Sacramento City Council
December 2, 2025

CDFG will make this determination based on the best scientific and other information that is reasonably available, and shall include: (1) consideration of the species’ capability to survive and reproduce and any adverse impacts of the taking on those abilities in light of known population trends; (2) known threats to the species; and (3) reasonably foreseeable impacts on the species from other related projects and activities.

1.5.5 Migratory Bird Treaty Act
The Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 makes it unlawful to pursue, hunt, capture, kill, possess, or attempt to do the same to any migratory bird or part, nest, or egg of such bird listed in wildlife protection treaties between the United States and Great Britain, the Republic of Mexico, Japan, and Russia. The act authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to issue Special Purpose Permits. The procedures for securing such permits are found in Title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations, together with a list of the migratory birds covered by the Act. The USFWS has determined that an ITP issued under Section 10 of the ESA also constitutes a Special Purpose Permit under 50 CFR 21.27, and any take allowed under an ITP will not be in violation of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. This does not apply to the federally threatened bald eagle, which is protected under other regulations.

1.5.6 Native Plant Protection Act
The California Native Plant Protection Act includes measures to preserve, protect, and enhance rare and endangered native plants. The definitions of “rare” and “endangered” in the Native Plant Protection Act differ from those in CESA, but the list of protected native plants generally encompasses species listed as candidate, threatened, and endangered in the federal ESA and CESA. The Native Plant Protection Act also includes its own restrictions on take, stating that “[n]o person shall import into this state, or take, possess, or sell within this state” any rare or endangered native plant except as provided in the act. The exception is where landowners have been notified of the presence of protected plants by CDFG; they are CHAPTER 1: PURPOSE AND NEED/OBJECTIVES
1-20 REVISED NATOMAS BASI N HCP E042002017SAC/161795(001.DOC)

EIR/EIS
required to notify CDFG at least 10 days in advance of changing land uses to allow CDFG an opportunity to salvage the plants.

1.5.7 Local Plans and Ordinances
The General Plan of a city or county is the blueprint for future development. It represents the community’s view of its future: a “constitution” made up of the goals and policies upon which the city council, board of supervisors, or planning commission base their land use decisions. General Plans address all aspects of development, including housing availability, jobs/housing balance, traffic, open space, safety, land uses, and public facilities. A Community Plan or Specific Plan may be prepared to implement the General Plan by assessing land use issues for a specific portion of the community. In addition, local zoning ordinances regulate the specific use and development of property. Relevant local planning documents are described in Section 4.1. These land use approvals represent the local agency decisions authorizing urban development within the Natomas Basin.

1.6 Consultation and Coordination/Issues of Controversy This section summarizes the issues of controversy and other information relevant to the scoping process conducted under CEQA and NEPA for this EIR/EIS. As discussed in Section 1.2.1, substantive activities have occurred for habitat conservation planning in the Natomas Basin. In addition to the planning efforts that have occurred, the local land use agencies and the resource agencies have actively sought public input on the decision processes.

The formulation of the HCP has occurred over fifteen years and has involved many iterations, of which one version, the 1997 HCP, provided the basis for the USFWS and CDFG to authorize incidental take by the City within a portion of the Natomas Basin.

Provided below is a summary of major milestones in the public involvement process. • July 1992 – SAFCA began issuing for public comment a series of draft EIRs that examined the impacts of a local flood control project. The USFWS elevated the project under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act because the USACE would not address the indirect impacts of the flood control project. The USFWS recommended that a comprehensive basinwide management plan be prepared to mitigate the loss of wildlife habitat in the Natomas Basin associated with the indirect effects of the project. • January 1994 – USFWS and CDFG began participating in the Natomas Basin Habitat Conservation Plan Working Group (the group included SAFCA, the wildlife agencies, the USACE local land use agencies, RD 1000, Natomas Mutual, and landowners). • 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.

CHAPTER 1: PURPOSE AND NEED/OBJECTIVES
E042002017SAC/161795(001.DOC) REVISED NATOMAS BASIN HCP 1-21

EIR/EIS
• 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 HCP was announced in the Federal Register and released for public comment. A draft Environmental Assessment (EA) was prepared and released with the draft HCP.
• June 18, 1997 – A draft EA was noticed in the Federal Register and released for public comment.
• August 1997 – City Council adopted a negative declaration under CEQA and approved the HCP and directed the City Manager to obtain ITPs.
• November 1997 – The City revised and published the 1997 HCP. • December 1998 – The City appointed a board of directors for the Conservancy. The Conservancy began holding publicly noticed meetings and began its acquisition and management of habitat mitigation lands.
• December 18, 2000 – The USFWS 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.
• January 3 & 4, 2001 – Public workshops were held by the USFWS, 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 USFWS, City and Sutter are using the scoping comments to assist in revising and preparing the HCP and EIR/EIS.
• March 2001 – The water agencies join the City and Sutter in the revised HCP process. A Revised NOP/NOI was released to indicate the water agencies’ participation in the HCP process.
• January–March 2002 – Consultations with USFWS and CDFG on the USFWS policy to prohibit or limit take coverage for pesticide use.
• March 2002 – The Boards of Directors for RD1000 and Natomas Mutual decide not to pursue ITPs under the proposed HCP because coverage for pesticide use would not be included.

Because of the extensive level of public input throughout the planning process (including the public participation that occurred prior to the environmental review of the 1997 HCP and the review of the HCP being evaluated in this EIR/EIS, the public review period for this document will be 60 days.

A Notice of Availability (NOA) for the Draft EIR/EIS was mailed to agencies, organizations, and individuals. A copy of the NOA and parties to whom the NOA was sent is in Appendix A. The Draft EIR/EIS is available on the Internet at “www.cityofsacramento.org.” CHAPTER 1: PURPOSE AND NEED/OBJECTIVES
1-22 REVISED NATOMAS BASI N HCP E042002017SAC/161795(001.DOC)

EIR/EIS
It is also available for review at the City of Sacramento Planning and Building Department, 1231 I Street, Room 300, Sacramento, CA.

1.6.1 Scoping
On December 18, 2000, the City and Sutter County jointly issued a Notice of Preparation (NOP) (per CEQA) and the USFWS issued a Notice of Intent (per NEPA), initiating the public scoping period. These are in Appendix A. The notices provided information on the background and purpose of the Proposed Action, requested public comment on the EIR/EIS, and provided information on the public scoping meetings held in support of the EIR/EIS.

The USFWS, the City, and Sutter County held three public scoping meetings over a 2-day period in January 2001 in Pleasant Grove and the City of Sacramento. The City and County placed advertisements in local newspapers prior to meeting dates in each locale describing when and where each scoping meeting would be held. The three scoping meetings were held at the following locations:

Wednesday, January 3, 2001 Thursday, January 4, 2001
2 p.m. to 5 p.m. 2 p.m. to 5 p.m. and 6 p.m. to 8 p.m.

Holt Tractor Manufacturing City of Sacramento
7310 Pacific Avenue 1231 I Street
Pleasant Grove, CA Sacramento, CA
The USFWS published a Notice of Intent (NOI) to prepare an EIS and an announcement of the public scoping meetings in the Federal Register on December 18, 2000 (65 FR 243:79115-79117).

The NOI provided information on the background and purpose of the Proposed Action, requested public comment on the EIR/EIS for the Proposed Action, and provided information on the public scoping meetings. These scoping meetings were conducted using a workshop format and were hosted by representatives from the USFWS, the City, Sutter County, and the Conservancy. The public was greeted on arrival and asked to sign an attendance record form, listing their name, address, affiliation (if any), and whether they would like to be added to a project mailing list. Each guest was also given the option to provide written comments or concerns they would like addressed in the EIR/EIS, and was provided with a comment form.

The public was asked to complete and return the form upon leaving the meeting or to complete the form later and return it to the USFWS by the close of the scoping period (January 16, 2001).

A short presentation was given, beginning with a welcome statement by a local government representative (a Sutter County representative in Pleasant Grove and a City of Sacramento representative in Sacramento). A representative of the USFWS then described the habitat conservation planning process and the intended purpose of the HCP. A representative of the consulting firm preparing the EIR/EIS provided a brief overview of the NEPA/CEQA process and the format of the scoping workshop. At that time, the public was invited to participate in the workshop portion of the meeting. At various workshop stations, the meeting hosts answered questions regarding the Proposed Action, the NEPA and CEQA processes, and the general purposes of habitat conservation planning.

Approximately 60 separate comments on the scope of the EIR/EIS were received from individuals and organizations during the public comment period. Two written comment CHAPTER 1: PURPOSE AND NEED/OBJECTIVES
E042002017SAC/161795(001.DOC) REVISED NATOMAS BASIN HCP 1-23

EIR/EIS
forms were received from the public scoping meeting held in Pleasant Grove. Three written comment forms were received from the two meetings held in Sacramento. Twenty additional comment letters were received by the end of the comment period on January 16, 2001, or shortly thereafter. Comments were submitted by private individuals, public agencies, and private conservation groups.

The approximately 60 individual comments received regarding the EIR/EIS were categorized into five topic areas: (1) resources to be addressed in the EIR/EIS; (2) alternatives to be considered in the EIR/EIS, (3) description of the affected environment; (4) scope of the cumulative impacts analysis, and (5) effectiveness of HCP measures.

Subsequent to the publication of the NOI and NOP, RD 1000 and Natomas Mutual joined the process. A supplemental NOI and NOP were published in the Federal Register and in local newspapers of general circulation on August 17, 2001. Additional written comments were solicited regarding participation by RD 1000 and Natomas Mutual. Two additional comment letters were submitted. Individual comments in these letters did not specifically address the inclusion of RD 1000 and Natomas Mutual as applicants.

1.6.2 Agency Coordination
The HCP was prepared in consultation with an interdisciplinary team of biological resource and land use specialists from the USFWS, the City, Sutter County, CDFG, RD 1000, Natomas Mutual, and the Conservancy. This interdisciplinary team also prepared and/or contributed to this EIR/EIS, along with consultant staff. Additional biological evaluation will occur with the USFWS’s endangered species division as part of the required internal consultation process.

E042002017SAC/161795(002.DOC) REVI SED NATOMAS BASIN HCP 2-1

EIR/EIS
CHAPTER 2
Proposed Action and Alternatives
This chapter describes the Proposed Action and the alternatives (including the No Action Alternative). Because this EIR/EIS is a joint CEQA/NEPA document, the term “Proposed Action” is used throughout to refer to the following elements:
• Issuance of the ITPs (based on applications for Section 10(a)(1)(B) and Section 2081 permits or permit modifications for each of the permittees—see Section 2.1, below) • Approval of the HCP and issuance of the permits by the USFWS and the CDFG upon making a determination that issuance criteria have been met by the permittees (thus allowing implementation of the HCP)
• Implementation of the HCP, thus allowing implementation of the conservation strategy, as outlined in the HCP, including the conservation and minimization measures to be implemented by the land use agencies, the water agencies, and the Conservancy • Adoption of the IA(s) to secure participation and compliance of the permittees Where applicable/relevant to the analyses, individual components of the Proposed Action are discussed separately. The Proposed Action is summarized to provide the reader with an understanding of the implementation objectives and with the elements of the HCP and other applicable elements that are assessed for their potential to result in effects to the environment. Readers of this EIR/EIS are directed to the Draft Natomas Basin Habitat Conservation Plan, Sacramento and Sutter Counties (City of Sacramento, Sutter County, Natomas Basin Conservancy, Reclamation District No. 1000, and the Natomas Central Mutual Water Company, July 2002) for a detailed discussion of the overall conservation strategy, the specific conservation measures, and an overview of other administrative aspects that do not result in the potential for environmental effects to occur. Key components of the HCP, the IA(s), and the proposed ITPs that are not included in this section (because they do not result in the potential for environmental effects to occur) are primarily those administrative components related to the annual reporting and enforcement processes. These components are discussed in detail in Section VI of the HCP.

The Proposed Action described in the following sections is subject to the following review and approval (which is discussed in detail in Chapter 1: Purpose and Need/Objectives):
• The USFWS’s action to approve the HCP, enter into an IA(s) with the City, Sutter County, and the Conservancy, and issue ITPs
• The CDFG’s action as a Responsible Agency under CEQA to issue new or modified take authorization permits with the City, Sutter County, and the Conservancy CHAPTER 2: PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES
2-2 REVISED NATOMAS BASIN HCP E042002017SAC/161795(002.DOC)

EIR/EIS
This chapter is organized in the following sections:
• Plan Participants (Section 2.1)
• Study Area and Permit Areas (Section 2.2)
• Covered Activities (Section 2.3)
• Description of Proposed Action (Section 2.4)
• Approach to Developing Alternatives (Section 2.5)
• EIR/EIS Alternatives (Section 2.6)
• Alternatives Eliminated from Further Consideration (Section 2.7) • Environmentally Preferable/Superior Alternative (Section 2.8) A preferred alternative was not identified in this Draft EIR/EIS. The preferred alternative will be identified in the Final EIR/EIS. A preferred alternative will be selected after the lead agencies have had the opportunity to review comments on the Draft EIR/EIS.

2.1 Plan Participants
Implementation of the Proposed Action would involve the permittees and other entities.

Described below are the three primary categories of participants involved in implementation of the HCP following issuance of the permits and implementation of the IA(s). Additional detail on the participants in the HCP is provided in Section I.B of the HCP. • Permittors. The wildlife agencies (USFWS and CDFG) that have ITP authority over federally and state listed species under the ESA and CESA are the permittors. • Permittees. The City, Sutter County, the Conservancy, RD 1000, and Natomas Mutual are referred to in the HCP and in this EIR/EIS as the permittees. • Plan Operator. The Conservancy will implement the HCP measures on reserve lands on behalf of the permittees, and is referred to as the plan operator. (The Conservancy is also a permittee for the areas it currently manages and for potential future reserve areas that would be acquired.) Additional detail regarding the Conservancy is described in Section 2.2.3.

Under the Proposed Action, each of the permittees would be expected to apply for and obtain separate Section 10(a)(1)(B) and Section 2081 permits for activities occurring under each permittees’ respective authorities (see Section 2.3). The permittees would use a single HCP, as proposed and assessed in this EIR/EIS, and an IA or IAs. Entities undertaking urban development or other covered activities under the authority of the permittees would then be covered under the permittee’s ITP.

In addition to the plan participants identified above, there is the potential for other parties to seek incidental take coverage at some future unknown time. These entities and individuals are considered potential permittees (see Section I.B.5 of the HCP). If potential permittees were to seek coverage for incidental take, approving either the Natomas Basin HCP or some other HCP, separate additional environmental review would be required. At this time, because these entities elected not to participate in the Proposed Action or to obtain ITPs, it is speculative to anticipate future activities that could result in the need for incidental take coverage.

CHAPTER 2: PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES
E042002017SAC/161795(002.DOC) REVI SED NATOMAS BASIN HCP 2-3

EIR/EIS

2.2 Study Area and Permit Areas
The study area for this EIR/EIS is primarily the Natomas Basin. The study area also includes Area B and the area on the river side of Garden Highway in the Natomas Basin, which are the out-of-basin mitigation areas in which habitat reserve lands could be acquired (see Section 2.4.5.6). The EIR/EIS study area includes the HCP Plan Area (i.e., Natomas Basin) and the out-of-basin mitigation areas. The individual permit areas for each of the permittees are discussed below.

2.2.1 City of Sacramento
The term permit area, as applied to the City, means the area designated on Figure 2-1 that includes 8,050 acres located within the City of Sacramento city limits and in certain locations within the unincorporated areas of Sacramento County (the “panhandle” annexation area).

Incidental take authority for the City would be limited to this permit area. The Proposed Action addresses the potential for incidental take within this 8,050-acre area. Pursuant to the 1997 HCP and the Settlement Agreement (May 10, 2001, on file with the City of Sacramento), approximately 3,800 acres have been developed as of the end of 2001. The remaining lands in North and South Natomas are primarily developed and would be exempt from implementing the HCP.

The City’s permit area does not include areas outside the city limits that could be annexed to the City other than the “panhandle” area. Although the potential exists for areas to be annexed in the future, no development is approved at this time. In addition, the likelihood of development occurring is unknown, and any future development would depend on market conditions and policy actions of the land use agencies. The City’s General Plan Amendment and Comprehensive Annexation Program (see Chapter 4) is currently under preparation and describes the potential for development in portions of the unincorporated Natomas Basin. In addition, Sacramento County is also studying the potential for land development in this area.

2.2.2 Sutter County
The term permit area, as applied to Sutter County, means that area designated on Figure 2-2 that includes 7,467 acres located within the unincorporated areas of Sutter County. This acreage includes some drainage improvements in Sacramento County. Incidental take authority for Sutter County would be limited to this permit area.

If an ITP is granted, Sutter County would initiate a General Plan Amendment to revert lands within 1 mile of the Sacramento River from the current General Plan designation of Industrial-Commercial Reserve to the prior Agricultural designation. This 1-mile buffer would become available for inclusion in the planned system of habitat reserves and would not be developed. Of the remaining 8,573 acres of the Industrial-Commercial Reserve, the Proposed Action would cover 7,467 acres of development. Therefore, Sutter County’s development allocation under the HCP is limited to 7,467 acres, 1,106 acres fewer than the Industrial-Commercial Reserve acreage remaining after the 1-mile buffer lands are removed.

Sutter County would not receive incidental take coverage for this 1,106-acre area under the Proposed Action. Development of this remaining acreage could occur, pursuant to a separate process not covered by the Proposed Action; issues of habitat and species preservation would be addressed on a case-by-case basis. /46/45/44
/56/48
/46/45/44
/53
/46/45/44
/56/48
/46/45/44
/53
/34/33/57/57
/65/110/110/101/120/97/116/105/111/110
/65/114/101/97
/67/105/116/121/32/111/102
/83/97/99/114/97/109/101/110/116/111
/83/97/99/114/97/109/101/110/116/111/32/67/111/117/110/116/121 /89/111/108/111/32/67/111/117/110/116/121
/69/108/32/67/101/110/116/114/111/32/82/111/97/100
/69/108/32/67/97/109/105/110/111/32/65/118/101/110/117/101 /83/97/110/32/74/117/97/110/32/82/111/97/100
/68/101/108/32/80/97/115/111/32/82/111/97/100
/69/108/107/104/111/114/110/32/66/108/118/100/46
/67/72/50/77/32/72/105/108/108/32/82/68/68/32/65/114/99/86/105/101/119/32/80/114/111/106/101/99/116/32/70/105/108/101/32/32/92/92/84/104/111/114/92/67/97/114/116/49/92/114/100/100/103/105/115/92/110/97/116/111/109/97/115/104/99/112/92/110/97/116/95/104/99/112/46/97/112/114/32/32/102/105/103/50/45/49/112/101/114/109/105/116/97/114/101/97/46/112/100/102/32/32/49/49/58/48/56/32/97/46/109/46/32/32/48/52/45/50/50/45/50/48/48/50 /70/73/71/85/82/69/32/50/45/49
/67/73/84/89/32/79/70/32/83/65/67/82/65/77/69/78/84/79/32/80/69/82/77/73/84/32/65/82/69/65 /82/69/86/73/83/69/68/32/78/65/84/79/77/65/83/32/66/65/83/73/78/32/72/67/80 /69/73/82/47/69/73/83
/48 /49 /77/105/108/101/115 /49/32/73/110/99/104/32/61/32/52/53/48/48/32/70/101/101/116 /78/97/116/111/109/97/115/32/66/97/115/105/110
/69/120/101/109/112/116/32/102/114/111/109/32/72/67/80
/83/117/98/106/101/99/116/32/116/111/32/72/67/80
/76/69/71/69/78/68
/83/97/99/114/97/109/101/110/116/111/32/82/105/118/101/114 /80/111/119/101/114/108/105/110/101/32/82/111/97/100
/69/108/118/101/114/116/97/32/82/111/97/100
/82/105/101/103/111/32/82/111/97/100
/83/97/110/107/101/121/32/82/111/97/100
/63/195
/83/97/99/114/97/109/101/110/116/111/32/67/111/117/110/116/121 /83/117/116/116/101/114/32/67/111/117/110/116/121
/76/97/110/100/32/105/110/115/105/100/101/32/83/119/97/105/110/115/111/110/39/115/32/72/97/119/107/32/90/111/110/101 /110/111/116/32/97/32/112/97/114/116/32/111/102/32/83/117/116/116/101/114/32/67/111/117/110/116/121/32/80/101/114/109/105/116/32/65/114/101/97 /80/97/99/105/102/105/99/32/65/118/101/110/117/101
/79/102/102/115/105/116/101/32/99/97/110/97/108
/105/109/112/114/111/118/101/109/101/110/116/115
/116/111/32/115/117/112/112/111/114/116
/83/111/117/116/104/32/83/117/116/116/101/114
/67/111/117/110/116/121/32/83/112/101/99/105/102/105/99/32/80/108/97/110/32/45/32 /80/97/114/116/32/111/102/32/83/117/116/116/101/114/32/67/111/117/110/116/121 /80/101/114/109/105/116/32/65/114/101/97
/67/72/50/77/32/72/105/108/108/32/82/68/68/32/65/114/99/86/105/101/119/32/80/114/111/106/101/99/116/32/70/105/108/101/32/32/92/92/84/104/111/114/92/67/97/114/116/49/92/114/100/100/103/105/115/92/110/97/116/111/109/97/115/104/99/112/92/110/97/116/95/104/99/112/46/97/112/114/32/32/102/105/103/50/45/50/95/112/101/114/109/105/116/97/114/101/97/46/112/100/102/32/32/49/49/58/49/53/32/97/46/109/46/32/32/48/52/45/50/50/45/50/48/48/50 /82/69/86/73/83/69/68/32/78/65/84/79/77/65/83/32/66/65/83/73/78/32/72/67/80 /69/73/82/47/69/73/83
/48 /49 /77/105/108/101/115 /49/32/73/110/99/104/32/61/32/52/53/48/48/32/70/101/101/116 /78/97/116/111/109/97/115/32/66/97/115/105/110
/69/120/101/109/112/116/32/102/114/111/109/32/72/67/80
/83/117/116/116/101/114/32/67/111/117/110/116/121
/73/110/100/117/115/116/114/105/97/108/92/67/111/109/109/101/114/99/105/97/108/32/82/101/115/101/114/118/101 /76/69/71/69/78/68
/83/111/117/116/104/32/83/117/116/116/101/114/32/67/111/117/110/116/121 /83/112/101/99/105/102/105/99/32/80/108/97/110/32/65/114/101/97 /70/73/71/85/82/69/32/50/45/50
/83/85/84/84/69/82/32/67/79/85/78/84/89/32/80/69/82/77/73/84/32/65/82/69/65 CHAPTER 2: PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES
2-6 REVISED NATOMAS BASIN HCP E042002017SAC/161795(002.DOC)

EIR/EIS
Similar to the City, lands developed in Sutter County prior to 1997 would be exempt from the provisions of the Proposed Action. The Sutter County exempt lands are:
• Existing agricultural-industrial businesses along Pacific Avenue, and SR 99/70 • Rights-of-way for Riego Road, Sankey Road, Pacific Avenue, and Powerline Road, as well as SR 99/70
• Rio Ramaza subdivision
• Rural residential areas
One development project, the 50-acre Sysco warehouse facility at the southeast corner of Sankey Road and Pacific Avenue, was built between 1997 and the present time. The Sysco development is located within the Sutter County permit area, and Sutter County collected mitigation fees from Sysco for the amount in place at the time of project approval.

For the lands to be developed within the Industrial-Commercial Reserve, 85 percent of the land use would be for industrial uses and 15 percent would be for commercial uses (Sutter County, 1996a). Other than specifying the total amount of development allowed and the ratio of allowable uses within the Industrial-Commercial Reserve, the Sutter County General Plan does not specify or plan the actual pattern of development. According to the Sutter County General Plan Update EIR (Sutter County, 1996b), the County finds that it is likely that development would not occur on an incremental basis and that an urban core would be surrounded by an agricultural border. Each development project would be considered by the County on the basis of its merits and general plan consistency purposes. Sutter County recently approved a Specific Plan for the first 3,500 acres of development within the Industrial-Commercial Reserve.

2.2.3 Natomas Basin Conservancy
The term permit area, as applied to the Conservancy, refers to the entire Natomas Basin. The Conservancy’s permit area also includes Area B and the area bounding the Natomas Basin and extending to the edge of the water immediately outside the Natomas Basin levees; these areas are outside of the HCP Plan Area as defined in the HCP. Specifically, the Conservancy’s permit area includes all lands within the Natomas Basin, as well as the land bordering the Natomas Basin and extending to the edge of water immediately outside the Natomas Basin levees and Area B as depicted on Figure 2-3. Incidental take authority for the Conservancy would be limited to this permit area.

The Conservancy was established in 1994 as a non-profit corporation under the laws of the State of California, and is responsible for acquisition, restoration, management, and monitoring of habitat reserves. Under the provisions of the HCP, the Conservancy would be responsible for managing mitigation fees collected by the City and Sutter County, using the fees to establish reserve lands, and managing the reserve lands for the benefit of the covered species (i.e., the Conservancy is the plan operator as well as a permittee [see Section 2.1 above and Section I.B of the HCP]). Reserve lands would be established through fee-simple purchase or acquisition of conservation easements. As a non-governmental entity, the Conservancy has no powers of condemnation and can purchase lands only from willing sellers. Currently, the Conservancy’s Board of Directors is represented by members from the City of Sacramento but, with approval of the HCP, would also include representatives from other entities participating in the HCP.

In addition to participating in the HCP implementation, the Conservancy can acquire and manage land for other purposes (e.g., as a mitigation bank for other local projects). /226
/83/85/84/84/69/82/32/67/79
/80/76/65/67/69/82/32/67/79
/83/65/67/82/65/77/69/78/84/79/32/67/79
/89/79/76/79/32/67/79
/83/79/76/65/78/79/32/67/79
/83/97/99/114/97/109/101/110/116/111
/34/33/56/48
/34/33/49/54/48
/34/33/49/54
/34/33/53/48
/34/33/49/54
/34/33/57/57
/34/33/49/54/48
/34/33/49/49/51
/34/33/49/49/51
/34/33/49/54
/34/33/49/49/51
/34/33/52/53
/34/33/49/49/51
/34/33/57/57
/34/33/55/48
/34/33/54/53
/83/97/99/114/97/109/101/110/116/111
/73/110/116/101/114/110/97/116/105/111/110/97/108
/65/105/114/112/111/114/116
/79/117/116/45/111/102/45/66/97/115/105/110
/77/105/116/105/103/97/116/105/111/110/32/65/114/101/97 /40/65/114/101/97/32/66/41
/46/45/44
/56/48
/46/45/44
/53
/46/45/44
/56/48
/46/45/44
/53
/67/72/50/77/32/72/105/108/108/32/82/68/68/32/65/114/99/86/105/101/119/32/80/114/111/106/101/99/116/32/70/105/108/101/32/32/92/92/84/104/111/114/92/67/97/114/116/49/92/114/100/100/103/105/115/92/110/97/116/111/109/97/115/104/99/112/92/110/97/116/95/104/99/112/46/97/112/114/32/32/102/105/103/50/45/51/95/110/98/99/112/97/46/112/100/102/32/32/49/49/58/50/49/32/97/46/109/46/32/32/48/52/45/50/50/45/50/48/48/50 /70/73/71/85/82/69/32/50/45/51
/78/65/84/79/77/65/83/32/66/65/83/73/78
/67/79/78/83/69/82/86/65/78/67/89/32/80/69/82/77/73/84/32/65/82/69/65 /82/69/86/73/83/69/68/32/78/65/84/79/77/65/83/32/66/65/83/73/78/32/72/67/80 /69/73/82/47/69/73/83
/48 /50 /52 /77/105/108/101/115
CHAPTER 2: PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES
2-8 REVISED NATOMAS BASIN HCP E042002017SAC/161795(002.DOC)

EIR/EIS
Although the USFWS’s issuance of an ITP to the City of Sacramento was overturned by the court, the Conservancy was allowed to continue its efforts to acquire, restore, and manage habitat reserves pursuant to a stipulation entered into the federal litigation (see Section 1.2.2).

As of early 2002, the Conservancy has acquired 12 parcels, totaling over 2,100 acres, as permanent habitat reserves. Detailed management plans have been prepared for nine of the 12 parcels (Natomas Basin Conservancy, 2001), and substantial habitat development and improvement activities have been completed on the Conservancy’s Betts-Kismat-Silva property.

2.2.4 Reclamation District No. 1000
The term permit area, as applied to RD 1000, means canals, ditches, waterways, ponds, open water areas, 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 would be limited to this permit area. RD 1000 drains are illustrated in Figure 2-4.

2.2.5 Natomas Mutual
The term Permit Area, as applied to Natomas Mutual, means canals, ditches, waterways, ponds and open water areas, 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 would be limited to this permit area. Natomas Mutual canals are illustrated in Figure 2-4.

2.3 Covered Activities
To provide context for the conservation strategy developed as part of the Proposed Action, this section describes the planned development and other activities that would receive incidental take coverage if the take permits are issued by the USFWS and the CDFG. These covered activities have undergone or are undergoing complete environmental and permitting review independent of the assessment of the Proposed Action in this EIR/EIS. The findings of the environmental review of these covered activities are discussed and summarized in Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences, in the context of the separate resource sections to provide the reader with background on the previous planning documents and associated CEQA documentation as the evaluation of impacts under those separate actions or projects pertain to the resources assessed under the Proposed Action that is the subject of this EIR/EIS.

Described below are the specific activities for which the permittees would be provided incidental take coverage under the Proposed Action. On the basis of the similarities and differences of the covered activities of the permittees, this section is divided into land use agencies (City and Sutter County), the Natomas Basin Conservancy (the Conservancy is the plan operator as well as a permittee), and water agencies (RD 1000 and Natomas Mutual).

The covered activities are discussed below in three major categories:
• Land Use Agencies (Section 2.3.1)
• Natomas Basin Conservancy (Section 2.3.2)
• Water Agencies (Section 2.3.3)
/73/110/100/117/115/116/114/105/97/108
/67/111/109/109/101/114/99/105/97/108
/82/101/115/101/114/118/101
/46/45/44
/56/48
/46
/45/44
/56/48
/46
/45/44
/53
/46
/45/44
/53
/34/33/57/57
/83/97/99/114/97/109/101/110/116/111
/73/110/116/101/114/110/97/116/105/111/110/97/108
/65/105/114/112/111/114/116
/83/65/67/82/65/77/69/78/84/79/32/67/79/85/78/84/89
/80/76/65/67/69/82/32/67/79/85/78/84/89
/83/85/84/84/69/82/32/67/79/85/78/84/89
/80/76/65/67/69/82/32/67/79/85/78/84/89
/89/79/76/79/32/67/79/85/78/84/89
/83/85/84/84/69/82/32/67/79/85/78/84/89
/83/65/67/82/65/77/69/78/84/79/32/67/79/85/78/84/89
/89/79/76/79/32/67/79/85/78/84/89
/83/85/84/84/69/82/32/67/79/85/78/84/89
/65/110/110/101/120/97/116/105/111/110/32/32/32/32/32/32/65/114/101/97 /67/105/116/121/32/111/102
/83/97/99/114/97/109/101/110/116/111
/67/72/50/77/32/72/105/108/108/32/82/68/68/32/65/114/99/86/105/101/119/32/80/114/111/106/101/99/116/32/70/105/108/101/32/32/92/92/84/104/111/114/92/67/97/114/116/49/92/114/100/100/103/105/115/92/110/97/116/111/109/97/115/104/99/112/92/110/97/116/95/104/99/112/46/97/112/114/32/32/102/105/103/49/95/53/95/100/114/110/95/99/97/110/108/46/112/100/102/32/32/49/48/58/48/52/32/97/46/109/46/32/32/48/55/45/51/49/45/50/48/48/49 /70/73/71/85/82/69/322-4
/87/65/84/69/82/32/68/69/76/73/86/69/82/89/32/83/89/83/84/69/77 /65/78/68/32/87/65/84/69/82/32/68/82/65/73/78/65/71/69/32/83/89/83/84/69/77 /82/69/86/73/83/69/68/32/78/65/84/79/77/65/83/32/66/65/83/73/78/32/72/67/80 /48 /52/53/48/48 /57/48/48/48 /70/101/101/116
/49/32/73/110/99/104/32/61/32/57/48/48/48/32/70/101/101/116 /78/97/116/111/109/97/115/32/66/97/115/105/110/32/66/111/117/110/100/97/114/121 /87/97/116/101/114/32/68/101/108/105/118/101/114/121/32/83/121/115/116/101/109 /76/69/71/69/78/68
/87/97/116/101/114/32/68/114/97/105/110/97/103/101/32/83/121/115/116/101/109 /83/111/117/114/99/101/58/69/110/115/105/103/110/32/38/32/66/117/99/107/108/101/121 /67/111/110/115/117/108/116/105/110/103/32/69/110/103/105/110/101/101/114/115 /69/73/82/47/69/73/83
CHAPTER 2: PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES
E042002017SAC/161795(002.DOC) REVI SED NATOMAS BASIN HCP 2-11

EIR/EIS
In addition, the specific activities that would not be covered by the ITPs are discussed in Section 2.3.4.

2.3.1 Land Use Agencies
The total amount or planned development in the Natomas Basin proposed to be covered by the take permits is 17,500 acres allocated among the City, Metro Air Park, and Sutter County. (Although the Metro Air Park development is not part of the Proposed Action evaluated in this EIR/EIS, the Metro Air Park acreage is factored into the 17,500 acres of urban development evaluated in this EIR/EIS to address impacts to covered species in a way that adequately represents current development plans.) The land use agencies’ covered activities, as described in Section I.N.1 of the HCP, are:
• Authorized development projects sponsored by either private developers or public entities that occur within the respective permit area of the land use agency permittee. • Total authorized development not to exceed 15,517 acres. This total does not include 1,983 acres of urban development associated with the Metro Air Park project, for which incidental take has been authorized by separate permits. The 1,983 acres of development in Metro Air Park 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 validity of the HCP’s conservation strategy. • Authorized development that affects vernal pool and aquatic species that are covered by the ITPs, whether or not 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.
• The following public facility projects have been proposed by the City, Metro Air Park, and Sutter County outside of their respective jurisdictions:
− Sutter County drainage improvements associated with the 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 improvements to the East Drain (approximately 90 feet by 8,000 feet upon completion). The proposed Sutter County drainage improvements are anticipated to convert approximately

16.5 acres of existing agricultural land to drainage channel. This land is subject to paying mitigation fees and is part of Sutter County’s total 7,467 acres of permit area and covered by Sutter County’s permit.
− 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. Acres of disturbance for this drainage improvement is included within the City’s total 8,050-acre permit area. − Metro Air Park off-site improvements fall partially within the City’s permit area and partially within Sacramento County. The Metro Air Park off-site improvements located in Sacramento County include drainage, sewer, and roadway improvements.

Metro Air Park off-site improvements occurring in Sacramento County have been included within the project’s 1,983 acres of disturbance. The off-site improvements occurring in the City (approximately 28 acres), while authorized under the Metro Air Park ITP, are included within the City’s 8,050-acre permit area.

CHAPTER 2: PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES
2-12 REVISED NATOMAS BASI N HCP E042002017SAC/161795(002.DOC)

EIR/EIS

2.3.2 Natomas Basin Conservancy
As described in Section I.N.3 of the HCP, incidental take coverage would be provided to the Conservancy for reserve creation and restoration activities, as well as for managing reserves, enhancing reserves, monitoring reserves, and scientific collection associated with these activities. This coverage would apply to the Conservancy’s system of habitat reserves, regardless of where they are acquired (see Section 2.2.3). As the plan operator, the Conservancy and its authorized agents have applied for a separate ITP for the entire study area.

2.3.3 Water Agencies

2.3.3.1 Reclamation District No. 1000
RD 1000 conducts an ongoing management program for certain flood control and drainage facilities in the Natomas Basin. These facilities are shown on Figure 2-4. Some of these facilities are jointly used with Natomas Mutual. These management activities, which are a necessary part of the drainage infrastructure in the Natomas Basin, could result in the take of special-status species. The RD 1000 permit area would include 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 control of RD 1000 and inside the inner toe of levees surrounding the Natomas Basin. Incidental take authority for RD 1000 would be limited to this area.

2.3.3.2 Natomas Central Mutual Water Company
Similar to RD 1000, Natomas Mutual conducts an ongoing management program for canals in the Natomas Basin (see Figure 2-4). Natomas Mutual facilities include irrigation canals and drainage canals (some of which are jointly managed with RD 1000) that convey water to agricultural water users. Natomas Mutual’s management activities have the potential to result in the take of special-status species. The Natomas Mutual permit area would include 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 control of Natomas Mutual and inside the inner toe of levees surrounding the Natomas Basin. Incidental take authority for Natomas Mutual would be limited to this area.

2.3.3.3 Water Agency Covered Activities
Although RD 1000 and Natomas Mutual do not anticipate filing applications for permits at this time, they have included conservation measures (see Section 2.4.6.3) for their covered activities (see below) in the HCP. As described in the HCP (Section I.N.2 of the HCP), the water agencies’ covered activities are:
• De-silting.
• Excavation and re-sloping of ditches and canals.
• Deposition of ditch and canal spoils materials on adjacent property. • Placement of fill material.

CHAPTER 2: PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES
E042002017SAC/161795(002.DOC) REVI SED NATOMAS BASIN HCP 2-13

EIR/EIS
• 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 HCP TAC on a 3-year basis. • Construction and improvement with no increase to the existing footprint, of flood control and water conveyance facilities, water ditches, canals, pump houses or maintenance facilities, and other ancillary facilities that are owned or operated by RD 1000 or Natomas Mutual.

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.

2.3.4 Activities not Covered by the Incidental Take Permits The following activities would not be covered by the ITPs:
• Agricultural Activities. Except as provided for the Conservancy management of habitat reserves, agricultural activities would not be covered under the ITPs. • Dredging. Except as provided for the water agencies’ channel maintenance, dredging would not be covered under the ITPs.
• Additional Regulations. In addition to the Section 10(a)(1)(b) and Section 2081 permits the permittees would also comply with all other applicable local, state and federal; regulations, laws or ordinances. These include, but are not limited to, the following: U.S.

Army Corps of Engineers Clean Water Act Section 404 permits; State Water Quality Control Board/Regional Water Quality Control Board Section 401 water quality certification and/or waste discharge requirements; and CDFG Streambed Alteration Agreements pursuant to Fish and Game Code Division 2, Chapter 6, Section 1600 et seq. • Relationship of Plan to Section 7 Consultations. Private actions that are covered activities could also be subject to separate ESA Section 7 review if those private 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 HCP. Incidental take coverage for the federal action agency will be granted through the incidental take statement issued with the USFWS’s Section 7 biological opinion.
• Pesticide Use. Use of herbicides, rodenticides, and/or pesticides is not an activity covered by the ITPs.

2.4 Description of Proposed Action
This section describes the key components of the Proposed Action, including the purpose of the HCP and associated required approvals to implement the HCP (i.e., the ITPs and the IAs), the covered species, biological goals and objectives of the HCP, the development of habitat reserves, the conservation measures to be implemented by the permittees, biological CHAPTER 2: PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES
2-14 REVISED NATOMAS BASI N HCP E042002017SAC/161795(002.DOC)

EIR/EIS
monitoring and adaptive management provisions, funding for reserve acquisition, and unforeseen circumstances. These topics are discussed in the following subsections:
• Habitat Conservation Plan Purpose (Section 2.4.1)
• Permits and Approvals (Section 2.4.2)
• Covered Species (Section 2.4.3)
• Biological Goals and Objectives (Section 2.4.4)
• Habitat Reserve Development Strategy (Section 2.4.5)
• Conservation Measures (Section 2.4.6)
• Biological Monitoring and Adaptive Management (Section 2.4.7) • Funding (Section 2.4.8)
• Unforeseen Circumstances/ “No Surprises” (Section 2.4.9)

2.4.1 Habitat Conservation Plan Purpose
The purpose of the HCP (as discussed in Section I.A of the HCP) is to promote biological conservation in conjunction with economic and urban development within the Natomas Basin. The Proposed Action is intended to establish 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 agricultural and habitat management activities associated with the Conservancy’s management of habitat reserves established under the HCP. The goal of the Proposed Action 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 HCP would establish a comprehensive program for the preservation and protection of habitat for threatened and endangered species potentially found on undeveloped and agricultural land in northern Sacramento County and southern Sutter County. The acquisition of lands or the establishment of conservation easements to develop and manage permanent habitat reserves are the primary components of the conservation strategy for addressing potential impacts to listed species. The HCP describes a method of funding the land acquisition and general goals for the acquired lands acquired in fee or protected by conservation easements (see Section VI.B of the HCP).

2.4.2 Permits and Approvals
The HCP is a conservation plan, which is part of the requirements of the ESA (see Section 1.5.1 of this EIR/EIS) designed to support applications for federal permits under Section 10(a)(1)(B). The HCP is also intended to serve as an application for ITPs under California state law pursuant to Section 2081(b) of the California Fish and Game Code. The requirements for issuance of the federal and state permits is described in Section I.I of the HCP. The entities that would rely on the HCP in their individual applications for federal ITPs under Section 10(a)(1)(B) of the ESA and state ITPs under Section 2081 of the California Fish and Game Code are: (1) the City of Sacramento; (2) Sutter County; (3) the Natomas Basin Conservancy, (4) RD 1000; and (5) Natomas Mutual. Each of these entities would obtain individual Section 10(a)(1)(B) permits from the USFWS for activities conducted within each local agency’s respective permit area. Similarly, each would also obtain individual Section 2081 permits, or amendments to existing 2081 permits, from CDFG for activities conducted CHAPTER 2: PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES
E042002017SAC/161795(002.DOC) REVI SED NATOMAS BASIN HCP 2-15

EIR/EIS
within each local agency’s respective permit area. Each permittee would be required to mitigate the impacts of their covered activities independently. Thus, if any one of the permits were revoked, the other permits would remain in effect.

As discussed in Chapter 1: Purpose and Need/Objectives, the term of the ITPs would be 50 years for each permittee. The permits could then be renewed, subject to any regulatory or statutory provisions in effect at the time of renewal.

2.4.3 Covered Species
The species proposed for coverage in the ITPs, including state and federal endangered and threatened species and species that could become listed in the future, are presented in Table 2-1. For the species that have not been listed, the applicants have requested that the IA(s) provide assurances that, if the currently unlisted species are subsequently listed, the HCP would be deemed adequate for purposes of permit coverage and no further mitigation would be required.

2.4.4 Biological Goals and Objectives
As discussed in Section I.C of the HCP, the overall biological goals and objectives of the HCP are to:
• Establish and manage in perpetuity a biologically sound and interconnected habitat reserve system that avoids, minimizes, and mitigates impacts on covered species resulting from covered activities and provides habitat for existing and new viable populations of covered species.
• Implement an adaptive management program that responds to changing circumstances affecting covered species and their habitats.
• Preserve open space and habitat that could also benefit local, non-listed, and transitory wildlife species not identified within the HCP.
• 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.
• 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. • Ensure connectivity between the Conservancy’s 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.
• Within individual Conservancy reserves, provide a mosaic of habitats that are configured to support species that utilize both wetland and upland habitat.

CHAPTER 2: PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES
2-16 REVISED NATOMAS BASI N HCP E042002017SAC/161795(002.DOC)

EIR/EIS
TABLE 2-1
Proposed Covered Species
Habitat and Species Federal Status State Status
Aleutian Canada goose
Branta canadensis leucopareia
Species of Concern
(recently delisted)
NA
Bank swallow
Riparia riparia
NA Threatened
Burrowing owl
Athene cunicularia
Species of Concern Species of Special
Concern
Loggerhead shrike
Lanius ludovicianus
Species of Concern Species of Special
Concern
Swainson’s hawk
Buteo swainsoni
NA Threatened
Tricolored blackbird
Agelaius tricolor
Species of Concern Species of Special
Concern
White-faced ibis
Plegadis chihi
Species of Concern Species of Special
Concern
Giant garter snake
Thamnophis gigas
Threatened Threatened
Northwestern pond turtle
Clemmys marmorata marmorata
Species of Concern Species of Special
Concern
California tiger salamander
Ambystoma californiense
Candidate Candidate
Protected Amphibian
Western spadefoot toad
Scaphiopus hammondii
Species of Concern Protected Amphibian
Valley elderberry longhorn beetle
Desmocerus californicus dimorphus
Threatened NA
Midvalley fairy shrimp
Branchinecta mesovallensis
NA NA
Vernal pool fairy shrimp
Branchinecta lynchi
Threatened NA
Vernal pool tadpole shrimp
Lepidurus packardi
Endangered NA
Boggs Lake hedge-hyssop
Gratiaola heterosepala
NA Endangered
Colusa grass
Neostapfia colusana
Threatened NA
Delta tule pea
Lathyrus jepsonii ssp. jepsonii
Species of Concern NA
Legenere
Legenere limosa
Species of Concern NA
Slender Orcutt grass
Orcuttia tenuis
Threatened Endangered
Sacramento Orcutt grass
Orcuttia viscida
Endangered Endangered
Sanford’s arrowhead
Sagittaria sanfordii
Species of Concern NA
Source: Natomas Basin Habitat Conservation Plan, July 2002 NA The status is not applicable to this species
CHAPTER 2: PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES
E042002017SAC/161795(002.DOC) REVI SED NATOMAS BASIN HCP 2-17

EIR/EIS
• Implement monitoring programs with qualitative and/or quantitative monitoring methods to evaluate management objectives and strategies for the reserve system. The Conservancy shall develop each monitoring plan and shall submit the plan for review and approval by the HCP TAC prior to implementation.
• Increase the diversity and abundance of covered species on reserve lands. • Revise the reserve design and management based on the most current biological data.

2.4.5 Habitat Reserve Development Strategy
This section summarizes the key elements of the conservation strategy, as presented in the HCP, including the establishment of habitat reserves.

2.4.5.1 Establishment of Habitat Reserves
The primary component of the conservation strategy for funding habitat reserve acquisition would be the use of mitigation fees (see Section 2.4.8) to set aside 0.5 acre of habitat land for each 1.0 gross acre of development that occurs in the Natomas Basin. Land development would result in 17,500 acres in the Natomas Basin being converted to urban and associated uses, in addition to the existing uses as of December 1997. Thus, under the 0.5-to-1 mitigation ratio, approximately 8,750 acres of land would be acquired by the Conservancy (or conservation easement purchased) as habitat reserves. Habitat reserves would be managed by the Conservancy and would consist of managed marsh habitats, upland habitats, rice fields (which would typically be leased for use to rice farmers), and associated buffers and infrastructure. The HCP does not specify any particular land area for acquisition as habitat reserves because many factors could affect the land areas ultimately purchased, including the quality and availability of parcels and the willingness of owners to sell.

The HCP proposes that, on a basinwide basis, 25 percent of the reserve areas would be managed marsh, 50 percent would be in rice production, and 25 percent would be upland habitat (HCP Section IV.C.2.c). This ratio of managed marsh/rice/uplands is subject to review and adjustment during the permit term in accordance with the overall and midpoint review provisions of the HCP (see Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences).

Key features of the habitat reserves and the reserve acquisition criteria and guidelines, as described in the HCP, are summarized in the Sections 2.4.5.2 through 2.4.5.12 below.

Additional detail regarding the reserves can be found in Section IV of the HCP.

2.4.5.2 Buffers within Reserve Lands
Reserve lands that are modified to create improved wetland habitat would, to the extent necessary and practicable, be surrounded by adequate buffers to minimize the effects of incompatible adjoining land uses and to ensure a functional transition from improved habitat to adjacent land uses (see Section IV.C.1.c of the HCP). In addition, the buffers would help ensure that the management of reserve lands does not impose an unnecessary burden on adjoining landowners. Buffers would be established on Conservancy lands so that they are inside the reserve system (i.e., the buffers would be part of, not outside of, reserve lands), and would be counted as mitigation lands. Typically, buffers would vary between 30 and 75 feet in width, based on compatibility with adjacent land uses. Buffers may be reduced to less than 30-feet in width where so designated in site-specific management plans as reviewed by HCP CHAPTER 2: PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES
2-18 REVISED NATOMAS BASI N HCP E042002017SAC/161795(002.DOC)

EIR/EIS
TAC and approved by USFWS and CDFG. Reduction of buffers may occur only where:
(1) there is clear evidence that the buffer is unnecessary (e.g., the reserve site is adjacent to another reserve or similar natural habitat); (2) it is determined that buffers are not the best use of reserve land; and, (3) that the lack of buffers will not create use conflicts for owners of property adjacent to the reserve (e.g., issues of vector control or other nuisance). Decisions about the need for buffers and buffer widths would be included in the management plan(s) for any given parcel or block of reserve land.

2.4.5.3 Setbacks
The establishment of setback zones would be considered before reserve lands are acquired.

The purpose of the setback requirement would be to ensure that reserve lands would not affect or be affected by existing development or lands that are designated for urban development. All mitigation lands acquired by the Conservancy would be situated a minimum of 800 feet from existing urban lands (as defined in Section IV.C.2.a of the HCP) or lands that are designated for urban uses in an adopted General Plan. The purpose of this provision is to ensure, to the greatest extent possible, that reserve lands are not established near or adjacent to significantly incompatible urban land uses, and not to impose an obligation on either the Conservancy or the owners of the setback lands to manage the lands in any particular fashion. Thus, it would be the responsibility of the Conservancy to locate reserve lands sufficiently far from urban areas or from lands designated for urban uses in an adopted General Plan to fulfill this requirement. The HCP proposes that this setback should be in agriculture, open space, or other non-urban use, and would not be counted as mitigation land. This setback provision does not preclude land development occurring up to the boundaries of a reserve. This setback requirement would not apply to lands acquired adjacent to the west side of Fisherman’s Lake, acquired pursuant to the Settlement Agreement. Mitigation lands or easements that do not comply with the 800-foot setback requirement may be acquired on a case-by-case basis, if: (1) the TAC, including its USFWS and CDFG representatives, concur unanimously in a decision to reduce the setback distance, or (2) if not unanimous, the USFWS and CDFG concur in writing that a reduction in the setback distance is necessary or appropriate.

2.4.5.4 Minimum Habitat Block Size
The conservation objectives described above for buffers and setbacks require that by the end of the 50-year term of the ITPs, one habitat block for the reserve system would be a minimum of 2,500 acres in size, and the balance of reserve lands would be in habitat blocks a minimum of 400 acres in size (see Section IV.C.1.e of the HCP). The basis for the 400 acres minimum block and 2,500 acre reserve block size is that large blocks: (1) minimize the “perimeter effect,” (2) promote biodiversity by allowing multiple species and niches to occupy the site, and (3) benefit genetic diversity by dispersing interconnected reserves throughout the Natomas Basin. In addition, the 400-acre reserve size is considered the minimum size to allow persistence of covered species.

2.4.5.5 Connectivity
The HCP also includes measures to facilitate connectivity between individual reserves and between reserves and surrounding agricultural lands. A key mechanism for ensuring CHAPTER 2: PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES
E042002017SAC/161795(002.DOC) REVI SED NATOMAS BASIN HCP 2-19

EIR/EIS
connectivity is for RD 1000 and Natomas Mutual to manage the drainage/irrigation canals within the basin to enhance habitat values and minimize harm to covered species.

The HCP focuses on maintaining connectivity among the reserves to allow giant garter snake movement within the Natomas Basin for two reasons: (1) giant garter snake is the most prevalent covered species within the Basin that requires land/water connectivity to travel within the basin and (2) if adequate connectivity is provided for giant garter snake, then the HCP anticipates that other covered species will also be afforded adequate opportunities to migrate within the basin.

With regard to basin-wide connectivity, RD 1000 has identified key drainage channels (see HCP Figure 17) that provide the foundation of the drainage system within the basin that would be retained regardless of the extent of urban development. The combination of primary drainage channels (drainage channels anticipated to remain through the term of the ITPs), secondary drainage channels (that tend to remain unless affected by urban development), and irrigation channels provide connectivity between the existing habitat reserves.

2.4.5.6 Out-of-Basin Reserves
It is currently expected that most of the HCP’s reserve lands would be established within the Natomas Basin. Up to 20 percent of the total mitigation lands required by the HCP, however, could be acquired out-of-basin. Area B (a 60,000-acre area of agricultural land north of the Basin that is anticipated to provide viable mitigation opportunities similar to that of the Natomas Basin) would be a potential out-of-basin mitigation area. This area is shown in Figure 2-3. For lands to be acquired in Area B, it must be approved in writing by the USFWS and CDFG that a reserve of adequate size, viability, and habitat value can be established in this area and can support a population of giant garter snakes, Swainson’s hawks, and other covered species (see HCP Section IV.C.2.b). Acquisition of land in Area B would occur only if it were unanimously approved by the TAC, or if the USFWS and CDFG approve a written request by the Conservancy.

2.4.5.7 General Acquisition Criteria
The HCP includes specific criteria for evaluating potential reserve acquisitions. Additional criteria for primarily wetland reserves and primarily upland reserves are also specified. The general criteria are:
• The HCP provides for a general division of land uses within habitat reserves as follows:
25 percent managed marsh; 50 percent rice production; and 25 percent upland habitat.

The percentages described herein apply on a basin-wide basis and percentages within individual reserves will vary from the percentages described above. While percentages of land use types within individual reserves will vary, each reserve will generally contain a combination of managed marsh, rice production, and upland habitat. For example, a reserve site may be appropriate for upland habitat and not suited to rice production or managed marsh.
• Land has legal water rights to an adequate water supply to serve the anticipated uses (wetland or upland) of the proposed reserve. This would normally mean rights to water from the Natomas Mutual (or its equivalent supplier if outside the basin), but may solely CHAPTER 2: PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES
2-20 REVISED NATOMAS BASI N HCP E042002017SAC/161795(002.DOC)

EIR/EIS
include groundwater if a groundwater well or wells exist on the property and that such wells can meet acceptable water quantity and quality needs. • Land is capable of supporting appropriate agricultural cultivation in conjunction with either wetland or upland habitat reserve.
• Land is capable of either supporting or being improved to support various covered species associated with the anticipated type of habitat (wetland or upland) proposed for the potential reserve.
• Upland or wetland specific criteria, as described in the following sections, will be applied as determined appropriate by the Conservancy and the HCP TAC. • Land is adequately removed from incompatible urban development or uses.

2.4.5.8 Wetland Reserve Acquisition Criteria/Methodology Wetland habitat reserves would be established by the Conservancy in consultation with the HCP TAC. Wetland reserves are intended to provide for the long-term protection of existing and potential wetland species populations in the Natomas Basin, including the giant garter snake. In most cases, wetland reserves established for the giant garter snake would also be planned to benefit other wetland-associated covered species, including a range of wetland associated species such as tri-colored blackbird, northwestern pond turtle, and Delta tule pea.

Consequently, selection of wetland reserve sites would usually focus on the needs of the giant garter snake, except in cases where, in the judgment of Conservancy and the TAC, specific or important needs of other wetland-associated species can be met at sites not selected primarily for giant garter snake.

The criteria for acquisition are:
• Land has existing or potential wetland habitat values that currently support or can support, with necessary enhancement and restoration, giant garter snakes and other wetland-associated covered species.
• Land contains soils that can support rice farming or the type of managed marsh wetlands proposed in the HCP.
• Blocks of reserve lands must also be hydrologically connected to other blocks through irrigation and drainage systems or other systems to ensure connectivity and opportunity for travel by giant garter snakes between sections of the reserve system. To the extent practicable, reserve lands should also be near or adjacent to other protected habitat lands; this would increase the overall effectiveness and size of protected lands in the basin for covered species.
• Lands selected to provide for the HCP wetland habitat system would be situated outside areas known to regularly receive deep flood waters (e.g., the Yolo and Sutter Bypasses).

They should also be situated so that they do not directly receive runoff from paved surfaces or inflow from urban storm water drainage systems

2.4.5.9 Marsh Design
At least 25 percent of the land acquired for the reserve system would be converted into managed marsh wetlands to enhance habitat values for the giant garter snake and other CHAPTER 2: PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES
E042002017SAC/161795(002.DOC) REVI SED NATOMAS BASIN HCP 2-21

EIR/EIS
covered species. The HCP outlines the basic habitat elements to be considered in the design of reserves, but site-specific plans for each managed marsh area would be developed when the site is acquired. In summary, the HCP presents a concept for a managed marsh wetland for giant garter snakes including a mosaic of habitat types with variations in topography and an abundance of edges within and between habitat types (Section IV.C.3.d of the HCP).

Habitat types would include seasonal marsh with shallow and deep water configurations; permanent marsh; and upland habitats in the form of buffers, “islands,” and other high-ground habitats scattered throughout the marsh’s wetland component. Permanent water features would be constructed so that they ensure adequate nearby escape cover. A significant portion of the upland component would be above winter flood levels to protect giant garter snakes in their winter retreats. Vegetation would be natural marsh vegetation such as cattails, spike rush, tule clumps, and thimbleberry, placed to maximize protected resting and basking sites and escape cover for the snakes.

2.4.5.10 Management of Rice Reserves
The HCP states that: (1) continued rice farming in the Natomas Basin would support the giant garter snake; and (2) maintaining rice farming on a significant portion of acquired habitat reserve lands would be, unless otherwise indicated, an integral component of the overall conservation strategy. With respect to the selection of rice fields for inclusion in the reserve system and subsequent management, the HCP establishes several standards (Section IV.C.3.e of the HCP), including:
• Rice fields will generally be selected in areas that are within, or that have connectivity to, known giant garter snake populations or known occupied garter snake habitat. • Rice fields located in areas designated to receive winter flood waters will be avoided (e.g., the Yolo and Sutter Bypasses).
• Rice fields in the reserve system will be managed to maximize giant garter snake compatibility.

Specific measures for managing rice fields in the wetland reserve system would be as determined by the Conservancy and as described in specific reserve management plans in consultation with the HCP TAC.

2.4.5.11 Upland Reserve Acquisition Criteria/Methodology The upland habitat conservation strategy is intended to provide for the long-term protection of existing and potential upland habitat in the basin that currently supports or could support the Swainson’s hawk and other upland species covered species (e.g., the loggerhead shrike and burrowing owl). Consequently, selection of upland reserve sites will usually focus on the needs of the Swainson’s hawk, except in cases where, in the judgement of the Conservancy and the HCP TAC, specific or important needs of other upland-associated species can be met at sites not selected primarily for Swainson’s hawks.

The Proposed Action’s primary strategy to mitigate impacts to the Swainson’s hawk is avoidance of development in the Swainson’s Hawk Zone and the acquisition of upland habitat inside the Swainson’s Hawk Zone (illustrated on Figures 2-5 and 3-5). The HCP strategy also includes habitat design outside the Swainson’s Hawk Zone. The determination of appropriate areas outside that one would be made in coordination with the HCP TAC.

