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 5 of 5)

Response to Comment O1-36
For several reasons, the general discussion in the preliminary staff report on the mitigation ratio in the Joint Vision in Natomas is a preliminary conceptual document. First, the Joint Vision process is a planning effort in its early stages that requires extensive analyses and biological assessments in order to determine the amount, location, and extent of development, should it occur within the Basin. Secondly, because the amount, location, and extent of development have not been determined, impacts and mitigation requirements have not been defined. Additionally, there has been no indication that substantial portions of any open space preserved under the Joint Vision would be preserved as wildlife habitat reserves or managed sanctuary areas for wildlife. Moreover, the economic feasibility of development and the provision of open space have not been determined.

The costs of management for TNBC reserves would not be the same as the management costs of other open space. Management costs for open space vary widely depending on its uses. The management costs of a detention basin, for example, or a flood way corridor may be less than those for a golf course or a managed marsh. Regarding potential economies of scale, please see Response to Comment O1-59.

Regarding mitigation in advance, the NBHCP does require that the overall mitigation program maintain an
advance of at least 200 acres for the precise reasons outlined in the comment. The advance mitigation criteria are described on page VI-8 and 9 of the Draft NBHCP.

The commentor cites third-quarter 2002 median home sales figures from the Gregory Group as justification for a higher habitat Mitigation Fee. The Economic Analysis (Appendix A of the NBHCP) regarding cost burden (Response to Comments O1-42 through O1-54) uses the fourth quarter 2002 sales figures for new homes in the Natomas Basin, which are more recent data. Regardless of quarterly changes in housing costs, the economic model is set up to reflect changes in land value which affect both the costs of new land for development as well as the costs for acquisition of reserve lands. Additionally, the cost burden related to the Mitigation Fee must take into account not only the fee level that the single-family-home market can bear, but also the burden that new commercial and industrial developments can bear. Thus, the comparison included in the letter of comment is not comparable nor does it provide a rationale for the commentor’s conclusion that Mitigation Fees should be higher.

Response to Comment O1-37
This comment references attachments to the comment letter. Please see Responses to Comments O1-42 through O1-60.

LETTER O1—ECOS/FOSH/NWF/PCL/SIERRA CLUB
SAC/161795/031060002(LETTERS.DOC) NATOMAS BASIN HCP 109

FINAL EIR/EIS
Response to Comment O1-38
The basis for a determination of the less-than-significant finding in the EIR/EIS relevant to the issues raised in this comment and throughout the comment letter are addressed in Master Response 1 (Mitigation Ratio), Master Response 2 (Connectivity), and Master Response 4 (Cumulative Impacts). Please also see the Responses to Comments O1-1 through O1-60.

Response to Comment O1-39
The comment states that the proposed Mitigation Fee in the Draft NBHCP is inadequate because it assumes land prices of $6,000 per acre as opposed to the estimated costs of Mitigation Lands between May of 2001 and September 2002 that ranged from $7,500 to $11,000 per acre.

It is important to note that in May of 2001, the City entered into an Agreement to Settle Litigation (or the “Settlement Agreement
”) that allowed for development of 1,668 acres in
the Natomas Basin while the revised NBHCP was being drafted and the EIR/EIS was being prepared. The Settlement Agreement expired in October of 2002.

In June of 2001, the City adopted a revised Mitigation Fee of $10,021 per acre of development that funds
the additional costs expected as a result of the Settlement Agreement. This fee amount included a base fee amount of $5,993 per acre, which assumed a base land acquisition cost of $4,750 per acre, as well as a land acquisition premium of $4,028. The combined fee provided for $11,000 in land acquisition costs and an additional $2,895 for transaction and contingency costs related to land acquisition.

It was anticipated that the cost of land in the Natomas Basin would be greater under the time frame of the
Settlement Agreement (May 2001 to October 2002), and this was indeed the case, as noted by the commentor. Under the Settlement Agreement, the highest cost was $11,000 per acre, and the last three land acquisition costs have ranged between $7,500 and $8,300 an acre. No land acquisitions have occurred since the expiration of the Settlement Agreement.

One of the primary reasons that land costs increased under t he Settlement Agreement was
that TNBC was directed to purchase land in specific areas, thereby sharply reducing the amount of land available for acquisition. With demand for land unaltered and supply restricted, land prices did indeed increase.

It was also anticipated, however, that aft er the Settlement Agreement expired and TNBC once again had the full range of options for acquiring land in the Natomas Basin and outside the Basin if the land met specified criteria, land prices would be restored to their pre-settlement levels. Therefore, NBHCP Economic Analysis did not apply the premium for land acquisition. Nonetheless, TNBC increased the cost for land acquisition in July of 2002 from $6,000 per acre, including transaction costs and contingency (May 29, 2001), to $7,525 per acre, including transaction costs and contingency. This increase was based on recent land acquisition costs and TNBC’s best estimate of land costs in 2003. According to John Roberts, TNBC’s Executive Director, the average (mean) cost of all acquisitions is $5,985 per acre.

LETTER O1—ECOS/FOSH/NWF/PCL/SIERRA CLUB
110 NATOMAS BASIN HCP SAC/161795/031060002(LETTERS.DOC)

FINAL EIR/EIS
In addition, TNBC is currently 745.86 acres in surplus of its mitigation requirements. A large surplus of acres will alleviate pricing pressure on land acquisitions over the near term because it is possible that TNBC can use this surplus of land to improve its position regarding the timing of future acquisitions. When TNBC must resume land acquisition efforts, it can do so with more liberal time constraints (i.e., because of the availability of surplus Mitigation Lands, TNBC will not be compelled to acquire land in a relatively short period of time, which creates a buyer disadvantage and a seller advantage). Because TNBC has one of the largest influences on land prices for non-urbanized land in the Natomas Basin, this will have a softening impact on land prices and thus minimize the need to increase fees.

The fee calculated based on the Draft NBHCP (October 2002) for land acquisition was $7,550, including transaction costs and contingency, and provides for an additional $50 per acre to cover pre-acquisition survey costs.

If for some reason the upward pressure on land cost s does not subside with the expiration of the Settlement Agreement, the Mitigation Fee will be adjusted accordingly, as has been the case every year since 1997. However, because of its inventory of surplus Mitigation Land, TNBC will likely know what land acquisition cost should be collected in the next year’s fee amount.

Regarding the commentor’s opinion that the Mitigation Lands will be only in Sutter County, please note
that the TNBC to date has substantial holdings in Sacramento County (more than half of all reserve lands). See also Response to Comment O3-19.

Response to Comment O1-40
The funding mechanism for the NBHCP is adequate. The primary funding mechanism of the NBHCP (i.e., the Mitigation Fees paid by developers in the Natomas Basin), is adequate because there is a commitment to participate in the Plan.

North Natomas developers, who are landowners, have indeed committed to participate in the NBHCP through the D
evelopment Agreement process. The Development Agreements require that these landowners pay the existing Mitigation Fee at the time grading permits are pulled. If development ceases in the Natomas Basin, then future acquisitions of Mitigation Land would be unnecessary (except to provide mitigation for development that has occurred up until that point in time). Existing ongoing operations and maintenance of the Plan will be funded through NBHCP farming revenues and hunting revenues on existing properties and will be subsidized by the Endowment Fund, as is currently projected during the later years of the Plan. he Lead Agencies and the Applicants believe that funding is critical to the NBHCP. In accordance with USFWS’s Section 10(a) Permit issuance criteria, the NBHCP’s funding mechanisms have been developed to ensure that they adequately fund the NBHCP, as demonstrated by the extensive cash flow modeling contained in Appendix A of the NBHCP. The cash flow model used to calculate the Mitigation Fee includes a series of conservative assumptions and contingencies that are intended to ensure that TNBC will be operational and meet the objectives of the NBHCP through the life of the Permit period and beyond (in perpetuity). These assumptions and contingencies include:
• Land Acquisitions: The cash flow model includes conservative assumptions regarding LETTER O1—ECOS/FOSH/NWF/PCL/SIERRA CLUB
SAC/161795/031060002(LETTERS.DOC) NATOMAS BASIN HCP 111

FINAL EIR/EIS
the location, size, and condition of the property acquired as Mitigation Lands. For example, although the NBHCP allows up to 20 percent of land acquisitions to be out of basin, to account for potentially higher costs from in-basin acquisitions, the cash flow model assumes that 100 percent of land acquisitions would occur in-basin. • Supplemental Fee for Land Acquisition: In 2001, a supplemental fee was added to fund an advance purchase of 200 acres of habitat preserves.
• Restoration and Enhancement (R&E) Contingency: To account for potential increased R&E costs, the R&E fund fee includes a contingency of 15 percent above the projected R&E costs.
• Administration Contingency: A 15-percent contingency is included in the administration budget. Additionally, administrative costs are assumed on an annual basis, even after all land acquisitions are completed, to account for ongoing maintenance and stewardship beyond the Permit period.
• Operations and Maintenance (O&M) Endowment Interest Earnings: A conservative estimate of a nominal 3 percent interest rate is assumed. The cash flow model also assumes that when the O&M Endowment interest earnings are drawn down to supplement administration and O&M of the Plan, the principal accrued will generate 1.2 times the draw-down amount, and the fee is set accordingly. This ensures that Endowment Fund will continue to increase in value in perpetuity in order to fund ongoing O&M costs.
• Allocation for Changed Circumstances: As required by the NBHCP, the Supplemental Endowment fee was increased to provide for Changed Circumstances based on the potential costs that could arise in the event one of the NBHCP’s enumerated Changed Circumstances were to occur.
• Interaction of Funds: Although the fee is based on the sum of several cost components, the portion of the fee funding TNBC’s annual costs may be used for any of TNBC’s annual activities given the priorities established by the NBHCP. Only the O&M Endowment Fund fee component is to be used entirely and exclusively for its respective purpose.

The commentor also suggests that the funding is inadequate essentially because one cannot predict the future. Because of economic influences outside the influence of the Le ad
Agencies and the Applicants, it is not reasonable or feasible to know with complete certainty the actual land costs, mitigation monitoring costs, O&M costs, and revenues every year for the next 50 years. There is no way to predict the future. Costs could increase or decrease depending on economic and market-driven changes, new advances in R&E techniques, and other factors. Nevertheless, even without the ability to know with certainty what the actual future land or management costs will be, the economic and cash flow model (funding plan) provides an accurate means (based on accepted economic modeling practices) for estimating costs and revenues and ensuring that there is adequate funding for the life of the Plan and beyond. To ensure that the cost projections remain accurate over the life of the NBHCP and beyond, the strategy of the NBHCP to date and into the future will be to revisit the fees on LETTER O1—ECOS/FOSH/NWF/PCL/SIERRA CLUB
112 NATOMAS BASIN HCP SAC/161795/031060002(LETTERS.DOC)

FINAL EIR/EIS
an annual basis to confirm that the cost and revenue assumptions are adequate to fund the NBHCP. If not, these fees will be adjusted so that the NBHCP is adequately funded. If for some reason costs spike in the time frame between updates and a shortfall results, it is intended that the temporary shortfall will be covered by the contingencies and conservative assumptions outlined above. The interaction of funds also allows temporary shortfalls to be covered through interfund borrowing. As a result, the NBHCP is not in fact “dependent on continual infusion of new developable land to provide funding for mitigation necessitated by previous development” as alleged in the comment.

It should also be noted that the cash flow modeling
and fee calculation is an exercise that
has been and will continue to become more accurate as TNBC gains more experience in the construction and management of Mitigation Lands. As a result, with each passing year, there is increasing certainty built into the annual updates of the Mitigation Fee calculation.

The absence of a cap on the Mitigation Fee address es the danger of a funding shortfall. As long as fees are reviewed annually and adjusted if needed by the Permittees, the risks are minimized during the Permit term and beyond (1) of a funding shortfall, and (2) that the last developer seeking a grading permit will be the last one left paying the shortfall. The conservative assumptions and contingencies will mitigate against annual shortfalls in the event that costs spike over a 12 month period. Comment O1-52 states that the “economic analysis of the NBHCP demonstrates a fairly strong position on adequate funding, short of a public or private guarantee.” The Economic Analysis contained in Appendix A of the NBHCP demonstrates that, given the conservative approach and the contingencies built into the fee calculations, the funding for the NBHCP is adequately ensured through the life of the NBHCP and beyond. s explained above, funding shortfalls are not anticipated under the NBHCP. Additionally, in the unlikely event that the City or Sutter County fail to adequately fund their mitigation requirements, Section 7.6 of the Implementation Agreement provides that the City or Sutter County’s ITP may be suspended or revoked in the event of a material violation of the Section 10(a) Permit or Section 2081 Permit. Notwithstanding the suspension or revocation of a Permit, the City and Sutter County remain liable to carry out all their responsibilities under the Permits and the Implementation Agreement arising from Planned Development approved or carried out by the City or Sutter County between the effective date of the agreement and the date of suspension or revocation.

Planned Development approved prior to the Permit suspension or revocation may proceed, provided that it complies with the Permit, so long as
the City or Sutter County and the
Urban Development Permittee continue to fulfill their obligations under the Permit [IA, § 7.6.4]. Once a Permit has been revoked or suspended, the City and Sutter County shall not have the authority to approve or carry out any actions that would violate the ESA or CESA in the absence of the Permit. Moreover, the City and Sutter County remain fully liable to carry out all of their responsibilities, including the Mitigation Requirement [IA, § 7.6.5].

Thus, while it is an accurate statement that the Land Use Agency permittees who pay the Mitigation Fee and satisfy the mitigation requirements are in effect not subject to the payment of additional fees necessary to address any deficiencies as provided for in Section

7.4 of the Implementation Agreement, the City and Sutter County remain liable for the mitigation requirements.

The NBHCP evaluates the mitigation requirements and corresponding Mitigation Fee needed for Planned Development with each
Permit Area to ensure that adequate funding
LETTER O1—ECOS/FOSH/NWF/PCL/SIERRA CLUB
SAC/161795/031060002(LETTERS.DOC) NATOMAS BASIN HCP 113

FINAL EIR/EIS
assurances are provided, regardless of whether one Permittee participates or both Permittees participate. It is accurate that if one Land Use Agency permittee has satisfied all of its obligations under the NBHCP, Implementation Agreement, and its Permits while the other Land Use Agency permittee has not, the Land Use Agency permittee in compliance with the NBHCP will not also be subject to the Permit revocation or suspension. The reason for the Land Use Agency permittee to retain its Permits is to ensure that this permittee can continue to implement the NBHCP.

Because the NBHCP is fully funded under the existing funding program and a 200-acre cushion for Mit
igation Land acquisition is provided to ensure that the last developer will not fall subject to a funding shortfall for land acquisition, no public or private guarantee is proposed.

The commentor suggests that an assessment district could be created as a mechanism for ensuring back-up funding. However, an assessmen
t district is not considered a feasible
mechanism for back-up funding because special assessments that may be imposed by an assessment district are subject to voter approval pursuant to Proposition 218. Moreover, Proposition 218 imposes certain limitations on a local municipality’s ability to impose fees, assessments and charges. Specifically, Proposition 218 provides that assessments shall not be imposed on any parcel that exceeds reasonable cost of the proportional special benefit conferred on that parcel. This limitation could restrict the City or Sutter County’s ability to collect the Mitigation Fees as assessments. In addition, special assessments could not be collected without a special vote, and an assessment district likely would be vulnerable to landowner protest proceedings.

Response to Comment O1-41
California Fish and Game Code Section 3503.5 prohibits the take of birds-of-prey or the taking of the nest or eggs of such birds except as otherwise provided by the Fish and Game Code. The NBHCP and EIS/EIR indicate that no fully protected species designated by the Fish and Game Code are included as Covered Species. The white-tailed kite is not included as a Covered Species because it is a fully protected species under the Fish and Game Code (see Draft NBHCP, p. II-44 and Draft EIS/EIR, pp. 3-49 - 3-50). Take of this species is not authorized under the NBHCP or accompanying ITPs. The commentor is referred to Response to Comment G2-12 regarding the determination of the species covered by the NBHCP. The Applicants are not proposing to seek either from USFWS or CDFG incidental take authorizations for the white-tailed kite or any other state-listed fully protected species.

The Draft EIS/EIR describes the presence, significance, and char acteristics of the white-
tailed kite on pages 3-24 and 3-49 - 3-50. Further, the Draft EIS/EIR evaluates the potentially significant impacts to the white-tailed kite on pages 4-90 and 4-95. Measures that must be implemented to avoid the taking of white-tailed kites are described in the Draft EIS/EIR on page 4-95.

Response to Comment O1-42
The MEP funding requirement addresses biology, legal, and economic considerations. The Economic Analysis of the NBHCP focuses on the economic considerations of the MEP analysis. For a complete discussion of the factors considered in the MEP analysis, the LETTER O1—ECOS/FOSH/NWF/PCL/SIERRA CLUB
114 NATOMAS BASIN HCP SAC/161795/031060002(LETTERS.DOC)

FINAL EIR/EIS
commentor should consult the extensive biological impact analyses contained in the Biological Resources Technical Memo (including the Addendum prepared for the Final NBHCP) and Draft EIR/EIS, as well as the discussion of the biological, legal, and economic considerations provided on pages VII-65 - VII-69 in Chapter VII of the NBHCP.

The comment suggests that the NBHCP should require a greater mitigation ratio or requirements. First, under the ESA, the
findings regarding effects on biological resources
primarily determine the applicable mitigation ratio or requirements for the NBHCP. Upon assessment and determination of the biological requirements for the Covered Species, the USFWS evaluates whether the mitigation requirements are the maximum that can be practically implemented by the applicant (HCP Handbook, p. 7-3).

Second, in determining whether the proposed program is the maximum that can be reasonably required by the applicant, the USFWS must explain why the level of mitigation and the Mitigation Fee amounts selected are appropriate for the project. As part of this analysis, the USFWS weighs the costs and benefits of implementing additional mitigation, the amount of mitigation provided by other applicants in similar situations, and the abilities of the particular applicants under the NBHCP (HCP Handbook, p. 7-3). For example, if mitigation costs exceed the benefit to be derived from the mitigation, the MEP standard has been met. Although this analysis may determine that greater mitigation requirements are impracticable, the analysis may not necessarily conclude that the mitigation requirements and associated Mitigation Fee must necessarily push a development project into the area of infeasibility. While there are no precise guidelines for conducting such an analysis, the Applicants used two methodologies to test the feasibility of a range of Mitigation Fees based on alternative scenarios. Consistent with the HCP Handbook Guidelines, the Applicants:
(1) compared the proposed Mitigation Fee to HCP fees in nearby or comparable jurisdictions, and (2) conducted a total cost burden analysis.

The fee comparison showed that the alternative Mitigation Fees analyzed were higher than
those in other nearby or comparable jurisdictions. The commentor also is referred to Master Response 1 (Mitigation Ratio).

The total cost burden analysis found that the increase in the Mitigation Fee did not substantively change the cost burdens for residential and non-residential development in the North Natomas and South Sutter County. It also found, however, that the cost burdens for development projects in this area are high relative to those of other jurisdictions. This is particularly true for non-residential development where certain land uses such as light industrial may not be feasible.

The Economic Analysis also demonstrates that over time the Mitigation Fee is likely to escalate as the supply of available land in the Natoma
s Basin shrinks. Higher land
acquisition costs will require higher fees. Although home prices may continue to increase and as a result be able to absorb the higher fees, it is unlikely that the market values of non- residential development will keep a similar pace because of less demand (relative to residential development) and slower absorption (in North Natomas, the residential development is projected to be fully absorbed in 15 years versus the 30-40 year absorption timeline for non-residential development). If the market values do not keep pace and the habitat or other fees continue to increase, thereby worsening the infrastructure cost burden, it is likely that the feasibility of non-residential development projects will be adversely LETTER O1—ECOS/FOSH/NWF/PCL/SIERRA CLUB
SAC/161795/031060002(LETTERS.DOC) NATOMAS BASIN HCP 115

FINAL EIR/EIS
affected. All proposed land uses need to be financially viable for the creation of a balanced community. This escalation in land acquisition costs would only be exacerbated with a higher mitigation ratio.

Although developers may be able to absorb the habitat Mitigation Fee levels given current market conditions, the Mitigation Fee program must be designe d such that fee levels can be
sustained over time, recognizing that the fees will increase with escalating costs as a result of land appreciation and other factors.

It should also be pointed out that community facility parcels, pub lic parcels, and park parcels also pay the Mitigation Fee because the fee is paid at the grading permit stage.

Developers pay the fee on their for-profit parcels as well as the parcels to be dedicated to public uses. Therefore, the actual burden on developable parcels is likely understated in the Economic Analysis, resulting in a conservative analysis.

Response to Comment O1-43
The commentor questions whether the comparison to habitat Mitigation Fees in other comparable jurisdictions provides an indication of impracticability as the fee is much greater in the NBHCP than in other comparable jurisdictions.

The USFWS’s HCP Handbook specifies that the MEP findings require consideration of two factors: adequacy of the minimization and mitigation program, and whether it is the maximum that can be practicably implemented by the applicant. To the extent that the adequacy of the mitigation is a close call, the HCP Handbook specifies that there be a basis to conclude that the proposed program is the maximum that can be reasonably be required by that applicant. As part of this analysis, the USFWS may weigh the costs of implementing additional mitigation, the amount of mitigation provided by other applicants in similar situations, and the abilities of that particular applicant (HCP Handbook at page 7-3). See Master Response 1 (Mitigation Ratio).

Consistent with the HCP Handbook’s guidance, the Economic Analysis considered the costs associated with implemen
ting additional mitigation under the Increased Mitigation and Habitat-Based Mitigation Alternatives as well as the Reduced Development Alternative. To measure these costs, the Economic Analysis uses a standard cost-burden approach as further described below.

This analysis also considered the costs associated with the amount of mitigation provided by other applicants in similar situations based upon USFWS standard mitigation requirements for effects on key Covered Species. To supplement this analysis, the Applicants also evaluated the costs associated with other adopted HCPs to determine the costs that have been applied to applicants in similar situations involving regional-scale habitat conservation efforts. The Applicants believe that these analyses demonstrate that, from an economic perspective, the NBHCP minimizes and mitigates the effects of incidental take to the maximum extent practicable. Thus, the Applicants do not agree with the commentor’s statement that “not much is demonstrated by comparing apples and oranges except that they are different,” which implies that because no two habitat conservation plans are the same, a comparison of the fees associated with these plans is invalid.

LETTER O1—ECOS/FOSH/NWF/PCL/SIERRA CLUB
116 NATOMAS BASIN HCP SAC/161795/031060002(LETTERS.DOC)

FINAL EIR/EIS
In fact, fee comparisons provide a useful tool for gauging the feasibility of a project’s infrastructure development costs relative to other nearby or comparable development projects. Comparisons may be useful for all types of development-related infrastructure fees, including sewer fees, water fees, transportation fees, park fees, etc. Each community fee program differs in the types of improvements funded by the fees, the level of up-front developer contributions, the actual financing plan for the facilities (e.g., costs charged to existing development versus new development), etc. Inevitably, each fee comparison is a comparison of “apples and oranges” because each fee is designed for the needs of the particular community. Notwithstanding this “apples and oranges” issue, fee comparisons can provide useful information for understanding how applicants subject to the fee could be affected by the imposition of the fee.

For the communities chosen as a basis of comparison, the goal was to include competing or comparable jurisdictions. The areas covered by the proposed South Sacramento and Yolo County HCPs are both ne
ar the Natomas Basin and could compete for potential
development. The City of Bakersfield, Coalinga, and San Joaquin County HCPs were included because they are in the Central Valley, the demographic area with which the Sacramento area is in closer alignment, as compared to communities in the Bay Area or Southern California, which have far different cost structures for land and infrastructure.

Response to Comment O1-44
The commentor questions the use of the Total Cost Burden analysis because this analysis does not take into consideration the full measure of developer mechanisms to balance cost and revenues in developing projects and suggests that if the fees required to be paid by the developer exceed the developer’s internal cost-benefit analysis for a project, the developers might try to offset these costs through other means, such as negotiating lower land costs.

The commentor suggests using the “residual land value methodology” to evaluate feasibility of development projects. After compar
ing expected costs and revenues, if the
residual value of the land “is below what the landowner paid for the land or what the market value of the land is in agricultural or an alternative use, development would be determined to be infeasible and not expected to move forward.” This assertion is not in alignment with the professional experience of the preparers of the Economic Analysis during the past 20 years; this experience and expertise indicate that this type of analysis is most useful when a specific development project is analyzed, with specific timing on absorption, project development costs including all onsite and backbone infrastructure, information on developer equity and priority of returns, as well as a number of other factors. The more detailed the analysis, the more accurate a tool it is for predicting residual land value.

It is for precisely this reason that the Economic Analysis chose no t to employ a residual land
value analysis. Development in the Natomas Basin has been pursued by a multitude of developers. Each developer has its own internal and confidential assumptions on costs of development and expected revenue. Consultant experience also indicates that it is unlikely that developers would be willing to share their revenue expectations and equity arrangements as well as other information because of aggressive competition in the industry. For these reasons, it would have been impossible to estimate information for each specific development project and particularly for future development projects through the LETTER O1—ECOS/FOSH/NWF/PCL/SIERRA CLUB
SAC/161795/031060002(LETTERS.DOC) NATOMAS BASIN HCP 117

FINAL EIR/EIS
life of the NBHCP and still arrive at accurate assumptions applicable to anticipated development projects.

The one aspect of developing a residential or non-residential project tha t is comparable among all development projects in the Natomas Basin is the development impact fee or infrastructure bond paid by new development projects. In addition, these costs can be compared with costs paid by developers in other nearby and competing jurisdictions to give an indication of whether or not the subject jurisdiction or project is comparable in terms of the total cost burden to develop a residential or commercial project, which in the case of residential projects typically makes up 15 to 20 percent of the selling price of the land use product (i.e., a house).

Response to Comment O1-45
The commentor suggests that because housing prices in the Sacramento area have risen considerably since 1998 (note that between 1990 and 1998 housing prices remained fairly stagnant as shown in Figure 1, page 12), “there is room in the feasibility equation for higher mitigation requirements and costs.”
In response, it is important to consider the history of t he Mitigation Fee, which has increased from $2,240 in 1997 to the current fee of $7,934 (excluding the Settlement Premium). The fee calculated based on the Draft NBHCP is estimated at $10,027 per acre.

Assuming the revised fee estimate is adopted in 2003, the Mitigation Fee will have increased by approximately 28.4 percent per year, or a total increase of 348 percent between 1997 and 2003. In contrast, home prices have risen by approximately 110 percent between 1997 (assuming $155,000 average new home price) and 2003 (assuming $325,000 average new home price), or approximately 13 percent per year. Thus, the revised Mitigation Fee based on the Draft NBHCP does show that the higher home values can support the higher fee in comparison to those 6 years ago.

The commentor also does not consider the non-residential market values in comparison to fees. The Economic Analysis show
ed that the infrastructure cost burdens were much greater on non-residential development, particularly warehouse and light industrial land uses. The values associated with these land uses in the Natomas Basin have not experienced the same level of market appreciation over the last five years as has residential development. As mentioned above, all proposed land uses need to be financially viable in order to create an economically balanced community in the Natomas Basin and to support a determination that funding for the NBHCP is ensured.

Response to Comment O1-46
The commentor suggests that the Mitigation Fee is a small component of the overall infrastructure and that as a result the development community could easily absorb Scenario 5 (75 percent marsh), which resulted in a fee of $10,582, the highest of the fees in all five Scenarios in the Economic Analysis.

The revised fee based on the Draft NBHCP, which reflects a 0. 5:1 mitigation ratio and 25 percent managed marsh, is calculated at $10,027 (which is in the range of Scenarios 4 and 5 of the Economic Analysis of the NBHCP). The higher fee for the Draft NBHCP is mainly a result of increased habitat and species monitoring requirements, provision for changed LETTER O1—ECOS/FOSH/NWF/PCL/SIERRA CLUB
118 NATOMAS BASIN HCP SAC/161795/031060002(LETTERS.DOC)

FINAL EIR/EIS
circumstances, and increased estimates of annual administration expenditures. Therefore, it should be understood that requiring a 1:1 mitigation ratio or a 75 percent marsh requirement would raise the fee significantly beyond the $10,027 that is currently estimated.

The commentor suggests that the Mitigation Fee is only a very small component of the overall ba
ckbone infrastructure costs and is therefore insignificant. In one paragraph, The commentor states that “the proposed and alternative fees represent three to six percent of the total cost burden for residential development” and for non-residential development “the fees range from two to 15 percent of the total cost burden.” In the very next paragraph, the commentor states that the habitat fees “are responsible for less than one percentage point of the total cost burden for residential development.” It is unclear on what grounds the commentor is making this statement.

