alternative 2:

Habitat-Based
Mi
tigation
Alternative 3:

Reser
ve Zones
Alternative 4:

Reduced Potential
fo
r Incidental Take
Alternative 5:

No A
ction

4.10 Air Quality
Impact: Potentially significant increase in NOx and
PM10 resulting from development of habitat reserves.

Can be mitigated to a less-than-significant level.

EIR/EIS Mitigation Measure: The following measures
shall be implemented to reduce emissions of ozone
precursors during construction activities on the habitat reserves:
• To the extent feasible, the Natomas Basin
Conservancy shall work with contractors that use
low-NO
x, heavy-duty construction vehicles.
• Construction activities shall be phased to reduce
the simultaneous operation of construction
equipment.
• The contractor shall perform routine tuning and
maintenance of construction equipment.
• 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).
• The contractor shall reduce or suspend grading
and excavation activity during windy periods (i.e.,
winds in excess of 15 miles per hour).
• The contractor shall post and enforce speed limits
on unpaved driving areas.
• The contractor shall apply water twice daily to
disturbed areas and active construction sites.
• The contractor shall treat completed sites with soil
binders or vegetation.

Impact: Greater
impacts than the
Proposed Action.

Can be mitigated to
a less-than-
significant level.

EIR/EIS Mitigation
Measure: Same as
Proposed Action.

Impact: Greater
impacts than the
Proposed Action. Can
be mitigated to a
less-than-significant
level.

EIR/EIS Mitigation
Measure: Same as
Proposed Action.

Impact: Same as
Proposed Action.

EIR/EIS
Mitigation
Measure: Same
as Proposed
Action.

Impact: Similar to
Proposed Action.

EIR/EIS Mitigation
Measure: Same as
Proposed Action.

Impact: Similar effects are
expected with case-by-case
mitigation.

SECTION 1: INTRODUCTION TO THE FINAL EIR/EIS
1-18 NATOMAS BASIN HCP SAC /161795/031060001(001.DOC)

FINAL EIR/EIS
TABLE 1-1
Summary of Potential Environmental Impacts Associated with Proposed Action and Alternatives Proposed Action
Alternative 1:

Increas
ed
Mitigation
Alternative 2:

Habitat-Based
Mi
tigation
Alternative 3:

Reser
ve Zones
Alternative 4:

Reduced Potential
fo
r Incidental Take
Alternative 5:

No A
ction
• Dirt shall be washed off trucks and other
equipment before leaving the construction site.

4.11 Public Health and Safety
Impact: Less-than-significant public health and safety
impacts resulting from the creation of habitat reserves within the bird-strike zones of Sacramento
International Airport.

Impact: Greater
impacts than the
Proposed Action,
but less than
significant.

Impact: Greater
impacts than the
Proposed Action, but
less than significant.

Impact: Same as
Proposed Action.

Impact: Similar to
Proposed Action.

Impact: Similar effects are
expected with case-by-case
mitigation.

SAC/161795/031060001(001.DOC) NATOMAS BASIN HCP 2-1

FINAL EIR/EIS
SECTION 2
Modifications and Updates to the Draft EIR/EIS
This section presents the changes to the Draft EIR/EIS in this Final EIR/EIS (Section 2.1). It also summarizes the revisions to the Draft NBHCP (Section 2.2). For specific text changes to the NBHCP, the reader is referred to the Final NBHCP for a complete reading of the text changes.

2.1 Changes to the Draft EIR/EIS
This section identifies changes to the EIR/EIS made as a result of comments on the Draft EIR/EIS. Additional text is presented as underlined text and deleted text is presented as strikethrough text. Each noted change is introduced in this section using italicized text that is provided as context for the reader—the italicized text, however, is not a change to the Draft EIR/EIS.

As discussed in Section 1.3 of this Final EIR/EIS, these revisions do not alter the conclusions in the Draft EIR/EIS.

Changes to Section 1.1.1, Summary of Key Issues
The following sentence is added after the first sentence in the second paragraph on page 1-1 of the Draft EIR/EIS:

The term “permittees” is also used to describe certain entitiesRD 1000 and Natomas Mutualwhich have not submitted applications for permits at this time based on the NBHCP, but may choose to become Applicants, and, if incidental take permits are granted, may choose to become permittees in the future.

Changes to Section 1.5, Regulatory Framework
The following text has been added to Section 1.5 of the EIR/EIS to describe more fully CDFG’s requirements for protected species:

1.5.8. California Fully Protected Species Provisions. Sections 3511, 4700, 5050, and 5515 of the California Fish and Game Code prohibit the taking of fully protected birds, mammals, amphibians, and fish, respectively. In the Natomas Basin, fully protected species include the white-tailed kite, greater sandhill crane, and American peregrine falcon.

Changes to Section 2.2.4, Reclamation District No. 1000 and Section 2.5.5, Natomas Mutual.

Figure 2-4 has been edited to label key canals and drains.

SECTION 2: MODIFICATIONS AND UPDATES TO THE DRAFT EIR/EIS 2-2 NATOMAS BASIN HCP SAC/161795/031060001(001.DOC)

FINAL EIR/EIS
Changes to Section 2.3.4, Activities not Covered by Incidental Take Permits The description of activities not covered by the incidental take permits in Section 2.3.4 of the EIR/EIS has been revised as follows:
• Additional Regulations. In addition to the Section 10(a)(1)(b) and Section 2081 permits, the permittees also would comply with all other applicable local, state, and federal regulations, laws, or ordinances. These include, but are not limited to, the following: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Clean Water Act Section 404 permits; State Water Quality Control Board/Regional Water Quality Control Board Section 401 water quality certification and/or waste discharge requirements; and
CDFG Streambed Alteration Agreements pursuant to Fish and Game Code Division 2, Chapter 6, Section 1600 et seq.; and State Reclamation Board Encroachment Permits pursuant to Section 8710 of the California Water Code.

Changes to Section 2.4.6.3, Water Agencies’ Conservation Measures The following text changes have been made to the Section 2.4.6.3, on page 2-43, first paragraph:

RD 1000’s and Natomas Mutual’s primary management efforts focus on keeping the canal systems functioning in a manner that ensures timely movement of irrigation water for agricultural purposes, and ensures drainage of agricultural water and storm flows from lands within the Natomas Basin. RD 1000 and Natomas Mutual carry out these activities to provide agricultural water to irrigated lands, address public health and safety concerns, and minimize damage to planted crops and other property from flooding.

Changes to Table 3.1, Description of Land Use/Habitat Categories The following change has been made to Table 3.1 of the Draft EIR/EIS, which has been edited to clarify a location:

Ponds and
Seasonally
Wet Areas
Wetland/marsh areas, including Prichard’s Lake the area around the North Drain (near RD 1000 Pumping Plant #2) and several isolated locations throughout the Natomas Basin. Based on DWR’s “water surface” land use category and some “riparian vegetation” categories, with additional information provided by May & Associates data and aerial photo interpretation.

Changes to Section 3.3.3, Water Supply
The following changes have been made to Section 3.3.3 (page 3-8, first paragraph) to clarify RD 1000’s irrigation operation and Natomas Mutual’s water supply contracts:

Irrigation water also includes return flows from rice fields, which is conveyed to downstream users through the RD 1000 drainage system. held within a “closed system” that re-uses the water within the basin without release to the Sacramento River. The closed system is maintained from April through August. Natomas Mutual manages the consolidated and appropriative water rights in the area, and serves approximately 238 landowners covering approximately 36,000 acres. Following the development of the federal Central Valley Project (CVP), Natomas Mutual entered into a contract with the Bureau of Reclamation to establish water
/46/45/44
/56/48
/46
/45/44
/56/48
/46
/45/44
/53
/46
/45/44
/53
/34/33/57/57
/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
/65/110/110/101/120/97/116/105/111/110/32/32/32/32/32/32/65/114/101/97 /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
/78/111/114/116/104/32/68/114/97/105/110/97/103/101/32/67/97/110/97/108 /78/111/114/116/104/32/68/114/97/105/110/97/103/101/32/67/97/110/97/108 /87/101/115/116/32/68/114/97/105/110/97/103/101/32/67/97/110/97/108 /70/105/115/104/101/114/109/97/110/39/115/32/76/97/107/101 /69/97/115/116/32/68/114/97/105/110/97/103/101/32/67/97/110/97/108 /70/73/71/85/82/69/32/50/45/52
/87/65/84/69/82/32/68/69/76/73/86/69/82/89/32/65/78/68
/68/82/65/73/78/65/71/69/32/83/89/83/84/69/77
/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 /69/73/82/47/73/69/83
/48 /52/53/48/48 /57/48/48/48 /70/101/101/116
/49/32/73/110/99/104/32/61/32/57/48/48/48/32/70/101/101/116 /78/97/116/111/109/97/115/32/66/97/115/105/110/32/66/111/117/110/100/97/114/121 /87/97/116/101/114/32/68/101/108/105/118/101/114/121/32/83/121/115/116/101/109 /76/69/71/69/78/68
/87/97/116/101/114/32/68/114/97/105/110/97/103/101/32/83/121/115/116/101/109 /83/111/117/114/99/101/58/69/110/115/105/103/110/32/38/32/66/117/99/107/108/101/121 /67/111/110/115/117/108/116/105/110/103/32/69/110/103/105/110/101/101/114/115 SECTION 2: MODIFICATIONS AND UPDATES TO THE DRAFT EIR/EIS SAC/161795/031060001(001.DOC) NATOMAS BASIN HCP 2-5

FINAL EIR/EIS
delivery requirements in a river system now substantially affected by the CVP. This “settlement contract” quantifies base supply diversions of 98,200 acre-feet per year and provides of up 22,000 acre-feet of CVP water per year. The Natomas farming community began operations after installation of the river levees between 1916 and 1919. The landowners secured senior water rights. Nearly 30 years later, the Central Valley Project (CVP) was built and in 1946 Natomas Mutual entered into a contract with the Bureau of Reclamation for certain water supplies under a settlement contract. This settlement contract does not replace the amounts of water Natomas Mutual is entitled to divert under its pre-existing rights, licenses, and permits.

On page 3-8, second paragraph, the following text revisions have been made:

Although tThe average historical diversions from these five plants is approximately 80,000 acre-feet per year., Natomas Mutual delivers approximately 110,000 acre-feet on average. The “closed system” enables Natomas Mutual to re-use water, effectively reducing its diversions by an average of 30,000 acre-feet per year. The State Water Resources Control Board has ruled that Natomas Mutual should be credited for that effort.

On page 3-9, first full paragraph (following bullet at top of page), the following text revisions have been made:

Although the pumping facility descriptions above list localized areas for each plant, the closed system is so interconnected that it actually re-circulates water throughout the entire system. Recent improvements in the drainwater recirculation system have contributed to a substantial improvement in water management by providing a more flexible matching of supply and demand throughout Natomas Mutual’s service area. Conservation efforts begun in 1986 have contributed to long-term, substantial improvements in the drain water system. The re-circulation improvements have provided a more flexible matching of supply, and demand and have reduced the impacts on the Sacramento River.

On page 3-9, the following text has been deleted from the middle of the second full paragraph, starting on line 8 of that paragraph:

Natomas Mutual owns two small groundwater wells, producing less than 200 acre- feet per year to supplement surface water supplies.

Changes to Section 3.4.1, Land Use and Habitats in the Natomas Basin Section 3.4.1, page 3-11, first full paragraph, starting on line 4, has been revised to clarify the drainage pattern in the Natomas Basin.

The drainage pattern of the Basin has been altered so that during the spring and summer months, agricultural runoff is pumped into the RD 1000 system of drains and re-circulated until August. At that point, runoff is pumped into the RD 1000 system of drains and into the Sacramento River at several places.

Changes to Section 3.4.2.1, Species to be Covered Under the ITPs.

Figure 3-5 has been edited to reflect that Swainson’s hawk nest tree NB-18 was removed in 1998. /35/179
/35/179
/35/179/35/179/35/179/35/179
/35/179
/35/179
/35/179
/35/179
/35/179
/35/179
/35/179
/35/179
/35/179
/35/179
/35/179
/35/179
/35/179
/35/179
/35/179
/35/179
/35/179
/35/179
/35/179/35/179
/35/179
/35/179
/35/179 /35/179
/35/179
/35/179
/35/179/35/179
/35/179
/35/179
/35/179
/35/179
/35/179/35/179
/35/179
/35/179
/35/179
/35/179
/35/179
/35/179
/35/179
/35/179
/35/179
/35/179
/35/179
/35/179
/35/179
/35/179/35/179
/35/179/35/179
/35/179
/35/179
/35/179
/35/179
/35/179
/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
/83/97/99/114/97/109/101/110/116/111
/73/110/116/101/114/110/97/116/105/111/110/97/108
/65/105/114/112/111/114/116
/83/97/110/107/101/121/32/82/111/97/100
/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
/83/65/67/82/65/77/69/78/84/79/32/67/79/85/78/84/89
/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
/78/66/45/50
/78/66/45/49
/78/66/45/50/52/78/66/45/49/55/78/66/45/50/49/78/66/45/49/57 /78/66/45/54
/78/66/45/55
/78/66/45/50/48
/78/66/45/56
/78/66/45/49/53
/78/66/45/51/54
/78/66/45/51/50
/78/66/45/49/54
/78/66/45/49/48
/78/66/45/50/56
/78/66/45/49/50
/78/66/45/49/51
/78/66/45/49/52
/78/66/45/50/55
/78/66/45/50/53
/78/66/45/54/50
/78/66/45/54/49
/78/66/45/50/50
/78/66/45/53/57/78/66/45/54/48
/78/66/45/53/56
/78/66/45/53/55
/78/66/45/52
/78/66/45/49/56
/78/66/45/53
/78/66/45/51
/78/66/45/53/54/78/66/45/53/53
/78/66/45/53/52
/78/66/45/53/51
/78/66/45/53/50
/78/66/45/52/54
/78/66/45/52/55/78/66/45/52/57
/78/66/45/53/49
/78/66/45/52/56
/78/66/45/53/48
/78/66/45/52/53
/78/66/45/52/51
/78/66/45/52/52
/78/66/45/57
/78/66/45/52/48
/78/66/45/52/49
/78/66/45/52/50
/78/66/45/50/51
/78/66/45/51/57
/78/66/45/50/54
/78/66/45/51/55/78/66/45/51/56
/78/66/45/51/53/78/66/45/51/52
/78/66/45/51/51
/78/66/45/51/49
/78/66/45/50/57
/78/66/45/51/48
/78/66/45/49/49
/80/97/99/105/102/105/99/32/65/118/101/110/117/101
/84/114/101/101/32/82/101/109/111/118/101/100
/105/110/32/50/48/48/48
/84/114/101/101/32/82/101/109/111/118/101/100
/105/110/32/50/48/48/50
/84/114/101/101/32/82/101/109/111/118/101/100
/105/110/32/50/48/48/50
/84/114/101/101/32/82/101/109/111/118/101/100
/105/110/32/50/48/48/50
/84/114/101/101/32/82/101/109/111/118/101/100
/105/110/32/50/48/48/50
/84/114/101/101/32/82/101/109/111/118/101/100/32
/105/110/32/49/57/57/56
/83/119/97/105/110/115/111/110/39/115
/72/97/119/107/32/90/111/110/101
/70/73/71/85/82/69/32/51/45/53
/65/67/84/73/86/69/32/83/87/65/73/78/83/79/78/39/83/32/72/65/87/75/32/78/69/83/84/83 /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
/49/32/73/110/99/104/32/61/32/49/48/44/48/48/48/32/70/101/101/116 /83/119/97/105/110/115/111/110/39/115/32/72/97/119/107/32/82/101/99/111/114/100/115/35/179 /76/69/71/69/78/68
/83/111/117/114/99/101/58/32/32/78/97/116/111/109/97/115/32/66/97/115/105/110/32/67/111/110/115/101/114/118/97/110/99/121/32/45/32/50/48/48/49 SECTION 2: MODIFICATIONS AND UPDATES TO THE DRAFT EIR/EIS SAC/161795/031060001(001.DOC) NATOMAS BASIN HCP 2-7

FINAL EIR/EIS
Changes to Section 4.1.2.2, Actions Included in the Cumulative Impacts Analysis The following text revisions are inserted before the first paragraph in Section 4.1.2.2, page 4-7, to clarify for the reader the approach to cumulative impacts analysis:

The EIR/EIS evaluates the cumulative effects of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable development in the Basin. With respect to past development, development that occurred prior to 1997 when the USFWS approved the original NBHCP is included in the baseline conditions for purposes of evaluating the effects of, implementing the NBHCP on Covered Species. To account for the effects of present development, the development that occurred between 1997 and 2002 (the time between adoption of the original NBHCP by the City and preparation of the revised NBHCP) is included in the evaluation of the combined effects of the 17,500 acres of authorized development. To account for the effects of future development, the EIR/EIS relies on the adopted general plans and community plans of the City, and Sutter and Sacramento Counties as a reasonable basis for predicting the extent, amount, and location of future development. Based on these adopted plans, the Draft NBHCP contemplates the development of up to 17,500 acres of reasonably foreseeable development in the Basin as further described below, and development in the Natomas Basin in excess of this acreage is not reasonably foreseeable.

The following text has been added to Section 4.1.2.2 to clarify the rationale for defining reasonably foreseeable actions relevant to the cumulative impact analysis of the Proposed Action.

This EIR/EIS includes past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions that have the potential, in combination with the effects of the Proposed Action, to result in cumulative impacts. Such actions include those that:
• involve the submission of an urban development permit or other permit application to a federal or non-federal agency with approval authority;1 • are related to the types of impacts attributable to those that would result from implementing the Proposed Action; or
• are based on a summary of projections contained in an adopted general plan or related planning document, or in a prior environmental document that has been adopted or certified, and that described or evaluated regional or area-wide conditions contributing to the cumulative impact.

On the basis of these criteria, the actions identified for consideration in the cumulative impacts analysis are described below. The discussion of cumulative development is contained in Section 4.1.2.3 of this EIR/EIS and is based on available information regarding permit applications and long-range planning documents adopted by the City of Sacramento, Sacramento County, and Sutter County.

Generally, the analysis of cumulative effects, as summarized below and evaluated throughout this EIR/EIS, includes actions that could affect the management of covered species in the Natomas Basin or in other parts of their range. This broad scope helps provide an understanding of the relative importance of the Proposed SECTION 2: MODIFICATIONS AND UPDATES TO THE DRAFT EIR/EIS 2-8 NATOMAS BASIN HCP SAC/161795/031060001(001.DOC)

FINAL EIR/EIS
Action to overall population conditions. These other management actions include federal and state wildlife refuges, as prescribed by other state and federal programs, and in other HCPs. The management included in the analysis of cumulative effects is as follows.

The following text has been added to the third paragraph on page 4-8 in Section 4.1.2.3. of the EIR/EIS to addres
s comments raised regarding consistency with the NBHCP.

Specific land use plans have not been prepared for future development of this 10,000-acre area as part of this long-range planning effort to guide future annexations (i.e., the Joint Vision). No specific land uses or projects have been proposed for development under the Joint Vision at this time. Until the Joint Vision planning effort is completed, the status of landowner requests for development entitlements to authorize urban development outside the City’s sphere of influence and County’s urban services boundary remain uncertain. These requests include, specifically, any development proposals for the West Lakeside and Greenbriar Farms that may not be approved by the City under the prior NBHCP settlement agreement until the Joint Vision effort is completed. To control further the potential for development in the Natomas Basin in excess of 17,500 acres, the NBHCP states that future annexation and development requests in unincorporated portions of the Basin, such as the West Lakeside and Greenbriar Farms properties, may not seek take authorizations under the NBHCP by annexing to the City.

Changes to Section 4.1.2.3, Other Potential Actions in the Natomas Basin The following text in Section 4.1.2.3, page 4-9 has been changed to clarify Natomas Mutual’s operation:

Natomas Mutual pumping plant consolidation. Natomas Mutual operates three pumping plants along the Sacramento River, and is currently studying the potential for consolidating these pumping stations into one unit and installing state-of-the-art fish screens. This project would likely include additional canal improvements along the western boundary of the Natomas Basin. Detailed engineering plans and environmental review of this project have not been initiated at this time. and two pumping plants in the Cross Canal. Natomas Mutual has studied the consolidation of all five pumping plants into only two diversions from the Sacramento River, complete with state-of-the-art positive fish barriers. The consolidation project is beginning in the final design stage and construction is slated for 2003-2005. CEQA compliance will be completed by 2003. The project will create improvements to habitat in the Cross Canal and some sections of the internal delivery system will also be modified to improve habitat and connectivity.

Changes to Section 4.11, Public Health and Safety
Text has been added to the introduction in Section 4.11(Public Health and Safety) to clarify the likelihood of birds at the Sacramento International Airport. The new text is added to the end of the last paragraph of the introduction section on page 4-159.

Adverse health and safety effects from urban development are unlikely because aircraft/bird strikes are attributed primarily to large waterfowl rather than the small SECTION 2: MODIFICATIONS AND UPDATES TO THE DRAFT EIR/EIS SAC/161795/031060001(001.DOC) NATOMAS BASIN HCP 2-9

FINAL EIR/EIS
passerine birds that are typically associated with urban development (e.g., scrub jays, mockingbirds, house sparrows).

Changes to Appendix C, Summary of Previous Environmental Review of Planned Urban Development
The Draft EIR/EIS inadvertently omitted the following discussion from Appendix C. The following text has been added to Tables C-5 and C-8 (in Appendix C of the EIR/EIS) to summarize prior evaluation of airport/land use encroachment issues relevant to the NBHCP Covered Activity of Planned Development:

TABLE C-5
Prior Analysis of Land Use Impacts from Planned Urban Development in the Natomas Basin Impact Level of
Sig
nificance Mitigation
Level of
Sig
nificance
with
Mitigation
Action
City of Sacramento General Plan EIR
No impacts identified
for land use conflicts
between Sacramento
International Airport
and authorized
development.

N/A N/A N/A N/A
North Natomas Community Plan EIR
Impact 4.6-2(A). No
impacts identified for
land use conflicts
between Sacramento
International Airport
and authorized
development.

N/A N/A N/A N/A
South Natomas Community Plan EIR
No impacts identified
for land use conflicts
between Sacramento
International Airport
and authorized
development.

N/A N/A N/A N/A
Sutter County General Plan EIR
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. To
ensure that new development in
the South County in the vicinity of
the Sacramento International
Less than
Significant
No further
action
necessary.

SECTION 2: MODIFICATIONS AND UPDATES TO THE DRAFT EIR/EIS 2-10 NATOMAS BASIN HCP SAC/161795/031060001(001.DOC)

FINAL EIR/EIS
TABLE C-5
Prior Analysis of Land Use Impacts from Planned Urban Development in the Natomas Basin Impact Level of
Sig
nificance Mitigation
Level of
Sig
nificance
with
Mitigation
Action
Airport does not create a conflict
in terms of land use compatibility,
South County shall review all new
development projects within the
overflight zones for consistency
with the applicable airport
comprehensive land use plan.

TABLE C-8
Prior Analysis of Noise Impacts from Planned Urban Development in the Natomas Basin Impact Level of
Sig
nificance Mitigation
Level of
Sig
nificance
with
Mitigation
Action
City of Sacramento General Plan EIR
North Natomas
residences in the
vicinity of Sacramento
International Airport
would be exposed to
noise levels in excess
of that considered
normally acceptable.

Note that the General
Plan was under
consideration prior to
the North Natomas
Community Plan
Update (see impacts
below).

Significant Full mitigation would require
amending local noise control
standards, amending the 1986
North Natomas Community Plan,
and rerouting air traffic. The City
Council determined that full
mitigation was not feasible, and
adopted partial mitigation to
request the County Division of
Airports to make operational and
flight modifications.

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
Aircraft noise
exposures will not
affect land-use
compatibility in the
Update Area because
the areas will lie
outside the 60 dB
CNEL contour.

Less than
Significant
N/A Less than
Significant
None required
South Natomas Community Plan EIR
No noise impacts
identified between
Sacramento

N/A N/A N/A N/A
SECTION 2: MODIFICATIONS AND UPDATES TO THE DRAFT EIR/EIS SAC/161795/031060001(001.DOC) NATOMAS BASIN HCP 2-11

FINAL EIR/EIS
TABLE C-8
Prior Analysis of Noise Impacts from Planned Urban Development in the Natomas Basin Impact Level of
Sig
nificance Mitigation
Level of
Sig
nificance
with
Mitigation
Action
International Airport
and authorized
development.

Sutter County General Plan EIR
No noise impacts
identified between
Sacramento
International Airport
and authorized
development.

N/A N/A N/A N/A

2.2 Changes to the Draft NBHCP
This section summarizes the key changes to the NBHCP. Specific text revisions are in the Final NBHCP, and the corresponding clarifications have been made to the IA. • The conservation strategy for covered vernal pool species has been refined and clarified to more clearly state that the most recent and comprehensive USFWS survey guidelines must be used to determine the presence of covered species. • Additional language regarding connectivity of the Mitigation Lands has been added to clarify the approach to connectivity. This new language adds a provision for TNBC to purchase lands that could potentially be targeted by the Water Agencies for closure, adds specificity to the review process under the ESA and CESA that would be required if such a closure were to occur, and adds text on the review requirements relevant to the giant garter snake in the 1-mile Swainson’s Hawk Zone.
• Additional changes to the text on the East Drainage Canal and the North Drainage Canal with in Sutter County’s Permit Area include construction of fences along the shared boundary of urban development and the canals. Sutter County will consult with the Wildlife Agencies to determine design strategies that would enhance conditions for giant garter snake movement through the North and East Drainage Canals. The additional text also presents possible strategies including expanded buffer areas and modified canal cross sections is Sutter County and the Water Agencies determine that such measures are feasible.
• Additional information was prepared to explain and clarify in greater detail the basis for the analysis of impacts to Swainson’s hawk foraging habitat. This information is included as Appendix K of the NBHCP (Addendum to the Biological Resources Technical Memorandum). The Addendum provides additional information to clarify habitat conditions (baseline and future) for the Swainson’s hawk, specifically the quantity and availability of foraging opportunities, and also updates the discussion of potential effects of removal of nest trees. Further clarification also has been provided in SECTION 2: MODIFICATIONS AND UPDATES TO THE DRAFT EIR/EIS 2-12 NATOMAS BASIN HCP SAC/161795/031060001(001.DOC)

FINAL EIR/EIS
the NBHCP text regarding adjustments that may be made as part of the adaptive management program to address changes in foraging habitat that could occur during the permit term.
• An updated fee study has been added as Appendix B of the NBHCP. This updated fee study contains updated estimates for monitoring and adaptive management costs. • Clarification has been added regarding TNBC’s ability to “trade-out” Mitigation Lands (i.e., to sell Mitigation Lands in exchange for higher quality lands). • Text has been added clarifying that conservation easement will be secured on all Mitigation Lands acquired in fee title by the Plan Operator after the Plan Operator has confirmed: (1) the final location of each of the reserves, and (2) management and/or restoration and enhancement measures are being implemented on the final reserve site. • Text has been added to clarify the process for including non-listed Covered Species in the 2081 permits should these species be listed in the future. • Clarification has been added regarding the geographic scope of monitoring activities for Covered Species in the Natomas Basin.

SAC/161795/031060001(001.DOC) NATOMAS BASIN HCP 3-1

FINAL EIR/EIS
SECTION 3
Responses to Comments
This section presents the responses to comments. It includes a set of five Master Responses to issues raised in the comment letters (Section 3.1) and it also includes individual responses to comments (Section 3.2 and Attachment 2).

3.1 Summary of Major Comment Responses
In reviewing the comments received on the Draft EIR/EIS, it was apparent that many commentors raised similar and overlapping issues. Consequently, to aid the decisionmakers and the reviewing public, the following Master Responses have been developed to address key comments raised. The intent of the Master Responses is to provide background and concise responses on each of the commonly raised issues to support the more specific responses included in the response to individual comments (Section 3.2 of the Final EIR/EIS). These Master Responses are intended to supplement, but not replace, specific responses to individual comments submitted. The responses are not intended to address every issue raised. The comments fall into the following general categories:
• Mitigation Ratio (Section 3.1.1)
• Connectivity (Section 3.1.2)
• Joint Vision (Section 3.1.3)
• Cumulative Impacts (Section 3.1.4)
• Swainson’s Hawk Foraging Habitat (Section 3.1.5)

3.1.1 Master Response 1: Mitigation Ratio
Several commentors have raised questions or concerns regarding the proposed

0.5:1 mitigation ratio included in the NBHCP, including:
• Derivation and analysis of mitigation ratio;
• Differing mitigation ratios for NBHCP and other HCPs; • Biological effectiveness of the NBHCP mitigation ratio developed for the Covered Species (also see Addendum to the Biological Resources Technical Memorandum, Appendix K of the Final NBHCP);
• Derivation of the economic feasibility of the mitigation ratio.

As discussed below and consistent with the USFWS’s HCP Handbook, the mitigation ratio selected for the NBHCP is designed to mitigate for t
he loss of species and habitat values
specific to the Plan Area as demonstrated by the NBHCP Biological Resources Technical Memorandum (see Appendix H of the NBHCP) and the Addendum to the Biological Resources Technical Memorandum (see Appendix K of the Final NBHCP).

SECTION 3: RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
3-2 NATOMAS BASIN HCP SAC/161795/031060001(001.DOC)

FINAL EIR/EIS

3.1.1.1 Types of Mitigation Measures that HCPs Should Include Many commentors have focused on the mitigation ratio as a measure of the adequacy of the NBHCP’s mitigation program. Commentors have suggested that the 0.5:1 mitigation ratio is inadequate for purposes of mitigating the effects of incidental take of the covered activities.

It is important to note that the validity and effectiveness of an HCP’s mitigation program is not determined exclusively on the mitigation ratio for acquisition of mitigation lands. For example, Chapter 3 of the HCP Handbook notes that:

Mitigation actions under HCPs usually take one of the following forms:
(1) avoiding the impact (to the extent practicable); (2) minimizing the impact;
(3) rectifying the impact; (4) reducing or eliminating the impact over time; or (5) compensating for the impact. For example, project effects can be (1) avoided by relocating project facilities within the project area; (2) minimized through timing restrictions and buffer zones; (3) rectified by restoration and revegetation of disturbed project areas; (4) reduced or eliminated over time by proper management, monitoring, and adaptive management; and (5) compensated by habitat restoration or protection at an onsite or offsite location. In practice, HCPs often use several of these strategies simultaneously or consecutively.

The NBHCP’s Operating Conservation Program includes each and every one of these
mitigation actions. To understand the full mitigation program of the HCP, the mitigation ratio, the enhancement and management of reserve lands, and the avoidance, minimization, and mitigation requirements need to be viewed in concert. For example, the NBHCP includes substantial avoidance policies to prevent disturbance of snakes during hibernation or birds during nesting activities (avoidance and minimization through timing restrictions and buffers).

Another example of avoidance is the designation of the Swainson’s Hawk Zone. In Sutter County, this results in the removal of 1,0
15 acres of lands in the Sutter County
Industrial/Commercial Reserve from the Permit Area. A third example of mitigation is the nesting tree mitigation requirements designed to rectify the loss of older nest trees over time. Yet another mitigation program is the creation and enhancement of Mitigation Lands.

Finally, substantial consideration has been given to reserve management, monitoring, and adaptive management in the NBHCP. Chapter IV of the NBHCP includes reserve management criteria and Chapter V includes species specific avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures. The NBHCP, therefore, does not rely exclusively on creation of new habitat reserves to mitigate for the impacts of development and the adequacy of the NBHCP cannot be judged by looking at the mitigation ratio in isolation from the other components of the Operating Conservation Program. Thus, the NBHCP utilizes all of the mitigation strategies listed above to create a comprehensive conservation program.

3.1.1.2 Derivation and Analysis of Mitigation Ratio
In considering the issuance of a Section 10(a) Permit, the USFWS must find that: (1) to the maximum extent practicable, the permittee has minimized and mitigated for the impacts of incidental take; (2) adequate funding is provided for the conservation plan and that the Plan specifies procedures to deal with unforeseen circumstances; (3) the taking will not appreciably reduce the likelihood of survival and recovery of the species in the wild; and SECTION 3: RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
SAC/161795/031060001(001.DOC) NATOMAS BASIN HCP 3-3

FINAL EIR/EIS
(4) conservation measures required by the USFWS will be met (50 CFR §§ 17.22(b)(2)), 17.32).

Consistent with the Section 10(a) permit issuance criteria, the USFWS is required to find that the proposed incidental take will not appreciably reduce the likelihood of survival and recovery of the species in the wild. Based on the information included in the Biological Resources Technical Memorandum (Appendix H of the NBHCP), the Addendum thereto (Appendix K of the Final NBHCP), and the EIS/EIR, the Lead Agencies have presented information to support the determination that the NBHCP’s Operating Conservation Program will be successful in meeting Section 10 requirements. Thus, the NBHCP and the mitigation ratio seek to address the biological needs of the Covered Species in a manner that is commensurate with the impacts to the species, and that preserves the economic feasibility of compatible development in the Natomas Basin while also presenting mitigation programs that ensure that the impacts of Planned Development will not jeopardize the continued existence of any of the species.

A key component of the Operating Conservation Program is t he acquisition and permanent
preservation of Mitigation Lands at a mitigation ratio of 0.5 acre of Mitigation Lands acquired and preserved for each 1 acre of Planned Development. Based on scientific information and analysis contained in the Biological Resources Technical Memorandum and the EIS/EIR, as further described below, the Applicants believe the 0.5:1 mitigation ratio is adequate in mitigating for the effects of the incidental take resulting from Planned Development in the Basin.

In addition, in determining whether to issue th e incidental take permits, the USFWS must find that the NBHCP minimizes and mitigates impacts to the maximum extent practicable and ensure that adequate funding will be available to fund the costs of the NBHCP’s Operating Conservation Program. An Economic Analysis was conducted to evaluate the costs and feasibility of the NBHCP in consideration of the habitat, species, and efforts to assure that the NBHCP, to the maximum extent practicable, minimizes and mitigates the effects of incidental take resulting from covered activities. The Applicants conducted this analysis and reviewed a range of mitigation ratios for reserves, and different reserve acquisition approaches within the Basin (e.g., acquisition of site-specific areas). The Economic Analysis (Economic Planning Systems, 2002) also analyzed the economic feasibility of reducing the amount of development.

The Economic Analysis is included in Appendix A of the NBHCP. Also see Section 3.1.1.5 and Responses to Comment O1-42 through O1-60 of this Final EIR/EIS (Section 3.2) The Applicants considered the benefits of several replacement habitat approaches. The HC P Handbook provides guidance on the approach and location of replacement habitat:

Generally, the location of replacement habitats should be as close as possible to the area of impact; it must also include similar habitat types and support the same species affected by the HCP. However, there may be good reason to accept Mitigation Lands that are distant from the impact area—e.g., if a large habitat block, as opposed to fragmented blocks can be protected, or if the Mitigation Lands are obtained through a mitigation fund. Ultimately, the location of mitigation habitat must be based on individual circumstances and good judgment.

The NBHCP first considered biological needs of the Covered Species in the development of the habitat
mitigation. Given the specific biology of the Natomas Basin and needs of many SECTION 3: RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
3-4 NATOMAS BASIN HCP SAC/161795/031060001(001.DOC)

FINAL EIR/EIS
of the species, the preparers specifically targeted the location of Mitigation Lands within the Natomas Basin. This supports important needs of the species. For example, the USFWS recognizes 13 separate populations of giant garter snakes within California, and identifies the Natomas Basin as the largest single element of the American Basin’s population of the giant garter snake that has been studied. Thus, the Applicants determined that the highest priority should be to locate reserves within the Natomas Basin to the maximum extent possible because of the unique biological and habitat needs of the giant garter snake population and other Covered Species.

The decision to locate Mitigation Lands within the N atomas Basin is not without practical challenges. For example, extensive parcels of land in the Natomas Basin exist, and this makes acquisition of consolidated habitat more challenging because multiple owners and real estate transactions must occur to achieve the minimum reserve size of 400 acres.

Similarly, the cost of land in the Natomas Basin is relatively high because of the area’s proximity to the Sacramento Central City, the Sacramento International Airport, Interstate 5, and State Highway 99. All of these factors have influenced the parcelization and land values of the Natomas Basin. A number of mitigation programs and mitigation banks are located in more rural areas of the Sacramento Valley (Butte County foraging areas) and Central Valley areas (San Joaquin Delta areas). The large parcel sizes and lower cost per acre of these sites was considered, but the NBHCP biology team determined that this type of mitigation would not, in all cases, clearly support the Covered Species.

Enhancement and management of Mitigation Lands, as proposed by the NBHCP, is also consistent with
the guidance of the USFWS HCP Handbook. Chapter 3, states:

In some cases, acquisition of high quality existing habitat will be the best approach--for example, where the habitat
type takes years to develop
(e.g., old-growth forest). In other cases, restoring degraded habitat or creating new ones is the best strategy--for example, where the habitat type is relatively easy to manipulate (e.g., grasslands). Where affected species depend on natural disturbance regimes that can be replicated through management regimes (e.g., prescribed fire or flooding), prescriptive management may be preferable to habitat acquisition or protection alone.

In accordance with this guidance, the NBHCP requires restoration and enhancement of Mitigation Lands a
nd requires management practices specifically to support the Covered Species. The enhancement programs have been designed to ensure that each reserve offers substantial benefits to the Covered Species associated with the habitat enhanced or created on the reserve. Additionally, the Applicants, in consultation with the Wildlife Agencies, included numerous requirements for the enhancement of Mitigation Lands to ensure that habitat preserved or replaced would have higher value that the current habitat in the Basin.

The NBHCP preparers reviewed the needs of the Covered Species in establishing reserve development and m
anagement guidelines. Of the species present in the Basin, many use common elements of habitat. For example, the giant garter snake uses the upland areas of rice fields and canals (levees) for basking and hibernacula. Similarly, the Swainson’s hawk may use these same upland areas for perching while foraging in fallow rice fields. Thus, a balance of enhanced habitat types is included in the NBHCP to represent the multiple needs of the species. The NBHCP calls for 25 percent of the Mitigation Lands to be enhanced SECTION 3: RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
SAC/161795/031060001(001.DOC) NATOMAS BASIN HCP 3-5

FINAL EIR/EIS
managed marsh; 25 percent to be upland areas; and 50 percent to be rice reserves specifically managed by TNBC to support the Covered Species.

For example, the enhanced rice reserves are designed to continue an element of rice landscape in the Basin that has proven to support the species. In addition to maintaining rice habitat through the Mitigation Lands, each reserve has a Site Specific Management Plan that includes best practices to support the species. For example, sections of TNBC rice reserves are fallowed each year such that at approximately 10 percent of all TNBC rice reserves are fallow, creating prime foraging lands for birds of prey such as the Swainson’s hawk. Additionally, as a section of reserve is fallowed, a primary system of canals is maintained within the preserve to support connectivity and mobility of the giant garter snake. Thus, substantial biological research and enhancement is invested in each reserve to create substantially higher-value habitat than the affected habitat.

The NBHCP mitigation program, which emphasize s restoration and enhancement of habitat, has been proposed because substantial biological analysis was conducted to identify the best mitigation support for the needs of the species. Thus, while a 1:1 mitigation ratio (without enhancement and restoration) similar to the San Joaquin MSCP could also be considered in the Natomas Basin, this same approach would not provide the same increase in quality and value of habitat for the species using the Basin. A 1:1 ratio without enhancement and mitigation would, for example, not produce the same increase in managed marsh reserves, nor produce upland areas with nesting trees specifically designed to support the species covered by the NBHCP.

3.1.1.3 Differing Mitigation Ratios for HCPs
Several commentors noted that the NBHCP mitigation ratio is different from the ratio used in other HCPs. Each HCP is crafted to address the specific impacts and to identify measures which will, to the maximum extent practicable, minimize and mitigate the impacts of incidental take given the particular biology, habitat, and other characteristics of the HCP planning area. Chapter 3 of the USFWS HCP Handbook, for instance, states:

Mitigation programs under HCPs and Section 10 permits are as varied as the projects they address. Consequently, this handbook does not establish specific “rules” for developing mitigation programs that would limit the creative potential inherent in any good HCP effort. On the other hand, the standards used in developing HCPs must be adequate and consistent regardless of which Service office happens to work with a permit applicant.

Mitigation programs should be based on sound biological rationale; they should also be practicable and commensurate with the impacts they address.

The San Joaquin Multi-Species Conservation Program (MSCP) differs from the NBHCP in several ways. It
was prepared to address the incidental take of 97 species associated with the conversion of 109,302 acres consisting of agricultural lands, natural lands—non-wetlands (e.g., oak woodlands), natural lands—vernal p ools, and wetlands other than vernal pools.

Incidental take authorization was provided to approximately 44 of the 97 species addressed in the MSCP. Under the San Joaquin MSCP, the loss of 109,302 acres, of which approximately 75,000 acres are considered habitat for the Covered Species, is mitigated by 100,841 acres of preserved lands. Moreover, the San Joaquin MSCP provides that if a project is designed to avoid all impacts to MSCP covered species and all habitats, the project is not subject to the SECTION 3: RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
3-6 NATOMAS BASIN HCP SAC/161795/031060001(001.DOC)

FINAL EIR/EIS
MSCP compensation requirements. Thus, certain lands that do not provide habitat may be converted to urban development without triggering the requirement to purchase mitigation lands. Additionally, although the giant garter snake is addressed in the San Joaquin MSCP, the MSCP did not grant incidental take authorization for conversion of occupied habitat.

By contrast, the NBHCP was prepared to address 22 Covered Species within a 17,500-acre Plan Area. Unlike the San Jo
aquin MSCP, the NBHCP provides for incidental take coverage of giant garter snake, including occupied and unoccupied habitat. The NBHCP also applies the 0.5:1 mitigation ratio to all lands within the Permit Areas, whether or not they provide habitat for any of the Covered Species. In addition, even if developers avoid impacts to habitat or Covered Species, they must nonetheless pay the mitigation fees. The NBHCP covers species and habitat types and quality that are not coextensive with those in the San Joaquin MSCP; therefore, simply importing a mitigation ratio applied in the San Joaquin MSCP to the Natomas Basin is inappropriate. Finally, the mitigation program of the San Joaquin County MSCP is based largely on conservation easements for existing agricultural lands and does not include the types of habitat restoration and enhancements included in the NBHCP.

Similar to the above description of the San Joaq
uin County MSCP, the Metropolitan
Bakersfield HCP differs from the NBHCP in several important ways. The Metropolitan Bakersfield HCP estimates that approximately 10,370 acres of land will be developed in the Bakersfield region during the Plan’s 20-year permit term, out of a possible 47,600 acres of undeveloped land designated for urban use in the City of Bakersfield and Kern County General Plans. Contrary to the strict designation of Permit Areas in the NBHCP, the Metropolitan Bakersfield HCP addresses only 10,370 acres of development that could occur anywhere within a 47,600-acre area. In the Metropolitan Bakersfield HCP, mitigation lands could be purchased in target areas in the southern San Joaquin Valley (from east of Bakersfield, west across I-5, and into the Coast Ranges).

Considering that the target areas are not subject to substantial urban development pressure, the USFWS expects that land
acquisition will be much easier than in the Natomas Basin (in 1994, the Metropolitan Bakersfield HCP fee was set at $1,250 per acre, including $600 per acre for land acquisition). This presents a substantially different basis for a finding of “maximum extent practicable” than the NBHCP, which requires the permittees to acquire most of the Mitigation Lands in a confined area (i.e., the Natomas Basin) within a limited portion of the Sacramento Valley. The Metropolitan Bakersfield HCP’s conservation strategy is appropriate given its covered species include the San Joaquin kit fox, but the kit fox does not inhabit the Natomas Basin. In contrast, the biological goals and objectives of the NBHCP (Section I.C) focus on the habitat needs of the giant garter snake (e.g., wetland habitat with nearby uplands) and Swainson’s hawk (protected nest trees with nearby foraging habitat).

The Yolo County and South Sacramento County HCPs also were noted as HCPs to which the NBHCP should be compared. Because the conservation strategies for t he Yolo County
and South Sacramento County HCPs are under development and have not been confirmed, it is not reasonable to make a comparison to these efforts.

3.1.1.4 Biological Effectiveness of the NBHCP Mitigation Ratio This section summarizes the effectiveness of the NBHCP mitigation ratio in protecting covered species.

SECTION 3: RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
SAC/161795/031060001(001.DOC) NATOMAS BASIN HCP 3-7

FINAL EIR/EIS
The NBHCP analysis, conducted in support of the mitigation ratio, considered the following:
• Type, quality, and extent of habitat impacted in the Basin; • Type of species using the habitat in the Basin;
• Range of avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures available to avoid or lessen impacts;
• Potential for enhancement of habitat areas (specifically reserves); and • Economic feasibility of mitigation options available to minimize and mitigate, to the maximum extent practicable, impacts related to incidental take associated with the authorized development.

Each of these factors is discussed below.

Type, Quality, and Extent of Habitat in the Basin. The Natomas Basin is already a significantly altered area. Historic land reclamation activities and agricultural activities over the past century have substantially modified the system of grasslands and wet areas that formerly characterized the Basin (See also NBHCP Figure 5 of the NBHCP: 1919 Land Cover). Thus, very little high-quality native habitat remains in the Basin. A biology team from May & Associates and CH2M HILL conducted extensive field, GIS, and literature searches to identify native habitat and other existing habitat in the Basin. Native habitat is shown in Figure 8 of the NBHCP and represents approximately 5 percent or less of the Basin. The remaining habitat is largely disturbed through either existing urban uses (roadways, airports, and urban development) or agricultural uses.

Given the relatively uniform and disturbed condition of the habitat in the Basin, the HCP preparers decided to consider all undeve
loped lands of relatively equal habitat value; therefore, all lands, regardless of habitat value in the Permit Areas, are required to participate in the mitigation fee program. Additionally, the NBHCP includes a list of species-specific avoidance, minimization, and mitigation requirements that must be undertaken if any of the Covered Species are present on a development site. This two-tiered mitigation approach allows for mitigation of both larger landscape impacts of general habitat loss, as well as species and site- specific avoidance and mitigation measures.

Using the GIS mapping with field-truthing by a team of wildlife biologists, the types of habitat in the
Basin were mapped and the precise amount of acreage that would be impacted by habitat or land-use type was assessed and mapped. The impacts by habitat type, species, and acreage are included in the Biological Resources Technical Memorandum included as Appendix H to the NBHCP. This information identified the type and extent of impacts and forms the basis for development of the mitigation program.

A worst-case assessment of impacts was undertake n in developing the land use impact tables included for each species in Chapter VII of the NBHCP. Any lands (regardless of value or known presence of species) that could provide some support to the Covered Species was included in the impact assessment. Again, this was done because there is so little remaining native or high-value habitat in the Natomas Basin.

Species Using the Basin and their Needs. Twenty-two Covered Species were fully analyzed relative to their use of the Basin and their habitat needs. A number of the covered bird species are not permanent residents but rather are seasonal visitors to the Natomas Basin.

SECTION 3: RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
3-8 NATOMAS BASIN HCP SAC/161795/031060001(001.DOC)

FINAL EIR/EIS
Additionally, several species are rarely occurring species. In the analysis of species, three general types of associated habitat and species became evident: wetland area species, upland habitat species, and vernal pool complex-related species.

Wetland Species and their Presence in and Use of the Basin. Several wetland species initially used the native marsh lands of the Basin. As the land was modified through reclamation, the construction of levees, and agricultural activities, many of these species adapted to use of the seasonally inundated rice fields and canals. Thus, despite substantial changes to the habitat in the Basin, several species have adapted to the new landscape. The giant garter snake, for example, may prefer marshlands; however, absent this type of higher quality habitat, the giant garter snake has adapted to a modified landscape of rice fields and irrigation and drainage canals. Therefore, the NBHCP mitigation program includes enhanced rice and marsh habitat to support the giant garter snake and related wetland species. At the 0.5:1 mitigation ratio, 25 percent of the reserves will be managed marshlands.

Thus, the amount of marshlands in the Basin would be increased from the current 96 acres to over 2,100 acres. In addition to the substantial increase in marsh habitat to support the snake and related marsh species, the NBHCP also includes a substantial portion of rice reserves (4,375 acres) specifically managed to support the species.

Several species use marsh and wet areas, as well as vernal pool areas. These species may also require upland areas that are associated with wet areas. The associated wetland species covered by the NBHCP include:
• Aleutian Canada goose
• tricolored blackbird
• white-faced ibis
• northwestern pond turtle
• California tiger salamander
• western spadefoot toad
• delta tule pea
• Sanford’s arrowhead
The Aleutian Canada goose is a winter visitor to the Natoma s Basin and forages and rests in the area, but it is not known to breed or nest in the Basin. The Aleutian Canada goose has been observed using rice fields and open agricultural areas in Sutter County for winter foraging. Although, there are no known occurrences of the Aleutian Canada goose in the Natomas Basin, the NBHCP includes policies to support resting and foraging for this species in the Mitigation Lands. Thus, preservation of the rice landscape included in the mitigation plan will also support winter foraging and resting areas for the Aleutian Canada goose.

The white-faced ibis uses rice fields, ditches, and other wet areas for foraging, and it prefers extensive marsh areas for nesting. Because there is so little native marsh in the Natomas Basin, there are no known nesting sites of the white faced ibis in the Plan Area, although the species might use the Basin for resting and foraging in the winter. Under the 0.5:1 mitigation ratio with 25 percent of the Mitigation Lands in managed marsh, a substantial increase in marsh will be created (from 96 acres to 2,187 acres) thereby providing substantial habitat benefit to this species.

SECTION 3: RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
SAC/161795/031060001(001.DOC) NATOMAS BASIN HCP 3-9

FINAL EIR/EIS
Tricolored blackbird uses marshes, rice fields, and meadows for foraging and nesting.

Again, because of the limited amount of native marsh remaining in the Plan Area, breeding populations of this species have declined over the past several decades. TNBC has, however, had success in stabilizing and enhancing nesting and foraging habitat for this species. One of the few known nesting colonies in the Basin is located on the Betts-Kismat- Silva reserve. This species has already benefited from the mitigation ratio and plan. As more reserves, particularly managed marsh reserves, are created, this species is expected to have additional benefits for nesting and foraging.

The northwestern pond turtle, California tiger salamand er, and western spadefoot toad are all species that use wetland areas with associated uplands as habitat. The pond turtle prefers marshlands and other slow-moving waters, but also uses upland areas for basking, egglaying, and overwintering. Similarly, the western spadefoot toad requires shallow, seasonal wetlands for breeding. Finally, the California tiger salamander is an aquatic breeder and therefore requires ponds, marsh, or other shallow or slow-moving waters for breeding. The juvenile and adult salamanders use upland grass areas for habitat once metamorphosis has occurred. Thus, all three of these species require marsh or wetland areas with associated uplands. There are no known occurrences of the western spadefoot toad or California tiger salamander in the Natomas Basin, although pond turtles have been observed in the Natomas Main Drain. These species will benefit by the substantial increase in managed marsh habitat under the 0.5:1 mitigation ratio. As previously noted, under the

0.5:1 mitigation ratio, 25 percent of Mitigation Lands will be managed marsh, thereby increasing the amount of marsh habitat from 96 areas to 2,187 acres. Vernal pool avoidance policies included in the NBHCP will further protect habitat for these species.

Two plant species, the delta tule pea and Sanford’s arrowhead, are associated with wetland
and marsh areas. Neither species has known occurrences in the Natomas Basin, largely because of the lack of marsh and wetlands remaining in the area. These species are, however, known to occur in other locations in Sacramento and Sutter Counties. Thus, under the 0.5:1 mitigation ratio, a substantial increase in marsh reserves will be realized, which may assist in the restoration of these species to the Natomas Basin.

Upland Species and their Presence in and Use of the Basin.

Nearly all covered bird and
animal species (except certain vernal pool species) need some upland areas for basking, hibernacula, cover, or foraging. Thus, the Applicants and the Wildlife Agencies assessed the needs and uses of upland areas by species.

The Swainson’s hawk primarily uses the Natomas B asin for nesting and foraging during the nesting season and over winters in South America. Thus, the NBHCP first considered areas with nest trees or areas that could support nest trees, and assigned high value to suitable foraging areas near active nest trees (See Figure 3-5, page 3-45, of the Draft EIS/EIR).

Currently, the greatest concentration of nest trees is along the Sacramento River. In this area, larger mature trees remain undisturbed by agricultural practices. For this reason, the NBHCP placed a high value on avoidance of development along the Sacramento River and within the Permit Areas. As such, the NBHCP identifies a Swainson’s Hawk Zone extending 1 mile inland from the Sacramento River. Secondly, the NBHCP gives priority for upland reserve acquisition to areas within the Swainson’s Hawk Zone. In this manner, the foundational strategy of the NBHCP is to avoid development in and preserve areas with known concentrations of nesting activity.

SECTION 3: RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
3-10 NATOMAS BASIN HCP SAC/161795/031060001(001.DOC)

FINAL EIR/EIS
Secondly, the NBHCP seeks to create new, high-quality habitat for the Swainson’s hawk and other upland species. While 25 percent of the Mitigation Lands will be exclusively dedicated to upland areas, upland portions of marsh area reserves will also be managed for a multi-species approach. Finally, rice reserves, which may be only seasonally used by some species, can be managed year round to support multiple species. Thus, the NBHCP calls for 10 percent of the rice reserves to be left fallow to support foraging by upland species during the critical nesting and breeding summer months. Thus, the 0.5:1 mitigation ratio in combination with the acquisition and management criteria of the NBHCP results in significant foraging and nesting reserve lands for the Swainson’s hawk and other upland species. Table 3-1 briefly summarizes the total uplands that will be available as a result of biologically based reserve management strategies.

TABLE 3-1
Uplands Available in Mitigation Lands
Reserve Habitat Type Acreage
Percent
Upla
nd Area Upland Acreage
25% upland areas 2187.5 100 2,187.5
25% managed marsh, of which 20-30% is upland edges 2187.5 25 546.9 Metro Air Park Nest and Foraging Mitigation 200 100 200 Fallow rice reserves 437.5 100 437.5
Total upland foraging acreage 3,371.9
The above table does not include the additional 1,015 acres of lands preserved from urban development in the Swainson’s Hawk Zone. The table also does not include approximately 1,000 acres of the upland edges and levees that are included in the rice reserves that may also be used by the Swainson’s hawk and other upland species for foraging.

By planting trees in all upland areas, the NBHCP seek
s to create new nesting sites in the
Mitigation Lands in proximity to foraging habitat to benefit a number of bird species. In the upland reserves, the NBHCP also calls for tree planting and vegetation specifically designed to support the Covered Species, including planting of tree species preferred by the Swainson’s hawk and other raptors for nesting. The TNBC has already established an aggressive tree planting program, including 368 trees planted on reserves to date. The plantings include a variety of species: valley oak, sycamore, and other larger trees preferred by the Swainson’s hawk for nesting; and smaller trees and shrubs preferred by species such as the tricolored blackbird for nesting. The NBHCP also requires the advance planting of 60 additional trees of specific species in upland areas preferred by the Swainson’s hawk.

TNBC’s vegetation plan results in benefits to multiple species that require coverage to ensure protection.

A number of bird species also benefit from upland areas for foraging and from vegetation along the upland edge
s of marshlands. These include burrowing owl, loggerhead shrike, and bank swallow. Open upland areas that remain relatively undisturbed by agricultural cultivation will provide a sustained habitat for the burrowing owl. Similarly, the bank swallow and shrike will benefit from the same upland foraging areas, including those SECTION 3: RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
SAC/161795/031060001(001.DOC) NATOMAS BASIN HCP 3-11

FINAL EIR/EIS
associated with marsh reserves. Species like the bank swallow will particularly benefit from the creation of enhanced marsh habitat with upland areas (20 percent to 30 percent of the marsh component), which is a type of habitat nearly non-existent in the Natomas Basin.