CHAPTER 2: PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES
2-22 REVISED NATOMAS BASI N HCP E042002017SAC/161795(002.DOC)

EIR/EIS
This primary strategy is designed to provide optimum nesting and foraging habitat for the hawk in the area where most nesting occurs currently within the Natomas Basin along the Sacramento River. In consideration of these strategies, upland reserve acquisition sites will be evaluated based upon the following criteria:
• The land contains known or potential Swainson’s hawk nest trees, or includes or is adjacent to suitable foraging habitat (e.g., agricultural croplands and grasslands). • Agricultural croplands and grasslands that, based on crop type or surveys, are expected to have a suitable Swainson’s hawk prey base and, preferably, have historically been used by Swainson’s hawks (as determined by CDFG data and reports). • The land is or can be used to grow crops conducive to Swainson’s hawk foraging, including alfalfa and other hay crops, lightly grazed pasture, fallow fields, summer harvested row crops, but not cotton and other late harvest crops (see Section II.C.3.c of the HCP).
• If possible, the land contains appropriate areas for the establishment of riparian woodland habitat, or isolated groves in agricultural fields, for future use by Swainson’s hawks. Trees which may be planted include valley oaks, cottonwoods, willows, sycamores, and California black walnut.
• Contiguity of upland reserve sites will be maximized. The Swainson’s hawk conservation objectives in Chapter I of the HCP direct the Conservancy to focus acquisition of upland reserves in the Swainson’s Hawk Zone. That objective, together with this provision, is intended to ensure that Swainson’s hawk habitat protected in reserves will not be excessively fragmented, either inside the Swainson’s Hawk Zone or outside the zone, and that habitat contiguity will be a primary criteria under which upland reserve sites will be selected. The value of edge habitat with wetlands, however, will be considered in reserve design.
• The land supports or has the potential to support other covered species that use upland habitat.

On the basis of the acquisition criteria described in the 1997 HCP (City of Sacramento, 1997a), which are substantially the same as described above, and the incidental take authorization granted to the Conservancy, the Conservancy has acquired 12 parcels within the Natomas Basin totaling over 2,100 acres as of early 2002. These parcels represent the initial purchases in the 8,750-acre habitat reserve system if the HCP is approved. Pursuant to HCP requirements, management plans have been prepared for nine of these 12 properties.

Additional management plans will be developed for other properties in the future using the acquisition and management criteria included in Chapter IV of the HCP. These criteria are designed to avoid environmental impacts. Therefore, this environmental document provides a program environmental review for future acquisitions and management plans. Future acquisition and management activities that are in conformance with the HCP criteria and that do not pose new or substantially more severe environmental impacts that have not been covered by this EIS/EIR, might not need further environmental review or could require only limited environmental review.
/83/65/67/82/65/77/69/78/84/79/32/67/79/85/78/84/89
/80/76/65/67/69/82/32/67/79/85/78/84/89
/83/85/84/84/69/82/32/67/79/85/78/84/89
/80/76/65/67/69/82/32/67/79/85/78/84/89
/83/97/99/114/97/109/101/110/116/111/32/82/105/118/101/114 /83/97/99/114/97/109/101/110/116/111/32/82/105/118/101/114 /46/45/44
/56/48
/46
/45/44
/56/48
/46
/45/44
/53
/46
/45/44
/53
/34/33/57/57
/83/97/99/114/97/109/101/110/116/111
/73/110/116/101/114/110/97/116/105/111/110/97/108
/65/105/114/112/111/114/116
/83/97/110/107/101/121/32/82/111/97/100
/82/105/101/103/111/32/82/111/97/100
/69/108/118/101/114/116/97/32/82/111/97/100
/69/108/107/104/111/114/110/32/66/108/118/100/46
/68/101/108/32/80/97/115/111/32/82/111/97/100
/83/97/110/32/74/117/97/110/32/82/111/97/100
/69/108/32/67/97/109/105/110/111/32/65/118/101/110/117/101 /80/111/119/101/114/108/105/110/101/32/82/111/97/100
/67/105/116/121/32/111/102
/83/97/99/114/97/109/101/110/116/111
/69/108/32/67/101/110/116/114/111/32/82/111/97/100
/65/110/110/101/120/97/116/105/111/110/32/32/32/32/32/32/65/114/101/97 /89/79/76/79/32/67/79/85/78/84/89
/83/85/84/84/69/82/32/67/79/85/78/84/89
/89/79/76/79/32/67/79/85/78/84/89
/77/101/116/114/111
/65/105/114
/80/97/114/107
/83/85/84/84/69/82/32/67/79/85/78/84/89
/83/65/67/82/65/77/69/78/84/79/32/67/79/85/78/84/89
/73/110/100/117/115/116/114/105/97/108
/67/111/109/109/101/114/99/105/97/108
/82/101/115/101/114/118/101
/78/111/114/116/104/101/97/115/116
/85/112/108/97/110/100/115
/78/111/114/116/104/119/101/115/116
/81/117/97/100/114/97/110/116
/83/119/97/105/110/115/111/110/39/115
/72/97/119/107/32/90/111/110/101
/34/83/110/97/107/101/32/65/108/108/101/121/34
/70/105/115/104/101/114/109/97/110/39/115
/76/97/107/101/32/65/114/101/97
/78/111/114/116/104/101/97/115/116
/85/112/108/97/110/100/115
/67/72/50/77/32/72/105/108/108/32/82/68/68/32/65/114/99/86/105/101/119/32/80/114/111/106/101/99/116/32/70/105/108/101/32/32/92/92/84/104/111/114/92/67/97/114/116/49/92/114/100/100/103/105/115/92/110/97/116/111/109/97/115/104/99/112/92/110/97/116/95/104/99/112/46/97/112/114/32/32/102/105/103/50/95/53/114/101/115/101/114/118/101/95/122/111/110/101/46/112/100/102/32/32/51/58/52/50/32/112/46/109/46/32/32/48/55/45/50/45/50/48/48/50 /70/73/71/85/82/69/32/50/45/53
/82/69/83/69/82/86/69/32/90/79/78/69
/65/76/84/69/82/78/65/84/73/86/69
/82/69/86/73/83/69/68/32/78/65/84/79/77/65/83/32/66/65/83/73/78/32/72/67/80 /69/73/82/47/69/73/83
/48 /52/53/48/48 /57/48/48/48 /70/101/101/116
/49/32/73/110/99/104/32/61/32/57/48/48/48/32/70/101/101/116 CHAPTER 2: PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES
E042002017SAC/161795(002.DOC) REVI SED NATOMAS BASIN HCP 2-25

EIR/EIS

2.4.5.12 Reserve Management /Site Specific Management Plans All land acquired for reserves under the Proposed Action, whether it is controlled through easement or purchased outright, would require preservation management, enhancement and/or restoration, and monitoring activities. Following the habitat reserve acquisition process, site-specific management plans will be prepared for each suitable parcel or block of reserve lands. Each management plan would specify: (1) management policies not otherwise prescribed by the HCP (see Section IV.D.1 of the HCP); (2) specific management activities, including establishment of suitable monitoring programs (see Section IV.D.2 of the HCP); (3) restoration and enhancement needs (see Section IV.D.3 of the HCP); and reserve water management (see Section IV.D.4 of the HCP). The Conservancy would be responsible for preparing management plans for all reserve lands, in consultation with the HCP TAC. Prior to implementation, each management plan would be submitted to the USFWS and CDFG for review, revision if appropriate, and written approval. A submitted plan would be deemed approved on the 60th day after the Conservancy provides written notification to the USFWS and CDFG. Formal USFWS and CDFG review of proposed management plans could be waived if all members of the TAC, including its USFWS and CDFG representatives, unanimously concur in the plan.

2.4.6 Conservation Measures
This section presents the conservation measures for the permittees (see Section V of the HCP for detailed discussion of the conservation measures).

2.4.6.1 Land Use Agencies’ Conservation Measures
In addition to the habitat reserve system described above, the Proposed Action also includes measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate incidental take during covered activities that could occur during land development. These minimization measures include canal/ditch dewatering and seasonal grading restrictions for giant garter snakes, and nest site protection measures for Swainson’s hawks. These and other minimization measures to be implemented by the City and Sutter County are described in Section V.A of the HCP, and include the following measures:

General Measures to Reduce Take
• Not less than 30 days nor more than six months prior to commencement of construction activities on specific development sites, a Preconstruction survey of the site shall be conducted to determine the status and presence of, and likely impacts to, all covered species on the site.
• The City will take necessary action to amend the North Natomas Financing Plan to include the buffer area on the east side of Fisherman’s Lake in the Land Acquisition Program (i.e., development impact fees will be increased to fund acquisition of this setback area). This buffer area would be managed by the Conservancy. • Tree Preservation: 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.

CHAPTER 2: PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES
2-26 REVISED NATOMAS BASI N HCP E042002017SAC/161795(002.DOC)

EIR/EIS
• Native Plants: Improve the wildlife value of landscaped parks, buffers, and developed areas by planting trees and shrubs which are native to the Natomas Basin and therefore are used by native animals.
• Protect Raptor Nests: Avoid the raptor nesting season when scheduling construction near nests. Specific avoidance criteria are set forth in the species-specific measures later in this section.
• Protected Plant/Animal species, also referred to as “Special Status Species”: Search for protected plant species during flowering season prior to construction and protected animal species during the appropriate season.

Vernal Pool Species
In the event a biological reconnaissance survey or the preconstruction survey identifies that vernal pool resources are onsite, a vernal pool species specific biological assessment must be provided by the developer to the land use agency during the vernal “wet” pool season (as established by USFWS) to determine the type and abundance of species present. The species specific biological assessment must be prepared by a qualified field biologist and shall list the methods of field analysis, condition of habitat size, and acreage of direct and indirect impact (as defined by seasonal inundation and hydric soils and other appropriate characteristics), and species present. This assessment must be submitted with the formal development application and prior to approval of an urban development permit by the land use agency. If it is determined that wetland and/or vernal pool resource would be disturbed by a project, then take of vernal pool associated covered species would be covered under the ITPs, subject to the following limitations and guidelines.
• Where site investigations indicate vernal pool species could occur, the developer shall notify the land use agency regarding the potential for impacts to vernal pool species.

Such notification shall include biological data adequate to allow the land use agency, and the USFWS and CDFG, to determine the potential for impacts vernal pool species resulting from the proposed development.
• Following notification by the land use agency, the USWFS and CDFG shall identify specific measures required to avoid, minimize, and mitigate impacts to vernal pool species to be implemented prior to disturbance and in accordance with adopted standards or established guidelines (e.g., the USFWS programmatic biological opinion for vernal pool species). If vernal pool species are found within proposed project areas, the project proponent shall coordinate with the USFWS and CDFG to ensure conservation measures are incorporated to avoid and protect sensitive plant species. In some cases, USFWS and CDFG could require complete avoidance of vernal pool species, such as the presence of covered species such as slender Orcutt grass, Sacramento Orcutt grass, Colusa grass and/or vernal pool tadpole shrimp. Such measures shall be identified by USFWS and CDFG within 30 days or as soon as possible thereafter of notification and submittal of biological data to the agencies by the land use agency.

A developer or private land owner may propose to dedicate by fee title or conservation easement that portion of the property with non-jurisdictional vernal pool resources and the associated 250-foot buffer surrounding the vernal pool resource to the Conservancy. The dedication of vernal pool resources and associated buffer shall include a management and CHAPTER 2: PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES
E042002017SAC/161795(002.DOC) REVI SED NATOMAS BASIN HCP 2-27

EIR/EIS
monitoring plan and an adequate endowment. Acceptance of the offer to dedicate shall be subject to review and approval by the land use agency, the Conservancy’s Board of Directors, and the HCP TAC. The Conservancy’s Board and the HCP TAC shall consider the location, connections, species present, condition of the proposed site to be dedicated, adequacy of the management plan and endowment, and may decide to accept the dedication in lieu of payment of the land acquisition portion of the HCP mitigation fee for the affected acreage.

The Conservancy’s Board may accept or decline the offer based on the balance of habitat needs and the biological goals of the HCP. If the dedication is accepted, a reduction in the land acquisition portion of the habitat mitigation fee shall be granted to the developer for the portion (calculated on an acreage basis) of the site permanently preserved by easement or dedication. However, habitat mitigation fees, in full, must be paid on the remaining developable acreage on the site, and the monitoring and administrative portion of the fees shall be paid for all acres on the site. Additional conditions to preserve the biological integrity of the site (such as reasonable drainage conditions) may be imposed by the land use agency in consultation with the Conservancy and the HCP TAC. In the event the Conservancy does not accept the offer to dedicate, then one of the following mitigation approaches shall be employed.
• In the event on-site avoidance can not be reasonably accomplished, the following mitigation measures will be required:
− No grading, development or modification of the vernal pool site or the buffer area extending 250 feet around the perimeter of the vernal pool site may occur during the vernal pool “wet” season as identified by USFWS. Protective fencing shall be established around the perimeter of the vernal pool site and the buffer area during the vernal pool wet season.
− In consultation with the Conservancy and the HCP TAC, soils and cysts from the vernal pool may be relocated as soon as practicable during the dry season to a suitable Conservancy reserve site, provided the relocation/recreation site is approved by the Conservancy, the HCP TAC, and USFWS.
− If it is not practicable to relocate vernal pool resources, and/or the Conservancy and the HCP TAC determine that the Conservancy does not have a suitable reserve site for relocation of resources, then the applicant shall follow the mitigation approach outlined below.
• In the event all of the above approaches are not appropriate for the site, the land use agency shall require the developer to purchase credits from a USFWS-approved mitigation bank in accordance with the standards set forth in the following Table 2-2.

TABLE 2-2
Mitigation Ratios
Bank Non-Bank
Preservation 2:1 3:1
Creation 1:1 2:1
CHAPTER 2: PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES
2-28 REVISED NATOMAS BASI N HCP E042002017SAC/161795(002.DOC)

EIR/EIS
Preservation Component: For every acre of habitat directly or indirectly affected, at least two vernal pool credits will be dedicated within a USFWS-approved ecosystem preservation bank, or based on USFWS evaluation of site-specific conservation values, three acres of vernal pool habitat may be preserved on the project site or on another non-bank site as approved by the USFWS.

Creation Component: For every acre of habitat directly affected, at least one vernal pool creation credit will be dedicated within a USFWS-approved habitat mitigation bank, or based on USFWS evaluation of site-specific conservation values, two acres of vernal pool habitat created and monitored on the project site or on another non-bank site as approved by the USFWS.

Measures to Reduce Take for Individual Species
This section presents measures for the individual species covered by the ITPs.

Giant Garter Snake
• Within the Natomas Basin, all construction activity involving disturbance of habitat, such as site preparation and initial grading, is restricted to the period between May 1 and September 30. This is the active period for the giant garter snake and direct mortality is lessened, because snakes are expected to actively move and avoid danger. • Preconstruction surveys for giant garter snake, as well as other covered species, must be completed for all development projects by a qualified biologist approved by USFWS. If any giant garter snake habitat is found within a specific site, the following additional measures shall be implemented to minimize disturbance of habitat and harassment of giant garter snake, unless such project is specifically exempted by USFWS. • Between April 15 and September 30, all irrigation ditches, canals, or other aquatic habitat should be completely dewatered, with no puddled water remaining, for at least 15 consecutive days prior to the excavation or filling in of the dewatered habitat. Make sure dewatered habitat does not continue to support giant garter snake prey, which could detain or attract snakes into the area. If a site cannot be completely dewatered, netting and salvage of prey items may be necessary. This measure removes aquatic habitat component and allows giant garter snake to leave on their own. • For sites that contain giant garter snake habitat, no more than 24-hours prior to start of construction activities (site preparation and/or grading), the project area shall be surveyed for the presence of giant garter snake. If construction activities stop on the project site for a period of two weeks or more, a new giant garter snake survey shall be completed no more than 24-hours prior to the re-start of construction activities. • Confine clearing to the minimal area necessary to facilitate construction activities. Flag and designate avoided giant garter snake habitat within or adjacent to the project as Environmentally Sensitive Areas. This area shall be avoided by all construction personnel. • Construction personnel completing site preparation and grading operations shall receive USFWS approved environmental awareness training. This training instructs workers on how to identify giant garter snakes and their habitats, and what to do if a giant garter snake is encountered during construction activities. During this training an on-site biological monitor shall be designated.

CHAPTER 2: PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES
E042002017SAC/161795(002.DOC) REVI SED NATOMAS BASIN HCP 2-29

EIR/EIS
• If a live giant garter snake is found during construction activities, immediately notify the USFWS and the project’s biological monitor. The biological monitor, or his assignee, shall do the following:
• Stop construction in the vicinity of the snake. Monitor the snake and allow the snake to leave on its own. The monitor shall remain in the area for the remainder of the work day to make sure the snake is not harmed or if it leaves the site, does not return. Escape routes for giant garter snake should be determined in advance of construction and snakes should always be allowed to leave on their own. If a giant garter snake does not leave on its own within 1 working day, further consultation with USFWS is required. • Upon locating dead, injured or sick threatened or endangered wildlife species, the Permittees or their designated agents must notify within 1 working day the Service’s Division of Law Enforcement (2800 Cottage Way, Sacramento CA 95825) or the Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office (2800 Cottage Way, Room W-2650, Sacramento, CA 95825, telephone 916 414-6600). Written notification to both offices must be made within 3 calender days and must include the date, time, and location of the finding of a specimen and any other pertinent information.
• Fill or construction debris may be used by giant garter snake as an over-wintering site.

Therefore, upon completion of construction activities remove any temporary fill and/or construction debris from the site. If this material is situated near undisturbed giant garter snake habitat and it is to be removed between October 1 and April 30, it shall be inspected by a qualified biologist to assure that giant garter snake are not using it as hibernaculae.

Swainson’s Hawk
• To maintain and promote Swainson’s hawk habitat values, Sutter County will not obtain coverage under the ITPs, nor will Sutter County grant urban development permit approvals, for development on land within the one-mile wide Swainson’s Hawk Zone adjacent to the Sacramento River. The City of Sacramento has limited its permit area within the Swainson’s Hawk Zone to the approximately 252 acres located within the North Natomas Community Plan that were designated for urban development in 1994 and, likewise, will not grant development approvals within the Swainson’s Hawk Zone beyond this designated 252 acres. Of these 252 acres of land within the Swainson’s Hawk Zone, approximately 80 acres will be incorporated into a 250-foot wide agricultural buffer along the City’s side of Fisherman’s Lake. Should either the City or the County seek to expand coverage for development within the Swainson’s Hawk Zone beyond that described above, granting of such coverage would require an amendment to the HCP and permits and would be subject to review and approval by the USFWS and the CDFG, in accordance with all applicable statutory and regulatory requirements. • Best management practices for the nearly 250 miles of canals within the basin will seek to preserve vegetative cover which will provide food and protection for a productive prey base. This prey base will disperse onto adjacent habitats where it will be available as Swainson’s hawk forage.
• Every year, prior to the commencement of development activities at any development site within the HCP area, a preconstruction survey shall be completed by the respective CHAPTER 2: PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES
2-30 REVISED NATOMAS BASI N HCP E042002017SAC/161795(002.DOC)

EIR/EIS
developer to determine whether any Swainson’s hawk nest trees will be removed onsite, or active Swainson’s hawk nest sites occur on or within 1/2 mile of the development site.

These surveys shall be conducted according to the Swainson’s Hawk Technical Advisory Committee’s methodology or updated methodologies, as approved by the USFWS and CDFG, using experienced Swainson’s hawk surveyors.
• If breeding Swainson’s hawks (i.e., exhibiting nest building or nesting behavior) are identified, no new disturbances (e.g., heavy equipment operation associated with construction) will occur within 1/2 mile of an active nest between March 15 and September 15 or until a qualified biologist, with concurrence by CDFG, has determined that the young have fledged or that the nest is no longer occupied. If the active nest site is located within 1/4 mile of existing urban development, the no new disturbance zone can be limited to 1/4 mile versus 1/2 mile. Routine disturbances such as agricultural activities, commuter traffic, and routine facility maintenance activities within 1/2 mile of an active nest are not restricted.
• Where disturbance of a Swainson’s hawk nest cannot be avoided, such disturbance shall be temporarily avoided (i.e., defer construction activities until after the nesting season) and then, if unavoidable, the nest tree may be destroyed during the non-nesting season. For purposes of this provision the Swainson’s hawk nesting season is defined as March 15 to September 15. If a nest tree (any tree that has an active nest in the year the impact is to occur) must be removed, tree removal shall only occur between October 1 and February 1. • If a Swainson’s hawk nest tree is to be removed and fledglings are present, the tree may not be removed until September 15 or until CDFG has determined that the young have fledged and are no longer dependent upon the nest tree. • If construction or other project related activities that could cause nest abandonment or forced fledgling are proposed within the 1/4 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 on specific information at the project site.
• Valley oaks, tree groves, riparian habitat, and other large trees will be preserved wherever possible. The City and Sutter County shall preserve and restore stands of riparian trees used by Swainson’s hawks and other animals, particularly near Fisherman’s Lake and elsewhere in the Natomas Basin where large oak groves, tree groves and riparian habitat have been identified.
• The raptor nesting season shall be avoided when scheduling construction near nests in accordance with guidelines specified by species below, or in accordance with other applicable guidelines provided by the HCP TAC or published by CDFG and the USFWS. • The HCP will require 15 sapling trees to be planted within the habitat reserves for every Swainson’s hawk nesting tree anticipated to be impacted by authorized development. It will be the responsibility of each land use agency approving development that will impact Swainson’s hawk nest trees to provide funding for purchase, planting, maintenance, and monitoring of trees at the time of approval of each authorized development project. The Conservancy shall determine the appropriate cost for planting, maintenance, and monitoring of trees.

CHAPTER 2: PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES
E042002017SAC/161795(002.DOC) REVI SED NATOMAS BASIN HCP 2-31

EIR/EIS
• The land use agency permittee approving a project that impacts an existing Swainson’s hawk nest tree shall provide funding sufficient for monitoring survival success of trees for a period of five years. For every tree lost during this time period, a replacement tree must be planted immediately upon the detection of failure. Trees planted to replace trees lost shall be monitored for an additional five-year period to ensure survival until the end of the monitoring period. A 100 percent success rate shall be achieved. All necessary planting requirements and maintenance (e.g., fertilizing, irrigation) to ensure success shall be provided. Trees must be irrigated for a minimum of the first five years after planting, and gradually weaned from irrigation over an approximate two-year period. If larger stock is planted, the number of years of irrigation must be increased accordingly.

In addition, 10 years after planting, a survey of the trees shall be completed to assure 100 percent establishment success. Remediation of any dead trees shall include completion of the survival and establishment process described.
• Of the replacement trees planted, a variety of native tree species will be planted to provide trees with differing growth rates, maturation, and life span. This will ensure that nesting habitat will be available quickly (5-10 years in the case of cottonwoods and willows), and in the long term (i.e. valley oaks, black walnuts, and sycamores), and minimize the temporal losses from impacts to trees within areas scheduled for development within the 50-year permit life. Trees shall be sited on reserves in proximity to hawk foraging areas. Trees planted will be placed in groups of three. Planting stock will be a minimum of five-gallon container stock for oak and walnut species. • In order to reduce temporal impacts resulting from the loss of mature nest trees, mitigation planting shall occur within 14 months of approval of the HCP and ITPs. It is estimated at this time that 4 nesting trees within the City are most likely to be impacted by authorized development in the near term. Therefore, in order to reduce temporal impacts, the City will advance funding for 60 sapling trees of diverse, suitable species (different growing rates) to the Conservancy within the above referenced 14 months. It is anticipated that the City will recover costs of replacement nest trees as an additional cost to be paid by private developers at the time of approval of their development projects that impact mature nest trees.
• For each additional nesting tree removed by land use agencies covered activities, the land use agency shall fund and provide for the planting of 15 native sapling trees of suitable species with differing growth rates at suitable locations on habitat reserves. Funding for such plantings shall be provided by the applicable permittee within 30 days of approving a covered activity that will impact a Swainson’s hawk nesting tree.

Valley Elderberry Longhorn Beetle (VELB)
• All development must comply with the conditions of the USFWS’s Mitigation Guidelines for the Valley Elderberry Longhorn Beetle, dated 1999.
• Impacts to VELB habitat, including any direct and indirect effects on VELB critical habitat, will be avoided whenever possible. To the maximum extent practicable, projects will be designed to avoid stands of elderberry bushes and to avoid isolation of the plants from other nearby populations. Preconstruction surveys at the construction impact site will be conducted to assess the appropriate amount of mitigation.

CHAPTER 2: PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES
2-32 REVISED NATOMAS BASI N HCP E042002017SAC/161795(002.DOC)

EIR/EIS
• If elderberry plants cannot be avoided, they shall be transplanted during the dormant season (November 1 to February 15) to an area protected in perpetuity and approved by the USFWS.
• Replacement seedling plants will be provided at a ratio of 2 to 1 to 5 to 1 depending on the extent of beetle utilization of the plants moved or lost. An 1,800-square-foot area will be provided for each transplanted elderberry shrub or every five elderberry seedling plants.
• Annual monitoring of VELB habitat will be provided in the planted mitigation sites for a ten-year period.
• Replacement elderberry shrubs will meet a 60 percent survival rate by the end of the ten year period and the 60 percent survival rate shall be required for the term of the applicable permit.

Tricolored Blackbird
• Prior to approval of an urban development permit, the involved land use agency will require preconstruction surveys of potential breeding and nesting habitat for presence of breeding and nesting tricolored blackbirds.
• Disturbance to active (occupied) nesting colonies will be avoided during the nesting season. A boundary shall be marked by brightly colored construction fencing that establishes a boundary 500 feet from the active nest site. No disturbance associated with authorized development shall occur within the 500 foot fenced area during the nesting season of April through July. A qualified biologist, with concurrence of USFWS, must determine young have fledged and nest sites are no longer active before the nest site can be disturbed.

Aleutian Canada Goose
• Prior to approval of urban development permits, the applicable land use agency shall require Preconstruction surveys. If such surveys determine Aleutian Canada geese are present, the land use agency shall require the developer to consult with CDFG and the USFWS to determine appropriate measures to avoid and minimize take of individuals.

Such measures shall be appropriate for the use (e.g., foraging, roosting, etc.) and activity of the species, since this species is a seasonal visitor to the basin.

White-faced Ibis
• Prior to approval of an urban development permit, the involved land use agency will require preconstruction surveys.
• Disturbance to active nest sites within 1/4 mile of nests will be avoided within the nesting season of May 15 through August 31. A qualified biologist, with concurrence of USFWS, must determine that young have fledged or that the nest is no longer occupied prior to disturbance of the nest site.

Loggerhead Shrike
• Prior to approval of Urban Development Permits, the involved land use agency shall require pre-construction surveys.

CHAPTER 2: PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES
E042002017SAC/161795(002.DOC) REVI SED NATOMAS BASIN HCP 2-33

EIR/EIS
• If surveys identify an active loggerhead shrike nest that will be impacted by authorized development, the developer shall install brightly colored construction fencing that establishes a boundary 100 feet from the active nest. No disturbance associated with authorized development shall occur within the 100 foot fenced area during the nesting season of March 1 through July 31. A qualified biologist, with concurrence of USFWS, must determine young have fledged or that the nest is no longer occupied prior to disturbance of the nest site.

Burrowing Owl
• Prior to the initiation of grading or earth disturbing activities, the applicant/developer shall hire a CDFG approved 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. The pre-construction survey shall be submitted to the land use agency with jurisdiction over the site prior to the developer’s commencement of construction activities and a mitigation program shall be developed and agreed to by the land use agency and developer prior to initiation of any physical disturbance on the site.
• Occupied burrows shall not be disturbed during nesting season (February 1 through August 31) unless a qualified biologist approved by the CDFG verifies through non- invasive measures that either: (1) the birds have not begun egg-laying and incubation; or (2) that juveniles from the occupied burrows are foraging independently and are capable of independent survival.
• If nest sites are found, the USFWS and CDFG shall be contacted regarding suitable mitigation measures, which may include a 300 foot buffer from the nest site during the breeding season (February 1 - August 31), or a relocation effort for the burrowing owls if the birds have not begun egg-laying and incubation or the juveniles from the occupied burrows are foraging independently and are capable of independent survival. If on-site avoidance is required, the location of the buffer zone will be determined by a qualified biologist. The developer shall mark the limit of the buffer zone with yellow caution tape, stakes, or temporary fencing. The buffer will be maintained throughout the construction period.
• If relocation of the owls is approved for the site by USFWS and CDFG, the developer shall hire a qualified biologist to prepare a plan for relocating the owls to a suitable site.

The relocation plan must include: (a) the location of the nest and owls proposed for relocation; (b) the location of the proposed relocation site; (c) the number of owls involved and the time of year when the relocation is proposed to take place; (d) the name and credentials of the biologist who will be retained to supervise the relocation; (e) the proposed method of capture and transport for the owls to the new site; (f) 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 (g) a description of efforts and funding support proposed to monitor the relocation. • Relocation options may include passive relocation to another area of the site not subject to disturbance through one way doors on burrow openings, or construction of artificial burrows in accordance with the CDFG’s October 17, 1995, Staff Report on Burrowing Owls Mitigation (see Appendix D).

CHAPTER 2: PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES
2-34 REVISED NATOMAS BASI N HCP E042002017SAC/161795(002.DOC)

EIR/EIS
• Where on-site avoidance is not possible, disturbance and/or destruction of burrows shall be offset through development of suitable habitat on TNBC upland reserves. Such habitat shall include creation of new burrows with adequate foraging area (a minimum of 6.5 acres) or 300 feet radii around the newly created burrows. Additional habitat design and mitigation measures are described in the CDFG’s October 17, 1995, Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation.

Bank Swallow
• Disturbance to bank swallow nesting colonies will be avoided within the nesting season (May 1 through August 31) during all authorized development activities conducted in the permit areas.
• If surveys identify an active bank swallow nesting colony that will be impacted by authorized development, the developer shall install brightly colored construction fencing that establishes a boundary 250 feet from the active nesting colony. No disturbance associated with Authorized Development shall occur within the 250 foot fenced area during the nesting season of May 1 through August 31. Additionally, disturbance within 1/2 mile upstream or downstream of the colony will be avoided if the colony is located upon a natural waterway
Northwestern Pond Turtle
• Take of the northwestern pond turtle as a result of habitat destruction during construction activities, including the removal of irrigation ditches and drains, and during ditch and drain maintenance, will be minimized by the dewatering requirement described above for giant garter snake.

California Tiger Salamander
• Prior to approval of urban development permits, the involved land use agency shall require preconstruction surveys. If future surveys determine the presence of California tiger salamander, the land use agency shall require the developer to consult with CDFG and the USFWS to determine appropriate measures to avoid and minimize take of individuals.

Western Spadefoot Toad
• Prior to approval of urban development permits, the applicable land use agency shall require preconstruction surveys. If such surveys determine western spadefoot toads are present, the land use agency shall require the developer to consult with CDFG and USFWS to determine appropriate measures to avoid and minimize take of individuals.

Vernal Pool Fairy Shrimp, Vernal Pool Tadpole Shrimp, and Midvalley Fairy Shrimp • Prior to approval of urban development permits, the involved land use agency shall require preconstruction surveys. If such surveys determine that vernal pool fairy shrimp, vernal pool tadpole shrimp, and midvalley fairy shrimp are present, the land use agency shall require the developer to consult with USFWS to determine appropriate measures to avoid and minimize take of individuals.

Delta Tule Pea
• If Delta tule pea plants are identified through Preconstruction surveys, the involved land use agency shall provide notice to USFWS, CDFG, and the California Native Plant CHAPTER 2: PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES
E042002017SAC/161795(002.DOC) REVI SED NATOMAS BASIN HCP 2-35

EIR/EIS
Society. Under such circumstances, the development proponent shall allow the transplantation of plants prior to site disturbance.

Sanford's Arrowhead
• If Sanford’s arrowhead plants are identified through Preconstruction surveys, the involved land use agency shall provide notice to USFWS, CDFG, and the California Native Plant Society. Under such circumstances, the development proponent shall allow the transplantation of plants prior to site disturbance.

Boggs Lake Hedge-Hyssop, Sacramento Orcutt Grass, Slender Orcutt Grass, Colusa Grass, and Legenere
• Prior to approval of urban development permits, the involved land use agency shall require Preconstruction surveys. If such surveys determine Boggs Lake hedge-hyssop, Sacramento Orcutt grass, slender Orcutt grass, Colusa Grass, or legenere are present, the land use agency shall require the developer to consult with USFWS to determine appropriate measures to avoid and minimize take of individuals.

2.4.6.2 Natomas Basin Conservancy Conservation Measures • As a permittee, the Conservancy shall employ a number measures to avoid, minimize, and mitigate take of covered species during the implementation of the Conservancy’s covered activities. The Conservancy’s covered activities comprise the acquisition and management of habitat reserves including, where approved through site specific management plans, development activities necessary to create suitable supportive habitat for the covered species.

General Conservation Strategies
• Pre-acquisition field reconnaissance shall be conducted to determine the types of species present on any site for which acquisition is contemplated. The purpose of the pre- acquisition reconnaissance is to identify the types of covered species that could already be present on the site and to identify general strategies to avoid take of covered species during the acquisition, development, and management phases of reserve operations. Not less than 30 days prior to commencement of major construction activities on specific reserve sites, the Conservancy shall conduct a formal Preconstruction survey of the site to determine the status and presence of, and likely impacts to, all covered species on the site. For purposes of the Conservancy, major construction shall include site grading or contouring, dredging or filling of ditches or drainage systems, and construction of reserve access roads or other structures. Actions involving substantial vegetation removal or tree removal shall also be subject to the Preconstruction survey requirement, which could be more focused to identify the presence of nests of covered species or other likely species impacts. The Conservancy would utilize qualified biological consultants to carry out the Preconstruction surveys and, as necessary, to implement specific take minimization measures set forth in the HCP and approved by the USFWS, CDFG, and the HCP TAC.

General Conservation Strategies for Wetland and Upland Species and Reserves • The Conservancy shall employ the wetland and upland conservation acquisition and management strategies described in Sections 2.4.5.7, 2.4.5.8, and 2.4.5.9.

CHAPTER 2: PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES
2-36 REVISED NATOMAS BASI N HCP E042002017SAC/161795(002.DOC)

EIR/EIS
Conservation Strategies for Individual Species
Giant Garter Snake
• 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 the USFWS. • The construction of replacement habitat may take place at any time of year, but summer is preferred.
• Rice fields and other existing habitat may be diverted 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 USFWS approval.
• Replacement habitat will be revegetated as directed by USFWS or as specified in the individual site specific management plan for the reserve. • Dewatering of existing habitat may begin any time after November 1, but no later than April 1 of the following year. All water must be removed from existing habitat by April 15, or as soon thereafter as weather permits, and the habitat must remain dry without any standing water for 15 consecutive days after April 15 and prior to excavating or filling the dewatered habitat unless otherwise specified in the approved site specific reserve management plan for the site.
• The USFWS shall evaluate the potential for trapping and removal of giant garter snakes from the site and relocation to other suitable habitat. Any such salvage will be undertaken by USFWS at their expense, unless the Conservancy, at its discretion, elects to undertake or pay for the relocation. If the Conservancy elects to trap and relocate giant garter snakes from a development site, it shall consult with the USFWS prior to initiation of any such activities to obtain approval and determine appropriate methodologies.

Swainson’s Hawk
The Conservancy shall implement the following measures to further enhance habitat and to reduce the potential for take of covered upland species during improvement, operation, and maintenance of habitat reserves:
• The Conservancy, in conjunction with the land use agencies, will monitor proposed development in the Swainson’s Hawk Zone, where the majority of known Swainson’s hawk nest sites are currently located and, hence, much of the Swainson’s hawk nesting and foraging in the basin occurs. Based on existing general plans, development in this zone is expected to be limited over the term of the take permits. However, if such development does occur, reserve lands established in mitigation for that development shall, likewise, be located within the Swainson’s Hawk Zone. In addition, the Conservancy shall set as a top priority the acquisition of upland reserve sites in the Swainson’s hawk zone (via easement or land purchase). Further, any reserve lands established in the Swainson’s Hawk Zone shall, to the maximum extent possible, be managed to benefit all upland-associated covered species, though any management in this zone must be fully consistent with Swainson’s hawk biology and needs. • To enhance the success of the species, the habitat reserves shall include tree plantings of valley oaks (Quercus lobata), cottonwoods (Populus fremontii), various willows (including black willow), or other suitable species to recreate suitable nesting sites for the CHAPTER 2: PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES
E042002017SAC/161795(002.DOC) REVI SED NATOMAS BASIN HCP 2-37

EIR/EIS
Swainson’s hawk over the term of the take permits. Such tree planting shall be in reasonable proximity to upland foraging areas covered by the conservation plan including agricultural areas managed by the Conservancy. • For rice fields operated by the Conservancy, best practices to increase habitat for Swainson’s hawk shall be incorporated. This includes allowing at least 10 percent of rice fields to fallow each year as well as allowing foraging before and after rice flooding. It is estimated that during the time hawks are present in the basin, drained or unflooded rice fields provide foraging habitat for an average of 2 months every year. Additionally, wildlife-friendly agricultural practices (organic farming, providing crop residual for rodent production, similar to those used at the nearby Cosumnes River Preserve) are expected to greatly increase the habitat value of ricelands to the hawk and other covered species.
• Where possible, develop or restore upland components of wetland reserves such that upland covered species including the Swainson’s hawk also benefit from the habitat.

Thus, wetland reserves, along with the upland reserves described above, will help offset habitat losses affecting the Swainson’s hawk within the Natomas Basin. Also, the upland component of wetland reserves will benefit some of the upland covered species, especially those that also have wetland habitat needs (e.g., the tricolored blackbird). • Utilize best management practices to ensure availability of food sources for Swainson’s hawk including meadow mice (Microtus californicus) and insects. In the Central Valley, meadow mice and insects make up a significant portion of the Swainson’s hawk’s diet. In the management of nearby similarly designed preserves (e.g., Beach Lake Mitigation Bank, Stones Lakes National Wildlife Refuge), the increased availability of water in previously dry grasslands has increased Microtus abundance (Caltrans, 1991). This would be expected given the biological requirement of Microtus for green food. This species has been found to increase its reproductive rate nearly tenfold in the presence of persistent green food over dry grasses (Batzli, 1986; Bowen, 1987; Gill, 1976). Those green plant species generally preferred by Microtus (bent grass, chickweed, bedstraw, sorrel, plantain, and bromus) are tolerant of limited inundation and will do well in a seasonally wetland environment, as well as those ruderal habitats associated with agricultural and water conveyance systems (Ostfeld and Klosterman, 1986). It is expected that the Water Agencies’ Covered Activities on nearly 250 miles of canals, improved agricultural practices timing of water management (floodup and drawdown) on reserve lands, and the increase in edge or ecotone between upland and wetland habitats will greatly enhance upland habitat values for Swainson’s hawk.
• Specific plans for acquisition of upland habitat reserve lands will be determined by the Conservancy in consultation with the HCP TAC, by applying the objectives and criteria of the HCP, and consistent with the requirements described in Chapter IV of the HCP.

Specific management plans for reserve sites providing Swainson’s hawk habitat will be developed as described in Chapter IV of the HCP.
• Upland reserves will initially be designed to maintain existing Swainson’s hawk populations and, where possible, to increase such populations through the tree planting program. However, such reserves will be re-designed, as necessary, to meet Swainson’s CHAPTER 2: PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES
2-38 REVISED NATOMAS BASI N HCP E042002017SAC/161795(002.DOC)

EIR/EIS
Hawk recovery plan goals, after a Swainson’s Hawk Recovery Plan is prepared and approved by CDFG.
• Reserve design will use wildlife-friendly agricultural practices. For health and safety reasons, rodent control measures will be limited to that necessary to maintain structurally sound flood control levees within the Basin.
• Every year, prior to the commencement of development activities at any reserve site within the HCP plan area, a Preconstruction survey shall be completed by the Conservancy to determine whether any Swainson’s hawk nest trees will be removed on- site, or active Swainson’s hawk nest sites occur on or within 1/2 mile of the development site. These surveys shall be conducted according to the Swainson’s Hawk Technical Advisory Committee’s methodology or updated methodologies, as approved by the site specific management plan for the reserve site.
• If an active Swainson’s hawk nest is identified, no new disturbances (e.g., heavy equipment operation associated with construction) will occur within 1/2 mile of an active nest between March 15 and September 15. If the active nest site is located within 1/4 mile of existing urban development, the no new disturbance zone can be limited to the 1/4 mile versus 1/2 mile. Routine disturbances such as agricultural activities, commuter traffic, and routine facility maintenance activities within 1/2 mile of an active nest are not restricted. • Where disturbance of a Swainson’s hawk nest cannot be avoided, such disturbance shall be temporarily avoided (i.e., defer construction activities until after the nesting season) and then, if unavoidable, the nest tree may be destroyed during the non-nesting season.

For purposes of this provision the Swainson’s hawk nesting season is defined as March 15 to September 15. If any tree must be removed that has an active nest in the year the impact is to occur, the tree removal should only occur between October 1 and February 1. • Disturbance shall be avoided within 1/2 mile of an active nest between March 15 and August 15, or until fledglings are no longer dependent on nest tree habitat (which could be as late as September 15).
• If a Swainson’s hawk nest tree is to be removed and fledglings are present, the tree must not be removed until September 15 or until CDFG has determined that the young have fledged and are no longer dependent upon the nest tree. • Valley oaks, tree groves, riparian habitat and other large trees will be preserved wherever possible.
• The Conservancy shall plant replacement trees in upland reserve areas and where appropriate on the edges of wetland reserves. These trees may be trees contributed to the reserve as part of the land use agencies’ tree mitigation program, or could be trees determined to be important to the habitat enhancement of objectives of the site. The replacement mitigation trees shall include a variety of native tree species with differing growth rates, maturation, and life span. This will ensure that nesting habitat will be available quickly (5-10 years in the case of cottonwoods and willows), and in the long term (i.e. valley oaks, black walnuts, and sycamores). Trees shall be sited on reserves in proximity to hawk foraging areas. Trees planted will be replaced in groups of three.

Planting stock will be a minimum of five-gallon container stock for oaks and walnuts.

CHAPTER 2: PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES
E042002017SAC/161795(002.DOC) REVI SED NATOMAS BASIN HCP 2-39

EIR/EIS
Tricolored Blackbird
• As part of baseline species survey for each reserve and as part of the annual survey of reserves, any colonization by tricolored blackbirds shall be recorded by location and if possible, with a population estimate and activity description. • Where tricolored blackbirds have been observed in colonies (active nesting and foraging), the nesting area and a reasonable foraging area adjacent to the nesting area within the reserve shall be identified and incorporated into the site specific plan, or if necessary accommodated through adaptive management of an existing developed reserve. • In order to enhance wetland to upland edges of reserves to attract tricolored blackbirds, plantings of wild rose, tule and cattails shall be incorporated in habitat reserve units where biologically appropriate.
• During the nesting season, disturbance of foraging areas adjacent to active nest sites or previously active nest sites on reserve lands shall be avoided to the maximum extent possible. If nests are occupied, a reasonable buffer of foraging lands adjacent to the nest shall be marked and protected on reserve lands.
• Disturbance to tricolored blackbird nesting colonies will be strictly avoided within the nesting season (April to July or while birds are present) during Conservancy development and management activities undertaken on Conservancy property in wetland and upland habitat reserve areas, unless otherwise approved by the USFWS and CDFG. • In accordance with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, disturbance to active (occupied) nesting colonies will be avoided during the nesting season. A boundary shall be marked by brightly colored construction fencing that establishes a boundary 500 feet from the active nest site on reserve lands. No disturbance associated with TNBC management or development activities shall occur within the designated 500 foot foraging buffer of the reserve during the nesting season of April 1 through July 1, unless a qualified biologist, with concurrence of USFWS, determines young have fledged and nest sites are no longer active.
• During the nesting season, disturbance of foraging areas adjacent to active nest sites or previously active nest sites on reserve lands shall be avoided to the maximum extent possible. If nests are occupied, a reasonable buffer of foraging lands adjacent to the nest shall be marked and protected on reserve lands.
• Plantings of wild rose, tules, and cattails shall be incorporated in habitat reserve units where biologically appropriate to enhance tricolored blackbird nesting habitat.

Loggerhead Shrike
• The Conservancy shall encourage and maintain loggerhead shrike perching and nesting sites on all habitat reserves to the maximum extent practicable. • The Conservancy shall avoid disturbance to loggerhead shrike nest sites in the nesting season during reserve management and enhancement activities to the maximum extent practicable, unless otherwise approved by the Conservancy and the HCP TAC. • If the loggerhead shrike nests on a TNBC reserve, TNBC shall establish, identify, and mark (through construction fencing or other appropriate means) a buffer extending 100 feet from CHAPTER 2: PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES
2-40 REVISED NATOMAS BASI N HCP E042002017SAC/161795(002.DOC)

EIR/EIS
the active nest on reserve lands. No disturbance associated with TNBC management and development activities shall occur within the 100 foot fenced area during the nesting season of March 1 through July 31, unless a qualified biologist, with concurrence of USFWS, determines young have fledged or that the nest is no longer occupied.

Burrowing Owl
• The Conservancy will avoid disturbance to active burrowing owl nesting burrows during reserve management activities to the maximum extent practicable. Disturbance to burrowing owl nesting colonies will be strictly avoided within the nesting season (February 1 through August 31 or while birds are present) unless otherwise approved by the Conservancy and the HCP TAC.
• The Conservancy shall utilize applicable USFWS or CDFG approved burrowing owl recovery or management plans, and the adaptive management provisions described in Section VI.F of the HCP, to implement any additional conservation measures deemed appropriate should use of the Natomas Basin by this species appreciably increase at any time in the future.
• In upland reserve areas, the TNBC may be asked to create new burrowing owl habitat by creating new burrows or restoring old burrows. New habitat shall include adequate foraging area around the burrow, and burrow design shall be done in consultation with qualified biologists. Additional habitat design and mitigation measures are described in the CDFG’s October 17, 1995, Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation.

Bank Swallow
• The Conservancy will avoid disturbance to active bank swallow nesting burrows during reserve management activities to the maximum extent practicable. • The Conservancy shall utilize applicable USFWS or CDFG approved bank swallow recovery or management plans, and the adaptive management provisions described in Section VI.F of the HCP, to implement any additional conservation measures deemed appropriate should use of the Natomas Basin by this species appreciably increase at any time in the future.
• Disturbance to bank swallow nesting colonies will be strictly avoided within the nesting season (May 1 through August 31 or until a qualified biologist, with concurrence of USFWS, has determined that young have fledged or that the nest is no longer occupied) during TNBC reserve development and management activities unless otherwise approved by TNBC and the TAC.
• If surveys identify an active bank swallow nesting colony that will be impacted by Conservancy activities, The TNBC shall identify and mark (through construction fencing or other methods) a boundary 250 feet from the active nesting colony on reserve lands.

No disturbance associated with Conservancy activities shall occur within the 250 foot marked area of the reserve during the nesting season of May 1 through August 31.

Additionally, disturbance within ½ mile upstream or downstream of the colony on reserve lands will be avoided if the colony is located upon a natural waterway.

CHAPTER 2: PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES
E042002017SAC/161795(002.DOC) REVI SED NATOMAS BASIN HCP 2-41

EIR/EIS
Aleutian Canada Goose
• The Conservancy shall utilize applicable USFWS-approved Aleutian Canada goose recovery or management plans, and the adaptive management provisions described in the HCP (see Section VI.F of the HCP), to implement any additional conservation measures deemed appropriate should use of the Natomas Basin by this species appreciably increase at any time in the future.

White-faced Ibis
• The Conservancy shall utilize applicable USFWS-approved white-faced ibis recovery or management plans, and the adaptive management provisions described in the HCP (see Section VI.F of the HCP), to implement any additional conservation measures deemed appropriate should use of the Natomas Basin by this species appreciably increase at any time in the future.
• Disturbance to white-faced ibis nesting colonies will be strictly avoided within the nesting season (May 15 to August 31 or while birds are present, or until a qualified biologist, with concurrence of USFWS, has determined that young have fledged or that the nest is no longer occupied) during the Conservancy reserve development and management activities unless otherwise approved by the Conservancy and the HCP TAC. During the nesting season, a foraging buffer shall be identified around any active nest site to ensure minimal disturbance to the nest and nearby foraging areas on reserve lands. The buffer area shall be established in consultation with USFWS and CDFG.

Northwestern Pond Turtle
• The Conservancy shall consult with northwestern pond turtle researchers and experts periodically during implementation of the HCP to determine what, if any, conservation opportunities for this species might exist within the Conservancy’s reserve system. The Conservancy shall implement such conservation measures through the HCP’s adaptive management provisions as appropriate. Such opportunities might include, but are not limited to, provision of suitable upland habitat for nesting (e.g., unshaded slopes), plentiful basking sites (e.g., floating snags), and shallow water with dense emergent and submergent vegetation for juveniles.

Valley Elderberry Longhorn Beetle (VELB)
• During reserve development activities, impacts to VELB habitat will be avoided whenever possible. Projects will be designed to avoid stands of elderberry bushes and to avoid isolation of the plants from other nearby populations to the maximum extent practicable. Preconstruction surveys at the construction impact site will be conducted to assess the appropriate amount of mitigation.
• If elderberry plants cannot be avoided, they should be transplanted during the dormant season (November 1 to February 15) to an area protected in perpetuity and approved by the USFWS.
• Replacement seedling plants will be provided at a ratio of 2 to 1 through 5 to 1 depending on the extent of beetle utilization of the plants moved or lost. An 1,800-square-foot area will be provided for each transplanted elderberry shrub or every five elderberry seedling plants.

CHAPTER 2: PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES
2-42 REVISED NATOMAS BASI N HCP E042002017SAC/161795(002.DOC)

EIR/EIS
California Tiger Salamander
• The Conservancy shall consult with the HCP TAC and California tiger salamander researchers and experts periodically during implementation of the HCP to determine what, if any, additional conservation opportunities for this species might exist within the proposed habitat reserve system. The Conservancy shall implement such conservation measures through the HCP’s adaptive management provisions as appropriate. Such opportunities might include, but are not limited to, establishment or creation of wetland and upland habitats suitable for tiger salamanders within the reserve system (e.g., stock ponds or “artificial” vernal pools with nearby natural materials for cover such as logs or large rocks) and, if appropriate, possible relocation and reintroduction of tiger salamanders into the Natomas Basin.

Western Spadefoot Toad
• The Conservancy shall consult with the HCP TAC and western spadefoot toad experts periodically during implementation of the NBHCP to determine what, if any, additional conservation opportunities for this species might exist within the Plan’s proposed reserve system. The Conservancy shall implement such conservation measures through the HCP’s adaptive management provisions as appropriate. Within reserve sites, the Conservancy shall consider creating habitat that are conducive to the western spadefoot toads such as areas of slow-moving waters (e.g., pools and plunge pools of small creeks), short grasses with sandy or gravelly soils, and other grassy areas.

Vernal Pool Fairy Shrimp, Vernal Pool Tadpole Shrimp, and Midvalley Fairy Shrimp • The Conservancy shall consult with the HCP TAC and fairy shrimp and tadpole shrimp experts periodically during implementation of the HCP to determine what, if any, additional conservation opportunities for vernal pool fairy shrimp, vernal pool tadpole shrimp, and midvalley fairy shrimp might exist within the habitat reserve system. The Conservancy shall implement such conservation measures through the HCP’s adaptive management provisions as appropriate.

Delta Tule Pea
• The Conservancy shall evaluate the potential for furthering the conservation of Delta tule pea within the HCP’s reserve system through appropriate means, including but not limited to, introduction of the plant into suitable locations in the Natomas Basin. The Conservancy shall implement such conservation measures through the HCP’s adaptive management provisions as appropriate.
• The Conservancy shall monitor any known populations of covered plant species within the Natomas Basin.

Sanford’s Arrowhead
• The Conservancy shall evaluate the potential for and, as appropriate, implement measures to further the conservation of Sanford’s arrowhead within the habitat reserve system through appropriate means, including but not limited to, introduction of the plant into suitable locations in the Natomas Basin.
• The Conservancy shall monitor any known populations of covered plant species within the Natomas Basin.

CHAPTER 2: PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES
E042002017SAC/161795(002.DOC) REVI SED NATOMAS BASIN HCP 2-43

EIR/EIS
Other Covered Plant Species
• The Conservancy shall evaluate the potential for and, as appropriate, implement measures to further the conservation of covered plant species within vernal pool areas in the Natomas Basin or its habitat reserve system through appropriate means including, but not limited to, the introduction of Bogg’s Lake hedge-hyssop, Sacramento Orcutt grass, slender Orcutt grass, Colusa grass, and legenere into the vernal pool areas or other suitable locations in the Natomas Basin.

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

Pursuant to the HCP, RD 1000 and Natomas Mutual would implement best management practices. These measures would apply to the internal system of canals and ditches in the Natomas Basin, and would not apply to external flood control levees. These best management practices are summarized below, and additional detail is provided in the HCP (Section V.C).

Canal and Ditch Maintenance
The following canal and ditch maintenance practices would be implemented. • RD 1000 and Natomas Mutual shall limit canal and ditch maintenance activities (activities involving excavation, desilting and/or resloping of channel(s) during any calendar year to not more than ten percent (10 percent) of the total miles of canals and ditches within each agency’s respective service area. Where giant garter snakes are known to exist, the timing of these activities shall be restricted to after May 1 and before October 1 in any calendar year. Consistent with this limitation, re-sloping of canals and ditches by RD 1000, Natomas Mutual, and agents under the direct control and acting on behalf of the agencies, within the agencies’ respective service areas, shall be restricted to one side of the canal or ditch during any calendar year, unless otherwise necessary to ensure adequate water conveyance.
• From May 1 to September 30 of any calendar year, before RD 1000, Natomas Mutual and agents acting on behalf of the agencies, fill or cause to be filled any ditch or canal within the agencies’ respective service areas, the agencies and agents under the direct control and acting on behalf of the agencies, shall dewater or cause to be dewatered any existing canal or ditch prior to filling such canal or ditch with soil or other fill material. After dewatering any such canal or ditch, RD 1000, Natomas Mutual, and agents under the direct control and acting on behalf of the agencies, and water users within the agencies’ respective service areas, shall wait a period of fifteen (15) days prior to filling such a dewatered canal or ditch.

Mowing
• For any mowing activity by RD 1000, Natomas Mutual, and agents under the direct control and acting on behalf of the agencies, within the agencies’ respective service areas CHAPTER 2: PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES
2-44 REVISED NATOMAS BASI N HCP E042002017SAC/161795(002.DOC)

EIR/EIS
to control terrestrial vegetative cover on top of, and inside, canal banks to the water line, the remaining vegetation shall not be less than 6 inches in height measured from the ground.

Burning
• Burning by RD 1000, Natomas Mutual, and agents acting on behalf of the agencies, within the agencies’ respective service areas to control vegetation on ditches and canals shall be conducted only between October 1 and April 30. Any such burning activities shall be subject to any and all laws regarding burning activities.

Detailed Management Plans
• Recognizing that management and maintenance activities to be conducted by RD 1000 and Natomas Mutual may be modified over time, the agencies shall submit detailed Channel Management Plans for review and approval by the HCP TAC. Such management plans shall address the control of vegetation in and around canals, ditches, and drains by mowing and other measures to provide necessary operation and maintenance of canals. RD 1000’s and Natomas Mutual’s Management Plans shall be reviewed and approved by the TAC on a three-year basis.

Education Program
• RD 1000 and Natomas Mutual, with the assistance and cooperation of CDFG and the USFWS, shall develop and implement a giant garter snake education and awareness program.

Traffic
• RD 1000, Natomas Mutual, and agents under the direct control and acting on behalf of the agencies shall minimize unauthorized traffic on road and ditch canal bank roads through gate closures. RD 1000 and Natomas Mutual shall encourage water users within their respective service areas to minimize unauthorized use of canal and ditch bank roads.

Emergency Activities
• Emergency repair activities would generally be exempt from compliance with HCP requirements.

2.4.7 Monitoring and Adaptive Management
The HCP specifies two types of monitoring to verify progress toward meeting the HCP goals and objectives: (1) compliance monitoring, and (2) biological effectiveness monitoring. The permittees are required to conduct compliance monitoring to verify that they are carrying out the terms of the HCP, ITPs, and IA(s). Compliance monitoring would include the status of the implementation of the HCP terms and conditions (e.g., financial responsibilities and obligations, management responsibilities) and other aspects of the HCP, ITPs, and the IA(s).

Biological effectiveness monitoring would evaluate the effects of the Proposed Action and determine whether the effectiveness of the operating conservation program of the HCP is consistent with the assumptions and predictions made when the HCP was developed and approved. Basinwide surveys for giant garter snakes, Swainson’s hawks, and other species are examples of effectiveness monitoring. The HCP provides additional information on the planned monitoring programs in Section VI.E.

CHAPTER 2: PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES
E042002017SAC/161795(002.DOC) REVI SED NATOMAS BASIN HCP 2-45

EIR/EIS
Adaptive management is a process that would allow the HCP’s conservation program to be adjusted during permit term to ensure that the most up-to-date information is being used, and that the biological goals and objectives are being achieved. The adaptive management strategy, described in Section VI.F of the HCP, defines the feedback process and incorporates feedback loops that link implementation and monitoring to a decision-making process.

Future HCP modifications, through the adaptive management process, could be needed as a result of the following significant uncertainties.
• New information resulting from monitoring of habitat reserve or other lands in the Natomas Basin and ongoing research on the giant garter snake, Swainson’s hawk, or other covered species
• Recovery strategies under the future USFWS Giant Garter Snake Recovery Plan, CDFG Swainson’s Hawk Recovery Plan, or newly listed covered species recovery plans, that could differ from the measures currently described in the HCP • Minimization and mitigation measures described in the HCP that might need to be revised based on new information or monitoring data (e.g., marsh configuration and design; reintroduction of certain plants into reserve areas, etc.) • The 2,500-acre and 400-acre minimum habitat block size requirements for wetland reserves might need to be revised
• Significant land use changes outside of the reserve system • Uncertainties associated with HCP implementation.

The process by which adaptive management implements changes to the HCP’s management actions, monitoring, and research needs could be implemented in any of the following ways.

For the purposes of the HCP, three approaches will be used:
• Regularly scheduled periodic evaluations of the HCP monitoring data, other new scientific information or future recovery plan recommendations by the Conservancy and/or the HCP TAC and a determination linking the information to the HCP’s success in implementation and achieving the biological goals and objectives • Identifying significant measurable threshold limits for each of the adaptive management objectives that will trigger proposals and solutions requiring a management change • Conducting a review at the independent midpoint reviews for land use agencies (see Section VI.J of the HCP) and the overall program review of 9,000 acres of development (see Section VI.I of the HCP). These approaches will be used to evaluate the effectiveness of the established habitats on reserve lands and to implement adjustments to the operating conservation program, as necessary, in order to achieve the biological goals and objectives of the HCP, including to address the mitigation requirements for covered species.

It is anticipated that the Conservancy will serve as the central data repository of all scientific data for the HCP throughout the permit term. The data will be used to assist in estimating incidental take levels, to assist in identifying potential lands for reserves; and will be used by CHAPTER 2: PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES
2-46 REVISED NATOMAS BASI N HCP E042002017SAC/161795(002.DOC)

EIR/EIS
the Conservancy in determining when and if specific incidental take avoidance measures and/or Preconstruction surveys are required for individual projects.

2.4.8 Funding
The City and Sutter County will require that habitat reserve acquisition, enhancement, management, and monitoring activities under the HCP be funded by a one-time, up-front mitigation fee to be levied upon a development site within their respective permit areas (see Section VI.B of the HCP). The current mitigation fee is $5,993 per gross acre of development. Table 2-3 shows the breakdown of this amount.

This current mitigation fee would be adjusted, as necessary, by the land use agency permittees to account for inflation or deflation using the Consumer Price Index or another suitable index. It is also required to be directly related to actual operation and land costs in the basin or must account for HCP revisions resulting from recovery plans and the HCP’s adaptive management provisions.

