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 7 — Sacramento City Council, November 18, 2025 (part 1 of 3)

Natomas Basin E042002017SAC cover_7.indd 04.15.03
Natomas Basin Habitat Conservation Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report/
Environmental Impact Statement
April 2003
State Clearinghouse No. 1997062064
Volume 2
Sutter County
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
City of Sacramento
Appendices
A Public Notices
B Fish and Wildlife Service Species List and CNDDB Summary Lists C Summary of Previous Environmental Review of Planned Urban Development D Mitigation Monitoring Plan
E 2002 Giant Garter Snake Monitoring Report
F 2002 Swainson’s Hawk Monitoring Report
GJ o i n t V i s i o n M O U
H City of Sacramento Resolution 2001-518
I Letter from USFWS and CDFG to Sacramento County
J Letter from City of Sacramento to California Department of Fish and Game K Letter from City of Sacramento to Sacramento County
L Attachments to Comment Letter O1

APPENDIX A
Public Notices

APPENDIX B
Fish and Wildlife Service Species List
and CNDDB Summary Lists

APPENDIX C
Summary of Previous Environmental Review
of Planned Urban Development
APPENDIX C: SUMMARY OF PREVIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW OF PLANNNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT SAC/161795/031060003(TABLE C-1.DOC) REVISED NATOMAS BASIN HCP

EIR/EIS
TABLE C-1
Prior Analysis of Geology and Soils Impacts from Planned Urban Development in the Natomas Basina Impact
Level of
Significance Mitigation
Level of Significance
with Mitigation Action
City of Sacramento General Plan EIR
Potential for exposure to
earthquake groundshaking
at a maximum intensity of
VIII (on the Modified Mercalli
Scale).

Significant. Implement Goal A and Policies 1, 3, and 7 of the Health and Safety Element (Seismic Safety section) of the General Plan.

Engineer structures for earthquake resistance.

Less than significant. No further action necessary.

Potential for liquefaction,
triggered by groundshaking.

Significant. Implement Policies 2, 4, and 7 of the Health and Safety Element (Seismic Safety section) of the General Plan.

Require the evaluation of liquefaction potential of proposed development sites and implement appropriate specially
engineered earthwork and structural design.

Less than significant. No further action necessary.

Incremental contribution to
the loss of aggregate
resources if all mineral
resources sectors within the
SGPU area (except the
American River Parkway)
were rendered unavailable
for aggregate production due
to urbanization.

Significant. Implement Goal B and Policies 1, 2, 3, and 4 of the Open Space Element (Managed Production of Resources section) of the General Plan.

Zone mineral resources sectors and adjacent lands to permit aggregate mining.

Require reclamation of mined lands for urban uses.

Less than significant. No further action necessary.
9,700 acres meeting the soil
criteria of the prime land
component of the Important
Farmland Inventory of
California, 7,500 acres of
which are currently irrigated
and considered prime
farmland, would be removed
from agricultural production.

Significant. Full mitigation would require the adoption of the No Project Alternative. The City Council determined that this was
infeasible.

Significant. The City Council determined that
economic, social, and other
considerations make it infeasible
to mitigate the impacts to below
significant levels.

APPENDIX C: SUMMARY OF PREVIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW OF PLANNNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT REVISED NATOMAS BASIN HCP SAC /161795/031060003(TABLE C-1.DOC)

EIR/EIS
TABLE C-1
Prior Analysis of Geology and Soils Impacts from Planned Urban Development in the Natomas Basina Impact
Level of
Significance Mitigation
Level of Significance
with Mitigation Action
North Natomas Community Plan EIR
No significant impacts
identified.

N/A N/A N/A No further action necessary.

South Natomas Community Plan EIR
No significant impacts
identified.

N/A N/A N/A No further action necessary.

Sutter County General Plan EIR
Impact 4.3.1. Future
development in accordance
with the proposed General
Plan may expose structures
and people to moderate
ground shaking.

Potentially
Significant
Implement General Plan Goal 7.B, Policy 7.B.2, and
Implementation Program 7.1.

Mitigation Measure 4.3.1. Prior to permitting development in areas of geologic or soils hazards, the County shall require the preparation of a soils engineering and/or geotechnical analysis by a licensed civil or geotechnical engineer. The County shall review and enforce the recommendations of
said analysis by adopting them as conditions of specific project-level approvals.

Less than significant. No further action necessary.

Impact 4.3.2. Future
development in accordance
with the proposed General
Plan may expose structures
to liquefaction and/or seismic
compaction.

Potentially
significant.

Same as Mitigation Measure 4.3.1. Less than significant. No further action necessary.

Impact 4.3.3. Future
development in accordance
with the proposed General
Plan may expose structures
to subsidence.

Potentially
significant.

Same as Mitigation Measure 4.3.1. Less than significant. No further action necessary.

APPENDIX C: SUMMARY OF PREVIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW OF PLANNNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT SAC/161795/031060003(TABLE C-1.DOC) REVISED NATOMAS BASIN HCP

EIR/EIS
TABLE C-1
Prior Analysis of Geology and Soils Impacts from Planned Urban Development in the Natomas Basina Impact
Level of
Significance Mitigation
Level of Significance
with Mitigation Action
Impact 4.3.4. Future
development within the
County in accordance with
the General Plan may
subject new development to
geologic hazards associated
with expansive soils.

Potentially
significant.

Same as Mitigation Measure 4.3.1. Less than significant. No further action necessary.

Impact 4.3.5. Future
development in accordance
with the proposed General
Plan will require grading
activities, resulting in
exposed earth and the
potential for soil erosion.

Potentially
significant.

Mitigation Measure 4.3.2. Prior to or concurrent with a specific development proposal, the County shall adopt and implement a grading ordinance or other appropriate measures. The grading ordinance shall limit the effects of soil erosion and shall include, but is not limited to, the following specific areas: (1) timing of grading operations (targeted for April 15 – November 15); (2) erosion control methods which utilize sediment traps, barriers, covers, or other methods approved by the County; (3)
recommendations for cut and fill angles of slopes; (4)
recommendations for mulching, seeding, revegetation, and othe r
stabilization measures as approved by the County; and (5) plans for deposition and storage of excavated materials.

Less than significant. No further action necessary.

Impact 4.3.6. Increased
urbanization proposed by the
General Plan may decrease
accessibility to natural gas
resources or result in
hazards due to new
construction in the vicinity of
abandoned gas well sites.

Potentially
significant.

Implement General Plan Goal 4.H; Policies 4.H.1, 4.H.2, 4.H.3,

4.H.4, and 4.H.5; and Implementation Program 4.5.

Mitigation Measure 4.3.3. For future development proposals located within the vicinity of an abandoned gas well, the applicant shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the County that reabandonment operations have been successfully completed, i f
necessary, in consultation with the Department of Conservation, Division of Oil, Gas, and Geothermal Resources. If any plugged and abandoned or unrecorded wells are damaged or uncovered during excavation or grading, remedial plugging operations may be required. The cost of reabandonment operations is the responsibility of the property owner.

Less than significant. No further action necessary.
a The analysis of environmental impacts presented in these documents was prepared in accordance with the requirements of CEQA. No changes to the types of impacts presented would be anticipated if the documents were prepared for NEPA purposes.

APPENDIX C: SUMMARY OF PREVIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW OF PLANNNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT SAC/161795/031060004(TABLE C-2.DOC) REVISED NATOMAS BASIN HCP

EIR/EIS
TABLE C-2
Prior Analysis of Water Resources Impacts from Planned Urban Development in the Natomas Basina Impact
Level of
Significance Mitigation
Level of Significance
with Mitigation Action
City of Sacramento General Plan EIR
The number of persons and
developments exposed to
potential flood damage from
levee failure would increase by
an unknown amount,
especially in North Natomas.

The amount is unknown since
the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, at the request of
the Federal Emergency
Management Agency, is still in
the process of updating 100-
year floodplain maps for the
American River levees, the
Sacramento River east levee
north of the American River,
and several levees along local
creeks and drainage canals in
the SGPU area.

Significant. Full mitigation would require: (1) assisting in the reconstruction of inadequate levees as development occurs, (2) assisting in the implementation of one or more Corps of Engineers flood control alternatives, and (3) restricting development in areas subject to flooding. The City Council determined that full mitigation under (1) and (2) above was infeasible because implementation of possible flood control alternatives is the responsibility of the federal government.

The City Council adopted (3).

Less than significant. No further action necessary.

Transport of pollutants to
streams would increase from
construction activities and
runoff from industrial,
commercial, and residential
development.

Significant. Implement precautionary measures during construction, such as minimizing surface disturbance, disposing excavated
materials away from water sources, and grading spoil
disposal sites to minimize surface water erosion.

Implement measures to reduce long-term water quality
impacts, such as provision of onsite retention and detention storage; designing storm drainage to slow water flows;
minimizing impervious surfaces; and maximizing percolation, evaporation, and evapotranspiration of stormwater.

The City Council determined that is was infeasible to adopt full mitigation because the analysis of water quality measures are conducted on a project-specific basis, and therefore the feasibility of mitigating citywide water quality impacts could not be determined.

Significant. The City determined that any
remaining unmitigated
environmental impacts
attributable to the project would
be outweighed by specific
economic, fiscal, social,
environmental, land use, and
other overriding considerations.

APPENDIX C: SUMMARY OF PREVIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW OF PLANNNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT REVISED NATOMAS BASIN HCP SAC /161795/031060004(TABLE C-2.DOC))

EIR/EIS
TABLE C-2
Prior Analysis of Water Resources Impacts from Planned Urban Development in the Natomas Basina Impact
Level of
Significance Mitigation
Level of Significance
with Mitigation Action
Continued rice herbicide
application has the potential
to impact surface and
groundwater quality, thereby
exposing an increased
population to hazards.

Significant. Reduce the release of agricultural chemicals by establishing an effective regulatory program.

The City Council determined that this mitigation measure is the responsibility of the County and state regulatory bodies.

Less than significant. No further action necessary.

The maximum average
water demand would
increase 104 percent to
368.2 million gallons per
day, requiring expansion of
existing water treatment
plants, possible a new plant
in North Natomas, additional
storage reservoir capacity,
and new transmission lines.

Significant. Implement the following Goal and Policy from the Public Services and Facilities Element (Water section) of the
General Plan: Goal A, Policy 5
Require water facilities prior to development.

Require water conservation measures.

Less than significant. No further action necessary.

North Natomas Community Plan EIR
Impact 4.7-1. The [North
Natomas Community Plan]
Update will result in drainage
impacts relating to hydrology
and water quality arising
from the conversion of
agricultural lands to urban
uses. That conversion will
change existing drainage
patterns and increase peak
stormwater discharge rates,
increase stormwater flows in
drainage canals resulting in
increased pump station flows
and discharge requirements,
require increased
maintenance of canals to
prevent bank sloughing, and
Potentially
significant.

At the time the EIR was adopted, mitigation requirements were assumed to be met by the City’s Comprehensive
Drainage Plan, which was in draft for at that time.

The Update also included implementing policies for the
drainage system, which were determined to also provide
mitigation measures to reduce drainage impacts.

The City determined
that impacts would be
lessened by the
adoption of the
mitigation
requirements. Because
the draft
Comprehensive
Drainage Plan had not
been adopted and
environmental review
completed on the draft
plan, the City
determined that
impacts could not be
demonstrated to be
less than significant.

The City determined that any
remaining unmitigated
environmental impacts
attributable to the project would
be outweighed by specific
economic, fiscal, social,
environmental, land use, and
other overriding considerations.

APPENDIX C: SUMMARY OF PREVIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW OF PLANNNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT SAC/161795/031060004(TABLE C-2.DOC) REVISED NATOMAS BASIN HCP

Impact 4.7-2. The Update
area is located in a part of
the City that, at the time the
EIR was adopted, had
protection from a 63-year
flood event. Implementation
of the Update would
therefore expose people and
property to the risk of injury
and damage in the event of
a 63-year or greater flood
event.

Significant. Various future scenarios are discussed in which the flood hazard risk would be lessened. These scenarios generally involved the actions of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the Sacramento Area Flood Control Agency to increase flood protection in the Natomas Basin.

In addition, the Update also contains measures designed to reduce flooding by prohibiting new development until flood protection is secured.

Impacts would be
reduced to a less-than-
significant level after
completion of regional
flood control projects.

Residual impacts
would remain “so long
as the City of
Sacramento and the
Update Area are
depending upon
levees for flood
protection from major
storm events, no
matter how high the
levee system.”
The City determined that any
remaining unmitigated
environmental impacts
attributable to the project would
be outweighed by specific
economic, fiscal, social,
environmental, land use, and
other overriding considerations.

The following groundwater
and seepage impacts would
result from development of
the Update area: (1) an
alteration of groundwater
flow patterns in the vicinity of
new canal segments could
result from the interception
of near surface groundwater
with surface drainage; (2) a
reduction in groundwater
recharge due to increased
impervious surfaces in the
area; (3) a reduction in
irrigated agriculture could
lower groundwater levels by
Potentially
significant.

No mitigation proposed. The groundwater
recharge. groundwater
level, and seepage
impacts of
implementing the
update are irreversible,
unavoidable, and
significant adverse
effects.

APPENDIX C: SUMMARY OF PREVIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW OF PLANNNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT REVISED NATOMAS BASIN HCP SAC /161795/031060004(TABLE C-2.DOC))

EIR/EIS
TABLE C-2
Prior Analysis of Water Resources Impacts from Planned Urban Development in the Natomas Basina Impact
Level of
Significance Mitigation
Level of Significance
with Mitigation Action
decreasing groundwater
recharge; and (4) lower
groundwater levels due to
canal excavation would
reduce seepage problems in
low-lying areas near the
Sacramento River.

The following impacts to
water quality would result
from development of the
Update area: (1) urban point
discharges and storm water
would increase; (2)
cumulative pollutant
discharge into the
Sacramento River would
increase; and (3)
groundwater resources could
be infiltrated by leaking
chemicals.

Potentially
significant.

The Update contains the following measures: (1) meet all NPDES and other regulatory permit requirements; (2) all drainage flows from the NNCP will be discharged to the
Sacramento River; (3) utilize Best Management Practices emphasizing upstream and on-site treatment; (4) the
Comprehensive Drainage Plan must meet all EPA and Corps of Engineers 404 permit requirements; (5) ensure that the CDP operational plans are compatible with the other uses of the existing canals such as drainage, water delivery, and preservation of existing Fisherman’s Lake water levels: (6) the CDP must be designed in a manner compatible with and complementary to the Habitat Mitigation Plan under
development by SAFCA for the American River Flood Control Project; (7) incorporate water quality control into the lake, canal, and basin maintenance programs; (8) grease and oil traps should be integrated into the storm drain system
wherever practical; (9) industries that use solvents and/or other toxic or hazardous materials should be sited in
concentrated locations, on sites with low permeability soil, far from drainage canals and basins, and close to the freeway to reduce intrusion of trucks transporting chemicals into
residential neighborhoods; and (10) industries that use solvents and other hazardous materials will be required to prepare a Hazardous Substance Management Plan.

Although impacts
would be lessened by
the mitigation
measures, significant
impacts were
determined to remain.

APPENDIX C: SUMMARY OF PREVIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW OF PLANNNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT SAC/161795/031060004(TABLE C-2.DOC) REVISED NATOMAS BASIN HCP

EIR/EIS
TABLE C-2
Prior Analysis of Water Resources Impacts from Planned Urban Development in the Natomas Basina Impact
Level of
Significance Mitigation
Level of Significance
with Mitigation Action
South Natomas Community Plan EIR
The entire South Natomas
community is located within
an area which may not be
protected by 100 year level
flood protection due to the
potential instability of the
Sacramento River Levee
and the lack of adequate
height of the East Main
Drainage Canal and the
Natomas Main Drainage
Canal Levees.

Potentially
significant.

The City identified full mitigation as increasing the height of the East Main Drain Levee and the Natomas main canal
levee to an adequate level, build additional levees to protect the area, and stabilize the levee along the Sacramento River.

The City determined that full mitigation was infeasible because reconstruction of the levees is the responsibility of the federal government, and recommended partial mitigation to prohibit additional development in South Natomas.

The City did not
identify a level of
significance associated
with the mitigated
project.

The City determined that partial
mitigation was not feasible
because of specific economic,
social, and environmental, and
other considerations.

Increased flows to
Reclamation District 1000
exceed the capacity of the
existing system.

Potentially
significant.

The City determined that RD 1000 is responsible for
mitigating this impact.

New developers may be
required to contribute to
sufficient system
improvements to reduce
this impact to a less-
than-significant level.

None.

Sutter County General Plan EIR
Impact 4.4.1. Future
development under the
provisions of the General
Plan would alter existing
drainage patterns and
increase stormwater runoff.

Significant. Implement General Plan Goals 3.D and 7.C; Policies 3.D.1,

3.D.2, 3.D.3, 3.D.4, 3.D.5, 7.C.1, 7.C.2, and 7.C.3; and Implementation Programs 3.9, 3.10, 3.11, 7.2, 7.3, and 7.4.

Mitigation Measure 4.4.1. Prior to the approval of
subsequent development projects in accordance with the
General Plan, the project applicant must demonstrate the project’s compliance with the County’s Flood Damage
Prevention Regulations, and any approved local drainage master plan. In the absence of such regulations and local master plans, project applicants shall be required, on a project-by-project basis, to demonstrate specific drainage and flooding impacts and mitigation in accordance with CEQA and consistent with County policy.

Less than significant. No further action necessary.

APPENDIX C: SUMMARY OF PREVIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW OF PLANNNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT REVISED NATOMAS BASIN HCP SAC /161795/031060004(TABLE C-2.DOC))

EIR/EIS
TABLE C-2
Prior Analysis of Water Resources Impacts from Planned Urban Development in the Natomas Basina Impact
Level of
Significance Mitigation
Level of Significance
with Mitigation Action
Mitigation Measure 4.4.2. For any development proposed
within the 100-year floodplain, such development will be conditioned upon the applicant’s ability to demonstrate that finished grade elevations are raised above inundation levels, or that other site-specific flood control measures are
implemented to protect new structures from 100-year
inundation.

Impact 4.4.3. Future
development under the
provisions of the General
Plan could result in the
degradation of surface and
groundwater quality due to
urban runoff.

Significant Implement General Plan Goals 3.B and 3.C; Policies 3.B.2,

3.B.3, 3.B.4, 3.B.5, 3.B.6, 3.C.1, 3.C.2, 3.C.3, 3.C.4, 3.C.5,

3.D.6, 4.A.2, 9.A.2 and 9.A.3; and Implementation Programs

3.5, 3.6, and 3.8.

Mitigation Measure 4.4.4. As a condition of future project- level development approvals, project proponents shall
provide and implement a comprehensive plan to prevent
erosion, siltation, contamination of stormwater during
construction, and “first flush” contaminants after construction.

Detail of the plan shall reflect the scale of the project. Such a plan shall be prepared in accordance with permit conditions and requirements of the NPDES general industrial
stormwater permit, when applicable.

Mitigation Measure 4.4.5. As a condition of future project- level development approvals, project proponents shall
provide and implement Best Management Practices to
reduce pollutants from entering the waterways. Best
management practices to reduce pollutants include the use of oil and sand separators, grassy swales, detention ponds, vegetative buffers, and other source control measures.

Less than significant. No further action necessary.

APPENDIX C: SUMMARY OF PREVIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW OF PLANNNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT SAC/161795/031060004(TABLE C-2.DOC) REVISED NATOMAS BASIN HCP

EIR/EIS
TABLE C-2
Prior Analysis of Water Resources Impacts from Planned Urban Development in the Natomas Basina Impact
Level of
Significance Mitigation
Level of Significance
with Mitigation Action
Impact 4.4.4. Future
development under the
provisions of the General
Plan may reduce recharged
groundwater supplies as a
result of converting
agricultural uses to urban
uses, and as a result of a
reduction of permeable
ground surface.

Potentially
significant.

Same as above for Impact 4.4.3. The policies and
implementation actions described above are effective only when implemented in conjunction with Mitigation Measures

4.10.1, 4.10.2, and 4.10.3 for water supply [see below].

Less than significant. No further action necessary.

Impact 4.10.1. Future urban
development in accordance
with the General Plan
Revision would result in
increased demand for water
in the County. The demand
for water would require
either expansion of existing
systems and/or development
of new water systems.

Significant
impact.

Implement General Plan Goals 3.B and 4.A; Policies 3.B-1,

3.B-2, 3.B-3, 3.B-4, 3.B-5, 3.B-6, 3.B-7, 3.B-8, 3.B-9, 3B-10, and 4.A-3; and Implementation Programs 3.5, 3.6, and 3.7.

Mitigation Measure 4.10.1. As a condition of subsequent project-level approvals, project applicants shall submit to the County for verification that the expansion of an existing water supply system or acceptable alternative water system
improvements in accordance with Policy 3.B-1 (deemed to be appropriate by the Community Services Department
Environmental Services Program to meet the water needs of that project) will be completed.

Mitigation Measure 4.10.2. As a condition of subsequent project-level approvals, project applicants shall demonstrate that the water system proposed for the project is designed to meet the projected water capacity and fire flow requirements and specifications.

Mitigation Measures 4.10.3. All buildings constructed as part of subsequent development projects shall be
encouraged to include low-flow plumbing fixtures within project designs in order to conserve water.

APPENDIX C: SUMMARY OF PREVIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW OF PLANNNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT SAC/161795/031060005(TABLE C-3.DOC) REVISED NATOMAS BASIN HCP

All occurrences of these
communities are not
known. Of the ones that
are known, the following
would be potentially
affected: (1) blue oak
woodland in North
Sacramento east of the
Union Pacific Railroad; (2)
riparian stands in South
Natomas north of Garden
Highway (on either side of
I-5 north and adjacent to
Garden Highway) and
along the Natomas East
Main Drainage Canal, and
in North Sacramento along
Magpie Creek; (3) habitat
supported by creeks and
canals in North Natomas
and South Sacramento;
(4) northern hardpan
vernal pools in North
Sacramento east of Raley
Boulevard and in South
Sacramento north of
Sheldon Road; and (5)
fence row habitat along
the undeveloped edges of
urban and agricultural
habitats.

Significant. Full mitigation would include preservation of significant habitat areas by allowing only compatible low-intensity uses.

The City Council determined that full mitigation was
infeasible. Adopted partial mitigation included the
implementation of the following Goals and Policies from the General Plan Conservation and Open Space Element
(Preservation of Natural Resources section): Goal B, Policies 1 and 2; Goal C, Policies 1 and 2; Goal D, Policy 1; Goad E, Policies 1 and 2.

Significant. The City Council determined that
economic, social, and other
considerations make it infeasible
to mitigate the impacts to below
significant levels.

APPENDIX C: SUMMARY OF PREVIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW OF PLANNNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT REVISED NATOMAS BASIN HCP SAC /161795/031060005(TABLE C-3.DOC)

EIR/EIS
TABLE C-3
Prior Analysis of Biological Resources Impacts from Planned Urban Development in the Natomas Basina Impact
Level of
Significance Mitigation
Level of Significance
with Mitigation Action
Elimination or conversion
of potential (but previously
unknown or unsearched)
habitat could occur for
federally listed, proposed,
and candidate threatened
or endangered plant
species, and California
Native Plant Society rare
and endangered plant
species (especially in
previously unsearched
northern hardpan vernal
pools and riparian
communities).

Significant. Full mitigation would include site-specific surveys of all sites where special-status plants could potentially occur, and preserving those habitats where special-status plants are found. The City Council determined that full mitigation was infeasible. Adopted partial mitigation included the
implementation of the following Policy from the General Plan Conservation and Open Space Element (Preservation of
Natural Resources section): Policy 1.

Significant. The City Council determined that
economic, social, and other
considerations make it infeasible
to mitigate the impacts to below
significant levels.

Elimination or conversion
for habitat for the state-
listed Swainson’s hawk
and the California fully
protected white-tailed kite.

Significant. Full mitigation would require the avoidance of all nest and roost sites by creating a buffer zone (typically a 400-meter radius) around each nest. The City Council determined that full mitigation was infeasible. Proposed partial mitigation included the implementation of the following Policy from the General Plan Conservation and Open Space Element
(Preservation of Natural Resources section): Policy 1.

Significant. The City Council determined that
economic, social, and other
considerations make it infeasible
to mitigate the impacts to below
significant levels.

Elimination or conversion
of habitat for the federal
candidate (Category 2)
and state-threatened giant
garter snake and the
federally listed threatened
valley elderberry longhorn
beetle.

Significant. Full mitigation would include site-specific surveys of all sites where special-status animals could potentially occur, and preserving those habitats where special-status animals are found. The City Council determined that full mitigation was infeasible. Adopted partial mitigation included the
implementation of the following Policy from the General Plan Conservation and Open Space Element (Preservation of
Natural Resources section): Policy 1.

Significant. The City Council determined that
economic, social, and other
considerations make it infeasible
to mitigate the impacts to below
significant levels.

APPENDIX C: SUMMARY OF PREVIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW OF PLANNNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT SAC/161795/031060005(TABLE C-3.DOC) REVISED NATOMAS BASIN HCP

Significant. Implement Policy 2 of the Conservation and Open Space Element (Preservation of Natural Resources section) of the General Plan.

Identify and preserve native and nonnative trees of
outstanding value as heritage trees by enforcing the City’s Heritage Tree Ordinance.

Less than significant. No further action necessary.

Canal and river
maintenance activities,
including the removal of
vegetation and soils,
would alter natural
habitats, introduce weedy
species, and introduce
pollutants into water
bodies supporting fish
populations.

Significant. Full mitigation includes developing citywide canal and creek maintenance plans (as a joint effort of the reclamation and flood control districts and the City) to preserve wetland vegetation growing on the edges of canals and creeks and to require revegetation with natural species where vegetation removal could not be avoided. The City Council determined that full mitigation was infeasible. Partial mitigation included the implementation of the following Goals and Policies of the General Plan Conservation and Open Space Element
(Preservation of Natural Resources section): Goal B, Policies 1 and 2; Goal C, Policies 1 and 2; Goal D, Policy 1; and Goal E, Policies 1 and 2.

Significant. The City Council determined that
economic, social, and other
considerations make it infeasible
to mitigate the impacts to below
significant levels.

The elimination of 21,871
acres of agricultural land
would destroy the habitat
for thousands of water
birds.

Significant. The only mitigation available was to implement the No Project Alternative. The City Council did not adopt this mitigation measure.

Significant. The City Council determined that
economic, social, and other
considerations make it infeasible
to mitigate the impacts to below
significant levels.

City parks supporting
important natural
communities such as
riparian and freshwater
marsh habitats would be
subject to vegetation, soil,
and wildlife disturbance by
increased human use of
the parks.

Significant. Implement Policy 5 of the Public Facilities Element (Recreation Services section) of the General Plan.

Design parks to control user densities to be compatible with preservation of natural habitats by directing use away from sensitive areas with natural barriers and judicious use of trails, interpretive paths and displays, and guides.

Less than significant. No further action necessary.

APPENDIX C: SUMMARY OF PREVIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW OF PLANNNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT REVISED NATOMAS BASIN HCP SAC /161795/031060005(TABLE C-3.DOC)

EIR/EIS
TABLE C-3
Prior Analysis of Biological Resources Impacts from Planned Urban Development in the Natomas Basina Impact
Level of
Significance Mitigation
Level of Significance
with Mitigation Action
North Natomas Community Plan EIR
Impact 4.5-1. The Update
has the potential to
generate short-term dust
and erosion impacts
during construction
activities that could impact
water quality via increased
turbidity, and subsequently
could impact biological
resources.

Less than
significant
because of
compliance with
City erosion
control
standards.

All construction sites shall be graded such that the new topography makes a smooth transition to existing adjacent topography. Dust and soil control measures shall be
implemented during the construction phases of all projects.

Additional measures include: (a) watering exposed soils, (b) covering exposed soils with straw or other materials, (c) adopting measures to prevent construction vehicles from tracking mud onto adjacent roadways, (d) covering trucks containing loose and dry soils, and (e) providing interim drainage measures during the construction period. In non- pavement areas, any vegetation covered or removed during grading or construction is to be replaced following the construction activities.

Less than significant. No further action necessary.

Impact 4.5-2. Removal of
any tree with an active
Swainson’s hawk nest or
disturbance of an active
nest.

Significant. No disturbance will be allowed within ½ mile of an active nest between March 1 – August 15 or until fledglings are no longer dependent upon nest tree habitat (which could be as late as September 15). If the nest tree is to be removed and
fledglings are present, the nest tree may not be removed until September 15 or until CDFG has determined that the young have fledged or are no longer dependent upon the nest tree.

If construction or other project-related activities which may cause nest abandonment or forced fledgling are proposed within the ½ mile buffer zone, intensive monitoring (funded by the project sponsor) by a CDFG-approved raptor biologist will be required. Exact implementation of this measure will be based upon specific information at the project site.

Projects should be designed to avoid direct and indirect impacts to nest trees. In addition, the revegetation of historical nesting habitat with suitable native nest tree species (e.g., oaks, cottonwoods, sycamores, etc.) adjacent to
adequate foraging habitat shall be undertaken. Sites at least five acres in size are recommended.

Less than significant. No further action necessary.

APPENDIX C: SUMMARY OF PREVIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW OF PLANNNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT SAC/161795/031060005(TABLE C-3.DOC) REVISED NATOMAS BASIN HCP

EIR/EIS
TABLE C-3
Prior Analysis of Biological Resources Impacts from Planned Urban Development in the Natomas Basina Impact
Level of
Significance Mitigation
Level of Significance
with Mitigation Action
The Environmental Design Standards contained in the
Update also contain measures to mitigation any impacts to Swainson’s hawk nest trees and nesting activities: (1) Valley oaks and other large trees should be preserved wherever possible. Preserve and restore stands of riparian trees used by Swainson’s hawks and other animals for nesting,
particularly adjacent to Fisherman’s Lake. (2) Improve the wildlife value of landscaped parks, buffers, and developed areas by planting trees and shrubs which are native to the North Natomas areas and therefore used by many native
animals. Simulate natural riparian and valley oak woodlands by planting larger stands. (3) Avoid the raptor nesting season when scheduling construction near nests.

Impact 4.5-3. Loss of
wooded riparian/wetland
habitat.

A significant
impact could
occur, although
the City
determined that
implementation
of the proposed
Comprehensive
Drainage Plan
would likely
result in a less-
than-significant
impact because
of the small
amount of
habitat
expected to be
affected.

No specific mitigation measures were considered necessary.

The Update also contains a number of measures intended to reduce the impacts of the project on wooded riparian/wetland habitat types: (1) Valley oaks and other large trees should be preserved whenever possible. Preserve and restore stands of riparian trees used by Swainson’s hawks and other animals for nesting, particularly adjacent to Fisherman’s Lake. (2) Improve the wildlife value of landscaped parks, buffers, and developed areas by planting trees and shrubs which are
native to the North Natomas area and therefore used by
many native animals. Simulate natural riparian and valley oak woodlands by planting larger stands.

Less than significant. No further action necessary.

APPENDIX C: SUMMARY OF PREVIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW OF PLANNNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT REVISED NATOMAS BASIN HCP SAC /161795/031060005(TABLE C-3.DOC)

EIR/EIS
TABLE C-3
Prior Analysis of Biological Resources Impacts from Planned Urban Development in the Natomas Basina Impact
Level of
Significance Mitigation
Level of Significance
with Mitigation Action
Impact 4.5-4. The Update
would result in the
conversion of agricultural
lands used as rice fields to
urban uses. Those rice
fields provide seasonal
wetlands values to wildlife.

Significant and
unavoidable.

The Environmental Design Standards of the Update propose the creation of a minimum 250-foot wide greenbelt along the northern and western boundaries of the Update area to create a strong edge between the urban area and adjacent areas of permanent agriculture. The landscaping in this greenbelt will be of native trees and shrubs, which are used by many native animals. riparian and wetland areas will have limited human use so as to enhance their value for wildlife. In addition, various landowners in the Update Area have entered into a Memorandum of Understanding with CDFG for the creation of a Habitat Mitigation Plan. The HMP will preserve and create wildlife habitat for a riparian species such as the Giant Garter Snake which is found near rice fields. Thus the HMP will also mitigate for the loss of rice fields which provide wetland habitat values during certain times of the year.

Significant and
unavoidable.

Impact 4.5-5.

Implementation of the
Update would result in the
conversion of agricultural
lands other than rice fields,
to urban uses. These
agricultural lands include
pastures, grain fields, alfalfa,
and fallow fields, which all
provide some value to
wildlife as foraging areas as
well as nest sites. The
Update could also result in
the loss of tree resources,
such as small stands of oaks
or other trees which provide
nesting and roosting sites fo
r
raptors and other birds.

There is also some potential
for the loss of Heritage trees
or City Street trees.

Significant. The City Arborist will review individual project applications and recommend trees for preservation. All trees not
designated for removal and/or replanting shall be protected during construction by the following means: (1) the placement of temporary chain link fencing around individual trees or around protected groves or lines of trees, (2) no trenching or grading below the driplines of trees shall be allowed, (3) cuts or fills near trees to be retained on site shall not cause water to pond continuously around trees, and (4) no parking of vehicles or storage of material shall occur within fenced areas.

Various landowners in the Update Area have agreed with
CDFG to work for the creation of a Habitat Management Plan to preserve and create habitat for certain species, such as the Swainson’s hawk, which use these “other agricultural lands” as foraging habitat. To the extent that a HMP is adopted, it will mitigate for the loss of these types of “other agricultural lands.”
Significant. The City determined that any
remaining unmitigated
environmental impacts
attributable to the project would
be outweighed by specific
economic, fiscal, social,
environmental, land use, and
other overriding considerations.

APPENDIX C: SUMMARY OF PREVIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW OF PLANNNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT SAC/161795/031060005(TABLE C-3.DOC) REVISED NATOMAS BASIN HCP

EIR/EIS
TABLE C-3
Prior Analysis of Biological Resources Impacts from Planned Urban Development in the Natomas Basina Impact
Level of
Significance Mitigation
Level of Significance
with Mitigation Action
The Update contains measures to reduce the impacts arising from a loss of trees in its Environmental Standards Section:
(1) Valley oaks and other large trees should be preserved wherever possible. Preserve and restore stands of riparian trees used by Swainson’s hawks and other animals for
nesting, particularly adjacent to Fisherman’s Lake. (2) Improve the wildlife value of landscaped parks, buffers, and developed areas by planting trees and shrubs which are
native to the North Natomas area and therefore used by
many native animals. Simulate natural riparian and valley oak woodlands by planting larger stands.

Impact 4.5-6.

Implementation of the
Update could result in the
loss of wetland habitat
values and acreage from
areas other than rice
fields. Drainage ditches
and canals may represent
a source of wetlands
habitat. There is also a
slight potential for the
existence of vernal pools
in some areas of North
Natomas, although none
have yet been identified.

The Army Corps of
Engineers and
Environmental Protection
Agency consider any fill
activity in jurisdictional
wetlands to be a
significant impact.

Significant. Prior to any physical alteration on property which contains jurisdictional wetlands, the applicant shall submit a wetland mitigation and compensation plan for the creation or
preservation of wetlands. That plan shall include detailed plans for the creation of new wetlands (when required), the specific designated area for the wetlands and supporting watershed, a monitoring program and provision for long-term maintenance of the created wetlands, fencing and buffer details, and provisions for future ownership or stewardship acceptable to the City of Sacramento. The plan shall specify vegetative performance criteria and standards to judge the success of the created wetlands, and remedial actions to be taken if the performance standards are not met. If
endangered, threatened, or candidate species are found to inhabit or use the wetlands, mitigation shall occur per the appropriate regulations and guidelines (where promulgated) or through consultation with the appropriate regulatory agency. The applicant shall also obtain the applicable Section 404 permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and enter into any required Streambed Alteration Agreement with
CDFG for any proposed modification to jurisdictional
wetlands or streambeds.

Less than significant. No further action necessary.

APPENDIX C: SUMMARY OF PREVIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW OF PLANNNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT REVISED NATOMAS BASIN HCP SAC /161795/031060005(TABLE C-3.DOC)

Implementation of the
Update may lead to the
enlargement of
abandonment of the
existing system of
drainage canals which
provide important habitat
for the Giant Garter
Snake.

The loss of
modification of
canal habitat
used by Giant
Garter Snake
would be a
significant
impact since the
snake is listed
as Threatened
by the California
Endangered
Species Act and
is a Category 1
candidate for
endangered
status under the
Federal
Endangered
Species Act.

In cases where a drainage canal is being abandoned, the canal should be allowed to dry out slowly while emergent vegetation in newly restored areas is establishing itself. This allows a transition period for the emergent vegetation and provides CDFG with an opportunity to relocate any Giant Garter Snakes to the new areas if desired. Because relocation or replacement of Giant Garter Snake habitat will not meet the habitat quality goal in the short term, replacement of existing habitat will require compensation at a 2:1 ratio in order to overcome possible population declines that may occur during the time between destruction of the original habitat and maturation of the new habitat. Habitat relocation procedures and timing considerations specified in the SEIR were: (1) no grading, excavating, or filling activities may take place within 30 feet of existing Giant Garter Snake habitat between October 1 and May 1, unless authorized by CDFG; (2) the construction of replacement habitat may take place at any time of year, but summer is preferred; water may b e
diverted from existing habitat as soon as the new habitat is completed, but the placement of dams or other diversion structures in the existing habitat will require on-site CDFG approval; (3) replacement habitat will be revegetated as directed by CDFG; (4) dewatering of existing habitat may begin at any time after November 1, but must begin by April 1 of the following year; (5) any Giant Garter Snake surveys required by the CDFG must be completed to the satisfaction of CDFG prior to
dewatering; (6) all water must be removed from existing habitat by April 15, or as soon thereafter as weather permits, and the habitat must remain dry without any standing water for 15 consecutive days after April 15 and prior to excavating or filling the dewatered habitat; (7) CDFG is to be notified when
dewatering begins and when it is completed.

In addition to the above described mitigation measures, further measures may be required as described in a report published by CDFG in January 1992 entitled Status and Future
Management of the Giant Garter Snake (Thamnophis gigas) within the Southern American Basin, Sacramento and Sutter Counties, California, by John M. Brode and George E. Hansen.

Less than significant. No further action necessary.

APPENDIX C: SUMMARY OF PREVIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW OF PLANNNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT SAC/161795/031060005(TABLE C-3.DOC) REVISED NATOMAS BASIN HCP

EIR/EIS
TABLE C-3
Prior Analysis of Biological Resources Impacts from Planned Urban Development in the Natomas Basina Impact
Level of
Significance Mitigation
Level of Significance
with Mitigation Action
The Environmental Standards Section of the Update also
contained measures to lessen the impacts of the Project on the Giant Garter Snake: (1) Maintain the natural beauty of wildlife habitat of creeks and drainage canals and basins as part of the necessary improvements, including the planting of native, drought tolerant plants. (2) Protect existing riparian and wetland habitats when building the proposed drainage canals and detention basins. (3) Provide vegetation along the new and existing canals to provide suitable habitat for Giant Garter Snakes and other wetland species.

In addition to the above mitigation measures, various
landowners in the Update Area have agreed to work with
CDFG for the creation of a Habitat Mitigation Plan to preserve and create suitable habitat for the Giant Garter Snake.

Impact 4.5-8. The clearing
and removal of riparian
trees during drainage
canal improvements, and
the removal of other
stands of trees (such as
large cottonwoods and
oaks) for various
developments has the
potential to eliminate
nesting habitat for the
Swainson’s hawk, a
protected species under
the California Endangered
Species Act. The
cottonwood trees
bordering Fisherman’s
Lake are considered the
best nesting habitat in the
area of the Update.

Significant. See above for Impact 4.5-2 and below for Impact 4.5-9. Less than significant. No further action necessary.

APPENDIX C: SUMMARY OF PREVIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW OF PLANNNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT REVISED NATOMAS BASIN HCP SAC /161795/031060005(TABLE C-3.DOC)

Implementation of the
Update would remove
agricultural fields used as
foraging habitat by
Swainson’s hawks which
next along the
Sacramento River and
Fisherman’s Lake, west of
the Update area.

Significant. Prepare a Habitat Mitigation Plan to lessen the impacts of the Update on the Swainson’s hawk and other wildlife species.

Also preserve as open space or agriculture the western part of the Project Area near the Swainson’s hawk nesting sites along the Sacramento River and Fisherman’s Lake, or the
preservation and enhancement of foraging habitats outside the Project Area but near known nesting territories. In order to provide funding for the costs of the Swainson’s hawk mitigation measures, the developer/applicant shall pay such lawful fees, taxes, or assessments as the City may impose through
development fees, impact fees, fee districts, community facilities district, assessment districts, or other similar fair, equitable, and appropriate mechanisms designed to address the cost of Swainson’s hawk foraging habitat mitigation, and that the developer/applicant be required to execute an
agreement satisfactory to the City Attorney and suitable for recordation which obligates the developer/applicant to pay development fees, assessments, or taxes.

Impact 4.5-10. Earth
moving activities and
construction activities may
cause a direct loss of
burrowing owls or their
habitat.

Potentially
significant.

Prior to initiation of grading or other earth disturbing activities, the applicant/developer shall hire a qualified biologist to perform a pre-construction survey of the site to determine if any burrowing owls are using the site for foraging or nesting.

If any nest sites are found, CDFG shall be contacted
regarding suitable mitigation measures, which may include the provision of a 300-foot buffer from the nest site during the breeding season (March 15 – August 31), or a relocation effort for the burrowing owls. The pre-construction survey shall be submitted to the City for review prior to the
commencement of construction activities. If future surveys reveal the presence of burring owls on the project site, the applicant/ developer shall prepare a plan for relocating the owls to a suitable site. The relocation plan must include:
(1) the location of the nest and owls proposed for relocation; (2) the location of the proposed relocation site; (3) the number of owls involved and the time of year when the
relocation is proposed to take place; (4) the name and
credentials of the biologist who will be retained to supervise Less than significant. No further action necessary.

APPENDIX C: SUMMARY OF PREVIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW OF PLANNNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT SAC/161795/031060005(TABLE C-3.DOC) REVISED NATOMAS BASIN HCP

EIR/EIS
TABLE C-3
Prior Analysis of Biological Resources Impacts from Planned Urban Development in the Natomas Basina Impact
Level of
Significance Mitigation
Level of Significance
with Mitigation Action
the relocation; (5) the proposed method of capture and
transport for the owls to the new site; (6) a description of the site preparations at the relocation site (e.g., enhancement of existing burrows, creation of artificial burrows, one-time or long-term vegetation control, etc.), and (7) a description of efforts proposed to monitor the relocation.

The Environmental Standards Section of the Update also
contains mitigation measures: (1) Search for special-status plants during flowering season prior to construction and special-status animals during the appropriate season, and (2) avoid the raptor nesting season when scheduling
construction near nests.

Impact 4.5-11. The
implementation of the
Update could result in the
direct destruction of other
special-status species or
the destruction of their
nesting or foraging habitat.

Potentially
significant.

Various landowners and CDFG are taking steps to develop a Habitat Mitigation Plan that may be expanded to protect all known threatened, endangered, and candidate species in the Update Area. Potential impacts could be mitigated by the measures previously discussed for the protection of specific habitats. In addition, specific nesting and roosting areas could be protected from development, along with buffer zones.

Known sites include a communal roost of white-tailed kites at Fisherman’s Lake and several burrowing owl colonies.

Another mitigation measure would be the scheduling of
construction in the vicinity of raptor nests so as to avoid the breeding season. Impacts to special-status plant species could be mitigated by conducting site-specific searches during the flowering season by a qualified botanist before construction begins. Mitigation plans could thereafter be determined if populations of those plants are found. The Update also contains mitigation measures in its
Environmental Standards Section: (1) Valley Oaks and other large trees should be preserved wherever possible. Preserve and restore stands of riparian trees used by Swainson’s hawks and other animals for nesting, particularly adjacent to Fisherman’s Lake. (2) Improve the wildlife value of
landscaped parks, buffers, and developed areas by planting trees and shrubs which are native to the North Natomas area Less than significant. No further action necessary.

APPENDIX C: SUMMARY OF PREVIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW OF PLANNNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT REVISED NATOMAS BASIN HCP SAC /161795/031060005(TABLE C-3.DOC)

EIR/EIS
TABLE C-3
Prior Analysis of Biological Resources Impacts from Planned Urban Development in the Natomas Basina Impact
Level of
Significance Mitigation
Level of Significance
with Mitigation Action
and therefore used by many native animals. (3) Riparian and wetland areas are more valuable as wildlife habitat when they are located where human use is limited, such as along
agricultural and freeway buffers and other large open space areas. (4) Avoid the raptor nesting season when scheduling construction near nests. (5) Search for special-status plants during the flowering season prior to construction and special- status animals during the appropriate season.

Impact 4.7-5. Excavation
and maintenance of
existing RD 1000 canals
could have significant
impacts on existing
riparian and wetland
habitat in Fisherman’s
Lake and the East
Drainage Canal. In
addition, contamination of
surface and groundwater
could potentially result in
adverse impacts on
wetland and riparian
habitats.

Determined to
be significant
and unavoidable
in the prior
(i.e., 1986)
environmental
review.

The draft Comprehensive Drainage Plan avoids the widening and alteration of the existing wetland and riparian areas along existing drainage canals.

Less than significant. No further action necessary.

South Natomas Community Plan EIR
Elimination of agricultural,
waste field, and fence row
habitat for wildlife caused
by urbanization of these
lands.

Significant. No mitigation measures were identified. Significant. Approval was justified by specific economic, social, environmental,
and other considerations.

APPENDIX C: SUMMARY OF PREVIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW OF PLANNNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT SAC/161795/031060005(TABLE C-3.DOC) REVISED NATOMAS BASIN HCP

Significant. Preserve riparian habitat and dedicate to the City. Less than significant. No further action necessary.

Sutter County General Plan EIR
Impact 4.8.1. Future
development in
accordance with the
proposed General Plan
will disturb or degrade
jurisdictional and other
wetland habitat resulting
from modifications of the
canal system and loss of
habitats associated with
existing rice fields.

Considered a
significant
impact.

Implement General Plan Goals 4.B, 4.C, and 4.D; Policies

4.B-1, 4.B-2, 4.B-3, 4.B-4, 4.C-1, 4.C-2, 4.C-3, 4,C-4, 4.C-5,

4.C-6, 4.C-7, 4.D-1, 4.D-2, 4.D-3, 4.D-4, 4.D-5; and
Implementation Programs 4.1, 4.2, 4.3, and 4.4.

Mitigation Measure 4.8.1. Prior to modification of canals, biological surveys targeting sensitive species shall be conducted and evaluated. In addition to the implementation of any mitigation measures prescribed as a result of these surveys, the following measures shall be implemented: (a) Prior to destruction or modification of any canals, workers will allow the canals to slowly drain thus providing escape
opportunities for displaced wildlife. (b) Prior to draining, replacement canal areas similarly suitable for habitat shall be constructed and constituent vegetation allowed to become established. (c) Whenever possible, new canals should be established in close proximity to existing canals to provide for easy relocation by displaced wildlife, Sufficient time for translocation of species if so desired by trustee agencies should be allowed. (d) A monitoring program to determine the success of habitat management objectives shall be
developed and implemented by a qualified biologist.

Mitigation Measure 4.8.1A. Subsequent development
projects shall provide species and habitat mitigation in accordance with the provisions of the Natomas Basin Habitat Conservation Plan, should this plan be adopted by Sutter County. In the absence of an adopted HCP, or should an
applicant choose not to participate in the adopted HCP, subsequent development projects for specific sites shall be required to: (a) Submit to Sutter County verification that no Less than significant. No further action necessary.

APPENDIX C: SUMMARY OF PREVIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW OF PLANNNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT REVISED NATOMAS BASIN HCP SAC /161795/031060005(TABLE C-3.DOC)

EIR/EIS
TABLE C-3
Prior Analysis of Biological Resources Impacts from Planned Urban Development in the Natomas Basina Impact
Level of
Significance Mitigation
Level of Significance
with Mitigation Action
special-status species, sensitive resources, or significant habitat exist at that site; or (2) Participate in an alternative comprehensive mitigation plan as developed and implemented by the County. Such a plan would be developed in consultation with CDFG and USFWS, and would plan for the replacement of suitable Swainson’s hawk and giant garter snake habitat. (c) Conduct individual site-specific biological reconnaissance surveys and provide site-specific mitigation for wetlands, special-status species, and significant habitat areas. Individual project mitigation strategies for identified resources will require review and approval of the County, COE, CDFG, and USFWS to obtain individual permits; and (4) Implement the general mitigation strategies of MM 4.8-1 through MM 4.8-6 below.

Mitigation Measure 4.8.2. Prior to any construction activities resulting from development under the proposed General Plan, a temporary 100-foot buffer zone shall be established during project construction near wetlands to avoid possible
inadvertent impacts to wetland habitats. This fenced zone shall be exclusionary and any construction related activities including activities which may cause inadvertent fill or contamination of wetlands shall be avoided within these zones.

Mitigation Measure 4.8.3. Prior to approval of subsequent project-specific development proposals which would modify and/or remove man-made and natural wetlands, a
comprehensive mitigation plan shall be prepared at applicant expense by a qualified habitat restoration specialist. Said plan shall be developed in cooperation with COE and in
accordance with current requirements.

Mitigation Measure 4.8.4. Prior to disturbance of any
identified vernal pools, project applicants will consult with COE and negotiate an acceptable mitigation plan. These
plans may consist of construction of artificial pools or wetlands banking, however, because the COE has
jurisdictions over these wetlands, they retain final approval authority over all mitigation plans.

APPENDIX C: SUMMARY OF PREVIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW OF PLANNNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT SAC/161795/031060005(TABLE C-3.DOC) REVISED NATOMAS BASIN HCP

EIR/EIS
TABLE C-3
Prior Analysis of Biological Resources Impacts from Planned Urban Development in the Natomas Basina Impact
Level of
Significance Mitigation
Level of Significance
with Mitigation Action
Mitigation Measure 4.8.5. Prior to site specific development within ¼ mile of documented Swainson’s hawk nest trees, measures to ensure no disturbance during the breeding
season of March 1 to September 15 shall be applied to
project-specific development approvals in consultation with CDFG and USFWS. Any activities which may cause the
parents to leave the nest and abandon the young will
constitute a “take.”
Mitigation Measure 4.8.6. Prior to development under the General Plan within the vicinity of existing and new canals, measures to ensure the preservation of a band of giant garter snake habitat shall be required (e.g., 100 feet between a canal and urban development). Although the primary purpose of the bank would be giant garter snake habitat, limited compatible uses such as bike trails may be allowed.

Impact 4.8.2. Future
development in
accordance with the
proposed General Plan
will adversely affect
populations and critical
habitat of special-status
animal species.

Significant. Same as described above for Impact 4.8.1. Less than significant. No further action necessary. a The analysis of environmental impacts presented in these documents was prepared in accordance with the requirements of CEQA. No changes to the types of impacts presented would be anticipated if the documents were prepared for NEPA purposes.

APPENDIX C: SUMMARY OF PREVIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW OF PLANNNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT SAC/161795/031060006(TABLE C-4.DOC) REVISED NATOMAS BASIN HCP

EIR/EIS
TABLE C-4
Prior Analysis of Cultural Resources Impacts from Planned Urban Development in the Natomas Basina Impact
Level of
Significance Mitigation
Level of Significance
with Mitigation Action
City of Sacramento General Plan EIR
Prehistoric and historic
resources would be
adversely impacted
through ground
disturbance and other
development activities.

The primary prehistoric
impact areas have been
identified as: (1) along the
Sacramento and American
Rivers, (2) North Natomas,
(3) portions of North
Sacramento lying north of
I-80 along drainage
courses and the American
River floodplain, (4)
southwest portion of South
Natomas, and (5) Florin
Road vicinity. The primary
historic impact areas are
the: (1) Central city, (2)

0.5-mile buffer along the
Sacramento River in the
Pocket area and Airport
Meadowview, and (3) 0.5-
mile buffer along Folsom
Boulevard in East
Broadway.

Significant. Require consultation with the North Central Information Center to identify known cultural resources and potential cultural resources that could be found on land proposed for development.

Require an archeological field survey if the development area is sensitive.

Implement specific preservation measures recommended by the survey archeologist.

Cease construction activities and consult qualified
archaeologists upon discovery of potential cultural resources.

Maintain confidentiality of significant resource locations.

Adopt cultural resource policies as part of the SGPU.

Less than significant. No further action necessary.

North Natomas Community Plan EIR
None identified. N/A N/A N/A No further action necessary.

APPENDIX C: SUMMARY OF PREVIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW OF PLANNNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT REVISED NATOMAS BASIN HCP SAC /161795/031060006(TABLE C-4.DOC)

EIR/EIS
TABLE C-4
Prior Analysis of Cultural Resources Impacts from Planned Urban Development in the Natomas Basina Impact
Level of
Significance Mitigation
Level of Significance
with Mitigation Action
South Natomas Community Plan EIR
Potential disturbance of
community cultural
resources in the southwest
corner of the community.

Significant. Cultural resource survey may be required prior to approval for specific developments in the affected area.

Less than significant. No further action necessary.

Sutter County General Plan EIR
Impact 4.9-1. Future
development in
accordance with the
proposed General Plan
will require excavation and
grading activities, resulting
in potential damage to any
unidentified prehistoric or
historic resources.

Potentially
significant.

Implement General Plan Goal 5.B, Policy 5.B-3, and
Implementation Program 5.2.

Mitigation Measure 4.9-1. The County shall require that an archeological reconnaissance be conducted and a report be prepared for development projects located in areas of high archeological sensitivity. Should the report conclude that an archeological site exists onsite, the County shall require the project proponent to implement the report’s mitigation
strategy.

APPENDIX C: SUMMARY OF PREVIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW OF PLANNNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT SAC/161795/031060007(TABLE C-5.DOC) REVISED NATOMAS BASIN HCP

EIR/EIS
TABLE C-5
Prior Analysis of Land Use Impacts from Planned Urban Development in the Natomas Basina Impact
Level of
Significance Mitigation
Level of
Significance with
Mitigation Action
City of Sacramento General Plan EIR
Farming on parcels
adjacent to the SGPU area
would be more difficult due
to increased restrictions on
agricultural activities that
are incompatible with urban
uses.

Significant. Full mitigation would require the adoption of the No Project Alternative. The City Council determined that this was not feasible. No partial mitigation was identified.

Significant. The City Council determined that
economic, social, and other
considerations make it infeasible to
mitigate the impacts to below
significant levels.
21,871 acres of
vacant/agricultural land
would be converted to
urban use, including
approximately 9,700 acres
of prime agricultural lands
(7,500 acres of which are
currently irrigated) and 100
acres of land under
Williamson Act contracts.

Significant. Full mitigation would require the adoption of the No Project Alternative. The City Council determined that this was not feasible. Identified partial mitigation included (1) establishing a development phasing program, (2) redesignating SGPU land uses to reduce project development by one-half, (3) converting non-farmland to new farmland of equivalent quality and
quantity, (4) minimizing agricultural conversion impacts on higher quality soils by directing conversion onto lower quality soils, (6) protecting other existing agricultural land through the use of Williamson Act contracts, and (7) establishing greenbelt areas. The City Council adopted (1) and (7) above, and
determined that measures (2) through (6) were not feasible.

Significant. The City Council determined that
economic, social, and other
considerations make it infeasible to
mitigate the impacts to below
significant levels.

No impacts identified for
land use conflicts between
Sacramento International
Airport and Authorized
Development.

N/A N/A N/A N/A
APPENDIX C: SUMMARY OF PREVIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW OF PLANNNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT REVISED NATOMAS BASIN HCP SAC /161795/031060007(TABLE C-5.DOC)

EIR/EIS
TABLE C-5
Prior Analysis of Land Use Impacts from Planned Urban Development in the Natomas Basina Impact
Level of
Significance Mitigation
Level of
Significance with
Mitigation Action
North Natomas Community Plan EIR
Impact 4.2-3. Cumulative
planned development in the
vicinity of the Project has
the potential to result in the
conversion of
approximately 12,670 acres
of farmland to urban uses.

Significant and
unavoidable.

Develop a greenbelt along the northern and western boundaries of the Project area to create a strong edge between the community and adjacent areas of permanent agriculture. This greenbelt should be a minimum of 250-feet wide, not including the Elkhorn Boulevard right-of-way and the irrigation canals and maintenance roads on the north side of Elkhorn. The City Council determined that it was infeasible to fully mitigate this impact, and that significant impacts would remain after the adoption of this mitigation measure.

Significant. The City determined that any
remaining unmitigated
environmental impacts attributable
to the project would be outweighed
by specific economic, fiscal, social,
environmental, land use, and other
overriding considerations.

Impact 4.6-2(A). No
impacts identified for land
use conflicts between
Sacramento International
Airport and Authorized
Development.

N/A N/A N/A N/A
South Natomas Community Plan EIR
There is the potential that
adjacent land uses would
be incompatible.

Significant. Buffer incompatible features through design review of individual projects.

Less than
significant.

No further action necessary.

Conversion of agricultural
land to urban use.

Significant. None available. Significant. Approval was justified by specific economic, social, environmental,
and other considerations.

Removal of 2,500 acres of
prime agricultural soil from
production.

Significant. None available. Significant. Approval was justified by specific economic, social, environmental,
and other considerations.

No impacts identified for
land use conflicts between
Sacramento International
Airport and Authorized
Development.

N/A N/A N/A N/A
APPENDIX C: SUMMARY OF PREVIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW OF PLANNNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT SAC/161795/031060007(TABLE C-5.DOC) REVISED NATOMAS BASIN HCP

EIR/EIS
TABLE C-5
Prior Analysis of Land Use Impacts from Planned Urban Development in the Natomas Basina Impact
Level of
Significance Mitigation
Level of
Significance with
Mitigation Action
Sutter County General Plan EIR
Impact 4.1.1. The
proposed General Plan
Update will disrupt the
existing physical
arrangement by allowing for
industrial, commercial,
residential, as well as
recreational and natural
resource uses.