The table attached to this comment response summarizes the $10,027 (the fee calculated based on th
e Draft NBHCP) as a percent of the backbone infrastructure cost and as a percent of the sales price of a new home and also shows the total cost burden as a percent of the sales price of a new home in North Natomas.

Comparison of Total Backbone Cost
NBHCP Service Areas
Assumed
Den
sity/FAR
Habitat
Mitigation
Fe
esa
Average
Sales
Priceb
Average
Backbone
Costc
Habitat Fee as
a % of
Backbone
Infrastructure
Cost
Habitat Fee
as
a % of
Sales Price
Total Burden
as
a % of
Sales Price
Residential—North Natomas per unit
Single Family—1,800 ft 2
Single Family—2,400 ft 2
7 units/acre
5 units/acre
$1,432
$2,005
$291,000
$324,000
$35,252
$40,103

4.1%

5.0%

0.5%

0.6%

12.1%

12.4%
Non-Residential—North Natomas per sqft
Retail
Light Industrial

0.25 0.40
$0.92
$0.58
$120
$25 to $60
$23.91
$9.43

3.8%

6.1%

0.8%

2.3% to 1.0%

19.9%

37.7% to 15.7%
Non-Residential—South Sutter
per sqft [Retail Not Planned in South Sutter]Retail
Light Industrial 0.40 $0.58 $25 to $60 $4.15 13.9% 2.3% to 1.0% 16.6% to 6.9% a Based on a proposed fee of $10,027 per acre from the revised draft Natomas Basin HCP dated October 11, 2002. b Residential prices based on data from The Gregory Group New-Home database for Fourth Quarter 2002, non-residential prices based on information from commercial real estate brokers for Natomas, South Sutter County, and surrounding areas. c Total backbone costs include city/county-wide fees, including mitigation fees, school mitigation fees and project specific fees/bonds.

For residential development in North Natomas, the proposed fee would represent approximately 4 to 5 percent of the backbone infrastructure cost. Similarly, park development impact fees (at $1,900 per single-family unit), which are crucial to providing developed parks in the North Natomas area, represent 4.7 to 5 percent of backbone infrastructure costs. Although individually these fee components represent 5 percent or less of the total backbone infrastructure cost, it does not mean they are insignificant. The NBHCP fee for light industrial development in South Sutter County is significantly higher than 5 percent, at 14 percent. Therefore, it is unclear on what grounds that commentor is LETTER O1—ECOS/FOSH/NWF/PCL/SIERRA CLUB
SAC/161795/031060002(LETTERS.DOC) NATOMAS BASIN HCP 119

FINAL EIR/EIS
basing the assertion that the habitat Mitigation Fees are an insignificant component of the total backbone infrastructure cost. Habitat fees are as significant as park fees, and, arguably, as any other fee component included in the infrastructure cost burden.

The proposed Mitigation Fee for residential development does represent approximately half a percentage point of the total estimated sales price of a home in North Natomas and perhaps this is what the commentor intended to point out. But this is not the relevant point as the infrastructure cost burden is currently estimated at 12 percent of the sales price of the home, and 0.6 percent of 12 percent represents 5 percent of the infrastructure cost burden.

The infrastructure cost burden for residential units as a percent of home sales price is less today than it was when the Economic Analysis was completed in March because home values have risen in the North Natomas Basin over the last 9 months. The infrastructure cost burdens for non-residential development, however, remain high (as shown in the attached table).

The comment suggests that the infrastructure cost burden test is not satisfactory in supporting a finding that t
he Mitigation Fee is at the maximum extent practicable. It states that all this analysis shows is that the overall backbone infrastructure costs are relatively high for these newly developing areas given current market conditions etc. and that a significant increase in the habitat mitigation component of the fee would not change these conclusions.

It is an accurate assessment that an increase in the habitat fee would take an already high infrastructure cost burden and mak
e it higher. The risk is that eventually the burden will become too great and development in the Natomas Basin will slow. Given the estimated cost burdens today, it is likely that non-residential projects, particularly in South Sutter County, will indeed be developed more slowly.

If what the comment is referring to is that there is still ample room in the cost structure to absorb higher fees—Mitigation Fees or any ot
her fees—then the Applicants disagree. The
City of Sacramento has already removed elements from its North Natomas fee program, as discussed in the Economic Analysis, so that the development community would accept the Mitigation Fees and the fee levels being proposed for the public infrastructure being funded.

These are the very same developers, with their specific information on cost and revenues, that determine whether to move forward with a project and how much the land values can give in order to make a deal work.

Response to Comment O1-47
It is possible that the development community will be able to absorb a habitat Mitigation Fee in the $10,000 range without adversely impacting feasibility. A fee that significantly exceeds this range, however, could have a negative impact on the feasibility of development projects. This is particularly true for lower land value projects, such as warehouse and industrial development, as explained below.

As demonstrated in the Economic Analysis, the cost burdens for warehouse and industrial uses ranged from 36
to 37 percent in North Natomas and 17 to 18 percent in south Sutter County (assuming the lower land values). As indicated in the Economic Analysis, the general range for project feasibility is 10 to 15 percent of the price per square foot of non- residential development. It is unlikely that any warehouse or industrial development or LETTER O1—ECOS/FOSH/NWF/PCL/SIERRA CLUB
120 NATOMAS BASIN HCP SAC/161795/031060002(LETTERS.DOC)

FINAL EIR/EIS
similar employment-generating investment will occur in North Natomas, and indeed none is planned. The majority of this type of development is slated for south Sutter County. If development impact fees, including the Mitigation Fee, continue to rise without any corresponding increases in land value, development in this area is likely to falter because the cost burden will be too high and developer profit potential will be minimized.

The comment focuses only on the residential capacity for higher fees. Although it might be expedient to increase fees solely based on
the capacity for residential projects to absorb the
fees, if these higher fees result in the infeasibility of non-residential development projects, the vision for the North Natomas Community Plan and Sutter County’s Industrial- Commercial Reserve would be seriously jeopardized. If jobs are eliminated as a result of cost burdens on non-residential development that are too high, other negative impacts could arise, such as increased traffic congestion or possibly a slowing of residential development. It is, therefore, important to consider the ramifications of higher fees on all types of development projects in the Natomas Basin.

Response to Comment O1-48
It is unlikely that any one fee in and of itself (unless it is truly substantial, such as Level 3 school fees) will determine whether a developer decides to proceed with a proposed project.

Rather, it is likely that the developer will consider the total cost burden in making the decision on whether or not to proceed. Therefore, the consideration of other North Natomas Fees is relevant and material.

The Mitigation Fee may or may not be the fee that at the margin determines the feasibility of a project. In other words, it could be the level of the school fees, park fee, sewer fee, or any other fee charged that might make or break a developer’s decision on whether or not to develop in the Natomas Basin. More likely, however, is that the developer will consider the total cost burden of the project, in comparison to potential revenue and profit, before making a decision on whether or not to move forward.

The Economic Analysis, therefore, examined the incremental impact of an increase in the NBHCP fee on the total cost burden of a representative, sample project in order to test the financial feasibility of a project in light of the MEP considerations. As part of the analysis, it was determined that the cost burdens in the North Natomas and South Sutter County areas are already high within the region (see pp. 24-33 in Appendix A of the Draft NBHCP).

Therefore, any additional significant increase in the Mitigation Fee could impact the feasibility of a proposed project in the Natomas Basin.

Response to Comment O1-49
The commentor agrees that it is quite likely that the land prices in the Natomas Basin will continue to escalate. In fact, the comment points out that “expectation of competing bids from potential developers in anticipation of future urbanization in an expanded City Sphere of Influence (as proposed under the recent Sacramento City-County Natomas Joint Vision), will only exacerbate the price pressures for potential preserve lands in currently unincorporated Sacramento County.”
The comment states that “if, however, the only
alternative to selling land for habitat
preserves were clearly continued non-preserve agricultural use, floor prices for land sales LETTER O1—ECOS/FOSH/NWF/PCL/SIERRA CLUB
SAC/161795/031060002(LETTERS.DOC) NATOMAS BASIN HCP 121

FINAL EIR/EIS
would likely stabilize.” The comment states that this would be the case “under a strategy that required a higher mitigation ratio, thereby reducing the residual amount of unprotected land that would otherwise be subject to speculative pressures.” The Applicants disagree.

Instituting a higher mitigation ratio does not de facto eliminate the potential for landowner speculation for future development potential. If anything, a higher mitigation ratio will drive all land values higher. There would be twice as much demand for habitat land with no change in the potential supply of that land. The law of supply and demand therefore dictates that land values will be higher.

Even when properties are denied development potential a nd restricted to non-urban uses by law, there is little that can be done to eliminate landowner speculation on property values.

Response to Comment O1-50
The commentor states that as the land cost component of the fee increases, developers will have increased incentive to take advantage of the dedication process. The Applicants agree that, as land values escalate, it is likely that developers will choose to dedicate land, and, if so, developers will not pay the land acquisition component of the fee. It is also possible that the developers will be able to achieve some economies of scale in land pricing if they are successful in negotiating the purchase of large tracts of land. If so, developers may wish to dedicate land rather than pay the land component of the Mitigation Fee.

It is important to note, however, that any land dedication will be subject to the same provisions of the NBHCP to which TNBC is subject in its acquisition pro cess. All land
dedications made to date have followed the same review and approval process as the process followed when land is acquired directly by TNBC.

There is no guarantee that the potential land that a developer may want to dedicate will meet the guidelines or criteria for land to be acq
uired by TNBC.

One of the current land acquisition strategies of TNBC is to focus on the acquisition of contiguous tracts of land. Any potential economies of scale that might result from the acquisition of large, contiguous tracts of land, in terms of cost savings for land acquisition, mitigation monitoring, land stewardship, etc. have already been factored into the cash flow and financial modeling of the NBHCP.

Response to Comment O1-51
The commentor suggests that other conservation strategies, such as land acquisition through conservation easements, could result in cost savings and, therefore, a reduced fee. While conservation easements may or may not result in lower land acquisition costs, it is not true that such a strategy would result in reduced TNBC costs overall. In fact, it could add severe restriction to the Plan Operator’s ability to locate the managed marsh component of the plan and thus jeopardize the success of NBHCP implementation.

TNBC will still need to ensure that 25 percent of the acres will be in managed marsh; therefore, there would be no impact on the R&E fee component. TNBC will still be responsible for administration of the NBHCP as well as mitigation mo nitoring of the
preserves. If the landowner continues to farm the land, TNBC will not receive any farming LETTER O1—ECOS/FOSH/NWF/PCL/SIERRA CLUB
122 NATOMAS BASIN HCP SAC/161795/031060002(LETTERS.DOC)

FINAL EIR/EIS
revenue, which is substantial in providing essential revenues for the Plan Operator to implement the NBHCP’s conservation measures. Because farming revenues would be reduced, the O&M Endowment fee would need to be adjusted upward.

Additionally, TNBC would still be required to make a n advance purchase of 200 acres and provide for changed circumstances; therefore, there would be no impact on the supplemental endowment fund.

Overall, there is likely to be minimal net impact on all funds except the land acquisition fund under a conservation easeme
nt strategy, but the strategy would pose a significant
hindrance to management options and compliance success as discussed below.

While it is possible that R&E construction projects could be placed on land where easements have been acquired, according to TNBC this is an unlikely scenario given a number of factors. It is unlikely that a seller would want to convert land from agricultural production to managed marsh because of the potential revenue loss. The seller would still be responsible for paying annual property taxes, insurance, ongoing maintenance, and other expenses. The seller would need to maintain a revenue stream to pay these annual expenses.

This conversion is also difficult from a buyer’s perspective. Stewardship of managed marsh under an easement situation would require extra coordination between the property owner (seller) and TNBC to insure that none of the actions taken by TNBC in constructing or managing the marsh would impact other operations of the property owner.

In the case that the easements stay in agricultural prod uction, it is unlikely that TNBC
would benefit from the revenue stream. As a result, it is likely that the Plan would not earn revenues comparable to the funding plan projections and would therefore need to reach further into the Endowment Fund in order to fully fund the operations and maintenance of the Plan. This could set back the long-term viability of the Plan.

TNBC has attempted for nearly 4 years to acquire conservation easemen ts instead of fee title and has found very little interest among landowners in the Natomas Basin. In the few cases where landowners did express an interest, the easement price being offered by the landowner was at or near the fee simple price, essentially defeating the purpose of acquiring easements as opposed to purchasing the land outright.

It should also be noted that TNBC makes every effort to operate efficiently and conserve costs in its ste
wardship of the NBHCP. The cash flow model used to calculate the fee is, however, conservative and builds in contingencies, as highlighted in previous responses.

Response to Comment O1-52
The commentor states that the “economic analysis of the NBHCP demonstrates a fairly strong position on adequate funding, short of public or private guarantee” and acknowledges that the methodology used to calculate the fee provides for annual updates, contains a number of conservative assumptions and contingencies, and provides for ongoing operations and maintenance in perpetuity. The Applicants agree.

The commentor states that there are at least three concerns with respect to ensuring adequate funding. They are as follows:
• The funding plan should be able to respond to changes in costs over time.

LETTER O1—ECOS/FOSH/NWF/PCL/SIERRA CLUB
SAC/161795/031060002(LETTERS.DOC) NATOMAS BASIN HCP 123

FINAL EIR/EIS
• The funding plan should analyze revenues and expenditures and demonstrate, using conservative assumptions, that costs are covered with some cushion for contingencies. • The funding plan should provide for the ability to respond to unforeseen circumstances.

The commentor concurs that, on each of these points, the funding plan used by the NBHCP meets t
hese concerns adequately.

The funding plan does respond to changes in costs over time, as noted by the comment that “a financial model has been developed and refined over the years and now appears to provide a relatively flexible tool to estimate fee levels based on new assumptions and the actual experience of TNBC. Since the original interim fee was established in 1995, there have been five fee adjustments.” The comment also acknowledges that many of the assumptions used in the funding plan or cash flow model in the Economic Analysis (in terms of analyzing revenues and expenditures) are conservative. Finally, the comment concurs that the funding plan analyzed in the Economic Analysis provides the ability to respond to changed circumstances through the inclusion of the Supplemental Endowment Fund. The comment states, however, that this component of the fee could be raised even further without jeopardizing development feasibility. The Applicants disagree with this assertion based on the Economic Analysis regarding the MEP and financial feasibility assessment of the NBHCP (see prior discussion above for additional comment on this issue).

The only issue that the comment states is not addressed by the NBHCP funding plan is the inclusion of a public guarantee of funding that
would provide additional revenues and
could, therefore, allow for increased the mitigation requirements of the NBHCP. The Applicants disagree with this assertion. First, the biological adequacy of the NBHCP (and not the economic feasibility) is the primary determinant of the adequacy of the mitigation requirements. If the biological analysis determines that the NBHCP mitigates fully for the covered species and these costs are fully covered by the current funding plan, then it does not appear that public funding guarantee is needed for the NBHCP. Second, the NBHCP funding plan does not rely on general public funding (e.g., state and federal grants, etc.) because these outside sources cannot be relied upon unless the funds have been committed to the NBHCP. Also, there are certain constraints that often come with federal or state grants, and these constraints could pose limitations on use of the grants for funding mitigation. For example, Federal money cannot be used to fund mitigation but may be used to augment the NBHCP’s Operating Conservation Program. Consequently, the NBHCP is structured so that the Mitigation Fees will adequately fund the proposed conservation program in a manner consistent with ESA requirements.

Response to Comment O1-53
The Economic Analysis of the NBHCP was based on a 15-year development schedule (prior analyses had assumed a 50-year development schedule) and on actual development trends over the past 4 years. Based on review of the Economic Analysis, Sutter County requested that the development schedule for the Sutter County property be extended because (given the cost structure and nature of the warehouse and light industrial industry) it is unlikely that these land uses will build out in the same time frame as the residential development in North Natomas. Therefore, the current absorption schedule is estimated to be through 2027 as opposed to 2015. Both development schedules used in the Economic Analysis are attached.

Assumes
Table A-3 17,500 acres of development
Natomas Basin HCP 1/2 acre of mitigation land per gross acre of developed land Habitat Lands Acquired & Restored/Enhanced 25% marsh
T o t a l 00123456789 1 0 1 1 1 2 1 3
Assumption 1994-2045 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Annual Developed Acreage 17,500 0.0 0.0 30.4 104.9 1,380.4 1,465.5 598.1 392.0 500.0 1,174.4 1,214.4 1,217.3 1,217.3 1,217.3 501.6 Cumulative Developed Acreage 17,500 0.0 0.0 30.4 135.3 1,515.7 2,981.1 3,579.2 3,971.2 4,471.2 5,645.6 6,860.1 8,077.4 9,294.7 10,512.0 11,013.6 Annual Mitigation Requirement 50% 8,750 0.0 0.0 15.2 52.4 690.2 732.7 299.0 196.0 250.0 587.2 607.2 608.7 608.7 608.7 250.8 Cumulative Mitigation (50% prior to 2001) 0.0 0.0 15.2 67.7 757.8 1,490.6 1,789.6 1,985.6 2,235.6 2,822.8 3,430.0 4,038.7 4,647.4 5,256.0 5,506.8 Habitat Acquired (1) 8,750.0 - - - - - 1,296.8 334.0 141.1 1,010.0 240.8 607.2 608.7 608.7 608.7 250.8 Cumulative Habitat Acreage - - - - - 1,296.8 1,630.8 1,772.0 2,782.0 3,022.8 3,630.0 4,238.6 4,847.3 5,456.0 5,706.7 Surplus / Shortfall Acquisition 0.0 0.0 -15.2 -67.7 -757.8 -193.7 -158.8 -213.6 546.4 200.0 200.0 200.0 200.0 200.0 200.0 Land Acquisition
Out-of-Basin Lands 0.0 - - - - - 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 In-Basin Lands 8,750.0 - - - - - 1,296.8 334.0 141.1 1,010.0 240.8 607.2 608.7 608.7 608.7 250.8 8,750.0
Initial Use of Acquired Land
Marsh - - - - - 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Existing Rice Base - - - - - 75% 75% 75% 75% 75% 75% 75% 75% 75% 75% Other Converted to Rice - - - - - 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Other - - - - - 25% 25% 25% 25% 25% 25% 25% 25% 25% 25% Use of Land
Marsh 0.0 - - - - - 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Existing Rice Base 6,562.5 - - - - - 972.6 250.5 105.9 757.5 180.6 455.4 456.5 456.5 456.5 188.1 Other Converted to Rice 0.0 - - - - - 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Other 2,187.5 - - - - - 324.2 83.5 35.3 252.5 60.2 151.8 152.2 152.2 152.2 62.7 Subtotal 8,750.0 - - - - - 1,297 334.0 141.1 1,010.0 240.8 607.2 608.7 608.7 608.7 250.8 Rice/Other Converted to Marsh (2) 2,187.5 - - - - - 0.0 0.0 192.5 51.2 76.3 293.5 101.2 192.8 152.2 152.2 Marsh Percent of Total Habitat 25% 25%
Cumulative Acreage
Marsh 2,187.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 192.5 243.7 320.0 613.5 714.7 907.5 1,059.7 1,211.8 Rice 4,300.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 972.6 1,223.1 818.8 1,550.0 1,654.3 1,816.2 2,171.5 2,435.2 2,739.5 2,775.5 Other 2,262.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 324.2 407.7 760.6 988.3 1,048.5 1,200.3 1,352.4 1,504.6 1,656.8 1,719.5 Subtotal 8,750.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1,296.8 1,630.8 1,772.0 2,782.0 3,022.8 3,630.0 4,238.6 4,847.3 5,456.0 5,706.7 Marsh Deficit (based on 25% of 2 years previous total habitat acres) 164.0 123.0 82.0 41.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Cumulative Acreage
Marsh 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 11% 9% 11% 17% 17% 19% 19% 21% Rice 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 75% 75% 46% 56% 55% 50% 51% 50% 50% 49% Other 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 25% 25% 43% 36% 35% 33% 32% 31% 30% 30% Hunting
Hunting Acreage as Percent of Total (3) 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 30% 33% 35% 38% 40% 45% Hunting Acreage 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 846.8 1,114.8 1,413.5 1,742.8 2,102.4 2,478.1 Source: City of Sacramento, Natomas Basin Conservancy, and SACOG Housing and Employment Forecasts "land_cost" (1) After the first 400 acres is acquired, each year additional habitat is acquired based on the amount of urban development from the current year.
(2) The acres of rice converted to marsh in 2001and 2002 are amounts provided by the Natomas Basin Conservancy. In each remaining year, these acres are estimated as the number of acres needed to reach and maintain the specified percent of marsh. (3) The HCP does not limited the number of acres eligible for hunting. The percentages represent how much may be hunted under this economic analysis, not what necessarily can or will be hunted.

Revised Fee Estimate Based
on Draft NBHCP
October 11, 2002
Prepared by EPS. 10365 model update Fall 02 11/7/2002
Table A-3
Natomas Basin HCP
Habitat Lands Acquired & Restore
Annual Developed Acreage
Cumulative Developed Acreage
Annual Mitigation Requirement
Cumulative Mitigation
Habitat Acquired (1)
Cumulative Habitat Acreage
Surplus / Shortfall Acquisition
Land Acquisition
Out-of-Basin Lands
In-Basin Lands
Initial Use of Acquired Land
Marsh
Existing Rice Base
Other Converted to Rice
Other
Use of Land
Marsh
Existing Rice Base
Other Converted to Rice
Other
Subtotal
Rice/Other Converted to Marsh
Marsh Percent of Total Habitat
Cumulative Acreage
Marsh
Rice
Other
Subtotal
Marsh Deficit (based on 25% of 2 years p
Cumulative Acreage
Marsh
Rice
Other
Hunting
Hunting Acreage as Percent of T
Hunting Acreage
14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 501.6 501.6 501.6 501.6 298.7 298.7 298.7 298.7 298.7 298.7 298.7 298.7 298.7 298.7 298.7 298.7 298.7 11,515.1 12,016.7 12,518.2 13,019.8 13,318.5 13,617.2 13,915.8 14,214.5 14,513.2 14,811.9 15,110.6 15,409.2 15,707.9 16,006.6 16,305.3 16,604.0 16,902.6 250.8 250.8 250.8 250.8 149.3 149.3 149.3 149.3 149.3 149.3 149.3 149.3 149.3 149.3 149.3 149.3 149.3 5,757.6 6,008.3 6,259.1 6,509.9 6,659.2 6,808.6 6,957.9 7,107.3 7,256.6 7,405.9 7,555.3 7,704.6 7,854.0 8,003.3 8,152.6 8,302.0 8,451.3 250.8 250.8 250.8 250.8 149.3 149.3 149.3 149.3 149.3 149.3 149.3 149.3 149.3 149.3 149.3 149.3 149.3 5,957.5 6,208.3 6,459.1 6,709.9 6,859.2 7,008.5 7,157.9 7,307.2 7,456.6 7,605.9 7,755.2 7,904.6 8,053.9 8,203.3 8,352.6 8,501.9 8,651.3 200.0 200.0 200.0 200.0 200.0 200.0 200.0 200.0 200.0 200.0 200.0 200.0 200.0 200.0 200.0 200.0 200.0

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 250.8 250.8 250.8 250.8 149.3 149.3 149.3 149.3 149.3 149.3 149.3 149.3 149.3 149.3 149.3 149.3 149.3 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
75% 75% 75% 75% 75% 75% 75% 75% 75% 75% 75% 75% 75% 75% 75% 75% 75% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
25% 25% 25% 25% 25% 25% 25% 25% 25% 25% 25% 25% 25% 25% 25% 25% 25%

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 188.1 188.1 188.1 188.1 112.0 112.0 112.0 112.0 112.0 112.0 112.0 112.0 112.0 112.0 112.0 112.0 112.0

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

62.7 62.7 62.7 62.7 37.3 37.3 37.3 37.3 37.3 37.3 37.3 37.3 37.3 37.3 37.3 37.3 37.3 250.8 250.8 250.8 250.8 149.3 149.3 149.3 149.3 149.3 149.3 149.3 149.3 149.3 149.3 149.3 149.3 149.3 152.2 62.7 62.7 62.7 62.7 62.7 37.3 37.3 37.3 37.3 37.3 37.3 37.3 37.3 37.3 37.3 37.3 1,364.0 1,426.7 1,489.4 1,552.1 1,614.8 1,677.5 1,714.8 1,752.1 1,789.5 1,826.8 1,864.1 1,901.5 1,938.8 1,976.1 2,013.5 2,050.8 2,088.1 2,811.4 2,936.8 3,062.2 3,187.5 3,236.9 3,286.2 3,578.9 3,653.6 3,728.3 3,802.9 3,877.6 3,952.3 4,027.0 4,101.6 4,176.3 4,251.0 4,325.6 1,782.2 1,844.8 1,907.5 1,970.2 2,007.6 2,044.9 1,864.1 1,901.5 1,938.8 1,976.1 2,013.5 2,050.8 2,088.1 2,125.5 2,162.8 2,200.2 2,237.5 5,957.5 6,208.3 6,459.1 6,709.9 6,859.2 7,008.5 7,157.9 7,307.2 7,456.6 7,605.9 7,755.2 7,904.6 8,053.9 8,203.3 8,352.6 8,501.9 8,651.3

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 23% 23% 23% 23% 24% 24% 24% 24% 24% 24% 24% 24% 24% 24% 24% 24% 24% 47% 47% 47% 48% 47% 47% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 30% 30% 30% 29% 29% 29% 26% 26% 26% 26% 26% 26% 26% 26% 26% 26% 26% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 2,878.8 3,004.2 3,129.6 3,255.0 3,329.6 3,404.3 3,479.0 3,553.6 3,628.3 3,703.0 3,777.6 3,852.3 3,927.0 4,001.7 4,076.3 4,151.0 4,225.7 Source: City of Sacramento, Natomas Basin Conservancy, and SACOG Housing and Employment Forecasts "land_cost" (1) After the first 400 acres is acquired, each year additional habitat is acquired based on the amount of urban development from the current year.
(2) The acres of rice converted to marsh in 2001and 2002 are amounts provided by the Natomas Basin Conservancy. In each remaining year, these acres are estimated as the number of acres needed to reach and maintain the specified percent of marsh. (3) The HCP does not limited the number of acres eligible for hunting. The percentages represent how much may be hunted under this economic analysis, not what necessarily can or will be hunted.

Prepared by EPS. 10365 model update Fall 02 11/7/2002
Table A-3
Natomas Basin HCP
Habitat Lands Acquired & Restore
Annual Developed Acreage
Cumulative Developed Acreage
Annual Mitigation Requirement
Cumulative Mitigation
Habitat Acquired (1)
Cumulative Habitat Acreage
Surplus / Shortfall Acquisition
Land Acquisition
Out-of-Basin Lands
In-Basin Lands
Initial Use of Acquired Land
Marsh
Existing Rice Base
Other Converted to Rice
Other
Use of Land
Marsh
Existing Rice Base
Other Converted to Rice
Other
Subtotal
Rice/Other Converted to Marsh
Marsh Percent of Total Habitat
Cumulative Acreage
Marsh
Rice
Other
Subtotal
Marsh Deficit (based on 25% of 2 years p
Cumulative Acreage
Marsh
Rice
Other
Hunting
Hunting Acreage as Percent of T
Hunting Acreage
31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47
2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 2041 2042 298.7 298.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 17,201.3 17,500.0 17,500.0 17,500.0 17,500.0 17,500.0 17,500.0 17,500.0 17,500.0 17,500.0 17,500.0 17,500.0 17,500.0 17,500.0 17,500.0 17,500.0 17,500.0 149.3 149.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 8,600.7 8,750.0 8,750.0 8,750.0 8,750.0 8,750.0 8,750.0 8,750.0 8,750.0 8,750.0 8,750.0 8,750.0 8,750.0 8,750.0 8,750.0 8,750.0 8,750.0

98.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 8,750.0 8,750.0 8,750.0 8,750.0 8,750.0 8,750.0 8,750.0 8,750.0 8,750.0 8,750.0 8,750.0 8,750.0 8,750.0 8,750.0 8,750.0 8,750.0 8,750.0 149.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

98.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
75% 75% 75% 75% 75% 75% 75% 75% 75% 75% 75% 75% 75% 75% 75% 75% 75% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
25% 25% 25% 25% 25% 25% 25% 25% 25% 25% 25% 25% 25% 25% 25% 25% 25%

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

74.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

24.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

98.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

37.3 37.3 24.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2,125.5 2,162.8 2,187.5 2,187.5 2,187.5 2,187.5 2,187.5 2,187.5 2,187.5 2,187.5 2,187.5 2,187.5 2,187.5 2,187.5 2,187.5 2,187.5 2,187.5 4,362.3 4,325.0 4,300.3 4,300.3 4,300.3 4,300.3 4,300.3 4,300.3 4,300.3 4,300.3 4,300.3 4,300.3 4,300.3 4,300.3 4,300.3 4,300.3 4,300.3 2,262.2 2,262.2 2,262.2 2,262.2 2,262.2 2,262.2 2,262.2 2,262.2 2,262.2 2,262.2 2,262.2 2,262.2 2,262.2 2,262.2 2,262.2 2,262.2 2,262.2 8,750.0 8,750.0 8,750.0 8,750.0 8,750.0 8,750.0 8,750.0 8,750.0 8,750.0 8,750.0 8,750.0 8,750.0 8,750.0 8,750.0 8,750.0 8,750.0 8,750.0

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 24% 25% 25% 25% 25% 25% 25% 25% 25% 25% 25% 25% 25% 25% 25% 25% 25% 50% 49% 49% 49% 49% 49% 49% 49% 49% 49% 49% 49% 49% 49% 49% 49% 49% 26% 26% 26% 26% 26% 26% 26% 26% 26% 26% 26% 26% 26% 26% 26% 26% 26% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 4,300.3 4,375.0 4,375.0 4,375.0 4,375.0 4,375.0 4,375.0 4,375.0 4,375.0 4,375.0 4,375.0 4,375.0 4,375.0 4,375.0 4,375.0 4,375.0 4,375.0 Source: City of Sacramento, Natomas Basin Conservancy, and SACOG Housing and Employment Forecasts "land_cost" (1) After the first 400 acres is acquired, each year additional habitat is acquired based on the amount of urban development from the current year.
(2) The acres of rice converted to marsh in 2001and 2002 are amounts provided by the Natomas Basin Conservancy. In each remaining year, these acres are estimated as the number of acres needed to reach and maintain the specified percent of marsh. (3) The HCP does not limited the number of acres eligible for hunting. The percentages represent how much may be hunted under this economic analysis, not what necessarily can or will be hunted.