TABLE 2-3
Composition of Development Fee
Land Acquisition $3,000
Restoration/Enhancement/Monitoring 368
Administration O & M 1,555
O & M Endowment Fund 800
Supplemental Endowment Fund 150
Mitigation Fee Subtotal $5,873
Fee Collection Administration (2 percent) 120
Total Estimated Fee/Gross Developed Acre (2000$) $5,993 Source: Natomas Basin Habitat Conservation Plan, July 2002.

In addition to the current mitigation fee, a Land Acquisition Premium fee was approved as a result of the Settlement Agreement to allow limited development to proceed during completion of the revised HCP. Because the Settlement Agreement targeted specific lands for acquisition, thereby increasing the costs of land acquisition, an additional Land Acquisition Premium fee of $4,028 per acre is being assessed for land developed under the Settlement Agreement, bringing the total current fee to $10,021 per gross acre of development for these areas.

The Proposed Action requires that the City and Sutter County each adopt ordinances that require developers to pay a “catch-up” mitigation fee in the event that a developer pays the mitigation fee prior to issuance of a permit (i.e., grading permit, notice to proceed, or building permit), and the fee is increased prior to disturbance of the land. The City adopted such an ordinance on April 3, 2001.

CHAPTER 2: PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES
E042002017SAC/161795(002.DOC) REVI SED NATOMAS BASIN HCP 2-47

EIR/EIS

2.4.9 Unforeseen Circumstances/ “No Surprises”
As discussed in Section 1.5.1.4 of this EIR/EIS, the USFWS has implemented a final rule for its “No Surprises” policy (63 FR 8859). This policy states that additional conservation measures will not be required without the consent of the permittee. If unforeseen circumstances that could adversely affect any of the covered species were to occur within the permit term, then the permittee would not be required by the USFWS to commit to additional compensation or restrictions on the natural resources beyond the level provided by the HCP.

Another category of circumstances under the federal “No Surprises” rule is “changed circumstances.” Categories of changed circumstances described in the HCP are: (1) listing of new species; (2) availability of new scientific information; (3) approval of new recovery plans; (4) problems in implementing the HCP; (5) fire, flood, or drought; (6) invasion of non-native species (both plant and animal); (7) changes in water availability; and (8) toxic spills and illegal dumping of toxic materials, and (9) non-participation by a land use agency. The HCP (see Section VI.K.3 of the HCP) describes actions to be taken for these categories of changed circumstances.

2.4.10 Overall Program Review and Midpoint Review
The HCP contains provisions for both overall program review at 9,000 acres of development (see Section VI.I) and independent midpoint review for the City and Sutter County (see Section VI.J). The purpose of the overall program review is to evaluate the HCP’s status relative to several factors, its effectiveness, and its equitableness with respect to the relative responsibilities borne by each of the permittees. Specific factors to be addressed in the overall program review include the following.
• Status and population trends of the giant garter snake, Swainson’s hawk, and all other covered species within the HCP plan area, especially with respect to those biological factors that are directly affected by covered activities • Status and effectiveness of the habitat reserve system, including its buffer and setback requirements
• The HCP’s success in meeting the 2,500- and 400-acre-minimum habitat block size requirements
• Status and effectiveness of the HCP’s funding mechanisms • Relative status and distribution of developed lands and reserved lands within each of the land use agency jurisdictions
• Success of the 25 percent managed marsh, 50 percent rice land use for supporting giant garter snakes
• Compliance of the water agencies with approved canal and ditch maintenance practices If the findings of the overall program review monitoring results, new scientific data, or an adopted Giant Garter Snake Recovery Plan (see Section VI.H of the HCP) indicate, the managed marsh component of wetland reserves could be increased to 75 percent within sites acquired subsequent to the review of the overall species monitoring results, determination or CHAPTER 2: PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES
2-48 REVISED NATOMAS BASI N HCP E042002017SAC/161795(002.DOC)

EIR/EIS
adaptation necessary to respond to the Giant Garter Snake Recovery Plan, or Recovery Plan adoption.

In addition to the overall program review requirement, both the City and Sutter County will conduct independent midpoint reviews as development occurs within each permit area.

These independent midpoint reviews would address the factors noted above for the overall program review, and could also result in a determination to increase the managed marsh component of the reserves from 25 percent to 75 percent.

2.5 Approach to Developing Alternatives
This section presents the approach to developing alternatives, including a summary of alternatives considered but not carried forward for detailed analysis in this EIR/EIS. CEQA and NEPA both require that alternatives to a project be considered during environmental review. The lead agencies developed a list of alternatives based on the following criteria:
• Purpose and need/objectives. A range of alternatives was developed that would allow the lead agencies to meet the purpose and need/objectives, as described in Section 1.4, and the HCP’s biological goals and objectives, as described in Section 2.4.4. • Ability to mitigate/substantially reduce impacts. The Proposed Action is based on the conservation needs of species, including giant garter snakes and Swainson’s hawks.

Alternatives were considered that would: (1) increase the number, size, and habitat value of the habitat reserve system (e.g., by increasing mitigation requirements); and (2) substantially reduce the potential for incidental take during the covered activities (e.g., by reducing development levels).
• Feasibility. Alternatives were considered that might be feasible to implement. For the EIR/EIS, “feasibility” was considered broadly in order to promote a wide range of alternatives. Factors affecting feasibility include the ability to acquire lands for habitat reserves (e.g., purchase from willing sellers, condemnation), potential increases in housing costs, and the ability to carry out the planning goals of the North Natomas Community Plan and other plans. The final determination of feasibility would be made during the adoption of a preferred alternative.
• Reasonable Range. CEQA and NEPA both require that a reasonable range of alternatives to the proposed project or the location of the project be considered. For this EIR/EIS, the determination of a “reasonable range” was based on whether the alternative:
(1) accomplishes the purpose and need and achieves most of the basic project purposes and objectives (see Section 1.4) and biological goals and objectives (see Section 2.4.4); (2) has the ability to reduce impacts; (3) is feasible to implement; and (4) is reasonable. The lead agencies also considered: (1) the type of action (i.e., the issuance of take permits and the implementation of the HCP); (2) the issues raised during public scoping and in the Court Opinion (see Chapter 1); and (3) the ability of the alternatives to promote informed decisionmaking by the lead and responsible agencies.

CHAPTER 2: PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES
E042002017SAC/161795(002.DOC) REVI SED NATOMAS BASIN HCP 2-49

EIR/EIS
On the basis of the above screening criteria, 12 alternatives were initially developed for the EIR/EIS. Seven of the 12 alternatives were not carried forward for further review because they did not meet the purpose and need (see Sections 1.4 and 2.4.4), were outside the scope of the Proposed Action evaluated in this EIR/EIS, or were incorporated into another alternative evaluated in detail in this document. The seven alternatives not carried forward in the EIR/EIS are:
• Change in Permit Duration. The proposed 50-year term would be changed to 25 or 75 years under this alternative.
• No Out-of-Basin Mitigation. Acquisition of habitat reserves would only be allowed to occur within the Natomas Basin.
• Sacramento County Participation. Under this alternative, Sacramento County would participate in the Natomas Basin process as an applicant. • Development Cap. No new development within the Natomas Basin over 17,500 acres would be allowed.
• Increased Mitigation Fee. Under this alternative, the mitigation fee charged to new development would be increased.
• Acquire Active Habitat Only. The Conservancy would only acquire lands as habitat reserves that are currently active habitat for the covered species. • Fixed Reserves. Specific parcels would be identified for acquisition into the system of habitat reserves.

2.6 EIR/EIS Alternatives
The alternatives carried forward for analyses in this EIR/EIS are briefly summarized below and described in detail in Sections 2.6.1 through 2.6.5. The Proposed Action presented in Section 2.4 is the preferred alternative. Alternatives carried forward for detailed analysis in accordance with NEPA’s requirements for the treatment of alternatives at an equal level of detail are presented below. Each of the alternatives is assessed in Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences, in the context of joint participation by permittees as well as on the basis of individual implementation.
• Alternative 1: Increased Mitigation. The required mitigation ratio of habitat land to urban development would be increased from 0.5:1 to 1:1. This alternative is being evaluated at a detailed level of analysis in this EIR/EIS because it would lessen the environmental impacts of the Proposed Action on special status species and would achieve the project objectives for biological conservation by doubling the lands acquired for habitat reserves and, therefore, increasing the level of mitigation relative to the Proposed Action. • Alternative 2: Habitat-based Mitigation. Mitigation would be based on the habitat value of the land to be developed, and would include up to a 3:1 ratio for the highest-value habitat for giant garter snakes. This alternative is being evaluated at a detailed level of analysis in this EIR/EIS because it would lessen the environmental impacts of the Proposed Action on special status species and would achieve the project objectives for biological conservation by doubling the lands acquired for habitat reserves and, therefore, increasing the level of mitigation relative to the Proposed Action.

CHAPTER 2: PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES
2-50 REVISED NATOMAS BASI N HCP E042002017SAC/161795(002.DOC)

EIR/EIS
• Alternative 3: Reserve Zones. Specific reserve areas would be the focus of acquisition activities. These zones would focus acquisition efforts on areas that have the greatest conservation and restoration potential for giant garter snakes and Swainson’s hawks and other covered species. This alternative is being evaluated at a detailed level of analysis in this EIR/EIS because of its ability to minimize and mitigate impacts to covered species to the maximum extent practicable for purposes of Section 10(a)(1)(B) permits and to ‘minimize and mitigate fully the impacts to covered species under Section 2081 of the California Fish and Game Code.
• Alternative 4: Reduced Potential for Incidental Take. Development in the City and Sutter County would be reduced in order to reduce the extent of development-related habitat impacts and incidental take. The purpose of Alternative 4 is to reduce potential impacts to covered species and their habitat (and thereby decrease the potential for incidental take) by reducing the footprint of urban development.
• Alternative 5: No Action Alternative. No take permits would be issued to the City, Sutter County, the Conservancy, RD 1000, or Natomas Mutual, and a comprehensive HCP would not be implemented. This alternative is considered because of the NEPA and CEQA requirements for a No Action/No Project alternative.

2.6.1 Alternative 1: Increased Mitigation
Under Alternative 1, the approach to mitigation would be similar to the Proposed Action in that it would include the payment of in-lieu mitigation fees and acquisition of reserve lands by the Conservancy. This alternative differs from the Proposed Action because the mitigation ratio of habitat land to urban development would be increased from the Proposed Action’s ratio of 1/2 acre of mitigation lands for 1 acre of development (i.e., 0.5:1) to 1 acre of habitat reserves for every acre of planned land use development (i.e., 1:1). The development limit for the City, Sutter County, and Metro Air Park would remain at 17,500 acres as described in the HCP, but this amount of development would result in the need to acquire 17,500 acres of habitat reserves. Doubling the amount of land to be acquired would require increasing the mitigation fee. With the exception of potential increases in reserve acquisition, all other components of the proposed conservation strategy (e.g., reserve management, plan implementation) would not change relative to the Proposed Action. The requirement for one contiguous reserve block of 2,500 acres would not change, and other reserve lands would be acquired to ensure that they form 400-acre contiguous reserve blocks. Similar to the Proposed Action, the mitigation requirement would not be based on the habitat value of the land developed, and the land would be acquired within the Natomas Basin from willing sellers or outside of the basin subject to the 20 percent limitation prescribed in the HCP.

2.6.2 Alternative 2: Habitat-based Mitigation
Under Alternative 2, the mitigation ratio (i.e., the acres of reserve lands that would be acquired compared with the acres of land to be developed) would be based on the habitat value of the lands to be developed. This differs from the Proposed Action, which is based on a fixed mitigation ratio of 0.5:1 (i.e., ½ acre of reserve land would be acquired for each acre of land developed). (Under the Proposed Action, 17,500 acres of development would result in 8,750 acres of habitat reserve lands acquired.)
CHAPTER 2: PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES
E042002017SAC/161795(002.DOC) REVI SED NATOMAS BASIN HCP 2-51

EIR/EIS
Alternative 2 was developed using the land use database discussed in Chapters 3 and 4 of this EIR/EIS. Standard categories of existing land uses and a GIS database were developed to provide a framework for predicting future habitat conditions in the Natomas Basin (see Section

3.4 and 4.4). Standard mitigation ratios for giant garter snakes and Swainson’s hawks from the USFWS and the CDFG were then applied to the habitat conditions on the lands to be developed. These mitigation rations under this alternative are shown in Table 2-4. As a result of applying the ratios in Table 2-4, approximately 17,763 acres would be acquired as habitat reserves (compared with 8,750 that would be acquired under the Proposed Action).

TABLE 2-4
Mitigation Requirements Under Alternative 2
Giant Garter Snake Swainson’s Hawk
Lands Requiring Mitigation Mitigation Ratioa Lands Requiring Mitigation Mitigation Ratiob Drainage canals, water
delivery canals
Rice fields
3:1
1:1
Lands within 1 mile of an active
nest tree
Lands within 1 to 5 miles of an
active nest tree
Areas within 5 to 10 miles of an
active nest tree
1:1

0.75:1

0.5:1
a Source: Programmatic Formal Consultation for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 404 Permitted Projects with Relative Small Effects on the Giant Garter Snake within Butte, Colusa, Glenn, Fresno, Merced, Sacramento, San Joaquin, Solano, Stanislaus, Sutter and Yolo Counties, California (USFWS, 1997b). b Source: Staff Report Regarding Mitigation for Impacts to Swainson’s Hawks in the Central Valley of California (CDFG, 1994a).

This preliminary estimate is based on the giant garter snake habitat and active Swainson’s hawk nests on 17,500 acres of urban development (including lands that have been developed subsequent to the approval of the 1997 Natomas Basin HCP), both within the City and Sutter County as well as the Metro Air Park project. Within this development area, there are approximately 8,475 acres of rice fields, 404 acres of drainage canals and water conveyance facilities that would be developed, and 4,746 acres within one mile of a Swainson’s hawk nest excluding rice lands subject to giant garter snake mitigation requirements. The remainder of the development area is within 5 miles of a Swainson’s hawk nest, and totals 4,438 acres not including rice lands subject to giant garter snake mitigation requirements.

Similar to the Proposed Action, this alternative would include the payment of mitigation fees and the acquisition of reserve lands by the Conservancy. In addition, Alternative 2 is comparable to the Proposed Action in that lands would be acquired within the Natomas Basin from willing sellers, or outside of the basin, subject to the 20 percent limit (see Section IV.C.2.b of the HCP). Site-specific management plans also would be developed as the reserve lands are acquired, and these reserve lands would be subject to the same requirements described in the HCP.

2.6.3 Alternative 3: Reserve Zones
Alternative 3 would establish specific reserve zones that would be prioritized during the process of acquiring lands for habitat reserves. These reserve zones would be outside the North and South Natomas Community Plan areas and outside of Sutter County’s Industrial-Commercial Reserve. In keeping with the general mitigation approach of the Proposed Action, land acquisition would occur based on a 0.5:1 mitigation ratio (i.e., 0.5 acres CHAPTER 2: PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES
2-52 REVISED NATOMAS BASI N HCP E042002017SAC/161795(002.DOC)

EIR/EIS
of habitat reserves for each 1 acre of land developed). Other HCP measures (e.g., minimum block sizes, setbacks) would apply as well. Alternative 3 differs from the Proposed Action, however, in that reserve acquisition would focus on five overlapping zones that are distributed throughout the Natomas Basin based on the habitat needs of giant garter snakes and Swainson’s hawks (Figure 2-5), rather than on the HCP’s broad requirement to mitigate generally within the basin.

Two zones are identified for upland reserve acquisition to benefit Swainson’s hawks. Under the Reserve Zone Alternative, 1/2 of the required upland reserve acquisitions, or 1,094 acres, would occur in the Swainson’s hawk zone (one mile inland from the Sacramento River), and one-quarter of the upland reserve acquisitions, or 547 acres, would occur in the northeastern grassland portion of the Natomas Basin. Remaining upland habitats could be acquired elsewhere in the basin. This reserve zone approach emphasizes the Swainson’s hawk zone while allowing for the restoration of nesting and foraging habitat in the northeastern area.

The primary giant garter snake zones are in the interior of the basin, and generally correspond to lands in rice production. Three specific zones are identified for acquisition of rice lands and managed marsh reserves to benefit giant garter snakes: (1) 50 percent of the required rice/wetland reserves (3,281 acres) would be acquired in the northwest zone, generally north of Elverta Road and west of S.R. 99; (2) 25 percent of the rice/wetland reserves (1,641 acres) would be acquired in “Snake Alley” east of S.R. 99 between Elkhorn Boulevard and the county line; and (3) 12.5 percent of the rice/wetland reserves (820 acres) would be acquired near Fisherman’s Lake. Remaining rice/wetland reserves (820 acres) could be acquired anywhere in the basin. These reserve zones focus the Conservancy’s acquisition strategy on key remaining giant garter snake habitat areas in the Natomas Basin.

The HCP requires that the individual reserves be at least 400 acres in size, and that one reserve block be at least 2,500 acres in size. The five key zones described above would allow for the minimum reserve sizes to be met, as follows.
• Swainson’s hawk zone: two 400-acre reserve blocks
• Eastern portion of the Natomas Basin: one 400-acre reserve block • Fisherman’s Lake area: two 400-acre reserve blocks
• “Snake Alley:” four 400-acre reserve blocks
• Northwestern portion of the Natomas Basin: one 2,500-acre reserve block and one 400-acre reserve block
The remaining mitigation acreage could be met within these five zones or elsewhere in the Natomas Basin.

2.6.4 Alternative 4: Reduced Potential for Incidental Take Alternative 4 would reduce potential impacts to covered species and habitat by reducing the footprint of urban development. This alternative is based on the midpoint review provision in the HCP (see Section VI.I of the HCP) that is designed to evaluate the performance and effectiveness of the HCP during its implementation. The program review would be completed before development exceeds 12,000 acres.

CHAPTER 2: PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES
E042002017SAC/161795(002.DOC) REVI SED NATOMAS BASIN HCP 2-53

EIR/EIS
Urban development would be reduced from 17,500 acres (under the Proposed Action) to 12,000 acres under this Alternative 4. Developable acreage would be reduced proportionally overall for the City and Sutter County (i.e., specific development parcels are not identified).

Using the 0.5:1 mitigation ratio, development of 12,000 acres under Alternative 4 would result in the acquisition of 6,000 acres of habitat reserves. Other than the decrease in developable acreage (and the commensurate decrease in reserve lands acquired), all other aspects of the Proposed Action would remain the same for Alternative 4. To ensure adequate funding under a reduced development scenario, the mitigation fees would need to be recalculated.

2.6.5 Alternative 5: No Action Alternative
Under the No Action Alternative, no incidental take authorization would be issued to the City, Sutter County, the Conservancy, RD 1000, or Natomas Mutual by the USFWS and CDFG, and no comprehensive HCP would be implemented. Planned land development would continue as outlined in Section 2.3 (e.g., 8,050 acres within the City, 1,983 acres associated with Metro Air Park, and 9,588 acres within Sutter County). Implementation of an overall conservation strategy would not occur in the Natomas Basin. In the absence of a comprehensive habitat conservation program, the needs of listed species would be addressed on a project-by-project basis. In the absence of this comprehensive approach, the No Action Alternative would result in the following habitat conservation planning approaches:
• Where development would affect lands that have sensitive species, individual landowners could prepare project-specific HCPs with the USFWS (through Section 10(a)(1)(b) of the ESA) and the CDFG (through Section 2081 of the Fish and Game Code). • If project-specific HCPs were not prepared, the USFWS would also have the opportunity to prescribe project-specific mitigation as part of the ACOE’s wetlands permitting process. Such mitigation would likely include a combination of onsite preservation, purchase of credits in a mitigation bank, and construction timing restrictions. This process would focus on federally listed threatened or endangered species (e.g., giant garter snake, valley elderberry longhorn beetle, vernal pool invertebrates), and would not include Swainson’s hawks and other non-federally listed species. • The CDFG’s regulatory process could provide an opportunity for protection measures to be implemented for state-listed species such as the giant garter snake and Swainson’s hawk. Site-specific protection measures required under a Streambed Alteration Agreement are likely to include restrictions on the timing of construction activities in giant garter snake habitat and around Swainson’s hawk nest trees. • Individual landowners would be required to implement the CEQA mitigation measures adopted by the City or Sutter County as part of: (1) the North or South Natomas Community Plans and their associated EIRs; (2) the proposed South Sutter County Specific Plan and the associated EIR; or (3) individual project-specific CEQA review.

These measures are expected to be consistent with the project-specific mitigation requirements of the USFWS and CDFG.

It is not likely that non-listed species would receive protection. In addition, no comprehensive system of reserves would be established under the No Action Alternative CHAPTER 2: PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES
2-54 REVISED NATOMAS BASI N HCP E042002017SAC/161795(002.DOC)

EIR/EIS
unless established independently by the Conservancy as mitigation banks. The Conservancy’s operating mandate under the 1997 Natomas Basin HCP would be confined to managing lands already acquired.

2.7 Alternatives Eliminated from Further Consideration
Twelve alternatives to the Proposed Action were considered. A subsequent review resulted in the determination that seven do not meet one or more of the criteria established in Sections

1.4 and 2.5 and that five would be analyzed in detail (see Section 2.6). The seven alternatives considered but eliminated from analysis are: (1) change in permit duration; (2) prohibiting out-of-basin mitigation; (3) Sacramento County participation; (4) development cap; (5) increased mitigation fee; (6) acquire active habitat only; and (7) fixed reserves.

2.7.1 Change in Permit Duration
Changing the duration of the proposed take permits could entail either an increased (e.g., 75 years) or decreased period (e.g., 25 years) in which the covered activities related to development and water agencies’ activities could occur and in which the HCP measures would be applicable within a given permittee’s jurisdiction. This alternative was raised during the scoping process, but is not being carried forward for detailed analysis because a shorter permit term (e.g., 25 years) would not allow adequate time for the habitat reserve system to be fully developed and assessed for effectiveness. Specifically, a shorter permit term would not allow for appropriate application and interpretation of site-specific management actions using the HCP’s adaptive management and monitoring provisions.

Conversely, if the permit term were longer (e.g., 75 years), the data used to assess possible modifications to the management measures would be outdated or invalid and, therefore, inadequate to rely on for decisions made so far into the future. This alternative, therefore, would not meet the purpose and need to: (1) implement monitoring programs with qualitative and/or quantitative monitoring methods to evaluate management objectives and strategies for the reserve system, (2) increase the diversity and abundance of covered species on reserve lands, and (3) revise the reserve design and management based on the most current biological data.

2.7.2 Prohibiting Out-of-Basin Mitigation
This alternative was also raised during the scoping meetings. It would require that all lands acquired for mitigation be located in the Natomas Basin. This alternative was eliminated because it would be inconsistent with the land acquisition directive principles from the Conservancy’s bylaws, which include purchasing lands from willing sellers (including those not limited to lands within the Natomas Basin). In addition, the HCP states that all efforts would be made to maximize the purchase of mitigation lands in the Natomas Basin. The option to acquire land outside the basin, however, would help the Conservancy maximize its ability to leverage its available resources into habitat benefits and not be constrained to purchase lands at costs that are inflated because of speculation. As described in Section 2.4.5.6, reserves would be established in Area B only if the reserve could support a population of giant garter snakes, Swainson’s hawks, or other covered species.

CHAPTER 2: PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES
E042002017SAC/161795(002.DOC) REVI SED NATOMAS BASIN HCP 2-55

EIR/EIS

2.7.3 Sacramento County Participation
During the public scoping period for this project (January 2001), several comments requested that Sacramento County participate in the habitat conservation planning effort. At this time, proposed development in unincorporated Sacramento County is limited to the Metro Air Park project (see Section 1.2.1). As described in Section 1.2.1, the Metro Air Park Property Owners’ Association prepared a separate HCP for Metro Air Park and an ITP was issued on February 21, 2002.

Approximately 16,000 acres of land remain in unincorporated Sacramento County, excluding Sacramento International Airport. This area is outside of the County’s Urban Services Boundary, which means that development is not planned in the foreseeable future.

Sacramento County is currently considering a long-term proposal, however, to amend its Urban Services Boundary to include an additional 6,519 acres of land in the Natomas Basin because of property owner interest in developing this area. At this time, the planning effort does not include a specific land use plan; rather it is intended to provide policy direction on urbanization for regional infrastructure purposes.

The City of Sacramento also is considering the possibility of future development in this area.

The City’s General Plan Amendment and Comprehensive Annexation Program describe the potential for annexation and development in portions of the currently unincorporated Natomas Basin, and present the option of creating a one-mile permanent open-space buffer east of the Sacramento River and south of the Sutter County line.

In response to these ongoing efforts, the City of Sacramento and Sacramento County engaged in a long-range planning effort regarding the City’s Sphere of Influence and would guide future annexation proposals involving up to 10,000 acres of land in the Natomas Basin directly north of Elkhorn Boulevard. This land is not covered as authorized development nor is it evaluated as planned development in the HCP or this EIR/EIS. Specific land uses which could be developed pursuant to the conceptual Sphere of Influence Study have not been proposed.

Moreover, specific proposals to annex lands have not been identified. Any future specific proposals related to the annexation and development of these lands would be subject to further planning efforts, technical analyses, CEQA review, and public hearings and approvals by the City Council of the City of Sacramento, the County of Sacramento Board of Supervisors, and the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO). In addition, any lands proposed for development beyond those included in the proposed HCP would require a new effects analysis and/or re-evaluation of the HCP, a new or amended conservation strategy, separate consultation with USFWS and CDFG and issuance of incidental take permits. These approvals would also be subject to the preparation of appropriate environmental analysis and mitigation measures to address project specific and cumulative impacts of additional development in the Natomas Basin. The HCP evaluated as part of the Proposed Action in this EIR/EIS focuses on the 17,500 acres of planned development analyzed in previous environmental documents discussed in Section 4.1.3. The proposed HCP and this environmental analysis is based on the impacts of the proposed authorized development of 15,517 acres of development in the City of Sacramento and Sutter County permit areas and 1,983 acres of Metro Air Park development for a total of 17,500 acres of development in the Natomas Basin. Mitigation measures have specifically been developed to reduce the impacts associated with 17,500 acres of development in the Basin. The potential for future annexation proposals by the City is discussed in more detail in Section 4.1.2, Approach to Cumulative Impact Assessment.

CHAPTER 2: PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES
2-56 REVISED NATOMAS BASI N HCP E042002017SAC/161795(002.DOC)

EIR/EIS
Although Sacramento County has decided not to participate in or file an ITP application in connection with the Proposed Action evaluated in this EIR/EIS, the HCP contains provisions that would allow other permittees (including Sacramento County or other entities) to participate in the HCP at some future unknown time (see Section I.B.5 of the HCP). Other than the development proposals described in Section 4.1.2.3 of this EIR/EIS, no specific proposals for development in the Sacramento County portion of the Natomas Basin have been proposed. If potential permittees were to seek coverage for incidental take, approving either the Natomas Basin HCP or some other HCP, additional environmental review would be required. Because Sacramento County has elected to not participate in the HCP at this time, the County cannot be compelled to participate in the HCP. Accordingly, this alternative is not being carried forward for detailed analysis.

2.7.4 Development Cap
The USFWS is responding to an application submitted by the City and Sutter County for coverage of up to 17,500 acres of urban development. This development acreage corresponds to planned land development in the Natomas Basin, including buildout of the City’s North and South Natomas Community Plan areas, Metro Air Park, and a substantial portion of Sutter County’s Industrial-Commercial Reserve (see Section 2.2 for a discussion of the permit areas for each of the permittees in the Proposed Action. Also see the discussion of cumulative impacts in Section 2.7.3 above and in Chapter 4 for a discussion of other future potential (but as yet speculative) urban development outside the parameters of the Proposed Action evaluated in this EIR/EIS.)
During the public scoping period for this EIR/EIS, several comments stated that no urban development beyond that which is discussed as a covered activity in this EIR/EIS (see Section 2.2) should be allowed. Although additional development (i.e., development not contemplated as part of the covered activities for this Proposed Action) could occur at some future unknown time, such development is speculative, and the applicants (permittees) cannot be compelled to curb land use planning that addresses development that could occur subsequent to the development currently proposed (see Section 2.3) and for which environmental review has occurred (see Chapters 3 and 4). In addition, any future proposed development would be subject to a series of environmental reviews and clearances not within the scope of the current Proposed Action. In addition, even if land use agencies instituted limits to future development within their authority, such action would neither increase mitigation requirements for the Proposed Action nor reduce the potential for incidental take (which is currently addressed in the context of the General Plans of the City, Sacramento County, and Sutter County, and not speculative future actions—see Chapters 3 and 4).

2.7.5 Increased Mitigation Fee
During the public scoping process, several comments were received on the adequacy of the proposed mitigation fee. The need to increase the mitigation fee can be described either in terms of ensuring the adequate implementation of the proposed mitigation program, or in terms of increasing the amount of required mitigation.

The need for increased mitigation is considered in the analysis of Alternative 1, which would prescribe a 1:1 mitigation ratio rather than the 0.5:1 ratio in the Proposed Action. Alternative 1 would require that the mitigation fee be raised to cover the costs of acquiring additional CHAPTER 2: PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES
E042002017SAC/161795(002.DOC) REVI SED NATOMAS BASIN HCP 2-57

EIR/EIS
habitat reserves. The need for an increased mitigation fee is, therefore, included for consideration in Alternative 1. Ensuring the adequacy of the mitigation fee for the selected alternative, however, is a decision that will be made by the USFWS and CDFG during their permit review process, based on their respective criteria. It is important to note that there is no cap on the proposed mitigation fee, and that adjustments to the fee can occur as described in Section VI.B of the HCP. The Proposed Action, therefore, already allows for increases in the HCP fee to fund the implementation of the HCP.

2.7.6 Acquire Active Habitat Only
During the public scoping period, several commentors suggested the need to focus habitat acquisition on areas actively used by the covered species, potentially including areas proposed for development. Most of the comments to this effect focused on Fisherman’s Lake and the surrounding area. In accordance with the May 10, 2001, Settlement Agreement, at least 100 acres of land would be acquired on the west side of Fisherman’s Lake, and the buffer on the east side of Fisherman’s Lake could be expanded from 200 feet to 800 feet.

Fisherman’s Lake itself is part of RD 1000’s primary drainage system and would be managed in accordance with the water agency conservation measures proposed in the HCP. These measures could be modified as a result of ongoing efforts pursuant to the Settlement Agreement to develop a comprehensive management program for Fisherman’s Lake, including the needs of the giant garter snake. As of December 2001, a 140-acre property has been acquired west of Fisherman’s Lake per the requirements of the Settlement Agreement.

The HCP’s acquisition criteria emphasize lands considered for acquisition should have existing or potential wetland habitat values, among other criteria (Section IV.C.3.b). This suggests equal weighting between current habitat areas and areas that could be restored. The altered landscape of the Natomas Basin limits the ability to mitigate using existing habitat only, especially because of the lack of natural wetland areas, and mandates that restoration (e.g., conversion to managed marsh) be a key strategy of HCP implementation. Accordingly, an alternative that limits the reserve acquisition options to active habitat would be inconsistent with the purpose and need because it would not conform to the biological goals and objectives specified in the HCP.

2.7.7 Fixed Reserves
During the public scoping process, several commentors stated that specific reserve areas should be identified in the HCP, and that the land use agencies should exercise their eminent domain powers to acquire these areas. The May 10, 2001, Settlement Agreement provides a fixed reserve zone for the Fisherman’s Lake area (see Section 2.4.6), and also provides for the City’s possible use of eminent domain to acquire the total amount of lands required per the Settlement Agreement. Applying this approach for the remainder of HCP implementation, however, is considered infeasible because of the concern that speculation would artificially inflate land costs and, therefore, limit the Conservancy’s ability to acquire lands within the Natomas Basin. In addition, inflating land costs and limiting lands available for purchase would be inconsistent with the Conservancy’s objectives to: (1) promote opportunities for covered species to expand in the Natomas Basin; (2) implement a flexible conservation program; and (3) increase the opportunity for reproductive success of covered species.

Accordingly, this alternative is not being carried forward for detailed analysis.

CHAPTER 2: PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES
2-58 REVISED NATOMAS BASI N HCP E042002017SAC/161795(002.DOC)

EIR/EIS
In preparing this EIR/EIS, an attempt was made to balance the need to avoid identifying fixed reserve boundaries with the desire to focus land acquisition on key targeted areas. This resulted in the development of Alternative 3, the Reserve Zone Alternative. This alternative, which is considered in detail in this EIR/EIS, identifies key areas for acquisition, based on biological suitability and the need to meet minimum reserve sizes, without specifically identifying parcels to be acquired.

2.8 Environmentally Preferable/Superior Alternative
Both CEQA and NEPA require the identification of an environmentally preferable (CEQ NEPA Guidelines, Section 1505.2(b)) or superior (CEQA Guidelines, Section 15126(e)(2)) alternative. The environmentally preferable and superior alternative is Alternative 2, Habitat-based Mitigation, because this alternative provides the greatest mitigation (i.e., 17,763 acres of habitat reserves).

E042002017SAC/161795(003.DOC) REVI SED NATOMAS BASIN HCP 3-1

EIR/EIS
CHAPTER 3
Affected Environment

3.1 Introduction
This chapter presents the baseline conditions for resources in the study area that would be potentially affected by the Proposed Action. The baseline for analysis of impacts in Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences, is the existing conditions in the study area as of 2001. Using the initial baseline conditions for the USFWS’s environmental assessment (EA) prepared for the previous 1997 HCP as a starting point, a land use and habitat database was assembled to update the 1997 conditions. Standard categories of existing land uses and a GIS database were developed to provide a
snapshot of existing conditions in the study area
as of 2001. Additional information available since 1997 and field data gathered in 2001 were used to supplement and update the 1997 data. The database includes land use data from the Department of Water Resources, the City of Sacramento, and Sutter County. Development of the GIS database and its components is discussed in detail in Section 3.4, Biological Resources.

As described in Section 2.2, the study area for this EIR/EIS comprises the Natomas Basin and Area B. The Natomas Basin is in the northwestern part of Sacramento County and southern Sutter County, and is delineated by the Natomas Cross Canal on the north, Garden Highway on the south, the Natomas East Main Drainage Canal (Steelhead Creek) on the east, and the Sacramento River on the west (see Figure 1-1). Area B includes approximately 60,000 acres in southeastern Sutter County (see Figure 2-3).

The environmental analysis is focused on the following key resources of concern:
• Geology and Soils. Section 3.2 presents the general geology and soil characteristics of the study area, focusing on erosion potential.
• Water. Section 3.3 describes water supply, water quality, and flood control conditions in the study area.
• Biological Resources. Section 3.4 presents the habitat conditions in the Natomas Basin and a list of species considered in the analysis.
• Cultural Resources. Section 3.5 describes known archaeological and historical resource conditions in the study area.
• Land Use. Section 3.6 summarizes relevant local land use plans and policies. In addition, this section describes baseline land use conditions, including agricultural resources. • Socioeconomics. Section 3.7 describes local and regional social and economic conditions (e.g., population, employment).
• Traffic. Section 3.8 presents traffic conditions in the study area. • Noise. Section 3.9 describes ambient noise levels in the study area.

CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
3-2 REVISED NATOMAS BASIN HCP E042002017SAC/161795(003.DOC)

EIR/EIS
• Air Quality. Section 3.10 describes regional air quality conditions. • Public Health and Safety. Section 3.11 presents the regulatory setting regarding the potential conflicts between waterfowl and air traffic from Sacramento International Airport.

Preliminary review of potential impacts of the Proposed Action and the other alternatives concluded that several categories of impacts would be less than significant. These categories and the reasons they would be less than significant are briefly described below, but additional analysis is not warranted. This determination is consistent with the CEQA criteria for establishing effect (CEQA Appendix G, Environmental Checklist Form). • Aesthetics. Impacts from implementing the habitat conservation measures of the Proposed Action would not result in significant impacts primarily because the habitat reserves would not significantly alter the existing visual landscape or the existing visual character of the study area. The HCP conservation measures would not change the existing visual landscape, and the creation of habitat reserves would result in a visual condition that is similar to the existing agricultural land use. Development of habitat reserves is also anticipated to include agricultural operations and activities that are consistent with existing agricultural practices conducted under the No Action Alternative. Both the City and Sutter County determined that the visual and aesthetic impacts of the new urban development in the Natomas Basin would be less than significant with mitigation.
• Mineral Resources. Mineral resource values in the study area are low. In addition, development of the habitat reserves would not preclude the extraction of mineral resources.
• Public Utilities and Services. With the exception of water resources (discussed in Section 3.3), development of the habitat reserves would not affect public utilities and service systems such as sewer, solid waste, police, fire, and school services because the criteria for reserve acquisition, as specified in Section IV C.2.a of the HCP, specify setbacks from urban areas and other considerations that are designed to avoid impacts on significant public utilities. Creation of habitat reserves would not generate demand for schools and would not substantially affect rural police and fire services. Impacts associated with urban development were found to be less than significant, with mitigation, by the City and Sutter County.
• Recreation. The HCP conservation measures do not include residential development that would increase demands for recreation facilities. A slight beneficial impact is expected if public use of the habitat reserves is allowed. The City determined that recreation impacts associated with urban development would be less than significant, and Sutter County determined that there would be no impact.

The affected environment discussion in Chapter 3 summarizes information on the resources in the study area. This information is largely based on the following reports that address the resources of the Natomas Basin in relation to planned development activities:
• Draft EIR for the City of Sacramento General Plan Update (City of Sacramento, 1987) • Draft Supplement to the 1986 North Natomas Community Plan EIR (City of Sacramento, 1993) CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
E042002017SAC/161795(003.DOC) REVI SED NATOMAS BASIN HCP 3-3

EIR/EIS
• Draft EIR for the South Natomas Community Plan (City of Sacramento, 1988c) • Draft EIR for the Sutter County General Plan Revision (Sutter County, 1996c) • Draft EIR for the North Natomas Comprehensive Drainage Plan (City of Sacramento, 1996b) If other sources of information particular to a certain resource are used, then these sources are noted in the specific resource section.

3.2 Geology and Soils
This section describes the geology and soil types of the study area and potential geologic and soil hazards.

3.2.1 Area Geology
The study area is within the Great Valley geomorphic province, which is a geologic term that describes the Central Valley of California. The study area is typical of the gentle flatlands of the Sacramento Valley and is at a general elevation of 20 feet.

The Great Valley province is composed of thick, generally flat-lying sedimentary rock overlain by alluvial soils. Surface sediments within the study area are primarily comprised of the Victor Formation, recent floodplain deposits, and recent basin deposits. Formed of a variety of river-borne sediments during the Ice Age, the Victor Formation extends in a broad plain between the Sacramento River and Sierra Nevada. Subsequent weathering has formed a near-surface hardpan within the Victor Formation, enabling only moderate to low rainwater infiltration.

Floodplain deposits consist of unconsolidated silts, sands, and clays formed from the flooding of the American and Sacramento rivers prior to construction of drainage channels within the last 135 years. Deposits are distributed proximate to the current river channels and extend throughout the Natomas Basin. Basin deposits are beds of unconsolidated clay formed in sink areas of low permeability.

3.2.2 Area Soil Types
The study area is composed of predominantly clayey soils that are somewhat poorly to poorly drained. There is a seasonally high water table throughout the area, and the soil is protected from flooding by a system of levees. The topography is level to nearly level resulting in low runoff potential. The soils are deep to very deep with a cemented hardpan or duripan.

Lime, silica, and manganese concretions are common. Montmorillonitic clays cause slickensides and high shrink-swell potential. High clay content and hardpans cause many of the soils to have moderately slow to slow permeability. Siltstone underlies these soils formed from mixed alluvium. Common soil series are the Clear Lake and Capay series (USDA, 1993).

Floodplain soils are closest to the Sacramento River in the Natomas Basin and the Bear River in Area B. Floodplain soils can be sandy, silty, loamy, or clayey. Flooding over time washes much sediment downstream resulting in varied and constantly changing soils. Backswamps CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
3-4 REVISED NATOMAS BASIN HCP E042002017SAC/161795(003.DOC)

EIR/EIS
create soils with high organic matter. Examples of floodplain soils are the Columbia, Cosumnes, and Scribner soil series (USDA, 1993).

On the east side of the Natomas Basin, the San Joaquin soil series exists on low terraces. The San Joaquin series has a fine sandy loam to silt loam surface over a clay pan. It is moderately deep and moderately well drained, but is slowly permeable (USDA, 1993).

3.2.3 Geologic and Soil Hazards

3.2.2.1 Faults and Seismicity
Active and potentially active faults generally are classified based on evidence of surface displacement within a period of time. Active faults generally have shown evidence of surface displacement within the last 11,000 years (within the Holocene epoch). Potentially active faults generally have shown evidence of surface displacement within 1.6 million years (within the Quaternary period). Faults that do not meet the criteria for being classified as active or potentially active are not necessarily permanently inactive. Additionally, a significant number of the small to moderately large earthquakes occur on unrecognized faults. There are no known active faults in Sutter County, the City of Sacramento, or Sacramento County, but earthquakes within the region can produce ground motion within the study area.

3.2.2.2 Liquefaction
Liquefaction occurs when granular sediment (such as sand) undergoes strong shaking and the behavior of the sediment becomes like a liquid. Liquefaction can create hazardous situations because buildings can sink or become structurally damaged as a result. Sandy areas paralleling the Sacramento River, occurring under conditions of low relative density and a high water table, have a high liquefaction potential. In the Sacramento Valley, certain areas where granular layers with higher relative densities exist have a moderate potential for liquefaction, including portions of Sutter County. The Natomas Basin is considered to have a moderate to high liquefaction potential.

3.2.2.3 Slope Stability and Landslides
Slope stability is dependent on several factors, including slope degree, rock/soil type, the presence of water and/or vegetation, and previous occurrences of landslides. The California Division of Mines and Geology has classified slope stability by zone on a scale that ranges from nil (no or very little hazard of slope stability) to high. Sutter County (with the exception of the Sutter Buttes) is rated in a nil zone. The potential for landslides in the City and County of Sacramento within the vicinity of the study area is minor due to the flat terrain. This does not preclude localized slope instability hazards, however.

3.2.2.4 Erosion
Erosion typically occurs under conditions with increased slope, increased precipitation, and decreased vegetation. Erosion can contribute to the degradation and loss of agricultural land and degradation of waterbody water quality. The U.S. Natural Resources Conservation Service groups potential erosion hazards for natural soil types in three generalized categories: slight, moderate, and high. The majority of Sutter County’s natural soil types have a slight vulnerability to erosion. No highly erodible soils are present within the City.

CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
E042002017SAC/161795(003.DOC) REVI SED NATOMAS BASIN HCP 3-5

EIR/EIS
The major soil associations in the Natomas area of Sacramento County are not prone to erosion (USDA, 1993).

3.2.2.5 Subsidence
Subsidence is the vertical, downward sinking of a large ground surface area, typically as a direct result of the withdrawal of groundwater, oil, or natural gas. Although subsidence is common in several areas of California, including the Sacramento Valley, it does not generally occur in Sutter or Sacramento counties.

3.2.2.6 Expansive Soils
Expansive soils may undergo significant changes in volume, either shrinking or swelling.

The degree to which a soil will undergo changes in volume depends on the moisture and clay content of the soil. Soils containing clay have the potential to undergo expansion, and are grouped into three basic categories: low, moderate, and high potential for expansion.

The majority of the study area within Sutter County has a high potential to be affected by expansive soils. Expansive soils are scattered through the City and County of Sacramento and vary substantially in their potential for expansion (USDA, 1993). Soils within most of the Natomas Basin are considered to be expansive soils.

3.3 Water Resources
This section describes flooding and drainage, water quality, and water supply conditions in the study area, and presents key features of the water delivery and drainage infrastructure.

Alterations in drainage patterns, as they pertain to land use and habitats, are also discussed in Section 3.4.1. Alterations in drainage patterns, as they pertain to land use and habitats, are also discussed in Section 3.4.1.

3.3.1 Flooding and Drainage
The Natomas Basin is a low-lying, historic floodplain area located along the east side of the Sacramento River upstream of its confluence with the American River. Drainage from the northeast side of Sacramento historically collected in the low-lying Natomas Basin area, supporting permanent water bodies such as Fisherman’s Lake, Fiddyment Lake, and Bush Lake. Winter rains caused regular flooding over a broad area, with Bannon Slough and Second Bannon Slough providing surface drainage to the Sacramento River. Flood risk and limitations of internal drainage have historically acted as limits to development in the Natomas Basin. Early flood control improvement by the Natomas Company allowed for reclamation of land for agriculture, but urban development was generally limited to the less flood-prone areas on the east side of the Basin. In 1994, the Sacramento Area Flood Control Agency (SAFCA) proposed a flood control project for the Natomas Basin that was subject to the jurisdiction of the ACOE. The ACOE’s authorization for SAFCA’s flood control project was approved with the condition that a habitat conservation plan be prepared for the Natomas Basin (see Section 1.2.1).

3.3.1.1 Flood Risk
Flood control within the Natomas Basin is based on the surrounding levees and the internal system of drainage canals operated by RD 1000. Historically, this system was adequate for CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
3-6 REVISED NATOMAS BASIN HCP E042002017SAC/161795(003.DOC)

EIR/EIS
agricultural use. The urbanization of the basin has resulted in the need for an increased level of flood protection, and recent efforts have focused on strengthening the existing system of levees and canals. Regional projects, completed and ongoing, include improvements to flood control operations at Folsom Dam and strengthening local levees. These projects are expected to result in flood conditions in the Natomas Basin that exceed the criteria established by the Sacramento Area Flood Control Agency (i.e., at least 200-year flood protection). Efforts have included the implementation of the City’s Comprehensive Drainage Plan, which has improved the level of flood protection provided to the North Natomas area by upgrading the capacity of the RD 1000 drainage system. A local flood control project under the direction of SAFCA was completed in 1998, granting North and South Natomas a 100-year level of flood protection. Consequently, the flood insurance rate maps have been revised, and the City can now authorize development without flood plain restrictions in this area. For Sutter County, local flood control improvements in the Industrial-Commercial Reserve have been limited to date, with existing development relying on the RD 1000 drainage system and onsite improvements (e.g., detention ponds).

Localized flooding is also an issue of concern in Area B, primarily along Bear River Drive and Pleasant Grove Road during local storm events. Portions of these areas are within the federal 100-year floodplain. Area B is generally protected from catastrophic flooding by the primary levee system along the Sacramento and Bear Rivers.

3.3.1.2 Drainage System
Canals and drains are located throughout the Natomas Basin, and serve the dual purpose of providing flood control and irrigation water. RD 1000 operates the primary drainage canals within the Natomas Basin and is the agency responsible for conveying and pumping nonurban storm runoff from the basin. Runoff from agricultural lands within the Natomas Basin flows into numerous local drainage ditches that ultimately drain into the primary RD 1000 canals. RD 1000 canals also receive runoff from the City’s storm drainage system in the developed areas of the Natomas Basin. As described above, these interior drains are also an important component of the local flood control system. RD 1000’s primary system of interior drains includes the following facilities:
• East Drain. The East Drain conveys drainage water from the northern and eastern Natomas Basin to its confluence with the Main Drainage Canal northwest of the I-80/I-5 interchange.
• West Drain. The West Drain conveys drainage water from the western Natomas Basin northwest of Sacramento International Airport to its confluence with the Main Drainage Canal. Fisherman’s Lake, a natural slough, is a portion of the West Drainage Canal. • Main Drain. The Main Drain conveys the combined flows of the East and West Drainage Canals from their confluence northwest of the I-80/I-5 interchange through South Natomas west of I-80. Drainage water from the Main Drainage Canal is pumped into the Sacramento River near the intersection of Garden Highway and Orchard Lane. • North Drain. The North Drain is an interior canal that conveys drainage water from Sutter County northward, where it is pumped into the Cross Canal.

CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
E042002017SAC/161795(003.DOC) REVI SED NATOMAS BASIN HCP 3-7

EIR/EIS
Development of North and South Natomas has followed comprehensive drainage plans that have resulted in local flood-control improvements and increased storm-drainage capacity in the area. These improvements are ongoing as development occurs. Comprehensive storm drainage plans for the South Sutter County Specific Plan are under preparation; to date, site-specific developments (e.g., along Pacific Avenue) have completed onsite stormwater detention facilities.

Area B contains both natural drainage features and drainage canals. The eastern portion of Area B contains seven named creeks that drain the low foothills region to the east. Auburn Ravine, Coon Creek, and Yankee Slough are the largest of these creeks. Most of this area drains into the East Side Canal, which channels drainage into the Cross Canal. Drainage in the western portion of Area B is managed by RD 1001, which operates a drainage system similar to the RD 1000 system. Flood flows and agricultural runoff are channeled into RD 1001’s Main Canal, which is pumped into the Cross Canal.

3.3.2 Water Quality
The water quality requirements affecting the study area are primarily related to the established objectives for water quality in the Sacramento River, which receives agricultural and urban drainage from the study area. Water quality in the Sacramento River is regulated primarily by the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). The Central Valley RWQCB has established narrative and numeric standards for the Sacramento River in its Basin Plan (CVRWQCB, 1998). The Basin Plan designates beneficial uses for Sacramento River water that include, in the segment of the river adjacent to the study area, municipal and domestic supply, irrigation, recreation (including water–contact recreation), navigation, and fish and wildlife habitat. In accordance with the requirements of the federal Clean Water Act, the State Water Resources Control Board has determined that beneficial uses in the Sacramento River are impaired by high concentrations of diazinon (related to agricultural and urban runoff), mercury (related to mining in the upper watershed), and unknown toxicity (SWRCB, 1998). Specific beneficial uses and impairments to those uses have not been identified for the system of agricultural canals and drains internal to the Natomas Basin. Agricultural drainage water contributes salts, nutrients, pesticides, trace elements, sediments, and other by-products that could affect the water quality of the Sacramento River.

Urban stormwater runoff contains pesticides, oil, grease, heavy metals, polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons, other organic chemicals, and nutrients. Stormwater discharges are generally controlled through National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits, which require the implementation of the best available pollution control technology prior to discharge of drainage water. The City (together with Sacramento County and other local agencies) has received a permit for stormwater discharge from the Central Valley RWQCB under the NPDES program. In addition to the control of municipal stormwater discharges, the Central Valley RWQCB also requires participation in the statewide NPDES permit for construction activities. Under this permit, the City requires adherence to its erosion control standards and practices during project construction activities. To date, urban development in the Sutter County portion of the Natomas Basin has addressed construction-phase stormwater quality on a case-by-case basis.

CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
3-8 REVISED NATOMAS BASIN HCP E042002017SAC/161795(003.DOC)

EIR/EIS
Groundwater in the Natomas Basin is generally of good quality. Water quality in the deeper zones (300 to 500 feet below ground surface) generally has lower total dissolved solids values than shallow zones.

3.3.3 Water Supply
Farmlands within the Natomas Basin are irrigated with surface water delivered by Natomas Mutual, and with private surface water diversions and groundwater. Irrigation water also includes return flows from rice fields, which is conveyed to downstream users through the RD 1000 drainage system. Natomas Mutual manages the consolidated riparian and appropriative water rights in the area, and serves approximately 238 landowners covering approximately 36,000 acres. Following the development of the federal Central Valley Project (CVP), Natomas Mutual entered into a contract with the Bureau of Reclamation to establish water delivery requirements in a river system now substantially affected by the CVP. This “settlement contract” quantifies base supply diversions of 98,200 acre-feet per year and provides up to 22,000 acre-feet of CVP water per year. In addition to this contract water, Natomas Mutual has an entitlement to divert Sacramento River water during the nonirrigation season for wetland and rice straw decomposition. Natomas Mutual is considered to be one of the most senior water rights holders in the Sacramento River Basin (e.g., senior to both the federal CVP and the State Water Project), with priority dates extending back to 1916. Natomas Mutual’s water deliveries could be reduced by up to 25 percent in critically dry years (critically dry years are defined as years when annual inflow to Shasta Lake is less than 3.2 million acre-feet). Natomas Mutual has, in recent years, been able to serve all of their water users fully during periods of drought-related water supply reductions.

Natomas Mutual operates five surface water diversions: the Prichard Lake, Elkhorn, and Riverside pumping plants on the Sacramento River, and the Northern Main and Bennett pumping plants on the Cross Canal. The average historical diversions from these five plants is approximately 80,000 acre-feet per year. Primary Natomas Mutual distribution facilities are as follows:
• Northern System. The Northern Main Pumping Plant diverts water from the Cross Canal into the Northern Main Canal, which conveys water throughout the northeastern portion of the Natomas Basin, south to approximately Elverta Road. • Bennett System. The Bennett Pumping Plant diverts water from the Cross Canal into the Bennett Main Canal, which conveys water in the northwestern portion of the Natomas Basin, entirely in Sutter County.
• Central, or Pritchard Lake, System. The Pritchard Lake Pumping Plant diverts water from the Sacramento River into the Central Main Canal and Pullman Canal. The Central Main Canal conveys water across the central portion of the Natomas Basin, ultimately to agricultural land in North Natomas (now under development). The Pullman Canal serves the Pullman subsystem in northwestern Sacramento County and southwestern Sutter County. • Elkhorn System. The Elkhorn Pumping Plant diverts water from the Sacramento River into the Elkhorn Main Canal, which parallels Garden Highway in Northeastern Sacramento County. The Elkhorn System provides water to the area between the Sacramento River and Sacramento International Airport, and provides a direct water supply to the airport.

CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
E042002017SAC/161795(003.DOC) REVI SED NATOMAS BASIN HCP 3-9

EIR/EIS
• Riverside System. The Riverside Pumping Plant diverts water into the Riverside Canal and to a system of laterals that provide water supply to the area along Garden Highway, generally from Powerline Road south to the city limit. Water in the Riverside System is also supplied by drainage water at RD 1000’s Pumping Plant No. 3.

Recent improvements in the drainwater recirculation system have contributed to a substantial improvement in water management by providing a more flexible matching of supply and demand throughout Natomas Mutual’s service area. The recirculation system includes 30 pumping stations at various locations throughout the basin that recapture water for reuse either directly into fields or back into the main canals. Drainwater is now a major source of irrigation water supply in the Natomas Basin, with average drainwater use of approximately 36,000 acre-feet per year.

The groundwater basin underlying the Natomas Basin is part of a larger, highly productive groundwater basin that underlies the Central Valley. In the Natomas Basin, the aquifer consists of higher-permeability sands with some gravels and discontinuous intervals of lower-permeability silt and clay. Locally, these discontinuous units separate the aquifer into multiple zones where groundwater quality and conditions can very. Groundwater is found at depths that range from less than 10 feet to up to 50 feet below grade. In general, in the Natomas Basin, groundwater flows from the Sacramento River to the east, toward the cone of depression located in the McClellan/North Highlands area. Natomas Mutual owns two small groundwater wells, producing less than 200 acre-feet per year to supplement surface water supplies. Approximately 50 private irrigation wells are located throughout the northern portion of the Natomas Basin. These wells are usually shallow, lower-production wells supplying individual residences with potable water, but also include larger irrigation wells. It is estimated that over 4,000 acres in the Natomas Basin are irrigated with groundwater, using an average of 20,000 acre-feet per year of water. The long-term, reliable yield of the aquifer has not been determined.

The City of Sacramento supplies water to developed lands in North and South Natomas.

The City operates an interconnected municipal water system primarily with surface water diverted from the American and Sacramento rivers. Surface water is diverted by the City pursuant to riparian and pre-1914 rights, and pursuant to five post-1914 appropriative water rights. In 1957, the City and the Bureau of Reclamation entered into a settlement contract (see above discussion regarding Natomas Mutual), which quantified the City’s water delivery requirements to be a maximum of 326,800 acre-feet per year by 2030. In addition to surface water supplies, the City operates 29 groundwater wells. Six of the City’s active groundwater wells are located in the Natomas Basin, all in the Northgate and Gardenland neighborhoods of South Natomas. Sacramento County currently operates five groundwater wells in the panhandle annexation area of North Natomas.

The full extent of water use within the city limits (including the City’s permit area) was assessed as part of the recently completed Sacramento Water Forum, which considered the City’s water supply needs in buildout conditions. The City’s future water demands were estimated by the Water Forum to be 130,600 acre-feet per year (City-County Office of Metropolitan Water Planning, 1999). Following the completion of the Water Forum plan, the City approved environmental documents for reconstruction of its water supply intakes on the Sacramento and American Rivers (City of Sacramento, 2000a) and expansion of its Sacramento River and Fairbairn Water Treatment Plants and associated distribution CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
3-10 REVISED NATOMAS BASI N HCP E042002017SAC/161795(003.DOC)

EIR/EIS
facilities (City of Sacramento, 2000b). The city also has an Urban Water Management Plan (City of Sacramento, 2001), adopted in accordance with the State’s Urban Water Management Planning Act. The Urban Water Management Plan describes water demand and supply within the City, evaluates methods related to the conservation of water, presents an urban water shortage contingency plan, and provides information on the availability of reclaimed water and its potential for use as a water source in the City. With the expanded facilities, water supply would be reliably provided to all areas of the City under buildout conditions (Brent, pers. comm.). Growth of the City’s water supply system is intended primarily to meet the City’s needs within its service area (including North and South Natomas), and also to facilitate regional programs to conjunctively manage surface and groundwater supplies as part of the ongoing Water Forum implementation effort.

There is currently no municipal water service provider to developed lands in Sutter County’s permit area (e.g., along Pacific Avenue). As described above for Natomas Mutual, these areas are currently served by individual, private groundwater wells. The recently approved South Sutter County Specific Plan (Sutter County, 2001) establishes policy direction for the development of a community water system based on groundwater and the establishment of a County Service Area to fund, construct, and maintain the necessary infrastructure. The groundwater system is planned to consist of 13 supply wells and three

2.5-million-gallon reservoirs, all to be constructed within Sutter County’s permit area (Musallam, pers. comm.). Prior to the development of the community water system, individual new industrial/commercial development projects would likely develop private, onsite wells and storage, with the requirement to connect to the community water system when completed.

3.4 Biological Resources
This section describes the biological resources in the Natomas Basin, including the habitat- based land use GIS database developed to identify and assess project-specific impacts to biological resources in the study area. Additional land use discussion that focuses on the local land use planning goals and policies in the study area are presented in Section 3.6, Land Use. This section focuses on current land use and habitat acreage in the City of Sacramento, unincorporated Sacramento County, and Sutter County, which is a key component of the impacts analysis in Section 4.4. The methodology for quantifying land use and habitat acreage is summarized in this section. This section also describes the special- status species considered in the analysis.

3.4.1 Land Use and Habitats in the Natomas Basin
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. The Natomas Basin 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 Drainage Canal) and on the south by Garden Highway. For this analysis, the Natomas Basin is defined as the area within the interior of the surrounding levees. Prior to modern reclamation efforts, drainage off the western slopes of the Sierra Nevada produced regular flooding and created areas of highly fertile, alluvial soils in the Sacramento Valley, including the Natomas Basin and other areas (e.g., Sutter Basin, Butte Basin, Colusa Basin). Since 1914, CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
E042002017SAC/161795(003.DOC) REVI SED NATOMAS BASIN HCP 3-11

EIR/EIS
land reclamation and reclamation facilities, canals, levees, and pumping stations have allowed most of the Natomas Basin to be converted to agricultural production.

Today, the predominant crops produced in the Natomas Basin are rice, corn, sugar beets, grain, tomatoes, and pasture lands (Figure 3-1). The overall topography remains—the basin is still a shallow bowl—but the irregular small- scale topographic features of the original landscape have largely been eliminated by agriculture. The drainage pattern of the basin has been altered so that runoff is pumped into the RD 1000 system of drains and into 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.