Vernal Pool Species. Vernal pool species are the most difficult to develop for mitigation because none of the
vernal pool Covered Species are known to be present in the Natomas Basin. There are, however, limited vernal pools on the eastern edge of the Natomas Basin that may support these species. The approach to mitigation for these species is based on species presence. If species are present (through USFWS survey protocols) then minimization and mitigation would occur: (1) avoidance and onsite preservation; or (2) payment into a USFWS Mitigation Bank. The USFWS sponsors Vernal Pool Mitigation Banks in areas where vernal pools can most successfully maintain or support the establishment of vernal pool species. As such, mitigation for vernal pool species in areas like Natomas Basin that may have more marginal habitat often occurs through payment into an approved USFWS Mitigation Bank. Although restoration and creation of vernal pools on Mitigation Lands are not precluded by the NBHCP, such an approach would be limited to a reserve where proper soils, under soils, and hydrological conditions exist. In the Natomas Basin, there is currently very limited vernal pool habitat along the eastern edge of the Basin. Covered Species that may use vernal pool habitat include the mid-valley fairy shrimp, vernal pool fairy shrimp, vernal pool tadpole shrimp, Boggs Lake hedge-hyssop, Colusa Grass, legenere, Sacramento Orcutt grass, and slender Orcutt grass. Although there are no known occurrences of these species in the Natomas Basin, these species are granted coverage and mitigation protections in the event the existing vernal pool complexes on the eastern side of the Basin or in other areas are found to support these species.

3.1.1.5 Economic Feasibility of the Mitigation for Impacts Related to the Planned Development Under the ESA, the findings regarding effects on biological resources primarily determine the applicable mitigation requirements for the Plan. After the biological requirements are determined, the USFWS evaluates whether the mitigation requirements are the maximum that can be practically implemented by the applicant. As Chapter VII of the NBHCP and the Biological Resources Technical Memorandum indicates, the NBHCP conservation strategy, including a 0.5:1 mitigation ratio, proposed restoration, enhancement, adaptive management, and monitoring programs on reserve sites, as well as the take avoidance and minimization measures specified in the NBHCP, represent the maximum mitigation requirements that can be practically implemented. A mitigation ratio greater than 0.5:1 would compromise the feasibility of Planned Development in the Basin and is not necessary to minimize and mitigate the impacts of take. This study concluded that habitat reserve levels at a 1:1, for example, would substantially compromise the feasibility of Planned Development. As noted above, the purpose of the NBHCP and related incidental take permits is to develop a conservation plan that minimizes and mitigates impacts to the maximum extent possible, while still allowing compatible development to proceed feasibly.

As part of this analysis, the Applicants evaluated whether t he level of mitigation and
mitigation fees are appropriate for the project. Data provided by Economic and Planning Systems (EPS) was used to define the costs and benefits of implementing additional mitigation, the amount of mitigation provided by other applicants in similar situations, and the abilities of the permittees under the NBHCP. Based on this analysis, the Applicants determined that additional mitigation costs associated with a 1:1 mitigation ratio would SECTION 3: RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
3-12 NATOMAS BASIN HCP SAC/161795/031060001(001.DOC)

FINAL EIR/EIS
exceed the benefit to be derived from the NBHCP’s Operating Conservation Program because, in most instances, the combined effect of the 0.5:1 mitigation ratio in conjunction with the NBHCP’s proposed restoration, enhancement, adaptive management, and monitoring programs on the Mitigation Lands, as well as the take avoidance and minimization measures, results in substantially greater mitigation than a mitigation program based on Mitigation Lands at a 1:1 mitigation ratio alone without the avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures provided by the NBHCP. The Draft EIR/EIS evaluated an alternative that included a mitigation ratio of 1:1 coupled with all other avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures. In many cases, the environmental effects of a 1:1 ratio are similar to the 0.5:1 ratio. For example, page 4-98 of the Draft EIR/EIS notes that the proposed 1:1 ratio using the 25/50/25 habitat ratios would provide 4,375 acres of managed marsh, which would be substantially in excess of the impact related to the loss of 76 acres of marsh as a result of Planned Development. Thus, in this instance, 1:1 mitigation would provide a substantial excess of one type of habitat far beyond that which would be required to mitigate the impacts of development. In addition, the costs of additional mitigation, including the costs of enhancement, were determined to not be feasible or practicable in the Economic Analysis. Similarly, page 4-99 concludes that impacts to the Swainson’s hawk would be generally the same under Alternative 1 (1:1) ratio as those of the NBHCP. The environmental impacts to the Swainson’s hawk are less than significant under both the Proposed Action (0.5:1 mitigation ratio) and Alternative 1 (1:1) mitigation ratio.

In identifying the maximum mitigation practicable, the effectiveness of mitigation m easures
and the feasibility and costs must be considered. Thus, the Economic Analysis compared a variety of scenarios, including a 1:1 mitigation scenario, to determine if the costs of such a mitigation program would be feasible and practicable. The Economic Analysis demonstrated that, as a result of the high cost burden (resulting in part from other development impact fees and infrastructure costs), the costs associated with a 1:1 mitigation ratio in combination with all of other conservation measures included in the NBHCP’s Operating Conservation Program could not be feasibly funded by the developers of Planned Development. It is important to note that a substantial proportion of the cost burden associated with the NBHCP scenario for the 1:1 mitigation ratio specifically relates to higher levels of enhancement, restoration, and adaptive management. Many HCPs with a 1:1 mitigation ratio do not include restoration and enhancement; in the Natomas Basin however, restoration of lands in the Basin is biologically preferred to acquisition of Mitigation Lands outside of the Basin (which might be more affordable) or conservation easements on lands in the Basin without restoration and management to support the Covered Species.

Additionally, the Applicants are constrained in their ability to impose mitigation obligations that ex
ceed constitutional and statutory nexus requirements, as further explained on page VII-68 of the NBHCP. Those legal constraints require that mitigation imposed on development bear a rational relationship to the impacts caused by such development on existing habitat, and that it be roughly proportional to the impacts caused by this development. Consequently, the City and Sutter County are limited in their ability to require more mitigation than necessary to mitigate the impacts of incidental take. This additional legal requirement further impacts the feasibility of requiring mitigation at a 1:1 or higher mitigation ratio. For the reasons set forth above as supported by the Economic Analysis and the Biological Resources Technical Memorandum, the Applicants believe that SECTION 3: RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
SAC/161795/031060001(001.DOC) NATOMAS BASIN HCP 3-13

FINAL EIR/EIS
the NBHCP’s Operating Conservation Program represents the mitigation that is the maximum extent practicable that may be imposed.

3.1.2 Master Response 2: Connectivity
Various comments have been received addressing the issue of biological connectivity relative to the giant garter snake. These comments generally focused on the importance of drainage canals and ditches to allow giant garter snake to move between Mitigation Lands and other portions of the Natomas Basin. The primary opportunity for in-Basin connectivity for giant garter snake is the system of canals and ditches that are operated and maintained by RD 1000 and Natomas Mutual (collectively referred to as the Water Agencies).

Comments have been received questioning the impact on Basin connectivity of the Water Agencies’ decision not to pursue permits under the NBHCP as currently drafted. To respond to these comments, this master response is organized in the following way:
• Overview of NBHCP Requirements for Biological Connectivity; • Relationship of Planned Development to Mitigation Lands; • Drainage Canals to be Retained;
• Irrigation Channels to be Retained;
• Effects of Water Agency Participation in the NBHCP;
• Regulatory Restrictions on Canal Closures and Modifications.

In addition to clarifying the NBHCP’s approach to e nsuring connectivity between Mitigation Lands, text changes have been made to clarify this commitment. The text of these changes is in the Final NBHCP.

3.1.2.1 Overview of NBHCP Requirements for Biological Connectivity The Draft NBHCP acknowledges the importance of biological connectivity by including specific biological goals and objectives in the NBHCP relevant to providing connectivity.

Page I-15 of the Draft NBHCP includes the following as Objective 3:

Ensure connectivity between TNBC reserves to minimize fragmenta tion and isolation. Annual evaluations of the success of the NBHCP will focus on TNBC’s success in achieving the Plan’s goals and objectives, and monitoring data will be collected to facilitate this evaluation.

The NBHCP’s emphasis on connectivity between reserves is further defined in Section IV.C.1.d of the NBHCP, which provides various mechanisms for maint aining connectivity
measures.

The NBHCP also establishes monitoring requirements to ensure that the goals and objectives of the NBHCP will be achieved. Section VI.E.2.b of the NBHCP establishes that the following analysis will be conducted:
(4) Annual assessment and identification of canals a nd ditches which provide GGS habitat connectivity within and between reserves.

SECTION 3: RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
3-14 NATOMAS BASIN HCP SAC/161795/031060001(001.DOC)

FINAL EIR/EIS

3.1.2.2 Relationship of Planned Development to Mitigation Lands Closing of canals within the Permit Areas of the City and Sutter County is anticipated to occur as Planned Development occurs, and is a Covered Activity for the City and Sutter County. Such closures would reduce connectivity within the planned development areas of the City and Sutter County. The canals and ditches located outside the City and County Permit Areas, however, are those that are the most critical to connectivity between reserves because the Mitigation Lands are located almost exclusively outside the City and County Permit Areas.

The NBHCP includes acquisition guidelines that
specify that Mitigation Lands should be
separated from urban development. While these guidelines are flexible and TNBC may, with the concurrence of the wildlife agencies, acquire land adjacent to existing and future development, the majority of Mitigation Lands will be acquired in areas well separated from development authorized under the NBHCP. As a result, the impacts of Planned Development on the canals that provide connectivity to Mitigation Lands will be substantially reduced from what would occur in the absence of the provision to separate Mitigation Lands from the areas of Planned Development. The system of both drainage and irrigation channels within the Basin is extensive, and there is no evidence (either in documented plans of the water agencies or in development proposals submitted to the land use agencies) to suggest that canals in the immediate vicinity of Mitigation Lands would be closed either as a result of Planned Development or for any other reason.

Closing of the canals that are located outside t he City and County Permit Areas, which are the canals most critical to ensuring connectivity between the Mitigation Lands, is not a circumstance that is likely to occur and there is no indication at this time that the Water Agencies intend to close these canals. Although there is no indication that the Water Agencies will seek to close canals serving the Mitigation Lands, such actions have the potential to occur in the future. If a canal were to be proposed for closure, the Water Agency (or project sponsor for canal closure) would likely be required to comply with the ESA and mitigate impacts under either Section 10 of the ESA. This could be an amendment to the NBHCP if the Water Agencies choose at some future date to seek coverage under the NBHCP, or it could require preparation of a separate HCP or Section 7 Consultation, if federal funds or federal approval is required (as in the case of Section 404 Clean Water Act permits). Under such circumstances, is it expected that the Wildlife Agencies would require appropriate mitigation to maintain the biological viability of the NBHCP (and possibly require MOAs or Memoranda of Understanding [MOUs] with the water agencies) to:
(1) preserve key canals; (2) transfer land; or (3) place easements on canals to TNBC. In the event that closure of canals critical to ensuring connectivity is proposed and no such mitigation is required, then TNBC would attempt to acquire the key canal in fee title or secure a conservation easement on the canal, subject to Section IV.C.1.d of the NBHCP.

3.1.2.3 Drainage Canals to be Retained
Existing drainage canals in the Natomas Basin will continue to provide connectivity for the giant garter snake. Figure 17 of the NBHCP identifies drainage channels within the Natomas Basin that are considered likely to be retained for flood control purposes for both existing agricultural uses and for Planned Development. Regardless of the type of uses within the Basin, whether agricultural or urban, major flood control channels are required to convey water through the Basin. As shown on Figure 17 of the NBHCP, major drainage channels SECTION 3: RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
SAC/161795/031060001(001.DOC) NATOMAS BASIN HCP 3-15

FINAL EIR/EIS
provide connectivity between Sutter County and Sacramento County, with direct connection to major Mitigation Lands within Sutter County’s northwest portion of the Basin. In addition to the major flood control channels, Figure 17 also depicts the extensive system of lesser channels that are operated and maintained by the Water Agencies. An additional opportunity for Basin connectivity is the 1-mile Swainson’s Hawk Zone that has been excluded from Sutter County’s Permit Area. This corridor of land contains numerous drainage and irrigation canals that provide connectivity between Sacramento County and the Mitigation Lands located in Sutter County.

3.1.2.4 Irrigation Channels to be Retained
Similar to the drainage channels, the irrigation channels operated by Natomas Mutual are required to support the existing agricultural uses within the Basin and will be required to serve Mitigation Lands as the reserves continue to develop. Unlike RD 1000, Natomas Mutual is a privately held water company comprised of landowner stockholders. As TNBC acquires Mitigation Lands within the Basin, it will become a major stockholder in Natomas Mutual. TNBC is anticipated to be in a position to encourage practices that enhance canal maintenance and operations that support the biological goals and objectives of the NBHCP, and that favor biological values within the Basin.

Regardless of its direct role in Natomas Mutual, TNBC will require the delivery of water granted under the
water rights associated with Mitigation Lands that it acquires. As such, the canal system will continue to provide direct linkages to TNBC as long as surface water is used on Mitigation Lands. In addition to serving Mitigation Lands, Natomas Mutual will continue to provide agricultural irrigation water, thus providing further connectivity between the Mitigation Lands and the surrounding agricultural lands within the Basin.

Another important consideration in evaluating the eff ects of the Water Agencies’ ditch/canal maintenance on connectivity and the continued viability of giant garter snakes within the Natomas Basin is the historic nature of the Water Agencies’ operators.

Specifically, despite years of canal management in the Natomas Basin by the water agencies, the giant garter snake has adapted to the management practices of the water agencies. There is no evidence that the continuation of regular and historic canal management practices within the Basin will adversely affect the success of the NBHCP Operating Conservation Plan.

3.1.2.5 Effects of Water Agency Participation in the NBHCP This section responds to comments raised about the following issues:
• The effect on the Applicants’ ability to implement the NBHCP’s Operation Conservation program if the Water Agencies do not participate; and
• Whether the Water Agencies will choose to participate in the NBHCP in the future.

It is important to note that, as currently proposed, the NBHCP includes provisions for the Water Agencies to receive permits for take resulting from normal canal maintena nce
practices (see Section V.C of the NBHCP), and these provisions have been analyzed in the EIR/EIS (see Section 1.2.1 of the EIR/EIS and Comment Letter I3 for a discussion of the historical involvement of the Water Agencies in this NBHCP, and their decision not to seek ITPs at this time).

SECTION 3: RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
3-16 NATOMAS BASIN HCP SAC/161795/031060001(001.DOC)

FINAL EIR/EIS
Effect on NBHCP of Water Agencies’ Nonparticipation
As noted above, the Water Agencies have decided not to participate in the NBHCP at this time. Non-participation of the Water Agencies would result in neither closure of key canals or the inability to implement the NBHCP (see the discussion of Independent Implementation throughout Chapter 4 of the EIR/EIS). The Water Agencies’ decision not to participate in the NBHCP would not adversely affect the ability to maintain connectivity between Mitigation Lands (see Section 3.1.2.3 and Section 3.1.2.4 of this Final EIR/EIS).

Canal closure by the Water Agencies is not a Covered Activity under the NBHCP and, as such, no take coverage is granted by the NBHCP for such an activity. As a result, any canal closures by the Water Agencies that affect giant garter snake or other species would be subject to separate review and mitigation under the ESA and CESA.

The canal maintenance guidelines in the NBHCP generally reflect current maintenance practices used by the Water Agencies and would not result in substantial changes to water
agencies’ practices, such as reconfiguring canals or guaranteeing that canals remain in service. As such, participation of the Water Agencies in the NBHCP, under the provisions as currently proposed, would not substantially affect the Water Agencies existing operations and maintenance activities and, therefore, the likelihood that connectivity within the Basin will be maintained is not compromised by the Water Agencies’ decision not to participate in the NBHCP at this time.

In addition, the EIR/EIS contains an analysis of the effects of independent implementation of the NBHCP (see discussion throughout Chapter 4 of the EIR/EIS) that concludes that the Water Agencies’ decision not to participate at this time in the NBHCP would not result in either: (1) a significant effect to giant garter snake from closure of canals and ditches important to maintaining connectivity; or (2) an inability of the remaining Applicants to implement the NBHCP in a way that meets the biological goals and objectives in Section I.C of the NBHCP.

Water Agencies’ Possible Future Participation in NBHCP
The NBHCP provides a framework through which the Water Agencies may seek incidental take permits (Section I.K). Although the Water Agencies have chosen not to participate in the NBHCP, as currently drafted, the NBHCP has provided a framework for the Water Agencies to participate in the future. This framework includes the definition of various activities that could be covered, which are primarily activities related to take of Covered Species resulting from canal management. To receive consideration for take coverage, the NBHCP would require the water agencies to follow guidelines for canal maintenance.

Additionally, substantial analysis of the effects of the Water Agencies’ management activities has been completed through the NBHCP and the associated EIR/EIS (see Chapter VII of the NBHCVP and Chapter 4 of the EIR/EIS). This framework provides the Water Agencies the opportunity to move forward expeditiously if they choose to participate in the future. Also see Responses to Comments I3-1 and I3-2.

3.1.2.6 Regulatory Restrictions on Canal Closures and Modifications As noted above, the NBHCP would not authorize the Water Agencies to dewater and/or close ditches or canals within the Natomas Basin. As such, the Water Agencies would likely be required to address the impacts of canal closure under a CEQA and/or NEPA analysis, and would likely be required to secure permits from regulatory agencies including, but not SECTION 3: RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
SAC/161795/031060001(001.DOC) NATOMAS BASIN HCP 3-17

FINAL EIR/EIS
limited to, CDFG and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Any impacts of canal closure on either listed species in general or on the viability of NBHCP Mitigation Lands would be analyzed and mitigated through such consultations.

3.1.2.7 Revisions to the NBHCP
In addition to the analysis conducted in the NBHCP and the EIR/EIS relevant to the Water Agencies’ decision not to participate, several revisions have been made to the NBHCP relevant to clarification of the water agencies’ role in connectivity of Mitigation Lands.

These changes are in the Final NBHCP and are summarized in Section 2.1 of this Final EIR/EIS. For the complete text of the change, the reader is referred to the cited sections of the Final NBHCP.

3.1.3 Master Response 3: Joint Vision
Several commentors have requested further clarification regarding the City of Sacramento/Sacramento County Joint Vision. Commentors assert that the City of Sacramento recently released the proposed “Joint Vision for Natomas,” which establishes a process for expanding the City’s Sphere of Influence (SOI) to include up to 10,000 acres for future annexation and urban growth north of Elkhorn to the Sacramento County line, and between MAP and the NEMDC. Commentors believe this Joint Vision effort would result in the urban development of up to 10,000 additional acres in the Basin. Commentors suggest that the cumulative impacts of the potential Joint Vision development should be considered in conjunction with the 17,500 acres of Planned Development covered by the NBHCP.

Commentors are referred to Master Response 4 (Cumulative Impacts) for an overview of NEPA, CEQA, ESA, and CESA re
quirements related to the treatment of probable future
projects and planning efforts for purposes of evaluating cumulative impacts.

3.1.3.1 History of Joint Vision
The Joint Vision is a collaborative, regional growth approach for the area north and west of the City’s North Natomas Community Plan Area in the Natomas Basin being undertaken by the City and County of Sacramento. Over the last several decades, both the City and Sacramento County have received requests to allow urban development in the Natomas Basin. Some of these requests resulted in the City’s and Sacramento County’s review and approval of several development plans within the Natomas Basin. In 1986, the City adopted the North Natomas Community Plan, and in 1988, it updated the South Natomas Community Plan. The northern edge of the North Natomas Community Plan, co-terminus with the City’s Sphere of Influence, is Elkhorn Boulevard. The western edge of the North and South Natomas Community Plans, co-terminus with the City’s SOI, is the City limit line. The City limit line generally follows Interstate 80 in South Natomas and the West Drain in North Natomas. Also, in the early 1990s, the County of Sacramento updated its General Plan and established an Urban Services Boundary, which limits the areas which may obtain utilities and services. The Urban Services Boundary prohibits urban development within a roughly 6,500-acre area in northwestern Sacramento County. The Urban Services Boundary is generally co-terminus with the City limit line and the City’s SOI.

The local land use agencies extensively evaluated the potential for development in the Natomas Basi
n, both before and after the community and general plans were adopted for SECTION 3: RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
3-18 NATOMAS BASIN HCP SAC/161795/031060001(001.DOC)

FINAL EIR/EIS
the following reasons: (1) a flood in 1987 tested the flood protection in the Basin and raised concerns about the wisdom of allowing development (people and property) in the Basin; (2) several threatened and endangered species inhabit the Basin; and (3) many citizens in Sacramento desired permanent protection of Open Space in the Basin to provide for quality of life for the region’s residents. The flood resulted in a revision to the region’s Federal Emergency Management Administration’s (FEMA’s) flood zone designation, including a Special Legislation for the area. Once the flood zone was downgraded, the City and the region worked hard to improve the flood protection in the Basin and elsewhere in the Sacramento area. As part of this effort, the Sacramento Area Flood Control Agency (SAFCA) implemented the Local Area Project, designed to strengthen the levees along the Sacramento River and enhance flood protection in the Natomas Basin. This flood control project required approvals from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. One of the conditions of the Corps 404 Permit for the Local Area Project required that a Habitat Mitigation Plan be approved.

Also, drainage facilities were designed to remove the
development area from the internal
floodplain-overtopping of the internal drains within the Basin. To fund the implementation of these flood control improvements, the City formed Community Facilities District No. 97-01 and bonds were issued to build the needed improvements. In addition to the public improvements, developers within the Basin were required to provide their own stormwater drainage improvements to convey runoff from their developed area to the drains and out to the river. To enable urban development to proceed, basins and year-round lakes providing flood protection and storm drainage were designed to mimic the lakes and marshes that were located in the Basin prior to reclamation efforts in the 1910s.

To comply with the conditions of the Corps Section 404 permit, SAFCA initially embarked on a conse
nsus-building approach to drafting a Habitat Conservation Plan. Eventually, the land use agency permittees completed the process, and on December 31, 1997, a Habitat Conservation Plan was approved and an Incidental Take Permit was issued to the City of Sacramento, the first of several future permittees.

During the preparation of the 1997 NBHCP, several developers proposed specific development projects outside of the City’s SOI and the County’s Urban Services Boundary, to facilitate development to the north and west of the City’s urban limits. A discussion of these efforts is described below in Master Response 4 (Cumulative Impacts).

Neither the 1997 NBHCP nor the revised NBHCP contemplates incidental take coverage for any of these development proposals outside of t
he City’s SOI and County’s Urban Services
Boundary. To provide a comprehensive response to the specific development requests identified below, and other future development requests that may arise, the County of Sacramento commenced a comprehensive annexation study. As part of this process, Sacramento County issued a draft General Plan Amendment and Comprehensive Annexation Plan and associated EIR in November 2000. This plan, however, was never adopted. Once again, development outside of the City, Sutter County, and MAP Permit Areas was deferred indefinitely.

Subsequently, the City engaged Sacramento County in a dialogue to develop a joint process representing a joint City and Sacramento County vision for responding to development and annex
ation requests. This effort was yet another attempt to address the concerns deferred by SECTION 3: RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
SAC/161795/031060001(001.DOC) NATOMAS BASIN HCP 3-19

FINAL EIR/EIS
the unadopted Comprehensive Annexation Plan. This discussion resulted in the preparation and adoption of a MOU for the Joint Vision by the City Council of the City of Sacramento and Sacramento County Board of Supervisors on December 10, 2002 (Appendix G of this Final EIR/EIS), after the Draft NBHCP and EIR/EIS were released for public review and comment.

The MOU identifies certain principles designed to guide regional growth in the Natomas Basin, the goals of the endeavor, and the economic implications of growth. The goals of the Joint Vision are to: (1) enhance quality of life for the region’s citizens; (2) preserve permanent Open Space; (3) preserve habitat for endangered and other special status species; (4) protect the airport from urban encroachment; and (5) preserve farmland. The Joint Vision process also is envisioned to provide certain principles intended to guide further discussions regarding the City’s and Sacramento County’s respective land use roles and understandings regarding future tax sharing arrangements [See Joint Vision MOU Letter to Cay Goude and Larry Eng dated December 5, 2002].

The MOU currently includes a map that identifies a 10,000-acre SOI area where the City’s existing SOI could be expanded to enable future development and an Area of Concern (AOC) where permanent Open Space may be established. The Joint Vision identifies the SOI area as the area within which the acreage and location for future growth would be determined based on further planning efforts, biological resource evaluations, and environmental analyses.

The City and Sacramento County also desire the permanent protection of Open Space in the Basin. Thus, the AOC identifies that area in which land or easements could be acquired at a minimum 1:1 ratio pending further evaluations. No development is anticipated within the AOC by the Joint Vision MOU (See Appendix G of this Final EIR/EIS).

The MOU effort is modeled after the comprehensive approach to regional planning regarding establishment of
the American River Parkway. Here, the City took the lead on a comprehensive planning effort that resulted in approvals by the City of Sacramento, Sacramento County, and the State of California of the American River Parkway Plan.

To develop in the parkway or otherwise modify the parkway plan, all three entities must approve the modification. Such strict restrictions on modifying the parkway plan have resulted in a long-term plan that is not changed easily by the decisions made by a single jurisdiction. Similarly, the City and Sacramento County contemplate a future joint planning process for the Natomas Basin that would require both parties to consider future development proposals within the Basin.

3.1.3.2 Impact of Joint Vision on Future Development in the Natomas Basin Commentors request that the NBHCP and EIR/EIS evaluate the cumulative impacts of up to 27,500 acres of new development consisting of the 17,500 acres of Planned Development and 10,000 acres of development under the Joint Vision. Additionally, commentors suggest that the Joint Vision process would affect the feasibility and implementation of the NBHCP conservation program. Some commentors also believe that development within the Joint Vision area may jeopardize the survival and recovery of the giant garter snake. Commentors also indicate that urban impacts of development permitted within the SOI area, in combination with neighboring Sutter County development, substantially would diminish the biological value of the existing Mitigation Lands within the SOI area. Commentors also question whether the Joint Vision MOU will allow Sacramento County to permit urban development within the AOC.

SECTION 3: RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
3-20 NATOMAS BASIN HCP SAC/161795/031060001(001.DOC)

FINAL EIR/EIS
As described above, the Joint Vision effort is intended to provide a comprehensive process for the City and Sacramento County to consider future proposals for annexation and development. Development of 10,000 acres or any portion of the Joint Vision planning area, however, is not proposed at this time and the outcome of the Joint Vision planning effort remains unknown. Many existing constraints limit the amount of development which may be considered outside of the City’s existing SOI. Key constraints include the 100-year floodplain, an extensive system of canals which provides giant garter snake habitat, and the City and Sacramento County’s desire to establish a permanent community separator within the SOI area. Due to all of these constraints, this planning effort may result in consideration of substantially less than 10,000 acres of development. Consequently, while landowners may attempt to seek approval of urban development outside of the City’s SOI and the County’s urban growth boundary, the likelihood any development will proceed depends upon extensive planning and analyses which will determine the outcome of the Joint Vision effort. Consequently, it is speculative to predict the extent to which the City’s SOI will be expanded or the amount of urban development beyond the 17,500 acres of Planned Development.

Any urban development which may be contemplated t
hrough future Joint Vision planning
efforts is not covered by the revised NBHCP. As stated in the revised NBHCP, development beyond 17,500 acres would constitute a significant departure from the Operating Conservation Program established in the NBHCP. As such, no development outside of the 17,500 acres could or will be approved absent full compliance with the federal and state Endangered Species Acts and with NEPA and CEQA. No development outside of the 17,500 acres could or will occur without additional biological resource evaluations in the Basin. In fact, before any development can occur associated with the Joint Vision, many other tasks and approvals must be completed, including among other things: (1) land use planning; (2) environmental review, including a thorough biological resources evaluation; (3) compliance with all local, state, and federal laws; and (4) approval of the plan by both the City and Sacramento County, as well as Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO).

Moreover, the City and Sacramento County recently committed in the Joint Vision MOU to
not allow development to occur in the Basin in excess of the Planned Development without (i) conducting a full biological evaluation of the impacts of any new development proposals, and (ii) fully evaluating the effects of additional development on the effectiveness of the revised NBHCP. In the revised NBHCP and the Implementation Agreement, the City also commits that it will not increase the allowable development area beyond the Permit Area established in the revised NBHCP without conducting thorough and complete biological evaluations. If after completion of the necessary biological resource evaluations, technical analyses and environmental review, the City and County decide to approve future development beyond the 17,500 acres of Planned Development, then the City and County, in conjunction with USFWS and CDFG will evaluate the effectiveness of the NBHCP as set forth in Chapter VI of the revised NBHCP, and either will:
• prepare a separate HCP to support issuance of an incidental take permit for the additional development beyond the 17,500 acres or outside of the City’s Permit Area; • prepare an amendment or revision to the NBHCP to amend the adopted conservation strategy to cover the additional development beyond the 17,500 acres or outside of the City’s Permit Area; or
SECTION 3: RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
SAC/161795/031060001(001.DOC) NATOMAS BASIN HCP 3-21

FINAL EIR/EIS
• prepare an amendment or revision to the NBHCP to authorize the transfer of development from within the City or Sutter County’s Permit Area to an area within the Joint Vision boundaries.

In response to concerns that development within the Joint Vision area may jeopardize the survival and recovery of giant garter snake, that is precisely the reason that further biological evaluations must be performed in the Joint Vision’s SOI study area before the SOI would be expanded and development allowed to proceed. However, at this time, details regarding the land use type, location, extent, and amount of development are unknown, and thus, the agencies are unable to determine the extent of any impacts associated with future development. Moreover, the City and Sacramento County would evaluate through the Joint Vision planning process, cumulative effects associated with development permitted within a future SOI area, in combination with the 17,500 acres of Planned Development covered by the NBHCP and any neighboring Sutter County development.

3.1.3.3 Impact of Joint Vision on Mitigation Lands
Commentors express concern that it is unlikely that TNBC will be able to acquire Mitigation Lands within the Joint Vision area. Commentors suggest that the Joint Vision MOU will have an immediate impact on implementation of the NBHCP because of the impacts to valuable giant garter snake habitat within this area.

The NBHCP contemplates incidental take coverage for 17,500 acres of the Natomas Basin.

Over 26,000 acres currently remain available within the Natoma s Basin for their potential
acquisition as Mitigation Lands. If the NBHCP is approved and incidental take permits are issued, TNBC will consider these areas as potential Mitigation Lands, to the extent landowners are willing to sell their property. The effectiveness of the NBHCP conservation strategy depends on the availability of such lands, as well as the availability of lands outside the Basin and the NBHCP contemplates that these lands will continue to be available for Mitigation Land acquisition. As such, in the event that the Joint Vision planning process were to result in a change in the City’s SOI, this change would be viewed as a change in the NBHCP Operating Conservation Program and would require an amendment to the NBHCP or a separate HCP for the development of such areas.

Although the Joint Vision planning process identifies an Area of Concern in which the City and Sutter County intend to preserve open space, the actual amount of Open Space area has not been defined and the City and Sutter County have not yet established an Open Space program. The Joint Vision effort intends to conduct extensive planning and environmental analyses to determine the extent of open space preservation in the event the City’s SOI is expanded. At this time, however, all of the lands outside of the 17,500-acre Permit Areas, are anticipated to remain in their existing agricultural, open space and limited development conditions as described further in Chapters II and III of the NBHCP and Chapter 3 of the Draft EIR/EIS. Since there are no new development efforts contemplated by the City at this time outside of its adopted SOI, the adopted land use plans do not authorize such development, and the location of any adjustments to the SOI have not been determined through the Joint Vision effort, it is speculative at best to assume that 10,000 acres of future development will occur in the Basin outside of the 17,500-acre Permit Areas. Consequently, lands outside of the Permit Areas remain available for the foreseeable future as potential sites for Mitigation Land acquisition.

SECTION 3: RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
3-22 NATOMAS BASIN HCP SAC/161795/031060001(001.DOC)

FINAL EIR/EIS
The Joint Vision planning process also would involve comprehensive biological resource evaluations to determine the nature and extent of effects on existing habitat, including habitat afforded by TNBC Mitigation Lands. This evaluation would be necessary to determine the extent of avoidance, mitigation, and minimization measures required to offset any impacts caused by development authorized by the Joint Vision.

3.1.3.5 Treatment of the Joint Vision in the NBHCP and EIS/EIR Cumulative Analysis Commentors are referred to Master Response 4 (Cumulative Impacts) for a discussion of the NBHCP’s and EIR/EIS’s treatment of the cumulative effects associated with the Joint Vision planning effort under ESA, CESA, NEPA, and CEQA.

3.1.4 Master Response 4: Cumulative Impacts
Several comment letters raised questions about the approach to, and analysis of cumulative impacts in the NBHCP and EIR/EIS. To be responsive to these issues, this master response is organized in the following way:
• Scope of cumulative impacts analysis for the NBHCP and EIR/EIS, including the treatment of 17,500 acres of Planned Development in the NBHCP and Draft EIR/EIS cumulative effects analysis (Section 3.1.4.1);
• Regulatory framework for cumulative impacts assessment under ESA, CESA, NEPA, and CEQA (Section 3.1.4.2);
• Development in excess of 17,500 acres, including future annexation, other development, Joint Vision, and flood control projects (Section 3.1.4.3); • Effect on the NBHCP of future development outside the Permit Areas (Section 3.1.4.4); • Inconsistencies between the NBHCP and EIR/EIS discussion of cumulative effects (Section 3.1.4.5).

3.1.4.1 Cumulative Impacts Assessment under the ESA and CESA This section presents the regulatory framework for evaluating cumulative impacts under the ESA, CESA, NEPA, and CEQA.

Federal Endangered Species Act
Two provisions under the ESA, Sections 7 and 10, govern the analysis of the effects of the Proposed Action. Under Section 10 of the ESA, the USFWS is required to determine the impact that likely will result from the incidental take of covered species [50 CFR § 17.32(b)((1)(C)].

An incidental take permit authorizes incidental take, not the activities that result in take. As such, the effects analysis under Section 10 focuses on the extent and amount of take associated with granting incidental take coverage for activities contemplated by the local land use agency.

As part of its review of the NBHCP, the USFWS also is required to conduct an internal Section 7 consultation to determine whether the Proposed Action (i.e., issuance of the incidental take permits) will result in jeopardy to federally listed threatened or endangered species, or the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat (50 CFR § 402.10). As part of this consultation process the federal action agency (in this case, USFWS) is required to consider cumulative effects. Under Section 7, cumulative effects:

SECTION 3: RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
SAC/161795/031060001(001.DOC) NATOMAS BASIN HCP 3-23

FINAL EIR/EIS
include the effects of future State, tribal, local or private actions that are reasonably certain to occur in the action area considered in this biological opinion. Future Federal actions that are unrelated to the Proposed Action are not considered in this section because they require separate consultation pursuant to Section 7 of the Act.

Future federal actions requiring separate consultation (i.e., unrelated to the Proposed
Action) are not considered in the cumulative effects analysis. 50 CFR § 402.02 ; HCP Handbook, p. 4-31. Future non-federal actions are, however, included in a cumulative analysis. Past and present impacts of non-federal actions are part of the environmental baseline. 50 CFR § 402.02.

Projects included in a cumulative effects analysis must be “reasonably certain to occur.” Projects considered reasonably certain to occur may include, among other factors, approval of the action by state, tribal, or local agencies or governments (e.g., permits); indications by state, tribal, or local agencies or governments that granting authority for the action is imminent; and the project sponsor’s assurances that the action will proceed. The more discretion remaining to be exercised by a state, tribal, or local agency or government before a proposed non-federal action can proceed, the less there is reasonable certainty the project will be authorized. That is, the ESA does not require an evaluation of speculative non-federal actions that may never be implemented. By the same token, “reasonably certain to occur” does not require a guarantee that the action will, in fact, occur. USFWS is required to consider economic, administrative, and legal hurdles that must be overcome in order for a non-federal action to proceed.

In the context of a Section 7 consultation within a larger Section 10( a) planning area, the Section 7 Consultation Handbook advises that non-federal proposals for development in the HCP are considered cumulative effects for that planning area until the Section 7 consultation for the Section 10(a) permit is completed. At that time, the effects of the non-federal proposals become part of the environmental baseline for future consultations (HCP Handbook, p. 4-32 33).

California Endangered Species Act
There are no statutory or regulatory provisions expressly requiring an analysis of cumulative effects under CESA related to the issuance of a Section 2081 Permit.

Nonetheless, CDFG must consider whether issuance of an incidental take permit would jeopardize the continued existence of a species. As part of this analysis, CDFG evaluates the adverse impacts of the take in light of known population trends, known threats to the species, and reasonably foreseeable impacts on the species from other related projects and activities (14 Cal. Code Regs. § 783.2(a)(7)).

Consistent with the Section 10 regulations, the NBHCP conservation strat egy is based on an analysis of the combined effects of past, present, and future development in the Natomas Basin. To determine the extent and amount of take that may be authorized under the NBHCP’s Operating Conservation Program, the Draft NBHCP considers the amount of development that has occurred in the Natomas Basin, and the amount of development that could occur based on adopted land use plans. Consistent with the Section 7 regulations, future federal actions requiring separate consultation (i.e., unrelated to the Proposed Action) are not considered in the cumulative effects analysis. Future federal actions that may be required for Planned Development are, however, identified in the NBHCP. Vernal pool SECTION 3: RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
3-24 NATOMAS BASIN HCP SAC/161795/031060001(001.DOC)

FINAL EIR/EIS
species-related conservation measures are included in the NBHCP in order to provide avoidance, mitigation, and minimization measures for species-related effects. These actions specifically include Covered Activities that may require a Section 404 Permit for the fill of waters of the U.S. subject to Clean Water Act jurisdiction. Future federal actions related to water supply and flood control/drainage improvements as described in Section 4.1.2.3 of the Draft EIR/EIS are not included in the cumulative analysis for Section 7 purposes because they involve federal actions.

Future non-federal actions are included in the NBHCP cumulative analysis as ex plained further below. Past and present impacts of non-federal actions are part of the environmental baseline or included in the effects of the NBHCP and incidental take permits as described more specifically below.

Scope of NBHCP Analysis.

To determine the extent and amount of take that may be authorized under the NBHCP’s Operating Conservation Program, the NBHCP considers: (1) the amount of development that has occurred in the Natomas Basin; and (2) the maximum amount of development that could occur based on adopted land use plans. Consistent with the Section 7 regulations, future federal actions requiring separate consultation (i.e., unrelated to the Proposed Action) were not considered in the cumulative effects analysis. Future non-federal actions are included in the NBHCP cumulative analysis.

With respect to past development, the Draf
t NBHCP describes the development that
occurred prior to 1997, when the USFWS approved the original NBHCP and explains that of the 53,537 acre Natomas Basin, approximately 7,267 acres were already developed in 1997 (Draft NBHCP, pages III-3  11, IV-1). Thus, approximately 46,270 acres of undeveloped and agricultural land remained in the Basin as of 1997. This past development is included in the baseline conditions for purposes of evaluating the effects of the NBHCP on Covered Species under ESA and CESA.

To account for the effects of present development, the Draft NBHCP describes the development that occurred between December 199
7 and December 2001 (the period of time
between adoption of the original NBHCP and preparation of the revised NBHCP). In this regard, the Draft NBHCP explains that between December 1997 and December 2001, urbanization occurred on approximately 3,787 acres in the Basin and provides a detailed description of this additional development (Draft NBHCP, pages III-6 – 11). The 3,787 acres of present development are included within the 17,500 acres of Planned Development described below. As of December 2002, 4,413 acres have been developed (see Response to Comment O1-2).

As required by the ESA consultation regulations, the NBHCP includes future p rojects in its cumulative analysis that are “reasonably certain to occur.” To account for the effects of future development covered by the NBHCP, the NBHCP relies on the adopted general plans of the City, Sutter County, and Sacramento County as a reasonable basis for predicting the extent, amount, and location of future development. The NBHCP also considers the level of development contemplated in adopted community plans and specific plans in order to further refine the determination of future development covered by the plan. Based on these adopted plans, the NBHCP contemplates the development of up to 17,500 acres of Planned Development in the Basin. The NBHCP explains that adopted general plans for each land use SECTION 3: RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
SAC/161795/031060001(001.DOC) NATOMAS BASIN HCP 3-25

FINAL EIR/EIS
permittee indicate that the total acreage potentially to be developed in the Basin is 13,533 to 20,033 acres, depending primarily on the extent of urbanization in Sutter County. Although the adopted general plans include a range of development, the NBHCP and associated incidental take permits limit the amount of development to 17,500 acres for which incidental take coverage may be obtained under the NBHCP because development in Sutter County’s Industrial-Commercial Reserve over and above 7,467 acres is not foreseeable during the permit term. As explained in the NBHCP, the 17,500 acres of Planned Development consist of 8,050 acres of development in the City, 7,467 acres of development in Sutter County, and 1,983 acres for Metro Air Park in Sacramento County (Draft NBHCP, pages III-1 III-3, III-12 III-15). The development covered by the NBHCP, based on the adopted general and specific plans noted above, is evaluated as part of the Proposed Action for which incidental take is being sought. The cumulative effects of the Proposed Action therefore consist of the effects of the Planned Development considered in conjunction with the past and present impacts of existing development and the impacts of any non-federal future development in the Basin that is “reasonably certain to occur” beyond the 17, 500 acres covered by the NBHCP.

The NBHCP covers future development of the Natom
as Basin that is reasonably foreseeable,
and this reasonable foreseeable development is also the development for which the NBHCP seeks coverage for incidental take. This development consists of the 17,500 acres of future Planned Development described above, in conjunction with any roadways and other infrastructure located within the City and Sutter County’s Permit Areas necessary to serve this Planned Development (see Draft NBHCP Section I.N., Covered Activities). Thus, the NBHCP covers the cumulative effects of development within the City, Sutter County, and Sacramento County portion of the Basin to the extent such development is authorized within the Plan Area. Future development in the Natomas Basin beyond the amount of development covered by the NBHCP, however, is not considered “reasonably certain to occur” or “reasonably foreseeable.”
The approach used to satisfy ESA requirements also satisfies the requirements under CESA.

That is, the NBHCP considered in its evaluation of effects of incidental take due to the Covered Activities, and the reasonably foreseeable impacts on the species from other related projects and activities. In this regard, the NBHCP evaluated both the individual effects of development projects proceeding within each Permit Area, as well as the combined effects of all 17,500 acres of planned development occurring within the Plan Area. In other words, the NBHCP Technical Memoranda and biological resources evaluations considered the combined effects of each development project within each specific Permit Area (e.g., City of Sacramento) and among all of the Permit Areas (i.e., City, Sutter County, water agencies) and evaluated these impacts in conjunction with past and present development. Chapter VII of the NBHCP contains a summary of effects of take of each Covered Species associated with development within each Permit Area individually and generally. The Draft EIS/EIR acknowledged that other development within an identified area under consideration for annexation within the Basin may contribute to cumulative impacts to resources within the Natomas Basin. However, because there are no specific development proposals under consideration, the impacts of such development were determined to be speculative, as discussed further below.

SECTION 3: RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
3-26 NATOMAS BASIN HCP SAC/161795/031060001(001.DOC)

FINAL EIR/EIS

3.1.4.2 Cumulative Effects Under NEPA and CEQA
National Environmental Policy Act
Under NEPA, an EIS is required to conduct an analysis of cumulative impacts (40 CFR 1508.8) Under NEPA, the USFWS evaluates direct, indirect, and cumulative effects (Draft Fish and Wildlife Service Manual Part 550, § 2.4). According to the CEQ Guidelines (40 CFR 1508.7), a cumulative impact is the:
… impact on the environment which re sults from the incremental impact of the action wh
en added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency (Federal or non-Federal) or person undertakes such other actions. Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but collectively significant actions taking place over a period of time.

California Environmental Quality Act
Under CEQA an EIR is required to conduct an analysis of cumulative impacts (14 Cal. Code Regs. 15130(a). Pursuant to the CEQA Guidelines, the CEQA Lead Agencies are required to evaluate the cumulative impacts of a project when the project’s incremental effect is cumulatively considerable. Under CEQA, an EIR is required to discuss cumulative impacts of a project when the project’s incremental effect is cumulatively considerable (14 Cal. Code Regs. 15130(a)). Under CEQA, as with NEPA, cumulative impacts are defined as:
“Cumulative impacts” refers to two or more individual effects which, when considered together, are considerable or which compound or increase other environmental impacts.
(a) The individual effects may be changes resulting from a single project or a number of separate projects.
(b) The cumulative impact from several projects is the chang e in the
environment which results from the incremental impact of the project when added to other closely related past, present, and reasonably foreseeable probable future projects. Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but collectively significant projects taking place over a period of time (14 Cal. Code Regs. 15355).

A cumulative impact consists of an impact which is created as a result of the combination of the proposed project together with other projects causing related impacts. 14 Cal. Code Regs. 15355. CEQA Guidelines Section 15130 states that an adequate discussion of significant cumulative impacts must include either: (1) A list of past, present, and probable future projects producing related or cumulative impacts, including, if necessary, those projects outside the control of the agency; or (2) a summary of projections contained in an adopted General Plan or related planning document, or in a prior environmental document which has been adopted or certified, which described or evaluated regional or area-wide conditions contributing to the cumulative impact.

Section 15130 further states that it is appropriate for probable future projects to be limited to those:
…requiring an agency approval for an a pplication which has bee n received at
the time the notice of preparation is released, unless abandoned by the SECTION 3: RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
SAC/161795/031060001(001.DOC) NATOMAS BASIN HCP 3-27

FINAL EIR/EIS
applicant; projects included in an adopted capital improvements program, general plan, regional transportation plan, or other similar plan; projects included in a summary of projections of projects (or development areas designated) in a general plan or a similar plan; projects anticipated as later phase of a previously approved project (e.g. a subdivision); or those public agency projects for which money has been budgeted.

Scope of EIR/EIS Analysis
The EIR/EIS contains an analysis of the combined effects of past, present, and future development in the Natomas Basin, in accordance with NEPA and CEQA. Past and present impacts of non-federal actions are part of the environmental baseline or included in the analysis of the Proposed Action evaluated in the EIR/EIS. The EIR/EIS considers all of the applicable existing long-range planning documents, as discussed in Section 4.1.2.3 of the EIR/EIS. Also explained in the EIR/EIS, the total amount of Planned Development covered by the NBHCP is limited to the 17,500 acres evaluated in the EIR/EIS (see Section 2.2.1 and Section 4.1.2.3) because this is the amount of development authorized in the Natomas Basin under adopted City, Sutter County, and Sacramento County land use plans. In other words, 17,500 acres represents the level of development considered reasonably foreseeable in the Basin.

For the Covered Activity of Planned Development, this equates to the 17,500 acres of approved development in the Natomas Basin (
see Appendix C of the Draft EIR/EIS for
a detailed summary of the effects of the Planned Development in the Natomas Basin). Any potential for development outside of those 17,500 acres is not reasonable or foreseeable in consideration of NEPA and CEQA cumulative impact assessment criteria (see Section 3.1.4.3 below). Other specific development approval requests for lands outside of the City, Sutter County, and MAP Permit Areas are not reasonably foreseeable under NEPA and CEQA.

Therefore, the analysis in the NBHCP and Draft EIR/EIS includes the effects of “planned, proposed, and projected activities throughout the Basin” as requested by the commentors and consistent with the requirements of NEPA, CEQA, ESA, and CESA.

3.1.4.3 Development in Excess of 17,500 Acres of Planned Development Several comments asserted that the EIR/EIS considered only other closely related regional conservation activities and indicated that the cumulative effects of Planned Development are not assessed in the EIR/EIS. In response to the request to analyze impacts of the 17,500 acres of Planned Development, it is important to note that the 17,500 acres of Planned Development represents the extent of approved development in the Basin (i.e., the NBHCP is seeking coverage for the extent of approved urban development in the Natomas Basin).

Therefore, the Draft EIR/EIS contains an analysis of the combined effects of past, present, and future development in the Natomas Basin in accordance with NEPA and CEQA.

Section 4.1.2 of the EIR/EIS (and Section 3.1.4.1 and 3.1.4.2 of this Final EIR/EIS) presents the req
uirements for conducting cumulative impact assessments, the specific actions that are analyzed in the cumulative impact analysis for the Proposed Action, and other potential long-term projects that have the potential to occur in the Natomas Basin at some future date.

As discussed in Section 4.1.2 of the EIR/EIS, the incremental impacts of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions were evaluated. A review of actions that met these criteria resulted in consideration of actions relevant to management of state and federal lands, the Cal FED Bay Delta Program, and the San Joaquin County Multi-species Conservation Plan.

SECTION 3: RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
3-28 NATOMAS BASIN HCP SAC/161795/031060001(001.DOC)

FINAL EIR/EIS
Several commentors have requested that other proposed development in the Basin be considered in the evaluation of cumulative impacts.

As discussed above (Section 3.1.3.2 of this Final EIR/EIS), past and present impacts of non-federal actions are p
art of the environmental baseline or included in the analysis of the Proposed Action evaluated in the Draft EIR/EIS. In other words, the 17,500 acres of Planned Development represents the level of development considered reasonably foreseeable in the Basin, and other non-federal actions were considered (and are discussed) in the EIR/EIS, but they do not meet the NEPA and CEQA criteria established in this EIR/EIS for inclusion as a cumulative action. With respect to the treatment of reasonably foreseeable development under NEPA and CEQA, the EIR/EIS discusses and presents the prior analyses of the effects of Covered Activities based on the prior environmental review conducted for the adoption of the land use plans and associated development entitlements (Section 4.1.3 of the EIR/EIS). As the EIR/EIS explains, based on adopted land use plans, Planned Development of up to 17,500 acres may occur within the Natomas Basin over the term of the 50-year incidental take permits (ITPs).

As noted on page 4-10 of the Draft EIR/EIS, direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts associated with
the construction of Planned Development have been evaluated in both previously certified and in draft environmental documents prepared by the City of Sacramento and Sutter County. As discussed on page 4-11 of the Draft EIR/EIS, the impacts (including direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts) of the Planned Development are summarized both in the individual resource sections and in Appendix C of the EIR/EIS. In addition to the detailed listing of the impacts of Planned Development in Appendix C, cumulative impacts are specifically addressed in several places in the EIR/EIS. As noted in Section 4.1.2.1 (page 4-4 of the EIR/EIS), “Potential cumulative effects are assessed within the separate resource sections in this chapter, and are presented at the end of the individual resource sections.” This analysis is conducted throughout the applicable resource sections of Chapter 4. To clarify the rationale used in the EIR/EIS for identifying past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future to include in the cumulative impact analysis, actions to text revisions to the first and second paragraphs in Section 4.1.2.2 of the Draft EIR/EIS are provided in Chapter 2 of this Final EIR/EIS.

Presented below are discussions of
the future annexation, other urban development, and
flood control projects.

Potential for Future Annexation
Several commentors are concerned that the NBHCP arbitrarily limits the City’s ability to annex lands outside of the City’s Permit Area. Other comments suggest that future development proposals not included within the 17,500 acres of Planned Development should be able to proceed in reliance on the Draft NBHCP and the City’s ITPs. Commentors also request that the NBHCP and EIR/EIS include an analysis of reasonably foreseeable development in the Natomas Basin. Some commentors suggested that the following projects be included in the cumulative analysis as reasonably foreseeable development: specific annexation and development requests; Joint Vision; County Airport intended terminal expansion and third runway on up to 800 acres; construction of new or expanded highway, drainage, flood control, and other infrastructure in the Basin; proposed levee improvements; and new development in Sacramento County.

SECTION 3: RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
SAC/161795/031060001(001.DOC) NATOMAS BASIN HCP 3-29

FINAL EIR/EIS
As discussed above in Sections 3.1.4.1 and 3.1.4.2, the NBHCP covers future development of the Natomas Basin that is reasonably foreseeable. Future development in the Natomas Basin beyond the amount of development covered by the NBHCP, however, is not considered “reasonably certain to occur” or “reasonably foreseeable.” With the exception of one area located within the unincorporated Sacramento County portion of the Basin (i.e., the panhandle), development beyond the levels of authorized development within each Permit Area are considered speculative because the adopted City and Sutter County land use plans (i.e., North Natomas and South Natomas Community Plans, Sutter County General Plan and South Sutter County Specific Plan) do not authorize any additional development at this time. The area known as the panhandle always has been included in the North Natomas Community Plan. Because approved land use plans contemplated annexation of this area, the NBHCP includes the panhandle annexation area as part of the City’s authorized development. However, if the City were to obtain ITPs for its authorized development, the permits would not apply to the panhandle area unless and until the area is annexed to the City (Draft NBHCP, p. III-15). This is the only annexation area that may be covered by the NBHCP and associated ITPs.

By contrast, although the NBHCP acknowledges that several landowners of property within the Basin have attempted
to seek annexation of their properties to the City to enable future urban development, those annexation requests are not covered by the NBHCP because such annexation and future urban development requests have not been approved either by the LAFCO or the City (Draft NBHCP, page II-15). Moreover, urban development in areas located outside of the Permit Areas is ill-defined and considered speculative because:
(1) these areas are not planned for urban development under adopted land use plans; (2) these areas are located outside of the City of Sacramento’s SOI, the City of Sacramento city limits, and the Sacramento County’s Urban Services Boundary; (3) no urban services are available to serve development; or (4) other significant legal and planning hurdles must be overcome before development could proceed.

Other Urban Development
Several comments asserted that urban development (other than the Planned Development of 17,500 acres) should be included in the EIR/EIS as actions subject to cumulative analysis under NEPA and CEQA. Specific comments request that this analysis include the Joint Vision planning effort that may be implemented at some future date.

In reference to NEPA compliance with cumulative im
pacts analysis, the comments state that
the EIR/EIS analysis is insufficient to comply with 40 CFR Section 1508.7 because potential unknown future development should be considered reasonably foreseeable. The EIR/EIS approach to identifying actions to consider as reasonably foreseeable is consistent with the NEPA CEQ regulations and USEPA guidance (USEPA, Office of Federal Activities, Consideration of Cumulative Impacts in EPA Review of NEPA Documents, EPA 315-R-99-002/May 1999). (Also see Section 3.1.4.2, above). Specifically, one of the criteria for identification of applicable actions for a cumulative assessment is the likelihood that a project will occur. The guidance further states that the best indicator of whether a project is reasonably foreseeable is whether final approval has been obtained or if the project is imminent, and that the long-range planning of government agencies should also be considered. The EIR/EIS considers all of the applicable existing long-range planning documents, as discussed above. As explained in the EIR/EIS, the total amount of Planned Development is limited to the 17,500 acres evaluated in the EIR/EIS SECTION 3: RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
3-30 NATOMAS BASIN HCP SAC/161795/031060001(001.DOC)

FINAL EIR/EIS
(see Section 2.2.1 and Section 4.1.2.3) because this is the amount of development that would be allowed in the Natomas Basin under adopted City, Sutter County, and Sacramento County land use plans. In other words, 17,500 acres represents the level of development considered reasonably foreseeable in the Basin.

Other specific development approval requests for lands outside of the City , Sutter County, and MAP Permit Areas were not considered reasonably foreseeable under NEPA for the reasons described above in the discussion regarding the treatment of cumulative effects under the ESA. Section 4.1.2.3 of the EIR/EIS explains that several other long-term projects, including the potential for development within the unincorporated portion of Sacramento County, have the potential to occur in the Basin at some unidentified future date. If these projects occur, they would not be included in the 17,500 acres of Planned Development unless the NBHCP is amended or a separate HCP were prepared for that additional development. Both the EIR/EIS and NBHCP acknowledge that any additional urban development in the Basin beyond 17,500 acres may contribute to significant cumulative environmental effects to the resources within the Natomas Basin. However, at the time the Draft EIR/EIS was prepared, insufficient data were available to conduct an assessment of these cumulative effects, in part, because the nature, location, amount, and extent of such development was unknown, and remains unknown as described further above in this Master Response. Additionally, no specific land uses or proposals were identified (with the exception of the Greenbriar Farms and West Lakeside areas) that would enable an analysis of potential cumulative impacts.