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
17,500.0 17,500.0 17,500.0 17,500.0 17,500.0 17,500.0 17,500.0 17,500.0

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
8,750.0 8,750.0 8,750.0 8,750.0 8,750.0 8,750.0 8,750.0 8,750.0

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
75% 75% 75% 75% 75% 75% 75% 75%
0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
25% 25% 25% 25% 25% 25% 25% 25%

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
2,187.5 2,187.5 2,187.5 2,187.5 2,187.5 2,187.5 2,187.5 2,187.5 4,300.3 4,300.3 4,300.3 4,300.3 4,300.3 4,300.3 4,300.3 4,300.3 2,262.2 2,262.2 2,262.2 2,262.2 2,262.2 2,262.2 2,262.2 2,262.2 8,750.0 8,750.0 8,750.0 8,750.0 8,750.0 8,750.0 8,750.0 8,750.0

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
25% 25% 25% 25% 25% 25% 25% 25%
49% 49% 49% 49% 49% 49% 49% 49%
26% 26% 26% 26% 26% 26% 26% 26%
50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50%
4,375.0 4,375.0 4,375.0 4,375.0 4,375.0 4,375.0 4,375.0 4,375.0 "land_cost"
Prepared by EPS. 10365 model update Fall 02 11/7/2002

Page 1 of 4 ends

Base Case
Figure A-3 17,500 acres of development
Natomas Basin HCP 1/2 acre of mitigation land per gross acre of developed land Habitat Lands Acquired & Restored/Enhanced 25% marsh
T o t a l 00123456789 1 0 1 1 1 2
Assumption 1994-2045 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 Annual Developed Acreage 17,500 0.0 0.0 30.4 104.9 1,380.4 1,465.5 598.1 403.2 1,689.7 1,689.7 844.8 844.8 844.8 844.8 Cumulative Developed Acreage 17,500 0.0 0.0 30.4 135.3 1,515.7 2,981. 1 3,579.2 3,982.4 5,672.1 7,361.8 8,206.7 9,051.5 9,896.4 10,741.2 Annual Mitigation Requirement 50% 8,750 0.0 0.0 15.2 52.4 690.2 732.7 299.0 201.6 844.8 844.8 422.4 422.4 422.4 422.4 Cumulative Mitigation (50% prior to 2001) 0.0 0.0 15.2 67.7 757.8 1,490.6 1, 789.6 1,991.2 2,836.1 3,680.9 4, 103.3 4,525.8 4,948.2 5,370.6 Habitat Acquired (1) 8,750 - - - - - 1,297.0 334.0 320.0 885.1 844.8 422.4 422.4 422.4 422.4 Cumulative Habitat Acreage - - - - - 1,297.0 1,631.0 1,951.0 2,8 36.1 3,680.9 4,103.4 4,525.8 4,948.2 5,370.6 Surplus / Shortfall Acquisition 0.0 0.0 -15.2 -67.7 -757.8 -193.6 -158.6 -40.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Land Acquisition
Out-of-Basin Lands 1,359.8 - - - - - 0.0 0.0 0.0 177.0 169.0 84.5 84.5 84.5 84.5 In-Basin Lands 7,390.2 - - - - - 1,297.0 334.0 320.0 708.1 675.9 337.9 337.9 337.9 337.9 8,750.0
Initial Use of Acquired Land
Marsh - - - - - 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Existing Rice Base - - - - - 75% 75% 75% 75% 75% 75% 75% 75% 75% Other Converted to Rice - - - - - 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Other - - - - - 25% 25% 25% 25% 25% 25% 25% 25% 25% Use of Land
Marsh 0.0 - - - - - 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Existing Rice Base 6,562.5 - - - - - 972.8 250.5 240.0 663.8 633.6 316.8 316.8 316.8 316.8 Other Converted to Rice 0.0 - - - - - 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Other 2,187.5 - - - - - 324.3 83.5 80.0 221.3 211.2 105.6 105.6 105.6 105.6 Subtotal 8,750.0 - - - - - 1,297 334.0 320.0 885.1 844.8 422.4 422.4 422.4 422.4 Rice/Other Converted to Marsh (2) 2,187.5 - - - - - 0.0 0.0 436.9 221.8 261.6 105.6 105.6 105.6 105.6 Marsh Percent of Total Habitat 25%
Cumulative Acreage
Marsh 2,187.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 436.9 658.6 920.2 1,025.8 1,131.4 1,237.1 1,342.7 Rice 4,375.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 972.8 1,223.3 1,144.2 1,598.3 1,970.3 2,051.7 2,262.9 2,474.1 2,685.3 Other 2,187.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 324.3 407.8 370.0 579.2 790.4 1,025.8 1,131.4 1,237.1 1,342.7 Subtotal 8,750.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1,297.0 1,631.0 1, 951.0 2,836.1 3,680.9 4,103. 4 4,525.8 4,948.2 5,370.6 Cumulative Acreage
Marsh 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 22% 23% 25% 25% 25% 25% 25%
Rice 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 75% 75% 59% 56% 54% 50% 50% 50% 50% Other 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 25% 25% 19% 20% 21% 25% 25% 25% 25% Hunting
Hunting Acreage as Percent of Total (3) 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 30% 33% 35% 38% 40% 45% Hunting Acreage 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0. 0 850.8 1,196.3 1,436.2 1,697.2 1,979.3 2,416.8 Source: City of Sacramento, Natomas Basin Conservancy, and SACOG Housing and Employment Forecasts "land_cost" (1) After the first 400 acres is acquired, each year additional habitat is acquired based on the amount of urban development from the current year.
(2) The acres of rice converted to marsh in 2001and 2002 are amounts provided by the Natomas Basin Conservancy. In each remaining year, these acres are estimated as the number of acres needed to reach and maintain the specified percent of marsh. (3) The HCP does not limited the number of acres eligible for hunting. The percentages represent how much may be hunted under this economic analysis, not what necessarily can or will be hunted.

Prepared by EPS. 10365 model update 3/11/2002

Page 2 of 4 ends

Figure A-3
Natomas Basin HCP
Habitat Lands Acquired & Restored/Enhanced
Total
Assumption 1994-2045
Annual Developed Acreage 17,500
Cumulative Developed Acreage 17,500
Annual Mitigation Requirement 50% 8,750
Cumulative Mitigation (50% prior to 2001)
Habitat Acquired (1) 8,750
Cumulative Habitat Acreage
Surplus / Shortfall Acquisition
Land Acquisition
Out-of-Basin Lands 1,359.8
In-Basin Lands 7,390.2
8,750.0
Initial Use of Acquired Land
Marsh
Existing Rice Base
Other Converted to Rice
Other
Use of Land
Marsh 0.0
Existing Rice Base 6,562.5
Other Converted to Rice 0.0
Other 2,187.5
Subtotal 8,750.0
Rice/Other Converted to Marsh (2) 2,187.5
Marsh Percent of Total Habitat 25%
Cumulative Acreage
Marsh 2,187.5
Rice 4,375.0
Other 2,187.5
Subtotal 8,750.0
Cumulative Acreage
Marsh
Rice
Other
Hunting
Hunting Acreage as Percent of Total (3)
Hunting Acreage
13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 844.8 844.8 844.8 844.8 844.8 844.8 844.8 844.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 11,586.1 12,430.9 13,275.8 14,120.6 14,965.5 15,810.3 16,655.2 17,500.0 17,500.0 17,500.0 17,500.0 17,500.0 17,500.0 17,500.0 422.4 422.4 422.4 422.4 422.4 422.4 422.4 422.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5,793.0 6,215.5 6,637.9 7,060.3 7,482.7 7,905.2 8,327.6 8,750.0 8,750.0 8,750.0 8,750.0 8,750.0 8,750.0 8,750.0 422.4 422.4 422.4 422.4 422.4 422.4 422.4 422.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5,793.1 6,215.5 6,637.9 7,060.3 7,482.8 7,905.2 8,327.6 8,750.0 8,750.0 8,750.0 8,750.0 8,750.0 8,750.0 8,750.0

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

84.5 84.5 84.5 84.5 84.5 84.5 84.5 84.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 337.9 337.9 337.9 337.9 337.9 337.9 337.9 337.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
75% 75% 75% 75% 75% 75% 75% 75% 75% 75% 75% 75% 75% 75% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
25% 25% 25% 25% 25% 25% 25% 25% 25% 25% 25% 25% 25% 25%

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 316.8 316.8 316.8 316.8 316.8 316.8 316.8 316.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 105.6 105.6 105.6 105.6 105.6 105.6 105.6 105.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 422.4 422.4 422.4 422.4 422.4 422.4 422.4 422.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 105.6 105.6 105.6 105.6 105.6 105.6 105.6 105.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1,448.3 1,553.9 1,659.5 1,765.1 1,870.7 1,976.3 2,081.9 2,187.5 2,187.5 2,187.5 2,187.5 2,187.5 2,187.5 2,187.5 2,896.5 3,107.7 3,319.0 3,530.2 3,741.4 3,952.6 4,163.8 4,375.0 4,375.0 4,375.0 4,375.0 4,375.0 4,375.0 4,375.0 1,448.3 1,553.9 1,659.5 1,765.1 1,870.7 1,976.3 2,081.9 2,187.5 2,187.5 2,187.5 2,187.5 2,187.5 2,187.5 2,187.5 5,793.1 6,215.5 6,637.9 7,060.3 7,482.8 7,905.2 8,327.6 8,750.0 8,750.0 8,750.0 8,750.0 8,750.0 8,750.0 8,750.0 25% 25% 25% 25% 25% 25% 25% 25% 25% 25% 25% 25% 25% 25% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 25% 25% 25% 25% 25% 25% 25% 25% 25% 25% 25% 25% 25% 25% 50% 55% 60% 60% 60% 60% 60% 60% 60% 60% 60% 60% 60% 60% 2,896.5 3,418.5 3,982.7 4,236.2 4,489.6 4,743.1 4,996.5 5,250.0 5,250.0 5,250.0 5,250.0 5,250.0 5,250.0 5,250.0 Source: City of Sacramento, Natomas Basin Conservancy, and SACOG Housing and Employment Forecasts "land_cost" (1) After the first 400 acres is acquired, each year additional habitat is acquired based on the amount of urban development from the current year.
(2) The acres of rice converted to marsh in 2001and 2002 are amounts provided by the Natomas Basin Conservancy. In each remaining year, these acres are estimated as the number of acres needed to reach and maintain the specified percent of marsh. (3) The HCP does not limited the number of acres eligible for hunting. The percentages represent how much may be hunted under this economic analysis, not what necessarily can or will be hunted.

Prepared by EPS. 10365 model update 3/11/2002

Page 3 of 4 ends

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 17,500.0 17,500.0 17,500.0 17,500.0 17,500.0 17,500.0 17,500.0 17,500.0 17,500.0 17,500.0 17,500.0 17,500.0 17,500.0 17,500.0

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 8,750.0 8,750.0 8,750.0 8,750.0 8,750.0 8,750.0 8,750.0 8,750.0 8,750.0 8,750. 0 8,750.0 8,750.0 8,750.0 8,750.0

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
75% 75% 75% 75% 75% 75% 75% 75% 75% 75% 75% 75% 75% 75% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
25% 25% 25% 25% 25% 25% 25% 25% 25% 25% 25% 25% 25% 25%

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2,187.5 2,187.5 2,187.5 2,187.5 2,187.5 2,187.5 2,187.5 2,187.5 2,187.5 2,187. 5 2,187.5 2,187.5 2,187.5 2,187.5 4,375.0 4,375.0 4,375.0 4,375.0 4,375.0 4,375.0 4,375.0 4,375.0 4,375.0 4,375. 0 4,375.0 4,375.0 4,375.0 4,375.0 2,187.5 2,187.5 2,187.5 2,187.5 2,187.5 2,187.5 2,187.5 2,187.5 2,187.5 2,187. 5 2,187.5 2,187.5 2,187.5 2,187.5 8,750.0 8,750.0 8,750.0 8,750.0 8,750.0 8,750.0 8,750.0 8,750.0 8,750.0 8,750. 0 8,750.0 8,750.0 8,750.0 8,750.0 25% 25% 25% 25% 25% 25% 25% 25% 25% 25% 25% 25% 25% 25% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 25% 25% 25% 25% 25% 25% 25% 25% 25% 25% 25% 25% 25% 25% 60% 60% 60% 60% 60% 60% 60% 60% 60% 60% 60% 60% 60% 60% 5,250.0 5,250.0 5,250.0 5,250.0 5,250.0 5,250.0 5,250.0 5,250.0 5,250.0 5,250. 0 5,250.0 5,250.0 5,250.0 5,250.0 Source: City of Sacramento, Natomas Basin Conservancy, and SACOG Housing and Employment Forecasts "land_cost" (1) After the first 400 acres is acquired, each year additional habitat is acquired based on the amount of urban development from the current year.
(2) The acres of rice converted to marsh in 2001and 2002 are amounts provided by the Natomas Basin Conservancy. In each remaining year, these acres are estimated as the number of acres needed to reach and maintain the specified percent of marsh. (3) The HCP does not limited the number of acres eligible for hunting. The percentages represent how much may be hunted under this economic analysis, not what necessarily can or will be hunted.

Prepared by EPS. 10365 model update 3/11/2002

Page 4 of 4 ends

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
17,500.0 17,500.0 17,500.0 17,500.0 17,500.0 17,500.0 17,500.0 17,500.0 17,500.0 17,500.0

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
8,750.0 8,750.0 8,750.0 8,750.0 8,750.0 8, 750.0 8,750.0 8,750.0 8,750.0 8,750.0

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
75% 75% 75% 75% 75% 75% 75% 75% 75% 75%
0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
25% 25% 25% 25% 25% 25% 25% 25% 25% 25%

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
2,187.5 2,187.5 2,187.5 2,187.5 2,187.5 2, 187.5 2,187.5 2,187.5 2,187.5 2,187.5 4,375.0 4,375.0 4,375.0 4,375.0 4,375.0 4, 375.0 4,375.0 4,375.0 4,375.0 4,375.0 2,187.5 2,187.5 2,187.5 2,187.5 2,187.5 2, 187.5 2,187.5 2,187.5 2,187.5 2,187.5 8,750.0 8,750.0 8,750.0 8,750.0 8,750.0 8, 750.0 8,750.0 8,750.0 8,750.0 8,750.0 25% 25% 25% 25% 25% 25% 25% 25% 25% 25%
50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50%
25% 25% 25% 25% 25% 25% 25% 25% 25% 25%
60% 60% 60% 60% 60% 60% 60% 60% 60% 60%
5,250.0 5,250.0 5,250.0 5,250.0 5,250.0 5, 250.0 5,250.0 5,250.0 5,250.0 5,250.0 Source: City of Sacramento, Natomas Basin Conservancy, and SACOG Housing and Employment Forecasts "land_cost" (1) After the first 400 acres is acquired, each year additional habitat is acquired based on the amount of urban development from the current year.
(2) The acres of rice converted to marsh in 2001and 2002 are amounts provided by the Natomas Basin Conservancy. In each remaining year, these acres are estimated as the number of acres needed to reach and maintain the specified percent of marsh. (3) The HCP does not limited the number of acres eligible for hunting. The percentages represent how much may be hunted under this economic analysis, not what necessarily can or will be hunted.

Prepared by EPS. 10365 model update 3/11/2002
LETTER O1—ECOS/FOSH/NWF/PCL/SIERRA CLUB
SAC/161795/031060002(LETTERS.DOC) NATOMAS BASIN HCP 133

FINAL EIR/EIS
Response to Comment O1-54
The commentor is referred to Master Responses 3 (Joint Vision) and 4 (Cumulative Impacts) and to responses to Comment Letter I10 for a discussion of development outside of the 17,500 acres of Planned Development. The comment also references Appendix H of the NBHCP, which is the Biological Resources Technical Memo. It is very important to differentiate between the consideration of lands outside the Permit Areas relevant to providing foraging habitat for the Swainson’s hawk (which is discussed in Appendix H of the Draft NBHCP, Appendix K of the Final NBHCP, and Master Response 5 [Swainson’s Hawk Foraging Habitat]) and the unknown potential future use of lands for urban development (or other purposes), which is discussed in the EIR/EIS. The commentor states that Table 4-1 shows 19,400 acres of land in Sacramento County that would be Mitigation Lands under the NBHCP. Table 4-1, however, is just a list of the land use types that exist within the Natomas Basin by jurisdiction, and does not indicate that 19,400 acres are proposed as Mitigation Lands under the NBHCP.

Response to Comment O1-55
The commentor states that the Mitigation Fee does not adequately reflect land prices in and outside of the Natomas Basin and should be adjusted to ensure adequacy of funding. The Applicants do not agree with the assertion that the current fee does not reflect transaction prices of the NBHCP. The cost assumption used in the funding plan/cash flow analysis is based on actual land acquisition costs and TNBC’s experience.

According to John Roberts, TNBC’s Executive Director, the average (mean) cost of all acquisitions is $5,985 per acre. Under the Settlement Agreement, the highest cost was $11,000 per acre and the last three land acquisition costs have ranged between $7,500 and $8,300 an acre. Currently, the fee as adopted by the City, which includes a Settlement Agreement Premium, reflects a land cost assumption of $11,000 plus transaction costs and contingencies. No land acquisitions have occurred since the expiration of the Settlement Agreement, but, given recent acquisitions, it is projected that the land costs will approximate $7,500 including transaction costs and contingencies.

It is also important to note that the $11,000 per acre high in land acquisitions costs was during the Settlement Agreement and
included purchase of land near Fisherman’s Lake,
one of the preserve acquisition areas specified in the Settlement Agreement. Fisherman’s Lake land was expected to be more expensive than other land in the Natomas Basin.

The base level land acquisition cost (excluding the Settleme nt Premium) in the cash flow model was increased in July of 2002 from $6,000 per acre, including transaction costs and contingency (May 29, 2001), to $7,525 per acre, including transaction costs and contingency.

This increase was based on information provided by TNBC based on recent acquisitions and its best estimate of land costs in 2003 as discussed above.

The proposed fee, based on the Draft NBHCP, for land acq uisition, including transaction costs and contingency of $7,550, provides for an additional $50 per acre to cover pre- acquisition survey costs.

With the expiration of the Settlement Agreement in October 2002, it is anticipated that the upward pressure on land costs will subside. TNBC currently has also acquired 745.86 LETTER O1—ECOS/FOSH/NWF/PCL/SIERRA CLUB
134 NATOMAS BASIN HCP SAC/161795/031060002(LETTERS.DOC)

FINAL EIR/EIS
surplus acres of preserve lands, not including the 200-acre advance. Having such a surplus in preserve lands will also reduce any near-term upward pressure in land acquisition costs.

Also inherent in the comments on land prices is the suggestion that if land acquisition prices are allowed to reflect market prices, which the Economic Analysis states is correct, developers may choose to donate land more often and therefore achieve some level of cost savings. This may or may not be the case. In the case of one of the land transactions at $11,000 per acre, the highest cost to date, the developer contributed the land in lieu of the payment of the Mitigation Fee for land acquisition.

In response to the comment on the Joint Vision announcement, the commentor is referred to Master Response 3
(Joint Vision). It is important to note, however, that TNBC in its acquisition of land is as much subject to the market forces of supply and demand of available land in the Natomas Basin as other potential buyers. If a program such as the Joint Vision or any other land use program were to proceed and were to affect the supply and demand of available land in the basin and as a result prices were to increase beyond the levels contemplated in the existing Mitigation Fees, the land acquisition fee in the funding plan for the NBHCP will be adjusted accordingly.

The commentor’s conclusion on the issue of funding adequacy for land acquisition is that in order to achieve adeq
uate funding, the land component should be set at the average of conservation prices and development prices for the entire area outside the currently permitted development zone. It is unclear on what basis the commentor is making this conclusion. Moreover, we are unable to ascertain the commentor’s meaning regarding the “entire area outside the currently permitted development zone.” It implies that development prices outside the Natomas Basin should be used, but “outside the Natomas Basin” could mean anywhere. Basing the funding determination on development prices anywhere would be infeasible and hardly representative of the conditions of the Plan Area.

In preparing the funding plan for the NBHCP, the Economic Analysis is based on the assumption that using the
actual experience of TNBC in land acquisition costs is a superior methodology for estimating future costs than using costs in other areas that may not be relevant to the Natomas Basin.

Response to Comment O1-56
The commentor states that the R&E component of the fee is inadequate. While the comment recognizes the fact that the current fee is based on TNBC’s actual experience, it suggests that the restoration projects to date are incomplete because they do not include plant maintenance and that the fee should, therefore, be increased to account for this factor.

TNBC has completed R&E construction on three tracts to date (Betts, Kismat, and Silva).

Extensive plantings of native grass, shrubs, and trees have taken place. Plant mortality has been very minimal. Early in year one of the post-construction life of the preserves, coots destroyed some of the plantings of tule and cattails. TNBC replanted at its expense and planted in larger clusters to reduce future predation by coots. The additional costs were nominal (approximately $5,000) and have been included in TNBC’s Administrative/O&M budget.

LETTER O1—ECOS/FOSH/NWF/PCL/SIERRA CLUB
SAC/161795/031060002(LETTERS.DOC) NATOMAS BASIN HCP 135

FINAL EIR/EIS
In the reserve design it was anticipated that there would be some plant mortality, and this was factored into the overall planting scheme. Therefore, there was some over-planting just for this purpose.

As to plant care and maintenance on the three preserves, TNBC has engaged a habitat lands management contractor. A contract was authorized by TNBC’s Board resolution #04.01.05 on April 4, 2001. It provides for a three-year agreement whereby the contractor is paid $65,000 for year one, $55,000 for year two, and $35,000 for year three. This includes watering, weed control, pruning as necessary, exotic weed control, and other plant protection tasks, among other responsibilities. These funds are paid out of TNBC’s Administration/O&M budget, “Contract Work & Monitoring,” for which $180,000 was budgeted for 2003.

While three other TNBC Mitigation Land tracts are
not complete (in contrast to the Betts,
Kismat, and Silva tracts), they are 95 percent or more complete and only await dry soils for completion. These three additional tracts (Lucich South, Bennett North, and Bennett South) are also under a habitat management contract agreement. This was approved at TNBC’s December 2002 Board of Directors meeting and is also for a three-year period, covering the above three tracts at a cost of $11,500 per year for each of the three years. Accordingly, six of TNBC’s 15 preserves are under habitat management contracts with experienced habitat lands management contractors providing for plant care, among other tasks. As additional R&E projects are completed, new contracts will be tendered, and all costs for these plant maintenance services with be factored into TNBC’s administrative budget.

Response to Comment O1-57
The comment states that the administration component of the NBHCP fee may be inadequate because it is not evident how the administrative budget was determined. The comment indicates that certain items may be missing from the fee estimate. The comment indicates that that cost of stewardship in the 1997 NBHCP was $116 an acre. The source of this information is unclear. Page IV-56 of the 1997 NBHCP details the cost assumptions for the O&M and administration costs. The 1997 fee assumed the following:

Operation & Maintenance
Marsh $124 per acre/year
Non-farmable agricultural land $72 per acre/year
Fallow Rice $82 per acre/year
Land leased for planted rice base $72 per acre/year
Land leased for other crops $72 per acre/year
Hunting Blinds $47 per acre/year
NBC Administrative Costs
Initial 400-acre Acquisition $50,000 per year
Subsequent Acquisitions $200,000 per year
After All Lands Acquired $100,000 per year
LETTER O1—ECOS/FOSH/NWF/PCL/SIERRA CLUB
136 NATOMAS BASIN HCP SAC/161795/031060002(LETTERS.DOC)

FINAL EIR/EIS
With TNBC’s operating experience, these costs have been refined on annual basis since 1997.

Table 6 and Table 7 of the Revised Fee Estimate Based on the Draft NBHCP (EPS, 2002) detail the current cost assumptions for th
e O&M and Administrative components of the fee.

In fact, the cash flow model covers all of the items indicated as deficient by the commentor. • Outreach and Visitation: These costs are covered under Contract Work & Public Education with a budget of $45,000 per year and Publications, Printing, & Distribution with a budget of $40,000 as shown on Table 7. In total, TNBC will have an allocated $85,000 to cover costs related to contract work and public education, including outreach and visitation to preserve lands.
• Hunting: The cash flow model assumes $12 per hunting acre. This assumption is net of costs. The net revenue assumptions are based on reasonable estimates provided by TNBC. Since 2002 was the first year for substantial hunting leases, the budgeted numbers are preliminary. TNBC is moving cautiously with hunting in order to maintain the integrity of its efforts to promote biological advantage for the species covered in the 1997 NBHCP. As it learns more about integrating hunting with impacts on habitat reserves, it will know more precisely what income could reasonably be projected. • Rice Farming: Tasks associated with administering rice farming are covered by TNBC’s Executive Director and staff and are therefore covered by the annual salary allocation for staff.
• Management Plans: The R&E fee component includes a cost of $253 per acquired acre to cover the cost of all future Site Specific Land Management Plans as detailed in Table 5 of the Economic Analysis “Revised Fee Estimated Based on Draft NBHCP.” (EPS, 2002) • Pest & Water Management: Both pest and water management costs were included in the O&M cost estimates that were used as the basis for deriving the O&M costs per acre for Marsh, Upland/Fallow, Land Leased for Planted Rice Base, Land Leased for Other Crops, Other, and Hunting lands shown in Table 6.

It should be noted that the detailed cash flow and assumption tables for the Economic Analysis of the NBHCP were included in the Technical Appendices of the Economic Analysis and, although not included in the Appendix to the Draft NBHCP, these Appendices were available for public review during the review period for the NBHCP and the EIR/EIS.

Response to Comment O1-58
The commentor is correct in the assumption that the cash flow model does not include any allowance for merit increases in staff compensation. The cash flow has been structured so that the salaries reflect market rates for current staff positions, but in the interest of minimizing administrative costs, no future merit adjustments have been assumed.

Response to Comment O1-59
Under the Economies of Scale argument, the commentor states that contiguous preserves are better than those that are not. The Applicants and the Lead Agencies agree with this general assumption, which is also stated in the NBHCP. Contrary to the commentor’s assertion, however, the NBHCP does not deny TNBC the opportunity to establish LETTER O1—ECOS/FOSH/NWF/PCL/SIERRA CLUB
SAC/161795/031060002(LETTERS.DOC) NATOMAS BASIN HCP 137

FINAL EIR/EIS
significant and connected preserves. In fact, the NBHCP specifies priorities in acquisition with emphasis on large contiguous preserve areas as further described below.