Significant. Implement General Plan Goals 1.A, 1.C, 1.D, and 9.C; Policies

1.A-1, 1.A-2, 1.A-3, 1.A-4, 1.A-5, 1.A-6,1.A-7, 1.C-1, 1.C-2, 1.C- 3, 1.C-4, 1.D-1, 9.C-1, 9.C-2, 9.C-3, 9.C-4, and 9.C-5; and Implementation Programs 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, and 1.5.

Mitigation Measure 4.1-1. Concurrent with project application submittals, the County will ensure that such proposals are evaluated for potential project impacts upon surrounding development patterns and land uses. This evaluation may be accomplished through the Community Services Department
Planning Program in conjunction with an administrative zoning clearance process, or through subsequent CEQA
documentation, depending upon the scale and nature of the project.

Appropriate project-level design standards and mitigation shall either be included within subsequent development
proposals, or be required through the environmental review process to eliminate or reduce any identified land use impact.

Mitigation strategies to be considered should include (but not be limited to): (1) concentration of development within the Industrial- Commercial Reserve, (2) appropriate development phasing and the logical provision of infrastructure,
(3) site-sensitive land planning to ensure adequate transitions between type and intensity of land use patterns both internally and between parcels, (4) design guidelines and edge treatments between land uses, and (5) landscape standards.

Less than
significant.

No further action necessary.

APPENDIX C: SUMMARY OF PREVIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW OF PLANNNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT REVISED NATOMAS BASIN HCP SAC /161795/031060007(TABLE C-5.DOC)

EIR/EIS
TABLE C-5
Prior Analysis of Land Use Impacts from Planned Urban Development in the Natomas Basina Impact
Level of
Significance Mitigation
Level of
Significance with
Mitigation Action
Impact 4.1.2. The
proposed General Plan has
the potential to conflict with
adjacent land uses or
cause a substantial adverse
change in the types or
intensity of existing land
use patterns.

Significant. Implement General Plan Goals 1.C, 1.E, 1.F, and 9.C; Policies

1.C-4, 1.E-1, 1.E-2, 1.E-3, 1.F-1, 1.F-2, 1.F-3, 1.F-4, 9.C-1, 9.C- 2, 9.C-3, 9.C-4, and 9.C-5; and Implementation Programs 1.4 and 1.7.

Mitigation Measure 4.1-2. In order to ensure that new
development in the South County in the vicinity of the
Sacramento International Airport does not create a conflict in terms of land use compatibility, the County shall review all new development projects within the overflight zones for consistency with the applicable airport comprehensive land use plan.

Less than
significant.

No further action necessary.

Implementation of the
project will result in a loss
of prime agricultural land as
defined by the SCS Soil
Classification System
and/or other farmlands
designated as Important
Farmlands by the State
Important Farmlands
Inventory.

Significant. Implement General Plan Goal 6.A; Policies 6.A-1, 6.A-2, 6.A-4, and 6.A-5; and Implementation Programs 6.3, 6.4, and 6.5.

Mitigation Measure 4.2-1. The County shall encourage future development of the 3,500 acres within the 10,500 acres of the Industrial-Commercial Reserve designation to locate outside the area with soils classified as I and II bordering the Sacramento River.

Significant. The Board of Supervisors
determined that the remaining
unavoidable and irreversible
impacts of the Project are
acceptable in light of the economic,
fiscal, social, planning, land use,
and other considerations set forth
herein because the benefits of the
Project outweigh any significant
and unavoidable or irreversible
adverse environmental impacts of
the Project.

Impact 4.1.2. The
proposed General Plan has
the potential to conflict with
adjacent land uses or
cause a substantial adverse
change in the types or
intensity of existing land
use patterns.

Significant Implement General Plan Goals 1.C, 1.E, 1.F, and 9.C; Policies

1.C-4, 1.E-1, 1.E-2, 1.E-3, 1.F-1, 1.F-2, 1.F-3, 1.F-4, 9.C-1, 9.C- 2, 9.C-3, 9.C-4, and 9.C-5; and Implementation Programs 1.4 and 1.7.

Mitigation Measure 4.1.2. In order to ensure that new
development in the South County in the vicinity of the
Sacramento International Airport does not create a conflict in terms of land use compatibility, the County shall review all new development projects within the overflight zones for consistency with the applicable airport comprehensive land use plan.

Less than Significant No further action necessary.
a The analysis of environmental impacts presented in these documents was prepared in accordance with the requirements of CEQA. No changes to the types of impacts presented would be anticipated if the documents were prepared for NEPA purposes.

APPENDIX C: SUMMARY OF PREVIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW OF PLANNNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT SAC/161795/031060008(TABLE C-6.DOC) REVISED NATOMAS BASIN HCP

EIR/EIS
TABLE C-6
Prior Analysis of Socioeconomic Impacts from Planned Urban Development in the Natomas Basina Impact
Level of
Significance Mitigation
Level of Significance
with Mitigation Action
City of Sacramento General Plan EIR
Secondary impacts related
to increased housing costs,
longer commute trips, and
difficulties in attracting
workers would occur with
the project increase in the
employment-to-housing
ratio.

Significant Full mitigation would require the redesignation of land uses to achieve a one-to-one ratio of employment to housing. The City Council determined that full mitigation was not feasible.

Identified partial mitigation included: (1) encouraging additional medium- to high-density housing in the Central City, (2) rezoning infill areas to residential, (3) using zones of opportunity to encourage residential construction,
(4) rezoning 54 blocks along R Street from C-4 to residential uses, and (5) establishing citywide requirements for the development of housing as a mitigation measure for the
creation of jobs. The City Council adopted measures (1), (3), and (4) above, and determined that (2) and (5) were not feasible.

Significant. The City Council determined
that economic, social, and other
considerations make it
infeasible to mitigate the
impacts to below significant
levels.

An increase in the absolute
number of households
unable to afford market rate
units would occur.

Significant. Full mitigation would require establishing a fee program to provide financial assistance for the construction and/or rehabilitation of affordable housing. The City Council
determined that this was not feasible. Partial mitigation was to adopt a Housing Trust Fund ordinance for nonresidential developers to partially offset the increased demand for low- income housing generated by new employment. The
feasibility of implementing this measure could not be
determined.

Significant. The City Council determined
that economic, social, and other
considerations make it
infeasible to mitigate the
impacts to below significant
levels.

North Natomas Community Plan EIR
None identified. N/A N/A N/A No further action necessary.

APPENDIX C: SUMMARY OF PREVIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW OF PLANNNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT REVISED NATOMAS BASIN HCP SAC /161795/031060008(TABLE C-6.DOC)

Significant. The square footage of many new non-residential housing units has been reduced under the revised Community Plan, but there is still an excess of jobs over housing units. No further mitigation was available.

Significant. Approval was justified by
specific economic, social,
environmental, and other
considerations.

The Community Plan
changes the mixture of
housing units whereby at
buildout 60 percent of the
housing units are single-
family units.

Significant. In adopting the Community Plan, the square footage of new office space was reduced and additional single-family homes was permitted on some of the vacant land created. In
addition, the maximum density in several residential areas was reduced from 14 units to 10 units per acre.

Less than significant. No further action necessary.

Changes to the Plan which
reduce the number of
housing units provided in
South Natomas have an
adverse effect on the
availability of housing to the
Central City.

Significant. The Council reduced the square footage of new non- residential projects and allowed some of the vacant land made available to be used for residential purposes. Additional mitigation called for the increase in the supply of housing planned in the Central City including the R Street Corridor, 2nd Street to Alhambra Boulevard. The Council determined that this additional mitigation measure was not feasible because of ongoing studies on the R Street Corridor.

Significant. Approval was justified by
specific economic, social,
environmental, and other
considerations.

Sutter County General Plan EIR
No impacts identified. N/A N/A N/A No further action necessary. a The analysis of environmental impacts presented in these documents was prepared in accordance with the requirements of CEQA. No changes to the types of impacts presented would be anticipated if the documents were prepared for NEPA purposes.

APPENDIX C: SUMMARY OF PREVIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW OF PLANNNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT SAC/161795/031060009(TABLE C-7.DOC) REVISED NATOMAS BASIN HCP

EIR/EIS
TABLE C-7
Prior Analysis of Transportation Impacts from Planned Urban Development in the Natomas Basina Impact
Level of
Significance Mitigation
Level of Significance
with Mitigation Action
City of Sacramento General Plan EIR
Traffic modeling showed
that approximately 90
roadway segments would
operate at an
unacceptable level of
service with
implementation of the
General Plan Update.

Significant. No mitigation is available to reduce impacts to a less-than-significant level because existing development would have to be displaced.

Significant. The City Council determined that
economic, social, and other
considerations make it infeasible
to mitigate the impacts to below
significant levels.

Traffic modeling showed
that three segments of I-
80 and one segment of I-5
would operate at an
unacceptable level of
service with
implementation of the
General Plan Update.

Significant. Widening these highway segments to 8 lanes would reduce the impact to a less-than-significant level. However, widening of freeways requires State approval, and funding was not programmed in the State Transportation Improvement
Program.

Significant. The City Council determined that
economic, social, and other
considerations make it infeasible
to mitigate the impacts to below
significant levels.

Traffic modeling showed
that about 35 local
roadway segments would
operate at an
unacceptable level of
service with
implementation of the
General Plan Update.

Significant. For each roadway, full mitigation was identified, or it was stated that full mitigation was not possible. The City
determined that the mitigation measures were not feasible to adopt for one of the following reasons: (1) the identified improvement was not contained in the City’s 5-year Capital Improvement Program, and funding would require
displacement of funds for other needed projects;
(2) mitigation is the responsibility of another local agency (e.g., Sacramento County); (3) the measure would have
adverse social and neighborhood impacts; or (4) the measure was being studied.

Significant. The City Council determined that
economic, social, and other
considerations make it infeasible
to mitigate the impacts to below
significant levels.

There would be increased
delays to transit caused by
greater auto traffic.

Significant. Implement all proposed mitigation measures for traffic impacts identified above. The City Council determined that this would be infeasible for the reasons described above.

Significant. The City Council determined that
economic, social, and other
considerations make it infeasible
to mitigate the impacts to below
significant levels.

APPENDIX C: SUMMARY OF PREVIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW OF PLANNNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT REVISED NATOMAS BASIN HCP SAC /161795/031060009(TABLE C-7.DOC)

Significant. Establish funding mechanisms to finance transit expansion.

The City determined that it has no authority to implement this measure.

Also implement Policy 4 of the General Plan Circulation Element (Transit section).

Less than significant. No further action necessary.

Potential for conflicts
between Light Rail and
vehicles would increase,
causing significant delays
to Light Rail.

Significant. Establish and enforce yield requirements for vehicles using shared lanes.

Design access to Light Rail stations to minimize disruption to main line traffic flows and to assure efficient ingress and egress.

Less than significant. No further action needed.

Potential for bike-vehicle
conflicts and other safety
problems for bicyclists
would increase.

Significant. Establish off-street bikeways where feasible. Also implement Goal A, Policies 1 and 3 from the General Plan Circulation Element (Bikeways section).

Less than significant. No further action necessary.

North Natomas Community Plan EIR
Impact 4.3-1(A). Traffic
modeling shows that the
existing plus Project daily
traffic volumes (assuming
all single-occupancy
vehicles) will result in
avoidable impacts to
seven roadway segments.

Significant. Additional turn lanes and/or optimization of traffic control at major intersections, together with stringent access
management policies, will mitigate impacts at three of these roadway segments. Additional travel lanes will be required on the other roadway segments.

The Update also contains Guiding Policies to mitigate for the impacts to the circulation system: (1) link all land uses with all modes of transportation; (2) connect, don’t isolate, neighborhoods or activity centers; (3) rage an orderly development pattern through phasing that provides for
adequate local circulation resulting in completion of the community-wide circulation system; (4) provide multiple routes and connections to adjacent developments; (5) the size and layout of the major street system should be based on traffic projections that assume successful implementation of the trip and emission reduction programs; (6) street system capacity should be based on no greater than the future traffic Less than significant. No further action necessary.

APPENDIX C: SUMMARY OF PREVIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW OF PLANNNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT SAC/161795/031060009(TABLE C-7.DOC) REVISED NATOMAS BASIN HCP

EIR/EIS
TABLE C-7
Prior Analysis of Transportation Impacts from Planned Urban Development in the Natomas Basina Impact
Level of
Significance Mitigation
Level of Significance
with Mitigation Action
projections; and (7) develop street cross-sections that encourage all street to be as pedestrian friendly as possible to encourage walking instead of vehicle use.

Impact 4.3-2(A). Traffic
modeling shows that the
existing plus Project daily
traffic volumes (assuming
the SACMET mode split
and a 12% reduction in
vehicle trips) will result in
avoidable impacts to six
roadway segments.

Significant. Additional turn lanes and/or optimization of traffic control at major intersections, together with stringent access
management policies, will mitigate impacts at two of these roadway segments. Additional travel lanes will be required on the other roadway segments. The Update also contains
Guiding Policies to mitigate for the impacts to the circulation system as described above.

Less than significant. No further action necessary.

Impact 4.3-2(B). If Light
Rail is not extended to
North Natomas, then
demands for bus service
will increase (12% trip
reduction scenario).

Potentially
significant.

Provide for expanded operation by Regional Transit, including additional buses and personnel, along major roadways in the North Natomas area. The Update also contains Guiding
Policies that will mitigate for the impacts to the transit system:
(1) provide a concentration of density at each phase to support appropriate transit service, (2) design for a phased
implementation of transit corridors to accommodate
intermediate stages of land development, (3) maximize
rider access to transit stops and stations, and (4) each non-residential project shall comply with the Citywide
Transportation Systems Management Ordinance and a
Transportation Management Plan shall be required.

Less than significant. No further action necessary.

Impact 4.3-3(A). Traffic
modeling shows that the
existing plus Project daily
traffic volumes (assuming
the SACMET mode split
and a 35% reduction in
vehicle trips) will result in
avoidable impacts to five
roadway segments.

Significant. Additional turn lanes and/or optimization of traffic control at major intersections, together with stringent access
management policies, will mitigate impacts at two of these roadway segments. Additional travel lanes will be required on the other roadway segments. The Update also contains
Guiding Policies to mitigate for the impacts to the circulation system as described above.

Less than significant. No further action necessary.

APPENDIX C: SUMMARY OF PREVIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW OF PLANNNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT REVISED NATOMAS BASIN HCP SAC /161795/031060009(TABLE C-7.DOC)

EIR/EIS
TABLE C-7
Prior Analysis of Transportation Impacts from Planned Urban Development in the Natomas Basina Impact
Level of
Significance Mitigation
Level of Significance
with Mitigation Action
Impact 4.3-3(B). If Light
Rail is not extended to
North Natomas, then
demands for bus service
will increase (35% trip
reduction scenario).

Significant. Same as described above for the 12% trip reduction scenario.

Less than significant. No further action necessary.

South Natomas Community Plan EIR
Traffic modeling indicated
that unacceptable level of
service would occur at two
intersections.

Significant. Construct recommended intersection improvements. Less than significant. No further action necessary.

Traffic modeling indicated
that unacceptable level of
service would occur at
17 roadway segments and
18 intersections.

Significant. Identified mitigation measures (e.g., road widening) were determined to be infeasible for one or more of the following reasons: (1) the required road widening would exceed the maximum design width of City streets, (2) the required road widening would displace existing development, (3) additional study was warranted, (4) the project was within the jurisdiction of another agency, (5) the project would have significant environmental impacts, or (6) the project was cost-prohibitive.

Significant. Approval was justified by specific
economic, social, environmental,
and other considerations.

Traffic modeling indicated
that unacceptable level of
service would occur at
three additional roadway
segments.

Significant. No mitigation measures are available. Significant. Approval was justified by specific economic, social, environmental,
and other considerations.

Sutter County General Plan EIR
Impact 4.5-1.

Implementation of the
Revised General Plan
Land Use Diagram would
result in numerous State
highway and county
roadway segments to
operate at unacceptable
levels of service in 2015.

Significant. Implement General Plan Goal 2.A; Policies 2.A-1, 2.A-2,

2.A-3, 2.A-4, 2.A-5, 2.A-6, 2.A-7, 2.A-8, 2.A-9, 2.A-10, and

2.A-11; and Implementation Programs 2.1, 2.2, and 2.3.

In addition, specific improvements were recommended to 10 roadway segments throughout the County (5 within the
Natomas Basin).

Less than significant. No additional action necessary.

APPENDIX C: SUMMARY OF PREVIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW OF PLANNNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT SAC/161795/031060009(TABLE C-7.DOC) REVISED NATOMAS BASIN HCP

EIR/EIS
TABLE C-7
Prior Analysis of Transportation Impacts from Planned Urban Development in the Natomas Basina Impact
Level of
Significance Mitigation
Level of Significance
with Mitigation Action
Implementation of the
proposed land use
diagram may have a long-
term impact on existing or
planned transit facilities
and services. Although
implementation of the
Revised General Plan will
not directly disrupt,
interfere, or conflict with
existing or planned
operations, future
development will introduce
demand to areas not
currently planned for
transit service.

Potentially
significant.

Implement General Plan Goal 2.B; Policies 2.B-1, 2.B-2, 2.B- 3, 2.B-4, and 2.B-5; and Implementation Programs 2.4, 2.5 and 2.6.

Mitigation Measure 4.5-11. Modification of transit service to accommodate new development should be made in
consultation with the County and Yuba-Sutter Transit. to enhance the potential for transit service in the areas with modified land uses, development in these areas should
include land dedication, easement agreements, and funding for the installation of transit and rideshare facilities (e.g., bus turnouts, transit shelters, park and ride lots).

Less than significant. No further action necessary.

Impact 4.5.3. Future
development will create
additional demand to the
bicycle/pedestrian
circulation system in areas
not currently planned to
accommodate such
facilities.

Potentially
significant.

Implement General Plan Goal 2.C; Policies 2.C-1 and 2.C-2; and Implementation Programs 2.6 and 2.7.

Mitigation Measure 4.5-12. Future development under the Revised General Plan should provide adequate right-of-way and funding to construct pedestrian/bikeway system facilities to support increased demand. Such projects should also be incorporated into the Yuba-Sutter Bicycle Master Plan.

APPENDIX C: SUMMARY OF PREVIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW OF PLANNNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT SAC/161795/031060010(TABLE C-8.DOC) REVISED NATOMAS BASIN HCP

EIR/EIS
TABLE C-8
Prior Analysis of Noise Impacts from Planned Urban Development in the Natomas Basina Impact
Level of
Significance Mitigation
Level of Significance
with Mitigation Action
City of Sacramento General Plan EIR
Interior noise levels along
some roadway segments
in areas proposed for
development would
exceed normally
acceptable levels for
residential land uses and
would create an adverse
community response.

Significant. Reduce noise levels to the normally acceptable levels identified in the Noise Element through proper site planning and architectural layout, noise barriers, and construction modification. Also implement the following Goals and Policies from the General Plan Health and Safety Element (Noise
section): Goal A; Policies 1, 2, and 3.

Less than significant. No further action necessary.

Exterior noise levels along
some roadway segments
in areas proposed for
development would
exceed normally
acceptable levels for
residential land uses and
would create an adverse
community response.

Significant. Same as above for interior noise levels. Less than significant. No further action necessary.

Interior noise levels along
some roadway segments
in currently developed
areas would exceed
normally acceptable levels
for residential land use
and would create an
adverse community
response.

Significant. Reduce noise levels to the normally acceptable levels through proper site planning and architectural layout, noise barriers, and construction modification. The City Council determined that it was infeasible to adopt this measure because it would be impracticable to require owners to retrofit their homes to comply with the Noise Element since no
mechanism exists to enforce such a requirement and no
public funding sources have been identified to retrofit existing uses.

Significant. The City Council determined
that economic, social, and other
considerations make it
infeasible to mitigate the
impacts to below significant
levels.

APPENDIX C: SUMMARY OF PREVIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW OF PLANNNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT REVISED NATOMAS BASIN HCP SAC /161795/031060010(TABLE C-8.DOC)

EIR/EIS
TABLE C-8
Prior Analysis of Noise Impacts from Planned Urban Development in the Natomas Basina Impact
Level of
Significance Mitigation
Level of Significance
with Mitigation Action
Interior noise levels along
some roadway segments
in currently developed
areas would exceed
normally acceptable levels
for residential land use
and would create an
adverse community
response.

Significant. Same as above for interior noise levels. Significant. The City Council determined that economic, social, and other
considerations make it
infeasible to mitigate the
impacts to below significant
levels.

North Natomas residents
in the vicinity of
Sacramento International
Airport would be exposed
to noise levels in excess of
that considered normally
acceptable (the proposed
SGPU Noise Element
identifies 60dB).

Significant. One of the following measures would be required to mitigate this impact: (1) amend the noise standard, (2) amend the land uses in the North Natomas Community Plan, or (3)
request the County Division of Airports to make flight
modifications. The City Council adopted measure (3) above, but determined that full mitigation, including measures (1) and (2), would be infeasible.

Significant. The City Council determined
that economic, social, and other
considerations make it
infeasible to mitigate the
impacts to below significant
levels.

Additional residences
would be exposed to
interior noise levels in
excess of that considered
normally acceptable as a
result of railroad
operations.

Significant. Reduce noise levels to the normally acceptable levels identified in the SGPU Noise Element through proper site planning and architectural layout, noise barriers, and
construction modifications. Also implement the following Goals and Policies from the General Plan Health and Safety Element (Noise section): Goal A; Policies 1, 2, and 3.

Less than significant. No further action necessary.

APPENDIX C: SUMMARY OF PREVIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW OF PLANNNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT SAC/161795/031060010(TABLE C-8.DOC) REVISED NATOMAS BASIN HCP

EIR/EIS
TABLE C-8
Prior Analysis of Noise Impacts from Planned Urban Development in the Natomas Basina Impact
Level of
Significance Mitigation
Level of Significance
with Mitigation Action
Additional residences
would be exposed to
exterior noise levels in
excess of that considered
normally acceptable as a
result of railroad
operations.

Significant. Same as above for interior noise levels. Less than significant. No further action necessary.

North Natomas residences
in the vicinity of
Sacramento International
Airport would be exposed
to noise levels in excess of
that considered normally
acceptable. Note that the
General Plan was under
consideration prior to the
North Natomas
Community Plan Update
(see impacts below).

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

Significant The City Council determined
that economic, social, and other
considerations make it
infeasible to mitigate the
impacts to below significant
levels.

APPENDIX C: SUMMARY OF PREVIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW OF PLANNNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT REVISED NATOMAS BASIN HCP SAC /161795/031060010(TABLE C-8.DOC)

EIR/EIS
TABLE C-8
Prior Analysis of Noise Impacts from Planned Urban Development in the Natomas Basina Impact
Level of
Significance Mitigation
Level of Significance
with Mitigation Action
North Natomas Community Plan EIR
Impact 4.6-1(A). Traffic-
related noise would impact
residential land uses
proposed within the 60dB
traffic noise contour line.

Potentially
significant.

Conduct a detailed acoustical analysis for any land use that would be potentially incompatible with outdoor noise limits specified by the City’s Noise Element. Residential land uses should be developed such that there is some usable outdoor space associated with the development which provides an exterior noise level that does not exceed a day/night average sound level of 45dB. Each development proposal should be reviewed to ensure compliance with this goal. In addition, the Environmental Standards Section of the Update also contains mitigation measures for traffic-related noise impacts, as follows: (1) A detailed acoustical study shall be required for any land use which potentially would be incompatible with outdoor noise limits specified by the requirements of the Noise Element of the General Plan, or which is located within the Noise Impacts areas shown in the EIR. (2) Development exposed to surface transportation noise should be designed to be consistent with the goals of the City General Plan.

Residential land uses should be developed such that there is some usable outdoor space associated with the development that provides an exterior noise level that does not exceed an Ldn of 45dB. (3) Indoor noise levels shall not exceed an Ldn of 45dB. (4) Setback and landscaping requirements for major roads identified in the Circulation Element should be provided dependent on the function of the road and adjacent land uses. (5) The I-5 Corridor Overlay Zone, described in Section 27 of the City’s Zoning Ordinance, specifies a 100-foot building setback on both sides of the freeway. The Council determined that these measures, although feasible to
implement, would not reduce noise impacts to a less-than- significant level.

APPENDIX C: SUMMARY OF PREVIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW OF PLANNNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT SAC/161795/031060010(TABLE C-8.DOC) REVISED NATOMAS BASIN HCP

Potentially
significant.

No specific mitigation measures were identified to reduce the traffic generated noise impacts of the Update on existing sensitive receptors in South Natomas. All new development along Northgate (from I-80 to Rosin Court), Truxel (from I-80 to Rosin Court), and San Juan (from I-80 to Rosin Court) should include a detailed acoustical analysis and the use of design measures on new structures that would reduce
potential noise impacts. The City Council determined that these measures could not assure that noise impacts would be mitigated below the 60dB threshold.

Impact 4.6-2(A). Aircraft
noise exposures
associated with existing
and future operations at
Sacramento International
Airport will not affect land
use compatibility in the
Update area because the
area will lie outside the
60dB CNEL contour.

Less than
significant.

N/A N/A No further action necessary.

Impact 4.6-2(B). Aircraft
noise exposures
associated with existing
and future operations at
Sacramento International
Airport will not affect land
use compatibility in the
South Natomas because
South Natomas lies
outside the 60dB CNEL
contour.

Less than
significant.

N/A N/A No further action necessary.

APPENDIX C: SUMMARY OF PREVIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW OF PLANNNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT REVISED NATOMAS BASIN HCP SAC /161795/031060010(TABLE C-8.DOC)

EIR/EIS
TABLE C-8
Prior Analysis of Noise Impacts from Planned Urban Development in the Natomas Basina Impact
Level of
Significance Mitigation
Level of Significance
with Mitigation Action
Impact 4.6-3(A). Based
on the distances to the
predicted light rail
day/night average noise
level contours, it is
anticipated that roadway
traffic on streets adjacent
to the proposed light rail
lines will dominate the
noise environment.

Less than
significant.

N/A N/A No further action necessary.

Impact 4.6-3(B). Based
on the distances to the
predicted light rail
day/night average noise
level contours, it is
anticipated that roadway
traffic on streets adjacent
to the proposed light rail
lines will dominate the
noise environment in
South Natomas.

Less than
significant.

N/A N/A No further actions necessary.

APPENDIX C: SUMMARY OF PREVIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW OF PLANNNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT SAC/161795/031060010(TABLE C-8.DOC) REVISED NATOMAS BASIN HCP

EIR/EIS
TABLE C-8
Prior Analysis of Noise Impacts from Planned Urban Development in the Natomas Basina Impact
Level of
Significance Mitigation
Level of Significance
with Mitigation Action
Impact 4.6-4(A). Noise
from outdoor concerts at
the Sports Complex could
potentially affect land use
compatibility at the
southeast corner of the
Sports Complex, near the
intersection of
Stadium/Market Boulevard
and Truxel Road. In
addition, use of the public
address system could
potentially affect land use
compatibility to the north,
east, and southeast of the
complex.

Potentially
significant.

The stadium operator in the Sports Complex should be
required to carefully orient the speaker arrays to minimize directing sound beyond the seating areas. This can be
accomplished through speaker array design and by the
location of seating areas. The primary mitigation measures for outdoor concerts and the public address system are
careful targeting of the speaker arrays, establishment of design sound levels within the stadium, and requirements for noise level monitoring during concerts and sporting events.

The Update also proposes Guiding Policies and
Environmental Design Standards to mitigate the impacts of the Sports Complex on surrounding land uses, as follows: (1) construct and operate stadium and arena to minimize traffic problems and negative impacts on surrounding residential neighborhoods. (2) Indoor noise levels shall not exceed an Ldn of 45dB. (3) A detailed acoustical study shall be required for any land use which potentially would be incompatible with outdoor noise limits specified by the requirements of the Noise Element of the General Plan, or which is located within the Noise Impacts Areas shown in the EIR. The City Council determined that further mitigation was not feasible.

Impact 4.6-4(B). The
South Natomas
Community Plan area is
outside of the projected
65dBA noise contour line
for the Sports Complex’s
public address system and
the 55dBA contour line for
concerts.

Less than
significant.

N/A N/A No further action necessary.

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

Less than
Significant
N/A Less than Significant None required
APPENDIX C: SUMMARY OF PREVIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW OF PLANNNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT REVISED NATOMAS BASIN HCP SAC /161795/031060010(TABLE C-8.DOC)

EIR/EIS
TABLE C-8
Prior Analysis of Noise Impacts from Planned Urban Development in the Natomas Basina Impact
Level of
Significance Mitigation
Level of Significance
with Mitigation Action
South Natomas Community Plan EIR
Exterior noise levels along
many roadway segments
in areas proposed for
development will exceed
normally acceptable levels
for residential
development.

Significant. Implement the policies of the Noise element of the General Plan (described above). The City Council determined that it was not feasible to fully implement the Noise Element.

Significant. Approval was justified by
specific economic, social,
environmental, and other
considerations.

No noise impacts
identified between
Sacramento International
Airport and Authorized
Development.

N/A N/A N/A N/A
APPENDIX C: SUMMARY OF PREVIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW OF PLANNNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT SAC/161795/031060010(TABLE C-8.DOC) REVISED NATOMAS BASIN HCP

EIR/EIS
TABLE C-8
Prior Analysis of Noise Impacts from Planned Urban Development in the Natomas Basina Impact
Level of
Significance Mitigation
Level of Significance
with Mitigation Action
Sutter County General Plan EIR
Impact 4.7.1. The
potential exists for noise
levels at existing and
future noise-sensitive land
uses to exceed acceptable
noise exposures as
defined by the General
Plan.

Significant. Implement General Plan Goal 8.A; Policies 8.A-1, 8.A-2, 8.A- 3, 8.A-4, 8.A-5, 8.A-6; and Implementation Programs 8.1, 8.2, and 8.3.

Mitigation Measure 4.7.1. Consistent with the General Plan Policies, noise exposure may be reduced by increasing the distance between the noise source and receiving use.

Setback areas can take the form of open space, frontage roads, recreational areas, storage yards, etc. The available noise attenuation from this technique is limited by the characteristics of the noise source, but is generally 4 to 6dB per doubling of distance from the source. Setbacks, if utilized as mitigation, will be identified by the project applicant within subsequent development proposals.

Mitigation Measure 4.7.2. Consistent with the General Plan policies, noise exposure may be reduced by placing walls, berms, or other structures, such as buildings, as shielding between the noise source and the receiver. The effectiveness of a barrier depends upon blocking line-of-sight between the source and the receiver, and is improved with increasing the distance the sound must travel to pass over the barrier as compared to a straight line from the source to the receiver.

Less than significant. No further action necessary.

No noise impacts
identified between
Sacramento International
Airport and Authorized
Development.

N/A N/A N/A N/A
a The analysis of environmental impacts presented in these documents was prepared in accordance with the requirements of CEQA. No changes to the types of impacts presented would be anticipated if the documents were prepared for NEPA purposes.

APPENDIX C: SUMMARY OF PREVIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW OF PLANNNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT SAC/161795/031060011(TABLE C-9.DOC) REVISED NATOMAS BASIN HCP

EIR/EIS
TABLE C-9
Prior Analysis of Air Quality Impacts from Planned Urban Development in the Natomas Basina Impact
Level of
Significance Mitigation
Level of Significance
with Mitigation Action
City of Sacramento General Plan EIR
Reactive organic gas
emissions would increase
by 47 percent over
existing levels, and
nitrogen oxide emissions
would decrease by 1
percent, thereby
exacerbating the region’s
non-attainment status for
the federal ozone
standard.

Significant. The City Council determined that full mitigation was not feasible. Partial mitigation included: (1) implementing Transportation Systems Management measures, such as
ridesharing incentives, parking management measures,
alternative transportation incentives, park-and-ride lots, bicycle facilities, major roadway and intersection
improvements, signal synchronization, signal preemption, alternatives fuels, bus tokens for employee business travel, employee bicycle fleets, flex time, employee-subsidized bus passes, carpool verification programs, and two-way video communication links and other electronic communication
facilities; (2) implement all proposed mitigation for traffic impacts; (3) construct regional facilities; and (4) implement measures to encourage pedestrian travel, such as eliminate rounded curbs, separate sidewalks and roadways whenever possible, and require off-street parking for guests in higher- density neighborhoods. The City Council determined that it was feasible to adopt measures (1) and (4) because of the Goals and Policies contained in the following sections of the General Plan Circulation Element: Transportation Systems Management, Central City Transportation, Transit, Parking, Pedestrianways, Bikeways, and Pedestrians. The City
Council determined that it was infeasible to adopt measures (2) and (3) for the same reasons as described under “Traffic.” Significant. The City Council determined that
economic, social, and other
considerations make it infeasible to
mitigate the impacts to below
significant levels.

Carbon monoxide levels
would increase, thereby
resulting in violations of
state or federal carbon
monoxide standards in all
Community Plan areas
except for North
Sacramento and the
Pocket area.

Significant. Same as above for reactive organic gasses and nitrogen oxides.

Significant. The City Council determined that
economic, social, and other
considerations make it infeasible to
mitigate the impacts to below
significant levels.

APPENDIX C: SUMMARY OF PREVIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW OF PLANNNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT REVISED NATOMAS BASIN HCP SAC /161795/031060011(TABLE C-9.DOC)

EIR/EIS
TABLE C-9
Prior Analysis of Air Quality Impacts from Planned Urban Development in the Natomas Basina Impact
Level of
Significance Mitigation
Level of Significance
with Mitigation Action
North Natomas Community Plan EIR
Impact 4.4-1. Buildout of
the proposed Update will
result in an increase in the
regional air quality
pollutants such as reactive
organic gases, nitrogen
oxides, particulate matter,
and sulfur oxides.

Significant. Mitigation measures would not entirely eliminate an increase in emissions. Partial mitigation could be achieved through implementation of the Air Quality Mitigation Strategy, which established a goal of reducing reactive organic gases by 35 percent over the baseline by achieving a 1.4 person per vehicle average ridership ratio and promoting low-emission vehicle use. Specific measures were of three types: (1) site design measures, such as orienting buildings to promote transit use; (2) target area measures, such as reducing the amount of parking allowed at any site within ¼ mile of a light rail station; and (3) community-wide measures, such as the provision of a community shuttle system. The Update also contains a number of Guiding Policies which also act as mitigation measures to reduce the regional air quality impacts of the update, including the following: (1) development in North Natomas shall comply with the Federal and the
California Clean Air Acts; (2) the Air Quality Mitigation Strategy shall have as a goal a 35 percent community-wide daily reduction in vehicle and other related reactive organic compound emissions at buildout; (3) structure the community and each development to minimize the number and length of vehicle trips; (4) each non-residential project shall comply with the Citywide Transportation Systems Management
Ordinance and a Transportation Management Plan shall be required; (5) minimize air quality impacts through direct street routing, providing a support network for zero-emissions vehicles, bicycles, and pedestrians, and sizing streets suitable to the distance and speed of the traveler. The City Council adopted this partial mitigation.

Significant. The City determined that any
remaining unmitigated
environmental impacts attributable
to the project would be outweighed
by specific economic, fiscal, social,
environmental, land use, and other
overriding considerations.

APPENDIX C: SUMMARY OF PREVIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW OF PLANNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT SAC/161795/031060011(TABLE C-9.DOC) REVISED NATOMAS BASIN HCP

EIR/EIS
TABLE C-9
Prior Analysis of Air Quality Impacts from Planned Urban Development in the Natomas Basina Impact
Level of
Significance Mitigation
Level of Significance
with Mitigation Action
Impact 4.4-2. Buildout of
the Update will result in
increased levels of carbon
monoxide concentrations,
but these concentrations
will not exceed the
strictest guidelines set for
one-hour and eight-hour
localized emissions.

Less than
significant.

N/A N/A No additional action necessary.

Impact 4.4-3. Buildout of
the Update will result in
increased levels of carbon
monoxide concentrations
in South Natomas, but
these concentrations are
not expected to exceed
state and federal
standards at any
intersections in South
Natomas.

Less than
significant.

N/A N/A No further action necessary.

South Natomas Community Plan EIR
Development in South
Natomas will contribute to
increased ozone
emissions by exacerbating
the region’s non-
attainment status of the
Federal ozone standard.

Significant. Implement the Transportation Systems Management measures prescribed in the General Plan.

Significant. Approval was justified by specific
economic, social, environmental,
and other considerations.

APPENDIX C: SUMMARY OF PREVIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW OF PLANNNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT REVISED NATOMAS BASIN HCP SAC /161795/031060011(TABLE C-9.DOC)

EIR/EIS
TABLE C-9
Prior Analysis of Air Quality Impacts from Planned Urban Development in the Natomas Basina Impact
Level of
Significance Mitigation
Level of Significance
with Mitigation Action
Violation of the carbon
monoxide standards are
expected to occur under
full buildout of South
Natomas with worst-case
traffic conditions resulting
from buildout of
surrounding areas at
various intersections
throughout the Community
Plan.

Significant. Implement the measures described under Traffic that reduce traffic congestion. As described in that section, most
intersection improvements could not be mitigated to a
less-than-significant level.

Significant. Approval was justified by specific
economic, social, environmental,
and other considerations.

Sutter County General Plan EIR
Impact 4.6.1.

Implementation of the
Comprehensive General
Plan Revision will result in
exceedance of ambient air
quality standards and
contribute to an existing or
projected air quality
violation.

Significant. Implement General Plan Goal 4.I; Policies 4.I-1 and 4.I-2; and Implementation Program 4.6.

Implement the following mitigation measures (MM 4.6.1
through 4.6.11. (1) For subsequent development proposals, the County shall encourage (or condition) the use of energy efficient street lighting and parking lot lighting to reduce emissions at the power plant which serves the County. (2) For subsequent development proposals, the County shall
encourage (or condition) the use of low polluting and high efficiency appliances for development plans wherever
possible. (3) For subsequent development proposals, the County shall consider the design of circulation systems, traffic flow and ingress and egress points to minimize idling vehicle emissions. (4) Sutter County shall coordinate with the Feather River Air Quality Management District and other local air districts to implement consistent air quality policies and coordinate efforts to regulate and monitor regional problems, such as pollutant transport. (5) The County shall promote the use of signal synchronization, one-way streets, computerized traffic controls, removal of unnecessary signals, and other engineering techniques to decrease idling time and maximize the speed of traffic on congested surface streets. (6) For Significant. The Board of Supervisors
determined that the remaining
unavoidable and irreversible impacts
of the Project are acceptable in light
of the economic, fiscal, social,
planning, land use, and other
considerations set forth herein
because the benefits of the Project
outweigh any significant and
unavoidable or irreversible adverse
environmental impacts of the
Project.

APPENDIX C: SUMMARY OF PREVIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW OF PLANNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT SAC/161795/031060011(TABLE C-9.DOC) REVISED NATOMAS BASIN HCP

EIR/EIS
TABLE C-9
Prior Analysis of Air Quality Impacts from Planned Urban Development in the Natomas Basina Impact
Level of
Significance Mitigation
Level of Significance
with Mitigation Action
subsequent development proposals, the County shall require that space and water heaters comply with District Stationary Source Rules and Uniform Mechanical Code requirements.
(7) For subsequent development proposals, the County shall recommend (or condition) the use of HVAC equipment with a SEER of 12 or greater. (8) The County shall explore the feasibility of converting (or participating in a program which converts) a portion of the local public service vehicle fleet from gasoline or diesel to compressed natural gas (CNG), or
electricity. Examples include county owned vehicles, local transit providers, U.S. Postal Service vehicles, and school buses. (9) The County shall encourage the retirement of pre- 1974 vehicles to help offset new emissions generated by the General Plan land uses. (10) The County shall encourage (or condition) the use of Parking Management Programs for land uses which generate peak attraction or event-related traffic volumes. (11) The County shall promote county-wide or
departmental implementation of employee-based trip reduction strategies, such as flexible work week schedules and carpool incentives, as an example for other County residents. The Board of Supervisors determined that these measures were feasible to implement, but would not reduce impacts to a less-than-significant level.

Impact 4.6.2.

Implementation of the
Comprehensive General
Plan Revision will cause
an increase in the
concentration of localized
pollutants resulting from
construction that, as
predicted, would result in
a violation of the most
stringent State or federal
standards.

Significant. Implement General Plan Goal 4.J, Policy 4.J-1, and Implementation Program 4.7.

Implement the following mitigation measures (MM 4.6.12
through 4.6.21. (12) For subsequent development proposals under the General Plan, the County shall require that all active portions of construction sites, earthen access roads, and material excavated or graded by sufficiently watered to prevent excessive amounts of dust. Watering shall occur at least twice a day with complete coverage, preferably in the late morning and after work is done for the day. Where feasible, reclaimed water shall be used. (13) For subsequent development
proposals under the General Plan, the County shall require that all clearing, grading, earth moving, or excavation activities Less than significant. No further action necessary.

APPENDIX C: SUMMARY OF PREVIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW OF PLANNNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT REVISED NATOMAS BASIN HCP SAC /161795/031060011(TABLE C-9.DOC)

EIR/EIS
TABLE C-9
Prior Analysis of Air Quality Impacts from Planned Urban Development in the Natomas Basina Impact
Level of
Significance Mitigation
Level of Significance
with Mitigation Action
shall cease during periods of winds greater than 20 miles per hour averaged over one hour. (14) For subsequent
development proposals under the General Plan, the County shall require that all material transported off site shall be either sufficiently watered or securely covered to prevent excessive amounts of dust. (15) For subsequent development proposals under the General Plan, the County shall require that the area disturbed by clearing, earth moving, or excavation activities shall be minimized at all times. This can be accomplished by mowing instead of discing for weed control and seeding and watering inactive portions of the construction site until grass is evident. (16) Construction site vehicle speeds shall be limited to 15 miles per hour, unless particular vehicles require greater speeds to operate. (17) For subsequent development
proposals under the General Plan, the County shall require the use of petroleum-based dust palliatives, if used, that meet the road oil requirements set forth by the Air District. (18) For subsequent development proposals, the county shall require that streets adjacent to specific project sites shall be swept as needed to remove silt that may have accumulated from
construction activities. (19) For subsequent development proposals under the General Plan, the County shall require that all internal combustion engine driven equipment shall be properly maintained and well tuned according to the
manufacturers specifications. (20) For subsequent
development proposals under the General Plan constructed during the smog season (May through October), the County shall encourage the lengthening of the construction period to minimize the number of vehicles and equipment operating at the same time. (21) For subsequent development proposals under the General Plan, the County shall encourage the use of diesel powered or electric equipment in lieu of gasoline powered engines.
a The analysis of environmental impacts presented in these documents was prepared in accordance with the requirements of CEQA. No changes to the types of impacts presented would be anticipated if the documents were prepared for NEPA purposes.

APPENDIX C: SUMMARY OF PREVIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW OF PLANNNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT SAC/161795/031060012(TABLE C-10.DOC) REVISED NATOMAS BASIN HCP

EIR/EIS
TABLE C-10
Prior Analysis of Aesthetic Impacts from Planned Urban Development in the Natomas Basina Impact
Level of
Significance Mitigation
Level of Significance
with Mitigation Action
City of Sacramento General Plan EIR
The urbanization of 22,000
acres of currently vacant
land in the City of
Sacramento would change
many viewsheds and
intensify the urban character
of Sacramento.

Significant
and
unavoidable.

Partial mitigation included updating the Community Design Element. Partial mitigation was not adopted because: (1) future urbanization of vacant land will generally occur in areas with existing community plan design elements (e.g., North and South Natomas), and existing design guidelines expressed in the Community Plans partially address the
impact; and (2) City policy requires that large development projects be permitted as Planned Unit Developments, which would include project-specific design guidelines that could not be evaluated at the time the Findings were adopted.

Significant. The City Council determined that
economic, social, and other
considerations make it infeasible
to mitigate the impacts to below
significant levels.

North Natomas Community Plan EIR
No significant impacts
identified.

N/A N/A N/A No further action necessary.

South Natomas Community Plan EIR
No significant impacts
identified.

N/A N/A N/A No further action necessary.

Sutter County General Plan EIR
Impact 4.12.2. Future
development in accordance
with the proposed General
Plan and require
infrastructure improvements
will introduce new sources of
light and glare into the
development areas and
surrounding rural setting.

Significant. Implement General Plan Goal 1.H, Policy 1.H-3, and Implementation Program 1.9.

Mitigation Measure 4.12.1. The County shall review and
approve the type, location, and limits of project lighting for consistency with the adopted design and development
standards. Lighting standards shall be structured and
implemented to minimize project contribution to ambient light production and minimize direct nuisance light sources.

Less-than-significant. No further action necessary.
a The analysis of environmental impacts presented in these documents was prepared in accordance with the requirements of CEQA. No changes to the types of impacts presented would be anticipated if the documents were prepared for NEPA purposes.

APPENDIX C: SUMMARY OF PREVIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW OF PLANNNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT SAC/161795/031060013(TABLE C-11.DOC) REVISED NATOMAS BASIN HCP

EIR/EIS
TABLE C-11
Prior Analysis of Public Service and Utility Impacts from Planned Urban Development in the Natomas Basina Impact
Level of
Significance Mitigation
Level of Significance
with Mitigation Action
City of Sacramento General Plan EIR
The average daily dry
weather flows would
increase to 88.5 million
gallons per days, possibly
requiring expansion of the
Regional Plant earlier than
currently planned.

Significant. Reevaluate phasing of the Regional Plant expansion and accelerate construction of the expansion, as needed. Also, adopt Goal A and Policy 1 from the Public Facilities and Services Element (Sanitary Sewers section) of the General Plan Update.

Less-than-significant. No further action necessary.

Sewer collection facilities
would be inadequate to
serve North Natomas and
Airport-Meadowview.

Significant. Require sewerage facilities in advance of development. Also, adopt Goal A and Policies 1 and 3 from the Public Facilities and Services Element (Sanitary Sewers section) of the
General Plan Update.

Less-than-significant. No further action necessary.

Infill would necessitate that
deteriorating sewer lines be
upgraded.

Significant. Provide necessary infrastructure in infill areas. Also, adopt Policy 2 from the Public Facilities and Services Element (Sanitary Sewers section) of the General Plan Update.

Less-than-significant. No further action necessary.

Solid waste generation
would increase by 165
percent to 543,338 tons
annually, necessitating
additional landfill capacity.

Significant. Expand landfill capacity. Also, adopt Goal A and Policy 5 from the Public Facilities and Services Element (Solid Waste section) of the General Plan Update.

Less-than-significant. No further action necessary.
496 additional sworn police
officers (90 percent
increase) and facilities would
be required.

Significant. Provide adequate funding for needed police personnel and facilities. Also, adopt Goal A from the Public Facilities and Services Element (Police Services section) of the General Plan Update.

Less-than-significant. No further action necessary.

APPENDIX C: SUMMARY OF PREVIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW OF PLANNNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT REVISED NATOMAS BASIN HCP SAC/161795/031060013(TABLE C-11.DOC)

EIR/EIS
TABLE C-11
Prior Analysis of Public Service and Utility Impacts from Planned Urban Development in the Natomas Basina Impact
Level of
Significance Mitigation
Level of Significance
with Mitigation Action
The potential for criminal
activity would increase
(especially where residential
and commercial uses are
proximate, where high
technology industry is
proposed, in parks, and in
new large-scale
developments).

Significant. Require expanded site design review by the police department. Train officers to combat high technology crime.

Establish crime control programs in recreation areas. Require additional security for special generators. Expand public education and involvement in crime prevention. Also, adopt Goal A and Policies 1 and 2 from the Public Facilities and Services Element (Police Service section) of the General Plan Update.

Less-than-significant. No further action necessary.

Demand for fire services,
facilities, and flows would
increase.

Significant. Require site design review by the fire department. Expand fire protection education programs. Provide adequate funding for needed fire facilities and personnel. Assess the ability of existing fire services and facilities to accommodate infill growth. Also, adopt Goal A and Policies 1-5 from the Public Facilities and Services Element (Fire section) of the General Plan Update.

Less-than-significant. No further action necessary.

Demand for library services
would increase.

Significant. Expand temporary use of portables until permanent facilities can be constructed. Reevaluate and update the libraries master plan. Provide funding mechanisms for library
improvements. Also, adopt Goal A and Policies 1 and 2 from the Public Facilities and Services Element (Library section) of the General Plan Update.

Less-than-significant. No further action necessary.

Demand for heath services
would increase.

Significant. Continue to require special permits for health care facilities.

Coordinate with other health care organizations. Also, adopt Goal A and Policies 1-3 from the Public Facilities and
Services Element (Medical Facilities section) of the General Plan Update.

Less-than-significant. No further action necessary.

APPENDIX C: SUMMARY OF PREVIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW OF PLANNNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT SAC/161795/031060013(TABLE C-11.DOC) REVISED NATOMAS BASIN HCP

EIR/EIS
TABLE C-11
Prior Analysis of Public Service and Utility Impacts from Planned Urban Development in the Natomas Basina Impact
Level of
Significance Mitigation
Level of Significance
with Mitigation Action
The total student yield would
increase by 57 percent to
106,366, requiring the
designation of additional
school sites or deletion of
surplus sites.

Significant. Six mitigation measures were identified for which the school districts have primary responsibility for implementation (provide adequate school sites, reevaluate school sites where a surplus is projected, institute extended day programs where needed, institute year-round attendance where needed,
evaluate redistribution of students, and establish funding mechanisms for school improvements). A seventh mitigation measure was to increase school involvement in City planning, which would be accomplished by adopting Goal A and
Policies 1, 2, 3, and 5 from the Public Facilities and Services Element (Schools section) of the General Plan Update.

Less-than-significant. No further action necessary.

Peak electricity demand
would increase to
approximately four times the
current annual actual use of
1,381,597 kW, requiring a
significant expansion in
electrical capacity.

Significant. Three mitigation measures were identified for which the Sacramento Municipal Utility District has primary
responsibility for implementation (develop and utilize
alternative energy sources to the extent feasible, incorporate energy management and conservation measures, and
coordinate with energy suppliers to ensure designation of right-of-way for transmission lines and substations). Two other mitigation measures were to adopt energy conservation policies and to require maximum practicable use of solar technologies. These two measures would be implemented by the City through adoption of Goal C, Policy 7 of the
Residential Land Use and Housing Element and Goal A,
Policies 1 and 2 of the Public Facilities and Services Element (Miscellaneous Utilities section) of the General Plan Update.

Less-than-significant. No further action necessary.

North Natomas Community Plan EIR
No significant impacts
identified.

N/A N/A N/A No further action necessary.

South Natomas Community Plan EIR
Increased demand for police
officers.

Significant. Provide additional funding for police personnel and equipment as development occurs and by buffering, lighting, and numbering of buildings.

Less-than-significant. No further action necessary.

APPENDIX C: SUMMARY OF PREVIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW OF PLANNNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT REVISED NATOMAS BASIN HCP SAC/161795/031060013(TABLE C-11.DOC)

Significant. Include safety measures in final discretionary approvals for all developers.

Less-than-significant. No further action necessary.

New students for Del Paso,
Natomas Union, and Grant
Union School Districts would
exceed capacity.

Significant. The City Council determined that school districts and not the City are responsible for mitigating these impacts. The City Council further determined that state school funding and developer fees should enable the school districts to mitigate the impact to a less-than-significant level.

Less-than-significant. No further action necessary.

Planned development would
increase demand for parks in
excess of the amount of park
space currently available.

Significant. Additional land for parks is to be dedicated by developers of Sutter West, Natomas Corporate Center, River Plaza, and Capital 80 projects. In addition, new parks will be acquired pursuant to the City’s Quimby Act ordinance in the
Metropolitan Center and Willow Creek projects.

Less-than-significant. No further action necessary.

Increase of potentially 83.7
megawatts over existing
electrical demand constitutes
adverse environmental
impact and may require two
to three new substations to
be constructed.

Significant. The City Council determined that another public agency, Sacramento Municipal Utility District, is responsible for mitigating these impacts. The City Council further determined that SMUD construction of substations and its programs for energy conservation and load management measures should mitigate this impact to a less-than-significant level.

Less-than-significant. No further action necessary.

Sutter County General Plan EIR
APPENDIX C: SUMMARY OF PREVIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW OF PLANNNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT SAC/161795/031060013(TABLE C-11.DOC) REVISED NATOMAS BASIN HCP

EIR/EIS
TABLE C-11
Prior Analysis of Public Service and Utility Impacts from Planned Urban Development in the Natomas Basina Impact
Level of
Significance Mitigation
Level of Significance
with Mitigation Action
Impact 4.10.2. The
proposed General Plan
Revision will allow for urban
uses, which will result in an
increases in wastewater
flows over current treatment
capacity, will require the
extension of sewer trunk
lines, and will require
construction of treatment
facilities.

Significant. Implement General Plan Goal 3.C, Policies 3.C-1 through

3.C-5, and Implementation Program 3.8.

Mitigation Measure 4.10.4. As a condition of subsequent project-level approvals, the applicant shall submit to the County verification that the appropriate service district has adequate capacity to process the estimated wastewater
generated for that phase of the project.

Mitigation Measure 4.10.5. As a condition of subsequent project-level approvals, the proposed use of individual sewage disposal systems, if applicable, must be addressed in an engineer’s report as required by the County to confirm that such systems are acceptable.

Less-than-significant. No further action necessary.

Impact 4.10.3. The
proposed project may
generate the need for
approximately 13 additional
sworn patrol deputies, and
may create additional
demands upon the existing
administrative unit and
capital facilities of the
County Sheriff’s Department.

Significant. Implement General Plan Goal 3.F and Policies 3.F-1 and 3.F-

2. Mitigation Measure 4.10.6. As a condition of subsequent project-level approvals in the areas of proposed land use changes, project applicants shall submit verification that the County Sheriff’s Department can provide adequate police protection, and that the subject project does not significantly degrade the level of service currently being provided in the County. The applicant shall also participate in the County’s existing public facility fee program (which is required of all projects), and/or provide “fair share” funding as required by the County.

Mitigation Measure 4.10.7. In conjunction with the
development review process, plans shall be made available for review by the County Sheriff’s Department for specific service or crime-prevention recommendations.

Less-than-significant. No further action necessary.

APPENDIX C: SUMMARY OF PREVIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW OF PLANNNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT REVISED NATOMAS BASIN HCP SAC/161795/031060013(TABLE C-11.DOC)

Implementation of the
proposed General Plan
Amendment will result in a
significant increase in the
service demands on the
various fire districts.

Additional fire facilities and
personnel will be required to
serve the project area.

Significant. Implement General Plan Goals 3.G, 7.D, and 7.F; Policies

3.G-1, 3.G-2, 3.G-3, 7.D-1, 7.D-2, 7.F-1, 7.F-2, 7.F-3, 7.F-4, and 7.F-5; and Implementation Programs 7.5, 7.7, 7.8, 7.9,

7.10, and 7.11.

Mitigation Measure 4.10.8. As a condition of subsequent project-level approvals, the applicant shall obtain verification from the appropriate fire protection district that facilities and personnel are available as required to provide adequate fire protection service, and that the subject project does not significantly degrade the level of service currently being provided in the County based upon ISO ratings or other
County standard. The applicant shall also participate in the County’s existing public facility fee program (which is required of all projects), and/or provide “fair share” funding as required by the County.

Less-than-significant. No further action necessary.

Impact 4.11.1. Long-term
implementation of the
General Plan will result in
increased consumption of
energy resources to support
the proposed land uses.

Significant. Mitigation Measure 4.11.1. The Community Services Department Building Inspection Program shall continue to enforce Title 24 of the California Administrative Code as related to energy conservation. The County shall also
encourage the use of alternative energy resources for new development whenever feasible.

APPENDIX D
Mitigation Monitoring Plan
NATOMAS – MMP.DOC 1
Mitigation Monitoring Plan – NBHCP EIR/EIS
Introduction
The following is the Mitigation Monitoring Plan (MMP) for the Natomas Basin Habitat Conservation Plan (NBHCP) Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement (EIR/EIS). It includes a brief project description, a description of the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and a compliance checklist. The NBHCP EIR/EIS includes mitigation measures. The intent of the MMP is to prescribe and enforce a means for properly and successfully implementing the mitigation measures as identified within the NBHCP EIR/EIS. Mitigation measures related to Planned Development (e.g., North Natomas Community Plan, South Natomas Community Plan, South Sutter County Specific Plan) have been adopted by the respective Land Use Agencies and will be monitored in accordance with individual, project-specific MMPs. In addition, the NBHCP includes avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures for the Covered Species that will be implemented in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Implementing Agreement and monitored in accordance with the NBHCP’s compliance and biological effectiveness monitoring provisions (Section VI.E of the NBHCP).

Project Description
The project comprises: 1) applications for Section 10(a)(1)(B) and Section 2081 permits or permit modifications for each of the permittees; (2) approval of the NBHCP and issuance of permits by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service and the California Department of Fish and Game; (3) implementation of the NBHCP; (4) adoption of the Implementing Agreement(s); and (5) the issuance of incidental take permits (ITPs). The Applicants are the City of Sacramento, Sutter County, and The Natomas Basin Conservancy (TNBC).

The NBHCP would establish a comprehensive program for preservation and protection of habitat for threatened and endangered species potentially found in the Natomas Basin, which is comprised of approximately 53,537 acres of developed and agricultural land in northwestern Sacramento County and southern Sutter County. The acquisition of lands or conservation easements for the purpose of creating and managing permanent habitat reserves would be the primary mechanism for mitigating impacts to listed species. The management of the Mitigation Lands would be performed by TNBC as the Plan Operator.

Compliance Checklist
Section 15097 of the CEQA Guidelines requires all state and local agencies to establish monitoring or reporting programs for projects approved by a public agency whenever approval involves the adoption of either a “mitigated negative declaration” or specified environmental findings related to environmental impact reports.