The following text summarizes the status of future specific develo pment proposals or
planning efforts that commentors suggest should be considered cumulative projects and the way in which the NBHCP and EIR/EIS address these planning efforts or proposals.

West Lakeside and Greenbriar Farms. The Draft NBHCP describes the West Lakeside and Greenbriar Farms proposals on page III-15. The developer has attempted to obtain necessary development approvals for several years to support development of the West Lakeside and Greenbriar Farms properties. In its latest attempts, the developer filed a general plan amendment, prezoning and annexation applications with the City on February 22, 2002 for the West Lakeside project. Although the developer has expressed interest in annexing the Greenbriar Farms property, it has not filed any applications with the City. Because the West Lakeside and Greenbriar Farms properties are not included in any adopted land use plans nor are they located within the City’s SOI and city limits or within the County’s Urban Services Boundary, development of these areas is not allowed by the City or Sacramento County. While the developer has expressed interest in annexation to the City, the status of these requests and the timing and ability to obtain necessary local approvals remain uncertain because it is unknown whether the Joint Vision effort would result in changes to the SOI so that such development could proceed. Consequently, development of these properties was considered speculative at the time the Draft NBHCP was prepared, and it remains speculative.

Moreover, the City is limited in its ability to approve development of the West Lakeside and Greenbriar Farms for the foreseeable future. In accordance with the Se ttlement Agreement in
the prior NWF v. Babbitt litigation, the City adopted a resolution (Resolution No. 2001-518, Appendix H of the Final EIR/EIS), imposing restrictions on its approval of General Plan amendments, rezonings/ prezonings, and development agreements for the Camino Norte, SECTION 3: RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
SAC/161795/031060001(001.DOC) NATOMAS BASIN HCP 3-31

FINAL EIR/EIS
West Lakeside, and Greenbriar Farms areas, or any lands otherwise located outside of the existing boundaries of the North and South Natomas Community Plans until completion of the Joint Vision. Consequently, these areas are not covered by the NBHCP and the ITPs, and the City is prohibited under its Resolution from taking any actions to approve the West Lakeside and Greenbriar Farms annexations and development proposals pending the results of the Joint Vision effort. Development of the West Lakeside and Greenbriar Farms property is not considered reasonably certain to occur because extensive studies, planning, and further analyses are required as part of the Joint Vision process before any development approvals may be considered for any of these areas, and because the outcome of these efforts is unknown.

These projects also are not considered related projects under ESA or CESA because they are not considered authorized activities that may be covered by the NBHCP and ITPs. For these reasons, they are not considered reasonably foreseeable.

Northern Territories/Brookfield Land Company. In the 1990s, Northern Territories, Inc. proposed a large development project in Sacramento County north of Elkhorn Boulevard outside the County’s Urban Services Boundary. The County denied the development project and rejected the proposal to change the Urban Services Boundary for this project. As of the date of preparation of the Final NBHCP and EIR/EIS, the developer has not filed any further annexation requests with the County or the City of Sacramento. As stated above, the City is restricted in its consideration of this project, should an application be filed, because this area is outside of the City’s SOI and County’s Urban Services Boundary. In other words, unless the City’s SOI or County’s urban service boundary is expanded to include this property, the City or County must deny an urban development application. Consequently, this area is not covered by the NBHCP and the ITPs, and the City is prohibited under Resolution No. 2001-518 from taking any actions to approve a development proposal pending the results of the Joint Vision effort described above. Development of this property is not considered reasonably certain to occur because extensive studies, planning, and further analyses are required before any development approvals may be considered for this area, and because the outcome of these efforts is unknown. This project also is not considered a related project under the ESA because it is not covered by the NBHCP and ITPs. Consequently, it is not considered reasonably foreseeable.

North River Coalition. The North River proposal consists of 822 acres for development south of West El Camino Avenue, including a 350-acre auto mall, outside of the Urban Services Boundary and the City’s Permit Area. Sacramento County has held on abeyance its response to this proposal pending the outcome of the Joint Vision process. Development of the North River Coalition’s proposal is not considered reasonably certain to occur because extensive studies, planning, and further analyses are required as part of the Joint Vision process before the potential for development of this property can be determined.

Alleghany Properties. This area consists of 86 acres on the west side of El Centro Road outside of the City’s Permit Area. No application has been filed for urban development on this property. This property must await the results of the Joint Vision planning effort before the City could consider development of this site.

Lauppe Family/AKT. This area consists of approximately 298 acres of land bounded by I-5, Powerline Road, West Drainage canal, and RD 1000 Lone Tree canal outside of the City’s Permit Area. This property must await the results of the Joint Vision planning effort before SECTION 3: RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
3-32 NATOMAS BASIN HCP SAC/161795/031060001(001.DOC)

FINAL EIR/EIS
the City could consider development of this site. No application has been filed for urban development on this property.

Draft General Plan Amendment and Comprehensive Annexation Plan. Because of pressures from landowners to seek approval for urban development in Sacramento County, the City and Sacramento County undertook an evaluation of approximately 6,519 acres in North Natomas areas that might properly be included within the City’s LAFCO-approved SOI and ultimately annexed to the City. This evaluation included areas within the area covered by the 1997 NBHCP, but outside of the area covered by the ITPs. This effort was driven, in part, by the fact that the Sacramento Regional County Sanitation District was undertaking an engineering master plan for sewer service for its entire service area. Landowners requested amendments to Sacramento County’s General Plan to ensure that their properties were included within the County’s urban services boundary or the County’s General Plan policies were amended so that the Sanitation District could provide sewer service to their properties (Draft EIR for the General Plan Amendment for Long-term Planning in North Natomas or Other Appropriate Areas (SCH #: 1999022071), November 2000, page 4.2). As part of this SOI evaluation, Sacramento County issued a draft General Plan Amendment and Comprehensive Annexation Plan and related EIR in November 2000. This plan, however, was never adopted. A new planning effort, the Joint Vision described in Master Response 3 represents another attempt to guide a comprehensive solution for land use planning in the Basin. Consequently, these properties remain outside of the Sacramento Regional County Sanitation District service area, and as such, these properties both lack entitlements for urban development and sewer services.

Joint Vision. The Joint Vision process is addressed in Master Response 3, which states that the City and Sacramento County have recently undertaken a new planning effort, the Joint Vision for the Natomas Basin, to guide any future determinations regarding the City’s SOI.

This effort commenced after the Draft NBHCP documents were circulated for public review and comment. The Joint Vision is a planning and analysis effort which, when implemented by the City and Sacramento County, will be applied in determining whether or not to approve future annexation requests and development proposals—it is not, however, indicative of specific development efforts that could occur.

Before any development (i.e., prezoning or zoning to
urban uses) associated with the Natomas
Joint Vision may proceed, many other tasks and approvals must be completed, including among other activities: (1) land use planning; (2) environmental review, including a thorough biological resources evaluation; (3) compliance with all local, state, and federal laws; (4) approval by LAFCO of an amendment to the City’s SOI; and (5) approval of the plan by at least both the City and Sacramento County. Any urban development that may be contemplated through future Joint Vision planning efforts is not addressed in the NBHCP. As stated in the Draft NBHCP, development beyond 17,500 acres would constitute a significant departure from the Operating Conservation Program established in the NBHCP. As such, no development outside of the 17,500 acres could or will be approved absent full compliance with the federal and state Endangered Species Acts and with NEPA and CEQA. No development outside of the 17,500 acres could or will occur without additional biological resource evaluations in the Basin.

Private University Proposal. In May, 2002, landowners of property comprising approximately 1,164 acres reportedly offered to donate land for a private university in exchange for Sutter SECTION 3: RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
SAC/161795/031060001(001.DOC) NATOMAS BASIN HCP 3-33

FINAL EIR/EIS
County assurances that the remaining land would be redesignated for urban development.

At this time, no proposals have been submitted by the landowners or a private university for the development of a campus within the Natomas Basin. Consequently, the extent, location, and amount of development is unknown. Due to the ill-defined nature of this donation, the NBHCP does not include such efforts as Covered Activities or related projects.

Sacramento County. Commentors also have requested that the NBHCP and EIR/EIS consider the effects of Sacramento County’s approval of rural residential and small-scale development projects that may occur in the Basin under existing zoning. Additionally, some commentors assert that Sacramento County, and specifically, the Airport, have conducted illegal activities resulting in take of threatened and endangered species. These topics are discussed below.

Sacramento County Airport. The Sacramento County Division of Airports initiated an update to the Master Plan for Sacramento International Airport in May 2002, but completion of the Master Plan Update has been delayed. It is anticipated that the Master Plan Update would address the expansion of the airport, including runways, terminals, and accessory facilities.

The current schedule for the Master Plan Update is for a draft plan to be released late in 2003.

Rural Development. There are certain by-right uses allowed in the Natomas Basin outside of the Permit Areas. For example, a residence can be constructed in Sacramento County’s AG-40 zone (agricultural zone with a minimum 40-acre lot size), as well as accessory structures as long as the parcel contains a minimum of five gross acres per accessory structure (Sacramento County Zoning Code, Section 205-07). These are permitted uses that could be built on parcels outside of the City and Sutter County Permit Areas without discretionary action. In addition, Section 120-14 of the Sacramento County Zoning Code addresses non-conforming parcels (e.g., existing parcels less than 40 acres in an AG-40 zone). In accordance with Section 120-14 of the Zoning Code, residences can be built on non-conforming parcels without discretionary approval as long as various requirements are met (i.e., the property was legally created prior to the effective date of the zoning ordinance). Non-discretionary construction of individual homes and small businesses has occurred from time to time throughout the Natomas Basin, and is expected to continue to occur throughout the duration of the permit term. Because future construction of this type is expected to occur in a manner similar to current practices, rural development is not considered a “project” that is subject to analysis of cumulative effects.

With respect to future development within the unincorporated portions of Sacramento County in the Natomas B
asin, under the Joint Vision, the City of Sacramento would be responsible for activities related to planning new growth in the Basin; the County would be the appropriate agent for preserving open space, agricultural, and rural land uses (Joint Vision MOU, § I.B.). In this role, the County also would preserve its interest in the planing and development of the airport (not addressed in the NBHCP) and Metro Air Park (addressed in the NBHCP).

Regarding concerns raised about Sacramento County’s role in allowing development activities to proceed without incidental take
authorizations, the USFWS and CDFG sent a
joint letter to Sacramento County notifying County officials that authorizing development to proceed without obtaining incidental take authorizations violates Section 9 of the ESA and SECTION 3: RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
3-34 NATOMAS BASIN HCP SAC/161795/031060001(001.DOC)

FINAL EIR/EIS
CESA (Appendix I). The USFWS and CDFG have informed the County of their intent to initiate enforcement actions in the event such activities continue.

Flood Control and Water Supply Projects
In response to the recommendation that local flood control projects be discussed in the context of cumulative actions, the EIR/EIS currently includes such a discussion (see Section 4.1.2.3) of these and other potential long-term future actions. As noted in the introduction to Section 4.1.2.2, the criteria for assessing whether an action would be evaluated in detail for cumulative impacts in association with the Proposed Action in this EIR/EIS are that an urban development permit or other permit application has been submitted to a federal or non-federal agency that has approval authority or those that are related to the types of impacts attributable to those that would result from implementing the Proposed Action evaluated in the EIR/EIS. As noted in EIR/EIS, a project by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and SAFCA would improve the east levee of the Sacramento River at some future, but unknown, time. This project is related to the comprehensive American River Watershed Investigation, which was an important precursor to the NBHCP. In addition, other projects are under consideration along the east levee, including the construction of a consolidated pumping plant for Natomas Mutual. Although the flood control and water-related projects discussed in Section 4.1.2.3 have the potential to occur in the future, data are insufficient to conduct a meaningful analysis of their cumulative impacts for several reasons as explained on page 4-7 of the Draft EIR/EIS, including: (1) the sponsor of the future activities had not yet initiated the planning and feasibility studies at the time the Draft EIR/EIS was prepared so the nature of the flood control and water-related activities was undefined; (2) where preliminary engineering plans were available, these plans were being revised, so the nature of the proposal remained unknown; or (3) the environmental review process for the projects had not been initiated at the time the Draft EIR/EIS was released.

3.1.4.4 Effect on the NBHCP of Future Development Outside the Permit Areas As stated in the NBHCP, the conservation program and ITPs provide incidental take coverage for the cumulative development of 17,500 acres of Planned Development within the City, Sutter County, and the MAP Permit Areas in the Natomas Basin. As the NBHCP and EIR/EIS explain and for the reasons described above, development activities on unincorporated lands outside of the City, Sutter County, and MAP portion of Sacramento County are not addressed in the NBHCP and do not receive incidental take authorizations based upon this NBHCP (see Draft NBHCP pages I-5 to I-7, I-11; Draft EIR/EIS page 2-2).

The Operations Conservation Program proposed in the NBHCP is effective in compensating for the effects of incidental take associated with
17,500 acres of Planned Development when
considered with the 7,267 acres of development which occurred in the Basin prior to 1997.

Thus, 24,767 acres of urban development is contemplated in the Natomas Basin by the NBHCP. The NBHCP does not address more than 17,500 acres of Planned Development because it is unknown whether the NBHCP would remain effective in mitigating for effects beyond 17,500 acres. The analyses conducted in support of the NBHCP demonstrate that the Operating Conservation Program is effective with up to 24,767 acres of past, present, and future urban development in the Basin. Thus, the effectiveness of the NBHCP is dependent on limiting Planned Development to 17,500 acres of development. If future development proposals were to proceed, or developers were to seek annexation to the City of Sacramento for purposes of developing their projects, such proposals would be considered outside of SECTION 3: RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
SAC/161795/031060001(001.DOC) NATOMAS BASIN HCP 3-35

FINAL EIR/EIS
the scope of the NBHCP. These proposals would represent a significant departure from the Operating Conservation Program, which would trigger a new analysis and a separate HCP or amendment to the NBHCP. At this time, however, such development is unable to proceed because the City and Sacramento County have not completed the Joint Vision planning effort. Moreover, Resolution 2001-518 precludes certain development proposals from proceeding until a comprehensive annexation program is developed for the Basin.

Because a comprehensive annexation program for the remainder of the Natomas Basin has not been es
tablished, over 26,000 acres currently remain available within the Natomas Basin for their potential acquisition as Mitigation Lands. If the NBHCP is approved and ITPs are issued, TNBC may consider these areas as potential Mitigation Lands, to the extent landowners are willing to sell their property. The effectiveness of the NBHCP depends on the availability of such lands, as well as the potential availability of lands in Area B outside the Basin. The NBHCP contemplates that these lands will continue to be available for Mitigation Land acquisition. As such, in the event that the Joint Vision planning process were to result in a change in the City’s SOI or other development were to proceed outside of the City’s and Sutter County’s Permit Areas, these changes would be viewed as a change in the NBHCP’s Operating Conservation Program. These changes would, therefore, require an amendment to the NBHCP or a separate HCP for the development of such areas, as described in the NBHCP and further discussed in Master Response 3 (Joint Vision).

3.1.4.5 Inconsistencies in Cumulative Impact Analysis in the NBHCP and EIR/EIS Comments also suggested that the NBHCP and the EIR/EIS are inconsistent in the discussion of cumulative impacts. The basis for the assertion of inconsistency is that the criteria used in the EIR/EIS for identifying the actions that could result in cumulative impacts are too narrow and do not allow for evaluation of future development. One comment stated that the EIR/EIS narrowly interprets the California Code of Regulations, Section 15355 (CEQA) and 40 CFR Section 1508.7 (NEPA) guidance on cumulative impacts.

We believe the criteria used to identify actions to assess for cumulative impacts, the existing criteria used in the EIR/EIS are based on CEQA and NEPA guidance. They are adequate as defined and discussed further above. The Draft EIR/EIS includes verbatim the CEQA and NEPA guidance to which the comment refers (see Section 4.1.2.1, pages 4-3 and 4-4).

Commentors also suggest that future development projects are identified in the Draft
NBHCP but not included in the EIS/EIR. Specifically, the NBHCP states that applications were filed for the West Lakeside and Greenbriar Farms projects as potential future annexation proposals, which are not covered by the NBHCP. The EIS/EIR indicates, however, that no applications have been filed for future specific development proposals.

To clarify this situation, text revisions have been made to page 4-8 of the Draft EIR/EIS.

The text of the changes is in Chapter 2 of this Final EIR/EIS.

3.1.5 Master Response 5: Swainson’s Hawk Foraging Habitat Commentors have raised concerns about the NBHCP’s measures for mitigating the impacts to Swainson’s hawk foraging habitat in the Natomas Basin from the Covered Activity of Planned Development. This master response is provided to clarify the effectiveness of the NBHCP, under ESA and CESA, in mitigating for the effects of take of Swainson’s hawks SECTION 3: RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
3-36 NATOMAS BASIN HCP SAC/161795/031060001(001.DOC)

FINAL EIR/EIS
that could result from changes in foraging habitat because of Planned Development within the Natomas Basin.

The assessment of effects on Swainson’s hawk foraging habitat from Planned Development evaluates the loss of pot
ential Swainson’s hawk foraging habitat within 1 mile of nesting trees located in the Basin and addresses the loss of potential foraging habitat generally within the Basin. The 1-mile radius is based on the fact that the availability and quality of habitat near nests has the potential to influence reproductive success (see the Addendum to the Biological Resources Technical Memo, Appendix K of the Final NBHCP, p. 11). More high and moderate quality habitat
1 in the Basin under baseline conditions occurs primarily within 1 mile of the nesting trees (9,431 acres of high and moderate quality habitat) than outside the 1-mile distance (8,070 acres of high and moderate quality habitat). The assessment of impacts to Swainson’s hawk foraging habitat from implementing Planned Development also evaluates the potential loss of Swainson’s hawk habitat located at distances greater than 1 mile of nesting trees throughout the Basin.

This assessment of effects of Planned Development and the implementation of the NBHCP must be considered in the context of effect
s on nesting habitat as evaluated in the
Addendum to the Biological Resources Technical Memorandum (Appendix K of the Final NBHCP) and the NBHCP. Additionally, the analysis of effects on potential foraging habitat also must be considered in the context of the availability of foraging habitat within the region.

3.1.5.1 Effects on Potential Foraging Habitat Within 1 Mile of Nesting Trees Effects
As demonstrated in the Addendum to the Biological Resources Technical Memorandum (Appendix K of the Final NBHCP) and the NBHCP, Planned Development within 1 mile of nesting trees would result in the loss of 4,148 acres of foraging habitat, including 311 acres of high quality habitat, 3,498 acres of moderate-quality habitat and 339 acres of low-quality habitat. Of the total potential foraging habitat, approximately 3,679 acres of potential habitat would be affected within the City of Sacramento Permit Area; approximately 305 acres would be affected within the MAP Permit Area; and 164 acres would be affected within Sutter County’s Permit Area. Although foraging habitat would be affected, not all of this habitat is considered high quality, nor does it support equivalent levels of foraging opportunities. Very limited high-quality habitat exists in the Basin, as reflected in the very limited high-quality habitat within a mile of the nesting trees. As demonstrated in the NBHCP and the Addendum, most of the higher quality foraging habitat within 1 mile of the nest sites will be retained under the NBHCP.

Mitigation Lands and Avoidance Measures
The NBHCP requires that 8,750 acres of Mitigation Lands be acquired and maintained in a habitat reserve system as mitigation to offset the effects of take associated with Planned Development. In accordance with the NBHCP, all developers of the 17,500 acres of Planned Development will contribute Mitigation Fees to acquire the 8,750 acres of Mitigation Lands that offset the loss of habitat for Covered Species. Regardless of whether Planned

1 Characterization of habitat quality was based on Estep and Teresa (1992) and is described in the Addendum to the Biological Resources Technical Memorandum (Appendix K of the Final NBHCP).

SECTION 3: RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
SAC/161795/031060001(001.DOC) NATOMAS BASIN HCP 3-37

FINAL EIR/EIS
Development affects Swainson’s hawk foraging habitat, each sponsor of Planned Development will be required to pay its Mitigation Fees, which will be applied to the purchase of 8,750 acres of Mitigation Lands.

Of this 8,750 acres, 4,375 acres would be maintained in rice, 2,187.5 acres would be managed marsh, a
nd 2,187.5 acres would be in upland habitat. As explained in the Biological Resources Technical Memorandum (Appendix H of the NBHCP) and the Addendum to the Biological Resources Technical Memorandum (Appendix K of the Final NBHCP), 2,187.5 acres of upland habitat would be primarily managed to provide foraging habitat for Swainson’s hawk. Additionally, 20 to 30 percent of the managed marsh reserves would be in upland edges and would provide another 546.9 acres of foraging habitat. Fallowing the rice reserves under the NBHCP will provide another 437.5 acres, and the MAP HCP affords an additional 200 acres of foraging associated with nest tree removal. In combination, these mitigation areas provide 3,372 acres of Mitigation Lands to offset the loss of 4,148 total acres of potential foraging habitat within 1 mile of nesting trees.

The NBHCP also requires extensive avoidance measures. Avoidance measures include avoiding removal of known nest trees,
preserving valley oaks, preserving riparian habitat,
implementing a tree planting program, and requiring avoidance measures associated with Authorized Development. By preserving nesting trees and associated habitat in which such trees are located, the NBHCP further contributes toward mitigating for the loss of foraging habitat. One notable avoidance measure involves avoidance of a 1,015-acre area, of which about 416 acres currently support non-rice crops within the Sutter County portion of the Swainson’s Hawk Zone. Sutter County has eliminated this area from its Permit Area and will initiate a general plan amendment to redesignate lands within this area to agricultural use. This measure benefits Swainson’s hawks by providing long-term certainty that the land use designation of 1,015 acres within 1 mile of known nest sites will remain compatible with Swainson’s hawk foraging.2 This avoidance measure contributes to a combined total of 4,387 acres of avoidance and compensation, which exceeds the projected loss of 4,148 acres of potential habitat within 1 mile of nest trees.

3.1.5.2 Effects on Foraging Habitat Within the Natomas Basin The Biological Resources Technical Memorandum (Appendix H of the NBHCP) and the Addendum to the Biological Resources Technical Memorandum (Appendix K of the Final NBHCP) indicate that under baseline conditions approximately 22,051 acres of the Basin provide foraging habitat for Swainson’s hawk. The majority of this habitat is considered to be of moderate quality (15,666 acres) and low quality (4,550 acres). High-quality habitat comprises only 1,835 acres of the Basin. Planned Development within the Basin would result in the loss of 9,188 acres of foraging habitat, including 733 acres of high-quality habitat, 7,299 acres of moderate-quality habitat and 1,156 acres of low-quality habitat. None of the 371 acres of alfalfa would be affected (Appendix K, p. 15). Of this 9,188 acres, approximately 6,925 acres of potential habitat would be affected within the City of Sacramento Permit Area, approximately 403 acres would be affected within the MAP Permit Area, and 1,860 acres would be affected within Sutter County’s Permit Area.

2 The 1,015 acres of avoidance within the Sutter County portion of the Swainson's Hawk Zone is comprised of lands with varying forage values. However, the proximity of the land to the Sacramento River enhances the foraging values of this land compared with more remote lands in the Basin. Additionally, avoidance of development in this area provides a substantial buffer between Sacramento River nesting habitat and urban development.

SECTION 3: RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
3-38 NATOMAS BASIN HCP SAC/161795/031060001(001.DOC)

FINAL EIR/EIS
As indicated in the previous text, regardless of whether Planned Development affects Swainson’s hawk foraging habitat, each sponsor of Planned Development will be required to pay its Mitigation Fees that will be applied to the purchase of 8,750 acres of Mitigation Lands. Of these 8,750 acres, 2,187.5 acres will be maintained as upland reserves. The additional 546.9 acres of managed marsh in upland edges, 437.5 acres of fallowed rice reserves, and the MAP HCP’s 200 acres of foraging associated with nest tree removal, in conjunction with the 2,187.5 acres of upland reserves provide 3,372 acres of Mitigation Lands. In addition, under the NBHCP, another 1,015 acres within the Sutter County portion of the Swainson’s Hawk Zone would be located outside Sutter County’s Permit Area, and a general plan amendment will be initiated to designate this land for open space and agricultural use resulting in a combined total of 4,387 acres of avoidance and mitigation.

Effects Based on Habitat Quality of Mitigation Lands and Swainson’s Hawk Zone The NBHCP also requires enhancement and restoration activities on Mitigation Lands to maintain higher quality habitat in the Basin. For example, the NBHCP requires that the City of Sacramento plant a total of 60 nest trees on TNBC reserves (See Draft NBHCP, “Extent of Take of Swainson’s Hawk as a Result of Covered Activities, Nesting Habitat,” page VII-11).

While the nesting trees serve as mitigation for the potential loss of four nest trees, providing additional nesting habitat in proximity to foraging habitat will enhance the foraging habitat quality. From an energetics perspective, nesting locations will be provided in proximity to foraging opportunities to minimize the expenditure of energy associated with longer foraging distances. Woodbridge (1991, cited in England et al., 1997) found reproductive success of Swainson’s hawk to decline as the distance to foraging habitat increased. By creating nesting opportunities near foraging habitat provided on the Mitigation Lands or near existing foraging habitat that is underused because of the absence of nearby nest sites, reproductive success is expected to be improved.

Although the NBHCP is designed to replace lower-quality habitat with higher-quality habitat, under a worst-cas
e scenario, if TNBC acquires all existing high quality habitat, the 2,187.5 acres of Mitigation Lands would result in only a small increase of about 350 acres in high quality habitat when compared to baseline conditions (Appendix K, p. 16). However, under the best possible future condition for Swainson’s hawk, the proposed Mitigation Lands would provide new foraging opportunities resulting in a doubling in the amount of high quality habitat relative to baseline conditions (Appendix K, pages 16-17). That is, the 2,187.5 acres of upland habitat to be provided in the reserves would be high quality habitat created from lands providing no foraging opportunities for Swainson’s hawk or low or moderate value as foraging habitat.

Effects Based on Temporal Availability of Habitat
The Mitigation Lands, restoration and enhancement measures, and adaptive management program are fundamental features of the Operating Conservation Program in terms of improving the temporal availability of foraging habitat. Under the NBHCP, the upland reserves will be managed to provide consistently accessible and abundant prey for Swainson’s hawks throughout their residency. Such measures would increase the availability of foraging habitat relative to baseline conditions during most (April, May, and July) of the nesting period for Swainson’s hawk (Addendum, pages 17-18). During this important foraging period, TNBC reserves, in conjunction with remaining foraging habitat under baseline conditions, would provide between 4,765 and 8,130 acres of foraging habitat SECTION 3: RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
SAC/161795/031060001(001.DOC) NATOMAS BASIN HCP 3-39

FINAL EIR/EIS
within the Basin depending on the differences in implementation assumptions (Appendix K, p. 18). This range reflects the fact that baseline conditions afford varying foraging opportunities depending on the month of the year and the crop types. Additionally, rice fields are drained for two months of the seven-month period during which Swainson’s hawk forage in the Natomas Basin and, when drained, these rice fields provide additional foraging habitat. Within the managed marsh component of the TNBC system of reserves, substantial upland areas and the seasonally dry component of the managed marsh provide foraging habitat for Swainson’s hawk.

In addition to the avoidance and mitigation measures, t he NBHCP (see NBHCP, p. VII-15)
provides extensive minimization measures related to construction impacts associated with Planned Development or TNBC activities designed to further reduce the effects of take. The Operating Conservation Program also includes a comprehensive monitoring and adaptive management program designed to respond to the needs of the Covered Species over the 50- year term of the permits. One of the features of the adaptive management program enables adjustments in reserve composition to address competing needs among upland and wetland dependent species (see NBHCP, Sections VI and IV.C.1.e). Another feature of adaptive management is that Mitigation Lands that have not been restored and are impacted by substantial land use changes may be replaced with replacement reserve sites that would provide improved foraging habitat opportunities (see NBHCP, Section IV.C.1.e.). These aspects of the Operating Conservation Program contribute to the preservation and enhancement of foraging habitat within the Basin.

3.1.5.3 Baseline Considerations
The NBHCP addresses up to 17,500 acres of Planned Development in the Natomas Basin.

With 17,500 acres of Planned Development, approximately 12,863 acres of baseline foraging habitat would remain outside the Permit Areas and within the Basin. The majority of the 12,863 acres is comprised of moderate quality habitat and would be expected to continue to provide moderate quality habitat (see Appendix K, page 17) during the term of the NBHCP and ITPs. Additionally, the Mitigation Lands established under the NBHCP are anticipated to result in total available foraging habitat ranging from a worst case scenario of 13,847 acres to 16,035 acres depending on the extent to which the Mitigation Lands are established on lands currently providing foraging habitat.

Much of this habitat is expected to be retained in the future because adopted land use plans and policies designate these areas for open space and agriculture. With respect to the City of Sacramento, the City’s Sphere of Influence is contiguous with its Permit Area. As such, all remaining lands within the Sacramento County portion of the Basin are unincorporated and located outside the City’s Sphere of Influence. The City’s adopted land use policies at this time do not contemplate urban development of lands outside its Sphere of Influence.

Approximately 16,881 acres of the Basin are within Sutter County. Of this acreage, 7,467
acres are within the area of Authorized Development for Sutter County. The remainder areas (excluding the 1,015 acres subject to the General Plan Amendment for the Swainson’s Hawk Zone) are anticipated to be retained in agricultural lands for the foreseeable future.

Of this 8,399-acre remainder area, 1,686 acres are considered Swainson’s hawk foraging habitat. Additionally, another 37 acres of levee slopes along the perimeter of the Sutter County portion of the Plan Area also provide foraging habitat. Another 1,909 acres of SECTION 3: RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
3-40 NATOMAS BASIN HCP SAC/161795/031060001(001.DOC)

FINAL EIR/EIS
foraging habitat is provided in the SAFCA-owned “Triangle Parcel” which is situated within a flood plain and designated as open space reserves.

Approximately 4,064 acres of lands (not including the Swainson’s Hawk Zone or airport buffer lands) within the Sacramento County portion of the Basin are designated in the Sacramento County General Plan and zoned by the County Zoning Ordinance for agricultural uses and currently provide potential foraging opportunities. Additionally, the 1-mile wide Swainson’s Hawk Zone extends through Sacramento County. If Sacramento County agrees to maintain its portion of the Swainson’s Hawk Zone in agriculture and open space uses, an additional 5,808 acres of foraging habitat will be precluded from development, some of which could be acquired as Mitigation Lands. Additionally, another

39.7 acres of levee slopes along the perimeter of the Sacramento County portion of the Plan Area also provide foraging habitat. Development of the Sacramento County portion of the Swainson’s Hawk Zone with urban uses would require that Sacramento County either participate in a revision or amendment to the NBHCP or develop a separate conservation strategy to secure incidental take authorizations.

Within Sacramento County, Sacramento International Airport maintains approximately 4,05
0 acres of buffer lands surrounding the existing airport. These buffer lands provide foraging habitat for Natomas Basin Swainson’s hawk populations (approximately 889 acres). Development of the airport buffer lands with urban uses would require that Sacramento County and the airport either participate in a revision or amendment to the NBHCP or develop a separate conservation strategy to secure incidental take authorizations.

The Sutter County and Sacramento County lands de scribed above represent a total of 12,940 acres of baseline foraging habitat that are anticipated to remain undeveloped in the Basin.

The Mitigation Lands provided under the NBHCP would add to and improve on these foraging lands remaining within the Natomas Basin.

3.1.5.4 Long-Term Availability of Foraging Habitat
It is extremely unlikely that the future and baseline foraging lands will be converted to urban uses without requiring additional mitigation of the effects resulting from those urban uses because of their location, site constraints, and land use designations. Under the NBHCP, the Mitigation Lands will be retained as mitigation in perpetuity.

For urban development occurring within the City (i.e., t hrough annexation of Sacramento County lands) or Sutter County portions of the Basin outside the Permit Areas, the City and Sutter County have agreed that any such land use approvals would trigger an evaluation of effects due to the loss of foraging habitat within the Basin and would require that the City of Sacramento or Sutter County, as may be appropriate, either participate in a revision/ amendment to the NBHCP or develop a separate conservation strategy to secure incidental take authorizations for that additional development. The project applicants for this additional development would be required to mitigate the impacts of their development on foraging habitat.

Under the NBHCP, the 1,015 acres of lands within the Sutter County portion of the Swainson’s Hawk Zone
cannot be converted to urban development without triggering further review and approval of a new or amended conservation strategy for such additional SECTION 3: RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
SAC/161795/031060001(001.DOC) NATOMAS BASIN HCP 3-41

FINAL EIR/EIS
development. Similarly, under the NBHCP conversion of the 1,686 acres of remaining foraging habitat in Sutter County (see Table 3-2) would not occur without triggering further review and a new or amended conservation strategy. During the life of the permits, urban development in the agriculturally zoned portions of Sutter County is unlikely for the reasons further described in Section IV.C.1.e of the NBHCP. Additionally, due to their location and constraints, lands within Sutter County such as the Triangle Parcel and the slopes of levees are expected to continue to provide another 991 acres of available foraging opportunities in the long-term. Urban development on the levee slopes in Sutter County would be precluded pursuant to Reclamation Board regulations.

TABLE 3-2
Baseline Conditions Remaining Under NBHCP
Acreage within Basin and TNBC Permit Area
Regional
Ac
reage
 Out of
Basin
Habitat
Sacramento
County
S
wainson’s
Hawk Zone
Sacramento
County
Ag
riculture
Airport
Buffer
La
nds
Sacramento
County
Lev
ees
Sutter
County
Ag
riculture
Sutter
County
Lev
ees
Area B
--
Tria
ngle
Parcel
Yolo
Countya
High 175 607 0 0 202
Moderate 3,266 3,043 525 39.7 1,338 37 954
Low 2,368 415 364 0 146
Total 5,808 4,064 889 39.7 1,686 37 954 25,000
a The eastern edge of the Natomas Basin is about 8 miles distant from the Sacramento River where most of the Swainson’s hawk nest sites are located. To the west of the Sacramento River, about 45,000 acres of Yolo County are within 8 miles of the river. Based on crop data for Yolo County for the period 1991 through 2001, about 25,000 acres of this area provides potential foraging habitat for Swainson’s hawk nesting along the Sacramento River.

In Sacramento County, more than 10,000 acres are anticipated to provide available foraging opportunities as shown in Tables 3-2 and 3-3. For example, the 889 acres of airport buffer lands are located in a restricted over-flight zone. Therefore, safety restrictions preclude development in this area. Conversion of undeveloped lands to urban development within the remaining Sacramento County portion of the Basin outside the Permit Areas would require either expansion of the City’s Sphere of Influence or adjustments to the County’s Urban Services Boundary, approval by the Local Agency Formation Commission, general plan amendments, rezoning, and changes in policies regarding the provision of services.

These land use approvals would trigger an evaluation of effects due to the loss of foraging habitat within the Basin and would require that Sacramento County or City of Sacramento, as may be appropriate, either participate in a revision or amendment to the NBHCP or develop a separate conservation strategy to secure incidental take authorizations.

SECTION 3: RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
3-42 NATOMAS BASIN HCP SAC/161795/031060001(001.DOC)

FINAL EIR/EIS
TABLE 3-3
Available Foraging Opportunities
Basin and TNBC Permit Area Foraging Locations Acreage
Remaining Lands within Sutter Countya 2,677
Remaining Lands within Sacramento Countyb 10,761
Avoidance and Compensation Provided Under NBHCPc 4,387
a Includes Triangle Parcel, levee slopes, and agricultural zoned lands. b Includes agricultural zoned lands, airport buffer lands, and Sacramento County portion of Swainson’s Hawk Zone. c Mitigation Lands would be derived from lands in Sacramento and Sutter counties outside of the Permit Areas and could consist of lands included in the acreages totals of lands remaining in Sacramento and Sutter counties.

For remaining lands within the Sacramento County portion of the Basin, Sacramento County and the City have agreed to the guiding principle that, should further development be considered in the Natomas Basin, it will be necessary to consider a new, separate, or enhanced HCP to address development impacts to Federal and State protected species (Joint Vision MOU Recitals, Appendix G of this Final EIR/EIS, p. 2). Also, both Sacramento County and the City have acknowledged that open space provided in the Basin in the future may be in conjunction with, or distinct from the NBHCP, and may exceed the scope of the mitigation contained in the NBHCP. Both the County and the City have further expressed that any new development beyond that covered by and analyzed in the NBHCP will be required to comply with State and Federal laws and regulations, and provide adequate habitat and buffer areas for affected species (Joint Vision, § A.2.).

Thus, in the event that further development should be considered in the Basi n, all three land use jurisdictions governing local land use in the Basin  the City, Sutter County and Sacramento County have committed either through the NBHCP or by separate agreement, to a new, separate or enhanced conservation strategy for such additional development.

Although the existing baseline foraging habitat is not considered mitigation under the NBHCP, the NBHCP adaptive mana
gement program is designed to respond to changes in
baseline habitat that could occur if existing undeveloped lands in the Basin were converted to urban uses. As part of the Overall NBHCP Program Review and the Independent Program Reviews (see NBHCP Sections VI.I and VI.J), a general evaluation of Basin land uses will be conducted to determine whether amendments to adopted General Plan land use designations, master plan amendments, specific plan adoption or amendments, or rezonings to allow urban land uses outside the Permit Areas have the potential to adversely affect the NBHCP Operating Conservation Plan. In the event that available foraging opportunities, as identified in Table 3-3, are converted to urban uses without adequate provisions to maintain foraging habitat, thus potentially compromising the effectiveness of the NBHCP Operating Conservation Program, TNBC would consider and implement the actions contained in NBHCP Section IV.C.1.e.

SECTION 3: RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
SAC/161795/031060001(001.DOC) NATOMAS BASIN HCP 3-43

FINAL EIR/EIS

3.1.5.5 Regional Considerations
Foraging habitat opportunities in the Natomas Basin must be considered within the Basin’s regional context as hawks do not limit their foraging to the Basin. As the Addendum indicates, under the NBHCP, the Mitigation Lands would not be the only foraging habitat available to Swainson’s hawks nesting in the Natomas Basin. Foraging habitat available in Yolo County on the west side of the Sacramento River supports more than 200,000 acres of non-rice agricultural crops with about 40,000 acres of alfalfa (Appendix K, p. 15). About 25,000 acres of non-rice crops are within the same distance of nest sites on the Sacramento River as foraging opportunities provided in the Natomas Basin. The enhanced foraging opportunities provided by the NBHCP Mitigation Lands extend the available foraging opportunities in the region and enable the Natomas Basin to function more effectively in providing foraging habitat for hawks relying on the Yolo Basin and surrounding areas.

3.1.5.6 Findings Regarding Operating Conservation Program The NBHCP Operating Conservation Program is effective in mitigating for the loss of Swainson’s hawk foraging habitat within each Permit Area and within the Natomas Basin as a whole.

Overall Effects due to Authorized Development in the City’s Permit Area Authorized Development within the City of Sacramento’s Permit Area potentially would result in the loss of 3,679 acres of foraging habitat within 1 mile of nesting trees. Within the Basin as a whole, Authorized Development in the City’s Permit Area would result in the loss of 6,925 acres of foraging habitat. Approximately 1,006.3 acres of upland reserves would be available to offset this loss. When combined with the 201 acres due to 10 percent fallowed rice, and 252 acres for upland edges of managed marsh, a total of 1,459 acres would be provided on the reserves purchased with Mitigation Fees collected from City of Sacramento developers. Moreover, the City provides extensive nesting habitat mitigation as further described in the NBHCP. The provision of additional nesting habitat in proximity to foraging areas will further enhance the effectiveness of the foraging opportunities available in the Basin. Additionally, the reserve composition on TNBC Mitigation Lands may be adjusted in the event that only the City proceeds under the NBHCP, such that additional upland reserves would be established in lieu of rice fields.

Overall Effects due to Authorized Development in Sutter County’s Permit Area Within 1 mile of nesting trees, Authorized Development in the Sutter County Permit Area would result in the loss of 164 acres of foraging habitat. For the Basin as a whole, Sutter County Authorized Development would result in the loss of 1,860 acres of foraging habitat (within 1 mile and outside 1 mile of nesting trees). Sutter County would provide 933.4 acres of upland reserves, which more than compensates for the loss of 164 acres of foraging habitat within 1 mile of nesting trees. When combined with the 187 acres due to 10 percent fallowed rice, and 233 acres for upland edges of managed marsh, a total of 1,353 acres would be provided on the reserves purchased with Mitigation Fees collected from Sutter County developers. In addition, Sutter County will process a general plan amendment for agricultural uses on 1,015 acres of the Sutter County portion of the Swainson’s Hawk Zone.

Overall Effects due to MAP
Within 1 mile of nesting trees, MAP development would result in the loss of 305 acres of foraging habitat. A total of 450 acres of reserve sites (250 acres) and mitigation for loss of SECTION 3: RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
3-44 NATOMAS BASIN HCP SAC/161795/031060001(001.DOC)

FINAL EIR/EIS
nesting trees (200 acres) would be provided, which results in a greater than 1:1 mitigation.

For the Basin as a whole, MAP development would result in the loss of 403 acres of foraging habitat (within 1 mile and outside 1 mile of nesting trees). The 450 acres of reserves and other Mitigation Lands would offset this loss of potential habitat.

Overall Effects of the NBHCP
The NBHCP Operating Conservation Program results in a total of up to 4,387 acres of avoidance, mitigation, and enhancement/restoration lands to offset the loss of 4,149 acres of potential habitat within 1 mile of nesting trees and a total loss of 9,188 acres within the Basin. When considered in the context of baseline conditions, while implementation of the NBHCP would result in a net loss of between 6,016 acres to 8,204 acres of potential foraging habitat in the Basin overall, the amount of high value habitat would nearly double from 1,835 acres to 3,290 acres (Addendum, page 15). Further, 13,438 acres of existing foraging habitat would remain within specified portions of the Basin (Table 3-3) and would not be converted to urban development without triggering a new or amended conservation strategy for the additional development. The NBHCP Operating Conservation Program would add to and improve on these foraging lands. Additionally, about 25,000 acres of foraging habitat would be available in nearby Yolo County.

NBHCP reflects a multi-species approach to conservation planning. While the loss of h abitat
of one species may be greater within one Permit Area when compared to the loss of that same area within another Permit Area, the multi-species and multi-jurisdictional approach embodied in the NBHCP provides opportunities for offsetting such effects in a variety of ways. For example, development within the City’s Permit Area would result in a greater loss of Swainson’s hawk foraging habitat than within Sutter County’s Permit Area. The Sutter County portion of the Basin, however, offers additional opportunities to provide foraging habitat than does the City. By contrast, Sutter County development would result in a greater loss of giant garter snake habitat than would development within the City.

However, the City’s portion of the Basin provides greater opportunities to provide giant garter snake habitat. Thus, while each Permittee will implement avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures to offset the effects of take of each Covered Species within each Permittee’s Permit Area, the Plan is designed to recognize the combined mitigation opportunities provided with each Permittee’s participation. Moreover, the provision of higher quality foraging habitat under the NBHCP contributes to the availability of foraging opportunities within the Basin and from a regional context.

3.2 Individual Responses to Comments
Attachments 1 and 2 include copies of the individual comment letters and their responses, respectively. As discussed in Section 1.1 of this Final EIR/EIS, the comment letters are organized in the following way:
• Government—G (federal agencies, state agencies, local agencies) • Organizations—O
• Individuals—I
In addition, Table 3-4 is a list of the comment letters and the agencies, organizations, or individuals that submitted them.

SECTION 3: RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
SAC/161795/031060001(001.DOC) NATOMAS BASIN HCP 3-45

FINAL EIR/EIS
TABLE 3-4
Comment Letters Received on the NBHCP Draft EIR/EIS
Comment Number Commentor
G1 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
G2 Environmental Protection Agency
G3 California Department of Fish and Game
G4 Caltrans—Aeronautics Division
G5 Caltrans, District 3
G6 California Department of Water Resources
G7 Placer County Transportation Planning Agency
G8 County of Sacramento
O1 Environmental Council of Sacramento/Friends of Swainson’s Hawk/National Wildlife F
ederation/Planning and Conservation League/Sierra Club
O2 Friends of Swainson’s Hawk
O3 Institute for Ecological Health
O4 Swainson’s Hawk Technical Advisory Committee
I1 Chris Chaddock
I2 The Diepenbrock Law Firm
I3 Downey, Brand, Seymour & Rohwer
I4 Kim Gagnon
I5 Eric Hansen
I6 Daniel Hrdy, MD
I7 Burton H. Lauppe
I8 Frank McCormack
I9 McKenzie Farms
I10 Jud Monroe and Dean Carrier
I11 Perry Farms
I12 Remy, Thomas and Moose
I13 Law Offices of Gregory Thatch
G: Government
O: Organization
I: Individual
SAC/161795/031060001(001.DOC) NATOMAS BASIN HCP 4-1

FINAL EIR/EIS
SECTION 4
References
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.

Bechard, M. J. 1983. Food supply and the occurrence of brood reduction in Swainson’s hawk. Wilson Bull. 95( 2): 233-242.

Bechard, M. J. 1982. Effect of vegetative cover on foraging site selection by Swainson’s hawk.

Condor. 84: 153-159.

Brode J. M. and G. E. Hansen. 1992. Status and future managem ent of the giant garter snake (Thamnophis gigas) within the southern American Basin, Sacramento and Sutter counties, California. California Department of Fish and Game Inland Fisheries Division. Endangered Species Project. January.

California Agricultural Commissioners. 2003. County Crop Report. Availa ble at http://www.nass.usda.gov/ca/bul/agcom/indexcac.htm
CDFG (California Department of Fish and Game). 1994. Staff Report Regarding Mitigation for the Swainson's Hawk in the Central Valley of California.

CH2M HILL. 2002a. Biological Resources Technical Memorandum. Appendix H of the Draft NBHCP. August.

CH2M HILL. 2002b. Habitat and Land Use Assessment Database.

Dickey, J. 2003. Personal communication with S. Taylor of CH2M HILL. February 12.

Empire National Nursery. On the web at: htt p://www.cdr3.com/nursery England, A. S., M. J. Bechard, and C. S. Houston. 1997. Swainson’s Hawk. The Birds of North America.

England, A. S., J. A. Estep, and W. R. Holt. 199 5. Nest-site selection and reproductive performance of urban-nesting Swainson’s hawks in the Central Valley of California. J.

Raptor Res. 29 (3): 179-186.

EPS (Economic Planning Systems). 2002. The Economic Analysis of the Nato mas Basin Habitat Conservation Plan, Appendix A of the Draft NBHCP. March.

Estep, J. A. 2002. Nesting Swainson’s hawks (Buteo swains oni) in the Natomas Basin Habitat Conservation Plan Area 2002 Annual Survey Results. Prepared for The Natomas Basin Conservancy. Sacramento, CA.

Estep, J. A. 1989. Biology, movements, and habitat relationships of the Swainson’s hawk in the Central Valley of California. California Department of Fish a nd Game. Wildlife
Management Branch Administrative Report 88-4. Sacramento, CA.

SECTION 4: REFERENCES
4-2 NATOMAS BASIN HCP SAC/161795/031060001(001.DOC)

FINAL EIR/EIS
Estep, J. A. and S. Teresa. 1992. Regional conservation planning for the Swainson’s hawk (Buteo swainsoni) in the Central Valley of California. Pages 775-789. In D. R. McCullough and R. H. Barrett (eds.). Wildlife 2001: Populations. Elsevier Applied Science, New York, NY.

Febbo. 2001. Personal communication between Joh n Febbo and Matt Franck of CH2M HILL.

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.

Houston, C. S. and J. K. Schmutz. 1995. Declining reproduction among Swainson’s hawks in prairie Canada. J. Raptor Res. 29 (3): 19
8-201.

Janes, S.W. 1987. Status and decline of Swainson’s hawks in Oregon: The role of habitat and interspecific competition. Oregon Birds 13 (2): 1
65-179.

Rinek, L. 2003. Personal communication between L. Rinek, Wildlife Bio logist, United States Fish and Wildlife Service, with S. Taylor, CH2M HILL. March.

Redwood Barn Nursery. 2003. Personal communication with R. Huddleston, CH2M HILL.

February 21.

Smallwood, K. S. 1995. Scaling Swainson’s hawk population density for assessing habitat use across an agricultural landscape. J. Raptor Res. 29 (3): 172-178.

U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service; U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service. 1996.

Habitat C
onservation Planning and Incidental Take Permit Processing Handbook. November 4.

USEPA (United States Environmental Protection Agency. 1999. Consideration of Cu mulative Impacts in EPA Review of NEPA Documents. EPA 315-R-99-002. May.

USFWS (United States Fish and Wildlife Service). 1997. Programma tic Consultation for Projects with Relatively Small Effects to Vernal Pools.

Williams, J. 2003. Personal communication between J. Williams, Agri cultural Advisor for the Natomas Basin, University of California, Davis, Agricultural Extension, and S. Taylor, CH2M HILL. February 12.

Woodbridge, B, 1991. Habitat selection by nesting Swainson’s hawks: a hierarchical approach. M.S. Thesis, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR. Cited in England, A. S., M.

J. Bechard, and C
. S. Houston. 1997. Swainson’s Hawk. The Birds of North America.

Wylie, G. D. 1998. Giant garter snake project. 1998 Progress Report. United States Geological Survey, Biological Resources Division. Dix
on Field Station. Dixon Field Station. Dixon, CA.

Wylie, G. D. and M. L. Casazza, 2001. Investigations of giant garter snakes in the Natomas Basin: 2
001 Field Season. United States Geological Survey, Biological Resources Division.

Dixon Field Station. Dixon Field Station. Dixon, CA.

Wylie, G. D. and M. L. Casazza. 2000. Investigations of giant garter snakes in the Natomas Basin: 1
998-1999. United States Geological Survey, Biological Resources Division. Dixon Field Station. Dixon, CA.

SECTION 4: REFERENCES
SAC/161795/031060001(001.DOC) NATOMAS BASIN HCP 4-3

FINAL EIR/EIS
Wylie, G. D. and L. L. Martin. 2002. Investigations of giant garter snakes in the Natomas Basin: 2002 field season. United States Geological Survey, Biological Resources Division.

Dixon Field Station. Dixon, CA.

ATTACHMENT 2
Responses to Comments
SAC/161795/031060002(LETTERS.DOC) NATOMAS BASIN HCP 1

FINAL EIR/EIS
Letter G1—U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Response to Comment G1-1
The Applicants and the Lead Agencies understand that the discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States will require Department of the Army authorization pursuant to the Clean Water Act. The ITPs would authorize incidental take associated with the Covered Activities. The ITPs would not provide take authorization for discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States. This is clearly stated in Section V.A.4 of the NBHCP and in Section 2.3.4 of the EIR/EIS. For this reason, no changes to either document are necessary.

SAC/161795/031060002(LETTERS.DOC) NATOMAS BASIN HCP 3

FINAL EIR/EIS
Letter G2—Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX
Response to Comment G2-1
In this introductory comment, the commentor summarizes key elements of the NBHCP and ITP process. The Lead Agencies acknowledge the statement of support for the NBHCP process as presented in the last paragraph of this introductory comment.

Response to Comment G2-2
The USFWS will consider the effect of the takings, including effects on species resulting from planned development. The non-federal decisions regarding the need for development in the Natomas Basin and the nature of that development are decisions that have been made by the City and Sutter County. The USFWS is not considering the types of land uses proposed or land use patterns, and has no authority to modify land use within the jurisdictions of the City and Sutter County. This is consistent with the USFWS HCP Handbook, which states, “The purpose of the habitat conservation planning process and subsequent issuance of ITPs is to authorize the incidental take of threatened or endangered species, not to authorize the underlying activities that result in take.”
In the context of the Applicants, the following response on the nature and extent of urban development in the Natomas Basin is provided.

The North Natomas Community Plan, the largest area allowed to develop within the City’s Permit Area, was designe
d through a consensus-building process involving stakeholders in the process (the North Natomas Working Group), including ECOS, Sierra Club, Natomas Community Association, North Natomas Landowners Association, independent North Natomas landowners, City staff, and representatives from other local agencies (Regional Transit, school districts, County Agriculture Commissioner, SMUD, etc.). The resulting plan, based on the planning principles written by the North Natomas Working Group, envisions a “new urban form” that incorporates many of the principles of Smart Growth:

1. The Town Center is the focus of the community;

2. Each neighborhood has an elementary school as its focus, and it includes a variety of housing types, transit service, commercial opportunities, and parks and open space;

3. The Employment Center designation is primarily office, but also allows a mix of residential, retail, and industrial uses to allow employees to live and shop near their workplace; and

4. Public transit services will be provided at each phase of development, starting with express bus and community shuttle service and ultimately light rail, will link the downtown, Natomas area, and the Sacramento International Airport.

Despite the floodplain and the proximity of endangered species habitat, the North Natomas area allows development within 3 miles from downtown, which is the urban employment, cultural, and entertainment center of the region. The proximity to downtown allows traffic management and air quality benefits, unlike areas that are developing further away from the regional center.

LETTER G2—ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, REGION IX
4 NATOMAS BASIN HCP SAC/161795/031060002(LETTERS.DOC)

FINAL EIR/EIS
Issuance of the proposed ITPs for Planned Development in South Natomas would enable the buildout of this existing community; South Natomas is even closer to downtown than North Natomas.

The City adopted Smart Growth Principles in 2002. These principles are used to guide development within the entire City, as well as in North and South Natomas. The Smart Growth Principles are the basic foundation blocks for compact development. Similarly, an Infill Incentive Policy was adopted in 2002 and implementation ordinances are to be considered in 2003.

Planned Development in Sutter County is for industrial and commercial uses. These employment-generating uses will provide employment to the predominantly residential base of Sutter County. Such employment opportunities may result in fewer Sutter County residents see
king employment in Sacramento, thereby reducing their commute and consequently reducing traffic congestion and adverse air quality impacts.

Response to Comment G2-3
Several planned and funded projects were constructed to provide 100-year-plus flood protection to the areas within the City’s Permit Area, specifically North and South Natomas.

First, the Sacramento Area Flood Control Agency (SAFCA) sponsored the Local Area Project to reinforce the Sacramento River levees; this was completed in 1997. This project reinforced the large levees encircling the Natomas Basin and helped protect the entire Basin from flooding, which prevents property damage and personal injury to the urbanized areas, and it protects the agricultural areas from inundation. This is beneficial to the plant and animal species inhabiting the Basin, as well as to the crops farmed in this area.

Second, after the City approved development in North Natomas, the North Natomas Comprehensive Drainage Plan (CDP) was planned and funded by the Community Facilities District No. 97-01, a
Mello-Roos Community Facilities District, with proceeds used to build the drainage improvements. The CDP was designed to raise and reinforce the levees along the East and West Main Drains, providing flood protection from the internal floodplains within the North and South Natomas Community Plan areas. Third, the developers within each in-basin watershed area build the detention basin and canal improvements necessary to provide flood protection, stormwater drainage, and water quality improvements to benefit the development in that in-basin watershed area. These drainage improvements detain stormwater runoff within the detention basin until after the storm event, when the local canals and rivers are full, until the runoff can be safely and, in a controlled manner, conveyed to the canals, river, and ocean. This set of detention basins and year-around lakes serve to mimic the original American Lakes that were located within the Natomas Basin prior to reclamation efforts in the 1910s. These basins allow stormwater to stay in the Basin without damaging urban and agricultural areas until the runoff can be drained safely. The basins serve three purposes: flood protection, stormwater drainage, and water quality.

Regarding the statement included in the MAP EIS regarding flood impacts, it is important to note th
at this statement is based on, and referenced to, a 1991 storm drain report that pre- dates the substantial amount of additional studies and improvements to the flood protection and drainage system of the Natomas Basin. The exact statement in the Final EIS for that project also states that flood flows from storm drainage will be mitigated through a detailed LETTER G2—ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, REGION IX
SAC/161795/031060002(LETTERS.DOC) NATOMAS BASIN HCP 5

FINAL EIR/EIS
storm drainage plan that addresses both onsite and offsite improvements, and that the MAP project includes a financing plan for these improvements (see page 4.8, MAP Final EIS).