The NBHCP’s Plan Operator, TNBC, has worked diligently to comply with the 1997 NBHCP requirement of one 2,500-acre contiguous preserve and other satellite preserves consisting of a minimum of 400 contiguous acres. With respect to the 2,500-acre contiguous preserve (the “North Basin reserve”), TNBC has already achieved approximately one-half of this goal even though it has not completed year four of a 50-year NBHCP. It has expressed repeatedly its confidence that it can complete this requirement.

The additional requirement of other preserves in 40 0-acre contiguous agglomerations is also being met. TNBC’s Central Basin preserves now total approximately 1,230 acres, far exceeding the 400 acres needed. One of the tracts in the Central Basin preserve area is 575 acres, by itself meeting the 400-acre minimum preserve required in the 1997 NBHCP.

Three of the five Central Basin tracts are now contiguous; TNBC has expressed confidence that all five will soon be contiguous. Landowners or developers in the interstices have communicated in public meetings on multiple occasions (as well as in printed documents circulated in such meetings) their commitment that these lands would ultimately be habitat lands.

As to the South Basin preserves, those around Fisherman’ s Lake, TNBC currently holds four tracts, two of which are contiguous and two of which are not. The two that are not contiguous are within one parcel of being contiguous. They also have adjacency or near- adjacency with either the Sacramento River and heavy Swainson’s hawk nesting areas (Alleghany 50 tract) or this characteristic plus adjacency to Fisherman’s Lake itself. TNBC continues to work on annexing additional preserves in this area to capitalize on the land already acquired in the biologically sensitive region.

TNBC is confident that this preserve strategy addresses the various and sometimes challenging biological requirements and needs of the 26 species originally covered in the 1997 NBHCP and that the system of reserves will continue to function in accordance with the biological requirements contained in the revised NBHCP.

As to the recommendation that the acquisition areas be designated, this is inconsistent with effective land acq
uisition strategy and could raise constitutional issues. In order to avoid potential claims of inverse condemnation, and at the least, to minimize the potential for landowners to withhold designated properties from the market, the NBHCP purposely avoids designating specific reserve sites. To date, this strategy has worked well as numerous acquisitions have been made and are being assembled into consolidated reserves as discussed above using the “willing seller/willing buyer” formula presented in the 1997 NBHCP. It is anticipated that this strategy will continue to function adequately under the revised NBHCP.

The commentor states that “To deny the Conservancy this ability [that is, designation of targeted acquisition land] is to prevent the e
stablishment of an effective and efficient
preserve system.” TNBC has not been denied the ability to target acquisition lands. TNBC and the Applicants have elected to use the most effective and practicable strategy in fulfilling TNBC’s multi-faceted Plan Operator requirements, as called for in the NBHCP.

LETTER O1—ECOS/FOSH/NWF/PCL/SIERRA CLUB
138 NATOMAS BASIN HCP SAC/161795/031060002(LETTERS.DOC)

FINAL EIR/EIS
Response to Comment O1-60
The commentor states that the Economic Analysis “purports to define the MEP by comparing the resulting habitat fees of the Natomas area with those in other locations,” implying that the Economic Analysis is unsuccessful in this area. The Economic Analysis states that there are no precise guidelines that define how the MEP is to be determined.

Therefore, two methodologies were used to analyze the MEP from an economic perspective as discussed in the responses to the earlier comments in this letter.

The fee comparison indicates that the Mitigation Fee will be higher, particularly at the $10,000 fee range, than other nearby or comparable jurisdictions. While this points to impracticability, it is not evidence in and of itself of impracticability. Therefore, the Economic Analysis considered a second analysis, the total cost burden analysis. In the case of the total cost burden analysis, the commentor states that the analysis is deficient because it ignores the potential offsetting factor of the cost of land. As mentioned above, while a residual land value analysis would show the relationship of the total cost burden with the value of the land, this would have been an impossible task to undertake in the case of the Natomas Basin. Such an analysis might be meaningful for a specific land use project where all the variables are known but is impractical for 17,500 acres of Planned Development over the next 25 years. Please refer to Response to Comment O1-44 for further discussion of this issue.

The commentor also states that the impact of the hig
her NBHCP fees on home values is very
small. Although this is accurate, it does not consider two important issues. The first is the consideration of the total cost burden of homes in North Natomas, which is high relative to the total cost burden in other competing jurisdictions in the region. The second is the impact on non-residential development. As discussed in the Responses to Comments O1-42 through O1-54, the impact on non-residential development is more significant because market values have not experienced the same gains as residential development. The impact on all land uses should be factored into the discussion of whether the fee is practicable or not. Please refer to Response to Comment O1-46 for further discussion of this issue.

SAC/161795/031060002(LETTERS.DOC) NATOMAS BASIN HCP 139

FINAL EIR/EIS
Letter O2—FOSH
Response to Comment O2-1
Comment noted. This letter was an attachment to Comment Letter O1. In addition to the responses provided below, also see the Responses to Comment Letter O1 (Responses to Comments O1-1 through O1-60).

Response to Comment O2-2
The commentor notes that the mitigation requirements of the NBHCP are different from those described by the CDFG in the Staff Report Regarding Mitigation for the Swainson’s Hawk in the Central Valley of California (CDFG, 1994). In response, the Applicants reviewed and considered this report extensively in the preparation of the NBHCP, and the Operating Conservation Program of the NBHCP is substantially consistent with many of the recommendations from the Staff Report. It is important to note, however, that the CDFG does not consider this report as either the sole or final criterion for the success of a mitigation program. Rather, CDFG has stated in their comment letter on the NBHCP (Comment G3-22) that: “The staff report, however, is not the biological ‘benchmark’ governing the adequacy of the NBHCP under CESA. The staff report does not, in fact, apply to the NBHCP, and CDFG believes it should not be included in the Plan as an appendix.” CDFG has participated in the development of the NBHCP and has provided specific guidance as to an appropriate conservation program for multi-species habitat conservation in the Natomas Basin.

The Addendum to the Biological Resources Technical Memo (Appendix K of the Final NBHCP) provides additional information on the factors raised in the comment regarding foraging habitat, prey base (availability and abundance), and nesting trees. As explained in the Addendum, the existing Land Use and Habitat Assessment Database (see Section 3.4 of the EIR/EIS and Appendix H of the Draft NBHCP) contains data on the specific crops in the Natomas Basin. The Addendum uses this information to clarify the “less than significant” finding for impacts to Swainson’s hawks from implementing the NBHCP. Specifically, the Addendum clarifies the quality and function of Swainson’s hawk foraging habitat based on crop types and temporal availability of prey base. The Addendum finds that the NBCHP is expected to offset reductions in foraging habitat availability during the nesting season. After the nesting season, foraging habitat availability would decline, but foraging opportunities are not anticipated to be limiting during this period because of an abundance of accessible prey. The Addendum concludes that implementation of the NBCHP is not expected to result in a significant impact to the Swainson’s hawk population in the Natomas Basin.

The comment also states that the analysis includes conflicts. As discussed above and confirmed by CDFG in its comment letter on the NBHCP (Let ter G3), the issues raised in
this comment are not conflicts. Specific comments are addressed in Responses to Comments O2-3 through O2-7, below.

Response to Comment O2-3
Please see Response to Comment O2-2 regarding the applicability of the CDFG’s Staff Report as a mitigation benchmark. The guidelines cited by the commentor do not represent CDFG’s LETTER O1—ECOS/FOSH/NWF/PCL/SIERRA CLUB
140 NATOMAS BASIN HCP SAC/161795/031060002(LETTERS.DOC)

FINAL EIR/EIS
sole guidance on the treatment of mitigation for Swainson’s hawk. CDFG has indicated that the guidelines are one component of the process used by CDFG to recommend measures for inclusion in the NBHCP. In addition to the Staff Report, the CDFG has provided guidance to the Applicants on additional avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures, as well as conditions for restoration and enhancement (R&E) of Mitigation Lands, which have been included in the NBHCP. The R&E measures for the Mitigation Lands, as recommended by CDFG, supplement the measures contained in the Staff Report.

Response to Comment O2-4
In consultation with CDFG, the Operating Conservation Program of the NBHCP has been prepared to mitigate for the effects of take associated with the Covered Activities, including Planned Development, on Swainson’s hawks.

Response to Comment O2-5
Biological research indicates that the Swainson’s hawk is adept at foraging great distances in a number of landscapes. A literature review conducted for the NBHCP, however, suggests that non-rice crops (e.g., row crops) are less suitable for foraging than alfalfa or grasslands.

The Biological Resources Technical Memo (Appendix H of the Draft NBHCP, page 5-30, paragraph 2) states for example: “Non-rice crops (row crops) are used less (Estep, 1989; Babcock, 1995) and considered poorer quality foraging habitat for the Swainson’s hawk than native grasslands, alfalfa and pasture.” As noted in this quotation from the Biological Resources Technical Memo, this statement is based in part on Estep and does not contradict those published findings. Further, Estep (1989) ranked the suitability of various agricultural land types for foraging by Swainson’s hawks as follows from best to worst as follows:

1. Alfalfa

2. Disced field

3. Fallow

4. Dry-land pasture

5. Beets

6. Tomatoes

7. Irrigated pasture

8. Grains

9. Other row crops

10. Other
As indicated by this ranking, Estep (1989) considered no n-rice crops (beets, tomatoes, grains, and other row crops) of moderate to low importance. Native grassland did not exist in Estep’s study area and therefore was not included in the ranking. However, Estep (1989) commented that “Dryland pasture most resembles the physical characteristics of historic grassland foraging habitat in the Central Valley. … [Two radio-tagged birds] used this foraging habitat as their primary source of food, hunting in other cover-types opportunistically, usually in response to farming activities.” Also see the Addendum to the Biological Resources Technical Memo (Appendix K of the Final NBHCP) for additional discussion regarding the value of different cover types as foraging habitat for Swainson’s hawk.

LETTER O1—ECOS/FOSH/NWF/PCL/SIERRA CLUB
SAC/161795/031060002(LETTERS.DOC) NATOMAS BASIN HCP 141

FINAL EIR/EIS
Response to Comment O2-6
The commentor presents some calculations of the amount of habitat available per territory and asks what amount of foraging lands per nest is required to support each nesting pair of hawks. The commentor suggests 2,500 acres of foraging habitat could be necessary to support a territory. It should be noted, however, that the attachment referenced by commentor is from a preliminary (1992) version of the NBHCP prepared by the Sacramento Area Flood Control Agency (SAFCA), and that the attachment is a summary table of alternatives that does not contain a reference to a 2,500-acre minimum territory size noted in this comment.

The comment assumes that there are 9,000 acres in the Swainson’s Hawk Zone and that, under the NBHCP, 2,187 acres in
the Swainson’s Hawk Zone will be managed to provide
high-quality foraging habitat for the Swainson’s hawk. Analyses conducted in the Biological Resources Technical Memo (2002) and the Addendum to that document (2003) show that the acreage assumptions are not accurate. The Swainson’s Hawk Zone contains 10,255 acres, a portion of which provides foraging opportunities for Swainson’s hawk. The 2,187 acres of upland reserves to be acquired as Mitigation Lands under the NBHCP are not restricted to the Swainson’s Hawk Zone. Priority is given to acquiring lands in the Swainson’s Hawk Zone, but lands to serve as upland habitat can be acquired outside of the Swainson’s Hawk Zone.

The comment also assumes that the only habitat available to birds nesting at the existing 43 territories will be the 2,187 acres of upland habitat provided in the reserve system. This assumption is incorrect for three reasons (also see the Addendum to the Biological Resources Technical Memorandum [Appendix K of the Final NBHCP]), as follows:
• The commentor assumes that the birds at the 43 territories in and immediately adjacent to the Natomas Basin only forage in the Natomas Basin. There is no reason to believe that the birds do not forage in Yolo County on the west side of the Sacramento River.

Yolo County supports abundant agricultural fields suitable as foraging habitat for the Swainson’s hawk and is well within the foraging range of nesting hawks. No radio- tracking studies have been conducted specifically using the birds nesting in the Natomas Basin, but in the south Sacramento area, nesting birds were found to travel across the Sacramento River and forage exclusively in Yolo County (Babcock, 1995). Thus, it is inappropriate to use only the habitat in the Natomas Basin in determining how much would be available per nesting pair.
• The commentor assumes that only TNBC upland reserves will provide habitat. As explained in Response to Comment G3-8 and elaborated on in the Addendum to the Biological Resources Technical Memorandum (Appendix K of the Final NBHCP), foraging opportunities in the Mitigation Lands will also be provided by fallow rice and the upland component of the managed marsh. The total acreage of foraging habitat in the reserves will be about 3,172 acres.
• Foraging habitat will remain in undeveloped areas outside of the reserves. An estimated 12,862 acres of potential foraging habitat would not be impacted by Planned Development and is assumed to remain available to Swainson’s hawks.

LETTER O1—ECOS/FOSH/NWF/PCL/SIERRA CLUB
142 NATOMAS BASIN HCP SAC/161795/031060002(LETTERS.DOC)

FINAL EIR/EIS
Because the assumptions in the comment do not account for all of the habitat available to Swainson’s hawks in the Natomas Basin and outside of the Basin, the acreage of foraging habitat available per nesting pair is underestimated in the comment.

The comment further states that 2,500 acres are necessary to support a nesting pair of Swainson’s h
awks. This statement is based on home-range studies derived from radio- tracking of Swainson’s hawks. The information from the radio-tracking studies represents the area traversed by hawks while foraging, not the acreage actually used for foraging.

Therefore, it is not appropriate to consider this area as the acreage required to support a pair.

Several studies have determined the home ran ges of Swainson’s hawks (summarized in England et al., 1997), but none has investigated the acreage necessary to support a nesting pair. The size of home ranges of Swainson’s hawks vary considerably among individuals and geographic areas. In the Central Valley, Estep (1989) identifies home ranges whose sizes vary from 830 acres to 21,500 acres. Notably, the bird with the small home range of 820 acres nested in an area dominated by alfalfa. Alfalfa supports abundant prey that is accessible to hawks throughout the breeding season. Because of the proximity of accessible, abundant prey, this hawk did not need to travel far to find prey and hence had a small home range.

Similarly, small home ranges were found in northeastern California in an area dominated by alfalfa; a home range as small as 170 acres was found in this area (Woodbridge, 1991, cited in England et al., 1997). Assuming that the acreage required to support a nesting pair is a subset of the home range (or at least no greater than the home range size), these results show that the acreage required to support a pair can be substantially less than asserted by the commentor if the habitat provides consistently abundant and accessible prey.

It is also important to note that many of the
existing Mitigation Lands include upland areas
adjacent to water or marshlands. Because upland components of the managed marsh reserves are included, additional foraging area is created and prey abundance increased. For example, pages V-19 and V-20 of the Draft NBHCP note the following:

In the Central Valley, meadow mice and in sects make up a significant portion of the Swainson’s hawks’ 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 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).

Response to Comment O2-7
In response to comments on the effect of changes in foraging habitat on Swainson’s hawks, an Addendum to the Biological Resources Technical Memorandum (Appendix K of the LETTER O1—ECOS/FOSH/NWF/PCL/SIERRA CLUB
SAC/161795/031060002(LETTERS.DOC) NATOMAS BASIN HCP 143

FINAL EIR/EIS
Final NBHCP) was prepared to provide additional clarification of the conclusion in the EIR/EIS that the impact of Planned Development on the Swainson’s hawk would be less than significant. The Addendum uses information contained in the Habitat and Land Use Assessment Database on specific crop types. As described in the Addendum, the primary impact to foraging habitat expected from Planned Development is a reduction in row crops.

Some row crops predominantly provide foraging opportunities for Swainson’s hawks in late summer and early September after the young have fledged. Some row crops have been found to support abundant prey populations that become available during the short period when crops are being harvested. Foraging opportunities are not anticipated to be a limiting factor during these months given the large number of prey that become available during a short period when the crop is harvested.

The comment states that the analysis does not consider the foraging needs of birds that nest outside of the Basin but forage in the Basin a
nd how these birds could influence habitat
availability for birds nesting in the Basin. Also, the comment states that the foraging requirements of other raptors need to be considered. The Addendum also provides information on the function and value of foraging habitat for the Swainson’s hawk in the Natomas Basin. The clarification of the analysis in the Addendum shows that the reserve system would offset reductions in foraging habitat availability during the nesting season that could result from Planned Development. Because foraging habitat availability in the Natomas Basin is not expected to change substantially, no substantial effect on the nesting population in the Natomas Basin or to birds nesting outside of the Basin that might forage in the Basin is expected. While foraging habitat availability could decline in late summer and early fall, as described above, prey availability is not likely a limiting factor during this time given the abundance of prey that becomes available. Regardless of the origin of birds that forage in the Basin, the function and value of foraging habitat will be retained during the nesting season for Swainson’s hawks.

Response to Comment O2-8
Regarding the mitigation ratio, the commentor is referred to the Uplands section of Master Response 1 (Mitigation Ratio). Also see Response to Comment O2-2 above regarding the applicability of the CDFG Staff Report to the NBHCP. Also, please see the response submitted to CDFG in response to the Friends of the Swainson’s Hawk letter of October 28, 2002 (Appendix I of this Final EIR/EIS).

As discussed in previous comments to this letter, the
Addendum to the Biological Resources
Technical Memorandum (Appendix K to the Final NBHCP) was prepared to provide additional information clarifying the less-than-significant determination in the Draft EIR/EIS. The Addendum uses information in the Habitat and Land Use Assessment Database (CH2M HILL, 2002) to determine specific crop types supported in the Basin. Using information on crop types, the Addendum evaluates changes in the function and value of foraging habitat in the Basin with particular attention to foraging habitat availability during the nesting season. The Addendum presents information on the temporal availability of foraging opportunities during the 6- to 7-month period that Swainson’s hawks inhabit the Natomas Basin.

Although Planned Development would result in the loss of about 8,875 acres of potential foraging habitat for Swainson’s hawks, most of this acreage consists of row crops. As LETTER O1—ECOS/FOSH/NWF/PCL/SIERRA CLUB
144 NATOMAS BASIN HCP SAC/161795/031060002(LETTERS.DOC)

FINAL EIR/EIS
described in more detail in the Addendum, row crops predominantly provide foraging opportunities for the Swainson’s hawk during harvest. Prior to harvest, the dense cover created by the crop prohibits access to prey. Because most row crops are harvested in late summer to early fall, they provide limited foraging opportunities during the nesting season.

Upland habitat in the Mitigation Lands will be managed to provide abundant, consistently accessible prey throughout the hawk’s residency period and, as shown in the Addendum, would offset reductions in foraging opportunities during the nesting season that could result from Planned Development.

Response to Comment O2-9
The commentor is concerned about purchase of upland areas in Area B and whether such reserves would support nesting pairs of Swainson’s hawks. In response, it is important to note that the ability of TNBC’s Board to approve acquisitions in Area B is subject to substantive conditions. Foremost is the requirement that land acquisitions in Area B must first be “approved in writing by the 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 hawks and other Covered Species” (p. IV-12 of the Draft NBHCP). Based on substantial evidence, it is expected that such acquisitions would not jeopardize the likelihood of the survival and recovery of the Covered Species because such acquisitions can occur only if there is evidence that the land will support the Covered Species.

The NBHCP does not require all upland acquisitions in the Swainson’s Hawk Zone but gives high prior
ity to such acquisitions as described in the NBHCP.

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 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 LETTER O1—ECOS/FOSH/NWF/PCL/SIERRA CLUB
SAC/161795/031060002(LETTERS.DOC) NATOMAS BASIN HCP 145

FINAL EIR/EIS
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.

Thus, the NBHCP does encourage upland reserves to be located within t he Swainson’s Hawk Zone but does not preclude acquisition of Mitigation Lands with upland features in other areas of the Basin.

Response to Comment O2-10
The commentor raises several issues regarding Swainson’s hawk nest sites and implementation of the NBHCP. The commentor is correct in stating that many of the known Swainson’s hawk nest sites are in the southern portion of the Basin and that most of the potential foraging habitat that would be lost is in the City’s Permit Area. The EIR/EIS evaluates potential effects of reductions in foraging habitat near nest sites in two ways. First, the effects of changes in foraging habitat were evaluated for individual territories that are located in areas of Planned Development. The EIR/EIS assesses the likelihood that these territories would be abandoned because of reductions in foraging habitat. As a result of this assessment, the Draft EIR/EIS identifies two territories in areas of Planned Development that could be abandoned with loss of nearby foraging habitat (see pp. 4-75 – 4-76 of the Draft EIR/EIS). The Draft EIR/EIS also addresses the spatial distribution of nest sites, foraging habitat, and Planned Development through evaluating changes in foraging habitat within 1 mile of nest sites. The NBHCP mitigates potential impacts through creating new nesting opportunities and providing high-quality foraging habitat in close proximity to nest opportunities.

The commentor is concerned that the timing of mitigation for the Swainson’s hawk needs to precede or be contemporaneous with the loss of foraging habitat. The comment states that the City (through TNBC) was supposed to have acquired 525 acres of uplands. In fact, TNBC has exceeded this acquisition goal and has to date acquired 682.8 acres of uplands as part of the existing Mitigation Lands.

The commentor further suggests that since TNBC has currently acquired 2,800 acres of Mitigation Lands, 25 percent of the total should be upland. In reviewing the most recent inventory of TNBC reserve acquisitions, it is important to note that the TNBC is (1) currently ahead of the required mitigation requirement for land acquisitions, and (2) 24.4 percent of the TNBC reserve system is currently upland reserves not including the required upland edges of managed marsh. It should also be noted that in addition to the land allocated for uplands above, the land areas designated as “associated uplands” are included in the managed marsh land allocation component. These associated uplands are regularly used by raptors as foraging area. On average, 20 to 30 percent of managed marsh areas designated in the above acreage is allocated to associated uplands.

By way of background, TNBC has implemented the NBHCP with respect to uplands in accordance with the formula that allocates the percentage of land to rice fields, managed marsh, and upland reserves. Upland projects to date include 145.97 acres of the Betts- Kismat-Silva tract located in Sacramento County. This reserve includes 338 acres, of which the remaining acreage is managed marsh with upland edges. The upland areas of this reserve include 38 acres that are intensively managed as irrigated pasture. This property is LETTER O1—ECOS/FOSH/NWF/PCL/SIERRA CLUB
146 NATOMAS BASIN HCP SAC/161795/031060002(LETTERS.DOC)

FINAL EIR/EIS
grazed and provides high-value Swainson’s hawk foraging habitat . Additionally, there are several trees that could accommodate Swainson’s hawks nesting on the reserve.

The Brennan tract is near Swainson’s hawk nest NB-14 a nd consists of 241 acres, nearly all (237.516) of which are designated for upland reserve. The site has been planted with high- value Swainson’s hawk foraging crops. It also contains potential nesting trees and numerous perching opportunities.

R&E construction projects that were initiated in 2002 were 95 percent or better completed on three properties: Lucich South, Bennett North, and Bennett South. Once soils dry out in spring 2003, the projects will be completed. The largest upland reserve feature on these projects is on the Bennett South tract where a 29.046-acre native grass area has replaced a rice field. Selected tree planting areas are also included, and the upland area is approximately 1 mile from the Sacramento River corridor and known Swainson’s hawk nesting trees.

Currently, key uplands features for summer 2003 projects are planned for the Souza and Natomas Farms tracts. The Souza reserve lies adjacent to the Sacramento River corridor and is 100 percent allocated to uplands at 44.68 acres. The adjacent Natomas Farms reserve is allocated to approximately 60.26 acres of upland. Both tracts have abundant trees for potential Swainson’s hawk nests and are located near numerous other identified Swainson’s hawk nest trees. The total planned upland in these tracts is 125.62 acres. (Please note that these are planned projects. Each has received approval from TNBC’s Board of Directors and the NBHCP Technical Advisory Committee (TAC). Exact acreage numbers could change if construction challenges necessitate amendments in the plans.) In addition to current restoration projects, TNBC has four additional reserve sites (Alleghany 50, Cummings, Ayala, and Sills) that are being scheduled for restoration. These new reserves will provide 142.71 of upland acres. The Alleghany 50 tract, which is also
along the Sacramento River corridor, is also allocated at 100 percent upland, and its total is

50.2601 acres. (Note: The acreage allocations are staff estimates only, and have not been approved by TNBC’s Board of Directors or the NBHCP TAC.) The commentor further notes that there is no timetable for achieving upland preservation and enhancement, and the commentor is therefore concerned that the TNBC could delay buying upland properties until the City is fully developed. Further, the commentor is concerned that if Sutter County does not develop, the ratio of uplands and wetlands reserves would be disproportionate to the impacts in the Basin.

The NBHCP includes several processes for ensuring that the Mitigation Lands address the impacts of development and that progress is made in the acquisition and enhancement of a balance of habitat types. See, for example, the Overall Program Review and the Independent Midpoint Reviews described in Chapter VI, Plan Implementation on pages V1-27 to VI-29.

The Overall Program Review occurs at 9,000 acres of development in the Natomas Basin (roughly 50 percent of the Planned Development). During this review, the proportionality of mitigation including the “relative distribution of developed lands and reserve lands within each of the Land Use Agency’s jurisdictions and the success of the 25 percent managed marsh/50 percent rice and 25 percent upland...” are to be reviewed and adaptive management and other recommendations to ensure the effectiveness of mitigation are to be LETTER O1—ECOS/FOSH/NWF/PCL/SIERRA CLUB
SAC/161795/031060002(LETTERS.DOC) NATOMAS BASIN HCP 147

FINAL EIR/EIS
developed if necessary. In addition to the Overall Program Review, both the City and Sutter County have Independent Midpoint Reviews covering the same review requirements as the Overall Program Review. Finally, pages VI-36 and VI-37 of the Draft NBHCP describe procedures for ensuring that the type of habitat created by TNBC reflects the habitat impacted, in the event the City or Sutter County do not participate. To ensure that upland areas are given specific attention at all review levels, this Overall Program Review section (and therefore, the midpoint reviews) has been changed (see the Final NBHCP for specific text changes).

The commentor correctly notes that neither the City nor Sutter County has land use jurisdiction and control over the portion of the Swainson’ s Hawk Zone located in the
unincorporated areas of Sacramento County. In addition, the County of Sacramento chose not to participate in the development of the NBHCP, and, therefore, with the exception of Metro Air Park, has no Incidental Take Permit coverage for the County’s portion of the Basin. It should also be noted that lands within the Swainson’s Hawk Zone in the unincorporated area of Sacramento County are also not considered mitigation for NBHCP impacts.

Page IV-17 of the Draft NBHCP states:
...a typical proportion for upland habitats within [t
he managed marsh portion
of] the reserve system would be approximately 20 to 30 percent. Upland areas have several purposes: (1) providing basking and resting sites, escape cover and winter retreats for giant garter snakes; and (2) providing foraging and nesting areas for other Covered Species (e.g., loggerhead shrike, tricolored blackbird, burrowing owl, and Swainson’s hawk). Upland areas intended to provide upland habitat for giant garter snakes under the NBHCP may consist of dryland pasture, grasslands, levees, and any other land use approved by NBHCP’s Technical Advisory Committee.”
As previously noted, TNBC has already created int
egrated managed marsh and upland
areas including the Betts-Kismat-Silva tract that includes managed marsh with upland edges. The upland areas of this reserve include 38 acres that are intensively managed as irrigated pasture. This property is grazed and provides high-value Swainson’s hawk foraging habitat. Additionally, there are several trees that could accommodate Swainson’s hawks nesting on the reserve.

Response to Comment O2-11
a. The first few paragraphs and bullets of the comment are general statements on the findings of the NBHCP regarding the Swainson’s hawk conservation program and lists of the findings of the NBHCP and EIR/EIS. The comment states that these findings are not supported by evidence but does not identify the specific reasons and basis for asserting that the conclusions are unfounded. In one instance, the commentor cites published reports used in the EIR/EIS (Estep; Babcock, 1989) as sources that the commentor disputes whereas in other comments (O2-5) the commentor states that Estep’s same findings were not factored into the analysis. The methodology used in developing the Operating Conservation Program and the analysis supporting the conclusions in the NBHCP are provided in detail in the NBHCP and the EIR/EIS. See Appendix H of the Draft NBHCP and Sections 3.4 and LETTER O1—ECOS/FOSH/NWF/PCL/SIERRA CLUB
148 NATOMAS BASIN HCP SAC/161795/031060002(LETTERS.DOC)

FINAL EIR/EIS

4.4 of the EIR/EIS. The methodology and conclusions in these documents have been explained and supported using available published and unpublished literature, as relevant.