Natural vegetation is interspersed throughout the agricultural areas of Natomas Basin.

Natural vegetation is found primarily along RD 1000/Natomas Mutual canals and drains, pastures, and uncultivated fields (Figure 3-2). Borders of canals and drains often have narrow strips of emergent vegetation (cattail and bulrush) or wooded riparian areas. The presence of the water-conveyance systems, operated by RD 1000 and Natomas Mutual, among the mosaic of agricultural fields and riparian areas provides important nesting, feeding, and migration-corridor habitat for a variety of wildlife species inhabiting the basin.

To obtain an understanding of the existing land uses and habitat types in the study area, and to assist in the analysis of expected habitat changes (see Chapter 4), standard categories of existing land uses were developed. Eighteen land use/habitat categories were identified and are described in Table 3-1. This land use classification system was incorporated into a GIS database. Agricultural use categories and acreages reflect 1997 conditions because the agricultural use can change annually, depending on decisions made by individual land owners.

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. The database includes land use data from the Department of Water Resources, the City of Sacramento, and Sutter County. Development of the GIS database and its components is summarized below.

To develop the GIS database, digital aerial photos were obtained from the U.S. Geological Survey and assembled into a mosaic containing the entire Natomas Basin. The boundary of the basin was set at the toe of the surrounding levees. 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 18 land use categories developed for the project (Table 3-1). The resulting land use map was modified based on field data collected by May & Associates, resulting in a greater level of detail (a one-acre minimum “polygon”) and a more accurate map. Municipal boundaries were then added to the GIS database.

An additional component of the GIS database is the system of canals and drains owned and maintained by RD 1000 and Natomas Mutual. Existing digital information on the canals and drains was obtained from RD 1000 and Natomas Mutual and added to the database as linear features. Based on field data and information from Natomas Mutual, the canals and drains were divided into four categories: Class I (the Canal land use category including the CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
3-12 REVISED NATOMAS BASI N HCP E042002017SAC/161795(003.DOC)

EIR/EIS
primary drainage system), Class II (large – wetted area greater than 10 feet wide), Class III (medium – wetted area between 5 and 10 feet wide), and Class IV (small – wetted area less than 5 feet wide).

Prior to urban and agricultural development, much of the Natomas Basin consisted of seasonal and permanent marshes as the basin would flood seasonally. Currently, native marsh habitats are virtually absent from the Natomas Basin. Remaining areas of native marsh habitat occur as small and isolated patches scattered throughout the basin (see Figure 3-2). The habitat classification of ponds and seasonally wet areas was used to represent wetlands. Formal wetland delineations were not conducted as part of this environmental analysis. The ponds and seasonally wet areas habitat classification encompasses a range of wetland habitats. Some of the areas with this habitat designation could be jurisdictional wetlands.

Vernal pools are another wetland type that could occur in the Natomas Basin. May & Associates (2001) reports one small cluster of vernal pools northeast of the intersection of I-5 and Del Paso Road; no other vernal pools are confirmed in the Natomas Basin. It is likely that vernal pools existed historically in the Natomas Basin, especially in the upland areas along the eastern edge of the basin, but most upland areas in the basin have been converted to agricultural production (nonrice crops). Because vernal pools in the Sacramento area associated with grassland areas, vernal pools could occur within the grassland land use class that occurs primarily along the eastern edge of the Natomas Basin.

3.4.1.1 City of Sacramento
Table 3-2 lists the land use and habitat types in the City’s permit area, including the panhandle annexation area. Urban land, as it existed prior to the approval of the 1997 HCP, was primarily located in South Natomas and in several areas north of I-80 including Arco Arena. Nonurban land uses in the incorporated City include nonrice crops north of Del Paso Road and west of I-5 and ruderal lands surrounding Arco Arena. Land uses within the panhandle annexation area are primarily grassland. The distribution of RD 1000 and Natomas Mutual canals and drains within the City’s permit area is presented in Table 3-3.

Natural marsh habitats (ponds and seasonally wet areas) are limited to approximately 7 acres located in two small locations in the Arco Arena area east of I-5 (see Figure 3-2).

Approximately 987 acres of rice lands occur in several locations in North Natomas, but are not the dominant land use. These rice lands, including several miles of smaller canals and drains, could be used by species associated with aquatic and marsh habitats. In addition, the City’s permit area includes several of the larger RD 1000 drains in the Natomas Basin, including the entire Main Drain and substantial portions of the East Drain and West Drain (including Fisherman’s Lake). These Class I canals could also be used by species associated with aquatic and marsh habitats.

Upland habitat occurs throughout the City’s permit area, including 413 acres of grasslands in the panhandle annexation area. Upland habitat values in the City permit area are also provided by other land use types, primarily including the nonrice crop lands (e.g., row and field crops) that are prevalent throughout the City’s permit area (approximately 4,905 acres), and idle farmlands and ruderal areas that generally occur adjacent to developed areas (see Figure 3-1).
/83/97/99/114/97/109/101/110/116/111/32/82/105/118/101/114 /83/97/99/114/97/109/101/110/116/111/32/82/105/118/101/114 /83/97/99/114/97/109/101/110/116/111
/73/110/116/101/114/110/97/116/105/111/110/97/108
/65/105/114/112/111/114/116
/83/97/110/107/101/121/32/82/111/97/100
/82/105/101/103/111/32/82/111/97/100
/69/108/118/101/114/116/97/32/82/111/97/100
/69/108/107/104/111/114/110/32/66/108/118/100/46
/68/101/108/32/80/97/115/111/32/82/111/97/100
/83/97/110/32/74/117/97/110/32/82/111/97/100
/69/108/32/67/97/109/105/110/111/32/65/118/101/110/117/101 /80/111/119/101/114/108/105/110/101/32/82/111/97/100
/69/108/32/67/101/110/116/114/111/32/82/111/97/100
/83/85/84/84/69/82/32/67/79/85/78/84/89
/83/65/67/82/65/77/69/78/84/79/32/67/79/85/78/84/89/83/65/67/82/65/77/69/78/84/79/32/67/79/85/78/84/89 /80/76/65/67/69/82/32/67/79/85/78/84/89
/83/85/84/84/69/82/32/67/79/85/78/84/89
/80/76/65/67/69/82/32/67/79/85/78/84/89
/83/85/84/84/69/82/32/67/79/85/78/84/89
/89/79/76/79/32/67/79/85/78/84/89
/89/79/76/79/32/67/79/85/78/84/89
/34/33/57/57
/46/45/44
/56/48
/46
/45/44
/56/48
/46
/45/44
/53
/46
/45/44
/53
/80/97/99/105/102/105/99/32/65/118/101/110/117/101
/67/72/50/77/32/72/105/108/108/32/82/68/68/32/65/114/99/86/105/101/119/32/80/114/111/106/101/99/116/32/70/105/108/101/32/32/92/92/84/104/111/114/92/67/97/114/116/49/92/114/100/100/103/105/115/92/110/97/116/111/109/97/115/104/99/112/92/110/97/116/95/104/99/112/46/97/112/114/32/32/102/105/103/51/45/49/108/117/57/55/46/112/100/102/32/32/56/58/49/54/32/97/46/109/46/32/32/49/50/45/49/51/45/50/48/48/49 /70/73/71/85/82/69/32/51/45/49
/49/57/57/55/32/76/65/78/68/32/85/83/69
/82/69/86/73/83/69/68/32/78/65/84/79/77/65/83/32/66/65/83/73/78/32/72/67/80 /69/73/82/47/69/73/83
/48 /49 /50 /77/105/108/101/115
/76/69/71/69/78/68
/65/105/114/112/111/114/116
/65/108/102/97/108/102/97
/67/97/110/97/108/115
/73/100/108/101
/71/114/97/115/115/108/97/110/100
/78/111/110/45/114/105/99/101/32/99/114/111/112/115
/79/97/107/32/103/114/111/118/101/115
/79/114/99/104/97/114/100
/79/116/104/101/114
/80/97/115/116/117/114/101
/80/111/110/100/115/32/97/110/100/32/83/101/97/115/111/110/97/108/108/121 /87/101/116/32/65/114/101/97/115
/82/105/99/101
/82/105/112/97/114/105/97/110
/82/111/97/100/115/32/97/110/100/32/72/105/103/104/119/97/121/115 /82/117/100/101/114/97/108
/82/117/114/97/108/32/114/101/115/105/100/101/110/116/105/97/108 /84/114/101/101/32/103/114/111/118/101/115
/85/114/98/97/110
/83/97/99/114/97/109/101/110/116/111/32/82/105/118/101/114 /83/97/99/114/97/109/101/110/116/111/32/82/105/118/101/114 /83/97/99/114/97/109/101/110/116/111
/73/110/116/101/114/110/97/116/105/111/110/97/108
/65/105/114/112/111/114/116
/83/97/110/107/101/121/32/82/111/97/100
/82/105/101/103/111/32/82/111/97/100
/69/108/118/101/114/116/97/32/82/111/97/100
/69/108/107/104/111/114/110/32/66/108/118/100/46
/68/101/108/32/80/97/115/111/32/82/111/97/100
/83/97/110/32/74/117/97/110/32/82/111/97/100
/69/108/32/67/97/109/105/110/111/32/65/118/101/110/117/101 /80/111/119/101/114/108/105/110/101/32/82/111/97/100
/69/108/32/67/101/110/116/114/111/32/82/111/97/100/65/110/110/101/120/97/116/105/111/110 /65/114/101/97
/67/105/116/121/32/111/102
/83/97/99/114/97/109/101/110/116/111
/73/110/100/117/115/116/114/105/97/108
/67/111/109/109/101/114/99/105/97/108
/82/101/115/101/114/118/101
/83/85/84/84/69/82/32/67/79/85/78/84/89
/83/65/67/82/65/77/69/78/84/79/32/67/79/85/78/84/89/83/65/67/82/65/77/69/78/84/79/32/67/79/85/78/84/89 /80/76/65/67/69/82/32/67/79/85/78/84/89
/83/85/84/84/69/82/32/67/79/85/78/84/89
/80/76/65/67/69/82/32/67/79/85/78/84/89
/83/85/84/84/69/82/32/67/79/85/78/84/89
/89/79/76/79/32/67/79/85/78/84/89
/89/79/76/79/32/67/79/85/78/84/89
/46/45/44
/53
/46/45/44
/53
/46
/45/44
/56/48
/46
/45/44
/56/48
/34/33/57/57
/80/97/99/105/102/105/99/32/65/118/101/110/117/101
/67/72/50/77/32/72/105/108/108/32/82/68/68/32/65/114/99/86/105/101/119/32/80/114/111/106/101/99/116/32/70/105/108/101/32/32/92/92/84/104/111/114/92/67/97/114/116/49/92/114/100/100/103/105/115/92/110/97/116/111/109/97/115/104/99/112/92/110/97/116/95/104/99/112/46/97/112/114/32/32/102/105/103/51/45/50/99/110/97/46/112/100/102/32/32/56/58/52/53/32/97/46/109/46/32/32/49/50/45/49/51/45/50/48/48/49 /70/73/71/85/82/69/32/51/45/50
/67/85/82/82/69/78/84/32/78/65/84/85/82/65/76/32/65/82/69/65/83 /82/69/86/73/83/69/68/32/78/65/84/79/77/65/83/32/66/65/83/73/78/32/72/67/80 /69/73/82/47/69/73/83
/48 /49 /50 /77/105/108/101/115
/76/69/71/69/78/68
/71/114/97/115/115/108/97/110/100
/79/97/107/32/71/114/111/118/101/115
/80/111/110/100/115/32/97/110/100/32/83/101/97/115/111/110/97/108/108/121/32/87/101/116/32/65/114/101/97/115 /82/105/112/97/114/105/97/110
/84/114/101/101/32/71/114/111/118/101/115
CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
E042002017SAC/161795(003.DOC) REVI SED NATOMAS BASIN HCP 3-17

EIR/EIS
TABLE 3-1
Description of Land Use/Habitat Categories
Category Description
Airport Lands within the Sacramento International Airport primary fenceline, including all land use types (e.g., facilities, runways, and open lands, and farmlands adjacent to runways) within boundary. Does not include airport buffer lands (e.g., south of I-5). Also includes several small rural airstrips.

Alfalfa Based on a subset of the DWR “pasture” land use category that includes alfalfa production.

Includes known alfalfa fields along Garden Highway in Sutter County.

Canals The largest of the canals and drains (including adjacent maintenance roads) in the Natomas Basin, primarily those 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. 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.

Nonrice 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 as well as many numerous small groves.

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.

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 and
Seasonally Wet
Areas
Wetland/marsh areas including Prichard’s Lake 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 nonnative 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 nonriparian 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.

CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
3-18 REVISED NATOMAS BASI N HCP E042002017SAC/161795(003.DOC)

EIR/EIS
TABLE 3-2
Land Uses/Habitat Categories in the City of Sacramento and Annexation Area (acres) Land Use Class
City of
Sacramento
Nonexempt
City of
Sacramento
Exempt
Annexation
Area
Nonexempt
Annexation
Area
Exempt Total
Airport 18 0 0 0 18
Alfalfa 0 0 0 0 0
Canals (Class I) 0 123 0 7 129
Grasslands 14 28 413 0 454
Highways 0 437 0 13 450
Idle 675 115 0 49 839
Nonrice Crops 4,614 92 50 149 4,905
Oak groves 6 9 0 0 15
Orchard 13 0 0 0 13
Other 31 117 0 0 148
Pasture 4 12 20 0 35
Ponds and Seasonally Wet Areas 7 0 0 0 7
Rice 820 16 149 1 987
Riparian 24 0 0 0 24
Ruderal 1,135 188 2 104 1,429
Rural Residential 42 3 4 0 49
Tree Groves 8 26 3 0 36
Urban 0 2,820 0 478 3,298
Total 7,410 3,986 640 801 12,836
Source: Habitat and Land Use Assessment Database (CH2M HILL, 2002).

TABLE 3-3
Canals in the City of Sacramento and Annexation Area (miles) Canal Type
City of
Sacramento
Nonexempt
City of
Sacramento
Exempt
Annexation
Area
Nonexempt
Annexation
Area
Exempt Total
Class I 0 12.9 0.2 0.8 12.9
Class II 3.6 0.4 0.0 0.0 4.0
Class III 12.1 3.0 0.0 0.0 15.1
Class IV 2.8 1.5 0.8 0.0 5.1
Total 18.5 17.8 1.0 0.8 37.1
Source: Habitat and Land Use Assessment Database (CH2M HILL, 2002).

CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
E042002017SAC/161795(003.DOC) REVI SED NATOMAS BASIN HCP 3-19

EIR/EIS
Riparian habitat in the City is limited to the eastern perimeter of Fisherman’s Lake (about 23 acres) and a small area near the northbound offramp from I-5 to Del Paso Road (about 1 acre). Approximately 15 acres of oak groves are located in the City’s permit area, primarily in South Natomas. Six of these acres occur in three isolated groves in the Willow Creek area, which is included in the City’s 8,050 acres of authorized development. A small vernal pool area is known to occur northeast of the I-5/Del Paso Road interchange (May & Associates, 2001). Other vernal pools are not known to occur within the City portion of the Natomas Basin, but the grassland area in the northern portion of the panhandle annexation area could support vernal pools.

3.4.1.2 Sacramento County
Land uses in unincorporated Sacramento County are listed in Table 3-4. Primary land use types within this area include rice fields (primarily to the north of the city limits) and nonrice cropland (primarily to the west of the city limits). Sacramento International Airport is also in this area. Agricultural lands are generally smaller and more diverse, with inclusions of native habitat, along the Sacramento River levee and just west of Steelhead Creek. The distribution of canals and drains within unincorporated Sacramento County is presented in Table 3-5.

Natural marsh habitat occurs on approximately 79 acres, including 4 acres within Metro Air Park (see Figure 3-2). Key natural marsh areas include Pritchard Lake north of Sacramento International Airport and the area adjacent to Natomas Mutual’s Elkhorn Pumping Plant.

Other natural marsh areas are scattered in approximately five small areas throughout unincorporated Sacramento County. Rice lands are prominent throughout unincorporated Sacramento County (totaling approximately 9,968 acres), including 1,541 acres shown in Metro Air Park in the predevelopment (i.e., 1997) condition. Rice lands, including several miles of smaller canals and drains, could be used by species associated with aquatic and marsh habitats. Unincorporated Sacramento County also includes substantial portions of RD 1000’s East and West Drains as well as Natomas Mutual’s Central Main Canal. These Class I canals could also be used by species associated with aquatic and marsh habitats.

Upland habitat in unincorporated Sacramento County is primarily located west of the City’s permit area, and primarily consists of nonrice field and row crops (8,591 acres as shown in Table 3-4). Other upland habitat types include scattered pasture, idle, and ruderal lands, and also include 293 acres of grassland habitat adjacent to Steelhead Creek.

Riparian habitat in unincorporated Sacramento County occurs in 12 areas throughout the Natomas Basin, totaling 93 acres. Notable riparian habitat areas include the vicinity of Natomas Mutual’s Elkhorn Pumping Plant, the west side of Fisherman’s Lake, and a cluster of small sites south of Elverta Road near Steelhead Creek. Unincorporated Sacramento County contains substantial oak grove areas, primarily in the Swainson’s Hawk Zone near the Sacramento River, but only two acres are located in a planned development area (Metro Air Park). Vernal pools are located on the Conservancy’s Betts-Kismat-Silva reserve in the northeastern portion of unincorporated Sacramento County’s portion of the Natomas Basin.

Other vernal pools are not known to occur, but could occur the grassland areas adjacent to Steelhead Creek that are similar in habitat to the Betts-Kismat-Silva reserve.

CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
3-20 REVISED NATOMAS BASI N HCP E042002017SAC/161795(003.DOC)

EIR/EIS
TABLE 3-4
Land Uses in Unincorporated Sacramento County (acres)
Land Use Class Metro Air Park
Other
Sacramento County Total
Airport 0 1,512 1,512
Alfalfa 0 137 137
Canals (Class I) 0 308 308
Grassland 0 293 293
Highways 0 414 414
Idle 50 480 530
Nonrice Crops 325 8,591 8,916
Oak groves 2 70 72
Orchard 0 169 169
Other 0 305 305
Pasture 22 261 283
Ponds and Seasonally Wet Areas 4 75 79
Rice 1,541 8,427 9,968
Riparian 0 93 93
Ruderal 6 261 267
Rural Residential 10 170 180
Tree Groves 23 39 62
Urban 0 229 229
Total 1,983 21,836 23,819
Source: Habitat and Land Use Assessment Database (CH2M HILL, 2002).

TABLE 3-5
Canals in Unincorporated Sacramento County (miles)
Canal Type Metro Air Park
Unincorporated
Sacramento County Total
Class I 0 15.0 15.0
Class II 4.0 18.0 22.0
Class III 3.5 50.5 54.0
Class IV 4.1 31.4 35.5
Total 11.6 114.9 126.5
Source: Habitat and Land Use Assessment Database (CH2M HILL, 2002).

CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
E042002017SAC/161795(003.DOC) REVI SED NATOMAS BASIN HCP 3-21

EIR/EIS

3.4.1.3 Sutter County
Land uses in the Sutter County portion of the Natomas Basin are primarily rice lands, with nonrice croplands and isolated areas of grassland and pasture located along the Sacramento River east levee and Steelhead Creek. Land uses in Sutter County are listed in Table 3-6.

Development is limited primarily to the agricultural-industrial businesses along Pacific Avenue, and also includes scattered rural residential areas including Rio Ramaza. Class I canals in Sutter County primarily consists of RD 1000’s North Drain, and also include a small portion of the East Drain (Table 3-7). Several miles of smaller canals and drains are located throughout Sutter County lands in the Natomas Basin, primarily in the central portion where rice is the predominant land use type.

TABLE 3-6
Land Uses in Sutter County
Land Use Class
Sutter
County ICR –
Nonexempt
Sutter
County ICR –
Exempt ICR Buffer
Other
Sutter County Total
Airport 21 0 0 0 21
Alfalfa 0 0 64 170 234
Canals (Class I) 0 39 5 22 66
Grasslands 134 5 0 0 138
Highways 0 428 0 143 571
Idle 8 0 54 32 94
Nonrice Crops 1,529 53 247 1,037 2,866
Oak Groves 0 0 4 7 11
Orchard 0 0 0 0 0
Other 0 8 7 0 15
Pasture 101 2 0 252 355
Ponds and Seasonally Wet Areas 10 0 0 0 10
Rice 5,577 228 514 5,418 11,737
Riparian 0 0 5 2 6
Ruderal 88 0 51 135 274
Rural Residential 0 67 40 40 148
Tree Groves 0 0 5 2 8
Urban 0 276 18 33 327
Total 7,467 1,108 1,015 7,294 16,881
ICR Industrial-Commercial Reserve
Source: Habitat and Land Use Assessment Database (CH2M HILL, 2002).

Natural marsh habitat occurs on approximately five small areas totaling 10 acres, mostly along the far eastern boundary of the Sutter County permit area (see Figure 3-2). Rice lands are prominent throughout Sutter County in the Natomas Basin, totaling 11,737 acres. Rice lands, including several miles of smaller canals and drains, could be used by species associated with aquatic and marsh habitats. Class I canals in Sutter County (primarily RD CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
3-22 REVISED NATOMAS BASI N HCP E042002017SAC/161795(003.DOC)

EIR/EIS
1000’s North Drain) could also be used by species associated with aquatic and marsh habitats.

TABLE 3-7
Canals in Sutter County (miles)
Canal Type
Sutter
County ICR -
Nonexempt
Sutter
County ICR -
Exempt
Sutter County
ICR Buffer
Other
Sutter County Total
Class I 0 2.3 0.9 3.9 7.1
Class II 13.9 0.2 0.0 10.4 24.5
Class III 8.5 0.5 1.5 18.0 28.5
Class IV 9.3 7.6 0.7 4.7 22.3
Total 33.9 8.3 3.1 37.0 82.3
ICR Industrial-Commercial Reserve
Source: Habitat and Land Use Assessment Database (CH2M HILL, 2002).

Upland habitat in Sutter County is primarily located along the eastern and western perimeter of the Natomas Basin (2,866 acres total). Other upland habitat types include scattered pasture, idle, and ruderal lands, and also include 138 acres of grassland habitat adjacent to Steelhead Creek.

Riparian habitat is generally absent from Sutter County, limited to two small areas (both outside of Sutter County’s permit area) totaling approximately 6 acres. Oak groves occur on 11 acres, all outside of the permit area. Vernal pools are not known to occur in the Sutter County portion of the Natomas Basin, but the grassland areas adjacent to Steelhead Creek (both within and outside of Sutter County’s permit area) could support vernal pools.

3.4.2 Special-Status Species
Special-status species include: (1) those listed or proposed for listing by state or federal agencies as Rare, Threatened, or Endangered; (2) federal Species of Concern or state Species of Special Concern; or (3) species listed by the California Native Plant Society (CNPS) with a designation of 1B (indicating species that are rare or endangered in California and elsewhere) or Category 2 (indicating species that are rare or endangered in California but more common elsewhere).

Early in the HCP process, the USFWS provided a list of special-status species with the potential to occur in the Natomas Basin (Appendix B). A total of 101 special-status species were identified, consisting of 23 plant, 11 invertebrate, 11 fish, 4 amphibian, 6 reptile, 34 bird, and 12 mammal species. Table 3-8 presents a list of these special-status species identified as potentially occurring in the Natomas Basin. This table includes the habitat types that could support these species as well as the potential for occurrence in the basin. The list of species includes those listed as threatened or endangered that have special requirements under the state and federal ESAs and other non-listed special-status species that could become listed in the future. Any special-status species whose suitable habitat(s) are present within the Natomas Basin area were evaluated for potential impacts from construction and operation.

CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
E042002017SAC/161795(003.DOC) REVI SED NATOMAS BASIN HCP 3-23

EIR/EIS
Of the 101 special-status species identified, 22 species (7 plant, 4 invertebrate, 2 amphibian, 2 reptile, and 7 bird) were chosen for coverage by the HCP (see Table I-1 of the HCP). Most of the remaining 79 species are not known to inhabit or use the Natomas Basin. Eighteen special-status species (3 plant and 15 bird) that are not proposed for coverage under the HCP, however, have some potential to occur in the Natomas Basin and are therefore considered in detail in this EIR/EIS. The species for which the applicants are seeking coverage are noted in the “Habitat and Range” column of Table 3-8.

TABLE 3-8
List of Special-Status Species Identified by USFWS as Potentially Occurring in the Natomas Basin Species Status Habitat and Range
Mammals
Greater western mastiff-bat
Eumops perotis californicus
Fed: SC
CA: SSC
Roosts in crevices in cliffs (Bat Conservation International, 2001). Because roosting habitat does not occur in the
Natomas Basin, this species is not expected to occur.

Small-footed myotis
Myotis ciliolabrum
Fed: SC Suspected to roost in cliffs and rock crevices, including rock piles on the ground (Bat Conservation International, 2001).

Suitable habitat could be present in the Natomas Basin, but the species is not known to occur in the project area.

Long-eared myotis
Myotis evotis
Fed: SC Associated with coniferous forests at higher elevations (Bat Conservation International, 2001). Because suitable habitat does not occur in the Natomas Basin, this species is not expected to occur.

Fringed myotis
Myotis thrysanodes
Fed: SC Uses a variety of habitats. Suitable habitat may be present in the Natomas Basin, but the species is not known to occur in the project area.

Long-legged myotis
Myotis volans
Fed: SC Occurs primarily in coniferous forests at higher elevations (Bat Conservation International, 2001). Because suitable habitat does not occur in the Natomas Basin, the species is not expected to occur.

Yuma myotis
Myotis yumanensis
Fed: SC Roosts primarily in buildings and bridges (Bat Conservation International, 2001). Although known primarily from forested areas, the Yuma myotis may also occur in riparian areas along waterways (Bat Conservation International, 2001). Although suitable habitat could occur, it has not been reported in the Natomas Basin.

Marysville Heerman’s
kangaroo rat
Dipodomys californicus eximus
Fed: SC
CA: SSC
Known from two records in the Sutter Buttes. Not expected in the Natomas Basin.

San Francisco dusky-footed
woodrat
Neotoma fuscipes annectens
Fed: SC
CA: SSC
Generally absent from cultivated land and open grassland in the Central Valley (Zeiner et al., 1990a). Unlikely to occur in the project area.

Riparian (San Joaquin Valley)
woodrat
Neotoma fuscipes riparia
Fed:

Endangered
CA: SSC
Known only from one population in San Joaquin County
(65 FR 8881-8890). Unlikely to occur in project area.

San Joaquin pocket mouse
Perognathus inornatus
inornatus
Fed: SC Known to occur throughout the Central Valley, preferring loose soil for burrowing (Harvey and Ahlborn, 1982). Not known to occur in the Natomas Basin.

CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
3-24 REVISED NATOMAS BASI N HCP E042002017SAC/161795(003.DOC)

EIR/EIS
TABLE 3-8
List of Special-Status Species Identified by USFWS as Potentially Occurring in the Natomas Basin Species Status Habitat and Range
Birds
Cooper’s hawk
Accipiter cooperi
CA: SSC A woodland raptor that occurs year-round in appropriate habitat throughout most of the United States (Rosenfield and Bielefeldt, 1993). In the Natomas Basin, Cooper’s hawks occur along Sacramento River margins and in other tree groves.

Tricolored blackbird
Agelaius tricolor
Fed: SC
CA: SSC
Occurs in several areas throughout the Central Valley. It breeds near fresh water, preferably in emergent wetland with tall, dense cattails or tules, but also in thickets of willow, blackberry, wild rose, and tall herbs. One tricolored blackbird colony is known to occur in the Natomas Basin, on the
Conservancy’s Betts-Kismat-Silva reserve. Covered species.

Grasshopper sparrow
Ammodramus savannarum
Fed: SC Primarily a species of midwestern and eastern grasslands, this species has not been recorded in the Sacramento area,
although it may occur in grasslands along valley margins near the Coast Ranges and Sierra foothills. Not expected to occur in the Natomas Basin.

Short-eared owl
Asio flammeus
Fed: SC
CA: SSC
A ground-nesting owl that prefers open habitat areas (Holt and Leasure, 1993). Known to occur throughout the Sacramento area.

Burrowing owl
Athene cunicularia
Fed: SC
CA: SSC
A year-long resident of open, dry grassland and desert
habitats, and also in grass, forb, and open shrub stages of pinyon-juniper and ponderosa pine habitats. Two burrowing owl occurrences are known from the Natomas Basin, one from the Conservancy’s Betts-Kismat-Silva reserve, and the other along the east side of Pacific Avenue. Covered species.

American bittern
Botaurus lentiginosus
Fed: SC Associated with marsh habitat. Known to occur in the Natomas Basin.

Aleutian Canada goose
Branta canadensis leucopareia
Fed: SC
(recently
delisted)
Nests in the western Aleutian Islands and traditionally occurs during migration along coastal Oregon and in Del Norte and Humboldt counties in northern California (Gregg et al. 1988).

The Aleutian Canada goose winters in the San Joaquin Valley near Modesto, and is an occasional winter visitor in the Natomas Basin. Covered species.

Ferruginous hawk
Buteo regalis
Fed: SC
CA: SSC
A winter resident of open, grassland habitats in the Central Valley (Bechard and Schmutz, 1995). Known to occur in the Natomas Basin, but not a common species.

Swainson’s hawk
Buteo swainsoni
CA: Threatened Occurs in California primarily during the breeding season (March through September) and winters in South America.

The current Swainson's hawk nesting distribution is limited to extreme northeastern California, the Central Valley, and a few isolated locations in the Owens Valley (CDFG, 1992, 1994b).

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 and large enough to support the high densities of microtine rodent populations and insects upon which they feed. Covered
species.

CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
E042002017SAC/161795(003.DOC) REVI SED NATOMAS BASIN HCP 3-25

EIR/EIS
TABLE 3-8
List of Special-Status Species Identified by USFWS as Potentially Occurring in the Natomas Basin Species Status Habitat and Range
Western snowy plover
Charadrius alexandrinus
nivosus
CA: SC Interior population known to be genetically distinct from federally threatened Pacific Coast population
(58 FR 12864 - 12874). Inland population known to occur year-round in the San Joaquin Valley and Southern California, primarily from alkaline and saline ponds (Page et al., 1995).

May occur rarely in the Natomas Basin, but suitable habitat is generally absent.

Mountain plover
Charadrius montanus
Fed: Proposed
Threatened
CA: SSC
Most winter in California but breed primarily in Colorado and Montana (64 FR 7587-7601). The Natomas Basin could
support wintering mountain plovers. Primary habitat in the project area would include grasslands.

Black tern
Chlidonias niger
Fed: SC
CA: SSC
The breeding range is primarily in the northern United States and Canada, but breeding also occurs in the Central Valley (Dunn and Agro, 1995). The black tern breeds in wet, marshy areas, and is known to use artificially wet areas such as rice fields as breeding habitat (Dunn and Agro, 1995). The species is uncommon in the Natomas Basin.

Lark sparrow
Chondestes grammacus
Fed: SC Fairly common in the Sacramento area and is likely to occur in undeveloped areas throughout the Natomas Basin.

Yellow-billed cuckoo
Coccyzus americanus
CA:

Endangered
Limited suitable habitat (riparian forest) in the Natomas Basin.

No known occurrences in the Natomas Basin.

Black swift
Cypseloides niger
Fed: SC
CA: SSC
Requires steep, rocky cliffs for nesting. Will forage over almost any terrain but avoids arid regions such as the Great Basin, southern deserts, and the Central Valley. This species is not likely to occur in the Natomas Basin.

Hermit warbler
Dendroica occidentalis
Fed: SC Breeds in coniferous forests in the central and northern Sierra Nevada (Pearson, 1997). Not expected to occur in the
Natomas Basin.

Snowy egret
Egretta thula
--- Common in the Sacramento area and found in undeveloped areas throughout the Natomas Basin.

White-tailed kite
Elanus leucurus
Fed: SC
CA: Fully
Protected
Common in the Central Valley and found throughout the open country in the Natomas Basin.

Pacific-slope flycatcher
Empidonax difficilis
Fed: SC Somewhat common in the Sacramento area during migration in late spring and early fall, but usually associated with riparian forests at higher elevations.

Little willow flycatcher
Empidonax trailii brewsteri
Fed: SC
CA:

Endangered
Uncommon in the Sacramento area. Usually associated with riparian forests at higher elevations. Could occasionally occur in riparian habitat in the Natomas Basin.

American peregrine falcon
Falco peregrinus anatum
Fed: SC
(recently
delisted)
CA:

Endangered
and Fully
Protected
Favors cliffs, bluffs, rock outcrops, and similar high points overlooking open ocean, grasslands, or fields for nesting. In summer, this species is found primarily along the California coast, extending the length of the state from Oregon to the Mexican border. It is less commonly observed in the Central Valley, and occasionally winters in the low-lying foothills of northeastern California. Could occasionally forage in the Natomas Basin.

CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
3-26 REVISED NATOMAS BASI N HCP E042002017SAC/161795(003.DOC)

EIR/EIS
TABLE 3-8
List of Special-Status Species Identified by USFWS as Potentially Occurring in the Natomas Basin Species Status Habitat and Range
Greater sandhill crane
Grus canadensis tabida
CA: Threatened
and Fully
Protected
Winters primarily in the Sacramento and San Joaquin valleys from Tehama County south to Kings County (Grinnell and
Miller, 1944), where they frequent annual and perennial grassland habitats, moist croplands with rice or corn stubble, and open, emergent wetlands. Greater sandhill cranes tend to return to historic wintering grounds, with large flocks congregating in the Butte Sink area of Sutter County and in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. The Natomas Basin is not a known wintering area for greater sandhill cranes.

Bald eagle
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Fed: Proposed
for Delisting
CA:

Endangered
and Fully
Protected
Associated with aquatic habitats for foraging, occasionally preying on waterfowl. Occasional winter migrant in the
Natomas Basin.

Least bittern
Ixobrychus exilis hesperis
Fed: SC
CA: SSC
Uses dense, emergent vegetation for cover and nesting, and feeds in dense vegetation and small openings. Found primarily in the eastern United States, but a small Central Valley breeding population has been recorded (Gibbs et al., 1992).

Not known to occur in the Natomas Basin.

Loggerhead shrike
Lanius ludovicianus
Fed: SC
CA: SSC
Occurs in grasslands, agricultural lands, open shrublands, and woodlands (Bent, 1950). It prefers areas with perch sites (Zeiner et al., 1990). 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). Covered species.

California black rail
Laterallus jamaicensis
coturniculus
Fed: SC
CA: Fully
Protected
Not known to occur in the Central Valley (Eddleman et al., 1994).

Lewis’s woodpecker
Melanerpes lewis
Fed: SC Found in open forests and known to occur along valley margins near the Coast Ranges and Sierra foothills (Tobalske, 1997). Not expected in the Natomas Basin.

Long-billed curlew
Numenius americanus
Fed: SC
CA: SSC
Fairly common in the Sacramento area, especially during the winter months. Suitable habitat exists in undeveloped areas throughout the Natomas Basin.

White-faced ibis
Plegadis chihi
Fed: SC
CA: SSC
Prefers extensive marshes for nesting (Zeiner et al., 1990a).

Large tule stands surrounded by open water provide high- quality nesting habitat for the species. It occurs 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 are in Utah, Nevada, Oregon, and coastal Texas and Louisiana. The largest breeding colonies in the Central Valley have been reported in the Mendota Wildlife Area and the Colusa National Wildlife Refuge. Covered species.

CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
E042002017SAC/161795(003.DOC) REVI SED NATOMAS BASIN HCP 3-27

EIR/EIS
TABLE 3-8
List of Special-Status Species Identified by USFWS as Potentially Occurring in the Natomas Basin Species Status Habitat and Range
Bank swallow
Riparia riparia
CA: Threatened Colony nester that nests primarily adjacent to riparian habitats.

This species prefers vertical banks/cliffs with fine-
textured/sandy soils in which to dig nesting holes near streams, rivers, lakes, and oceans. 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.

Covered species.

Rufous hummingbird
Selasphorus rufus
Fed: SC Breeds in the Pacific Northwest and winters primarily in Mexico and along the Gulf Coast (Calder, 1993). Primarily occurs in mountainous and foothill regions that support nectar-producing flowers (Calder, 1993). Known to occur in the Natomas Basin during migration.

Red-breasted sapsucker
Sphyrapicus ruber
Fed: SC A woodland species, normally associated with higher-elevation habitats, but somewhat common in the Sacramento area
during the winter months. Riparian areas and oak tree groves provide potential habitat.

Brewer’s sparrow
Spizella breweri
Fed: SC Closely identified with sagebrush country, but has been occasionally recorded in the Sacramento area.

Bewick’s wren
Thryomanes bewickii
Fed: SC A common, permanent resident in the Sacramento Valley.

Breeds in brushy areas and thickets, including riparian areas (Kennedy and White, 1997).

Reptiles
Silvery legless lizard
Anniella pulchra pulchra
Fed: SC
CA: SSC
Occurs throughout the southern Coast Ranges, including
coastal-dune as well as other habitats (Zeiner et al., 1988).

The species is not known to occur in the Sacramento Valley.

Northwestern pond turtle
Clemmys marmorata
marmorata
Fed: SC
CA: SSC
Occurs in quiet waters of lowland ponds, marshes, lakes, and reservoirs, and in streams with deep pools. Rocks, logs, and streamside vegetation provide escape cover and basking sites (Stebbins, 1972). Northwestern pond turtles are generally found from San Francisco Bay north to the Columbia River drainage in Oregon and Washington. Covered by the HCP.

Southwestern pond turtle
Clemmys marmorata pallida
Fed: SC
CA: SSC
The Natomas Basin is considered outside of the range of the southern subspecies of the western pond turtle.

San Joaquin coachwhip
(whipsnake)
Masticophis flagellum ruddocki
Fed: SC
CA: SSC
Found primarily in the western San Joaquin Valley and the adjacent inner Coast Ranges, although a coachwhip was
found in the Sutter Buttes (California Department of Fish and Game, 1994b). No occurrences are reported in the Natomas Basin; the nearest reported occurrence is in the Sutter Buttes.

California horned lizard
Phrynosoma coronatum
frontale
Fed: SC
CA: SSC
The range of this lizard includes habitats in the Central Valley, but the species prefers loose, sandy soil conditions for burrowing (Zeiner et al., 1988). These conditions do not occur in the Natomas Basin, and the species is not expected to occur.

Giant garter snake
Thamnophis gigas
Fed:

Threatened
CA: Threatened
Inhabits marshes; rice and waterways, such as irrigation and drainage canals; rice lands; 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. Covered species.

CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
3-28 REVISED NATOMAS BASI N HCP E042002017SAC/161795(003.DOC)

EIR/EIS
TABLE 3-8
List of Special-Status Species Identified by USFWS as Potentially Occurring in the Natomas Basin Species Status Habitat and Range
Amphibians
California tiger salamander
Ambystoma californiense
Fed: Candidate
CA: SSC
Inhabits valley and foothill grasslands and open woodlands usually within one mile (1.6 km) of water. 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). 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., 1988). Covered species.

California red-legged frog
Rana aurora draytonii
Fed:

Threatened
CA: SSC
Assumed to be extirpated from the Central Valley floor
(61 FR 25813 – 25833).

Foothill yellow-legged frog
Rana boylii
Fed: SC
CA: SSC
Highly aquatic and closely associated with rocky streams (Zeiner et al., 1988). These habitat conditions do not occur in the Natomas Basin, and therefore this species is not expected to occur.

Western spadefoot toad
Scaphiopus hammondii
Fed: SC Associated with seasonal wetlands and other temporarily ponded areas in low-lying grasslands, fields, washes, river floodplains, alluvial fans, alkali lakes, and playas. Also found in adjacent foothill and mountain habitats. 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 4500 feet in elevation. Covered species.

Fish
Green sturgeon
Acipenser medirostris
Fed: SC
CA: SSC
The proposed action would not affect fish species in the Sacramento River.

Delta smelt
Hypomesus transpacificus
Fed:

Threatened
CA: Threatened
The proposed action would not affect fish species in the Sacramento River or Delta.

River lamprey
Lampetra ayresi
Fed: SC
CA: SSC
The proposed action would not affect fish species in the Sacramento River.

Kern brook lamprey
Lampetra hubbsi
Fed: SC
CA: SSC
Does not occur in the vicinity of Natomas Basin.

Pacific lamprey
Lampetra tridentata
Fed: SC The proposed action would not affect fish species in the Sacramento River.

Central Valley steelhead
Oncorhynchus mykiss irideus
Fed:

Threatened
The proposed action would not affect fish species in the Sacramento River.

Central Valley fall-/late-fall run
chinook salmon
Oncorynchus tshawytscha
Fed: Candidate
CA: SSC
The proposed action would not affect fish species in the Sacramento River.

Spring-run chinook salmon
Oncorhynchus tshawytscha
Fed:

Threatened
CA: Threatened
The proposed action would not affect fish species in the Sacramento River.

Winter-run chinook salmon
Oncorhynchus tshawytscha
Fed:

Endangered
CA:

Endangered
The proposed action would not affect fish species in the Sacramento River.

CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
E042002017SAC/161795(003.DOC) REVI SED NATOMAS BASIN HCP 3-29

EIR/EIS
TABLE 3-8
List of Special-Status Species Identified by USFWS as Potentially Occurring in the Natomas Basin Species Status Habitat and Range
Sacramento splittail
Pogonicthys macrolepidotus
Fed:

Threatened
CA: SSC
The proposed action would not affect fish species in the Sacramento River.

Longfin smelt
Spirinichus thaleichthys
Fed: SC
CA: SSC
The proposed action would not affect fish species in the Sacramento River and Delta.

Invertebrates
Antioch Dunes anthicid beetle
Anthicus antiochensis
Fed: SC Prefers sandy beaches within a few hundred yards of water.

Known only from Contra Costa County, and not known to
occur in the Natomas Basin.

Sacramento anthicid beetle
Anthicus sacramento
Fed: SC Known to occur primarily in sand dune areas in the Delta region, and not known to occur in the Natomas Basin.

Conservancy fairy shrimp
Branchinecta conservatio
Fed:

Endangered
Inhabits vernal pools and swales with highly turbid water.

Occupied pools are usually large. There are no known
occurrences in Sutter or Sacramento Counties.

Longhorn fairy shrimp
Branchinecta longiantenna
Fed:

Endangered
Associated with clear, moderately deep (20 to 40 centimeters) pool depressions in sandstone bedrock outcrops in Contra Costa and Alameda Counties. There are no records of this species’ occurrence in the Natomas Basin.

Vernal pool fairy shrimp
Branchinecta lynchi
Fed:

Threatened
Most often observed in vernal pools, 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). Vernal pool fairy shrimp have one of the broadest distributions of the California endemic fairy shrimp species. Covered species.

Midvalley fairy shrimp
Branchinecta mesovallensis
--- Occurs in grassland pools and intermound pools within mound-inter-mound topography. This species has been found inhabiting the most ephemeral of seasonal wetland types, presumably because it matures quickly (Helm, 1998). This species has been found in scattered localities in the middle portion of the Central Valley from Sacramento County to Fresno County (Helm, 1998). Covered species.

San Joaquin dune beetle
Coelus gracilis
Fed: SC The adult spends most of its time in sandy soils, whereas the larval form is found exclusively in loose sands. Currently, this beetle is restricted to small, isolated sand dunes along the western edge of the San Joaquin Valley. Does not occur in the Natomas Basin.

Valley elderberry longhorn
beetle
Desmocerus californicus
dimorphus
Fed:

Threatened
Closely associated with blue elderberry, an obligate host for beetle larvae. The elderberry beetle's habitat range extends from Redding at the northern end of the Central Valley, south to the Bakersfield area (Barr, 1991). Covered species.

Delta green ground beetle
Elaphrus viridis
Fed:

Threatened
Occurs in vernal pools, but is known only from one population in Solano County (45 FR 52807 - 52810).

Curved-foot hygrotus diving
beetle
Hygrotus curvipes
Fed: SC Currently only known to occur in ponds, ditches, and canals in Contra Costa, Alameda, and San Joaquin counties.

Vernal pool tadpole shrimp
Lepidurus packardi
Fed:

Endangered
Associated with vernal pools on alluvial fan, basin, basin rim, floodplain, marine terrace, high terrace, stream terrace, very high terrace, low terrace, and volcanic-mudflow landforms (Helm, 1998). Covered species.

CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
3-30 REVISED NATOMAS BASI N HCP E042002017SAC/161795(003.DOC)

EIR/EIS
TABLE 3-8
List of Special-Status Species Identified by USFWS as Potentially Occurring in the Natomas Basin Species Status Habitat and Range
Plants
Suisun marsh aster
Aster lentus
CNPS: 1B Perennial herb of freshwater wetlands (CalFlora, 2001).

Twenty-five records in Sacramento County, primarily in the Delta region, and one in Sutter County near Knight’s Landing.

No record of occurrence in the Natomas Basin, but suitable habitat could be present.

Alkali milk-vetch
Astragalus tener var. tener
CNPS: 1B Annual herb of grasslands and vernal pools (CalFlora, 2001).

No record of occurrence in Sacramento or Sutter Counties; closest recorded occurrences come from Yolo County.

Brittlescale
Atriplex depressa
CNPS: 1B Annual herb, primarily associated with alkali soil (e.g., chenopod-scrub habitat) (CalFlora, 2001). Not known to occur in Sacramento or Sutter Counties, but several sites are recorded east of Woodland in Yolo County, about 8 miles west of the Natomas Basin.

Valley spearscale
Atriplex joaquiniana
CNPS: 1B Annual herb, primarily associated with alkali soil (e.g., chenopod-scrub habitat) (CalFlora, 2001). Not known to occur in the project area, but several sites are recorded east of Woodland in Yolo County, about 8 miles west of the Natomas Basin.

Palmate-bracted bird’s-beak
Cordylanthus palmatus
CNPS: 1B
Fed:

Endangered
CA:

Endangered
Known from very few occurrences in chenopod scrub habitat (51 FR 23765 - 23769). Not known to occur in the Natomas Basin, or elsewhere in Sacramento or Sutter counties. Several sites are recorded east of Woodland in Yolo County, about 8 miles west of the Natomas Basin. Not likely to occur in the project area because of lack of suitable habitat.

Dwarf downingia
Downingia pusilla
CNPS: 2 Annual herb, occurs in wet grassland areas and vernal pools (CalFlora, 2001). One occurrence is known from the Natomas Basin, near the west levee of Steelhead Creek and south of Elverta Road. Several occurrences of the species are also known from the Rio Linda area, east of the Natomas Basin.

Tuolumne coyote-thistle
Eryngium pinnatisectum
CNPS: 1B Annual/perennial herb that may grow in vernal pools, but is known to occur only at higher elevations (CalFlora, 2001).

Tuolumne coyote-thistle is not expected to occur in the Natomas Basin.

Boggs Lake hedge-hyssop
Gratiola heterosepala
CNPS: 1B
CA:

Endangered
Occurs in shallow waters or moist-clay (adobe) soils, in vernal pools, and along lake margins. Potential habitat occurs where riparian vegetation or emergent-marsh vegetation exists, in sloughs, marshes, and unmaintained agricultural canals.

Covered species.

Rose mallow
Hibiscus lasiocarpus
CNPS: 2 Yellow-flowering shrub that is most commonly found near wetlands (CalFlora, 2001). One known occurrence in the
Natomas Basin, in the interchange area of West El Camino Avenue and Interstate 80.

Northern California black
walnut
Juglans californica var. hindsii
CNPS: 1B Native tree with only a few native stands remaining, none of which are located in the project area. Does not occur in the Natomas Basin.

Ahart’s rush
Juncus leiospermus var. ahartii
CNPS: 1B Annual herb of vernal pool habitats (CalFlora, 2001).

Extremely rare and not known to occur in the Natomas Basin.

CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
E042002017SAC/161795(003.DOC) REVI SED NATOMAS BASIN HCP 3-31

EIR/EIS
TABLE 3-8
List of Special-Status Species Identified by USFWS as Potentially Occurring in the Natomas Basin Species Status Habitat and Range
Legenere
Legenere limosa
CNPS: 1B
Fed: SC
Found along lakeshores and in vernal pools, marshes, and other seasonally inundated habitats. There are no reported occurrences in the Natomas Basin, although potentially
suitable vernal-pool habitat occurs along the far eastern boundary of the project area, north of Del Paso Road. Covered species.

Heckard’s pepper grass
Lepidium latipes var. heckardii
CNPS: 1B Annual herb that occurs in alkali soils in valley grassland habitats (CalFlora, 2001). Two sites are known east of
Woodland in Yolo County, approximately 8 miles from the project area. Not reported in the Natomas Basin.

Delta tule pea
Lathyrus jepsonii spp. Jepsonii
CNPS: 1B
Fed: SC
Associated with alluvial-floodplain soils of deltas and major river systems. The species is most commonly associated with both brackish- and freshwater-marsh vegetation, but can root near the water and extend into riparian and upland areas, such as roadside ditches. Delta tule pea is found along the
floodplain of rivers and sloughs in Contra Costa, Fresno, Lake, Lassen, Marin, Napa, Plumas, Sacramento, San Benito, Santa Clara, San Joaquin, and Solano Counties. No occurrences of this species are known from the Natomas Basin (CDFG,
2001). Covered species.

Mason’s lilaeopsis
Lilaeopsis masonii
CNPS: 1B
CA: Rare
Perennial herb of freshwater and brackish marshes and
riparian scrub habitat (CalFlora, 2001). Known to occur in Sacramento County, primarily in the Delta region. Not known to occur in the Natomas Basin.

Veiny monardella
Monardella douglasii spp.
venosa
CNPS: 1B Annual herb that occurs in heavy clay soils in valley and foothill grasslands (CalFlora, 2001). Considered very rare by CNPS. Thought to be extirpated in Sacramento and Sutter counties.

Pincushion navarretia
Navarretia myersii spp. Myersii
CNPS: 1B Annual herb of vernal pool habitats (CalFlora, 2001).

Considered extremely rare by CNPS. One Sacramento County occurrence is recorded from the Folsom area; not known to occur in the Natomas Basin.

Colusa grass
Neostapfia colusana
CNPS: 1B
Fed:

Threatened
Usually found in fairly monotypic stands in the drying beds of larger vernal pools (Stone et al., 1988). It usually occurs in the deepest portions of the pools. No known occurrences of this species in the Natomas Basin (CDFG, 2001). Limited potential habitat occurs in the vernal pools along the eastern edge of the Natomas Basin. Covered species.

Antioch Dunes
evening-primrose
Oenothera deltoides ssp.

Howellii
CNPS: 1B
Fed:

Endangered
CA:

Endangered
Known only from Contra Costa County, near Antioch.
(43 FR 39042 - 39044).

Sacramento Orcutt grass
Orcuttia viscida
CNPS: 1B
Fed:

Endangered
CA:

Endangered
Typically occurs in medium to large vernal pools, with
relatively long inundation periods. The species is associated with very old alluvial surfaces, such as historic floodplains of prehistoric rivers and creeks. Sacramento Orcutt grass is known from only nine occurrences in California, all of which are reported from Sacramento County, one of which is
presumed extirpated (CDFG, 2001). There are no records of Sacramento Orcutt grass in Sutter County, and no known
occurrences of this species in the Natomas Basin (CDFG, 2001). Covered species.

CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
3-32 REVISED NATOMAS BASI N HCP E042002017SAC/161795(003.DOC)

EIR/EIS
TABLE 3-8
List of Special-Status Species Identified by USFWS as Potentially Occurring in the Natomas Basin Species Status Habitat and Range
Slender Orcutt grass
Orcuttia tenuis
CNPS: 1B
Fed:

Threatened
CA:

Endangered
Typically occurs in medium to large vernal pools with relatively long inundation periods. The species is associated with very old alluvial surfaces (also referred to as high terrace landforms), such as historic floodplains of prehistoric rivers and creeks. Of the 70 extant occurrences, two are reported from Sacramento County, and no occurrences are reported from Sutter County. No known occurrences of this species in the Natomas Basin (CDFG, 2001). Covered species.

Hartweg’s golden sunburst
Pseudobahia bahiifolia
CNPS: 1B
Fed:

Endangered
CA:

Endangered
Annual herb that occurs in clay soils in valley grassland and foothill woodland habitats, and is known to prefer the upper slopes of “Mima” mounds in vernal-pool areas (USFWS, 1997).

Historic range included the Sacramento Valley area, but the species is now known to occur only in the eastern San Joaquin Valley, with strongholds in Madera and Stanislaus Counties.

Not expected to occur in Natomas Basin.

Sanford’s arrowhead
Sagittaria sanfordii
CNPS: 1B
Fed: SC
Found in ponds, ditches, vernal pools, sloughs, and other slow-moving waterways. Of the known occurrences, 26 extant occurrences are reported from Sacramento County and none are reported from Sutter County. No occurrences of this species are known from the Natomas Basin (CDFG, 2001).

Covered species.

Status Codes:

Fed: Endangered—Listed as Endangered under the federal Endangered Species Act Fed: Threatened—Listed as Threatened under the federal Endangered Species Act Fed: Proposed Threatened—Proposed to be listed as Threatened under the federal Endangered Species Act Fed: Proposed for Delisting—Currently being considered for delisting from the federal Endangered Species Act Fed: Candidate—May be proposed for listing under the federal Endangered Species Act Fed: SC—Federal Species of Concern
CA: Endangered—Listed as Endangered under the California Endangered Species Act CA: Threatened—Listed as Threatened under the California Endangered Species Act CA: Candidate—May be proposed for listing under the California Endangered Species Act CA: Rare—Listed as a rare plant under the California Endangered Species Act CA: SSC—California Species of Special Concern
CNPS: 1B—List 1B of the California Native Plan t Society (Rare or Endangered in CA and elsewhere) CNPS: 2—List 2 of the California Native Plant So ciety (Rare or Endangered in CA, more common elsewhere) Descriptions of the special-status species known to occur or that could occur in the Natomas Basin are provided in text.

3.4.2.1 Species to be Covered Under the ITPs
Delta Tule Pea (Lathyrus jepsonii var. jepsonii)
The Delta tule pea is considered a Species of Concern by the USFWS, and is on List 1B of the CNPS (rare or endangered in California and elsewhere). Delta tule pea is a perennial herb that, like other members of the pea family, has a large, brightly colored pink to lavender flower, with a distinctive banner and keel. The species, like other peas, has grasping tendrils and a climbing habit. Delta tule pea is most commonly associated with both brackish and freshwater marsh vegetation, but can root near the water and extend into adjacent riparian and upland areas.

Delta tule pea is known primarily from the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta. Most known occurrences are recorded from Solano (39 records), Contra Costa (15), Sacramento (14), and San Joaquin (9) Counties (CalFlora, 2001). All Sacramento County occurrence records are from CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
E042002017SAC/161795(003.DOC) REVI SED NATOMAS BASIN HCP 3-33

EIR/EIS
the Delta region, with the nearest reported occurrences in the Walnut Grove area (CDFG, 2001). Delta tule pea is not known to occur in Sutter County. Little information is known about the population status of the Delta tule pea, but the species is considered by the California Native Plant Society to be threatened by agricultural practices, water diversions, and erosion (Skinner and Pavlik, 1994).

Sanford’s Arrowhead (Sagittaria sanfordii)
Sanford’s arrowhead is considered a Species of Concern by the USFWS, and is on List 1B of the CNPS (rare or endangered in California and elsewhere). Sanford’s arrowhead is an aquatic perennial that occurs under shallow-water conditions in freshwater marshes.

Sanford’s arrowhead is known primarily from the Central Valley, although the species has been found in other areas of California. Most known occurrences are recorded from Sacramento (30 records), Merced (11), Fresno (10), Butte (8), and Tehama (6) Counties (CalFlora, 2001). In Sacramento County, several occurrences are reported along the American River Parkway along small oxbows and sloughs (CDFG, 2001). Sanford’s arrowhead is not known to occur in Sutter County. No occurrences are reported in the Natomas Basin.

Sanford’s arrowhead is an endemic species, but is considered mostly extirpated from the Central Valley (Skinner and Pavlik, 1994). The species is considered by CNPS to be threatened by agricultural practices, water diversions, and erosion (Skinner and Pavlik, 1994).

Boggs Lake Hedge-hyssop (Gratiola heterosepala)
Boggs Lake hedge-hyssop is a state-listed Endangered species. Boggs Lake hedge-hyssop is a small, semi-aquatic, herbaceous annual plant found in six widely disjunct areas in California:

Boggs Lake in Lake County; Rio Linda and Elk Grove in Sacramento County; near Roseville in Placer County; Big Table Mountain in Fresno County; Kennedy Table in Madera County; and near the Pit River in Shasta County (CDFG, 2001). It has also been reported at one site in Lake County, Oregon (Skinner and Pavlik, 1994).

Boggs Lake hedge-hyssop occurs in shallow waters or moist-clay (adobe) soils, in vernal pools, and along lake margins. Populations are usually composed of scattered individuals and are often associated with bractless hedge-hyssop, coyote thistle, hairy clover-fern (Marsilea vestita), and slender Orcutt grass (Orcuttia tenuis). At higher elevations, such as Boggs Lake in Lake County and near the Pit River in Shasta County, this species is found in close proximity to foothill woodland species, such as black oak (Quercus kelloggii) and foothill pine (Pinus sabiniana), and northern juniper woodland species, respectively. There are no known occurrences of this species in the Natomas Basin, although limited potentially suitable vernal pool habitat occurs along the eastern boundary of the basin north of Del Paso Road. This species has been identified in Rio Linda, approximately 2 miles east of the Natomas Basin (CDFG, 2001).

Sacramento Orcutt Grass (Orcuttia viscida) and Slender Orcutt Grass (Orcuttia tenuis) Sacramento Orcutt grass is listed as Endangered by both the state and federal Endangered Species Acts and is considered rare, threatened, or endangered in California and elsewhere (List 1B) by the CNPS (Skinner and Pavlik, 1994). Slender Orcutt grass is listed as Threatened under the federal Endangered Species Act, Endangered under the state Endangered Species Act, and is considered rare and endangered (List 1B) by the CNPS (Skinner and Pavlik, 1994).

These grasses (Orcuttia viscida, O. tenuis) are gray-green annual grass species, typically CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
3-34 REVISED NATOMAS BASI N HCP E042002017SAC/161795(003.DOC)

EIR/EIS
occurring in medium to large vernal pools with relatively long inundation periods. These species are associated with very old alluvial surfaces (also referred to as high-terrace land forms), such as historic flood plains of prehistoric rivers and creeks. Associated species include vernal pool-endemic plants, such as common spikerush (Eleocharis macrostachya), rayless lasthenia (Lasthenia glaberrima), and coyote thistle (Eryngium vaseyi).

Sacramento Orcutt grass has been identified at nine sites in Sacramento County; there are no known occurrences of this species in the Natomas Basin (CDFG, 2001). The closest known occurrences are reported in the vicinity of Kiefer Road in eastern Sacramento County, approximately 8 miles southeast of the Natomas Basin.

Slender Orcutt grass is currently recorded at 74 locations in Lake, Plumas, Sacramento, Shasta, Siskyou, and Tehama counties (CDFG, 2001). Of these occurrences, two are reported from Sacramento County and no occurrences are reported from Sutter County. There are no known occurrences of this species in the Natomas Basin (CDFG, 2001). The closest known occurrences are in eastern Sacramento County, between Kiefer Road and Rancho Seco.