Response to Comment G2-4
The Applicants propose a 50-year permit term (Section VI.A. of the NBHCP) with both overall and independent mid-point reviews (Sections VI.I. and VI.J of the NBHCP, respectively). The commentor suggests that the NBHCP should be subject to a shorter permit duration (10 or 20 years) or more frequent reviews. The 50-year permit term is proposed based on (1) the schedule for buildout of the authorized development and (2) the time required for the habitat reserves to become fully operational (see Response to Comment G2-14). The NBHCP does include several review and assessment requirements.

The overall midpoint review would occur at 9,000 acres of Planned Development in the Natomas Basin. At this review, the success of the Operating Conservation Program, status of the Mitigation Lands and covered species, and overall NBHCP success and compliance is reviewed. In addition to this overall review, the City and Sutter County must each conduct independent midpoint reviews for their Permit Areas. The NBHCP also contains extensive provisions for adequately funded monitoring and adaptive management (Sections VI.E. and VI.F. of the NBHCP, respectively), as well as a provision for changes in response to new recovery plans for the giant garter snake and Swainson’s hawk (Section VI.H. of the NBHCP). Therefore, the USFWS has determined that the additional measures suggested by the commentor are not necessary because the NBHCP measures effectively provide for review, assessments, monitoring, and adaptive management policies to ensure that impacts are avoided, minimized, and mitigated over the course of the permit term. Finally, it is important to note that the three required reviews were developed specifically to reflect points in the NBHCP process at which the estimated Planned Development and Mitigation Land development can be assessed relative to the success of the mitigation program.

Response to Comment G2-5
The Lead Agencies have provided sufficient information as described throughout the Draft EIR/EIS and Final EIR/EIS for the reasons described in the responses to the commentor’s general and detailed comments, both in the responses to this comment letter and to other letters received on the Draft NBHCP and EIR/EIS. For responses on the mitigation ratio, see Response to Comment G2-6 and Master Response 1 (Mitigation Ratio). For a discussion of the feasibility of implementing the NBHCP, see Response to Comment G2-7. For a detailed summary of the approach to the cumulative impacts analysis, see Response to Comment G2-9 and Master Response 4 (Cumulative Impacts). For responses to the commentor’s specific concerns on the environmental consequences analysis, see Responses to Comments G2-10 and G2-11. Also see Responses to Comments G2-8 and G2-12 through G2-17.

Response to Comment G2-6
The commentor acknowledges the proposed 0.5:1 mitigation ratio and also acknowledges that actively managed, restored, and enhanced habitat would provide greater habitat value than the existing rice fields and land to be converted to Planned Development. The commentor suggests that the EIR/EIS does not include the scientific basis for the proposed mitigation ratio. In response, the scientific basis for the proposed mitigation ratio is encompassed in the NBHCP and its Appendices, not in the EIR/EIS. The purpose of the LETTER G2—ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, REGION IX
6 NATOMAS BASIN HCP SAC/161795/031060002(LETTERS.DOC)

FINAL EIR/EIS
EIR/EIS is to assess the impacts of the NBHCP, not to develop or justify the NBHCP. The scientific and economic basis for the mitigation ratio is included throughout the NBHCP, with a summary provided on pages IV-5 through 6 of the Draft NBHCP (also see Appendix A of the Draft NBHCP, which contains the Economic Analysis of the NBHCP).

The commentor also notes that other HCPs employ different mitigation ratios. In accordance with the HCP Handbook, the ratio was devised to address most effectively the types of impacts proposed by the Covered Activities of this HCP. The NBHCP mitigation ratio is only part of an Operating Conservation Program, which includes substantial avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures for each species. Chapter 3 of the USFWS HCP Handbook for instance states:

Mitigation programs under HCPs and section 10 permits are as varied as the projects they address. Consequently, this ha
ndbook does not establish
specific “rules” for developing mitigation programs that would limit the creative potential inherent in any good HCP effort. On the other hand, the standards used in developing HCPs must be adequate and consistent regardless of which Service office happens to work with a permit applicant.

Mitigation programs should be based on sound biological rationale; they should also be practicable and commensurate with the impacts they address.

Thus, for example, the San Joaquin County Multi-Spec
ies Conservation Plan (MSCP)
includes different tiers of mitigation related to different types of habitat in their county (which includes a significantly larger and more diverse habitat than the Natomas Basin) and has devised their mitigation ratio to address 97 special-status species. Thus, the biological rationale, impacts, and mitigation for the San Joaquin County MSCP is different from that employed by the NBHCP.

The commentor further recommends that the EIR/EIS consider the habitat value of reserves relative to the habitat impacted
and also review higher mitigation ratios. In response, the EIR/EIS considers a number of alternatives including Alternative 1 (a 1:1 mitigation ratio) and Alternative 2 (habitat-based mitigation). Thus, the EIR/EIS does review the alternatives recommended by the USEPA.

For further information, please see Mast er Response 1 (Mitigation Ratio).

Response to Comment G2-7
The NBHCP includes safeguards to ensure the cost of land does not hinder implementation, as follows:
• The mitigation fee can be raised to ensure that land acquisition can occur • Two hundred acres of land must be acquired in advance of each new construction season (May 1)
• If the permittees do not meet their Mitigation Land acquisition obligations (adequate acquisition is not obtained), they are not allowed to issue grading permits (i.e., Urban Development Permits) until such obligations are met
LETTER G2—ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, REGION IX
SAC/161795/031060002(LETTERS.DOC) NATOMAS BASIN HCP 7

FINAL EIR/EIS
• A rising cost of land encourages the developers to buy land to transfer to the TNBC subject to all acquisition criteria
• TNBC is not obligated to accept fees if land cannot be purchased at current rates.

Identifying specific reserve sites is infeasible because this would result in speculation that would artificially
inflate land cost, as demonstrated by TNBC’s land acquisition history and further described below (also see Responses to Comments O1-42 through O1-60).

One of the basic premises of a willing buyer/willing seller transaction is a free market. If the area in which land can be purchased is artificially constrained, the number of potential sellers decreases and the price of the commodity (i.e., land) increases. If the area is larger (i.e., not constrained by the requirement that the land be purchased in a particular area, the number of potential sellers increases and the price will be more competitive, potentially lower. The obligations of the Settlement Agreement related to the 1997 NBHCP lawsuit were expensive because the area in which habitat land could be acquired was very small and the number of owners, few; this forced the price of land to increase. The dilemma is to establish the NBHCP so that a balance is reached regarding acquisition. Constraints on the number of willing sellers through restrictions in the NBHCP force the land price to escalate to a level that is too high for the level that can be supported. Therefore, the NBHCP cannot be implemented, development does not occur, preservation of mitigation land does not occur, and the goals and objectives of the plan are not met. The NBHCP is designed to allow acquisition within a wide area of the Natomas Basin, including, when necessary, acquisition in Area B outside the Basin, subject to specific acquisition criteria. These criteria help TNBC with Wildlife Agency concurrence, and with select lands that are or can be restored and enhanced to provide quality habitat in perpetuity. Land that already provides quality habitat and requires little investment in restoration and enhancement could be purchased at a higher acquisition cost because smaller amounts of restoration costs would be needed.

Other acquisition requirements that could hinder acquisition inc lude the following:
• Sellers. If insufficient numbers of sellers are available, potential actions could include the following: (1) permittees stop issuing grading permits (i.e., Urban Development Permits) until acquisition obligations are met (see Section VI.D of the NBHCP), and (2) developers buy Mitigation Lands in coordination with TNBC to meet their obligations and transfer the land, in lieu of the land acquisition portion of the fees, to TNBC as described in Section VI.D of the NBHCP. In both instances, the number of sellers increases.
• Water Rights. Most non-urban land in the Natomas Basin is devoted to agriculture.

Therefore, most of the land has water rights through Natomas Mutual, wells, etc.

The NBHCP specifies acquisition criteria to define the type of land that would provide q
uality habitat in the Basin without constraining the areas in which the land can be acquired, and without artificially raising the cost of land. Proponents of the HCP would rather have the choice to buy large reserve sites at a lower price and fund restoration activities, than be forced to acquire smaller reserve sites with limited restoration and enhancement potential because higher land costs have constrained opportunities for land acquisition. Increases in cost attributable to land speculation are greater than increases in cost to restore or enhance land.

LETTER G2—ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, REGION IX
8 NATOMAS BASIN HCP SAC/161795/031060002(LETTERS.DOC)

FINAL EIR/EIS
The commentor recommends comparative analysis of each alternative regarding the reserve lands and water rights, and whether fees cover acquisition and management of land in perpetuity. The Economic Analysis (Appendix A of the NBHCP) contains the comparative analysis regarding availability of land, water rights, and what the fee would need to be to implement each alternative. The Fee Study (Appendix I of the NBHCP) indicates what fee would be required to implement the NBHCP, and cover the cost of acquisition and management. The commentor is referred to the NBHCP, Economic Analysis, and Fee Study for this information.

Response to Comment G2-8
The NBHCP does not advocate mitigating the impacts of incidental take solely through increased mitigation funding and acquisition of Mitigation Lands. Detailed avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures are presented throughout Chapters IV and V of the NBHCP. Many of the measures are designed to accomplish the full avoidance of take.

For example, to avoid impacts to the concentration of Swainson’s hawk nests along the Sacramento River, the NBHCP designates a Swainson’s Hawk Zone within 1 mile of the river.

In this area, 1,015 acres of land designated for Industrial/Commercial Reserve was removed from the NBHCP Permit Area to limit development in this sensitive area. Additionally, most of the take avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures currently recommended by the USFWS for giant garter snakes and by CDFG for Swainson’s hawks are incorporated into the NBHCP. Other USFWS- and CDFG-approved take avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures are incorporated for other covered species, as well (pp. V-7 through V-27 of the Draft NBHCP). For land development, these measures are typically implemented on a project- by-project basis as acceptable take avoidance practices. Because the NBHCP already includes the full suite of standard take avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures as part of its Operating Conservation Program, another alternative that includes avoidance, minimization, and mitigation is not necessary. The NBHCP also includes additional measures to those typically required by the Wildlife Agencies by implementing a habitat preservation program in which 8,750 acres of Mitigation Lands would be acquired for the benefit of Covered Species.

Providing 8,750 acres of Mitigation Land, primarily within the Natomas Basin, is key to
understanding why the NBHCP would “result in improved on-the-ground conditions which would not be achieved through existing conservation and resource management plans.” The NBHCP applies the mitigation ratio requirement and avoidance, minimization, and mitigation requirements to all lands within the Permit Areas, regardless of habitat value. This provides for a more comprehensive treatment of habitat effects than would be achieved through case-by-case, parcel-by-parcel mitigation programs.

It is also important to note that there is relatively little remaining native habitat in the Natomas Basi
n. Figure 8 of the NBHCP shows that current native habitat comprises less than 5 percent of the Natomas Basin. The majority of land uses in the Permit Areas have been disturbed through reclamation and agricultural activities. Thus, the NBHCP mitigation program will improve conditions for the species through the creation of 8,750 acres of reserves specifically managed to support the Covered Species. As discussed above, it is likely that similar take avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures would be applied to the planned development with or without the NBHCP. Providing mitigation land in LETTER G2—ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, REGION IX
SAC/161795/031060002(LETTERS.DOC) NATOMAS BASIN HCP 9

FINAL EIR/EIS
compensation for habitat loss in the absence of the NBHCP, however, is less certain because there are no other conservation and resource management plans that apply in the Natomas Basin. With regard to giant garter snakes, there is little certainty as to USFWS’s ability to require development to provide mitigation lands. The primary mechanism for the USFWS to become involved in the protection of giant garter snakes is through the ESA Section 7 consultation process, which is triggered by a federal nexus such as a federal approval required by the Clean Water Act.

For example, under the Clean Water Act, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) may authorize the discharge of dredge or fill material into Waters of the United States. USACE approval of a Section 404 permit would require consultation with the USFWS. This would occur on a project-by-project
basis. For each project undergoing consultation, the USFWS could require the creation of replacement habitat, potentially at a replacement ratio of up to 3:1 (for example, see the Programmatic Formal Consultation for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 404 Permitted Projects with Relatively Small Effects on the Giant Garter Snake within Butte, Colusa, Glenn, Fresno, Merced, Sacramento, San Joaquin, Solano, Stanislaus, Sutter, and Yolo Counties, California [USFWS, 1997]). Notwithstanding the question of defining giant garter snake habitat, there are likely to be few opportunities to trigger Section 7 consultation or to apply this level of mitigation because of the general absence of wetlands in the City and Sutter County’s Permit Areas (see the habitat/land use tables in Table III-4 of the NBHCP and Table 4-2 of the EIR/EIS). In consideration of this factor, habitat conditions for giant garter snakes are expected to improve under the NBHCP for the following reasons:
• The lack of opportunity for the USFWS to apply a higher mitigation standard would result in a smaller amount of habitat created for the giant garter snake compared with the amount of habitat created under the NBHCP.
• Any project-by-project mitigation would likely be fragmented, and would not necessarily occur in the Natomas Basin. Under the NBHCP, TNBC is required to acquire reserve sites in a manner that would contribute to a minimum reserve block size of 400 acres. The NBHCP, in contrast, requires that not more than 20 percent of the mitigation lands be acquired outside of the Natomas Basin. • The value of habitat created is expected to be higher because current high-value areas subject to planned development total 425 acres (404 acres of canals/drains [not subject to Corps jurisdiction] plus 21 acres of ponds and seasonally wet areas). Even at a 3:1 mitigation ratio, this results in only 1,275 acres of created habitat relative to 2,187.5 acres under the NBHCP with 25 percent of the Mitigation Lands in managed marsh. The NBHCP would also provide 4,375 acres of rice fields that could be used by giant garter snakes.

Increased participation by the USFWS would re
quire extensive monitoring of converted
potential habitat areas (e.g., drained rice fields and canals) for snake mortality and subsequent prosecution under the provisions of the ESA. In response to this potential, individual landowners could seek protection under the ESA through site-specific HCPs (i.e., individual Section 10 processes for individual developments). This would provide another mechanism for the USFWS to apply increased mitigation. This scenario is unlikely, however, because it would be a piecemeal approach to conservation and a poor substitute for an effective basin-wide program.

LETTER G2—ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, REGION IX
10 NATOMAS BASIN HCP SAC/161795/031060002(LETTERS.DOC)

FINAL EIR/EIS
There are no standard mitigation requirements for loss of foraging habitat, although CDFG’s Staff Report provides guidance regarding types of mitigation approaches. It should be noted however, that CDFG, in its letter of comment (Letter G3), stated that the Staff Report does not apply to the NBHCP and should not be used to assess the adequacy of mitigation.

Conservation of Swainson’s hawk habitat in accordance with the Staff Report is more uncertain than conservation of giant garter snake habitat in the absence of a comprehensive program such as the NBHCP. This is especially true considering that take under the CESA requires a more direct link to mortality than the ESA does. The nest tree protection measures in the NBHCP are similar to (and in many respects, more comprehensive and strict than) those provided in the Staff Report (see Management Condition 1 on p. 10 of the Staff Report). The application of the foraging habitat compensation provisions of the Staff Report, however, is unclear.

According to Management Condition 3 of the Staff Report, all projects within 10 miles of an active Swainson’s ha
wk nest are required to acquire mitigation habitat at a ratio of at least

0.5:1. For projects within 1 mile of an active Swainson’s hawk nest site, the ratio increases to 1:1 unless reserve sites are owned in fee title, which is the case for TNBC’s current parcels.

Where mitigation reserve lands are owned in fee title and managed for habitat, the mitigation ratio for is 0.5:1 for projects within 1 mile of a nest site. In practice, however, a comprehensive conservation or banking program for Swainson’s hawk foraging habitat has not been developed, and it does not appear that CDFG has required compliance with the Staff Report.
(It should be noted that most actions in the Sacramento region occur with 10 miles of an active Swainson’s hawk nest, and to the Applicants’ knowledge, there is not widespread compliance with the Staff Report. It should also be noted that, in Comment G3-22, CDFG has advised that the Staff Report does not apply to the NBHCP.) Regardless of the reasons, other mechanisms to protect the Swainson’s hawk do not appear to provide substantial protection to foraging habitat.

In contrast, the NBHCP would provide
3,371.9 acres of upland habitat (see Table 3-1 in Master Response 1 [Mitigation Ratio]).

The commentor also refers to this question in the cont ext of cumulative impacts. For a discussion of the adequacy of the cumulative impacts analysis in the Draft EIR/EIS, see Master Response 4 (Cumulative Impacts).

Response to Comment G2-9
The cumulative impacts analysis is appropriate for the reasons described in Master Response 4 (Cumulative Impacts). As discussed in Chapter 4 of the EIR/EIS and in Master Responses 3 (Joint Vision) and 4 (Cumulative Impacts), the development that could occur at some point in the future (other than the approved 17,500 acres of Planned Development) is speculative because if it occurred, it would be at some future unknown date. Specifically, no applications have been filed pursuant to the Joint Vision and, if they were, additional environmental review would be conducted.

The significant cumulative effects of the potential taking of listed species is presented throughout the analysis in
Chapter 4 of the EIR/EIS (in accordance with the methods described in Section 4.1.2 of the EIR/EIS). In accordance with their local land use authority, cumulative effects of Planned Development have been evaluated by the City and Sutter LETTER G2—ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, REGION IX
SAC/161795/031060002(LETTERS.DOC) NATOMAS BASIN HCP 11

FINAL EIR/EIS
County during the adoption of their respective General Plans and Community/Specific Plans. With regard to cumulative impacts associated with flood control projects, potential projects are considered in the EIR/EIS (Section 4.1.2.3). It should be noted that the NBHCP effort was precipitated by Wildlife Agency actions associated with the American River Watershed Investigation and associated local projects (see Master Response 4 [Cumulative Impacts] and Responses to Comments G2-3, O1-18, and O1-19). Although projects associated with the American River Watershed Investigation have the potential to occur in the future (see Section 4.1.2.3 of the EIR/EIS for a discussion of Sacramento River levee improvements), data are insufficient to conduct a meaningful analysis of their cumulative impacts for several reasons that are explained on page 4-7 of the Draft EIR/EIS.

Other activities referenced by the commentor (e.g.,
agricultural and irrigation practices) are
routine, non-discretionary activities that take place on agriculturally zoned land throughout the Natomas Basin. Continuation of these routine activities is considered part of the baseline and future conditions under all alternatives, with no changes to these activities caused by the NBHCP. Thus, it would not be appropriate to include ongoing agricultural and irrigation activities as a specific project to consider in the analysis of cumulative effects.

Response to Comment G2-10
The environmental consequences associated with reduced Planned Development were evaluated in prior environmental documents associated with the North Natomas Community Plan. Alternative B of the North Natomas Community Plan reduced development by retaining the area west of I-5 in agriculture, as well as a substantial portion of the land south of Elkhorn Boulevard. This would have reduced Planned Development in North Natomas by about 3,600 acres. In addition, the South Sutter County Specific Plan evaluated a Reduced Development Area alternative that reduced the area of Planned Development in the Specific Plan area (3,500 acres out of the 7,487-acre Sutter County Permit Area) by about 1,100 acres. Between the City and Sutter County, the total previously evaluated reduction would be approximately 4,700 acres, or a total amount of development of 12,800 acres. Assuming that additional analysis of reduced development would occur as part of future land use planning in the remainder of Sutter County’s Permit Area, a reasonable land use scenario under the Natomas Basin EIR/EIS Reduced Development Alternative was determined to be approximately 12,000 acres of development. Also see Appendix C of the EIR/EIR.

Socioeconomic impacts are addressed in Section 4
.7 of the EIR/EIS. The socioeconomic
impacts associated with Planned Development are presented in Appendix C of the EIR/EIS.

Response to Comment G2-11
Additional discussion has been added to the Final EIR/EIS to revise Section 4.11 of the Draft EIR/EIS regarding the potential impacts of bird strikes associated with Planned Development (see Section 4.11 in the EIR/EIS). Note that no new impacts are anticipated because concern over bird strikes is primarily associated with large flocks of migratory waterfowl, which would not be attracted to new urban areas. See Section 2.1 of this EIR/EIS for the new text in the Final EIR/EIS relevant to bird strikes.

LETTER G2—ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, REGION IX
12 NATOMAS BASIN HCP SAC/161795/031060002(LETTERS.DOC)

FINAL EIR/EIS
Encroachment issues (e.g., airport noise) were extensively considered in prior environmental documents for the City, but were not summarized in Appendix C of the EIR/EIS. In response to this comment, however, additional text has been added to Appendix C to summarize prior consideration of airport/residential conflicts related to initial approval of plans. See Section 2.1 of the Final EIR/EIS.

Response to Comment G2-12
The general methodology for selection of Covered Species is included in Chapter II of the NBHCP (Biological Data), specifically on pages II-7 and II-8 of the Draft NBHCP. The Applicants used the following basic principles that are based on agreements initially reached with USFES in 1997 to guide the selection of Covered Species for inclusion in the NBHCP:
• Fish species are not included because the NBHCP covers terrestrial species and the National Marine Fisheries Service is not a permitting agency. Further information regarding the reasons fish species are not covered species in the NBHCP is included in Section II.C.1.b of the NBHCP.

• Fully protected species are not included because incidental take coverage cannot be issued for them. Therefore, the greater sandhill crane and the American peregrine falcon were removed from the 1997 list of Covered Species. Other fully protected species that may inhabit the Natomas Basin were also not included on the list of covered species for the same reason. Also see Response to Comment G2-13 for a discussion of Fully Protected Species.
• Extremely rare vernal pool species are not included (i.e., Conservancy fairy shrimp and longhorn fairy shrimp). The NBHCP provides that if they were found in the Basin, every effort would be made to protect them and incidental take would not be permitted. • Listed plant and animal species (or those species with the potential to become listed during the permit term) were generally included if these species either currently occur in the Natomas Basin or may occur once Mitigation Lands are restored, enhanced, and managed as quality habitat. Several species that are not known to occur in the Basin could locate in the Basin on appropriate habitat provided for the covered species through implementation of the NBHCP. TNBC, as a permittee and plan operator, conducts acquisition, restoration, enhancement, and management activities that could result in take of covered species. For example, if the delta tule pea started to grow on the Mitigation Lands, it would be appropriate for TNBC to have incidental take coverage for it. Consequently, these species are covered by the NBHCP.

Response to Comment G2-13
The Fish and Game Code includes a list of fully protected species, as well as protected reptiles and amphibians (see Sections 3511, 4700, 5050, and 5515 of the Fish and Game Code). In recognition that CDFG cannot authorize any take of fully protected species, the Applicants are not proposing take coverage for fully protected species. Text has been added to Section 1.5 of the EIR/EIS to describe CDFG’s fully protected species requirements. See Section 2.1 of this Final EIR/REIS for the text change.

LETTER G2—ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, REGION IX
SAC/161795/031060002(LETTERS.DOC) NATOMAS BASIN HCP 13

FINAL EIR/EIS
Response to Comment G2-14
The following information was considered in determining the appropriate term of proposed permits:
• The North Natomas Community Plan area is anticipated to build out in 25 to 40 years.

The South Natomas Community Plan area is expected to complete its build-out within 10 to 15 years (although it should be noted that even developed areas like Downtown Sacramento are not 100 percent built out). Buildout of the Sutter County Industrial/Commercial Reserve is expected to take 30 to 50 years. • TNBC, as plan operator, is responsible for restoring, enhancing, and managing Mitigation Lands in perpetuity. It takes a considerable period of time to complete all of the revegetation and other restoration activities (e.g., for managed marshes) that necessary for the establishment of a sustainable natural community. The Mitigation Lands will not be fully in place until after buildout occurs. The 50-year permit is intended to be extended or renewed as needed to allow TNBC to continue its program in perpetuity.
• The overall mid-point review and the independent mid-point reviews for the City and Sutter County are intended to evaluate the success of NBHCP implementation to date, make modifications as appropriate based on the experience and analysis, or consider revocation of the permit if successful implementation of the NBHCP and meeting the plan’s goals and objectives are not possible. The Applicants are very aware of the possibility of having the permits revoked if obligations are not met.

Given the safeguards of the mid-point reviews and the desirability of long-term establishment
of quality habitat reserve sites and biological needs of the Covered Species, it is appropriate to propose a 50-year term with opportunities to extend/renew as needed.

Response to Comment G2-15
The commentor requests subsequent environmental analysis for project-level actions. As described on pages 4-10 through 4-12 of the Draft EIS/EIR, the City and Sutter County have conducted extensive review under CEQA related to their respective approvals of Planned Development. The EIS/EIR is intended to support the actions of the USFWS in approving the NBHCP, issuing ITPs for incidental take of Covered Species associated with the Covered Activities, and entering into an Implementation Agreement(s). Additionally, the EIS/EIR provides environmental review for CDFG’s (a responsible agency) issuance of incidental take permits, issuance of take authorizations related to specific urban development applications, and other Covered Activities, and for TNBC’s activities related to the conservation strategy in the NBHCP. Because the NBHCP includes conservation measures and adaptive management strategies for the 22 Covered Species addressed in the NBHCP, the EIS/EIR covers the environmental impacts associated with the implementation of these measures and with the adaptive management provisions.

When it considers the next discretionary approval, the City or Sutter County, as may be
appropriate, will review a specific development application to determine if the development proposal requires subsequent environmental review in accordance with CEQA (e.g., Pub.

LETTER G2—ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, REGION IX
14 NATOMAS BASIN HCP SAC/161795/031060002(LETTERS.DOC)

FINAL EIR/EIS
Resources Code 21166, 14 Cal. Code Regs. 15162). The USFWS will review activities undertaken by TNBC or a permittee to determine whether the proposed activities constitute a major federal action triggering further environmental review under NEPA. Similarly, CDFG will consider whether future activities requiring CDFG discretionary approvals will trigger subsequent environmental review in accordance with CEQA.

Response to Comment G2-16
With regard to “existing scientific evidence documenting the effectiveness of habitat conservation planning and restoration in assuring species viability,” Section 10 of the ESA and its implementing regulations provide the authority and guidance for the NBHCP, and it is beyond the scope of the analysis of both the NBHCP and EIR/EIS to justify the USFWS’s HCP program.

It is important to note that HCPs are works-in-progress. Because many ITPs are issued for
long-term planning efforts and have not yet expired, the USFWS believes that it is premature to evaluate in general the effectiveness of HCPs in assuring species viability.

Although there have been a number of studies of HCPs, to the USFWS’s knowledge, none to date has specifically analyzed the effectiveness of the HCP planning process in assuring species viability, or the effectiveness of habitat restoration for the species proposed to be covered by the NBHCP.

If the commentor is referring to the effectiveness of this HCP, no specific examples of areas of uncertainty are provided by the commentor that could help focus our response.

Nevertheless, the Applicants are committed to meeting the biological goals and objectives of the NBHCP (as articulated in Section I.C) and believe that the NBHCP will be effective in assuring species viability. In support of this, the NBHCP provides detailed sections that address monitoring, surveys, and adaptive management (see Chapter VI of the NBHCP— Plan Implementation).

The commentor is also referred to the responses to Comment Letters G3, O1, O2, O3, O 4, I4, and I5.

Response to Comment G2-17
An acronym list was inadvertently omitted from the Draft EIR/EIS, and has been added to the beginning of this Final EIR/EIS. Primary canals and water bodies have been labeled on the revised versions of Figure 2-4, which is the primary figure that illustrates canals and drains in the Natomas Basin. This change is included in Section 2.1 of the Final EIR/EIS.

SAC/161795/031060002(LETTERS.DOC) NATOMAS BASIN HCP 15

FINAL EIR/EIS
Letter G3—CDFG
Response to Comment G3-1
CDFG summarizes the two key regulatory processes relevant to the NBHCP process: take authorization permits under the ESA and CESA. It is the Applicants’ intent, in accordance with CDFG direction, to seek Section 2081 Permit authorization. That is, the City will apply for an amendment of its existing 2081 Permit, and Sutter County and TNBC will apply for CDFG take authorization permits. This is described in Section 1.3.2 of the EIR/EIS.

Response to Comment G3-2
CDFG describes the context for its comments and states that it is acting both as a trustee agency and a responsible agency under CEQA. This is consistent with CDFG’s role as described in Section 1.3.2 (p. 1-11) of the Draft EIR/EIS and Section I.B.1.b (p. I-4) of the Draft NBHCP. The Applicants understand that CDFG’s comments are not intended to substitute for future detailed review of permit applications that are submitted by future Applicants not otherwise covered by the NBHCP.

Response to Comment G3-3
CDFG states that its issuance of management authorization to the City in 1997 remains valid, and presents background information regarding its determination. The Applicants agree with this interpretation. Please see Section I.G of the NBHCP and in Section 1.3.2 of the EIR/EIS for a discussion of CDFG’s review and authority throughout the NBHCP process.

Response to Comment G3-4
The Applicants and Lead Agencies concur with CDFG’s summary of the federal trial court process, which states that CDFG “believes the revised NBHCP addresses the issues identified by the court during the federal litigation” and “believes the revised NBHCP improves upon the earlier version of the Plan.”
Response to Comment G3-5
CDFG is referred to Responses to Comments I3-1 and I3-2 regarding the status of the Water Agencies’ participation in the NBHCP. The USFWS and the Land Use Agencies are not aware of the current status of the Water Agencies’ consultation process with CDFG.

Nonetheless, it is the Land Use Agencies’ and USFWS’ intent that the NBHCP may be relied upon by the Water Agencies to seek incidental take authorizations from the Wildlife Agencies, including CDFG, to the extent the NBHCP and associated technical analyses in the EIS/EIR address the Water Agencies’ Covered Activities. CDFG’s comments are noted acknowledging that the EIR/EIS contains a sufficient description and analysis of the potential impacts associated with the Water Agencies’ Covered Activities to satisfy the requirements of NEPA and CEQA. The Water Agencies’ HCP was not submitted to the USFWS as a final application—see response to Comment Letter I3.

LETTER G3—CDFG
16 NATOMAS BASIN HCP SAC/161795/031060002(LETTERS.DOC)

FINAL EIR/EIS
Response to Comment G3-6
As CDFG is aware, the activity being authorized by a Section 10 permit or Section 2081 permit is incidental take, and not the underlying activities resulting in take. As such, Sutter County, in conjunction with the City of Sacramento and USFWS have completed a combined EIS/EIR for the NBHCP under NEPA and CEQA to evaluate the environmental effects associated with issuance of incidental take authorizations. This EIS/EIR, in conjunction with other pertinent environmental documents pertaining to the Planned Development activities, is being submitted to CDFG in support of Sutter County’s incidental take permit application.

With respect to the authorized activities requiring incidental take authorizations, Sutter
County conducted appropriate CEQA analysis of its prior approvals of the Sutter County Comprehensive General Plan Revision and South Sutter County Specific Plan. The General Plan Revision and Specific Plan authorize the development activities that may occur with Sutter County’s Permit Area. Specifically, the County’s General Plan Revision EIR addressed the environmental effects of the Planned Development of up to 7,467 acres in the Sutter County portion of the Natomas Basin. Sutter County certified the Final EIR for the General Plan Revision on September 10, 1996, and adopted the General Plan Revision on November 25, 1996. No lawsuits challenging the adequacy of this EIR were filed; consequently, the General Plan Revision Final EIR is conclusively deemed valid. The findings of the Sutter County General Plan EIR are summarized in Appendix C of the EIR/EIS and incorporated by reference into the EIS/EIR.

Sutter County intends to prepare specific plans and subseq uent environmental review for
specific development proposals within its Permit Area. In this regard, as the Draft EIS/EIR states on page 4-11, Sutter County prepared a Specific Plan and completed a Final EIR for the development of 3,500 acres within the 7,467 acres allowed by the General Plan Revision.

Prior to the release of the NBHCP EIS/EIR, Sutter County certified the South Sutter County Final EIR. As CDFG notes in its comment letter, while a legal challenge to the Sutter County Specific Plan has been filed, the analysis is presumed adequate unless successfully challenged (Pub. Resources Code § 21167.3).

Response to Comment G3-7
CDFG correctly notes that TNBC is both the Plan Operator and a potential permittee, and that it has certain obligations independent of its obligations implemented on behalf of the Land Use Agency permittees. In this regard, TNBC is required to implement the NBHCP as described in Chapter IV of the NBHCP and the take avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures for the Mitigation Lands described in Chapter V of the NBHCP.

As the Plan Operator for the NBHCP, TNBC performs an important function for the NBHCP by establishing and overseeing
a concerted program for acquiring, enhancing, and
managing Mitigation Lands in perpetuity on behalf of the permittees (see Draft NBHCP, page IV-4). These obligations have been determined to be more appropriately implemented by TNBC in its Mitigation Land acquisition and management functions than by the Land Use Agencies.

The Implementation Agreement further defines the Land Use Agency permittees’ and TNBC’s respective obligations. For ex
ample, Section 3.1 sets forth the obligations of the City LETTER G3—CDFG
SAC/161795/031060002(LETTERS.DOC) NATOMAS BASIN HCP 17

FINAL EIR/EIS
and Sutter County including, among other obligations, the requirements to (1) limit total development in the Basin (§ 3.1.1); (2) limit development within the Swainson’s Hawk Zone (§ 3.1.2); (3) comply with the NBHCP timing of Mitigation Land acquisitions; and (4) ensure that Planned Development proponents implement all onsite take avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures described in Chapter V of the NBHCP. These responsibilities are obligations of the Land Use Agency permittees and have not been delegated to TNBC.

As stated in Section 3.1.11 of the Implementation Agreement and the NBHCP, the City and Sutter County have selected TNBC to serve as t
he Plan Operator and implement the
permittee’s respective mitigation requirements, as well as their reporting and monitoring obligations. Section 3.2 governs the obligations of TNBC in this capacity. For example, among other obligations, Section 3.2 requires TNBC to: (1) serve as the Plan Operator and acquire, locate, operate, manage, and maintain Mitigation Lands in accordance with the NBHCP and the Implementation Agreement (§ 3.2.1); (2) accept mitigation fees from the Land Use Agency permittees and use the fees to implement TNBC’s obligations set forth in § 3.2.1; (3) implement specified management obligations on specific reserve sites; and (4) conduct annual surveys in accordance with the NBHCP [§ 3.2.3(c)].

Notwithstanding TNBC’s role as the Plan Operator, the Land Use Agency permittees have not absolved, and legally may not
absolve themselves of their ultimate responsibility to
implement and comply with the NBHCP. The NBHCP and accompanying Implementation Agreement plainly state that in the event the Wildlife Agencies determine TNBC has violated the terms of the NBHCP, the permits, or the Implementation Agreement, the violation is considered a failure by the City and Sutter County to implement their respective obligations of the Operating Conservation Program. Moreover, the City and Sutter County acknowledge that they are obligated under their permits to fully implement the NBHCP, including funding of each of the obligations assigned to TNBC as the Plan Operator. That is, a failure of the City or Sutter County to fund fully TNBC’s obligations under the plan could compromise the plan’s effectiveness and trigger a reevaluation of the plan and permits and potentially result in suspension or revocation of the permits (IA, §§ 3.1.11, 6.6).

The Implementation Agreement also acknowledges
that a violation by TNBC of its permit
obligations is considered a failure by the City and Sutter County to implement their obligations of the NBHCP Operating Conservation Program. If such a violation occurs and the City and/or Sutter County remedies the violation, the permit may not be revoked or suspended unless USFWS or CDFG determines that continuation of the permits would appreciably reduce the likelihood of the survival and recovery of a covered species in the wild (IA, § 7.6.5). Thus, the City and Sutter County remain responsible for their obligations, as well as TNBC’s obligations, under the NBHCP.

Response to Comment G3-8
CDFG commends the Draft NBHCP for designating a Swainson’s Hawk Zone and suggests that all upland reserves be acquired in the Swainson’s Hawk Zone or within 1 mile of this zone. CDFG also acknowledges that the NBHCP discusses the difficulties of designating specific reserves sites.

In response, the NBHCP gives priority to acquisition of upland habitat that best meets the needs of t
he Swainson’s hawk. Pages IV-25 and IV-26 of the Draft NBHCP state:

LETTER G3—CDFG
18 NATOMAS BASIN HCP SAC/161795/031060002(LETTERS.DOC)

FINAL EIR/EIS
Generally, priority for acquiring upland habitat is as follows (in descending priority order): (1) sites located within the Swainson’s Hawk Zone; (2) sites that, in the judgment of TNBC and the Technical Advisory Committee, would provide specific, important benefits to other upland-associated covered species (e.g., tricolored blackbird nesting colonies); (3) sites supporting Swainson’s hawk nests or foraging habitat outside the Swainson’s Hawk Zone; (4) sites that would provide a good potential for enhancement of upland habitat values; and (5) any other site that would result in a benefit to any upland covered species.

The acquisition criteria, therefore, encourage acquisit ion within the Swainson’s Hawk Zone
or in other areas which specifically would benefit the Swainson’s hawk. In particular, criteria 3 gives priority to sites with hawk nests and foraging habitat outside of the Swainson’s Hawk Zone, which could include areas within 1 mile of the Swainson’s Hawk Zone that provide supportive nesting and foraging habitat characteristics. Thus, we believe that the existing criteria for uplands habitat is consistent with CDFG’s concepts, but does not limit upland acquisitions exclusively to the Swainson’s Hawk Zone and 1 mile of the zone.

The Applicants believe that exclusively limiting the upland reserve acquisitions to within 1 mile of the Swainson’s Hawk Zone would be counterproductive to the NBHCP’s biological goals and objectives for a number of reasons. Foremost among these is the inconsistent distribution of suitable upland habitat within 1 mile of the Swainson’s Hawk Zone. For example, within the City’s Permit Area, substantial urban development already has occurred along the I-5 corridor within a 1-mile distance from the Swainson’s Hawk Zone. Thus, limiting acquisitions to this area would result in the acquisition of smaller, non-contiguous parcels located within the City’s Permit Area or in proximity to existing urban development. Both of these results would be inconsistent with the NBHCP’s reserve acquisition criteria and would not ensure the acquisition of upland reserve sites that would meet the NBHCP’s biological goals and objectives.

Similarly, in the County of Sacramento, the Sacramento I nternational Airport occupies much of the Sacramento County area located within 1 mile of the Swainson’s Hawk Zone. In this area, the County of Sacramento owns substantial lands for the airport footprint and buffer zone. In the past, Sacramento County has not been interested in the sale of any of these lands for reserves because Sacramento County must control these lands for aviation safety.

Given this, the likelihood of acquisition of reserves in this area is remote and would, therefore, constrain the lands in which the TNBC could acquire uplands if the CDFG- recommended limitation on upland acquisitions were imposed. A large amount of airport lands are “buffer lands” designed to protect the airport and flight footprint from encroachment by urban development or other incompatible uses. Thus, some amount of this land is anticipated to be retained in open space by Sacramento County, but may not be available to TNBC for purposes of reserve management, in part, because of the Wildlife Hazards Management Plan adopted by Sacramento County to reduce bird strikes.

In Sutter County, lands within 1 mile of the Swainso n’s Hawk Zone are predominantly used for rice production, and they have known occurrences of the giant garter snake (See Figure 12 of the NBHCP). The NBHCP would not prohibit reserve sites in this area. In fact, TNBC has substantial holdings in this area. These sites, however, are not exclusively upland; they provide a “mosaic” of habitat (uplands, lowlands, and rice) to accommodate the needs of LETTER G3—CDFG
SAC/161795/031060002(LETTERS.DOC) NATOMAS BASIN HCP 19

FINAL EIR/EIS
species known to occur in the area. For example, the existing Bennett South Reserve, within 1 mile of the Sacramento River, includes 29.05 acres of native grass and selected tree planting as part of the habitat types of this reserve. This reserve has been carefully planned to minimize impacts to species currently using the area, and to make selective enhancements to habitat for the Covered Species, including the hawk. Additionally, lands within 2 miles of the Sacramento River in Sutter County (and outside of the Swainson’s Hawk Zone) are largely within the Sutter County Permit Area. This is depicted on the attached figure. Within this Permit Areas, the NBHCP seeks to limit reserve acquisitions to avoid conflicts between urban and reserve uses. It also is important to note that there are no nest site occurrences within the Sutter County Permit Area (see Figure 13 of the NBHCP).

Secondly, the NBHCP seeks both to preserve existing habitat in the Swainson’s Hawk Zone to the m
aximum extent possible, and also create new nesting and foraging areas in the Basin overall. For example, the NBHCP includes substantial provisions to introduce new nesting trees in upland reserves to ensure that, over time, adequate nesting trees in the Basin are located with upland foraging habitat. Understandably, the existing nest trees along the Sacramento River are older, mature nest trees. During the 50-year period, the NBHCP seeks to ensure new nest trees are available as these existing relatively “even-aged” trees decline or die.

Additionally, the NBHCP system of reserves is desig ned to achieve maximum integration between upland and wetland areas in order to provide the highest value and most productive habitat for the Covered Species. The upland edges of marsh areas for example, are included as cover and foraging areas for a number of the Covered Species. Specific to the Swainson’s hawk, it is important to note that many of the reserves include upland areas adjacent to water or marshlands. By including upland components of the managed marsh reserve sites, additional foraging area is created, and prey abundance increased. For example, pages V-19 and V-20 of the Draft NBHCP notes that:

In the Central Valley, meadow mice and in sects make up a significant portion of the Swainson’s hawk’s diet. In the management of nearby similarly designed preserves (e.g., Beach Lake Mitigation Bank, Stones Lakes National Wildlife Refuge), the increased availability of water in previously dry grasslands has increased Microtus (meadow mice) abundance (Caltrans, 1991). This would be expected given the biological requirement of Microtus for green food. This species has been found to increase its reproductive rate nearly ten-fold in the presence of persistent green food over dry grasses (Batzli, 1986; Bowen, 1987; Gill, 1976). Those green plant species generally preferred by Microtus (bent grass, chickweed, bedstraw, sorrel, plantain and bromus) are tolerant of limited inundation and will do well in a seasonally wetland environment, as well as those ruderal habitats associated with agricultural and water conveyance systems (Ostfeld and Klosterman, 1986).

TNBC already has acquired several reserves for a total of 1,237 acres within 1 mile of the Swainson’s Hawk Zone
or within the Swainson’s Hawk Zone. These include: Lucich North (Sutter County, 267.9 acres); Lucich South (Sutter County, 351.9 acres); Bennett North (Sutter County, 226.7 acres); Bennet South (Sutter County, 132.5 acres); Souza and Natomas Farms (Sacramento County, 141 contiguous acres); Cummings (Sacramento County, 66.8 acres); and Alleghany (Sacramento County, 50.2 acres). In accordance with our reserve acquisition LETTER G3—CDFG
20 NATOMAS BASIN HCP SAC/161795/031060002(LETTERS.DOC)

FINAL EIR/EIS
policies, these clusters of reserves contribute to the framework for securing future acquisitions that would be consolidated to meet the 400-acre minimum reserve policies.

If the Plan Operator were unable to acquire Swainson’s hawk mitiga tion land beyond 1 mile of the Swainson’s Hawk Zone, then the non-riparian nesting sites essentially could become abandoned. For example, TNBC evaluated a Swainson’s hawk nest site (NB-14 from the 2002 Swainson’s Hawk Monitoring Report), a highly productive Swainson’s hawk nest site of long standing in the Natomas Basin. This nest site ultimately could be isolated if the upland reserves were to be located only within the Swainson’s Hawk Zone or within 1 mile of the Swainson’s Hawk Zone. Similarly, nest sites NB-12 and NB-13 could become isolated with such a reserve acquisition approach. Moreover, CDFG representatives have documented hawk foraging in these areas, which also could be affected.

Under the reserve acquisition approach recommended by CDFG, the Plan Operator would
be unable to expand Swainson’s hawk habitat. The Plan Operator’s current Mitigation Land acquisition strategy is designed to ensure that the above-noted nests are supported by foraging area, and to provide sufficient area for additional foraging and nesting sites. In this regard, TNBC already expended considerable funds acquiring land consistent with this approach, including maintaining and enhancing interior foraging areas (e.g., irrigated pasture, planting ideal Swainson’s hawk foraging ground cover), planting of perching and nesting trees in restoration and enhancement construction projects, and land acquisition.

Response to Comment G3-9
CDFG is concerned that impacts, including temporal impacts, to Mitigation Lands from trade-out or relocation should be fully mitigated. CDFG suggests that the NBHCP include a requirement that: (1) an equal amount of reserve lands be acquired; (2) restoration and maintenance of reserve lands be comparable to the former reserve, including compensation for temporal effects; and (3) the former reserve be maintained until the new reserve is fully established.

In response, the Applicants have amended the NBHCP to include new sections in Chapter IV, Conservation Plan. (See
the attachment to the Final NBHCP for specific text changes.) CDFG suggests that if an existing reserve is relocated as part of the 17,500 acres of Planned Development, then the
habitat mitigation fees should also be paid. It is important to note that Section IV.C.2 (p. IV-11 of the Draft NBHCP) regarding reserve acquisition guidelines limits TNBC’s ability to purchase Mitigation Lands within the Permit Areas comprising 17,500 acres of Planned Development for the express purpose of limiting conflicts between urban uses and habitat uses. Therefore, it is a very remote possibility that TNBC would be purchasing and selling lands within the 17,500-acre area. Compliance with the habitat mitigation requirement is applied to all Land Use Agency permittees within the 17,500-acre area. Therefore, even if a reserve is sold and subsequently developed within the 17,500-acre area, the developer would be required to comply with the habitat mitigation requirements of the NBHCP.

CDFG is concerned that if an existing reserve is sold and developed beyond the authorized
17,500 acres, independent authorization must be granted by CDFG in accordance with CESA. Regarding development beyond the 17,500 acres, Section I.B.2 (pp. I-5 through I-7 of the Draft NBHCP) specifically limits the applicability of the ITP to the specified acreage of /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 /83/85/84/84/69/82/32/67/79/85/78/84/89
/83/65/67/82/65/77/69/78/84/79/32/67/79/85/78/84/89/83/65/67/82/65/77/69/78/84/79/32/67/79/85/78/84/89 /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
/83/85/84/84/69/82/32/67/79/85/78/84/89
/89/79/76/79/32/67/79/85/78/84/89
/89/79/76/79/32/67/79/85/78/84/89
/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
/34/33/57/57
/46/45/44
/56/48
/46
/45/44
/56/48
/46
/45/44
/53
/46
/45/44
/53
/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
/49/57/57/55/32/76/65/78/68/32/85/83/69/32/45/32/69/67/76/65/83/83 /82/69/86/73/83/69/68/32/78/65/84/79/77/65/83/32/66/65/83/73/78/32/72/67/80/48 /49 /77/105/108/101/115 /76/69/71/69/78/68
/65/105/114/112/111/114/116
/65/108/102/97/108/102/97
/67/97/110/97/108/115
/73/100/108/101
/71/114/97/115/115/108/97/110/100
/78/111/110/45/114/105/99/101/32/99/114/111/112/115
/79/97/107/32/103/114/111/118/101/115
/79/114/99/104/97/114/100
/79/116/104/101/114
/80/97/115/116/117/114/101
/80/111/110/100/115/32/97/110/100/32/83/101/97/115/111/110/97/108/108/121 /87/101/116/32/65/114/101/97/115
/82/105/99/101
/82/105/112/97/114/105/97/110
/82/111/97/100/115/32/97/110/100/32/72/105/103/104/119/97/121/115 /82/117/100/101/114/97/108
/82/117/114/97/108/32/114/101/115/105/100/101/110/116/105/97/108 /84/114/101/101/32/103/114/111/118/101/115
/85/114/98/97/110
/83/111/117/114/99/101/58/32/32/67/72/50/77/32/72/73/76/76/44/32/50/48/48/49 /67/111/117/110/116/121/32/66/111/117/110/100/97/114/121 /77/97/106/111/114/32/82/111/97/100/115
/83/97/99/114/97/109/101/110/116/111/32/67/105/116/121
/66/97/115/105/110/32/82/111/97/100/115
/83/97/99/114/97/109/101/110/116/111/32/82/105/118/101/114 /80/114/111/106/101/99/116/32/65/114/101/97
/83/119/97/105/110/115/111/110/39/115/32/72/97/119/107/32/90/111/110/101/45/49/32/77/105/108/101 /65/100/100/105/116/105/111/110/97/108/32/49/45/77/105/108/101/32/66/117/102/102/101/114 /65/105/114/112/111/114/116/32/66/117/102/102/101/114/32/76/97/110/100/115 /73/110/100/117/115/116/114/105/97/108/32/45/32/67/111/109/109/101/114/99/105/97/108/32/82/101/115/101/114/118/101 /83/97/99/114/97/109/101/110/116/111/32/67/105/116/121/32/65/110/110/101/120 /77/101/116/114/111/32/65/105/114/32/80/97/114/107
/72/67/80/32/70/101/101/32/83/116/97/116/117/115/32/45/32/69/120/101/109/112/116/32 /67/111/110/115/101/114/118/97/110/99/121/32/76/97/110/100/115 LETTER G3—CDFG
SAC/161795/031060002(LETTERS.DOC) NATOMAS BASIN HCP 23

FINAL EIR/EIS
covered by the permittees that comprise the 17,500 acres. This is further reinforced in Section 3.1.1 (Limitation on Total Development in Natomas Basin and Individual Permit Areas) of the Implementation Agreement. Further, Section VI.L.3.b (p. V1-41 of the Draft NBHCP) regarding amendments to the NBHCP specifically states that any increase beyond the 17,500 acres constitutes an amendment to the NBHCP and an amendment to the federal Section 10 and state Section 2081 permits. Section VI.L.3.d (p V1-42 of the Draft NBHCP) requires all amendments to the Section 2081 permits to be processed in accordance with CESA regulations. Thus, any development beyond the 17,500 acres or the Permit Areas would constitute an amendment and be subject to additional analysis, appropriate mitigation and would be a separate discretionary decision under the ESA and CESA. The commentor is also referred to Master Response 4 (Cumulative Impacts).

Response to Comment G3-10
CDFG summarizes numerous citations related to the preference of the giant garter snake for managed marsh habitat, and questions why the reserve system is set up for 50 percent rice reserves and only 25 percent managed marsh.

The purpose of the NBHCP is to mitigate the impacts of Planned Development.

Section II.C.2.c (p II-11 of t
he Draft NBHCP) notes that native marsh habitat is nearly non-existent in the Natomas Basin. This is confirmed in the Biological Resources Technical Memo (Table 5-1; Appendix H of the NBHCP) and the EIR/EIS (Table 4-8), which show the changes in potential habitat for giant garter snakes. Based on the GIS mapping system of habitat for giant garter snakes, only 96 acres of wet areas remain in the Basin, of which 21 acres would be affected by Planned Development. To mitigate for this loss of 21 acres, the NBHCP proposes to create 2,187.5 acres of managed marsh, which is a substantial increase in habitat for this species (see Draft NBHCP, pages VII-4 through VII-11).

Similarly, related to impacts, Planned Development
would result in a greater effect on rice
habitat (8,087 acres as shown in Table VII-2 on p. VII-5 of the Draft NBHCP), which is also known to support the giant garter snake. The snake has adapted to, and uses the landscape of rice fields in the Natomas Basin for habitat. Section II.C.2.c (p. II-11 of the Draft NBHCP), for instance, states that:

Giant garter snakes are known to utilize rice fields for some of their habitat needs (Brode a
nd Hansen, 1992), along with associated features of the Natomas Basin rice growing landscape, including the canals, ditches, and drains of the Basin’s water conveyance systems, the higher ground of levees and railroad embankments, and sloughs and marshes. Gravid female garter snakes, for example, have been observed to utilize maturing rice fields and to remain in the rice fields to feed after parturition; neonate garter snakes have also been observed feeding in rice fields (Hansen, 1992). In studies conducted by the USGS. Biological Resources Division (BRD), 50 percent of radio- telemetered giant garter snakes have been observed in rice fields, especially along the edges of the fields, and when the rice plants are high enough to provide sufficient cover (Wylie, 2000).

In reference to the comment that the NBHCP concludes that an all-marsh alternative is not “biologi
cally optimal,” this statement does not conflict with other statements in the NBHCP LETTER G3—CDFG
24 NATOMAS BASIN HCP SAC/161795/031060002(LETTERS.DOC)

FINAL EIR/EIS
regarding the benefits of managed marsh to the giant garter snake. The phrase “biologically optimal” refers to the goals and objectives of the NBHCP. The NBHCP (Section I.C) states that the overall biological goal of implementing the NBHCP is to “establish and manage in perpetuity a biologically sound and interconnected habitat reserve system that mitigates impacts on covered species resulting from Covered Activities and provides for existing, and new viable populations of covered species.” Because the NBHCP has been developed to address the needs of 22 covered species (not only the giant garter snake), that allocation of reserve lands has been designed to effect this comprehensive biological goal. Thus, the NBHCP seeks to preserve portions of the rice landscape that currently support the giant garter snake, and also to make a substantial addition to the amount and quality of managed marsh in the Basin. The NBHCP further includes in the adaptive management practices procedures for assessing whether or not the percentage of managed marsh should be increased to benefit the species.

Response to Comment G3-11
In this comment, the CDFG raises several issues related to connectivity. The responses are organized as follows:
• Comments Regarding Water Agencies’ Role in Connectivity • Conservation Easements Related to Canal Connectivity
• Conservation Easements Related to Conservation Strategy Comments Regarding Water Agencies’ Role in Connectivity The commentor notes concern over the participation of the Water Agencies in the NBHCP, and questions the ability to maintain connectivity if the Water Agencies do not participate in the NBHCP. The Lead Agencies and the Applicants do not agree that the there is conflicting information about the Water Agencies’ past and future participation in the NBHCP. The Water Agencies have decided not to file an application for an ITP relevant to their proposed Covered Activities (as presented in the NBHCP and analyzed in the EIR/EIS). As discussed in Section 1.2.1 of the EIR/EIS, the Water Agencies removed themselves from the NBHCP planning process in March 2002 based on the fact that coverage for pesticides would not be granted by the USFWS.

It is important to note that the NBHCP does not cover canal closures or any other form of alteration to ex
isting ditches or canals in the Water Agencies’ Covered Activities. If the Water Agencies choose at some future date to seek coverage for their activities under the NBHCP, the Water Agencies still could choose to seek separate take authorizations for canal closures or other ditch and canal modifications. While the Draft NBHCP provides guidelines for Water Agencies’ canal maintenance, implementation of the canal maintenance guidelines is not required to ensure the success of the NBHCP Operating Conservation Program. Section V.C of the NBHCP identifies the measures the Water Agencies would implement to avoid, minimize, and mitigate take of Covered Species. Pursuant to this section, the Water Agencies are limited to major ditch maintenance, including excavation, desilting, and/or re-sloping of channels, to not more than 10 percent per year of the total ditches under each Water Agency’s jurisdiction. This limitation is consistent with historic practices of the Water Agencies and does not represent a substantial change in channel management practices.

LETTER G3—CDFG
SAC/161795/031060002(LETTERS.DOC) NATOMAS BASIN HCP 25

FINAL EIR/EIS
As discussed in Appendix H of the NBHCP (pages 5-10 to 5-11), the Water Agencies have identified those key drainage canals that are most likely to be retained regardless of urban development. As shown on Figure 17 of the NBHCP, various types of drainage and irrigation channels exist within the Natomas Basin. Channels designated as “most likely to remain during permit term” are major flood control channels that will be required regardless of the extent and location of development. Channels designated as “water delivery system” and “water drainage system” will be required to serve either the existing agricultural uses or potential future urban uses. As such, implementation of the NBHCP is not anticipated to substantially affect the operation of these major drainage channels.