In addition, in response to comments raised on Swainson’s hawk, an Addendum to the Biological Resources Technical Memo has been prepared to clarify the analysis conducted for the EIR/EIS. See this Addendum for further elaboration on support of the findings of the EIR/EIS (Appendix K of the Final NBHCP).
b. The NBHCP does require upland habitat to be acquired in the Swainson’s Hawk Zone or in proximity to occupied nest sites. The NBHCP specifically di rects TNBC to consider these
areas as priorities for upland acquisitions. Measure V.B.4.b.1 (pp. V-18 to V19) of the Draft NBHCP encourages acquisition of upland reserves in the Swainson’s Hawk Zone. This measure states:

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.

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.

Regarding upland reserve acquisitions to date, please see Response to Comment O2-10 above.
c. The commentor presents two concerns: (1) the NBHCP and EIS/EIR do not document that foraging lands being converted to urban uses are far from nest sites and therefore the impact
is considered less than significant, and (2) that the CDFG Staff Report (1994) requires at least a 0.5:1 mitigation ratio for Swainson’s hawk foraging habitat within 10 miles of a nest site.

For the reasons cited throughout this comment letter (and in Comment Letter O1), the EIS/EIR adeq
uately analyzes the impacts that would affect the Swainson’s hawk as a result LETTER O1—ECOS/FOSH/NWF/PCL/SIERRA CLUB
SAC/161795/031060002(LETTERS.DOC) NATOMAS BASIN HCP 149

FINAL EIR/EIS
of implementing the NBHCP. The Draft EIR/EIS includes substantial analysis of the impacts of the NBHCP including analyses of the total change in foraging habitat in the Natomas Basin, the change in foraging habitat in close proximity to nest sites, and impacts to individual nest sites. Also see the Biological Resources Technical Memo and its Addendum, Appendix H of the Draft NBHCP and Appendix K of the Final NBHCP, respectively.

The commentor is correct that the CDFG Staff Report (1994) recommends at least a 0.5:1 mitigation ratio for Swainson’s hawk foraging habitat within 10 miles of a nest site. The Applicants consulted this report in the preparation of the NBHCP. CDFG has, however, requested that this report not be included in the Appendix of the NBHCP and further has stated that the Staff Report does not apply to the NBHCP (See also Comment G3-22). d. The NBHCP and the EIR/EIS use Estep’s (1989) valuations of different types of foraging lands. See t
he Addendum to the Biological Resources Technical Memo for additional discussion of the value of crop types and the effect on Swainson’s hawk foraging habitat (Appendix K of the Final NBHCP). The Addendum provides additional clarifying information on both the function and value of various crop types relevant to prey availability. This information cites and relies on relevant published scientific data (including Estep, 1989) and elaborates on crop type information developed for the original Land Use and Habitat Assessment Database. See the Biological Resources Technical Memo Appendix H of the Draft NBHCP and the Addendum to this memo, Appendix K of the Final NBHCP.

The NBHCP does not require particular land manage
ment practices for lands that will
continue to be in private ownership within the Swainson’s Hawk Zone. Under the NBHCP, Sutter County would initiate a general plan amendment process to maintain portions of the county in the Hawk Zone in agriculture but would not require specific crops or agricultural practices in this area.
e. In response to the comment on prey availability, nesting trees, and foraging habitat, see the Addendum to the Biological Resources Technical Memo for additional discussion of the value of crop types and th
e effect on Swainson’s hawk foraging habitat from
implementation of the NBHCP (Appendix K of the Final NBHCP). f. The comment notes that there is general concurrence that alfalfa production pro vides high forage value for the Swainson’s hawk. While there is the potential to enhance hawk foraging values through increased alfalfa production, such modifications to agricultural practices are not required to mitigate fully the impact to hawk foraging habitat resulting from Planned Development. As Mitigation Lands are acquired by TNBC, site-specific management plans will be prepared for each reserve or block of reserves. Through this process, TNBC will ensure that the habitat values within the reserves are enhanced. This will include management practices for upland habitats and could include cultivation of alfalfa within Mitigation Lands where feasible. Any determination of how much land within the Swainson’s Hawk Zone could be converted to alfalfa, however, would be speculative at this time and would be beyond the scope of this analysis of the NBHCP. Also see the Addendum to the Biological Resources Technical Memo for additional discussion of the value of crop types and the effect on Swainson’s hawk foraging habitat from implementation of the NBHCP (Appendix K of the Final NBHCP).

LETTER O1—ECOS/FOSH/NWF/PCL/SIERRA CLUB
150 NATOMAS BASIN HCP SAC/161795/031060002(LETTERS.DOC)

FINAL EIR/EIS
Response to Comment O2-12
The comment states that EIR/EIS analysis of land use demonstrates that all lands in the Basin are not of comparable suitability for Covered Species, which compromises the proposed 0.5:1 mitigation ratio.

In accordance with CEQA and NEPA Guidelines, the E IR/EIS evaluated alternatives to the Proposed Action. The comment is correct that the EIR/EIS identifies the environmentally superior alternative (CEQA Guidelines, Section 15126.6). The Final EIR/EIS also identifies the USFWS’s Preferred Alternative, in accordance with Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations for implementing NEPA (Section 1502.14(e)). As noted in Section 1505.2(b), the lead agency “may discuss preferences among alternatives based on relevant factors including economic and technical considerations and agency statutory missions.” In addition, NEPA’s 40 Most Asked Questions (Question 4a) states that “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.” Numerous factors, therefore, contribute to an agency’s selection of a preferred alternative, and those considerations must be addressed in the NEPA lead agency’s record of decision (ROD).

The table cited in the comment (Table I-2, NBHCP Revisions) is included as a quick reference for readers to see where in the
Draft NBHCP the issues raised in Judge Levi’s
decision are addressed in the document. The table is for reference, and the intent is for the reader to read the cited sections for detailed discussions of issues.

Response to Comment O2-13
Pages I-20 − I-30 of the NBHCP describe key milestones in the plan formulation process over a 15-year period. As the Draft NBHCP states, the recent draft NBHCP reflects revisions incorporated into the prior adopted 1997 NBHCP to address Judge Levi’s decision, address concerns identified during the implementation of the NBHCP, account for recent changes in applicable regulatory requirements since 1997, and respond to public review and comment.

Opportunities for public review and comment were provided throughout the 1997 NBHCP and revised NBHCP process.

The Applicants and Wildlife Agencies have relied upon updated analyses and new information and evidence to support the NBHCP’s Operating Conservation Program.

Moreover, additional information and a
nalyses have been provided in the EIS/EIR in
accordance with NEPA and CEQA. The Wildlife Agencies will base their determinations and decisions to issue incidental take authorizations upon their independent review of the record and judgment as to whether the revised NBHCP and accompanying documents meet the criteria for issuance of ITPs under federal and state law.

Response to Comment O2-14
Comment noted. The Applicants and the Lead Agencies do not support the commentor’s statement that the NBHCP must be substantially revised to conform with legal requirements LETTER O1—ECOS/FOSH/NWF/PCL/SIERRA CLUB
SAC/161795/031060002(LETTERS.DOC) NATOMAS BASIN HCP 151

FINAL EIR/EIS
for the reasons presented in the above responses to comments. See the Responses to Comments O2-1 through O2-13.

SAC/161795/031060002(LETTERS.DOC) NATOMAS BASIN HCP 153

FINAL EIR/EIS
Letter O3—Institute for Ecological Health
Response to Comment O3-1
The NBHCP is adequate, and scientific data support the conclusions in the NBHCP. The NBHCP presents an Operating Conservation Program to meet the biological goals and objectives presented in Section I.C of the Draft NBHCP and to meet the approving agencies’ requirements for issuance of ITPs. In support of the analysis in both the NBHCP and the EIR/EIS, a quantitative GIS analysis was conducted to classify and identify habitat types and land uses in the Natomas Basin (see Responses to Comment O1-4 and O1-7). This GIS analysis provides the Land Use Agencies and the Wildlife Agencies with previously unavailable data that allow for a quantitative assessment for the Covered Species. The methodology and the approach to analysis are presented and applied in both the Biological Resources Technical Memo and its Addendum (Appendix H and Appendix K to the Final NBHCP) and in the Draft EIR/EIS (see Section 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 the GIS database). The NBHCP contains extensive conservation measures for the Covered Species. The strategies for the Covered Species are presented in detail in Chapters IV, V, and VI of the NBHCP. Chapter VII of the NBHCP demonstrates the effectiveness of the Operating Conservation Program for all of the 22 Covered Species. See Responses to Comments O3-2 through O3-37. It is important to note that the Covered Species other than the giant garter snake and Swainson’s hawk inhabit similar habitats and therefore are expected to benefit from the conservation measures of the NBHCP. See Section II.C of the NBHCP, which discusses the Covered Species and their habitat associations. Also see Response to Comment G2-12 for the reasons for their inclusion as Covered Species in the NBHCP.

Response to Comment O3-2
The commentor is concerned that land use planning efforts by the City of Sacramento and Sacramento County will undermine the success of the NBHCP. In response, the NBHCP has been analyzed and prepared for a specific development footprint and acreage amount. The avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures included are those required to address the Planned Development and do not extend take coverage to other development See pp. I-2 and I-3 of the Draft NBHCP; specifically, this section states:

Any additional urban development within the Natomas Basin that occurs outside of the City’s
and Sutter’s Permit Areas, with the exception of the
MAP development, including any development within Sacramento County or within the jurisdiction of another Potential Permittee, also would constitute a significant departure from the Plan’s OCP and would trigger a new effects analysis, a new conservation strategy, and issuance of Incidental Take Permits to the Potential Permittee for that additional urban development. Notwithstanding the foregoing, so long as the City and Sutter County limit urban development to their respective Permit Areas and the City and Sutter County continue to meet their obligations under this NBHCP, the OCP and associated Permits remain valid for each Permittee’s Covered Activities.

LETTER O3—INSTITUTE FOR ECOLOGICAL HEALTH
154 NATOMAS BASIN HCP SAC/161795/031060002(LETTERS.DOC)

FINAL EIR/EIS
Regarding future land use planning efforts, the commentor is also referred to Master Responses 3 (Joint Vision) and 4 (Cumulative Impacts).

Response to Comment O3-3
The Draft NBHCP presents an Operating Conservation Program to meet the biological goals and objectives presented in Section I.C of the Draft NBHCP and to meet the approving agencies’ requirements for issuance of ITPs. In support of the analysis in both the NBHCP and the EIR/EIS, a quantitative GIS analysis was conducted to classify and identify habitat types and land uses in the Natomas Basin. Specific responses to the comments on goals and objectives are presented in Responses to Comments O1-4, O1-7, O3-4 through O3-8.

Response to Comment O3-4
The time horizon for the ITPs would be 50 years (see Section VI.A of the NBHCP and Section 1.4 and 2.4.2 of the EIR/EIS).

Response to Comment O3-5
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 habitat 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. The USFWS must find that the issuance of a Section 10(a) permit would not result in the appreciable reduction in the likelihood of the survival and recovery of the species. The biological goals and objectives presented in the NBHCP (Section I.C) have been developed to collectively meet the USFWS’s criteria for issuing ITPs.

The specific purpose and need of the USFWS are discussed in detail in Section 1.4.1.1 of the EIR/EIS. This includes: (1) protecting, conserving, and enhancing listed species and unlisted species and t
heir habitats, (2) ensuring compliance with applicable regulations, and (3) implementing the biological goals and objectives to those ends. The decisions that USFWS is required to make are presented in Section 1.4.3 of the EIR/EIS.

Response to Comment O3-6
The commentor suggests that the NBHCP should include a goal of ensuring the survival of the Covered Species over the long term in the Natomas Basin. In response, Goals 1 and 2 of the NBHCP (Section I.C.1) state:
(1) Establish and manage in perpetuity a biologically sound and interconnected habitat reserve syste
m that mitigates impacts on Covered Species resulting
from Covered Activities and provides habitat for existing, and new viable populations of Covered Species.
(2) Implement an adaptive management program that responds to changing circumstances affecting Covered Species and th
eir habitats.

These two primary goals were included to meet the main purpose of the NBHCP, which is to mitigate impacts to Covered Species. The adaptive management section of the NBHCP is LETTER O3—INSTITUTE FOR ECOLOGICAL HEALTH
SAC/161795/031060002(LETTERS.DOC) NATOMAS BASIN HCP 155

FINAL EIR/EIS
designed to provide for monitoring (in perpetuity) the status of Covered Species and adaptive management to ensure that the most up-to-date, relevant scientific data are used and that the biological goals and objectives are being achieved.

See also Response to Comment O3-5.

Response to Comment O3-7
The objectives in the NBHCP are measurable. The comment cites only brief selections out of more than two pages of goals and objectives in the NBHCP. As discussed in Response to Comment O3-5, the goals and objectives are comprehensive, align with the USFWS’s purpose and need, and are relevant to the decisions that need to be made by the USFWS. In addition, Chapters IV, V, and VI of the NBHCP comprise measurable components for implementing the Operating Conservation Program.

Response to Comment O3-8
In response to the comment on connectivity, see Master Response 2 (Connectivity). In response to the acquisition acreage, 400 acres is a minimum habitat block that would be purchased as Mitigation Lands. As stated in the NBHCP (Section IV.C.2), this does not mean that only 400-acre blocks will be acquired. The Draft NBHCP also requires that one contiguous2,500-acre reserve block be developed (and this could be the result of multiple contiguous purchases) to minimize the “perimeter effect,” promote biodiversity by allowing multiple species and niches to occupy the same site, and benefit the genetic diversity of dispersing interconnected reserves. See Section IV.C.2 of the Draft NBHCP.

Response to Comment O3-9
The commentor provides introductory information regarding the reasons why many of the Covered Species should not be included in the NBHCP. Please refer to more detailed responses for each species, included in Responses to Comments O3-10 through O3-12. Also see Responses to Comments G2-12 and O3-1. Relevant to the tricolored blackbird, see Response to Comment O3-31.

Response to Comment O3-10
The commentor requests that additional special-status species should be included as Covered Species in the NBHCP. The NBHCP currently addresses 22 Covered Species based on known species occurrence records, observation data, and habitat occurrence. Additional discussion on the reasons that these 22 species are proposed as Covered Species is presented in Response to Comment G2-12. Also see Response to Comment O3-1. In addition, the NBHCP addresses the potential to add new species if they become listed in the future, including mechanisms for adding new conservation measures. The EIS/EIR discusses the impacts and additional mitigation measures, if required, for all special-status species identified by the USFWS as potentially occurring in the Basin.

Response to Comment O3-11
The commentor requests that the California tiger salamander not be included as a Covered Species because of lack of presence, and that other species such as Sacramento Orcutt grass should be given “no take” status.

LETTER O3—INSTITUTE FOR ECOLOGICAL HEALTH
156 NATOMAS BASIN HCP SAC/161795/031060002(LETTERS.DOC)

FINAL EIR/EIS
The biological assessment for the California tiger salamander does reveal that there are no recorded occurrences of the species in the Natomas Basin. Biological research conducted for the NBHCP, however, also indicates the possibility that this species may occupy suitable habitat within the Basin. Pages II-31-and 32 of the Draft NBHCP state:

Currently, the California tiger salamander occurs in the Central Valley and Sierra Nevada foothills from Yo
lo County south to Tulare County, and into
the coastal valleys and adjacent coastal foothills from Sonoma County south to Santa Barbara County (Zeiner et. al, 1994). Isolated populations are reported from Gray Lodge Wildlife Area in Butte County and from Grass Lake in Siskiyou County. Although populations of California tiger salamander have declined, the species continues to breed in a relatively large number of locations within its range (59 FR 18353-18354, April 18, 1994).

Therefore, conservation measures are developed for this species.

Similar analysis for Sacramento Orcutt grass is included on pages II-39-40 of the Draft
NBHCP. For this species, the vernal pools at the eastern edge of the Basin may provide habitat. Thus, this species is included as a Covered Species. Note, however, that page V-4 of the Draft NBHCP states that: “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.”
Response to Comment O3-12
The EIR/EIS evaluates impacts to those special-status species potentially occurring in the Natomas Basin, including shorebirds that have the potential to occur in the Basin (see Table 3-8 of the EIR/EIS). The comment is correct in its summation of the Sacramento Valley’s recent designation as a shorebird site of international importance. The Draft EIR/EIS was published in August 2002, which was prior to this designation. In accordance with the requirements of CEQA and NEPA, the Draft EIR/EIS addresses the environmental setting as it existed at the time the document was prepared. No revisions to the Draft EIR/EIS are necessary. The designation of the Sacramento Valley as a shorebird site of international importance does not present significant new information regarding the environmental setting that would result in new significant effects or increase the severity of an impact and therefore require recirculation of the EIR/EIS. The criteria for recirculation are presented in Section 1.7 of the Final EIR/EIS.

Response to Comment O3-13
As the commentor states, both Sacramento County and Sutter County allow residences to be constructed in agricultural zones. 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 5 gross acres per accessory structure (Sacramento County Zoning Code, Section 205-07). These structures 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 LETTER O3—INSTITUTE FOR ECOLOGICAL HEALTH
SAC/161795/031060002(LETTERS.DOC) NATOMAS BASIN HCP 157

FINAL EIR/EIS
built on non-conforming parcels without discretionary approval as long as various requirements are met (e.g., the property was legally created prior to the effective date of the zoning ordinance).

The Lead Agencies cannot substantiate the commentor’s claim that home development in unincorpo
rated areas currently results in a substantial conversion of farmlands. The City and Sutter County understand that new homes can be built under existing conditions in these areas subject to the underlying zoning designation (e.g., one home per 40-acre parcel), but remainder areas are typically farmed (see Table III-1 in the NBHCP for Rural Residential land uses). The possibility of such changes has been addressed in the NBHCP. As discussed in Section 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 incorporated to the extent development of ranchettes constitutes a significant land use change outside of the Permit Areas and Mitigation Lands (see p. VI-22 of the Draft NBHCP).

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 t
ake articulated in the ESA and CESA. No take
authorization would be granted under this NBHCP to individuals outside of the City and Sutter County Permit Areas. There is no evidence that the development of rural residences and accessory buildings would severely undermine the effectiveness of the NBHCP’s Operating Conservation Program.

Response to Comment O3-14
The NBHCP requires that Sutter County, upon issuance of ITPs, initiate a General Plan Amendment to amend, from Industrial/Commercial Reserve to Agriculture, the designation of lands located within 1 mile of the inside toe of levees adjacent to the Sacramento River (Swainson’s Hawk Zone). The South Sutter County Specific Plan does not include any lands within the Swainson’s Hawk Zone. The Specific Plan does not specifically propose to dispose of treated wastewater within the Swainson’s Hawk Zone. Rather, disposal of treated wastewater through land applications is one possible alternative that, if selected, could include disposal within various portions of the Natomas Basin. Land disposal of treated wastewater is not a Covered Activity under the NBHCP and, if such application occurs in the future, it would be subject to securing appropriate permits and conducting all analysis required under state and federal law. Future analysis of land discharge of treated wastewater would address the potential impacts to the Swainson’s hawk and the Mitigation Lands as well as other wildlife resources and would require mitigation for such impacts. Therefore, revision of the South Sutter County Specific Plan as a condition of the NBHCP permit issuance is not considered appropriate. The commentor is also referred to Response to Comment O1-27 regarding wastewater disposal issues.

Response to Comment O3-15
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.

TNBC holds certain water rights as a landowner within the Natomas Basin and, as such, is entitled to its water deliveries. See Response to Comment G8-32 for additional discussion of LETTER O3—INSTITUTE FOR ECOLOGICAL HEALTH
158 NATOMAS BASIN HCP SAC/161795/031060002(LETTERS.DOC)

FINAL EIR/EIS
potential changes in water availability. The conversion of row crops to orchards does not appear to be a significant threat to the viability of the NBHCP for several reasons: (1) orchards have not been a significant agricultural use in the Natomas Basin, owing in part to the heavy soils conducive to rice farming (see Table 4-2 in the NBHCP, which shows 182 acres of orchard use in the 53,537-acre Natomas Basin); (2) orchards are not considered important habitat for the giant garter snake, Swainson’s hawk, or other Covered Species; and (3) acreage of orchards in the Natomas Basin appears to be stable or slightly declining during recent years.

Response to Comment O3-16
See Master Response 1 (Mitigation Ratio).

Response to Comment O3-17
See Master Response 1 (Mitigation Ratio) for a response to the comment on the mitigation ratio and the inapplicability of other HCP mitigation ratios. See Section 3.4 of the EIR/EIS and Tables 3-1, 3-2, 3-4, and 3-6 for a description of the habitat types in the Natomas Basin for the referenced species and a breakdown of the habitat types by jurisdiction.

Response to Comment O3-18
The commentor states that the NBHCP does not address the biology of species other than the Swainson’s hawk and the giant garter snake. In response, please note that considerable research and development of species-specific mitigation measures were undertaken for all Covered Species. Biological data on each species are included in Chapter 2, Biological Data, and Chapter V includes avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures for each species.

In addition, a Biological Resources Technical Memo was prepared covering each species, including its needs, habitat, and impacts (Appendix H of the NBHCP). The mitigation program and analysis apply to all Covered Species, not just the Swainson’s hawk and giant garter snake. Also see Responses to Comments O1-4 and O1-7.

Response to Comment O3-19
The commentor states that the NBHCP does not have a map of existing TNBC reserves. The NBHCP does include a map of reserves (see Figure 17: Reserves and Connections to Reserves).

The comment states that the current Mitigation Lands are s mall and not biologically viable and that edge effects are not accounted for. The Applicants do not concur with this opinion for several reasons:
• The NBHCP requires that Mitigation Lands achieve a 400-acre minimum reserve size with at least one reserve consolidated to include 2,500 contiguous acres. • Edge effects and other biological reasons for these reserve sizes are included in Chapter IV, pages 9 and 10 of the Draft NBHCP.
• Existing literature on restoration biology indicates that there is no set or ideal reserve size. Reserve sizes must take into account the biology, location, and characteristics of the LETTER O3—INSTITUTE FOR ECOLOGICAL HEALTH
SAC/161795/031060002(LETTERS.DOC) NATOMAS BASIN HCP 159

FINAL EIR/EIS
site. For example, the California Mitigation Banking Program Guidelines specifically state that there is no minimum reserve size; rather each reserve site in the Mitigation Banking Program is accepted based on the biological efficacy of the site. The average reserve size for mitigation banking sites in Sacramento and adjacent counties is 487 acres (California Environmental Resources Evaluation System [CERES], Catalogue of Mitigation Banks in California). Thus, the Applicants chose to use a minimum size of 400 acres, which does not preclude larger reserves.
• TNBC has already assembled more than 2,802 acres in three areas of the Natomas Basin.

Many of these Mitigation Lands are adjacent to one another, thereby creating larger contiguous blocks of reserves.

Current Mitigation Lands purchased by TNBC, their individual site acreage, the combined acreage for contiguous sites, and th
e total acreage by area of the Basin are shown in the table below.

Mitigation Lands (grouped by area and to demonstrate contiguous acreage) Area of the Basin/Reserve Acres by Site Contiguous Acres Total Acreage by Area North Area
Frazer North 92.6
Lucich North 268.0
Sub-Total 360.6
Bennet North 226.7
Bennet South 132.5
Lucich South 351.9
Sub-Total 711.1
Brennan 241.4
Sub-Total 241.4 1313.0
Central
Sills 575.6
Sub-Total 575.6
BKS 338.5
Sub-Total 338.5
Ayala 317.4
Sub-Total 317.4 1231.4
South
Souza 44.7
Natomas Farms 96.5
Sub-Total 141.1
LETTER O3—INSTITUTE FOR ECOLOGICAL HEALTH
160 NATOMAS BASIN HCP SAC/161795/031060002(LETTERS.DOC)

FINAL EIR/EIS
Mitigation Lands (grouped by area and to demonstrate contiguous acreage) Area of the Basin/Reserve Acres by Site Contiguous Acres Total Acreage by Area Cummings 66.8
Sub-Total 66.8
Alleghany 50 50.3
Sub-Total 50.3 258.2
TOTAL RESERVE ACREAGE 2,802.6 2,802.6 2,802.6
Response to Comment O3-20
The NBHCP measures include buffers within the Mitigation Lands and setbacks to maintain separation between the reserves and urban development. This combination of siting reserves in appropriate locations and maintaining an internal transition buffer within the reserve promotes separation between incompatible land uses and maximizes the opportunity for TNBC to manage the land effectively for Covered Species.

As described in Section IV.C.1.c of the NBHCP, the buffers are maint ained as habitat for Covered Species. This may take the form of upland ruderal habitat or agriculture where such uses are incorporated within a reserve. As noted in the NBHCP, agricultural practices within reserves shall be subject to appropriate best management practices to protect wildlife within the reserve. Employing this approach to buffers, the Site Specific Management Plans will direct the most sensitive habitat toward the center of the reserve and will provide a transition into surrounding agricultural lands.

Response to Comment O3-21
Agricultural lands outside of the Permit Areas do not serve as mitigation in the NBHCP.

The baseline conditions of the impact analysis do, however, assume that existing open space or agricultural areas outside of the Permit Areas would not be developed as urban uses because these areas do not have current local authority or take coverage under the ESA or CESA to convert to urban uses. Also see Response to Comment O1-22 and Master Response 1 (Mitigation Ratio).

Response to Comment O3-22
The commentor suggests the effectiveness of the Operating Conservation Program is speculative. The operating results of TNBC in the interim since the 1997 NBHCP show that the implementation effectiveness of the NBHCP’s Operating Conservation Program is not speculative and that the mechanisms described within the NBHCP are capable of directing the proposed habitat improvements.

With regard to the biological validity of the Operating Conservation Program, t he most
current available data on the Covered Species and appropriate conservation measures have been considered in the preparation of the NBHCP. While habitat restoration is an evolving science, the NBHCP has been developed to result in an increase in habitats that resemble the LETTER O3—INSTITUTE FOR ECOLOGICAL HEALTH
SAC/161795/031060002(LETTERS.DOC) NATOMAS BASIN HCP 161

FINAL EIR/EIS
original habitat types within the Natomas Basin. For example, the Natomas Basin currently provides 96 acres of ponds and seasonally wet areas, of which 21 acres would be lost because of Planned Development. The NBHCP, however, would provide 2,187.5 acres of restored marsh habitat as part of the Mitigation Lands that would be maintained in perpetuity.

In addition to the restoration of natural habitats within the Basin, the NBHCP establishes extensive measures to avoid, minimize, a
nd mitigate the take of Covered Species, measures
that will be required for all Authorized Development and other Covered Activities conducted by private developers, the Land Use Agencies, and TNBC.

Response to Comment O3-23
See Master Response 1 (Mitigation Ratio) and Master Response 2 (Connectivity).

Response to Comment O3-24
The intent of the NBHCP is, to the extent feasible and appropriate, manage the Mitigation Lands to provide habitat for all Covered Species. The first sentence of Section IV.C.1 b of the NBHCP has been modified (see text changes in the Final NBHCP).

Response to Comment O3-25
The commentor has questioned the adequacy of the buffer requirements as established within the NBHCP. Please also see Response to Comment O3-20 for further discussion on this topic. The commentor correctly notes that a typical buffer is anticipated to vary between 30 and 75 feet in width. However, this is not a set requirement but rather a guideline to be considered during the preparation of Site Specific Management Plans. It is through the Site- Specific Management Plan process that the unique characteristics of each of the Mitigation Lands would be considered and an appropriate buffer would be established based on specific needs of the reserve site. The single condition noted, roadways adjacent to reserves, reflects the need to consider each case individually – many of the reserves are located in areas where no major road frontage exists and future traffic volumes may never be significant.

The process established under the NBHCP is to resolve design issues a ssociated with the Mitigation Lands at the time Site-Specific Management Plans are prepared. Through this strategy, Site-Specific Management Plans will be prepared with the most current available data, including data collected through implementation and monitoring of the Mitigation Lands.

Regarding the statement that the mitigation ratio should be increased to provide for habitat plus surrounding buffers, there is no evidence to suggest such a configuration would
substantially increase the value of habitat within the reserve. Further, the mitigation ratio, as a component of the Operating Conservation Program, has been the subject of extensive analysis to determine whether the NBHCP avoids, minimizes, and mitigates take to he maximum extent practicable in accordance with the ESA, and minimizes and fully mitigates effects in accordance with CESA. This analysis does not support an increase of the Mitigation Ratio beyond the proposed 0.5:1 ratio. See the Draft and Final EIR/EIS, the LETTER O3—INSTITUTE FOR ECOLOGICAL HEALTH
162 NATOMAS BASIN HCP SAC/161795/031060002(LETTERS.DOC)

FINAL EIR/EIS
Biological Resources Technical Memo and its Addendum (Appendix H of the Draft NBHCP and Appendix K of the Final NBHCP).