NBHCP EIR/EIS MITIGATION MONITORING PLAN
NATOMAS – MMP.DOC 2
This MMP is intended to satisfy the requirements of CEQA as they relate to the NBHCP EIR/EIS. This MMP is intended to be used by City of Sacramento and Sutter County staff and mitigation monitoring personnel to ensure compliance with mitigation measures during project implementation. Mitigation measures identified in this MMP were developed in the EIR/EIS.

The NBHCP EIR/EIS presents a detailed set of mitigation measures that will be implemented throughout the lifetime of the project. Mitigation is defined by CEQA as a measure that:
• Avoids the impact altogether by not taking a certain action or parts of an action. • Minimizes impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of the action and its implementation.
• Rectifies the impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the impacted environment. • Reduces or eliminates the impact over time by preservation and maintenance operations during the life of the project.
• Compensates for the impact by replacing or providing substitute resources or environments.

The intent of the MMP is to ensure the effective implementation and enforcement of adopted mitigation measures and permit conditions. The MMP will provide for monitoring of construction activities as necessary and in-the-field identification and resolution of environmental concerns.

Monitoring and documenting the implementation of mitigation measures will be coordinated by the City, Sutter County, and TNBC. The table attached to this report identifies the mitigation measure, the monitoring action for the mitigation measure, the responsible party for the monitoring action, and timing of the monitoring action. The Applicants will be responsible for fully understanding and effectively implementing the mitigation measures contained within the MMP. The City of Sacramento and Sutter County, as Lead Agencies under CEQA, will be responsible for ensuring compliance.

During construction of the project, the City and/or County will assign an inspector who will be responsible for field monitoring of mitigation measure compliance. The inspector will report to the City’s and/or County’s Planning and Building Department and will be thoroughly familiar with the MMP. In addition, the inspector will be familiar with construction contract requirements, construction schedules, standard construction practices, and mitigation techniques. In order to track the status of mitigation measure implementation, field monitoring activities will be documented on compliance monitoring report worksheets. The time commitment of the inspector will vary depending on the intensity and location of implementation activities. Aided by the attached table, the inspector will be responsible for the following activities:
• On-site, day-to-day monitoring as needed.
• Reviewing construction plans and equipment staging/access plans to ensure conformance with adopted mitigation measures.
• Ensuring contractor knowledge of and compliance with the MMP. • Verifying the accuracy and adequacy of contract wording. • Having the authority to require correction of activities that violate mitigation measures. The inspector shall have the ability and authority to secure compliance with the MMP. • Acting in the role of contact for property owners or any other affected persons who wish to register observations of violations of project permit conditions or mitigation. Upon

NBHCP EIR/EIS MITIGATION MONITORING PLAN
NATOMAS – MMP.DOC 3
receiving any complaints, the inspector shall immediately contact the construction representative. The inspector shall be responsible for verifying any such observations and for developing any necessary corrective actions in consultation with the construction representative and the City of Sacramento and/or Sutter County. • Obtaining assistance as necessary from technical experts in order to develop site- specific procedures for implementing the mitigation measures.
• Maintaining a log of all significant interactions, violations of permit conditions or mitigation measures, and necessary corrective measures.

NATOMAS – MMP.DOC 4
TABLE 1
Mitigation Monitoring Plan Summary
Mitigation Measure Implementing
Responsibility
Monitoring
Responsibility
Compliance Standards Timing Verification of
Compliance
(Initial & Date)
Water Resources
Reduce potential construction-related stormwater
pollution during creation of habitat on the Mitigation
Lands by:
a. Adhering to requirements of SWRCB General
Permit for Stormwater Discharge Associated with
Construction Activity.
b. Prepare a SWPPP that includes BMPs
consistent with City’s Administrative and Technical
Procedures for Grading and Erosion and Sediment
Control and Sacramento County’s Erosion and
Sediment Control Standards and Specifications
(regardless of location of reserve in Sutter or
Sacramento counties).
c. Focus BMPs on control of sediment discharge
into local drains (e.g,. installation of silt fences,
tracking controls) and release of hazardous
materials from construction operations (e.g.,
designated staging areas).

City and Sutter
County
TNBC As stated in the SWRCB General
Permit for Stormwater Discharge
Associated with Construction
Activity, City of Sacramento
Administrative and Technical
Procedures for Grading and
Erosion and Sediment Control,
and Sacramento County’s Erosion
and Sediment Control Standards
and Specifications.

Measures shall be
considered during the
design of habitat
improvements on the
Mitigation Lands.

Measures shall be fully
implemented during
active construction
activities on Mitigation
Lands.

Biological Resources
As part of the process for development review, the
City and Sutter County will include a provision that
public or private development project that could
support jurisdictional wetlands will result in no net loss of wetlands and will ensure that wetland functions and
values will be maintained.

City and Sutter
County
City and Sutter
County
No net loss of wetlands. The measure shall be
fully implemented prior
to approval of
individual development
projects with in the
Permit Areas.

Preconstruction surveys required pursuant to Section
V.A.1 of the NBHCP shall encompass the habitat
areas that could support dwarf downingia or rose
mallow. If dwarf downingia or rose mallow are found
during the habitat surveys, mitigation shall conform to the mitigation requirements for Delta tule pea and
Sanford’s arrowhead as described in the NBHCP and
in accordance with the California Native Plant
Protection Act.

City and Sutter
County
City, Sutter
County, and
TNBC
Listed plant species are salvaged. Measures shall be fully implemented prior to
issuance of permits as
described in the
NBHCP.

NATOMAS – MMP.DOC 5
TABLE 1
Mitigation Monitoring Plan Summary
Mitigation Measure Implementing
Responsibility
Monitoring
Responsibility
Compliance Standards Timing Verification of
Compliance
(Initial & Date)
Preconstruction surveys required pursuant to Section
V.A.1 of the NBHCP shall encompass the habitat
areas where nesting birds could occur. In accordance
with the requirements of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, vegetation containing an occupied nest and an
appropriate-sized buffer around the nest of Coopers’s
hawks, American bitterns, black terns, lark sparrows,
white-tailed kites, Pacific-slope flycatchers, and
Bewick’s wrens shall not be removed until the nest
has been abandoned by the nesting pair or the young
have fledged.

City and Sutter
County
City, Sutter
County, and
TNBC
Nest sites and local areas are
preserved during the nesting
season.

Measures shall be fully
implemented prior to
issuance of permits as
described in the
NBHCP.

Cultural Resources
Reduce potential cultural impacts by:
a. Preconstruction literature review and/or field
survey for parcels being considered for habitat
reserves; completion of an archaeological report
and site-specific mitigation measures if determined
necessary by qualified archaeologist based on
preconstruction review and survey.
b. Immediate cessation of work within 100 feet of
any historic or archaeological feature discovered
during reserve development activities, consultation
with qualified archaeologist and NAHC
representative; development of further mitigation
measures if determined to be necessary by the
qualified archaeologist and NAHC representative.
c. Immediate cessation of work within the vicinity of
finding human bone of unknown origin and
immediate contact of County Coroner; the Coroner
will notify the NAHC if the remains are determined
to be Native American and NAHC will notify the
person it believes to be the most likely descendant
who will work with the contractor to develop a
program for reinterment of the human remains and
any associated artifacts. No additional work is to
take place in the immediate vicinity of the find until
the appropriate actions have been carried out.

City and Sutter
County
TNBC 1) Standard mitigation procedures
for the City and Sutter County
2) In the event of encountering
Native American archeological,
ethnographic or spiritual
resources, all identification and
treatment shall be conducted by
qualified archaeologists, certified
by SOPA or meeting 36 CFR 61
standards and Native American
representatives approved through
the local Native American
community as scholars of their
cultural traditions or if not
available, persons who represent
tribal governments and/or
organizations in the locale where
the resources will be affected.
3) In the event of encountering
historic archaeological sites or
historic architectural features, all
identification and treatment shall
be carried out by historical
archaeologists or architectural
historians meeting either SOPA or
36 CFR 61 requirements
Measures shall be
implemented
concurrent with
construction activities.

NATOMAS – MMP.DOC 6
TABLE 1
Mitigation Monitoring Plan Summary
Mitigation Measure Implementing
Responsibility
Monitoring
Responsibility
Compliance Standards Timing Verification of
Compliance
(Initial & Date)
Land Use
Reduce land use impacts associated with loss of
farmland by developing site-specific management
plans that will incorporate provisions that consider
farmlands and agricultural use to the extent
practicable and to the extent that biological goals are not compromised.

City and Sutter
County
TNBC None specified. Measures shall be
identified and
implemented
concurrently with
preparation of a Site
Specific Management
Plan.

Traffic
Address the potential for traffic safety impacts and
minimize the potential for impacts by:
a. Identify potential traffic-safety impacts through
evaluation of traffic levels on rural roadways
providing construction access to locations of
substantial habitat reserve development activities.
b. Prepare and implement a Traffic Control Plan to
include (but not be limited to):

Provide adequate warning to users of roadway in
vicinity of construction through signs or other
visible means from roadway
Provide adequate assistance to the public in
navigating the construction site through the use
of flagmen
Install adequate signage for construction zones
and detours
If traffic and circulation would be interrupted for a
period of time, provide for the opportunity for
public input from affected residents
City and Sutter
County
TNBC None specified. Identification of
potential safety impacts
shall be identified prior
to commencement of
construction activities.

Submittal and approval
of the traffic
management plan to
the City of Sacramento
and/or Sutter County
(and Sacramento
County based on
whether location of
construction is within
unincorporated County
boundaries) shall occur
prior to the
commencement of
activities.

Implementation of
safety measures will be
implemented prior and
concurrently with
construction.

NATOMAS – MMP.DOC 7
TABLE 1
Mitigation Monitoring Plan Summary
Mitigation Measure Implementing
Responsibility
Monitoring
Responsibility
Compliance Standards Timing Verification of
Compliance
(Initial & Date)
Noise

4.9-1 Reduce potential noise impacts by:
a. Determine if residences or other sensitive receptors are located within 1000 feet of a construction site
associated with substantial habitat reserve
development activities
b. If it is determined that sensitive receptors exist,
operation of the construction equipment and vehicles
would occur between 7am and 6pm, Monday through
Saturday and between 9am and 6pm on Sunday.

City and Sutter
County
TNBC None specified. Determination of
proximity of sensitive
receptors to
construction area shall
occur prior to
commencement of
construction;
implementation of
restricted work hours in
the vicinity of these
identified receptors
shall be concurrent
with construction
activity.

4.10 – Air Quality

4.10-1 Reduce or otherwise minimize ozone precursor
air-pollution emissions by:
a. To the extent feasible, use construction
contractors that use low-NOx, heavy-duty
construction vehicles
b. Phase construction activities to reduce the
simultaneous operation of construction equipment
City and Sutter
County
TNBC Sacramento Area Regional Ozone
Attainment Plan
Identification of
contractors that can
provide low NOx
equipment and
construction phasing
schedule shall be
determined prior to
commencing
construction

4.10-2 Reduce or otherwise minimize ozone precursor
air-pollution emissions through the following activities implemented by the contractors:
a. Perform routine maintenance/testing of
construction equipment
b. Use existing on-site electric power sources in
place of diesel generators to the extent that these
sources are available
City and Sutter
County
TNBC Sacramento Area Regional Ozone
Attainment Plan
Concurrent with
construction activity
NATOMAS – MMP.DOC 8
TABLE 1
Mitigation Monitoring Plan Summary
Mitigation Measure Implementing
Responsibility
Monitoring
Responsibility
Compliance Standards Timing Verification of
Compliance
(Initial & Date)

4.10-3 Reduce or otherwise minimize PM10 air-
pollution emissions through the following activities
implemented by the contractors:
a. Reduce or suspend grading and excavation
activity during windy periods (i.e., in excess of 15
miles per hour)
b. Post and enforce speed limits on unpaved
driving areas
c. Treat completed sites with soil binders or
vegetation
d. Wash dirt off of trucks and other equipment
before leaving construction site
City and Sutter
County
TNBC Regional air quality attainment
plans
Concurrent with
construction activity

APPENDIX E
2002 Giant Garter Snake Monitoring Report

APPENDIX F
2002 Swainson’s Hawk Monitoring Report

APPENDIX G
Joint Vision MOU

APPENDIX H
City of Sacramento Resolution 2001-518

APPENDIX I
Letter from USFWS and CDFG to
Sacramento County

APPENDIX J
Letter from City of Sacramento to
California Department of Fish and Game

APPENDIX K
Letter from City of Sacramento to
Sacramento County

APPENDIX L
Attachments to Comment Letter O1

IMPLEMENTATION AGREEMENT FOR THE

NATOMAS BASIN HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN
wc-83845

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
1 Recitals and Purposes 1 .......................................................................................................

1.1 Purpose 1 .................................................................................................................

1.2 Parties’ Intent 1 .........................................................................................................

1.3 Coordination ..........................................................................................................1

1.4 Habitat ...................................................................................................................1

1.5 Mitigation ...............................................................................................................2

1.6 Integrity and Viability of NBHCP ............................................................................2

1.7 Reliance.................................................................................................................2

1.8 Local Land Use Authority.......................................................................................2

1.9 City, Sutter and TNBC as Permittees ....................................................................2

1.10 USFWS Authorities ................................................................................................2

1.11 CDFG Authorities...................................................................................................2 2 Definitions ...................................................................................................................3

3. Obligations of the Parties ..................................................................................................3

3.1 City and Sutter .......................................................................................................3

3.1.1 Limitation on Total Development in Natomas Basin and Individual Permit Areas ..............................................................................................3

3.1.2 Exclusion of Development from Swainson’s Hawk Zone...........................4

3.1.3 Timing of Mitigation....................................................................................4

3.1.4 Baseline Map .............................................................................................4

3.1.5 Restriction on Urban Development/Mitigation Alternatives........................4

3.1.6 Determination of Compliance.....................................................................4

3.1.7 Urban Development Permit Conditions......................................................4

3.1.8 Full Compliance with the NBHCP ..............................................................5

3.1.9 Transfer of Mitigation Fees ........................................................................5

3.1.10 Enforcement...............................................................................................5

3.1.11 Relationship of TNBC to City and Sutter....................................................5

3.1.12 Certification of Urban Development Permittee...........................................6

3.1.13 Public Works Projects ................................................................................6

3.1.14 Assistance ..................................................................................................6

3.1.15 Annual Report of Authorized Development................................................6

3.1.16 Adaptive Management ...............................................................................6

3.1.17 Overall Program Review/Independent Mid-Point Reviews ........................6

3.1.18 City and Sutter Liaison...............................................................................6

3.1.19 Implementation of other NBHCP Components ..........................................6

3.2 The Natomas Basin Conservancy .........................................................................7

3.2.1 Establish Mitigation ....................................................................................7

3.2.2 Acceptance of Mitigation Fees...................................................................7

3.2.3 TNBC Land Management; Site Specific Management
Plan/NBHCP Biological Monitoring Plans/Surveys
....................................7

3.2.4 Implementation Annual Report ..................................................................7

3.2.5 Implementation Annual Meeting ................................................................7

3.2.6 Funding ......................................................................................................7

3.2.7 Budgeting and Planning.............................................................................7

3.2.8 Successor ..................................................................................................8 wc-83845

3.2.9 Transfer to CDFG ......................................................................................8

3.2.10 Operation in Perpetuity ..............................................................................8

3.2.11 Conflicts of Interest ....................................................................................8

3.2.12 TNBC Proceedings Open to Public............................................................8

3.2.13 Implementation of Other NBHCP Components .........................................8

3.3 USFWS..................................................................................................................8

3.3.1 Oversight....................................................................................................8

3.3.2 Technical Assistance .................................................................................9

3.3.3 Newly Listed Uncovered Species ..............................................................9

3.3.4 Effective Date and Issuance of Section 10(a) Permits...............................9

3.3.5 Permit Findings ..........................................................................................9

3.4 CDFG ...................................................................................................................9

3.4.1 Oversight..................................................................................................10

3.4.2 Assistance ................................................................................................10

3.4.3 New Species ............................................................................................10

3.4.4 CDFG Land Management........................................................................10

3.4.5 Effective Date and Issuance of Section 2081(b) Permit ..........................10

3.4.6 Section 2081(b) Permit Findings..............................................................10 4 Mitigation .................................................................................................................11

4.1 Mitigation Lands...................................................................................................11

4.2 Respective Permit Areas .....................................................................................11

4.3 Existing Development Exempt.............................................................................11

4.4 Mitigati on Ratio....................................................................................................11

4.5 Calculation of Mitigation Requirement for Authorized Development Projects................................................................................................................11

4.6 Satisfaction of Mitigation Requirement ................................................................12

4.7 Jurisdictional Wetlands........................................................................................13

4.8 Rivers, Streams or Lakes ....................................................................................13

4.9 Funding for Operating Conservation Program.....................................................13

4.9.1 Mitigation Fees.........................................................................................13

4.9.2 Adjustments to the Mitigation Fee for Purposes of Funding the Operating Conservation Program Other than Changes to the Managed Marsh Component ...................................................................13

4.9.3 Adjustments to the Mitigation Fee for Purposes of Funding the Changes to the Managed Marsh Component ..........................................14

4.9.4 Fee Adjustments for General Inflation .....................................................15

4.9.5 Failure to Adjust Mitigation Fees..............................................................15 5 Mitigation Lands ..............................................................................................................15

5.1 Location of Mitigation Lands ................................................................................15

5.2 Setbacks and Buffers...........................................................................................15

5.3 In -Basin Acquisition .............................................................................................15

5.4 Coordinating Mitigati on Land Acquisition with Agency Acquisitions ....................15

5.5 Timing of Mitigation Land Acquisition ..................................................................16

5.6 Acquisition of 400 and 2,500-Acre Blocks ...........................................................16

5.7 Accounting for Mitigation Lands...........................................................................16

5.7.1 Managed Marsh .......................................................................................16

5.7.2 Rice Land.................................................................................................16

5.7.3 Uplands....................................................................................................16

5.7.4 Proportion of Mitigation Lands as Marsh .................................................16

5.8 Conservation Measures.......................................................................................17 iii
wc-83845

6 Assurances .................................................................................................................17

6.1 USFWS................................................................................................................17

6.1.1 No Surprises Assurances ........................................................................17

6.1.2 Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA)............................................................18

6.1.3 Beneficial Effects with Respect to Future Listings ...................................19

6.1.4 Critical Habitat..........................................................................................19

6.1.5 ESA Listing of Currently Unlisted Covered Species ................................19

6.2 CDFG .................................................................................................................19

6.2.1 CESA Compliance ...................................................................................19

6.2.2 Adequate Mitigation under CESA ............................................................19

6.2.3 Assurances ..............................................................................................19

6.2.4 CESA Listing of Currently Unlisted Covered Species..............................20

6.2.5 Changed Conditions ................................................................................20

6.3 Limits on Future Revisions to NBHCP.................................................................20

6.4 Reservation of Rights Re: Subsequent Listing of Species ..................................21

6.5 Land Use Authority ..............................................................................................21

6.6 No Liability ...........................................................................................................21 7 Amendments and Remedies ...........................................................................................21

7.1 Revisions and Amendments to the NBHCP ........................................................21

7.2 Amendments to Agreement .................................................................................21

7.3 Land Use Changes..............................................................................................21

7.4 Remedies in General...........................................................................................22

7.5 Third Party Enforcement......................................................................................22

7.6 Suspension or Revocation...................................................................................22

7.6.1 Suspension or Revocation by USFWS ....................................................22

7.6.2 Suspension or Revocation by CDFG .......................................................22

7.6.3 Status of Urban Development Permittees after Suspension or Revocation ...............................................................................................22

7.6.4 No Further Approvals by Permittees........................................................22

7.6.5 Severability ..............................................................................................23 8 Miscellaneous .................................................................................................................23

8.1 Term of Agreement..............................................................................................23

8.2 Termination..........................................................................................................23

8.2.1 Termination by Mutual Consent ...............................................................23

8.2.2 Termination by USFWS or CDFG............................................................23

8.2.3 Termination by TNBC ..............................................................................23

8.2.4 Effect of Termination................................................................................23

8.2.5 Status of Mitigation Lands Upon Termination ..........................................24

8.3 Binding Effect.......................................................................................................24

8.4 Notices.................................................................................................................24

8.5 Captions...............................................................................................................25

8.6 Counterparts........................................................................................................25

8.7 Governing Law.....................................................................................................25

8.8 Complete Agreement...........................................................................................25

8.9 Federal Section 7 Consultations..........................................................................25

8.10 Conflict with NBHCP............................................................................................26

8.11 Other Permittees..................................................................................................26

8.12 Federal Appropriations ........................................................................................26

8.13 State Appropriations ............................................................................................26

8.14 References to Regulations ..................................................................................26 iv
wc-83845

8.15 Applicable Laws...................................................................................................26

8.16 No Partnership.....................................................................................................26

8.17 Elected Officials Not to Benefit ............................................................................26 v
wc-83845

LIST OF EXHIBITS
Exhibit A - Definitions
Exhibit B - CITY’s Baseline Map
Exhibit C - SUTTER’s Baseline Map
Exhibit D - List of Covered Species in Permit Area
vi
wc-83845

IMPLEMENTATION AGREEMENT FOR THE

NATOMAS BASIN HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN

THIS IMPLEMENTATION AGREEMENT FOR THE NATOMAS BASIN HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN is entered into as of the _____ day of _______________, 2003 by and among the UNITED STATES FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE, an agency of the Department of the Interior of the United States of America (“USFWS”), the CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME, a subdivision of the Resources Agency of the State of California (“CDFG”), the CITY OF SACRAMENTO, a chartered city (“CITY”), the COUNTY OF SUTTER (“SUTTER”), a political subdivision of the State of California, and The Natomas Basin Conservancy, Inc. (“TNBC”, or “Conservancy”), a California nonprofit public benefit corporation, (hereafter collectively referred to as “Parties”). The CITY, SUTTER and TNBC are hereafter also referred to collectively as “Permittees” and each is individually referred to as “Permittee.”

1. RECITALS AND PURPOSES
The Parties have entered into this Agreement in consideration of the following facts and assumptions, intentions and expectations:

1.1 Purpose. This Implementation Agreement (“Agreement”) describes the mechanisms for implementation of the Natomas Basin Habitat Conservation Plan (“NBHCP” or “Plan”) a cooperative federal, state and local program for the conservation of those plant and animal species listed on Exhibit D (collectively the “Covered Species”) and their habitats in the Natomas Basin.

The purposes of this Agreement are: a) to ensure the implementation of each of the terms of the NBHCP; b) to describe remedies and recourse should any party fail to perform its obligations as set forth in this agreement; and c) to provide assurances to the Permittees that as long as the terms of the NBHCP are properly implemented, no additional mitigation will be required of them except as provided for in this Agreement or required by law. This Agreement also establishes terms and conditions that support issuance of Permits by the USFWS under Section 10(a)(1)(B) of the Endangered Species Act (“ESA”) and CDFG under Section 2081 of the California Fish and Game Code to allow the taking of the Covered Species within the Permit Area a) by the CITY and SUTTER, and third persons under the CITY’s and SUTTER’s direct control, incidental to Authorized Development and b) by TNBC, and third persons under TNBC’s direct control, incidental to management activities for a period of fifty (50) years.

1.2 Parties’ Intent. The intent of the Parties, in addition to the purposes set forth above, is that a comprehensive conservation program be established, and be implemented under the auspices of TNBC for the conservation of the Covered Species and their habitats, to provide an opportunity for individual Authorized Development project proponents to obtain incidental take authorization, through CITY’s and SUTTER’s Take Permits, for a broad array of Covered Species under the ESA and CESA including both currently listed species and species that may be listed in the future; to minimize the review of individual projects by the USFWS and CDFG; and to standardize take mitigation and onsite take avoidance and minimization measures for projec ts
covered by the NBHCP.

1.3 Coordination. The NBHCP will be implemented by the Parties through execution of this Agreement, subject to and in accordance with the Permits.

1.4 Habitat. The Covered Species may use or inhabit portions of the Natomas Basin area which is situated northeasterly of the confluence of the American River and Sacramento River.

Consequently, Planned Development of 17,500 acres, including CITY and SUTTER Authorized Development and Metro Air Park’s 1,983 acres of authorized development, related infrastructure, and government public works planned in this area over the next fifty (50) years may result in a loss 1 wc-83845

of habitat and takings of the Covered Species, incidental to the normal course of this Planned Development.

1.5 Mitigation. Implementation of the NBHCP through this Agreement is intended to avoid, minimize and mitigate to the maximum extent practicable, and minimize and fully mitigate, the individual and cumulative impacts of take of Covered Species resulting from Authorized Development within the CITY’s and SUTTER’s respective Permit Areas in the Natomas Basin. All required mitigation is specified in the NBHCP.

1.6 Integrity and Viability of NBHCP. While the NBHCP was developed as a comprehensive multi-species habitat conservation plan to avoid, minimize and mitigate for the expected loss of habitat values and incidental take of the Covered Species that could result from urban development, operation and maintenance of irrigation and drainage systems, and certain activities associated with TNBC management of its system of reserves within the Natomas Basin when it is fully implemented, the biological viability of the NBHCP is not compromised by the failure of other Potential Permittees to participate in the NBHCP and execute this Agreement. The mitigation strategies provided in the NBHCP are designed to allow for separate and independent implementation of NBHCP mitigation measures by CITY, SUTTER or other Potential Permittees, and may be adjusted under the terms of the Plan if fewer than all land use jurisdictions or other Potential Permittees participate, so that the NBHCP is viable and will minimize and mitigate the impacts associated with take of Covered Species resulting from Covered Activities carried out within the Natomas Basin by each Permittee, even if the Plan is not implemented by other Potential Permittees.

1.7 Reliance. In reliance upon this Agreement, CITY and SUTTER are making long range plans and financial investments in public infrastructure improvements necessary for the preservation of the public health, safety and welfare. Without the assurances identified in this Agreement, they would not enter into, support or approve any such plans or financial commitments.

1.8 Local Land Use Authority. The parties to this Agreement intend that nothing in the NBHCP or in this Agreement shall be interpreted to mean or operate in a manner that expressly or impliedly diminishes or restricts the local land use decision making authority of CITY or SUTTER, provided that the Parties acknowledge that should either CITY or SUTTER exercises its respective land use authority in a manner that conflicts with the terms of the NBHCP, this Agreement or the Permits, the Service and/or CDFG may suspend or revoke CITY’s or SUTTER’s Permits pursuant to Section 7.4 of this Agreement and applicable laws and regulations.

1.9 CITY, SUTTER and TNBC as Permittees. This Agreement also establishes the conditions under which the incidental take granted to CITY and SUTTER under their respective Permits will apply to landowners and developers within their respective Permit Areas in the Natomas Basin as of the Effective Date (as depicted on Exhibits B and C attached hereto and incorporated herein) in order to allow the taking of the Covered Species incidental to Authorized Development. TNBC’s Permit will authorize incidental take of the Covered Species by TNBC anywhere within its Permit Area with respect to the management and other activities and responsibilities that TNBC or third parties under its control assumes on behalf of CITY and SUTTER under the NBHCP.

1.10 USFWS Authorities. USFWS is authorized to enter into this Agreement pursuant to the ESA (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), the United States Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (16 U.S.C. 661-666c) and the Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956 (16 U.S.C. 742(f) et seq.).

1.11 CDFG Authorities. CDFG is authorized to enter into this Agreement pursuant to CESA sections 2080 and 2081.
2 wc-83845

AGREEMENT
FOR AND IN CONSIDERATION of the recitals set forth above, which are incorporated by reference herein, the covenants set forth herein, and other considerations, the receipt and adequacy of which is hereby acknowledged, the Parties hereto agree as follows:
2 DEFINITIONS
Terms used in this Agreement with reference to the ESA shall have the same meaning as those same terms have under the ESA, or in regulations adopted by the USFWS, and terms used in this Agreement with reference to CESA, shall have the same meaning as those same terms have under CESA, or regulations adopted by CDFG. Capitalized terms used in this Agreement shall have the defined meanings specified in the NBHCP as attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein into this Agreement. Where additional terms are used in this Agreement, definitions are included within the applicable text. Any amendments to the definitions contained in this Agreement shall be deemed automatically to be amendments to the definitions contained in the NBHCP.
3 OBLIGATIONS OF THE PARTIES

3.1 CITY and SUTTER.

3.1.1 Limitation on Total Development in Natomas Basin and Individual Permit Areas. The NBHCP anticipates and analyzes a total of 17,500 acres of Planned Development in the Natomas Basin, 15,517 acres of which constitutes Authorized Development within CITY and SUTTER. (An additional 1,983 acres of development is allocated to the Metro Air Park project in Sacramento County under the Metro Air Park Habitat Conservation Plan and is analyzed within the NBHCP.) CITY agrees not to approve more than 8,050 acres of Authorized De velopment and to ensure that all Authorized Development is confined to CITY’s Permit Area as depicted on Exhibit B to this Agreement). SUTTER agrees not to approve more than 7,467 acres of Authorized Development and to ensure that all Authorized Development is confined to SUTTER’s Permit Area as depicted on Exhibit C to this Agreement). The Parties further agree:
(a) Because the effectiveness of the NBHCP’s Operating
Conservation Program is based upon CITY limiting total development to 8,050 acres within the CITY’s Permit Area, and SUTTER limiting total development to 7,467 acres within SUTTER’s Permit Area, approval by either CITY or SUTTER of future urban development within the Plan Area or outside of their respective Permit Areas would constitute a significant departure from the Plan’s Operating Conservation Program. Thus, CITY and SUTTER further agree that in the event this future urban development should occur, prior to approval of any related rezoning or prezoning, such future urban development shall trigger a reevaluation of the Plan and Permits, a new effects analysis, potential amendments and/or revisions to the Plan and Permits, a separate conservation strategy and issuance of Incidental Take Permits to the permittee for that additional development, and/or possible suspension or revocation of CITY’s or SUTTER’s Permits in the event the CITY or SUTTER violate such limitations.
(b) For purposes of the NBHCP and this Agreement, CITY agrees that although the West Lakeside Annexation area is proposed by the landowners to be annexed to the CITY, this area currently is located within Sacramento County and is outside of the County’s Urban Services Boundary and the City’s Sphere of Influence, and it is not included in the 8,050 acres of Authorized Development or within the CITY’s Permit Area. Thus, CITY agrees that in the event this annexation occurs, it shall, prior to approval of any rezoning or prezoning associated with such annexation, trigger a reevaluation of the Plan, a new effects analysis, potential amendments and/or revisions to the Plan and Permits, a separate conservation strategy and issuance of Incidental Take Permits to the City for that additional urban development, and/or possible 3 wc-83845

suspension or revocation of CITY’s Permit in the event the CITY violates such limitations without completing such reevaluation, amendment, or revision or new conservation strategy for that additional urban development.

3.1.2 EXCLUSION OF DEVELOPMENT FROM SWAINSON’s HAWK ZONE. With the exception of 252 acres included as Authorized Development by CITY in the NBHCP, the Parties agree that the CITY’s and SUTTER’s Permit Areas shall exclude a one mile wide strip of land adjacent to the Sacramento River within their respective jurisdictions known as the Swainson’s Hawk Zone (SHZ). The Parties further agree as follows:
(a) CITY and SUTTER shall not approve any future urban
development within their respective portions of the Swainson’s Hawk Zone beyond the 252 acres of Authorized Development identified by CITY in the NBHCP. (b) Within One Hundred and Eighty (180) days of the Effective Date, SUTTER shall initiate a General Plan Amendment to remove all land within SUTTER’s portion of the Swainson’s Hawk Zone from the Industrial/Commercial Reserve designation in the Sutte r County General Plan and to redesignate such land for agricultural uses. (c) Because the effectiveness of the NBHCP to adequately minimize and mitigate the effects of take of the Covered Species depends, in part, on the exclusion of urban development from both the CITY and SUTTER’s portions of the Swainson’s Hawk Zone, approval by either CITY or SUTTER of future urban development in the Swainson’s Hawk Zone, except as otherwise explicitly allowed under the NBHCP, would constitute a significant departure from the Plan and would trigger a reevaluation of the Plan and Permits, a new effects analysis, potential amendments to the Plan and/or Permits, a separate conservation strategy and issuance of Incidental Take Permits to the permittee for that additional development, and/or possible suspension or revocation of CITY or SUTTER’s Permits in the event CITY or SUTTER violate such restrictions.

3.1.3 Timing of Mitigation. CITY and SUTTER agree to comply with the NBHCP Chapter VI requirements applicable to the timing of acquisition of Mitigation Lands, including, but not limited to, the requirement to maintain a 200-acre cushion of Mitigation Lands, and other timing restrictions on approval of Authorized Development as provided in Sections 4 and 5 of this Agreement and Chapter VI of the NBHCP.

3.1.4 Baseline Map. CITY and SUTTER have prepared, and USFWS and CDFG have approved, the Baseline Maps set forth in Exhibits B and C, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference, which depict: (1) those land areas within their respective Permit Areas which are designated as “Exempt Area-Existing Development” and therefore not subject to the NBHCP, the Permits, or this Agreement; (2) those land areas designated as “Development Subject to 1997 HCP,” within their respective Permit Areas for which Authorized Development projects have been approved between 1997 and 2002 and have been developed in compliance with the Mitigation Requirements of the NBHCP in effect in 1997; and (3) those undeveloped land areas designated as “Development Subject to 2002 HCP,” within the Permit Areas which will be subject to the Mitigation Requirement of the NBHCP.

3.1.5 Restriction on Urban Development/Mitigation Alternatives. CITY and SUTTER shall not issue any Urban Development Permit for any Authorized Development project on a parcel of land in their respective Permit Areas, outside of those areas depicted as “Exempt Area- Existing Development” on the Baseline Map, unless the Authorized Development project proponent has satisfied the Mitigation Requirement specified in Chapters IV through VI of the NBHCP.

3.1.6 Determination of Compliance. CITY and SUTTER shall ensure that an Authorized Development project proponent has complied with the Mitigation Requirements of Chapters IV through VI of the NBHCP prior to issuing an Urban Development Permit for the Authorized Development project.
4 wc-83845

3.1.7 Urban Development Permit Conditions. CITY and SUTTER shall include in any Urban Development Permit the on-site Take avoidance, minimization and mitigation measures specified in Chapter V of the NBHCP (the “Conservation Measures”) to reduce or eliminate to the extent feasible, the direct and indirect impacts of Authorized Development on the Covered Species and shall include in such Urban Development Permit notice of the need to comply with the requirements of other agencies applicable to the project.

3.1.8 Full Compliance with the NBHCP. The Parties agree that for purposes of CITY’s and SUTTER’s determination that an Urban Development Permittee is in full compliance with the NBHCP, the Urban Development Permittee must: (1) comply with the Mitigation Requirement, (2) implement the Conservation Measures including any such measures that are required to be conducted prior to commencement of grading and/or construction (e.g., pre- construction surveys, species avoidance measures, allowing USFWS or TNBC to conduct transplantation and relocation of Covered Species, etc.), and (3) implement any measures specified in or provided for in Chapter V of the NBHCP which are required to be implemented after commencement of grading and/or construction, including but not limited to, pre- construction surveys, retention of Swainson’s Hawk nesting trees, and elderberry shrub preservation.

3.1.9 Transfer of Mitigation Fees. CITY and SUTTER shall promptly transfer all Mitigation Fees collected on account of Authorized Development to TNBC in accordance with the provisions of Chapter VI of the NBHCP.

3.1.10 Enforcement. CITY and SUTTER shall comply with the NBHCP, this Agreement and the Permits and, following their applicable land use permit enforcement procedures and practices, shall take all necessary and appropriate actions to enforce the terms of the Section 10(a)(1)(B) Permit, the Section 2081 Permit, the NBHCP, and this Agreement as to themselves and all third persons subject to their jurisdiction or control, including Urban Development Permittees, that are subject to the requirements established by the NBHCP, the Permits and this Agreement, specifically including the urban permitting and approval requirements set forth in this Section 3.

Provided CITY and SUTTER take actions within their respective authorities to enforce compliance with the terms of the NBHCP, this Agreement and the Permits, a violation of the Permits by such third persons shall not be a basis to suspend or revoke the CITY or SUTTER Permits, unless USFWS or CDFG determine that continuation of the Permits would appreciably reduce the likelihood of the survival and recovery of a Covered Species in the wild or USFWS or CDFG determine that the violation renders CITY or SUTTER unable to implement successfully the NBHCP.

3.1.11 Relationship of TNBC to CITY and SUTTER. To comply with the requirements of the NBHCP, CITY and SUTTER have chosen to implement their Mitigation Requirement and other obligations under the NBHCP, including their reporting and monitoring obligations, in part, through the selection of TNBC as the Plan Operator. The Parties further agree:
(a) In the event that the Service determines pursuant to Section

7.6.1 of this Agreement, or CDFG determines pursuant to Section 7.6.2 that TNBC has violated the terms of the NBHCP, the Permits or this Agreement, such violation shall be considered a failure by CITY and SUTTER to implement their obligations of the Operating Conservation Program under the NBHCP. Provided, however, that if the violation by TNBC related to MAP mitigation acquisition or management requirements, or to other violations resulting from and solely pertaining to a violation of the MAP HCP, the provisions of this subsection shall not apply and neither City nor Sutter shall be considered to have failed to implement their obligations of the Operating Conservation Program under the NBHCP.
(b) Notwithstanding the foregoing in the event USFWS or CDFG make the determination set forth in Section 3.1.11(a), CITY’s and SUTTER’s Permits shall not be revoked or suspended, if CITY and/or SUTTER implement corrective measures, within the period 5 wc-83845

specified by the USFWS and/or CDFG, to remedy TNBC’s violation which may include, but shall not be limited to (1) replacing TNBC with another conservation entity qualified to serve as a Plan Operator, (2) transferring the Mitigation Lands to CDFG in accordance with Section 3.2.12 of this Agreement, (3) implementation by TNBC of measures specified by the USFWS and/or CDFG as necessary to remediate the violation unless USFWS or CDFG determine that continuation of the Permits would appreciably reduce the likelihood of the survival and recovery of a Covered Species in the wild or USFWS or CDFG determine that the violation renders CITY or SUTTER unable to implement successfully the NBHCP; or (4) implementation by CITY and/or SUTTER of measures necessary to remediate the violation.
(c) Should the USFWS or CDFG determine that CITY or SUTTER has violated their separate obligations under the NBHCP, the Permits or this Agreement, such violation shall not be attributed to TNBC nor shall TNBC’s Permits be affected, so long as TNBC continues to properly implement its obligations under the NBHCP with respect to the Mitigation Lands, including its obligations as the Plan Operator.

3.1.12 Certification of Urban Development Permittee. Urban Development Permits (i.e., the grading permit or notice to proceed) issued by CITY and SUTTER shall constitute a certification to the Urban Development Permittee that the Urban Development Permittee has complied with the Mitigation Requirements of the NBHCP and will be allowed to construct, maintain and operate a public or private project which may result in the Incidental Take of the Covered Species consistent with the conditions in the Permits and the Urban Development Permit, on the parcels for which the Urban Development Permit was issued. The issuance of such certifications shall be considered ministerial actions for the purposes of the laws of the State of California.

3.1.13 Public Works Projects. CITY and SUTTER shall apply the Mitigation Requirement and Conservation Measures set forth in this Section and in Chapters IV through VI of the NBHCP to all public works projects in their respective Permit Areas.

3.1.14 Assistance. CITY and SUTTER shall provide staff members to serve on the NBHCP Technical Advisory Committee.

3.1.15 Annual Report of Authorized Development. CITY and SUTTER shall each implement the Annual Report requirements described at Chapter VI of the NBHCP. In addition, at any other time during the Permit terms, CITY and SUTTER, at the request of USFWS or CDFG, shall provide within thirty (30) days, to the Wildlife Agencies additional information relevant to implementation of the NBHCP reasonably available to CITY and SUTTER.

3.1.16 Adaptive Management. CITY and SUTTER agree to abide by and implement all Adaptive Management provisions specified in, and subject to the limitations of, Chapter VI of the NBHCP, including, but not limited to, implementing revisions to management of Mitigation Lands, such as those which may be included in recovery plans for the Covered Species, in response to monitoring results in the Plan Area or to peer-reviewed new scientific information, in response to substantial land use changes in the Basin outside the Permit Areas and system of reserves, and Plan responses to Changed Circumstances.

3.1.17 Overall Program Review/Independent Midpoint Reviews. CITY and SUTTER agree to implement the Overall Program Review and Independent Mid-Point Reviews described in Chapter VI of the NBHCP to evaluate the performance and effectiveness of the NBHCP in achieving its biological goals and objectives.

3.1.18 CITY and SUTTER Liaison. CITY and SUTTER shall each designate a liaison to CDFG and USFWS for communications concerning this Agreement and the NBHCP. The CITY’s and SUTTER’s liaisons shall be responsible for reporting on their respective agency’s implementation of and compliance with this Agreement, the NBHCP, and the Permits. CITY and SUTTER shall notify CDFG and USFWS of the name, address and telephone number of the liaison within 30 days of the Effective Date and shall subsequently notify CDFG and USFWS within 30 days in writing if the name, address or telephone number of the liaison is changed. 6 wc-83845

3.1.19 Implementation of other NBHCP Components. CITY and SUTTER agree to implement each of the other components of the NBHCP identified in the Plan or this Agreement, specifically including enactment of and periodic revisions to the Mitigation Fee ordinances and Catch Up Fee ordinances or through other funding mechanisms except for the CITY or SUTTER general funds, as described in Chapter VI of the Plan as necessary to ensure the NBHCP is fully funded. The commitments set forth herein shall be subject to the limitation that implementation of such measures is within the CITY’s or SUTTER’s land use or other legal authority.

3.2 The Natomas Basin Conservancy.

3.2.1 Establish Mitigation. TNBC agrees that it will serve as the Plan Operator under the NBHCP, and will Acquire, locate, operate, manage, and maintain Mitigation Lands in accordance with Chapters IV through VI of the NBHCP and Section 5 of this Agreement. To the extent provided in the NBHCP, such activities shall be carried out in consultation with the TAC and with the approval of the Wildlife Agencies.

3.2.2 Acceptance of Mitigation Fees. TNBC agrees that it will accept Mitigation Fees from CITY and SUTTER and use them exclusively to implement its Acquisition, management, monitoring, reporting and other responsibilities identified in Chapters IV through VI of the NBHCP.

3.2.3 TNBC Land Management; Site Specific Management Plan/NBHCP Biological Monitoring Plans/Surveys. TNBC agrees that it shall be responsible for implementing the following management obligations within its Permit Area:
(a) TNBC, in consultation with the TAC and subject to the approval of the Wildlife Agencies as provided in the NBHCP, shall prepare a Site Specific Management Plan for each Mitigation Land site acquired by TNBC under the Plan. Each Site Specific Management Plan shall be completed in accordance with the timing requirements specified in Chapter IV and VI, of the NBHCP and shall contain each of the elements described in Chapters IV and VI, E. of the NBHCP. TNBC agrees to implement the Site Specific Management Plans in accordance with the NBHCP and upon approval.
(b) TNBC, in consultation with the TAC and subject to the approval of the Wildlife Agencies as provided in the NBHCP, shall prepare an overall Biological Monitoring Plan consistent with the provisions of Chapter VI of the NBHCP. Upon approval, TNBC agrees to implement the overall NBHCP Biological Monitoring Plan in accordance with the NBHCP. (c) TNBC shall conduct annual surveys of the Covered Species on Mitigation Lands and periodic surveys of the Covered Species throughout the Plan Area as provided in the NBHCP, the Site Specific Management Plans and Plan-wide Biological Monitoring Plan.

3.2.4 Implementation Annual Report . TNBC shall provide the Parties with an Implementation Annual Report by May 1 of each calendar year the NBHCP is in effect. The Implementation Annual Report shall include all of the information identified in Chapter VI of the NBHCP, including the results of the Compliance Monitoring implemented by CITY, SUTTER and TNBC and the Effectiveness Monitoring implemented by TNBC during the prior calendar year, and provide an accounting of all Mitigation Fees collected, all Urban Development Permits Issued, and all Mitigation Lands Acquired.

3.2.5 Implementation Annual Meeting. On or before July 1 of each calendar year each Permittee, USFWS and CDFG shall meet to discuss the Implementation Annual Report submitted by the TNBC, and any concerns, comments or recommendations any of the Parties may have regarding implementation of the NBHCP.

3.2.6 Funding. At least annually, TNBC shall evaluate the adequacy of Mitigation Fees to fund implementation of the NBHCP and shall recommend to CITY and SUTTER adjustments to the Mitigation Fee as necessary to ensure the Plan is fully implemented.

3.2.7 Budgeting and Planning. Prior to the end of each calendar year, the TNBC 7 wc-83845

shall prepare a budget and a plan for its proposed activities for the forthcoming year and provide copies to each Permittee, CDFG and USFWS.

3.2.8 Successor. With the prior written approval of CITY, SUTTER, USFWS and CDFG, the assets and obligations of TNBC may be transferred to any other non-profit corporation provided that the successor corporation assumes each of the obligations of TNBC as set forth under the NBHCP the TNBC Permit, and this Agreement.

3.2.9 Transfer to CDFG. In the event TNBC is unable to meet its financial obligations and is dissolved, becomes insolvent or goes bankrupt, and no other suitable successor is found, then the ownership of the Mitigation Lands (including conservation easements), accumulated Mitigation Fees and other sums designated for enhancement and maintenance of those lands, shall be transferred to the CDFG or a non-profit association or corporation organized for conservation purposes that is approved by USFWS, CDFG, CITY and SUTTER, which shall hold the Mitigation Lands (including conservation easements ) in perpetuity and use the Mitigation Fees for the acquisition and permanent management, operation, maintenance, monitoring, and conservation of the Mitigation Lands in accordance with the NBHCP. In the event the ownership of Mitigation Lands (including conservation easements), accumulated Mitigation Fees and other sums designated for enhancement and maintenance of those lands are transferred to CDFG, CDFG shall have the authority to seek adjustments to the Mitigation Fee consistent with the provisions of the NBHCP.

3.2.10 Operation in Perpetuity. Subject to the requirements of Chapters IV and VI of the NBHCP, Mitigation Lands acquired to meet the NBHCP’s Mitigation Requirement shall function in perpetuity to provide Habitat Values for the Covered Species. TNBC shall establish a sufficient endowment from the endowment components of the Mitigation Fees adopted by CITY and SUTTER to permanently sustain management of the Mitigation Lands in accordance with the NBHCP following expiration or termination of the Permits.

3.2.11 Conflicts of Interest . TNBC shall establish and maintain by-laws which include, at a minimum, restrictions on interests in contracts by Board members and employees which are at least as stringent as those applied to government officers and employees by California Government Code §1090 and following, as well as restrictions on participation in decisions and requirements of financial disclosure which are at least as stringent as those applied to government officers and employees by the Political Reform Act of 1974 and any regulations promulgated pursuant thereto.

3.2.12 TNBC Proceedings Open to Public . TNBC agrees that its actions and proceedings shall be conducted in public, in a manner consistent with the Ralph M. Brown Act, California Government Code Sections 54950, et seq. TNBC may conduct closed sessions for real estate negotiations as permitted in its Bylaws, referenced in the NBHCP, as may be amended from time to time (“TNBC Bylaws”). Pursuant to the TNBC Bylaws, the provisions of the Ralph M. Brown Act regarding the disclosure of information with respect to real property transactions (including, but not limited to Government Code Sections 54954.5(b), 54956.8 and 54957.1(a)(1)), whether such transactions are pending or completed, shall not apply. As used herein, “real property transactions” shall include options to purchase or lease, purchases, and leases of real property, as well as farming contracts affecting real property that TNBC has acquired or is in negotiations to acquire.

3.2.13 Implementation of Other NBHCP Components. TNBC shall implement each of the other components of the NBHCP identified in the Plan or this Agreement, including but not limited to the conservation strategies and Take avoidance, minimization and mitigation measures, to the extent such measures fall under its authority and control.

3.3 USFWS.

3.3.1 Oversight. After issuance of each Section 10(a)(1)(B) Permit, the USFWS shall monitor the implementation of such Permit, this Agreement, and each Permittee’s activities thereunder, to ensure compliance with the NBHCP, this Agreement and the Permits. 8 wc-83845

3.3.2 Technical Assistance. Subject to Section 8.12 of this Agreement, the USFWS shall provide staff to serve on the NBHCP Technical Advisory Committee (TAC), sh all provide responses to TNBC as required under the NBHCP in a timely manner, and recommend, as appropriate, revisions to the NBHCP under the Plan’s Adaptive Management, Overall Program and Independent Mid-Point Reviews, and other applicable provisions, to ensure the viability of the Plan.

USFWS shall also make available USFWS staff for informal consultations and meetings with the staffs, boards or councils of the Permittees to assist with implementation of the NBHCP. Consistent with its legal authorities, the USFWS shall cooperate with TNBC in obtaining additional funding from sources including, but not limited to, existing and future state and federal grant programs and bond issues to augment the conservation strategies of the NBHCP. Such funds are in addition to, and not in substitution of, the funding required to implement the NBHCP as described in this Agreement.

3.3.3 Newly Listed Uncovered Species. Coverage and authorization for Take of newly listed species which are not covered under the Permits shall require amendment of the NBHCP and the Permits. Until and unless the Section 10(a)(1)(B) Permits are amended to cover the newly listed species, the Permittees shall adhere to the Changed Circumstances provisions applicable to the listing of a new species as described in Chapter VI of the NBHCP. Modification of the NBHCP as necessary to amend the Permits to authorize take of new species not previously covered by the NBHCP shall be at the discretion of all parties to the NBHCP, this Agreement and the associated Permits.

3.3.4 Effective Date and Issuance of Section 10(a) Permits. (a) For purposes of the Section 10(a)(1)(B) Permit, as to each Land Use Agency Permittee, the USFWS and TNBC, the Effective Date of this Agreement shall be the date, following execution of this Agreement by that Land Use Agency Permittee, the USFWS and TNBC, that the Section 10(a)(1)(B) Permits are issued to that Land Use Agency Permittee and TNBC.
(b) Following execution of this Agreement, the Service will issue a Section 10(a) Permit to each signatory Permittee authorizing the Take of each listed Covered animal Species incidental to the Covered Activities, subject to and in accordance with the NBHCP, this Agreement and the Permits.
(c) For Covered animal Species not listed as an endangered species or threatened species under ESA as of the Effective Date, the Section 10(a) Permits shall become effective as to each such species concurrent with the listing of the species as a threatened species or endangered species under the ESA. The NBHCP also covers seven (7) plant species.

Take of listed plants is not prohibited under the ESA and therefore will not be authorized under the Section 10(a) Permits. Plants are included as Covered Species under the NBHCP and will be listed on the federal permits in recognition of the conservation measures provided for them under the NBHCP. Plant species covered under the NBHCP will also be provided assurances under the federal “No Surprises” rule.

3.3.5 Permit Findings. USFWS, based on the best scientific and commercial data available and the terms and provisions of this Agreement and the NBHCP, has found that with respect to the Covered Species:
(a) The Taking of Covered Species will be incidental to otherwise lawful activities.
(b) Implementation of the NBHCP by the Permittees will, to the maximum extent practicable, minimize and mitigate the impacts of the Incidental Take of Covered Species.
(c) CITY and SUTTER will ensure that adequate funding for the NBHCP will be provided and the NBHCP and this Agreement provide procedures for addressing Changed Circumstances and Unforeseen Circumstances.
(d) The Take of Covered Species in accordance with this 9 wc-83845

Agreement will not appreciably reduce the likelihood of the survival and recovery of the Covered Species in the wild.
(e) The measures agreed upon by the Permittees and the
USFWS for purposes of the NBHCP will be met.
(f) Through this Agreement, the USFWS has received the
required assurances that the NBHCP will be implemented.

3.4 CDFG.

3.4.1 Oversight. After issuance of the Section 2081 Permit to CITY and SUTTER, CDFG shall monitor the implementation of the Section 2081 Permit, this Agreement and TNBC’s activities thereunder, including but not limited to, the modification, enhancement, operation and maintenance of the Mitigation Lands in order to ensure compliance with this Agreement and consistency with CDFG’s trustee agency duties pursuant to CESA, and recommend any amendments to the NBHCP CDFG deems desirable, in the reasonable exercise of its discretion, under the Plan’s Adaptive Management provisions as described in Chapter IV, Section E of the NBHCP or the Overall Program Review as described in Chapter IV, Section I of the NBHCP.

3.4.2 Assistance. CDFG shall provide staff to serve on the NBHCP TAC, and shall ensure the availability of its staff for informal consultations and meetings with TNBC and the staffs, boards or councils of the other Parties to this Agreement to ensure the appropriate monitoring of permitted activities which may lead to the Incidental Take of State Protected Species. CDFG will assist TNBC (to the extent authorized by the California Legislature) in obtaining additional funding from sources including, but not limited to, existing and future state and federal grant programs and bond issues to augment the conservation strategies of the NBHCP. Such funds are in addition to, and not in substitution of, the funding required to implement the NBHCP as described in this Agreement.

3.4.3 New Species. CDFG shall make available to Permittees information it has or acquires regarding new sightings or occurrences of any species in the Permit Areas which is state listed as threatened or endangered, is a candidate for listing as threatened or endangered, or is otherwise likely to be state listed, and which is determined to be dependent upon habitat in the Permit Area, if such species is not otherwise described in Exhibit D hereof. Once a year, upon the request of TNBC, CDFG shall provide TNBC with updated information from the California Natural Diversity Data Base (“CNDDB”) covering new sightings and occurrences of any species not otherwise described in Exhibit D within the Permit Areas. At the same time, CDFG may propose any amendments to the NBHCP CDFG deems reasonably necessary to preserve Habitat Values for the benefit of such species.

3.4.4 CDFG Land Management. CDFG shall manage in perpetuity, in a manner consistent with the NBHCP, for the conservation of the Covered Species any Mitigation Lands conveyed to it by TNBC pursuant to the terms and provisions of this Agreement.

3.4.5 Effective Date and Issuance of Section 2081(b) Permit. (a) For purposes of the Section 2081(b) Permit, as to each Land Use Agency Permittee, CDFG and TNBC, the Effective Date of this Agreement shall be the date, following execution of this Agreement by that Land Use Agency Permittee, CDFG and TNBC, that the Section 2081(b) Permits are issued to that Land Use Agency Permittee and TNBC. (b) Following execution of this Agreement, CDFG will issue a Section 2081(b) Permit or modification to an existing Permit to each Permittee authorizing the Take of each Covered Species incidental to Covered Activities, subject to and in accordance with the NBHCP and this Agreement.
(c) As to each Covered Species that is not currently listed under CESA, the Incidental Take Authorization under the Section 2081(b) Permits shall become effective consistent with Section 6.2.4 of this Agreement.
10 wc-83845

3.4.6 Section 2081(b) Permit Findings.

CDFG, based on the best scientific and other information that is reasonably available, and the terms and provisions of this Agreement and the NBHCP, has found that with respect to the Covered Species:
(a) Incidental Take. The authorized Take of Covered Species will be incidental to an otherwise lawful activity.
(b) Minimize and Fully Mitigate. The impacts of the authorized Take will be minimized and fully mitigated.
(c) Roughly Proportional. The measures required to minimize and fully mitigate the impacts of the authorized Take will be roughly proportional in extent to the impact of the authorized Take of Covered Species.
(d) Applicant’s Objectives. The measures required to minimize and fully mitigate the impacts of the authorized Take will preserve Permittee objectives to the greatest extent possible, consistent with the obligation to minimize and fully mitigate the impacts of the authorized Take.
(e) Capable of Successful Implementation. All required measures will be capable of successful implementation.
(f) Adequate Funding. Permittees have ensured adequate
funding to implement the required minimization and mitigation measures, and for monitoring compliance with, and effectiveness of, those measures.
(g) No Jeopardy. The issuance of the Section 2081(b) Permits will not jeopardize the continued existence of any Covered Species. (h) Unlisted Species. Covered Species that are not currently listed as threatened or endangered under CESA have been treated in the NBHCP as if they were listed, and the NBHCP identifies measures to minimize and fully mitigate the impacts of the authorized Take of such unlisted species. The findings in this Section 3.4.5 apply to all Covered Species, including Covered Species that are not listed. 4 MITIGATION

4.1 Mitigation Lands. Mitigation Lands will be established and managed pursuant to the NBHCP.

4.2 Respective Permit Areas. Developers of all lands within the respective Permit Areas that are developed pursuant to an Urban Development Permit, shall provide mitigation pursuant to the NBHCP for the direct, indirect and cumulative impacts of development upon Covered Species and their habitat. CITY and SUTTER shall require an Urban Development Permittee to provide mitigation for the conversion of land to Authorized Development in the respective Permit Areas, in conformity with the NBHCP and the following sections.

4.3 Existing Development Exempt. Parcels of land within the respective Permit Areas that are shown as “Exempt Area-Existing Development” and “Development Subject to 1997 HCP” on the Baseline Maps depicted on Exh ibits B and C of this Agreement are not covered by the NBHCP, this Agreement, or the Permits, provided, however, that nothing in this Agreement shall be construed to exempt such existing development from any applicable requirements of the ESA or CESA.

4.4 Mitigation Ratio. Mitigation for the conversion of land in the respective Permit Areas to Authorized Development will be required at the ratio of one half (½) acre of land protected or conserved for every one (1) acre of land converted to Authorized Development (the “Mitigation Ratio”).