Colusa Grass (Neostapfia colusana)
Colusa grass is both a federally- and state-listed Endangered species. It is also considered rare and endangered (List 1B) by the CNPS (Skinner and Pavlik, 1994). Colusa grass is a low, tufted annual plant. Colusa grass is usually found in fairly monotypic stands in the drying beds of larger vernal pools, usually occurring in the deepest portions of the pools (Stone et al., 1988; May Consulting, unpubl. record). When Colusa grass is present, other vernal-pool plants are often sparse or absent. When found with other species, Colusa grass is often associated with Hoover’s spurge or Orcutt grasses (Stone et al., 1988).

There are currently 59 known occurrences of Colusa grass in California. Of these, none is reported from Sacramento and Sutter Counties. There are no known occurrences of this species in the Natomas Basin (CDFG, 2001).

Legenere (Legenere limosa)
Legenere is considered a federal Species of Concern and rare and endangered (List 1B) by the CNPS (Skinner and Pavlik, 1994). Legenere is found below 500 feet (152.4 m) elevation (Hickman, 1993), along lakeshores and in vernal pools, marshes, and other seasonally inundated habitats. Legenere is commonly associated with stipitate popcornflower, common spikerush, rayless lasthenia, and coyote thistle (May Consulting, unpubl. record).

Currently, there are 49 known occurrences of legenere in California. Of these, 18 are reported from Sacramento County, and none are reported from Sutter County. There are no reported occurrences in the Natomas Basin, although potentially suitable vernal pool habitat occurs along the eastern boundary of the Natomas Basin, north of Del Paso Road.

Valley Elderberry Longhorn Beetle (Desmocerus californicus dimorphus) The valley elderberry longhorn beetle (VELB) is listed as Threatened under the federal Endangered Species Act. The VELB is a distinctive black and red-orange beetle, with long antennae. The USFWS’s Conservation Guidelines for the Valley Elderberry Longhorn Beetle (USFWS, 1999) describes its habitat needs as follows:

The valley elderberry longhorn beetle is completely dependent on its host plant, elderberry (Sambucus spp.), which is a common component of the CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
E042002017SAC/161795(003.DOC) REVI SED NATOMAS BASIN HCP 3-35

EIR/EIS
remaining riparian forests and adjacent upland habitats in the Central Valley.

Use of the elderberry by the beetle, a wood borer, is rarely apparent.

Frequently, the only evidence of the elderberry’s use by the beetle is an exit hole created by the larva just prior to the pupal stage. The life cycle takes one or two years to complete. The animal spends most of its life in the larval stage, living within the stems of an elderberry plant. Adult emergence is from late March through June, about the same time as an elderberry produces flowers.

The adult stage is short-lived.

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 in Solano County (USFWS, 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 (USFWS, 1984). The USFWS’s Programmatic Formal Consultation Permitting Projects with Relatively Small Effects on the Valley Elderberry Longhorn Beetle within the Jurisdiction of the Sacramento Field Office, California (USFWS, 1996a) describes population densities of the beetle as follows:

Population densities of the beetle are probably naturally low (USFWS, 1984); and it has been suggested, based on the spatial distribution of occupied shrubs (Barr, 1991), that the beetle is a poor disperser. Low density and limited dispersal capability may cause the beetle to be vulnerable to the negative effects of the isolation of small subpopulations due to habitat fragmentation.

The California Natural Diversity Database lists 168 occurrences of the VELB in California; none is located in the Natomas Basin (CDFG, 2001). Potential habitat (i.e., elderberry shrubs), however, is located along the outside perimeter of the Natomas Basin, and small patches of potential habitat are known to exist in many locations within the basin. The number of elderberry shrubs in the Natomas Basin and the local population status of the VELB are not known; however, based on the extent of riparian habitat loss in the area (primarily because of land reclamation in the early 1900s), it is likely that populations have declined.

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.

Additional information about the VELB can be found in the HCP (Section II.C.4.a.), in the Federal Register notice (45 FR 52803; August 8, 1980) that lists the species as Threatened CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
3-36 REVISED NATOMAS BASI N HCP E042002017SAC/161795(003.DOC)

EIR/EIS
under the ESA (USFWS, 1980), and in the USFWS’s Recovery Plan for the species (USFWS, 1984).

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 (less than 1 inch), freshwater crustacean belonging to the order of Fairy Shrimp (Anostraca). Vernal pool fairy shrimp have one of the broadest distributions of the California endemic fairy shrimp species. This species is most often observed in vernal pools (79 percent 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 landforms. 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).

Vernal pool fairy shrimp often occur with California linderiella, vernal pool tadpole shrimp (Lepidurus packardi), and occasionally with Conservancy fairy shrimp in the Vina Plains Preserve, and are never numerically dominant (Eng et al., 1990).

There are 270 reported 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 (CDFG, 2001). There are no vernal pool fairy shrimp occurrences in the Natomas Basin, although there are several occurrences east of the Natomas Basin in Elverta and Rio Linda (CDFG, 2001). Potential vernal pool fairy shrimp habitat occurs in the vernal pools on the east side of the Natomas Basin, north of Del Paso Road. Additional potential habitat occurs in other ponds and seasonally wet areas in the Natomas Basin (see Figure 3-2).

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 (less than 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. Vernal pool tadpole shrimp is one of the three most common large branchiopods occurring in the Central Valley (Helm, 1998). It generally occurs in very small (i.e. 2 meters square) to very large (i.e. 356,253 meters square) vernal pools with a variety of depths and volumes of water during the wet cycle (Helm, 1998). The species is associated with vernal pools on the following geomorphologic surfaces: alluvial fan, basin, basin rim, floodplain, marine terrace, high terrace, stream terrace, very high terrace, low terrace, and volcanic-mudflow land forms (Helm, 1998). The vernal pool tadpole shrimp has been observed in stock ponds, vernal pools, pools in old alluvial soil in grass-bottom swales or mud-bottomed pools, and other seasonal wetlands (Helm, 1998). This species occurs with California linderiella, vernal pool fairy shrimp, and Conservancy fairy shrimp (Helm, 1998). Unlike many of the fairy shrimp eggs, the vernal pool tadpole shrimp eggs do not need to go through a freezing or drying period to hatch (Ahl, 1991).

There are 154 reported occurrences of vernal pool tadpole shrimp in California, of which 54 occurrences are reported from Sacramento County and four are reported from Sutter County. There are no reported occurrences within the Natomas Basin (CDFG, 2001), although there are two nearby occurrences located southwest of the intersection of Sankey Road and Pleasant Grove Road, and one occurrence at the intersection of Pleasant Grove CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
E042002017SAC/161795(003.DOC) REVI SED NATOMAS BASIN HCP 3-37

EIR/EIS
Road and Howsley Road. Suitable tadpole shrimp habitat occurs along the eastern edge of the Natomas Basin, north of Del Paso Road.

Midvalley Fairy Shrimp (Branchinecta mesovallensis)
The midvalley fairy shrimp has no official state or federal listing, although it appears to meet the status of rare, threatened, or endangered under CEQA. The midvalley fairy shrimp is similar in morphology to the vernal pool fairy and is also a freshwater crustacean belonging to the order of fairy shrimp (Anostraca). This species occurs in grassland pools and intermound pools within mound-inter-mound topography. This species has been found inhabiting the most ephemeral of seasonal wetland types, presumably due to its ability to rapidly mature (Helm, 1998). This species appears to be a vernal pool obligate species, as it was observed to occur in vernal pools 93 percent of the time, and in vernal swales only 7 percent of the time (Helm, 1998). This species is associated with the smallest (less than 2 meters square) and most ephemeral (average ponding depths of 10 centimeters) vernal pools (Helm, 1998). There are 14 known occurrences of midvalley fairy shrimp reported in California, of which one is reported from Sacramento County. No occurrences of midvalley fairy shrimp are reported from Sutter County and the Natomas Basin; however, suitable seasonal wetland and vernal pool habitat occurs along the extreme eastern edge of the Natomas Basin.

California Tiger Salamander (Ambystoma californiense)
The California tiger salamander is a federal Candidate species, and state Species of Special Concern and a protected amphibian. California tiger salamander is distinguished from other 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.

California tiger salamanders inhabit valley and foothill grasslands and open woodlands usually within one mile (1.6 km) of water (Brode and McGinnis, pers. comm., as reported in the HCP). 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. 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 upland habitats after metamorphosis.

California tiger salamanders may not reproduce during years of low rainfall (Jennings and Hayes, 1994).

There are 465 known tiger salamander occurrences in California (CDFG, 2001). Of these, four occurrences are in Sacramento County and one occurrence is in Sutter County; however, none of these occurrences is in the Natomas Basin. The nearest known tiger salamander occurrences are in northern Yolo County near Dunnigan and near Rancho Seco in southeastern Sacramento County. Vernal pools could occur in grassland areas 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 Natomas Basin.

CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
3-38 REVISED NATOMAS BASI N HCP E042002017SAC/161795(003.DOC)

EIR/EIS
Western Spadefoot Toad (Scaphiopus intermontanus)
The western spadefoot toad is a California Species of Special Concern and a protected amphibian. 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 flood plains, 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.

There are 173 known western spadefoot occurrences in California, of which five are in Sacramento County and none in Sutter County. There are no records of western spadefoot toads in the Natomas Basin (CDFG, 2001). The nearest known occurrences are in Placer County at Fiddyment and Phillip roads (about 6 miles east of the Natomas Basin) and at Mather Field in central Sacramento County. Some suitable spadefoot toad breeding habitat (i.e., vernal pools) occurs along the eastern edge of the Natomas Basin; however, there are no records for this species in this area to date.

Giant Garter Snake (Thamnophis gigas)
The giant garter snake is listed as Threatened under both the federal Endangered Species Act and the California Endangered Species Act. The giant garter snake is endemic to 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. There are 168 recorded occurrences of the giant garter snake in California, 38 of which are from the Natomas Basin (CDFG, 2002).

The giant garter snake inhabits marshes, sloughs, ponds, small lakes, low gradient streams, irrigation and drainage canals, riceland, and adjacent uplands in the Central Valley.

Essential habitat components consist of: (1) adequate water during the snake’s active season (early spring through mid-fall) to provide adequate permanent water to maintain dense populations of food organisms; (2) emergent, herbaceous wetland vegetation such as cattails (Typha spp.) and bulrushes (Scirpus spp.) for escape cover and foraging habitat during the active season; (3) upland habitat with grassy banks and openings in waterside vegetation for basking; and (4) higher-elevation upland habitats for cover and refuge from flood waters during the snake’s inactive season in winter (Hansen, 1988; Brode and Hansen, 1980, 1992; Hansen and Brode, 1992). The giant garter snake feeds on aquatic prey, including small fish and frogs, carp, mosquitofish, bullfrogs, and treefrogs.

In the Natomas Basin, giant garter snakes begin entering their winter retreats in rodent burrows excavated in the banks of canals and drains, rubble piles, and other upland sites by the end of October. After emergence from winter retreats (late March or early April), giant garter snakes use canals and drains with water that persists through the summer months.

These canals and drains could contain adequate emergent aquatic vegetation and steep, vegetated banks that provide cover and a food supply. Rice fields are also used by giant garter snakes after rice growth is sufficiently high to provide cover. Following pre-harvest rice field draining, giant garter snakes move out of rice fields and re-enter canals and drains, where they feed on the high concentration of prey species that wash out from the rice fields into the canals and drains. Following the heavy feeding, they enter winter retreats.

CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
E042002017SAC/161795(003.DOC) REVI SED NATOMAS BASIN HCP 3-39

EIR/EIS
Giant garter snakes are known to use rice fields and associated features of the Natomas Basin’s rice-growing landscape for some of their habitat needs (Hansen and Brode, 1992), including RD 1000 and Natomas Mutual canals and drains, the higher ground of levees, and sloughs and marshes. The irrigation canals and drains, together with their associated levees and adjacent embankments, are important components of giant garter snake habitat in the basin. Although giant garter snakes can apparently fulfill their life history requisites in rice fields and the associated canals and drains, marshes are their natural habitat and snakes make extensive use of marsh habitat when it is available.

Canals and drains can provide all the habitat components described above and create dispersal corridors allowing garter snakes to move from one area to another in search of mates, new territories, and summer habitat. Canals and drains comprised 50 percent of all habitat use by giant garter snakes radio-telemetered by the U.S. Geological Survey’s Biological Resources Division (BRD) at Gilsizer Slough, which is outside of the Natomas Basin (Wylie and Casazza, 2000). Hansen and Brode (1992) also provide data illustrating use of water-conveyance structures by giant garter snakes. Giant garter snakes move around to find suitable habitat as conditions in the rice fields, marshes, and canals and drains change, especially during the dry summer months. Thus, connectivity between canals and drains in different areas and between these systems and other habitat types could be important for genetic interchange and ability to find summer habitat.

Previous surveys and other historical information indicate a fairly widespread distribution of giant garter snakes within the Natomas Basin. Virtually all these 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 245.9 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). It should be noted that these occurrences are in addition to the 38 recorded in the California Natural Diversity Database as reported above. 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 (Figure 3-3). 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).

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. The northwestern pond turtle is uncommon to common in suitable aquatic habitat throughout California, west of the Sierra-Cascade crest.

Northwestern pond turtles are active all year where climates are warm but are known to hibernate in cold climates. This species is typically associated with permanent or nearly permanent water in a wide variety of habitat types, including permanent ponds, lakes, streams, irrigation ditches, or permanent pools along intermittent streams. Primarily omnivorous, the northwestern pond turtle feeds on aquatic plant material, including pond lilies, beetles, and a variety of aquatic invertebrates, as well as fish, frogs, and carrion CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
3-40 REVISED NATOMAS BASI N HCP E042002017SAC/161795(003.DOC)

EIR/EIS
(Stebbins, 1972; Nussbaum et al., 1983). Northwestern pond turtles require basking sites such as partially submerged logs, rocks, mats of floating vegetation, or open mud banks.

Hibernation in colder areas occurs underwater in bottom mud. Breeding occurs in large slow-moving streams; eggs are deposited in nests constructed in sandy banks.

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 have the potential to winter in upland sites (D.C. Holland, pers. comm., as reported in the HCP).

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). However, populations are declining throughout the range (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 northwestern subspecies, generally found from San Francisco Bay north to the Columbia River drainage in Oregon and Washington (57 FR 45761-45762, October 5, 1992), still occupies most of its historic range. 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 threatened (57 FR 45761-45762, October 5, 1992).

There are 13 known pond turtle occurrences in Sacramento County and 2 known pond turtle occurrences in Sutter County. The canals and drains throughout the Natomas Basin are considered suitable aquatic habitat for pond turtles. Currently, there are about 250 miles of canals and drains in the Natomas Basin. Fisherman’s Lake in the southwestern portion of the basin 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. During the habitat mapping surveys of March 2001 (May & Associates, 2001), many pond turtles were observed along the Main Drain.

White-faced Ibis (Plegadis chihi)
The white-faced ibis is considered a Species of Concern by the USFWS and is a state Species of Special Concern. The white-faced ibis is found in the Sacramento area during its migration. This species forages in fresh emergent wetland, shallow flooded pond margins, and muddy ground of wet meadows and irrigated, or flooded, pastures and croplands. The white-faced ibis requires extensive marshes for nesting (Zeiner et al., 1990). Large tule stands surrounded by open water provide high-quality nesting habitat for this 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). The white-faced ibis winters mainly in San Joaquin Valley and Imperial Valley, but is recorded widely as a transient (Zeiner et al., 1990). The largest breeding colonies in the Central Valley have been reported from the Mendota Wildlife Area and the Colusa National Wildlife Refuge. 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. White-faced ibis populations have declined in California, probably due to habitat deterioration or removal. /202/218
/202/218
/202/218
/202/218
/202/218 /202/218/202/218
/202/218
/202/218
/202/218/202/218
/202/218 /202/218
/202/218/202/218 /202/218
/202/218
/202/218
/202/218
/202/218 /202/218
/202/218
/202/218 /202/218 /202/218/202/218
/202/218/202/218
/202/218 /202/218
/202/218 /202/218
/202/218/202/218 /202/218/202/218
/202/218
/202/218
/202/218
/202/218
/202/218
/202/218
/202/218/202/218/202/218/202/218 /202/218
/202/218
/202/218/202/218/202/218/202/218
/202/218
/202/218
/202/218/202/218
/202/218
/202/218/202/218
/202/218 /202/218
/202/218/202/218/202/218/202/218
/202/218
/202/218/202/218
/202/218
/202/218/202/218/202/218/202/218
/202/218/202/218/202/218/202/218
/202/218/202/218/202/218
/202/218
/202/218
/202/218 /202/218
/202/218/202/218
/202/218
/202/218
/202/218
/202/218
/202/218/202/218/202/218/202/218
/202/218
/202/218/202/218
/202/218
/202/218/202/218
/202/218/202/218/202/218
/202/218
/202/218
/202/218/202/218
/202/218
/202/218/202/218/202/218/202/218
/202/218/202/218
/202/218/202/218
/202/218/202/218
/202/218
/202/218 /202/218/202/218
/202/218
/202/218/202/218
/202/218/202/218
/202/218
/202/218
/202/218
/202/218/202/218
/202/218/202/218
/202/218
/202/218
/202/218
/202/218
/202/218/202/218
/202/218
/202/218
/202/218
/202/218/202/218
/202/218
/202/218
/202/218
/202/218
/202/218/202/218
/202/218
/83/97/99/114/97/109/101/110/116/111/32/82/105/118/101/114 /83/97/99/114/97/109/101/110/116/111/32/82/105/118/101/114 /46/45/44
/56/48
/46
/45/44
/56/48
/46
/45/44
/53
/46
/45/44
/53
/34/33/57/57
/83/97/99/114/97/109/101/110/116/111
/73/110/116/101/114/110/97/116/105/111/110/97/108
/65/105/114/112/111/114/116
/83/97/110/107/101/121/32/82/111/97/100
/82/105/101/103/111/32/82/111/97/100
/69/108/118/101/114/116/97/32/82/111/97/100
/69/108/107/104/111/114/110/32/66/108/118/100/46
/68/101/108/32/80/97/115/111/32/82/111/97/100
/83/97/110/32/74/117/97/110/32/82/111/97/100
/69/108/32/67/97/109/105/110/111/32/65/118/101/110/117/101 /80/111/119/101/114/108/105/110/101/32/82/111/97/100
/69/108/32/67/101/110/116/114/111/32/82/111/97/100
/83/65/67/82/65/77/69/78/84/79/32/67/79/85/78/84/89
/80/76/65/67/69/82/32/67/79/85/78/84/89
/83/85/84/84/69/82/32/67/79/85/78/84/89
/80/76/65/67/69/82/32/67/79/85/78/84/89
/89/79/76/79/32/67/79/85/78/84/89
/83/85/84/84/69/82/32/67/79/85/78/84/89
/83/65/67/82/65/77/69/78/84/79/32/67/79/85/78/84/89
/89/79/76/79/32/67/79/85/78/84/89
/83/85/84/84/69/82/32/67/79/85/78/84/89
/67/72/50/77/32/72/105/108/108/32/82/68/68/32/65/114/99/86/105/101/119/32/80/114/111/106/101/99/116/32/70/105/108/101/32/32/92/92/84/104/111/114/92/67/97/114/116/49/92/114/100/100/103/105/115/92/110/97/116/111/109/97/115/104/99/112/92/110/97/116/95/104/99/112/46/97/112/114/32/32/102/105/103/51/45/51/95/103/103/115/46/112/100/102/32/32/57/58/51/50/32/97/46/109/46/32/32/48/55/45/51/49/45/50/48/48/50 /70/73/71/85/82/69/32/51/45/51
/71/73/65/78/84/32/71/65/82/84/69/82/32/83/78/65/75/69/32/82/69/67/79/82/68/83 /82/69/86/73/83/69/68/32/78/65/84/79/77/65/83/32/66/65/83/73/78/32/72/67/80 /69/73/82/47/69/73/83
/48 /52/53/48/48 /57/48/48/48 /70/101/101/116
/49/32/73/110/99/104/32/61/32/57/48/48/48/32/70/101/101/116 /71/105/97/110/116/32/71/97/114/116/101/114/32/83/110/97/107/101/32/82/101/99/111/114/100/115/202 /218 /76/69/71/69/78/68
/83/111/117/114/99/101/58/32/32/67/78/68/68/66/32/45/32/74/97/110/32/51/44/32/50/48/48/49 /32/32/32/32/32/32/32/32/32/32/32/32/32/32/85/83/71/83/32/45/32/50/48/48/48 /32/32/32/32/32/32/32/32/32/32/32/32/32/32/85/83/71/83/32/45/32/50/48/48/49 CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
3-42 REVISED NATOMAS BASI N HCP E042002017SAC/161795(003.DOC)

EIR/EIS
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 the City of Woodland. No suitable nesting habitat occurs in the Natomas Basin for white-faced ibis, although approximately 20,000 acres of suitable winter foraging habitat (i.e., rice, alfalfa, and other agricultural fields) exists in the Natomas Basin for this species (Metro Air Park Property Owners’ Association, 2000). In the Sacramento Valley, wintering ibis were very rare in the 1970s, 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 (Metro Air Park Property Owners’ Association, 2000). White-faced ibis populations in the Sacramento Valley have increased, and white-faced ibis are now common winter visitors to the Natomas Basin.

Tricolored Blackbird (Agelaius tricolor)
The tricolored blackbird is considered a Species of Concern by USFWS and is a state Species of Special Concern. The tricolored blackbird is a year-long resident throughout the Central Valley. This species 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. Tricolored blackbirds forage on the ground in croplands, grassy fields, flooded land, and along edges of ponds (Zeiner et al., 1990). 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 and Hayworth, 1991). Emergent wetland vegetation, cattails and tules, and adjacent trees and shrubs provide cover. During fall, tricolored blackbirds may become nomadic, seeking food.

In winter, flocks become more widespread in the Sacramento River Delta. Tricolored blackbirds often leave the immediate vicinity of their nesting colonies and concentrate in huge roosts in marsh habitat (Grinnell and Miller, 1944).

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.

A 1997 tricolored blackbird survey conducted by Ted Beedy and Bill Hamilton found approximately 230,000 breeding tricolored blackbirds in California (Metro Air Park Property Owners’ Association, 2000). A follow-up survey conducted in 1999 found fewer than 95,000 breeding individuals in California. A nesting colony is located on the Conservancy’s Betts-Kismat-Silva reserve in the eastern edge of the Natomas Basin (Figure 3-4). The population of this nesting colony has increased in recent years (Roberts, pers. comm.).

The basin supports scattered copses of emergent marsh vegetation mostly within agricultural ditches and abundant rice and other agricultural fields that could provide nesting habitat for the species. Emergent marsh is the preferred nesting habitat for the species; however, because of the paucity of this habitat in the basin, the species has sought alternative nesting sites in agricultural fields. Unfortunately, routine agricultural practices can result in significant mortality of eggs and young birds. The behavior of nesting in less-than-optimal habitat indicates that the Natomas Basin has a very limited carrying capacity for the species, largely because of extensive conversion of marshland to agricultural /114/240
/37
/202/218
/36
/36
/36/37
/36
/37
/37/37/37
/202/218
/202/218/202/218/202/218/202/218/202/218/202/218/202/218/202/218/202/218/202/218/202/218/202/218/202/218/202/218/202/218/202/218/202/218/202/218/202/218/202/218/202/218/202/218/202/218/202/218 /83/97/99/114/97/109/101/110/116/111/32/82/105/118/101/114 /83/97/99/114/97/109/101/110/116/111/32/82/105/118/101/114 /46/45/44
/56/48
/46/45/44
/56/48
/46/45/44
/53
/46/45/44
/53
/34/33/57/57
/83/97/99/114/97/109/101/110/116/111
/73/110/116/101/114/110/97/116/105/111/110/97/108
/65/105/114/112/111/114/116
/83/97/110/107/101/121/32/82/111/97/100
/82/105/101/103/111/32/82/111/97/100
/69/108/118/101/114/116/97/32/82/111/97/100
/69/108/107/104/111/114/110/32/66/108/118/100/46
/68/101/108/32/80/97/115/111/32/82/111/97/100
/83/97/110/32/74/117/97/110/32/82/111/97/100
/69/108/32/67/97/109/105/110/111/32/65/118/101/110/117/101 /80/111/119/101/114/108/105/110/101/32/82/111/97/100
/69/108/32/67/101/110/116/114/111/32/82/111/97/100
/83/65/67/82/65/77/69/78/84/79/32/67/79/85/78/84/89
/80/76/65/67/69/82/32/67/79/85/78/84/89
/83/85/84/84/69/82/32/67/79/85/78/84/89
/80/76/65/67/69/82/32/67/79/85/78/84/89
/89/79/76/79/32/67/79/85/78/84/89
/83/85/84/84/69/82/32/67/79/85/78/84/89
/83/65/67/82/65/77/69/78/84/79/32/67/79/85/78/84/89
/89/79/76/79/32/67/79/85/78/84/89
/83/85/84/84/69/82/32/67/79/85/78/84/89
/80/97/99/105/102/105/99/32/65/118/101/110/117/101
/67/72/50/77/32/72/105/108/108/32/82/68/68/32/65/114/99/86/105/101/119/32/80/114/111/106/101/99/116/32/70/105/108/101/32/32/92/92/84/104/111/114/92/67/97/114/116/49/92/114/100/100/103/105/115/92/110/97/116/111/109/97/115/104/99/112/92/110/97/116/95/104/99/112/46/97/112/114/32/32/102/105/103/51/45/52/95/111/116/104/101/114/46/112/100/102/32/32/56/58/53/49/32/97/46/109/46/32/32/49/50/45/49/51/45/50/48/48/49 /70/73/71/85/82/69/32/51/45/52
/79/84/72/69/82/32/83/80/69/67/73/69/83/32/82/69/67/79/82/68/83 /82/69/86/73/83/69/68/32/78/65/84/79/77/65/83/32/66/65/83/73/78/32/72/67/80 /69/73/82/47/69/73/83
/48 /49 /50 /77/105/108/101/115
/49/32/73/110/99/104/32/61/32/49/48/44/48/48/48/32/70/101/101/116 /66/85/82/82/79/87/73/78/71/32/79/87/76/37
/67/65/76/73/70/79/82/78/73/65/32/76/73/78/68/69/82/73/69/76/76/65/36 /84/82/73/67/79/76/79/82/69/68/32/66/76/65/67/75/66/73/82/68/202/218 /86/69/82/78/65/76/32/80/79/79/76/32/70/65/73/82/89/32/83/72/82/73/77/80/240 /86/69/82/78/65/76/32/80/79/79/76/32/84/65/68/80/79/76/69/32/83/72/82/73/77/80/114 /76/69/71/69/78/68
/83/111/117/114/99/101/58 /67/78/68/68/66/32/45/32/74/97/110/32/51/44/32/50/48/48/49 CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
3-44 REVISED NATOMAS BASI N HCP E042002017SAC/161795(003.DOC)

EIR/EIS
uses. In the absence of significant marsh habitat, the Natomas Basin currently offers little to the conservation of the species.

Swainson’s Hawk (Buteo swainsoni)
The Swainson’s hawk is listed as a Threatened species under the state Endangered Species Act. Historically, it nested throughout lowland California. The current Swainson’s hawk California nesting distribution, however, is limited to extreme northeastern California, the Central Valley, and a few isolated locations in the Owens Valley (CDFG, 1992, 1994b). The Swainson’s hawk occurs in California only during the breeding season (March through September) and spends winters in South America.

Swainson’s hawks begin arriving in the Central Valley in March from wintering grounds in South America to breed and raise their young. The earliest fledging of young occurs in July and the young remain with the parents for about one month following fledging. Swainson’s hawk nesting preference is for large valley oaks (Quercus lobata), cottonwoods (Populus fremontii), or willow (Salix goodingii) within one mile of riparian areas. Swainson’s hawks are opportunistic feeders, flushing prey (birds, rodents, and some insects) from fields, pastures and grasslands adjacent to their nests. Swainson’s hawks require large nesting trees with a panoramic view of their foraging grounds. Foraging habitats and open fields and grasslands need to be within flying distance (maximum observed is 18 miles) and large enough to support the high densities of microtine rodent populations and birds upon which they feed.

Swainson’s hawks have been observed foraging behind farm machinery (moving harvester blade or disc) and capturing rodents exposed by ground disturbance (Estep, 1989). 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. Flooded rice fields were formerly thought to be unsuited for foraging, but recent observations indicate that their system of levees, checks, and rice fields is used by Swainson’s hawks (Dave Zezulak, CDFG, pers. comm., as reported in the HCP). Unsuitable cover types for foraging habitat include vineyards, mature orchards, cotton, thistle in fallow fields, and any crop where prey are unavailable because of high vegetation height and density.

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).

Swainson’s hawk nesting in the Natomas Basin occurs primarily in the western portion of the basin (Figure 3-5). 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).

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.
/35/179
/35/179
/35/179/35/179/35/179/35/179
/35/179
/35/179
/35/179
/35/179
/35/179
/35/179
/35/179
/35/179
/35/179
/35/179
/35/179
/35/179
/35/179
/35/179
/35/179
/35/179
/35/179
/35/179
/35/179/35/179
/35/179
/35/179
/35/179 /35/179
/35/179
/35/179
/35/179/35/179
/35/179
/35/179
/35/179
/35/179
/35/179/35/179
/35/179
/35/179
/35/179
/35/179
/35/179
/35/179
/35/179
/35/179
/35/179
/35/179
/35/179
/35/179
/35/179
/35/179/35/179
/35/179/35/179
/35/179
/35/179
/35/179
/35/179
/35/179
/83/97/99/114/97/109/101/110/116/111/32/82/105/118/101/114 /83/97/99/114/97/109/101/110/116/111/32/82/105/118/101/114 /46/45/44
/56/48
/46/45/44
/56/48
/46/45/44
/53
/46/45/44
/53
/34/33/57/57
/83/97/99/114/97/109/101/110/116/111
/73/110/116/101/114/110/97/116/105/111/110/97/108
/65/105/114/112/111/114/116
/83/97/110/107/101/121/32/82/111/97/100
/82/105/101/103/111/32/82/111/97/100
/69/108/118/101/114/116/97/32/82/111/97/100
/69/108/107/104/111/114/110/32/66/108/118/100/46
/68/101/108/32/80/97/115/111/32/82/111/97/100
/83/97/110/32/74/117/97/110/32/82/111/97/100
/69/108/32/67/97/109/105/110/111/32/65/118/101/110/117/101 /80/111/119/101/114/108/105/110/101/32/82/111/97/100
/69/108/32/67/101/110/116/114/111/32/82/111/97/100
/83/65/67/82/65/77/69/78/84/79/32/67/79/85/78/84/89
/80/76/65/67/69/82/32/67/79/85/78/84/89
/83/85/84/84/69/82/32/67/79/85/78/84/89
/80/76/65/67/69/82/32/67/79/85/78/84/89
/89/79/76/79/32/67/79/85/78/84/89
/83/85/84/84/69/82/32/67/79/85/78/84/89
/83/65/67/82/65/77/69/78/84/79/32/67/79/85/78/84/89
/89/79/76/79/32/67/79/85/78/84/89
/83/85/84/84/69/82/32/67/79/85/78/84/89
/78/66/45/50
/78/66/45/49
/78/66/45/50/52/78/66/45/49/55/78/66/45/50/49/78/66/45/49/57 /78/66/45/54
/78/66/45/55
/78/66/45/50/48
/78/66/45/56
/78/66/45/49/53
/78/66/45/51/54
/78/66/45/51/50
/78/66/45/49/54
/78/66/45/49/48
/78/66/45/50/56
/78/66/45/49/50
/78/66/45/49/51
/78/66/45/49/52
/78/66/45/50/55
/78/66/45/50/53
/78/66/45/54/50
/78/66/45/54/49
/78/66/45/50/50
/78/66/45/53/57/78/66/45/54/48
/78/66/45/53/56
/78/66/45/53/55
/78/66/45/52
/78/66/45/49/56
/78/66/45/53
/78/66/45/51
/78/66/45/53/54/78/66/45/53/53
/78/66/45/53/52
/78/66/45/53/51
/78/66/45/53/50
/78/66/45/52/54
/78/66/45/52/55/78/66/45/52/57
/78/66/45/53/49
/78/66/45/52/56
/78/66/45/53/48
/78/66/45/52/53
/78/66/45/52/51
/78/66/45/52/52
/78/66/45/57
/78/66/45/52/48
/78/66/45/52/49
/78/66/45/52/50
/78/66/45/50/51
/78/66/45/51/57
/78/66/45/50/54
/78/66/45/51/55/78/66/45/51/56
/78/66/45/51/53/78/66/45/51/52
/78/66/45/51/51
/78/66/45/51/49
/78/66/45/50/57
/78/66/45/51/48
/78/66/45/49/49
/80/97/99/105/102/105/99/32/65/118/101/110/117/101
/84/114/101/101/32/82/101/109/111/118/101/100
/105/110/32/50/48/48/48
/84/114/101/101/32/82/101/109/111/118/101/100
/105/110/32/50/48/48/50
/84/114/101/101/32/82/101/109/111/118/101/100
/105/110/32/50/48/48/50
/84/114/101/101/32/82/101/109/111/118/101/100
/105/110/32/50/48/48/50
/84/114/101/101/32/82/101/109/111/118/101/100
/105/110/32/50/48/48/50
/67/72/50/77/32/72/105/108/108/32/82/68/68/32/65/114/99/86/105/101/119/32/80/114/111/106/101/99/116/32/70/105/108/101/32/32/92/92/84/104/111/114/92/67/97/114/116/49/92/114/100/100/103/105/115/92/110/97/116/111/109/97/115/104/99/112/92/110/97/116/95/104/99/112/46/97/112/114/32/32/102/105/103/51/45/53/95/115/119/104/46/112/100/102/32/32/57/58/52/48/32/97/46/109/46/32/32/48/55/45/51/49/45/50/48/48/50 /70/73/71/85/82/69/32/51/45/53
/65/67/84/73/86/69/32/83/87/65/73/78/83/79/78/39/83/32/72/65/87/75/32/78/69/83/84/83 /82/69/86/73/83/69/68/32/78/65/84/79/77/65/83/32/66/65/83/73/78/32/72/67/80 /69/73/82/47/69/73/83
/48 /49 /50 /77/105/108/101/115
/49/32/73/110/99/104/32/61/32/49/48/44/48/48/48/32/70/101/101/116 /83/119/97/105/110/115/111/110/39/115/32/72/97/119/107/32/82/101/99/111/114/100/115/35/179 /76/69/71/69/78/68
/83/111/117/114/99/101/58/32/32/78/97/116/111/109/97/115/32/66/97/115/105/110/32/67/111/110/115/101/114/118/97/110/99/121/32/45/32/50/48/48/49 CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
3-46 REVISED NATOMAS BASI N HCP E042002017SAC/161795(003.DOC)

EIR/EIS
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 fledging), producing a total of 20 fledglings (SHTAC, 2000). During 2001 surveys, two new territories were found in the interior of the Natomas Basin and a third new site was found adjacent to the Natomas East Main Drainage Canal (SHTAC, 2001). Of the 27 territories in the basin, 19 were used in 2001, producing 16 fledglings.

Aleutian Canada Goose (Branta canadensis leucopareia)
The Aleutian Canada goose was delisted by the USFWS on March 20, 2001, and is considered a federal Species of Concern due to ongoing monitoring activities pursuant to the delisting.

The Aleutian Canada goose is a subspecies of the Canada goose, characterized by its smaller size and a distinctive white ring at the base of its black neck. The primary winter habitat for the goose’s largest population segment is the Central Valley, and most of this population can be found by mid-December in the Modesto area (66 FR 15643; March 20, 2001).

Foraginghabitat consists of pasture, flooded rice fields, and harvested fields (USFWS, 1991b).

In addition, large ponds, flooded fields, and rice checks provide roosting habitat for the wintering geese (USFWS, 1991b). The Aleutian Canada goose occurs occasionally within the Natomas Basin, using this area as a stopover to its primary wintering range.

Additional information about the Aleutian Canada goose can be found in the HCP (Section II.C.4.a.), in the Federal Register notice that delists the species (66 FR 15643; March 20, 2001), and in the USFWS’s Recovery Plan for the species (USFWS, 1991b).

Burrowing Owl (Athene cunicularia)
Burrowing owls are considered a Species of Concern by the USFWS and a Species of Special Concern by CDFG. Burrowing owls are small, long-legged birds of open terrain that use vacated animal burrows (e.g., ground squirrel burrows) or artificial structures (e.g., culverts) for nesting and shelter. Generally, foraging habitat consists primarily of open grasslands and grass/shrub lands where prey species (e.g., insects, small mammals) are readily available. The species is often found in roadsides and other disturbed areas inhabited by ground squirrels and with few visual obstructions. Little scientific information is available for the local burrowing owl population (e.g., home range information, wintering versus resident status), but suitable habitat in the project area consists of areas with small mammal burrows and nearby foraging areas.

Burrowing owls are neotropical migrants that occur throughout the western United States, including portions of northern Mexico and southern Canada. The species is also locally distributed throughout suitable habitat in the Caribbean, and in Central and South America (Haug, et al, 1993). California appears to have a nonmigratory population (primarily in the Imperial Valley), and is also a wintering ground for burrowing owls from other regions.

Burrowing owls in northern California are probably migratory, but little information is known about the migration habitats of the northern California population (Haug, et al, 1993).

The burrowing owl population is known to be in decline throughout its range because of various factors, including habitat destruction (e.g., agricultural practices, land development), vehicle collisions, and predation. In California, and in the project area specifically, urbanization is likely a key threat to this species.

CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
E042002017SAC/161795(003.DOC) REVI SED NATOMAS BASIN HCP 3-47

EIR/EIS
There are 370 known burrowing owl occurrences in California (CDFG, 2001). Three Natomas Basin occurrences are recorded in the California Natural Diversity Database (Figure 3-4), with another five known burrowing owl sites on the Conservancy’s Betts- Kismat-Silva and Ayala reserves and south of Elkhorn Boulevard west of S.R. 99 (Roberts, pers. comm.). Additional information about burrowing owls can be found in the HCP (Section II.C.4.a.) and in CDFG’s Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation (CDFG, 1995).

Bank Swallow (Riparia riparia)
The bank swallow is state-listed as a Threatened species under the California Endangered Species Act. 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 of 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 no known breeding colonies remaining in southern California.

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 the winter.

The bank swallow breeds from early May through July. Pairs usually nest colonially in groups of 10 to 1,500, although most colonies have 100 to 200 nesting pairs. Bank swallows require vertical banks or cliffs with fine-textured or sandy soils near streams, rivers, ponds, lakes, or the ocean for nesting. 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.

The bank swallow uses holes dug in cliffs and river banks for cover; logs, shoreline vegetation, and telephone wires are also used for roosting.

There are 171 known bank swallow occurrences in California (CDFG, 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 Natomas Basin, and foraging could also occur during migration to nesting sites north of the Natomas Basin.

Loggerhead Shrike (Lanius ludovicianus)
The loggerhead shrike is a state Species of Special Concern. The loggerhead shrike 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). 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 CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
3-48 REVISED NATOMAS BASI N HCP E042002017SAC/161795(003.DOC)

EIR/EIS
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 frequently skewers prey on thorns, sharp twigs, barbed wire, or forces it into a tree crotch to feed on or to cache for storage (Zeiner et al., 1990).

The loggerhead shrike is common throughout most of lowland California (CDFG, 1990). This species is observed regularly throughout Natomas Basin. 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 (Metro Air Park Property Owners’ Association, 2000), and three shrikes were observed along the eastern portion of the Natomas Basin during habitat-mapping surveys of the basin in 2001 (May & Associates, 2001).

3.4.2.2 Special-status Species Not Covered Under the ITPs Suisun Marsh Aster (Aster lentus)
The Suisun marsh aster is a List 1B species of the CNPS (rare or endangered in California and elsewhere). This species is a perennial herb, inhabiting brackish and freshwater wetland habitats. Although this species has not been recorded in the Natomas Basin, suitable habitat for this species occurs in the Natomas Basin.

Dwarf Downingia (Downingia pusilla)
The dwarf downingia is a List 2 species of the CNPS (rare or endangered in California but more common elsewhere). This species is an annual herb found in wet valley-foothill grassland habitats as well as vernal pools. Suitable habitat for this species occurs in the Natomas Basin.

Rose Mallow (Hibiscus lasiocarpus)
Rose mallow is a List 2 species of the CNPS (rare or endangered in California but more common elsewhere). This species is a perennial herb found in freshwater marsh habitats and vernal pools. Suitable habitat for this species occurs in the Natomas Basin.

Cooper’s Hawk (Accipiter cooperi)
The Cooper’s hawk frequents stands of live oak, riparian, or other woodland habitats. This bird preys on other birds, small mammals, insects, reptiles, and amphibians in a diverse range of habitats. The Cooper’s hawk typically is found in areas without tree stands or patchy woodland habitat, although it is known to hunt in parks and residential areas of Sacramento that support trees. Nesting often occurs in riparian habitat, but nests can also be found in isolated tree groves. The aquatic, wetland, and agricultural areas of the Natomas Basin may provide potential foraging habitat; the riparian habitat along the Sacramento River provides suitable nesting and roosting habitat for this species.

Short-eared Owl (Asio flammeus)
The short-eared owl is a widespread winter migrant to the Central Valley, frequenting grassland and wetland habitats. The short-eared owl feeds primarily on small mammals, reptiles, amphibians, and arthropods (Bent, 1938; Earhart and Johnson, 1970). Dense vegetation, tall grasses, brush, ditches, and wetlands are used for resting and roosting cover (Grinnell and Miller, 1944). Undeveloped lands, especially grasslands and croplands with CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
E042002017SAC/161795(003.DOC) REVI SED NATOMAS BASIN HCP 3-49

EIR/EIS
herbaceous vegetation, may provide suitable foraging habitat for this species in the Natomas Basin.

American Bittern (Botaurus lentiginosus)
This species winters in fresh emergent wetlands, primarily west of the Sierra Nevada. In the Central Valley, the American bittern is fairly common from October to April and uncommon to rare the rest of year. This species eats mainly insects, amphibians, fish, crayfish, and small mammals. Foraging habitat consists of tall, fresh or saline emergent wetlands, or adjacent shallow water of lakes, backwaters of rivers, and estuaries. Suitable wintering habitat occurs in the emergent wetland habitat that is supported in some of the large canals and drains in the basin.

Ferruginous Hawk (Buteo regalis)
This species is a winter resident of grasslands and agricultural areas in California. The ferruginous hawk frequents open grasslands, sagebrush flats, desert scrub, and low foothills with surrounding valleys. The ferruginous hawk preys on mammals, birds, reptiles, and amphibians. This species typically roosts in open areas. Agricultural areas, pasture, and grasslands provide potential foraging habitat for this species in the Natomas Basin.

Mountain Plover (Charadrius montanus)
This species nests in high-elevation grasslands in the central United States, but spends winters in California from September to March. It is typically found in open habitats with sparse vegetation, such as low shortgrass plains, plowed fields, airports, and open sagebrush areas. This species feeds primarily on large insects, especially grasshoppers. In the Natomas Basin, plowed agricultural fields and other open, sparsely vegetated areas provide potential wintering habitat for this species.

Black Tern (Chlidonias niger)
The black tern was formerly a very common spring and summer visitor to fresh-emergent wetlands of California, but this species has declined throughout the range, especially in the Central Valley (Grinnell and Miller, 1944; Cogswell, 1977). Breeding is questionable in the Central Valley (Gaines, 1974). This species inhabits fresh emergent wetlands, lakes, ponds, moist grasslands, and agricultural fields. The black tern feeds on small fish, invertebrates, tadpoles, crayfish, and small mollusks. The rice lands throughout the basin provide potential foraging habitat (Grinnell and Miller, 1944).

Lark Sparrow (Chondestes grammacus)
The lark sparrow is a yearlong resident in lowlands and foothills throughout much of California. This species inhabits sparse valley-foothill hardwood, valley-foothill hardwood-conifer, open mixed chaparral and similar brushy habitats, and grasslands with scattered trees or shrubs (Zeiner et al., 1990). This species eats seeds, grains, and insects, foraging in agricultural and undeveloped areas around the Natomas Basin.

White-tailed Kite (Elanus leucurus)
The white-tailed kite is a yearlong resident in the Central Valley, rarely found away from agricultural areas. This species inhabits herbaceous and open stages of most habitats, mostly in cismontane California. Foraging in undisturbed, open grasslands, meadows, farmlands, and emergent wetlands, the white-tailed kite preys on small mammals, birds, insects, reptiles, and amphibians. Trees or large shrubs with dense canopies are used for cover and CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
3-50 REVISED NATOMAS BASI N HCP E042002017SAC/161795(003.DOC)

EIR/EIS
roosting. Agricultural lands throughout the Natomas Basin provide suitable foraging habitat for this species. The white-tailed kite is fully protected under the Fish and Game Code.

Pacific-slope Flycatcher (Empidonax difficilis)
This species occurs in cismontane California, and is a widespread and fairly common summer resident in warm moist woodlands, including valley-foothill and montane riparian, coastal and blue oak woodlands, and montane hardwood-conifer habitats (Zeiner et al., 1990). This species is primarily insectivorous, feeding on flying insects, occasionally eating berries and seeds (Bent, 1942). Potential habitat for this species is associated with the riparian habitats along the Sacramento River and of RD 1000’s and Natomas Mutual’s system of canals and drains throughout the basin.

Little Willow Flycatcher (Empidonax trailii brewsteri)
This species is a spring and fall migrant at lower elevations, primarily in riparian habitats throughout California (Grinnell and Miller, 1944, Gaines, 1977a, 1977b; Remsen, 1978; McCaskie, et al. 1979; Garrett and Dunn, 1981). Preferred habitat for this species consists of extensive thickets of low, dense willows along the edges on wet meadows, ponds, or backwaters (Zeiner et al., 1990). The little willow flycatcher is primarily insectivorous, feeding on flying insects and occasionally eating berries and seeds (Bent, 1942). Riparian habitat associated with the Sacramento River, as well as some of the larger drainages in the basin, could provide suitable habitat for this species.

American Peregrine Falcon (Falco peregrinus anatum)
The American peregrine falcon has been delisted as a federal Endangered Species, but remains a Species of Concern and retains protected-species status. Peregrine falcons are listed as Endangered under the California Endangered Species Act, and are fully protected under the Fish and Game Code. Peregrine falcons occur throughout California, extending from Mexico to the Oregon border. This species declined substantially during the 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s as a result of pesticide accumulations (especially DDT). In 1981, only 39 breeding pairs were known in California (Monk, 1981). In the 1990s, breeding populations rebounded to an estimated 200 pairs, and additional increases have been noted. By 1998, there were 270 breeding pairs along the Pacific coast.

Active nesting sites are known along the coast north of Santa Barbara, in the Sierra Nevada, and in other mountains of northern California. In winter, the falcon is found inland throughout the Central Valley, and occasionally on the Channel Islands. Migrants occur along the coast, and in the western Sierra Nevada in spring and fall. In summer, this species is found primarily along the California coast, extending the length of the state from Oregon to the Mexican border. It is less-commonly observed in the Central Valley and occasionally wintering in the low-lying foothills of northeastern California.

Peregrine falcons favor cliffs, bluffs, rock outcrops, and similar high points overlooking open ocean, grasslands, or fields for nesting. Peregrine falcons feed on waterfowl, shorebirds, and seabirds, and are associated with high vantage points that are in proximity to areas where prey congregate. Preferred nesting areas are usually located on offshore island cliffs, coastal sea cliffs, and near large shallow interior lakes. For foraging, peregrine falcons favor open grasslands, agricultural fields, desert sagebrush flats, and similar open country in low-lying valleys and foothills. Peregrine falcons are adaptable, and have been CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
E042002017SAC/161795(003.DOC) REVI SED NATOMAS BASIN HCP 3-51

EIR/EIS
reported to nest and forage on and from tall buildings, bridges, viaducts, and towers where they feed on pigeons and European starlings.

There are 10 known peregrine falcon occurrences (nesting sites) in California (CDFG, 2001).

There are no known nesting occurrences in Sacramento or Sutter counties. The peregrine falcon winters in the Sacramento Valley and occurs occasionally in the Natomas Basin. Most of the agricultural fields and seasonal wetlands are suitable foraging habitat. No suitable nesting habitat occurs in the Natomas Basin, although approximately 20,000 acres of low- quality suitable winter habitat (i.e., rice, alfalfa, and other agricultural fields) exists in the Natomas Basin for the falcon (Metro Air Park Property Owners’ Association, 2000).

Greater Sandhill Crane (Grus canadensis tabida)
The greater sandhill crane is listed by CDFG as a Threatened species, and is considered Fully Protected under the Fish and Game Code. The greater sandhill crane is a common winter visitor to the Central Valley of California, with most flocks migrating into California from Washington and Oregon from October to March. The greater sandhill crane often occurs in mixed flocks of cranes and waterfowl, such as swans and Canada geese. This subspecies is closely related to the lesser sandhill crane (Grus canadensis canadensis); both greater and lesser sandhill cranes occur in California.

Historically, the greater sandhill crane was a fairly common breeder on the northeastern plateau (Grinnell and Miller, 1944). Now reduced greatly in numbers, it breeds only in Siskiyou, Modoc, Lassen, Plumas, and Sierra counties (James, 1977; Remsen, 1978; McCaskie et al., 1979). In summer, greater sandhill cranes occur in and near wet meadow, shallow lacustrine, and fresh emergent wetland habitats. It spends winters primarily in the Sacramento and San Joaquin valleys from Tehama County south to Kings County (Grinnell and Miller, 1944), where it frequents annual and perennial grassland habitats, moist croplands with rice or corn stubble, and open, emergent wetlands. It prefers relatively treeless plains. Greater sandhill cranes tend to return to historic wintering grounds.

Greater sandhill cranes do not nest in the Sacramento Valley. Currently, there are 310 nesting and wintering occurrences in California, with no reported occurrences in Sacramento or Sutter counties (CDFG, 2001). Sandhill cranes are not known to inhabit the Natomas Basin, but nearby wintering areas include the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta to the south and the Butte Sink to the north.

Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus)
The bald eagle is an uncommon winter migrant in the Natomas Basin. In the Central Valley, this species predominantly forages on waterfowl in flooded fields, but also will take small mammals. Large, open agricultural areas of rice land, pasture, and short crops provide foraging habitat for this species in the basin.

Long-billed Curlew (Numenius americanus)
The long-billed curlew is a winter resident, foraging in open grasslands and croplands in the Central Valley. This species feeds on insects (adults and larvae), worms, spiders, crayfish, snails, and small crustaceans (Bent, 1929). Agricultural lands and undeveloped lands throughout the Natomas Basin provide suitable wintering habitat for this species.

CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
3-52 REVISED NATOMAS BASI N HCP E042002017SAC/161795(003.DOC)

EIR/EIS
Bewick’s Wren (Thryomanes bewickii)
Bewick’s wren is a common yearlong resident throughout California, inhabiting mixed and montane chaparral habitats and riparian habitats with a brushy understory. Bewick’s wrens feed on insects and other small invertebrates, foraging on lower limbs and branches of small trees and shrubs, and stems of large herbaceous plants. Feeding occurs mostly within the cover of dense, shrubby vegetation (Grinnell and Miller, 1944; Bent, 1948; Cody, 1974).

Riparian areas associated with the Sacramento River and larger drainages within RD 1000 and Natomas Mutual could provide suitable habitat for this species in the basin.

3.4.3 Waterfowl
The Pacific Flyway is the westernmost of North America’s four flyways, or migration routes, which are defined as definite geographic regions with breeding grounds in the north, wintering grounds in the south, and a system of migration routes in between. The Pacific Flyway encompasses territory in three countries: northern and western Canada, Alaska and all states west of the Rocky Mountains in the United States, and western Mexico.

The Central Valley lies at the southerly end of the Pacific Flyway migratory route. In pre-settlement times it provided ideal wintering habitat and attracted large numbers of waterfowl. Much of the presettlement habitat has been lost to development within the Central Valley for agriculture and urbanization.

Historically, the Central Valley contained approximately 4 million acres of wetlands.

Approximately 1.5 million acres located in the Sacramento/San Joaquin River Delta and the Tulare Basin were permanent marshes, while the remaining 2.5 million acres were seasonal wetlands created by winter rains and spring snow melt from the Sierra Nevada. Today, approximately 300,000 acres remain; 100,000 acres are publicly owned (federal and state refuges) and 200,000 acres are privately owned (including private duck clubs). The remaining 300,000 acres provide wintering habitat for 60 percent of the Pacific Flyway’s current waterfowl population, and migration habitat for an additional 20 percent of the population. Altogether, approximately 10 to 12 million ducks and geese, along with millions of other water birds, annually winter in or pass through the Central Valley each year; however, the number of waterfowl using the Central Valley has declined 40 percent to 50 percent over the last 30 years. The USFWS ranks Central Valley wetland habitat as one of the top five habitats in the U.S. for migrating waterfowl. Maintaining the Pacific Flyway for waterfowl depends largely on maintaining critical wetland habitat in the Central Valley.

Lying within the Central Valley, the Natomas Basin provides important migratory stopover and wintering habitat for waterfowl. Although almost all of the native marshes have been converted to agricultural and urban uses, flooded rice fields continue to attract and support migrant waterfowl. Some species may also utilize pasture, harvested rice, and other croplands for foraging.

3.5 Cultural Resources
This section describes the cultural background of the study area and presents known information on archaeological and historical resources in the study area. Other planning documents relevant to the Natomas Basin (see Section 3.1) provide information on known and potential areas where archaeological and historical resources could be encountered in the study area, and the procedures in place for the identification and protection of these CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
E042002017SAC/161795(003.DOC) REVI SED NATOMAS BASIN HCP 3-53

EIR/EIS
resources. Because of the extent of planning studies, uncertainty associated with the location of habitat reserves, and additional environmental review expected at the time the habitat reserves are developed, new record searches and archaeological surveys were determined to be unnecessary for this EIR/EIS.

3.5.1 Archaeological and Historical Significance of the Natomas Basin

3.5.1.1 Archaeological Resources
A substantial portion of California’s prehistoric Native American populations occupied the Sacramento Valley. The Nisenan, or Southern Maidu, subsisted in the lower Sacramento Valley by collecting plant foods, fishing, and hunting. Seasonal flooding of the American and Sacramento rivers provided a variety of plant and animal resources for the Nisenan.

Known prehistoric archaeological sites in the Natomas Basin are limited to two scatters of stone artifacts located north of Elkhorn Boulevard (Site Nos. CA-SAC-244 and -276) and a site located adjacent to the East Drainage Canal north of Del Paso Road (Site AF-34-14).

Other archaeological resources may be buried under alluvial deposits. It is expected that archaeological resources would most likely be encountered on low knolls or other elevated areas in the basin.

3.5.1.2 Historical Resources
Subsequent to settlement of the Sacramento Valley region by Europeans, the Sacramento region became recognized as a destination for early nineteenth-century settlers, a trade center during the gold rush era, and the state capitol. Extensive development occurred in Sacramento during the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, but use of the Natomas Basin prior to reclamation was generally limited to seasonal grazing and other uses compatible with its “swamp land” designation. Reclamation of the Natomas Basin for agriculture began in earnest by the Natomas Company as part of the Sacramento Flood Control Project, with most of the primary levee construction activity occurring in the 1910s.

Although early settlement was limited, significant historical resources exist within the Natomas Basin. Key historical resources in the Natomas Basin include:
• Rural Historic Landscape District. The entire RD 1000 service area (including the entire Natomas Basin) is listed with the National Register of Historic Places and the Historic American Engineering Record. The RD 1000 Rural Historic Landscape District has been listed with the National Register because it provides a significant historical context to reclamation and flood control efforts in the Sacramento River Basin for the Sacramento Flood Control Project. Individual resources, as follows, have been identified as contributing to the features of the district.
− Levees constructed under the Sacramento Flood Control Project − The internal system of primary drainage canals
− RD 1000 pumping plants 1-A and 3
− Garden Highway from Orchard Lane to Verona (Natomas Cross Canal), as well as several interior roads, including portions of Del Paso Road, San Juan Road, and El Centro Road
CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
3-54 REVISED NATOMAS BASI N HCP E042002017SAC/161795(003.DOC)

EIR/EIS
− Large-scale land patterns characteristic of the ownership pattern that developed following reclamation of the Natomas Basin
• Witter Ranch (or Witter Ranch Historic Farm). Determined to be a significant historic resource by National Register criteria and listed as a California Point of Interest. The North Natomas Community Plan incorporates 26 acres of the historic Witter Ranch as a permanent agricultural preserve, and it is now a part of the Sacramento County park system.

The following additional historical resources have been identified in prior studies of the Natomas Basin:
• Historic road, beginning at Garden Highway and Natomas Main Drainage Canal, extending approximately 3 miles northwest. This feature does not follow the route of contemporary roadways, and is not considered to be a significant historical resource (City of Sacramento, 1996b).
• Union Pacific/Western Pacific Railroad (Site No. CA-SAC-464H). The significance of this resource has not been evaluated.
• Three bridges (Site Nos. 24C0218, -105, -106). These bridges were assessed and determined not to be significant historical resources.
• Eight buildings of greater than 50 years in age (seven residences and one shed/pump house) were identified in the Draft EIR for Sacramento County’s proposed General Plan Amendment (Sacramento County, 2000). The significance of these resources has not been evaluated.

3.5.2 City of Sacramento
Portions of the City’s permit area have been determined to be a sensitive cultural resource area because of its proximity to the Sacramento River and the American River. North Natomas has been rated as having a medium to high archaeological sensitivity, and the southwest portion of South Natomas also has been identified as an archaeologically sensitive area.

The City addresses concerns about cultural and historical resources through its environmental review of development entitlement and permit processing. The City reviews proposed development with known, mapped archaeological resources, and an archaeological report and the implementation of the City’s standard archaeological mitigation measures may be required as a condition of approval if it is determined that the proposed development would occur in an area for which cultural resources may be disturbed. The City has undertaken specific actions to evaluate and protect cultural resources as part of its development-planning processes in the Natomas Basin. The results of this effort have included the preservation of Witter Ranch and the recordation of the Rural Historic Landscape District in the Historic American Engineering Record. The recordation will include photographic and narrative documentation of RD 1000 as a historic landscape feature (Tim Washburn, pers. comm., January 15, 2002).

CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
E042002017SAC/161795(003.DOC) REVI SED NATOMAS BASIN HCP 3-55

EIR/EIS

3.5.3 Sacramento County
For its proposed General Plan Amendment north of Elkhorn Boulevard, Sacramento County conducted research on potential cultural and historic resources. The research included the use of historic maps, a cultural-resource survey record search, review of previously prepared reports on cultural-resource surveys, review of building records, requests for response to inquiry to the Native American Heritage Commission and Sacramento County Historical Society, and meeting with the Office of Historic Preservation. The County’s analysis for the General Plan Amendment project (Sacramento County, 2000) concluded that:
• Low knolls should be considered areas of high sensitivity for historic and prehistoric cultural resources.
• Verification and further coordination with Native Americans may be necessary for sites CA-SAC-244 and -276.
• Former locations of building sites noted on the Rio Linda (formerly Arcade) and Taylor Monument (Elkhorn Weir) topographic maps dated 1909 and 1951 should be verified and a determination should be made if artifacts of archaeological significance are present.
• Buildings identified as more than 50 years old should be recorded and evaluated (to avoid potential errors that may exist in building records). It should be verified if other old buildings exist within the vicinity.
• Additional cultural-resource analysis and appropriate mitigation is required for potential, future urbanization or other activities involving specific plans, rezoning, and/or development entitlements.