Response to Comment O3-26
The commentor has questioned the adequacy of the NBHCP in providing connectivity for Covered Species. The following response addresses specific aspects of this comment. A detailed discussion of biological connectivity is provided in Master Response 2 (Connectivity).

As noted within the NBHCP, the primary opportun ities for migration between TNBC reserves and within the Natomas Basin in general are either along irrigation/drainage canals or through agricultural land. These are the same avenues for migration that existed prior to initiation of the NBHCP planning process. There is no evidence that suggests the pattern of connectivity offered by canals and land outside of the Permit Areas of the City and Sutter County will be substantially impacted by implementation of the NBHCP. Rather, major changes in patterns of land uses outside of the Permit Areas of the City and Sutter County would likely require extensive review and analysis, possible modification of the NBHCP or adoption of a separate HCP, and review and approval by the Wildlife Agencies.

The commentor states that the connectivity needs for each Covered Species must be analyzed
to ensure conservation of the species in perpetuity. The NBHCP Covered Species include a total of 22 plant, animal, and avian species with substantially varying needs for connectivity. The giant garter snake, however, is the species most dependent upon connectivity with regard to long-term viability of populations within the Basin. A second species, the northwestern pond turtle, is likely to inhabit the Basin. This species utilizes waterways and will be affected by connectivity provided by Basin waterways similar to the giant garter snake. Therefore, the analysis of connectivity for the giant garter snake is considered applicable to the northwestern pond turtle.

Two additional species that could be affected by habitat connectivity are the California tiger salamand
er and western spadefoot toad. Both of these species rely upon habitats composed of uplands, vernal pools, and slow-moving waters, habitat types that are very limited within the Basin. Because of this lack of habitat, the potential for these species to occur in the Basin is considered low. If these species become established in the Basin at a future date, then connectivity between Mitigation Lands would be provided either along Basin canals or through agricultural lands. If such future occurrences are noted, then the adaptive management provisions of the NBHCP would require analysis of the specific occurrence and evaluation of provisions to further support these species.

In addition to the species discussed above, the Draft NBHCP proposes coverage for seven avian species, three vernal pool shrimp, seven plant species that rely upon vernal pools or marsh/canal habitat, and the valley elderberry longhorn beetle (VELB). It is assumed that connectivity is not a limiting factor for the avian species as migration does not rely upon a ground or water corridor. Vernal pool shrimp species proposed for coverage by the NBHCP include vernal pool fairy shrimp, vernal pool tadpole shrimp, and midvalley fairy shrimp.

All of these species are vernal pool dependent, and none has been documented to occur within the Basin. For these species, connectivity of habitat to waterways can be detrimental because of predation by fish. The seven plant species proposed for coverage under the LETTER O3—INSTITUTE FOR ECOLOGICAL HEALTH
SAC/161795/031060002(LETTERS.DOC) NATOMAS BASIN HCP 163

FINAL EIR/EIS
NBHCP are either vernal pool obligate or rely upon waterways. None of these species has been documented within the Basin, and connectivity within the Basin is not considered a factor in the presence of these species within the Basin. The final proposed Covered Species, the VELB, is not known to exist within the Basin but has been documented along the boundaries of the Basin. It is anticipated that establishment of VELB populations within the Basin would only result from planting of elderberry shrubs within TNBC reserves and that ground and water connectivity within the Basin would not be a significant factor to the presence of this species within the Basin.

As noted in the Master Response 2 (Connectivity), the system of canals and ditches located within the Basin but outside of the Permit Areas of the City of S acramento, Sutter County,
and MAP are likely to remain. The drainage and irrigation service provided by these canals and ditches will continue to be required as Planned Development occurs within the Permit Areas. These canals and ditches provide linear connectivity, both in water and on land, which extends throughout the Basin. Additionally, agricultural land, whether actively farmed or fallowed, provides land connectivity for species such as the western spadefoot toad and the California tiger salamander, should these species find suitable habitat within the Basin. Therefore, the connectivity that would exist under the NBHCP not only addresses the needs of giant garter snake but also the balance of the proposed Covered Species.

Response to Comment O3-27
See Response to Comment O3-19 for information regarding the minimum reserve size.

Related to land uses adjacent to reserves, please note that Chapter IV of the NBHCP specifies reserve acquisition criteria to minimize conflicts with urban or residential uses and further discusses buffers and setbacks for the Mitigation Lands.

Regarding species-specific needs and the reserves, we call the reader’s attention to Chapter IV of the NBHCP, which discusses reserve acquisition, development, and management criteria to support the Covered Species as well as to the species-specific measures included in Chapter V.

Regarding foraging areas in proximity to nest sites , the commentor is referred to pages V-18 through V-21 of the Draft NBHCP, which discuss preservation of nest sites and minimization measures within a foraging buffer surrounding nest sites for the Swainson’s hawk. Similarly, page V-22 of the Draft NBHCP discusses nesting and foraging buffers for the tricolored blackbird.

Response to Comment O3-28
The commentor questions how acquisition of lands in Area B will support conservation of the giant garter snake and Swainson’s hawk. Please note that Area B is adjacent to the Natomas Basin and includes many of the habitat features of the Natomas Basin. The NBHCP specifically states that only 20 percent of mitigation lands may be acquired in this area and that such acquisition must be based on biological information. In addition, Section IV.C.2.b of the Final NBHCP has been revised to clarify ways in which the acquisition of reserve lands will meet the biological goals and objectives of the NBHCP (see text revisions in the attachment to the Final NBHC).

LETTER O3—INSTITUTE FOR ECOLOGICAL HEALTH
164 NATOMAS BASIN HCP SAC/161795/031060002(LETTERS.DOC)

FINAL EIR/EIS
Thus, the primary criterion for acquisition of Mitigation Lands in Area B is the ability of such land to support the Covered Species, particularly the giant garter snake and the Swainson’s hawk.

Response to Comment O3-29
The strategy for what is needed to conserve the Natomas Basin’s giant garter snake population is contained in numerous portions of the Draft NBHCP, including Chapters IV, V, and VI. Specific conservation strategies and implementation measures of relevance to the giant garter snakes are presented in Sections IV.C, IV.D, V.A, V.B, and V.C. In addition, all the plan implementation measures for funding assurances, monitoring, adaptive management, and mid-point review are designed to conserve giant garter snakes and the other Covered Species. The Draft NBHCP will meet the conservation need by implementing the measures contained in the Operating Conservation Program.

Response to Comment O3-30
Although an ITP under Section 10 of the ESA and 2081 under CESA does not require contributing to recovery, the USFWS must nonetheless conclude that issuance of incidental take authorizations will not appreciably reduce the likelihood of the survival and recovery of species in the wild. Further, the plan must minimize and mitigate the impact of take to the maximum extent practicable under ESA and minimize and fully mitigate the impacts of take under CESA. In the future, Swainson’s Hawk foraging habitat in the Basin would not be limited to the Swainson’s Hawk Zone, but rather it would be available in the Mitigation Lands and in portions of Sutter and Sacramento Counties that are in agricultural production. The amount and quality of this remaining foraging habitat 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). The plan does not rely on foraging habitat within the Swainson’s Hawk Zone as the only foraging habitat for hawks in the Basin. If development occurs in the County of Sacramento in the future, the impacts of this development on special-status species would need to be evaluated and mitigated in accordance with CEQA, and potentially NEPA, ESA, and CESA.

Response to Comment O3-31
The Draft NBHCP proposes a variety of measures that in total represent the Operating Conservation Program that would address the needs of Covered Species. The various components of the Operating Conservation Program include the 0.: 1 mitigation ratio, monitoring obligations, adaptive management provisions, and requirements applicable to both urban development and TNBC operations to avoid and minimize take of Covered Species.

Within the Mitigation Lands, the Operating Cons ervation Program directs the land management as follows: 25 percent managed marsh, 50 percent rice, and 25 percent upland habitat. The monitoring provisions require that data on the presence of Covered Species be collected annually, both within the Mitigation Lands and at selected sites in the Basin outside the reserves, to guide actions required through the Operating Conservation Program. The adaptive management provisions are linked to the results of the monitoring LETTER O3—INSTITUTE FOR ECOLOGICAL HEALTH
SAC/161795/031060002(LETTERS.DOC) NATOMAS BASIN HCP 165

FINAL EIR/EIS
results and will ensure that the Operating Conservation Program is responsive to the Covered Species within the Basin.

With regard to the tricolored blackbird colony, the success of this population will be monitored annually and t
he reserve acquisition program of the NBHCP could be modified if it is determined that foraging habitat is a limiting factor for the colony. This colony is located well outside of the City’s Permit Area, and this colony may forage upon unincorporated lands within Sacramento County. If, through the annual monitoring, it is determined that additional foraging habitat is required, the NBHCP would allow for modification of both acquisition programs and habitat management/restoration to provide enhanced foraging. The long-term success of the NBHCP will rely not on establishing a rigid Operating Conservation Program based on limited information, but rather will result from a flexible program that responds to new information collected through monitoring as well as evolving scientific data as applicable to the Covered Species.

Response to Comment O3-32
The NBHCP includes a number of requirements and policies regarding vernal pools and vernal pool species. Pages IV-24 through 25 of the Draft NBHCP, “Conservation Strategies for Vernal Pool Species as Mitigation for Urban Development,” outline the general procedures for TNBC activities related to vernal pool species. Specific requirements for avoidance, minimization, and mitigation of vernal pool species assigned to all developers in the Permit Areas with vernal pool species identified onsite are stated in Chapter V (pp. V-3 through V-6 of the Draft NBHCP). Additional species-specific avoidance measures applied to developers are included on pages V-16 and 17 of the Draft NBHCP. Finally, TNBC requirements for vernal pool species on Mitigation Lands are located on pages V-26 and 27 of the Draft NBHCP. These requirements were developed in consultation with the Wildlife Agencies, using the most recent mitigation standards promulgated by those agencies. Those standards have been determined to be adequate (see e.g., USFWS Programmatic Consultation for Projects with Relatively Small Effects to Vernal Pools).

It is also important to note that vernal pool habitat is considered limited in the Plan Area.

Chapter II, Biological Data, summarizes occurrences of vernal pool species in the Plan Area.

Briefly, there are no known occurrences in the NBHCP area of the covered vernal pool species [reference to the Draft NBHCP: vernal pool fairy shrimp (p. II-34); vernal pool tadpole shrimp (p. II-35); midvalley fairy shrimp (p. II-36); Boggs Lake hedge-hyssop (p. 11- 39); Sacramento Orcutt grass (p. II- 40); slender Orcutt grass (p. II-41); Colusa grass (p. II-41) or legenere (p. II-42)]. Thus, we believe the NBHCP includes substantial protections for vernal pool resources that may be but have not to date been identified in the Natomas Basin.

Response to Comment O3-33
See above Responses to Comments O3-13 and O3-15.

Response to Comment O3-34
Section VI.E.2 of the NBHCP provides guidance for biological monitoring of both the individual Covered Species and the habitat types within the Mitigation Lands. With regard to the final form of the monitoring program, the NBHCP requires that a detailed Biological Effectiveness Monitoring Program be prepared within 2 years of issuance of ITPs. Section LETTER O3—INSTITUTE FOR ECOLOGICAL HEALTH
166 NATOMAS BASIN HCP SAC/161795/031060002(LETTERS.DOC)

FINAL EIR/EIS
VI.E.3 provides guidance for the preparation of the overall monitoring program as well as the monitoring programs required in each Site Specific Management Plan that will address monitoring requirement for an individual reserve. Through the adaptive management provisions of the NBHCP, adjustment to reserve management, including monitoring programs, may be made as new scientific information becomes available.

Response to Comment O3-35
The commentor suggests that the adaptive management section should include future research on biological issues because our knowledge in the field is rapidly expanding. We concur, and the NBHCP currently does include new scientific information (regarding species, restoration biology, ecosystem functioning) in the adaptive management and changed circumstance section (Section VI.K.2.b “Availability of New Scientific Information”).

Response to Comment O3-36
The commentor requests that the changed circumstance section include climate changes, changes in connectivity, sale of water rights outside the Basin, and other issues. The NBHCP changed circumstances section addresses climate changes (including drought, flood, and fire) and changes in water availability (Section VI.K). In addition, the NBHCP addresses connectivity in Section IV.C.3. Also see Master Response 2 (Connectivity).

Regarding changes in agricultural practices outside the reserve system, the NBHCP covers these types of circumstances in the adaptive management portion of the NBHCP on page VI-22 which states that modifications to the NBHCP through the adaptive management process may be needed for several reasons; among these are “significant land use changes outside of the reserve system,” as further explained in Responses to Comments O3-13 and O3-15. The NBHCP also includes monitoring related to connectivity in Chapter IV (pp. IV-7 to 9).

Response to Comment O3-37
The NBHCP states that the its effectiveness is based on Planned Development of 17,500 acres because the impact assessment and mitigation program included in the NBHCP is based on a specific footprint and amount of development. The City and Sacramento County recently convened a Joint Vision planning process after the Draft EIR/EIS was released that may evaluate the potential for expanded development in the Basin. However, this is a very preliminary planning process. Any new development resulting from this process has not been determined and would be required to undertake a new analysis of impacts and development of mitigation measures. Please see Master Response 3 (Joint Vision) and Master Response 4 (Cumulative Impacts). In response to the commentor’s summary of concerns regarding rural development, see Responses to Comments O3-13.

SAC/161795/031060002(LETTERS.DOC) NATOMAS BASIN HCP 167

FINAL EIR/EIS
Letter O4—Swainson’s Hawk Technical Advisory Committee
Response to Comment O4-1
The comment states that the Swainson’s Hawk Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) supports the concept of regional resource planning in the Natomas Basin. Comment noted.

Response to Comment O4-2
The comment states that the Swainson’s Hawk TAC supports the TNBC’s efforts. Comment noted.

Response to Comment O4-3
The comment states that the remainder of the comments in comment letter O4 do not attempt to quantify the loss of nest trees as a result of implementing the NBHCP, but that the loss of nest trees is a “significant immediate threat” because trees planted at restoration sites will not reach maturity prior to loss of nest trees at Fisherman’s Lake, Sacramento International Airport, and along the Sacramento River as a result of Planned Development.

The EIR/EIS specifically analyzed and identified nest trees that could be removed because of development and found that there would be a less-than-significant impact. A total of 7 nest sites was identified as potentially affected by Planned Development (5 of these trees are within the City of Sacramento and 2 are at Metro Air Park). In 2002, the 2 nest trees in and immediately adjacent to Metro Air Park were removed. Of the remaining 5 territories located in the City of Sacramento, 2 are in the right-of-way of Interstate 5 and would not be removed because of Planned Development. The remaining 3 territories in the City of Sacramento could be removed. None of the nest sites along Fisherman’s Lake would be directly affected by development. The remaining nest sites in the Natomas Basin and along the Sacramento River are not located within any of the Permit Areas.

As discussed below, the NBHCP acknowledges that nest sites could be affected by Planned Development. In
addition, the NBHCP provides mitigation measures that focus on a tree planting program to provide additional nesting for Swainson’s hawks. Surveys for Swainson’s hawk territories in the Natomas Basin have been conducted for TNBC annually since 1999. These surveys have identified a total of 70 territories in the Natomas Basin and along the Sacramento River. Only some of the territories are active each year. For example, in 2002, of the 70 territories, 43 were active (i.e., had at least one adult present on the nesting territory), leaving 27 unoccupied territories in that year (Estep, 2002). Similarly, in 2001, only 46 territories were occupied (Estep, 2002). No more than 5 nest trees would be removed because of Planned Development under the NBHCP and, given that only a portion of the known territories are occupied in a year, there may be alternate nest sites to support breeding Swainson’s hawks displaced from these 5 territories. Over the longer term, trees planted as part of the Operating Conservation Program of the NBHCP would provide additional nesting opportunities. Based on this information, the potential loss of nest trees attributable to Planned Development covered by the NBHCP is not expected to result in significant impacts on the Swainson’s hawk.

Further, the NBHCP includes a tree planting program to provide additional nesting opportunit
ies as the trees mature. In 2001, 200 trees were planted on the Betts-Kismat-Silva LETTER O4—SWAINSON’S HAWK TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE
168 NATOMAS BASIN HCP SAC/161795/031060002(LETTERS.DOC)

FINAL EIR/EIS
tract of the reserve system. In 2002 and 2003, an additional 60 trees were planted at Bennett South and 83 trees at Betts-Kismat-Silva, respectively. Species planted that could be used for nesting by the Swainson’s hawk are valley oak and western sycamore. In the Central Valley, nest trees averaged 57.7 feet tall with a standard deviation of 9.8 feet (Estep, 1989). Valley oaks can grow about 3 feet per year (Redwood Barn Nursery, Davis California) and could reach 48 feet (the lower end of the range of tree heights found to be used) in about 16 years.

Sycamores grow at a faster rate of 6 to 10 feet per year (Empire National Nursery http://www.cdr.com/nursery) and could achieve this height in 5 to 8 years. Tree planted in 2001 could reach a suitable size to support nesting as early as 2006. Over the longer term, trees planted as part of the Operating Conservation Program of the NBHCP would provide additional nesting opportunities. Based on this information, the potential short-term loss of nest trees because of Planned Development is not expected to result in significant impacts to the Swainson’s hawk. See Section V.A.5.b. of the NBHCP for measures relevant to tree planting.

The comment states that loss of foraging habitat constitutes a long-term threat to the species and that remaining comments in the comment letter focus on foraging habitat. See Responses to Comments O4-7 through O4-23, the Addendum to the Biological Resources Technical Memorandum (Appendix K of the Final NBHCP), and Master Response 5 (Swainson’s Hawk Foraging Habitat).

Response to Comment O4-4
Comment noted. The commentor identifies generic steps that may be followed in developing a plan to preserve a species in an area over a long time period.

Response to Comment O4-5
The NBHCP uses the most recent information available on the location of Swainson’s hawk nest sites and identifies territories with the greatest potential to be adversely affected by activities covered under the NBHCP. The USFWS believes that take may occur, therefore the NBHCP and EIR/EIS describe the potential consequences of Planned Development on Swainson’s hawks. In Section 3.4.2.1, the EIR/EIS identifies territories in the Natomas Basin and along the Sacramento River that could be affected by Planned Development. In Section

4.4.5.2.11, the EIR/EIS specifically identifies territories that could be lost or abandoned because of Planned Development in the immediate vicinity of the nest tree and/or removal of the nest tree. Changes in foraging habitat from Planned Development and management of the Mitigation Lands are also quantified and described. As described in the EIR/EIS, changes in foraging habitat under the NBHCP are not expected to reduce the number of Swainson’s hawks territories and, therefore, are not expected to result in significant impacts to the Swainson’s hawk.

Response to Comment O4-6
The commentor states that the NBHCP and EIR/EIS do not adequately assess the effects of the implementation of the NBHCP on the Swainson’s hawk and inaccurately characterize the long-term extent of habitat loss and protection. Contrary to the commentor’s assertion, the NBHCP and the EIR/EIS adequately assess and describe the effects of the NBHCP on the Swainson’s hawk. With respect to foraging habitat, the NBHCP quantifies the acreage LETTER O4—SWAINSON’S HAWK TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE
SAC/161795/031060002(LETTERS.DOC) NATOMAS BASIN HCP 169

FINAL EIR/EIS
change in potential foraging habitat for Swainson’s hawks as a result of Planned Development (and other Covered Activities) and with implementation of the NBHCP (see Tables 4-12 and 4-13 in the EIR/EIS). The NBHCP also analyses changes in foraging habitat in the vicinity of known nest sites. As described in the Draft EIR/EIS, changes in potential foraging habitat under the NBHCP are not expected to reduce the number of Swainson’s hawk territories and, therefore, are not expected to result in significant impacts to the Swainson’s hawk.

To further clarify this conclusion, an Addendum to the
Biological Resources Technical
Memorandum (Appendix K of the Final NBHCP) provides additional information on the potential effects of the NBHCP on Swainson’s hawk, from changes in foraging habitat through consideration of the value of foraging habitat and the temporal availability of foraging opportunities. The Addendum clarifies the findings of the previous analysis (Appendix H of the Draft NBHCP) that the NBHCP is expected to maintain foraging opportunities similar to existing conditions; therefore, adverse effects to the Swainson’s hawk population are not anticipated.

The commentor notes that Goal Number 1 of the NBHCP is to provide habitat for existing and new
viable populations of Covered Species. The objective of this goal is to provide habitat to contribute to the maintenance of viable populations for species that currently exist in the Basin or that become established in the future. The goal does not mean that current population levels should be maintained. The NBHCP is consistent with this goal in that it includes creation and long-term management of habitat for the Swainson’s hawk, a species that currently occurs in the Basin.

Response to Comment O4-7
The commentor states that the NBHCP did not address how loss of foraging habitat could affect the nesting population and if take of Swainson’s hawk would occur. The NBHCP and EIR/EIS do analyze potential effects. The Biological Resources Technical Memo (Appendix H of the Draft NBHCP) and EIR/EIS quantify changes in potential foraging habitat in the Natomas Basin with implementation of the NBHCP and analyze the potential effect of changes in foraging habitat on the Swainson’s hawk population. The Biological Resources Technical Memo notes that “Urban development could reduce the amount of foraging habitat available in the Natomas Basin as a whole. However, few territories likely would be abandoned as a result of the projected reduction.” The Tech Memo concludes that “the reduction in foraging habitat is not expected to result in the loss of territories associated with nest trees located outside of the areas proposed for development” because loss of potential foraging habitat would primarily occur away from nest sites, maintenance of foraging habitat in the Swainson’s Hawk Zone would be a focus of the NBHCP, and upland reserves would be managed to provide better-quality foraging habitat than is provided in the agricultural fields.

The NBHCP analyzes changes in the amount of habitat within 1 mile of known territories and addresses
specific territories located in areas of Planned Development that could be affected by reductions in foraging habitat. The NBHCP evaluates and mitigates impacts attributable to the Covered Activities as required under a Section 10(a)(1)(b) permit. The EIR/EIS acknowledges the potential for a short-term loss of several Swainson’s hawk territories but, as explained in Response to Comment O4-3, available information indicates LETTER O4—SWAINSON’S HAWK TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE
170 NATOMAS BASIN HCP SAC/161795/031060002(LETTERS.DOC)

FINAL EIR/EIS
that sufficient unoccupied territories would be available to accommodate nesting pairs displaced from the 5 nest trees potentially directly impacted by Planned Development.

Nevertheless, the EIR/EIS identifies this short-term loss as a potentially significant impact to the species (Section 4.4.2.11). The NBHCP includes planting trees as a means for developing territories in the future. Over the long term, this measure is expected to offset the potential short-term decline in territories. Furthermore, as described in the EIR/EIS, changes in foraging habitat under the NBHCP are not expected to reduce the number of Swainson’s hawks territories and therefore are not expected to significantly impact the Swainson’s hawk.

The Addendum to the Biological Resources Technical Memorandum provides additional support for this concl
usion (Appendix K of the Final NBHCP). The Addendum shows that implementation of the NBHCP is expected to maintain foraging opportunities similar to existing conditions, and therefore adverse effects to the Swainson’s hawk population are not anticipated. As a result, a finding of “less than significant” is appropriate.

Response to Comment O4-8
The comment states that the commentor concurs with the methodology for quantifying land in the Natomas Basin between 1993 and 2000. The commentor, however, applies an alternate classification system for suitable habitat for the Swainson’s hawk and an alternate method for calculating the percentage change in foraging habitat availability. Based on the alternate classification system and calculation approach, the commentor disputes the findings of the EIR/EIS that there would be a 32 percent loss of cover types that could be used by Swainson’s hawks for foraging. The commentor’s specific concerns are identified in Comments O4-9 through O4-13. The following responses to these specific comments (O4-9 through O4-13) address the comments related to this introduction. See responses to these comments, below.

The commentor also disagrees with the conclusion that land management practices on
Mitigation Lands would compensate the loss of foraging habitat. Much of the potential foraging habitat that would be affected by Planned Development consists of row and field crops that predominantly provide foraging habitat in late summer and early fall during harvest. Earlier in the summer, prey in row and field crops are largely inaccessible because of dense vegetation cover (Estep, 1989). Mitigation Lands would be managed to provide consistently accessible prey for the Swainson’s hawk throughout the hawk’s residency period (April through September) and most importantly during the nesting season. The Addendum to the Biological Resources Technical Memo provides additional discussion on the foraging habitat value of the reserve system relative to the value of habitat that would be impacted by development (Appendix K of the NBHCP).

Response to Comment O4-9
The commentor suggests that presenting the change in foraging habitat as a percentage of the entire Basin is misleading and applies only to cumulative effects in the Basin. As explained in Master Response 4 (Cumulative Impacts), Planned Development comprises the cumulative condition for the Basin and, therefore, presenting the change relative to the Basin as a whole is appropriate. In addition, the absolute change in acreage is not affected by the base used to calculate the percentage. The change in foraging habitat acreage is the LETTER O4—SWAINSON’S HAWK TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE
SAC/161795/031060002(LETTERS.DOC) NATOMAS BASIN HCP 171

FINAL EIR/EIS
same regardless of whether the percentage change is calculated using the Basin as a whole or only the areas where Planned Development would occur, as suggested by the commentor.

It is important to note that foraging habitat within the entire Basin contributes to supporting Swainson’s hawks, not just foraging habitat in the area in which Planned Development is occurring. The total amount of foraging habitat in the Basin, whether it is in the Mitigation Lands or in agricultural areas, will continue to contribute to maintaining hawks in the Basin.

To understand the potential for impacts, it is therefore appropriate from a biological perspective to evaluate the effects of the NBHCP in the context of the Basin as a whole.

Response to Comment O4-10
The increased quality of foraging habitat on the Mitigation Lands is an important component in evaluating the effectiveness of the NBHCP. The Operating Conservation Program for the NBHCP includes numerous measures to avoid, minimize, and mitigate the impact of take of Covered Species other than acquisition and management of Mitigation Lands. With respect to the Swainson’s hawk, these include measures to avoid impacts to nesting birds and existing territories, implementation of a tree planting program, designation of the portion of the Swainson’s Hawk Zone in Sutter County as open space/agriculture, and monitoring land use changes in the Swainson’s Hawk Zone. In evaluating the effectiveness of the NBHCP’s Operating Conservation Program, all aspects of the plan need to be considered collectively. Master Response 1 (Mitigation Ratio) provides additional information on the biological and economic justification for the 0.5:1 mitigation ratio in the context of the full suite of conservation measures included in the NBHCP.

The NBHCP does not assume nor does it require that foraging habitat for Swainson’s hawk be created from rice. The analysis in th
e EIR/EIS (Section 4.4.5.2.11) evaluated providing
foraging habitat through preservation and enhancement of existing habitat as well as creation from non-habitat. If existing rice fields are not suitable for conversion to upland, this would not be pursued in creation and management. Currently, 368 acres of alfalfa are produced in the Basin (see Table 4-12), indicating that it is possible in some locations to produce alfalfa. Also, TNBC has successfully converted a rice field to a native grassland on the Bennett South tract, indicating that it is possible to convert rice to more suitable habitat for Swainson’s hawk foraging.

The NBHCP also does not require TNBC to provide alfalfa as upland habitat for the Swainson’s hawk. Thus, if a particular property intended for upland habitat is not suitable
for alfalfa, TNBC has the flexibility to use a more effective crop type or grassland composition. TNBC has been working with members of the Swainson’s Hawk TAC and representatives from the University of California, Davis Agricultural Extension program to identify the most effective plant species composition and management practices for providing upland foraging habitat for the Swainson’s hawk.

Lastly, the comment questions the likelihood of optimal placement of foraging habitat in reserves for the Swainson’s
hawk. To date, TNBC has been successful in acquiring lands near known nest sites (e.g., the Sousa, Cummings, and Alleghany 50 tracts). Several of the lands acquired to fulfill requirements for rice and managed marsh also are close to known nest sites (e.g., Bennett South, Frazer North). The Sousa, Cummings, and Alleghany 50 tracts LETTER O4—SWAINSON’S HAWK TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE
172 NATOMAS BASIN HCP SAC/161795/031060002(LETTERS.DOC)

FINAL EIR/EIS
encompass about 160 acres and currently support non-rice crops that provide low- or moderate-value foraging habitat for the Swainson’s hawk. These lands will be converted to high-value foraging habitat.