4.5 Calculation of Mitigation Requirement for Authorized Development Projects. The Mitigation Requirement for each public or private project is determined by applying the Mitigation Ratio to the land area converted to Authorized Development (the “Mitigation Requirement”). The 11 wc-83845

land area converted to Authorized Development is determined as follows:
(1) For both private and public development projects, except as provided in (2) and (3) below, the gross area of a particular project is considered “land area converted to Authorized Development” whether the entire project is graded or not. The fees payable shall be calculated by multiplying the Mitigation Fees (in dollars per acre) times the land area converted to Authorized Development, prorated for fractional acres.
(2) For private development projects, a separate parcel or portion of a parcel which will be transferred to a public agency for a public use consisting of a park, school or other public building, is exempt. The M itigation Requirement for such uses must be satisfied when the parcel of public use property is developed by the respective public agency owning the parcel. With respect to other lands designated for public use, the following criteria will apply: (a) Roads: where a road is included within the respective Land Use Agency’s finance plan for purposes of financing, the land transferred or to be transferred by fee or easement to the agency for the road project is excluded; where a road is not one which is financed pursuant to the agency’s finance plan, but is to be paid for entirely by the private landowner or developer of the project, even though ultimately it will be dedicated to the agency, the land transferred or to be transferred to the agency for the road is included; (b) Utilities: where the landowner or developer is required to transfer to the respective Land Use Agency or another public entity (e.g., Sacramento Municipal Utility District), by easement or fee, land for a structure such as a pump station, outfall station, or similar structure, such land is excluded; where the landowner or developer is required to transfer to the agency non- exclusive easements for utility lines (water lines, sewer lines, and similar lines), the land covered by such easements is included; if the easement is exclusive, the land covered by the easement is excluded, but the transferee agency will be required to provide mitigation upon development of the transferred parcel. With respect to each parcel or portion of a parcel exempted or excluded pursuant to this section, the Mitigation Requirement shall be satisfied by CITY or SUTTER at the time such parcel or portion of land is converted to Authorized Development. (3) For both private and public projects, excluded is any parcel or portion of the parcel approved as Mitigation Land by TNBC and the Wildlife Agencies in accordance with the NBHCP and which will be transferred in fee to TNBC or will be encumbered by a Conservation Easement in favor of TNBC for purposes of satisfaction of the Mitigation Requirement for the particular development project.

4.6 Satisfaction of Mitigation Requirement . The Land Use Agency Permittes each re
tains authority to require an Urban Development Permittee/landowner to satisfy the Mitigation Requirement by: (1) payment of the Mitigation Fees; or (2) subject to the approvals required by the NBHCP, transfer of Mitigation Land to TNBC, together with payment of all components of the Mitigation Fee except the Land Acquisition Fee as specified in the NBHCP. C redit against the Land Acquisition Fee component of the Mitigation Fees is based on the number of acres of land being transferred and is not based on cost or perceived value of the land transferred. Where a Land Use Agency Permittee elects to require an Urban Development Permittee to transfer land to TNBC, (1) TNBC and the Wildlife Agencies must approve the transfer of each parcel of Mitigation Land considering its location, proximity to urban uses and roads, current land condition, and all other factors specified in the NBHCP, and (2) such land must be dedicated prior to authorization by the applicable Land Use Agency Permittee for dissturbance of the land resulting from the associated Urban Development Project. If the amount of land transferred to TNBC is less than the Mitigation Land required for the public or private project, the landowner is obligated to pay the outstanding balance of the Land Acquisition Fee component of the Mitigation Fees. If the amount of land transferred to TNBC is greater than the amount of Mitigation Land required for the development project, the landowner may choose one of the following credit options: (i) receive credit from the excess amount of land toward required Mitigation Land under the NBHCP for future Authorized Development of property owned by the landowner; or (ii) transfer credit from the excess amount of 12 wc-83845

land toward required Mitigation Land under the NBHCP for Authorized Development of property owned by another specified landowner. If either credit option is chosen, then prior to the transfer of Mitigation Land being finalized, the landowner shall inform CITY or SUTTER, as appropriate and TNBC in writing of the choice to receive or transfer credit and to whom the credit is to be transferred. Any transfer of fee title to lands or a Conservation Easement therein in order to satisfy the Mitigation Requirement shall be accomplished by a deed or grant of a conservation easement to TNBC in a form acceptable to USFWS and CDFG, in recordable form on or before issuance of an Urban Development Permit (i.e., a building permit, grading permit, or other permit which allows a disturbance of the surface of the earth for the public or private project). All land proposed to be transferred to TNBC in satisfaction of the Mitigation Requirement must meet the acquisition criteria specified in the NBHCP.

4.7 Jurisdictional Wetlands. Nothing in this Agreement shall relieve any Urban Development Permittee desiring to discharge any fill or other material into any jurisdictional wetlands, of any requirement to obtain a Clean Water Act Section 404 Permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and comply with all the terms and conditions thereof. Take of Covered Species related to jurisdictional wetlands by the Urban Development Permittee shall be authorized through the incidental take permits issued to CITY and SUTTER and shall be subject to the requirements of the NBHCP.

4.8 Rivers, Streams or Lakes. Nothing in this Agreement shall relieve any Urban Development Permittee desiring to substantially divert or obstruct the natural flow or substantially change the bed, channel, or bank of any river, stream, or lake designated by the CDFG, or use any material from the streambeds, of any requirement to comply with Fish and Game Code, Division 2, Chapter 6, commencing with Section 1600 (concerning Streambed Alteration Agreements). This Agreement and implementation of the NBHCP are intended to satisfy only site-specific mitigation requirements for impacts of taking Covered Species as a result of an Authorized Development project which may be imposed under Chapter 6 of the California Fish and Game Code, with the exception of mitigation specifically directed at those vernal pool species included on the list of Covered Species.

4.9 Funding for Operating Conservation Program. CITY and SUTTER shall fund the Operating Conservation Program in accordance with Chapter VI of the NBHCP.

4.9.1 Mitigation Fees. Where an Urban Development Permittee selects payment of Mitigation Fees as its method of satisfying the Mitigation Requirement for the public or private project, the provisions of Section 4 shall govern the calculation and collection of such fees, and such Urban Development Permittee shall pay the Mitigation Fees as so calculated. The amount payable for the Mitigation Fee shall be the amount specified by ordinance or resolution adopted by the governing body of the CITY or SUTTER, including but not limited to the “catch-up fee” ordinances or other ordinances or resolutions adopted prior to or after the Effective Date.

4.9.2 Adjustments to the Mitigation Fee for Purposes of Funding the Operating Conservation Program Other than Changes to the Managed Marsh Component. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Agreement, upon request of TNBC or upon the written request of USFWS or CDFG as supported by documented evidence in the form of a written report and technical analysis, and as otherwise necessary, CITY and SUTTER shall review, and at the discretion of each, adjust the Mitigation Fees to take into account costs of land acquisition and TNBC operations, to maintain or meet the Mitigation Ratio specified in Section 4.4 of this Agreement, and to meet TNBC management, monitoring, adaptive management, or related costs required to fund the Operating Conservation Program as set forth in Chapters IV, V and VI of the NBHCP. The decision to adjust the Mitigation Fees may include but is not limited to consideration of the following factors: (1) the market price of land being acquired as Mitigation Land; (2) the necessity to maintain the 0.5 to 1 Mitigation Ratio; (3) the need to fund ongoing and permanent management and monitoring costs in accordance with the NBHCP; (4) the necessity to ensure the 13 wc-83845

effectiveness of the NBHCP’s Operating Conservation Program; and (5) the availability of other sources of revenues, including the sale of hunting rights on Mitigation Lands, proceeds from the cultivation of rice on Mitigation Lands and other funds and grants. (a) Notwithstanding the foregoing and in accordance with, an d subject to the limitations of, Chapter VI of the NBHCP, CITY or SUTTER shall be obligated to increase the Mitigation Fees to fund recommended changes to the Operating Conservation Program resulting from future recovery plans, monitoring results from the Plan Area or peer- reviewed new scientific information relevant to the Plan only when such recommendations:
(1) Relate to the physical management of Mitigation
Lands;
(2) Would improve the effectiveness of the NBHCP’s
Operating Conservation Program by identifying relevant new information, approaches, techniques, or species protection needs;
(3) Can be implemented within the NBHCP Plan Area; and
(4) Fit within the overall intent and framework, are
consistent with the NBHCP’s biological goals and objectives and would not exceed the established Mitigation Ratio of the NBHCP; and
(5) Would not substantially sacrifice habitat values for Covered Species that are not addressed by the recovery plan, the monitoring results or other peer- reviewed new scientific information.
(b) Adjustment of the Mitigation Fees pursuant to this subsection is independent of adjustments made on account of inflation/deflation pursuant to Section 4.9.4 of this Agreement. Nothing in this Agreement shall be construed to diminish or otherw ise affect the discretionary authority of the Land Use Agencies with respect to fee adjustments under this Section

4.9.1. 4.9.3 Adjustments to the Mitigation Fee for purposes of Funding the Changes to the Managed Marsh Component. Upon written notification supported by documented evidence in the form of a written report and technical analysis by USFWS or CDFG to CITY and SUTTER of the adoption of a future Giant Garter Snake Recovery Plan, the availability of monitoring results from the Plan Area, or peer-reviewed new scientific information indicating an adjustment in the enhancement and management activities for managed marsh as specified in Chapter VI of the NBHCP, the CITY and SUTTER shall review, and at the discretion of each, adjust the Mitigation Fees to take into account increased costs of TNBC’s enhancement and management of a higher proportion of managed marsh on Mitigation Lands acquired after adoption of the final Giant Garter Snake Recovery Plan by the USFWS, the availability of peer-reviewed new scientific information or monitoring results from the Plan Area indicate an adjustment in the enhancement and/or management activities for managed marsh is warranted as specified and subject to the limitations contained in Chapter VI of the NBHCP. The obl igation to adjust the Mitigation Fees shall be subject to the following limitations set forth in Chapter VI of the NBHCP:
(b) the obligation to increase the Mitigation Fees shall be applied prospectively to future Mitigation Lands acquired after adoption of the Recovery Plan, in response to monitoring results from the Plan Area or in response to peer-reviewed new scientific information. (c) if the Recovery Plan, monitoring results collected from the Plan Area, or peer-reviewed new scientific information indicate a higher proportion of managed marsh (1) will improve the effectiveness of the NBHCP’s Operating Conservation Program to meet its biological goals and objectives, (2) is beneficial to the snake, and (3) will not adversely affect any other listed Covered Species.
(d) the maximum levels of managed marsh which may apply to future Mitigation Land acquisitions which occur after the results of monitoring from the Plan Area or 14 wc-83845

peer-reviewed new scientific information, or Giant Garter Snake Recovery Plan adoption shall not exceed seventy-five percent (75%) of such Mitigation Lands.

Adjustment of the Mitigation Fees pursuant to this subsection is independent of adjustments made on account of inflation/deflation pursuant to Section 4.9.4 of this Agreement. (Nothing in this Agreement shall be construed to diminish or otherwise affect the discretionary authority of the Land Use Agencies with respect to fee adjustments under this Section 4.9.2.)

4.9.4 Fee Adjustments for General Inflation. On or before January 1 of each year, CITY and SUTTER shall review and, at the discretion of each, adjust the dollar amount of the Mitigation Fees (as adjusted from time to time pursuant to Section 4.4.1), to take into account the effects of inflation/deflation generally. Adjustments will be calculated as follows: the current Mitigation Fee shall be multiplied by the index for October of the year prior to January 1, divided by the index for October of the preceding year [e.g., 2003 Fee = 2002 Fee x (October, 2002 CPI Index/October, 2001 CPI Index)]. For purposes of making this adjustment, the index utilized shall be the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers, All Items, San Francisco– Oakland–San Jose (1982-1984=100), as published by the U.S. Department of Labor, or its successor. Technical adjustments made pursuant to this Section 4.9.4 shall be independent of, in addition to and not a part of adjustments to, the Mitigation Fee adjustments made pursuant to Section 4.9.2 and 4.9.3.

4.9.5 Failure to Adjust Mitigation Fees. CITY and SUTTER acknowledge that the failure of either CITY or SUTTER to adjust the Mitigation Fees as necessary to maintain the Mitigation Ratio and ensure implementation of each of the other requirements of the NBHCP identified in Chapters IV through VI of the NBHCP and/or in this Section 4 may result in suspension or revocation of their respective Permits as set forth in Section 7.6 of this Agreement. 5 Mitigation Lands

5.1 Location of Mitigation Lands. TNBC shall locate Mitigation Lands in accordan ce with Chapters IV through VI of the NBHCP and this Section.

5.2 Setbacks and Buffers. All Mitigation Lands Acquired by TNBC shall conform to the buffer and setback requirements set forth in Chapters IV and VI of the NBHCP.

5.3 In-Basin Acquisition. All Mitigation Lands shall be acquired within the Natomas Basin as provided in the NBHCP.

5.4 Coordinating Mitigation Land Acquisition With Agency Acquisitions. Prior to the Acquisition of any parcel of Mitigation Land, TNBC shall provide written notice to the USFWS, CDFG, and both CITY and SUTTER of its intent to Acquire such lands. USFWS and CDFG agree that they will not knowingly interfere or compete with TNBC for the Acquisition or control of such lands and that they will consult with TNBC in formulating any Acquisition plans. As to those lands identified by USFWS or CDFG for acquisition, TNBC, likewise, shall not knowingly interfere with or compete with the affected agency for acquisition or control until TNBC is notified by that agency that it is no longer pursuing acquisition or control of the lands. 15 wc-83845

5.5 Timing of Mitigation Land Acquisition. TNBC shall comply with the requirements of the NBHCP relating to the Acquisition of Mitigation Lands in advance of approval of Authorized Development set forth in Chapter VI of the NBHCP. The Parties further agree that in order to ensure that Mitigation Lands are Acquired in an amount sufficient to meet the Mitigation Requirement that attaches to all Authorized Development under the NBHCP, TNBC shall establish a 200 acre cushion of Mitigation Lands prior to the approval of any Authorized Development by CITY or SUTTER under the Plan and shall maintain the 200 Acre Mitigation Land cushion until the approval of the last 400 acres of Authorized Development under the Plan. CITY, SUTTER and TNBC shall implement this requirement in accordance with the NBHCP, as follows. (a) No Urban Development Permits for Authorized Development shall be issued by CITY or SUTTER after September 30 of each calendar year until TNBC notifies CITY and SUTTER that it has Acquired Mitigation Lands which equal the number of acres necessary to meet the Mitigation Requirement attached to all prior Urban Development Permits issued by CITY and SUTTER plus an additional 200 acres of Mitigation Land. (b) Because TNBC is responsible for Acquiring Mitigation Lands for Planned Development, TNBC will credit mitigation fees collected under the Metro Air Park HCP (MAP HCP) along with all Mitigation Fees collected by CITY and SUTTER for Authorized Development. The collection of Mitigation Fees for Planned Development will be credited against the Mitigation Lands Acquired by TNBC, in chronological order, with priority given to the oldest project among those approved under the MAP HCP and the CITY’s or SUTTER’s Permits to have paid Mitigation Fees.

5.6 Acquisition of 400 and 2,500-Acre Blocks. TNBC shall comply with those provisions of the NBHCP relating to Acquisition of Mitigation Lands to ensure that the Mitigation Lands are consolidated in minimum 400-acre habitat blocks and at least one 2,500 acre habitat block prior to the expiration of the Permits. The 400 acre minimum block requirement and the 2,500 acre minimum block requirement shall be applied in the aggregate to all Permittees and to all ot her approved HCPs in the Natomas Basin that are based on the NBHCP, so that the plans as a whole must achieve the identified habitat block consolidation requirements set forth in the NBHCP upon Plan completion. Notwithstanding the above, CITY and SUTTER each retain the independent obligation to provide 400 acre minimum blocks and one 2,500 acre minimum block prior to the date their respective Permits expire in the event the other Permittees cease participation in the NBHCP, or in the event the Potential Permittees choose not to participate in the NBHCP. None of the provisions contained herein shall be construed to prohibit the USFWS or CDFG from authorizing Mitigation Land acquisitions that do not comply with the minimum 400-acre minimum block size in the event that TNBC identifies potential Mitigation Lands which otherwise provide opportunities for the preservation of important biological resources.

5.7 Accounting for Mitigation Lands

5.7.1 Managed Marsh. Mitigation Lands acquired and converted to and managed as seasonal or perennial marsh, and existing marsh lands acquired by TNBC and managed as seasonal or perennial marsh, will count fully toward the 0.5:1 Mitigation Ratio described in Section

4.4 of this Agreement.

5.7.2 Rice Land. Mitigation Lands in current rice production as Rice Lands will count fully toward the 0.5:1 Mitigation Ratio described in Section 4.4 of this Agreement.

5.7.3 Uplands. Mitigation lands providing upland habitats will count fully towards the 0.5:1 Mitigation Ratio described in Section 4.4 of this Agreement.

5.7.4 Proportion of Mitigation Lands as Marsh. Within three years of the approval of a Site Specific Management Plan a minimum of 25 percent of the Mitigation Lands must be in managed marsh as specified in the NBHCP. Thereafter, a minimum of 25 percent of the Mitigation Lands shall be in managed marsh until and unless that amount is increased up to a maximum of 75 percent of the Mitigation Lands in accordance with Section 4.9.3 of this Agreement and Chapter VI 16 wc-83845

of the NBHCP. Pursuant to Section 4.9.3 of this Agreement and Chapter VI of the NBHCP, any increase in the amount of Mitigation Lands required to be in managed marsh shall apply only to Mitigation Lands Acquired to satisfy the Mitigation Requirement for Authorized Development which are acquired after the USFWS or CDFG provide written notice and its accompanying documentation of Recovery Plan adoption, the availability of monitoring results from the Plan Area, or the availability of credible scientific information collected in the Plan Area. Provided the Wildlife Agency’s requested increase in managed marsh complies with Chapter VI of the NBHCP, the failure of TNBC to adopt the increase in managed marsh as requested by either Wildlife Agency shall trigger a reevaluation of the Plan and possible suspension or revocation of the CITY and SUTTER’s Permits as set forth under Section 7.6 of this Agreement.

5.8 Conservation Measures. CITY and SUTTER shall include in each Urban Development Permit the Conservation Measures provided in Chapter V of the NBHCP. 6 ASSURANCES

6.1 USFWS

6.1.1 No Surprises Assurances.
(a) Unforeseen Circumstances. As provided in 50 C.F.R. 17.3, the term “Unforeseen Circumstances” shall mean changes in circumstances affecting a species or geographic area covered by the NBHCP that could not reasonably have been anticipated by the plan developers and USFWS at the time of the Plan’s negotiation and development, and that results in a substantial and adverse change in the status of a Covered Species. (1) “No Surprises” Assurances. Pursuant to the No
Surprises Rule at 50 C.F.R. Sections 17.3, 17.22(b)(5) and 17.32(b)(5), and provided that CITY, SUTTER and TNBC are properly implementing the NBHCP, USFWS shall not require CITY, SUTTER or TNBC to provide additional land, water or other natural resources, or financial compensation or additional restrictions on the use of land, water, or other natural resources beyond the level provided for under the NBHCP, this Agreement and the Permits with respect to Covered Activities under the Permits without the consent of CITY or SUTTER. However, nothing in this Section or in the Assurances Rule shall be interpreted: (1) to restrict the authority of USFWS to take appropriate action under the ESA or applicable regulations to ensure that the NBHCP is properly implemented in accordance with this Agreement; (2) to apply to future Adaptive Management modifications for Mitigation Lands that are deemed necessary or appropriate by the USFWS or CDFG as determined in accordance with Chapter VI of the NBHCP and in consultation with CITY, SUTTER and TNBC, to respond to the results of monitoring in the Plan Area, or to new scientific information relevant to the NBHCP, (3) to apply to future modifications to the NBHCP as a result of future recovery plans as determined in accordance with Chapter VI of the NBHCP, (4) to apply to the NBHCP responses to Changed Circumstances identified in Chapter VI of the NBHCP, or (5) to apply to changes anticipated to occur as a result of the Urban Development activities anticipated by the Section 10(a)(1)(B) Permit, Section 2081(b) Permit, or as otherwise approved by the USFWS, provided that such actions, modifications and changes comply with the limitations and restrictions set forth in Chapter VI of the NBHCP. If USFWS makes a finding of unforeseen circumstances, during the period necessary to determine the nature and location of additional or modified mitigation, CITY, SUTTER and TNBC will avoid contributing to appreciably reducing the likelihood of the survival and recovery of the affected species and ensure that third persons under their control that are carrying out Covered Activities avoid contributing to appreciably reducing the likelihood of the survival and recovery of the affected species. (2) Unforeseen Circumstances Finding. In the event that USFWS believes that Unforeseen Circumstances may exist in accordance with the “No Surprises” rule, it shall notify CDFG, CITY, SUTTER and TNBC in writing of the applicable specific facts described in Section 6.1.1 above. In the notification, USFWS shall clearly document the basis for 17 wc-83845

the proposed finding regarding the existence of Unforeseen Circumstances in accordance with the requirements of 50 C.F.R. § 17.22(b)(5)(iii)(C) and 17.32(b)(5)(iii)(C). Within fifteen (15) days of receiving such notice, CITY, SUTTER and TNBC, USFWS and CDFG shall meet to consider the facts cited in the notice and potential changes to the NBHCP’s Operating Conservation Program or management and operation of the Mitigation Lands. Pursuant to 50 C.F.R. § 17.22(b)(5)(iii)(C) and

17.32(b)(5)(iii)(C), USFWS shall make an Unforeseen Circumstances finding based on the best scientific evidence available, after considering any responses submitted by any other Parties pursuant to this section, and USFWS shall have the burden of demonstrating that Unforeseen Circumstances exist.
(3) Effect of Unforeseen Circumstances Finding. Pursuant to 50 C.F.R. 17.22(b)(5) and 17.32(b)(5), in the event that USFWS makes a finding of Unforeseen Circumstances and additional conservation and mitigation measures are deemed necessary to respond to such Unforeseen Circumstances, USFWS may require additional measures from CITY, SUTTER or TNBC where the NBHCP is being properly implemented, but only if such measures are limited to modifications within the Mitigation Lands and the NBHCP’s Operating Conservation Program for the affected species and maintain the original terms of the NBHCP to the maximum extent possible. Additional conservation and mitigati on measures shall not involve the commitment of additional land, water or other natural resources without the consent of CITY and SUTTER. (b) Changed Circumstances.
(1) Changed Circumstances Defined. As provided in 50
C.F.R. 17.3, the term “Changed Circumstances” means changes in circumstances affecting a species or geographic area covered by the NBHCP that can reasonably be anticipated by CITY, SUTTER or TNBC and that can be planned for in the NBHCP (e.g. the listing of a new species, or a fire or other natural catastrophic event in areas prone to such events.) Changed circumstances and planned responses to those circumstances are described in Chapter VI of the NBHCP. (2) Permittee-Initiated Response to Changed
Circumstances. CITY, SUTTER or TNBC, as a ppropriate, will immediately notify USFWS and all other Permittees upon learning that any of the Changed Circumstances listed in Chapter VI of the NBHCP has occurred, and shall provide written notice within seven (7) days . Permittees shall modify their activities and shall require third persons under the Permittees’ control to modify their activities, as appropriate, in accordance with Chapter VI of the NBHCP, to the extent necessary and feasible to minimize and mitigate the effects of the Changed Circumstances. CITY, SUTTER and TNBC and will report to USFWS on their actions. Such modifications will be initiated without awaiting notice from USFWS. Such changes are provided for in the NBHCP, and hence do not constitute unforeseen circumstances or require amendment of Permits or the NBHCP. (3) USFWS-Initiated Response to Changed
Circumstances. If USFWS determines that Changed Circumstances have occurred and that CITY, SUTTER or TNBC have not responded in accordance with Chapter VI of the NBHCP, the USFWS in coordination with CDFG will so notify CITY, SUTTER and TNBC and, as appropriate, direct them to make the required changes. Within thirty (30) days after receiving such notice, CITY, SUTTER or TNBC, as appropriate, will make the required changes and report to USFWS on their action. Such changes are provided for in the NBHCP, and hence do not constitute unforeseen circumstances or require amendment of Permits or of the NBHCP.

6.1.2 Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA). If during the term of the Section 10(a)(1)(B) Permits, an avian Covered Species which is protected under the MBTA is listed under the ESA, the Section 10(a)(1)(B) Permits will also constitute Special Purpose Permits under 50 C.F.R. Section 21.27 for the “take” (for purposes of this Section, as that term is understood under the MBTA) of those Covered avian Species which are listed as threatened or endangered under the ESA and which are also protected by the MBTA. The take of such species in conjunction with any Authorized Development Project, in accordance with the terms of this Agreement, the NBHCP and 18 wc-83845

CITY’s, SUTTER’s or TNBC’s Section 10(a)(1)(B) Permits, will not be in violation of the MBTA.

Such Special Purpose permits shall be valid for a period of three years from the date the species is listed under the ESA provided that City's, Sutter's, or TNBC's Section 10(a)(1)(B) Permit, as applicable, remains in effect for that period. Such Special Purpose Permit will authorize take of any avian Covered Species listed under the ESA during the three year Special Purpose Permit term.

Such Special Purpose Permit shall be renewed as to each Permittee, provided that each Permittee continues to fulfill its obligations under this Agreement. Each such renewal shall be valid for the maximum period of time allowed by 50 C.F.R. Section 21.27 or its successor at the time of renewal.

6.1.3 Beneficial Effects With Respect to Future Listings. To the extent permitted by the ESA and consistent with the provisions of the NBHCP, the USFWS shall consider the NBHCP and this Agreement in any future determination by the USFWS with regard to the listing of one or more of the currently unlisted Covered Species as an endangered species or threatened species pursuant to the ESA.

6.1.4 Critical Habitat. The USFWS further agrees that it will consider the NBHCP in its preparation of any proposed designation of critical habitat concerning any Covered Species and agrees that, consistent with 50 C.F.R. 424.12, the NBHCP incorporates those special management considerations necessary to manage the Covered Species and their habitats in a manner that will provide “for the conservation of the species involved” within the CITY, SUTTER’s and TNBC’s respective Permit Areas in the Natomas Basin. Consistent with the No Surprises Rule set fort h in Section 6.1.2(a), in the event that a critical habitat designation is made for any Covered Species and upon a determination that CITY, SUTTER and TNBC are properly implementing the NBHCP, no additional mitigation in the form of land, land restrictions or financial compensation, beyond that required by the NBHCP, shall be required of any Permittee in connection with Urban Development in its Permit Area as a result of such critical habitat designation without the consent of that Permittee.

6.1.5 ESA Listing of Currently Unlisted Covered Species. In the event that one or more of the Covered animal Species that are not currently listed as an endangered species or threatened species are so listed pursuant to the ESA, the Section 10(a)(1)(B) Permit shall become effective to permit the Incidental Take of such species in connection with Urban Development within each Permittee’s Permit Area as of the date the species is listed provided the CITY, SUTTER and TNBC are properly implementing the NBHCP. The Parties expressly acknowledge that it is the intent of this Agreement that the Mitigation Lands will be administered so as to conserve and enhance the habitat values for all listed and unlisted Covered Species reasonably expected to be found in Natomas Basin , to the extent provided for in the NBHCP.

6.2 CDFG

6.2.1 CESA Compliance. CDFG shall consider adherence to the terms of this Agreement to be compliance with the CESA and the California Native Plant Protection Act for the impacts of Authorized Development on State Protected Species in the Permit Area. Take of Fully Protected Species is not authorized by this Agreement.

6.2.2 Adequate Mitigation Under CESA. CDFG shall consider adherence to the terms of the Section 2081 Permit, the NBHCP and this Agreement to minimize and fully mitigate the impacts associated with the Incidental Take of State Protected Species in the Permit Areas as authorized by the Section 2081 Permit and this Agreement pursuant to CESA.

6.2.3 Assurances. Except as otherwise required by law, no further mitigation from Urban Development Permittees and/or CITY and SUTTER consisting of land, additional land restrictions, or financial compensation beyond that described herein and provided for in the NBHCP, will be required by CDFG to address the impacts of Authorized Development within the respective Permit Areas on the State Protected Species, Covered Species which become listed in the future as State-protected species, or their habitats pursuant to the CESA. 19 wc-83845

6.2.4 CESA Listing of Currently Unlisted Covered Species. In the event that one or more of the Covered Species that are not State Protected Species are listed as an endangered species or threatened species or candidate species pursuant to the CESA (“Additional State Protected Species”), the Section 2081 Permit shall become effective to permit the Incidental Take of such species in connection with Authorized Development within each Permittee’s Permit Area as of the date the species is accepted and designated as a candidate species pursuant to California Fish and Game Code section 2074.2, upon confirmation by CDFG that substantial evidence demonstrates that the Section 2081 Permit will continue to meet the standards in California Fish and Game Code Section 2081(b) and Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations, Section 783,4 for the Additional State Protected Species. In the event CDFG determines that such standards will not be met, and the Section 2081 Permit does not become effective upon the designation of an Additional State Protected Species as a candidate, threatened, or endangered species under CESA, CDFG shall accept and give due consideration to the minimization and mitigation measures in the NBHCP and this Agreement in support of an application for a permit amendment or for a separate Section 2081 Permit authorizing Incidental Take of any such Additional State Protected Species. CDFG shall make reasonable efforts to review and process the application for an amendment to the Section 2081 Permit or a new Section 2081 Permit to authorize Incidental Take of an Additional State Protected Species to ensure, to the extent consistent with CESA, that the Incidental Take authorization is effective at the time the Covered Species is accepted and designated as a candidate species under CESA.
(a) The Parties expressly acknowledge that it is the intent of this Agreement that the Mitigation Lands will be administered so as to enhance their Habitat Values for all the Covered Species reasonably expected to be found in the Permit Areas. (b) To the extent permitted by the CESA, the CDFG shall consider the NBHCP and this Agreement in any future determination by the CDFG with regard to the listing of one or more of the currently unlisted Covered Species as an endangered species or threatened species pursuant to the CESA.

6.2.5 Changed Conditions. For the purposes of this Agreement, the term “Changed Conditions” shall have the same meaning as expressed in CESA and its related implementing regulations in Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations, commencing with section 783.0. Prior to making a finding of Changed Conditions, CDFG shall provide notice to CITY, SUTTER, TNBC and other Parties hereto of any proposed amendments to this Agreement which CDFG proposes to remedy the Changed Condition. CDFG shall, to the extent feasible, meet with CITY, SUTTER, TNBC, and other Parties hereto at least ninety (90) days prior to making a finding of Changed Conditions to provide such parties with an opportunity to submit their comments and suggested revisions to the proposed amendment.

6.3 Limits on Future Revisions to NBHCP. The Parties acknowledge that the NBHCP expressly provides for revisions to the Plan’s Operating Conservation Program and Mitigation Lands as a result of monitoring results collected from the Plan Area, peer-reviewed new scientific information, or future recovery plans for the Covered Species, as part of the Adaptive Management program, in response to Changed Circumstances and for any other cause identified in Chapter VI of the NBHCP, provided that such revisions comply with Chapter VI of the NBHCP. Such revisions are provided for under the Plan and are therefore not subject to the restrictions on additional Mitigation contained in USFWS’s No Surprises Rule or agreed to by CDFG, nor do such revisions require amendment of the Plan or the Permits. Notwithstanding the above, such revisions shall be subject to the following limitations unless such limitations are waived in writing by CITY, SUTTER and TNBC.
20 wc-83845

(a) The modifications shall not require more than 75 percent of the Mitigation Lands to be converted to or maintained as managed marsh; and (b) The modifications shall not require the Mitigation Ratio to be greater than 0.5 acre mitigation to 1.0 acre development. (c) The modifications shall comply with the requirements, limitations and restrictions specified in Chapter VI of the NBHCP.

6.4 Reservation of Rights Re: Subsequent Listing of Species. This Agreement shall not be construed as a waiver of any rights or objections that any of the Parties hereto or Urban Development Permittees may have with respect to the proposed listing of any Candidate Species under the ESA or CESA or of any of the other Covered Species described in this Agreement. The Permittee and the Urban Development Permittees reserve their right to oppose any formal listing of any Candidate Species or other Covered Species pursuant to the ESA or CESA. Likewise, nothing in this Agreement is intended, nor shall be construed to limit the authority of USFWS or CDFG to enforce or otherwise carry out their respective responsibilities under the federal or state Endangered Species Acts and other applicable federal and state laws.

6.5 Land Use Authority. Nothing in the NBHCP or in this Agreement shall be interpreted or operate in a manner that expressly or impliedly diminishes or restricts the local land use authority of CITY and SUTTER. Notwithstanding the foregoing sentence, CITY and SUTTER acknowledge that they have chosen to implement several of the commitments made by them under the NBHCP through the exercise of their respective land use authorities. Therefore, a failure of CITY or SUTTER to exercise their land use authorities in a manner consistent with their obligations under the NBHCP could compromise the effectiveness of the Plan, would trigger a reevaluation of the Plan and their respective Permits and could result in suspension or revocation of such Permits as set forth in Section 7.6 of this Agreement.

6.6 No Liability. All Parties hereto agree that under no circumstances shall CITY, SUTTER and TNBC have any liability whatsoever for any debts, liabilities or financial obligations incurred by another Permittee under the NBHCP. Notwithstanding the foregoing sentence CITY and SUTTER acknowledge that they are obligated under their Permits to fully implement the NBHCP, including funding each of the obligations assigned to TNBC as the Plan Operator under the NBHCP. Therefore, a failure of CITY or SUTTER to fully fund TNBC’s obligation under the Plan could compromise the effectiveness of the Plan, would trigger a reevaluation of the Plan and CITY, SUTTER and TNBC’s respective Permits and could result in suspension of revocation of such permits pursuant to Section 7.6 of this Agreement.
7 AMENDMENTS AND REMEDIES

7.1 Revisions and Amendments to the NBHCP. Revisions to the NBHCP shall be implemented in accordance with Chapter VI of the Plan. Revisions shall not require Amendment of the Plan or Permits. Amendments to the NBHCP shall require amendment of the Permits and shall be processed in accordance with the amendment provisions of Chapter VI of the Plan and all applicable laws and regulations.

7.2 Amendments to Agreement. This Agreement may be amended only by written document signed by all of the Parties.

7.3 Land Use Ch anges. The Parties to this Agreement agree that the adoption and amendment of General Plans, Specific Plans, Community Plans, zoning ordinances and similar ordinances, and the granting of implementing land use entitlement by CITY or SUTTER pertaining to land in their respective Permit Areas, shall be matters within the sole discretion of CITY and SUTTER, and shall not require amendments to this Agreement or the approval of the other Parties to this Agreement. No such action by CITY or SUTTER shall in any way alter or diminish its obligations under this Agreement and the NBHCP. Notwithstanding the foregoing sentences, CITY and SUTTER acknowledge that they have chosen to implement several of the commitments made 21 wc-83845

by them under the NBHCP through the exercise of their respective land use authorities. Therefore, a failure of CITY or SUTTER to exercise their land use authorities in a manner consistent with their obligations under the NBHCP could compromise the effectiveness of the Plan, would trigger a reevaluation of the Plan and their respective Permits and could result in suspension or revocation of such Permits as set forth in Section 7.6 of this Agreement.

7.4 Remedies in General. The Parties acknowledge that each of the Covered Species is unique and that the loss of any of the Covered Species would be irreparable and that therefore injunctive and/or temporary relief may be appropriate in certain circumstances involving a breach of this Agreement. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Agreement, the Parties shall not be liable in monetary damages to any Party or any person for any breach of this Agreement, in the performance or failure to perform a mandatory or discretionary obligation imposed by this Agreement, or any other cause of action arising from this Agreement. Subject to the foregoing, the Parties shall have all of the remedies available in equity (including specific performance and injunctive relief) and at law to enforce the terms of this Agreement and the Section 10(a)(1)(B) Permit and Section 2081 Permit and to seek remedies for any breach thereof, consistent with and subject to the terms of this Agreement. It is expressly understood by the Parties that monetary damages will not provide an adequate remedy for material breach of this Agreement.

7.5 Third Party Enforcement. This Agreement shall not create in the public, any member of the public, or any other person or entity, including any Urban Development Permittee, any rights under this Agreement, nor shall it authorize anyone not a signatory to this Agreement to maintain a suit (1) in equity or law to enforce the terms of this Agreement and/or the NBHCP, Section 10(a)(1)(B) Permit or Section 2081 Permit, or (2) for compensation or damages under the provisions of the Agreement, NBHCP, or Permits.

7.6 Suspension or Revocation.

7.6.1 Suspension or Revocation by USFWS. The Parties acknowledge that the USFWS has the authority to suspend or revoke any of the Section 10(a)(1)(B) Permits, in whole or in part, in the event of a material violation of the Section 10(a)(1)(B) Permit and pursuant to any applicable federal laws or regulations that govern the permitted activity. The regulations found at 50 C.F.R. §§13.27 - 13.29 and 17.22(b)(8), or any successor regulations, shall govern the suspension or revocation of the Section 10(a)(1)(B) Permit issued by the USFWS.

7.6.2 Suspension or Revocation by CDFG. The Parties acknowledge that CDFG shall have the authority to suspend or revoke the Section 2081 Permit in the event of a material breach or violation of the Section 2081 Permit or any applicable California laws or regulations governing the permitted activity.

7.6.3 Status of Urban Development Permittees after Suspension or Revocation.

Notwithstanding the suspension or revocation of a Permittee’s Permit, CITY and SUTTER shall remain liable under this Agreement to carry out all of their responsibilities under the Permits and this Agreement arising from any Authorized Development approved, authorized, or carried out by CITY or SUTTER, within their respective Permit Areas between the Effective Date of the Agreement and the date a Permittee’s Permit is suspended or revoked. As to any Authorized Development project approved or authorized by CITY or SUTTER prior to the Permit suspension or revocation and that is in compliance with the Permit, but as to which construction activity has not commenced as of the suspension or revocation, so long as CITY or SUTTER and the Urban Development Permittee, if any, continue to fulfill their obligations under the Permit, the Permit shall continue in effect for that Authorized Development project until that project is completed.

7.6.4 No Further Approvals by Permittees. Subject to the provisions of section

7.6.3 above, if a Permit is suspended or revoked, CITY and SUTTER shall not have the authority to rely upon the Permit to approve or carry out any actions that would violate the ESA or CESA in the absence of such Permit. Notwithstanding the suspension or revocation, CITY and SUTTER shall remain fully liable under the Permits and this Agreement to carry out all of their responsibilities, 22 wc-83845

including the Mitigation Requirement, under the NBHCP, the Permits and this Agreement arising from Authorized Development approved, authorized or carried out by an Urban Developm ent Permittee within the respective Permit Areas between the Effective Date and the date the Permit is suspended or revoked.

7.6.5 Severability. The violation by CITY or SUTTER of their respective Permits shall not adversely affect or be attributed to, nor shall it result in the loss or diminution of any right, privilege or benefit under a Permit held by a non-responsible Permittee. Nor shall CITY and SUTTER be deemed to have violated the Permits solely as a consequence of the actions of an Urban Development Permittee or other third person subject to CITY’s or SUTTER’s jurisdiction and control, so long as CITY or SUTTER takes all necessary and appropriate steps, if any are available, to halt and correct the violation in accordance with this Agreement and consistent with their police powers and local land use authority. However, the violation by TNBC of its Permits shall be considered a failure by CITY and SUTTER to implement their obligations of the Operating Conservation Program under the NBHCP. In such event, CITY and SUTTER’s Permits shall not be revoked or suspended, if CITY and/or SUTTER implement corrective measures in accordance with Section 3.1.11 of this Agreement. Notwithstanding the above, to the extent that action or inaction by a Permittee, an Urban Development Permittee or other third party subject to CITY’s or SUTTER’s jurisdiction and control, or TNBC prevents proper implementation of the NBHCP or compliance by one or more of the remaining Permittees with their Permits or results in a determination by the USFWS or CDFG that continuation of the Permits would appreciably reduce the likelihood of the survival and recovery of a Covered Species in the wild, such Permits may be suspended or revoked in accordance with applicable USFWS and CDFG regulations.

7.6.6 Validity of Permits. In the event a court of competent jurisdiction invalidates either City, County’s or TNBC’s Section 10(a)(1)(B) or Section 2081 Permits with regard to one or more Covered Species, other than the Giant garter snake or Swainson’s hawk, such action shall not be construed to invalidate the permits with regard to the remaining Covered Species. The requirements of the State and Federal Incidental Take Permits and the NBHCP shall continue to be implemented by each Permittee with regard to the remaining Covered Species. 8 MISCELLANEOUS

8.1 Term of Agreement. This Agreement shall remain in effect for a period of fifty (50) years from the Effective Date.

8.2 Termination

8.2.1 Termination by Mutual Consent. CITY or SUTTER may, by mutual agreement with the Wildlife Agencies, terminate this Agreement as to itself. In the event that such mutually agreed-upon termination occurs, a written termination agreement shall be executed to ensure that the mitigation required under the NBHCP and this Agreement for all Authorized Development approved, authorized or carried out prior to termination is carried out. Upon execution of such agreement and surrender of the Permits to the Wildlife Agencies, no further take shall be authorized under the terms of the surrendered Permits.

8.2.2 Termination by USFWS or CDFG. The USFWS or CDFG may terminate this Agreement upon revocation of the Section 10(a)(1)(B) Permit or the Section 2081 Permit in accordance with Section 7.6.

8.2.3 Termination by the T NBC. The TNBC may terminate voluntarily its participation under this Agreement only if it has an agreement to do so with the CITY, SUTTER, USFWS and CDFG. Any agreement allowing TNBC to terminate its participation and its status as Plan Operator, shall contain provisions for assuring that the provisions of the NBHCP will be implemented.

8.2.4 Effect of Termination. In the event this Agreement is terminated by the USFWS or CDFG with respect to a Permittee, that Permittee’s Section 10(a)(1)(B) Permit or 23 wc-83845

Section 2081 Permit, as applicable, shall, subject to Section 8.2.1 above, be void. CITY and SUTTER acknowledge that, although the NBHCP Operating Conservation Program would mitigate for effects resulting from the Land Use Agencies’ Covered Activities, because the percentage of uplands to wetlands differs between their respective Permit Areas, the NBHCP allows for the Operating Conservation Program provided for under the NBHCP to be reevaluated and revised in the event either CITY’s or SUTTER’s Permits are terminated or revoked to ensure that the configuration of Mitigation Lands provided for under the NBHCP continues to adequately mitigate for the impacts of Authorized Development in the remaining jurisdiction.

8.2.5 Status of Mitigation Lands Upon Termination. The Mitigation Lands are to be established in perpetuity. Management of the Mitigation Lands by TNBC in accordance with the NBHCP shall continue in perpetuity, notwithstanding termination, suspension or revocation of CITY’s or SUTTER’s Section 10(a)(1)(B) Permit or Section 2081 Permit for any reason, unless the suspension or revocation of CITY’s or SUTTER’s Permits is due to a violation by TNBC of its Permits. TNBC’s management activities shall be funded from the Mitigation Fees collected on account of past Authorized Development under the Permits which includes endowment components to fund permanent management. None of the assets of the TNBC, including lands or interests in land may be transferred, conveyed, or assigned to any person or entity, except as specified in Sections 3.2.11 and Section 3.2.12 of this Agreement. However, take previously authorized through Urban Development Permits or for public or private projects for which the Mitigation Requirement was been completed or is otherwise assured shall continue to be authorized. In the case of the federal Permit, upon notification from the Service that implementation of all minimization and mitigation measures identified in the termination agreement have been implemented, the permit shall be deemed canceled.

8.3 Binding Effect. The terms, provisions and conditions of this Agreement shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the Parties hereto and their respective successors and assigns.

8.4 Notices. Any notice required or permitted to be given hereunder shall be in writing, shall be deemed made upon receipt, and shall be given by personal delivery or by certified mail/return receipt requested, addressed to the Parties as follows:

City of Sacramento
915 I Street, Room 109
Sacramento, CA 95814
Attn: City Manager
County Administrative Officer
County of Sutter
1160 Civic Center Blvd., Ste. A
Yuba City, CA 95993
United States Fish and Wildlife Service
Office of the Regional Director
Portland, OR 97232
with a copy to:

Field Supervisor
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
3310 El Camino Avenue, Suite 130
Sacramento, CA 95821-6340
24 wc-83845

California Department of Fish and Game Office of the Director 1416 9th Street, 12th floor
Sacramento, CA 95814
with copies to:

General Counsel
California Department of Fish and Game
1416 9th Street, 12th floor
Sacramento, CA 95814
and to:

Regional Manager
California Department of Fish and Game
1701 Nimbus Road, Suite A
Rancho Cordova, CA 95670
The Natomas Basin Conservancy
1750 Creekside Oaks Dr., Suite 290
Sacramento, CA 95833
Attn: Executive Manager
Any Party may give notice to the others specifying a different address for notice purposes.

8.5 Captions. The headings of the various sections hereof are for convenience only, and shall not affect the meaning of any provisions of this Agreement.

8.6 Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in multiple counterparts, all of which shall constitute but one and the same instrument.

8.7 Governing Law. This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the ESA, the CESA, and other applicable state and federal laws. In particular, nothing in this Agreement is intended to limit the authority of USFWS to fulfill its responsibilities under the ESA or CDFG under CESA or other applicable law, including but not limited to seeking penalties against CITY, SUTTER or TNBC. Moreover nothing in this agreement is intended to limit the legal responsibilities of USFWS as an agency of the federal government or CDFG as an agency of the State of California.

8.8 Complete Agreement. This Agreement, together with the NBHCP, constitutes the full and complete agreement between the Parties concerning the subject matter hereof and supersedes any prior or contemporaneous agreements or understandings, whether oral or written, all of which shall be deemed to have been merged herein, it being the intention of the Parties that this be a completely integrated agreement. Specifically, this Agreement shall supercede the Implementation Agreement executed in December, 1997.

8.9 Federal Section 7 Consultations. Nothing in this Agreement is intended to eliminate or modify the obligation of a federal agency to consult with the USFWS pursuant to section 7(a) of the ESA (16 U.S.C. Section 1536(a)). To the maximum extent appropriate, in any consultation 25 wc-83845

under said provision involving CITY or SUTTER or a prospective or other Urban Development Permittee with regard to Covered Species, the USFWS shall ensure that the biological opinion issued in connection with the proposed public or private Project which is the subject of the consultation is consistent with the biological opinion issued in connection with the NBHCP, provided that the proposed public or private Project is consistent with the NBHCP. Any biological measures included under the terms and conditions of the Section 7 biological opinion shall, to the maximum extent appropriate, be consistent with the Mitigation Requirement imposed by CITY or SUTTER under the NBHCP as implemented by this Agreement, provided that, unless otherwise required by law, the USFWS shall not impose additional mitigation measures on the project proponent in excess of those that have been or will be required by the CITY or SUTTER pursuant to the NBHCP, this Agreement and the Permits.

8.10 Conflict with NBHCP. The NBHCP and each of its terms are intended to be, and by this reference are, incorporated herein. In the event of any contradiction, conflict or inconsistency between the terms of this Agreement and the NBHCP, the terms of this Agreement shall control. In all other cases, the terms of this Agreement and of the NBHCP shall be interpreted to be supplementary to each other. Where interpretation is required, this Agreement shall be interpreted as a vehicle for implementation of the NBHCP.

8.11 Other Permittees. The failure of other Potential Permittees identified in the NBHCP to obtain Permits shall not preclude this Agreement from going into effect within the geographical boundaries of each Permittee , or on lands Acquired by the NBC, nor preclude the issuance of the Permits to such other Potential Permittees or to subsequent signatories of this Agreement.

8.12 Federal Appropriations . USFWS’s commitment to provide technical assistance under the NBHCP and to implement this Agreement, including the assurances provided herein, are subject to the requirements of the Anti-Deficiency Act and the availability of appropriated funds.

Nothing in this agreement will be construed by the parties to require the obligation, appropriation, or expenditure of any money from the U.S. Treasury. The parties acknowledge that the USFWS will not be required under this Agreement to expend any federal agency’s appropriated funds unless and until an authorized official of that agency affirmatively acts to commit to such expenditures as evidenced in writing.

8.13 State Appropriations. Implementation of this Agreement and the NBHCP and the assurances provided herein, is subject to the availability of appropriated funds. Nothing in this agreement will be construed by the parties to require the obligation, appropriation, or expenditure of any money from the Treasury of the State of California. The parties acknowledge that CDFG will not be required under this Agreement to expend any State of California agency’s appropriated funds unless and until an authorized official of that agency affirmatively acts to commit to such expenditures as evidenced in writing.

8.14 References to Regulations. Any reference in this Agreement, the NBHCP, or the Permits to any regulation or rule of USFWS or CDFG shall be deemed to be a reference to such regulation or rule in existence at the time the action is taken.

8.15 Applicable Laws. All activities undertaken pursuant to this Agreement, the NBHCP or the Permit must be in compliance with all applicable state and federal laws and regulations.

8.16 No Partnership. Neither this Agreement nor the NBHCP shall make or be deemed to make any party to this Agreement the agent for or the partner of any other party.

8.17 Elected Officials Not to Benefit . No member of or delegate to Congress shall be entitled to any share or part of this Agreement, or to any benefit that may arise from it. 26 wc-83845

EXHIBIT A: DEFINITIONS
NBHCP Definitions
Terms used in the NBHCP and Implementation Agreement shall have the same meaning as those same terms have under the ESA and CESA, except as set forth below. Capitalized terms used but not defined herein, but which are defined in the Plan, shall have the meanings specified in the Plan.

1. Adaptive Management. The term “Adaptive Management” means a method for examining alternative strategies for meeting measurable goals and objectives, and then, if necessary adjusting future conservation management actions according to what is learned to achieve those goals and objectives.

2. Amendment. The term “Amendment” shall refer to significant changes to the NBHCP, Implementation Agreement and/or Incidental Take Permit for circumstances as described in Chapter VI, Section 3(b) of the NBHCP. Amendments include activities which are more significant than and different from revisions (see also “Revisions”).

TNBC shall account for all acreage acquired in Area B to ensure that the total amount of such lands does not exceed 20 percent of the total Mitigation Lands. The additional requirements for acquisition of mitigation lands in Area B (out of basin) apply only to Area B and do not apply to any acquisitions of mitigation lands located within the Natomas Basin or the outer “ring” of the Natomas Basin defined as the land bounding the Natomas Basin and extending to the edge of the water immediately outside the Natomas Basin levees. (Note: During the final NBHCP approval process by the City Council of the City of Sacramento and the Board of Supervisors of Sutter C o u n ty , a u th o riz a tio n to p u rc h a s e M itig a tio n L a n d s to o ffs e t th e im p a c ts o f d e v e lo p m e n t w a s lim ite d to th e N a to m a s B a s in a n d th e “o u te r” rin g a ro u n d th e le v e e s o f th e N a to m a s B a s in . N o a u th o riz a tio n to p u rc h a s e la n d s to m itig a te im p a c ts o f A u th o riz e d Development in Area B (out of basin) was granted by the City Council and the Board of Supervisors.)

4. Authorized Development. The term “Authorized Development” means that development for which incidental take is authorized for the City of Sacramento and Sutter County under this NBHCP. Authorized Development is limited to a total of 15,517 acres of Planned Development (as further defined below in Section III.A) under the NBHCP. Included within the City’s 8,050 acre portion of the Authorized Development are 28 acres of infrastructure development associated with the Metro Air Park (MAP) project in Sacramento County.

Included within Sutter County’s 7,467 acres of Authorized Development is 16.5 acres of proposed drainage channel improvements located within Sacramento County. Incidental take resulting from the 1,983 acre MAP project, including the 28 acres located in the City of Sacramento, is covered by separate incidental take permits issued by the Wildlife Agencies.

The 15,517 acres of Authorized Development related incidental take within the City and Sutter County combined with the 1,983 acres of development related take within Sacramento County for the MAP project represent a total of 17,500 acres of potential urban development in the Natomas Basin which has been analyzed in the NBHCP as Planned Development, as further defined below. Any development within the City of Sacramento 29 wc-83845

beyond the 8,050 acres to be covered under its incidental take permits, within Sutter County, beyond the 7,467 acres to be covered under its incidental take permits, or within Sacramento County beyond the MAP project, will not be covered under the respective incidental take permits and will trigger a reevaluation of impacts to and mitigation for biological and other resources in the Natomas Basin and amendment of the NBHCP and the incidental take permits or development of a new HCP and issuance of new incidental take permits to address such impacts and mitigation as appropriate.

5. Biological Monitoring. The term “Biological Monitoring” means the mandatory element of all HCPs that is designed and implemented to provide the information necessary to assess compliance and project impacts, and verify progress toward the biological goals and objectives for the Plan’s Covered Species and habitats.

6. Biological Monitoring Plan. Refers to specific monitoring requirements to be conducted in the Natomas Basin as specified in Chapter VI, Section E, Subsection 2, and includes both the overall NBHCP Biological Effectiveness Monitoring Program and the Site Specific Biological Monitoring Programs.

7. Changed Circumstances. This term “Changed circumstances” is defined in Title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Section 17.3 as changes in circumstances affecting a species or geographic area covered by the NBHCP that can reasonably be anticipated by Plan Participants and the USFWS, and that can be planned for (e.g., the listing of a new species, or a fire or other natural catastrophic event in areas prone to such events.)” Changed circumstances addressed in NBHCP are outlined in Chapter VI, Section K of the HCP.

8. Compliance Monitoring . The term “Compliance Monitoring” means an itemized, task specific method of verifying that the Permittee is carrying out the terms of the NBHCP, Permit and IA.

9. Conservation Measures. The term “Conservation Measures” means that accepting and conveying developer mitigation fees, and possibly land dedications, as required under the NBHCP, the Land Use Agencies shall implement a variety of measures that will avoid, minimize or mitigate the take of Covered Species.

10. Covered Activities. The term “Covered Activities” means the Land Use Agencies Covered Activities and the TNBC Covered Activities.

11. Covered Activities, Land Use Agencies. The term “Land Use Agencies Covered Activities” refers to those specific activities identified at Chapter I, Section N.(1) of the NBHCP for which each Land Use Permittee shall be provided coverage under the federal Section 10(a)(1)(B) permits, and the State Section 2081 Permits. Covered Activities generally means the conversion from vacant land or agricultural uses to residential, commercial, and industrial uses, including related public and private infrastructure development and improvements by the City or Sutter County.

preservation, enhancement, management and monitoring activities within Conserved Habitat Areas. TNBC’s Covered Activities are described at Chapter I, Section N (3) of the NBHCP.

13. Covered Activities, Water Agencies. The term “Water Agencies Covered Activity” refers to those specific activities identified in Chapter I, Section N (2) of the NBHCP for which each Water Agency Permittee shall be provided coverage under the federal Section 10(a)(1)(B) permits, and the State Section 2081 Permits. Such Covered Activities generally include physical maintenance and operation of the Water Agencies’ existing facilities located within the Plan Area, including channel maintenance, vegetation control (where no herbicides are utilized), and construction or improvement of facilities where there is no increase to the footprint of the existing facility.

14. Covered Species. The term "Covered Species" means the Federally Protected Species, State Protected Species and the Other Species identified within Table I-1 hereto.

15. ESA and CESA. The term "ESA" means the Federal Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. The term "CESA" means the California Endangered Species Act, as amended.

16. Exempt Area. The term refers to areas within the Natomas Basin, within the City of Sacramento which are already approved for development or already developed and as shown on Exhibit B of the Implementation Agreement.

17. Federally Protected Species. The term "Federally Protected Species" means those plants and animals listed by the United States (“U.S.”) under the provisions of ESA and shown as Covered Species on Table I-1 hereto that are found, or may be found, in the Permit Areas, as well as those other Covered Species listed on Table I-1 that the USFWS may list in the future.

18. Five Point Policy. The term “Five Point Policy” refers to an addendum to the HCP Handbook published by the Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Service on June 1, 2000.

The five point policy addendum provides clarifying guidance for conducting the incidental take permit program and for those applying for an incidental take permit under section 10(a)(1)(B) of the Endangered Species Act (ESA).

19. Habitat Values. The term "Habitat Values" means the capability of a land or water area or associated areas, where indigenous plant(s) or animal(s), individually or collectively, may occur and upon which the Covered Species are dependent, in whole or in part, to provide for some or all of their maintenance, growth and reproduction.

20. Implementation Annual Meeting. The term refers to the annual public meeting held jointly with TNBC, other Permittees, USFWS and CDFG to report on the progress of the HCP Conservation Strategy as described in Chapter VI. G of the NBHCP.

21. Implementation Annual Report. The term refers to the annual report prepared by the TNBC describing the compliance and effectiveness monitoring processes and findings and the status of the progress in implementing the NBHCP in accordance with the requirements of Chapter VI, Section G of the NBHCP.
31 wc-83845

22. Incidental Take. The term "Incidental Take" means any taking of Covered Species that is incidental to, and not the purpose of, the carrying out of otherwise lawful activity.

23. Incidental Take Permits. The terms “Incidental Take Permits,” “ITPs” and “Permits” mean the individual permits issued to each Permittee subject to Section 10(a)(1)(B) of the Endangered Species Act and Section 2081 of the California Endangered Species Act.

24. Independent Mid-Point Review. This term refers to the required review and evaluation of the effectiveness of the HCP by each of the land use agencies at a defined mid-point in the approval of Authorized Development and as more specifically defined in Chapter VI, Section J of the NBHCP.

25. Land Use Agencies. The term “Land Use Agencies” means the City of Sacramento and Sutter County. If and when Sacramento County submits and receives approval of its own ITP, Sacramento County would be considered a Land Use Agency as defined herein.

26. MAP (Metro Air Park) Habitat Conservation Plan (MAP HCP) . This term refers to the a
pproved Habitat Conservation Plan for the Metro Air Park Project located in the unincorporated portion of the Natomas Basin within Sacramento County, specifically, “Habitat Conservation Plan for the Metro Air Park Project in the Natomas Basin, Sacramento County, California, Prepared by Metro Air Park Property Owner’s Association, Dated 2001.”

27. Mitigation Fees. As defined in Chapter VI, the term "Mitigation Fees" means the one time, up-front fees levied upon an Authorized Development site (in gross acres) that is used to pay for the Mitigation Land acquisition, enhancement, management, monitoring, and other activities required under the NBHCP. The Mitigation Fees must be paid prior to the issuance of an Urban Development Permit by the Land Use Permittee. The components of the Mitigation Fee include: Land Acquisition, Restoration/Enhancement/Monitoring, Administration O&M, O&M Endowment Fund, Supplemental Endowment Fund, and Fee Collection Administration as defined in Chapter VI.