In determining the scope of analysis to be conducted within t he EIR/EIS, consideration was
given to the likelihood of a canal closing. Closing of minor irrigation and drainage canals within the Permit Areas of the City and Sutter County would be likely to accommodate planned development because the canals are in the way of development. The system of canals and ditches located outside the City and Sutter County Permit Areas, however, are most critical to reserve connectivity because the Mitigation Land reserves are located almost exclusively outside the City and Sutter County Permit Areas. Closing of the canals that are located outside the City and Sutter County Permit Areas and that are most critical in maintaining connectivity among Mitigation Lands is not anticipated to occur because these channels will be required for drainage and irrigation purposes and because there is no identified benefit that would promote the closure of such canals. There is no known benefit to planned development, agricultural interests, private property owners, or the Water Agencies from closure of canals outside the Permit Areas. Further, there is no indication at this time that the Water Agencies intend to close these canals located outside of the Permit Areas. Nonetheless, the NBHCP contemplates changes in water delivery as “changed circumstances” (see NBHCP, pages VI-35 to VI-36).

Finally, as noted above, the NBHCP would not authorize the Water Agencies to dew ater
and/or close ditches and channels should the Water Agencies choose to participate in the NBHCP. Regardless of the Water Agencies’ participation within the NBHCP, the Water Agencies would likely be required to address the impacts of canal closure under a CEQA and/or NEPA analysis, and would likely be required to secure permits from the USFWS (under the ESA) and the USACE for features determined to be subject to Clean Water Act jurisdiction. Moreover, to the extent any alterations are proposed to the bed, bank, or channel of any stream or take of state-listed species would occur, the Water Agencies also would be required to comply with CESA and the Fish and Game Code provisions regarding streambed alterations. Any canal closure impacts to either species in general or on the viability of the Mitigation Lands would be analyzed and mitigated through the environmental review process and consultations as CDFG acknowledges in its comment letter.

In consideration of the fact that: (1) under the NBHCP, t he Water Agencies would not
considerably alter their channel management practices; (2) the identification by the Water Agencies of the canals most likely to remain; and (3) the lack of any indication that the Water Agencies intend to close the canals located outside of the Permit Areas, canals and ditches would remain in areas continuing to be in agricultural production. Because snakes readily and routinely use canals and ditches in the Natomas Basin (Wylie and Cassaza, 2000), the canal and drainage systems would provide for movement of snakes among the LETTER G3—CDFG
26 NATOMAS BASIN HCP SAC/161795/031060002(LETTERS.DOC)

FINAL EIR/EIS
Mitigation Lands, thereby minimizing the potential occurrence of adverse effects resulting from small and isolated populations.

Conservation Easements Related to Canal Connectivity
CDFG has requested that the NBHCP consider four mitigation measures to ensure canal connectivity. CDFG states that it is likely that compliance with two of the four recommended measures will be required as part of any Section 2081 permit issued under CESA that relies on the NBHCP. The following response addresses each specific recommendation proposed by CDFG, as related to the provision of canal connectivity.

CDFG requests that it be designated as third-party beneficiary on all conservation easeme
nts held by the plan operator for reserve lands to maintain canal connectivity.

Designating CDFG as a third-party beneficiary on a TNBC conservation easement would not be effective in ensuring canal connectivity because TNBC would not be the holder of any conservation easements over canals owned by RD 1000 or Natomas Mutual in easement or fee title. In many instances, a private property owner owns fees title to the property underlying the canal and RD 1000, or Natomas Mutual own easements over the canal. In other instances, RD 1000 or Natomas Mutual owns the canal in fee title. Moreover, neither RD 1000 or Natomas Mutual has agreed to convey the canals or easements over the canals to TNBC, whether or not such canals or ditches are located on the Mitigation Lands. Even if the CDFG were designated as a third-party beneficiary of an easement over the Mitigation Lands (see discussion below), unless these canals are located on the Mitigation Lands, CDFG may have limited enforcement rights to preclude the Water Agencies from removing the canals if the canals themselves are not subject to the easement. While the holder of a conservation easement may seek injunctive relief or be entitled to monetary damages in the event of an actual or threatened injury to or impairment of a conservation easement, an easement holder (or third-party beneficiary) would not have the right to enforce the easement against another property owner or easement holder not subject to the same easement (Cal. Civ. Code § 815.7). Thus, it is unclear how CDFG’s designation as a third-party beneficiary would ensure canal connectivity. The easement holder, however, potentially could have a right to enforce the continued delivery of water as a landowner/shareholder in the water district, and thus ensure that Natomas Mutual or RD 1000, as may be appropriate, would continue to deliver the entitled water supply.

CDFG also requests that it be granted a conservation easement on all Mitigation Lands held by the Plan Operator in fee
title to guarantee canal connectivity. For the reasons explained above, we also do not believe it is necessary for CDFG to be the easement holder of conservation easements on TNBC reserve sites for purposes of maintaining canal connectivity. Where TNBC owns the Mitigation Lands in fee title and canals are present on the reserve, TNBC may retain certain rights as the property owner related to its real property interest in the land underlying the canals. As such, TNBC may be able to prevent RD 1000 or Natomas Mutual, as may be appropriate, from removing or otherwise obstructing any canals located on the Mitigation Lands. This right (if any), however, would not necessarily extend to canals or ditches located off of the reserves. (Notwithstanding this uncertainty, TNBC may be able to enforce its rights to water as a landowner.) For the reasons described above, designating CDFG as the easement holder would not be effective in ensuring canal connectivity.

LETTER G3—CDFG
SAC/161795/031060002(LETTERS.DOC) NATOMAS BASIN HCP 27

FINAL EIR/EIS
CDFG requests that the NBHCP acknowledge that: (1) any discretionary canal modification by the Water Agencies, including dewatering, will result in significant impacts subject to CEQA; and (2) canal modification and dewatering of canals that provide biological connectivity to habitat reserves will require compliance with CEQA and other pertinent provisions of the Fish and Game Code. Items 3 and 4 in CDFG’s comment letter have been incorporated into the fourth and fifth paragraphs of Section IV.C.1.d of the NBHCP. See the attachment to the Final NBHCP for specific text changes.

Conservation Easements Related to Conservation Strategy CDFG has suggested that the Applicants also consider the recommended mitigation measures addressed above as they may relate to the overall NBHCP conservation strategy.

As CDFG is aware, the NBHCP is intended to provide flexibility for TNBC to acquire replacement reserve sites if, after it has acquired a reserve site (i.e., trade-out), either: (1) the reserve fails to function in accordance with the NBHCP requirements; (2) development occurs adjacent to the reserve and compromises the success of the reserve; (3) another public agency (other than the Land Use Agency permittees) acquires the reserve for a different purpose; or (4) acquisition of a replacement reserve would enable TNBC to acquire more Mitigation Lands with less of an expenditure of resources. The NBHCP intends to limit the trade-out provisions so that Mitigation Lands acquired and contemplated for sale or trade for the purpose of improving biological value of the habitat would not be the target of restoration and enhancement spending. These prospective trade-out lands would remain in the 50 percent allocation for rice fields or a portion of the 25 percent portion in upland reserves. Moreover, this process would be subject to Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) and/or CDFG and USFWS approval.

To address the concern that TNBC may trade out reserve sites as Mitigation Lands, CDFG requests that it be designated
as third-party beneficiary on all conservation easements held by the Plan Operator. We understand that CDFG is particularly concerned with the NBHCP’s provisions enabling TNBC to trade out acquired reserve sites for new reserve sites. CDFG has suggested that the trade out provisions may be inconsistent with the perpetual nature of conservation easements. While a conservation easement is perpetual in nature, neither the Civil Code provisions governing conservation easements nor case law indicate that an easement holder is precluded from quitclaiming its interests in the conservation easement. Furthermore, as a matter of real property law, other real property interests that are perpetual can be terminated by mutual agreement of the parties. Since a conservation easement is a real property interest, as a matter of real property law, it is possible to terminate a conservation easement by mutual agreement of the grantor and easement holder. We also believe that providing TNBC with flexibility to acquire replacement reserves to improve habitat quality within the Basin is consistent with the NBHCP biological goals and objectives, and is in the best interest of all of the NBHCP participants.

Pursuant to California Civil Code Section 815.3.
a, TNBC, the Plan Operator, would serve as
the holder of the conservation easement if it chooses not to acquire fee title to a reserve site.

In accordance with the NBHCP, the Implementation Agreement, and ITPs, TNBC would be required to implement any and all of its obligations related management of the Mitigation Lands, whether or not it chooses to acquire the reserve in fee or easement. If TNBC fails to abide by the terms of the NBHCP, the Implementation Agreement, and the ITPs, the LETTER G3—CDFG
28 NATOMAS BASIN HCP SAC/161795/031060002(LETTERS.DOC)

FINAL EIR/EIS
Wildlife Agencies have the authority to suspend or revoke the permits. Specifically, CDFG retains the right to suspend or revoke the Section 2081 permit (IA, § 7.62).

As further explained in the Response to Comment G3-7, above, the NBHCP and accompanying Implement
ation Agreement plainly state that if the Wildlife Agencies determine TNBC has violated the terms of the NBHCP, the ITPs, or the Implementation Agreement, the violation is considered a failure by the City and Sutter County to implement their respective obligations of the Operating Conservation Program (IA, §§ 3.1.11, 6.6). If such a violation were to occur and the City and/or Sutter County were to remedy the violation (e.g., by replacing the Plan Operator, rectifying the violation, itself, etc.), the Section 2081 and/or Section 10(a)(1)(B) permits may not be revoked or suspended, unless USFWS or CDFG determines that continuation of the permits would appreciably reduce the likelihood of the survival and recovery of a covered species in the wild (IA, § 7.6.5). Thus, the NBHCP, the Implementation Agreement, and ITPs provide CDFG with authority to enforce the terms of the NBHCP with respect to all of the permittees where an issue arises regarding TNBC’s management of the Mitigation Lands.

The permittees have added text to Section IV.C.2.c of the NBHCP clarifying that where the Plan Operator acq
uires conservation easements on Mitigation Lands, CDFG and/or USFWS shall be designated as a third-party beneficiary of the easement.

CDFG also requests that it be granted a conservation easement on all Mitigation Lands held by the Plan Operator in fee
title. Where TNBC acquires fee title in a reserve, TNBC also does not hold a conservation easement. That is, TNBC performs its obligations under the NBHCP, notwithstanding the nature of its interest (either easement or fee title) in the reserve. Moreover, TNBC is required to comply with the terms of the Section 2081 permit, whether the Mitigation Lands are owned by TNBC in fee or easement. Consequently, we do not believe it is necessary that CDFG hold title to the conservation easement in such instances because it retains the right to enforce TNBC’s obligations under the NBHCP, Implementation Agreement, and Section 2081 permit related to the management of the Mitigation Lands.

Moreover, designating CDFG as a conservation eas
ement holder or third-party beneficiary
of land already subject to TNBC management is considered infeasible in the near-term because TNBC requires certain flexibility in the acquisition of the Mitigation Lands to maximize the amount of land that may be purchased with the available land acquisition funds. As land prices increase, TNBC continues to look for ways to keep its acquisition costs down to minimize the need for frequent adjustments in the mitigation fee. One mechanism TNBC may rely on to achieve this goal is the trade-out provision. Thus, if TNBC is unable to trade a poorly functioning reserve site for a higher-quality reserve site, TNBC may need to seek an increase in the mitigation fee to fund the cost of acquiring a more expensive reserve to supplement the poorly functioning reserve site. This approach likely would not effectively achieve the NBHCP’s biological goals and objectives. Also, efforts have been made to encourage TNBC to consolidate the reserves, and this consolidation will be difficult to achieve if the Plan Operator is unable to freely trade land. If a conservation easement also were required on lands under TNBC ownership, the additional limitations imposed by the easement would delay acquisition and create extra approval layers which could discourage property owners from conveying their land to TNBC, and impact TNBC’s ability to meet its acquisition timeframes.

LETTER G3—CDFG
SAC/161795/031060002(LETTERS.DOC) NATOMAS BASIN HCP 29

FINAL EIR/EIS
Nonetheless, the Applicants and Wildlife Agencies concur that ensuring management of Mitigation Lands in perpetuity is an important aspect of the NBHCP conservation strategy.

Consequently, text is added to Section IV.C.2.c of the NBHCP clarifying that conservation easements will be secured on all Mitigation Lands acquired in fee title by the Plan Operator after the Plan Operator has confirmed: (1) the final location of each of the reserves; and (2) management and/or restoration and enhancement measures are being implemented on the final reserve site (see the Final NBHCP). Notwithstanding the foregoing, all such conservation easements on the Mitigation Lands shall be secured prior to expiration of the NBHCP and the permits.

As stated above, the text of the NBHCP has been revised to acknowledge that: (1) any discretionary canal modification by the Water Agencies, including dewatering, will result in significant impacts subject to CEQA; and (2) ca
nal modification and dewatering of canals
that provide biological connectivity to habitat reserves will require compliance with CEQA and other pertinent provisions of the Fish and Game Code.

Response to Comment G3-12
CDFG states that reducing habitat fragmentation through compact development is a key conservation goal of the NBHCP. As a point of clarification, this is not a stated goal of the NBHCP, insofar as the NBHCP is not a land use document. Compact development, however, is a goal of the Land Use Agencies in preparation of the general plans and community plans previously adopted for the Natomas Basin. These planning documents relevant to the Planned Development are discussed in Section 4.1.3 of the EIR/EIS relevant to the disclosure of the previously evaluated effects of the Planned Development (see Appendix C of the EIR/EIS).

The NBHCP does, however, promote compact and consolidated development by virtue of the limited Permit Areas within w
hich Planned Development may occur. As noted by the
commentor, the Sutter County Permit Area contains approximately 1,100 acres more in land than may be developed under the NBHCP. Similarly, the City of Sacramento has limited development to 8,050 contiguous acres pursuant to the adopted North Natomas Community Plan. The North Natomas Community Plan contains substantial policies regarding compact development (see Response to Comment G2-2 regarding compact development and smart growth). These policies are further reflected in the City’s zoning and development policies applicable to the North and South Natomas Community Plan areas.

Although no specific policy in either the Sutter County General Plan or the South Sutter County Specific Plan req
uires compact and contiguous growth, the natural progression of development relies upon extending existing infrastructure. Future development within the Sutter County Industrial/Commercial Reserve will be authorized through Specific Plans that will build upon the approved South Sutter Specific Plan. Infrastructure will be extended in a compact and consolidated manner both for purposes of orderly land planning and for the financial benefits of minimizing infrastructure costs.

Planning efforts to designate future phases of d evelopment in the Industrial/Commercial Reserve will be subject to review under CEQA, and CDFG would be afforded the opportunity to comment on whether development is planned in a compact form. Finally, the LETTER G3—CDFG
30 NATOMAS BASIN HCP SAC/161795/031060002(LETTERS.DOC)

FINAL EIR/EIS
Sutter County Mid-Point Review allows the opportunity to determine whether compact and consolidated development is occurring, and provides an opportunity to require measures to consolidate development if required.

Following adoption of the NBHCP and issuance of ITPs, Sutter County also has committed in the NBHCP and IA to initiating a general plan amendment to remove the land within the Swainson’s Hawk Zone (1,015 acres) from the Industrial/Commercial Reserve and designate such land for agricultural uses.

Response to Comment G3-13
Section IV.C.1.e of the NBHCP authorizes TNBC, with the approval of the NBHCP TAC, to acquire Mitigation Lands that are less than 400 acres. This flexibility is included to allow TNBC to preserve smaller areas of special biological significance. Unique habitat areas, possibly supporting active Swainson’s hawk nest trees or dense populations of giant garter snake, may become available to TNBC. Acquisition of such sites represent unique opportunities that TNBC may pursue if the Wildlife Agencies determine that such an acquisition is appropriate based on the biological value of the acquisition under consideration. In addition to acquisition of unique Swainson’s hawk or giant garter snake sites, TNBC may also propose to acquire sites less than 400 acres to protect habitat for other covered species, including plant and invertebrate species, or to maintain or restore key canals or waterways that provide connectivity between Mitigation Lands.

The final portion of the comment states that reserves smaller than 400 acres should not serve as habitat
for Swainson’s hawk and giant garter snake. However, this is not consistent with the NBHCP Operating Conservation Program in that such small reserves would also serve as Swainson’s hawk and/or giant garter snake habitat.

In response to the commentor’s concern over minimum reserve size, the NBHCP ha s been revised to clearly specify that permanent reserves smaller than 400 acres may only be approved subject to Wildlife Agency approval (see Section IV.C.1.e of the NBHCP).

Response to Comment G3-14
Section IV.C.1.e of the NBHCP establishes the requirement to meet minimum habitat reserve sizes. TNBC will monitor progress in meeting these requirements through the annual reporting process. Sections VI.I and VI.J of the NBHCP specify the requirements for both an Overall Mid-Point Program Review and Independent Mid-Point Reviews for both of the Land Use Agency permittees. The NBHCP Review Board, a group comprising the affected permittees, TNBC, CDFG, and USFWS representatives, will conduct the Mid-Point Reviews. CDFG and USFWS will make the findings as to whether the NBHCP is functioning properly or whether corrective measures to the NBHCP are required. Each of these three Mid-Point Reviews provides the Wildlife Agencies the opportunity to apply corrective measures if they determine that adequate progress has not been made toward meeting the 400-acre and the 2,500-acre reserve size obligations.

Response to Comment G3-15
In accordance with CDFG’s request, a matrix of the NBHCP mitigation measures will be included in the application for the Section 2081 permits.

LETTER G3—CDFG
SAC/161795/031060002(LETTERS.DOC) NATOMAS BASIN HCP 31

FINAL EIR/EIS
Response to Comment G3-16
CDFG suggests that elements of information regarding the Swainson’s hawk mitigation program included in the City’s November 20, 2002 letter to CDFG also be included in the NBHCP. CDFG further requests information regarding the estimated 1,500 acres of upland edges to managed marshlands. CDFG further requests further information as to why mitigation similar to MAP HCP is not included for the Swainson’s hawk.

The November 20, 2002 letter from the City to CDFG is attached as Appendix J of the Final EIR/EIS. In addition, the table of mitigation acreage included in the letter will be added to Chapter VII of th
e NBHCP. See the attachment to the Final NBHCP for specific text changes.

Regarding detailed management practices for rice fields and the upland edges of managed marsh fields, Section V.B.4.b of t
he NBHCP (pp. V-18 through V-22 of the Draft NBHCP)
includes a comprehensive list of measures to be employed by TNBC to support the Swainson’s hawk. Specific to management of upland portions of managed marsh reserves and rice fields, Section V.B.4.b provides specific guidance for management of these areas to benefit the hawk. Section V.B.4.b of the NBHCP, specifically Sections 3 and 4, state:
(3) For rice fields operated by TNB C, best manag
ement practices to increase
habitat for Swainson’s hawk shall be incorporated. This includes allowing at least 10 percent of rice fields to fallow each year as well as allowing foraging before and after rice flooding. It is estimated that during the time hawks are present in the Basin, drained or flooded rice fields provide foraging habitat for an average of 2 months every year. Additionally, it is expected, that wildlife friendly agricultural practices (organic farming, providing crop residual for rodent production, similar to those used at the nearby Cosumnes River Preserve), will greatly increase the habitat value of ricelands to the hawk and other covered species.
(4) Where possible develop or restore up land components of wetland re serves
such that upland covered species, including the Swainson’s hawk also benefit from the habitat. Thus, wetland reserves, along with the upland reserves described above, will help offset habitat losses affecting the Swainson’s hawk within the NBHCP Plan Area. Also, the upland component of wetland reserves will benefit some of the upland covered species, especially those that also have wetland habitat needs (e.g., the tricolored blackbird).

Regarding the Metro Air Park’s HCP mitigation for a single nes t tree, it is important to note
that the NBHCP emphasizes avoidance of nest tree sites, and includes a substantial amount of additional mitigation for both nesting and foraging areas, including the Swainson’s Hawk Zone. The primary nesting in trees is in the Swainson’s Hawk Zone. In addition, refer to specific avoidance measures for nest trees in Sections V.A.5.b and V.B.4.b of the NBHCP above and beyond those measures included in the MAP HCP.

Response to Comment G3-17
CDFG requests that the NBHCP and related documents be revised to clarify that take authorization for Covered Species that are unlisted is not automatic when listing of the LETTER G3—CDFG
32 NATOMAS BASIN HCP SAC/161795/031060002(LETTERS.DOC)

FINAL EIR/EIS
species. CDFG requests that it be provided an opportunity to review a report demonstrating that there are no changed biological conditions with respect to the species being listed.

We appreciate CDFG’s efforts to work with the Applicant to provide a process for issuing incidental take authorization for currently unlisted species that may be listed in the future.

As CDFG is aware,
the NBHCP and associated technical analyses evaluate the effects of the proposed Covered Activities on all covered species to support CDFG’s initial findings regarding the issuance of incidental take coverage. Existing law and the NBHCP and Implementation Agreement also provide mechanisms for addressing concerns that may arise if such species are listed in the future, and CDFG retains sufficient regulatory authority to seek permit amendments.

The NBHCP, EIR/EIS, and supporting biological analyses h ave evaluated the effects of the
proposed Covered Activities on listed and non-listed covered species. These analyses will assist CDFG in its initial decisions regarding issuance of the Section 2081 permit or modifications to existing permits. Moreover, the NBHCP’s adaptive management provisions provide for ongoing monitoring of the effectiveness of the NBHCP’s Operating Conversation Program (see Section VI.F of the NBHCP). Specifically, the adaptive management process established by the NBHCP allows the Operating Conservation Program to be adjusted during the life of the permits to ensure that the most up-to-date information is being used, and that the plan’s biological goals and objectives are being achieved for all Covered Species (page VI-22 of the Draft NBHCP). As such, the Applicants believe CDFG will be provided with the necessary data to support its Section 2081 permit findings and issuance criteria, including the necessary data to support the automatic coverage of non-listed covered species when it is listed.

The Implementation Agreement currently provides CDFG with two mechanisms for addressing poten
tial changes associated with the provision of incidental take authorization for non-listed Covered Species. First, Section 6.2.4 of the Implementation Agreement provides, consistent with the Section 10.a permit that the Section 2081 permit shall become effective when a non-listed Covered Species is listed, except as provided by the Agreement or controlling law. If the Section 2081 permit does not become effective, then CDFG is required to process a permit amendment or issue a new permit in accordance with its provisions pursuant to Section 783 of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations. Under Section 783.c.(2), CDFG may amend a Section 2081 permit to conform to the requirements of CESA, without the concurrence of the permittee. Through this process, CDFG is required to approve any amendments if the amended permit would continue to meet the Section 2081 Permit review standards. Thus, both under CDFG’s regulations and the Implementation Agreement, CDFG would have an opportunity to amend the permit if the future listing of a non-listed covered species triggered further CDFG review of the Section 2081 permit under CESA. One reason the Section 2081 permit may not become effective on listing would be, for example, if CDFG were to find that coverage for a non-listed species on listing constituted a “changed condition” necessitating a permit amendment. In this regard, Section 6.2.5 of the Implementation Agreement provides a second mechanism for addressing conditions related to incidental take coverage for non-listed Covered Species in that it establishes the applicable procedures CDFG must follow in the event of a “changed condition.” We note that CDFG’s comment acknowledges that it did not impose these additional requirements on the
Metro Air Park Property Owners Association when it approved the LETTER G3—CDFG
SAC/161795/031060002(LETTERS.DOC) NATOMAS BASIN HCP 33

FINAL EIR/EIS
MAP HCP for property located entirely within the Natomas Basin. As CDFG is aware, the NBHCP Implementation Agreement provisions regarding coverage for non-listed Covered Species is modeled after the MAP Implementation Agreement provisions. We also believe CDFG is aware that MAP will become subject to the terms of the NBHCP if the NBHCP is adopted. We are concerned that if the NBHCP is adopted and MAP is required to implement the NBHCP, potential inconsistencies may arise if the MAP Section 2081 Permit provides for automatic coverage of non-listed Covered Species upon listing and the NBHCP related Section 2081 Permits do not. Consequently, we hope to continue to work with CDFG to avoid future confusion by adopting a consistent approach with respect to the coverage of non-listed Covered Species.

For the above-mentioned reasons, the NBHCP and
Implementation Agreement provide
opportunities for CDFG to address the listing of non-listed covered species in accordance with CESA. Nonetheless, revisions have been made to Section 6.2.4 of the IA, and clarifying text has been added to Section VI.L.4.b of the NBHCP. See the attachment to the Final NBHCP for specific text changes.

Response to Comment G3-18
The general strategies for protection of vernal pool associated species are contained in Section V.A.4 of the NBHCP. This section applies to all vernal pool associated species, including plant species such as legenere, Sacramento Orcutt grass, and other vernal pool associated covered plants. Section V.A.4.a of the NBHCP requires a species survey. The NBHCP text regarding species surveys has been revised to clarify this assumption. This will allow identification of species within vernal pool complexes and within the adjacent area, and it will identify potential indirect effects of the development. See the attachment to the Final NBHCP for specific text changes.

Regarding specific mitigation measures, Sections V.A.4.a.2 a nd V.A.4.a.3 identify the process for determination in consultation with USFWS and CDFG (regarding plant species) of appropriate mitigation measures, including buffer areas. Specifically, these sections currently state, among other requirements:

If vernal pool species are found within proposed project areas, the project proponent shall coordinate with th
e USFWS and CDFG to ensure
conservation measures are incorporated to avoid and protect the sensitive plant species. In some cases, USFWS and CDFG may require complete avoidance of vernal pool species, such as where covered species such as slender orcutt grass, Sacramento orcutt grass, Colusa grass and/or vernal pool tadpole shrimp are found to be present. Such measures shall be identified by USFWS and CDFG within 30 days or as soon as possible thereafter of notification and submittal of biological data to the agencies by the Land Use Agency.

Further, Sections V.A.4.a and V.A.4.b do allow onsite preservation as part of dedication of land, including a buffer area to the Mitigation Lands
. Section V.A.4.b further states:

TNBC Board and the TAC shall consider the location, connections, species present, condition of the proposed site to be dedicated, and may decide to
accept the dedication in lieu of payment of the land acquisition fee portion of LETTER G3—CDFG
34 NATOMAS BASIN HCP SAC/161795/031060002(LETTERS.DOC)

FINAL EIR/EIS
the NBHCP mitigation fee for the affected acreage. TNBC Board may accept or decline the offer based on the balance of habitat needs and the biological goals of the HCP.

This section is intended to allow the Board and TAC (CDFG and USFWS) representatives to consider habitat fragment
ation, types of enhancement, and other issues related to the biological feasibility of onsite preservation.

Recognizing that vernal pool habitat is limited in the Natomas Basin, the preservation option (preservation in conjunction with acquisition, enhancement, and management by TNBC) is only one method of mitigation that may not be appropriate in all cases. Creation on Mitigation Lands is also a limited option in so far as substantial portions of the Natomas Basin do not have the soils and conditions for successful vernal pool creation. As such, Section V.A.4.b.3 sets forth the circumstances under which a developer would mitigate through payment of additional mitigation to a USFWS-approved mitigation bank.

Response to Comment G3-19
Page VI-14 of the Draft NBHCP has been revised to specify the requirement for peer and public review prior to approval of the NBHCP Biological Monitoring Program.

Additionally, the term Basin-wide has been replaced with the term NBHCP in recognition that while monitoring will occur throughout the Basin to provide supplemental information on species occurrences, the primary emphasis of this program will be to monitor the biological effectiveness of the NBHCP. See the attachment to the Final NBHCP for specific text changes.

Response to Comment G3-20
Section VI.E.2 of the NBHCP addresses the requirements for monitoring the Biological Effectiveness of the NBHCP. Section VI.E.3 provides detailed parameters for a Biological Effectiveness Monitoring Program to be prepared following issuance of ITPs under the NBHCP. Additionally, a description of TNBC’s monitoring database has been added following the second paragraph of Section VI.F of the NBHCP. See the Final NBHCP for specific text changes.

Response to Comment G3-21
The commentor notes the need to maintain some portion of the monitoring data collected through the NBHCP in a spatial database format. Section VI.F.3 of the NBHCP has been revised to clarify the Plan Operator’s obligations for database management under the NBHCP. See the attachment to the Final NBHCP for specific text changes.

Response to Comment G3-22
Appendix B, CDFG Staff Report regarding the Swainson’s hawk, was included in the Draft NBHCP the request of the CDFG. On the basis of this most recent request, the report has been removed.

LETTER G3—CDFG
SAC/161795/031060002(LETTERS.DOC) NATOMAS BASIN HCP 35

FINAL EIR/EIS
Response to Comment G3-23
TNBC uses a variety of best management practices that are updated as new information and practices become available. The NBHCP includes those practices that have been proven to be effective as mitigation measures to benefit the Covered Species. These are included on Pages IV-21 and IV-22 of the Draft NBHCP. Note that best management practices specific to each rice reserve are to be included in the Site Specific Reserve Management Plans and include consultation with the NBHCP TAC. Additional best management practices that serve as mitigation measures are also outlined in Chapter V of the NBHCP. For example, the requirement to fallow at least 10 percent of rice reserves to provide foraging habitat is included in page V-19 of the Draft NBHCP. For additional information on best management practices for rice reserves, please also see Response to Comment O1-24f.

Response to Comment G3-24
The commentor correctly notes that the NBHCP will not create a self-sustaining natural community. Such a goal is not feasible given the substantial land modifications that have occurred within the Natomas Basin. Additionally, the existing giant garter snake population within the Basin clearly utilizes rice as a form of habitat, supporting the inclusion of rice within the Mitigation Lands. The first paragraph of Section IV.D.3 of the NBHCP has been modified. See the attachment to the Final NBHCP for specific text changes.

Response to Comment G3-25
Page VI-2 of the NBHCP details the options available to developers to pay the required Mitigation Fee. A developer may complete the payment of the Mitigation Fee requirement in two ways: (1) pay the full Mitigation Fee, including the Land Acquisition component, or (2) transfer land to TNBC in lieu of all or a part of the Land Acquisition component of the fee and pay the non-land acquisition components of the Mitigation Fee. The transfer of land option is subject to all acquisition criteria and other requirements of the NBHCP, as well as concurrence by the Wildlife Agencies and TNBC.

If the amount of land transferred to TNBC is insufficient to meet in full the Mitigation Land requirement for the development, the developer must pay the required balance of the Land Acq
uisition component, as well as the non-land acquisition components of the fee to meet in full the obligation.

If the amount of land transferred to TNBC is in excess of the developer’s Mitigation Land requirement, the developer may choose to
: (1) credit herself or himself for Mitigation Land
to meet the obligations of a future development, if applicable; and/or (2) at the time of transfer of land to TNBC, transfer the credit to a specific developer. Written notice of such a transfer of credits must be submitted to the applicable Land Use Agency and TNBC. Any payment associated with the credit transfer is between the private parties and land is credited as acres of Mitigation Land--not cost per acre. Neither developer is mitigation banking because the land is transferred to and owned by TNBC. The fee credits are similar to transportation impact fee or park fee credits.

Because land is not generally available in an amount necessary for a developer to meet the exact Mitigation Land obligation, it is appropriate for the NBHCP to anticipate the two LETTER G3—CDFG
36 NATOMAS BASIN HCP SAC/161795/031060002(LETTERS.DOC)

FINAL EIR/EIS
events: (1) too little land to fully meet the requirement; and (2) too much land (in excess of the requirement).

The Applicants encourage developers to buy Mitigation Land, in coordination with TNBC, that m
eets all acquisition and other criteria and transfer it to TNBC; land that is acquired by a developer and transferred to TNBC does not cost TNBC time and money to find willing sellers. Also, the Applicants desire to encourage developers to buy large tracts of land, even too large for their own needs, because: (1) it is beneficial for TNBC to remain ahead of its Mitigation Land requirement; and (2) larger tracts of land owned by TNBC help meet the minimum block sizes of 400 and 2,500 acres required by the NBHCP. Although the option of a developer transferring land to TNBC was allowed in the 1997 NBHCP, the details of handling a transfer too large for a developer’s needs was not defined. The revised NBHCP defines how such a transfer would occur.

In sum, no developer is a mitigation bank or participating in a mitigation bank under the NBHCP because the land is tran
sferred to TNBC, and the credits to another developer are tracked by TNBC and the Land Use Agency permittee.

Response to Comment G3-26
Significant land use changes, as noted on page VI.22 of the Draft NBHCP, are further defined through the revision of Section VI.F.1(5). See the attachment to the Final NBHCP for specific text changes.

Response to Comment G3-27
Page VI-22 of the Draft NBHCP provides that future NBHCP modifications, through the adaptive management process, may be needed as a result of significant uncertainties associated with the plan implementation. Consistent with the USFWS Five-Point Policy, the adaptive management program is designed to address uncertainties associated with plan implementation that could arise as a result of the discovery of specific information about the ecology of the species or its habitat (e.g., food preferences, relative importance of predators, territory size), changes in habitat or species management techniques, or the degree of potential effects of the activity on the covered species. The NBHCP responds to this in Sections VI.F.2 and VI.F.3, and in Section VI.F.8, and the changed circumstances provisions outlined in Section VI.K.2.

Response to Comment G3-28
The commentor asks for clarification as to what research needs are contemplated by the adaptive management provisions described on page VI-23 of the NBHCP.

Page VI-23 of the NBHCP states that the process by which adaptive management changes to the NBHCP man
agement actions, monitoring, and research needs may be implemented in numerous ways. The NBHCP describes three approaches used as part of this effort.

Consistent with the HCP Handbook guidance, the NBHCP refers to “research needs” to provide opportunities for the collection of data and peer-reviewed scientific information.

Research opportunities are considered useful in filling data gaps and/or testing the effectiveness of management and mitigation strategies, which can then be modified as new information is obtained (HCP Handbook, page 3-25). In this regard, the monitoring program LETTER G3—CDFG
SAC/161795/031060002(LETTERS.DOC) NATOMAS BASIN HCP 37

FINAL EIR/EIS
outlined in the NBHCP will be an important component in ensuring data will be properly collected, analyzed, and used to adjust mitigation, if necessary.

The October 2002 updated cash flow model used to estimate the NBHCP mitigation fees included within the Operations & Maintenance
assumes a total cost of $210,540 per year for
ongoing mitigation monitoring and adaptive management. These costs also cover research and data collection needs anticipated under the Adaptive Management Program. Of the $210,540 in total costs, $7,500 is an annual fixed amount to cover the costs of the Mid-Point Program review. The remainder of the costs, $203,040, is escalated annually by 3 percent to cover the additional costs of monitoring and adaptive management as additional Mitigation Lands are acquired. Once all Mitigation Lands have been acquired, the cost is assumed to be fixed.

Response to Comment G3-29
The commentor notes that management thresholds are discussed within the Draft NBHCP, but that no specific details related to the guidelines are provided. The Draft NBHCP has been revised to provide interim management thresholds. The revision also requires that detailed management thresholds included within the detailed and refined NBHCP Monitoring Program must be completed within two years of issuance of permits under the NBHCP. Specific changes to the Section VI.F.1 of the NBHCP are provided in the attachment to the Final NBHCP.

Response to Comment G3-30
The Applicants and Lead Agencies appreciate CDFG’s interest in obtaining further clarification regarding the nature of the changes to the adaptive management program that may arise as a result of CDFG’s adoption of a Swainson’s hawk recovery plan. The Applicants and Lead Agencies understand CDFG’s desire to obtain detail for the hawk that is commensurate with the detail provided in the NBHCP for adoption of a giant garter snake recovery plan. However, the availability of the draft giant garter snake recovery plan since 1999 facilitated a more detailed explanation of the types of measures that could be incorporated for garter snake than are currently available from CDFG for the hawk. Because CDFG has not yet prepared a Swainson’s hawk recovery plan, it is difficult to predict with specificity the types of measures that may be incorporated into a future recovery plan.

Nonetheless, the NBHCP explains when management strategies may be revised in response to recovery plan adoption. The Draft NBHCP s
tates on pages VI-25 V-26, as revised, that
recovery plan recommendations will be incorporated into the NBHCP where such changes are supported by monitoring results from the Plan Area or new peer-reviewed scientific information, and when such recommendations meet five key criteria. Based on these criteria, Swainson’s hawk recovery plan adoption could result in adjustments in TNBC’s management of upland reserves on Mitigation Lands, or in its techniques or approaches in maintaining a hawk prey base and enhancing existing habitat. Moreover, these adjustments must be considered with the overall biological goals and objectives, including those specific to upland species such as Swainson’s hawk, as specified on page I-16 of the NBHCP. For example, the recovery plan may identify effective techniques that can be implemented to establish a mosaic of upland habitats for breeding, foraging, and cover. Similarly, the recovery plan may suggest measures to enhance upland reserve connectivity.

LETTER G3—CDFG
38 NATOMAS BASIN HCP SAC/161795/031060002(LETTERS.DOC)

FINAL EIR/EIS
Response to Comment G3-31
The scope of the Overall Program Review included in Section VI.I of the NBHCP has been revised. This modification will also apply to the Independent Mid-Point Reviews to be conducted by the Land Use Agency permittees. See the attachment to the Final NBHCP for specific text changes.

Response to Comment G3-32
The requirement for a 7-day notice to the Wildlife Agencies in the event of a toxic event is based on the assumption that this type of changed circumstance would be clearly observable, and that the Wildlife Agencies may be in a position to assist in the capture and relocation or treatment of wildlife affected (similar procedures to those employed during an oil spill, for example). Other changed circumstances, such as drought, may be more difficult to assess relative to emergency response. Nonetheless, it is important to note that the NBHCP TAC includes representatives from CDFG and USFWS to ensure coordination and notification of reserve activities and circumstances.

Response to Comment G3-33
CDFG correctly notes that non-participation in the plan by one of the Land Use Agency permittees would require an assessment of impacts to maintain proportionality of mitigation. This assessment is already included in the NBHCP. Starting on page VI-12, Compliance Monitoring, the compliance monitoring accounting to be completed by each permittee is detailed and includes in Section VI/E.1.b(1)on page VI-13 of the Draft NBHCP, “The amount and location, in written and GIS mapping formats of all lands approved for authorized development by private parties for which Mitigation Fees were paid to TNBC in the preceding year including the following information: a. Acreage …, b. Location …, and c. Type (e.g., vegetation type, vernal pool, Swainson’s hawk potential nest habitat).” Section b(2) asks for the same information for public works projects.

The Applicants anticipate using the 1997 Habitat Types Map (Figure 10 of the NBHCP) as the baseline map. Then
Planned Development can be overlaid on the baseline map and habitat type changes can be evaluated. This information will be useful for the mid-point reviews when the NBHCP calls for an evaluation of the success in meeting these goals and objectives.

Response to Comment G3-34
The correction has been incorporated to page VI-8 of the Draft NBHCP. See the attachment to the Final NBHCP for specific text changes.

Response to Comment G3-35
The comment refers to page IV-22 of the Draft NBHCP, which refers to Figure 13, but no reference to Figure 14 is found on this page. The reference to Figure 13 relates to the Swainson’s Hawk Zone, a feature that was omitted from Figure 13, but has been added in the Final NBHCP.

LETTER G3—CDFG
SAC/161795/031060002(LETTERS.DOC) NATOMAS BASIN HCP 39

FINAL EIR/EIS
Response to Comment G3-36
Reference to CESA has been added to page VI-28 of the Draft NBHCP. See the attachment to the Final NBHCP for specific text changes.

Response to Comment G3-37
Reference to goals has been added to page VI-40 of the Draft NBHCP. See the attachment to the Final NBHCP for specific text changes.

Response to Comment G3-38
Reference to CESA has been added to page VI-41 of the Draft NBHCP. See the attachment to the Final NBHCP for specific text changes.

Response to Comment G3-39
No reference to amphibians is found in the second paragraph of page VI-42 of the Draft NBHCP.

Response to Comment G3-40
Figure 13 has been updated to include the boundary of the Swainson’s Hawk Zone and to identify the nest trees that have been removed by Sacramento County.

Response to Comment G3-41
Information on Figure 15 failed to reproduce during document production. Adjustments will be made to ensure clear depiction of information.

Response to Comment G3-42
Shading patterns of Figure 16 have been adjusted to convey correctly the data of this figure.

Response to Comment G3-43
CDFG’s ongoing participation is appreciated. All effort will be made to understand its concerns and direction, and to address issues within the NBHCP.

SAC/161795/031060002(LETTERS.DOC) NATOMAS BASIN HCP 41

FINAL EIR/EIS
Letter G4—Caltrans, Division of Aeronautics
Response to Comment G4-1
The Lead Agencies agree that public safety concerns related to Sacramento International Airport should be an important part of any planning effort in the area. A detailed analysis of the primary public safety concern (bird strikes) is presented in Section 4.11 of the EIR/EIS.

Consistent with Section IV.D.5 of the NBHCP, TNBC coordinates with Sacramento International Airport regarding reserve management planning. Impacts are anticipated to be less than significant.

Response to Comment G4-2
No consistency determination by the Sacramento County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) is required at this time for any of the actions involved in the proposal. The proposal under consideration is the City and Sutter County’s adoption of the NBHCP, and the USFWS’s and the CDFG’s issuance of ITPs based on the NBHCP. Under Public Utilities Code Sections 21670 through 21679.5, the ALUC has limited authority to review the actions of local government agencies for consistency with the ALUC’s comprehensive airport land use plan (compatibility plan). (See Public Utility Code § 21675). The purpose of these reviews is to assist cities and counties in ensuring compatible land uses near airports, and coordinate land use planning at state, regional, and local levels to provide for the orderly development of air transportation (Id. § 21674.b-c). The ALUC’s enabling statutes further these purposes by providing for ALUC review of certain, statutorily specified land use actions by cities and counties that may affect lands within the area covered by an ALUC compatibility plan (Id. § 21676.b-c). In limited circumstances, these statutes provide for ALUC review of a broader range of city and county land use decisions (Id. §§ 21676.b, 21676.5). However, the NBHCP is not a land use planning document and, under these enabling statutes, the City and Sutter County’s approval and adoption of the NBHCP is not a land use decision subject to ALUC review.

Under Section 21674, the ALUC is empowered to “review the plans, regulations, and other actions of local agencies and
airport operators pursuant to Section 21676” (Id. § 21674.d).

Under Section 21676, cities and counties are required to refer to the ALUC only certain types of actions to the ALUC for consistency determinations. (See Public Utility Code § 21676.) These actions are the proposed adoption or amendment of a general plan or specific plan, the adoption or approval of a zoning ordinance or building regulation, or, if the city or county owns a public airport, any modification to its airport master plan (Covered Actions) (Id. § 21676.b-c). The City and Sutter County’s approval and adoption of the NBHCP is not a Covered Action under 21676. Therefore, no ALUC review is required under Section 21676.

Under Section 21676.5, the ALUC may under certain circumstances review city and county actions other th
an the Covered Activity described in Section 21676. Under Section 21676.5.b, if a city or county takes a Covered Activities without referring it to the ALUC for a consistency determination, or if the ALUC determines that a Covered Activity is inconsistent with its compatibility plan and the city or county has not overruled the ALUC’s inconsistency determination in the manner required by Section 21676 (see Id., § 21676.b), then the ALUC may require the city or county to refer all subsequent “actions, regulations LETTER G4—CALTRANS, DIVISION OF AERONAUTICS
42 NATOMAS BASIN HCP SAC/161795/031060002(LETTERS.DOC)

FINAL EIR/EIS
or permits” affecting lands covered by the ALUC’s compatibility plan to the ALUC for consistency review (Id. § 21676.5). Although the ALUC has broader review authority under Section 21676.5 than it has under Section 21676, its authority under the latter Code section does not extend to review of the NBHCP, for two reasons.

The NBHCP is not a local land use document, but rather a mitigation plan for impacts to endangered sp
ecies that may be the result of locally approved development. The NBHCP, therefore, serves as the conservation and mitigation plan for local land uses previously approved in the North Natomas Community Plan and the Sutter County General Plan.

ALUC consistency for the land uses approved in the North Natomas Community Plan (City of Sacramento) and the Sutter County General Plan and Specific Plan were previously conducted by the Sacramento County ALUC. The 1986 North Natomas Community Plan (1986, ALUC Review Number 86-05) was determined to be consistent with the Sacramento Metropolitan Airport Comprehensive Land Use Plan. The 1994 North Natomas Community Plan update was determined to be outside of the Safety Zone and Noise Contour Zone of the revised Sacramento International (formerly Metropolitan) Airport Comprehensive Land Use Plan. The Sutter County General Plan (amendment) was reviewed in 1991 and 1992 (ALUC Review Numbers 91-2 and 92-8). At that time, the ALUC determined that with amendments included in the General Plan Amendment, which require ALUC review for all specific plans and conditional land use permits, consistency would be ensured. Therefore, the NBHCP need not be referred to the ALUC for a consistency determination.

In addition, compatibility between the Operating Conservation Program of the NBHCP and the Comprehensive Land Use Plan was addressed in detail in the EIR/EIS with regard to the
potential for bird strikes. For additional information on this topic, see Sections 3.11 and 4.11 in the EIR/EIS and Responses to Comments G8-18, G8-25, and G8-36.

Finally, neither of the Wildlife Agencies are local agencies or airport operators within the meaning of Public Utilities Code Section 21674
. Consequently, the Wildlife Agencies’
approvals of the NBHCP and issuance of ITPs to the City and Sutter County are not actions subject to review by the ALUC under the ALUC’s enabling statute.

Response to Comment G4-3
Caltrans District 3 received a copy of the documents, and have responded (see Comment Letter G5).

SAC/161795/031060002(LETTERS.DOC) NATOMAS BASIN HCP 43

FINAL EIR/EIS
Letter G5—Caltrans, District 3
Response to Comment G5-1
This introductory comment from Caltrans District 3 describes District 3’s support for coordinating species planning in the Natomas Basin with future highway improvements.

See Response to Comment G5-4 for additional information regarding linkages between the NBHCP and the widening of I-5 and S.R. 99. In summary, additional project-specific coordination with the USFWS and CDFG will be required because Caltrans is not a participant in the NBHCP.

Response to Comment G5-2
The commentor requests that additional mechanisms be included in the NBHCP to ensure coordination with Caltrans for planned highway improvements in the Natomas Basin. The Applicants have considered this request, and do not believe that it is necessary to add this additional implementation requirement. TNBC will consider future highway improvements to the extent feasible in its acquisition decisions (see additional information in Response to Comment G5-4 below). The Applicants recommend a coordination meeting between District 3 staff and TNBC’s Executive Director to discuss anticipated future highway improvements.

Response to Comment G5-3
The commentor refers to the contribution of Caltrans facilities (e.g., I-5 and S.R. 99) to the Basin-wide drainage system, operated by RD 1000, and addresses the management of “the State’s stormwater.” The commentor expresses concern that Planned Development could result in changes in the existing drainage system, and specifically states that “[t]he HCP should ensure that existing drainage patterns are perpetuated or improved within State right-of-way.” The environmental effects of Planned Development have been addressed by the City and Sutter County as described in Section 4.1.3 of the EIR/EIS, and specific water quality effects described in prior evaluations are summarized in Appendix C (Table C-2).

Development in North Natomas is following the Comprehensive Drainage Plan, including an extensive system of source and treatment controls. The City does not use state right-of- way (ROW) to accommodate North Natomas drainage. Stormwater runoff from the South Sutter County Specific Plan area would be directed to the RD 1000 drainage system, and is not intended to use culverts within the S.R. 99 ROW. Specific elements of the Sutter County drainage system are still under consideration, however, and Sutter County encourages participation by Caltrans District 3 in the ongoing planning process.

As described above, both the City and Sutter County are, or will be, implementing measures to manag
e stormwater quality in a manner consistent with Clean Water Act requirements (as implemented and enforced by the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board, as described in Section 4.3.1.1). Their obligations, however, are directed at stormwater generated as a result of Planned Development within their respective Permit Areas. There is not an obligation for take coverage to be provided for runoff from Caltrans facilities because that is not a Covered Activity and Caltrans is not an Applicant for take coverage under the NBHCP.

LETTER G5—CALTRANS, DISTRICT 3
44 NATOMAS BASIN HCP SAC/161795/031060002(LETTERS.DOC)

FINAL EIR/EIS
Response to Comment G5-4
Freeway improvements of S.R. 99 and I-5 within the City’s Permit Area have been planned to include the necessary ROW widenings. The City and Caltrans have worked together closely on freeway improvements along I-5 and S.R. 99 through the City limits in that area.

ROW for freeway improvements is preserved through appropriate conditions on planning entitlements approved by the City. The need for ROW does not conflict with the NBHCP because habitat preservation is not intended along I-5 and S.R. 99 within the City limits.

Development of other portions of S.R. 99 and I-5 wi thin the Natomas Basin will be required to comply with state and federal regulations, as necessary. Projects with a federal nexus would be subject to Section 7 consultation with the USFWS. The NBHCP and ITP does not include mitigation of impacts associated with projects with a federal nexus, including freeway improvements, both within the City’s Permit Area and outside the Permit Areas.

Any freeway widening will be required to comply with appropriate state and federal regulations.

TNBC currently owns Mitigation Land adjacent to S.R. 99 at the southwest corner of S.R. 99 and the Sacramento/Sutter County line. TNBC and C
altrans should coordinate to ensure
that funds are not invested by TNBC in the land for restoration and enhancement that will be lost when the highway is widened. Also, when Caltrans takes possession of the ROW, TNBC must be made whole. That is, Mitigation Land condemned or otherwise acquired for ROW must be accounted for by TNBC by purchasing an equal or larger amount elsewhere, subject to the acquisition requirements of the NBHCP (see Section IV.C of the NBHCP).

Early coordination would be beneficial to both parties. Specific procedures for this type of transaction would be beneficial to TNBC.

SAC/161795/031060002(LETTERS.DOC) NATOMAS BASIN HCP 45

FINAL EIR/EIS
Letter G6—California Department of Water Resources
Response to Comment G6-1
The NBHCP Plan Area is the Natomas Basin, which is defined as the interior of the surrounding levees (i.e., does not extend up the levee slope). Activities that could affect project levees under the jurisdiction of the Reclamation Board, therefore, would not occur.

A portion of TNBC’s Permit Area, however, is proposed to extend to the edge of water immediately outside of the Natomas Basin levees. TNBC activities, therefore, could fall under the jurisdiction of the Reclamation Board. Management of Mitigation Lands, however, is not expected to have a substantial impact on project levees. Revisions have been made to Section 2.3.4 of the EIR/EIS to include the Reclamation Board processes (see Section 2.1 of this Final EIR/EIS for the text of the changes).

SAC/161795/031060002(LETTERS.DOC) NATOMAS BASIN HCP 47

FINAL EIR/EIS
Letter G7—Placer County Transportation Planning Agency
Response to Comment G7-1
Several of the alignment alternatives for Placer Parkway are within the Industrial/Commercial Reserve of Sutter County, and are therefore within Sutter County’s Permit Area. Under the proposed application, however, incidental take authorization would be granted to Sutter County, not the Placer County Transportation Planning Agency (PCTPA). Descriptions of Sutter County’s authority as a Land Use Agency permittee and its Covered Activities are provided in Sections I.B.2.b and I.N.1.a of the NBHCP, respectively.

Response to Comment G7-2
See the Response to Comment G7-1 above.

SAC/161795/031060002(LETTERS.DOC) NATOMAS BASIN HCP 49

FINAL EIR/EIS
Letter G8—County of Sacramento
Response to Comment G8-1
The commentor’s introductory comments are noted. Refer to the detailed responses to this comment letter for additional discussion of the points raised by the commentor.

Response to Comment G8-2
One of the overall goals of the NBHCP is to “establish and manage in perpetuity a biologically sound and interconnected habitat reserve system that mitigates impacts on covered species resulting from Covered Activities and provides habitat for existing and new viable populations of covered species” (pages I-14 and 15 of the Draft NBHCP). The commentor questions how such a system can be established without the power of eminent domain, relying only on sellers willing to sell their land at an affordable price to TNBC, without necessarily assuming that existing land uses, other than those that are allowed to develop, will continue. The commentor points out that most of those lands that will become part of the reserve system are not under the jurisdiction of the Applicants (i.e., most of the future reserve sites are in Sacramento County, not a permittee of the proposed NBHCP).

Under the NBHCP, 8,750 acres of Mitigation La
nds must be established to mitigate the
impacts of 17,500 acres of Planned Development at a mitigation ratio of 0.5:1. As of January 2003, TNBC has acquired 2,782 acres, almost one-third of the required reserve system. The balance of the Mitigation Lands may be acquired in the Natomas Basin, and up to a maximum of 20 percent of the Mitigation Lands (a maximum of 1,750 acres) may be acquired outside of the Basin as long as it meets the acquisition criteria. Therefore, a range of 4,218 to 5,968 acres must still be acquired in the Basin.

Based in part on TNBC’s current success, there is no reason to believe that TNBC will not be able to continue to acq
uire Mitigation Lands to meet the NBCHP requirement. Nonetheless, if the required Mitigation Land cannot be acquired by TNBC in the manner described in the NBHCP (i.e., willing seller of land to TNBC or developer transfer of land in lieu of a portion of the mitigation fee), then the Land Use Agency permittees stop issuing grading permits until the required Mitigation Lands are acquired and all other applicable pre-construction requirements of the NBHCP are met. If, however, TNBC fails to acquire sufficient Mitigation Lands, the Wildlife Agencies could revoke the Land Use Agency’s permits. Before the permittees would stop development and/or the Wildlife Agencies would commence permit revocation, developers and other interested parties would use whatever mechanism(s) possible to ensure that the requirements of the NBHCP are met. These mechanisms include:
(1) raise the mitigation fee to improve the willingness of sellers to sell their land to TNBC; (2) require developers to buy land to transfer to TNBC in lieu of the land acquisition portion of the fees; (3) use conservation easements as an alternative to fee simple purchase of land; (4) trade Mitigation Lands to meet land acquisition requirements; and (5) other alternatives.

The 1997 NBHCP relied on the continuation of
agriculture as mitigation for the planned
development. The revised NBHCP does not include the continuation of agriculture in the Basin as mitigation, but the effectiveness of the NBHCP depends on some portion of the Basin remaining available as foraging habitat. Nonetheless, the NBHCP (e.g., p. I-17) LETTER G8—COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO
50 NATOMAS BASIN HCP SAC/161795/031060002(LETTERS.DOC)

FINAL EIR/EIS
acknowledges the potential for agricultural uses to be replaced with a combination of urban and agricultural uses over the life of the 50-year permits. However, the effectiveness of the NBHCP conservation strategy in mitigating for the effects due to incidental take associated with 17,500 acres of development is based on the assumption that the NBHCP only covers 17,500 acres of Planned Development. Additional development occurring in the Natomas Basin beyond 17,500 acres and/or outside the City and Sutter County’s Permit Areas, would trigger a new or amended conservation strategy as described in Master Responses 3 (Joint Vision) and 4 (Cumulative Impacts), and further described in Response to Comment G8-17.

Mitigation Lands will be located in both Sutter County and Sacramento County. As of January 2003
, about one-half of the Mitigation Land is located in Sacramento County and one-half is located in Sutter County (Sacramento County—1,469 acres [53 percent] and Sutter County—1,313 acres [47 percent]). Also, Sutter County has agreed to remove the portion of the Swainson’s Hawk Zone (within 1 mile of Sacramento River) in the Industrial/Commercial Reserve from their Permit Area and initiate a General Plan Amendment to remove that portion of the Swainson’s Hawk Zone (1,015 acres) from the Industrial/Commercial Reserve. The portion in the Swainson’s Hawk Zone in Sutter County is about 1,427 acres. No reserve site acquired to date by TNBC is located in that area, but a site may be located there in the future.

Response to Comment G8-3
As indicated in Response to Comment G8-2, the NBHCP does not rely on farming as part of the mitigation for take associated with the Covered Activities. Nonetheless, the effectiveness of the NBHCP Operating Conservation Program depends on limiting Planned Development to 17,500 acres within the Permit Areas as further explained in Chapter III of the NBHCP and in Response to Comment G8-17.

The commentor raises concerns about the viability of r
ice farming going forward: farmers
can stop growing rice without any government approval, and water may become too expensive to make rice farming feasible. Rice farming in the Natomas Basin is more likely to continue to be viable under the NBHCP because: 1) TNBC is required to keep 50 percent of the Mitigation Lands in rice; 2) TNBC will become a strong stakeholder in the availability of water and the success of rice growing in the Basin; and 3) although TNBC relies on farming revenues in its finance model, it does not meet the for-profit model of an agricultural business.