Response to Comment O4-11
The commentors state that they and the CDFG consider foraging habitat within 1 mile of nest sites to be “vital” to the maintenance of the territory, not “more important” as characterized in the Draft EIR/EIS. The Staff Report Regarding Mitigation for Impacts to Swainson’s hawks (Buteo swainsoni) in the Central Valley of California does not characterize foraging habitat within 1 mile of a nest site as “vital.” The comment then states that nesting hawks would not be able to achieve reproductive success if they had
to rely solely on foraging habitat within 1 mile of the nest. The Draft EIR/EIS considered foraging habitat within 1 mile of a nest as more important for maintaining the nest site than foraging habitat at greater distances based on CDFG’s Staff Report. In the Staff Report, CDFG recommends a higher mitigation ratio for impacts to foraging habitat within 1 mile of a nest site than for impacts to foraging habitat farther than 1 mile from a nest site, suggesting that the CDFG considers foraging habitat close to the nest site “more important” than habitat farther away. As noted above, the Staff Report does not characterize foraging habitat within 1 mile of a nest site as “vital.” The EIR/EIS does not consider foraging habitat farther than 1 mile from a nest site to be unimportant for the Swainson’s hawk. As presented in Section 4.4.5.2.11, the EIR/EIS considers changes in foraging habitat in the Natomas Basin as a whole and also within 1 mile of known nest sites.

Table 4-12 of the EIR/EIS presents the change in acreage of potential foraging habitat in the Natomas Basin and Table 4-13 present the change in acreage of potential foraging habitat within 1 mile of nest sites. The effects of changes in potential foraging at both of these scales are discussed in Section 4.4.5.2.11. The impact evaluation was not based solely on changes in potential foraging habitat within 1 mile of nest sites.

Response to Comment O4-12
The EIR/EIS addresses the impacts of Planned Development on foraging habitat in the immediate vicinity of Swainson’s hawk territories in two ways. First, the EIR/EIS addresses the impact of urban development on specific existing territories (See Section 4.4.5.2.11). As described in the Draft EIR/EIS, nine territories were identified within Planned Development areas. At the time of analysis, however, nest trees at two of the territories had been removed, and these territories were not further considered in the analysis. Impacts to the remaining seven territories were individually evaluated. The analysis considered two scenarios:
(1) removal of the nest tree and (2) retention of the nest tree. If the tree was removed, the territory would be lost. The analysis also addressed the potential effect of loss of foraging habitat in the vicinity of the nest tree if the nest tree was not removed by Planned Development. As explained in the Draft EIR/EIS, three territories would be surrounded by development and could be abandoned because of loss of foraging habitat. (The nest tree at one of these territories was removed in 2002). The remaining four territories are located close to (within about one-quarter mile of) potential foraging habitat that would not be affected by Authorized Development and therefore are likely to remain viable if the nest trees are retained. It is important to note that the nest tree of one of these territories was removed in 2002.

LETTER O4—SWAINSON’S HAWK TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE
SAC/161795/031060002(LETTERS.DOC) NATOMAS BASIN HCP 173

FINAL EIR/EIS
Second, the Draft EIR/EIS quantified changes in the amount of foraging habitat that collectively occurs within 1 mile of known nests (Section 4.4.5.2.11) and discussed the potential effects of changes in foraging habitat on the Swainson’s hawk population in the Basin. The EIR/EIS concludes that the loss of potential foraging habitat because of Planned Development was not expected to result in the loss of territories associated with trees outside of the Planned Development areas. To provide additional clarification of the analysis, an Addendum to the Biological Resources Technical Memorandum was prepared (Appendix K of the Final NBHCP). The clarification of the analysis in the Addendum supports this conclusion. This Addendum provides additional information on the potential effects of the NBHCP on the Swainson’s hawk from changes in foraging habitat through consideration of the value of foraging habitat and the temporal availability of foraging opportunities. The Addendum shows that the NBHCP is expected to maintain foraging opportunities similar to existing conditions and, therefore, adverse effects to the Swainson’s hawk population are not anticipated.

An increase in human activity near nest trees could result in the abandonment of territories located in the are
a of Planned Development. The EIR/EIS identifies territories within the Planned Development area that could be abandoned as a result of removal of the nest tree or immediately adjacent new development and the resultant loss of foraging habitat.

Abandonment because of increased human activity constitutes another potential causative agent that could cause territory abandonment but would not increase the impact beyond that identified in the Draft EIR/EIS.

Response to Comment O4-13
The EIR/EIS does not state that upland areas associated with restored marsh would be equivalent to cultivated areas. The EIR/EIS describes (see Section 4.4.5.2.11) that, in addition to the specific acreage of upland habitat to be managed for the Swainson’s hawk, managed marsh will include upland portions that also will provide foraging opportunities for the Swainson’s hawk. These areas would be in addition to the 2,187 acres of upland habitat included in the Mitigation Lands.

The Addendum to the Biological Resources Technical Memorandum (Appendix K of the Final NBHCP) provides clarification of information on the quality of habitat that would be:
(1) affected by Planned Development and (2) expected in the habitat reserves. Habitat quality is expressed by classifying habitat as high, moderate, or low value based on Estep and Teresa’s (1992) habitat classification system and by describing and quantifying the temporal aspects of prey availability in various crop and cover types. The Addendum shows that most of the habitat that would be affected would consist of moderate-quality habitat that provides habitat predominantly during harvest activities late in the summer and early fall after the young have fledged. In contrast, habitat on the reserves would be managed to provide high-value habitat that provides consistently accessible prey throughout the hawk’s residency period. These differences in value are described and quantified in Addendum and the effects on the population of Swainson’s hawks evaluated (see Appendix K of the Final NBHCP).

The commentor states that large contiguous fields of hay, grain, and row crops provide the
highest foraging value because of the large prey populations and the increase in prey availability during farming operations. The commentor further states that grasslands do not LETTER O4—SWAINSON’S HAWK TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE
174 NATOMAS BASIN HCP SAC/161795/031060002(LETTERS.DOC)

FINAL EIR/EIS
support such abundant prey and that grasslands are not subject to farming activities that enhance prey availability. Based on Estep (1989) the abundance of prey in hay, grain, and row crops can vary dramatically. Estep (1989) found a high relative abundance of prey in tomatoes and beets but low relative abundance in corn, sunflower, and wheat. Thus, it is not appropriate to consider the hay, grain, and row crops that would be affected by Planned Development as universally supporting large prey populations.

The commentor also states that grassland does not support prey populations as abundant as in agricultural fields. In response, Estep (1989) found moderate and high prey abundance in uncultivated cover types. Edge habitat had high prey abundance and fallow fields and dryland pasture had moderate prey abundance. Estep (1989) stated “Dryland pasture most resembles the physical characteristics of historic grassland foraging habitat in the Central Valley.” Also, with respect to current habitat conditions in the Central Valley, Estep (1989) states, “It should be noted that since virtually no native foraging habitat remains in the Central Valley, none can be considered optimal. We can determine suitable and preferred habitats among the existing resources, but optimal Swainson’s Hawk habitat no longer exists in the Central Valley.” Based on this assessment, creating native grassland conditions would improve foraging habitat conditions for Swainson’s hawks although the NBHCP does not require that upland habitat consist of grassland.

TNBC can use agricultural crops as upland habitat and is currently working with the University of Calif
ornia Agricultural Extension Program to identify crop types that produce abundant and accessible prey similar to alfalfa. Where grassland is used for upland habitat, TNBC can implement practices to increase the abundance and accessibility of prey.

The commentor states that the Swainson’s hawk req uire large, contiguous tracts of agricultural lands and that the foraging habitat in the Mitigation Lands will be less energetically practical for hawks to find and use. The commentor then states that the reproductive success of hawks is based on the availability of large, continuous tracts of suitable habitat adjacent to nest sites, suggesting that the habitat reserves will not provide appropriate foraging opportunities for the Swainson’s hawk. Mitigation Lands are expected to provide appropriate Swainson’s hawk foraging opportunities for several reasons. First, the habitat reserves will be stable in location. Even if foraging habitat on the reserves occurs in “small patches,” hawks will not need to expend substantial energy in finding the habitat because over time it will always be in the same place. This situation contrasts with the current condition where foraging opportunities are constantly changing spatially and temporally in response to changing cropping patterns and agricultural practices. Second, each reserve will be at least 400 acres in size. While upland habitat within some reserves (e.g., a managed marsh reserve area) will be smaller in size, the entire unit where hawks could find foraging opportunities will not be small. Third, there is evidence to suggest that hawks can find and do forage in small areas surrounded by cover types unsuitable for foraging. Janes (1987) reports that Swainson’s hawks “are often able to successfully occupy wheat country by foraging in small areas of uncultivated land between fields. These narrow strips of land often harbor abundant prey.” Similarly, Bechard (1982) finds that male Swainson’s hawks concentrated foraging in pastures and “eyebrows” in late June and early July before pea and wheat crops offered foraging opportunities during harvest. “Eyebrows” is a local term for narrow patches of unplowed land. These observations indicate that LETTER O4—SWAINSON’S HAWK TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE
SAC/161795/031060002(LETTERS.DOC) NATOMAS BASIN HCP 175

FINAL EIR/EIS
Swainson’s hawks are adept at finding and using small areas of foraging habitat surrounded by habitats unsuitable for foraging.

In addition, large contiguous areas of agricultural f ields will remain available. Outside of the area of Planned Development, there are about 13,000 acres of potential foraging habitat in the Natomas Basin. Yolo County on the west side of the Sacramento River is within foraging range for Swainson’s hawk nesting along the Sacramento River (Babcock, 1995) and contains a large number of agricultural lands. Yolo County supports more than 200,000 acres of non-rice agricultural crops with about 40,000 acres of alfalfa (California Agricultural Commissioners, 2003). While only a portion of this habitat would be within the foraging distance of hawks nesting on the Sacramento River, lands in Yolo County nonetheless can contribute to the foraging habitat base for the Swainson’s hawk population in the Natomas Basin.

Response to Comment O4-14
The EIR/EIS presents a similar analysis in Section 4.4.5.2.11, showing the change in acreage of foraging habitat in each of the jurisdictions. The quantitative analysis in the EIR/EIS begins with a summary of the expected loss of habitat associated with Planned Development (see Table 4-12). The document then discusses the overall net effect for the Basin as a whole. The EIR/EIS also discusses effects to Swainson’s hawks under independent implementation in Section 4.4.11.2.11.

The commentor calculated “net loss of foraging habitat” by dividing the number of acres of habitat that will be lost by the combined acreage that will be developed and preserved. This calculation does not provide a “net
loss” in acreage but rather is an alternate approach to calculating the percentage change. Presenting the change in acreage in this context does not alter how much habitat would be affected by Planned Development or provided after development. The approach in the comment does not accurately reflect the expected future conditions in the Basin because it does not consider foraging habitat that is expected to remain in the undeveloped portion of the Basin. As described in Response to Comment O4- 9, it is more appropriate biologically to consider all of the potential foraging habitat in the Natomas Basin in evaluating impacts to Swainson’s hawks because hawks are using and responding to all of the habitat in the Basin, not just that within the Planned Development areas.

Response to Comment O4-15
The commentor states that approximately 6,000 acres of “good quality foraging habitat” are located within the City’s Permit Area whereas the EIR/EIS states that approximately 6,925 acres of foraging habitat are located within the City’s Permit Area (Table 4-12, p. 4-69 of the Draft EIR/EIS). The commentor does not define “good quality” foraging habitat. The quality of foraging habitat was clarified in the Addendum to the Biological Resources Technical Memorandum (Appendix K of the Final NBHCP). Based on habitat value classifications presented in Estep and Teresa (1992), the acreage of high-, moderate-, and low-value habitat in the Natomas Basin was determined from the Habitat and Land Use Assessment Database. In the City of Sacramento, 675 acres of high-value habitat and 5,111 acres of moderate-value habitat were identified.

LETTER O4—SWAINSON’S HAWK TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE
176 NATOMAS BASIN HCP SAC/161795/031060002(LETTERS.DOC)

FINAL EIR/EIS
The comment makes the assumption that the upland component of the managed marsh is counted toward the requirement to provide 25 percent of the Mitigation Lands as upland habitat. This interpretation, however, is not accurate. Under the NBHCP, 25 percent of the Mitigation Lands will be designated as upland for upland associated species. The upland component of the managed marsh will provide additional foraging opportunities that exceed those provided by the designated upland reserves. Accordingly, the comment incorrectly subtracted the acreage of upland in the managed marsh from the upland reserve total. Regarding the commentor’s approach to calculating the percentage change in foraging habitat, see Response to Comment O4-14.

The Draft EIR/EIS presents an analysis of the pot
ential impact to Swainson’s hawks under
independent implementation of the NBHCP (Section 4.4.11.2.11). It is important to note that if only the City of Sacramento implemented the NBHCP, the proportion of the habitats in the reserve system could be adjusted, if necessary, to better reflect the habitats impacted (Section K.2.i).

Response to Comment O4-16
The comment states that approximately 2,800 acres of “good quality foraging habitat” are located within Sutter County’s Permit Area. The commentor does not define “good quality” foraging habitat, and the basis for the statement that there are 2,800 acres of good quality habitat in Sutter County is unclear. In the EIR/EIS and NBHCP, alfalfa, grassland, idle, non- rice crops, pasture, and ruderal areas are considered to provide potential foraging for the Swainson’s hawk. Based on acreages presented in Table 4-1 of the Biological Resources Technical Memorandum (Appendix H of the NBHCP), the Sutter County portion of the Natomas Basin supports about 3,961 acres of potential foraging habitat.

The comment makes the assumption that all of the
foraging habitat in the Sutter County
portion of the Natomas Basin will be impacted by 7,467 acres of Planned Development. This interpretation, however, is not accurate. The Sutter County portion of the Natomas Basin is about 16,881 acres. Of this acreage, 7,467 acres of Planned Development would occur within the Industrial/Commercial Reserve. The Draft EIR/EIS determined that 1,860 acres of potential foraging habitat could be impacted by Planned Development in Sutter County.

The assumption in the comment that all 2,800 acres of potential foraging habitat would be lost overestimates the potential impact.

As described in response to Comment O4-15, the assumption that “approximately 25 percent of upland habitat will be grassland/woodland associated with the restored marsh” is not accurate. In addition, the approach in the comment to calculating the percentage change in foraging habitat does not include habitat conditions in the entire Basin (see Response to Comment O4-14). It is important to note that if only Sutter County implemented the NBHCP, the proportion of the habitats in the Mitigation Lands could be adjusted if necessary to better reflect the habitats impacted (Section K.2.i).

Response to Comment O4-17
The commentor states that approximately 550 acres of “good quality foraging habitat” are located within the MAP area whereas the EIR/EIS identifies that approximately 403 acres of foraging habitat are in the MAP areas (Table 4-12, p. 4-69 of the Draft EIR/EIS). The LETTER O4—SWAINSON’S HAWK TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE
SAC/161795/031060002(LETTERS.DOC) NATOMAS BASIN HCP 177

FINAL EIR/EIS
commentor does not define “good quality” foraging habitat, and the origin of the number 550 acres is unclear particularly because the EIR/EIS uses a more liberal definition of potential foraging habitat.

The quality of foraging habitat was investigated in more detail in the Addendum to the Biological Resources Technical Memorandum (Appendix K of the Final NBHCP). Based on habitat value classifications presented in Estep and
Teresa (1992), the acreage of high-,
moderate-, and low-value habitat in the Natomas Basin was determined from the Habitat and Land Use Assessment Database. In Metro Air Park, 50 acres of high-value habitat and 314 acres of moderate-value habitat were identified.

In regard to the commentor’s assumption that “approximately 25 percent of upland habitat will be grassland/woodland associated with the restored marsh,” see Response to Comment O4-15.

The EIR/EIS presents an analysis of the potential impact to the Swainson’s hawk under independent implemen
tation of the NBHCP (Section 4.4.11.2.11). In regard to the commentor’s approach to calculating the percentage change in foraging habitat, see Response to Comment O4-14.

Response to Comment O4-18
As described in Responses to Comments O4-15, O4-16, and O4-17, the specific acreages cited are not accurate. Assuming that all areas of alfalfa, grassland, pasture, idle, ruderal, and non-rice crops provide potential foraging habitat for the Swainson’s hawk, the EIR/EIS identifies a total impact of 9,188 acres, 162 acres less than suggested in the comment. The primary difference appears to be that the comment considers all foraging habitat in Sutter County to be affected rather than only habitat in the Industrial/Commercial Reserve. As a result, the potential impact is overestimated in the comment.

The Addendum to the Technical Memo provides further clarification on the q uality of
foraging habitat that would be affected by Planned Development (Appendix K of the Final NBHCP). The Addendum shows that most of the habitat affected by Planned Development would be moderate-value habitat (7,299 acres) followed by low-value habitat (1,156 acres).

Only 733 acres of high-value habitat are projected to be affected.

The commentor calculates that implementation of the NBHCP would result in an 82 percent decline in the amount of foraging
habitat in the Natomas Basin. This number is
overestimated for the reasons presented in this response and in Responses to Comments O4-15 through O4-17. The commentor’s percentage calculations are also overestimated.

Although it is true that Planned Development would eliminate foraging habitat, it is not correct to state that that the percentage decline should be calculated based on the area of Planned Development plus the Mitigation Lands. Considering only the areas of Planned Development in determining the effect of the NBHCP is not biologically meaningful.

Swainson’s hawks nesting in and adjacent to the Natomas Basin can use all of the potential foraging habitat in the Basin, not just those portions in the area of Planned Development. To determine the response of the Swainson’s hawk population in the Basin to changes in foraging habitat, it is necessary to consider the context within which the changes are occurring. In this case, the context includes foraging habitat that is available outside of the area of Planned Development both in the Natomas Basin and outside of the Basin (e.g., Yolo LETTER O4—SWAINSON’S HAWK TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE
178 NATOMAS BASIN HCP SAC/161795/031060002(LETTERS.DOC)

FINAL EIR/EIS
County). While the NBHCP does not provide guarantees that foraging opportunities will remain in these areas, there is currently no basis for assuming conversion of these lands to non-agricultural uses [see Master Response 4 (Cumulative Impacts)]. Further, if future development occurs, the impacts of this development will need to be addressed through appropriate environmental review, and impacts will need to be evaluated given implementation of the NBHCP.

The comment calculates that Planned Development would reduce the amount of foraging habitat in the
Natomas Basin by 45 percent. Similarly, the EIR/EIS shows that Planned Development (without consideration of the habitat in the reserves) would reduce potential foraging habitat by about 42 percent. The comment states that this level of habitat reduction would be expected to result in a decline in the nesting population. The proposed action being evaluated is the implementation of the NBHCP, including its Operating Conservation Strategy–see Appendix C of the Draft EIR/EIS for a summary of a Covered Activity in the NBHCP for which the Applicants are seeking ITPs. Therefore, whether the nesting population would decline because of habitat loss from Planned Development is not the project under consideration. It is important to note, however, that the analysis should address both habitat loss from Planned Development and habitat provided on the Mitigation Lands. Without considering the habitat provided by the Mitigation Lands, the commentor understates the amount of potential foraging habitat that would be in the Basin in the future and, therefore, overestimates the potential effect to foraging habitat and the Swainson’s hawk population that would result from implementation of the NBHCP.

The comment states that the nesting population would decline by at least 25 percent but does not ex
plain the basis for this conclusion. For a decline in the nesting population of the Swainson’s hawk to occur as a result of a reduction in the acreage of foraging habitat, the amount, distribution, and quality of foraging habitat needs to currently be a limiting factor for the number of hawks nesting in the Basin and their reproductive success, or this would need to become a limiting factor in the future with implementation of the NBHCP. If the amount of foraging habitat available to hawks nesting in the Basin (considering foraging habitat remaining in the Natomas Basin as well as foraging habitat available in Yolo County) does not fall below the acreage required to support the nesting population, then no change in the population would be expected. The comment assumes that foraging habitat is currently limiting and that a decline in foraging habitat would be reflected in the size of the nesting population.

Assuming that foraging habitat could be a limiting factor, the Addendum to the Technical Memorandum (Appendix
K of the Final NBHCP) further clarifies the value and temporal availability of foraging habitat in the Natomas Basin, particularly with respect to foraging habitat availability during the nesting season when it could influence the number of active territories and reproductive success. This information indicates that most of the potential foraging habitat consists of row and field crops that do not provide accessible prey until August and September when these crops are harvested. Relatively little of the potential foraging habitat provides foraging opportunities in April through July when the hawks are nesting. Foraging habitat on the Mitigation Lands would be managed such that it would be consistently accessible throughout the hawk’s residency period. As described in the Addendum, upland habitat provided in the Mitigation Lands is expected to offset the LETTER O4—SWAINSON’S HAWK TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE
SAC/161795/031060002(LETTERS.DOC) NATOMAS BASIN HCP 179

FINAL EIR/EIS
potential reduction in foraging habitat availability during the nesting season and, therefore, no change in the nesting population is expected.

Response to Comment O4-19
The comment calculates the habitat conditions that would result in the Basin if development occurred throughout the entire Basin and the 0.5:1 mitigation ratio component of the NBHCP was applied. The comment assumes that any future development in the Natomas Basin will be required to implement only a 0.5:1 mitigation ratio. If there is future development in the Basin, the USFWS and CDFG will need to consider impacts to listed species from the development given the baseline conditions at the time and ensure that adequate mitigation provided. Given that the baseline condition will have changed because of implementation of the NBHCP, a different mitigation ratio could be necessary. See Response to Comment I12-2 for additional discussion of the applicability of the 0.5:1 ratio to potential future developments. Also see Master Response 4 (Cumulative Impacts).

As described in the Master Response 1 (Mitigation Ratio), the 0.5:1 mitigation ratio is one component of the overall Operating Conservation Program of the NBHCP that avoids, minimizes, and mitigates the impact of take of Covered Species. This project-specific mitigation ratio was developed and is appropriate and adequate within the context of the baseline conditions of the status and distribution of Covered Species and current land use patterns. It is unreasonable to assume that the same mitigation strategy would be appropriate for future projects, given the unique conditions that apply to separate habitat conservation plans. The comment’s conclusion that the hawk population would decline by more than 50 percent is based on the assumptions that the entire Basin would be developed and all future mitigation lands would be established at a 0.5:1 ratio. These assumptions are speculative.

Response to Comment O4-20
This comment summarizes other comments previously made in comments O4-6 through O4-19. Responses to those comments address the summary conclusions of this comment.

See responses to Comments G1-8 through G1-19 and Master Response 1 (Mitigation Ratio).

Also, the Draft EIR/EIS does not conclude that there would be no effect on Swainson’s Hawks. Rather, potential impacts are discussed throughout Section 4.4.5.2.11 of the Draft EIR/EIS, and the summary of potential impacts (pp. 4-75 - 4-76) concludes that overall impacts would be less than significant in consideration of the Operating Conservation Program of the NBHCP.

Response to Comment O4-21
The EIR/EIS does not state that the NHCP would have no effect on the Swainson’s hawk (see Response to Comment G1-20 above). The EIR/EIS concludes that implementation of the NBHCP is not expected to have a substantial long-term effect on the population and, therefore, concludes that the effect on the Swainson’s hawk would be less than significant.

The Addendum to the Technical Memo (Appendix K of the Final NBHCP) provides clarification of this conclusion by showing that the NBHCP is expected to offset reduction in foraging habitat availability during the nesting period resulting from Planned Development LETTER O4—SWAINSON’S HAWK TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE
180 NATOMAS BASIN HCP SAC/161795/031060002(LETTERS.DOC)

FINAL EIR/EIS
and that foraging habitat availability after the nesting season is not anticipated to be a limiting factor.

The comment states that the NBHCP does not provide a management strategy that adequately provides for the long-term sustainability of the Swainson’s hawk in the Basin.

While the ESA requires that issuance of a
take permit not jeopardize a species or interfere
with recovery, it does not require that an HCP on its own provide for the long-term sustainability of a species. The legal obligation is to minimize and mitigate the impact of take resulting from proposed activities to the maximum extent practicable, and the Operating Conservation Program of the NBHCP has been developed in coordination with the Wildlife Agencies to meet this obligation.

The EIR/EIS specifically identifies territories that could be abandoned as a result of
implementing the NBHCP (see the summary of impacts to Swainson’s hawks on pp. 4-75 and 4-76 of the Draft EIR/EIS). The NBHCP acknowledges that a short-term reduction in occupied territories could occur (Section VII.D.2 of the Draft NBHCP) and includes measures to offset this short-term reduction over the long term through creation of new nesting trees. The target population was identified (Section 3.4 of the Draft EIR/EIS, especially Figure 3-5), changes in habitat quantified (Table 4-12 of the Draft EIR/EIS), and the effects on the population analyzed (throughout Sections 4.4.5.2.11 and 4.4.11.2.11 of the Draft EIR/EIS). The Operating Conservation Program of the NBHCP includes a long-term management strategy for the reserve system (Chapter IV of the Draft NBHCP) including monitoring and adaptive management programs that address the Swainson’s hawk (Section VI.E and IV.F of the Draft NBHCP).

Response to Comment O4-22
As described in the Response to Comment O4-21, the ESA does not require that an applicant provide for the long-term sustainability of a species. Section 10 of the ESA requires that a permit applicant minimize and mitigate the impact of take of covered activities to the maximum extent practicable, and issuance of the permit with the associated implementation of the HCP must not jeopardize the species or interfere with recovery. As described in the EIR/EIS and elaborated in the Addendum to the Technical Memorandum (Appendix K of the Final NBHCP), upland habitat provided in the reserves would offset projected reductions in foraging habitat during the nesting season. While the NBHCP would reduce the amount of foraging habitat available after the nesting season, foraging opportunities do not appear to be a limiting factor at this time because of the high abundance of prey that becomes available during the relatively short harvest season.

With regard to habitat outside of the areas of Planned Development, there is no basis for
assuming that these lands would not remain as habitat. Future development of County lands surrounding Sacramento International Airport would be guided by the adoption of a new Airport Master Plan, and any future changes to the Airport Master Plan would need to evaluate the impacts of that development on the Swainson’s hawk and implement appropriate mitigation in consideration of NBHCP. In Sutter County, maintenance of the 1-mile zone as agriculture would be ensured through a general plan amendment process.

See also Master Response 3 (Joint Vision). Although new development outside the Permit Areas is speculative, the Adaptive Management provisions of the NBHCP (Section VI.F) LETTER O4—SWAINSON’S HAWK TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE
SAC/161795/031060002(LETTERS.DOC) NATOMAS BASIN HCP 181

FINAL EIR/EIS
recognize that significant land use changes in this remainder area could require modification to the NBHCP through the Adaptive Management process.

Response to Comment O4-23
Comment noted. See Response to Comment O4-21 above.

Response to Comment O4-24
The Addendum to the Technical Memorandum provides clarifying information on future conditions for foraging habitat in the Basin with implementation of the 0.5:1 mitigation ratio (Appendix K of the Final NBHCP), which shows that upland habitat provided in the reserves would offset projected reductions in foraging habitat during the nesting season.

While the NBHCP would reduce the amount of foraging habitat available after the nesting season, foraging opportunities are not a limiting factor at this time because of the high abundance of prey that becomes available during the relatively short harvest season. This analysis indicates that foraging habitat provided through the 0.5:1 mitigation ratio is adequate to mitigate the loss of foraging habitat from Planned Development. Master Response 1 (Mitigation Ratio) provides additional background and rationale on the basis for the 0.5:1 mitigation ratio.

Response to Comment O4-25
The Addendum to the Technical Memorandum (Appendix K of the Final NBHCP) and Master Response 5 (Swainson’s Hawk Foraging Habitat) provide additional information on future conditions for foraging habitat in the Basin with implementation of the 0.5:1 mitigation ratio and the habitat composition requirements specified in the NBHCP (i.e., 25 percent managed marsh, 50 percent rice, and 25 percent upland). This additional information shows that upland habitat provided in the reserves would offset projected reductions in foraging habitat during the nesting season. While the NBHCP would reduce the amount of foraging habitat available after the nesting season, foraging opportunities do not appear to be a limiting factor at this time because of the high abundance of prey that becomes available during the relatively short harvest season. This clarification indicates that foraging habitat provided through the 0.5:1 mitigation ratio with the specified habitat composition is adequate to mitigate the loss of foraging habitat from Planned Development.

Response to Comment O4-26
The EIR/EIS addresses the effects on existing territories in Sections 4.4.5.2.11 and 4.4.11.2.11, both in terms of changes in foraging habitat at the Basin level and within 1 mile of a nest tree. Levels of impact and take are estimated in these same sections. Additional information on the effects of implementation of the NBHCP on foraging habitat and the Swainson’s hawk population is provided in the Addendum to the Technical Memorandum (Appendix K of the Final NBHCP) in support of the conclusions in the EIR/EIS.