28. Mitigation Lands. The term “Mitigation Lands” means the reserve lands acquired through collection and use of Mitigation Fees from Authorized Development, and in some cases land which has been accepted for dedication from Authorized Development, which will be set aside and managed at a ratio of one-half (½) acre of land protected or preserved for every one (1) acre of land converted to Authorized Development. The NBHCP Operating Conservation Program will result in 8,750 acres of Mitigation Lands to be established and managed by TNBC.

29. Mitigation Ratio. The term “Mitigation Ratio” means mitigation for the conversion of land in the respective Permit Areas to Authorized Development at a ratio of one-half (½) acre of land protected or preserved for every one (1) acre of land converted to Authorized Development.

30. Mitigation Requirement . The term “Mitigation Requirement” means the mitigation requirement for each public and private project is determined by applying the Mitigation Ratio to the land area converted to Authorized Development as calculated in accordance with the requirements set forth in Chapter VI, Section 1. 32 wc-83845

31. Natomas Basin. "Natomas Basin" or "Basin" means that geographical area depicted in Figure 2, Natomas Basin and Affected Jurisdictions.

32. Natomas Basin Habitat Conservation Plan . The terms “Natomas Basin Habitat Conservation Plan,” “NBHCP” and “the Plan” mean the year 2002 version of the Natomas Basin Habitat Conservation Plan prepared for the City of Sacramento, Sutter County, The Natomas Basin Conservancy (TNBC), RD 1000 and Natomas Mutual.

33. Natomas Basin Habitat Conservation Plan, 1997 . The terms “1997 NBHCP” and “1997 Plan” mean the previously approved City of Sacramento Natomas Basin HCP that was the original basis for this 2002 NBHCP.

34. No Surprises Rule. The term “No Surprises Rule” refers the terms and conditions specified in the February 28, 1998, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife final rule codifying its “No Surprises” policy into federal regulation (63 FR 8859). The “No Surprises” rule states, in part, that: “In negotiating unforeseen circumstances, the [Service] will not require the commitment of additional land, water or financial compensation or other natural resources beyond the level otherwise agreed upon for the species covered by the conservation plan without the consent of the Permittee. If additional conservation and mitigation measures are deemed necessary to respond to unforeseen circumstances, the [Service] may require additional measures of the Permittee where the conservation plan is being properly implemented, but only if such measures are limited to modifications within conserved habitat areas, if any, or to the Conservation Plan’s Operating Conservation Program for the affected species, and maintain the original terms of the Conservation Plan to the maximum extent possible. Additional conservation and mitigation measures will not involve the commitment of additional land, water or financial compensation or restrictions on the use of land, water, or other natural resources otherwise available for development or use under the original terms of the conservation plan, without the consent of the Permittee.” (50 C.F.R. Sections 17.22(b)(5)(iii) and 17.32(b)(5)(iii).) The No Surprises Rules is discussed in Chapter VI, Section K of the NBHCP.

35. Operating Conservation Program. The term “Operating Conservation Program” means the totality of the conservation and management measures provided for under the NBHCP to avoid, minimize, mitigate and monitor the impacts of take of the Covered Species as described in Chapters IV through VI of the Plan. The Operating Conservation Program includes totals the Permittees reporting obligations under the Permits and responses to Changed Circumstances described in Chapter VI.

36. Overall Program Review. This term refers to a required program review of the effectiveness of the Operating Conservation Program to be initiated at the point Urban Development Permits covering a total of 9,000 acres of development in the Natomas Basin have been issued by the Land Use Permittees and by Sacramento County for the Metro Air Park. The areas to be covered by the Overall Program Review are specified and described in Chapter VI, Section I of the NBHCP.

certain locations (i.e., the Panhandle Annexation Area) within the unincorporated areas of Sacramento County. Incidental take authority for the City of Sacramento is limited to this Permit Area.

38. Permit Area, County of Sutter. The term “Permit Area” as applied to Sutter County means that area designated on Figure 2 of the NBHCP Implementation Agreement that totals 7,467 acres located within the unincorporated areas of Sutter County, and approximately 16.5 acres located within unincorporated Sacramento County. Incidental take authority for Sutter County is limited to this Permit Area.

39. Permit Area, Natomas Mutual . The term “Permit Area” as applied to Natomas Mutual means canals, ditches, waterways, ponds and open water areas, as well as roads, right-of- ways, facilities, maintenance yards, pumps, pipelines, and water detention facilities, under the direct jurisdiction of Natomas Mutual and inside the inner toe of levees surrounding the Natomas Basin, but not including the Sacramento River levees. Incidental take authority for Natomas Mutual is limited to this Permit Area.

40. Permit Area, RD 1000 . The term “Permit Area” as applied to RD 1000 means canals, ditches, waterways, ponds and open water areas, as well as roads, right-of-ways, facilities, maintenance yards, pumps, pipelines, and water detention facilities, under the direct jurisdiction of RD 1000 and inside the inner toe of levees surrounding the Natomas Basin, but not including the Sacramento River levees. Incidental take authority for RD 1000 is limited to this Permit Area.

41. Permit Area, TNBC. The term “Permit Area” as applied to The Natomas Basin Conservancy (TNBC) consists of all lands within the Natomas Basin (the Plan Area), as well as the land bounding the Natomas Basin and extending to the edge of water immediately outside the Natomas Basin levees and Area B as depicted on Figure 20, Out of Basin Mitigation Areas.

42. Permittees. The term "Permittees" means the City of Sacramento, Sutter County, RD 1000, Natomas Mutual and The Natomas Basin Conservancy.

43. Plan Area. The term “Plan Area” means the entire 53,537 acres of land within the inside toe of levee of the Natomas Basin levees. The Plan Area refers to the portion of the Natomas Basin that is bounded on the west by the Sacramento River, on the north by the Natomas Cross Canal, on the east by Steelhead Creek (formerly known as Natomas East Main Drain Canal), and on the south by the Garden Highway.

44. Planned Development . The term “Planned Development” means the Authorized Development plus the development of the 1,983 acre Metro Air Park, which is subject to the Metro Air Park Habitat Conservation Plan (“MAP Authorized Development”)

45. Plan Operator. The term “Plan Operator” means The Natomas Basin Conservancy, the entity responsible for implementing the NBHCP.

46. Plan Participants . The term “Plan Participants” means parties actively involved in implementing the NBHCP, including the Wildlife Agencies (USFWS and CDFG), the Permittees (City of Sacramento, Sutter County, Natomas Mutual and RD 1000), and the Plan Operator (TNBC).
34 wc-83845

47. Potential Permittees. The term “Potential Permittees” refers to additional entities within the Natomas Basin that may decide to commit to the terms of the NBHCP and the Implementation Agreement and, through the issuance of Permits by the Wildlife Agencies, join as full Permittees at a future date.

48. Protected Species. The term "Protected Species" means those plants and animals listed under the State CESA and the Federal ESA.

49. Qualified Biologist. The term “qualified biologist” shall refer to a biologist which meets the training and experience requirements necessary to conduct assessments or surveys for specific species, and who has been approved by the Wildlife Agencies to conduct those assessments or surveys.

50. Reintroduction. The term “reintroduction” as used in the NBHCP refers to relocating i
ndividuals (or seeds or cysts, etc) of a Covered Species: (1). Either from one TNBC Reserve Site to another TNBC Reserve Site or from one location on a TNBC Reserve Site to a new location within the same TNBC Reserve Site; or (2) the relocation of an individual of a Covered Species from a site which will be impacted by Authorized Development to a TNBC Reserve Site to avoid, minimize or mitigate the impacts to Covered Species. The term “reintroduction” as used in the Natomas Basin HCP refers to the movement of animals or plants within the Basin and does not refer to the intentional introduction or recolonization of Covered Species from outside the Basin to inside the Basin.

51. Revisions. Refers to minor changes to the NBHCP as specified in Chapter VI, Section 3.a of the NBHCP. Revisions to the NBHCP are changes to the Plan provided for under the Operating Conservation Program, including Adaptive Management changes and Mitigation Fee adjustments. These revisions would not result in operations under the NBHCP that are significantly different from those analyzed in connection with the NBHCP as approved, result in adverse impacts on the environment that are new or significantly different from those analyzed in connection with the NBHCP as approved.

52. Section 10(a)(1)(B) Permits. The terms "Section 10(a)(1)(B) Permits" or "Permits" as used in this Plan means the permits issued by the USFWS under Section 10 (a)(1)(B) of the ESA which authorize the incidental take of a Covered Species which may occur as a result of urban development activities, including public facilities projects, within the City of Sacramento and Sutter County, or as a result of the operation and/or maintenance, including the construction and improvements with no significant increase to the existing footprint, of flood control or water supply activities, water ditches, canals, pumphouses, maintenance facilities, or other ancillary facilities within the Natomas Basin, or as a result of habitat management, enhancement, or restoration activities on reserve lands. "Permit" may also be used in this Plan to collectively refer to the Section 10(a)(1)(B) Permits, and the Section 2081 Permits.

53. Section 2081 Permits. The terms "Section 2081 Permits” or “Permits” means the permits for the incidental take of threatened and endangered species, listed under the CESA, issued by the CDFG under Section 2081(b) and/or 2081.1 of the California Fish and Game Code, or any successor section to authorize the incidental take of a Covered Species which may occur as a result of urban development activities, including public facilities projects, within 35 wc-83845

the City of Sacramento and Sutter County, or as a result of the operation and/or maintenance, including the construction and improvements with no significant increase to the existing footprint, of flood control or water supply activities, water ditches, canals, pumphouses, maintenance facilities, or other ancillary facilities within the Natomas B asin, or as a result of habitat management, enhancement, or restoration activities on reserve lands. "Permits" may also be used in this Agreement to refer collectively to the Section 10(a)(1)(B) Permits and/or the Section 2081(b) or 2081.1 Permits.

54. Site Specific Management Plan. The terms “Site Specific Management Plan” and “SSMP” mean those plans that TNBC is required to complete for each reserve unit that it acquires.

SSMP’s shall include operations plans that address on-site habitat restoration, enhancement, maintenance and management activities that will be presented to the NBHCP TAC for approval on a three year basis.

55. State Protected Species. The term ‘State Protected Species” means those plants and animals listed by the State of California (“State”) under the provisions of CESA and shown as Covered Species on Table I-1 hereto that are found, or may found, in the permit areas.

56. Swainson’s Hawk Zone. This zone is defined as the lands which are not currently developed (excluding the 250 acres of land designated “Urban” on the City of Sacramento General Plan and the North Natomas Community Plan located within the City of Sacramento) and which are located within the Natomas Basin and within one mile east of the toe of the inside levee of the Sacramento River and extending from the Natomas Cross Canal on the north and Interstate 80 on the south. See also Figure 13 of the NBHCP.

57. System of Reserves. The term “system of reserves” means Mitigation Lands generally and includes all habitat conserved and managed for the Covered Species, including rice fields by TNBC.

58. Take or Taking. With regard to any activities subject to ESA, the terms “Take” or “Taking” shall have the same meaning as provided in the ESA. With regard to any activities subject to CESA, the terms “Take” or “Taking” shall have the same meaning as provided in CESA.

59. Technical Advisory Committee . The terms “Technical Advisory Committee” and “TAC” mean the advisory group of technical experts selected by the Permittees and the Wildlife Agencies to assist TNBC Board with directing the implementation of the NBHCP.

60. The Natomas Basin Conservancy . The terms “The Natomas Basin Conservancy,” “the Conservancy” or “TNBC” shall mean the independent entity established for the purpose of implementing the Natomas Basin Habitat Conservation Plan on behalf of the City, Sutter County and other Potential Permittees. The TNBC is also a Permittee for purposes of implementation of the reserve system.

61. TNBC Mitigation Land or Reserve Area . The term “TNBC Reserve Area” or “TNBC Mitigation Land” shall mean those areas where TNBC is authorized to acquire and manage wildlife reserves subject to the provisions of the NBHCP. Such areas shall include all lands within the Natomas Basin, as well as the land bounding the Natomas Basin and extending to the edge of water immediately outside the Natomas Basin levees and Area B as depicted 36 wc-83845

on Figure 20, Out of Basin Mitigation Areas. The TNBC Reserve Area and the TNBC Permit Area are coterminous.

62. Unforeseen Circumstances. The term “Unforeseen circumstances” is defined at 50 C.F.R.

17.3 as changes in circumstances affecting a species or geographic area covered by a conservation plan that could not reasonably have been anticipated by plan developers and the USFWS at the time of the NBHCP’s negotiation and development, and that result in a substantial and adverse change in the status of the Covered Species. Unforeseen circumstances are discussed in Chapter VI, Section K of the NBHCP.

63. Urban Development Permit and Urban Development Pe rmittee. The term “Urban Development Permit” shall mean the final authorization granted by the Land Use Agencies prior to disturbance of undeveloped land in conjunction with a public or private development project. An Urban Development Permit may also be used to refer to a grading permit or notice to proceed. An “Urban Development Permittee” refers to the individual, agency or company applying for approval, or receiving approval of an Urban Development Permit from the Land Use Agencies.

64. Water Agencies . The term “Water Agencies” means RD 1000 and Natomas Mutual.

Natomas Mutual is a private company and not a governmental agency.

65. Wildlife Agencies. The term “Wildlife Agencies” means the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the California Department of Fish and Game.
37 wc-83845

wc-83845
38 Baseline Map - Exhibit B
City of Sacramento
£7 1 // |_L 1 HI
□
1 1
TI
J.n—thl

wc-83845
40 Sankey Road
Riego Road
S a c r a m e n t o River
Elverta Road
NOTE: ALL LANDS WITHIN EXISTING

ROAD RIGHTS-OF-WAY ARE

CONSIDERED EXEMPT
Ã?
Powerline Road
Pacific Avenue
Sutter County
Sacramento County
Offsite canal
improvements
to support
South Sutter
County Specific Plan -
Part of Sutter County
Permit Area
LEGEND
Natomas Basin
Exempt from HCP
South Sutter County
Specific Plan Area EXHIBIT C
SUTTER COUNTY BASELINE MAP Sutter County Permit Area
1 Miles SUTTER COUNTY PERMIT AREA
1 Inch = 4500 Feet AND EXEMPT LANDS
CH2M Hill RDD ArcView Project File \\Thor\Cart1\rddgis\natomashcp\nat_hcp.apr exhibit_c.pdf 4:05 p.m. 07-30-2002 0 wc-83845
42 Exhibit D -List of Covered Species in Permit Area
TABLE I - 1

LISTED, CANDIDATE, AND OTHER SPECIES ADDRESSED IN THE NBHCP

AND/OR COVERED BY ITS ASSOCIATED PERMITS
# Species Federal
Status
State
Status Habitat Notes
1 Aleutian Canada goose
Branta canadensis
leucopareia
SC Grazes in marshes and stubble fields, roosts on the water 2 bank swallow
Riparia riparia
T Nests in river banks, forages for insects over open water, croplands, and grasslands
3 burrowing owl
Athene cunicularia
SSC Prefers open, dry grassland and desert habitats
4 loggerhead shrike
Lanius ludovicianus
SC SSC Prefers open habitats with scattered shrubs, trees, fences, and posts. Will use cropland.
5 Swainson's hawk
Buteo swainsoni
T Breeds in riparian forest; known nesting sites in trees along Sacramento River in Natomas Basin. Forages for
small mammals in grasslands and croplands.
6 tricolored blackbird
Agelaius tricolor
SC SSC Nests in marshes with bulrush, blackberry or cattails; three known occurrences in Natomas Basin. Forages on
the ground in grasslands and croplands.
7 white-faced ibis
Plegadis chihi
SC SSC Forages in flooded rice fields
8 giant garter snake
Thamnophis gigas
T T Forages in marshes, low gradient open waterways and flooded rice fields, hibernates in canal berms and other uplands; several known occurrences in Natomas Basin
9 northwestern pond turtle
Clemmys marmorata
marmorata
SC SSC Lives in permanent bodies of water; requires floating vegetation, logs, rocks or banks for basking. Hibernates and lays eggs is uplands.
10 California tiger salamander
Ambystoma californiense
C SSC Winters in ground squirrel burrows or other holes; breeds in vernal pools, stockponds , and other seasonal
wetlands.
11 western spadefoot toad
Scaphiopus hammondii
SC SSC Primary habitat is grasslands; breeds in shallow temporary pools
12 valley elderberry longhorn
beetle
Desmocerus californicus
dimorphus
T Lives and reproduces on elderberry shrubs found along rivers and canals.
13 midvalley fairy shrimp
Branchinecta mesovallensis
n. sp.

# Species Federal
Status
State
Status Habitat Notes
18 delta tule pea
Lathyrus jepsonii ssp.jepsonii
SC Perennial twining vine occurs in both riparian and marsh habitats
19 legenere
Legenere limosa
SC Found in wet places or vernal pools below 400 feet in elevation
20 Sacramento Orcutt grass
Orcuttia viscida
E E Found in relatively large, deep vernal pools in eastern Sacramento County
21 Sanford's arrowhead
Sagittaria sanfordii
SC Tuberose perennial likely to occur in drainage or irrigation ditches
22 slender Orcutt grass
Orcuttia tenuis
T E Found in relatively large, deep vernal pools in eastern Sacramento County
Key to Abbreviations
Federal
E = Listed as endangered C = Candidate for federal listing, data sufficient T = Listed as threatened SC = Species of Concern--informal category, formerly called candidate 2 species (data for listing
insufficient)
State
E = Listed as EndangeredR = Listed as Rare
T = Listed as Threatened SSC = Species of Special Concern 44 wc-83845

Final Natomas Basin Habitat Conservation Plan
April 2003
prepared by
City of Sacramento
Sutter County
Natomas Basin Conservancy
in association with
Reclamation District No. 1000
Natomas Central Mutual Water Company
prepared for
United States Fish and Wildlife Service
California Department of Fish and Game
Natomas Basin E042002017SAC cover_9.indd 04.15.03 mdb Volume 1

FINAL NATOMAS BASIN

HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN

SACRAMENTO AND SUTTER

COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA
April 2003
Prepared By:

City of Sacramento
City Hall
915 I Street, Room 100
Sacramento, CA 95814
Tel: 916-808-8368; Fax: 916-566-3968
Sutter County
P.O. Box 1555
Yuba City, CA 95992
Tel: 530-822-7400; Fax 530-822-7109
The Natomas Basin Conservancy
1750 Creekside Oaks Drive, Suite 290
Sacramento, CA 95833
Tel: 916-649-3331; Fax 916-649-3332
In Association With:

Reclamation District No. 1000
1633 Garden Highway
Sacramento, CA 95833
Tel: 916-922-9173; Fax 916-922-2129
Natomas Central Mutual Water Company
2601 West Elkhorn Boulevard
Rio Linda, CA 95673
Tel: 916-419-5936; Fax 916-419-8691

TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. INTRODUCTION ....................................................... I - 1 A. Purpose and Overview of the Plan................................... I - 1 B. Plan Participants................................................. I - 3

1. Permittors (Wildlife Agencies)................................ I - 4

2. Permittees ............................................... I - 4

3. Plan Operator ........................................... I - 10

4. Third Parties ............................................ I - 11

5. Potential Permittees....................................... I - 11 C. Biological Goals and Objectives of the NBHCP........................ I - 12

1. Overall Goals and Objectives................................ I - 14

2. Wetland Species/Habitat Goals and Objectives................... I - 16

3. Upland Species/ Habitat Goals and Objectives................... I - 16 D. Conservation Strategy of the NBHCP............................... I - 16 E. Overall Benefits of the NBHCP.................................... I - 18 F. Regulatory Background.......................................... I - 19 G. Plan Formulation Process......................................... I - 20 H. Legal Challenge in Federal Court................................... I - 24 I. Requirements for the Issuance of the Permits........................... I - 27

1. Federal Permit........................................... I - 27

2. State Permit............................................. I - 28 J. Structure of the Plan............................................. I - 30 K. Relationship of the Plan to Individual Permittees ........................ I - 30 L. Environmental Compliance........................................ I - 33 M. Species Covered by the Permit..................................... I - 33 N. Covered Activities.............................................. I - 34

1. Land Use Agencies’ Covered Activities........................ I - 34

2. Water Agencies’ Covered Activities........................... I - 36

3. TNBC Covered Activities as Permittee and Plan Operator.......... I - 37 O. Activities not Covered by the NBHCP............................... I - 37 P. Adaptive Management Provisions................................... I - 38 II. BIOLOGICAL DATA .................................................... II - 1 A. Environmental Setting............................................. II - 1 B. Habitat Distribution.............................................. II - 1 C. Covered Species ................................................ II - 6

1. Species Potentially Affected by Covered Activities................. II - 8

2. Giant Garter Snake ....................................... II - 11

3. Swainson's Hawk......................................... II - 17

4. Other Covered Species Which May Occur in the NBHCP Area...... II - 20 D. Species Which May Occur in the NBHCP Area ....................... II - 44 III. LAND USE ISSUES.................................................. III - 1 A. Authorized Development by Jurisdiction.............................. III - 1 B. Existing Land Use.............................................. III - 3

1. Agriculture.............................................. III - 3

2. Waterways ............................................. III - 4

3. Road Network ........................................... III - 5

4. Urban Development....................................... III - 6

5. Sacramento International Airport............................. III - 9 C. Potential Development.......................................... III - 11

1. Foreseeable Urban Development and Status Under the NBHCP..... III - 11

2. Conversion of Agricultural Lands............................ III - 17 IV. CONSERVATION PLAN .............................................. IV-1 A. Plan Purpose ................................................... IV-1 B. Plan Operator .................................................. IV-2 C. Conservation Strategies to Mitigate for Urban Development................ IV-5

1. General Strategies to Mitigate the Impacts of Urban Development...... IV-5

2. Reserve Acquisition Guidelines and Criteria..................... IV-14

3. Conservation Strategy for Wetland Habitat as Mitigation for Urban Development............................................ IV-19

4. Conservation Strategy for Upland Habitat as Mitigation for Urban Development............................................ IV-26

5. Conservation Strategies for Vernal Pool Species as Mitigation for Urban Development............................................ IV-28 D. Reserve Management/Site Specific Management Plans................... IV-29

1. Site-Specific Management Plan Policies........................ IV-31

2. Management Activities..................................... IV-32

3. Restoration and Enhancement Programs........................ IV-34

4. Reserve Water Management................................ IV-35

5. Avoiding Management Conflicts With the Sacramento Airport........ IV-38 V. TAKE AVOIDANCE, MINIMIZATION AND MITIGATION.................... V-1 A. Land Use Agencies’ Conservation Measures .......................... V-1

1. Pre-Construction Surveys.................................... V-1

2. Preservation of the Area Adjacent to Fisherman’s Lake............. V-2

3. General Measures to Minimize Take............................ V-2

4. Measures to Minimize Take of Vernal Pool Species................ V-3

5. Measures to Reduce Take for Individual Species.................. V-6 B. The Natomas Basin Conservancy’s (TNBC) Conservation Measures........ V-17

1. General Conservation Strategies.............................. V-17

2. Conservation Strategies for Wetland Species and Reserves.......... V-17

3. Conservation Strategies for Upland Species and Reserves........... V-17

4. Conservation Strategies for Individual Species................... V-18 C. Water Agencies’ Conservation Measures............................. V-28

1. Water Agencies’ Covered Activities........................... V-28

2. Water Agencies’ Facilities.................................. V-29

3. Water Agencies’ Conservation Measures for Giant Garter Snake..... V-30

4. Reporting Requirements for Covered Activities................... V-36

5. Covered Activities and Adaptive Management................... V-36

6. Federal Provision of Construction Incentives for Water Districts and Users ...................................................... V-36 VI. PLAN IMPLEMENTATION ............................................ VI-1 A. Term of Permit.................................................. VI-1 B. Funding ....................................................... VI-1

1. The Mitigation Fee......................................... VI-1

2. Mitigation Fee Amount/Adjustments............................ VI-2

3. Catch-Up Fee Ordinance.................................... VI-6 C. Phasing of Mitigation with Respect to Development....................... VI-7 D. Accounting of Mitigation Land...................................... VI-8 E. Monitoring of the NBHCP......................................... VI-9

1. Compliance Monitoring.................................... VI-10

2. Biological Effectiveness Monitoring............................ VI-14

3. Design of Biological Effectiveness Monitoring Programs............ VI-17 F. Adaptive Management........................................... VI-25

1. General Information....................................... VI-25

2. Adaptive Management Revisions to the NBHCP................. VI-27

3. NBHCP Database and Scientific Authority...................... VI-27 G. Annual Report................................................. VI-29 H. Program Adaptation for Recovery Plans.............................. VI-29

1. Changes Due to Future Recovery Plans Other than Changes to Managed Marsh Component........................................ VI-29

2. Swainson's Hawk Recovery Plan ............................. VI-31 I. NBHCP Overall Program Review at 9,000 Acres of Development.......... VI-31 J. Independent Mid-Point Reviews for Land Use Agencies.................. VI-33 K. Unforeseen Circumstances/"No Surprises"/Changed Circumstances......... VI-34

1. Applicability of the "No Surprises" Protections................... VI-35

2. Changed Circumstances ................................... VI-36 L. Enforcement, Amendments, HCP Requirements........................ VI-43

1. Enforcement of the Section 10(a)(1)(B) and Section 2081 Permits.... VI-43

2. Severability ............................................. VI-44

3. Amendments and Revisions................................. VI-44

4. Function of NBHCP under ESA and CESA..................... VI-48 VII. TAKE LEVELS/IMPACTS OF THE PLAN................................ VII-1 A. Effects on Covered Wildlife Species................................. VII-1 B. Effects on Vernal Pool Species..................................... VII-2 C. Extent of Incidental Take......................................... VII-3 D. Impacts On Individual Species..................................... VII-4

1. Giant Garter Snake ....................................... VII-5

2. Swainson's Hawk........................................ VII-12

3. Valley Elderberry Longhorn Beetle (VELB).................... VII-20

4. Tricolored Blackbird (Agelaius tricolor)....................... VII-23

5. Aleutian Canada Goose (Branta canadensis leucopareia) .......... VII-26

6. White-faced Ibis (Plegadis chihi)............................. VII-28

7. Loggerhead Shrike (Lanius ludovicianus)...................... VII-31

8. Burrowing Owl (Athene cunicularia hypugea) .................. VII-35

9. Bank Swallow (Riparia riparia) ............................. VII-37

10. Northwestern Pond Turtle (Clemmys marmorata marmorata) ....... VII-40

11. California Tiger Salamander (Ambystoma californiense) ........... VII-42

12. Western Spadefoot Toad (Scaphiopus hammondii) ............. VII-45

13. Vernal Pool Fairy Shrimp (Branchinecta lynchi) ................. VII-47

14. Vernal Pool Tadpole Shrimp (Lepidurus packardi)............... VII-49

15. Midvalley Fairy Shrimp (Branchinecta n.sp.).................... VII-51

16. Delta Tule Pea (Lathyrus jepsonii var. jepsonii).................. VII-54

7. Sanford's Arrowhead (Sagittaria sanfordii)..................... VII-55

18. Boggs Lake Hedge-Hyssop (Gratiaola heterosepala) ............. VII-58

19. Sacramento Orcutt Grass (Orcuttia viscida).................... VII-60

20. Slender Orcutt Grass (Orcuttia tenuis) ........................ VII-61

21. Colusa Grass (Neostapfia colusana) ......................... VII-63

22. Legenere (Legenere limosa) ................................ VII-65 E. Take as a Result of Indirect Killing or Injury.......................... VII-66 F. Effects of the Plan on Long-Term Survival of Wetland-Dependent Species... VII-67 G. Species Recovery ............................................. VII-70 H. Impacts of Reserve Management.................................. VII-71

1. Authorizing Management Take/Take for Scientific Purposes........ VII-71 I. Maximum Extent Practicable..................................... VII-72

1. Summary of Findings Under ESA and CESA................... VII-72 J. Alternatives to the Proposed NBHCP.............................. VII-76

1. No Action Alternative.................................... VII-76

2. Alternative Reserve Management............................ VII-76

3. Alternate Proportions of Marsh and In-Basin Land............... VII-77 VIII. REFERENCES ...................................................... VIII-1 A. Bibliography................................................... VIII-1 B. Persons and Organizations Consulted............................... VIII-13 C. Report Preparers .............................................. VIII-15

1. Document Revision and Preparation.......................... VIII-15

2. Public Review and Agency Coordination...................... VIII-16

3. Technical Analysis....................................... VIII-16

4. Biological Consultant..................................... VIII-16

5. Economic Analysis....................................... VIII-16

LIST OF TABLES
TABLE I - 1

LISTED, CANDIDATE, AND OTHER SPECIES ADDRESSED IN THE NBHCP AND COVERED BY ITS ASSOCIATED PERMITS........................ I - 13 TABLE I - 2
NBHCP REVISIONS ................................................. I - 25 TABLE II - 1
LAND CLASSIFICATIONS IN THE NATOMAS BASIN - 1997 (ACRES)....... II - 2 TABLE II - 2
CANALS AND DRAINS IN THE NATOMAS BASIN - 2001(MILES)........... II - 5 TABLE II - 3
CANALS AND DRAINS IN THE NATOMAS BASIN-2001 (ACRES)........... II - 5 TABLE II - 4

VERTEBRATE WILDLIFE WHICH MAY OCCUR
IN THE NATOMAS AREA BY HABITAT TYPE........................... II - 45 TABLE III-1
PLANNED DEVELOPMENT BY PERMITTEE............................ III - 2 TABLE III-2
CANALS AND DRAINS IN THE NATOMAS BASIN - 2001 (MILES)......... III - 4 TABLE III-3
CANALS AND DRAINS IN THE NATOMAS BASIN - 2001 (ACRES)......... III - 6 TABLE III-4
LAND USES BY JURISDICTION - 2001 (ACRES)......................... III - 7 TABLE III-5
POTENTIAL URBAN DEVELOPMENT................................ III - 12 TABLE V-1
MITIGATION RATIOS ................................................ V-6 TABLE VI- 1
COMPONENTS OF CURRENT (2002) MITIGATION FEE PER ACRE DEVELOPED1 ................................................................... VI-4 TABLE VI-2
HISTORY OF FEE.................................................... VI-6 TABLE VI-3
SUMMARY OF TNBC MONITORING OBLIGATIONS .................... VI-24 TABLE VI-4
PROPORTION OF MANAGED MARSH HABITAT........................ VI-30 TABLE VII-1
ACREAGE CALCULATIONS.......................................... VII-4 TABLE VII-2
GIANT GARTER SNAKE CHANGE IN POTENTIAL HABITAT (ACRES)...... VII-5 TABLE VII-3
SWAINSON’S HAWK CHANGE IN POTENTIAL NESTING HABITAT (ACRES) ................................................................. VII-13 TABLE VII-4
SWAINSON’S HAWK CHANGE IN POTENTIAL FORAGING HABITAT* (ACRES) ................................................................. VII-43 TABLE VII-5
UPLAND FORAGING HABITAT WITHIN TNBC RESERVES.............. VII-15 TABLE VII-6

TRICOLORED BLACKBIRDS CHANGE IN POTENTIAL HABITAT (ACRES) ................................................................. VII-24 TABLE VII-7

ALEUTIAN CANADA GOOSE CHANGE IN POTENTIAL HABITAT (ACRES) ................................................................. VII-27 TABLE VII-8
WHITE-FACED IBIS CHANGE IN POTENTIAL HABITAT (ACRES)......... VII-29 TABLE VII-9
LOGGERHEAD SHRIKE CHANGE IN POTENTIAL HABITAT (ACRES)..... VII-32 TABLE VII-10
BURROWING OWL CHANGE IN POTENTIAL HABITAT (ACRES)......... VII-35 TABLE VII-11
BANK SWALLOW CHANGE IN POTENTIAL HABITAT (ACRES).......... VII-38 TABLE VII-12

NORTHWESTERN POND TURTLE CHANGE IN POTENTIAL HABITAT (ACRES) ................................................................. VII-40 TABLE VII-13
DELTA TULE PEA CHANGE IN POTENTIAL HABITAT (ACRES).......... VII-54 TABLE VII-14
SANFORD’S ARROWHEAD CHANGE IN POTENTIAL HABITAT (ACRES).. VII-56 TABLE VII-15
STATUS OF WETLAND OVER TIME (IN ACRES)....................... VII-70 TABLE VII-16
PROPORTION OF WETLAND BY TYPE OVER TIME (IN ACRES).......... VII-70

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Regional Location.

Figure 2. Land Use Agencies “Permit Areas”
Figure 3. Water Delivery and Drainage Systems
Figure 4. Aerial Photograph
Figure 5. 1908 Land Cover
Figure 6. Current Topography
Figure 7. Flood Prone Areas
Figure 8. Current Native Habitats
Figure 9. 1993 Habitat Types Map
Figure 10. 1997 Habitat Types Map
Figure 11. 2001 Habitat Types Map
Figure 12. Giant Garter Snake Records
Figure 13. Active Swainson’s Hawk Nests\Swainson’s Hawk Zone Figure 14. Other Species Records
Figure 15. Rice Cultivation (1997)
Figure 16. Historic, Existing and Projected Urban Development Areas Figure 17. TNBC Reserves and Water Agency Channels
Figure 18. Comparison of a Rice Field to a Managed Marsh Figure 19. Wetland Plant Depths and Levee Structures (Figures 19.1 through 19.5) Figure 20. Out-of-Basin Mitigation Areas

ATTACHMENTS
ATTACHMENT A: Proposed Natomas Basin Habitat Conservation Plan Implementation Agreement

LIST OF APPENDICES
(Under Separate Cover)
Appendix A: Economic Analysis of Natomas Basin Habitat Conservation Plan, dated March 2002, by Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.

Appendix B: California Department of Fish and Game Staff Report Regarding Mitigation for Impacts to Swainson's Hawk ( Buteo swainsoni) in the Central Valley of California, dated November 1, 1994.

Appendix C: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Conservation Guidelines for the Valley Elderberry Longhorn Beetle, updated July 9, 1999.

Appendix D: California Department of Fish and Game Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation, dated October 17, 1995.

Appendix E: Federal Aviation Administration Advisory Circular dated May 1, 1997. Hazardous Wildlife Attractants On or Near Airports.

Appendix F: The Natomas Basin Conservancy By-Laws.

Appendix G: Pacific Region, USFWS and ACOE, Biological Opinion for 404 Permitted Projects with Relatively Small Effects to Vernal Pools, dated February 1996.

Appendix H: Biological Resources Technical Memo, prepared by CH2MHill, dated February 25, 2002.

Appendix I: NBHCP Fee Update - 2002, by Economic & Planning Systems, Inc., dated April 25, 2002.

Appendix J: Documents Regarding Sacramento Area Flood Control Agency Army Corps of Engineers Permit Compliance.

Appendix K: Addendum to the Biological Resources Technical Memo, prepared by CH2M HILL, dated April 2003.

Appendix L: Interim Survey Guidelines for Permittees for Recovery Permits under Section 10(a)(1)(A) of the Endangered Species Act for listed Vernal Pool Brachiopods, USFWS, April 19, 1996.

NBHCP Definitions
Terms used in this Plan shall have the same meaning as those same terms have under the ESA and CESA, except as set forth below. Capitalized terms used but not defined herein, but which are defined in the Plan, shall have the meanings specified in the Plan.

3. Area B (Out of Basin Mitigation Area) . Area B shall refer to lands identified on Figure 20 of the HCP in which TNBC may pursue acquisition of Mitigation Lands under the specific terms described in Chapter IV, Section 2.b of the HCP, with approval of USFWS and CDFG. TNBC shall account for all acreage acquired in Area B to ensure that the total amount of such lands does not exceed 20 percent of the total Mitigation Lands.

4. Authorized Development. The term “Authorized Development” means that development for which incidental take is authorized for the City of Sacramento and Sutter County under this NBHCP.

Authorized Development is limited to a total of 15,517 acres of Planned Development (as further defined below in Section III.A) under the NBHCP. Included within the City’s 8,050 acre portion of the Authorized Development are 28 acres of infrastructure development associated with the Metro Air Park (MAP) project in Sacramento County. Included within Sutter County’s 7,467 acres of Authorized Development is 16.5 acres of proposed drainage channel improvements located within Sacramento County. Incidental take resulting from the 1,983 acre MAP project, including the 28 acres located in the City of Sacramento, is covered by separate incidental take permits issued by the Wildlife Agencies. The 15,517 acres of Authorized Development related incidental take within the City and Sutter County combined with the 1,983 acres of development related take within Sacramento County for the MAP project represent a total of 17,500 acres of potential urban development in the Natomas Basin which has been analyzed in the NBHCP as Planned Development, as further defined below. Any development within the City of Sacramento beyond the 8,050 acres to be covered under its incidental take permits, within Sutter County, beyond the 7,467 acres to be covered under its incidental take permits, or within Sacramento County beyond the MAP project, will not be covered under the respective incidental take permits and will trigger a reevaluation of impacts to and mitigation for biological and other resources in the Natomas Basin and amendment of the NBHCP and the incidental take permits or development of a new HCP and issuance of new incidental take permits to address such impacts and mitigation as appropriate.

D 2

8. Compliance Monitoring. The term “Compliance Monitoring” means an itemized, task specific method of verifying that the Permittee is carrying out the terms of the NBHCP, Permit and IA.

10. Covered Activities. The term “Covered Activities” means the Land Use Agencies Covered Activities and the TNBC Covered Activities.

11. Covered Activities, Land Use Agencies . The term “Land Use Agencies Covered Activities” refers to those specific activities identified at Chapter I, Section N.(1) of the NBHCP for which each Land Use Permittee shall be provided coverage under the federal Section 10(a)(1)(B) permits, and the State Section 2081 Permits. Covered Activities generally means the conversion from vacant land or agricultural uses to residential, commercial, and industrial uses, including related public and private infrastructure development and improvements by the City or Sutter County.

12. Covered Activities, TNBC. The term “TNBC Covered Activities” means those activities conducted by TNBC on behalf of the City, Sutter County and other Permittees who may obtain take authorization pursuant to the NBHCP or an HCP based on the NBHCP, within TNBC’s Permit Area. These activities include acquisition, habitat creation, restoration, preservation, enhancement, management and monitoring activities within Conserved Habitat Areas. TNBC’s Covered Activities are described at Chapter I, Section N (3) of the NBHCP.

14. Covered Species. The term "Covered Species" means the Federally Protected Species, State Protected Species and the Other Species identified within Table I-1 hereto.

D 3

15. ESA and CESA. The term "ESA" means the Federal Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended.

The term "CESA" means the California Endangered Species Act, as amended.

17. Federally Protected Species . The term "Federally Protected Species" means those plants and animals listed by the United States (“U.S.”) under the provisions of ESA and shown as Covered Species on Table I-1 hereto that are found, or may be found, in the Permit Areas, as well as those other Covered Species listed on Table I-1 that the USFWS may list in the future.

18. Five Point Policy. The term “Five Point Policy” refers to an addendum to the HCP Handbook published by the Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Service on June 1, 2000. The five point policy addendum provides clarifying guidance for conducting the incidental take permit program and for those applying for an incidental take permit under section 10(a)(1)(B) of the Endangered Species Act (ESA).

20. Implementation Annual Meeting . The term refers to the annual public meeting held jointly with TNBC, other Permittees, USFWS and CDFG to report on the progress of the HCP Conservation Strategy as described in Chapter VI.3.1 of the NBHCP.

21. Implementation Annual Report . The term refers to the annual report prepared by the TNBC describing the compliance and effectiveness monitoring processes and findings and the status of the progress in implementing the NBHCP in accordance with the requirements of Chapter VI, Section K of the NBHCP.

22. Incidental Take. The term "Incidental Take" means any taking of Covered Species that is incidental to, and not the purpose of, the carrying out of otherwise lawful activity.

24. Independent Mid-Point Review . This term refers to the required review and evaluation of the effectiveness of the HCP by each of the land use agencies at a defined mid-point in the approval of Authorized Development and as more specifically defined in Chapter VI, Section J of the NBHCP.

25. Land Use Agencies. The term “Land Use Agencies”means the City of Sacramento and Sutter County. If and when Sacramento County submits and receives approval of its own ITP, Sacramento County would be considered a Land Use Agency as defined herein.

D 4

26. MAP (Metro Air Park) Habitat Conservation Plan (MAP HCP) . This term refers to final approved Habitat Conservation Plan for the Metro Air Park Project located in the unincorporated portion of the Natomas Basin within Sacramento County, specifically, “Habitat Conservation Plan for the Metro Air Park Project in the Natomas Basin, Sacramento County, California, Prepared by Metro Air Park Property Owner’s Association, Dated 2001.”

28. Mitigation Lands . The term “Mitigation Lands” means the reserve lands acquired through collection and use of Mitigation Fees from Authorized Development, and in some cases land which has been accepted for dedication from Authorized Development, which will be set aside and managed at a ratio of one-half (½) acre of land protected or preserved for every one (1) acre of land converted to Authorized Development. The NBHCP Operating Conservation Program will result in 8,750 acres of Mitigation Lands to be established and managed by TNBC.

30. Mitigation Requirement. The term “Mitigation Requirement” means the mitigation requirement for each public and private project is determined by applying the Mitigation Ratio to the land area converted to Authorized Development as calculated in accordance with the requirements set forth in Chapter VI, Section 1.

31. Natomas Basin. "Natomas Basin" or "Basin" means that geographical area depicted in Figure 2, Natomas Basin and Affected Jurisdictions.

32. Natomas Basin Habitat Conservation Plan. The terms “Natomas Basin Habitat Conservation Plan,” “NBHCP” and “the Plan” mean the year 2002 version of the Natomas Basin Habitat Conservation Plan prepared for the City of Sacramento, Sutter County, The Natomas Basin Conservancy (TNBC), RD 1000 and Natomas Mutual.

34. No Surprises Rule. The term “No Surprises Rule” refers the terms and conditions specified in the February 28, 1998, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife final rule codifying its “No Surprises” policy into federal regulation (63 FR 8859). The “No Surprises” rule states, in part, that: “In negotiating unforeseen circumstances, the [Service] will not require the commitment of additional land, water or financial compensation or other natural resources beyond the level otherwise agreed upon for the species D 5
covered by the conservation plan without the consent of the Permittee. If additional conservation and mitigation measures are deemed necessary to respond to unforeseen circumstances, the [Service] may require additional measures of the Permittee where the conservation plan is being properly implemented, but only if such measures are limited to modifications within conserved habitat areas, if any, or to the Conservation Plan’s Operating Conservation Program for the affected species, and maintain the original terms of the Conservation Plan to the maximum extent possible. Additional conservation and mitigation measures will not involve the commitment of additional land, water or financial compensation or restrictions on the use of land, water, or other natural resources otherwise available for development or use under the original terms of the conservation plan, without the consent of the Permittee.” (50 C.F.R. Sections 17.22(b)(5)(iii) and 17.32(b)(5)(iii).) The No Surprises Rules is discussed in Chapter VI, Section K of the NBHCP.

37. Permit Area, City of Sacramento . The term “Permit Area” as applied to the City of Sacramento means that area designated on Figure 2 of the NBHCP Implementation Agreement that totals 8,050 acres located within the City of Sacramento city limits and in certain locations (i.e., the Panhandle Annexation Area) within the unincorporated areas of Sacramento County. Incidental take authority for the City of Sacramento is limited to this Permit Area.

39. Permit Area, Natomas Mutual . The term “Permit Area” as applied to Natomas Mutual means canals, ditches, waterways, ponds and open water areas, as well as roads, right-of-ways, facilities, maintenance yards, pumps, pipelines, and water detention facilities, under the direct jurisdiction of Natomas Mutual and inside the inner toe of levees surrounding the Natomas Basin, but not including the Sac ramento River levees. Incidental take authority for Natomas Mutual is limited to this Permit Area.

40. Permit Area, RD 1000. The term “Permit Area” as applied to RD 1000 means canals, ditches, waterways, ponds and open water areas, as well as roads, right-of-ways, facilities, maintenance yards, pumps, pipelines, and water detention facilities, under the direct jurisdiction of RD 1000 and D 6
inside the inner toe of levees surrounding the Natomas Basin, but not including the Sacramento River levees. Incidental take authority for RD 1000 is limited to this Permit Area.

42. Permittees. The term "Permittees" means the City of Sacramento, Sutter County, The Natomas Basin Conservancy and RD 1000 and Natomas Mutual to the extent that RD 1000 and Natomas Mutual apply for and obtain incidental take permits from USFWS and CDFG based upon this NBHCP.

44. Planned Development. The term “Planned Development” means the Authorized Development plus the development of the 1,983 acre Metro Air Park, which is subject to the Metro Air Park Habitat Conservation Plan (“MAP Authorized Development”).

45. Plan Operator. The term “Plan Operator” means The Natomas Basin Conservancy, the entity responsible for implementing the NBHCP.

46. Plan Participants. The term “Plan Participants” means parties actively involved in implementing the NBHCP, including the Wildlife Agencies (USFWS and CDFG), the Permittees (City of Sacramento, Sutter County, Natomas Mutual and RD 1000), and the Plan Operator (TNBC).

48. Protected Species. The term "Protected Species" means those plants and animals listed under the State CESA and the Federal ESA.

49. Revisions. Refers to minor changes to the NBHCP as specified in Chapter VI, Section 3.a of the NBHCP. Revisions to the NBHCP are changes to the Plan provided for under the Operating Conservation Program, including Adaptive Management changes and Mitigation Fee adjustments.

These revisions would not result in operations under the NBHCP that are significantly different from those analyzed in connection with the NBHCP as approved, result in adverse impacts on the environment that are new or significantly different from those analyzed in connection with the NBHCP as approved.

50. Section 10(a)(1)(B) Permits. The terms "Section 10(a)(1)(B) Permits" or "Permits" as used in this Plan means the permits issued by the USFWS under Section 10 (a)(1)(B) of the ESA which authorize D 7
the incidental take of a Covered Species which may occur as a result of urban development activities, including public facilities projects, within the City of Sacramento and Sutter County, or as a result of the operation and/or maintenance, including the construction and improvements with no significant increase to the existing footprint, of flood control or water supply activities, water ditches, canals, pumphouses, maintenance facilities, or other ancillary facilities within the Natomas Basin, or as a result of habitat management, enhancement, or restoration activities on reserve lands. "Permit" may also be used in this Plan to collectively refer to the Section 10(a)(1)(B) Permits, and the Section 2081 Permits.

51. Section 2081 Permits. The terms "Section 2081 Permits” or “Permits” means the permits for the incidental take of threatened and endangered species, listed under the CESA, issued by the CDFG under Section 2081(b) and/or 2081.1 of the California Fish and Game Code, or any successor section to authorize the incidental take of a Covered Species which may occur as a result of urban development activities, including public facilities projects, within the City of Sacramento and Sutter County, or as a result of the operation and/or maintenance, including the construction and improvements with no significant increase to the existing footprint, of flood control or water supply activities, water ditches, canals, pumphouses, maintenance facilities, or other ancillary facilities within the Natomas Basin, or as a result of habitat management, enhancement, or restoration activities on reserve lands. "Permits" may also be used in this Agreement to refer collectively to the Section 10(a)(1)(B) Permits and/or the Section 2081(b) or 2081.1 Permits.

52. Site Specific Management Plan
. The terms “Site Specific Management Plan” and “SSMP” mean those plans that TNBC is required to complete for each reserve unit that it acquires. SSMP’s shall include operations plans that address on-site habitat restoration, enhancement, maintenance and management activities that will be presented to the NBHCP TAC for approval on a three year basis.

53. State Protected Species. The term “State Protected Species” means those plants and animals listed by the State of California (“State”) under the provisions of CESA and shown as Covered Species on Table I-1 hereto that are found, or may be found, in the Permit Areas.

54. Swainson’s Hawk Zone. This zone is defined as the lands which are not currently developed (excluding the 252 acres of land designated “Urban” on the City of Sacramento General Plan and the North Natomas Community Plan located within the City of Sacramento) and which are located within the Natomas Basin and within one mile east of the Sacramento River and extending from the Natomas Cross Canal on the north and Interstate 80 on the south. See also Figure 13 of the NBHCP.

55. System of Reserves. The term “system of reserves” means Mitigation Lands generally and includes all habitat conserved and managed for the Covered Species, including rice fields by TNBC.

56. Take or Taking . With regard to any activities subject to ESA, the terms “Take” or “Taking” shall have the same meaning as provided in the ESA. With regard to any activities subject to CESA, the terms “Take” or “Taking” shall have the same meaning as provided in CESA.

57. Technical Advisory Committee. The terms “Technical Advisory Committee” and “TAC” mean the advisory group of technical experts selected by the Permittees and the Wildlife Agencies to assist TNBC Board with directing the implementation of the NBHCP.

D 8

58. The Natomas Basin Conservancy . The terms “The Natomas Basin Conservancy,” “the Conservancy” or “TNBC” shall mean the independent entity established for the purpose of implementing the Natomas Basin Habitat Conservation Plan on behalf of the City, Sutter County and other Potential Permittees. The TNBC is also a Permittee for purposes of implementation of the reserve system.

59. TNBC Mitigation Land or Reserve Area . The term “TNBC Reserve Area” or “TNBC Mitigation Land” shall mean those areas where TNBC is authorized to acquire and manage wildlife reserves subject to the provisions of the NBHCP. Such areas shall include all lands within the Natomas Basin, as well as the land bounding the Natomas Basin and extending to the edge of water immediately outside the Natomas Basin levees and Area B as depicted on Figure 20, Out of Basin Mitigation Areas. The TNBC Reserve Area and the TNBC Permit Area are coterminous.

60. Unforeseen Circumstances . The term “Unforeseen circumstances” is defined at 50 C.F.R. 17.3 as changes in circumstances affecting a species or geographic area covered by a conservation plan that could not reasonably have been anticipated by plan developers and the USFWS at the time of the NBHCP’s negotiation and development, and that result in a substantial and adverse change in the status of the Covered Species. Unforeseen circumstances are discussed in Chapter VI, Section K of the NBHCP.

61. Urban Development Permit and Urban Development Permittee . The term “Urban Development Permit” shall mean the final authorization granted by the Land Use Agencies prior to disturbance of undeveloped land in conjunction with a public or private development project. An Urban Development Permit may also be used to refer to a grading permit or notice to proceed. An “Urban Development Permittee” refers to the individual, agency or company applying for approval, or receiving approval of an Urban Development Permit from the Land Use Agencies.

62. Water Agencies. The term “Water Agencies” means RD 1000 and Natomas Mutual. Natomas Mutual is a private company and not a governmental agency.

63. Wildlife Agencies . The term “Wildlife Agencies” means the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the California Department of Fish and Game.

NATOMAS BASIN HCP -- INTRODUCTION I - 1
April 2003
I. INTRODUCTION
A. PURPOSE AND OVERVIEW OF THE PLAN
This document is the Natomas Basin Habitat Conservation Plan (“NBHCP” or "Plan"). The NBHCP is the conservation plan, which is part of the requirements of the Endangered Species Act, designed to support applications for federal permits under Section 10(a)(1)(B) of the Endangered Species Act. The NBHCP is also intended to serve as an application for incidental take permits under State law pursuant to Section 2081(b) of the California Fish and Game Code. A glossary of definitions for terms used within this document is provided prior to this section.

The purpose of the NBHCP is to promote biological conservation in conjunction with economic and urban development within the Permit Areas. The NBHCP establishes a multi-species conservation program to minimize and mitigate the expected loss of habitat values and incidental take of Covered Species that could result from urban development, operation and maintenance of irrigation and drainage systems, and certain activities associated with the Natomas Basin Conservancy (TNBC) management of its system of reserves established under the NBHCP. The goal of the NBHCP is to minimize incidental take of the Covered Species in the Permit Areas and to provide mitigation for the impacts of Covered Activities on the Covered Species and their habitat.

The NBHCP applies to the 53,537-acre area interior to the toe of levees surrounding the Natomas Basin, located in the northern portion of Sacramento County and the southern portion of Sutter County.

The Basin contains incorporated and unincorporated areas within the jurisdictions of the City of Sacramento, Sacramento County, and Sutter County (see Figure 1, Regional Location and Figure 2, Land Use Agency “Permit Area”). The Sacramento International Airport is located in the Basin. The southern portion of the Basin is urbanized, but most of the Basin is used for agriculture.

The entities that may rely upon the NBHCP in their individual applications for federal incidental take permits under Section 10(a)(1)(B) of the Endangered Species Act and state incidental take permits under Section 2081 of the California Fish and Game Code are: (1) the City of Sacramento (City); (2) Sutter County (Sutter); (3) Reclamation District No. 1000 (RD 1000); (4) Natomas Central Mutual Water Company (Natomas Mutual) and (5) the Natomas Basin Conservancy (TNBC). The City, Sutter, RD 1000, and Natomas Mutual will obtain individual Section 10(a)(1)(B) permits from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for Covered Activities conducted within each local agency’s respective jurisdiction within the Natomas Basin. TNBC will obtain a Section 10(a)(1)(B) permit and a Section 2081 permit for reserve management and habitat establishment activities conducted by TNBC on behalf of the City, Sutter County and other Potential Permittees, within the Natomas Basin and Area B. Similarly, the City, Sutter, RD 1000, and Natomas Mutual will also each obtain individual Section 2081 permits, or amendments to existing 2081 permits, from the Department of Fish and Game for Covered Activities conducted within each local agency’s respective jurisdiction within the Natomas Basin and TNBC will obtain a Section 2081 permit for reserve management and habitat establishment activities it conducts on behalf of the City, Sutter County NATOMAS BASIN HCP - INTRODUCTIONI - 2
April 2003
and other Potential Permittees, within the entire Natomas Basin and Area B. The City, Sutter County, RD 1000, Natomas Mutual and other potential Permittees will each be required to mitigate the impacts of their Covered Activities independently. Thus, if any one of the permits, other than the Permits issued to TNBC, is revoked, the other permits would remain in effect. This is in keeping with the design of the NBHCP as a mitigation tool which can be used by the various Permittees to obtain the necessary incidental take permits needed to conduct otherwise lawful activities within each entity’s respective jurisdictional boundaries.

Although the mitigation strategy provided for under the NBHCP would mitigate for effects resulting from the Land Use Agencies’ Covered Activities, because the percentage of uplands to wetlands differs between their respective Permit Areas, the NBHCP allows for the mitigation strategy provided for under the NBHCP to be reevaluated in the event either the City’s or Sutter County’s permits are terminated or revoked, or a Permittee (other than TNBC) chooses not to participate in the NBHCP. The mitigation strategy would be reevaluated to ensure that the configuration of TNBC Mitigation Lands provided for under the NBHCP continues to adequately mitigate for the impacts of Authorized Development in the jurisdiction(s) participating in the NBHCP. Because TNBC in carrying out its reserve acquisition and management activities, is acting on behalf of and is controlled by the City, Sutter County and other Potential Permittees noncompliance by TNBC with the terms and conditions of its Permits, the NBHCP or Implementation Agreement, shall be considered a failure of the City and Sutter and other Potential Permittees to comply with their obligations under the NBHCP and may result in suspension and or revocation of their respective Permits.

Because the NBHCP’s OCP is based upon the City and Sutter County limiting development limiting total development to 8,050 acres within the City’s Permit Area, approval by the City of future urban development beyond the 8,050 acres or outside of its Permit Area would constitute a significant departure from the Plan’s OCP and would trigger a reevaluation of the Plan, a new effects analysis, potential amendments and/or revisions to the Plan and Permits, a separate conservation strategy and issuance of Incidental Take Permits to the permittee for that additional urban development, and/or possible suspension or revocation of the City’s Permits in the event the City were to violate such limitations without having completed the required reevaluation, amendments or revisions. Similarly, approval by Sutter County of development within the Natomas Basin beyond the authorized 7,467 acres or outside of the Sutter County Permit Area would constitute a significant departure from the Plan’s OCP and would trigger a reevaluation of the Plan, a new effects analysis, potential amendments and/or revisions to the Plan and Permits, a separate conservation strategy and issuance of Incidental Take Permits to the permittee for that additional urban development, and/or possible suspension or revocation of the County’s Permits in the event the NATOMAS BASIN HCP -- INTRODUCTION I - 3
April 2003
County were to violate such limitations without having completed the required reevaluation, amendments or revisions.

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 with 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.

This NBHCP is based upon the 1997 NBHCP that was the basis for issuance of permits to the City of Sacramento. The 1997 NBHCP has been updated and modified as a result of litigation involving a challenge to issuance of take permits to the City of Sacramento. This NBHCP has also been modified to include participation by the Permittees of the City, Sutter, TNBC, Natomas Mutual and RD 1000.

B. PLAN PARTICIPANTS
Implementation of the NBHCP will involve a variety of agencies and entities. Described below are the primary three categories of NBHCP participants:
(1) The Wildlife Agencies (USFWS and CDFG), which have incidental take permitting authority over federally and state listed species under the ESA and CESA, are the Permittors;
(2) City of Sacramento, Sutter County, the Natomas Basin Conservancy (TNBC), RD 1000 and Natomas Mutual are the Permittees;
(3) The Natomas Basin Conservancy (TNBC), which will carry out the mitigation requirements of the NBHCP on behalf of the other Permittees, is the Plan Operator.

TNBC Board will be composed of representatives from, among other interested groups, the City of Sacramento, Sutter County, RD 1000 and Natomas Mutual.

In addition to the Plan Participants identified above, there is the potential for other parties to seek coverage under the NBHCP or a similar habitat conservation program. These entities and individuals are considered Potential Permittees and are discussed following the Plan Participants below.

NATOMAS BASIN HCP - INTRODUCTIONI - 4
April 2003

1. Permittors (Wildlife Agencies)
a. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)
The USFWS has the authority for issuing Section 10(a)(1)(B) incidental take permits under the ESA and will be responsible for enforcing the provisions of the federal incidental take permits, reviewing annual status reports and responding to requests for amendments, and providing technical assistance with regard to the acquisition and management of reserve lands and the implementation of avoidance and minimization measures. The USFWS will be an advisor to TNBC and to the Permittees. b. California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG)
The CDFG is authorized pursuant to California Fish and Game Code Section 2081, subdivision (b), to issue incidental take permits under CESA. In that capacity as it relates to the NBHCP, the CDFG will be responsible for enforcing the provisions of the NBHCP implementation agreement, reviewing annual status reports, responding to requests by the Permittees for amendments, and providing technical assistance for acquisition and management of reserve lands. The CDFG will be an advisor to TNBC and the other Permittees in implementing the NBHCP. The CDFG will also assist, as appropriate, in reserve establishment and management and may serve as a successor to TNBC (see Section 3.4.7 of the Implementation Agreement).