The impacts on NBHCP implementation from water shortag es or escalating water costs are described in the Changed Circumstances section on page VI-36 and 36 of the Draft NBHCP.

Response to Comment G8-4
The NBHCP assured funding relies on Mitigation Fees collected from Planned Development. It is the impacts of such development that create the need for mitigation in the form of the Mitigation Lands. As development occurs, TNBC collects funds for land acquisition, habitat restoration, and long-term management of the Mitigation Lands. If Planned Development does not occur, then the financial burdens placed on TNBC would be substantially reduced, consistent with the reduced obligation to acquire Mitigation Land.

Moreover, the fees collected from development, supplemented by interest income, rice LETTER G8—COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO
SAC/161795/031060002(LETTERS.DOC) NATOMAS BASIN HCP 51

FINAL EIR/EIS
revenues, hunting revenues, and other sources of income not yet identified, would support the maintenance of the Mitigation Lands. For further information, the commentor is referred to Response to Comment O1-40.

Response to Comment G8-5
For purposes of the NBHCP, the Natomas Basin is defined as the 53,537 acres located inside the toe of levees surrounding the Natomas Basin (see definition of Plan Area, page D-5 of the Draft NBHCP). For purposes of clarity, the third paragraph of Section I.A of the Draft NBHCP has been modified (see the Final NBHCP for the text change).

Response to Comment G8-6
As discussed in the referenced sections, development and urban development are used interchangeably. These terms generally refer to urban development, including Planned Development, of undeveloped land for which a discretionary approval is required. Detailed analysis of development within Sacramento County that does not require a discretionary approval was not conducted under the NBHCP because there is no reasonable basis to assume extensive urban development will occur under existing agricultural zoning.

Moreover, while a single-family residence, farmworker housing, or other associated agricultural related structure may be constructed under the existing zoning, extensive development would not be permitted outside the County’s Urban Services Boundary.

Moreover, such development is not authorized under the NBHCP. Thus, for purposes of evaluating the impacts of take associated with Planned Development, the NBHCP and EIR/EIS have determined that the current baseline conditions (as described in Master Response No. 3 [Cumulative Impacts]) are an accurate representation of the limited development that may occur under existing zoning (also see Response to Comment O3-13).

Response to Comment G8-7
As noted in the comment, the 17,500 acres of Planned Development includes urban development in Sutter County (7,467 acres), the City (8,050 acres), and Metro Air Park (1,983 acres). The comment suggests that 17,500 acres is the limit of acreage considered by USFWS as able to be developed for the “livelihood” of the giant garter snake. The basis for the commentor’s assertions are unclear. Neither the NBHCP nor EIR/EIS indicate the maximum amount of development that could exist in the Basin without detriment to the giant garter snake. The NBHCP has been prepared to address the potential for incidental take of covered species associated with 17,500 acres of Planned Development. If additional development were to be issued an incidental take permit (either by a permittee outside the respective Permit Areas or by a potential permittee), that additional development would be required to demonstrate that it will meet the state and federal findings necessary to obtain a permit.

If additional development were proposed beyond the 17,500 acres of Planned Development covered by the NBHCP, a number of mitigation options may be available to improve the giant garter snake mitigation.

For example, future development could: (1) increase the mitigation ratio above 0.5 acre of mitigation land to one acre of development; (2) provide Mitigation Land with waterways suitable for giant garter snake habitat; (3) connect disconnected canals within the Basin; and (4) retain existing buffer lands in perpetuity.

Thus, if Sacramento County considers future expansion of the airport, it is anticipated that LETTER G8—COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO
52 NATOMAS BASIN HCP SAC/161795/031060002(LETTERS.DOC)

FINAL EIR/EIS
many options will be available to them to mitigate impacts of the airport expansion on the giant garter snake and other covered species.

Finally, in its letter dated November 28, 2000, t he City of Sacramento invited Sacramento County to participate in the NBHCP (Appendix K of the Final EIR/EIS). Because Sacramento County declined participation at that time and did not express an interest in seeking coverage under the NBHCP for a potential future airport expansion, such expansion is not included as a Covered Activity. Also see Master Response 4 (Cumulative Impacts).

Response to Comment G8-8
In response to this comment the last sentence of the first full paragraph of page I-2 of the Draft NBHCP has been modified to clarify that the 1,983 acres refers to MAP. See the addendum to the Final NBHCP for the text changes.

Response to Comment G8-9
The commentor seeks clarification regarding the West Lakeside annexation and suggests that this annexation, if it is considered by the City in the future, would push the limit of the 17,500 acres of planned development covered by the NBHCP.

The NBHCP and Final EIR/EIS acknowledge the potential for developers to seek entitlement
s for the development of the West Lakeside property. Nonetheless, at this time, the location, amount, and extent of development associated with this property is unknown pending the results of the Joint Vision process as described in Master Response 3 (Joint Vision). Moreover, insufficient data are available to conduct a detailed assessment of the types of cumulative impacts to which development of the West Lakeside property could contribute. Pages I-5 and I-6 of the NBHCP state that the plan does not address incidental take authorization for future development of lands outside of the City’s and Sutter County’s Permit Areas. Specifically, future development of land outside of the City’s Permit Area, including proposals requiring annexation to the City, will not occur, if at all, until the City and Sacramento County complete the Joint Vision planning process described in the EIS/EIR and as further explained in Master Response 3 (Joint Vision). Moreover, annexation efforts will be subject to environmental analyses prior to any approval. The NBHCP explains that the West Lakeside area located within the unincorporated Sacramento County portion of the Natomas Basin is not included in the City’s Permit Area. Thus, the Applicants and the Wildlife Agencies do not consider the West Lakeside area as meeting the NBHCP’s definition of “authorized development.” Annexation to the City, if that ever were to occur, would not result in the automatic inclusion of the West Lakeside area in the City’s Permit Area, nor would any future development approved within this unincorporated area be included in the total 17,500 acres of Planned Development covered by the NBHCP. As stated in Master Response 3 (Joint Vision), annexation and associated development would constitute a significant departure from the NBHCP’s Operating Conservation Program and prezoning or zoning to urban uses. The annexation and development would trigger a reevaluation of the NBHCP and a separate HCP. It would also result in issuance of ITPs to the permittee, or potential permittee for that additional urban development, potential amendments, and/or revisions to the NBHCP and permits, or possible suspension or revocation of the City’s permits. The commentor also is referred to Master Response 4 (Cumulative Impacts).

LETTER G8—COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO
SAC/161795/031060002(LETTERS.DOC) NATOMAS BASIN HCP 53

FINAL EIR/EIS
Response to Comment G8-10
Federal agencies with approval authority over federal or non-federal projects are required to consult with the USFWS through Section 7 of the ESA. Even projects in the Permit Areas that have a federal nexus must conduct a Section 7 consultation. For example, the Arena Boulevard/Interstate 5 interchange that is now under construction within the City’s Permit Area had to go through a separate Section 7 consultation. The airport expansion likely will be required to undergo consultation with the USFWS. Through the Section 7 consultation process, the USFWS will define the appropriate mitigation measures for that project.

Response to Comment G8-11
The commentor is referred to the responses to comments above related to the airport expansion project’s inclusion in the 17,500 acres of Planned Development. Generally, Sacramento County has options to mitigate for the impacts of the airport expansion (e.g., permanent set aside of Sacramento County buffer lands for habitat mitigation) and it is anticipated that the expansion will be subject to Section 7 consultation with the USFWS. The airport expansion project is not required to be included in the area of Planned Development because neither Sacramento County nor the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) have elected to participate in the NBHCP.

Response to Comment G8-12
The NBHCP does not propose ITP coverage for agricultural uses within the Natomas Basin, other than agricultural activities undertaken by TNBC as the Plan Operator and permittee.

Coverage of other agricultural uses could be accomplished following an amendment to the NBHCP. Such an amendment would require specific analysis of activities to be covered and would likely require implementation of measure by farmers to avoid, minimize, and mitigate take of covered species. Under the NBHCP, agricultural practices will continue subject to existing regulations.

Response to Comment G8-13
The definition appears to be explicit in describing the NBHCP Plan Area. Further, no coverage for any urban development adjacent to, or outside the Basin levees in the vicinity of the Sacramento River is provided. If the County of Sacramento wishes to include portions of the Garden Highway Special Planning Area within the NBHCP at some future date, then an amendment to the NBHCP or approval of a separate HCP would be required, and the definition of the Plan Area would be modified, as appropriate, at that time.

Response to Comment G8-14
The commentor correctly notes the error in the Figure 13 reference. This reference to Figure 13 has been corrected.

Response to Comment G8-15
The commentor notes the description of Swainson’s hawk nests is confusing. Section II.C.3.d of the NBHCP has been revised to clarify the point raised in the comment (see the attachment to the Final NBHCP for specific text changes).

LETTER G8—COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO
54 NATOMAS BASIN HCP SAC/161795/031060002(LETTERS.DOC)

FINAL EIR/EIS
Response to Comment G8-16
The commentor requests a location or definition of the Swainson’s Hawk Zone referred to in the fourth paragraph of Page II-18. The Swainson’s Hawk Zone is defined in the NBHCP definitions. The definition has been revised in the Final NBHCP to clarify the commentor’s concern. See the attachment to the Final NBHCP for specific text changes.

Response to Comment G8-17
In response to this comment, and other comments, the NBHCP has been clarified to specify that development in excess of Planned Development would require either an amendment to the NBHCP or preparation of a separate HCP. The commentor is also referred to Response to Comment I10-9. The text has been revised in the Final NBHCP to clarify the commentor’s concern. See the attachment to the Final NBHCP for specific text changes.

Response to Comment G8-18
The wildlife strikes occurring at the airport have been acknowledged and included in the analysis in Section 4.11 of the Draft EIR/EIS. The wildlife strike level acceptable to the FAA and the corresponding exceedance of this level at the Sacramento International Airport has been acknowledged and included in the analysis in Section 4.11 of the Draft EIR/EIS.

The NBHCP does not memorialize habitat types, but simply describes the existing baseline conditions that w
ere considered for the impact analysis. The derivation and use of these habitat types for establishing baseline conditions is discussed in Section 3.4.1 of the EIR/EIS.

An analysis relating potential future habitat types within the zones of concern for the airport is included in Section 4.11 of the EIR/EIS, which concludes that the potential changes in habitat types in the future are not likely to result in significant impacts as a result of bird strikes.

The expense to airlines associated with bird strikes was acknowledged and considered in
the analysis in Section 4.11 of the EIR/EIS. No information on costs associated with bird strikes at Sacramento International Airport was available, nor are cost-related impacts considered an environmental impact for purposes of CEQA and NEPA.

Response to Comment G8-19
The NBHCP mentions the Sacramento County airport buffer lands and notes that they will not likely be developed since they serve the purpose of buffering the airport from urban uses and the urban uses from the airport (pp. III-9—III-11 and VII-14 of the Draft NBHCP).

However, the NBHCP does not count the Sacramento County airport buffer lands toward mitigation requirements of the 17,500 acres of Planned Development. The NBHCP does not preclude Sacramento County from making land use decisions on the Sacramento County buffer lands subject to state and federal laws, nor from using those buffer lands to meet mitigation requirements for any potential airport expansion activities.

Response to Comment G8-20
Table III-5 of the Draft NBHCP summarizes currently approved or reasonably foreseeable Planned Development in the Natomas Basin. The table labels Sacramento Airport growth as “unspecified” because the proposed Master Plan guiding airport expansion is still under LETTER G8—COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO
SAC/161795/031060002(LETTERS.DOC) NATOMAS BASIN HCP 55

FINAL EIR/EIS
development. Because the plan is still under development, it is not considered reasonably foreseeable (refer also the Master Response 4 [Cumulative Impacts]). In addition, the Applicants do not agree that calling the airport’s level of future development “unspecified” indicates that any future development is somehow precluded by the NBHCP. Nothing in the NBHCP precludes Sacramento County from applying for incidental take authorization at a future date.

Response to Comment G8-21
Comment noted. The NBHCP will be revised as requested. See the attachment to the Final NBHCP for specific text changes.

Response to Comment G8-22
The commentor correctly notes that not all Sacramento County land, as described, is designated for retention as agricultural cropland. The first paragraph under Section III.C.1.a of the NBHCP has been revised in the Final NBHCP to address the comment. See the attachment to the Final NBHCP for specific text changes.

The proposed text revision would not result in the identification of new significant or
substantially more severe impacts because the NBHCP analyses are based on assumptions regarding allowable land uses outside the Permit Areas, as described further in the Response to Comment O3-13. The commentor also is referred to the Response to Comment G8-6 regarding the treatment of existing land uses in Sacramento County.

Response to Comment G8-23
This sentence refers to the General Plans of the City and Sutter County. For clarification, the proposed ITPs would address Planned Development in the Permit Areas of the City and Sutter County. Other potential development (e.g., at Sacramento International Airport or elsewhere in Sacramento County) would not be authorized by the NBHCP ITPs. This is stated in the remainder of the paragraph referenced by the commentor. Regarding future development in unincorporated Sacramento County, it is the Applicants’ understanding that the only development currently permitted would be for individual homes and accessory buildings located on agriculturally zoned properties. Refer to Responses to Comments O3-13 and G8-6 for additional information.

Response to Comment G8-24
The definition of out-of-basin reserves has been clarified in the Final NBHCP. See the attachment to the Final NBHCP for specific text changes.

TNBC’s Permit Area in which it is authorized to purchase Mitigation Lands is d efined in the Definitions section of the NBHCP, Item 41, and includes the waterside of the levees such as land on the Sacramento River. The waterside of the levees are not, however, included in the City or Sutter County Permit Areas for authorized development. Thus, the NBHCP only authorizes TNBC to acquire Mitigation Lands on the waterside of the levees.

LETTER G8—COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO
56 NATOMAS BASIN HCP SAC/161795/031060002(LETTERS.DOC)

FINAL EIR/EIS
Response to Comment G8-25
Guidance on compatibility of land uses within 5 miles of an airport, as described in the FAA Advisory Circular No. 150/200-33, was used in Section 4.11 of the EIR/EIS for purposes of the analysis of the potential for increases in bird strikes.

The annual availability of seasonal marshes from August 1 through September 30 is primarily intended for giant garter s
nake habitat management. It is possible that seasonal
marsh creation in late summer/early fall would serve as an attractant for those migrating waterfowl that are migrating during this period (e.g., pintail). Seasonal marshes, however, are not managed for waterfowl recruitment for the purpose of rice straw decomposition. In addition, seasonal marshes will consist of very limited amounts of open water, being dedicated primarily to tule marsh and cattails, typically not ideal for large populations of waterfowl.

It is not likely that the seasonal marsh creation would cause change s in other migrating waterfowl such that they would arrive earlier. Although it is possible that some individual waterfowl become resident, the availability of seasonal marshes in late summer/early fall is not likely to cause large numbers of waterfowl to reside year-round in the Natomas Basin because specific nesting and breeding requirements would be limited in the seasonal marshes.

Although the value of the seasonal marshes is directed to giant garter s nake survival, the
EIR/EIS recognizes that the seasonal marshes could attract small numbers of waterfowl. It is not known what effect this could have on the potential for increased bird strikes based on location of the seasonal marshes and individual and population-wide responses of the waterfowl. The number of waterfowl in seasonal marshes, however, is expected to be fewer than for prior land uses. In most cases, for seasonal marshes, prior land use was production rice fields.

In addition, similar to the previous creation of seaso nal marshes in the vicinity of the airport, TNBC would work with the airport consistent with Section IV.D.5 of the NBHCP to design the seasonal marshes such that habitat benefits for giant garter snakes could be maximized to the extent possible while potential for bird strike issues would be minimized.

Consistent with Section IV.D.5 of the NBHCP, TNBC has worked closely with airport officials to observe and respect the recommendations of FAA Advisory Circular No. 150/200-33. TNBC believes that removing winter-flooded rice fields from production and replacing them with managed marsh habitat, heavily planted with dense aquatic vegetation, has a net effect of being no greater risk for large concentrations of migratory waterfowl within the 5-mile zone recommended in the FAA circular. The results of TNBC consultation with airport officials can be seen in marsh habitat constructed to date.

Response to Comment G8-26
The commentor is correct that the City and Sutter County only have jurisdiction to limit development within the portions of the Swainson’s Hawk Zone that are within the City and Sutter County, and therefore do not have authority over development within the portion of the Swainson’s Hawk Zone that is within the County of Sacramento. TNBC, however, may acquire Mitigation Lands within the Swainson’s Hawk Zone, regardless of jurisdiction. The text in the Final NBHCP has been revised to clarify that the measure applies to the City of LETTER G8—COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO
SAC/161795/031060002(LETTERS.DOC) NATOMAS BASIN HCP 57

FINAL EIR/EIS
Sacramento and Sutter County . See the attachment to the Final NBHCP for specific text changes.

Response to Comment G8-27
The commentor requests a definition of the Swainson’s Hawk Zone. See Response to Comment G8-16 for the definition of the zone.

Response to Comment G8-28
The commentor correctly notes the need for additional language. Item 13 within Section VI.L.3.a has been revised to reflect the requested change. See the attachment to the Final NBHCP for specific text changes.

Response to Comment G8-29
The commentor asks who is responsible for updating the NBHCP if a separate HCP is completed within the Natomas Basin.

The NBHCP is intended to mitigate the impacts of Planned D evelopment in the Natomas Basin. Once the NBHCP and associated permits are approved, there is no requirement to update the NBHCP as a result of preparation of a separate HCP in the Natomas Basin. If, however, the NBHCP is amended, new biological analysis and additional mitigation measures related to the amendment would be required, and would be the responsibility of the Applicant proposing the amendment in conjunction with the Wildlife Agencies.

However, as stated on page I-6 of the Draft NBHCP, “any amendments proposed but not yet processed and approved will not affect the validity of this HCP.” Response to Comment G8-30
The decline in airport acreage by 39 acres is a result of closing the Natomas Airport in North Natomas (18 acres) and several small airfields within Sutter County’s Permit Area (21 total acres). The NBHCP and EIR/EIS do not assume any changes in acreage for Sacramento International Airport. Also see Response to Comment G8-20.

Response to Comment G8-31
The commentor refers to the discussion of impacts to marsh habitat that is summarized in the Executive Summary in Table ES-2 (p. ES-7 of the Draft EIR/EIS). The analysis of impacts to marsh habitat under the Proposed Action is contained in Section 4.4.5.1.1 of the EIR/EIS.

This section begins by stating that native marsh habitats are measured as ponds and seasonally wet areas, but that some of the functions of marsh habitat are also performed by rice fields and by canals and drains. Under the Proposed Action, approximately 21 acres of ponds and seasonally wet areas, 8,087 acres of rice fields, and 404 acres of canals and drains would be replaced by planned development. A quantitative estimate of impacts to jurisdictional wetlands is not made, but the EIR/EIS states that some portion of the 21-acres of ponds and seasonally wet areas could be considered jurisdictional wetlands. Impacts to jurisdictional wetlands (i.e., as much as 21 acres) could occur with Planned Development, and therefore mitigation is proposed in Section 4.4.5.4 of the EIR/EIS. Although not stated in the Draft EIR/EIS, it is assumed that rice fields and canals and drains would not be considered jurisdictional wetlands. Because of several factors including: (1) the ability for LETTER G8—COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO
58 NATOMAS BASIN HCP SAC/161795/031060002(LETTERS.DOC)

FINAL EIR/EIS
developers to preserve jurisdictional wetlands on site; (2) the ability to satisfy wetland mitigation on TNBC reserves; and (3) the ability to purchase mitigation credits in other regional mitigation banks, mitigating for 21 acres of wetland impacts is considered a feasible mitigation requirement.

Response to Comment G8-32
Water availability is addressed in Section IV.D.4 of the NBHCP. Potential changes in water availability are discussed in Section VI.K.2.g of the NBHCP and Section 4.3 of the EIR/EIS.

As a landowner, TNBC owns stock at one share per acre for its lands within the Natomas Mutual service area. Of the 2,820 acres of Mitigation Land currently owned by TNBC, 2,209 acres are within the Natomas Mutual service area (i.e., TNBC owns 2,209 shares of Natomas Mutual). As the holder of these shares, TNBC is entitled to its water deliveries. If the shareholders of Natomas Mutual elect to participate in water transfers, a sufficient water supply must nonetheless be maintained to continue to meet landowners’ (including TNBC’s) ongoing water needs.

This category of changed circumstance is described as “eith er temporary or long-term
reductions in the delivery of irrigation water by Natomas Mutual,” and would include the loss of water availability associated with water transfers. As discussed in Sections VI.K.2 and VI.F.1 of the NBHCP, such changed circumstances would be addressed by adaptive management, and modifications to the NBHCP (through the Adaptive Management process) could be needed as a result of significant land use changes outside of the Mitigation Lands (p. VI-22 of the Draft NBHCP).

It should be noted that shares of Natomas Mutual run with the land. Individual farmers/landowners have the ability to vote for or against actions by Natomas Mutual, including transferring water outside of the Natomas Basin. TNBC is currently the largest shareholder in Natomas Mutual.

Response to Comment G8-33
See above Response to Comment G8-32.

Response to Comment G8-34
The Applicants and the Lead Agencies recognize that the NBHCP does not control land uses in unincorporated Sacramento County. In terms of potential future actions by Sacramento County to expand Sacramento International Airport or otherwise manage its lands in the Swainson’s Hawk Zone, no take authorization would be granted to Sacramento County under the Proposed Action. As stated in Responses to Comments G8-20 and G8-23, however, nothing in the NBHCP would prohibit Sacramento County from seeking take authorization as a separate action. In regard to the building of individual houses and accessory structures in unincorporated areas zoned for Agriculture, refer to Response to Comment O3-13.

Response to Comment G8-35
Noise impacts associated with Planned Development were considered in the EIR/EIS.

Table C-8 (Appendix C of the EIR/EIS) contains a summary of noise impacts and mitigation LETTER G8—COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO
SAC/161795/031060002(LETTERS.DOC) NATOMAS BASIN HCP 59

FINAL EIR/EIS
measures detailed in the environmental documents prepared for the planned development.

These analyses are incorporated by reference into the EIR/EIS as described in Section 4.1.3 of the EIR/EIS.

Response to Comment G8-36
The EIR/EIS recognizes that the potential for public health and safety impacts associated with creation of habitat reserves within bird-strike zones is dependent on the location for establishment of reserves by the TNBC and takes this factor into consideration for the analysis (refer to p. 4-163 in the Draft EIR/EIS). With regard to the statement on page 4-160 referenced in the comment, the statement pertains to the preceding and subsequent discussion to this line, clarifying the habitat factors that the analysis took into account. The analysis did not take into account increased future air traffic because information provided by Sacramento International Airport did not show a correlation between increase in strikes and increase in aircraft operations.

In discussing the trends of bird strike and aircraft operations with airport environmental staff, it was indicated that the higher number of bird strikes in November through February [annually was not attributable to the typically busier winter flight schedule (Febbo, 2001).

The Proposed Action is intended to provide take coverage to enable 17,500 acres of planned development to proceed and is not intended to forestall planned development in the Basin.

The NBHCP’s Operating Conservation Program is designed to take into account the airport’s ongoing activities. In this regard, the effects analysis was based on Sacramento County’s adopted master plan for the airport.

On p. 4-160, 6th paragraph, the line beginning
: “Under the Proposed Action,...” has been
revised. Please see the text change in Section 2.1 of this Final EIR/EIS.

The EIR/EIS does not assume that the rice fields north of t he airport and bounded by the Sutter-Sacramento County line (coincident with the 2-mile strike zone) will be used as Mitigation Lands. This change in assumption does not significantly affect the analysis with regard to bird strikes because, with this clarification, the EIR/EIS assumes that the area north of the airport within the 2-mile strike zone would continue to be managed as rice fields or would be converted by Sacramento County to uses that are not attractive to waterfowl (and, at the least, are consistent with FAA requirements). Therefore, assuming that the rice fields north of the airport, within the 2-mile strike zone would be used in a manner consistent with the FAA circular, future conditions of this area will either be similar to existing conditions (i.e., continue to be managed as rice) or less attractive to waterfowl and, therefore, do not affect the potential for increase risk of bird strikes. Also see Response to Comment G8-25.

The sale of land for establishment of habitat preserves is based on the existence of a willing
seller; therefore, conversion of rice fields to habitat on Sacramento County land would not take place unless Sacramento County willingly sold the land for establishment of Mitigation Lands. Please refer to Section 3.7 of the EIR/EIS for further discussion on agricultural revenue issues associated with land sales for the project.

TNBC would continue to work with the Sacramento
International Airport to ensure that any
habitat management practices, such as hunting in the vicinity of the airport, would be consistent with FAA requirements.

LETTER G8—COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO
60 NATOMAS BASIN HCP SAC/161795/031060002(LETTERS.DOC)

FINAL EIR/EIS
The EIR/EIS primarily focused on the 5-mile radius around the airport based on FAA Advisory Circular No. 150/5200-33. References to airport property with regard to implementation of the Wildlife Management Plan are consistent with the boundaries adopted by this plan.

Response to Comment G8-37
The NBHCP is intended to mitigate for the impacts of the Covered Activities, including provisions for adaptive management in response to a future Giant Garter Snake Recovery Plan. The NBHCP does not mitigate for other projects, nor is it intended to place an additional burden of mitigation on future projects not covered by the NBHCP. Future projects would be considered on their own merit in accordance with applicable regulations at the time they are considered.

SAC/161795/031060002(LETTERS.DOC) NATOMAS BASIN HCP 61

FINAL EIR/EIS
Letter O1—ECOS/FOSH/NWF/PCL/Sierra Club
Response to Comment O1-1
Comment noted. The revised Natomas Basin Habitat Conservation Plan (NBHCP) has been prepared in accordance with the applicable statutory and regulatory requirements of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and California Endangered Species Act (CESA) and the Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement (EIR/EIS) analyzes the impacts of implementing the NBHCP in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Judge Levi’s ruling in National Wildlife Federation, et. al. v. Secretary of the Interior Bruce Babbitt (August 15, 2000) was carefully considered in developing the NBHCP to ensure that the deficiencies identified by the district court were addressed.

Overall, the comments in this letter suggest changes to the NBHCP and refer to them as “acceptable” changes
, thus implying that the NBHCP is not acceptable. The Applicants have prepared an acceptable HCP and the Lead Agencies have analyzed in the Draft and Final EIR/EIS in accordance with CEQA and NEPA the impacts of implementing the NBHCP. For the reasons set forth below in response to the comments, the specific suggested revisions are neither feasible, nor would they clearly lessen significant environmental impacts associated with the Proposed Action. The specific comments raised in the introductory sections of this comment letter are addressed in both the Draft and Final NBHCP and the Final EIR/EIS (which incorporates the findings of the Draft EIR/EIS). Specific responses of note that are applicable to the comments raised in this letter are Responses to Comments O1-1 through O1-60, the Master Responses (Section 3.1 of the Final EIR/EIS), the other responses to comments in Section 3.2 of this Final EIR/EIS, the Biological Resources Technical Memorandum (Appendix H of the Draft NBHCP), the Addendum to the Biological Resources Technical Memorandum (Appendix K of the Final NBHCP), the Economic Analysis (Appendix A of the NBHCP), and other peer-reviewed source data for the NBHCP.

Also see Response to Comment O1-7.

This comment letter was submitted to the Lead Agencies with several attachments that, because of the volume of the att
achments, are reproduced as Appendix L of this Final
EIR/EIS. These attachments include professional consultant qualifications; a summary list of building permits issued in Sacramento County from January 2002 to June 2002; background materials on the Joint Vision planning process; and historical documents relevant to environmental and land use planning in the Natomas Basin. These attachments are addressed throughout the responses to comments in letter O1 and in the Master Responses (see Section 3.1 of this Final EIR/EIS). The additional information in the attachments does not result in changes to the original analysis in the NBHCP or Draft EIR/EIS, and does not alter the original findings of less-than-significant impacts from implementing the Proposed Action.

Response to Comment O1-2
Comment noted. The acreage of existing development under the 1997 NBHCP and Settlement Agreement is discussed on p. III-6 of the Draft NBHCP (3,787 acres as of December 2001). As of December 2002, Urban Development Permits had been issued for LETTER O1—ECOS/FOSH/NWF/PCL/SIERRA CLUB
62 NATOMAS BASIN HCP SAC/161795/031060002(LETTERS.DOC)

FINAL EIR/EIS
4,324.1 acres within the City of Sacramento (City) Permit Area, pursuant to the 1997 NBHCP and the Settlement Agreement (Mitigation Fees had been paid for 4,599.11 acres). The comment that 4,413 acres have been developed cannot be substantiated. To clarify the existing discussion in the NBHCP, the following information is provided on the acreage of existing development under the 1997 NBHCP and the Settlement Agreement.

Time Frame
City of Sacramento
Pe
rmit Area (acres) a
Sutter County
Permit Area (acres) a Total
1997 (Permit Issuance) 0 0 0
1997 – December 2001 3,787 0 3,787
December 2001 – December 2002 537 0 537
Total 4,324 0 4,324
a Acreage includes Urban Development Permits that have been issued. Does not include exempt areas that are not subject to the Mitigation Fee.

Response to Comment O1-3
The comment expresses concern regarding the 0.5:1 mitigation ratio. The 0.5:1 mitigation ratio was a fundamental component of the 1997 NBHCP, which NWF v. Babbitt upheld as adequate for the Plan Area. The revised NBHCP does not make the assumption that lands to be acquired would have at least three times the habitat value of the lands to be converted to urbanization. Also see Master Response 1 (Mitigation Ratio).

The comment refers to “undisputed scientific data” that will be discussed in subsequent comments to d
emonstrate that the mitigation ratio is inaccurate. Specific responses to comments and data assumptions used in the comments are contained in the responses below.

Response to Comment O1-4
The NBHCP does not ignore the lands in the Natomas Basin outside the scope of Planned Development. See Sections 1.2.1 and 2.3.1 of the EIR/EIS (regarding how the Metro Air Park (MAP) acreage is factored into the EIR/EIS analysis), and Sections 4.1.2.2 and 4.1.2.3 (for a discussion of cumulative impacts and other potential actions in the Natomas Basin). Also see Master Response 3 (Joint Vision) and Master Response 4 (Cumulative Impacts). As presented in these responses, assuming a substantial level of development in the Natomas Basin outside the Permit Areas is speculative. If it is proposed, such development would likely be under the City’s or Sutter County’s control, and the NBHCP would be reviewed and revised prior to approval of such development as necessary to ensure that the Operating Conservation Program continues to provide for viable populations of the Swainson’s hawk, giant garter snake, and other Covered Species in the Basin. Specifically with regard to connectivity, see Master Response 2 (Connectivity), Section IV.C.3.b of the NBHCP, and Responses to Comments G3-11 and O1-25. Also see the Addendum to the Biological Resources Technical Memo (Appendix K of the Final NBHCP) and Master Response 5 (Swainson’s Hawk Foraging Habitat) for a discussion of Swainson’s hawk foraging habitat outside of the area of Planned Development.

LETTER O1—ECOS/FOSH/NWF/PCL/SIERRA CLUB
SAC/161795/031060002(LETTERS.DOC) NATOMAS BASIN HCP 63

FINAL EIR/EIS
The purpose of the NBHCP, as presented on Section I.A of the Plan, is to “promote biological conservation in conjunction with economic and urban development.” One of the Covered Activities would be 17,500 acres of Planned Development (see Section I.N.1). (The other covered activities pertain to the Water Agencies and TNBC—see Section I.N.2 and I.N.3 of the NBHCP). The EIR/EIS addresses, throughout Chapter 4, direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts of the Covered Activities relevant to the approved 17,500 acres of Planned Development (also see Appendix C of the EIR/EIS). It also discusses, development in Sections 2.7.3 and 4.1.2.3, the potential for any future unknown. The specific land uses that could at some future time be developed pursuant to the Joint Vision effort have not been proposed, and no specific proposals to annex land have been identified as part of the Joint Vision effort. Also see Master Response 3 (Joint Vision) and Master Response 4 (Cumulative Impacts). The comment correctly notes that the 1997 NBHCP assumed that areas outside the Permit Areas would remain in agriculture. The revised NBHCP clarifies that areas outside of the Permit Areas over the 50-year Permit term may consist of a mix of agriculture and urban land uses. For purposes of evaluating impacts associated with issuance of take authorizations for up to 17,500 acres of Planned Development, the NBHCP, EIR/EIS, and accompanying Biological Resources Technical Memo (Appendix H of the NBHCP), and the Addendum to the Biological Resources Technical Memo (Appendix K of the Final NBHCP) compared the conditions with adoption of the NBHCP and issuance of ITPs for up to 17,500 acres with the baseline conditions. Baseline conditions reflect land uses in 1997, when the prior NBHCP was adopted, and updated conditions between 1997 and 2002 when the revised NBHCP was under preparation. Master Response 4 (Cumulative Impacts) presents a detailed discussion of the rationale and approach to the assessment of cumulative impacts. Appendix C of the EIR/EIS presents a detailed summary of the impacts associated with 17,500 acres of Planned Development (this analysis was conducted in separate environmental review documents—see Section 4.1.3 of the EIR/EIS for a discussion of the previous evaluation of Planned Development). As explained above in the Response to Comment G8-2, while the effectiveness of the NBHCP’s Operating Conservation Program depends on limiting Planned Development in the Basin to 17,500 acres, the NBHCP does not require existing landowners outside of the Permit Areas to continue farming as mitigation for the effects of take associated with the development of 17,500 acres within the Permit Areas. The commentor is referred to the Final NBHCP (Section IV.C. e., Foraging Habitat), which has been added to the NBHCP.

Response to Comment O1-5
This comment is a general introduction to the issues that the commentor will raise in the remainder of the comment letter. The specific issues are addressed in the responses, below, as applicable to specific issues. The comment also references attachments to the comment regarding consultant review of the economic analysis prepared in support of the NBHCP.

These comments are addressed in Responses to Comments O1-42 through O1-60. Please refer to those responses. Also see Master Response 1 (Mitigation Ratio). For the reasons provided below, the commentor’s suggested revisions to the NBHCP would not provide for the long-term viability of wildlife in the Basin and would not address the “political and economic constraints” that the commentor states affect the Basin. As indicated in Master Response 1 (Mitigation Ratio), a mitigation ratio greater than 0.5:1 and acquisition of 28,000 acres of Mitigation Lands with recreational and civic uses are not required to mitigate the LETTER O1—ECOS/FOSH/NWF/PCL/SIERRA CLUB
64 NATOMAS BASIN HCP SAC/161795/031060002(LETTERS.DOC)

FINAL EIR/EIS
impacts of take associated with the Covered Activities. Such revisions are considered infeasible for the reasons provided below in Response to Comment 01-7.

Response to Comment O1-6
Comment noted. A full and accurate description of the criteria for issuance of an ITP are contained in Response to Comment O1-24(c).

The comment also includes a statement that, to be responsive to the ruling in Nation al Wildlife Federation, et. al. v. Secretary of the Interior Bruce Babbitt (August 15, 2000) and the applicable regulations, the NBHCP must include the changes suggested in the comment letter. All the proposed issues and revisions raised in the comment letter, however, are neither directly relevant to the court opinion nor responsive to the issues on which the court ruled (see Section 1.2.2 of the EIR/EIS and Table I-2 of the NBHCP for relevant court issues discussed in these two documents). See Response to Comments O1-7 through O1-60 for specific reasons why the NBHCP does not have to be revised.

Response to Comment O1-7
a. This comment restates that the NBHCP’s proposed mitigation ratio does not provide adequate protection for the Covered Species and would create economic and biological uncertainty as development occurs in the Natomas Basin. Please see responses to subsections b., c., and d. of this comment, below, regarding the avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures included in the NBHCP, and Master Response 1 (Mitigation Ratio) for a discussion of the adequacy of the 0.5:1 mitigation ratio. b. Regarding the adequacy of the mitigation ratio, t
he comment states that that the proposed
mitigation ratio should be 1:1 rather than the proposed 0.5:1. The comment elaborates that the ratio should actually be 1.7:1 because the development allowed to proceed under the 1997 NBHCP and the subsequent Settlement Agreement at a 0.5:1 ratio requires an additional mitigation allocation to compensate for the lands already developed under the proposed mitigation ratio. See Master Response 1 (Mitigation Ratio) for a discussion of the adequacy of the 0.5:1 mitigation ratio for the Covered Species in the NBHCP. For the same reasons that a 1:1 mitigation ratio was determined to be impracticable, a 1.7:1 mitigation ratio is considered infeasible. Section VII.I of the NBHCP and the Economic Analysis of the NBHCP (March 2002) provide measures and analytical support that are intended to demonstrate that the NBHCP’s Operating Conservation Program meets the maximum extent practicable (MEP) finding. The commentor is also referred to Response to Comment O1-36. Also see responses to Comments O1-42 through O1-60 for the economic analysis relevant to a determination of maximum extent practicable. c. The comment further recommends that 17,500 acres of lands be acquired as Mitigation
Lands (this request is based on the requested 1:1 mitigation ratio in a. above). See response to a. above and Master Response 1 (Mitigation Ratio). Regarding the comment on easements, in the City of Sacramento it is not feasible to provide 200-foot easements along canals through urban areas because most areas are developed or under development (with the exception of the east side of Fisherman’s Lake, for which a buffer is being applied pursuant to the Settlement Agreement). In Sutter County, the large canals to remain during the Permit term (see Figure 17 of the NBHCP) generally provide connectivity between LETTER O1—ECOS/FOSH/NWF/PCL/SIERRA CLUB
SAC/161795/031060002(LETTERS.DOC) NATOMAS BASIN HCP 65

FINAL EIR/EIS
habitat areas and do not provide long-term habitat; it would not be an effective mitigation measure to provide upland habitat for giant garter snakes adjacent to these canals. In addition, new text in the Final NBHCP (Section V.A.5.a) discusses design strategies to address expanded buffer areas and modified canal cross sections if such measures, in the determination of Sutter County and the Water Agencies, are found to be feasible.

The comment also recommends maintenance of airport lands and agricultural open space.

Regarding maintenance of lands managed by the airport, see Response to Comment O1-13, which discusses the scope of the NBHCP in the context of voluntary participation and the fact that Sacramento County and the airport are not participants in the NBHCP. Because Sacramento County is not participating in this NBHCP for the coverage of airport-related activities, this NBHCP does not include as mitigation the protection of the airport buffer lands. This does not, however, preclude ongoing constructive dialogue between the airport and TNBC regarding management of buffer lands.

The comment further recommends that the NBHCP include construction of parking lots, visitor centers, restrooms, interpretative trails, and other construction features on t he
Mitigation Lands. In response to the suggested changes to the NBHCP, the NBHCP has been developed with overall and specific biological goals and objectives for wetland and upland species and habitats that are presented in detail in Section I.C of the NBHCP.

Decisions regarding specific land uses have been made at the local land use decision- making stage. The USFWS is considering the effects of incidental take of Covered Species relevant to the Planned Development and not the decision to build parking lots, visitor centers, restrooms, and other facilities on the Mitigation Lands. The NBHCP presents a Operating Conservation Program in Sections IV, V, and VI to meet the biological goals and objectives and to meet the Wildlife Agencies’ requirements for issuance of take permits. In addition, the suggested changes do not meet the biological goals and objectives of the NBHCP. The measures in the NBHCP’s Operating Conservation Program , in total, are designed to provide a strategy that emphasizes avoidance and mitigation measures for the Covered Species in the Natomas Basin. The NBHCP (Section I.C) currently states that the overall biological goal of implementing the NBHCP is to “Establish and manage in perpetuity a biologically sound and interconnected habitat reserve system that mitigates impacts on Covered Species resulting from Covered Activities and provides for existing, and new viable populations of Covered Species.” Other specific goals and objectives for wetlands and uplands habitats are also presented in that section of the NBHCP. The suggested changes to the NBHCP (i.e., construct interpretive centers and restrooms, among other facilities) would not meet the overall and specific biological goals and objectives of the NBHCP that have been developed to maximize benefits for the Covered Species. These suggestions present alternate desires on the part of the commentor and do not demonstrate an inadequacy in either the NBHCP or the EIR/EIS.
d. The comment includes a table that compares land uses in 1997 to what is proposed in the NBHCP and adds
a column of acreage for varying land uses that differ from the NBHCP. In essence, the table portrays the reserve acreage under a 1:1 mitigation ratio rather than a 0.5:1 mitigation ratio. There are several inaccuracies in the table. For example, it states that the total urban development that would be covered by the NBHCP is “Unknown,” but both the NBHCP and the EIR/EIS disclose that the total Planned Developed considered in the NBHCP is 17,500 acres (see Section III-A of the NBHCP and Section 2.3.1 of the EIR/EIS).

LETTER O1—ECOS/FOSH/NWF/PCL/SIERRA CLUB
66 NATOMAS BASIN HCP SAC/161795/031060002(LETTERS.DOC)

FINAL EIR/EIS
The table also adds a land use classification for “land available for future development” and notes that the NBHCP would allow the remainder of land in the Basin to be developed. As discussed in the EIR/EIS (Section 2) and Master Response 4 (Cumulative Impacts), however, the NBHCP is seeking approval of ITPs for the Covered Activity of 17,500 acres of Planned Development. The NBHCP does not assume that the remainder of the Basin will be developed, and it addresses only 17,500 acres of development.

To provide a quantitative basis for the analysis in the NBHCP and the EIR/EIS a GIS Database
on Land Use and Habitats was developed to classify and identify habitat types and land uses in the Natomas Basin. The methodology and the approach to analysis are presented and applied in both the Biological Resources Technical Memo and its Addendum (Appendix H in the Draft NBHCP and Appendix K in the Final NBHCP) and in the Draft EIR/EIS (see Sections 3.4 of the EIR/EIS for a presentation of the methodology for analysis and see Section 4.4. for a detailed assessment of impacts to biological resources based on that GIS database). The suggested changes in the comment are not cited or sourced.

The comment also restates the request to apply a 1:1 ratio and to require the Permittees to manage
lands for which they are not seeking coverage and that are under separate management (airport lands). See the response to b. above.

The comment also suggests that privately owned agricultural lands in the Natoma s Basin should be subject to centralized management. The comment recommends that TNBC should be the overall manager of privately owned agricultural lands in the Natomas Basin and that profits from these privately owned agricultural operations should be used to acquire Mitigation Lands. The commentor’s suggestion is not considered feasible for the following reasons. It is not within the jurisdictional authority of either the Wildlife Agencies or the Applicants to unilaterally alter the management of private land ownership or to redirect profits from private agricultural operations to a non-profit organization. Many of the agricultural operations in the Basin depend on agriculture for income and employment opportunities. Thus, to suggest that these operations can transfer any revenues to the purchase of Mitigation Lands is not realistic and would deprive existing businesses of their earnings. Moreover, agricultural lands outside of the reserves do not constitute mitigation under the NBHCP. Thus, it is unreasonable to impose a mitigation burden on landowners and businesses that are not permittees. The Mitigation Fee (Section VI.B) is based on acres developed within the Permit Areas. That is, developers seeking incidental take authorization for Planned Development must pay a Mitigation Fee for the purchase of Mitigation Lands prior to obtaining an Urban Development Permit to offset the impacts of incidental take. The Mitigation Fee provides greater assurances that Mitigation Lands will be acquired than does the suggestion to redirect profits from agricultural operations that are not permittees.

In response to the suggestion to use grants and profits from centrally managed (yet privately held) agricultural lands to fund acq
uisition, the proposed funding based on
development fees is more reliable than competitive and uncertain grant funding sources to acquire reserve lands.

LETTER O1—ECOS/FOSH/NWF/PCL/SIERRA CLUB
SAC/161795/031060002(LETTERS.DOC) NATOMAS BASIN HCP 67

FINAL EIR/EIS
Response to Comment O1-8
a. As noted in Response to Comment O1-7, the NBHCP does not consider lands outside the 17,500 acres of Planned Development as likely to be developed. The NBHCP discusses foreseeable urban development in Section III.C.1. In addition, the EIR/EIS discusses future unknown development in sections 2.7.3 and 4.1.2. Also see Master Responses 3 (Joint Vision) and 4 (Cumulative Impacts). These sections (particularly Master Responses 3 and 4) discuss the potential at some future time for development, in addition to Planned Development, to occur but that such development is speculative at this time. The EIR/EIS and the NBHCP discuss the process and approvals that would be necessary if such future proposal were made. Section I.2 of the NBHCP has been updated to further clarify the required processes and approvals. See specific text changes in the NBHCP. b. The 17,500 acres of Planned Development include the development that occurred since 1997
and the development that would occur consistent with the NBHCP. For the reasons set forth above in the Response to Comment O1-7, it is infeasible to acquire the remaining agricultural lands in the Basin under this NBHCP. The 17,500 acres of Planned Development include planned parks and open space. As noted above, trail facilities, interpretative centers, and parking areas on reserve sites are not proposed in the NBHCP because they are contrary to the NBHCP’s biological goals and objectives. The 17,500 acres of Planned Development include the infrastructure necessary for the development that would be located within the Permit Areas. The commentor is referred to Response to Comment O1-27 regarding detention basins and wastewater treatment facilities. Regarding the comment on the acreage for Swainson’s hawk, please see the Biological Resources Technical Memo (Appendix H of the NBHCP) and the Addendum to the Biological Resources Technical Memo (Appendix K of the Final NBHCP) for the analysis of the effects of implementing the NBHCP on Swainson’s hawk foraging habitat. Also see Master Response 5 (Swainson’s Hawk Foraging Habitat) and the individual responses to comments in Comment Letter O2.

Please refer to Comment Letter I5 for responses relevant to canals and drainage ditches.

Please note that the Operating Conservation Plan of the NBHCP has been prepared in consideration of the needs of all 22 Covered Species and that the avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures are designed to meet the needs of these species. Implementing what is suggested in the comment would result in a management plan that does not balance the needs of all the Covered Species. Also see Master Response 2 (Connectivity).

Response to Comment O1-9
a. The comment states that the NBHCP should identify specific “target” acquisition areas to ensure connectivity and states that not doing so results in land speculation. Implementing the requested approach, however, would result in land speculation and inflated land costs.

This alternative would be inconsistent with the NBHCP’s objectives to promote opportunities for Covered Species to expand in the Basin, implement a flexible conservation program, and increase the opportunity for reproductive success.

This suggested approach and requested change to the NBHCP have already been evaluated in the EIR/EIS as Alternative 3, Reserve Zone Alternative. Alternative 3 is defined as specific identified reserve zones that would be prioritized for acquisition (see Section 2.6.3 of the EIR/EIS). Under this alternative, five overlapping zones distributed throughout the Basin were identified to support the needs of giant garter snake and Swainson’s hawk. This LETTER O1—ECOS/FOSH/NWF/PCL/SIERRA CLUB
68 NATOMAS BASIN HCP SAC/161795/031060002(LETTERS.DOC)

FINAL EIR/EIS
alternative would result in impacts comparable to those of the Proposed Action because the criteria for acquiring reserve lands (Section IV.C.2 of the NBHCP) in combination with the overall biological goals and objectives of implementing a reserve system (Section I.C of the NBHCP) would effectively result in prioritization of target purchase areas. Impacts associated with this alternative, however, would include inflated land prices resulting from land speculation [as occurred under the terms of the Settlement Agreement, in which the focus on specific parcels (e.g., Fisherman’s Lake) resulted in inflated land acquisition costs].

The Economic Analysis of the NBHCP, dated March 2002 (Appendix A of the NBHCP) concluded that the requirement to purchase Mitigation Land in specified areas would result in increased land acquisition costs, as evidenced by the most recent TNBC land acquisition costs of $11,000 per acre under the Settlement Agreement. On the basis of prior experience, increasing the land costs on an ongoing basis was determined to adversely affect the financial feasibility of development projects (see Appendix A, p. 37.). Additionally, the Draft EIR/EIS considered but rejected a fixed reserve alternative because it was determined to be infeasible based on land speculation that would limit TNBC’s ability to acquire reserve sites (for example, see Draft EIR/EIS, Section 2.7.7).

The NBHCP does, however, prioritize the need for land
acquisition that meets the specific
acquisition criteria (Sections IV.C.2, IV.C.3, and IV.C.4 of the NBHCP) and includes priority acquisition for lands of high habitat value.
b. The comment also suggests designating preserve areas and identifies areas for development (including a map of proposed acquisition areas). As discussed throughout this comment letter and in the
NBHCP and EIR/EIS, the area of development is the 17,500 acres of Planned Development in the City and Sutter County. Regarding drawing a line around targeted areas, see the response to a. above and the resulting speculation and inflation of land costs that would occur (as demonstrated by the specific target lands included in the Settlement Agreement). In addition, the land to be acquired for reserves is subject to market conditions, availability, and the willingness of owners to sell. Given these factors, the NBHCP includes specific high-priority areas and an expedited acquisition process (Sections IV.C.2, IV.C.3, and IV.C.4 of the NBHCP). Even if the areas requested in the comment were drawn on a map, there is no requirement for the owners to sell. TNBC has the authority to prioritize the suggested areas for purchase; it cannot, however, identify those lands and be ensured that owners would be willing to sell or that redlining of possible acquisition areas would not contribute to inflated land costs.

The referenced map also includes areas under t he control of land use agencies (Sacramento County) and land managers (airport) that have elected not to participate in the NBHCP (see Section 1.2.1 of the EIR/EIS). Thus, the suggested requirement of 1,600 acres in the northeastern corner of Sacramento County may be infeasible. In any event, because Sacramento County is not participating in this NBHCP, no take permit will be issued to Sacramento County based upon the NBHCP. If these agencies choose to participate in the NBHCP or prepare a separate HCP at some future unknown date, they will be subject to the provisions of Section I.B.5 of the NBHCP, which states that if coverage for activities is sought under the NBHCP, an amendment to the NBHCP (in accordance with Section VI.L.3 of the NBHCP) would be required. The amendment process shall be in accordance with all legal requirements including, but not limited to ESA, CESA, CEQA, and NEPA, and any LETTER O1—ECOS/FOSH/NWF/PCL/SIERRA CLUB
SAC/161795/031060002(LETTERS.DOC) NATOMAS BASIN HCP 69

FINAL EIR/EIS
applicable state and federal regulations. Specific responses to the features on the attached figure are provided below:
• The figure also highlights specific areas that the commentor suggests be covered by a separate HCP (MAP HCP, see Section 1.2.1 of the EIR/EIS). • In response to the “connectivity corridor” labeled on the figure, please refer to Response to Comment G3-11 and Master Response 2 (Connectivity) that address the NBHCP’s goals and objectives and priority measures for ensuring connectivity. Also see Figure 17 of the NBHCP, which identifies key drainage canals to be maintained for the duration of the Permit term. See Response to Comment O1-7 regarding connectivity and Fisherman’s Lake. Also see the Final NBHCP for new text on connectivity. • In response to priority areas identified for Swainson’s hawk, the NBHCP includes a Swainson’s Hawk Zone (see the responses to Comment Letter O2, the Addendum to the Biological Resources Technical Memo [Appendix K of the Final NBHCP], and Master Response 5 [Swainson’s Hawk Foraging Habitat]). If Sutter County approves the South Sutter County Specific Plan, the Wildlife Agencies will assess the viability of any Mitigation Lands in proximity to that development.
• Regarding the area identified for development in Sutter County, these highlighted areas on the attached figure are included in the development for which Sutter County is seeking take coverage. The figure also identified “second stage” areas in which permits could be issued. It is not clear what the comment intends by “second stage” permit. If that term pertains to the “shifting” areas of development requested in other sections of this comment letter, see Response to Comment O1-11.
• Regarding the request to exclude floodplain area, these areas for which Sutter County is seeking take coverage and improvements are addressed under the South Sutter County Specific Plan and its associated EIR. These two documents (and others prepared for Sutter County’s Authorized Development) are discussed in detail in Section 4.1.3 of the EIR/EIS and in Response to Comments O3-19.
c. In response to the comment on the staging of the acquisition of Mitigation Lands, see Response to Comment O1-10 and Sections IV.C.
2 through IV.C.4 of the NBHCP, which
discuss in detail the criteria for acquisition. In addition, many of the biological goals and objectives of the NBHCP focus on ensuring interconnected habitat in the Mitigation Lands and connectivity between reserves to minimize habitat fragmentation and species isolation (Section I.C of the NBHCP).

The measures in the NBHCP that address these goals include preparation of site-specific manage
ment plans, use of buffers, acquisition of the 2,500-acre habitat block, and the 400- acre minimum block size (Section IV.C.1 of the NBHCP); all of these measures are designed to provide high-quality habitat, as requested in the comment.

In reference to the suggestion that future Mitigation Lands be in the County of Sacramento, this outcome is contingent on the willingness to sell by landowners with lands that meet TNBC’s acquisition criteria, as discussed above.

LETTER O1—ECOS/FOSH/NWF/PCL/SIERRA CLUB
70 NATOMAS BASIN HCP SAC/161795/031060002(LETTERS.DOC)

FINAL EIR/EIS
Response to Comment O1-10
a. The 1997 NBHCP specifically discussed habitat in the context of the wildlife addressed in the Natomas Basin. The source of the data used in the 1997 NBHCP was the USFWS Habitat Evaluation Procedure analysis (USFWS, 1991). The revised NBHCP updated the presentation of habitat allocation using a GIS Habitat and Land Use Database that delineated further the land use and habitats in the Natomas Basin. The GIS developed for the revised NBHCP is the foundation of the quantitative analysis of the Operating Conservation Program of the NBHCP and was also used to conduct independent analysis of the impacts of those measures. The GIS is supported by a variety of source data and field verification (see the Biological Resources Technical Memo in Appendix H of the NBHCP, the Addendum to the Biological Resources Technical Memo in Appendix K of the Final NBHCP, and Sections 3.4 and 4.4 of the EIR/EIS). In response to the comments on conservation strategy; upland, marsh, and rice proportions; land management regimes and connectivity; and water supply, see the remainder of responses to this Comment Letter.

In addition, several comments request mitigation measures for impacts to Covered Species that
are in addition to the 17,500 acres of Planned Development. The NBHCP covers 17,500 acres of Planned Development; it does not cover speculative development outside the Permit Areas [see NBHCP Chapter III and Master Response 4 (Cumulative Impacts)]]. In addition, the avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures have been developed to mitigate potential impacts to Covered Species to the maximum extent practicable, as demonstrated in Appendix H of the NBHCP, the Addendum to the Biological Resources Technical Memorandum (Appendix K of the Final NBHCP), and in Section 4.4 of the EIR/EIS. Third, many of the measures proposed in this comment (and other comments in this comment letter) are inconsistent with the biological goals and objectives of the NBHCP (see Section I.C of the NBHCP and Section 1.4 of the EIR/EIS for a summary of these goals and objectives). The specific issues raised in the remainder of the comment are addressed in the responses below and in other responses to comments raised in this letter (for example, see Responses to Comments O1-7 and O1-9).
b. As noted in Section 2.3.1 of the EIR/EIS and in a. above, the City and Sutter County are requesting co
verage under the NBHCP for impacts to Covered Species associated with 17,500 acres of development under their jurisdictional control. The 28,000 acres referenced in the comment are in Sacramento County. Sacramento County is not an Applicant, and the comment is requesting actions that are not within the jurisdiction of the City and Sutter County. As discussed in Section I.B.3 of the NBHCP and in Responses to Comments G8-7, O1-12, and O1-13, neither the Lead Agencies nor the Applicants can compel an entity to participate in the NBHCP process. The specific measures the comment recommends for Sacramento County are, therefore, not part of the Covered Activities, nor are such measures included as mitigation in the NBHCP. If Sacramento County decides to prepare its own HCP or requests to join the NBHCP, mechanisms are provided in the NBHCP to require an updated biological impact and mitigation analysis and an economic analysis related to the such activities as part of either a separate HCP or an amendment to the NBHCP.