3.5.4 Sutter County
Sutter County has a low to moderate archaeological sensitivity, likely because of the periodic flooding of the region. A natural high spot or area along natural drainages was determined in general to be of a high archaeological sensitivity.

Sutter County’s standard practices require that archaeological reconnaissance be performed for development occurring in areas of high archaeological sensitivity. Standard practices established by Sutter County require that if resources are discovered, the developer must implement the mitigation measures identified in the applicable archaeological report.

Typically, these measures would include presence during construction of a certified archaeologist to evaluate the onsite findings for their cultural significance under the National Historic Preservation Act. In its General Plan EIR, Sutter County concludes that development projects associated with the implementation of the General Plan that follow the above guideline would have a less-than-significant impact on cultural resources in Sutter County. Sutter County did not identify any historic features within the Industrial- Commercial Reserve, nor elsewhere in the Natomas Basin. Five historic sites are located in Area B, all representative of early settlement in Sutter County in the mid-1800s.

CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
3-56 REVISED NATOMAS BASI N HCP E042002017SAC/161795(003.DOC)

EIR/EIS

3.6 Land Use
This section describes the general patterns of existing and planned land use within the study area, including the local land use planning goals and policies relevant to the Proposed Action. Agricultural land use within the study area is also discussed. Additional discussions that focus on the habitat categories assigned to biological resources in the Natomas Basin, including the habitat-based land-use GIS database developed to identify and assess project-specific impacts to biological resources in the study area, are presented in Section

3.4, Biological Resources.

3.6.1 Surrounding Land Uses
The Natomas Basin is bounded by the Natomas Cross Canal to the north, Garden Highway to the south, the Natomas East Main Drainage Canal (i.e., Steelhead Creek) to the east, and the Sacramento River to the west. Surrounding land uses to the north of the Natomas Basin are primarily farmlands. The American and Sacramento Rivers are located to the south and west of the Natomas Basin, respectively. To the east, land uses consist of urbanized and semirural development within the City of Sacramento and Sacramento County, and agricultural use in Sutter County. Urbanized centers within the immediate vicinity (less than 10 miles) of the study area include downtown Sacramento, north Sacramento, and the City of West Sacramento.

The City’s permit area is bordered by unincorporated Sacramento County lands to the north and west, including the peninsula of unincorporated lands in the North Market Boulevard area (the “panhandle” annexation area). With the exception of the Sacramento International Airport and commercial and light industrial development along North Market Boulevard, these unincorporated lands are generally undeveloped. The City plans to annex portions of this unincorporated panhandle area, which is estimated to be approximately 1,441 acres, within the permit term of the HCP and the City’s ITP. (Authorized development in the panhandle portion of the City’s permit area would be 640 acres.)

3.6.2 Existing and Planned Land Uses
The Natomas Basin comprises 53,537 acres and is within the local jurisdictions of the City of Sacramento, Sacramento County, and Sutter County. Table 3-9 shows the jurisdictional acreage within the Natomas Basin. Land uses within the City of Sacramento, Sacramento County, and Sutter County are described in the following sections, and are quantified in Section 3.4. RD 1000 and Natomas Mutual have jurisdiction over the canal and drainage system within the Natomas Basin.

TABLE 3-9
Summary of Total Areas by Jurisdiction in the Natomas Basin Local Government Acreage Within Natomas Basin Natomas Basin HCP Acreage City of Sacramento 12,801 8,050
Sacramento County (unincorporated) 23,854 1,983
Sutter County 16,882 7,467
Total 53,537 17,500
Source: Habitat and Land Use Assessment Database (CH2M HILL, 2002).

CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
E042002017SAC/161795(003.DOC) REVI SED NATOMAS BASIN HCP 3-57

EIR/EIS

3.6.2.1 City of Sacramento
At the time of the City of Sacramento General Plan Update in 1988, the predominant land uses in North and South Natomas were agriculture and other vacant land, with a concentration of urban development (primarily residential and commercial) in southern and eastern South Natomas (Gardenland and Northgate neighborhoods).

The future land uses anticipated in the General Plan include a variety of uses within the study area, such as a concentrated core of industrial/employee-intensive land uses north of I-80, surrounded by mixed residential densities and park/open space/recreational uses; a core of heavy commercial or warehouse uses north of I-80 along Northgate Boulevard; and a regional commercial core along the I-5 corridor. Other land uses would consist primarily of mixed residential uses, including recreational and community commercial uses.

Specific land uses within the City’s permit area are also identified in the Community Plans prepared for South and North Natomas. The South Natomas Community Plan, adopted in 1988, describes specific land-use patterns for the area generally bordered by I-80 to the north and west, Garden Highway to the south, and the Natomas East Main Drainage Canal to the east. The entire 3,464-acre South Natomas area is almost fully developed, with approximately 900 acres remaining undeveloped. Lands within South Natomas developed prior to 1998 would be exempt from compliance with the provisions of the HCP.

Development occurring in the Willow Creek area of South Natomas is included within the 900-acre total for lands subject to the HCP.

North Natomas remains the primary growth area for the City. The North Natomas Community Plan was adopted in 1994, and generally covers lands within the city limits north of I-80 and west of the Natomas East Main Drainage Canal. The community vision described in the North Natomas Community Plan included four key features: (1) a town center as a focal point for the community, (2) complete neighborhoods surrounding the town center, (3) mixed-use employment centers, and (4) effective transit/land use interdependency. As described in the HCP, approximately 7,150 acres of developable land within North Natomas would be subject to the HCP. This developable acreage includes a 640-acre portion of the unincorporated panhandle area that is under consideration for annexation to the City. Development within North Natomas that would be exempt from the provisions of the Proposed Action includes Arco Arena and commercial/industrial development in the North Market Boulevard area. The environmental impacts of that anticipated development were evaluated in separate EIRs for the General Plan Update, the South Natomas Community Plan, and the North Natomas Community Plan.

3.6.2.2 Sacramento County
Unincorporated Sacramento County lands within the Natomas Basin total approximately 23,854 acres. The primary land use within this area is agricultural, with a diverse mix of crop types including rice, row crops, and orchards. Nonagricultural land uses include the 1,520-acre Sacramento International Airport complex, light industrial development along North Market Boulevard, and Teal Bend Golf Course northwest of the airport.

Unincorporated county lands include the panhandle that extends into the North Market Boulevard area. This 1,441-acre area is under consideration for annexation into the City and, for planning purposes, 640 acres of this area are included in the 8,050 acres of City lands that would be addressed by the conservation measures of the Proposed Action.

CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
3-58 REVISED NATOMAS BASI N HCP E042002017SAC/161795(003.DOC)

EIR/EIS
The Metro Air Park special planning area (MAP) project comprises the development of commercial, industrial, manufacturing, and airport-related land uses, open space, and a golf course. MAP is within unincorporated Sacramento County and has been approved for development by the Sacramento County Board of Supervisors, and the USFWS issued an ITP for the MAP HCP on February 21, 2002.

The applicant (MAP Property Owner’s Association) prepared and submitted an HCP to the USFWS for the MAP project independent of the HCP evaluated in this EIR/EIS. The MAP HCP also was the subject of separate environmental review by the USFWS under NEPA.

Although the MAP is not part of the Proposed Action evaluated in this EIR/EIS, the acreage affected by the MAP project is discussed under the Proposed Action (see Chapter 2) because it is factored into the 17,500 acres in the Natomas Basin that is the study area of the proposed HCP evaluated in this EIR/EIS. The intent of including the MAP acreage is to address impacts to covered species in a way that adequately represents current development plans.

3.6.2.3 Sutter County
The Sutter County portion of the Natomas Basin consists of 16,882 acres of mostly agricultural land. According to the Sutter County General Plan, the majority of the land within the Natomas Basin is designated as Industrial-Commercial Reserve along the S.R. 99 corridor. The remainder of Sutter County lands, within the Natomas Basin and in Area B, are primarily designated for agriculture. Area B, however, includes four small, low-density rural communities. These include Nicolaus, located south of the Bear River near SR 99; East Nicolaus, located at the intersection of SR 70 and Nicolaus Avenue; Trowbridge, located along Pacific Avenue, north of Nicolaus Avenue; and Rio Oso, located south of the Bear River at the intersection of Pacific Avenue and Bear River Drive. Other rural residences and small businesses are found throughout Area B, primarily in the northern and eastern portions of the area.

Implementation of the Sutter County General Plan 2015 provided for the conversion of a contiguous portion of land in Sutter County, within the Natomas Basin, from an Agriculture land-use designation to an Industrial-Commercial Reserve designation. This change converted 10,500 acres to the Industrial-Commercial Reserve designation, of which 9,588 acres are within the Natomas Basin. The South Sutter County Specific Plan was recently approved for development of the first 3,500 acres of the Industrial-Commercial Reserve. For the 3,500-acre Specific Plan area, 85 percent of the land would be for industrial uses and 15 percent would be for commercial uses. Other than specifying the total amount of development allowed and the ratio of allowable uses within the Industrial-Commercial Reserve land-use designation, the Sutter County General Plan does not specify or plan the actual pattern of development. According to the Sutter County General Plan Update EIR, the County finds that it is likely that development will not occur piecemeal and that an urban core will be surrounded by an agricultural border, as a result of development in the area.

Each development project would be considered by the County based upon its merits and whether it is consistent with the General Plan.

Currently, urban development within the Industrial-Commercial Reserve is limited and mostly occurs along Pacific Avenue between Riego Road and Sankey Road. This development is primarily for agricultural and heavy-commercial industries, including rice milling and distribution of heavy equipment and building materials. A 250,000 square-foot food distribution center (Sysco) was recently constructed at the southeast corner of Sankey Road and Pacific Avenue.

CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
E042002017SAC/161795(003.DOC) REVI SED NATOMAS BASIN HCP 3-59

EIR/EIS

3.6.3 Relevant Land-Use Planning Goals and Policies
A local planning agency will set forth goals and policies within its General Plan that provide direction on how growth and development should occur for the different elements of a general plan. The following sections summarize the land-use goals and policies, from the City of Sacramento and Sutter County General Plans, that are most relevant to the HCP.

3.6.3.1 City of Sacramento
Table 3-10 summarizes the relevant land-use goals and policies for the Natomas Basin from the City of Sacramento General Plan Update.

TABLE 3-10
Summary of City of Sacramento General Plan Land-Use Goals Topic Goal Policy Statement
Overall Urban
Growth Policy
Statements
N/A Policy 1 - Quality of Life: It is the policy of the City to enhance and maintain the quality of life by adhering to high standards for project and plan evaluation as they relate to the characteristics that help define the quality of life in the City.

N/A Policy 3 - Economic Development and Employment Opportunities: It is the policy of the City to actively promote the continued vitality and diversification of the local economy, and to expand employment opportunities for City residents.

N/A Policy 4 - New Growth Areas: It is the policy of the City to approve development in the City’s new growth areas that promotes efficient growth patterns and public service extensions, and is compatible with adjacent developments.

N/A Policy 5 - Urban Conservation and Infill Areas: It is the policy of the City to promote the reuse and rehabilitation of existing urban development as a means to meet projected growth.

N/A Policy 9 - Local and Regional Government: It is the policy of the City to cooperate with the region’s various public jurisdictions on matters of mutual interest including social, economic, and environmental issues; land use policies; and private development project review.

N/A Policy 10 - Open Space and Natural Resource Conservation: It is the policy of the City to conserve and protect natural resources and planned open space areas, and to phase the conversion of agricultural lands to planned urban uses.

Preservation of
Natural
Resources
Goal B: Retain the riparian
forest and grassland
vegetation along the
waterways and floodways
in North Natomas and
South Sacramento.

Policy 1: Protect the wooded areas along the drainage canals.

Goal E: Establish
development standards for
the water-related open-
space areas throughout
the City to enhance their
visual amenities.

Policy 2: Preserve the undeveloped open space areas and wildlife habitats along the East Drainage Canal.

Policy 3: Design new floodways to be built in North Natomas and South Sacramento, to be aesthetically pleasing and offer limited passive recreation as well as wildlife sanctuaries.

CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
3-60 REVISED NATOMAS BASI N HCP E042002017SAC/161795(003.DOC)

EIR/EIS
TABLE 3-10
Summary of City of Sacramento General Plan Land-Use Goals Topic Goal Policy Statement
Managed
Production of
Resources
Goal A: Phase the
conversion of agricultural
lands to urban uses while
implementing the goals
and policies in the North
Natomas Community Plan.

Policy 1: Work with Sacramento County to explore the feasibility of an agricultural preservation plan.

Source: City of Sacramento (1988a).

3.6.3.2 Sutter County
Table 3-11 summarizes the relevant land-use goals and policies for the study area, from the Sutter County General Plan 2015 policy document.

TABLE 3-11
Summary of Sutter County General Plan Land-Use Goals
Topic Goal Policy Statement
Commercial and
Industrial Land

1.D To designate adequate
commercial and industrial land to
provide convenient and valuable
business areas and employment
opportunities within Sutter County.

1.D-1 The County shall designate specific areas
suitable for commercial and industrial development and
reserve such lands in a range of parcel sizes to
accommodate a variety of commercial and industrial
uses.

Industrial Buffers 1.E-1 New development that may be incompatible with adjacent uses shall be required to provide buffer zones consistent with County standards to reduce anticipated
conflicts with existing and future land uses.

1.E-2 The County shall maintain, where feasible, areas
for expansion around existing industrial development
and shall generally discourage the redesignation of
industrial lands to uses not compatible with industrial development unless it is demonstrated that such
changes will not impact existing or planned future
development.

1.E To reduce the potential for
conflicts between the industrial
land uses and surrounding uses
which are sensitive to the impacts
of industrial development.

1.E-3 The County encourages industrial development
to be developed in contiguous or generally
consolidated areas to reduce the potential for conflicts with surrounding uses.

Agricultural Land 1.F To minimize conflicts between
agricultural and non-agricultural
uses.

1.F-2 The County shall require that all land set aside or utilized for mitigation of development in Sutter County or the Natomas Basin demonstrates that its creation
and existence will not adversely impact existing and/or future planned agricultural or urban development.

1.F-3 The County shall continue to implement its Right
to Farm Ordinance.

1.F-4 The County shall protect agricultural operations
from conflicts with non-agricultural uses by requiring
buffers between proposed non-agricultural uses and
adjacent agricultural operations.

CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
E042002017SAC/161795(003.DOC) REVI SED NATOMAS BASIN HCP 3-61

EIR/EIS
TABLE 3-11
Summary of Sutter County General Plan Land-Use Goals
Topic Goal Policy Statement
Open Space,
Habitat, and
Natural
Resources

1.G To preserve and protect open
space and natural resources and
reduce pollution.

1.G-1 The County shall encourage development
projects to minimize their impacts to open space areas
and wildlife habitats.

Source: Sutter County (1996a).

3.6.4 Agriculture in the Natomas Basin
Agriculture is the primary land use within the Natomas Basin, with approximately 42,000 acres in agricultural production under the baseline condition. Primary crops grown in the Natomas Basin include rice, sugar beets, safflower, wheat, barley, alfalfa, corn, pasture land, tomatoes, and fruit trees. The pattern of agricultural use within the Natomas Basin has been stable in recent years. According to the Sacramento County General Plan (County of Sacramento, 1993), approximately 9,195 acres of farmlands are under Williamson Act contracts in the Sacramento County portion of the Natomas Basin. Sutter County only recently began participating in the Williamson Act program.

Farmland resources in California are monitored by the Department of Conservation.

The Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (FMMP) produces maps of important farmlands, and tracks land use changes that affect important farmlands. As shown in Table 3-12, most of the undeveloped Natomas Basin is considered important farmland.

TABLE 3-12
Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program Acreage in Study Area FMMP Category
City of
Sacramento Metro Air Park
Other
Sacramento
County Sutter County Total
Prime Farmlanda 5,010 1,543 14,311 8,494 29,358
Farmland of
Statewide
Importance
b
856 309 3,918 7,996 12,079
Farmland of Local
Importancec
1,938 0 418 0 2,356
Unique Farmlandd 13 47 667 2 729
Grazing Land 48 38 199 148 433
Urban and Built-Up
Land
4,478 0 1,059 118 5,655
Other Lande 494 13 1,284 124 1,915
Water 0 0 12 1 13
Total 12,836 1,950 21,869 16,882 53,538
CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
3-62 REVISED NATOMAS BASI N HCP E042002017SAC/161795(003.DOC)

EIR/EIS
a Prime Farmland is farmland with the best combination of physical and chemical features able to sustain long-term production of agricultural crops. This land has the soil quality, growing season, and moisture supply needed to produce sustained high yields. Land must have been used for production of irrigated crops at some time during the four years prior to the mapping date.
b Farmland of Statewide Importance is similar to Prime Farmland but with minor shortcomings, such as greater slopes or less ability to store soil moisture. Land must have been used for production or irrigated crops at some time during the four years prior to the mapping date.

C Farmland of Local Importance is land of importance to the local agricultural economy as determined by each county’s board of supervisors and a local advisory committee. In Sacramento County, locally important farmlands are lands which do not qualify for Prime, Statewide, or Unique designation but are currently irrigated crops or pasture or nonirrigated crops; and lands which currently support confined livestock, poultry operations, and aquaculture. For Sutter County, the Board of Supervisors determined that there will be no Farmland of Local Importance for Sutter County.
d Unique Farmland is farmland of lesser-quality soils used for the production of the state’s leading agricultural crops.

This land is usually irrigated, but may include nonirrigated orchards or vineyards as found in some climatic zones in California. Land must have been cropped at some time during the four years prior to mapping date. e Other Land includes lands not included in any other mapping category. Common examples include low-density rural developments; brush, timer, wetland, and riparian areas not suitable for livestock grazing; vacant and nonagricultural land surrounded on all sides by urban development; confined livestock, poultry or aquaculture facilities; strip mines, borrow pits; and water bodies smaller than forty acres.

FMMP= Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program
Source: Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program, 2001.

Additional discussion on agricultural land use is included in Sections 3.4 and 4.4, Biological Resources, because land use classes are discussed in this EIR/EIS largely in the context of habitat for biological resources.

3.7 Socioeconomics
This section summarizes the social and economic conditions, within the study area and surrounding areas, relevant to determining significant impacts. The information presented in this section is based on the planning documents described in Section 3.1 and information obtained from the Sacramento Area Council of Governments (SACOG).

3.7.1 City of Sacramento and Sacramento County

3.7.1.1 Population
The population for the area of the City of Sacramento within the Natomas Basin is estimated to be 37,513 persons, as summarized in Table 3-13 (SACOG, 2001). A small population (849 persons) exists within the unincorporated area of Sacramento County. In total, the population residing within the greater Sacramento area of the Natomas Basin is approximately 3.25 percent of the population for Sacramento County. The population residing within the jurisdiction of the City of Sacramento accounts for approximately 9.25 percent of the City’s population. Projections for the year 2025 show that the total estimated population of Sacramento County is anticipated to increase to approximately 1.7 million persons, of which the Natomas area will account for approximately 6.24 percent.

CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
E042002017SAC/161795(003.DOC) REVI SED NATOMAS BASIN HCP 3-63

EIR/EIS
TABLE 3-13
Estimated Population Within the Natomas Basin and Vicinity, Sacramento County Jurisdiction
Estimated Current Total
Population (1999)
Estimated Current
Natomas Basin Population
(1999)
Projected Total
Population (2025)
City of Sacramento 406,000 37,513 528,880
Sacramento County,
Unincorporated
642,700 849a –
Sacramento County,
Total
1,189,100 38,362 1,695,506b
Source: SACOG Website, 2001.
a Study area population based on data for North and South Natomas minor zones for each jurisdiction, as defined by SACOG.
b 2025 projection data for minor zones not available. Natomas area projected to be 105,879 for both City and County jurisdictions.

3.7.1.2 Employment
The employment base for the Sacramento region consists of government, trade, and services sectors. Within the City, employment is balanced among heavy-commercial/warehouse, office, and retail-commercial sectors, based on estimates from land-use designations.

According to the City of Sacramento General Plan EIR, the Natomas area supports approximately 3.5 percent of the City’s workforce, approximately equally categorized as industrial jobs and community/neighborhood commercial jobs. These jobs are currently concentrated primarily in South Natomas because the North Natomas workforce is largely agricultural. The majority of the City’s employment increase is expected to occur in the Natomas area, primarily North Natomas. Based on land-use designations, the majority of employment growth is projected to be in the regional office sector; but industrial and community/neighborhood commercial sectors are projected to grow as well.

3.7.2 Sutter County

3.7.2.1 Population
Sutter County’s current total population is approximately 77,900 (SACOG, 2001), and is projected to be 134,708 in 2025. Both Sutter County portions of the Study area are contained in SACOG’s South Sutter Regional Analysis District (RAD). The population of the South Sutter RAD is currently 3,036 and is projected to grow to 4,246 in 2025 (Table 3-14; SACOG, 2001). Minor zones within the South Sutter RAD do not correspond to the Natomas Basin boundary; therefore, it is difficult to state the current population of the Natomas Basin in Sutter County. Residences in the Sutter County portion of the Natomas Basin are limited and include scattered farmhouses along the east side of Garden Highway and the west side of Natomas Road, and several residences along Howsley Road in the far north of the Natomas Basin. Therefore, the estimated population would be quite small, relative to the overall residential population of the South Sutter RAD. The future population in the Sutter County portion of the Natomas Basin is not expected to grow substantially, because planned development consists entirely of commercial and industrial land uses.

CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
3-64 REVISED NATOMAS BASI N HCP E042002017SAC/161795(003.DOC)

EIR/EIS
TABLE 3-14
Estimated Population Within the Natomas Basin and Vicinity, Sutter County Area
Estimated Current Population
(1999)
Projected Population
(2025)
Natomas Basin, Sutter County N/A N/A
South Sutter County RAD 3,036 4,246
Sutter County, Total 77,900 134,708
Source: SACOG, 2001.

3.7.2.2 Employment
Agriculture and related industries provide the key employment base for Sutter County, and some minor growth is expected in this industry group over the General Plan’s planning horizon. Consistent with other areas dependent on an agricultural employment base, Sutter County experiences high rates of seasonal unemployment. Most job growth over the past decade is associated with increases in population, and job growth is expected to continue as population increases. Growth is primarily expected to occur in service, retail, local government, and education employment. Moderate growth is expected for manufacturing, wholesale, and agriculture industry groups. Professional-specialty and executive/administrative/management occupational groups have experienced the greatest growth in recent years and are expected to continue to grow.

3.8 Traffic and Circulation
This section provides a discussion on the existing transportation network within the vicinity of the Natomas Basin, which is shown in Figure 1-1.

3.8.1 City of Sacramento
Transportation within the City of Sacramento is highly dependent on automobile use, although mass transit (light rail and bus) services, bikeways, and pedestrian paths are available and planned. The I-5/S.R. 99 and I-80 systems are the primary transportation corridors within the city limits in the Natomas Basin. Other existing major north/south roadways within the vicinity of the study area include Power Line Road, El Centro Road, and Truxel Road. Major east/west roadways include Elverta Road, Elkhorn Boulevard, Del Paso Road, and San Juan Road.

Other modes of transportation within the City of Sacramento and the study area include planned light rail service to the Natomas area, and the existing and future-planned expansion of the fixed-route bus system. Light rail, regional bus service, and a neighborhood bus shuttle service are identified by the City as planned services for North Natomas. Existing and proposed on-street and off-street bikeways are on most of the major and minor roadways in the Natomas area, as part of the Sacramento City/County Bikeway Master Plan and the North Natomas Community Plan. Off-street bikeways and pedestrian paths are planned along the north and west boundaries of North Natomas, including along Fisherman’s Lake.

CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
E042002017SAC/161795(003.DOC) REVI SED NATOMAS BASIN HCP 3-65

EIR/EIS

3.8.2 Sacramento County
Sacramento County is dependent on automobile-based transportation. Freight and commuter rail, light rail, and bus transit do not currently service the Natomas area of Sacramento County outside of the panhandle annexation area. The Union Pacific Railroad operates a line adjacent to the Natomas East Main Drainage Canal (Steelhead Creek), but does not stop in the area. Major freeway access to Sacramento County includes I-5, I-80, and S.R. 99. Elkhorn Boulevard and Elverta Road are the major roadways in the area. Elverta Road is classified as a two-lane rural highway. Small public and private rural roadways are located throughout undeveloped Sacramento County, and RD 1000 and Natomas Mutual maintain a network of access roads along area canals. A description of expected future congestion on roadways of regional significance is presented above in Section 4.8.

3.8.3 Sutter County
Sutter County is dependent on its roadway system for transportation, with automobile use comprising the majority of trips taken in the county. S.R. 99/70 is the primary regional transportation corridor in southern Sutter County, serving north/south travel. Garden Highway and Natomas Road (abutting the Natomas East Main Drainage Canal) are major county roads also accommodating north/south traffic in the Natomas Basin, with Pacific Avenue and Pleasant Grove Road serving north/south travel in Area B. East/west travel is accommodated by major and minor county roads, including Sankey and Riego roads in the Natomas Basin, and Howsley Road, West Catlett Road, Nicolaus Avenue, and Bear Creek Drive in Area B. Small public and private rural roadways are located throughout Sutter County in the Study area, and RD 1000 and Natomas Mutual maintain a network of access roads along canals and drains in the Natomas Basin.

Other modes of transportation within Sutter County include a fixed-route bus system that offers commuter and express services from Marysville and Yuba City to Sacramento and major Sacramento medical facilities, as well as demand-responsive bus service for elderly and disabled transportation needs.

Within Sutter County, a limited amount of roadway bikepaths exist, and no off-street facilities exist. The Yuba-Sutter Bikeway Master Plan has been adopted. The Plan will connect all cities in Sutter County via a bikeway system, in addition to connections to other counties, including Sacramento.

3.9 Noise
This section describes the existing ambient-noise environment in the study area. Projected noise levels were also identified and evaluated for future conditions in previously prepared CEQA documents for the covered activities related to the Proposed Action of this EIR/EIS.

The findings are summarized in Section 4.9 of this EIR/EIS as they pertain to the Proposed Action’s covered activities.

3.9.1 City of Sacramento
Major noise generators in the City of Sacramento include traffic generated from freeways and major roadways, and aircraft from the Sacramento International Airport. Industrial CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
3-66 REVISED NATOMAS BASI N HCP E042002017SAC/161795(003.DOC)

EIR/EIS
noise was determined to not be a major contributor to noise impacts within the City. In the city limits within the Natomas Basin, I-5, I-80, and other major roadways (see Section 3.8, Traffic and Circulation) are major noise sources. This area is subject to noise from major freeways, roadways, the Union Pacific railroad (which operates a line roughly parallel to Steelhead Creek), aircraft from the Sacramento International Airport, and the Arco Arena sports complex in North Natomas.

3.9.2 Sacramento County
Existing noise sources in the Natomas area of Sacramento County include traffic from the major freeways and roadways in the vicinity, the Sacramento International Airport, and the Union Pacific Railroad, which operates a line roughly parallel to the Natomas East Main Drainage Canal (Steelhead Creek).

3.9.3 Sutter County
The major noise generators within Sutter County are related to transportation, primarily resulting from freeway and roadway traffic. Other noise generators include natural gas extraction facilities, mining, farming, and industrial facilities. Within the study area, S.R. 99/70 and the major roadways (see Section 3.8, Traffic and Circulation) are major noise generators. Other major noise sources within the study area are likely to include freight train service, natural gas extraction facilities near the Sacramento International Airport, airplanes from the airport, and ongoing farming activities.

3.10 Air Quality
This section describes the existing air quality conditions in the region, focusing on compliance with the state and federal Clean Air Acts.

3.10.1 Sacramento Valley Air Basin
The study area is within the Sacramento Valley Air Basin. The air basin is bounded by the Coast Range to the west and the Sierra Nevada to the east. The Carquinez Strait, a sea-level gap in the Coast Range, is located 50 miles southwest, and the intervening terrain is very flat. The prevailing wind direction in Sacramento is southwesterly, resulting from marine breezes through the Carquinez Strait. During winter, when the sea breeze diminishes, northerly winds occur more frequently, but southerly winds still predominate.

A relatively stable high-pressure zone positioned off the coast diverts storms to the north, away from California, during the spring, summer, and early fall. The dry, warm, subsiding air of this system produces an atmospheric condition known as a subsidence inversion, where warm air overlies cooler air. Subsidence inversions may be several thousand feet deep and, together with strong sunlight, can produce worst-case smog conditions, of which ozone is the largest single component. In conjunction with this high-pressure zone, a thermal trough (a low-pressure zone caused by intense surface heating) is normally positioned over the Central Valley. The relative positions of these pressure zones cause air to blow through the Carquinez Strait to the Sacramento Valley. This helps cool the region, but it also carries pollutants from upwind, urban sources.

CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
E042002017SAC/161795(003.DOC) REVI SED NATOMAS BASIN HCP 3-67

EIR/EIS
During the late fall, winter, and early spring, the high-pressure zone shifts to the south, allowing numerous storm fronts to sweep through the region. Typically, over 30 of these winter storms can be expected per year, accounting for virtually all of the precipitation Sacramento receives in a typical year (about 18 inches in an average year). Periods of stagnation between storms are characterized by very light winds. Surface inversions, which can form under these conditions, are most often observed in the morning from October to February.

3.10.2 Regulatory Background
Air quality in the air basin is regulated at the federal, state, and regional levels. At the federal level, the EPA is responsible for overseeing implementation of the Federal Clean Air Act. The Air Resources Board is the state agency that regulates mobile sources and oversees implementation of state air quality laws, including the California Clean Air Act.

The primary agencies that regulate air quality on a regional level in the study area are the Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District (SMAQMD) and the Feather River Air Quality Management District (FRAQMD). Regional planning and attainment of air quality goals also involves the neighboring local air quality agencies of El Dorado County Air Pollution Control District, Placer County Air Pollution Control District, and Yolo-Solano Air Quality Management District. SMAQMD, FRAQMD and these local agencies have permit authority over stationary sources, act as the primary reviewing agencies for environmental documents, and develop regulations that must be consistent with, or more stringent than, federal and state air quality policies.

Pursuant to the federal Clean Air Act, the EPA has established national ambient air-quality standards for criteria pollutants, including ozone, carbon monoxide (CO), and particulate matter of respirable size (PM10 and PM2.5). Descriptions of the criteria pollutants are as follows:
• Ozone - a pungent, colorless, acutely toxic gas, primarily produced by photochemical processes in the atmosphere. Reactive organic gases (ROG), including hydrocarbons and oxides of nitrogen (NOX), react in the atmosphere to form ozone. The common effects of ozone are eye irritation, respiratory difficulties, and damage to vegetation. • Carbon Monoxide - a colorless, odorless, toxic gas produced through the incomplete combustion of fossil fuels. Concentrations of CO are generally higher in winter when more fuel is burned and weather conditions in the area favor the buildup of directly-emitted contaminants. Emissions from gasoline-powered engines are the major source of this contaminant, with automobiles as the primary contributor. CO passes through the lungs directly into the bloodstream, where it may interfere with the transfer of oxygen and deprive sensitive tissues of oxygen.
• Respirable Particulate Matter (PM10 and PM2.5) - Fine particulate matter (PM10) includes particulates of 10 microns or less in aerodynamic diameter, and PM2.5 includes particulate matter of 2.5 microns or less. PM10 and PM2.5 are small enough to pass through the respiratory system when inhaled and become lodged in the lungs, potentially resulting in adverse health effects. PM
10 and PM2.5 may consist of dust, sand,
salt spray, metallic and mineral particles, pollen, smoke, mist, and acid fumes. Primary man-made sources of fugitive particulate matter are agricultural operations, demolition CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
3-68 REVISED NATOMAS BASI N HCP E042002017SAC/161795(003.DOC)

EIR/EIS
and construction activities, road dust entrained by motor vehicles, and wood burning.

Natural sources and wind erosion of agricultural land also represent significant sources of airborne dust.

California’s ambient air-quality standards are generally more stringent than the national standards. The national and state standards for ozone, CO, and PM10 are presented in Table 3-15.

The Sacramento Valley Air Basin does not consistently meet several applicable state air quality standards. Depending on the pollutant, the boundaries of the attainment areas vary.

The air basin, including Sacramento and Sutter counties, is designated as a severe nonattainment area for the federal and state ozone standards. For CO, the Sacramento urbanized area was recently reclassified from nonattainment to attainment of the federal and state standards. Therefore, both Sacramento and Sutter counties meet federal and state carbon monoxide standards. For the federal PM
10 standards, only Sacramento County has
been designated a nonattainment area; however, redesignation to attainment has been requested by SMAQMD. For the state PM
10 standards, the entire air basin is considered a
nonattainment area. Air quality attainment designations for the study area are summarized in Table 3-16.

TABLE 3-15
Ambient Air Quality Standards
National Standardsb
Pollutant Averaging Time
California
Standardsa Primaryc Secondaryd
Ozone 8 hours
1 hour
–

0.09 ppm

0.08 ppm

0.12 ppm

0.08 ppm

0.12 ppm
Carbon Monoxide 8 hours
1 hour
9 ppm
20 ppm
9 ppm
35 ppm
–
–
PM10 Annual Geometric Mean
Annual Arithmetic Mean
24 hours
30 µg/m3
–
50 µg/m3
–
50 µg/m3
150 µg/m3
–
50 µg/m3
150 µg/m3
PM2.5 Annual Arithmetic Mean
24 hours
–
–
15 µg/m3
65 µg/m3
15 µg/m3
65 µg/m3
a California standards for ozone, carbon monoxide, and suspended particulate matter (PM10) are values that are not to be exceeded.
b National standards, other than ozone and those based on annual averages or annual arithmetic means, are not to be exceeded more than once a year. The ozone standard is attained when the expected number of days per calendar year with maximum hourly average concentrations above the standard is equal to or less than one. c National Primary Standards: The levels of air quality necessary, with an adequate margin of safety, to protect the public health.
d National Secondary Standards: The levels of air quality necessary to protect the public welfare from any known or anticipated adverse effects of a pollutant.
ppm parts per million (by volume)
Source: California Air Resources Board, 2001a.

CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
E042002017SAC/161795(003.DOC) REVI SED NATOMAS BASIN HCP 3-69

EIR/EIS
TABLE 3-16
Air Quality Attainment Designations
Standards
Sacramento County Sutter County
Pollutant National State National State
Ozone Nonattainment Nonattainment Nonattainment Nonattainment Carbon
Monoxide
Attainment Attainment Attainment Attainment
PM10 Nonattainment Nonattainment* Nonattainment Nonattainment * Area meets air quality standard, and ARB has been reques ted to reclassify area for attainment status.

Source: California Air Resources Board, 2001b.

3.11 Public Health and Safety
In general, the potential public health and safety issues discussed in this EIR/EIS focus on potential for increased wildlife strikes at the Sacramento International Airport and related potential increase in safety risk for aircraft passengers at the airport, as a result of the implementation of the Proposed Action.

The purpose of this section is to provide the environmental and regulatory baseline for assessing the potential for increased bird strikes as a result of the implementation of the Proposed Action. The Sacramento International Airport is located in the southwestern portion of the Natomas Basin (see Figure 1-1). Encounters with wildlife by aircraft have occurred at the airport during various times of operation during a flight. Of particular concern is the possibility of encounters with birds by aircraft during approach, within 5 miles north of the airport. Based on information provided by Sacramento International Airport, the impact evaluation (see Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences) is limited to the northerly approach pattern within five miles of the airport landing area. The increased number of bird strikes at Sacramento International Airport since approximately 1993 coincides with a change in rice field management (the removal of rice-field stubble through flooding) and subsequent observation of increased waterfowl use of the Sacramento Valley and the lower American Basin (including the Natomas Basin) (SCAS, 2001).

3.11.1 Background on Wildlife Hazards at Airports
Wildlife can be attracted to airports and their vicinities because of the presence of cover, food, and water sources. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) considers wildlife hazards a serious threat to the safety of aircraft passengers and crews, as well as an economic concern. Presented below is a brief summary of information available on the magnitude and effects of wildlife hazards at airports.

CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
3-70 REVISED NATOMAS BASI N HCP E042002017SAC/161795(003.DOC)

EIR/EIS
Quantitative analysis on wildlife hazards has been compiled for the years 1990 through 1998, and is continuing to be compiled for subsequent years. A detailed report covering the years 1990 through 1998 summarizes results from the 22,935 strikes that were reported for this period (Cleary et al., 1999). Reports included strikes encountered with commercial, business, private, and miscellaneous aircraft. The analysis generally found that:
• Between 1990 and 1998, there was a 107 percent increase in the number of strikes reported nationwide and for areas outside of the United States covered by the study. • Most bird strikes occurred between July and October during the day, when the aircraft was approaching or performing the landing roll, and at an altitude of less than 2,000 feet.
• The majority of birds that were able to be identified for reported strikes were gulls, followed by waterfowl, doves, and raptors. Other bird groups made up a much smaller portion of reported, identifiable strikes. In general, larger birds and bird species that exhibit flocking behavior, such as waterfowl, are most frequently associated with the potential for bird strike hazards.
• The majority of strikes did not damage the aircraft (approximately 16,000); substantially fewer caused the aircraft to suffer minor or substantial damage (approximately 2,000 and 1,300, respectively); and the fewest destroyed 19 aircraft (determined to be beyond repair).
• Seventy-eight percent of wildlife strikes (of which 15 percent were bird strikes) had an adverse effect on flight. An effect on flight was defined as an aborted takeoff, precautionary landing, engine shutdown, or other. Of those operations that were affected, the majority resulted in a precautionary landing.

3.11.1.1 Regulatory, Policy, and Guidance Setting
Regulatory requirements, FAA policies, and guidance on wildlife hazards is provided. • Federal Aviation Act of 1958, as amended. Among other things, this act empowers the FAA to issue airport operating certificates and to establish minimum safety standards for those airports, some of which involve the management of wildlife and wildlife hazards at or near airports. During regular FAA inspections, control of wildlife hazards is an issue that is addressed and reported.
• Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations, (CFR) Part 139.337. The FAA is responsible for enforcing various aspects of aviation. Part 139.337 requires that an ecological study and wildlife-hazard management plan be implemented at an airport when certain wildlife-hazard events occur at an airport. Additionally, a staff wildlife biologist will be assigned to the airport to work with airport operators to identify causes and mitigate wildlife hazards.
• Office of Airport Safety and Standards Guidance and Policies. Advisory Circular Number 150/5200-33, Hazardous Wildlife Attractants on or Near Airports provides guidance on identifying and mitigating hazardous wildlife attractants at or in the vicinity of airports. Although implementation of the guidance is not mandatory, as indicated above, control of wildlife hazards is an issue addressed in FAA safety inspections. This CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
E042002017SAC/161795(003.DOC) REVI SED NATOMAS BASIN HCP 3-71

EIR/EIS
guidance indicates that the FAA has determined that 1 strike per 10,000 operations (departure or approach) at an airport is an acceptable wildlife strike rate. • Sacramento International Airport Wildlife Hazard Management Plan. The Sacramento International Airport has been required to implement a wildlife hazard management plan (Plan) in accordance with 14 CFR 139.337, and is described below.

3.11.2 Sacramento International Airport and Vicinity
As discussed above, the Sacramento International Airport experiences bird strikes likely as a result of the favorable habitat that exists within the vicinity of the airport. Provided below is a summary of wildlife-strike information available for the airport, specific measures being taken or considered for implementation for wildlife hazard control, and the relationship of current land-use practices and wildlife for lands within the northerly approach pattern of the airport.

3.11.2.1 Wildlife Strikes Occurring at Sacramento International Airport Data on wildlife strikes and strike rates for the Sacramento International Airport indicate an increase in wildlife strikes from 1990 through 1998 of greater than 300 percent (SCAS, 2001).

As of 1999, the Sacramento International Airport reported a strike rate of 4.5 strikes per 10,000 operations, approximately five times the acceptable level of 1 strike per 10,000 operations set by the FAA. The increase in strikes is generally not attributable to an increase in aircraft operations. For example, during 1996, the strike rate was

2.9 (172,203 operations occurred with 50 reported strikes), whereas for 1998, the strike rate was 5.3 (151,205 operations occurred with 80 reported strikes). Increases in strike rates have been anecdotally attributed to the increased flooding of rice fields in the vicinity of the airport as a result of air quality rules prohibiting rice-field burning and a general improvement in the use of the Pacific Flyway by migratory waterfowl (SCAS, 2001).

Most bird strikes at Sacramento International Airport occur from November through February (SCAS, 2001), which is unlike national trends but coincident with winter migration and flooding of rice fields. Similar to national trends discussed above, the majority of reported bird strikes at Sacramento International Airport occur with waterfowl upon approach and less than 3,000 feet above ground level. The majority of wildlife strikes have not had an effect on flight, and precautionary landing was the most common effect on flight.

Financial losses as a result of wildlife strikes are not available for Sacramento International Airport (Personal Communication, John Febbo).

3.11.2.2 Sacramento International Airport Wildlife Hazard Management Plan As described above, the Sacramento International Airport has been required to adopt a wildlife hazard management plan in accordance with 14 CFR 139.337. The plan describes areas around the airport for which wildlife hazards are of greatest concern; optimal management of habitats, water sources, vegetation, and structures; and the food-prey base for airport property. The plan also describes potential wildlife control procedures, which include aurally and visually frightening techniques and population-reduction methods in accordance with federal and state wildlife protection laws. A major long-range goal of the plan is to reduce wildlife habitat on airport property in accordance with state and federal wildlife protection laws, and to discourage land use practices on other properties that increase wildlife hazards.

CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
3-72 REVISED NATOMAS BASI N HCP E042002017SAC/161795(003.DOC)

EIR/EIS
The two major areas of greatest concern within the airport vicinity are within a 5-mile radius of the runway centerline (general zone) and within a 2-mile radius of the centerline (critical zone). Control efforts documented in the Plan are focused on the critical zone. However, removal of wildlife habitat on airport property in the general zone and discouragement of land-use practices near airport property are also long-range goals of the Plan.

Other land management efforts at and near the airport include:
• Management of water features on airport property includes the removal/modification of permanent and temporary water features on airport property, including irrigation canals/ditches, temporary pools created by sprinklers or airport structures, sewage treatment ponds on the south side of the airport, and jurisdictional wetlands; and obstruction of water features through installment of wire grids. • Management of vegetation features on airport property includes modifications to landscaping to be less attractive to wildlife, such as the use of turf grass as the major ground cover and removal of trees, and removal of vegetation suitable for wildlife habitat.
• Vegetation management also includes the discontinuance of agriculture on airport properties within the security fence and up to a mile away from the runway landing if these areas are determined to be attractive to wildlife. Conduct field preparation activities at night.
• Structure management includes consideration during design of reducing structural attractions to wildlife, removal of unnecessary buildings, and retrofit of problematic structures.
• Food-prey base management includes elimination of habitats such as streamside vegetation and abandoned structures, direct population control methods, removal of debris, and discouragement of handouts.

Existing Land Management Practices in the Vicinity of Airport Areas north of the airport are currently in rice production, whereas areas to the south are managed as row crops. The area to the immediate west of the airport is also managed as row crops and abuts the Sacramento River and the Vic Fazio/Yolo Basin National Wildlife Refuge. The area to the east of the airport is managed as rice and field crops. Lands owned by the airport are managed to reduce the likelihood of wildlife being attracted to the area, particularly waterfowl, in accordance with its Wildlife Hazard Management Plan, by eliminating or reducing pooled water.

The Sacramento International Airport and the Natomas Basin Conservancy are engaged in ongoing discussions in association with the implementation of the proposed HCP on optimal use of the lands outside of the airport property in the general zone. The purpose of this effort is to determine potential use of the lands in the general zone for future habitat reserves without increasing the potential for bird-strike hazards.

E042002017SAC/161795(004.DOC) REVISED NATOMAS BASIN HCP 4-1

EIR/EIS
CHAPTER 4
Environmental Consequences

4.1 Introduction
This chapter presents the impacts analysis for the Proposed Action and the alternatives. It also presents the significance criteria for the evaluated resource areas and provides mitigation measures, where applicable, for potential environmental impacts of the Proposed Action.

As discussed in detail in Chapter 2: Proposed Action and Alternatives, the Proposed Action comprises:
/g183 Applications for Section 10(a)(1)(B) and Section 2081 permits for each of the permittees (see Section 2.1)
/g183 Approval of the HCP and issuance of the permits by the USFWS and the CDFG upon making a determination that issuance criteria have been met by the permittees /g183 Implementation of the HCP
/g183 Adoption of the IA(s) to secure participation and compliance of the HCP applicants requesting take permits
This introductory section includes the following subsections to provide context for the analysis contained in this chapter.
/g183 Summary of the resource areas analyzed and brief descriptions of impacts (Section 4.1.1) /g183 Cumulative impacts assessment, including the criteria for and identification of cumulative actions or projects for assessment in this EIR/EIS (Section 4.1.2) /g183 Previous analysis of impacts of covered activities (to provide an overall context for impacts to the Natomas Basin and the study area) (Section 4.1.3), and /g183 Analysis of impacts of independent implementation of the Proposed Action by the applicants (i.e., permittees) to demonstrate effects of implementation by individual as well as the collective permittees (Section 4.1.4)

4.1.1 Resources Considered and Summary of Impacts
The environmental analysis in this EIR/EIS is focused on how the following key resources of concern would be affected by the implementation of the Proposed Action. /g183 Geology and Soils. Section 4.2 describes how implementing the Proposed Action and the alternatives would affect geology and soils. Potentially significant erosion impacts are identified as a result of land disturbance, and recommended mitigation measures would reduce impacts to a less than significant level. Other potential geology and soils impacts from implementing the land use and water agencies’ conservation measures would be less-than-significant.

CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
4-2 REVISED NATOMAS BASIN HCP E042002017SAC/161795(004.DOC)

EIR/EIS
/g183 Water Resources. Section 4.3 describes how implementing the Proposed Action and the alternatives would affect water supply, water quality, and flood control conditions in the study area. Potentially significant water quality impacts resulting from implementing the Proposed Action are identified. Impacts could be mitigated to a less-than-significant level with the recommended mitigation measures. Other potential water resources impacts from implementing the land use and water agencies’ conservation measures would be less than significant.
/g183 Biological Resources. Section 4.4 describes expected future habitat conditions and species status with implementation of the Proposed Action and the alternatives. The issuance of ITPs has the potential to result in significant impacts to biological resources because, by definition, the decision to issue ITPs indicates the potential for the take of a species covered by the permits. The approval and implementation of the HCP, however, would mitigate for the effects of the taking and reduce those effects to a level that is less than significant. In instances where the analysis of the Proposed Action indicates the need for additional mitigation, these measures are presented and discussed in Section 4.4.5.4. The conservation measures of the HCP are summarized in Chapter 2 as part of the Proposed Action and are presented in detail in the Draft Natomas Basin Habitat Conservation Plan (City of Sacramento, Sutter County, Natomas Basin Conservancy, Reclamation District No. 1000, and Natomas Central Mutual Water Company, July 2002). /g183 Cultural Resources. Section 4.5 describes how implementing the Proposed Action and the alternatives would affect archaeological and historical resources. Potentially significant impacts could include the disturbance of unknown, subsurface archaeological or historical resources. Impacts could be mitigated to a less-than-significant level with the mitigation measures recommended in Section 4.5. Other potential cultural resources impacts from implementing the Proposed Action would be less than significant. /g183 Land Use. Section 4.6 describes how implementing the Proposed Action and the alternatives would affect local land use conditions, including agricultural resources. The loss of important farmlands would be a significant and unavoidable consequence of implementing the HCP. Other potential land use impacts from implementing the Proposed Action would be less than significant.
/g183 Socioeconomics. Section 4.7 discusses how implementing the Proposed Action and the alternatives would affect local and regional social and economic conditions (e.g., population, employment) and the potential for disproportionate effects on minority and low-income populations. No significant impacts would occur as a result of implementing the Proposed Action.
/g183 Traffic. Section 4.8 describes how implementing the Proposed Action and the alternatives would affect traffic conditions. Potentially significant traffic safety impacts are identified. Impacts could be mitigated to a less-than-significant level with the mitigation measures recommended in Section 4.8. Other potential traffic impacts from implementing the land use and water agencies’ conservation measures would be less than significant.
/g183 Noise. Section 4.9 describes how implementing the Proposed Action and the alternatives would affect ambient noise levels. Potentially significant noise impacts are identified.

CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
E042002017SAC/161795(004.DOC) REVISED NATOMAS BASIN HCP 4-3

EIR/EIS
Impacts could be mitigated to a less-than-significant level with the mitigation measures recommended in Section 4.9. Other potential noise impacts from implementing the Proposed Action would be less than significant.
/g183 Air Quality. Section 4.10 describes how implementing the Proposed Action and the alternatives would affect regional air quality. Potentially significant air quality impacts are identified. Impacts could be mitigated to a less-than-significant level with the recommended mitigation measures. Other potential air quality impacts from implementing the land use and water agencies’ conservation measures would be less- than-significant.
/g183 Public Health and Safety. Section 4.11 describes how implementing the Proposed Action and the alternatives would affect public health and safety. Specifically, the focus of the analysis is on how waterfowl would affect air traffic safety at Sacramento International Airport. No significant impacts would occur as a result of implementing the Proposed Action or the alternatives.

4.1.2 Approach to Cumulative Impacts Analysis

4.1.2.1 Requirements for Cumulative Impacts Assessment
The Council on Environmental Quality regulations implementing NEPA define a “cumulative impact” for purposes of NEPA as follows:

Cumulative impact is the impact on the environment which results from the incremental impact of the action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency (federal or non-federal) or person undertakes such other actions. Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but collectively significant actions taking place over a period of time. (40 CFR Section 1508.7).

Cumulative impacts are defined similarly in the CEQA Guidelines:
“Cumulative impacts” refers to two or more individual effects which, when considered together, are considerable or which compound or increase other environmental impacts.
(a) The individual effects may be changes resulting from a single project or a number of separate projects.
(b) The cumulative impact from several projects is the change in the environment which results from the incremental impact of the project when added to other closely related past, present, and reasonably foreseeable probable future projects. Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but collectively significant projects taking place over a period of time. (California Code of Regulations, Section 15355)
For the purposes of this EIR/EIS, significant cumulative impacts would occur if impacts related to the implementation of the Proposed Action, added to the environmental impacts of other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable similar actions, result in an adverse significant effect. For an impact to be considered cumulative, these incremental impacts and CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
4-4 REVISED NATOMAS BASIN HCP E042002017SAC/161795(004.DOC)

EIR/EIS
potential incremental impacts must be related to the types of impacts caused by the Proposed Action (i.e., the types of impacts caused by implementing conservation measures for the covered species). Potential cumulative impacts are assessed within the separate resource area sections in this chapter, and are presented at the end of the individual resource sections.

4.1.2.2 Actions Included in the Cumulative Impacts Analysis In consideration of actions to include in the cumulative impacts assessment in this EIR/EIS, past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions that have the potential, in combination with the effects of the Proposed Action, to result in cumulative impacts are those that:
/g183 submitted an urban development permit or other permit application to a federal or non- federal agency with approval authority1
/g183 are related to the types of impacts attributable to those that would result from implementing the Proposed Action
On the basis of these criteria, the actions identified for consideration in the cumulative impacts analysis are described below. Generally, the analysis of cumulative effects includes actions that could affect the management of covered species in the Natomas Basin or in other parts of their range. This broad scope helps provide an understanding of the relative importance of the Proposed Action to overall population conditions. These other management actions include federal and state wildlife refuges, as prescribed by other state and federal programs, and in other HCPs. The management activities included in the analysis of cumulative effects are as follows.
/g183 Management of state and federal lands. The region contains several wildlife refuges and other state and federal lands that provide benefit to wildlife, including many of the covered species (Figure 4-1). Because management of these state and federal lands must consider the needs of threatened and endangered species, the management of these lands is considered in the assessment of cumulative impacts. Specific refuge lands with geographic proximity to the Natomas Basin are as follows, including a brief description of refuge management activities.
/g45 Vic Fazio-Yolo Basin Wildlife Area (managed by the CDFG). The Yolo Basin Wildlife Area (WA) comprises 3,660 acres of the Yolo Basin floodplain, primarily south of the Interstate 80 Yolo Causeway. Plans for the Yolo Basin WA include expansion of the refuge to include substantial additional lands to the north, including lands directly west of the Natomas Basin. The Yolo Basin (including both refuge lands and private acreage) contains substantial agricultural acreage and other habitat types, but the primary purpose of lands within the Yolo Basin is to convey winter flood flows diverted from the Sacramento River. Private landowners in the Yolo Bypass, including the Conaway Ranch property north of the refuge, manage lands in part for the enhancement of wildlife values (e.g., duck clubs). The USFWS and CDFG maintain conservation easements over much of these areas.

1 As discussed in Section 3.6.2.2, the Metro Air Park industrial Business Park (MAP) project is a separate project (i.e., it is not part of the Proposed Action evaluated in this EIR/EIS). The acreage of the MAP project is included in the 17,500 acres in the Natomas Basin that is the study area of the proposed HCP evaluated in this EIR/EIS to address impacts to covered species in a way that adequately represents current development plans. Because the acreage of the MAP project is considered in the evaluation of impacts in this EIR/EIS, it is not also included as a cumulative project in this document. /MT80/MT97/MT99/MT105/MT102/MT105/MT99/MT32/MT79/MT99/MT101/MT97/MT110/MT80/MT97/MT99/MT105/MT102/MT105/MT99/MT32/MT79/MT99/MT101/MT97/MT110 /MT83/MT97/MT110/MT32/MT74/MT111/MT97/MT113/MT117/MT105/MT110/MT32/MT67/MT111/MT117/MT110/MT116/MT121 /MT72/MT67/MT80/MT32/MT65/MT114/MT101/MT97
/MT89/MT111/MT108/MT111
/MT83/MT97/MT110/MT32/MT74/MT111/MT97/MT113/MT117/MT105/MT110 /MT67/MT97/MT108/MT97/MT118/MT101/MT114/MT97/MT115
/MT84/MT117/MT111/MT108/MT117/MT109/MT110/MT101
/MT83/MT116/MT97/MT110/MT105/MT115/MT108/MT97/MT117/MT115 /MT77/MT101/MT114/MT99/MT101/MT100
/MT77/MT97/MT114/MT105/MT112/MT111/MT115/MT97
/MT70/MT114/MT101/MT115/MT110/MT111
/MT77/MT97/MT100/MT101/MT114/MT97
/MT77/MT111/MT110/MT116/MT101/MT114/MT101/MT121
/MT83/MT97/MT110
/MT66/MT101/MT110/MT105/MT116/MT111
/MT83/MT97/MT110/MT116/MT97/MT32/MT67/MT108/MT97/MT114/MT97 /MT83/MT97/MT110/MT116/MT97
/MT32/MT32/MT32/MT32/MT67/MT114/MT117/MT122
/MT83/MT97/MT110/MT32/MT77
/MT97/MT116/MT101/MT111
/MT83/MT97/MT110/MT32/MT70/MT114/MT97/MT110/MT99/MT105/MT115/MT99/MT111 /MT65/MT108/MT97/MT109/MT101/MT100/MT97
/MT67/MT111/MT110/MT116/MT114/MT97
/MT67/MT111/MT115/MT116/MT97
/MT83/MT111/MT110/MT111/MT109/MT97
/MT83/MT111/MT108/MT97/MT110/MT111
/MT78/MT97/MT112/MT97
/MT77/MT97/MT114/MT105/MT110
/MT69/MT108/MT32/MT68/MT111/MT114/MT97/MT100/MT111
/MT83/MT97/MT99/MT114/MT97/MT109
/MT101/MT110/MT116/MT111/MT65/MT109/MT97/MT100/MT111/MT114 /MT65/MT108/MT112/MT105/MT110/MT101
/MT77/MT111/MT110/MT111
/MT89/MT117/MT98/MT97
/MT78/MT101/MT118/MT97/MT100/MT97
/MT80/MT108/MT97/MT99/MT101/MT114/MT83/MT117/MT116/MT116/MT101/MT114 /MT76/MT97/MT107/MT101
/MT67/MT111/MT108/MT117/MT115/MT97
/MT71/MT108/MT101/MT110/MT110/MT83/MT105/MT101/MT114/MT114/MT97 /MT80/MT108/MT117/MT109/MT97/MT115
/MT66/MT117/MT116/MT116/MT101
/MT84/MT101/MT104/MT97/MT109/MT97
/MT84/MT114/MT105/MT110/MT105/MT116/MT121
/MT83/MT104/MT97/MT115/MT116/MT97
/MT76/MT97/MT115/MT115/MT101/MT110
/MT78/MT97/MT116/MT111/MT109/MT97/MT115
/MT66/MT97/MT115/MT105/MT110
/MT67/MT65/MT76/MT70/MT69/MT68/MT32/MT69/MT99/MT111/MT108/MT111/MT103/MT105/MT99/MT97/MT108 /MT77/MT97/MT110/MT97/MT103/MT101/MT109/MT101/MT110/MT116/MT32/MT90/MT111/MT110/MT101 /MT87/MT48/MT50/MT50/MT48/MT48/MT50/MT48/MT48/MT51/MT83/MT65/MT67/MT32/MT32/MT32/MT32/MT49/MT54/MT49/MT55/MT57/MT53/MT46/MT65/MT49/MT46/MT48/MT51/MT32/MT32/MT87/MT65/MT84/MT69/MT82/MT32/MT87/MT73/MT76/MT68/MT76/MT73/MT70/MT69/MT32/MT65/MT82/MT69/MT65/MT32/MT77/MT65/MT80/MT32/MT32/MT32/MT32/MT48/MT50/MT45/MT49/MT52/MT45/MT50/MT48/MT48/MT50/MT115/MT98/MT109 /MT70/MT73/MT71/MT85/MT82/MT69/MT32/MT52/MT45/MT49
/MT72/MT65/MT66/MT73/MT84/MT65/MT84/MT32/MT77/MT65/MT78/MT65/MT71/MT69/MT77/MT69/MT78/MT84/MT32/MT80/MT76/MT65/MT78/MT83/MT32/MT73/MT78/MT32/MT84/MT72/MT69 /MT86/MT73/MT67/MT73/MT78/MT73/MT84/MT89/MT32/MT79/MT70/MT32/MT84/MT72/MT69/MT32/MT69/MT73/MT82/MT47/MT69/MT73/MT83/MT32/MT80/MT76/MT65/MT78/MT32/MT65/MT82/MT69/MT65 /MT82/MT69/MT86/MT73/MT83/MT69/MT68/MT32/MT78/MT65/MT84/MT79/MT77/MT65/MT83/MT32/MT66/MT65/MT83/MT73/MT78/MT32/MT72/MT67/MT80/MT32/MT69/MT73/MT82/MT47/MT69/MT73/MT83 /MT71/MT114/MT97/MT115/MT115/MT108/MT97/MT110/MT100/MT115 /MT69/MT99/MT111/MT108/MT111/MT103/MT105/MT99/MT97/MT108/MT32/MT65/MT114/MT101/MT97 /MT86/MT105/MT99/MT32/MT70/MT97/MT122/MT105/MT111
/MT89/MT111/MT108/MT111/MT32/MT87/MT105/MT108/MT100/MT108/MT105/MT102/MT101/MT32/MT65/MT114/MT101/MT97 /MT83/MT116/MT111/MT110/MT101/MT32/MT76/MT97/MT107/MT101/MT115/MT32/MT78/MT87/MT82 /MT83/MT97/MT99/MT114/MT97/MT109/MT101/MT110/MT116/MT111 /MT78/MT87/MT82/MT71/MT114/MT97/MT121/MT32/MT76/MT111/MT100/MT103/MT101 /MT87/MT105/MT108/MT100/MT108/MT105/MT102/MT101/MT32/MT65/MT114/MT101/MT97 /MT68/MT101/MT108/MT101/MT118/MT97/MT110
/MT78/MT87/MT82
/MT67/MT111/MT108/MT117/MT115/MT97/MT32/MT78/MT87/MT82
/MT83/MT117/MT116/MT116/MT101/MT114/MT32/MT78/MT87/MT82 /MT87/MT111/MT111/MT100/MT98/MT114/MT105/MT100/MT103/MT101 /MT69/MT99/MT111/MT108/MT111/MT103/MT105/MT99/MT97/MT108/MT32/MT82/MT101/MT115/MT101/MT114/MT118/MT101 /MT78
/MT83
/MT69/MT87
/MT83/MT99/MT97/MT108/MT101/MT32/MT105/MT110/MT32/MT77/MT105/MT108/MT101/MT115 /MT49/MT53/MT48/MT51 /MT48
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
4-6 REVISED NATOMAS BASIN HCP E042002017SAC/161795(004.DOC)

EIR/EIS
/g45 Stone Lakes National Wildlife Refuge (managed by the USFWS). The Stone Lakes National Wildlife Refuge (NWR) is located south of Sacramento near Freeport.