2. Permittees
Each of the Permittees is expected to apply for and obtain separate Section 10(a)(1)(B) and Section 2081 permits for activities occurring under each Permittees’ respective authorities. The Permittees shall utilize a single NBHCP and Implementation Agreement(s) will be executed as each participant becomes signatory to the HCP. Entities undertaking urban development or other Covered Activities under the direct control of the Permittees and in compliance with the NBHCP will be covered under the Permittee’s Incidental Take Permits. Specific Covered Activities for each of the Permittees are identified under Section I.N. of this chapter.

As a Permittee, each of the Land Use Agencies will require all new development in the Natomas Basin to participate in the NBHCP and to provide for the establishment of a system of reserves in order to mitigate the individual and cumulative impacts of Authorized Development on Covered Species and their habitats. Urban Development must be in compliance with the NBHCP and state and federal law.

Compliance with the Conservation Plan will typically be accomplished through payment of a mitigation fee, (or in lieu dedication of mitigation land as well as payment of the non-land acquisition portion of the fee), and compliance with all applicable avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures required under the Plan. The Land Use Agencies will keep track of all Authorized Development to ensure that mitigation fees have been paid and required take avoidance, minimization and mitigation measures have been met. For NATOMAS BASIN HCP -- INTRODUCTION I - 5
April 2003
Authorized Development consisting of construction of public works or other public facilities, each of the Land Use Agencies, as a Permittee, shall ensure compliance with the NBHCP similar to private projects.

In addition to the Land Use Agency Permittees, the Water Agency Permittees will ensure that all Water Agencies’ Covered Activities are conducted in accordance with the practices described in Chapter V.C.1. The Water Agencies shall annually report on their Covered Activities and document their compliance with the provisions of the NBHCP and the associated permits. These reports, along with those of the Land Use Agencies, shall be compiled annually by TNBC to form a Basin-wide record of Permittees’ activities.

Finally, the TNBC as a Permittee, will comply with the habitat reserve acquisition and management measures included in Chapter IV as well as specific species conservation measures included in Chapter V. a. City of Sacramento
The City of Sacramento will require the proponents of all new development in the Natomas Basin within the City’s Permit Area to demonstrate suitable mitigation for project impacts in accordance with the NBHCP and in compliance with state and federal law. Such compliance shall include the requirements for land and/or fee dedication as described within this document as well as the application of all measures listed in Chapter V of this document to avoid, minimize and mitigate the take of Covered Species. This requirement will apply to all new development described in the North Natomas Community Plan and South Natomas Community Plan (see the associated Natomas Basin HCP Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report which includes all adopted mitigation measures). All proponents of new development in the City shall comply with the applicable mitigation measures identified in the Mitigation Monitoring Plans approved with each community plan, as well as the measures of this NBHCP.

The City of Sacramento is seeking coverage for a total of 8,050 acres of Authorized Development under the NBHCP.

In addition to review and approval of private urban development proposals, the City of Sacramento will construct public projects and infrastructure that shall also be covered by the NBHCP. The Public projects are included in the 8,050 acres of Authorized Development allocated to the City of Sacramento.

The effectiveness of the NBHCP’s Operating Conservation Program (OCP) to adequately minimize and mitigate the effects of take of the Covered Species due to Authorized Development depends on the City and Sutter County limiting total development within their respective Permit Areas to a combined total of 15,517 acres. In addition, the OCP and the NBHCP’s effects analysis account for a combined total of 17,500 acres of Planned Development occurring in the Natomas Basin (i.e., 15,517 acres within the City and Sutter County’s Permit Areas and 1,983 acres of MAP development in Sacramento County). Because the NBHCP’s OCP is based upon the City limiting total development to 8,050 acres within the City’s identified Permit Area, approval by the City of future urban development beyond the 8,050 acres or outside of its Permit Area would constitute a significant departure from the Plan’s OCP and would trigger a NATOMAS BASIN HCP - INTRODUCTIONI - 6
April 2003
reevaluation of the Plan, a new effects analysis, potential amendments and/or revisions to the Plan and Permits, a separate conservation strategy and issuance of Incidental Take Permits to the permittee for that additional urban development, and/or possible suspension or revocation of the City’s Permits in the event the City were to violate such limitations without completing such reevaluation, amendment or revision. 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 with 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 reevaluation of the Plan, a new effects analysis, potential amendments and/or revisions to the Plan and Permits, a separate conservation strategy, and issuance of Incidental Take Permits to the Potential Permittee for that additional urban development and/or possible suspension or revocation of the City’s Permits in the event the City were to violate such limitations.

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.

If the City of Sacramento annexes additional lands into the City (with the exception of the panhandle annexation area - see Section III.C) within the Plan Area but outside the City’s Permit Area as shown on Figure 2, the City would be required to comply with state and federal law, to address the impacts of take resulting from future development of the annexed lands. As noted in Section VI.L of this NBHCP, inclusion of additional lands under the NBHCP for purposes of seeking incidental take coverage would require either an amendment of the Plan and the City’s Incidental Take Permits or preparation of a new HCP for that additional area. Such an amendment would require the City to address various impacts, including impacts to the NBHCP Covered Species and the effects of urban development on lands proposed for annexation on the biological viability of such species and would be subject to all applicable state and federal statutes and regulations, including the provisions of the CESA, ESA, CEQA and NEPA.

For purposes of the NBHCP, although the West Lakeside Annexation area is proposed by the landowners to be annexed to the City of Sacramento, this area currently is located within Sacramento County and is not outside of the County’s Urban Services Boundary and the City’s Sphere of Influence, and it is not included in the 8,050 acres of Authorized Development or within the City’s Permit Area. Thus, this annexation would trigger a reevaluation of the Plan, a new effects analysis, potential amendments and/or revisions to the Plan and Permits, a separate conservation strategy and issuance of Incidental Take Permits to the City for that additional urban development and possible suspension or revocation of the City’s Permits in the event the City were to violate such limitations without completing such reevaluation, amendment or revision.

Any amendments proposed but not yet processed and approved will not affect the validity of this HCP.

NATOMAS BASIN HCP -- INTRODUCTION I - 7
April 2003
b. Sutter County
Sutter County will require the proponents of all new development in the Sutter County portion of the Natomas Basin to demonstrate suitable mitigation for project impacts in accordance with the NBHCP and in compliance with state and federal law. This includes compliance with appropriate mitigation measures which might be identified and adopted pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). HCP compliance shall include the requirements for land and/or fee dedication as described within this document as well as the application of all measures listed in Chapter V of this document to avoid, minimize and mitigate the take of Covered Species. Sutter County development under the NBHCP will include up to 7,467 acres of land located within the County’s Industrial/Commercial Reserve area located in the southeast portion of Sutter County within the Natomas Basin.

Although the SYSCO project was approved prior to adoption of the NBHCP and issuance of Incidental Take Permits, the SYSCO project is located within the Sutter County Industrial/Commercial Reserve and was required to comply with the provisions of the NBHCP. Sutter County collected funds from SYSCO in the amount of the NBHCP fee in place at the time of project approval. These funds will be utilized to purchase 25 acres of TNBC reserve land. The 50 acre SYSCO project, located within the Sutter County Permit Area, is considered part of Sutter County’s 7,467 acres of Authorized Development.

In addition to review and approval of private urban development proposals, Sutter County will construct public projects and infrastructure that shall also be covered by the NBHCP. These Public projects are included in the 7,467 acres of Authorized Development allocated to Sutter County.

At this time, there is one proposed Sutter County public facility project, drainage channel improvements to support the South Sutter County Specific Plan area, located on land in Sacramento County outside the Sutter County Industrial/Commercial Reserve. This project involves expanding two existing RD 1000 drainage channels to accommodate additional storm water flows. These channels, referred to as the East Drainage Canal and the Montna Drain, are located within Sacramento County immediately south of the Sutter-Sacramento County boundary. To the extent that these channels and their associated levees and access roads are expanded beyond the footprint of the existing facilities, Sutter County will consider the expansion of these facilities as urban development subject to the provisions of the NBHCP. Such increases in the footprint of the drainage channels are considered part of Sutter County’s 7,467 acres of Authorized Development.

Because the NBHCP’s OCP is based upon Sutter County limiting total development to 7,467 acres within NATOMAS BASIN HCP - INTRODUCTIONI - 8
April 2003
Sutter County’s identified Permit Area, approval by Sutter County of future urban development beyond the 7,467 acres or outside of its Permit Area would constitute a significant departure from the Plan’s OCP and would trigger a reevaluation of the Plan, a new effects analysis, potential amendments and/or revisions to the Plan and Permits, a separate conservation strategy and issuance of Incidental Take Permits to the permittee for that additional urban development, and/or possible suspension or revocation of Sutter County’s Permits in the event Sutter County were to violate such limitations without completing such reevaluation, amendment or revision. 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 with 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 reevaluation of the Plan, a new effects analysis, potential amendments and/or revisions to the Plan and Permits, a separate conservation strategy, and issuance of Incidental Take Permits to the Potential Permittee for that additional urban development, and/or possible suspension or revocation of the County’s Permits in the event Sutter County were to violate such limitations. 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 the NBHCP, the OCP and associated Permits remain valid for each Permittee’s Covered Activities.

For purposes of obtaining coverage under the NBHCP, expansion of the County’s Permit Area or an increase in the County’s Authorized Development could only be accomplished through approval of a major amendment of the NBHCP and the associated permits. Such an amendment of the NBHCP and associated permits would be subject to all applicable state and federal statutes and regulations, including the provisions of the CESA, ESA, CEQA and NEPA.
c. Reclamation District Number 1000 (RD 1000)
RD 1000 was created April 8, 1911, by a Special Act of the California State Legislature to provide agricultural drainage, flood control and levee maintenance. The entire Natomas Basin is included within its jurisdiction. RD 1000 has participated in the development of the NBHCP. However, RD 1000 has elected not to apply for an Incidental Take Permit at the time of publication of this draft NBHCP. RD 1000 may elect at a future date to apply for an Incidental Take Permit and would be required at that time to execute an Implementation Agreement with USFWS evidencing implementation and compliance with this HCP.

During the HCP preparation process, both RD 1000 and Natomas Mutual Water District expressed interest in pursuing take coverage for pesticides and rodenticides. However, such coverage is prohibited or limited by the regional USFWS guidance policy (USFWS, Inclusion of Pesticide and Herbicide Applications as a Covered Activity in and Endangered Species Act Section 10(a)(1)(B) Permit, July 1998). Any exceptions to this policy would require a considerable length of time to prepare and process adequate scientific information necessary for the USFWS to analyze the biological effects of each chemical on the Covered Species. Because of the length of time and uncertainty surrounding approval NATOMAS BASIN HCP -- INTRODUCTION I - 9
April 2003
of pesticides and rodenticides, this HCP does not include coverage for pesticides, herbicides or rodenticides. Rather, this HCP limits the Covered Activities for the Water Agencies to mechanical activities such as mowing and non-chemical channel maintenance activities. In March 2002, the Boards of Directors of both Water Agencies elected not to continue participation in the joint HCP because coverage for pesticide use would not be granted by the USFWS. The Water Agencies continue to be represented in the HCP as a Permittee in the event they should choose at a future date to apply for Incidental Take Permits for the activities (excluding pesticides) authorized in the HCP and evaluated in this EIR/EIS.

RD 1000 is bounded on the west by the Sacramento River, on the north by the Natomas Cross Canal, on the east by the Pleasant Grove Creek Canal and Steelhead Creek (formerly known as Natomas East Main Drainage Canal (NEMDC)) and on the south by the American River. RD 1000 does not maintain Steelhead Creek, but does maintain the approximately 43 miles of levees that surround it. In addition, RD 1000 maintains approximately 10 miles of non-project interceptor levees in the Pleasant Grove area. Generally, levees operated or maintained by RD 1000 are on easements of record, except for the Cross Canal and its south levee and some sections of Steelhead Creek and its west levee, which are on parcels owned in fee by the District.

When originally designed, the interior canal system brought all agricultural drain water to the pumping plant at Second Bannon and Pritchard Lake for discharge into the Sacramento River. The system today consists of approximately 30 miles of main canals that RD 1000 owns in fee. These parcels are delineated on the subdivision plat maps, including acreage. RD 1000 also operates and maintains approximately 150 miles of drainage ditches, which are on recorded “ditch and roadway” rights-of-way.

They drain specific parcels and connect to the main canals (see Figure 3, Water Delivery and Drainage Systems).

At present RD 1000 operates eight pumping plants that pump agricultural irrigation tailwater and urban storm water into the Sacramento River, Natomas Cross Canal, and Steelhead Creek (formerly NEMDC). These pump stations and the drainage system are shown on Figure 3, Water Delivery and Drainage Systems. RD 1000 drainage channels and Natomas Mutual irrigation channels overlap in some instances, with a combined total of approximately 247 miles of channels occupying an estimated 1,769 acres of the Natomas Basin.

Giant garter snakes live in the canals and ditches maintained by RD 1000 and canal and ditch operation and maintenance activities may result in take of the Covered Species. RD 1000 is committed to reducing impacts of its operations and maintenance practices on Covered Species, particularly the giant garter snake. This NBHCP includes appropriate measures to avoid, minimize and mitigate the impacts of RD 1000 Covered Activities.

RD 1000 is not provided take authorization under this NBHCP for projects that would increase the footprint of any RD 1000 facilities within the Natomas Basin. If such projects are proposed, the potential impacts on state and federal listed species would be reviewed subject to the provisions of CESA NATOMAS BASIN HCP - INTRODUCTIONI - 10
April 2003
and ESA and permits, as determined appropriate, would be required. This NBHCP does not provide take authorization or specify mitigation for such projects.
d. Natomas Central Mutual Water Company (“Natomas Mutual”) Natomas Mutual was incorporated in 1921. It is a private, non-profit water company with a service area of approximately 47,000 acres within the Natomas Basin. Natomas Mutual is managed for the mutual benefit of its shareholders, who are owners of land within the service area.

Natomas Mutual has participated in the development of the NBHCP. However, Natomas Mutual has elected not to apply for an Incidental Take Permit at the time of publication of this draft NBHCP. The decision of Natomas Mutual to not participate within this NBHCP was made in response to the lack of coverage for pesticide and herbicide use under this NBHCP. Such coverage has not been included due to the lack of knowledge of impacts associated with pesticides and herbicides typically used by Natomas Mutual and the inability to predict the damage such chemicals might have on Covered Species. Natomas Mutual may elect at a future date to apply for an Incidental Take Permit and would be required at that time to execute an Implementation Agreement with USFWS evidencing implementation and compliance with this HCP. (See also RD 1000 discussion Section C above.) About 30,000 acres of land within the Natomas Mutual service area are irrigated each year, with rights to some 130,200 acre feet of water diverted from the Sacramento River. Natomas Mutual maintains a “closed water delivery system,” which holds all agricultural water within the service area from April 1st through October 15th of any year. Natomas Mutual maintains an extensive system of water delivery facilities that recapture water from fields and use it over again. Five main pumping stations along the Sacramento River divert water into main canals and then into ditches throughout the service area (see Figure 3, Water Delivery and Drainage Systems).

Giant garter snakes live in the canals and ditches maintained by Natomas Mutual and canal and ditch operation and maintenance activities may result in take of the Covered Species. Natomas Mutual is committed to reducing impacts of its operations and maintenance practices on Covered Species, particularly the giant garter snake. This NBHCP includes appropriate measures to avoid, minimize and mitigate the impacts of Natomas Mutual Covered Activities.

As noted in I.N.2, Natomas Mutual is not provided take authorization under this NBHCP for projects such as the construction, maintenance, operation, or closure of river diversion facilities and accompanying fish screens owned or operated by Natomas Mutual in the Natomas Basin. Nor does this NBHCP provide take authorization for projects involving the expansion of existing Natomas Mutual facilities beyond the footprint of the existing facility. If such projects are proposed, the potential impacts on state and federal listed species would be reviewed subject to the provisions of CESA and ESA and permits, as determined appropriate, would be required. This NBHCP does not provide take authorization or specify appropriate mitigation for such projects.

NATOMAS BASIN HCP -- INTRODUCTION I - 11
April 2003
e. The Natomas Basin Conservancy (TNBC) (as a Permittee).

TNBC serves as the plan operator established by the City and controlled by the City, Sutter County and other potential Permittees to acquire and manage the system of habitat reserves to be created under the NBHCP. TNBC is also a Permittee. TNBC will seek separate Incidental Take Permits to cover activities related to the acquisition, establishment and management of the system of habitat reserves to be created throughout the Natomas Basin and in Area B (see Figure 20). The NBHCP includes a number of measures to avoid and minimize the impact of TNBC Covered Activities to Covered Species in Chapter IV, and in addition includes measures to enhance the survival of Covered Species through habitat enhancements and adaptive management provisions.

3. Plan Operator
a. Natomas Basin Conservancy
The NBHCP’s reserve acquisition and management activities will be implemented by The Natomas Basin Conservancy (TNBC), serving as the “Plan Operator”, on behalf of the City, Sutter County, the Metro Air Park Property Owners’ Association under the Metro Air Park HCP (MAP) and other potential Permittees. TNBC is an independent non-profit corporation. The habitat mitigation fees and mitigation lands will be transferred to TNBC under the Plan. TNBC’s efforts are guided by a Board of Directors, with members of the Board appointed by agencies receiving permits under the NBHCP. The Board is assisted in its efforts by the NBHCP Technical Advisory Committee (TAC), a group of experts with members including representatives of the Wildlife Agencies (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and California Department of Fish and Game) and the Permittees.

TNBC, as the Plan Operator, will conduct a variety of actions to acquire, establish and enhance, monitor and manage lands in perpetuity to ensure the continued success within the Natomas Basin of all Covered Species listed within the NBHCP. TNBC will serve, on behalf of the Permittees and the Wildlife Agencies, as the Plan implementation and effectiveness monitor. As development within the Natomas Basin occurs, and as TNBC acquires reserve lands, site specific management plans will be prepared for and adopted by TNBC. Additionally, TNBC may implement adaptive management plans and to the extent provided for under by the NBHCP, management measures proposed in species recovery plans for the Covered Species. Additional responsibilities of TNBC are further detailed in Chapters IV, V and VI.

4. Third Parties
“Third Parties” refers to persons receiving incidental take coverage under the incidental take permits held by a Permittee. An example of a “third party” is a private landowner in the Natomas Basin who seeks an urban development permit from the City or Sutter County. (Development proposals on private land within the City’s and Sutter’s Permit Areas shall comply with the requirements of the NBHCP, NATOMAS BASIN HCP - INTRODUCTIONI - 12
April 2003
including payment of mitigation fees and compliance with applicable avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures.)

5. Potential Permittees
In addition to the plan participants described above, there are two additional groups that could obtain coverage under the NBHCP or under a similar habitat conservation plan: the County of Sacramento and Natomas Basin Farmers. Inclusion of either of these Potential Permittees within the NBHCP would require an amendment (see Section VI.L.3.), of the Plan and issuance of separate incidental take permits.

If the County of Sacramento considers new projects within the unincorporated area of the Natomas Basin in Sacramento County, the County may seek to address mitigation for biological impacts via amendments to this NBHCP or through a habitat conservation plan similar to the NBHCP. Similarly, farmers within the Natomas Basin may choose to participate in the same or similar habitat conservation plans that would specifically address ongoing agricultural operations.

In the future, if the County, Natomas Basin farmers or other Potential Permittees within the Natomas Basin seek to become Permittees by participating in the NBHCP, such parties will be required to comply with Federal and State law governing issuance of incidental take permits under ESA and CESA.

They may rely on this version of the NBHCP, with modifications appropriate to each additional Permittee, or prepare and process a separate HCP application specific to each new Permittee’s activities. Should any additional entity within the Natomas Basin prepare and process a separate HCP that is also intended to serve as an application for incidental take permits under Federal and State law, such plan must be consistent with the biological goals and objectives and the conservation strategy of this NBHCP. a. Sacramento County
The County of Sacramento is not a participant in this NBHCP nor is it proposing to obtain incidental take permits based on this NBHCP. If the County considers new projects within the unincorporated area of the Natomas Basin within Sacramento County, the County would review the biological impacts of these new projects and require these projects to demonstrate that adequate mitigation would compensate for biological impacts in accordance with state and federal law. The County may seek to address mitigation for biological impacts via amendments to this NBHCP or through a habitat conservation plan designed to achieve the biological goals and objectives for the Natomas Basin outlined in the NBHCP in a manner compatible with the conservation strategy of the NBHCP. In particular, such mitigation would be required to address the effect of reduced agricultural lands on the biological viability of the NBHCP.
b. Farmers
While farming is not provided coverage under the NBHCP Incidental Take Permits, it is recognized that continued agricultural activities within the Basin are beneficial to the long-term viability of certain NATOMAS BASIN HCP -- INTRODUCTION I - 13
April 2003
Covered Species in the region. Farmers who own, operate, and maintain land in the Basin may choose to participate in the NBHCP in the future or adopt their own habitat conservation plan with mitigation measures similar to those applied to agricultural lands managed by TNBC under this NBHCP.

6. Additional NBHCP Permittee - Metro Air Park
The USFWS and CDFG, in February of 2002, issued ITPs for the Metro Air Park (MAP) project to the MAP Property Owners Association (MAP POA). MAP will be an urban development project adjacent to the Sacramento International Airport in Sacramento County. The 2,011 acres of urban development associated with the MAP are part of the total 17,500 acres of future Planned Development considered by the NBHCP in the Natomas Basin. However, a portion of the MAP project, approximately 28 acres, is located within the City of Sacramento’s NBHCP Permit Area. These 28 acres are included in the 8,050 acres of disturbance attributed to the City. Therefore, this NBHCP anticipates that the MAP project will result in 1,983 acres of the 17,500 acres of disturbance addressed by this NBHCP. MAP has obtained separate incidental take permits based on an HCP that incorporates the conservation strategy of the 1997 regional NBHCP as modified to address the specific circumstances of Metro Air Park and in response to the District Court’s ruling in NWF v. Babbitt. As stated above, the Metro Air Park HCP and its IA provide for automatic revision of the MAP HCP to incorporate applicable provisions of the revised NBHCP upon approval of the latter by Wildlife Agencies. Extension of applicable NBHCP provisions to MAP will be treated as a revision of the Plan and will not require a permit amendment.

C. BIOLOGICAL GOALS AND OBJECTIVES OF THE NBHCP
The NBHCP biological goals are the broad guiding principles for the operating conservation program and provide the rationale behind the minimization and mitigation strategies. The specific biological objectives are the measurable targets for achieving the biological goals. The goals and objectives together provide a framework for developing a monitoring program that measures progress towards meeting those goals and objectives. In addition, the biological goals and objectives must be linked to the adaptive management process in order to ensure that necessary management decisions are based on these guiding principles of the Plan.

Described in this section are the biological goals and objectives for the overall NBHCP and for specific species known to utilize the Natomas Basin. The primary biological goal of the NBHCP is to create a system of reserves, with both wetland and upland components, that would support viable populations of the giant garter snake, Swainson’s hawk and other Covered Species. The NBHCP primarily focuses preservation efforts on the giant garter snake and Swainson’s hawk. The habitat needs of the other Covered Species overlap significantly with the giant garter snake and the Swainson’s hawk such that specific habitat requirements of the other Covered Species can be incorporated and met within the upland and wetland components of the reserves focused on providing Swainson’s hawk and giant garter snake habitats. Specific consideration of the needs of the other Covered Species must be incorporated into the restoration, enhancement, and management plans as they are developed for each reserve site according NATOMAS BASIN HCP – INTRODUCTIONI - 14
April 2003
TABLE I - 1

LISTED, CANDIDATE, AND OTHER SPECIES ADDRESSED IN THE NBHCP

AND COVERED BY ITS ASSOCIATED PERMITS
# Species
Federal
Status
State
Status Habitat Notes
1 Aleutian Canada goose
Branta canadensis leucopareia
SC Grazes in marshes and stubble fields, roosts on the water 2 bank swallow
Riparia riparia
T Nests in river banks, forages for insects over open water, croplands, and grasslands
3 burrowing owl
Athene cunicularia
SSC Prefers open, dry grassland and desert habitats
4 loggerhead shrike
Lanius ludovicianus
SC SSC Prefers open habitats with scattered shrubs, trees, fences, and posts. Will use cropland.
5 Swainson's hawk
Buteo swainsoni
T Breeds in riparian forest; known nesting sites in trees along Sacramento River in Natomas Basin. Forages for small mammals in grasslands and croplands.
6 tricolored blackbird
Agelaius tricolor
SC SSC Nests in marshes with bulrush, blackberry or cattails; three known occurrences in Natomas Basin. Forages on the ground in grasslands and croplands.
7 white-faced ibis
Plegadis chihi
SC SSC Forages in flooded rice fields
8 giant garter snake
Thamnophis gigas
T T Forages in marshes, low gradient open waterways and flooded rice fields, hibernates in canal berms and other uplands; several known occurrences in Natomas Basin
9 northwestern pond turtle
Clemmys marmorata marmorata
SC SSC Lives in permanent bodies of water; requires floating vegetation, logs, rocks or banks for basking. Hibernates and lays eggs is uplands.
10 California tiger salamander
Ambystoma californiense
C SSC Winters in ground squirrel burrows or other holes; breeds in vernal pools, stockponds , and other seasonal wetlands. 11 western spadefoot toad
Scaphiopus hammondii
SC SSC Primary habitat is grasslands; breeds in shallow temporary pools 12 valley elderberry longhorn beetle
Desmocerus californicus
dimorphus
T Lives and reproduces on elderberry shrubs found along rivers and canals.
13 midvalley fairy shrimp
Branchinecta mesovallensis n. sp.

Vernal pool obligate often found in small pools; likely to occur in Plan Area
14 vernal pool fairy shrimp
Branchinecta lynchi
T Vernal pool obligate; widely distributed in Sacramento County 15 vernal pool tadpole shrimp
Lepidurus packardi
E Vernal pool obligate; widely distributed in Sacramento County 16 Boggs Lake hedge-hyssop
Gratiaola heterosepala
E Low-terrace species found in shallow water margins of vernal pools
17 Colusa Grass
Neostapfia colusana
T Occurs in large deep pools with substrates of adobe mud but also in smaller pools; known in Yolo County
NATOMAS BASIN HCP -- INTRODUCTION I - 15
# Species
Federal
Status
State
Status Habitat Notes
April 2003
18 delta tule pea
Lathyrus jepsonii ssp. jepsonii
SC Perennial twining vine occurs in both riparian and marsh habitats 19 legenere
Legenere limosa
SC Found in wet places or vernal pools below 400 feet in elevation 20 Sacramento Orcutt grass
Orcuttia viscida
E E Found in relatively large, deep vernal pools in eastern Sacramento County
21 Sanford's arrowhead
Sagittaria sanfordii
SC Tuberose perennial likely to occur in drainage or irrigation ditches
22 slender Orcutt grass
Orcuttia tenuis
T E Found in relatively large, deep vernal pools in eastern Sacramento County
Key to Abbreviations
Federal E = Listed as endangered C = Candidate for federal listing, data sufficient T = Listed as threatened SC = Species of Concern--informal category, formerly called candidate 2 species (data for listing insufficient)
State E = Listed as Endangered R = Listed as Rare
T = Listed as Threatened SSC = Species of Special Concern to criteria provided in Chapter IV.D Reserves will be planned to provide diverse habitat elements within the broader categories of upland and wetland habitats in order to meet the needs of a broad range of species. Table I-1 below identifies the 22 species covered by the Plan.

The NBHCP covers seven (7) plant species. The Federal ESA (Sections 7(o)(2) and 7(o)(4) which refers to terms, conditions and exceptions of taking of listed fish and wildlife species do not apply to plant species. The above listed plants are included as a Covered Species under the NBHCP in recognition of the conservation measures provided for them under the HCP, and to extend assurances to them under the federal “No Surprises” rule. The NBHCP also covers the seven plant species for CESA purposes.

1. Overall Goals and Objectives
The NBHCP applies a range of conservation strategies intended to mitigate for the impacts arising from Covered Activities in the Permit Areas. The goals and objectives in this plan contain habitat and species information related to the Covered Species.

Overall biological goals and objectives of the NBHCP include:

Overall Goals:
(1) 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.

NATOMAS BASIN HCP – INTRODUCTIONI - 16
April 2003
(2) Implement an adaptive management program that responds to changing circumstances affecting Covered Species and their habitats.
(3) Preserve open space and habitat that may also benefit local, non-listed and transitory wildlife species not identified within the NBHCP.
(4) Ensure that direct impacts of Authorized Development upon Covered Species are avoided or minimized to the maximum extent practicable.

Overall Objectives:
(1) Minimize conflicts between wildlife and human activities, including conflicts resulting from airplane traffic, roads and automobile traffic, predation by domestic animals, and harassment by people.
(2) Maintain and operate flood control, irrigation and drainage facilities in a manner that minimizes take of Covered Species and promotes vegetative cover that enhances habitat values for Covered Species, consistent with the Water Agencies’ legal obligations. (3) Ensure connectivity between TNBC reserves to minimize habitat fragmentation and species isolation. Connections between reserves will generally take the form of common property boundaries between reserves, waterways (primarily irrigation and drainage channels) passing between reserves and/or an interlinking network of water supply channels or canals.
(4) Within individual TNBC reserves, provide a mosaic of habitats that support both wetland and upland species, and that are configured to support species that utilize both types of habitat.
(5) Implement monitoring programs with qualitative and/or quantitative monitoring methods to evaluate management objectives and strategies for the reserve system. TNBC shall develop each monitoring plan and shall submit the plan for review by NBHCP TAC and approval by the Wildlife Agencies prior to implementation. (6) Increase the diversity and abundance of Covered Species on reserve lands. (7) Revise the reserve design and management based on the most current biological data.

NATOMAS BASIN HCP -- INTRODUCTION I - 17
April 2003

2. Wetland Species/Habitat Goals and Objectives
The following biological goals and objectives for the wetland habitat established by the NBHCP are specific to the following Covered Species: giant garter snake; tricolored blackbird; Aleutian Canada goose; white-faced ibis; Northwestern pond turtle; California tiger salamander; western spadefoot toad; midvalley fairy shrimp; vernal pool fairy shrimp; vernal pool tadpole shrimp; delta tule pea; Sanford’s arrowhead; Bogg’s Lake hedge-hyssop; Colusa grass; legenere; Sacramento orcutt grass; slender orcutt grass; and delta tule pea.
(1) Acquire, enhance and create a mosaic of wetland habitats with adjacent uplands and connecting corridors to provide breeding, wintering, foraging, and cover areas for wetland species in the Plan Area.
(2) Provide habitat to maintain, attract and sustain viable populations of the Covered Species.

The habitat areas should be configured to encompass natural species migration areas, minimize species isolation, and prevent future habitat fragmentation. (3) Document population trends of Covered Species through monitoring.

3. Upland Species/ Habitat Goals and Objectives
The following are biological goals and objectives for the upland habitat established by the NBHCP for the following Covered Species: Swainson’s hawk; loggerhead shrike; burrowing owl; tricolored blackbird; bank swallow; California tiger salamander; and valley elderberry longhorn beetle.

(1) Acquire, enhance and create a mosaic of upland habitat types for breeding, foraging, and cover for species dependent on upland habitats.
(2) Ensure reserve land connectivity with travel corridors for upland-dependent species. The habitat areas should encompass grasslands, agricultural croplands, riparian habitats, and shelter and nesting habitat areas (fence rows, clusters of shrubs and small trees), as well as wetland areas to provide a year-round source of water for upland species. The upland areas should be configured to enhance natural species migration, minimize species isolation, and prevent future habitat fragmentation.

D. CONSERVATION STRATEGY OF THE NBHCP
The NBHCP seeks to ensure the long term conservation and to aid in the recovery of numerous wildlife species that have been granted varying degrees of protection under state and Federal law. The NBHCP Plan Area includes approximately 53,537 acres of land that have historically been utilized for NATOMAS BASIN HCP – INTRODUCTIONI - 18
April 2003
agriculture, with rice being the predominant crop in the Basin. The combination of rice, other agricultural crops, drainage and irrigation channels, and ruderal lands has allowed remnant wildlife populations to persist within the Basin, most notable among these being the giant garter snake and the Swainson’s hawk.

Conservation of Covered Species under this Plan will be achieved through acquisition (conservation easement or fee title), protection, and enhancement of existing habitats in the Natomas Basin, minimizing the impacts of the Covered Activities, including development activities, water facility maintenance, and reserve management activities, and by focusing upon the preservation of the overall habitat values in the Basin. Habitat values are defined as the capability of a land, water, or associated area, where indigenous plants or animals may occur and upon which the Covered Species are dependent, in whole or in part, to provide for some or all of their maintenance, growth and reproduction. Preservation of habitat values within the Natomas Basin will protect and conserve both listed and non-listed species.

The NBHCP has been established to allow some development to occur within the Natomas Basin, while ensuring that habitat values are maintained and, to the maximum extent practicable, increased within the Natomas Basin.

The NBHCP conservation strategy has been prepared to accommodate 17,500 acres of Planned Development. Of this 17,5000 acres, 15,517 acres will be developed by the City of Sacramento and Sutter County and is considered the Authorized Development of this NBHCP for the City and Sutter County. An additional 1,983 acres is to be developed by Metro Air Park (MAP). While MAP is not a Permittee under this NBHCP, the impact of MAP development has been considered and MAP development will be required to comply with the conservation strategies of this NBHCP.

As established in this Plan, developers which request Urban Development Permits of the Land Use Agency Permittees would be required to: (1) provide land and/or fees to establish one-half acre of reserve land for each acre of development (0.5 to 1 ratio); (2) provide funding for the enhancement of habitat on the reserve land during the 50 year term of the permits so as to result in habitat types currently anticipated to be comprised of the following percentages (25% in managed marsh, 50% in rice production, and 25% in upland habitats); (3) contribute to an endowment fund to provide for habitat management and monitoring the Mitigation Land habitat reserves in perpetuity; (4) provide funding for ongoing management of Mitigation Lands, administration of the Plan and TNBC operations over the permit term; and (5) contribute to a supplemental endowment fund to be used to respond to changed circumstances that could arise in the future.

In addition to the Mitigation Fee required under the NBHCP, Authorized Development within the Permit Areas will also be required to adhere to guidelines to avoid, minimize and mitigate take of Covered Species during development. These additional guidelines are discussed within Chapter V. These guidelines to avoid, minimize and mitigate take of species have been based upon: (1) adopted land use documents (specific plans and general plans of the City of Sacramento and Sutter County) and associated environmental documents; (2) mitigation measures applied to recent development projects within the City NATOMAS BASIN HCP -- INTRODUCTION I - 19
April 2003
of Sacramento; and (3) USFWS and CDFG adopted guidelines for avoidance, minimization, and mitigation for take of species covered by the NBHCP.

During the 50 year life of the permits, development activities covered by the NBHCP could result in approximately 23,105 acres of urban development in the Natomas Basin (5,605 acres of existing development and 17,500 acres of additional Planned Development). It is assumed that the remaining land within the Basin will ultimately be a combination of urban and agricultural uses. Of the up to 8,750 acres of Mitigation Lands that the NBHCP contemplates being under TNBC control for mitigation of the Land Use Agencies’ Authorized Development, it is anticipated that approximately 50% (4,375 acres) would be in rice production cultivated consistent with the NBHCP Conservation Plan (Chapter IV) that promotes increased habitat values, approximately 25% (2,187 acres) would be enhanced as managed marsh, and approximately 25% (2,187 acres) would function as upland habitat. Should a giant garter snake recovery plan be adopted in the future, or as indicated from the results of monitoring in the Plan Area, or from new scientific information, reserve lands anticipated to be in rice production that are under the control of TNBC, acquired after recovery plan adoption or the availability of such information or monitoring results could be converted to managed marsh in accordance with the provisions of NBHCP Section V1.H.1.

The NBHCP contains significant Adaptive Management provisions. Adaptive Management is a process that allows the NBHCP’s Operating Conservation Program to be adjusted during the life of the permits to ensure that the most up-to-date peer-reviewed scientific information is being utilized, and that the Plan’s biological goals and objectives are being achieved as described in Section VI.F of the NBHCP.

Under its Adaptive Management provisions, the NBHCP can be modified if necessary to ensure that the most up-to-date information is being used under the OCP. However, adaptive management to benefit one species will not occur at the biological expense of another listed/Covered Species.

E. OVERALL BENEFITS OF THE NBHCP
The NBHCP will avoid, minimize and mitigate the impacts of any incidental take authorized by the Permits and is designed to assure that issuance of the Permits will not appreciably reduce the likelihood of the survival and recovery of the Covered Species. Overall, the NBHCP maintains wildlife values within the Natomas Basin and will produce a net positive effect for the Covered Species for the following reasons:
(1) Permanent preservation. The 8,750 acres of land to be acquired over the 50 year life of the permits and maintained as wildlife reserves will enjoy permanent preservation status.

The agricultural land within the reserves is guaranteed to be preserved in the future, and, as a result, is inherently more valuable to wildlife than agricultural land that is subject to future development.
(2) Improved management of rice farming on TNBC’s Mitigation Lands. The 4,375 acres of rice land to remain in cultivation under TNBC management as wildlife preserves will be managed to enhance wildlife values and to minimize incidental take of species during NATOMAS BASIN HCP – INTRODUCTIONI - 20
April 2003
farming activities. Land management practices of TNBC will generally increase the habitat values of the agricultural land through modification of practices such as crop selection, minor adjustments to irrigation regimes, fallowing of crop lands and education of farm workers on the avoidance of incidental take of Covered Species. (3) 25% restored wetland managed for wildlife. Under the NBHCP, by the end of 50 years at least 25% of TNBC Mitigation Lands will be improved and restored as marsh habitat.

If, however, USFWS provides written notification supported by documented evidence in the form of a written report and technical analysis regarding the adoption of a Giant Garter Snake Recovery Plan, the availability of monitoring results from the Plan Area or new scientific information indicating and adjustment in the enhancement and management activities for managed marsh is warranted, then the proportion of marsh habitat may be increased by the Permittees to as much as 75% of the Mitigation Lands acquired after the date of notification. This land will be managed to promote long term viability of wildlife populations. The enhanced marsh reserves will be of substantially greater habitat value than the current combination of fields and canals that are not managed to promote wildlife or avoid incidental take of species.
(4) Enhanced Reserve Habitats. Enhanced habitat values and avoidance/minimization of incidental take allow more giant garter snakes and other Covered Species to inhabit a given amount of reserve land as compared to existing agricultural land. (5) Take Avoidance and Minimization. In addition to the permanent set aside and improvement of habitat values on TNBC lands, Authorized Development and Water Agencies’ Covered Activities will adhere to guidelines to avoid, minimize and mitigate take.

Mitigation measures that have been previously adopted for individual projects within the Basin would be applied more widely through the Basin in a consistent manner, thus maximizing application of take avoidance measures.
(6) Expansion of Species Range. Reserve lands provide the opportunity to establish habitat for the Covered Species in areas which will improve the viability of the species and in some cases, expand their range.

F. REGULATORY BACKGROUND
The federal Endangered Species Act (ESA) is administered by the U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS or Service). The California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG), as trustee for the State’s fish and wildlife resources, has jurisdiction over the conservation, protection, and management of fish, wildlife, native plants, and habitat for biologically sustainable populations of such species. In that capacity, CDFG administers the California Endangered Species Act (CESA), the Native Plant Protection Act (NPPA), and other provisions of the California Fish and Game Code that afford NATOMAS BASIN HCP -- INTRODUCTION I - 21
April 2003
protection to the State’s fish and wildlife trust resources. CDFG also fulfills its charge as a trustee agency through implementation of and adherence to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), a statute designed to facilitate disclosure and mitigation of project-related adverse environmental impacts, as well as informed public decision making.

Both the federal and state Endangered Species Acts provide protection for listed species. In particular, Section 9 of the federal ESA prohibits "take" of listed animal species. "Take" is defined by the ESA as: "to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct" with respect to any federally listed endangered animal species. Threatened animal species are protected against take under Federal regulation (50 CFR 17.31). Take not specifically allowed by federal permit under Section 10(a)(1)(B) of the ESA is subject to enforcement through civil or criminal proceedings under Section 11 of the ESA.

California law prohibits take of plant and animal species protected under CESA and NPPA, as well as take of species designated as “fully protected.” The California Fish and Game Code defines take to mean “hunt, pursue, catch, capture, or kill, or attempt to hunt, pursue, catch, capture, or kill.” Under case law, the prohibition against take extends to the killing of endangered, threatened or candidate species in the course of otherwise lawful activity. Thus, except as authorized under CESA, NPPA, and the Natural Communities Conservation Planning Act (NCCP), the unlawful take of plant and animal species listed as endangered or threatened under CESA, or the take of species that are candidates for listing under CESA, is prohibited by state law. Unlawful take of species protected by CESA and NPPA, and take of species designated as fully protected, is subject to fine and criminal prosecution under the California Fish and Game Code.

While take is typically understood in the sense of deliberately capturing or killing individual animals, the ESA also defines take to include "incidental take," which means take that is incidental to, but not the purpose of, the carrying out of an otherwise lawful activity. Under 50 CFR § 17.3, the definition of "harm" in the take definition includes "significant habitat modification or degradation where it actually kills or injures wildlife by significantly impairing essential behavioral patterns, including breeding, feeding, or sheltering." Unlike ESA and its implementing regulations, the definition of take under CESA does not include the terms harm or incidental take. Any action, however, direct or otherwise, that results in the death or capture of a plant or animal species protected under CESA could constitute an unlawful take of such species as defined by state law.

Development of open lands in the Natomas Basin would likely result in take and, in the absence of appropriate permits, would therefore potentially be subject to federal and state enforcement. Operation and maintenance of water supply and drainage facilities and agricultural operations conducted on reserve lands managed by TNBC may also result in take of listed species. Implementation of and compliance with this Plan is intended to satisfy the incidental take permitting provisions of the ESA and CESA.

NATOMAS BASIN HCP – INTRODUCTIONI - 22
April 2003
Additional Regulations. In addition to the Section 10(a)(1)(b) and Section 2081 Permits the NBHCP Permittees shall also comply with all other applicable local, state and federal regulations, laws or ordinances. This includes, but is not limited to, the following: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Clean Water Act 404 permits; State Water Quality Control Board discharge notification requirements; CDFG 1600 Streambed Alteration Agreements; State and Federal Departments of Transportation laws and regulations; and USEPA and Department of Pesticide Regulation laws and regulations.

G. PLAN FORMULATION PROCESS
The formulation of the NBHCP has occurred over fifteen years and has involved many iterations, of which one version, the 1997 NBHCP, provided the basis for the Wildlife Agencies to authorize incidental take by the City of Sacramento within a portion of Natomas Basin. This process has also involved legal challenges and led to various combinations of Permittees seeking incidental take permits within the Natomas Basin. Provided below is a summary of major milestones in the formulation process of the NBHCP.
1986 - With record flood flows in the American River Basin and significant flood damage in the Sacramento area, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) undertook a study of flood control proposals.
1991 - The Corps produced the American River Watershed Investigation, along with an Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement (EIR/EIS), which included the proposed Auburn Dam and flood control features for the Natomas Basin. USFWS recommended mitigation through creation of a wetland/ upland complex. Congress did not act on this flood control project, but did authorize federal reimbursement for a smaller flood control project proposed by Sacramento Area Flood Control Agency (SAFCA).

December 27, 1991 - The proposed listing of the giant garter snake was published in the Federal Register and public comment solicited.

February 1992 - SAFCA prepared a draft Swainson’s hawk and giant garter snake HCP.

July 1992 - SAFCA began issuing for public comment a series of draft EIRs that examined the impacts of the local flood control project.

March 1993 - SAFCA applied to the Corps for a permit under 404 of the Clean Water Act for a local project designed to bring 100-year protection to the Natomas Area.

October 1993 - The Service elevated the project under 404 of the Clean Water Act because the Corps would not address the indirect impacts of the flood control project. The Service recommended that NATOMAS BASIN HCP -- INTRODUCTION I - 23
April 2003
a comprehensive basin-wide management plan be prepared to mitigate the loss of wildlife habitat associated with the indirect effects of the project.

October 20, 1993 - The Service published in the Federal Register its listing of the giant garter snake as a threatened species under the ESA.

November 1993 - The Corps agreed to address indirect effects through development of a habitat mitigation plan to be developed by SAFCA as a condition of their 404 Clean Water Act permit.

January 1994 - USFWS and CDFG began participating in the Natomas Basin Habitat Conservation Plan Working Group (the group included SAFCA, the wildlife agencies, Corps of Engineers, local Land Use Agencies, the Water Agencies, and landowners).

March 1994 - The Service issued a biological opinion that SAFCA’s flood control project would not likely jeopardize the continued existence of the giant garter snake, based on the Corps 404 permit condition of completion of a habitat mitigation plan prior to the flood control work. (See also Appendix J.) March 1994- June 1996 - SAFCA was the lead agency in developing the HCP and prepared and circulated for public comment three drafts, but later discontinued its efforts because it had no land use authority. (The three drafts were released March 1995, October 1995, June 1996). During this time period, public workshops were held to address concerns raised by the public. Each Workshop had a focus group including developers, the environmental community, and the rice industry.

November 1996 - The City of Sacramento took the lead for the HCP effort and published and submitted to the Service a fourth version, along with an application for an incidental take permit.

January 15, 1997 - The November 1996 version of the NBHCP was announced in the Federal Register and released for public comment. A draft Environmental Assessment (EA) was prepared and released with the draft NBHCP.

June 18, 1997 - The City’s June 1997 draft NBHCP, draft Finding of No Significant Effect (FONSI) and draft IA were noticed in the Federal Register and released for public comment.

August 1997 - At public hearings, the City Council adopted a negative declaration under CEQA and approved the NBHCP and directed the City Manager to obtain ITPs.

November 1997 - The City revised and published the 1997 NBHCP.

December 1997 - The City, Service, CDFG, and TNBC executed an Implementation Agreement.

The Service issued its final Biological Opinion, prepared a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI under NEPA), completed its Findings and Recommendations, and issued an Incidental Take Permit to the City.

NATOMAS BASIN HCP – INTRODUCTIONI - 24
April 2003
At the same time, CDFG, in reliance on the City’s negative declaration as a responsible agency under CEQA, adopted findings pursuant to CESA, and issued a management agreement authorizing incidental take by the City consistent with the NBHCP pursuant to former Section 2081 of the US Fish and Game Code.

December 1997 - Water Agencies submit their separate Habitat Conservation Plan, Implementation Agreement, Incidental Take Permit Application, and 2081 application to the Service and to the CDFG.

January 1998 - The Mountain Lion Foundation and other environmental organizations filed suit against CDFG, alleging that CDFG’s decision to authorize take by the City consistent with the NBHCP violated CESA and CEQA.

April 1998 - The City began collecting habitat mitigation fees and issuing urban development permits under the 1997 NBHCP.

December 1998 - The City appointed a board of directors for TNBC. TNBC began holding publicly noticed meetings and began its acquisition and management of habitat mitigation lands.

February 12, 1999 - The National Wildlife Federation et al. filed suit against the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, alleging that the Service’s decision to issue Incidental Take Permit (ITPs) to the City violated the Endangered Species Act, NEPA, and the Administrative Procedures Act.

January 19, 2000 - Following a prior stipulated dismissal of petitioners’ CEQA claim, the Sacramento County Superior Court ruled in favor of CDFG and upheld the City’s incidental take authorization under CESA.

August 15, 2000 - In the lawsuit brought by the National Wildlife Federation et al. against the U.S.

Department of Interior and the Service, Judge Levi held that the record did not support the Service’s findings in issuing an ITP to the City.

November 2000 - Water Agencies submit revised Habitat Conservation Plan, along with its Implementation Agreement, to the Service and to the CDFG.

December 18, 2000 - The Service published in the Federal Register a Notice of Intent to prepare a joint EIR/EIS on the proposed issuance of new ITPs to the City and Sutter County. The City and Sutter County published a Notice of Preparation for a Joint EIR/EIS for the state permits on the same day.

December 21, 2000 - Judge Levi signed a stipulation agreed to by all parties to the federal lawsuit that any judgement entered would not be effective with respect to the Natomas Basin Conservancy and NATOMAS BASIN HCP -- INTRODUCTION I - 25
April 2003
that the incidental take permit will continue and remain in effect with respect to the Natomas Basin Conservancy and their land acquisition and management activities.

January 3 & 4, 2001 - Public workshops were held by the Service, Sutter County, and City of Sacramento. Mailings and newspaper notices were distributed prior to the workshops.

January 16, 2001 - The formal scoping period for the EIR/EIS ended. The Service, City and Sutter are using the scoping comments to assist in revising and preparing the NBHCP and EIR/EIS.

January 26, 200l - The court entered judgment declaring that the incidental take permit (ITP) issued by the Service to the City for the NBHCP is no longer valid.

March 2001 - The Water Agencies join the City and Sutter revised NBHCP process. A Revised NOP/ NOI was prepared to indicate the Water Agencies participation in the NBHCP process.

April 18, 2001 - The revised NOP/NOI noticing the involvement of the Water Agencies in the HCP process was published in local newspapers and in the Federal Register on August 18, 2001.

May 15, 2001 - Judge Levi signed a Modified Order incorporating the agreement to settle litigation allowing limited development to proceed in exchange for acquisition of mitigation land in prioritized areas, and to reinstate the ITP issued on December 31, 1997 by the Service to the City for the sole purpose of effectuating the terms of the Settlement Agreement. Later the same month, the Court of Appeal for the Third Appellate District dismissed the appeal in the State litigation challenging CDFG’s management authorization to the City.

January 2002 - The Water Agencies submit in writing their Best Management Practices and statement of Covered Activities which include a request for Take coverage for pesticide use. USFWS responds that Take coverage for pesticide use is in conflict with regional USFWS guidance policy (USFWS, Inclusion of Pesticide and Herbicide Applications as a Covered Activity in an Endangered Species Act Section 10(a)(1)(B) Permit, July 1998) limiting Take authorization for such chemicals.

January 2002 - March 2002 - Consultations between the USFWS, City, Sutter and the Water Agencies continue regarding the Water Agencies’ request to seek Take coverage for pesticide and rodenticides. In March 2002, the City and Sutter decide to proceed with the HCP including coverage for all requested Water Agency Covered Activities with the exception of pesticides and herbicides. Also ink March, the Board of Directors of the respective Water Agencies decide not to continue participation in the HCP. The Water Agencies continue to be represented in the HCP as a Permittee in the event they should choose at a future date to apply for Incidental Take Permits for the activities (excluding pesticides) authorized in the HCP and evaluated in the EIR/EIS.

NATOMAS BASIN HCP – INTRODUCTIONI - 26
April 2003
March 2002 - Metro Air Park Property Owners Association (MAP POA) received incidental take permits for 2,011 acres of urban development. This area of disturbance is included within the 17,500 acres of Natomas Basin development described in this NBHCP.

H. LEGAL CHALLENGE IN FEDERAL COURT
On February 12, 1999, the National Wildlife Federation et. al. filed suit in federal court to challenge the Secretary of the Interior’s decision to issue an incidental take permit to the City of Sacramento. On August 15, 2000, Judge David F. Levi issued a Memorandum of Opinion and Order.

The Court held that the NBHCP in most respects satisfied the substantive requirements of the ESA as set forth in Section 10(a)(2)(a). The Court also held that, with one exception, relative to whether the Plan “minimizes and mitigates” expected impacts to the maximum extent, the Findings and the Biological Opinion were adequate with respect to the NBHCP as a whole. The Court also rejected the plaintiff’s claims that biological uncertainties associated with, among other things, the NBHCP’s adaptive management provisions undermined the legal adequacy of the Plan as a whole and found that the Service’s decisions were based upon the best available scientific and commercial evidence.

The Judge’s Order found four deficiencies with respect to issuance of the City’s Section 10(a)(1)(B) Incidental Take Permit:
(1) The record did not support the Service’s findings in support of the NBHCP and the Section 10(a)(1)(B) ITP that the NBHCP would minimize and mitigate impacts on Covered Species to the “maximum extent practicable.” This finding is referred to as the “Maximum Extent Practicable Finding” in Table I-2.
(2) The record did not support the “No Jeopardy” findings contained in the Biological Opinion as it applied to issuance of the Section 10(a)(1)(B) ITP to the City of Sacramento. The Judge’s Order concluded there was insufficient evidence to demonstrate that the NBHCP was economically and biologically sufficient to protect the listed species if the City was the only participant in the NBHCP which was designed as a regional plan. This finding is referred to as the “No Jeopardy Finding” in Table I-2.
(3) The record did not support the Service’s finding that the City would ensure adequate funding for the NBHCP as it applied to issuance of the Section 10(a)(1)(B) ITP. Judge Levi concluded that the City declined to ensure funding for the NBHCP in the event of a shortfall in mitigation fees collected from developers. This finding is referred to as the “Assured Funding Finding” in Table I-2.
(4) The Service’s decision to not prepare an Environmental Impact Statement for the NBHCP and Section 10(a)(1)(B) ITP was arbitrary and capricious.

NATOMAS BASIN HCP -- INTRODUCTION I - 27
April 2003
The NBHCP has been revised to address Judge Levi’s decision, address concerns identified during implementation of the NBHCP, reflect regulations of the wildlife agencies established subsequent to the 1997 NBHCP, and in response to public review and comment. Table I-2 identifies where in the NBHCP these revisions have been made:

TABLE I - 2

NBHCP REVISIONS
Maximum Extent Practicable Finding (ESA Section 10(a)(2)(B)(ii))

1. No development in Swainson’s Hawk Zone (HCP wide) Section V.A.5

2. Require Preservation of Swainson’s Hawk Nesting Trees (HCP wide)
SectionV.A.5

3. Remove 50% cap on funding for adaptive management /
recovery plans (HCP wide)
Removed from NBHCP

4. Remove Area C as Mitigation Option (HCP wide) Removed from NBHCP

5. Explicit Cap on Basin Development of 17,500 acres (HCP wide w/ specific acres for each Permittee - any new Permittee or increase over 17,500 invokes new analysis)
Sections III.A

6. Require assurance of 2,500 acre preserve and at least three 400 acre preserves (HCP wide)
Section IV.C.1.e

7. Mitigation measures related to drainage canals Section V.B

8. Incorporate Mitigation Monitoring Plans Section I.B.2 Analysis

9. Comparison Study of Mitigation Fees in Surrounding
Jurisdictions (HCP wide)
Appendix A

10. Quality of Habitat Analysis (lands of varying habitat value uniformly mitigated w/ high quality reserve habitat) (HCP wide) Section VII. Impacts Analysis

11. Cost Benefit Analysis Appendix A

12. FWS Analysis of Benefits of Plan for each Covered Species Biological Opinion

13. Alternative Analysis - Explain why Higher Ratio is not Feasible (HCP wide)
Section VII and Appendix A
NATOMAS BASIN HCP – INTRODUCTIONI - 28
April 2003
Assured Funding Finding (ESA Section 10(a)(2)(B)(iii))

14. Establish Separate Funding Mechanism Prior to Plan Approval that Provides City/ County w/ Authority to Raise $ if TNBC/ FWS/ DFG Determine Additional $ is Needed for Acquisition / Monitoring / Management /Etc. (Mechanism must remain in place for permit term even if permit is terminated) (City / County) Section VI.B.2

15. Require Land Acquisition to be 200 Acres Ahead of
Development (City - County)
Section VI.C.1
No Jeopardy Finding (ESA Sections 10(a)(2)(B)(iv) and 7(a)(2))

16. Require Independent Mid-Point Review of Development for Each Permittee (City - 4,500 to 5,500 acres / Sutter - 4,000 acres) Section VI.J

17. Require remaining Land Use Permittee to Independently Meet 2,500 Acre Preserve + 400 Acre Preserves with Additional Funding Mechanism if other Land Use Permittees Fail to Join or Drop-out
Section I.K

18. Biological Analysis Specific to each Permittee (City/ County) (see 12 above)
Section VII.D.

Other HCP/ IA Modifications

19. No Surprises Rule Section VI.K

20. Changed Circumstances Section VI.K

21. Five Point Policy Throughout NBHCP

22. Single HCP with Individual Permittees’ Obligations Identified Section V

23. Single IA with Individual Permittees’ Obligations Identified and a Severability Clause
Implementation Agreement

24. Annexation Analysis for 50 acre South Natomas Community Plan annexation and panhandle annexation (City)
Included in Section III under City
Development

25. Annexation Procedure for Future Annexations (City) Section 1.A, 1.B.2 I. REQUIREMENTS FOR THE ISSUANCE OF THE PERMITS
The NBHCP is intended to meet the requirements of the state and federal Endangered Species Acts. In addition to the Permittees’ satisfaction of the application requirements for state and federal Incidental Take Permits through submittal of the NBHCP, the Permittees and the Wildlife Agencies must comply with state and federal environmental regulations set forth in the California Environmental Quality NATOMAS BASIN HCP -- INTRODUCTION I - 29
April 2003
Act (CEQA) through preparation of an environmental impact report and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) through preparation of an environmental impact statement.