The comment also requests that 10,500 acres of land be acq uired as Swainson’s hawk
preserve lands west of the I-5/S.R. 99 corridor and that at least half the acreage be in alfalfa or other row crop. The comment further requests that the management practices on these specific lands should change on the basis of “positive biological findings” or on new LETTER O1—ECOS/FOSH/NWF/PCL/SIERRA CLUB
SAC/161795/031060002(LETTERS.DOC) NATOMAS BASIN HCP 71

FINAL EIR/EIS
“evidence on forage values.” As discussed in the Addendum to the Biological Resources Technical Memo (Appendix K of the Final NBHCP) and Master Response 5 (Swainson’s Hawk Foraging Habitat), the NBHCP is expected to adequately mitigate for potential impacts of the Covered Activities (e.g., urban development) on the loss of foraging habitat.

It is important to note that the NBHCP’s primary overall goal (see Section I.C of the NBHCP) is to “create a system of reserves, with both wetland and upland components, that would support viable populations of the giant garter snake, Swainson’s hawk and other Covered Species.” Although the NBHCP is primarily focused on the giant garter snake and the Swainson’s hawk, the NBHCP recognizes that the needs of the other Covered Species overlap substantively with these species, and the NBHCP Operating Conservation Program has been developed to accommodate all the Covered Species (see Section I.C of the NBHCP). It is important to note that maximizing habitat creation for a single species would not meet the goals and objectives established for all species in the NBHCP.

The comment further makes suggestions on the following issues (the respon ses to which
immediately follow the issue):
14,000 acres should be provided in rice production, marsh, and canals manag ed for giant garter snake and wetland species. See Response to Comment Letter I5 and Section 4.4 of the EIR/EIS. Also see Response to Comment O1-7. In addition, new text in the Final NBHCP (Section V.A.5.a) discusses design strategies to address expanded buffer areas and modified canal cross sections if such measures, in the determination of Sutter County and the Water Agencies, are found to be feasible.

Minimum preserve size. Regarding the req uest for a minimum reserve size of 1,000 acres, see Sections IV.C.2 through IV.C.4 of the NBHCP, which discuss in detail the criteria for acquisition. In addition, many of the biological goals and objectives of the NBHCP focus on ensuring interconnected habitat in the Mitigation Lands and connectivity between reserves to minimize habitat fragmentation and species isolation (Section I.C of the NBHCP). The measures in the NBHCP that address these goals include preparation of site-specific management plans, use of buffers, acquisition of the 2,500-acre habitat block, and the 400- acre minimum block size (Section IV.C.1 of the NBHCP); all of these measures are designed to provide high-quality habitat, as requested in the comment. Also see Responses to Comments O1-8, O1-10, O1-28, and O1-59. The NBHCP states that reserves must be a minimum of 400 acres.

Fallowed lands and cover crops. The issue of foraging values (both under existing conditions and under implementation of
the NBHCP) is discussed in detail in the
Addendum to the Biological Resources Technical Memo (Appendix K of the Final NBHCP) and in Master Response 5 (Swainson’s Hawk Foraging Habitat). Also see the responses to Comment Letter O2.

Changing the cover crops and connectivity between preserve areas. Regarding connectivity, one of the biological goals of the NBHCP (Section I.C) is to ensure connectivity between the Mitigation Lands. The NBHCP also no
tes that the primary way in which
connectivity is achieved is the system of channels maintained and operated by RD 1000 and Natomas Mutual. The Water Agencies have noted that existing channels would generally be eliminated only as a result of urban development and that current operation of the canals is anticipated to be maintained in accordance with existing operations. In addition, the Water LETTER O1—ECOS/FOSH/NWF/PCL/SIERRA CLUB
72 NATOMAS BASIN HCP SAC/161795/031060002(LETTERS.DOC)

FINAL EIR/EIS
Agencies have identified the primary canals that are most likely to remain under existing operation during the Permit term (see NBHCP, Figure 17). With regard to basin-wide connectivity, RD 1000 has identified the key drainage channels that provide core components of the drainage system within the Basin, and these key channels would be retained regardless of urban development. Even if the Water Agencies do not apply for an ITP under the NBHCP, the connectivity among reserves using canals and drains is expected to be sufficient to support the persistence of giant garter snakes. As noted in Master Response 2 (Connectivity) and in the Final NBHCP, closure of canals and ditches under the operating authority of the Water Agencies is not a Covered Activity. The Final NBHCP also states that even if a key canal were to be closed, the Water Agency would be required to comply with the ESA and mitigate impacts under Section 10 of the ESA (i.e., amending the NBHCP or preparing a separate HCP). Also see Master Response 2 (Connectivity) for a discussion of how the NBHCP Operating Conservation Program adequately addresses connectivity among irrigation channels and drainage canals. Also see Master Response 2 (Connectivity) and Section V.A.5.a of the Final NBHCP for new text on connectivity. 800-foot buffer around Fisherman’s Lake. Also suggested is an 800-foot buffer for Fisherman’s L
ake. This is an issue that was raised and is being addressed separately from the NBHCP as one of the terms of the Settlement Agreement. Notwithstanding the ultimate status of the NBHCP, a separate ongoing mediated process will address the 800-foot buffer (see Response to Comment I2-5). Also see Section IV.C.1.c of the NBHCP for a discussion of buffers (buffers are a feature of the Mitigation Lands and are not subject to urban development).

City’s take permit in the Swainson’s Hawk Zone. The comment requests that the City not receive a take permit for 180 acres in the Swainson’s Hawk Zone. The analysis conducted in the EIR/EIS considers the 17,500 acres of previously evaluated and approved Planned Development (see 2.7.4 of the EIR/EIS regarding the elimination of development “cap” as an alternative) and includes the development of 252 acres in the Swainson’s Hawk Zone.

The findings contained in the Biological Resources Technical Memo (see Appendix H of the NBHCP) and in the EIR/EIS (see Section 4.3) demonstrate that the NBHCP results in less than significant impacts to biological and other resources. Also see Appendix C and Section

4.1 of the EIR/EIS for a discussion of the Planned Development (which includes the impacts of development of 252 acres by the City in the proposed Swainson’s Hawk Zone). Appendix C summarizes the extensive prior analysis of impacts related to development in this area as part of the adoption of the City’s General Plan and the relevant community plans adopted for the City’s Permit Area.

Sutter County’s take permit. Regarding the request for conditional issuance of the ITP to
Sutter County, the County is requesting coverage for Planned Development with appropriate infrastructure. The NBHCP has been developed to mitigate for the effects of take of the Covered Species associated with the Covered Activities. The request for take coverage does not extend to discharge activities regulated by water quality certification or wastewater discharge requirements (Section I.O, “Activities Not Covered by the NBHCP”).

The physical construction of wastewater treatment facilities located within Sutter County’s Permit Area, however, have been included within the Planned Development area.

Wastewater disposal and other related activities occurring outside of Sutter County’s Permit Area would not be included as Covered Activities. As a result, there is no basis for LETTER O1—ECOS/FOSH/NWF/PCL/SIERRA CLUB
SAC/161795/031060002(LETTERS.DOC) NATOMAS BASIN HCP 73

FINAL EIR/EIS
requesting conditional issuance on an activity that is not covered by the ITP. Also see Response to Comment O1-27 for additional discussion of Sutter County infrastructure. c. The comment requests that 14,000 acres be maintained in rice prod uction, marsh, and canals for the giant garter snake. As discussed in Section 4.4 of the EIR/EIS and the Biological Resources Technical Memo (Appendix H of the Draft NBHCP), the proposed measures for the giant garter snake have been developed to mitigate impacts to giant garter snakes to a less-than-significant level. The NBHCP discusses and provides mitigation measures for the impacts of Planned Development on the giant garter snake. The EIR/EIS analyzes the impact to giant garter snakes of implementing those mitigation measures in the context of Planned Development. As discussed in the EIR/EIS (Section 4.4.5.2.7), implementation of the Proposed Action is anticipated to result in a loss of 404 acres of habitat for giant garter snakes. Despite this acreage loss, the Proposed Action would encourage the persistence of giant garter snakes for several reasons. First, the actual loss of habitat is expected to be less than is indicated solely by acreage loss (see Section 4.4.5.2.7, page 4-57 of the Draft EIR/EIS). Second, the managed marsh and the rice lands created under the NBHCP’s habitat reserve system would have a greater habitat value for giant garter snakes than does the habitat affected by Planned Development. Third, the habitat reserves would provide habitat that would contribute to a stable population of giant garter snakes over the long term. Also see the responses to Comment Letter I5 for additional responses relevant to giant garter snakes. Also see Responses to Comments O1-42 through O1-60 for discussion of the economic considerations in developing appropriate mitigation measures.

Also see b. above regarding the primary overall goal of the NBHCP, which is to recognize that t
he needs of the other Covered Species overlap substantively with the giant garter snake and the Swainson’s hawk and that the NBHCP Operating Conservation Program has been developed to accommodate all the Covered Species (see Section I.C of the NBHCP).

The Operating Conservation Program in the NBHCP has been developed to mitigate adequately for the take associated with Covered Activities while also achieving a primary objective of creating a system of reserves with both wetland and upland components that would support viable populations of the giant garter snake, Swainson’s hawk, and other Covered Species.

The comment also requests a minimum size of 1
,000 acres for Mitigation Lands. See the
response in b. above regarding this comment. Regarding priority acquisitions, the NBHCP already includes such provisions (Sections IV.C.2 – IV.C.4 of the NBHCP). Also see Responses to Comments O1-8, O1-10, O1-28, and O1-59.

The comment also requests encouragement of marsh habitat and management compatible with airport needs. Ch
apter IV of the NBHCP includes a section on the management of reserves including marsh reserves for compatibility with the airport (See NBHCP, Section IV.D.5). As discussed in the EIR/EIS (Sections 3.11 and 4.11), Sacramento International Airport and TNBC are engaged in ongoing discussions to coordinate the implementation of the NBHCP with future master planning efforts that may be conducted by the airport (see also Responses to Comments G8-25 and G8-36). There is no reason to presume that this constructive dialogue would be discontinued. In addition, neither the airport or Sacramento County has expressed interest in participating in the NBHCP, and if the airport were to request coverage for take (either under a separate HCP or as party to the NBHCP), LETTER O1—ECOS/FOSH/NWF/PCL/SIERRA CLUB
74 NATOMAS BASIN HCP SAC/161795/031060002(LETTERS.DOC)

FINAL EIR/EIS
additional environmental review and a review of the effects on biological resources within the Basin would be required (Section 2.7.3 of the EIR/EIS).

The comment also requests that conversion of rice lands to m arsh lands be limited to edge areas and require a TNBC finding that such conversion is necessary. Section VI.H.2 describes the specific process for conversion of rice lands to managed marsh to best support the needs of the Covered Species. Conversion of such lands is dependent on written justification of the USFWS rather than TNBC’s Board because the USFWS is the agency responsible for the implementation of the ESA. Also see the Addendum to the Biological Resources Technical Memo (Appendix K of the Final NBHCP).

Response to Comment O1-11
a. Contrary to the statement that the ITP issued for the NBHCP would be a “one permit covers all approach,” the Applicants have requested separate take authorizations for each Applicant’s respective Permit Area. The NBHCP addresses the incidental take of Covered Species associated with a well-defined amount of Planned Development within each Applicant’s respective Permit Area. This amount of Planned Development is based upon the Applicants’ adopted general plans, community plans, and/or specific plans that specify the amount of development that may proceed within the 50-year term of the ITPs. In addition, Metro Air Park has a separate ITP issued pursuant to an HCP that is consistent with the NBHCP’s conservation strategy. Because the NBHCP is based upon the projections of reasonably foreseeable development within the Permit Areas, the proposed allocation of take authorizations is not arbitrary. The commentor is referred to the evaluation of land use development within the Basin as described in detail in Chapter III of the NBHCP and Section 3.6 of the EIR/EIS. In addition, the Planned Development has been extensively evaluated both in the EIR/EIS and in numerous planning and environmental review documents. The EIR/EIS discusses the review of the Planned Development throughout the document and specific detailed discussions and analyses are in Chapters 1 and 2, Sections

4.1 and in Appendix C. Regarding the comment on other potential development in the basin, see Master Response 3 (Joint Vision) and Master Response 4 (Cumulative Impacts ).

Regarding the comment on the 17,500 acres of Planned Development, this level of development is discussed in detail in Section 2.3.1 of the EIR/EIS and Chapters I and III of the NBHCP. The commentor is referred to Master Response 4 (Cumulative Impacts) for a discussion of the status of other activities that the commentor suggests have been or may be undertaken in the future by the Sacramento Area Flood Control Agency (SAFCA), Sacramento International Airport, Natomas Mutual, Caltrans, and Sacramento County Public Works. Other foreseeable actions are discussed in Section 4.1.2 and evaluated throughout the separate resource sections of the EIR/EIS. These other potential development actions also would be required to comply with the ESA. During any future review of such projects under Section 7 and/or Section 10 of the ESA, the USFWS will evaluate the effects of the action and the conservation strategy proposed on the species addressed in the NBHCP to ensure any such projects contribute to the continued viability of the species in the Natomas Basin.
b. The commentors suggest issuance of alternative “staged” permits covering fewer acres of development but do not offer any evidence th
at such staged permits are necessary or
appropriate to address impacts to the Covered Species. The take coverage for 17,500 acres of LETTER O1—ECOS/FOSH/NWF/PCL/SIERRA CLUB
SAC/161795/031060002(LETTERS.DOC) NATOMAS BASIN HCP 75

FINAL EIR/EIS
Planned Development in the Natomas Basin under the NBHCP reflects the urban development needs of the City and Sutter County and the impacts of such take are expected to be minimized and mitigated by the proposed NBHCP. The Applicants and the Lead Agencies do not agree that a staged permit system is preferable or necessary.

The second paragraph of this comment also suggest s a process whereby acreage could “shift” among jurisdictions. In response, the Planned Development represents the foreseeable development in the Natomas [see Master Responses 3 (Joint Vision)] and 4 (Cumulative Impacts). The NBHCP evaluates the effects of take associated with development within the City’s and Sutter County’s Permit Areas.

Shifting development areas is not feasible because both the NBHCP and the EIR/EIS are requ
ired to describe accurately the Covered Activities at a level of detail that provides the approving agencies and the general public with an understanding of the activities for which the Applicants are seeking incidental take coverage. In addition, the Planned Development represents the foreseeable development in the Natomas Basin, as discussed in Section 4.1.2 of the EIR/EIS and in Master Response 4 (Cumulative Impacts). That level of development has been extensively described and analyzed in previous planning and environmental review documents and is the proposed Covered Activity for which the City and Sutter County are requesting incidental take coverage. The comment also does not specify where the “shift” areas would be, and no land use plans have been submitted to land use agencies for consideration and approval.

Regarding the specific acreage suggestions for the
shifting development in the City, these
are not feasible given the specificity required for discussions of proposed Covered Activities (see preceding paragraph). In addition, some of the acreage proposed to be eligible for shifting is already clearly defined as part of the Planned Development. The 8,050 acres proposed in the comment as one of the areas to be shifted is the existing development that is currently included in the NBHCP (see Section I.N of the NBHCP and Section 2.2 of the EIR/EIS). The entire 8,050 acres proposed for incidental take authorizations comprise lands within the North and South Natomas Community Plan areas. We are unclear as to the basis for the commentor’s assertion that the 8,050 acres should cover the entire North Natomas Community Plan area.

Regarding Sutter County acreage, the commen
t recommends a reduction in developable
land of 4,467 acres (presumably suggesting 3,000 acres of development versus the 7,467 acres in the Sutter County Specific Plan) but provides no rationale for the reduction.

With respect to Sutter County, the County is requesting incidental take authorization for 7,467 acres of its 10,000-acre Industrial/Commercial Reserve area. Also, as noted above, the 3,500 acres of development are specified in the Sutter County Specific Plan and evaluated in the Sutter County EIR for that specific plan (see Sections 2.2, 3.1, 3.3, 4.1.3, 4.1.4, and 4.3 of the EIR/EIS for discussion of the Sutter County lands and references to relevant planning documents addressing impacts of that Covered Activity). Although 3,500 acres of the 7,467-acre development potential have undergone preparation of a specific plan, it is envisioned that during the 50-year term of Sutter County’s ITP an additional 3,967 acres of Planned Development could seek incidental take authorization. Thus, limiting development to 3,000 acres is inconsistent with Sutter County’s adopted land use plans. In addition, Sutter County’s determination of the acreage to include in the Permit Area has taken into consideration the protection of important habitat. Specifically, Sutter County’s Planned LETTER O1—ECOS/FOSH/NWF/PCL/SIERRA CLUB
76 NATOMAS BASIN HCP SAC/161795/031060002(LETTERS.DOC)

FINAL EIR/EIS
Development of 7,467 acres does not include the 1-mile Swainson’s Hawk Zone lands directly adjacent to the Sacramento River (1,015 acres). That land is currently designated for Industrial/Commercial use and, as part of the implementation of the NBHCP, Sutter County proposes to initiate a General Plan Amendment to redesignate those lands as Agricultural and remove those lands from development. In the absence of the NBHCP, the 1,015 acres in that proposed buffer zone would not be afforded this protection.

Similarly, MAP is subject to adopted land use plans authorizing development of 1,983 acres.

Thus, the basis upon which the commentor relies to limit development to 1,683 acres is unclear. As discussed in the NBHCP EIR/EIS, the MAP acreage is included in the evaluation of the NBHCP because the MAP’s offsite improvements fall partially within the City’s Permit area and partially within Sacramento County. These offsite improvements are authorized under the MAP ITP but are included in the NBHCP to provide comprehensive application of conservation measures in the Natomas Basin and a conservative assessment of impacts in the EIR/EIS. Because a separate HCP and EIS were prepared for MAP, the approved acreage of Planned Development cannot be revised in the context of the NBHCP, nor is such a revision within the land use authority of either the City or Sutter County. As noted in Section 1.2.1, the ITP and Record of Decision (ROD) for the MAP project were issued in February 2002. The pending litigation on that project does not affect the analysis conducted for the NBHCP because the NBHCP includes an independent analysis of the impacts of the MAP acreage in the context of the entire Natomas Basin.

The comment also suggests that:
• projects that are subject to a separate Section 7 consultation (presumably other than those covered by the NBHCP) be required to conform to the mitigation measures in the NBHCP,
• the TNBC review and approve those requirements and integrate those projects into the reserve system operated by the TNBC, and
• there be a “cap” on development of 17,500 acres.

The NBHCP states that private or public actions that are Covered Activities under the NBHCP may also be subject to separate
Section 7 review if those actions are authorized,
carried out, or funded by federal agencies. Incidental take for Covered Activities carried out by the Applicants or third-party developers acting under the authority of a City or Sutter County Urban Development Permit will be granted under the Permits and will be subject to the take avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures provided under the NBHCP.

Incidental take coverage for the federal action agency will be granted through the incidental take statement issued with the USFWS’ Section 7 biological opinion (see NBHCP, Chapter I.O). Regarding conditioning unidentified “projects” on mitigation measures in the NBHCP, the request for this condition is outside the scope of the NBHCP and the EIR/EIS to require conditions on unidentified possible future projects. It is, therefore, also outside the scope of these processes to require inclusion of unknown unidentified projects into the Mitigation Lands. Regarding a request for a cap on development, see Response to Comment O1-10 and other responses included in this comment. Also see Master Response 4 (Cumulative Impacts) regarding the suggestion to put a cap on development.

LETTER O1—ECOS/FOSH/NWF/PCL/SIERRA CLUB
SAC/161795/031060002(LETTERS.DOC) NATOMAS BASIN HCP 77

FINAL EIR/EIS
Response to Comment O1-12
a. The decision of the Applicants to participate in implementation of the NBHCP is voluntary, and neither the Lead Agencies nor the Applicants can compel other parties to participate. The City requested Sacramento County to participate (see Appendix K of the Final EIR/EIS) and also offered the water agencies indemnification from potential litigation on the NBHCP. Neither the County of Sacramento nor the Water Agencies have chosen to participate in the revised NBHCP at this time. See the discussion of involvement by SAFCA (a division of the County of Sacramento) in c. below as well as in Master Response 4 (Cumulative Impacts) and Response to Comment G2-3.
b. The history of both the Water Agencies’ and Sacramento County’s participation in the NBHCP is discussed in Section 1.2.1 of the EIR/EIS. If
either of these entities choose to
participate in the NBHCP or prepare separate HCPs at some future unknown date, the NBHCP includes procedures for that participation. Depending upon the nature of the Water Agencies’ and/or Sacramento County’s activities proposed for incidental take coverage, such participation may be subject to additional environmental review. Regarding the water agencies’ role in maintaining connectivity of the canals, this issue is discussed in the responses to Comment Letter I5 and Master Response 2 (Connectivity). Also, as shown in Figure 17 of the NBHCP, the key canals that facilitate connectivity would be maintained for at least the term of the Permit. In addition to the water agencies’ role in maintaining drainage canals, the NBHCP identifies connectivity as a priority goal and includes additional measures relevant to acquisition criteria on this issue. The history of the Water Agencies’ participation in the NBHCP is discussed in Section 1.2.1 of the EIR/EIS.

Regarding SAFCA, see Master Response 4 (Cumulative Impacts) and Response to Comment G2-3.
c. The Water Agencies and SAFCA are not solely responsible for maintaining the viability of agriculture and habitat within th
e Basin. The NBHCP’s Operating Conservation Program
contains conservation measures to assure the viability of habitat through the system of reserves contemplated in the NBHCP. Although the retention of agriculture in the Basin is not a mitigation requirement of the NBHCP, the NBHCP does include adaptive management measures intended to respond to changes in foraging habitat and canal connectivity that could occur within the Basin during the 50-year life of the Permits. Neither the City, Sutter County, TNBC, nor the developers of Planned Development should be required to compensate the Water Agencies for canal management that the Water Agencies undertake to provide flood control and irrigation throughout the Basin. Master Response 2 (Connectivity) describes the process for the acquisition of canals and canal easements to maintain canal connectivity in the future.
d. See Response to Comment G8-32 regarding water transfers.

Limitations on water
availability to lands outside the Mitigation Lands would be subject to the Adaptive Management provisions in the NBHCP (see Section VI.F), which allow amendment to the NBHCP for significant land use changes. Limitations on water availability to the Mitigation Lands itself is an unforeseen circumstance for the reasons presented in Section VI.K.2.g of the NBHCP and Section 4.3 of the EIR/EIS. The roles and responsibilities of the NBHCP TAC are established in Section IV.B.1 of the NBHCP. The TAC is an advisory committee and has no legal authority to approve or disapprove actions by other agencies.

LETTER O1—ECOS/FOSH/NWF/PCL/SIERRA CLUB
78 NATOMAS BASIN HCP SAC/161795/031060002(LETTERS.DOC)

FINAL EIR/EIS
e. As discussed above, whether the water agencies choose to seek a permit at this time, the NBHCP and the EIR/EIS have addressed and analyzed the connectivity of the canals. The Lead Agencies do not agree that formal memoranda of understanding (MOUs) are the only mechanism to facilitate the objectives of the NBHCP. In addition, requiring conditional approval on activities and projects not covered by this NBHCP is a separate issue that can be raised by the commentors in other review processes if other projects proceed in the future.

Response to Comment O1-13
The Lead Agencies cannot compel participation in the voluntary development of an HCP (see Response to Comment O1-12).

The commentor suggests that Sacramento County has approved development without consideration of species mitigation. The comme
ntor is referred to Master Response 4
(Cumulative Impacts) and Response to Comment O3-13 regarding the Sacramento County Zoning Code and the non-discretionary approval of new residences and accessory structures. It is important to note that building permits have been issued for permitted uses in agricultural zones consistent with the No Action Alternative, and such permits will continue to be issued for by-right land uses. In addition to residences and accessory uses, permitted uses in agricultural areas outside the Permit Areas include farming, commercial stables, and produce stands. Intensive agricultural developments such as agricultural repair shops, hog farms, and food processing facilities are allowed subject to issuance of a Conditional Use Permit. Although the NBHCP would not restrict the construction of residences and accessory buildings on parcels zoned for agriculture, individuals undertaking any such actions would be subject to the prohibitions against take articulated in the ESA and CESA. No take authorization would be granted to individuals outside the Permit Areas.

It is also important to note that not all lands outside the Permit Areas are now or were historically in agri
culture. The GIS Land Use and Habitat Database shows Rural Residential areas scattered throughout the Natomas Basin, most of which are 1 to 5 acres in size. In addition, the Urban land use class is applied to larger farm compounds and agricultural businesses (e.g., silos and rice dryers) as well as to some developed areas along El Centro Road. Two areas along El Centro Road warrant further mention. First, there is a Highway Travel Commercial area (TC Zone) located at the intersection of El Centro Road and West El Camino Avenue (at the I-80/El Camino interchange). Most highway-commercial businesses (e.g., motels, restaurants) can be constructed without discretionary action by Sacramento County. This area is designated as Urban in the GIS database, and is, therefore, part of the baseline condition. Also, a small Agricultural-Residential area is located adjacent to the east side of El Centro Road west of the West Drain. This area is designated as Agricultural-Residential with minimum lot sizes of 1, 2, and 5 acres and has more use restrictions than an agricultural zone. This area is also designated as Urban in the GIS database. As discussed in the paragraph above, all development is subject to the prohibitions against take articulated in the ESA and CESA, and no take authorization would be granted to individuals outside the Permit Areas.

With the exception of the Panhandle annexation are
a, no areas outside of designated Permit
Areas are zoned for extensive development or are considered Planned Development.

LETTER O1—ECOS/FOSH/NWF/PCL/SIERRA CLUB
SAC/161795/031060002(LETTERS.DOC) NATOMAS BASIN HCP 79

FINAL EIR/EIS
As noted above, neither the Lead Agencies nor the Applicants can compel another party, including Sacramento County, to participate (also see Response to Comment O1-12). The NBHCP presents a mitigation strategy that meets the overall goals and specific objectives identified in Section I.C of the NBHCP. The lack of participation by Sacramento County does not prevent the Applicants from preparing an HCP that provides adequate mitigation for covered activities and that meets ITP issuance criteria.

Impacts to Swainson’s hawk resulting from actions by Sacramento County or the airport are properly investigated by the CDFG. In addition, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is currently investigating the airport’s fill of wetland areas without appropriate permits, and the USFWS is investigating the potential take of giant garter snake in connection with the fill activities.” As stated in a. above, all development in the county that would result in take of a federally listed species without appropriate authorization is subject to civil or criminal penalties under the ESA. As mentioned in the comment, there is currently a legal challenge to the USFWS’s issuance of an ITP to the Metro Air Park Property Owners’ Association. This legal challenge, however, does not enable the USFWS to compel the County of Sacramento to become a party to the NBHCP.

Response to Comment O1-14
As discussed in the NBHCP (Section IV.B), TNBC’s Board would be composed of representatives of the Permittees who would be appointed by the Permittees after they receive ITPs. The comment requests a revision to the appointment process (i.e., Board members would be appointed by parties not participating in the NBHCP) that would preclude any staff of the appointing bodies from serving on the Board. Given that TNBC implements the NBHCP on behalf of the Permittees, it is unreasonable to request that no Permittees be eligible to sit on the Board. The comment also requests that parties that have chosen not to participate in the NBHCP (e.g., Sacramento County) be afforded the privilege of appointing Board members. It is not reasonable either to: (1) bestow the privilege of appointing members to TNBC’s Board or (2) assign oversight authority of the Permittees’ plan (i.e., the NBHCP) to nonparticipating entities, which is what would occur if the comment were implemented. Because Sacramento County has decided not to participate in the NBHCP for areas outside of MAP, the nature and/or basis for Sacramento County’s participation on the TNBC Board is uncertain.

Response to Comment O1-15
The payment of the Mitigation Fee for Authorized Development is required prior to issuance of an Urban Development Permit as discussed in Chapter VI of the NBHCP. The Mitigation Fee as proposed is a one time, up-front fee that is paid prior to commencement of grading. The terms and conditions of the payment will be included in the Urban Development Permit. This fee provides funding for the acquisition of Mitigation Lands. To further ensure adequate funding, the Mitigation Fee includes a Supplemental Endowment component that will be collected prior to issuance of the Urban Development Permit “in an amount sufficient to fully fund the operation and maintenance, adaptive management, monitoring, and changed circumstances obligations for Mitigation Lands in perpetuity, even after Authorized Development is fully built-out.” (Section VI.B.1 of the NBHCP) These conditions of funding are designed to ensure adequacy of funds for purchase of lands for LETTER O1—ECOS/FOSH/NWF/PCL/SIERRA CLUB
80 NATOMAS BASIN HCP SAC/161795/031060002(LETTERS.DOC)

FINAL EIR/EIS
creation of habitat reserves that meet the acquisition criteria of the NBHCP (Sections IV.C.2.c, IV.C.3.b, and IV.C.4.b) and are adequate.

In addition, the NBHCP includes provisions to accommodate the comment request to acquire lands in advance of development. Section VI.C includes the specific objective of acquiring lands in advance of development and presents the specific provisions relevant to that goal, including the 200-acre cushion of Mitigation Lands (Section VI.C.1), the 400-acre managed marsh requirement (Section VI.C.2), and the conditions for continued conversion of marsh lands subsequent to the conversion of the initial 400 acres of managed marsh (Section VI.C.3). The terms of the Urban Development Permit and the advance purchase conditions of the NBHCP accomplish what is requested in the comment for assurances of funding. The “back-up” mechanism requested (e.g., bonds) would be contingent on voter approval and, therefore, less of an assurance than the existing mechanisms in the NBHCP (also see Response to Comment O1-40).

Response to Comment O1-16
Although the EIR/EIS evaluated several alternatives to the Proposed Action, only one environmentally superior alternative, Alternative 2, Habitat-based Mitigation, was identified. This alternative was, however, determined to be infeasible as demonstrated in the Economic Analysis contained in Appendix A of the NBHCP. Contrary to the commentor’s assertions, the NBHCP addresses the net effects on fees of larger mitigation ratios as demonstrated in the Economic Analysis (see Figures 5-12 of the Economic Analysis [Appendix A of the NBHCP]). The comment references an attachment to the comment letter.

Responses to those comments are in O1-42 through O1-60. Also see Master Response 1 (Mitigation Ratio).

Response to Comment O1-17
This comment generally reiterates comments raised previously in this comment letter or elsewhere in this or other comment letters. Many of the comments summarized in this comment are not feasible or present an alternate approach that does not clearly lessen environmental effects. Where detailed responses are provided to the points raised in this comment, the location where responses have already been provided is referenced.

Otherwise, the General Response provided in this table provides the complete response.

Suggested change to
NBHCP Comment General Response Detailed Response
Refer
ence (if applicable)
28,000 acres of available
land for purchase
This comment is based on the assumption that
the prop
osed mitigation ratio is not adequate.

While 28,000 acres of land may remain in the
Basin, not all of this land is required as
mitigation, nor is it available for purchase at a
cost that can be supported under the NBHCP.

Percent improvement in reserves does not factor
in findings of EIR/EIS analysis of impacts of
NBHCP.

Responses to Comments
O1-7, O1-10, G8-32, O1-
42 throu
gh O1-60, Master
Response 1 (Mitigation
Ratio), Master Response 2
(Connectivity), Master
Response 3 (Joint Vision),
Master Response 4
(Cumulative Impacts), and
Master Response 5
(Swainson’s Hawk
Foraging Habitat).

LETTER O1—ECOS/FOSH/NWF/PCL/SIERRA CLUB
SAC/161795/031060002(LETTERS.DOC) NATOMAS BASIN HCP 81

FINAL EIR/EIS
Suggested change to
NBHCP Comment General Response Detailed Response
Refer
ence (if applicable)
Identify and manage large
tracts of reserve areas
Results in land speculation and inflated land
prices. Alre
ady evaluated and dismissed as an
alternative. Does not take into account the lower
habitat value of existing lands versus the higher
quality of managed reserves that meet the
biological needs of Covered Species. Does not
consider the management needs for all 22
Covered Species.

Responses to Comments
O1-7, O1-10Acquire lands before
grading
As stated in Response to Comment O1-15, the
NBHCP re
quires the payment of Mitigation Fees
prior to issuance of an Urban Development
Permit and a 200-acre mitigation cushion to
assure Mitigation Lands are acquired as
described in Section VI.C of the NBHCP. Inflated
land prices would offset any benefits associated
with eliminating the Supplementary Endowment.

Responses to Comments
O1-10, O1-42 thro
ugh O1-
60 Land speculation and use
of grants for acqu
isition
Redlining target areas will result in land
specu
lation/increased prices. Although the
NBHCP relies on the Mitigation Fee program to
provide funding for mitigation, the NBHCP does
not preclude the use of grants or other awards to
fund activities other than the mitigation
obligations set forth in the NBHCP. Grants are
considered to be a less reliable source of funds
and are subject to funding vagaries of issuing
entities.

Response to Comment
O1-15
TNBC management of
private l
ands
Not feasible. TNBC is an implementer of the
NBHCP, not a la
nd management agency. The
suggested revision is neither feasible nor would it
clearly lessen the environmental impacts of the
Proposed Action. Neither TNBC nor land use
agencies can mandate central management of
private lands.

Response to Comment
O1-7
Water supply The commentor’s alternative does not guarantee the avai
lability of a permanent water supply
source for habitat purposes. This alternative
would not be feasible because TNBC cannot
mandate central management of private lands.

Response to Comment
O1-7
Conservation easement The NBHCP would allow TNBC to secure Mitigati
on Lands by acquiring fee title or a
conservation easement. Nonetheless, securing
conservation easements on all potential
Mitigation Lands may not meet biological goals
and objectives of NBHCP because of the
competing needs between agricultural uses and
habitat enhancement. The NBHCP provides for
Mitigation Land and implementation of related
management activities that meet the biological
goals in perpetuity.

Response to Comment
G3-11
LETTER O1—ECOS/FOSH/NWF/PCL/SIERRA CLUB
82 NATOMAS BASIN HCP SAC/161795/031060002(LETTERS.DOC)

FINAL EIR/EIS
Suggested change to
NBHCP Comment General Response Detailed Response
Refer
ence (if applicable)
Local government
revenues from TNBC
control of private lands
Contrary to the commentor’s suggestion, there is
no evi
dence that the City, Sutter County, or
TNBC would receive higher revenues from
Mitigation Lands maintained in agricultural uses,
or that conflicts would not arise in land
management. Moreover, this alternative is not
feasible because neither TNBC nor the Land Use
Agencies can mandate central planning and
management of private lands.

Response to Comment
O1-10
Reduce development and
costs to local government
are lower
The commentor’s assertion that the net costs to
local
governments of lands in open space would
be less than if the same lands were developed is
unsupported. It is unclear whether reference is
made to the Mitigation Lands required under the
NBHCP or the remaining lands outside of the
system of reserves. Does not meet Applicants’
proposed definition of Covered Activities. The
City and Sutter County have prepared the
NBHCP to address the potential for take of
Covered Species associated with the Planned
Development of 17,500 acres. The NBHCP does
not contemplate the development of more than
17,500 acres of land within the Basin; thus, the
development costs to which the commentor
alludes are unclear.

Response to Comment
O1-10
Developers pay for
admi
nistrative costs of
acquisition
The commentor’s suggestio n that the developers
would pay for the administrative costs, which
would result in lower Mitigation Fees per acre is
unclear. The NBHCP already requires the
developers to pay for the administrative costs
and Mitigation Land acquisition costs prior to
issuance of an Urban Development Permit.

Responses to comments
01-4
2 through O1-60
Larger reserve areas While the cost per acre may be lower for mana
ging and monitoring Mitigation Lands
because of economies of scale, larger reserve
sites will require more areas subject to
management and monitoring. Moreover, to meet
the NBHCP biological goals and objectives,
enhancement and restoration activities would be
required, which also would increase the
mitigation costs associated with larger reserves.

As demonstrated in the NBHCP and the Tech
Memo, the NBHCP adequately mitigates for the
impacts of take associated with the Covered
Activities. The larger reserves request is based
on the assumption that a 1:1 mitigation ratio is
necessary to meet ITP issuance criteria. For the
reasons set forth in Master Response 1
(Mitigation Ratio), the increased ratio is not
warranted. The comment also states that public
intrusion would be limited, but the commentor’s
suggestions for facilities construction contradicts
this assertion.

See Appendix H of the
NBHCP; Master Res
ponse
1 LETTER O1—ECOS/FOSH/NWF/PCL/SIERRA CLUB
SAC/161795/031060002(LETTERS.DOC) NATOMAS BASIN HCP 83

FINAL EIR/EIS
Suggested change to
NBHCP Comment General Response Detailed Response
Refer
ence (if applicable)
Economies of scale of
agricultural operation from
centralized management
of private land
The commentor’s suggested alternative is not
feasib
le because neither TNBC nor land use
agencies can mandate central planning and
management of private lands.

Response to Comment
O1-10
Future undefined
development allowable
under NBHCP
The basis for allowing over 6,000 acres of future
und
efined development is unclear. The NBHCP
covers issuance of ITPs to 17,500 acres of
Planned Development.

Response to Comment
O1-7; Master Response 4
(Cumul
ative Impacts)
Water agencies’
partici
pation
The NBHCP includes avoidance, minimization,
and miti
gation measures for the Water Agencies
should they elect to participate in the NBHCP.

However, the NBHCP is designed to provide
mechanisms to ensure that the Mitigation Lands
will continue to function in the event connectivity
is compromised. Neither the Applicants nor the
Wildlife Agencies can compel participation or
permit application. Existing measures and
retaining of key canals are identified in NBHCP.

Master Response 2
(Con
nectivity); Responses
to Comment G3-11, I3-2,
and I13-40
Edge effects The NBHCP includes measures to minimize the potenti
al for edge effects and incompatible land
uses by including requirements for minimum
reserve sizes, buffers, and setbacks.

Response to Comments
O3-19
Connectivity The NBHCP includes measures to maintain
conn
ectivity between reserves as indicated
above.

Master Response 2
(Con
nectivity); Response
to Comment G3-11
Fragmentation avoided by
compe
lling non-permit
applicants to participate
The NBHCP addresses 17,500 acres of Planned
Devel
opment in the Basin. The NBHCP also
includes provisions allowing for amendments to
the NBHCP in the event that future development
was proposed beyond 17,500 acres or outside
the Permit Areas. The technical analyses in
support of the NBHCP were conducted to
demonstrate that the Operating Conservation
Program would be effective in mitigating for the
effects of take resulting from 17,500 acres of
development. The commentor has not provided
any information indicating that this alternative
would clearly lessen impacts, nor has information
been provided supporting take authorization for
development beyond 17,500 acres in the Basin.

Moreover, neither the Land Use Agencies nor
the Wildlife Agencies can compel non-
participants to join an HCP.
see Appendix H of the
NB
HCP; Master Response 1
Proposed process for
acqu
iring reserves
minimizes potential for
mitigation failure
The process recommended by the commentor
w
ould not clearly lessen impacts, nor is such a
proposal feasible for the reasons discussed
above. The Applicants will commit to the
implementation of feasible mitigation measures.

For the reasons discussed above, it is infeasible
for TNBC or the Land Use Agencies to institute
wholesale central management of private lands.

See Responses to
Comments O1-7 through
O1-15
LETTER O1—ECOS/FOSH/NWF/PCL/SIERRA CLUB
84 NATOMAS BASIN HCP SAC/161795/031060002(LETTERS.DOC)

FINAL EIR/EIS
Response to Comment O1-18
The Lead Agencies and the Applicants acknowledge the importance of the Natomas Basin to the giant garter snake. The comment references the 1994 Biological Opinion (BO) for a SAFCA flood control improvement project (Local Area Project), and the quotes from that BO relevant to future urban development are an acknowledgment that future urban development and associated activities in the Natomas Basin could affect the giant garter snake population. It is important to note that the cites in the comment are from documents prepared in 1994 and are based on 1992 sources— see below. Subsequent to the 1994 BO, the Planned Development underwent local land use planning processes, including development of specific plans and environmental analyses. The relevant planning documents are discussed in Chapters 3 and 4 of the EIR/EIS. In response to the 1994 BO and concerns from the Wildlife Agencies in general, the City and Sutter County initiated preparation of the NBHCP and are requesting incidental take coverage for potential take associated with the Planned Development.

Regarding the quote from the 1994 BO prepared for the Revised Natoma s Area Flood
Control Improvement project (March 11, 1994), the correct quote from that BO is “Absent measures to address the prospect of future basin-wide losses of existing giant garter snake habitat, this flood control project and future urban development could extirpate the giant garter snake from the American Basin.” (In the BO, this quote is originally sourced to a 1992 CDFG document.)
See references to giant garter snake use of the Natom as Basin in Section II.C.2.d of the Draft NBHCP and on pp. 3-39 and 4-57 of the Draft EIR/EIS. Extensive technical analyses were conducted on the effects of implementing the NBHCP to demonstrate that issuance of the ITPs would not appreciably reduce the likelihood of survival and recovery of the giant garter snake. As further discussed in the Biological Resources Technical Memo (Appendix H of the NBHCP), the Proposed Action will not result in significant impacts to the giant garter snake because the loss of existing habitat will be gradual, particularly with respect to agricultural lands, and much of the Basin will continue to be used for agriculture over the life of the Permit, both within and outside the Mitigation Lands. Second, the quality of habitat and range of habitat values provided by the Mitigation Lands will exceed the quality of habitat and range of habitat values provided by agricultural lands that may be lost to Planned Development (NBHCP, Section VII.I.1, and Appendix H to the NBHCP, Section 5).

The comment misquotes the Draft NBHCP (see referenced t ext quoted from pp. VII-7 - VII-
8). The Draft NBHCP does not state that “without measures to avoid, minimize, and mitigate impacts of development, the City and Sutter County’s development would adversely affect the continued existence of the Giant Garter Snake in the Natomas Basin.” The Draft NBHCP states that “[a]bsent the take avoidance, minimization and mitigation measures of the NBHCP, this loss of habitat could potentially represent a substantial impact on the local (American Basin) and statewide population of the snake.” Based on the analysis, the NBHCP concludes (on p. VII-11) that with the inclusion of all of the NBHCP conservation and implementation measures (summarized as the Operating Conservation Program), take of giant garter snakes would be minimized and mitigated to the maximum extent practicable in accordance with the ESA and will be minimized and fully mitigated in accordance with CESA.

LETTER O1—ECOS/FOSH/NWF/PCL/SIERRA CLUB
SAC/161795/031060002(LETTERS.DOC) NATOMAS BASIN HCP 85

FINAL EIR/EIS
Response to Comment O1-19
The Lead Agencies and the Applicants acknowledge the importance of the Natomas Basin to the Swainson’s hawk consistent with the quoted text from CDFG’s consultation letter.

The primary concern raised by CDFG in its 1990 consultation letter was the loss of habitat (and subsequent impacts to giant garter snake and Swainson’s hawk) from urban development in the Natomas Basin that would occur subsequent to the flood control actions identified in the American River Watershed Investigation. It is important to note that correspondence from the Wildlife Agencies, such as CDFG’s 1990 consultation letter and the 1994 BO (see Response to Comment O1-18), were important precursors for the NBHCP effort that is currently under way. The Wildlife Agencies have been and continue to be participants in the development of the NBHCP. See references to Swainson’s hawk use of the Natomas Basin in Section II.C.3.d of the Draft NBHCP and on pp. 3-44 - 3-46 of the Draft EIR/EIS. Although Swainson’s hawk is not a federally listed species, in accordance with the No Surprises Rule, the USFWS treats the hawk as if it is listed. Therefore, the USFWS is evaluating whether the Proposed Action would appreciably reduce the likelihood of the survival and recovery of this species. As further discussed in the Addendum to the Biological Resources Technical Memo, the applicants believe that the Proposed Action will not appreciably reduce the likelihood of the survival and recovery of the Swainson’s hawk because the loss of existing habitat will be gradual, particularly with respect to agricultural lands, and much of the Basin will continue to be used for agriculture over the life of the Permit, both within and outside of the Mitigation Lands. Second, the quality of habitat and range of habitat values provided by the Mitigation Lands will exceed the quality of habitat and range of habitat values provided by agricultural lands that may be lost to Planned Development (NBHCP, Section VII.I.1, Appendix K of the NBHCP, Section 5, and Master Response 5 [Swainson’s Hawk Foraging Habitat]).

The comment inaccurately quotes the Draft NBHCP (see referenced text quoted from page
VII-14). The Draft NBHCP currently contains the measures to avoid, minimize, and mitigate impacts to Swainson’s hawk. The NBHCP states that Authorized Development in the City of Sacramento will result in the loss of foraging habitat and could disturb or eliminate active nest sites because of construction activities and that “[a]bsent the avoidance, minimization, or mitigation measures of the NBHCP, this loss of habitat would potentially represent a substantial impact on the Swainson’s hawk in the City’s Permit Area that might adversely affect the continued existence of the species in the Basin.” The NBHCP goes on to conclude (on p. VII-15) that with the inclusion of all of the NBHCP conservation and implementation measures (summarized as the Operating Conservation Program), take of Swainson’s hawks will be minimized and mitigated to the maximum extent practicable in accordance with the ESA and will be minimized and fully mitigated in accordance with CESA.

Response to Comment O1-20
The Applicants believe that the NBHCP and its analysis in the EIR/EIS, the Economic Analysis, the Biological Resources Technical Memo (Appendix H of the NBHCP), and the Addendum to the Biological Resources Technical Memo (Appendix K of the Final NBHCP) support a determination that the 0.5:1 mitigation ratio, in conjunction with the avoidance, minimization, and conservation measures included in the NBHCP, will mitigate and minimize the impacts to the Covered Species to the maximum extent practicable in accordance with the ESA. Similarly, the Applicants believe the analyses in the referenced LETTER O1—ECOS/FOSH/NWF/PCL/SIERRA CLUB
86 NATOMAS BASIN HCP SAC/161795/031060002(LETTERS.DOC)

FINAL EIR/EIS
documents demonstrate that the NBHCP’s Operating Conservation Program will fully minimize and mitigate the impacts associated with incidental take in accordance with CESA. Further, as the technical analyses determine, the NBHCP’s Operating Conservation Program will not result in significant impacts to the Covered Species.

As noted above, the NBHCP is based on substantial scientific evidence including field studies, GIS habitat and land use mapping, the mapping and analysis of the most recently available species occurrence data, and other biological and economic analyses. The objective of this substantial analysis was to ensure that the Applicants had adequate knowledge and information to develop mitigation and conservation measures that would not appreciably reduce the likelihood of the survival of the Covered Species (which is one of the primary criteria for USFWS review and approval of the ITP). The NBHCP includes multiple approaches, with avoidance as the first priority as represented by the substantial species- specific avoidance, minimization, and mitigation requirements included in Chapter V of the NBHCP. In addition, the Mitigation Lands to be created by the NBHCP are designed to provide enhanced habitat quality for the Covered Species (see especially Appendix K of the Final NBHCP, which addresses the quality of foraging habitat for Swainson’s hawk).

Finally, the NBHCP includes a monitoring and adaptive management program to assess the effectiveness of the conservation program and to provide information necessary to make habitat or management adaptations. The NBHCP adaptive management section specifically sets forth policies for adaptations or improvements to mitigation reserve lands in the event new scientific information or species recovery plans become available. Section VI.H of the NBHCP includes sections on adaptive management to respond to both the Swainson’s hawk recovery plan and/or giant garter snake recovery plan if such plans are promulgated by the Wildlife Agencies.

The NBHCP’s assumptions are supported by independent biological opinion, as demonstrated in the response to this and other comment letters in the Draft and Final EIR/EIS and in the Draft and Final NBHCP. The commentor states that the 0.5:1 mitigation ratio is not justified by the NBHCP or the EIS/EIR. Substantial biological analysis and habitat assessments were conducted to develop the associated avoidance, minimization, and mitigation strategies included in the NBHCP as further evaluated in the analysis noted in a. above. In addition, the Economic Analysis (Appendix A of the Draft NBHCP) and Responses to Comments O1-42 through O1-60 discuss the analysis of the NBHCP’s measures and the appropriateness of the mitigation ratio. Further information on the development of the mitigation ratio is included in Master Response 1 (Mitigation Ratio) and in Response to Comment O1-21. Also see Response to Comment O1-4.

Response to Comment O1-21
a. The comment quotes Comment Letter G2 and raises questions about why the mitigation ratio for the NBHCP differs from what is proposed for other HCPs. Comment G2-6 is quoted only partially in the comment. The full text is:

It is also our experience that habitat conservation plans usually provide for a mitigation ratio of 1 acre of mitigation for every acre of land lost or equivalent compensati
on in the form of additional conservation measures or mitigation fees.

LETTER O1—ECOS/FOSH/NWF/PCL/SIERRA CLUB
SAC/161795/031060002(LETTERS.DOC) NATOMAS BASIN HCP 87

FINAL EIR/EIS
The italicized portion of the sentence is critical to understanding the full range of avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures included in the NBHCP. b. The commentor correctly notes that habitation conservation plans (HCP s) may have different mitigation ratios and varying levels of mitigation requirements. The USFWS’s HCP Handbook states that “Mitigation programs under HCPs and section 10 permits are as varied as the projects they address. Consequently, [the] handbook does not establish specific “rules” for developing mitigation programs that would limit the creative potential inherent in any good HCP effort.” (Habitat Conservation Planning and Incidental Take Permit Processing Handbook. November 4, 1996. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service; U.S.

Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service, p. 3-19). The Handbook also states that mitigation programs should be 1. based on sound biological rationale, 2. practicable, and 3. commensurate with the impacts they address. Mitigation actions may include avoidance, minimization, rectifying the impact, reducing or eliminating the impact, or compensating for the impact.

Often more than one strategy is incorporated into an HCP. See Master Response 1 (Mitigation Ratio) for a discussion of other HCPs and how applying a single mitigation ratio is not reasonable, given the unique conditions of each HCP.

Based on the HCP guidance, mitigation ratios and corresponding mitigation fee s may vary
for individual HCPs on the basis of varied considerations, including the number and type of species covered by the HCP, the types of habitat impacted, and the level of development seeking incidental take authorization. Similarly, the degree to which avoidance and minimization measures, as well as other strategies, are used in combination with any compensatory requirements also can affect the required levels of compensatory mitigation.

The NBHCP includes substantial conservation measures in addition to t he creation of habitat reserves (see Chapters IV, V, and VI of the NBHCP). For example, the NBHCP includes preservation of the Swainson’s Hawk Zone that, with approval of the NBHCP and issuance of the ITP, will limit development of a 1,015-acre area in the Sutter County Industrial/Commercial Reserve for the express purpose of avoiding areas of active Swainson’s hawk nest sites. This conservation measure is in addition to the requirement to set aside 0.5 acres of Mitigation Land for each acre of development. Similarly, the NBHCP includes a comprehensive list of avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures that are applied, as appropriate, to all Planned Development. Thus, in addition to payment of the Mitigation Fee, a developer must also mitigate for the specific resources on his/her site. If, for example, vernal pools were present, additional avoidance and mitigation measures would be required, including additional fees for purchase of mitigation credits through USFWS-approved mitigation banks.

Although it is useful to review the approaches of other HCPs, it is not necessarily appropriate to apply alternate
approaches to the NBHCP specifically or to any other HCP that might be prepared in other areas and for other covered activities. Individual HCPs must also consider measures and approaches that are appropriate to the unique habitat and biology of each area (see the quote from the HCP Handbook in a. above).

The commentor cites several HCPs and compares them to the NBHCP. Although the mitigation approaches differ among the HCPs cited by the commentor, in eac h case the
USFWS determined that the conservation strategy for each adopted HCP provided take LETTER O1—ECOS/FOSH/NWF/PCL/SIERRA CLUB
88 NATOMAS BASIN HCP SAC/161795/031060002(LETTERS.DOC)

FINAL EIR/EIS
minimization and mitigation measures sufficient to meet the permit issuance criteria under Section 10(a) of the ESA. The ways in which these HCPs differ from the NBHCP are addressed in detail in Master Response 1 (Mitigation Ratio). c. Proponents of the Brookfield/Northern Territories, Inc. (NTI) project have attempted unsuccessful
ly to obtain approval for development outside of the City’s Sphere of Influence (SOI) and Sacramento County Urban Services Boundary. To obtain development entitlements, landowners within this area must first await the results of the planning, technical analyses, and environmental review undertaken as part of a future Joint Vision process. As the NBHCP and EIR/EIS acknowledge, any development within the Natomas Basin outside of the City or Sutter County’s Permit Areas or beyond the 17,500 acres of Planned Development would constitute a departure from the NBHCP’s Operating Conservation Program and would require a new effects analysis, a new conservation strategy, and applications for incidental take authorizations for that additional development (see e.g., Draft NBHCP, pp. I-5 - I-6; Draft EIR/EIS, pp. 4-7 - 4-8). As part of this process, avoidance, minimization, and mitigation requirements will be identified. If it is determined that the NTI property can be developed in the future, the City, Sacramento County, and the Wildlife Agencies will evaluate whether or not a 1:1 mitigation ratio is adequate to mitigate impacts associated with the development of the Brookfield/NTI property.

Similarly, if other development were authorized through a future Joint Vision planning effort (see Master Response 3 [Joint Vision]), this development would be required to undergo ex
tensive analyses and environmental review to determine whether a 1:1 mitigation ratio would be adequate for the development. It is also important to note that preliminary discussions regarding a 1:1 ratio include all open space (parks, detention basins, and other open space areas), and, as such, the actual amount of mitigation is unknown pending extensive biological analyses comparable to the analyses included in the NBHCP.

Response to Comment O1-22
a. The NBHCP is the product of a decade-long effort to address effects on federal and state- listed threatened and endangered species in the Basin. Overall, this comment references several letters from USFWS and CDFG dating back to 1994 regarding comments on a then- initial planning effort for habitat conservation (also see Responses to Comment O1-18 and O1-19). It is important to note that in the intervening years, extensive analysis and discussions have occurred with the Wildlife Agencies regarding the specific proposed mitigation measures in the NBHCP. The commentor’s reference to letters written more than 9 years ago does not necessarily reflect the specific elements of the NBHCP, nor does it accurately reflect and incorporate the discussions, review, and analysis that have occurred both for the NBHCP and the EIR/EIS. It is important to note that substantial additional information has been developed subsequent to the drafting of the 1994 joint USFWS/CDFG letter. The NBHCP addresses the protective measures identified in the comment. Specific examples of information that is included in the revised NBHCP include, for example, more specific habitat acquisition criteria (Chapter IV of the NBHCP), prioritization of the Fisherman’s Lake area (Section V.A.2 of the NBHCP), and restrictions on take of species (Chapter V of the NBHCP) including the designation of the Swainson’s Hawk Zone.

Extensive new analyses have been conducted (see Response to Comment O1-7 and Master
Responses 1 [Mitigation Ratio], 2 [Connectivity], 3 [Joint Vision], and 4 [Cumulative LETTER O1—ECOS/FOSH/NWF/PCL/SIERRA CLUB
SAC/161795/031060002(LETTERS.DOC) NATOMAS BASIN HCP 89

FINAL EIR/EIS
Impacts]) relevant to the 0.5:1 mitigation ratio. As discussed throughout the EIR/EIS (Chapters 2, 3, and 4), substantial new analysis was completed that is intended to support a finding that the 0.5:1 mitigation ratio, in conjunction with other NBHCP avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures, is effective in ensuring that issuance of incidental take authorization will not result in jeopardy to the Covered Species, and that the ratio meets the maximum extent practicable threshold criterion. As discussed in Responses to Comments O1-1, O1-3, O1-4, O1-7, O1-10, O1-11, O1-17, and other responses in this Final EIR/EIS, extensive analysis was conducted by environmental, biological, and economic experts on the mitigation measures of the NBHCP. CH2M HILL completed a GIS Habitat and Land Use Assessment Database to define impacts to Covered Species (see Figure 10 in the NBHCP) that was used to complete an impact analysis based on the amount of each type of habitat converted to Planned Development in the Permit Areas. The impact analysis, attached as the Biological Resources Technical Memo, Appendix H to the NBHCP, is incorporated in Chapter VII of the HCP that defines the Take Levels/ Impacts of the Plan.