Currently, Stone Lakes NWR comprises approximately 4,000 acres under management, with the eventual refuge boundary under active management being expanded to approximately 18,000 acres. Within the area managed by the USFWS (including the area known as Lower Beach Lake), about one-quarter is managed as restored wetlands and three-quarters as grazed, dry grassland. The refuge is managed with a biodiversity objective, and supports habitat restoration for threatened and endangered species (including an emphasis on the giant garter snake and Swainson’s hawk) and Pacific Flyway waterfowl. Included within the Stone Lakes NWR boundary is Upper Beach Lake, which is currently managed by the Sacramento Regional County Sanitation District as part of the regional wastewater treatment plant.
/g45 Sacramento National Wildlife Refuge Complex (managed by the USFWS). The Sacramento National Wildlife Refuge Complex (Sacramento NWR Complex) includes the 2,591-acre Sutter National Wildlife Refuge (Sutter NWR), located primarily in the Sutter Bypass southwest of Yuba City. Similar to the Yolo Basin WA, the Sutter NWR is managed for waterfowl and other species that have the potential to inhabit winter-flooded areas. Portions of the Sutter NWR contain habitat suitable for giant garter snakes and other Proposed Action-covered species. Other refuge units of the Sacramento NWR Complex include the Sacramento, Delevan, and Colusa units, which are managed in a manner similar to the Sutter NWR, and the Sacramento River NWR, which is managed for riparian habitat values adjacent to the Sacramento River.
/g45 Gray Lodge Wildlife Area (managed by the CDFG). The Gray Lodge Wildlife Area (Gray Lodge WA) comprises 9,200 acres. It is managed primarily for waterfowl, but is also managed for the protection of threatened and endangered species, including the giant garter snake.
/g45 Woodbridge Ecological Area (managed by the CDFG). The Woodbridge Ecological Area, west of Lodi, comprises agricultural lands managed for the protection of wintering greater sandhill cranes.
/g45 Grasslands Ecological Area (managed by the USFWS, CDFG, and private entities).

The Grasslands Ecological Area includes over 120,000 acres of state and federal wildlife areas and private lands that are managed primarily as duck clubs. The state and federal refuges include management measures for protecting threatened and endangered species, including those with the objective of bolstering the diminished populations of giant garter snakes in the San Joaquin Valley. /g183 CALFED Bay-Delta Program. The Multi-Species Conservation Strategy of the CALFED Bay-Delta Program includes conservation measures to achieve specific goals for 244 evaluated species. Generally, the Multi-Species Conservation Strategy is intended to enable CALFED-implementing entities to obtain the necessary authorizations for specific CALFED actions that could contribute to incidental take of federally or state- listed species. The specific goals for species include “recovery,” “contribute to recovery,” and “maintain.” One species proposed for coverage under the Proposed Action—the CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
E042002017SAC/161795(004.DOC) REVISED NATOMAS BASIN HCP 4-7

EIR/EIS
valley elderberry longhorn beetle—is included in the CALFED Multi-Species Conservation Strategy with a “recover” objective. Proposed-Action covered species with a “contribute to recovery” objective in the CALFED Multi-Species Conservation Strategy are the giant garter snake, Swainson’s hawk, bank swallow, and Delta tule pea. All other species proposed for coverage in the ITPs, with the exception of the loggerhead shrike, are included in the Multi-Species Conservation Strategy with a goal of “maintain.” /g183 San Joaquin County Habitat Conservation Plan. Similar to the proposed Natomas Basin HCP, the San Joaquin County HCP addresses the conservation of species in the context of land-use changes. This includes the acquisition of habitat reserves and the avoidance or minimization of impacts to covered species. The plan addresses 97 covered species, including the giant garter snake, Swainson’s hawk, and all of the other species proposed for coverage under the Proposed Action.

4.1.2.3 Other Potential Actions in the Natomas Basin
The Proposed Action addresses the development of 17,500 acres in the Natomas Basin, consisting of 8,050 acres in the City of Sacramento (buildout of the North and South Natomas Community Plan areas), 7,467 in Sutter County (the South Sutter County Specific Plan area and other areas in the Industrial-Commercial Reserve), and 1,983 acres in the approved Metro Air Park special planning area. (As noted in Section 1.2.1, the Metro Air Park development has been previously approved and is included in the assessment in this EIR/EIS to provide a comprehensive and conservative assessment of impacts attributable to the covered activities of planned development). The acreage to be developed represents planned development for the Natomas Basin based on adopted plans. If granted, take authorization under the proposed ITPs (an ITP for Metro Air Park was issued on February 21, 2002) would apply to the authorized development of 15,517 acres in the City and Sutter permit areas and 1,983 acres of Metro Air Park development in the plan area. Local agency environmental impact analysis for this development has been completed (see Section 4.1.3).

Several other long-term projects have the potential to occur in the Natomas Basin at some unidentified future date. These projects, if they occur, would not be included in the 17,500 acres of planned development evaluated as part of the Proposed Action unless the HCP is amended and the ITPs are amended, or a new conservation strategy is developed for that additional development. Data sufficient to conduct a detailed assessment of cumulative impacts in this EIR/EIS are not currently available because the environmental review process for these actions has not been initiated, existing environmental review is limited and does not provide sufficient detail to assess impacts, or applications for the actions have not been filed. If and when these proposals become projects subject to environmental review, separate compliance under CEQA, NEPA, CESA, and ESA (including its take provisions) will be conducted, where applicable. Approval of any development beyond the 17,500 acres or outside the permit area would constitute a significant departure from the HCP and would trigger a reevaluation of the HCP, potential amendments and/or revisions to the HCP and ITPs, and possible suspension or revocation of the ITPs in the event the applicants violate such limitations without having completed the required reevaluation, amendments, or revisions. The projects are described below.
/g183 Development in Unincorporated Sacramento County. Approximately 16,000 acres of land remain in unincorporated Sacramento County, excluding Sacramento International CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
4-8 REVISED NATOMAS BASIN HCP E042002017SAC/161795(004.DOC)

EIR/EIS
Airport. This area is outside of the County’s Urban Services Boundary, which means that development is not planned in the foreseeable future. Sacramento County is currently considering a long-term proposal, however, to amend its Urban Services Boundary to include an additional 6,519 acres of land in the Natomas Basin because of property owner interest in developing this area. The preferred alternative for this amendment is the area bounded by Sutter County to the north, the Sacramento City limit to the south, the Natomas Basin boundary (Steelhead Creek) to the east, and S.R. 99/70 to the west. At this time, the planning effort does not include a specific land use plan, but rather is intended to provide policy direction on urbanization for regional infrastructure purposes. A draft EIR for this proposal was released in November 2000, but the proposal is still under consideration. The City of Sacramento is also considering the possibility of future development in this area. The City’s General Plan Amendment and Comprehensive Annexation Program describes the potential for annexation and development in portions of the currently unincorporated Natomas Basin, and presents the option of creating a one-mile permanent open-space buffer east of the Sacramento River and south of the Sutter County line.

In response to these long-term proposals, the City of Sacramento and Sacramento County have engaged in a long-range planning effort to guide the annexation of farmlands in the Natomas Basin which may be considered for future development. (These lands are outside of the City’s permit area and are not included in the 17,500 acres of planned development analyzed in the HCP, this EIR/EIS, and in previous environmental documents—See Section 4.1.3). As part of this ongoing program, 10,000 acres of open space along the Sacramento River and in the vicinity of the Sacramento International Airport would be preserved, and the City would undertake planning efforts for the annexation of 10,000 acres directly north of Elkhorn Boulevard which may be developed with commercial and residential development.

Specific land use plans have not been prepared or proposed for future development of this 10,000 acre area, and no environmental review or permitting has been initiated. No specific land uses or projects have been proposed for development at this time.

Any future specific proposals related to annexation and development of additional lands beyond the 17,500 acres of planned development in the Natomas Basin would be subject to further planning efforts, technical analyses, CEQA review, and local approvals. Any lands proposed for development beyond those covered by the proposed HCP and for which incidental take is authorized would require a new effects analysis and/or reevaluation of the HCP, a new or amended conservation strategy, consultation with the USFWS and CDFG, and issuance of incidental take permits.

The HCP conservation measures evaluated in this EIR/EIS address the 17,500 acres of planned development.

Although future annexation proposals and related development of the identified area under consideration for annexation may contribute to cumulative impacts to the resources within the Natomas basin, no specific development projects have been proposed. Consequently, these effects are considered speculative at this time. Because the HCP’s operating conservation program is based upon limiting total development within the City and Sutter’s respective permit areas to 15,517 acres and limiting CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
E042002017SAC/161795(004.DOC) REVISED NATOMAS BASIN HCP 4-9

EIR/EIS
development of Metro Air Park to 1,983 acres within the plan area, approval of additional development in Sacramento County would constitute a significant departure from the HCP’s operating conservation plan and would trigger a new effects analysis, a new conservation strategy, and issuance of incidental take permits to Sacramento County for that additional development.
/g183 Sacramento International Airport. Sacramento County currently owns approximately 5,575 acres of land for Sacramento International Airport. The Airport could undertake new construction activities on its lands (e.g., extending runways, expanding terminals), but specific development plans are still in the early stages of preparation. In addition, Sacramento County is considering expanding the airport outside of the current boundary to include a third runway, potentially requiring from 200 to 800 acres of additional lands. Currently, alternatives are being considered for the runway expansion, and could include additional lands to the west or north of the airport. The Master Plan Study is not expected to be completed until 2003, and physical expansion beyond the current airport boundaries is therefore speculative at this time. /g183 Sacramento River East Levee Projects. Several projects along the east levee of the Sacramento River related to water supply and flood control/drainage improvements are currently under consideration. These projects include:
/g45 Natomas Mutual pumping plant consolidation. Natomas Mutual operates three pumping plants along the Sacramento River, and is currently studying the potential for consolidating these pumping stations into one unit and installing state-of-the-art fish screens. This project would likely include additional canal improvements along the western boundary of the Natomas Basin. Detailed engineering plans and environmental review of this project have not been initiated at this time. /g45 Urban water intake. Several municipal/industrial water users in the northern Sacramento region are studying the potential for a new urban water intake from the Sacramento River. This project would require a new pipeline from the river to convey water to urban areas east of the Natomas Basin. The feasibility of this project is currently being studied, but detailed engineering plans and environmental documents have not been prepared.
/g45 Levee improvements. The ACOE has received congressional authorization to raise the Sacramento River east levee and conduct additional improvements to the east levee and to the Cross Canal levees. Preliminary engineering plans are currently being revised, and environmental documentation is expected to be prepared late in 2002. /g183 Highway Improvements. Two projects are under consideration for traffic and circulation improvements in Sutter County, as follows.
/g45 S.R. 99/70 – Riego Road Interchange. Sutter County is preparing a Project Report for a partial cloverleaf interchange to replace the existing traffic signal at S.R. 99/70 and Riego Road. The partial cloverleaf design will require property acquisition outside of the current right-of-way. It is expected that the Project Report will be completed following the adoption of the South Sutter County Specific Plan.

CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
4-10 REVISED NATOMAS BASIN HCP E042002017SAC/161795(004.DOC)

EIR/EIS
/g45 Placer Parkway. The Placer County Transportation Planning Authority recently completed a Project Study Report for the proposed Placer Parkway, a new east-west expressway that would connect S.R. 65 north of Rocklin with S.R. 99/70 in South Sutter County. The preferred alignment identified in the Project Study Report places Placer Parkway entirely in the Industrial-Commercial Reserve, and would therefore be subject to the HCP without additional amendments. The final alignment, however, has not been selected, and may include lands that are not considered in Sutter County’s 7,467-acre development area proposed to be covered under the ITPs. /g183 Public Transit Corridor. Regional Transit (RT) is currently studying alternatives for a new transit corridor from the Amtrak depot in downtown Sacramento to Sacramento International Airport. RT’s alternatives analysis study for this Downtown-Natomas- Airport (DNA) corridor is expected to be completed in 2003. In the Natomas Basin, most of the DNA corridor would be located in the City of Sacramento or Metro Air Park, but a portion of the corridor between S.R. 99/70 and Metro Air Park is in unincorporated Sacramento County (Greenbriar Farms area). Development of the DNA corridor in this area would likely occur within the term of the HCP.

4.1.3 Previous Evaluation of Effects of Covered Activities Direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts associated with construction of the authorized land development activities (i.e., the ITPs covered activities for the land use agencies) have been evaluated in the EIR for the City of Sacramento General Plan Update (City of Sacramento, 1987) and the EIR for the Sutter County General Plan (Sutter County, 1996c). Subsequent environmental review of direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts has occurred for the North and South Natomas Community Plans and for the Metro Air Park Area Plan, and for specific land development projects in the Natomas Basin including the Sysco distribution center in Sutter County and various neighborhoods in North and South Natomas. The planned development that would be covered by the issuance of ITPs to the City and Sutter County has been addressed in the land use agencies’ respective General Plans and the associated environmental documents. Environmental review of land development also was recently completed for the South Sutter County Specific Plan. Additional environmental review is anticipated for specific future development projects in North Natomas, South Natomas, and in the South Sutter County Specific Plan area.

The analysis in this chapter of the EIR/EIS builds on and incorporates the prior extensive environmental analysis of urban development and infrastructure development included in the environmental documents prepared for the City of Sacramento General Plan EIR, the South Natomas Community Plan EIR, the North Natomas Community Plan EIR and Supplemental EIR, and the Sutter County General Plan EIR/EIS. The USFWS reviewed the impacts identified in these documents as part of its NEPA review and determined that these impacts would continue to result from underlying development authorized by the City and Sutter County, which would allow proceeding with the ITPs.

The following documents provide extensive background information, impact analyses, and adopted mitigation measures that help form the basis of environmental documentation and mitigation in the Natomas Basin. The documents below are incorporated by reference into this EIR/EIS and can be reviewed at the City of Sacramento Environmental Services office CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
E042002017SAC/161795(004.DOC) REVISED NATOMAS BASIN HCP 4-11

EIR/EIS
located at 1231 I St., Suite 300, Sacramento, California, and at the USFWS offices at 2800 Cottage Way, Sacramento, California.
/g183 Draft EIR for the City of Sacramento General Plan Update (SGPU DEIR), (City of Sacramento, 1987)
/g183 Draft Supplement to the 1996 North Natomas Community Plan EIR (City of Sacramento, 1993) /g183 Draft EIR for the South Natomas Community Plan (City of Sacramento, 1988c) /g183 Draft EIR for the Sutter County Comprehensive General Plan Revision (Sutter County, 1996c) /g183 Draft EIR for the North Natomas Comprehensive Drainage Plan (City of Sacramento, 1996b) /g183 City of Sacramento General Plan Update (City of Sacramento, 1988a) /g183 Sutter County General Plan 2015 (Sutter County, 1996a) Planned development within Sutter County is based on development levels described in the Sutter County General Plan 2015 (Sutter County, 1996a). Similar to the City’s General Plan, the Sutter County General Plan 2015 outlines the goals, policies, and land use patterns for future development in Sutter County. The EIR for the General Plan (Sutter County, 1996c) describes the overall environmental effects of this development, and includes additional mitigation requirements where appropriate.

For the lands to be developed within the Industrial-Commercial Reserve in Sutter County, 85 percent of the land use would be for industrial uses and 15 percent would be for commercial uses (Sutter County, 1996a). Other than specifying the total amount of development allowed and the ratio of allowable uses within the Industrial-Commercial Reserve, the Sutter County General Plan does not specify or plan the actual pattern of development. According to the Sutter County General Plan Update (Sutter County, 1996b), the County finds that it is likely that development would not occur on an incremental basis and that an urban core would be surrounded by an agricultural border. Each development project would be considered by the County on the basis of its merits and general plan consistency purposes. Sutter County prepared a draft Specific Plan for the first 3,500 acres of development within the Industrial- Commercial Reserve. An EIR for that plan has been prepared.

The impacts and mitigation measures for the land use agencies’ covered activities are described in these documents and summarized within the separate resource area sections in this chapter. In addition, the impacts, mitigation measures, and findings of these environmental documents are summarized in Appendix C. These prior analyses considered the effects of planned development, including cumulative effects, within each land use agency's permit area. The impacts identified in these previous environmental reviews, therefore, are assessments of the planned development that is a covered activity under the Proposed Action in this EIR/EIS. The assessments in the prior environmental documents, therefore, disclose the impacts and provide the mitigation measures for the planned development (see Appendix C).

The alternatives in the previous environmental documents also address revised development scenarios and the alternatives evaluated in this EIR/EIS focus on revised mitigation ratios. One of these alternatives (Alternative 4) could result in changes to the CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
4-12 REVISED NATOMAS BASIN HCP E042002017SAC/161795(004.DOC)

EIR/EIS
planned development, but these changes would be reductions in development. As a result, the impacts attributable to Alternative 4 would be less than those identified in prior environmental review documents (see Appendix C). The alternatives in this EIR/EIS would not result in planned development in excess of 17,500 acres and, therefore, the impacts of implementing the alternatives would be less than significant.

In addition, impacts attributable to independent implementation by either the City or Sutter County of the planned development that is a covered activity in the HCP would be the same or less than those analyzed in the previous environmental documents. Under independent implementation, either the City or Sutter County would proceed with planned development (i.e., impacts of less than planned development would be less than the Proposed Action and, therefore, less than significant.

In instances where the impacts from land development have not been addressed in previous documents, the need for additional mitigation is considered in this EIR/EIS. (Also see Sections 2.1 and 2.3 for a discussion of the permittees and their covered activities).

Additional supporting documentation of existing procedures, regulations, and standards are relied upon in the analysis in this EIR/EIS. These additional supporting materials are incorporated by reference:
/g183 City of Sacramento Comprehensive Zoning Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance. /g183 City of Sacramento, City Code, Chapter 45, Trees. /g183 City of Sacramento. 1995. Manual of Standards for the Design of New Development Onsite Stormwater Quality Control Measures, Vol. 5 City/County Drainage Manual. Final Draft.

January 23.
/g183 City of Sacramento Ground Water Discharge Ordinance (Resolution No. 92-439). /g183 City of Sacramento. City Code, Chapter 9.26 1001 et. Seq. Regarding Floodplain Management Uniform Building Code Section 70.
/g183 California Division of Mines and Geology. Geologic Map of Sacramento Quadrangle. 1987. /g183 Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District, 1991. Sacramento 1991 Air Quality Attainment Plan. Sacramento, CA.
/g183 Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District. 1994a. Air Quality Thresholds of Significance. Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District, Sacramento, California. December.
/g183 The City of Sacramento Grading Ordinance No. 93-068.

4.1.4 Approach to Analysis of Independent Implementation by Individual Permittees Both the Proposed Action and the alternatives, as defined in Chapter 2: Proposed Action and Alternatives, are based on the premise that the City, Sutter County, and the Natomas Basin Conservancy will concurrently seek ITPs for the covered activities implemented by each of the permittees within its sphere of authority and/or jurisdictions. RD 1000 and Natomas Mutual are currently considering participation as joint applicants. The Proposed Action CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
E042002017SAC/161795(004.DOC) REVISED NATOMAS BASIN HCP 4-13

EIR/EIS
includes proposed conservation measures for the water agencies’ covered activities, and these measures are included in the environmental review in this EIR/EIS (along with those of the City, Sutter County, and the Conservancy) to provide a comprehensive assessment of potential impacts as a result of implementing the Proposed Action. The water agencies do not, however, anticipate filing applications for permits at this time (see Section 1.2.1 for a discussion of the history and status of the water agencies’ participation in the HCP development and in this EIR/EIS). In addition to the evaluation of impacts if all applicants submit permit applications, this EIR/EIS also includes an analysis on the impacts of HCP implementation by individual permit applicants. The intent is to identify any additional impacts not previously analyzed and mitigated in prior environmental documentation for the covered activities.

For each of the resource areas in this chapter, an analysis is included of the impacts anticipated to occur with independent implementation of the HCP. The potential impacts of implementation by individual permittees are assessed within the separate resource area sections in this chapter, and are presented at the end of the individual resource sections. (Also see Section 2.1 and 2.3 for a discussion of the permittees and their covered activities.) Overall, the HCP contains mechanisms to assess incrementally the effects of implementing the HCP conservation measures, including the scenario of independent implementation by the individual permittees. The two mechanisms include: (1) an overall program review that would be conducted when urban development of 9,000 acres has been reached and (2) an independent mid point review that applies only to the land use agencies. The intent of these reviews is to recognize that uncertainties exist in the HCP plan implementation, including levels of development, program adaptations related to the future giant garter snake recovery plan, possible development of a Swainson’s hawk recovery plan, and the ultimate location of the habitat reserves. Although the adaptive management program of the HCP is designed to address many of these uncertainties, the overall and midpoint review programs are intended to supplement these other HCP provisions. These review mechanisms are described briefly below and in detail in Sections VI.I and VI.J of the HCP. /g183 Overall program review: This would occur after 9,000 acres of urban development have been completed. During that review, an additional 3,000 acres (but not more than 12,000 acres) could be developed. Issues that would be evaluated include: (1) the status and population trends of the giant garter snake, Swainson’s hawk and all other covered species; (2) status and effectiveness of the habitat reserve system, including its buffer and setback requirements; (3) the success of the HCP in meeting the 2,500- and 400-acre-minimum habitat block size requirements (4) the status and effectiveness of the HCP funding mechanisms; (5) the relative status and distribution of developed lands and reserve lands within each of the land use agencies’ jurisdictions; (6) the success of the 25 percent managed marsh/50 percent rice ratio for supporting giant garter snakes; (7) compliance by the water agencies with approved canal and ditch maintenance practices. /g183 Independent midpoint review for land use agencies: In addition to the overall review, both the City and Sutter County would conduct independent midpoint reviews to provide additional assurances that the HCP’s objectives are being achieved, in the event that development occurs more rapidly than projected or if one of the land use agencies discontinues participation in the HCP.

CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
4-14 REVISED NATOMAS BASIN HCP E042002017SAC/161795(004.DOC)

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

4.2 Geology and Soils
This section describes geological hazards and impacts to soil resources resulting from implementation of the Proposed Action or the alternatives. For geology and soils, the Proposed Action would have a significant impact if it would:
/g183 Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death
/g183 Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse
/g183 Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil The analysis in this section concludes that no hazard-related impacts could occur, and that erosion resulting from the activities of heavy construction equipment during the Conservancy’s habitat-development activities would be minor. Additional discussion of the secondary water quality and air quality effects associated with erosion are described in Section 4.3 (Water Resources) and Section 4.10 (Air Quality).

As discussed in Section 4.1.3, the covered activities associated with the Proposed Action have been analyzed in previous environmental documents, and the collective findings of the previous analysis for geology and soils are presented in Appendix C and briefly summarized here to provide context for the action being evaluated in this EIR/EIS (See Chapter 2: Proposed Action and Alternatives). (Also see Section 4.1.3 for a list of environmental review documents applicable to the permittees’ covered activities and the location at which they are available for review). As a result of these analyses, both the City Council of the City of Sacramento and the Sutter County Board of Supervisors determined that the geology and soils impacts associated with urban development would be less than significant with the implementation of mitigation requirements. Such requirements include geotechnical studies to ensure safe buildings and best management practices to minimize and control erosion.

4.2.1 Proposed Action

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

CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
E042002017SAC/161795(004.DOC) REVISED NATOMAS BASIN HCP 4-15

EIR/EIS
Earthmoving activities would be limited to parcels acquired for habitat reserves requiring restoration or conversion to managed marsh and, potentially, upland habitat. For example, the current management plan for restoring habitat on the Betts-Kismat-Silva property (338 acres) includes the following activities (Natomas Basin Conservancy, 2001):
/g183 Excavation and grading (totaling over 190,000 cubic yards due to the majority of the site being restored to managed marsh and grassland) using scrapers, dozers, graders, and other heavy construction equipment
/g183 Site-specific placement of fill material in berms and levees /g183 Construction of ditches, swales, and underground pipelines to carry irrigation water /g183 Installation of water control structures at precise elevations /g183 Fine grading and soil preparation
Impacts associated with these and similar activities are expected to occur wherever habitat development would occur in the study area. Such activities are likely to occur on lands converted to managed marsh and on the portion of the upland reserves converted to native habitat. With completion of the planned development covered activities, several thousand acres of reserve lands could be affected. Potential soil hazards associated with grading and backfilling (such as increasing the potential for unstable soil conditions, liquefaction, lateral spreading, or subsidence) would not result in significant impacts because, in general, the composition of the soils would not be changed as a result of creating the habitat reserves.

Developed uses associated with the creation of reserves would be minor or negligible (e.g., water control structures), and implementing the Proposed Action would not increase the likelihood of people being exposed to geological hazards. Permanent inhabited structures are not proposed for the habitat reserves and, therefore, no people or structures would be subject to geologic or soil-related hazards that could occur in the area.

Temporary, localized erosion could occur on the reserves during the creation of habitat reserves as a result of bare soils being exposed to rain and wind. This is a potentially significant impact. Mitigation is recommended for the secondary water quality and air quality effects of this temporary erosion, as described in Sections 4.3 (Water Resources) and

4.10 (Air Quality). Because of the extent of revegetation anticipated under the site-specific management plans for the reserves (see Section IV.D. of the HCP), no long-term erosion impacts would occur.

Potential ongoing erosion impacts associated with activities conducted by both the Conservancy on the habitat reserves and by RD 1000 and Natomas Mutual as part of their ongoing management generally would result from farming and vehicle use on access roads.

Erosion impacts would be similar to current conditions and, therefore, no impacts would occur.

4.2.1.2 Mitigation
Mitigation for temporary erosion impacts is described in Section 4.3 (Water Resources) and Section 4.10 (Air Quality). No other mitigation is required for geology and soil impacts because impacts would be less than significant.

CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
4-16 REVISED NATOMAS BASIN HCP E042002017SAC/161795(004.DOC)

EIR/EIS

4.2.1.3 Level of Significance After Mitigation
Temporary erosion impacts would be reduced to a less-than-significant level with implementation of mitigation measures described in Section 4.3 (Water Resources) and

4.10 (Air Quality). Other impacts would be less than significant without mitigation.

4.2.2 Alternative 1. Increased Mitigation

4.2.2.1 Impacts With Participation by All Permittees
Implementation of Alternative 1 would require mitigation of 17,500 acres of land, pursuant to a 1:1 mitigation ratio for new development. The types of potential geology and soil impacts that could occur as a result of implementing Alternative 1 would be similar to the those occurring under the Proposed Action, as described in Section 4.2.1.1 above. Because structural improvements and human habitation are not planned, no impacts associated with geological and soil-related hazards, including hazards to humans, would occur. Temporary, localized erosion could occur on the reserves during habitat development as a result of bare soils being exposed to rain and wind. This is a potentially significant impact, and mitigation is recommended for the secondary water- and air-quality effects associated with this temporary erosion, as described in Sections 4.3 (Water Resources) and 4.10 (Air Quality).

Because of the extent of revegetation anticipated under the site-specific management plans (see Section IV.D. of the HCP), no long-term erosion impacts would occur.

Potential ongoing erosion impacts associated with activities, both as conducted by the Conservancy on the habitat reserves and as conducted by RD 1000 and Natomas Mutual, generally would result from farming and vehicle use on access roads. Erosion impacts would be similar to current conditions, and therefore no impacts would occur.

4.2.2.2 Mitigation
Mitigation for temporary erosion impacts is described in Section 4.3 (Water Resources) and Section 4.10 (Air Quality). No other mitigation is required for geology and soil impacts because impacts would be less than significant.

4.2.2.3 Level of Significance After Mitigation
Temporary erosion impacts would be reduced to a less-than-significant level with implementation of mitigation measures described in Section 4.3 (Water Resources) and

4.10 (Air Quality). Other impacts would be less than significant without mitigation.

4.2.3 Alternative 2. Habitat-based Mitigation
Implementation of Alternative 2 would require the acquisition of 17,763 acres of land for mitigation pursuant to the habitat-based mitigation ratios described in Section 2.6.2. Because the mitigation acreage under Alternative 2 would be approximately the same as under Alternative 1, potential impacts to geology and soils as a result of developing habitat reserves would be approximately the same as described above for Alternative 1. As described for the Proposed Action, no impacts would occur as a result of RD 1000’s or Natomas Mutual’s activities, or as a result of ongoing Conservancy management of the habitat reserves.

CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
E042002017SAC/161795(004.DOC) REVISED NATOMAS BASIN HCP 4-17

EIR/EIS

4.2.4 Alternative 3. Reserve Zones
Alternative 3 focuses on the acquisition of habitat reserves in specific zones within the Natomas Basin, based on giant garter snake and Swainson’s hawk habitat availability. The acreage to be acquired and all other implementation requirements would be the same as the Proposed Action. The potential impact to geology and soils as a result of developing habitat reserves, therefore, would be the same as under the Proposed Action. As described for the Proposed Action, no impacts would occur as a result of RD 1000 or Natomas Mutual activities, or as a result of ongoing Conservancy management of the habitat reserves.

4.2.5 Alternative 4. Reduced Potential for Incidental Take Development of 12,000 acres under Alternative 4 would result in the acquisition of 6,000 acres of habitat reserves, using a 0.5:1 mitigation ratio. Compared with the Proposed Action, implementing Alternative 4 would result in less land being conserved as habitat reserves (6,000 acres under Alternative 4 versus 8,750 acres under the Proposed Action). The soils and geology impacts under this alternative would be similar to the Proposed Action but the temporary and localized impacts would affect a smaller area. The same mitigation measures recommended for the Proposed Action would be applied to this alternative and, as a result, impacts would remain less than significant after mitigation. As described for the Proposed Action, no impacts would occur as a result of RD 1000’s or Natomas Mutual’s covered activities, or as a result of ongoing Conservancy management of the habitat reserves.

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

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

4.2.7 Effects Under Independent Implementation
As discussed above, the only component of the Proposed Action with the potential to result in impacts to soils and geology is temporary, localized erosion during the creation of habitat reserves as a result of bare soils being exposed to rain and wind. Mitigation measures that include adherence to State Water Resources Control Board requirements and to dust abatement best management practices are included. They would mitigate these impacts to a less-than-significant level and are discussed in Sections 4.3 (Water Resources) and 4.10 (Air Quality). Regardless of whether one or more permittees participated in implementing the CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
4-18 REVISED NATOMAS BASIN HCP E042002017SAC/161795(004.DOC)

EIR/EIS
Proposed Action, these measures would still be applied and, therefore, impacts under independent implementation would not differ from impacts with participation by all permittees.

4.2.8 Cumulative Impacts
Cumulative impacts would include the additional effects associated with the implementation of other regional conservation activities (see Section 4.1.2). Potential effects on geology and soil resources associated with management activities in these areas would be similar to the effects described above in Section 4.2.1.1 (e.g., localized erosion). Temporary, localized erosion would occur as a result of bare soils being exposed to rain and wind. Impacts associated with other habitat conservation activities could affect erosion in the study area, but would not further impact erosion in the study area because these activities would not occur in the Natomas Basin or Area B. Therefore, cumulative impacts would not occur.

4.3 Water Resources
This section describes potential impacts to water resources resulting from implementation of the Proposed Action or the alternatives, including flooding and drainage, water quality, and water supply. For purposes of this analysis, the Proposed Action would have a significant impact if it were to:
/g183 Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving flooding
/g183 Substantially alter existing drainage patterns or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner that would result in flooding on- or off-site /g183 Create or contribute runoff water that would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff /g183 Violate water quality standards or waste discharge requirements /g183 Have insufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources
/g183 Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge
The analysis in this section concludes that no flood risk, drainage, or water supply impacts would occur. Similar to other types of development projects, activities associated with creation of habitat reserves (e.g., conversion to managed marsh) could contribute to stormwater quality impacts.

As discussed in Section 4.1.3, the covered activities associated with the Proposed Action have been analyzed in previous environmental documents, and the collective findings of the previous analysis for water resources are presented in Appendix C and briefly summarized here to provide context for the action being evaluated in this EIR/EIS (See Chapter 2:

Proposed Action and Alternatives). (Also see Section 4.1.3 for a list of environmental review documents applicable to the permittees’ covered activities and the location at which they are available for review.)
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
E042002017SAC/161795(004.DOC) REVISED NATOMAS BASIN HCP 4-19

EIR/EIS
The City Council of the City of Sacramento determined that environmental impacts associated with flooding and drainage, including the water quality effects of urban runoff, could probably be mitigated to a less-than-significant level through the implementation of the City’s Comprehensive Drainage Plan. At the time substantial new development was being planned for the Natomas Basin (the 1994 adoption of the North Natomas Community Plan), the Comprehensive Drainage Plan was still under review. Because the plan was not finalized, the City did not determine that impacts would be mitigated to a less-than- significant level, and considered impacts to flooding, drainage, and water quality significant and unavoidable. The City determined that providing drinking water to the development areas in North and South Natomas would result in less-than-significant environmental effects because the City’s existing surface water rights would ensure a supply of water that would exceed total demand (see Section 3.3).

In adopting the Sutter County General Plan, the Board of Supervisors determined that potentially significant flooding, drainage, water quality, and water supply impacts would occur, and determined that impacts could be mitigated to a less-than-significant level through the implementation of mitigation measures including future comprehensive planning (e.g., drainage) and site-specific evaluation during project review.

4.3.1 Proposed Action

4.3.1.1 Impacts With Participation by All Permittees
This section presents the potential flooding and drainage, water quality, and water supply impacts of the Proposed Action.

Flooding and Drainage
Implementation of the Proposed Action would result in the creation of 8,750 acres of habitat reserves, based on 17,500 acres of development and a 0.5:1 mitigation ratio. Habitat reserves would be established subject to the provisions of the HCP, including 50 percent of the reserve lands (4,750 acres) remaining in rice production, with the other 50 percent split between upland (including nonrice farming) and managed marsh habitats. As described in the HCP (Section IV.D) and in the Conservancy’s site-specific management plan (Natomas Basin Conservancy, 2001), the establishment of habitat reserves does not involve new human habitation, structural improvements, or impermeable surfaces and, therefore, would not result in significant flood hazards or hydrologic changes attributable to these factors.

Conservation measures to be implemented during activities by RD 1000 and Natomas Mutual have been developed in consideration of RD 1000’s flood control mandate.

Conservation measures in the HCP would be implemented to the extent practicable, subject to override in emergency conditions as defined in Section V.B.3.c of the HCP.

Water management practices on the habitat reserves would be similar to current agricultural water management and, therefore, would not result in substantive changes to existing hydrologic patterns in the study area. Up to 4,750 acres would remain in rice production. As described in the Conservancy’s management plan (Natomas Basin Conservancy, 2001), water management on Conservancy rice fields would be similar to existing rice production practices in the area (including winter flooding for straw decomposition). No impacts, therefore, are expected as a result of establishing habitat reserves for rice farming. In regard to managed marsh reserves, water management would vary slightly from typical CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
4-20 REVISED NATOMAS BASIN HCP E042002017SAC/161795(004.DOC)

EIR/EIS
agricultural practices. For example, a seasonal marsh would be similar to a flooded rice field in winter, but could be maintained in summer with less water than is required for a rice field. In addition, hydrologic patterns would be slightly altered to create the necessary contours (and water surface elevations) for seasonal/perennial marsh and open water habitats. These alterations are expected to result in minor changes in local hydrologic patterns, but the limited extent and geographic scope of these changes would be minor relative to the overall Natomas Basin drainage system, and would be less than significant.

Water Quality
The Proposed Action could increase the potential for contaminant loading to the drainage system, and ultimately to the Sacramento and American Rivers. Such impacts could occur as a result of constructing and operating the habitat reserves. Development of 17,500 acres would result in the need to establish 8,750 acres of habitat reserves. In accordance with the management objectives described in the HCP (Section IV.C), a substantial portion of the reserve areas would not undergo physical changes; for example, existing rice fields would likely remain in production in support of the HCP’s wetland habitat objectives. The wetland habitat objectives require that at least 25 percent of the reserves be managed marsh habitat, and heavy construction activities would be necessary to create this habitat. Although this construction would occur over time and in several different areas, potential water quality impacts could occur.

The two general categories of construction-related water quality impacts that typically occur during land development activities are: (1) increased water erosion and subsequent release of sediment into the drainage system, and (2) increased risk of pollutants from construction equipment (e.g., fuel, oil) being released into the drainage system. The federal Clean Water Act mandates that the potential for such water quality impacts be minimized, and statewide and local programs have been implemented pursuant to these requirements. At the state level, the State Water Resources Control Board has adopted a notification procedure for construction sites of more than 5 acres (to be reduced to 1 acre in late 2002), and a requirement for contractors to prepare and implement a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan. In the study area, these procedures are implemented by the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board. At the local level, the City of Sacramento and Sacramento County have adopted erosion control programs, consistent with the statewide program, requiring that specific best management practices be implemented. These requirements are described in the City’s Administrative and Technical Procedures Manual for Grading and Erosion and Sediment Control (City of Sacramento, 1994b) and the County’s Erosion and Sediment Control Standards and Specifications (County of Sacramento, 1997). At this time, Sutter County does not have a similar program. These construction-phase stormwater pollution-prevention requirements provide the regulatory basis for determining thresholds of significance.

Therefore, although Sutter County does not have a similar program, consistency with the City of Sacramento and Sacramento County programs is recommended as a requirement for developing the habitat reserves regardless of whether the reserves are to be located in Sacramento or Sutter County. Following these procedures is not a specific requirement of the HCP as proposed, and is not specifically required by the current management plan (Natomas Basin Conservancy, 2001). Accordingly, implementation of the Proposed Action could create or contribute runoff water that would provide additional sources of polluted runoff, which would be a significant impact.

CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
E042002017SAC/161795(004.DOC) REVISED NATOMAS BASIN HCP 4-21

EIR/EIS
Proposed activities on RD 1000 and Natomas Mutual’s system of canals and drains in the Natomas Basin include those that have the potential to affect water quality. For example, water agencies conduct maintenance dredging of the canal and drain system, using mechanical vegetation-removal equipment that could result in increased turbidity in the waterways. The covered activities of the water agencies are not, however, anticipated to differ from existing operation and management practices and, therefore, impacts attributable to the Proposed Action would be the same as those under existing conditions. These impacts would be less than significant with implementation of the HCP’s conservation measures because the water agencies’ activities are conducted in accordance with existing regulations and guidelines. Management activities associated with rodent control are described below under the discussion of the Conservancy.

The potential for water quality impacts as a result of the Conservancy’s ongoing operation of the habitat reserves is primarily related to the use of pesticides. Management of the habitat reserves would be similar to management of agricultural lands, especially for the reserve areas that remain in rice production. Rice farming typically involves the use of herbicides to control grasses and broad-leaved aquatic plants, and insecticides to control pest species such as rice water weevils and tadpole shrimp. Over the past 20 years, the primary regulatory focus has been directed toward the reform of rice herbicide use, primarily the herbicides molinate (Ordram®) and thiobencarb (Bolero®). Improved management practices (e.g., holding water on rice fields for a specified time following herbicide application) implemented by rice growers in the early 1980s, however, has substantively improved water quality conditions in downstream receiving waters. Maintaining consistency with these management practices is described in the Conservancy’s site-specific management plan (Natomas Basin Conservancy, 2001). Because management of Conservancy rice lands would not change relative to current management conditions, the impact from implementing the Proposed Action would be less than significant.

Herbicide use on managed marsh and upland areas would be limited to exotic weed control, as described in the HCP. Other pesticide use is expected to be similarly limited (e.g., controlling rodents in a manner that is not detrimental to giant garter snakes).

Therefore, no other water quality impacts are expected during ongoing management of the habitat reserves or for implementation of the water agencies’ management actions.

Water Supply
As described in Section 3.3, non-urban water supplies in the Natomas Basin are typically obtained from either Natomas Mutual (which holds water rights in trust), other riparian or pre-1914 surface water rights, or groundwater. Some of this water is available as tailwater in RD 1000’s system of drainage ditches. Existing surface water supplies in the Natomas Basin are highly reliable because of the seniority of Natomas Mutual’s water rights and the shallow, accessible groundwater table. The addition of the habitat reserve system is not expected to change overall water demands in the Natomas Basin because the timing and volume of water use on the reserve system would be similar to existing agricultural water use (see the discussion of water management under Flooding and Drainage, above).

Because water is an integral part of reserve management, the HCP includes a specific water availability requirement in its reserve land acquisition criteria:

Land has legal water rights to an adequate water supply to serve the anticipated uses (wetland or upland) of the proposed reserve. This would normally mean rights to water CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
4-22 REVISED NATOMAS BASIN HCP E042002017SAC/161795(004.DOC)

EIR/EIS
from the Natomas Mutual (or its equivalent supplier if outside the Basin), but may solely include groundwater if a groundwater well or wells exist on the property and that such wells can meet acceptable water quantity and quality needs. (Section IV.C.2.c.2) This objective is also supported in Section IV.C.3.b.3 of the HCP:

Blocks of reserve lands must also be hydrologically connected to other blocks through irrigation and drainage systems or other systems to ensure connectivity and opportunity for travel by giant garter snakes between sections of the reserve system.

The acquisition criteria (stated above) will help ensure that the Conservancy acquires lands with long-term water supply availability. Because of the reliability of existing water supplies and the acquisition criteria, the Conservancy is not expected to experience water supply deficiencies as it purchases lands and develops habitat reserves. It is anticipated that the reserves would use a level of irrigation comparable to what is used for existing rice crops and, therefore, the balance of water supply would not change substantially from existing uses. In the unlikely event that surface water supplies become unavailable, the Conservancy anticipates that groundwater supplies can be developed (Natomas Basin Conservancy, 2001). Such unforeseen projects are considered in the mitigation fee structure by the inclusion of a contingency fee. Overall, water supply impacts would be less than significant.

4.3.1.2 Mitigation
A potentially significant impact was identified in Section 4.3.1.1 above for water quality. The following mitigation measure is recommended to reduce potential construction-related stormwater pollution during the creation of habitat reserves.

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

4.3.1.3 Level of Significance After Mitigation
Implementation of this mitigation measure would ensure consistency with statewide and local programs for water quality control during construction, and therefore reduce impacts to a less-than-significant level.

CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
E042002017SAC/161795(004.DOC) REVISED NATOMAS BASIN HCP 4-23

EIR/EIS

4.3.2 Alternative 1. Increased Mitigation

4.3.2.1 Impacts With Participation by All Permittees
Implementation of Alternative 1 would require mitigation of 17,500 acres of land, pursuant to a 1:1 mitigation ratio for new development. Changes in hydrology associated with reserve development and water management and subsequent effects on flood control, drainage, and water supply would be greater under Alternative 1 than under the Proposed Action because of the increased acreage requiring physical changes to improve habitat conditions. The types of changes, however, would be similar to the types of effects described for the Proposed Action (see Section 4.3.1.1 above). For the same reasons as described above for the Proposed Action, the extent of these changes and the similarity of habitat reserve management to existing agricultural practices is not expected to result in significant impacts to flood control and water supply in the Natomas Basin.

Development of habitat reserves would result in land disturbance, which has the potential to result in a significant impact to water quality because of the generation of sediment and the potential for the spill of construction fuels (see Section 4.3.1.1). The extent of land disturbance associated with reserve development activities would likely exceed 5 acres in size (the threshold for submitting an NOI under the statewide construction stormwater program). As described in Section 4.3.1.1, development activities occurring on the habitat reserves should follow local and statewide requirements for construction-phase stormwater pollution prevention.

Impacts associated with activities by RD 1000 and Natomas Mutual would be the same as described in Section 4.3.1.1. The potential for impacts or benefits would not change because the extent of the activities would not increase under Alternative 1 relative to current conditions.

The potential for water quality impacts during the Conservancy’s ongoing operation of the habitat reserves under Alternative 1 is primarily related to the use of pesticides. As described in Section 4.3.1.1 above, management of the habitat reserves would be similar to management of agricultural lands. Because management of Conservancy rice lands would be similar to current management conditions, water quality impacts would be less than significant.

4.3.2.2 Mitigation
A potentially significant water quality impact was identified in Section 4.3.2.1, associated with reserve development activity. The geographical extent of reserve development would be greater under Alternative 1, but participation in the regional stormwater control program is expected to continue to provide adequate water-quality mitigation. Accordingly, implementing the mitigation measure described under the Proposed Action (Section 4.3.1.2) is also recommended for Alternative 1.

4.3.2.3 Level of Significance After Mitigation
Implementation of the stormwater control program would ensure consistency with statewide and local programs for water quality control during construction, and therefore reduce impacts to a less-than-significant level.

CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
4-24 REVISED NATOMAS BASIN HCP E042002017SAC/161795(004.DOC)

EIR/EIS

4.3.3 Alternative 2. Habitat-based Mitigation
Implementation of Alternative 2 would require the acquisition of 17,763 acres of land for mitigation pursuant to the habitat-based mitigation ratios described in Section 2.6.2. Because the mitigation acreage under Alternative 2 would be approximately the same as under Alternative 1, potential impacts to water resources as a result of habitat reserve development would be approximately the same as described above for the Proposed Action and Alternative 1. Accordingly, implementing the mitigation measure described under the Proposed Action (Section 4.3.1.2) is also recommended for Alternative 2. As described for the Proposed Action, impact from RD 1000’s or Natomas Mutual’s activities, or from ongoing Conservancy management of the habitat reserves would be less than significant.

4.3.4 Alternative 3. Reserve Zones
Alternative 3 focuses the acquisition of habitat reserves of specific zones within the Natomas Basin based on giant garter snake and Swainson’s hawk habitat availability. The acreage to be acquired and all other implementation requirements would be the same as the Proposed Action. Therefore, the potential impact to water resources as a result of implementing this alternative would be the same as for the Proposed Action. Implementing the mitigation measure described under the Proposed Action (Section 4.3.1.2) is also recommended for Alternative 3. As described for the Proposed Action, no impacts would occur as a result of RD 1000’s or Natomas Mutual’s activities, or as a result of ongoing Conservancy management of the habitat reserves.

4.3.5 Alternative 4. Reduced Potential for Incidental Take Development of 12,000 acres under Alternative 4 would result in the acquisition of 6,000 acres of habitat reserves, based on a 0.5:1 mitigation ratio. Compared with the Proposed Action , implementing Alternative 4 would result in less land being conserved as habitat reserves (6,000 acres under Alternative 4 versus 8,750 acres under the Proposed Action). Because less land would be converted to habitat reserves under Alternative 4, the potential for flooding and drainage, water quality, and water supply impacts relative to the Proposed Action would decrease. The potential for water quality impacts to occur during grading to create managed marsh and other habitat areas, although reduced under Alternative 4, would nevertheless require disturbance of over 5 acres of land, and therefore warrants the adoption of mitigation (see Section 4.3.1.2). As described for the Proposed Action, no impacts would occur as a result of RD 1000’s or Natomas Mutual’s activities, or as a result of ongoing Conservancy management of the habitat reserves.

4.3.6 Alternative 5. No Action Alternative
Implementation of the HCP and establishment of the habitat reserve system described under the Proposed Action and the other alternatives would not occur under the No Action Alternative, and no take permits would be issued to the applicants. As discussed in Section

2.6.5, planned land development and the associated mitigation for biological resources impacts would still occur. It is expected, however, that such mitigation would require active habitat restoration efforts, resulting in similar effects as described above for the Proposed Action and the other alternatives. These activities would be similar to current land management practices in the Natomas Basin and similar habitat areas, and are not expected to result in substantially different impacts relative to current conditions. Stormwater runoff CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
E042002017SAC/161795(004.DOC) REVISED NATOMAS BASIN HCP 4-25

EIR/EIS
control requirements consistent with the statewide program would be required during these individual mitigation activities.

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

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

4.3.7 Effects Under Independent Implementation
As discussed above (Section 4.3.1.1), conversion of agricultural lands to habitat reserves, especially to managed marsh, could result in impacts to water resources. If the Proposed Action were implemented independently (including the creation of habitat reserves and the implementation of conservation measures in the HCP), water resources impacts would remain the same as if all permittees participated in implementation. If either the City or Sutter County did not participate in implementing the Proposed Action, fewer acres would initially be affected because the acreage of reserve development would decrease commensurate with reduced land development. Although the water resources impacts under independent implementation would be comparable to the Proposed Action, they would initially apply to fewer areas. It is anticipated, however, that land development would still occur in either the City or Sutter County (even if one jurisdiction did not participate) because development would occur on a project-by-project basis (see Section 2.6.5).

The initial curtailment of development would not result in different impacts to flood control, drainage, or water supply concerns because of the limited effects of reserve development on these resources in the study area. The initial reduced extent of planned development would reduce potential water quality effects, but construction activities over 5 acres would still occur and, therefore, implementation of the mitigation measure described in Section 4.3.1.2 would still be required.

If only the City or Sutter County participated, the Conservancy would still manage the acquired reserves. The water resources impacts would not differ from the Proposed Action, and the proposed mitigation measures would still apply.

If only RD 1000 and Natomas Mutual participated, the effects would be comparable to those described above for just the participation of either the City or Sutter County (except that development would occur only on a project-by-project basis and, therefore, the water resources impacts would be the same but would be realized over a longer period of time).

As discussed in Section IV.C.1.d of the HCP and shown in Figure 17 of the HCP, the water agencies would also maintain canals critical to the operations of their systems. As a result, if the water agencies did not participate, connectivity for giant garter snakes would be maintained because the water agencies’ lack of participation would not result in system alterations that would adversely affect access of the giant garter snake to critical habitat.

All impacts would remain less than significant with mitigation, if independent implementation were to occur.

CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
4-26 REVISED NATOMAS BASIN HCP E042002017SAC/161795(004.DOC)

EIR/EIS

4.3.8 Cumulative Impacts
Cumulative impacts would include the additional effects associated with the implementation of other regional conservation activities (see Section 4.1.2). As described above, potential effects to drainage and flood control associated with the Proposed Actions are related to minor changes (i.e., less-than-significant) in water management. Impacts associated with projects evaluated for cumulative impacts could similarly affect flooding conditions in the study area, but would not adversely affect flood control conditions in the study area because these activities would not occur within the Natomas Basin or Area B and, therefore, no cumulative impacts would occur.

Potential water quality impacts of the development of habitat reserves (primarily managed marsh areas) include erosion (and subsequent sediment generation) and fuel spills associated with heavy construction activities. Pursuant to the mitigation requirements (Section 4.3.1.2), the Conservancy would follow local procedures for stormwater control and submit NOIs to the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board for each development activity of more than 5 acres in size. Similar procedures and controls would be implemented during construction related to other habitat-conservation planning projects.

Such measures would achieve consistency with the statewide program for mitigating stormwater impacts construction activity, which is designed to minimize the cumulative, nonpoint water pollution effects of development activities. Accordingly, cumulative effects would remain less than significant with implementation of these measures.

Water supply impacts would be less than significant because of the similarity of water use on the habitat reserves to existing water use in the study area. Water supply impacts associated with other habitat conservation activities could affect water supply conditions in each local project area, but would not affect water supply conditions in the study area because these activities would not occur in the Natomas Basin or Area B. Therefore, cumulative impacts would not occur.

4.4 Biological Resources
The purpose of this section is to identify and describe potential impacts to biological resources resulting from implementation of the Proposed Action and alternatives. This section is organized in the following subsections:
/g183 Methodology (Section 4.4.1)
/g183 Significance Thresholds (Section 4.4.2)
/g183 Previous Evaluation of Effects of Covered Activities (Section 4.4.3) /g183 Changes to Habitat from Covered Activities (Section 4.4.4) /g183 Proposed Action (Section 4.4.5)
/g183 Alternative 1 – Increased Mitigation (Section 4.4.6) /g183 Alternative 2 – Habitat-based Mitigation (Section 4.4.7) /g183 Alternative 3 – Reserve Zones (Section 4.4.8)
/g183 Alternative 4 – Reduced Potential for Incidental Take (Section 4.4.9) /g183 Alternative 5 – No Action Alternative (Section 4.4.10) /g183 Effects Under Independent Implementation (Section 4.4.11) /g183 Cumulative Impacts (Section 4.4.12)
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
E042002017SAC/161795(004.DOC) REVISED NATOMAS BASIN HCP 4-27

EIR/EIS
As noted in Section 4.1.1, the issuance of ITPs has the potential to result in significant impacts to biological resources because the decision to issue ITPs indicates the potential for the take of a species covered by the ITPs. Overall, the approval and implementation of the HCP would offset the impacts and mitigate the effects of take to a level that is less than significant. Additional mitigation measures (i.e., other than those in the HCP) are in Section

4.4.5.4 of this EIR/EIS.

4.4.1 Methodology
To assist in the analysis of expected habitat changes, standard categories of existing land uses and a GIS land-use database were developed to provide a framework for predicting future land area assigned to each of these categories (the methodology for developing the assessment database is also discussed in Section 3.4 because it was used as the basis for updating 1997 conditions to create an updated baseline). The year 1997 is the initial year in which land use characteristics in the permit areas 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. The database includes land-use data from the Department of Water Resources (which are updated as described in Section 3.3 of this EIR/EIS), the City of Sacramento, Sutter County, RD 1000, Natomas Mutual, and the Conservancy.

An additional component of the GIS land-use database is the system of canals and drains owned and maintained by RD 1000 and Natomas Mutual. Existing digital information on the canals and drains was obtained from RD 1000 and Natomas Mutual and added to the database as linear features. Based on field data and information from Natomas Mutual, 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).

Following the completion of the baseline scenario described above, the last step in the development of the database was to project a future-land-use scenario corresponding to build-out conditions in the Natomas Basin. This build-out condition includes the planned land-development activities of the City and Sutter County, and also includes the development of the Metro Air Park (MAP) project in unincorporated Sacramento County. (See Chapter 2: Proposed Action and Alternatives, for a description of the permittees’ covered activities and for the rationale for including the acreage of the MAP project in the analysis of the Proposed Action in this EIR/EIS).

4.4.2 Significance Thresholds
For the purposes of this analysis, implementation of the Proposed Action and alternatives would have a significant effect on biological resources if they would:
/g183 Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any special-status species
/g183 Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
4-28 REVISED NATOMAS BASIN HCP E042002017SAC/161795(004.DOC)

EIR/EIS
/g183 Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means /g183 Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites
/g183 Substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species (such as causing a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels), threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, or reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal

4.4.3 Previous Evaluation of Effects of Covered Activities As discussed in Section 4.1.3, the covered activities associated with the Proposed Action have been analyzed in previous environmental documents, and the collective findings of the previous analysis for biological resources are presented in Appendix C and briefly summarized here to provide context for the action being evaluated in this EIR/EIS (see Chapter 2: Proposed Action and Alternatives). (Also see Section 4.1.3 for a list of environmental review documents applicable to the permittees’ covered activities and the location at which they are available for review.) The biological resources impacts identified in the previous review of planned development are as follows:
/g183 The City determined that impacts to the following habitats and species would be a significant and unavoidable consequence of implementing the 1988 General Plan Update: riparian habitat, habitat along creeks and canals, fence-row habitat, vernal pools, special-status plant species, Swainson’s hawk, white-tailed kite, giant garter snake, valley elderberry longhorn beetle, and water birds (associated with loss of agricultural habitat). The City adopted partial mitigation to address these impacts (e.g., preservation of habitat where feasible), but impacts could not be mitigated to a less-than-significant level.
/g183 The City determined that impacts to the following habitats and species, as a consequence of implementing the 1988 General Plan Update, would be less than significant: heritage trees, annual grasslands, old fields, bald eagle, peregrine falcon, long-billed curlew, western yellow-billed cuckoo, least Bell’s vireo, tricolored blackbird, California tiger salamander, thicktail chub, Sacramento anthicid beetle, golden eagle, ringtail, river otter, bank swallow, and burrowing owl. /g183 The City determined that the biological impacts associated with implementing the South Natomas Community Plan would be consistent with the impacts identified for implementation of the General Plan.
/g183 The City determined that impacts to the following habitats and species would be a significant and unavoidable consequence of implementing the North Natomas Community Plan: seasonal wetland values provided by rice fields, giant garter snake, and other agricultural lands that provide Swainson’s hawk foraging habitat.

CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
E042002017SAC/161795(004.DOC) REVISED NATOMAS BASIN HCP 4-29

EIR/EIS
/g183 The City determined that impacts to wetlands and to Swainson’s hawk and burrowing owl nesting areas, as a consequence of implementing the North Natomas Community Plan, would be less than significant with the adoption of appropriate mitigation measures (e.g., avoiding active nest areas). Impacts to other special-species plant and animal species evaluated in the EIR would be less than significant with a mitigation measure to conduct preconstruction surveys.
/g183 Sutter County determined that, as a consequence of implementing the Sutter County General Plan, impacts to wetlands and canal habitat and to species associated with rice fields would be less than significant with the implementation of mitigation measures, including conducting preconstruction surveys, establishing temporary buffers around Swainson’s hawk nest trees and wetlands, and establishing permanent buffers around canals.

Additional information for species not proposed for coverage in the ITPs is provided in the section below entitled “Other Special-Status Species.”

4.4.4 Changes to Habitat from Covered Activities
To provide context for the analysis of impacts to biological resources, the following discussion summarizes the changes to land use that would occur in the Natomas Basin as a result of planned development. (Planned urban development is a covered activity of the ITPs and is discussed in Section 2.3 of this EIR/EIS.)
Urban development would occur in the Natomas Basin and, under the Proposed Action, fees would be collected in conjunction with this development and a system of permanent habitat preserves would be acquired. Urban development would occur on a total of 17,500 acres in the Natomas Basin distributed among the City of Sacramento, Sutter County, and Metro Air Park as shown in Table 4-1. This development would result in the conversion of 17,500 acres in the Natomas Basin to urban and associated uses. The Proposed Action specifies acquisition and preservation of 0.5 acre of habitat reserves for every 1 acre of land developed in the study area. Thus, approximately 8,750 acres of land would be acquired by the Conservancy (or conservation easement purchased) and managed and protected as habitat reserves.