1. Federal Permit
Section 10 of the ESA states:
"The Secretary [of the Interior] may permit...any act otherwise prohibited by Section 9 for scientific purposes or to enhance the propagation or survival of affected species...; or any taking [of fish and wildlife] otherwise prohibited by Section 9(a)(1)(B) if such taking is incidental to, and not the purpose of, the carrying out of an otherwise lawful activity." Under Section 10(a)(2)(A) of the ESA, an incidental take permit application must be supported by a conservation plan that specifies the following (see Section VI. for an explanation of how the Plan meets these requirements):
(1) the impacts likely to result from the taking of the species for which permit coverage is requested;
(2) measures to monitor, minimize, and mitigate such impacts; (3) funding available to implement such measures;
(4) alternative actions that would not result in taking; (5) reasons for not utilizing such alternatives;
(6) responses to changed circumstances; and
(7) any additional measures, the USFWS may require as necessary or appropriate for purposes of the plan.

Section 10(a)(2)(B) of the ESA specifies the issuance criteria which must be satisfied before the USFWS can issue an incidental take permit. These criteria include a requirement that the taking authorized by the permit "will not appreciably reduce the likelihood of the survival and recovery of the species in the wild."
Although not specifically required by the ESA, it is appropriate for the conservation actions taken under a Section 10(a)(1)(B) permit to assist in carrying out species recovery plans and to improve the status of listed species affected by the permit. The USFWS has prepared a Draft Giant Garter Snake Recovery Plan, and the NBHCP provides for modification of the NBHCP’s operating conservation NATOMAS BASIN HCP – INTRODUCTIONI - 30
April 2003
program for the snake at the time such a Final Recovery Plan is approved, to incorporate, as appropriate, measures recommended in the recovery plan. Similarly, the NBHCP provides for inclusion, as appropriate and within the limitations set forth in Chapter VI, of measures recommended in future recovery plans for other Covered Species following adoption of such recovery plans.

2. State Permit
For purposes of the NBHCP, take authorization by CDFG under CESA is governed by Section 2081 of the Fish and Game Code, as well as regulations set forth in Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations, commencing with Section 783.0. According to Fish and Game Code Section 2081, Subdivision (b), and Section 783.4, Subdivision (a), of Title 14, the Director of CDFG may authorize the take of endangered species, threatened species, and candidate species only where certain conditions are met. CDFG’s implementing regulations provide, in pertinent part, that a permit may only be issued if the Director finds that:
(1) The take authorized by the permit is incidental to an otherwise lawful activity. (2) The applicant will minimize and fully mitigate the impacts of the take authorized under the permit, including all impacts on the species protected under CESA that result from any act that would cause the proposed taking.
(3) The proposed permit is consistent with any regulations adopted under Fish and Game Code Sections 2112 and 2114, of which both pertain to the development and adoption of recovery plans for certain specific species.
(4) The applicant has ensured adequate funding to implement the measures required under the permit to minimize and fully mitigate the impacts of the taking, and to monitor compliance with, and the effectiveness of, the measures.

Section 2081 and its implementing regulations also provide that no incidental take permit shall be issued by CDFG if issuance of the permit would jeopardize the continued existence of the species. In making its determination regarding jeopardy, CDFG must base its decision on the best scientific and other information reasonably available, and shall consider the species’ capability to survive and reproduce, and any adverse impacts of the taking on those abilities in light of known population trends, known threats to the species, and reasonably foreseeable impacts on the species from other related projects and activities.

See Sections IV.A through IV.D, for an explanation of how the Plan meets the specific requirements set forth in the two preceding paragraphs.

Take authorization by CDFG is also governed by a number of statutory directives. The California Fish and Game Code provides, for example, that state agencies, including CDFG, should not approve NATOMAS BASIN HCP -- INTRODUCTION I - 31
April 2003
projects as proposed which would jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered species or threatened species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of habitat essential to the continued existence of those species, if there are reasonable and prudent alternatives available consistent with conserving the species or its habitat which would prevent further jeopardy (See generally Fish & Game Code, § 2081, subds. (B)(1)-(4),(c); Cal. Code Regs., Tit. 14, §§ 783.2, 783.4). Likewise, CESA directs CDFG, together with the project proponent and the state lead agency, to develop reasonable and prudent alternatives to the proposed activity that are consistent with the statutory charge to conserve protected species, as well as the charge to maintain the project purpose to the greatest extent possible.

Consistent with these obligations, the California Fish and Game Code provides that, where a person is required to provide mitigation or alternatives to address a particular impact on a species protected under CESA, the measures or alternatives shall be roughly proportional to the extent of any such impact caused by that person. Moreover, where various measures or alternatives are available to meet this obligation, those ultimately required must maintain the applicant’s objectives to the greatest extent possible.

State law also prescribes that any such measures or alternatives must be capable of successful implementation.

Finally, under CESA, all state agencies, including CDFG, shall seek to conserve endangered species and threatened species, and such agencies are directed to use their authority in furtherance of the purposes of the statute (See generally Fish & Game Code, § 2081, subds. (B)(1)-(4),(c); Cal. Code Regs., Tit. 14, §§ 783.2, 783.4). In this regard, conservation means to use, and the use of, all methods and procedures which are necessary to bring an endangered or threatened species to the point at which the measures provided by CESA are no longer necessary.

In addition to CESA, CDFG must comply with CEQA prior to take authorization based on the Plan. CDFG’s principle obligation is to comply with CEQA’s “substantive mandate.” That is to say, regardless of whether CDFG serves as a lead or responsible agency under CEQA, CDFG must consider mitigation measures and alternatives that might avoid or substantially lessen the potentially significant impacts of the proposed taking, and adopt such measures or alternatives where feasible. Other specific obligations required of CDFG under CEQA are set forth in Title 14, Section 783.5, of the California Code of Regulations.

J. STRUCTURE OF THE PLAN
The NBHCP is a supporting document for Federal Section 10(a)(1)(B) and state Section 2081 permit applications. It describes the Biological Data (Chapter II) and the Land Use Issues (Chapter III) that are relevant to the formulation of the Plan. The Conservation Plan is described in Chapter IV. The avoidance, minimization and mitigation measures required by Permittees are defined in Chapter V. The overall Plan Implementation is described in Chapter VI. A description of the impacts to Covered Species of activities addressed by the Plan and expected take levels are included as Chapter VII, Impacts of the Plan. References are provided in Chapter VIII.

NATOMAS BASIN HCP – INTRODUCTIONI - 32
April 2003
All Figures referenced throughout the NBHCP are bound together at the end of the document.

Several key documents which provide a greater level of detail on certain issues than the NBHCP are attached as Appendices (e.g., Appendix A, Economic Analysis of the NBHCP). The specific terms of the NBHCP that affect the rights and obligations of the permit recipients are specified in the Implementation Agreement. The NBHCP Implementation Agreement for the City and Sutter is published under separate cover, but is also attached to the NBHCP as Attachment A.

K. RELATIONSHIP OF THE PLAN TO INDIVIDUAL PERMITTEES
The Plan is intended to support ESA Section 10(a)(1)(B) and CESA Section 2081 permit applications from the City, Sutter, TNBC, RD1000, and Natomas Mutual. An Implementation Agreement will describe the obligations of each of the Permittees.

In addition to the five Permittees noted above, a separate HCP has been approved by USFWS and CDFG for Metro Air Park (MAP). The NBHCP, in making its estimate of the total additional urban development which would take place within the Plan Area during the next 50 years, took into account the land disturbance that will occur within the MAP project area (1,983 acres of disturbance including required off-site improvements and excluding off-site impacts already counted in the City’s allowed development).

The Permittee for the MAP HCP is the Metro Air Park Property Owners Association (MAP POA) and the fees for development occurring in association with the MAP project will be collected by the County of Sacramento and transferred to TNBC to fund habitat preservation, enhancement and restoration on TNBC reserves. The MAP HCP follows the NBHCP conservation strategy and also provides for incorporation of all applicable future revisions or amendments to the NBHCP. Under the MAP HCP, the reserve acquisition and management will be carried out by TNBC in a manner consistent with the NBHCP.

Apart from its obligations with respect to the Metro Air Park HCP, no further participation of the County of Sacramento in the NBHCP has been proposed.

The Permit Area for each of the Permittees (e.g., City of Sacramento, Sutter County, RD1000, Natomas Mutual and TNBC) comprises each jurisdiction’s respective geographic portion of the NBHCP Plan Area, and those activities, for which each of the Permittees is seeking coverage. In the case of the Land Use Agencies, the Permit Areas are those areas designated for urban development for each jurisdiction as identified on Figure 16. The NBHCP does not provide coverage for take of Covered Species associated with development outside of Areas identified on Figure 2. Coverage for any development outside of those areas will require a major amendment to the NBHCP and a permit amendment or a separate HCP and permit as described under Sections I.B.2.a and b.

It is anticipated, but not essential to the successful implementation of the Plan, that the City, Sutter County, TNBC, RD 1000 and Natomas Mutual will each adopt the NBHCP. Based upon the NBHCP, each Permittee will apply separately for, and obtain Section 10(a)(1)(B) and Section 2081 permits applicable to activities within each Permittee’s respective Permit Area. The NBHCP is designed to assure NATOMAS BASIN HCP -- INTRODUCTION I - 33
April 2003
that each individual Permittee will minimize and mitigate take-related impacts under the NBHCP that are incidental to otherwise lawful, Covered Activities carried out by the Permittee or third parties under the direct control of the Permittee. The obligations of each Permittee under the NBHCP are independent and do not depend on the participation of any other Permittee. Similarly, the failure of one Permittee to fulfill its obligations under the plan, or the failure of one of the Land Use Permittees to obtain incidental take permits in reliance on the plan will not effect the viability of the plan or affect the permits of the remaining Permittees. For example, each Land Use Agency, (i.e., the City of Sacramento and Sutter County) is responsible under the Plan for minimizing and mitigating the effects of Authorized Development occurring within its individual Permit Area. Additionally, while the City of Sacramento and Sutter County are jointly responsible for establishing a 2,500-acre preserve by the end of the 50 years, if either the City or Sutter County were to drop out of the plan, the remaining land jurisdiction would remain independently responsible for establishing the reserve.

An additional concern related to implementation of the NBHCP by a single Land Use Permittee is the type of habitat within the participating jurisdiction. Specifically, the currently existing habitat within the City of Sacramento tends toward upland habitat, while habitat within Sutter County is more typically wetland (rice production). In fact, the variation between habitat within the two jurisdictions has increased in recent years as development within the City has proceeded. This is a result of both a natural rotation of crop cultivation in response to market conditions and soil capabilities, as well as the tendency for landowners to cease rice cultivation prior to undertaking development. For example, agricultural lands formerly in rice cultivation within the MAP HCP were removed from agricultural production in 1997.

Aside from the transition of agricultural practices noted above, there remains some variation in the habitat types within the City’s and the County’s Permit Areas. If one of the Land Use Permittees does not implement the NBHCP, then the conservation plan will be reviewed and adjusted as determined appropriate to ensure a balance between types of habitat impacted by Authorized Development and types of habitat preserved by TNBC. This adjustment will be informed by the biological monitoring requirements of the NBHCP and implemented through the Plan’s adaptive management provisions. Thus, although the mitigation strategy provided for under the NBHCP would mitigate for effects resulting from the Land Use Agencies’ Covered Activities, because the percentage of uplands to wetlands differs between their respective Permit Areas, the NBHCP allows for the mitigation strategy provided for under the NBHCP to be reevaluated in the event either the City’s or Sutter County’s permits are terminated or revoked, or a Permittee (other than TNBC or the Water Agencies) chooses not to participate in the NBHCP. The mitigation strategy would be reevaluated to ensure that the configuration of TNBC Reserve lands provided for under the NBHCP continues to adequately mitigate for the impacts of Authorized Development in the remaining jurisdiction.

Finally, TNBC will implement management practices defined by the NBHCP and modify such practices through the adaptive management provisions regardless of whether one or both of the Land Use Agencies or other Permittees participates in the NBHCP. Thus, even if one of the Land Use Agencies does NATOMAS BASIN HCP – INTRODUCTIONI - 34
April 2003
not participate in the Plan, the impacts of development in the participating Land Use Agency will be adequately mitigated under the Plan.

Similarly, if either or both of the Water Agencies participates in the NBHCP, each participating Water Agency will be obligated to mitigate the effects of its operations and maintenance activities regardless of the participation of the other Water Agency. Moreover, as Permittees under the NBHCP, the operations and maintenance activities of RD 1000 and of Natomas Mutual would enhance the quality of waterway habitats within the Natomas Basin regardless of whether the Land Use Agencies participate in the NBHCP. Conversely, avoidance, minimization and mitigation measures applied to the Land Use Agencies’ Permit Areas under the NBHCP’s Operating Conservation Program that will mitigate the impacts of Authorized Development of the Land Use Agencies and will ensure the viability of Covered Species is not appreciably reduced by Authorized Development. Thus, the impacts of each of the Permittees’ Covered Activities will be mitigated under the Plan regardless of whether the other Permittees continue their participation in the Plan.

Further assurance of NBHCP implementation is provided through the Independent Mid-Point Reviews required of both Land Use Agencies. During these reviews, the City and Sutter must demonstrate substantial progress toward establishing the 2,500-acre preserve and ensuring that the remaining preserves will ultimately meet the minimum 400-acre size at the end of 50 years. The Independent Mid-Point Reviews provide a comprehensive review of the status of NBHCP implementation and the success of mitigation measures, in addition to ensuring progress toward the establishment of a 2,500-acre reserve and an overall minimum 400-acre reserve size at the end of 50 years.

If either of the Land Use Agencies decided not to allow urban development within its jurisdiction within the Natomas Basin, then there would be no need to mitigate for that agency’s development impacts through the NBHCP, since there would not be any impacts if development did not take place. If a Land Use Agency decided to pursue another HCP instead of the NBHCP in order to obtain its incidental take permit, then such other HCP would have to be complimentary with the NBHCP. In either event, the applicable provisions of the NBHCP could still be implemented to mitigate for the impacts of a participating agency’s activities within the Natomas Basin.

L. ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE
In 1994 and 1988, the City of Sacramento prepared environmental impact reports (EIR) for the adoption of the North Natomas and South Natomas Community Plans respectively, and other land use approvals authorizing urban development within the Natomas Basin. Sutter County currently is undertaking the preparation of an EIR for adoption of a specific plan and related land use approvals for development within the Sutter County portion of the Natomas Basin.

The City of Sacramento, Sutter County, and the USFWS jointly will prepare a combined environmental impact report (EIR) and environmental impact statement (EIS) prior to approval of the NATOMAS BASIN HCP -- INTRODUCTION I - 35
April 2003
NBHCP and ITPs. The City of Sacramento and Sutter County will serve as co-lead agencies under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) with respect to the preparation of the EIR prior to taking any action to adopt the NBHCP. The Department of Fish and Game, as a responsible agency under CEQA, will rely on this EIR, prior to taking its action to approve 2081 permits, Streambed Alteration Agreements, and any modifications to previously issued permits. The EIR/EIS may also be used to satisfy the requirements of CEQA and NEPA, to the extent allowed under state and federal law, should RD 1000 choose to participate in the NBHCP and apply for an incidental take permit in the future.

The USFWS will serve as the Federal lead agency for the preparation of the environmental impact statement (EIS) under the National Environmental Policy Act, prior to taking any action adopting the NBHCP and approving issuance of ITPs to the Permittees.

M. SPECIES COVERED BY THE PERMIT
Based on coordination with the USFWS and CDFG and the results of field surveys, the 22 species listed in Table I-l have been identified as potentially subject to take or loss as a result of activities described in the NBHCP and are "Covered Species" under the NBHCP and its associated state and federal permits. "Covered Species" under this Plan means those species that are conserved by NBHCP and will be listed on the Section 10(a)(1)(B) and Section 2081 permits.

Some species shown in Table I-1 are listed under the state or federal ESAs while others are currently unlisted. All species addressed in the NBHCP as Covered Species will be included in the state and federal permits issued in accordance with the Plan. If a Covered Species addressed by the NBHCP is elevated from non-listed to protected status under ESA (threatened or endangered) after the issuance of an incidental take permit to an individual Permittee, then permit coverage for the newly listed Covered Species would become effective upon the final listing of the species. Under CESA, the Section 2081 Permit shall become effective to permit the Incidental Take of such species in connection with Authorized Development within each Permittee’s Permit Area as of the date the species is accepted and designated as a candidate species pursuant to California Fish and Game Code section 2074.2, upon confirmation by CDFG that substantial evidence demonstrates that the Section 2081 Permit will continue to meet the standards in California Fish and Game Code Section 2081 (b) and Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations, Section 783.4 for the Additional State Protected Species and in accordance with the standards set forth in Section 6.2.4 of the NBHCP Implementation Agreement.

Two listed wildlife species are known to be widely distributed in the Natomas Basin and would be affected by anticipated urban development. The federally and state listed giant garter snake (GGS) inhabits rice fields, drainage canals, remnant sloughs and marsh, and adjacent open areas in the Basin. The state listed Swainson's hawk generally nests along the Sacramento River on the western edge of the Basin and in isolated trees and groves throughout the Basin and may forage within the Basin. Other species are more localized in their distribution or may be present in association with particular habitats such as vernal pools or elderberry bushes. Many migratory bird species occur in the Basin occasionally during the winter and NATOMAS BASIN HCP – INTRODUCTIONI - 36
April 2003
utilize the Basin for foraging and resting areas during migration and wintering. Several species occur only occasionally or have very localized distributions within the Natomas Basin but may become breeding or resident or expand their distributions in response to habitat restoration and enhancement proposed under this Plan. One tricolored blackbird colony is known to exist in the Basin and is located on existing TNBC reserve lands. Additionally, burrowing owls are known to occur within the Natomas Basin and appropriate measures have been included in the NBHCP to minimize and mitigate take of burrowing owls. Burrowing owl nesting sites are located on TNBC reserve lands.

The NBHCP covers seven (7) plant species. Take of listed plants is not prohibited under the ESA and therefore will not be authorized under the federal incidental take permits. Plants are included as a Covered Species under the NBHCP and will be listed on the federal permits in recognition of the conservation measures provided for them under the NBHCP. Plant species covered under the NBHCP will also be provided assurances under the federal “No Surprises” rule. The NBHCP also covers the seven plant species for CESA purposes.

N. COVERED ACTIVITIES
Described herein are the specific activities for which the Permittees will be provided incidental take coverage under the NBHCP Permits. Due to the similarities and differences of the Covered Activities of the Permittees and TNBC, this section is divided into Land Use Agencies (City of Sacramento and Sutter County), the Water Agencies (RD 1000 and Natomas Mutual) and the Plan Operator (TNBC).

1. Land Use Agencies’ Covered Activities
For purposes of the Plan, and the Land Use Agencies’ respective Section 10(a)(I)(B) and Section 2081 permits, the Land Use Agencies’ Covered Activities are the following:
a. Authorized Development projects sponsored by either private developers or public entities that occur within the respective Permit Area of the Permittee, residential, commercial, industrial and similar urban development projects, including infrastructure improvements within the respective Permit Areas, required to support Authorized Development. b. Total Authorized Development not to exceed 15,517 acres (the City-8,050 acres and Sutter- 7,467 acres). This total does not include 1,983 acres of urban development associated with the Metro Air Park (MAP) project for which incidental take has been authorized by separate permits.

However, the 1,983 acres of development in the MAP project are included in the 17,500 acres of total development in the Natomas Basin for purposes of analyzing the overall impacts of urban development in the Basin and evaluating the viability of the conservation strategy provided under the NBHCP. The Authorized Development covered by the incidental take permits sought by the City of Sacramento and Sutter County represent the 15,517 acre balance of Natomas Basin development after subtracting the 1,983 acres of development within the MAP project.

NATOMAS BASIN HCP -- INTRODUCTION I - 37
April 2003
c. Authorized Development that affects vernal pool and aquatic species which are covered by the NBHCP, whether or not such development also requires a permit under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act or other federal regulations that would trigger an ESA consultation. As of April 2002, there were no known vernal pools located within the City’s or Sutter County’s Permit Areas. However, pre-construction surveys for past City projects have identified small, isolated vernal pools. It is anticipated additional small pools, that are as yet unidentified, will be found during future pre-construction surveys. d. The following public facility projects proposed by the Land Use Agencies outside of their respective jurisdictions:
(1) Sutter County drainage improvements associated with the proposed South Sutter County Specific Plan that include expanding two existing drainage channels; the Montna Drain (approximately 80 feet by 8,000 feet upon completion) and the Natomas East Drain (approximately 90 feet by 8,000 feet upon completion). It is anticipated that the proposed Sutter County drainage improvements will convert approximately 16.5 acres of existing agricultural land to drainage channel. This land is subject to payment of NBHCP fees is part of Sutter County’s total 7,467 acres of Authorized Development and is covered by Sutter County’s permit.
(2) City of Sacramento public improvements occurring outside of the City limits include 10.4 acres of drainage improvements to widen the West Drain in Sacramento County, along the western City limits. Area of disturbance for this drainage improvement is included within the City‘s total 8,050 acres of Authorized Development. The area has already been disturbed in compliance with the 1997 HCP.
(3) Metro Air Park off-site improvements fall partially within the City of Sacramento Permit Area and partially within Sacramento County. MAP’s off-site improvements located in Sacramento County include drainage, sewer, and roadway improvements. MAP off-site improvements occurring in Sacramento County have been included within MAP’s 1,983 acres of disturbance. The MAP off-site improvements occurring in the City of Sacramento (approximately 28 acres) while authorized under MAP’s incidental take permits are included within the City’s 8,050 acres of Authorized Development.

2. Water Agencies’ Covered Activities
For purposes of the Plan, and the Water Agencies’ respective Section 10(a)(I)(B) and Section 2081 permits, the Water Agencies’ Covered Activities consist of activities undertaken by the Water Agencies and their authorized agents as follows:

NATOMAS BASIN HCP – INTRODUCTIONI - 38
April 2003
(1) De-silting
(2) Excavation and re-sloping of ditches and channels
(3) Deposition of ditch and canal spoils materials on adjacent property (4) Placement of fill material
(5) Control of vegetation in and around canals, ditches, and drains by mowing and other measures to provide necessary operation and maintenance of canals as needed. Vegetation management plans would be presented to the NBHCP TAC for review and to the Wildlife Agencies for approval on a three year basis.
(6) Construction and improvement with no increase to the existing footprint, of flood control and water conveyance facilities, water ditches, canals, pumphouses or maintenance facilities, and other ancillary facilities that are owned or operated by RD 1000 or Natomas Mutual.

The Water Agencies’ Covered Activities do not include the construction, maintenance, operation, or closure of river diversion facilities and accompanying fish screens owned or operated by Natomas Mutual in the Natomas Basin.

3. TNBC Covered Activities as Permittee and Plan Operator As the Plan Operator, TNBC, its authorized agents, and other third parties under its direct control are granted coverage under TNBC’s Incidental Take Permits for its Permit Area. TNBC’s Permit Area includes the entire Plan Area, as well as, the levees bounding the Natomas Basin and extending to the edge of water immediately outside the Natomas Basin levees, and Area B, as depicted on Figure 20, Out of Basin Mitigation Areas.

Within the TNBC Permit Area, TNBC is provided incidental take coverage for managing reserves, preservation activities, creation and restoration activities, enhancing reserves, and monitoring Mitigation Lands.

O. ACTIVITIES NOT COVERED BY THE NBHCP
Specific activities not covered by the NBHCP and its associated Permits include the following:

1. Agricultural Activities. Except as provided for TNBC management of reserve lands, agricultural activities are not Covered Activities under the NBHCP and the NBHCP Permits.

2. Dredging. Except as provided for the Water Agencies’ channel maintenance, dredging is not a Covered Activity under the NBHCP and the NBHCP Permits.

3. Additional Regulations. In addition to the Section 10(a)(1)(b) and Section 2081 Permits the NBHCP Permittees shall also comply with all other applicable local, state and federal, regulations, NATOMAS BASIN HCP -- INTRODUCTION I - 39
April 2003
laws or ordinances. This includes, but is not limited to, the following: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Clean Water Act Section 404 permits; State Water Quality Control Board/Regional Water Quality Control Board Section 401 water quality certification and/or waste discharge requirements; CDFG Streambed Alteration Agreements pursuant to Fish and Game Code Division 2, Chapter 6, Section 1600 et. seq.; State and Federal Departments of Transportation; and USEPA and Department of Pesticide Regulation.

4. Relationship of Plan to Section 7 Consultations. Private or public actions that are Covered Activities under the NBHCP may also be subject to separate Section 7 review if those actions are authorized, carried out, or funded by Federal agencies. Incidental take for Covered Activities carried out by the Permittees or third party developers acting under the authority of an urban development permit issued by either the City or Sutter County will be granted under the permits and will be subject to the take mitigation, minimization and avoidance measures provided for under the NBHCP. Incidental take coverage for the federal action agency will be granted through the incidental take statement issued with the USFWS’ Section 7 biological opinion.

P. ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT PROVISIONS
Adaptive management is a method for examining alternative strategies for meeting measurable goals and objectives, and then, if necessary, adjusting future conservation and management actions according to what is learned. The adaptive management strategy includes milestones (specific periodic evaluations) that are reviewed at scheduled intervals during the lifetime of the incidental take permits and Covered Activities.

The frequency interval of these evaluations will be based on the relative degree of risk to the Covered Species and habitats.

Adaptive management uses new information derived from monitoring, scientific research, and Plan implementation to revise conservation plans as part of a continual feed-back loop. Plan implementation information includes, but is not be limited to, the effectiveness of incidental take avoidance and minimization measures, reserve management techniques, and Plan funding adequacy. The adaptive management strategy must define the feedback process and incorporate feedback loops that link implementation and monitoring to a decision-making process. Incorporating new monitoring information is necessary to effect changes in management to achieve the Plan’s biological goals and objectives.

Adaptive management requires a commitment of science to the conservation process in perpetuity.

Rigorous scientific standards need to be applied both to research and monitoring, and research and monitoring are inextricably linked. Information from on-site monitoring (e.g., population trends of target species, responses of a community to prescribed burning, species diversity of actively restored and managed reserves) is combined with data from research (e.g., population genetics or dispersal behavior of target species) to inform and revise site-specific and regional management plans.

NATOMAS BASIN HCP – INTRODUCTIONI - 40
April 2003
Adaptive management can assist the Wildlife Agencies and Permittees in improving the effectiveness of the Operating Conservation Program. The NBHCP Adaptive Management strategy will:
(1) Identify the uncertainty and questions that need to be addressed to resolve the uncertainty; (2) Develop alternative strategies and determine which experimental strategies to implement; (3) Integrate the monitoring program that is able to detect the necessary information for strategy evaluation; and
(4) Incorporate feedback loops that link implementation and monitoring to the decision-making process that will result in appropriate changes in management to achieve biological goals and objectives of the Plan.

NATOMAS BASIN HCP – BIOLOGICAL DATA II - 1
April 2003
II. BIOLOGICAL DATA
A. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
The Natomas Basin is a low lying area in the Sacramento Valley, California, located east of the Sacramento River and north of its confluence with the American River, (see Figure 4, Aerial Photograph).

The Plan Area encompasses 53,537 acres within the Natomas Basin, of which 16,881 acres lie in Sutter County and 36,656 acres lie in Sacramento County (see Figure 2, Land Use Agencies “Permit Areas” and Affected Jurisdictions). Of the 36,656 acres within the Natomas Basin, 23,820 acres lie within the jurisdiction of unincorporated Sacramento County and 12,836 acres lie within the City of Sacramento. The Natomas Basin is defined as the area, inside the peripheral levees, and extends to the toe of the levee on the Basin side of boundary levees.

Prior to modern reclamation efforts, drainage off the western slopes of the Sierra Nevada produced regular flooding and created the Natomas Basin as an area of highly fertile, alluvial soils. This early condition is reflected in Figure 5, 1908 Land Cover, which shows the large American Lakes, a large extent of riparian scrub-shrub (e.g., willows), and a large expanse of dry farmed open plain. Since 1914, land reclamation and reclamation facilities, canals, levees and pumping stations have allowed over 80% of the Basin to be converted to agricultural production. A high proportion of the soils in the Natomas Basin are underlain by impervious clay, which creates the poor drainage conditions favoring irrigated rice farming, which became prevalent in the 1940's.

Today, the predominant crops produced in the Natomas Basin are rice, corn, grain, tomatoes and pasture lands. The overall topography of the Basin remains a shallow bowl, but the irregular small-scale topographic features of the original landscape have largely been eliminated by agriculture. See Figure 6, Current Topography. The drainage pattern of the Basin has been altered so that runoff is pumped into the surrounding canals and the Sacramento River at several places. Even with pumping, portions of the area are subject to shallow flooding from rain falling in the Basin that cannot be conveyed quickly enough to external drainage systems. See Figure 7, Flood Prone Areas.

Natural and uncultivated vegetation types are interspersed throughout the agricultural areas of Natomas Basin. See Figures 9 - 11, Habitat Types Maps (1993 - 2001). Natural vegetation is found primarily along irrigation canals, drainage ditches, pastures, and uncultivated fields. Borders of canals and ditches often have narrow strips of emergent vegetation (cattails and bulrushes) or wooded riparian areas.

The presence of these water conveyance systems, operated by Natomas Mutual and RD 1000 among the mosaic of agricultural fields and riparian areas, provide important nesting, feeding, and migration corridor habitat for a variety of wildlife species inhabiting the Basin.

B. HABITAT DISTRIBUTION
NATOMAS BASIN HCP – BIOLOGICAL DATAII - 2
April 2003
B. HABITAT DISTRIBUTION
To assist in the analysis of expected habitat changes, standard categories of existing land uses and a GIS database were developed to provide a framework for predicting future land area assigned to each of these categories. The year 1997 is the initial year in which land use characteristics are considered because the previous take permits were approved in 1997. Additional information available since 1997 and field data gathered in 2001 were used to supplement and update the 1997 data. This updated information is referred to in this report as the “HCP baseline” and is referred to as the 2001 Land Use or Habitat Acreage Inventory. The primary steps in developing the land use database are presented below. (1) Digital aerial photos were obtained from the U.S. Geological Survey and assembled into a mosaic containing surrounding levees, providing a total area of 53,537 acres. (2) A land use classification system was developed, focusing on the habitat information necessary for this specific analysis. Eighteen land use categories were developed, which are described in Table II-1.
(3) Land use data from the Department of Water Resources (DWR) was added to the GIS database, and the DWR categories were translated to match the eighteen land use categories developed for the project.
(4) The resulting land use map was modified to a limited extent based on field data collected by May & Associates. This resulted in a greater level of detail (a one-acre minimum polygon) and a more accurate map. Jurisdictional boundaries were added to the GIS database. Because lands in agricultural production and, in particular, rice cultivation, is in flux within developing areas in the City of Sacramento and within the MAP HCP area, the acreages shown for agricultural and rice production do not reflect all lands removed from agricultural production since 1997. In particular, the acreage depicting rice production within the MAP HCP area reflects rice lands as of the 1997 baseline. Since 1997, no lands within the MAP HCP have been in rice production.

Following the completion of the baseline scenario described above, the last step in the development of the database was to develop a future land use scenario corresponding to buildout conditions in the Natomas Basin. This buildout condition includes the planned land development activities of the City and Sutter County, and also includes the development of the Metro Air Park project in unincorporated Sacramento County. Although Sacramento County is not a participant, the NBHCP includes the 1,983 acres comprising the MAP area within the 17,500 acres of Planned Development addressed under the NBHCP.

This analysis has divided land within the Natomas Basin into eighteen land use classifications.

Acreage for each land use class were calculated in 1997 and are presented in Table II-1 below. There are NATOMAS BASIN HCP – BIOLOGICAL DATA II - 3
April 2003
a total of 53,537 acres in the Basin with over 65% of the acreage in rice or non-rice crops. A small portion, less than 4%, of the acreage is within the Metro Air Park area.

TABLE II - 1
LAND CLASSIFICATIONS IN THE NATOMAS BASIN - 1997 (ACRES) Land Use Classa City of
Sacramento
Metro Air
Park
Other
Sacramento
County
Sutter
County TOTAL
Airport 18 0 1,512 21 1,551
Alfalfa 0 0 137 234 371
Canals 129 0 308 66 503
Grassland 454 0 293 138 886
Highways 450 0 414 571 1,435
Idle 838 50 480 94 1,464
Non-rice Crops 4,905 325 8,591 2,866 16,686
Oak groves 15 2 70 11 98
Orchard 13 0 169 0 182
Other 148 0 305 15 468
Pasture 35 22 261 355 674
Ponds and
seasonally wet areas
7 4 75 10 96
Rice 987 1,541 8,427 11,737 22,693
Riparian 24 0 93 6 124
Ruderal 1,429 6 261 274 1,970
Rural residential 49 10 170 148 377
Tree groves 36 23 39 8 106
Urban 3,298 0 229 327 3,854
TOTAL 12,836 1,983 21,836 16,881 53,537
Source: Habitat and Land Use Assessment Database (CH2M HILL, 2001) a See definitions of Land Use Classes below.
b. The Canal land use category includes only Class I canals and drains, the largest canals and drains that are digitized as area features in the GIS database. Class II, III, and IV canals and drains are not included in this table because they are linear features in the GIS database. For a detailed description of canals and drains, both as area and linear features, see Tables II-2 and II-3.

Note: Urban uses noted herein reflect 2001 conditions. Agricultural cover types reflect 1997 uses. Since 1997, all rice production within Metro Air Park has been discontinued.

NATOMAS BASIN HCP – BIOLOGICAL DATAII - 4
April 2003
Definitions of Land Use Classes
Airport Lands within the ownership boundary for the Sacramento International Airport, including all land use types (e.g., facilities, runways, open lands and farmlands adjacent to runways) within boundary. Does not include airport buffer lands (e.g., south of I-5).

Also includes the former Natomas Air Park and several small rural airstrips (one in Sacramento County and two in Sutter County).

Alfalfa Based on a subset of the DWR “Pasture” land use category that includes alfalfa production, as estimated for the 1997 baseline. Includes known alfalfa fields along Garden Highway in Sutter County.

Canals The largest (Class I) canals and drains (including adjacent maintenance roads) in the Natomas Basin, primarily the ones already digitized for the DWR land use maps.

Includes the East Drain, West Drain, Main Drain, North Drain, and the Central Main Canal. Does not include smaller canals and drains, which are recorded in the project database as linear features.

Grassland Based on DWR “Native Vegetation” land use category with additional information provided by May & Associates field data and aerial photo interpretation, as estimated for the 1997 baseline. Includes known uncultivated grasslands, primarily along the eastern border of the Natomas Basin.

Highways Includes Interstates 5 and 80, S.R. 99/70, and interchanges, including all areas within medians.

Idle Based on DWR “Idle” land use category - agricultural lands temporarily out of production.

Non-Rice Crops Based on the DWR land use categories of “Grain and Hay Crops”, “Field Crops,” and “Tilled Lands.” In the Natomas Basin, this category includes primarily wheat, corn, safflower, and tomatoes.

Oak Groves Includes several isolated pockets of mature oak trees east of Garden Highway.

Orchard Based on the DWR land use categories of “Deciduous Fruits/Nuts” and “Citrus and Subtropical”. In the Natomas Basin, this includes primarily pear, peach, and walnut orchards adjacent to Garden Highway.

NATOMAS BASIN HCP – BIOLOGICAL DATA II - 5
April 2003
Other Miscellaneous land uses not captured by other land use categories. Includes Teal Bend Golf Course, the wastewater plant at Sacramento International Airport, and several utility substations.

Pasture Based on DWR “Pasture” land use category, including primarily irrigated pasture in the Natomas Basin.

Ponds/Wet Areas Wetland/marsh areas including the area around the North Drain (near RD 1000 Pumping Plant #2) and several isolated locations throughout the Natomas Basin.

Based on DWR’s “Water Surface” land use category and some “Riparian Vegetation” categories, with additional information provided by May & Associates data and aerial photo interpretation.

Rice Based on DWR’s “Rice” land use category.

Riparian Based on DWR’s primary “Riparian” category, with additional information provided by May & Associates data. Includes cottonwood/willow areas along primary canals and drains, including the Fisherman’s Lake area.

Ruderal Includes former agricultural lands that are no longer in production, primarily due to proximity to urbanized areas (e.g., surrounding Arco Arena). 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.

Rural Residential Includes farmhouses and farm equipment yards. Includes DWR’s “Semi-Agricultural” land use category, with additional information provided by aerial photo interpretation.

Tree Groves Includes non-riparian stands of trees other than mature oaks. Based on DWR’s “Native Vegetation” land use category, with additional information by May & Associates data and aerial photo interpretation.

Urban Urbanized areas. Primarily in the City of Sacramento, but also including unincorporated areas along El Centro Road in Sacramento County and Pacific Avenue in Sutter County.

The system of canals and drains owned and maintained by RD 1000 and Natomas Mutual has been analyzed based on data obtained from RD 1000 and Natomas Mutual and field data collected by May & Associates. The canals and drains were divided into four categories: Class I (the Canal land use category including the primary drainage system), Class II (large), Class III (medium), and Class IV (small).

The following Tables II-2 and II-3 show the number of miles and acres of canals and drains in the Natomas Basin by jurisdiction for the year 1997, as updated by CH2MHill in 2001.

NATOMAS BASIN HCP – BIOLOGICAL DATAII - 6
April 2003
TABLE II - 2
CANALS AND DRAINS IN THE NATOMAS BASIN - 2001(MILES)
Canal Type City of
Sacramento Metro Air Park
Other
Sacramento
County
Sutter County Total
Class I 13.9 1.4 13.6 7.1 36.0
Class II 4.0 4.0 18.0 24.5 50.5
Class III 15.1 3.5 50.5 28.5 97.6
Class IV 5.1 4.1 31.4 22.3 62.9
TOTAL 38.1 11.6 114.9 82.4 246.9
Source:CH2M Hill, September 2001.

TABLE II - 3
CANALS AND DRAINS IN THE NATOMAS BASIN-2001 (ACRES)
Canal Type City of
Sacramento
Metro
Air Park
Other
Sacramento
County
Sutter County Total
Class I 129 0 308 66 503
Class IIa 32 32 144 196 404
Class IIIa 90 21 301 170 582
Class IVa 23 19 145 103 289
TOTAL 275 72 898 534 1,779
Source:CH2M Hill, September 2001.
a Class II, III, and IV canals and drains are linear features in the GIS database. Conversion to area features required using a standard width for each canal type, which was determined to be 65.9, 49.2, and 38.0 feet for Class II, III, and IV canals, respectively, based on information from Natomas Mutual. These standard widths include adjacent upland areas (e.g., maintenance roads) in addition to channel width.
b Class 1 canals acreage located within Metro Air Park is shown under Other Sacramento County.

C. COVERED SPECIES
The NBHCP provides for the conservation of 22 wildlife and plant species that either exist or may exist within the Natomas Basin. Two of the Covered Species, Swainson’s hawk and giant garter snake have influenced the structure of the NBHCP for the following reasons: (1) both species are prominent within and surrounding the Natomas Basin; (2) both are listed as state threatened species and the giant garter snake is also a federal listed threatened species; and (3) as a wetland species (giant garter snake) and upland foraging species (Swainson’s hawk), the habitat necessary to support the two species provides NATOMAS BASIN HCP – BIOLOGICAL DATA II - 7
April 2003
to varying extent the habitat types utilized during some or all of the life cycles of the remaining Covered Species.

While giant garter snake (GGS) and the Swainson’s hawk are known to occur widely throughout the Natomas Basin, at least 10 of the remaining Covered Species are also known to or likely to occur within the Basin in limited areas or during certain periods of the year. Take of Covered Species other than the hawk and snake may occur as a result of Authorized Development by the Land Use Permittees or the Water Agencies Covered Activities, or as a result of management activities carried out by TNBC. Some species either do not occur widely in the Natomas Basin, or may become established more widely in the future. If Covered Species that are currently infrequent visitors should increase usage of the Natomas Basin, then TNBC in consultation with the NBHCP TAC, would consider modifying reserve management strategies to better accommodate and support the increasing populations of such Covered Species.

Six of the seven covered birds species are migratory (Aleutian Canada goose, bank swallow, burrowing owl, Swainson’s hawk, tricolored blackbird, white-faced ibis), and one is resident (loggerhead shrike). Four of the covered bird species are currently known to breed in the Basin (Swainson’s hawk, burrowing owl, tricolored blackbird, loggerhead shrike). Two species, white-faced ibis and bank swallow, could potentially nest in the Basin if suitable nesting habitat becomes available. The remaining animal and plant species are year-round residents of their habitats.

Generally, species using the Natomas Basin occur in three general habitat associations. Wetland associated species, upland associated species and vernal pool associated species.

Wetland Associated Species. Several species use marsh and wet areas as well as vernal pool areas. These species may also require upland areas that are associated with wet areas. These associated wetland species covered by the NBHCP include:

Giant garter snake
Aleutian Canada goose
Tricolored blackbird
White faced ibis
Northwestern pond turtle
California tiger salamander
Western spadefoot toad
Delta tule pea
Sanford’s arrowhead
Giant garter snake prefers marshlands which are extremely limited in the Natomas Basin. As a result this species has adapted to use rice fields and canals. The NBHCP through development of managed marsh reserves and preservation of rice reserves will provide managed habitat to support the needs of this species and associated upland species.

NATOMAS BASIN HCP – BIOLOGICAL DATAII - 8
April 2003
Aleutian Canada goose is a winter visitor to the Natomas Basin and forages and rests in the area, but is not known to breed in the basin. Although, there are no known occurrences of the Aleutian Canada goose in the NBHCP Plan area, the NBHCP includes policies to support resting and foraging for this species in the reserve system areas. Thus, preservation of the rice landscape included in the mitigation plan will also support winter foraging and resting areas for the Aleutian Canada goose.

White faced ibis uses rice fields, ditches and other wet areas for foraging and prefers extensive marsh areas for nesting. Because there is so little native marsh in the Natomas Basin, there are no known nesting sites of the white faced ibis in the plan area. Creation of new managed marsh mitigation lands and the wetland reserve management policies have been designed to all support species such as the white faced ibis.

Tricolored blackbird uses marshes, rice fields and meadows for foraging and nesting. Again because of the limited amount of native marsh remaining in the Plan Area, breeding populations of this species have declined over the last several decades. The managed marsh reserves which include both marshes and upland areas (for foraging) will also benefit this species.

Northwestern pond turtle, California tiger salamander and western spadefoot toad are all species that use wetland areas with associated uplands as habitat. The pond turtle prefers marshlands and other slow moving waters, but also uses upland areas for basking, egg laying and overwintering. This habitat is similar to the requirements for the giant garter snake and the reserve management requirements for managed marsh. Similarly, western spadefoot toad requires shallow seasonal wetlands for breeding.

Finally, the California tiger salamander is an aquatic breeder and therefore requires ponds, marsh or other shallow or slow moving waters for breeding. The juvenile and adult salamanders utilize upland grass areas for habitat once metamorphosis has occurred. Thus, all three of these species require marsh or wetland areas with associated uplands. These species will benefit by the substantial increase in managed marsh habitat under the 0.5 to 1 mitigation ratio. Vernal pool avoidance policies included in the NBHCP will further protect habitat for these species.

Delta tule pea and Sanford’s arrowhead, two plant species, are associated with wetland and marsh areas. Neither species have known occurrences in the NBHCP Plan Area largely because of the lack of marsh and wetlands remaining in the area. Thus, under the NBHCP managed marsh management strategies, these species will also benefit from the increase in marsh reserves provided by the NBHCP.

Vernal Pool Associated Species. Related to marsh habitat enhancement strategies are avoidance and minimization strategies to protect vernal pool associated species. Vernal pool species are the most difficult to develop mitigation for since none of the vernal pool covered species are known to be present in the Natomas Basin. There are however, limited vernal pools on the eastern edge of the Natomas Basin which may support these species. The NBHCP includes USFWS survey protocols and mitigation through 1) avoidance and on-site preservation or 2) payment into a USFWS Mitigation Bank. Covered species which may use vernal pool habitat include: Midvalley fairy shrimp, vernal pool fairy shrimp, vernal pool NATOMAS BASIN HCP – BIOLOGICAL DATA II - 9
April 2003
tadpole shrimp, Boggs Lake hedge-hyssop, Colusa grass, legenere, Sacramento orcutt grass, and slender orcutt grass.

Upland Associated Species. Nearly all covered bird and animal species (with the exception of certain VP species) need some upland areas for basking, hibernaculae, cover or foraging. Upland areas of the reserve system will be designed to support foraging and/or perching habitats for the Swainson’s hawk, loggerhead shrike, tricolored blackbird and bank swallow. Burrowing owl may also use upland areas, as well as the upland portions of marsh and rice levees for burrows. As noted above, although the California Tiger Salamander is an aquatic breeder, this species also uses upland areas utilizes upland areas during advanced juvenile and adult stages. Thus, the reserve management strategies seek to provide a upland habitats to support a variety of upland associated species. Each Site Specific Management Plan prepared for reserves, will consider the potential for the reserve to optimally support multiple upland species. Additionally each upland reserve Site Specific Management Plan will also address vegetation needs such as nesting trees for upland covered species.

1. Species Potentially Affected by Covered Activities
a. General Distribution/NDDB Records
Early in the NBHCP process, the USFWS provided a list of species with the potential to occur in the Natomas Basin. This list was eventually modified to develop the Covered Species list shown in Table I-1. To offset the potential impacts of habitat loss on these species, the goal of the NBHCP is to mitigate on a habitat protection basis. The NBHCP specifically focuses on impacts and mitigation requirements for two listed species known to occur extensively in the NBHCP area -- the federally and state listed giant garter snake (GGS), associated primarily with wetland habitats, and the state listed Swainson's hawk, associated primarily with upland habitat. Although the federally listed vernal pool species shown in Table I-1 are addressed in this Plan and are included under the incidental take permits under defined circumstances, take of these species is expected to be limited because the Natomas Basin no longer contains large intact vernal pool grassland complexes and isolated vernal pool habitats may occur within areas that are to be developed but is expected to be relatively small in extent and amount (see Section IV.C.54.). Thus, protection of wetland and upland habitats described under the NBHCP for the giant garter snake, Swainson's hawk, and listed vernal pool species is expected to provide significant levels of protection for each of the other species associated with these habitats, as shown in Table I-1.

The NBHCP emphasizes conservation of the overall ecosystem of the Natomas Basin by maintaining and enhancing a combination of wetland and upland habitat values, and by ensuring that all the species shown in Table I-1 are protected by the provisions of the Plan. It is expected that the measures described in the Plan will provide benefits for both those species that are listed under the ESA and CESA and for other unlisted species, some of which may become listed in the future. As explained in Chapter I, the Section 10(a)(1)(B) and Section 2081 permits issued in association with the NBHCP will apply to all species listed in Table I-1.

NATOMAS BASIN HCP – BIOLOGICAL DATAII - 10
April 2003
A search of the California Natural Diversity Data Base (NDDB) was conducted August 3, 2000 to determine known occurrences of listed or candidate species within the Natomas Basin. Although the NDDB may not contain all records of sightings within an area, it is the most consistent published source of information available. NDDB records are not localized as to parcel; rather, sightings in a fairly large radius are shown as one record. Thus, the NDDB shows the general distribution of species. NDDB occurrence records were used to determine which listed, candidate, or other species were likely to occur in the Basin and to estimate their distribution. The giant garter snake and Swainson's hawk are discussed in Section II.C.2 and II.C.3 below, respectively. Other Covered Species that are currently known within the Plan Area or have the potential to occur there are discussed below in Section C.4.

Species occurrences in the Plan Area known from Giant Garter Snake and Swainson’s Hawk reports and other species’ records are shown in Figure 12, Giant Garter Snake Records; Figure 13, Swainson's Hawk Records; and Figure 14, Other Species Records. Figure 12 reflects published information and illustrates the occurrence of giant garter snakes throughout the Basin. Unpublished records (George Hansen, pers. comm.) also confirm the widespread distribution of the giant garter snake in the Natomas Basin. Figure 13 reflects published information from the 2001 Annual Report prepared by the Swainson’s Hawk Technical Advisory Council. However, the vast majority of the Basin is private land and has not been systematically surveyed for all Covered Species. The species with the most documented occurrences in the Basin are the giant garter snake and Swainson's hawk. As stated above, these species are the main focus of mitigation efforts under the Plan. b. Fish Species Not Covered by the Plan
The following listed fish species -- Spring and Winter run chinook salmon, steelhead, delta smelt, and Sacramento splittail -- will not be covered by the Plan and its associated Section 10(a)(1)(B) and Section 2081 permits. Those fish species will not be covered by the Plan because the effects of water intake entrainment from the Sacramento River will be addressed and analyzed through a separate Section 7 consultation with NMFS. In anticipation of that separate permit, Natomas Mutual is working with federal and state agencies to design fish screens to minimize the take of riverine species. The fish screens are expected to be completed in 2003 or later.

The utilization of distinct permits processes is indicative of the fact that those fish species and terrestrial species (e.g., the giant garter snake) depend upon different, and sometimes conflicting, habitat resources. For example, existing diversions from the Sacramento River create Spring, Summer, and early Fall water on which existing giant garter snake populations depend. At the same time, existing diversions create a risk for those fish species. However, the principal conservation methods to be used by the Plan for wetland habitats do not require more water than is currently used to grow rice on the same land area.

Therefore, establishment of the Plan will not increase the dependence on external water supplies or increase the amount of future water diversions, which would affect these fish species.

NATOMAS BASIN HCP – BIOLOGICAL DATA II - 11
April 2003

2. Giant Garter Snake (Thamnophis gigas)
a. Species Description and Taxonomy
The giant garter snake is one of the largest garter snakes of the genus Thamnophis, with a total length up to 4.5 feet or greater. The garter snake in the Sacramento Valley and Delta regions has a dorsal ground color often dark brown to olive or nearly black, a complete dorsal strip varying in color from dull yellow to bright orange, and sometimes orange on the ventral surfaces as well (Hansen 1992). The giant garter snake was formerly listed as a sub-species of Thamnophis elegans but was elevated to a full species status as T. gigas. Since T. gigas is adapted to a different ecological habitat than other subspecies of either T. elegans or T. couchii, T. gigas is largely isolated from its related species and sub-species. The following description of the life history of the giant garter snake is taken from reports written by John Brode and George Hansen (see References section, Chapter VIII, and other personal communications).

The giant garter snake is listed as a threatened species under the Federal Endangered Species Act and the California Endangered Species Act. The giant garter snake is an endemic species of wetlands in the Central Valley of California. Historically, giant garter snakes were found from the vicinity of Butte County southward to Bakersfield in Kern County. Today, populations of the giant garter snake are found in the Sacramento Valley and in isolated pockets of the San Joaquin Valley. b. Activity Cycle/Behavior
In the Basin, the GGS annual cycle and habitat utilization generally occur in the following pattern.

By the end of October, GGS begin entering their winter retreats in rodent burrows excavated in channel and canal banks, rubble piles, and other upland sites. After emergence from winter retreats, which occurs by late March or early April, GGS utilize canals with water that persists through the summer months. Many of the canals contain adequate emergent aquatic vegetation and steep, vegetated banks that provide cover and an abundant food supply of small fish, tadpoles and frogs. However, current canal maintenance practices have rendered many of the major canals in the basin unusable. Rice fields are also utilized by GGS, with this seasonal use beginning after rice growth is sufficiently high to provide cover. Following pre- harvest rice field draining, GGS move out of rice fields and re-enter canals where they often find prey stranded in pools of water left behind from the flooding of the rice fields. After the fields have been drained, the GGS returns to its winter retreat.

Seasonal
Adult and juvenile giant garter snakes emerge from their winter retreats in late March or early April and bask on elevated ground at overwintering sites. They are active from the time of emergence to the end of October, with surface activity concentrated from April to October.

NATOMAS BASIN HCP – BIOLOGICAL DATAII - 12
April 2003
Daily
Hansen and Brode (1992b) describe the daily activity of the GGS to generally include "emergence from burrows in the bank after sunrise; basking to warm its body to activity temperatures during cool weather or cool early mornings; and foraging or courting activity throughout the remainder of the day. GGS were observed several times after sunset during hot weather, usually lying motionless on warm pavement or dirt roads." Giant garter snakes will move distances of five miles over the course of a few days, and have been documented to move as much as one mile in a single day. Typically, the GGS moves between zero and thirty meters in a day. They may use stretches of unvegetated canals as dispersal corridors; however, they typically do not remain in such canals long because without cover they are vulnerable to predation.

Reproduction
Giant garter snakes have been observed mating on vegetated canal banks or on stands of emergent vegetation from April to May. After breeding, the males and females separate and continue feeding. Gravid females continue to feed through the summer. Females give birth about 120 days after breeding (e.g. breeding in April and bearing young in August). Females three years of age and older can begin to reproduce. Clutch size for young snakes is usually small, however, with 8 to 10 young. Clutch size increases with age of female, reaching as high as 50 young for a 10 to 12 year old female (4 to 5 feet in length). Females can probably clutch each year, but reproductive success may depend on whether they recover their body weight after they bear.
c. Habitat Components/Requirements
The giant garter snake inhabits agricultural wetlands and other waterways, such as irrigation and drainage canals, rice lands, marshes, sloughs, ponds, small lakes, low gradient streams, and adjacent uplands in the Central Valley. This species prefers freshwater marshes and low gradient streams, and has adapted to drainage canals and irrigation ditches for habitat. This species is the most aquatic of the garter snakes in California. Habitats currently known to support giant garter snakes include Gilsizer Slough, Badger Creek, and Colusa National Wildlife Refuge, Sacramento National Wildlife Refuge, Delevan National Wildlife Refuge, Sutter National Wildlife Refuge, and Gray Lodge Wildlife Area.

The agricultural and flood control activities of the 20th century have greatly reduced the habitat for the giant garter snake. Uncontrolled seasonal flooding of the Sacramento Valley historically provided expansive areas of giant garter snake habitat. As a result of habitat loss and fragmentation, declining populations and continuing threats to the remaining populations, the giant garter snake was listed as a threatened species by the State of California in 1971 and a federally threatened species in 1993.

NATOMAS BASIN HCP – BIOLOGICAL DATA II - 13
April 2003
Components
Generally, the habitat components most important to giant garter snake survival are: (1) water, including permanent water that persists through the summer months; (2) emergent aquatic vegetation and steep, vegetated banks for cover; and (3) an abundant food supply (Glenn Wylie, BRD, pers. comm.).

Other important components are adjacent upland areas with small mammal burrows or other suitable winter retreats, upland habitat with grassy banks for refuge from flood and openings in the vegetation for basking, and habitat diversity. The giant garter snake occurs in a combination of permanent and seasonal freshwater habitats and conducts most of its activities within the immediate vicinity of water. Giant garter snakes usually occur within a few feet of water (i.e., within escape distance) and are often found between the water level and the top of adjacent banks or embankments.

Seasonal and Permanent Marsh
As the name implies, a seasonal marsh is flooded seasonally to accomplish a variety of purposes, including benefits to wildlife and vegetation management. The time of year when a seasonal marsh is flooded depends on the wildlife species being targeted (e.g., winter for waterfowl). Permanent marshes retain water year round. Giant garter snakes are known to use a variety of seasonal and permanent marsh habitats.

Recent telemetry studies have shown the GGS prefer permanent marshes or canals with permanent marsh- like conditions. Native marsh habitats are nearly non-existent in the Natomas Basin and constitute less than

0.2% of the Natomas Basin. As such, the giant garter snake populations have overtime, adapted to the inundated (flooded) rice fields and related irrigation ditches in the Natomas Basin.

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

Giant garter snake seasonal activity associated with rice cultivation typically occurs as follows:

Spring: Rice is planted and the fields are flooded with several inches of water. Prey species (e.g., small fish and frogs) migrate into rice fields from ditches and drains that retain water year round and where they overwinter, eventually attracting giant garter snakes into the fields.

NATOMAS BASIN HCP – BIOLOGICAL DATAII - 14
April 2003
Summer: Once the rice plants are high enough to provide cover, giant garter snakes use the rice fields to feed and bear their young (see above). They will use the fields so long as there is sufficient water and quantities of prey.

Late Summer/Fall: The water is drained from the rice fields and garter snakes move off the fields to other adjacent habitats. The rice is harvested. At this time female garter snakes have just borne young and need food to regain their body weight. Prey species that were in the rice fields now concentrate in the ditches and drains, where the snakes can find a ready food source.

Winter: Giant garter snakes enter a dormant period inside winter retreats (e.g., small mammal burrows). While the rice fields lie fallow, many are intentionally flooded in Winter to be used by migrating waterfowl.

Irrigation Canals/Drainage Ditches

Giant garter snakes adapt well to man-made waterways as represented by the Natomas Basin's water conveyance system. In fact, the Basin's irrigation canals and drainage ditches, together with their associated levees and adjacent embankments, are probably an essential component of giant garter snake habitat in the Basin. Irrigation canals provide not only an essential habitat area potentially containing all the habitat components described above, but also create dispersal corridors allowing garter snakes to move from one area to another in search of mates, new territories, summer habitat, etc. Irrigation ditches and canals constituted 50% of all habitat use by giant garter snakes radio-telemetered by the BRD at Gilsizer Slough, which is outside of the Natomas Basin (Glenn Wylie, pers. comm.). Hansen and Brode (1992b) also provide data illustrating extensive use of water conveyance structures by giant garter snakes.

The relationships of rice fields, irrigation ditches, and canals to each other, as well as their relative importance as habitat for the giant garter snake, are not fully understood. Giant garter snakes have been found in some areas where rice is not grown and the number of irrigation structures is low (e.g., Badger Creek in southern Sacramento County). However, it appears that giant garter snakes are usually not found in agricultural areas where rice is not the predominant crop (Brode and Hansen 1992). Irrigation ditches and drains appear to provide valuable giant garter snake habitat as long as they have: (1) enough water during the active summer season to supply food and cover (minimum April - July; optimum March - October); (2) grassy banks for basking; (3) emergent vegetation for cover during the active season (March - October); and (4) nearby high ground or uplands that provide cover and refuge from flood waters during the dormant season (October - March) (Brode and Hansen 1992).

In rice farming areas, giant garter snakes are most often found in older ditches with steep sides. V- shaped ditches with sloped sides are more difficult for the snake to maneuver in when trying to reach water or escape predators. However, GGS also avoid capture by being near vegetative cover, burrows, and cracks in the ground.