An Addendum to that memo that focused on Swainson’s hawk foraging habitat was also prepared (Appendix K of the Final NBHCP), and Master Response 5 (Swainson’s Hawk Foraging Habitat) provided additional foraging habitat information. The discussion of how the NBHCP Operating Conservation Program is expected to meet the maximum extent practicable criterion is described from a financial perspective in the Economic Analysis, attached as Appendix A of the NBHCP.

The commentor is also referred to Master Response 1 (Mitigation Ratio) for a detailed discussion of the rationale for the

0.5:1 mitigation ratio. Also see the Biological Resources Technical Memo (Appendix H of the NBHCP), the Addendum to the Biological Resources Technical Memo (Appendix K of the Final NBHCP) and Master Response 5 (Swainson’s Hawk Foraging Habitat). Also see Responses to Comments O2-2 and O2-3. b. The comment also states that in a 1994 correspondence, the Wildlife Agencies conditioned the 0.
5:1 mitigation ratio on the assumption that doubling or tripling of habitat values on half the land base can be achieved only through restoration and management of natural wetland habitat. The comment also references other elements of that letter regarding connectivity, canal bank management, water agency participation, and 250-meter buffers. It is important to note that almost 10 years have passed between the date that the 1994 BO was issued and the current time, and that substantial additional information has been developed and discussions have occurred between the Applicants and the Wildlife Agencies regarding the conservation program. The revised NBHCP incorporates this subsequent analysis.

Regarding Water Agency participation, see Responses to Comments G3-11, O1-17, I3-1, I3-2, and I13-40. The commentor is also referred to Master Response 1 (Mitigation Ratio). c. The comment further cites the 1994 letter from USFWS and CDFG regarding specific issues such as priority areas for habitat acq
uisition and areas in which take would not be
allowed. As discussed in a. and b. above, substantial additional information has been developed subsequent to the drafting of the 1994 BO.
d. The NBHCP includes all the measures that m ade the 0.5:1 mitigation ratio acceptable to the Wildlife Agencies. In addition, extensive coordination has been ongoing with the Wildlife Agencies in the interim since the 1997 NBHCP was prepared, and additional measures from the Wildlife Agencies have been included. Many of the avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures from the 1997 NBHCP are in the revised NBHCP, LETTER O1—ECOS/FOSH/NWF/PCL/SIERRA CLUB
90 NATOMAS BASIN HCP SAC/161795/031060002(LETTERS.DOC)

FINAL EIR/EIS
plus additional measures as discussed in a. above. Also see Master Response 1 (Mitigation Ratio) and the Biological Resources Technical Memorandum and Addendum (Appendix H of the Draft NBHCP and Appendix K of the Final NBHCP) for the analysis of the effectiveness of the Operating Conservation Program. Also see Master Response 2 (Connectivity) and Section 2.2 of the Final EIR/EIS, and the Final NBHCP for clarifications to conservation measures for canals and drains. Relevant to the Water Agency participation, see Responses to Comments G3-11 and I3-1. See Section IV.C.1.c of the NBHCP for a discussion of buffers (buffers are a feature of the Mitigation Lands and are not subject to urban development). By contrast, setbacks, which are defined in Section IV.C.2.a of the NBHCP, are designed to minimize conflicts between Mitigation Lands and adjacent lands developed or designated for development. Note that the setback zone does not affect the ability of each of the Land Use Agencies to approve development within the setback zone and adjacent to the boundaries of the Mitigation Lands.

Response to Comment O1-23
The 1997 NBHCP did not make the assumption that the total amount of urban development during the next 50 years would be 17,500 acres (In addition to the response below, also see Response to Comment G8-7.

On page III-4, the 1997 NBHCP states:

Local governments guide land use through their general plans . While the general plans of the Natomas Basin land use agencies are subject to amendment over the next 50 year term of the NBHCP and permits, they offer a reasonable basis for predicting the extent and location of future development. The following land use discussion of land use planning is not a limitation of the NBHCP or its associated permits; the permits will apply to all potential urban development in the Natomas Basin.

On page III-5 of the 1997 NBHCP, Table III-2 define s “Foreseeable Urban Development” with a total ranging from 9,300 to 21,300 acres. Also, on page III-9, the 1997 NBHCP states:

Because of the potentially limited land area available for mitigation, and uncertainty in the ex
tent and timing of build-out throughout the Basin, the
NBHCP estimates total development in the Basin at approximately 17,500 acres and evaluates mitigation and funding needs within the Basin based on this figure. Growth beyond 17,500 acres could occur under the NBHCP, but would rely on the Permittees’ ability to partially mitigate outside the Natomas Basin.

Nowhere in the 1997 NBHCP is there a limit placed on t he number of acres allowed to develop under the NBHCP or associated permits. That limitation was added to the revised NBHCP. Under the revised NBHCP, any development beyond 17,500 acres or outside the Permit Areas must amend the NBHCP or prepare a separate HCP. The 1997 NBHCP did not require any such amendment.

The comment also states that the 1997 NBHCP assumes
that much of the Basin would
remain in rice production. The 1997 NBHCP assumed that rice land existing in 1997 that was not expected to be converted to Planned Development would remain in rice production. The LETTER O1—ECOS/FOSH/NWF/PCL/SIERRA CLUB
SAC/161795/031060002(LETTERS.DOC) NATOMAS BASIN HCP 91

FINAL EIR/EIS
analysis of the 1997 NBHCP was conducted (and permits issued) based on that assumption of continuation of agriculture. In the proposed NBHCP, the Applicants recognized that rice land could not be assumed to continue in rice production. For example, the City of Sacramento could not control the land uses outside of its jurisdiction in Sacramento County.

Thus, although the Operating Conservation Program does not include the continuation of agriculture in the Basin as mitigation, the effectiveness of the NBHCP depends upon the availability of some portion of the Basin as foraging habitat remaining in the Basin. To demonstrate that the NBHCP would avoid, minimize, and mitigate the impacts of incidental take of Covered Species from Planned Development, the NBHCP and the EIR/EIS evaluated the habitat types potentially converted to Planned Development. The quality of Swainson’s hawk foraging habitat was further addressed in the Addendum to the Biological Resources Technical Memo (Appendix K of the Final NBHCP). This does not mean, however, that the NBHCP assumes that all other lands in the basin would remain in agriculture. See Response to Comment O1-4 regarding baseline assumptions in the revised NBHCP and the EIR/EIS.

The NBHCP does not anticipate that there will be development in the Basin beyond the 17,5
00 acres of Planned Development. The NBHCP does not anticipate considerably more development and the City is not proposing development that greatly exceeds the 17,500 acres. The revised NBHCP addresses incidental take associated with 17,500 acres of Planned Development within the Natomas Basin. The NBHCP states on page I-18 that the Operating Conservation Program authorizes incidental take associated with 17,500 acres of Planned Development within the Basin. During the 50-year term of the Permits, development activities could result in a total of approximately 23,105 acres of urban development, including 5,605 acres of existing development (which does not depend on the NBHCP for incidental take coverage) and 17,500 acres of additional Planned Development.

Neither the City, Sacramento County, nor Sutter County has adopted land use plans authorizing substantial development in the
Natomas Basin beyond 17,500 acres. To
demonstrate this and in furtherance of the NBHCP Settlement Agreement, the City adopted Resolution 2001-518 (Appendix H) restricting its ability to approve any such development until both the City and Sacramento County adopt a comprehensive annexation program.

Thus, the NBHCP conservation program is proposed to address only the effects of incidental take of Covered Species attributable to 17,500 acres of Planned Development. As stated in the Draft NBHCP on page I-5,
The effectiveness of the NBHCP’s Operating Conservation Program (OCP) to adeq
uately minimize and mitigate the effects of take of the Covered Species due to Authorized Development depends on the City and Sutter County limiting total development within their respective Permit Areas to a combined total of 15,517 acres. In addition, the OCP and the NBHCP’s effects analysis account for a combined total of 17,500 acres of Planned Development occurring in the Natomas Basin (i.e., 15,517 acres within the City and Sutter County’s Permit Areas and 1,983 acres of MAP development in Sacramento County). Because the NBHCP’s OCP is based upon the City limiting total development to 8,050 acres within the City’s identified Permit Area, approval by the City of future urban development beyond the 8,050 acres or outside of its Permit Area would constitute a significant departure from the Plan’s OCP LETTER O1—ECOS/FOSH/NWF/PCL/SIERRA CLUB
92 NATOMAS BASIN HCP SAC/161795/031060002(LETTERS.DOC)

FINAL EIR/EIS
and would trigger a reevaluation of the Plan, potential amendments and/or revisions to the Plan and Permits, and possible suspension or revocation of the City’s Permits in the event the City were to violate such limitations without completing such reevaluation, amendment or revision...” Based on extensive biological resources analyses , the NBHCP’s Operating Conservation Program has been determined to result in less-than-significant impacts to Covered Species as described in the EIR/EIS.

It is acknowledged that, notwithstanding the restrictions on growth outside of the 17,5
00 acres, landowners have attempted unsuccessfully to seek approval for development projects outside of the SOI and Sacramento County Urban Services Boundary. As further explained in Master Responses 3 (Joint Vision) and 4 (Cumulative Impacts), the NBHCP and EIR/EIS acknowledge the potential that landowners may continue to seek development approvals and that the City and Sacramento County will not consider such development requests until such time as the City and Sacramento County initiate and complete the Joint Vision planning process and adopt a comprehensive annexation program. Because the necessary planning and environmental analyses have not been conducted to determine the location and extent of any additional development in the Basin outside of the Permit Areas and the City has not approved such development, the NBHCP and EIR/EIS state that development efforts beyond the 17,500 acres of Planned Development and outside of the Permit Areas are not considered “authorized development.” Thus, any such additional development cannot rely on the NBHCP and ITPs for incidental take authorization. In addition, the NBHCP provides that approval of any such additional development would trigger a reevaluation and require a separate HCP or an amendment or revision of the NBHCP.

The commentor is referred to Master Response 3 (Joint Vision) for an accurate description of this future planning effort. Pending future analyses
and environmental review, the City and
Sacramento County may proceed with a Joint Vision planning process to determine whether to consider adjustments in the location of the SOI within the Natomas Basin. At the time the Draft NBHCP and EIR/EIS were released for public review, the City and Sacramento County had not initiated Joint Vision planning and technical studies, nor were there any applications seeking revisions to the SOI pursuant to the Joint Vision process. In addition, as stated on pages 4-8 and 4-9 in the Draft EIR/EIS and further described in Master Responses 3 (Joint Vision) and 4 (Cumulative Impacts), although specific annexations or development projects have been proposed in what may become a future Joint Vision SOI area, the City may not approve these development proposals until such time as the Joint Vision planning effort is completed. If further planning efforts, biological resource evaluations, and technical analyses support the establishment of a Joint Vision SOI, potential urban development could be considered within a 10,000-acre area generally within the eastern side of the Sacramento County portion of the Natomas Basin. No information, however, has been provided regarding the location and extent, if any, of such development. Consequently, it is speculative to conclude that the Joint Vision will result in the development of 10,000 additional acres within the Natomas Basin.

Although the City and County could consider a potential SOI area of up to 10,000 acres,
further planning, future analyses, and environmental review must be conducted before the existing SOI may be modified and before specific development proposals may be LETTER O1—ECOS/FOSH/NWF/PCL/SIERRA CLUB
SAC/161795/031060002(LETTERS.DOC) NATOMAS BASIN HCP 93

FINAL EIR/EIS
considered. In addition, it is anticipated that many of these studies likely will demonstrate that a considerable portion of this area cannot be developed because of existing site constraints associated with the 100-year floodplain, preservation of habitat areas important to the viability of giant garter snake populations, and other environmental effects. If any development is proposed beyond 17,500 acres, that development will require additional studies and a mitigation strategy different from the NBHCP to allow for viable populations of Covered Species in the Basin to persist. Because the City and Sacramento County have not commenced any planning efforts outside of the 17,500 acres of Planned Development, further studies would be required before the amount of development could be defined, and any development considered would need to maintain viable populations of Covered Species within the Basin, it is unknown whether and the extent to which any additional development in the Natomas Basin could occur. For these reasons, development beyond 17,500 acres is considered speculative.

Response to Comment O1-24
a. The extensive biological analysis in the EIR/EIS was conducted to assess the impacts associated with the NBHCP, including analysis of impacts to Covered Species as a result of creating Mitigation Lands. The GIS analysis conducted in support of the EIR/EIS (see Sections 3.4.1 and 4.4.1 of the EIR/EIS and Appendix H of the NBHCP) identifies 18 land use/habitat categories (See Table 3-1) that were populated by acreage according to the presence of these land uses/habitats in the Natomas Basin. As noted in Section 3.4.1, prior to urban and agricultural development in the Natomas Basin, much of the Basin comprised seasonal and permanent marshes as a result of seasonal flooding. Currently there is very little native marsh present in the Basin, and what little there is occurs as scattered patches.

The GIS was used in the analysis to update the 1997 baseline used in the 1997 NBHCP and to project future land-use scenarios corresponding to build-out conditions of Planned Development (i.e., 17,500 acres). The analysis in the EIR/EIS is not, however, solely focused on acreage changes. In addition to the GIS that provides the baseline of existing conditions and allows a comparison to acreage changes from Planned Development, the analysis also considers the type and quality of habitat that would be provided in the Mitigation Lands.

The changes in habitat presented in the tables in Section 4.4.1 of the EIR/EIS are indicative only of acreage changes, not of quality or quantity of lost or replacement habitat. Additional clarification of the habitat types relevant to Swainson’s hawk foraging habitat are discussed in the Addendum to the Biological Resources Technical Memo (Appendix K of the Final NBHCP) and in Master Response 5 (Swainson’s Hawk Foraging Habitat).

Regarding the basis for the mitigation ratio in the NBHCP, several factors were considered
in arriving at that ratio. These include USFWS Section 10(a) permit issuance criteria and the guidance in the USFWS’s HCP Handbook requirements (which includes measures of avoidance and mitigation, as well as mitigation ratio). In addition, the NBHCP analysis in support of the mitigation ratio considered the:
• Type, quality, and extent of habitat impacted in the Basin, • Type of species using the habitat in the Basin,
• Range of avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures available to avoid or lessen impacts,
LETTER O1—ECOS/FOSH/NWF/PCL/SIERRA CLUB
94 NATOMAS BASIN HCP SAC/161795/031060002(LETTERS.DOC)

FINAL EIR/EIS
• Potential for enhancement of Mitigation Lands, and
• Economic feasibility of mitigation options available to minimize and mitigate to the maximum extent practicable for impacts related to incidental take associated with the Planned Development.

These and other criteria for the NBHCP mitigation ratio are discussed in greater detail in Master Response 1
(Mitigation Ratio).
b. The NBHCP provides information supportive of the conclusion that each acre to be developed should have relatively equal habitat value. A GIS assessment and field- verification effort were conducted to assess habitat impacts in the Permit Areas. Figure 8 of the NBHCP maps the “native habitat” remaining in the Basin, which is extremely limited and in many cases located outside the Permit Areas. The majority of land in the Permit Areas is currently disturbed through agricultural practices or rural residential development.

Given this, and the substantial habitat assessment, all development within the Permit Areas is required to participate in the mitigation program. In the event an individual site has special habitat characteristics or species use, additional avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures (Chapter V of the NBHCP) are assigned to the development. The commentor is also referred to the information contained in the Addendum to the Biological Resources Technical Memo regarding the assessment of values for Swainson’s hawk foraging habitat currently provided in the Basin (Appendix K of the Final NBHCP), and also to Master Response 5 (Swainson’s Hawk Foraging Habitat). c. To approve the NBHCP and issue the Section 10(a) Permits, the USFWS must find that, (1) the proposed taking will be incidental to otherwise lawful activities; (2) to the maximum extent practicable, each Permittee has minimized and mitigated for the impacts of incidental take; (3) adequate funding is provided for the conservation plan, and t he Plan specifies
procedures to deal with unforeseen circumstances; (4) the taking will not appreciably reduce the likelihood of survival and recovery of the species in the wild; (5) any additional measures required by the USFWS as necessary or appropriate for purposes of the plan will be met; and (6) any other assurances required by the USFWS to ensure the plan is implemented are provided (50 C.F.R. §§ 17.22(b)(2)), 17.32(b)(2)). These determinations will be made based on the effectiveness of the Operating Conservation Program, including the Mitigation Lands, in avoiding, minimizing, and mitigating for the effects on Covered Species and habitat types resulting from the Covered Activities.

While the USFWS is encouraged to apply consistent mitigation measures for the same species covered by separate HCPs, mitigation standards may vary for HCP efforts where such “differences are based on
biological or other good reasons and are clearly explained” (see Handbook, p. 3-23). Consistent with this guidance, the Biological Resources Technical Memo, Chapter VII of the NBHCP, and the EIS/EIR have been prepared to demonstrate that the Operating Conservation Program, including the 0.5:1 mitigation ratio, minimizes and mitigates the impacts to Covered Species to the maximum extent practicable in accordance with the ESA, and fully mitigates and minimizes impacts in accordance with CESA.

A key difference between the NBHCP approach and other HCPs for the same covered species is that
the NBHCP mitigation requirements apply to all Planned Development within the Permit areas regardless of habitat quality. In this regard, the NBHCP mitigation LETTER O1—ECOS/FOSH/NWF/PCL/SIERRA CLUB
SAC/161795/031060002(LETTERS.DOC) NATOMAS BASIN HCP 95

FINAL EIR/EIS
ratio will be applied to mitigate even for the loss of lands with marginal or limited habitat value. This is different from the approach used in many other HCPs in which the mitigation requirements apply only to those projects resulting in the actual loss of covered species or their associated habitats and where the number of covered species associated with the habitat types that will be lost would be substantively greater. For further information on other HCPs, refer to Master Response 1 (Mitigation Ratio).

The NBHCP also explains that the 0.5:1 ratio mitigates
to the maximum extent practicable
the impacts of incidental take because TNBC Mitigation Lands will be of greater habitat value than the existing agricultural land converted to urban development; most of the land to be developed is either of limited value as habitat or serves as habitat to a limited number of Covered Species; opportunities for restoration and species reintroduction will be provided; and numerous migratory bird species would have increased opportunities to use the Basin. Additionally, the Mitigation Lands will be actively monitored and adaptively managed in perpetuity to minimize the numbers of Covered Species and habitat quality to achieve the Plan’s biological goals and objectives. Finally, the Mitigation Lands will be consolidated into large, biologically viable units with connectivity between individual reserve units (see Draft NBHCP, p. IV-6). For example, Covered Activities would result in the loss of 21 acres of wet areas and ponds and 404 acres of canals. Because of the combined effect of the managed marsh requirement, connectivity between reserves, and the 0.5:1 mitigation ratio as applied to all Planned Development in the Permit Area, these impacts will be compensated by the provision of 2,187.5 acres of managed marsh habitat, which is equivalent to more than a 100 percent increase in marsh habitat for giant garter snake and other wetland-dependent Covered Species.

Finally, the NBHCP Operating Conservation Program consist s of more than just the 0.5:1 mitigation ratio; it includes avoidance of impacts both within and outside the Permit Areas, extensive restoration and enhancement activities, adaptive management, and species survey and monitoring requirements. Thus, the NBHCP’s Operating Conservation Program is consistent with the conservation strategies employed by other HCPs that include some of the same Covered Species. The commentor also is referred to the Master Response 1 (Mitigation Ratio).
d. The commentor states that the Natomas Basin supports critica l populations of giant garter
snakes and Swainson’s hawks. Although the term “critical populations” is not clearly understood (the Natomas Basin is not officially designated critical habitat for either species), the Applicants agree that the Natomas Basin is very important to both species as evidenced by the cited reports.
e. The commentor notes that degradation to habitat has occurred as a result of both development authorized under the 1
997 NBHCP and various activities that are not
necessarily authorized or controlled by the Applicants or the Wildlife Agencies. Normal agricultural practices such as crop rotations affect habitat within the Natomas Basin. The comment that Water Agency vegetation removal has intensified is neither supported nor quantified by the commentor.
f. The commentor states that TNBC rice farming practices are conventional and do not offer manage
ment techniques uniquely supportive of the species. Pages IV-21 through IV-22 of the Draft NBHCP include information on the management of rice reserves to support the LETTER O1—ECOS/FOSH/NWF/PCL/SIERRA CLUB
96 NATOMAS BASIN HCP SAC/161795/031060002(LETTERS.DOC)

FINAL EIR/EIS
giant garter snake. In addition, a Site Specific Management Plan is prepared for each rice reserve to maximize support of the species. TNBC further employs the following best management practices to support the species:
• Selection of informed, first-rate rice farming contractors. Using its discretion as a private, non-profit corporation, TNBC selects top-quality, conservation-minded farmers. Reserve rice growers work in partnership with TNBC to fulfill the goals of the NBHCP. They also make recommendations periodically to TNBC on how to best accomplish mutual goals.

They work with TNBC to make the most of the interface between rice farming and managed marsh as several rice farms discharge prey-rich (for giant garter snakes) rice tailwater directly onto the Mitigation Lands. All are motivated to accomplish biological goals in support of the NBHCP since the incentives are based on conformance with the TNBC lease requirements rather than incentives associated with conventional rice production.
• Grower participation in mortality avoidance and reporting. An unpublished study in the mid-1990s by the California Rice Industry Association determined that the largest mortality of giant garter snakes in the Sacramento Valley’s rice production region was from human interaction. Most specifically, it was snake death from being run over by motor vehicles and field hands seeing a snake and killing it with a shovel. TNBC’s farming contractors know this and work to cooperate and be sensitive to snake issues, and this is accomplished through the farmer/contractor selection process (see #1 above) as well as continuing communication and education of the farmer/contractor.

Additionally, growers are requested to report to TNBC any dead giant garter snakes they may find in their normal course of farming. This will help TNBC with its information base regarding the giant garter snake.
• Lease elements and provisions; adaptability. TNBC leases with rice farming contractors are an excellent tool for achieving compliance with practices friendly to the giant garter snake. The leases include several provisions that make rice farming throughout the Mitigation Lands more sensitive to giant garter snake safety. These include requirements regarding rodent control, vegetation management, and farm chemical safety, for example. Most importantly, as more is learned and giant garter snake habitat defined, future leases can be adapted to accommodate new information and thus influence rice farmer activity in the most beneficial manner.
• TNBC giant garter snake monitoring and identification of sensitive locations. Through TNBC’s annual monitoring of giant garter snake populations in the Natomas Basin, it now has an excellent understanding of the location of these populations. Knowing this, TNBC has visited the sites with rice farming contractors and others related to the rice farming enterprises (e.g., Reclamation District personnel) and highlights those areas as sensitive, key localities around which to be careful and to report any unusual activity to TNBC.
• Fallowing for sustainability and prey diversity. TNBC has adopted as a management practice the fallowing of certain portions of its rice fields. California rice is one crop where back-to-back crops are planted, and much of the industry plants rice on the same ground every year. TNBC has placed into its Finance Model a 10-percent fallowing factor on its rice fields. (TNBC is careful not to fallow in such a manner that any water LETTER O1—ECOS/FOSH/NWF/PCL/SIERRA CLUB
SAC/161795/031060002(LETTERS.DOC) NATOMAS BASIN HCP 97

FINAL EIR/EIS
conveyance structure important to the giant garter snake or other Covered Species is dried up.) Not only does this fallowing regime provide relief from excessive herbicide treatment needs, it also is helpful in controlling plant disease and the need for application of fungicides. Generally, this fallowing strategy helps make the 50-percent Mitigation Land allocated to rice more sustainable over the long term. Moreover, reduction of a monoculture effect can also be helpful in creating diversity that is expected to benefit the giant garter snake in terms of prey base and health. Most farming operations do not have the economic flexibility to be able to fallow in this manner.

TNBC does because its goal is species mitigation rather than maximizing economic return on investment.
• Day-to-day operations and land management refinements. TNBC’s management, in its daily operations with rice farming contractors, consults with these farmers on a regular basis. Periodically, questions surface regarding agronomic practices. TNBC management always recommends the most favorable biological solutions to problems, consistent with the farming contractor’s ability to farm in an economic manner. Conventional operators, by contrast, would most likely resolve whatever issue surfaces in the most expeditious manner possible. TNBC’s practice in this regard even extends to ancillary farming contractors. For example, TNBC’s management meets with the aerial applicators serving the Natomas Basin and provides education as to sensitive preserves and even uses aerial photos to designate precise locations of all TNBC preserves. • Controlled access and conflicting activity separation. One of the components of the NBHCP is to control human access to the Mitigation Lands because part of the theory of the NBHCP is that as habitat is lost to Planned Development, the displaced Covered Species can take refuge on the Mitigation Lands. To allow urbanization activity on these refuge areas would be to defeat one of the principles of the NBHCP. TNBC controls access to its rice fields like no other rice farm landowner in the Natomas Basin. Signage, fencing, gating, patrolling, and neighbor communications are all a part of this function.

This helps with the reduction of potential for giant garter snakes being driven over by vehicles and unknowledgeable people feeling compelled to kill snakes. • Integrated Pest Management. TNBC recommends to its farmers and uses as a reference the University of California Regents’ publication, Integrated Pest Management for Rice, Second Edition handbook. Integrated Pest Management attempts to use the smallest number of chemicals and disruptive practices necessary to farm economically. The Integrated Pest Management rice farming principles and protocols are fortified by the research and direction of some of the world’s leading rice scientists, many of whom are affiliated with the University of California and the International Rice Research Institute.

In sum, adhering to these practices and principles minimizes disruption, improves water quality, and creates a more sustainable rice farming environment.

Regarding the use of “Warrior” pesticide, Warrior® is the most commonly used in secticide in California rice, designated to address infestation problems by the most destructive insect pest facing California rice growers, the rice water weevil, (Lissohoptrus oryzophilis Kuschel). Non-chemical treatment options for growers mainly consist of the complete removal of all levee vegetation. TNBC management seeks to leave as much non-crop vegetation available as is reasonably practical around rice fields for the benefit of the LETTER O1—ECOS/FOSH/NWF/PCL/SIERRA CLUB
98 NATOMAS BASIN HCP SAC/161795/031060002(LETTERS.DOC)

FINAL EIR/EIS
Covered Species. Thus, under the existing ITP, TNBC allows careful use of insecticide rather than vegetation elimination and the greater impacts to the species created by vegetation removal. This is particularly true of a product (Warrior®) that is not applied on 100 percent of the crop and not applied every year. In addition, use restrictions on the product are tightly controlled. Warrior® is not permitted to be used near open-water, non-rice paddy areas. Growers typically use this product when they experience economic loss or the expectation of economic loss due to the rice water weevil. Given its price, growers would be very unlikely to use it indiscriminately. Finally, all leases TNBC extends to rice farmers contain the following phrase or a phrase that is very similar:

Tenant shall apply all fertilizers, pesticides and other sprays and chemicals (collectively, “Substances”) nece
ssary for crop production on the Premises
strictly in accordance with applicable laws, statutes, ordinances and regulations of all federal, state, county and city bodies having jurisdiction in such matters, and the manufacturer’s directions for the safe and effective use of such Substances. If Landlord becomes aware that any Substance available for use on rice or any other crop grown on the Premises is harmful to the giant garter snake or the Swainson’s Hawk, then Landlord shall have the right to prohibit the use of such identified Substance on the Premises.

TNBC staff have met with the product’s manufacturer and registrant for ex tended product
use safety discussions. TNBC has also had multiple discussions with key staff of the California Department of Pesticide Regulations and periodically reads annual pesticide use reports published by the department to be alert to potential conflicts with the NBHCP’s rice field guidelines. Nonetheless, mindful of this product’s ability to do harm, TNBC staff advises that it would not hesitate to withdraw the product’s availability to TNBC-contracted farmers. The EIR/EIS reviews the potential water quality impacts of the use of pesticides on Mitigation Lands (page 4-21 of the Draft EIR/EIS) and concludes that TNBC’s practices would not present any new or significant water quality impacts compared to ongoing management practices. Regardless, the use of pesticides by TNBC is not a Covered Activity. g. The commentor states that the commitment to 25 percent of the Mitigation Lands to
managed marsh is not based on scientific evidence to support the giant garter snake’s use of managed marsh. The commentor is referred to Section II.C.2 of the NBHCP for a detailed description of the habitat needs and requirements of the giant garter snake. Additional supporting information can be found in the Biological Resources Technical Memo included as Appendix H of the NBHCP. Both these reports and their conclusions regarding the habitat needs of the giant garter snake are based on substantial biological information and consultation (see bibliography for both the NBHCP and the Biological Resources Technical Memo). This extensive information regarding the giant garter snake habitat is summarized on pages II-11 - 12 of the Draft NBHCP.

Based on this research, the Applicants determined that a mix of managed marsh and rice lands could best support the habitat ne
eds of the giant garter snake. As noted above, native
marsh is nearly non-existent in the Natomas Basin. Planned Development in the Permit Areas would affect 21 acres of wet areas (ponds and other marshy or wet areas). In turn, the NBHCP would create 2,187.5 acres of new marsh lands managed to support the Covered Species with an emphasis on the needs of the giant garter snake.

LETTER O1—ECOS/FOSH/NWF/PCL/SIERRA CLUB
SAC/161795/031060002(LETTERS.DOC) NATOMAS BASIN HCP 99

FINAL EIR/EIS
h. The commentor is concerned that rice reserves and managed marsh will benefit only the giant garter snake and will not provide comparable benefits to the Swainson’s hawk. The biological analysis conducted for the NBHCP found that the Swainson’s hawk uses a variety of habitat including the edges of rice fields and fallow rice fields (see pages II-15 - II-18 of the Draft NBHCP and the Addendum to the Biological Resources Technical Memo– Appendix K of the Final NBHCP). As such, the NBHCP requires TNBC to fallow 10 percent of the rice reserves annually to provide for additional foraging areas for the Swainson’s hawk and other birds of prey. Additional information on policies for management of rice reserves to support the hawk are included on pages V-18 - V-20 of the NBHCP.

Regarding the marshlands, as noted in the Response to Comment O1-7(g), managed marsh must include upland edges for the giant g
arter snake and a variety of other species. Page VI-
17 of the Draft NBHCP, therefore, describes the required upland edges for managed marsh (approximately 20 to 30 percent of managed marsh area) to provide basking, cover, and hibernicula for giant garter snakes and foraging and nesting areas for species such as the Swainson’s hawk. Additionally, upland edges of marsh and rice fields attract a variety of smaller rodents and support a prey base for the hawk, thus demonstrating that the needs of the giant garter snake and those of the Swainson’s hawk are not in conflict or competition.

Response to Comment O1-25
The following response addresses issues of connectivity related to the giant garter snake.

Additional discussion on this issue is provided within Master Response 2 (Connectivity), Response to Comment G3-11, and Comment Letter I5.

The Draft NBHCP is designed to provide a system of Mitigation La nds with adequate connectivity between reserves. The NBHCP evaluates the impacts of take associated with the loss of canals within the Permit Areas and identifies mitigation required to offset the impacts of take. The commentor notes that some channels have been or will be lost as Planned Development occurs within the Permit Areas of the City and Sutter County. This is a correct statement, and the EIR/EIS has considered the loss of canals within the Permit Areas. The success of the NBHCP relies not upon the canals located within areas of Planned Development, but rather upon canals located outside of the Planned Development areas and adjacent to existing and future Mitigation Lands; the exceptions to this are the major drainage canals identified on Figure 17 of the NBHCP and noted as “most likely to remain.” The commentor states that the primary drainage canals located within the City’s Permit
Area have been “severely degraded” and that they are “no longer functional connectivity habitat.” This statement is not supported by evidence and suggests a misunderstanding of the concept of connectivity. These canals continue to provide for the migration of giant garter snake within the Basin. They do not provide a combination of wetland and upland habitats that support the complete life cycle of the giant garter snake, and the NBHCP does not rely upon these canals for such habitat.

The commentor further discusses the impacts associated with the MAP project. While MAP is considered in the analysis of Planned Development within the Basin, it is not a Covered Activity in the NBHCP. As such, comments related to the specific design and impacts of MAP are not addressed under the NBHCP of the associated EIR/EIS. The NBHCP and EIR/EIS do consider the MAP project with respect to overall Basin connectivity and LETTER O1—ECOS/FOSH/NWF/PCL/SIERRA CLUB
100 NATOMAS BASIN HCP SAC/161795/031060002(LETTERS.DOC)

FINAL EIR/EIS
conclude that adequate connectivity will be maintained at build-out of Planned Development, including development of MAP.

The commentor states that the configuration of the South Sutter County Specific Plan would destroy wildlife connectivity within the Basin. As noted above a nd within Master Response
2 (Connectivity), the major drainage canals will continue to provide for migration of the giant garter snake within the Basin, and minor drainage and irrigation channels anticipated to remain would provide further opportunities for connectivity within the Basin. The commentor states that an intended 1,400-acre wastewater disposal area, in conjunction with Planned Development, would result in a complete barrier to wildlife migration. The land discharge of treated wastewater is an alternative under consideration by Sutter County through the South Sutter County Specific Plan process. The wastewater disposal area would not be a barrier to wildlife migration because, if this alternative were to proceed, a total of 500 acres of land would be required for surface application of tertiary treated wastewater.

Beyond the error noted in the comment regarding acres required for surface application, there is no evidence offered that such use of tertiary treated wastewater for agricultural purposes would have any detrimental affect on wildlife. The tertiary treatment of wastewater results in water quality levels determined to be appropriate for use within public parks where human exposure will occur. For the reasons described above and discussed further in Master Response 2 (Connectivity), it is not anticipated that impacts associated with biological connectivity would substantially reduce the long-term viability of giant garter snake within the Basin.

The commentor states that the NBHCP lacks provisions to ensure connectivity. In response to this concern, additional provisions have been included within the NBHCP to support Basin connectivity (see Mast
er Response 2 [Connectivity]).

The commentor questions the position that the NBHCP promotes compact growth because of the size
of the Permit Area in Sutter County and the Joint Vision proposal under consideration by the City and the County of Sacramento. The Sutter County Permit Area includes 7,467 acres of Planned Development within an overall Sutter County portion of the Basin that totals 16,882 acres. Not only does this leave 9,415 acres of Sutter County with no incidental take coverage, it also provides no coverage to the 1,015-acre portion of the Industrial/Commercial Reserve located within the Swainson’s Hawk Zone. These areas are not anticipated to be developed within the 50-year term of the ITPs. With regard to the Joint Vision planning effort, the Draft NBHCP does not provide take coverage for any development that may be proposed in the future by the County of Sacramento or by the City beyond the 8,050 acres included within the City’s Permit Area.

The NBHCP considers aquatic connectivity, and Master Response 2 (Connectivity) addresses
this issue in detail. The configuration of Planned Development has been evaluated, and it has been determined that adequate connectivity will likely be provided through the existing drainage and water delivery channels that will remain in the Basin. If it is determined that additional measures are required to protect key connectivity corridors, then such measures will be identified and implemented through the adaptive management provisions of the NBHCP.

The NBHCP does include general guidelines for canal manageme nt for the Water Agencies in the event that the Water Agencies choose to seek coverage under the NBHCP for take LETTER O1—ECOS/FOSH/NWF/PCL/SIERRA CLUB
SAC/161795/031060002(LETTERS.DOC) NATOMAS BASIN HCP 101

FINAL EIR/EIS
related to mechanical activities. However, the management practices outlined in the NBHCP do not differ substantially from historic practices employed by the Water Agencies. Under the historic practices of the Water Agencies, the giant garter snake has persisted.

Implementation of the NBHCP will not substantially affect the Water Agencies’ canal activities in areas outside of the City and Sutter County Permit Areas. Based upon the analysis contained within the EIR/EIS, the success of the NBHCP Operating Conservation Plan does not rely upon the Water Agencies’ participation in the NBHCP. Rather, the Plan’s success relies upon a combination of Mitigation Land that will be managed and enhanced by TNBC, monitoring requirements to track the success of Covered Species, adaptive management provisions of the Plan, and the avoidance and minimization measures applied to Covered Activities undertaken by TNBC and proponents of Planned Development.

Through the analysis in the EIR/EIS (supported by the Economic Analysis and the biological analyses), it h
as been demonstrated that a mitigation ratio of 1:1 is not feasible [see Master Response 1 (Mitigation Ratio)]. The biological analysis conducted within the EIR/EIS has determined that the 0.5:1 mitigation ratio, in conjunction with the other avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures contained in the NBHCP, would result in less than significant impacts. There is no basis to support a higher mitigation ratio, and there is no evidence that such a higher ratio would improve connectivity within the Basin.

Response to Comment O1-26
As noted, the Water Agencies are not currently seeking to participate in the NBHCP as currently drafted. The lack of participation by the Water Agencies does not, however, undermine the biological viability of the NBHCP. Given the long history of the Water Agencies’ management of channels within the Natomas Basin, it is evident that the Basin population of giant garter snakes has adapted to some extent to the Water Agencies’ canal maintenance practices. While the NBHCP does provide canal management guidelines for the Water Agencies, these guidelines are not dramatically different from current practices of the Water Agencies. Additionally, the Water Agencies may be at risk from enforcement actions under the ESA and CESA by the USFWS and CDFG, respectively, if their canal management practices result in take of listed species. Thus, it is in the best interest of the Water Agencies to incorporate measures similar to the NBHCP canal guidelines within their regular operations, regardless of their formal status under the NBHCP.

Response to Comment O1-27
The comment states that potential take will not be prevented because of wastewater contamination in Sutter County and states that the ITP for Sutter County should be conditioned on the completion of public wastewater infrastructure. Although the commentor is correct that the South Sutter County Specific Plan may include, as an option, a conceptual wastewater treatment and disposal system for the South Sutter County Specific Plan area (as described in the Infrastructure Master Plan referenced in the comment), there is no evidence that this conceptual system would result in unregulated contamination.

Specifically, the unfounded conclusion of contamination does not consider the following extensive safeguards, detailed design, and environmental review processes that would apply if Sutter County decided to select a wastewater disposal option:

LETTER O1—ECOS/FOSH/NWF/PCL/SIERRA CLUB
102 NATOMAS BASIN HCP SAC/161795/031060002(LETTERS.DOC)

FINAL EIR/EIS
• Waste discharge to land is regulated by the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board and the Department of Health Services. Extensive regulatory review will be required prior to the development of Sutter County’s land disposal system, including subsequent environmental documentation.
• Characterization of the effluent stream will be required. Wastewater constituents from a commercial/industrial area will change as the site develops and as businesses change from time to time.
• Specific requirements will be imposed for the discharge area, including: (1) site containment to limit the possibility of release of wastewater beyond the discharge area, probably through the use of berms around the discharge area; (2) a specific crop management plan (e.g., farming rice, corn, Sudan grass, or other crops) to be reviewed by the Regional Board to ensure that nutrients and other wastewater constituents are used by crops and do not percolate to groundwater; (3) disposal requirements for crops that might contain high levels of metals and other pollutants; (4) storage requirements for wastewater generated during the non-irrigation season (the Infrastructure Master Plan references a planned 100-acre detention pond); and 5) extensive monitoring.

As the commentor correctly notes, the conceptual wastew ater disposal area, if approved,
would be outside the Permit areas covered by the NBHCP. The facilities, however, would not eliminate wetland and upland habitat values. The Covered Activities under the NBHCP would generally include all infrastructure components (e.g., pipelines and the treatment facility) within the Specific Plan area and in other areas within Sutter County’s Permit Area.

Related activities outside of the Permit Area, including the construction and operation of a land treatment system and the construction of an outfall facility to the Sacramento River) are not Covered Activities in the NBHCP. The USFWS has determined that it is acceptable to allow continued action on Sutter County’s application because the proposed land discharge system is speculative and will be subject to extensive revision following review by the Regional Board and Department of Health Services. In addition, a thorough study of potential effects on giant garter snakes and other receptors is infeasible at this time because it is not possible to characterize the effluent from unknown future industries in the Specific Plan area. Nonetheless, compliance with adopted water quality standards and RWQCB requirements would ensure that a disposal option would not result in significant effects. In addition, if a wastewater disposal option were to be implemented that included tertiary treatment, then this may result in additional foraging habitat opportunities for certain Covered Species, including the Swainson’s hawk. In addition, the NBHCP does not include surface disposal of treated wastewater as a Covered Activity, and such disposal methods, if pursued in the future, would be subject to full review under CEQA and would require authorization by the Regional Water Quality Control Board. To assume this method of wastewater disposal will occur is premature and speculative at this time.

Response to Comment O1-28
Extensive analyses based on peer-reviewed scientific studies and field verification have been conducted in order to demonstrate that the NBHCP does not jeopardize the continued viability of Covered Species. The NBHCP requires TNBC to acquire Mitigation Lands that would ensure preservation of high-value habitat areas with known populations of Covered Species and/or restoration of habitat. While Mitigation Land acquisitions may occur outside LETTER O1—ECOS/FOSH/NWF/PCL/SIERRA CLUB
SAC/161795/031060002(LETTERS.DOC) NATOMAS BASIN HCP 103

FINAL EIR/EIS
the Permit Areas, including lands within Sutter County and Sacramento County, Mitigation Land acquisitions are restricted within the Permit Areas to minimize the potential impacts on the system of reserves resulting from incompatible land uses. Such reserve acquisitions within the Permit Areas of the City and Sutter County may occur only with the approval of the affected Land Use Agency and the Wildlife Agencies.

The commentor correctly notes that Figures 12 and 13 show giant garter snake and Swainson’s hawk (respectively) records. Figure 13 show
s, however, active nesting sites for
the Swainson’s hawk, the majority of which are concentrated along the Sacramento River or within 1 mile of the river. The active nest sites are concentrated along the Sacramento River regardless of the jurisdictional location (Sutter County, Sacramento County, or City of Sacramento). The majority of nest sites are in Sacramento County and also along the river in part because the Sacramento County portion of the Natomas Basin has a substantially greater area of frontage along the Sacramento River. For this reason, the NBHCP designates a Swainson’s Hawk Zone for limited development in order to preserve established nesting areas. Further, the Draft NBHCP includes substantial policy guidance regarding acquisition of upland reserves within the Swainson’s Hawk Zone. Specifically, pages V-18 to V-19 of the Draft NBHCP state:
(1) TNBC, in conjunction with the Land Use Agencies, will monitor proposed development in the Swainson’s Hawk Zone, where the
majority of known
Swainson’s hawk nest sites are currently located and, hence, much of the Swainson’s hawk nesting and foraging in the Basin occurs. Based on existing general plans and the City’s and Sutter County’s NBHCP Permit Areas, development in this zone is expected to be limited over the life of the Plan.

However, if the NBHCP is amended and such development does occur, Mitigation Lands established for such development shall, likewise, be located within the Swainson’s Hawk Zone. In addition, TNBC shall set as a top priority the acquisition of upland reserve sites in the Swainson’s Hawk Zone (via easement or land purchase). [Emphasis added] Further, any reserve lands established in the Swainson’s Hawk Zone shall, to the maximum extent possible, be managed to benefit all upland-associated Covered Species, though any management in this zone must be fully consistent with Swainson’s hawk biology and needs.

In addition, the upland acquisition criteria on pa
ges IV-25 and 26 of the Draft NBHCP state:

Generally, priority for acquiring upland habitat is as follows (in desce nding priority order): (1) sites located within the Swainson’s Hawk Zone; (2) sites that, in the judgment of TNBC and the Technical Advisory Committee, would provide specific, important benefits to other upland-associated Covered Species (e.g., tricolored blackbird nesting colonies); (3) sites supporting Swainson’s hawk nests or foraging habitat outside the Swainson’s Hawk Zone; (4) sites that would provide a good potential for enhancement of upland habitat values; and (5) any other site that would result in a benefit to any upland Covered Species.

For these reasons, the Applicants disagree that t
he NBHCP mitigation program does not
seek to concentrate reserves where species use is known and concentrated. Prior to the Settlement Agreement, TNBC land purchases reflected willing sellers with land that either LETTER O1—ECOS/FOSH/NWF/PCL/SIERRA CLUB
104 NATOMAS BASIN HCP SAC/161795/031060002(LETTERS.DOC)

FINAL EIR/EIS
currently supported the species or could be enhanced to support the Covered Species. The commentor states that the TNBC did not acquire lands in Sacramento County (prior to the Settlement Agreement) because the TNBC did not request the City to raise the Mitigation Fee. This is not true. In fact, TNBC has acquired significant acreage in Sacramento County prior to the Settlement Agreement, and, in addition, the history of the Mitigation Fee shows steady increases reflective of mitigation costs, including land costs. Table VI-3 of the NBHCP (Draft NBHCP page VI-7) shows the history of the City of Sacramento Mitigation Fee.

The Executive Director of TNBC serves under a Board of Directors. Together the Executive Director and the Board are t
asked with securing mitigation sites that reflect multiple acquisition criteria to meet the requirements of the Operating Conservation Program.

Among these requirements is that TNBC acquire one 2,500-acre parcel that is contiguous. It makes sense to assemble this large contiguous area early, consistent with a practical and reasonable long-term land acquisition strategy. Because the Sacramento County portion of the Basin is more urbanized, because of the significant presence of the Sacramento International Airport there, and because of the presence of I-5 and S.R. 99, acquiring 2,500 acres of contiguous Mitigation Land in Sacramento County would be far more difficult and may ultimately be impractical.

It is also true that there are larger tracts of land
available in Sutter County than in the
Sacramento County portion of the Natomas Basin. TNBC sees larger-tract acquisitions as an opportunity to derive more benefits from each purchase. Very few large tracts of privately held land remain in the Sacramento County portion of the Basin.

The commentor states that TNBC “will likely resume the past practices of buying mostly lower-cost propert
ies in Sutter County.” TNBC is in fact is assembling contiguous blocks in three key areas: (1) North Basin preserve area (five tracts totaling 1,051 acres), which lies in the northwest portion of the Basin; (2) Central Basin preserve area, (five tracts totaling 1,231 acres) of which 99 percent of which lies within the Sacramento County portion of the Natomas Basin and the South Basin preserves, also called the Fisherman’s Lake preserves, which consists of four tracts totaling 258 acres. As TNBC moves toward consolidating these three major preserve areas, of which two out of three lie in Sacramento County, it only makes sense that TNBC will continue the effort to consolidate them as described above.

Response to Comment O1-29
The commentor is concerned that acquisition of Mitigation Lands outside of the Basin may jeopardize the survival of Covered Species such as the Swainson’s hawk and giant garter snake. The commentor is correct that the NBHCP allows up to 20 percent of the Mitigation Lands to be acquired in Area B, which is located to the immediate north of the Basin. The ability of TNBC’s Board to approve acquisitions in this area is, however, subject to substantial conditions, including the requirement that the Mitigation Lands provide habitat for one or more of the Covered Species. Foremost is the requirement that land acquisitions in Area B must first be “approved in writing by USFWS and CDFG based on available scientific information that a reserve of adequate size, viability, and habitat value can be established in this area and can support a population of giant garter snakes, Swainson’s hawk and other Covered Species” (p. IV-12 of the Draft NBHCP). Thus, the NBHCP’s extensive technical analysis was conducted to demonstrate that such acquisitions would not LETTER O1—ECOS/FOSH/NWF/PCL/SIERRA CLUB
SAC/161795/031060002(LETTERS.DOC) NATOMAS BASIN HCP 105

FINAL EIR/EIS
jeopardize the survival of the Covered Species because such acquisitions can occur only if there is evidence that the land will support the Covered Species Response to Comment O1-30
The NBHCP does not rely on existing agriculture remaining in the Natomas Basin as mitigation, but the effectiveness of the NBHCP depends upon the availability of some portion of the Basin as foraging habitat. See Responses to Comments O1-13(a) and O3-13. As the commentor notes, changes (particularly related to agricultural practices) do occur outside the Permit Areas and the Mitigation Lands. The Applicants do not control these areas because these areas are not within the Applicants’ land use jurisdictions, and other parties have decided not to participate in the NBHCP. The NBHCP does, however, include an adaptive management section (p. VI-22) that suggests that adaptive management may be necessary if there are “significant land use changes outside the TNBC reserve system.” The commentor also is referred to the Addendum to the Biological Resources Technical Memorandum. Also see the NBHCP text revisions in the Final NBHCP, which includes a new Section IV.C. entitled, “Foraging Habitat,” which discusses the NBHCP’s measures to respond to the possibility that, over the 50-year term of the Permits, future changes in foraging habitat could occur outside the Mitigation Lands.

Response to Comment O1-31
The NBHCP conservation program does not rely upon the assumption that Sacramento County will voluntarily retain existing agricultural zoning in the Swainson’s Hawk Zone.

Nonetheless, the effectiveness of the NBHCP conservation program in mitigating for impacts of take associated with loss of foraging habitat depends, in part, on the assumption that foraging habitat will remain outside the Permit Areas. Also see the Addendum to the Biological Resources Technical Memorandum (Appendix K of the Final NBHCP), Master Response 5 (Swainson’s Hawk Foraging Habitat), and the NBHCP text revision cited in Response to Comment O1-30. With regard to ministerial projects in unincorporated Sacramento County and the potential for the undeveloped lands to become agricultural- estate lots, see Master Response 4 (Cumulative Impacts) and Response to Comment O3-13.

With regard to the long-term disposition of the Swainson’s Hawk Zone, see Response to Comment I4-6.

Response to Comment O1-32
The commentor is referred to Response to Comment O3-15 and Master Response 2 (Connectivity) regarding water supply.

Response to Comment O1-33
The NBHCP does not assume expansion of the SOI area under the City/County Joint Vision planning effort. The NBHCP and its associated Permits will authorize incidental take associated with the Planned Development of 17,500 acres (8,050 acres for the City in the North and South Natomas Community Plan areas, 7,467 acres for Sutter County, and 1,983 acres for Metro Air Park). The Applicants consider the NBHCP’s Operating Conservation Program to be effective in mitigating for the impacts of take associated with development of 17,500 acres. The Applicants do not, however, assume that the Operating Conservation Program would be effective in mitigating for the impacts of incidental take for any LETTER O1—ECOS/FOSH/NWF/PCL/SIERRA CLUB
106 NATOMAS BASIN HCP SAC/161795/031060002(LETTERS.DOC)

FINAL EIR/EIS
development, if it were to occur, beyond the 17,500 acres. If any of the Land Use Agencies consider approving development beyond their allocation, including any development beyond the existing SOI area, the agency must amend the NBHCP or create a separate HCP to obtain coverage for incidental take associated with such additional development. Before such an amendment or new HCP could be approved, associated amended or new ITPs could be issued, and development could be approved, a significant biological evaluation must be completed to prove that the Operating Conservation Program proposed to mitigate the impacts of said increased development is adequate to meet ESA and CESA findings. The commentor is also referred to Master Response 3 (Joint Vision) and Master Response 4 (Cumulative Impacts).

The Joint Vision is also studying the provision of a permanent open space area along the east side of the Sacramento River in Sacramento County coinciding with the Swainson’s hawk mitigation zone. The commentor states three impacts were not addressed in the NBHCP and EIR/EIS. Responses to each of these comments are as follows:

1. The commentor is referred to Master Response 3 (Joint Vision) and Master Response 4 (Cumulative Impacts). There are no proposals anticipated that would result in the development of 27,500 acres in the Basin. The Joint Vision is in the early stages of developing a regional growth approach to help curb the pressures on the Natomas Basin for continued development. At the time the Draft EIR/EIS was released, this planning and analysis effort was not under way. Since that time, the City and Sacramento County have initiated planning and studies to determine the extent, location, and amount of development that could proceed if the existing SOI was expanded. However, at this time, insufficient information is available to determine the nature of such development.

Consequently, it would be inappropriate to evaluate all of the 10,000 acres suggested by the commentor because certain conditions may limit the ability to develop within this area. For example, a one-mile “community separator” may be considered along the Sacramento / Sutter County line on the Sacramento County side, which would eliminate areas that could be considered for development. Similarly, a large portion of the 10,000 acres is in a floodplain and would need to be removed from the floodplain at great expense before it could be developed or else it would not be developed. If development were to proceed, in order to comply with ESA, adequate mitigation area must be set aside to provide protection for the giant garter snake, a known inhabitant of the waterways outside the Permit Areas.

2. An amended or new HCP would need to be approved and amended or new ITP would need to be issued if any development w
ere to be considered outside of the Permit
Areas. If the development would result in jeopardy to the giant garter snake, USFWS would not issue a permit.

3. Landowners outside of the Permit Areas are aware of the limitations of developing the property (i.e., floodplain issues and mitigation for t he giant garter snake). They have
also witnessed the substantial increase in acquisition costs of Mitigation Land to implement the NBHCP to date and know the value of anticipating the need for habitat land in their business plans. They will likely provide Mitigation Land onsite or buy land suitable for transfer to TNBC early in the process. They have also experienced the delays in North Natomas development as a result of the unavailability of Mitigation Land.

LETTER O1—ECOS/FOSH/NWF/PCL/SIERRA CLUB
SAC/161795/031060002(LETTERS.DOC) NATOMAS BASIN HCP 107

FINAL EIR/EIS
Response to Comment O1-34
Foreseeable development is evaluated in the NBHCP and the EIR/EIS. See Master Response 3 (Joint Vision) and Master Response 4 (Cumulative Impacts). With regard to the comment about small-scale projects in unincorporated Sacramento County, see Response to Comment O3-13.

Response to Comment O1-35
The NBHCP and supporting biological and economic analyses have been developed to demonstrate that the Applicants would minimize and mitigate to the maximum extent practicable the impacts of incidental take. The commentor is referred to the Response to Comment O1-42. The comment lists several of the alternatives evaluated in the EIR/EIS and states that the burden is on the Applicants to demonstrate that the alternatives are not practicable. As discussed in the NBHCP EIR/EIS (Section 2.8):

Both CEQA and NEPA require the identification of an e
nvironmentally
preferable ([Council on Environmental Quality NEPA Guidelines, Section 1505.2(b)) or superior (CEQA Guidelines, Section 15126(e)(2)) alternative.

Alternative 2, Habitat-Based Mitigation, was identified as the environmentally preferable/superior alternative because it would provide the greatest mitigation (17,763 acres of habitat reserves). It is important to note, however, that identification of an environmentally preferable alternative is not the sole basis on which the Lead Agencies either can or should select a project alternative. It is also important to note that the proposed project (as defined in the NBHCP) has been developed to meet the requirements to mitigate to the maximum extent practicable and that selection of an alternative other than the environmentally preferable alternative does not compromise such a determination for the proposed NBHCP [See Master Response 1 (Mitigation Ratio) for additional discussion of the effectiveness of the NBHCP at demonstrating how the assessment of “maximum extent practicable” is applied].

The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) recognizes that the environmentally
preferable alternative may differ from the preferred alternative (NEPA’s Forty Most Asked Questions, Question 6(a)). As noted in Question 4(a) of NEPA’s Forty Most Asked Questions,
The “agency’s preferred alternative” is the alternative which the agency believes would fulfill its statutory mission and responsibilities, giving consideration to economic, environmental, technical and other factors. The concept of the “agency’s preferred alternative” is different from the “environmentally preferable alternative,” although in some cases one alternative may be both.

As noted above in the context of CEQA and NEPA consideration of alternatives a nd in Response to Comment O2-12, Lead Agencies evaluate numerous factors in selecting a preferred alternative, including the need to meet the maximum extent practicable criterion.

This criterion requires thoughtful evaluation of biological, legal, and economic considerations. The EIR/EIS focuses on the biological considerations and a separate economic analysis (see Appendices A and H of the NBHCP) focused on the economic aspect LETTER O1—ECOS/FOSH/NWF/PCL/SIERRA CLUB
108 NATOMAS BASIN HCP SAC/161795/031060002(LETTERS.DOC)

FINAL EIR/EIS
of the maximum extent practicable analysis. This comment letter contains specific attached letters that include comments on the economic analysis of the NBHCP, including the economic feasibility of the various alternatives evaluated in the EIR/EIS. See Responses to Comments O1-42 through O1-60 for the specific rationale for selecting the most feasible alternative that considers all the varied decision elements on which the Lead Agencies based their selection of the preferred alternative.

Sacramento City CouncilNovember 18, 2025

Sacramento City Council
November 18, 2025