TABLE 4-1
Acreage of Urban Development Covered by the Proposed Action Jurisdiction Acreage
City of Sacramento 8,050
Sutter County 7,467
Metro Air Park 1,983
Total 17,500
Source: Natomas Basin Habitat Conservation Plan, July 2002 The anticipated future land-use acreages in the Natomas Basin with 17,500 acres of urban development are shown in Table 4-2. This table shows the allocation of planned development for each land use agency permit area. Subsequent tables in Section 4.4 are derived from these data. Table 4-2 and Table 4-4 provide reference information only on the acreage changes that represent potential habitat for the covered species (see Section 2.1 and Table 2-1).

CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
4-30 REVISED NATOMAS BASIN HCP E042002017SAC/161795(004.DOC)

EIR/EIS
As shown in Table 4-2, urban development predominantly would occur in the southern portion of the basin in the City of Sacramento and in the northern portion of the basin in Sutter County’s Industrial-Commercial Reserve. Most of the land converted to urban uses would be agricultural lands. Remaining portions of the basin outside of the development areas would be expected to remain predominantly in agriculture.

Canals and ditches also would be affected by urban development. Large canals (Class I) would persist in developed areas, but the smaller canals (Class II, III, and IV) would probably be removed (e.g., irrigation canals would be abandoned, drains would be replaced by pipelines) following urban development. Although Class I canals would remain, the habitat value of canals in areas subject to urban development likely would decline as urban development encroached on the canal. The changes with implementation of the covered activities are shown in Tables 4-3 and 4-4.

TABLE 4-2
Change in Land Use Acreage from Planned Development in the Natomas Basin Habitat Classa Baseline
City of
Sacramento
Metro Air
Park
Sutter
County
Total
Change
Future
Condition
Airport 1,551 (18) 0 (21) (39) 1,513
Alfalfa 371 0 0 0 0 371
Canals 503 0 0 0 0 503
Grassland 886 (427) 0 (134) (560) 325
Highways 1,435 0 0 0 0 1,435
Idle 1,464 (675) (50) (8) (733) 731
Nonrice crops 16,686 (4,663) (325) (1,529) (6,517) 10,169 Oak groves 98 (6) (2) 0 (8) 89
Orchard 182 (13) 0 0 (13) 169
Other 468 (31) 0 0 (31) 437
Pasture 674 (23) (22) (101) (147) 527
Ponds and seasonally wet areas 96 (7) (4) (10) (21) 75
Rice 22,693 (970) (1,541) (5,577) (8,087) 14,606
Riparian 124 (24) 0 0 (24) 100
Ruderal 1,970 (1,137) (6) (88) (1,231) 739
Rural residential 377 (46) (10) 0 (56) 321
Tree groves 106 (10) (23) 0 (33) 73
Urban 3,854 8,050 1,983 7,467 17,500 21,354
TOTAL 53,537 0 0 0 0 53,537
(#) decrease in acreage
a Habitat Class is defined in Table 3-1.

Source: Habitat and Land Use Assessment Database (CH2M HILL, 2002).

CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
E042002017SAC/161795(004.DOC) REVISED NATOMAS BASIN HCP 4-31

EIR/EIS
TABLE 4-3
Change in Canal Length from Planned Development in the Natomas Basin (miles) Canal Type Baseline
City of
Sacramento
Metro Air
Park
Sutter
County Total Change
Future
Condition
Class I 35.9 0 0 0 0 35.9
Class II 50.5 (3.6) (4.0) (13.9) (21.5) 29.0
Class III 97.6 (12.1) (3.5) (9.8) (25.5) 72.1
Class IV 62.8 (3.6) (4.1) (9.9) (17.5) 45.3
TOTAL 246.8 (19.3) (11.6) (33.6) (64.5) 182.3
(#) decrease in length
Source: Habitat and Land Use Assessment Database (CH2M HILL, 2002).

TABLE 4-4
Change in Canal Acreage from Planned Development in the Natomas Basin a Canal Type Baseline
City of
Sacramento
Metro Air
Park
Sutter
County Total Change
Future
Condition
Class I 503 0 0 0 0 503
Class II 404 (29) (32) (111) (172) 232
Class III 582 (72) (21) (59) (152) 430
Class IV 289 (16) (19) (45) (80) 209
TOTAL 1,778 (117) (72) (215) (404) 1,374
(#) decrease in acreage
a Class II, III, and IV canals and drains are linear features in the Habitat and Land Use Assessment 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.

Source: Habitat and Land Use Assessment Database (CH2M HILL, 2002).

4.4.5 Proposed Action
The Proposed Action would establish a multispecies conservation program to mitigate the expected loss of habitat values and incidental take of protected species that could result from the covered activities described in Section 2.3. The Proposed Action contains a variety of conservation strategies intended to maintain habitat values within the Natomas Basin, which are described in Sections IV (Conservation Plan) and V (Take Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation) of the HCP. The goal of the Proposed Action is to preserve, restore, and enhance habitat values found in Natomas Basin in the context of the permittees’ covered activities. (See Section I.C [Biological Goals and Objectives] in the HCP for a detailed listing of goals and objectives.)
The primary component of the Proposed Action is the creation of habitat reserves. The reserves would consist of managed marsh habitats (25 percent), upland habitats (25 percent), rice fields (50 percent, which would typically be leased for use to rice farmers), and associated buffers and infrastructure. These percentages were assumed for the evaluation of changes CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
4-32 REVISED NATOMAS BASIN HCP E042002017SAC/161795(004.DOC)

EIR/EIS
in wildlife habitat that would occur as a result of planned development. On the basis of monitoring program results as determined at the midpoint and overall program reviews or from any future USFWS Giant Garter Snake Recovery Plan or CDFG Swainson’s Hawk Recovery Plan, the Conservancy would manage the reserves to promote habitat values for covered species. Native riparian trees would also be incorporated into the reserves. Section IV.C (Conservation Strategies to Mitigate for Urban Development) of the HCP provides additional information on the characteristics and management of the habitat reserves.

The HCP does not specify any particular land area for acquisition as habitat reserves because many factors affect the land areas ultimately purchased, including the quality and availability of parcels and the willingness of owners to sell. In addition to managing the reserves to benefit covered species, the HCP requires that the final reserve system consist of at least one 2,500-acre or larger contiguous block of reserve land. At completion, the remainder of the reserve system would consist of 400-acre or larger blocks of habitat. The reserves would establish a connected system of habitats that minimize fragmentation. Connections between reserves would generally take the form of common property boundaries between reserves, and waterways (primarily irrigation channels) passing between reserves. Connections would also include land corridors within reserves and adjacent agricultural fields to allow the migration of terrestrial species between reserves. Reserves would be acquired with a stipulation that an adequate water supply is available to serve the anticipated uses (e.g., managed marsh, upland).

Under certain circumstances, the Proposed Action allows acquisition of up to 20 percent of the habitat reserves (1,750 acres) in Area B (see Section IV.C [Conservation Strategies to Mitigate for Urban Development] of the HCP for additional information on the establishment of out-of- basin reserves). The general effect of establishing a portion of the habitat reserves in Area B would be a greater amount of agricultural land (up to 1,750 acres) remaining in the Natomas Basin in the future. Area B consists predominantly of rice fields and lands in other agricultural production (e.g., pasture). Assuming reserve lands in Area B would comprise 50 percent rice, 25 percent managed marsh and 25 percent upland habitat, 875 acres of rice in Area B would be incorporated into the reserves, 437.5 acres of existing agricultural land would be converted to managed marsh, and an additional 437.5 acres of existing agricultural land would be converted to upland habitat or managed to promote upland-habitat values.

Under the Proposed Action, the Conservancy would implement a monitoring and adaptive management program to document achievement of the biological goals of the HCP and determine if and when adjustments in management of the habitat reserves would be necessary to meet the HCP goals. Monitoring would determine the density and distribution of covered species on the habitat reserves, among other monitoring requirements (see Section VI.E [Biological Monitoring] in the HCP). Additional information on the monitoring and adaptive management program is available in Sections VI.E (Biological Monitoring), VI.F (Adaptive Management) and VI.H (Program Adaptation for Recovery Plans) in the HCP.

Urban development that occurs near wildlife habitat can increase predation on wildlife by increasing the number of feral and free-ranging domestic cats. Of the species covered by the HCP, predation by cats has been identified as a concern for giant garter snakes and could also be a concern for burrowing owls, tricolored blackbirds and northwestern pond turtles.

The proposed 800-foot setback (see Section 2.4.5.3) would reduce the potential for special-status species inhabiting the reserves to be affected by predation by cats from urban areas. In addition, site-specific habitat development plans would be prepared for each CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
E042002017SAC/161795(004.DOC) REVISED NATOMAS BASIN HCP 4-33

EIR/EIS
reserve area. These site-specific management plans and the monitoring and adaptive- management program of the HCP would provide a mechanism for addressing predation, as necessary, to ensure that the reserves are properly functioning for the covered species.

The analysis of impacts of the Proposed Action discusses impacts to: (1) habitat (Section 4.4.5.1), (2) species covered by the ITPs (Section 4.4.5.2), and (3) other special-status species (Section 4.4.5.3). Mitigation measures for the Proposed Action are presented in Section 4.4.5.4, followed by determination of significance after mitigation in Section 4.4.5.5.

4.4.5.1 Impacts to Habitat
Presented below are the impacts to habitat in the Natomas Basin that would result from urban development. The habitats discussed are: (1) marsh, (2) upland, (3) riparian, (4) oak groves, and (5) vernal pools.

4.4.5.1.1 Marsh Habitat
Existing wildlife habitat in the basin consists almost entirely of agricultural lands with little native habitat. Native marsh habitats (i.e., ponds and seasonally wet areas) are virtually absent from the Natomas Basin, occurring on only about 96 acres (about 0.2 percent) of the basin. Rice fields and irrigation canals and ditches currently perform some of the functions of marsh habitat.

Under the Proposed Action, the amount of rice fields in the basin would decline by about 8,087 acres (about 35 percent). Canals and ditches would be reduced by about 404 acres (about 23 percent). Of the 96 acres of ponds and seasonally wet areas in the Natomas Basin, the analysis conducted for this EIR/EIS indicates that 21 acres (about 22 percent) would be affected by urban development.

Ponds and seasonally wet areas occur throughout the Natomas Basin as isolated units; the loss of 21 acres could occur in approximately eight isolated areas subject to urban development in the City (7 acres), Metro Air Park (4 acres), and Sutter County (10 acres).

Because some of the ponds and seasonally wet areas are likely to be jurisdictional wetlands, the projected loss of 21 acres of ponds and seasonally wet areas from urban development under the Proposed Action constitutes a substantial adverse effect on wetlands and is a potentially significant impact. Mitigation is proposed in Section 4.4.5.4.

The creation of the reserves could result in conversion of existing lands to other habitat types. It is not anticipated, however, that the acquisition of land for reserves and the creation of reserves would result in conversion of existing wetland/marsh areas to other habitat types. Therefore, impacts to existing wetland habitat as a result of implementing the HCP would be less than significant.

The conversion of rice fields and canals and ditches to urban uses would reduce the total acreage in the basin that functions as wetland (marsh) habitat. Rice fields and canals and drains provide important habitat for the federally listed giant garter snake. The 8,087-acre reduction in rice and 404-acre reduction in canals and drains projected under the Proposed Action would substantially reduce habitat for this species and, therefore, has the potential to result in potentially significant impacts.

The Proposed Action would, however, offset impacts to covered species potentially resulting from this decline in wetland acreage by creating 2,187.5 acres of high-quality CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
4-34 REVISED NATOMAS BASIN HCP E042002017SAC/161795(004.DOC)

EIR/EIS
managed marsh habitat (including ponds and seasonally wet areas) to compensate for the conversion of 21 acres of existing ponds and seasonally wet areas that would occur as a result of planned development. The created habitat would be preserved in perpetuity. Rice fields and irrigation canals and ditches are intensively managed systems with little structural or biological diversity. As such, their value as wildlife habitat is lower than native marsh. Additional limitations on the habitat value of rice fields include:
/g183 Agricultural practices and canal maintenance practices in support of agriculture can directly kill, injure, or disturb wildlife. Pesticide use can affect reproductive success of some species.
/g183 Rice fields do not provide marsh habitat until late spring, when rice plants have grown enough and prey levels have developed sufficiently to attract wildlife. /g183 Rice fields that are not flooded in the winter provide no habitat for marsh-associated species during the winter.
/g183 Rice fields are periodically rotated to other crops or fallowed, and therefore do not provide stable, reliable habitat over time.

The marsh habitat created on the habitat reserves would provide higher-quality habitat than the rice that would be converted to urban development. Features of the managed marsh contributing to the higher habitat quality include:
/g183 A high amount of wetland/upland edge habitat to maximize structural complexity. /g183 Potholes (i.e., areas of deeper water) to provide habitat in late summer and fall after the rice fields have been drained.
/g183 Year-round wetland habitat to maintain prey populations and avoid a delay in development of prey populations in the spring.
/g183 Absence of mortality sources on managed marsh in the habitat reserves (versus sourses associated with rice production—e.g., cana l maintenance activities, pesticide use).

Finally, the creation of marsh and upland habitat in the reserves would emphasize restoration to a natural marsh ecosystem. Thus, the habitat reserves would replace rice (which is an artificial, intensively managed monoculture) with a native ecosystem characterized by a complex structure and high habitat diversity.

With the restoration of the native ecosystem, the habitat reserves would provide the natural habitat conditions under which native wildlife species evolved. Preservation, creation, and management of managed-marsh habitat on the reserves would reduce the impact resulting from urban development to a less-than-significant level.

4.4.5.1.2 Upland Habitat
Native upland habitat in the Natomas Basin historically consisted of perennial grasslands.

Native perennial grasslands currently are absent from the Natomas Basin, having been converted to urban uses, agricultural uses (e.g., rice, row crops, pasture, etc.), or annual grasslands dominated by non-native plant species. Crops such as wheat and alfalfa, ruderal areas, annual grasslands, and pasture substitute for the habitat functions of native grasslands.

CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
E042002017SAC/161795(004.DOC) REVISED NATOMAS BASIN HCP 4-35

EIR/EIS
Under the Proposed Action, the amount of upland habitat (as represented by alfalfa, grassland, nonrice crops, pasture, idle and ruderal) would decline by about 9,188 acres because of urban development. Upland habitat provides important foraging opportunities for the state-listed Swainson’s hawk and other special-status species. Although the upland areas in the Natomas Basin do not represent a sensitive natural community, describing overall changes to upland land-use acreage does provide a common baseline for the discussion of impacts to special-status species. The 9,188-acre reduction in upland habitat projected to occur as a result of planned development (approximately a 42-percent reduction) would substantially reduce habitat for and adversely affect the Swainson’s hawk and other special-status species. These effects constitute a potentially significant impact of the Proposed Action.

The Proposed Action would offset impacts to species covered by the ITPs potentially resulting from this decline in acreage by acquiring 2,187.5 acres of upland habitat and preserving this habitat in perpetuity. Upland habitat on the reserves would consist of alfalfa, pasture, grassland or other habitats conducive to Swainson’s hawk foraging. Habitat would be managed primarily to provide optimal foraging conditions for Swainson’s hawks.

Upland habitat in the reserves would provide better-quality habitat than that which would be converted by the covered activity of planned development. Most of the upland habitat that would be converted by development would be nonrice crops. Although some nonrice crops (e.g., wheat) can provide some of the habitat functions of grasslands, most nonrice crops are row crops, such as tomatoes, that provide little value to wildlife. As with rice, nonrice crops are intensively managed and provide little habitat diversity and limited prey abundance. Upland habitat on the reserves would be managed primarily to provide foraging habitat for Swainson’s hawks, but the habitat requirements of other covered species (e.g., burrowing owls, loggerhead shrikes) would also be incorporated into the design and management of the habitat reserves. As a result, the upland habitat on the reserves would be expected to provide higher-quality habitat for wildlife than the nonrice crops converted under the Proposed Action. Preservation, creation, and management of upland habitat on the reserves would reduce the impact resulting from urban development to a less-than-significant level.

The creation of the reserves could result in conversion of existing crops (e.g., tomatoes) to native upland habitat, crops that have high value as upland habitat (e.g., alfalfa), or managed marsh. Because no native upland habitat currently occurs in the study area, no impacts to native upland would occur as a result of creating habitat reserves under the Proposed Action.

4.4.5.1.3 Riparian Habitat
In the Natomas Basin, riparian habitat is generally restricted to narrow, fragmented bands along canals and creeks. The basin supports about 124 acres of riparian habitat. Of these 124 acres, approximately 24 acres occur in the City of Sacramento. No riparian habitat occurs in Metro Air Park or in Sutter County’s Industrial-Commercial Reserve. The remaining 100 acres of riparian habitat is in Sacramento County and in Sutter County outside of the Industrial-Commercial Reserve. The habitat and land use analysis conducted for this EIR/EIS shows a decrease in riparian habitat of approximately 24 acres. Most of this acreage (approximately 23 acres) is located along the city’s side of Fisherman’s Lake. This area is not designated as exempt from paying mitigation fees, and therefore is included in the habitat CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
4-36 REVISED NATOMAS BASIN HCP E042002017SAC/161795(004.DOC)

EIR/EIS
and land use assessment as an area to be developed. This riparian habitat, however, would not be developed because of the required agricultural buffer to be created in this area under the Proposed Action (in accordance with the North Natomas Community Plan and the Settlement Agreement). A small, isolated area of riparian habitat comprising the remainder of the 24 acres of riparian habitat potentially affected (i.e., about 1 acre) is located near the northbound I-5 offramp to Del Paso Road. Some of this acreage could be affected by urban development, but a portion is located within a 100-foot wide freeway buffer, pursuant to the North Natomas Community Plan, that would be unaffected by development. Roadways and urban development, however, would surround this area. This small potential reduction in riparian habitat (i.e., less than 1 acre) attributable to planned development would not result in a substantial adverse effect on riparian habitat, and therefore the impact would be less than significant.

The creation of the reserves could result in conversion of existing crops (e.g., tomatoes) to native upland habitat or to crops that have high value as wildlife habitat (e.g., alfalfa). It is not anticipated, however, that the acquisition of land for reserves and the creation of reserves would result in conversion of riparian habitat to other habitat types. Therefore, impacts to riparian habitat as a result of implementing the HCP would be less than significant.

4.4.5.1.4 Oak Groves
A few small, isolated oak groves remain in the Natomas Basin, totaling about 98 acres. The analysis of future habitat changes predicts a loss of approximately 8 acres of oak groves associated with urban development under the Proposed Action. Loss of 8 acres of oak groves is attributable to three isolated groves in the Willow Creek area of the City of Sacramento and one 2-acre oak grove on the Metro Air Park property. Under the Proposed Action, however, valley oaks and other large trees are to be preserved wherever possible (See Section V.A Land Use Agencies’ Conservation Measures in the HCP). Thus, some or all of these oak groves likely would be retained under the Proposed Action. The limited potential for a reduction in oak groves would not comprise a substantial adverse effect on this sensitive natural community or result in a substantial adverse effect to a special-status species, and therefore would not constitute a significant impact. The potential for impacts to mature oak trees would also be addressed during site-specific development review in accordance with the tree preservation requirements of the City and Sacramento County.

4.4.5.1.5 Vernal Pools
One small vernal pool complex is known to occur east of the I-5/S.R. 99 split in the City’s permit area. Other vernal pools could occur in the grassland areas along the eastern perimeter of the Natomas Basin, including lands in both the City and Sutter County permit areas.

The vernal pools east of the I-5 split and other currently unknown vernal pool areas (expected primarily in the City’s panhandle annexation area and the eastern portion of the Sutter County Industrial-Commercial Reserve) could be directly lost because of the covered activity of planned development or indirectly affected by urban development surrounding the pools. Urban development in areas surrounding vernal pools can change the hydrology of vernal pools and, therefore, change the suitability of the vernal pools for associated species. The potential for direct and indirect effects to vernal pools is a potentially significant impact of planned development because vernal pools: (1) are a sensitive natural community, (2) provide habitat for several special-status plant and animal species, and (3) in some cases can be protected waters under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. In addition, amphibians CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
E042002017SAC/161795(004.DOC) REVISED NATOMAS BASIN HCP 4-37

EIR/EIS
associated with vernal pools typically migrate between upland habitats and the breeding habitat of the vernal pool. Urban development around vernal pools can interfere with this movement and vehicular traffic can cause mortality for some amphibians (e.g., tiger salamanders) during their movements between upland and aquatic habitats. The potential for urban development to interfere with movement of animals between breeding locations in vernal pools or other seasonal wetlands and upland habitats constitutes a potentially significant indirect impact of implementing the HCP, which would prevent planned development from proceeding.

The Proposed Action includes procedures to avoid, minimize, and mitigate impacts to vernal pools and associated species potentially resulting from planned development (see Section V.A.4 Land Use Agencies’ Conservation Measures in the HCP). Vernal pool resources within the City and the Sutter County permit areas would be identified prior to disturbance through preconstruction surveys and other biological investigations (e.g., those related to CEQA project review required for general plan, specific plan, rezone, subdivision, and other discretionary approvals). The following measures would be implemented by the City and Sutter County prior to issuance of a development permit when public or private development projects are proposed for areas that could support wetlands and/or vernal pool species.
/g183 In the event a biological reconnaissance survey or the pre-construction survey identifies that vernal pool resources are onsite, a vernal pool species-specific biological assessment must be provided by the developer to the land use agency during the vernal “wet” pool season (as established by USFWS) to determine the type and abundance of species present. The species-specific biological assessment must be prepared by a qualified field biologist and shall list the methods of field analysis, condition of habitat, size and acreage of direct and indirect impact (as defined by seasonal inundation and hydric soils and other appropriate characteristics), and species present. This assessment must be submitted with the formal development application and prior to approval of an urban development permit by the land use agency.
/g183 If it is determined that wetland and/or vernal pool resources would be disturbed by a project, then take of vernal pool associated covered species would be covered under the ITPs, subject to the following limitation and guidelines:
/g45 Where site investigations indicate vernal pool species may occur, the developer shall notify the land use agency regarding the potential for impacts to vernal pool species.

Such notification shall include biological data adequate to allow the land use agency, and the USFWS and CDFG to determine the potential for impacts vernal pool species resulting from the proposed development.
/g45 Following notification by the land use agency, USWFS and CDFG shall identify specific measures required to avoid, minimize and mitigate impacts to vernal pool species to be implemented prior to disturbance and in accordance with adopted standards or established guidelines. If vernal pool species are found within proposed project areas, the project proponent shall coordinate with the USFWS and CDFG to ensure conservation measures are incorporated to avoid and protect sensitive plant species. In some cases, USFWS and CDFG may require complete avoidance of vernal pool species, such as the presence of covered species such as CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
4-38 REVISED NATOMAS BASIN HCP E042002017SAC/161795(004.DOC)

EIR/EIS
slender orcutt grass, Sacramento orcutt grass, Colusa grass and/or vernal pool tadpole shrimp. Such measures shall be identified by USFWS and CDFG within 30 days or as soon as possible thereafter of notification and submittal of biological data to the agencies by the land use agency.

Developers would also potentially have the option of contributing to a mitigation bank as described in Section 2.4.6.1 of this EIR/EIS. With these Proposed Action measures, both direct (e.g., filling) and indirect (e.g., changes in hydrology) impacts to vernal pools and the associated species would be avoided or compensated in accordance with regulatory guidance from the USFWS. Because of the expected low numbers and size of vernal pools in the Natomas Basin, implementation of the standards outlined in the USFWS Programmatic Consultation is expected to reduce potential impacts to a less-than-significant level.

Vernal pools also could be affected during development of the habitat reserve system.

Specific locations of all of the reserves have not been identified and, therefore, it is not possible to determine if vernal pools or vernal pool species would be affected by implementation of the Proposed Action. As part of the development of site-specific habitat creation and management plans under the Proposed Action, surveys to identify covered species currently or potentially supported by the specific parcel would be conducted. If vernal pools or vernal pool species are found, impacts to these resource would be avoided during habitat creation and management activities and appropriate management activities pursued, as necessary, to retain resources values.

4.4.5.2 Impacts to Species Covered by the ITPs
This section presents the impacts to the species covered by the ITPs. (See Table 2.1 for a list of the covered species, their habitats, and their statuses. Also see Section 3.4 for a discussion of existing conditions for these species. The acreages presented in the tables in this section are based on land use categories developed as part of the land use and habitat database. The categories represent potential habitat that might be used by the species. The acreages do not, however, represent habitat known to be occupied by the species.) The organization of the analysis of impacts to covered species is:
/g183 Delta Tule Pea (Section 4.4.5.2.1)
/g183 Sanford’s Arrowhead (Section 4.4.5.2.2)
/g183 Vernal Pool Species (Section 4.4.5.2.3)
/g183 California Tiger Salamander (Section 4.4.5.2.4)
/g183 Western Spadefoot Toad (Section 4.4.5.2.5)
/g183 Valley Elderberry Longhorn Beetle (Section 4.4.5.2.6) /g183 Giant Garter Snake (Section 4.4.5.2.7)
/g183 Northwestern Pond Turtle (Section 4.4.5.2.8)
/g183 White-faced Ibis (Section 4.4.5.2.9)
/g183 Tricolored Blackbird (Section 4.4.5.2.10)
/g183 Swainson’s Hawk (Section 4.4.5.2.11)
/g183 Aleutian Canada Goose (Section 4.4.5.2.12)
/g183 Burrowing Owl (Section 4.4.5.2.13)
/g183 Bank Swallow (Section 4.4.5.2.14)
/g183 Loggerhead Shrike (Section 4.4.5.2.15)
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
E042002017SAC/161795(004.DOC) REVISED NATOMAS BASIN HCP 4-39

EIR/EIS

4.4.5.2.1 Delta Tule Pea
Effects of Changes in Habitat. Potential habitat for the Delta tule pea is found in marsh areas. In the Natomas Basin, ponds and seasonally wet areas are the primary potential habitat, although some ditches and canals could provide suitable conditions. Rice lands are not suitable for Delta tule pea because these lands are managed to discourage colonization by plants other than rice and are harvested annually. The habitat classes (from Tables 4-2 and 4-4) that provide potential habitat for the Delta tule pea and the changes in acreage from implementing the Proposed Action are presented in Table 4-5.

TABLE 4-5
Change in Potential Habitat for Delta Tule Pea (acres)
Habitat Class Baseline
City of
Sacramento
Metro Air
Park
Sutter
County Total Change
Future
Condition
Ponds and
seasonally
wet areas
96 (7) (4) (10) (21) 75
Canals (all) 1,778 (117) (72) (215) (404) 1,374
TOTAL 1,874 (124) (76) (225) (425) 1,449
(#) decrease in acreage
Source: Habitat and Land Use Assessment Database (CH2M HILL, 2002).

Ponds and seasonally wet areas occur throughout the Natomas Basin as isolated units; the loss of 21 acres could occur in approximately eight isolated areas subject to urban development in the City near Arco Arena (7 acres), Metro Air Park near I-5 (4 acres), and in various scattered locations in Sutter County (10 acres) (see Figure 3-2). Assuming that smaller canals and drains do not remain after development has occurred, about 404 acres of Class II, III, and IV canals and ditches would be removed in the planned development areas. Some of these canals and ditches could provide suitable conditions for Delta tule pea. Because Delta tule pea is not known to occur in the Natomas Basin and the Natomas Basin is outside this species’ known range, the loss of potential habitat associated with urban development is not likely to affect this species.

Under the Proposed Action, a stable and natural marsh environment would be created on 2,187.5 acres, thereby replacing the loss of 425 acres of potential habitat from urban development. This restored marsh area would substantially increase potential habitat for the Delta tule pea. The Proposed Action includes a measure for the Conservancy to consider introducing the Delta tule pea into suitable locations in the Natomas Basin. If pursued, these introductions would benefit the species by increasing the population size and distribution.

Effects of Construction Activities. The Natomas Basin is outside of the primary range of the Delta tule pea, and the species is not known to occur in the Natomas Basin, but direct mortality during construction is a potentially significant impact with regard to existing unknown populations. Significant impacts could also occur if areas are colonized by this species in the future. The potential for adverse effects to Delta tule pea would be avoided by the species-specific take-avoidance and minimization measures of the Proposed Action. Under the Proposed Action, surveys for covered species (including Delta tule pea) would be conducted prior to construction activities. If Delta tule pea were identified in construction areas, they CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
4-40 REVISED NATOMAS BASIN HCP E042002017SAC/161795(004.DOC)

EIR/EIS
could be salvaged and transplanted in accordance with the requirements of the California Native Plant Protection Act, if deemed necessary and appropriate by the USFWS and CDFG.

Effects of Water Agency and Conservancy Management. Maintenance of the canal and drain system in the Natomas Basin could affect potential habitat for the Delta tule pea and directly remove individual plants. These potential effects are unlikely to occur, however, because the Natomas Basin is outside of the species’ range, and the species is not currently known to occur in the basin. If the range of this species expanded and it colonized the canals and ditches in the Natomas Basin, activities conducted by Natomas Mutual and RD 1000 could affect individual plants.

The Proposed Action does not include specific requirements for water agency-covered activities to address potential impacts to Delta tule pea. The likelihood that this species would occur in the canals or ditches during the permit term, however, is low because of the routine sediment and vegetation control maintenance activities. Natomas Mutual and RD 1000 conduct regular operation and maintenance activities on the canals and ditches. These types of activities would continue under the Proposed Action. If Delta tule pea occurs, it would have colonized and persisted in the drains or canals coincident with these ongoing activities. Therefore, if Delta tule pea naturally colonizes the ditches and canals in the future, it would be expected to persist.

Delta tule pea could colonize portions of the habitat reserves in the future and/or the Conservancy could pursue introductions of this species under the Proposed Action. If this species becomes established in the habitat reserves, the Conservancy would implement measures to avoid and minimize take of plants. To determine if this plant colonizes the habitat reserves, the Conservancy would monitor for this species on the habitat reserves.

Overall Effects on Delta Tule Pea. Because this species is not known to occur in the Natomas Basin and its range does not include the Natomas Basin, the small loss of potential habitat attributable to planned development would not substantially adversely affect this species’ distribution or abundance. Thus, any potential impact would be less than significant.

Potential mortality impacts associated with construction would be mitigated to a less-than- significant level by the preconstruction survey measures in the HCP. Moreover, the establishment of habitat that could support this species would benefit Delta tule pea. The species would benefit if it were successfully introduced into the Natomas Basin or if its range expanded and it naturally colonized managed marsh on the habitat reserves.

4.4.5.2.2 Sanford’s Arrowhead
Effects of Changes in Habitat. Potential habitat for the Sanford’s arrowhead is found in marsh areas. In the Natomas Basin, ponds and seasonally wet areas are the primary potential habitat, although some ditches and canals could provide suitable conditions. Rice lands are not suitable for Sanford’s arrowhead because these lands are managed to discourage colonization by plants other than rice and are harvested annually. The habitat classes (from Tables 4-2 and 4-4) that provide potential habitat for Sanford’s arrowhead and the changes in acreage from implementing the Proposed Action are presented in Table 4-6.

CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
E042002017SAC/161795(004.DOC) REVISED NATOMAS BASIN HCP 4-41

EIR/EIS
TABLE 4-6
Change in Potential Habitat for Sanford’s Arrowhead (acres) Habitat Class Baseline
City of
Sacramento
Metro Air
Park
Sutter
County Total Change
Future
Condition
Ponds and
seasonally
wet areas
96 (7) (4) (10) (21) 75
Canals (all) 1,778 (117) (72) (215) (404) 1,374
TOTAL 1,874 (124) (76) (225) (425) 1,449
(#) decrease in acreage
Source: Habitat and Land Use Assessment Database (CH2M HILL, 2002).

Ponds and seasonally wet areas occur throughout the Natomas Basin as isolated units; the loss of 21 acres would occur in approximately eight isolated areas subject to urban development in the City near Arco Arena (7 acres), Metro Air Park near I-5 (4 acres), and in various locations in Sutter County (10 acres). Assuming that canals and drains do not remain after development has occurred, about 404 acres of Class II, III, and IV canals and drains would be removed in the development areas, some of which could contain emergent marsh values suitable for Sanford’s arrowhead. Because Sanford’s arrowhead is not known to occur in the Natomas Basin, the loss of potential habitat because of urban development is not likely to affect this species, and this impact would be less than significant.

Under the Proposed Action, a stable and natural marsh environment would be created on 2,187.5 acres, thereby replacing the loss of 425 acres of potential habitat from urban development. This restored marsh area would substantially increase potential habitat for the Sanford’s arrowhead. Because Sanford’s arrowhead is not known to occur in the Natomas Basin, this increase in potential habitat on the habitat reserves could have no effect on the species. The Proposed Action, however, includes a measure for the Conservancy to consider introducing the Sanford’s arrowhead into suitable locations in the Natomas Basin. If pursued, these introductions would benefit the species by increasing the population size and distribution.

A stable marsh environment would be created as part of the habitat reserve system. This restored marsh area would substantially increase potential habitat for Sanford’s arrowhead.

Because Sanford’s arrowhead is not known to occur in the Natomas Basin, the loss of habitat from covered activities is not anticipated to have an effect on the species. The HCP includes a measure for the Conservancy to consider introducing Sanford’s arrowhead into suitable locations in the Natomas Basin, which would benefit the species by increasing its population size and distribution.

Effects of Construction Activities. Sanford’s arrowhead is not currently known to occur in the Natomas Basin, but direct mortality during construction is a potentially significant impact with regard to unknown populations. Significant impacts could also occur if areas are colonized by this species in the future. The potential for adverse effects to Sanford’s arrowhead would be avoided by the species-specific take-avoidance and minimization measures of the Proposed Action. Under the Proposed Action, surveys for covered species including Sanford’s arrowhead would be conducted prior to construction activities. If CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
4-42 REVISED NATOMAS BASIN HCP E042002017SAC/161795(004.DOC)

EIR/EIS
Sanford’s arrowhead were identified in construction areas, they could be salvaged and transplanted in accordance with the requirements of the California Native Plant Protection Act if deemed necessary and appropriate by the USFWS and CDFG.

Effects of Water Agency and Conservancy Management. Maintenance of the canal and drain system in the Natomas Basin could affect individual Sanford’s arrowhead plants. The Natomas Basin is within the known range of Sanford’s arrowhead, and this species could inhabit smaller canals and drains. The Proposed Action does not include specific requirements for water agency-covered activities to address potential impacts to Sanford’s arrowhead. The likelihood that Sanford’s arrowhead could occur in the canals or ditches, however, is low because of the routine sediment and vegetation control-maintenance activities conducted by Natomas Mutual and RD 1000 on the canals and ditches. These types of activities would continue under the Proposed Action. If Sanford’s arrowhead occurs, it would have colonized and persisted in the drains or canals coincident with these ongoing activities. Therefore, if Sanford’s arrowhead currently occurs in the canals or ditches, it would be expected to persist.

Sanford’s arrowhead could colonize portions of the habitat reserves in the future and/or the Conservancy could pursue introductions of this species under the Proposed Action. If Sanford’s arrowhead becomes established in the habitat reserves, the Conservancy would implement measures to avoid and minimize take of plants. To determine if this plant colonizes the habitat reserves, the Conservancy will monitor for this species on the habitat reserves.

Overall Effects on Sanford’s Arrowhead. This species is not known to occur in the Natomas Basin but potential habitat is present. The small loss of potential habitat from the covered activity of planned development would not substantially adversely affect this species’ distribution or abundance. Thus, any potential impact would be less than significant.

Potential mortality impacts associated with construction would be mitigated to a less-than- significant level by the preconstruction survey measures in the HCP. The species would benefit if it was successfully introduced to suitable habitat in the Natomas Basin or if it naturally colonized managed marsh on the habitat reserves.

4.4.5.2.3 Vernal Pool Species
Vernal pools represent important remnants of the natural landscape of the foothills and valley floor of the Central Valley. Resulting from a combination of surface topography (shallow, closed depressions) and soil condition (low permeability), vernal pools support numerous special-status species. Ten species inhabiting vernal pools are covered by the ITPs. These species include five plant species, three vernal pool shrimp species, and two amphibian species (Table 4-7). Impacts to these species are assessed collectively in the following analysis because the potential effects to vernal pools from implementing the Proposed Action would be similar for each species. The two amphibian species (California tiger salamander and western spadefoot toad), however, are not restricted to vernal pools and could occupy other types of wetland habitats. Effects of the Proposed Action on these two species are also evaluated separately from this assessment of vernal pool species (see Section 4.4.5.2.4 and Section 4.4.5.2.5).

CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
E042002017SAC/161795(004.DOC) REVISED NATOMAS BASIN HCP 4-43

EIR/EIS
TABLE 4-7
Vernal Pool Species Covered by the ITPs
Plants Crustaceans Amphibians
Boggs Lake hedge hyssop Vernal pool fairy shrimp California tiger salamander Sacramento Orcutt grass Vernal pool tadpole shrimp Western spadefoot toad Slender Orcutt grass Midvalley fairy shrimp
Colusa grass
Legenere
Source: Proposed Revised Natomas Basin HCP, July 2002
Effects of Changes in Habitat. One small vernal pool complex is known to occur east of the I-5/S.R. 99 split in the City’s permit area. Other vernal pools could occur in the grassland areas along the eastern perimeter of the Natomas Basin, including lands in both the City and Sutter County permit areas. In addition, isolated seasonal wetlands could occur elsewhere in the Natomas Basin and could support vernal pool vegetation and special-status vernal pool species. Potential effects of the Proposed Action on vernal pool habitat were described previously.

Effects of Construction Activities. The vernal pools east of the I-5 split and other, currently unknown vernal pool areas (expected primarily in the City’s panhandle annexation area and the eastern portion of the Sutter County Industrial-Commercial Reserve) could be directly affected because of urban development or indirectly affected by urban development surrounding the pools. Under the Proposed Action, vernal pool resources within the City and the Sutter County permit areas would be identified prior to disturbance through preconstruction surveys and other biological investigations (e.g., related to CEQA project review required for general plan, specific plan, rezone, subdivision, and other discretionary approvals). Mitigation measures would be implemented as described above under Vernal Pool Habitat. Such mitigation would consist of measures substantially consistent with USFWS’ Programmatic Formal Endangered Species Act Consultation on Issuance of 404 Permits for Project with Relatively Small Effects on Listed Vernal Pool Crustaceans within the Jurisdiction of the Sacramento Field Office (USFWS, 1996b).

Construction impacts also could occur during development of the habitat reserve system.

Specific locations of all of the reserves have not been identified and, therefore, it is not possible to determine if vernal pools or vernal pool species would be affected. As part of the development of site-specific habitat-creation and management plans, surveys to identify covered species currently or potentially supported by the specific parcel would be conducted as part of the mitigating conservation strategy of the HCP. If vernal pools or vernal-pool species are found, impacts to these resources would be mitigated in the same manner as described in the above paragraph for the covered activity of planned development.

Effects of Water Agency and Conservancy Management. Activities conducted by RD 1000 and Natomas Mutual to maintain ditches and canals are not likely to affect vernal pool species because suitable habitat for these species is restricted to vernal pools. These species are not expected to use water conveyance facilities maintained by RD 1000 and Natomas Mutual.

CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
4-44 REVISED NATOMAS BASIN HCP E042002017SAC/161795(004.DOC)

EIR/EIS
As described above, habitat creation and management plans for the reserve system would be designed to protect vernal pool resources and associated covered species. The HCP (Section IV.C.5) states the following regarding vernal pool species:

The primary purpose of listing the vernal pool-associated species within the NBHCP is to provide protection to [the Conservancy] with regard to the management of future wildlife reserves. It is anticipated that the complex of wetland/upland habitat to be developed by [the Conservancy] will provide enhanced opportunities for the establishment and proliferation of these species.

The HCP specifies four measures for the Conservancy to implement that focus on identifying conservation opportunities for the vernal pool species identified in Table 4-7, including the creation of suitable habitat. This has been implemented on the Betts-Kismat- Silva reserve, where a vernal pool complex has been created. Impacts could occur during ongoing Conservancy management, both to vernal pools that could occur on lands to be acquired and to species colonizing new habitat created by the Conservancy. It is expected that the overall impact would be beneficial because the Conservancy has provided new habitat and would continue to seek opportunities for vernal pool habitat improvement in accordance with the HCP conservation measures.

Overall Effects on Vernal Pool Species. Currently, the Natomas Basin contains a minor amount of vernal pool habitat, and use of the Natomas Basin by covered species dependent on vernal pools appears to be very limited. Nevertheless, because vernal pool habitat has been reduced substantially throughout the Central Valley and the plant and crustacean species listed in Table 4-7 are largely dependent on vernal pools, any loss of vernal pool habitat would have a substantial adverse effect on these species. Therefore, the potential loss of vernal pool habitat attributable to the covered activities of urban development would be considered a significant impact to special-status species dependent on vernal pools. With implementation of measures under the Proposed Action to identify vernal pools or seasonal wetlands, avoid or mitigate impacts to vernal pools and associated species, and restore vernal pools, this potential impact would be reduced to a less-than-significant level. Further, one or more of the vernal pool species could benefit if the Conservancy was successful in attracting vernal pool species to the habitat reserves.

4.4.5.2.4 California Tiger Salamander
Effects of Changes in Habitat. Potential habitat for California tiger salamander in the Natomas Basin consists of vernal pools and other ponds and seasonally wet areas and upland areas surrounding these features. Only a few small areas of vernal pools are likely to occur in the Natomas Basin on the eastern edge of the basin. In addition, 96 acres of ponds and seasonally wet areas occur as isolated units throughout the Natomas Basin and are potential habitat for California tiger salamander.

Potential effects of the Proposed Action on habitat for tiger salamander consist of the direct loss of vernal pools, ponds, or other seasonally wet areas because of construction. Indirect effects could also occur. Under the Proposed Action, approximately 21 acres of ponds and seasonally wet areas could be directly affected by development (7 acres in the City, 4 acres in Metro Air Park, and 10 acres in Sutter County), which could reduce the availability of breeding habitat for tiger salamander. Urban development in areas surrounding aquatic habitat also can directly affect habitat for tiger salamander by eliminating upland areas CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
E042002017SAC/161795(004.DOC) REVISED NATOMAS BASIN HCP 4-45

EIR/EIS
where tiger salamanders seek refuge during much of the year. Tiger salamanders migrate between upland habitats and aquatic breeding habitat, and urban development around aquatic habitats that tiger salamanders use for breeding can interfere with this movement.

In some areas, vehicular traffic can be a major cause of mortality for California tiger salamander during their movements between upland and aquatic habitats.

The Proposed Action includes procedures to avoid, minimize, and mitigate impacts to vernal pools and other seasonal wetlands potentially used by tiger salamanders for breeding. Under the Proposed Action’s Vernal Pools Conservation Strategy, if wetlands that support the species would be affected, developers would consult with the USFWS and CDFG to develop appropriate measures to avoid, minimize, and mitigate impacts to the listed species.

Although the tiger salamander is not federally listed, consultations for other species associated with wetland habitat would be expected to minimize impacts to this species because replacement of habitat also is typically required by the USFWS to mitigate for the removal of habitat. Thus, the Vernal Pool Conservation Strategy of the HCP would provide protection for aquatic habitats that California tiger salamanders could use. As a result of these requirements, impacts to habitat for this species from urban development would be avoided or mitigated to a level that is less than significant.

Depending on the specific characteristics of the upland and managed-marsh habitat provided on the reserves, tiger salamanders could be attracted to the habitat reserves. As part of the Proposed Action, the Conservancy would periodically consult with experts to identify conservation opportunities for California tiger salamander on the habitat reserves.

Such opportunities could include establishment or creation of wetland and upland habitats suitable for tiger salamanders within the reserve system (e.g., stock ponds or “artificial” vernal pools) and, if appropriate, re-introduction of tiger salamanders into the basin.

Effects of Construction Activities. Construction activities within the Natomas Basin are not likely to affect California tiger salamander because this species is not currently known to inhabit the Natomas Basin. It is possible that construction activities could affect existing unknown occurrence of tiger salamanders or areas colonized by this species in the future.

Under the Proposed Action, prior to approval of development permits, the City and Sutter County would require preconstruction surveys for tiger salamanders. If preconstruction surveys determine the presence of California tiger salamander, the City and Sutter County would require developers to consult with CDFG to determine appropriate measures to avoid and minimize take of individual animals.

Construction impacts also could occur during development of the habitat reserve system.

As part of the development of site-specific habitat-creation and management plans, surveys to identify covered species currently or potentially supported by the specific parcel would be conducted. If tiger salamanders are found, impacts to individuals would be avoided during habitat creation and management activities, and appropriate management activities pursued as necessary to retain habitat values for this species.

Effects of Water Agency and Conservancy Management. The California tiger salamander is not known to occur in the Natomas Basin, and RD 1000’s and Natomas Mutual’s water conveyance facilities do not provide suitable habitat for this species. The water agencies’ covered activities, therefore, are not likely to affect California tiger salamander.

CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
4-46 REVISED NATOMAS BASIN HCP E042002017SAC/161795(004.DOC)

EIR/EIS
If tiger salamanders occur on the habitat reserves in the future, it is possible that some of the Conservancy’s management activities could kill or injure individual animals. Under the Proposed Action, the Conservancy would implement measures to avoid take of California tiger salamanders included in habitat-creation and management-reserve plans. Further, the Conservancy will consult experts periodically during HCP implementation to identify additional conservation opportunities for this species in the habitat reserve system.

Overall Effects on the California Tiger Salamander. Currently, the Natomas Basin is not known to support California tiger salamander and contains a minor amount of potential habitat. Nevertheless, because vernal pool habitat and other potential breeding habitats (e.g., seasonal ponds) have been reduced substantially throughout the Central Valley, any loss of vernal pool habitat or seasonally wet areas that are potentially suitable breeding areas for tiger salamanders would have a substantial adverse effect on this species.

Therefore, the potential loss of vernal pool and marsh habitat attributable to urban development would be considered a significant impact to California tiger salamanders.

With implementation of the HCP mitigation measures under the Proposed Action to identify vernal pools and seasonal wetlands and avoid or mitigate impacts to these potential habitats for tiger salamander, potential impacts to tiger salamanders would be reduced to a level that is less than significant. Further, California tiger salamander could benefit if the Conservancy was successful in attracting individuals to the habitat reserves or if it re- introduced the species to the habitat reserves.

4.4.5.2.5 Western Spadefoot Toad
Effects of Changes in Habitat. Potential habitat for western spadefoot toad in the Natomas Basin consists of vernal pools and other ponds and seasonally wet areas and upland areas surrounding these features. Only a few small areas of vernal pools are likely to occur in the Natomas Basin on the eastern edge of the basin. In addition, 96 acres of ponds and seasonally wet areas occur as isolated units throughout the Natomas Basin and are potential habitat for western spadefoot toad.

Potential effects of the Proposed Action on habitat for spadefoot toad consist of the direct loss of vernal pools, ponds, or other seasonally wet areas because of construction as well as indirect effects. Under the Proposed Action, 21 acres of ponds and seasonally wet areas could be directly affected by development (7 acres in the City, 4 acres in Metro Air Park, and 10 acres in Sutter County), which could reduce the availability of breeding habitat for western spadefoot toad. Urban development in areas surrounding aquatic habitat also can directly affect habitat for spadefoot toad by eliminating upland areas where this species seeks refuge during much of the year. Spadefoot toads move between upland habitats and aquatic breeding habitat, and urban development around aquatic habitats that are used for breeding can interfere with this movement. Vehicular traffic can cause mortality of spadefoot toads during their movements between upland and aquatic habitats.

The Proposed Action includes procedures to avoid, minimize, and mitigate impacts to vernal pools and other seasonal wetlands potentially used by western spadefoot toad for breeding.

Under the Proposed Action’s Vernal Pools Conservation Strategy, if jurisdictional wetlands would be affected, developers would consult with the USFWS and CDFG to develop appropriate measures to avoid, minimize, and mitigate impacts to the listed species.

Although the western spadefoot toad is not federally listed, consultations for other species associated with wetland habitat would be expected to minimize impacts to this species as CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
E042002017SAC/161795(004.DOC) REVISED NATOMAS BASIN HCP 4-47

EIR/EIS
well because replacement of habitat is typically required by the USFWS to mitigate for the removal of habitat. If wetlands that are not jurisdictional would be affected by development, the City and Sutter County would work with the USFWS and CDFG to develop specific measures to avoid, minimize, and mitigate impacts to vernal pool species, including western spadefoot toad. Thus, the Vernal Pool Conservation Strategy of the HCP would provide protection for aquatic habitats that western spadefoot toad could use. As a result of these requirements, impacts to this species’ habitat from urban development would be avoided or mitigated to a level that is less than significant. Depending on the specific characteristics of the upland and managed-marsh habitat provided in the reserves, spadefoot toads could be attracted to the habitat reserves. As part of the Proposed Action, the Conservancy would periodically consult experts to identify conservation opportunities for western spadefoot toad on the habitat reserves.

Effects of Construction Activities. Construction activities within the Natomas Basin are not likely to affect western spadefoot toad because this species is not currently known to inhabit the Natomas Basin. It is possible that construction activities could affect existing unknown occurrence of spadefoot toads or areas colonized by this species in the future. Under the Proposed Action, prior to approval of development permits, the City and Sutter County would require preconstruction surveys for spadefoot toads. If preconstruction surveys determine the presence of western spadefoot toad, the City and Sutter County would require developers to consult with CDFG to determine appropriate measures to avoid and minimize take of individuals.

Construction impacts also could occur during development of the habitat reserve system.

As part of the development of site-specific habitat-creation and management plans, surveys to identify covered species currently or potentially supported by the specific parcel would be conducted. If western spadefoot toads were identified, impacts to individuals would be avoided during habitat creation and management activities, and appropriate management activities pursued as necessary to retain habitat values for this species.

Effects of Water Agency and Conservancy Management. This species is not known to occur in the Natomas Basin, and RD 1000’s and Natomas Mutual’s water conveyance facilities do not provide suitable habitat for this species. The water agencies’ covered activities, therefore, are not likely to affect western spadefoot toad.

If western spadefoot toads occur on the habitat reserves in the future, it is possible that some of the Conservancy’s management activities could kill or injure individual animals. Under the Proposed Action, the Conservancy would implement measures to avoid take of western spadefoot toads included in habitat creation and management plans. Further, the Conservancy will consult experts periodically during implementation of the HCP to identify additional conservation opportunities for this species in the habitat reserve system.

Overall Effects on Western Spadefoot Toad. Currently, the Natomas Basin is not known to support western spadefoot toad and contains a minor amount of potential habitat.

Nevertheless, because vernal pool habitat and other potential breeding habitats (e.g., seasonal ponds) have been reduced substantially throughout the Central Valley, any loss of vernal pool habitat or seasonally wet areas that are suitable breeding areas for western spadefoot toads would have a substantial adverse effect on this species. Therefore, the potential loss of vernal pool and marsh habitat because of urban development would be CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
4-48 REVISED NATOMAS BASIN HCP E042002017SAC/161795(004.DOC)

EIR/EIS
a significant impact to spadefoot toads. With implementation of measures under the Proposed Action to identify vernal pools and seasonal wetlands and avoid or mitigate impacts to these potential habitats for spadefoot toad, potential impacts to spadefoot toad would be reduced to a level that is less than significant. Further, the species could benefit if the Conservancy was successful in attracting individuals to the habitat reserves or if it introduced the species to the habitat reserves.

4.4.5.2.6 Valley Elderberry Longhorn Beetle
Effects of Changes in Habitat. Riparian habitat potentially supports elderberry shrubs on which the valley elderberry longhorn beetle (VELB) depends. As explained previously, less than 1 acre of riparian habitat would be converted as a result of urban development occurring near the northbound off ramp from I-5 to Del Paso Road. Individual or small groups of shrubs could occur in other planned development areas and could be affected.

Although the covered activity of urban development could result in impacts to some elderberry shrubs, habitat availability for VELB would not be expected to decline in the project area for several reasons. First, if elderberry shrubs occurred in a development area, the shrubs would be transplanted and additional seedlings planted in accordance with the USFWS Conservation Guidelines for Valley Elderberry Longhorn Beetle (USFWS, 1999a). As the seedlings developed, habitat for VELB would increase. Second, the riparian corridor along Fisherman’s Lake, which supports elderberry shrubs, is expected to remain intact because of the reserve lands on the west side of the lake and agricultural buffer on the City side of the lake. Third, the General Plan Amendment proposed for the 1-mile buffer area in Sutter County along the Sacramento River would protect some riparian habitat potentially containing elderberry shrubs. Last, elderberry shrubs would be planted in the habitat reserves. Accordingly, no significant impacts to VELB would occur. Rather, overall habitat availability in the Natomas Basin would increase for the VELB and much of the habitat would be in areas protected in perpetuity.

Effects of Construction Activities. Although overall habitat availability for the VELB would improve, impacts to individual elderberry shrubs (resulting in potential elderberry beetle mortality) could still occur. Shrubs could be affected during construction associated with urban development or with habitat creation on the reserves. The practice of avoiding and/or mitigating impacts to elderberry shrubs in accordance with the Conservation Guidelines is common in the Central Valley, and would continue to be the required practice with implementation of the Proposed Action. Potential impacts to the valley elderberry longhorn beetle during urban development are addressed in the Proposed Action by requiring compliance with the USFWS’ Conservation Guidelines for the Valley Elderberry Longhorn Beetle (USFWS, 1999). Key aspects of the Conservation Guidelines include:
/g183 Surveys for the beetles and elderberry host plants by a qualified biologist prior to construction.
/g183 Avoidance of elderberry bushes with a 100-foot construction buffer area (may be reduced with the approval of the USFWS).
/g183 Mitigation of elderberry bushes where avoidance is not possible. The preferred mitigation is to transplant mature elderberry bushes during their dormant season (when the beetles are in their larval stage in the interior of the plant) to permanent mitigation CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
E042002017SAC/161795(004.DOC) REVISED NATOMAS BASIN HCP 4-49

EIR/EIS
lands and to plant a specified number of seedlings; planting additional elderberry seedlings may be allowed when transplanting is not feasible.

Construction impacts also could occur during development of the habitat reserve system.

Specific locations of all of the reserves have not been identified and, therefore, it is not possible to determine the number of shrubs that could be affected by development of the habitat reserves. Reserve acquisitions to date have not included lands with existing elderberry shrubs, but it is possible that elderberry shrubs would be present on lands acquired in the future. If elderberry shrubs occur on habitat reserves, the Conservancy would strive to preserve the shrubs. If shrubs must be removed to develop habitat on the reserves, the Conservancy would mitigate in accordance with the Conservation Guidelines.

Effects of Water Agency and Conservancy Management. The existing system of canals and drains in the Natomas Basin is highly maintained, and therefore is unlikely to contain mature elderberry shrubs that are potential habitat for VELB. Some areas under management by RD 1000 and Natomas Mutual (e.g., Fisherman’s Lake, RD 1000 Pumping Plant No. 2), however, contain mature riparian habitat that could contain elderberry shrubs. Areas under the management of the water agencies that support mature riparian habitat necessarily are those areas in which the water agencies do not routinely conduct vegetation control. As a result, the water agencies’ continued activities are not likely to remove elderberry shrubs supporting or potentially supporting VELB. The potential for removal of elderberry shrubs of sufficient size to support VELB is limited to construction activities associated with facility replacement or restructuring of canals. The number of shrubs potentially affected over the project duration by these activities and their suitability for VELB is unknown, but such construction activities are not a part of the Proposed Action and, therefore, impacts would not occur as a result of the Proposed Action.

Some of the Conservancy’s management actions on the reserves have the potential to affect elderberry shrubs. The Conservancy would implement measures to avoid and minimize take of VELB as a result of habitat management actions.

The Conservancy would ensure that
necessary and appropriate take avoidance measures are included in reserve management plans, as well as additional measures determined to be necessary during the development of management plans.

Overall Effects on Valley Elderberry Longhorn Beetle. Implementation of the covered activities under the Proposed Action has a relatively limited potential to affect elderberry shrubs that are inhabited by VELB or that are suitable habitat for VELB. As a result, these activities under the Proposed Action are not expected to adversely affect VELB directly or indirectly through changes in habitat, and no significant impacts would result. Further, with implementation of the avoidance and mitigation measures for the covered activities, long- term protection of existing riparian habitat, and planting and protection of additional elderberry shrubs on the habitat reserves, implementation of the Proposed Action would increase habitat for VELB in the Natomas Basin resulting in a potential benefit.

4.4.5.2.7 Giant Garter Snake
Effects of Changes in Habitat. Potential habitat for the giant garter snake in the Natomas Basin currently consists of rice fields, irrigation canals and drains, ponds and seasonally wet areas, and uplands adjacent to these habitat types. Wetland habitats are used by snakes during the summer months for foraging and cover. During winter, snakes use upland areas CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
4-50 REVISED NATOMAS BASIN HCP E042002017SAC/161795(004.DOC)

EIR/EIS
for hibernation. Upland areas that snakes use for hibernating are always in close proximity to wetland-type habitats, typically within 100 feet but up to 820 feet (Hansen, 1988, cited in USFWS 1999; Wylie et al., 1997).

The amount of rice fields, irrigation canals and drains, and ponds and seasonally wet areas represents total habitat for giant garter snake (both marsh and upland habitat) in the Natomas Basin. For rice fields and ponds and seasonally wet areas, the habitat and land use database incorporates these features into the overall habitat designation so that the acreage estimates for rice and ponds and seasonally wet areas encompassed both marsh and upland areas (i.e., small-scale features such as rice checks, berms, and road embankments that could provide upland habitat are integrated into the more inclusive categories). The acreage estimates for canals and drains also included both the wetted portion of the canal and the adjacent embankments that could provide upland habitat for giant garter snake.

The habitat classes from Tables 4-2 and 4-4 that provide potential habitat for giant garter snake and the changes in acreage from implementing the Proposed Action are summarized for giant garter snake and presented in Table 4-8. As shown in this table, ponds and seasonally wet areas, rice, and irrigation canals and ditches in the Natomas Basin provide approximately 24,567 acres of potential habitat for giant garter snake. (This represents about half the acreage of the entire Natomas Basin study area.) The potential habitat is limited almost exclusively to rice fields and irrigation canals and ditches. Rice fields are intensively managed monocultures that are highly altered from the natural marsh conditions in which the giant garter snake evolved. Native marsh occur on only about 97 acres (approximately

0.2 percent of the Natomas Basin).

TABLE 4-8
Change in Potential Habitat for Giant Garter Snake (acres) Habitat Class Baseline
City of
Sacramento
Metro Air
Park
Sutter
County Total Change
Future
Condition
Ponds and
seasonally
wet areas
96 (7) (4) (10) (21) 75
Rice 22,693 (970) (1,541) (5,577) (8,087) 14,606
Canals (all) 1,778 (117) (72) (215) (404) 1,374
TOTAL 24,567 (1,094) (1,617) (5,802) (8,512) 16,055
(#) decrease in acreage
Source: Habitat and Land Use Assessment Database (CH2M HILL, 2002).

Of this potential habitat acreage, the data in Table 4-8 show that the covered activity of urban development would reduce giant garter snake habitat in the Natomas Basin by about 8,512 acres, to a future condition of approximately 16,055 acres of potential giant garter snake habitat. For several reasons, however, these projected acreages for reduced habitat and future-condition habitat are overestimated.

First, only a portion of the total potential habitat in the Natomas Basin is expected to be used by giant garter snakes because available data suggest this species concentrates its activities along the edges of its potential habitat (wetland/upland interfaces). In rice fields, snakes primarily use edges along the field perimeter or along check structures (Wylie and Casazza, 2000).

CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
E042002017SAC/161795(004.DOC) REVISED NATOMAS BASIN HCP 4-51