Response to Comment O4-27
The commentor’s request to establish commitments from local jurisdictions and landowners to retain suitable habitat within the Swainson’s Hawk Zone in perpetuity is not feasible for several reasons: (1) Sacramento County, the primary jurisdiction with land use authority in LETTER O4—SWAINSON’S HAWK TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE
182 NATOMAS BASIN HCP SAC/161795/031060002(LETTERS.DOC)

FINAL EIR/EIS
the Swainson’s Hawk Zone, is not a participant in the NBHCP process, and there is no mechanism to compel the County to participate; (2) the Applicants do not believe that such a measure is necessary for mitigation; (3) such a measure would likely require the use of eminent domain power in Sutter County, and adding this to the NBHCP would result in a substantial increase in the Mitigation Fee (see Responses to Comments O1-42 through O1-60). In addition, Sutter County is taking a step to ensure that lands in the Industrial/Commercial Reserve that are in the Swainson’s Hawk Zone be redesignated as Agriculture in the Sutter County General Plan. With regard to the commentor’s statement that lands in the Swainson’s Hawk Zone should be in uplands, that is contrary to the NBHCP’s biological goals and objectives because the homogenous character of the Natomas Basin generally precludes siting large blocks of land for specific habitat purposes.

Response to Comment O4-28
Upland habitat reserves are to be located in consideration of the Swainson’s hawk’s foraging needs as described in Section IV.C.4 of the NBHCP. To the extent that lands west of I-5/S.R. 99 are important as foraging habitat for Swainson’s hawks TNBC may seek to acquire lands in this area. Most of the Mitigation Lands acquired to date are located west of I-5/S.R. 99. These lands include Frazer North, Lucich North, Bennett North, Bennett South, Lucich South, Sills, Sousa, Natomas Farms, Cummings, and Alleghany 50.

Response to Comment O4-29
The comment requests a minimum of 1,000 acres for reserves required under the NBHCP but does not provide any scientific information to justify that suggestion. The basis for reserve sizes is presented in Section IV.C.1.e of the Draft NBHCP.

The comment states that large agricultural tracts are requi red for maximum foraging efficiency. For the reasons noted below, the Applicants believe, however, that large tracts of agricultural lands that provide foraging opportunities intermittently in response to harvest and irrigation practices could make foraging less efficient because birds would need to search among the expanse of available habitat to find accessible prey. Where hawks nest in close proximity to a crop like alfalfa, which provides consistently accessible prey because of monthly harvest and irrigation, home ranges are smaller than in areas dominated by row and field crops (Woodbridge, 1991, cited in England et al., 1997; Estep, 1989). These observations suggest that maximum foraging efficiency would be achieved with crop/cover types that provide consistently accessible prey in areas close to nest sites rather than in large tracts of agricultural land.

Also, as described in response to Comment O4-13, there is reason to believe that hawks will be able to consistently find a
nd use upland habitat in the Mitigation Lands at the current minimum size of 400 acres. There is no basis to support a larger minimum size as necessary for reserves to be used by hawks.

The comment also suggests that a large reserve size is necessary to reduce human disturbance. The Mitigation Lands are to be located at least 800 feet from existing urban lands or lands that are designated for urban uses in an adopted general plan (Section IV.C.2.a). This required setback will contribute to reducing human disturbance at nest sites if hawks establish territories on reserve lands.

LETTER O4—SWAINSON’S HAWK TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE
SAC/161795/031060002(LETTERS.DOC) NATOMAS BASIN HCP 183

FINAL EIR/EIS
Response to Comment O4-30
The Lead Agencies and the Applicants concur that Planned Development would result in the loss of potential foraging habitat for the Swainson’s hawk. As described in Responses to Comments O4-6 through O4-23, however, the Operating Conservation Program of the NBHCP would offset changes in foraging habitat availability during the nesting season with creation and maintenance of foraging opportunities on the Mitigation Lands and would compensate for potential abandonment of territories within the areas of Authorized Development through the tree planting program. As a result, no substantial change in the population of the Swainson’s hawk is expected with implementation of the NBHCP.

SAC/161795/031060002(LETTERS.DOC) NATOMAS BASIN HCP 185

FINAL EIR/EIS
Letter I1—Chris Chaddock
Response to Comment I1-1
The commentor suggests that out-of-basin mitigation be provided east of Steelhead Creek in response to actions by the Water Agencies. It should be noted that the conservation measures relating to the acquisition of Mitigation Lands are conservation measures of the Land Use Agencies, who would mitigate at a 0.5:1 ratio for Planned Development within their Permit Areas. There are no land acquisition requirements in the proposed Water Agency conservation measures. Area B was selected for potential out-of-basin mitigation because it possesses similar characteristics to the Natomas Basin, and is thus assumed to be capable of supporting viable populations of giant garter snakes, Swainson’s hawks, or other Covered Species. There probably are other lands that could serve a similar purpose, including the area directly east of Steelhead Creek as the commentor suggests. The Applicants wish to focus their efforts on lands within the Natomas Basin, however, and do not propose to add any additional areas for potential out-of-basin mitigation.

Please note that an incorrect version of Figure 13 was included in the Draft NBHCP. There is
no significance of the dashed line showing the area within 1 mile of the Natomas Basin.

Figure 13 has been revised in the Final NBHCP.

Response to Comment I1-2
The operation of RD 1000 drains and pumping plants is not a Covered Activity evaluated in the EIR/EIS. Ongoing activities by RD 1000 and others that are not subject to the Operating Conservation Program of the NBHCP are considered part of the No Action Alternative. This includes the application of aquatic herbicides by individual rice farmers, who under current practices hold the water on their fields for two weeks prior to release.

With regard to TNBC, its general management strategies described in the NBHCP include the use of herbicides to control undesirable aquatic vegetation (see Section IV.D.4 of the
Draft NBHCP). TNBC’s management practices for herbicide use would not change relative to ongoing management by private rice farmers as presented in Section 4.3.1.1 of the EIR/EIS (see discussion of water quality impacts on p. 4-21 of the Draft EIR/EIS.) Relative to the No Action Alternative, which is the baseline for environmental analysis, there would be no impact associated with implementation of the NBHCP and related actions.

The water quality impacts of urban runoff were addressed in prior planning documents for Authorized Development. The City concluded that Authorized Development within its Permit Area would degrade stormwater quality and result in a significant and unavoidable impact to water quality. Specif
ic mitigation measures in the North Natomas Community
Plan EIR, together with the implementation of stormwater quality controls by the City, have resulted in the advanced system of detention ponds and other Best Management Practices characteristic of North Natomas. Sutter County, in its EIR for the General Plan Revision, adopted similar mitigation measures and concluded that impacts to water quality would be less than significant.

LETTER O4—SWAINSON’S HAWK TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE
186 NATOMAS BASIN HCP SAC/161795/031060002(LETTERS.DOC)

FINAL EIR/EIS
Response to Comment I1-3
As discussed in the above response, the operation of RD 1000 drains and pumping stations is not a Covered Activity. Discharge from RD 1000’s Pumping Plant #6 is expected to be consistent with ongoing practice, and is therefore part of the No Action Alternative.

Response to Comment I1-4
As discussed in the above response, the operation of RD 1000 drains and pumping stations is not a Covered Activity. Emergency flood discharges are expected to be consistent with ongoing practice, and are therefore part of the No Action Alternative.

SAC/161795/031060002(LETTERS.DOC) NATOMAS BASIN HCP 187

FINAL EIR/EIS
Letter I2—Diepenbrock Law Firm
Response to Comment I2-1
In an Inter-office Memo dated May 30, 2002, William Carnazzo, Chief Assistant City Attorney, completed a document search of all relevant North Natomas documents related to the width of the agricultural buffer along the western side of the North Natomas Community Plan area, including Fisherman’s Lake. In his memo, Mr. Carnazzo concluded that “the governing documents are the various editions of the community plan, where references to the westerly buffer width consistently specify 200 feet.” One of the obligations of the Settlement Agreement required the City to initiate a North Natomas Financing Plan amendment to widen the westerly agricultural buffer from 200 feet to 250 feet “to be consistent with the Mitigation Monitoring Plan of the NNCP.” Such an amendment of the Financing Plan was completed in June 2002. The other conclusion reached by Mr.

Carnazzo’s memo is that the agricultural buffer starts at the City limits (the western edge of the Permit Area), approximately the centerline of Fisherman’s Lake. References to the 250- foot-wide buffer in the NBHCP and EIR/EIS will be clarified to be consistent with the opinion of the Chief Assistant City Attorney. As described in Section 1.3 of this Final EIR/EIS, the proposed clarifications in buffer widths do not trigger recirculation.

Response to Comment I2-2
The NBHCP does not specify site-specific drainage improvements that might be needed for individual developments within the Permit Areas. Such improvements would be subject to standard permitting and review procedures. Thus, a drainage plan for a project would need to be submitted as part of the Urban Development Permit application. All aspects of the permit, including drainage, would be reviewed for consistency and responsiveness to the NBHCP. Also note that certain activities are not granted take coverage by the NBHCP, including substantive improvements subject to USACE Section 404 permits and State or regional water quality control board discharge requirements. See Section I.O of the NBHCP for a complete listing of activities that are not Covered Activities.

Response to Comment I2-3
Page VII-15 of the Draft NBHCP, midway through 2nd paragraph - the sentence reads, “Also, the NNCP designates a 250 foot wide non-urbanized buffer along the City side of Fisherman’s Lake between the lake and future urban uses.” To reflect the Inter-Office Memo dated May 30, 2002 from William Carnazzo about the location and width of the buffer, that sentence has been changed in the Final NBHCP. Also, to reflect the commitment in the 2001 Settlement Agreement about the buffer, additional text has been added consistent with the May 30, 2002 Memo. See the Final NBHCP for these text changes.

Response to Comment I2-4
The area under consideration is riparian habitat along the east side of Fisherman’s Lake within the city limits, and does not include areas north of Del Paso Road. The GIS database, which is based on existing DWR land use maps and field reconnaissance, shows this area to be about 23 acres. Closer examination of the database as a result of this comment shows that LETTER I2—DIEPENBROCK LAW FIRM
188 NATOMAS BASIN HCP SAC/161795/031060002(LETTERS.DOC)

FINAL EIR/EIS
a substantial portion of the 23-acre area includes the RD 1000 access road. This access road is not a specific land use feature in the database; rather, it is shared between the riparian area and the adjacent property. The preliminary assessment conducted by the commentor shows the riparian habitat between the water’s edge and the RD 1000 access road to be closer to 16 acres in size. The difference in the acreage is attributable primarily to the treatment of the roadway. The difference in the acreage is not substantive and does not result in changes to the findings in the EIR/EIS because: (1) the difference is attributable in part to the treatment of the RD 1000 maintenance road, (2) the acreages are similar, (3) the habitat is expected to be preserved in accordance with the NNCP and Settlement Agreement (see Responses to Comments I2-1, I2-3, and I2-5), and (4) no specific conservation measures or impact assessment are affected by the acreage change. The GIS database is a tool to help assess changes in habitat across the 53,537-acre Natomas Basin, and is appropriate for that purpose. No changes are necessary.

Response to Comment I2-5
One of the City’s obligations in the Settlement Agreement is to initiate a North Natomas Community Plan amendment to consider widening the agricultural buffer along Fisherman’s Lake to 800 feet. Using a stakeholder group process, the group has selected the consultant and the City has contracted with the consultant to evaluate the biological resources effects of such a widening. After the report is complete, City staff will transmit a report to the City Council with a recommendation based on the consultant’s report and other factors. The City Council will decide on the proper width of the buffer. The analysis in the EIR/EIS does not make any assumptions about the buffer width.

Response to Comment I2-6
Fisherman’s Lake and portions along both sides of it are owned by RD 1000. Also, RD 1000 has an easement on portions of the land along the east side of Fisherman’s Lake. The easement was granted for flood control purposes, and all uses not inconsistent with flood control were reserved to the landowner. Section V.A.2 of the Draft NBHCP has been amended to clarify the ownership of Fisherman’s Lake (see the Final NBHCP for these text changes).

Response to Comment I2-7
Fisherman’s Lake is owned by RD 1000. It is part of a major flood control system.

Specifically, Fisherman’s Lake is a portion of the West Drain that conveys runoff from the western portion of the Basin into the Main Drain and out to the Sacramento River, and ultimately to the Pacific Ocean. Like many land uses within the Natomas Basin, Fisherman’s Lake serves as habitat for a variety of plant and animal species. It is not, however, a habitat preserve owned by TNBC, a wildlife agency, or other conservancy. Its function as a flood control system is discussed in Section V.A.2 of the NBHCP.

Response to Comment I2-8
Comment noted. See Response to Comment I2-5.

LETTER I2—DIEPENBROCK LAW FIRM
SAC/161795/031060002(LETTERS.DOC) NATOMAS BASIN HCP 189

FINAL EIR/EIS
Response to Comment I2-9
Comment noted. See Response to Comment I2-5.

Response to Comment I2-10
Comment noted. See Response to Comment I2-5.

Response to Comment I2-11
Page IV-14, #4 in the NBHCP is an acquisition criterion that does not add potential species to the Basin, but suggests that one of the criteria for selecting Mitigation Land is that the Covered Species can be supported by the land under consideration. The issue of introducing Covered Species into the Basin is addressed in Response to Comment I13-26.

Response to Comment I2-12
The reference on page IV-28 of the Draft NBHCP related to management activities and control of water supply and availability, is related solely to Site Specific Management Plans for the Mitigation Lands. The acquisition criteria for Mitigation Lands do not in any way affect municipal water supply or availability to urban uses.

Response to Comment I2-13
The GIS database developed for the NBHCP and EIR/EIS does not show this property as part of the flood-prone areas illustrated on Figure 7 of the Draft NBHCP. The portion of the floodplain area shown near the subject property extends to include a portion of the West Drain (Fisherman’s Lake). Please note that this figure is intended to illustrate the general extent of flood-prone areas in the Natomas Basin, and should not be used as a substitute for detailed floodplain analysis on any specific property.

Response to Comment I2-14
Figure 10 (Habitat Types) illustrates land use classes throughout the Natomas Basin. See the discussion of Methods in Chapter 3 of the Biological Resources Technical Memo (Appendix H of the NBHCP). The area noted as Riparian along Fisherman’s Lake in Figure 10 is the area with large trees along the east side of Fisherman’s Lake. See Response to Comment I2-4 for more information regarding this area.
“Ruderal” is defined on page II-5 of the Draft NBHCP as follows: “Ruderal includes former agricultural lands that are no longer in production, primarily as a result of pro ximity to
urbanized areas (e.g., surrounding Arco Arena). The Ruderal class includes DWR’s “Barren” and “Vacant” land use categories. Ruderal lands typically consist of non-native grasses, and most are occasionally tilled for fire control.”
Figure 13 has been revised.

Response to Comment I2-15
The designation of this area is discussed in Response to Comment I2-4.

LETTER I2—DIEPENBROCK LAW FIRM
190 NATOMAS BASIN HCP SAC/161795/031060002(LETTERS.DOC)

FINAL EIR/EIS
Response to Comment I2-16
The commentor suggests that the adaptive management approach included on page I-37 of the Draft NBHCP should be further refined. Please note that page I-37 is the Introduction, and that the references to adaptive management provide a brief summary and overview rather than a detailed or refined statement. The full adaptive management approach is contained in Chapter VI, Plan Implementation (see especially Section VI.F). The commentor expresses concerns that property owners will be responsible for an ever-evolving management plan without limits. The types and reasonableness of adaptive management practices are discussed in Chapter IV and the limitations on adaptive management are delineated in Section VI.K.d of the NBHCP.

Response to Comment I2-17
The commentor concurs that introduction of new species into an open space preserve is a biologically sound approach. The commentor states that adjacent property owners should not be unduly burdened as a result of the introduction of new species. In response, species introduction on habitat reserves would occur if impacts to such species are identified as a result of pre-construction surveys and introduction is a recommended method for compensation. Thus, species would be introduced to reserves only when such a species has already voluntarily inhabited property in the Natomas Basin.

Response to Comment I2-18
The main purpose of the NBHCP is not to “facilitate recovery of species.” Rather, the main purpose of an HCP is to demonstrate that impacts associated with incidental take are avoided, minimized, and mitigated to the maximum extent practicable and to ensure that the likelihood of the survival and recovery of a species in the wild is not appreciably reduced. The HCP Handbook provides considerable guidance regarding the burden of recovery of species. In particular, Chapter 3 of the Handbook states:

Issuance of a section 10 permit must not “appreciably reduce” the likelihood of the survival and reco
very of the species in the wild. Note that this does not explicitly require an HCP to recover listed species, or contribute to their recovery objectives outlined in a recovery plan. This reflects the fact that HCPs were designed by Congress to authorize incidental take, not to be mandatory recovery tools.

Further, the commentor states that modifications to the flora and fauna within preserves may impede the recovery of species. It is highly unlikely that management practices on the
Mitigation Lands would impede recovery of species since the reserves are biologically managed to support the Covered Species. The commentor concludes that property owners should not be responsible for recovery of species related to impacts outside of their immediate control. The NBHCP holds property owners responsible for indirect impacts of habitat loss through payment of a Mitigation Fee to compensate through the reserve system, and for direct project-specific impacts through the avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures included in Chapter V of the NBHCP. Contributions to adaptive management practices that may support some recovery measures are directly tied to “peer reviewed” scientific information or monitoring results which demonstrate that such measures are necessary to avoid jeopardy to the species.

SAC/161795/031060002(LETTERS.DOC) NATOMAS BASIN HCP 191

FINAL EIR/EIS
Letter I3—Downey Brand
Response to Comment I3-1
The Land Use Agencies and Wildlife Agencies strongly support the Water Agencies’ participation in the NBHCP. To that end, the revised NBHCP was and is designed to expressly include participation by the Water Agencies, and to provide incidental take coverage for mechanical-related activities. Pages 1-7 through 1-10 of the NBHCP and pages 1-5 and 1-8 of the Draft EIR/EIS describe the status of the Water Agencies’ participation in the NBHCP, as well as the Land Use Agencies’ and Wildlife Agencies’ extensive coordination efforts with the Water Agencies to facilitate the Water Agencies’ participation in the NBHCP.

While the Land Use and Wildlife Agencies support the Water Agencies’ participation, additional information and further analysis will be needed to evaluate the effects associated with pesticide use in the Basin. The Land Use Agencies
and Wildlife Agencies are aware
that the Water Agencies requested take coverage for pesticide use on January 10, 2002, February 4, 2002, and March 1, 2002. Notwithstanding these requests, the Water Agencies failed to provide this information prior to release of the NBHCP and accompanying EIR/EIS at a level of detail sufficient to conduct the necessary analyses required to meet ESA, CESA, NEPA, and CEQA requirements. Specifically, it took six months (June 5, 2002) before any preliminary data were provided to the Wildlife Agencies regarding the type of pesticides, application, and use within the Water Agencies’ facilities. The USFWS has indicated that insufficient information was made available to enable preparation of an adequate analysis in the NBHCP and accompanying EIR/EIS or for the USFWS to evaluate the impacts to Covered Species of the Water Agencies’ pesticide use in that agency’s required Section 7 consultation on the NBHCP.

As stated in the City’s letter dated July 17, 2002 to Wendy Anderson, Counsel for RD 1000 and Natomas Mutual, Counsel confirmed to the City in May, 2002 that due to the Water
Agencies’ continued inability to obtain coverage from the USFWS for the use of pesticides under the NBHCP, the Water Agencies would not pursue coverage under the NBHCP at that time. Because the Water Agencies no longer intended to file an application and adopt the NBHCP at that time, the Land Use Agencies and Wildlife Agencies understood that, in conjunction with this decision, the Water Agencies also elected not to participate as co-lead agencies in the environmental review process pursuant to CEQA. Since RD 1000 and Natomas Mutual did not participate in the NBHCP and EIR/EIS preparation effort since January, 2002, we could not presume that RD 1000 intended to fulfill its responsibilities as a Lead Agency. The purpose of our July 17, 2002 letter was to confirm that RD 1000 no longer would be serving in a co-lead agency capacity at the time the Draft EIR/EIS would undergo public review. Because the Water Agencies were not participating in the EIR/EIS preparation and did not intend to adopt any discretionary approvals for purposes of CEQA, it is unclear as to how RD 1000 could continue to participate as a Lead Agency at the time the Draft NBHCP EIR/EIS was released. In addition, the Water Agencies have not submitted formal applications for take permits, either to the USFWS or to CDFG.

Notwithstanding the Water Agencies’ decision not to participate in the NBHCP effort at the time of publication of the NBHCP and EIR/EIS, t
he City and Sutter County have attempted
LETTER I3—DOWNEY BRAND
192 NATOMAS BASIN HCP SAC/161795/031060002(LETTERS.DOC)

FINAL EIR/EIS
to facilitate the process and minimize the level of effort involved in the Water Agencies’ decision to participate in the future. In this regard, the Water Agency activities (other than activities involving pesticide use) are included in the NBHCP as described on pages I-35 - I- 36 and V-27 - V-35 of the Draft NBHCP. Additionally, Chapter 4 of the EIR/EIS contains an evaluation of the impacts of such activities. The Water Agencies may rely on the NBHCP, as adopted, and thereby participate in the NBHCP to obtain incidental take coverage for activities other than pesticide use. The Water Agencies also are free to pursue coverage for pesticide use through a separate incidental take permit application, or future amendment to the NBHCP, based on an adequate analysis of the impacts of pesticide use on the Covered Species.

Response to Comment I3-2
In August 2000, the District Court in National Wildlife Federation, et. al. v. Secretary of the Interior Bruce Babbitt found the 1997 NBHCP to be deficient in several respects and invalidated the City’s incidental take permit. As a result of the Court’s decision, the City of Sacramento, the sole permittee under the 1997 NBHCP, and Sutter County elected to develop a new NBHCP to correct those deficiencies, improve and strengthen the Plan, and obtain new incidental take permits. The Water Agencies have participated in that effort to develop a new NBHCP. During the development of the current NBHCP, the Water Agencies did not request that the USFWS issue them incidental take permits based on the 1997 NBHCP, nor would the USFWS have done so given the District Court’s adverse decision on the original plan. The Water Agencies have not submitted formal applications for incidental take permits based on the current NBHCP.

The USFWS has advised the Water Agencies that pesticide and rodenticide use cannot be covered under the cu
rrent NBHCP. The USFWS’s position is based on official guidance that, in turn, is based on the lack of scientific information and data necessary to assess adequately the impacts of such uses on the Covered Species. The information submitted by the Water Agencies in July 2002 in support of their request that pesticide and rodenticide uses be included under the NBHCP was insufficient to enable the USFWS to analyze impacts in the EIR/EIS and to make the findings under Section 10 and Section 7 necessary to issue ITPs to the Water Agencies covering such uses. The Water Agencies have elected not to submit permit applications based on the current NBHCP to cover their other water and canal management activities at this time.

We concur with the commentor’s statement that Judge Levi upheld, in National Wildlife Federation, et. al. v. Secretary
of the Interior Bruce Babbitt, the USFWS’s reliance upon the best scientific and commercial data in issuing an incidental take permit to the City. However, sufficient scientific information must be available to the USFWS regarding the effects of pesticide and rodenticide uses on the giant garter snake and other Covered Species to enable the USFWS to find that such uses will not appreciably reduce the likelihood of the survival and recovery of the giant garter snake and other Covered Species. The Water Agencies have not provided to the USFWS adequate information, and such information is not otherwise available to the USFWS, to support the incidental take coverage for pesticide and rodenticide uses. Should the Water Agencies apply for incidental take permits in the future to cover pesticide and rodenticide uses accompanied by information adequate to assess the impacts of such uses on the Covered Species, the USFWS will evaluate the information and LETTER I3—DOWNEY BRAND
SAC/161795/031060002(LETTERS.DOC) NATOMAS BASIN HCP 193

FINAL EIR/EIS
determine, in accordance with Section 10 issuance criteria, whether to grant incidental take coverage for such uses.

Response to Comment I3-3
The Water Agencies’ request that the NBHCP eliminate the requirement for the Water Agencies’ management plans, should the Water Agencies become Permittees, to be submitted to the NBHCP TAC is noted. If the Water Agencies become Permittees, then the submission of the management plans to the TAC would be a key mechanism for ensuring that management measures implemented by the Water Agencies on their lands are compatible with the NBHCP’s goal of retaining viable populations of the giant garter snake and other Covered Species in the Basin, as those plans may be modified from time to time.

Obtaining TAC review of the Water Agency management plans for the limited purpose of ensuring their consistency with the NBHCP will not, as RD 1000 states, result in RD 1000 ceding its governmental authority to a non-elected entity. The TAC’s role is limited to reviewing the effects of adjustments in management and maintenance measures on the Covered Species within the limitations specified in the NBHCP on page V-34 and will enhance implementation of the NBHCP and the Wildlife Agencies ability to monitor the Water Agencies’ compliance with the Plan, should the Water Agencies become Permittees.

It must be emphasized that the Water Agencies’ activities have the pote ntial to significantly
affect the Covered Species, particularly the giant garter snake. The primary mechanism identified in the Plan to mitigate and minimize adverse impacts to the Covered Species from Water Agency activities, should the Water Agencies become Permittees, is through appropriate management of their canal and ditch maintenance activities. If Water Agency management plans were exempted from consistency review by the TAC as the commentor requests, the TAC would have no way of determining the compatibility of the Water Agencies’ activities with the Plan. Review of management plans by technical committees or the Wildlife Agencies is a routine component of HCPs involving both governmental entities and private parties. The Water Agencies’ concern that such review would unduly interfere with their governmental authority is misplaced.

Response to Comment I3-4
As documented in Chapter VII of the NBHCP, the EIR/EIS, and the accompanying Biological Resources Technical Memorandum, the Land Use Agencies and Wildlife Agencies conducted extensive technical and environmental analyses demonstrating the effectiveness of the NBHCP’s Operating Conservation Program with or without the Water Agencies’ participation . Pages IV-8 and IV-9 of the Draft NBHCP evaluate the connectivity between reserves afforded by the Water Agencies’ systems of canals and ditches. This analysis is further revised to clarify that the opportunities for connectivity provided in the future by the Water Agencies’ canals and ditches are not expected to differ from the existing opportunities for connectivity.

Response to Comment I3-5
The NBHCP limits dredging activities to Water Agencies’ channel maintenance in order to limit the scope of Covered Activities to those for which mitigation measures have been offered by the Water Agencies. At this time, new or expanded Covered Activities could not LETTER I3—DOWNEY BRAND
194 NATOMAS BASIN HCP SAC/161795/031060002(LETTERS.DOC)

FINAL EIR/EIS
be considered without further analysis and mitigation measures. Since no additional analysis and mitigation measures for the expanded activity are offered by the Water Agencies or their legal counsel, the requested language change has not been included.

Response to Comment I3-6
The area that is referred to in the definition of Ponds/Wet Areas (Draft NBHCP, p. II-5 and p. III-8; Draft EIR/EIS, p. 3-17) is the area surrounding the North Drain near RD 1000 Pumping Plant #2. This general area was historically known as Prichard’s Lake. Because the definition of the land use categories is intended to provide guidance to the reader, the Lead Agencies wish to provide additional clarity. Both documents have been edited in accordance with the commentor’s suggestion (for specific text changes, see Section 2.1 of this Final EIR/EIS and the Final NBHCP).

Response to Comment I3-7
The commentor refers to footnote “a” in Table II-3 on p. II-6 of the Draft NBHCP. This footnote presents the assumptions used to convert the one-dimensional Class II, III, and IV canals to acreage. Because Class II, III, and IV canals were only known from their length, it was necessary to use a standard width to calculate acreage. Class I canals are the same as the “Canal” land use class. Because all of the land use classes are two-dimensional elements in the GIS database, there was no need to make assumptions about canal width. This is discussed in the definition of the land use classes (Draft NBHCP, p. II-4, p. II-8; Draft EIR/EIS, p. 3-17); no edits to the NBHCP or EIR/EIS are necessary.

Response to Comment I3-8
Comment noted. The NBHCP does refer to the more current practices for residual rice straw and states on page III-4:

In addition to rotting the rice stubble, flooded rice fields provide wetland habitat for ducks, geese and other migratory waterfowl.

Response to Comment I3-9
Discrepancies in the airport acreage have been corrected. For clarification, the Airport land use class in unincorporated Sacramento County includes Sacramento International Airport and a small airfield adjacent to the Natomas Mutual headquarters, totaling approximately 1,512 acres. The fenceline of Sacramento International Airport is approximately 1,505 acres.

The figure of 1,515 acres on p. III-9 of the Draft HCP has been corrected (see the Final NBHCP for text changes). The airport controls, to various degrees, additional land areas totaling over 5,500 acres.

Response to Comment I3-10
The commentor’s request for a specific edit to Section 3.4.6.3 of the EIR/EIS has been made.