NATOMAS BASIN HCP – BIOLOGICAL DATA II - 15
April 2003
Giant garter snakes move around to find suitable habitat as conditions in the rice fields, marshes, and canals and ditches change, especially during the dry summer months. Thus, connectivity between canals and ditches in different areas and between these systems and other habitat types is extremely important for genetic interchange and ability to find summer habitat.

Vegetation

Cover species adjacent to aquatic habitats include mustard (Brassica geniculata) and milk thistle (Silybum marianum). Hansen and Brode (1992a) found habitat used by garter snakes to include common tules (Scirpus acutus ), cattails (Typha sp.), or grasses “which grew in continuous stands or isolated patches at or below the high water line.” Vegetation on the berms was dominated by mustard, milk thistle, star thistle (Centaurea sp.), saltgrass (Distichlis spicata), and smartweed (Polygonum sp.). The report notes, “Vegetation was present either as growing green stands or as dry tangles throughout the year and provided shelter for the GGS and protection from predators.” The plant species may not be as important as the structure; dense cover is preferred. Garter snakes can bask on vegetation or in small open areas. Vegetation impenetrable to humans or predatory birds is important in protecting giant garter snakes from capture and predation.

Basking Sites

Basking occurs on banks of canals and levees, on broken down tules in the water, in branches of willows or saltbush over water, on the ground at water's edge in concealing vegetation, and on dead snags.

Juveniles may bask on floating mats of vegetation. Basking may be an important aid to digestion, gestation, healing, and warming the body.

Basking sites need to be open to sunlight (not beneath heavy riparian vegetation) but ideally should have sufficient cover to escape from predators and allow for thermoregulation. Preferred basking sites are located adjacent to escape cover, including water or vegetation.

Food

The giant garter snake specializes in aquatic prey, including small fish and frogs, carp, mosquitofish, bullfrogs and treefrogs.

Refuge/Winter Retreats
Giant garter snakes take refuge from heat and predators in ground squirrel holes, gopher burrows, or suitable vegetation (e.g., beneath dense bushes, emergent vegetation, or piles or mats of broken down vegetation). Winter retreats used by the snakes include small mammal burrows on the sides of levees, ditches and drains, railroad embankments, and other upland habitats, as well as man-made structures, such as piles of large rocks or rip rap. Close proximity of overwintering sites to aquatic summer habitats is NATOMAS BASIN HCP – BIOLOGICAL DATAII - 16
April 2003
preferred; however, giant garter snakes have been found overwintering up to 200 yards from the shoreline of summer habitat (Hansen and Brode 1992a). Burrows, vegetation, and other shelter from predators enhance the suitability of overwintering sites. It is also helpful if winter retreats are above winter flood levels and if the snakes have access to upland retreats during runoff or flooding. d. GGS Numbers, Distribution, and Ecology in the NBHCP Area Current Numbers/Baseline
Currently, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service recognizes 13 separate populations of giant garter snakes within the State of California. Each population is isolated without protected dispersion corridors to link to adjacent population groups. The Natomas Basin contains the largest single element of the American Basin’s population of the giant garter snake that has been studied.

Previous surveys and other historical information indicate a fairly widespread distribution of giant garter snakes within the Natomas Basin (Figure 12, Giant Garter Snake Records). Virtually all these Natomas sightings are from areas where rice is grown. Within these areas they are strongly associated with the rice fields themselves and the associated canal/drain components of the water conveyance system. On this basis, a reasonable surrogate variable for estimating the total amount of giant garter snake habitat in the Natomas Basin is the amount of rice fields in the Basin and canal/drain habitat embedded in the rice landscape. These are estimated at 22,692 acres of rice fields and about 247 miles of canals and drains in the Basin. A BRD study conducted from 1998 to 1999 recorded 277 individual giant garter snakes in the Natomas Basin (Wylie and Casazza, 2000). Giant garter snakes were found in a network of ditches and rice field habitats, including several occurrences in Fisherman’s Lake and other RD 1000 canals within the Basin. The most recent giant garter snake survey information (Wylie, 2001) showed that fewer giant garter snakes were captured relative to previous years, but this does not necessarily mean that the giant garter snake population in the Natomas Basin is in decline (USFWS, 2002) However, there is expected to be considerable patchiness in giant garter snake distribution, even within the rice-growing regions of the Basin, and field surveys, to some extent, have supported this expectation (Brode and Hansen 1992). Where garter snakes do occur, as many as 10 snakes have been observed per linear mile of ditch or drain during walk-through surveys under optimal conditions (Hansen, pers. comm.). However, there are significant limitations in the capability of visual survey methods to estimate actual snake population densities, because giant garter snakes spend the majority of their time resting in burrows, beneath dense vegetation or under objects, and because they often do not move as observers approach. Consequently, visual surveys may underestimate actual abundance, perhaps by an order of magnitude.

The 2002 NDDB records show 168 giant garter snake occurrences in California. Of these, 38 of these occurrence records were in the Natomas Basin. The U.S. Geological Survey, Biological Resources Division (USGS, BRD) also conducts surveys of the giant garter snake. As noted above, BRD surveys NATOMAS BASIN HCP – BIOLOGICAL DATA II - 17
April 2003
conducted from 1998 to 1999 recorded 277 individual giant garter snakes in the Natomas Basin. Note that not all occurrences from the BRD are officially included in the NDDB.

Within Sutter County, this species has been located at: (1) Riego Road 0.5 miles west of Highway 99; (2) within a canal on the northern side of Howsley Road 0.8 miles east of El Centro Boulevard west of Pleasant Grove; (3) within a canal on the west side of El Centro Boulevard 0.4 miles north of Sankey Road; (4) north of drainage canal at Riego Road 0.7 miles east of Powerline Road; (5) just south of the Natomas Cross Canal 1.6 miles west of Highway 99 2.5 miles northeast of Verona; (6) within the Natomas Basin 1.8 kilometers north northwest of the intersection between Sankey Road and El Centro Road; and (7) within a canal 1.2 kilometers east of the crossing between the north main canal and Riego Road. Within Sacramento County, occurrences have been noted near Sacramento International Airport, Fisherman’s Lake area and other canal areas.

U.S. Geological Survey Study
Studies currently being undertaken by the U.S. Geological Survey, Biological Resources Division (BRD) can contribute to the understanding of the ecological requirements of the giant garter snake and may suggest appropriate census methods (see Biological Monitoring section, Section VI.E). The BRD is currently studying the giant garter snake on state and National Wildlife Refuge lands north of the Natomas Basin, and is developing protocols for further studies and future study areas.

Giant garter snake data being developed as part of the BRD studies will begin to establish population baseline information. The BRD proposal for giant garter snake includes focused studies, inventories, and genetic studies. The stated objectives of the study include: (1) development of appropriate population census techniques; (2) determination of giant garter snake habitat use; (3) estimation of life history and population parameters; (4) study of response of the giant garter snake population to experimental management (e.g. natural marsh vs. rice fields); and (5) establishment of a GIS data base for giant garter snake habitat (Glenn Wylie, BRD, pers. comm.).

The BRD is currently using mark-recapture studies to establish baseline density estimates and monitor population trends of the GGS. At present, no radio tracking is being conducted. Under the Adaptive Management provisions of the Plan, BRD study results available in the future could form part of the basis for modification or revision of NBHCP conservation practices, thus allowing the most up-to-date information on giant garter snakes to be used throughout the 50-year life of the permits.

3. Swainson's Hawk (Buteo swainsoni)
a. Species Description
Swainson's hawk is state listed as a threatened species. Historically, it nested throughout lowland California; however, the current Swainson's hawk nesting distribution is limited to the Mojave Desert, NATOMAS BASIN HCP – BIOLOGICAL DATAII - 18
April 2003
northeastern California, the Central Valley, and a few isolated locations in the Owens Valley (California Department of Fish and Game 1992b, 1994). The Swainson's hawk typically occurs in California only during the breeding season (March through September) and winters outside of the U.S. in Mexico and South America.

The species was once thought to winter exclusively in Argentina; however, recent telemetry studies (satellite radio) have shown the species to winter in Mexico, with additional detections in Central America and South America. The Central Valley population migrates only as far south as Central Mexico (Estep 2001). Additionally, thirty (30) individual hawks have been wintering in the Delta for several years (Estep 2001) and there are records of small numbers of Swainson’s hawks wintering in southern Florida and Texas.

Historically, as many as 17,000 Swainson's hawk pairs may have nested in California (California Department of Fish and Game 1992b, 1994). Currently, an estimated 700 to 1,000 Swainson’s hawk pairs nest in the state. This appears to represent a decline of more than 94% in California's historical nesting population (Bloom 1980, California Department of Fish and Game 1989). Currently, there are 882 known extant nesting site occurrences in California (Estep 2001). The Central Valley supports an estimated 600 to 900 of the remaining breeding pairs. The overall Swainson's hawk population is considered to be declining (California Department of Fish and Game 1992b, 1994). However, the Central Valley’s breeding population has remained stable over the past 10 years (Estep 2001).

The Swainson's hawk (Buteo swainsoni) is a medium sized buteo (25-35 ounces). There are three primary color phases (plumage morphs) of the Swainson’s hawk, including : a light-morph, dark-morph, and rufous-morph. Additionally, this hawk species can be an intermediate morph, with variations of the three primary morphs (Estep 2001).

The dark-morph hawks differ from the light-morph in that they are entirely brown with a light patch under the tail. The trailing edges of the wing are slightly lighter in color than the leading edges. The dark phase of the Swainson’s hawk represents 35% of the Northern California population. Both the dark and light morphs can have white undertail coverts.

The third variation is a rufous-morph, which is characterized by a lighter color of brown with rusty barrings on the underparts.

The Swainson's hawk soars with its wings held above the horizontal in a dihedral or “v” shape.

When perched, the species’ wings are slightly pointed and extend to or beyond the tail feathers. b. Activity Cycle/Behavior
Swainson's hawks begin to arrive in the Central Valley from wintering grounds in Mexico, Central America and South America in March to breed and raise their young. The species typically roosts and NATOMAS BASIN HCP – BIOLOGICAL DATA II - 19
April 2003
migrates in groups. Territories are usually established by April with incubation and brooding occurring through June. The earliest fledging of young occurs in July and the young remain with the parents for approximately one month following fledging or until the southern migration in early fall. Recent telemetry studies have shown that some fledglings leave the nesting area and their parents to join a juvenile group or remain alone before the fall migration (Estep 2001).

Swainson's hawks are opportunistic foragers, flushing prey (rodents, insects and some birds) from fields, pastures and grasslands adjacent to their nests. In the Central Valley, their primary diet consists of small rodents, including the Microtus californicus, or meadow mice. During the summer months, the hawks consume large quantities of insects (Estep). Males provision females while they incubate the eggs.

Later, both parents feed the young.
c. Habitat Associations/Requirements
Swainson's hawks prefer large nesting trees with a panoramic view of their foraging grounds.

Foraging habitats, open fields and grasslands, need to be within flying distance (maximum observed is 18 miles) and adequate to support the high densities of microtine rodent populations and birds upon which they feed. During the breeding season, Swainson's hawks require suitable foraging habitat in association with suitable nesting habitat (California Department of Fish and Game 1992, 1994). Swainson's hawk nesting preference is for large valley oaks (Quercus lobata), cottonwoods (Populus fremontii), or willow (Salix goodingii). In the interior of the Natomas Basin, the species will often nest in smaller trees due to the lack of large trees (Estep 2001).

The area required for foraging depends on the season and crop cycle, as the species’ foraging ranges depend on the dynamics of the agricultural system and how it affects prey abundance and availability. Swainson's hawks highly active foraging behavior may result in birds traveling as far as 18 miles from a nesting site (Estep 1989). Swainson's hawks have been observed foraging behind farm machinery (moving harvester blade or disc) and capturing rodents exposed by ground disturbance (Estep 1989).

Swainson's hawk foraging ranges during the breeding season have been estimated to be 1,000 acres to almost 7,000 acres (Bechard 1982, Estep 1989, Johnsgard 1990).

Suitable cover types for foraging habitats include, in order of suitability: (1) native grassland; (2) agriculture soon after discing; (3) alfalfa and other hay crops;(4) fallow fields; (5) lightly grazed pasture; (6) combinations of hay, grain, and row crops; (7) rice fields prior to flooding and after draining; and (8) heavily grazed pasture. Unsuitable cover types for foraging habitat include vineyards, mature orchards, cotton, thistle in fallow fields and any crop where prey are unavailable due to high vegetation height and density, as well as flooded rice fields. Recent observations by CDFG indicate that rice farming lands are also used by Swainson's hawks for foraging, particularly where there is vegetation at the perimeter of the fields (Dave Zezulak, pers. comm.). While generally considered less than suitable habitat for Swainson’s hawk, rice fields do provide for invertebrate production, water and refugia (levees) for upland species, and forage before and after flooding.

NATOMAS BASIN HCP – BIOLOGICAL DATAII - 20
April 2003
d. Numbers, Distribution and Ecology in the NBHCP Area
Swainson's hawk nesting in the Natomas Basin occurs primarily in along the western boundary of the Basin (Figure 13). Most nest sites are located along the Sacramento River where large trees are available. The most recent survey of the Natomas Basin vicinity (SHTAC, 2001) shows 35 nest sites along the Sacramento River (22 on the east side and 13 on the west side). The 35 nest sites located along the river are all outside the Natomas Basin as defined by the NBHCP. Twenty-seven nest sites are located within the Basin, for a total of 62 nest sites in or immediately adjacent to the Natomas Basin. Two of these sites are considered abandoned because the nest trees have been removed.

In 2000, the Swainson’s Hawk Technical Advisory Committee monitored 24 known nesting sites in the Basin, 17 of which were used in 2000. Of these, 10 successfully nested in 2000 (i.e., reared young to fledgling), producing a total of 20 fledglings (SHTAC, 2001). Of the 27 territories in the Basin, 19 were used in 2001, producing 16 fledglings.

Although nest sites are not found exclusively in riparian habitat, more than 87 percent of the known nest sites in the Central Valley are within riparian systems (Estep, 1984; Schlorff and Bloom, 1984). This is primarily a function of tree availability and not a preference for large riparian stands or the presence of other components of a riparian forest. Swainson’s hawks also nest in mature roadside trees, isolated individual trees in agricultural fields, small groves of oaks, and trees around farm houses (CDFG, 1992, 1994)
The Sacramento River location affords the hawk relatively easy access to foraging uplands on either side of the river including substantial open space and reserve lands located in Yolo County. Relative to the Natomas Basin HCP area specifically, information indicates that nesting sites and foraging activity occur throughout the Basin (Estep 2001), again depending on the presence of suitable trees in proximity to upland foraging areas. As such, part of the NBHCP Conservation Strategy is to both preserve to the extent practicable habitat within the Swainson’s Hawk Zone adjacent to the Sacramento River and also to enhance and expand Swainson’s hawk habitat through provision of suitable trees and groves in proximity to upland foraging reserves.

It should be noted that for management purposes, an active nest site is considered a nest site that has been used by a nesting pair to lay and incubate eggs, regardless of success of that nesting attempt.

Swainson’s hawks show a high degree of nest fidelity and generally return to the same area in which they nested previously. They will investigate several nest sites within this “territory,” and settle on one nest dependent on local disturbances, surrounding habitat variables, the proximity of other nesting raptors (i.e., great horned owls, redtail hawks, etc.), and nest condition, although this selection mechanism is not well understood. Some pairs may repair several nests before settling in on one nest site. In the case of juvenile birds, they may build and/or repair a nest and then leave without laying eggs. Therefore, in any given year, and any given area depending on nest site availability, many of the available nest sites may not be used.

NATOMAS BASIN HCP – BIOLOGICAL DATA II - 21
April 2003
Generally, in the Natomas Basin, one in every three nest sites are used each year, based on annual surveys of successfully nesting Swainson’s hawks (T. Roscoe, pers. comm.).

4. Other Covered Species Which May Occur in the NBHCP Area Additional listed, candidate, or other species may potentially occur in the Natomas Basin based on the following criteria: (1) habitat utilized by the species occurs in the Basin; (2) the Basin is within the known range of the species; or (3) the Basin is within the flyway of and contains suitable winter habitat for migrating birds. Brief descriptions of these species and their habitats are included below. a. Birds, Mammals, Invertebrates
Valley Elderberry Longhorn Beetle (Desmocerus californicus dimorphus) The Valley Elderberry Longhorn Beetle (VELB) is a federally listed Threatened species. The VELB is a cerambycid beetle in the coleoptera family. The male VELB has a dark pattern of the elytra reduced to four oblong spots, and the basal segments of the antennae are usually covered with pale hairs (Barr 1991). The beetle is totally dependent on elderberry shrubs, using both Sambucus mexicana and S. caerulea. Elderberry shrubs are a common component of the remaining riparian forests and adjacent upland habitats in the Central Valley. The beetle has a two-year life cycle. Adults lay their eggs on elderberry bushes. The emerging larvae bore into and feed upon the stems of the plant. The beetle emerges as an adult during the flowering period of the plant, usually late March through June. The adults feed upon the elderberry flowers, reproduce, and die. The NDDB records sightings of VELB in or adjacent to the study area (Figure 14, Other Species Records). The USFWS general compensation guidelines for the VELB are described in Appendix C and Section VII.B.3.

Species Description and Taxonomy
Valley elderberry longhorn beetle (VELB) is a distinctive black and red-orange beetle with long antennae. Full-grown beetles are ¾ of an inch long (2 centimeters). Females are typically larger than males, and both have bright red to orange color on their wings. The forewings of the females are dark metallic green with reddish trim, the male’s forewings may be similar, or may be red-black with dark green spots.

Distribution
VELB has probably always been rare and of limited abundance (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1984). Information on the historical distribution and abundance of VELB is scarce. The substantial reduction in Central Valley riparian vegetation in the last 150 years suggests that the beetle's range has contracted and that remaining populations are discontinuous (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1984).

NATOMAS BASIN HCP – BIOLOGICAL DATAII - 22
April 2003
The VELB's range extends from Redding at the northern end of the Central Valley south to the Bakersfield area (Barr 1991). Along the eastern edge of the species' range, adult beetles have been found in the foothills of the Sierra Nevada at elevations up to 2,200 feet (676.8 m), and beetle exit holes have been located on elderberry plants at elevations up to 2,940 feet (896.3 m). Along the western edge of the species' range, adult beetles have been found on the eastern slope of the Coast Range at elevations up to 500 feet (152.4 m), and beetle exit holes have been detected on elderberry plants at elevations up to 730 feet (222.6 m) (Barr 1991).

Habitat Associations/Requirements
VELB is closely associated with blue elderberry, an obligate host for beetle larvae. The presence of exit holes in elderberry stems indicates previous VELB habitat use. Exit holes are cylindrical and approximately 0.25 inch (0.6 cm) in diameter. Exit holes can be found on stems that are 1-8 inches (2.5-

20.3 cm) in diameter. The holes may be located on the stems from a few inches above the ground to about 9-10 feet (2.7-3.0 m) above the ground (Barr 1991).

Numbers, Distribution, and Ecology in the NBHCP Area
The known range of the VELB is limited to the Central Valley of California (USFWS, 1999). The USFWS designated critical habitat for the VELB, located along the American River Parkway in two places, upstream of the S.R. 160 overcrossing and in the Goethe Park area. In addition, the Recovery Plan designates the area along the American River, east of Nimbus Dam, as essential habitat, as well as an area along Putah Creek ink Solano County (USFWS, 1984).

Currently, there are approximately 168 known occurrences of VELB in California. All 168 known occurrences are presumed extant. Sutter County supports seven of these occurrences and Sacramento County supports 20 of these occurrences. There are several NDDB occurrences of VELB along the Sacramento River on the western and southern edge of the Natomas Basin. Sutter County VELB occurrences are spread throughout the County and are often associated with major rivers and waterways.

In Sacramento County, habitat is located along the American River Parkway in two places, upstream of the S.R. 160 overcrossing and in the Goethe Park area.

There are no known occurrences of VELB in the Plan Area (NDDB 2001). Although the historical abundance of VELB is unknown, extensive loss of riparian habitat and, to a lesser extent, upland habitats in the Central Valley during the past 150 years has reduced the amount of habitat available to the species, and likely decreased and fragmented the species’ range (USFWS, 1984). Loss of riparian habitat is attributable to flood control projects (e.g., levee construction, stream and river channelization, placement of riprap), land reclamation, and urban development. Additional factors affecting the VELB include grazing practices, herbicide spraying, and predation by nonnative species. There is, however, suitable VELB habitat (i.e., elderberry shrubs) along the western and southern borders of the NBHCP area (i.e., in riparian areas associated with the Sacramento and American Rivers). Small patches of suitable habitat also exist NATOMAS BASIN HCP – BIOLOGICAL DATA II - 23
April 2003
along the East Drainage Canal, West Drainage Canal, and Main Drainage Canal (City of Sacramento Department of Utilities and Jones & Stokes Associates 1996). Isolated elderberry shrubs or patches of shrubs also occur in several oak groves and old farm residences.

Tricolored Blackbird (Agelaius tricolor)
The tricolored blackbird is considered a Species of Concern by USFWS and is a state Species of Special Concern (California Department of Fish and Game 1992). Tricolored blackbird (Agelaius tricolor) is a medium sized blackbird that is distinguished from other blackbirds by its distinctive white- tipped red shoulder patches on mature males. This species is commonly found in large flocks, foraging in marshes, rice fields, and wet meadows. Females show varying amounts of red on the shoulders, and their plumage is sooty brown and streaked overall. The species nests in large colonies in marshes, silage and grain fields, and blackberries.

Status and Distribution
The species is largely endemic to California, with smaller populations in Baja California, Nevada, Oregon, and Washington (DeHaven 2000). During the breeding season, tricolored blackbirds occur in the Central Valley, the low foothills of the Sierra Nevada and Coast Range from Shasta County south to Kern County, along the coast from Sonoma County south to the Mexican border, and on the Plateau (Grinnell and Miller 1944, Beedy et al., 1991). Band recoveries from this species indicate that some wintering individuals travel nomadically along the entire length of the Central Valley, into the San Francisco Bay and Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta area, up to the northern and eastern plateau region of California, and into southern Oregon (DeHaven et al., 1975). Tricolored blackbirds continue to breed throughout their historic range, although populations have declined within this range (McCaskie et al., 1979).

Habitat Associations/Requirements
The tricolored blackbird is generally considered a marsh species, nesting primarily in tule (Scirpus spp.) and cattail (Typha spp.) marsh habitats. High quality nesting substrates tend to occur in conjunction with one of three Central Valley managed wetland types, including: permanent; semi-permanent; or seasonal wetland (DeHaven 2000). With the reduction of wetland habitats in California, an increasing percentage of tricolored blackbirds have recently been found nesting in nonmarsh habitats, such as blackberry (Rubus spp.) brambles, thistle (Cirsium spp.) stands, and nettle (Urtica spp.) stands (Beedy et. al 1991). Proximity to suitable foraging habitat such as flooded fields, grassy fields, and pond margins is an important factor in nest site selection (Grinnell and Miller 1944). In the San Joaquin Valley, the remaining breeding population is currently associated with large dairy operations. These colonies are using the dairies’ grain fields for nesting. In the Central Valley, the cattail marshes have had a universally low reproductive success, due to the large predator populations of Black-crowned Night Herons. Such cattail marshes include refuges and those associated with rice fields. In general, vineyards and orchards provide NATOMAS BASIN HCP – BIOLOGICAL DATAII - 24
April 2003
low habitat value for the tricolored blackbird, due to the lack of adequate nesting substrate and limited foraging area (DeHaven 2000).

Tricolored blackbirds nest in small to large colonies (up to 50,000 individuals). They often return to the same nesting areas in subsequent years, but will occasionally relocate their breeding colonies if suitable habitat is available elsewhere. Nests are built in close proximity in dense emergent vegetation bordering open water. Dense nesting colonies of tricolored blackbirds are highly susceptible to disturbance.

The tricolored blackbird breeds in large colonies near fresh water, preferably in emergent wetland with tall, dense cattails or tules, but also in thickets of willow, blackberry, and wild rose. Ideal breeding habitat for the tricolored blackbird includes two elements: (1) dense nesting substrate (i.e., blackberry or aquatic emergent vegetation), which provides protection from predators; and, (2) a large supply of insects within proximity to nests and occurring at the time of fledging (DeHaven 2000).

Tricolored blackbirds forage in large flocks and may travel up to 4 miles (6.4 km) from nest or roost sites to forage. Tricolored blackbirds forage on ground in croplands, grassy fields, flooded land, and along edges of ponds (Zeiner et al., 1990). In the Central Valley, foraging habitat consists primarily of pastures and certain types of agricultural fields. Tricolored blackbirds eat mostly insects and selection of colony sites is primarily a function of proximity to concentrated insect food supplies (e.g., grasshoppers [Orthoptera], beetles and weevils [Coleoptera]) (Beedy et al., 1991). In winter, tricolored blackbirds often leave the immediate vicinity of their nesting colonies and concentrate in huge roosts in marsh habitat (Grinnell and Miller 1944).

Numbers, Distribution, and Ecology in the NBHCP Area
Historically, the nesting population of the tricolored blackbird was in the millions. Between the 1930s and 1970s the population declined by approximately 50 percent. This decline is thought to be a result of habitat conversion from pasture lands and hay crops to vineyards and orchards. The 1970s tricolored blackbird population included 41 nesting colonies and 133,000 birds (DeHaven 2000). A survey conducted by Ted Beedy and Bill Hamilton in 1997 found approximately 230,000 breeding tricolored blackbirds in California. A follow-up survey conducted in 1999 found fewer than 95,000 breeding individuals in California (Thomas Reid Associates 2000). The current population in the Central Valley is approximately 79,325. This includes 13 colonies that were located in the surveys conducted by DeHaven and Hamilton in 2000. The DeHaven/Hamilton surveys indicated that the general range and major breeding areas of the tricolored blackbird in the Central Valley had remained largely unchanged since the 1930s when J.A. Neff conducted surveys of the population (DeHaven 2000).

There have been nine documented occurrences (seven extant, two extirpated) in Sutter County.

The two extirpated occurrences are located slightly northwest of the confluence of the Sacramento River and the Feather River, northwest of the Basin. Tricolored blackbirds were located 0.2 mile below the Sacramento/Sutter County line, west of Natomas Drain Levee Road.

NATOMAS BASIN HCP – BIOLOGICAL DATA II - 25
April 2003
Tricolored blackbirds currently nest in the Natomas Basin. The Natomas District colony resides on a 330-acre parcel in the Basin that was recently acquired by the Natomas Basin Conservancy (Betts- Kismat-Silva reserve in the eastern edge of the Natomas Basin. The population of this nesting colony gas increased in recent years (Roberts, pers. comm.). This colony of tricolored blackbirds includes approximately 4,000 nesting birds, which have located their nests in five scattered clumps of blackberry bushes near irrigated pastureland (DeHaven 2000).

Significance of NBHCP Area to Species
The large amount of irrigated pastureland mixed with dense, healthy blackberry bushes in the Natomas Basin could be expected to make it an attractive breeding habitat for the tricolored blackbird.

Additionally, the area includes pastures that are moderately grazed by livestock and flooded during the bird’s nesting times. The moderate grazing, which creates optimal foraging (vegetative) levels of alfalfa and hay, in combination with the large insect population enhance the birds’ ability to feed (DeHaven 2000).

The Plan Area also supports scattered copses of emergent marsh vegetation mostly within agricultural ditches that may potentially provide nesting habitat for the species, although it is not currently known to be utilized. However, the tricolored blackbird is an occasional visitor and actively forages in the Plan Area. Emergent marsh is the preferred nesting habitat for the species; however, because of the paucity of this habitat in the Plan Area the species has sought alternative nesting sites in agricultural fields.

Unfortunately, as mentioned above this can result in significant mortality of eggs and young birds.

Additionally, some of the farming practices such as those employed in the area are not compatible with tricolored blackbird breeding patterns.

The Natomas District colony is thriving in current conditions. However, the long range concern is the ability of the 330-acre parcel to carry a breeding colony of tricolored blackbird because of the urbanizing area to the north (DeHaven 2000).

Aleutian Canada Goose (Branta canadensis leucopareia).

The Aleutian Canada goose was delisted by the USFWS on March 20, 2001 (FR 66:15643), and is considered a federal Species of Concern that is still protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. The goose is a small stocky goose with a black head and neck, and a distinctive white “chin strap”. The Aleutian Canada goose is distinguished from the other smaller subspecies of Canada goose by its slightly larger size, paler breast, and broader white neck ring. This species favors wetlands, grasslands, and cultivated fields near water.

The Aleutian Canada goose will be monitored for a period of five years by USFWS. If evidence acquired during this monitoring period shows that endangered or threatened status should be reinstated to prevent a significant risk to the subspecies, the Service may use the emergency listing authority provided NATOMAS BASIN HCP – BIOLOGICAL DATAII - 26
April 2003
by the Act to do so. At the end of the five-year monitoring period, the Service will decide if relisting, continued monitoring, or an end to monitoring is appropriate.

Distribution
The Aleutian Canada goose nests in the western Aleutian Islands and traditionally occurs during migration along coastal Oregon and in Del Norte and Humboldt Counties in northern California. Aleutian Canada geese generally winter in two localized areas in central California: one is near Modesto and Los Banos and the other is near Colusa. These areas support pasture, corn, wheat, and rice crops.

Wintering Aleutian Canada geese are a large migratory waterfowl species that typically spend summer in northern portions of the United States, Canada, and Alaska, and overwinter in warmer climates in southern Oregon and California.

Habitat Associations/Requirements
Wintering Aleutian Canada geese forage in agricultural fields supporting pasture, wheat, and rice crops. They prefer to forage in short-cropped, dry and irrigated pastureland and cornfields . Foraging geese have also been observed in marshes, rice stubble, and freshly sprouted wheat and barley fields. Wintering Aleutian Canada geese observed near Modesto during 1975-1980, fed in flood-irrigated pastures composed primarily of grasses and clovers when they first arrived in the San Joaquin Valley. Wintering Aleutian Canada geese roost in large ponds, flooded fields, and rice checks. In the San Joaquin Valley, they are known to roost on artificially impounded waters such as farm ponds, sewage ponds (e.g., the Modesto oxidation ponds), and duck club ponds.

Numbers, Distribution, and Ecology in the NBHCP Area
Currently, there are 13 known occurrences of wintering Aleutian Canada geese in California (NDDB 2001). All 13 of these occurrences are presumed extant. Of these 13 occurrences, four occur in Sutter County. These occurrences are all located in agricultural fields around the Sutter County/Colusa County line, north of the NBHCP area. There are no known occurrences in the Plan Area. However, Aleutian Canada geese likely stop in the Natomas Basin for brief periods during migration to and from their traditional wintering areas.

The Aleutian Canada goose winters in the Sacramento Valley and is an occasional winter visitor in the NBHCP area. Approximately 40,000 acres of suitable winter foraging habitat (e.g., row crops, especially rice) occurs in the NBHCP area (Thomas Reid Associates 2000).

NATOMAS BASIN HCP – BIOLOGICAL DATA II - 27
April 2003
White-faced Ibis (Plegadis chihi)
This species is considered a Species of Concern by USFWS and is a state Species of Special Concern (California Department of Fish and Game 1992a). This species is a slender, gregarious long- legged wader with a very long and slender downward curved bill. The breeding adult’s plumage is glossed with green or purple on the head and under parts, making the bird look dark at a distance. It is distinguished from the glossy ibis by its reddish bill, red eye, all red legs, and a white feathered border around its red facial skin. This species is found in shallows and mudflats in both fresh and brackish areas.

The species has declined in California probably as a result of loss or deterioration of extensive marshes in the Central Valley, which are required for nesting.

Distribution
The white-faced ibis occur in two disjunct populations, one largely in western North America and the other in central and southern South America. The largest North American breeding colonies of white faced ibis occur in Utah (Great Salt Lake), Nevada (Carson River Basin), Oregon (Harney Basin), and coastal Texas and Louisiana. The largest breeding colonies in the Central Valley have been reported from the Mendota Wildlife Area and the Colusa National Wildlife Refuge.

Currently, the white-faced ibis winters primarily in the San Joaquin and Imperial Valley but is recorded widely in California as a transient (Zeiner et al., 1990a). The wintering population concentrates near Los Banos in Merced County (McCaskie et al., 1979). Historically, the white-faced ibis was a locally common summer resident in California and its breeding distribution was centered in the San Joaquin Valley.

Currently, there are seven known occurrences of nesting areas (rookeries) of the white-faced ibis in California. All seven of these occurrences are presumed extant. There are no occurrences of nesting white-faced ibis in the Natomas Basin (NDDB 2000). The nearest known nesting habitat for the white- faced ibis is in Yolo County, north of the City of Woodland.

Habitat Associations/Requirements
The white-faced ibis requires extensive marshes for nesting (Zeiner et al., 1990a). Large tule stands surrounded by open water provide high-quality nesting habitat for the species. The white-faced ibis typically nests in dense tule and cattail stands, but will sometimes nest in trees with other colonial-nesting species (Eckert 1981, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1985c). Habitat used for nesting ranges from 1.3 acres to 600 acres (0.5 ha to 242.8 ha) (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1985e).

This species forages in fresh emergent wetland, shallow flooded pond margins, and muddy ground of wet meadows and irrigated, or flooded, pastures and croplands. Ibis eat primarily invertebrates such as earthworms, insects, and crustaceans. They also eat small fish, amphibians, and reptiles. White-faced ibis probably roost in dense emergent vegetation (Zeiner et al., 1990a).

NATOMAS BASIN HCP – BIOLOGICAL DATAII - 28
April 2003
Numbers, Distribution, and Ecology in the NBHCP Area
There are seven known occurrences (rookeries) in California (CDFG 2001). There are no known nesting occurrences in Sutter or Sacramento Counties. The nearest known nesting occurrence is in Yolo County, north of Woodland. The white-faced ibis is a rare visitor to the Natomas Basin, found in the Sacramento area during its migration. No suitable nesting habitat occurs in the Natomas Basin for ibis, although approximately 24,900 acres of suitable winter habitat (i.e., rice, alfalfa, and other agricultural fields) exists in the Natomas Basin for ibis (Thomas Reid Associates 2000 and CH2MHill, 2001).

In the Sacramento Valley, wintering ibis were very rare in the 1970’s with the highest counts numbering only 11 birds in 1978 and 1979. In 1996, Hickey and Shufford estimated that a minimum of 10,000 to 11,000 ibis were in the Sacramento Valley (Thomas Reid Associates 2000). White-faced ibis is now a common winter visitor to the Natomas Basin, but are not known to breed in the Basin.

Loggerhead Shrike (Lanius ludovicianus)
This species is a state Species of Special Concern (California Department of Fish and Game 1992a). It was designated as a Category 2 candidate for federal listing as threatened or endangered throughout its range in 1991. However, on November 15, 1994, the USFWS eliminated all subspecies of the shrike, except the migrant loggerhead shrike of the central, eastern, and southern United States, from the federal candidate list. The USFWS determined that populations of the other loggerhead shrike subspecies, including populations of the subspecies that occur in California, were more abundant or widespread than previously thought and were not subject to any identifiable threat (59 FR 58992, November 15, 1994). Therefore, no loggerhead shrike subspecies that occur in California are candidates for federal listing.

The loggerhead shrike (Lanius ludovicianus) is a small bird of fields and grasslands that hunts from lookout perches such as fence posts or tree limbs, using the lookout to spot, then swoop down on insects, rodents, snakes, or smaller birds. This species lacks talons, and instead impales its prey on thorns or barbed wire. The loggerhead shrike is bluish-gray on the back and head, and white on its under parts. The species has a broad black mask that extends from across the eye to the top of the beak. Its beak is black and short, with a slight curve. This species is distinguished from the more common northern shrike because of its smaller size, darker coloration, larger mask, and smaller, less hooked beak.

Distribution
The loggerhead shrike is a widespread breeding species in North America. It occurs from the southern Canadian provinces south across most of the United States and into Mexico (American Ornithologists Union 1957). The shrike is a resident species throughout the lowlands and foothills of California (Grinnell and Miller 1944).

NATOMAS BASIN HCP – BIOLOGICAL DATA II - 29
April 2003
Shrike populations have declined over much of the United States, especially in the central and eastern portions of the country. Shrike populations in the western United States declined slightly between 1955 and 1979 but currently appear to be stable.

Habitat Associations/Requirements
The loggerhead shrike occurs in grasslands, agricultural lands, open shrublands, and woodlands (Bent 1950). It prefers areas with perch sites (Zeiner et al., 1990). A study conducted in Illinois reported that shrikes were most abundant near pastures, hedgerows, cornfields, and rural residential areas (Smith and Kruse 1992). Shrikes nest in low trees, dense shrubs, and vines. They feed on insects, small reptiles, and small mammals (e.g., mice). This species requently skewers prey on thorns, sharp twigs, barbed wire, or forces prey into a confined area.

Numbers, Distribution, and Ecology in the NBHCP Area
The loggerhead shrike is common throughout most of lowland California (California Department of Fish and Game 1990). This species is observed regularly throughout Natomas Basin (Thomas Reid Associates 2000). Suitable nesting and foraging habitat is common throughout the Basin. Several shrikes were observed on or near the Metro Air Park project site during a site reconnaissance conducted on March 23, 2000 (Thomas Reid Associates 2000), and three shrikes were observed along the eastern portion of the Plan Area during NBHCP habitat mapping surveys in 2001.

Burrowing Owl (Athene cunicularia hypugea)
Burrowing owls are not listed under either the federal Endangered Species Act or the California Endangered Species Act. However, burrowing owls are considered a Species of Concern by the USFWS, and a Species of Special Concern by CDFG. The western burrowing owl is a small raptor. It is distinguished from other small owls by its long legs. The adult is brown to buff in color, with numerous whitish spots and barring on the back and under parts. Juveniles are buff colored below. Western burrowing owls nest in single pairs or small colonies. This species is considered a year-round resident. It is possible that burrowing owls in northern California have some local migratory behavior, but little information is known about the migration habitats of the northern California population (Haug, et al., 1993).

The species utilizes the burrows of ground-dwelling species, such as California ground squirrel, or artificial structures (e.g., culverts) for nesting. It is also found in grass, forb and open shrub stages of pinyon-juniper and ponderosa pine habitats. It uses rodent or other burrows for roosting and nesting cover. Reduction of prey base, including ground squirrels, has contributed to the decline of this species. The CDFG's mitigation guidelines for the burrowing owl are shown in Appendix D.

NATOMAS BASIN HCP – BIOLOGICAL DATAII - 30
April 2003
Distribution
The burrowing owl is a year-long resident of open, dry grassland and desert habitats throughout the California deserts, Central Valley, and coastal areas. It is fairly uncommon along the coast north of Marin County, and rare east of the crest of the Sierra Nevada. Additional populations are reported from the Imperial Valley, Modoc Plateau, and Great Basin region. Fragmentation or elimination of much of the historic habitat of this species, and population declines have been noted throughout its range.

Habitat Associations/Requirements
This species is associated with open lands including grasslands, rolling hills, desert floors, and open bare ground characterized by low-lying vegetation. As noted, the species utilizes rodent burrows, especially California ground squirrel burrows, or artificial structures (e.g., culverts) for nest sites (subterranean nester), and favors elevated places such as berms, levees, road and rail beds where it can overlook open lands.

Numbers, Distribution, and Ecology in the NBHCP Area
There are 370 known occurrences in California (NDDB 2001). Three hundred of these occurrences are considered extant. Eighteen occurrences are known in Sacramento County, and 17 of these occurrences are considered extant. Three occurrences are recorded in the Natomas Basin, with another three known burrowing owl sites on the Conservancy’s Betts-Kismat-Silva property. One occurrence is known in Sutter County. This occurrence is also considered extant (NDDB 2001).

Burrowing owls occur in low numbers in the NBHCP area, but no systematic surveys have been conducted in the Plan Area. One burrowing owl was observed near a burrow on the Metro Air Park project site in March 2000. The owl was observed along Powerline Road between Elverta Road and Elkhorn Boulevard on a canal bank (Thomas Reid Associates 2000). Burrowing owls also occur at the Sacramento International Airport. During NBHCP habitat mapping surveys, three pairs of burrowing owls were observed along a water conveyance canal in the eastern portion of the Plan Area. Burrowing owls also have been observed northeast of the intersection of San Juan and El Centro Roads and west of East Levee Road on the south side of Elkhorn Boulevard (NDDB 2001).

The Natomas Basin supports approximately 247 miles of canals and ditches and associated adjacent agricultural fields. The levees and upper banks of canals and ditches are potential burrowing owl nesting habitat. Canal and ditch maintenance activities often make these areas unsuitable burrowing owls nesting habitat; therefore, owls usually nest along canals with limited maintenance activities. Other suitable habitat includes grasslands or fields that are rarely disced (although they may be mowed), such as local airports.

NATOMAS BASIN HCP – BIOLOGICAL DATA II - 31
April 2003
Bank Swallow (Riparia riparia)
The bank swallow is listed as a Threatened species within the California Endangered Species Act and is not listed under the Federal Endangered Species Act. Breeding colonies of this species are provided some additional protective status under state Fish and Game Code and the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act. Bank swallow (Riparia riparia) is a slender bird with long, pointed wings known from rivers and streams. An adept aerialist, the species darts to catch flying insects, usually above water. The species is distinguished from other swallows and swifts by its brownish gray breast band, often extending in a line down the middle of the breast. It has light gray under parts that contrast with its darker brownish gray wings. The species nests in colonies, excavating burrows in steep riverbank cliffs, gravel beds, and highway cuts.

Distribution
Historically, bank swallows nested on coastal bluffs in southern California and riverbanks throughout the Central Valley and northern California; however, the state’s nesting population of bank swallow is currently concentrated on the banks of Central Valley streams. Approximately 75 percent of the current breeding population occurs along banks fo the Sacramento and Feather rivers. Other colonies persist along the central coast from Monterey to San Mateo Counties, and northeastern California in Shasta, Siskiyou, Lassen, Plumas and Modoc Counties (Remson, 1978). There are very few known breeding colonies of this species in California, with the primary breeding area described as the banks of the Sacramento River, from Shasta County south to Contra Costa County. The range of this species is estimated to be reduced by as much as 50% since 1900 (California Department of Fish and Game 1992b).

Formerly more common as a breeder in California, the estimated breeding population of 16,000 in 1986 was reduced to about 4,500 pairs by 1990 as a result of flood control and levees stabilization projects throughout its range. Now, only approximately 110-120 colonies remain within the state.

About 50-60 colonies remain along the middle Sacramento River and 15-25 colonies occur along lower Feather River where the rivers meander still in a mostly natural state. Other well known breeding colonies include Shasta Valley and the Klamath River Basin in Siskiyou County; in Fall River in Shasta County; the Modoc Plateau and in the Basin Ranges region of Modoc and Lassen County, near Alturas in Modoc County, and near Termo and Honey Lake in Lassen County. There are no known breeding colonies remaining in southern California.

Habitat Associations/Requirements
The bank swallow occurs in California during the breeding season (May through July) and winters in South America. Bank swallows begin arriving in the Central Valley from wintering grounds in South America in early March to breed and raise their young. Numbers decline in July and August as nesting colonies are abandoned and migration begins. Colonies are vacant by early August and some migrants could be observed through early- to mid-September. Bank swallows are rarely seen in California during NATOMAS BASIN HCP – BIOLOGICAL DATAII - 32
April 2003
the winter. During migration, bank swallows mingle with other swallow species, foraging for insects over water in open lowland habitats, especially favoring lakes and rivers.

This species is a colony nester and nests primarily in riparian and other lowland habitats west of the desert. This species requires vertical banks/cliffs with fine-textured/sandy soils to dig a nesting hole near streams, rivers, lakes, and oceans. The bank swallow uses holes dug in cliffs and river banks for cover; logs, shoreline vegetation, and telephone wires are also used for roosting. Bank swallows tend to return to these colonial nests year after year.

The bank swallow breeds from early May through July. Breeding occurs from about sea level to as high as 6,900 feet. Pairs usually nest colonially in groups of 10 to 1,500 although most colonies have 100-200 nesting pairs. Bank swallows forage by hawking insects during long, gliding flights. Foraging occurs primarily over open riparian areas, but also over grassland, shrubland, and savannah habitats during the breeding season. Bank swallows feed on a wide variety of aerial and terrestrial soft-bodied insects, including flies, bees, and beetles.

Numbers, Distribution, and Ecology in the NBHCP Area
There are 171 known bank swallow occurrences in California (NDDB 2001). One of these occurrences is extirpated. There are 35 bank swallow occurrences (all presumed extant) in Sutter County and seven occurrences in Sacramento County (all presumed extant). Although there is no suitable nesting habitat in the Natomas Basin, bank swallows from nearby nesting colonies have the potential to forage in the Basin, and foraging could also occur during migration to nesting sites north of the Basin.

Northwestern Pond Turtle (Clemmys marmorata marmorata ) The northwestern pond turtle is considered a Species of Concern by USFWS and is a state Species of Special Concern (California Department of Fish and Game 1992a). Northwestern pond turtle is a medium sized aquatic turtle that forages on plants, insects, worms, small fish, and carrion. The species is distinguished by its low, roundish olive to dark-brown carapace, with a network of faint spots, lines or dashes of dark brown to black that radiate from the center of the shields. This species is a thoroughly aquatic species of ponds, marshes, rivers, and streams that favors low emergent aquatic vegetation for cover, and logs or mud banks for basking.

Distribution
The northwestern pond turtle occurs in suitable aquatic habitats west of the crest of the Sierra Nevada in California and in parts of Oregon, Washington, and Mexico (Stebbins 1985, Zeiner et al., 1988). The northwestern subspecies is generally found from San Francisco Bay north to the Columbia River drainage in Oregon and Washington (57 FR 45761-45762, October 5, 1992). The northwestern pond turtle still occupies most of its historic range. However, populations are declining throughout the range NATOMAS BASIN HCP – BIOLOGICAL DATA II - 33
April 2003
(Holland and Bury 1992) and local populations, particularly of the southwestern subspecies, have been extirpated from many areas within this range (57 FR 45762, October 5, 1992). The few remaining areas in the northwestern pond turtle's range that support moderate to large viable populations of the northwestern pond turtle are considered at risk (57 FR 45761-45762, October 5, 1992).

Habitat Associations/Requirements
The northwestern pond turtle is generally associated with permanent or nearly permanent wetlands in a wide variety of environments, including permanent ponds, lakes, streams, irrigation ditches, or permanent pools along intermittent streams, up to 6,000 feet (1,829.3 m) elevation (Zeiner et al., 1988) . Hatchlings and juveniles require more specialized habitats than adults (57 FR 45761-45762, October 5, 1992). The northwestern pond turtle occurs in quiet waters of lowland ponds, marshes, lakes, and reservoirs, and in streams with deep pools. Rocks, logs, open mud banks, and streamside vegetation provide escape cover and basking sites (Stebbins 1972).

Northwestern pond turtles are highly aquatic but leave the water for basking and egg-laying. Egg- laying may occur along sandy wetland margins or at upland locations as far as 1,300 feet (396.3 m) from water (Holland and Bury 1992). Hatchling and adult turtles may overwinter in upland sites. Northwestern pond turtles feed primarily on small aquatic invertebrates (57 FR 45761-45762 October 5, 1992).

Numbers, Distribution, and Ecology in the NBHCP Area
There are 117 known occurrences of northwestern pond turtle in California, and one of the occurrences is considered extirpated (NDDB 2001). There are 13 known pond turtle occurrences in Sacramento County that are presumed extant and 2 known pond turtle occurrences in Sutter County that are presumed extant. The canals throughout the Natomas Basin are considered suitable aquatic habitats for pond turtles. Currently, there are about 247 miles of canals and ditches in the NBHCP area (see Table II-2). Fisherman’s Lake in the southwestern portion of the NBHCP area is high quality aquatic habitat for pond turtles. Because most of the Basin is developed agricultural land or commercial/residential development, many of the potential breeding habitats have been eliminated. Despite this, potential breeding habitat probably occurs along many of the canals and aquatic habitats. Therefore, the Natomas Basin probably supports a limited pond turtle population; however, no systematic surveys have been conducted.

During the NBHCP habitat mapping surveys, many pond turtles were observed along the Natomas Main Drainage Canal during March 2001.

California Tiger Salamander (Ambystoma californiense)
The California tiger salamander is a federal Candidate species and a state Species of Special Concern. California tiger salamander is a large, stocky salamander with small eyes, a broad rounded snout and tubercles on the undersides of the front and hind feet. The species is distinguished from other NATOMAS BASIN HCP – BIOLOGICAL DATAII - 34
April 2003
salamanders by its distinctive coloration consisting of spots or bars of white, cream or yellow on a black background. This species frequents slow-moving waters of swales, ponds and shallow lakes.

Distribution
Historically, the species is likely to have occurred in grassland habitats throughout much of the state.

Habitat conversion for agricultural and urban land uses has substantially reduced the species’ range and number of breeding populations. Bullfrogs and nonnative fishes have also reduced population numbers of this species. Both bullfrogs and nonnative fish prey on California tiger salamander larvae and have been reported to eliminate larval salamander populations from breeding sites, such as stock ponds.

Currently, the California tiger salamander occurs in the Central Valley and Sierra Nevada foothills from Yolo 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 Grey 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).

Activity Cycle/Behavior
Adults spend much time underground. Adult California tiger salamanders are found under objects such as boards, rocks, brush or other wood debris or in rodent burrows near water. During late winter (December to late February in the Central Valley) the adults emerge to breed at night, traveling to nearby ponds, temporary pools (including vernal pools), and swales during or immediately after rain events.

Larvae grow rapidly; metamorphosis begins in late spring or early summer and is followed by the dispersal of juveniles from their natal ponds into terrestrial upland habitat. There they spend the dry season in burrows or crevices and emerge again with the first autumn rains to return to the breeding pond.

Habitat Associations/Requirements
California tiger salamanders inhabit valley and foothill grasslands and open woodlands usually within 1 mile (1.6 km) of water (Brode, pers. comms.). Tiger salamanders breed in reservoirs, ponds, vernal pools, small lakes, and slow-flowing streams that do not support predatory fish (Stebbins 1972, Zeiner et al., 1988). Adult salamanders migrate from upland habitats to aquatic breeding sites during the first major rainfall events of the fall and early winter. Adults return to upland habitats after breeding. Juveniles disperse from aquatic breeding sites to habitats after metamorphosis. California tiger salamanders may not reproduce during years of low rainfall (Jennings et al., 1994).

NATOMAS BASIN HCP – BIOLOGICAL DATA II - 35
April 2003
Numbers, Distribution, and Ecology in the NBHCP Area
There are 465 known tiger salamander occurrences in California (NDDB 2001). All of these occurrences are presumed extant (NDDB 2001). There are four occurrences in Sacramento County and one occurrence in Sutter County; however, none of these occurrences are in the Plan Area. The nearest known tiger salamander occurrences are in northern Yolo County near Dunnigan and near Rancho Seco in southeastern Sacramento County. Vernal pools occur along the eastern edge of the Natomas Basin.

These pools are considered potential, but marginal tiger salamander breeding habitat, based on their disturbed condition and limited extent in the study area. Tiger salamanders are not likely to occur in the Plan Area.

Western Spadefoot Toad (Scaphiopus hammondii)
The western spadefoot toad is a California Species of Special Concern, and is a fully protected amphibian pursuant to regulations promulgated by the Fish and Game Commission (Id., § 41). Western spadefoot toad is a smallish dusty green to gray toad often with four irregular, light-colored stripes on its back. Its underside is whitish and unmarked, and the species has a wedge-shaped glossy black spade on each hind foot. Its call is described as a hoarse, snore-like rasping sound.

Distribution
The range of this species includes the Central Valley and adjacent foothills, and the area spanning the southern Coast Ranges to northern Baja California, extending from sea level to about 4,500 feet in elevation. Its primary habitat is grasslands, but it is also occasionally found in valley-foothill, hardwood woodlands.

Habitat Associations/Requirements
This species occurs in shallow, seasonal wetlands (which are essential for breeding and egg-laying) in valley and foothill grasslands, open chaparral, and pine woodlands below 3,000 feet in elevation. This species is associated with seasonal wetlands and other temporarily ponded areas in low-lying grasslands, fields, washes, river floodplains, alluvial fans, alkali lakes and playas, but is also found in adjacent foothill and mountain habitats. Western spadefoot toads prefer slow-moving waters such as pools and plunge pools of small creeks, and short grasses with sandy or gravelly soils.

Numbers, Distribution, and Ecology in the NBHCP Area
There are 173 known western spadefoot occurrences in California, and only one of them is considered extirpated (NDDB 2001). There are five spadefoot toad occurrences in Sacramento County and none in Sutter County. All of the Sacramento County spadefoot toad occurrences are considered extant. There are no records of western spadefoot toads in the Natomas Basin (NDDB 2001). The nearest NATOMAS BASIN HCP – BIOLOGICAL DATAII - 36
April 2003
known occurrences are in Placer County at Fiddyment and Phillip Roads (about 6 miles east of the Plan Area) and at Mather Field in central Sacramento County. Some suitable spadefoot toad breeding habitat (i.e., vernal pools) occurs along the far eastern edge of the Natomas Basin, however, there are no records for this species in the Plan Area to date. Based on the lack of occurrence records, the marginal suitability of the vernal pool habitat, and the distance to the nearest occurrence of the species, overall potential for occurrence for this species within the NBHCP study area is considered low.

Vernal Pool Shrimp
The following species of vernal pool shrimp are restricted to vernal pools in the State of California and are in danger of extinction as a result of loss of habitat from urban development, agricultural conversion, and random extinction by virtue of the isolated nature of remaining habitat. None of the species is known to occur in riverine waters, marine waters, or other permanent bodies of water. They are ecologically dependent on seasonal fluctuations in their habitat, such as absence or presence of water during specific times of the year, duration of inundation, and other environmental factors including specific salinity, conductivity, dissolved solids, and pH levels. Water chemistry is one of the most important factors in determining the distribution of fairy shrimp and tadpole shrimp. Fairy shrimp are well-adapted to the flood/drought cycle found in California vernal pools. However, they have developed no defenses against predation and are consumed readily by migrating waterfowl and various aquatic invertebrates. Fairy shrimp will not persist if their vernal pools become connected to bodies of water which support fish. The species listed below are sporadic in their distribution, often inhabiting only one or a few pools in otherwise more widespread vernal pool complexes. Each of the following species may occur in the NBHCP area during the life of the Permits.

Vernal Pool Fairy Shrimp (Branchinecta lynchi)
The vernal pool fairy shrimp is a federally listed threatened species. The vernal pool fairy shrimp is a small (<1 inch) freshwater crustacean belonging to the order of fairy shrimp (Anostraca). Like all other fairy shrimp, the males of vernal pool fairy shrimp have enlarged second antennae used for clasping the female during mating.

Distribution
Vernal pool fairy shrimp has one of the broadest distributions of the California endemic fairy shrimp species. It occurs most of the length of the Central Valley, from the Millville Plains and Stillwater Plains in Shasta County south to Pixley in Tulare County and the eastern margin of the central Coast Range from San Benito County south to Ventura County (Helm 1998, Eng et al., 1990, and Sugnet & Associates 1991). Disjunct populations occur on the Santa Rosa plateau and near Rancho Santa California in Riverside County. The species has recently been found within the Medford area of southern Oregon (Helm pers. comm.).

NATOMAS BASIN HCP – BIOLOGICAL DATA II - 37
April 2003
Habitat Associations/Requirements
This species is most often observed in vernal pools (79% of observations), although it is also observed in a variety of other natural and artificial habitats including seasonal wetlands, alkali pools, ephemeral drainages, stock ponds, roadside ditches, vernal swales, and rock outcrop vernal pools (Helm 1998). The species occurs on many geologic formations and land forms. Regardless of the landform, this species is most often found in small (less than 200 meter square) and shallow (5 centimeters deep) habitats, although it also can occur in large and deep vernal pools (Helm 1998).

Although the vernal pool fairy shrimp is found in different habitat types, it is not abundant in all of them. It often occurs with California linderiella, vernal pool tadpole shrimp, and occasionally with Conservancy fairy shrimp in the Vina Plains Preserve and is never the numerically dominant one (Eng et al., 1990).

Numbers, Distribution, and Ecology in the NBHCP Area
There are 270 reported extant occurrences of vernal pool fairy shrimp in California, 50 of which are reported from Sacramento County and one of which is reported from Sutter County (NDDB 2001).

There are no vernal pool fairy shrimp occurrences in the NBHCP Plan Area, although there are several occurrences east of the Plan Area in Elverta and Rio Linda (NDDB 2001).

Potential vernal pool fairy shrimp habitat occurs in the vernal pools on the east side of the Plan Area. Additional potential habitat occurs in other seasonal wetlands in the Plan Area.

Vernal Pool Tadpole Shrimp (Lepidurus packardi)
The vernal pool tadpole shrimp is a federally listed Endangered species. The vernal pool tadpole shrimp is a small (<3 inches in length) aquatic crustacea within the tadpole shrimp order (Notostraca). The common name “tadpole shrimp” presumably addresses the general shape of the creature when viewed from above. The animal is covered by a plate-like carapace, with only the posterior portion of the animal being exposed. It can be discerned from other tadpole shrimp within California by the presence, shape, and ridges of the sub-anal plate.

Distribution
Vernal pool tadpole shrimp is one of the three most common large branchiopods occurring in the Central Valley (Helm 1998). The vernal pool tadpole shrimp is found in scattered localities in the Central Valley from Stillwater Plains and Millville Plains in Shasta County, south to Flying M Ranch, and west to San Luis National Wildlife Refuge in Merced County (Helm 1998, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1992) South to Tulare County and from one single vernal pool complex on the San Francisco Bay National Wildlife Refuge in the City of Fremont (Alameda County) (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1994b).

Sacramento City CouncilNovember 18, 2025

Sacramento City Council
November 18, 2025